-------
Figure 4-41. Comparison of Average Quarterly Trichloroethylene Concentrations
,.-„
Ih. i.1 ( I I,,!.,,, ,!,.!. MM l<»
IM
Jim,
I
II
loot itm loot a«» IOM ion loot lem loot • loot
AHAK i.l'" HI* .1
em
D« loan
OVU*
J00« WOT
cmi
OKt
lot* iaa
M«««H^ ill* iml fin
Figure 4-41. Comparison of Average Quarterly Trichloroethylene Concentrations
(Continued)
II.- I I h lulrn»«U*rr l.lll (<•
U J
JOSE JOO* J008 ?0*»
E1NI IOAA
JL ^U
tOOX J«M 10« J0« JN8 100* JD08 J«H 200* 10m MM (00* J«8 1H* 1DOC IOC
[VVV IYWA '111 I.I-IM .,IM 11-11, M[lll l.mtl
4-87
-------
Figure 4-41. Comparison of Average Quarterly Trichloroethylene Concentrations
(Continued)
111.- -T [ f liilriiiwrimb- I.W.L tot
n ^'.•. iifj'm'
....
«M
DJfl
joo-j loos jw» loos i«» im low
MMtfurtiC Ut nut r»
• lit
• l>.f II.UIIH
Figure 4-41. Comparison of Average Quarterly Trichloroethylene Concentrations
(Continued)
-------
Figure 4-42. Comparison of Average Quarterly Vinyl Chloride Concentrations
1W -II I hn. i n .r ,li.,rr MM lin
VW.I hfcH.fc-B1JI.Pt/m'
»*»
• Mi
j«oa joo*
ma
HM>» JOM
MWvl
CAHl
ccti
I
OWA
2«n ion*
(Hfll
J«W 100* J«l» JODB JO**
IIP ILISO DfMI
MeMimlnj SB* HK|T*H
Figure 4-42. Comparison of Average Quarterly Vinyl Chloride Concentrations (Continued)
Hit 41:1 fc kiCnim-Jdli MAI la
VIM O**M» h «• K/m'
iwn j»
ILNJ
jo« foot io*t
JOOB
.• ......
Ftfl
Kir*H
»!..I n.i* iri
4-89
-------
Figure 4-42. Comparison of Average Quarterly Vinyl Chloride Concentrations (Continued)
natti
1
'.1nil.hk.iWf h 9.' |ie/m'
E
MM 10*1 10« JOM JWt JW»
HUH iimi
IIKB
A-..K ..nl...
w*|i»w
fun
nm
JOOB j«w io« J«M jooa ]««
-. in. i «w* ic«
..', 1 ...,., 1 • ,
Figure 4-42. Comparison of Average Quarterly Vinyl Chloride Concentrations (Continued)
C«30
II.' . I I t liilritnrilutr HIM.-.
. II >, I IU(Hbi« K ?.' |lf..'lM'
HM» J009
J«OB )«
mat
;«» torn low «D
I i.i.( V.i il
UIV1
4-90
-------
The quarterly average comparison also allows for the identification of sites with
unusually high concentrations of the pollutants of interest compared to other sites and when
those high concentrations were measured. For example, Figure 4-34 shows that INDEM's 2008
formaldehyde concentrations are significantly higher than other sites. INDEM's 2009
formaldehyde concentrations were significantly lower than those for 2008, although INDEM's
2009 third quarter average is still generally higher than most of other sites sampling
formaldehyde. Another example of inter-site comparison is Figure 4-41 for trichloroethylene.
This pollutant was detected in approximately 20 percent of VOC samples and thus does not have
many valid quarterly averages. However, two sites stand out in Figure 4-41, SPIL and UCSD.
SPIL has four valid quarterly averages for both years and all eight of them are higher than any of
the other valid quarterly averages for this pollutant, except one. This exception is for UCSD's
second quarter 2009 average concentration, which is more than three times SPIL's highest
quarterly average. Of the 34 trichloroethylene concentrations greater than 1 pg/m3 measured at
NMP sites, UCSD accounts for 11 of these and SPIL accounts for 17.
With one exception, quarterly average concentrations were significantly below their
respective ATSDR Intermediate MRLs, as discussed in Section 4.2.2, generally by an order of
magnitude or more. The one exception is for formaldehyde, as shown in Figure 4-34. INDEM's
2008 second and third quarter averages are more than three times the ATSDR Intermediate MRL
for this pollutant. These quarterly averages are discussed further in Section 13.
Additional observations from Figures 4-22 through 4-42 include the following:
• INDEM's acetaldehyde quarterly average concentrations for 2008 follow the
same trends as this site's formaldehyde quarterly concentrations, as shown in
Figure 4-22.
• Benzo(a)pyrene tended to be detected most frequently in the first and fourth
quarters (the colder months), as these are the quarters with the most valid
quarterly averages (81 valid first and fourth quarter averages vs. 41 valid
second and third quarter averages), as shown in Figure 4-27.
• Quarterly average 1,3-butadiene concentrations tended to be highest in the
first and fourth quarters (the colder months). Figure 4-28 shows that these two
quarters tended to track together when a site sampled continuously across the
years.
4-91
-------
• The range of quarterly average concentrations for carbon tetrachloride ranged
from 0.43 pg/m3to 0.99 pg/m3, as shown in Figure 4-30, confirming the
expected uniformity discussed above in Section 4.4.1.
• DEMI, LDTN, NBIL, and PXSS tended to have higher quarterly averages of
chloroform compared to other NMP sites. Also, concentrations of this
pollutant tended to be higher in the third and fourth quarters, which is
demonstrated by LDTN, NBIL and PXSS in Figure 4-31, but not DEMI.
• Quarterly averages of naphthalene at TONY are significantly higher than
those for other monitoring sites, particularly the first quarter of 2009, as
shown in Figure 4-38. Unfortunately, sampling at TONY did not begin July
2008, thus a comparison to the first quarter of 2008 is not possible.
• S4MO had the highest quarterly average concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
lead, and manganese (of the sites sampling PMio metals). For arsenic and
manganese, only one quarterly average was significantly higher than other
sites, while most of all of the quarterly averages were higher for cadmium and
lead.
• Only sites in Oklahoma sampled TSP metals. Among them, the Tulsa sites
tended to have higher quarterly averages compared to the Pryor or Oklahoma
City sites.
4.5 Greenhouse Gases
Table 4-15 presents the program-level daily average concentrations by year for the 10
GHGs measured using Method TO-15, in descending order by GWP. As shown, each of the
GHGs is detected in nearly every sample collected (there were a total 2,868 VOC samples
collected). Chloroform was the only pollutant detected in less than 95 percent of VOC samples
collected, although it was still detected in over 93 percent of samples. Dichlorodifluoromethane
has the highest GWP (10,600), as well as the highest program-level daily averages for both years
(2.68 ± 0.03 pg/m3 and 3.05 ± 0.03 pg/m3). Bromomethane has both the lowest GWP (5) and the
lowest program-level daily averages (0.08 ± 0.02 pg/m3 for 2008 and 0.05 ± <0.01 pg/m3for
2009).
4-92
-------
Table 4-15. Greenhouse Gases Measured by Method TO-15
Pollutant
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dichloromethane
Bromomethane
Global
Warming
Potential1
(100 yrs)
10,600
9,800
6,000
4,600
1,800
140
30
16
10
5
Total # of
Measured
Detections
2,865
2,841
2,807
2,810
2,864
2,865
2,692
2,867
2,865
2,788
2008
Program
Daily Average
(Hg/m3)
2.68 ±0.03
0.14 ±0.01
0.70 ±0.01
1.49 ±0.02
0.72 ±0.01
0.10±<0.01
0.24 ±0.02
1.37 ±0.03
1.03 ±0.36
0.08 ±0.02
2009
Program
Daily Average
(Hg/m3)
3. 05 ±0.03
0.15±<0.01
0.84 ±0.01
1.76 ±0.05
0.70 ±0.01
0.08±<0.01
0.20 ±0.02
1.37 ±0.01
1.63 ±0.67
0.05±<0.01
!GWP presented here are taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third
Assessment Report (TAR) (IPCC, 2001).
4-93
-------
5.0 Site in Alaska
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the UATMP site in Alaska, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
5.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the ANAK monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the monitoring site and the surrounding area. This
information is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air
quality near the site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The ANAK monitoring site is located in Anchorage, Alaska. Figure 5-1 is a composite
satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its urban location.
Figure 5-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as reported in the 2005
NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are included in the
facility counts provided below the map in Figure 5-2. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius
have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile
boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions
sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air
quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions
sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of
the site. Table 5-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental
geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
5-1
-------
Figure 5-1. Anchorage, Alaska (ANAK) Monitoring Site
01
PO
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,561 feet
-------
Figure 5-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of ANAK
Legend
•jV ANAK UATMP site
10 mile radius
I _ County boundary
Source Category Group (No, of Facilities)
•f Aircraft Ope ratio ns Fa cility ( 1 7)
f Airport Support Operation {1 )
a Bulk Terminals' Bulk Piants (2)
* Electricity Generation via Combustion {4)
E Electroplating. Plating. Polishing. Anodizing, and Coloring (2)
4 Engine Test Facility (2)
* Marine Port (3)
A Military Base.1 Nations I Security Facility {1)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (2)
' V\fcstewater Treatment Facility (1 )
5-3
-------
Table 5-1. Geographical Information for the Alaska Monitoring Site
Site
Code
ANAK
AQS Code
02-020-0018
Location
Anchorage
County
Anchorage
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Anchorage
Latitude
and
Longitude
61.205861,
-149.824722
Land Use
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
CO, Meteorological parameters, PMio, PM2.5.
Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
01
-------
Anchorage is located near the end of the Cook Inlet, on the landmass between the Knik
Arm and the Turnagain Arm. The city is surrounded primarily by mountains, including several
national parks. The monitoring site is located in the north-central portion of the city, in the
parking lot of Trinity Christian Reformed Church, off 16th Avenue. Figure 5-1 shows that
residential subdivisions surround the monitoring site, and that Merrill Field Airport is located
approximately 1/2 mile to the northwest. As Figure 5-2 shows, there are several point sources
scattered around ANAK, the most numerous of which are included in the aircraft operations
source category group. This source category includes airports as well as small runways,
heliports, or landing pads. The point source closest to ANAK is a landing pad at the nearby
Alaska Regional Hospital. Other emissions source categories surrounding ANAK include
electricity generation via combustion, marine ports, and electroplating, plating, polishing,
anodizing, and coloring.
Table 5-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the Alaska
monitoring site. Information provided in Table 5-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for the
Anchorage Borough were obtained from the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles (AK DMV,
2011) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 5-2 also includes
a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population
within 10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated
by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitoring site. Table 5-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information,
as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. Finally,
Table 5-2 presents the daily VMT for the Anchorage urban area.
5-5
-------
Table 5-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Alaska Monitoring
Site
Site
ANAK
Estimated
County
Population1
286,174
Number
of Vehicles
Registered2
335,703
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.17
Population
Within
10 Miles3
246,599
Estimated
10-mile
Vehicle
Ownership
289,279
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
24,143
VMT5
(thousands)
4,612
Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Alaska DMV (AK DMV, 2011).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfmddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2008 data from the Alaska DOT (AK DOT, 2008).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
Observations from Table 5-2 include the following:
• ANAK's county and 10-mile populations were in the lower third of the range
compared to all counties with NMP sites while the county-level and 10-mile vehicle
registrations were in the middle of the range.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was among the higher ratios compared to other NMP
sites, indicating that many people have more than one vehicle.
• The traffic volume experienced near ANAK was in the middle of the range compared
to other NMP sites. The traffic estimate was based on the segment of Debarr Road
between Bragaw Street and Airport Heights Drive.
• The Anchorage urban area VMT was one of the lowest among urban areas with NMP
sites.
5.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Alaska on sample days, as well as over the course of the study period.
5.2.1 Climate Summary
The city of Anchorage is surrounded by the waters of the Cook Inlet to the north, west,
and south. The climate of Anchorage is considered a transition zone from maritime to continental
(WRCC, 2011). The Chugach Mountains to the south prevent warm, moist air from moving
northward from the Gulf of Alaska while the Alaska Range to the north acts as a barrier to very
cold air moving southward. Although there are four distinct seasons in Anchorage, winters are
long, extending from October through April, and snowfall is common. Due to its high latitude,
daylight lasts about 19 hours in June and only six hours in December. Winds are generally light,
5-6
-------
although very strong winds off the surrounding mountains occur occasionally during the winter
(Bair, 1992).
5.2.2 Meteorological Conditions during the Study Period
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for October 2008 to October 2009 to correspond with the period of sampling (NCDC, 2008 and
2009). The closest NWS weather station to ANAK is located at Merrill Field Airport (WBAN
26409). Additional information about the Merrill Field weather station is provided in Table 5-3.
These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from
normal conditions throughout the study period.
Table 5-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire study period. Also included in Table 5-3 is the
95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 5-3, average
meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions experienced throughout the sample period.
5.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 5-3 is the composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were
collected at the Alaska monitoring site over the sample period from October 2008 to October
2009 (note that 2008 sample day trajectories are shown in blue and 2009 sample day trajectories
are shown in red). Figure 5-4 is the cluster analysis based on sample day back trajectories over
the entire sample period. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were generated is
presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite map, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory
along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the
cluster analysis, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of
trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the site in Figures 5-3 and 5-4 represents
100 miles.
5-7
-------
Table 5-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Alaska Monitoring Site
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Anchorage, Alaska - ANAK
Merrill Field
Airport
26409
(61.217,449.855)
1.28
miles
341.0°
(NNW)
Oct
2008-
Oct
2009
Sample
Day
All Days
44.4
+ 5.0
43.2
+ 2.1
37.5
±4.8
36.7
±2.0
27.1
±4.4
27.1
±1.9
33.3
±4.3
32.8
±1.8
68.5
±2.9
70.4
±1.2
1011.7
±2.7
1011.1
±1.1
2.8
±0.5
3.0
±0.2
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the study period averages.
en
oo
-------
Figure 5-3. 2008-2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ANAK
Figure 5-4. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for ANAK
5-9
-------
Observations from Figures 5-3 and 5-4 include the following:
• The 24-hour air shed domain for ANAK was smaller in size compared to many other
NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a back trajectory originated was towards
Juneau, the state capital of Alaska, or about 450 miles away. However, the average
trajectory length was 188 miles and nearly 84 percent of trajectories originated within
300 miles of the site.
• Back trajectories originated primarily to the north-northeast to east-northeast of
ANAK on sample days. Another cluster of trajectories originated from the east,
southeast, and south and were generally shorter in length.
• The cluster analysis shows that over 50 percent of trajectories originated from the
northeast or east. Nearly 20 percent of trajectories originated from the south-southeast
to south-southwest and roughly within 100 or so miles of the site. Nearly 20 percent
originated from the northwest, west, or southwest. Twelve percent of trajectories
originated towards Juneau and southeast Alaska. The long cluster trajectory
(2 percent) represents a single trajectory originating over south-central Alaska.
5.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Merrill Field Airport were uploaded
into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in
Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned
around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 5-5 presents three different wind roses for the Alaska monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1998 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose
representing wind observations for the entire October 2008 to October 2009 study period is
presented. Finally, a wind rose representing the days on which samples were collected is
presented. These can be used to determine if wind observations on sample days were
representative of conditions experienced over the entire study period.
5-10
-------
Figure 5-5. Wind Roses for the Merrill Field Airport Weather Station near ANAK
Wind Rose
Study Period
Calm; 416 hi.
1998 - 2007 Historical
Wind Rose
Calm; jj 94";.
Wind Rose
Sample Day
-------
Observations from Figure 5-5 for ANAK include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds (< 2 knots) account for nearly
40 percent of the hourly wind measurements from 1998 to 2007. In addition,
northerly, north-northeasterly, and northeasterly winds were the most commonly
observed wind directions near ANAK, accounting for 20 percent of the observations.
• The sample period wind patterns have some similarities to the historical wind
patterns. Calm winds were observed for nearly 42 percent of the observations.
Northerly winds were the most commonly observed wind direction both historically
and during the sample period, but accounted for a higher percentage of observations
during the sample period.
• The sample day wind patterns are similar to the sample period wind patterns,
although there are some slight differences. Calm winds accounted for nearly
47 percent of the observations on sample days vs. 42 percent over the entire period.
Northerly winds accounted for less than 10 percent of wind directions on sample days
vs. 12 percent over the entire period.
5.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the ANAK monitoring site in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening
value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total
failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any
of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not meet the pollutant
of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to the list of
site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening process is
presented in Section 3.2.
Table 5-4 presents ANAK's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the ANAK monitoring site are
shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or
bolded. ANAK sampled for VOC and PAH.
5-12
-------
Table 5-4. Risk Screening Results for the Alaska Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
%of
Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Anchorage, Alaska - ANAK
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Xylenes
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.029
0.4
0.17
0.015
0.091
0.00091
10
0.038
2.1
0.5
Total
62
60
57
51
34
29
21
6
5
4
1
1
1
332
62
62
62
61
62
62
21
51
38
62
1
62
10
616
100.00
96.77
91.94
83.61
54.84
46.77
100.00
11.76
13.16
6.45
100.00
1.61
10.00
53.90
18.67
18.07
17.17
15.36
10.24
8.73
6.33
1.81
1.51
1.20
0.30
0.30
0.30
18.67
36.75
53.92
69.28
79.52
88.25
94.58
96.39
97.89
99.10
99.40
99.70
100.00
Observations from Table 5-4 include the following:
• Thirteen pollutants failed at least one screen for ANAK, of which seven are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes.
• Eight pollutants, of which five are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, were initially
identified as ANAK's pollutants of interest. Benzo(a)pyrene and trichloroethylene
were added to ANAK's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of ANAK's total failed
screens.
• Chloroform and vinyl chloride were added to ANAK's pollutants of interest because
they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens.
These pollutants are not shown in Table 5-4. Chloroform was detected in all 62
samples collected; vinyl chloride was detected in 16 of 62 samples collected.
• As shown in Table 5-4, approximately 54 percent of measured detections failed
screens (of the pollutants failing at least one screen).
• Every concentration of benzene and over 90 percent of carbon tetrachloride and
1,3-butadiene concentrations failed screens.
5-13
-------
5.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Alaska monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for the ANAK monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at the site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through 0.
5.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and study concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for ANAK, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections within the study period. If there
were at least seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average
was calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all
non-detects. Finally, in lieu of an annual average, the study average for a pollutant includes all
measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects over the period of sampling. Study
averages were calculated for monitoring sites that sampled for a 1-year period that overlapped
2008 and 2009, provided that at least three quarterly averages could be calculated and method
completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent, as described in Section 3.1.1. The study
averages for ANAK represent the sample period from October 2008 to October 2009. Daily,
quarterly, and study averages are presented in Table 5-5, where applicable. Note that
concentrations of the PAHs are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations for ANAK from Table 5-5 include the following:
• The daily averages of benzene and ethylbenzene were at least an order of magnitude
higher than the other pollutants of interest. The same is also true for all of benzene's
quarterly averages and its study average concentration.
• Based on the available quarterly averages, benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations
were highest during the colder months of the year. A few other pollutants appear to
exhibit this trend as well, but the differences are not statistically significant.
5-14
-------
Table 5-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Study Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Alaska Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Study
Average
(jig/m3)
Anchorage, Alaska - ANAK
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Naphthalene"
ND
5.69
+ 2.37
0.30
+ 0.12
0.61
±0.08
0.12
±0.02
0.07
±0.02
1.28
±0.47
0.47
±0.30
0.06
±0.04
0.01
±<0.01
0.54
±0.31
113.59
±43.91
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
5.69
±2.37
0.30
±0.12
0.61
±0.08
0.12
±0.02
0.05
±0.02
1.28
±0.47
0.47
±0.30
NA
NA
0.54
±0.31
113.59
±43.91
0.12
±0.03
2.84
± 1.01
0.13
±0.06
0.62
±0.06
0.12
±0.02
0.05
±0.01
0.69
±0.30
0.17
±0.03
0.22
±0.33
0.01
±0.01
0.24
±0.21
83.44
±49.12
0.04
±0.02
5.44
±3.07
0.27
±0.18
0.43
±0.10
0.12
±0.05
0.06
±0.02
1.36
±0.94
0.23
±0.08
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.41
±0.42
187.73
± 184.08
NA
1.67
±0.41
0.06
±0.02
0.63
±0.07
0.10
±0.01
0.04
±0.01
0.48
±0.21
0.14
±0.03
NA
NA
0.03
±0.02
36.84
±5.51
NA
1.81
±0.52
0.06
±0.02
0.73
±0.07
0.14
±0.02
0.04
±0.01
0.36
±0.11
0.15
±0.04
NA
NA
NA
55.95
±13.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.39
±0.96
0.16
±0.05
0.62
±0.05
0.12
±0.01
0.04
±0.01
0.81
±0.26
0.23
±0.07
NA
NA
0.21
±0.12
89.37
±40.17
en
i—*
01
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or study average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
• Because sampling took place from October 2008 to October 2009, ANAK does not
have first, second or third quarter averages for 2008 or fourth quarter averages for
2009. There were not enough measured detections of some pollutants, such as
acrylonitrile, for quarterly or study averages to be calculated.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for the Alaska site from those
tables include the following:
• ANAK's 2008 and 2009 daily average benzene concentrations were the highest for
this pollutant among all NMP sites sampling benzene. The 2008 daily average
concentration of benzene for ANAK (5.69 + 2.37 ^ig/m3) was twice the 2009 daily
average concentration of benzene (2.84 + 1.01 |^g/m3). However, it is important to
note that the 2008 daily average incorporates only October through December.
• The 2008 daily average concentrations of 1,3-butadiene and ethylbenzene for ANAK
also topped the list of highest daily average concentrations for these program-level
pollutants of interest.
5.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. ANAK has not sampled continuously for 5 years as part of the NMP; therefore, the
trends analysis was not conducted.
5.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
ANAK monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
5.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
ANAK monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
5-16
-------
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest for ANAK were
compared to the acute MRL; quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and
study averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or
time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the ANAK monitoring site
were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
5.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Alaska monitoring site and where study average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for study
averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated). Study
averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 5-6, where applicable.
Observations for ANAK from Table 5-6 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass were benzene,
ethylbenzene, and carbon tetrachloride.
• Based on the study averages and cancer UREs, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and carbon
tetrachloride had the three highest cancer risk approximations, respectively. The
benzene cancer risk approximation was an order of magnitude higher than the cancer
risk approximation for 1,3-butadiene and carbon tetrachloride.
• ANAK's cancer risk approximation for benzene is the highest cancer risk
approximation for this pollutant among all NMP's sites (including all annual and
study averages).
• None of ANAK's pollutants of interest had noncancer risk approximations greater
than 1.0. The highest noncancer risk approximation among ANAK's pollutants of
interest was 0.11 (for benzene).
5-17
-------
Table 5-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Alaska Monitoring Site
01
I—*
oo
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
#of
Measured
Detections
#of
Quarterly
Averages
Study
Average
(jig/m3)
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Noncancer
Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Anchorage, Alaska - ANAK
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrenea
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene"
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.000068
0.0000078
0.001
0.00003
0.000006
0.000011
0.0000025
0.000034
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.003
0.27
0.6
0.1
21
62
38
62
62
62
51
62
61
62
10
16
1
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
1
NA
3.39
+ 0.96
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.16
+ 0.05
0.62
±0.05
0.12
±0.01
0.04
±0.01
0.81
±0.26
0.09
±0.04
0.23
±0.07
NA
NA
NA
26.46
0.21
4.78
3.69
0.48
2.02
3.04
1.35
NA
NA
NA
0.11
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
NA
NA
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a study average.
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
a For the study average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 5-5.
-------
5.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 5-7 and 5-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 5-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the study averages.
Table 5-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from study averages.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations provided in Tables 5-7 and 5-8 are
limited to those pollutants for which the site sampled. As discussed in Section 5.3, ANAK
sampled for PAH and VOC. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 5-7 include the following:
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant in the Anchorage Borough, had the
highest-toxicity weighted emissions, and had the highest cancer risk approximation.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants in the Anchorage Borough also had the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions. Four pollutants (benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
naphthalene, and tetrachloroethylene) appear on all three lists.
• POM Group 2 was the seventh highest emitted "pollutant" in Anchorage Borough and
ranked fourth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH
sampled for at ANAK including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for ANAK.
5-19
-------
01
PO
o
Table 5-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Alaska Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for
Pollutants with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Study Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Anchorage, Alaska (Anchorage Borough) - ANAK
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
485.65
171.72
63.81
33.17
22.25
16.30
12.29
9.61
5.75
1.53
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 3
Tetrachloroethylene
3.79E-03
2.15E-03
9.95E-04
6.76E-04
3.27E-04
3.21E-04
2.96E-04
1.40E-04
1.02E-04
9.62E-05
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
26.46
4.78
3.69
3.04
2.02
1.35
0.48
0.21
1 These cancer risk approximations are based on the study averages.
-------
01
PO
Table 5-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Alaska Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions (tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Study Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Anchorage, Alaska (Anchorage Borough) - ANAK
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hydrochloric acid
Hexane
Methanol
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
1,733.33
735.47
485.65
171.72
161.73
144.12
143.07
105.89
63.81
33.17
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes
Hydrochloric acid
Acetaldehyde
Toluene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Naphthalene
545,446.13
17,522.76
16,583.59
16,188.44
7,354.68
7,205.89
7,090.29
4,333.34
3,290.04
3,203.53
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
0.11
0.08
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1 These noncancer risk approximations are based on the study averages.
-------
Observations from Table 5-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Anchorage Borough. The toxicity-weighted emissions for these pollutants
ranked eighth, fifth, and fourth highest, respectively.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants in the Anchorage Borough also had the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions. Only two pollutants, benzene and 1,3-butadiene,
appear on all three lists.
• Acrolein, while not one of the 10 highest emitted pollutants in the Anchorage
Borough, had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, indicating the relatively high
toxicity of this pollutant in low quantities. Because questions have been raised about
the reliability of acrolein measurements, as described in Section 3.2, this pollutant
was excluded from all risk-related analyses in this report.
5.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for ANAK
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» A total of 13 pollutants failed screens for ANAK; seven of these are NA TTS MQO
Core Analytes.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of interest for ANAK, benzene had the highest daily
average concentration for both years.
»«» The quarterly average concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene were highest
during the colder months of the study period.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or study
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
5-22
-------
6.0 Sites in Arizona
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS and UATMP sites in Arizona, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
6.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Arizona monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The Arizona monitoring sites are located in Phoenix, Arizona. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 are
composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their
urban locations. Figure 6-3 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as
reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the sites are
included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 6-3. Thus, sources outside the
10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources
outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of
which emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate
impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this boundary provides both the
proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the quantity of such sources
within a given distance of the sites. Table 6-1 describes the area surrounding each monitoring
site by providing supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and
locational coordinates.
6-1
-------
Figure 6-1. Phoenix, Arizona (PXSS) Monitoring Site
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale 2 inches = 1,408 feet
-------
Figure 6-2. South Phoenix, Arizona (SPAZ) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale 2 inches = 1,511 feet
-------
Figure 6-3. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of PXSS and SPAZ
Legend
n ri
ttet*; Du* to fKil** dM§n> *f*4 C4*o«Ktoft. the total feciiott
displayed nay no* refirnenE al fadMits 'AittMi Ih« area ol nl««5t
^- PXSS NATTS site if SPAZ UATMP site 10 mile radius [~ H County boundary
Eoucc Category Gioup (No. ol Faalilin) (
1 ftlimnrnwijninqrKftJnqUifintjMfi
Pi,t Skittog Omnbcr [11
B
C 'Iiwmiw HmuUOsmoj rm«y (f I
4) CaW &*rt 4ta.-i,-^«lniwn? 'W«fM>Oin«»lcr»u !
E
.--
F
A a™nH««MiiFia»lv|!]
- vtStrtaVUri tf)
•
P
E
R
2
9
a
i
6-4
-------
Table 6-1. Geographical Information for the Arizona Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
PXSS
SPAZ
AQS Code
04-013-9997
04-013-4003
Location
Phoenix
Phoenix
County
Maricopa
Maricopa
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale, AZ
MSA
Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale, AZ
MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
33.503731,
-112.095809
33.40316,
-112.07533
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Haze, CO, SO2, NOy, NO, NO2, NOx, PAMS, O3,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM25, PM Coarse,
PM2 5 Speciation.
CO, PAMS, O3, Meteorological parameters, PM2 5,
PM Coarse.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
-------
PXSS is located in central Phoenix while SPAZ is located farther south. Figure 6-1 shows
that PXSS is located in a highly residential area on North 17th Avenue in central Phoenix. The
Grand Canal is shown at the bottom of Figure 6-1. The monitoring site is approximately
three-quarters of a mile east of 1-17 and 2 miles north of 1-10. Figure 6-2 shows that SPAZ is
located in South Phoenix, near the intersection of W. Tamarisk Avenue and S. Central Avenue.
SPAZ is surrounded on the west side by residential properties and commercial properties to the
east. SPAZ is located approximately 1 mile south of 1-17.
As Figure 6-3 shows, SPAZ and PXSS are located within 10 miles of each other. The
majority of emissions sources are located to the south of PXSS and north of SPAZ. The source
categories with the highest number of sources near these monitoring sites include the aircraft
operations source category, which includes airports as well as small runways, heliports, or
landing pads; woodwork, furniture, millwork, and wood preserving facilities; and landfills. The
emissions source nearest PXSS is a landfill while the source nearest SPAZ is an aircraft landing
strip.
Table 6-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the Arizona
monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 6-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Maricopa County were obtained from the Arizona Department of Transportation (AZ DOT,
2009) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 6-2 also includes
a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site. In addition,
the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle
ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to
the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site. Table 6-2 also contains annual average
daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from
which it was obtained. For both sites, traffic data for locations along 1-17 were selected. Finally,
Table 6-2 presents the daily VMT for the Phoenix urban area.
6-6
-------
Table 6-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Arizona Monitoring
Sites
Site
PXSS
SPAZ
Estimated
County
Population1
4,023,132
4,023,132
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
3,753,941
3,753,941
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.93
0.93
Population
Within 10
Miles3
1,511,946
896,909
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
1,410,780
836,896
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
206,000
113,000
VMT5
(thousands)
78,147
78,147
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data from the Arizona DOT (AZ DOT, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfmddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2007 data from the Arizona DOT (AZ DOT, 2007).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site
Observations from Table 6-2 include the following:
• Maricopa County had the fourth highest county population and second highest
county-level vehicle registration compared to other counties with NMP sites.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was just less than one vehicle per person. This ratio falls
in the middle of the range compared to other NMP sites.
• The 10-mile radius population and estimated vehicle ownership were higher near
PXSS than SPAZ.
• PXSS experienced nearly twice the annual average traffic volume compared to SPAZ,
based on locations along 1-17. The traffic volume near PXSS was among the highest
compared to traffic volumes near other NMP sites.
• The Phoenix area VMT was among the top third compared to other urban areas with
NMP sites.
6.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Arizona on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
6.2.1 Climate Summary
The Phoenix area is located in the Salt River Valley, which is part of the Sonora Desert.
The area experiences mild winters and extremely hot and dry summers. Differences between the
daytime maximum temperature and overnight minimum temperature can be as high as 50°F. A
summer "monsoon" period brings precipitation to the area for part of the summer, while storms
6-7
-------
originating off the Pacific Coast bring rain in the winter and early spring. Winds are generally
light (Bair, 1992, and WRCC, 2011).
6.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest these sites were
retrieved for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station to
PXSS and SPAZ is located at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (WBAN 23183).
Additional information about the Sky Harbor weather station is provided in Table 6-3. These
data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal
conditions throughout the year(s).
Table 6-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 6-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 6-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout the year for both years. Table 6-3 also shows that these sites experienced
the lowest relative humidity levels among NMP sites.
6-8
-------
Table 6-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Arizona Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Average
Relative
Humidity
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Phoenix, Arizona - PXSS
Phoenix Sky
Harbor Intl
Airport
23183
(33.443, -111.99)
7.15
miles
136°
(SE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All 2008
Sample
Day
All 2009
85.7
±3.8
86.0
±1.7
87.9
±3.7
86.9
±1.6
75.2
±3.7
75.4
±1.6
77.0
±3.7
76.2
±1.6
37.3
±3.5
37.6
±1.5
34.8
±2.8
35.6
±1.3
55.7
±2.4
55.9
±1.0
55.3
±2.2
55.2
±1.0
31.3
±4.0
31.9
±1.8
26.2
±2.8
27.8
± 1.4
1011.9
±1.3
1011.4
±0.6
1011.1
±1.2
1011.2
±0.5
5.5
±0.5
5.3
±0.2
5.1
±0.6
5.2
±0.2
South Phoenix, Arizona - SPAZ
Phoenix Sky
Harbor Intl
Airport
23183
(33.443, -111.99)
5.43
miles
70°
(ENE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All 2008
Sample
Day
All 2009
87.2
±5.6
86.0
±1.7
86.9
±5.8
86.9
±1.6
76.7
±5.5
75.4
±1.6
75.9
±5.8
76.2
±1.6
37.8
±6.0
37.6
±1.5
33.4
±4.3
35.6
±1.3
56.6
±3.7
55.9
±1.0
54.3
±3.5
55.2
±1.0
31.2
±6.5
31.9
±1.8
25.5
±4.0
27.8
±1.4
1010.6
±1.8
1011.4
±0.6
1011.1
±2.0
1011.2
±0.5
5.2
±0.7
5.3
±0.2
5.1
±0.9
5.2
±0.2
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full-year averages.
Oi
-------
6.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the PXSS monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 6-6 is
the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. Similarly,
Figures 6-7 and 6-8 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which samples were
collected at the SPAZ monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and Figure 6-9 is the
cluster analysis for both years. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were
generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the
24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given
sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of
a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the sites in Figures 6-4
through 6-9 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 6-4 through 6-6 for PXSS include the following:
• The 24-hour air shed domain was smaller for PXSS than for many other NMP
monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated from PXSS was central
Nevada, or approximately 450 miles away. However, most trajectories (nearly
90 percent) originated less than 250 miles from PXSS.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at PXSS, although many
trajectories originated from the southwest and west. A secondary group of trajectories
originated from the north and northeast. On the 2009 composite map, a third group of
trajectories originated from the east, but fewer originated from this direction in 2008.
• The cluster analysis map supports the observations above regarding the direction of
trajectory origin as well as the observations about trajectory distances. Nearly all of
the cluster trajectories originated within 300 miles of PXSS.
Observations from Figures 6-7 through 6-9 for SPAZ include the following:
• Samples were collected every 12 days at SPAZ, which is half the frequency of sample
collection at PXSS. As a result, fewer trajectories are shown in Figures 6-7 and 6-8.
• The composite trajectory maps for SPAZ have a trajectory distribution pattern similar
to PXSS. The cluster analysis maps are also similar to each other. This is expected
given their close proximity to each other.
• Similar to PXSS, most trajectories originated within 250 miles of SPAZ.
6-10
-------
Figure 6-4. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PXSS
Figure 6-5. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PXSS
6-11
-------
Figure 6-6. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for PXSS
Figure 6-7. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPAZ
6-12
-------
Figure 6-8. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPAZ
Figure 6-9. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for SPAZ
6-13
-------
6.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as
described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals"
positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 6-10 presents five different wind roses for the PXSS monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figure 6-11 presents the five different wind roses for the SPAZ monitoring
site.
Observations from Figures 6-10 and 6-11 for the Arizona monitoring sites include the
following:
• Because the NWS weather station at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is the
closest weather station to both PXSS and SPAZ, the historical, 2008, and 2009 wind
roses for PXSS are the same as for SPAZ.
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds (< 2 knots) account for nearly
25 percent of the hourly wind measurements from 1997 to 2007. Easterly, westerly,
and east-southeasterly winds were the most commonly observed wind directions near
PXSS and SPAZ. Winds from the northwest, north, and northeast were infrequently
observed, as were winds from the south.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind patterns are similar to the historical wind patterns. Further,
the sample day wind patterns for each year and for each site also resemble the
historical wind patterns, indicating that conditions on sample days were
representative of those experienced over the entire year and historically.
6-14
-------
Figure 6-10. Wind Roses for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Weather Station near PXSS
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
n 4.7
'NORTH""--.
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
n
Calm; 2457"i,
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 6-11. Wind Roses for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Weather Station near SPAZ
20%
16%
"'"•^ 12%
8%,
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots J
Calms: 22.46%
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
n 4.7
Calm; 23 y8"<,
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
n
Calm; 2457"i,
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
n 4.7
-------
6.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Arizona monitoring sites in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated
risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 6-4 presents PXSS's and SPAZ's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at
least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for each monitoring site
are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded
and/or bolded. PXSS sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, PAH, metals (PMio), and
hexavalent chromium; SPAZ sampled for VOC only.
Observations from Table 6-4 include the following:
• The number of pollutants failing screens varied significantly between the two
monitoring sites; this is expected given the different pollutants measured at each site.
• Twenty-three pollutants failed at least one screen for PXSS, of which 13 are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes.
• Thirteen pollutants, of which 10 are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, were initially
identified as PXSS's pollutants of interest. Benzo(a)pyrene, cadmium (PMio) and lead
(PMio) were added to PXSS's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO
Core Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of PXSS's total
failed screens. Five additional NATTS MQO Core Analytes were added to PXSS's
pollutants of interest, even though their concentrations did not fail any screens:
beryllium, chloroform, nickel, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride. These five
pollutants are not shown in Table 6-4.
• For PXSS, 60 percent of the measured detections failed screens (of the pollutants
failing at least one screen).
6-17
-------
Table 6-4. Risk Screening Results for the Arizona Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
%of
Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Phoenix, Arizona - PXSS
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
Naphthalene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Hexavalent Chromium
Acrylonitrile
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Propionaldehyde
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chloromethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Antimony (PMi0)
Cadmium (PM10)
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Lead (PM10)
0.45
0.077
0.005
0.029
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.00023
0.091
0.17
0.4
0.000083
0.015
2.1
0.038
0.8
0.00091
0.02
0.0017
0.02
0.00056
0.045
0.015
Total
120
120
112
110
109
109
104
103
98
80
64
39
35
15
8
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1,241
120
120
118
114
109
109
109
117
109
109
109
112
35
109
8
120
65
2
2
118
118
2
118
2,052
100.00
100.00
94.92
96.49
100.00
100.00
95.41
88.03
89.91
73.39
58.72
34.82
100.00
13.76
100.00
4.17
3.08
100.00
100.00
0.85
0.85
50.00
0.85
60.48
9.67
9.67
9.02
8.86
8.78
8.78
8.38
8.30
7.90
6.45
5.16
3.14
2.82
1.21
0.64
0.40
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
9.67
19.34
28.36
37.23
46.01
54.79
63.17
71.47
79.37
85.82
90.98
94.12
96.94
98.15
98.79
99.19
99.36
99.52
99.68
99.76
99.84
99.92
100.00
South Phoenix, Arizona - SPAZ
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Carbon Bisulfide
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.091
0.015
0.4
0.17
0.038
70
0.017
Total
58
58
57
51
47
38
37
3
1
1
351
59
58
58
58
47
57
56
4
59
1
457
98.31
100.00
98.28
87.93
100.00
66.67
66.07
75.00
1.69
100.00
76.81
16.52
16.52
16.24
14.53
13.39
10.83
10.54
0.85
0.28
0.28
16.52
33.05
49.29
63.82
77.21
88.03
98.58
99.43
99.72
100.00
6-18
-------
• Even though PXSS failed the highest number of screens (1,241) among all NMP sites
(refer to Table 4-8 of Section 4.2), the failure rate for PXSS, when incorporating all
pollutants with screening values, was much lower, at 23 percent. This is due primarily
to the relatively high number of pollutants sampled at this site, as discussed in
Section 4.2.
• Ten pollutants failed screens for SPAZ, of which four are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Seven pollutants were initially identified as pollutants of interest for SPAZ.
Three NATTS MQO Core Analytes were added to SPAZ's pollutants of interest,
even though their concentrations did not fail any screens: chloroform,
trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride. These three pollutants are not shown in
Table 6-4.
• For SPAZ, nearly 77 percent of the measured detections failed screens (of the
pollutants failing at least one screen).
• Of the pollutants of interest for PXSS, 100 percent of the measured detections of
acetaldehyde, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde failed
screens. The same is true for carbon tetrachloride and acrylonitrile for SPAZ.
6.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Arizona monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for each Arizona site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at
each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through O.
6.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Arizona site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections within a given year. If
there were at least seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly
average was calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for
all non-detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted
zeros for non-detects for each year of sampling. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants
where three valid quarterly averages could be calculated and where method completeness was
6-19
-------
greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in
Table 6-5, where applicable. Note that concentrations of the PAH, metals, and hexavalent
chromium for PXSS are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations for PXSS from Table 6-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene for both 2008 and 2009. These were the
only pollutants with daily average concentrations greater than 1 |ig/m3. Note that the
daily averages are the same as the annual averages for these pollutants, indicating that
these pollutants were detected in every sample collected.
• Acrylonitrile, benzo(a)pyrene, and vinyl chloride were detected relatively few times
at PXSS; as a result, few quarterly averages and no annual averages could be
calculated for these pollutants.
• Based on the available quarterly averages, concentrations of benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
ethylbenzene, />-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene tended to be higher during
the colder months.
• Concentrations of naphthalene also appear higher during the colder months. A closer
look at the first quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarters of both years show rather large
confidence intervals associated with these averages, indicating the presence of
outliers. A review of the data shows that the two highest concentrations of
naphthalene were measured on December 20, 2008 and January 1, 2009. Further, of
the 11 concentrations of naphthalene greater than 200 ng/m3, all were measured in
one of these three quarters (three in the fourth quarter of 2008, four in the first quarter
of 2009, and four in the fourth quarter of 2009).
• Benzo(a)pyrene concentrations for the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009
also have large confidence intervals. A review of the data shows that the two highest
concentrations of this pollutant were measured on the same days as the two highest
concentrations of naphthalene. The highest benzo(a)pyrene concentration was
measured at PXSS on January 1, 2009 (3.12 ng/m3) and was the third highest
concentration of this pollutant measured among all NMP sites sampling PAH. The
second highest benzo(a)pyrene concentration was measured at PXSS on
December 20, 2008 (1.76 ng/m3) and was the 11th highest concentration of this
pollutant among all NMP sites sampling PAH.
6-20
-------
Table 6-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Arizona Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Phoenix, Arizona - PXSS
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (PM10)a
2.70
±0.24
0.76
±0.29
1.59
±0.27
0.23
±0.05
0.76
±0.05
0.44
±0.06
0.27
±0.04
0.63
±0.11
3.57
±0.23
0.47
±0.10
0.08
±0.02
0.01
±0.01
0.72
±0.15
2.87
±0.49
NA
2.07
±0.43
0.36
±0.09
0.64
±0.06
0.43
±0.09
0.37
±0.08
0.81
±0.20
3.58
±0.43
0.65
±0.19
0.05
±0.02
NA
0.59
±0.28
2.52
±0.53
NA
1.01
±0.24
0.10
±0.03
0.76
±0.09
0.40
±0.14
0.19
±0.05
0.39
±0.12
3.16
±0.50
0.30
±0.14
0.02
±0.01
NA
0.54
±0.13
2.31
±0.35
NA
0.96
±0.38
0.09
±0.04
0.90
±0.09
0.46
±0.18
0.20
±0.06
0.47
±0.18
3.85
±0.39
0.26
±0.10
NA
NA
0.67
±0.39
3.09
±0.53
NA
2.33
±0.63
0.35
±0.11
0.75
±0.09
0.48
±0.13
0.30
±0.08
0.85
±0.27
3.69
±0.51
0.65
±0.23
0.06
±0.03
NA
1.01
±0.34
2.70
±0.24
NA
1.59
±0.27
0.23
±0.05
0.76
±0.05
0.44
±0.06
0.27
±0.04
0.63
±0.11
3.57
±0.23
0.47
±0.10
0.05
±0.02
NA
0.70
±0.15
2.86
±0.30
0.33
±0.11
1.78
±0.29
0.23
±0.06
0.70
±0.03
0.44
±0.06
0.20
±0.03
0.58
±0.12
3.62
±0.25
0.46
±0.11
0.07
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.58
±0.11
3.26
±0.62
0.14
±0.07
2.67
±0.52
0.36
±0.12
0.68
±0.07
0.39
±0.07
0.34
±0.07
0.96
±0.27
3.56
±0.50
0.67
±0.19
0.05
±0.02
NA
0.83
±0.27
2.25
±0.40
0.16
±0.10
1.31
±0.43
0.09
±0.03
0.73
±0.07
0.40
±0.10
0.14
±0.04
0.36
±0.10
3.12
±0.41
0.22
±0.08
0.03
±0.02
NA
0.35
±0.08
2.41
±0.38
NA
0.76
±0.27
0.06
±0.03
0.81
±0.07
0.47
±0.16
0.10
±0.02
0.21
±0.07
3.95
±0.39
0.19
±0.11
NA
NA
0.51
±0.23
3.56
±0.76
NA
2.10
±0.48
0.36
±0.11
0.62
±0.05
0.50
±0.13
0.21
±0.05
0.67
±0.20
3.86
±0.72
0.67
±0.29
0.04
±0.02
NA
0.66
±0.25
2.86
±0.30
NA
1.78
±0.29
0.23
±0.06
0.70
±0.03
0.44
±0.06
0.20
±0.03
0.58
±0.12
3.62
±0.25
0.46
±0.11
0.03
±0.01
NA
0.58
±0.11
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 6-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Arizona Monitoring Sites
(Continued)
Pollutant
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10) a
Hexavalent Chromium3
Lead (PM10) a
Manganese (PM10) a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
2008
Daily
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.18
±0.11
0.02
±<0.01
0.14
±0.02
0.08
±0.01
4.87
±0.73
15.09
±2.22
84.08
± 16.97
1.62
±0.38
1st
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.15
±0.07
0.01
±<0.01
0.12
±0.04
0.07
±0.02
4.45
±1.49
11.97
±3.26
76.66
±15.58
1.17
±0.63
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
0.03
±0.01
0.11
±0.01
0.06
±0.02
5.71
±1.54
18.67
±6.77
53.57
±18.17
2.19
±1.11
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
0.01
±<0.01
0.13
±0.07
0.10
±0.04
2.97
±1.18
13.17
±3.21
54.44
± 19.24
1.46
±0.66
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.22
±0.24
0.02
±0.01
0.21
±0.06
0.07
±0.03
6.05
±1.33
16.62
±3.73
148.21
±48.95
1.48
±0.60
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
0.02
±<0.01
0.14
±0.02
0.08
±0.01
4.87
±0.73
15.09
±2.22
84.08
± 16.97
1.56
±0.37
2009
Daily
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.31
±0.20
0.01
±<0.01
0.13
±0.03
0.10
±0.03
4.04
±0.86
16.56
±3.41
120.17
±19.31
1.45
±0.25
1st
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.47
±0.48
0.01
±0.01
0.18
±0.08
0.11
±0.05
5.65
±2.67
13.87
±3.56
164.47
±55.07
1.40
±0.27
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
0.07
±0.02
0.07
±0.04
2.70
±0.69
14.16
±3.16
83.33
±15.10
1.34
±0.42
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.12
±0.06
0.11
±0.08
2.78
±0.97
21.64
± 13.08
75.64
±21.31
1.68
±0.85
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.26
±0.13
0.01
±<0.01
0.16
±0.05
0.09
±0.05
5.12
±1.73
16.73
±3.46
148.17
±39.47
1.37
±0.33
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
0.01
±<0.01
0.13
±0.03
0.09
±0.03
4.04
±0.86
16.56
±3.41
118.02
± 19.43
1.45
±0.25
South Phoenix, Arizona - SPAZ
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1.95
±0.55
1.48
±0.34
0.23
±0.06
0.71
±0.06
0.26
±0.04
NA
2.09
±0.41
0.36
±0.08
0.61
±0.08
0.30
±0.06
0.73
±0.41
0.97
±0.31
0.11
±0.04
0.77
±0.09
0.23
±0.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.11
±0.44
1.64
±0.35
0.22
±0.07
0.72
±0.04
0.26
±0.04
1.81
±1.01
2.26
±0.45
0.28
±0.12
0.70
±0.08
0.22
±0.04
1.61
±0.66
1.09
±0.45
0.10
±0.04
0.61
±0.20
0.27
±0.07
2.78
±0.67
0.85
±0.23
0.09
±0.02
0.78
±0.09
0.28
±0.13
NA
2.35
±0.98
0.42
±0.20
0.69
±0.08
0.29
±0.10
1.83
±0.46
1.64
±0.35
0.22
±0.07
0.69
±0.06
0.26
±0.04
to
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 6-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Arizona Monitoring Sites
(Continued)
Pollutant
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2008
Daily
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.27
±0.08
0.72
±0.16
0.27
±0.06
0.11
±0.02
ND
1st
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.31
±0.07
1.04
±0.21
0.47
±0.07
0.13
±0.04
NA
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.19
±0.12
0.47
±0.15
0.15
±0.06
0.04
±0.02
NA
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009
Daily
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.20
±0.04
0.60
±0.15
0.30
±0.08
0.11
±0.02
0.01
±<0.01
1st
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.24
±0.08
0.83
±0.29
0.44
±0.18
0.12
±0.06
NA
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.16
±0.05
0.45
±0.17
0.17
±0.08
0.06
±0.02
NA
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.15
±0.05
0.31
±0.08
0.14
±0.05
NA
NA
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.25
±0.12
NA
0.40
±0.18
NA
NA
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.20
±0.04
0.58
±0.15
0.29
±0.08
NA
NA
to
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Observations for SPAZ from Table 6-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass were
acrylonitrile and benzene for both years of sampling. These were the only pollutants
with daily average concentrations greater than 1 |ig/m3.
• The 2009 daily average concentration of benzene is the same as the annual average,
which indicates that this pollutant was detected in every sample collected. The same
is not true for acrylonitrile. The 2009 daily average concentration is
2.11 ± 0.44 |ig/m3 while its 2009 annual average is 1.83 ± 0.46 |ig/m3' This difference
illustrates the effect that substituting zeros for non-detects can have on concentration
averages. Zeros were substituted for four of the 29 VOC samples collected at SPAZ.
• Third and fourth quarter 2008 averages could not be calculated for any of the
pollutants of interest because the l-in-12 sampling schedule often does not provide
enough samples to meet the seven-detect criteria, especially when one or two samples
are invalidated (as was the case for this site for the third quarter of 2008). Nearly all
of the pollutants of interest have quarterly and annual averages for 2009.
• Based on the available 2009 quarterly averages, concentrations of benzene,
1,3-butadiene, ethylbenzene,/?-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene appear to
exhibit a trend similar to PXSS, in that the concentrations were higher during the
colder months. However, a closer look at the confidence intervals reveals that these
differences were not statistically significant.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for PXSS and SPAZ from those
tables include the following:
• PXSS and SPAZ appear in Tables 4-9 through 4-12 a total of 35 times.
• PXSS had the two highest daily average concentrations (both years) for hexavalent
chromium and beryllium (PMio) of all NMP sites. Further, PXSS had third and fourth
highest daily average concentrations of 1,3-butdiene (2009 and 2008, respectively);
the fifth and sixth highest daily average concentrations of chloroform (2008 and
2009, respectively); the third and fourth highest daily average concentrations of
tetrachloroethylene (2008 and 2009, respectively); and the second and third highest
daily average concentrations of manganese (PMio) (2009 and 2008, respectively)
among NMP sites sampling these pollutants.
• As shown in Table 4-9, of the program-level pollutants of interest, SPAZ had second
and third highest daily average concentrations of acrylonitrile (2009 and 2008,
respectively); the second and fifth highest daily average concentrations of
1,3-butadiene (2008 and 2009, respectively); the fourth and ninth highest daily
average concentrations of /?-dichlorobenzene (2008 and 2009, respectively); and the
6-24
-------
fifth and ninth highest daily average concentrations of ethylbenzene (2008 and 2009,
respectively) among all NMP sites sampling VOC.
6.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. Neither PXSS nor SPAZ have sampled continuously for 5 years as part of the
NMP; therefore, the trends analysis was not conducted.
6.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Arizona monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
6.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Arizona monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest for each site were
compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL;
and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or
time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the Arizona monitoring sites
were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
6.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Arizona monitoring sites and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
6-25
-------
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 6-6, where applicable.
Observations for PXSS from Table 6-6 include the following:
• As discussed in Section 6.4.1, the pollutants with the highest daily average
concentrations by mass were formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene for both
years.
• Based on the annual averages and cancer UREs, formaldehyde, benzene, and
1,3-butadiene had the three highest cancer risk approximations for each year,
respectively. (Acetaldehyde's cancer risk approximation for each year ranked fourth
highest.) An additional six pollutants had cancer risk approximations greater than
1.0 in-a-million for 2008 and an additional seven pollutants had cancer risk
approximations greater than 1.0 in-a-million for 2009.
• The cancer risk approximations for the pollutants of interest based on 2008 annual
averages were generally similar to the cancer risk approximations based on 2009
annual averages.
• None of PXSS's pollutants of interest had noncancer risk approximations greater than
1.0. The pollutant with the highest noncancer risk approximation was formaldehyde
(0.36 for 2008 and 0.37 for 2009).
• The noncancer risk approximations for the pollutants of interest based on 2008 annual
averages were generally similar to the noncancer risk approximations based on 2009
annual averages.
Observations for SPAZ from Table 6-6 include the following:
• Annual averages (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations)
could not be calculated for 2008 due to the annual average criteria, as discussed in
Section 6.4.1.
• The pollutants with the highest annual average concentrations by mass were
acrylonitrile and benzene for 2009.
• Based on the annual averages for 2009 and cancer UREs, acrylonitrile had the highest
cancer risk approximation (124.48 in-a-million), which is an order of magnitude
higher than the next highest cancer risk approximation (benzene, 12.79 in-a-million).
The acrylonitrile cancer risk approximation for SPAZ was the second highest cancer
risk approximation calculated among any of the NMP site-specific pollutants of
interest (behind only INDEM's 2008 formaldehyde cancer risk approximation).
6-26
-------
Table 6-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Arizona Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/
Valid Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Phoenix, Arizona - PXSS
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (PM10) a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium3
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0043
0.0000078
0.001
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
0.000011
0.0000025
0.000013
0.012
0.009
0.002
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.0098
0.0001
61/4
10/0
56/4
52/4
33/2
56/4
52/4
57/4
52/4
52/4
52/4
52/4
61/4
58/4
2.70
±0.24
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
1.59
±0.27
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.23
±0.05
0.01
±0.01
0.76
±0.05
0.44
±0.06
0.27
±0.04
0.63
±0.11
3.57
±0.23
O.01
±0.01
5.94
NA
3.03
12.42
NA
0.04
6.75
0.25
4.55
2.92
1.57
46.40
0.90
0.30
NA
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.36
O.01
59/4
25/2
61/4
57/4
32/2
35/3
57/4
61/4
57/4
57/4
57/4
57/4
59/4
54/4
2.86
±0.30
NA
O.01
±O.01
1.78
±0.29
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.23
±0.06
0.01
±0.01
0.70
±0.03
0.44
±0.06
0.20
±0.03
0.58
±0.12
3.62
±0.25
O.01
±0.01
6.28
NA
2.51
13.90
NA
0.02
6.89
0.24
4.23
2.24
1.44
47.02
1.12
0.32
NA
0.04
0.06
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.37
O.01
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 6-5.
-------
Table 6-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Arizona Monitoring Sites (Continued)
ON
to
8
k Pollutant
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000034
0.000312
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.00015
0.00005
0.003
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
57/4
57/4
59/4
55/4
52/4
31/3
5/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.02
±0.01
0.08
±0.02
0.01
±0.01
0.47
±0.10
0.05
±0.02
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
2.86
0.49
2.75
0.09
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.03
0.30
0.03
0.02
0.01
O.01
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/
Valid Quarterly
Averages
61/4
61/4
55/4
61/4
57/4
28/3
7/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±O.01
0.02
±0.01
0.12
±0.02
0.01
±O.01
0.46
±0.11
0.03
±0.01
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
4.01
0.45
2.72
0.06
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.03
0.33
0.04
0.02
0.01
O.01
NA
South Phoenix, Arizona - SPAZ
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Chloroform
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.000011
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.8
0.098
21/1
29/2
28/2
29/2
28/2
29/2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26/3
30/4
30/4
29/4
30/4
30/4
1.83
±0.46
1.64
±0.35
0.22
±0.07
0.69
±0.06
0.20
±0.04
0.26
±0.04
124.48
12.79
6.62
4.15
2.18
0.92
0.05
0.11
0.01
O.01
0.01
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 6-5.
-------
Table 6-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Arizona Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0000025
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
1
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
28/2
27/2
23/2
0/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/
Valid Quarterly
Averages
29/3
29/4
25/2
1/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.58
±0.15
0.29
±0.08
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
1.45
1.71
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
<0.01
0.01
NA
NA
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 6-5.
to
VO
-------
• All of the pollutants of interest for SPAZ had cancer risk approximations (where they
could be calculated) greater than 1.0 in-a-million, based on the annual averages for
2009.
• None of SPAZ's pollutants of interest had noncancer risk approximations greater than
1.0. The pollutant with the highest noncancer risk approximation was acrylonitrile
(0.92). Similar to its cancer risk approximation, the acrylonitrile noncancer risk
approximation was the second highest noncancer risk approximation calculated
among any of the NMP site-specific pollutants of interest (behind only INDEM's
2008 formaldehyde noncancer risk approximation).
6.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 6-7 and 6-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 6-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 6-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 6.3,
PXSS sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, PAH, metals (PMio), and hexavalent chromium;
SPAZ sampled for VOC only. In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual
averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
6-30
-------
Table 6-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Arizona Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa County) - PXSS
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
1,809.25
1,466.06
530.77
302.07
287.55
238.48
162.32
162.03
123.55
70.57
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
1.83E-02
1.41E-02
9.06E-03
5.51E-03
3.88E-03
2.38E-03
2.16E-03
1.70E-03
1.36E-03
1.17E-03
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
47.02
46.40
13.90
12.42
6.89
6.75
6.28
5.94
4.55
4.23
South Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa County) - SPAZ
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
1,809.25
1,466.06
530.77
302.07
287.55
238.48
162.32
162.03
123.55
70.57
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
1.83E-02
1.41E-02
9.06E-03
5.51E-03
3.88E-03
2.38E-03
2.16E-03
1.70E-03
1.36E-03
1.17E-03
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
124.48
12.79
6.62
4.15
2.18
1.71
1.45
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 6-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Arizona Monitoring Sites
to
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa County) - PXSS
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Methyl tert butyl ether
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Acetaldehyde
5,464.99
3,828.86
1,809.25
1,466.06
1,279.42
1,109.64
840.01
704.09
634.01
530.77
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Xylenes
Arsenic, PM
6,346,324.90
151,037.15
149,598.27
66,526.00
60,308.20
58,974.77
54,009.14
38,836.89
38,288.64
18,474.24
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
Acetaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Benzene
0.37
0.36
0.33
0.32
0.30
0.30
0.11
0.11
0.06
0.05
South Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa County) - SPAZ
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Methyl tert butyl ether
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Acetaldehyde
5,464.99
3,828.86
1,809.25
1,466.06
1,279.42
1,109.64
840.01
704.09
634.01
530.77
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Xylenes
Arsenic, PM
6,346,324.90
151,037.15
149,598.27
66,526.00
60,308.20
58,974.77
54,009.14
38,836.89
38,288.64
18,474.24
Acrylonitrile
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
0.92
0.11
0.05
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 6-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Maricopa County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) were formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene.
• Eight of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Similar to the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, formaldehyde,
benzene, and 1,3-butadiene had highest cancer surrogate risk approximations for
PXSS, each with their 2009 cancer risk approximation first followed by their 2008
cancer risk approximation. Acetaldehyde and carbon tetrachloride were also among
the pollutants with the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations for PXSS.
Carbon tetrachloride does not appear on the list often highest emissions or ten
highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Maricopa County.
• POM Group 2 was the tenth highest emitted "pollutant" in Maricopa County and
ranked fifth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH
sampled for at PXSS including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for PXSS.
• While acrylonitrile's cancer risk approximation was the highest cancer risk
approximation for SPAZ and was the second highest cancer risk approximation
calculated among all NMP sites, this pollutant appears on neither emissions-based
list.
• With the exception of acrylonitrile, the cancer risk approximations for SPAZ were
similar to the cancer risk approximations for PXSS. (Note: acrylonitrile was not
detected frequently enough at PXSS for an annual average to be calculated.)
Observations from Table 6-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Maricopa County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
6-33
-------
• Acrolein had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (by an order of magnitude) for
Maricopa County. Although acrolein was sampled for at both sites, this pollutant was
excluded from the pollutants of interest designation, and thus subsequent risk
screening evaluations, due to questions about the consistency and reliability of the
measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Formaldehyde, manganese, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and benzene had the highest
noncancer risk approximations for PXSS. Of these, formaldehyde, benzene, and
1,3-butadiene also appear on both emissions-based lists.
• While acrylonitrile's noncancer risk approximation was the highest noncancer risk
approximation for SPAZ and had the second highest noncancer risk approximation
calculated among all NMP sites, this pollutant appears on neither emissions-based
list.
6.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for PXSS and SPAZ
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Twenty-three pollutants failed screens for PXSS; 13 of these are NATTSMQO Core
Analytes. Ten pollutants failed screens for SPAZ, of which four are NATTSMQO
Core Analytes.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of interest for PXSS, formaldehyde had the highest
daily average concentration for both years; for SPAZ, acrylonitrile had the highest
daily average concentration for both years.
»«» Concentrations of several VOC, including benzene and 1,3-butadiene, tended to be
higher during the colder months of the years.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
6-34
-------
7.0 Sites in California
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at three NATTS sites in California, and integrates these concentrations
with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG
are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer
back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented
below.
7.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the California monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the locations of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The California sites are located in Los Angeles, Rubidoux, and San Jose. Figures 7-1
through 7-3 are composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the
monitoring sites in their urban locations. Figures 7-4 through 7-6 identify point source emissions
locations by source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only
sources within 10 miles of the sites are included in the facility counts provided below the maps
in Figures 7-4 through 7-6. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but
are visible on the maps to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile
boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions
source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring
sites; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring
sites as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 7-1
describes the area surrounding each monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical
information such as land, location setting, and locational coordinates.
7-1
-------
Figure 7-1. Los Angeles, California (CELA) Monitoring Site
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,803 feet
-------
Figure 7-2. Rubidoux, California (RUCA) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,484 feet
-------
Figure 7-3. San Jose, California (SJJCA) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,551 feet
-------
Figure 7-4. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of CELA
* *' ;\v •&
Legend
•fa CELANATTSae ' 10 mile rodiire
SOLIICO CiHgory Croup (Ho. at Facilities!
lU'WITW IIS'H'jV. UPTffW
Mote: Due to fodlty densil'j and cdtqciban. thr (ctil laalt>«
d m»y net reprf**« al l
I *lphKIPr(K«i*>o-'Rix«nlM»-J»c1i«ir-lili
*C4.1I
A»«n
if 1*1 u> Aiptm pun >:i
X B4T
6 Ml Ipi
A c
C
+ can za,
iui>« m
Pimta FK-JXU PxHy . :.
* Mm<*«jitiig f «*y • 1 1
Khod < 111
antf a*fl Fouvft^ it
Sllft«i*f|p CMUuitien Tufanti FKMy i Ik
- S)Man»r RKjpoxibnf) Mwrut CantHjstlm Engrai FicMy |9>
flrniaig OpiriDKI 1 3 1
7 Mcw« proUdi F*c»y (3i
M Ihbctbnoui Umbdukig e
» Ci and* OH PndufltntKi
QpiH 511*9*19 Ojm •»! iCi
i«»: V .«.
Funfci* M»«srt. i-A'sta P)iin-«ig FK«y. :ii
7-5
-------
Figure 7-5. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of RUCA
Hole Due la taciley density and cc4locatKn Ihetdal faa*li
may ndl repf«4cflit aB taoMw
Legend
•yf- RUCA NATTS srte 10 mile radius I County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) R) M«P««I (4)
*Jf -cro!ra«.lAlrcra(t Manutacturing Facility (11
•+/ Aircraft dwrmlont Facility (4)
T Airport Support Operation 11 >
I taptmn ProcntincvRoofiivj Manufadurlng |6|
0 .Auto Body aiop.'Pamt«s i ill
M Automc*4«muck Manutaelunng Facility (12)
t Bahery<2i
-t Baal Manufacturing FocMy 411
i— Brick Mwmhcturing i Structural Clay Fat«ty (2
B Bulk TerrrHnaHiBuk Plants 16:
C ClKmical Manulaclurin
m CffKitlt BUtth Plant (7)
TO Dejtea smg Optiatwo ( 1 j
•• Dry Cleaning Facility 1 1 >
1 Electricity Generation via Combustion ift;i
1 Engmfl Test Fatuity • 1 <
® Fabricated Metal Pr oflucis Facility t2i
§ Hot Mix Aschall FlirK n2i
4- Iridustri*! Machinery ond Equ»pnwiH FacVy (2)
^knillutlonnl • Ktiod 1 6»
I kon and Steel Found? (2:i
* Landlll i20i
- Mrv««>i«rryi1)
M Mxelartecul Munufacturing Indinltits Facility 1 3>
D Paul Smppng C^ nation 1 2l
7 Pc««,ind Cflment Mamitithirlng Fjdloy O i
1 ftwnaiy MMal Production Facility i6>
P Pmln j,Put*sfnng Facility 1 9i
ffl FHi^> and Paper Plant/Wood Products FacflCy 42)
R Ruttw and Miic«llan«u« Plastics Products Facility iJ>
2 Set c«ii)*v Metal Procnsing Facility ( IS)
•>• Stationary Reciprocating tnlnnri CombusUon EngirtK Facility i Tt
S Surface Coatirtg FacMy ( 10)
^ePc-^el^FoannP.oductior.Fac.ityin ii^^S^SmSdaVm
f Food Pioccs5in»fAgricuriure Facility 14)
Gag P1arH«1i
|T Gasolme/T^tsel Service Si alien 111
A Qrsiri Handling Facility 4 2i
Gfav*l or sand Plaflt i: •
* Ti an ifoclalicn an d Mat keEng, of PetreleiMn Piodjcti Facintj,' 1 1
* Watiewalcr Treatment FaclMy 14 1
W WocKtivork Fumlur* AMn^rk a Wood PisserHnj Faculty <4 1
7-6
-------
Figure 7-6. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of SJJCA
• i. : ••
Legend
10 mile radius
t;t^cvw i2i'4ytrw iwuxrvt
* Due In ladlty density and «*ocsit»on. 1he lotjil haUKl
maynolr
Souf<« CaUjoiy Group (Wo,
•4* 4*e«ft Cp
T
>iKg UknAomng 1 1 1
,8ioa»«IH»n<:i}i
*UJmot«t^rnic> MmJiUmij flamy Hi
i aiu. uamMomg t Svucluiil CUy FK«I> ., 11
• Cuntttn BK* P*« i».
I ! OwnKav - fetMUHumw H-
/S S'MI
-------
Table 7-1. Geographical Information for the California Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
CELA
RUCA
SJJCA
AQS Code
06-037-1103
06-065-8001
06-085-0005
Location
Los
Angeles
Rubidoux
San Jose
County
Los
Angeles
Riverside
Santa
Clara
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana,
PA MSA
Riverside-San
Bernardino-
Ontario, CA MSA
Sunnyvale-Santa
Tiara PA MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
34.06659,
-118.22688
33 99958
-117 41601
37.3485,
-121.895
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Suburban
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
TSP, TSP Speciation, Hexavalent chromium, CO,
SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, PAMS, Carbonyl compounds,
VOC, O3, Meteorological parameters, PM10,
PM10 Speciation, PM25, PM25 Speciation.
Haze, TSP, TSP Speciation, Hexavalent chromium,
CO, SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, PAMS, VOC, Carbonyl
compounds, O3, Meteorological parameters, PM10,
PM10 Speciation, PM coarse, PM25,
PM25 Speciation.
TSP Speciation, Hexavalent chromium, CO, SO2,
NO, NO2, NOx, VOC, Carbonyl compounds, O3,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM10 Speciation,
Black carbon, PM coarse, PM2 5, PM2 5 Speciation.
oo
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 20llj).
-------
CELA is located on the rooftop of a two-story building just northeast of downtown Los
Angeles, near Dodgers' Stadium. Figure 7-1 shows that CELA is surrounded by major freeways,
including 1-5, Route 110, and Highway 101. Although the area is classified as residential, a
freight yard is located to the south of the site. The Los Angeles River runs north-south just east
of the site. This monitoring site was originally set up as an emergency response monitor. As
Figure 7-4 shows, CELA is situated among numerous point sources. A large number of
emissions sources within 10 miles of CELA are involved in electroplating, plating, polishing,
anodizing, and coloring; aircraft operations, which include airports as well as small runways,
heliports, or landing pads; printing or publishing; and landfills.
RUCA is located just outside of Riverside, in a residential area of the suburban town of
Rubidoux. Highway 60 runs east-west to the north of the site. Flabob Airport is located about
three-quarters of a mile to the southeast of the site. Figure 7-2 shows that RUCA is adjacent to a
power substation near the intersection of Mission Boulevard and Riverview Drive. Figure 7-5
shows that fewer emissions sources surround RUCA than CELA. Most of the emissions sources
are located to the northeast and northwest of the site. The point source located closest to RUCA
is Flabob Airport. The emissions source categories with the highest number of sources near
RUCA include landfills, secondary metal processing facilities, and auto body shops.
SJJCA is located in central San Jose. Figure 7-3 shows that SJJCA is located in a
commercial area surrounded by residential areas. A railroad is shown just east of the monitoring
site, running north-south in Figure 7-3. Guadalupe Parkway, which can be seen on the bottom
left of Figure 7-3, intersects with 1-880 approximately 1 mile northwest of the monitoring site.
San Jose International Airport is just on the other side of this intersection. Figure 7-6 shows that
the density of point sources is higher near SJJCA than CELA and RUCA. The emissions source
categories with the highest number of sources are electricity generation via combustion; auto
body shops; dry cleaners; cold solvent cleaning and stripping; and surface coating processes.
Table 7-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the
7-9
-------
California monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 6-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration for Los Angeles
(CELA), Riverside (RUCA), and Santa Clara (SJJCA) Counties were obtained from the
California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV, 2008). Population data for all three
counties were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010). Table 7-2 also
includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site. In
addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle
ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to
the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site. Table 7-2 also contains annual average
daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from
which it was obtained. Finally, Table 7-2 presents the daily VMT for each urban area.
Table 7-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the California
Monitoring Sites
Site
CELA
RUCA
SJJCA
Estimated
County
Population1
9,848,011
2,125,440
1,784,642
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
7,498,722
1,685,246
1,508,850
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.76
0.79
0.85
Population
Within 10
Miles3
3,739,626
1,000,923
1,435,158
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
2,847,521
793,625
1,213,374
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
238,000
18,365
6,000
VMT5
(thousands)
275,665
42,835
36,859
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the California DMV (CA DMV, 2008).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2005 data from the LA Almanac (CELA); 2009 data from the Riverside County
Transportation Department (RUCA); and 2005 data from the San Jose DOT (SJJCA) (LA Almanac, 2005; Riverside,
2009; San Jose, 2006).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 7-2 include the following:
• CELA had the highest county population and county-level vehicle registration
compared to all counties with NMP sites. CELA also had the highest 10-mile
estimated vehicle ownership. However, the 10-mile population near this site ranked
second behind BXNY, which is located in Bronx County and part of New York City.
• Riverside and Santa Clara Counties were also in the top 10 for county population and
county-level vehicle registration among counties with NMP sites.
7-10
-------
• Among the California sites, the vehicle-per-person ratios were lowest for the most
populous area and higher for less populated area. In general, this trend is also true
among all NMP sites.
• CELA experienced the second highest annual average daily traffic among NMP sites,
and has a substantially higher traffic volume than both RUCA and SJJCA. The traffic
count for CELA was based on data from Exit 136 off 1-5 at Main Street. The traffic
count for RUCA was based on data from Mission Boulevard, west of Riverview
Drive. The traffic count for SJJCA was based on the intersection of North 4th Street
and Jackson Street.
• The Los Angeles urban area's VMT ranked second among urban areas with NMP
sites, behind New York City, while the Riverside and San Jose areas were in the
middle of the range.
7.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in California on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
7.2.1 Climate Summary
The climate of Los Angeles is generally mild. While the proximity to the Pacific Ocean
acts as a moderating influence on the Los Angeles area, the elevation changes between the
mountains and valleys allow the distance from the ocean to create substantial differences in
temperature, rainfall, and wind over a relatively short distance. Precipitation falls primarily in
winter months, while summers tend to be dry. Stagnant wind conditions in the summer can result
in air pollution episodes, while breezy Santa Ana winds can create hot, dusty conditions. Fog and
cloudy conditions are more prevalent near the coast than further inland (Bair, 1992 and WRCC,
2011).
San Jose is located to the southeast of San Francisco, near the base of the San Francisco
Bay. The city is situated in the Santa Clara Valley, between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the
south and west and the Diablo Range to the east. San Jose experiences a Mediterranean climate,
with distinct wet-dry seasons. The period from November through March represents the wet
season, with cool but mild conditions prevailing. Little rain falls the rest of the year and
7-11
-------
conditions tend to be warm and sunny. San Jose is not outside the marine influences of the cold
ocean currents typically affecting the San Francisco area (Bair, 1992 and NWS, 1999).
7.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather stations nearest these sites were
retrieved for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The NWS weather station nearest
CELA is located at Downtown Los Angeles/USC Campus; the nearest NWS weather station to
RUCA is located at Riverside Municipal Airport; and the nearest NWS station to SJJCA is
located at San Jose International (WBAN 93134, 03171 and 23293, respectively). Additional
information about these weather stations is provided in Table 7-3. These data were used to
determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions
throughout the year(s).
Table 7-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information on days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 7-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 7-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days near these sites were fairly representative of
average weather conditions throughout the year for both years. Table 7-3 also shows how
marked the temperature differences are between two sites (CELA and RUCA) less than 50 miles
apart, as alluded to in Section 7.2.1. These sites also have large differences in average wind
speeds. As expected, conditions near SJJCA tended to be cooler.
7-12
-------
Table 7-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the California Monitoring Sites
-------
7.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 7-7 and Figure 7-8 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the CELA monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 7-9
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red.
Figures 7-10 and 7-11 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which samples were
collected at the RUCA monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and Figure 7-12 is the
cluster analysis for both years. Finally, Figures 7-13 and 7-14 are the composite back trajectory
maps for days on which samples were collected at the SJJCA monitoring site in 2008 and 2009,
respectively, and Figure 7-15 is the cluster analysis for both years. An in-depth description of
these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps,
each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the
monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back
trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle
around the sites in Figures 7-7 through 7-15 represents 100 miles.
Figure 7-7. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CELA
7-14
-------
Figure 7-8. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CELA
Figure 7-9. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for CELA
Legend
7-15
-------
Figure 7-10. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RUCA
Figure 7-11. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RUCA
7-16
-------
Figure 7-12. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for RUCA
Legend
Figure 7-13. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SJJCA
-•-•,.
7-17
-------
Figure 7-14. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SJJCA
Figure 7-15. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for SJJCA
7-18
-------
Observations from Figures 7-7 through 7-9 for CELA include the following:
• The 24-hour air shed domain was somewhat smaller for CELA than for many other
NMP monitoring sites, based on the average distance of the trajectories. The farthest
away a trajectory originated was central Oregon, or less than 700 miles away.
However, most trajectories (86 percent) originated within 300 miles of CELA.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at CELA. However, a large
cluster of trajectories originated from the northwest of the site. Another cluster
originated from the northeast. Very few originated from the east, southeast, south, or
southwest.
• The cluster analysis shows that nearly 70 percent of trajectories originated from the
northwest in both years. The cluster analysis also shows that approximately
30 percent of trajectories originated from the northeast. The 2008 cluster analysis is in
fairly good agreement with the 2009 cluster analysis.
Observations from Figures 7-10 through 7-12 for RUCA include the following:
• Not surprisingly, the back trajectories for RUCA resemble the ones for CELA. The
24-hour air shed domain for RUCA is similar in size to CELA, as the farthest away a
trajectory originated was also in central Oregon, or approximately 650 miles away.
Like CELA, most trajectories (90 percent) originated within 300 miles of RUCA.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at RUCA. A large cluster of
trajectories originated from the northwest of the site and a secondary cluster
originated from the northeast. Few trajectories originated from the east, southeast, or
south.
• The cluster analysis shows that nearly 80 percent of trajectories in 2008 and
60 percent in 2009 originated from the northwest. The cluster analysis also shows that
approximately 20 percent of trajectories originated from the northeast. The 2008
cluster analysis is, for the most part, in fairly good agreement with the 2009 cluster
analysis.
Observations from Figures 7-13 through 7-15 for SJJCA include the following:
• Based on the length of the average trajectory, the 24-hour air shed domain for SJJCA
is larger than the other two California sites, although the farthest away a trajectory
originated was just over 600 miles away, well offshore over the Pacific. However,
76 percent of trajectories originated within 300 miles of SJJCA and 91 percent
originated within 400 miles of the site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at SJJCA. A large number of
trajectories originated from areas to the northwest and north of the site. Few
trajectories originated from the east, southeast, south, and southwest.
7-19
-------
• The cluster analysis for 2008 shows that 63 percent of trajectories originated from the
northwest and north. Another 29 percent of trajectories originated within 100 miles of
the site and are represented by the short trajectory over San Francisco Bay. Only five
back trajectories, representing approximately eight percent of sample days, originated
from the southeast, south, or southwest.
• Although the 2009 cluster analysis shows the same tendency for trajectories to
originate from the northwest or north of the site (45 percent), it also shows more
variability in trajectory origin as 21 percent originated from the east and 35 percent
originated from the southeast to southwest.
7.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at the Downtown Los Angeles/USC
Campus (for CELA), Riverside Municipal Airport (for RUCA), and San Jose International
Airport (for SJJCA) were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized
wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions
using "petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
Figure 7-16 presents five different wind roses for the CELA monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 2000 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figures 7-17 and 7-18 present the five different wind roses for the RUCA
and SJJCA monitoring sites, respectively.
7-20
-------
Figure 7-16. Wind Roses for the Downtown Los Angeles/USC Campus Weather Station near CELA
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
2008 Wind Rose
^--,____ [SOUTH,---'
2009 Wind Rose
to
2000 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots J
n -22
n 4.7
Calm; 85 20"i,
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
a I"
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 7-17. Wind Roses for the Riverside Municipal Airport Weather Station near RUCA
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
24%
""" -, 13%
12%
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
2009 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
to
to
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
1999 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knol3)
WIND SPEED
(Knol3)
2008 Sample Day
Calms 3? 16%
2009 Sample Day
a I"
Calms: 46.50%
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 7-18. Wind Roses for the San Jose International Airport Weather Station near SJJCA
-------
Observations from Figure 7-16 for CELA include the following:
• Historically, winds were generally light near this site, with calm winds (< 2 knots)
observed for 86 percent of the wind observations. For wind speeds greater than
2 knots, westerly and west-southwesterly winds were most common. Wind speeds
greater than 11 knots were not measured at this weather station.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar to the historical wind rose in wind patterns,
although easterly winds were observed slightly more often for both years. Further, the
wind patterns shown on the sample day wind roses for each year also resemble the
historical and full-year wind patterns, indicating that conditions on sample days were
representative of those experienced over the entire year(s) and historically.
Observations from Figure 7-17 for RUCA include the following:
• Although calm winds were observed approximately 40 percent of the time near
RUCA, westerly, west-northwesterly, and northwesterly winds were frequently
observed, based on the historical wind rose.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar in wind patterns to the historical wind rose,
although westerly winds were observed more often than west-northwesterly winds for
both years.
• The wind patterns shown on the sample day wind roses for each year resemble the
wind patterns shown on the full-year wind roses, indicating that conditions on sample
days were representative of those experienced over the entire year.
Observations from Figure 7-18 for SJJCA include the following:
• Historically, 40 percent of winds were from the northwest to north. Another
20 percent of winds were from the southeast to south. Northeasterly, easterly, and
southwesterly winds were rarely observed. Approximately one-quarter of the winds
were calm.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar to the wind
patterns shown on the historical wind rose, although calm winds were observed
slightly more often for both years. Further, the wind patterns shown on the sample
day wind roses for each year also resemble the wind patterns shown on the historical
and full-year wind roses, indicating that conditions on sample days were
representative of those experienced over the entire year and historically.
7.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the California monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
7-24
-------
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 7-4 presents the pollutants of interest for CELA, RUCA, and SJJCA. The
pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens
for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of
interest are shaded and/or bolded. CELA and RUCA sampled for PAH only, while SJJCA
sampled for metals (PMio) and PAH.
Table 7-4. Risk Screening Results for the California Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Los Angeles, California - CELA
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.029
0.00091
Total
120
1
121
121
71
192
99.17
1.41
63.02
99.17
0.83
99.17
100.00
Rubidoux, California - RUCA
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.029
0.00091
Total
98
1
99
120
58
178
81.67
1.72
55.62
98.99
1.01
98.99
100.00
San Jose, California - SJJCA
Naphthalene
Arsenic (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
0.029
0.00023
0.005
0.00056
0.015
Total
76
55
24
1
1
157
101
99
101
101
101
503
75.25
55.56
23.76
0.99
0.99
31.21
48.41
35.03
15.29
0.64
0.64
48.41
83.44
98.73
99.36
100.00
7-25
-------
Observations from Table 7-4 include the following:
• Naphthalene failed the bulk of screens for both CELA and RUCA, each contributing
to nearly 99 percent of failed screens. Although benzo(a)pyrene failed only one
screen for each site, it was added as a pollutant of interest for both sites because it is a
NATTS MQO Core Analyte.
• Five pollutants failed screens for SJJCA, all of which are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Three of these were initially identified as SJJCA's pollutants of interest.
Cadmium and lead were added, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of
SJJCA's total failed screens, because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Three
additional NATTS MQO Core Analytes were added to SJJCA's pollutants of interest,
even though their concentrations did not fail any screens: beryllium, nickel, and
benzo(a)pyrene. These three pollutants are not shown in Table 7-4.
7.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the California monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at
each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through O.
7.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest for each
California site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply
the average concentration of all measured detections within a given year. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid seasonal averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 7-5, where applicable, and are
shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
7-26
-------
Table 7-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the California
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Los Angeles, California - CELA
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.11
±0.03
121.16
±23.33
0.11
±0.06
87.91
± 20.05
0.04
±0.04
74.26
±17.31
NA
100.17
±24.58
0.10
±0.05
225.41
± 66.40
0.06
±0.02
121.16
±23.33
0.15
±0.07
167.58
± 30.00
0.19
±0.18
200.71
± 70.23
NA
107.59
±23.59
NA
146.36
± 37.49
0.14
±0.06
227.26
±91.63
NA
167.58
± 30.00
Rubidoux, California - RUCA
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.09
±0.03
66.00
± 12.00
0.08
±0.03
62.24
± 20.44
NA
38.19
± 12.49
NA
50.18
±11.14
0.09
±0.05
116.77
± 30.22
NA
66.00
± 12.00
0.16
±0.10
85.97
± 16.88
0.18
±0.22
104.34
±55.25
NA
58.21
± 12.27
NA
72.38
± 18.69
0.13
±0.08
116.83
± 40.88
NA
85.97
± 16.88
San Jose, California - SJJCA
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Naphthalene
Nickel (PM10)
0.40
±0.11
0.13
±0.09
O.01
±<0.01
0.08
±0.03
3.16
±0.86
4.60
±0.68
69.67
± 16.77
1.16
±0.13
0.53
±0.39
NR
O.01
±<0.01
0.13
±0.13
5.33
±2.94
4.04
±1.20
NR
0.96
±0.26
0.29
±0.10
NA
O.01
±<0.01
0.05
±0.01
1.95
±0.65
4.90
±1.46
30.88
±6.07
1.27
±0.27
0.31
±0.08
NA
O.01
±<0.01
0.05
±0.03
1.85
±0.43
4.49
±1.38
46.83
± 13.05
1.27
±0.22
0.48
±0.20
0.10
±0.08
O.01
±<0.01
0.09
±0.02
3.36
±0.86
5.02
±1.70
118.36
±29.33
1.16
±0.29
0.40
±0.11
NA
O.01
±<0.01
0.08
±0.03
3.16
±0.86
4.60
±0.68
69.67
± 16.77
1.16
±0.13
0.26
±0.08
0.17
±0.08
O.01
±<0.01
0.06
±0.02
1.93
±0.46
3.32
±0.63
81.04
±21.35
0.99
±0.10
0.38
±0.19
0.11
±0.08
O.01
±<0.01
0.10
±0.06
2.49
±1.14
3.60
±1.55
111.05
± 66.77
0.99
±0.23
0.14
±0.05
NA
0.01
±<0.01
0.04
±0.01
1.66
±0.41
3.24
±0.62
37.66
±11.43
1.06
±0.15
0.22
±0.08
NA
O.01
±<0.01
0.04
±0.02
1.46
±0.43
2.98
±0.81
51.60
± 18.98
0.87
±0.12
NR
0.13
±0.10
NR
NR
NR
NR
117.08
±40.37
NR
0.25
±0.08
NA
O.01
±<0.01
0.06
±0.02
1.93
±0.46
3.32
±0.63
81.04
±21.35
0.99
±0.10
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Observations for the California monitoring sites from Table 7-5 include the following:
• Naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene were pollutants of interest for each site. The daily
average concentrations of naphthalene were similar for RUCA and SJJCA while the
daily average concentration for CELA was almost twice that of RUCA and SJJCA.
The daily average concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene were fairly similar among the
California sites.
• The fourth quarter naphthalene averages for both 2008 and 2009 for CELA are
significantly higher than the other quarterly averages. The high confidence interval
for each indicates the likely presence of outliers. Of the 25 naphthalene
concentrations greater than 200 ng/m3 measured at CELA, 13 of these were measured
during October-December (regardless of year). CELA's 2008 annual average of
naphthalene ranked fourth highest among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant (the
2009 annual average ranked 15th).
• PAH sampling did not begin until late spring 2008 at SJJCA, thus first quarter 2008
averages for this site could not be calculated. In addition, benzo(a)pyrene was often
not detected enough for quarterly averages to be calculated for any of the sites,
therefore several quarterly and annual averages are not available for this pollutant.
Because September 2009 through December 2009 metals samples were not sent to the
ERG laboratory until February 2011, results from those samples have not been
included in this report, thus fourth quarter 2009 averages could not be calculated.
• Arsenic, cadmium, and lead have relatively large confidence intervals for their first
quarter 2008 averages for SJJCA. A review of their concentrations shows that the
highest concentration for each of these pollutants over the 2 years of sampling was
measured on January 1, 2008.
7.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. None of the California monitoring sites have sampled continuously for 5 years as
part of the NMP; therefore, the trends analysis was not conducted.
7.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
California monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
7-28
-------
7.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
California monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
for each site were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the
intermediate MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the
measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the
California monitoring sites were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk
benchmarks.
7.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the California monitoring sites and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 7-6, where applicable.
7-29
-------
Table 7-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the California Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Los Angeles, California - CELA
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.001
0.000034
0.003
36/3
61/4
0.06
±0.02
121.16
±23.33
0.06
4.12
0.04
35/2
60/4
NA
167.58
± 30.00
NA
5.70
0.06
Rubidoux, California - RUCA
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.001
0.000034
0.003
29/2
59/4
NA
66.00
± 12.00
NA
2.24
0.02
29/2
61/4
NA
85.97
± 16.88
NA
2.92
0.03
San Jose, California - SJJCA
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bery Ilium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Naphthalene
Nickel (PM10)
0.0043
0.001
0.0024
0.0018
0.000034
0.000312
0.000015
0.00002
0.00001
0.00015
0.00005
0.003
0.00009
61/4
12/1
54/4
61/4
61/4
61/4
40/3
61/4
0.40
±0.11
NA
O.01
±<0.01
0.08
±0.03
3.16
±0.86
4.60
±0.68
69.67
± 16.77
1.16
±0.13
1.73
NA
O.01
0.14
2.37
0.36
0.03
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.01
38/3
24/2
30/3
40/3
40/3
40/3
61/4
40/3
0.25
±0.08
NA
O.01
±<0.01
0.06
±0.02
1.93
±0.46
3.32
±0.63
81.04
±21.35
0.99
±0.10
1.07
NA
0.01
0.11
2.76
0.31
0.02
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.01
-------
Observations for the California sites from Table 7-6 include the following:
• Naphthalene presented the highest cancer risk among the pollutants of interest for all
three California monitoring sites. The cancer risk approximations ranged from
2.24 in-a-million for RUCA (2008) to 5.70 in-a-million for CELA (2009).
• Benzo(a)pyrene was not detected frequently enough for many annual averages to be
calculated for the California sites; in addition, SJJCA did not begin sampling PAH
until May 2008. Thus, only one cancer risk approximation could be calculated (for
CELA, 2008). Further, a noncancer RfC is not available for this pollutant, thus
noncancer risk approximations could not be calculated.
• Of the metals sampled at SJJCA, arsenic presented the highest cancer risk, as it is the
only metal for which a cancer risk approximation was greater than 1.0 in-a-million
(1.73 in-a-million for 2008 and 1.07 in-a-million for 2009).
• All of the noncancer risk approximations for the pollutants of interest for the
California monitoring sites were less than 1.0, indicating no risk of noncancer health
effects.
7.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 7-7 and 7-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 7-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 7-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. JAisk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
7-31
-------
Table 7-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the California Monitoring Sites
to
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Los Angeles, California (Los Angeles County) - CELA
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
4,395.87
2,838.77
2,374.84
1,643.94
1,407.36
509.49
491.71
425.51
175.89
104.93
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
5.49E-02
2.21E-02
1.48E-02
1.45E-02
1.02E-02
8.30E-03
5.77E-03
5.60E-03
3.62E-03
2.01E-03
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
5.70
4.12
0.06
Rubidoux, California (Riverside County) - RUCA
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
POM, Group 2
1,176.18
609.89
451.42
282.22
216.69
117.44
84.14
83.99
65.83
32.69
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Arsenic, PM
1.47E-02
4.76E-03
3.52E-03
2.86E-03
2.65E-03
1.80E-03
1.28E-03
9.93E-04
9.24E-04
4.87E-04
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
2.92
2.24
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 7-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the California Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
San Jose, California (Santa Clara County) - SJJCA
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
688.69
476.21
351.66
287.85
194.91
90.84
83.84
66.45
25.44
18.41
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Arsenic, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
8.61E-03
5.58E-03
3.71E-03
2.52E-03
2.26E-03
1.34E-03
1.15E-03
1.01E-03
9.99E-04
6.33E-04
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Beryllium (PM10)
Beryllium (PM10)
2.76
2.37
1.73
1.07
0.36
0.31
0.14
0.11
0.01
O.01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 7-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the California Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Los Angeles, California (Los Angeles County) - CELA
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Xylenes
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Benzene
Hexane
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
9,219.53
6,517.63
6,151.29
4,395.87
3,364.78
2,838.77
2,445.37
2,374.84
1,643.94
1,573.09
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Chlorine
Naphthalene
Manganese, PM
Benzene
Nickel, PM
Xylenes
8,054,479.35
448,558.58
245,853.71
182,659.89
146,076.95
141,836.57
103,313.75
94,625.56
94,055.05
61,512.92
Naphthalene 0.06
Naphthalene 0.04
Rubidoux, California (Riverside County) - RUCA
Toluene
Xylenes
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methanol
Acetaldehyde
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Dichloromethane
1,783.28
1,179.27
1,176.18
609.89
576.88
520.68
451.42
426.22
295.40
282.22
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Chlorine
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Manganese, PM
Bromomethane
Naphthalene
Benzene
Nickel, PM
2,741,696.81
120,018.74
85,206.48
58,720.28
50,157.87
44,870.54
29,494.00
28,046.14
20,329.70
12,912.59
Naphthalene 0.03
Naphthalene 0.02
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 7-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the California Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
San Jose, California (Santa Clara County) - SJJCA
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Xylenes
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Benzene
Hexane
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
1,775.40
1,404.62
1,050.94
688.69
666.25
476.21
447.33
351.66
287.85
262.94
Acrolein
Chlorine
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Benzene
Manganese, PM
Xylenes
Arsenic, PM
1,209,155.75
83,800.79
70,274.06
41,921.42
31,983.45
22,150.89
15,873.67
13,990.75
10,509.43
10,400.56
Manganese (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Naphthalene
Arsenic (PM10)
Naphthalene
Lead (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
0.09
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 7.3,
all three California monitoring sites sampled for PAH and SJJCA also sampled PMio metals. In
addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants
with enough data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth
discussion of this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 7-7 include the following:
• Formaldehyde, benzene, dichloromethane, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted
pollutants with cancer UREs in all three California counties (although not necessarily
in that order). The quantity emitted was much higher for Los Angeles County than
Riverside and Santa Clara Counties.
• Formaldehyde was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with cancer UREs) for each county. Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, naphthalene,
and hexavalent chromium rounded out the top five for each county (although not
necessarily in that order).
• Eight of the highest emitted pollutants also have the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for all three counties.
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant to appear on all three lists for all three counties.
This pollutant also had the highest cancer risk approximations for all three sites (2009
followed by 2008 for each site).
• Arsenic, which had the third (2008) and fourth (2009) highest cancer risk
approximations for SJJCA, had the sixth highest toxicity-weighted emissions for
Santa Clara County, but did not have one of the 10 highest total emissions for the
county. This was the only pollutant sampled by SJJCA, other than naphthalene, to
appear on either emissions-based list.
• POM Group 2 was among the highest emitted "pollutants" in all three counties and
among the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2
includes several PAH sampled for at these monitoring sites including acenapthylene,
fluoranthene, perylene, and phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group
2 were identified as pollutants of interest for CELA, RUCA, or SJJCA.
7-36
-------
Observations from Table 7-8 include the following:
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant in each county. Consistent with pollutants
having cancer UREs, emissions were higher in Los Angeles County than Riverside
and Santa Clara County.
• While acrolein had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for each county, this
pollutant did not appear on the highest emissions list for any of the sites.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants also have the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties, while only three of the highest
emitted pollutants also have the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Riverside
County.
• Napthalene, the only pollutant for which a noncancer risk approximation could be
calculated for CELA and RUCA, had one of the 10 highest toxicity-weighted
emissions, but did not appear on the list of the 10 highest total emissions for either
county. Naphthalene also had one of the 10 highest toxicity-weighted emissions for
Santa Clara County, and ranked third (2009) and fifth (2008) for noncaner risk
approximations for SJJCA.
• Besides naphthalene, manganese and arsenic are the only two pollutants for which
noncancer risk approximations could be calculated for SJJCA and that also appear on
the list of 10 highest toxicity-weighted emissions totals. None of the metals appear on
the list of the 10 highest total emissions.
7.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for CELA, RUCA, and SJJCA
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene failed screens for CELA and RUCA, although
benzo(a)pyrene only failed one screen for each site. Naphthalene and four metals
failed screens for SJJCA; two additional metals and benzo(a)pyrene were added to
SJJCA 's pollutants of interest.
»«» Naphthalene had the highest daily average concentration among all the pollutants of
interest for the California sites. The daily average concentrations of naphthalene
were similar in magnitude for RUCA and SJJCA while the daily average
concentration for CELA was almost twice that of RUCA and SJJCA. CELA 's 2008
daily average naphthalene concentration was the fourth highest daily average among
NMP sites sampling PAH.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
7-37
-------
8.0 Sites in Colorado
This section explores the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the CSATAM and NATTS sites in Colorado, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
8.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Colorado monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The NATTS site is located in Grand Junction (GPCO), while the other five sites are
located in Garfield County, northeast of Grand Junction, in the towns of Silt (BRCO), Rifle
(MOCO and RICO), Rulison (RUCO), and Parachute (PACO). Figures 8-1 through 8-6 are
composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their
urban and rural locations. Figures 8-7 and 8-8 identify point source emissions locations by
source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within
10 miles of each site are included in the counts provided below the maps in Figures 8-7 and 8-8.
Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to
show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give
the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 8-1 describes the areas
surrounding the monitoring sites by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
3-1
-------
Figure 8-1. Grand Junction, Colorado (GPCO) Monitoring Site
oo
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 2,213 feet
-------
Figure 8-2. Silt, Colorado (BRCO) Monitoring Site
• wm•*» ' .••,*
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,030 feet
-------
Figure 8-3. Rifle, Colorado (MOCO) Monitoring Site
oo
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,902 feet
-------
Figure 8-4. Parachute, Colorado (PACO) Monitoring Site
oo
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,869 feet
-------
Figure 8-5. Rifle, Colorado (RICO) Monitoring Site
oo
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,002 feet
-------
Figure 8-6. Rulison, Colorado (RUCO) Monitoring Site
oo
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/17/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,153 feet
-------
Figure 8-7. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of GPCO
Legend
"fJT GPCO NATTS site 10 mile radius
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
•+• Aircraft Opetabans Facility • 6(
T Airport Support OpsraSon (4)
* Auto Body ShopJPaintsrs (4)
t Bakery (1}
r - Sfiek Manufacturing 8. Structural Clay Fae«y (1)
B Bufc Terminal^Bulh Plants (7>
C Oenmcal Manufaaunng Facility (3)
• Ooncf «* B«eh Rant (5)
I ! Cjenidtoty • Animat'Human (4)
• I • l>y Cleaning FacUCy (4)
* Electricity Generaton v ia C-ombustMn (1)
6 Electroplating Plaling Polishing. Anodizing, and Coloring (7)
* Fibeisjlass Manufaetwinsj Facilty (1)
(lot* Cut to fidl»j dso»n> »nd ccCocMxn. ih* ictil ItdlOfri
dsptayf-d may not r«f>resenS afl !aciMi« wttwi irw area
Q]
Gasc-lmfir'Diesel Se-rvce Statem (4$)
Gravel or Sand Rent (24)
htosprtal (2J
[] County1 bourwlaiy
g He* Mix Asphai Piaflt (2)
+ Industrial f.tachmeiy and 'Equipment Facility (1)
0 Institutional • school (21
• Landfill (4)
- Mine«3uarry(1)
M Miscellaneaus Manufacturing Indusnies Facility (4)
• Oil and'o; Gas PioducUon (3)
Q Paint Stripping Opaation (t)
R Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products Facility (1)
2 Secondary Mate) Proeetssmg Faolrty J4)
< St* Remediation Aetw«y &
:• Solid W^ste Disposal • CoimieistiL'institutional Faeibiy {2}
S Surface Coating Facility (3)
T TertiteMill(l)
> VtestewaterTreatinsnt Facility (1)
W Vfcodvwrk. Furniture. Mlrwork & Vtood PTBS*rvmg Facility (1}
-------
Figure 8-8. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of BRCO, MOCO, PACO, RICO,
and RUCO
10S15TTW 1081CTQ-W 108 StTW 108 (TOW
107 SSTffW 1BH5VW 107 «TO'W IOT 35'Q-W
108 HWW 108 S'ffW 106 fftTW 107 55'0-W 107 SffffW 107 aS'OTIV 107 4OTW 107 SSU'W 107 3CTO'W 107 25'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ BRCO CSATAM site
^ MOCO CSATAM site
W PACO CSATAM site
| RICO CSATAM site
• RUCO CSATAM site
] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
•f Aircraft Operations Facility (6)
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (1)
-f Dry Cleaning Facility (1)
* Electricity Generation via Combustion (1)
Gas Plant (3)
f Gasoline/Diesel Service Station (13)
Gravel or Sand Plant (11)
tf Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (1)
• Landfill (5)
x Mine/Quarry (1)
V Mineral Products Facility (1)
• Oil and/or Gas Production (622)
7 Portland Cement Manufacturing Facility (1)
< Site Remediation Activity (1)
10 mile radius
8-9
-------
Table 8-1. Geographical Information for the Colorado Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
GPCO
BRCO
MOCO
PACO
RICO
RUCO
AQS Code
08-077-0017
&
08-077-0018
08-045-0009
Revolving
Site
(no AQS
entry)
08-045-0005
08-045-0007
Revolving
Site
(no AQS
entry)
Location
Grand
Junction
Silt
Rifle
Parachute
Rifle
Rulison
County
Mesa
Garfield
Garfield
Garfield
Garfield
Garfield
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Grand Junction,
CO MSA
Not in an MSA
Not in an MSA
Not in an MSA
Not in an MSA
Not in an MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
39.064289,
-108.56155
39.487755,
-107.659685
39.488433,
-107.7699
39.453654,
-108053259
39.531813,
-107.782298
39.488744,
-107.936989
Land Use
Commercial
Agricultural
Agricultural
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Rural
Rural
Urban/City
Center
Urban/City
Center
Rural
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Meteorological parameters, CO, PM10, PM10
Speciation, PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation.
None.
No AQS entry.
PM10.
PM10.
None.
oo
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 20llj).
-------
The GPCO monitoring site is comprised of two locations. The first is a small 1-story
shelter that houses the VOC and carbonyl compound samplers, with the PAH sampler located
just outside the shelter. The second location is on an adjacent 2-story building that has the
hexavalent chromium samplers on the roof. As a result, two AQS codes are provided in
Table 8-1. Figure 8-1 shows that the area surrounding GPCO is of mixed usage, with commercial
businesses to the west, northwest and north, residential areas to the northeast and east, and
industrial areas to the southeast, south and southwest. The site's location is next to one of the
major east-west roads in Grand Junction (1-70 Business). A railroad runs east-west to the south
of the GPCO monitoring site, and merges with another railroad to the southwest of the site. As
Figure 8-7 shows, GPCO is located within 10 miles of numerous emissions sources. Many of the
sources are located along a diagonal line running roughly northwest to southeast along
Highways 6 and 50 and Business 70. Many of the point sources near GPCO fall into the
gasoline/diesel service station and gravel or sand plant source categories.
The BRCO monitoring site is located on Bell/Melton Ranch, off Owens Drive,
approximately 4 miles south of the town of Silt. The site is both rural and agricultural in nature.
As shown in Figure 8-2, the closest major roadway is County Road 331, Dry Hollow Road.
MOCO is located on Brock Ranch, off a dirt road spurring from Grass Mesa Road, as
shown in Figure 8-3. This location is less than 3 miles south of the town of Rifle. The site is both
rural and agricultural in nature. This site operated for approximately 1 year; the instrumentation
was relocated to the RUCO site for 2009 (see below).
PACO is located on the roof of the old Parachute High School building, which is
presently operating as a day care facility. This location is in the center of the town of Parachute,
as shown in Figure 8-4. The surrounding area is considered residential. Interstate-70 is less than
a quarter of a mile from the monitoring site.
RICO is located on the roof of the Henry Annex Building in downtown Rifle. This
location is at the crossroads of several major roadways through town, as shown in Figure 8-5.
8-11
-------
Highway 13 and US-6 intersect just south of the site and 1-70 is just over a half-mile south of the
monitoring site. The surrounding area is considered commercial.
RUCO is located on the Potter Ranch, in Rulison, Colorado, about halfway between the
towns of Parachute and Rifle. This location is less than 1 mile south of the 1-70, as shown in
Figure 8-6. The surrounding area is considered rural and agricultural.
The five Garfield County sites are located along a line running roughly east-west and
spanning approximately 20 miles; hence they are shown together in Figure 8-8. As shown, there
are more than 600 petroleum or natural gas wells (collectively shown as the oil and/or gas
production source category) within 10 miles of these sites. One reason Garfield County is
conducting air monitoring is to characterize the air quality impacts of these wells on the
surrounding areas (GCPH, 2007).
Table 8-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the
Colorado monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 8-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population
data for Mesa (GPCO) and Garfield Counties were obtained from the Colorado Department of
Revenue (CO DOR, 2009) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively.
Table 8-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for
each site. In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of
10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-
population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site. Table 8-2 also
contains annual average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate
and the source from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 8-2 presents the daily VMT for the
Grand Junction urban area; no VMT data were available for the areas surrounding the Garfield
County sites.
8-12
-------
Table 8-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Colorado
Monitoring Sites
Site
BRCO
GPCO
MOCO
PACO
RICO
RUCO
Estimated
County
Population1
56,298
146,093
56,298
56,298
56,298
56,298
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
77,026
182,518
77,026
77,026
77,026
77,026
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
.37
.25
.37
.37
.37
.37
Population
Within 10
Miles3
22,054
108,432
16,364
6,664
16,364
16,364
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
30,174
135,467
22,389
9,118
22,389
22,389
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
150
11,800
NA
919
4,800
583
VMT5
(thousands)
NA
2,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Colorado Department of Revenue (CO DOR, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic for GPCO and RICO reflects 2009 data from the Colorado DOT and for BRCO, PACO,
and RUCO reflects 2002 data from Garfield County (CO DOT, 2009 and GCRBD, 2002). No traffic data were
available near MOCO.
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
NA = Data unavailable.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 8-2 include the following:
• Mesa County's population and vehicle ownership were considerably higher than
those for Garfield County. This is also true for its 10-mile population and vehicle
ownership. However, both counties ranked in the bottom-third compared to all
counties with NMP sites.
• The vehicle-per-person ratios for all six sites were among the highest for all NMP
sites.
• The traffic volume near GPCO is also considerably higher than the traffic volume
near the Garfield County sites. While the traffic volume near GPCO is in the
bottom-third compared to other NMP sites, the traffic volumes near the Garfield
County sites were among the lowest. The traffic estimate for GPCO came from
Business-70 between 5th and 7th Streets; from the junction of County Roads 331 and
326 for BRCO; from County Road 215 (approaching 1-70) for PACO; from the
junction of US-6 and Highway 13 for RICO; and just south of the intersection of
County Roads 323 and 320 for RUCO. Traffic data were not available for MOCO.
• The Grand Junction area VMT was the lowest among urban areas with NMP sites.
The Garfield County sites are not in an urban area and therefore no VMT is available.
8-13
-------
8.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Colorado on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
8.2.1 Climate Summary
Grand Junction is located in a mountain valley on the west side of the Rockies. The
valley location of the city helps protect it from dramatic weather changes. The area tends to be
rather dry and winds tend to flow out of the east-southeast on average, due to the valley breeze
effect (Bair, 1992). Valley breezes occur as the sun heats up the side of a mountain; the warm air
rises, creating a current that will move up the valley walls (Boubel, et al., 1994).
The towns of Parachute, Rifle, Rulison, and Silt are located to the northeast of Grand
Junction, across the county line and along 1-70. These towns are located along a river valley
running north of the Grand Mesa. Similar to Grand Junction, these towns are shielded from
drastic changes in weather by the surrounding terrain and tend to experience fairly dry conditions
for most of the year. Wind patterns in these towns are affected by the high canyons, the Colorado
River, and valley breezes (WRCC, 2011).
8.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather stations nearest these sites were
retrieved for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The NWS weather station nearest
GPCO is located at Walker Field Airport (WBAN 23066); the closest weather station to the five
Garfield County sites is located at Garfield County Regional Airport (WBAN 03016). Additional
information about these weather stations is provided in Table 8-3. These data were used to
determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions
throughout the year(s).
8-14
-------
Table 8-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Colorado Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS
Station (WBAN
and Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
<°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Silt, Colorado - BRCO
Garfield Co.
Regional Airport
03016
(39.53, -107.73)
4.25
miles
316°
(NW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
Sample
Day
All
Year
62.7
±5.3
61.6
±2.3
65.5
±5.6
62.1
±2.2
47.3
±4.6
47.0
± 1.9
49.7
±4.9
47.6
±2.0
26.4
±3.0
26.0
± 1.2
27.3
±3.0
27.3
±1.3
37.5
±3.4
37.2
±1.4
38.9
±3.5
37.9
±1.4
51.6
±4.1
52.3
±1.9
50.7
±4.6
53.3
±1.8
1016.6
±2.1
1016.5
±0.9
1016.7
±2.1
1016.3
±0.8
4.2
±0.5
4.0
±0.2
4.1
±0.5
4.2
±0.2
Grand Junction, Colorado - GPCO
Walker Field
Airport
23066
(39.12, -108.54)
4.95
miles
22°
(NNE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
Sample
Day
All
Year
63.3
±5.4
64.0
±2.3
64.4
±5.4
64.6
±2.3
50.9
±4.9
51.7
±2.1
51.5
±5.0
52.2
±2.1
25.3
±2.6
25.3
±1.2
27.5
±3.0
27.8
±1.3
38.9
±3.2
39.4
± 1.4
39.8
±3.5
40.4
± 1.5
45.4
±5.2
44.6
±2.3
47.3
±4.9
46.6
±2.1
1015.0
±2.2
1015.0
±0.9
1015.0
±2.0
1014.9
±0.9
6.2
±0.7
5.9
±0.3
5.9
±0.6
6.0
±0.3
Brock Ranch, Rifle, Colorado - MOCO
Garfield Co.
Regional Airport
03016
(39.53, -107.73)
3.40
miles
48°
(NE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
Sample
Day
All
Year
62.7
±5.3
61.6
±2.3
40.8
±3.2
62.1
±2.2
47.2
±4.7
47.0
±1.9
28.8
±4.3
47.6
±2.0
26.3
±3.1
26.0
±1.2
19.5
±4.5
27.3
±1.3
37.4
±3.4
37.2
±1.4
25.4
±4.0
37.9
±1.4
51.6
±4.1
52.3
±1.9
70.2
±5.0
53.3
±1.8
1016.6
±2.1
1016.5
±0.9
1023.0
±7.7
1016.3
±0.8
4.2
±0.5
4.0
±0.2
2.6
±1.0
4.2
±0.2
oo
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
Table 8-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Closest NWS
Station (WBAN
and Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
<°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Parachute, Colorado - PACO
Garfield Co.
Regional Airport
03016
(39.53, -107.73)
17.19
miles
81°
(E)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
Sample
Day
All
Year
62.2
±5.5
61.6
±2.3
65.9
±5.6
62.1
±2.2
46.9
±4.8
47.0
± 1.9
50.1
±5.0
47.6
±2.0
26.2
±3.2
26.0
± 1.2
27.5
±3.0
27.3
±1.3
37.1
±3.5
37.2
±1.4
39.2
±3.5
37.9
±1.4
52.0
±4.2
52.3
±1.9
50.2
±4.6
53.3
±1.8
1016.8
±2.1
1016.5
±0.9
1016.5
±2.2
1016.3
±0.8
4.1
±0.5
4.0
±0.2
4.1
±0.5
4.2
±0.2
Rifle, Colorado - RICO
Garfield Co.
Regional Airport
03016
(39.53, -107.73)
2.86
miles
105°
(ESE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
Sample
Day
All
Year
63.1
±5.3
61.6
±2.3
64.4
±5.2
62.1
±2.2
47.7
±4.6
47.0
±1.9
48.9
±4.7
47.6
±2.0
26.7
±3.0
26.0
±1.2
26.9
±2.8
27.3
±1.3
37.8
±3.3
37.2
±1.4
38.4
±3.2
37.9
±1.4
51.5
±4.1
52.3
±1.9
51.0
±4.3
53.3
±1.8
1016.4
±2.1
1016.5
±0.9
1016.4
±2.0
1016.3
±0.8
4.2
±0.5
4.0
±0.2
4.1
±0.5
4.2
±0.2
Rulison, Colorado - RUCO
Garfield Co.
Regional Airport
03016
(39.53, -107.73)
10.91
miles
83°
(E)
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
66.3
±5.6
62.1
±2.2
50.4
±5.0
47.6
±2.0
27.2
±3.1
27.3
±1.3
39.2
±3.5
37.9
±1.4
49.2
±4.4
53.3
±1.8
1016.1
±2.0
1016.3
±0.8
4.2
±0.5
4.2
±0.2
oo
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
Table 8-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 8-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 8-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days near each site were fairly representative of
average weather conditions throughout the year, with one exception. MOCO stopped sampling in
February 2009; thus only sample days in the colder and drier months of the year are included in
the 2009 sample day average. This explains the difference in several of the meteorological
parameters for MOCO in 2009.
8.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 8-9 and Figure 8-10 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the GPCO monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 8-11
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red.
Figures 8-12 through 8-25 are the composite and cluster back trajectory maps for the Garfield
County monitoring sites. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were generated is
presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory
along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the
cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of
trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the sites in Figures 8-9 through 8-25
represents 100 miles.
8-17
-------
Figure 8-9. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPCO
Figure 8-10. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPCO
8-18
-------
Figure 8-11. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for GPCO
Figure 8-12. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BRCO
8-19
-------
Figure 8-13. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BRCO
Figure 8-14. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for BRCO
8-20
-------
Figure 8-15. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MOCO
Figure 8-16. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MOCO
8-21
-------
Figure 8-17. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for MOCO
Figure 8-18. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PACO
8-22
-------
Figure 8-19. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PACO
Figure 8-20. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for PACO
8-23
-------
Figure 8-21. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RICO
Figure 8-22. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RICO
8-24
-------
Figure 8-23. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for RICO
Figure 8-24. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RUCO
8-25
-------
Figure 8-25. 2009 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for RUCO
Observations for GPCO from Figures 8-9 through 8-11 include the following:
• The 24-hour air shed domain for GPCO was smaller than many other NMP
monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was over the Mojave
Desert of California, or greater than 450 miles away. However, most trajectories
(77 percent) originated within 200 miles of GPCO and the average trajectory length
was 150 miles.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at GPCO, although many of
them had a westerly component.
• The cluster analysis shows that back trajectories frequently originated from the
northwest, west, and southwest. Shorter back trajectories originating from the south
were also common. The 2008 cluster originating to the southeast (labeled 22 percent)
represented several relatively short back trajectories originating from the east,
southeast, and east. Similarly, the 2009 cluster originating to the northeast (labeled
19 percent) represented several relatively short back trajectories originating from the
north, northeast, and east.
Observations from Figures 8-12 through 8-25 for the Garfield County sites include the
following:
• The composite back trajectory maps for the Garfield County sites resemble the ones
for GPCO. This is expected, given the sites' close proximity to GPCO.
8-26
-------
• The 24-hour air shed domains were among the smallest in size compared to other
NMP sites, with longest trajectories originating over central Arizona, or less than
450 miles away. The average back trajectory length ranged from 140 (RUCO) to
160 (MOCO) miles for the Garfield County sites.
• Most of the back trajectories had a westerly component, as confirmed by the cluster
analysis maps.
8.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at the Walker Field Airport (for GPCO)
and Garfield County Regional Airport (for BRCO, MOCO, PACO, RICO, and RUCO) were
uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in
Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned
around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 8-26 presents five different wind roses for the GPCO monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figures 8-27 through 8-31 present the different wind roses for the Garfield
County monitoring sites.
Observations from Figure 8-26 for GPCO include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that easterly, east-southeasterly, and southeasterly
winds were prevalent near GPCO. Calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed for
approximately 20 percent of the hourly wind measurements.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind roses exhibit similar wind patterns as the historical wind
rose. Further, the sample day wind patterns for each year also resemble the historical
and full-year wind patterns, indicating that conditions on sample days were
representative of those experienced over the entire year and historically.
8-27
-------
Figure 8-26. Wind Roses for the Walker Field Airport Weather Station near GPCO
oo
to
oo
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Calm; 10 •54"i.
2009 Sample Day
Calms 2272%
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 8-27. Wind Roses for the Garfield County Regional Airport near BRCO
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
oo
to
VO
2008 Wind Rose
1998 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 8-28. Wind Roses for the Garfield County Regional Airport near MOCO
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
oo
o
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
n 4.
Calms: 40.7B%
1998-2007
C^lms: 3S.4114
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
n 4.
C aln-,5 5D GO':!.
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 8-29. Wind Roses for the Garfield County Regional Airport near PACO
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
oo
2008 Wind Rose
1998 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
a I"
Calms: 41.05%
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 8-30. Wind Roses for the Garfield County Regional Airport near RICO
oo
OJ
to
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
n 4.7
Calm; -0 OQ"i,
1998 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
IWEST: I -
2009 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots J
Calms: 41.64%
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
n 4.7
-------
Figure 8-31. Wind Roses for the Garfield County Regional Airport near RUCO
1998 - 2007
oo
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
n 4-7
Calms: 41.64%
2009 Sample Day
n 4.7
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figures 8-27 through 8-31 for the Garfield County sites include the
following:
• The wind roses for the Garfield County sites are nearly identical to each other. This is
expected given that the wind observations came from the same NWS weather station
for all five sites.
• The historical wind roses show that calm winds were prevalent (38 percent of
observations) near these five monitoring sites. Westerly and southerly winds were
also common.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind roses exhibit similar wind patterns as the historical wind
rose. Further, the sample day wind patterns for each year also resemble the historical
and full-year wind patterns, indicating that conditions on sample days were
representative of those experienced over the entire year and historically. Even
MOCO's 2009 sample day wind rose exhibits the calm, westerly, and southerly wind
direction tendencies, even though only sample days in January and February are
included.
• RUCO does not have 2008 or 2008 sample day wind roses in Figure 8-31 because
sampling did not begin until 2009.
8.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Colorado monitoring sites in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated
risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
8-34
-------
Table 8-4 presents the pollutants of interest for each Colorado monitoring site. The
pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens
for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of
interest are shaded and/or bolded. GPCO sampled for VOC, carbonyls, PAH, and hexavalent
chromium; the Garfield County sites sampled for SNMOC and carbonyls only.
Table 8-4. Risk Screening Results for the Colorado Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Silt, Colorado - BRCO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes
0.13
0.077
0.45
0.4
0.033
10
Total
116
57
46
14
7
1
241
116
57
57
114
10
116
470
100.00
100.00
80.70
12.28
70.00
0.86
51.28
48.13
23.65
19.09
5.81
2.90
0.41
48.13
71.78
90.87
96.68
99.59
100.00
Grand Junction, Colorado - GPCO
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dichloromethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Hexavalent Chromium
Xylenes
0.45
0.077
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.029
0.17
0.4
0.015
0.00091
2.1
0.038
0.0017
0.091
0.000083
10
Total
123
123
120
117
116
98
93
61
31
13
13
7
2
1
1
1
920
123
123
120
120
120
106
119
120
31
72
120
7
2
80
65
120
1,448
100.00
100.00
100.00
97.50
96.67
92.45
78.15
50.83
100.00
18.06
10.83
100.00
100.00
1.25
1.54
0.83
63.54
13.37
13.37
13.04
12.72
12.61
10.65
10.11
6.63
3.37
1.41
1.41
0.76
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.11
13.37
26.74
39.78
52.50
65.11
75.76
85.87
92.50
95.87
97.28
98.70
99.46
99.67
99.78
99.89
100.00
8-35
-------
Table 8-4. Risk Screening Results for the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Brock Ranch, Rifle, Colorado - MOCO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
0.13
0.077
0.45
0.4
0.033
Total
66
30
27
5
1
129
66
30
30
64
o
J
193
100.00
100.00
90.00
7.81
33.33
66.84
51.16
23.26
20.93
3.88
0.78
51.16
74.42
95.35
99.22
100.00
Parachute, Colorado - PACO
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes
0.13
0.4
0.077
0.45
0.033
10
Total
117
64
59
56
48
5
349
117
116
59
59
53
117
521
100.00
55.17
100.00
94.92
90.57
4.27
66.99
33.52
18.34
16.91
16.05
13.75
1.43
33.52
51.86
68.77
84.81
98.57
100.00
Rifle, Colorado - RICO
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Xylenes
0.13
0.033
0.4
0.45
0.077
10
Total
121
94
76
60
60
o
J
414
121
95
121
60
60
121
578
100.00
98.95
62.81
100.00
100.00
2.48
71.63
29.23
22.71
18.36
14.49
14.49
0.72
29.23
51.93
70.29
84.78
99.28
100.00
Rulison, Colorado - RUCO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
0.13
0.077
0.45
0.4
0.033
Total
52
24
23
18
6
123
52
24
24
53
13
166
100.00
100.00
95.83
33.96
46.15
74.10
42.28
19.51
18.70
14.63
4.88
42.28
61.79
80.49
95.12
100.00
8-36
-------
Observations from Table 8-4 include the following:
• Sixteen pollutants failed at least one screen for GPCO, of which nine are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes.
• Nine pollutants were initially identified as pollutants of interest for GPCO based on
the risk screening process, of which seven are NATTS MQO Core Analytes.
Benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent chromium were added to GPCO's pollutants of
interest, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of GPCO's total failed
screens. Three additional NATTS MQO Core Analytes were also added to GPCO's
pollutants of interest, although they are not shown in Table 8-4 because their
concentrations did not fail any screens: chloroform, trichloroethylene, and vinyl
chloride.
• The number of pollutants failing screens for the Garfield County sites ranged from
five to six. Five pollutants (1,3-butadiene, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, and
acetaldehyde) failed screens for each Garfield County site. Three pollutants (benzene,
formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde) were identified as pollutants of interest for all five
sites. While 1,3-butadiene did fail screens for BRCO, MOCO, and RUCO, it did not
contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens, but was added to the pollutants of
interest due to its NATTS MQO Core Analyte classification.
• Note that carbonyl compound samples were collected on a l-in-12 day sampling
schedule at the Garfield County sites, while SNMOC were collected on a l-in-6 day
sampling schedule; thus there are roughly half the number of samples of carbonyl
compounds than SNMOC.
• Benzene and formaldehyde failed 100 percent of screens for all six Colorado sites.
8.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Colorado monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each Colorado monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages
for select pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize
concentration trends at the sites, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries
are provided in Appendices J through O.
8-37
-------
8.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Colorado site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all
non-detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros
for non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly
averages could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to
85 percent. Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 8-5, where applicable.
Note that concentrations of the PAH, metals, and hexavalent chromium for GPCO are presented
in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations for GPCO from Table 8-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde (4.11 ± 0.29 |ig/m3 in 2008 and 4.02 ± 0.27 |ig/m3 in 2009) and
acetaldehyde (2.49 ± 0.22 |ig/m3 in 2008 and 2.90 ± 0.22 |ig/m3 in 2009).
• The 2008 daily average concentration of acrylonitrile (2.38 ±4.19 |ig/m3) was
significantly higher than its 2009 daily average concentration (0.28 ±0.11 |ig/m3),
although the very large confidence interval for 2008 raises questions about outliers.
This pollutant was detected only three times in 2008 and its measurements ranged
from 0.163 to 5.52 |ig/m3. In 2009, this pollutant was detected 28 times and its
measurements ranged from 0.09 to 1.29 |ig/m3. Note that most quarterly averages and
no annual averages could be calculated for this pollutant due to the low detection rate.
• Benzene was the only other pollutant of interest for GPCO with a daily average
concentration greater than 1 |ig/m3.
• In 2008, formaldehyde concentrations were highest during third quarter of the year.
While this appears to be true for 2009 as well, the difference is not statistically
significant for 2009.
8-38
-------
Table 8-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Colorado
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Grand Junction, Colorado - GPCO
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Hexavalent Chromium3
Naphthalene3
2.49
±0.22
2.38
±4.19
1.62
±0.22
0.15
±0.03
0.65
±0.06
0.10
±0.02
0.48
±0.07
4.11
±0.29
0.33
±0.07
0.09
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
0.27
±0.14
0.03
±0.03
111.88
± 28.42
2.01
±0.37
NA
1.70
±0.40
0.18
±0.07
0.56
±0.12
0.08
±0.01
0.43
±0.12
3.83
±0.51
0.30
±0.10
0.02
±0.02
NA
NR
0.01
±0.01
NR
2.09
±0.38
NA
1.12
±0.17
0.08
±0.02
0.66
±0.12
0.09
±0.01
0.32
±0.06
3.47
±0.60
0.29
±0.17
NA
NA
0.04
±0.02
0.01
±0.01
91.31
± 22.79
2.97
±0.34
NA
1.44
±0.31
0.11
±0.04
0.74
±0.13
0.13
±0.06
0.55
±0.14
5.13
±0.54
0.28
±0.10
NA
NA
NA
0.07
±0.12
66.47
±27.16
2.93
±0.52
NA
2.21
±0.63
0.21
±0.07
0.66
±0.13
0.11
±0.01
0.61
±0.20
4.00
±0.44
0.44
±0.18
NA
NA
0.42
±0.22
0.01
±0.01
177.85
±69.38
2.49
±0.22
NA
1.62
±0.22
0.15
±0.03
0.65
±0.06
0.10
±0.02
0.48
±0.07
4.11
±0.29
0.33
±0.07
NA
NA
NA
0.02
±0.02
111.88
± 28.42
2.90
±0.22
0.28
±0.11
1.94
±0.32
0.16
±0.04
0.59
±0.05
0.12
±0.01
0.53
±0.10
4.02
±0.27
0.43
±0.09
0.11
±0.02
0.02
±0.01
0.44
±0.15
0.02
±0.01
198.42
± 26.68
3.12
±0.74
0.10
±0.05
2.78
±0.59
0.23
±0.08
0.51
±0.08
0.09
±0.02
0.75
±0.25
4.31
±0.55
0.60
±0.24
0.09
±0.04
NA
0.55
±0.27
NA
250.09
±75.46
2.87
±0.40
0.12
±0.07
1.28
±0.21
0.09
±0.02
0.55
±0.10
0.11
±0.02
0.38
±0.07
3.97
±0.48
0.26
±0.07
0.04
±0.03
NA
0.04
±0.02
NA
143.05
±32.34
2.96
±0.27
NA
1.63
±0.89
0.13
±0.08
0.65
±0.12
0.14
±0.02
0.46
±0.27
4.61
±0.44
0.36
±0.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
162.2
±35.92
2.65
±0.44
NA
2.15
±0.50
0.21
±0.07
0.65
±0.11
0.14
±0.02
0.56
±0.12
3.06
±0.42
0.51
±0.22
0.07
±0.05
NA
0.70
±0.27
0.01
±0.01
236.69
±52.12
2.90
±0.22
NA
1.94
±0.32
0.16
±0.04
0.59
±0.05
0.12
±0.01
0.53
±0.10
4.02
±0.27
0.43
±0.09
0.06
±0.02
NA
0.34
±0.12
NA
198.42
± 26.68
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 8-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Colorado
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Silt, Colorado - BRCO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
0.83
±0.13
1.34
±0.46
0.04
±0.01
0.27
±0.15
1.01
±0.14
0.92
±0.37
1.87
±0.52
NA
0.24
±0.06
1.14
±0.37
0.83
±0.24
0.75
±0.15
NA
0.15
±0.04
0.92
±0.20
1.00
±0.26
1.74
±1.91
NA
0.51
±0.62
1.25
±0.27
0.61
±0.22
1.33
±0.39
NA
0.19
±0.06
0.75
±0.21
0.83
±0.13
1.34
±0.46
NA
0.26
±0.14
1.01
±0.14
0.79
±0.13
1.39
±0.27
0.05
±0.04
0.24
±0.05
1.37
±0.73
NA
2.13
±0.65
NA
0.39
±0.16
NA
0.66
±0.30
1.32
±0.49
NA
0.27
±0.15
0.82
±0.25
1.08
±0.17
0.78
±0.16
NA
0.16
±0.05
1.46
±0.12
NA
1.58
±0.68
NA
0.20
±0.07
NA
NA
1.39
±0.27
NA
0.24
±0.05
NA
Brock Ranch, Rifle, Colorado - MOCO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
0.79
±0.12
0.94
±0.11
0.05
±0.01
1.06
±0.14
NA
1.22
±0.29
NA
NA
0.84
±0.17
0.68
±0.14
NA
1.07
±0.16
NA
0.93
±0.19
NA
NA
NA
0.94
±0.23
NA
NA
NA
0.94
±0.11
NA
NA
0.79
±0.20
1.96
± 1.21
0.03
±0.01
1.13
±0.30
NA
1.96
±1.21
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
Parachute, Colorado - PACO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
1.11
±0.14
2.31
±0.44
0.10
±0.03
NA
2.81
±1.03
0.09
±0.03
1.12
±0.25
1.63
±0.49
NA
NA
2.02
±0.50
NA
0.95
±0.35
2.83
±1.31
0.09
±0.05
NA
2.31
±0.44
NA
0.99
±0.15
2.70
±0.49
0.21
±0.28
NA
4.50
±1.62
0.08
±0.03
0.79
±0.24
2.23
±0.56
NA
1.16
±0.29
1.93
±0.45
NA
NA
2.57
±0.85
NA
NA
2.70
±0.49
NA
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 8-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Colorado Monitoring
Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.59
±0.13
1.74
±0.18
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.54
±0.17
NA
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.41
±0.13
1.55
±0.24
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.55
±0.23
NA
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.86
±0.42
1.66
±0.40
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.59
±0.13
NA
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.45
±0.08
1.73
±0.22
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.76
±0.29
NA
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.35
±0.09
1.52
±0.43
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.36
±0.09
2.03
±0.26
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.37
±0.11
NA
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.44
±0.08
NA
Rifle, Colorado - RICO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
1.56
±0.21
1.69
±0.21
0.15
±0.03
0.48
±0.06
1.89
±0.28
NA
2.10
±0.60
0.15
±0.05
0.51
±0.13
NA
1.61
±0.43
1.05
±0.20
0.05
±0.02
0.32
±0.06
1.68
±0.34
1.71
±0.51
1.65
±0.26
0.08
±0.03
0.54
±0.07
1.98
±0.54
1.40
±0.47
2.02
±0.45
0.20
±0.06
0.56
±0.14
2.00
±0.83
1.56
±0.21
1.69
±0.21
0.12
±0.03
0.48
±0.06
1.89
±0.28
1.40
±0.20
2.23
±0.36
0.14
±0.03
0.56
±0.08
1.68
±0.20
NA
3.44
±1.19
0.22
±0.06
0.83
±0.26
NA
0.94
±0.24
1.93
±0.62
0.08
±0.02
0.41
±0.11
1.24
±0.25
1.75
±0.35
1.49
±0.29
0.08
±0.02
0.49
±0.09
2.05
±0.23
1.62
±0.24
2.25
±0.57
0.07
±0.05
0.52
±0.11
1.91
±0.34
1.40
±0.20
2.23
±0.36
0.11
±0.02
0.56
±0.08
1.68
±0.20
Rulison, Colorado - RUCO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.27
±0.24
2.43
±0.37
0.05
±0.02
0.38
±0.08
1.21
±0.14
NA
2.66
±0.95
NA
0.62
±0.39
NA
1.26
±0.52
2.01
±0.54
NA
0.28
±0.10
0.97
±0.10
1.80
±0.28
2.16
±0.74
NA
0.38
±0.09
1.62
±0.15
NA
2.66
±0.74
NA
0.33
±0.08
NA
NA
2.39
±0.37
NA
0.38
±0.08
NA
oo
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
• The third quarter 2008 hexavalent chromium concentration is relatively high
compared to other quarterly averages and has a large confidence interval, indicating
the presence of outliers. A review of the data shows that the highest hexavalent
chromium concentration was measured on July 5, 2008. As discussed in Section
4.1.2, this was the highest hexavalent chromium concentration measured for any site
sampling this pollutant over the 2-year period. Yet, the 2008 daily average
concentration for this site ranked 14th highest among all NMP sites sampling this
pollutant.
• Concentrations of naphthalene appear higher during the colder months. A closer look
at the first quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarters of both years shows rather large
confidence intervals associated with these averages. A review of the data shows that
the two highest concentrations of naphthalene were measured on January 13, 2009
(523 ng/m3) and November 17, 2008 (499 ng/m3). Further, of the 15 concentrations of
naphthalene greater than 300 ng/m3 measured at this site, all but one were measured
in one of these three quarters (two in the fourth quarter of 2008, four in the first
quarter of 2009, and eight in the fourth quarter of 2009).
• Benzo(a)pyrene concentrations for the fourth quarter of 2008 and first and fourth
quarters of 2009 also have large confidence intervals. A review of the data shows that
the highest concentration of this pollutant was measured on the same day as the
highest concentration of naphthalene. The highest benzo(a)pyrene concentration was
measured at GPCO on January 13, 2009 (1.72 ng/m3). Of the 11 benzo(a)pyrene
concentrations greater than 1 ng/m3, all were measured in one of these three quarters
(three in the fourth quarter of 2008, two in the first quarter of 2009, and six in the
fourth quarter of 2009).
• Several quarterly averages could not be calculated for trichloroethylene,
benzo(a)pyrene, hexavalent chromium, and vinyl chloride because there were not
enough detects for quarterly averages to be calculated. In addition, PAH sampling at
GPCO began in April 2008; thus first quarter 2008 averages could not be calculated.
Observations for the Garfield County sites from Table 8-5 include the following:
• With the exception of RUCO, benzene and formaldehyde had the highest daily
average concentrations by mass for each of the Garfield County sites for each year.
Daily average concentrations of formaldehyde ranged from 1.00 ± 0.14 |ig/m3 for
BRCO (2008) to 1.89 ± 0.28 |ig/m3 for RICO (2008). Daily average concentrations of
benzene ranged from 0.94 ± 0.11 |ig/m3 for MOCO (2008) to 2.70 ± 0.49 |ig/m3 for
PACO (2009). For RUCO, benzene and acetaldehyde were the pollutants with the
highest daily average concentrations (although formaldehyde was not much lower
than acetaldehyde).
• The third quarter 2008 average concentrations of benzene and ethylbenzene for
BRCO have very large confidence intervals, indicating that these averages are
influenced by outliers. The concentration of benzene measured on July 29, 2008
8-42
-------
(13.7 |ig/m3) was nearly three times higher than the next highest benzene
concentration measured at BRCO, the highest benzene concentration measured
among all the Garfield County sites, and the fourth highest benzene concentration
measured among NMP sites. Similarly, the ethylbenzene concentration measured on
July 29, 2008 at BRCO (4.35 |ig/m3) was more than three times higher than the next
highest concentration measured at BRCO, the highest ethylbenzene concentration
measured among all the Garfield County sites, and the fifth highest ethylbenzene
concentration measured among NMP sites.
• Few quarterly averages could be calculated for MOCO due to a combination of a
l-in-12 day sampling schedule (for carbonyls), a low detection rate (for
1,3-butadiene), a first quarter 2009 end date to sampling, and a completeness below
85 percent for SNMOC in 2009. But among those that could be calculated, the first
quarter 2009 average concentration of benzene has a large confidence interval,
indicating that this average is influenced by outliers. The two highest concentrations
of benzene were measured at this site on January 7, 2009 (4.72 |ig/m3) and
January 13, 2009 (3.14 |ig/m3).
• The first quarter 2009 average concentration of benzene for PACO appears
significantly higher than the other quarterly averages for this pollutant. The relatively
large confidence interval indicates that this average is influenced by outliers. Of the
10 highest measurements of benzene at PACO, five were collected during the first
quarter of 2009.
• The 2009 daily average concentration of 1,3-butadiene for PACO has a large
confidence interval, indicating that this average is influenced by outliers. The
1,3-butadiene concentration measured on December 27, 2009 (3.15 |ig/m3) was an
order of magnitude higher than the next highest concentration measured at this site,
and the highest concentration of this pollutant measured among all NMP sites.
• The first quarter 2009 average concentration of benzene for RICO appears
significantly higher than the other quarterly averages for this pollutant. The relatively
large confidence interval indicates that this average is influenced by outliers. The five
highest measurements of benzene from RICO were collected during the first quarter
of 2009.
• Because RUCO did not begin sampling until 2009, no 2008 averages are available.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for the Colorado sites from
those tables include the following:
• As shown in Tables 4-9 through 4-12, the daily average concentrations of eight
pollutants for GPCO were among the 10 highest average concentrations for all NMP
8-43
-------
sites. The 2008 daily average concentration of acrylonitrile for GPCO was the highest
among all NMP sites.
• As shown in Table 4-9, the Garfield County sites account for five of the 10 highest
daily average concentrations of benzene. PACO's 2008 and 2009 daily average
concentrations of benzene both appear in this table, ranking third (2009) and sixth
(2008). PACO also had one of the 10 highest daily average concentrations of
1,3-butadiene and ethylbenzene. None of the daily average concentrations of the
carbonyl compounds for the Garfield County sites appear in Table 4-10.
8.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. While the Garfield County sites have not sampled continuously for 5 years as part
of the NMP, GPCO has sampled carbonyl compounds and VOC since 2004 and hexavalent
chromium since 2005. Thus, Figures 8-32 through 8-36 present the 3-year rolling statistical
metrics for acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and hexavalent chromium for
GPCO, respectively. The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the
substitution of zeros for non-detects.
Observations from Figure 8-32 for acetaldehyde measurements at GPCO include the
following:
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured during the 2004-2006 time
frame, specifically 2004. The maximum concentrations measured in subsequent time
periods were significantly lower. The two highest acetaldehyde concentrations
(93 and 55 |ig/m3) were measured in 2004 and the six highest acetaldehyde
concentrations (ranging from 93 |ig/m3 to 6.35 |ig/m3) were all measured in 2004 and
2005.
• The 5th and 95th percentiles, the median and the average show relatively little
variation over time if the 2004-2006 time frame is excluded.
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 8-32, the rolling average and median values
became more similar to each other over the periods shown. This indicates decreasing
variability in the central tendency of acetaldehyde concentrations measured over the
periods shown.
8-44
-------
Figure 8-32. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at GPCO
-II
N
JO
,.„
w
II.
..„
M
10
JOW J006 JW1-JM7 /OOftJOOe
T)««->«w^rtod
Figure 8-33. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations
Measured at GPCO
*
Thi •«-••• f>i irH
^*F>0,r.,nlr -•-AMnfT
8-45
-------
Figure 8-34. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at GPCO
I.'
—
lattiaa, J»4JM7 :im.. .H.K.
nm»YMr*HM
JH7.2M»
Figure 8-35. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at GPCO
8-46
-------
Figure 8-36. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at GPCO
It
_*«
JOOVIDO
f • SANiwUfe
I J0«
- UMnum - II,, h,,,
>
•• -•"HH
m« j«i
vMhd
- M^nu. . VMfwwtfc
rn
M
tM»
---#-- As^fib^
Observations from Figure 8-33 for benzene measurements at GPCO include the
following:
• The maximum benzene concentration was measured on December 11, 2004. The
maximum concentrations measured in subsequent years were much lower until
July 9, 2009, when a similar concentration was measured.
• The 5th and 95th percentiles and the median have decreased slightly over time. The
rolling average decreased as well, but increased slightly during the final 3-year
period, primarily as a result of the high concentration measured in 2009 (if this
concentration was removed from consideration, the average would continue its slight
decreasing trend).
• The minimum concentration was greater than zero for all 3-year time periods,
indicating that there were no non-detects reported for benzene over the period of
sampling.
8-47
-------
Observations from Figure 8-34 for 1,3-butadiene measurements at GPCO include the
following:
• Similar to benzene, the maximum 1,3-butadiene concentration was measured on
December 11, 2004. The maximum concentrations measured in subsequent time
periods were lower.
• The rolling average concentrations appear to have a slight decreasing trend; however,
confidence intervals calculated from the individual concentrations show that this
decrease is not statistically significant.
• In addition to the rolling average, the median and 95th percentile also exhibit a
decreasing trend in concentrations.
• Conversely, the 5th percentile increased for 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 and the
minimum concentration increased for 2007-2009. The number of non-detects
decreased from approximately 30 percent in 2004 and 2005, to eight percent in 2006,
and none in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Observations from Figure 8-35 for formaldehyde measurements at GPCO include the
following:
• The trends graph for formaldehyde resembles the graph for acetaldehyde in that the
maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured in 2004. The three highest
concentrations of formaldehyde were measured on the same days as the three highest
acetaldehyde concentrations. The maximum concentrations in subsequent time
periods were significantly lower.
• Unlike acetaldehyde, the rolling average formaldehyde concentrations (as well as
several other statistical parameters) have a slight increasing trend.
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 8-35, the rolling average and median became
more similar to each other over the periods shown. This indicates decreasing
variability in the central tendency.
Observations from Figure 8-36 for hexavalent chromium measurements at GPCO include
the following:
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured on July 5, 2008
(0.685 ng/m3). Only two measurements from GPCO are greater than 0.1 ng/m3, with
the other being measured on August 9, 2006 (0.113 ng/m3), which is the maximum
concentration shown for the 2005-2007 time period.
• The rolling average concentrations of hexavalent chromium exhibit a slight
decreasing trend, although the confidence intervals calculated on the dataset are
8-48
-------
relatively wide due, at least in part, to the maximum concentrations. However, the
median concentrations also show a decreasing trend, and this parameter is influenced
less by outliers.
• Both the minimum concentration and 5th percentile for all three 3-year periods shown
are zero, indicating the presence of non-detects. The percentage of non-detects has
been increasing for each year of sampling at GPCO.
8.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Colorado monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
8.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Colorado monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
for each site were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the
intermediate MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the
measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the
Colorado monitoring sites were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk
benchmarks.
8.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Colorado monitoring sites and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk estimates approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria
for annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 8-6, where applicable.
8-49
-------
Table 8-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Colorado Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Silt, Colorado - BRCO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
0.0000022
0.0000078
0.00003
0.0000025
0.000013
0.009
0.03
0.002
1
0.0098
31/4
59/4
3/0
57/4
31/4
0.83
±0.13
1.34
±0.46
NA
0.26
±0.14
1.01
±0.14
1.83
10.46
NA
0.65
13.09
0.09
0.04
NA
<0.01
0.10
26/2
57/4
7/0
57/4
26/2
NA
1.39
±0.27
NA
0.24
±0.05
NA
NA
10.87
NA
0.61
NA
NA
0.05
NA
<0.01
NA
Grand Junction, Colorado - GPCO
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrenea
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0000078
0.001
0.00003
0.000006
0.009
0.002
0.03
_
0.002
0.1
0.098
61/4
3/0
61/4
26/2
61/4
61/4
59/4
2.49
±0.22
NA
1.62
±0.22
NA
0.15
±0.03
0.65
±0.06
0.10
±0.02
5.48
NA
12.62
NA
4.37
3.91
0.28
NA
0.05
_
0.07
0.01
<0.01
62/4
28/2
59/4
46/3
59/4
59/4
58/4
2.90
±0.22
NA
1.94
±0.32
<0.01
±0.01
0.16
±0.04
0.59
±0.05
0.12
±0.01
6.37
NA
15.11
0.34
4.85
3.56
0.32
NA
0.06
_
0.08
0.01
<0.01
oo
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 8-5.
-------
Table 8-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium3
Naphthalene3
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0000025
0.000013
0.012
0.000034
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
1
0.0098
0.0001
0.003
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
61/4
61/4
40/4
45/3
60/4
17/1
6/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.48
±0.07
4.11
±0.29
0.01
±0.01
0.11
±0.03
0.33
±0.07
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
1.19
53.37
0.24
3.80
1.94
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
O.01
0.42
0.00
0.04
0.00
NA
NA
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
59/4
62/4
25/1
61/4
59/4
30/3
12/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.53
±0.10
4.02
±0.27
NA
0.20
±0.03
0.43
±0.09
0.06
±0.02
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
1.33
52.20
NA
6.75
2.51
0.12
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
O.01
0.41
NA
0.07
0.01
O.01
NA
Brock Ranch, Rifle, Colorado - MOCO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
0.0000022
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000013
0.009
0.03
0.002
0.0098
27/1
59/4
1/0
27/1
NA
0.94
±0.11
NA
NA
NA
7.30
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
3/0
7/1
2/0
3/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Parachute, Colorado - PACO
Acetaldehyde
0.0000022
0.009
29/2
NA
NA
NA
30/2
NA
NA
NA
oo
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
3 For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 8-5.
-------
Table 8-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0000078
0.00003
0.0000025
0.000013
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.03
0.002
1
0.0098
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
59/4
31/2
59/4
29/2
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2.31
±0.44
NA
0.59
±0.13
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
18.00
NA
1.47
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.08
NA
O.01
NA
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
58/4
22/1
57/4
30/2
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2.70
±0.49
NA
0.44
±0.08
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
21.03
NA
1.11
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.09
NA
O.01
NA
Rifle, Colorado - RICO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
0.0000022
0.0000078
0.00003
0.0000025
0.000013
0.009
0.03
0.002
1
0.0098
31/3
60/4
49/4
60/4
31/3
1.56
±0.21
1.69
±0.21
0.12
±0.03
0.48
±0.06
1.89
±0.28
3.42
13.15
3.59
1.20
24.63
0.17
0.06
0.06
<0.01
0.19
29/3
61/4
46/4
61/4
29/3
1.40
±0.20
2.23
±0.36
0.11
±0.02
0.56
±0.08
1.68
±0.20
3.07
17.36
3.17
1.39
21.88
0.16
0.07
0.05
<0.01
0.17
Rulison, Colorado - RUCO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
0.0000022
0.0000078
0.00003
0.009
0.03
0.002
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
24/2
52/4
13/0
NA
2.39
±0.37
NA
NA
18.62
NA
NA
0.08
NA
oo
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 8-5.
-------
Table 8-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0000025
0.000013
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
1
0.0098
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NR
NR
Noncancer
(HQ)
NR
NR
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
53/4
24/2
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.38
±0.08
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.96
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
<0.01
NA
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 8-5.
oo
-------
Observations for GPCO from Table 8-6 include the following:
• Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene had the highest annual average
concentrations for GPCO for each year.
• Formaldehyde also had the highest cancer risk approximations for each year
(53.37 in-a-million for 2008 and 52.20 in-a-million for 2009). Benzene had the
second highest cancer risk approximations for each year (12.62 in-a-million for 2008
and 15.11 in-a-million for 2009). While acetaldehyde had the third highest cancer risk
approximations for 2008 (5.48 in-a-million), naphthalene had the third highest for
2009 (6.75 in-a-million).
• None of the pollutants of interest for GPCO had noncancer risk approximations
greater than 1.0. For both years, formaldehyde had the highest noncancer risk
approximation (0.42 for 2008 and 0.41 for 2009).
Observations for the Garfield County sites from Table 8-6 include the following:
• Annual averages, and thus cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations, could
not be calculated for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde for MOCO, PACO, and RUCO.
This is due to the l-in-12 day sampling schedule for these pollutants. Where annual
averages could be calculated for these pollutants (BRCO for 2008 and RICO for both
years), formaldehyde had the highest cancer risk approximations among the
pollutants of interest.
• For all sites except MOCO, benzene's cancer risk approximation was greater than
10 in-a-million, ranging from 10.46 in-a-million (BRCO, 2008) to 21.03 in-a-million
(PACO, 2009). PACO's 2009 benzene cancer risk approximation was the second
highest benzene cancer risk approximation compared to other NMP sites.
• None of the noncancer risk approximations calculated for the Garfield County sites
were greater than 1.0.
8-54
-------
8.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 8-7 and 8-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 8-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 8-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective monitoring site sampled. As discussed in
Section 8.3, GPCO sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, PAH, and hexavalent chromium;
the Garfield County sites sampled for SNMOC and carbonyl compounds only. In addition, the
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough
data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this
analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
8-55
-------
oo
Table 8-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Colorado Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Grand Junction, Colorado (Mesa County) - GPCO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
162.40
93.35
31.45
21.46
9.74
6.08
4.43
2.79
1.49
1.19
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
POM, Group 5
1.27E-03
1.17E-03
6.44E-04
2.94E-04
2.43E-04
2.08E-04
2.07E-04
6.92E-05
5.94E-05
3.10E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
53.37
52.20
15.11
12.62
6.75
6.37
5.48
4.85
4.37
3.91
Silt, Colorado (Garfield County) - BRCO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
348.74
258.65
56.30
12.66
6.06
4.64
4.21
2.72
0.28
0.25
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 5
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 6
Tetrachloroethylene
3.23E-03
2.72E-03
3.80E-04
2.55E-04
2.06E-04
1.24E-04
3.42E-05
2.00E-05
1.90E-05
1.61E-05
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
13.09
10.87
10.46
1.83
0.65
0.61
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
oo
Table 8-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Brock Ranch, Rifle, Colorado (Garfield County) - MOCO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
348.74
258.65
56.30
12.66
6.06
4.64
4.21
2.72
0.28
0.25
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 5
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 6
Tetrachloroethylene
3.23E-03
2.72E-03
3.80E-04
2.55E-04
2.06E-04
1.24E-04
3.42E-05
2.00E-05
1.90E-05
1.61E-05
Benzene 7.30
Parachute, Colorado (Garfield County) - PACO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
348.74
258.65
56.30
12.66
6.06
4.64
4.21
2.72
0.28
0.25
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 5
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 6
Tetrachloroethylene
3.23E-03
2.72E-03
3.80E-04
2.55E-04
2.06E-04
1.24E-04
3.42E-05
2.00E-05
1.90E-05
1.61E-05
Benzene 21.03
Benzene 18.00
Ethylbenzene 1.47
Ethylbenzene 1.11
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 8-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
oo
(!/i
oo
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Rifle, Colorado (Garfield County) - RICO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
348.74
258.65
56.30
12.66
6.06
4.64
4.21
2.72
0.28
0.25
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 5
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 6
Tetrachloroethylene
3.23E-03
2.72E-03
3.80E-04
2.55E-04
2.06E-04
1.24E-04
3.42E-05
2.00E-05
1.90E-05
1.61E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
24.63
21.88
17.36
13.15
3.59
3.42
3.17
3.07
1.39
1.20
Rulison, Colorado (Garfield County) - RUCO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
348.74
258.65
56.30
12.66
6.06
4.64
4.21
2.72
0.28
0.25
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 5
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 6
Tetrachloroethylene
3.23E-03
2.72E-03
3.80E-04
2.55E-04
2.06E-04
1.24E-04
3.42E-05
2.00E-05
1.90E-05
1.61E-05
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
18.62
0.96
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 8-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Colorado Monitoring Sites
oo
(!/i
VO
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Grand Junction, Colorado (Mesa County) - GPCO
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Methanol
Acetaldehyde
Hydrofluoric acid
Styrene
422.53
250.16
162.40
93.35
70.23
57.58
54.74
31.45
25.25
23.36
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Manganese, PM
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Arsenic, PM
Cyanide Compounds, gas
394,843.90
10,730.31
9,525.34
5,413.22
3,611.11
3,494.46
2,501.56
2,025.06
1,612.39
1,469.46
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Benzene
Naphthalene
0.42
0.41
0.32
0.28
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
Silt, Colorado (Garfield County) - BRCO
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acrolein
Methanol
1,3 -Butadiene
660.85
549.04
348.74
258.65
124.06
56.30
53.03
17.77
17.19
12.66
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Toluene
Hexane
Cyanide Compounds, gas
888,510.43
26,392.89
11,624.62
6,330.64
6,255.11
5,490.43
2,019.22
1,652.13
620.29
553.52
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.01
<0.01
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 8-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
oo
o
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Brock Ranch, Rifle, Colorado (Garfield County) - MOCO
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acrolein
Methanol
1,3 -Butadiene
660.85
549.04
348.74
258.65
124.06
56.30
53.03
17.77
17.19
12.66
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Toluene
Hexane
Cyanide Compounds, gas
888,510.43
26,392.89
11,624.62
6,330.64
6,255.11
5,490.43
2,019.22
1,652.13
620.29
553.52
Benzene 0.03
Parachute, Colorado (Garfield County) - PACO
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acrolein
Methanol
1,3 -Butadiene
660.85
549.04
348.74
258.65
124.06
56.30
53.03
17.77
17.19
12.66
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Toluene
Hexane
Cyanide Compounds, gas
888,510.43
26,392.89
11,624.62
6,330.64
6,255.11
5,490.43
2,019.22
1,652.13
620.29
553.52
Benzene 0.09
Benzene 0.08
Ethylbenzene <0.01
Ethylbenzene <0.01
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
oo
Table 8-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Colorado Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Rifle, Colorado (Garfield County) - RICO
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acrolein
Methanol
1,3 -Butadiene
660.85
549.04
348.74
258.65
124.06
56.30
53.03
17.77
17.19
12.66
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Toluene
Hexane
Cyanide Compounds, gas
888,510.43
26,392.89
11,624.62
6,330.64
6,255.11
5,490.43
2,019.22
1,652.13
620.29
553.52
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
Rulison, Colorado (Garfield County) - RUCO
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acrolein
Methanol
1,3 -Butadiene
660.85
549.04
348.74
258.65
124.06
56.30
53.03
17.77
17.19
12.66
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Toluene
Hexane
Cyanide Compounds, gas
888,510.43
26,392.89
11,624.62
6,330.64
6,255.11
5,490.43
2,019.22
1,652.13
620.29
553.52
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
0.08
0.01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 8-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in both Garfield and Mesa County, although the quantity emitted for
each pollutant was roughly twice as high in Garfield County than Mesa County.
• In Garfield County, the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of
the pollutants with cancer UREs) were formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene. In
Mesa County, the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with cancer UREs) were benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions in Garfield County while six of the highest emitted pollutants also had the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions in Mesa County.
• For GPCO, five of the six pollutants with the highest cancer risk approximations
(across both years) also appear on both emissions-based lists for Mesa County. For
the Garfield County sites, ethylbenzene is the only pollutant where cancer risk
approximations could be calculated and that did not appear on the emissions-based
lists for Garfield County.
• POM Group 2 was the seventh highest emitted "pollutant" in Mesa County and
ranked fifth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH
sampled for at GPCO including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for GPCO.
• Benzo(a)pyrene is included in POM Group 5. While this pollutant was not detected
frequently enough for annual averages to be calculated, and thus does not have cancer
risk approximations, it should be noted that POM Group 5 ranked 10th highest for
toxicity-weighted emissions in Mesa County.
• POM Groups 2, 5, and 6 appear on Garfield County's list of 10 highest toxicity-
weighted emissions (only POM Group 2 appears among the highest emitted). PAH
were not sampled at the Garfield County sites.
Observations from Table 8-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Mesa and Garfield County, although the emissions were higher in Garfield
County.
• The pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) for both counties was acrolein. Although acrolein was sampled for
at GPCO, this pollutant was excluded from the pollutants of interest designation, and
thus subsequent risk screening evaluations, due to questions about the consistency
8-62
-------
and reliability of the measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2. Behind acrolein,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and benzene were among the top four for each county,
although not necessarily in that order.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants in Mesa County also had the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions, while eight of the highest emitted pollutants in Garfield County
(including acrolein) also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, which is a
relatively high number of similar pollutants between these two emissions-based lists,
compared to other counties with NMP sites.
• Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene appear on all three lists for GPCO.
Additionally, 1,3-butadiene and naphthalene appear on the noncancer risk
approximation and toxicity-weighted lists, but neither pollutant is among the highest
emitted in Mesa County.
• With the exception of ethylbenzene, all of the pollutants on the noncancer risk
approximations lists for the Garfield County sites also appear on both emissions-
based lists. Although ethylbenzene is one of the highest emitted pollutants in Garfield
County, it is not among the most toxic.
8.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the Sites in Colorado
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Sixteen pollutants failed at least one screen for GPCO, while the number of pollutants
failing screens for the Garfield County sites ranged from five to six.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of interest, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration for GPCO (both years), MOCO (2008), and RICO (2008). Benzene had
the highest daily average concentration for BRCO (both years), MOCO (2009),
PACO (bothyears), RICO (2009) andRUCO (2009).
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
8-63
-------
9.0 Site in the District of Columbia
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Washington, D.C., and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
9.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Washington, D.C. monitoring site by providing
geographical and physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area.
This information is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the
air quality near the site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
Figure 9-1 is a composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the
monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 9-2 identifies point source emissions locations by
source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within
10 miles of the site are included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 9-2.
Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to
show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give
the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the site. Table 9-1 describes the area
surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
9-1
-------
Figure 9-1. Washington, B.C. (WADC) Monitoring Site
CO
PO
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale: 2 inches =1,719 feet
-------
Figure 9-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of WADC
.'e
Holt Duewf*clllyd
Source Category Group {No. of Facilities)
•f Aircraft Operations Facility (27)
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (2)
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (1)
•f Dry Cleaning Facility (1)
* Electricity Generation via Combustion {6)
i Etectroplatirig, Plating, Polishing. AixxJeing, and Coloring (2)
III Hospital (2)
® Institutional - school (3)
* Landfill (1)
? Miscellaneous Commercialflndijstnal Faculty (3)
M Miscellaneous Maniiacturing Industries Facility (3)
P Printing/PLfclishing Facility (9)
B FWp and Paper pigmWood Products Facility (1)
> Solid Waste Disposal - Commercial/Institutional Facility i;l i
9-3
-------
Table 9-1. Geographical Information for the Washington, D.C. Monitoring Site
Site
Code
WADC
AQS Code
11-001-0043
Location
Washington,
D.C.
County
District
Of
Columbia
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Washington-
Arlington-
Alexandria, DC-
VA-MD-WV MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
38.921847,
-77.013178
Land Use
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Arsenic, CO, VOC, S02, NOy, NO, N02, NOx,
PAMS, Carbonyl compounds, 03, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, PM2.5, PM10 Speciation, Black
carbon, PM Coarse, PM2.5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
CO
-------
Figure 9-1 shows that the WADC monitoring site is located in an open field at the
southeast of end of the McMillian Water Reservoir in Washington, D.C. It is also located near
several heavily traveled roadways. The site is located in a commercial area, and is surrounded by
a hospital, a cemetery, and a university. As Figure 9-2 shows, WADC is surrounded by relatively
few point sources, most of which are in the aircraft operations source category, which includes
airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads. Aside from aircraft operations,
printing and publishing and electricity generation via combustion are the most numerous source
categories within 10 miles of the WADC monitoring site. The two closest sources to WADC are
not visible in Figure 9-2 because the symbol for the site is covering them; they are Howard
University and D.C. General Hospital.
Table 9-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the
Washington, D.C. monitoring site. Information provided in Table 9-2 represents the most recent
year of sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. District-level vehicle registration and
population data were obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009a) and
the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 9-2 also includes a vehicle
registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition, the population within
10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle registration was calculated by
applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitoring site. Table 9-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information,
as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. Finally,
Table 9-2 presents the daily VMT for the Washington, D.C. urban area.
9-5
-------
Table 9-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Washington, D.C.
Monitoring Site
Site
WADC
Estimated
County
Population1
599,657
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
171,255
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.29
Population
Within 10
Miles3
1,860,974
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
531,472
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
7,600
VMT5
(thousands)
98,704
Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009a).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfmddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2008 data from the District DOT (DC DOT, 2008).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 9-2 include the following:
• Washington, D.C.'s population was in the middle of the range compared to all
counties with NMP sites. However, its 10-mile population was among the highest.
• The District-level vehicle registration was in the bottom third compared to all
counties with NMP sites, while its 10-mile ownership was in the middle of the range.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was the third lowest among NMP sites, behind only
BXNY and PRRI.
• The traffic volume experienced near WADC is in the bottom third compared to other
NMP monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from the intersection of Bryant
Street and First Street.
• The District area VMT ranked in the top third among urban areas with NMP sites.
9.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Washington, D.C. on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
9.2.1 Climate Summary
Located on the Potomac River that divides Virginia and Maryland, the capital enjoys all
four seasons, although its weather is somewhat variable. Summers are warm and often humid, as
southerly winds prevail, which can be accentuated by the urban heat island effect. Winters are
typical of the Mid-Atlantic region, where cool, blustery air masses are common followed by a
9-6
-------
fairly quick return to mild temperatures. Precipitation is evenly distributed across the seasons
(Bair, 1992).
9.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station to WADC is
located at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (WBAN 13743). Additional information
about the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport weather station is provided in Table 9-3.
These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from
normal conditions throughout the year(s).
Table 9-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 9-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 9-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout the year for both years.
9.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 9-3 and Figure 9-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the WADC monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 9-5
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. An in-
depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For
the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analysis, each line
corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps,
each concentric circle around the site in Figures 9-3 through 9-5 represents 100 miles.
9-7
-------
Table 9-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Washington, D.C. Monitoring Site
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Washington, D.C. - WADC
Ronald Reagan
Washington
National Airport
13743
(38.87, -77.03)
4.06
miles
183°
(S)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
67.0
+ 4.5
67.0
+ 1.8
66.2
±4.5
64.7
± 1.8
59.7
±4.2
59.0
±1.7
58.2
±4.2
57.0
±1.7
45.2
±4.5
44.1
±1.8
44.7
±4.4
43.6
± 1.9
52.4
±3.8
51.6
±1.5
51.5
±3.8
50.5
±1.6
61.7
±3.4
60.6
±1.4
63.7
±3.3
63.7
± 1.5
1017.0
±2.0
1017.6
±0.8
1015.6
±2.0
1017.5
±0.7
6.8
±0.7
7.1
±0.3
7.0
±0.8
7.1
±0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
CO
oo
-------
Figure 9-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for WADC
Figure 9-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for WADC
9-9
-------
Figure 9-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for WADC
Observations from Figures 9-3 through 9-5 include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at WADC. Figure 9-3 for
2008 shows that few trajectories originated from the southeast and south, while
Figure 9-4 for 2009 shows that few trajectories originated from the east.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for WADC was comparable in size to many other NMP
monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was southeast Iowa, or
approximately 725 miles away. However, the average trajectory length was 215 miles
and 90 percent of back trajectories originated within 400 miles of the site.
• Cluster analysis for 2008 shows that 36 percent of trajectories originated within 100
to 150 miles of the site and generally to the west. Another 45 percent of trajectories
originated to the southwest to northwest but farther from the site. Trajectories
generally originating from the northeast to east were also common. The cluster
analysis for 2009 also shows that trajectories originating from the southwest to
northwest were common. More trajectories originated to the southeast and over the
Chesapeake Bay in 2009 than 2008.
9.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as
9-10
-------
described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals"
positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 9-6 presents five different wind roses for the WADC monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1999 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
Observations from Figure 9-6 for WADC include the following:
• Historically, southerly to south-southwesterly winds account for approximately
25 percent of wind observations near WADC, followed by northwesterly to northerly
winds (23 percent). Calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed for approximately
10 percent of the hourly measurements.
• Both the 2008 and 2009 full-year wind patterns are similar to the wind patterns shown
on the historical wind rose, indicating that these years were similar to what is
expected climatologically near this site. Further, the sample day wind patterns for
both years are similar to the full-year and historical wind patterns. This indicates that
conditions on sample days were representative of conditions experienced throughout
the year.
9-11
-------
Figure 9-6. Wind Roses for the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Weather Station near WADC
CO
20%
"~\ 16%
12%
8%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
IZl 4-7
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
IZl 4-7
Calm; 12 0 ?'H.
1999 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
•-'"" 'NORTH----.
20%
"~\ 16%
12%
8%
2009 Wind Rose
MND SPEED
(Knots)
Calms: 11.91%
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calm; 13 5 3%
-------
9.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Washington, B.C.
monitoring site in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through
the context of risk. Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 9-4 presents WADC's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the WADC monitoring site are
shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or
bolded. WADC sampled for hexavalent chromium and PAH.
Table 9-4. Risk Screening Results for the Washington, D.C. Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Washington, D.C. - WADC
Naphthalene
0.029
Total
83
83
86
86
96.51
96.51
100.00
100.00
Observations from Table 9-4 include the following:
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for WADC. Almost 97 percent of
measured detections of naphthalene (83 out of 86) failed screens.
• Benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent chromium were added as pollutants of interest for
WADC because they are the other NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by this
site. These two pollutants are not shown in Table 9-4.
9-13
-------
9.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Washington, B.C. monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants
of interest for the WADC monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages
for select pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize
concentration trends at the site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries
are provided in Appendices J through 0.
9.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest for
WADC, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the
average concentration of all measured detections within a given year. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 9-5, where applicable. The averages
presented in Table 9-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations for WADC from Table 9-5 include the following:
• Sampling for PAH did not begin until the end of June 2008, which is why
naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene do not have first and second quarter averages (and
thus annual averages) for 2008.
• The daily average concentrations of naphthalene for both 2008 and 2009 were
significantly higher than the daily average concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and
hexavalent chromium. The 2009 daily average naphthalene concentration appears
somewhat higher than the 2008 daily average, although the difference is not
statistically significant.
• The 2009 daily average concentration of naphthalene ranked 10th highest among sites
sampling this pollutant (the 2008 daily average concentration ranked 26th), as shown
in Table 4-11.
9-14
-------
Table 9-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Washington, D.C.
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Washington, D.C. - WADC
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.09
+ 0.03
0.01
+ 0.01
101.11
+ 17.09
NR
0.01
±0.01
NR
NA
0.01
± <0.01
NA
NA
0.01
±0.01
93.56
±32.59
0.09
±0.03
NA
108.36
±20.36
NA
0.01
± <0.01
NA
0.11
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
128.63
±24.29
0.17
±0.10
NA
97.89
± 34.06
0.04
±0.02
NA
134.44
±44.34
NA
NA
105.38
±22.37
0.07
±0.03
NA
182.19
±80.95
0.07
±0.03
NA
128.63
±24.29
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
CO
i
i—*
en
-------
9.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. WADC has sampled hexavalent chromium under the NMP since 2005. Thus,
Figure 9-7 presents the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for hexavalent chromium for WADC.
The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-
detects.
Observations from Figure 9-7 for hexavalent chromium measurements at WADC include
the following:
• Sampling for hexavalent chromium began in March 2005.
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured on
August 20, 2005 (2.97 ng/m3), and is an order of magnitude higher than the next
highest measurement (0.645 ng/m3 measured on July 4, 2006). This is also the highest
hexavalent chromium measured at any site since the onset of sampling for this
pollutant. Even the second-highest measurement for WADC is an order of magnitude
higher than most other concentrations measured at this site (all but three
measurements are less than 0.1 ng/m3).
• Because of the magnitude of these maximum concentrations, it is difficult to
determine if the decrease shown in the rolling average concentrations is attributable to
an actual decrease in concentrations or just the shifting of the data to a 3-year period
without one of these high values. However, the median and 95th percentile also
exhibit a decreasing trend. These parameters are influenced less by outliers.
• The confidence interval calculated for the 2007-2009 period is much narrower,
indicating much less variability in the concentrations measured. A decreasing trend
may be verified with additional years of sampling.
9-16
-------
Figure 9-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at WADC
ii',
or.
. iiJ.r
'Hexavalent chromium sampling at WADC began in March 2005.
9.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
WADC monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
9.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Washington, D.C monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured
9-17
-------
detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the WADC
monitoring site were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
9.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for WADC and where annual average concentrations could
be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for calculating annual averages
and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated). Annual averages,
cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations
are presented in Table 9-6, where applicable.
Observations for WADC from Table 9-6 include the following:
• Annual averages for 2008 (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations) could not be calculated for the PAH pollutants of interest
because sampling did not begin until June 2008 (and less than three quarterly
averages are available).
• Naphthalene's cancer risk approximation for 2009 was greater than 1.0 in-a-
million (4.37 in-a-million), while its noncancer risk approximation was well
below an HQ greater than 1.0 (0.04). Benzo(a)pyrene's cancer risk approximation
for 2009 was much less than napthalene's (0.07 in-a-million). A noncancer RfC is
not available for benzo(a)pyrene, thus a noncancer risk approximation could not
be calculated.
• The cancer surrogate risk approximation based on hexavalent chromium's 2008
annual average concentration was well below 1.0 in-a-million (0.09 in-a-million).
The noncancer surrogate risk approximation was also low (<0.01). A 2009 annual
average (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations) could
not be calculated for hexavalent chromium because this pollutant was not detected
enough for at least three quarterly averages to be calculated.
9-18
-------
Table 9-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Washington, D.C. Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Washington, D.C. - WADC
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
0.000034
0.0001
0.003
16/1
30/3
28/2
NA
0.01
+ <0.01
NA
NA
0.09
NA
<0.01
NA
37/3
17/0
58/4
0.07
+ 0.03
NA
128.63
+ 24.29
0.07
NA
4.37
NA
0.04
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
CO
I—*
CO
-------
9.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 9-7 and 9-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 9-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 9-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 9.3,
WADC sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium. In addition, the cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria
for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
9-20
-------
Table 9-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Washington, D.C. Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity- Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based 1
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1 |
Pollutant
Washington, D.C. - WADC
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3-Butadiene
Trichloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
POM, Group 2
193.46
128.72
49.87
35.16
32.46
16.03
12.18
11.75
8.85
1.41
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 2
1.61E-03
1.51E-03
9.74E-04
3.99E-04
2.07E-04
1.48E-04
1.40E-04
1.34E-04
1.10E-04
7.76E-05
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
4.37
0.09
0.07
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
CO
PO
-------
CO
PO
t-o
Table 9-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Washington, D.C. Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Washington, B.C. - WADC
Toluene
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Acetaldehyde
496.56
419.68
337.55
198.99
193.46
128.72
75.59
68.97
60.44
49.87
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Xylenes
Chlorine
Toluene
378,797.19
16,228.69
13,134.79
7,313.33
6,448.63
5,541.47
3,915.55
3,375.48
2,655.00
1,241.41
Naphthalene 0.04
Hexavalent Chromium <0.01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 9-7 include the following:
• Benzene and formaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with cancer UREs in
the District of Columbia. Formaldehyde and benzene were the pollutants with the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with cancer UREs).
• Eight of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant sampled for at WADC that appears on both
emissions-based lists. Naphthalene was the eighth highest emitted pollutant with a
cancer URE in the District of Columbia and had the fourth highest toxicity-weighted
emissions (of the pollutants with cancer UREs). While hexavalent chromium was not
one of the 10 highest emitted pollutants in the District, its toxicity-weighted
emissions ranked seventh highest (of the pollutants with cancer UREs).
• POM Group 2 was both the tenth highest emitted "pollutant" in the District and
ranked tenth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH
sampled for at WADC including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for WADC.
Observations from Table 9-8 include the following:
• Toluene, methyl tert-butyl ether, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in the District of Columbia.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.
• Five of the highest emitted pollutants in the District of Columbia also had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant sampled for at WADC that also appeared on
either emissions-based list. Naphthalene had the seventh highest toxicity-weighted
emissions (of the pollutants with noncancer RfCs) but was not one of the 10 highest
emitted pollutants.
9.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for WADC
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for WADC. However, hexavalent
chromium and benzo(a)pyrene were added to WADC's pollutants of interest because
they are NATTSMQO Core Analytes.
9-23
-------
Of the site-specific pollutants of the interest, naphthalene had the highest daily
average concentrations for WADC.
None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
9-24
-------
10.0 Sites in Florida
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS and UATMP sites in Florida, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
10.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the monitoring sites by providing geographical and physical
information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The Florida sites are located in several different urban areas. Sites located in the
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA include AZFL, GAFL, SKFL, and SYFL. CCFL and
FLFL are located in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA. ORFL and PAFL are
located in the Orlando-Kissimmee, FL MSA. Figures 10-1 through 10-8 are composite satellite
images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural
locations. Figures 10-9 through 10-11 identify point source emissions locations by source
category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles
of the sites are included in the facility counts provided below the maps in Figures 10-9 through
10-11. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the
maps to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen
to give the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories
could potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 10-1 describes the area
surrounding each monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
10-1
-------
Figure 10-1. St. Petersburg, Florida (AZFL) Monitoring Site
o
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,419 feet
-------
Figure 10-2. Tampa, Florida (GAFL) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,870 feet
-------
Figure 10-3. Pinellas Park, Florida (SKFL) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,309 feet
-------
Figure 10-4. Plant City, Florida (SYFL) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,157 feet
-------
Figure 10-5. Winter Park, Florida (ORFL) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
2 inches = 1,547 feet
-------
Figure 10-6. Orlando, Florida (PAFL) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,517 feet
-------
Figure 10-7. Coconut Creek, Florida (CCFL) Monitoring Site
o
oo
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,690 feet
-------
Figure 10-8. Davie, Florida (FLFL) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,561 feet
-------
Figure 10-9. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of the
Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida Monitoring Sites
T& AZFL UATMP site
TJT GAFL UATMP site
BJ SKFLNATTSsite
jgSYFLNATTSsite
• 10 mite radius
i I; County boundary
(tale Due to todlty denrfy and coilacalMn. Ihe Id al (acsttws
4ly*tl mil nel r«pr«wt M ticHm wllhM Mi* ar*a «»Mmit
&MC« CiBflory Croup l.Nn, of Fra4i(i«) A L*-P.I«II 111)
njfiadiTT-fl f vdMy { J J
+ Amri Ocv«v» ftc.
ConnivnmmMtiw FHMy (II
• "i
, :,
'
'-
SBwiinsffM*™^ F«M, 04)
PUT «no PK»r PirtVfloa Pira/cd FJOHV 1
R Pustft *4 MIC«HI«U> PHfl»:
StmcMMuclcrMwmiaiimg F
i^rassssrsr •*•»-««-*.**-*•
F PM«P
*<•!'
A
ntnlF*
III >
*
W MOAMHV, rumtun, iu«w>ti woo: Pvw^n^
- . F - , ' :- •
10-10
-------
Figure 10-10. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of ORFL and PAFL
licit* Out totality 0«n«4y and ccflocahon th»lda
displayed may not represent il fiaMtts wilNn tti« area a? ft w«st
Legend
if ORFLUATMPsite ''*• PAFLUATMPsile I 10 mite radius I I County boun
-------
Figure 10-11. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of CCFL and FLFL
Legend
•fa CCFL UATMP sue
if FLFL UATMP site ^j County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
+ Aircraft Operations Facility (3)
I Asphalt ProcessingJRoof ing Manufacturing (2)
J Auto Body ShcpiPanters {*>}
1 Boat Manufacturing Facility (4)
Bick hlanufaclunng S Structutal Clay Facility it;
B Bulk TerminalsJBulk Plants (13)
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (2)
• Concrete Batch Plant (5)
-t- Pry Ctoaning Facility {1)
* Electricity Gerwfation via Combustion (4)
E Electre-plating. Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Colocing (6>
... Gravel or Sand Plant (1)
d Hospital (3>
Jf Hat MM Asphalt Plant (3)
f*oi« DIM to toaUy d«mit> UK) cocouiuxi in* total lacno*s
diplayed may not refirncnl it fidlfliM wttwi live an»
-*- Industrial Machinery and Equipment Facility (1)
* Landfill (10)
L Large Appliance Manufacturing Facility 0)
- Mine/Quarry (12)
W Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (2)
rj Pwnt Stripping Operal»n (3)
Pharmaceutical Manufaclunng FaciKy (3)
7 Portland Cement Manufacturing Facility (2)
P Prmting.'Publishing Facility (6)
R Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products Facility (3)
2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility (6)
Ji Snip Building and Repaiiing Facility (1)
S Surface Coating Facility (S)
• VAstewater Treatment Facility (1 ;•
W Woodwork, Furniture, Milwork & Wood Preserving FaciJity (5)
10-12
-------
Table 10-1. Geographical Information for the Florida Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
AZFL
CCFL
FLFL
GAFL
ORFL
PAFL
SKFL
SYFL
AQS Code
12-103-0018
12-011-5005
12-011-1002
12-057-1065
12-095-2002
12-095-1004
12-103-0026
12-057-3002
Location
St.
Petersburg
Coconut
Creek
Davie
Tampa
Winter
Park
Orlando
Pinellas
Park
Plant City
County
Pinellas
Broward
Broward
Hillsborough
Orange
Orange
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Tampa-St.
Petersburg-
Clearwater, FL
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale-
Pompano
Beach, FL
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale-
Pompano
Beach, FL
Tampa-St.
Petersburg-
Clearwater, FL
Orlando-
Kissimmee, FL
Orlando-
Kissimmee, FL
Tampa-St.
Petersburg-
Clearwater, FL
Tampa-St.
Petersburg-
Clearwater, FL
Latitude
and
Longitude
27.785556,
-82.74
26.295,
-80.177778
26.08534,
-80.24104
27.892222,
-82.538611
28.596444,
-81.362444
28.550833,
-81.345556
27.850041,
-82.714590
27.96565,
-82.2304
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Urban/City
Center
Suburban
Suburban
Rural
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
NO, NO2, NOx, VOC, O3, Meteorological parameters,
PM10, PM10 Speciation, PM25.
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM25.
Carbonyl compounds, Meteorological parameters,
PM10, PM25, PM25 Speciation.
NO, NO2, NOx, VOC, O3, PM10, PM10 Speciation,
PM25.
CO, SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, VOC, O3, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, PM25.
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM25.
VOC, Meteorological parameters, PM10 Speciation,
Black carbon, PM2 5 Speciation.
CO, SO2, NOy, NO, NO2, NOx, VOC, O3,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM10 Speciation,
PM2 5, PM2 5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS,
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
-------
AZFL is located at Azalea Park in St. Petersburg. Figure 10-1 shows that the area
surrounding AZFL consists of mixed land use, including residential, commercial, and industrial
properties. Heavily traveled roadways are located less than 1 mile from the monitoring site.
AZFL is just over 1 mile east of Boca Ciega Bay.
GAFL is located near the east side of the Gandy Bridge on Highway 92 in Tampa.
Figure 10-2 shows that GAFL is located on a small peninsula on old Tampa Bay. The setting is
suburban and the surrounding area has mixed land use, including residential, commercial and
industrial areas.
SKFL is located in Pinellas Park, north of St. Petersburg. This site is on the property of
Skyview Elementary School near 86th Avenue North. Figure 10-3 shows that SKFL is located in
a residential area. Population exposure is the purpose behind monitoring in this location.
SYFL is located in Plant City, which is also part of the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,
FL MSA, although it is on the eastern outskirts of the area. Unlike the other program sites, the
SYFL monitoring site is in a rural area although, as Figure 10-4 shows, a residential community
lies to the west of the site. This site serves as a background site, although the impact of increased
development in the area is likely being captured by the monitor.
Figure 10-9 shows the location of the Tampa/St. Petersburg sites in relation to each other.
SYFL is located the furthest east and AZFL is the furthest west. A large cluster of point sources
is located just north of SKFL. Another cluster of emissions sources is located about halfway
between SYFL and GAFL. Aircraft operations, which include airports as well as small runways,
heliports, or landing pads, printing and publishing facilities, secondary metal processing
facilities, landfills, and chemical manufacturing facilities are the source categories with the
highest number of emissions sources in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area (based on the areas
covered by the 10-mile radii).
10-14
-------
ORFL is located in Winter Park, north of Orlando. Figure 10-5 shows that ORFL is
located near Lake Mendsen, east of Lake Killarney and south of Winter Park Village. This site
lies in a commercial area and serves as a population exposure monitor.
PAFL is located in northern Orlando, on the northwestern edge of the Orlando Executive
Airport property, as shown in Figure 10-6. The area is considered commercial and experiences
heavy traffic. The airport is bordered by Colonial Drive to the north and the East-West
Expressway (Toll Road 408) to the south. A large shopping mall is located to the northeast of the
site, just north of the airport, between Colonial Drive and Maguire Boulevard. In addition, 1-4
runs north-south less than 2 miles to the west of the monitoring site.
Figure 10-10 shows that ORFL is located a few miles north of PAFL. Most of the point
sources are located on the western side of the 10-mile radii. Although the emissions sources
surrounding ORFL and PAFL are involved in a variety of industries and processes, aircraft
operations, printing and publishing facilities, and landfills are the source categories with the
highest number of emissions sources within 10 miles of these sites.
CCFL is located at Twin Lakes Park, adjacent to Winston Park Elementary, off Winston
Park Boulevard in Coconut Creek, Florida. This location is approximately 6 miles from the
Atlantic Ocean. The surrounding area includes residential areas to the west, north, and east, with
Banyon Trails Park to the south. Several small lakes are infused throughout the neighborhoods,
as shown in Figure 10-7.
FLFL is also located on Florida's east coast (approximately 8 miles from the coastline) in
Davie, near Ft. Lauderdale. The site is located at the Agricultural Research Center on the
University of Florida campus. Figure 10-8 shows that the surrounding area is suburban and
commercial. The site is less than 1 mile south of 1-595 and other major highways are also located
within a few miles of the site.
10-15
-------
Figure 10-11 shows that CCFL lies roughly 15 miles north of FLFL. Most of the point
sources are located on the eastern side of the 10-mile radii, paralleling the major thoroughfares in
the area (including 1-95, US-1, and the Turnpike). Although the emissions sources surrounding
CCFL and FLFL are involved in a variety of operations, bulk terminals/bulk plants,
mines/quarries, landfills, and surface coating facilities are the source categories with the highest
number of emissions sources within 10 miles of these sites.
Table 10-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the Florida
monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 10-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Pinellas, Broward, Hillsborough, and Orange Counties were obtained from the Florida
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FL DHSMV, 2009) and the U.S. Census
Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 10-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-
county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site. In addition, the population within 10
miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by
applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population
surrounding each monitoring site. Table 10-2 also contains annual average daily traffic
information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was
obtained. Finally, Table 10-2 presents the daily VMT for each urban area.
Observations from Table 10-2 include the following:
• Broward County, where FLFL and CCFL are located, is the most populous of the
Florida counties with monitoring sites, although Hillsborough and Orange Counties
both have over 1 million people. Broward County is the ninth most populous county
of all the counties with NMP sites covered in this report.
• Of the eight Florida monitoring sites, FLFL and ORFL have the highest population
within 10 miles of all the Florida sites. The FLFL 10-mile population ranked tenth
highest among NMP sites.
• With the exception of Pinellas County (AZFL and SKFL), the vehicle registration
counts for the Florida sites are all over 1 million, with Broward County having the
most. The 10-mile ownership estimates are more variable.
10-16
-------
Table 10-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Florida Monitoring
Sites
Site
AZFL
CCFL
FLFL
GAFL
ORFL
PAFL
SKFL
SYFL
Estimated
County
Population1
909,013
1,766,476
1,766,476
1,195,317
1,086,480
1,086,480
909,013
1,195,317
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
896,957
,436,626
,436,626
,137,069
,055,967
,055,967
896,957
1,137,069
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.99
0.81
0.81
0.95
0.97
0.97
0.99
0.95
Population
Within 10
Miles3
569,744
923,091
1,327,088
475,725
1,008,282
879,184
672,839
311,528
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
562,188
750,724
1,079,284
452,543
979,965
854,493
663,915
296,347
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
30,500
38,500
14,000
29,000
32,000
51,500
51,000
10,400
VMT5
(thousands)
62,865
129,658
129,658
62,865
43,691
43,691
62,865
62,865
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data from the Florida DHSMV (FL DHSMV, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the Florida DOT (FL DOT, 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
• The vehicle-per-person ratios ranged from 0.81 (CCFL and FLFL) to 0.99 (AZFL and
SKFL).
• VMT was highest for the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale urban area and lowest for the Orlando
urban area among the Florida sites. The Miami/Ft. Lauderdale VMT ranked fourth
highest among urban areas with NMP sites, behind New York City, Los Angeles, and
Chicago.
• Traffic volumes near the Florida monitoring sites were mid-range compared to other
NMP sites. The following list provides the roadways or intersections from which the
traffic data were obtained:
AZFL - Tyrone Boulevard, west of 66th Street North
CCFL - Lyons Road, south of Sawgrass Expressway
FLFL - College Avenue, south of Nova Drive
GAFL - Gandy Boulevard, east of Gandy Bridge
ORFL - Orlando Avenue, north of Morse Boulevard
PAFL - Colonial/MLK Boulevard, between Bennett Road and Bumby Avenue
SKFL - Park Boulevard, east of 66th Street North
SYFL - Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (574), east of Mclntosh Road
10-17
-------
10.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Florida on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
10.2.1 Climate Summary
The Tampa, Orlando, and Miami areas all experience very mild winters and warm, humid
summers. The annual average maximum temperature is around 80°F for all locations and
average relative humidity is near 70 percent. Precipitation tends to be concentrated during the
summer and fall, as afternoon thunderstorms occur frequently. Semi-permanent high pressure
offshore over the Atlantic Ocean extends westward towards Florida in the winter, resulting in
reduced precipitation amounts. Land and sea breezes affect each coastal location and the
proximity to the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico can have a marked affect on the local
meteorological conditions. Florida's orientation and location between the warm waters of the
Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea make it susceptible to tropical
systems (Bair, 1992 and FCC, 2011).
10.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from NWS weather stations near these sites were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). These data were used to determine how
meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
The NWS weather station closest to the AZFL monitoring site is located at
St. Petersburg/Whitted Airport (WBAN 92806); closest to GAFL and SYFL is at Tampa
International Airport (WBAN 12842); closest to SKFL is at St. Petersburg/Clearwater
International Airport (WBAN 12873); closest to ORFL and PAFL is at Orlando Executive
Airport (WBAN 12841); closest to CCFL is at Pompano Beach Airpark Airport (WBAN 92805);
and closest to FLFL is at Ft. Lauderdale/ Hollywood International Airport (WBAN 12849).
Additional information about each of these weather stations is provided in Table 10-3. These
data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal
conditions throughout the year(s).
10-18
-------
Table 10-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Florida Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar
Wind Speed
(kt)
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
St. Petersburg/
Whitted Airport
92806
(27.77, -82.63)
6.77
miles
94°
(E)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
81.5
±2.0
80.6
±0.9
79.6
±2.4
80.4
±0.9
74.5
±2.1
73.8
±0.9
73.1
±2.5
73.7
±1.0
63.5
±2.3
62.8
±1.0
63.6
±2.9
64.3
±1.1
67.7
±2.0
67.0
±0.9
67.3
±2.5
67.9
±1.0
70.3
±2.6
70.1
±1.0
73.5
±2.4
73.8
±1.0
1017.0
±1.0
1017.3
±0.5
1016.6
±1.1
1016.9
±0.5
7.4
±0.8
7.7
±0.3
7.4
±0.8
7.0
±0.3
Coconut Creek, Florida - CCFL
Pompano Beach
Airpark Airport
92805
(26.25, -80.11)
5.22
miles
116°
(ESE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
82.4
±2.4
81.8
±0.6
74.3
±3.2
82.3
±0.7
76.8
±2.7
75.9
±0.7
66.9
±3.6
76.0
±0.8
67.2
±3.4
65.7
±0.9
56.3
±5.2
65.8
±1.0
70.6
±2.9
69.5
±0.7
60.9
±4.1
69.5
±0.8
73.5
±2.9
72.1
±1.0
70.6
±5.5
71.9
±0.9
1016.9
±1.5
1017.4
±0.4
1019.8
±2.5
1017.2
±0.4
8.0
±1.3
8.8
±0.3
9.8
±1.3
7.8
±0.3
Davie, Florida - FLFL
Ft Lauderdale/
Hollywood Intl
Airport
12849
(26.07, -80.15)
5.34
miles
90°
(E)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
84.0
±2.3
83.8
±0.6
76.8
±3.0
83.4
±0.7
78.2
±2.6
77.7
±0.7
69.1
±3.4
77.0
±0.7
65.4
±3.0
64.5
±0.9
55.3
±5.2
66.1
± 1.0
70.0
±2.6
69.3
±0.7
61.3
±3.9
70.1
±0.8
65.8
±2.5
64.9
±0.9
63.3
±5.0
70.3
± 1.0
1016.7
± 1.5
1017.0
±0.4
1019.5
±2.5
1016.8
±0.4
8.0
± 1.3
8.5
±0.3
9.4
±1.0
7.5
±0.3
o
VO
year averages.
-------
Table 10-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar
Wind Speed
(kt)
Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Tampa
International Airport
12842
(27.96, -82.54)
4.74
miles
351°
(N)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
82.3
±1.9
81.4
±0.8
72.6
±4.2
81.5
±0.9
73.9
±2.1
73.0
±0.9
62.8
±4.3
73.3
±1.0
62.1
±2.6
61.1
±1.2
49.0
±6.7
62.7
±1.3
66.7
±2.1
65.8
±0.9
55.7
±4.8
66.9
±1.0
68.7
±2.8
68.4
±1.1
63.7
±7.5
71.2
±1.1
1017.5
±1.0
1017.8
±0.5
1020.3
±3.2
1017.4
±0.5
5.9
±0.5
5.9
±0.2
5.9
±1.2
5.1
±0.2
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Orlando Executive
Airport
12841
(28.55, -81.33)
3.94
miles
145°
(SE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
82.7
±1.9
81.6
±0.9
82.1
±2.5
82.0
±1.0
73.2
±2.0
72.2
±0.9
72.8
±2.5
72.4
±1.0
60.8
±2.5
60.0
±1.2
61.7
±3.2
61.3
±1.3
65.7
±2.0
64.9
±0.9
66.1
±2.6
65.8
±1.0
68.0
±2.9
67.9
±1.0
70.5
±2.6
70.8
±1.1
1018.0
±1.1
1018.5
±0.5
1017.4
±1.2
1017.9
±0.5
6.2
±0.7
6.3
±0.3
6.0
±0.6
5.9
±0.3
Orlando, Florida - PAFL
Orlando Executive
Airport
12841
(28.55, -81.33)
0.84
miles
109°
(ESE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
83.9
±2.5
81.6
±0.9
81.4
±3.6
82.0
±1.0
74.0
±2.6
72.2
±0.9
72.0
±3.7
72.4
±1.0
62.5
±3.0
60.0
±1.2
61.3
±4.9
61.3
± 1.3
66.9
±2.4
64.9
±0.9
65.7
±4.0
65.8
±1.0
69.9
±3.8
67.9
±1.0
71.3
±3.9
70.8
± 1.1
1017.4
± 1.5
1018.5
±0.5
1017.6
±1.6
1017.9
±0.5
6.5
± 1.0
6.3
±0.3
6.3
±1.2
5.9
±0.3
to
o
year averages.
-------
Table 10-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar
Wind Speed
(kt)
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
St Petersburg-
Clearwater Intl
Airport
12873
(27.91, -82.69)
4.48
miles
12°
(NNE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
82.2
±1.9
81.6
±0.9
81.8
±2.4
81.9
±1.0
73.6
±2.2
73.4
±0.9
73.8
±2.4
73.6
±1.0
62.8
±2.5
62.7
±1.1
63.0
±3.0
63.1
±1.2
67.0
±2.1
66.9
±0.9
67.2
±2.4
67.2
±1.0
70.9
±2.5
71.2
±1.0
70.8
±2.4
71.4
±0.9
1017.5
±1.0
1017.8
±0.5
1017.0
±1.1
1017.4
±0.5
6.8
±0.8
6.9
±0.3
6.9
±0.8
6.7
±0.3
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Tampa
International Airport
12842
(27.96, -82.54)
18.27
miles
260°
(W)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
82.2
±1.9
81.4
±0.8
81.1
±2.4
81.5
±0.9
73.8
±2.1
73.0
±0.9
73.2
±2.5
73.3
±1.0
61.9
±2.6
61.1
±1.2
62.3
±3.2
62.7
±1.3
66.6
±2.1
65.8
±0.9
66.6
±2.6
66.9
±1.0
68.7
±2.8
68.4
±1.1
70.7
±2.8
71.2
±1.1
1017.5
±1.1
1017.8
±0.5
1017.0
±1.1
1017.4
±0.5
5.9
±0.5
5.9
±0.2
5.3
±0.6
5.1
±0.2
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
o
to
-------
Table 10-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 10-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 10-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days in 2008 were fairly representative of average
weather conditions during the entire year. This is also true for 2009 for AZFL, ORFL, PAFL,
SKFL, and SYFL; the other three sites show differences between their full-year averages and
their sample day averages. GAFL, FLFL, and CCFL stopped sampling in March 2009, which
explains why conditions on sample days appear cooler and drier than conditions for the entire
year.
10.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 10-12 and Figure 10-13 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the AZFL monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Figure 10-14 is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in
red. Similarly, Figures 10-15 through 10-35 are the composite and cluster back trajectory maps
for the remaining Florida monitoring sites. An in-depth description of these maps and how they
were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the
24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given
sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of
a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the sites in
Figures 10-12 through 10-35 represents 100 miles.
10-22
-------
Figure 10-12. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for AZFL
Figure 10-13. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for AZFL
10-23
-------
Figure 10-14. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for AZFL
:, ,-. •!•-.
Figure 10-15. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GAFL
v
10-24
-------
Figure 10-16. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GAFL
Figure 10-17. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for GAFL
10-25
-------
Figure 10-18. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SKFL
Figure 10-19. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SKFL
10-26
-------
Figure 10-20. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for SKFL
Legend
Figure 10-21. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SYFL
10-27
-------
Figure 10-22. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SYFL
Figure 10-23. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for SYFL
10-28
-------
Figure 10-24. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ORFL
Figure 10-25. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ORFL
10-29
-------
Figure 10-26. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for ORFL
Leoend
i S KB
Figure 10-27. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PAFL
10-30
-------
Figure 10-28. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PAFL
Figure 10-29. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for PAFL
10-31
-------
Figure 10-30. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CCFL
Figure 10-31. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CCFL
10-32
-------
Figure 10-32. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for CCFL
Lammt
Figure 10-33. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for FLFL
10-33
-------
Figure 10-34. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for FLFL
Figure 10-35. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for FLFL
10-34
-------
Observations from Figures 10-12 through 10-23 for the Tampa/St. Petersburg sites
include the following:
• The composite back trajectory maps for the Tampa/St. Petersburg sites are generally
similar to each other.
Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the Tampa/St. Petersbur
sites.
•g
• The 24-hour air shed domains for these sites were comparable in size to other NMP
monitoring sites. For all four sites, the farthest away a trajectory originated was over
the Atlantic Ocean, or less than 650 miles away. The SKFL 2008 map shows a
second trajectory of similar length originating over northeast Louisiana.
• Most trajectories (between 87 and 88 percent for each site) originated within 400
miles of the Tampa/St. Petersburg monitoring sites. The average trajectory length was
approximately 230 miles for each site (except GAFL, which was slightly lower at 224
miles).
• GAFL stopped sampling in March 2009 and thus does not have as many trajectories
factored into its average values. Because fewer than 30 sample days are available for
2009, a 2009 cluster analysis could not be performed for this site.
• The cluster maps for AZFL, SKFL, and SYFL generally look like pinwheels,
indicating that trajectories originated from a variety of directions.
Observations from Figures 10-24 through 10-29 for ORFL and PAFL include the
following:
• Even though they are close in proximity to each other, the trajectory distribution for
PAFL is different than the trajectory distribution for ORFL because sampling at
PAFL occurred on a l-in-12 day schedule, yielding approximately half the sample
days as ORFL.
• The 24-hour air shed domains were somewhat smaller in size compared to the other
Florida monitoring sites. The furthest away a trajectory originated was nearly 550
miles away for PAFL and 570 miles for ORFL, both over the Atlantic Ocean.
• Similar to the Tampa/St. Petersburg sites, most trajectories (84 percent for PAFL and
90 percent for ORFL) originated with 400 miles of ORFL and PAFL. The average
trajectory length for ORFL and PAFL were 228 and 210 miles, respectively.
10-35
-------
• The cluster maps for ORFL and PAFL also look like pinwheels, indicating that
trajectories originated from a variety of directions, although the cluster maps do show
that trajectories originating within 100 miles of the sites were most common.
Observations from Figures 10-30 through 10-35 for CCFL and FLFL include the
following:
• Sampling was conducted at CCFL and FLFL from July 2008 through March 2009.
Two full years' worth of back trajectories would likely have a different trajectory
distribution than those presented in Figures 10-30 through 10-35.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions from these sites, although
easterly and northeasterly directions appear prevalent.
• The 24-hour air shed domains were slightly larger in size for these sites compared to
the other Florida monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was over
the Atlantic, or greater than 650 miles away. However, most (89 percent for both
sites) originated within 500 miles of the sites.
• The average trajectory lengths for CCFL and FLFL were 303 miles and 308 miles,
respectively. These average trajectory distances were among the highest for all NMP
sites.
• The 2008 cluster maps for these sites show that most trajectories (greater than
60 percent) originated eastward over the Atlantic Ocean. A cluster analysis for 2009
could not be performed because fewer than 30 sample days are available for 2009 for
these sites.
10.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations near the Florida sites, as presented in
Section 10.2.2, were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind
roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using
"petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
10-36
-------
Figure 10-36 presents five different wind roses for the AZFL monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1999 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figures 10-37 through 10-43 present the five different wind roses for the
remaining Florida monitoring sites.
Observations from Figure 10-36 for AZFL include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds (< 2 knots) account for less than
10 percent of the hourly wind measurements from 1999 to 2007. Northerly,
northeasterly, and easterly winds were the most commonly observed wind directions
near AZFL while winds from the southwest to west-northwest were the least
frequently observed wind directions.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind roses are generally similar in wind patterns to the historical
wind rose, indicating that conditions during 2008 and 2009 were representative of
those experienced historically.
• The 2008 sample day wind patterns favor the full-year wind patterns, although a
higher percentage of southerly winds were observed. Similarly, the 2009 sample day
wind patterns favor the full-year wind patterns, although a higher percentage of west-
southwesterly winds were observed.
10-37
-------
Figure 10-36. Wind Roses for the St. Petersburg/Whitted Airport Weather Station near AZFL
o
oo
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
1999 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Calms: 11.10%
2009 Sample Day
Calms 1162%
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 10-37. Wind Roses for the Tampa International Airport Weather Station near GAFL
o
VO
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
1997 - 2007 .
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Calm; 22 32%
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 10-38. Wind Roses for the St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport Weather Station near SKFL
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
o
o
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
•NORTH"-'-.
1999 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
.,"'-'"" ;NORTH"---.,
Calms: 13.22%
2009 Sample Day
WIND SPEED
(Knots J
Calms: 13.99%
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 10-39. Wind Roses for the Tampa International Airport Weather Station near SYFL
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 10-40. Wind Roses for the Orlando Executive Airport Weather Station near ORFL
2008 Wind Rose
o
to
~----. [SOUTH,---
1999 - 2007 .
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
n -.-7
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 10-41. Wind Roses for the Orlando Executive Airport Weather Station near PAFL
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 10-42. Wind Roses for the Pompano Beach Airpark Airport Weather Station near CCFL
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
24%
""" -, 13%
12%
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
1999 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 10-43. Wind Roses for the Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport Weather Station near FLFL
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
IZl 4-
1999 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
WND SPEED
(Knots)
n -22
H 17 • 21
n 4.7
Calms: 10.37%
2009 Wind Rose
n
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 10-37 for GAFL include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds (< 2 knots) account for nearly
one-fifth of the hourly wind measurements from 1997 to 2007. Northerly,
northeasterly, and easterly winds were commonly observed near GAFL, although
westerly winds were observed just as often.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind roses exhibit a higher number of calm wind observations
compared to the historical wind rose, as well as fewer observations of easterly and
southeasterly winds.
• The 2008 sample day wind patterns are generally similar to the full-year wind
patterns, indicating that conditions on sample days were similar to those experienced
throughout the year. The 2009 sample day wind rose shows a higher number of
northeasterly wind observations as well as southerly and southwesterly wind
observations than the full-year wind rose. The 2009 sample day wind rose only
includes sample days through March 2009, which likely explains the differences
shown in Figure 10-37.
Observations from Figure 10-38 for SKFL include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from a variety of directions were observed
near SKFL from 1999 to 2007, although northerly, northeasterly, easterly, and east-
southeasterly winds were most common. Calm winds account for approximately
10 percent of the hourly wind measurements.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind patterns are similar to those shown on the historical wind
rose, indicating that conditions during 2008 and 2009 were representative of those
experienced historically.
• The 2008 sample day wind rose is similar in wind patterns to the full-year wind rose.
• The 2009 sample day wind rose is also similar in wind patterns to the full-year wind
rose.
Observations from Figure 10-39 for SYFL include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds (< 2 knots) account for approximately
one-fifth of the hourly wind measurements from 1997 to 2007. Winds from all
directions are observed near SYFL, although winds with a southerly component are
observed less often than winds from other directions. Winds from due west and due
east were observed the most.
• The 2008 wind rose exhibits a higher percentage of calm winds, an increased number
of winds from the northeast, an increased number of winds from the south, and fewer
10-46
-------
winds from due east. The 2008 sample day wind rose is similar in wind patterns to the
full-year wind rose, indicating that conditions on sample days were representative of
wind conditions experienced throughout the year.
• The 2009 wind rose also exhibits a higher percentage of calm winds than the
historical wind rose, but shows an increased percentage of winds from the south to
southwest to west and even fewer winds from due east. The 2009 sample day wind
rose is similar in wind patterns to the full-year wind rose, indicating that conditions
on sample days were representative of wind conditions experienced throughout the
year.
Observations from Figures 10-40 and 10-41 for ORFL and PAFL include the following:
• The closest NWS station to ORFL and PAFL is the Orlando Executive Airport. Thus,
the historical and full-year wind roses for these sites are the same. (Note that the wind
roses for PAFL are on a 15 percent scale while the ORFL wind roses are on a
10 percent scale. The scales are different in order to accommodate the different
percentage ranges for the sample day wind roses.)
• The historical wind rose shows that from 1999 to 2007 winds from all directions were
observed near ORFL, although winds from the due north, due south, due east or with
an easterly component are observed more often than winds from the remaining
directions.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind roses exhibit similar wind direction distributions as the
historical wind rose, indicating that conditions during the years of sampling were
similar to those experienced historically near ORFL and PAFL.
• The 2008 sample day wind roses for both sites show a higher percentage of southerly
winds observed. The 2009 sample day wind rose for ORFL shows a higher
percentage of south-southwesterly and southwesterly winds observed. This is also
true for PAFL, although south-southeasterly winds were also observed more
frequently.
Observations from Figures 10-42 and 10-43 for CCFL and FLFL include the following:
• The closest NWS station to CCFL is Pompano Beach Airpark and the closest weather
station to FLFL is Ft. Lauderdale International Airport. These stations are
approximately 12 miles apart and both reside within 3 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. It
is not surprising then that the wind patterns shown on the historical and full-year wind
roses for these sites are similar to each other. (Note that the wind roses for CCFL are
on a 30 percent scale while the FLFL wind roses are on a 20 percent scale).
10-47
-------
• The historical and full-year wind roses for these sites show that winds from the east-
northeast to southeast accounted for nearly 50 percent of the wind observations. Calm
winds were observed for approximately 10 percent of observations near CCFL and
FLFL.
• These two sites operated from July 2008 to March 2009. Thus, the sample day wind
roses reflect sample days only within this time frame.
• The 2008 sample day wind patterns are similar to their full-year wind patterns, while
the 2009 sample day wind patterns show more variability. Both 2009 sample day
wind roses exhibit a higher percentage of north-northwesterly winds, fewer easterly
winds and a much lower calm rate. These differences likely illustrate seasonal
variations in wind patterns at these locations.
10.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Florida monitoring sites in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated
risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 10-4 presents the pollutants of interest for each of the Florida monitoring sites. The
pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens
for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of
interest are shaded and/or bolded. AZFL, GAFL, and ORFL sampled for carbonyl compounds
only. SKFL and SYFL sampled hexavalent chromium and PAH in addition to carbonyl
compounds. PAFL sampled only PMio metals. Finally, CCFL and FLFL sampled only VOC.
10-48
-------
Table 10-4. Risk Screening Results for the Florida Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
0.077
0.45
Total
121
120
241
121
121
242
100.00
99.17
99.59
50.21
49.79
50.21
100.00
Coconut Creek, Florida - CCFL
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Bromomethane
Dichloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis- 1 , 3 -D ichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.091
0.17
0.4
0.015
0.5
2.1
0.02
0.038
0.25
0.25
Total
42
42
24
19
15
10
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
164
42
42
39
36
38
42
4
41
42
1
1
1
1
330
100.00
100.00
61.54
52.78
39.47
23.81
100.00
4.88
4.76
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
49.70
25.61
25.61
14.63
11.59
9.15
6.10
2.44
1.22
1.22
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
25.61
51.22
65.85
77.44
86.59
92.68
95.12
96.34
97.56
98.17
98.78
99.39
100.00
Davie, Florida - FLFL
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Bromomethane
Chloromethane
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.091
0.17
0.4
0.015
0.5
9
Total
43
43
26
26
24
12
1
1
1
177
43
43
40
42
38
43
1
42
43
335
100.00
100.00
65.00
61.90
63.16
27.91
100.00
2.38
2.33
52.84
24.29
24.29
14.69
14.69
13.56
6.78
0.56
0.56
0.56
24.29
48.59
63.28
77.97
91.53
98.31
98.87
99.44
100.00
Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
0.077
0.45
Total
74
73
147
74
74
148
100.00
98.65
99.32
50.34
49.66
50.34
100.00
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
0.077
0.45
Total
120
118
238
120
120
240
100.00
98.33
99.17
50.42
49.58
50.42
100.00
10-49
-------
Table 10-4. Risk Screening Results for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Orlando, Florida - PAFL
Arsenic (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
0.00023
0.005
0.015
0.009
Total
58
4
3
1
66
61
61
61
61
244
96.30
7.41
5.56
1.85
27.05
87.88
6.06
4.55
1.52
87.88
93.94
98.48
100.00
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.45
0.077
0.029
0.000083
0.00091
Total
121
121
100
3
2
347
121
121
111
56
93
502
100.00
100.00
90.09
5.36
2.15
69.12
34.87
34.87
28.82
0.86
0.58
34.87
69.74
98.56
99.42
100.00
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Formaldehyde
Acet aldehyde
Naphthalene
Propionaldehyde
0.077
0.45
0.029
0.8
Total
120
119
67
1
307
120
120
105
120
465
100.00
99.17
63.81
0.83
66.02
39.09
38.76
21.82
0.33
39.09
77.85
99.67
100.00
Observations from Table 10-4 include the following:
• Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were the only two pollutants to fail screens for
AZFL, GAFL, and ORFL. These two pollutants contributed equally to the total
number of failed screens for each site. These three sites sampled only carbonyl
compounds; acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde are the only carbonyl
compounds with screening values. Propionaldehyde did not fail any screens for these
three sites.
• Thirteen VOC failed screens for CCFL, of which four are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. The risk screening process yielded seven pollutants of interest, including
the four NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Three additional VOC NATTS MQO Core
Analytes (chloroform, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) were added to CCFL's
pollutants of interest, even though they did not fail any screens. These three pollutants
are not shown in Table 10-4.
10-50
-------
• Nine VOC failed screens for FLFL, of which four are NATTS MQO Core Analytes.
The risk screening process yielded six pollutants of interest, including the four
NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Three additional VOC NATTS MQO Core Analytes
(chloroform, vinyl chloride, and trichloroethylene) were added to FLFL's pollutants
of interest, even though they did not fail any screens. These three pollutants are not
shown in Table 10-4.
• Four metals (arsenic, lead, nickel, and manganese) failed screens for PAFL; all of
these are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Arsenic, manganese, and lead were initially
identified as PAFL's pollutants of interest, with arsenic failing the bulk of the screens
(88 percent). Nickel was added as a pollutant of interest because it is a NATTS MQO
Core Analyte. Two additional metal NATTS MQO Core Analytes, cadmium and
beryllium, were added to PAFL's pollutants of interest, even though they did not fail
any screens. These two pollutants are not shown in Table 10-4.
• Five pollutants failed screens for SKFL, all of which are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. While hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene were not identified as
pollutants of interest through the risk screening process, they were added because
they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes.
• Four pollutants failed screens for SYFL; three of these are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes and were initially identified as SYFL's pollutants of interest. Two additional
NATTS MQO Core Analytes, hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene, were added
to SYFL's pollutants of interest, even though they did not fail any screens. These
pollutants are not shown in Table 10-4.
• Of the five sites sampling carbonyl compounds, formaldehyde failed 100 percent of
screens for all five sites. Of the two sites sampling VOC, benzene and carbon
tetrachloride failed 100 percent of screens for both sites.
10.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Florida monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for each Florida site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at
each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through O.
10-51
-------
10.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Florida site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 10-5, where applicable. Note that
concentrations of the PAH, metals, and hexavalent chromium are presented in ng/m3 for ease of
viewing.
10-52
-------
Table 10-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Florida
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.23
±0.13
3.02
±0.18
1.21
±0.26
2.84
±0.36
1.10
±0.24
3.24
±0.52
1.26
±0.36
2.93
±0.30
1.35
±0.21
3.08
±0.28
1.23
±0.13
3.02
±0.18
2.37
±0.41
2.01
±0.30
1.51
±0.39
3.24
±0.35
0.99
±0.18
3.16
±0.41
3.00
±0.79
1.03
±0.18
3.55
±0.77
1.05
±0.11
2.37
±0.41
2.01
±0.30
Coconut Creek, Florida - CCFL
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
ND
1.04
±0.45
0.07
±0.03
0.75
±0.08
0.29
±0.07
0.15
±0.05
0.48
±0.24
0.26
±0.13
0.10
±0.07
ND
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
0.78
±0.29
0.07
±0.04
0.80
±0.11
0.26
±0.04
0.16
±0.07
0.56
±0.47
0.27
±0.25
NA
NA
NA
1.24
±0.78
0.07
±0.05
0.71
±0.11
0.29
±0.13
0.09
±0.05
0.43
±0.25
0.19
±0.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
±0.08
1.04
±0.44
0.04
±0.02
0.69
±0.08
0.16
±0.05
0.07
±0.02
0.23
±0.08
0.12
±0.04
0.05
±0.05
0.02
±0.02
NA
1.04
±0.44
0.04
±0.02
0.69
±0.08
0.16
±0.05
0.06
±0.02
0.23
±0.08
0.12
±0.04
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for this site and/or pollutant are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 10-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Florida
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Davie, Florida - FLFL
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.99
±0.23
0.07
±0.02
0.83
±0.08
0.24
±0.04
0.21
±0.08
0.38
±0.12
0.25
±0.06
0.14
±0.08
0.01
±0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.05
±0.46
0.07
±0.04
0.87
±0.11
0.23
±0.09
0.27
±0.17
0.44
±0.22
0.21
±0.09
NA
NA
0.95
±0.27
0.06
±0.03
0.80
±0.11
0.21
±0.06
0.16
±0.08
0.35
±0.15
0.21
±0.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.99
±0.36
0.04
±0.02
0.76
±0.11
0.15
±0.03
0.12
±0.06
0.30
±0.13
0.15
±0.04
0.07
±0.02
0.02
±0.01
0.99
±0.36
0.04
±0.02
0.76
±0.11
0.15
±0.03
0.12
±0.06
0.30
±0.13
0.15
±0.04
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.07
±0.24
1.67
±0.27
1.90
±0.46
1.45
±0.49
1.79
±0.50
2.13
±0.66
2.09
±0.40
2.13
±0.44
2.54
±0.62
0.94
±0.34
2.07
±0.24
1.67
±0.27
2.97
±0.91
0.94
±0.26
2.97
±0.91
0.94
±0.26
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for this site and/or pollutant are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 10-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Florida
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.66
±0.31
2.17
±0.48
1.01
±0.19
1.65
±0.24
1.22
±0.21
2.88
±0.63
2.02
±0.90
2.12
±0.40
2.52
±0.76
2.06
±1.91
1.66
±0.31
2.17
±0.48
1.73
±0.21
2.10
±0.33
2.20
±0.72
0.48
±0.15
1.86
±0.25
2.82
±0.74
1.53
±0.21
2.84
±0.43
1.31
±0.18
2.21
±0.27
1.73
±0.21
2.10
±0.33
Orlando, Florida - PAFLa
Arsenic (PM10)a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10) a
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Nickel (PM10)a
0.77
±0.16
0.01
±0.01
0.10
±0.02
4.43
±1.77
2.52
±0.49
1.63
±0.80
0.58
±0.22
0.01
±0.01
0.08
±0.03
7.42
±5.97
2.23
±0.75
0.76
±0.13
0.60
±0.36
0.01
±0.01
0.08
±0.02
2.46
±0.83
3.16
±1.40
1.11
±0.30
0.81
±0.33
0.01
±0.01
0.11
±0.07
3.06
±1.82
2.42
±1.12
3.55
±2.83
1.10
±0.40
0.01
±0.01
0.12
±0.03
4.54
±3.18
2.32
±1.02
0.96
±0.20
0.77
±0.16
0.01
±0.01
0.10
±0.02
4.43
±1.77
2.52
±0.49
1.63
±0.80
0.71
±0.16
0.01
±0.01
0.08
±0.01
3.54
±1.11
2.68
±0.77
0.86
±0.11
0.88
±0.45
0.01
±0.01
0.12
±0.03
4.95
±3.86
2.93
±0.44
1.14
±0.30
0.68
±0.41
0.01
±0.01
0.08
±0.02
3.42
±1.59
3.57
±2.99
0.75
±0.11
0.65
±0.27
0.01
±0.01
0.06
±0.01
2.80
±2.00
2.56
±1.06
0.73
±0.10
0.63
±0.25
NA
0.07
±0.02
2.89
±1.24
1.66
±0.38
0.81
±0.19
0.71
±0.16
0.01
±0.01
0.08
±0.01
3.54
±1.11
2.68
±0.77
0.86
±0.11
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzo(a)pyrenea
2.43
±0.25
1.76
±0.25
0.05
±0.01
2.53
±0.49
1.05
±0.11
NA
2.64
±0.46
1.50
±0.38
0.02
±0.01
2.12
±0.36
2.91
±0.50
0.03
±0.01
2.43
±0.70
1.59
±0.36
0.07
±0.04
2.43
±0.25
1.76
±0.25
0.04
±0.01
2.87
±0.28
1.28
±0.13
0.12
±0.06
2.97
±0.87
1.31
±0.23
0.08
±0.03
2.62
±0.55
1.04
±0.25
0.05
±0.01
3.11
±0.33
1.72
±0.25
0.22
±0.16
2.79
±0.48
1.07
±0.21
0.05
±0.03
2.87
±0.28
1.28
±0.13
0.11
±0.05
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for this site and/or pollutant are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 10-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Florida
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Hexavalent Chromium3
Naphthalene a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.03
±0.03
82.51
±18.33
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NA
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
57.93
± 12.53
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.03
±0.05
89.41
± 30.77
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.01
±0.01
104.47
±51.46
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
82.51
±18.33
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.03
±0.01
92.80
±16.15
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
96.69
±39.49
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±0.01
63.75
± 26.97
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.04
±0.03
110.81
± 27.57
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
±0.01
94.67
±37.99
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±0.01
92.80
±16.15
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Hexavalent Chromium3
Naphthalene a
1.20
±0.24
2.42
±0.53
0.03
±0.01
0.01
±<0.01
36.30
±5.61
0.95
±0.18
1.56
±0.24
NR
NA
NR
1.62
±0.87
3.04
±2.09
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
37.54
±9.12
1.13
±0.36
2.81
±0.48
NA
0.01
±0.01
33.33
±6.89
1.13
±0.18
2.34
±0.29
0.02
±0.01
NA
38.01
±13.51
1.20
±0.24
2.42
±0.53
NA
NA
36.30
±5.61
1.15
±0.10
2.60
±0.24
0.07
±0.02
0.02
±<0.01
41.23
±5.71
1.49
±0.25
1.86
±0.25
0.05
±0.04
NA
44.45
± 14.73
1.09
±0.18
3.19
±0.55
NA
NA
33.95
± 13.86
0.98
±0.13
3.04
±0.43
NA
NA
45.20
±8.21
1.06
±0.16
2.25
±0.34
NA
NA
41.31
±9.63
1.15
±0.10
2.60
±0.24
NA
NA
41.23
±5.71
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for this site and/or pollutant are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Observations from Table 10-5 include the following:
• AZFL's 2008 daily average concentration of formaldehyde was the highest daily
average concentration of all pollutants of interest among the Florida sites
(3.02 ±0.18 |ig/m3). Daily average concentrations of formaldehyde ranged from
0.97 ± 0.26 |ig/m3 (GAFL, 2009) to 3.02 ± 0.18 |ig/m3 (AZFL, 2008).
• The daily average concentrations of acetaldehyde ranged from 1.15 ± 0.10 |ig/m3
(SYFL, 2009) to 2.97 ± 0.91 |ig/m3 (GAFL, 2009). GAFL and SKFL's 2009 daily
average concentrations of acetaldehyde ranked third and fifth highest (respectively)
among all NMP sites sampling carbonyl compounds, as shown in Table 4-10.
• For the two sites sampling VOC, benzene had the highest daily average concentration
of all of the pollutants of interest. For both sites, the daily average concentration of
benzene for 2008 was very similar to the 2009 daily average concentration. Note that
because sampling at CCFL and FLFL was performed from July 2008 to March 2009,
few quarterly averages and no annual averages could be calculated.
• For PAFL, lead had the highest daily average concentration for both years among the
PMio metals. The first quarter lead average for 2008 is much higher than the other
quarterly averages and also has a large confidence interval. A review of the data
shows that the two highest concentrations of lead were measured during the first
quarter of 2008 (20.2 ng/m3 on February 12, 2008 and 17.7 ng/m3 on
March 31, 2008). Of the five concentrations greater than 10 ng/m3 measured at PAFL,
three were measured during the first quarter of 2008, one was measured during the
fourth quarter of 2008, and one was measured during the first quarter of 2009. The
confidence intervals for these two quarters also exhibit large confidence intervals.
• PAFL's 2008 daily average concentration of lead was the seventh highest among
NMP sites sampling PMio metals, as shown in Table 4-12. PAFL also had the sixth
(2008) and ninth (2009) highest daily average concentrations of arsenic and the fifth
highest daily average concentration of nickel (2008).
• SKFL began sampling hexavalent chromium in June 2008; thus, two quarterly
averages and an annual average could not be calculated for 2008. The confidence
interval for the third quarter 2008 is actually higher than the average itself, indicating
the presence of outliers. A review of the data shows that the highest concentration of
hexavalent chromium was measured on July 5, 2008. This was the eighth highest
hexavalent chromium concentration measured for any NMP site sampling this
pollutant over the 2-year period and, as discussed in Section 4.1.2, was one of several
relatively high concentrations measured on this date. The 2008 daily average
concentration for this site ranked 11th highest among all NMP sites sampling
hexavalent chromium.
• SKFL and SYFL began sampling PAH in March 2008 and April 2008, respectively.
The concentration averages of naphthalene for SYFL exhibit much less variability
than the concentration averages for SKFL. The measurements for SYFL range from
10-57
-------
9.22 to 116.5 ng/m3, with a median concentration of 35.2 ng/m3. Conversely, the
measurements for SKFL range from 8.55 to 340 ng/m3, with a median concentration
of 64.5 ng/m3.
10.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. Thus, AZFL, GAFL, ORFL, SKFL, and SYFL have sampled carbonyl compounds
as part of the NMP for at least 5 consecutive years. Figures 10-44 through 10-53 present the
3-year rolling statistical metrics for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde for each of these sites. In
addition, SYFL has sampled hexavalent chromium since 2005; thus, Figure 10-54 presents the
3-year rolling statistical metrics for hexavalent chromium for SYFL. The statistical metrics
presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-detects.
Observations from Figure 10-44 for acetaldehyde measurements at AZFL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compounds have been measured at AZFL since 2001, making this site one
of the longer running UATMP sites.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2003, but a similar
concentration was also measured in 2009.
• The rolling average and median concentrations increased through the 2003-2005 time
frame then began to decrease significantly. The rolling average actually increased for
the 2007-2009 time frame, although the median continued its decreasing trend.
• The rolling averages and the median values are similar to each other for several of the
3-year periods shown, but the spread between the two increased for the final time
frame. This indicates increasing variability in the central tendency of acetaldehyde
concentrations measured over that period. The spread of concentrations measured
also increased, as shown by widening difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles
for this period. Note that of the 17 concentrations of acetaldehyde greater than
5 |ig/m3, six of them were measured in 2003, five in 2004, and six in 2009, with none
measured in the years in between.
• Note that with the exception of the 2001-2003 time frame, the minimum
concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. Only two non-detects of
acetaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound sampling
(both in 2001).
10-58
-------
Figure 10-44. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at AZFL
7
j*
|4
1
1
J
—
MU
•
.
JM
1
i J
rt,f^,^,r*-
•
-
„...
K
,
H«
i j
- f.1»«,nH
^<
Ml!
|
»^
/..,
» l
Thr»
- HKJUl
'
J
.,„
• ',
'-3
^
.
;.-
., f
1
riod
- H«dm>
' *
« 1
•ii
7 I
• ••'•i'i
I
1
^^
1
M»JO«
•r,.^,«
]
r ..-«.
••
.
H)
-
>
^
L
.' •'('
rtj.
_
•
I
Figure 10-45. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at AZFL
'-Ihl'n.mrJ. - t.lnmiin - Mfdun - MttMynl * flfiPMIKllir
10-59
-------
Figure 10-46. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at GAFL
-
1
*
I
l~
Hd
•
,...,|
•
•mt
J
.'. .»
Mli
;
Pninitb
-
_<
•n
>»
......
r
,
a*
,„,
to
.',.!.'
Tl
1 f I
1
,....••.,
i.i,
•t
_
..-.•«
d
M
>JB
»
.
/i..
I.INH
>
m> •
.
..-.'.
^Ml
.
f«
,
"ih«.
•u
J
• •
^s
.
., ..,.
»H«|
o 1
Figure 10-47. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at GAFL
14t
Ul
1H
1 **
4*
a
*
•
1
>
•
iii Bj
3 -fi
IIWI ;nil> JOO(J«« Jim I .HIM'. JDOIJOM JUIH J«07 JMt-jMt
H.. ..>'..! P.MOd
> '.Hi P>1 1 mnlr — Ml, nil. .11 - I.I . M. — Mj.N~.ll • «<.H| Pn 1 mMr • • m.'r
10-60
-------
Figure 10-48. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at ORFL
u
M
JOOIJOH1
JOM-JtMH
JH1JH7
.' .''««
- I.IH..MHI. - M-ill.ii
•-••- *MM»r
1 Sampling for carbonyl compounds at ORFL began in April 2003.
Figure 10-49. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at ORFL
ia>i 100,
:,,,,. ,.,w«
• I- ... ,.„...,-:
Sampling for carbonyl compounds at ORFL began in April 2003.
10-61
-------
Figure 10-50. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at SKFL
1004 mot!
Sampling for carbonyl compounds at SKFL began in July 2004.
Figure 10-51. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at SKFL
IK
IKt-lttk
itoMtm
JOUli ;«t*
S*,P«,Mlfc-
Sampling for carbonyl compounds at SKFL began in July 2004.
10-62
-------
Figure 10-52. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at SYFL
u
join jo*
- I.I —-H,. - M«tMI
Figure 10-53. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at SYFL
JS
10
^••f
iv, tm
an .-i..^i
— Mlltliiun
— M«.»ni.i. *
10-63
-------
Figure 10-54. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at SYFL
|LU
(11
• 11
*«
• •Z
r PwtoJ
• «.rt.FvMn.(*»
Observations from Figure 10-45 for formaldehyde measurements at AZFL include the
following:
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured in 2001, after which the
highest concentration measured decreased by nearly half. The three highest
concentrations of formaldehyde were measured in 2001 and ranged from 9.30 to
16.09 |ig/m3.
• The rolling average concentration decreased through the 2003-2005 time frame, was
static through 2004-2006, then began increasing again. The final time frame shows
just a slight decrease from the previous 3-year period. The median concentrations
show a similar pattern.
• Note that the trends for formaldehyde in Figure 10-45 are almost the opposite of the
trends shown for acetaldehyde in Figure 10-44.
• The minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. No non-
detects of formaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound
sampling in 2001.
10-64
-------
Observations from Figure 10-46 for acetaldehyde measurements at GAFL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compounds have also been measured at GAFL since 2001. However, this
site stopped sampling in March 2009; thus, 2009 data have not been included in
Figure 10-46.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2002. The first two
3-year periods have the widest range of concentrations measured.
• The rolling average concentrations have not changed significantly over the 8 years of
sampling.
• The rolling averages and the median values are similar to each other for each 3-year
period shown. This indicates little variability in the central tendency of acetaldehyde
concentrations measured over the periods shown in Figure 10-46.
• Note that with the exception of the 2001 -2003 and 2002-2004 time frames, the
minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. Seven non-detects
of acetaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound sampling
(all in 2001 and 2002).
Observations from Figure 10-47 for formaldehyde measurements at GAFL include the
following:
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured in 2005. Several unusually
high concentrations of formaldehyde were measured at GAFL in May and June of
2005, ranging from 18 |ig/m3 to 129 |ig/m3. Only one other concentration fell into this
range and was measured in 2002 (47 |ig/m3).
• The outliers mentioned above caused increases in the rolling averages for the affected
3-year periods. Although difficult to discern in Figure 10-47, the average
concentration for the 2003-2005 time frame is greater than the 95th percentile,
reflecting the effects of the outliers. Yet, the median concentrations, or the 50th
percentiles, changed little over the years of sampling.
• The minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. No non-
detects of formaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound
sampling in 2001.
Observations from Figure 10-48 for acetaldehyde measurements at ORFL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compounds have been measured at ORFL since April 2003.
10-65
-------
The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2006.
The rolling average concentrations show a slight decreasing trend beginning with the
2005-2007 time frame.
th
• The spread of concentrations measured appears fairly static, as shown by the 5 and
95th percentiles.
• The minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. No non-
detects of acetaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound
sampling in 2003.
Observations from Figure 10-49 for formaldehyde measurements at ORFL include the
following:
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured in 2007, although a similar
concentration was also measured in 2008.
• Even with the relatively high concentrations measured in later years, several of the
statistical parameters shows a slight decreasing trend for the last several time frames.
• The minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. No non-
detects of formaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound
sampling in 2003.
Observations from Figure 10-50 for acetaldehyde measurements at SKFL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compounds have been measured at SKFL since July 2004.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2004 (50.73 |ig/m3) and
is more than six times higher than the next highest measurement (8.16 |ig/m3), also
measured in 2004.
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 10-50, the rolling average concentrations show
a decrease from the first to the second 3-year period, then an increasing trend
beginning with the 2006-2008 time frame and continuing into the 2007-2009 time
frame. The median and 95th percentiles also exhibit this pattern.
• The minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. No non-
detects of acetaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound
sampling in 2004.
10-66
-------
Observations from Figure 10-51 for formaldehyde measurements at SKFL include the
following:
• Two high formaldehyde concentrations were measured at SKFL, one in 2005
(91.69 |ig/m3) and one in 2004 (70.40 |ig/m3). Aside from these two measurements,
all other concentrations measured at this site were at least an order of magnitude
lower. The high 2004 formaldehyde concentration corresponded with the high
acetaldehyde concentration (both measured on August 31, 2004).
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 10-51, the rolling average and median
concentrations show a steady decreasing trend over the periods shown, while the
difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles has changed little over the period of
sampling.
• The minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. No non-
detects of formaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound
sampling in 2004.
Observations from Figure 10-52 for acetaldehyde measurements at SYFL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compounds have been measured at SYFL since January 2004.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured on January 18, 2007
(15.26 |ig/m3). The next highest concentration, also measured in 2007, is roughly half
of the highest measured concentration (7.55 |ig/m3).
• The rolling average concentrations show an increase from 2004-2006 to 2005-2007,
after which little change is shown. The median concentrations also exhibit this
pattern.
• With the exception of the 2004-2006 time frame, the minimum concentration for each
3-year period is greater than zero. Only one non-detect of acetaldehyde has been
reported since the onset of carbonyl compound sampling (2004).
Observations from Figure 10-53 for formaldehyde measurements at SYFL include the
following:
• The highest formaldehyde concentration measured at SKFL was measured in 2005
(32.49 |ig/m3), and was nearly twice the next highest concentration measured in 2008
(17.11 |ig/m3), although several measurements similar in magnitude to this one were
also measured in 2007.
• Both the rolling average and median concentrations show a slight increasing trend
over the periods shown.
10-67
-------
• The minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero. No non-
detects of formaldehyde have been reported since the onset of carbonyl compound
sampling in 2004.
Observations from Figure 10-54 for hexavalent chromium measurements at SYFL
include the following:
• Hexavalent chromium sampling at SYFL began in January 2005.
• The highest formaldehyde concentration measured at SYFL was measured on
July 3, 2005 and was similar in magnitude to the next highest concentration,
measured on July 4, 2006.
• Both the rolling average and median concentrations exhibit a significant decreasing
trend over the periods shown, as do the other statistical parameters.
• Note that the minimum concentration, 5th percentile, and median concentration for the
2007-2009 period are all zero. This indicates an increase in the number of non-detects
reported; the percentage of non-detects increased from 42 percent in 2007 to 70
percent in 2009.
10.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Florida monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
risk.
10.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Florida monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and the annual
averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the Florida monitoring sites were higher
than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
10-68
-------
10.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Florida sites and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 of this report regarding the
criteria for annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are
calculated). Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are presented in Table 10-6, where applicable.
Observations for the Florida sites from Table 10-6 include the following:
• Formaldehyde had the highest cancer surrogate risk approximation among the site-
specific pollutants of interest, ranging from 16.65 in-a-million (for SKFL, 2009) to
39.31 in-a-million (for AZFL).
• Among the sites sampling carbonyl compounds, the cancer surrogate risk
approximations for formaldehyde were an order of magnitude higher than the cancer
surrogate risk approximations for acetaldehyde, which ranged from 2.54 in-a-million
(for SYFL, 2009) to 6.31 in-a-million (for SKFL, 2009).
• For PAFL, where metals sampling was conducted, arsenic had the highest cancer risk
approximations (3.30 in-a-million for 2008 and 3.06 in-a-million for 2009). The
cancer surrogate risk approximations were less than 1.0 in-a-million for the remaining
pollutants, where a cancer URE is available.
• For the two sites sampling PAH and hexavalent chromium in addition to carbonyl
compounds, naphthalene had the third highest cancer risk approximations for each
site for both years, behind formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Cancer risk
approximations for hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene calculated for SKFL
were less than 1.0 in-a-million and could not be calculated for SYFL for either year
due to the relatively low detection rate.
• All of the noncancer risk approximations for the site-specific pollutants of interest
were less than 1.0 (where they could be calculated), indicating no risk of noncancer
health effects.
• Annual averages (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations)
could not be calculated for CCFL and FLFL because sampling did not begin until
July 2008 and ended in March 2009 (and less than three quarterly averages are
available for either year).
10-69
-------
Table 10-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Florida Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Detects/Valid
Quarters
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.0000022
0.000013
0.009
0.0098
61/4
61/4
1.23
±0.13
3.02
±0.18
2.70
39.31
0.14
0.31
60/4
60/4
2.37
±0.41
2.01
±0.30
5.22
26.16
0.26
0.21
Coconut Creek, Florida - CCFL
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.000011
0.0000025
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.27
0.6
0.1
0/0
28/2
25/2
28/2
27/2
23/2
28/2
24/2
9/0
0/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4/0
14/1
14/1
14/1
14/1
13/1
14/1
14/1
2/0
2/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
o
o
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 10-5.
-------
Table 10-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Davie, Florida - FLFL
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.000011
0.0000025
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.27
0.6
0.1
28/2
25/2
28/2
26/2
27/2
28/2
23/2
9/0
2/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15/1
15/1
15/1
15/1
15/1
15/1
15/1
4/0
1/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.0000022
0.000013
0.009
0.0098
60/4
60/4
2.07
±0.24
1.67
±0.27
4.55
21.70
0.23
0.17
14/1
14/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Acetaldehyde
0.0000022
0.009
59/4
1.66
±0.31
3.65
0.18
61/4
1.73
±0.21
3.80
0.19
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 10-5.
-------
Table 10-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000013
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.0098
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
59/4
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2.17
±0.48
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
28.20
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.22
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
61/4
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2.10
±0.33
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
27.29
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.21
Orlando, Florida - PAFLa
Arsenic (PM10)a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10)a
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Nickel (PM10)a
0.0043
0.0024
0.0018
_
0.000312
0.000015
0.00002
0.00001
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
30/4
30/4
30/4
30/4
30/4
30/4
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
3.30
0.01
0.17
_
0.51
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.02
31/4
23/3
31/4
31/4
31/4
31/4
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
3.06
0.01
0.14
_
0.27
0.05
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.01
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acetaldehyde
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium3
Naphthalene a
0.0000022
0.001
0.000013
0.012
0.000034
0.009
_
0.0098
0.0001
0.003
60/4
41/3
60/4
20/2
50/3
2.43
±0.25
O.01
±0.01
1.76
±0.25
NA
0.08
±0.02
5.34
0.04
22.85
NA
2.81
0.27
..
0.18
NA
0.03
61/4
52/4
61/4
36/3
61/4
2.87
±0.28
O.01
±0.01
1.28
±0.13
0.01
±0.01
0.09
±0.02
6.31
0.11
16.65
0.22
3.16
0.32
_
0.13
0.01
0.03
to
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 10-5.
-------
Table 10-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Acetaldehyde
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium3
Naphthalene a
0.0000022
0.001
0.000013
0.012
0.000034
0.009
0.0098
0.0001
0.003
60/4
17/1
60/4
26/2
45/3
1.20
±0.24
NA
2.42
±0.53
NA
0.04
±0.01
2.64
NA
31.43
NA
1.23
0.13
0.25
NA
0.01
60/4
22/1
60/4
18/0
60/4
1.15
±0.10
NA
2.60
±0.24
NA
0.04
±0.01
2.54
NA
33.79
NA
1.40
0.13
0.27
NA
0.01
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
o - = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
-!j a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 10-5.
-------
10.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 10-7 and 10-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 10-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 10-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 10.3,
AZFL, GAFL, and ORFL sampled for carbonyl compounds only; SKFL and SYFL sampled
hexavalent chromium and PAH in addition to carbonyl compounds; PAFL sampled only PMi0
metals; and CCFL and FLFL sampled only VOC. In addition, the cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria
for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
10-74
-------
Table 10-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Florida Monitoring Sites
1
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
'
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Coconut Creek, Florida (Broward County) - CCFL
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
934.90
635.52
467.29
182.08
137.27
119.74
116.00
69.78
61.21
59.41
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Nickel, PM
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
7.29E-03
5.84E-03
4.12E-03
2.37E-03
1.88E-03
1.19E-03
8.75E-04
8.39E-04
7.06E-04
6.54E-04
Davie, Florida (Broward County) - FLFL
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
934.90
635.52
467.29
182.08
137.27
119.74
116.00
69.78
61.21
59.41
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Nickel, PM
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
7.29E-03
5.84E-03
4.12E-03
2.37E-03
1.88E-03
1.19E-03
8.75E-04
8.39E-04
7.06E-04
6.54E-04
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 10-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
1
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
'
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Tampa, Florida (Hillsborough County) - GAFL
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Chloromethylbenzene 1
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Chloromethylbenzene
773.05
449.22
173.48
109.07
58.96
33.10
31.34
21.07
12.39
1.80
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Cadmium, PM
6.03E-03
5.62E-03
3.27E-03
1.39E-03
1.13E-03
6.82E-04
4.28E-04
3.82E-04
3.48E-04
2.98E-04
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
21.70
4.55
Plant City, Florida (Hillsborough County) - SYFL
773.05
449.22
173.48
109.07
58.96
33.10
31.34
21.07
12.39
1.80
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Cadmium, PM
6.03E-03
5.62E-03
3.27E-03
1.39E-03
1.13E-03
6.82E-04
4.28E-04
3.82E-04
3.48E-04
2.98E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
33.79
31.43
2.64
2.54
1.40
1.23
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 10-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
1
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
'
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Winter Park, Florida (Orange County) - ORFL
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
POM, Group 2
Chloromethylbenzene 1
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
POM, Group 2
Chloromethylbenzene
788.36
412.16
146.83
116.70
62.56
27.83
24.14
17.37
11.60
0.97
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Nickel, PM
6.15E-03
5.15E-03
3.50E-03
2.73E-03
1.59E-03
9.46E-04
6.38E-04
3.69E-04
3.23E-04
1.16E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
28.20
27.29
3.80
3.65
Orlando, Florida (Orange County) - PAFL
788.36
412.16
146.83
116.70
62.56
27.83
24.14
17.37
11.60
0.97
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Nickel, PM
6.15E-03
5.15E-03
3.50E-03
2.73E-03
1.59E-03
9.46E-04
6.38E-04
3.69E-04
3.23E-04
1.16E-04
Arsenic
Arsenic
Nickel
Nickel
Cadmium
Cadmium
Beryllium
Beryllium
3.30
3.06
0.51
0.27
0.17
0.14
0.01
0.01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 10-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
o
oo
1
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
'
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
St. Petersburg, Florida (Pinellas County) - AZFL
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Nickel, PM
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
619.89
249.94
99.28
84.20
63.56
21.46
20.68
6.65
6.41
4.54
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Nickel, PM
Naphthalene
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 2
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene oxide
4.84E-03
3.12E-03
2.53E-03
1.31E-03
1.06E-03
7.30E-04
6.15E-04
3.53E-04
2.18E-04
5.01E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
39.31
26.16
5.22
2.70
Pinellas Park, Florida (Pinellas County) - SKFL
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Nickel, PM
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
619.89
249.94
99.28
84.20
63.56
21.46
20.68
6.65
6.41
4.54
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Nickel, PM
Naphthalene
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 2
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene oxide
4.84E-03
3.12E-03
2.53E-03
1.31E-03
1.06E-03
7.30E-04
6.15E-04
3.53E-04
2.18E-04
5.01E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
22.85
16.65
6.31
5.34
3.16
2.81
0.22
0.11
0.04
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 10-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Florida Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Coconut Creek, Florida (Broward County) - CCFL
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Hexane
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
3,656.59
2,547.83
2,317.03
973.79
934.90
635.52
593.24
467.29
435.44
434.76
Acrolein
Nickel, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Benzene
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Acetaldehyde
1,674,544.56
180,638.36
68,632.54
47,682.69
32,400.36
31,163.49
25,478.33
23,258.97
20,343.58
20,230.95
Davie, Florida (Broward County) - FLFL
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Hexane
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
3,656.59
2,547.83
2,317.03
973.79
934.90
635.52
593.24
467.29
435.44
434.76
Acrolein
Nickel, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Benzene
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Acetaldehyde
1,674,544.56
180,638.36
68,632.54
47,682.69
32,400.36
31,163.49
25,478.33
23,258.97
20,343.58
20,230.95
a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation
Green shading represents
-------
oo
o
Table 10-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Green shading represents
a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity- Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Tampa, Florida (Hillsborough County) - GAFL
Hydrochloric acid
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Hydroflouric acid
Benzene
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
3,146.99
2,264.29
1,555.25
1,177.05
1,058.97
773.05
533.06
449.22
376.61
369.87
Acrolein
Hydrochloric acid
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Hydrofluoric acid
Manganese, PM
Benzene
Nickel, PM
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
1,627,641.80
157,349.28
54,534.69
45,838.59
35,299.15
35,225.71
25,768.46
23,732.86
19,275.05
15,552.51
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.23
0.17
Plant City, Florida (Hillsborough County) - SYFL
Hydrochloric acid
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Hydroflouric acid
Benzene
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
3,146.99
2,264.29
1,555.25
1,177.05
1,058.97
773.05
533.06
449.22
376.61
369.87
Acrolein
Hydrochloric acid
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Hydrofluoric acid
Manganese, PM
Benzene
Nickel, PM
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
1,627,641.80
157,349.28
54,534.69
45,838.59
35,299.15
35,225.71
25,768.46
23,732.86
19,275.05
15,552.51
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
0.27
0.25
0.13
0.13
0.01
0.01
-------
Table 10-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
o
oo
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Winter Park, Florida (Orange County) - ORFL
Toluene
Hydrochloric acid
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Styrene
2,409.09
1,675.29
1,642.46
982.56
788.36
508.49
412.16
394.60
340.49
238.22
Acrolein
Hydrochloric acid
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Arsenic, PM
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Nickel, PM
Orlando, Florida (Oran
Toluene
Hydrochloric acid
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Styrene
2,409.09
1,675.29
1,642.46
982.56
788.36
508.49
412.16
394.60
340.49
238.22
Acrolein
Hydrochloric acid
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Arsenic, PM
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Nickel, PM
1,672,607.91
83,764.57
58,347.59
42,057.19
26,278.70
21,177.44
16,424.62
16,314.39
11,330.16
11,178.12
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.18
?e County) - PAFL
1,672,607.91
83,764.57
58,347.59
42,057.19
26,278.70
21,177.44
16,424.62
16,314.39
11,330.16
11,178.12
Manganese
Arsenic
Manganese
Arsenic
Lead
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Nickel
Cadmium
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 10-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Florida Monitoring Sites (Continued)
oo
to
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
St. Petersburg, Florida (Pinellas County) - AZFL
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl tert butyl ether
Styrene
Hydrochloric acid
1,858.03
1,181.25
1,167.27
619.89
415.39
305.86
249.94
227.40
226.60
100.35
Acrolein
Nickel, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Manganese, PM
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Hydrochloric acid
661,403.85
102,336.91
42,099.40
25,503.77
20,663.06
17,952.22
11,812.48
11,031.19
7,153.44
5,017.72
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
0.31
0.26
0.21
0.14
Pinellas Park, Florida (Pinellas County) - SKFL
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl tert butyl ether
Styrene
Hydrochloric acid
1,858.03
1,181.25
1,167.27
619.89
415.39
305.86
249.94
227.40
226.60
100.35
Acrolein
Nickel, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Manganese, PM
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Hydrochloric acid
661,403.85
102,336.91
42,099.40
25,503.77
20,663.06
17,952.22
11,812.48
11,031.19
7,153.44
5,017.72
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
0.32
0.27
0.18
0.13
0.03
0.03
<0.01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation
-------
Observations from Table 10-7 include the following:
• Benzene and formaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with cancer UREs in
three of the four Florida counties (Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange). In Broward
County, benzene and dichloromethane were the highest emitted pollutants.
Dichloromethane emissions were an order of magnitude higher in Broward County
than the other three counties.
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene had the highest toxi city-weighted
emissions for all four counties.
• For Broward County, six of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest
toxi city-weighted emissions; seven of the highest emitted pollutants also had the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Orange, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties.
Four pollutants, formaldehyde, benzene, naphthalene, and 1,3-butadiene appeared on
both lists for each county.
• Hexavalent chromium and arsenic were among the pollutants with the highest cancer
toxicity-weighted emissions, yet were not among the highest emitted pollutants in any
of the four counties.
• Formaldehyde, which had the highest cancer risk approximation for all sites sampling
carbonyl compounds, was one of the highest emitted pollutants and had one of the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions for each county.
• PAFL sampled only metals; arsenic and nickel had the highest cancer risk
approximations for this site. These pollutants appear on the list of 10 highest toxicity-
weighted emissions for Orange County, yet neither appears on the list of highest
quantity emitted, indicating the relative toxicity of a low amount of emissions.
Observations from Table 10-8 include the following:
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer RfC in Broward, Pinellas,
and Orange Counties, while hydrochloric acid topped the list for Hillsborough
County.
• Acrolein had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions of the pollutants with noncancer
RfCs for each county, but does not appear in any county's list of 10 highest emitted
pollutants.
• Between three and five of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions for each county. Three pollutants (benzene, xylenes, and
formaldehyde) appeared on both lists for all three counties.
10-83
-------
• Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde appeared on the highest toxicity-weighted emissions
list for each county. Formaldehyde appears on all three lists for each county that
sampled carbonyl compounds.
10.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the Florida Sites
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde failed screens for AZFL, GAFL, andORFL; both of
these pollutants are NATTSMQO Core Analytes. Thirteen VOC failed screens for
CCFL, of which four are NATTSMQO Core Analytes. Nine VOC failed screens for
FLFL, of which four are also NATTSMQO Core Analytes. Four metals failed screens
for PAFL, of which all are NATTSMQO Core Analytes. Five pollutants failed
screens for SKFL, all of which are NATTSMQO Core Analytes. Finally, four
pollutants failed screens for SYFL, three of which are NATTSMQO Core Analytes.
»«» Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration of any of the pollutants of
interest among the Florida sites, the highest of which was calculated for AZFL for
2008.
»«» GAFL and SKFL's 2009 daily average concentrations of acetaldehyde ranked third
and fifth highest (respectively) among all NMP sites sampling carbonyl compounds.
PAFL's 2008 daily average concentration of lead was the seventh highest among
NMP sites sampling PMw metals; PAFL also had the sixth (2008) and ninth (2009)
highest daily average concentrations of arsenic and the fifth highest daily average
concentration of nickel (2008).
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the Florida sites, where they
could be calculated, were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk
benchmarks.
10-84
-------
11.0 Site in Georgia
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Georgia, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
11.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the SDGA monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The SDGA monitoring is located in Decatur, Georgia, southeast of Atlanta. Figure 11-1
is a composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its
urban location. Figure 11-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as
reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are
included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 11-2. Thus, sources outside the
10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources
outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of
which emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate
impact on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the
proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources
within a given distance of the site. Table 11-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site
by providing supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and
locational coordinates.
11-1
-------
Figure 11-1. Decatur, Georgia (SDGA) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 2,156 feet
-------
Figure 11-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of SDGA
Legend
& SDGA NATTS site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
-f< Aircraft Operations Facility (19)
T Airport Support Operation (4)
n Automobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility (2)
$ Bakery (2)
•X Battery Manufacturing Facility (1)
C Chemical Manufacturing Facility (8)
•# Cold Solvent Cleaning/Stripping Facility (2)
0 Commercial Sterilization Facility (1)
• Concrete Batch Plant (4)
E Electroplating. Plating. Polishing. Anodizing, and Coloring
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Facility (1)
84'15'D"W 84'ICra'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
10 mile radius ^] County boundary
F Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (3)
© Gas Plant (2)
It Glass Manufacturing Facility (1)
A Grain Handling Facility (1)
$ Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (1)
l|t Institutional - school (2)
• Landfill (18)
fvl Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (3)
1 Primary Metal Production Facility (1)
P Printing/Publishing Facility (2)
(2) 2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility (2)
W Woodwork. Furniture, Millwork & Wood Preserving Facility (1)
11-3
-------
Table 11-1. Geographical Information for the Georgia Monitoring Site
Site
Code
SDGA
AQS Code
13-089-0002
Location
Decatur
County
DeKalb
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs-Marietta,
GA
Latitude
and
Longitude
33.688007,
-84.290325
Land Use
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
CO, S02, NOy, NO, N02, NOx, PAMS, Carbonyl
compounds, VOC, 03, Meteorological parameters,
PMio, PM Coarse, PM10Speciation, Black carbon,
PM2.5, and PM2.5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
-------
SDGA is located on the DeKalb County Schools Environmental Education property off
Wildcat Road. Figure 11-1 shows that residential subdivisions, a greenhouse and horse barn, an
athletic field, and a high school surround the monitoring site. A golf course backs up against the
school property. Interstate-285 is located less than 1 mile north of the site. As Figure 11-2 shows,
SDGA is located near several point sources, most of which are located to the northwest and west
of the site. These emissions sources are involved in a wide variety of industries, of which aircraft
operations (which includes airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads),
landfills, and chemical manufacturing facilities are the most numerous. The point source closest
to SDGA is a bakery.
Table 11-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the Georgia
monitoring site. Information provided in Table 11-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
DeKalb County were obtained from the Georgia Department of Revenue (GA DOR, 2009) and
the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 11-2 also includes a vehicle
registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition, the population within
10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by
applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitoring site. Table 11-2 also contains annual average daily traffic
information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was
obtained. Finally, Table 11-2 presents the daily VMT for the Atlanta urban area.
Table 11-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Georgia
Monitoring Site
Site
SDGA
Estimated
County
Population1
747,274
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
467,962
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.63
Population
Within 10
Miles3
776,511
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
486,271
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
9,200
VMT5
(thousands)
127,008
Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data from the Georgia DOR (GA DOR, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2008 data from the Georgia DOT (GA DOT, 2008).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
11-5
-------
Observations from Table 11-2 include the following:
• SDGA's county-level population and vehicle registration were in the middle of the
range compared to other counties with NMP sites. The same is also true for its
10-mile population and estimated vehicle ownership.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was among the lowest compared to other NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near SDGA ranked in the bottom third compared to
other monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from Clifton Spring Road,
between Wildcat Road and Clifton Church Road.
• The Atlanta area VMT was the fifth highest among urban areas with NMP sites.
11.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Georgia on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
11.2.1 Climate Summary
Atlanta is the largest city in Georgia, and is located at the base of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. The Gulf of Mexico to the south is the major moisture source for weather systems
that move across the region. Both topographical features, in addition to the Atlantic Ocean to the
east, exert moderating influences on the area's climate, tempering cold air outbreaks from the
north as well as summer heat waves. Summers are warm and humid while winters are relatively
mild, although snow is not uncommon. The semi-permanent Bermuda High Pressure offshore
over the Atlantic Ocean is a dominant weather feature affecting the Atlanta area, which pulls
warm, moist air into the region. Precipitation is ample, although autumn is the driest season
(Bair, 1992 and GSCO, 1998).
11.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station to SDGA is
located at W. B. Hartsfield/Atlanta International Airport (WBAN 13874). Additional information
about the Hartsfield weather station is provided in Table 11-3. These data were used to determine
how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the
year(s).
11-6
-------
Table 11-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Georgia Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Decatur, Georgia - SDGA
W.B.
Hartsfield/Atlanta
Intl Airport
13874
(33.64, -84.43)
8.17
miles
239°
(WSW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
71.9
+ 3.5
71.3
+ 1.5
68.1
±3.5
70.4
± 1.5
62.9
±3.5
62.1
± 1.5
59.4
±3.5
61.7
±1.5
48.5
±3.9
47.9
±1.7
48.2
±3.9
50.7
± 1.7
55.3
±3.2
54.6
± 1.4
53.6
±3.3
55.8
±1.4
62.7
±3.4
63.0
±1.4
69.5
±3.5
70.3
± 1.5
1017.6
±1.4
1018.2
±0.6
1017.7
±1.4
1017.7
±0.6
7.1
±0.8
7.1
±0.3
7.4
±0.6
6.9
±0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
Table 11-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 11-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 11-3,
average meteorological conditions on 2008 sample days were fairly representative of average
weather conditions throughout the year. For 2009, sample days appear slightly cooler than
average conditions throughout the year. Several invalid collection events were made up in
December 2009; thus, a higher number of observations from one of the colder months of the year
were factored into the 2009 sample day averages.
11.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 11-3 and Figure 11-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the SDGA monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 11-5
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. An in-
depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For
the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line
corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps,
each concentric circle around the site in Figures 11-3 through 11-5 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 11-3 through 11-5 include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at SDGA.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for SDGA was somewhat smaller in size compared to
other NMP monitoring sites. While the farthest away a trajectory originated was
northeast Missouri, or nearly 600 miles away, the average back trajectory length was
195 miles. Eighty-six percent of back trajectories originated within 300 miles of the
site.
• The cluster analysis shows relatively good agreement between the clusters of the two
different years. Trajectories originating from the southeast of SDGA occurred
infrequently, while trajectories originating from the south or southwest, the northwest
to north, and the northeast to east (and within a relatively short distance) were most
common.
11-8
-------
Figure 11-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SDGA
Figure 11-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SDGA
11-9
-------
Figure 11-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for SDGA
11.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Hartsfield International Airport near
SDGA were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as
described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals"
positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 11-6 presents five different wind roses for the SDGA monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
11-10
-------
Figure 11-6. Wind Roses for the Hartsfield International Airport Weather Station near SDGA
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 10.79%
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
• .22
IZ1 4-7
-------
Observations from Figure 11-6 for SDGA include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from the west to north-northwest account
for approximately one-third of wind observations. Easterly winds were also common.
Calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed for nearly 16 percent of the hourly wind
measurements.
• The wind patterns on both the 2008 and 2009 full-year wind roses resemble those of
the historical wind rose, indicating that the conditions observed in 2008 and 2009
were similar to what is expected climatologically near this site. Further, the sample
day wind patterns for both years are similar to the wind patterns shown on the full-
year and historical wind roses. This indicates that conditions on sample days were
representative of conditions experienced throughout the year(s).
11.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for SDGA in order to allow
analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk. Each
pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening value.
If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration "failed the
screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total failed screens
contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS
MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not meet the pollutant of interest
criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to the list of site-
specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening process is
presented in Section 3.2.
Table 11-4 presents SDGA's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for each monitoring site are
shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or
bolded. SDGA sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium only.
11-12
-------
Table 11-4. Risk Screening Results for the Georgia Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Decatur, Georgia - SDGA
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
0.029
0.000083
Total
106
1
107
119
38
157
89.08
2.63
68.15
99.07
0.93
99.07
100.00
Observations from Table 11-4 for SDGA include the following:
• Naphthalene and hexavalent chromium failed screens. Naphthalene failed 106 out of
119 screens (89 percent), while hexavalent chromium failed only one screen (out of
38).
• Benzo(a)pyrene was added as a pollutant of interest for SDGA because it is the other
NATTS MQO Core Analyte measured by the site. This pollutant is not shown in
Table 11-4.
11.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Georgia monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for the SDGA monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at the site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through 0.
11.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for SDGA, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections within a given year. If there were at
least seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
11-13
-------
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 11-5, where applicable. The
averages presented in Table 11-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations for SDGA from Table 11-5 include the following:
• Sampling for hexavalent chromium did not begin until May 2008. This pollutant was
detected in less than half of the samples collected over both years (38 out of 87 valid
samples). In addition, method completeness was less than 85 percent for 2008, as
described in Section 2.4. All of these reasons contribute to why few averages are
presented for hexavalent chromium in Table 11-5.
• The benzo(a)pyrene detection rate was approximately 50 percent, which is why few
averages are presented for this pollutant in Table 11-5.
• The daily average concentrations of naphthalene were significantly higher than the
daily average concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent chromium. Although
these averages appear high, the 2009 daily average concentration ranked 24th and the
2008 daily average concentration ranked 33rd among other NMP sites sampling
naphthalene.
• For naphthalene, the daily average and annual average concentrations are equal to
each other for both years (i.e., the annual average includes no zero substitutions for
non-detects because there were no non-detects). But higher confidence intervals are
shown for some of the quarterly averages (for example, first quarter 2008) compared
to the annual or daily averages. This is because there was a wide range of
concentrations measured at this site. For example, for the first quarter of 2008, there
were 14 measured detections ranging from 23 to 318 ng/m3. The range of
concentrations for other quarters exhibited similar ranges.
11-14
-------
Table 11-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Georgia Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Decatur, Geor
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.10
+ 0.02
0.01
+ 0.01
84.98
+ 15.72
0.07
±0.04
ND
75.80
±43.23
NA
NA
88.13
±22.89
NA
0.01
±0.01
74.72
±20.42
0.09
±0.04
NA
100.43
±41.62
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
gia - SDGA
NA
NA*
84.98
±15.72
0.10
±0.04
0.03
±0.01
104.21
±20.29
0.09
±0.05
NA
69.23
+ 28.00
NA
NA
108.96
±48.81
NA
NA
82.15
±26.35
0.11
±0.07
0.01
±0.01
142.93
±44.95
NA
NA
104.21
±20.29
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
*Method completeness was less than 85 percent.
-------
11.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. SDGA has sampled hexavalent chromium under the NMP since 2005. Thus,
Figure 11-7 presents the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for hexavalent chromium for SDGA.
The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-
detects.
Figure 11-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at SDGA
2006-2008
Three-Year Period
5thPercentile — Minimum - Median — Maximum • 95thPercentile ...... Average
Samples were not collected between September 2007 and May 2008.
Completeness was less than 85 percent for 2008.
Observations from Figure 11-7 for hexavalent chromium measurements at SDGA include
the following:
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured on
November 25, 2006 (0.300 ng/m3), and thus appears as the maximum concentration
for the first two 3-year periods. Only five concentrations measured at SDGA were
greater than 0.1 ng/m3 and all five were measured in 2005 or 2006.
11-16
-------
• The rolling average concentration shows a slight decrease from 2005-2007 to
2006-2008, and a significant decrease from 2006-2008 to 2007-2009. The median and
95th percentile exhibit a similar trend.
• Both the minimum concentration and 5th percentile for all three 3-year periods shown
are zero, indicating the presence of non-detects. The percentage of non-detects has
varied from as little as 5 percent (2007) to as much as 64 percent (2009).
• As denoted in Figure 11-7, sampling for hexavalent chromium began in February
2005. There was a gap in sampling from September 2007 to May 2008. Also, method
completeness for 2008 was below 85 percent.
11.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
SDGA monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
11.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
SDGA monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
acute MRL; quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and annual averages
were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period average
concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the SDGA monitoring site were higher than their
respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
11.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the SDGA monitoring site and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
11-17
-------
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 11-6, where applicable.
Observations for SDGA from Table 11-6 include the following:
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant for which annual averages could be calculated.
• Both of naphthalene's cancer risk approximations were greater than 1.0 in-a-million
(2.89 in-a-million for 2008 and 3.54 in-a-million for 2009). Both of naphthalene's
noncancer risk approximations were well below 1.0 (0.03 for both years).
• Cancer and noncancer risk approximations could not be calculated for benzo(a)pyrene
because this pollutant did not meet the detection criteria for calculating an annual
average.
• Annual averages (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations)
could not be calculated for hexavalent chromium due to the sampling completeness
and/or detection criteria.
11.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 11-7 and 11-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 11-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 11-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
11-18
-------
Table 11-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Georgia Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Decatur, Georgia - SDGA
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
3.4E-05
0.0001
0.003
27/2
17/1
60/4
NA
NA
84.98
+ 15.72
NA
NA
2.89
NA
NA
0.03
35/2
21/1
59/4
NA
NA
104.21
+ 20.29
NA
NA
3.54
NA
NA
0.03
- = A Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
-------
Table 11-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Georgia Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Decatur, Georgia (DeKalb County) - SDGA
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
455.26
216.01
120.19
84.52
57.90
52.63
21.55
11.90
6.53
1.57
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Cadmium, PM
3.55E-03
2.70E-03
2.54E-03
1.74E-03
1.60E-03
7.33E-04
3.59E-04
3.11E-04
1.86E-04
1.20E-04
Naphthalene 3.54
Naphthalene 2.89
t-o
o
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 11-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Georgia Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Decatur, Georgia (DeKalb County) - SDGA
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Methanol
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Hydroflouric acid
Ethylene glycol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1,522.92
1,263.88
455.26
275.24
265.86
232.79
216.01
202.42
181.94
158.92
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
Benzene
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Nickel, PM
Naphthalene
748,452.27
28,949.09
22,041.97
19,723.69
15,175.43
12,638.76
9,390.60
8,419.85
7,414.19
7,183.87
Naphthalene 0.03
Naphthalene 0.03
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual average are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 11.3,
SDGA sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium. In addition, the cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria
for annual averages to be calculated. Because annual averages for hexavalent chromium and
benzo(a)pyrene could not be calculated, for the reasons discussed in Sections 11.4.1 and 11.5.2,
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations were not calculated. A more in-depth
discussion of this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 11-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and dichloromethane were the highest emitted pollutants
with cancer UREs in DeKalb County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) were benzene, formaldehyde, and arsenic.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also have the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for DeKalb County.
• Naphthalene, which was the only pollutant with cancer risk approximations for
SDGA, has the sixth highest toxicity-weighted emissions and seventh highest
emissions for DeKalb County.
• Hexavalent chromium ranked fifth highest for toxicity-based emissions, but is not
among one of the highest emitted pollutants in DeKalb County.
• POM Group 2 was the ninth highest emitted "pollutant" in DeKalb County and
ranked seventh for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH
sampled for at SDGA including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for SDGA.
Observations from Table 11-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in DeKalb County.
11-22
-------
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.
• Three of the highest emitted pollutants in DeKalb County also have the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• While naphthalene is not one of the 10 highest emitted pollutants with a noncancer
toxicity factor in Dekalb County, it does have one of the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions (tenth).
11.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for SDGA
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene and hexavalent chromium failed at least one screen for SDGA.
Benzo(a)pyrene was added to SDGA 's pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS
MQO Core Analyte.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of the interest, naphthalene had the highest daily
average concentrations for SDGA.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than any of their associated MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
11-23
-------
12.0 Sites in Illinois
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS and UATMP sites in Illinois, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
12.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Illinois monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
Both sites are located in northwestern suburbs of Greater Chicago. More specifically,
NBIL is located in Northbrook and SPIL is located in Schiller Park. Figures 12-1 and 12-2 are
composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their
urban locations. Figure 12-3 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as
reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the sites are
included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 12-3. Thus, sources outside
each 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources
outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of
which emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate
impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this boundary provides both the
proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the quantity of such sources
within a given distance of the sites. Table 12-1 describes the area surrounding each monitoring
site by providing supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and
locational coordinates.
12-1
-------
Figure 12-1. Northbrook, Illinois (NBIL) Monitoring Site
to
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,495 feet
-------
Figure 12-2. Schiller Park, Illinois (SPIL) Monitoring Site
to
..?
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/9/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,516 feet
-------
Figure 12-3. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of NBIL and SPIL
-%l!f ' _ Off
ft - > *ef§
*_o , 10 s ir, *%., 5,
T?A >».,* Ji
'^'VSi-HIiMl
*. i^««! .»; r+*rf*.*,^
* 1 • u -» • "Vi. * '«'®^ta
1 ' ; ' JL ' ' \ ^^—*ft^ ^tj
M-IOgW StPCTTW 37-E^IrW »7TOOVk t?Hn
(tote Due to fidlty density a
Itoto: Due to fidlty density and K*oca»oi. IhHotal l
Legend
•fr NBIL NATTS srte
it SPIL UATM Psile
1 10 mite radius
^County bouixlary
Stunt CmgoryCrap «n»Mifr«ni«
"^ • . < ,
iif^ r«t»f 1 1 1
>
.
I FUf, I4|
•
• .=r,Cei!
-------
Table 12-1. Geographical Information for the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
NBIL
SPIL
AQS Code
17-031-4201
17-031-3103
Location
Northbrook
Schiller
Park
County
Cook
County
Cook
County
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Chicago-
Naperville-Joliet,
IL-IN-WI
Chicago-
Naperville-Joliet,
IL-IN-WI
Latitude
and
Longitude
42.139996,
-87.799227
41.965193,
-87.876265
Land Use
Residential
Mobile
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
TSP, TSP Metals, CO, Hg, SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, NH3,
PAMS, O3, Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM2.5,
PM25 Speciation.
TSP, TSP Metals, CO, NO, NO2, NOx,
Meteorological parameters, PM2 5.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
to
-------
NBIL is located on the property of the Northbrook Water Filtration Station. Figure 12-1
shows that NBIL is located off State Highway 68, Dundee Road, near Exit 29 on 1-94. A railway
intersects Dundee Road close to the site. The surrounding area is classified as suburban and
residential. Commercial, residential, and forested areas are nearby.
SPIL is located on the eastern edge of the Chicago-O'Hare International Airport on
Mannheim Road. The nearest runway is less than 1/2 mile from the site. Figure 12-2 shows that
SPIL is located north of the Irving Park Road exit on 1-294. The surrounding area is classified as
suburban and mobile. Commercial and residential areas are nearby.
Figure 12-3 shows that NBIL and SPIL are located within approximately 12 miles of
each other. Each site is located within 10 miles of numerous point sources. The source categories
with the largest number of sources are electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring;
printing and publishing; chemical manufacturing; secondary metal processing; and dry cleaning.
Few point sources are located within 2 miles of NBIL, with most of the sources located farther
west or south. The closest source to NBIL is under the label for the site in Figure 12-3; this
source is a dry cleaning facility. Numerous sources are located in close proximity of SPIL. The
two point sources within 1/2 mile of SPIL are involved in electroplating, plating, polishing,
anodizing, and coloring; and woodwork, furniture, millwork, and wood preserving.
Table 12-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the Illinois
monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 12-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Cook County were obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State (IL SOS, 2008) and the U.S.
Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 12-2 also includes a vehicle
registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site. In addition, the
population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership
was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the
10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site. Table 12-2 also contains annual average
12-6
-------
daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from
which it was obtained. Traffic data for NBIL is for Dundee Road near the railroad crossing;
traffic data for SPIL is from 1-294 and the intersection of Mannheim Road and Lawrence
Avenue. Finally, Table 12-2 presents the daily VMT for the Chicago urban area.
Table 12-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Illinois Monitoring
Sites
Site
NBIL
SPIL
Estimated
County
Population1
5,287,037
5,287,037
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
2,128,822
2,128,822
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.40
0.40
Population
Within 10
Miles3
870,561
2,049,963
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
350,531
825,416
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
34,100
213,500
VMT5
(thousands)
172,794
172,794
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Illinois Secretary of State (IL SOS, 2008).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the Illinois DOT (IL DOT, 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 12-2 include the following:
• Cook County had the second highest county-level population (behind Los Angeles
County) and fourth highest county-level vehicle registration (behind Los Angeles
County, CA; Maricopa County, AZ; and Harris County, TX) compared to all counties
with NMP sites.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio for these sites was among the lowest compared to other
NMP sites.
• The 10-mile radius population and estimated vehicle ownership were much higher
near SPIL than NBIL.
• SPIL experienced a higher annual average daily traffic volume than NBIL. SPIL's
traffic volume was the fourth highest among all NMP sites, behind ELNJ, CELA, and
SEWA.
• The Chicago area VMT ranked third among urban areas with NMP sites (behind only
New York and Los Angeles).
12-7
-------
12.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Illinois on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
12.2.1 Climate Summary
Daily weather fluctuations are common for the Chicago area. The proximity of Chicago
to Lake Michigan offers moderating effects from the continental climate of the region. In the
summertime, afternoon lake breezes can cool the city when winds from the south and southwest
push temperatures upward. In the winter, the origin of an air mass determines the amount and
type of precipitation. The largest snowfalls tend to occur when cold air masses flow southward
over Lake Michigan, most of which does not freeze in winter. Wind speeds average around
10 miles per hour, but can be greater due to winds channeling between tall buildings downtown,
giving the city its nickname, "The Windy City" (Bair, 1992).
12.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from NWS weather stations nearest these sites were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The two closest NWS weather stations are
located at Palwaukee Municipal Airport (near NBIL) and O'Hare International Airport (near
SPIL), WBAN 04838 and 94846, respectively. Additional information about the Palwaukee and
O'Hare weather stations is provided in Table 12-3. These data were used to determine how
meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
Table 12-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 12-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 12-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout the year for both years.
12-8
-------
Table 12-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Northbrook, Illinois - NBIL
Palwaukee
Municipal
Airport
04838
(42.12, -87.91)
5.27
miles
250°
(WSW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
57.9
±5.1
56.7
±2.2
56.1
±4.7
56.1
±2.0
49.6
±4.9
48.5
±2.1
48.3
±4.5
48.4
±1.9
39.3
±4.6
38.1
±2.0
37.7
±4.3
37.7
±1.9
44.7
±4.4
43.6
±1.9
43.3
±4.1
43.4
±1.7
70.3
±2.6
69.6
±1.1
69.1
±2.6
68.9
±1.1
1015.7
±1.7
1016.8
±0.8
1015.3
±2.0
1016.9
±0.8
7.1
±0.8
6.8
±0.3
6.7
±0.8
6.3
±0.3
Schiller Park, Illinois - SPIL
O'Hare
International
Airport
94846
(41.99, -87.91)
2.32
miles
303°
(WNW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
58.0
±5.4
57.1
±2.2
56.1
±5.0
56.7
±2.1
49.8
±5.1
49.0
±2.1
48.3
±4.9
49.0
±2.0
38.9
±4.7
37.9
±2.0
37.8
±4.5
38.1
± 1.9
44.5
±4.5
43.7
±1.9
43.3
±4.3
43.9
±1.8
68.9
±2.9
68.1
±1.1
69.3
±2.9
68.7
± 1.2
1015.4
±1.7
1016.3
±0.7
1015.1
±2.1
1016.4
±0.8
8.9
±0.9
8.4
±0.3
8.2
±0.8
7.9
±0.3
to
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
12.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 12-4 and Figure 12-5 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the NBIL monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 12-6
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red.
Figures 12-7 and 12-8 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which samples were
collected at the SPIL monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and Figure 12-9 is the
cluster analysis for both years. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were
generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the
24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given
sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of
a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the sites in
Figures 12-4 through 12-9 represents 100 miles.
Figure 12-4. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBIL
12-10
-------
Figure 12-5. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBIL
Figure 12-6. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for NBIL
12-11
-------
Figure 12-7. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPIL
Figure 12-8. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPIL
12-12
-------
Figure 12-9. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for SPIL
Observations from Figures 12-4 through 12-9 include the following:
• The composite back trajectory maps for NBIL and SPIL are similar to each other.
This is expected given their proximity to each other.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the sites, although less
frequently from the east and southeast. The predominant direction of trajectory origin
appears to be from the south and west to northwest.
• The 24-hour air shed domains for NBIL and SPIL were among the largest compared
to other NMP sites, as the farthest away a trajectory originated was along the North
Dakota/Montana border, over 850 miles away. However, the average trajectory length
for these sites was approximately 280 miles and most (approximately 80 percent)
trajectories originated within 400 miles of the sites.
• The cluster maps show that back trajectories originating from a northerly,
northwesterly, southwesterly, and southerly direction were common. Back trajectories
infrequently originated from the east to southeast.
12-13
-------
12.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at Palwaukee Municipal Airport (for
NBIL) and O'Hare International Airport (for SPIL) were uploaded into a wind rose software
program to produce customized wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows
the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses
different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 12-10 presents five different wind roses for the NBIL monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figure 12-11 presents the five different wind roses for the SPIL monitoring
site.
Observations from Figure 12-10 for NBIL include the following:
• The historical wind rose for NBIL shows that winds from a variety of directions were
observed, although winds from the south, south-south west, and west accounted for
approximately one-quarter of all observations. Winds from the east to southeast were
observed the least often. Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for approximately
16 percent of the hourly measurements.
• The 2008 wind rose exhibits similar patterns in wind directions as the historical wind
rose, although southerly winds were observed more often. The 2008 sample day wind
patterns resemble the 2008 full-year wind patterns, indicating that conditions on
sample days were representative of conditions experienced throughout the year.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2009 wind rose also resemble the historical wind
patterns, although southerly and southwesterly winds were observed less often while
winds from the west to northwest were observed more often. The 2009 sample day
wind patterns resemble the 2009 full-year wind patterns, although winds from the
west to northwest account for an even higher percentage of the wind observations.
12-14
-------
Figure 12-10. Wind Roses for the Palwaukee Municipal Airport Weather Station near NBIL
to
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
11 - 17
7- 11
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 12-11. Wind Roses for the O'Hare International Airport Weather Station near SPIL
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2008 Wind Rose
to
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 12-11 for SPIL include the following:
• The historical wind rose for SPIL shows that winds from a variety of directions were
observed, although winds from the south, southwest, and west account for the highest
percentage of observations (approximately 40 percent). Winds from the southeast
quadrant were observed the least often. Calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed for
approximately 10 percent of the hourly measurements.
• The 2008 wind rose exhibits similar patterns in wind directions as the historical wind
rose. The 2008 sample day wind patterns resemble the 2008 full-year wind patterns,
although with a slightly higher percentage of northerly winds. This indicates that
conditions on sample days were representative of conditions experienced throughout
the year.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2009 wind rose also resemble the historical wind
patterns. The 2009 sample day wind patterns resemble the 2009 full-year wind
patterns, although winds from the west to northwest account for a higher percentage
of the wind observations.
12.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Illinois monitoring sites in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated
risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 12-4 presents NBIL's and SPIL's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at
least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for each monitoring site
are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded
and/or bolded. NBIL sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, SNMOC, metals (PMio), SVOC
and hexavalent chromium, and is one of two NMP sites sampling for all six pollutant groups.
SPIL sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds only.
12-17
-------
Table 12-4. Risk Screening Results for the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
%of
Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Northbrook, Illinois - NBIL
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Acet aldehyde
Naphthalene
Manganese (PM10)
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Trichloroethylene
Bromomethane
Cadmium (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
0.13
0.17
0.077
0.00023
0.45
0.029
0.005
0.033
0.17
0.091
2.1
0.4
0.015
0.038
0.045
0.5
0.5
0.00056
0.015
Total
121
121
119
103
98
72
52
50
44
19
15
8
5
4
3
3
1
1
1
840
121
121
120
117
120
95
117
103
114
74
121
120
5
4
o
J
61
117
117
117
1,767
100.00
100.00
99.17
88.03
81.67
75.79
44.44
48.54
38.60
25.68
12.40
6.67
100.00
100.00
100.00
4.92
0.85
0.85
0.85
47.54
14.40
14.40
14.17
12.26
11.67
8.57
6.19
5.95
5.24
2.26
1.79
0.95
0.60
0.48
0.36
0.36
0.12
0.12
0.12
14.40
28.81
42.98
55.24
66.90
75.48
81.67
87.62
92.86
95.12
96.90
97.86
98.45
98.93
99.29
99.64
99.76
99.88
100.00
Schiller Park, Illinois - SPIL
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Propionaldehyde
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Acrylonitrile
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
0.13
0.17
0.077
0.45
0.033
0.17
0.5
0.091
0.4
0.8
2.1
0.038
0.015
0.045
0.0017
Total
116
116
115
114
112
76
29
22
7
7
5
3
2
2
1
727
116
116
116
116
116
109
92
80
116
114
116
o
3
2
2
1
1,215
100.00
100.00
99.14
98.28
96.55
69.72
31.52
27.50
6.03
6.14
4.31
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
59.84
15.96
15.96
15.82
15.68
15.41
10.45
3.99
3.03
0.96
0.96
0.69
0.41
0.28
0.28
0.14
15.96
31.91
47.73
63.41
78.82
89.27
93.26
96.29
97.25
98.21
98.90
99.31
99.59
99.86
100.00
12-18
-------
Observations from Table 12-4 include the following:
• Nineteen pollutants, including 12 NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens for
NBIL. Approximately 48 percent of the measured detections for these pollutants
failed screens.
• Based on the risk screening process, 10 pollutants, of which nine are NATTS MQO
Core Analytes, were identified as pollutants of interest for NBIL. Three additional
NATTS MQO Core Analytes (lead, cadmium, and trichloroethylene) were added to
NBIL's list of pollutants of interest, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent
of the failed screens for NBIL. In addition, six more NATTS MQO Core Analytes
were added to NBIL's list of pollutants of interest, even though they did not fail any
screens (chloroform, vinyl chloride, beryllium, benzo(a)pyrene, hexavalent
chromium, and nickel). These six pollutants are not shown in Table 12-4.
• Benzene and carbon tetrachloride were detected in every VOC sample collected at
NBIL and failed 100 percent of screens. While acrylonitrile, 1,2-dichloroethane, and
hexachloro-1,3-butadiene also failed 100 percent of screens for NBIL, these
pollutants were detected in only three to five of all 121 samples collected.
• Fifteen pollutants, including seven NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens for
SPIL. NBIL sampled four additional methods than SPIL, yet the number of pollutants
failing screens was fairly similar (19 for NBIL and 15 for SPIL).
• Based on the risk screening process, eight pollutants, of which seven are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes, were identified as pollutants of interest for SPIL. Two
additional NATTS MQO Core Analytes were added to SPIL's list of pollutants of
interest, even though they did not fail any screens (chloroform and vinyl chloride).
These two pollutants are not shown in Table 12-4.
• Similar to NBIL, benzene and carbon tetrachloride failed 100 percent of their screens
for SPIL. This is also true for acrylonitrile, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene,
1,2-dichloroethane, and 1,2-dibromoethane, which were detected in three or fewer
samples collected.
• Recall from Section 3.2 that if a pollutant was measured by both the TO-15 and
SNMOC methods at the same site, the TO-15 results were used for the risk screening
process. As NBIL sampled both VOC (TO-15) and SNMOC, the TO-15 results were
used for the 12 pollutants these methods have in common.
12-19
-------
12.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Illinois monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for each Illinois site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at
each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through O.
12.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Illinois site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution zeros for all non-detects.
Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-
detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 12-5, where applicable. Note that
concentrations of the PAH, metals, and hexavalent chromium for NBIL are presented in ng/m3
for ease of viewing.
12-20
-------
Table 12-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Illinois
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Northbrook, Illinois - NBIL
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzo(a)pyrene a
0.89
±0.13
0.55
±0.07
0.05
±0.01
0.83
±0.05
0.68
±0.23
0.12
±0.03
0.61
±0.10
0.21
±0.05
0.19
±0.09
0.02
±0.01
0.75
±0.16
0.12
±0.04
0.63
±0.27
0.54
±0.08
0.03
±0.01
0.73
±0.08
0.13
±0.03
0.03
±0.02
0.43
±0.13
0.10
±0.03
0.04
±0.03
NA
0.49
±0.11
NR
1.00
±0.28
0.44
±0.10
0.03
±0.01
0.80
±0.05
0.44
±0.14
0.06
±0.03
0.63
±0.19
0.17
±0.06
0.14
±0.13
NA
0.75
±0.25
NA
1.06
±0.25
0.68
±0.24
0.06
±0.04
0.89
±0.11
1.36
±0.46
0.17
±0.08
0.84
±0.26
0.32
±0.18
0.14
±0.16
NA
1.07
±0.45
0.11
±0.08
0.81
±0.23
0.54
±0.13
0.05
±0.03
0.90
±0.12
0.86
±0.73
0.04
±0.03
0.53
±0.19
0.21
±0.10
0.07
±0.06
NA
0.68
±0.37
0.11
±0.06
0.89
±0.13
0.55
±0.07
0.04
±0.01
0.83
±0.05
0.68
±0.23
0.07
±0.03
0.61
±0.10
0.20
±0.05
0.10
±0.05
NA
0.75
±0.16
NA
0.69
±0.08
0.56
±0.09
0.04
±0.01
0.75
±0.04
0.63
±0.28
0.05
±0.01
1.00
±0.16
0.20
±0.04
0.18
±0.08
0.01
±0.01
0.73
±0.15
0.12
±0.02
0.92
±0.21
0.85
±0.20
0.05
±0.02
0.71
±0.10
0.25
±0.17
0.03
±0.02
0.79
±0.14
0.21
±0.09
0.08
±0.06
NA
0.56
±0.16
0.15
±0.05
0.54
±0.06
0.60
±0.16
0.03
±0.01
0.72
±0.06
0.50
±0.17
0.04
±0.02
1.21
±0.48
0.20
±0.09
0.07
±0.05
NA
0.84
±0.27
0.05
±0.02
0.56
±0.09
0.40
±0.14
0.03
±0.02
0.84
±0.07
0.94
±0.40
0.03
±0.02
1.26
±0.30
0.23
±0.12
0.12
±0.09
NA
1.11
±0.47
0.08
±0.03
0.74
±0.16
0.39
±0.09
0.02
±0.01
0.75
±0.11
0.86
± 1.08
NA
0.72
±0.14
0.12
±0.05
NA
NA
0.42
±0.11
0.14
±0.07
0.69
±0.08
0.56
±0.09
0.03
±0.01
0.75
±0.04
0.63
±0.28
0.03
±0.01
1.00
±0.16
0.19
±0.04
0.09
±0.04
NA
0.73
±0.15
0.10
±0.02
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 12-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Illinois
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Beiy Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10)a
Hexavalent Chromium a
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10)a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.18
±0.04
0.02
±<0.01
4.33
±0.79
7.10
±1.86
80.11
± 20.75
1.01
±0.12
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.18
±0.04
0.01
±0.01
3.57
±0.85
4.53
± 1.15
NR
0.89
±0.22
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.18
±0.06
0.02
±0.01
4.80
±1.58
11.67
±6.53
NA
1.11
±0.24
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.16
±0.07
0.02
±0.01
5.12
±2.05
6.30
±2.15
104.65
±37.16
1.18
±0.35
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.21
±0.14
NA
3.82
±1.83
5.91
±2.30
61.35
±28.96
0.87
±0.16
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.18
±0.04
0.01
±<0.01
4.33
±0.79
7.10
±1.86
NA
1.01
±0.12
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.14
±0.02
0.02
±<0.01
3.34
±0.70
5.44
±0.91
65.92
± 13.25
0.96
±0.13
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.22
±0.07
NA
4.43
±1.49
5.96
±2.53
60.98
±33.84
1.10
±0.28
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.16
±0.05
NA
4.14
±2.11
7.02
±1.73
52.11
±25.32
0.99
±0.22
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.10
±0.03
0.01
±0.01
2.58
±0.63
5.28
± 1.28
89.09
± 26.76
1.09
±0.36
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.09
±0.02
0.01
±0.01
2.17
±0.64
3.38
± 1.42
59.61
±22.17
0.66
±0.10
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
O.01
±<0.01
0.14
±0.02
NA
3.34
±0.70
5.44
±0.91
65.92
± 13.25
0.96
±0.13
Schiller Park, Illinois - SPIL
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1.37
±0.19
0.80
±0.08
0.11
±0.02
0.84
±0.05
0.15
±0.07
1.37
±0.23
0.71
±0.09
0.10
±0.03
0.75
±0.08
0.08
±0.01
1.41
±0.31
0.77
±0.14
0.09
±0.02
0.77
±0.08
0.10
±0.01
1.06
±0.40
0.88
±0.29
0.12
±0.03
0.99
±0.12
0.35
±0.32
1.62
±0.58
0.86
±0.18
0.14
±0.04
0.86
±0.10
0.12
±0.02
1.37
±0.19
0.80
±0.08
0.11
±0.02
0.84
±0.05
0.15
±0.07
1.27
±0.12
0.68
±0.08
0.08
±0.01
0.73
±0.04
0.14
±0.06
1.37
±0.33
1.03
±0.25
0.13
±0.04
0.67
±0.09
0.09
±0.02
1.17
±0.18
0.62
±0.08
0.07
±0.01
0.69
±0.06
0.10
±0.02
1.23
±0.16
0.52
±0.11
0.06
±0.01
0.84
±0.06
0.27
±0.23
1.30
±0.29
0.59
±0.12
0.09
±0.03
0.69
±0.06
0.10
±0.02
1.27
±0.12
0.68
±0.08
0.08
±0.01
0.73
±0.04
0.14
±0.06
to
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 12-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Illinois
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.16
±0.14
2.26
±0.45
0.36
±0.09
0.63
±0.24
0.01
±0.01
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.02
±0.01
1.37
±0.22
0.23
±0.09
0.19
±0.16
NA
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.26
±0.36
2.26
±0.48
0.31
±0.07
0.89
±0.63
NA
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.11
±0.07
2.18
±0.64
0.46
±0.23
0.44
±0.31
NA
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.04
±0.03
3.29
±1.59
0.38
±0.25
0.47
±0.32
NA
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.11
±0.09
2.26
±0.45
0.34
±0.08
0.50
±0.20
NA
2009
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.09
±0.07
1.85
±0.21
0.26
±0.05
0.43
±0.19
0.02
±0.02
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.15
±0.22
1.69
±0.39
0.20
±0.08
0.58
±0.63
NA
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.03
±0.01
1.93
±0.48
0.30
±0.13
0.31
±0.16
NA
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.07
±0.04
2.32
±0.46
0.23
±0.08
0.32
±0.28
NA
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.03
±0.02
1.48
±0.33
0.25
±0.07
0.19
±0.16
NA
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.07
±0.05
1.85
±0.21
0.25
±0.05
0.34
±0.16
NA
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
[-J NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
to
-------
Observations for NBIL from Table 12-5 include the following:
• None of the daily average concentrations for any of the pollutants of interest were
greater than 1.00 |ig/m3. The pollutants with the highest 2008 daily average
concentrations by mass were acetaldehyde (0.89 ±0.13 |ig/m3), carbon tetrachloride
(0.83 ± 0.05 |ig/m3), and chloroform (0.68 ± 0.23 |ig/m3). The pollutants with the
highest 2009 daily average concentrations by mass were formaldehyde
(1.00 ± 0.16 |ig/m3), carbon tetrachloride (0.75 ± 0.04 |ig/m3), and acetaldehyde
(0.69 ± 0.08 |ig/m3).
• Concentrations of most of the pollutants of interest for NBIL did not vary
significantly from quarter to quarter. However, a few quarterly averages do stand out,
as described below.
• Chloroform concentrations appear significantly higher during the summer and fall.
The high confidence interval for the both the 2008 and 2009 fourth quarter average
indicates that outliers are likely influencing these averages. The two highest
chloroform concentrations were measured nearly one year apart, on October 4, 2009
(7.58 |ig/m3) and October 3, 2008 (5.72 |ig/m3). In addition, these two chloroform
concentrations were the highest measured among all NMP sites sampling this
pollutant.
• The 2008 second quarter average of manganese was twice as high as most other
quarterly averages for this pollutant. The confidence interval was also relatively high,
indicating the likely influence of outliers. A review of the data shows that the three
highest concentrations of manganese were all measured during the second quarter of
2008 (41.8 ng/m3 on April 24, 2008; 26.1 ng/m3 on May 6, 2008, and 24.3 ng/m3 on
April 30, 2008). The April 24, 2008 concentration was the sixth highest manganese
concentration measured among all NMP sites sampling PMio metals.
Observations for SPIL from Table 12-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest 2008 daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde (2.26 ± 0.45 |ig/m3), acetaldehyde (1.37 ± 0.19 |ig/m3), and carbon
tetrachloride (0.84 ± 0.05 |ig/m3). The pollutants with the highest 2009 daily average
concentrations were also formaldehyde (1.85 ± 0.21 |ig/m3), acetaldehyde
(1.27 ± 0.12 |ig/m3), and carbon tetrachloride (0.73 ± 0.04 |ig/m3). The acetaldehyde
and formaldehyde concentrations were significantly higher for SPIL than for NBIL,
while the carbon tetrachloride concentrations were nearly identical.
• Concentrations of most of the pollutants of interest for SPIL did not vary significantly
across calendar quarters. However, a few quarterly averages do stand out, as
described below.
• Several of the quarterly average concentrations of trichloroethylene have rather large
confidence intervals, particularly the second quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of
12-24
-------
2009, indicating that outliers are likely influencing these averages. The two highest
trichloroethylene concentrations were measured on June 5, 2008 (4.38 |ig/m3) and
February 9, 2009 (3.80 |ig/m3). Of the 17 concentrations of trichloroethylene that
were greater than 1 |ig/m3, six of these were measured during the second quarter of
2008 and three were measured during the first quarter of 2009.
• In addition to trichloroethylene, />-dichlorobenzene also had large confidence
intervals for the second quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. The highest
/>-dichlorobenzene concentration (and the seventh highest among all NMP sites) was
measured at SPIL on June 17, 2008 (2.71 |ig/m3). The second highest
/>-dichlorobenzene concentration was measured at SPIL on January 1, 2009
(1.41 |ig/m3). The third highest concentration measured at SPIL was significantly
lower than these, at 0.319 |ig/m3 on September 28, 2009.
3
• The 2008 fourth quarter average concentration of formaldehyde also had a high
confidence interval. Of the six formaldehyde concentrations greater than 4.0 |ig/mj,
four were measured during the fourth quarter of 2008, and ranged from 10.6 |ig/m3
(measured on November 26, 2008) to 4.38 |ig/m3 (measured on December 2, 2008).
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for NBIL and SPIL from those
tables include the following:
• As shown in Table 4-9, SPIL and NBIL had the highest and third highest daily
average concentration of carbon tetrachloride (2008), respectively. NBIL's 2008 and
2009 daily average concentrations of chloroform were the second and fourth highest
(respectively) among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant. SPIL had the second and
third highest daily average concentrations of trichloroethylene while NBIL had the
fifth and seventh highest daily average concentrations of this pollutant.
• As shown in Table 4-12, NBIL appears a total of nine times among the sites with the
highest daily average concentrations of the PMio metals. However, it is important to
note that only 11 sites sampled PMio metals.
12.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. NBIL and SPIL have sampled VOC under the NMP since 2003. Both sites have
also sampled carbonyl compounds since 2005. Additionally, NBIL has also sampled PMio metals
and hexavalent chromium since 2005. Figures 12-12 through 12-18 present the 3-year rolling
statistical metrics for acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, hexavalent
12-25
-------
chromium, and manganese for NBIL, respectively. Figures 12-19 through 12-22 present the
3-year rolling statistical metrics for acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde for
SPIL, respectively. The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution
of zeros for non-detects.
Observations from Figure 12-12 for acetaldehyde measurements at NBIL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at NBIL began in March 2005, as denoted in
Figure 12-12.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured on September 7, 2005,
although similar concentrations were also measured in 2006 and 2008.
• The rolling average and median concentrations, as well as the other statistical
parameters, have a decreasing trend over the time periods shown.
• Note that the minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero,
indicating that there were no non-detects of acetaldehyde reported since the onset of
carbonyl compound sampling.
Observations from Figure 12-13 for arsenic (PMio) measurements at NBIL include the
following:
• Metals sampling at NBIL began in January 2005.
• The maximum arsenic concentration was measured on July 12, 2008.
• The rolling average and median concentrations show relatively little change over the
period of sampling.
• Note that the minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero,
indicating that there were no non-detects of arsenic reported since the onset of metals
sampling.
12-26
-------
Figure 12-12. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at NBIL
i
UtS-lM?1
Mtt-JM*
.•„,.- .•„.-!
— Minimum - Mnkni — Moliiun
^arbonyl compound sampling at NBIL began in March 2005.
Figure 12-13. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Arsenic (PMi0) Concentrations
Measured at NBIL
IN., r.., P.,icd
- U..I,,—,, • •.•,«,(.,,,„«.
12-27
-------
Figure 12-14. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations
Measured at NBIL
i •-
MM ••
v.-.t .'.-..,
» MlrUnwvii
JOOVJOD;
-
.' ' .' M,-
JVOC sampling at NBIL began in April 2003.
2No VOC samples were collected from November to December 2004.
12-28
-------
Figure 12-15. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at NBIL
• 11
.11. i .•«.-.:
Ian-jeer
JM4/MB
- fU-llinlli. * '.Mhi.., ., ,,1.
JVOC sampling at NBIL began in April 2003.
2No VOC samples were collected from November to December 2004.
12-29
-------
Figure 12-16. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at NBIL
Itg
Ill
JOOV1M7
. Avmg*
^arbonyl compound sampling at NBIL began in March 2005.
Figure 12-17. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at NBIL
.-n.,1. .;.,.:
rVM-ft-f.rted
- • i .,.,.,„. • •!•,«,Crr.nrf*, ..... *.«.(»
12-30
-------
Figure 12-18. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Manganese (PMio) Concentrations
Measured at NBIL
..„
1«
,p...' IN?
Figure 12-19. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at SPIL
Carbonyl compound sampling at SPIL began in February 2005.
12-31
-------
Figure 12-20. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations Measured
at SPIL
,< .in ."••
JOO'j 1067
.•mi,, .'inn
J007 I0«
VOC sampling at SPIL began in April 2003.
Figure 12-21. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at SPIL
IJ
*
1
•^
;«n
S«
itn
Pill
wfc
.'fill
(1....
J4>{*
aum
r>w
* H«dM
•ii
.M'H',
n
^
JMT
"•"
-
M
MttlmM)
T
I
•MM
1
JMtJOM
• Ml
*,?««**.
'
|
—a—
M0730W
— •- Avw
H*
JVOC sampling at SPIL began in April 2003.
12-32
-------
Figure 12-22. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at SPIL
|U
I "II
mo\ HM7
mat, itot
IMMM
Carbonyl compound sampling at SPIL began in Febraary 2005.
Observations from Figure 12-14 for benzene measurements at NBIL include the
following:
• VOC sampling at NBIL began in April 2003, as denoted in Figure 12-14. In addition,
there was a gap in sampling from November to December 2004.
• The maximum benzene concentration was measured on September 18, 2004, although
similar measurements were also measured in 2005.
• The rolling average and median concentrations, as well as each of the other statistical
parameters, have a decreasing trend over the time periods shown.
• The difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles has decreased over the period of
sampling, indicating that the spread of concentrations measured is becoming smaller.
In addition, the rolling average and median concentrations became more similar to
each other over time, which also indicates less variability in the central tendency for
this site.
• Note that the minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero,
indicating that there were no non-detects of benzene reported since the onset of VOC
sampling.
12-33
-------
Observations from Figure 12-15 for 1,3-butadiene measurements atNBIL include the
following:
• VOC sampling at NBIL began in April 2003, as denoted in Figure 12-15. In addition,
there was a gap in sampling from November to December 2004.
• The maximum 1,3-butadiene concentration was measured in 2005.
• The rolling average concentrations exhibit an increasing trend through the 2005-2007
time frame, after which a decreasing trend is shown, although confidence intervals
calculated on these averages indicate that neither trend is statistically significant.
• The minimum, 5th percentile, and median concentrations were all zero for the first
two 3-year periods, indicating the presence of non-detects (at least 50 percent). The
number of non-detects reported has fluctuated from year to year, from as high as
87 percent (2004) to as low as seven percent (2007). From the 2005-2007 time frame
on, the median exhibits a similar trend as the rolling average.
Observations from Figure 12-16 for formaldehyde measurements atNBIL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at NBIL began in March 2005, as denoted in
Figure 12-16.
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured on January 5, 2006
(91.7 |ig/m3). Note that the next highest concentration (measured in 2005) was less
than one-tenth of the maximum concentration shown (8.47 |ig/m3).
• Although the rolling average concentrations show a decreasing trend, it is difficult to
determine is this decrease is statistically significant due to the high variability
associated with the first two 3-year periods.
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 12-16, 90 percent of the measurements for the
2005-2007 period fell between 0.3 and 3 |ig/m3 and this spread of measurements
decreased for each additional 3-year period.
• Similar to other pollutants, the minimum concentration for each 3-year period is
greater than zero, indicating that there were no non-detects of formaldehyde reported
since the onset of carbonyl compound sampling.
Observations from Figure 12-17 for hexavalent chromium measurements atNBIL include
the following:
• Hexavalent chromium sampling at NBIL began in January 2005.
12-34
-------
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured on July 5, 2007
(0.307 ng/m3). Only five measurements from NBIL are greater than 0.1 ng/m3, with
the others ranging from 0.235 to 0.108 ng/m3 (of which four of the five were
measured in 2006).
• The rolling average concentrations of hexavalent chromium exhibit a decreasing
trend, as do the medians and 95th percentiles.
• Both the minimum concentration and 5th percentile for all three 3-year periods shown
are zero, indicating the presence of non-detects. The percentage of non-detects has
been increasing for each year of sampling at NBIL since 2007.
Observations from Figure 12-18 for manganese (PMio) measurements at NBIL include
the following:
• Metals sampling at NBIL began in January 2005.
• The maximum manganese concentration was measured on August 26, 2005.
• The rolling average exhibits a decrease from 2005-2007 to 2006-2008, then levels out
for 2007-2009. The median exhibits a similar trend from 2005-2007 to 2006-2008,
then increases slightly for 2007-2009. The 95th percentile decreased by roughly half
from 2005-2007 to 2006-2008.
• The rolling average and median concentrations became more similar to each other
over time, indicating less variability in the central tendency for this site.
• Note that the minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero,
indicating that there were no non-detects of manganese reported since the onset of
metals sampling.
Observations from Figure 12-19 for acetaldehyde measurements at SPIL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at SPIL began in February 2005, as denoted in
Figure 12-19.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured on May 29, 2006. Of the
eight acetaldehyde concentrations greater than 4.0 |ig/m3, all but one was measured in
2006.
• The rolling average concentrations for the 2005-2007 and 2006-2008 periods were
similar to each other, but the 2007-2009 period exhibited a decrease from the
12-35
-------
previous 3-year periods. Although difficult to discern in Figure 12-19, the median
concentrations show a decreasing trend across all the periods.
Observations from Figure 12-20 for benzene measurements at SPIL include the
following:
• VOC sampling at SPIL began in April 2003, as denoted in Figure 12-20.
• The maximum benzene concentration was measured in 2005, which explains why the
maximum concentration for the first three time periods was the same.
• Similar to NBIL, the median and average rolling concentrations have a decreasing
trend over the time periods shown.
• The difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles has decreased over time and the
rolling average and median concentrations became more similar to each other over
the period of sampling, both indicators of decreasing variability in the central
tendency.
• The minimum concentration for each 3-year period is greater than zero, indicating
that no non-detects of benzene have been reported since the onset of VOC sampling.
Observations from Figure 12-21 for 1,3-butadiene measurements at SPIL include the
following:
• VOC sampling at SPIL began in April 2003.
• The maximum concentration of 1,3-butadiene was measured on February 3, 2005.
Only three concentrations greater than 0.5 |ig/m3 have been measured at SPIL, one in
2004 and two in 2005. This explains the large decrease in the maximum concentration
for the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 time frames.
• The average and median concentrations have changed very little over the period of
sampling, although there is a slight decrease shown for the last 3-year period.
• 1,3-Butadiene's detection rate has increased over time as the MDL has improved,
ranging from approximately 45 percent non-detects in 2003 and 2004 to zero non-
detects in 2008 and 2009.
12-36
-------
Observations from Figure 12-22 for formaldehyde measurements at SPIL include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at SPIL began in February 2005, as denoted in
Figure 12-22.
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured on May 29, 2006, which is
the same day the highest acetaldehyde concentration was measured. Three additional
formaldehyde concentrations greater than 100 |ig/m3 were measured in 2005. Of the
20 concentrations greater than 20 |ig/m3, all were measured in 2005 and 2006.
• The rolling average concentrations exhibit a dramatic decreasing trend. Although
difficult to discern in Figure 12-22, the median concentration decreased as well.
12.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Illinois monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
12.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Illinois monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and the annual
averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the Illinois monitoring sites were higher
than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
12-37
-------
12.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Illinois monitoring sites and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 12-6, where applicable.
Observations for NBIL from Table 12-6 include the following:
• Acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform were the pollutants with the
highest 2008 annual average concentrations while formaldehyde, carbon
tetrachloride, and acetaldehyde had the highest 2009 annual average concentrations.
• Formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, and benzene had the highest cancer surrogate
risk approximations for both years.
• None of NBIL's pollutants of interest had noncancer surrogate risk approximations
greater than 1.0.
Observations for SPIL from Table 12-6 include the following:
• Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and carbon tetrachloride were the pollutants with the
highest annual average concentrations for SPIL for both years.
• Formaldehyde had the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations
(29.37 in-a-million for 2008 and 24.02 in-a-million for 2009, respectively). These
cancer risk approximations were two to three times higher than the cancer risk
approximations for NBIL.
• In general, the cancer risk approximations for SPIL tended to be slightly higher than
for NBIL.
• None of SPIL's pollutants of interest had noncancer surrogate risk approximations
greater than 1.0.
12-38
-------
Table 12-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Northbrook, Illinois - NBIL
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (PM10) a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium3
Lead(PM10)a
2.2E-06
0.0043
7.8E-06
0.001
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
_
0.000011
0.000013
0.012
0.009
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
0.0001
0.00015
59/4
56/4
64/4
31/2
51/4
55/4
56/4
64/4
64/4
39/4
59/4
39/3
56/4
0.89
±0.13
0.01
±0.01
0.55
±0.07
NA
O.01
±O.01
0.04
±0.01
O.01
±O.01
0.83
±0.05
0.68
±0.23
0.07
±0.03
0.61
±0.10
O.01
±O.01
0.01
±0.01
1.95
3.22
4.25
NA
0.01
1.30
0.33
4.98
_
0.79
7.96
0.17
0.10
0.05
0.02
NA
O.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.06
O.01
0.03
61/4
61/4
57/4
53/4
56/4
48/4
61/4
57/4
57/4
35/3
61/4
26/2
61/4
0.69
±0.08
0.01
±0.01
0.56
±0.09
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±O.01
0.03
±0.01
O.01
±O.01
0.75
±0.04
0.63
±0.28
0.03
±0.01
1.00
±0.16
NA
0.01
±0.01
1.51
3.16
4.37
0.10
0.01
0.99
0.26
4.53
_
0.31
12.99
NA
0.08
0.05
0.02
O.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.10
NA
0.02
to
OJ
VO
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 12-5.
-------
Table 12-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Illinois Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Manganese (PM10) a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000034
0.000312
5.9E-06
0.000002
8.8E-06
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.00005
0.003
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
56/4
35/2
56/4
60/4
33/4
5/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
0.20
±0.05
0.10
±0.05
NA
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
0.32
1.16
0.20
NA
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.14
NA
0.01
<0.01
0.01
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
61/4
60/4
61/4
54/4
28/3
4/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.01
±O.01
0.07
±0.01
O.01
±O.01
0.19
±0.04
0.09
±0.04
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
2.24
0.30
1.11
0.18
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.11
0.02
0.01
O.01
0.01
NA
Schiller Park, Illinois - SPIL
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
2.2E-06
7.8E-06
0.00003
0.000006
_
0.000011
0.000013
0.009
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
57/4
57/4
57/4
57/4
57/4
37/4
57/4
1.37
±0.19
0.80
±0.08
0.11
±0.02
0.84
±0.05
0.15
±0.07
0.11
±0.09
2.26
±0.45
3.02
6.24
3.37
5.02
_
1.17
29.37
0.15
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.23
59/4
59/4
59/4
59/4
59/4
43/4
59/4
1.27
±0.12
0.68
±0.08
0.08
±0.01
0.73
±0.04
0.14
±0.06
0.07
±0.05
1.85
±0.21
2.79
5.28
2.55
4.36
_
0.74
24.02
0.14
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.19
to
-k
o
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 12-5.
-------
Table 12-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Illinois Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
5.9E-06
0.000002
8.8E-06
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
53/4
45/4
3/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.34
±0.08
0.50
±0.20
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
1.99
1.00
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
<0.01
0.01
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
56/4
47/4
6/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.25
±0.05
0.34
±0.16
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
1.46
0.68
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
<0.01
0.01
NA
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 12-5.
-------
12.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 12-7 and 12-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 12-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from annual averages.
Table 12-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 12.3,
SPIL sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds. NBIL sampled for these pollutants as well, but
also sampled for SNMOC, metals, SVOC, and hexavalent chromium. In addition, the cancer and
noncancer risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the
criteria for annual averages to be calculated. NBIL and SPIL sampled year-round for each
pollutant group mentioned above, with the exception of PAH sampling, which began at NBIL in
June 2008. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
12-42
-------
Table 12-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Northbrook, Illinois (Cook County) - NBIL
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,951.56
1,304.59
1,173.15
821.34
523.38
436.48
291.27
277.58
277.57
89.84
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
Cadmium, PM
1.63E-02
1.52E-02
9.93E-03
9.90E-03
8.33E-03
6.92E-03
5.76E-03
1.81E-03
1.74E-03
1.26E-03
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Benzene
Arsenic
Arsenic
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
12.99
7.96
4.98
4.53
4.37
4.25
3.22
3.16
2.24
1.95
Schiller Park, Illinois (Cook County) - SPIL
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,951.56
1,304.59
1,173.15
821.34
523.38
436.48
291.27
277.58
277.57
89.84
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
Cadmium, PM
1.63E-02
1.52E-02
9.93E-03
9.90E-03
8.33E-03
6.92E-03
5.76E-03
1.81E-03
1.74E-03
1.26E-03
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
29.37
24.02
6.24
5.28
5.02
4.36
3.37
3.02
2.79
2.55
to
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 12-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Illinois Monitoring Sites
to
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Northbrook, Illinois (Cook County) - NBIL
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Hexane
Ethylene glycol
7,537.70
5,018.17
3,427.81
,951.56
,324.28
,304.59
,173.15
,133.91
,106.10
,091.60
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Naphthalene
Nickel, PM
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Xylenes
3,446,170.83
317,637.10
138,786.44
133,121.82
113,706.43
97,088.44
95,351.29
91,260.19
65,052.08
50,181.67
Manganese
Manganese
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Arsenic
Lead
Lead
0.14
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.02
Schiller Park, Illinois (Cook County) - SPIL
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Hexane
Ethylene glycol
7,537.70
5,018.17
3,427.81
,951.56
,324.28
,304.59
,173.15
,133.91
,106.10
,091.60
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Naphthalene
Nickel, PM
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Xylenes
3,446,170.83
317,637.10
138,786.44
133,121.82
113,706.43
97,088.44
95,351.29
91,260.19
65,052.08
50,181.67
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.23
0.19
0.15
0.14
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 12-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene were the highest emitted pollutants
with cancer UREs in Cook County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for Cook County were formaldehyde, benzene, and hexavalent
chromium.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants in Cook County also had the highest toxi city-
weighted emissions.
• For both monitoring sites, formaldehyde had the highest cancer surrogate risk
approximations. This pollutant ranks high on all three lists shown in Table 12-7. For
NBIL, benzene, naphthalene, and acetaldehyde appear on all three lists. For SPIL,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde appear on all three lists.
• Carbon tetrachloride, which appears among the highest cancer risk approximations
for both sites, did not appear on either emissions-based list.
• Arsenic, which appears among the highest cancer risk approximations for NBIL
(SPIL did not sample metals), has the ninth highest toxicity-weighted emissions, but
does not appear among the highest emitted pollutants in Cook County.
• NBIL is one of two NMP sites that sampled pollutants from all six methods.
Interestingly, at least one pollutant from each of the six methods appears on the list of
highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
Observations from Table 12-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and methanol were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Cook County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) for Cook County were acrolein, manganese, and 1,3-butadiene.
Although acrolein was sampled for at NBIL and SPIL, this pollutant was excluded
from the pollutants of interest designation, and thus subsequent risk screening
evaluations, due to questions about the consistency and reliability of the
measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Three of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions (benzene, formaldehyde, and xylenes).
12-45
-------
• Manganese had the highest noncancer risk approximations for NBIL (albeit well
below an HQ of 1.0). This pollutant has the second highest toxicity-weighted
emissions, but did not appear on the list of highest emitted pollutants in Cook County.
• Formaldehyde appears on all three lists for both sites. Benzene also appears on all
three lists for SPIL (but did not appear among the pollutants with the highest
noncancer risk approximations for NBIL).
12.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for NBIL and SPIL
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Nineteen pollutants, including 12 NA TTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens for
NBIL. Fifteen pollutants, including seven NATTSMQO Core Analytes, failed screens
for SPIL.
»«» None of the daily average concentrations for any of the pollutants of interest for NBIL
were greater than 1.00 jug/m . The two highest chloroform concentrations measured
at NBIL were the highest measured among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant.
»«» The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations for SPIL were
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and carbon tetrachloride for both years. The
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde concentrations were significantly higher for SPIL
than for NBIL, while the carbon tetrachloride concentrations were nearly identical.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than any of the associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
12-46
-------
13.0 Sites in Indiana
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the UATMP and C SAT AM sites in Indiana, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
13.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Indiana monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
Three Indiana sites (ININ, IDIN, and WPIN) are located in the Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
MSA, while a fourth INDEM is located in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MSA.
Figures 13-1 through 13-4 are composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth
showing the monitoring sites in their urban locations. Figures 13-5 and 13-6 identify point source
emissions locations by source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that
only sources within 10 miles of the sites are included in the facility counts provided below the
maps in Figures 13-5 and 13-6. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out,
but are visible on the maps to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile
boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions
source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring
sites; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring
sites as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 13-1
describes the area surrounding each monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical
information such as land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
13-1
-------
Figure 13-1. Indianapolis, Indiana (IDIN) Monitoring Site
to
• -•-
X-Jw-B
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,959 feet
-------
Figure 13-2. Indianapolis, Indiana (ININ) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,851 feet
-------
Figure 13-3. Indianapolis, Indiana (WPIN) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,924 feet
-------
Figure 13-4. Gary, Indiana (INDEM) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,119 feet
-------
Figure 13-5. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of IDIN, ININ, and WPIN
} 15'OW 86 tO'O'W
Legend
IDINCSATAMsite
INI NCSATAM site
WPIH UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
•"••" :T. c 'A 86 iS'crw ee icrcrw ee styw 86 0'0"W
Note: Due to facility density and coUocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
•Jl Aerospacei Akcraft Manufacturing Facility (2)
-f Avcraft Operations Facility (33)
•f Airport Support Operation (2)
I Asphalt Processing/Roofing Manufacturing (1)
A Automobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility i9i
$ Bakery (I)
X Baltery Manufacturing Facility (IJ
Brick Manufacturing & Structural Clay Facility (1)
B Bulk Termtnals/Bulk Plants (3)
C Chemical Manufacturing Facility (17)
WDegreasing Operation (1)
6 Electrical Equipment Facility (I)
f Electricity Generation via Combustion (5)
E Electroplating. Plating. Polishing. Anodizing, and Coloring (13)
4 Engine Test Facility (1)
® Fabricated Metal Products Facility (3)
. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Facility (1)
F Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (S)
Gas Plan! (3)
If Gasoline /Diesel Service Station (1)
A Grain Handling Facility (4)
-------
Figure 13-6. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of INDEM
Legend
"jSp INDEM UATMP site 10 mile radius ~\ County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
41 Aircraft Operations Facility (14)
I Asphalt Processing/Roofing Manufacturing (1)
r~i Brick Manufacturing & Structural Clay Facility (2)
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (5)
C Chemical Manufacturing Facility (13)
D Coke Battery (2)
TP Degreasing Operation (2)
I Electricity Generation via Combustion (7)
E Electroplating. Plating, Polishing. Anodizing, and Coloring (8)
0 Fabricated Metal Products Facility (4)
?•• Gas Plant (4)
A Grain Handling Facility (1)
,.. Gravel or Sand Plant (4)
~t~ Gypsum Manufacturing Facility (1)
HI Hospital (1)
} Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (5)
fjl Institutional - school (1)
Note: Due to facilfty density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Iron and Steel Foundry (1)
Landfill (5)
Lime Manufacturing Facility (1)
Mine/Quarry (8)
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (1)
Petroleum Refinery (3)
Pipeline Compressor Station (6)
Primary Metal Production Facility (4)
Printing/ Pu bl ish i ng Fa c i I ity (1)
Pulp and Paper Plant/Wood Products Facility (2)
Rail Car Cleaning Facility (1)
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products Facility (1)
Secondary Metal Processing Facility (2)
Site Remediation Activity (1)
Steel Mill (20)
Surface Coating Facility (5)
Tank Battery Facility (1)
13-7
-------
Table 13-1. Geographical Information for the Indiana Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
IDIN
INDEM
ININ
WPIN
AQS Code
18-097-0085
18-089-0022
18-097-0057
18-097-0078
Location
Indianapolis
Gary
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
County
Marion
Lake
Marion
Marion
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Indianapolis-
Carmel, IN
Chicago-
Naperville-Joliet,
IL-IN-WI
Indianapolis-
Carmel, IN
Indianapolis-
Carmel, IN
Latitude
and
Longitude
39.740383,
-86.225950
41.606667,
-87.304722
39.749019,
-86.186314
39.811097,
-86.114469
Land Use
Military
Reservation
Industrial
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Urban/City
Center
Urban/City
Center
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
VOC and SNMOC.
VOC, SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, PAMS, O3,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, Black carbon,
UV Carbon, PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation.
SO2, VOC, and Meteorological parameters.
TSP Metals, CO, VOC, SNMOC, SO2, NOy, NO, O3,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, Black carbon,
UV Carbon, PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
oo
-------
IDIN is located in southwest Indianapolis at Stout Field, a National Guard Armory and
former airfield. Figure 13-1 shows that the area surrounding IDIN is fairly industrialized, with
several industrial facilities just to the east of the monitoring site. The placement of this site is
based on results from NATA. Heavily traveled roadways, including 1-70, are located less than
1 mile from the monitoring site.
ININ is located in central Indianapolis, about a half-mile south of 1-70. Residential areas
are located to the west of the site, while industrial areas are located to the east, as shown in
Figure 13-2. The placement of this site is also based on results from NATA.
WPIN is located in northeast Indianapolis, at Washington Park near East 30th Street.
Figure 13-3 shows that the area surrounding WPIN is suburban and residential, with little
industry in close proximity.
Figure 13-5 shows that IDIN, ININ, and WPIN are located within 10 miles of many point
sources, most of which are located towards the center of Marion County. The source categories
with the highest number of sources near these monitoring sites include aircraft operations, which
include airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads; chemical manufacturing;
electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring; and printing and publishing.
INDEM is located in Gary, Indiana, a few miles east of the Indiana-Illinois border and
southeast of Chicago. Gary is located on the southernmost bank of Lake Michigan. The site is
just north of 1-90 and 1-65. Although INDEM resides on the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore,
the surrounding area is highly industrialized, as shown in Figure 13-4. Figure 13-6 shows that the
majority of point sources are located to the west of INDEM. The sources closest to INDEM are a
steel mill, a chemical manufacturer, and two mines/quarries. The source categories with the
highest number of sources within 10 miles of INDEM include steel mills, aircraft operations,
chemical manufacturing, and mines/quarries.
13-9
-------
Table 13-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the Indiana
monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 13-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(for IDIN and ININ, 2008; for WPIN and INDEM, 2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-
level vehicle registration and population data for Marion and Lake Counties were obtained from
the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (IN BMV, 2009) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census
Bureau, 2009 and 2010), respectively. Table 13-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-county
population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site. In addition, the population within 10 miles of
each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the
county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each
monitoring site. Table 13-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information, as well as the
year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. For the Indianapolis
sites, data from the nearest available point on 1-70 were obtained (between Exits 75 and 77 for
IDIN; between Exits 78 and 79 for ININ; and between Exits 85 and 87 for WPIN); for INDEM,
data for the 1-65 intersection with Highway 12/20 were obtained. Finally, Table 13-2 presents the
daily VMT for each urban area.
Table 13-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Indiana Monitoring
Sites
Site
IDIN
INDEM
ININ
WPIN
Estimated
County
Population1
880,380
494,211
880,380
890,879
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
814,682
416,995
814,682
814,682
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.93
0.84
0.93
0.91
Population
Within 10
Miles3
594,540
414,726
668,574
766,042
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
550,173
349,929
618,682
700,522
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
77,250
23,280
97,780
143,759
VMT5
(thousands)
33,581
172,794
33,581
33,581
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2009 and 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (IN BMV, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfmddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2002 data from the Indiana DOT (IDIN and ININ) and 2007 data from the
Indiana DOT (WPIN and INDEM) (IN DOT, 2002 and 2007).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
13-10
-------
Observations from Table 13-2 include the following:
• Marion County had almost twice the county population and vehicle registration as
Lake County. The difference between the two counties decreases somewhat when
focusing on the 10-mile populations and ownership estimates.
• The vehicle-per-person ratios for the Indianapolis sites were greater than the ratio for
INDEM.
• WPIN experienced a higher traffic volume than the other Indianapolis sites, although
traffic estimates for all three sites were based on data from 1-70. The traffic volume
near WPIN is the eighth highest among NMP sites.
• Traffic volume for INDEM is significantly less than the traffic volume for the
Indianapolis sites.
• The VMT shown for INDEM is based on the Chicago urban area. The Chicago area
VMT ranked third among urban areas with NMP sites, while the VMT for the
Indianapolis area was in the middle of the range.
13.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Indiana on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
13.2.1 Climate Summary
The city of Indianapolis is located in the center of Indiana, and experiences a temperate
continental climate and a frequently changing weather pattern. Summers are warm and often
humid, as moist air flows northward out of the Gulf of Mexico. Winters are chilly with
occasional Arctic outbreaks. Precipitation is spread rather evenly throughout the year, with much
of the spring and summer precipitation resulting from showers and thunderstorms. The
prevailing wind direction is southwesterly (Bair, 1992 and ISCO, 2002).
The city of Gary is located to the southeast of Chicago, and at the southern-most tip of
Lake Michigan. Gary's proximity to Lake Michigan is an important factor controlling the
weather of the area. In the summer, warm temperatures can be suppressed, while cold winter
temperatures are often moderated. Winds that blow across Lake Michigan and over Gary in the
13-11
-------
winter can provide abundant amounts of lake-effect snow while lakes breezes can bring relief
from summer heat (Bair, 1992; Gary, 2011; and ISCO, 2002).
13.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from NWS weather stations nearest these sites were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The two closest NWS weather stations are
located at Indianapolis International Airport (near the Indianapolis monitoring sites) and Lansing
Municipal Airport (near INDEM), WBAN 93819 and 04879, respectively. Additional
information about these weather stations is provided in Table 13-3. These data were used to
determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions
throughout the year(s).
Table 13-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 13-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. Note that because IDIN and
ININ sampled from January through September 2008, only 2008 data are provided for these
sites.
As shown in Table 13-3, average meteorological conditions on sample days appear
slightly warmer than average weather conditions for IDIN and ININ. This is because sampling at
these two sites concluded in September 2008, as mentioned above, thereby missing some of the
cooler months of the year. Average meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly
representative of average weather conditions throughout both years for WPIN and INDEM.
13-12
-------
Table 13-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Indiana Monitoring Sites
1
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
South Holt Road, Indianapolis, Indiana - IDIN
Indianapolis Intl
Airport
93819
(39.71, -86.27)
3.12
miles
222°
(SW)
2008
Sample
Day
All
Year
65.7
±5.5
61.4
±2.1
57.1
±5.3
52.6
±2.0
44.6
±4.8
41.1
±1.8
50.5
±4.6
46.9
± 1.8
65.8
±2.8
67.6
±1.1
1015.6
±1.6
1016.7
±0.7
8.8
±1.1
8.4
±0.3
| Gary, Indiana - INDEM
Lansing Municipal
Airport
04879
(41.54, -87.52)
11.36
miles
241°
(WSW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
Sample
Day
All
Year
58.5
±5.6
58.6
±2.2
57.2
±5.0
57.8
±2.0
49.9
±5.2
50.1
±2.1
49.0
±4.9
49.4
±1.9
40.2
±5.0
40.2
±2.0
39.3
±4.8
39.6
± 1.9
45.2
±4.8
45.2
±1.9
44.5
±4.5
44.7
±1.8
71.8
±2.8
71.3
±1.1
71.4
±2.8
71.4
± 1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.6
± 1.2
6.8
±0.4
6.4
±1.0
6.0
±0.4
South Harding, Indianapolis, Indiana - ININ
Indianapolis Intl
Airport
93819
(39.71, -86.27)
5.07
miles
232°
(SW)
2008
Sample
Day
All
Year
66.5
±5.5
61.4
±2.1
57.8
±5.3
52.6
±2.0
44.9
±4.8
41.1
±1.8
50.9
±4.6
46.9
±1.8
64.8
±2.9
67.6
±1.1
1015.7
± 1.6
1016.7
±0.7
8.7
±1.1
8.4
±0.3
1 Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
NA= Sea level pressure was not recorded at the Lansing Municipal Airport
-------
Table 13-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Indiana Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Washington Park, Indianapolis, Indiana - WPIN
Indianapolis Intl
Airport
93819
(39.71, -86.27)
10 53
miles
m°
(SW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
Sample
Day
All
Year
62.5
±5.2
61.4
±2.1
61.0
±4.9
61.3
±1.9
54.2
±4.9
52.6
±2.0
52.8
±4.9
53.2
±1.9
42.3
±4.5
41.1
±1.8
41.3
±4.7
41.5
±1.8
48.1
±4.3
46.9
± 1.8
47.1
±4.4
47.4
±1.7
66.6
±2.5
67.6
±1.1
67.5
±2.8
67.2
±1.2
1015.8
±1.5
1016.7
±0.7
1015.2
±1.9
1016.5
±0.7
9.0
±1.0
8.4
±0.3
8.3
±1.1
8.0
±0.4
1 Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
NA= Sea level pressure was not recorded at the Lansing Municipal Airport
-------
13.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 13-7 and Figure 13-9 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the IDIN and ININ monitoring sites in 2008, respectively.
Figures 13-8 and 13-10 are the 2008 cluster analyses for both sites. Figure 13-11 and
Figure 13-12 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which samples were collected
at WPIN in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 13-13 is the cluster analysis for both years, with
2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. Figures 13-14 and 13-15 are the composite back
trajectory maps for days on which samples were collected at the INDEM monitoring site in 2008
and 2009, respectively, and Figure 13-16 is the cluster analysis for both years. An in-depth
description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the
composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled
toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds
to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric
circle around the sites in Figures 13-7 through 13-16 represents 100 miles.
Figure 13-7. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for IDIN
13-15
-------
Figure 13-8. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for IDIN
Figure 13-9. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ININ
13-16
-------
Figure 13-10. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for ININ
Figure 13-11. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for WPIN
13-17
-------
Figure 13-12. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for WPIN
Figure 13-13. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for WPIN
13-18
-------
Figure 13-14. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for INDEM
Figure 13-15. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for INDEM
13-19
-------
Figure 13-16. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for INDEM
Observations from Figures 13-7 through 13-10 for the IDIN and ININ sites include the
following:
• The composite back trajectory distributions for these sites resemble to each other.
This is expected given their proximity to each other as well as the similarity in sample
days (both sampled January through September 2008).
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at these two sites, although
less frequently from the southeast.
• The 24-hour air shed domains were comparable in size to many other monitoring
sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was the northwest corner of Iowa, or
just less than 550 miles away. However, the average trajectory length was 239 miles
and most trajectories (approximately 86 percent) originated within 400 miles.
• The cluster analyses for these sites are also similar to each other, as over 40 percent
of trajectories originated to the south for both sites and 35 percent originated from the
west, northwest, and north.
13-20
-------
Observations from Figures 13-11 through 13-13 for WPIN include the following:
• The 2008 composite back trajectory distribution for this site resembles the ones for
IDIN and ININ. However, the 2008 composite map for this site includes an additional
3 months of sample days.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at WPIN, although less
frequently from the east and southeast.
• The 24-hour air shed domain was slightly larger in size compared to many other NMP
monitoring sites as the farthest away a trajectory originated was the northeast South
Dakota, or greater than 700 miles away. The average trajectory length was 261 miles,
while most trajectories (88 percent) originated within 450 miles of WPIN.
• Similar ININ and IDIN, the cluster analysis for WPIN shows that trajectories from
southerly, westerly and northwesterly, and northeasterly directions are most common.
Observations from Figures 13-14 through 13-16 for INDEM include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at INDEM, although less
frequently from the east and southeast, similar to the Indianapolis sites.
• The 24-hour air shed domain was among the largest for any NMP site, as the farthest
away a trajectory originated was northwest North Dakota, or nearly greater than 850
miles away. However, the average trajectory length was 271 miles, and most
trajectories (89 percent) originated within 450 miles of INDEM.
• The cluster analysis for INDEM shows that trajectories originating from the south,
southwest, west, northwest, or north account for the majority of trajectories.
13.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations near the Indiana sites, as presented in
Section 13.2.2, were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind
roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using
"petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
13-21
-------
Figure 13-17 presents three different wind roses for the IDIN monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year is presented. Finally, a wind rose representing
days on which samples were collected in 2008 are presented. These can be used to determine if
wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced over the entire
year. Figure 13-18 presents similar wind roses for the ININ monitoring site.
Figure 13-19 presents five different wind roses for WPIN. First, a historical wind rose
representing 1997 to 2007 is presented. Next, a wind rose for 2008 representing wind
observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which samples were
collected in 2008 are presented. Lastly, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a wind rose for
days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. Figure 13-20 presents the five different
wind roses for the INDEM monitoring site.
Observations from Figures 13-17 and 13-18 for IDIN and ININ, respectively, include the
following:
• Because the NWS weather station at Indianapolis International Airport is the closest
weather station to both IDIN and ININ, the historical and 2008 wind roses for IDIN
are the same as for ININ.
• The historical wind roses show that southerly, southwesterly, and westerly winds
were the most commonly observed wind directions near these sites. Calm winds
(< 2 knots) were observed for less than eight percent of observations.
• The 2008 wind roses exhibit wind patterns similar to the historical wind patterns, with
winds from due south and due west observed slightly more frequently. The 2008
sample day wind roses show winds from due south, due west, and due north
accounting for the majority of the wind directions. It is important to note that
sampling concluded in September 2008, and a wind rose incorporating the last three
months of sample days may exhibit a different wind pattern.
13-22
-------
Figure 13-17. Wind Roses for the Indianapolis International Airport Weather Station near IDIN
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
OJ
to
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 13-18. Wind Roses for the Indianapolis International Airport Weather Station near ININ
OJ
to
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 13-19. Wind Roses for the Indianapolis International Airport Weather Station near WPIN
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
OJ
to
2008 Wind Rose
1997 - 2007 •
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 13-20. Wind Roses for the Lansing Municipal Airport Weather Station near INDEM
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
OJ
to
2008 Wind Rose
2003 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Calms: 17.64%
2009 Sample Day
L alrr.f jj ::4"i.
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 13-19 for WPIN include the following:
• The NWS weather station at Indianapolis International Airport is also the closest
weather station to WPIN; thus, the historical and 2008 wind roses for WPIN are the
same as for IDIN and ININ.
• Recall that southerly, southwesterly, and westerly winds were the most commonly
observed wind directions near WPIN. Calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed for less
than eight percent of observations.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind patterns resemble the historical wind patterns, although
winds from due south and due west observed slightly more frequently in 2008.
• Consistent with to the 2008 full-year wind rose, the 2008 sample day wind rose
shows that winds from south to southwest to west account for the majority of the
wind directions, although northerly winds were observed slightly more frequently.
• The 2009 sample day wind rose shows that winds from west-southwest, west, and
west-northwest were observed more frequently on sample days than during the entire
year. Further, a higher percentage of wind speeds on sample days were greater than
22 knots than during all of 2009.
Observations from Figure 13-20 for INDEM include the following:
• The historical wind rose for INDEM shows that winds from the south to south-
southwest and west were predominant over the 2003-2007 time frame. Northerly to
northeasterly winds off Lake Michigan accounted for approximately 20 percent of the
measurements, as did calm winds.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose and the 2008 sample day wind rose
resemble the wind patterns shown on the historical wind rose. Winds were somewhat
stronger in 2008 as the percentage of winds from 17-21 and greater than 22 knots is
higher.
• The 2009 wind rose exhibits similar wind patterns as the historical wind rose,
although the calm rate is higher and the percentage of winds from the south and
southwest is somewhat less. The 2009 sample day wind rose has a higher percentage
of winds from due west and a slightly higher percentage of winds from the west-
northwest and northwest compared to the 2009 full-year wind rose.
13-27
-------
13.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Indiana monitoring sites in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated
risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 13-4 presents the pollutants of interest for the Indiana monitoring sites. The
pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens
for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of
interest are shaded and/or bolded. IDIN and ININ sampled for carbonyl compounds and metals
(PMio); WPIN and INDEM sampled for carbonyl compounds only.
Observations from Table 13-4 include the following:
• Eight pollutants failed screens for IDIN; of these, six are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes (antimony and propionaldehyde are not). Four pollutants were identified
through the risk screening process as pollutants of interest for IDIN (acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, arsenic, and manganese); cadmium and lead were added to the list
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not contribute to
95 percent of the total failed screens. Beryllium and nickel were also added to IDIN's
pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though
they did not fail any screens; these two pollutants are not shown in Table 13-4.
• Seven pollutants failed screens for ININ; all but one of these are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes (propionaldehyde is not). The same four pollutants were initially identified
as pollutants of interest for ININ as IDIN (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, arsenic, and
manganese). Lead and cadmium were added as pollutants of interest because they are
NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of
the total failed screens. Beryllium and nickel were added to the list because they are
NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens; these two
pollutants are not shown in Table 13-4.
13-28
-------
Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and propionaldehyde are the only carbonyl compounds
with risk screening values. All three pollutants failed screens for INDEM while only
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde failed screens for WPIN.
Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were identified as pollutants of interest for all four
sites. Every measured concentration of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde failed screens
for all four Indiana sites.
Table 13-4. Risk Screening Results for the Indiana Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
South Holt Road, Indianapolis, Indiana - IDIN
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Propionaldehyde
Antimony (PMi0)
Cadmium (PM10)
0.45
0.077
0.00023
0.005
0.015
0.8
0.02
0.00056
Total
47
47
44
18
3
2
1
1
163
47
47
45
45
45
47
45
45
366
100.00
100.00
97.78
40.00
6.67
4.26
2.22
2.22
44.54
28.83
28.83
26.99
11.04
1.84
1.23
0.61
0.61
28.83
57.67
84.66
95.71
97.55
98.77
99.39
100.00
Gary, Indiana - INDEM
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Propionaldehyde
0.45
0.077
0.8
Total
117
117
4
238
117
117
117
351
100.00
100.00
3.42
67.81
49.16
49.16
1.68
49.16
98.32
100.00
South Harding, Indianapolis, Indiana - ININ
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Propionaldehyde
0.45
0.077
0.00023
0.005
0.015
0.00056
0.8
Total
49
49
39
18
3
1
1
160
49
49
40
40
40
40
49
307
100.00
100.00
97.50
45.00
7.50
2.50
2.04
52.12
30.63
30.63
24.38
11.25
1.88
0.63
0.63
30.63
61.25
85.63
96.88
98.75
99.38
100.00
Washington Park, Indianapolis, Indiana - WPIN
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.45
0.077
Total
119
119
238
119
119
238
100.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
13-29
-------
13.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Indiana monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for each Indiana site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at
each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through O.
13.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Indiana site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all
non-detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros
for non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly
averages could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to
85 percent. Daily, quarterly, and annual averages for the Indiana sites are presented in
Table 13-5, where applicable. Note that concentrations of the metals for ID IN and ININ are
presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
13-30
-------
Table 13-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Indiana Monitoring
Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10) a
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Nickel (PM10)a
2.17
±0.30
3.10
±0.44
1.08
±0.24
0.01
±<0.01
0.21
±0.05
5.85
±1.66
5.15
±1.12
0.73
±0.09
1st
Quarter
Average
pig/m3)
1.71
±0.48
1.83
±0.38
0.66
±0.14
0.01
±<0.01
0.18
±0.04
4.78
±1.77
4.03
±1.21
0.68
±0.12
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
South Holt Road, Indianapolis, Indiana - IDIN
2.09
±0.27
3.01
±0.45
1.12
±0.42
0.01
±<0.01
0.16
±0.05
4.85
±1.25
6.99
±2.88
0.80
±0.20
2.72
±0.73
4.46
±0.84
1.51
±0.54
O.01
±<0.01
0.30
±0.14
8.15
±4.88
4.44
±1.14
0.70
±0.12
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.17
±0.30
3.10
±0.44
1.08
±0.24
0.01
±<0.01
0.21
±0.05
5.85
±1.66
5.15
±1.12
0.73
±0.09
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Gary, Indiana - INDEM
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
3.77
±0.75
75.13
±36.25
3.00
±0.44
19.28
±5.52
6.80
±1.09
133.09
±76.38
4.13
±1.99
152.06
±117.67
1.17
±0.29
1.23
±0.28
3.77
±0.75
75.13
± 36.25
1.32
±0.14
2.59
± 1.63
1.26
±0.13
1.37
±0.17
1.35
±0.31
2.26
±0.68
1.36
±0.48
5.74
±7.49
1.31
±0.21
1.33
±0.22
1.32
±0.14
2.59
±1.63
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 13-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Indiana Monitoring
Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10) a
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Nickel (PM10)a
2.15
±0.23
6.27
±0.95
1.05
±0.21
0.01
±<0.01
0.24
±0.04
5.72
±1.12
5.26
±0.96
0.88
±0.13
1st
Quarter
Average
pig/m3)
1.52
±0.22
2.90
±0.60
0.63
±0.11
0.01
±<0.01
0.22
±0.06
4.15
±0.75
4.11
±1.72
0.73
±0.14
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
South Harding Road, Indianapolis, Indiana - ININ
2.11
±0.27
5.53
±0.72
1.07
±0.38
0.01
±<0.01
0.23
±0.08
5.85
±1.97
6.20
±1.85
0.81
±0.14
2.71
±0.40
9.74
±1.11
1.39
±0.42
0.01
±<0.01
0.26
±0.09
6.93
±2.46
5.29
±1.53
1.07
±0.31
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.15
±0.23
6.27
±0.95
1.05
±0.21
0.01
±<0.01
0.24
±0.04
5.72
± 1.12
5.26
±0.96
0.88
±0.13
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Washington Park, Indianapolis, Indiana - WPIN
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.04
±0.22
3.44
±0.37
1.34
±0.17
2.51
±0.33
2.19
±0.35
4.33
±0.66
2.76
±0.43
4.40
±0.71
1.87
±0.51
2.46
±0.56
2.04
±0.22
3.44
±0.37
1.83
±0.15
3.10
±0.33
1.68
±0.22
2.71
±0.46
2.15
±0.34
4.24
±0.88
1.77
±0.21
3.15
±0.34
1.69
±0.43
2.24
±0.47
1.83
±0.15
3.10
±0.33
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Observations for the Indianapolis sites from Table 13-5 include the following:
• Because sampling was conducted from January through September 2008 at ID IN and
ININ, there are no averages available for the fourth quarter of 2008 or any of 2009.
• Formaldehyde exhibited the highest daily average concentration by mass of the
pollutants of interest for all three Indianapolis sites. The 2008 daily average
concentration of formaldehyde for ININ was nearly twice the daily average
concentration of this pollutant for IDIN or WPIN (both years); it also ranked third
highest among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant. Acetaldehyde concentrations
were similar to each other among these three sites.
• Formaldehyde concentrations were highest during the second and third quarters for
all three sites for 2008, particularly for ININ (note that fourth quarter averages are not
available for IDIN and ININ). For 2009, the difference between the quarterly
averages for WPIN is less marked.
• Among the metals sampled at IDIN and ININ, lead and manganese had the highest
daily average concentrations. The daily and annual average concentrations for these
two sites were similar to each other in magnitude.
• The confidence interval for IDIN's lead average for the third quarter of 2008 is rather
large, indicating the likely influence of outliers. A review of the data shows that the
highest concentration for IDIN was measured on July 29, 2008 (35.3 ng/m3). The next
highest concentration was also measured in July but was nearly half as high
(18.2 ng/m3 on July 5, 2008). The July 29, 2008 concentration was the sixth highest
lead concentration measured among NMP sites sampling PMi0 metals.
Observations for INDEM from Table 13-5 include the following:
• Similar to the Indianapolis sites, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration for INDEM. However, formaldehyde's 2008 daily average
concentration (75.13 ± 36.25 |ig/m3) is an order of magnitude higher than its 2009
daily average concentration (2.59 ± 1.63 |ig/m3).
• INDEM's 2008 quarterly averages of formaldehyde show that the highest
concentrations were measured in the second and third quarters. A review of the data
shows that 10 formaldehyde concentrations greater than 200 |ig/m3 were measured
between June 5, 2008 and August 4, 2008, ranging from 219 to 500 |ig/m3.
• A review of INDEM's 2009 formaldehyde data shows that the highest concentration
(49 |ig/m3) was measured on September 22, 2009. The next highest concentration
measured during 2009 was less than 10 |ig/m3. By contrast, in 2008, 35 of the 59
samples had formaldehyde concentrations greater than 10 |ig/m3.
13-33
-------
• INDEM's acetaldehyde concentrations generally follow a similar pattern to
formaldehyde, although the concentrations are not nearly as high. Thirty-eight of the
41 concentrations of acetaldehyde greater than 2 |ig/m3 were measured in 2008.
• INDEM's formaldehyde concentrations have historically been higher than any other
NMP site sampling carbonyl compounds. In 2009, the state of Indiana replaced their
multi-port carbonyl samplers and their formaldehyde concentrations decreased
substantially (as did their acetaldehyde concentrations, but the difference is less
dramatic). During the summer PAMS season, which begins on June 1, a state-owned
multi-channel collection system is used at INDEM to collect multiple samples per
day. At the end of each PAMS season, sample collection goes back to a state-
owned single-channel collection system. The multi-channel sampler used at INDEM
during the PAMS season was replaced in 2009. Given that the elevated
concentrations of formaldehyde were typically measured during the summer, this
sampler change could account for the differences in the concentrations for 2009
compared to previous years. Thus, the elevated concentrations from previous years
were likely related to the multi-channel collection equipment and may not reflect the
actual levels in the ambient air.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for the Indiana sites from those
tables include the following:
• As shown in Table 4-10, INDEM's 2008 daily average concentration of
formaldehyde was the highest average among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant,
and was an order of magnitude higher than the next highest daily average of
formaldehyde (7.79 ± 6.42 |ig/m3 for PROK, 2009). Consequently, the 2009 daily
average of formaldehyde ranked 33rd among all NMP sites.
• INDEM also had the highest daily average concentration of acetaldehyde (2008), as
shown in Table 4-10, while its 2009 daily average ranked 51st.
• ININ had the third highest daily average concentration (2008) of formaldehyde,
behind INDEM (2008) and PROK (2009), as shown in Table 4-10.
• As shown in Table 4-12, the 2008 daily average concentrations of arsenic, beryllium
cadmium, and lead for IDIN and ININ were among the 10 highest daily average
concentrations of these pollutants.
13-34
-------
13.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. INDEM has sampled carbonyl compounds since 2004; thus, Figures 13-21 and
13-22 present the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde for
INDEM, respectively. The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the
substitution of zeros for non-detects.
Observations from Figure 13-21 for acetaldehyde measurements at INDEM include the
following:
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration (13.8 |ig/m3) was measured during the
2004-2006 time frame, specifically June 14, 2004. An additional four concentrations
measured were greater than 10 |ig/m3 (one in 2006 and three in 2008).
• Most of the statistical parameters show a slight increasing trend through the
2006-2008 time frame, but show a decrease for the final time frame. The average and
median concentrations for the final time frame decreased below the levels of the first
time frame.
• Note that the carbonyl samplers were switched out in 2009, which seems to have had
a significant impact on the concentrations measured, particularly with respect to
formaldehyde, as discussed below.
• There was a 3-month gap in sampling between September and November 2005 at the
INDEM site, which is denoted in Figure 13-21.
13-35
-------
Figure 13-21. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at INDEM
.'mil JllOfc*
Jim jmr
Carbonyl compound samples were not collected from September to November 2005.
Figure 13-22. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at INDEM
e
ma-tiKf joobjoo*
rK..-l... C.ncd
^arbonyl compound samples were not collected from September to November 2005.
13-36
-------
Observations from Figure 13-22 for formaldehyde measurements at INDEM include the
following:
• Five formaldehyde concentrations greater than 400 |ig/m3 were measured in the
summer of 2008 (ranging from 414 to 499 |ig/m3). While these are extremely high
values of formaldehyde, concentrations of formaldehyde have been historically high
at this site, as shown by the statistics in Figure 13-22.
• The rolling average and median concentrations changed little through the 2006-2008
time frame, but show a decrease for the final time frame. Although the decrease is not
statistically significant, note that the confidence intervals are wide for each of the
averages shown due to the large range of concentrations measured at this site.
• The rolling average and the median values are not similar to each other; the median is
roughly half of the average for each time period. This reflects the influence of the
outliers on the average concentrations compared to the median concentrations.
• The rolling averages shown for INDEM are the highest of any rolling averages
calculated for any other NMP site measuring formaldehyde. Note that the carbonyl
samplers were switched out in 2009, as discussed in Section 13.4.1, which seems to
have had a significant impact on the formaldehyde concentrations measured.
• There was a 3-month gap in sampling between September and November 2005 at the
INDEM site, which is denoted in Figure 13-22.
13.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Indiana monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
13.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Indiana monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest for each site were
compared to the acute MRLs; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRLs;
and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRLs. The results of this risk screening
13-37
-------
are summarized in Table 13-6. Where a quarterly or annual average exceeds the applicable MRL,
the concentration is bolded.
Observations about formaldehyde in Table 13-6 include the following:
• Formaldehyde was the only pollutant of interest for INDEM where a preprocessed
daily measurement and/or time-period average was greater than one or more of the
MRL health risk benchmarks.
• Eleven out of 59 (approximately one-fifth) measured detections of formaldehyde
from 2008 were greater than the ATSDR acute MRL for formaldehyde (50 |ig/m3).
Conversely, no measured detections of formaldehyde from 2009 were greater than the
ATSDR acute MRL for formaldehyde. Only three other concentrations of
formaldehyde from other NMP sites exceeded the acute MRL.
• Both the second and third quarter 2008 averages were greater than the ATSDR
intermediate MRL (40 |ig/m3). Conversely, none of the 2009 quarterly averages of
formaldehyde were greater than the ATSDR intermediate MRL. No other quarterly
averages of formaldehyde for any other NMP sites were greater than the ATSDR
intermediate MRL.
• The 2008 annual average of formaldehyde for INDEM was greater than the ATSDR
chronic MRL for formaldehyde (10 |ig/m3). This is the only annual average that was
greater than the ATSDR chronic MRL among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant,
or any other pollutant with a chronic MRL. The 2008 annual average of formaldehyde
for INDEM (75.13 ± 36.25 |ig/m3) was more than seven times the ATSDR chronic
MRL.
For the pollutants whose concentrations were greater than their respective ATSDR acute
MRL noncancer health risk benchmark, the concentrations were further examined by developing
pollution roses for these pollutants. A pollution rose is a plot of concentration vs. wind speed and
wind direction, as described in Section 3.5.4.1. Figure 13-23 is the formaldehyde pollution rose
for INDEM.
Observations from the Figure 13-23 include the following:
• There were 11 measured detections that were greater than the ATSDR acute MRL
(50 |ig/m3) for formaldehyde (shown in yellow and orange).
• Concentrations greater than the ATSDR acute MRL were measured on days with
winds blowing from the south to southwest; north, northeast, and east; or northwest.
The five highest concentrations occurred on days where wind observations were from
the south or southwest.
13-38
-------
Table 13-6. MRL Risk Screening Assessment Summary for the Indiana Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Year
Acute
ATSDR
Acute
MRL1
(Hg/m3)
#of
Concentrations
>MRL
#of
Measured
Detections
Intermediate
ATSDR
Intermediate
MRL1
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Chronic
ATSDR
Chronic
MRL1
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Gary, Indiana - INDEM
Formaldehyde
2008
2009
50
11
0
59
58
40
19.28
±5.52
1.37
±0.17
133.09
± 76.38
2.26
±0.68
152.06
± 117.67
5.74
±7.49
1.23
±0.28
1.33
±0.22
10
75.13
± 36.25
2.59
±1.63
Bolded = a quarterly or annual average concentration is greater than one or more of the intermediate or chronic MRLs.
Reflects the use of one significant digit for MRL.
OJ
VO
-------
OJ
o
Figure 13-23. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for INDEM
360 0
315,;"
270
..-'""' ® * ••-. .-:'\
/ / .' / / .••' \/' , "*•--. \y ••-.
Ill/// ••• \ .--" «*"--. A \ \ \ \ \ \
/////// X .--•""""' •« X \ \ \ \ \ \ \
f 7 ' /./ /exY ^x"!%i:<\\ \\ \ \ \ ^
( O i _ • » _ / lA « _,»k_ V _ V '. '. "i
•
>-. ,-1 0;4 ;6 \8 ftO ft2 |1
.>•..//;.'••
i 90
20 ;22kts
-- «*-
/ '-., O "—-4-—- e"
\ \ \ \ \ \ x '*-' ........ a ..... >--- X / / / / / /
* -"
225 X
v:
which corresponds to the upper
end of the 0-50 fig in3 (or blue)
cone entration ran2 e
• 0-50jlg/m3
180
O50-2?0]iigm3
O>250j.ig..iii3
-------
13.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Indiana monitoring sites and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 13-7, where applicable.
Observations for the Indiana sites from Table 13-7 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual average concentrations were formaldehyde and
acetaldehyde for all four Indiana sites.
• For each site, the cancer risk approximations for formaldehyde were at least an order
of magnitude higher than the cancer risk approximations for acetaldehyde. The cancer
risk approximations for formaldehyde for INDEM (2008, 976.72 in-a-million) and
ININ (2008, 81.52 in-a-million) were the highest and fourth highest calculated cancer
risk approximations (respectively) among all site-specific pollutants of interest.
Further, INDEM's 2008 formaldehyde cancer risk approximation (976.72 in-a-
million) was nearly 30 times higher than its 2009 formaldehyde cancer risk
approximation (33.61 in-a-million).
• INDEM's 2008 acetaldehyde cancer risk approximation (8.29 in-a-million) was
nearly three times as high as its 2009 acetaldehyde cancer risk approximation
(2.91 in-a-million) and twice the cancer risk approximations for the other three sites.
• For the two sites sampling metals (IDIN and ININ), arsenic had the highest cancer
risk approximations among the metals (4.65 and 4.52 in-a-million, respectively).
Arsenic's cancer risk approximations were just slightly less than acetaldehyde's
cancer risk approximations for each site.
• INDEM's 2008 formaldehyde noncancer risk approximation was the only noncancer
risk approximation greater than 1.0 (7.67 for INDEM) among the Indiana sites.
Further, it was the only pollutant among all NMP sites' pollutants of interest with a
noncancer risk approximation greater than 1.0.
13-41
-------
Table 13-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Indiana Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(HS/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
South Holt Road, Indianapolis, Indiana - IDIN
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10)a
Formaldehyde
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Nickel (PM10)a
2.2E-06
0.0043
0.0024
0.0018
1.3E-05
0.00031
0.009
1.5E-05
0.00002
0.00001
0.0098
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
47/3
45/3
44/3
45/3
47/3
45/3
45/3
45/3
2.17
±0.30
0.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
3.10
±0.44
0.01
±O.01
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±O.01
4.77
4.65
0.01
0.38
40.26
0.23
0.24
0.07
0.00
0.02
0.32
0.04
0.10
0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NP
NP
NR
Gary, Indiana - INDEM
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.2E-06
1.3E-05
0.009
0.0098
59/4
59/4
3.77
±0.75
75.13
±36.25
8.29
976.72
0.42
7.67
58/4
58/4
1.32
±0.14
2.59
±1.63
2.91
33.61
0.15
0.26
OJ
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 13-5.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
-------
Table 13-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Indiana Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
South Hardin
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10)a
Formaldehyde
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Nickel (PM10)a
2.2E-06
0.0043
0.0024
0.0018
1.3E-05
0.00031
0.009
1.5E-05
0.00002
0.00001
0.0098
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
49/3
40/3
39/3
40/3
49/3
40/3
40/3
40/3
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
g Road, Indianapolis, Indiana - ININ
2.15
±0.23
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
6.27
±0.95
0.01
±0.01
0.01
±O.01
0.01
±0.01
4.73
4.52
0.02
0.43
81.52
0.27
0.24
0.07
O.01
0.02
0.64
0.04
0.11
0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NP
NR
NR
NP
NP
NR
Washington Park, Indianapolis, Indiana - WPIN
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.2E-06
1.3E-05
0.009
0.0098
59/4
59/4
2.04
±0.22
3.44
±0.37
4.50
44.75
0.23
0.35
60/4
60/4
1.83
±0.15
3.10
±0.33
4.02
40.33
0.20
0.32
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 13-5.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
-------
13.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 13-8 and 13-9 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 13-8 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 13-9 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 13.3,
IDIN and ININ sampled for carbonyl compounds and metals (PMi0) while WPIN and INDEM
sampled for carbonyl compounds only. In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual
averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
13-44
-------
Table 13-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Indiana Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with Cancer
Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
South Holt Road, Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion County) - IDIN
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
641.04
372.53
229.28
120.25
110.10
62.40
60.88
38.75
17.09
15.98
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Arsenic, PM
Naphthalene
Cadmium, PM
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 2
9.91E-03
5.00E-03
4.66E-03
3.30E-03
3.02E-03
2.34E-03
2.07E-03
6.26E-04
5.04E-04
3.51E-04
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Bery Ilium (PM10)
40.26
4.77
4.65
0.38
0.23
0.01
South Harding Road, Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion County) - ININ
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
641.04
372.53
229.28
120.25
110.10
62.40
60.88
38.75
17.09
15.98
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Arsenic, PM
Naphthalene
Cadmium, PM
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 2
9.91E-03
5.00E-03
4.66E-03
3.30E-03
3.02E-03
2.34E-03
2.07E-03
6.26E-04
5.04E-04
3.51E-04
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Bery Ilium (PM10)
81.52
4.73
4.52
0.43
0.27
0.02
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk.
-------
Table 13-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Indiana Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with Cancer
Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Washington Park, Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion County) - WPIN
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
641.04
372.53
229.28
120.25
110.10
62.40
60.88
38.75
17.09
15.98
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Arsenic, PM
Naphthalene
Cadmium, PM
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 2
9.91E-03
5.00E-03
4.66E-03
3.30E-03
3.02E-03
2.34E-03
2.07E-03
6.26E-04
5.04E-04
3.51E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
44.75
40.33
4.50
4.02
Gary, Indiana (Lake County) - INDEM
338.28
170.33
121.74
55.68
52.03
51.45
40.92
35.15
7.77
4.45
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Arsenic, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium, PM
Nickel, PM
Acetaldehyde
3.45E-02
2.64E-03
2.13E-03
1.75E-03
1.44E-03
1.43E-03
1.23E-03
3.13E-04
2.84E-04
2.68E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
976.72
33.61
8.29
2.91
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk.
-------
Table 13-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Indiana Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
South Holt Road, Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion County) - ID IN
Toluene
Xylenes
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
1,774.26
1,115.00
997.58
641.04
424.94
372.53
271.87
254.84
234.39
229.28
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Hydrochloric acid
Manganese, PM
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Naphthalene
Bromomethane
Arsenic, PM
1,138,416.25
55,049.15
49,878.89
45,357.24
38,013.73
25,475.83
21,367.96
20,291.96
18,587.43
18,153.99
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Beryllium (PM10)
0.32
0.24
0.10
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
South Harding Road, Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion County) - ININ
Toluene
Xylenes
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
1,774.26
1,115.00
997.58
641.04
424.94
372.53
271.87
254.84
234.39
229.28
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Hydrochloric acid
Manganese, PM
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Naphthalene
Bromomethane
Arsenic, PM
1,138,416.25
55,049.15
49,878.89
45,357.24
38,013.73
25,475.83
21,367.96
20,291.96
18,587.43
18,153.99
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Beryllium (PM10)
0.64
0.24
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
O.01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk.
-------
Table 13-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Indiana Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Washington Park, Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion County) - WPIN
Toluene
Xylenes
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
1,774.26
1,115.00
997.58
641.04
424.94
372.53
271.87
254.84
234.39
229.28
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Hydrochloric acid
Manganese, PM
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Naphthalene
Bromomethane
Arsenic, PM
1,138,416.25
55,049.15
49,878.89
45,357.24
38,013.73
25,475.83
21,367.96
20,291.96
18,587.43
18,153.99
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
0.35
0.32
0.23
0.20
Gary, Indiana (Lake County) - INDEM
Hydrochloric acid
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hexane
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Ethylbenzene
967.92
927.05
659.40
338.28
230.83
224.72
170.33
121.74
108.68
106.92
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
Hydrochloric acid
Nickel, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Chlorine
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
544,317.82
527,549.71
48,395.79
27,290.23
20,458.76
18,637.70
17,380.96
17,149.74
13,526.57
11,275.97
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
7.67
0.42
0.26
0.15
OJ
oo
1 Green shading represents a:
-------
Observations from Table 13-8 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the three highest emitted pollutants
with cancer UREs in both Marion and Lake County.
• Coke oven emissions, benzene, and formaldehyde were the pollutants with the
highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with cancer UREs) for both
Marion and Lake Counties. Coke oven emissions ranked fourth for Lake County and
tenth for Marion County among the highest emitted pollutants.
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants in both counties also had the highest toxi city-
weighted emissions (coke oven emissions, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
naphthalene, and 1,3-butadiene).
• While several metals (arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and nickel) were
among the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for both counties,
none of these appeared on the list of highest emitted pollutants for either county. This
demonstrates that a pollutant does not have to be emitted in large quantities to be
toxic.
• Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are the only pollutants for which cancer risk
approximations could be calculated for all four sites. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde
appear on all three lists for all four Indiana sites.
• Of the metals for IDIN and ININ, arsenic had the highest cancer surrogate risk
approximations (behind formaldehyde and acetaldehyde) and was the only other
pollutant with a cancer risk approximation greater than 1.0 in-a-million. Arsenic had
the sixth highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Marion County.
Observations from Table 13-9 include the following:
• While hydrochloric acid was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer RfC in
Lake County, it was the third highest emitted pollutant in Marion County (yet the
quantity emitted was slightly higher in Marion County). Toluene was the highest
emitted pollutant with a noncancer RfC in Marion County and its emissions were
nearly twice that of Lake County.
• Acrolein was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with noncancer RfCs) for both counties. Manganese and hydrochloric acid
were second and third for Lake County, while 1,3-butadiene and hydrochloric acid
were second and third for Marion County.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants in both counties also had the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions (hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene).
13-49
-------
• The pollutants with the highest noncancer risk approximations were formaldehyde
and acetaldehyde for all four sites. These two pollutants also ranked among the
pollutants with the highest emissions and toxicity-weighted emissions for both
counties.
• Manganese and arsenic, the pollutants with the third and fourth highest noncancer
risk approximations for ID IN and ININ, also appeared among the pollutants with the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Marion County (fourth and tenth,
respectively).
13.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the Indiana Monitoring Sites
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
*»* Eight pollutants, five metals and three carbonyl compounds, failed screens for IDIN;
seven pollutants, four metals and three carbonyl compounds, failed screens for ININ.
Three carbonyl compounds failed screens for INDEM and two failed screens for
WPIN.
»«» Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration for each of the Indiana
monitoring sites. The 2008 daily average concentration of formaldehyde for INDEM
was the highest among all participating monitoring sites, but was significantly lower
for 2009.
»«» Eleven individual concentrations, two quarterly averages, and one annual average
(all for 2008) of formaldehyde were greater than the acute, intermediate, and chronic
ATSDRMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks for INDEM, respectively.
13-50
-------
14.0 Sites in Kentucky
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS sites in Kentucky, and integrates these concentrations
with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG
are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer
back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented
below.
14.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Kentucky monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The monitoring site near Hazard (HAKY) was moved in June 2008 to its new location
near Grayson (GLKY). Because data from both locations are presented in this section, the
locations of the sites are viewed separately and examined individually. Figures 14-1 and 14-2 are
composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their
rural locations. Figures 14-3 and 14-4 identify point source emissions locations by source
category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles
of each site are included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figures 14-3 and 14-4.
Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to
show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give
the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 14-1 describes the areas
surrounding the monitoring sites by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
14-1
-------
Figure 14-1. Hazard, Kentucky (HAKY) Monitoring Site
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,109 feet
-------
Figure 14-2. Grayson, Kentucky (GLKY) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,158 feet
-------
Figure 14-3. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of HAKY
83'25tp'W 63-3OOW 83*15f)'W 83-tffO'W 83-WW
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent at facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
•&• HAKY NATTS site
O 10 mile radius
J County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
+ Aircraft Operations Facility (2)
• Concrete Batch Plant (1)
+ Dry Cleaning Facility (2)
£ Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (3)
• Landfill (1)
n Mine/Quarry (8}
• Plywood. Particleboard, OSB Facility (1)
ft Solid Waste Disposal - Government Facility (1)
W Woodwork, Furniture, Millwork & Wood Preserving Facility (1)
14-4
-------
Figure 14-4. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of GLKY
e^SffECW STMBXrW
83"lffO-W - -,'", ' vV firn'O-W ftraS'O-W . • '• i 'V.'
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may net represent an facilities within (he area of interest.
Legend
"&•• GLKY NATTS site
1 10 mile radius
J County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
41 Aircraft Operations Facility (1)
i Brick Manufacturing & Structural Clay Facility (2)
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (2)
F Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (1)
'i Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (2)
Mine/Quarry (1)
14-5
-------
Table 14-1. Geographical Information for the Kentucky Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
GLKY
HAKY
AQS Code
21-043-005
21-193-0003
Location
Gray son
Hazard
County
Carter
Perry
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Not in an MSA
Not in an MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
38.238333,
-82-988333
37.283056,
-83.220278
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Rural
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
VOC, Carbonyl compounds, O3, Meteorological
parameters, Wet Deposition, PM10, PM10 Speciation,
PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation
VOC, Carbonyl compounds, O3, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, PM10 Speciation, PM25, and
PM2 5 Speciation
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
-------
The HAKY monitoring site is located in southeastern Kentucky, between the towns of
Hazard and Bonnyman, just on the outskirts of the Daniel Boone National Forest. The site is
located on the property of the Perry County Horse Park and is west of Perry Central High
School. The Hal Rogers Parkway and State Highways 15 and 80 merge just to the north of the
monitoring site. As Figure 14-3 shows, HAKY is located near a relatively low number of point
sources, which are located mainly to the northwest, east, and southeast of the monitoring site.
The source categories with the highest number of sources within 10 miles of HAKY are
mines/quarries (eight) and hot mix asphalt plants (three).
Grayson Lake is located in northeast Kentucky, south of Grayson, KY, and west of the
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY MSA. The Little Sandy River feeds into Grayson Lake, which is a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-managed project, and part of the Kentucky State Parks system.
The lake is narrow and winding, with sandstone cliffs rising to up to 200 feet above the lake
surface (KY, 2011 and ACE, 2011). The closest road to the monitoring site is a service road
feeding into Camp Grayson. Figure 14-4 shows that fewer point sources surround GLKY than
HAKY and none are located within 5 miles of the monitoring site. The sources within 10 miles
of GLKY are located to the west, northwest, and north of the site.
Table 14-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the
Kentucky monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 14-2 represents the most recent year
of sampling (for HAKY, 2008; for GLKY, 2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level
vehicle registration and population data for Perry and Carter Counties were obtained from the
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC, 2009a) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau,
2009 and 2010), respectively. Table 14-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-county
population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site. In addition, the population within 10 miles of
the sites is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the
county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each
monitoring site. Table 14-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information, as well as the
14-7
-------
year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. VMT was not
available for either Kentucky monitoring site due to the rural nature of the surrounding areas.
Table 14-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Kentucky
Monitoring Sites
Site
GLKY
HAKY
Estimated
County
Population1
26,771
29,241
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
28,371
25,654
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.06
0.88
Population
Within 10
Miles3
14,815
31,861
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
15,700
27,953
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
428
21,359
VMT5
(thousands)
NA
NA
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC, 2009a).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfmddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2008 data for HAKY and 2009 data for GLKY from the Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet (KYTC, 2008 and 2009b).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
NA = Data unavailable.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 14-2 include the following:
• The Carter and Perry County populations were among the lowest compared to all
counties with NMP sites. GLKY and HAKY's 10-mile populations were also on the
low end. The corresponding vehicle ownership data mimicked these rankings. The
rather low population and vehicle ownership compared to other NMP sites is not
surprising given the rural nature of the surrounding areas.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was higher for GLKY (1.06) than HAKY (0.88).
• The traffic volume experienced near HAKY was significantly higher than GLKY.
Although situated in a rural area, HAKY was also located near the intersection of
heavily traveled roadways (the traffic estimate used came from the Daniel Boone
Parkway, a major thoroughfare across southeast Kentucky). By contrast, traffic data
for GLKY came from the intersection of State Road 1496 with Camp Webb Road,
one of several secondary roads leading to Grayson Lake.
14.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Kentucky on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
14-8
-------
14.2.1 Climate Summary
Kentucky experiences a continental climate, where conditions tend to be slightly cooler
and drier in the northeast portion of the state and warmer and cooler in the southwest portion.
Kentucky's mid-latitude location ensures an active weather pattern, in a convergence zone
between cooler air from the north and warm, moist air from the south. The state enjoys all four
seasons. Summers are persistently warm and humid; winters are cloudy but not harsh; and spring
and fall are pleasant. Precipitation is well distributed throughout the year, although fall tends to
be driest and spring wettest (KCC, 2011).
14.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather stations nearest these sites were
retrieved for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station to
HAKY is located at Julian Carroll Airport in Jackson, Kentucky (WBAN 03889) and the closest
station to GLKY is located at Tri-State/M.J. Ferguson Field Airport (WBAN 03860). Additional
information about these weather stations is provided in Table 14-3. These data were used to
determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions
throughout the year(s).
Table 14-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for 2008 for HAKY and both 2008 and 2009 for
GLKY. Also included in Table 14-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As
shown in Table 14-3, average meteorological conditions on 2008 sample days appear warmer at
GLKY and cooler at HAKY compared to average weather conditions throughout 2008. This is
because sampling occurred at HAKY from January 2008 through May 2008 and at GLKY from
July 2008 through December 2008. Average meteorological conditions on 2009 sample days at
GLKY, when the site sampled year-round, were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout 2009.
14-9
-------
Table 14-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Kentucky Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
| Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Grayson, Kentucky - GLKY
Tri-St/MJ.
Ferguson Field
Airport
03860
(38.38, -82.56)
24.28
miles
58°
(ENE)
TflflO
2009
Sample
Day
All
Year
Sample
Day
All
Year
69.1
±6.4
65.2
±1.9
62.7
±4.1
63.8
±1.8
58.5
±5.7
54.9
±1.7
53.7
±3.9
54.5
±1.7
47.1
±5.5
43.0
±1.7
42.6
±4.3
44.3
±1.8
52.5
±5.1
48.9
±1.6
48.4
±3.7
49.5
±1.6
69.7
±4.5
67.7
±1.2
69.5
±3.3
71.7
±1.4
1017.7
±1.7
1017.4
±0.7
1016.5
±1.9
1017.2
±0.7
3.4
±0.6
4.4
±0.2
4.4
±0.6
4.2
±0.2
Hazard, Kentucky - HAKY
Julian Carroll
Airport
03889
(37.39, -83.31)
21.79
miles
339°
(NNW)
2008
Sample
Day
All
Year
59.7
±6.2
64.8
±1.8
49.0
±5.9
55.5
± 1.7
34.5
±5.4
42.6
±1.7
42.4
±5.0
49.1
± 1.6
61.0
±5.5
65.3
±1.4
1016.0
±3.0
1017.6
±0.6
4.4
±1.1
2.9
±0.2
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
14.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 14-5 is the composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were
collected at the HAKY monitoring site in 2008, respectively. A cluster analysis could not be
conducted for HAKY because there were fewer than 30 sample days for this site. Figure 14-6
and Figure 14-7 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which samples were
collected at GLKY in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 14-8 is the cluster analysis for both
years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. An in-depth description of these maps
and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line
represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site
on a given sample day. For the cluster analysis, each line corresponds to a back trajectory
representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the
sites in Figures 14-5 through 14-8 represents 100 miles.
Figure 14-5. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for HAKY
14-11
-------
Figure 14-6. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GLKY
Figure 14-7. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GLKY
14-12
-------
Figure 14-8. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for GLKY
Observations from Figure 14-5 for HAKY include the following:
• Back traj ectories originated from a variety of directions at HAKY.
• The farthest away a trajectory originated was north-central Missouri, or greater than
500 miles away. The average trajectory length was 243 miles. Eighty-five percent of
trajectories originated within 400 miles of the monitoring site.
• Sampling was conducted for only 5 months of the year at HAKY. Figure 14-5 may
have a different trajectory pattern if it included a year's worth of sample days.
Observations from Figures 14-6 through 14-8 for GLKY include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at GLKY.
• The farthest away a back trajectory originated was south-central Mississippi, or
nearly 600 miles away; however, the average trajectory length was 205 miles and
89 percent of trajectories originated within 350 miles of the monitoring site.
• Sampling was conducted for only 6 months of 2008 at GLKY. Figure 14-6 may have
a different trajectory pattern if a year's worth of sample days were included. Figure
14-7 for 2009 includes a full year's worth of sample days.
14-13
-------
• The cluster analysis for GLKY shows that in 2008 roughly a third of trajectories
originated from the northeast and east, 30 percent from the southeast and south, and
40 percent from the west and northwest. In 2009, roughly 25 percent of trajectories
originated from the northeast and east (and within 200 miles of the site), 22 percent
from the northwest and west, 12 percent from the south, and approximately 40
percent from the southwest and west.
14.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at Julian Carroll Airport near HAKY
and the Tri-State/M. J. Ferguson Field Airport near GLKY were uploaded into a wind rose
software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind
rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" around a 16-point compass, and uses
different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 14-9 presents three different wind roses for the HAKY monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year is presented. Finally, a wind rose representing
days on which samples were collected in 2008 are presented. These can be used to determine if
wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced over the entire
year.
Figure 14-10 presents five different wind roses for the GLKY. First, a historical wind
rose representing 1998 to 2007 is presented. Next, a wind rose for 2008 representing wind
observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which samples were
collected in 2008 are presented. Lastly, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a wind rose for
days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented.
14-14
-------
Figure 14-9. Wind Roses for the Julian Carroll Airport Weather Station near HAKY
NORTH"'- - _
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2008 Wind Rose
Calm; F.25]"f.
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 14-10. Wind Roses for the Tri-State/M.J. Ferguson Field Airport Weather Station near GLKY
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2008 Wind Rose
1998 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Calm; 10 CO".
2009 Sample Day
n -.-7
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 14-9 for HAKY include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed nearly
60 percent of the observations from 1997 to 2007. Southerly, southwesterly, and
westerly winds were the most commonly observed wind directions near this site.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose are similar to the historical wind
patterns, indicating that conditions in 2008 were typical of conditions experienced
historically.
• The 2008 sample day wind rose shows a similar wind direction tendency as the 2008
full-year wind rose, but the percentages appear to have doubled. There were also
fewer calm observations on sample days (by about 13 percent). It is important to note
that sampling concluded at this site in May 2008, and a wind rose incorporating a full
year's worth of sample days may exhibit different wind patterns.
Observations from Figure 14-10 for GLKY include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds were observed for nearly 28 percent
of the hourly measurements near GLKY. Winds from the south to southwest to west
make up the majority of observations near GLKY, particularly those from south-
southwest.
• The 2008 wind rose is similar to the historical wind rose in that calm winds account
for nearly 30 percent of the wind observations, but shows a slightly higher percentage
of winds from the west-southwest and west than from the south-south west and south.
The 2008 sample day wind rose exhibits a higher percentage of calms winds and
winds from the southwest and a lower percentage of winds from the south, south-
southwest, west-southwest, and west. It is important to note that sampling began at
this site in July 2008, and that a wind rose incorporating a full year's worth of sample
days may exhibit different wind patterns.
• The 2009 sample day wind rose exhibits wind patterns similar to the 2009 full-year
wind rose, as well as to the historical wind rose, indicating that conditions on sample
days were representative of those typically experienced at this site.
14.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Kentucky monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
14-17
-------
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 14-4 presents GLKY's and HAKY's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that
failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for each
monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest
are shaded and/or bolded. Both sites sampled for hexavalent chromium and PAH.
Table 14-4. Risk Screening Results for the Kentucky Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Hg/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Grayson, Kentucky - GLKY
Naphthalene
0.029
Total
15
15
91
91
16.48
16.48
100.00
100.00
Hazard, Kentucky - HAKY
Naphthalene
0.029
Total
7
7
8
8
87.50
87.50
100.00
100.00
Observations from Table 14-4 include the following:
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for either site. Naphthalene
failed roughly 17 percent of its screens for GLKY and nearly 88 percent of its
screens for HAKY. However, the total number of measured detections is worth
noting (91 for GLKY, eight for HAKY). HAKY began sampling PAH in April
2008 and ended sampling in May 2008 when the site was relocated; thus, only
eight PAH samples were collected during this time.
• Hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene were added to each Kentucky site's
pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though
they did not fail any screens. Neither pollutant is shown in Table 14-4.
14-18
-------
14.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Kentucky monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each Kentucky site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided
in Appendices J through O.
14.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Kentucky site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all
non-detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros
for non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly
averages could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to
85 percent. Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 14-5, where applicable.
The averages presented in Table 14-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
14-19
-------
Table 14-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Kentucky
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Grayson, Kentucky - GLKY
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.10
±0.04
0.01
±0.01
21.46
±5.29
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
0.01
±0.01
16.82
±4.01
0.06
±0.04
NA
25.53
±9.17
NA
NA
NA
0.08
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
21.72
±5.56
0.08
±0.04
NA
21.74
±7.68
0.02
±0.01
NA
25.02
± 17.67
NA
NA
14.10
±3.43
0.06
±0.05
NA
25.84
±9.35
0.04
±0.02
NA
21.72
±5.56
Hazard, Kentucky - HAKY
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.14
±0.10
0.02
±0.01
81.54
±41.03
NR
NA
NR
NA
0.02
±0.02
81.54
±41.03
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
to
o
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Observations for HAKY from Table 14-5 include the following:
• The daily average concentration of naphthalene was significantly higher than the
daily average concentration of hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene.
• The daily average concentration of naphthalene has a rather large confidence interval,
indicating that this average is likely influenced by outliers. The first two
concentrations, measured on April 18, 2008 and April 24, 2008 (151 and 171 ng/m3,
respectively), were significantly higher than the other concentrations measured at this
site (the other six measurements ranged from 27.6 ng/m3 to 96.0 ng/m3).
• Similar to naphthalene, the two benzo(a)pyrene concentrations measured on
April 18, 2008 and April 24, 2008 were an order of magnitude higher than the other
measured detections of this pollutant. Note that PAH were sampled only from April
to May 2008 at this site.
• Hexavalent chromium was sampled from January to May 2008. This pollutant was
detected infrequently during the first quarter of 2008 and a quarterly average could
not be calculated.
Observations for GLKY from Table 14-5 include the following:
• The daily average concentration of naphthalene was significantly higher than the
daily average concentration of hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene.
• The 2008 daily average concentrations of GLKY's three pollutants of interest were
similar to their corresponding 2009 daily average concentrations.
• Hexavalent chromium was not detected frequently enough for more than one
quarterly average concentration to be calculated (third quarter 2008).
• Naphthalene's second quarter average for 2009 has a rather large confidence interval,
indicating that this average is likely influenced by outliers. A review of the data
shows that the highest concentration was measured on June 30, 2009 (160 ng/m3) and
was more than twice the next highest concentration (74.4 ng/m3).
• The available quarterly averages of naphthalene show that concentrations tended to
be lower during the summer months. But there is enough variability in the quarterly
averages that the difference is not statistically significant.
14.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
14-21
-------
Section 3.5.3. HAKY was relocated to GLKY in 2008; therefore, the trends analysis was not
conducted for either site.
14.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
Kentucky monitoring sites. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
14.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Kentucky monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured
detections or time-period average concentrations of the three pollutants of interest for either
Kentucky monitoring site, where they could be calculated, were higher than their respective
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
14.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Kentucky monitoring sites and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages for 2008 (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations)
could not be calculated for the pollutants of interest because moving the physical location of the
site from HAKY to GLKY mid-year did not yield enough data for either site. Annual averages
for 2009, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations for GLKY are presented in Table 14-6, where applicable.
14-22
-------
Table 14-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Kentucky Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Grayson, Kentucky - GLKY
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
3.4E-05
0.0001
0.003
13/1
9/1
30/2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31/3
8/0
61/4
0.04
±0.02
NA
21.72
±5.56
0.04
NA
0.74
NA
0.01
Hazard, Kentucky - HAKY
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
3.4E-05
0.0001
0.003
6/0
13/1
8/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
-^
to
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time.
-------
Observations for GLKY from Table 14-6 include the following:
• The 2009 cancer risk approximations for naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene were both
less than 1.0 in-a-million (0.74 and 0.04 in-a-million, respectively).
• The noncancer risk approximation for naphthalene is well below an HQ of 1.0 (0.01).
A noncancer risk approximation for benzo(a)pyrene could not be calculated because
there is not an RfC for this pollutant.
• An annual average, and therefore cancer and noncancer risk approximations, could
not be calculated for hexavalent chromium due to the low detection rate.
14.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 14-7 and 14-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 14-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 14-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are limited to
those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 14.3, HAKY
and GLKY sampled for hexavalent chromium and PAH. In addition, the cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria
for annual averages to be calculated. As mentioned in Section 14.5.2, because annual averages
could not be calculated for 2008, cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations were also
not calculated for that year. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
14-24
-------
Table 14-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Kentucky Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Grayson, Kentucky (Carter County) - GLKY
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
/>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 6
38.90
31.93
9.49
6.41
2.27
2.00
1.60
1.41
0.57
0.14
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
POM, Group 5
POM, Group 3
Acetaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 6
3.99E-04
3.03E-04
1.92E-04
7.76E-05
7.71E-05
2.52E-05
2.29E-05
2.09E-05
1.74E-05
1.37E-05
Naphthalene 0.74
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.04
Hazard, Kentucky (Perry County) - HAKY
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 6
117.38
70.17
23.19
18.51
3.86
3.56
2.40
1.43
0.62
0.52
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
POM, Group 2
POM, Group 5
POM, Group 6
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
POM, Group 3
Tetrachloroethylene
1.47E-03
5.55E-04
5.47E-04
1.96E-04
7.23E-05
5.22E-05
5.10E-05
4.86E-05
2.52E-05
2.28E-05
-^
to
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk.
-------
Table 14-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Kentucky Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Grayson, Kentucky (Carter County) - GLKY
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Methyl fer/-butyl ether
Acetaldehyde
Methanol
1,3 -Butadiene
99.54
63.13
38.90
31.93
16.35
15.25
11.51
9.49
8.45
6.41
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Naphthalene
Xylenes
Toluene
Hydrochloric acid
173,978.28
3,258.54
3,205.64
1,296.68
1,054.77
933.21
755.62
631.28
248.84
125.92
Naphthalene 0.01
Hazard, Kentucky (Perry County) - HAKY
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Benzene
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Methanol
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
117.38
78.90
70.17
48.74
23.19
19.07
18.51
18.31
10.08
8.95
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Methylenediphenyl diisocyanate, gas
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Xylenes
Manganese, PM
Naphthalene
915,419.16
11,977.10
9,253.03
2,576.30
2,339.03
1,795.59
984.82
487.41
482.42
476.53
-^
to
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk.
-------
Observations from Table 14-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in both Carter and Perry Counties (although not necessarily in that
order). The emissions of these pollutants in Perry County were at least twice that
emitted in Carter County (three times for formaldehyde). The overall emissions for
these counties were low compared to other counties with NMP sites.
• Formaldehyde was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with cancer UREs) for both counties.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Carter County, while eight of the highest emitted pollutants also had the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Perry County.
• Naphthalene appears on both emissions-based lists for Carter County and has the
highest cancer risk approximation for this county.
• For both counties, two POM Groups appear among the highest emitted pollutants,
POM Group 2 and POM Group 6. Four POM Groups appear among the pollutants
with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, POM Groups 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Benzo(a)pyrene, a pollutant of interest for both monitoring sites, is part of POM
Group 5.
Observations from Table 14-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Carter County, while formaldehyde again topped the list of emitted pollutants
with noncancer RfCs in Perry County (followed by toluene, benzene, and xylenes).
• The pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) was acrolein for both counties. Acrolein was the eighth highest
emitted pollutant in Perry County but did not appear on Carter County's list of
highest emitted pollutants.
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions
for both counties (although the pollutants were not all the same between the two
counties).
• While naphthalene does not appear among the pollutants with the highest emissions
(of the pollutants with noncancer RfCs), it ranked seventh on the list of highest
toxicity-weighted emissions for Carter County (and tenth for Perry County).
14-27
-------
14.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for GLKY and HAKY
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene failed screens for both GLKY and HAKY. Benzo(a)pyrene and
hexavalent chromium were added to these sites 'pollutants of interest because they
are NATTSMQO Core Analytes.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
14-28
-------
15.0 Site in Massachusetts
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Massachusetts, and integrates these concentrations
with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG
are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer
back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented
below.
15.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the BOMA monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The BOMA monitoring site is located in Boston, MA. Figure 15-1 is a composite satellite
image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its urban location.
Figure 15-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as reported in the
2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are included in the
facility counts provided below the map in Figure 15-2. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius
have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile
boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions
sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air
quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions
sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of
the site. Table 15-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental
geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
15-1
-------
Figure 15-1. Boston, Massachusetts (BOMA) Monitoring Site
en
t-o
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/17/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,477 feet
-------
Figure 15-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of BOMA
flBr" *v
J -^I. ,T,_ E •;*./•
.
-.2 , '-'i--'
"
? '.. / •..*
suite!* .7
C«n
L»yC't«r.ng »>:<»> i lii
B.amdx Otntialttn
t;*t)
0 FfetMkM»4 MM
F Food PlQCMtinp'ApttLfluf* Fao*y i.
Ciaa PLM^ ll:.
A SIMM HnAngFKB) Hi
li)
Q PiM Oitvmg Outturn fBi
niwnKwKd MmActumg rK», n,
1 Fl*n«ryUMMPlMlucti«iFKIttril:i
P
B r,,ij. »^. r ,..: i
R tutor ml Mi«*«w>ui FHiintt PTS*Ji )5i
9 S*nKCAAKA« UHM^Knin^ FKIMy ill
aw«uiy Cmbuinw lUHnnu FK.II/ i IS,
li« Umlniwif ftatf 1 1)
P»H-:I,I
^ HM Ufa Aiffut Pin* (4)
tix«fn«Y X
jI - Hf*5l Ml
15-3
-------
Table 15-1. Geographical Information for the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Site
Code
BOMA
AQS Code
25-025-0042
Location
Boston
County
Suffolk
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Boston-
Cambridge-
Quincy, MA-NH
Latitude
and
Longitude
42.32944,
-71.0825
Land Use
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Lead (TSP), CO, VOC, S02, NO, N02, NOx,
PAMS/NMOC, Carbonyl compounds, 03,
Meteorological parameters, PMi0, Black carbon,
PM2.5, PM2.5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
-------
The BOMA monitoring is located at Dudley Square in Roxbury, a southwest
neighborhood of Boston. The surrounding area is commercial as well as residential, as shown in
Figure 15-1. The monitoring site is approximately 1.25 miles south of 1-90 and 1 mile west of
1-93. The original purpose for the location of this site was to measure population exposure to a
city bus terminal located across the street from the monitoring site. In recent years, the buses
servicing the area were converted to compressed natural gas (CNG). As Figure 15-2 shows,
BOMA is located near a large number of point sources, with a high density of sources located
within a few miles to the northwest, north, and northeast of the site. The source categories with
the highest number of emissions sources surrounding BOMA include institutional facilities
(schools), facilities using stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines, landfills,
hospitals, and electricity generating units (via combustion).
Table 15-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the
Massachusetts monitoring site. Information provided in Table 15-2 represents the most recent
year of sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and
population data for Suffolk County were obtained from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor
Vehicles (MA RMV, 2009) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively.
Table 15-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person).
In addition, the population within 10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile
vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population
ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding the monitoring site. Table 15-2 also contains annual
average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source
from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 15-2 presents the daily VMT for the Boston urban
area.
15-5
-------
Table 15-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Massachusetts
Monitoring Site
Site
BOMA
Estimated
County
Population1
753,580
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
489,937
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.65
Population
Within 10
Miles3
1,585,962
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
1,031,107
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
31,400
VMT5
(thousands)
92,756
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Massachusetts RMV (MA RMV, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfmddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2007 data from the Massachusetts DOT (MA DOT, 2007).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 15-2 include the following:
• The Suffolk County population was in the middle of the range compared to other
counties with NMP sites, while BOMA's 10-mile population was among the higher
10-mile populations.
• Similar to the populations, the Suffolk County vehicle registration was in the middle
of the range compared to other counties with NMP sites, while its 10-mile estimated
ownership was among the higher estimates.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was among the lowest ratios compared to other NMP
sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near BOMA ranked in the middle of the range
compared to other NMP sites. The traffic estimate used came from Melnea Cass
Boulevard between Washington Street and Harrison Avenue.
• VMT for the Boston area ranked tenth among urban areas with NMP sites.
15.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Massachusetts on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
15.2.1 Climate Summary
Boston's New England location ensures that the city experiences a fairly active weather
pattern. Storm systems frequently track across the region, bringing ample precipitation to the
area. The proximity to the Atlantic Ocean helps moderate temperatures, both in the summer and
the winter, while at the same time allowing winds to gust higher than they would farther inland.
15-6
-------
Winds generally flow from the northwest in the winter and southwest in the summer. Coastal
storm systems called "Nor'easters," strong low pressure systems affecting the Mid-Atlantic and
New England states that produce heavy rain or snow and winds up to hurricane strength, often
produce the heaviest snowfalls for the area (Bair, 1992 and NOAA, 201 la).
15.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station to BOMA is
located at Logan International Airport (WBAN 14739). Additional information about the Logan
Airport weather station is provided in Table 15-3. These data were used to determine how
meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
Table 15-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 15-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 15-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout both years.
15.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 15-3 and Figure 15-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the BOMA monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Figure 15-5 is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in
red. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in
Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which
a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster
analysis, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of
trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the site in Figures 15-3 through 15-5
represents 100 miles.
15-7
-------
Table 15-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Boston, Massachusetts - BOMA
Logan International
Airport
14739
(42. 36, -71.01)
4 07
miles
42°
(NE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
57.9
+ 4.1
58.8
+ 1.8
59.1
±4.1
57.4
±1.8
51.4
±4.0
51.9
± 1.7
52.0
±3.9
50.7
±1.7
39.3
±4.4
39.2
±1.8
41.3
±4.3
39.0
±1.9
46.0
±3.7
46.2
± 1.6
47.1
±3.7
45.5
±1.6
66.1
±4.1
64.7
±1.6
69.7
±3.7
66.9
±1.6
1016.3
±2.1
1015.9
±0.8
1013.0
±2.2
1015.8
±0.8
8.6
±0.8
9.0
±0.3
9.8
±0.8
9.3
±0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
01
oo
-------
Figure 15-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BOMA
Figure 15-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BOMA
15-9
-------
Figure 15-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for BOMA
Observations from Figures 15-3 through 15-5 include the following:
• The 2008 and 2009 composite back trajectory maps are similar to each other in that
back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at BOMA.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for BOMA was comparable in size to other NMP
monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was nearly 700 miles, over
northwest Quebec, Canada. However, the average trajectory length was 263 miles.
Most trajectories (84 percent) originated within 400 miles of the monitoring site.
• The 2008 cluster analysis shows that 36 percent of trajectories originated within
approximately 200 miles of BOMA. The short cluster that actually loops around
BOMA represents several trajectories originating from a variety of directions but
within 200 or so miles of the site. It is important to recall that the HYSPLIT model
includes both distance and direction when determining clusters. Another 24 percent of
trajectories originated to the north-northwest, 18 percent to the southeast to
southwest, and 15 percent to the west. Only four trajectories, or 6 percent, originated
to the northeast.
• The 2009 cluster analysis shows that 37 percent of trajectories originated from the
north-northwest to north-northeast and another 37 percent originated from the
southeast to southwest. Both of these percentages include shorter trajectories
originating within 200-300 miles of the site that had either a northerly or southerly
component, respectively. Another 24 percent of trajectories originated from the west
15-10
-------
to northwest to north and were generally 300 or more miles long. Trajectories
originating to the east to southeast and offshore accounted for another seven percent
of trajectories.
15.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Logan International Airport near
BOMA were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as
described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals"
positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 15-6 presents five different wind roses for the BOMA monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
Observations from Figure 15-6 for BOMA include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds (< 2 knots) account for less than four
percent of the wind observations. Winds with a westerly component (south-
southwesterly to north-northwesterly) make up the bulk (nearly 60 percent) of winds
greater than 2 knots.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses resemble the historical
wind patterns, indicating that wind conditions during 2008 and 2009 were typical of
conditions normally experienced.
• The sample day wind patterns for each year also resemble the historical wind
patterns, indicating that conditions on sample days were representative of those
experienced over the entire year and historically.
15-11
-------
Figure 15-6. Wind Roses for the Logan International Airport Weather Station near BOMA
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2008 Wind Rose
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose "™:M*
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
15.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Massachusetts monitoring
site in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context
of risk. Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk
screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 15-4 presents BOMA's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the monitoring site are shaded.
NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded.
BOMA sampled for metals (PMio), PAH, and hexavalent chromium.
Table 15-4. Risk Screening Results for the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Boston, Massachusetts - BOMA
Arsenic (PM10)
Naphthalene
Manganese (PM10)
Hexavalent Chromium
Cadmium (PM10)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Lead (PM10)
0.00023
0.029
0.005
0.000083
0.00056
0.00091
0.015
Total
104
91
17
15
3
1
1
232
121
97
121
78
121
90
121
749
85.95
93.81
14.05
19.23
2.48
1.11
0.83
30.97
44.83
39.22
7.33
6.47
1.29
0.43
0.43
44.83
84.05
91.38
97.84
99.14
99.57
100.00
Observations from Table 15-4 include the following:
• Seven pollutants failed at least one screen for BOMA; all seven are NATTS MQO
Core Analytes.
15-13
-------
• Approximately one-third of the measured detections (of the pollutants that failed at
least one screen) failed screens for BOMA.
• Four of the seven pollutants failing screens were initially identified as pollutants of
interest for BOMA based on the risk screening process. Cadmium, benzo(a)pyrene,
and lead were added to BOMA's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of the failed
screens. Beryllium and nickel were also added to BOMA's pollutants of interest
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These two pollutants are not shown in Table 15-4.
15.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Massachusetts monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for BOMA, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at the
site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in Appendices
J through 0.
15.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for BOMA, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 15-5, where applicable. The concentration
averages in Table 15-5 are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
15-14
-------
Table 15-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Massachusetts
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Boston, Massachusetts - BOMA
Arsenic (PMio)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium (PM10)
Cadmium (PMio)
Hexavalent Chromium
Lead (PM10)
Manganese (PMio)
Naphthalene
Nickel (PM10)
0.61
+ 0.18
0.15
+ 0.03
<0.01
±<0.01
0.22
±0.02
0.06
±0.03
4.44
± 1.04
3.57
±0.49
88.68
±14.97
1.77
±0.24
0.48
±0.22
NR
<0.01
±<0.01
0.21
±0.04
0.04
±0.04
3.53
±0.76
3.25
±0.78
NR
1.92
±0.42
0.46
±0.13
0.14
±0.05
<0.01
±<0.01
0.18
±0.02
0.03
±0.02
6.16
±3.69
4.44
±1.60
86.41
±49.67
1.67
±0.54
1.02
±0.74
0.11
±0.05
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.26
±0.07
0.09
±0.07
5.02
±1.82
3.42
±0.67
88.39
± 19.04
1.99
±0.68
0.52
±0.13
0.14
±0.07
<0.01
± <0.01
0.25
±0.05
NA
3.14
±0.80
3.18
±0.68
90.33
±22.17
1.52
±0.38
0.61
±0.18
0.13
±0.03
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.22
±0.02
0.04
±0.02
4.44
±1.04
3.57
±0.49
88.68
±14.97
1.77
±0.24
0.48
±0.08
0.14
±0.04
<0.01
± <0.01
0.25
±0.03
0.06
±0.03
2.95
±0.36
3.17
±0.37
70.33
± 10.85
1.42
±0.17
0.50
±0.18
0.23
±0.06
<0.01
±<0.01
0.29
±0.06
NA
3.58
±0.74
3.56
±0.94
66.42
± 30.65
1.94
±0.38
0.54
±0.17
0.17
±0.13
<0.01
±<0.01
0.26
±0.06
0.05
±0.05
2.89
±0.52
3.36
±0.51
59.46
±12.93
1.27
±0.27
0.47
±0.13
0.05
±0.01
<0.01
±<0.01
0.21
±0.06
0.04
±0.03
2.79
±0.66
3.28
±0.69
83.36
±24.24
1.23
±0.29
0.42
±0.18
0.09
±0.03
<0.01
±<0.01
0.24
±0.05
0.02
±0.02
2.57
±0.94
2.50
±0.83
73.41
±21.62
1.24
±0.32
0.48
±0.08
0.14
±0.04
<0.01
± <0.01
0.25
±0.03
0.03
±0.02
2.95
±0.36
3.17
±0.37
70.33
± 10.85
1.42
±0.17
en
i—*
en
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Observations for BOMA from Table 15-5 include the following:
• Naphthalene was the pollutant with the highest daily average concentrations by mass
for both years (88.68 ± 14.97 ng/m3 for 2008 and 70.33 ± 10.85 ng/m3 for 2009). The
daily average concentrations for the remaining pollutants of interest were at least an
order of magnitude lower.
• Because sampling for PAH did not begin until May 2008, first quarter 2008 averages
could not be calculated for these pollutants. Additionally, there are two quarters for
which hexavalent chromium averages could not be calculated due to the low number
of measured detections.
• The second quarter 2008 lead average concentration has a large confidence interval,
indicating that this average concentration was likely influenced by outliers. The
highest concentration of lead was measured at BOMA on April 24, 2008
(29.9 ng/m3). This is more than twice the next highest measurement (14.8 ng/m3
measured on July 5, 2008). The difference between the 2008 daily and annual
averages and the 2009 daily and annual averages is statistically significant; the 2008
averages are higher than the 2009 averages. The seven highest lead concentrations
were all measured in 2008.
• The second quarter 2008 manganese average concentration also has a relatively large
confidence interval. The highest concentration of manganese was also measured on
April 24, 2008 (11.3 ng/m3). The next three highest measurements were also
measured during the second quarter of 2008 (ranging from 6.98 to 8.89 ng/m3).
• The highest quarterly average of arsenic was calculated for the third quarter of 2008.
Further, this average concentration has a large confidence interval, indicating that this
average concentration was likely influenced by outliers. A review of the data shows
that the arsenic concentration measured on July 5, 2008 (5.45 ng/m3) was nearly three
times the next highest concentration (1.95 ng/m3 measured on January 7, 2008).
Further, this concentration was the fifth highest arsenic (PMio) concentration
measured among all NMP sites sampling PMio metals. Of the 121 measurements of
arsenic from BOMA, only 10 were greater than 1 ng/m3.
• The hexavalent chromium averages for third quarter of 2008 and the second quarter
of 2009 have relatively large confidence intervals as well as concentrations that are
higher than the other quarters. A review of the data shows that the two highest
concentrations of hexavalent chromium were measured during these two quarters
(0.525 ng/m3 on September 27, 2008 and 0.352 ng/m3 on June 18, 2009). These two
concentrations are the third and ninth highest hexavalent chromium concentrations
measured among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant.
15-16
-------
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for BOMA from those tables
include the following:
• BOMA's 2008 and 2009 daily average concentrations of hexavalent chromium
ranked third and fourth highest, respectively, second only to PXSS (both years).
• BOMA's 2008 daily average concentration of lead ranked third highest among other
sites sampling PMio metals. The 2009 daily average concentration of lead ranked
much lower at 17th.
• BOMA's daily average concentrations of cadmium ranked third (2009) and fifth
(2008) highest, compared to other sites sampling PMio metals.
• BOMA's daily average concentrations of nickel ranked fourth (2008) and eight
(2009) highest, compared to other sites sampling PMio metals.
15.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. BOMA has been sampling metals since 2003 and hexavalent chromium since
2005. Thus, Figures 15-7 through 15-9 present the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for arsenic,
manganese, and hexavalent chromium for BOMA, respectively. The statistical metrics presented
for calculating trends include the substitution of zeros for non-detects.
15-17
-------
Figure 15-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Arsenic (PMio) Concentrations
Measured at BOMA
- MIIII....I • IMhF« * - .n«J'
'Samples were not collected between April 3 and May 21 and September 24 through November 6 in 2004.
Figure 15-8. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Manganese (PMio) Concentrations
Measured at BOMA
.' 01.'
- MHKn - Mnhnum • «»l>m™«ir
'Samples were not collected between April 3 and May 21 and September 24 through November 6 in 2004.
15-18
-------
Figure 15-9. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at BOMA
u
.. I
u
.•1
ThwVMttvncd
Observations from Figure 15-7 for arsenic measurements at BOMA include the
following:
• The maximum arsenic concentration shown was measured on July 5, 2008 and was
discussed in the previous section. The next highest concentration measured was
approximately half as high and was measured in 2006 (and is shown as the maximum
concentration for the first two 3-year periods).
• The average rolling concentrations show very little change over the years of
sampling, which is also true of most for the other statistical parameters.
• While metals sampling began in 2003, data from that year were excluded from this
analysis because sampling did not begin until October. In addition, some samples
were not collected in parts of April, May, September and October 2004, which is
denoted in Figure 15-7.
15-19
-------
Observations from Figure 15-8 for manganese measurements at BOMA include the
following:
• The maximum manganese concentration was measured in 2004. Of the five
measurements greater than 10 ng/m3, two were measured in 2004, two in 2005, and
one in 2008.
• The rolling average and median concentrations exhibit a steady decreasing trend over
the years of sampling. Other statistical measures, such as the median and
95th percentile, also show a downward trend.
• While sampling of metals began in 2003, data from that year were excluded from this
analysis because sampling did not begin until October. In addition, some samples
were not collected in parts of April, May, September and October 2004, which is
denoted in Figure 15-8.
Observations from Figure 15-9 for hexavalent chromium measurements at BOMA
include the following:
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured in 2008
(0.525 ng/m3). Less than 10 percent of measurements were greater than 0.1 ng/m3.
• While the average concentration has been decreasing slightly since the onset of
sampling, that decrease is not statistically significant. The medians and 95th
percentiles also show slight decreases.
• The minimum and 5th percentile are both zero across the period of sampling,
indicating the presence of non-detects. The percentage of non-detects has been
increasing since 2007, with a minimum of 11 percent in 2006 to a maximum of
43 percent in 2009.
15.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
BOMA monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
15.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Massachusetts monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
15-20
-------
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured
detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the BOMA site
were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
15.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Massachusetts monitoring site and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 15-6, where applicable.
Observations for BOMA from Table 15-6 include the following:
• Naphthalene had the highest annual average concentration for both years. Lead,
manganese, and nickel also had annual average concentrations greater than 1.0 ng/m3.
• Naphthalene and arsenic were the only pollutants of interest with cancer surrogate
risk approximations greater than 1.0 in-a-million (for both years).
• None of BOMA's pollutants of interest had noncancer risk approximations greater
than 1.0, indicating little risk of noncancer effects due to these pollutants.
15-21
-------
Table 15-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
Oia/m3)-1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
jroximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
jroximation
Noncancer
(HQ) |
Boston, Massachusetts - BOMA |
Arsenic (PMio)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Hexavalent Chromium
Lead (PM10)
Manganese (PMio)
Naphthalene
Nickel (PMio)
0.0043
0.001
0.0024
0.0018
0.012
3.4E-05
0.00031
1.5E-05
0.00002
0.00001
0.0001
0.00015
0.00005
0.003
0.00009
60/4
33/3
51/4
60/4
43/3
60/4
60/4
38/3
60/4
0.61
+ 0.18
0.13
+ 0.03
<0.01
±<0.01
0.22
±0.02
0.04
±0.02
4.44
± 1.04
3.57
±0.49
88.68
±14.97
1.77
±0.24
2.63
0.13
0.01
0.40
0.51
3.02
0.55
0.04
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.02
61/4
57/4
52/4
61/4
35/3
61/4
61/4
59/4
61/4
0.48
±0.08
0.14
±0.04
<0.01
±<0.01
0.25
±0.03
0.03
±0.02
2.95
±0.36
3.17
±0.37
70.33
± 10.85
1.42
±0.17
2.08
0.14
0.00
0.45
0.40
2.39
0.44
0.03
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.02
t-o
00
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
-------
15.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 15-7 and 15-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 15-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 15-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are limited to
those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 15.3, BOMA
sampled for PAH, metals, and hexavalent chromium. In addition, the cancer and noncancer risk
approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for an annual
average to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
15-23
-------
Table 15-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Boston, Massachusetts (Suffolk County) - BOMA
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 1
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
237.85
184.62
80.66
57.33
37.23
30.98
22.93
7.89
6.48
5.72
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 1
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 5
2.31E-03
1.86E-03
1.26E-03
1.12E-03
7.80E-04
4.34E-04
3.15E-04
2.17E-04
1.83E-04
1.81E-04
Naphthalene
Arsenic (PMio)
Naphthalene
Arsenic (PM10)
Nickel (PMio)
Hexavalent Chromium
Cadmium (PMio)
Nickel (PM10)
Hexavalent Chromium
Cadmium (PMio)
3.02
2.63
2.39
2.08
0.55
0.51
0.45
0.44
0.40
0.40
en
t-o
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 15-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Boston, Massachusetts (Suffolk County) - BOMA
Toluene
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Ethylene glycol
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
636.92
481.18
480.55
402.31
237.85
184.62
145.83
122.82
90.15
88.46
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Nickel, PM
Acetaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Benzene
Naphthalene
Xylenes
Glycol ethers, gas
553,023.75
18,839.27
18,612.93
9,826.37
8,962.38
8,719.15
7,928.46
7,644.00
4,805.53
2,607.50
Manganese (PMi0)
Manganese (PMi0)
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Naphthalene
Cadmium (PMi0)
Naphthalene
Cadmium (PM10)
Nickel (PMio)
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
t-o
01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 15-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Suffolk County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) were formaldehyde, benzene, and hexavalent chromium.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Naphthalene and arsenic were the pollutants with the highest cancer surrogate risk
approximations for BOMA. Naphthalene ranked seventh on the list for emissions and
fifth for toxicity-weighted emissions. Arsenic ranked eighth on the list of highest
toxicity-weighted emissions but was not among the highest emitted. Hexavalent
chromium was the only other pollutant of interest for BOMA that also appears on one
of the emissions-based lists; this pollutant had the third highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• POM Groups 1 and 2 were among the 10 highest emitted "pollutants" in Suffolk
County and also ranked among the 10 highest for toxicity-weighted emissions.
POM Group 1 includes unspeciated polycyclic organic matter (POM). POM Group 2
includes several PAH sampled for at BOMA including acenapthylene, fluoranthene,
perylene, and phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were
identified as pollutants of interest for BOMA. Benzo(a)pyrene is part of POM
Group 5, which ranked tenth for toxicity-weighted emissions for Suffolk County.
Observations from Table 15-8 include the following:
• Toluene, methyl tert-butyl ether, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Suffolk County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
• Three of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Naphthalene, which had the sixth (2008) and eighth (2009) highest noncancer risk
approximations, had the seventh highest toxicity-weighted emissions but was not
among the highest emitted pollutants in Suffolk County. Nickel, which had the tenth
(2008) highest noncancer risk approximation, had the fourth highest toxicity-
weighted emissions but was also not among the highest emitted pollutants. The
remaining pollutants of interest did not appear on either emissions-based list.
15-26
-------
15.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for BOMA
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Seven pollutants failed screens for BOMA, of which all were NA TTS MQO Core
Analytes.
»«» Naphthalene had the highest daily average concentration for both years among the
pollutants of interest for BOMA.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
15-27
-------
16.0 Sites in Michigan
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS and UATMP sites in Michigan, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
16.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the monitoring sites by providing geographical and physical
information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The DEMI monitoring site is located in the Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI MSA; the
ITCMI monitoring site is located in Sault Sainte Marie, MI. Figures 16-1 and 16-2 are composite
satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their urban
locations. Figures 16-3 and 16-4 identify point source emissions locations by source category, as
reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of each site
are included in the facility counts provided below the maps in Figures 16-3 and 16-4. Thus,
sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to show
emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the
reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 16-1 describes the area
surrounding each monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
16-1
-------
Figure 16-1. Dearborn, Michigan (DEMI) Monitoring Site
I
. JV*V
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,914 feet
-------
Figure 16-2. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan (ITCMI) Monitoring Site
CO
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,923 feet
-------
Figure 16-3. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of DEMI
Legend
"&' DEMI MATTS site ' _! 10 mile radius d] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
-t< Aircraft Operations Facility (9)
i Asphalt Processing/Roofing Manufacturing (1)
0 Auto Body Shop/Painters (1)
S Automobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility (12)
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (12)
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (16)
• Concrete Batch Plant (6)
w Degreasing Operation (3)
•!• Dry Cleaning Facility (1)
* Electricity Generation via Combustion (11)
E Electroplating, Plating, Polishing. Anodizing, and Coloring
4 Engine Test Facility (4)
0 Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
F Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (4)
- Gas Plant (1)
- Gravel or Sand Plant (8)
-f- Gypsum Manufacturing Facility (1)
ill Hospital (3)
» Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (5)
L" icro'w 63"5'0'w
Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
yed may not represent all facilities -.within the area of hiterest
+ Industrial Machinery and Equipment Facility (1)
^ Institutional - school (5)
I Iron and Steel Foundry (2)
• Landfill (13)
> Lime Manufacturing Facility (3)
• Mine/Quarry (8)
? Miscellaneous Commercial/Industrial Facility (6)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (5)
rj Paint Stripping Operation (2)
a Petroleum Refinery (1)
— Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Facility (1)
(15) ! Pipeline Compressor Station (1)
7 Portland Cement Manufacturing Facility (1)
1 Primary Metal Production Facility (1)
H Pulp and Paper Plant/Wood Products Facility (2)
2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility (6)
V Steel Mill (4)
s Surface Coating Facility (8)
' Wastewater Treatment Facility (1)
16-4
-------
Figure 16-4. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of ITCMI
wwiyw ' ^-'ttrw WT
llat Due to faulty density and cdltxalicn, Oi« tdil faolllrs
4 m*y not icfxewH si f»nlilws vrtlm Iht *t«* of
Legend
10 mile radius
I I County boundar/
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
+ AircraR OperalHjns Facility (1)
.- Gravel or Sand Rant (3)
tf H4o( Mix Asphalt Plant (2)
• Landfill (18)
- Mine/Quarry (1)
16-5
-------
Table 16-1. Geographical Information for the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
DEMI
ITCMI
AQS Code
26-163-0033
26-033-0901
Location
Dearborn
Sault Ste.
Marie
County
Wayne
Chippewa
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Detroit-Warren-
Livonia, MI
Sault Ste. Marie,
MI
Latitude
and
Longitude
42.30754,
-83.14961
46.493611,
-84.364167
Land Use
Industrial
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Rural
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
TSP, TSP Metals, Meteorological parameters, PM10,
PMio Speciation, PM2.5, and PM2.5 Speciation.
VOC, Meteorological parameters, PMi0, PM10
Speciation, PM2.5, and PM2.5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
C73
-------
DEMI is located at Paul Costea Park in Dearborn, just southwest of Detroit. The
surrounding area is both suburban and industrial in nature. Figure 16-1 shows that a freight yard
is located to the west of the site and a residential neighborhood is located to the east. Industrial
sources such as an auto and steel manufacturing facility are also located in the vicinity. Heavily
traveled roadways surround the monitoring site, as the site lies between 1-75 and 1-94. As
Figure 16-3 shows, numerous point sources surround DEMI, a cluster of which is located just
west and south of the site. The source categories with the most point sources within 10 miles of
DEMI include chemical manufacturing; electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and
coloring; landfills; automobile and truck manufacturing; and bulk terminals and bulk plants.
ITCMI is located on the property of Lake Superior State University in Sault Sainte Marie
and is operated by the Intertribal Council of Michigan. Monitoring was initiated at this location
because tribal members were concerned about industrial emissions sources across the St. Mary's
River in Ontario, Canada. Figure 16-2 shows that ITCMI is east of 1-75 and south of the Edison
Sault Power Canal. The area surrounding ITCMI is primarily residential. As Figure 16-4 shows,
most of the point sources in the U.S. within 10 miles of ITCMI are landfills. The closest
emissions source to ITCMI is a landfill and the Sault Ste. Marie Municipal Airport. Any possible
emissions sources located in Canada are not provided in Figure 16-4.
Table 16-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the
Michigan monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 16-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (for DEMI, 2009, for ITCMI, 2008), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle
registration and population data for Wayne and Chippewa Counties were obtained from the
Michigan Department of State (MDS, 2009 and 2010) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census
Bureau, 2009 and 2010), respectively. Table 16-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-county
population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site. In addition, the population within 10 miles of
each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the
county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each
monitoring site. Table 16-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information, as well as the
16-7
-------
year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 16-2
presents the daily VMT for the Detroit urban area (VMT is not available for the Sault Sainte
Marie area).
Table 16-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Michigan
Monitoring Sites
Site
DEMI
ITCMI
Estimated
County
Population1
1,925,848
38,971
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
1,341,276
37,629
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.70
0.97
Population
Within 10
Miles3
1,138,740
21,803
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
793,087
21,052
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
104,100
5,200
VMT5
(thousands)
99,633
NA
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2009 and 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data (DEMI) and 2008 data (ITCMI) from the Michigan
Department of State (MDS, 2009 and 2010).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data (DEMI) and 2008 data (ITCMI) from the Michigan DOT (MI
DOT, 2008 and 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
NA = Data unavailable.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 16-2 include the following:
• Wayne County's population and vehicle registration were among the highest for
counties with NMP sites. Conversely, Chippewa County had one of the lower county
populations and county-level vehicle registrations compared to all counties with NMP
sites. This difference between the two Michigan sites is also reflected in the
population and ownership estimates within 10 miles.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio for ITCMI was nearly 1 vehicle per person, which is
higher than the vehicle-per-person ratio for DEMI.
• DEMI experienced a significantly higher average daily traffic volume than ITCMI.
Traffic for ITCMI was obtained from 1-75 near the intersection of West Spruce Street
and Portage Avenue; traffic for DEMI was obtained from 1-94, from Ford Plant Road
to Rotunda Drive.
• The Detroit area VMT ranked eighth among urban areas with NMP sites.
16.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Michigan on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
16-8
-------
16.2.1 Climate Summary
Detroit is located in a region of active weather. Winters tend to be cold and wet, while
summers are generally mild, although temperatures exceeding 90°F are not uncommon. 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 the Detroit area warmer in the winter and cooler in the
summer than more inland areas. The urban heat island keeps the city warmer than outlying areas.
Winds are often breezy and generally flow from the southwest on average. Precipitation is fairly
well distributed throughout the year, with summer precipitation coming primarily in the form of
showers and thunderstorms. Approximately 30 inches of snow falls on average during winter
(Bair, 1992 and MSU, 201 la).
Sault Sainte Marie is located on the northeast edge of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. While
this area also experiences an active weather pattern, its climate is somewhat tempered by the
surrounding waters of Lakes Superior and Huron, as the city resides on the channel between the
lakes. Once ice begins to build up on the lakes in winter, their moderating influence weakens.
This location experiences ample precipitation, especially during lake-effect snow events. Winter
snow falls are heaviest with air passing over Lake Superior while summer rain events often occur
with a southeasterly flow over Lake Michigan. Air masses that pass over the lakes in autumn
result in cloudy conditions and may produce heavy fog conditions (Bair, 1992 and MSU, 201 Ib).
16.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from NWS weather stations nearest these sites were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The two closest NWS weather stations are
located at Detroit-Metropolitan Airport (near DEMI) and Sault Ste. Marie Municipal Airport
(near ITCMI), WBAN 94847 and 14847, respectively. Additional information about these
weather stations is provided in Table 16-3. These data were used to determine how
meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
16-9
-------
Table 16-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Dearborn, Michigan - DEMI
Detroit/
Metropolitan
Airport
94847
(42. 22, -83. 35)
11.53
miles
228°
(SW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
58.5
+ 5.0
57.9
+ 2.1
57.4
±4.7
57.6
±2.0
50.6
±4.6
49.6
±2.0
49.4
±4.6
49.5
±1.9
39.5
±4.3
38.0
±1.8
38.6
±4.4
38.6
± 1.8
45.2
±4.1
44.1
±1.7
44.3
±4.1
44.3
±1.7
68.1
±2.6
67.1
±1.1
69.0
±2.7
68.7
± 1.2
1015.6
±1.6
1016.4
±0.8
1014.9
±2.1
1016.6
±0.8
7.7
±0.8
7.5
±0.3
7.9
±0.9
7.1
±0.3
Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
Sit. Ste. Marie
Municipal
Airport
14847
(46.47, -84.37)
1.84
miles
177°
(S)
2008
Sample
Day
All Year
24.1
±7.8
48.7
±2.1
18.3
±9.4
40.9
±2.0
13.1
±11.4
32.8
±1.9
17.0
± 10.0
37.4
±1.8
81.1
±8.6
74.9
±1.1
1016.8
±5.4
1014.7
±0.8
6.6
±2.1
6.1
±0.3
ISample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
Table 16-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 16-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 16-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days at DEMI were fairly representative of average
weather conditions throughout the year for both years. 2008 Sample days at ITCMI appear much
colder than the entire year, according to Table 16-3. However, sampling was discontinued at
ITCMI in February 2008. As such, the sample day averages only represent sample days for the
two coldest months of the year.
16.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 16-5 and Figure 16-6 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the DEMI monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 16-7
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red.
Figure 16-8 is the composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were collected at
the ITCMI monitoring site in 2008. A cluster analysis could not be conducted for ITCMI because
there were fewer than 30 sampling days for this site. An in-depth description of these maps and
how they were generated was presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line
represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site
on a given sample day. For the cluster analysis, each line corresponds to a back trajectory
representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the
sites in Figures 16-5 through 16-8 represents 100 miles.
16-11
-------
Figure 16-5. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for DEMI
Figure 16-6. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for DEMI
T i
\ \
\ \
16-12
-------
Figure 16-7. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for DEMI
Figure 16-8. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ITCMI
16-13
-------
Observations from Figures 16-5 through 16-7 for DEMI include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the DEMI site, although
fewer trajectories originated from the east.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for DEMI was somewhat larger in size compared to
other NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was northeast
North Dakota, or nearly 800 miles away. However, the average trajectory length was
280 miles and over 90 percent of trajectories originated within 500 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis shows that the majority of the trajectories originated from a
direction with a westerly component. There are seven to eight clusters for each year
mainly because HYSPLIT factors both direction and distance into the cluster analysis.
Trajectories originating from southwesterly, westerly, and northwesterly directions
were fairly numerous. Trajectories originating between Lake Huron, the Toronto
metropolitan area, and Lake Eerie were also common. The cluster trajectory
originating from the southeast (2008, 24%) and the cluster trajectory originating from
the south-southeast (2009, 19%) both represent trajectories originating from the
southeast to south to southwest, as well as relatively short trajectories originating
from within 100-200 miles of DEMI.
Observations from Figure 16-8 for ITCMI include the following:
• Because there are so few trajectories shown in Figure 16-8, it is difficult to
distinguish a trajectory pattern for this site.
• The farthest away a trajectory originated was nearly 500 miles away, over southwest
Ontario, Canada. Based on the longest trajectory, the 24-hour air shed domain for
ITCMI was smaller than other NMP sites but based on the average trajectory length,
the air shed would seem one of the largest. However, a composite map with a year's
worth of trajectories would likely have a different trajectory distribution.
16.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at the Detroit-Metropolitan (for DEMI)
and Sault Ste. Marie International (for ITCMI) Airports were uploaded into a wind rose software
program to produce customized wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows
the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses
different colors to represent wind speeds.
16-14
-------
Figure 16-9 presents five different wind roses for the DEMI monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figure 16-10 presents three different wind roses for the ITCMI monitoring
site (historical, 2008, and 2008 sample day wind roses).
Observations from Figure 16-9 for DEMI include the following:
• The historical wind rose for DEMI shows that winds from a variety of directions were
observed near DEMI, although winds from the southeastern quadrant were observed
less frequently than winds from other directions. Calm winds (< 2 knots) were
observed for approximately 10 percent of the hourly measurements. The strongest
winds were observed with southwesterly and westerly winds.
• The wind patterns on both the 2008 and 2009 wind roses resemble the historical wind
patterns, indicating that conditions during those years were consistent with those
experienced historically.
• The 2008 sample day wind rose resembles the 2008 full-year wind rose, although
there is some variation in the percentages of winds. For example, the full-year wind
rose has six percent west-northwesterly winds while the 2008 sample day wind rose
has nine percent.
• The 2009 sample day wind rose generally resembles the 2009 full-year wind rose,
although there is more variation in the percentages of winds. For example, the full-
year wind rose has eight percent west-northwesterly winds while the 2009 sample day
wind rose has nearly 12 percent.
16-15
-------
Figure 16-9. Wind Roses for the Detroit-Metropolitan Airport Weather Station near DEMI
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 10.55%
•NORTH"-'-.
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 16-10. Wind Roses for the Sault Sainte Marie International Airport Weather Station near ITCMI
1997 - 2007
Calms: 1413%
Historical Wind Rose
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
• .22
C3 4-7
Calm; 1-5 69%
2008
-------
Observations from Figure 16-10 for ITCMI include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from the west-northwest to northwest and
due east were observed most frequently. Calm winds were observed for
approximately 14 percent of the hourly measurements.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose resemble the historical wind patterns,
indicating that conditions during 2008 were consistent with those experienced
historically.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 sample day wind rose are not similar to the full-
year wind patterns for ITCMI. However, this wind rose incorporates only seven
sample days for January and February 2008. A wind rose that incorporates an entire
year's worth of sample days would likely exhibit different wind patterns.
16.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Michigan monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 16-4 presents DEMI's and ITCMI's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed
at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for each monitoring
site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded
and/or bolded. DEMI sampled for VOC, PAH, carbonyl compounds, and hexavalent chromium;
ITCMI sampled for PAH only.
16-18
-------
Table 16-4. Risk Screening Results for the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Dearborn, Michigan - DEMI
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Hexavalent Chromium
Dichloromethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Propionaldehyde
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.45
0.077
0.029
0.17
0.091
0.4
0.02
0.015
0.000083
2.1
0.038
0.8
Total
120
119
105
104
104
101
51
26
23
20
19
14
7
4
1
818
120
119
117
104
104
102
112
104
120
20
19
98
120
4
104
1,367
100.00
100.00
89.74
100.00
100.00
99.02
45.54
25.00
19.17
100.00
100.00
14.29
5.83
100.00
0.96
59.84
14.67
14.55
12.84
12.71
12.71
12.35
6.23
3.18
2.81
2.44
2.32
1.71
0.86
0.49
0.12
14.67
29.22
42.05
54.77
67.48
79.83
86.06
89.24
92.05
94.50
96.82
98.53
99.39
99.88
100.00
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
Naphthalene
0.029
Total
3
3
7
7
42.86
42.86
100.00
100.00
Observations from Table 16-4 for DEMI include the following:
• Fifteen pollutants, of which eight are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed at least one
screen for DEMI.
• Eleven pollutants contributed to 95 percent of all failed screens for DEMI; of these
seven are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Hexavalent chromium was added to DEMI's
pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did
not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens. Four additional pollutants
(benzo(a)pyrene, chloroform, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) were also added
to the list, even though they did not fail any screens. These four pollutants are not
shown in Table 16-4.
• Of the pollutants failing screens, nearly 60 percent of their measured detections failed
screens. Seven pollutants failed 100 percent of their screens.
16-19
-------
Observations from Table 16-4 for ITCMI include the following:
• Of the PAH measured at ITCMI, only naphthalene failed screens. Less than half of
the measured detections of naphthalene were greater than the screening value. It is
important to note that ITCMI stopped sampling in February 2008.
• Benzo(a)pyrene was added to ITCMI's pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS
MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not fail any screens. This pollutant is not
shown in Table 16-4.
16.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Michigan monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at
each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through 0.
16.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Michigan site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 16-5, where applicable. Note that
concentrations of the PAH and hexavalent chromium are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
16-20
-------
Table 16-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Michigan
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Dearborn, Michigan - DEMI
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethylbenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
1.63
+ 0.23
0.10
+ 0.07
0.96
±0.13
0.09
±0.02
0.76
±0.05
0.96
±0.10
0.04
±0.01
0.09
±0.02
0.30
±0.06
3.01
±0.47
NA
NA
0.95
±0.19
0.08
±0.02
0.70
±0.06
0.91
±0.16
NA
0.05
±0.02
0.23
±0.09
NA
1.73
±0.30
NA
0.95
±0.19
0.08
±0.05
0.74
±0.06
1.26
±0.16
0.02
±0.01
0.08
±0.03
0.38
±0.18
3.52
±0.51
1.95
±0.54
NA
0.97
±0.22
0.09
±0.03
0.79
±0.13
0.91
±0.20
NA
0.12
±0.04
0.31
±0.08
3.98
± 1.04
1.20
±0.33
NA
0.97
±0.47
0.11
±0.08
0.82
±0.12
0.77
±0.23
NA
0.07
±0.07
0.30
±0.17
1.63
±0.31
NA*
NA
0.96
±0.13
0.09
±0.02
0.76
±0.05
0.96
±0.10
NA
0.08
±0.02
0.30
±0.06
NA*
1.44
±0.17
0.05
±0.02
0.81
±0.11
0.07
±0.01
0.75
±0.04
0.65
±0.10
0.03
±<0.01
0.08
±0.02
0.31
±0.09
2.46
±0.28
1.44
±0.32
0.02
±0.02
1.02
±0.18
0.08
±0.02
0.62
±0.11
0.92
±0.26
NA
0.05
±0.02
0.32
±0.17
2.05
±0.45
1.48
±0.37
NA
0.85
±0.26
0.06
±0.02
0.70
±0.06
0.74
±0.27
NA
0.11
±0.05
0.25
±0.10
2.86
±0.69
1.38
±0.33
NA
0.71
±0.27
0.06
±0.03
0.88
±0.11
0.52
±0.10
NA
0.08
±0.03
0.36
±0.24
2.91
±0.57
1.46
±0.39
NA
0.66
±0.17
0.06
±0.03
0.74
±0.08
0.43
±0.09
NA
0.03
±0.02
0.29
±0.20
1.94
±0.37
1.44
±0.17
NA
0.81
±0.11
0.07
±0.01
0.73
±0.05
0.65
±0.10
NA
0.07
±0.02
0.31
±0.09
2.46
±0.28
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line for DEMI and for all averages for ITCMI are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 16-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Michigan
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Hexavalent Chromium*
Naphthalene*
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.23
+ 0.05
0.11
+ 0.06
0.02
±0.01
0.18
±0.05
0.05
±0.02
137.66
±31.00
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.13
±0.03
NA
0.01
+ <0.01
NR
0.03
±0.01
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.21
±0.08
NA
NA
0.20
±0.12
0.06
±0.02
130.72
±46.13
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.31
±0.10
NA
NA
0.13
±0.09
0.07
±0.06
182.95
±67.32
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.26
±0.16
NA
NA
0.16
±0.05
0.03
±0.02
107.91
±51.12
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.23
±0.05
NA
NA
0.16
±0.05
0.04
±0.02
137.66
±31.00
2009
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.19
±0.04
0.09
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
0.16
±0.03
0.05
±0.02
121.20
±17.55
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.26
±0.13
NA
NA
0.18
±0.05
0.05
±0.05
113.69
±28.50
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.14
±0.05
NA
NA
0.12
±0.06
0.04
±0.04
119.87
± 56.48
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.16
±0.06
NA
NA
0.11
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
136.29
±27.07
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.13
±0.08
NA
NA
0.16
±0.07
0.03
±0.02
111.77
± 37.79
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.17
±0.04
NA
NA
0.14
±0.03
0.04
±0.02
121.20
±17.55
Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Naphthalene*
0.07
±0.02
41.00
± 16.16
NA
41.00
+ 16.16
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line for DEMI and for all averages for ITCMI are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Observations for DEMI from Table 16-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde (both years); all other daily average concentrations
were less than 1.0 pg/m3.
• The daily averages for nearly all of DEMI's pollutants of interest were higher in 2008
than in 2009; however, most of these differences were not statistically significant
(chloroform was the only one that was).
• Quarterly averages for several pollutants (such as acrylonitrile and trichloroethylene)
could not be calculated due to the detection criteria. In addition, 2008 annual averages
were not calculated for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde for DEMI because this
method (Method TO-11A) did not meet the 85 percent completeness criteria. A leak
was found in the sample line, which resulted in the collection of non-representative
samples, and 3 months of samples were invalidated, as discussed in Section 2.4.
Finally, sampling for PAH did not begin until April 2008; thus, no first quarter 2008
averages could be calculated.
• Although the averages for formaldehyde appear higher during the warmer months of
the year, the confidence intervals indicate that the difference is not significant for
most of them.
• Several of the VOC exhibited relatively high confidence intervals for the third quarter
of 2008. A review of the data shows that the highest concentration for several
pollutants, including benzene, l,3-butadiene,/?-dichlorobenzene, and
tetrachloroethylene, was measured on October 15, 2008.
• Hexavalent chromium exhibited relatively high confidence intervals for the third
quarter of 2008 and the first and second quarters of 2009. Three concentrations, one
in each quarter, were greater than 0.3 ng/m3 (0.392 ng/m3 on July 5, 2008;
0.372 ng/m3 on January 1, 2009; and 0.317 ng/m3 on May 13, 2009). These three
concentrations ranked fifth, sixth, and tenth highest among all NMP sites sampling
hexavalent chromium.
• Naphthalene exhibited a relatively high confidence interval for the third quarter of
2008. The highest concentration of this pollutant (432 ng/m3) was measured on
October 15, 2008, similar to several of the VOC.
Observations for ITCMI from Table 16-5 include the following:
• The daily average concentration of naphthalene was significantly higher than the
daily average concentration of benzo(a)pyrene.
16-23
-------
Because PAH sampling was discontinued in February 2008, a quarterly average is
only available for naphthalene for the first quarter of 2008. There were not enough
detects of benzo(a)pyrene for a first quarter average.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for DEMI from those tables
include the following:
• DEMI had the first (2008) and third (2009) highest daily average concentrations of
chloroform (NBIL's 2008 average ranked second).
• DEMI had the fifth (2009) and sixth (2008) highest daily average concentrations of
hexavalent chromium, behind only PXSS and BOMA.
• DEMI's 2008 naphthalene concentration ranked seventh highest among NMP sites
sampling this pollutant (the 2009 daily average ranked 14th).
16.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. DEMI has sampled VOC and carbonyl compounds under the NMP since 2003 and
hexavalent chromium since 2005. However, a trends analysis was not conducted for the carbonyl
compounds. As discussed in Section 16.4.1, the all carbonyl compound samples from the
primary sampler were invalidated from March 13, 2007 through March 25, 2008 due to a leak in
the sample line. Thus, Figures 16-11 through 16-13 present the 3-year rolling statistical metrics
for benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and hexavalent chromium for DEMI. The statistical metrics
presented for calculating trends include the substitution of zeros for non-detects. Although
ITCMI has sampled PAH under the NMP since 2003, and therefore meets the criteria for a trends
analysis to be conducted, this site stopped sampling at the beginning of February 2008. Because
seven samples collected at the beginning of 2008 are not considered representative of the entire
year, the trends analysis was not conducted.
16-24
-------
Figure 16-11. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations
Measured at DEMI
_
.'II. '. ,•,!..-
- UMmun - Mxlun - Mouiwni • ntofntiaitr
Figure 16-12. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at DEMI
-
-.
0.4
*
•
IMi
> H
•
UK
l,hn.
«•»
•
iOW
11.1.
•1
.•Ml.,
•mil.
Th,
— H"*i
^
]*•»-
n-Vm
•
•
M«T
mUt
kt
• Mulram
^
1
3*0*
*
^
'
MM
f>
t,r-,.r,,,o.
1007
«.»*
ta
!
MM
*w
**•
16-25
-------
Figure 16-13. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at DEMI
onfng/m1)
a
Concentrat
a
•J i
4
M
>•••
•
~
-••<
im
>
=
2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009
Three- Year Period
• 5th Percentile
- Minimum - Median
— Maximum • 95thPercen
He
•-•*•• Average
Observations from Figure 16-11 for benzene measurements at DEMI include the
following:
• The maximum benzene concentration shown was measured in 2004.
• Both the median and rolling average concentrations exhibit a decreasing trend over
the time periods shown.
• The 5th and 95th percentiles each show a steady decreasing trend as does the
difference between the two percentiles.
• Note that sampling increased from a l-in-12 day sampling schedule in 2003 to a
l-in-6 day sampling schedule in 2004, which continues into 2009.
• The minimum concentration was greater than zero for all 3-year periods, indicating
that this pollutant has been detected in every sample collected at DEMI.
16-26
-------
Observations from Figure 16-12 for 1,3-butadiene measurements at DEMI include the
following:
• The maximum, 95th percentile, average, and median concentrations all exhibit a
decrease for the 2007-2009 time period from the previous 3-year period.
• The rolling average concentrations have been fairly steady over most of the time
periods shown, although a slight decrease is shown for the final 3-year period. A
review of the confidence intervals calculated for these averages indicates that this
decrease is not statistically significant.
• The minimum and 5th percentile are both zero for the first three 3-year periods shown,
indicating the presence of non-detects reported for this pollutant. Since 2003, the rate
of non-detects has decreased from a maximum of 60 percent (2004) down to less than
two percent in 2008.
• Note that sampling increased from a l-in-12 day sampling schedule in 2003 to a
l-in-6 day sampling schedule in 2004, which continues into 2009.
Observations from Figure 16-13 for hexavalent chromium measurements at DEMI
include the following:
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured in 2006. The two
highest hexavalent chromium concentrations for this site were both measured around
July 4th - 0.496 ng/m3 on July 4, 2006 and 0.392 ng/m3 on July 5, 2008.
• A slight decrease in the 95th percentile, the rolling average, and the rolling median
concentrations is shown over the period of sampling. Although the rolling average
concentrations show a slight decrease over time, the confidence intervals calculated
indicate that the difference is not statistically significant.
• The minimum concentrations and 5th percentiles for all 3-year periods were zero,
indicating the presence of non-detects.
16.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Michigan monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
16-27
-------
16.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Michigan monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
for each site were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the
intermediate MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the
measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the
Michigan monitoring sites were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk
benchmarks.
16.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Michigan monitoring sites and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 16-6, where applicable.
16-28
-------
Table 16-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Dearborn, Michigan - DEMI
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrenea
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethylbenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium*
2.2E-06
6.8E-05
7.8E-06
0.001
0.00003
6E-06
4.9E-05
1.1E-05
2.5E-06
1.3E-05
0.012
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.0098
0.0001
45/3
5/0
61/4
37/3
60/4
61/4
61/4
19/1
54/4
61/4
45/3
53/4
NA*
NA
0.96
+ 0.13
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.09
+ 0.02
0.76
±0.05
0.96
±0.10
NA
0.08
±0.02
0.30
±0.06
NA*
<0.01
±<0.01
NA
NA
7.48
0.16
2.66
4.57
NA
0.88
0.76
NA
0.53
NA
NA
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
59/4
14/1
59/4
56/4
57/4
58/4
59/4
1/0
50/4
59/4
59/4
45/4
1.44
±0.17
NA
0.81
±0.11
<0.01
±<0.01
0.07
±0.01
0.73
±0.05
0.65
±0.10
NA
0.07
±0.02
0.31
±0.09
2.46
±0.28
<0.01
±<0.01
3.16
NA
6.32
0.14
1.98
4.41
NA
0.74
0.77
31.99
0.43
0.16
NA
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.25
<0.01
t-o
CO
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 16-5.
-------
Table 16-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Michigan Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Naphthalene*
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
3.4E-05
5.9E-06
2E-06
8.8E-06
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.003
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
41/3
59/4
10/0
12/1
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.14
+ 0.03
0.23
+ 0.05
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
4.68
1.34
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.05
<0.01
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
61/4
53/4
12/0
11/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.12
±0.02
0.17
±0.04
NA
NA
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
4.12
1.02
NA
NA
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.04
<0.01
NA
NA
Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.001
3.4E-05
0.003
3/0
7/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
oo
o
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 16-5.
-------
Observations from Table 16-6 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest 2008 annual average concentrations for DEMI were
chloroform, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride. The pollutants with the highest 2009
annual average concentrations for DEMI were formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
benzene.
• Recall that 2008 annual averages could not be calculated for carbonyl compounds for
DEMI due to not meeting the completeness criteria; thus, surrogate risk
approximations could not be calculated.
• The pollutants with the highest 2008 cancer surrogate risk approximations for DEMI
were benzene, naphthalene, and carbon tetrachloride (7.48, 4.68, and 4.57 in-a-
million, respectively). The pollutants with the highest 2009 cancer surrogate risk
approximations for DEMI were formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride
(31.99, 6.32, and 4.41 in-a-million, respectively).
• For DEMI, none of the pollutants of interest had associated noncancer risk
approximations greater than 1.0.
• No annual averages could be calculated for ITCMI as sampling at this site concluded
in February 2008; thus, no surrogate risk approximations could be calculated.
16.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 16-7 and 16-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 16-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 16-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
16-31
-------
Table 16-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan (Chippewa County) - ITCMI
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
75.62
44.80
18.83
14.85
11.40
7.31
4.05
2.84
2.80
1.79
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 3
Acetaldehyde
5.90E-04
5.60E-04
3.42E-04
1.56E-04
1.38E-04
1.11E-04
6.80E-05
5.29E-05
4.25E-05
3.27E-05
Dearborn, Michigan (Wayne County) - DEMI
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
1,3-Butadiene
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
1,751.65
724.19
387.89
288.81
285.84
211.85
147.65
129.66
76.63
57.13
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 5
Cadmium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
1.70E-02
1.37E-02
9.05E-03
6.36E-03
4.41E-03
3.82E-03
2.79E-03
2.29E-03
1.84E-03
1.05E-03
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Naphthalene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
31.99
7.48
6.32
4.68
4.57
4.41
4.12
3.16
2.66
1.98
CO
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 16-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan (Chippewa County) - ITCMI
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Tetrachloroethylene
Methanol
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
301.83
151.09
75.62
44.80
34.67
30.13
18.83
16.00
14.85
11.40
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Nickel, PM
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Bromomethane
251,053.25
5,700.11
4,571.79
2,520.67
2,108.46
1,650.31
1,510.85
1,350.46
950.52
782.00
Dearborn, Michigan (Wayne County) - DEMI
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hydrochloric acid
Methanol
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
4,939.39
3,067.43
1,751.65
1,190.41
967.33
796.97
724.19
721.80
454.32
423.91
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium, PM
Formaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Naphthalene
Bromomethane
Nickel, PM
2,126,585.96
264,229.35
105,925.42
77,484.64
73,897.05
59,520.34
58,388.41
43,219.34
41,210.45
38,170.50
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Benzene
Chloroform
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.25
0.16
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
CO
CO
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. Further,
the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 16.3,
DEMI sampled for VOC, PAH, carbonyl compounds, and hexavalent chromium, while ITCMI
sampled for PAH only. In addition, the cancer and noncancer risk approximations are limited to
those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. A
more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 16-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene were the highest emitted pollutants
with cancer UREs in both Wayne and Chippewa Counties, although the magnitudes
of the emissions were very different.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for Wayne County were coke oven emissions, benzene, and
formaldehyde. The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for
Chippewa County were benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
• Five of the highest emitted pollutants in Wayne County also had the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions. Seven of the highest emitted pollutants in Chippewa County had
the highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
• For DEMI, formaldehyde (2009 only), benzene, naphthalene, carbon tetrachloride,
acetaldehyde (2009 only), and 1,3-butadiene had the highest cancer surrogate risk
approximations. Benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and naphthalene also appear
on both emissions-based lists. Acetaldehyde was one of the highest emitted pollutants
but did not appear among those with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions. Carbon
tetrachloride did not appear on either emissions-based list.
• POM Group 2 was the eighth highest emitted "pollutant" in Chippewa County and
ranked fourth for toxicity-weighted emissions; POM Group 2 ranked tenth for
toxicity-weighted emissions in Wayne County. POM Group 2 includes several PAH
sampled for at DEMI and ITCMI including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene,
and phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for these two sites.
• Benzo(a)pyrene is part of POM Group 5, which ranked sixth for toxicity-weighted
emissions for Wayne County but was not among the highest emitted pollutants.
16-34
-------
• POM Group 3, which has one of the 10 highest toxicity-weighted emissions for
Chippewa County, does not include pollutants sampled with Method TO-13.
• No cancer risk approximations could be calculated for ITCMI.
Observations from Table 16-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in both Wayne and Chippewa Counties, although the magnitude of the
emissions was very different.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) for Wayne County were acrolein, manganese, and 1,3-butadiene.
The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Chippewa County
were acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde. Although acrolein was sampled for
at DEMI, this pollutant was excluded from the pollutants of interest designation and
thus subsequent risk screening evaluations due to questions about the consistency and
reliability of the measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Three of the highest emitted pollutants in Wayne County also had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions. Five of the highest emitted pollutants in Chippewa
County also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
• The pollutant with the highest noncancer risk approximation for DEMI was
formaldehyde (0.25 for 2009), although none of the pollutants of interest had
associated noncancer risk approximations greater than 1.0. Formaldehyde emissions
ranked seventh for Wayne County; formaldehyde also had the fifth highest toxicity-
weighted emissions.
• Noncancer risk approximations could not be calculated for ITCMI.
16.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for DEMI and ITCMI
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
*»* Fifteen pollutants, of which eight are NA TTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens for
DEMI. Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for ITCMI.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of interest, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration for DEMI (both years), while naphthalene had the highest daily
average concentration for ITCMI (2008).
»»» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than any of the associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
16-35
-------
17.0 Sites in Mississippi
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at UATMP sites in Mississippi, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
17.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Mississippi monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the locations of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The GPMS monitoring site is located in the Gulfport-Biloxi, MS MSA and the TUMS
monitoring site is located in the Tupelo, MS MSA. Figures 17-1 and 17-2 are composite satellite
images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural
locations. Figures 17-3 and 17-4 identify point source emissions locations by source category, as
reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the sites are
included in the facility counts provided below the maps in Figures 17-3 and 17-4. Thus, sources
outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to show emissions
sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an
indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an
immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this boundary provides both
the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the quantity of such sources
within a given distance of the sites. Table 17-1 describes the area surrounding each monitoring
site by providing supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and
locational coordinates.
17-1
-------
Figure 17-1. Gulfport, Mississippi (GPMS) Monitoring Site
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,575 feet
-------
Figure 17-2. Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,772 feet
-------
Figure 17-3. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of GPMS
* I* «•
MM
y
"-"•^ ^^"^ - - N
^--—^—^- *JH
Legend
^T GPMSUATMPsrte
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
+ Aircraft Operations Facility (9)
•f Airport Support Operation (1)
B Bu% Terminals/Bulk Plants (1)
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (1)
• Concrete Batch Plant (3)
I Electricity Generation via Com bustion (1}
© Fabricated Metal ProductsFaeilrty(l)
Hot* Du» to ftdlly d«n»fl> »nd :«^wib«n Ihe i«il tadlon
tljptaynl may not refirnenl at (idlnlM wttwi llw V«B
-------
Figure 17-4. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS
-
rt^tlW 6g*«Pt"W
Mote DIM to ftdlly dentil* and ecBoaeon. me total ttaitm
dsplayed may not rtftr*«nl al laaliHes Mittun Itwj area ol nletMt
Legend
•& TUMS UATMP site A
• 10 ml* radius It
| County boundary ®
Source Category Group | No. of Fad litie s) •
41 Aircraft Operations Fadity (2) M
AutomoWte/Tiuek ManuTactunng Facility 11) •
Chttrrwal MariuF*aunng Faolitj- (2) Q
Cooaete Batch Plant (1) R
Electroplating. Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Catering (1) 2
Fabricated MM*) Prodwls Facility (1) S
Fitiibte Rolyur«han* Foam Pro*»aion FaeiBly (3) W
Glass Manufa«u(mg Fasjlrty (1)
H
G
Giain Handing Facility {1)
Hot Mi* Asphalt Plant (1)
Institutional, school (1)
Landfill (1)
Miscellaneous Manufactwmg Industries Facility (2)
CM and/or Gas Production (1)
Paint Stripping Operation (2)
Rubber and Miscellaneous Flashes Products Facility |8)
Secondary Metal Processing Facility (3)
Surface Coaling Facility {1)
Wbodwoik. Furniture. UMIwork 5 Wood Reserving Facility <3)
17-5
-------
Table 17-1. Geographical Information for the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
GPMS
TUMS
AQS Code
28-047-0008
28-081-0005
Location
Gulfport
Tupelo
County
Harrison
Lee
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Gulfport-Biloxi,
MS
Tupelo, MS
Latitude
and
Longitude
30.390139,
-89.049722
34.264917,
-88.766222
Land Use
Commercial
Commercial
Location
Setting
Rural
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Asbestos, Hexavalent chromium, SVOC, O3,
Meteorological parameters, PM10 Speciation, PM25,
and PM2 5 Speciation
O3, Meteorological parameters, and PM25.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
-------
GPMS is located in the coastal city of Gulfport, less than 1 mile from the shore and
approximately 1/2 mile from the Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport. The surrounding area is
lightly commercial as well as residential. The monitoring site is located behind the Harrison
County Youth Court building, as shown in Figure 17-1. The site is positioned between several
major thoroughfares through Gulfport, including Business 90, Pass Road, and I-10. Keesler Air
Force Base and a U.S. Naval Reserve Station are within a few miles of the monitoring site. As
Figure 17-3 shows, relatively few point sources are located near GPMS. Most of the emissions
sources are located to the north of the site. The source categories with the highest number of
sources are the aircraft operations source category, which includes airports as well as small
runways, heliports, or landing pads; concrete batch plants; and military bases/national security
facilities.
TUMS is located on the west side of Tupelo, a town in the northeast corner of the state.
Figure 17-2 shows that TUMS is located on the property of the Tupelo Regional Airport.
Residential and light commercial areas surround the airport. As Figure 17-4 shows, point sources
within a 10 mile radius of TUMS are primarily located to the east and southeast of the site. A
number of the emissions sources near TUMS are involved in rubber and miscellaneous plastics
production, including several located in very close proximity to the monitoring site.
Table 17-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the
Mississippi monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 17-2 represents the most recent year
of sampling (2008), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population
data for Harrison and Lee Counties were obtained from the Mississippi State Tax Commission
(MS STC, 2008) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2009), respectively. Table 17-2
also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site.
In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile
vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population
ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site. Table 17-2 also contains annual
average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source
17-7
-------
from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 17-2 presents the daily VMT for the Gulfport urban
area (VMT was not available for Tupelo).
Table 17-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Mississippi
Monitoring Sites
Site
GPMS
TUMS
Estimated
County
Population1
178,460
81,139
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
173,974
73,635
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.97
0.91
Population
Within 10
Miles3
155,056
71,697
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
151,158
65,066
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
27,000
12,000
VMT5
(thousands)
7,446
NA
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2009.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Mississippi State Tax Commission (MS STC, 2008).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2007 data from the Mississippi DOT (MS DOT, 2007).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
NA = Data unavailable.
Observations from Table 17-2 include the following:
• The Harrison County population is more than twice the Lee County population,
although both are relatively low compared to other counties with NMP monitoring
sites. The same is true of the 10-mile populations.
• The county-level and 10-mile vehicle ownership estimates for GPMS and TUMS
reflect the same trends as the populations.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio for GPMS was nearly 1 vehicle per person, which falls
in the mid to upper end of the range compared to other NMP sites. The ratio for
TUMS was slightly lower than the ratio for GPMS.
• GPMS experienced a higher annual average daily traffic volume than TUMS.
Compared to other NMP sites, the traffic near TUMS was in the mid to low end of the
range while the traffic volume for GPMS was in the middle of the range. Traffic for
GPMS was obtained from Pass Road, east of Hancock Avenue; traffic for TUMS was
obtained from Coley Road, north of State Road 6.
• The Gulfport area VMT was among the lowest for urban areas with NMP sites.
17.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Mississippi on sample days, as well as over the course of the year.
17-8
-------
17.2.1 Climate Summary
High temperatures and humidity, due to the predominant southerly flow out of the Gulf
of Mexico, can make this region feel uncomfortable during the warmer months of the year, but
the Gulf also acts as a moderating influence in the wintertime. Precipitation is distributed fairly
evenly throughout the year, although the northern portions of the state experience higher
precipitation amounts during winter in association with frontal systems, while the coastal regions
experience higher precipitation amounts in summer in association with thunderstorms (NCDC,
2011).
17.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008
Hourly meteorological data from NWS weather stations nearest these sites were retrieved
for all of 2008 (NCDC, 2008). The two closest NWS weather stations are located at Gulfport-
Biloxi Regional Airport (near GPMS) and Tupelo Municipal Airport (near TUMS), WBAN
93874 and 93862, respectively. Additional information about these weather stations is provided
in Table 17-3. These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days
vary from normal conditions throughout the year.
Table 17-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year (for 2008 only). Also included in Table 17-3 is the
95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 17-3, there seems to be a
wide disparity between conditions on sample days and those experienced throughout the year.
This is because both sites stopped sampling in March 2008, thereby capturing sample days for
only the colder months of the year.
17-9
-------
Table 17-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
Gulfport, MS/Biloxi
Regional Airport
93870
(30.41, -89.07)
1.64
miles
311°
(NW)
2008
Sample
Day
All Year
61.7
±5.0
76.3
±1.2
52.5
±5.0
67.7
±1.3
42.6
±6.7
58.5
±1.5
48.0
±5.2
62.5
±1.3
72.4
±8.5
74.6
±1.1
1019.2
±3.7
1017.5
±0.6
7.9
±1.5
5.7
±0.3
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
Tupelo Municipal
Airport
93862
(34.26, -88.77)
0.37
miles
219°
(SW)
2008
Sample
Day
All Year
52.2
±7.8
71.8
±1.6
43.3
±6.0
61.4
± 1.6
32.0
±7.6
50.4
±1.7
38.8
±6.0
55.5
± 1.5
66.7
±7.6
70.5
±1.1
1019.7
±4.5
1017.7
±0.6
7.6
±1.7
5.5
±0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
17.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 17-5 and Figure 17-6 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the GPMS and TUMS monitoring sites in 2008, respectively. Cluster
analyses could not be conducted for GPMS and TUMS because there were fewer than 30 sample
days for these sites. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were generated is
presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For both maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. Each concentric
circle around the sites in Figures 17-5 through 17-6 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figure 17-5 for GPMS include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the GPMS site.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for GPMS was somewhat smaller in size than TUMS
and other NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was west-
central Arkansas, or just over 400 miles away. However, most trajectories originated
within 350 miles of the site.
• A composite back trajectory map with a full year's worth of sample days would likely
exhibit a different trajectory distribution.
Observations from Figure 17-6 for TUMS include the following:
• Back trajectories also originated from a variety of directions at the TUMS site.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for TUMS was comparable in size to other NMP
monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was west-central Iowa, or
nearly 650 miles away. However, most trajectories originated within 350 miles of the
site.
• A composite back trajectory map with a full year's worth of sample days would likely
exhibit a different trajectory distribution.
17-11
-------
Figure 17-5. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPMS
Figure 17-6. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TUMS
17-12
-------
17.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport
(for GPMS) and Tupelo Municipal Airport (for TUMS) were uploaded into a wind rose software
program to produce customized wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows
the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses
different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 17-7 presents three different wind roses for the GPMS monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1999 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year is presented. Finally, a wind rose representing
days on which samples were collected in 2008 are presented. These can be used to determine if
wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced over the entire
year. Figure 17-8 presents the wind roses for the TUMS monitoring site.
Observations from Figure 17-7 for GPMS include the following:
• Calm winds (<2 knots) account for approximately one-third of observations for the
historical wind rose. Winds from southeast to south account for a combined
25 percent of observations while winds from the north account for 10 percent of
observations. The remaining 35 percent of observations are spread around varying
directions, although very few of those are from the southwest to west.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose resemble the historical wind patterns,
indicating that conditions in 2008 were typical of wind conditions normally
experienced near the site.
• The 2008 sample day wind rose does not resemble the historical or 2008 full-year
wind rose, as winds from the northwest to north-northwest account for the largest
percentage of wind directions on sample days. However, the sample day wind rose
only includes sample days through March 2008 and likely reflects a seasonal wind
pattern.
17-13
-------
Figure 17-7. Wind Roses for the Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport Weather Station near GPMS
'WEST; '••
20%
"~\ 16%
12%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
17 - 21
11-17
1999 - 2007
Calm; 2393%
Historical Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
• .22
2008 Wind Rose
Calm; I772'H.
2008 Sample Day
Calm; 12 •50»(.
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 17-8. Wind Roses for the Tupelo Municipal Airport Weather Station near TUMS
2008 Wind Rose
1997 - 2007
Calm; 1429%
Historical Wind Rose
NORTH'"---
-------
Observations from Figure 17-8 for TUMS include the following:
• Historically, winds from the north and north-northeast, and south-southeast and south
were observed most frequently near TUMS. Calm winds were observed for
approximately one-quarter of the hourly measurements.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose resemble the historical wind patterns,
indicating that conditions in 2008 were typical of wind conditions normally
experienced near the site.
• Although the 2008 sample day wind rose does show the predominant northerly and
southerly wind directions, there is a much higher percentage of winds from the
northwest quadrant. The percentage of calm wind observations is also much lower.
However, the sample day wind rose only includes sample days through March 2008
and likely reflects a seasonal wind pattern.
17.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Mississippi monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 17-4 presents the pollutants of interest for GPMS and TUMS. The pollutants that
failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for each
monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest
are shaded and/or bolded. GPMS and TUMS both sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds. In
addition, SNMOC were also sampled at GPMS.
17-16
-------
Table 17-4. Risk Screening Results for the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Vinyl chloride
0.45
0.077
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.091
0.015
0.11
Total
11
11
10
10
8
4
1
1
56
11
11
10
10
10
10
1
7
70
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
40.00
100.00
14.29
80.00
19.64
19.64
17.86
17.86
14.29
7.14
1.79
1.79
19.64
39.29
57.14
75.00
89.29
96.43
98.21
100.00
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
0.45
0.13
0.077
0.17
0.033
0.015
0.038
0.11
Total
12
12
12
11
5
1
1
1
55
12
12
12
12
11
1
1
6
67
100.00
100.00
100.00
91.67
45.45
100.00
100.00
16.67
82.09
21.82
21.82
21.82
20.00
9.09
1.82
1.82
1.82
21.82
43.64
65.45
85.45
94.55
96.36
98.18
100.00
Observations from Table 17-4 include the following:
• Eight pollutants failed at least one screen for GPMS. Eight pollutants also failed at
least one screen for TUMS. Six of the eight pollutants failing screens for each site
were NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Seven of the eight pollutants failing screens were
the same between the two sites.
• The risk screening process identified six pollutants of interest for GPMS, of which
five are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Vinyl chloride, which did not contribute to
95 percent of the total failed screens, was added to the pollutants of interest for
GPMS because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte. Three additional pollutants were
added to the pollutants of interest for GPMS because they are also NATTS MQO
Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens: chloroform,
tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. These three pollutants are not shown in
Table 17-4.
• The risk screening process identified eight pollutants of interest for TUMS, of which
six are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Note that although acrylonitrile is the last
pollutant contributing to 95 percent of failed screens, both vinyl chloride and
1,2-dichloroethane failed the same number of screens (one each). Because the order
17-17
-------
for pollutants failing the same number of screens is based on alphabetical order, and
and results in the inclusion of acrylonitrile but exclusion of other pollutants failing the
same number of screens, each of these three pollutants is considered a pollutant of
interest.
• Three additional pollutants were added to the pollutants of interest for TUMS because
they are also NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens:
chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. These three pollutants are not
shown in Table 17-4.
• Acetaldehyde, acrylonitrile, benzene, and formaldehyde failed 100 percent of their
screens for both sites. Note that acrylonitrile was detected only once at each site.
17.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Mississippi monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each Mississippi site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided
in Appendices J through O.
17.4.1 2008 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Mississippi site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 17-5, where applicable.
17-18
-------
Table 17-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of
Interest for the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.89
±0.23
0.92
±0.36
0.06
±0.03
0.58
±0.15
0.10
±0.03
0.10
±0.06
1.35
±0.34
0.09
±0.03
0.03
±0.01
0.03
±0.04
0.89
±0.23
0.92
±0.36
0.06
±0.03
0.58
±0.15
0.10
±0.03
0.10
±0.06
1.35
±0.34
0.07
±0.03
NA
0.02
±0.03
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
0.82
±0.08
0.29
±0.01
0.61
±0.08
0.04
±0.01
0.59
±0.12
0.08
±0.01
0.06
±0.01
1.32
±0.18
0.07
±0.02
0.03
±O.01
0.03
±0.04
0.82
±0.08
NA
0.61
±0.08
0.04
±0.01
0.59
±0.12
0.08
±0.01
NA
1.32
±0.18
0.06
±0.02
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
17-19
-------
Observations from Table 17-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass for GPMS were
formaldehyde (1.35 ± 0.34 |ig/m3), benzene (0.92 ± 0.36 |ig/m3), and acetaldehyde
(0.89 ± 0.23 |ig/m3).
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass for TUMS were
also formaldehyde (1.32 ±0.18 |ig/m3), acetaldehyde (0.82 ± 0.08 |ig/m3), and
benzene (0.61 ± 0.08 |ig/m3).
• The first quarter was the only quarter for which quarterly averages could be
calculated, as GPMS and TUMS stopped sampling in March 2008.
• Note that for most of the pollutants of interest for the Mississippi sites, the daily
average was equal to the first quarterly average, as most pollutants were detected in
every sample collected. Exceptions include tetrachloroethylene and vinyl chloride.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for TUMS and GPMS from the
tables include the following:
• TUMS and GPMS had the third and fifth highest daily average concentrations of
vinyl chloride, respectively (both for 2008). However, as shown in Table 17-5, the
confidence interval for this pollutant is higher than the daily average concentration for
each site, indicating that outliers are influencing the average. One relatively high
concentration of vinyl chloride was measured at each site in March 2008 (0.14 |ig/m3
measured at GPMS on March 6, 2008 and 0.13 |ig/m3 measured at TUMS on
March 1, 2008). Each of these measurements was an order of magnitude higher than
other vinyl chloride concentrations measured at the sites.
17.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. Although GPMS and TUMS have sampled VOC and carbonyl compounds under
the NMP since 2003, and therefore meet the criteria for a trends analysis to be conducted, these
sites stopped sampling at the beginning of March 2008. Because it is unlikely that the samples
collected at the beginning of 2008 are representative of the entire year, the trends analysis was
not conducted.
17-20
-------
17.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Mississippi monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
17.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Mississippi monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
for each site were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the
intermediate MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the
measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the
Mississippi monitoring sites were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk
benchmarks.
17.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Mississippi monitoring sites and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate approximations) could not be
calculated for the Mississippi monitoring sites' pollutants of interest because sampling ended in
March 2008 (and less than three quarterly averages are available), as shown in Table 17-6.
17-21
-------
Table 17-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Mississippi
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Noncaner Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2.2E-06
7.8E-06
0.00003
0.000006
~
0.000011
0.000013
5.9E-06
0.000002
8.8E-06
0.009
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
11/1
10/1
10/1
10/1
10/1
10/1
11/1
8/1
1/0
7/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
2.2E-06
0.000068
7.8E-06
0.00003
0.000006
—
0.000026
0.000013
5.9E-06
0.000002
8.8E-06
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
2.4
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
12/1
1/0
12/1
11/1
12/1
12/1
1/0
12/1
10/1
1/0
6/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC
NA = Not available due to the criteria
is not available.
for calculating an annual average.
17.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 17-7 and 17-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 17-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 17-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages.
17-22
-------
Table 17-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Gulfport, Mississippi (Harrison County) - GPMS
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
253.69
244.64
59.64
48.20
16.39
16.03
6.61
5.90
4.11
1.20
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Arsenic, PM
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 5
Nickel, PM
3.18E-03
3.06E-03
1.98E-03
1.45E-03
7.58E-04
3.63E-04
2.01E-04
1.31E-04
1.17E-04
9.76E-05
Tupelo, Mississippi (Lee County) - TUMS
Dichloromethane
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
/>-Dichlorobenzene
146.90
96.25
69.31
23.05
14.96
6.34
3.92
2.40
2.01
1.74
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
1 ,2-Dibromo-3 -chloropropane
Dichloromethane
Arsenic, PM
Acetaldehyde
8.66E-04
7.51E-04
4.49E-04
1.54E-04
1.33E-04
1.11E-04
1.07E-04
6.90E-05
5.33E-05
5.07E-05
to
-------
Table 17-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Gulfport, Mississippi (Harrison County) - GPMS
Xylenes
Toluene
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Methanol
Hydroflouric acid
Methyl isobutyl ketone
972.71
759.22
578.35
253.69
244.64
205.28
191.20
123.76
100.07
70.84
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
Chlorine
Hydrochloric acid
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Xylenes
Nickel, PM
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,628,163.58
64,982.33
59,000.00
28,917.45
24,962.88
24,101.68
9,727.09
9,388.70
8,456.45
6,626.76
Tupelo, Mississippi (Lee County) - TUMS
Toluene
Xylenes
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Dichloromethane
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Glycol ethers, gas
346.52
256.13
204.12
146.90
96.25
69.31
68.41
62.04
47.64
36.52
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
Benzene
Manganese, PM
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Glycol ethers, gas
327,135.74
7,481.54
7,072.32
4,091.84
3,208.27
2,946.76
2,561.42
2,561.26
1,930.87
1,825.78
to
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are limited to
those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 17.3, GPMS and
TUMS both sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds; GPMS also sampled for SNMOC. In
addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants
with enough data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. As discussed above,
annual averages, and thus cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations, could not be
calculated for either Mississippi site. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 17-8 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Harrison County. Dichloromethane was the highest emitted pollutant
in Lee County, followed by benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde. With the
exception of dichloromethane and trichloroethylene, emissions tended to be higher in
Harrison County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for Harrison County were hexavalent chromium, formaldehyde,
benzene, and 1,3-butadiene. These pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Lee County, although not in that same order.
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants in Harrison County also had the highest toxi city-
weighted emissions. Seven of the highest emitted pollutants in Lee County also had
the highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
Observations from Table 17-9 include the following:
• Xylenes, toluene, and hydrochloric acid were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Harrison County. Toluene, xylenes, and methyl isobutyl ketone
were the highest emitted pollutants in Lee County.
• The pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) for both counties was acrolein. This pollutant is not among the 10
highest emitted pollutants in either county. Although acrolein was sampled for at both
sites, this pollutant was excluded from the pollutant of interest designation, and thus
17-25
-------
subsequent risk screening evaluations, due to questions about the consistency and
reliability of the measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants in Harrison County also had the highest
toxi city-weighted emissions. Four of the highest emitted pollutants in Lee County
also had the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (three of the four pollutants were
the same between the two counties).
17.6 Summary of the 2008 Monitoring Data for GPMS and TUMS
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
*»* Eight pollutants failed screens for each Mississippi monitoring site; of these, six were
NATTSMQO Core Analytes.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of interest, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration for each monitoring site.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the first quarter 2008
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
17-26
-------
18.0 Site in Missouri
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Missouri, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
18.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the S4MO monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The S4MO monitoring site is located in the St. Louis, MO-IL MSA. Figure 18-1 is a
composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its urban
location. Figure 18-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as reported
in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are included
in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 18-2. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile
radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources outside the
10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which
emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact
on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of
emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources within a given
distance of the site. Table 18-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site by providing
supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational
coordinates.
18-1
-------
Figure 18-1. St. Louis, Missouri (S4MO) Monitoring Site
oo
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,385 feet
-------
Figure 18-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of S4MO
Legend
S4MO NATTS site
Sniin.
B L
-------
Table 18-1. Geographical Information for the Missouri Monitoring Site
Site
Code
S4MO
AQS Code
29-510-0085
Location
St. Louis
County
St. Louis
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
St. Louis, MO-IL
Latitude
and
Longitude
38.656436,
-90.198661
Land Use
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
CO, 03, Meteorological parameters, PMio, Black
carbon, PM2.5, PM2.5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
oo
-------
S4MO is located in central St. Louis. Figure 18-1 shows that the S4MO monitoring site is
located less than 1/4 mile west of 1-70. The Mississippi River, which separates Missouri from
Illinois, is less than 1 mile east of the site. Although the area directly around the monitoring site
is residential, industrial facilities are located just on the other side of 1-70. Figure 18-2 shows that
a large number of point sources are located within 10 miles of S4MO. The source categories with
the highest number of point sources surrounding S4MO are involved in dry cleaning; chemical
manufacturing; printing and publishing; concrete batching; and aircraft operations, which include
airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads. In the immediate vicinity of S4MO
are an electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring facility; a pharmaceutical
manufacturing facility; and a printing and publishing facility.
Table 18-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the Missouri
monitoring site. Information provided in Table 18-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
St. Louis City and County were obtained from the Missouri Department of Revenue (MO DOR,
2009) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 18-2 also includes
a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition, the
population within 10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of the 10-mile vehicle ownership
was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the
10-mile population surrounding the monitoring site. Table 18-2 also contains annual average
daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from
which it was obtained. Finally, Table 18-2 presents the daily VMT for the St. Louis urban area.
18-5
-------
Table 18-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Missouri
Monitoring Site
Site
S4MO
Estimated
County
Population1
992,408
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
1,132,283
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.14
Population
Within 10
Miles3
816,098
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
931,123
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
81,174
VMT5
(thousands)
66,114
Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data from the Missouri DOR (MO DOR, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfmddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the Missouri DOT (MO DOT, 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 18-2 include the following:
• S4MO's county and 10-mile populations were in the upper third of the range
compared to other counties with NMP sites. This is also true for its county-level and
10-mile vehicle ownership.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was in the top third compared to other NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near S4MO was also in the top third compared to
other NMP monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from 1-70 near Exit 250.
• The St. Louis area VMT ranked in the mid to upper end of the range among urban
areas with NMP sites.
18.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Missouri on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
18.2.1 Climate Summary
The City of St. Louis is located along the Mississippi River, which makes up Missouri's
eastern border. St. Louis has a climate that is continental in nature, with cold, dry winters; warm,
somewhat wetter summers; and significant seasonal variability. Warm, moist air flowing
northward from the Gulf of Mexico alternating with cold, dry air marching southward from
Canada and the northern U.S. result in weather patterns that do not persist for very long. The
City of St. Louis does experience the urban heat island effect, retaining more heat within the city
than outlying areas (Bair, 1992 and MCC, 2011).
18-6
-------
18.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station is located at
St. Louis Downtown Airport (WBAN 03960). Additional information about this weather station
is provided in Table 18-3. These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on
sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
Table 18-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 18-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 18-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days in 2008 were fairly representative of average
weather conditions throughout the year. For 2009, sample days appear slightly cooler than
conditions over the entire year. Several invalid sample collection events were made-up in
January, March, November, and December, leading to a higher number of sample days in cooler
months of the year factoring into the sample day averages.
18.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 18-3 and Figure 18-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the S4MO monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 18-5
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. An in-
depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For
the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analysis, each line
corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps,
each concentric circle around the site in Figures 18-3 through 18-5 represents 100 miles.
18-7
-------
Table 18-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Missouri Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
From Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
St. Louis, Missouri - S4MO
St. Louis Downtown
Airport
03960
(38.57, -90.16)
6 26
miles
157°
(SSE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
64.0
+ 5.0
64.2
+ 2.0
62.1
±4.5
64.5
±1.9
55.1
±4.6
54.5
±1.9
52.8
±4.3
55.0
±1.8
44.0
±4.7
43.5
±1.9
41.9
±4.5
44.3
± 1.9
49.6
±4.2
49.0
±1.8
47.6
±4.0
49.6
±1.7
68.6
±2.6
69.0
± 1.0
69.3
±3.0
69.7
±1.2
1016.8
±1.5
1017.2
±0.7
1017.1
± 1.8
1016.6
±0.7
7.4
±0.9
6.5
±0.3
6.3
±0.8
6.0
±0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
oo
oo
-------
Figure 18-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for S4MO
Figure 18-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for S4MO
18-9
-------
Figure 18-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for S4MO
Observations from Figures 18-3 through 18-5 for S4MO include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at S4MO.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for S4MO was comparable in size to other NMP sites.
The farthest away a trajectory originated was over 850 miles, over northwest North
Dakota, which was among the longest trajectories for any NMP site. However, the
average trajectory length was 268 miles. Most trajectories (82 percent) originated
within 400 miles of the monitoring site.
• The cluster analysis shows that many trajectories originated to the west, northwest,
and north of S4MO. Another cluster of trajectories originated to the south of the
monitoring site. A third cluster of trajectories originated to the northeast, east, and
southeast and within a relatively short distance of S4MO, generally within 200 miles
of the site and over the state of Illinois.
18.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at St. Louis Downtown Airport near
S4MO were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as
described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals"
positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
18-10
-------
Figure 18-6 presents five different wind roses for the S4MO monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
Observations from Figure 18-6 for S4MO include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from the southeast, south-southeast, and
south were frequently observed near S4MO. Winds from these directions accounted
for just over 25 percent of observations. Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for
approximately 23 percent of the hourly wind measurements. Winds from the west,
northwest, and north account for another quarter of the observations.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose resemble the historical wind patterns,
indicating that conditions in 2008 were typical of those experienced historically. The
2008 sample day wind patterns also resemble the historical wind patterns, although
there were fewer calm winds and slightly more south-southeasterly, southerly, and
west-northwesterly winds observed.
• The 2009 wind patterns also resemble the historical wind patterns. The 2009 sample
day wind patterns also resemble the historical and full-year wind patterns, but with
slightly less south-southeasterly and southerly winds and more northwesterly and
north-northeasterly winds observed.
18-11
-------
Figure 18-6. Wind Roses for the St. Louis Downtown Airport Weather Station near S4MO
oo
I—*
t-o
2008 Wind Rose
Calms 2172%
••'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
Calms 2176%
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
18.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for S4MO in order to allow analysts
and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk. Each pollutant's
preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening value. If the
concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration "failed the
screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total failed screens
contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS
MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not meet the pollutant of interest
criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to the list of site-
specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening process is
presented in Section 3.2.
Table 18-4 presents S4MO's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the monitoring site are shaded.
NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded.
S4MO sampled for VOC, PAH, carbonyl compounds, metals (PMio), and hexavalent chromium.
Observations from Table 18-4 include the following:
• Twenty-three pollutants, of which 15 are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed at least
one screen for S4MO.
• Nearly 48 percent of measured detections failed screens (of the pollutants that failed
at least one screen) for S4MO. S4MO had the second highest number of failed
screens among all NMP sites, behind only PXSS.
• Six pollutants failed 100 percent of screens for S4MO: benzene, acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, 1,2-dichloroethane, and 1,2-dibromoethane. (Note that
these last two pollutants were detected in only a few samples).
• Thirteen pollutants were identified as pollutants of interest for S4MO based on the
risk screening process; of these, 11 were NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Four
additional pollutants (nickel, hexavalent chromium, trichloroethylene, and
benzo(a)pyrene) were added to S4MO's pollutants of interest because they are
NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of
S4MO's failed screens. Three more pollutants (beryllium, chloroform, and vinyl
chloride) were also added to S4MO's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS
18-13
-------
MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. These three
pollutants are not shown in Table 18-4.
Table 18-4. Risk Screening Results for the Missouri Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
St. Louis, Missouri - S4MO
Acet aldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (PM10)
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Manganese (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
Lead (PM10)
Ethylbenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Bromomethane
Hexavalent Chromium
Trichloroethylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
1,2-Dibromoethane
Nickel (PM10)
Propionaldehyde
0.45
0.13
0.077
0.17
0.00023
0.033
0.029
0.005
0.00056
0.091
0.17
0.015
0.015
0.4
0.038
2.1
0.5
0.000083
0.5
0.00091
0.0017
0.009
0.8
Total
121
121
121
116
115
102
97
84
44
44
40
29
24
14
7
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1,095
121
121
121
121
119
114
103
119
119
110
117
29
119
121
7
121
118
84
61
92
1
119
121
2,278
100.00
100.00
100.00
95.87
96.64
89.47
94.17
70.59
36.97
40.00
34.19
100.00
20.17
11.57
100.00
4.96
1.69
2.38
3.28
1.09
100.00
0.84
0.83
48.07
11.05
11.05
11.05
10.59
10.50
9.32
8.86
7.67
4.02
4.02
3.65
2.65
2.19
1.28
0.64
0.55
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
11.05
22.10
33.15
43.74
54.25
63.56
72.42
80.09
84.11
88.13
91.78
94.43
96.62
97.90
98.54
99.09
99.27
99.45
99.63
99.73
99.82
99.91
100.00
18.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Missouri monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for the S4MO site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants are
presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at the
site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in Appendices
J through 0.
18-14
-------
18.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for S4MO, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 18-5, where applicable. Note that
concentrations of the PAH, metals, and hexavalent chromium are presented in ng/m3 for ease of
viewing.
Observations for S4MO from Table 18-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest 2008 daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde (2.86 ± 0.42 pg/m3), acetaldehyde (1.83 ± 0.25 pg/m3), and
acrylonitrile (1.04 ± 2.05 pg/m3). The pollutants with the highest 2009 daily average
concentrations by mass were formaldehyde (2.46 ± 0.35 pg/m3), acetaldehyde
(2.37 ± 0.37 pg/m3), and benzene (0.84 ±0.12 pg/m3).
• Note that not one quarterly average could be calculated for acrylonitrile for 2008 (and
thus, no annual average either). This pollutant was detected in only four samples in
2008. Further, the concentrations ranged from 0.087 pg/m3 to 3.59 pg/m3, which
explains the large confidence interval associated with this daily average. The daily
average for 2009 is much lower and is based on more measured detections.
• The fourth quarter 2008 average for 1,3-butadiene is higher than the other quarterly
averages and has a large confidence interval associated with it, indicating the likely
presence of outliers. The highest concentration of 1,3-butadiene measured at this site
was 1.03 pg/m3, which was measured on November 26, 2008. This concentration was
nearly three times higher than the next highest measurement (0.355 pg/m3 measured
on October 9, 2008), and the fourth highest 1,3-butadiene concentration among NMP
sites sampling this pollutant. Note that of the 10 highest concentrations of
1,3-butadiene measured at S4MO, half of them were measured during this quarter.
18-15
-------
Table 18-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Missouri Monitoring
Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
St. Louis, Missouri - S4MO
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (PM10)a
1.83
+ 0.25
1.04
+ 2.05
1.00
±0.17
0.09
±0.04
0.71
±0.06
0.22
±0.09
2.86
±0.42
0.36
±0.26
0.19
±0.03
0.16
±0.05
0.01
± <0.01
0.96
±0.21
2.35
±0.61
NA
0.78
±0.16
0.06
±0.02
0.55
±0.15
0.11
±0.04
2.18
±0.25
0.08
±0.06
0.16
±0.07
0.07
±0.06
NA
0.66
±0.13
1.39
±0.27
NA
0.76
±0.15
0.05
±0.01
0.69
±0.10
0.13
±0.03
2.76
±0.72
0.53
±0.78
0.13
±0.03
0.09
±0.05
NA
0.94
±0.40
1.76
±0.35
NA
0.97
±0.22
0.09
±0.03
0.74
±0.09
0.45
±0.36
4.18
±1.18
0.22
±0.14
0.22
±0.04
0.11
±0.07
NA
0.99
±0.29
1.75
±0.63
NA
1.49
±0.60
0.16
±0.14
0.86
±0.10
0.18
±0.05
2.26
±0.63
0.41
±0.46
0.20
±0.09
0.12
±0.10
NA
1.25
±0.71
1.83
±0.25
NA
1.00
±0.17
0.09
±0.03
0.71
±0.06
0.22
±0.09
2.86
±0.42
0.31
±0.23
0.18
±0.03
0.10
±0.03
NA
0.96
±0.21
2.37
±0.37
0.11
±0.02
0.84
±0.12
0.07
±0.01
0.69
±0.06
0.21
±0.06
2.46
±0.35
0.15
±0.05
0.16
±0.04
0.12
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
1.52
±0.81
1.45
±0.21
0.05
±0.03
1.22
±0.32
0.07
±0.02
0.56
±0.12
0.12
±0.03
2.24
±0.49
0.06
±0.06
0.10
±0.03
NA
NA
3.04 +
3.00
1.68
±0.26
NA
0.81
±0.20
0.06
±0.01
0.69
±0.12
0.24
±0.18
3.41
±0.97
0.22
±0.17
0.15
±0.05
0.06
±0.03
0.01
±0.01
1.04
±0.82
2.64
±0.75
0.05
±0.04
0.55
±0.11
0.06
±0.02
0.82
±0.07
0.31
±0.16
2.72
±0.57
0.15
±0.06
0.15
±0.04
NA
NA
0.81
±0.31
3.82
±0.92
NA
0.77
±0.21
0.07
±0.04
0.68
±0.15
0.18
±0.07
1.45
±0.30
0.11
±0.05
0.23
±0.18
NA
NA
1.14
±0.53
2.37
±0.37
NA
0.84
±0.12
0.06
±0.01
0.69
±0.06
0.21
±0.06
2.46
±0.35
0.14
±0.05
0.16
±0.04
NA
NA
1.52
±0.81
oo
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 18-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Missouri Monitoring
Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Beryllium (PM10)a
Cadmium fpM io)a
Hexavalent Chromium a
Lead (PM10)a
Manganese (PM10)a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.22
+ 0.13
0.01
+ <0.01
0.75
+ 0.32
0.03
±0.02
14.31
±4.28
21.92
±23.61
131.49
±36.16
1.15
±0.13
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
<0.01
±<0.01
0.84
±0.83
0.02
±0.01
16.97
±11.58
10.09
±4.65
NR
1.10
±0.24
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.14
±0.08
0.01
± <0.01
0.39
±0.17
0.02
±0.01
9.38
±4.43
8.64
±2.65
72.47
±21.23
1.18
±0.22
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.16
±0.09
0.01
± <0.01
0.62
±0.24
0.05
±0.07
12.47
±4.55
11.45
±3.15
166.43
±55.53
1.09
±0.24
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.34
±0.37
0.01
±<0.01
1.15
±0.99
0.02
±0.01
18.23
±11.62
58.27
±99.50
157.31
±92.98
1.24
±0.41
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.21
±0.12
0.01
±<0.01
0.75
±0.32
0.03
±0.02
14.31
±4.28
21.92
±23.61
131.49
±36.16
1.15
±0.13
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.15
±0.03
<0.01
± <0.01
1.00
±0.43
0.03
±0.01
9.94
±3.35
8.08
± 1.40
93.06
+ 13.61
1.12
±0.33
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.23
±0.06
0.01
± <0.01
1.45
±1.34
0.01
±0.01
17.72
± 11.74
8.14
±1.81
77.87
+ 19.51
1.05
±0.16
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.06
±0.03
<0.01
±<0.01
0.87
±0.34
0.01
±0.01
7.56
±2.80
7.75
±1.85
84.68
± 19.08
1.64
±1.16
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.05
±0.03
<0.01
±<0.01
0.56
±0.54
0.02
±0.01
6.49
±2.54
8.15
±4.00
99.23
±31.94
0.87
±0.32
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.18
±0.07
<0.01
±<0.01
1.11
± 1.03
0.02
±0.01
7.63
±4.23
8.32
±4.11
113.79
±40.65
0.82
±0.18
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.13
±0.03
<0.01
±<0.01
1.00
±0.43
0.02
±0.01
9.94
±3.35
8.08
±1.40
93.06
± 13.61
1.12
±0.33
oo
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
• The second quarter 2008 average concentration for/?-dichlorobenzene is higher than
the other quarterly averages and has a large confidence interval associated with it.
The highest concentration of/?-dichlorobenzene measured at this site was 6.17 pg/m3,
which was measured on June 23, 2008. This concentration was nearly twice as high
as the next highest measurement (3.13 pg/m3 measured on October 3, 2008), and the
second highest/>-dichlorobenzene concentration among NMP sites sampling VOC.
• While all four quarterly averages of trichloroethylene could be calculated for all of
2008, only one could be calculated for 2009. There were 15 fewer measured
detections of this pollutant in 2009 than in 2008 (38 in 2008 vs. 23 in 2009).
• Similar to other sites, the highest hexavalent chromium concentration for S4MO was
measured on July 5, 2008. This concentration is an order of magnitude higher than its
next highest measurement and is reflected in the third quarter 2008 average for this
pollutant.
• Note that the third and fourth quarter 2008 averages of naphthalene are higher than
the others and have large confidence intervals associated with them. The four highest
concentrations of this pollutant were measured between September and November
2008. Further, of the 16 concentrations greater than or equal to 150 ng/m3, 11 of them
were measured in the third and fourth quarters of 2008 (an additional three were
measured in the same two quarters in 2009).
• The fourth quarter 2008 average of benzo(a)pyrene also exhibited a large confidence
interval, indicating the presence of outliers. The highest concentration of this
pollutant was 2.64 ng/m3 (measured on November 26, 2008), which was an order of
magnitude higher than the next highest measurement (0.599 ng/m3 measured on
August 16, 2008). This was the sixth highest benzo(a)pyrene measurement among all
NMP sites sampling PAH.
• Several of the quarterly averages for the metals are highest in the first or fourth
quarters of either year. But several of these have rather large confidence intervals
associated with outliers, as described in the next several bullets.
• The first quarter 2009 arsenic average is significantly higher than the other quarterly
averages and has a large confidence interval associated with it. The highest arsenic
concentration measured at S4MO was 23.1 ng/m3, which is more than three times
higher than the next highest concentration (6.93 ng/m3). This was also the highest
arsenic measurement among all NMP sites sampling metals.
• The first and fourth quarter averages of cadmium for both 2008 and 2009 have large
confidence intervals associated with them. Of the 26 cadmium concentrations greater
than 1 ng/m3 measured among all NMP sites sampling metals, 22 were measured at
S4MO, including the highest measurement of 9.71 ng/m3, which was measured on
January 31,2009.
18-18
-------
• Similar to cadmium, the first and fourth quarter averages of lead for 2008 and the first
quarter average of lead for 2009 have large confidence intervals associated with them.
Of the 19 lead concentrations greater than 25 ng/m3 measured among all NMP sites
sampling metals, 14 were measured at S4MO, including the highest measurement of
97.53 ng/m3, which was measured on March 1, 2008.
• The fourth quarter average of manganese for 2008 also has a large confidence interval
associated with it. On November 26, 2008, the concentration of manganese measured
at S4MOs was 734 ng/m3, which was also the highest measurement among all NMP
sites sampling metals. The next highest manganese concentration measured at S4MO
was an order of magnitude less (at 31.2 ng/m3).
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for S4MO from those tables
include the following:
• S4MO had the highest daily average concentration of arsenic (2009), cadmium (both
years), lead (both years), manganese (2008), and/?-dichlorobenzene (2008) among all
NMP sites sampling those pollutants.
• Daily averages for an additional six pollutants for S4MO were among the 10 highest
for all NMP sites. Conversely, S4MO's daily average concentrations for the carbonyl
compounds were not among the 10 highest daily averages among all NMP sites.
18.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. S4MO has sampled VOC and carbonyl compounds under the NMP since 2002,
metals since 2003, and hexavalent chromium since 2005. Thus, Figures 18-7 through 18-13
present the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, and manganese (respectively) for S4MO. The statistical
metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-detects.
18-19
-------
Figure 18-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at S4MO
H
—
1"
U
I
4
-
••
Jim
M
••
}WH
il-»,
•ri
JOW
Mllll
tw
JIIIB.
mil
!tv
- Mr.U
Ml
2M»
H-V*
• i
•1
2*f7
WN,
CJ
Hi ii, mil,
Mi
:
20M
*
Ml
.
lOtf
•«
'
hfWrtl**
3
I0»7
-
Ml
!-
J0«
,,
Figure 18-8. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Arsenic (PMi0) Concentrations
Measured at S4MO
•-.
1«
.-"-r
*-«•!?
!Metals sampling at S4MO began in July 2003.
18-20
-------
Figure 18-9. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations Measured
at S4MO
i •
JWVMPM
JM7JOO*
Th,.,.,»f,rl=,d
Figure 18-10. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at S4MO
IJ
....
• '.'
JM1 JWft
JOflUOtlJ
Itol-Vln
- MHTHURI - MntMl - P1.MIIUI.
Awnff
18-21
-------
Figure 18-11. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at S4MO
u
JOOJJOOS
..,.,»..,...
•i- ...... r.mrf
- M«muii
Figure 18-12. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at S4MO
M
• I)
Cl
• IS
*JI
Of
.. I
fK »*'»*. P.. Irri
18-22
-------
Figure 18-13. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Manganese (PMio) Concentrations
Measured at S4MO
IH
_ *•*
HO
m
IMllMf,
- M..II..I
'Metals sampling at S4MO began in July 2003.
Observations from Figure 18-7 for acetaldehyde include the following:
• Because carbonyl compound sampling did not begin until December 2002, 2002 data
were excluded from this analysis because 1 month of sampling is not enough to be
representative of an entire year.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2004 and is more than
twice the next highest concentration (measured in 2007).
• The rolling average concentration has fluctuated between approximately 2.75 and
3.25 pg/m across the period of sampling and corresponding confidence intervals
confirm that a significant increasing or decreasing trend is not apparent.
• Even though the maximum concentration has decreased over the sampling period, the
variability of the concentrations measured has increased overall, as indicated by the
increasing spread between the 5th and 95th percentiles.
• Note that the minimum concentration measured is greater than zero for all 3-year
periods, indicating that there were no non-detects reported for acetaldehyde since the
onset of sampling.
18-23
-------
Observations from Figure 18-8 for arsenic include the following:
• S4MO began sampling metals in July 2003, as denoted in Figure 18-8.
• The maximum arsenic concentration was measured on December 26, 2007, and
therefore affects the 2005-2007, 2006-2008, and 2007-2009 time frames.
• Even so, several of the statistical parameters exhibit a slight decreasing trend since
the onset of sampling. However, confidence intervals calculated for the average
concentrations show that the decrease in the rolling averages is not statistically
significant.
Observations from Figure 18-9 for benzene measurements include the following:
• Because VOC sampling did not begin until December 2002, 2002 data was excluded
from this analysis because one month of sampling is not enough to be representative
of an entire year.
• All four benzene concentrations that were greater than 5 pg/m3 were measured in
2003.
• The rolling average and median concentrations exhibit a decreasing trend over the
period of sampling that flattens out during the final 3-year period shown.
• The minimum concentration measured is greater than zero for all 3-year periods,
indicating that there were no non-detects reported for benzene since the onset of
sampling.
Observations from Figure 18-10 for 1,3-butadiene include the following:
• Because VOC sampling did not begin until December 2002, 2002 data were excluded
from this analysis because one month of sampling is not enough to be representative
of an entire year.
• Only two 1,3-butaidene concentrations greater than 1.0 ^ig/m3 have been measured at
S4MO, one in 2003 and the other in 2008.
• The rolling average concentrations have fluctuated from approximately 0.8 to
0.9 |^g/m3 over the years of sampling.
• The median concentration has remained relatively unchanged since sampling for
1,3-butadiene began at S4MO, with the exception of the increase following the first
3-year period. During the 2003-2005 sample period, the median concentration was
zero, indicating the at least half of the measurements were non-detects. The
18-24
-------
percentage of non-detects has been decreasing, from as high as 66 percent in 2004 to
as low as two percent in 2008.
Observations from Figure 18-11 for formaldehyde include the following:
• Because carbonyl compound sampling did not begin until December 2002, 2002 data
were excluded from this analysis because one month of sampling is not enough to be
representative of an entire year.
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured in 2004 and is more than
three times the next highest concentration (also measured in 2004).
• Both the median and average concentrations exhibit a slight decreasing trend. The
95th percentile also exhibits a decreasing trend, while the 5th percentile has increased
for the last two periods of sampling.
• The minimum concentration measured is greater than zero for all 3-year periods,
indicating that there were no non-detects reported for formaldehyde since the onset of
sampling.
Observations from Figure 18-12 for hexavalent chromium include the following:
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured on July 5, 2008;
the second highest hexavalent chromium concentration was measured on
July 4, 2006. These two concentrations support the potential correlation between
hexavalent chromium concentrations and fireworks discussed in Section 4.1.2.
• The average concentration, as well as the median and 95th percentile, exhibit
decreases in concentration. Confidence intervals calculated for the rolling averages
indicate that this decrease is not statistically significant.
• For each 3-year period shown, both the minimums and 5th percentiles are zero,
indicating the presence of non-detects. The percentage of non-detects has ranged from
15 percent (2007) to 43 percent (2009).
Observations from Figure 18-13 for manganese include the following:
• S4MO began sampling metals in July 2003, as denoted in Figure 18-13.
• The maximum manganese concentration was measured on November 26, 2008 and is
nearly twice the next highest concentration (measured in 2004).
• No significant increase or decrease in the rolling average concentrations is shown in
Figure 18-13. Yet, the medians and 5th and 95th percentiles exhibit decreases for
18-25
-------
several periods, indicating a general decrease in the majority of concentrations
measured since sampling began in 2003.
18.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
S4MO monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
18.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
S4MO monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and the annual
averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the S4MO monitoring site were higher
than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
18.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the S4MO monitoring site and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 18-6, where applicable.
18-26
-------
Table 18-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Missouri Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
jroximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
St. Louis, Missouri - S4MO
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Beryllium (PM10) a
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium (PM10) a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium a
2.2E-06
6.8E-05
0.0043
7.8E-06
0.001
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
6E-06
1.1E-05
1.3E-05
0.012
0.009
0.002
1.5E-05
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
0.0001
60/4
4/0
61/4
61/4
42/3
57/4
59/4
61/4
61/4
59/4
53/4
60/4
49/4
1.83
+ 0.25
NA
<0.01
+ <0.01
1.00
+ 0.17
<0.01
+ <0.01
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.09
+ 0.03
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.71
+ 0.06
0.22
+ 0.09
0.31
+ 0.23
2.86
+ 0.42
<0.01
+ <0.01
4.03
NA
4.11
7.77
0.21
0.01
2.70
1.35
4.26
3.43
37.20
0.31
0.20
NA
0.06
0.03
<0.01
0.05
0.08
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.29
<0.01
61/4
25/2
58/4
60/4
50/4
58/4
55/4
58/4
60/4
60/4
57/4
61/4
35/4
2.37
+ 0.37
NA
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.84
+ 0.12
<0.01
+ <0.01
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.06
+ 0.01
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.69
+ 0.06
0.21
+ 0.06
0.14
+ 0.05
2.46
+ 0.35
<0.01
+ <0.01
5.21
NA
6.55
6.54
0.13
0.01
1.89
1.80
4.13
1.53
32.02
0.20
0.26
NA
0.10
0.03
<0.01
0.03
0.10
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.25
<0.01
oo
PO
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 18-5.
-------
Table 18-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Missouri Monitoring Site (Continued)
k Pollutant
Lead (PM10) a
Manganese (PM10) a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10) a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
3.4E-05
0.00031
5.9E-06
2E-06
8.8E-06
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.00015
0.00005
0.003
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
61/4
61/4
44/3
61/4
58/4
38/4
17/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
+ <0.01
0.02
+ 0.02
0.13
+ 0.04
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.18
+ 0.03
0.10
+ 0.03
NA
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
4.47
0.36
1.05
0.20
NA
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.10
0.44
0.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
58/4
58/4
59/4
58/4
59/4
23/1
19/1
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
+ <0.01
0.01
+ <0.01
0.09
+ 0.01
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.16
+ 0.04
NA
NA
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
3.16
0.35
0.92
NA
NA
jroximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.07
0.16
0.03
0.01
<0.01
NA
NA
oo
PO
oo
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 18-5.
-------
Observations for S4MO from Table 18-6 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual averages were formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
and benzene for both years.
• For 2008, formaldehyde, benzene, naphthalene, carbon tetrachloride, and arsenic had
the highest cancer risk approximations. Formaldehyde, arsenic, benzene,
acetaldehyde, and carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer risk approximations for
2009.
• The cancer risk approximations for formaldehyde were an order of magnitude higher
than the pollutant with the next highest cancer risk approximation for both years.
• None of the pollutants of interest for S4MO had noncancer risk approximations
greater than 1.0.
18.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 18-7 and 18-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 18-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 18-8
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on the site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 18.3,
S4MO sampled for VOC, PAH, carbonyl compounds, metals (PMio), and hexavalent chromium.
In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are limited to those
pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-
depth discussion of this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
18-29
-------
Table 18-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Missouri Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
St. Louis, Missouri (St. Louis City) - S4MO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Trichloroethylene
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
/>-Dichlorobenzene
247.70
154.17
93.91
44.32
29.59
18.50
17.41
12.06
0.87
0.33
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic, PM
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
1.93E-03
1.93E-03
1.05E-03
8.88E-04
5.41E-04
4.10E-04
2.07E-04
1.09E-04
8.86E-05
4.76E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Arsenic (PMio)
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (PM10)
37.20
32.02
7.77
6.55
6.54
5.21
4.47
4.26
4.13
4.11
oo
oo
o
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 18-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Missouri Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
St. Louis, Missouri (St. Louis City) - S4MO
Toluene
Methanol
Xylenes
Hydrochloric acid
Ethylene glycol
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl tert butyl ether
Acetaldehyde
605.17
515.95
384.93
361.75
255.84
247.70
154.17
141.15
98.13
93.91
Acrolein
Chlorine
Hydrochloric acid
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Manganese, PM
Benzene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Arsenic, PM
386,304.66
35,898.36
18,087.68
15,731.90
14,792.75
10,434.98
8,658.25
8,256.52
4,401.73
4,194.71
Manganese (PMio)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Cadmium (PMio)
Lead (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
0.44
0.29
0.26
0.25
0.20
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
oo
oo
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 18-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in St. Louis.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) were benzene, formaldehyde, and hexavalent chromium.
• Eight of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Four of the pollutants with the highest cancer risk approximations for S4MO also
appear on both emissions-based lists (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, and
naphthalene). While arsenic is not one of the highest emitted pollutants, it does
appear on the list of highest toxicity-weighted emissions. Carbon tetrachloride was
also among the pollutants with the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations, yet
this pollutant appeared on neither emissions-based list.
• POM Group 2 was the ninth highest emitted "pollutant" in St. Louis and ranked tenth
for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH sampled for at
S4MO including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and phenanthrene. None of
the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as pollutants of interest for
S4MO.
Observations from Table 18-8 include the following:
• Toluene, methanol, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in St. Louis.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, chlorine, and hydrochloric acid. Although acrolein
was sampled for at S4MO, this pollutant was excluded from the pollutants of interest
designation, and thus subsequent risk screening evaluations, due to questions about
the consistency and reliability of the measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were among the pollutants with the highest
noncancer risk approximations for S4MO and also appear on both emissions-based
lists. Manganese, the pollutant with the highest noncancer risk approximation, is also
one of the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions but is not one of
the highest emitted. This is also true for arsenic.
18-32
-------
18.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for S4MO
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Twenty-three pollutants, of which 15 are NA TTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens
for S4MO.
»«» Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had the highest daily average concentrations for
S4MOfor both years. S4MO had the highest daily average concentration of arsenic,
cadmium, lead, manganese, andp-dichlorobenzene among all NMP sites sampling
these pollutants.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for S4MO, where they could be
calculated, were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk
benchmarks.
18-33
-------
19.0 Sites in New Jersey
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at UATMP sites in New Jersey, and integrates these concentrations
with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG
are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer
back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented
below.
19.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the New Jersey monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring data.
The New Jersey sites are located in several different urban areas. Figures 19-1 through
19-4 are composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites
in their urban and rural locations. Figures 19-5 through 19-7 identify point source emissions
locations by source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only
sources within 10 miles of the sites are included in the facility counts provided below the maps
in Figures 19-5 through 19-7. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but
are visible on the maps to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile
boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions
source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring
sites; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring
sites as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 19-1
describes the area surrounding each monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical
information such as land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
19-1
-------
Figure 19-1. Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) Monitoring Site
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,821 feet
-------
Figure 19-2. Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,03 5 feet
-------
Figure 19-3. Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,946 feet
-------
Figure 19-4. New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,890 feet
-------
Figure 19-5. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ
75 10CTW 75 S'CTW 75 &CTW
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
CAMJ UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
v Abrasive Product Manufacturing Facility (1)
-f1 Aircraft Operations Facility (31)
"T Airport Support Operation (2)
<> Auto Body Shop/Painters (1)
8 Automobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility (3)
$ Bakery (1)
• Building Construction (1)
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (9)
C Chemical Manufacturing Facility (25)
: Dry Cleaning Facility (1)
t Electricity Generation via Combustion (14)
E Electroplating, Plating. Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring (21)
4 Engine Test Facility (1)
© Fabricated Metal Products Facility (3)
F Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (5)
Gas Plant (2)
** Glass Manufacturing Facility (1)
+ Gypsum Manufacturing Facility (1)
(3 Hospital (11)
£ Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (2)
O Institutional - prison (1)
® Institutional • school M2l
Landfill (5)
Marine Port (3)
Military Base/National Security Facility (3)
Mine/Quarry (1)
Miscellaneous Commercial/Industrial Facility (6)
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (10)
Organic Chemical Storage/Transportation Facility (1)
Paint Stripping Operation (1)
Petroleum Refinery (5)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Facility (1)
Pipeline Compressor Station (7)
Primary Metal Production Facility (4)
Printing/Publishing Facility (16)
Pulp and Paper Plant/Wood Products Facility (8)
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products Facility (1)
Secondary Metal Processing Facility (6)
Ship Building and Repairing Facility (2)
Surface Coating Facility (4)
Tank Battery Facility (1)
Textile Mill (1)
Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Products Facility (1)
Wastew aterTreatmentFacility(2)
19-6
-------
Figure 19-6. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of CHNJ
•_...• -. i •
(lot*: Dot to teilly dtntity »nd MKxHkm. m» lotil lidion
d may not r«f>resenS al (aciMidi wttwi Ifw area
Legend
•& CHNJ UATMP sile
10 mie radius
| ] Courtly boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities}
•f Airaaft Operations Facility (12)
» AulomobileTTruck Man jfacluring Facilhy (1)
C Chemical Manufacturing Facility (3)
• Concrete Balch Plant (1)
F Food Processing/Agriculture Faclily (1)
Cl Hospital (1)
• Landfill (1)
Mine/Quarry (2)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility {
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Facility {1)
1 Primary Metal Productwn Facility (1)
B Pulp and Paper PlanlWood Product Faeilrty <2)
$ Surface Coaling Facility (2)
19-7
-------
Figure 19-7. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ
Legend
•& U-NJ UATMP ate
fff NBNJ UATMP side
10 mile radius
^ Ccwrty b««Ktey
ri'.TTA *4- •• ~ •• '4- 11 v, ?**4T3rv*
f Jet*: Due to f»ol«y dtnilty ind colKMon. ifi* rail fidlli»
d may not represen! al fodlities MehJn lite area ol nlertst
Saurco Cdta^aiy Gioup I Mo. ol Fa
4" Ar»*ROpwlbaflf Fftc*:* i4V
nlKn 4-
L L»at Apfium Minu(«rtnif>g f »:•! j.. 11
V> [.••»»« .ndU.1
|f M«r»1» Port i 111
T &i*w« j.ftfiSf »'.V^try 4 1 1
.*i«ji4i
C
O
0 CaniTwai* Stm4z*«i F*-il/ 1 1 1
•S FitrCiPcd UHil Platen FndUj 16.
F
A
*
V
HuroiKvllK^ MlnufKKmg F*c*y 41A
Pimry Utul Pia&xSxn fKMf 11Oi
xkuli F»3*r, (1
inj F«lt,' (11
P
B
8 R«fi*na/ Rixlatts M
R Ri^b.tudM)lfllBM
2 £*cefuiAi> U«u) Fi K*
^ Shp BxUing mil R-pwInj F*««r I '*!
iat, 1 1 1
rwf >nd Gq^xiwit f »«tj 1 1 1
' &atwiwv Rvoprccobng bfvnri CcniudMn En^nii Fidtv i3>
a** MI in
alL a l.Vaod PiHtnAig FMOy Ol
19-8
-------
Table 19-1. Geographical Information for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
AQS Code
34-007-0003
34-027-3001
34-039-0004
34-023-0006
Location
Camden
Chester
Elizabeth
New
Brunswick
County
Camden
Morris
Union
Middlesex
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Philadelphia-
Camden-
Wilmington, PA-
NJ-DE-MD
New York-
Northern New
Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-PA
New York-
Northern New
Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-PA
New York-
Northern New
Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-PA
Latitude
and
Longitude
39.92304,
-75.09762
40.78763,
-74.6763
40.64144,
-74.20836
40.472786,
-74.42251
Land Use
Residential
Agricultural
Industrial
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Suburban
Rural
Suburban
Rural
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, PAMS, O3, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, PM25, PM25 Speciation
SO2, NO, NO2, O3, Meteorological parameters,
PM2 5, PM2 5 Speciation
SO2, NO2, NOx, Meteorological parameters, PM2 5,
PM2 5 Speciation
Meteorological parameters, PM2 5, PM2 5 Speciation
VO
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS,
report (EPA 201 Ij).
represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
-------
CANJ is located in Camden, which lies just across the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border
and Delaware River, east of Philadelphia. CANJ is the UATMP's longest operating monitoring
site, although sampling at this site ceased in October 2008. Figure 19-1 shows that the
monitoring site is located at Whitman Park Field, near the intersection of Davis Street and
Copewood Street. The areas west and south of CANJ are residential, while commercial areas are
located to the north and east. Heavily traveled roadways, including 1-676, are located less than
1 mile from the monitoring site and a railroad lies less than 1/2 mile northeast of the site. As
Figure 19-5 shows, CANJ is located within 10 miles of a number of point sources, most of which
are located across the border in Pennsylvania. Although emissions sources within 10 miles of
CANJ are involved in a variety of industries, the source categories with the largest number of
emissions sources surrounding CANJ are the aircraft operations source category, which includes
airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads; chemical manufacturing; and
electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring.
CFINJ is located in northern New Jersey, west of the New York City metropolitan area.
Figure 19-2 shows that CFINJ is located in an open area near Building 1 on the property of Bell
Labs, which is owned by Alcatel-Lucent. The surrounding area is rural and agricultural with a
rolling topography, but surrounded by small neighborhoods. Although the location is considered
part of the New York City MSA, the site's location is outside most of the urbanized areas.
Figure 19-6 shows that few sources are close to CFINJ and that the source category with the
highest number of emissions sources surrounding CFINJ is the aircraft operations category.
ELNJ is located in the city of Elizabeth, which lies just south of Newark and west of
Newark Bay and Staten Island, New York. As Figure 19-3 shows, the monitoring site is located
just off Exit 13 of the New Jersey Turnpike (1-95), near the toll plaza. Interstate-278 intersects
the Turnpike here as well. The surrounding area is highly industrialized, with the Bayway oil
refinery located just southwest of the site. Additional industry is located to the west and
southwest, while residential neighborhoods are located to the northwest and north of the site.
19-10
-------
NBNJ is located in New Brunswick, less than 20 miles southwest of Elizabeth. The
monitoring site is located on the property of Rutgers University's Cook-Douglass campus, on a
horticultural farm. The surrounding area is agricultural and rural, although residential
neighborhoods are located to the east, across a branch of the Raritan River, as shown in
Figure 19-4. County Road 617 and US-1 intersect just west of the site and 1-95 runs northeast-
southwest about 1 mile east of the site.
Figure 19-7 shows that the outer portions of NBNJ and ELNJ's 10-mile radii intersect
and that numerous emissions sources surround these two sites. The bulk of the emissions sources
are located in northern Middlesex County and northeastward toward New York City and
northern New Jersey. The source categories with the highest number of emissions sources in the
vicinity of these sites are chemical manufacturing facilities; aircraft operations; and
electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring. The emissions sources in closest
proximity to the ELNJ monitoring site are involved in food processing and wastewater treatment.
The emissions sources in closest proximity to the NBNJ monitoring site are involved in aircraft
operations.
Table 19-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the New
Jersey monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 19-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (for CANJ, 2008, for the other three, 2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level
vehicle registration data for Union, Morris, Camden, and Middlesex Counties were not available
from the State of New Jersey. Thus, state-level vehicle registration, which was obtained from the
Federal Highway Administration (FFIWA, 2009a and 2011), was allocated to the county level
using the county-level proportion of the state population. State-level and county-level population
information for these counties was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2009
and 2010). Table 19-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-
per-person) for each site. In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An
estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle
registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site.
19-11
-------
Table 19-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the
traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 19-2 presents the
daily VMT for the New York and Philadelphia urban areas.
Table 19-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the New Jersey
Monitoring Sites
Site
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
Estimated
County
Population1
517,234
488,518
526,426
790,738
Estimated
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
372,132
342,994
369,610
555,187
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.72
0.70
0.70
0.70
Population
Within 10
Miles3
2,003,209
242,969
2,205,797
788,786
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
1,441,239
170,591
1,548,715
553,816
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
4,206
12,917
250,885
110,653
VMT5
(thousands)
105,823
299,125
299,125
299,125
Dofor-on^o- rVncnc TPiir-ooii TflflQ onH Tfllfl
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects an estimate based on state-level vehicle registration from the FHWA and
the county-level proportion of the state population data (FHWA, 2009a and 2011).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfmddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects data from the New Jersey DOT for the following years: 2008 for CANJ, 2010
for CHNJ, 2002 for ELNJ, and 2009 for NBNJ (NJ DOT, 2002, 2008, 2009, and 2010).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
Observations from Table 19-2 include the following:
• Middlesex County, where NBNJ is located, had the highest county population of the
New Jersey sites. But ELNJ had the highest 10-mile population among the four New
Jersey sites, although CANJ was not far behind.
• Compared to NMP monitoring sites in other locations, the county-level populations
were in the middle of the range. However, ELNJ had one of the highest 10-mile
populations, as did CANJ. NBNJ's 10-mile population was in the middle of the range
while CHNJ's 10-mile population was in the bottom third compared to other NMP
sites.
• The estimated county-level vehicle ownership was highest for NBNJ while fairly
similar across the remaining New Jersey sites. The registration estimates were in the
middle of the range compared to other program sites. ELNJ and CANJ had two of the
highest 10-mile vehicle ownership estimates compared to other NMP sites.
• ELNJ experienced a significantly higher average traffic volume than other New
Jersey sites, while CANJ experienced the least. Traffic data for ELNJ were obtained
from 1-95, between Exit 13 and 13A; traffic data for CANJ were obtained from the
intersection of Euclid Avenue and Haddon Avenue; traffic data for CHNJ were
obtained from Main Street (County Road 513) near Highway 206; and traffic data for
NBNJ were obtained from US-1 near State Road 617 (Ryders Lane).
19-12
-------
• VMT for the New York City metropolis ranked highest among all urban areas with
NMP sites (and among all U.S. urban areas). The VMT for the Philadelphia area
ranked seventh among urban areas with NMP sites.
19.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in New Jersey on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
19.2.1 Climate Summary
Frontal systems push across the state of New Jersey regularly, producing variable
weather. The state's proximity to the Atlantic Ocean has a moderating effect on temperature.
Summers along the coast tend to be cooler than areas farther inland, while winters tend to be
warmer. Large urban areas within the state experience the urban heat island effect, in which the
urban areas retain more heat than outlying areas. New Jersey's mid-Atlantic location also allows
for ample annual precipitation and relatively high humidity. A southwesterly wind is most
common in the summer and a northwesterly wind is typical in the winter. Winds from the west
and northwest result in air masses that dry out, stabilize, and warm up as they move eastward
from higher elevations to sea level (Bair, 1992 and Rutgers, 2011).
19.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from NWS weather stations nearest these sites were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The three closest NWS weather stations are
located at Philadelphia International Airport (near CANJ), Somerville-Somerset Airport (near
CHNJ and NBNJ), and Newark International Airport (near ELNJ), WBAN 13739, 54785, and
14734, respectively. Additional information about these weather stations is provided in
Table 19-3. These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days
vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
19-13
-------
Table 19-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
Philadelphia
International Airport
13739
(39.87, -75.23)
7.67
miles
227°
(SW)
2008
Sample
Day
All Year
67.7
±5.3
64.5
±1.8
59.7
±5.0
56.4
±1.7
45.1
±5.3
42.0
±1.8
52.4
±4.5
49.5
±1.6
62.2
±4.3
61.9
±1.4
1016.1
±2.3
1017.1
±0.8
7.8
±0.9
8.2
±0.3
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
Somerville, New
Jersey/Somerset
Airport
54785
(40.62, -74.67)
11.30
miles
165°
(SSE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
63.6
±4.8
62.9
±1.9
63.1
±4.7
61.5
±1.8
52.9
±4.4
52.3
±1.7
53.1
±4.3
51.6
±1.7
40.9
±4.9
41.0
±1.8
43.0
±4.6
41.0
±2.0
47.4
±4.1
47.0
±1.6
48.3
±4.0
46.8
±1.7
68.6
±4.0
69.5
±1.4
71.9
±3.2
70.3
±1.4
1016.1
±2.1
1016.3
±0.8
1013.8
±2.1
1016.3
±0.8
3.1
±0.5
3.5
±0.2
3.1
±0.6
3.2
±0.3
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
Newark
International Airport
14734
(40.72, -74.17)
5.50
miles
7°
(N)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
63.3
±4.7
63.2
±1.8
64.0
±4.7
62.0
±1.8
55.7
±4.5
55.5
±1.7
56.6
±4.3
54.5
±1.7
39.8
±4.6
39.5
±1.8
41.6
±4.6
39.1
±1.9
48.2
±3.9
48.0
±1.5
49.4
±3.9
47.5
±1.6
58.7
±3.9
58.3
±1.5
60.5
±3.4
58.8
±1.5
1016.6
±2.1
1016.6
±0.8
1014.1
±2.1
1016.5
±0.8
7.9
±0.8
8.3
±0.3
8.3
±0.9
8.1
±0.4
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
VO
-------
Table 19-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
Somerville, New
Jersey/Somerset
Airport
54785
(40.62, -74.67)
16.05
miles
297°
(WNW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
65.2
±4.7
62.9
± 1.9
63.2
±4.7
61.5
±1.8
53.8
±4.3
52.3
±1.7
53.4
±4.3
51.6
±1.7
41.8
±4.8
41.0
± 1.8
43.5
±4.7
41.0
±2.0
48.1
±4.1
47.0
±1.6
48.7
±4.1
46.8
±1.7
68.6
±3.5
69.5
± 1.4
72.6
±3.2
70.3
±1.4
1016.6
±2.0
1016.3
±0.8
1014.2
±2.0
1016.3
±0.8
3.0
±0.5
3.5
±0.2
3.1
±0.6
3.2
±0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
VO
-------
Table 19-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 19-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 19-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were representative of average weather
conditions throughout the years for CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ. For CANJ, temperatures on
sample days in 2008 appear slightly warmer than all days in 2008. Recall though, that sampling
at CANJ stopped in October 2008, thereby excluding some of the cooler months of the year,
which likely explains the difference.
19.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 19-8 is the composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were
collected at the CANJ monitoring site in 2008 while Figure 19-9 is the cluster analysis for this
site. Figure 19-10 and Figure 19-11 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at CFINJ in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 19-12 is the cluster
analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. Likewise,
Figures 19-13 through 19-18 are the composite back trajectory and cluster analysis maps for the
ELNJ and NBNJ monitoring sites. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were
generated was presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the
24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given
sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of
a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the sites in
Figures 19-8 through 19-18 represents 100 miles.
19-16
-------
Figure 19-8. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANJ
Figure 19-9. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for CANJ
19-17
-------
Figure 19-10. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CHNJ
Figure 19-11. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CHNJ
19-18
-------
Figure 19-12. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for CHNJ
Figure 19-13. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ELNJ
19-19
-------
Figure 19-14. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ELNJ
Figure 19-15. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for ELNJ
!K JOQ
19-20
-------
Figure 19-16. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBNJ
Figure 19-17. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBNJ
19-21
-------
Figure 19-18. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for NBNJ
Observations from Figures 19-8 through 19-18 include the following:
• Due to their relatively close proximity to each other and the standardization of sample
days, the back trajectories shown on each composite back trajectory map for the New
Jersey sites are fairly similar to each other.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the sites, although fewer
from the east and southeast.
• CANJ stopped sampling in October 2008 and thus has fewer trajectories on its
composite back trajectory map. It also does not have a 2009 back trajectory analysis.
• For CANJ, the farthest away a trajectory originated was off the North Carolina coast,
or just over 500 miles away. However, most trajectories originated within 300 miles
of the site and the average trajectory length was 228 miles.
• Forty percent of CANJ back trajectories originated within 100-200 miles of the site
and predominantly from the southwest (recall that both direction and distance factor
into the cluster analysis). Another 10 percent also originated towards the southwest,
but farther from the site. One-third of trajectories originated to the northwest of the
site. The remaining 11 percent originated from the northeast and east.
• The 24-hour air shed domains for CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ were similar in size to
each other. The longest trajectory originated over central Illinois, nearly 800 miles
19-22
-------
away. This trajectory was created for February 12, 2009, a day that a strong low
pressure system moved across the northeast part of the country. The average
trajectory length for these sites ranged from 229 miles (CHNJ) to 238 miles (NBNJ).
• For CFDSTJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ, the cluster trajectories shown for the cluster analyses
for 2008 are fairly similar in location to the cluster analyses for 2009, although the
percentages vary. The cluster maps show a propensity for trajectories to originate
from the south and southwest, west, northwest, and north (and rarely from the east) at
these sites.
19.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations near the New Jersey sites, as presented
in Section 19.2.2, were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind
roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using
"petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
Figure 19-19 presents three different wind roses for the CANJ monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year is presented. Finally, a wind rose representing
days on which samples were collected in 2008 are presented. These can be used to determine if
wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced over the entire
year. Because CANJ stopped sampling in 2008, no 2009 wind roses are presented.
Figure 19-20 presents five different wind roses for CHNJ. First, a historical wind rose
representing 1997 to 2007 is presented. Next, a wind rose for 2008 representing wind
observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which samples were
collected in 2008 are presented. Lastly, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a wind rose for
days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. Figures 19-21 and 19-22 present the five
different wind roses for the ELNJ and NBNJ monitoring sites.
19-23
-------
Figure 19-19. Wind Roses for the Philadelphia International Airport Weather Station near CANJ
to
2008 Wind Rose
NORTH"'- - _
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 19-20. Wind Roses for the Summerville-Somerset Airport Weather Station near CHNJ
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
to
2008 Wind Rose
~---,______LS_QUTH---'
2000 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
L alrr.f 5D J4";.
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 19-21. Wind Roses for the Newark International Airport Weather Station near ELNJ
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
vo
2008 Wind Rose
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 19-22. Wind Roses for the Summerville-Somerset Airport Weather Station near NBNJ
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
vo
to
2008 Wind Rose
2000 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Calm; 6D 2'j"f.
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 19-19 for CANJ include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from a variety of directions were observed
near CANJ, although winds infrequently came from the southeast quadrant. Calm
winds (<2 knots) were observed for less than 10 percent of observations.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose resemble the historical wind patterns,
as do the 2008 sample day wind patterns, indicating that conditions on sample days
were representative of those experienced over the entire year and historically.
Observations from Figures 19-20 and 19-22 for CHNJ and NBNJ include the following:
• The historical and full-year wind roses for CFDSTJ and NBNJ are identical because the
Somerville/Somerset Airport is the closest weather station to both sites; thus, the
wind data are the same.
• The historical wind roses for these sites show that calm winds accounted for nearly
60 percent of observations. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, northerly winds
were observed most frequently, while southwesterly winds were rarely observed.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind roses resemble the historical wind
patterns, as do the 2008 sample day wind patterns, indicating that conditions in 2008
were similar to conditions typically experienced near these sites.
• While the 2009 wind roses and 2009 sample day wind roses do exhibit the same
prevalence for calm winds as the historical and 2008 wind roses, they do not exhibit
the same northerly predominance as the other wind roses for wind speeds greater than
2 knots. Instead, there was an increase in winds from the northwest quadrant. It is
important to note that each circle in Figures 19-20 and 19-22 represents two percent,
and that the outer circle represents 10 percent. Even though the northerly wind
direction percentage for the 2008 and historical wind roses appear significantly higher
than the percentages for the other wind directions, it still represents less than
10 percent of the observations. Thus, the northerly wind direction percentage ranged
from roughly nine percent for the historical and 2008 wind roses to five percent for
2009.
Observations from Figure 19-21 for ELNJ include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from a variety of directions were observed
near ELNJ, although easterly and southeasterly winds were observed infrequently.
Calm winds were observed for approximately eight percent of observations. The
strongest winds were associated with westerly and northwesterly winds.
19-28
-------
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses generally resemble the
historical wind patterns, as do the sample day wind patterns for each year. This
indicates that conditions on sample days were representative of those experienced
over the entire year(s) and historically.
19.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the New Jersey monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 19-4 presents the pollutants of interest for the New Jersey sites. The pollutants that
failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for each
monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest
are shaded and/or bolded. All four New Jersey monitoring sites sampled for VOC and carbonyl
compounds.
19-29
-------
Table 19-4. Risk Screening Results for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Bromomethane
Ethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Dichloromethane
Vinyl chloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Propionaldehyde
Trichloroethylene
0.45
0.077
0.13
0.033
0.17
0.17
0.091
0.5
0.4
0.015
2.1
0.11
0.038
0.8
0.5
Total
38
38
37
37
37
32
29
12
12
3
2
2
1
1
1
282
38
38
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
3
37
26
1
38
34
474
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
86.49
78.38
32.43
32.43
100.00
5.41
7.69
100.00
2.63
2.94
59.49
13.48
13.48
13.12
13.12
13.12
11.35
10.28
4.26
4.26
1.06
0.71
0.71
0.35
0.35
0.35
13.48
26.95
40.07
53.19
66.31
77.66
87.94
92.20
96.45
97.52
98.23
98.94
99.29
99.65
100.00
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Dichloromethane
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
0.13
0.17
0.077
0.45
0.015
0.033
0.17
0.091
0.4
0.038
0.0017
2.1
0.045
0.5
10
Total
119
117
117
116
37
29
19
7
6
5
2
1
1
1
1
578
119
119
117
117
37
94
106
65
119
5
2
119
1
23
119
1,162
100.00
98.32
100.00
99.15
100.00
30.85
17.92
10.77
5.04
100.00
100.00
0.84
100.00
4.35
0.84
49.74
20.59
20.24
20.24
20.07
6.40
5.02
3.29
1.21
1.04
0.87
0.35
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
20.59
40.83
61.07
81.14
87.54
92.56
95.85
97.06
98.10
98.96
99.31
99.48
99.65
99.83
100.00
19-30
-------
Table 19-4. Risk Screening Results for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Dichloromethane
Propionaldehyde
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Xylenes
Chloromethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
0.077
0.45
0.13
0.033
0.17
0.17
0.4
0.091
0.015
2.1
0.8
0.038
10
0.02
0.0017
0.017
0.5
Total
116
115
113
113
113
78
63
60
47
13
8
5
3
1
1
1
1
851
116
116
113
113
113
112
112
107
47
113
116
5
113
2
1
2
78
1,379
100.00
99.14
100.00
100.00
100.00
69.64
56.25
56.07
100.00
11.50
6.90
100.00
2.65
50.00
100.00
50.00
1.28
61.71
13.63
13.51
13.28
13.28
13.28
9.17
7.40
7.05
5.52
1.53
0.94
0.59
0.35
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
13.63
27.14
40.42
53.70
66.98
76.15
83.55
90.60
96.12
97.65
98.59
99.18
99.53
99.65
99.76
99.88
100.00
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Ethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Propionaldehyde
0.45
0.077
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.17
0.091
0.015
0.4
0.038
2.1
0.5
0.0017
0.8
Total
112
112
110
109
63
46
32
27
8
4
3
2
1
1
630
112
112
110
110
106
105
95
27
110
4
110
52
1
112
1,166
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.09
59.43
43.81
33.68
100.00
7.27
100.00
2.73
3.85
100.00
0.89
54.03
17.78
17.78
17.46
17.30
10.00
7.30
5.08
4.29
1.27
0.63
0.48
0.32
0.16
0.16
17.78
35.56
53.02
70.32
80.32
87.62
92.70
96.98
98.25
98.89
99.37
99.68
99.84
100.00
19-31
-------
Observations from Table 19-4 include the following:
• Fifteen pollutants failed at least one screen for CANJ, of which eight are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes; 15 failed screens for CHNJ, of which seven are NATTS MQO
Core Analytes; 17 failed screens for ELNJ (seven are NATTS MQO Core Analytes);
and 14 failed screens for NBNJ (seven are NATTS MQO Core Analytes).
• The risk screening process identified nine pollutants of interest for CANJ (of which
six are NATTS MQO Core Analytes). Vinyl chloride and trichloroethylene were
added as pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even
though they did not contribute to 95 percent of failed screens. Chloroform was also
added because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not fail any
screens. Chloroform is not shown in Table 19-4.
• The risk screening process identified seven pollutants of interest for CHNJ (of which
six are NATTS MQO Core Analytes). Trichloroethylene was added as a pollutant of
interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not contribute
to 95 percent of failed screens. Chloroform and vinyl chloride were also added
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These two pollutants are not shown in Table 19-4.
• The risk screening process identified nine pollutants of interest for ELNJ (of which
six are NATTS MQO Core Analytes). Trichloroethylene was added as a pollutant of
interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not contribute
to 95 percent of failed screens. Chloroform and vinyl chloride were also added
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These two pollutants are not shown in Table 19-4.
• The risk screening process identified eight pollutants of interest for NBNJ (of which
six are NATTS MQO Core Analytes). Trichloroethylene was added as a pollutant of
interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not contribute
to 95 percent of failed screens. Chloroform and vinyl chloride were also added
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These two pollutants are not shown in Table 19-4.
• Measured detections of formaldehyde and benzene failed 100 percent of screens for
all four sites.
• The total failure rate ranged from 49.74 percent for CHNJ to 61.71 percent for ELNJ
(of the pollutants with at least one failed screen). As shown in Table 4-8, ELNJ failed
the seventh highest number of screens among all NMP sites, but sampled the fewest
methods (two) of the sites that failed more screens.
19-32
-------
19.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the New Jersey monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each New Jersey site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided
in Appendices J through O.
19.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each New Jersey site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 19-5, where applicable.
19-33
-------
Table 19-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the New Jersey
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
1.83
±0.29
1.36
±0.47
0.81
±0.48
0.10
±0.02
0.65
±0.05
0.13
±0.02
0.18
±0.03
0.47
±0.23
3.31
±0.55
0.48
±0.23
0.18
±0.07
0.03
±0.01
1.33
±0.33
1.79
±1.16
0.91
± 1.03
0.14
±0.05
0.63
±0.05
0.09
±0.02
0.14
±0.04
0.62
±0.57
1.94
±0.36
0.66
±0.55
0.18
±0.16
0.03
±0.03
2.30
±0.60
1.17
±0.18
0.96
±0.66
0.07
±0.01
0.68
±0.10
0.13
±0.03
0.19
±0.03
0.35
±0.06
4.14
±1.01
0.30
±0.10
0.17
±0.08
0.01
±0.01
2.04
±0.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.57
±0.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
VO
*Method completeness was less than 85 percent for CANJ for both methods.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Table 19-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the New Jersey
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
1.40
±0.14
0.34
±0.29
0.60
±0.10
0.04
±0.01
0.70
±0.06
0.12
±0.02
2.25
±0.31
0.16
±0.08
0.11
±0.10
0.02
±0.01
1.55
±0.23
NA
0.64
±0.09
0.04
±0.02
0.60
±0.07
0.07
±0.02
1.60
±0.20
0.11
±0.04
NA
NA
1.51
±0.36
NA
0.54
±0.25
0.03
±0.04
0.70
±0.14
0.11
±0.04
2.31
±0.64
0.21
±0.26
NA
NA
1.28
±0.32
NA
0.56
±0.32
0.03
±0.03
0.78
±0.12
0.18
±0.03
3.46
±0.91
0.16
±0.08
NA
NA
1.20
±0.12
NA
0.64
±0.15
0.04
±0.01
0.72
±0.16
0.12
±0.03
1.85
±0.26
0.11
±0.03
NA
NA
1.40
±0.14
NA
0.60
±0.10
0.03
±0.01
0.70
±0.06
0.12
±0.02
2.25
±0.31
0.15
±0.07
NA
NA
1.34
±0.14
0.12
±0.02
0.56
±0.11
0.03
±0.02
0.72
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
2.43
±0.30
0.11
±0.02
0.05
±0.02
0.03
±0.02
1.52
±0.29
0.04
±0.02
0.94
±0.27
0.03
±0.02
0.61
±0.08
0.09
±0.02
1.57
±0.22
0.09
±0.03
NA
NA
1.50
±0.31
0.07
±0.03
0.49
±0.18
0.01
±0.01
0.65
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
2.56
±0.40
0.10
±0.02
NA
NA
1.14
±0.15
NA
0.29
±0.04
0.01
±0.01
0.85
±0.10
0.14
±0.01
3.47
±0.64
0.07
±0.03
NA
NA
1.21
±0.37
NA
0.53
±0.23
0.04
±0.05
0.76
±0.11
0.11
±0.02
2.03
±0.59
0.11
±0.05
NA
NA
1.34
±0.14
NA
0.56
±0.11
0.02
±0.01
0.72
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
2.43
±0.30
0.09
±0.02
NA
NA
VO
*Method completeness was less than 85 percent for CANJ for both methods.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Table 19-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the New Jersey
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2.35
±0.26
1.56
±0.35
1.83
± 1.23
0.15
±0.02
0.64
±0.05
0.18
±0.02
0.19
±0.05
0.88
±0.17
3.24
±0.39
0.35
±0.07
0.10
±0.02
0.02
±0.01
1.85
±0.43
1.07
±0.41
1.55
±0.58
0.20
±0.07
0.56
±0.04
0.15
±0.03
0.13
±0.05
0.59
±0.27
2.45
±0.58
0.37
±0.21
0.07
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
2.43
±0.83
1.50
±0.67
1.02
±0.23
0.11
±0.03
0.69
±0.12
0.18
±0.04
0.16
±0.06
1.00
±0.26
2.96
±0.77
0.33
±0.12
0.09
±0.03
NA
2.56
±0.45
NA
3.38
±4.92
0.13
±0.03
0.68
±0.11
0.25
±0.04
0.33
±0.13
1.37
±0.45
4.22
±0.81
0.46
±0.13
0.06
±0.04
NA
2.60
±0.39
NA
1.24
±0.28
0.14
±0.04
0.64
±0.09
0.14
±0.02
0.08
±0.04
0.51
±0.14
3.36
±0.77
0.24
±0.07
0.04
±0.03
NA
2.35
±0.26
NA
1.83
± 1.23
0.15
±0.02
0.64
±0.05
0.18
±0.02
0.18
±0.04
0.87
±0.17
3.24
±0.39
0.35
±0.07
0.07
±0.02
NA
2.47
±0.32
0.28
±0.16
1.36
±0.36
0.16
±0.09
0.67
±0.04
0.17
±0.02
0.12
±0.03
0.46
±0.14
3.80
±0.53
0.26
±0.04
0.10
±0.04
0.02
±<0.01
2.30
±0.52
NA
2.28
±1.22
0.27
±0.34
0.63
±0.11
0.10
±0.01
0.07
±0.03
0.63
±0.53
3.23
±1.14
0.22
±0.08
0.11
±0.13
0.01
±<0.01
2.72
±0.65
0.26
±0.26
1.34
±0.42
0.11
±0.02
0.61
±0.06
0.17
±0.04
0.13
±0.04
0.50
±0.10
4.06
±0.81
0.30
±0.08
0.08
±0.02
0.01
±0.01
2.49
±0.50
NA
0.76
±0.10
0.09
±0.01
0.77
±0.06
0.22
±0.03
0.11
±0.04
0.33
±0.06
4.39
±0.91
0.23
±0.06
0.04
±0.02
NA
2.35
±1.04
NA
1.06
±0.48
0.16
±0.09
0.67
±0.09
0.17
±0.06
0.14
±0.10
0.36
±0.17
3.39
±1.46
0.27
±0.14
0.07
±0.04
NA
2.47
±0.32
NA
1.36
±0.36
0.16
±0.09
0.67
±0.04
0.17
±0.02
0.11
±0.03
0.46
±0.14
3.80
±0.53
0.25
±0.04
0.08
±0.03
NA
VO
*Method completeness was less than 85 percent for CANJ for both methods.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Table 19-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the New Jersey
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2.58
±0.48
0.28
±0.37
0.70
±0.08
0.06
±0.01
0.73
±0.05
0.18
±0.03
0.11
±0.03
1.47
±0.22
0.25
±0.07
0.13
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
1.31
±0.25
NA
0.85
±0.20
0.07
±0.03
0.63
±0.04
0.09
±0.03
0.06
±0.03
1.67
±0.25
0.30
±0.23
0.07
±0.05
0.01
±0.01
3.78
±1.18
NA
0.59
±0.13
0.03
±0.01
0.78
±0.08
0.13
±0.04
0.08
±0.03
1.51
±0.56
0.19
±0.07
0.06
±0.04
0.01
±0.01
3.87
±0.72
NA
0.69
±0.16
0.07
±0.03
0.76
±0.12
0.31
±0.08
0.20
±0.09
0.93
±0.30
0.29
±0.11
0.10
±0.08
NA
1.16
±0.26
NA
0.65
±0.09
0.06
±0.01
0.73
±0.12
0.13
±0.04
0.04
±0.02
1.87
±0.59
0.17
±0.03
NA
NA
2.58
±0.48
NA
0.70
±0.08
0.06
±0.01
0.73
±0.05
0.17
±0.03
0.10
±0.03
1.47
±0.22
0.24
±0.07
0.07
±0.03
NA
2.03
±0.25
0.15
±0.03
0.69
±0.13
0.05
±0.01
0.67
±0.05
0.15
±0.02
0.07
±0.01
2.57
±0.74
0.17
±0.03
0.08
±0.05
0.02
±0.01
1.58
±0.22
0.05
±0.03
1.11
±0.45
0.07
±0.03
0.50
±0.10
0.09
±0.01
0.03
±0.02
2.61
±1.01
0.15
±0.07
NA
NA
1.58
±0.42
NA
0.70
±0.14
0.03
±0.01
0.72
±0.09
0.14
±0.03
0.05
±0.02
2.31
±0.58
0.16
±0.04
NA
NA
2.06
±0.47
0.09
±0.05
0.41
±0.04
0.03
±0.01
0.78
±0.06
0.19
±0.02
0.08
±0.02
2.38
±0.52
0.14
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
NA
2.84
±0.58
NA
0.63
±0.18
0.06
±0.03
0.66
±0.08
0.17
±0.04
0.06
±0.03
3.00
±2.90
0.19
±0.10
NA
NA
2.03
±0.25
NA
0.69
±0.13
0.05
±0.01
0.67
±0.05
0.15
±0.02
0.06
±0.01
2.57
±0.74
0.16
±0.03
NA
NA
VO
*Method completeness was less than 85 percent for CANJ for both methods.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Observations for CANJ from Table 19-5 include the following:
• The pollutants of interest with the highest daily average concentrations by mass for
2008 were formaldehyde (3.31 ± 0.55 |ig/m3), acetaldehyde (1.83 ± 0.29 |ig/m3), and
benzene (1.36 ± 0.47 |ig/m3).
• Several of the pollutants of interest have rather large confidence intervals for the first
quarter of 2008, indicating that the concentration averages are influenced by outliers.
For example, the first quarter 2008 benzene average was 1.79 ± 1.16 |ig/m3. The
highest concentration of benzene was measured on March 31, 2008 (9.42 |ig/m3), and
was more than three times the next highest benzene concentration measured at CANJ.
The highest concentrations of several VOC were measured on March 31, 2008,
including 1,3-butadiene, ethylbenzene, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride.
• Because neither VOC nor carbonyl compounds met the completeness criteria of
85 percent for CANJ, annual averages were not calculated. Sampling at this site
ceased in October 2008.
Observations for CJrDSTJ from Table 19-5 include the following:
• The pollutants of interest with the highest daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and carbon tetrachloride for both years of sampling.
• While concentrations of most of the pollutants of interest for CHNJ did not vary
significantly from quarter to quarter, formaldehyde and chloroform tended to be
higher during the warmer months.
• The 2008 daily average of acrylonitrile has a rather large confidence interval,
indicating that the concentration average was influenced by outliers. The 2008 daily
average of acrylonitrile was 0.34 ± 0.29 |ig/m3 while the 2009 daily average was
0.12 ± 0.02 |ig/m3. The two highest concentrations of acrylonitrile were measured in
June 2008 (1.09 |ig/m3 and 1.02 |ig/m3), and were nearly three times the next highest
concentration measured at CJrENJ (0.317 |ig/m3). Measurements of acrylonitrile at
CHNJ ranged from 0.0413 |ig/m3 to 1.09 |ig/m3 with a median concentration of
0.111 |ig/m3. This pollutant was detected in 37 of 119 valid samples (31 percent
detection rate); thus, this pollutant has few quarterly averages and no annual averages.
• Quarterly and annual averages could not be calculated for vinyl chloride or
trichloroethylene because these pollutants were not detected frequently enough.
Observations for ELNJ from Table 19-5 include the following:
• The pollutants of interest with the highest daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene for both years of sampling.
19-38
-------
• The confidence interval for benzene's 2008 daily average is rather high, indicating
that this average is influenced by outliers. A review of the quarterly average
concentrations shows that the confidence interval for the third quarter of 2008 is
higher than the average itself. The highest concentration of benzene was measured on
July 29, 2008 (34.3 |ig/m3). This concentration was also the highest measured among
all NMP sites sampling benzene and was more than four times the next highest
concentration measured at ELNJ (8.00 |ig/m3).
• The confidence interval for 1,3-butadiene's first quarter 2009 average concentration
is higher than the average itself, indicating that this average is influenced by outliers.
The highest concentration of 1,3-butadiene was measured at ELNJ on
January 19, 2009 (2.57 |ig/m3) and is the second highest measurement of
1,3-butadiene among all NMP sites. The next highest concentration measured at
ELNJ was an order of magnitude lower.
• The confidence interval for ethylbenzene's first quarter 2009 average concentration is
relatively high. The highest ethylbenzene concentration was also measured on
January 19, 2009. But the second highest ethylbenzene concentration was measured
on July 29, 2008, corresponding with benzene's highest measurement at this site.
• There is a significant difference between ELNJ's 2008 and 2009 daily average
concentrations of acrylonitrile (1.56 ± 0.35 |ig/m3 for 2008 vs. 0.28 ± 0.16 |ig/m3 for
2009). There were 47 measured detections of this pollutant and measurements ranged
from 0.126 |ig/m3to 4.18 |ig/m3. Note that all but one of the 24 concentrations greater
than 0.5 |ig/m3 were measured in 2008.
• Concentrations of most of the pollutants of interest for ELNJ did not vary
significantly from quarter to quarter. However, concentrations of chloroform and
formaldehyde tended to be highest during the warmer months.
• Quarterly and annual averages could not be calculated for vinyl chloride because this
pollutant was not detected frequently enough.
Observations for NBNJ from Table 19-5 include the following:
• The pollutants of interest with the highest 2008 daily average concentrations by mass
were acetaldehyde (2.58 ± 0.48 |ig/m3), formaldehyde (1.47 ± 0.22 |ig/m3), and
carbon tetrachloride (0.73 ± 0.05 |ig/m3). The pollutants of interest with the highest
2009 daily average concentrations by mass were formaldehyde (2.57 ± 0.74 |ig/m3),
acetaldehyde (2.03 ± 0.25 |ig/m3), and benzene (0.69 ± 0.13 |ig/m3). Note that the
daily average concentrations of carbon tetrachloride and benzene were similar to each
other for both years.
• The confidence intervals for acetaldehyde's second and third quarterly averages for
2008 are rather high, indicating that these averages are likely influenced by outliers.
19-39
-------
Seventeen of the 20 highest acetaldehyde concentrations were measured between
April and August 2008.
• The 2008 daily average of acrylonitrile has a large confidence interval, indicating that
the concentration average was influenced by outliers. The 2008 daily average of
acrylonitrile was 0.28 ± 0.37 |ig/m3. This pollutant was detected only four times in
2008 and its measurements spanned an order of magnitude (ranging from 0.070 to
0.737 |ig/m3), hence the large confidence interval. The highest concentration of
acrylonitrile was measured on June 29, 2008; interestingly, the highest acrylonitrile
concentration for CANJ was also measured on this date, as was the second highest
acrylonitrile concentration for CHNJ. Although the highest acrylonitrile concentration
for ELNJ was not measured on this date, it was measured on June 11, 2008, which is
when the highest acrylonitrile concentration was measured at CJrDSTJ.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for the New Jersey sites from
those tables include the following:
• The New Jersey sites appear in Table 4-9 for VOC a total of 10 times (CANJ - 3;
CHNJ - 1; ELNJ - 6; and NBNJ - 0). CANJ had the highest daily average
concentration of tetrachloroethylene among NMP sites sampling VOC.
• The New Jersey sites appear in Table 4-10 for carbonyl compounds twice. NBNJ had
the ninth highest daily average concentration of acetaldehyde (2008), while its 2009
daily average ranked 23rd. ELNJ had the seventh highest daily average concentration
of formaldehyde (2009), while its 2008 daily average ranked 14th.
19.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. The New Jersey sites have sampled VOC and carbonyl compounds under the
NMP for many years. CANJ has sampled since 1994; ELNJ since 2000; and CJdNJ and NBNJ
since 2001. Thus, Figures 19-23 through 19-38 present the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for
acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde for each New Jersey monitoring sit).
The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-
detects.
19-40
-------
Figure 19-23. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at CANJ
H
IB
B £• -i.4
ttfMM
4-
I*W2»W I«*«-2MI
— MliiiUMAii - MnljMi - l.lA'itu
IVtltliX* 3W.-106] JOfl* »00«
• '« ' ll, J . r . , i.hl. — #.. - f.i,^
'No carbonyl compound samples were collected in October 1999.
2No carbonyl compound samples were collected from October to December 2003.
3Method completeness was less than 85 percent in 2008.
4Carbonyl compound sampling concluded in October 2008.
19-41
-------
Figure 19-24. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations Measured
at CANJ
II
'VOC sampling began in July 1994.
2No VOC samples were collected from July to September 1995.
^o VOC samples were collected in October 1999.
4No VOC samples were collected from October to December 2003.
Method completeness was less than 85 percent in 2008.
6VOC sampling concluded in October 2008.
19-42
-------
Figure 19-25. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at CANJ
M
Ui
"
Xv^X"X*
-. .1 III'
sampling began in My 1994.
2No VOC samples were collected from July to September 1995.
^o VOC samples were collected in October 1999.
4No VOC samples were collected from October to December 2003.
Method completeness was less than 85 percent in 2008.
6VOC sampling concluded in October 2008.
19-43
-------
Figure 19-26. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at CANJ
g
IT
<
«•
1
-
K
— '
k
19
<
«t t*
1 Ml
<
,_
-:
17
"o
•H
:
i'
••
,., i>.
lUr
^
'-
^
w
:
to
1
go i»
• l.lnd
1
X
. ..-,
mui
l
«l J*
:
•
....
At .'<«
Ikra*-
l-.li».
f
•
•
,| .'.
V.,r
J
01 1*
^rtpd
- '
'.
•.'
"
>
C"
II
,„
M* l»
i ii
-i
H
••
— -
-'
>
HI
•
II
*
I
« j«
***!
»
t
'»
'-
HI
k
."-
"
[
« IMS
nnlr
p
2M7 |Oftfr-?IWH
"»» Av«£$r
'No carbonyl compound samples were collected in October 1999.
2No carbonyl compound samples were collected from October to December 2003.
3Method completeness was less than 85 percent in 2008.
4Carbonyl compound sampling concluded in October 2008.
19-44
-------
Figure 19-27. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at CHNJ
'V
10*1 iO«) IMMMt IMMW JOW-W9S 1Q4VIW7 t04*-tO« .•••"•' .'•«••
Carbonyl compound sampling began in May 2001.
Figure 19-28. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations Measured
at CHNJ
tool tan iMt-iow JOOWOK JMH to»
]*M-IM*
• - n*.-
VOC sampling began in May 2001.
19-45
-------
Figure 19-29. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at CHNJ
1
t
-------
Figure 19-31. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at ELNJ
1.
II
14
1"
^r
..+••'
— MIWIIPWII - Mnkm - Mvknni * ftrh PwimMp • •• •••< •
:No carbonyl compound samples were collected in January 2003.
Figure 19-32. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations Measured
at ELNJ
10
i i JU JL, J^ J. .
iO»7-i(H»
— MHlii
No VOC samples were collected in January 2003.
19-47
-------
Figure 19-33. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at ELNJ
-±
MOO-MO)
laoi-xiat1 io»v;o«' JOIM-JOM, jooviooj )oot,-i«* 10*7 10*1
'No VOC samples were collected in January 2003.
Figure 19-34. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at ELNJ
14
taviiwi
lotntm
200! torn
* Mr, I'-.. «.„(,. - MMmn - Mnlan - Mi
No carbonyl compound samples were collected in January 2003.
19-48
-------
Figure 19-35. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at NBNJ
Ml
0
c
i-«-i ...
b^J ;"
tOM-Hint1 1
"•s
Ml
k
t™
in
4 i
-
^
Hit
'a,
H
S 1
Ihw
- Mr*,.
M<
'
.,•1
>.v«
«a
in
i,=
( 2
I.WJ
- >.l..nm
T
1
"^
n
. I . J
f lIXK-tOm 10*7-1M»
« «5«lPW[tnlfc • --. ntir
'Carbonyl compound sampling began May 2001.
Figure 19-36. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations Measured
at NBNJ
,.'.
..
iUI)4-J(K*
- J.I •..•HUH *
'VOC sampling began May 2001.
19-49
-------
Figure 19-37. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at NBNJ
« i
... 1-,
IWMOM iotD-Jtroi
IOM-IM*
• Avtncr
'VOC sampling began May 2001.
Figure 19-38. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at NBNJ
.'inn .MM,'. ,'IKH .'IH*
.M Pd
.• .'in..: >. .. .MI.-I
Carbonyl compound sampling began May 2001.
19-50
-------
Observations from Figure 19-23 for acetaldehyde measurements at CANJ include the
following:
• CANJ is the UATMP's longest running site. Sampling of carbonyl compounds began
in October 1995 and continued through October 2008. The first 3 months of data
were excluded from this analysis because 3 months is not enough to be representative
of the entire year. Short gaps in sampling have occurred throughout the years and are
denoted in Figure 19-23. Sampling in 2008 did not meet the 85 percent method
completeness objective, which is also denoted in Figure 19-23.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2004. In addition, the 13
highest acetaldehyde concentrations measured at CANJ were all measured 2004
(ranging from 14.5 |ig/m3 to 52.5 |ig/m3).
• Prior to years including 2004 data, the rolling average and median concentrations
show a decreasing tend. Excluding the years that incorporate 2004 data, the averages
and medians still exhibit increases for the 2005-2007 and 2006-2008 time frames
from the 2001-2003 level.
Observations from Figure 19-24 for benzene measurements at CANJ include the
following:
• Sampling of VOC began in July 1994 and continued through October 2008. Short
gaps in sampling have occurred throughout the years and are denoted in Figure 19-24.
Sampling in 2008 did not meet the 85 percent method completeness objective, which
is also denoted in Figure 19-24.
• The maximum benzene concentration was measured in 1996 and was more than twice
the next highest maximum concentration (measured in 2008).
• Although the range of concentrations measured varies, a slight decreasing trend in the
average and median concentrations is evident beginning around the 1997-1999 time
frame and continuing through the last time frame.
Observations from Figure 19-25 for 1,3-butadiene measurements at CANJ include the
following:
• Sampling of VOC began in July 1994 and continued through October 2008. Short
gaps in sampling have occurred throughout the years and are denoted in Figure 19-25.
Sampling in 2008 did not meet the 85 percent method completeness objective, which
is also denoted in Figure 19-25.
• The highest concentration of 1,3-butadiene was measured in 1994. Similar
concentrations were measured in 2001 and 2002.
19-51
-------
• The average and median concentrations have fluctuated over the years of sampling.
The averages were lowest for the 2002-2004 and 2003-2005 time frames but
increased in the following periods. Overall, average concentrations appear to have
decreased slightly since the onset of sampling. The median shows a similar decrease.
• The average and median concentrations have become more similar to each other over
the most recent periods shown. This is likely due to the increased detection rate.
1,3-Butadiene's detection rate has increased over time as the MDL has improved and
results in less substitutions for non-detects.
Observations from Figure 19-26 for formaldehyde measurements at CANJ include the
following:
• Sampling of carbonyl compounds began in October 1995 and continued through
October 2008. The first three months of data were excluded from this analysis
because three months is not enough to be representative of the entire year. Short gaps
in sampling have occurred throughout the years and are denoted in Figure 19-26.
Sampling in 2008 did not meet the 85 percent method completeness objective, which
is also denoted in Figure 19-26.
• Similar to acetaldehyde, the maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured in
2004. The seven highest concentrations of formaldehyde since the onset of sampling
were measured in 2004, which explains the increasing difference in the central
tendency statistics (median and average concentrations) during the time periods
incorporating measurements from 2004. The average and median concentration were
similar again for the 2005-2007 and 2006-2008 time frames. This tendency is similar
to the acetaldehyde graph.
• A decreasing trend in the average concentrations is apparent until the 2002-2004 time
frame. Excluding the years that incorporate 2004 data, the averages did increase for
the 2005-2007 and 2006-2008 time frames from the 2001-2003 level.
Observations from Figure 19-27 for acetaldehyde measurements at CFDSTJ include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at CFDSTJ began in May 2001.
• Similar to CANJ, the maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2004.
The next two highest concentrations were measured in 2004 and 2005; excluding
these three concentrations, all other acetaldehyde concentrations measured at CHNJ
were less than 5 |ig/m3.
19-52
-------
• The rolling average and the median values were similar to each other for each time
period after 2004-2006. This indicates relatively little variability in the central
tendency of acetaldehyde concentrations measured at CHNJ over the periods shown.
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 19-27, a decreasing trend in the average and
median acetaldehyde concentrations is shown since the onset of sampling, although
both the median and average concentrations leveled out across the last two periods
shown.
Observations from Figure 19-28 for benzene measurements at CFDSTJ include the
following:
• Similar to carbonyl compounds, VOC sampling at CHNJ began in May 2001.
• The four highest benzene concentrations were measured in 2008 and 2009, although
no benzene measurement at CFDSTJ was greater than 2.5 |ig/m3.
• Similar to acetaldehyde, the average and median concentrations show a decreasing
trend that levels out over the last two 3-year periods.
Observations from Figure 19-29 for 1,3-butadiene measurements at CFDSTJ include the
following:
• VOC sampling at CHNJ began in May 2001.
• The maximum 1,3-butadiene concentration was measured in 2003 and was nearly
twice the next highest concentration, which was measured in 2008.
• The rolling average and median concentrations have an increasing trend through
2006-2008 and then decrease slightly for the final time frame.
• The minimum, 5th percentile, and median concentrations were all zero through the
2004-2006 time frame, indicating the presence of non-detects (at least 50 percent).
The number of non-detects reported has decreased through the years as the MDL has
improved, from as high as 97 percent in 2001 to as low as 17 percent in 2008.
Observations from Figure 19-30 for formaldehyde measurements at CHNJ include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at CHNJ began in May 2001.
• The statistical metrics presented on the formaldehyde graph for CHNJ are similar to
those on the acetaldehyde graph for CHNJ.
19-53
-------
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration shown was measured in 2004. This
concentration of formaldehyde was nearly four times the maximum concentrations
shown for other periods not including 2004. The second highest concentration was
also measured in 2004, but was nearly half the magnitude. These two maximum
concentrations were measured on the same days as the acetaldehyde maximum
concentrations.
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 19-30, a decreasing trend in the average
formaldehyde concentrations is shown for several periods, although the average
concentrations leveled out across the last two periods.
Observations from Figure 19-31 for acetaldehyde measurements at ELNJ include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at ELNJ began in January 2000. A 1-month period
when samples were not collected occurred in January 2003, as denoted in
Figure 19-31.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2007, although
concentrations of similar magnitude were also measured in 2005 and 2006.
• The rolling average and the median concentrations have steadily increased over the
period of sampling, although a decrease is apparent for the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009
time frames.
• The difference between the rolling average and the median values has increased since
the 2003-2005 period (but decreased slightly for the last 3-year period). The widening
difference between these statistical parameters indicates increasing variability in the
central tendency.
Observations from Figure 19-32 for benzene measurements at ELNJ include the
following:
• VOC sampling at ELNJ also began in January 2000. A 1-month period when samples
were not collected occurred in January 2003, as denoted in Figure 19-32.
• The maximum benzene concentration was measured in 2008 and was more than four
times higher than the next highest concentration (measured in 2009).
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 19-32, a decreasing trend in the rolling average
and median concentrations is shown across all time frames through 2005-2007. Even
with the higher concentrations measured in 2008 and 2009, the average
concentrations for the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 time frames were similar to the
19-54
-------
average concentration for the 2005-2007 time frame and the median concentration
continued its decreasing trends through these periods.
• The wider difference between the rolling average and the median concentrations for
the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 time frames illustrates the effects of outliers on the
average concentration.
Observations from Figure 19-33 for 1,3-butadiene measurements at ELNJ include the
following:
• VOC sampling at ELNJ began in January 2000. A 1-month period when samples
were not collected occurred in January 2003, as denoted in Figure 19-33.
• The maximum concentration of 1,3-butadiene was measured in 2009 and is nearly
two and a half times the next highest concentration (measured in 2001). These two
concentrations are the only measurements of 1,3-butadiene from ELNJ greater than
1 |ig/m3.
• The graph for 1,3-butadiene shows a decreasing trend in the earlier years of sampling,
then a leveling off of average concentrations. Even with the higher concentrations
measured in 2009, the average concentration for the 2007-2009 time frame was
similar to the average concentrations for the previous five 3-year periods. The median
concentrations show a similar pattern.
Observations from Figure 19-34 for formaldehyde measurements at ELNJ include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at ELNJ began in January 2000. A 1-month period
when samples were not collected occurred in January 2003, as denoted in
Figure 19-34.
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured in 2000.
• Similar to acetaldehyde, the rolling average and the median concentrations have
steadily increased over the period of sampling, although decreases are shown for the
2006-2008 and 2007-2009 time frames.
Observations from Figure 19-35 for acetaldehyde measurements at NBNJ include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at NBNJ began in May 2001.
19-55
-------
Similar to CANJ and CHNJ, the maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured
in 2004. This concentration of acetaldehyde (111.2 |ig/m3) was nearly seven times
higher, and an order of magnitude higher, than the next highest concentration
(16.19 |ig/m3 measured in 2005)
were measured in 2004 or 2005.
(16.19 |ig/m measured in 2005). Of the 29 concentrations greater than 8 |ig/m , 28
• Given the shear magnitude of the outlier, it is not surprising that the average
concentration appears to increase beginning with the inclusion of 2004 data then
decreases after.
Observations from Figure 19-36 for benzene measurements at NBNJ include the
following:
• VOC sampling at NBNJ also began in May 2001.
• The maximum benzene concentration was measured in 2002, but similar
concentrations were also measured in 2005 and 2009.
• The rolling averages and the median values were similar to each other for each time
period shown. This indicates relatively little variability in the central tendency.
• A decreasing trend in the average and median concentrations is shown across the
period of sampling, although the concentrations leveled out for the final time frame.
Observations from Figure 19-37 for 1,3-butadiene measurements at NBNJ include the
following:
• Sampling for VOC began in May 2001.
• The maximum concentration was measured in 2005.
• The average concentrations of 1,3-butadiene at NBNJ have fluctuated just slightly
over the years of sampling, ranging from 0.030 to 0.055 |ig/m3.
• The minimum, 5th percentile, and median concentrations were all zero through the
2004-2006 time frame, indicating the presence of non-detects (at least 50 percent).
The number of non-detects reported has decreased through the later years as the MDL
has improved, from as high as 93 percent in 2004 to as low as two percent in 2008.
Observations from Figure 19-38 for formaldehyde measurements at NBNJ include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at NBNJ began in May 2001.
19-56
-------
• The statistical metrics presented on the graph for formaldehyde are similar to those on
the graph for acetaldehyde.
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured on the same day in 2004
that the highest acetaldehyde concentration was measured. This concentration of
formaldehyde was more than four times the maximum concentrations shown for other
periods not including 2004. Note that concentrations around 20 |ig/m3 were measured
in 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2009.
• Given the shear magnitude of the outlier, it is not surprising that the rolling average
concentration appears to increase beginning with the 2002-2004 time frame then
decrease after the 2004-2006 time frame. The decrease from the 2005-2007 to the
2006-2008 time frame is fairly significant, although this is difficult to discern in
Figure 19-38. The rolling average concentration for the 2007-2009 period is similar to
the average concentration for the 2006-2008 period.
19.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each New
Jersey monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and explanations
regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with these risk
screenings.
19.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
New Jersey monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
for each site were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the
intermediate MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. The results of
this risk screening are summarized in Table 19-6. Where a quarterly or annual average exceeds
the applicable MRL, the concentration is bolded.
19-57
-------
Table 19-6. MRL Risk Screening Assessment Summary for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Year
Acute
ATSDR
Short
MRL1
(Hg/m3)
#of
Concentrations
>MRL
#of
Measured
Detections
Intermediate
ATSDR
Intermediate
MRL1
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Chronic
ATSDR
Chronic
MRL1
(Ug/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
Benzene
2008
2009
30
1
0
54
59
20
1.55
±0.58
2.28
±1.22
1.02
±0.23
1.34
±0.42
3.38
±4.92
0.76
±0.10
1.24
±0.28
1.06
±0.48
10
1.83
±1.23
1.36
±0.36
Bolded = a quarterly or annual average concentration is greater than one or more of the intermediate or chronic MRLs.
Reflects the use of one significant digit for MRL.
oo
-------
Observations from Table 19-6 include the following:
• Benzene was the only pollutant of interest (for ELNJ) where a preprocessed daily
measurement and/or time-period average was greater than one or more of the MRL
health risk benchmarks.
• One preprocessed daily measurement of benzene for ELNJ (out of 113 measured
detections) was greater than the acute MRL. This measurement was discussed in
Section 19.4.1 and is the only instance where a preprocessed daily measurement was
greater than the acute MRL for benzene among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant.
• None of the quarterly averages of benzene came close to the intermediate MRL;
neither annual average of benzene for ELNJ was greater than the chronic MRL.
For the pollutants whose concentrations were greater than their respective ATSDR acute
MRL noncancer health risk benchmark, the concentrations were further examined by developing
pollution roses for these pollutants. A pollution rose is a plot of concentration vs. wind speed and
wind direction, as described in Section 3.5.4.1. Figure 19-39 is the benzene pollution rose for
ELNJ.
Observations from Figure 19-39 for benzene include the following:
• The concentration that was greater than the ATSDR acute MRL for benzene at ELNJ
was measured on a day with winds blowing from the west (shown in orange). The
second highest concentration was also measured on a day with westerly winds.
Figure 19-7 shows that many emissions sources are located to the west of ELNJ.
• Most of the concentrations of benzene (those less than 5 |ig/m3 and shown in blue)
were measured on days with winds from a variety of wind directions. This suggests a
uniform emissions source such as mobile sources.
19-59
-------
Figure 19-39. Benzene Pollution Rose for ELNJ
360/0
315
2^0 {•
o
,'
1
I J-VJ
r tj-
\
\ e
07
o ;
P1
\
6.
£—pH---%hnj(®s5>
• i» i _ '. ™ \ ,*
45
22 kts
ATSDRMEL=30 fig in3, which
corresponds to the upper end of the
5 -30 fig in3 (or yellow)
concentration range
O >30 fig/ni3
-------
19.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the New Jersey monitoring sites and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 19-7, where applicable.
Observations from Table 19-7 include the following:
• Annual averages for 2008, and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations, could not be calculated for CANJ because this site did not meet the
85 percent method completeness criteria. In addition, sampling at this site concluded
in October 2008.
• For CHNJ, the pollutants with the highest annual averages were formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, and carbon tetrachloride (for both years). Formaldehyde had the highest
cancer risk approximations for this site for both years, followed by benzene and
carbon tetrachloride. The cancer risk approximations for formaldehyde were at least
an order of magnitude higher the approximations for the other pollutants of interest.
None of the pollutants of interest for CHNJ had noncancer risk approximations
greater than 1.0.
• For ELNJ, the pollutants with the highest annual averages were formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, and benzene (for both years). These three pollutants also had the
highest cancer risk approximations for this site for both years. The cancer risk
approximations for these pollutants were the highest calculated among the New
Jersey sites. None of the pollutants of interest for ELNJ had noncancer risk
approximations greater than 1.0.
• For NBNJ, the pollutants with the highest annual averages were formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride (although the order varied by year).
These four pollutants also had the highest cancer risk approximations for this site for
both years, although the 2009 cancer risk approximation for formaldehyde was
50 percent higher than the 2008 cancer risk approximation. None of the pollutants of
interest for NBNJ had noncancer risk approximations greater than 1.0.
19-61
-------
Table 19-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Risk Ap
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2.2E-06
7.8E-06
—
0.00003
6E-06
~
1.1E-05
2.5E-06
1.3E-05
5.9E-06
2E-06
8.8E-06
0.009
0.03
0.005
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
38/3
37/2
37/2
37/2
37/2
35/2
37/2
37/2
38/3
37/2
34/2
26/2
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
VO
to
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
* Completeness was less than 85 percent for Carbonyl compounds and VOC for CANJ in 2008.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
-------
Table 19-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Risk Ap
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2.2E-06
6.8E-05
7.8E-06
0.00003
6E-06
1.3E-05
5.9E-06
2E-06
8.8E-06
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
57/4
9/0
58/4
48/4
58/4
56/4
57/4
54/4
13/0
7/0
1.40
±0.14
NA
0.60
±0.10
0.03
±0.01
0.70
±0.06
0.12
±0.02
2.25
±0.31
0.15
±0.07
NA
NA
3.07
NA
4.64
0.99
4.18
29.27
0.88
NA
NA
0.16
NA
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.23
<0.01
NA
NA
60/4
28/2
61/4
46/4
61/4
61/4
60/4
52/4
10/0
9/0
1.34
±0.14
NA
0.56
±0.11
0.02
±0.01
0.72
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
2.43
±0.30
0.09
±0.02
NA
NA
2.95
NA
4.34
0.74
4.32
31.58
0.54
NA
NA
0.15
NA
0.02
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.25
<0.01
NA
NA
VO
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
* Completeness was less than 85 percent for Carbonyl compounds and VOC for CANJ in 2008.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
-------
Table 19-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Risk Ap
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2.2E-06
6.8E-05
7.8E-06
0.00003
6E-06
1.1E-05
2.5E-06
1.3E-05
5.9E-06
2E-06
8.8E-06
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
55/4
24/2
54/4
54/4
54/4
54/4
51/4
53/4
55/4
54/4
35/4
21/1
2.35
±0.26
NA
1.83
±1.23
0.15
±0.02
0.64
±0.05
0.18
±0.02
0.18
±0.04
0.87
±0.17
3.24
±0.39
0.35
±0.07
0.07
±0.02
NA
5.17
NA
14.28
4.48
3.83
1.93
2.16
42.14
2.08
0.13
NA
0.26
NA
0.06
0.07
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.33
<0.01
0.01
NA
61/4
23/1
59/4
59/4
59/4
58/4
56/4
59/4
61/4
58/4
43/4
22/2
2.47
±0.32
NA
1.36
±0.36
0.16
±0.09
0.67
±0.04
0.17
±0.02
0.11
±0.03
0.46
±0.14
3.80
±0.53
0.25
±0.04
0.08
±0.03
NA
5.43
NA
10.61
4.68
4.04
1.21
1.14
49.34
1.50
0.15
NA
0.27
NA
0.05
0.08
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.39
O.01
0.01
NA
VO
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
* Completeness was less than 85 percent for Carbonyl compounds and VOC for CANJ in 2008.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
-------
Table 19-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Risk Ap
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
proximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2.2E-06
6.8E-05
7.8E-06
0.00003
6E-06
1.1E-05
1.3E-05
5.9E-06
2E-06
8.8E-06
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
56/4
4/0
55/4
54/4
55/4
52/4
47/4
56/4
53/4
31/3
20/2
2.58
±0.48
NA
0.70
±0.08
0.06
±0.01
0.73
±0.05
0.17
±0.03
0.10
±0.03
1.47
±0.22
0.24
±0.07
0.07
±0.03
NA
5.68
NA
5.43
1.72
4.37
1.08
19.05
1.43
0.14
NA
0.29
NA
0.02
0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.15
0.01
O.01
NA
56/4
23/2
55/4
52/4
55/4
55/4
48/4
56/4
52/4
21/1
15/0
2.03
±0.25
NA
0.69
±0.13
0.05
±0.01
0.67
±0.05
0.15
±0.02
0.06
±0.01
2.57
±0.74
0.16
±0.03
NA
NA
4.47
NA
5.37
1.39
4.04
0.66
33.42
0.93
NA
NA
0.23
NA
0.02
0.02
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.26
0.01
NA
NA
VO
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
* Completeness was less than 85 percent for Carbonyl compounds and VOC for CANJ in 2008.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
-------
19.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 19-8 and 19-9 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 19-8 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 19-9
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are limited to
those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 19.3, all four
New Jersey monitoring sites sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds. In addition, the cancer
and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to
meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. The completeness criteria was not met by
CANJ for 2008 and sampling was not conducted in 2009; annual averages, and thus, cancer and
noncancer risk approximations, were not calculated for this site. A more in-depth discussion of
this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
19-66
-------
Table 19-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Camden, New Jersey (Camden County) - CANJ
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
243.28
137.08
54.82
48.03
38.54
37.46
36.95
27.05
19.07
3.43
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Arsenic, PM
1.90E-03
1.71E-03
1.12E-03
9.20E-04
2.75E-04
2.27E-04
2.10E-04
1.89E-04
1.48E-04
1.31E-04
Chester, New Jersey (Morris County) - CHNJ
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
366.55
187.29
101.88
62.55
53.03
34.55
32.41
30.12
17.84
6.59
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Arsenic, PM
2.86E-03
2.34E-03
1.59E-03
1.10E-03
4.61E-04
3.03E-04
2.24E-04
1.96E-04
1.78E-04
1.71E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
31.58
29.27
4.64
4.34
4.32
4.18
3.07
2.95
0.99
0.88
VO
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 19-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
VO
s
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Elizabeth, New Jersey (Union County) - ELNJ
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
H™"'' ;hloroethylene
269.38
132.55
81.85
77.83
41.52
39.68
38.31
30.32
19.80
4.52
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Nickel, PM
Arsenic, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
2.10E-03
1.66E-03
1.19E-03
1.03E-03
5.37E-04
3.52E-04
2.46E-04
2.45E-04
2.18E-04
1.86E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
49.34
42.14
14.28
10.61
5.43
5.17
4.68
4.48
4.04
3.83
New Brunswick, New Jersey (Middlesex County) - NBNJ
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
432.22
234.98
134.58
113.20
66.14
59.91
55.98
51.27
28.93
7.84
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
3.37E-03
2.94E-03
1.98E-03
1.74E-03
7.75E-04
3.53E-04
3.18E-04
2.96E-04
2.50E-04
2.39E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
33.42
19.05
5.68
5.43
5.37
4.47
4.37
4.04
1.72
1.43
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 19-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Camden, New Jersey (Camden County) - CANJ
Toluene
Methyl fer/-butyl ether
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Methanol
685.00
519.45
461.26
243.28
137.08
135.51
120.65
92.70
85.32
60.27
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Manganese, PM
Naphthalene
Benzene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
513,488.74
18,731.68
13,988.12
10,308.00
9,687.12
9,016.45
8,109.26
6,433.60
5,336.27
4,612.58
Chester, New Jersey (Morris County) - CHNJ
Toluene
Xylenes
Methyl fer/-butyl ether
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Acetaldehyde
912.78
644.82
385.58
366.55
187.29
128.70
128.31
116.06
109.08
101.88
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Nickel, PM
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Bromomethane
Xylenes
Cyanide Compounds, gas
632,121.64
26,515.07
19,111.72
12,733.85
12,218.32
11,319.68
10,801.68
9,638.01
6,448.25
5,943.86
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.25
0.23
0.16
0.15
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
VO
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 19-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Elizabeth, New Jersey (Union County) - ELNJ
Toluene
Xylenes
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Hexane
Benzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Dichloromethane
822.91
550.31
327.36
327.10
269.38
181.53
132.55
122.48
106.11
81.85
Acrolein
Nickel, PM
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
Naphthalene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
424,739.79
33,843.04
21,856.61
19,839.41
13,525.91
10,686.00
10,105.63
8,979.26
8,647.61
6,607.85
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.39
0.33
0.27
0.26
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.01
New Brunswick, New Jersey (Middlesex County) - NBNJ
Toluene
Xylenes
Methyl fer/-butyl ether
Benzene
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
1,333.00
872.97
525.26
432.22
241.23
234.98
227.56
177.07
170.65
134.58
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
Manganese, PM
Bromomethane
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Titanium tetrachloride
Nickel, PM
682,738.17
33,071.28
23,977.55
17,088.42
15,818.86
15,616.01
14,952.91
14,407.38
12,410.00
9,580.97
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.15
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 19-8 include the following:
• Benzene and formaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with cancer UREs in
Union, Middlesex, Morris, and Camden Counties, although the quantity varied across
the counties.
• Benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, naphthalene, and hexavalent chromium were
the pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for all four counties.
• Six of the 10 highest emitted pollutants in Union County also had the highest toxi city-
weighted emissions; seven of the highest emitted pollutants in Morris and Middlesex
Counties also had the highest toxi city-weighted emissions; and eight of the highest
emitted pollutants in Camden County also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene were among the pollutants with the
highest cancer risk approximations for CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ. These pollutants
also appeared on both emissions-based lists. Conversely, carbon tetrachloride
appeared on neither emissions-based list for these three New Jersey sites but appeared
among the pollutants with the highest cancer risk approximations for each site.
Observations from Table 19-9 include the following:
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer RfC in Camden, Union,
Middlesex, and Morris Counties, although the quantity varied. Toluene did not appear
on any county's list of highest toxicity-weighted emissions and was not a pollutant of
interest for any site.
• Acrolein was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with noncancer RfCs) for all four counties but was not among the highest
emitted pollutants for any of the New Jersey counties. Although acrolein was sampled
for at all four sites, this pollutant was excluded from the pollutant of interest
designation, and thus subsequent risk screening evaluations, due to questions about
the consistency and reliability of the measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Four of the 10 highest emitted pollutants for Morris County also had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions; three appeared on both emissions-based lists for
Camden and Middlesex Counties; and two appeared on both emissions-based lists for
Union County.
• Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were among the pollutants with the highest
noncancer risk approximations for CFtNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ (although all were less
than an HQ of 1.0). These pollutants also appeared among the pollutants with the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions for all counties. Formaldehyde was also one of
19-71
-------
the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer RfCs in all four counties. Acetaldehyde
was one of the highest emitted pollutants for Morris and Middlesex Counties, but not
Union or Camden Counties.
19.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Fourteen pollutants failed at least one screen for NBNJ, 15 pollutants failed at least
one screen for CANJ and CHNJ, and 17 failed screens for ELNJ.
»«» Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration for all four sites for both
years, with one exception. Acetaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration
in 2008 for the NBNJ, followed by formaldehyde.
»«» One individual concentration of benzene was greater than the acute MRL health risk
benchmark (for ELNJ). All of the quarterly and annual average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated, were below their associated
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
19-72
-------
20.0 Sites in New York
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS and CSATAM sites in New York, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
20.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the New York monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the locations of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The New York monitoring sites are located in New York City (BXNY), Rochester
(ROCH), and Tonawanda (TONY). Figures 20-1 through 20-3 are composite satellite images
retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their urban locations.
Figures 20-4 through 20-6 identify point source emissions locations by source category, as
reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the sites are
included in the facility counts provided below the maps in Figures 20-4 through 20-6. Thus,
sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to show
emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the
reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 20-1 describes the area
surrounding each monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
20-1
-------
Figure 20-1. New York City, New York (BXNY) Monitoring Site
to
o
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,492 feet
-------
Figure 20-2. Rochester, New York (ROCH) Monitoring Site
to
o
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,444 feet
-------
Figure 20-3. Tonawanda, New York (TONY) Monitoring Site
to
o
NX , ,-"- ' '
VV \
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,418 feet
-------
Figure 20-4. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of BXNY
p-"[ » *
:
Legend
T-T BXNY NATTS site 10 mile radius I I County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) V UanmePoti.:2i
•4* flaa*n Q|:«f aboi* FacifcBy (251
t Bahery2i
± Ccal Monufscturlrva Facility 11»
B Bulk TMminals,&ill< PlanU ifli
C Chemtal Manufftduring Facility 1251
1" DrpeaMng Operation 111
€ BoctiKal Equvmem Facility 111
I SectittXy Gen«rMien via Cflrntuslkn 122|
Uatt Due to dally density and cdocation Die total tadlfin
y not r
Cconneiaali'liwIusW*! Facility11,131
M Mscellmeouj Manutactuilng InduMnei Facility i H i
fl Paint Stnpplns Cpwalion (2)
9 Patrctaum Rclnery 111
Phamiaceutlcsl M»nufactunng F»c«y (4i
1 Primary Metal Piodudicn FaoaHy (2)
P PrlrHmg/PuOiWiiivo Facitty (20)
IB Pi* and Pap«f F»ar,iWooo Products Facility |T)
Bectroplalmg. Plating Po.jl.lng, Anockang and C*fing (30) R Rubber and Wscellaneoui Plastic* Ploducli FatiMy (31
© F*ncrt.dMtt«lPr«»KHFK*tyO» 2 Sscondsry Metal Pfoc*«mg FiciMy (Si
Fls^ns PolyiK«m»tve Foam Predurtori FaelHy HI it. SNp Buildngand RepaamgFKIBJT 11,
F Food Pr«*sslr^Agricul»ire Facility 14t .y. ^^^^ RK.jrwi.Dnfl Irtemal CorrtaHlcn Enn-ies F«Ulty 19»
G»PtaM44) g surface Coabng Facility |S>
ffl Hosf*olll7i ^ Tank Bailer/FlKify (4)
if HetMxAiphaltPlar«H3j j Tt»UeM«H2i
•*- klduilnal Mnchinei>- and Ei^Jipment FaciMy (2l l Vlfcdewaler Tre»lmeiil Facility |7>
^ Insticuiignal - Kftwl i l£i
• londllll ijt
20-5
-------
Figure 20-5. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of ROCH
meow
Legend
-A- ROCHNATTSsRe 10 mite radius _
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
+ Aircraft Operations Facility (6)
- Asphalt/Coal Tar Application • Metal Pipe Facility (1)
« Aulomobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility (3)
B Bulk Tern»nals«u!k Plants I.41
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (4)
tint .:.:vt
l(ot« Due
-------
Figure 20-6. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of TONY
Legend
•& TON YCSATAM site
10 mile radius
_ County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
- Abrasive Product Manufacturing Facility (2)
•(• Aircraft Operations Facility (12)
K Aulomobite/truck Manufacturing Facility (5)
£ Bakery (1)
B Bulk TecrnmalsJBulk Plants (5)
C CJiemical Manufacturing Fatality (15)
* Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Facility (2)
o Commercial Sterilization Facility {1)
* Concrete Batch Plant (2)
* Eectrtcrty Generation via Combustion (4)
"'->w .'r-uvvv
Mote Due W 1*cjlly denMy «td nKxMUin. the (ottl hdlMt
i (nay not refirrsenl al (ndlilKs-s y.ittwi live aieB o
E Etecttoplaling. Plalmg. Polishing. Anodalng. arri Cdonng (9)
A Grain Handling Facility (2)
CO Hosprtal (2)
4- industrial 'Machinery and Equipment Facility (1)
- Iron and Steel Foundry (1)
• Landfill (15)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility {14)
i Primary Metal Production Facility (4)
2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility (3)
V Steel M ill (1)
• Tire Manufacture Facility (1)
• Wastewater Treatment Facility (1)
W VJbodworN. Furniture. Miltwork & WDOd Preserving Facility (1)
20-7
-------
Table 20-1. Geographical Information for the New York Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
BXNY
ROCH
TONY
AQS Code
36-005-0110
36-055-1007
36-029-1013
Location
New York
Rochester
Tonawanda
County
Bronx
Monroe
Erie
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
New York-
Northern New
Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-PA
MSA
Rochester, NY
MSA
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY
Latitude
and
Longitude
40.81616,
-73.90207
43.146198,
-77.54813
42.988433,
-78.918589
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Industrial
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Urban/City
Center
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Haze, SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, O3, VOC, Carbonyl
compounds, Meteorological parameters, PM Coarse,
Black Carbon, PM10, PM10 Speciation, PM25, and
PM2 5 Speciation.
CO, SO2, VOC, Carbonyl compounds, O3,
Meteorological parameters, Black Carbon, PM10,
PM10 Speciation, PM25, and PM25 Speciation.
VOC, PM2 5, Carbonyl compounds, and PAMS.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
to
o
oo
-------
BXNY is located on the property of Public School 52 (PS 52) in the Bronx Borough of
New York City, northeast of Manhattan. The site was established in 1999 and is considered one
of the premier parti culate sampling sites in New York City. The surrounding area is urban and
residential, as shown in Figure 20-1. The Bruckner Expressway (1-278) is located a few blocks
east of the monitoring site and other heavily traveled roadways are located within a few miles of
the site. BXNY is less than 1/2 mile from the East River. As Figure 20-4 shows, numerous point
sources are located within 10 miles of the BXNY site. The bulk of the emissions sources are
located to the southwest of the site, with another cluster to the northwest. The source categories
with the highest number of emissions sources surrounding BXNY include electroplating, plating,
polishing, anodizing, and coloring; chemical manufacturing; aircraft operations, which include
airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads; and electricity generation via
combustion. The point source closest to BXNY is a wastewater treatment facility.
ROCH is located on the east side of Rochester, in western New York, at a power
substation. Rochester is approximately halfway between Syracuse and Buffalo, and Lake
Ontario lies to the north. Although the area north and west of the site is primarily residential, as
Figure 20-2 shows, a rail road transverses the area just south of the site, and 1-590 and 1-490
intersect farther south. The site is used by researchers from several universities for short-term
monitoring studies. As Figure 20-5 shows, point sources within a 10-mile radius of ROCH are
located primarily on the west side of the 10-mile radius. The source categories with the highest
number of emissions sources surrounding ROCH include landfills; electroplating, plating,
polishing, anodizing, and coloring; and aircraft operations. The source closest to ROCH is a hot
mix asphalt plant, less than 1/4 mile away.
TONY is located in Tonawanda, New York, north of Buffalo, along the eastern branch of
the Niagara River. The area is wedged between Lake Erie to the south and Lake Ontario to the
north, with the river flowing in-between the two. The monitoring site is located off Grand Island
Boulevard (324), which parallels 1-190, and is less than 1/2 mile from the 1-190 and 1-290
interchange. The surrounding area is industrial and the site itself resides under high power
transmission lines. There are 45 companies regulated by the state of New York within close
20-9
-------
proximity of this monitoring site (NYS DEC, 2009), including chemical manufacturers, bulk
terminals/plants, landfills, facilities generating electricity via combustion, a concrete batch plant,
an iron and steel foundry, and a steel mill. Figure 20-6 shows this cluster of point sources
immediately south and southwest of TONY. The source categories with the most numerous
sources within 10 miles of TONY include chemical manufacturing; landfills; aircraft operations;
and electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring. Note that any possible emissions
sources located in Canada are not provided in Figure 20-6.
Table 20-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the New
York monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 20-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population
data for the Bronx, Monroe, and Erie Counties were obtained from the New York State
Department of Motor Vehicles (NYS DMV, 2008) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau,
2010), respectively. Table 20-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio
(vehicles-per-person) for each site. In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is
presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level
vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring
site. Table 20-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the
traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 20-2 presents the
daily VMT for the New York City, Rochester, and Buffalo urban areas.
20-10
-------
Table 20-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the New York
Monitoring Sites
Site
BXNY
ROCH
TONY
Estimated
County
Population1
1,397,287
733,703
909,247
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
246,190
552,964
664,102
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.18
0.75
0.73
Population
Within 10
Miles3
6,531,354
636,955
611,359
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
1,150,769
480,049
446,529
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
100,230
105,038
74,406
VMT5
(thousands)
299,125
16,267
20,787
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the New York State DMV (NYS DMV, 2008).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average daily traffic reflects 2008 data from the New York State DOT (NYS DOT, 2008).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 20-2 include the following:
• Bronx County had the 10th highest county population but the highest 10-mile radius
population of all NMP sites.
• County-level vehicle ownership for Bronx County was in the mid to low range among
NMP sites. Although the 10-mile ownership estimate was among the highest for all
NMP sites, given the large population living within 10 miles, the vehicle-per-person
ratio is very low (0.18), which was the lowest vehicle-per-person ratio calculated.
This might seem surprising given the high population, but may be explained by the
use of mass transportation systems.
• The populations surrounding ROCH and TONY are lower than BXNY. However, the
county-level vehicle ownership is higher near these sites. The same is not true of the
10-mile ownership estimate.
• The population and vehicle ownership data for ROCH and TONY were in the middle
of the range compared to NMP other sites.
• The traffic volumes near ROCH and BXNY are fairly similar to each other and were
in the mid to upper end of the range among NMP monitoring sites. The traffic near
TONY is one-fourth less than the traffic for the other two sites. The traffic data for
BXNY were obtained from 1-278 between 1-87 and 1-895; the traffic data for ROCH
were obtained from 1-490 between Winston Road and 1-590; the traffic data for
TONY were obtained from 1-190 between Exit 16 and 17.
• The New York City area VMT was the highest among all urban areas with NMP
sites. By comparison, VMT for the Buffalo and Rochester urban areas were on the
mid to low end of the range.
20-11
-------
20.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in New York on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
20.2.1 Climate Summary
Weather is somewhat variable in New York City as frontal systems frequently affect the
area. Precipitation is spread fairly evenly throughout the year, with thunderstorms in the summer
and fall and more significant rain or snow events in the winter and spring. The proximity to the
Atlantic Ocean offers a moderating influence from cold outbreaks; the summer heat and the
urban heat island effect also tend to keep the city warmer than outlying areas and often results in
a relatively small diurnal range of temperatures. In addition, air sinking down from the
mountains to the west can help drive temperatures higher during warm spells (Bair, 1992).
Rochester is located in western New York and borders Lake Ontario's south side.
Elevation increases significantly from the shore to the southern-most parts of the city, rising over
800 feet. While the lake acts as a moderating influence on the city's temperatures, both in the
summer and the winter, it also plays a major factor in the city's precipitation patterns. Lake
effect snow enhances the area's snowfall totals, although snowfall rates tend to be higher near
Lake Ontario than farther inland. Spring and summer tend to be sunny while cloudy conditions
are prevalent in the fall and winter (Bair, 1992 and NOAA, 201 la).
Cloudy conditions prevail over the Buffalo area from late autumn through early spring,
and snowy conditions are common. Lake-effect snow events may to lead to heavy snowfall, with
heavier snowfalls to the south of Buffalo and closer to the shore than towards the Tonawanda
area. Lake-effect snows tend to diminish after Lake Erie freezes. Because Lake Erie is so cold
(and eventually frozen) during the winter, areas immediately near the shore may be much colder
than farther inland during the spring and summer. Due to the stabilizing effects of the Lake, the
Buffalo area experiences one of the sunniest and driest summers along the northeast coast. But
with the arrival of autumn, cooler air passes over the warmer Lake, increasing cloud cover.
Southwesterly winds prevail over the area, but winds off Lake Erie tend to be stronger than
20-12
-------
farther inland. Wind direction in Tonawanda can be altered by its proximity to the Niagara River.
Summer temperature extremes are tempered by the area's location between Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario (Bair, 1992 andNOAA, 201 Ib).
20.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from NWS weather stations nearest these sites were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather stations are located
at La Guardia International Airport (near BXNY), Greater Rochester International Airport (near
ROCH), and Niagara Falls International Airport (near TONY), WBAN 14732, 14768, and
04724, respectively. Additional information about these weather stations is provided in
Table 20-3. These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days
vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
Table 20-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 20-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter.
20-13
-------
Table 20-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the New York Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
New York City, New York - BXNY
La Guardia Airport
14732
(40.78, -73.88)
2.77
miles
144°
(SE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
63.3
±4.5
62.7
+ 1.8
63.7
±4.4
60.8
+ 1.8
56.7
±4.3
56.1
+ 1.7
57.2
±4.1
54.5
+ 1.7
40.9
±4.4
40.4
+ 1.8
43.6
±4.4
40.5
+ 1.9
49.1
±3.8
48.6
+ 1.5
50.6
±3.7
48.0
+ 1.6
58.5
±3.9
58.4
+ 1.4
63.6
±3.8
61.7
+ 1.5
1016.0
±2.1
1016.4
+ 0.8
1013.8
±2.2
1016.4
+ 0.8
8.7
±0.7
9.3
+ 0.3
9.0
±0.9
9.2
+ 0.4
Rochester, New York - ROCH
Greater Rochester
Intl Airport
14768
(43.12, -77.68)
6.44
miles
240°
(WSW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
57.1
±4.8
57.4
+ 2.0
55.1
±4.7
55.4
+ 1.9
49.1
±4.3
49.1
+ 1.8
47.9
±4.3
47.3
+ 1.8
38.0
±4.2
37.8
+ 1.8
38.6
±4.5
37.7
+ 1.9
43.9
±3.9
43.8
+ 1.7
43.7
±4.1
43.0
+ 1.7
68.2
±2.9
67.6
+ 1.0
73.3
±3.3
71.9
+ 1.2
1015.6
±1.9
1016.1
+ 0.8
1013.6
±2.4
1016.5
+ 0.8
7.6
±0.8
7.8
+ 0.3
7.7
±0.9
7.0
+ 0.3
Tonawanda, New York - TONY
Niagara Falls Intl
Airport
04724
(43.11, -78.95)
8.28
miles
341°
(NNW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
60.2
±6.9
56.0
+ 2.0
55.1
±4.9
55.6
+ 2.0
52.7
±6.2
47.9
+ 1.8
48.2
±4.5
47.8
+ 1.8
44.7
±6.0
39.0
+ 1.8
39.3
±4.5
38.3
+ 1.8
48.7
±5.7
43.7
+ 1.7
44.0
±4.2
43.4
+ 1.7
76.1
±2.9
73.5
+ 1.0
73.9
±3.2
72.1
+ 1.1
1016.5
±2.2
1016.3
+ 0.8
1014.0
±2.4
1016.7
+ 0.8
7.7
± 1.3
8.6
+ 0.4
8.6
± 1.0
7.9
+ 0.4
to
o
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
As shown in Table 20-3, average meteorological conditions on 2008 sample days near
BXNY were fairly representative of average weather conditions throughout that year, while
conditions on 2009 sample days appear slightly warmer and wetter than average conditions
throughout 2009. Several missed sample days from early in the year were made up in the month
of July, likely accounting for this difference. Average meteorological conditions on sample days
near ROCH were fairly representative of average weather conditions experienced throughout
each respective year. Average meteorological conditions on 2008 sample days near TONY
appear warmer than for the entire year. This site began sampling in July 2008; therefore, the
sample day averages do not incorporate conditions from some of the coldest months of the year,
which likely explains the differences shown in Table 20-3. Average meteorological conditions
on 2009 sample days near TONY were fairly representative of average weather conditions
throughout that year.
20.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 20-7 and Figure 20-8 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the BXNY monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 20-9
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red.
Figures 20-10 through 20-12 are the composite back trajectory and cluster analysis maps for days
on which samples were collected at the ROCH monitoring site and Figures 20-13 through 20-15
are the composite back trajectory and cluster analysis maps for days on which samples were
collected at the TONY monitoring site. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were
generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the
24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given
sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of
a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the sites in
Figures 20-7 through 20-15 represents 100 miles.
20-15
-------
Figure 20-7. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BXNY
Figure 20-8. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BXNY
20-16
-------
Figure 20-9. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for BXNY
Figure 20-10. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ROCH
20-17
-------
Figure 20-11. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ROCH
Figure 20-12. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for ROCH
20-18
-------
Figure 20-13. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TONY
Figure 20-14. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TONY
20-19
-------
Figure 20-15. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for TONY
I
BWtCUHt.
Observations from Figures 20-7 through 20-9 for BXNY include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at BXNY, although less
frequently from the east.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for BXNY was somewhat larger in size compared to
other NMP sites, as the farthest away a trajectory originated was nearly 775 miles to
the southwest, over southern Illinois. However, the average trajectory length was 235
miles and more than 85 percent of trajectories originated within 400 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis shows that trajectories often originated to the west, northwest,
northeast, and south of BXNY. Note that for 2008, there are three cluster trajectories
representing trajectories with a southerly component; a relatively short one to the
southeast (23 percent), a long one from due south (2 percent), and a medium-length
one to the southwest (15 percent). For 2009, the cluster analysis program grouped
these types of trajectories as one cluster trajectory (30 percent).
Observations from Figures 20-10 through 20-12 for ROCH include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at ROCH.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for ROCH was comparable in size to other NMP sites.
The farthest away a trajectory originated was south-central Kentucky, or nearly
20-20
-------
600 miles away. However, the average trajectory length was 255 miles and 84 percent
of trajectories originated within 400 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis shows that the bulk of trajectories originated to the southwest,
west, or northwest of the monitoring site. Note that the 2009 cluster trajectory
originating to the south of the site (32 percent) represents trajectories originating from
due south, south-southwest, and southwest. Similarly, the 2009 cluster trajectory
originating to the north of the site (31 percent) represents trajectories originating from
the northwest, due north, northeast.
Observations from Figures 20-13 through 20-15 for TONY include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at TONY, although less
frequently from the east.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for TONY was comparable in size to ROCH as well as
other NMP sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was over the southern tip
of James Bay, which divides the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, Canada, or just
greater than 600 miles away. However, the average trajectory length was 265 miles
and nearly 85 percent of trajectories originated within 400 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis shows that over 40 percent of trajectories originated to the
southwest, west, or northwest of TONY for each year. Trajectories also originated to
the south to southwest and north.
• Note that Figure 20-13 includes 2008 back trajectories from July to December 2008
only, based on the start date of the sampling effort, and thus the cluster analysis for
2008 includes sample day trajectories only from this period as well.
20.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the weather stations at the La Guardia International Airport (for
BXNY), Greater Rochester International Airport (for ROCH), and Niagara Falls International
Airport (for TONY) were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized
wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions
using "petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
Figure 20-16 presents five different wind roses for the BXNY monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
20-21
-------
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figures 20-17 and 20-18 present the five different wind roses for the ROCH
and TONY monitoring sites, respectively.
Observations from Figure 20-16 for BXNY include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from the southwest, northwest, and
northeast quadrants were frequently observed, while winds from the southeast
quadrant were rarely observed. Among these wind directions, northwesterly and
southerly winds were observed the most. Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for
less than six percent of the hourly measurements near BXNY, while the strongest
winds were most frequently observed with northwesterly winds.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar to the
historical wind patterns. Further, the sample day wind patterns for each year also
resemble those shown on the historical wind rose, indicating that conditions on
sample days were representative of those experienced over the entire year and
historically.
Observations from Figure 20-17 for ROCH include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from the south-southwest to west were
frequently observed, while winds from other directions were infrequently observed.
Calm winds were observed for less than 10 percent of the hourly measurements near
ROCH, while the strongest winds were most frequently observed with west-
southwesterly and westerly winds.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar to the
historical wind patterns for ROCH. In addition, the sample day wind patterns for each
year also resemble those shown on the historical wind rose, indicating that conditions
on sample days were representative of those experienced over the entire year and
historically.
20-22
-------
Figure 20-16. Wind Roses for the LaGuardia International Airport Weather Station near BXNY
•-'"" 'NORTH"----.
to
o
to
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 20-17. Wind Roses for the Greater Rochester International Airport Weather Station near ROCH
to
o
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 10.66%
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 20-18. Wind Roses for the Niagara Falls International Airport Weather Station near TONY
to
o
to
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 10.63%
2002 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
15%
12%
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 20-18 for TONY include the following:
• The wind patterns for TONY resemble the wind patterns for ROCH.
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from the south to southwest to west were
the most frequently observed wind directions. Calm winds account for approximately
10 percent of the hourly measurements near TONY. The strongest winds were most
frequently observed with southwesterly, west-southwesterly, and westerly winds,
those generally flowing off Lake Erie.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar to the
historical wind patterns for TONY. In addition, the sample day wind patterns for each
year also resemble the historical wind patterns, indicating that conditions on sample
days were representative of those experienced over the entire year and historically.
• The 2008 sample day wind rose mirrors the full-year and historical wind roses in
direction, but lacks the higher wind speed observations that the other wind roses have.
Recall the sampling at TONY did not begin until July 2008, thereby missing the
"windier" months of the year.
20.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the New York monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 20-4 presents the pollutants of interest of for the New York monitoring sites. The
pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens
for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of
interest are shaded and/or bolded. ROCH and BXNY sampled for hexavalent chromium and
PAH while TONY sampled only for PAH.
20-26
-------
Table 20-4. Risk Screening Results for the New York Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
New York City, New York - BXNY
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
0.029
0.00091
0.000083
Total
88
1
1
90
88
84
96
268
100.00
1.19
1.04
33.58
97.78
1.11
1.11
97.78
98.89
100.00
Rochester, New York - ROCH
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
0.029
0.000083
Total
55
1
56
87
39
126
63.22
2.56
44.44
98.21
1.79
98.21
100.00
Tonawanda, New York - TONY
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Indeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0.029
0.00091
0.0091
0.0091
Total
87
7
1
1
96
91
88
90
88
357
95.60
7.95
1.11
1.14
26.89
90.63
7.29
1.04
1.04
90.63
97.92
98.96
100.00
Observations from Table 20-4 include the following:
• All three NATTS MQO Core Analytes sampled for at BXNY failed screens.
Naphthalene was the only pollutant identified as a pollutant of interest for BXNY by
the risk screening process. Benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent chromium were added as
pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core analytes, even though they
did not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens.
• Naphthalene and hexavalent chromium failed screens for ROCH. Naphthalene was
the only pollutant identified as a pollutant of interest for ROCH by the risk screening
process. Hexavalent chromium was added as a pollutant of interest because it is a
NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not contribute to 95 percent of the
total failed screens. In addition, benzo(a)pyrene was added as a pollutant of interest
even though it did not fail any screens because it is also a NATTS MQO Core
Analyte; this pollutant is not shown in Table 20-4.
• Four PAH, of which two are the NATTS MQO Core Analytes for this method, failed
screens for TONY. Of the 32 NMP sites sampling PAH, only TONY had failed
screens for benzo(b)fluoranthene and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene. Napthalene and
benzo(a)pyrene were identified as pollutants of interest for TONY by the risk
screening process.
• Naphthalene failed the majority of screens for each New York monitoring site, as this
pollutant failed from 63 percent of screens (ROCH) to 100 percent of screens
(BXNY).
20-27
-------
20.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the New York monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each New York site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided
in Appendices J through O.
20.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each New York site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 20-5, where applicable. Note that
concentration averages have been converted to ng/m3 in Table 20-5 for ease of viewing.
20-28
-------
Table 20-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the New York
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
New York City, New York - BXNY
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.18
±0.08
0.03
±0.01
125.54
± 15.37
NR
0.03
±0.02
NR
NR
0.03
±0.01
NR
0.09
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
123.85
± 22.78
0.28
±0.15
0.01
±0.01
127.49
±22.50
NA
0.02
±0.01
NA
0.16
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
133.76
± 18.30
0.25
±0.11
NA
113.51
±26.41
0.10
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
118.14
± 29.06
0.08
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
138.37
±21.09
0.23
±0.09
0.02
±0.01
161.38
± 60.70
0.16
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
133.76
± 18.30
Rochester, New York - ROCH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.10
±0.02
0.02
±0.01
74.58
± 15.89
NR
NA
NR
NR
0.01
±<0.01
NR
0.04
±0.03
NA
95.26
±26.01
0.10
±0.03
NA
52.43
±9.69
NA
NA
NA
0.10
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
29.31
±8.23
0.14
±0.06
NA
50.41
± 12.97
0.06
±0.02
NA
51.63
± 18.40
NA
NA
9.46
±8.36
NA
NA
5.84
±6.96
NA
NA
29.31
±8.23
Tonawanda, New York - TONY
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.73
±0.75
555.95
±213.09
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.31
±0.20
639.67
± 348.69
1.10
±1.47
472.23
±268.35
NA
NA
0.25
±0.07
615.92
± 169.24
0.35
±0.16
971.01
±413.28
0.29
±0.17
524.81
± 287.68
0.23
±0.12
642.64
±430.12
0.11
±0.05
331.31
± 146.96
0.25
±0.07
615.92
± 169.24
to
o
to
VO
NR = Not reportable because samplin;
NA = Not available due to the criteria
g was not conducted dunng this time penod.
for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Observations from Table 20-5 include the following:
• The daily average concentration of naphthalene was significantly higher than the
daily averages of any of the other pollutants of interest for the New York sites.
• Because sampling for PAH at all three New York sites began in July 2008, first and
second quarter 2008 averages are not available for these pollutants. The calculation of
quarterly averages is also governed by the number of measured detections, which also
explains why some additional averages are not available.
• The daily average naphthalene concentration for TONY is significantly higher than
for BXNY and ROCH, as well as any other NMP site sampling PAH. The daily
average concentration of naphthalene for TONY is 555.95 ± 213.09 ng/m3 for 2008
and 615.92 ± 169.24 ng/m3 for 2009. The next highest daily average concentration
was 198.41 ± 30.00 ng/m3 for CELA (2009), as shown in Table 4-11. Of the nearly
50 measurements of naphthalene greater than 500 ng/m3 among NMP sites sampling
this pollutant, 39 of the concentrations were measured at TONY (and one at BXNY).
Further, there were 16 measurements of naphthalene at TONY greater than
1000 ng/m3. Although at least one of these concentrations was measured in every
quarter except the fourth quarter of 2009, the bulk of them were measured in the first
quarter of 2009 (six).
• TONY also had the highest daily average concentration of benzo(a)pyrene among
NMP sites (for 2008, as shown in Table 4-11), but the high confidence interval
indicates that this average is influenced by outliers. A review of the quarterly
averages reveals that outliers were measured during the fourth quarter of 2008. The
highest concentration at TONY was measured on October 27, 2008 (10.9 ng/m3) and
was nearly five times the next highest measured concentration (2.14 ng/m3 measured
on November 8, 2008). Of the five measurements of benzo(a)pyrene greater than
1.00 ng/m3, three of the concentrations were measured at TONY during the fourth
quarter of 2008 (with the others being the third quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of
2009).
• Naphthalene concentrations began to fall significantly after the first year of sampling
at ROCH, which can be seen in the third and fourth quarter averages of 2009. The
fourth quarter 2009 naphthalene average for ROCH was the lowest quarterly average
among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant and its third quarter 2009 average was
the fifth lowest among all sites.
20-30
-------
20.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. The New York monitoring sites have not sampled continuously for 5 years as part
of the NMP; therefore, the trends analysis was not conducted.
20.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each New
York monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and explanations
regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with these risk
screenings.
20.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
New York monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured
detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the New York
monitoring sites were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
20.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the New York monitoring sites and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 20-6, where applicable.
20-31
-------
Table 20-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the New York Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
jroximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
New York City, New York - BXNY
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
3.4E-05
0.0001
0.003
27/2
51/4
28/2
NA
0.02
±0.01
NA
NA
0.28
NA
NA
0.01
NA
57/4
45/3
60/4
0.16
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
133.76
± 18.30
0.16
0.21
4.55
0.01
0.04
Rochester, New York - ROCH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
3.4E-05
0.0001
0.003
21/2
26/1
29/2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28/2
13/0
58/4
NA
NA
29.31
±8.23
NA
NA
1.00
NA
NA
0.01
Tonawanda, New York - TONY
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.001
3.4E-05
0.003
29/2
30/2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
59/4
61/4
0.25
±0.07
615.92
± 169.24
0.25
20.94
0.21
to
o
to
NA = Not available due to the duration criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
-------
Observations for New York sites from Table 20-6 include the following:
• BXNY's hexavalent chromium was the only pollutant for which sampling was
conducted long enough and where enough quarterly averages were available to meet
the criteria for calculating an annual average for 2008.
• Based on BXNY's 2008 annual average hexavalent chromium concentration, the
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are well below the associated
levels of concern.
• Annual averages for all pollutants of interest are available for 2009 (except
hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene for ROCH).
• For all three sites, naphthalene was the pollutant with the highest cancer risk
approximation, ranging from 1.00 in-a-million for ROCH to 20.94 in-a-million for
TONY. The corresponding noncancer risk approximations were all well below an HQ
of 1.0.
20.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 20-7 and 20-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 20-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 20-8
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
20-33
-------
Table 20-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the New York Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
New York City, New York (Bronx County) - BXNY
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Vinyl chloride
304.07
279.60
134.46
120.05
108.33
75.97
66.70
34.07
23.90
7.73
Naphthalene
Benzene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Arsenic, PM
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Nickel, PM
2.58E-03
2.18E-03
1.91E-03
1.79E-03
1.50E-03
1.02E-03
4.33E-04
3.55E-04
2.63E-04
1.94E-04
Naphthalene 4.55
Hexavalent Chromium 0.28
Hexavalent Chromium 0.21
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16
Rochester, New York (Monroe County) - ROCH
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
630.25
361.37
210.83
149.59
96.61
81.28
76.62
59.07
37.88
13.28
Benzene
Naphthalene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Cadmium, PM
Nickel, PM
4.92E-03
2.76E-03
2.64E-03
2.30E-03
1.89E-03
1.62E-03
8.83E-04
3.56E-04
3.17E-04
2.56E-04
Naphthalene 1.00
to
o
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 20-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the New York Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Tonawanda, New York (Erie County) - TONY
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
804.96
305.32
207.93
156.31
148.44
103.88
98.48
75.60
29.81
17.24
Benzene
Coke Oven Emissions, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Acrylonitrile
6.28E-03
5.57E-03
4.44E-03
3.82E-03
3.35E-03
3.12E-03
1.23E-03
6.54E-04
6.48E-04
4.25E-04
Naphthalene 20.94
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.25
to
o
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 20-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the New York Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
New York City, New York (Bronx County) - BXNY
Toluene
Methanol
Xylenes
Hexane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Benzene
Ethylene glycol
Bromomethane
824.45
824.38
714.45
477.06
322.27
304.07
284.66
279.60
164.83
150.30
Acrolein
Bromomethane
Naphthalene
Nickel, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Formaldehyde
Manganese, PM
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
983,985.46
30,060.32
25,323.95
18,642.76
17,034.32
16,844.67
12,249.95
10,746.49
9,320.12
7,410.98
Naphthalene 0.04
Hexavalent Chromium O.01
Hexavalent Chromium O.01
Rochester, New York (Monroe County) - ROCH
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Hydrochloric acid
Hexane
Benzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Ethylene glycol
Dichloromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,818.36
1,248.51
773.87
730.92
674.48
630.25
523.39
418.74
361.37
307.38
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Hydrochloric acid
Naphthalene
Nickel, PM
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Bromomethane
Manganese, PM
Arsenic, PM
693,043.13
38,310.53
36,546.14
27,092.44
24,588.59
21,513.26
21,008.25
16,476.01
14,834.99
14,630.72
Naphthalene 0.01
to
o
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 20-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the New York Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Tonawanda, New York (Erie County) - TONY
Toluene
Xylenes
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Hexane
Methanol
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
2,347.29
1,394.12
861.51
804.96
788.98
700.54
346.48
334.82
305.32
276.34
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Hydrochloric acid
Nickel, PM
Naphthalene
Formaldehyde
Manganese, PM
Benzene
Bromomethane
Acetaldehyde
936,272.11
51,941.88
43,075.63
38,867.25
32,825.17
31,155.23
28,074.75
26,832.06
22,586.07
16,492.97
Naphthalene 0.21
to
o
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncaner surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 20.3,
all three New York sites sampled PAH; BXNY and ROCH also sampled hexavalent chromium.
In addition, the cancer and noncancer risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with
enough data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. Because sampling for PAH
did not begin at the New York sites until July 2008, cancer and noncancer risk approximations
for 2008 were not calculated.
Observations from Table 20-7 include the following:
• Tetrachloroethylene, benzene, dichloromethane, and formaldehyde were the highest
emitted pollutants with cancer UREs in all three New York counties, although not
necessarily in that order. The magnitudes of the emissions varied by county.
• Naphthalene, followed closely by benzene, was the pollutant with the highest
toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with cancer UREs) for Bronx County.
Benzene had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Monroe County, while
naphthalene ranked second highest. Benzene and coke oven emissions had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions for Erie County.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Bronx County; five of the highest emitted pollutants also had the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Monroe and Erie Counties.
• Naphthalene had the highest cancer risk approximation for all three New York sites
(2009), and appeared on both emissions-based lists. Hexavalent chromium, which
was the only pollutant with a cancer risk approximation for both years for BXNY,
was also the pollutant with the third highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Bronx
County.
• Emissions of POM Group 2 ranked among the 10 highest for toxi city emissions for
both Monroe and Erie Counties. POM Group 2 includes several PAH sampled for at
ROCH and TONY including acenaphthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for ROCH or TONY.
20-38
-------
Observations from Table 20-8 include the following:
• Methanol, xylenes, and toluene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in both Bronx and Monroe Counties, although not necessarily in that order;
toluene, xylenes, and hydrochloric acid were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Erie County.
• The pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) was acrolein for all three counties.
• Two to three of the highest emitted pollutants in Bronx, Monroe, and Erie Counties
were also among the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for each
county.
• Naphthalene, which had the highest (albeit low) noncancer risk approximations for all
three New York sites (2009), appeared among the pollutants with the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions, but was not among the highest emitted pollutants. Hexavalent
chromium, which was the only pollutant for which a noncancer risk approximation
could be calculated for both years for BXNY, was not on either emissions-based list
for Bronx County.
20.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the New York Monitoring Sites
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Three pollutants failed screens for BXNY, two failed screens for ROCH, and four
failed screens for TONY.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of interest, naphthalene had the highest daily average
concentration for each New York site. Further, TONY had the highest concentrations
of naphthalene among allNMP sites sampling PAH.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
20-39
-------
21.0 Site in Ohio
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the UATMP site in Ohio, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
21.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the COOH monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The COOH monitoring site is located in the Columbus, Ohio MSA. Figure 21-1 is a
composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its urban
location. Figure 21-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as reported
in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are included
in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 21-2. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile
radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources outside the
10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which
emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact
on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of
emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources within a given
distance of the site. Table 21-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site by providing
supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational
coordinates.
21-1
-------
Figure 21-1. Columbus, Ohio (COOH) Monitoring Site
to
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,488 feet
-------
Figure 21-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of COOH
•
. • ItiW , '.H. . -,',
tlot*: Dut to fftcilNy dwttit* »nd nftKWon. th* ictil fidlttt*
dspliyt>d may rol repritsena al fadli1ie« wJthm Ih-r a.'*a ol inl«rest
Legend
•& COOH UATMP site
10 mile radius
| County boundary1
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
•f Aircraft Operations Facility (22)
K Automobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility (6)
B Bulk T«imma isffiulk Plants (4)
C Chemical Manufactunng Facility (10)
# Cold Solvent CleaningfStripping Facility (1)
• Concrete Batch Plan! (!)
I Electricity Generation via Combustion (1)
E Electroplating. Pfating Polishing. Anodizing, and Coloring (2)
© Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
W Glass Manufacturing Facility (1)
A Grain Handling Facility (1)
tf Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (21
® Institutional, school (1)
"t I ron and St««l Fou ndry (3J
• Landfill (3)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (4)
P Printmgi'PuWishing Facility (2)
H Pulp a nd Paper Plant/Wood Products Facility (t)
2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility (4)
V Steel Mill (t)
S Surface Coating Facility (1)
21-3
-------
Table 21-1. Geographical Information for the Ohio Monitoring Site
Site
Code
COOH
AQS Code
39-049-0034
Location
Columbus
County
Franklin
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Columbus, OH
MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
40.0025,
-82.994444
Land Use
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Naphthalene, SO2, VOC, SNMOC, andPM25.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
to
-------
COOH sampled for a 1-year period beginning on December 20, 2007 and concluding on
December 26, 2008. The COOH monitoring site is located in the capital city of Columbus, in
central Ohio. The site is located on the property of the State Fairgrounds, as shown in
Figure 21-1. The surrounding area is mixed in usage. Figure 21-1 is divided roughly down the
middle by a railroad. The areas to the east of the tracks are commercial and areas to the west are
residential. Interstate-71 runs roughly parallel with the railroad, less than 1/2 mile east of the
fairgrounds, as shown on the right-hand side of Figure 21-1. As Figure 21-2 shows, COOH is
surrounded by a number of point sources, most of which are located within the southern half of
the 10-mile radius. The emissions source closest to COOH, which is approximately 1 mile to the
southeast, is involved in electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring. The source
category with the largest number of sources is the aircraft operations source category group,
which includes airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads. Several of these are
located within 2 miles of COOH and include a local news affiliate, a hospital, and a meeting
center.
Table 21-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the Ohio
monitoring site. Information provided in Table 21-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2008), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Franklin County were obtained from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (OH BMV, 2008) and
the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2009), respectively. Table 21-2 also includes a vehicle
registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition, the population within
10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by
applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitoring site. Table 21-2 also contains annual average daily traffic
information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was
obtained. Finally, Table 21-2 presents the daily VMT for the Columbus urban area.
21-5
-------
Table 21-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Ohio Monitoring
Site
Site
COOH
Estimated
County
Population1
1,129,067
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
1,101,479
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.98
Population
Within 10
Miles3
939,504
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
916,548
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
143,360
VMT5
(thousands)
30,553
Reference: Census Bureau, 2009.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Ohio BMV (OH BMV, 2008).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2006 data from the Ohio DOT (OH DOT, 2006).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
Observations from Table 21-2 include the following:
• COOH's county-level and 10-mile populations were in the top third compared to all
counties with NMP sites. This is also true for its county-level and 10-mile vehicle
ownership.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was just less than 1.0 and also in the top-third compared
to other NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near COOH ranked ninth when compared to other
monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from 1-71 at 17th Avenue.
• The Columbus area VMT was in the middle of the range among urban areas with
NMP sites.
21.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Ohio on sample days, as well as over the course of the study period.
21.2.1 Climate Summary
Columbus is located roughly in the center of Ohio, in the heart of the Ohio River Valley.
Frontal systems frequently move across the Ohio Valley, providing the area with variable
weather conditions. Cool air masses from the northwest often move across the area in winter,
while warmer air originating from the Gulf of Mexico is more common in the summer. The
metropolitan area tends to be warmer than outlying areas, typical of urban areas. With a rolling
topography and four rivers flowing roughly north to south through the city, morning fog
21-6
-------
associated with air drainage can occur, most often in the summer and fall. Rainfall is fairly
evenly distributed throughout the year (Bair, 1992).
21.2.2 Meteorological Conditions during the Study Period
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for December 2007 to December 2008 to correspond with the period of sampling (NCDC, 2007
and 2008). The closest NWS weather station is located at Port Columbus International Airport
(WBAN 14821). Additional information about this weather station is provided in Table 21-3.
These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from
normal conditions throughout the study period.
Table 21-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire study period. Also included in Table 21-3 is the
95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 21-3, average
meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout the study period.
21-7
-------
Table 21-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Ohio Monitoring Site
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Columbus, Ohio - COOH
Port Columbus
International
Airport
14821
(39.99, -82.88)
5.71
miles
90°
(E)
Dec
2007-
Dec
2008
Sample
Day
All Days
62.0
±4.7
61.6
+ 2.0
53.0
±4.4
52.9
+ 1.9
39.9
±4.1
40.0
+ 1.7
46.5
±3.9
46.5
+ 1.6
64.0
±2.7
64.5
+ 1.1
1016.8
±1.6
1016.9
+ 0.7
7.2
±0.9
7.0
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the study period averages.
to
oo
-------
21.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 21-3 is the composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were
collected at the Ohio monitoring site over the sample period from December 2007 to
December 2008 (note that 2007 sample day trajectories are shown in orange and 2008 sample
day trajectories are shown in blue). Figure 21-4 is the cluster analysis based on back trajectories
over the entire sample period. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were
generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite map, each line represents the
24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given
sample day. For the cluster analysis, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of
a given cluster of trajectories. For both maps, each concentric circle around the site in Figures
21-3 and 21-4 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 21-3 and 21-4 include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at COOH.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for COOH was comparable in size to other NMP
monitoring sites. The farthest away a back trajectory originated was central Iowa, or
nearly 600 miles away. However, the average trajectory length was 240 miles and
most trajectories originated within 400 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis shows that more than one-half of back traj ectories originated
from the southeast, south, and southwest of the site. This trajectory also includes a
few trajectories originating from other directions but a relatively short distance from
the site (recall that distance, as well as direction, is factored into the clusters).
Another 27 percent of trajectories originated from the southwest to northwest of the
site, and just over 20 percent originated from the northwest to northeast.
21-9
-------
Figure 21-3. 2007-2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for COOH
Figure 21-4. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for COOH
21-10
-------
21.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Port Columbus International Airport
near COOH were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind
roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using
"petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
Figure 21-5 presents three different wind roses for the Ohio monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose
representing wind observations for the entire December 2007 to December 2008 study period is
presented. Finally, a wind rose representing the days on which samples were collected is
presented. These can be used to determine if wind observations on sample days were
representative of conditions experienced over the entire study period.
Observations from Figure 21-5 for COOH include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that southerly, westerly and northerly winds were the
most frequently observed wind directions near COOH. Calm winds (<2 knots) were
observed for approximately 15 percent of the hourly wind measurements. The
strongest winds often had a westerly component.
• The wind patterns shown on the study period wind rose resemble those on the
historical wind rose, as do the wind patterns on the sample day wind rose, indicating
conditions on sample days were similar to conditions experienced during the entire
study period and historically.
21-11
-------
Figure 21-5. Wind Roses for the Port Columbus International Airport Weather Station near COOH
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
Sample Period
Wind Rose
Calm; 1-5 94%
Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 17.06%
-------
21.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the COOH monitoring site in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening
value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total
failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any
of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not meet the pollutant
of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to the list of
site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening process is
presented in Section 3.2.
Table 21-4 presents COOH's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the COOH monitoring site are
shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or
bolded. COOH sampled for carbonyl compounds only.
Table 21-4. Risk Screening Results for the Ohio Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Columbus, Ohio - COOH
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Propionaldehyde
0.45
0.077
0.8
Total
64
64
3
131
64
64
64
192
100.00
100.00
4.69
68.23
48.85
48.85
2.29
48.85
97.71
100.00
Observations from Table 21-4 include the following:
• Acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde are the only carbonyl compounds
with screening values and all three failed at least one screen for COOH.
• Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde contributed equally to COOH's total failed screens
and each failed 100 percent of their screens. Conversely, propionaldehyde failed only
three screens out of 64 (roughly five percent).
• The risk screening process identified acetaldehyde and formaldehyde as pollutants of
interest for COOH.
21-13
-------
21.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Ohio monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest for
the COOH monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided
in Appendices J through O.
21.4.1 2007-2008 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and study concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for COOH, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally, in
lieu of an annual average, the study average for a pollutant includes all measured detections and
substituted zeros for non-detects over the period of sampling. Study averages were calculated for
monitoring sites that sampled for a 1-year period that overlapped years, provided that at least
three valid quarterly averages could be calculated and method completeness was greater than or
equal to 85 percent. The study averages for COOH represent the sample period from December
2007 to December 2008. Daily, quarterly, and study averages are presented in Table 21-5, where
applicable.
Table 21-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Study Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of
Interest for the Ohio Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
Study
Average
(jig/m3)
Columbus, Ohio - COOH
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.53
±0.42
2.92
±0.32
3.50
± 1.07
2.50
±0.46
2.02
±0.59
3.07
±0.66
2.51
±0.70
3.87
±0.73
1.92
±0.75
2.34
±0.54
2.53
±0.42
2.92
±0.32
21-14
-------
Observations for COOH from Table 21-5 include the following:
• The daily average concentration of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are similar in
magnitude to each other.
• The daily and annual averages are the same for each pollutant because these
pollutants were detected in every sample collected at COOH.
• The first quarter 2008 acetaldehyde average is higher than the other quarterly
averages and has a relatively large confidence interval, indicating that this average
may be influenced by outliers. The two highest concentrations of acetaldehyde were
measured on December 20, 2007 and December 26, 2007, which were the first two
days of sampling at this site. The concentration measured on December 20, 2007 was
the fifth highest acetaldehyde concentration measured among NMP sites sampling
this pollutant.
• The daily average acetaldehyde concentration for COOH was the tenth highest
compared to other NMP sites. Conversely, COOH's daily average formaldehyde
concentration ranked 22nd.
21.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. COOH has not sampled continuously for 5 years as part of the NMP; therefore, the
trends analysis was not conducted.
21.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
COOH monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
21.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Ohio monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available. As
described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
21-15
-------
acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and the study
averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the Ohio monitoring site were higher than
their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
21.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Ohio monitoring site and where study average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for study
averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated). Study
averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 21-6, where applicable.
Table 21-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Ohio
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
#of
Measured
Detections
# of Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Study
Average
(Ug/m3)
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Noncancer
Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Columbus, Ohio - COOH
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.0000022
0.000013
0.009
0.0098
64
64
4
4
2.53
±0.42
2.92
±0.32
5.56
37.90
0.28
0.30
Observations for COOH from Table 21-6 include the following:
• Of the two carbonyl compound pollutants of interest, the cancer risk approximation
for formaldehyde (37.90 in-a-million) was an order of magnitude higher than the
cancer risk approximation for acetaldehyde (5.56 in-a-million).
• Neither pollutant had a noncancer surrogate risk approximation greater than the level
of concern (an HQ greater than or equal to 1.0).
21.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 21-7 and 21-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 21-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the
21-16
-------
10 pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the study averages.
Table 21-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from study averages.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on COOH's study averages are
limited to those pollutants for which the site sampled. As discussed in Section 21.3, COOH
sampled for carbonyl compounds only. In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for study
averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 21-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene were the highest emitted pollutants
with cancer UREs in Franklin County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) were benzene, hexavalent chromium, and formaldehyde.
• Seven the highest emitted pollutants also have the highest toxi city-weighted
emissions for Franklin County.
• Formaldehyde, which was the pollutant with a highest cancer risk approximation for
COOH, appears on both emissions-based lists. While acetaldehyde was one of the
highest emitted pollutants, it did not have one of the 10 highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
21-17
-------
Table 21-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Ohio Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Study Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Columbus, Ohio (Franklin County) - COOH
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Ethylene oxide
653.22
298.73
178.33
145.14
143.63
86.95
82.73
58.32
15.85
9.23
Benzene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylene oxide
Arsenic, PM
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
POM, Group 2
5.10E-03
4.39E-03
3.73E-03
2.48E-03
1.98E-03
1.05E-03
8.12E-04
3.58E-04
3.48E-04
3.40E-04
Formaldehyde 37.90
Acetaldehyde 5.56
oo
1 These cancer risk approximations are based on the study averages.
-------
Table 21-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Ohio Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Study Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Columbus, Ohio (Franklin County) - COOH
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
2,691.52
1,826.70
733.47
653.22
421.23
376.78
370.11
350.11
298.73
227.20
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Manganese, PM
Nickel, PM
Benzene
Naphthalene
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Chlorine
873,996.75
41,364.62
30,482.90
28,800.88
22,400.46
21,773.89
19,438.74
18,266.98
15,959.09
10,018.76
Formaldehyde 0.30
Acetaldehyde 0.28
to
VO
These noncancer risk approximations are based on the study averages.
-------
Observations from Table 21-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and methanol were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Franklin County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.
• Three of the highest emitted pollutants (benzene, xylenes, and formaldehyde) in
Franklin County also have the highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Formaldehyde, which had the highest noncancer risk approximation (albeit low),
appears on both emissions-based lists. While acetaldehyde had one of the 10 highest
toxicity-weighted emissions, it was not one of the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs.
21.6 Summary of the 2007-2008 Monitoring Data for COOH
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde failed screens for COOH.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or study
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest were higher than any of their
associated MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
21-20
-------
22.0 Sites in Oklahoma
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the UATMP sites in Oklahoma, and integrates these concentrations
with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG
are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer
back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented
below.
22.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Oklahoma monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
Three Oklahoma sites (TOOK, TSOK, and TUOK) are located in the Tulsa, OK MSA.
Another site, CNEP, is located south of Pry or Creek, Oklahoma and within the boundaries of the
Cherokee Nation. The TSOK site moved from Tulsa to Pryor Creek in mid-2008, and was
renamed PROK. The TUOK site moved to a new Tulsa location in April 2009 and was renamed
TMOK. The data from each of these sites are viewed separately and examined individually.
There are also two sites in the Oklahoma City, OK MSA that began sampling in May 2009. One
site is located in Oklahoma City (OCOK) and another is located just outside Oklahoma City in
Midwest City (MWOK).
Figures 22-1 through 22-8 are composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth
showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural locations. Figures 22-9 through 22-11
identify point source emissions locations by source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for
point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of each site are included in the facility
counts provided below the maps in Figures 22-9 through 22-11. Thus, sources outside the
10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to show emissions sources
outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of
which emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate
22-1
-------
impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this boundary provides both the
proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the quantity of such sources
within a given distance of the sites. Table 22-1 describes the area surrounding each monitoring
site by providing supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and
locational coordinates.
TOOK is located in West Tulsa, on the southwest side of the Arkansas River. The site is
located in the parking lot of the Public Works building. The surrounding area is primarily
industrial. As shown in Figure 22-1, an oil refinery is located just south of the site. Another
refinery is located to the northwest of the site. The monitoring site is positioned between the
Arkansas River and 1-244, which runs parallel to Southwest Boulevard. A rail yard is located on
the opposite side of 1-244.
TSOK is located in central Tulsa, north of Exit 6 on 1-244 and west of US-75. The site is
located on the property of Oklahoma State University's Tulsa campus, as shown in Figure 22-2.
B.S. Roberts Park is located to the north of the site and a railroad switching station is located
close the monitoring site. Much of the surrounding area is residential, although downtown Tulsa
is just on the other side of 1-244.
TUOK is located just on the other side of the Arkansas River from TOOK, south of
downtown Tulsa. The site is located just 50 feet south of the US-64/US-75/Highway 51
interchange, as shown in Figure 22-3. Although commercial areas are located immediately to the
west, the surrounding areas are primarily residential.
The monitoring instruments at TUOK were moved to the TMOK location at the end of
March 2009. TMOK is located in north Tulsa on the property of Fire Station Number 24. As
shown in Figure 22-4, the intersection of Peoria Avenue (Highway 11) and East 36th Street North
lies just to the northeast of the site. The surrounding areas are primarily residential, with heavily
wooded areas to the east.
22-2
-------
Figure 22-1. Tulsa, Oklahoma (TOOK) Monitoring Site
to
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,853 feet
-------
Figure 22-2. Tulsa, Oklahoma (TSOK) Monitoring Site
to
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,858 feet
-------
Figure 22-3. Tulsa, Oklahoma (TUOK) Monitoring Site
to
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,800 feet
-------
Figure 22-4. Tulsa, Oklahoma (TMOK) Monitoring Site
to
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,794 feet
-------
Figure 22-5. Cherokee Heights, Pryor Creek, Oklahoma (CNEP) Monitoring Site
to
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,605 feet
-------
Figure 22-6. Pryor Creek, Oklahoma (PROK) Monitoring Site
to
to
oo
XVI
hs
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,058 feet
-------
Figure 22-7. Midwest City, Oklahoma (MWOK) Monitoring Site
to
to
r~ i
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,511 feet
-------
Figure 22-8. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (OCOK) Monitoring Site
to
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,706 feet
-------
Figure 22-9. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of TMOK, TOOK, TSOK and
TUOK
.>...•-
N<*K Due to *»c*y demey and oollociljon live trial bctttie:
Legend
it TMOK UATMPiate j&] TSOK UATMP SJie
it- TOOK UATMP site ^ T UOK UAT UP Site |
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
tff Aerospace.'Aircraft Manufacturing Facility <7|
Aircraft Operatio-ns Faciity (IS)
Airport Support Operation (1)
AutonwsbilerTrutk, Manufacturing Faciirty (2)
Brick Manufacturing & SUuCtural Clay Faculty (1)
Bulk Termmabp'Bulh Plants < 11
Cltemicaf Manufactuing Facility (7)
Electrcit1^ Generatkjn via Combustton {3)
Electroplating. Plsttng. PoKshing. Anodning. »nd Coloring (19)
Glass Manrfactuing FaclHy (2)
Hot Mi* Aspnalt Plant <1)
Industrial Machinery and Equipment FaclMy (2)
10 mile radius
County boundary
1 Iran and Steel Foundry (4)
• Landfill (6)
41
T
H
I
C
I
E
M M«cell3in«ou» Manulactuiing Industrie Facility (22)
a Petroleum Refinery (2)
1 Pipehne Compressor Stain n f 1 )
~ Portland Cement Manularturrng FacUty ( 1)
1 Primary Metal Production Fadfcty ( 1 )
2 Secondary Metal Procstiing Facilfy (10)
V Steel Mill (1(
T T*xtll*MII(1)
W Wexxhwtk, Fuinltute, M IINwrk S Wood Preserving Facil«jr ( 1 )
22-11
-------
Figure 22-10. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of CNEP and PROK
WTJHTW
{•splayed may nol represeni al taciMkn wittw lh« or*n ol interest
Legend
-.';• CNEP UATMP site
if PROK UATMP site
10 mile radius
| _ County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
+ Aircraft Operations Facility (6)
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (3)
1 Electricity Generation via Combustion (3)
F Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (2)
: Iron and Steel Foundry (2)
7 Portland Cement Manufacturing Facility (1)
B Pulp and Paper FlanbVUbod Products Facility (2)
22-12
-------
Figure 22-11. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of MWOK and OCOK
•-•-.•
Legend
Note. Duo lo dcMy d«rady mil cdlocalion IN* ton! faaMies
in* «rn af «tf»r«i
MWOK UATMP site
OCOK UATMP site
10 mile radnjs
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Aefospace/Aircraft Maruilacturmg Facility (1)
4> Aircraft Operations Facility (19)
M Automotiile/Truek Manufacturing Facility (3)
Bakery (1)
Brick Manufacturing 5 Structural Clay Facility (2)
Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants ( 1 )
Chemical Manufacturing Facility (5)
Concrete Batch Plant (1 )
$
r-i
B
C
* Bectncrty Generation via Combustton ( 1 )
E Bectroplatong, Plating. Poftshinfl- Anodizing, and Coloring (12)
F Food ProcesSHigWpriculture Facility (2)
Gas Plant (1)
" Landfill (3)
.-' Lumber/sawmill (1)
M Miscellaneous Manutadurinft Industries Facility (7)
• Oil and/or Gas Production (3)
t Pipeline Compressor Station (1 )
p Prirf mjPublteWng Fadly (1)
R Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products Facility (1)
2 Secondary Melal Processing Facility (3)
s Surface Coating Facility ( 1 )
22-13
-------
Table 22-1. Geographical Information for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
TOOK
TSOK
TUOK
TMOK
CNEP
PROK
MWOK
OCOK
AQS Code
40-143-0235
40-143-0172
40-143-0191
40-143-1127
40-097-9014
40-097-0187
40-109-0041
40-109-1037
Location
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Pryor
Creek
Pryor
Creek
Midwest
City
Oklahoma
City
County
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Mayes
Mayes
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Tulsa, OK
Tulsa, OK
Tulsa, OK
Tulsa, OK
Not in an MSA
Not in an MSA
Oklahoma City,
OK MSA
Oklahoma City,
OK MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
36.126945,
-95.998941
36.164435,
-95.985204
36.141697,
-95.983793
36.204902,
-95.976537
36.228408,
-95.249943
36.292941,
-95.303409
35.437641,
-97.387254
35.614131,
-97.475083
Land Use
Industrial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Agricultural
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Suburban
Urban/City
Center
Urban/City
Center
Rural
Suburban
Urban/City
Center
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
SO2 and H2S.
None.
CO and PM10.
CO, SO2, NOy, NO, NO2, NOx, O3, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, PM Coarse, PM25, and PM25
Speciation.
SO2, NOy, NO, NO2, NOx, O3, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, and PM2 5.
None.
None.
SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, O3, Meteorological parameters,
PMio, PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation.
to
to
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS,
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
-------
Figure 22-9 shows that the four Tulsa sites are located within a few miles of each other,
with the TMOK site the farthest out. Most of the emissions sources are located along a line
running northeast-southwest across Tulsa County. The source categories with the highest number
of sources surrounding the Tulsa sites the aircraft operations source category, which includes
airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads; the electroplating, plating,
polishing, anodizing, and coloring source category; and the secondary metal processing source
category.
The CNEP monitoring site was established by the Cherokee Nation Environmental
Program in the tribal community of Cherokee Heights, about halfway between the towns of
Pry or Creek and Locust Grove, in northeastern Oklahoma. Due to the rural nature of the area, the
satellite image is zoomed farther out than the satellite images for the Tulsa sites. Figure 22-5
shows the streets of the Cherokee Heights neighborhood, which backs up to a branch of the
Grand River from Lake Hudson. The immediate area is rural and agricultural, although an
industrial park is located to the west of the community, part of which can be seen on the left-
hand side of Figure 22-5.
PROK is located on the eastern edge of the town of Pry or Creek, on the property of Pry or
Creek High School, approximately 5 miles northwest of the CNEP monitoring site. Residential
areas are located to the northwest, west, and south of the site, while agricultural areas are located
to the east, as shown in Figure 22-6. The monitoring site is located due north (and downwind) of
the aforementioned industrial park.
Figure 22-10 shows that fewer point sources are located within 10 miles of CNEP and
PROK. A cluster of sources is located just west and northwest of CNEP and southeast of PROK.
The emissions sources surrounding these sites are involved in a variety of processes, including
source categories such as aircraft operations; pulp and paper production; chemical
manufacturing; food processing; and electricity generation via combustion.
The MWOK monitoring site is located in Midwest City, southeast of Oklahoma City. The
site is located in a commercial area on Midwest Boulevard just north of 1-40. This site is located
22-15
-------
at a school enrollment center just north of Tinker Air Force Base, the northern portion of which
can be seen just south of 1-40 in Figure 22-7. Residential areas are located to the northwest,
north, and northeast.
OCOK is located in northern Oklahoma City, on the property of Oklahoma Christian
University of Science and Arts. The site is located in the northwest corner of the University, near
the athletic fields. The areas surrounding the university are primarily residential. Heavily
traveled roadways such as 1-35 to the east and 1-44 to the south are within a few miles of the site,
although outside the boundaries of Figure 22-8.
Figure 22-11 shows that MWOK and OCOK are approximately 13 miles apart and that
most of the point sources located within 10 miles of them are located between the sites in the
center of Oklahoma City (south of OCOK and west and northwest of MWOK). The source
categories with the highest number of sources surrounding the two sites include the aircraft
operations source category; the electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring source
category; and the chemical manufacturing source category. The source closest to OCOK is an
automobile/truck manufacturing facility; the source closest to MWOK is an aerospace/aircraft
manufacturing facility.
Table 22-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the
Oklahoma monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 22-2 represents the most recent year
of sampling (2008 for TSOK, 2009 for all other sites), unless otherwise indicated. County-level
vehicle registration and population data for Tulsa, Mayes, and Oklahoma Counties were obtained
from the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OKTC, 2008 and 2009) and the U.S. Census Bureau
(Census Bureau, 2009 and 2010), respectively. Table 22-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-
county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site. In addition, the population within 10
miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by
applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population
surrounding each monitoring site. Table 22-2 also contains annual average daily traffic
information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was
22-16
-------
obtained. Finally, Table 22-2 presents the daily VMT for the Tulsa and Oklahoma City urban
areas (VMT was not available for the sites near Pryor Creek).
Table 22-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites
Site
TOOK
TSOK
TUOK
TMOK
CNEP
PROK
MWOK
OCOK
Estimated
County
Population1
601,961
591,982
601,961
601,961
40,065
40,065
716,704
716,704
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
520,938
511,990
520,938
520,938
30,023
30,023
685,765
685,765
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.87
0.85
0.87
0.87
0.75
0.75
0.96
0.96
Population
Within 10
Miles3
446,016
337,331
447,932
321,574
29,152
29,152
345,291
330,027
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
385,983
288,342
387,641
278,291
21,845
21,845
330,385
315,780
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
62,400
62,100
46,000
11,900
4,600
18,400
59,165
61,500
VMT5
(thousands)
20,208
20,208
20,208
20,208
NA
NA
30,576
30,576
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2009 and 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 and 2009 data from the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OKTC, 2008
and 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2008 data from the OK DOT (OK DOT, 2008).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
NA = Data unavailable.
Observations from Table 22-2 include the following:
• The Mayes County population is significantly lower than the Tulsa County and
Oklahoma County populations. This is also true of the 10-mile populations.
Compared to other NMP monitoring sites, the Tulsa and Oklahoma City populations
were in the middle of the range, while Pryor Creek's populations were on the low
end.
• The Mayes County vehicle registration is also significantly lower than vehicle
registration for Tulsa and Oklahoma Counties. Similar observations can be made for
the 10-mile vehicle registration estimates. These observations are expected given the
rural nature of the area surrounding CNEP and PROK compared to the urban location
of the Tulsa and Oklahoma City sites. Compared to other NMP monitoring sites, the
ownership estimates followed a similar pattern as the populations.
• The average daily traffic volume passing the CNEP site is the lowest among the
Oklahoma monitoring sites, while the traffic passing by TOOK is the highest.
• VMT for the Oklahoma City area is more than the VMT for the Tulsa area (30 vs. 20
million miles, respectively). The Oklahoma City VMT is in the middle of the range,
while the Tulsa VMT is in the bottom third compared to other urban areas with NMP
22-17
-------
sites. For comparison purposes, VMT for the New York City area is 300 million
miles. VMT was not available for the Pryor Creek area.
22.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Oklahoma on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
22.2.1 Climate Summary
Tulsa is located in northeast Oklahoma, just southeast of the Osage Indian Reservation,
and along the Arkansas River. Pryor Creek is also in northeast Oklahoma, approximately
30 miles east of Tulsa. Oklahoma City is located in the center of the state. These areas are
characterized by a continental climate, with very warm summers and cool winters. Precipitation
is generally concentrated in the spring and summer months, with spring as the wettest season,
although precipitation amounts generally decrease across the state from east to west. Spring and
summer precipitation usually results from showers and thunderstorms, while fall and winter
precipitation accompanies frontal systems. A southerly wind prevails for much of the year,
bringing warm, moist air northward from the Gulf of Mexico. Oklahoma is part of "Tornado
Alley", where severe thunderstorms capable of producing strong winds, hail, and tornadoes
occur more frequently; tornadoes are more prevalent here than any other region in the U.S. (Bair,
1992; NCDC, 2011; and NOAA, 20lie).
22.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from NWS weather stations nearest these sites were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The two closest NWS weather stations to the
Tulsa sites are located at Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport (near TOOK and TUOK) and Tulsa
International Airport (near TSOK and TMOK), WBAN 53908 and 13968, respectively. The
closest NWS weather station to the Pryor Creek sites is located at Claremore Regional Airport,
WBAN 53940. The two closest NWS weather stations to the Oklahoma City sites are located at
Tinker Air Force Base Airport (near MWOK) and Wiley Post Airport (near OCOK), WBAN
13919 and 03954, respectively. Additional information about these weather stations is provided
in Table 22-3. These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days
vary from normal conditions throughout the years.
22-18
-------
Table 22-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TOOK
Richard Lloyd
Jones Jr.
Airport
53908
(36.04, -95.98)
6.11
miles
173°
(S)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
72.4
±4.4
71.3
+ 1.8
69.7
±4.4
70.5
+ 1.8
61.5
±4.4
60.0
+ 1.8
59.0
±4.3
60.0
+ 1.8
47.6
±4.6
46.6
+ 1.9
45.3
±4.8
46.7
+ 1.8
54.1
±4.0
53.0
+ 1.7
52.1
±4.0
53.0
+ 1.6
63.7
±2.7
64.6
+ 1.2
64.2
±3.3
65.1
+ 1.3
1016.1
±1.8
1016.8
+ 0.7
1016.6
±1.5
1016.7
+ 0.7
7.2
±0.8
6.3
+ 0.3
5.1
±0.6
5.5
+ 0.3
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TSOK
Tulsa
International
Airport
13968
(36.20, -95.89)
5.72
miles
66°
(ENE)
2008
Sample
day
All 2008
73.4
±5.6
70.9
+ 1.8
63.9
±5.5
60.5
+ 1.8
49.9
±5.5
46.5
+ 1.9
56.1
±4.9
53.2
+ 1.7
63.5
±3.5
63.1
+ 1.3
1014.8
±2.1
1015.7
+ 0.7
9.6
±1.2
8.7
+ 0.4
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TUOK
Richard Lloyd
Jones Jr.
Airport
53908
(36.04, -95.98)
7.08
miles
180°
(S)
2008
2009
Sample
day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
71.1
±4.5
71.3
+ 1.8
57.5
±5.5
70.5
+ 1.8
60.1
±4.4
60.0
+ 1.8
45.4
±5.3
60.0
+ 1.8
46.2
±4.6
46.6
+ 1.9
27.7
±6.4
46.7
+ 1.8
52.9
±4.0
53.0
+ 1.7
38.2
±4.9
53.0
+ 1.6
63.6
±2.8
64.6
+ 1.2
53.3
±5.7
65.1
+ 1.3
1016.1
±1.9
1016.8
+ 0.7
1018.0
±3.6
1016.7
+ 0.7
7.2
±0.8
6.3
+ 0.3
6.0
±1.3
5.5
+ 0.3
to
to
NA = Sea level pressure was not recorded at the Claremore Regional Airport.
-------
Table 22-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TMOK
Tulsa
International
Airport
13968
(36.20, -95.89)
4.80
miles
96°
(E)
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
75.1
±5.1
69.9
+ 1.9
65.7
±5.0
60.2
+ 1.8
52.1
±4.9
46.2
+ 1.8
57.9
±4.4
52.9
+ 1.6
64.7
±3.8
63.2
+ 1.3
1014.7
±1.7
1015.6
±0.7
7.7
±1.0
8.2
+ 0.4
Cherokee Heights, Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - CNEP
Claremore
Regional
Airport
53940
(36.29, -95.47)
12.35
miles
291°
(WNW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
50.1
±9.2
68.9
+ 1.8
63.0
±6.5
68.9
+ 1.9
40.6
±7.9
57.9
+ 1.8
50.7
±6.6
58.0
+ 1.8
28.1
±7.7
47.3
+ 2.0
37.1
±7.9
47.4
+ 1.9
35.8
±7.2
52.7
+ 1.8
44.7
±6.5
52.5
+ 1.7
64.6
±6.5
70.8
+ 1.3
62.9
±5.5
71.2
+ 1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.2
±1.4
7.3
+ 0.4
7.4
±1.7
6.9
+ 0.4
Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - PROK
Claremore
Regional
Airport
53940
(36.29, -95.47)
8.67
miles
270°
(W)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
62.3
±7.0
68.9
+ 1.8
70.6
±4.3
68.9
+ 1.9
49.6
±6.3
57.9
+ 1.8
59.7
±4.3
58.0
+ 1.8
37.6
±8.5
47.3
+ 2.0
48.5
±4.6
47.4
+ 1.9
44.3
±6.7
52.7
+ 1.8
53.8
±4.0
52.5
+ 1.7
66.3
±7.8
70.8
+ 1.3
69.9
±3.1
71.2
+ 1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.6
±3.0
7.3
+ 0.4
6.7
±0.7
6.9
+ 0.4
to
to
to
NA = Sea level pressure was not recorded at the Claremore Regional Airport.
-------
Table 22-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Midwest City, Oklahoma - MWOK
Tinker
AFB/Airport
13919
(35.42, -97.39)
1.56
miles
178°
(S)
inno
zuuy
Sample
Day
All Year
72.8
±6.2
70.0
+ 1.8
62.7
±5.7
59.5
+ 1.8
51.2
±5.5
46.9
+ 1.8
56.2
±5.0
52.9
+ 1.6
69.7
±4.6
66.9
+ 1.7
1016.3
±1.8
1015.6
±0.7
8.3
±0.8
9.8
+ 0.4
Oklahoma City - OCOK
Wiley Post
Airport
03954
(35.53, -97.65)
10.69
miles
240°
(WSW)
OflflQ
Sample
Day
All Year
74.5
±6.0
70.7
+ 1.9
64.5
±5.7
60.3
+ 1.8
51.0
±5.2
45.6
+ 1.8
56.7
±4.8
52.5
+ 1.6
64.9
±3.9
62.2
+ 1.5
1015.5
±1.7
1015.4
±0.7
9.0
±1.1
10.3
+ 0.4
to
to
to
NA = Sea level pressure was not recorded at the Claremore Regional Airport.
-------
Table 22-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year according to when each site was sampling. Also
included in Table 22-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter.
Observations from Table 22-3 include the following:
• For TOOK, conditions on sample days in both years were representative of average
weather conditions throughout 2008 and 2009.
• For TSOK, conditions on sample days in 2008 appear warmer than conditions across
2009. TSOK discontinued sampling in September 2008, thus missing some of the
cooler months of the year.
• For TUOK, conditions on 2008 sample days were representative of average weather
conditions throughout 2008. Conditions on sample days in 2009 appear considerably
cooler and drier than conditions across 2009. This site discontinued sampling in
March 2009, thereby missing the warmer and wetter months of the year.
• For TMOK, conditions on sample days in 2009 appear warmer than conditions across
2009. This site began sampling in April 2009, thus missing the coldest months of the
year.
• For CNEP, conditions on sample days in both 2008 and 2009 appear cooler and drier
than conditions overall in 2008 or 2009. This is likely due to an abbreviated sample
period. CNEP sampled VOC from January through March 2008 and TSP metals from
January to May 2009 as part of separate monitoring efforts at the same location.
• For PROK, conditions on sample days in 2008 appear cooler and drier than
conditions across 2008. This site began sampling in October 2008, thereby missing
the warmest and wettest months of the year. Although sampling at PROK continued
throughout 2009, conditions on 2009 sample days also appear slightly warmer than
average weather conditions throughout 2009. Several invalid samples were made up
in June, July, and August 2009, thereby increasing the number of summer sample
days.
• For MWOK and OCOK, conditions on sample days in 2009 appear warmer than
conditions across 2009 for both sites. These sites began sampling in May 2009, thus
missing the coldest months of the year.
22-22
-------
22.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 22-12 and Figure 22-13 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the TOOK monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Figure 22-14 is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in
red. Figures 22-15 through 22-30 are the composite back trajectory and cluster analysis maps for
the remaining Oklahoma sites, where applicable. A cluster analysis could not be conducted for
all sites for all years because there were fewer than 30 sample days for certain sites. An in-depth
description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the
composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled
toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds
to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric
circle around the sites in Figures 22-12 through 22-30 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 22-12 through 22-30 include the following:
• The back trajectory maps for the Tulsa sites, the Pry or Creek sites, and the Oklahoma
City sites are similar to each other in trajectory distribution. This is somewhat
expected, given their relatively close proximity to each other and the similarity in
sample days, although not all sites sampled on the same days over the 2-year period.
• Each of the sites show a strong tendency for trajectories to originate from the south-
southeast to south-southwest of the sites, and from the northwest to northeast of the
sites. A few trajectories also originated from the east to southeast, but they
infrequently originated from the west.
• For the Tulsa and Pry or Creek sites, the farthest away a trajectory originated was
western or central South Dakota, or between 650 and 750 miles away. However, the
average trajectory length for these sites ranged from 250 to 300 miles.
• For the Oklahoma City sites, the farthest away a trajectory originated was central
South Dakota, or approximately 600 miles away. However, the average trajectory
length for these sites was just less than 250 miles.
22-23
-------
Figure 22-12. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TOOK
Figure 22-13. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TOOK
22-24
-------
Figure 22-14. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for TOOK
Figure 22-15. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TSOK
22-25
-------
Figure 22-16. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for TSOK
Figure 22-17. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TUOK
22-26
-------
Figure 22-18. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TUOK
Figure 22-19. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for TUOK
22-27
-------
Figure 22-20. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TMOK
Figure 22-21. 2009 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for TMOK
22-28
-------
Figure 22-22. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CNEP
Figure 22-23. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CNEP
22-29
-------
Figure 22-24. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PROK
Figure 22-25. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PROK
22-30
-------
Figure 22-26. 2009 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for PROK
Figure 22-27. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MWOK
22-31
-------
Figure 22-28. 2009 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for MWOK
L
I
Figure 22-29. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for OCOK
22-32
-------
Figure 22-30. 2009 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for OCOK
22.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at Richard Lloyd Jones Junior Airport
(for TOOK and TUOK), Tulsa International Airport (for TSOK and TMOK), Claremore
Regional Airport (for CNEP and PROK), Wiley Post Airport (for OCOK), and Tinker Air Force
Base (for MWOK) were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized
wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions
using "petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
Figure 22-31 presents five different wind roses for the TOOK monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1998 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
22-33
-------
over the entire year. Figures 22-32 through 22-39 present the different wind roses for the
remaining Oklahoma monitoring sites. Please note that because several of the monitoring sites
sampled in 2008 only or 2009 only, there may be less than five wind roses presented for a given
monitoring site.
Observations from Figures 22-31 through 22-39 include the following:
• Even though the historical data shown are from five different weather stations and
represent slightly different time periods, the wind patterns shown on wind roses for
the Oklahoma sites are similar to each other. Each of the historical wind roses shows
that southerly winds prevailed near each Oklahoma monitoring site, accounting for
one-fifth to one-third of the observations among the historical time periods. The
historical wind roses varied in the percentage of calm winds (<2 knots) observed,
ranging from as little as six percent at the Wiley Post Airport (OCOK) to as high as
32 percent at the Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport (TOOK, TUOK). Further, calm
winds, winds from the south-southeast through south-southwest, and winds from the
north-northwest to north-northeast account for almost all observations at these sites;
winds from the west or east are rarely observed.
• For TOOK, the 2008 and 2009 wind patterns are very similar to the historical wind
patterns, as are the sample day wind patterns for both years. This indicates that
conditions on sample days were representative of those experienced over the entire
year for both years and historically.
• Although TSOK stopped sampling in September 2008, both its 2008 full-year and
2008 sample day wind roses exhibit wind patterns similar to the historical wind
patterns for the Tulsa International Airport over the period shown.
• For TUOK, the 2008 and 2009 wind patterns are very similar to the historical wind
patterns, as are the 2008 sample day wind patterns. Although TUOK stopped
sampling in March 2009, its 2009 sample day wind rose still exhibits similarities in
wind patterns to the historical and full-year wind roses.
• For TMOK, the wind patterns shown on both the 2009 full-year and the 2009 sample
day wind roses resemble the historical wind patterns, although there is a slightly
higher percentage of southeasterly and south-southeasterly winds observed in 2009
than over the historical period, and a slightly higher percentage of northwesterly to
north-northwesterly winds observed on sample days in 2009. Note that sampling
began at TMOK in April 2009, thus missing sample days during the first quarter.
22-34
-------
Figure 22-31. Wind Roses for the Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport Weather Station near TOOK
i "~\ 24%
I "~'-N 13%
12%
<• B% '; ': ': :
' \ '. EAST!
•-'"" 'NORTH----.
30%
"~\ 24%
18%
12%
to
to
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
IZl 4-7
Calms: 27.69%
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
• .22
IZl 4-7
Calms: 24.47%
_--!-,_ *', 30%
24%
,'"" i ""^ 16%
1 2%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
-••-,.___ ISQLJTH--'-
1998 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
• 2- 4
Calms: 29.81%
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 22-32. Wind Roses for the Tulsa International Airport Weather Station near TSOK
to
to
jNORTH"---.,
1997 - 2007
Calms: 11.57%
Historical Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
• .22
2008 Wind Rose
7- 11
4.7
IZl 4-7
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 22-33. Wind Roses for the Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport Weather Station near TUOK
i "~\ 24%
I "~'-N 13%
12%
<• B% '; ': ': :
' \ '. EAST!
•-'"" 'NORTH----.
30%
"~\ 24%
18%
12%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
IZl
2008 Wind Rose
12%
-r ! •--»---- :-
Calms: 27.69%
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
• .22
Calms: 25.24%
1998 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
I I -22
2009 Wind Rose
Calm; igsi%
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 22-34. Wind Roses for the Tulsa International Airport Weather Station near TMOK
25%
"~\ 20%
15%
d%
1997 - 2007
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
Calms: 11.57%
oo
Historical Wind Rose
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
^--,____ [SOUTH,---
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 22-35. Wind Roses for the Claremore Regional Airport Weather Station near CNEP
K)
•-'"" 'NORTH----.
i "~\ 20%
| "~'-N 15%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
IZl
2008 Wind Rose
Calms: 13.49%
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
• .22
IZl 4-7
2003 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
Calms: 16.69%
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms 21 32'H.
-------
Figure 22-36. Wind Roses for the Claremore Regional Airport Weather Station near PROK
•-'"" 'NORTH----.
to
to
2008 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
Calms: 13.49%
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
• .22
IZl 4-7
'WEST f •
2003 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
IZl -22
^| 17-21
^| 11 - 17
HI 1-7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 15.97%
2009 Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
Calms: 16.69%
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
VJIND SPEED
(Knots)
• .22
IZl 4-7
Calms: 16.51%
-------
Figure 22-37. Wind Roses for the Tinker Air Force Base Airport Weather Station near MWOK
2006 - 2007
to
to
Historical Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots J
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
to
to
to
Figure 22-38. Wind Roses for the Wiley Post Airport Weather Station near OCOK
••'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
^--,____ [SOUTH,---'
2009 Wind Rose
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
WIND SPEED
(Knols)
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
• The historical wind roses for CNEP and PROK show that winds from the south-
southeast to south-southwest account for approximately 40 percent of wind
observations near these sites. Winds from the north to northeast account for nearly
20 percent of observations, as do calm winds. The 2008 wind patterns resemble those
shown on the historical wind rose. The 2009 wind rose shows that south-southeasterly
and southerly winds accounted for roughly the same percentage of observations
(approximately 12 percent each), a more even distribution than the historical wind
rose.
• For CNEP, the 2008 sample day wind rose shares characteristics with the full-year
wind rose, although there were more wind observations from the west-northwest to
north-northwest, fewer south-southeasterly winds, and fewer calm winds on sample
days. CNEP sampled from January to March 2008; thus, wind patterns for a full-
year's worth of wind observations on sample days would likely look different. The
2009 sample day wind patterns have several differences from the full-year wind
patterns. In 2009, CNEP sampled from January to May 2009 and wind patterns for a
full-year's worth of wind observations on sample days would likely look different.
• For PROK, the 2008 sample day wind rose shows a significantly higher percentage of
southerly winds than the full-year wind rose. PROK began sampling in October 2008;
thus, wind patterns for a full-year's worth of wind observations on sample days would
likely look different. The 2009 sample day wind patterns are very similar to the full-
year wind patterns, indicating that conditions on sample days were representative of
conditions experienced throughout the year.
• For MWOK, the historical wind rose includes only two years worth of data. The 2009
wind patterns resemble the historical wind patterns, although there were slightly
fewer south-southwesterly wind observations and more northwesterly to north-
northwesterly winds observations. The 2009 sample day wind rose resembles the
historical and 2009 full-year wind rose, but like the full-year wind rose, has more
northwesterly to north-northwesterly winds observations and fewer southerly and
south-south westerly wind observations. Similar to OCOK, sampling at MWOK began
in May 2009.
• For OCOK, the wind patterns shown on the 2009 wind rose are similar to the
historical wind patterns. The 2009 sample day wind rose for OCOK is also similar to
these wind roses, although the calm rate is higher, and the percentage of southerly
winds decreased while the percentage of northerly winds increased somewhat. Recall
that sampling at OCOK began in May 2009, thereby missing the first four and a half
months worth of sample days.
22-43
-------
22.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Oklahoma monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 22-4 presents the pollutants of interest for each Oklahoma monitoring site. The
pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens
for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of
interest are shaded and/or bolded. The four Tulsa sites, PROK, OCOK, and MWOK sampled for
VOC, carbonyl compounds, and metals (TSP); CNEP sampled for VOC in for the first quarter of
2008 and metals in the first half of 2009.
22-44
-------
Table 22-4. Risk Screening Results for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TOOK
Arsenic (TSP)
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Manganese (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
Propionaldehyde
Cadmium (TSP)
Lead (TSP)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Xylenes
Cobalt (TSP)
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Trichloroethylene
0.00023
0.45
0.077
0.005
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.091
0.4
0.17
0.015
0.8
0.00056
0.015
0.038
2.1
10
0.01
0.045
0.5
Total
119
118
118
118
117
115
80
60
47
31
10
8
7
7
6
2
2
1
1
1
968
121
118
118
121
117
117
114
110
117
111
10
118
121
121
6
117
117
121
1
33
1,929
98.35
100.00
100.00
97.52
100.00
98.29
70.18
54.55
40.17
27.93
100.00
6.78
5.79
5.79
100.00
1.71
1.71
0.83
100.00
3.03
50.18
12.29
12.19
12.19
12.19
12.09
11.88
8.26
6.20
4.86
3.20
1.03
0.83
0.72
0.72
0.62
0.21
0.21
0.10
0.10
0.10
12.29
24.48
36.67
48.86
60.95
72.83
81.10
87.29
92.15
95.35
96.38
97.21
97.93
98.66
99.28
99.48
99.69
99.79
99.90
100.00
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TSOK
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Manganese (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (TSP)
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Propionaldehyde
0.45
0.13
0.077
0.005
0.17
0.00023
0.033
0.091
0.4
0.17
0.015
0.038
0.8
Total
41
41
41
40
39
38
20
11
5
5
4
1
1
287
41
41
41
42
40
41
39
37
41
35
5
1
41
445
100.00
100.00
100.00
95.24
97.50
92.68
51.28
29.73
12.20
14.29
80.00
100.00
2.44
64.49
14.29
14.29
14.29
13.94
13.59
13.24
6.97
3.83
1.74
1.74
1.39
0.35
0.35
14.29
28.57
42.86
56.79
70.38
83.62
90.59
94.43
96.17
97.91
99.30
99.65
100.00
22-45
-------
Table 22-4. Risk Screening Results for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TUOK
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Manganese (TSP)
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Cadmium (TSP)
Cobalt (TSP)
Propionaldehyde
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Lead (TSP)
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.45
0.077
0.00023
0.13
0.17
0.005
0.033
0.17
0.091
0.4
0.015
0.00056
0.01
0.8
0.038
0.015
0.017
Total
72
72
71
70
69
68
55
36
21
13
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
562
72
72
72
70
69
72
68
66
62
70
6
72
72
72
1
72
1
989
100.00
100.00
98.61
100.00
100.00
94.44
80.88
54.55
33.87
18.57
100.00
2.78
2.78
2.78
100.00
1.39
100.00
56.83
12.81
12.81
12.63
12.46
12.28
12.10
9.79
6.41
3.74
2.31
1.07
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.18
0.18
0.18
12.81
25.62
38.26
50.71
62.99
75.09
84.88
91.28
95.02
97.33
98.40
98.75
99.11
99.47
99.64
99.82
100.00
Tulsa, Oklahoma -TMOK
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (TSP)
Arsenic (TSP)
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Ethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Propionaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Cadmium (TSP)
Chloromethylbenzene
Dichloromethane
Nickel (TSP)
0.45
0.13
0.17
0.077
0.005
0.00023
0.033
0.091
0.015
0.4
0.038
0.8
0.17
0.00056
0.02
2.1
0.009
Total
44
44
44
44
43
38
37
28
16
12
o
J
o
J
3
2
1
1
1
364
45
44
44
45
45
45
44
44
16
44
o
J
44
37
45
1
44
45
635
97.78
100.00
100.00
97.78
95.56
84.44
84.09
63.64
100.00
27.27
100.00
6.82
8.11
4.44
100.00
2.27
2.22
57.32
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.09
11.81
10.44
10.16
7.69
4.40
3.30
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.55
0.27
0.27
0.27
12.09
24.18
36.26
48.35
60.16
70.60
80.77
88.46
92.86
96.15
96.98
97.80
98.63
99.18
99.45
99.73
100.00
22-46
-------
Table 22-4. Risk Screening Results for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Cherokee Heights, Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - CNEP
Arsenic (TSP)
Manganese (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
0.00023
0.005
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.4
Total
21
20
14
14
3
1
73
22
22
14
14
11
14
97
95.45
90.91
100.00
100.00
27.27
7.14
75.26
28.77
27.40
19.18
19.18
4.11
1.37
28.77
56.16
75.34
94.52
98.63
100.00
Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - PROK
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Acet aldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Manganese (TSP)
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Propionaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
0.13
0.17
0.077
0.45
0.00023
0.005
0.033
0.091
0.015
0.038
2.1
0.4
0.8
0.17
Total
73
73
60
59
58
53
25
22
14
4
2
1
1
1
446
73
73
60
60
70
70
66
66
14
4
73
73
60
34
796
100.00
100.00
100.00
98.33
82.86
75.71
37.88
33.33
100.00
100.00
2.74
1.37
1.67
2.94
56.03
16.37
16.37
13.45
13.23
13.00
11.88
5.61
4.93
3.14
0.90
0.45
0.22
0.22
0.22
16.37
32.74
46.19
59.42
72.42
84.30
89.91
94.84
97.98
98.88
99.33
99.55
99.78
100.00
Midwest City, Oklahoma - MWOK
Acet aldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Manganese (TSP)
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Acrylonitrile
Ethylbenzene
0.45
0.13
0.17
0.077
0.00023
0.033
0.091
0.005
0.17
0.038
0.015
0.4
Total
39
39
39
39
29
25
25
23
9
3
2
1
273
39
39
39
39
37
35
38
38
33
3
2
39
381
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
78.38
71.43
65.79
60.53
27.27
100.00
100.00
2.56
71.65
14.29
14.29
14.29
14.29
10.62
9.16
9.16
8.42
3.30
1.10
0.73
0.37
14.29
28.57
42.86
57.14
67.77
76.92
86.08
94.51
97.80
98.90
99.63
100.00
22-47
-------
Table 22-4. Risk Screening Results for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - OCOK
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (TSP)
Manganese (TSP)
£>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
0.45
0.077
0.13
0.17
0.00023
0.005
0.091
0.033
0.015
0.038
0.17
2.1
0.4
Total
39
39
37
36
31
28
14
13
7
4
2
1
1
252
39
39
37
37
38
38
34
35
7
4
23
37
37
405
100.00
100.00
100.00
97.30
81.58
73.68
41.18
37.14
100.00
100.00
8.70
2.70
2.70
62.22
15.48
15.48
14.68
14.29
12.30
11.11
5.56
5.16
2.78
1.59
0.79
0.40
0.40
15.48
30.95
45.63
59.92
72.22
83.33
88.89
94.05
96.83
98.41
99.21
99.60
100.00
Observations from Table 22-4 include the following:
• Twenty pollutants failed at least one screen for TOOK; 13 pollutants failed screens
for TSOK; 17 pollutants failed at least one screen for TUOK; 17 pollutants failed
screens for TMOK; 6 pollutants failed at least one screen for CNEP; 14 pollutants
failed screens for PROK; 12 pollutants failed screens for MWOK; and 13 pollutants
failed screens for OCOK.
• The risk screening process identified 10 pollutants of interest for TOOK, of which
eight are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Cadmium, lead, and trichloroethylene were
added to TOOK's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens.
Four additional pollutants (beryllium, chloroform, lead, and vinyl chloride) were
added to TOOK's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. These four pollutants do not
appear in Table 22-4.
• The risk screening process identified 10 pollutants of interest for TSOK, of which
eight are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Seven additional pollutants (three VOC and
four metals) were added to TSOK's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. These additional
pollutants do not appear in Table 22-4.
• The risk screening process identified nine pollutants of interest for TUOK, of which
eight are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Cadmium and lead were added to TUOK's
pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though
22-48
-------
they did not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens. Five additional
pollutants (beryllium, chloroform, nickel, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) were
added to TUOK's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. These five pollutants do not
appear in Table 22-4.
• The risk screening process identified 10 pollutants of interest for TMOK, of which
seven are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Cadmium, nickel, and tetrachloroethylene
were added to TMOK's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens.
Five additional pollutants (beryllium, chloroform, lead, trichloroethylene, and vinyl
chloride) were added to TMOK's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. These five pollutants
do not appear in Table 22-4.
• The risk screening process identified five pollutants of interest for CNEP, of which all
are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. An additional four VOC (chloroform,
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) and four metals (beryllium,
cadmium, lead, and nickel) were added to CNEP's pollutants of interest because they
are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. These
eight pollutants are not shown in Table 22-4.
• The risk screening process identified nine pollutants of interest for PROK, of which
seven are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Tetrachloroethylene was added to PROK's
pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did
not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens. An additional seven pollutants
(three VOC and four metals) were added to PROK's pollutants of interest because
they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens.
These seven pollutants do not appear in Table 22-4.
• The risk screening process identified nine pollutants of interest for MWOK, of which
eight are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. An additional seven pollutants (three VOC
and four metals) were added to MWOK's pollutants of interest because they are
NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. These seven
pollutants do not appear in Table 22-4.
• The risk screening process identified nine pollutants of interest for OCOK, of which
seven are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Tetrachloroethylene was added to OCOK's
pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did
not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens. Beryllium, cadmium,
chloroform, lead, and nickel were added to OCOK's pollutants of interest because
they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens.
These pollutants do not appear in Table 22-4. Trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride
are also NATTS MQO Core Analytes, but because these pollutants were not detected
at OCOK, they were not included in this site's pollutants of interest.
22-49
-------
• Benzene failed 100 percent of screens for each site. If CNEP is excluded (this site
sampled only VOC and metals and is therefore the limiting factor), formaldehyde also
failed 100 percent of screens for each site.
• The percentage of measured detections failing screens (of the pollutants that failed at
least one screen) ranged from 50 percent (TOOK) to 75 percent (CNEP). Note that
while TOOK's percentage is the lowest, it had the highest number of pollutants fail
screens and the highest number of failed screens.
22.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Oklahoma monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each Oklahoma site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided
in Appendices J through O.
22.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Oklahoma site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 22-5, where applicable. Note that
concentrations of metals are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing in Table 22-5.
22-50
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TOOK
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (TSP) a
1.73
±0.24
2.61
±0.48
0.06
±0.01
0.63
±0.05
0.13
±0.02
0.78
±0.24
2.98
±0.49
0.17
±0.05
0.18
±0.07
0.13
±0.06
0.01
±0.01
0.89
±0.16
1.18
±0.24
1.55
±0.62
0.07
±0.04
0.55
±0.07
0.05
±0.02
0.39
±0.21
1.70
±0.28
0.12
±0.07
0.25
±0.21
0.04
±0.02
NA
0.57
±0.14
1.81
±0.35
3.31
±0.89
0.05
±0.02
0.61
±0.06
0.06
±0.03
1.10
±0.64
3.52
±0.60
0.19
±0.02
0.13
±0.06
NA
NA
0.75
±0.15
2.34
±0.57
3.37
±1.23
0.05
±0.02
0.79
±0.12
0.14
±0.06
1.20
±0.66
5.14
± 1.38
0.12
±0.07
0.13
±0.06
NA
NA
1.20
±0.46
1.74
±0.65
2.37
±1.06
0.06
±0.04
0.57
±0.12
0.13
±0.04
0.48
±0.22
1.95
±0.54
0.21
±0.20
0.13
±0.08
NA
NA
1.05
±0.37
1.73
±0.24
2.61
±0.48
0.06
±0.01
0.63
±0.05
0.09
±0.02
0.78
±0.24
2.98
±0.49
0.16
±0.05
0.17
±0.06
NA
NA
0.89
±0.16
1.84
±0.21
1.78
±0.30
0.06
±0.01
0.61
±0.04
0.12
±0.01
0.31
±0.06
2.73
±0.43
0.14
±0.03
0.17
±0.04
0.09
±0.02
0.02
±0.01
0.68
±0.08
1.59
±0.34
2.18
±0.78
0.10
±0.04
0.56
±0.08
0.10
±0.02
0.46
±0.17
1.93
±0.29
0.14
±0.09
0.24
±0.13
NA
NA
0.68
±0.16
2.02
±0.49
1.83
±0.62
0.04
±0.01
0.63
±0.04
0.10
±0.03
0.30
±0.09
3.83
±0.94
0.24
±0.07
0.16
±0.06
NA
NA
0.72
±0.13
2.33
±0.42
1.61
±0.41
0.04
±0.01
0.69
±0.11
0.14
±0.02
0.27
±0.13
3.66
±0.93
0.12
±0.04
0.13
±0.04
NA
NA
0.68
±0.19
1.39
±0.29
1.59
±0.60
0.06
±0.02
0.58
±0.09
0.11
±0.02
0.25
±0.07
1.41
±0.26
0.05
±0.01
0.16
±0.05
NA
NA
0.63
±0.21
1.84
±0.21
1.78
±0.30
0.06
±0.01
0.61
±0.04
0.11
±0.01
0.31
±0.06
2.73
±0.43
0.14
±0.03
0.17
±0.04
NA
NA
0.68
±0.08
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Beryllium (TSP) a
Cadmium (TSP) a
Lead (TSP) a
Manganese (TSP) a
Nickel (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.02
±<0.01
0.25
±0.05
8.23
±2.09
25.54
±4.12
1.53
±0.19
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
1.31
±0.18
0.97
±0.21
0.05
±0.01
0.65
±0.07
0.11
±0.02
0.24
±0.07
2.83
±0.54
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
0.27
±0.09
5.66
±1.36
22.67
±7.20
1.46
±0.38
, ,
1.09
±0.22
0.86
±0.18
0.05
±0.02
0.51
±0.11
0.05
±0.02
0.16
±0.07
1.68
±0.33
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.02
±0.01
0.24
±0.07
12.46
±7.41
27.36
±12.10
1.47
±0.41
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±0.01
0.25
±0.13
8.46
±3.83
24.50
±7.02
1.57
±0.47
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.02
±0.01
0.25
±0.08
6.78
±2.67
27.96
±8.24
1.63
±0.38
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±<0.01
0.25
±0.05
8.23
±2.09
25.54
±4.12
1.53
±0.19
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±<0.01
0.25
±0.03
4.63
±0.55
19.61
±2.32
1.04
±0.11
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±<0.01
0.26
±0.07
5.72
± 1.11
22.60
±3.91
1.27
±0.26
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±0.01
0.26
±0.06
5.19
± 1.38
21.65
±5.31
1.21
±0.25
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.01
±0.01
0.20
±0.05
4.27
±0.85
19.41
±4.51
0.86
±0.13
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
0.26
±0.09
3.32
±0.72
14.65
±4.66
0.82
±0.18
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
0.25
±0.03
4.63
±0.55
19.61
±2.32
1.04
±0.11
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TSOK
1.32
±0.31
0.78
±0.14
0.03
±0.01
0.70
±0.11
0.07
±0.02
0.17
±0.10
2.81
±0.56
1.56
±0.40
1.31
±0.60
0.05
±0.02
0.71
±0.16
0.13
±0.05
0.40
±0.18
4.18
±1.30
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.31
±0.18
0.97
±0.21
0.04
±0.01
0.64
±0.07
0.08
±0.02
0.24
±0.07
2.83
±0.54
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
to
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (TSP) a
Beryllium (TSP) a
Cadmium (TSP) a
Lead (TSP) a
Manganese (TSP) a
Nickel (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.08
±0.02
0.13
±0.05
0.11
±0.04
0.03
±0.05
0.83
±0.31
0.01
±<0.01
0.15
±0.02
4.18
±0.73
15.91
±3.42
1.22
±0.22
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.06
±0.02
0.12
±0.09
0.06
±0.04
NA
0.36
±0.10
0.01
±<0.01
0.13
±0.03
3.67
±1.12
14.35
±7.33
1.25
±0.50
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.07
±0.02
0.11
±0.06
NA
NA
0.61
±0.15
0.01
±<0.01
0.14
±0.04
4.02
±1.27
16.53
±6.33
1.02
±0.20
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.10
±0.05
0.12
±0.08
0.06
±0.04
NA
1.47
±0.84
0.01
±<0.01
0.17
±0.05
4.85
±1.51
16.83
±4.89
1.38
±0.40
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.08
±0.02
0.11
±0.04
NA
NA
0.81
±0.31
0.01 ±0
0.15 ±
0.02
4.18 ±
0.73
15.91 ±
3.42
1.22±
0.22
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Tulsa, Oklahoma- TUOK
Acetaldehyde*
Benzene
1.71
±0.22
1.24
±0.23
1.41
±0.28
1.14
±0.32
1.77
±0.45
1.17
±0.35
2.22
±0.58
1.39
±0.75
1.55
±0.44
1.27
±0.40
1.71
±0.22
1.24
±0.23
1.54
±0.28
1.41
±0.34
1.54
±0.28
1.41
±0.34
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (TSP) a
Beryllium (TSP) a
Cadmium (TSP) a
Lead (TSP) a
Manganese (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.07
±0.02
0.67
±0.05
0.12
±0.02
2.75
±0.38
0.09
±0.01
0.28
±0.07
0.13
±0.06
0.01
±<0.01
1.14
±0.44
0.01
±<0.01
0.16
±0.03
4.47
±0.87
14.94
±2.48
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.09
±0.03
0.56
±0.07
0.08
±0.02
2.34
±0.34
0.12
±0.03
0.17
±0.08
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
0.47
±0.08
0.01
±<0.01
0.15
±0.03
4.21
±0.87
15.27
±4.15
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.05
±0.02
0.63
±0.14
NA
2.86
±0.68
0.07
±0.01
0.21
±0.07
NA
NA
0.56
±0.12
0.01
±<0.01
0.14
±0.04
4.86
±2.75
14.86
±5.85
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.06
±0.02
0.79
±0.09
0.14
±0.06
4.15
±1.25
0.08
±0.03
0.33
±0.12
NA
NA
1.44
±1.09
0.01
±<0.01
0.15
±0.04
4.35
±1.59
10.41
±3.36
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.07
±0.04
0.66
±0.13
0.12
±0.02
1.97
±0.43
0.06
±0.04
0.35
±0.22
NA
NA
2.19
±1.36
0.02
±0.01
0.21
±0.08
4.46
±1.67
18.60
±6.00
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.07
±0.02
0.66
±0.05
0.10
±0.02
2.75
±0.38
0.08
±0.01
0.27
±0.07
NA
NA
1.14
±0.44
0.01
±<0.01
0.16
±0.03
4.47
±0.87
14.94
±2.48
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.09
±0.03
0.61
±0.10
0.08
±0.01
2.22
±0.31
0.08
±0.06
0.24
±0.14
0.12
±0.10
0.01
±<0.01
0.65
±0.21
0.01
±<0.01
0.24
±0.09
5.58
±1.55
16.78
±2.53
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.09
±0.03
0.61
±0.10
0.08
±0.02
2.22
±0.31
0.07
±0.06
0.24
±0.14
NA
NA
0.65
±0.21
0.01
±<0.01
0.24
±0.09
5.58
±1.55
16.78
±2.53
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Nickel (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.98
±0.12
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
1.00
±0.20
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.77
±0.13
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.98
±0.21
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
1.18
±0.36
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.98
±0.12
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1.15
±0.47
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
1.15
±0.47
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TMOK
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.92
±0.25
0.20
±0.08
1.43
±0.23
0.07
±0.01
0.69
±0.04
0.12
±0.01
0.35
±0.06
3.49
±0.58
0.16
±0.04
0.11
±0.02
0.10
±0.03
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.26
±0.49
0.09
±0.06
1.51
±0.43
0.07
±0.02
0.65
±0.05
0.10
±0.02
0.39
±0.12
4.68
±1.07
0.25
±0.08
0.11
±0.04
0.04
±0.03
1.93
±0.31
NA
1.41
±0.34
0.06
±0.01
0.75
±0.07
0.14
±0.03
0.32
±0.07
3.44
±0.92
0.11
±0.03
0.08
±0.04
NA
1.52
±0.42
NA
1.34
±0.48
0.08
±0.02
0.66
±0.09
0.12
±0.03
0.33
±0.15
2.17
±0.59
0.09
±0.03
0.08
±0.05
NA
1.92
±0.25
NA
1.43
±0.23
0.07
±0.01
0.69
±0.04
0.12
±0.02
0.35
±0.06
3.49
±0.58
0.16
±0.04
0.09
±0.02
NA
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (TSP)a
Beryllium (TSP) a
Cadmium (TSP) a
Lead (TSP) a
Manganese (TSP) a
Nickel (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
±0.01
0.99
±0.26
0.03
±0.01
0.21
±0.05
4.04
±0.70
31.46
± 11.43
1.41
±0.50
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.17
±0.56
0.06
±0.04
0.31
±0.11
5.51
±1.50
56.31
± 30.44
2.52
±1.33
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
1.21
±0.43
0.02
±0.01
0.17
±0.06
3.45
±0.60
19.03
±5.56
0.82
±0.15
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
0.59
±0.31
0.02
±0.01
0.17
±0.04
3.16
±1.15
19.04
±8.84
0.90
±0.36
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
0.99
±0.26
0.03
±0.01
0.21
±0.05
4.04
±0.70
31.46
±11.43
1.41
±0.50
Cherokee Heights, Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - CNEP
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
0.70
±0.29
0.04
±0.02
0.75
±0.09
0.08
±0.01
0.05
±0.01
0.70
±0.29
0.03
±0.02
0.75
±0.09
0.08
±0.01
0.03
±0.02
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (TSP)a
Beryllium (TSP) a
Cadmium (TSP) a
Lead (TSP) a
Manganese (TSP) a
Nickel (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.04
±0.02
0.01
±0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
0.56
±0.13
0.01
±<0.01
0.16
±0.04
3.11
±0.74
11.28
±2.27
0.84
±0.15
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
0.56
±0.15
0.02
±0.01
0.16
±0.06
3.32
± 1.12
11.73
±2.52
0.87
±0.23
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
0.55
±0.26
0.01
±O.01
0.15
±0.04
2.79
±0.99
10.63
±4.66
0.80
±0.21
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - PROK
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
1.16
±0.33
NT)
0.68
±0.17
0.03
±0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.16
±0.33
ND
0.68
±0.17
0.03
±0.01
NA*
ND
NA
NA
1.22
±0.17
0.15
±0.04
0.70
±0.12
0.03
±0.01
1.45
±0.49
NA
1.17
±0.43
0.05
±0.01
NA
0.10
±0.05
0.73
±0.16
0.02
±0.01
1.07
±0.25
NA
0.47
±0.07
0.01
±0.01
1.03
±0.13
NA
0.52
±0.10
0.03
±0.01
NA*
NA
0.70
±0.12
0.03
±0.01
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (TSP) a
Beryllium (TSP) a
Cadmium (TSP) a
Lead (TSP) a
Manganese (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.66
±0.10
0.12
±0.02
2.02
±0.45
0.06
±0.02
0.07
±0.01
NT)
0.03
±0.01
0.55
±0.22
0.01
±0.01
0.17
±0.06
2.29
±0.69
11.06
±3.88
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.66
±0.10
0.12
±0.02
2.02
±0.45
0.04
±0.02
NA
ND
NA
0.55
±0.22
0.01
±0.01
0.17
±0.06
2.29
±0.69
11.06
±3.88
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
NA*
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.66
±0.04
0.32
±0.16
7.79
±6.42
0.13
±0.03
0.06
±0.02
0.05
±0.05
0.01
±0.01
0.49
±0.07
0.01
±0.01
0.14
±0.03
2.35
±0.47
8.84
±1.22
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.59
±0.10
0.09
±0.01
20.83
± 24.82
0.12
±0.11
0.05
±0.05
NA
NA
0.54
±0.14
0.01
±0.01
0.18
±0.07
3.41
±1.71
10.09
±1.67
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.66
±0.06
0.10
±0.02
NA
0.23
±0.05
0.05
±0.02
NA
NA
0.48
±0.15
0.02
±0.01
0.14
±0.04
2.52
±0.73
9.49
±2.65
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.74
±0.05
0.75
±0.48
4.91
±1.08
0.07
±0.03
NA
NA
NA
0.48
±0.13
0.01
±0.01
0.09
±0.02
1.70
±0.34
9.56
±3.30
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.63
±0.11
0.19
±0.08
1.07
±0.19
0.05
±0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.45
±0.17
0.01
±0.01
0.14
±0.06
1.86
±0.54
6.43
±1.88
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.66
±0.04
0.30
±0.15
NA*
0.12
±0.03
NA
NA
NA
0.49
±0.07
0.01
±0.01
0.14
±0.03
2.35 ±
0.47
8.84
±1.22
to
to
oo
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Nickel (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.72
±0.15
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.72
±0.15
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA*
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.49
±0.05
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.59
±0.07
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.57
±0.10
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.42
±0.07
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.38
±0.08
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.49
±0.05
Midwest City, Oklahoma - MWOK
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (TSP) a
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.24
±0.12
0.66
±0.08
0.05
±0.01
0.71
±0.06
0.10
±0.01
2.65
±0.56
0.15
±0.05
0.17
±0.07
0.07
±0.04
0.01
±0.01
1.24
±0.12
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.57
±0.20
0.90
±0.26
0.06
±0.01
0.62
±0.05
0.09
±0.02
4.43
± 1.29
0.22
±0.08
0.21
±0.08
NA
NA
1.57
±0.20
1.30
±0.18
0.60
±0.09
0.03
±0.01
0.82
±0.12
0.11
±0.02
3.27
±0.77
0.17
±0.12
0.09
±0.04
NA
NA
1.30
±0.18
1.01
±0.16
0.60
±0.08
0.04
±0.02
0.64
±0.08
0.09
±0.02
1.18
±0.24
0.08
±0.01
0.17
±0.15
NA
NA
1.01
±0.16
1.24
±0.12
0.66
±0.08
0.04
±0.01
0.71
±0.06
0.10
±0.01
2.65
±0.56
0.14
±0.05
0.15
±0.06
NA
NA
1.24
±0.12
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Beryllium (TSP) a
Cadmium (TSP) a
Lead (TSP) a
Manganese (TSP) a
Nickel (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
0.09
±0.02
2.05
±0.31
7.40
±1.33
0.89
±0.30
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
0.10
±0.03
2.05
±0.26
9.02
± 1.03
1.29
±1.24
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
0.07
±0.02
1.93
±0.43
9.11
±2.67
0.90
±0.36
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.10
±0.03
2.16
±0.70
4.81
±1.37
0.65
±0.28
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
0.09
±0.02
2.05
±0.31
7.40
±1.33
0.89
±0.30
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - OCOK
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.65
±0.16
0.23
±0.08
0.73
±0.07
0.03
±0.01
0.65
±0.06
0.10
±0.01
2.80
±0.40
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
0.84
±0.11
0.03
±0.01
0.67
±0.06
0.10
±0.03
NA
1.85
±0.27
NA
0.74
±0.14
0.02
±0.01
0.81
±0.07
0.11
±0.03
3.45
±0.65
1.37
±0.21
NA
0.68
±0.11
0.04
±0.01
0.52
±0.09
0.09
±0.01
1.86
±0.25
NA
NA
0.73
±0.07
0.03
±0.01
0.65
±0.06
0.10
±0.01
NA
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Table 22-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Arsenic (TSP) a
Beryllium (TSP) a
Cadmium (TSP) a
Lead (TSP) a
Manganese (TSP) a
Nickel (TSP) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.18
±0.18
0.10
±0.02
0.52
±0.16
0.01
±<0.01
0.08
±0.02
1.89
±0.32
11.33
±2.29
0.54
±0.08
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.08
±0.03
0.11
±0.06
0.61
±0.15
0.02
±0.01
0.09
±0.03
2.52
±0.45
16.53
±3.58
0.71
±0.14
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.34
±0.49
NA
0.45
±0.14
0.01
±<0.01
0.07
±0.02
1.64
±0.43
11.19
±3.38
0.55
±0.15
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.07
±0.02
0.07
±0.03
0.54
±0.39
0.01
±0.01
0.09
±0.03
1.81
±0.63
8.69
±4.03
0.44
±0.11
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.16
±0.17
NA
0.52
±0.16
0.01
±<0.01
0.08
±0.02
1.89
±0.32
11.33
±2.29
0.54
±0.08
to
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
'Method completeness was less than 85 percent for PROK carbonyl compounds (both years) and metals (2008).
-------
Observations for the Tulsa sites from Table 22-5 include the following:
• Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration by mass for each site,
followed by acetaldehyde and benzene, with one exception. For 2008, the average
daily concentration for benzene was greater than the average daily concentration of
acetaldehyde for TOOK.
• For TMOK, several of the metals have relatively large confidence intervals associated
with their second quarter 2009 averages. For beryllium, lead, manganese, and nickel,
the maximum concentrations were measured on June 18, 2009 and June 6, 2009.
Several of the highest metals measurements were from samples collected at the
TMOK site. For example, TMOK had the highest two measurements of beryllium
among all NMP sites sampling TSP or PMio metals; further, of the 13 concentrations
greater than or equal to 0.5 ng/m3 among all sites, over half were measured at TMOK.
TMOK also had the second and third highest manganese concentration measured at
any NMP site measuring metals (behind only S4MO). The fifth highest concentration
of nickel among any of the NMP sites sampling metals was measured at TMOK.
• Several of the quarterly average concentrations of benzene for TOOK have fairly
large confidence intervals. The highest benzene concentration was measured on
September 27, 2008 (8.26 |ig/m3), which was the tenth highest benzene measurement
among all sites sampling this pollutant. Of the 59 concentrations of benzene that are
greater than 5 |ig/m3 (among all NMP sites), 11 of these were measured at TOOK. Of
these 11 concentrations, nine were measured in 2008, which explains the significant
difference between the 2008 and 2009 daily average concentration. One of the
measurements greater than 5 |ig/m3 was measured at TUOK, which likely explains
it's relatively high third quarter 2008 benzene confidence interval.
• Both lead and manganese have relatively large confidence intervals associated with
their second quarter 2008 averages for TOOK. The two highest concentrations of
manganese, measured on May 21, 2008 and April 30, 2008 (74.75 ng/m3 and
74.55 ng/m3, respectively), ranked sixth and seventh highest among all NMP sites
sampling metals. Similarly, the two highest concentrations of lead, measured on
June 5, 2008 and April 30, 2008 (50.45 ng/m3 and 29.63 ng/m3, respectively), ranked
fifth and 15th highest among all NMP sites sampling metals.
• The third and fourth quarter 2008 averages of arsenic for TUOK are higher than the
other quarterly averages and have relatively large confidence intervals associated with
them. Of all NMP sites sampling arsenic, TUOK has the third, fourth, and sixth
highest measurements of this pollutant. Of the 12 measurements of arsenic greater
than 4 ng/m3 among all NMP sites, one-third of them were from samples collected at
TUOK (and all four of these concentrations were measured between
September 27, 2008 and October 21, 2008).
• TSOK also had a relatively large confidence interval associated with its high third
quarter arsenic average for 2008 (no fourth quarter average is available because
sampling ended in September 2008). There are seven measurements of arsenic greater
22-62
-------
than 1 ng/m3 from TSOK, and five of them were from samples collected during the
third quarter of 2008. The arsenic concentration from the September 27, 2008 sample
was the seventh highest arsenic concentration measured among all NMP sites
sampling metals.
Observations for CNEP from Table 22-5 include the following:
• Carbon tetrachloride (0.75 ± 0.09 |ig/m3) and benzene (0.70 ± 0.29 |ig/m3) exhibited
the highest daily average concentrations by mass for the VOC measured in 2008.
• Because sampling was conducted at CNEP from January through March 2008, only
first quarter averages could be calculated.
• Manganese (11.28 ± 2.27 ng/m3) and lead (3.11 ± 0.74 ng/m3) exhibited the highest
daily average concentrations by mass for the TSP metals measured in 2009.
• Because metals sampling was conducted at CNEP from January through May 2009,
only first and second quarter averages could be calculated.
Observations for PROK from Table 22-5 include the following:
• Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene were the pollutants with the highest daily
average concentrations by mass for both years for PROK.
• Because sampling was conducted at PROK from October through December 2008,
only fourth quarter averages could be calculated for 2008. Further, method
completeness was less than 85 percent for carbonyl compounds and metals for 2008.
Several VOC do not have quarterly averages for 2009 because they were detected
infrequently and thus do not have annual averages for 2009. Additionally, method
completeness was less than 85 percent for carbonyl compounds for 2009; thus, annual
averages could not be calculated for carbonyl compounds for 2009.
• There is a significant difference between the 2008 and 2009 daily average
concentrations of formaldehyde for PROK. In addition, there is a large confidence
interval associated with the 2009 daily average, indicating the likely influence of
outliers. The two highest concentrations of formaldehyde were measured on
March 26, 2009 (118 |ig/m3) and March 14, 2009 (117 |ig/m3). Both concentrations
are an order of magnitude higher than the third highest concentration, also measured
in March 2009 (17.1 |ig/m3). The two highest acetaldehyde concentrations were also
measured on March 14 and March 26, but were not as high. The maximum
concentrations of several VOC were also measured on these dates in March.
Observations for the Oklahoma City sites from Table 22-5 include the following:
• OCOK and MWOK began sampling in May 2009.
22-63
-------
• Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had the highest daily average concentrations by mass
for both sites. The concentrations for these pollutants were similar in value for each
site, as were most of the other pollutants of interest. A few differences include the
arsenic concentration at MWOK was twice the arsenic concentration at OCOK; also,
trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride were not detected at OCOK, but were at MWOK.
• The second quarter 2009 average concentrations were the highest among the quarterly
averages for several of the pollutants of interest for MWOK, although not necessarily
significantly higher.
• The second quarter 2009 nickel average concentration for MWOK has a large
confidence interval associated with it, indicating the presence of outliers. The highest
nickel concentration was measured on June 24, 2009 (5.28 ng/m3). The next highest
concentration was measured a month later and was roughly half the concentration
(2.91 ng/m3).
• For OCOK, annual averages could not be calculated for the carbonyl compounds
because there were not three valid quarterly averages (because several invalid
samples during the second quarter of 2009 resulted in fewer than seven measured
detections for this quarter).
• With the exception of cadmium, the second quarter 2009 average concentrations of
the metals were the highest among the quarterly averages for OCOK, although not
necessarily significantly higher.
• The daily average, third quarter average, and annual average ofp-dichlorobenzene for
OCOK have large confidence intervals associated with them, indicating the presence
of outliers. The highest concentration of this pollutant was measured on
September 22, 2009 (3.18 |ig/m3) and is an order of magnitude higher than the next
highest concentration (0.199 |ig/m3). Further, this is the fifth highest concentration of
/>-dichlorobenzene measured among all NMP sites sampling VOC.
• The fourth quarter 2009 average arsenic concentration for OCOK has a large
confidence interval associated with it, indicating the presence of outliers. The highest
arsenic concentration was measured on October 10, 2009 (3.11 ng/m3) and is three
times higher than the next highest concentration (0.993 ng/m3).
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for the Oklahoma sites include
the following:
• TOOK had the third highest daily average of concentration of benzene
(2.61 ± 0.48 |ig/m3, 2008), behind only ANAK and ELNJ, as shown in Table 4-9.
TOOK also had the third highest daily average of concentration of ethylbenzene
(0.78 ± 0.24 |ig/m3, 2008), behind only ANAK and ELNJ.
22-64
-------
• PROK had the second highest daily average concentration of formaldehyde
(7.79 ± 6.42 |ig/m3, 2009), behind only INDEM's daily average concentration of
formaldehyde (although PROK's daily average was an order of magnitude lower than
INDEM's). No other Oklahoma site appears in Table 4-10 for the carbonyl
compounds.
• The Oklahoma sites were the only NMP sites to monitor for TSP metals, so they are
the only sites that appear in Table 4-12 under TSP metals. TMOK had the highest
daily average concentration of beryllium among all NMP sites sampling metals (both
PMio or TSP) and TOOK had the highest daily average concentration of manganese
among all NMP sites sampling metals (both PMio or TSP).
22.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. None of the Oklahoma sites have sampled continuously for 5 years as part of the
NMP; therefore, the trends analysis was not conducted.
22.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Oklahoma monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
22.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Oklahoma monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. The results of this screening
are summarized in Table 22-6. Where a quarterly or annual average exceeds the applicable MRL,
the concentration is bolded.
22-65
-------
Table 22-6. MRL Risk Screening Assessment Summary for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Year
Acute
ATSDR
Acute
MRL1
(Ug/m3)
#of
Concentrations
>MRL
#of
Measured
Detections
Intermediate
ATSDR
Intermediate
MRL1
(Ug/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
Chronic
ATSDR
Chronic
MRL1
(Ug/m3)
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - PROK
Formaldehyde
2008
2009
50
0
2
10
50
40
NR
20.83
± 24.82
NR
NA
NR
4.91
±1.08
2.02
±0.45
1.07
±0.19
10
NA*
NA*
Bolded = a quarterly or annual average concentration is greater than one or more of the intermediate or chronic MRLs.
Reflects the use of one significant digit for MRL.
NA= Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted during this quarter.
* Method completeness less than 85 percent.
to
to
Oi
Oi
-------
Observations from Table 22-6 include the following:
• Formaldehyde was the only pollutant of interest (for PROK) where a preprocessed
daily measurement and/or time-period average was greater than one or more of the
MRL health risk benchmarks.
• Two out of 50 (four percent) measured detections of formaldehyde from 2009 were
greater than the ATSDR acute MRL for formaldehyde (50 |ig/m3). Conversely, no
measured detections of formaldehyde from 2008 exceeded the ATSDR acute MRL
for formaldehyde.
• None of the quarterly averages of formaldehyde, where they could be calculated,
were greater than the ATSDR intermediate MRL.
• Annual averages of formaldehyde for 2008 could not be calculated for PROK because
1) sampling began in October 2008, and 2) method completeness was less than 85
percent. Annual averages of formaldehyde for 2009 could not be calculated for
PROK because method completeness was also less than 85 percent.
For the pollutants whose concentrations were greater than their respective ATSDR acute
MRL noncancer health risk benchmark, the concentrations were further examined by developing
pollution roses for those pollutants. A pollution rose is a plot of concentration vs. wind speed and
wind direction, as described in Section 3.5.4.1. Figure 22-39 is the formaldehyde pollution rose
for PROK.
Observations from Figure 22-39 for PROK include the following:
• There were two measured detections that were greater than the ATSDR acute MRL
for formaldehyde (shown in orange).
• The two concentrations greater than the ATSDR acute MRL were measured on days
with winds blowing from the east-northeast (on average).
• Other higher concentrations of formaldehyde (shown in yellow) were measured on
days with wind observations from the south (7), southeast (3), east (1), and west (1),
on average.
22-67
-------
Figure 22-39. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for PROK
360 0
—
,-r'"*" *--"""""""
,-"'' , — *— "" "
315 / „,-•-• ,..,---"
/ X /"""" ,-"--"""
/ / >•' ,."-'" .-.- ~~
/ / / "x" ,..--"'
/ / / / v ,---"
/ x ..-'
/ / / / / '•< .-•••'" •
.-• '•-. --•
III// •••' >< «-•&-"""
: ! ! ;' •' ' .•' \ .--'
/////// V •
; i : : i / / *v .-•'•"
• : ! : / '-0 0
i i • ' / / / X --
; \ / •/ >
«... XT • '•. S '. \ \
> .-' \« \ '. \ : \ '•
>'.' f-^ \ \ \ \
•--./ \O \ \ \
X\2. \4 ;6 18 10 12 14 16 18 20 kts
O O °P i i • i 1 Oft
•\ Ve • ; ! ' yv
o oa.---" ,--\ / / /
/— v-— ~'J 'r ' *» '' f*
.,..--•" / ™
_...--' ATSI)RMRL = 50iii2lin3,
^...- end of the 5-50 jiig/m3 (or
yellow) concentration range
0
fig in3 O>50 fig iii3
-------
22.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Oklahoma monitoring sites and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 22-7, where applicable.
Observations from Table 22-7 include the following:
• Formaldehyde and benzene had the highest cancer risk approximations for all of the
Oklahoma monitoring sites, where they could be calculated. Benzene cancer risk
approximations ranged from 5.17 in-a-million for MWOK in 2009 to 20.38 in-a-
million for TOOK in 2008. Formaldehyde cancer risk approximations ranged from
34.46 in-a-million for MWOK in 2009 to 45.31 in-a-million for TMOK in 2009.
• Among the metals, arsenic had the highest cancer risk approximations for all of the
Oklahoma monitoring sites, ranging from 2.06 in-a-million for OCOK (2009) to 4.92
in-a-million for TUOK (2008).
• None of the pollutants of interest had noncancer risk approximations greater than 1.0,
the HQ level of concern.
• For TOOK, formaldehyde, benzene, and arsenic had the highest cancer risk
approximations for 2008, while formaldehyde, benzene, and acetaldehyde had the
highest cancer risk approximations for 2009. Note that the difference between the
cancer risk approximations for arsenic and acetaldehyde for 2008 are very similar.
• For TSOK, formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer
risk approximations for 2008.
• For TUOK, formaldehyde, benzene, and arsenic had the highest cancer risk
approximations for 2008.
• For TMOK, formaldehyde, benzene, and arsenic had the highest cancer risk
approximations for 2009.
• Annual averages (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations)
could not be calculated for the pollutants of interest for CNEP because of the
abbreviated sample periods for each year.
22-69
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TOOK
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)a
Benzene
Beryllium (TSP)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Lead (TSP)a
0.0000022
0.0043
0.0000078
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
0.000011
0.0000025
0.000013
0.009
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.0098
0.00015
56/4
60/4
57/4
60/4
56/4
60/4
57/4
39/4
52/4
57/4
56/4
60/4
1.73
±0.24
0.01
±0.01
2.61
±0.48
0.01
±0.01
0.06
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.63
±0.05
0.09
±0.02
0.16
±0.05
0.78
±0.24
2.98
±0.49
0.01
±O.01
3.80
3.82
20.38
0.04
1.76
0.45
3.75
1.74
1.96
38.76
0.19
0.06
0.09
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.30
0.05
62/4
61/4
60/4
57/4
58/4
61/4
60/4
58/4
58/4
60/4
62/4
61/4
1.84
±0.21
0.01
±0.01
1.78
±0.30
0.01
±0.01
0.06
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.61
±0.04
0.11
±0.01
0.14
±0.03
0.31
±0.06
2.73
±0.43
O.01
±0.01
4.04
2.91
13.91
0.03
1.79
0.45
3.69
1.49
0.79
35.55
0.20
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.28
0.03
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Manganese (TSP)a
Nickel (TSP)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000312
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.00005
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
60/4
60/4
52/4
18/1
6/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.03
±<0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.17
±0.06
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.48
0.98
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.51
0.02
O.01
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
61/4
61/4
59/4
15/0
7/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±O.01
0.01
±0.01
0.17
±0.04
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.33
1.00
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.39
0.01
O.01
NA
NA
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TSOK
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)a
Benzene
Beryllium (TSP)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)a
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.0000022
0.0043
0.0000078
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
0.009
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
41/3
41/3
41/3
42/3
39/3
42/3
40/3
1.31
±0.18
O.01
± O.01
0.97
±0.21
O.01
±0.01
0.04
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.64
±0.07
2.89
3.49
7.60
0.02
1.32
0.27
3.82
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Lead (TSP)a
Manganese (TSP)a
Nickel (TSP)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000011
0.0000025
0.000013
_
0.000312
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.098
0.8
1
0.0098
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
31/3
37/3
41/3
41/3
42/3
42/3
42/3
35/3
22/2
2/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.08
±0.02
0.08
±0.02
0.24
±0.07
2.83
±0.54
<0.01
±0.01
0.02
±<0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.11
±0.04
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.83
0.61
36.80
_
0.38
0.68
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.29
0.03
0.32
0.01
O.01
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Noncancer
(HQ)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TUOK
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)a
0.0000022
0.0043
0.009
0.000015
57/4
59/4
1.71
±0.22
O.01
±0.01
3.76
4.92
0.19
0.08
15/1
13/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Benzene
Beryllium (TSP)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Lead (TSP)a
Manganese (TSP)a
Nickel (TSP)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0000078
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
0.000011
0.000013
0.000312
0.0000059
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
0.27
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
58/4
59/4
56/4
59/4
57/4
46/3
51/4
57/4
59/4
59/4
59/4
54/4
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
1.24
±0.23
0.01
±0.01
0.07
±0.02
0.01
±O.01
0.66
±0.05
0.10
±0.02
0.08
±0.01
2.75
±0.38
0.01
±0.01
0.01
±O.01
0.01
±0.01
0.27
±0.07
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
9.67
0.02
2.08
0.29
3.95
0.90
35.76
0.31
1.56
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.28
0.03
0.30
0.01
O.01
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
12/1
13/1
12/1
13/1
12/1
11/1
11/1
15/1
13/1
13/1
13/1
12/1
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
18/0
10/1
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
6/0
1/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NA
Tulsa, Oklahoma - TMOK
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (TSP)a
Benzene
Beryllium (TSP)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0043
0.0000078
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
_
0.000011
0.009
0.002
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
45/3
16/1
45/3
44/3
45/3
44/3
45/3
44/3
42/3
44/3
1.92
±0.25
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
1.43
±0.23
<0.01
±<0.01
0.07
±0.01
<0.01
±0.01
0.69
±0.04
0.12
±0.02
0.16
±0.04
4.23
NA
4.25
11.15
0.07
2.02
0.38
4.12
_
1.77
0.21
NA
0.07
0.05
<0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Lead (TSP)a
Manganese (TSP)a
Nickel (TSP)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0000025
0.000013
0.000312
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
1
0.0098
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Noncancer
(HQ)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
44/3
45/3
45/3
45/3
45/3
37/3
12/1
4/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.35
±0.06
3.49
±0.58
<0.01
±<0.01
0.03
±0.01
<0.01
±0.01
0.09
±0.02
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.87
45.31
0.44
0.53
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
<0.01
0.36
0.03
0.63
0.02
<0.01
NA
NA
Cherokee Heights, Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - CNEP
Arsenic (TSP)a
Benzene
Beryllium (TSP)a
1,3 -Butadiene
0.0043
0.0000078
0.0024
0.00003
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
NR
14/1
NR
11/1
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
22/2
NR
22/2
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Cadmium (TSP)a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Lead (TSP)a
Manganese (TSP)a
Nickel (TSP)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0018
0.000006
_
0.000312
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
NR
14/1
14/1
NR
NR
NR
9/1
3/0
6/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NR
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
NR
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
22/2
NR
NR
22/2
22/2
22/2
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
Pryor Creek, Oklahoma - PROK
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (TSP)a
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0043
0.009
0.002
0.000015
10/1
0/0
9/1
NA*
ND
NA*
NA
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
50/3
14/1
61/4
NA*
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
NA
NA
2.09
NA
NA
0.03
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Benzene
Beryllium (TSP)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Lead (TSP)a
Manganese (TSP)a
Nickel (TSP)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0000078
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
0.000011
0.000013
0.000312
0.0000059
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
0.27
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
11/1
9/1
9/1
9/1
11/1
11/1
8/1
10/1
9/1
9/1
9/1
1/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA*
NA
NA*
NA
NA
NA
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
62/4
61/4
57/4
61/4
62/4
59/4
58/4
50/3
61/4
61/4
61/4
33/2
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.70
±0.12
0.01
±0.01
0.03
±O.01
0.01
±O.01
0.66
±0.04
0.30
±0.15
0.12
±0.03
NA*
0.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
5.45
0.03
0.84
0.25
3.97
1.31
NA
0.15
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
NA
0.02
0.18
0.01
NA
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
0/0
1/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
3/0
6/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NA
Midwest City, Oklahoma - MWOK
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)a
Benzene
Beryllium (TSP)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
0.0000022
0.0043
0.0000078
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
0.000011
0.000013
0.009
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
39/3
37/3
39/3
37/3
35/3
38/3
39/3
39/3
38/3
39/3
1.24
±0.12
0.01
±0.01
0.66
±0.08
0.01
±0.01
0.04
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.71
±0.06
0.10
±0.01
0.14
±0.05
2.65
±0.56
2.72
2.06
5.17
0.02
1.22
0.16
4.24
1.59
34.46
0.14
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.27
to
to
oo
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Lead (TSP)a
Manganese (TSP)a
Nickel (TSP)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000312
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Noncancer
(HQ)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
38/3
38/3
38/3
33/3
5/0
3/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.01
±0.01
<0.01
±<0.01
0.15
±0.06
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.28
0.87
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.01
0.15
0.01
O.01
NA
NA
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - OCOK
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (TSP)a
Benzene
Beryllium (TSP)a
1,3 -Butadiene
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0043
0.0000078
0.0024
0.00003
0.009
0.002
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
39/2
7/0
38/3
37/3
38/3
35/3
NA
NA
<0.01
±0.01
0.73
±0.07
0.01
±0.01
0.03
±0.01
NA
NA
2.23
5.68
0.03
0.85
NA
NA
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
to
to
VO
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
Table 22-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
k Pollutant
Cadmium (TSP)a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Lead (TSP)a
Manganese (TSP)a
Nickel (TSP)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0018
0.000006
0.000011
0.000013
_
0.000312
0.0000059
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
0.0098
0.00015
0.00005
0.00009
0.27
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Noncancer
(HQ)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
38/3
37/3
36/3
34/3
39/2
38/3
38/3
38/3
23/2
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.65
±0.06
0.10
±0.01
0.16
±0.17
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
0.01
±0.01
<0.01
±<0.01
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.14
3.91
1.80
NA
_
0.17
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
0.01
0.23
0.01
NA
to
to
oo
o
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
*Method completeness did not meet the 85 percent criteria.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 22-5.
-------
• For PROK, annual averages, and thus cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations, for the carbonyl compounds could not be calculated because method
completeness was less than 85 percent. Among the metals and VOC, benzene had the
highest cancer risk approximations for 2009 (5.45 in-a-million).
• For MWOK, formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer
risk approximations for 2009.
• For OCOK, metals and VOC were the only pollutants for which annual averages, and
thus cancer and noncancer risk approximations, could be calculated. Among the
metals, arsenic had the highest cancer risk approximation for 2009 (2.23 in-a-
million). Among the VOC, benzene and carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer
risk approximations for 2009 (5.68 and 3.91 in-a-million, respectively).
22.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 22-8 and 22-9 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 22-8 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 22-9
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 22.3,
CNEP sampled for VOC and TSP metals, while the remaining Oklahoma sites sampled carbonyl
compounds in addition to VOC and TSP metals. In addition, the cancer and noncancer risk
approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual
averages to be calculated, as discussed in previous sections. A more in-depth discussion of this
analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
22-81
-------
Table 22-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa County) - TOOK
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
Trichloroethylene
569.56
248.40
97.47
75.81
63.11
27.07
14.71
12.21
10.95
10.92
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
Nickel, PM
5.08E-03
4.44E-03
3.10E-03
2.27E-03
9.20E-04
6.02E-04
3.72E-04
2.14E-04
1.77E-04
1.43E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (TSP)
38.76
35.55
20.38
13.91
4.04
3.82
3.80
3.75
3.69
2.91
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa County) - TSOK
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
/>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
Trichloroethylene
569.56
248.40
97.47
75.81
63.11
27.07
14.71
12.21
10.95
10.92
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
Nickel, PM
5.08E-03
4.44E-03
3.10E-03
2.27E-03
9.20E-04
6.02E-04
3.72E-04
2.14E-04
1.77E-04
1.43E-04
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (TSP)
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Nickel (TSP)
36.80
7.60
3.82
3.49
2.89
1.32
0.83
0.68
0.61
0.38
to
to
oo
to
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 22-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa County) - TUOK
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
Trichloroethylene
569.56
248.40
97.47
75.81
63.11
27.07
14.71
12.21
10.95
10.92
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
Nickel, PM
5.08E-03
4.44E-03
3.10E-03
2.27E-03
9.20E-04
6.02E-04
3.72E-04
2.14E-04
1.77E-04
1.43E-04
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Arsenic (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Nickel (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
35.76
9.67
4.92
3.95
3.76
2.08
1.56
0.90
0.31
0.29
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa County) - TMOK
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
/>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
Trichloroethylene
569.56
248.40
97.47
75.81
63.11
27.07
14.71
12.21
10.95
10.92
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
Nickel, PM
5.08E-03
4.44E-03
3.10E-03
2.27E-03
9.20E-04
6.02E-04
3.72E-04
2.14E-04
1.77E-04
1.43E-04
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Arsenic (TSP)
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Nickel (TSP)
45.31
11.15
4.25
4.23
4.12
2.02
1.77
0.87
0.53
0.44
to
to
oo
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 22-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Cherokee Heights, Pryor Creek, Oklahoma (Mayes County) - CNEP
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Trichloroethylene
Chloromethylbenzene
Isophorone
73.77
66.14
17.57
11.35
3.49
2.69
2.68
1.85
1.48
1.29
Arsenic, PM
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium, PM
POM, Group 2
Nickel, PM
Naphthalene
Chloromethylbenzene
4.08E-03
8.27E-04
6.96E-04
5.75E-04
3.40E-04
2.05E-04
1.47E-04
1.04E-04
9.15E-05
7.24E-05
Pryor Creek, Oklahoma (Mayes County) - PROK
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Trichloroethylene
Chloromethylbenzene
Isophorone
73.77
66.14
17.57
11.35
3.49
2.69
2.68
1.85
1.48
1.29
Arsenic, PM
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium, PM
POM, Group 2
Nickel, PM
Naphthalene
Chloromethylbenzene
4.08E-03
8.27E-04
6.96E-04
5.75E-04
3.40E-04
2.05E-04
1.47E-04
1.04E-04
9.15E-05
7.24E-05
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
Beryllium (TSP)
5.45
3.97
2.09
1.31
0.84
0.25
0.15
0.03
to
to
oo
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 22-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Midwest City, Oklahoma (Oklahoma County) - MWOK
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Vinyl chloride
POM, Group 2
649.26
330.07
118.67
98.55
89.04
87.34
27.63
14.73
12.42
7.41
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Acetaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
5.06E-03
4.13E-03
3.01E-03
2.67E-03
9.40E-04
5.81E-04
4.07E-04
2.78E-04
2.61E-04
1.62E-04
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
£>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Nickel (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
34.46
5.17
4.24
2.72
2.06
1.59
1.22
0.87
0.28
0.16
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Oklahoma County) - OCOK
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Vinyl chloride
POM, Group 2
649.26
330.07
118.67
98.55
89.04
87.34
27.63
14.73
12.42
7.41
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
5.06E-03
4.13E-03
3.01E-03
2.67E-03
9.40E-04
5.81E-04
4.07E-04
2.78E-04
2.61E-04
1.62E-04
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Nickel (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
Beryllium (TSP)
5.68
3.91
2.23
1.80
0.85
0.17
0.14
0.03
to
to
oo
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 22-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions (County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa County) - TOOK
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hexane
Methanol
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
1,730.91
1,128.05
569.56
343.93
318.21
283.89
248.40
134.04
97.47
92.10
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Nickel, PM
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
875,027.63
41,010.03
37,902.71
25,346.77
18,985.36
13,795.21
11,280.47
10,830.28
9,024.03
7,120.19
Manganese (TSP)
Manganese (TSP)
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Arsenic (TSP)
Lead (TSP)
0.51
0.39
0.30
0.28
0.20
0.19
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.05
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa County) - TSOK
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hexane
Methanol
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
1,730.91
1,128.05
569.56
343.93
318.21
283.89
248.40
134.04
97.47
92.10
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Nickel, PM
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
875,027.63
41,010.03
37,902.71
25,346.77
18,985.36
13,795.21
11,280.47
10,830.28
9,024.03
7,120.19
Manganese (TSP)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Lead (TSP)
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.32
0.29
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
to
to
oo
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 22-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions (County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa County) - TUOK
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hexane
Methanol
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
1,730.91
1,128.05
569.56
343.93
318.21
283.89
248.40
134.04
97.47
92.10
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Nickel, PM
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
875,027.63
41,010.03
37,902.71
25,346.77
18,985.36
13,795.21
11,280.47
10,830.28
9,024.03
7,120.19
Manganese (TSP)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Lead (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.30
0.28
0.19
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa County) - TMOK
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hexane
Methanol
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
1,730.91
1,128.05
569.56
343.93
318.21
283.89
248.40
134.04
97.47
92.10
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Nickel, PM
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
875,027.63
41,010.03
37,902.71
25,346.77
18,985.36
13,795.21
11,280.47
10,830.28
9,024.03
7,120.19
Manganese (TSP)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Lead (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.63
0.36
0.21
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
to
to
oo
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 22-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions (County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Cherokee Heights, Pryor Creek, Oklahoma (Mayes County) - CNEP
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Hydrochloric acid
Ethylene glycol
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
138.84
91.20
73.77
66.14
59.05
58.77
25.53
24.27
20.93
17.57
Acrolein
Arsenic, PM
Manganese, PM
Nickel, PM
Formaldehyde
Cadmium, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Hydrochloric acid
Mercury
Benzene
405,829.34
31,621.18
26,555.45
10,032.54
6,748.78
5,688.25
5,673.27
2,938.45
2,828.35
2,459.14
Pryor Creek, Oklahoma (Mayes County) - PROK
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Hydrochloric acid
Ethylene glycol
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
138.84
91.20
73.77
66.14
59.05
58.77
25.53
24.27
20.93
17.57
Acrolein
Arsenic, PM
Manganese, PM
Nickel, PM
Formaldehyde
Cadmium, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Hydrochloric acid
Mercury
Benzene
405,829.34
31,621.18
26,555.45
10,032.54
6,748.78
5,688.25
5,673.27
2,938.45
2,828.35
2,459.14
Manganese (TSP)
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Lead (TSP)
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Nickel (TSP)
Chloroform
Beryllium (TSP)
0.18
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
to
to
oo
oo
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 22-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions (County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Midwest City, Oklahoma (Oklahoma County) - MWOK
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hexane
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
1,800.62
1,135.73
649.26
432.98
360.00
330.07
279.35
118.67
98.55
89.04
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Manganese, PM
Toluene
1,254,645.66
44,517.76
33,680.68
21,641.85
13,185.11
11,357.32
9,211.00
8,349.19
7,497.62
4,501.56
Formaldehyde
Manganese (TSP)
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Lead (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.27
0.15
0.14
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Oklahoma County) - OCOK
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hexane
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
1,800.62
1,135.73
649.26
432.98
360.00
330.07
279.35
118.67
98.55
89.04
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Manganese, PM
Toluene
1,254,645.66
44,517.76
33,680.68
21,641.85
13,185.11
11,357.32
9,211.00
8,349.19
7,497.62
4,501.56
Manganese (TSP)
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Lead (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Nickel (TSP)
Chloroform
Beryllium (TSP)
0.23
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
to
to
oo
VO
-------
Observations from Table 22-8 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Mayes, Oklahoma, and Tulsa Counties. The benzene and
formaldehyde emissions for Mayes County were an order of magnitude lower than
the emissions for Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for Mayes County were arsenic, formaldehyde, and hexavalent
chromium; the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Oklahoma
County were benzene, formaldehyde, and hexavalent chromium; and the pollutants
with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Tulsa County were hexavalent
chromium, benzene, and formaldehyde.
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants in Mayes County also had the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions. Eight of the highest emitted pollutants in Oklahoma County also
had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions. Seven of the highest emitted pollutants
in Tulsa County also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
• While hexavalent chromium and arsenic were among the pollutants with the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions, neither was among the highest emitted pollutants. This
indicates that lower emissions can translate to higher risk levels.
• Where they could be calculated, benzene and formaldehyde had the highest cancer
risk approximations among the Oklahoma sites' pollutants of interest. These
pollutants appeared on both emissions-based lists for all eight sites. Conversely,
carbon tetrachloride, another pollutant with relatively highest cancer risk
approximations, does not appear on either emissions-based list.
Observations from Table 22-9 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Mayes, Oklahoma, and Tulsa Counties, although the magnitude of the
emissions is much higher in Tulsa and Oklahoma Counties than in Mayes County.
• Acrolein is the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with noncancer RfCs) for all three counties. Yet, this pollutant was not
among the highest emitted pollutants for any of the three counties. This indicates that
lower emissions can still translate to higher risk levels. Acrolein was sampled for at
all of the Oklahoma sites, but this pollutant was excluded from the pollutants of
interest designation, and thus subsequent risk screening evaluations, due to questions
about the consistency and reliability of the measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Three of the highest emitted pollutants in Mayes County also have the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions; six of the highest emitted pollutants in Oklahoma
22-90
-------
County also have the highest toxi city-weighted emissions; and four of the highest
emitted pollutants in Tulsa County also have the highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Five of the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions in
Mayes County were metals.
• Formaldehyde and manganese generally had the highest noncancer risk
approximations among the Oklahoma sites, where they could be calculated.
Formaldehyde appears on both emissions-based lists for each of the three counties.
Manganese appears among the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for each of the three counties.
• It is important to note that for the metals, the emissions-based lists are PMio while the
Oklahoma sites sampled TSP metals.
22.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Twenty pollutants failed at least one screen for TOOK; 13 pollutants failed screens
for TSOK; 17 pollutants failed at least one screen for TUOK; 17 pollutants failed
screens for TMOK; 6 pollutants failed at least one screen for CNEP; 14 pollutants
failed screens for PROK; 12 pollutants failed screens for MWOK; and 13 pollutants
failed screens for OCOK.
»«» Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration for each site, except
CNEP, which did not sample carbonyl compounds. Among the metals, manganese
had the highest daily average concentration for each site.
»«» TMOK had the highest daily average concentration of beryllium among all NMP sites
sampling metals and TOOK had the highest daily average concentration of
manganese among all NMP sites sampling metals.
»«» Two preprocessed daily measurements of formaldehyde for PROK were greater than
the associated acute MRL health risk benchmark. None of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than any of the associated MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
22-91
-------
23.0 Site in Oregon
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Oregon, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
23.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the PLOR monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The PLOR monitoring site is located in Portland, Oregon. PAH samples from PLOR
were analyzed by ERG from March through June 2008 only, after which the state of Oregon
began analyzing their own samples. Because PLOR is a NATTS site, the PAH analytical results
had to be compared to EPA's contract laboratory before the Oregon DEQ laboratory could begin
their own analysis.
Figure 23-1 is a composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the
monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 23-2 identifies point source emissions locations by
source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10
miles of the site are included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 23-2. Thus,
sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show
emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the
reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the site. Table 23-1 describes the area
surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
23-1
-------
Figure 23-1. Portland, Oregon (PLOR) Monitoring Site
to
OJ
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,606 feet
-------
Figure 23-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of PLOR
He»t Dm to lieaty ««rosy mil wiieuliwi ih« tan r»oi«i«
isptaj*dma> not represenl alfadAtws v-TlNn Hie area of interest
Legend
*&• PLOR NATTS site 10 mite radius I 71 Couity boirdary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) •
>Sf Aerospace/Aircraft Manufacturing Facility (1)
41 Airaalt Operations FaciMy (24)
l Asphalt Pro-cessm^Roofing Manufacturing (3)
K Automobifei'Truck Manufacturing Facility (3)
I Bakery (3)
S. Boat Manulactunng Facility (1)
B Bulk TerrrHnslsj'Bulk Plants (8J
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (12}
• Concrete Batch Piam (7)
TT Degreasmg Operattan (1)
•1- Dry Clean ing Facility (120) S
* Elsclncity Generation via Combustion {1)
i Electnoptaltng, Plating, Polishing. Anodizing, andCo-lwing (Id)
S Fa brtcate-d Metal Products Facility (1)
F Fo-odProcessingfAgncullure Facility (It *^
^ Glass Manufacturing Facility (1) ~*
'A l*>t Mix Asphalt Plant (2)
1 Iron and Steel Foundry (4f
Landfill (5)
Lime Manufacturing Facility (1)
Marine Port (1)
Military Base.'Uatic-nal Security Facility (1)
Mineral Products Facility (1)
Miscellaneous Commercial/Industrial Facility (1)
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (19)
Petioteum Rsfmery (1)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Facility (1)
Primary Metal Production Facility (2)
Pnntmg'Publislting Facility (1)
Pulp and Paper PlantWood Products Facility (3)
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products Facility (1)
Secondary Metal Processing Facility (S)
Semiconductor Manufacturing Facility (3)
Ship Building and Repairing Facility (1)
Steel Mill (1)
Surface Coating Facility (1)
23-3
-------
Table 23-1. Geographical Information for the Oregon Monitoring Site
Site
Code
PLOR
AQS Code
41-051-0246
Location
Portland
County
Multnomah
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Portland, OR
Latitude
and
Longitude
45.561301,
-122.678784
Land Use
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
TSP Metals, Carbonyl compounds, VOC,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM10 Metals,
PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
to
-k
-------
The city of Portland is located in northwest Oregon, approximately 65 miles from the
Oregon coast. The Columbia River runs north of the city, which acts as a natural state boundary
between Oregon and Washington. The Williamette River branches off the Columbia River and
runs southward through the city. The PLOR monitoring site is located in north-central Portland,
in a primarily residential area. Jefferson High School, of which the track and athletic fields are
prominent features in Figure 23-1, lies to the west of the site, and an apartment complex and
Humboldt Primary are located to the southwest. Interstate-5 runs north-south approximately
1/2 mile to the west, a few blocks from the high school, and Highway 99 parallels 1-5 to the east
of the monitoring site. As Figure 23-2 shows, PLOR is surrounded by numerous point sources.
The source category with the most emissions sources is the dry cleaning facility category (120);
these sources make up the bulk of the sources below a line drawn east-west through the center of
the 10-mile radius. The emissions sources closest to PLOR are in this category. The aircraft
operations source category, which includes airports as well as small runways, heliports, or
landing pads, and the electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring source category
also have a number of sources surrounding PLOR.
Table 23-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the Oregon
monitoring site. Information provided in Table 23-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2008), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Multnomah County were obtained from the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles (OR DMV,
2007) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2009), respectively. Table 23-2 also includes
a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition, the
population within 10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership
was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the
10-mile population surrounding the monitoring site. Table 23-2 also contains annual average
daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from
which it was obtained. Finally, Table 23-2 presents the daily VMT for the Portland area.
23-5
-------
Table 23-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Oregon Monitoring
Site
Site
PLOR
Estimated
County
Population1
714,567
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
748,648
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.05
Population
Within 10
Miles3
1,008,125
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
1,056,207
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
5,457
VMT5
(thousands)
34,294
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2009.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2007 data from Oregon DMV (OR DMV, 2007).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2005 data from the Portland EOT (Portland EOT, 2005).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 23-2 include the following:
• PLOR's county population was in the middle of the range compared to all counties
with NMP sites, but its 10-mile population was in the top third. This trend is also true
for its county-level and 10-mile vehicle ownership.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was also in the top third compared to other NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near PLOR was in the lower third compared to other
NMP monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from Northeast Killingsworth
Street at North Williams Avenue.
• The Portland area VMT was in the middle of the range among urban areas with NMP
sites.
23.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Oregon on sample days, as well as over the course of the year.
23.2.1 Climate Summary
The city of Portland is located between the Cascade Mountains to the east and the Coast
Range to the west. While the Coast Range provides slight shielding from weather systems
moving in from offshore, the Cascade Mountains provide orographic lift, enhancing rainfall on
the east side of the city and areas farther east. Winters are generally mild and rainy with
southeasterly winds prevailing; summers are pleasant with northwesterly winds. Rainfall is
abundant from fall through spring, but very limited in the summer. Snowfall is infrequent. Mount
23-6
-------
Hood to the east and Mount St. Helens to the north are visible from the city on clear days (Bair,
1992).
23.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 (NCDC, 2008). The closest NWS weather station is located at Portland
International Airport (WBAN 24229). Additional information about this weather station is
provided in Table 23-3. These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on
sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year.
Table 23-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year. Also included in Table 23-3 is the 95 percent
confidence interval for each parameter. Although sampling at PLOR was conducted from March
through June 2008, average meteorological conditions on sample days appear to be fairly
representative of average weather conditions throughout the year, as shown in Table 23-3. This is
likely because the temperature extremes of summer and winter are not incorporated into the
sample day averages. The largest apparent difference between the sample day and the full-year
averages was for relative humidity, which is likely due to seasonal differences in moisture
content, as discussed above.
23-7
-------
Table 23-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Oregon Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Portland, Oregon - PLOR
Portland
International Airport
24229
(45.59, -122.60)
4.14
miles
77°
(ENE)
2008
Sample
Day
All Year
63.1
±6.1
61.4
+ 1.5
54.1
±4.8
53.0
+ 1.2
42.2
±3.5
43.1
+ 1.0
48.2
±3.7
47.9
+ 1.0
66.7
±3.0
72.3
+ 1.3
1019.6
±2.5
1018.6
+ 0.7
5.2
±0.9
5.8
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
to
OJ
oo
-------
23.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 23-3 is the composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were
collected at the PLOR monitoring site in 2008. A cluster analysis could not be conducted for
PLOR because there were fewer than 30 sample days for this site. An in-depth description of this
map and how it was generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite map, each line
represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site
on a given sample day. Each concentric circle around the site in Figure 23-3 represents
100 miles.
Observations from Figure 23-3 include the following:
• Back trajectories originated primarily over the Pacific Ocean, from the west and
northwest.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for PLOR was somewhat smaller in size compared to
other NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was offshore
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, or greater than 450 miles away.
However, the average trajectory length was less than 175 miles long and most
trajectories originated within 250 miles of the site.
• The back trajectory distribution may look different with a full year's worth of sample
days.
Figure 23-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PLOR
23-9
-------
23.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Portland International Airport were
uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in
Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned
around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 23-4 presents three different wind roses for the PLOR monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year is presented. Finally, a wind rose for days that
samples were collected in 2008 is presented. These can be used to determine if wind
observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced over the entire year.
Observations from Figure 23-4 for PLOR include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that northwesterly, north-northwesterly, and east-
southeasterly winds were observed the most near PLOR. Calm winds (<2 knots) were
observed for approximately 18 percent of the hourly wind measurements, while the
strongest winds were observed with easterly and east-southeasterly winds.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose are similar to the historical wind
patterns. The sample day wind patterns are similar the 2008 and historical wind
patterns, although there are a few differences. The east-southeasterly "petal" is not as
prominent and westerly and west-northwesterly winds were observed more
frequently. Recall that sampling at PLOR occurred from March to June 2008; thus, a
wind rose incorporating a full year's worth of sample day wind observations may
exhibit different wind patterns.
23-10
-------
Figure 23-4. Wind Roses for the Portland International Airport Weather Station near PLOR
to
2008 Wind Rose
Calms 2134%
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
Calms: 17.59%
'NORTH'"--.
n
• 2- 4
Calms: 16.87%
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
23.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Oregon monitoring site in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening
value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total
failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any
of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not meet the pollutant
of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to the list of
site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening process is
presented in Section 3.2.
Table 23-4 presents PLOR's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the monitoring site are shaded.
NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded.
PLOR sampled for PAH only. PAH samples from PLOR were analyzed by ERG from March
through June 2008 only.
Table 23-4. Risk Screening Results for the Oregon Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Portland, Oregon - PLOR
Naphthalene
0.029
Total
16
16
16
16
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Observations from Table 23-4 include the following:
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail at least one screen for PLOR. Naphthalene
was detected in all 16 valid samples collected and it failed the screen for 100 percent
of them.
• Benzo(a)pyrene was added to PLOR's pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS
MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not fail any screens. This pollutant is not
shown in Table 23-4.
23-12
-------
23.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Oregon monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for the PLOR monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided
in Appendices J through O.
23.4.1 2008 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for PLOR, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 23-5, where applicable. The averages
presented in Table 23-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Table 23-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of
Interest for the Oregon Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Portland, Oregon - PLOR
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.04
±0.03
88.54
± 24.02
NA
NA
NA
78.15
±23.69
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
23-13
-------
Observations for PLOR from Table 23-5 include the following:
• Because PAH sampling did not begin until March 2008 and ended in June 2008,
PLOR has few quarterly averages and no annual averages for naphthalene and
benzo(a)pyrene.
• The daily average concentration of naphthalene is significantly higher than the daily
average concentration of benzo(a)pyrene.
• The highest concentration of both pollutants was measured on March 25, 2008. For
benzo(a)pyrene, this concentration (0.164 ng/m3) was an order of magnitude higher
than the next highest measurement (0.062 ng/m3), which likely explains the relatively
large confidence interval associated with the daily average. The nine measured
detections of benzo(a)pyrene ranged from ranged from 0.0109 to 0.164 ng/m3; the
remaining seven were non-detects.
23.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. Although PLOR has participated in the UATMP program in the past (2002-2003),
sampling has not been conducted continuously for 5 years as part of the NMP; therefore, the
trends analysis was not conducted.
23.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the PLOR
monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and explanations
regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with these risk
screenings.
23.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Oregon monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and the annual
23-14
-------
averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the Oregon monitoring site were higher
than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
23.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Oregon monitoring site and where the annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages (and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations) could not
be calculated for naphthalene or benzo(a)pyrene because sampling was conducted for only four
months in 2008, as shown in Table 23-6.
Table 23-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Oregon
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Portland, Oregon - PLOR
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.001
0.000034
~
0.003
9/0
16/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
23.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 23-7 and 23-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 23-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 23-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages.
23-15
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 23.3,
PLOR sampled for PAH. In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are
limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be
calculated. Because PAH sampling was conducted for only four months in 2008, cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations were not calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this
analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 23-7 include the following:
• Dichloromethane was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer URE in Multnomah
County, followed by benzene and formaldehyde.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) were POM Group 1, formaldehyde, and POM Group 3.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also have the highest toxi city-weighted
emissions for Multnomah County.
• Naphthalene, which was the only pollutant to fail screens for PLOR, appears on both
emissions-based lists.
• POM Groups 1, 2, and 3 were among the pollutants with the highest toxi city-
weighted emissions. These groups incorporate various PAH. POM Group 1 includes
unspeciated POM; POM Group 2 includes several PAH measured at PLOR including
acenaphthylene, benzo(e)pyrene, fluoranthene, and phenanthrene; and POM Group 3
includes 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene. Benzo(a)pyrene, one of PLOR's pollutants
of interest, is part of POM Group 5.
23-16
-------
Table 23-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Oregon Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Portland, Oregon (Multnomah County) - PLOR
Dichloromethane
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 1
1,3 -Butadiene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,975.76
498.72
448.23
173.83
161.26
128.29
123.19
53.62
45.90
26.18
POM, Group 1
Formaldehyde
POM, Group 3
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
POM, Group 2
7.06E-03
5.60E-03
4.48E-03
3.89E-03
3.70E-03
1.56E-03
1.37E-03
1.03E-03
9.29E-04
7.18E-04
to
-------
Table 23-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Oregon Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Portland, Oregon (Multnomah County) - PLOR
Toluene
Dichloromethane
Xylenes
Methanol
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Ethylene glycol
2,049.73
1,975.76
1,260.89
706.18
604.47
511.68
498.72
448.23
391.03
295.35
Acrolein
Hexamethylene- 1 ,6-diisocyanate
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
4,4'-Methylenediphenyldiisocyanate
Formaldehyde
2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
Nickel, PM
Acetaldehyde
3,596,761.10
265,000.00
130,344.31
75,486.12
61,596.86
51,652.50
45,737.52
25,453.12
22,887.15
17,917.77
to
oo
-------
Observations from Table 23-8 include the following:
• Toluene, dichloromethane, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Multnomah County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, hexamethylene-l,6-diisocyanate, and gaseous
cyanide compounds. Several diisocyantes are listed among the pollutants with the
highest toxi city-weighted emissions for Multnomah County while none of them
appear among the highest emitted pollutants.
• Only two of the highest emitted pollutants in Multnomah County also have the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
23.6 Summary of the 2008 Monitoring Data for PLOR
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for PLOR; benzo(a)pyrene was
added as a pollutant of interest because it is a NATTSMQO Core Analyte.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the second quarter 2008
average concentrations of either pollutant of interest were higher than their
associated MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
23-19
-------
24.0 Site in Rhode Island
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Rhode Island, and integrates these concentrations
with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG
are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer
back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented
below.
24.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the PRRI monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The PRRI monitoring site is located in south Providence. Figure 24-1 is a composite
satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its urban location.
Figure 24-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as reported in the
2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are included in the
facility counts provided below the map in Figure 24-2. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius
have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile
boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions
sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air
quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions
sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of
the site. Table 24-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental
geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
24-1
-------
Figure 24-1. Providence, Rhode Island (PRRI) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 2,072 feet
-------
Figure 24-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of PRRI
Legend
•jif- PRRI NATTS site 10 mile radius j
Soure*C««i»oiv Group (No. of F*ciiil»)
jjt A«HpK«4»ifcirilUanhfec»xinQFKHy ll>
-{• Mviril Op*t«t»04 F*d«y OIi
A(1|
N««: Ou* to f«>l»j dentlty iiwJ «i»oea. *i* 1cUI fmi»i«t
displayed (nay not represent at 1aalrt)e3 *tfhn the wea c-1 mer
j County boundary
I Iron n(F«n»y Mi
6 BUk THrHUhBl* PIMI ,*l
C
I I CnnWy - «Hf«llMjII
-------
Table 24-1. Geographical Information for the Rhode Island Monitoring Site
Site
Code
PRRI
AQS Code
44-007-0022
Location
Providence
County
Providence
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Providence-New
Bedford-Fall
River, RI-MA
Latitude
and
Longitude
41.807949,
-71.415
Land Use
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban/City
Center
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
PAMS, VOC, Carbonyl Compounds, Meteorological
parameters, PMio, PMi0 Speciation, Black Carbon,
PM2.5, and PM2.5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
-------
Figure 24-1 shows that the areas to the west and south of PRRI are residential, but areas
to the north and east are commercial. A hospital lies to the northeast of the site, just north of
Dudley Street. About 1/2 mile to the east 1-95 runs north-south, then turns northwestward,
entering downtown Providence. Narragansett Bay and the Port of Providence are a few tenths of
a mile farther to the east, just on the other side of 1-95. Figure 24-2 shows that a large number of
point sources are located within 10 miles of PRRI, especially to the north of the site. Many of
these sources seem to parallel 1-95. The source categories with the largest number of point
sources include electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring facilities; dry cleaners;
secondary metal processing facilities; cold solvent cleaning and stripping facilities; and chemical
manufacturers.
Table 24-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the Rhode
Island monitoring site. Information provided in Table 24-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population
data for Providence County were obtained from the Rhode Island Data Control (RI DC, 2006)
and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 24-2 also includes a
vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition, the population
within 10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated
by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitoring site. Table 24-2 also contains annual average daily traffic
information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was
obtained. Finally, Table 24-2 presents the daily VMT for the Providence area.
Table 24-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Rhode Island
Monitoring Site
Site
PRRI
Estimated
County
Population1
627,690
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
142,334
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.23
Population
Within 10
Miles3
670,441
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
152,028
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
136,800
VMT5
(thousands)
26,006
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2006 data from Rhode Island Data Control (RI DC, 2006).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the Rhode Island DOT (RI DOT, 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
24-5
-------
Observations from Table 24-2 include the following:
• Providence County's population was in the middle of the range compared to other
counties with NMP sites, as was the 10-mile population.
• The county-level vehicle registration was in the bottom third compared to other
counties with NMP sites, as was its 10-mile ownership estimate.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was second lowest compared to other NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near PRRI was the tenth highest compared to other
monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from 1-95 near the 1-195 interchange.
• The Providence area VMT was the on the mid to low end of the range among urban
areas with NMP sites.
24.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Rhode Island on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
24.2.1 Climate Summary
Providence is a coastal city on the Narragansett Bay, which opens to the Rhode Island
Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. The city's proximity to the Sound and the Atlantic Ocean temper
cold air outbreaks, and breezes off the ocean moderate summertime heat. On average, southerly
and southwesterly winds in the summer become northwesterly in the winter and precipitation in
Providence is well distributed throughout the year. Weather is fairly variable as frequent storm
systems affect the New England region (Bair, 1992).
24.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest the site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station is located at
Theodore F. Green State Airport (WBAN 14765). Additional information about the T.F. Green
weather station is provided in Table 24-3. These data were used to determine how
meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
24-6
-------
Table 24-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Rhode Island Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Providence, Rhode Island - PRRI
Theodore F. Green
State Airport
14765
(41. 72, -71.43)
6 00
miles
173°
(S)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
60.9
±4.5
60.7
+ 1.8
58.8
±4.4
58.5
+ 1.8
52.4
±4.4
52.3
+ 1.7
51.4
±4.2
50.7
+ 1.7
40.0
±4.7
39.5
+ 1.9
40.7
±4.7
39.0
+ 1.9
46.7
±4.0
46.5
+ 1.6
46.6
±4.0
45.6
+ 1.6
66.2
±4.1
64.9
+ 1.5
69.8
±3.6
66.9
+ 1.5
1016.4
±2.0
1016.3
+ 0.8
1014.0
±2.2
1016.2
+ 0.8
6.9
±0.7
7.3
+ 0.3
7.8
±0.7
7.5
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
Table 24-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 24-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 24-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were representative of average weather
conditions throughout the year for both years.
24.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 24-3 and Figure 24-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the PRRI monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 24-5
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. An in-
depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For
the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line
corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps,
each concentric circle around the site in Figures 24-3 through 24-5 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 24-3 through 24-5 for PRRI include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at PRRI.
• The farthest away a trajectory originated was west-central Michigan, or nearly 700
miles away. However, the average trajectory length was 262 miles long. More than
85 percent of back trajectories originated within 450 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis for 2008 exhibits similarities to the cluster analysis for 2009.
Both cluster analyses include a cluster trajectory representing trajectories originating
from the northwest (19 percent for 2008 and 15 percent for 2009) and a cluster
trajectory representing trajectories originating from the north to east (23 percent for
2008 and 30 percent for 2009). The three cluster trajectories originating roughly to
the southwest for 2008 (11, 15, and 32 percent) are represented by a single cluster
trajectory for 2009 (55 percent).
24-8
-------
Figure 24-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PRRI
Figure 24-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PRRI
24-9
-------
Figure 24-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for PRRI
24.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at T.F. Green Airport near PRRI were
uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in
Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned
around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 24-6 presents five different wind roses for the PRRI monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
24-10
-------
Figure 24-6. Wind Roses for the T.F. Green State Airport Weather Station near PRRI
2008 Wind Rose
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
^--,____ [SOUTH,---
2008 Sample Day
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
Calms 1162%
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 24-6 for PRRI include the following:
• The historical wind rose for PRRI shows that while westerly winds were observed the
most (11 percent of observations), wind directions from the western quadrants and
due north and due south are common near PRRI. Calm winds (< 2 knots) account for
less than 10 percent of the hourly measurements.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses for PRRI are similar to the
historical wind patterns, although there were slightly more calm observations in 2008.
These similarities indicate that these years were similar to what is expected
climatologically near this site. Further, the wind patterns shown on the sample day
wind roses for both years are similar to the full-year and historical wind patterns. This
indicates that conditions on sample days were representative of conditions
experienced throughout each year.
24.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Rhode Island monitoring
site in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context
of risk. Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk
screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 24-4 presents PRRI's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for PRRI are shaded. NATTS
MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded. PRRI
sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium.
24-12
-------
Table 24-4. Risk Screening Results for the Rhode Island Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Hg/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Providence, Rhode Island - PRRI
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.029
0.000083
0.00091
Total
83
2
1
86
88
58
79
225
94.32
3.45
1.27
38.22
96.51
2.33
1.16
96.51
98.84
100.00
Observations from Table 24-4 include the following:
• Three pollutants (naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, and hexavalent chromium) failed
screens for PRRI. Naphthalene failed nearly 97 percent of PRRI's failed screens
(83 out of 88 total failed screens).
• Naphthalene was identified as the only pollutant of interest for PRRI based on the risk
screening process. Benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent chromium were added to PRRI's
pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though
they did not contribute to 95 percent of failed screens.
• Note that sampling for PAH did not begin at PRRI until July 2008; therefore half as
many PAH samples were collected than hexavalent chromium samples in 2008.
24.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Rhode Island monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for the PRRI monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for
select pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize
concentration trends at the site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries
are provided in Appendices J through 0.
24.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for PRRI, as described in Section 3.3. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
24-13
-------
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 24-5, where applicable. The averages
presented in Table 24-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations for PRRI from Table 24-5 include the following:
• Sampling for PAH did not begin until July 2008; as such, first and second quarter
2008 (and thus, annual averages) could not be calculated for these pollutants. In
addition, hexavalent chromium was not detected often enough in several quarters for
some quarterly averages to be calculated.
• The daily average concentrations of naphthalene were significantly higher than the
daily averages of the other two pollutants of interest for both years.
• The second quarter 2009 benzo(a)pyrene average has a large confidence interval
associated with it. The maximum concentration of this pollutant was measured on
April 16, 2009 (2.86 ng/m3) and was nearly four times the next highest concentration.
The April 16 measurement was also the fourth highest measurement of
benzo(a)pyrene among all NMP sites sampling PAH. Table 4-11 shows that the 2009
daily average concentration of benzo(a)pyrene for PRRI was the seventh highest
among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant.
• Even though the maximum benzo(a)pyrene concentration at PRRI was measured in
April 2009, the first quarter 2009 average is actually higher than the second quarter
average. Of the 15 measurements greater than 0.35 ng/m3, 10 of these were measured
during the first quarter of 2009. This could suggest a seasonal correlation with
concentrations of this pollutant, but is difficult to determine without the first two
quarters of data for 2008. Figure 4-28 also suggests this correlation, as discussed in
Section 4.4.2, but the start date and detection rates of this pollutant make this difficult
to determine for PRRI.
24-14
-------
Table 24-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Rhode Island
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Providence, Rhode Island - PRRI
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.13
+ 0.05
0.02
+ 0.01
71.71
± 15.66
NR
0.02
±0.01
NR
NR
0.01
±0.01
NR
0.05
±0.02
0.03
±0.02
59.11
±16.36
0.18
±0.07
NA
83.42
+ 26.00
NA
0.01
±0.01
NA
0.28
±0.11
0.02
±0.01
101.64
± 17.91
0.46
±0.13
NA
92.43
±39.72
0.32
±0.38
NA
77.43
± 18.80
0.09
±0.05
0.01
±0.01
93.94
±23.21
0.17
±0.06
NA
140.08
±51.06
0.25
±0.10
NA
101.64
±17.91
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
24.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. PRRI has sampled hexavalent chromium under the NMP since 2005. Thus,
Figure 24-7 presents the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for hexavalent chromium for PRRI. The
statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-detects.
Figure 24-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at PRRI
-
u
-.!>
**>
1
• Wt-HK
1
c=
W
,„„
»
••
.',..
-
7 I
TDm
— I.IMMMMN - *.lr>flJI
-
~
.(III
•».
K--.
••
....
.,'•
. ...
1
rtod
- M«*wi • nthftmiri
-•1
am
..„•
jr
*
KI
/.,
t
•"»« AvlTl(<
Observations from Figure 24-7 for hexavalent chromium measurements at PRRI include
the following:
• Sampling for hexavalent chromium at PRRI began in January 2005.
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured on
August 28, 2007 (0.193 ng/m3), although a similar concentration was measured on
July 4, 2006 (0.192 ng/m3).
• The rolling average concentrations were very similar in magnitude for 2005-2007 and
2006-2008, but exhibit a decrease for 2007-2009. Confidence intervals calculated for
24-16
-------
these averages show that the decrease from 2006-2008 to 2007-2009 was not
statistically significant. A similar trend is shown for the median concentrations.
• For each 3-year period shown, the minimum and 5th percentile are zero, indicating the
presence of non-detects. The number of non-detects reported has varied by year, from
as low as 18 percent in 2006 to as high as 65 percent in 2009.
24.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the PRRI
monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and explanations
regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with these risk
screenings.
24.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Rhode Island monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured
detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the PRRI
monitoring site were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
24.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Rhode Island monitoring site and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 24-6, where applicable.
24-17
-------
Table 24-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Rhode Island Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Providence, Rhode Island - PRRI
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
3.4E-05
0.0001
0.003
24/2
37/3
27/2
NA
0.01
+ 0.01
NA
NA
0.17
NA
<0.01
NA
55/4
21/1
61/4
0.25
+ 0.10
NA
101.64
±17.91
0.25
NA
3.46
NA
0.03
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
oo
-------
Observations for PRRI from Table 24-6 include the following:
• Because PAH sampling did not begin until July 2008, annual averages (and therefore
cancer and noncancer risk approximations) could not be calculated for the PAH for
2008. For 2009, the cancer surrogate risk approximation for naphthalene (3.46 in-a-
million) was higher than the cancer surrogate risk approximation for benzo(a)pyrene.
The noncancer risk approximation for naphthalene (0.03) was well below than the
level of concern for noncancer, which is an HQ of 1.0. There is no noncancer RfC for
benzo(a)pyrene.
• For 2008, the cancer surrogate risk approximation (0.17 in-a-million) and the
noncancer risk approximation (<0.01) for hexavalent chromium were low. For 2009,
an annual average for hexavalent chromium (and therefore cancer and noncancer risk
approximations) could not be calculated due to the relatively high number of non-
detects.
24.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 24-7 and 24-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 24-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 24-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
24-19
-------
Table 24-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Rhode Island Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Providence, Rhode Island (Providence County) - PRRI
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
245.84
149.28
82.18
51.29
39.34
33.78
24.91
21.16
13.64
2.94
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Arsenic, PM
Cadmium, PM
POM, Group 2
Nickel, PM
1.92E-03
1.87E-03
1.30E-03
1.18E-03
7.19E-04
4.85E-04
2.76E-04
1.84E-04
1.62E-04
1.62E-04
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
3.46
0.25
0.17
t-O
o
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 24-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Rhode Island Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Providence, Rhode Island (Providence County) - PRRI
Toluene
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
770.99
639.55
530.42
320.57
245.84
149.28
122.45
109.00
82.18
51.29
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene
Nickel, PM
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Chlorine
Xylenes
447,840.11
19,672.36
15,557.59
15,232.49
8,194.51
7,811.56
7,052.46
5,699.25
5,630.00
5,304.23
Naphthalene 0.03
Hexavalent Chromium <0.01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on the site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 24.3,
PRRI sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium only. In addition, the cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria
for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 24-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene were the highest emitted pollutants
with cancer UREs in Providence County.
• Benzene was also the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with cancer UREs), followed by formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium.
While hexavalent chromium, which is one of PRRI's pollutants of interest, had the
third highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Providence County, it did not appear on
the list of highest emitted pollutants.
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions
for Providence County.
• Naphthalene, which had the highest cancer risk approximation among the pollutants
of interest for PRRI, had the eighth highest emissions and the fifth highest toxicity-
weighted emissions.
• POM Group 2 was both the tenth highest emitted "pollutant" in Providence County
and ranked ninth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several
PAH sampled for at PRRI including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for PRRI.
Observations from Table 24-8 include the following:
• Toluene, methyl tert-butyl ether, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Providence County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and nickel.
24-22
-------
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants in Providence County also had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene did not appear on the list of highest
emitted pollutants or the list of highest toxicity-weighted emissions for pollutants
with noncancer toxicity factors; naphthalene ranked seventh on the list of pollutants
with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
24.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for PRRI
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene, hexavalent chromium, and benzo(a)pyrene failed at least one screen for
PRRI.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of the interest, naphthalene had the highest daily
average concentration for PRRI for both years.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
24-23
-------
25.0 Site in South Carolina
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in South Carolina, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
25.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the CHSC monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
CHSC is located in central Chesterfield County, South Carolina. Figure 25-1 is a
composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its rural
location. Figure 25-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as reported
in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are included
in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 25-2. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile
radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources outside the
10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which
emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact
on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of
emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources within a given
distance of the site. Table 25-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site by providing
supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational
coordinates.
25-1
-------
Figure 25-1. Chesterfield, South Carolina (CHSC) Monitoring Site
t-o
01
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 2,138 feet
-------
Figure 25-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of CHSC
riot*: DIN to ftdlly dtmfly wvd nttwWon. the toul tadion
dipbycd may no! represent >l (idlulM wttwi llw K«B
-------
Table 25-1. Geographical Information for the South Carolina Monitoring Site
Site
Code
CHSC
AQS Code
45-025-0001
Location
Not in a
city
County
Chesterfield
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Not in an MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
34.615367,
-80.198789
Land Use
Forest
Location
Setting
Rural
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
TSP, TSP Metals, VOC, 03, Meteorological
parameters, PMi0, PMi0 Speciation, PM2.5, and
PM2.5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
t-o
en
-------
CHSC is located about 15 miles south of the North and South Carolina border, between
the towns of McBee and Chesterfield. The monitoring site is located near the Ruby fire tower
and, as Figure 25-1 shows, is located just off State Road 145. The surrounding area is rural in
nature and is part of the Carolina Sandhills Wildlife Refuge. Figure 25-2 shows that few point
sources are located within 10 miles of CHSC.
Table 25-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the South
Carolina monitoring site. Information provided in Table 25-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population
data for Chesterfield County were obtained from the South Carolina Department of Public Safety
(SC DPS, 2009) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 25-2
also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition,
the population within 10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership
was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the
10-mile population surrounding the monitoring site. Table 25-2 also contains annual average
daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from
which it was obtained. VMT was not available for the CHSC monitoring site because it is not
part of an urban area.
Table 25-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the South Carolina
Monitoring Site
Site
CHSC
Estimated
County
Population1
43,037
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
40,133
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.93
Population
Within 10
Miles3
5,432
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
5,065
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
650
VMT5
(thousands)
NA
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2007 data from South Carolina DPS (SC DPS, 2007).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the South Carolina DOT (SC DOT, 2010).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
NA = Data unavailable.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
25-5
-------
Observations from Table 25-2 include the following:
• Chesterfield County's population was among lowest compared to other counties with
NMP sites. This site's 10-mile population was the lowest among NMP sites sampling
in 2009. Similar rankings were found for both the county-level and 10-mile vehicle
ownerships.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was in the middle of the range among NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near CHSC ranked among the lowest compared to
other NMP monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from State Road 145
between State Road 109 and US-1.
25.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in South Carolina on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
25.2.1 Climate Summary
The town of Chesterfield is located just south of the North Carolina/South Carolina
border, about 35 miles northwest of the city of Florence. Although the area experiences all four
seasons, South Carolina's southeastern location ensures mild winters and long, hot summers.
Summers are dominated by the Bermuda high pressure system over the Atlantic, which allows
southwesterly winds to prevail, bringing in warm, moist air out of the Gulf of Mexico. During
winter, winds out of the southwest shift northeasterly after frontal systems move across the area.
Chesterfield County leads the state in average number of sleet and freezing rain events per year
(Bair, 1992 and SC SCO, 2011).
25.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station is located at
the Monroe Airport in Monroe, North Carolina (WBAN 53872). Additional information about
the Monroe Airport weather station is provided in Table 25-3. These data were used to determine
how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the
year(s).
25-6
-------
Table 25-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 25-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 25-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were representative of average weather
conditions throughout the year for both years.
25.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 25-3 and Figure 25-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the CHSC monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 25-5
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. An in-
depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For
the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line
corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps,
each concentric circle around the site in Figures 25-3 through 25-5 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 25-3 through 25-5 for CHSC include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at CHSC, although a large
number of trajectories originated from a southwesterly and westerly direction. A
second group originated from the northeast.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for CHSC was similar in size to other NMP monitoring
sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was near Chicago, or just greater than
600 miles away. However, the average trajectory length was 204 miles and most
trajectories (87 percent) originated within 350 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis shows that at least 50 percent of trajectories originated from the
southwest and west for both years. Another predominant trajectory origin is from the
north to northeast. The short red cluster trajectory (31 percent) actually represents
trajectories originating from a variety of directions, but within 150 miles of CHSC.
The blue cluster trajectory originating far to the northwest (2 percent) represents a
single trajectory, the one originating near Chicago.
25-7
-------
Table 25-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the South Carolina Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Chesterfield, South Carolina - CHSC
Monroe Airport
53872
(35.02, -80.62)
35 81
miles
311°
(NW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
70.5
+ 3.9
70.9
+ 1.6
71.2
+ 4.0
70.1
+ 1.6
60.7
±3.6
60.6
+ 1.5
60.8
±3.8
60.4
+ 1.5
49.4
±4.0
48.3
+ 1.7
48.9
±4.2
48.7
+ 1.7
54.8
±3.4
54.2
+ 1.4
54.5
±3.6
54.3
+ 1.5
70.2
±3.9
67.9
+ 1.5
68.3
±3.3
69.1
+ 1.5
1017.9
± 1.7
1018.7
+ 0.7
1017.0
±1.7
1018.3
+ 0.7
5.4
±0.7
5.6
+ 0.3
5.5
±0.8
5.1
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
c_n
OO
-------
Figure 25-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CHSC
.
Figure 25-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CHSC
25-9
-------
Figure 25-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for CHSC
25.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Monroe Airport near CHSC were
uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in
Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned
around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 25-6 presents five different wind roses for the CHSC monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 2000 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
25-10
-------
Figure 25-6. Wind Roses for the Monroe Airport Weather Station near CHSC
t-o
01
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
2000 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
Calms 3131%
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 25-6 for CHSC include the following:
• The historical wind rose for CHSC shows that calm winds (< 2 knots) account for
nearly one-third of the hourly measurements. Winds from the south-southwest to
west-southwest are the prevailing directions, although winds from the north-northeast
to east-northeast are often observed as well. Winds from the southeast quadrant are
generally not observed.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses for CHSC are similar to
the historical wind patterns. These similarities indicate that these years were similar
to what is expected climatologically near this site. Further, the sample day wind
patterns for both years are similar to the full-year and historical wind patterns,
indicating that conditions on sample days were representative of conditions
experienced throughout each year.
25.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the South Carolina monitoring
site in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context
of risk. Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk
screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 25-4 presents CHSC's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the monitoring site are shaded.
NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded.
CHSC sampled hexavalent chromium and PAH.
25-12
-------
Table 25-4. Risk Screening Results for the South Carolina Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Chesterfield, South Carolina - CHSC
Naphthalene
0.029
Total
9
9
102
102
8.82
8.82
100.00
100.00
Observations from Table 25-4 include the following:
• Naphthalene was detected in 102 samples collected at CHSC and failed nine screens,
or approximately nine percent of screens.
• This site had the third lowest number of failed screens (9) among all NMP sites.
• Benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent chromium were added to CHSC's pollutant of
interest because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail
any screens. These pollutants are not shown in Table 25-4.
25.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the South Carolina monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for the CHSC monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for
select pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize
concentration trends at the site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries
are provided in Appendices J through 0.
25.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for CHSC, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
25-13
-------
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 25-5, where applicable. The averages
presented in Table 25-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations for CHSC from Table 25-5 include the following:
• The daily average concentration of naphthalene was significantly higher than the
daily average of hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene for both years. Compared
to other NMP sites, CHSC had some of the lowest daily average concentrations of
these three pollutants.
• The quarterly average concentrations of naphthalene generally did not vary
significantly from quarter to quarter. However, the second quarter average for 2009 is
higher than the other quarters and has a large confidence interval associated with it.
The maximum naphthalene concentration was measured on May 1, 2009 (323 ng/m3)
and was nearly six times the next highest measurement (55.9 ng/m3). The
concentrations measured at CHSC ranged from 5.00 ng/m3 to 323 ng/m3, with a
median concentration of 14.35 ng/m3.
• Quarterly averages for benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent chromium could not be
calculated due to the low number of measured detections in each quarter; thus, annual
averages could not be calculated either.
25-14
-------
Table 25-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the South Carolina
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
Chesterfield, South Carolina - CHSC
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.05
+ 0.02
0.01
+ <0.01
15.89
+ 2.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.07
±4.46
NA
NA
15.29
±2.23
NA
NA
19.07
±6.43
NA
NA
15.89
±2.65
0.04
±0.01
0.01
± <0.01
21.71
+ 11.22
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
NA
NA
17.41
±5.83
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
NA
NA
36.33
±45.67
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
NA
NA
15.09
±2.18
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
NA
NA
17.85
±3.93
NA
NA
21.71
±11.22
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
t-o
01
-------
25.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. CHSC has sampled hexavalent chromium under the NMP since 2005. Thus,
Figure 25-7 presents the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for hexavalent chromium for CHSC.
The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-
detects.
Figure 25-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at CHSC
*»4
.,..-•,.„. ..-
.„.,• .,„-,
• 4UhPn.mil> •••• •
Observations from Figure 25-7 for hexavalent chromium measurements at CHSC include
the following:
• Sampling for hexavalent chromium at CHSC began in January 2005.
• The maximum concentration of hexavalent chromium was measured on
March 23, 2005. The maximum concentration of hexavalent chromium measured in
subsequent time periods was considerably lower.
25-16
-------
• In addition to the maximum concentration, the 95th percentile and rolling average
concentrations of hexavalent chromium exhibit a decreasing trend over the periods
shown.
• The minimum, 5th percentile, and median concentrations were all zero for each 3-year
period shown in Figure 25-7, indicating that at least 50 percent of the measurements
collected at CHSC were non-detects.
25.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
CHSC monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and explanations
regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with these risk
screenings.
25.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
South Carolina monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured
detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the CHSC
monitoring site were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
25.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the South Carolina monitoring site and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 25-6, where applicable.
25-17
-------
Table 25-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the South Carolina Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(HS/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
jroximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Chesterfield, South Carolina - CHSC
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
3.4E-05
0.0001
0.003
8/0
16/0
47/3
NA
NA
15.89
+ 2.65
NA
NA
0.54
NA
NA
0.01
12/0
5/0
55/4
NA
NA
21.71
+ 11.22
NA
NA
0.74
NA
NA
0.01
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
en
i—*
oo
-------
Observations for CHSC from Table 25-6 include the following:
• Annual average concentrations could only be calculated for naphthalene.
• The cancer risk approximations for naphthalene were low for CHSC for both years
(0.54 in-a-million for 2008 and 0.74 in-a-million for 2009).
• The noncancer risk approximations for naphthalene were very low (0.01 for both
years).
25.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 25-7 and 25-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 25-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from annual averages.
Table 25-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from the annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer risk surrogate approximations based on the site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which the site sampled. As discussed in Section 25.3, CHSC
sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium only. In addition, the cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria
for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
25-19
-------
Table 25-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the South Carolina Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Chesterfield, South Carolina (Chesterfield County) - CHSC
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
POM, Group 2
Trichloroethylene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
93.91
83.73
20.18
17.98
7.23
3.53
2.86
2.47
1.66
0.92
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 5
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 6
POM, Group 3
1.17E-03
6.53E-04
5.39E-04
1.94E-04
1.52E-04
8.40E-05
6.32E-05
4.44E-05
4.36E-05
2.90E-05
Naphthalene 0.74
Naphthalene 0.54
t-o
o
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 25-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the South Carolina Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Chesterfield, South Carolina (Chesterfield County) - CHSC
Toluene
Xylenes
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Methanol
Ethylene glycol
Hexane
Acetaldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Ethylbenzene
142.04
99.34
93.91
83.73
33.54
31.98
20.55
20.18
19.43
18.74
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Nickel, PM
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Glycol ethers, gas
677,390.85
9,582.82
8,989.59
2,791.09
2,241.74
1,383.99
1,241.10
993.37
823.16
795.68
Naphthalene 0.01
Naphthalene 0.01
en
t-o
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 25-7 include the following:
• Formaldehyde, benzene, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Chesterfield County.
• Formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene were the pollutants with the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with cancer UREs) for Chesterfield
County.
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions
for Chesterfield County.
• Naphthalene, which was the only pollutant of interest with annual averages for
CHSC, had the eighth highest emissions and the sixth highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Chesterfield County.
• Hexavalent chromium ranked fifth for its toxicity-weighted emissions, but was not
among the highest emitted pollutants.
• Several POM Groups appear among the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH sampled for at CHSC including
acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and phenanthrene. POM Group 5 includes
benzo(a)pyrene, which is one of CHSC's pollutants of interest. POM Group 6
includes benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene, all of
which were sampled at CHSC. POM Group 3 does not include any pollutants
sampled at CHSC.
Observations from Table 25-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and formaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Chesterfield County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants in Chesterfield County also had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Naphthalene, which was the only pollutant of interest with annual averages for
CHSC, did not appear on among the highest emitted pollutants, but ranked ninth
among the pollutants with the 10 highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
25-22
-------
25.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for CHSC
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for CHSC.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of the interest, naphthalene had the highest daily
average concentration for CHSC for both years.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
25-23
-------
26.0 Sites in South Dakota
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the UATMP sites in South Dakota, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
26.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the monitoring sites by providing geographical and physical
information about the location of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
One monitoring site is located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SSSD). Another monitoring
site is located in Custer, South Dakota (CUSD). The instrumentation at the CUSD site was
moved across the state from Custer to Union County after completing sampling in 2008, and was
renamed UCSD. Figures 26-1 through 26-3 are composite satellite images retrieved from
Google™ Earth showing the monitoring sites in their rural and urban locations. Figures 26-4
through 26-6 identify point source emissions locations by source category, as reported in the
2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the sites are included in
the facility counts provided below the maps in Figures 26-4 through 26-6. Thus, sources outside
the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to show emissions sources
outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of
which emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate
impact on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this boundary provides both the
proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the quantity of such sources
within a given distance of the sites. Table 26-1 describes the area surrounding each monitoring
site by providing supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and
locational coordinates.
26-1
-------
Figure 26-1. Custer, South Dakota (CUSD) Monitoring Site
to
ON
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,917 feet
-------
Figure 26-2. Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SSSD) Monitoring Site
to
OJ
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,673 feet
-------
Figure 26-3. Union County, South Dakota (UCSD) Monitoring Site
to
-k
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,348 feet
-------
Figure 26-4. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD
->•".-' • -•••. IG.raO'frW tarJS'tfW
I luiB. Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within (he area of interest.
Legend
TSr CUSD UATMP site
10 mile radius
J County boundary
Source Category Group {No. of Facilities)
41 Aircraft Operations Facility (5)
26-5
-------
Figure 26-5. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of SSSD
96*5Qt)'W 96'45'0'W 96°40fl"W !lfi"3M>'W '•• • i •-•',
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent ail facilities within the area of interest-
Legend
•&• SSSD UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
^] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
-(* Aircraft Operations Facility (7)
S Automobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility (4)
f Electricity Generation via Combustion (2)
F Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (1)
• Landfill (1)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (5)
i Pipeline Compressor Station (1)
W Woodwork, Furniture, Milfwork & Wood Preserving Facility (2)
26-6
-------
Figure 26-6. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of UCSD
fl-W QG'4CrO'W UfT'aS'Q'W -• .-' ''V-1
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
$• UCSD UATMP site
10 mile radius
J County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
•f Aircraft Operations Facility (1)
S Automobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility (1)
26-7
-------
Table 26-1. Geographical Information for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
CUSD
SSSD
UCSD
AQS Code
46-033-0003
46-099-0008
46-127-0001
Location
Custer
Sioux Falls
Not in a
City
County
Custer
Minnehaha
Union
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
Not in an MSA
Sioux Falls, SD
Sioux City, IA-
NE-SD MSA
Latitude and
Longitude
43.766798,
-103.584695
43.54792,
-96.700769
42.751518,
-96.707208
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Suburban
Urban/City
Center
Rural
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
None.
SO2, NOy, NO, NO2, NOx, O3, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, PM25, and PM25 Speciation.
CO, SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, and PM2 5.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
to
ON
oo
-------
CUSD is located in the town of Custer on the west side of the state, southwest of Rapid
City. The town is located in the Black Hills and lies west of Custer State Park. The monitoring
site is located just south of the Highway 89 and Highway 16 intersection, on the property of a
sports complex on the outskirts of town. A residential subdivision is located just south and west
of the site, as shown in Figure 26-1. Mobile sources and burning (wildfires and residential
heating) are the primary emissions sources in the area. As Figure 26-4 shows, the only point
sources located within 10 miles of the CUSD monitoring site are in the aircraft operations source
category, which include airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads. The closest
aircraft operation to CUSD is the heliport at the Custer Regional Hospital.
SSSD is located on the east side of Sioux Falls, in eastern South Dakota. In previous
years, the monitoring site was located at an elementary school on Bahnson Avenue. At the end of
the 2007, the monitoring site was moved to a location at the South Dakota School for the Deaf,
approximately 1 mile northwest of the previous location. The surrounding area is mixed usage,
with both commercial and residential areas surrounding the site. SSSD is less than 1/2 mile from
the intersection of Highway 42 and 1-229, as shown in Figure 26-2. As Figure 26-5 shows, most
of the emissions sources within 10 miles of SSSD are to the west of an imaginary line drawn
down the center of the 10-mile radius around SSSD. The source categories with the highest
number of sources include the aircraft operations category and the automobile/truck
manufacturing category.
UCSD is located in Union County, the southeastern-most county of the state, where the
South Dakota state border follows the Missouri River and comes to a point near Sioux City, Iowa
at the Nebraska and Iowa borders. The UCSD monitoring site is located in a rural and
agricultural area, as shown in Figure 26-3, north of Elk Point and southeast of Junction City.
Interstate-29 runs northwest-southeast through the center of Union County and lies less than
1.5 miles west of UCSD. Figure 26-6 shows that there are only two point sources located within
10 miles of the site. However, UCSD is southeast of a proposed power plant and oil refinery
(SD DENR, 2009). These facilities will be located approximately 3 to 4 miles north-northwest of
the site.
26-9
-------
Table 26-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the South
Dakota monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 26-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (for CUSD, 2008 and for SSSD and UCSD, 2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-
level vehicle registration and population data for Custer, Minnehaha, and Union Counties were
obtained from the South Dakota Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division (SD DOR,
2008) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2009 and 2010), respectively. Table 26-2
also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site.
In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile
vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population
ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site. Table 26-2 also contains annual
average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source
from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 26-2 presents the daily VMT for the Sioux Falls and
Sioux City urban areas (VMT was not available for Custer).
Table 26-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites
Site
CUSD
SSSD
UCSD
Estimated
County
Population1
7,811
183,048
14,589
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
14,714
200,008
22,304
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.96
1.09
1.53
Population
Within 10
Miles3
5,549
167,000
6,796
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
10,901
182,473
10,390
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
2,500
22,087
156
VMT5
(thousands)
NA
2,984
2,070
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2009 and 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the South Dakota DOR (SD DOR, 2008).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2007 data (for CUSD and UCSD) and 2009 data (for SSSD) from the South
Dakota DOT (SD DOT, 2007 and 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
NA = Data unavailable.
Observations from Table 26-2 include the following:
• Although SSSD's county-level population was significantly higher than UCSD and
CUSD's, all three county-level populations were in the bottom third compared to
other counties with NMP sites. Custer County's population was the lowest of all
NMP sites sampling in 2008 while Union County's population was the lowest of all
26-10
-------
NMP sites sampling in 2009. The 10-mile populations for each site were also on the
low side compared to other NMP sites, particularly CUSD and UCSD.
• SSSD's county-level vehicle registration was an order of magnitude higher than
UCSD and CUSD's, yet all three county-level vehicle registrations were on the low
side compared to other counties with NMP sites. Custer County and Union County's
registrations were the lowest of all NMP counties, while Minnehaha County was in
the bottom third. The 10-mile vehicle ownership estimates mimicked the rankings of
the county-level vehicle ownerships.
• The vehicle-per-person ratios for these sites were among the highest, indicating that
residents likely own multiple vehicles. The ratio for CUSD is the highest among all
NMP sites (nearly two vehicles per person).
• The traffic volume for SSSD is an order of magnitude higher than the traffic volume
for CUSD and two orders of magnitude higher than the traffic volume for UCSD. The
traffic near UCSD is the second lowest among all NMP sites. Traffic data for CUSD
were obtained for the intersection of Highways 16 and 89; traffic data for SSSD were
obtained for 10th Avenue at Mable Avenue; traffic data for UCSD were obtained for
475th Avenue near 317th Street.
• The Sioux Falls and Sioux City area VMTs were the lowest among urban areas with
NMP sites (behind only the Grand Junction urban area).
26.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in South Dakota on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
26.2.1 Climate Summary
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, with the spring and
summer seasons receiving more than half of the annual rainfall. On average, a south wind blows
in the summer and a northwesterly wind blows in the winter. Flooding is often a concern in the
area during springtime when snow begins to melt, although a flood control system, including
levees and a diversion channel, was constructed during the late 1950s to early 1960s to reduce
the flood threat within the city limits and to divert water from the Big Sioux River and Skunk
Creek around the city (Bair, 1992 and City of Sioux Falls, 2011).
26-11
-------
The climate of Custer is considered semi-arid continental; annual precipitation is
generally light. Warm, pleasant summers and relatively mild winters are characteristic of this
area, due in part to the Black Hills, which allow winters to be milder in comparison to the rest of
the state. Winds blow out of the north-northwest on average (Bair, 1992).
The climate near Sioux City is generally continental in nature, with warm summers and
cold, relatively dry winters. Precipitation is concentrated in the spring and summer months. Wind
direction varies with season, with southeasterly to southerly winds in the spring and summer, and
northwesterly winds in the autumn and winter (Bair, 1992).
26.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather stations nearest these sites were
retrieved for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The three closest NWS weather
stations are located at Custer County Airport (near CUSD), Joe Foss Field Airport (near SSSD),
and Sioux Gateway Airport (near UCSD), WBAN 94032, 14944, and 14943, respectively.
Additional information about these weather stations is provided in Table 26-3. These data were
used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions
throughout the year(s).
Table 26-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 26-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 26-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout the years at all three sites.
26-12
-------
Table 26-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
Custer County
Airport
94032
(43.73, -103.63)
3.20
miles
224°
(SW)
2008
Sample
Day
All Year
50.7
±5.0
51.5
+ 2.0
40.3
±4.7
41.4
+ 1.8
25.5
±4.4
25.8
+ 1.7
34.0
±4.1
34.6
+ 1.5
59.6
±3.7
58.5
+ 1.5
1014.0
±2.2
1014.2
+ 0.8
5.9
±0.5
5.9
+ 0.3
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SSSD
Joe Foss Field
Airport
14944
(43.58, -96.75)
3.21
miles
309°
(NW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
52.6
±6.6
54.8
+ 2.5
56.8
±5.7
54.9
+ 2.3
43.1
±6.3
45.0
+ 2.4
47.0
±5.3
45.4
+ 2.2
32.3
±5.8
33.9
+ 2.2
36.7
±5.0
35.6
+ 2.1
38.1
±5.7
39.7
+ 2.1
42.1
±4.8
40.8
+ 2.0
68.5
±2.6
68.2
+ 1.1
69.9
±2.5
71.2
+ 1.1
1015.5
±2.2
1015.8
+ 0.8
1016.1
±1.6
1016.5
+ 0.8
9.3
±1.2
8.3
+ 0.4
8.2
±1.0
7.9
+ 0.4
Union County, South Dakota - UCSD
Sioux Gateway /Col.
Bud Day Field
Airport
14943
(42.39, -96.38)
25.06
miles
86°
(E)
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
60.1
±5.5
58.2
+ 2.3
49.6
±5.1
47.8
+ 2.1
39.1
±4.8
37.6
+ 2.0
44.5
±4.6
42.9
+ 2.0
70.4
±3.1
70.7
+ 1.2
1016.9
±1.7
1017.0
+ 0.8
8.3
±1.1
8.2
+ 0.4
to
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
26.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 26-7 is the composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were
collected at the CUSD monitoring site in 2008. Figure 26-8 is the cluster analysis for 2008.
Figures 26-9 and 26-10 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which samples were
collected at the SSSD monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 26-11 is the cluster
analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. Finally, Figure 26-12
is the composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were collected at the UCSD
monitoring site in 2009 and Figure 26-13 is the cluster analysis for 2009. An in-depth description
of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite
maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the
monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back
trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle
around the sites in Figures 26-7 through 26-13 represents 100 miles.
Figure 26-7. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CUSD
26-14
-------
Figure 26-8. 2008 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for CUSD
Figure 26-9. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SSSD
26-15
-------
Figure 26-10. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SSSD
Figure 26-11. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for SSSD
26-16
-------
Figure 26-12. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for UCSD
Figure 26-13. 2009 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for UCSD
26-17
-------
Observations from Figures 26-7 and 26-8 for CUSD include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the CUSD monitoring site,
although most trajectories originated from the southwest, west or northwest.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for CUSD was somewhat larger in size compared to
other NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was southeast
British Columbia, Canada, or nearly 700 miles away. However, the average trajectory
length was 269 miles and over 90 percent of the trajectories originated within 400
miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis for CUSD shows that 70 percent of trajectories originated from
the northwest, west, or southwest of the site. Twenty percent of trajectories originated
from the south and south-southeast of the site and another 10 percent originated to the
northeast of the site.
Observations from Figures 26-9 through 26-11 for SSSD include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the SSSD site, although
primarily from the northwest and south.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for SSSD was one of the larger air sheds compared to
the other NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was
southeast Alberta, Canada, or nearly 800 miles away. However, the average trajectory
length was approximately 300 miles and 85 percent of the trajectories originated
within 500 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis confirms that trajectories originating from the northwest and
south were most common for SSSD. The shorter clusters originating to the northeast
(2008) or north (2009) of SSSD represent trajectories originating to the north,
northeast, and east of the site, as well as a few from other directions but within 100
miles or so of the site.
Observations from Figures 26-12 and 26-13 for UCSD include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the UCSD monitoring site.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for UCSD was somewhat larger in size compared to
other NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was north-
central Montana, or nearly 650 miles away. However, the average trajectory length
was 280 miles and over 85 percent of the trajectories originated within 450 miles of
the site.
• The cluster analysis for UCSD shows that over 30 percent of trajectories originated
from the northwest and north-northwest of the site. Another roughly 30 percent
26-18
-------
originated to the south and southeast of the site. Similar to SSSD's cluster analysis,
the shorter cluster originating to the northwest (39 percent) of UCSD represents
trajectories originating from various directions but within 100-200 miles of the site.
26.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at Custer County (for CUSD), Joe Foss
Field (for SSSD), and Sioux Gateway (for UCSD) Airports were uploaded into a wind rose
software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind
rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned around a 16-point
compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 26-14 presents three different wind roses for the CUSD monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 2000 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year is presented. Lastly, a wind rose representing
days on which samples were collected in 2008 is presented. These can be used to determine if
wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced over the entire
year. Figure 26-15 presents five different wind roses for the SSSD monitoring site (including a
full-year and sample day wind rose for both years) and Figure 26-16 presents three different
wind roses for the UCSD monitoring site (including a full-year and sample day wind rose for
2009).
Observations from Figure 26-14 for CUSD include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that west-southwesterly to northwesterly winds
prevailed near CUSD. Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for approximately
21 percent of the observations.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose are nearly identical to those shown
on the historical wind rose, indicating that conditions in 2008 were similar to those
experienced historically.
• The 2008 sample day wind rose exhibits a little more fluctuation in the percentages,
but still shows that winds from the west-southwest to northwest prevailed on sample
days.
26-19
-------
Figure 26-14. Wind Roses for the Custer County Airport Weather Station near CUSD
2000 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
to
to
o
•WES if
NORTH"" - -.
2008 Wind Rose
NORTH"" - -.
2008
-------
Figure 26-15. Wind Roses for the Joe Foss Field Airport Weather Station near SSSD
to
ON
to
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
n 4-7
Calm/ 1243'S,
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calm; 1499%
-------
Figure 26-16. Wind Roses for the Sioux Gateway Airport Weather Station near UCSD
1997 - 2007
to
to
to
Historical Wind Rose
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2009 Sample Day
2009 Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 26-15 for SSSD include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from a variety of directions were observed
near SSSD, although winds from the south were observed the most (13 percent), and
southwesterly and south-southwesterly winds observed the least (less than 3 percent).
Calm winds were observed for approximately 12 percent of the observations. The
strongest winds tend to be from the south or the northwest quadrant.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind patterns are very similar to the historical wind patterns,
although a slightly higher percentage of calm winds were observed during these
years.
• The 2008 and 2009 sample day wind roses resemble the historical and full-year wind
roses, but do show some differences. Both sample day wind roses have a higher
percentage of northwesterly (and west-northwesterly for 2008) winds.
Observations from Figure 26-16 for UCSD include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from the southeasterly and northwesterly
quadrants were observed the most near UCSD. Calm winds were observed for less
than nine percent of the observations. The strongest winds tend to be from the south
or the northwest quadrant.
• The 2009 wind patterns are similar to the historical wind patterns, although there are
a few differences such as a higher percentage of northwesterly and north-
northwesterly wind observations and fewer observations from the southeast quadrant.
• The 2009 sample day wind patterns resemble the full-year wind patterns, but have an
even higher percentage of northwesterly and north-northwesterly wind observations
and slightly less observations from the southeast quadrant.
26.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the South Dakota monitoring
sites in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context
of risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
26-23
-------
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 26-4 presents the pollutants of interest for the three South Dakota monitoring sites.
The pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed
screens for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus,
pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded. CUSD, SSSD, and UCSD sampled for VOC,
SNMOC, and carbonyl compounds.
Table 26-4. Risk Screening Results for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acet aldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
w-Hexane
Xylenes
0.13
0.077
0.45
0.17
0.033
0.015
0.091
0.4
2.1
0.17
70
10
Total
60
60
59
59
32
6
o
J
3
2
2
1
1
288
60
60
60
60
51
6
11
59
60
38
60
59
584
100.00
100.00
98.33
98.33
62.75
100.00
27.27
5.08
3.33
5.26
1.67
1.69
49.32
20.83
20.83
20.49
20.49
11.11
2.08
1.04
1.04
0.69
0.69
0.35
0.35
100.00
20.83
41.67
62.15
82.64
93.75
95.83
96.88
97.92
98.61
99.31
99.65
100.00
26-24
-------
Table 26-4. Risk Screening Results for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SSSD
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Propionaldehyde
0.13
0.17
0.45
0.077
0.033
0.015
0.17
0.4
0.038
0.091
2.1
0.8
Total
120
118
114
114
54
23
16
9
4
3
2
2
579
120
120
114
114
116
23
99
120
4
49
120
114
1,113
100.00
98.33
100.00
100.00
46.55
100.00
16.16
7.50
100.00
6.12
1.67
1.75
52.02
20.73
20.38
19.69
19.69
9.33
3.97
2.76
1.55
0.69
0.52
0.35
0.35
100.00
20.73
41.11
60.79
80.48
89.81
93.78
96.55
98.10
98.79
99.31
99.65
100.00
Union County, South Dakota - UCSD
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acrylonitrile
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
1,3-Butadiene
Propionaldehyde
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
0.45
0.077
0.13
0.17
0.015
0.4
0.5
0.033
0.8
0.038
2.1
0.091
0.17
Total
52
52
48
48
22
12
11
4
4
o
J
2
1
1
260
52
52
49
49
22
49
24
33
52
3
49
13
24
471
100.00
100.00
97.96
97.96
100.00
24.49
45.83
12.12
7.69
100.00
4.08
7.69
4.17
55.20
20.00
20.00
18.46
18.46
8.46
4.62
4.23
1.54
1.54
1.15
0.77
0.38
0.38
100.00
20.00
40.00
58.46
76.92
85.38
90.00
94.23
95.77
97.31
98.46
99.23
99.62
100.00
Observations from Table 26-4 include the following:
• Twelve pollutants failed at least one screen for CUSD and SSSD; of these, six are
NATTS MQO Core Analytes (for both sites). Thirteen pollutants failed screens for
UCSD, of which seven are also NATTS MQO Core Analytes.
• The percent of the measured detections that failed screens (of the pollutants that
failed at least one screen) ranged from 49 percent for CUSD to 55 percent for UCSD.
Note that CUSD sampled in 2008 only, SSSD sampled over the 2-year period, and
UCSD sampled in 2009 only. This explains why the percentage of measured
detections is so much higher for SSSD.
26-25
-------
• For CUSD, six pollutants (of which five are NATTS MQO Core Analytes) were
identified as pollutants of interest by the risk screening process. Tetrachloroethylene
was added to CUSD's pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core
Analyte, even though it did not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens. In
addition, vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, and chloroform were also added because
they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens.
These three pollutants are not shown in Table 26-4.
• For SSSD, seven pollutants (of which six are NATTS MQO Core Analytes) were
identified as pollutants of interest by the risk screening process. Vinyl chloride,
trichloroethylene, and chloroform were added to SSSD's pollutants of interest
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These three pollutants are also not shown in Table 26-4.
• For UCSD, nine pollutants (of which six are NATTS MQO Core Analytes) were
identified as pollutants of interest by the risk screening process. Tetrachloroethylene
was added to UCSD's pollutants of interest because it's a NATTS MQO Core
Analyte, even though it did not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens.
Vinyl chloride and chloroform were added to UCSD's pollutants of interest because
they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens.
These two pollutants are also not shown in Table 26-4.
• Of the 10 pollutants of interest in common among the three sites, formaldehyde and
acrylonitrile failed 100 percent screens for each site. However, note the difference in
the number of measured detections between these two pollutants: formaldehyde was
detected in 100 percent of samples collected at each site while the percent of
detections of acrylonitrile ranged from 12 (CUSD) to 44 (UCSD) percent.
• Recall from Section 3.2 that if a pollutant was measured by both the TO-15 and
SNMOC methods at the same site, the TO-15 results were used for the risk screening
process. As all three of the South Dakota sites sampled both VOC (TO-15) and
SNMOC, the TO-15 results were used for the 12 pollutants these methods have in
common.
26.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the South Dakota monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at the
sites, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in Appendices
J through O.
26-26
-------
26.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each South Dakota site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a
particular pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were
at least seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution zeros for all non-detects.
Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-
detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages for the South Dakota monitoring sites are presented in
Table 26-5, where applicable.
Observations for CUSD from Table 26-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde (1.98 ± 0.24 |ig/m3), acetaldehyde (1.74 ± 0.27 |ig/m3), and carbon
tetrachloride (0.73 ± 0.06 |ig/m3), although the benzene concentration
(0.72 ±0.13 |ig/m3) was very similar to the carbon tetrachloride concentration.
• Most of the quarterly average concentrations of the pollutants of interest did not vary
significantly across the calendar quarters.
• Although benzene's third quarter 2008 average was not much different than the
average concentration for the other quarters, the large confidence interval indicates
that this concentration is influenced by outliers. On September 27, 2008, the benzene
concentration (TO-15) was 3.46 |ig/m3 or nearly twice the next highest concentration
(1.67 |ig/m3 measured on January 7, 2008). Note that only the TO-15 concentrations
were included in this analysis for benzene. The highest benzene concentration for
CUSD from SNMOC was also measured on September 27, 2008.
• Quarterly and annual averages could not be calculated for acrylonitrile, vinyl
chloride, or trichloroethylene because these pollutants were not detected frequently
enough.
26-27
-------
Table 26-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
1.75
±0.27
0.37
±0.11
0.72
±0.13
0.06
±0.01
0.73
±0.06
0.08
±0.01
1.98
±0.24
0.09
±0.04
0.11
±0.14
0.01
±0.01
1.59
±0.38
NA
0.81
±0.21
0.07
±0.03
0.66
±0.09
0.07
±0.01
2.03
±0.42
0.05
±0.02
NA
NA
1.49
±0.49
NA
0.48
±0.07
0.03
±0.01
0.74
±0.14
0.06
±0.02
1.80
±0.47
0.04
±0.02
NA
NA
2.41
±0.84
NA
0.81
±0.45
0.04
±0.02
0.76
±0.11
NA
2.34
±0.66
0.12
±0.13
NA
NA
1.56
±0.42
NA
0.80
±0.22
0.07
±0.03
0.78
±0.15
0.08
±0.01
1.77
±0.42
NA
NA
NA
1.75
±0.27
NA
0.72
±0.13
0.05
±0.01
0.73
±0.06
0.07
±0.01
1.98
±0.24
0.06
±0.03
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
to
to
oo
NR = Not reportable because samplin;
NA = Not available due to the criteria
I was not conducted dunng this time penod.
for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Table 26-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SSSD
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2.01
±0.40
0.16
±0.16
0.72
±0.10
0.05
±0.01
0.73
±0.05
0.10
±0.01
2.95
±0.25
0.12
±0.02
0.10
±0.08
0.01
±<0.01
3.06
±1.12
NA
0.85
±0.26
0.06
±0.03
0.65
±0.08
0.07
±0.03
2.86
±0.64
0.10
±0.04
NA
NA
1.59
±0.24
NA
0.60
±0.16
0.02
±0.01
0.73
±0.09
0.08
±0.02
3.10
±0.42
0.07
±0.03
NA
NA
1.55
±0.26
NA
0.75
±0.14
0.05
±0.02
0.77
±0.13
0.09
±0.04
3.05
±0.40
0.14
±0.07
NA
NA
1.45
±0.65
NA
0.66
±0.20
0.05
±0.04
0.80
±0.12
0.10
±0.01
2.69
±0.58
0.10
±0.05
NA
NA
2.01
±0.40
NA
0.72
±0.10
0.05
±0.01
0.73
±0.05
0.08
±0.01
2.95
±0.25
0.10
±0.02
NA
NA
2.38
±0.45
0.07
±0.01
0.67
±0.10
0.04
±0.01
0.67
±0.05
0.10
±0.01
2.27
±0.24
0.09
±0.01
0.09
±0.06
0.01
±0.01
2.89
±1.96
0.04
±0.02
0.86
±0.20
0.03
±0.01
0.57
±0.12
0.07
±0.01
2.61
±0.79
0.07
±0.03
NA
NA
1.94
±0.52
0.04
±0.02
0.65
±0.23
0.02
±0.01
0.62
±0.06
0.08
±0.01
2.48
±0.55
0.07
±0.02
NA
NA
2.30
±0.55
NA
0.63
±0.20
0.04
±0.02
0.83
±0.07
0.12
±0.02
2.28
±0.31
0.09
±0.04
NA
NA
2.63
±1.05
NA
0.58
±0.15
0.04
±0.02
0.61
±0.15
0.07
±0.02
1.79
±0.35
0.06
±0.03
NA
NA
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
.
2.38
±0.45
NA
0.67
±0.10
0.04
±0.01
0.67
±0.05
0.09
±0.01
2.27
±0.24
0.07
±0.02
NA
NA
to
to
VO
NR = Not reportable because samplin;
NA = Not available due to the criteria
I was not conducted dunng this time penod.
for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Table 26-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Union County, South Dakota - UCSD
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.75
±0.97
0.52
±0.55
0.38
±0.06
0.02
±0.01
0.68
±0.05
0.09
±0.01
0.61
±0.31
5.97
±5.20
0.44
±0.30
0.06
±0.02
3.51
±1.92
0.01
±0.01
1.94
±0.95
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.32
±0.56
0.24
±0.09
NA
NA
NA
3.43
±2.86
0.07
±0.04
0.43
±0.12
0.01
±<0.01
0.63
±0.03
0.08
±0.02
0.96
±0.80
14.34
± 16.96
0.85
±0.96
0.03
±0.02
2.85
±2.71
NA
1.81
±0.87
0.11
±0.11
0.25
±0.03
0.01
±<0.01
0.85
±0.04
0.11
±0.01
0.23
±0.27
3.08
±0.93
0.35
±0.26
NA
NA
NA
3.35
±1.47
NA
0.31
±0.07
NA
0.63
±0.11
0.08
±0.02
0.06
±0.02
2.08
±1.29
0.20
±0.14
NA
NA
NA
2.75
±0.97
NA
0.38
±0.06
NA
0.68
±0.05
0.09
±0.01
0.61
±0.31
5.97
±5.20
0.44
±0.30
NA
NA
NA
to
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Observations for SSSD from Table 26-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest 2008 daily average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde (2.95 ± 0.25 |ig/m3), acetaldehyde (2.01 ± 0.40 |ig/m3), carbon
tetrachloride (0.73 ± 0.05 |ig/m3), and benzene (0.72 ± 0.10 |ig/m3). The pollutants
with the highest 2009 daily average concentrations by mass were acetaldehyde
(2.38 ± 0.45 |ig/m3), formaldehyde (2.27 ± 0.24 |ig/m3), benzene (0.67 ± 0.10 |ig/m3),
and carbon tetrachloride (0.67 ± 0.05 |ig/m3).
• Acetaldehyde concentrations appear highest during the colder months of the year.
Yet, the high confidence intervals indicate that these concentrations are likely
influenced by outliers. The highest acetaldehyde concentration was measured on
February 6, 2009 (11.0 |ig/m3). A similar acetaldehyde concentration was measured
on January 19, 2008 (10.6 |ig/m3). These concentrations were nearly twice the next
highest concentration (6.57 |ig/m3 on December 21, 2009). Note that of the 20
acetaldehyde concentrations greater than 3 jig/m3 measured at SSSD, 13 were
measured during the first or fourth quarters of the year.
• The 2008 daily average concentration of acrylonitrile is twice as high as the 2009
daily average concentration of this pollutant. Further, the confidence interval for the
2008 daily average is relatively high, indicating that this daily average is influenced
by outliers. The highest concentration of acrylonitrile was measured on
September 3, 2008 (0.346 |ig/m3) and was more than twice the next highest
concentration (0.167 |ig/m3 measured on December 2, 2008). Of the 23 measured
detections of this pollutant across both years, only seven were greater than 0.1 |ig/m3.
• Quarterly and annual averages could not be calculated for acrylonitrile, vinyl
chloride, or trichloroethylene because these pollutants were not detected frequently
enough.
Observations for UCSD from Table 26-5 include the following:
• Similar to the other two sites, the pollutants with the highest daily average
concentrations by mass were formaldehyde (5.97 ± 5.20 |ig/m3), acetaldehyde
(2.75 ± 0.97 (ig/m3), and carbon tetrachloride (0.68 ± 0.05 |ig/m3). UCSD's daily
average benzene concentration was nearly half the daily average concentrations for
CUSD and SSSD. UCSD's daily average benzene concentration was the second
lowest among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant (behind only UNVT).
• For the carbonyl compounds (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde),
each has a relatively high second quarter 2009 average, as well as associated large
confidence intervals, especially formaldehyde. A review of the data shows that the
highest concentration of each pollutant was measured on April 1, 2009. In the case of
formaldehyde, this concentration (138 |ig/m3) was more than 10 times higher than the
next highest concentration (11.9 |ig/m3 measured on May 1, 2009). This explains why
the second quarter average formaldehyde concentration has such a large confidence
26-31
-------
interval, as well as the daily and annual average. The April 1, 2009 formaldehyde
concentration was the eleventh highest measurement of this pollutant among all NMP
sites sampling carbonyl compounds (the first 10 were measured at INDEM). For
acetaldehyde, the April 1, 2009 concentration (24.2 |ig/m3) was nearly three times the
next highest concentration (8.465 |ig/m3 measured on December 21, 2009) and the
highest concentration measured for this pollutant among all NMP sites sampling
carbonyl compounds. For propionaldehyde, the April 1, 2009 concentration
(7.83 |ig/m3) was more than four times the next highest concentration (1.84 |ig/m3
measured on August 26, 2009) and also the highest concentration measured for this
pollutant among all sites sampling carbonyl compounds.
• First quarter 2009 averages are not available for the VOC due to a late January 2009
start date combined with several invalid samples early in the year.
• Several VOC, notably ethylbenzene and trichloroethylene, have relatively high
second quarter 2009 averages, as well as large confidence intervals, indicating the
presence of outliers. As review of the data shows that high concentrations of these
two pollutants were measured on April 1, 2009; April 7, 2009; and April 19, 2009, as
well as a few other dates. For ethylbenzene, the April 19, 2009 concentration
(4.08 |ig/m3) and the April 7, 2009 concentration (3.92 |ig/m3) were the fifth and
sixth highest concentrations measured among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant.
For trichloroethylene, of the 12 highest trichloroethylene concentrations measured
among NMP sites, 10 were measured at UCSD (the other two were measured at
SPIL). These two sites evenly split the 22 highest trichloroethylene concentrations
(those greater than 1.3 |ig/m3).
• The confidence interval for the 2009 daily average concentration of acrylonitrile
indicates that this daily average is influenced by outliers. The highest concentration of
acrylonitrile was measured on January 31, 2009 (6.15 |ig/m3), the first day of
sampling at this site. This concentration was nearly eight times the next highest
concentration (0.824 |ig/m3 measured on August 5, 2009) and the third highest
concentration measured for this pollutant among all sites sampling VOC.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for CUSD, SSSD, and UCSD
from those tables include the following:
• None of the daily average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for CUSD
appear in Tables 4-9 through 4-12. However, CUSD had the second highest daily
average concentration ofp-dichlorobenzene among NMP sites sampling VOC (this
pollutant failed screens for CUSD but was not identified as a pollutant of interest).
Note that the highest concentration of />-dichlorobenzene was measured on
September 3, 2008 (2.19 |ig/m3) and was an order of magnitude higher than the next
26-32
-------
highest concentration (0.301 |ig/m3), which explains the high confidence interval
associated with this daily average.
• None of the daily average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for SSSD appear
in Tables 4-9 through 4-12.
• Daily average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for UCSD appear in
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 several times. UCSD had the highest concentration of
trichloroethylene and eighth highest ethylbenzene concentration among NMP sites
sampling VOC, as shown in Table 4-9. UCSD had the fourth highest concentration of
formaldehyde and seventh highest acetaldehyde concentration among NMP sites
sampling carbonyl compounds, as shown in Table 4-10.
26.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. CUSD sampled VOC, SNMOC, and carbonyl compounds from 2002 through
2008. Thus, Figures 26-17 through 26-20 present the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for
acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde for the CUSD monitoring site. The
statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-detects.
Sampling at SSSD began at the beginning of 2008 and UCSD at the beginning of 2009; thus, a
trends analysis was not conducted for these sites.
26-33
-------
Figure 26-17. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at CUSD
^arbonyl compound sampling at CUSD began in March 2002.
Figure 26-18. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations
Measured at CUSD
!.'
]•>
s
/...' ;,.••,
H»HMt
•K.. ,..,[•.,,c.-I
laa-, joo;
- fl^MIU.,,
1VOC sampling at CUSD began in March 2002.
26-34
-------
Figure 26-19. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at CUSD
I
IS
I
jam loot,
!>».«-».» f •nod
• - «:•
1VOC sampling at CUSD began in March 2002.
Figure 26-20. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at CUSD
H -
H
40
{ w
1«
mt
- ±
•
/ooMMM1 ton-ton JMU
* Stf
k*KMMr - MM
- MtdUr,
i
^s &p.i E«J
j«s- ji»v/»j jiwijuae
ItIMM
- M^hwm . <.W.*.,m«, • A ««.
^arbonyl compound sampling at CUSD began in March 2002.
26-35
-------
Observations from Figure 26-17 for acetaldehyde measurements at CUSD include the
following:
• Carbonyl compound sampling at CUSD began in March 2002, as denoted in
Figure 26-17.
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration was measured in 2004. This concentration
was more than six times the next highest concentration (measured in 2007).
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 26-17, the rolling average concentrations
decreased slightly through the first four time periods then increased slightly for the
final 3-year period. However, the calculation of confidence intervals indicates that
these changes are not statistically significant. As similar pattern is shown for the
medians, except that the increase in the median begins during the 2005-2007 time
frame.
• The rolling average and the median concentrations became more similar to each other
over the time periods shown. This indicates decreasing variability in the central
tendency of acetaldehyde concentrations measured over the periods shown in
Figure 26-17.
Observations from Figures 26-18 for benzene measurements at CUSD include the
following:
• VOC sampling at CUSD began in March 2002, as denoted in Figure 26-18.
• The maximum concentration was measured in 2006 and was nearly three times the
next highest concentration, which was measured in 2003.
• Over the time periods shown, the difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles has
decreased, indicating a decrease in the spread of the majority of concentrations
measured.
• The rolling average concentrations have a slight decreasing trend over the time
periods shown, although the difference is not statistically significant, based on the
calculation of confidence intervals.
Observations from Figure 26-19 for 1,3-butadiene measurements at CUSD include the
following:
• The maximum concentration of 1,3-butadiene was measured in 2006 and was nearly
five times the next highest measurement (measured in 2003). The maximum
concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene were both measured on
November 13, 2006.
26-36
-------
• The plot for 1,3-butadiene measurements shows an increasing trend in the rolling
average through 2005-2007. The calculation of confidence intervals for the rolling
1,3-butadiene average concentrations shows that the apparent increases shown in
Figure 26-19 are not statistically significant, primarily because the confidence
intervals for each year are so large, particularly for the time frames affected by the
maximum concentration measured in 2006.
• The minimum and 5th percentiles for every 3-year period are zero, indicating the
presence of non-detects. For the first three 3-year periods, the median is also zero,
indicating that at least 50 percent of the samples yielded non-detects. The number of
non-detects ranged from as high as 92 percent in 2002 and 2004 to as low as
12 percent in 2007.
Observations from Figure 26-20 for formaldehyde measurements at CUSD include the
following:
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration shown was measured in 2004, on the
same day as the highest acetaldehyde concentration. This formaldehyde concentration
was nearly six times the next highest concentration (measured in 2002). The second,
third, fourth, and fifth highest concentrations were all measured in 2002.
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 26-20, the difference between the rolling
averages and the median values decreased through the 2005-2007 time frame, then
was static for the final time period. This indicates decreasing variability in the central
tendency of formaldehyde concentrations measured over the periods shown.
• Similar to acetaldehyde, the rolling average concentrations appear to decrease
through the first four time periods then increase slightly for the final 3-year period.
The calculation of confidence intervals indicates that these changes are not
statistically significant. As similar pattern is shown for the medians, except that the
increase in the median begins during the 2005-2007 time frame.
26.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
South Dakota monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
26-37
-------
26.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
South Dakota monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
for each site were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the
intermediate MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. The results of
this risk screening are summarized in Table 26-6. Where a quarterly or annual average exceeds
the applicable MRL, the concentration is bolded.
Observations from Table 26-6 include the following:
• Formaldehyde was the only pollutant of interest where a preprocessed daily
measurement and/or time-period average was greater than one or more of the MRL
health risk benchmarks.
• One preprocessed daily measurement of formaldehyde for UCSD (out of 52 measured
detections) was greater than the acute MRL. This measurement was discussed in
Section 26.4.1 and is one of 14 instances where a preprocessed formaldehyde
measurement was greater than the acute MRL among all NMP sites sampling this
pollutant.
• None of the quarterly averages of formaldehyde came close to the intermediate MRL;
the 2009 annual average of formaldehyde was not greater than the chronic MRL.
For the pollutants whose concentrations were greater than their respective ATSDR acute
MRL noncancer health risk benchmark, the concentrations were further examined by developing
pollution roses for these pollutants. A pollution rose is a plot of concentration vs. wind speed and
wind direction, as described in Section 3.5.4.1. Figure 26-21 is the formaldehyde pollution rose
for UCSD.
26-38
-------
Table 26-6. MRL Risk Screening Assessment Summary for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Year
Acute
ATSDR
Short
MRL1
(Ug/m3)
#of
Concentrations
>MRL
#of
Measured
Detections
Intermediate
ATSDR
Intermediate
MRL1
(Ug/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
Chronic |
ATSDR
Chronic
MRL1
(Ug/m3)
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Union County, South Dakota - UCSD
Formaldehyde
2009
50
1
52
40
1.32
±0.56
14.34
± 16.96
3.08
±0.93
2.08
±1.29
10
5.97
±5.20
Bolded = a quarterly or annual average concentration is greater than the intermediate or chronic MRLs.
Reflects the use of one significant digit for MRL.
to
vo
-------
to
Figure 26-21. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for UCSD
360 0
O .p.-
270
I I ' ' ' 1
Hid (>
\ \ \ •-, \ \ \ \ %X """""*X ///////
•-- •••' •--- .-"' O-x»
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ r,.--*--..,_ - ,-^T /» / / /' / / /
\X\\\ X /*x """-- ,- *--"" .••••''''•-. / / / / i I
y: '•--. ..-- x'
225 \
-•-,45
•---., o
\
-- /\ \\N
'"*X S \ \ \ \ \ \ \
•-. XV ••.. \ \ \ \ \ \ \
'•;•'' \ \ • '•. \ ! ',
i6 i8 i10l12i14
1?
20
22kts
90
135
©0-5 }
180
O5-50jiig..iii3
ATSDRMEL = 50 fi* in3,
which corresponds to the upper
end of the 5-50 fig in3 (or
yellow) concentration range
O>50j.ig/m3
-------
Observations from Figure 26-21 for formaldehyde concentrations include the following:
• The concentration that was greater than the ATSDR acute MRL for formaldehyde at
UCSD (shown in orange) was measured on a day with winds blowing from the
northwest. The second highest concentration was also measured on a day with
northwesterly winds. However, concentrations less than the acute MRL but higher
than 5 |ig/m (shown in yellow) were measured on days with different average wind
directions.
• Figure 26-21 shows that many of the measurements are aligned northwest to
southeast, indicating that those concentrations were measured with the average daily
wind direction from that direction. Recall from Figure 26-14 from Section 26.2.4 that
winds near UCSD were from the northwest a majority of the time, including days
with the highest wind speed measurements. Figure 26-14 also shows that winds rarely
come from the southwest or northeast, which also correlates fairly well with the
pollution rose.
26.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the South Dakota monitoring sites and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 26-7, where applicable.
Observations from Table 26-7 for CUSD include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual average concentrations for CUSD in 2008
were formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and carbon tetrachloride.
• The pollutants with the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations were
formaldehyde (25.75 in-a-million), benzene (5.65 in-a-million), and carbon
tetrachloride (4.40 in-a-million).
• None of the noncancer surrogate risk approximations were greater than an HQ of 1.0
for CUSD.
26-41
-------
Table 26-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.000013
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
60/4
6/0
60/4
51/4
60/4
48/3
60/4
38/3
3/0
5/0
1.75
±0.27
NA
0.72
±0.13
0.05
±0.01
0.73
±0.06
0.07
±0.01
1.98
±0.24
0.06
±0.03
NA
NA
3.85
NA
5.65
1.55
4.40
25.75
0.34
NA
NA
0.19
NA
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.01
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
to
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
-------
Table 26-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SSSD
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.000013
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
55/4
4/0
60/4
58/4
60/4
51/4
55/4
51/4
7/0
9/0
2.01
±0.40
NA
0.72
±0.10
0.05
±0.01
0.73
±0.05
0.08
±0.01
2.95
±0.25
0.10
±0.02
NA
NA
4.42
NA
5.60
1.44
4.40
38.30
0.60
NA
NA
0.22
NA
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.30
0.01
NA
NA
59/4
19/2
60/4
58/4
60/4
55/4
59/4
48/4
4/0
4/0
2.38
±0.45
NA
0.67
±0.10
0.04
±0.01
0.67
±0.05
0.09
±0.01
2.27
±0.24
0.07
±0.02
NA
NA
5.23
NA
5.25
1.05
4.00
29.50
0.43
NA
NA
0.26
NA
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.23
0.01
NA
NA
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
-------
Table 26-7. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
#of
Measured
Detections/
Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Union County, South Dakota - UCSD
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.0000025
0.000013
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
1
0.0098
0.008
0.27
0.6
0.1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
52/4
22/2
49/3
33/2
49/3
47/3
49/3
52/4
52/4
24/1
24/1
4/0
2.75
±0.97
NA
0.38
±0.06
NA
0.68
±0.05
0.09
±0.01
0.61
±0.31
5.97
±5.20
0.44
±0.30
NA
NA
NA
6.04
NA
2.94
NA
4.08
1.52
77.63
NA
NA
NA
0.31
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.61
0.06
NA
NA
NA
to
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
-------
Observations from Table 26-7 for SSSD include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual average concentrations for SSSD were
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride for both years.
• These same four pollutants also had the highest cancer risk approximations among
this site's pollutants of interest, although formaldehyde's cancer risk approximations
were an order of magnitude higher than the cancer risk approximations for the other
pollutants.
• None of the noncancer surrogate risk approximations were greater than an HQ of 1.0.
Observations from Table 26-7 for UCSD include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual average concentrations for UCSD in 2009
were formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and carbon tetrachloride.
• Formaldehyde had the highest cancer risk approximation for UCSD at 77.63 in-a-
million. This cancer risk approximation was the fourth highest among all sites
sampling formaldehyde (behind INDEM, PROK, and ININ).
• None of the noncancer surrogate risk approximations for UCSD's pollutants of
interest were greater than an HQ of 1.0.
26.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 26-8 and 26-9 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 26-8 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 26-9
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
26-45
-------
Table 26-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Custer, South Dakota (Custer County) - CUSD
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
POM, Group 6
£>-Dichlorobenzene
44.91
29.26
10.10
7.71
1.71
1.57
0.79
0.55
0.21
0.15
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
POM, Group 2
POM, Group 5
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 6
POM, Group 3
Tetrachloroethylene
5.61E-04
2.31E-04
2.28E-04
9.40E-05
2.79E-05
2.70E-05
2.22E-05
2.08E-05
1.02E-05
9.29E-06
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
25.75
5.65
4.40
3.85
1.55
0.34
Sioux Falls, South Dakota (Minnehaha County) - SSSD
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
112.02
72.47
45.29
17.53
11.96
8.08
6.03
3.45
3.27
1.03
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 3
Ethylene oxide
9.06E-04
8.74E-04
5.26E-04
3.11E-04
2.75E-04
1.90E-04
1.57E-04
9.96E-05
8.08E-05
3.69E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
38.30
29.50
5.60
5.25
5.23
4.42
4.40
4.00
1.44
1.05
to
Oi
Oi
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 26-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Union County, South Dakota (Union County) - UCSD
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
POM, Group 2
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 6
17.07
15.20
7.78
2.54
1.32
0.94
0.77
0.27
0.23
0.05
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Arsenic, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
POM, Group 3
Acetaldehyde
POM, Group 5
1.90E-04
1.33E-04
7.95E-05
7.62E-05
4.57E-05
4.48E-05
4.22E-05
1.73E-05
1.71E-05
9.62E-06
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
77.63
6.04
4.08
2.94
1.52
to
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 26-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Custer, South Dakota (Custer County) - CUSD
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Methanol
44.91
43.10
30.04
29.26
10.10
7.71
6.71
6.23
5.33
2.60
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Xylenes
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Naphthalene
Toluene
Lead, PM
335,592.73
4,583.06
3,854.91
1,122.03
975.34
300.44
291.96
264.57
107.75
40.50
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
0.20
0.19
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
Sioux Falls, South Dakota (Minnehaha County) - SSSD
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Styrene
291.50
211.60
112.02
86.16
72.47
63.22
45.29
42.33
37.32
33.43
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Hydrochloric acid
Naphthalene
Xylenes
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Nickel, PM
228,670.18
8,763.37
7,394.72
5,031.93
3,734.16
3,161.14
2,691.88
2,115.97
1,874.27
1,364.70
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.30
0.26
0.23
0.22
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
to
oo
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 26-9. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Union County, South Dakota (Union County) - UCSD
Toluene
Hydrochloric acid
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Methanol
Hydrofluoric acid
43.53
35.14
33.90
17.07
15.20
7.78
6.47
5.95
4.71
4.31
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
Hydrochloric acid
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
Nickel, PM
Benzene
Naphthalene
41,161.08
5,146.73
1,756.97
1,550.96
1,270.01
864.25
616.24
586.78
569.06
439.66
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
0.61
0.31
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
to
ON
-k
VO
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 26.3,
CUSD, SSSD, and UCSD sampled for VOC, SNMOC, and carbonyl compounds. In addition, the
cancer and noncancer risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to
meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis
is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 26-8 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Custer, Minnehaha, and Union Counties (although not necessarily in
that order). The emissions were higher in Minnehaha County than in Custer or Union
Counties; however, all three counties had some of the lowest emissions among
counties with NMP sites.
• Formaldehyde was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with cancer UREs) for all three counties.
• Eight of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Custer County; six of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions for Minnehaha County; and six of the highest emitted
pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Union County.
• Formaldehyde was the pollutant with the highest cancer surrogate risk
approximations for all three sites; this pollutant also appeared on both emissions-
based lists. This was also true for benzene and acetaldehyde. Conversely, carbon
tetrachloride appeared on neither emissions-based list but was among the pollutants
with the highest cancer risk approximations for all three sites.
Observations from Table 26-9 include the following:
• Formaldehyde, toluene, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Custer County; toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest
emitted pollutants with noncancer RfCs in Minnehaha County; and toluene,
hydrochloric acid, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Union County. The emissions of these pollutants were higher in Minnehaha
County than Custer and Union Counties.
26-50
-------
• Acrolein was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with noncancer RfCs) for all three counties. Although acrolein was
sampled for at CUSD, SSSD, and UCSD, this pollutant was excluded from the
pollutants of interest designation, and thus subsequent risk screening evaluations, due
to questions about the consistency and reliability of the measurements, as discussed in
Section 3.2.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Custer County; five of the highest emitted pollutants also had the
highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Minnehaha County; and four of the highest
emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Union County.
• Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, which had the highest noncancer risk
approximations for all three sites, appear on both emissions-based lists for all three
sites. Benzene also appeared on all three lists for each South Dakota monitoring site.
26.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the South Dakota Sites
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Twelve pollutants failed at least one screen for CUSD and SSSD, and 13 pollutants
failed at least one screen for UCSD.
»«» Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration for CUSD in 2008 and for
UCSD in 2009. Formaldehyde also had the highest daily average concentration for
SSSD in 2008 while acetaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration in
2009.
»«» One preprocessed daily measurement of formaldehyde was greater than the acute
MRL health risk benchmark (for UCSD). All of the quarterly and annual average
concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated, were less
than their associated MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
26-51
-------
27.0 Sites in Tennessee
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the UATMP sites in Tennessee, and integrates these concentrations
with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG
are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer
back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented
below.
27.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Tennessee monitoring sites by providing geographical and
physical information about the locations of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information
is provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
Two monitoring sites are located in the town of Loudon and a third is located in
Memphis. Figures 27-1 through 27-3 are composite satellite images retrieved from Google™
Earth showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural locations. Figures 27-4 and 27-5
identify point source emissions locations by source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for
point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the sites are included in the facility
counts provided below the maps in Figures 27-4 and 27-5. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile
radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the maps to show emissions sources outside the
10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which
emissions sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact
on the air quality at the monitoring sites; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of
emissions sources to the monitoring sites as well as the quantity of such sources within a given
distance of the sites. Table 27-1 describes the area surrounding each monitoring site by providing
supplemental geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational
coordinates.
27-1
-------
Figure 27-1. Loudon, Tennessee (LDTN) Monitoring Site
t-o
t-o
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 2,314 feet
-------
Figure 27-2. Loudon Middle School, Loudon, Tennessee (MSTN) Monitoring Site
oo
;i.___ i^Li i_vi ^:lj_
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 2,005 feet
-------
Figure 27-3. Memphis, Tennessee (METN) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 2,189 feet
-------
Figure 27-4. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of LDTN and MSTN
•,' i".',1 K4'2I)'IJ'VM WISTW .-I1 iij'.jv,1
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
& LDTN UATMP site '_ • 10 mile radius
Tfcr> MSTN UATMP site | | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
Aircraft Operations Facility (12)
Boat Manufacturing Facility (1)
Concrete Batch Plant (1)
Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (1)
Grain Handling Facility (1)
Iron and Steel Foundry (1)
Landfill (4)
Lumber/sawmill (1)
Miscellaneous Commercial/Industrial Facility (2)
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (2)
Pulp and Paper Plant/Wood Products Facility (1)
Secondary Metal Processing Facility (1)
Surface Coating Facility (1)
4-
±
•
F
A
I
M
B
27-5
-------
Figure 27-5. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of METN
yerstrw • • > -•- 89'S4'0"w
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent aH facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
••&• METN UATMP site O 10 mile radius I I County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
-f Aircraft Operations Facility (10)
t Airport Support Operation (1)
i Asphalt Processing/Roofing Manufacturing (2)
rv Automobile/Truck Manufacturing Facility (2)
£ Bakery (1)
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (4)
C Chemical Manufacturing Facility (13)
o Commercial Sterilization Facility (1)
• Concrete Batch Plant (2)
* Electricity Generation via Combustion (3)
E Electroplating. Plating. Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring (1)
<•> Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
F Food Processing/Agriculture Facility (5)
A Grain Handling Facility (1)
+ Gypsum Manufacturing Facility (1)
la Hospital (1)
£ Hot Mix Asphalt Plant (3)
Lumber/sawmill (2)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (11)
a Petroleum Refinery (1)
P Printing/Publishing Facility (2)
B Pulp and Paper Plant/Wood Products Facility (6)
2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility (3)
s Surface Coating Facility (2)
T Textile Mill (1)
27-6
-------
Table 27-1. Geographical Information for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
LDTN
MSTN
METN
AQS Code
47-105-0108
47-105-0109
47-157-0010
Location
Loudon
Loudon
Memphis
County
Loudon
Loudon
Shelby
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Knoxville, TN
Knoxville, TN
Memphis, TN-
AR-MS
Latitude
and
Longitude
35.744799,
-84.317313
35.720833,
-84.341667
35.09583,
-90.07006
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Meteorological parameters and PM2.5.
03.
None.
Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
-------
The town of Loudon is located approximately 20 miles southwest of Knoxville, TN. A
branch of the Tennessee River, Watts Bar Lake, winds through the town. The LDTN monitoring
site is located on a peninsula where the river is less than 3/4 mile to the east, 1 mile to the south,
and 3/4 mile to the west. The site is located in a primarily residential area on Webb Drive, a few
blocks from State Road 2/Highway 11, as shown in Figure 27-1. However, several industrial
businesses lie along the river on Blair Bend Drive, less than 1/2 mile south of the site. The site
was established to measure emissions from the nearby industrial sources.
MSTN is located on the property of Loudon Middle School, between Highway 74 and
Roberts Road. Although a residential subdivision is located immediately across the street from
the middle school, as shown in Figure 27-2, mixed land use areas lie to the north and northeast
while rural and forested areas lie to the south. This site was also established to measure
emissions from nearby industrial sources. Interstate-75, which runs northeast-southwest through
eastern Tennessee, is approximately 2.5 miles west of either site.
Figure 27-4 shows that the two Loudon monitoring sites are approximately 2 miles apart.
Although the source category with the highest number of sources is the aircraft operations
category, which includes airports as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads, most of
these emissions sources are located to the north of the sites. Several other types of sources are
located between these sites. In the business park immediately south of LDTN is a grain handling
facility, a secondary metal processing facility, and a food processing/agriculture facility. A
landfill is located about halfway between LDTN and MSTN. Another cluster of sources is
located to the northwest of MSTN.
METN is located in Memphis, in the southwest corner of Tennessee. The site is located
just east of 1-55, on the property of Riverview Elementary School and south of Riverview Middle
School. The elementary school is surrounded by residential areas and is adjacent to Riverview
Park and Pool, as shown in Figure 27-3. Riverside Golf Club lies just to the west of 1-55.
Immediately south of the golf club is the Valero Oil Refinery, which is approximately 1 mile
southwest of the site. West of the golf club lies President's Island, a highly industrialized area
27-8
-------
that is part of the Port of Memphis. The monitoring site is located about 2 miles from the
President's Island industrial area. Figure 27-5 shows that METN is surrounded by a number of
point sources, mostly to the west and north of the site. Although aircraft operations and chemical
manufacturing are the source categories with the highest number of sources within 10 miles of
METN, a pulp and paper plant/wood products facility, a petroleum refinery, and a chemical
manufacturing facility are the closest sources (within 1 mile) surrounding the site.
Table 27-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the
Tennessee monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 27-2 represents the most recent year
of sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population
data for Loudon and Shelby Counties were obtained from the Tennessee Department of Revenue
(TN DOR, 2010) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 27-2
also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person) for each site.
In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile
vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population
ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site. Table 27-2 also contains annual
average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source
from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 27-2 presents the daily VMT for the Knoxville and
Memphis urban areas.
Table 27-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Tennessee
Monitoring Sites
Site
LDTN
MSTN
METN
Estimated
County
Population1
46,725
46,725
920,232
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
57,565
57,565
682,581
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.23
1.23
0.74
Population
Within 10
Miles3
50,501
50,501
412,435
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
62,217
62,217
305,923
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
12,560
7,691
57,872
VMT5
(thousands)
15,741
15,741
25,974
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2010 data from the Tennessee Department of Revenue (TN DOR, 2010).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the Tennessee DOT (TN DOT, 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
27-9
-------
Observations from Table 27-2 include the following:
• Loudon County's population is significantly lower than Shelby County's population.
While the Shelby County population was in the mid to upper end of the range
compared to other counties with NMP sites, the population for Loudon County was
on the low end. The difference in population decreases somewhat for the 10-mile
populations.
• The county-level vehicle registrations are in line with the county populations, with
Shelby County in the middle of the range compared to other counties with NMP sites
and Loudon County on the low end. Similar to the populations, the difference in
vehicle ownership decreases somewhat at the 10-mile level.
• The vehicle-per-person ratios for the Loudon sites were greater than one vehicle per
person, and were among some of the higher ratios compared to other NMP sites. By
contrast, the ratio for METN was in the bottom third compared to other NMP sites.
• METN experienced a higher daily traffic volume than the two Loudon sites. The
traffic volume near METN was in the middle of the range compared to other NMP
sites. LDTN experienced a higher average daily traffic volume than MSTN, although
both traffic volumes were in the lower-third compared to other program sites. LDTN
traffic data were obtained from Highway 11 before it crosses the river (TN DOT
station 056); traffic data for MSTN were obtained from Highway 11, near the
intersection with State Road 72 (TN DOT station 122); and traffic data for METN
were obtained from 1-55 between McLemore Avenue and South Parkway (TN DOT
Station 611).
• The Knoxville urban area VMT was among the lowest for urban areas with NMP
sites. (Although the Loudon area is predominantly rural in nature, Loudon County is
part of the Knoxville MSA.) The Memphis area VMT was on the mid to low end
among other areas with NMP sites, although it was higher than the Knoxville VMT.
27.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Tennessee on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
27.2.1 Climate Summary
Loudon is located to the southwest of Knoxville in the Great Valley of east Tennessee.
Loudon is located in a valley, which is divided from the rest of the state by the Cumberland
Plateau. The Appalachian and Great Smoky Mountains lie to the east and the Cumberland and
Crab Orchard Mountains lie to the northwest. The Tennessee River meanders through the town
27-10
-------
of Loudon. These topographic influences affect the area's weather by moderating temperatures
and affecting wind patterns. The area has ample rainfall year-round and experiences all four
seasons (Bair, 1992 and UT, 2011).
The Mississippi River is the western border of Tennessee. In the extreme southwest
corner of the state lies the city of Memphis, in the state's lowlands. Frontal systems track across
the state most frequently in winter and spring, while afternoon thunderstorms are the principle
rain-makers during summer and fall. Summers tend to be warmer and winters milder in the
western part of the state compared to the eastern portion, due to elevation differences. This
allows the Memphis area to have one of the longest growing seasons in the state. Southerly
winds prevail in Memphis (Bair, 1992 and UT, 2011).
27.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather stations nearest these sites were
retrieved for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station to
both Loudon sites is located at McGhee Tyson Airport (WBAN 13891); the closest station to
METN is located at Memphis International Airport (WBAN 13893). Additional information
about these weather stations is provided in Table 27-3. These data were used to determine how
meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
Table 27-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 27-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter.
27-11
-------
Table 27-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
London, Tennessee - LDTN
McGhee Tyson
Airport
13891
(35.82, -83.99)
18.29
miles
67°
(ENE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
69.1
+ 3.8
68.8
+ 1.7
70.1
+ 4.4
67.6
+ 1.6
59.1
±3.7
58.9
+ 1.6
61.2
±4.4
58.4
+ 1.6
46.0
±3.8
46.0
+ 1.6
50.1
±4.9
48.2
+ 1.7
52.3
±3.4
52.1
+ 1.5
55.3
±4.3
53.1
+ 1.5
65.2
±3.0
65.5
+ 1.2
69.7
±3.4
71.7
+ 1.3
1016.7
±1.5
1017.7
+ 0.6
1015.9
±1.9
1017.3
+ 0.6
5.2
±0.9
5.0
+ 0.3
5.7
±0.9
5.0
+ 0.3
London Middle School, London, Tennessee - MSTN
McGhee Tyson
Airport
13891
(35.82, -83.99)
20.03
miles
63°
(ENE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
68.9
±3.9
68.8
+ 1.7
70.7
±4.5
67.6
+ 1.6
59.0
±3.8
58.9
+ 1.6
61.9
±4.4
58.4
+ 1.6
46.3
±3.9
46.0
+ 1.6
50.8
±4.9
48.2
+ 1.7
52.4
±3.5
52.1
+ 1.5
56.0
±4.2
53.1
+ 1.5
66.1
±3.2
65.5
+ 1.2
70.0
±3.6
71.7
+ 1.3
1016.8
±1.5
1017.7
+ 0.6
1015.7
± 1.7
1017.3
+ 0.6
5.1
±0.9
5.0
+ 0.3
5.8
±0.9
5.0
+ 0.3
Memphis, Tennessee - METN
Memphis
International Airport
13893
(35.06, -89.99)
5.15
miles
114°
(ESE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
74.8
±5.3
71.4
+ 1.7
71.3
±4.0
70.7
+ 1.7
66.1
±5.2
62.5
+ 1.7
62.8
±4.1
62.5
+ 1.7
53.8
±5.3
49.5
+ 1.8
50.0
±4.5
50.2
+ 1.8
59.1
±4.7
55.5
+ 1.6
56.0
±3.8
55.9
+ 1.5
67.0
±3.8
65.1
+ 1.2
65.6
±3.2
66.7
+ 1.3
1017.2
± 1.5
1017.5
+ 0.6
1016.5
± 1.4
1017.0
+ 0.6
6.9
±1.1
7.2
+ 0.3
6.8
±0.7
6.8
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
-------
Observations from Table 27-3 include the following:
• Average meteorological conditions on 2008 sample days near LDTN and MSTN
were fairly representative of average weather conditions experienced throughout
2008. Average meteorological conditions on 2009 sample days appear slightly
warmer, more humid, and windier than average weather conditions throughout
2009. This is likely because sampling was concluded in early October 2009,
thereby missing some of the cooler months of the year.
• Average meteorological conditions on 2008 sample days for METN appear
slightly warmer, more humid, and less windy than average weather conditions
throughout the year. This is because sampling did not begin until June 2008,
thereby missing the coldest months of the year. Average meteorological
conditions on 2009 sample days near METN were fairly representative of average
weather conditions experienced throughout 2009.
27.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 27-6 and Figure 27-7 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the LDTN monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 27-8
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red.
Figures 27-9 through 27-11 are the composite back trajectory and cluster analysis maps for days
on which samples were collected at the MSTN monitoring site and Figures 27-12 through 27-14
are the composite back trajectory and cluster analysis maps for days on which samples were
collected at the METN monitoring site. An in-depth description of these maps and how they
were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the
24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given
sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of
a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the sites in
Figures 27-6 through 27-14 represents 100 miles.
27-13
-------
Figure 27-6. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for LDTN
Figure 27-7. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for LDTN
27-14
-------
Figure 27-8. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for LDTN
Figure 27-9. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MSTN
27-15
-------
Figure 27-10. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MSTN
Figure 27-11. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for MSTN
27-16
-------
Figure 27-12. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for METN
Figure 27-13. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for METN
27-17
-------
Figure 27-14. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for METN
Observations for the Loudon sites from Figures 27-6 through 27-11 include the
following:
• The back trajectory and cluster maps for LDTN and MSTN exhibit a similar
trajectory distribution, which is expected, given their close proximity to each other.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the Loudon sites.
• The 24-hour air shed domains for these sites were similar in size other NMP
monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was near Kansas City,
Missouri, or less than 575 miles away. However, the average trajectory length for
both sites was just over 200 miles and most of the trajectories (roughly 85 percent)
originated within 300 miles of the sites.
• The cluster trajectories for the Loudon sites are similar to each other and confirm that
trajectories indeed originate from just about every direction. The cluster analyses
show that the highest percentage of trajectories originated to the west to northwest;
another cluster of trajectories originated to the southeast to southwest; trajectories
often originated to the northeast to southeast and usually within 100-200 miles of the
sites; and trajectories also originated to the north.
27-18
-------
Observations for METN from Figures 27-12 through 27-14 include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the METN site. Note that
sampling at METN did not begin until June 2008, thus Figure 27-12 for 2008 has
roughly half the trajectories as Figure 27-13 for 2009.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for this site appears larger in size compared to other
NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was central South
Dakota, or nearly 800 miles away (in 2008). A trajectory of similar origin is also
shown in Figure 27-13 for 2009. However, the average trajectory length was 211
miles and most (82 percent) of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site.
• The cluster map shows that trajectories were fairly evenly split between three
directions: one-third originated to the northwest and north, one-third to the southwest,
and one-third to the southeast. Note that the cluster trajectories originating to the east
and southeast also represent shorter trajectories (usually 100-200 miles in length or
less) originating generally from the northeast to southeast, but occasionally other
directions as well.
27.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at the McGhee Tyson Airport (for
LDTN and MSTN) and Memphis International Airport (for METN) were uploaded into a wind
rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A
wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned around a 16-point
compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 27-15 presents five different wind roses for the LDTN monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figures 27-16 and 27-17 present the five different wind roses for the MSTN
and METN monitoring sites, respectively.
27-19
-------
Figure 27-15. Wind Roses for the McGhee Tyson Airport Weather Station near LDTN
PO
o
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 30.45%
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calm; 2500%
-------
Figure 27-16. Wind Roses for the McGhee Tyson Airport Weather Station near MSTN
t-o
—a
PO
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 30.17%
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
n 4-7
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calm; 1432%
-------
Figure 27-17. Wind Roses for the Memphis International Airport Weather Station near METN
PO
t-o
2008 Wind Rose
Calms: 1460%
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
2000 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms 1372%
-------
Observations from Figures 27-15 and 27-16 for the Loudon sites include the following:
• The historical wind roses for LDTN and MSTN are identical to each other. This is
expected, as the wind data are from the same weather station.
• The historical wind roses show that calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed for over
one quarter of the hourly measurements. For winds greater than 2 knots,
southwesterly to westerly winds and northerly to northeasterly winds were prevalent.
The strongest winds were generally out of the southwest.
• For both sites, the wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind roses are similar to the
historical wind patterns, although there were slightly more calm winds. There was
also an increase in winds from the south-southwest and slightly fewer from the west-
southwest and west. The 2008 sample day wind patterns are similar the 2008 full-year
wind patterns, indicating that wind conditions on sample days were representative of
conditions over the entire year.
• For both sites, the 2009 wind patterns are also similar to the historical wind patterns,
although there were slightly more calm winds. There was also an increase in winds
from the south-southwest and southwest and slightly fewer from the west-southwest
and west. The 2009 sample day wind patterns are similar the 2009 full-year wind
patterns, although there were fewer calm winds and slightly more winds from the
southwest quadrant. Note that sampling at these sites stopped in early October 2009,
which could account for some of these differences.
Observations from Figure 27-17 for METN include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from a variety of directions are observed
near METN, although southerly and south-southwesterly winds are observed the
most. Winds from the south-southeast to the southwest together account for
approximately 36 percent of the wind measurements near this site. Winds from the
north to northeast are also common. Calm winds account for 15 percent of the hourly
measurements.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose are fairly similar to the historical
wind patterns, although southerly winds account for even more of the hourly
measurements. The 2008 sample day wind patterns resemble the full-year wind
patterns, but with slightly more (and stronger) northerly winds.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2009 wind rose are similar to the historical wind
patterns. The 2009 sample day wind patterns resemble the full-year wind patterns,
although the predominance of southerly winds is reduced.
27-23
-------
27.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site- specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Tennessee monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 27-4 presents the pollutants of interest for each Tennessee monitoring site. The
pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens
for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of
interest are shaded and/or bolded. All three sites sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds.
27-24
-------
Table 27-4. Risk Screening Results for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Loudon, Tennessee - LDTN
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acet aldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Disulfide
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Ethylbenzene
1 , 1 ,2 , 2-Tetrachloroethane
Vinyl chloride
0.13
0.077
0.45
0.17
0.033
70
0.015
0.17
0.091
0.038
2.1
0.045
0.4
0.017
0.11
Total
108
107
106
106
61
21
11
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
538
108
107
107
108
101
108
11
88
87
3
107
2
108
2
14
1,061
100.00
100.00
99.07
98.15
60.40
19.44
100.00
5.68
3.45
100.00
1.87
100.00
0.93
50.00
7.14
50.71
20.07
19.89
19.70
19.70
11.34
3.90
2.04
0.93
0.56
0.56
0.37
0.37
0.19
0.19
0.19
20.07
39.96
59.67
79.37
90.71
94.61
96.65
97.58
98.14
98.70
99.07
99.44
99.63
99.81
100.00
Loudon Middle School, Loudon, Tennessee - MSTN
Formaldehyde
Acet aldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethylene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-butadiene
0.077
0.45
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.015
0.17
0.091
0.038
0.4
0.045
Total
109
108
105
105
61
12
6
3
3
2
2
516
109
109
105
105
103
12
85
72
3
105
3
811
100.00
99.08
100.00
100.00
59.22
100.00
7.06
4.17
100.00
1.90
66.67
63.63
21.12
20.93
20.35
20.35
11.82
2.33
1.16
0.58
0.58
0.39
0.39
21.12
42.05
62.40
82.75
94.57
96.90
98.06
98.64
99.22
99.61
100.00
27-25
-------
Table 27-4. Risk Screening Results for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Memphis, Tennessee - METN
Formaldehyde
Acet aldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Propionaldehyde
1,2-Dibromoethane
0.077
0.45
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.091
0.015
0.4
0.17
0.038
2.1
0.8
0.0017
Total
98
97
91
90
81
40
35
30
17
8
8
4
1
600
98
98
91
91
90
86
35
91
78
8
91
98
1
956
100.00
98.98
100.00
98.90
90.00
46.51
100.00
32.97
21.79
100.00
8.79
4.08
100.00
62.76
16.33
16.17
15.17
15.00
13.50
6.67
5.83
5.00
2.83
1.33
1.33
0.67
0.17
16.33
32.50
47.67
62.67
76.17
82.83
88.67
93.67
96.50
97.83
99.17
99.83
100.00
Observations from Table 27-4 include the following:
• Fifteen pollutants failed at least one screen for LDTN, of which seven were NATTS
MQO Core Analytes; 11 pollutants failed at least one screen for MSTN, of which six
were NATTS MQO Core Analytes; and 13 pollutants failed at least one screen for
METN, of which six were NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Ten pollutants failed at least
one screen for all three sites.
• The risk screening process identified seven pollutants of interest for LDTN, of which
five are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Tetrachloroethylene and vinyl chloride were
added to LDTN's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of LDTN's total failed
screens. Two pollutants (trichloroethylene and chloroform) were also added to
LDTN's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even
though they did not fail any screens. These two pollutants are not shown in
Table 27-4.
• The risk screening process identified six pollutants of interest for MSTN, of which
five are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Tetrachloroethylene was also added to
MSTN's pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even
though it did not contribute to 95 percent of MSTN's total failed screens. Vinyl
chloride, trichloroethylene, and chloroform were added to MSTN's pollutants of
interest because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail
any screens. These three pollutants are not shown in Table 27-4.
27-26
-------
• The risk screening process identified nine pollutants of interest for METN, of which
six are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Three pollutants (vinyl chloride,
trichloroethylene, and chloroform) were added to METN's pollutants of interest
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These three pollutants are not shown in Table 27-4.
• The failure rate (of pollutants failing at least one screen) ranged from 50.71 percent
for LDTN to 63.63 percent for MSTN.
• For each site, 100 percent of the measured detections of formaldehyde, benzene,
acrylonitrile, and 1,2-dichloroethane failed screens. Note that the latter two pollutants
were detected infrequently while the former two pollutants were detected in 100
percent of samples collected.
• Carbon disulfide failed 21 screens for LDTN. Of this pollutant's 22 failed screens
across all NMP sites, 21 were for LDTN (the other was for SPAZ). Note the
relatively high screening value (70 pg/m3) for this pollutant. Of the 61 measurements
of carbon disulfide greater than 35 pg/m3 measured across all NMP sites, 48 were
measured at LDTN.
27.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Tennessee monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at
each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through 0.
27.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for each Tennessee site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular
pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least
seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
27-27
-------
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 27-5, where applicable.
Observations for LDTN from Table 27-5 include the following:
• For both years, the pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass
were carbon disulfide, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde.
• The daily, quarterly, and annual average concentrations of carbon disulfide are
significantly higher than the averages for the other pollutants of interest. Each of
these carbon disulfide averages has a relatively large confidence interval. This is due
to the large range of measurements collected for this pollutant; the concentrations
ranged from 0.0468 pg/m3 to 165 pg/m3, with a median of 27.55 pg/m3. The median
represents the 50th percentile, or the value at which 50 percent of the concentration
are less than and 50 percent are greater than. This relatively high median indicates
that there are not just a couple of outliers influencing the average concentrations.
• Acetaldehyde concentrations appear to be higher during the second quarter of both
years. A review of the confidence intervals for the quarterly averages indicates that
the difference is not statistically significant.
• Benzene concentrations appear to be higher at LDTN from the fourth quarter of 2008
through the second quarter of 2009. Of the 24 concentrations of benzene greater than
1 pg/m3, 19 of them were measured during this time frame.
• Formaldehyde concentrations at LDTN were higher during the warmer months
(second and third quarters) of both years. Because sampling at LDTN stopped in
October 2009, a fourth quarter 2009 average could not be calculated.
• The confidence interval for the third quarter 2009 tetrachloroethylene concentration is
greater than the concentration itself, indicating the presence of outliers. The
maximum concentration measured at LDTN was 1.05 pg/m3. The measurements
excluding this concentration ranged from 0.0272 to 0.326 pg/m3. This
tetrachloroethylene concentration falls into the top one percent of measurements of
this pollutant among all NMP sites.
• The confidence interval for the 2009 daily average vinyl chloride concentration is
greater than the concentration itself, also indicating the presence of outliers. The vinyl
chloride concentration measured at LDTN on March 20, 2009 was 0.176 pg/m3,
which is an order of magnitude higher than the next highest concentration
(0.0154 pg/m3) and the highest concentration of this pollutant among all NMP sites
sampling VOC. This pollutant was detected in only 14 of 108 samples collected at
this monitoring site (note that no quarterly averages could be calculated).
27-28
-------
Table 27-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Tennessee Monitoring
Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Loudon, Tennessee - LDTN
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
1.89
+ 0.32
0.23
+ <0.01
0.85
+ 0.08
0.05
±0.01
45.53
±11.68
0.76
±0.06
0.40
±0.09
2.40
±0.32
0.08
±0.01
0.04
±0.01
0.01
±<0.01
1.90
±0.77
NA
0.75
±0.11
0.05
±0.02
28.04
+ 19.98
0.67
±0.09
0.26
±0.16
1.67
±0.32
0.07
±0.02
0.02
±0.01
NA
2.22
±0.93
NA
0.80
±0.16
0.04
±0.01
53.82
±25.58
0.79
±0.10
0.42
±0.20
2.82
±0.62
0.07
±0.02
NA
NA
1.81
±0.36
NA
0.74
±0.10
0.03
±0.01
33.92
± 14.90
0.85
±0.14
0.50
±0.16
3.69
±0.60
0.06
±0.02
NA
NA
1.66
±0.51
NA
1.10
±0.21
0.08
±0.03
65.06
+ 29.66
0.75
±0.11
0.43
±0.19
1.46
±0.33
0.06
±0.03
NA
NA
1.89
±0.32
NA
0.85
±0.08
0.05
±0.01
45.53
± 11.68
0.76
±0.06
0.40
±0.09
2.40
±0.32
0.07
±0.01
NA
NA
1.82
±0.37
0.07
±0.03
0.94
±0.25
0.04
±0.01
35.67
±9.62
0.70
±0.07
0.29
±0.05
2.44
±0.32
0.10
±0.06
0.05
±0.04
0.03
±0.05
1.65
±0.60
NA
1.22
±0.41
0.06
±0.03
27.01
±17.56
0.55
±0.14
0.19
±0.06
1.73
±0.41
0.07
±0.05
NA
NA
2.43
±0.76
NA
1.11
±0.57
0.04
±0.01
38.64
+ 16.64
0.65
±0.03
0.28
±0.08
3.00
±0.62
0.06
±0.01
NA
NA
1.23
±0.22
NA
0.52
±0.09
0.02
±0.01
38.33
± 18.60
0.91
±0.13
0.38
±0.11
2.48
±0.31
0.12
±0.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.82
±0.37
NA
0.94
±0.25
0.04
±0.01
35.67
±9.62
0.70
±0.07
0.29
±0.05
2.44
±0.32
0.08
±0.05
NA
NA
PO
CO
NA = Not available due to the criteria
NR = Not available because sampling
for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
was not conducted during this time period.
-------
Table 27-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Tennessee Monitoring
Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Loudon Middle School, Loudon, Tennessee - MSTN
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
1.19
+ 0.12
1.45
+ 3.17
1.13
±0.10
0.06
±0.01
0.67
±0.04
0.18
±0.03
2.05
±0.25
0.13
±0.06
0.08
±0.05
0.01
±0.01
1.02
±0.21
NA
1.32
±0.27
0.06
±0.02
0.57
±0.06
0.10
±0.04
1.40
±0.23
0.13
±0.11
NA
NA
1.27
±0.25
NA
1.27
±0.20
0.04
±0.02
0.68
±0.05
0.09
±0.04
2.50
±0.43
0.15
±0.19
NA
NA
1.33
±0.22
NA
0.95
±0.11
0.04
±0.01
0.76
±0.12
0.20
±0.09
3.05
±0.46
0.06
±0.03
NA
NA
1.16
±0.27
NA
0.99
±0.15
0.09
±0.02
0.67
±0.11
0.19
±0.05
1.32
±0.32
0.09
±0.03
NA
NA
1.19
±0.12
NA
1.13
±0.10
0.06
±0.01
0.67
±0.04
0.14
±0.03
2.05
±0.25
0.11
±0.05
NA
NA
0.97
±0.12
0.08
±0.07
0.85
±0.19
0.04
±0.01
0.70
±0.06
0.17
±0.04
1.82
±0.21
0.10
±0.08
0.07
±0.04
0.01
±<0.01
0.98
±0.20
NA
1.15
±0.51
0.05
±0.01
0.57
±0.11
0.10
±0.02
1.24
±0.20
0.14
±0.19
NA
NA
1.15
±0.24
NA
0.85
±0.23
0.03
±0.01
0.70
±0.07
0.21
±0.09
2.29
±0.38
0.05
±0.02
NA
NA
0.76
±0.11
NA
0.53
±0.07
0.03
±0.01
0.83
±0.09
0.16
±0.06
1.89
±0.28
0.04
±0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.97
±0.12
NA
0.85
±0.19
0.04
±0.01
0.70
±0.06
0.16
±0.04
1.82
±0.21
0.08
±0.06
NA
NA
CO
o
NA = Not available due to the criteria
NR = Not available because sampling
for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
was not conducted during this time period.
-------
Table 27-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Tennessee Monitoring
Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Mem
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
3.17
+ 0.72
1.89
+ 3.93
1.75
±0.47
0.11
±0.04
0.67
±0.09
0.18
±0.04
0.19
±0.08
0.46
±0.11
3.53
±0.86
0.15
±0.06
0.11
±0.05
0.02
+ <0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.26
±0.92
NA
1.83
±0.78
0.08
±0.03
0.80
±0.17
0.23
±0.12
0.26
±0.17
0.45
±0.16
4.30
±1.43
0.17
±0.10
NA
0.01
±0.01
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
phis, Tennessee - METN
2.35
±0.89
NA
1.74
±0.73
0.14
±0.07
0.54
±0.09
0.14
±0.03
0.17
±0.09
0.54
±0.19
2.01
±0.54
0.12
±0.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.83
±0.24
0.24
±0.06
1.45
±0.23
0.09
±0.02
0.64
±0.06
0.14
±0.01
0.12
±0.03
0.37
±0.08
2.69
±0.41
0.13
±0.02
0.08
±0.02
0.02
±<0.01
1.37
±0.27
0.27
±0.15
1.59
±0.54
0.08
±0.05
0.46
±0.10
0.11
±0.02
0.08
±0.05
0.59
±0.29
1.76
±0.42
0.10
±0.02
NA
0.01
±0.01
2.03
±0.35
0.12
±0.08
1.63
±0.58
0.08
±0.03
0.62
±0.06
0.15
±0.03
0.12
±0.06
0.36
±0.09
3.55
±0.88
0.12
±0.05
NA
0.01
+ <0.01
1.52
±0.44
NA
1.21
±0.34
0.07
±0.02
0.82
±0.15
0.16
±0.04
0.13
±0.07
0.31
±0.13
2.75
±0.63
0.09
±0.05
NA
NA
2.35
±0.71
NA
1.41
±0.49
0.12
±0.05
0.63
±0.07
0.14
±0.02
0.10
±0.05
0.29
±0.11
2.58
±1.10
0.13
±0.07
NA
NA
1.83
±0.24
NA
1.45
±0.23
0.09
±0.02
0.64
±0.06
0.14
±0.01
0.11
±0.03
0.37
±0.08
2.69
±0.41
0.11
±0.02
NA
NA
t-o
—a
CO
NA = Not available due to the criteria
NR = Not available because sampling
for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
was not conducted during this time period.
-------
Observations for MSTN from Table 27-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass for 2008 were
formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, and acetaldehyde. The pollutants with the highest daily
average concentrations by mass for 2009 were formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
benzene.
• The confidence interval for the 2008 daily average acrylonitrile concentration is
greater than the concentration itself, indicating the presence of outliers. A review of
the data shows that the highest concentration of this pollutant was measured on
April 12, 2008. This concentration (6.86 pg/m3) was an order of magnitude higher
than the next highest concentration (0.281 pg/m3), measured on May 31, 2009 and
was the second highest acrylonitrile concentration measured among all NMP sites
sampling VOC (behind only METN). The 2009 daily average concentration of this
pollutant is much lower. Acrylonitrile did not have enough measured detections for a
single quarterly average to be calculated for this site.
• Formaldehyde concentrations at MSTN were higher during the warmer months
(second and third quarters) of both years, similar to LDTN. Because sampling at
MSTN stopped in October 2009, a fourth quarter 2009 average could not be
calculated.
• The confidence intervals for the second quarter 2008 and the first quarter 2009
tetrachloroethylene concentrations are greater than the concentrations themselves,
indicating the presence of outliers. The maximum concentrations measured at MSTN
were measured on April 24, 2008 (1.43 pg/m3) and January 25, 2009 (1.30 pg/m3).
The measurements, excluding these concentrations, ranged from 0.0272 to
0.897 pg/m3. These tetrachloroethylene concentrations fall into the top one percent of
measurements of this pollutant among all NMP sites.
• Although carbon disulfide was not a pollutant of interest for MSTN, the daily average
concentration of carbon disulfide was 5.37 ± 1.62 pg/m3 in 2008 and
3.00 ± 1.34 pg/m3 in 2009, which are both an order of magnitude lower than the
averages for LDTN. The large disparity between the concentrations of this pollutant
for LDTN and MSTN may suggest that MSTN is upwind from a carbon disulfide
source while LDTN is downwind.
Observations for METN from Table 27-5 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass for 2008 were
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrylonitrile. The pollutants with the highest daily
average concentrations by mass for 2009 were formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
benzene.
27-32
-------
• Because sampling did not begin until June 2008, first and second quarter averages for
2008 are not available for METN; thus, annual averages for 2008 could not be
calculated either.
• Formaldehyde concentrations appear to be higher during the warmer months of the
year, although a high confidence interval for the fourth quarter of 2009 throws this
observation off. Of the 22 concentrations of formaldehyde greater than 4 pg/m3,
seven of these were measured during the third quarter of 2008; five during the second
quarter of 2009; four during the second quarter of 2008; two in the fourth quarter of
2009; and one in the fourth quarter of 2008. The two measured during the fourth
quarter of 2009 drive up the confidence interval for concentrations that are usually
lower than those measured during the warmer months of the year (which explains the
lower average but higher confidence interval).
• The confidence interval for the 2008 daily average acrylonitrile concentration is
greater than the concentration itself, indicating the presence of outliers. A review of
the data shows that the highest concentration of this pollutant was measured on
August 28, 2008. This concentration (8.72 pg/m3) was an order of magnitude higher
than the next highest concentration (0.857 pg/m3), measured on March 14, 2009 and
was the highest acrylonitrile concentrations measured among all NMP sites sampling
VOC. The 2009 daily average concentration of this pollutant is much lower.
Acrylonitrile had enough measured detections for two quarterly averages to be
calculated for this site (first and second quarter of 2009).
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for the Tennessee sites from
those tables include the following:
• Both METN and MSTN's 2008 daily average concentrations of acrylonitrile appear
in Table 4-9; METN ranked fifth and MSTN ranked seventh.
• As shown in Table 4-9, of the program-level pollutants of interest, LDTN had the
seventh (2008) and ninth (2009) highest daily average concentrations of chloroform.
• As shown in Table 4-10, METN has the second highest daily average concentration
of acetaldehyde (2008), behind only INDEM, and the tenth highest formaldehyde
concentration (2008). Neither of the Loudon sites appears in Table 4-10.
27.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. The LDTN site has sampled VOC and carbonyl compounds as part of the NMP
27-33
-------
since 2003. Thus, Figures 27-18 through 27-21 present the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for
acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde for LDTN. The statistical metrics
presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-detects. Because VOC
and carbonyl compound sampling did not begin until November 2003, 2003 data were excluded
from this analysis because two months of sampling is not enough to be representative of an entire
year.
Observations from Figure 27-18 for acetaldehyde measurements include the following:
• The maximum acetaldehyde concentration shown was measured on August 16, 2007.
• The rolling average concentrations decreased slightly over the periods shown;
however, the calculation of confidence intervals indicates that this decrease is not
statistically significant. The median concentrations exhibit a similar decreasing trend.
Observations from Figure 27-19 for benzene measurements include the following:
• The maximum benzene concentration shown was measured on April 19, 2009; similar
concentrations were also measured on April 13, 2009 and June 8, 2004.
• The rolling average and median concentrations have a decreasing trend through the
2006-2008 time period, then level off for the final time frame.
Observations from Figure 27-20 for 1,3-butadiene measurements include the following:
• The maximum concentration of 1,3-butadiene was measured on July 21, 2005.
• The rolling average concentration increased slightly from 2004-2006 to 2005-2007,
then decreased slightly for 2006-2008 and returned to the original levels for 2007-
2009. Confidence intervals indicate that none of these changes were statistically
significant. The median concentrations exhibited a similar pattern, although again, the
changes were slight.
• Note that the difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles changed little over the
period of sampling, indicating little change in the majority of concentrations
measured.
27-34
-------
Figure 27-18. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at LDTN
<.Mt.Cn.n.nb-
Sampling for carbonyl compounds ended in October 2009.
Figure 27-19. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations
Measured at LDTN
HW4.IOW
IMS .•,•.-.;
n**l-1mmi U.nod
'Sampling for VOC ended in October 2009.
27-35
-------
Figure 27-20. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at LDTN
- H«&« - Muki-n
Sampling for VOC ended in October 2009.
Figure 27-21. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at LDTN
:•
t»
KHVHH17
nn-itet
'Sampling for carbonyl compounds ended in October 2009.
27-36
-------
Observations from Figure 27-21 for formaldehyde measurements include the following:
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration shown was measured in January 2004.
Although not shown in Figure 27-21, two higher concentrations were also measured
in late 2003. Further, of 15 formaldehyde concentrations greater than 10 pg/m3
measured at LDTN, 13 were measured in 2003 and 2004.
• The rolling average concentration decreased from 2004-2006 to 2005-2007, after
which it has been static.
• The rolling average and median concentrations became more similar to each other for
each time frame, indicating decreasing variability in central tendency since sampling
began. This is also evident by the decreasing difference between the 5th and 95th
percentiles.
27.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at each
Tennessee monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
27.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Tennessee monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured
detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the Tennessee
monitoring sites were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
27.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Tennessee monitoring sites and where annual
average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
27-37
-------
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 27-6, where applicable.
Observations for LDTN from Table 27-6 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual averages were carbon disulfide, formaldehyde,
and acetaldehyde for both years, yet the pollutants with the highest cancer risk
approximations were formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride for both years.
The cancer risk approximations for formaldehyde were at least an order of magnitude
higher than the cancer risk approximations for the other pollutants of interest
(approximately 31 in-a-million for both years).
• There were no pollutants with noncancer risk approximations greater than 1.0, the
level of concern, based on the annual averages.
• Even with carbon disulfide's rather high annual averages, its noncancer risk
approximations were still very low, indicating that noncancer risks associated with
this pollutant are negligible. Carbon disulfide has no cancer URE.
Observations for MSTN from Table 27-6 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual averages are formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
benzene, for both years (although each of the 2009 annual averages is lower than its
corresponding 2008 annual average).
• The pollutant with the highest cancer risk approximation was formaldehyde, followed
by benzene and carbon tetrachloride, for both years.
• There were no pollutants with noncancer risk approximations greater than 1.0 based
on the annual averages.
27-38
-------
Table 27-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Loudon, Tennessee - LDTN
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.000013
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.7
0.1
0.098
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
61/4
1/0
61/4
58/4
61/4
61/4
61/4
61/4
51/4
14/1
6/0
1.89
+ 0.32
NA
0.85
+ 0.08
0.05
±0.01
45.53
+ 11.68
0.76
±0.06
0.40
±0.09
2.40
±0.32
0.07
±0.01
NA
NA
4.16
NA
6.64
1.52
4.58
31.15
0.39
NA
NA
0.21
NA
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.01
<0.01
0.24
<0.01
NA
NA
46/3
10/0
47/3
43/3
47/3
47/3
47/3
46/3
37/3
6/0
8/0
1.82
±0.37
NA
0.94
±0.25
0.04
±0.01
35.67
±9.62
0.70
±0.07
0.29
±0.05
2.44
±0.32
0.08
±0.05
NA
NA
3.99
NA
7.35
1.15
4.23
31.75
0.49
NA
NA
0.20
NA
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.01
<0.01
0.25
<0.01
NA
NA
CO
CO
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC
NA = Not available due to the criteria
is not available.
for calculating an annual average.
-------
Table 27-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Loudon Middle School, Loudon, Tennessee - MSTN
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.000013
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
62/4
5/0
61/4
60/4
61/4
49/4
62/4
52/4
13/0
7/0
1.19
+ 0.12
NA
1.13
+ 0.10
0.06
±0.01
0.67
±0.04
0.14
±0.03
2.05
±0.25
0.11
±0.05
NA
NA
2.62
NA
8.84
1.73
4.00
26.59
0.63
NA
NA
0.13
NA
0.04
0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.21
<0.01
NA
NA
47/3
7/0
44/3
43/3
44/3
42/3
47/3
33/3
5/0
8/0
0.97
±0.12
NA
0.85
±0.19
0.04
±0.01
0.70
±0.06
0.16
±0.04
1.82
±0.21
0.08
±0.06
NA
NA
2.13
NA
6.65
1.06
4.20
23.70
0.46
NA
NA
0.11
NA
0.03
0.02
0.01
<0.01
0.19
<0.01
NA
NA
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC
NA = Not available due to the criteria
is not available.
for calculating an annual average.
-------
Table 27-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Memphis, Tennessee - METN
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.0000022
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.000006
0.000011
0.0000025
0.000013
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.009
0.002
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
0.0098
0.27
0.6
0.1
37/2
5/0
34/2
34/2
34/2
31/2
33/2
34/2
37/2
29/2
8/0
12/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
61/4
30/2
57/4
56/4
57/4
57/4
53/4
57/4
61/4
49/4
20/0
24/2
1.83
+ 0.24
NA
1.45
+ 0.23
0.09
±0.02
0.64
±0.06
0.14
±0.01
0.11
±0.03
0.37
±0.08
2.69
±0.41
0.11
±0.02
NA
NA
4.02
NA
11.29
2.66
3.86
1.21
0.93
35.00
0.64
NA
NA
0.20
NA
0.05
0.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.27
<0.01
NA
NA
t-o
hk
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC
NA = Not available due to the criteria
is not available.
for calculating an annual average.
-------
Observations for METN from Table 27-6 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual averages are formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
benzene (2009 only).
• The pollutants with the highest cancer risk approximations were formaldehyde,
benzene, and acetaldehyde.
• There were no pollutants with noncancer risk approximations greater than 1.0 based
on the 2009 annual averages.
27.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 27-7 and 27-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 27-8 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 27-8
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risks based on each site's annual averages are limited to those
pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 27.3, all three
Tennessee sites sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds. In addition, the cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet
the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. The Loudon monitoring sites sampled each
pollutant group mentioned above through October 2009, while sampling did not begin at METN
until June 2008. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
27-42
-------
Table 27-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Loudon, Tennessee (Loudon County) - LDTN
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
63.23
52.26
36.59
7.73
3.94
2.81
2.06
1.59
0.88
0.50
Arsenic, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
Nickel, PM
POM, Group 3
5.19E-04
4.93E-04
4.57E-04
2.32E-04
1.15E-04
9.54E-05
9.43E-05
8.75E-05
4.00E-05
3.42E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
31.75
31.15
7.35
6.64
4.58
4.23
4.16
3.99
1.52
1.15
Loudon Middle School, Loudon, Tennessee (Loudon County) - MSTN
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
63.23
52.26
36.59
7.73
3.94
2.81
2.06
1.59
0.88
0.50
Arsenic, PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
Nickel, PM
POM, Group 3
5.19E-04
4.93E-04
4.57E-04
2.32E-04
1.15E-04
9.54E-05
9.43E-05
8.75E-05
4.00E-05
3.42E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
26.59
23.70
8.84
6.65
4.20
4.00
2.62
2.13
1.73
1.06
CO
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 27-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Memphis, Tennessee (Shelby County) - METN
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 2
618.51
380.33
242.58
102.95
84.39
44.76
30.65
28.79
19.43
11.00
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Arsenic, PM
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Acetaldehyde
Beryllium, PM
4.82E-03
4.75E-03
2.53E-03
2.05E-03
1.20E-03
1.04E-03
6.07E-04
6.05E-04
5.34E-04
3.45E-04
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
35.00
11.29
4.02
3.86
2.66
1.21
0.93
0.64
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 27-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Loudon, Tennessee (Loudon County) - LDTN
Carbon disulfide
Toluene
Xylenes
Styrene
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
1,042.67
203.35
141.38
135.00
97.51
63.23
52.26
37.33
36.59
34.69
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
Acetaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
Arsenic, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Nickel, PM
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
204,722.45
19,198.51
5,806.56
4,875.64
4,023.83
3,863.89
3,842.92
3,733.58
2,107.62
1,489.53
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Disulfide
Benzene
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
0.25
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
Loudon Middle School, Loudon, Tennessee (Loudon County) - MSTN
Carbon disulfide
Toluene
Xylenes
Styrene
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
1,042.67
203.35
141.38
135.00
97.51
63.23
52.26
37.33
36.59
34.69
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
Acetaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
Arsenic, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Nickel, PM
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
204,722.45
19,198.51
5,806.56
4,875.64
4,023.83
3,863.89
3,842.92
3,733.58
2,107.62
1,489.53
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.21
0.19
0.13
0.11
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 27-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Memphis, Tennessee (Shelby County) - METN
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Hexane
Hydrochloric acid
Formaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
2,167.89
1,192.83
974.03
618.51
531.12
414.69
380.33
305.19
297.51
242.58
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Acetaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Xylenes
Naphthalene
1,481,100.43
67,586.47
42,193.04
38,809.53
33,205.04
26,953.58
20,734.32
20,617.01
11,928.34
10,218.16
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
0.27
0.20
0.05
0.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations for LDTN and MSTN from Table 27-7 include the following:
• Benzene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Loudon County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for Loudon County were arsenic, benzene, and formaldehyde.
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants in Loudon County also had the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions.
• For both monitoring sites, formaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, acetaldehyde,
and 1,3-butadiene had the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations. Four of these
pollutants appear on both emissions-based lists, while carbon tetrachloride did not
appear on either emissions-based list.
Observations for METN from Table 27-7 include the following:
• Similar to Loudon County, benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the
highest emitted pollutants with cancer UREs in Shelby County, although the quantity
of emissions was much higher for Shelby County than Loudon County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for Shelby County were benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants in Shelby County also had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Formaldehyde, benzene, acetaldehyde, and carbon tetrachloride had the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations for METN. Carbon tetrachloride did not appear
on either emissions-based list, while benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde
appeared on both. Tetrachloroethylene and 1,3-butadiene also appear on all three lists
in Table 27-7.
Observations for LDTN and MSTN from Table 27-8 include the following:
• Carbon disulfide, toluene, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Loudon County. The emissions of carbon disulfide (1,043 tpy)
were nearly five times the quantity of the next highest emitted pollutant (toluene at
203 tpy). This is the only county with an NMP site for which this pollutant was
among the 10 highest emitted pollutants.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) for Loudon County were acrolein, manganese, and acetaldehyde.
Carbon disulfide ranked tenth highest for toxicity-weighted emissions. This is the
27-47
-------
only county with an NMP site for which this pollutant appears on the list of highest
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Although acrolein was sampled for at LDTN and MSTN, this pollutant was excluded
from the pollutants of interest designation, and thus subsequent risk screening
evaluations, due to questions about the consistency and reliability of the
measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Five of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Loudon County.
• Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, carbon disulfide, and benzene had the highest
noncancer risk approximations for LDTN. All four of these pollutants appear on both
emissions-based lists. 1,3-Butadiene was also among the pollutants with the highest
risk approximations for LDTN. While this pollutant was among the pollutants with
the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, this pollutant's total emissions did not rank
among the top 10.
• Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene had the highest noncancer risk
approximations for MSTN. All three of these pollutants appear on both emissions-
based lists. Carbon tetrachloride and 1,3-butadiene were also among the pollutants
with the highest risk approximations for MSTN. While 1,3-butadiene was among the
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, this pollutant's total
emissions did not rank among the top 10. Carbon tetrachloride does not appear on
either emissions-based list.
Observations for METN from Table 27-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and methanol were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Shelby County. The quantity of emissions of the pollutants in common was
generally an order of magnitude higher for Shelby County than Loudon County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) for Shelby County were acrolein, manganese, and 1,3-butadiene.
Although acrolein was sampled for at METN, this pollutant was excluded from the
pollutants of interest designation, and thus subsequent risk screening evaluations, due
to questions about the consistency and reliability of the measurements, as discussed in
Section 3.2.
• Five of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Shelby County.
• The pollutants with the highest noncancer risk approximations were formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, and benzene. These pollutants appeared on both emissions-based lists.
27-48
-------
27.6 Summary of the 2008-2008 Monitoring Data for the Tennessee Sites
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
*»* Fifteen pollutants failed at least one screen/or LDTN; 11 pollutants failed at least
one screen for MSTN; and 13 pollutants failed at least one screen for METN.
»«» While carbon disulfide had the highest daily average concentrations for LDTN,
formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentrations for METN and MSTN.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
27-49
-------
28.0 Site in Texas
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Texas, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
28.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the CAMS 35 monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The CAMS 35 monitoring site is located in the Houston-Sugarl and-B ay town, Texas
MSA. Figure 28-1 is a composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the
monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 28-2 identifies point source emissions locations by
source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within
10 miles of the site are included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 28-2.
Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to
show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give
the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the site. Table 28-1 describes the area
surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
28-1
-------
Figure 28-1. Deer Park, Texas (CAMS 35) Monitoring Site
to
oo
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/10/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,505 feet
-------
Figure 28-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of CAMS 35
•-• |,i' i-v.' •!' ' ' ••:•• 95-CTO"W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may net represent all facilities within (he area of interest.
Legend
*& CAMS 35 NATTS site
• 10 mile radius
County boundaries
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
-fa Aircraft Operations Facility (21)
"1" Airport Support Operation i.2j
I Asphalt Processing/Roofing Manufacturing > 11
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (19)
C Chemical Manufacturing Facility 1105)
•#• Cold Solvent Cleaning/Stripping Facility (2)
3 Cooling Tower (1)
f Electricity Generation via Combustion 4131
E Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring (4)
0 Fabricated Metal Products Facility < 1)
Gas Plant (6)
53 Glass Manufacturing Facility (I)
-f- Gypsum Manufacturing Facility 11}
* Hot Mix Asphalt Plant {2)
A LandfilMD
V Marine Port (24}
A Military Base/National Security FaciMty{1|
I-1 Miscellaneous ManufacUiring Industries Facility (10|
• Oit andtor Gas Production (7)
3 Petroleum Refinery (6)
1 Pipeline Compressor Station <5)
B Pulp and Paper Plant/Wood Products Facility (3}
X Rail Car Cleaning Facility 11 j
2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility t7.i
41. Ship Building and Repairing Facility i.4i
S Surface Coating Facility (2)
• Tank Battery Facility (1 >
Cl TankTniefc Cleaning Facifityl^
* Waste-water Treatment Facility (2\
28-3
-------
Table 28-1. Geographical Information for the Texas Monitoring Site
Site Code
CAMS 35
AQS Code
48-201-1039
Location
Deer Park
County
Harris
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Houston-
Sugarland-
Baytown, TX
MSA
Latitude
and
Longitude
29.670046,
-95.128485
Land Use
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Haze, CO, NOy, NO, NO2, NOx, PAMS, NMOC,
VOC, Carbonyl compounds, O3, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, PM Coarse, PM10 Speciation,
PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
to
oo
-------
The CAMS 35 monitoring site is located in Deer Park, southeast of Houston, in east
Texas. The site is located at Brown Memorial Park, in a primarily residential area, as shown in
Figure 28-1. Major thoroughfares are near the site, including Beltway 8 (1.5 miles) and Highway
225 (nearly 3 miles). Galveston Bay is located to the east and southeast and the Houston Ship
Channel, which runs from the Bay westward towards downtown Houston, is located to the north
on the other side of Highway 225. The east side of Houston has significant industry, including
several oil refineries. As Figure 28-2 shows, the point source located closest to the CAMS 35
monitoring site is a heliport at San Jacinto College in Pasadena. However, a large number of
emissions sources are located roughly along a line that runs east to west just north of the site (or
along the Houston Ship Channel). A second cluster of emissions sources is located to the
southeast of the monitoring site. The source category with the largest number of sources (105)
surrounding CAMS 35 is chemical manufacturing. Other source categories with a number of
sources around CAMS 35 include marine ports; aircraft operations, which include airports as
well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads; and bulk terminals and bulk plants.
Table 28-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the Texas
monitoring site. Information provided in Table 28-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Harris County were obtained from the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department (HCPID,
2004) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 28-2 also includes
a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). An estimate of 10-mile
vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population
ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding the monitoring site. Table 28-2 also contains annual
average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source
from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 28-2 presents the daily VMT for the Houston area.
28-5
-------
Table 28-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Texas Monitoring
Site
Site
CAMS 35
Estimated
County
Population1
4,070,989
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
2,982,632
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.73
Population
Within 10
Miles3
741,262
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
543,090
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
31,043
VMT5
(thousands)
106,872
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data from the Texas DOT (TX DOT, 2010).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2004 data from the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department (HCPID,
2004).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 28-2 include the following:
• Compared to other counties with NMP monitoring sites, Harris County was among
the highest for both county-level population and vehicle ownership.
• The 10-mile population for CAMS 35 does not reflect the magnitude of the county
population, indicating that the site is not located near the center of highest population
density. The 10-mile population for CAMS 35 was in the middle of the range
compared to other NMP sites.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio for CAMS 35 was in the lower third compared to other
NMP sites.
• The traffic volume passing CAMS 35 was in the middle of the range compared to
other program sites. Traffic data for CAMS 35 were obtained for Spencer Highway
between Red Bluff Road and Underwood Road.
• The Houston area was among the urban areas (with NMP monitoring sites) with the
highest VMT.
28.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Texas on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
28.2.1 Climate Summary
The eastern third of Texas is characterized by a subtropical humid climate, with the
climate becoming more continental in nature farther north and west. The proximity to the Gulf of
28-6
-------
Mexico acts as a moderating influence as temperatures soar in the summer or dip in the winter.
Areas closer to the coast, such as Houston, remain slightly cooler in the summer than
neighboring areas to the north. The reverse is also true, as coastal areas are warmer in the winter
than areas farther inland, although East Texas winters are relatively mild. The onshore flow from
the Gulf of Mexico also allows humidity levels to remain higher near the coast. The winds flow
out of the Gulf of Mexico a majority of the year, with the winter months being the exception, as
frontal systems allow colder air to filter in from the north. Abundant rainfall is also typical of the
region, again due in part to the nearness to the Gulf of Mexico (Bair, 1992 and TAMU, 2011).
28.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station to
CAMS 35 is located at William P. Hobby Airport, WBAN 12918. Additional information about
the Hobby Airport weather station is provided in Table 28-3. These data were used to determine
how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the
year(s).
Table 28-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 28-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 28-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout the year for both years.
28-7
-------
Table 28-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Texas Monitoring Site
Closest NWS
Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Deer Park, Texas - CAMS 35
William P.
Hobby Airport
12918
(29.65, -95.28)
8 86
miles
285°
(WNW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
80.3
±2.9
79.7
+ 1.2
79.3
±3.2
79.6
+ 1.3
71.4
±3.0
70.7
+ 1.2
70.2
±3.2
70.5
+ 1.3
59.0
±3.6
58.7
+ 1.4
57.9
±3.8
58.9
+ 1.5
64.1
±2.9
63.7
+ 1.2
63.1
±3.1
63.7
+ 1.2
68.2
±3.1
68.7
+ 1.2
68.2
±3.2
69.7
+ 1.2
1016.4
±1.2
1016.8
+ 0.6
1016.2
±1.3
1016.5
+ 0.5
6.9
±0.9
6.8
+ 0.4
6.7
±0.7
6.7
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
to
oo
oo
-------
28.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 28-3 and Figure 28-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the CAMS 35 monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Figure 28-5 is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in
red. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in
Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which
a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster
analyses, each line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of
trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the site in Figures 28-3 through 28-5
represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 28-3 through 28-5 for CAMS 35 include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the CAMS 35 monitoring
site, although a majority of trajectories originated over the Gulf of Mexico.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for CAMS 35 was similar in size to other NMP
monitoring sites. Two trajectories originated approximately 610 miles away, one to
the north over central Kansas, and the other to the southeast over the Gulf of Mexico.
However, the average trajectory length was 273 miles and nearly 90 percent of
trajectories originated within 450 miles of the site.
• The cluster analysis for 2008 is similar in trajectory distribution to the cluster analysis
for 2009. Both show that the majority of trajectories originated over the Gulf of
Mexico (although somewhat more in 2008). Another common trajectory origin is
from the northwest to north (11 percent in 2008 and 17 percent in 2009). The two
short trajectories representing relatively short 2009 trajectories from the west
(16 percent) and east (16 percent) are represented by a single trajectory originating to
the north for 2008 (20 percent). Recall that both direction and distance from the
monitoring site factor into the cluster analysis.
28-9
-------
Figure 28-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CAMS 35
Figure 28-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CAMS 35
28-10
-------
Figure 28-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for CAMS 35
28.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Hobby Airport near CAMS 35 were
uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as described in
Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals" positioned
around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 28-6 presents five different wind roses for the CAMS 35 monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1999 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
28-11
-------
Figure 28-6. Wind Roses for the William P. Hobby Airport Weather Station near CAMS 35
oo
20%
"~\ 16%
12%
8%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
IZl 4-7
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 16.12%
1999 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
I I -22
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 16.15%
-------
Observations from Figure 28-6 for CAMS 35 include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that winds from the southeasterly quadrant, including
both easterly and southerly winds, prevailed near the CAMS 35 site. Northerly winds
were also observed often. Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for nearly 16 percent
of the wind measurements.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are very similar to the
historical wind patterns, indicating that conditions during sample years were similar
to conditions observed in past years.
• The 2008 and 2009 sample day wind patterns generally resemble the full-year and
historical wind patterns with a few exceptions. The 2008 sample day wind rose has
fewer northerly wind observations and more north-northwesterly observations. There
were also more south-southeasterly observations but fewer easterly observations
shown on the 2008 sample day wind rose.
28.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the CAMS 35 monitoring site in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening
value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total
failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any
of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not meet the pollutant
of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to the list of
site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening process is
presented in Section 3.2.
Table 28-4 presents CAMS 35's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least
one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the monitoring site are
shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. As such, pollutants of interest are shaded
and/or bolded. CAMS 35 sampled for PAH only.
28-13
-------
Table 28-4. Risk Screening Results for the Texas Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Deer Park, Texas - CAMS 35
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.029
0.00091
Total
100
1
101
114
58
172
87.72
1.72
58.72
99.01
0.99
99.01
100.00
Observations from Table 28-4 include the following:
• Two pollutants failed at least one screen for CAMS 35. They are both PAH NATTS
MQO Core Analytes, naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene.
• Naphthalene contributed to 99 percent of the total number of failed screens for
CAMS 35. Nearly 88 percent of naphthalene's measured detections failed screens
while less than two percent of benzo(a)pyrene's measured detections failed screens.
28.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Texas monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for CAMS 35, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants are
presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at the
site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in Appendices
J through O.
28.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for CAMS 35, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
28-14
-------
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 28-5, where applicable. The averages
presented in Table 28-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations from Table 28-5 include the following:
• Naphthalene's daily, quarterly, and annual averages were all significantly higher than
the averages for benzo(a)pyrene.
• The first quarter 2009 naphthalene average is the highest of the quarterly averages for
CAMS 35 and has a large confidence interval associated with it, suggesting that
outliers may be affecting this average. The highest concentration of naphthalene was
measured at CAMS 35 on January 13, 2009 (854 ng/m3). This concentration is among
the highest one percent of naphthalene measurements among all NMP sites sampling
naphthalene. However, naphthalene concentrations appear to be higher during the
second half of the year. Of the 25 naphthalene concentrations greater than 125 ng/m3
measured at CAMS 35, eight were measured during third quarter months and eleven
were measured during fourth quarter months.
• Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in roughly half the samples collected at CAMS 35;
thus, some quarterly averages could not be calculated. The confidence interval for
fourth quarter 2008 average is higher than its respective average, indicating that
outliers may also be affecting this average. On October 21, 2008, an unusually high
concentration was measured (1.27 ng/m3). This concentration is an order of
magnitude higher than the next highest concentration (0.237 ng/m3) and is among the
higher measurements of this pollutant among all NMP sites sampling PAH.
Benzo(a)pyrene measurements from CAMS 35 ranged from 0.0112 to 1.27 ng/m3,
with a median concentration of 0.04 ng/m3.
• None of the daily average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for CAMS 35
were among the highest daily averages of the PAH, as shown in Table 4-11.
28.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. The Texas monitoring site has not sampled PAH continuously for 5 years as part
of the NMP; therefore, the trends analysis was not conducted.
28-15
-------
Table 28-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Texas Monitoring
Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Deer Park, Texas - CAMS 35
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.08
±0.10
88.52
± 20.06
0.02
±0.01
64.31
± 16.78
0.01
±0.01
54.40
± 27.40
NA
96.02
±39.04
0.12
±0.18
138.15
±56.38
0.04
±0.05
88.52
± 20.06
0.06
±0.02
106.23
±29.61
0.05
±0.03
160.87
± 124.83
NA
71.08
± 22.28
0.02
±0.01
96.14
± 27.26
0.06
±0.04
109.71
±45.61
0.03
±0.01
106.23
±29.61
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
to
oo
-------
28.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
CAMS 35 monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
28.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Texas monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and the annual
averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the CAMS 35 monitoring site were higher
than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
28.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Texas monitoring site and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 28-6, where applicable.
28-17
-------
Table 28-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Texas Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Deer Park, Texas - CAMS 35
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.001
0.000034
0.003
26/3
54/4
0.04
±0.05
88.52
± 20.06
0.04
3.01
0.03
32/3
60/4
0.03
±0.01
106.23
±29.61
0.03
3.61
0.04
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
to
oo
oo
-------
Observations for CAMS 35 from Table 28-6 include the following:
• Naphthalene's cancer risk approximation was 3.01 in-a-million for 2008 and
3.61 in-a-million for 2009, based on the annual averages. Naphthalene's noncancer
risk approximations were well below the level of concern, an HQ of 1.0.
• Benzo(a)pyrene's cancer risk approximations were both low (both approximations
were below 0.05 in-a-million). Benzo(a)pyrene does not have a noncancer RfC, thus
noncancer risk approximations could not be calculated.
28.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 28-7 and 28-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 28-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 28-8
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 28.3,
the Texas monitoring site sampled for PAH only. In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate
risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for
annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
28-19
-------
Table 28-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Texas Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Deer Park, Texas (Harris County) - CAMS 35
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Naphthalene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
2,116.48
1,348.24
641.55
517.31
490.27
439.24
284.92
157.37
90.25
90.20
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Benzidine, gas
Naphthalene
Arsenic, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
Ethylene oxide
1.92E-02
1.69E-02
1.65E-02
9.38E-03
6.96E-03
5.35E-03
3.63E-03
2.59E-03
1.91E-03
1.78E-03
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3.61
3.01
0.04
0.03
to
oo
to
o
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 28-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Texas Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Deer Park, Texas (Harris County) - CAMS 35
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Toluene
Xylenes
Hexane
Benzene
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
5,253.70
4,973.48
3,180.95
3,011.32
2,116.48
1,906.63
1,348.24
1,321.33
814.96
724.78
Acrolein
Chlorine
Hexamethylene- 1 ,6-diisocyanate, gas
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Nickel, PM
Benzene
Hydrochloric acid
Acetaldehyde
3,374,296.63
1,125,108.32
518,170.00
337,368.31
320,776.21
137,575.21
77,425.48
70,549.23
66,066.46
57,478.61
Naphthalene 0.04
Naphthalene 0.03
to
oo
to
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 28-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Harris County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for Harris County were 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and benzene.
• Five of the highest emitted pollutants in Harris County also had the highest toxi city-
weighted emissions.
• Naphthalene is the only pollutant of interest that appears on both emissions-based
lists.
• POM Group 2 was the ninth highest emitted "pollutant" in Harris County.
POM Group 2 includes several PAH sampled for at CAMS 35 including
acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and phenanthrene. None of the PAH included
in POM Group 2 were identified as pollutants of interest for CAMS 35.
Observations from Table 28-8 include the following:
• Methyl fert-butyl, toluene, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Harris County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) for Harris County were acrolein, chlorine, and
hexamethylene-l,6-diisocyanate gas.
• Three of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxi city-weighted
emissions for Harris County.
• Neither of CAMS 35's pollutants of interest appear on the emissions-based lists for
Harris County.
28.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for CAMS 35
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Although naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene both failed at least one screen,
naphthalene accounted for 99 percent of the total failed screens for CAMS 35.
*»* Of the site-specific pollutants of the interest, naphthalene had the highest daily
average concentration for CAMS 35 for both years.
28-22
-------
None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
28-23
-------
29.0 Site in Utah
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Utah, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
29.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the BTUT monitoring site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
BTUT is located in Bountiful, in northern Utah. Figure 29-1 is a composite satellite
image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its urban location.
Figure 29-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as reported in the
2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are included in the
facility counts provided below the map in Figure 29-2. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius
have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile
boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions
sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air
quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions
sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of
the site. Table 29-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental
geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
29-1
-------
Figure 29-1. Bountiful, Utah (BTUT) Monitoring Site
to
VO
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 1,724 feet
-------
Figure 29-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of BTUT
i« sew
i'. '..,-.-.
nr«*w
Not* Du» 10 tartly dwiiuly and coma/inn, ffm fetal (stallm*
-------
Table 29-1. Geographical Information for the Utah Monitoring Site
Site
Code
BTUT
AQS Code
49-011-0004
Location
Bountiful
County
Davis
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Ogden-Clearfield,
UT
Latitude
and
Longitude
40.902967,
-111.884467
Land Use
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
SO2, NO, NO2, NOx, PAMS, O3, Meteorological
parameters, PM10, PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
to
-k
-------
Bountiful is north of Salt Lake City, and is situated in a valley between the Great Salt
Lake to the west and the Wasatch Mountains to the east. Figure 29-1 shows that BTUT is located
on the property of Viewmont High School, in a primarily residential area. The site is located
about one-third of a mile from 1-15, which runs north-south through most of the surrounding
urban area including Salt Lake City, Clearfield, and Ogden. Figure 29-2 shows that nearly all of
the point sources near BTUT are located to the south of the site. The facilities surrounding
BTUT are involved in a variety of industries, although the source categories with the highest
number of point sources surrounding BTUT include aircraft operations, which include airports as
well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads; bulk terminals and bulk plants; and
electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring facilities. The source closest to BTUT
is involved in industrial machinery and equipment.
Table 29-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the Utah
monitoring site. Information provided in Table 29-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Davis County were obtained from the Utah Tax Commission (UT TC, 2009) and the U.S. Census
Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 29-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-
county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of the
site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the
county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding the
monitoring site. Table 29-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information, as well as the
year of the traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 29-2
presents the daily VMT for the Ogden-Clearfield urban area.
29-5
-------
Table 29-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Utah Monitoring
Site
Site
BTUT
Estimated
County
Population1
300,827
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
241,541
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.80
Population
Within 10
Miles3
251,597
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
202,013
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
111,065
VMT5
(thousands)
10,791
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data from the Utah Tax Commission (UT TC, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the Utah DOT (UT DOT, 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 29-2 include the following:
• Davis County's population was in the mid-to-low end of the range, as was its 10-mile
population, compared to all counties with NMP sites. The county-level vehicle
registration and 10-mile ownership estimate rankings were similar to the population
rankings.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio (0.80) was in the bottom third of the range compared to
other NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near BTUT was in the top third compared to other
NMP monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from the intersection of 1-15
with US-89, just west of the site.
• The Ogden-Clearfield area VMT was among the lowest VMT for urban areas with
NMP sites (less than the Knoxville, TN MSA but higher than the Gulfport, MS MSA
and a few others).
29.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Utah on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
29.2.1 Climate Summary
The Salt Lake City area's climate can be classified as semi-arid and continental in nature,
and the city experiences large seasonal variations. Summers are hot and dry while winters are
cold and snow is common. The area is generally dry, with spring as the wettest season, and
sunshine prevails across the area during much of the year. Precipitation that does fall can be
29-6
-------
enhanced over the eastern parts of the valley as storm systems move up the side of the Wasatch
Mountains, located to the east. Surrounding mountains protect the valley from winter storm
systems moving in from the southwest or north, preventing cold air outbreaks. The Great Salt
Lake tends to have a moderating influence on the area's temperature. Moderate winds flow out
of the southeast on average, although there is a valley breeze/lake breeze system that affects the
area. High pressure systems that occasionally settle over the area can result in stagnation
episodes (Bair, 1992 and WRCC, 2011).
29.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station is located at
Salt Lake City International Airport (WBAN 24127). Additional information about the Salt Lake
City International Airport weather station is provided in Table 29-3. These data were used to
determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions
throughout the year(s).
Table 29-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 29-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 29-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were representative of average weather
conditions throughout the year for both years.
29-7
-------
Table 29-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Utah Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Bountiful, Utah - BTUT
Salt Lake City
International
24127
(40.79, -111.97)
9.00
miles
217°
(SW)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
61.7
±5.3
62.5
+ 2.3
62.4
±5.2
62.2
+ 2.2
51.5
±4.7
52.2
+ 2.0
51.9
±4.6
52.1
+ 2.0
29.8
±2.2
30.1
+ 1.0
32.6
±2.6
32.4
+ 1.1
40.8
±3.0
41.3
+ 1.3
42.1
±3.1
42.1
+ 1.3
51.0
±4.5
50.5
+ 2.0
54.6
±4.4
53.9
+ 1.9
1015.7
±1.8
1015.7
+ 0.8
1016.4
±1.9
1015.7
+ 0.8
7.1
±0.7
6.8
+ 0.3
6.4
±0.7
6.5
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
to
vo
oo
-------
29.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 29-3 and Figure 29-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the BTUT monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 29-5
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. An
in-depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1.
For the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analysis, each line
corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps,
each concentric circle around the site in Figures 29-3 through 29-5 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 29-3 through 29-5 include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at BTUT.
• Similar to other sites located in the inter-mountain west, the 24-hour air shed domain
for BTUT was smaller in size compared to most other NMP monitoring sites. The
farthest away a trajectory originated was over the Mojave Desert of California, just
less than 450 miles away. However, most trajectories (87 percent) originated within
300 miles of the site.
• The red (2009) cluster trajectory that originates near BTUT and circles back around
the site (49 percent) represents trajectories originating within close proximity to the
site, generally within 100-150 miles of the site, and primarily to the southeast to
southwest. For 2008, these back trajectories are represented by two cluster
trajectories, the one originating to the south (34 percent) and the one originating to
the east (10 percent). For both years, these back trajectories account for nearly
50 percent of the sample days. Back trajectories also originated to the west to
northwest and south.
29-9
-------
Figure 29-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BTUT
Figure 29-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BTUT
N
29-10
-------
Figure 29-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for BTUT
29.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Salt Lake City International Airport
near BTUT were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses,
as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using
"petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
Figure 29-6 presents five different wind roses for the BTUT monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1999 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
29-11
-------
Figure 29-6. Wind Roses for the Salt Lake City International Airport Weather Station near BTUT
to
VO
2008 Wind Rose
..'•*"" ; NORTH" •**.,
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
.,-••'" jMORTH"---..
1999 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
Calms: 13.79%
2009 Wind Rose
..'•*"" ;NORTH""--_,
^--,____ [SOUTH,---
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 29-6 for BTUT include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that southeasterly, south-southeasterly, and southerly
winds were prevalent near BTUT. Winds from the north-northwest to north were also
common. Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for approximately 14 percent of the
hourly measurements from 1999-2007. The strongest wind speeds were observed
with south-southeasterly and southerly winds.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar to the
historical wind patterns. Further, the wind patterns shown on the sample day wind
roses for each year also resemble the historical wind patterns, indicating that
conditions on sample days were representative of those experienced over the entire
year and historically.
29.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the BTUT monitoring site in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening
value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total
failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any
of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the BTUT monitoring site did not meet the
pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to
the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening
process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 29-4 presents BTUT's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the monitoring site are shaded.
NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded.
BTUT sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, SNMOC, PAH, metals (PMio), and hexavalent
chromium.
29-13
-------
Table 29-4. Risk Screening Results for the Utah Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Bountiful, Utah - BTUT
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Hexavalent Chromium
Cadmium (PM10)
Propionaldehyde
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Nickel (PM10)
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Lead (PM10)
Xylenes
0.13
0.17
0.45
0.077
0.033
0.00023
0.005
0.029
0.17
2.1
0.4
0.091
0.015
0.000083
0.00056
0.8
0.038
0.009
0.0017
0.045
0.015
10
Total
128
128
124
124
111
98
77
66
58
44
41
38
25
7
6
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
1,088
128
128
124
124
128
116
119
74
122
128
128
109
25
93
117
124
2
119
1
1
119
128
2,157
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
86.72
84.48
64.71
89.19
47.54
34.38
32.03
34.86
100.00
7.53
5.13
4.03
100.00
1.68
100.00
100.00
0.84
0.78
50.44
11.76
11.76
11.40
11.40
10.20
9.01
7.08
6.07
5.33
4.04
3.77
3.49
2.30
0.64
0.55
0.46
0.18
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
11.76
23.53
34.93
46.32
56.53
65.53
72.61
78.68
84.01
88.05
91.82
95.31
97.61
98.25
98.81
99.26
99.45
99.63
99.72
99.82
99.91
100.00
Observations from Table 29-4 include the following:
• Twenty-two pollutants, of which 13 are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed at least
one screen for BTUT.
• The risk screening process identified 12 pollutants of interest for BTUT, of which
nine were NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Four additional pollutants (cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, nickel, and lead) were added to BTUT's pollutants of interest
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not contribute to
95 percent of the total failed screens. In addition, five more pollutants were added to
BTUT's pollutants of interest because they are also NATTS MQO Core Analytes,
even though they did not fail any screens: benzo(a)pyrene, beryllium, chloroform,
trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride. These five pollutants are not shown in
Table 29-4. Although it seems like the list of added pollutants is long, BTUT is one of
two NMP monitoring sites where the entire suite of pollutants is sampled for (NBIL is
the other).
29-14
-------
• Of the pollutants of interest, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon
tetrachloride failed 100 percent of screens.
• Fifty percent of measured detections failed screens (of the pollutants that failed at
least one screen) for BTUT.
• As shown in Table 4-8 of Section 4.2, BTUT failed the third highest number of
screens among all NMP sites (behind only PXSS and S4MO).
• Recall from Section 3.2 that if a pollutant was measured by both the TO-15 and
SNMOC methods at the same site, the TO-15 results were used for the risk screening
process. As BTUT sampled both VOC (TO-15) and SNMOC, the TO-15 results were
used for the 12 pollutants these methods have in common.
29.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Utah monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest for
the BTUT site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants are
presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at the
site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in Appendix J
through Appendix O.
29-15
-------
29.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for BTUT, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 29-5, where applicable. Note that
concentrations of the PAH, metals, and hexavalent chromium are presented in ng/m3 for ease of
viewing.
29-16
-------
Table 29-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Utah Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Bountiful, Utah - BTUT
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (PM10)a
2.10
±0.64
1.40
±0.17
0.10
±0.02
0.65
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
0.27
±0.29
4.56
±6.55
0.38
±0.07
2.47
±0.48
0.30
±0.14
0.08
±0.02
0.02
±0.01
0.68
±0.16
1.63
±0.39
1.56
±0.39
0.13
±0.04
0.55
±0.06
0.08
±0.02
0.06
±0.07
0.60
±0.30
0.34
±0.11
1.93
±0.37
0.22
±0.10
0.04
±0.02
NA
0.48
±0.17
1.48
±0.44
0.87
±0.21
0.04
±0.01
0.64
±0.09
0.09
±0.02
0.04
±0.02
0.38
±0.07
0.21
±0.06
1.81
±0.54
0.11
±0.02
NA
NA
0.49
±0.16
3.89
±2.81
1.60
±0.26
0.07
±0.01
0.67
±0.12
0.12
±0.03
0.76
±1.20
0.66
±0.20
0.63
±0.19
4.47
±1.75
0.61
±0.60
NA
NA
0.76
±0.23
1.71
±0.41
1.57
±0.34
0.15
±0.04
0.77
±0.10
0.13
±0.02
0.18
±0.15
17.14
± 27.73
0.39
±0.09
2.00
±0.32
0.29
±0.11
NA
NA
0.97
±0.55
2.10
±0.64
1.40
±0.17
0.10
±0.02
0.65
±0.05
0.10
±0.01
0.23
±0.25
4.56
±6.55
0.38
±0.07
2.47
±0.48
0.29
±0.13
NA
NA
0.67
±0.16
1.97
±0.23
1.68
±0.34
0.11
±0.02
0.64
±0.04
0.13
±0.01
0.25
±0.15
19.76
± 14.99
0.39
±0.08
2.96
±0.45
0.24
±0.06
0.08
±0.02
0.02
±0.01
1.17
±0.43
2.18
±0.46
2.84
±0.87
0.20
±0.05
0.59
±0.04
0.10
±0.02
0.45
±0.37
8.03
±7.90
0.72
±0.20
2.40
±0.33
0.42
±0.13
0.07
±0.03
0.01
±0.01
1.87
±1.40
1.38
±0.36
1.18
±0.46
0.04
±0.01
0.66
±0.07
0.12
±0.03
0.26
±0.30
30.54
±51.61
0.26
±0.08
2.66
±1.10
0.17
±0.09
NA
NA
0.68
±0.26
2.29
±0.42
1.02
±0.20
0.05
±0.01
0.67
±0.09
0.16
±0.02
0.05
±0.03
35.16
±33.79
0.21
±0.04
4.42
±1.19
0.13
±0.08
NA
NA
0.55
±0.17
1.99
±0.52
1.41
±0.41
0.13
±0.04
0.63
±0.09
0.11
±0.02
0.04
±0.04
7.00
±2.88
0.31
±0.08
2.36
±0.30
0.14
±0.04
NA
NA
1.38
±0.83
1.97
±0.23
1.68
±0.34
0.11
±0.02
0.64
±0.04
0.12
±0.01
0.22
±0.13
19.76
± 14.99
0.39
±0.08
2.96
±0.45
0.23
±0.06
NA
NA
1.13
±0.42
to
VO
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 29-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Utah Monitoring Site
(Continued)
Pollutant
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Beiy Ilium (PM10)a
Cadmium (PM10) a
Hexavalent Chromium3
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.15
±0.10
0.01
±0.01
0.20
±0.10
0.04
±0.01
3.24
±0.58
8.68
±1.50
70.14
± 22.37
2.75
±1.09
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NA
0.27
±0.23
0.04
±0.01
3.43
±1.12
7.58
±2.84
NR
2.27
±0.70
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.08
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
2.33
±0.87
8.42
±3.35
NA
5.76
±4.09
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.12
±0.07
0.05
±0.03
3.38
±0.49
12.21
±2.89
NA
1.64
±0.56
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.11
±0.09
0.01
±0.01
0.31
±0.35
0.04
±0.03
3.82
± 1.84
6.83
±2.89
71.33
±26.39
1.28
±0.49
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.20
±0.10
0.04
±0.01
3.24
±0.58
8.68
±1.50
NA
2.75
±1.09
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.19
±0.06
0.01
±0.01
0.13
±0.06
0.03
±0.01
3.60
±0.98
7.01
±1.20
84.19
± 16.63
1.00
±0.17
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.17
±0.10
NA
0.25
±0.21
0.02
±0.01
5.32
±3.10
6.86
±2.91
125.22
±55.82
1.48
±0.34
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
0.06
±0.02
0.01
±0.01
1.99
±0.42
7.60
±3.30
44.77
± 11.65
0.79
±0.21
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.08
±0.04
0.02
±0.01
2.66
±0.54
8.96
±1.71
65.29
± 12.87
0.81
±0.17
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
0.17
±0.08
NA
0.12
±0.06
0.02
±0.01
4.31
±2.22
4.66
±1.32
102.96
±27.53
0.89
±0.45
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
0.13
±0.06
0.02
±0.01
3.60
±0.98
7.01
±1.20
84.19
± 16.63
1.00
±0.17
to
VO
oo
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Observations for BTUT from Table 29-5 include the following:
• For both years, the pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations by mass
were dichloromethane, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene. The annual
averages for these pollutants were the same as their respective daily averages,
meaning these pollutants were detected in every sample collected.
• Some pollutants of interest have seasonal variations. For instance, 1,3-butadiene was
highest during the colder months (first and fourth quarters of both years). Conversely,
formaldehyde tended to be higher during the warmer months.
• Several pollutants appear to be higher in one quarter or another, but have very large
confidence intervals associated them. For example, both carbonyl compounds have
rather large confidence intervals for their third quarter 2008 averages, particularly
acetaldehyde. The highest concentration of acetaldehyde was measured on
July 17, 2008 (20.0 |ig/m3) and was nearly four times the next highest concentration
measured on July 30, 2009 (4.69 |ig/m3). This was also the second highest
acetaldehyde concentration measured among all NMP sites sampling carbonyl
compounds.
• Another example of this is/>-dichlorobenzene's third quarter 2008 average. The
highest concentration of this pollutant was measured on September 27, 2008
(7.59 |ig/m3) and was more than twice the next highest concentration. This was also
the highest concentration of this pollutant among all NMP sites sampling VOC. A
closer inspection of this pollutant's other quarterly averages reveals that all of the
quarterly averages between the third quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009
had relatively high confidence intervals (based on the average itself). There were
eight concentrations measured at BTUT that were greater than 0.75 |ig/m3 and these
were spread across sample dates across this time frame. Of the 25 measurements of
/>-dichlorobenzene greater than 0.75 |ig/m3 for all NMP sites, nearly one-third of
them belong to BTUT (another six belong to S4MO and two were measured at SPIL;
the remainder were spread across nine additional sites).
• Dichloromethane had the highest daily and annual averages for BTUT, but also had
several high quarterly averages with very large confidence intervals associated them.
This indicates the presence of outliers. The concentrations of dichloromethane at
BTUT ranged from 0.223 to 432 |ig/m3. There were five measurements of this
pollutant that were greater than 100 |ig/m3 and a total of 17 greater than 10.0 |ig/m3.
Compared to other NMP sites, BTUT had the most number of dichloromethane
measurements greater than 10.0 |ig/m3 (GPCO had second highest at seven). Only
one other NMP site had a dichloromethane measurement greater than 100 |ig/m3
(EQWA).
• The third quarter 2008 and first quarter 2009 averages of ethylbenzene are higher
than the other quarters. A review of the data shows that there were six measurements
of ethylbenzene greater than 1.0 |ig/m3. Four of these were measured in
29-19
-------
January 2009, the other two were measured in July and September 2009. The
September measurement was collected on September 27, 2008, the same day the high
/>-dichlorobenzene concentration was measured.
• The third quarter 2008 tetrachloroethylene quarterly average has a very large
confidence interval associated with it. The first quarter 2009 average is also relatively
high. A review of the data shows that the two highest concentrations of this pollutant
were measured at BTUT on September 27, 2008 (3.97 |ig/m3), similar to
/7-dichlorobenzene, and July 2, 2008 (1.24 |ig/m3).
• Although PAH sampling began at BTUT in April 2008, complications with the
sampler lead to a six-month lapse in sampling between the end of April 2008 and
mid-October 2008.
• Concentrations of arsenic were higher during the last quarter of 2008, first quarter of
2009, and fourth quarter 2009. The highest concentration of arsenic was measured on
January 19, 2009 (10.2 ng/m3) and was more than twice the next highest
concentration (4.95 ng/m3, January 31, 2009), hence the large confidence interval. Of
the 25 arsenic concentrations greater than 1.0 ng/m3, six were measured in first
quarter of 2009, six in the fourth quarter of 2009, and five in the fourth quarter of
2008.
• Both cadmium and lead appear to be higher during the colder months of the year (first
and fourth quarters). The highest concentration of lead was measured on
January 19, 2009 (23.1 ng/m3), which is the same day the highest arsenic
concentration was measured. Lead concentrations ranged from 0.0358 ng/m3 to
23.1 ng/m3, with a median of 2.66 ng/m3. Of the 20 lead concentrations greater than
5.0 ng/m3, four were measured in first quarter of 2008, four in the fourth quarter of
2008, five in the first quarter of 2009, and five in the fourth quarter of 2009. Only two
were measured outside these quarters. Three concentrations of cadmium (out of 117)
were greater than 1.0 ng/m3. These were measured on November 26, 2008
(2.61 ng/m3), February 12, 2008 (1.73 ng/m3), and January 19, 2009 (1.54 ng/m3).
The median cadmium concentration was 0.07 ng/m3. This explains the large
confidence intervals for these calendar quarters.
• The second quarter 2008 nickel average concentration is higher than the other
quarterly averages and has a large confidence interval associated with it. The two
highest concentrations of nickel were measured on April 18, 2008 (26.9 ng/m3) and
April 12, 2008 (20.9 ng/m3). These two concentrations are the highest measurements
of nickel among all NMP sites sampling metals. The third highest nickel
concentration was also measured during the second quarter of 2008 (May 6, 2008,
8.92 ng/m3).
29-20
-------
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for BTUT from those tables
include the following:
• BTUT has fourth highest daily average concentration of acrylonitrile (2008) as well
as the third (2008) and sixth (2009) highest daily average concentrations of
/>-dichlorobenzene, as shown in Table 4-9.
• BTUT appears in Table 4-12 for every metal except lead. BTUT had the highest daily
average concentration of nickel (2008 only), the second highest daily average
concentration of arsenic (2009 only), the third (2009) and fourth (2008) highest daily
average concentrations of beryllium, the seventh highest daily average concentration
of cadmium (2008), the ninth highest daily average concentration of hexavalent
chromium (2008), and the fifth (2008) and ninth (2009) highest daily average
concentration of manganese.
• BTUT does not appear on either table for carbonyl compounds or PAH.
29.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. BTUT has sampled carbonyl compounds, VOC, metals, and SNMOC as part of
the NMP since July 2003. BTUT has also sampled hexavalent chromium since 2005. Thus,
Figures 29-7 through 29-13 present the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for acetaldehyde,
arsenic, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, and manganese for
BTUT, respectively. The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution
of zeros for non-detects.
29-21
-------
Figure 29-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Acetaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at BTUT
2005-2007
Three-Year Period
« 5th Perc entile — Minimum — Median — Maximum * 95th Percetitile ...... Average
Sampling for carbonyl compounds began in July 2003.
Figure 29-8. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Arsenic (PMi0) Concentrations
Measured at BTUT
200J-20051
2005-2007
Three-Year Period
• 5thPercentile - Minimum - Median — Maximum • 95thPercentile ...... Average
Sampling for PM10 metals began in July 2003.
29-22
-------
Figure 29-9. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Benzene Concentrations Measured
at BTUT
L
a
c
.2
§
C g
2
^amp
lingf
»
M
^
> —
..
2003-2005
• 5th Percentile —
or VOC began in
1
2004-2006
Miniinuni
Jul
y2
mm
tlH
,:
2005-2007
Three-Year Period
- Median
003.
Maximum
•M
^
«fi.
2006-2008
2007-2009
• 95th Percentile •••»•
Average
Figure 29-10. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations
Measured at BTUT
1
L,
Concentrat
c
c
0
i^^m
2003-2005
1
• 5th Percentlle —
2004-2006
1 llllllilHIM
^™
2005-2007
Three-Year Per od
- Median
Maximum
••
— i
•H
2006-2008
0
•
— i
>
^
>
2007-2009
95th Pert en tile •••*•
Average
Sampling for VOC began in July 2003.
29-23
-------
Figure 29-11. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Formaldehyde Concentrations
Measured at BTUT
3
I 25
2005-2007
Three-Year Period
• 5thPercentile — Minimum - Median — Maximum • 95th Percentile ---».-
Sampling for carbonyl compounds began in July 2003.
Figure 29-12. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at BTUT
2006-2008
Three-Year Period
• 5thPercentile — Minimum — Median — Maximum • 9 5th Pert en tile ...»-. Average
29-24
-------
Figure 29-13. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Manganese (PMio) Concentrations
Measured at BTUT
.•in.i :m..
- MWn-.ii - MtdlM
-------
• Although difficult to discern in Figure 29-8, the rolling average concentrations of
arsenic decreased through the 2006-2008 time period, but increased just slightly for
the final time frame shown. The median has decreased as well, but was static during
the final time frame. The 95th percentile has decreased through most of the time
frames too, but increased somewhat in the final time frame.
• The difference between the median and the average concentrations decreased over the
periods shown, indicating decreasing variability in the central tendency of arsenic
measurements.
Observations from Figures 29-9 for benzene include the following:
• The maximum concentration of benzene was measured in 2003 (15.84 |ig/m3). The
next highest concentration (9.44 |ig/m3) was also measured in 2003.
• The rolling average, median, and 95th percentiles have a decreasing trend through the
2006-2008 time frame, after which a slight increase is shown.
Observations from Figures 29-10 for 1,3-butadiene include the following:
• The maximum concentration of 1,3-butadiene was measured in October 2003. The
maximum concentration for every 3-year period afterward is lower than this
measurement.
• The minimum, 5th percentile, and median concentrations are all zero for the 2003-
2005 time frame, indicating that at least 50 percent of the measurements were non-
detects. The detection rate of 1,3-butadiene has increased for every year of sampling,
up to a 100 percent detection rate for 2008 and 2009.
• Figure 29-10 shows that the rolling average concentration has changed little over the
years of sampling.
Observations from Figure 29-11 for formaldehyde measurements include the following:
• The maximum formaldehyde concentration was measured in 2004 (45 |ig/m3), on the
same day as the highest acetaldehyde concentration, August 31, 2004. This
measurement is more than twice the next highest concentration (18.21 |ig/m3),
measured in 2007. Concentrations of similar magnitude were also measured on
additional days in 2004 and 2007.
• The rolling average concentration increased slightly from 2003-2005 to 2004-2006,
then decreased through 2007-2009. This is also true of the median concentration and
the 95th percentile.
29-26
-------
• The difference between the median and the average concentrations decreased over
most of the periods shown, indicating decreasing variability in the central tendency of
formaldehyde measurements.
Observations from Figure 29-12 for hexavalent chromium measurements include the
following:
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured on July 4, 2006.
The next highest concentration was measured in December 2008 and was roughly
half as high.
• Both the rolling average and median concentrations increased slightly during the
second 3-year period then returned to 2005-2007 levels for the third 3-year period.
These changes, however, were not statistically significant.
• The minimum and 5th percentile are both zero for each time frame, indicating the
presence of non-detects. The number of non-detects was 33 percent during the first
year of sampling, dropped to around 10 percent for the next 3 years, and was highest
in 2009 (38 percent).
Observations from Figure 29-13 for manganese measurements include the following:
• The maximum manganese concentration was measured in 2004, although the next
highest concentration, measured in 2007, was not that much lower.
• The rolling average concentration increased slightly in 2005-2007 and 2006-2008
from 2004-2006 levels. However, the calculation of confidence intervals shows that
this slight increase is not statistically significant.
• The difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles increased over the periods shown,
indicating an increasing spread in the measurements of manganese, and thus
increasing variability, since the onset of sampling.
29.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
BTUT monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and explanations
regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with these risk
screenings.
29-27
-------
29.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Utah monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available. As
described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and the annual
averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the Utah monitoring site were higher than
their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
29.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Utah monitoring site and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 29-6, where applicable.
Observations for BTUT from Table 29-6 include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest annual averages were dichloromethane,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene for both years. Note that the
dichloromethane average for 2009 was considerably higher than the average for 2008.
• The pollutants with the highest cancer risk approximations for 2008 were
formaldehyde, benzene, and acetaldehyde. For 2009, the pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations were formaldehyde, benzene, and dichloromethane.
• There were no pollutants of interest with a noncancer risk approximation greater than
1.0.
29-28
-------
Table 29-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Utah Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Bountiful, Utah - BTUT
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (PM10) a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
0.0000022
0.0043
0.0000078
0.001
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
_
0.000011
4.7E-07
0.0000025
0.000013
0.009
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.8
1
1
0.0098
60/4
59/4
62/4
9/1
43/3
62/4
60/4
62/4
57/4
53/4
62/4
62/4
60/4
2.10
±0.64
0.01
±0.01
1.40
±0.17
NA
O.01
±O.01
0.10
±0.02
O.01
±O.01
0.65
±0.05
0.10
±0.01
0.23
±0.25
4.56
±6.55
0.38
±0.07
2.47
±0.48
4.62
2.88
10.94
NA
0.02
2.98
0.36
3.89
_
2.57
2.14
0.96
32.06
0.23
0.04
0.05
NA
O.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.25
64/4
57/4
66/4
27/2
19/1
66/4
57/4
66/4
64/4
56/4
66/4
66/4
64/4
1.97
±0.23
0.01
±0.01
1.68
±0.34
NA
NA
0.11
±0.02
O.01
±O.01
0.64
±0.04
0.12
±0.01
0.22
±0.13
19.76
± 14.99
0.39
±0.08
2.96
±0.45
4.33
4.84
13.07
NA
NA
3.24
0.23
3.82
_
2.38
9.29
0.98
38.51
0.22
0.08
0.06
NA
NA
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.02
O.01
0.30
to
VO
to
VO
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 29-5.
-------
Table 29-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Utah Monitoring Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Hexavalent Chromium3
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.012
0.000034
0.000312
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.0001
0.00015
0.00005
0.003
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
55/4
60/4
60/4
14/1
60/4
60/4
16/1
7/0
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
<0.01
±<0.01
0.01
± <0.01
NA
<0.01
±0.01
0.29
±0.13
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.44
NA
0.86
1.73
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
<0.01
0.02
0.17
NA
0.03
<0.01
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
38/4
59/4
59/4
60/4
59/4
62/4
22/1
19/1
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
<0.01
±0.01
0.01
±0.01
0.08
±0.02
O.01
±0.01
0.23
±0.06
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.23
2.86
0.31
1.33
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
O.01
0.02
0.14
0.03
0.01
O.01
NA
NA
to
VO
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 29-5.
-------
29.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 29-7 and 29-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 29-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 29-8
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer tables. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 29.3,
BTUT sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, SNMOC, metals (PMi0), PAH, and hexavalent
chromium. In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are limited to
those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. A
more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
29-31
-------
Table 29-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer UREs
for the Utah Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Bountiful, Utah (Davis County) - BTUT
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Dichloromethane
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
212.53
77.29
44.71
31.87
23.61
12.98
10.25
5.34
2.76
2.64
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Cadmium, PM
1.66E-03
9.66E-04
7.08E-04
3.49E-04
3.06E-04
1.45E-04
7.66E-05
7.01E-05
5.88E-05
4.93E-05
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Arsenic (PM10)
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
38.51
32.06
13.07
10.94
9.29
4.84
4.62
4.33
3.89
3.82
to
VO
to
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation
-------
Table 29-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Noncancer
RfCs for the Utah Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Bountiful, Utah (Davis County) - BTUT
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Methanol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Formaldehyde
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Dichloromethane
614.86
454.93
212.53
103.66
96.69
94.50
89.07
77.29
51.67
44.71
Acrolein
Hexamethylene- 1 ,6-diisocyanate, gas
1,3 -Butadiene
Manganese, PM
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Chlorine
Xylenes
Cyanide Compounds, gas
Acetaldehyde
288,490.75
12,765.00
11,805.93
9,742.63
7,887.09
7,084.50
4,710.00
4,549.25
3,913.33
3,540.64
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
0.30
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.17
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05
to
VO
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 29-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and dichloromethane were the highest emitted pollutants
with cancer UREs in Davis County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) were benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene.
• Eight of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Formaldehyde and benzene topped all three lists for BTUT.
• POM Group 2 was the tenth highest emitted "pollutant" in Davis County and ranked
sixth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH sampled
for at BTUT including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and phenanthrene.
None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as pollutants of interest
for BTUT.
• Some of the highest concentrations measured at BTUT were for dichloromethane.
Although this pollutant had the third highest emissions of the pollutants with UREs, it
was not one of the pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions. Its cancer
risk approximation was the fifth highest of those calculated for BTUT.
Observations from Table 29-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Davis County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, hexamethylene-l,6-diisocyanate (gas), and
1,3-butadiene. Although acrolein was sampled for at BTUT, this pollutant was
excluded from the pollutants of interest designation, and thus subsequent risk
screening evaluations, due to questions about the consistency and reliability of the
measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Three of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Although less than the level of concern, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and manganese
had the highest noncancer risk approximations for BTUT. These pollutants ranked
fifth, tenth, and fourth (respectively) for toxicity-weighted emissions. Of these three
pollutants, only formaldehyde was among the highest emitted pollutants.
29-34
-------
29.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for BTUT
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Twenty-two pollutants failed at least one screen for BTUT; of these, 13 were NATTS
MQO Core Analytes.
»«» Dichloromethane had the highest daily average concentrations among the pollutants
of interest for BTUT, followed by formaldehyde andacetaldehyde. The 2008 daily
average concentration of nickel for BTUT was the highest among all NMP sites
sampling PM 10 metals (the 2009 daily average was much lower).
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
29-35
-------
30.0 Site in Vermont
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Vermont, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
At the request of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division, the results of the data
analyses for the two UATMP sites in Burlington and Rutland (BURVT and RUVT) have been
removed from this section. The data analyses for the Underhill NATTS site (UNVT) have been
retained. Note that data from all three sites were incorporated into the introductory Sections 1-4.
30.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the Vermont NATTS site by providing geographical and
physical information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
site and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The Vermont NATTS site (UNVT) is located in the Burlington-South Burlington, VT
MSA. Figure 30-1 is the composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the
monitoring site in its rural location. Figure 30-2 identifies point source emissions locations by
source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10
miles of the site are included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 30-2. Thus,
sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show
emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the
reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the site. Table 30-1 describes the area
surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
30-1
-------
Figure 30-1. Underbill, Vermont (UNVT) Monitoring Site
o
to
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,195 feet
-------
Figure 30-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of UNVT
73 15'Crw 73 ICTO'VY
73 O'ffW 72 55'0'W 72 50'0'W 72 45'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ UNVT NATTS site
10 mile radius
_J County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
41 Aircraft Operations Facility (2)
I Iron and Steel Foundry (1)
« Landfill (2)
• Plywood, Particleboard, OSB Facility (1)
P Printing/Publishing Facility (1)
30-3
-------
Table 30-1. Geographical Information for the Vermont NATTS Site
Site
Code
UNVT
AQS Code
50-007-0007
Location
Underbill
County
Chittenden
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Burlington-South
Burlington, VT
Latitude
and
Longitude
44.52839,
-72.86884
Land Use
Forest
Location
Setting
Rural
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Haze, Sulfate, SO2, VOC, Carbonyl compounds, O3,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM Coarse, PM25,
and PM2 5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
o
-k
-------
The UNVT monitoring site is located on the Proctor Maple Research Farm in Underbill,
Vermont, east of the Burlington area. Mount Mansfield, the highest peak in Vermont, lies to the
east in Underhill State Park, less than 3 miles away. The Underhill Artillery Range is a few miles
to the south. Figure 30-1 shows that the area surrounding the site is rural in nature and heavily
forested. This site is intended to serve as a background site for the region for trends assessment,
standards compliance, and long-range transport assessment.
As Figure 30-2 shows, most of the emissions sources within 10 miles of UNVT are
located to the southwest of the site and closer to the Burlington area. There are seven emissions
sources located within 10 miles of UNVT, the closest of which are in the landfill source category
and the aircraft operations source category, which includes airports as well as small runways,
heliports, or landing pads.
Table 30-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the Vermont
NATTS site. Information provided in Table 30-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Chittenden County were obtained from the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles
Commissioners Office (VT DMV, 2010) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010),
respectively. Table 30-2 also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-
per-person) for the site. In addition, the population within 10 miles of the site is presented. An
estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle
registration-to-population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding the monitoring site.
Table 30-2 also contains annual average daily traffic information, as well as the year of the
traffic data estimate and the source from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 30-2 presents the
daily VMT for the Burlington urban area.
30-5
-------
Table 30-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Vermont NATTS
Site
Site
UNVT
Estimated
County
Population1
152,313
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
223,316
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.47
Population
Within 10
Miles3
14,408
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
21,125
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
1,200
VMT5
(thousands)
3,236
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2010 data from the Vermont DMV (VT DMV, 2010).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2005 data from Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
(CCRPC, 2005).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 30-2 include the following:
• Chittenden County's population was in the bottom third compared on other counties
with NMP sites. UNVT's 10-mile population is among the lowest compared to other
NMP sites. Similar patterns are shown in the vehicle ownership data.
• UNVT has one of the highest vehicle-per-person ratios among all NMP sites (1.47),
indicating that many people own more than one vehicle.
• The traffic volume experienced near UNVT was among the lower traffic counts for
NMP sites. The traffic estimate for UNVT was for Pleasant Valley Road, north of
Harvey Road.
• VMT for the Burlington area ranked among the lowest compared to other urban areas
with NMP monitoring sites.
30.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the Vermont
NATTS site on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
30.2.1 Climate Summary
The city of Burlington resides just to the east of Lake Champlain in northwest Vermont.
Lake Champlain has a moderating affect on the city, keeping the city slightly warmer in winter
than it could be given its New England location. The town of Underhill is located to the east of
Burlington but still within the Burlington MSA. The state of Vermont is affected by frequent
storm systems that track across the country, producing variable weather and often cloudy skies.
30-6
-------
Summers in Vermont are pleasant, with warm days and cool nights, escaping much of the heat
and humidity typical of the East Coast summer. Winters are warmer in the Champlain Valley
region than in other portions of the state but snow is common state-wide. Precipitation is evenly
distributed throughout the year. Average annual winds parallel the valleys, generally from the
south ahead of advancing weather systems, or from the north behind these systems. These storm
systems tend to be moderated somewhat due to the Adirondacks to the west and Green
Mountains to the east (Bair, 1992; VGA, 2011; NCDC, 2011).
30.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest the Vermont NATTS
site were retrieved for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather
station to UNVT is located at Morrisville-Stowe State Airport (WBAN 54771). Additional
information about this weather station is provided in Table 30-3. These data were used to
determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions
throughout the year(s).
Table 30-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 30-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 30-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days at UNVT were fairly representative of
average weather conditions throughout the year for both years.
30-7
-------
Table 30-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Vermont NATTS Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Underbill, Vermont - UNVT
Morrisville-Stowe
State Airport
54771
(44.53, -72.61)
1 1 84
miles
73°
(ENE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
54.1
±5.3
53.9
+ 2.1
55.0
±5.1
53.3
+ 2.1
43.8
±5.0
43.7
+ 2.0
45.0
±4.9
43.2
+ 2.0
34.2
±5.1
34.0
+ 2.0
36.1
±5.0
34.1
+ 2.1
39.6
±4.7
39.5
+ 1.8
41.0
±4.6
39.2
+ 1.9
72.0
±3.0
71.8
+ 1.1
74.2
±2.9
72.9
+ 1.1
1016.4
±2.1
1016.3
+ 0.9
1014.1
±2.2
1016.7
+ 0.9
2.5
±0.5
2.9
+ 0.2
3.0
±0.5
2.9
+ 0.2
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
o
oo
-------
30.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 30-3 and Figure 30-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the UNVT monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 30-5
is the cluster analysis for both years for UNVT, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in
red. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section
3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour traj ectory along which a parcel
of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analysis, each
line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all
maps, each concentric circle around the site in Figures 30-3 through 30-5 represents 100 miles.
Figure 30-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for UNVT
30-9
-------
Figure 30-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for UNVT
Figure 30-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for UNVT
:
30-10
-------
Observations from Figures 30-3 through 30-5 for UNVT include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at UNVT.
• The farthest away a trajectory originated was near the bottom of James Bay in west-
central Quebec, Canada, or over 500 miles away. However, the average trajectory
length was 216 miles long and most trajectories (85 percent) originated within 350
miles of the site.
• Directionally, the cluster analysis for 2008 (blue) is very similar to the cluster
analysis for 2009 (red). The cluster analyses show that trajectories originated from the
west-northwest to north-northwest (34 percent in 2008, 18 percent in 2009); from the
north to east and generally of shorter distance (19 percent in 2008, 18 percent in
2009); from the southeast to southwest (31 percent in 2008, 26 percent in 2009); and
from the southwest to west or northwest and a shorter distance (16 percent in 2008,
22 percent in 2009).
30.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at the Morrisville-Stowe State Airport
near UNVT were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses,
as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using
"petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
Figure 30-6 presents five different wind roses for the UNVT monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
30-11
-------
Figure 30-6. Wind Roses for the Morrisville-Stowe State Airport Weather Station near UNVT
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 62.00%
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calm; 5i' 0 ?%
-------
Observations from Figure 30-6 for UNVT include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds were prevalent near UNVT, as calm
winds were observed for over one-half of the hourly measurements. Winds from the
northwest to north account for nearly 20 percent of the wind observations greater than
two knots and winds from the south to south-southwest account for another
13 percent of observations.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar to the
historical wind patterns, indicating that conditions during these years were similar to
wind conditions experienced historically.
• The 2008 sample day wind rose shows that a slightly lower percentage of the
prevailing wind directions were measured on sample days compared to the full-year
wind rose. Also, a slightly higher percentage of calm winds were observed on sample
days.
• For 2009 sample days, a higher percentage of north-northwesterly winds and a lower
percentage of northerly winds were observed compared to observations over the
entire year.
30.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Vermont NATTS site in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening
value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total
failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any
of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not meet the pollutant
of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to the list of
site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening process is
presented in Section 3.2.
Table 30-4 presents the pollutants of interest for the Vermont NATTS site. The pollutants
that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the
monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest
30-13
-------
are shaded and/or bolded. UNVT sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, hexavalent chromium,
PAH, and metals (PMio).
Table 30-4. Risk Screening Results for the Vermont NATTS Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Hg/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Underbill, Vermont - UNVT
Arsenic (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acet aldehyde
Naphthalene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Acrylonitrile
Benzo(a)pyrene
Manganese (PM10)
0.00023
0.17
0.13
0.077
0.45
0.029
0.038
0.015
0.00091
0.005
Total
55
51
49
26
22
7
3
2
1
1
217
119
51
51
26
26
90
3
2
21
119
508
46.22
100.00
96.08
100.00
84.62
7.78
100.00
100.00
4.76
0.84
42.72
25.35
23.50
22.58
11.98
10.14
3.23
1.38
0.92
0.46
0.46
25.35
48.85
71.43
83.41
93.55
96.77
98.16
99.08
99.54
100.00
Observations from Table 30-4 for UNVT include the following:
• Ten pollutants, of which eight are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens for
UNVT.
• The preliminary risk screening identified six pollutants of interest: arsenic, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. Benzo(a)pyrene
and manganese were added as pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO
Core Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of the total failed
screens. Nine additional pollutants (four VOC, four metals, and hexavalent
chromium) were added as pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. Trichloroethylene was not added
because this pollutant was not detected at this site.
• Four pollutants (benzene, carbon tetrachloride, acrylonitrile, and 1,2-dichloroethane)
failed 100 percent of screens for UNVT. Note the difference in detection rates among
these pollutants (nearly 100 percent for benzene and carbon tetrachloride vs. four and
six percent for acrylonitrile and 1,2-dichloroethane, respectively).
• Unlike other NMP sites sampling PMio metals, the state of Vermont blank-corrects
their metals data for UNVT. This involved averaging a set of lot blanks and
subtracting this average concentration from the reported concentration for each
pollutant, which results in slightly lower reported concentrations. Vermont maintains
that by not blank-correcting their sample data, most of the concentrations reported
30-14
-------
would have been the result of background contamination on the filters rather than
representing the actual concentration of each metal in the ambient air.
30.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Vermont NATTS site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest,
where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants are presented from
previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at the site, where
applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries for UNVT are provided in Appendices J
through O.
30.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for the Vermont NATTS site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a
particular pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were
at least seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 30-5, where applicable. Note that
concentrations of the PAH, metals, and hexavalent chromium for UNVT are presented in ng/m3
for ease of viewing.
30-15
-------
Table 30-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Vermont NATTS Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(Ug/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
Underbill, Vermont - UNVT
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Beryllium (PM10) a
Cadmium (PM10)a
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.24
±0.04
0.28
±0.45
<0.01
±<0.01
0.07
±0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.23
±0.08
NR
<0.01
±<0.01
0.07
±0.02
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.26
±0.11
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
0.07
±0.03
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.26
±0.06
NA
NA
0.05
±0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.23
±0.07
NA
<0.01
±0.01
0.07
±0.03
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.24
±0.04
NA
<0.01
±0.01
0.07
±0.01
0.67
±0.12
0.30
±0.04
0.01
±0.01
0.75
±0.05
0.10
±0.02
1.23
±0.24
0.06
±0.01
0.04
±O.01
0.24
±0.04
0.07
±0.03
O.01
±0.01
0.06
±0.01
NR
0.44
±0.09
NA
0.64
±0.05
0.07
±0.02
NR
NA
NA
0.24
±0.05
0.07
±0.04
O.01
±0.01
0.07
±0.02
NR
0.34
±0.08
NA
0.70
±0.07
0.08
±0.01
NR
0.05
±0.02
NA
0.23
±0.07
NA
NA
0.05
±0.01
0.59
±0.12
0.19
±0.03
NA
0.92
±0.10
0.10
±0.01
1.20
±0.30
NA
NA
0.26
±0.11
NA
NA
0.06
±0.02
0.74
±0.19
0.29
±0.05
NA
0.70
±0.08
0.13
±0.06
1.26
±0.39
NA
NA
0.23
±0.11
NA
NA
0.06
±0.02
NA
0.30
±0.04
NA
0.75
±0.05
0.10
±0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.24
±0.04
NA
NA
0.06
±0.01
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted by ERG during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 30-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Vermont NATTS Site
(Continued)
Pollutant
Hexavalent Chromium a
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10)a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
1.30
±0.23
1.01
±0.28
10.85
±4.32
0.18
±0.10
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.49
±0.43
0.82
±0.24
NR
0.09
±0.06
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.48
±0.65
1.67
± 1.07
NA
NA
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
0.99
±0.46
0.94
±0.43
5.85
±0.86
NA
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.26
±0.34
0.70
±0.31
15.69
±7.77
NA
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.30
±0.23
1.01
±0.28
NA
NA
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
0.02
±0.02
1.20
±0.16
0.89
±0.15
16.38
±6.21
0.18
±0.04
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.38
±0.28
0.89
±0.29
33.05
±25.09
0.19
±0.13
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.15
±0.36
1.12
±0.36
8.49
±2.11
0.12
±0.04
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.08
±0.33
0.85
±0.28
9.38
±5.42
0.11
±0.05
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.20
±0.40
0.68
±0.28
16.71
±5.54
0.18
±0.07
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
1.20
±0.16
0.89
±0.15
16.38
±6.21
0.15
±0.04
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted by ERG during this time period.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Observations for UNVT from Table 30-5 include the following:
• Metals and hexavalent chromium were sampled year-round at UNVT for 2008 and
2009. PAH sampling began in June 2008. VOC sampling at UNVT (with analysis by
ERG) began in February 2009. Carbonyl compound sampling (with analysis by ERG)
began in July 2009. These various start dates explain why some pollutants do not
have quarterly or annual averages for some time frames.
• The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations for UNVT are
formaldehyde (1.23 ± 0.24 ng/m3), carbon tetrachloride (0.75 ± 0.05 ng/m3), and
acetaldehyde (0.67 ± 0.12 ng/m3). Note that each of these daily averages is for 2009.
• For metals and PAH, most of the daily average concentrations did not vary
significantly from 2008 to 2009. One exception is naphthalene, which is higher for
2009 but also has a relatively high confidence interval. Table 30-5 shows that the first
quarter 2009 average naphthalene concentration is higher than the other quarterly
averages and has a relatively large confidence interval associated with it, indicating
the presence of outliers. A review of the data shows that the naphthalene
concentration for February 6, 2009 (182 ng/m3) was more than twice the next highest
concentration measured on January 19, 2009 (68.8 ng/m3). Of the 12 concentrations
of naphthalene greater than 20 ng/m3, five were measured during the first quarter of
2009, two during the fourth quarter of 2008, and four during the fourth quarter of
2009. This suggests a quarterly variation in naphthalene concentrations (higher during
colder months).
• The daily average concentration of benzo(a)pyrene for 2008 was much higher than
the daily average concentration for 2009. In addition, the confidence interval for this
average is higher than the average itself, which indicates that outliers are affecting
this average concentration. The highest concentration was measured on
November 26, 2008 (1.05 ng/m3) and was nearly four times higher than the next
highest concentration (0.269 ng/m3) measured on January 19, 2009.
• Manganese had a relatively high second quarter 2008 average concentration and
associated confidence interval. The two highest concentrations of this pollutant were
both measured during this quarter, on April 18, 2008 and May 18, 2008. The
manganese concentrations on these days were 6.74 ng/m3 and 4.35 ng/m3,
respectively. Of the 119 measured detections of manganese, the median (50th
percentile) was 0.73 ng/m3 and the third quartile (75th percentile) was 1.16 ng/m3.
• About half of UNVT's pollutants of interest do not have annual averages. This is due
to several reasons: 1) sampling began late in the year, as was the case with PAH in
2008; 2) sampling was conducted on a l-in-12 day sampling schedule, such as the
case with carbonyl compounds; 3) the pollutant was not detected frequently enough,
as is the case with hexavalent chromium; 4) or a combination of sampling schedule,
duration, and a low detection rate.
30-18
-------
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for the Vermont NATTS site
from those tables include the following:
• Compared to other sites sampling PMi0 metals, UNVT had some of the lowest daily
average concentrations for each of the program-wide PMio metals pollutants of
interest. This site also had some of the lowest daily average naphthalene
concentrations among sites sampling PAH.
• Table 4-11 shows that UNVT had the eighth highest daily average concentration of
benzo(a)pyrene among NMP sites sampling PAH (2008). As discussed above, this
daily average concentration is being driven by an outlier. The daily average
concentration of this pollutant for 2009 was much lower.
30.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. UNVT has sampled hexavalent chromium under the NMP since 2005. Thus,
Figure 30-7 presents the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for hexavalent chromium for UNVT.
The statistical metrics presented for calculating trends include the substitution of zeros for non-
detects.
Observations from Figure 30-7 for hexavalent chromium measurements at UNVT include
the following:
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured at UNVT on
June 16, 2006 (0.399 ng/m3). The next highest hexavalent chromium concentration
was measured on April 22, 2005 (0.101 ng/m3). All other measurements of this
pollutant were less than 0.1 ng/m3.
• The rolling average concentration has decreased since the onset of sampling.
However, the confidence intervals calculated for the first two 3-year periods are very
large due to the presence of outliers. The 95th percentile exhibits a similar decrease as
the rolling average.
• For all three time frames shown, the minimum, 5th percentile, and median
concentrations are zero, indicating that at least 50 percent of the measurements are
non-detects. The number of non-detects has varied over the years of sampling, from
as low as 56 percent in 2005 to as high as 95 percent in 2009.
30-19
-------
Figure 30-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at UNVT
0
<
....n
••
i — • — i
2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009
Three-Year Period
• 5th Per cen tile - Minimum - Median - Maximum • 95thPercentile .-.*.. Average
30.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
Vermont NATTS site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and explanations
regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with these risk
screenings.
30.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Vermont NATTS site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available. As
described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest for each site were
compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL;
and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or
30-20
-------
time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the UNVT monitoring site
were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
30.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Vermont NATTS site and where the annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 30-6, where applicable.
Observations from Table 30-6 include the following:
• For 2008, the only pollutants of interest for UNVT for which annual average
concentrations could be calculated were the metals. All annual averages for these
pollutants are less than 0.01 |ig/m3. Arsenic is the only pollutant with a cancer
surrogate risk approximation greater than 1.0 in-a-million (1.05 in-a-million).
However, several of the PMio metals do not have cancer UREs. The noncancer risk
approximations for these pollutants are well below the level of concern, indicating
virtually no noncancer health risks attributable to these metals.
• For 2009, the number of pollutants of interest for UNVT for which annual average
concentrations could be calculated increased. Carbon tetrachloride, benzene, and
arsenic have cancer surrogate risk approximations greater than 1.0 in-a-million (4.52,
2.34, and 1.02 in-a-million, respectively). Similar to 2008, the noncancer risk
approximations for the pollutants where annual average concentrations could be
calculated are well below the level of concern.
30-21
-------
Table 30-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Vermont NATTS Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Underbill, Vermont - UNVT
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Bery Ilium (PM10)a
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (PM10) a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium3
Lead(PM10)a
Manganese (PM10) a
0.0000022
0.0043
0.0000078
0.001
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
0.000013
0.012
0.009
0.000015
0.03
_
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
0.0098
0.0001
0.00015
0.00005
NR
59/4
NR
5/0
29/3
NR
59/4
NR
NR
NR
4/0
59/4
59/4
NR
0.01
±0.01
NR
NA
O.01
±O.01
NR
O.01
±O.01
NR
NR
NR
NA
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
NR
1.05
NR
NA
O.01
NR
0.12
NR
NR
NR
NA
NR
0.02
NR
NA
O.01
NR
0.01
NR
NR
NR
NA
0.01
0.02
26/2
60/4
51/4
16/1
11/1
13/0
60/4
51/4
51/4
26/2
3/0
60/4
60/4
NA
0.01
±0.01
0.30
±0.04
NA
NA
NA
O.01
±O.01
0.75
±0.05
0.10
±0.02
NA
NA
0.01
±0.01
O.01
±0.01
NA
1.02
2.34
NA
NA
NA
0.11
4.52
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
O.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.02
to
to
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted by ERG during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 30-5.
-------
Table 30-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Vermont NATTS Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PM10)a
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000034
0.000312
0.0000059
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.003
0.00009
0.27
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
29/2
23/1
NR
NR
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
NR
NR
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
NA
NA
NR
NR
Noncancer
(HQ)
NA
NA
NR
NR
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
61/4
52/4
25/1
1/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.02
±0.01
0.01
±O.01
NA
NA
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
0.56
0.05
NA
NA
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.01
O.01
NA
NA
o
to
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NR = Not reportable because sampling was not conducted by ERG during this time period.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 30-5.
-------
30.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 30-7 and 30-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 30-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million) for the Vermont NATTS site, as calculated from the
annual averages. Table 30-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the
highest noncancer risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on the site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled, as discussed in Section 30.3.
In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are limited to those
pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual averages to be calculated. A more
in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in Section 3.5.4.3.
30-24
-------
Table 30-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Vermont NATTS Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with Cancer
Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Underbill, Vermont (Chittenden County) - UNVT
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
POM, Group 2
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
143.23
80.56
31.84
19.93
14.65
8.18
7.60
4.33
3.19
1.71
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 5
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
1.12E-03
1.01E-03
5.98E-04
2.78E-04
2.38E-04
2.29E-04
1.73E-04
1.06E-04
7.00E-05
4.48E-05
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Naphthalene
Cadmium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Beryllium (PM10)
4.52
2.34
1.05
1.02
0.56
0.12
0.11
0.05
0.01
o
to
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 30-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Vermont NATTS Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Noncancer
Pollutant Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Underbill, Vermont (Chittenden County) - UNVT
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Hexane
Hydrochloric acid
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
445.75
330.13
143.23
94.79
80.56
74.17
52.97
32.27
31.84
29.17
Acrolein
Manganese, PM
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Chlorine
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Nickel, PM
630,526.02
51,923.36
9,965.33
8,220.73
6,351.91
4,774.43
3,537.72
3,301.32
2,727.64
1,881.37
Manganese (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Lead (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cadmium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
o
to
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 30-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Chittenden County.
• Benzene was also the pollutant with the highest toxi city-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with cancer UREs), followed by formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxi city-weighted
emissions for Chittenden County.
• Benzene and carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer risk approximations for
UNVT. Benzene topped both emissions-based lists, while carbon tetrachloride
appeared on neither emissions-based list.
• Arsenic, which had the third (2008) and fourth (2009) highest cancer risk
approximations for UNVT, had the sixth highest toxicity-weighted emissions for
Chittenden County. This pollutant did not appear on the list of highest emitted
pollutants.
• POM Group 2 was the eighth highest emitted "pollutant" in Chittenden County and
ranked fifth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH
sampled for at UNVT including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for UNVT. Benzo(a)pyrene is part of POM Group 5, which
ranked eighth for toxicity-weighted emissions for Chittenden County.
Observations from Table 30-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Chittenden County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) for Chittenden County were acrolein, manganese, and
1,3-butadiene.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants for Chittenden County also had the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Although very low, manganese (both years) had the two highest noncancer risk
approximations for UNVT. Manganese ranked second among the 10 pollutants with
the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, but is not among the 10 highest emitted
pollutants with noncancer RfCs.
• Benzene and carbon tetrachloride were the only non-metals among UNVT's highest
noncancer risk approximations. Benzene appears on both emissions-based lists for
30-27
-------
Chittenden County, while carbon tetrachloride appears on neither emissions-based
list.
30.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the Vermont NATTS Site
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» At the request of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division, the results of the data
analyses for BURVT and RUVT have been removed from this section.
»«» Ten pollutants failed screens for UNVT.
»«» Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration among the pollutants of
interest for UNVT; this formaldehyde concentration was the only daily average
concentration greater than 1.0 jug/m among UNVT's daily average concentrations.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the UNVT monitoring site,
where they could be calculated, were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer
health risk benchmarks.
30-28
-------
31.0 Site in Virginia
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Virginia, and integrates these concentrations with
emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG are
not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer back to
Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented below.
31.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the monitoring site by providing geographical and physical
information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is provided
to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the site and
assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The RIVA monitoring site is located just outside the Richmond, Virginia city limits.
Figure 31-1 is a composite satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the
monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 31-2 identifies point source emissions locations by
source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within
10 miles of the site are included in the facility counts provided below the map in Figure 31-2.
Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to
show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give
the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions source categories could
potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring site; further, this
boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring site as well as the
quantity of such sources within a given distance of the site. Table 31-1 describes the area
surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical information such as
land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
31-1
-------
Figure 31-1. Richmond, Virginia (RIVA) Monitoring Site
^m
oo
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,864 feet
-------
Figure 31-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of RIVA
M-,^IiW (JVJtiW ,'J-llirW
Hole: Due to ftdlly dentty »nd ntkKWtm. Ihe lotil lidlM*
{•splayed (nay not refirwenl al (adlilKs-s v.ittwi live area <
Legend
•& RIVA NATTS site ©
• 10 mile radius F
| County boundary if
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) ®
•f AitcraN Operator Facility (9) •
I Asphalt Processing/Roofing Manufacturing (')
Q Auto B«3y ShoprPamters (1) ?
I Eatery (2) M
6 BuATernuB la/Bulk Plants (6) 1
C Chemcal Manufacturing Facility (3)
0 Commercial SMrlllufUon Facility (1) E
II Ooncr«i»BatthPt»Ht(2) 2
' Electncty Generaton via Combustion (d> •
E Ei«e»*pWing. Pttllna Pofcshing AnodlJiix). 4ndColof»ig(iO) W
Fabricated Metal Products Faculty (1)
Food PiocossrnpiAgricurtwc Facility (5)
Hot Mw Asphalt Plant (4)
Institutional - sctxwl (3)
landfill 46)
Miscellaneous CommerclaWnduslrial Facility (3)
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industras Fae ilrty (2)
Pitmary M«tal Production Facility (1)
PiinOng/Pubiisfing Factiy [1 0)
Pulp »nd Paper Pte ntrWood Product* FaciBy (6)
Secondary Meta I Processing Facility ( 3)
Tank Batleiy Family i U
Wbodwort,. Fumituiro, Milhmrk & Wood Preserving Facility (2)
31-3
-------
Table 31-1. Geographical Information for the Virginia Monitoring Site
Site
Code
RIVA
AQS Code
51-087-0014
Location
Not in a
City
County
Henrico
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Richmond-
Petersburg, VA
Latitude
and
Longitude
37.558333,
-77.400278
Land Use
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
TSP Metals, S02, NOy, NO, N02, NOx, PAMS,
NMOC, VOC, Carbonyl compounds, 03,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM10 Metals, PM
Coarse, PM2.5, and PM2.5Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
CO
-------
The RIVA monitoring site is located just northeast of the capital city of Richmond, in
east-central Virginia. The site is located at the MathScience Innovation Center in a residential
area less than 1/4 mile from 1-64. The 1-64 interchange with Mechanicsville Turnpike (360) is
less than 1/2 mile southwest of the site. Figure 31-1 shows that beyond the residential areas
surrounding the school property are a golf course to the southeast, a high school to the south, and
commercial areas to the west. As Figure 31-2 shows, RIVA is located near several point sources,
most of which are located in the city of Richmond. The sources closest to RIVA are landfills, a
secondary metal processing facility, and a heliport at the Medical College of Virginia. The
source categories with the highest number of emissions sources within 10 miles of RIVA are
printing and publishing facilities; electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring
facilities; aircraft operations, which include airports as well as small runways, heliports, or
landing pads; electricity generation via combustion; and chemical manufacturers.
Table 31-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the Virginia
monitoring site. Information provided in Table 31-2 represents the most recent year of sampling
(2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population data for
Henrico County were obtained from the Revenue Division of Henrico County (Henrico County,
2010) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 31-2 also includes
a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition, the
population within 10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership
was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the
10-mile population surrounding the monitoring site. Table 31-2 also contains annual average
daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from
which it was obtained. Finally, Table 31-2 presents the daily VMT for the Richmond area.
31-5
-------
Table 31-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Virginia
Monitoring Site
Site
RIVA
Estimated
County
Population1
296,415
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
347,913
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.17
Population
Within 10
Miles3
477,486
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
560,443
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
74,000
VMT5
(thousands)
26,709
Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data from the Henrico County Revenue Department (Henrico
County, 2010).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the Virginia DOT (VA DOT, 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 31-2 include the following:
• RIVA's county-level population was in the lower third compared to other counties
with NMP sites. The 10-mile population was in the middle of the range among NMP
sites.
• The county-level vehicle ownership and 10-mile vehicle ownership were in the
middle of the ranged compared to other NMP sites.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was among the higher ratios compared to other NMP
sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near RIVA was in the mid to upper end of the range
compared to other NMP monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from the
interchange of US-360 (Mechanicsville Turnpike) and 1-64.
• The Richmond area VMT was in the middle of the range compared to other urban
areas with NMP sites.
31.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Virginia on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
31.2.1 Climate Summary
The city of Richmond is located in east-central Virginia, east of the Blue Ridge
Mountains and west of the Chesapeake Bay. The James River flows through the west, center, and
south parts of town. Richmond has a modified continental climate. Winters tend to be mild, as
31-6
-------
the mountains act as a barrier to cold air and the proximity to the Atlantic Ocean prevents
temperatures from plummeting too low. Conversely, summers are warm and humid, also due to
these influences. Precipitation is well distributed throughout the year (Bair, 1992).
31.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station is located at
Richmond International Airport (WBAN 13740). Additional information about the Richmond
International Airport weather station is provided in Table 31-3. These data were used to
determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions
throughout the year(s).
Table 31-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 31-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 31-3,
average meteorological conditions on 2008 sample days appear cooler, drier, and less windy than
the average weather conditions throughout 2008. This is because sampling at RIVA did not
begin until October 2008, thereby missing the warmest months of the year. Average
meteorological conditions on 2009 sample days were fairly representative of average weather
conditions throughout 2009.
31-7
-------
Table 31-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Virginia Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Average
Relative
Humidity
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Richmond, Virginia - RIVA
Richmond
International Airport
13740
(37.51, -77.32)
5.16
miles
117°
(ESE)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
59.9
±6.7
69.9
+ 1.7
69.4
±4.4
68.2
+ 1.8
49.8
±5.9
59.7
+ 1.6
59.3
±4.2
58.6
+ 1.7
38.3
±7.5
45.9
+ 1.8
46.3
±4.4
46.1
+ 1.9
44.7
±6.0
52.7
+ 1.5
52.6
±3.8
52.3
+ 1.6
67.2
±6.7
64.2
+ 1.4
65.6
±3.2
66.8
+ 1.5
1020.1
±3.9
1017.9
+ 0.7
1016.3
±1.9
1017.7
+ 0.7
4.7
±1.1
6.4
+ 0.3
6.2
±0.7
6.2
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
CO
I—*
oo
-------
31.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 31-3 and Figure 31-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the RIVA monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 31-5
is the cluster analysis for 2009. A cluster analysis could not be conducted for RIVA for 2008
because there were fewer than 30 sample days for this year. An in-depth description of these
maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For the composite maps, each
line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring
site on a given sample day. For the cluster analysis, each line corresponds to a back trajectory
representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps, each concentric circle around the
site in Figures 31-3 through 31-5 represents 100 miles.
Figure 31-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RIVA
31-9
-------
Figure 31-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RIVA
Figure 31-5. 2009 Back Trajectory Cluster Map for RIVA
31-10
-------
Observations from Figures 31-3 through Figure 31-5 for RIVA include the following:
• The 24-hour air shed domain for RIVA was similar in size to many other NMP
monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was west of St. Louis,
Missouri, or over 700 miles away. However, the average trajectory distance is 225
miles and most (88 percent) trajectories originated within 400 miles of the site.
• Back trajectories originated primarily to the southwest, west, and northwest of RIVA.
• Figure 31-3 includes only three months of sampling (October to December 2008). A
composite back trajectory map incorporating the entire year's worth of sample day
trajectories would exhibit a different trajectory distribution.
• The cluster analysis for 2009 shows that the majority of trajectories originated to the
southwest, west, and northwest (as shown by the trajectory denoted by 47 percent). A
majority of these trajectories were 200-300 miles in length. Eleven percent of
trajectories originated to the west and northwest, and these trajectories tended to be
longer in length, generally 300-500 miles long, which is why they are represented
separately from the shorter cluster trajectory originating to the southwest of RIVA.
The short trajectory originating and curving to the southeast (20 percent) represents
trajectories originating to the southeast and east, but also several trajectories
originating within 100 or so miles of the site. Another 23 percent of trajectories
originated from the northwest to northeast.
31.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at Richmond International Airport near
RIVA were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as
described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals"
positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 31-6 presents five different wind roses for the RIVA monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
31-11
-------
Figure 31-6. Wind Roses for the Richmond International Airport Weather Station near RIVA
oo
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Calms: 25.76%
'NORTH"'--.
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
Cairn/ 1708%
2009 Wind Rose
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 31-6 for RIVA include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that the most commonly observed wind direction is
north, although winds from the north-northeast, south, south-southwest, and
southwest were also frequently observed. Calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed for
approximately 17 percent of the hourly wind measurements.
• The 2008 and 2009 wind roses resemble each other but show deviations from the
historical observations. Rather than showing a northerly prominence, the 2008 and
2009 wind roses more evenly spread winds across the north, north-northeast, and
northeast. The 2008 and 2009 wind roses also have a higher percentage of south-
southwesterly and southwesterly winds and a decreased percentage of southerly
winds. The calm rates for the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are very similar to the
historical wind rose.
• The 2008 sample day wind rose exhibits a higher percentage of winds from the
southwest quadrant and a lower percentage of northerly or northeasterly winds than
the full-year wind rose. The 2008 sample day wind rose also shows lighter winds, as
the calm rate is nearly 26 percent; there is also a higher percentage of black and
yellow colors on the wind rose petals indicating a higher percentage of lighter wind
speeds. Recall that sampling at RIVA did not begin until October 2008, which could
explain these differences.
• The 2009 sample day wind patterns are more like the full-year wind patterns, but
show a higher percentage of westerly winds and a lower percentage of north-
northeasterly to northeasterly winds as well as fewer south-southwesterly winds.
31.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site- specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Virginia monitoring site in
order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of risk.
Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk screening
value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual pollutant's total
failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In addition, if any
of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not meet the pollutant
of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was added to the list of
site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk screening process is
presented in Section 3.2.
31-13
-------
Table 31-4 presents RIVA's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the monitoring site are shaded.
NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded.
RIVA sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium.
Table 31-4. Risk Screening Results for the Virginia Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Richmond, Virginia - RIVA
Naphthalene
0.029
Total
72
72
74
74
97.30
97.30
100.00
100.00
Observations from Table 31-4 include the following:
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail at least one screen for RIVA. This
pollutant was detected in every valid sample collected and failed 97 percent of its
screens. Naphthalene is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte.
• While the risk screening process identified naphthalene as RIVA's only pollutant of
interest, benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent chromium were also added to this site's
pollutants of interest. These two pollutants were added because they are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any screens. These two pollutants
are not shown in Table 31-4.
31.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Virginia monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of interest
for the RIVA monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select
pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration
trends at the site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through 0.
31.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for RIVA, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
31-14
-------
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 31-5, where applicable. The averages
presented in Table 31-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Observations for RIVA from Table 31-5 include the following:
• The daily average concentrations of naphthalene are significantly higher than the
daily average concentrations of hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene.
• Because sampling of PAH did not begin until October 2008, RIVA does not have first
through third quarter averages or annual averages for 2008 for naphthalene. The
fourth quarter average concentrations of naphthalene for both years have rather large
confidence intervals, which indicate that these averages are likely influenced by
outliers. The highest concentration of naphthalene was measured on October 4, 2009
(498 ng/m3); similar concentrations were also measured on October 15, 2008 and
November 9, 2009 (478 ng/m3 and 476 ng/m3, respectively). Of the fifteen
naphthalene concentrations greater than 150 ng/m , eight were measured during the
fourth quarter of 2009 and four during the fourth quarter of 2008. Two more were
measured during the first quarter or 2009. This may indicate a seasonal trend in
naphthalene concentrations, i.e. naphthalene concentrations tend to be higher during
the colder months of the year.
• The 2008 daily average concentration of naphthalene for RIVA was the fifth highest
daily average concentration of this pollutant among all NMP sites sampling PAH, as
shown in Table 4-11. The 2009 daily average concentration of naphthalene ranked
21st.
• The quarterly and annual averages of benzo(a)pyrene, where they could be calculated,
are fairly similar to each other. The fourth quarter average for 2009 has a relatively
large confidence interval associated with it. The highest concentration of this
pollutant was measured on December 9, 2009 (0.792 ng/m3) and was twice the next
highest concentration (0.396 ng/m3, measured on February 6, 2009). Although
difficult to discern from Table 31-5, benzo(a)pyrene concentrations also show some
seasonal tendencies, as all but one of the 23 concentrations of this pollutant greater
than 0.1 ng/m3 were measured during the colder months of the years (first and fourth
quarters).
• Hexavalent chromium was not detected enough for a single quarterly average
concentration to be calculated. This pollutant was detected in 14 out of 76 valid
samples.
31-15
-------
Table 31-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Virginia Monitoring
Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Richmond, Virginia - RJVA
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.13
±0.05
0.01
± <0.01
149.52
±63.83
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.11
±0.05
NA
149.52
±63.83
NA
NA
NA
0.13
±0.05
0.01
±<0.01
113.47
± 24.96
0.13
±0.06
NA
70.88
±23.57
NA
NA
77.91
±16.77
NA
NA
96.12
± 14.60
0.15
±0.10
NA
201.87
± 78.78
NA
NA
113.47
+ 24.96
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
oo
-------
31.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. RIVA has not sampled continuously for 5 years as part of the NMP; therefore, the
trends analysis was not conducted.
31.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the RIVA
monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and explanations
regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with these risk
screenings.
31.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Virginia monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where available.
As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days; intermediate risk
results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from exposures of 1 year or
greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest were compared to the
acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate MRL; and the annual
averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured detections or time-period
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the RIVA monitoring site were higher
than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
31.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Virginia monitoring site and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 31-6, where applicable.
31-17
-------
Table 31-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Virginia Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Richmond, Virginia - RTVA
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
0.000034
0.0001
0.003
11/1
3/0
13/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36/2
11/0
61/4
NA
NA
113.47
+ 24.96
NA
NA
3.86
NA
NA
0.04
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
oo
-------
Observations for RIVA from Table 31-6 include the following:
• Because PAH sampling did not begin until October 2008, annual averages (and
therefore cancer and noncancer risk approximations) could not be calculated for the
PAH for 2008.
• For 2009, annual averages (and therefore cancer and noncancer risk approximations)
could not be calculated for benzo(a)pyrene because this pollutant did not meet the
quarterly average criteria. Hexavalent chromium was not detected frequently enough
in both years for annual averages to be calculated.
• The 2009 cancer surrogate risk approximation for naphthalene was 3.86 in-a-million.
The 2009 noncancer risk approximation for naphthalene (0.04) was well below than
the level of concern for noncancer, which is an HQ of 1.0.
31.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 31-7 and 31-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 31-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer surrogate risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages.
Table 31-8 presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 31.3,
RIVA sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium. In addition, the cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria
for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
31-19
-------
Table 31-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Virginia Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Cancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (in-a-million)
Richmond, Virginia (Henrico County) - RTVA
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
Ethylene oxide
POM, Group 2
Trichloroethylene
183.14
122.26
45.76
32.34
26.17
19.00
12.64
3.91
2.90
1.59
Arsenic, PM
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Ethylene oxide
POM, Group 2
Cadmium, PM
Tetrachloroethylene
2.60E-03
1.76E-03
1.53E-03
1.43E-03
9.70E-04
4.30E-04
3.44E-04
1.60E-04
1.47E-04
1.12E-04
Naphthalene 3.86
t-o
o
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 31-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Virginia Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations
Based on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
Pollutant (HQ)
Richmond, Virginia (Henrico County) - RTVA
Toluene
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Xylenes
Hydrofluoric acid
Benzene
Hydrochloric acid
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Hexane
1,125.69
339.99
308.58
222.25
183.14
130.82
122.26
70.05
63.97
57.15
Acrolein
Arsenic, PM
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Hydrofluoric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Cadmium, PM
347,813.75
20,191.43
16,170.73
12,475.38
7,408.27
6,540.84
6,104.78
5,084.79
4,213.07
4,072.04
Naphthalene 0.04
CO
I—*
t-o
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Observations from Table 31-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Henrico County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) were arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and formaldehyde.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also have the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Henrico County.
• Naphthalene, which was the only pollutant with a cancer risk approximation for
RIVA, has the seventh highest emissions and the sixth highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Henrico County.
• Neither hexavalent chromium nor benzo(a)pyrene, the other pollutants of interest for
RIVA, appear among the highest emitted pollutants. The same is also true for the
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• POM Group 2 was the ninth highest emitted "pollutant" in Henrico County and
ranked eighth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH
sampled for at RIVA including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for RIVA.
Observations from Table 31-8 include the following:
• Toluene, methyl tert-butyl ether, and xylenes were the highest emitted pollutants with
noncancer RfCs in Henrico County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, arsenic, and 1,3-butadiene. Note that arsenic was at
or near the top of the toxicity-weighted emissions for pollutants with cancer UREs
and noncancer RfCs.
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants in Henrico County also have the highest
toxicity-weighted emissions.
• Naphthalene, which was the only pollutant with a noncancer risk approximation for
RIVA, has the ninth highest toxicity-weighted emissions for Henrico County.
Naphthalene is not among the highest emitted pollutants with a noncancer toxicity
factor in Henrico County.
31-22
-------
31.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for RIVA
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for RIVA. Two pollutants,
hexavalent chromium andbenzo(a)pyrene, were added to RIVA 's pollutants of
interest because they are NATTSMQO Core Analytes.
»«» The daily average concentrations of naphthalene were significantly higher than the
daily average concentrations of the other two pollutants of interest. Naphthalene and
benzo(a)pyrene concentrations appear to be higher during the colder months of the
year.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
31-23
-------
32.0 Sites in Washington
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS and CSATAM sites in Washington, and integrates these
concentrations with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources
other than ERG are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are
encouraged to refer back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data
analyses presented below.
32.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the monitoring sites by providing geographical and physical
information about the locations of the sites and the surrounding areas. This information is
provided to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the
sites and assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
There are five NMP sites located within the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA MSA. One
site (SEWA) is a NATTS site, while the other four are CSATAM sites (CEWA, EQWA, ESWA,
and EYWA). These four sites are often referred to as the "Puget Sound sites" throughout Section
32, as these sites were part of a community air toxics study run by the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency.
Figures 32-1 through 32-5 are composite satellite images retrieved from Google™ Earth
showing the monitoring sites in their urban locations. Figures 32-6 and 32-7 identify point source
emissions locations by source category, as reported in the 2005 NEI for point sources. Note that
only sources within 10 miles of the sites are included in the facility counts provided below the
maps in Figures 32-6 and 32-7. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius have been grayed out,
but are visible on the maps to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile boundary. A 10-mile
boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions sources and emissions
source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air quality at the monitoring
sites; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions sources to the monitoring
sites as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of the sites. Table 32-1
describes the areas surrounding each monitoring site by providing supplemental geographical
information such as land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
32-1
-------
Figure 32-1. Seattle, Washington (SEWA) Monitoring Site
CO
t-o
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,995 feet
-------
Figure 32-2. Duwamish, Seattle, Washington (CEWA) Monitoring Site
V
CO
t-o
CO
i^.,1
•^••"^^"i A- •) *
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,832 feet
-------
Figure 32-3. Tideflats, Tacoma, Washington (EQWA) Monitoring Site
CO
t-o
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 2,009 feet
-------
Figure 32-4. South Tacoma, Washington (ESWA) Monitoring Site
CO
t-o
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches = 1,904 feet
-------
Figure 32-5. Portland Avenue Reservoir, Tacoma, Washington (EYWA) Monitoring Site
CO
t-o
C75
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale: 2 inches =1,996 feet
-------
Figure 32-6. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of SEWA and CEWA
"-X~W tl?\-- ' I.-' 1 '-V
Not*: Cut to f»«il»j dmll* mi eetotHton me lotil tu/aan
«',f lay Kl may not refjrnen! it fidlfHn *itfiai live area o< n1««5l
Legend
••jir CEWACSATAM site ijr SEWA NATTS site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
iff Aerof.paefii'.AifCjafl Manufacturing Facility (3)
•f Aircraft Opeiatons Facility (27)
X Autamottla.TiuCk Manufacturing Facility (4)
X Battery ManulaeSunng Facility (1)
n Brick Manufacturing S Structural Clay Facility (I)
6 But* TerminalsjBuik Plants (3)
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (5)
' Etectncrty Generation via Combuslion (1)
E Electroplabng, Plating. Polishing, Anodizing, and Cotonng (13)
F Food ProcesslneyAQncutturft Facility (1)
t HM Mix AspHalt Plant (1)
a Undfill (2)
10 mile radius | ] Ownty boundarv
V Mat me Port (1)
Mineduarry(1}
? Miscellaneous CommerciaMndustrial Facility (1)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Indu^lnss Facility (7)
Pharmaceutcal Manufacturing Facility (1)
7 Portland Cement Manufacturing Facility (2)
1 Primary Metal Production Facility (1)
P Printing/Publishing Facility (1)
2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility (2)
A Ship Building and Repairing Facility (3)
V ae«i MUM i)
» Wastawster Treatment Facility (1)
32-7
-------
Figure 32-7. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of EQWA, ESWA, and EYWA
122 SStTW 122 SffCrW 122 45'0'W 122 WOW 122 35TJW 122 3CTCTW 122 25'OW 122 2OTW 122
122 IG'O'V.' 122 3S'0\V t22 3ff(TW 122 S
122 200'W 122 15'ffVJ 122 tO'tfW 122 SCrW
Note, Duo to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ EQWA CSATAM site [§] EYWA CSATAM site |
^ ESWA CSATAM site 10 mile radius
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
iji Aerospace/Aircraft Manufacturing Facility (2)
-ft Aircraft Operations Facility (24)
i Boat Manufacturing Facility (1)
B Bulk Terminals/Bulk Plants (1)
c Chemical Manufacturing Facility (5)
• Concrete Batch Plant (3)
B Electroplating, Plating, Polishing. Anodizing, and Coloring
A Grain Handling Facility (1)
~i~ Gypsum Manufacturing Facility (1)
I Iron and Steel Foundry (1)
_] County boundary
• Landfill (6)
i Lumber/sawmill (1)
A Military Base/National Security Facility (2)
M Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries Facility (9)
n Petroleum Refinery (1)
• Plywood, Particleboard, OSB Facility (1)
P Printing/Publishing Facility (1)
(2) B Pulp and Paper PlanfWood Products Facility (4)
2 Secondary Metal Processing Facility (2)
T Textile Mill (1)
W Woodwork, Furniture. Millwork & Wood Preserving Facility (2)
32-8
-------
Table 32-1. Geographical Information for the Washington Monitoring Sites
Site
Code
SEWA
CEWA
EQWA
ESWA
EYWA
AQS Code
53-033-0080
53-033-0057
53-053-0031
53-053-0029
53-053-0034
Location
Seattle
Seattle
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
County
King
King
Pierce
Pierce
Pierce
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue, WA
Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue, WA
Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue, WA
Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue, WA
Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue, WA
Latitude
and
Longitude
47.568333,
-122.308056
47.5632,
-122.3405
47.2656,
-122.3858
47.1864,
-122.4517
47.226666,
-122.412166
Land Use
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
Haze, CO, S02, NOy, NO, 03, Meteorological
parameters, PM Coarse, PMio, PMi0 Speciated, Black
Carbon, PM2.5, PM2.5 Speciation.
CO, SNMOC, Meteorological parameters, Black
Carbon, PM2.5, PM2 5 Speciation.
CO, Meteorological parameters, Black Carbon, PM2 5
Speciation.
Meteorological parameters, PM2 5, Black Carbon,
PM2.5 Speciation.
Meteorological parameters, Black Carbon, PM2 5
Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS,
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
CO
t-o
CD
-------
The SEWA monitoring site is located in Seattle, at the southeast corner of the Beacon
Hill Reservoir. The reservoir and the Jefferson Park Golf Course to the east are separated by
Beacon Avenue. The reservoir, golf course, a middle school, and the VA Puget Sound Health
Care System, located to the south, are surrounded by residential neighborhoods, as shown in
Figure 32-1. Interstate-5, which runs north-south through Seattle, is less than 1 mile to the west
and intersects with 1-90 farther north. Interstate-90 runs east-west across Seattle, a couple of
miles to the northwest of the site. The area to the west of 1-5 is industrial while the area to the
east is primarily residential.
The CEWA monitoring site is located near the Duwamish Waterway in the Industrial
District of Seattle. This area is south of downtown and southeast of the Port of Seattle. This area
experiences heavy traffic, with SR-99 running north-south (through the center of Figure 32-2)
close to the monitoring site and intersecting with Spokane Street and the Seattle Bridge to the
north. In addition, 1-5 runs roughly parallel with SR-99 approximately 3/4 mile to the east of the
site.
Figure 32-6 shows the proximity of the two Seattle monitoring sites to each other. CEWA
is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the SEWA monitoring site. Most of the point sources
surrounding these sites are located along a line running north-south and bisecting the 10-mile
radii. A cluster of sources is located directly south of CEWA. Although the emissions sources
within 10 miles of the sites are involved in a variety of activities, the aircraft operations (which
include airports, as well as small runways, heliports, or landing pads) and electroplating, plating,
polishing, anodizing, and coloring categories have the highest number of sources. The point
source located closest to SEWA is involved in secondary metal processing while the point source
closest to CEWA is involved in Portland cement manufacturing.
Figures 32-3 through 32-5 are the composite satellite images for the three monitoring
sites in Tacoma. The EQWA monitoring site is located in the tidal flats of the Port of Tacoma,
which is located off Commencement Bay at the southern end of Pudget Sound. This monitoring
site is also in a heavily industrialized area, as shown in Figure 32-3. Just across the Blair
32-10
-------
Waterway are a cargo yard, petroleum refinery, and railyard. The ESWA monitoring site is
located in a South Tacoma residential area, as shown in Figure 32-4, behind Birney Elementary
School. The site is located approximately 1/2 mile to the east of 1-5. The EYWA monitoring site
is located on the northwest corner of the Portland Avenue Reservoir in Tacoma. Residential
areas surround the reservoir property, as shown in Figure 32-5. Interstate-5 is approximately
3/4 mile to the north of the site.
Figure 32-7 shows that the three Tacoma sites are located along a diagonal line running
north-south through the city, south of Puget Sound. A cluster of point sources is located between
EQWA and EYWA. These sources are primarily located at the Port of Tacoma. Similar to the
Seattle sites, the emissions sources within 10 miles of the sites are involved in a variety of
activities, and the aircraft operations source category has the highest number of sources.
Locations with airport activity within 10 miles of the Tacoma sites include bigger airports such
as Tacoma Narrows, military bases such as McCord Air Force Base, several smaller municipal
airports (Shady Acres, Spanaway, Peirce County), as well as hospitals (Mary Bridge Children's
Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital).
Table 32-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the areas surrounding the
Washington monitoring sites. Information provided in Table 32-2 represents the most recent year
of sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population
data for King and Peirce Counties were obtained from the Washington State Department of
Licensing (WA DOL, 2009) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively.
Table 32-2 also includes vehicle registration-to-county population ratios (vehicles-per-person)
for each site. In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of
10-mile vehicle ownership was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-
population ratio to the 10-mile population surrounding each monitoring site. Table 32-2 also
contains annual average daily traffic information as well as the year of the traffic data estimate
and the source from which it was obtained. Finally, Table 32-2 presents the daily VMT for the
Seattle urban area.
32-11
-------
Table 32-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Washington
Monitoring Sites
Site
CEWA
EQWA
ESWA
EYWA
SEWA
Estimated
County
Population1
1,916,441
796,836
796,836
796,836
1,916,441
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
1,772,343
757,027
757,027
757,027
1,772,343
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.92
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.92
Population
Within 10
Miles3
860,890
641,623
627,789
694,266
912,020
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
796,159
609,568
596,425
659,581
843,445
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
47,000
21,000
154,000
196,000
236,000
VMT5
(thousands)
69,801
69,801
69,801
69,801
69,801
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2009 data from the Washington DDL (WA DDL, 2009).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2009 data from the Washington DOT (WA DOT, 2009).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 32-2 include the following:
• King County has more than twice the population as Pierce County and is among the
most populous counties with NMP sites. By comparison, Pierce County was in the
mid-to-upper range compared to other counties with NMP sites. The difference in
population between the two is less at the 10-mile level.
• King County has more than twice the number of vehicles as Pierce County and is
among the counties with the highest vehicle registrations. By comparison, Pierce
County is in the mid-to-upper range among other counties with NMP sites. The
difference in vehicle ownership is also less at the 10-mile level.
• The vehicle-per-person ratios were about the same for both counties and were in the
middle of the range compared to other NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near SEWA was the third highest compared to other
NMP monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used came from 1-5 near Spokane Street.
Traffic near EYWA and ESWA were also among the highest traffic counts and came
from 1-5 near Portland Avenue, just past 1-705, and 1-5 at exit 129, respectively. The
traffic volumes near the other sites were considerably lower and came from the
following: SR-99 at Spokane Street for CEWA and SR-509 at Norpoint Way for
EQWA.
• The Seattle area VMT was in the mid-to-upper range among urban areas with NMP
sites.
32-12
-------
32.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
sites in Washington on sample days, as well as over the course of each year for SEWA and over
the study period for the remaining sites.
32.2.1 Climate Summary
The city of Seattle is located between Puget Sound and Lake Washington, and the city of
Tacoma is located farther south along the bottom of the Sound. The entire urban area is situated
between the Olympic Mountains to the west and the Cascades to the east. The area experiences a
mild climate as the mountains moderate storm systems that move into the Pacific Northwest and
both the mountains and the Sound shield the city from temperature extremes. Although the city is
known for its cloudy, rainy conditions, the actual precipitation totals tend to be lower compared
to many locations east of the Rocky Mountains. The winter months are the wettest and the
summer months the driest. Prevailing winds are out of the southwest (Bair, 1992).
32.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather stations nearest these sites were
retrieved for all of 2008 and 2009 for SEWA and for the November 2008 to October 2009 study
period for the Puget Sound sites (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station to
CEWA and SEWA is located at Boeing Field/King County International Airport (WBAN
24234). The closest NWS weather station to the three Tacoma sites is located at the Tacoma
Narrows Airport (WBAN 94274). Additional information about these weather stations is
provided in Table 32-3. These data were used to determine how meteorological conditions on
sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the years of sampling and over the study
period.
32-13
-------
Table 32-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Washington Monitoring Sites
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Seattle, Washington - SEWA
Boeing Field/ King
County Intl Airport
24234
(47.53,422.30)
2.67
miles
190°
(S)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
57.5
+ 3.3
58.1
+ 1.3
59.1
+ 3.1
60.1
+ 1.4
51.1
±2.8
51.4
+ 1.1
51.9
±2.8
52.7
+ 1.2
41.3
±2.3
42.0
+ 0.9
41.9
±2.5
42.6
+ 1.0
46.3
±2.3
46.7
+ 0.9
47.0
±2.4
47.6
+ 1.0
71.7
±2.7
72.5
+ 1.1
71.6
±2.9
71.5
+ 1.2
1018.5
±1.7
1017.8
+ 0.7
1017.0
±1.5
1017.5
+ 0.7
4.6
±0.6
4.5
+ 0.2
4.5
±0.6
4.3
+ 0.2
Duwamish, Seattle, Washington - CEWA
Boeing Field/ King
County Intl Airport
24234
(47.53,422.30)
2.88
miles
159°
(SSE)
Nov
2008-
Oct
2009
Sample
Day
All Days
59.2
±3.6
59.9
+ 1.5
52.6
±3.0
52.7
+ 1.2
43.3
±2.4
43.0
+ 0.9
47.9
±2.5
47.8
+ 1.0
73.6
±3.3
72.6
+ 1.3
1017.2
± 1.7
1017.5
+ 0.7
4.7
±0.6
4.3
+ 0.2
Tideflats, Tacoma, Washington - EQWA
Tacoma Narrows
Airport
94274
(47.27,422.58)
8.44
miles
288°
(WNW)
Nov
2008-
Oct
2009
Sample
Day
All Days
57.8
±3.4
58.2
+ 1.4
51.1
±2.7
51.0
+ 1.2
42.5
±2.3
42.1
+ 1.0
46.8
±2.3
46.6
+ 0.9
75.1
±3.1
74.1
+ 1.3
1017.2
± 1.7
1017.6
+ 0.7
5.0
±0.8
4.7
+ 0.3
CO
t-o
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full-year averages.
-------
Table 32-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Washington Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Birney Elementary School, Tacoma, Washington - ESWA
Tacoma Narrows
Airport
94274
(47.27,422.58)
7.89
miles
332°
(NNW)
Nov
2008-
Oct
2009
Sample
Day
All Days
57.5
+ 3.5
58.2
+ 1.4
50.9
±2.7
51.0
+ 1.2
42.3
±2.4
42.1
+ 1.0
46.7
±2.3
46.6
+ 0.9
75.3
±3.2
74.1
+ 1.3
1017.3
±1.7
1017.6
+ 0.7
4.9
±0.8
4.7
+ 0.3
Portland Avenue Reservoir, Tacoma, Washington - EYWA
Tacoma Narrows
Airport
94274
(47.27,422.58)
7.81
miles
308°
(NW)
Nov
2008-
Oct
2009
Sample
Day
All Days
57.6
+ 3.5
58.3
+ 1.5
51.0
±2.8
51.0
+ 1.2
42.3
±2.4
42.1
+ 1.0
46.7
±2.4
46.6
+ 1.0
75.0
±3.2
74.0
+ 1.3
1017.4
±1.7
1017.7
+ 0.7
4.9
±0.8
4.7
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full-year averages.
CO
t-o
-------
Table 32-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009 for SEWA. Similar
information is presented for the Puget Sound sites for days samples were collected and for the
entire study period. Also included in Table 32-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each
parameter. As shown in Table 32-3, average meteorological conditions on sample days near
SEWA were representative of average weather conditions throughout the year for both years.
Average meteorological conditions on sample days near the Puget Sound sites were
representative of average weather conditions throughout the study period. Note that the study
period averages for EYWA are different than EQWA and ESWA, even though the data are from
the same weather station. EYWA began sampling on November 8, 2008 while the other sites
began sampling on November 2, 2008; thus, six less days are incorporated into EYWA's
meteorological averages.
32.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 32-8 and Figure 32-9 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the SEWA monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Figure 32-10 is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in
red. The back trajectory figures for the Puget Sound sites are a little different. Figure 32-11 is the
composite back trajectory map for days on which samples were collected at the CEWA
monitoring site over the sample period from November 2008 to October 2009 (note that 2008
sample day trajectories are shown in blue and 2009 sample day trajectories are shown in red).
Figure 32-12 is the cluster analysis based on back trajectories over the entire study period. Thus,
there is one less figure for each Puget Sound site. Figures 32-13 through 32-18 are the composite
back trajectory maps for the three Tacoma monitoring sites and the associated cluster analyses
for the study period. An in-depth description of these maps and how they were generated is
presented in Section 3.5.2.1.
32-16
-------
Figure 32-8. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SEWA
Figure 32-9. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SEWA
32-17
-------
Figure 32-10. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for SEWA
Figure 32-11. 2008-2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CEWA
32-18
-------
Figure 32-12. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for CEWA
Figure 32-13. 2008-2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for EQWA
32-19
-------
Figure 32-14. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for EQWA
Figure 32-15. 2008-2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ESWA
32-20
-------
Figure 32-16. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for ESWA
Figure 32-17. 2008-2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for EYWA
32-21
-------
Figure 32-18. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for EYWA
For the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel
of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each
line corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For both
maps, each concentric circle around the sites in Figures 32-8 through 32-18 represents 100 miles.
Observations from Figures 32-8 through 32-10 for SEWA include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions from SEWA.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for SEWA is somewhat smaller than other NMP sites.
Although the longest trajectories originated along the northern California coastline
and was greater than 600 miles in length, the average trajectory length was 175 miles
and 85 percent of trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site.
• Directionally, the cluster analysis for 2008 (blue) is very similar to the cluster
analysis for 2009 (red). The cluster map for SEWA shows that between 30 (2009) and
40 (2008) percent of trajectories originated just off the Washington coast. In 2008,
19 percent of trajectories originated from the north to east and within 200 miles of the
site. Another 21 percent originated from the east to south and within 200 miles of the
site. For 2009, the HYSPLIT model combined these trajectories, as represented by the
short cluster trajectory accounting for 45 percent of the back trajectories. Fifteen
percent of back trajectories originated to the south for both years. Note that the longer
32-22
-------
cluster trajectories (> 400 miles) accounted for only a few trajectories each year (six
percent for 2008 and 10 percent for 2009).
Observations from Figures 32-11 through 32-18 for the Puget Sound sites include the
following:
• The back trajectory maps for CEWA, EYWA, ESWA, and EQWA are fairly similar
in back trajectory distribution to each other, which is expected, given their proximity
to each other.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at these sites. Trajectories
often originated from off the Washington coast, over the eastern portion of the state,
and to the south along the Pacific coastline.
• The 24-hour air shed domains for these sites were similar in size to SEWA and
generally smaller in size compared to most other NMP monitoring sites. The farthest
away a trajectory originated from each site was greater than 600 miles and off the
northern California coast. However, the average trajectory length for each site was
between 180 (EYWA) and 185 (ESWA) miles.
• The cluster trajectory distributions shown on the cluster analyses for these sites are
very similar to each other and similar to the cluster analysis for SEWA. Each one
shows that back trajectories originating within a 100 or so miles of the sites account
of one-third or more of the trajectories. While many of these trajectories originated to
the west, recall that distance is also a factor in the cluster analysis, and that
trajectories originating from other directions may also be represented by these
clusters. This is evident in ESWA's shortest cluster trajectory. Unlike the other sites,
this cluster trajectory is curved, indicating that trajectories originating from directions
other than west factored into this cluster.
32.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather stations at Boeing Field/King County
International Airport (for CEWA and SEWA) and Tacoma Narrows Airport (for EQWA, ESWA,
and EYWA) were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind
roses, as described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using
"petals" positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind
speeds.
32-23
-------
Figure 32-19 presents five different wind roses for the SEWA monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 1997 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year. Figures 32-20 through 32-23 present the different wind roses for the Puget
Sound monitoring sites, but these figures have only three wind roses: a historical wind rose; a
wind rose representing wind observations for the entire November 2008 to October 2009 study
period; and wind rose representing the days on which samples were collected over the study
period.
Observations from Figure 32-19 for SEWA include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that southeasterly, south-southeasterly, and southerly
winds were frequently observed, accounting for more than one-third of observations.
Calm winds (< 2 knots) account for another one-third of wind observations near
SEWA. The strongest wind speeds were associated with winds with a southerly
component.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 and 2009 wind roses are similar to the
historical wind patterns. Further, the wind patterns shown on the sample day wind
roses for each year also resemble the historical wind patterns, indicating that
conditions on sample days were representative of those experienced over the entire
year and historically.
32-24
-------
Figure 32-19. Wind Roses for the Boeing Field/King County International Airport Weather Station near SEWA
oo
t-o
PO
en
2008 Wind Rose
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
1997 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
Calms: 23.29%
2009 Wind Rose
.,-'•'"" ;NQRTI-r' - - _ ^
2008 Sample Day
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 32-20. Wind Roses for the Boeing Field/King County International Airport Weather Station near CEWA
Calm; S 62':;.
oo
t-o
PO
2008 - 2009 Sample Period
Wind Rose
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
17-21
2008 - 2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
1997 - 2007 Historical
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 32-21. Wind Roses for the Tacoma Narrows Airport Weather Station near EQWA
oo
t-o
PO
2008 - 2009 Sample Period
Wind Rose
2008 - 20009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
1999 - 2007 Historical
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 32-22. Wind Roses for the Tacoma Narrows Airport Weather Station near ESWA
oo
t-o
PO
oo
2008 - 2009 Sample Period
Wind Rose
2008 - 2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
1999 - 2007 Historical
Wind Rose
-------
Figure 32-23. Wind Roses for the Tacoma Narrows Airport Weather Station near EYWA
20%
"l* 16%
12%
I*.
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
n -22
Calm; 10 92':;.
oo
PO
CO
2008 - 2009 Sample Period
Wind Rose
NORTH *-' *.
2008 - 2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
1999 - 2007 Historical
Wind Rose
-------
Observations from Figure 32-20 for CEWA include the following:
• The historical wind rose for CEWA is identical to the historical wind rose for SEWA,
as the Boeing Field/King County International Airport weather station is the closest
one to both sites.
• The wind patterns shown on the sample period wind rose are similar to the historical
wind patterns, indicating that conditions during the sample period were similar to
those experienced historically.
• The sample day wind rose shows the same prevalence of southeasterly to southerly
winds as well as calm winds as the sample period wind rose, indicating that
conditions on sample days were representative of those experienced over the entire
sample period.
Observations from Figures 32-21 through 32-23 for the Tacoma sites include the
following:
• The historical wind roses for these three sites are identical as the Tacoma Narrows
Airport weather station is the closest one to all three sites.
• The historical wind roses show that winds from the south and the southwest quadrant
were commonly observed. Winds from due north and the north-northeast were also
frequently observed. Calm winds accounted for one quarter of the observations.
• The sample period wind patterns are similar to the historical wind patterns for each
site, indicating that conditions during the sample period were similar to those
experienced historically.
• The sample day wind patterns show the same prominence of these wind directions
and calm winds as the sample period wind patterns and the historical wind patterns,
indicating that conditions on sample days were representative of those experienced
over the entire sample period and historically.
32.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Washington monitoring sites
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. For each site, each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its
associated risk screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value,
then the concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the
individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed
32-30
-------
screens. In addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by each monitoring site
did not meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that
pollutant was added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description
of the risk screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 32-4 presents the Washington monitoring sites' pollutants of interest. The
pollutants that failed at least one screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens
for each monitoring site are shaded. NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of
interest are shaded and/or bolded. EYWA sampled for carbonyl compounds and VOC; CEWA,
EQWA, and ESWA sampled for PAH in addition to these pollutant groups; and SEWA sampled
for PMio metals and hexavalent chromium in addition to these three pollutant groups.
Table 32-4. Risk Screening Results for the Washington Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Hg/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Seattle, Washington - SEWA
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Arsenic (PM10)
Acet aldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Manganese (PM10)
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Hexavalent Chromium
Acrylonitrile
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Nickel (PM10)
Lead (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
0.077
0.17
0.13
0.00023
0.45
0.033
0.029
0.005
0.17
0.4
0.000083
0.015
0.038
2.1
0.091
0.009
0.015
0.00056
0.045
Total
125
123
122
107
105
95
91
65
32
21
13
6
5
4
3
3
2
1
1
924
126
123
123
119
126
119
108
119
111
123
99
6
5
123
72
119
119
119
4
1,863
99.21
100.00
99.19
89.92
83.33
79.83
84.26
54.62
28.83
17.07
13.13
100.00
100.00
3.25
4.17
2.52
1.68
0.84
25.00
49.60
13.53
13.31
13.20
11.58
11.36
10.28
9.85
7.03
3.46
2.27
1.41
0.65
0.54
0.43
0.32
0.32
0.22
0.11
0.11
13.53
26.84
40.04
51.62
62.99
73.27
83.12
90.15
93.61
95.89
97.29
97.94
98.48
98.92
99.24
99.57
99.78
99.89
100.00
32-31
-------
Table 32-4. Risk Screening Results for the Washington Monitoring Sites
(Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Duwamish, Seattle, Washington - CEWA
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dichloromethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 , 1 ,2 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.13
0.17
0.029
0.45
0.077
0.033
0.17
0.4
0.015
0.00091
2.1
0.091
0.038
0.053
0.017
Total
59
59
59
57
57
46
17
13
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
377
59
59
59
57
57
59
56
59
2
41
59
41
1
1
1
611
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
77.97
30.36
22.03
100.00
4.88
3.39
2.44
100.00
100.00
100.00
61.70
15.65
15.65
15.65
15.12
15.12
12.20
4.51
3.45
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
15.65
31.30
46.95
62.07
77.19
89.39
93.90
97.35
97.88
98.41
98.94
99.20
99.47
99.73
100.00
Tideflats, Tacoma, Washington - EQWA
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Dichloromethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Bromomethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
0.45
0.077
0.029
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.17
0.4
2.1
0.091
0.015
0.5
0.0017
0.038
0.5
Total
59
59
59
58
58
40
25
13
9
3
2
1
1
1
1
389
59
59
61
58
58
58
56
58
58
40
2
58
1
1
34
661
100.00
100.00
96.72
100.00
100.00
68.97
44.64
22.41
15.52
7.50
100.00
1.72
100.00
100.00
2.94
58.85
15.17
15.17
15.17
14.91
14.91
10.28
6.43
3.34
2.31
0.77
0.51
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
15.17
30.33
45.50
60.41
75.32
85.60
92.03
95.37
97.69
98.46
98.97
99.23
99.49
99.74
100.00
32-32
-------
Table 32-4. Risk Screening Results for the Washington Monitoring Sites
(Continued)
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
South Tacoma, Washington - ESWA
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
Acet aldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Xylenes
0.077
0.13
0.17
0.029
0.45
0.033
0.4
0.17
0.00091
0.091
0.015
0.038
2.1
10
Total
59
58
58
54
51
42
17
16
9
5
1
1
1
1
373
59
58
58
60
59
57
58
45
39
39
2
1
58
58
651
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
86.44
73.68
29.31
35.56
23.08
12.82
50.00
100.00
1.72
1.72
57.30
15.82
15.55
15.55
14.48
13.67
11.26
4.56
4.29
2.41
1.34
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
15.82
31.37
46.92
61.39
75.07
86.33
90.88
95.17
97.59
98.93
99.20
99.46
99.73
100.00
Reservoir, Tacoma, Washington - EYWA
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
£>-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
0.13
0.17
0.033
0.4
0.17
0.015
0.091
0.038
0.11
Total
58
58
44
27
15
8
2
1
1
214
58
58
58
58
54
8
36
1
5
336
100.00
100.00
75.86
46.55
27.78
100.00
5.56
100.00
20.00
63.69
27.10
27.10
20.56
12.62
7.01
3.74
0.93
0.47
0.47
27.10
54.21
74.77
87.38
94.39
98.13
99.07
99.53
100.00
Observations from Table 32-4 for SEWA include the following:
• Nineteen pollutants failed at least one screen for SEWA.
• The risk screening process identified 10 pollutants of interest, of which all but one are
NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Hexavalent chromium, nickel, cadmium, and lead were
added to SEWA's pollutants of interest because they are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, even though they did not contribute to 95 percent of SEWA's total failed
screens. Five additional pollutants were added to SEWA's pollutants of interest
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens (benzo(a)pyrene, beryllium, chloroform, trichloroethylene, and vinyl
32-33
-------
chloride). These five pollutants are not shown in Table 32-4 but are shown in
subsequent tables in the following sections.
• The percentage of measured detections failing screens (of the pollutants with at least
one failed screen) for SEWA was nearly 50 percent.
• Carbon tetrachloride, acrylonitrile, and 1,2-dichloroethane failed 100 percent of
screens for SEWA. But the latter two pollutants were detected in only a few of the
total sampled collected, while carbon tetrachloride was detected in all 123 VOC
samples collected.
Observations from Table 32-4 for the Puget Sound sites include the following:
• Fifteen pollutants failed at least one screen for CEWA. The risk screening process
identified eight pollutants of interest, of which all but one are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Benzo(a)pyrene was added to CEWA's pollutants of interest because it is a
NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not contribute to 95 percent of
CEWA's total failed screens. Three additional pollutants (chloroform,
trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) were added to CEWA's pollutants of interest
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These pollutants are not shown in Table 32-4.
• Fifteen pollutants failed at least one screen for EQWA. The risk screening process
identified eight pollutants of interest, of which all but one are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Trichloroethylene was added to EQWA's pollutants of interest because it is
a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not contribute to 95 percent of
EQWA's total failed screens. Three additional pollutants (chloroform,
benzo(a)pyrene, and vinyl chloride) were added to EQWA's pollutants of interest
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These pollutants are not shown in Table 32-4.
• Fourteen pollutants failed at least one screen for ESWA. The risk screening process
identified eight pollutants of interest, of which all but one are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Benzo(a)pyrene was added to ESWA's pollutants of interest because it is a
NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not contribute to 95 percent of
ESWA's total failed screens. Three additional pollutants (chloroform,
trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) were added to ESWA's pollutants of interest
because they are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, even though they did not fail any
screens. These pollutants are not shown in Table 32-4.
• The same eight pollutants failed the most screens for CEWA, EQWA, and ESWA.
These same eight pollutants were also the same initial eight pollutants of interest
identified by the risk screening process for each site. Ethylbenzene is the one non-
NATTS MQO Core Analyte in the list of pollutants of interest for each of these sites.
32-34
-------
• The failure rate is around 60 percent for each of these three sites. Formaldehyde,
benzene, and carbon tetrachloride were detected in every valid sample collected and
each failed 100 percent of their total failed screens for each site.
• As discussed in Section 2.4, the Puget Sound Clean Air Authority discovered a leak
in the instrument probe and invalidated all carbonyl compound samples for EYWA.
In addition, selected individual pollutant results from VOC samples were also
invalidated or flagged, at the agency's discretion. As a result, all carbonyl compounds
and some VOC are excluded from this (and subsequent) analyses. The VOC for
which the analytical results were invalidated are:
- Acetonitrile - Methyl Ethyl Ketone
- Acrolein - Styrene
- Chloroethane - Trichlorofluoromethane
- Chloroform - Trichlorotrifluoroethane
• Nine pollutants failed at least one screen for EYWA. The risk screening process
identified six pollutants of interest, of which four are NATTS MQO Core Analytes.
Vinyl chloride was added to EYWA's pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS
MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not contribute to 95 percent of EYWA's total
failed screens. One additional pollutant (trichloroethylene) was added to EYWA's
pollutants of interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did
not fail any screens. Trichloroethylene is not shown in Table 32-4. Note that
chloroform is also a NATTS MQO Core Analyte but was one of the pollutants for
which all data were invalidated, and thus has been excluded from this analysis. Note
that EYWA did not measured PAH like the other Puget Sound sites.
• Benzene, carbon tetrachloride, acrylonitrile, and 1,2-dichloroethane failed
100 percent of screens for EYWA. But the latter two pollutants were detected in only
a few of the total sampled collected, while carbon tetrachloride and benzene were
detected in all 58 VOC samples collected.
32.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Washington monitoring sites. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for each site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for select pollutants
are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize concentration trends at
each site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries are provided in
Appendices J through 0.
32-35
-------
32.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for the SEWA monitoring site, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a
particular pollutant is simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were
at least seven measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was
calculated. The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-
detects. Finally, the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for
non-detects. Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages
could be calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent.
Daily, quarterly, and annual average concentrations are presented in Table 32-5a, where
applicable. Note that concentrations of the PAH, metals, and hexavalent chromium are presented
in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
Daily, quarterly, and study concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of
interest for the four Puget Sound monitoring sites. In lieu of an annual average, the study average
for a pollutant includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects over the
period of sampling. Study averages were calculated for monitoring sites that sampled for a
1-year period that overlapped 2008 and 2009, provided that at least three quarterly averages
could be calculated and method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent, as
described in Section 3.1.1. The study averages for the four Puget Sound sites represent the
sample period from November 2008 to October 2009. Daily, quarterly, and study averages are
presented in Table 32-5b, where applicable. Note that concentrations of the PAH are presented in
ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
32-36
-------
Table 32-5a. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the SEWA Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Seattle, Washin
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzo(a)pyrenea
0.82
+ 0.13
0.76
+ 0.08
0.07
±0.01
0.84
±0.04
0.14
±0.01
0.27
±0.05
0.75
±0.12
0.14
±0.02
0.07
±0.01
0.01
± <0.01
0.69
±0.11
0.05
±0.02
0.72
±0.32
0.88
±0.18
0.08
±0.03
0.83
±0.07
0.13
±0.01
0.23
±0.08
0.73
±0.27
0.13
±0.04
NA
NA
0.91
±0.30
NA
0.61
±0.17
0.54
±0.09
0.03
±0.01
0.84
±0.09
0.14
±0.01
0.28
±0.12
0.53
±0.15
0.11
±0.04
NA
NA
0.68
±0.20
NA
1.07
±0.28
0.66
±0.14
0.05
±0.02
0.83
±0.10
0.16
±0.02
0.30
±0.08
0.95
±0.26
0.13
±0.05
NA
NA
0.48
±0.17
NA
0.87
±0.28
0.98
±0.17
0.08
±0.02
0.83
±0.11
0.15
±0.02
0.28
±0.11
0.78
±0.24
0.16
±0.05
NA
NA
0.70
±0.19
0.06
±0.03
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Ug/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
gton - SEWA
0.82
±0.13
0.76
±0.08
0.06
±0.01
0.84
±0.04
0.14
±0.01
0.27
±0.05
0.75
±0.12
0.13
±0.02
NA
NA
0.69
±0.11
NA
0.98
±0.15
0.81
±0.18
0.08
±0.03
0.77
±0.04
0.15
±0.01
0.21
±0.07
1.04
±0.51
0.14
±0.03
0.07
±0.02
0.01
± <0.01
0.71
±0.13
0.13
±0.06
0.80
±0.36
1.22
±0.71
0.13
±0.12
0.67
±0.05
0.11
±0.02
0.32
±0.29
1.62
±2.22
0.14
±0.09
NA
NA
0.70
±0.36
0.06
±0.05
0.80
±0.19
0.71
±0.17
0.04
±0.01
0.79
±0.07
0.16
±0.03
0.18
±0.05
0.63
±0.14
0.10
±0.03
NA
NA
0.66
±0.36
NA
1.23
±0.36
0.57
±0.18
0.04
±0.01
0.90
±0.08
0.17
±0.02
0.17
±0.06
1.10
±0.39
0.12
±0.05
NA
NA
0.60
±0.15
NA
1.05
±0.29
0.78
±0.22
0.09
±0.04
0.70
±0.08
0.13
±0.01
0.19
±0.07
0.83
±0.25
0.13
±0.05
NA
NA
0.86
±0.25
0.17
±0.10
0.98
±0.15
0.81
±0.18
0.07
±0.03
0.77
±0.04
0.15
±0.01
0.21
±0.07
1.04
±0.51
0.12
±0.03
NA
NA
0.71
±0.13
NA
CO
t-o
I
oo
NA = Not available due to the criteria
a Average concentrations provided for
for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 32-5a. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the SEWA Monitoring Site
(continued)
Pollutant
Beryllium (PM10) a
Cadmium (PM10) a
Hexavalent Chromium a
Lead (PM10) a
Manganese (PMio) a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PMio) a
2008
Daily
Average
(Hg/m3)
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.12
+ 0.03
0.04
+ 0.01
4.07
±1.08
11.03
±2.61
60.92
± 10.69
2.19
±0.48
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.15
±0.06
0.04
±0.02
6.17
±3.73
11.20
±5.75
NA
1.54
±0.62
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.10
±0.02
0.03
±0.01
3.39
±0.84
11.51
±4.56
44.10
± 18.48
3.04
± 1.39
3rd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
<0.01
± <0.01
0.14
±0.07
0.03
±0.02
3.37
±1.27
12.68
±6.47
66.35
±20.21
2.81
±1.00
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
<0.01
± <0.01
0.10
±0.04
0.03
±0.02
3.13
±0.91
8.56
±4.87
74.4
±20.13
1.37
±0.51
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
± <0.01
0.12
±0.03
0.04
±0.01
4.07
±1.08
11.03
±2.61
60.92
± 10.69
2.19
±0.48
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.10
±0.03
0.04
±0.01
3.64
±0.73
7.15
± 1.85
78.67
±12.84
2.61
±0.67
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.08
±0.04
0.05
±0.03
3.36
±2.08
9.51
±5.61
65.02
±31.18
2.15
±1.48
2nd
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.08
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
2.92
±0.80
6.28
±4.10
56.85
±20.16
3.08
±1.88
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.11
±0.05
0.03
±0.02
4.08
± 1.36
8.32
±2.32
86.76
±27.17
3.82
+ 1.18
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.13
±0.09
0.03
±0.01
3.92
± 1.34
4.29
±2.63
98.99
±23.44
1.45
±0.88
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
<0.01
±<0.01
0.10
±0.03
0.03
±0.01
3.64
±0.73
7.15
± 1.85
78.67
±12.84
2.61
±0.67
CO
t-o
I
oo
oo
NA = Not available due to the criteria
a Average concentrations provided for
for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 32-5b. Daily, Quarterly, and Study Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Puget Sound
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Study
Average
(Hg/m3)
Duwamish, Seattle, Washington - CEWA
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Naphthalene*
1.39
+ 0.28
1.34
+ 0.37
0.16
±0.05
0.73
±0.20
0.11
±0.01
0.51
±0.28
2.72
±0.91
0.43
±0.42
0.10
±0.02
ND
0.14
±0.08
119.42
±35.29
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.39
±0.28
1.34
±0.37
0.16
±0.05
0.73
±0.20
0.11
±0.01
0.51
±0.28
2.72
±0.91
0.43
±0.42
NA
ND
0.13
±0.08
119.42
±35.29
1.44
±0.18
0.86
±0.21
0.09
±0.03
0.76
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
0.33
±0.11
2.82
±0.29
0.17
±0.06
0.15
±0.04
0.02
±0.02
0.27
±0.26
122.29
±24.97
1.39
±0.44
1.31
±0.59
0.16
±0.10
0.71
±0.10
0.09
±0.01
0.50
±0.33
2.36
±0.67
0.24
±0.17
0.11
±0.08
NA
0.28
±0.40
126.52
± 75.69
1.26
±0.26
0.60
±0.18
0.05
±0.01
0.71
±0.06
0.10
±0.01
0.21
±0.06
2.89
±0.47
0.09
±0.03
0.04
±0.02
NA
0.02
±0.02
87.77
±21.14
1.40
±0.30
0.55
±0.16
0.04
±0.01
0.87
±0.08
0.13
±0.02
0.20
±0.07
2.97
±0.53
0.11
±0.04
0.08
±0.06
NA
0.25
±0.47
129.75
±34.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.43
±0.16
0.92
±0.19
0.10
±0.03
0.76
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
0.35
±0.10
2.80
±0.28
0.20
±0.07
0.08
±0.03
NA
0.17
±0.14
121.81
±21.34
oo
CO
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or study average.
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 32-5b. Daily, Quarterly, and Study Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Puget Sound
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Study
Average
(Hg/m3)
Tideflats, Tacoma, Washington - EQWA
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Naphthalene*
1.15
+ 0.22
1.51
+ 0.77
0.15
±0.10
0.77
±0.17
0.11
±0.01
0.47
±0.29
1.83
±0.51
0.23
±0.12
0.13
±0.10
0.01
+ <0.01
0.23
±0.19
119.89
± 50.68
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.15
±0.22
1.51
±0.77
0.15
±0.10
0.77
±0.17
0.11
±0.01
0.47
±0.29
1.83
±0.51
0.23
±0.12
NA
NA
0.21
±0.17
119.89
± 50.68
1.41
±0.18
0.91
±0.23
0.08
±0.03
0.76
±0.05
0.12
±0.01
0.30
±0.10
1.99
±0.35
0.34
±0.20
0.17
±0.05
0.02
±0.01
0.19
±0.08
118.69
±23.84
1.06
±0.21
1.36
±0.65
0.13
±0.09
0.72
±0.10
0.10
±0.02
0.43
±0.27
1.08
±0.27
0.23
±0.11
0.06
±0.06
NA
0.20
±0.14
98.32
± 36.06
1.26
±0.30
0.69
±0.20
0.04
±0.02
0.71
±0.05
0.10
±0.01
0.22
±0.09
1.57
±0.40
0.14
±0.07
0.08
±0.05
0.01
+ <0.01
0.03
±0.02
87.72
± 30.03
1.81
±0.40
0.57
±0.17
0.04
±0.02
0.89
±0.11
0.15
±0.03
0.20
±0.10
3.19
±0.72
0.59
±0.75
0.16
±0.12
NA
NA
147.71
±59.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.37
±0.15
1.00
±0.23
0.09
±0.03
0.76
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
0.33
±0.09
1.97
±0.30
0.31
±0.17
0.10
±0.04
NA
0.12
±0.05
118.89
±21.21
CO
t-o
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or study average.
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 32-5b. Daily, Quarterly, and Study Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Puget Sound
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Study
Average
(Hg/m3)
South Tacoma, Washington - ESWA
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzo(a)pyrenea
Naphthalene*
0.95
+ 0.27
1.13
+ 0.44
0.12
±0.07
0.72
±0.17
0.09
±0.02
0.37
±0.20
1.69
±0.66
0.15
±0.11
0.15
±0.26
ND
0.69
±0.52
143.81
±61.07
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.95
±0.27
1.13
±0.44
0.12
±0.07
0.72
±0.17
0.09
±0.02
0.37
±0.20
1.69
±0.66
NA
NA
ND
0.69
±0.52
143.81
±61.07
0.98
±0.17
1.32
±0.37
0.13
±0.06
0.78
±0.05
0.12
±0.01
0.38
±0.12
1.42
±0.19
0.18
±0.05
0.07
±0.02
0.03
±0.07
0.39
±0.18
122.9
±31.47
0.73
±0.22
1.89
±1.06
0.23
±0.18
0.72
±0.11
0.10
±0.02
0.53
±0.37
1.03
±0.23
0.15
±0.10
NA
NA
0.47
±0.31
152.25
± 78.89
0.90
±0.32
1.01
±0.46
0.06
±0.03
0.72
±0.06
0.10
±0.01
0.29
±0.13
1.30
±0.34
0.09
±0.05
NA
NA
NA
81.4 +
39.29
1.21
±0.42
0.91
±0.39
0.06
±0.03
0.89
±0.09
0.15
±0.03
0.28
±0.14
1.88
±0.43
0.13
±0.11
NA
NA
NA
99.49
± 40.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.98
±0.15
1.30
±0.32
0.13
±0.05
0.77
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
0.38
±0.11
1.47
±0.19
0.13
±0.04
NA
NA
NA
126.39
±27.74
CO
t-o
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or study average.
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
-------
Table 32-5b. Daily, Quarterly, and Study Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Puget Sound
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(Hg/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(jig/m3)
Study
Average
(Hg/m3)
Reservoir, Tacoma, Washington - EYWA
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.23
+ <0.01
1.78
+ 0.78
0.18
+ 0.12
0.73
±0.19
0.75
±0.38
0.31
±0.28
0.12
±0.05
0.12
± <0.01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
1.78
±0.78
0.18
±0.12
0.73
±0.19
0.75
±0.38
0.27
±0.25
NA
NA
0.08
±0.09
1.07
±0.22
0.10
±0.03
0.74
±0.04
0.47
±0.09
0.13
±0.03
0.10
±0.01
0.02
±0.02
NA
1.46
±0.56
0.16
±0.08
0.69
±0.11
0.56
±0.21
0.15
±0.08
0.08
±0.02
NA
NA
0.83
±0.28
0.05
±0.02
0.70
±0.06
0.47
±0.17
0.10
±0.05
0.07
±0.02
NA
NA
0.82
±0.31
0.06
±0.03
0.83
±0.07
0.37
±0.12
0.10
±0.04
0.08
±0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.17
±0.22
0.11
±0.03
0.74
±0.04
0.51
±0.09
0.14
±0.04
0.08
±0.01
NA
CO
t-o
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or study average.
NR = Not available because sampling was not conducted during this time period.
ND = Not detected during sampling for this time period.
a Average concentrations provided for the pollutants below the black line are presented in ng/m3 for ease of viewing
-------
Observations for the SEWA monitoring site from Table 32-5a include the following:
• The daily average concentrations for all of SEWA's pollutants of interest were less
than 1.0 pg/m3 for 2008. The pollutants with the highest daily average concentrations
by mass were carbon tetrachloride (0.84 ± 0.04 pg/m3), acetaldehyde
(0.82 ±0.13 pg/m3), benzene (0.76 ± 0.08 pg/m3), and formaldehyde
(0.75 ±0.12 pg/m3).
• For 2009, only formaldehyde's daily average concentration was greater than
1.0 pg/m3 (1.04 ± 0.51 pg/m3). Behind formaldehyde, the pollutants with the highest
daily average concentrations by mass were acetaldehyde (0.98 ±0.15 pg/m3),
benzene (0.81 ± 0.18 pg/m3) and carbon tetrachloride (0.77 ± 0.04 pg/m3) for 2009.
• Table 32-5a shows that the quarterly average concentrations of most of the pollutants
of interest for SEWA did not vary significantly across the quarters.
• Formaldehyde's first quarter 2009 concentration average is higher than all of the
other quarterly averages; further, its confidence interval is very large, even higher
than the average itself, indicating the presence of outliers. A review of the data shows
that the highest formaldehyde concentration was measured on January 13, 2009
(16.6 pg/m3) and that this concentration is four times the next highest concentration
(3.62 pg/m3, measured on September 22, 2009). These are the only two formaldehyde
measurements greater than 3.0 pg/m3 for this site and the median concentration was
0.594 pg/m3.
• The first quarter 2009 average for 1,3-butadiene also appears to be influenced by
outliers. A review of the data shows that the highest 1,3-butadiene concentration was
measured on January 19, 2009 (0.891 pg/m3) and that this concentration is more than
three times the next highest concentration (0.288 pg/m3, measured on
December 3, 2009). This January concentration is the seventh highest 1,3-butadiene
measurement among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant. Concentrations of
1,3-butadiene ranged from 0.0111 to 0.891 pg/m3 for this site and the median
concentration was 0.0532 pg/m3.
• Several of the quarterly averages of lead appear to be influenced by outliers,
particularly the first quarters of each year. A review of the data shows that the highest
lead concentration was measured on February 24, 2008 (31.7 ng/m3) and that this
concentration is nearly twice the next highest concentration (16.2 ng/m3), measured
on January 19, 2009). There were only four measurements of lead greater than
10 ng/m3 measured at this site and the median concentration was 2.99 ng/m3.
32-43
-------
Observations for the Puget Sound sites from Table 32-5b include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest study average concentrations by mass were
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene for CEWA, EQWA, and ESWA. For
EYWA, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and ethylbenzene had the highest study
average concentrations by mass. Recall that all carbonyl compound data were
invalidated for EYWA.
• None of these sites have first, second, or third quarterly averages for 2008 because
they did not begin sampling until November 2008. Fourth quarter 2009 averages are
also unavailable because sampling stopped in October 2009.
• Several of the VOC concentrations were higher during the colder months of the year
for these four sites, as shown by the fourth quarter 2008 and first quarter 2009
averages of 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and ethylbenzene.
• Several of CEWA's VOC have relatively large confidence intervals for the first
quarter of 2009. The highest concentrations of several of these pollutants were
measured on January 19, 2009, including benzene, ethylbenzene, trichloroethylene,
and 1,3-butadiene. This is also true for EQWA and ESWA. In addition, the highest
concentrations of naphthalene at CEWA and ESWA were also measured on
January 19, 2009, but not at EQWA (and EYWA did not measure PAH).
• In addition to the first quarter of 2009, tetrachloroethylene also has a high fourth
quarter 2008 average (and a large confidence interval) for CEWA. The two highest
concentrations of this pollutant were measured on November 26, 2008 (1.76 pg/m3)
and January 19, 2009 (1.20 pg/m3). All other concentrations of this pollutant were
less than 0.75 pg/m3 and the median concentration was 0.122 pg/m3.
• Both trichloroethylene and, in particular, tetrachloroethylene have high third quarter
2009 average concentrations (and large confidence intervals) for EQWA. The highest
concentrations of these pollutants were measured on September 22, 2009. The
tetrachloroethylene concentration from this date (4.76 pg/m3) was the highest
concentration among all NMP sites measuring this pollutant.
• Tetrachloroethylene also has a high fourth quarter 2008 average concentration (and
large confidence interval) for EYWA. The highest concentration of this pollutant was
measured on November 14, 2008 (1.02 pg/m ). Although several other higher
concentrations were also measured during this quarter, all other concentrations of this
pollutant were less than 0.60 pg/m3 and the median concentration was 0.099 pg/m3.
• For CEWA, the first and third quarter averages of benzo(a)pyrene for 2009 have
confidence intervals larger than the averages themselves, indicating the presence of
outliers. The highest concentrations of this pollutant at CEWA were measured on
September 22, 2009 (3.46 ng/m3) and January 19, 2009 (2.58 ng/m3). These are the
32-44
-------
only two concentrations of this pollutant greater than 0.5 ng/m3 and were the second
and seventh highest concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene among all NMP sites
measuring PAH.
• For ESWA, the only two quarters for which a quarterly average concentration could
be calculated for benzo(a)pyrene were the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter
2009. Note that these averages have relatively large confidence intervals associated
with them, indicating the presence of outliers. The highest concentrations of this
pollutant at ESWA were measured on November 14, 2008 (2.29 ng/m3) and
February 18, 2009 (2.01 ng/m3) and were the eighth and tenth highest concentrations
of benzo(a)pyrene among all NMP sites measuring PAH. However, several additional
concentrations of this pollutant greater than 1.0 ng/m3 were measured throughout
these quarters.
Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the sites with the 10 highest daily average concentrations
for each of the program-level pollutants of interest. Observations for the Washington sites from
those tables include the following:
• As shown in Tables 4-9, 4-10, and 4-11, the Washington sites appear among the 10
highest site-specific daily average concentrations for the program-level pollutants of
interest a total of 26 times.
• ESWA had the second (2008) and fifth (2009) highest daily average concentrations of
benzo(a)pyrene and the sixth (2008) highest daily average concentration of
naphthalene among sites sampling PAH.
• All five sites appear among the sites with the highest daily average concentrations of
VOC. The Washington sites account for six of the 10 highest daily average
concentrations of carbon tetrachloride. Although EYWA had the highest daily
average concentration of vinyl chloride (2008) among sites sampling VOC, this
pollutant was detected only twice, illustrating the limitation of calculating averages
based on only a few measured detections.
• None of the Washington sites sampling carbonyl compounds appear in Table 4-10 for
carbonyl compounds.
• Although SEWA appears in Tables 4-9 through 4-13 a total of 9 times, all but two
were for metals (including hexavalent chromium). SEWA had the second (2009) and
third (2008) highest daily average concentrations of nickel; the fourth (2008) and
seventh (2009) highest daily average concentrations of manganese; and seventh
(2008) and eighth (2009) highest daily average concentrations of hexavalent
chromium.
32-45
-------
32.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. Although SEWA has sampled hexavalent chromium since 2005, sampling was
discontinued for an eight-month period in 2006 from March through October. Because four
months is not considered enough to be representative of an entire year, and this year would factor
into two of the three 3-year periods, the trends analysis was not conducted.
32.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
Washington monitoring sites. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
32.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data for the
Washington monitoring sites to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
for each site were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the
intermediate MRL; and the annual and/or study averages were compared to the chronic MRL.
None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of
interest for the Washington monitoring sites were higher than their respective MRL noncancer
health risk benchmarks.
32.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Washington monitoring sites and where annual or
study average concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the
criteria for annual and study averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
32-46
-------
approximations are calculated). Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations for SEWA are presented in Table 32-6a,
where applicable. Study averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations for the Puget Sound sites are presented in Table 32-6b,
where applicable.
Observations from Table 32-6a for SEWA include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest 2008 annual averages for SEWA were carbon
tetrachloride, acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde. These pollutants also had the
highest annual averages for 2009, but the order was different, with formaldehyde and
carbon tetrachloride trading positions.
• The pollutants with the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations were
formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride for both years.
• All noncancer surrogate risk approximations for SEWA were less than 1.0.
Observations from Table 32-6b for the Puget Sound sites include the following:
• The pollutants with the highest study averages for CEWA, EQWA, and ESWA were
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene (although not necessarily in that order).
The pollutants with the highest study averages for EYWA were benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, and ethylbenzene.
• The pollutants with the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations for CEWA,
EQWA, and ESWA were formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride. The
pollutants with the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations for EYWA were
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,3-butadiene.
• All noncancer surrogate risk approximations for the Puget Sound monitoring sites
were less than 1.0.
32-47
-------
Table 32-6a. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the SEWA Monitoring Site in Washington
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
Risk Ap}
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
Seattle, Washington - SEWA
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)a
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene a
Beryllium (PM10) a
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium (PM10) a
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium a
Lead (PM10) a
0.0000022
0.0043
0.0000078
0.001
0.0024
0.00003
0.0018
0.000006
0.0000025
0.000013
0.012
0.009
0.000015
0.03
0.00002
0.002
0.00001
0.1
0.098
1
0.0098
0.0001
0.00015
62/4
60/4
61/4
22/1
47/4
59/4
60/4
61/4
61/4
61/4
62/4
51/4
60/4
0.82
+ 0.13
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.76
+ 0.08
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
0.06
±0.01
<0.01
±<0.01
0.84
±0.04
0.14
±0.01
0.27
±0.05
0.75
±0.12
<0.01
±<0.01
<0.01
±<0.01
1.79
2.99
5.96
NA
0.01
1.92
0.22
5.01
0.67
9.70
0.43
0.09
0.05
0.03
NA
<0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
0.03
64/4
59/4
62/4
30/2
49/4
60/4
59/4
62/4
62/4
62/4
64/4
48/4
59/4
0.98
±0.15
<0.01
±<0.01
0.81
±0.18
NA
<0.01
±<0.01
0.07
±0.03
<0.01
±<0.01
0.77
±0.04
0.15
±0.01
0.21
±0.07
1.04
±0.51
<0.01
±<0.01
<0.01
±<0.01
2.15
3.05
6.31
NA
0.01
2.18
0.19
4.62
0.53
13.53
0.39
0.11
0.05
0.03
NA
<0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
0.02
CO
t-O
oo
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 32-5a.
-------
Table 32-6a. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the SEWA Monitoring Site in Washington
(Continued)
Pollutant
Manganese (PM10) a
Naphthalene a
Nickel (PMio) a
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000034
0.000312
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.00005
0.003
0.00009
0.27
0.6
0.1
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
60/4
47/3
60/4
57/4
16/0
2/0
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
0.01
+ <0.01
0.06
+ 0.01
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.13
+ 0.02
NA
NA
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
2.07
0.68
0.79
NA
NA
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.22
0.02
0.02
<0.01
NA
NA
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
59/4
61/4
59/4
54/4
13/0
3/0
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
0.01
±<0.01
0.08
±0.01
<0.01
±<0.01
0.12
±0.03
NA
NA
Risk Api
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
2.67
0.82
0.72
NA
NA
>roximation
Noncancer
(HQ)
0.14
0.03
0.03
<0.01
NA
NA
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
a For the annual average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 32-5a.
-------
Table 32-6b. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Puget Sound Monitoring Sites in Washington
CO
t-o
en
O
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
#of
Measured
Detections
#of
Quarterly
Averages
Study
Average
(Ug/m3)
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Noncancer
Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Duwamish, Seattle, Washington - CEWA
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrenea
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene*
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.0000022
0.0000078
0.001
0.00003
0.000006
0.0000025
0.000013
0.000034
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
0.009
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
1
0.0098
0.003
0.27
0.6
0.1
57
59
41
59
59
59
59
57
59
56
33
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
0
1.43
+ 0.16
0.92
+ 0.19
<0.01
± <0.01
0.10
±0.03
0.76
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
0.35
±0.10
2.80
±0.28
0.12
±0.02
0.20
±0.07
0.08
±0.03
NA
3.15
7.19
0.17
2.97
4.56
0.88
36.42
4.14
1.17
0.16
NA
0.16
0.03
0.05
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.29
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
NA
Tideflats, Tacoma, Washington - EQWA
Acetaldehyde
0.0000022
0.009
59
4
1.37
±0.15
3.01
0.15
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a study average.
a For the study average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 32-5b.
-------
Table 32-6b. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Puget Sound Monitoring Sites in Washington
(Continued)
CO
t-o
Pollutant
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrenea
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene*
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.0000078
0.001
0.00003
0.000006
0.0000025
0.000013
0.000034
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.03
0.002
0.1
0.098
1
0.0098
0.003
0.27
0.6
0.1
#of
Measured
Detections
58
38
58
58
58
58
59
61
56
34
20
#of
Quarterly
Averages
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
Study
Average
(jig/m3)
1.00
+ 0.23
<0.01
+ <0.01
0.09
+ 0.03
0.76
±0.05
0.11
±0.01
0.33
±0.09
1.97
±0.30
0.12
±0.02
0.31
±0.17
0.10
±0.04
NA
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
7.82
0.12
2.71
4.59
0.81
25.56
4.04
1.84
0.19
NA
Noncancer
Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
0.03
0.05
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.20
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
NA
South Tacoma, Washington - ESWA
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
0.0000022
0.0000078
0.009
0.03
59
58
4
4
0.98
±0.15
1.30
±0.32
2.15
10.12
0.11
0.04
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a study average.
a For the study average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 32-5b.
-------
Table 32-6b. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Puget Sound Monitoring Sites in Washington
(Continued)
CO
t-o
Pollutant
Benzo(a)pyrenea
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene*
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.001
0.00003
0.000006
0.0000025
0.000013
0.000034
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.002
0.1
0.098
1
0.0098
0.003
0.27
0.6
0.1
#of
Measured
Detections
39
57
58
58
58
59
60
45
10
2
#of
Quarterly
Averages
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
0
0
Study
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
0.13
+ 0.05
0.77
+ 0.05
0.11
±0.01
0.38
±0.11
1.47
±0.19
0.13
±0.03
0.13
±0.04
NA
NA
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
NA
3.88
4.62
0.94
19.05
4.30
0.79
NA
NA
Noncancer
Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
NA
0.06
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.15
0.04
<0.01
NA
NA
Reservoir, Tacoma, Washington - EYWA
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
0.000068
0.0000078
0.00003
0.002
0.03
0.002
8
58
58
0
4
4
NA
1.17
±0.22
0.11
±0.03
NA
9.13
3.22
NA
0.04
0.05
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a study average.
a For the study average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 32-5b.
-------
Table 32-6b. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Puget Sound Monitoring Sites in Washington
(Continued)
CO
t-o
I
en
CO
Pollutant
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
0.000006
0.0000025
0.0000059
0.000002
0.0000088
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
0.1
0.098
1
0.27
0.6
0.1
#of
Measured
Detections
58
0
58
54
45
5
#of
Quarterly
Averages
4
0
4
4
3
0
Study
Average
(jig/m3)
0.74
+ 0.04
NA
0.51
+ 0.09
0.14
±0.04
0.08
±0.01
NA
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
4.46
NA
1.28
0.85
0.16
NA
Noncancer
Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
- = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a study average.
a For the study average concentration of this pollutant in ng/m3, refer back to Table 32-5b.
-------
32.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 32-7a through 32-8b present a
risk-based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity,
respectively. Table 32-7a presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005
NEI, the 10 pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with
the highest cancer risk approximations (in-a-million) for SEWA, as calculated from the annual
averages. Table 32-7b presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI,
the 10 pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the
highest cancer risk approximations (in-a-million) for the Puget Sound sites, as calculated from
the study averages. Tables 32-8a and 32-8b present similar information, but identify the 10
pollutants with the highest noncancer risk approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual or
study averages, for SEWA and the Puget Sound sites (respectively). For SEWA, risk
approximations in green were calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations
in white were calculated from 2009 annual averages, as denoted in Tables 32-7a and 32-8a.
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual or study
averages are limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in
section 32.3, SEWA sampled for VOC, PAH, carbonyl compounds, metals (PMi0), and
hexavalent chromium; CEWA, EQWA, and ESWA sampled for VOC, PAH, and carbonyl
compounds; and EYWA sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds (although all carbonyl
compound data was invalidated). In addition, the cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria for annual or
study averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
32-54
-------
Table 32-7a. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the SEWA Monitoring Site in Washington
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted
Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Seattle, Washington (King County) - SEWA
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,631.22
846.25
338.36
192.95
137.51
115.51
85.03
50.69
39.66
37.68
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
POM, Group 3
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
1.27E-02
1.06E-02
5.79E-03
2.89E-03
2.31E-03
2.18E-03
9.27E-04
8.11E-04
7.44E-04
5.53E-04
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
Naphthalene
1,3-Butadiene
13.53
9.70
6.31
5.96
5.01
4.62
3.05
2.99
2.67
2.18
CO
t-o
en
01
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 32-7b. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Puget Sound Monitoring Sites in Washington
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Study Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
Duwamish, Seattle, Washington (King County) - CEWA
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
POM, Group 2
1,631.22
846.25
338.36
192.95
137.51
115.51
85.03
50.69
39.66
37.68
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 2
POM, Group 3
Tetrachloroethylene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic, PM
1.27E-02
1.06E-02
5.79E-03
2.89E-03
2.31E-03
2.18E-03
9.27E-04
8.11E-04
7.44E-04
5.53E-04
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Trichloroethylene
36.42
7.19
4.56
4.14
3.15
2.97
1.17
0.88
0.17
0.16
Tideflats, Tacoma, Washington (Pierce County) - EQWA
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 1
754.12
608.92
216.78
114.58
87.50
38.71
28.89
19.81
15.66
4.65
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 3
POM, Group 1
Tetrachloroethylene
7.61E-03
5.88E-03
3.44E-03
1.09E-03
9.82E-04
4.77E-04
3.87E-04
3.82E-04
2.56E-04
2.28E-04
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
25.56
7.82
4.59
4.04
3.01
2.71
1.84
0.81
0.19
0.12
CO
t-o
These cancer risk approximations are based on the study averages.
-------
Table 32-7b. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Puget Sound Monitoring Sites in Washington (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with
Cancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Study Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
South Tacoma, Washington (Pierce County) - ESWA
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
/>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 1
754.12
608.92
216.78
114.58
87.50
38.71
28.89
19.81
15.66
4.65
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 3
POM, Group 1
Tetrachloroethylene
7.61E-03
5.88E-03
3.44E-03
1.09E-03
9.82E-04
4.77E-04
3.87E-04
3.82E-04
2.56E-04
2.28E-04
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Trichloroethylene
19.05
10.12
4.62
4.30
3.88
2.15
0.94
0.79
0.30
0.03
Reservoir, Tacoma, Washington (Pierce County) - EYWA
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
£>-Dichlorobenzene
POM, Group 1
754.12
608.92
216.78
114.58
87.50
38.71
28.89
19.81
15.66
4.65
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
POM, Group 2
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
POM, Group 3
POM, Group 1
Tetrachloroethylene
7.61E-03
5.88E-03
3.44E-03
1.09E-03
9.82E-04
4.77E-04
3.87E-04
3.82E-04
2.56E-04
2.28E-04
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
9.13
4.46
3.22
1.28
0.89
0.85
0.16
0.03
CO
t-o
These cancer risk approximations are based on the study averages.
-------
Table 32-8a. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the SEWA Monitoring Site in Washington
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Seattle, Washington (King County) - SEWA
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Methanol
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
4,893.78
3,269.20
1,631.22
947.08
848.59
846.25
758.85
338.36
323.95
276.67
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Manganese, PM
Hexamethylene-1 ,6-diisocyanate
Toluene
2,853,660.18
96,475.61
86,351.95
54,374.01
37,595.20
32,692.01
28,344.12
16,654.97
13,200.00
12,234.44
Manganese (PMio)
Manganese (PMio)
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM10)
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
0.22
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
CO
t-o
en
OO
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 32-8b. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Puget Sound Monitoring Sites in Washington
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Study Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Duwamish, Seattle, Washington (King County) - CEWA
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Methanol
Hexane
Formaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
4,893.78
3,269.20
1,631.22
947.08
848.59
846.25
758.85
338.36
323.95
276.67
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Manganese, PM
Hexamethylene-1 ,6-diisocyanate
Toluene
2,853,660.18
96,475.61
86,351.95
54,374.01
37,595.20
32,692.01
28,344.12
16,654.97
13,200.00
12,234.44
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
0.29
0.16
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Tideflats, Tacoma, Washington (Pierce County) - EQWA
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
1,3-Butadiene
1,871.52
1,245.92
882.28
754.12
608.92
418.95
287.07
216.78
177.11
114.58
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Hydrochloric acid
Nickel, PM
Manganese, PM
3,199,942.87
62,134.94
57,289.71
25,137.39
24,086.29
12,459.15
9,631.08
8,855.52
7,468.39
5,520.24
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
0.20
0.15
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
en
CO
These cancer risk approximations are based on the study averages.
-------
Table 32-8b. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Puget Sound Monitoring Sites in Washington (Continued)
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer
Toxicity Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based
on Study Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
South Tacoma, Washington (Pierce County) - ESWA
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
1,3-Butadiene
1,871.52
1,245.92
882.28
754.12
608.92
418.95
287.07
216.78
177.11
114.58
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Hydrochloric acid
Nickel, PM
Manganese, PM
3,199,942.87
62,134.94
57,289.71
25,137.39
24,086.29
12,459.15
9,631.08
8,855.52
7,468.39
5,520.24
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Naphthalene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
0.15
0.11
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Reservoir, Tacoma, Washington (Pierce County) - EYWA
Toluene
Xylenes
Methanol
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Acetaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
1,3-Butadiene
1,871.52
1,245.92
882.28
754.12
608.92
418.95
287.07
216.78
177.11
114.58
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Hydrochloric acid
Nickel, PM
Manganese, PM
3,199,942.87
62,134.94
57,289.71
25,137.39
24,086.29
12,459.15
9,631.08
8,855.52
7,468.39
5,520.24
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
CO
t-o
C73
o
1 These cancer risk approximations are based on the study averages.
-------
Observations from Table 32-7a for SEWA and Table 32-7b for CEWA include the
following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in King County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for King County were benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
• Seven of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for King County.
• Formaldehyde and benzene topped both sites' highest cancer risk approximations list.
Carbon tetrachloride, which was the third-ranked pollutant for both sites' cancer risk
approximations, did not appear on either emissions-based list.
• POM Group 2 was the ninth highest emitted "pollutant" in King County and ranked
sixth for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2 includes several PAH sampled
for at SEWA and CEWA including acenapthylene, fluoranthene, perylene, and
phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were identified as
pollutants of interest for these sites.
• POM Group 3 ranked seventh for toxicity-weighted emissions for King County. POM
Group 3 does not include any pollutants sampled at these sites.
Observations from Table 32-7b for the Tacoma sites include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were also the highest emitted pollutants
with cancer UREs in Pierce County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
cancer UREs) for Pierce County were formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene.
• Eight of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for Pierce County.
• Formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer risk
approximations for EQWA and ESWA. Carbon tetrachloride did not appear on either
emissions-based list for Pierce County while the other two pollutants appear on both
emissions-based lists.
• For EYWA, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,3-butadiene had the highest cancer
risk approximations. 1,3-Butadiene ranked fourth in total emissions and third for
toxicity-weighted emissions for Pierce County.
32-61
-------
• POM Groups 1 and 2 were among the 10 highest emitted "pollutants" in Pierce
County and also ranked among the 10 highest for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM
Group 1 includes unspeciated polycyclic organic matter. POM Group 2 includes
several PAH sampled for at EQWA and EYWA including acenapthylene,
fluoranthene, perylene, and phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group
2 were identified as pollutants of interest for these sites. POM Group 3 ranked eighth
for toxicity-weighted emissions for Pierce County. POM Group 3 does not include
any pollutants sampled at these sites.
Observations from Table 32-8a for SEWA and Table 32-8b for CEWA include the
following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in King County.
• Acrolein was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with noncancer RfCs) for King County, followed by 1,3-butadiene and
formaldehyde. Although acrolein was sampled for at CEWA and SEWA, this
pollutant was excluded from the pollutants of interest designation, and thus
subsequent risk screening evaluations, due to questions about the consistency and
reliability of the measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
• Five of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for King County.
• Manganese, which had the highest noncancer risk approximations for SEWA, had the
eighth highest toxicity-weighted emissions, but did not appear among the 10 highest
emitted pollutants for King County.
• Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde appear on all three lists for SEWA and CEWA.
Observations from Table 32-8b for the Tacoma sites include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and methanol were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Pierce County.
• Acrolein was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with noncancer RfCs) for Pierce County, followed by formaldehyde and
1,3-butadiene. Although acrolein was sampled for at EQWA, ESWA, and EYWA,
this pollutant was excluded from the pollutants of interest designation, and thus
subsequent risk screening evaluations, due to questions about the consistency and
reliability of the measurements, as discussed in Section 3.2.
32-62
-------
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions
for Pierce County.
• Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene had the highest noncancer risk
approximations for EQWA and ESWA (albeit low); these three pollutants also appear
on both emissions-based lists for Pierce County. Benzene also appears on both
emissions-based lists for both sites.
• For EYWA, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride had the highest
noncancer risk approximations (albeit low). While benzene and 1,3-butadiene appear
on both emissions-based lists for Pierce County, carbon tetrachloride appears on
neither.
32.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for the Washington Sites
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Between nine and 15 pollutants failed screens for CEWA, EQWA, ESWA, and EYWA;
19 failed screens for SEW A.
»«» Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration for SEWA, CEWA,
EQWA, and ESWA. For EYWA, benzene had the highest daily average concentration;
note that carbonyl compound data was invalidated for this site.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly, annual or
study average concentrations of the pollutants of interest, where they could be
calculated, were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk
benchmarks.
32-63
-------
33.0 Site in Wisconsin
This section examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of the ambient monitoring
concentrations measured at the NATTS site in Wisconsin, and integrates these concentrations
with emissions, meteorological, and risk information. Data generated by sources other than ERG
are not included in the data analyses contained in this report. Readers are encouraged to refer
back to Sections 1 through 4 for detailed discussions on the various data analyses presented
below.
33.1 Site Characterization
This section characterizes the monitoring site by providing geographical and physical
information about the location of the site and the surrounding area. This information is provided
to give the reader insight regarding factors that may influence the air quality near the site and
assist in the interpretation of the ambient monitoring measurements.
The MVWI monitoring site is located in Mayville, Wisconsin. Figure 33-1 is a composite
satellite image retrieved from Google™ Earth showing the monitoring site in its rural location.
Figure 33-2 identifies point source emissions locations by source category, as reported in the
2005 NEI for point sources. Note that only sources within 10 miles of the site are included in the
facility counts provided below the map in Figure 33-2. Thus, sources outside the 10-mile radius
have been grayed out, but are visible on the map to show emissions sources outside the 10-mile
boundary. A 10-mile boundary was chosen to give the reader an indication of which emissions
sources and emissions source categories could potentially have an immediate impact on the air
quality at the monitoring site; further, this boundary provides both the proximity of emissions
sources to the monitoring site as well as the quantity of such sources within a given distance of
the site. Table 33-1 describes the area surrounding the monitoring site by providing supplemental
geographical information such as land use, location setting, and locational coordinates.
33-1
-------
Figure 33-1. Mayville, Wisconsin (MVWI) Monitoring Site
©2010 Google Earth, accessed 11/11/2010
Scale:
2 inches = 2,257 feet
-------
Figure 33-2. NEI Point Sources Located Within 10 Miles of MVWI
raswv waco^v
I lot* Out to iraiiy d«n»H> »nd ctfaci&an. th* Ictal IICINHK
dl»p4»y«i may ncx refiresenn J hcilnwi «ltln live area «4 mef*«
& MVWI NATTS site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
41 Aircraft Operations Facility (3)
* Cold Solvent Cleaning.'Strippirvg Facility (1 )
© Fabricated Metal Products Facility (4)
F Food Procossing'Agriculrurc Facility (2)
it Hot Mrx Asphalt Plant (1)
- Iron and Steel Foundry {1 )
* Landfill (3)
> Linio Manufacturing Facility (1)
t Primary Metal Production Facility (1)
f Prinlingi'Publishing Facility (1)
E Pulp and Paper Plant/Wood Products Facility <1)
: Secondary Metal Processing Facility (4)
• Stationary Combustion Turbines Facility (1 )
-':• Surface Coating Facility (2)
w Woodwork. Furniture, Milhvorh & Wood Preserving FadKty (1)
33-3
-------
Table 33-1. Geographical Information for the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Site
Code
MVWI
AQS Code
55-027-0007
Location
Mayville
County
Dodge
Micro- or
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Beaver Dam, WI
Latitude
and
Longitude
43.435,
-88.527778
Land Use
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Rural
Additional Ambient Monitoring Information1
CO, SO2, NOy, NO, VOC, Carbonyl compounds, O3,
Meteorological parameters, PM10, PM10 Metals,
PM2 5, and PM2 5 Speciation.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
1 Information in this column was obtained from AQS, represents active monitors for the 2008-2009 time frame, and excludes ambient monitoring covered in this
report (EPA, 201 Ij).
-------
MVWI is located about 30 miles northwest of Milwaukee and roughly 40 miles northeast
of Madison, and to the east of Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. The surrounding area is rural
and agricultural in nature. The MVWI monitoring site serves as a rural background site.
However, the area is impacted by nearby urban areas, and thus, could show the impacts on the
wildlife sanctuary. Highway 33 to the north and Highway 67 to the west (which can be seen on
the left-hand side of Figure 33-1) intersect less than 1 mile northwest of the site. Figure 33-2
shows that most of the point sources surrounding MVWI are located to the west and northwest of
the site. The source categories with the highest number of emissions sources are fabricated metal
products facilities; secondary metal processing facilities; aircraft operations, which include
airports as well as small runways, heliports, and landing pads; and landfills. However, the facility
closest to MVWI is involved in lime manufacturing.
Table 33-2 presents information related to mobile source activity, such as population,
traffic, VMT, and estimated vehicle ownership information for the area surrounding the
Wisconsin monitoring site. Information provided in Table 33-2 represents the most recent year of
sampling (2009), unless otherwise indicated. County-level vehicle registration and population
data for Dodge County were obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
(WI DOT, 2008) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau, 2010), respectively. Table 33-2
also includes a vehicle registration-to-county population ratio (vehicles-per-person). In addition,
the population within 10 miles of the site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle ownership
was calculated by applying the county-level vehicle registration-to-population ratio to the
10-mile population surrounding the monitoring site. Table 33-2 also contains annual average
daily traffic information, as well as the year of the traffic data estimate and the source from
which it was obtained. VMT was not available for the MVWI monitoring site due to the rural
nature of the surrounding area.
33-5
-------
Table 33-2. Population, Motor Vehicle, and Traffic Information for the Wisconsin
Monitoring Site
Site
MVWI
Estimated
County
Population1
87,335
Number of
Vehicles
Registered2
93,219
Vehicles
per Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.07
Population
Within 10
Miles3
24,804
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Ownership
26,475
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic4
3,500
VMT5
(thousands)
NA
1 Reference: Census Bureau, 2010.
2 County-level vehicle registration reflects 2008 data from the Wisconsin DOT (WI DOT, 2008).
3 Reference: http://xionetic.com/zipfinddeluxe.aspx
4 Annual Average Daily Traffic reflects 2004 data from the Wisconsin DOT (WI DOT, 2004).
5 VMT reflects 2008 data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2009b).
NA = Data unavailable.
BOLD = EPA-designated NATTS Site.
Observations from Table 33-2 include the following:
• Dodge County's population was on the low end compared to other counties with
NMP sites. This is also true of its 10-mile population.
• The county-level vehicle registration was also on the low end compared to other
counties with NMP sites. This is also true of its estimated 10-mile vehicle ownership.
• The vehicle-per-person ratio was slightly greater than one vehicle per person. This
ratio ranked among the higher ratios for NMP sites.
• The traffic volume experienced near MVWI was also on the low end compared to
other NMP monitoring sites. The traffic estimate used was for the intersection of
Highway 33 and Highway 67.
33.2 Meteorological Characterization
The following sections characterize the meteorological conditions near the monitoring
site in Wisconsin on sample days, as well as over the course of each year.
33.2.1 Climate Summary
The town of Mayville is located about halfway between Madison and Milwaukee. This
area experiences a highly variable, continental climate as weather systems frequently track
across the region. Precipitation falls predominantly in the spring and summer months. Winters
are cold and predominantly dry, although wintertime temperature extremes can be moderated
somewhat by the proximity to Lake Michigan (although this effect is felt more often closer to the
lake). Lake effect snows can occur with winds with an easterly component. Summers tend to be
33-6
-------
mild, although southerly winds out of the Gulf of Mexico can occasionally advect warm, humid
air into the area (Bair, 1992).
33.2.2 Meteorological Conditions in 2008-2009
Hourly meteorological data from the NWS weather station nearest this site were retrieved
for all of 2008 and 2009 (NCDC, 2008 and 2009). The closest NWS weather station is located at
West Bend Municipal Airport (WBAN 04875). Additional information about the West Bend
weather station is provided in Table 33-3. These data were used to determine how
meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal conditions throughout the year(s).
Table 33-3 presents average temperature (average maximum and average daily), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind (average scalar wind speed) information for days
samples were collected and for the entire year for both 2008 and 2009. Also included in
Table 33-3 is the 95 percent confidence interval for each parameter. As shown in Table 33-3,
average meteorological conditions on sample days were representative of average weather
conditions throughout the year for both years. Sea level pressure was not recorded at the West
Bend Municipal Airport.
33.2.3 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 33-3 and Figure 33-4 are the composite back trajectory maps for days on which
samples were collected at the MVWI monitoring site in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Figure 33-5
is the cluster analysis for both years, with 2008 clusters in blue and 2009 clusters in red. An in-
depth description of these maps and how they were generated is presented in Section 3.5.2.1. For
the composite maps, each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a given sample day. For the cluster analyses, each line
corresponds to a back trajectory representative of a given cluster of trajectories. For all maps,
each concentric circle around the site in Figures 33-3 through 33-5 represents 100 miles.
33-7
-------
Table 33-3. Average Meteorological Conditions near the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Closest NWS Station
(WBAN and
Coordinates)
Distance
and
Direction
from Site
Year
Average
Type1
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
Average
Scalar Wind
Speed
(kt)
Mayville, Wisconsin - MVWI
West Bend
Municipal Airport
04875
(43.42, -88.12)
19.39
miles
88°
(E)
2008
2009
Sample
Day
All Year
Sample
Day
All Year
53.3
±5.4
52.8
+ 2.3
54.1
±5.0
53.9
+ 2.2
45.3
±5.0
44.7
+ 2.2
45.7
±4.8
45.4
+ 2.0
38.2
±5.0
37.2
+ 2.1
35.9
±4.6
35.6
+ 1.9
42.0
±4.7
41.2
+ 2.0
41.2
±4.3
40.9
+ 1.8
78.3
±2.9
77.0
+ 1.1
71.8
±3.4
71.9
+ 1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.5
±0.7
5.5
+ 0.3
6.2
±0.8
5.7
+ 0.3
Sample day averages are highlighted in orange to help differentiate the sample day averages from the full year averages.
NA = Sea level pressure was not recorded at the West Bend Municipal Airport.
oo
-------
Figure 33-3. 2008 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MVWI
Figure 33-4. 2009 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MVWI
33-9
-------
Figure 33-5. Back Trajectory Cluster Map for MVWI
Observations from Figures 33-3 through 33-5 for MVWI include the following:
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at MVWI, although less
frequently from the east.
• The 24-hour air shed domain for MVWI was larger in size compared to many other
NMP monitoring sites. The farthest away a trajectory originated was just beyond the
northwest North Dakota border, or approximately 800 miles away. However, the
average trajectory length was 288 miles and most trajectories (83 percent) originated
within 450 miles of the site.
• The cluster map shows that 28 percent of the 2008 back trajectories are represented
by the short trajectory originating to the west of the site. The individual back
trajectories represented by this cluster trajectory originated from within 250 miles of
the site and originated from the northwest, west, and southwest. Longer trajectories
originating to the west and northwest account for another 19 percent of the 2008
trajectories. Thus, nearly 50 percent of 2008 trajectories originated from a direction
with a westerly component. For 2009, these directions accounted for fewer trajectory
origins, about 30 percent. Shorter trajectories originating from the northeast to
southeast accounted for 20 percent of trajectories in 2008 and 30 percent in 2009.
Trajectories originating to the south-southeast to south-southwest of the site
accounted for 19 percent of the trajectories in 2008 and 30 percent in 2009. Back
trajectories originating to the north-northwest to north-northeast accounted for four
percent in 2008 and 10 percent in 2009.
33-10
-------
33.2.4 Wind Rose Comparison
Hourly wind data from the NWS weather station at West Bend Municipal Airport near
MVWI were uploaded into a wind rose software program to produce customized wind roses, as
described in Section 3.5.2.2. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions using "petals"
positioned around a 16-point compass, and uses different colors to represent wind speeds.
Figure 33-6 presents five different wind roses for the MVWI monitoring site. First, a
historical wind rose representing 2003 to 2007 is presented, which shows the predominant
surface wind speed and direction over an extended period of time. Second, a wind rose for 2008
representing wind observations for the entire year and a wind rose representing days on which
samples were collected in 2008 are presented. Finally, a wind rose representing all of 2009 and a
wind rose for days that samples were collected in 2009 are presented. These can be used to
determine if wind observations on sample days were representative of conditions experienced
over the entire year.
Observations from Figure 33-6 for MVWI include the following:
• The historical wind rose shows that calm winds (<2 knots) were prevalent near
MVWI, as calm winds were observed for nearly 28 percent of the hourly
measurements. For winds greater than 2 knots, winds with a westerly component
were observed the most, particularly westerly and west-northwesterly winds. The
strongest wind speeds were associated with these two wind directions.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2008 wind rose resemble the historical wind patterns,
although winds from the west, west-northwest, and northwest were each observed
slightly more frequently. The 2008 sample day wind rose shows that fewer winds
from the southwest quadrant were observed while an increased percentage of winds
from the northwest quadrant (including north) were observed. Westerly winds were
still observed the most of any wind direction and calm winds still accounted for more
than a quarter of the observations.
• The wind patterns shown on the 2009 wind rose resemble the historical wind patterns,
but westerly, west-northwesterly, and northwesterly winds were each observed
slightly more frequently than the historical wind rose. The 2009 sample day wind rose
has an even higher percentage of westerly, west-northwesterly, and northwesterly
winds, and fewer calm wind observations.
33-11
-------
Figure 33-6. Wind Roses for the West Bend Municipal Airport Weather Station near MVWI
2008 Wind Rose
2008 Sample Day
Wind Rose
n 4.7
Calm; >5 24"i,
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
7- 11
4.7
2003 - 2007
Historical Wind Rose
2009 Wind Rose
n
2009 Sample Day
Wind Rose
-------
33.3 Pollutants of Interest
Site-specific "pollutants of interest" were determined for the Wisconsin monitoring site
in order to allow analysts and readers to focus on a subset of pollutants through the context of
risk. Each pollutant's preprocessed daily measurement was compared to its associated risk
screening value. If the concentration was greater than the risk screening value, then the
concentration "failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those for which the individual
pollutant's total failed screens contribute to the top 95 percent of the site's total failed screens. In
addition, if any of the NATTS MQO Core Analytes measured by the monitoring site did not
meet the pollutant of interest criteria based on the preliminary risk screening, that pollutant was
added to the list of site-specific pollutants of interest. A more in-depth description of the risk
screening process is presented in Section 3.2.
Table 33-4 presents MVWI's pollutants of interest. The pollutants that failed at least one
screen and contributed to 95 percent of the total failed screens for the monitoring site are shaded.
NATTS MQO Core Analytes are bolded. Thus, pollutants of interest are shaded and/or bolded.
MVWI sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium.
Table 33-4. Risk Screening Results for the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Screening
Value
(Ug/m3)
#of
Failed
Screens
#of
Measured
Detections
%of
Screens
Failed
% of Total
Failures
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Mayville, Wisconsin - MVWI
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
0.029
0.000083
Total
33
1
34
103
50
153
32.04
2.00
22.22
97.06
2.94
97.06
100.00
Observations from Table 33-4 include the following:
• Both naphthalene and hexavalent chromium failed screens for MVWI; however, all
but one of those failures were for naphthalene.
• Hexavalent chromium was detected in fewer than 50 percent of samples collected
(50 out of 120 valid samples) while naphthalene was detected in every sample
collected (103). Note that sampling for PAH did not begin until March 2008, thus
fewer total samples were collected.
33-13
-------
• Naphthalene was identified as the pollutant of interest for MVWI, based on the risk
screening process. However, hexavalent chromium was added to MVWI's pollutants
of interest because it is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even though it did not
contribute to 95 percent of the total failed screens. Benzo(a)pyrene was added to
MVWFs pollutants of interest because it is also a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, even
though it did not fail any screens. This pollutant is not shown in Table 33-4.
33.4 Concentrations
This section presents various concentration averages used to characterize pollution levels
at the Wisconsin monitoring site. Concentration averages are provided for the pollutants of
interest for the MVWI monitoring site, where applicable. In addition, concentration averages for
select pollutants are presented from previous years of sampling in order to characterize
concentration trends at the site, where applicable. Additional site-specific statistical summaries
are provided in Appendices J through O.
33.4.1 2008-2009 Concentration Averages
Daily, quarterly, and annual concentration averages were calculated for MVWFs
pollutants of interest, as described in Section 3.1.1. The daily average of a particular pollutant is
simply the average concentration of all measured detections. If there were at least seven
measured detections within a given calendar quarter, then a quarterly average was calculated.
The quarterly average calculations include the substitution of zeros for all non-detects. Finally,
the annual average includes all measured detections and substituted zeros for non-detects.
Annual averages were calculated for pollutants where three valid quarterly averages could be
calculated and where method completeness was greater than or equal to 85 percent. Daily,
quarterly, and annual averages are presented in Table 33-5, where applicable. The averages
presented in Table 33-5 are shown in ng/m3 for ease of viewing.
33-14
-------
Table 33-5. Daily, Quarterly, and Annual Average Concentrations of the Pollutants of Interest for the Wisconsin
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
2008
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
2009
Daily
Average
(ng/m3)
1st
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
2nd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
3rd
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
4th
Quarter
Average
(ng/m3)
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Mayville, Wisconsin - MVWI
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.06
±0.03
0.02
±0.01
25.55
±8.98
NA
0.01
±0.01
NA
0.02
±0.01
0.02
±0.01
15.29
±4.15
NA
0.02
±0.01
15.40
±4.17
0.05
±0.04
NA
44.45
±25.80
NA
0.01
±0.01
25.55
±8.98
0.11
±0.06
0.02
±0.01
32.02
±6.19
0.17
±0.11
NA
45.26
± 13.03
NA
NA
32.73
± 15.20
NA
NA
20.48
±7.93
0.07
±0.03
NA
27.01
±6.89
NA
NA
32.02
±6.19
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating a quarterly and/or annual average.
-------
Observations for MVWI from Table 33-5 include the following:
• The daily average concentrations of naphthalene were significantly higher than the
daily average concentrations of hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene.
• MVWI began sampling PAH in March 2008, so neither of these pollutants has a first
quarter 2008 average concentration. Additionally, benzo(a)pyrene and hexavalent
chromium did not have enough measured detections for several quarterly averages
(and annual averages in some cases) to be calculated.
• Although the fourth quarter 2008 and first quarter 2009 average concentrations for
naphthalene appear higher than the other seasons, the confidence intervals for these
averages are relatively high, suggesting the influence of outliers. The second quarter
average of 2009 also has a relatively high confidence interval. Three of the five
concentrations of naphthalene greater than 100 ng/m3 were measured during the
fourth quarter of 2008, and one each in the first and second quarter of 2009.
Naphthalene measurements ranged from 4.18 ng/m3 to 167 ng/m3, with a median of
19.4 ng/m3.
• Measurements of hexavalent chromium ranged from 0.0017 to 0.0841 ng/m3, with a
median concentration of 0.0151 ng/m3. The highest concentrations (0.0841 and
0.0766 ng/m3) were measured on May 6, 2008 and July 5, 2008.
33.4.2 Concentration Trends
A site-specific trends evaluation was completed for sites that have sampled one or more
of the selected NATTS MQO Core Analytes for 5 consecutive years or longer, as described in
Section 3.5.3. MVWI has sampled hexavalent chromium under the NMP since 2005. Thus,
Figure 33-7 presents the 3-year rolling statistical metrics for hexavalent chromium for MVWI.
The statistical metrics presented for assessing trends include the substitution of zeros for non-
detects.
33-16
-------
Figure 33-7. Three-Year Rolling Statistical Metrics for Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations Measured at MVWI
*n
1MMMT
JOMJOOt
Thf «-t«§r Nriod
- Minimum
• - •**.-,
Hexavalent chromium sampling at MWVI began in March 2005.
Observations from Figure 33-7 for hexavalent chromium measurements at MVWI
include the following:
• Sampling for hexavalent chromium at MVWI began in March 2005.
• The maximum hexavalent chromium concentration was measured at MVWI on
July 3, 2005. The next two highest concentrations were measured in 2008 and were
discussed in the previous section. Note that one of these concentrations was also
measured around the July 4th holiday on July 5, 2008. The eighth highest hexavalent
chromium concentration was measured on July 4, 2006. This supports the correlation
between higher hexavalent chromium concentrations and fireworks discussed in
Section 4.1.2.
• The rolling average concentration has decreased slightly since the onset of sampling.
However, confidence intervals calculated for these averages indicate that the decrease
is not statistically significant. The 95th percentile exhibits a similar decreasing trend.
• The minimum and 5th percentile are both zero for the first two 3-year periods,
indicating the presence of non-detects. For the third 3-year period, the minimum, 5th
percentile, and median concentrations are zero, indicating that at least 50 percent of
33-17
-------
the measurements are non-detects. The number of non-detects has varied over the
years of sampling, from as low as 38 percent in 2006 to as high as 75 percent in 2009.
33.5 Additional Risk Screening Evaluations
The following risk screening evaluations were conducted to characterize risk at the
Wisconsin monitoring site. Refer to Sections 3.3, 3.5.4.2, and 3.5.4.3 for definitions and
explanations regarding the various risk factors, time frames, and calculations associated with
these risk screenings.
33.5.1 Risk Screening Assessment Using MRLs
A noncancer risk screening was conducted by comparing the concentration data from the
Wisconsin monitoring site to the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRLs, where
available. As described in Section 3.3, acute risk results from exposures of 1 to 14 days;
intermediate risk results from exposures of 15 to 364 days; and chronic risk results from
exposures of 1 year or greater. The preprocessed daily measurements of the pollutants of interest
were compared to the acute MRL; the quarterly averages were compared to the intermediate
MRL; and the annual averages were compared to the chronic MRL. None of the measured
detections or time-period average concentrations of the pollutants of interest for the MVWI
monitoring site were higher than their respective MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
33.5.2 Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations
For the pollutants of interest for the Wisconsin monitoring site and where annual average
concentrations could be calculated, risk was further examined by calculating cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations (refer to Section 3.5.4.2 regarding the criteria for
annual averages and how cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations are calculated).
Annual averages, cancer UREs and/or noncancer RfCs, and cancer and noncancer surrogate risk
approximations are presented in Table 33-6, where applicable.
33-18
-------
Table 33-6. Cancer and Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations for the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Cancer
URE
(Hg/m3)1
Noncancer
RfC
(mg/m3)
2008
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
2009
# of Measured
Detections/Valid
Quarterly
Averages
Annual
Average
(ng/m3)
Risk Approximation
Cancer
(in-a-
million)
Noncancer
(HQ)
Mayville, Wisconsin - MVWI
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexavalent Chromium
Naphthalene
0.001
0.012
0.000034
0.0001
0.003
20/2
35/3
47/3
NA
0.01
±0.01
25.55
±8.98
NA
0.14
0.87
NA
0.01
0.01
31/2
15/0
56/4
NA
NA
32.02
±6.19
NA
NA
1.09
NA
NA
0.01
NA = Not available due to the criteria for calculating an annual average.
— = a Cancer URE or Noncancer RfC is not available.
-------
Observations for MVWI from Table 33-6 include the following:
• For 2008, cancer risk approximations based on annual averages for naphthalene and
hexavalent chromium were both less than 1.0 in-a-million. For 2009, an annual
average could only be calculated for naphthalene. The 2009 cancer risk
approximation for naphthalene was higher than its respective 2008 cancer risk
approximation (1.09 in-a-million, vs. 0.87 in-a-million for 2008).
• All noncancer risk approximations, where they could be calculated, were well below
the level of concern (an HQ of 1.0).
• Annual averages, and therefore cancer and noncancer risk approximations, could not
be calculated for benzo(a)pyrene.
33.5.3 Risk-Based Emissions Assessment
In addition to the risk screenings discussed above, Tables 33-7 and 33-8 present a risk-
based evaluation of county-level emissions based on cancer and noncancer toxicity, respectively.
Table 33-7 presents the 10 pollutants with the highest emissions from the 2005 NEI, the 10
pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, and the 10 pollutants with the highest
cancer risk approximations (in-a-million), as calculated from the annual averages. Table 33-8
presents similar information, but identifies the 10 pollutants with the highest noncancer risk
approximations (HQ), also calculated from annual averages. Risk approximations in green were
calculated from 2008 annual averages while risk approximations in white were calculated from
2009 annual averages, as denoted in the tables.
33-20
-------
Table 33-7. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Cancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with Cancer
UREs for the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants with Cancer
Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Cancer
Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Cancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Mayville, Wisconsin (Dodge County) - MVWI
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
87.63
57.76
28.25
14.98
14.87
12.74
6.74
6.31
4.54
3.28
Formaldehyde
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
POM, Group 3
Hexavalent Chromium, PM
Naphthalene
POM, Group 2
Tetrachloroethylene
Arsenic, PM
Acetaldehyde
7.22E-04
6.84E-04
3.82E-04
2.86E-04
2.39E-04
2.29E-04
1.54E-04
8.77E-05
6.46E-05
6.22E-05
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
Cancer Risk
Approximation
(in-a-million)
1.09
0.87
0.14
Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
Table 33-8. Top 10 Emissions, Toxicity-Weighted Emissions, and Noncancer Risk Approximations for Pollutants with
Noncancer RfCs for the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Top 10 Total Emissions for Pollutants
with Noncancer Risk Factors
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Emissions
(tpy)
Top 10 Noncancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions
(County-Level)
Pollutant
Noncancer Toxicity
Weight
Top 10 Noncancer Risk Approximations Based on
Annual Average Concentrations
(Site-Specific)1
Pollutant
Noncancer Risk
Approximation
(HQ)
Mayville, Wisconsin (Dodge County) - MVWI
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzene
Formaldehyde
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methanol
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene glycol
Acetaldehyde
330.90
176.66
87.63
57.76
52.19
37.68
36.60
34.77
33.09
28.25
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Manganese, PM
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Naphthalene
Xylenes
Bromomethane
Cyanide Compounds, gas
217,294.60
6,371.09
5,893.84
5,092.78
3,139.05
2,921.07
2,247.46
1,766.63
1,760.75
1,384.47
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Hexavalent Chromium
0.01
0.01
0.01
to
to
1 Green shading represents a 2008 risk approximation; white shading represents a 2009 risk approximation.
-------
The pollutants in these tables are limited to those that have cancer and noncancer risk
factors, respectively. As a result, although the actual value of the emissions is the same, the
highest emitted pollutants in the cancer table may be different from the noncancer table. The
cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations based on each site's annual averages are
limited to those pollutants for which each respective site sampled. As discussed in Section 33.3,
MVWI sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium. In addition, the cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations are limited to those pollutants with enough data to meet the criteria
for annual averages to be calculated. A more in-depth discussion of this analysis is provided in
Section 3.5.4.3.
Observations from Table 33-7 include the following:
• Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with
cancer UREs in Dodge County.
• Formaldehyde was the pollutant with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the
pollutants with cancer UREs), followed by benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
• Six of the highest emitted pollutants in Dodge County also had the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions.
• Naphthalene, which was the pollutant with the highest cancer risk approximations for
MVWI (albeit low), had the seventh highest emissions and the sixth highest toxicity-
weighted emissions for Dodge County. Benzo(a)pyrene does not appear on either
emissions-based list, while hexavalent chromium ranked fifth among the toxicity-
weighted emissions.
• POM Group 2 ranked seventh for toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 2
includes several PAH sampled for at MVWI including acenapthylene, fluoranthene,
perylene, and phenanthrene. None of the PAH included in POM Group 2 were
identified as pollutants of interest for MVWI. POM Group 3 ranked fourth for
toxicity-weighted emissions. POM Group 3 does not include any pollutants sampled
at MVWI.
Observations from Table 33-8 include the following:
• Toluene, xylenes, and benzene were the highest emitted pollutants with noncancer
RfCs in Dodge County.
• The pollutants with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions (of the pollutants with
noncancer RfCs) were acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.
33-23
-------
• Four of the highest emitted pollutants in Dodge County also had the highest toxicity-
weighted emissions.
• None of MVWFs pollutants of interest appear on among the highest emitted
pollutants (with noncancer RfCs) in Dodge County. Naphthalene, however, ranked
seventh for toxicity-weighted emissions.
33.6 Summary of the 2008-2009 Monitoring Data for MVWI
Results from several of the treatments described in this section include the following:
»«» Naphthalene and hexavalent chromium both failed at least one screen, although
naphthalene accounted for all but one of the failed screens. Both pollutants were
identified as pollutants of interest for MVWI. Benzo(a)pyrene was added to the
pollutants of interest because it is also aNATTSMQO Core Analyte.
»«» Naphthalene had the highest daily average concentrations among MVWI's pollutants
of interest.
»«» None of the preprocessed daily measurements and none of the quarterly or annual
average concentrations for the pollutants of interest, where they could be calculated,
were higher than their associatedMRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
33-24
-------
34.0 Data Quality
This section discusses the data quality of the ambient air measurements comprising the
2008 and 2009 NMP dataset. In accordance with the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) presented
in ERG's EPA-approved QAPP (ERG, 2008 and 2009), the following data quality indicators
were assessed: completeness, precision, and accuracy (also called bias).
The quality assessments presented in this section show that the 2008 and 2009
monitoring data are of a known and high quality. As indicators of the reliability and
representativeness of experimental measurements, both precision and accuracy are considered
when interpreting ambient air monitoring data. The method precision for collocated and
duplicate analyses met the precision DQOs for some methods, but not for all. The analytical
precision level for replicate analyses met the DQOs. Audit samples show that ERG is meeting
the accuracy requirements of the NATTS TAD (EPA, 2009b).
34.1 Completeness
Completeness refers to the number of valid samples collected and analyzed compared to
the number of total samples attempted. The DQO for completeness based on the EPA-approved
QAPP specifies that at least 85 percent of samples collected at a given monitoring site must be
analyzed successfully to be considered sufficient for data trends analysis (ERG, 2008 and 2009).
Completeness statistics are presented in Section 2.4. The goal of 85 percent completeness was
met by all but 10 site-method combinations (out of 291).
34.2 Method Precision
Precision defines the level of agreement realized between independent measurements
performed according to identical protocols and procedures. Method precision, which includes
sampling and analytical precision, quantifies random errors associated with collecting ambient
air samples and analyzing the samples in the laboratory. Method precision is evaluated by
comparing concentrations measured in duplicate or collocated 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 two canisters
34-1
-------
and doubling the flow rate applied to achieve integration over the 24-hour collection period.
Collocated samples are samples collected simultaneously using two independent collection
systems at the same location at the same time.
Both approaches provide valuable, but different, assessments of method precision:
• Analysis of duplicate samples provides information on the potential for variability (or
precision) expected from a single collection system (intra-system assessment).
• Analysis of collocated samples provides information on the potential for variability
(or precision) expected between different collection systems (inter-system
assessment).
During the 2008 and 2009 sampling years, duplicate and collocated samples were
collected on at least 10 percent of the scheduled sample days, as outlined in the QAPP. Most of
these samples were analyzed in replicate. Collocated systems were not provided under the
national contract for sites sampling PAH and were the responsibility of the participating agency.
Thus, duplicate/collocated samples were not collected for most PAH sites because there were
few collocated samplers and the samplers used were not equipped to collect duplicate samples.
Therefore, the method precision data for PAH is based on only eight sites for 2008 and 2009, as
they were the only sites with collocated systems.
Method precision was calculated by comparing the concentrations of the
duplicates/collocates for each compound. Three parameters were used to quantify random errors
indicated by duplicate/collocated analyses of samples:
• Average concentration difference simply quantifies how duplicate or collocated
analytical results differ, on average, for each pollutant and each sample. When
interpreting central tendency estimates for specific pollutants sampled during the
2008 and 2009 monitoring effort, participating agencies are encouraged to compare
central tendencies to the average concentration differences. If a pollutant's average
concentration difference exceeds or nearly equals its central tendency, the analytical
method may not be capable of precisely characterizing the concentrations. Therefore,
data interpretation for these pollutants 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 pollutant.
34-2
-------
• Relative percent difference (RPD) expresses concentration differences relative to the
average concentrations measured during duplicate or collocated analyses. The RPD is
calculated as follows:
X
Where:
X\ is the ambient air concentration of a given pollutant measured in one sample;
Xi is the concentration of the same pollutant measured during duplicate or collocated
analysis; and
X is the arithmetic mean of X\ and Xi.
As this equation shows, duplicate or collocated analyses with low variability have
lower RPDs (and better precision), and duplicate or collocated 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.
X
Where:
a is the standard deviation of the sets of duplicate or collocated results;
X is the arithmetic mean of the sets of duplicate or collocated results;
The CV is used to determine the imprecision in survey estimates introduced from
analysis. A coefficient of one percent would indicate that the analytical results could
vary slightly due to sampling error, while a variation of 50 percent means that the
results are more imprecise. The CV for duplicate or collocated samples was
calculated for each pollutant and each site.
The following approach was employed to estimate how precisely samples were collected
and analyzed:
• CVs, RPDs, and concentration differences were calculated for every duplicate or
collocated analysis performed during the program. In cases where pollutants were not
detected during duplicate/collocated analyses, non-detects were replaced with
1/2 MDL. Sites with two or less sets of valid duplicate or collocated samples were not
included in these calculations.
• To make an overall estimate of method precision, program-average CVs, RPDs, and
absolute concentration differences were calculated for each pollutant by averaging the
values from the individual duplicate or collocated analyses. The expression "average
variability" or "median variability" for a given dataset refers to the average or median
CV.
34-3
-------
For each of the above calculations used to assess method precision, the substitution of 1/2 MDL
was made for all cases where one sample yielded a measurement and the other yielded a non-
detect. This substitution often resulted in higher CVs and RPDs. Duplicate or collocated pairs
that were both non-detect were not considered in the calculations.
Table 34-1 presents the 2008 and 2009 NMP average method precision for VOC,
SNMOC, carbonyl compounds, metals, hexavalent chromium, and PAH, presented as CV and
RPD. The overall carbonyl compounds and metals method precision (the average for all sites)
met the program DQOs, which are 15 percent CV and 25 percent RPD. The overall VOC,
SNMOC, hexavalent chromium, and PAH method precision were above the program DQOs. The
CVs and RPDs that exceed the program DQOs were driven largely by the following factors:
• the inclusion of measurements below the MDL,
• the substitution of 1/2 MDLs for non-detects, and
• concentration differences for very small concentrations may yield large CVs and
RPDs (i.i
percent).
RPDs (i.e., the concentration difference between 0.001 ng/m3 and 0.002 ng/m3 is 100
Table 34-1. Method Precision by Analytical Method
Method
VOC
SNMOC
Carbonyl Compounds
Metals
Hexavalent Chromium
PAH
DQO
Average
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
18.78
19.85
8.52
12.72
23.27
19.39
15.00
Average
Relative Percent
Difference
(%)
34.69
31.58
11.53
11.44
32.93
29.06
25.00
Tables 34-2 through 34-5, 34-7 through 34-10, 34-12 through 34-15, 34-17 through 34-
18, 34-20, and 34-21 through 34-22 present average concentration differences, RPDs, and CVs
as estimates of method precision for VOC, SNMOC, carbonyl compounds, metals, hexavalent
chromium, and PAH, respectively. Tables 34-6, 34-11, 34-16, 34-19, and 34-23 present the
34-4
-------
average CVs per pollutant, per site, and per method. Pollutants exceeding the 15 percent control
limit for CV and/or the 25 percent control limit for RPD are bolded in each table.
34.2.1 VOC Method Precision
Table 34-2 presents the method precision for all duplicate and collocated VOC samples.
The average concentration differences observed for duplicate and collocated analyses of VOC
ranged from less than 0.01 ppbv (several compounds) to 18.72 ppbv (acetonitrile). Twenty-eight
out of 60 VOC showed greater variation than the target CV of 15 percent.
Table 34-2. VOC Method Precision: 498 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
?raw5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Number of
Observations
476
498
485
39
9
498
0
26
11
469
469
494
496
14
421
478
498
1
0
32
1
1
1
372
498
7
15
2
0
12
498
Average RPD
(%)
53.58
9.57
49.10
109.22
57.84
14.64
NA
25.34
31.69
16.92
18.39
33.95
18.76
19.22
47.17
19.75
7.14
93.33
NA
36.27
169.23
0.00
0.00
28.18
5.96
64.19
45.70
149.25
NA
34.65
26.46
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
18.72
0.08
0.24
0.12
<0.01
0.06
NA
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.20
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
NA
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.04
NA
0.01
0.12
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
37.89
6.77
34.72
77.23
40.90
10.36
NA
17.92
22.41
11.97
13.00
24.01
13.27
13.59
33.35
13.96
5.05
66.00
NA
25.65
119.66
0.00
0.00
19.93
4.22
45.39
32.31
105.53
NA
24.50
18.71
34-5
-------
Table 34-2. VOC Method Precision: 498 Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl ferMSutyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
w,£>-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
0
0
0
498
0
0
498
4
497
439
34
52
449
498
444
1
453
498
1
498
7
154
497
498
490
463
72
498
498
14,862
Average RPD
(%)
NA
NA
NA
11.79
NA
NA
14.55
50.64
33.86
35.05
31.15
20.55
23.71
15.02
29.63
158.62
18.41
15.65
13.33
11.89
65.98
44.76
7.19
7.07
19.93
21.29
60.09
17.23
14.86
34.69
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.03
0.01
0.60
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
NA
NA
NA
8.33
NA
NA
10.29
35.81
23.94
24.79
22.03
14.53
16.77
10.62
20.95
112.16
13.02
11.07
9.43
8.41
46.65
31.65
5.08
5.00
14.09
15.06
42.49
12.18
10.51
24.53
The VOC method precision for all collocated samples is presented in Table 34-3. The
range of variability was 0.0 percent (w-dichlorobenzene and o-dichlorobenzene) to 114.53
percent (acrylonitrile). The average variability was 23.99 percent.
34-6
-------
Table 34-3. VOC Method Precision: 262 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloro methane
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl ferMSutyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl ter/-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
Number of
Observations
251
262
254
9
4
262
0
26
7
247
248
258
261
12
226
250
262
0
0
32
0
1
1
208
262
1
7
1
0
4
262
0
0
0
262
0
0
262
1
262
236
12
8
240
262
230
Average RPD
(%)
75.00
9.05
47.15
161.97
72.14
16.26
NA
25.34
50.59
15.13
20.17
46.60
16.53
4.16
50.31
23.95
7.16
NA
NA
36.27
NA
0.00
0.00
36.45
6.21
18.18
33.60
120.00
NA
28.23
35.03
NA
NA
NA
14.51
NA
NA
16.82
18.18
34.36
38.72
38.05
20.44
26.94
16.53
27.58
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
36.53
0.08
0.19
0.17
0.01
0.07
NA
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
O.01
0.01
NA
0.01
0.12
NA
NA
NA
O.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
53.04
6.40
33.34
114.53
51.01
11.50
NA
17.92
35.77
10.70
14.26
32.95
11.68
2.94
35.58
16.94
5.06
NA
NA
25.65
NA
0.00
0.00
25.78
4.39
12.86
23.76
84.85
NA
19.96
24.77
NA
NA
NA
10.26
NA
NA
11.89
12.86
24.30
27.38
26.90
14.45
19.05
11.69
19.50
34-7
-------
Table 34-3. VOC Method Precision: 262 Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
retrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
rrichloroethylene
rrichlorofluoromethane
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
w,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
1
240
262
1
262
0
77
262
262
261
247
22
262
262
7,814
Average RPD
(%)
158.62
23.87
18.46
13.33
12.61
NA
47.71
7.30
7.87
22.70
23.91
82.36
19.15
16.57
33.92
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.09
<0.01
0.01
NA
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
1.08
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
112.16
16.88
13.05
9.43
8.91
NA
33.73
5.16
5.57
16.05
16.91
58.24
13.54
11.71
23.99
Table 34-4 presents the method precision results for all duplicate analyses for VOC. The
variability ranged from 4.04 percent (dichlorodifluoromethane) to 126.21 percent
(1,1-dichloroethene). The average variability was 25.08 percent.
Table 34-4. VOC Method Precision: 236 Duplicate Samples
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
ter/-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Number of
Observations
225
236
231
30
5
236
0
0
4
222
221
236
235
2
195
228
236
Average RPD
(%)
32.16
10.08
51.05
56.47
43.55
13.03
NA
NA
12.79
18.72
16.61
21.30
21.00
34.29
44.02
15.54
7.13
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.91
0.08
0.29
0.08
0.01
0.05
NA
NA
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.06
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
22.74
7.13
36.10
39.93
30.79
9.21
NA
NA
9.05
13.23
11.74
15.06
14.85
24.24
31.13
10.99
5.04
34-8
-------
Table 34-4. VOC Method Precision: 236 Duplicate Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fer/-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fer/-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
rrichloroethylene
rrichlorofluoromethane
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
w,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
1
0
0
1
0
0
164
236
6
8
1
0
8
236
0
0
0
236
0
0
236
3
235
203
22
44
209
236
214
0
213
236
0
236
7
77
235
236
229
216
50
236
236
7,048
Average RPD
(%)
93.33
NA
NA
169.23
NA
NA
19.91
5.71
110.19
57.79
178.49
NA
41.08
17.90
NA
NA
NA
9.06
NA
NA
12.28
83.10
33.36
31.38
24.26
20.66
20.49
13.50
31.69
NA
12.95
12.85
NA
11.17
65.98
41.82
7.07
6.27
17.15
18.68
37.81
15.30
13.16
35.46
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.04
NA
0.01
0.11
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.05
0.01
O.01
0.08
0.01
NA
O.01
0.07
NA
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.07
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
66.00
NA
NA
119.66
NA
NA
14.08
4.04
77.92
40.87
126.21
NA
29.05
12.66
NA
NA
NA
6.41
NA
NA
8.68
58.76
23.59
22.19
17.15
14.61
14.49
9.55
22.41
NA
9.15
9.08
NA
7.90
46.65
29.57
5.00
4.44
12.13
13.21
26.73
10.82
9.30
25. 08
34-9
-------
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program in the NATTS TAD, Table 34-5
presents the average VOC method precision results for duplicate and collocated samples for all
of the NATTS sites that sampled VOC (BTUT, DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, PXSS, S4MO, and
SEW A). Shaded rows present results for the NATTS MQO Core Analytes, as identified in
Section 3.2. Variability ranged from less than 0.01 percent (1,2-dichloroethane) to 71.74 percent
(1,1-dichloroethene), with an average variability of 19.58 percent.
Table 34-5. VOC Method Precision: 150 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
for the NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
?ra«5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
139
150
141
16
1
150
0
26
5
145
144
148
149
12
135
148
150
0
0
28
0
0
0
120
150
o
6
i
i
0
6
150
0
0
0
Average RPD
(%)
43.95
11.54
41.65
68.78
20.69
11.31
NA
24.60
67.45
16.89
20.10
29.73
16.35
4.16
50.45
23.76
7.83
NA
NA
27.04
NA
NA
NA
21.96
6.65
101.46
0.01
13.33
NA
21.85
32.80
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
1.21
0.11
0.15
0.09
<0.01
0.05
NA
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
NA
NA
O.01
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
O.01
NA
O.01
0.17
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
31.08
8.16
29.45
48.64
14.63
8.00
NA
17.39
47.70
11.94
14.21
21.03
11.56
2.94
35.67
16.80
5.54
NA
NA
19.12
NA
NA
NA
15.53
4.70
71.74
0.01
9.43
NA
15.45
23.19
NA
NA
NA
34-10
-------
Table 34-5. VOC Method Precision: 150 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
for the NATTS Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
toichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
w,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
148
0
2
148
4
150
140
17
2
142
150
140
0
147
150
1
150
3
64
149
148
149
145
15
150
150
4,583
Average RPD
(%)
19.55
NA
8.96
11.25
28.89
33.73
25.14
46.45
50.00
20.72
14.72
28.47
NA
14.57
11.19
13.33
11.38
97.44
39.94
8.47
5.91
14.01
17.96
71.52
11.54
12.29
27.70
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
NA
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.01
NA
0.01
0.07
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
13.82
NA
6.33
7.95
20.43
23.85
17.77
32.84
35.36
14.65
10.41
20.13
NA
10.30
7.92
9.43
8.05
68.90
28.24
5.99
4.18
9.91
12.70
50.57
8.16
8.69
19.58
Table 34-6 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall average CV for all NMP sites sampling VOC. The average pollutant-specific CV ranged
from 0 percent for a few compounds for several sites to 139.28 percent (acetonitrile for PROK).
The overall average was 18.78 percent.
34-11
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
/w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
(%)
41.82
7.03
33.08
70.42
43.95
10.66
NA
17.39
18.91
11.22
12.75
24.17
12.90
13.59
30.00
14.01
4.69
66.00
NA
37.76
119.66
NA
NA
23.23
3.86
47.14
36.44
Anchorage, AK
(ANAK)
16.31
18.10
23.04
7.96
NA
12.09
NA
NA
NA
21.93
26.10
30.52
15.24
NA
54.71
11.52
10.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.63
4.18
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
24.40
8.72
47.03
49.17
NA
6.38
NA
NA
NA
22.33
6.34
11.94
13.78
NA
27.68
17.12
5.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.59
4.53
9.43
NA
Burlington, VT
(BURVT)
26.49
6.38
26.68
NA
NA
7.47
NA
NA
NA
10.31
24.07
23.26
7.18
NA
28.46
8.04
5.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.14
6.54
84.85
7.86
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
7.31
3.64
22.39
NA
NA
17.02
NA
NA
NA
17.10
11.56
12.42
9.02
NA
22.23
34.05
5.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.91
3.91
NA
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
18.97
6.85
28.88
81.43
NA
11.67
NA
NA
NA
10.34
25.17
20.40
11.35
24.24
28.05
9.33
4.59
NA
NA
NA
119.66
NA
NA
17.11
4.48
NA
12.86
tt
O ^
|l
£v
12.35
15.20
19.19
NA
NA
27.57
NA
NA
NA
15.01
27.00
8.80
6.89
NA
8.64
9.04
3.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.43
4.37
NA
NA
Custer, SD
(CUSD)
32.24
3.79
28.95
128.76
NA
7.68
NA
NA
NA
6.61
8.70
2.98
16.58
NA
23.35
34.50
1.85
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35.36
1.64
NA
NA
Dearborn, MI
(DEMI)
24.74
3.58
32.83
NA
NA
5.53
NA
NA
NA
12.69
8.97
26.00
3.30
2.94
12.62
29.22
4.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.16
3.00
NA
NA
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
c/'s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl ferMSutyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Average
(%)
78.49
NA
27.37
18.47
NA
NA
NA
8.56
NA
5.42
10.54
30.75
23.03
26.89
31.73
18.71
17.10
10.59
22.21
112.16
15.55
12.34
NA
8.36
48.27
41.91
4.41
Anchorage, AK
(ANAK)
NA
NA
20.94
21.02
NA
NA
NA
2.62
NA
NA
9.71
NA
16.57
14.97
NA
NA
7.68
11.43
14.41
NA
12.50
10.05
NA
7.33
NA
17.68
4.29
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
126.21
NA
NA
12.33
NA
NA
NA
7.58
NA
NA
7.76
41.59
14.36
18.36
NA
NA
7.66
10.10
23.10
NA
10.20
9.68
NA
7.06
NA
60.40
4.70
Burlington, VT
(BURVT)
NA
NA
NA
17.70
NA
NA
NA
6.40
NA
NA
7.86
NA
19.29
32.96
NA
NA
13.95
12.14
18.68
NA
15.15
6.68
NA
6.95
NA
115.71
5.30
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
NA
8.40
NA
NA
NA
4.60
NA
NA
8.06
NA
17.82
9.43
NA
11.16
7.12
6.18
32.23
NA
8.54
5.05
NA
7.88
NA
7.44
3.82
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
NA
NA
NA
30.55
NA
NA
NA
7.59
NA
NA
12.59
NA
18.59
26.90
12.86
15.90
21.70
10.39
28.62
NA
11.63
11.60
NA
7.96
NA
62.27
3.97
tt
O ,-*,
|l
£v
NA
NA
NA
7.95
NA
NA
NA
10.68
NA
NA
30.81
NA
36.89
44.88
NA
NA
24.53
29.56
48.08
NA
10.10
31.43
NA
6.84
23.57
78.57
3.86
Custer, SD
(CUSD)
NA
NA
NA
6.58
NA
NA
NA
2.93
NA
NA
7.10
NA
25.66
23.62
NA
NA
24.77
5.37
25.46
NA
5.03
4.73
NA
7.11
NA
NA
2.58
Dearborn, MI
(DEMI)
NA
NA
NA
8.52
NA
NA
NA
4.29
NA
NA
5.79
NA
19.08
12.36
62.23
NA
9.25
9.97
24.76
NA
12.29
5.34
NA
3.66
NA
12.57
1.99
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
4.98
16.76
16.20
41.42
12.72
11.13
18.78
*
3
^N
6X
^3 -^
O 17"
_j< -^
4.99
7.49
8.24
12.86
9.84
7.89
14.30
H
€\
tS /-^
3 H
CQ d*
4.92
8.21
8.84
35.36
5.40
7.33
19.66
H
a /-s
"& ^
"S tj
^B
4.67
16.81
19.45
111.96
8.42
7.45
21.88
^
Z
B" ,-v
1 ^
U B
3.93
23.65
36.30
19.64
10.32
7.37
12.48
,
Z
"^ Z
u B
5.24
20.82
19.38
10.88
21.49
15.45
27.36
W
O ^^
o g
CM B
5.77
36.98
25.71
15.71
52.84
36.58
22.74
Q
!/5
•J Q
u B
3.88
10.59
14.56
NA
18.67
11.35
17.19
5
r-
,->
"1 |
Q vv
1.82
4.23
5.00
40.41
6.19
5.09
72.SP
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
/w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
(%)
41.82
7.03
33.08
70.42
43.95
10.66
NA
17.39
18.91
11.22
12.75
24.17
12.90
13.59
30.00
14.01
4.69
66.00
NA
37.76
119.66
NA
NA
23.23
3.86
47.14
36.44
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
25.43
7.36
35.98
33.43
33.67
7.64
NA
NA
NA
13.55
8.66
9.74
16.70
NA
27.97
7.96
5.49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.25
4.66
NA
7.86
Tacoma, WA
(EQWA)
61.99
3.40
41.98
NA
NA
6.58
NA
NA
NA
7.55
6.07
42.73
3.16
NA
53.06
7.64
5.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.48
2.32
NA
NA
-J
fe ^
j?i
II
41.43
7.16
66.05
NA
NA
12.15
NA
NA
9.05
15.21
22.16
50.44
27.29
NA
14.44
15.69
10.21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.68
4.75
NA
NA
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
23.47
3.86
21.76
20.20
NA
8.90
NA
NA
NA
8.35
7.06
12.52
14.00
NA
35.40
7.56
3.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.85
4.26
NA
NA
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
30.59
1.12
13.19
NA
NA
4.93
NA
NA
NA
5.66
6.15
5.11
13.11
NA
NA
16.97
2.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.86
0.29
NA
NA
Loudon, TN
(LDTN)
23.56
17.03
26.99
122.32
24.96
8.94
NA
NA
NA
10.64
14.90
15.57
21.80
NA
38.14
26.10
5.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36.09
5.33
NA
NA
Memphis, TN
(METN)
23.77
6.92
52.18
18.30
NA
8.14
NA
NA
NA
10.32
6.80
9.13
22.54
NA
21.22
10.87
7.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.02
6.75
NA
NA
Loudon, TN
(MSTN)
24.26
6.60
26.54
68.69
63.49
18.25
NA
NA
NA
14.67
18.00
19.68
19.22
NA
42.78
17.02
5.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.15
2.95
NA
79.33
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
c/'s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl tort-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Average
(%)
78.49
NA
27.37
18.47
NA
NA
NA
8.56
NA
5.42
10.54
30.75
23.03
26.89
31.73
18.71
17.10
10.59
22.21
112.16
15.55
12.34
NA
8.36
48.27
41.91
4.41
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
NA
NA
NA
12.95
NA
NA
NA
7.56
NA
NA
8.25
87.55
34.65
14.18
21.84
11.52
13.88
6.59
14.68
NA
8.20
7.26
NA
10.65
NA
20.92
4.52
Tacoma, WA
(EQWA)
NA
NA
NA
11.37
NA
NA
NA
3.71
NA
NA
6.65
NA
24.23
10.66
NA
7.48
11.70
7.42
10.75
NA
4.97
5.27
NA
10.54
NA
17.16
2.10
-J
fe ^
j?i
II
NA
NA
NA
18.81
NA
NA
NA
4.24
NA
NA
12.61
NA
47.92
32.63
NA
28.28
20.17
31.29
34.76
NA
21.61
10.80
NA
4.29
15.71
124.59
3.91
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
76.15
NA
6.43
4.91
NA
NA
NA
5.91
NA
NA
5.38
NA
14.79
8.99
13.33
NA
8.52
5.01
6.62
NA
3.51
6.83
NA
8.54
76.15
13.42
3.91
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
NA
NA
NA
2.67
NA
NA
NA
9.43
NA
NA
4.04
NA
9.79
NA
NA
NA
6.15
10.96
NA
NA
64.28
3.79
NA
3.82
NA
NA
0.58
Loudon, TN
(LDTN)
NA
NA
NA
35.40
NA
NA
NA
6.85
NA
5.66
18.97
16.97
25.00
32.13
57.17
NA
18.07
7.96
26.95
112.16
34.97
13.85
NA
10.61
NA
6.73
4.62
Memphis, TN
(METN)
47.14
NA
NA
17.97
NA
NA
NA
7.73
NA
NA
11.09
NA
24.77
13.41
NA
NA
20.71
3.81
17.42
NA
3.53
9.09
NA
12.09
64.28
NA
5.81
Loudon, TN
(MSTN)
NA
NA
NA
23.52
NA
NA
NA
6.56
NA
NA
20.56
NA
14.55
35.22
NA
NA
20.74
21.49
9.02
NA
35.76
27.84
NA
9.24
NA
NA
16.16
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
4.98
16.76
16.20
41.42
12.72
11.13
18.78
Z
«•
"S3 o
^^ ^^
II
4.65
7.04
10.72
45.41
9.19
8.12
76.52
|j
^
s ^
s <
H S
26.02
5.36
4.74
17.94
5.95
6.54
13.99
-J
fe / V
€v .J
11
4.66
10.05
13.67
14.28
8.37
7.23
22.27
a*
o
lo
H-5 p^
^3 C^
2o
O U
4.22
5.50
6.52
12.86
5.89
5.62
13.36
C/5
»•
5?
^H
||
4.56
58.23
32.64
12.86
8.73
8.84
12.64
z
^
a" o
o f<
•a H
0 °
6.21
25.52
20.81
NA
23.47
14.98
24.95
H
wT
•s Z
ll
6.57
29.18
19.43
7.41
12.55
11.01
16.64
z
^
a Z
0 £
•a H
11
4.08
19.53
20.09
59.38
21.52
20.09
24.44
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
oo
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
/w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
(%)
41.82
7.03
33.08
70.42
43.95
10.66
NA
17.39
18.91
11.22
12.75
24.17
12.90
13.59
30.00
14.01
4.69
66.00
NA
37.76
119.66
NA
NA
23.23
3.86
47.14
36.44
Midwest City,
OK (MWOK)
47.66
3.26
30.57
NA
NA
11.94
NA
NA
NA
7.26
5.66
22.43
9.55
NA
14.35
7.00
2.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.43
3.25
NA
NA
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
51.71
21.32
23.94
NA
NA
9.79
NA
24.17
NA
14.97
45.07
21.02
6.72
NA
43.67
26.66
11.46
NA
NA
13.54
NA
NA
NA
37.46
9.44
NA
0.00
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
13.39
7.61
36.56
NA
74.87
8.49
NA
NA
NA
13.05
7.08
11.98
13.37
NA
12.33
6.32
3.45
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.36
4.86
NA
NA
Oklahoma City,
OK (OCOK)
119.66
0.68
10.30
NA
NA
2.58
NA
NA
NA
6.73
5.24
14.43
2.07
NA
32.64
4.29
2.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34.40
0.98
NA
NA
tt
O
£
is
tt
139.28
4.59
46.14
126.43
52.10
15.16
NA
NA
NA
10.49
7.86
87.01
15.09
NA
19.96
7.92
3.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.16
3.61
NA
NA
Phoenix, AZ
(PXSS)
53.15
6.12
16.85
114.31
NA
12.03
NA
10.61
47.70
8.73
7.23
55.94
9.31
NA
29.90
16.29
5.70
NA
NA
24.69
NA
NA
NA
6.78
5.38
NA
NA
O
S
22
'3 S"
31
£§
23.17
10.85
31.20
10.86
14.63
6.94
NA
NA
NA
9.18
20.16
2.73
16.01
NA
42.65
5.41
3.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.87
2.98
NA
NA
Seattle, WA
(SEWA)
16.91
2.68
32.53
NA
NA
6.42
NA
NA
NA
7.33
4.69
17.02
17.82
NA
57.77
15.32
3.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.96
3.35
NA
NA
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
c/'s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fer/-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Average
(%)
78.49
NA
27.37
18.47
NA
NA
NA
8.56
NA
5.42
10.54
30.75
23.03
26.89
31.73
18.71
17.10
10.59
22.21
112.16
15.55
12.34
NA
8.36
48.27
41.91
4.41
Midwest City,
OK (MWOK)
NA
NA
NA
6.39
NA
NA
NA
6.43
NA
NA
7.45
NA
24.80
19.53
NA
NA
12.16
12.61
26.14
NA
5.76
9.60
NA
2.72
NA
70.71
3.14
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
NA
NA
NA
60.37
NA
NA
NA
17.59
NA
NA
19.46
12.86
39.58
28.84
NA
NA
44.05
22.29
36.70
NA
29.29
15.02
9.43
8.33
NA
37.68
8.65
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
NA
NA
NA
6.98
NA
NA
NA
5.17
NA
4.29
6.07
2.32
12.64
29.93
NA
15.02
9.76
6.21
24.00
NA
6.85
12.41
NA
4.21
NA
5.13
4.29
Oklahoma City,
OK (OCOK)
NA
NA
NA
19.48
NA
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.82
51.63
NA
NA
2.28
2.12
15.71
NA
38.57
10.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.36
tt
O
£
is
tt
NA
NA
NA
13.32
NA
NA
NA
9.34
NA
NA
10.62
NA
16.96
23.66
NA
NA
28.70
10.20
14.08
NA
26.62
19.48
NA
18.82
NA
NA
2.81
Phoenix, AZ
(PXSS)
12.86
NA
35.36
30.59
NA
NA
NA
7.42
NA
NA
6.05
NA
27.08
23.74
22.98
35.36
10.14
8.99
8.97
NA
5.97
7.87
NA
13.12
NA
25.74
5.05
O
S
22
'3 S"
31
£§
NA
NA
NA
9.43
NA
NA
NA
8.43
NA
6.33
5.94
6.83
35.39
25.80
NA
NA
10.95
8.10
18.53
NA
4.65
6.05
NA
9.38
61.65
7.01
14.49
Seattle, WA
(SEWA)
NA
NA
4.56
36.21
NA
NA
NA
45.55
NA
NA
5.30
NA
16.65
6.32
NA
NA
11.98
8.42
22.22
NA
6.20
4.63
NA
6.22
NA
40.86
3.12
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
4.98
16.76
16.20
41.42
12.72
11.13
18.78
>,£
ug
*> £
sj §
§ O
4.17
12.68
11.50
NA
8.07
9.21
14.17
J
M
O
g
•° 2
"t §
Z £<
5.55
29.89
39.52
79.93
23.52
21.48
25.70
_u
O ^
P3
fe 5-
O h^
Z Z
3.79
7.58
10.63
12.15
5.37
8.09
11.96
£
^ 0
€ ?T
o z
1 U
O O
1.52
12.12
4.88
NA
2.59
2.53
14.90
O
"1
!• __i
U ^q
!,§
CM fe
3.90
23.92
15.32
NA
26.92
12.64
26.43
&\
t*
_H / ^
o f)
1» C/5
O ^
£ &>
5.53
6.12
7.82
84.85
4.61
6.01
20.82
O
VI
3 O
3§
Q^ \ /
3.62
8.79
11.47
67.96
5.60
7.12
14.84
<
^ r~v
a?^
lw
^ S
3.58
6.63
9.74
32.64
5.90
8.19
14.56
to
o
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
to
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
/w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
(%)
41.82
7.03
33.08
70.42
43.95
10.66
NA
17.39
18.91
11.22
12.75
24.17
12.90
13.59
30.00
14.01
4.69
66.00
NA
37.76
119.66
NA
NA
23.23
3.86
47.14
36.44
Schiller Park, IL
(SPIL)
71.74
4.93
59.26
NA
NA
22.85
NA
NA
0.00
21.74
17.06
73.08
17.94
NA
42.15
17.86
2.36
NA
NA
33.25
NA
NA
NA
27.71
2.69
NA
NA
P
C/5
€\
5«
"3
HP
s v
0 E/3
££
20.86
2.88
44.64
NA
NA
4.90
NA
NA
NA
18.82
7.44
23.46
11.18
NA
62.21
8.79
3.35
66.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.70
2.65
NA
87.26
Tulsa, OK
(TMOK)
55.68
2.91
7.44
NA
NA
5.27
NA
NA
NA
6.73
2.77
7.86
2.80
NA
0.00
7.44
0.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
56.26
3.11
NA
NA
Tulsa, OK
(TOOK)
119.07
6.74
34.80
NA
NA
18.79
NA
NA
NA
9.79
12.50
42.73
9.95
NA
34.99
18.17
3.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.17
3.49
NA
NA
tt
!§
•3°
£b
113.05
8.96
40.21
133.54
NA
20.29
NA
NA
NA
7.24
10.62
46.01
12.78
NA
29.28
7.96
5.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.03
7.06
NA
NA
C/5
S
o"^
•is
O.LJ
£b
20.08
2.97
44.33
NA
NA
6.50
NA
NA
NA
0.00
7.71
2.92
23.80
NA
30.30
9.43
0.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.29
NA
76.15
Tulsa, OK
(TUOK)
45.82
5.31
41.11
NA
NA
7.50
NA
NA
NA
4.24
10.96
30.13
11.05
NA
22.43
22.38
2.82
NA
NA
79.55
NA
NA
NA
49.95
2.93
NA
NA
Union County,
SD (UCSD)
9.72
13.47
45.17
NA
NA
10.61
NA
NA
NA
10.56
8.35
13.42
12.28
NA
16.71
4.35
6.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.58
NA
20.20
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
to
to
Pollutant
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
c/'s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl ferMSutyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Average
(%)
78.49
NA
27.37
18.47
NA
NA
NA
8.56
NA
5.42
10.54
30.75
23.03
26.89
31.73
18.71
17.10
10.59
22.21
112.16
15.55
12.34
NA
8.36
48.27
41.91
4.41
Schiller Park, IL
(SPIL)
NA
NA
NA
44.02
NA
NA
NA
11.23
NA
NA
12.70
NA
32.48
20.61
NA
NA
29.96
13.51
28.93
NA
23.28
14.40
NA
5.48
NA
41.69
3.17
P
C/5
€\
5«
"3
*P
s v
0 E/3
££
98.57
NA
32.64
3.75
NA
NA
NA
3.91
NA
NA
6.40
47.14
20.32
24.99
NA
24.96
14.23
8.23
28.51
NA
4.50
6.33
NA
6.96
NA
NA
2.83
Tulsa, OK
(TMOK)
NA
NA
NA
35.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.01
NA
6.05
66.00
NA
NA
19.55
3.34
NA
NA
5.24
29.69
NA
10.88
NA
NA
3.05
Tulsa, OK
(TOOK)
NA
NA
NA
26.77
NA
NA
NA
4.06
NA
NA
16.66
NA
32.69
28.24
NA
NA
29.21
12.08
13.44
NA
18.22
20.66
NA
7.20
NA
32.69
2.78
tt
!§
•3°
£b
NA
NA
NA
12.76
NA
NA
NA
17.80
NA
NA
28.09
NA
22.89
35.62
NA
NA
29.79
9.00
37.39
NA
10.01
35.66
NA
10.02
NA
27.63
7.48
C/5
S
o"^
•is
O.LJ
£b
109.99
NA
NA
19.18
NA
NA
NA
9.43
NA
NA
9.43
NA
12.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.77
14.63
NA
7.44
6.01
NA
9.43
NA
NA
0.29
Tulsa, OK
(TUOK)
NA
NA
NA
16.93
NA
NA
NA
4.16
NA
NA
5.86
NA
43.06
57.31
NA
NA
4.36
9.75
7.80
NA
6.86
17.62
NA
12.49
NA
21.52
3.56
Union County,
SD (UCSD)
NA
NA
64.28
8.91
NA
NA
NA
7.78
NA
NA
6.34
NA
23.53
33.77
NA
NA
36.30
12.45
33.59
NA
35.74
9.40
NA
9.36
NA
115.71
3.01
-------
Table 34-6. VOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
4.98
16.76
16.20
41.42
12.72
11.13
18.78
-J
M
sS
— ^
^ hH
C/5 Q
2.02
17.21
15.29
47.14
11.98
15.44
23.68
P
in
*-.
*P
3 C/5
.2 ^
2.95
7.24
8.37
58.23
6.73
5.21
21.54
Tulsa, OK
(TMOK)
5.89
15.17
10.25
NA
4.02
5.78
13.66_
et O
•ag
4.42
19.60
20.50
NA
16.87
15.17
21.87
j|
5.99
42.62
41.67
111.33
31.58
27.95
31.44
-------
34.2.2 SNMOC Method Precision
The SNMOC method precision for duplicate and collocated samples is presented in
Table 34-7. The average concentration differences observed for duplicate and collocated sample
analysis ranged from 0.02 ppbC (1,3-butadiene) to 29.99 ppbC (TNMOC). The variation ranged
from 5.63 percent (ethane) to 54.24 percent (1-undecene).
Table 34-7. SNMOC Method Precision: 102 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
trans-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Number of
Observations
102
100
37
102
77
82
96
96
69
97
0
38
27
95
99
97
93
95
29
102
101
0
102
90
74
75
101
61
102
69
17
7
102
87
99
81
Average RPD
(%)
9.05
14.62
16.65
10.58
15.79
30.30
22.18
26.94
65.29
33.58
NA
38.45
39.24
21.30
17.86
16.36
19.14
63.53
62.59
7.96
19.18
NA
12.20
22.26
32.43
31.49
14.92
29.54
17.63
34.54
24.01
41.01
11.76
35.46
26.48
25.49
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.15
0.27
0.02
1.14
0.03
0.07
0.34
0.09
0.24
0.27
NA
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.90
0.97
3.42
0.07
NA
0.26
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.20
0.10
0.47
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.99
0.74
3.25
0.09
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
6.40
10.34
11.77
7.48
11.17
21.42
15.68
19.05
46.17
23.74
NA
27.19
27.75
15.06
12.63
11.57
13.54
44.92
44.26
5.63
13.56
NA
8.63
15.74
22.93
22.27
10.55
20.89
12.47
24.42
16.98
29.00
8.31
25.07
18.72
18.02
34-24
-------
Table 34-7. SNMOC Method Precision: 102 Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
trans-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
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
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
31
65
72
0
88
102
64
66
94
87
102
102
12
7
92
30
98
27
102
100
54
82
66
11
102
65
102
0
25
102
102
102
25
9
53
99
60
45
92
91
100
23
101
100
2,530
Average RPD
(%)
40.51
40.37
25.68
NA
18.76
14.88
27.60
23.66
24.24
29.37
18.12
23.25
54.50
45.89
21.66
49.79
22.30
31.72
17.98
22.30
18.73
13.80
51.29
53.25
11.16
29.05
14.68
NA
70.57
12.14
15.77
16.39
62.87
66.86
23.60
28.77
26.46
26.09
20.64
18.95
56.61
76.71
19.16
18.56
31.58
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.04
0.22
0.05
NA
0.41
0.22
0.12
0.07
0.19
0.18
0.24
0.69
0.27
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.17
0.03
2.97
0.22
0.16
0.03
0.17
0.18
2.67
0.05
0.14
NA
0.21
17.63
29.99
0.50
0.20
0.22
0.04
0.37
0.09
0.05
0.08
0.04
0.96
0.38
0.27
0.08
1.66
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
28.64
28.54
18.16
NA
13.26
10.52
19.51
16.73
17.14
20.77
12.81
16.44
38.54
32.45
15.32
35.21
15.77
22.43
12.71
15.77
13.24
9.76
36.27
37.65
7.89
20.54
10.38
NA
49.90
8.58
11.15
11.59
44.45
47.28
16.69
20.34
18.71
18.45
14.59
13.40
40.03
54.24
13.55
13.12
22.33
34-25
-------
Table 34-8 presents the method precision for duplicate SNMOC samples. The variation
ranged from 1.22 percent (ethane) to 53.71 percent (£ra«s-2-hexene), with an average CV of
20.81 percent.
Table 34-8. SNMOC Method Precision: 64 Duplicate Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
trans-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Number of
Observations
64
62
23
64
53
55
59
60
49
59
0
22
15
60
62
60
58
57
13
64
63
0
64
52
44
47
64
33
64
48
9
3
64
54
63
56
18
44
49
0
Average RPD
(%)
5.08
15.73
13.51
3.59
18.21
31.56
18.12
19.77
62.60
34.22
NA
39.42
41.75
23.48
17.20
12.03
20.13
54.87
45.75
1.73
14.21
NA
6.99
18.70
33.31
24.94
9.79
33.75
11.24
32.74
15.08
75.96
6.53
29.40
23.09
23.34
37.00
27.64
27.72
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.06
0.27
0.02
0.15
0.03
0.06
0.24
0.04
0.23
0.20
NA
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.74
0.12
0.11
0.05
NA
0.14
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.02
0.10
0.13
0.71
2.22
0.10
0.04
0.15
0.05
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
3.59
11.12
9.55
2.54
12.88
22.32
12.81
13.98
44.27
24.20
NA
27.87
29.52
16.60
12.16
8.51
14.23
38.80
32.35
1.22
10.05
NA
4.94
13.22
23.55
17.63
6.92
23.86
7.95
23.15
10.66
53.71
4.62
20.79
16.33
16.50
26.17
19.54
19.60
NA
34-26
-------
Table 34-8. SNMOC Method Precision: 64 Duplicate Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl-l-pentene
2-Methyl-l-pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
fraws-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
Propane
rc-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
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
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
51
64
35
37
56
54
64
64
6
5
54
15
62
16
64
62
35
56
34
9
64
40
64
0
19
64
64
64
13
4
31
61
36
23
63
57
62
13
63
62
1,560
Average RPD
(%)
16.17
10.12
21.08
19.92
29.31
23.78
10.93
16.70
49.36
71.30
18.75
40.95
18.34
32.87
15.24
27.20
19.35
13.13
58.06
39.51
3.75
25.66
7.37
NA
65.11
7.72
15.69
11.81
66.95
72.98
20.17
26.68
29.28
24.25
13.27
18.73
56.24
63.02
12.88
13.31
29.43
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.15
0.12
0.06
0.25
0.26
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
4.26
0.38
0.29
0.02
0.19
0.20
0.43
0.04
0.06
NA
0.27
7.26
23.16
0.28
0.19
0.32
0.02
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.87
0.25
0.12
0.05
1.07
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
11.43
7.16
14.91
14.09
20.72
16.82
7.73
11.81
34.90
50.42
13.26
28.95
12.97
23.25
10.77
19.23
13.68
9.29
41.06
27.93
2.65
18.14
5.21
NA
46.04
5.46
11.09
8.35
47.34
51.60
14.26
18.87
20.71
17.15
9.39
13.25
39.77
44.56
9.11
9.41
20.81
34-27
-------
Table 34-9 presents the method precision for collocated SNMOC samples. For SNMOC,
there was only one collocated site, NBIL. The variation ranged from 3.41 percent
(3-methyl-l-butene) to 63.92 percent (1-undecene), with an average CV of 23.85 percent.
Table 34-9. SNMOC Method Precision: 38 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
trans-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Number of
Observations
38
38
14
38
24
27
37
36
20
38
0
16
12
35
37
37
35
38
16
38
38
0
38
38
30
28
37
28
38
21
8
4
38
33
36
25
13
21
23
6
Average RPD
(%)
13.01
13.51
19.79
17.58
13.37
29.03
26.23
34.12
67.98
32.93
NA
37.48
36.74
19.12
18.53
20.70
18.16
72.18
79.43
14.20
24.15
NA
17.41
25.82
31.55
38.05
20.05
25.33
24.02
36.33
32.95
6.06
16.98
41.51
29.86
27.64
44.01
53.09
23.63
4.83
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.24
0.27
0.03
2.14
0.03
0.08
0.43
0.13
0.26
0.34
NA
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.18
0.11
0.06
1.06
1.83
6.72
0.09
NA
0.39
0.08
0.06
0.13
0.36
0.14
0.81
0.06
0.04
0.01
1.85
0.77
4.28
0.08
0.05
0.28
0.05
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
9.20
9.55
13.99
12.43
9.46
20.53
18.55
24.13
48.07
23.29
NA
26.50
25.98
13.52
13.11
14.64
12.84
51.04
56.17
10.04
17.07
NA
12.31
18.26
22.31
26.90
14.17
17.91
16.98
25.69
23.30
4.29
12.01
29.35
21.12
19.55
31.12
37.54
16.71
3.41
34-28
-------
Table 34-9. SNMOC Method Precision: 38 Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
Jraws-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
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
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
37
38
29
29
38
33
38
38
6
2
38
15
36
11
38
38
19
26
32
2
38
25
38
0
6
38
38
38
12
5
22
38
24
22
29
34
38
10
38
38
970
Average RPD
(%)
21.35
19.64
34.11
27.40
19.17
34.96
25.31
29.80
59.64
20.49
24.57
58.63
26.25
30.56
20.71
17.40
18.11
14.47
44.52
66.99
18.56
32.44
21.99
NA
76.02
16.56
15.85
20.97
58.78
60.75
27.03
30.86
23.64
27.92
28.01
19.17
56.99
90.40
25.44
23.80
33.73
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.76
0.39
0.18
0.12
0.24
0.25
0.42
1.13
0.28
0.02
0.16
0.11
0.30
0.03
1.69
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.16
0.15
4.92
0.06
0.22
NA
0.15
28.00
36.83
0.73
0.21
0.13
0.05
0.66
0.11
0.07
0.10
0.03
1.05
0.50
0.42
0.11
1.87
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
15.10
13.89
24.12
19.37
13.55
24.72
17.89
21.07
42.17
14.49
17.38
41.46
18.56
21.61
14.65
12.30
12.80
10.23
31.48
47.37
13.12
22.94
15.55
NA
53.76
11.71
11.21
14.83
41.56
42.96
19.12
21.82
16.72
19.74
19.80
13.56
40.29
63.92
17.99
16.83
23. 85
34-29
-------
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-10 presents the SNMOC
average method precision for duplicate and collocated samples for the NATTS sites (BTUT and
NBIL). Table 34-10 shows that the SNMOC variation for the duplicate and collocated samples at
the NATTS sites ranged from 0.80 percent (c/s-2-hexene) to 53.92 percent (4-methyl-l-pentene).
The average CV was 22.16 percent.
Table 34-10. SNMOC Method Precision: 34 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
for the NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
/raws-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
OT-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
trans-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Number of
Observations
34
32
16
34
21
24
33
32
21
34
0
13
12
31
33
33
31
34
12
34
34
0
34
34
28
25
33
23
34
20
2
3
34
32
32
25
Average RPD
(%)
8.70
19.23
16.05
12.44
15.71
27.60
30.36
32.98
60.12
31.91
NA
22.46
42.49
19.29
11.90
16.77
17.29
58.33
20.19
8.13
19.40
NA
12.45
21.63
36.09
31.66
14.91
36.94
20.56
41.86
1.13
75.96
12.29
49.83
27.97
41.32
Average Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.11
0.40
0.02
0.45
0.03
0.04
0.41
0.07
0.12
0.28
NA
0.04
0.15
0.06
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.71
0.05
0.75
0.06
NA
0.23
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.27
0.05
0.00
0.10
0.26
1.04
2.99
0.18
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
6.16
13.59
11.35
8.80
11.11
19.51
21.46
23.32
42.51
22.56
NA
15.88
30.04
13.64
8.41
11.86
12.22
41.24
14.28
5.75
13.72
NA
8.81
15.29
25.52
22.39
10.54
26.12
14.54
29.60
0.80
53.71
8.69
35.23
19.78
29.22
34-30
-------
Table 34-10. SNMOC Method Precision: 34 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
for the NATTS Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methy 1- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methy Ipentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
fraws-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
6-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
rNMOC (w/unknowns)
Toluene
w-Tridecane
1-Tridecene
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
2,2,3 -Trimethy Ipentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethy Ipentane
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
13
23
20
0
33
34
25
25
34
31
34
34
4
4
34
8
32
11
34
32
15
22
27
2
34
23
34
0
12
34
34
34
7
4
19
34
22
33
17
34
34
12
34
34
872
Average RPD
(%)
68.71
43.17
39.12
NA
20.38
14.18
42.45
33.39
18.30
33.97
21.09
25.81
76.26
68.96
24.61
52.76
22.57
30.96
24.21
33.60
24.05
16.87
55.44
11.53
14.55
35.45
14.45
NA
69.98
14.70
15.12
17.42
38.80
72.98
28.11
20.91
19.11
19.48
22.29
21.03
52.72
36.54
20.57
19.60
37.34
Average Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.07
0.21
0.07
NA
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.61
0.42
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.10
0.03
7.36
0.46
0.38
0.03
0.18
0.04
0.99
0.04
0.11
NA
0.24
12.74
21.34
0.43
0.08
0.32
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.12
1.12
0.18
0.17
0.07
1.35
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
48.59
30.52
27.66
NA
14.41
10.03
30.01
23.61
12.94
24.02
14.91
18.25
53.92
48.76
17.40
37.31
15.96
21.89
17.12
23.76
17.01
11.93
39.20
8.15
10.29
25.07
10.22
NA
49.48
10.39
10.69
12.32
27.43
51.60
19.88
14.79
13.51
13.77
15.76
14.87
37.28
25.84
14.54
13.86
22.16
34-31
-------
Table 34-11 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall CV for all NMP sites sampling SNMOC. The results from duplicate and collocated
samples show low- to high-level variability among pollutants per sites, ranging from an average
CV of 0 percent (w-butane and w-pentane for GPMS) to 118.24 percent (1-undecene for UCSD),
with an overall average of 19.85 percent.
Table 34-11. SNMOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Average
(%)
6.36
9.41
12.41
7.98
11.20
20.68
14.78
16.35
40.47
24.71
NA
29.01
27.39
14.51
13.45
11.60
15.82
44.80
48.02
7.22
14.45
NA
7.93
18.59
26.13
24.34
10.80
22.13
12.13
23.40
15.15
88
X&
£B
9.41
7.58
15.40
12.81
16.92
29.49
16.40
13.73
0.63
20.88
NA
25.24
16.37
12.06
13.53
13.91
13.44
29.77
50.40
11.94
15.09
NA
10.65
13.57
11.63
17.72
15.51
11.94
14.67
29.38
26.82
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
3.35
16.15
9.21
3.07
8.30
10.59
15.55
9.39
42.79
20.57
NA
27.24
30.04
10.47
5.63
5.78
7.30
31.29
22.32
1.41
6.76
NA
5.16
7.82
15.69
18.50
4.65
20.60
6.85
24.21
0.80
Custer, SD
(CUSD)
3.11
7.86
15.85
1.97
16.49
20.35
11.31
5.98
28.03
18.78
NA
14.75
NA
20.24
12.63
10.15
14.58
39.94
52.47
1.01
9.68
NA
4.97
8.60
8.54
25.18
6.74
53.42
8.56
32.08
NA
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
1.42
2.81
NA
0.00
16.50
21.80
7.30
5.59
11.33
41.12
NA
45.40
NA
12.52
5.24
8.32
47.14
51.43
NA
0.48
21.48
NA
4.94
31.13
61.61
35.83
0.74
19.41
4.89
10.88
NA
|s
I!
8.01
8.60
NA
21.80
3.82
0.84
27.28
13.31
54.12
36.64
NA
NA
NA
11.54
20.04
12.86
10.22
62.62
NA
30.35
26.22
NA
2.62
8.64
NA
35.15
29.05
26.16
24.15
27.50
NA
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
8.96
11.04
13.49
14.52
13.92
28.44
27.38
37.25
42.24
24.55
NA
4.52
NA
16.81
11.20
17.94
17.15
51.20
6.23
10.08
20.68
NA
12.45
22.77
35.35
26.28
16.44
31.64
22.23
35.00
NA
34-32
-------
Table 34-11. SNMOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
/raws-2-Hexene
Isobutane
lsobutene/1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
cis-2 -Pentene
Jraws-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Toluene
w-Tridecane
1-Tridecene
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Average
(%)
29.00
8.91
22.88
16.57
17.73
34.19
30.86
19.40
3.41
14.02
12.25
19.90
18.00
15.56
23.03
11.92
16.12
39.96
39.54
14.29
31.97
14.96
20.06
12.21
14.06
15.93
9.99
36.71
35.48
8.54
24.19
9.05
NA
42.70
9.20
11.89
12.45
44.59
43.89
20.55
24.45
OQ
u u
S «
£B
NA
12.94
11.60
13.63
1.42
37.49
NA
13.36
NA
15.50
16.00
16.58
14.70
16.16
12.77
13.56
15.65
NA
NA
13.20
13.23
14.75
41.24
15.33
6.84
15.26
3.20
10.40
24.74
11.64
5.44
4.38
NA
NA
11.73
10.54
15.20
36.28
71.93
9.02
14.90
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
53.71
3.84
25.79
15.29
22.91
19.82
26.22
14.01
NA
9.87
5.02
9.48
7.69
9.41
8.15
5.38
7.57
79.11
48.76
10.11
28.31
5.50
20.23
20.93
37.62
14.96
6.35
35.56
8.15
4.80
12.60
3.87
NA
44.03
7.39
10.66
8.34
40.09
51.60
9.64
11.63
P
C/5
tfff
£ £
1 ^
uB
NA
7.82
5.00
27.55
9.57
NA
7.61
23.58
NA
15.25
12.96
16.66
10.36
24.52
21.75
10.97
11.09
28.57
55.38
19.97
0.88
18.42
NA
9.92
20.52
25.43
9.40
60.97
11.15
2.11
16.21
3.54
NA
44.64
5.43
7.01
6.43
61.48
NA
23.02
18.21
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
NA
1.95
11.05
11.48
NA
NA
17.74
8.66
NA
20.10
18.40
3.11
8.32
1.78
20.99
5.35
17.12
NA
NA
8.61
NA
12.73
NA
0.00
11.85
NA
8.60
107.94
NA
0.70
50.51
0.44
NA
50.78
2.22
10.24
7.55
NA
NA
NA
72.07
§8
1!
NA
23.11
21.53
11.86
21.88
NA
14.33
18.99
1.16
27.13
25.38
30.48
22.94
26.41
36.21
19.09
25.61
13.13
NA
33.11
NA
28.22
NA
23.65
4.37
9.05
9.30
NA
NA
27.82
NA
12.06
NA
NA
24.42
26.12
31.48
NA
NA
NA
5.93
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
NA
13.55
44.68
24.27
35.53
77.35
34.83
41.32
NA
18.95
15.04
50.55
39.54
16.46
39.89
24.45
28.93
28.74
NA
24.69
46.31
26.41
23.54
13.31
9.90
19.06
17.51
42.84
NA
15.78
37.53
16.56
NA
16.88
13.39
10.72
16.30
14.78
NA
30.11
17.94
34-33
-------
Table 34-11. SNMOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
20.09
16.19
18.93
14.72
40.20
67.29
14.85
13.51
19.85
8 8
S B
14.28
11.28
14.15
6.49
34.77
59.85
17.81
16.57
17.36
H
^
^
^
?g H
a P
3 H
jjr Cu
CD ^/
12.62
11.24
11.08
7.15
33.05
24.26
6.99
6.98
16.70
P
C/5
£ !/5
S ^
46.98
11.41
15.89
5.93
42.53
NA
2.87
10.45
18.01
^H
^
-^
if
5 ^
NA
31.13
27.20
17.62
45.64
52.46
20.93
21.34
19.93
O ^^
!§
13 ^
NA
NA
NA
32.39
68.73
106.73
24.53
18.68
23.70
HH
-i
0
g
P
5 *
z S-
14.41
16.30
20.45
22.59
41.50
27.42
22.10
20.74
24.47
Table 34-11. SNMOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetylene
benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/5-2-Butene
fraws-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Average
(%)
6.36
9.41
12.41
7.98
11.20
20.68
14.78
16.35
40.47
24.71
NA
29.01
27.39
14.51
13.45
11.60
15.82
44.80
48.02
Parachute, CO
(PACO)
4.87
7.62
10.88
6.88
7.73
26.96
7.51
10.31
72.48
27.64
NA
40.97
51.03
10.64
12.20
12.05
8.07
67.33
83.05
O
uo
it
17.98
11.08
15.07
12.36
7.07
6.52
11.91
21.92
49.66
15.35
NA
13.26
10.53
14.07
18.36
12.62
9.15
46.91
78.28
Rulison, CO
(RUCO)
2.89
5.63
NA
7.97
5.29
6.93
7.56
12.63
NA
11.04
NA
56.09
NA
5.28
8.39
7.81
9.98
27.89
64.82
Q
C/5
€\
%
*c3
S«
S !/5
0 VI
££
2.50
6.61
7.01
1.66
15.61
17.37
9.75
15.46
56.45
26.99
NA
13.41
27.27
14.67
8.99
5.39
13.30
42.25
29.26
Union County, SD
(UCSD)
7.44
18.57
NA
4.67
11.60
58.14
20.65
34.33
46.93
28.26
NA
49.25
29.07
31.26
31.71
20.81
23.72
42.22
45.36
34-34
-------
Table 34-11. SNMOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
fraws-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
trans-1 -Pentene
a-Pinene
6-Pinene
Average
(%)
7.22
14.45
NA
7.93
18.59
26.13
24.34
10.80
22.13
12.13
23.40
15.15
29.00
8.91
22.88
16.57
17.73
34.19
30.86
19.40
3.41
14.02
12.25
19.90
18.00
15.56
23.03
11.92
16.12
39.96
39.54
14.29
31.97
14.96
20.06
12.21
14.06
15.93
9.99
36.71
35.48
Parachute, CO
(PACO)
5.88
13.63
NA
15.74
10.82
10.50
31.64
9.31
12.71
8.36
26.46
23.71
NA
7.83
17.64
33.89
10.44
12.25
45.41
11.74
3.86
10.17
7.23
12.41
8.91
8.70
8.26
9.08
13.18
92.58
NA
10.52
55.66
9.61
14.35
10.84
23.35
5.97
9.37
37.28
70.00
O
uo
it
8.43
14.12
NA
13.54
21.74
19.84
26.93
11.05
10.56
16.85
19.32
15.43
4.29
10.63
11.70
8.84
8.87
14.90
38.84
3.19
5.23
9.47
16.91
12.46
11.81
8.50
10.33
18.35
17.17
34.24
14.49
8.24
21.06
12.51
2.18
22.06
11.09
11.33
9.23
13.76
NA
Rulison, CO
(RUCO)
7.04
5.74
NA
6.83
20.47
7.06
21.11
7.35
9.56
7.40
14.71
NA
NA
7.62
20.43
9.01
39.89
42.34
NA
18.83
NA
8.02
6.48
8.93
9.03
6.77
NA
6.86
7.76
NA
NA
6.30
51.81
7.71
5.16
7.97
9.87
39.60
9.87
24.15
NA
P
C/5
€\
5«
*c3
SP
3 C/3
0 VI
££
0.98
8.89
NA
4.22
11.83
24.26
11.29
8.10
11.55
6.55
21.56
14.87
NA
3.46
9.60
12.64
18.15
36.48
12.08
19.03
NA
9.83
5.15
15.11
21.70
30.37
7.42
6.22
9.96
3.37
NA
14.11
31.70
16.45
23.51
7.54
10.71
5.75
7.62
30.13
21.52
Union County, SD
(UCSD)
1.83
16.67
NA
6.10
47.11
66.79
18.09
9.87
35.86
12.89
16.26
9.29
NA
5.27
72.65
13.80
8.61
32.91
80.73
40.72
NA
9.89
6.22
43.07
42.96
22.07
64.50
11.84
23.30
NA
NA
8.28
38.78
12.26
30.26
2.79
8.50
12.85
19.42
4.07
77.34
34-35
-------
Table 34-11. SNMOC Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Propane
«-Propy Ibenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Toluene
w-Tridecane
1-Tridecene
1,2,3 -Trimethy Ibenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
m -Xylene/^-Xy lene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
8.54
24.19
9.05
NA
42.70
9.20
11.89
12.45
44.59
43.89
20.55
24.45
20.09
16.19
18.93
14.72
40.20
67.29
14.85
13.51
19.85
Parachute, CO
(PACO)
6.20
18.90
21.94
NA
NA
10.74
12.03
8.22
38.23
47.87
20.35
36.55
15.18
7.78
18.71
14.96
48.75
110.35
12.14
12.20
22.41
O
uo
it
13.21
16.67
15.52
NA
49.06
8.76
8.49
16.10
80.39
4.16
20.71
21.06
18.79
10.29
31.38
15.85
29.83
NA
15.44
15.43
17.50
Rulison, CO
(RUCO)
7.54
34.54
7.72
NA
NA
7.60
6.36
8.25
53.45
NA
7.60
25.98
28.46
29.12
8.95
NA
10.81
51.75
9.89
6.90
15.98
P
C/5
€\
5«
*c3
SP
3 C/3
0 VI
££
1.28
19.40
7.13
NA
50.78
4.24
12.34
6.61
51.98
NA
13.74
15.62
21.59
12.07
31.06
10.27
40.24
54.53
6.18
9.66
16.39
Union County, SD
(UCSD)
2.86
30.05
6.39
NA
NA
5.32
16.22
12.48
24.68
NA
50.73
29.04
8.54
21.28
10.39
13.94
46.31
118.24
24.47
9.65
26.69
34.2.3 Carbonyl Compound Method Precision
Table 34-12 presents the method precision for duplicate and collocated carbonyl
compound samples. The average concentration difference ranged from <0.01 ppbv for
isovaleraldehyde to 0.17 ppbv for formaldehyde.
Table 34-12. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: 728 Duplicate and Collocated
Samples
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
728
728
704
Average RPD
(%)
7.12
9.42
12.90
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.07
0.10
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
5.03
6.66
9.12
34-36
-------
Table 34-12. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: 728 Duplicate and Collocated
Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
725
711
0
728
705
127
728
702
691
7,277
Average RPD
(%)
10.39
10.21
NA
7.53
13.58
15.91
8.24
16.92
14.63
1L53
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
NA
0.17
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
7.35
7.22
NA
5.33
9.60
11.25
5.83
11.96
10.35
8.15
The carbonyl compound method precision results for the 374 collocated samples are
presented in Table 34-13. The CV for carbonyl compounds ranged from 5.33 percent
(formaldehyde) to 11.12 percent (tolualdehydes).
Table 34-13. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: 374 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
374
374
360
373
359
0
374
367
52
374
365
360
3,732
Average RPD
(%)
8.02
8.10
15.58
11.58
11.34
NA
7.53
12.45
9.60
8.54
15.73
14.81
11.21
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.07
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
0.17
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.03
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
5.67
5.73
11.02
8.19
8.02
NA
5.33
8.81
6.79
6.04
11.12
10.47
7.93
34-37
-------
Table 34-14 presents method precision results from the 354 duplicate carbonyl compound
samples. The data show a low- to mid-level variability, ranging from 4.39 percent (acetaldehyde)
to 15.72 percent (isovaleraldehyde), with an average of 8.38 percent.
Table 34-14. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: 354 Duplicate Samples
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
354
354
344
352
352
0
354
338
75
354
337
331
3,545
Average RPD
(%)
6.21
10.74
10.21
9.20
9.07
NA
7.54
14.70
22.22
7.95
18.10
14.45
11.85
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.07
0.12
<0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
0.17
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
4.39
7.59
7.22
6.51
6.41
NA
5.33
10.40
15.72
5.62
12.80
10.22
8.38
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-15 presents average carbonyl
compound method precision data for the NATTS sites sampling for carbonyl compounds
(BTUT, DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, PXSS, S4MO, SEW A, SKFL, and SYFL). Shaded rows present
results for NATTS MQO Core Analytes, as identified in Section 3.2. The carbonyl compound
variation for the duplicate and collocated samples at NATTS sites ranged from 5.39 percent
(acetaldehyde) to 14.46 percent (isovaleraldehyde), with an average of 9.54 percent.
34-38
-------
Table 34-15. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: 216 Duplicate and Collocated
Samples for the NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
216
216
215
215
211
0
216
213
38
216
211
212
2,179
Average RPD
(%)
7.62
10.35
14.76
12.84
12.87
NA
8.85
17.99
20.45
8.65
17.13
16.96
13.50
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.06
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
5.39
7.32
10.44
9.08
9.10
NA
6.26
12.72
14.46
6.11
12.11
11.99
9.54
Table 34-16 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall average CV for all NMP sites sampling carbonyl compounds. The duplicate and
collocated sample results show low- to high-level variability among the sites, ranging from an
average CV of 0.41 percent for crotonaldehyde for TMOK to 124.78 percent for
isovaleraldehyde for CHNJ. This high percentage is based on one isovaleraldehyde measured
detection compared to 1/2 MDL. The overall average CV was 8.52 percent.
34-39
-------
Table 34-16. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples by Site
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Average
Average
(%)
4.99
6.19
9.74
7.79
7.07
NA
5.25
9.75
14.86
6.62
12.34
10.89
8.52
St. Petersburg, FL
(AZFL)
12.13
8.08
6.69
4.36
3.17
NA
8.22
14.65
7.44
5.51
9.36
8.92
8.05
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
7.03
5.99
10.20
8.48
9.96
NA
11.08
23.16
7.62
7.44
14.73
9.93
10.51
^
€\
£•
o> C"
-o 2
ii
U o
7.17
11.80
9.60
8.42
5.47
NA
6.92
8.88
17.97
9.01
13.72
11.81
10.07
<
If
S ^
•S w
$B
0.85
1.22
5.26
3.94
6.23
NA
1.12
3.80
NA
1.78
7.22
5.34
3.68
*TI
SfS
•s z
a M
SB
3.85
5.23
5.97
8.63
9.01
NA
4.99
11.12
124.78
6.12
8.42
7.30
17.77
n
o
€\
5«
1 &
|s
uB
2.69
4.78
3.97
4.32
4.35
NA
4.75
3.11
0.51
3.10
12.31
11.41
5.03
Q
C/5
sT«
s i»
1 P
uB
3.10
3.13
6.68
5.24
5.88
NA
2.18
9.32
15.71
5.74
42.43
11.32
10.07
Dearborn, MI
(DEMI)
3.48
3.58
9.73
13.66
2.92
NA
6.29
11.49
12.91
6.53
10.22
15.85
8.79
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
7.32
11.27
9.32
8.61
10.44
NA
8.96
13.89
8.97
8.53
23.06
12.84
11.20
Tacoma, WA
(EQWA)
0.54
0.85
4.04
3.34
0.01
NA
4.22
0.01
NA
1.27
4.04
0.01
2.61_
-------
Table 34-16. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Average
Average
(%)
4.99
6.19
9.74
7.79
7.07
NA
5.25
9.75
14.86
6.62
12.34
10.89
8.52
-J
ta
£3
g-ta
S *t,
H£
3.69
12.56
9.62
10.80
8.27
NA
4.05
9.30
10.10
7.94
9.15
9.25
8.61
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
1.31
3.51
5.91
3.70
4.04
NA
2.04
8.66
8.31
2.36
5.33
5.81
4.63
C/5
S
€\
0 ^
if
0.83
2.03
3.82
2.53
3.14
NA
2.71
13.69
3.63
2.32
28.28
9.43
6.58
Indianapolis, IN
(IDIN)
3.43
1.66
8.46
4.82
5.26
NA
3.87
8.64
NA
3.80
15.56
7.00
6.25
Gary, IN
(INDEM)
6.60
7.87
9.24
6.39
7.42
NA
7.43
5.00
<0.01
6.13
10.43
4.59
7.11
Indianapolis, IN
(ININ)
10.72
7.67
9.92
10.36
10.74
NA
8.77
11.02
10.88
9.04
11.22
11.13
10.13
a c-
® 6
•a H
2 O
3d
0.68
2.17
3.11
1.52
2.65
NA
1.15
2.71
0.70
1.94
7.92
3.42
2.54
»T
1|
Sw
il
2.86
4.84
6.20
4.08
5.21
NA
3.19
12.83
45.51
4.30
5.77
12.97
9.80
Z
H
§£
•§£
o S
J &
1.72
2.68
4.36
4.14
3.10
NA
1.16
2.77
<0.01
2.21
9.47
8.26
3.99
Midwest City,
OK (MWOK)
0.86
1.07
7.44
8.14
1.88
NA
1.35
3.94
7.44
3.40
6.55
5.01
4.28
-------
Table 34-16. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Average
Average
(%)
4.99
6.19
9.74
7.79
7.07
NA
5.25
9.75
14.86
6.62
12.34
10.89
8.52
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
12.45
14.47
17.40
10.38
21.46
NA
11.38
12.77
NA
10.11
12.87
12.67
13.59
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
3.96
4.99
7.18
5.12
4.58
NA
5.14
9.26
16.29
5.22
11.66
8.55
7. 45
Oklahoma City, OK
(OCOK)
0.60
5.05
5.56
5.72
0.95
NA
0.84
5.32
5.05
3.17
6.96
4.67
3.99
Winter Park, FL
(ORFL)
4.25
12.24
7.68
5.40
4.38
NA
4.21
8.42
18.94
5.08
11.98
15.99
8.96
Parachute, CO
(PACO)
3.62
3.48
41.34
19.51
6.53
NA
2.65
14.14
NA
32.32
18.68
<0.01
15.81
Pryor Creek, OK
(PROK)
1.35
2.16
5.36
3.39
1.39
NA
2.00
4.15
4.16
3.16
8.33
2.57
3. 46
SI
<
H~ /-s
'3 m
S VI
*£
Q, ^H.
5.47
2.50
8.40
10.34
5.89
NA
3.75
19.82
24.60
8.81
16.70
15.30
11.05
O
u,o
u
-------
Table 34-16. Carbonyl Compound Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Duplicate and Collocated Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehvde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Average
Average
(%)
4.99
6.19
9.74
7.79
7.07
NA
5.25
9.75
14.86
6.62
12.34
10.89
8.52
Pinellas Park, FL
(SKFL)
3.42
6.12
4.02
7.66
4.63
NA
3.19
9.32
NA
4.21
12.20
12.88
6.77
Schiller Park, IL
(SPIL)
33.73
8.45
47.27
31.58
29.59
NA
32.93
24.16
NA
15.23
28.71
33.67
28.53
Q
C/5
»T
13
ta t?
H Q
s <*>
0 i/2
X S
3.11
5.04
7.45
5.37
7.10
NA
3.60
6.31
22.33
3.66
12.37
6.73
7.55
hJ
ta
S*j
-*^
°e
§ >H
EU sa
2.57
11.06
7.28
5.12
3.37
NA
5.17
3.48
13.88
4.14
10.83
7.81
6.79
Tulsa, OK
(TMOK)
1.37
1.44
5.76
3.40
0.41
NA
1.38
2.11
4.04
1.82
2.43
5.64
2.71
tt
°£
c? O
•lo
£b
1.13
4.34
14.23
4.53
8.53
NA
1.20
6.30
5.80
2.24
9.40
7.16
5.90
tt
rfS
sS Q
^°
nb
15.58
12.89
17.03
17.40
13.06
NA
10.25
14.88
8.32
18.24
19.33
29.56
16.05
tt
0^
Ig
H
2.93
10.72
9.92
4.11
2.65
NA
3.17
8.33
4.71
4.17
9.20
5.81
5.98
C/5
E
41
IH
1.41
<0.01
3.82
4.04
12.30
NA
4.29
6.15
NA
1.13
14.43
13.69
6.81
Q
C/5
S^j
-*^
0
a«
II
4.02
13.57
4.90
8.33
5.84
NA
3.40
10.73
4.88
8.50
7.22
11.97
7.58
Indianapolis, IN
(WPIN)
5.39
3.28
6.26
7.18
4.32
NA
4.04
5.80
11.20
6.31
7.50
14.20
6.86
-------
34.2.4 Metals Method Precision
The method precision for all collocated metals samples are presented in Table 34-17. All
samples evaluated in this section are collocated samples. The average CV values, as well as the
average RPD values, show low- to high-level variability. Average CVs ranged from 2.93 percent
for arsenic to 41.32 percent for mercury, with an overall average of 10.58 percent.
Table 34-17. Metals Method Precision: 480 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
480
478
435
478
478
478
480
480
451
480
478
5,196
Average RPD
(%)
8.78
4.14
27.21
14.99
6.88
10.43
6.08
4.85
58.44
16.89
5.84
14.96
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.05
0.03
<0.01
0.03
0.15
0.04
0.35
0.56
0.07
0.09
0.04
0.13
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
6.21
2.93
19.24
10.60
4.87
7.37
4.30
3.43
41.32
11.94
4.13
10.58
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-18 presents the average
method precision results from collocated metals for the NATTS sites sampling metals (BOMA,
BTUT, NBIL, S4MO, and UNVT). Shaded rows present results for NATTS MQO Core
Analytes, as identified in Section 3.2. Variability ranged from 4.58 percent for chromium to
49.51 percent for mercury, with an overall average CV of 14.17 percent.
34-44
-------
Table 34-18. Metals Method Precision: 240 Collocated Samples
for the NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
pbalt
Lead
Manganese
[Mercury
[Nickel
[Selenium
\Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
240
237
204
238
238
238
240
240
212
240
238
2,565
Average RPD
(%)
6.75
11.94
42.31
14.74
6.48
18.56
8.77
10.09
70.02
23.56
7.20
20. 04
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.03
0.33
0.36
0.17
0.21
0.03
0. 13
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
4.78
8.45
29.92
10.42
4.58
13.13
6.20
7.14
49.51
16.66
5.09
14.17
Table 34-19 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall average CV for all NMP sites sampling metals. The results from collocated samples show
low- to high-level variability among sites, ranging from 0.71 percent for arsenic at UNVT to
78.76 percent for mercury at BTUT, with an overall method average of 12.72 percent.
Table 34-19. Metals Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Collocated Samples by Site
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Average
(%)
5.70
7.28
23.02
11.64
4.94
11.38
6.35
6.50
48.18
^
^
§ i
1 o
MS
2.93
2.26
31.57
16.74
2.55
6.01
4.83
4.14
47.94
H
•V
3
•B H
a P
S H
M &<
6.86
26.18
47.90
1.31
5.78
7.92
8.82
16.44
78.76
^
O ^
„ {LH
o g
CM y>
2.46
2.59
7.96
7.76
5.24
3.23
4.58
3.54
53.76
-J
M
0
S
ifi ^
"t "
Is
6.95
9.87
27.12
18.25
4.33
33.09
11.66
8.70
27.61
O
S
0 °
3.26
3.21
13.08
12.77
5.66
15.84
4.64
5.32
43.72
O O
*
i ®
EH fc>
13.54
6.15
10.47
21.59
6.09
10.80
8.83
6.27
37.27
H
^
a
"S P
1» >•
"a z
3.87
0.71
NA
3.06
NA
2.77
1.06
1.07
NA
34-45
-------
Table 34-19. Metals Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Collocated Samples by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Nickel
Selenium
Average
Average
(%)
15.01
5.38
72.72
^
o
fl* ^
1 o
MB
4.78
3.65
11.58
H
.S ^H
"a P
o H
M &
29.23
9.20
27.67
^
O <-s
Tr^
fe W
CM 5i
13.43
4.98
9.96
HH
O
2
pfi ^^
t g
z S
17.87
6.79
75.66
O
S
€\
%
s o
^g
. "^
17.62
3.45
11.69
O O
HH
||
8.35
7.20
12.42
H
^
a
^ M
1 z
P&
13.80
2.36
3.5P
34.2.5 Hexavalent Chromium Method Precision
The hexavalent chromium method precision results are shown in Table 34-20.
Hexavalent chromium is aNATTS MQO Core Analyte and all the sites shown are collocated
NATTS sites. The average RPD was higher than the program DQO specified 25 percent, with an
overall average RPD of 32.93 percent. The RPD ranged from 10.90 percent for GLKY to 66.79
percent for ROCH. The CV ranged from 7.71 percent for GLKY to 47.22 percent for ROCH,
with an overall average of 23.27 percent.
Table 34-20. Hexavalent Chromium Method Precision: Collocated Samples
Site
BOMA
BTUT
BXNY
CHSC
DEMI
GLKY
GPCO
HAKY
MVWI
NBIL
PRRI
PXSS
RIVA
Number of
Observations
15
32
21
12
22
4
13
4
9
19
13
26
5
Average
RPD
(%)
32.56
16.62
22.40
41.54
14.67
10.90
44.32
61.42
41.23
36.78
60.30
13.42
45.99
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
23.02
11.42
15.84
29.37
10.37
7.71
31.34
43.43
29.15
26.01
42.64
9.49
32.52
34-46
-------
Table 34-20. Hexavalent Chromium Method Precision: Collocated Samples (Continued)
Site
ROCH
S4MO
SDGA
SEWA
SKFL
SYFL
UNVT
WADC
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
9
21
16
19
10
11
5
11
297
Average
RPD
(%)
66.79
28.08
35.47
28.93
11.97
44.75
17.11
16.31
32.93
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
47.22
19.86
25.08
20.46
8.46
31.64
12.10
11.54
23.27
34.2.6 PAH Method Precision
The method precision results for the collocated PAH samples are shown in Table 34-21.
The average concentration differences observed for PAH ranged from 0.02 ng/m3 for several
pollutants to 9.48 ng/m3 for naphthalene. The average CV ranged from 10.94 percent for
fluoranthene to 41.04 percent for perylene, with an overall average of 20.55 percent.
Table 34-21. PAH Method Precision: 268 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Number of
Observations
268
136
107
203
120
251
207
188
182
264
109
27
16
Average RPD
(%)
21.71
40.76
40.08
32.58
36.27
22.16
24.48
24.94
38.57
30.03
32.98
45.41
28.53
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.71
0.26
0.22
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
15.35
28.82
28.34
23.04
25.65
15.67
17.31
17.64
27.27
21.23
23.32
32.11
20.17
34-47
-------
Table 34-21. PAH Method Precision: 268 Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
9-Fluorenone
lndeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Retene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
276
271
246
116
276
40
275
274
251
4,103
Average RPD
(%)
15.47
17.68
18.91
27.28
17.29
58.04
17.62
20.69
27.84
29.06
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.24
0.64
0.20
0.03
9.48
0.03
1.11
0.20
0.23
0.62
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
10.94
12.50
13.37
19.29
12.23
41.04
12.46
14.63
19.69
20. 55
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-22 presents the average
method precision results from collocated samples for the NATTS sites (DEMI, PLOR, RUCA,
SEW A, SDGA, and SYFL). Shaded rows present results for NATTS MQO Core Analytes, as
identified in Section 3.2. The average CV ranged from 10.68 percent for fluoranthene to 50.84
percent for perylene, with an overall average of 19.02 percent.
Table 34-22. PAH Method Precision: 216 Collocated Samples for the NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Number of
Observations
216
96
74
155
87
198
156
138
139
211
71
23
13
220
Average RPD
(%)
16.16
29.05
35.01
27.57
34.36
19.25
21.86
19.49
31.02
24.79
26.73
39.21
26.22
15.11
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.52
0.26
0.12
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.24
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
11.43
20.54
24.75
19.50
24.30
13.61
15.46
13.78
21.93
17.53
18.90
27.73
18.54
10.68
34-48
-------
Table 34-22. PAH Method Precision: 216 Collocated Samples for the NATTS Sites
(Continued)
Pollutant
Fluorene
9-Fluorenone
lndeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Retene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
217
193
78
220
32
219
218
195
3,169
Average RPD
(%)
17.54
16.16
25.46
17.37
71.90
18.90
20.33
38.24
26.90
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.64
0.20
0.03
11.04
0.05
1.17
0.17
0.14
0.67
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
12.40
11.43
18.01
12.28
50.84
13.37
14.37
27.04
19.02
Table 34-23 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall average CV for all sites sampling PAH. The results from collocated samples show low-
to high-level average variability among sites, ranging from 4.04 percent for DEMI
(cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene) to 139.92 percent for ANAK (anthracene). The variability for
anthracene for ANAK was based on only two measured detections of anthracene for this site for
2008-2009. The overall average for all sites was 19.39 percent.
34-49
-------
Table 34-23. PAH Method Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Collocated Samples by Site
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
9-Fluorenone
lndeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Retene
Average
Average
(%)
15.80
26.95
39.04
18.70
22.68
13.14
13.88
14.82
22.47
17.09
19.25
27.25
20.29
10.48
11.67
12.98
17.93
10.99
44.47
12.48
14.15
24.74
19.39
Anchorage, AK
(ANAK)
47.77
25.03
139.92
20.85
20.24
13.57
4.44
22.72
27.46
22.50
30.77
23.83
NA
12.43
11.52
25.50
24.35
6.96
17.68
10.17
18.08
18.45
25.92
Dearborn, MI
(DEMI)
4.91
16.43
8.70
11.16
16.11
10.76
10.93
12.04
22.00
14.50
14.22
4.04
14.91
6.24
9.92
4.14
12.45
4.62
22.80
19.44
7.27
56.04
13.80
Tacoma, WA
(EQWA)
10.07
67.30
23.85
11.78
15.40
9.94
13.88
13.13
20.74
9.04
9.81
28.26
25.53
7.33
7.41
9.75
11.02
7.32
39.38
9.47
8.87
17.28
17.12
Portland, OR
(PLOR)
12.62
8.31
49.09
10.44
33.79
13.46
16.13
17.39
16.00
19.47
20.68
NA
NA
8.71
11.51
8.16
24.70
14.59
NA
9.55
13.00
18.67
17.17
Rubidoux, CA
(RUCA)
20.63
25.57
36.94
16.98
18.47
20.33
21.04
14.62
23.09
17.57
29.94
22.36
24.50
20.61
23.88
11.88
18.95
24.73
15.92
23.58
28.47
29.98
22.27
Decatur, GA
(SDGA)
7.35
36.08
6.84
31.78
23.30
12.07
17.65
9.21
25.41
17.32
9.34
23.13
NA
8.90
8.15
19.27
7.58
7.27
57.17
6.79
14.01
24.59
17.77
Seattle, WA
(SEWA)
7.60
8.14
9.37
18.65
17.50
7.06
5.28
6.79
11.74
9.74
6.34
39.66
NA
9.20
8.54
11.47
20.82
9.66
94.92
9.60
9.54
18.28
16.19
-J
ta
€\
£
c 3
IS
E Q
15.47
28.74
37.60
27.96
36.61
17.97
21.71
22.64
33.36
26.60
32.89
49.45
16.20
10.44
12.43
13.64
23.53
12.80
63.41
11.24
13.94
14.66
24.70
-------
34.3 Analytical Precision
Analytical precision is a measurement of random errors associated with the process of
analyzing environmental samples. These errors may result from various factors, but typically
originate from random "noise" inherent to analytical instruments. Laboratories can easily
evaluate analytical precision by comparing concentrations measured during replicate analyses of
ambient air samples. The number of observations from Tables 34-24 through 34-45, in
comparison to the respective tables listed for duplicate or collocated analyses in Tables 34-2
through 34-23, is approximately twice as high because each sample produces a replicate for each
duplicate (or collocated) sample. Overall, the replicate analyses of both duplicate and collocated
samples of SNMOC, carbonyl compounds, metals, hexavalent chromium, and PAH indicate that
the analytical precision level is within the program DQOs. The analytical precision level for
VOC was just above the program DQO.
34.3.1 VOC Analytical Precision
In Table 34-24, the analytical precision results from replicate analyses of all duplicate
and collocated samples show that for most of the pollutants, the VOC analysis precision was
within the program DQO of 15 percent for CV. The analytical precision of the VOC analytical
method, in terms of average concentration difference, ranged from <0.01 ppbv for several
pollutants to 1.01 ppbv for acetonitrile. In terms of CV, the overall average variability was 21.02
percent and the median CV was 10.44 percent. The low median CV indicates that most of the
pollutant variabilities were low. The relatively high average variability was likely due to the
substitution of non-detects with 1/2 MDLs.
Table 34-24. VOC Analytical Precision: 1,002 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Number of
Observations
959
1,002
977
79
15
1,002
1
Average RPD
(%)
13.02
6.71
13.95
65.69
83.51
7.76
104.76
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
1.01
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
9.21
4.74
9.86
46.45
59.05
5.49
74.08
34-51
-------
Table 34-24. VOC Analytical Precision: 1,002 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl ferMSutyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fer/-Butyl Ether
rc-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
retrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Number of
Observations
52
24
944
951
994
1,000
29
854
966
1,002
1
3
62
1
3
2
754
1,002
12
25
3
0
25
1,002
0
0
1
1,002
1
3
1,001
7
994
883
65
106
903
1,002
898
1
908
1,002
2
1,002
11
314
Average RPD
(%)
13.30
27.67
12.18
10.12
8.00
7.80
3.67
23.01
13.50
5.14
93.33
74.90
39.26
120.00
83.33
50.00
14.34
5.05
43.98
66.64
154.96
NA
31.16
7.07
NA
NA
35.29
8.20
80.00
30.30
7.61
46.37
14.84
14.75
23.46
21.30
16.88
6.74
14.76
158.62
11.55
6.52
64.56
10.20
62.81
22.46
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.03
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.04
NA
O.01
0.02
NA
NA
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.04
O.01
0.02
O.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
9.41
19.56
8.62
7.16
5.65
5.52
2.60
16.27
9.54
3.64
66.00
52.96
27.76
84.85
58.93
35.36
10.14
3.57
31.10
47.12
109.57
NA
22.03
5.00
NA
NA
24.96
5.80
56.57
21.43
5.38
32.79
10.49
10.43
16.59
15.06
11.94
4.76
10.44
112.16
8.16
4.61
45.65
7.21
44.41
15.88
34-52
-------
Table 34-24. VOC Analytical Precision: 1,002 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
rrichlorofluoromethane
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
1,000
999
987
941
155
1,002
1,002
29,938
Average RPD
(%)
6.33
6.31
8.49
11.00
34.17
9.34
7.65
29.73
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.02
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
4.47
4.46
6.01
7.78
24.17
6.61
5.41
21.02
Table 34-25 shows the analytical precision results from replicate analyses of all
collocated VOC samples. The replicate results from collocated samples show variation for the
pollutants ranging from <0.01 percent (several compounds) to 1.58 percent (acetonitrile), as
indicated by average concentration differences. The overall average variability was 20.22
percent.
Table 34-25. VOC Analytical Precision: 528 Replicate Analyses
for all Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
fer/-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Number of
Observations
506
528
512
18
5
528
1
52
12
499
502
520
527
24
457
506
528
0
2
Average RPD
(%)
12.36
5.76
14.48
81.01
72.14
7.25
104.76
13.30
39.02
11.20
10.53
7.70
7.71
4.62
26.74
13.32
5.04
NA
83.13
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
1.58
0.05
0.03
0.05
<0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.03
NA
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
8.74
4.07
10.24
57.28
51.01
5.12
74.08
9.41
27.59
7.92
7.45
5.44
5.45
3.27
18.91
9.42
3.56
NA
58.78
34-53
-------
Table 34-25. VOC Analytical Precision: 528 Replicate Analyses
for all Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
m -Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 , 3 -D ichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tort-Butyl Ether
rc-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
retrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
rrichlorofluoromethane
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
w,/?-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
59
0
3
2
420
528
2
13
2
0
10
528
0
0
1
528
1
2
527
2
524
474
22
18
480
528
464
1
479
528
1
528
0
155
527
526
527
499
49
528
528
15, 741
Average RPD
(%)
25.18
NA
83.33
50.00
14.34
4.94
18.18
24.85
131.43
NA
35.19
7.05
NA
NA
35.29
8.38
80.00
38.38
6.95
29.09
13.08
13.65
28.25
29.71
17.42
6.21
13.69
158.62
12.32
5.89
13.33
10.25
NA
24.75
5.50
6.28
7.43
10.42
40.07
7.70
6.54
28.59
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
<0.01
NA
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.01
O.01
NA
O.01
0.01
NA
NA
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.04
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
O.01
NA
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
17.81
NA
58.93
35.36
10.14
3.50
12.86
17.57
92.93
NA
24.88
4.98
NA
NA
24.96
5.93
56.57
27.14
4.91
20.57
9.25
9.65
19.98
21.01
12.32
4.39
9.68
112.16
8.71
4.17
9.43
7.25
NA
17.50
3.89
4.44
5.26
7.37
28.34
5.44
4.62
20.22
34-54
-------
Table 34-26 shows the analytical precision results from replicate analyses of all duplicate
VOC samples. The variation for the replicate results from the duplicate samples ranged from
1.92 percent (chlorobenzene) to 126.21 percent (1,1-dichloroethene), as represented by the CV.
The overall average variability was 21.83 percent.
Table 34-26. VOC Analytical Precision: 474 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate Samples
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl ferMSutyl Ether
Number of
Observations
453
474
465
61
10
474
0
0
12
445
449
474
473
5
397
460
474
1
1
3
1
0
0
334
474
10
12
1
0
15
474
0
0
0
474
0
1
Average RPD
(%)
13.68
7.65
13.42
50.38
94.88
8.27
NA
NA
16.31
13.16
9.71
8.29
7.89
2.72
19.28
13.67
5.25
93.33
66.67
53.33
120.00
NA
NA
14.34
5.15
69.77
108.42
178.49
NA
27.13
7.09
NA
NA
NA
8.02
NA
22.22
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.44
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.01
0.03
NA
NA
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
NA
NA
O.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.04
NA
0.01
0.03
NA
NA
NA
O.01
NA
O.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
9.67
5.41
9.49
35.62
67.09
5.85
NA
NA
11.54
9.31
6.87
5.86
5.58
1.92
13.63
9.67
3.71
66.00
47.14
37.71
84.85
NA
NA
10.14
3.64
49.34
76.67
126.21
NA
19.19
5.01
NA
NA
NA
5.67
NA
15.71
34-55
-------
Table 34-26. VOC Analytical Precision: 474 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fer/-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
rrichlorofluoromethane
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
Vinyl chloride
w,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
474
5
470
409
43
88
423
474
434
0
429
474
1
474
11
159
473
473
460
442
106
474
474
14,197
Average RPD
(%)
8.28
63.66
16.59
15.84
18.68
12.88
16.34
7.26
15.83
NA
10.77
7.15
115.79
10.15
62.81
20.17
7.15
6.35
9.55
11.58
28.27
10.99
8.75
30. 87
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.01
O.01
0.04
0.01
NA
O.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
5.85
45.01
11.73
11.20
13.21
9.11
11.55
5.13
11.20
NA
7.62
5.05
81.88
7.18
44.41
14.26
5.05
4.49
6.76
8.19
19.99
7.77
6.19
21. 83
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-27 presents the analytical
precision results from VOC replicate analyses for all the duplicate and collocated samples
collected at NATTS sites (BTUT, DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, PXSS, S4MO, and SEWA). Shaded
rows present results for the NATTS MQO Core Analytes, as identified in Section 3.2. These
results show low- to high-level variability among the sites, as represented by CV, ranging from
1.63 percent (chlorobenzene) to 84.85 percent (1,2-dibromoethane), with an average of
15.89 percent.
34-56
-------
Table 34-27. VOC Analytical Precision: 162 Replicate Analyses
for Duplicate and Collocated Samples for the NATTS Sites
1 Pollutant
cetonitrile
cetylene
crolein
crylonitrile
rt-Amyl Methyl Ether
snzene
romochloromethane
romodichloromethane
romoform
romomethane
3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
t)ibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
kw-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
k>-Dichlorobenzene
bichlorodifluoromethane
1 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
?ra«5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
[Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
[Ethylbenzene
[Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
^-Octane
[Propylene
Styrene
Number of
Observations
272
294
276
34
o
6
294
0
52
9
285
284
290
293
25
268
290
294
0
1
55
1
0
0
235
294
5
4
1
0
13
294
0
0
0
290
0
4
290
6
293
272
31
5
277
294
270
Average RPD
(%)
13.73
5.84
9.17
56.05
79.37
7.50
NA
13.23
26.63
13.53
11.86
6.60
8.49
2.31
21.88
12.38
5.11
NA
78.26
36.66
120.00
NA
NA
15.14
4.92
103.02
16.35
13.33
NA
20.16
5.99
NA
NA
NA
7.93
NA
4.32
6.84
26.13
10.83
12.09
41.00
72.70
14.35
6.07
14.11
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.62
0.07
0.03
0.08
<0.01
0.03
NA
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.03
NA
0.01
O.01
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.01
NA
O.01
0.05
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
9.71
4.13
6.49
39.63
56.12
5.31
NA
9.36
18.83
9.57
8.38
4.66
6.00
1.63
15.47
8.75
3.61
NA
55.34
25.92
84.85
NA
NA
10.71
3.48
72.84
11.56
9.43
NA
14.25
4.23
NA
NA
NA
5.61
NA
3.05
4.84
18.47
7.66
8.55
28.99
51.41
10.14
4.29
9.98
34-57
-------
Table 34-27. VOC Analytical Precision: 162 Replicate Analyses
for Duplicate and Collocated Samples for the NATTS Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
rrichloroethylene
rrichlorofluoromethane
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
w,£>-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
0
288
294
1
294
5
128
293
290
293
285
32
294
294
8,989
Average RPD
(%)
NA
8.11
6.01
13.33
10.19
58.12
19.10
6.02
4.98
7.07
10.93
41.81
6.72
7.05
22.47
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
NA
0.01
0.04
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.02
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
NA
5.74
4.25
9.43
7.20
41.10
13.50
4.26
3.52
5.00
7.73
29.57
4.75
4.99
75. 89
Table 34-28 shows the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall average CV for all NMP sites sampling VOC. The average site CV ranged from 0 percent
for several pollutants and several sites to 136.88 percent for LDTN (vinyl chloride). The overall
program average CV of 11.91 percent.
34-58
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
(%)
8.78
4.66
10.77
52.77
56.43
5.05
74.08
9.36
23.69
8.42
7.20
5.34
5.61
2.05
17.66
10.09
3.41
66.00
54.90
33.89
84.85
58.93
70.71
10.29
3.39
57.69
65.37
Anchorage, AK
(ANAK)
10.71
3.83
8.18
6.53
NA
4.51
NA
NA
NA
15.64
5.68
7.96
5.07
NA
17.62
6.80
3.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.35
3.71
70.71
NA
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
10.40
3.02
5.57
70.95
78.57
4.35
NA
NA
NA
12.24
4.52
3.89
3.11
0.00
15.61
11.67
2.96
NA
NA
NA
84.85
NA
NA
7.79
3.12
9.43
NA
Burlington, VT
(BURVT)
8.92
5.88
7.19
NA
38.57
4.71
NA
NA
NA
7.40
9.98
7.63
4.84
NA
16.72
6.57
4.49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.87
5.02
92.93
5.14
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
5.26
6.77
8.46
NA
74.87
7.02
NA
NA
NA
9.36
8.75
7.22
6.80
NA
7.60
33.79
7.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.17
5.77
NA
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
17.15
12.59
9.82
44.57
NA
13.11
NA
NA
NA
7.04
7.13
13.26
4.82
2.88
25.76
9.68
3.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.98
2.85
NA
125.14
tt
O^
sl
*%z
£^
10.01
2.40
5.68
NA
NA
5.35
NA
NA
NA
13.06
9.69
7.55
4.40
NA
11.29
7.74
2.64
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.73
2.21
NA
NA
Q
C/5
£ &
& C/3
a &
uB
16.03
3.48
9.06
127.65
NA
3.07
NA
NA
NA
7.02
5.10
2.41
4.76
NA
8.65
13.71
2.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.51
NA
NA
Dearborn, MI
(DEMI)
7.05
2.87
5.93
66.04
NA
4.54
NA
NA
NA
10.60
6.70
4.68
3.36
3.27
5.57
4.64
3.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.91
2.54
NA
NA
VO
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fer/-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl ferMSutyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
rrichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Average
(%)
59.04
NA
30.88
4.83
NA
NA
24.96
5.48
56.57
14.92
5.02
29.67
11.63
10.37
22.25
22.84
11.78
4.33
10.15
112.16
9.06
4.39
45.65
7.30
46.05
23.22
4.06
Anchorage, AK
(ANAK)
NA
NA
6.54
3.75
NA
NA
NA
4.31
NA
NA
3.77
NA
16.34
6.28
NA
NA
9.87
4.03
5.18
NA
3.77
3.66
NA
6.72
NA
3.72
3.81
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
126.21
NA
NA
3.40
NA
NA
NA
4.39
NA
NA
3.69
41.59
3.68
9.06
NA
NA
3.04
3.62
6.56
NA
5.80
3.74
NA
5.16
15.71
31.36
2.76
Burlington, VT
(BURVT)
NA
NA
NA
5.14
NA
NA
NA
4.60
56.57
38.57
4.01
28.28
6.47
13.83
NA
NA
15.48
5.75
11.01
NA
12.71
4.34
NA
4.59
NA
83.87
4.19
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
NA
7.73
NA
NA
NA
7.98
NA
NA
5.24
NA
7.92
7.63
NA
13.03
6.11
7.02
8.75
NA
7.74
6.10
NA
8.07
NA
8.59
7.42
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
NA
NA
NA
8.74
NA
NA
NA
5.47
NA
15.71
14.65
NA
6.34
17.45
5.44
8.59
30.73
14.06
23.87
NA
7.99
13.43
NA
4.67
NA
9.51
9.97
tt
O^
sl
*%z
£v
NA
NA
NA
4.18
NA
NA
NA
5.35
NA
NA
9.31
NA
4.60
4.85
NA
NA
6.42
4.78
17.94
NA
5.08
4.91
NA
6.73
23.57
10.88
2.27
Q
C/5
£ &
& C/3
a &
uB
NA
NA
NA
5.19
NA
NA
NA
7.76
NA
NA
5.99
NA
14.70
20.81
NA
NA
7.82
2.72
12.47
NA
18.37
2.15
NA
10.24
NA
NA
2.46
Dearborn, MI
(DEMI)
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
4.42
NA
NA
3.86
NA
7.46
5.90
62.23
NA
8.85
4.59
8.12
NA
4.68
4.25
NA
5.54
NA
12.20
2.47
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
4.12
5.86
9.21
32.92
6.50
5.32
11.91
-<;
0?
2, — ,
HH
js •
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
(%)
8.78
4.66
10.77
52.77
56.43
5.05
74.08
9.36
23.69
8.42
7.20
5.34
5.61
2.05
17.66
10.09
3.41
66.00
54.90
33.89
84.85
58.93
70.71
10.29
3.39
57.69
65.37
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
8.89
5.12
12.28
7.79
66.74
4.29
NA
NA
NA
8.31
5.34
3.87
4.37
NA
8.57
6.84
4.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.38
4.18
NA
7.19
Tacoma, WA
(EQWA)
4.22
2.96
7.21
NA
NA
3.28
NA
NA
NA
5.62
4.89
5.45
3.52
NA
13.34
6.79
2.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.17
2.64
NA
NA
-J
fe ^
5i
£&
16.07
4.32
5.91
NA
NA
8.12
NA
NA
10.70
11.55
13.65
6.03
16.54
NA
20.23
7.02
4.19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.41
5.21
NA
NA
Grand Junction, CO
(GPCO)
7.40
5.30
6.60
44.20
NA
7.78
NA
NA
NA
10.48
4.84
5.13
8.67
NA
12.46
9.95
5.33
NA
NA
47.14
NA
NA
NA
17.55
5.20
NA
NA
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
4.03
4.96
69.65
NA
NA
3.87
NA
NA
NA
12.32
6.44
1.83
7.26
NA
101.02
17.72
2.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.86
2.98
NA
NA
Loudon, TN
(LDTN)
6.13
10.10
10.68
122.32
24.96
6.27
NA
NA
NA
5.34
5.32
3.42
6.96
NA
27.07
9.43
3.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.14
NA
10.12
3.93
NA
NA
Memphis, TN
(METN)
3.61
3.38
16.40
50.76
NA
3.57
NA
NA
NA
6.71
5.07
2.98
6.37
NA
6.44
7.66
3.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.27
4.26
NA
124.78
Loudon, TN
(MSTN)
10.14
3.52
11.47
97.29
63.49
4.38
NA
NA
NA
11.01
5.02
4.27
3.94
NA
36.97
20.54
3.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.02
3.28
NA
79.33
to
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
c/'s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fer/-Butyl Ether
rc-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
retrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
rrichloroethylene
rrichlorofluoromethane
Average
(%)
59.04
NA
30.88
4.83
NA
NA
24.96
5.48
56.57
14.92
5.02
29.67
11.63
10.37
22.25
22.84
11.78
4.33
10.15
112.16
9.06
4.39
45.65
7.30
46.05
23.22
4.06
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
NA
NA
32.64
4.65
NA
NA
NA
7.67
NA
NA
5.00
87.55
15.89
8.53
19.00
7.76
6.22
4.20
8.54
NA
5.63
4.25
NA
8.83
76.15
14.64
3.94
Tacoma, WA
(EQWA)
NA
NA
NA
2.75
NA
NA
NA
3.69
NA
NA
3.89
NA
4.92
9.14
NA
7.03
5.95
4.00
6.26
NA
5.20
3.52
NA
6.97
NA
20.89
2.83
-J
fe ^
*i
s£
NA
NA
NA
6.45
NA
NA
NA
6.13
NA
NA
5.57
NA
13.58
7.76
NA
NA
10.49
4.31
15.64
NA
8.39
3.37
NA
10.27
35.05
10.69
4.86
Grand Junction, CO
(GPCO)
76.15
NA
8.47
5.74
NA
NA
NA
4.87
NA
NA
5.62
NA
5.58
10.59
7.85
NA
7.90
5.11
5.95
NA
7.71
5.36
NA
7.50
45.93
8.35
5.43
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
NA
NA
NA
1.33
NA
NA
NA
7.15
NA
NA
2.14
NA
4.00
NA
NA
NA
17.59
4.51
NA
NA
28.28
5.91
NA
9.37
NA
NA
2.84
Loudon, TN
(LDTN)
NA
NA
NA
10.16
NA
NA
NA
6.05
NA
12.55
3.94
7.79
15.24
13.98
57.17
NA
14.16
3.59
9.16
112.16
13.93
4.72
NA
7.28
NA
6.73
3.62
Memphis, TN
(METN)
47.14
NA
NA
3.94
NA
NA
NA
5.44
NA
NA
2.86
NA
14.97
18.52
NA
NA
17.92
3.12
16.33
NA
4.44
3.12
NA
5.06
64.28
94.28
3.76
Loudon, TN
(MSTN)
NA
NA
NA
4.82
NA
NA
24.96
10.24
NA
NA
9.08
NA
4.75
8.45
NA
NA
11.13
3.74
9.43
NA
17.31
4.32
NA
6.57
NA
NA
9.44
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
Vinyl chloride
w,£>-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
4.12
5.86
9.21
32.92
6.50
5.32
11.91
Z
€\
3.79
4.40
6.52
19.59
4.99
4.11
13.19
Tacoma, WA
(EQWA)
10.99
3.84
3.86
10.96
3.65
4.29
5.98
-J
4.01
4.97
8.66
9.52
4.69
3.19
9.31
Grand Junction, CO
(GPCO)
5.61
5.49
7.43
62.93
5.77
5.88
13.56
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
(%)
8.78
4.66
10.77
52.77
56.43
5.05
74.08
9.36
23.69
8.42
7.20
5.34
5.61
2.05
17.66
10.09
3.41
66.00
54.90
33.89
84.85
58.93
70.71
10.29
3.39
57.69
65.37
Midwest City, OK
(MWOK)
8.38
4.18
5.04
NA
NA
4.22
74.08
NA
NA
13.07
5.82
9.18
5.35
NA
9.85
7.03
3.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.71
18.19
3.92
NA
NA
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
9.70
4.25
6.02
NA
NA
5.78
NA
9.68
NA
6.32
18.30
5.52
4.31
NA
15.74
5.44
1.95
NA
NA
13.28
NA
NA
NA
20.70
1.88
NA
11.56
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
6.23
4.36
11.73
41.20
74.87
4.81
NA
NA
15.71
6.99
6.51
3.55
3.40
NA
7.31
6.70
3.01
NA
NA
28.28
NA
NA
NA
8.35
3.33
NA
127.28
Oklahoma City, OK
(OCOK)
6.83
1.49
8.29
NA
NA
1.03
NA
NA
NA
3.37
2.62
2.93
2.16
NA
19.64
9.99
1.64
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.71
NA
NA
1.22
NA
NA
tt
O
£
is
li
2.80
2.56
5.41
4.91
52.10
2.73
NA
NA
NA
9.35
4.51
5.72
3.52
NA
13.88
3.81
2.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.39
2.52
NA
NA
Phoenix, AZ
(PXSS)
7.34
4.84
6.38
6.87
NA
4.04
NA
9.04
18.83
9.42
5.13
5.97
5.70
NA
19.79
11.21
4.66
NA
NA
17.35
NA
NA
NA
6.72
4.51
NA
NA
O
S
22
'3 S"
31
£§
6.83
5.43
7.49
10.11
33.67
4.86
NA
NA
NA
9.30
12.31
4.23
5.53
NA
16.60
11.16
4.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.27
4.33
NA
NA
Seattle, WA
(SEWA)
19.22
3.19
7.40
NA
NA
5.79
NA
NA
NA
8.64
6.90
3.22
11.33
NA
22.51
7.19
2.72
NA
55.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.01
2.76
NA
NA
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
?raw5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tort-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Average
(%)
59.04
NA
30.88
4.83
NA
NA
24.96
5.48
56.57
14.92
5.02
29.67
11.63
10.37
22.25
22.84
11.78
4.33
10.15
112.16
9.06
4.39
45.65
7.30
46.05
23.22
4.06
4.12
Midwest City, OK
(MWOK)
NA
NA
84.85
4.72
NA
NA
NA
6.85
NA
NA
5.49
NA
4.08
8.94
NA
NA
5.25
4.82
12.78
NA
1.60
3.87
NA
6.86
NA
10.10
4.22
4.08
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
NA
NA
32.64
3.82
NA
NA
NA
6.17
NA
NA
7.45
12.86
11.38
10.39
NA
84.85
27.17
4.14
20.67
NA
9.62
4.49
9.43
6.33
NA
10.91
1.92
1.80
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
NA
NA
NA
3.70
NA
NA
NA
3.40
NA
3.93
5.22
7.44
15.43
8.21
NA
11.35
7.33
3.34
11.67
NA
5.91
3.92
NA
4.42
NA
6.75
3.46
3.26
Oklahoma City, OK
(OCOK)
NA
NA
NA
3.26
NA
NA
NA
2.14
NA
NA
1.33
NA
5.26
3.37
NA
NA
2.92
0.46
2.83
NA
13.30
0.56
NA
3.07
NA
NA
1.08
1.13
tt
O
£
is
tt
NA
NA
NA
4.92
NA
NA
NA
6.25
NA
NA
5.47
NA
20.24
4.43
NA
NA
26.50
5.06
10.63
NA
13.86
4.75
NA
12.07
NA
NA
2.68
1.76
Phoenix, AZ
(PXSS)
12.86
NA
13.47
4.79
NA
NA
NA
9.29
NA
NA
3.84
NA
5.78
5.05
16.91
17.96
6.22
4.67
10.24
NA
3.98
3.95
NA
10.63
NA
17.78
4.25
3.96
O
S
22
'3 S"
31
£§
76.15
NA
NA
4.84
NA
NA
NA
6.65
NA
3.05
4.83
0.97
14.50
7.96
NA
NA
6.78
4.89
11.78
NA
4.57
3.95
NA
8.27
61.65
7.82
10.08
4.22
Seattle, WA
(SEWA)
NA
NA
2.44
4.04
NA
NA
NA
3.47
NA
NA
4.54
NA
5.25
10.89
NA
NA
11.06
3.00
6.55
NA
3.80
4.00
NA
6.99
NA
6.11
2.89
2.91
Oi
Oi
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
5.86
9.21
32.92
6.50
5.32
11.91
X
O
r*
+*
y
1 o
3 H
§ §,
4.48
12.38
NA
3.99
3.59
12.82
-J
M
_K^
O
s
* 2"
1 S
Z 0
6.70
14.48
40.41
6.33
8.19
72.37
Z
o
|
53
? M
Z S
4.98
8.88
12.92
6.93
4.81
72.77
O
£
u
sS
|2
IS
1.91
NA
NA
1.03
3.21
6.16
O
-^
aj
U ^
o g
CM fe
6.81
5.00
NA
14.43
4.84
8.41
SI
.H -v
a c/5
0) !/5
O ^
£ fe
5.12
6.85
20.20
4.15
3.98
8.59
o
^
's o
5 s
^ s
5.19
7.90
18.52
3.85
4.72
11.18
^i
5
a?^
lw
c^ S
5.04
5.30
32.64
5.06
4.78
S.6S
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
(%)
8.78
4.66
10.77
52.77
56.43
5.05
74.08
9.36
23.69
8.42
7.20
5.34
5.61
2.05
17.66
10.09
3.41
66.00
54.90
33.89
84.85
58.93
70.71
10.29
3.39
57.69
65.37
Schiller Park, IL
(SPIL)
7.97
3.94
20.68
NA
NA
5.76
NA
NA
49.50
5.38
5.90
5.51
4.07
NA
19.88
7.85
3.37
NA
NA
17.75
NA
NA
NA
14.12
2.86
NA
NA
Q
C/5
%
"3
*«
3 Cfl
0 i/2
££
4.05
2.40
9.35
72.62
NA
3.37
NA
NA
NA
11.53
8.26
7.06
3.07
NA
12.24
8.61
2.33
66.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.77
2.03
NA
87.26
Tulsa, OK
(TMOK)
8.38
1.20
7.60
NA
NA
0.74
NA
NA
NA
4.73
4.79
2.50
3.89
NA
4.52
3.37
1.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.79
1.69
NA
NA
Tulsa, OK
(TOOK)
5.68
3.55
16.84
NA
NA
8.12
NA
NA
NA
7.51
8.08
4.91
7.57
NA
9.31
19.98
4.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.04
4.12
NA
NA
tt
!§
•3°
£b
6.32
4.92
5.48
70.49
NA
5.57
NA
NA
NA
2.43
7.92
4.51
5.70
NA
22.38
8.99
4.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.40
4.29
NA
NA
C/5
s
o"^
"IS
O.LJ
£b
6.46
4.78
3.71
NA
NA
7.69
NA
NA
NA
6.73
3.86
3.60
10.84
NA
12.14
12.75
3.87
NA
47.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.10
4.00
NA
76.15
Tulsa, OK
(TUOK)
20.69
4.88
18.86
NA
NA
4.85
NA
NA
NA
8.34
7.03
6.90
4.25
NA
18.46
15.54
3.73
NA
62.23
79.55
NA
NA
NA
5.14
3.55
NA
NA
P
C/5
€\
&
O
a«
11
7.97
12.50
4.15
NA
NA
3.87
NA
NA
NA
2.49
14.34
7.98
4.16
NA
5.94
2.59
2.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.13
NA
9.87
oo
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
?raw5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl ferMSutyl Ether
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Average
(%)
59.04
NA
30.88
4.83
NA
NA
24.96
5.48
56.57
14.92
5.02
29.67
11.63
10.37
22.25
22.84
11.78
4.33
10.15
112.16
9.06
4.39
45.65
7.30
46.05
23.22
4.06
4.12
Schiller Park, IL
(SPIL)
NA
NA
NA
5.19
NA
NA
NA
3.75
NA
NA
5.31
NA
4.72
5.52
NA
NA
9.76
4.95
10.04
NA
5.20
5.92
NA
5.73
NA
16.81
3.20
3.05
Q
C/5
%
"3
*«
3 Cfl
0 i/2
££
NA
NA
32.64
3.01
NA
NA
NA
5.60
NA
NA
3.70
NA
14.92
12.39
NA
7.86
13.35
3.17
6.56
NA
7.35
3.19
NA
7.65
NA
NA
2.29
3.10
Tulsa, OK
(TMOK)
NA
NA
NA
1.23
NA
NA
NA
1.35
NA
NA
1.60
NA
7.17
5.05
NA
NA
2.74
1.86
3.63
NA
4.29
0.54
NA
5.03
NA
NA
1.33
1.41
Tulsa, OK
(TOOK)
NA
NA
NA
6.26
NA
NA
NA
6.31
NA
15.71
4.07
NA
19.65
7.67
NA
NA
10.53
4.20
9.88
NA
12.24
4.30
NA
9.95
NA
21.79
3.96
4.53
tt
!§
•3°
£b
NA
NA
NA
5.77
NA
NA
NA
5.05
NA
NA
3.77
NA
18.93
6.69
9.43
47.14
12.49
3.75
12.60
NA
4.75
4.36
NA
6.32
NA
5.62
4.54
4.44
C/5
s
o"^
•Is
O.LJ
£b
15.71
NA
NA
8.25
NA
NA
NA
4.71
NA
NA
8.43
50.91
62.30
28.28
NA
NA
15.71
3.51
5.89
NA
3.72
8.23
81.88
12.07
NA
NA
6.14
6.86
Tulsa, OK
(TUOK)
NA
NA
NA
5.06
NA
NA
NA
4.86
NA
NA
3.41
NA
13.43
13.42
0.00
NA
5.64
4.51
5.14
NA
6.00
2.74
NA
5.58
NA
22.17
3.36
2.40
P
C/5
€\
&
O
a«
11
NA
NA
64.28
4.73
NA
NA
NA
3.84
NA
NA
3.60
NA
2.64
20.28
NA
NA
33.90
3.01
8.62
NA
32.80
4.64
NA
9.04
NA
115.71
2.45
2.96
-------
Table 34-28. VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
5.86
9.21
32.92
6.50
5.32
11.91
-J
sS
t
S HH
X &
££
5.84
8.80
47.14
5.74
3.95
9.86
P
a?
C«
ta /— *v
3 !/5
3.97
6.39
58.23
4.28
3.75
14.43
o S?
. o
"71 S
£b
1.14
3.89
12.86
0.40
0.54
3.31
0 £
et O
^0
6.95
4.80
NA
4.25
4.67
8.42
°.s?
« S
K W
•3 &>
H fe
2.63
9.28
7.07
3.40
3.86
9. 70
C/5
si
"3 2
H fe
4.33
8.87
NA
7.09
7.97
16.13
0^
c? O
•i^
H fe
4.11
3.96
47.14
3.18
4.74
12.14
P
C/5
€\
a
s
o
U ^
•S§
P&
8.38
10.61
NA
6.68
13.12
13.48
-------
34.3.2 SNMOC Analytical Precision
Table 34-29 presents analytical precision results from replicate analyses of all duplicate
and collocated SNMOC samples. The average concentration differences observed for replicate
analyses of SNMOC ranged from 0.02 for several pollutants to 4.72 ppbC (TNMOC). For most
of the pollutants, the CV was less than 15 percent. The overall average variability was
9.77 percent.
Table 34-29. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 202 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
/raws-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Jraws-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Number of
Observations
202
198
73
202
153
165
193
193
136
192
0
77
50
190
197
193
186
188
56
202
199
0
202
177
147
152
201
119
202
146
32
16
202
172
Average RPD
(%)
2.76
5.66
13.61
1.80
12.23
9.70
7.51
16.00
13.26
7.74
NA
16.88
19.41
11.97
8.44
8.54
10.09
13.72
18.73
0.53
10.20
NA
2.59
12.45
17.35
11.06
7.95
10.56
4.33
25.03
22.49
43.64
2.85
5.64
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.04
0.12
0.03
0.34
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.05
NA
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.18
0.04
NA
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.12
0.04
0.17
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.43
0.12
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
1.95
4.00
9.62
1.27
8.64
6.86
5.31
11.32
9.38
5.47
NA
11.93
13.73
8.46
5.97
6.04
7.13
9.70
13.24
0.38
7.21
NA
1.83
8.80
12.27
7.82
5.62
7.47
3.06
17.70
15.90
30.86
2.01
3.99
34-71
-------
Table 34-29. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 202 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
Jraws-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
Propane
rc-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Toluene
rc-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
rc-Undecane
1-Undecene
Number of
Observations
196
164
64
132
143
0
175
202
128
133
187
175
202
202
24
16
179
60
196
49
202
198
106
166
131
22
202
133
202
0
47
202
202
202
48
18
108
197
122
89
182
178
198
41
Average RPD
(%)
4.46
11.87
28.00
19.04
13.89
NA
10.90
6.75
13.15
11.86
11.07
11.69
7.43
7.60
10.81
55.03
9.20
14.92
9.91
28.61
2.21
10.48
12.69
11.39
15.74
31.25
0.88
16.98
3.46
NA
37.78
2.22
2.16
5.56
20.73
17.75
13.49
9.34
15.04
18.08
10.01
10.50
7.60
26.66
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.58
0.03
0.05
0.10
0.03
NA
0.17
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.22
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.12
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.30
0.02
0.03
NA
0.16
3.28
4.72
0.22
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.07
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
3.15
8.39
19.80
13.46
9.82
NA
7.71
4.78
9.30
8.39
7.83
8.27
5.26
5.38
7.64
38.91
6.50
10.55
7.01
20.23
1.56
7.41
8.97
8.05
11.13
22.10
0.62
12.00
2.45
NA
26.71
1.57
1.53
3.93
14.65
12.55
9.54
6.60
10.63
12.78
7.08
7.42
5.37
18.85
34-72
-------
Table 34-29. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 202 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
199
197
5,015
Average RPD
(%)
7.73
9.33
13.81
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.12
0.04
0.29
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
5.46
6.60
9.77
Table 34-30 presents analytical precision results from SNMOC replicate analyses for all
duplicate samples. These results show low- to high-level variability, ranging from 0.38 percent
(ethane) to 49.56 percent (^ram--2-hexene). The overall average variability was 9.69 percent.
Table 34-30. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 126 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
fraws-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2 , 4 -D imethy Ipentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
ithylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
Number of
Observations
126
122
45
126
106
110
118
119
95
116
0
44
26
118
122
119
115
112
24
126
123
0
126
102
87
94
126
Average RPD
(%)
3.03
4.39
7.76
1.42
15.90
8.78
8.37
15.84
17.39
7.99
NA
19.12
20.80
13.00
10.99
9.72
11.84
15.04
15.77
0.54
10.43
NA
2.17
11.63
19.69
12.33
8.96
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.04
NA
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.13
0.03
0.03
0.03
NA
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
2.14
3.11
5.49
1.01
11.25
6.21
5.92
11.20
12.30
5.65
NA
13.52
14.71
9.19
7.77
6.87
8.37
10.64
11.15
0.38
7.37
NA
1.53
8.22
13.93
8.72
6.34
34-73
-------
Table 34-30. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 126 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Jraws-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methy 1-1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl-l-pentene
2-Methyl-l-pentene
rc-Nonane
1-Nonene
rc-Octane
1-Octene
rc-Pentane
1-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
fraws-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
Propane
rc-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Toluene
w-Tridecane
1-Tridecene
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
Number of
Observations
63
126
99
16
8
126
106
124
113
37
89
97
0
100
126
68
74
111
108
126
126
12
11
103
30
123
28
126
122
67
111
67
17
126
82
126
0
37
126
126
126
24
8
63
121
73
Average RPD
(%)
14.87
4.53
24.05
20.23
70.09
2.60
5.28
2.74
9.14
23.08
12.59
13.97
NA
12.74
8.58
13.12
13.43
13.48
11.64
7.56
5.66
14.13
68.99
10.72
22.51
12.14
24.54
1.77
8.57
12.73
11.36
14.99
16.53
0.99
18.27
3.59
NA
46.66
1.79
2.08
5.40
27.50
8.84
18.67
9.51
14.70
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.04
0.12
0.26
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.03
NA
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.03
NA
0.27
1.09
2.72
0.12
0.11
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
10.51
3.20
17.01
14.31
49.56
1.84
3.73
1.94
6.46
16.32
8.90
9.88
NA
9.01
6.07
9.28
9.49
9.53
8.23
5.34
4.01
9.99
48.78
7.58
15.92
8.58
17.35
1.25
6.06
9.00
8.03
10.60
11.69
0.70
12.92
2.54
NA
32.99
1.27
1.47
3.82
19.45
6.25
13.20
6.72
10.39
34-74
-------
Table 34-30. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 126 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Undecane
1-Undecene
m -Xy lene/^-Xy lene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
46
124
111
122
21
123
121
3,068
Average RPD
(%)
21.07
6.14
11.12
8.90
37.48
8.09
9.14
73.70
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.11
0.07
0.03
0.10
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
14.90
4.34
7.86
6.30
26.50
5.72
6.46
9.69
Table 34-31 presents analytical precision results from SNMOC replicate analyses for
collocated samples. The variability ranged from 0.38 percent for ethane to 32.51 percent for
6-pinene, with an average variability of 8.77 percent.
Table 34-31. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 76 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
/raws-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
Number of
Observations
76
76
28
76
47
55
75
74
41
76
0
33
24
72
75
74
71
76
32
76
76
0
76
Average RPD
(%)
2.49
6.92
19.46
2.18
8.55
10.62
6.65
16.17
9.13
7.48
NA
14.64
18.03
10.94
5.89
7.37
8.33
12.39
21.69
0.53
9.97
NA
3.02
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.04
0.18
0.05
0.63
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.04
0.02
0.07
NA
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.11
0.34
0.04
NA
0.06
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
1.76
4.89
13.76
1.54
6.04
7.51
4.70
11.43
6.46
5.29
NA
10.35
12.75
7.73
4.17
5.21
5.89
8.76
15.34
0.38
7.05
NA
2.13
34-75
-------
Table 34-31. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 76 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples
(Continued)
Pollutant
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Jraws-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl-l-pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
cis-2 -Pentene
trans-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
6-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Toluene
w-Tridecane
Number of
Observations
75
60
58
75
56
76
47
16
8
76
66
72
51
27
43
46
11
75
76
60
59
76
67
76
76
12
5
76
30
73
21
76
76
39
55
64
5
76
51
76
0
10
76
76
76
24
Average RPD
(%)
13.28
15.00
9.79
6.94
6.26
4.14
26.02
24.74
17.18
3.10
6.00
6.18
14.60
32.92
25.48
13.80
36.19
9.07
4.93
13.18
10.30
8.66
11.74
7.31
9.54
7.49
41.07
7.67
7.32
7.68
32.68
2.64
12.39
12.64
11.42
16.50
45.98
0.77
15.68
3.33
NA
28.89
2.66
2.24
5.72
13.95
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.21
0.06
0.29
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.82
0.13
0.90
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.03
0.07
0.31
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.36
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.13
0.04
0.18
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.52
0.03
0.03
NA
0.05
5.47
6.71
0.32
0.03
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
9.39
10.61
6.92
4.91
4.42
2.93
18.40
17.49
12.15
2.19
4.24
4.37
10.32
23.28
18.02
9.76
25.59
6.41
3.48
9.32
7.28
6.12
8.30
5.17
6.75
5.29
29.04
5.42
5.18
5.43
23.11
1.87
8.76
8.94
8.08
11.66
32.51
0.54
11.09
2.36
NA
20.43
1.88
1.59
4.05
9.86
34-76
-------
Table 34-31. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 76 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples
(Continued)
Pollutant
1-Tridecene
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
10
45
76
49
43
58
67
76
20
76
76
1,947
Average RPD
(%)
26.66
8.30
9.17
15.38
15.09
13.88
9.88
6.30
15.85
7.36
9.52
12.40
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.17
0.05
0.27
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
18.85
5.87
6.48
10.88
10.67
9.81
6.99
4.45
11.21
5.21
6.74
8.77
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-32 presents the average
analytical precision results from SNMOC replicate analyses for all the duplicate and collocated
samples at NATTS sites sampling SNMOC (BTUT and NBIL). These results show low- to high-
level variability at these sites, as represented by CV, ranging from 0.39 percent (ethane) to 48.43
percent (trans-2-hexene), with an average of 10.37 percent.
Table 34-32. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 68 Replicate Analyses for NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
Number of
Observations
68
64
32
68
41
48
67
66
41
68
0
28
23
64
67
Average RPD
(%)
1.78
5.85
27.85
1.50
18.68
15.40
7.23
19.31
14.77
8.11
NA
17.32
16.87
13.49
5.88
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.03
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
NA
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
1.26
4.13
19.69
1.06
13.21
10.89
5.12
13.65
10.44
5.73
NA
12.25
11.93
9.54
4.15
34-77
-------
Table 34-32. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 68 Replicate Analyses for NATTS Sites
(Continued)
Pollutant
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Jraws-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
cis-2 -Pentene
trans-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
6-Pinene
Propane
Number of
Observations
66
63
68
22
68
68
0
68
67
56
51
67
46
68
42
6
7
68
64
64
50
27
47
40
0
67
68
52
51
68
63
68
68
8
10
68
17
65
21
68
64
32
47
55
5
68
Average RPD
(%)
5.94
7.56
13.34
12.29
0.55
10.36
NA
2.33
14.84
15.36
10.99
6.88
12.04
3.49
30.14
28.56
68.50
2.06
5.29
3.48
8.40
19.00
29.21
17.65
NA
10.71
5.47
18.40
14.35
11.86
12.42
7.83
9.52
13.89
67.65
7.43
15.37
8.23
32.35
2.27
11.26
17.39
11.29
12.81
60.45
0.64
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.04
NA
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.08
0.33
0.03
0.02
0.13
0.04
NA
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.20
0.05
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.07
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
4.20
5.35
9.43
8.69
0.39
7.33
NA
1.64
10.49
10.86
7.77
4.86
8.52
2.47
21.31
20.20
48.43
1.46
3.74
2.46
5.94
13.44
20.65
12.48
NA
7.58
3.87
13.01
10.14
8.38
8.78
5.53
6.73
9.82
47.84
5.26
10.87
5.82
22.87
1.60
7.96
12.30
7.98
9.06
42.74
0.45
34-78
-------
Table 34-32. SNMOC Analytical Precision: 68 Replicate Analyses for NATTS Sites
(Continued)
Pollutant
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
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
rc-Undecane
1-Undecene
m -Xylene/p-Xy lene
o-Xylene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
47
68
0
21
68
68
68
14
8
40
68
45
66
35
68
68
23
68
68
7,757
Average RPD
(%)
18.69
3.45
NA
36.10
2.68
2.31
5.14
13.25
8.84
11.69
9.67
20.79
12.63
11.87
9.58
6.20
21.29
7.36
9.61
14.67
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbC)
0.02
0.03
NA
0.15
1.33
2.65
0.14
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.03
0. 16
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
13.21
2.44
NA
25.53
1.90
1.63
3.63
9.37
6.25
8.27
6.84
14.70
8.93
8.40
6.78
4.38
15.06
5.21
6.79
10.37
Table 34-33 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall average CV for all NMP sites sampling SNMOC. The average CV ranged from 0 percent
for w-butane for MOCO and isobutane for RUCO to 119.19 percent for styrene for UCSD. This
large CV was due to only one measured detection for styrene being compared to 1/2 MDL. The
overall program average CV was 8.71 percent.
34-79
-------
Table 34-33. SNMOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate
Analyses by Site
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
/raws-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
trans-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Average
(%)
2.16
4.21
8.95
1.25
9.29
6.39
4.90
8.73
8.61
5.43
NA
13.27
18.82
6.80
5.25
7.07
8.28
8.71
17.13
0.37
6.76
NA
1.85
8.03
11.87
10.08
5.72
6.87
3.49
17.46
15.79
38.60
1.97
3.94
2.66
11.62
20.12
11.59
10.80
26.74
7.76
O o
U§
S «
£B
1.51
10.25
3.65
4.75
2.86
9.30
4.97
2.83
2.69
5.19
NA
5.71
14.82
2.53
2.92
5.15
6.24
6.03
10.96
0.57
7.69
NA
3.39
8.40
7.67
5.23
7.46
5.40
7.66
10.44
9.35
NA
6.98
8.70
2.58
22.53
24.72
NA
11.77
NA
5.04
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
1.18
3.72
6.05
0.64
6.65
4.14
2.08
5.03
12.69
5.19
NA
12.41
11.93
5.26
2.20
2.35
3.40
6.98
10.71
0.37
5.77
NA
1.05
5.72
6.38
6.70
3.58
10.55
2.68
7.95
2.05
48.43
0.66
2.99
1.71
4.30
14.31
5.56
10.42
NA
3.80
P
C/5
tfff
£ £
1 ^
uB
2.06
2.64
9.29
0.74
9.89
8.51
5.95
15.84
7.24
5.15
NA
12.59
NA
15.76
7.61
5.71
12.81
8.22
10.21
0.42
6.92
NA
1.82
9.04
22.25
12.70
6.84
11.54
4.18
31.79
NA
NA
1.21
2.57
2.07
7.67
NA
19.07
10.43
NA
9.44
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
0.47
1.27
NA
0.45
19.77
5.43
7.15
7.10
9.45
2.58
NA
8.94
NA
5.30
1.31
12.10
16.02
1.46
NA
0.24
3.03
NA
0.74
9.44
18.20
9.69
9.10
14.80
2.62
8.22
NA
NA
1.17
1.06
1.39
NA
NA
13.56
7.37
NA
18.58
§8
1!
6.57
4.15
NA
0.00
2.03
1.34
1.20
1.20
1.25
9.44
NA
NA
NA
2.74
1.03
8.94
15.50
12.49
NA
0.36
7.64
NA
1.87
5.69
NA
19.28
2.24
2.67
2.72
30.73
NA
NA
0.36
5.51
1.13
8.29
NA
5.94
14.34
8.48
2.61
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
1.34
4.55
33.33
1.48
19.76
17.63
8.15
22.28
8.19
6.28
NA
12.09
NA
13.81
6.11
6.05
7.29
11.89
6.67
0.42
8.89
NA
2.23
15.26
15.34
8.84
6.15
6.48
2.25
34.67
38.35
NA
2.26
4.50
3.22
7.58
12.57
35.74
14.55
NA
11.36
34-80
-------
Table 34-33. SNMOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate
Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl-l-pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
trans-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
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
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
4.90
8.38
11.39
6.77
7.35
4.53
4.19
7.13
44.41
6.75
8.57
6.50
18.94
1.48
7.22
9.69
8.11
12.72
20.23
0.61
13.34
2.46
NA
36.17
1.40
1.42
4.28
16.66
14.65
18.24
7.09
10.52
7.55
12.83
7.50
5.36
28.30
5.71
6.85
8.71
O o
U§
S «
£B
5.58
7.28
7.13
6.75
6.76
4.95
5.26
NA
NA
6.30
3.41
7.00
29.04
1.76
5.14
3.61
11.17
10.87
4.09
1.36
8.63
1.77
NA
NA
2.49
2.51
8.07
7.28
11.40
5.76
5.99
8.66
6.51
8.28
1.39
4.44
1.01
7.92
7.34
6.83
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
3.19
7.81
6.31
6.75
3.41
2.59
2.58
13.71
47.84
4.46
16.95
3.87
24.04
0.91
5.06
5.66
5.62
10.12
3.14
0.42
7.91
1.76
NA
29.92
0.94
1.18
3.67
13.48
6.25
7.15
4.01
7.30
8.73
8.22
2.72
3.49
10.26
4.12
4.34
7.20
P
C/5
tfff
£ £
1 ^
uB
5.44
9.34
8.27
19.41
16.96
6.47
3.42
7.66
55.38
10.34
12.86
12.75
NA
1.47
3.62
16.40
8.40
7.95
17.64
0.40
20.07
1.78
NA
34.31
0.84
0.74
2.73
16.90
NA
23.88
9.74
25.94
4.98
25.01
6.56
2.70
NA
5.01
8.11
10.34
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
8.82
6.25
21.82
2.62
8.47
0.89
1.91
NA
NA
9.66
NA
4.26
NA
1.70
4.74
NA
8.77
38.13
NA
0.35
31.05
2.85
NA
23.25
0.65
1.10
2.74
NA
NA
92.51
14.08
NA
3.79
1.36
4.50
0.42
52.46
3.34
9.38
9.66
§8
1!
1.59
2.52
4.05
2.16
1.70
2.29
0.37
0.27
NA
7.51
NA
1.71
NA
0.47
18.63
11.14
6.85
NA
NA
0.61
8.40
4.31
NA
NA
0.84
0.28
1.78
NA
NA
NA
8.54
NA
NA
NA
20.20
14.87
1.38
4.28
7.43
5.65
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
4.56
18.21
13.98
10.02
14.16
8.48
10.88
5.94
NA
6.05
4.79
7.77
21.70
2.30
10.87
18.94
10.34
8.00
82.35
0.48
18.51
3.12
NA
4.23
2.85
2.09
3.59
5.26
NA
9.38
9.66
22.10
9.13
8.57
10.83
5.28
19.85
6.29
9.25
11.49
34-81
-------
Table 34-33. SNMOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate
Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
fraws-2 -Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
OT-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
fraws-2-Hexene
Isobutane
lsobutene/1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Average
(%)
2.16
4.21
8.95
1.25
9.29
6.39
4.90
8.73
8.61
5.43
NA
13.27
18.82
6.80
5.25
7.07
8.28
8.71
17.13
0.37
6.76
NA
1.85
8.03
11.87
10.08
5.72
6.87
3.49
17.46
15.79
38.60
1.97
3.94
2.66
11.62
20.12
11.59
10.80
26.74
7.76
Parachute, CO
(PACO)
1.91
2.44
2.53
0.26
5.36
4.62
0.61
2.59
5.59
4.51
NA
14.99
11.07
3.89
1.53
2.37
3.78
5.49
17.15
0.20
5.03
NA
0.87
4.48
11.40
3.77
2.34
3.15
1.57
9.92
23.71
NA
0.31
5.02
10.89
3.00
31.95
5.00
7.69
53.00
1.51
O
uo
au
IB
1.15
5.47
4.57
2.24
3.17
1.86
3.08
6.94
6.83
2.75
NA
4.23
12.35
4.00
5.62
6.02
2.72
5.63
5.99
0.38
3.92
NA
3.20
3.45
4.16
6.19
3.62
4.37
3.17
17.72
6.70
12.15
2.66
2.08
1.96
5.78
14.98
10.23
5.56
18.72
3.25
Rulison, CO
(RUCO)
2.07
5.74
NA
0.24
5.59
3.13
1.31
0.98
NA
4.17
NA
22.10
NA
1.05
0.49
4.17
3.04
7.94
64.82
0.34
7.89
NA
0.94
5.59
4.25
5.09
6.68
2.26
3.74
8.74
NA
NA
0.00
0.78
0.33
42.89
25.02
NA
4.86
NA
2.47
Q
C/5
»T
13
S«
3 C/3
0 VI
££
2.94
3.18
3.21
1.15
15.20
7.04
7.23
11.29
9.61
5.20
NA
13.55
18.08
8.64
8.35
7.34
8.91
14.28
26.10
0.40
8.84
NA
1.24
9.60
18.65
6.87
7.75
10.54
2.11
19.40
18.86
NA
2.53
4.92
2.18
7.81
22.51
5.63
7.40
NA
11.51
Q
C/5
S*j
-*^
0
a«
is
C i — ,
p &
2.58
2.89
NA
1.86
11.92
7.24
12.19
19.99
22.53
9.28
NA
26.12
44.63
11.83
20.53
17.54
11.40
15.45
1.59
0.35
8.72
NA
2.99
11.61
10.35
26.54
7.10
3.80
5.74
12.45
11.50
55.21
3.50
5.25
1.77
6.30
14.92
3.57
24.41
NA
15.83
34-82
-------
Table 34-33. SNMOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate
Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methylpentane
4-Methyl-l-pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
trans-1 -Pentene
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
SNMOC
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
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
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
w-Xylene/^-Xylene
o-Xylene
Average
Average
(%)
4.90
8.38
11.39
6.77
7.35
4.53
4.19
7.13
44.41
6.75
8.57
6.50
18.94
1.48
7.22
9.69
8.11
12.72
20.23
0.61
13.34
2.46
NA
36.17
1.40
1.42
4.28
16.66
14.65
18.24
7.09
10.52
7.55
12.83
7.50
5.36
28.30
5.71
6.85
8.71
Parachute, CO
(PACO)
1.45
6.07
3.66
1.59
2.66
1.04
3.53
5.92
NA
3.83
7.59
2.52
24.63
0.54
8.14
7.75
9.72
19.83
11.10
0.33
13.58
1.13
NA
NA
1.30
1.08
3.14
9.02
20.97
5.19
2.44
11.16
5.93
10.43
10.34
2.38
4.91
2.68
3.26
6.84
O
U0
au
IB
3.01
2.71
3.19
3.61
4.41
4.18
4.86
6.84
12.69
3.67
5.28
2.54
28.48
3.52
4.55
6.85
3.54
9.62
NA
0.56
3.53
1.98
NA
19.01
0.74
0.89
3.56
9.75
19.97
4.49
3.76
5.60
2.32
18.89
7.81
2.49
NA
3.36
3.98
5.93
Rulison, CO
(RUCO)
2.20
8.62
7.41
3.30
NA
1.51
1.53
NA
61.73
8.18
1.77
7.63
9.42
0.42
4.38
6.02
2.23
10.51
NA
0.10
4.11
1.47
NA
NA
1.01
1.14
7.00
29.15
NA
5.94
4.33
1.92
9.56
6.12
NA
1.64
19.66
7.71
6.89
7.71
Q
C/5
»T
13
^
3 C/3
0 VI
££
6.11
12.88
10.44
7.08
8.00
4.16
4.29
9.58
NA
9.19
18.53
9.31
10.96
0.99
8.22
8.42
7.16
8.51
17.02
0.98
13.29
3.05
NA
23.25
1.37
1.57
3.12
42.46
NA
12.42
5.64
9.36
7.25
24.11
3.35
7.69
54.53
4.91
6.14
9.94
Q
C/5
S*j
-*^
0
a«
is
C i — ,
P B
11.95
10.45
39.08
11.20
7.01
13.23
7.42
NA
NA
5.03
6.00
12.12
3.25
2.18
6.10
12.12
15.45
3.69
6.29
1.06
17.68
3.81
NA
119.19
2.37
3.02
7.67
NA
NA
15.71
9.80
2.64
17.26
17.27
7.33
13.54
90.61
13.21
9.27
14.02
34-83
-------
34.3.3 Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision
Table 34-34 presents the analytical precision results from replicate analyses of duplicate
and collocated carbonyl compound samples. The overall average variability was 2.65 percent,
which is within the control limits of 15 percent CV. In terms of average concentration difference,
the carbonyl compound precision ranged from <0.01 ppbv for several pollutants to 0.02 ppbv for
formaldehyde.
Table 34-34. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: 1,468 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
1,468
1,468
1,419
1,462
1,434
0
1,468
1,420
255
1,468
1,415
1,394
14,671
Average RPD
(%)
1.31
1.23
4.81
3.75
3.42
NA
1.30
4.96
5.63
3.34
6.49
5.01
3.75
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
NA
0.02
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
0.92
0.87
3.40
2.65
2.42
NA
0.92
3.51
3.98
2.36
4.59
3.54
2.65
Table 34-35 shows analytical precision results from replicate analyses of all collocated
carbonyl compound samples collected at DEMI, IDIN, INDEM, ININ, LDTN, MSTN, NBIL,
PXSS, SEW A, TOOK, TSOK, TUOK, and WPIN. The analytical precision results from
collocated samples show variation for the pollutants ranging from 0.44 percent (acetone) to
3.74 percent (tolualdehydes). The overall average variability was 2.18 percent.
34-84
-------
Table 34-35. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: 758 Replicate Analyses
for all Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
758
758
730
756
728
0
758
743
104
758
740
730
7,563
Average RPD
(%)
0.83
0.63
4.26
3.30
3.11
NA
0.72
4.47
4.08
2.79
5.29
4.37
3. 08
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
NA
0.02
O.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
<0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
0.59
0.44
3.01
2.33
2.20
NA
0.51
3.16
2.88
1.97
3.74
3.09
2.18
Table 34-36 shows the analytical precision results from replicate analyses of all duplicate
carbonyl compound samples. The analytical precision results from duplicate samples show
variation ranging from 1.26 percent (acetaldehyde) to 5.44 percent (tolualdehydes). The overall
average variability was 3.13 percent.
Table 34-36. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: 710 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate Samples
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Number of
Observations
710
710
689
706
706
0
710
677
151
Average RPD
(%)
1.78
1.84
5.35
4.19
3.72
NA
1.88
5.46
7.18
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
NA
0.03
O.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
1.26
1.30
3.79
2.96
2.63
NA
1.33
3.86
5.08
34-85
-------
Table 34-36. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: 710 Replicate Analyses
for all Duplicate Samples (Continued)
Pollutant
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
710
675
664
7,108
Average RPD
(%)
3.90
7.69
5.65
4.42
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
2.76
5.44
3.99
3. 13
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-37 presents the analytical
precision results from carbonyl compound replicate analyses of duplicate and collocated samples
at NATTS sites (BTUT, DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, PXSS, S4MO, SEW A, SKFL, and SYFL).
Shaded rows present results for the NATTS MQO Core Analytes, as identified in Section 3.2.
The analytical precision results from the NATTS replicate samples show low-level variability
among the sites, ranging from 0.46 percent for acetone to 4.25 percent for tolualdehydes. The
average CV was 2.28 percent.
Table 34-37. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: 442 Replicate Analyses
for Duplicate and Collocated Samples for the NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
442
442
440
440
432
0
442
436
78
442
431
434
4,459
Average RPD
(%)
0.74
0.65
4.17
2.79
2.89
NA
0.71
4.08
5.97
2.92
6.01
4.58
3.23
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
NA
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
<0.01
Coefficient of Variation
(%)
0.53
0.46
2.95
1.97
2.04
NA
0.50
2.88
4.22
2.07
4.25
3.24
2.28
34-86
-------
Table 34-38 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall CV for all NMP sites sampling carbonyl compounds. The replicate results from duplicate
and collocated samples show low- to high-level variability among the sites, ranging from an
average CV of 0.13 percent for acetone for EQWA and GPMS to 124.78 percent for
isovaleraldehyde for CHNJ. The high percent CV is due to only one isovaleraldehyde measured
detection compared to 1/2 MDL. The average CV was 3.01 percent.
34-87
-------
Table 34-38. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Replicate Analyses by Site
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Average
Average
0.91
0.86
3.42
2.72
2.73
NA
0.92
3.70
7.95
2.55
5.16
3.83
3.01
St. Petersburg, FL
(AZFL)
0.56
0.67
2.54
2.44
1.81
NA
0.88
3.14
3.37
2.61
3.71
2.49
2.20
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
0.35
0.23
2.85
1.57
1.94
NA
0.45
2.31
2.74
1.57
3.44
3.28
L88
Z
€\
uB
0.99
1.12
1.43
1.92
1.76
NA
1.20
2.44
4.38
2.44
3.14
3.69
2.23
"2 £d
0.66
0.44
3.00
2.20
3.15
NA
0.54
2.69
NA
1.97
2.85
2.67
2.02
Hn
€\ ^_^^
0.48
0.40
2.00
2.10
2.42
NA
0.46
3.69
124.78
2.00
5.93
2.14
13.31
Columbus, OH
(COOH)
0.95
0.79
2.67
2.81
1.72
NA
0.63
2.35
5.15
1.79
3.40
4.99
2.48
P
"wa ^
0.55
0.30
9.91
4.07
3.07
NA
0.58
1.16
4.01
1.90
5.88
1.86
3.03
Dearborn, MI
(DEMI)
0.35
0.54
3.57
1.86
1.13
NA
0.41
1.83
3.88
1.78
3.12
3.43
1.99
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
0.50
0.34
1.84
1.99
1.64
NA
0.53
1.88
4.82
1.46
3.69
2.99
1.97
5i
0.33
0.13
2.14
1.12
2.44
NA
0.37
0.01
NA
1.29
2.02
1.64
1.28
oo
oo
-------
Table 34-38. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Average
Average
(%)
0.91
0.86
3.42
2.72
2.73
NA
0.92
3.70
7.95
2.55
5.16
3.83
3.01
-J
ta
& 3
g-fe
S <
H£
0.50
0.93
3.19
2.62
1.65
NA
0.92
10.45
0.01
2.89
5.03
6.05
3. 42
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
0.34
0.26
1.46
1.40
1.78
NA
0.49
2.92
3.79
1.86
9.70
3.32
2.48
C/5
S
°t
f§
3£
0.42
0.13
1.91
0.64
3.22
NA
0.57
4.58
1.91
4.80
17.88
4.72
3.71
Indianapolis, IN
(IDEV)
0.76
0.41
2.91
2.44
1.75
NA
0.63
11.26
NA
3.37
4.25
3.31
3.11
Gary, IN
(INDEM)
0.58
0.45
2.85
2.50
2.99
NA
0.53
2.73
2.11
2.38
4.41
3.58
2.28
Indianapolis, IN
(INEV)
0.73
0.60
2.47
2.20
1.64
NA
0.66
3.01
5.27
2.19
4.35
3.74
2.44
H
€\ ^_^
0 Z
•0 H
3 Q
3d
0.40
0.34
3.13
1.83
2.61
NA
0.45
1.86
1.25
1.35
4.01
2.91
L83
Memphis, TN
(METN)
16.01
16.00
16.95
16.91
16.28
NA
16.11
16.80
2.33
16.57
17.49
16.50
75.27
H
II
J*
0.53
0.46
3.30
1.56
1.20
NA
0.48
2.90
2.77
1.77
4.10
3.26
2.03
Midwest City,
OK (MWOK)
0.40
0.28
0.82
3.86
1.93
NA
0.44
2.27
0.01
1.40
2.02
4.01
1.74
oo
VO
-------
Table 34-38. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Average
Average
(%)
0.91
0.86
3.42
2.72
2.73
NA
0.92
3.70
7.95
2.55
5.16
3.83
3.01
-J
HH
£
o
P
-° '"T"
a d
1 «
z o
0.58
0.54
2.91
1.94
4.10
NA
0.65
4.08
NA
2.60
3.85
2.31
2.36
*TI
Z
-i
y
1
=
M^
^ Z
g «
Z O
0.25
0.38
4.17
2.42
2.20
NA
0.55
4.09
0.96
2.14
5.57
2.58
2.30
tt
O
£>
u
C«
s /-v
1 *
18
o£
0.33
0.56
3.09
4.34
1.30
NA
0.43
2.95
2.83
3.16
2.66
2.04
2. 15
J
tL.
•^
"S
CS
PH
^g
.S etf
£S
0.38
0.95
2.80
2.71
0.86
NA
0.33
2.46
0.01
1.88
4.34
3.87
2.06
O
U
«
-^^
*0
i^
£&
0.14
O.01
3.80
6.02
3.23
NA
0.19
8.84
NA
0.66
12.38
5.45
4.52
tt
O
^>
S
u^
l.i
?"i ffi
£fe
0.39
0.32
2.28
2.66
1.79
NA
0.35
1.36
4.21
1.53
3.17
2.34
1.86
SI
•<
H ^^
'3 i/2
S !/5
2 X
•o «j
0- fe
0.61
0.23
3.58
2.29
2.17
NA
0.40
2.94
3.33
1.74
3.31
3.58
2.20
o
"§
j3 3,
0.87
0.92
2.48
1.70
2.37
NA
0.90
2.29
4.16
3.13
3.54
3.94
2.3P
O
X
s o
31
^ s
0.38
0.38
3.49
2.20
1.59
NA
0.37
3.29
8.50
1.84
4.94
3.75
2.79
*t,
£
u3
~ ^
-*^ ^
& £d
£%
0.97
0.57
2.64
2.22
2.80
NA
0.72
3.29
NA
3.08
3.58
2.95
2.2S
VO
o
-------
Table 34-38. Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Replicate Analyses by Site (Continued)
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehvde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Average
Average
(%)
0.91
0.86
3.42
2.72
2.73
NA
0.92
3.70
7.95
2.55
5.16
3.83
3.01
-J
ta
•^
"S
C«
0.
5B /^ «\
ss J
IS
•£ sa
0.55
0.80
2.84
1.77
1.08
NA
0.42
2.17
4.34
1.78
3.60
4.38
2. 16
J
HH
•if
c«
Q-
•_
4J O1
Is
£ sa
0.24
0.28
3.11
2.36
0.85
NA
0.32
3.31
2.02
0.68
2.01
3.33
1.68
p
C/5
a
o &^
0.36
0.35
3.79
2.11
1.11
NA
0.30
2.63
2.18
1.25
3.96
2.76
1.89
ta
£
•^ ^ ^
a £
E S
0.72
0.45
1.75
2.67
1.43
NA
0.49
3.99
0.01
1.75
4.13
3.68
2.11
%^
O &
I |
H b
0.60
0.53
3.43
2.27
2.06
NA
0.80
2.87
3.32
1.34
4.12
2.53
2.17
W
O ^
K ®
H b
0.78
0.47
7.09
1.36
14.01
NA
0.85
3.07
NA
9.80
17.51
14.87
6.98
W
O ^
i o
•3 &>
H b
0.30
0.16
3.74
2.50
3.67
NA
0.18
2.07
2.44
1.37
3.65
1.45
1.96
W
O ^
|0
H b
0.75
0.47
3.64
2.72
1.98
NA
0.42
4.08
3.75
1.72
4.24
3.16
2. 45
s
^ rf?
O 22
•3 S
H b
0.55
0.80
2.84
1.77
1.08
NA
0.42
2.17
4.34
1.78
3.60
4.38
2. 16
P
C/5
^s
-*^
0
U ^
- Q
IP
&&
0.24
0.28
3.11
2.36
0.85
NA
0.32
3.31
2.02
0.68
2.01
3.33
1.68
Z
€v
%
O
ss o
B Z
* g
'•s ^
£^
0.36
0.35
3.79
2.11
1.11
NA
0.30
2.63
2.18
1.25
3.96
2.76
1.89
-------
34.3.4 Metals Analytical Precision
The analytical precision results for all collocated metals samples are presented in
Table 34-39. The average CV, as well as the average RPD, show low- to high-level variability
among the sites. Average CVs ranged from 0.88 percent for arsenic to 30.57 percent for
beryllium, with an overall average of 7.18 percent.
Table 34-39. Metals Analytical Precision: 954 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
954
950
865
950
950
950
954
954
898
952
949
10,326
Average RPD
(%)
2.22
1.25
43.24
7.70
1.77
10.52
4.98
1.51
29.36
6.88
3.57
10.16
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.09
0.14
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
1.57
0.88
30.57
5.45
1.25
7.44
3.52
1.06
20.76
4.86
2.52
7.18
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-40 presents the analytical
precision results from collocated metals samples collected at the NATTS sites (BOMA, BTUT,
NBIL, S4MO, and UNVT). Shaded rows present results for the NATTS MQO Core Analytes, as
identified in Section 3.2. The variability ranged from 1.31 percent (antimony) to 34.15 percent
(beryllium), with an overall CV of 7.93 percent.
Table 34-40. Metals Analytical Precision: 474 Collocated Samples
for the NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Number of
Observations
474
468
403
Average RPD
(%)
1.85
2.87
48.30
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.01
0.01
O.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
1.31
2.03
34.15
34-92
-------
Table 34-40. Metals Analytical Precision: 474 Collocated Samples
for the NATTS Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
470
470
470
474
474
421
472
469
5,065
Average RPD
(%)
4.01
2.28
7.66
3.46
2.93
38.38
5.20
6.39
11.21
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.01
0.04
<0.01
0.11
0.12
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.05
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
2.83
1.61
5.42
2.44
2.07
27.14
3.67
4.52
7.93
Table 34-41 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall average CV for all NMP sites sampling metals. The results from collocated samples show
low- to high-level variability among sites, ranging from an average CV of 0.45 percent for
cadmium for S4MO to 67.22 percent for beryllium for BTUT, with an overall average of 6.63
percent.
Table 34-41. Metals Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation
for all Replicate Analyses by Site
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Average
Average
(%)
1.29
1.81
25.68
2.65
1.44
4.51
2.13
2.02
25.99
3.61
3.81
6.63
^-
|g
1 o
M B
0.67
0.86
29.60
1.59
0.89
1.09
0.53
0.96
30.32
0.78
3.06
6.40
H
P
€\
3
to p
ap
3 H
M B
2.36
6.71
67.22
0.62
2.56
9.89
4.35
6.75
49.74
6.81
13.28
15.48
O £
Iz
£ B
1.61
1.80
4.76
3.41
0.86
3.14
1.51
2.40
30.90
5.88
2.59
5.35
hJ
M
^>
0
s
ifi O
a d
? P3
z e>
0.54
0.92
11.53
1.86
0.90
1.79
0.61
0.65
4.14
1.51
1.67
2.37
O
€\
'3 o
o a
J S
"*^ Tf)
Zfl ^^
0.67
0.88
15.26
0.45
2.08
1.02
0.71
1.10
24.35
0.78
1.95
4.48
tt
0,^
« TO
^o
nb
0.85
0.73
4.24
0.99
1.33
1.31
1.20
1.37
16.49
0.99
1.46
2.81
H
>
€\
|P
b >
"a Z
& B
2.32
0.78
47.14
9.65
NA
13.30
6.03
0.90
NA
8.49
2.65
10.14
34-93
-------
34.3.5 Hexavalent Chromium Analytical Precision
Table 34-42 presents the hexavalent chromium analytical precision results. Hexavalent
chromium is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte and all the sites shown are NATTS sites. The range
of variability for hexavalent chromium was 3.04 percent (SEW A) to 20.51 percent (HAKY),
with the overall average CV of 10.69 percent.
Table 34-42. Hexavalent Chromium Analytical Precision: Replicate Analyses
for Collocated Samples
Site
BOMA
BTUT
BXNY
CHSC
DEMI
GLKY
GPCO
HAKY
MVWI
NBIL
PRRI
PXSS
RIVA
ROCH
S4MO
SDGA
SEWA
SKFL
SYFL
UNVT
WADC
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
30
63
46
24
44
8
26
7
16
34
26
52
11
19
45
32
36
20
22
10
20
591
Average
RPD
(%)
15.69
12.51
8.85
19.80
7.11
8.80
11.84
29.01
27.52
11.75
18.00
5.65
21.30
18.26
20.46
18.48
4.30
9.00
21.60
19.64
7.77
15.11
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.01
0.01
O.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
<0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
11.09
8.85
6.26
14.00
5.03
6.23
8.37
20.51
19.46
8.31
12.73
4.00
15.06
12.91
14.47
13.07
3.04
6.36
15.28
13.89
5.49
10.69
34-94
-------
34.3.6 PAH Analytical Precision
The analytical precision results for the replicate analyses of the collocated PAH samples
are shown in Table 34-43. The average concentration differences observed for PAH ranged from
0.01 ng/m3 for several pollutants to 1.66 ng/m3 for naphthalene. The average CV ranged from
1.63 percent for fluorene to 23.73 percent for anthracene, with an overall average of 8.37
percent.
Table 34-43. PAH Analytical Precision: 554 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
9-Fluorenone
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Retene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
554
279
227
429
252
524
425
395
393
550
224
60
33
572
563
512
249
572
83
571
569
523
8,559
Average RPD
(%)
4.09
23.20
33.55
14.32
10.91
5.65
10.12
7.37
19.33
5.75
13.34
33.40
13.16
2.41
2.30
6.09
9.06
2.65
30.77
2.59
3.25
7.18
11.84
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.11
0.12
0.40
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.01
1.66
0.02
0.24
0.03
0.03
0.13
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
2.89
16.41
23.73
10.12
7.72
3.99
7.15
5.21
13.67
4.06
9.43
23.62
9.30
1.70
1.63
4.30
6.41
1.88
21.76
1.83
2.30
5.08
8.37
Due to the focus on QA for the NATTS program, Table 34-44 presents the average
analytical precision results from the NATTS sites (DEMI, PLOR, RUCA, SEW A, SDGA, and
SYFL). Shaded rows present results for NATTS MQO Core Analytes, as identified in
34-95
-------
Section 3.2. The average CV ranged from 1.47 percent for fluoranthrene to 27.90 percent for
perylene, with an overall average of 8.22 percent.
Table 34-44. PAH Analytical Precision: 449 Collocated Samples for the NATTS Sites
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
"luoranthene
"luorene
9-Fluorenone
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Retene
Total & Averages
Number of
Observations
449
199
156
328
184
416
324
292
306
441
149
50
25
458
453
405
172
458
68
455
455
411
6,654
Average RPD
(%)
2.73
18.24
29.99
11.13
14.73
5.22
11.39
4.98
14.96
4.96
11.07
28.99
19.02
2.07
2.53
3.98
10.75
2.67
39.45
3.00
3.11
10.73
11.62
Average
Concentration
Difference
(ng/m3)
0.08
0.06
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.01
1.97
0.02
0.17
0.03
0.02
0. 13
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
1.93
12.90
21.21
7.87
10.41
3.69
8.05
3.52
10.58
3.51
7.83
20.50
13.45
1.47
1.79
2.81
7.60
1.89
27.90
2.12
2.20
7.59
8.22
Table 34-45 presents the average CV per pollutant, per pollutant per site, per site, and the
overall average CV for all sites sampling PAH. The results from replicate analysis of collocated
samples show low- to high-level variability among sites, ranging from 0.15 percent for PLOR
(9-fluorenone) to 81.79 percent for ANAK (anthracene). This high CV is based on just three
measured detections. The overall average for all sites was 8.13 percent.
34-96
-------
Table 34-45. PAH Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses by Site
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
9-Fluorenone
lndeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Retene
Average
Average
%
3.85
14.05
29.71
7.62
8.98
3.50
7.03
3.48
10.85
4.16
8.06
18.06
12.22
1.99
1.95
4.20
6.38
1.86
24.96
2.61
2.28
6.41
8.13
Anchorage, AK
(ANAK)
17.57
17.34
81.79
9.48
4.00
3.10
5.43
2.18
12.45
10.69
12.07
7.45
NA
5.48
2.85
15.11
2.08
1.59
7.08
7.39
3.32
1.90
10.97
Dearborn, MI
(DEMI)
1.11
21.37
17.63
7.99
2.36
3.30
1.64
2.44
6.61
1.11
3.60
29.07
10.90
1.65
1.72
1.40
3.41
1.09
12.02
7.78
1.82
6.81
6.67
Tacoma, WA
(EQWA)
1.66
17.69
28.68
4.26
5.39
2.70
2.50
4.57
10.85
1.51
5.47
16.47
8.56
1.63
1.99
1.61
3.33
1.96
28.14
0.80
1.72
3.86
7.06
Portland, OR
(PLOR)
0.69
2.35
28.98
1.01
15.04
2.96
15.28
2.31
9.92
1.85
6.64
NA
NA
1.02
2.68
0.15
12.41
2.51
NA
0.79
0.55
1.48
5.72
Rubidoux, CA
(RUCA)
2.42
11.78
12.24
9.49
5.51
7.54
7.79
2.08
13.01
2.25
12.92
3.57
3.98
1.68
1.79
1.86
3.70
2.41
14.27
0.96
5.30
12.55
6.32
Decatur, GA
(SDGA)
2.60
12.94
21.89
9.39
19.75
2.21
9.49
3.77
7.88
9.35
5.42
7.76
NA
1.32
1.41
7.01
4.56
1.70
57.78
1.04
1.69
13.58
9.64
<
£
J?|
C ^
S£
-------
34.4 Accuracy
Laboratories typically evaluate their accuracy (or bias) by analyzing external audit
samples and comparing the measured concentrations obtained to the known concentrations of
those audit samples. Accuracy, or bias, indicates the extent to which experimental measurements
represent their corresponding "true" or "actual" values.
Laboratories participating in the NATTS program are provided with proficiency test (PT)
audit samples for VOC, carbonyl compounds, metals, and PAH which are used to quantitatively
measure analytical accuracy. Tables 34-46 through 34-49 present ERG's results from the 2008
and 2009 NATTS PT audit samples for VOC, carbonyl compounds, metals, and PAH,
respectively. Table 34-50 shows ERG's result for the 2009 PT audit sample received from EPA
for hexavalent chromium. The acceptable percent difference from the true values is ± 25 percent,
and the values exceeding this criteria are bolded in the tables. While there are values outside the
program DQOs for metals, manganese is the only analyte to exceed the DQO over multiple
audits. Shaded rows present results for NATTS MQO Core Analytes.
Table 34-46. VOC NATTS PT Audit Samples-Percent Difference from True Value
Pollutant
Acrolein
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
March, 2008
10
-1.5
7.8
16.5
4.3
4.4
6.3
11.1
3.0
6.6
8.3
-4.3
0.0
5.3
-14.1
March, 2009
-11
7.6
-11.4
0.0
6.4
-2.1
2.0
7.9
0.0
3.3
-3.1
-8.2
2.2
6.2
1.1
June, 2009
-18.5
4.7
10.4
3.7
4.5
-0.9
3.4
3.4
-4.4
0.0
-4.9
-6.3
0.0
-0.8
-1.2
34-98
-------
Table 34-47. Carbonyl Compound NATTS PT Audit Samples-Percent Difference from
True Value
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
January, 2009
-6.3
-2.4
May, 2009
-9.3
-17.7
Table 34-48. Metals NATTS PT Audit Samples-Percent Difference from True Value
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
May, 2008
-8.7
8.4
4.8
5.1
4.7
-25.3
8.6
February, 2009
NA
-14.8
-5.5
-16.2
-30.6
-37.7
-28.9
Table 34-49. PAH NATTS PT Audit Samples-Percent Difference from True Value
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
August, 2008
-1.0
10.7
17.2
10.3
4.9
-11.1
-1.3
8.1
October, 2008
-1.0
-2.6
7.0
5.9
-5.2
-13.2
-4.1
-0.9
February, 2009
-10.9
-0.8
-1.7
3.7
-5.4
-7.7
-2.7
7.6
Table 34-50. Hexavalent Chromium PT Audit Samples-Percent Difference from True
Value
Pollutant
Hexavalent Chromium
July, 2009
2.32
34-99
-------
The accuracy of the 2008 and 2009 monitoring data can also be assessed qualitatively by
reviewing the accuracy of the monitoring methods and how they were implemented:
• The sampling and analytical methods used in the 2008 and 2009 monitoring effort
have been approved by EPA for accurately measuring ambient levels of various
pollutants—an approval that is based on many years of research into the
development of ambient air monitoring methodologies.
• When collecting and analyzing ambient air samples, all field sampling staff and
laboratory analysts are required to strictly adhere to quality control and quality
assurance guidelines detailed in the respective monitoring methods. This strict
adherence to the well-documented sampling and analytical methods suggests that
the 2008 and 2009 monitoring data accurately represent ambient air quality.
34-100
-------
35.0 Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The following discussion summarizes the results of the data analyses contained in this
report and presents recommendations applicable to future air monitoring efforts. As
demonstrated by the results of the data analyses discussed throughout this report, NMP
monitoring data offer a wealth of information for assessing air quality by evaluating trends,
patterns, correlations, and the potential for health risk and should ultimately assist a wide range
of audiences understand the complex nature of air pollution.
35.1 Summary of Results
Analyses of the 2008 and 2009 monitoring data identified the following notable results,
observations, trends, and patterns in the program-level and state- and site-specific air pollution
data.
35.1.1 National-level Summary
• Number of participating NATTS sites. Twenty-six of the 73 sites are EPA-designated
NATTS sites (BOMA, BTUT, BXNY, CAMS 35, CELA, CHSC, DEMI, GLKY,
GPCO, HAKY, MVWI, NBIL, PLOR, PRRI, PXSS, ROCH, RIVA, RUCA, S4MO,
SDGA, SEW A, SJJCA, SKFL, SYFL, UNVT, and WADC).
• Total number of samples collected and analyzed. Over 18,000 samples were collected
yielding over 462,400 valid measurements of air toxics.
• Detects. The detection of a given pollutant is subject to the analytical methods used
and the limitations of the instruments. Simply stated, a method detection limit is the
lowest concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99
percent confidence that the pollutant concentration is greater than zero. Every
pollutant was detected at least once during the 2008 and 2009 monitoring efforts.
Approximately 57 percent of the reported measurements were above the associated
MDLs.
• Program-level Pollutants of Interest. The pollutants of interest at the program-level
are based on the number of exceedances, or "failures," of the preliminary risk
screening values. In addition, 18 NATTS MQO Core Analytes (excluding acrolein)
are classified as pollutants of interest. Only two NATTS MQO Core Analytes
(beryllium and chloroform) did not fail any screens.
• Risk Screening using A TSDR MRLs. Fourteen preprocessed daily measurements
(measured at INDEM, PROK, and UCSD), two quarterly averages (calculated for
INDEM, 2008), and one annual average (calculated for INDEM, 2008) of
formaldehyde were higher than the associated ATSDR acute, intermediate, and
35-1
-------
chronic MRLs, respectively. One preprocessed daily benzene measurement
(measured at ELNJ) exceeded the AT SDR acute MRL.
• Cancer Surrogate Risk Approximations. The cancer surrogate risk approximation
calculated for INDEM for formaldehyde's 2008 annual average (976.72 in-a-million)
was the highest of all annual average-based cancer risk approximations. Five
additional sites exhibited cancer risk approximations greater than 50 in-a-million
(SPAZ 2009, PROK 2009, ININ 2008, UCSD 2009, and GPCO 2008). With the
exception of acrylonitrile for SPAZ, the remaining cancer risk approximations were
for formaldehyde.
• Noncancer Surrogate Risk Approximations. The noncancer surrogate risk
approximation calculated for INDEM for formaldehyde's 2008 annual average (an
HQ of 7.67) was the highest of all annual average-based noncancer risk
approximations. No other site had noncancer risk approximations greater than 1.0.
• Emissions and Toxicity Weighted Emissions. Benzene tended to have the highest
county-level emissions for most participating counties (of those with a cancer URE).
Both benzene and formaldehyde tended to have the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions. Toluene was often the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk
factor, although it rarely had top 10 toxicity-weighted emissions. Acrolein tended to
have the highest toxicity-weighted emissions of pollutants with noncancer RfCs,
although it was rarely emitted in high enough quantities to rank in the top 10
emissions for the participating counties.
35.1.2 State-level Summary
Alaska.
• The Alaska monitoring site is located in Anchorage, Alaska. ANAK is a UATMP site
that sampled from October 2008 to October 2009.
• Back trajectories originated primarily from the northeast, east and southeast of
ANAK. The air shed domain was among the smallest of all the NMP monitoring
sites, with the longest trajectory originating about 450 miles from ANAK.
• The wind roses for ANAK show that calm winds are prevalent near ANAK; for winds
speeds greater than 2 knots, northerly to northeasterly winds were most common.
• ANAK sampled for VOC and PAH.
• Thirteen pollutants failed screens for ANAK, including seven NATTS MQO Core
Analytes.
• Of the pollutants of interest for ANAK, benzene had the highest daily averages for
both 2008 and 2009.
35-2
-------
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL noncancer
health risk benchmarks for ANAK.
• Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer risk
approximations for ANAK. None of the pollutants of interest for ANAK had a
noncancer risk approximation greater than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in the Anchorage
Borough, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk
factor. Benzene also had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions, while
acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for the Anchorage
Borough.
Arizona.
• The Arizona monitoring sites are located in Phoenix. PXSS is a NATTS site; SPAZ is
a UATMP site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at PXSS and SPAZ, though
many are from the southwest and west. Their air shed domains were somewhat
smaller in size compared to other NMP monitoring sites, as nearly all trajectories
originated within 250 miles of the sites.
• The wind roses show that calm, easterly, westerly and east-southeasterly winds were
prevalent near PXSS and SPAZ for both 2008 and 2009.
• PXSS sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, PAH, metals (PMio), and hexavalent
chromium. SPAZ sampled for VOC only.
• Twenty-three pollutants, of which 13 are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens
for PXSS. PXSS failed the highest number of screens among all NMP sites.
• Ten pollutants failed screens for SPAZ, of which four are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Carbon tetrachloride and acrylonitrile failed 100 percent of screens for both
sites.
• Of the pollutants of interest for PXSS, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration both years. PXSS had the highest daily average concentration of
hexavalent chromium and beryllium (PMio) among all NMP sites sampling these
pollutants for 2008 and 2009.
• Of the pollutants of interest for SPAZ, acrylonitrile and benzene had the highest daily
average concentrations for both years. SPAZ had the second (2009) and third (2008)
highest daily average concentrations of acrylonitrile compared to all NMP sites that
sampled this pollutant.
35-3
-------
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL noncancer
health risk benchmarks for either of the two Arizona monitoring sites.
• Formaldehyde and benzene had the highest cancer risk approximations for PXSS both
years. None of the pollutants of interest for PXSS had a noncancer risk approximation
greater than 1.0.
• Not enough data were available to calculate annual averages for 2008 for SPAZ,
therefore, cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations could not be
calculated. For 2009, acrylonitrile and benzene had the highest cancer risk
approximations, with the acrylonitrile cancer risk approximation being the second
highest cancer risk approximation calculated among any of the NMP site-specific
pollutants of interest. None of the pollutants of interest for SPAZ had noncancer risk
approximations greater than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Maricopa
County, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor.
Formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions, while acrolein had
the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for Maricopa County.
California.
• The three California monitoring sites are located in Los Angeles (CELA), Rubidoux
(RUCA), and San Jose (SJJCA). All three are NATTS sites.
• Back trajectories for CELA and RUCA primarily originated from the northwest, with
a secondary cluster originating from the northeast. Their air shed domains were
somewhat smaller in size compared to other NMP monitoring sites as nearly all
trajectories originated within 300 miles of the sites. The back trajectories for SJJCA
primarily originated from the northwest and north. The air shed domain for SJJCA is
larger than the other two California sites; nearly all trajectories originated within 400
miles of the site.
• CELA experienced primarily calm winds, although those greater than 2 knots were
predominantly from the west. The wind roses show that westerly winds were
prevalent near RUCA. SJJCA experienced predominantly northwesterly and north-
northwesterly winds.
• CELA and RUCA sampled for PAH only. SJJCA sampled for PAH and metals
(PM10).
• Naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene failed screens for CELA and RUCA, both of which
are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Five pollutants (arsenic, naphthalene, manganese,
lead, and cadmium) failed screens for SJJCA, all of which are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes.
35-4
-------
• Naphthalene had the highest daily average concentration for each site. The daily
average concentrations of naphthalene were similar for RUCA and SJJCA, while the
daily average concentration of naphthalene for CELA was nearly double that of
RUCA and SJJCA. All three sites exhibited similar average concentrations of
benzo(a)pyrene.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL noncancer
health risk benchmarks.
• Of the pollutants of interest for each site, naphthalene exhibited the highest cancer
risk approximation for all three California sites in 2008 and 2009. The noncancer
surrogate risk approximations were less than 1.0 for all three sites.
• Formaldehyde was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Los
Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Clara Counties; formaldehyde also had the highest
cancer toxicity-weighted emissions for all three counties.
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in Los
Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Clara Counties, while acrolein had the highest
noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for all three counties.
Colorado.
• The NATTS site in Colorado is located in Grand Junction (GPCO). There are also
five CSATAM sites located north of Grand Junction in Garfield County. The sites are
located in the towns of Silt (BRCO), Rifle (MOCO and RICO), Rulison (RUCO), and
Parachute (PACO).
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at GPCO, though almost all
had a westerly component. The 24-hour air shed domain GPCO was somewhat
smaller in size than other NMP monitoring sites, with most back trajectories
originating less than 200 miles from the site. The Garfield County sites had air shed
domains of similar size to GPCO, which is expected given the close proximity of
these sites to GPCO.
• Both the 2008 and 2009 wind roses for GPCO show that easterly, east-southeasterly,
and southeasterly winds were prevalent near the site. Westerly and southerly winds
were prevalent for the Garfield County sites.
• GPCO sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, PAH, and hexavalent chromium. The
Garfield County sites sampled for SNMOC and carbonyl compounds.
• Sixteen pollutants failed at least one screen for GPCO, of which nine are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes. The number of pollutants that failed screens for the Garfield
County sites ranged from five (MOCO and RUCO) to six (BRCO, PACO, and
35-5
-------
RICO). For all six Colorado sites, benzene and formaldehyde failed 100 percent of all
screens.
• Of the pollutants of interest for GPCO, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration, followed by acetaldehyde. Benzene had the highest daily average
concentration for each of the Garfield County sites. Benzene concentrations measured
at these sites account for five of the 10 highest daily average concentrations for sites
that sampled benzene.
• Sampling has occurred at GPCO for at least five consecutive years; thus, a trends
analysis was conducted for acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and
hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium and 1,3-butadiene exhibited a slight
decreasing trend; formaldehyde exhibited an increasing trend; benzene had a
decreasing trend but increased for the final time frame; and acetaldehyde showed
little change.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the Colorado sites were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• For sites where annual averages of formaldehyde could be calculated (GPCO, BRCO
2008, and RICO), formaldehyde had the highest cancer risk approximations. The
cancer risk approximations for benzene were greater than 10 in-a-million for all sites
except MOCO. All noncancer risk approximations were less than 1.0 for all six
Colorado sites.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Mesa and
Garfield Counties. Benzene also had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions
for Mesa County, while formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions for Garfield County.
• While toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor for both
counties, acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-emissions.
District of Columbia
• The Washington, D.C. monitoring site is a NATTS site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at WADC. The 24-hour air
shed domain for WADC was similar in size to many other NMP sites, with the
longest trajectories originating more than 700 miles from the site.
• The wind roses show that southerly and south-southwesterly winds were prevalent
near WADC.
35-6
-------
• WADC sampled for hexavalent chromium and PAH. The only pollutant to fail
screens for WADC was naphthalene, with 83 out of 86 measured detections failing
screens.
• The pollutant with the highest daily average concentrations for WADC was
naphthalene (for both years).
• Hexavalent chromium sampling has occurred at WADC for at least five consecutive
years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted. Hexavalent chromium exhibited a slight
decreasing trend, though more years of sampling may be required to verify this trend.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for WADC were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Naphthalene had the highest cancer risk approximation for WADC, where cancer risk
approximations could be calculated.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in the District of
Columbia, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk
factor. Formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions, while
acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions in the District.
Florida.
• Four of the Florida monitoring sites are located in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-
Clearwater MSA (GAFL, SYFL, AZFL, and SKFL); two are located in the Orlando-
Kissimmee MSA (ORFL and PAFL); and two are located in the Miami-Ft.
Lauderdale-Pompano Beach MSA (CCFL and FLFL). Two monitoring sites in the
Tampa/St. Petersburg area are NATTS sites (SKFL and SYFL).
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the Tampa/St. Petersburg
and Orlando sites. Easterly and northeasterly back trajectories were prevalent for both
CCFL and FLFL. Most back trajectories originated within 400 miles of the Tampa/St.
Petersburg and Orlando sites, while most back trajectories originated within 500
miles of the CCFL and FLFL.
• Winds from a variety of directions were observed near the Tampa/St. Petersburg and
Orlando sites. East-northeasterly to southeasterly winds were prevalent near the
CCFL and FLFL sites.
• AZFL, GAFL, and ORFL sampled for carbonyl compounds only. SKFL and SYFL
sampled for hexavalent chromium and PAH in addition to carbonyl compounds.
PAFL sampled only PMio metals and CCFL and FLFL sampled only VOC.
35-7
-------
• Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were the only pollutants to fail screens for AZFL,
GAFL, and ORFL. These two pollutants and naphthalene also failed screens for
SKFL and SYFL; hexavalent chromium and benzo(a)pyrene also failed screens for
SKFL; and propionaldehyde also failed screens for SYFL. Thirteen VOC failed
screens for CCFL and nine failed screens for FLFL, four of which are NATTS MQO
Core Analytes for both sites. Four metals failed screens for PAFL, all of which are
NATTS MQO Core Analytes.
• Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had the highest daily average concentrations for the
sites sampling carbonyl compounds. Benzene had the highest daily average
concentration of the pollutants of interest for CCFL and FLFL. Lead had the highest
2008 and 2009 daily average concentration for PAFL.
• Carbonyl compound sampling has been conducted at AZFL, GAFL, ORFL, SKFL,
and SYFL for at least five consecutive years; thus a trends analysis was conducted for
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Rolling acetaldehyde concentration trends varied for
each of the five Florida sites. Acetaldehyde concentrations at AZFL exhibited an
increasing trend through 2003-2005, decreased through 2006-2008, then increased for
2007-2009. GAFL's rolling average acetaldehyde concentrations did not change
significantly over the time period. Acetaldehyde concentrations at ORFL exhibited a
slight decreasing trend after 2005-2007 time frame. The rolling average
concentrations of acetaldehyde at SFKL began to increase after the 2006-2008 time
frame. At SYFL, rolling acetaldehyde concentrations increased through the
2005-2007 time period, after which there has been little change.
• Formaldehyde concentrations have varied for each of the five Florida sites. For
AZFL, formaldehyde concentrations have fluctuated over time. High measurements
resulted in increases over the years of sampling for GAFL, although a decrease is
noted for the most recent time frame. Concentrations of formaldehyde have increased
at SYFL, while concentrations have decreased at ORFL and SKFL.
• Hevavalent chromium sampling has occured at SYFL since 2005; thus a trends
analysis was conducted. Rolling average and median concentrations show a
decreasing trend since the onset of hexavalent chromium sampling.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for any of the Florida monitoring sites were higher than their
respective ATSDR MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• For sites sampling carbonyl compounds, formaldehyde had the highest cancer
surrogate risk approximations. Arsenic had the highest cancer risk approximation for
the site sampling metals (PAFL). All noncancer risk approximations for the Florida
sites' pollutants of interest were less than 1.0.
35-8
-------
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in all four Florida
counties. Benzene also had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions for all four
counties.
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in three of the
four counties (hydrochloric acid was highest in Hillsborough County). Acrolein had
the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for all four counties.
Georgia.
• The SDGA monitoring site located in Decatur, south of Atlanta, is a NATTS site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at SDGA. The 24-hour air
shed domain for SDGA was somewhat smaller in size compared to other NMP sites,
with most trajectories originating within 300 miles of the site.
• The wind roses show that winds from the west to north-northwest were prevalent near
SDGA. Easterly winds were also common.
• SDGA sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium. Naphthalene and hexavalent
chromium failed screens for SDGA, with naphthalene accounting for over 99 percent
of the total failed screens and hexavalent chromium failing only one screen.
• Of the pollutants of interest for SDGA, naphthalene had the highest daily average
concentrations for both years.
• Hexavalent chromium sampling has occurred at SDGA for at least five consecutive
years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted. Hexavalent chromium exhibited a
decreasing trend, though method completeness for 2008 was below 85 percent.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for SDGA were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant with a cancer risk approximation greater than
1.0 in-a-million. Naphthalene's noncancer risk approximation was less than 1.0.
Annual averages could not be calculated for hexavalent chromium or benzo(a)pyrene;
therefore, cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations could not be
calculated.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in DeKalb
County, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor.
Benzene also had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions, while acrolein had
the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions in DeKalb County.
35-9
-------
Illinois.
• The Illinois monitoring sites are located near Chicago. NBIL is a NATTS site located
in Northbrook and SPIL is a UATMP site located in Schiller Park.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the sites, although back
trajectories primarily originated from the south, southwest, west and northwest. The
air shed domains were larger in size compared to other NMP sites, as the farthest
away a back trajectory originated was over 850 miles from the sites.
• The wind roses show that winds from a variety of directions were observed near the
monitoring sites, although southeasterly winds were rarely observed.
• Both Illinois sites sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds. NBIL also sampled for
SNMOC, PAH, hexavalent chromium and metals (PMio).
• Nineteen pollutants failed screens for NBIL, of which 12 are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Fifteen pollutants failed screens for SPIL, of which seven are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes.
• Of the pollutants of interest for NBIL, acetaldehyde had the highest 2008 daily
average concentration while formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration for 2009. NBIL had the two highest concentrations of chloroform
measured among all NMP sites sampling this pollutant. Of the pollutants of interest
for SPIL, formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration both years.
• VOC and carbonyl compounds sampling have been conducted at NBIL and SPIL for
at least five years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted for acetaldehyde, benzene,
1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde for both sites. Both sites exhibited a decreasing
trend in rolling average concentrations for acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde.
For 1,3-butadiene, the rolling average concentrations exhibited a slight decreasing
trend in the later years of sampling.
metals and hexavalent chromium sampling have been conducted at NBIL for at
least five consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted for arsenic,
hexavalent chromium, and manganese. Rolling average concentrations exhibited little
change over the period of sampling for arsenic. A decreasing trend is shown for
hexavalent chromium. The rolling average concentrations of manganese decreased
into the 2006-2008 time frame, then leveled out during the final time frame.
None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for NBIL and SPIL were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
35-10
-------
• Formaldehyde had the highest cancer risk approximations for both sites for both
years. In general, the cancer surrogate risk approximations for SPIL were higher than
forNBIL.
• All noncancer risk approximations for the Illinois sites' pollutants of interest were
less than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Cook County,
while formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions. Toluene was
the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor, while acrolein had the
highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for Cook County.
Indiana.
• Three Indiana monitoring sites are located in Indianapolis (IDIN, ININ, WPIN), and a
fourth is located in Gary, near Chicago (INDEM). All four are UATMP sites.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the Indiana sites, with the
least predominant direction of trajectory origin from the southeast. The air shed
domain for INDEM was the largest in size compared to the other Indiana monitoring
sites, although the majority of trajectories originated within 450 miles of the sites.
• The wind roses show that southerly, southwesterly, and westerly winds were
observed most frequently near the Indianapolis sites. Winds from the south, south-
southwest, and west were observed most frequently near INDEM.
• ININ and IDIN sampled for carbonyl compounds and metals (PMio); WPIN and
INDEM sampled for carbonyl compounds only.
• Eight and seven pollutants failed screens for IDIN and ININ, respectively. Six of
these pollutants for each site are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Two pollutants,
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, failed screens for both INDEM and WPIN and
propionaldehyde also failed screens for INDEM.
• Of the pollutants of interest, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentrations for all four sites. The concentrations of formaldehyde for INDEM
have historically been the highest among all NMP monitoring sites; however a
sampler change in 2009 has resulted in a significant decrease in formaldehyde
measurements.
• Carbonyl compound sampling has been conducted at INDEM for at least five
consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted for acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde. Statistical parameters show an increasing trend in acetaldehyde
concentrations through the 2006-2008 time frame, followed by a significant decrease
for the final time frame. Formaldehyde concentration trends show little change
through the 2006-2008 time frame, followed by a decrease for the final time frame.
35-11
-------
• Several measured detections and time-period averages of formaldehyde for 2008 for
INDEM were higher than the ATSDR acute, intermediate, and chronic MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks. No measured detections or time-period averages
of formaldehyde for 2009 were higher than any of the ATSDR MRLs. The annual
average concentration of formaldehyde for 2008 for INDEM was the only annual
average to exceed a chronic MRL noncancer health risk benchmark among all NMP
sites.
• Formaldehyde had the highest cancer risk approximations for all four Indiana sites,
followed by acetaldehyde and arsenic (for sites sampling PMio metals). INDEM's
cancer risk approximation for formaldehyde for 2008 was the highest among all
cancer risk approximations program-wide. INDEM's 2008 formaldehyde noncancer
risk approximation was the only noncancer HQ greater than 1.0 for any of the NMP
sites.
• Benzene and formaldehyde were the highest emitted pollutants with cancer risk
factors in Marion and Lake Counties, while coke oven emissions (PM) had the
highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions for both counties.
• Hydrochloric acid was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in
Lake County, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk
factor in Marion County. Acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted
emissions for both counties.
Kentucky.
• The HAKY monitoring site is near Hazard, Kentucky. In June 2008, the HAKY
NATTS site was moved to Grayson, Kentucky (GLKY). GLKY is also considered a
NATTS site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions for both sites. The 24-hour air
shed domain for HAKY was smaller in size than GLKY, although for both sites, the
majority of trajectories originated with 400 miles of the sites.
• The wind roses show that calm winds were prevalent near both HAKY and GLKY,
with winds from the south to southwest most frequently observed.
• Both sites sampled for hexavalent chromium and PAH. The only pollutant to fail
screens for either Kentucky site was naphthalene.
• Of the pollutants of interest, naphthalene had the highest daily average concentration
for both sites. Hexavalent chromium was detected infrequently enough that most
quarterly averages and annual averages could not be calculated.
35-12
-------
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for HAKY or GLKY were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Annual averages could not be calculated for HAKY, and therefore, cancer and
noncancer surrogate risk approximations could not be calculated. None of the
pollutants of interest for GLKY had cancer or noncancer risk approximations greater
than their respective levels of concern.
• Formaldehyde was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Perry
County and had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions. Formaldehyde was
also the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor, while acrolein had the
highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for Perry County.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Carter County,
while formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions. Toluene was
the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor, while acrolein had the
highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
Massachusetts.
• The Massachusetts monitoring site (BOMA) is a NATTS site in Boston.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at BOMA. The 24-hour air
shed domain for BOMA was similar in size to other NMP monitoring sites, with most
trajectories originating within 400 miles of the monitoring site.
• The wind roses show that southwesterly, westerly, and west-northwesterly winds
were prevalent near BOMA.
• BOMA sampled for metals (PMio), PAH, and hexavalent chromium. Seven pollutants
failed screens for BOMA, all of which are NATTS MQO Core Analytes.
• Of the pollutants of interest, naphthalene had the highest daily average concentration
both years. BOMA had the third and fourth highest daily average concentrations of
hexavalent chromium (2008 and 2009, respectively) among all NMP monitoring sites
sampling this pollutant. BOMA also had some of the highest concentrations of lead,
cadmium, and nickel among sites sampling PMio metals.
• Metals sampling has been conducted at BOMA for at least five consecutive years;
thus, a trends analysis was conducted for arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and
manganese. Arsenic concentrations have changed little; manganese concentrations
have decreased; and hexavalent chromium concentrations have decreased slightly
over the periods of sampling at BOMA.
35-13
-------
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for BOMA were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• The only pollutants with cancer risk approximations greater than 1.0 in-a-million for
both years were arsenic and naphthalene. None of the pollutants of interest for
BOMA had noncancer risk approximations greater than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Suffolk
County, while formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in Suffolk
County, while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
Michigan.
• DEMI is a NATTS site located in Dearborn, near Detroit. ITCMI is a UATMP site
located in Sault St. Marie and is operated by the Intertribal Council of Michigan.
ITCMI stopped sampling in February 2008.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at DEMI, although less
frequently from the east. The 24-hour air shed domain for DEMI was larger in size
than many other NMP monitoring sites, with the farthest trajectory originating nearly
800 miles away. Because so few trajectories were available for ITCMI, it is difficult
to determine a trajectory pattern for this site.
• The wind roses for DEMI show that winds from a variety of directions were observed
near the monitoring site, although winds from the southeast quadrant were observed
the least. West-northwesterly and northwesterly winds were observed most frequently
near ITCMI.
• DEMI sampled for VOC, PAH, carbonyl compounds, and hexavalent chromium,
while ITCMI sampled for PAH only.
• Fifteen pollutants failed screens for DEMI, of which eight are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for ITCMI.
• Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had the highest daily average concentrations for
DEMI both years. Compared to other NMP sites, DEMI had the first and third highest
daily average concentrations of chloroform for 2008 and 2009, respectively. DEMI
also had the fifth and sixth highest daily average concentrations of hexavalent
chromium (2009 and 2008, respectively), and the seventh highest daily average
concentration of naphthalene (2008).
• Three months of carbonyl compound data measured during 2008 were invalidated for
DEMI because a leak was found in the sample line.
35-14
-------
• Hexavalent chromium and VOC sampling has been conducted at DEMI for at least
five consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted for benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, and hexavalent chromium. A decreasing trend in concentrations is
exhibited for benzene. A decrease in concentrations is also shown for 1,3-butadiene
and hexavalent chromium, but neither decrease is statistically significant for these
two pollutants.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for DEMI or ITCMI were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Benzene, naphthalene, and carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer surrogate risk
approximations for DEMI for 2008. Formaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride
had the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations for 2009. None of the pollutants
of interest for DEMI had a noncancer risk approximation greater than 1.0. Surrogate
risk approximations could not be calculated for carbonyl compounds for 2008 for
DEMI because the completeness criteria were not met. Because ITCMI stopped
sampling in February 2008, annual averages, and therefore cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations, could not be calculated.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Wayne and
Chippewa Counties. Benzene also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions in
Chippewa County, while coke oven emissions had the highest cancer toxicity-
weighted emissions for Wayne County.
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in both
counties, while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
Mississippi.
• The two UATMP sites in Mississippi are located in Gulfport (GPMS) and Tupelo
(TUMS). Both sites ended sampling in March 2008.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the Mississippi sites. The
24-hour air shed domain for GPMS was smaller than the air shed domain for TUMS
and most other NMP monitoring sites. Composite back trajectory maps included only
three months of sample days.
• The wind roses for GPMS show that northerly winds and winds from the southeastern
quadrant were the most common wind directions near this site. Northerly to north-
northeasterly and south-southeasterly to southerly winds were most common near
TUMS.
• GPMS and TUMS both sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds. GPMS also
sampled SNMOC.
35-15
-------
• Eight pollutants failed screens for both sites. Of these eight pollutants, six are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes.
• Of the pollutants of interest, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration for both sites. TUMS and GPMS had the third and fifth highest daily
average concentrations of vinyl chloride among all sites monitoring this pollutant.
• None of the measured detections or first quarter 2008 average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for GPMS and TUMS were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Annual averages, and therefore cancer and noncancer surrogate risk approximations,
could not be calculated because sampling was discontinued in March 2008.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Harrison
County, while hexavalent chromium had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions. Dichloromethane was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk
factor in Lee County, while formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions.
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in Lee County,
while total xylenes was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in
Harrison County. Acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for
both counties.
Missouri.
• The NATTS site in Missouri is located in St. Louis.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at S4MO. The 24-hour air
shed domain was similar in size to other monitoring sites, as most back trajectories
originated within 400 miles of the site.
• The wind roses for S4MO show that southeasterly, south-southeasterly and southerly
winds were observed most frequently near this site.
• S4MO sampled for VOC, PAH, carbonyl compounds, metals (PMio), and hexavalent
chromium.
• Twenty-three pollutants failed at least one screen for S4MO, of which 15 are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes. Six pollutants (benzene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde,
acrylonitrile, 1,2-dichloroethane, and 1,2-dibromoethane) failed 100 percent of
screens for S4MO. S4MO failed the second highest number of screens among all
NMP sites.
35-16
-------
• Of the pollutants of interest, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had the highest daily
average concentrations for S4MO both years. S4MO had the highest daily average
concentration of arsenic (2009), cadmium, lead, manganese (2008), and
/>-dichlorobenzene (2008) among all NMP sites sampling those pollutants.
• Carbonyl compounds, VOC, metals, and hexavalent chromium sampling have been
conducted at S4MO for at least five consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was
conducted for acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
hexavalent chromium, and manganese. No significant change in concentrations is
shown for acetaldehyde, arsenic, 1,3-butadiene, hexavalent chromium, and
manganese while benzene and formaldehyde exhibit decreasing trends.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for S4MO were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Formaldehyde had the highest cancer risk approximation for S4MO for both years.
None of the pollutants of interest for S4MO had a noncancer risk approximation
greater than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in St. Louis (city),
while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor. Benzene
also had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions, while acrolein had the
highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions in St. Louis (city).
New Jersey.
• The four UATMP sites in New Jersey are located in Camden (CANJ), Chester
(CHNJ), Elizabeth (ELNJ), and New Brunswick (NBNJ). CANJ, the UATMP's
longest running monitoring site, stopped sampling in October 2008.
• Due to the close proximity of the New Jersey sites, the composite back trajectories
exhibit similar patterns across the four sites. The 24-hour air shed domains for the
New Jersey sites were comparable in size to other NMP monitoring sites. Back
trajectories originated from a variety of directions, though less frequently from the
east, with average trajectory lengths less than 250 miles for each site.
• The wind roses for the New Jersey sites show that winds from a variety of directions
were observed near CANJ and ELNJ, although few southeasterly wind observations
were recorded near these sites. Calm winds were observed for more than 50 percent
of observations near CHNJ and NBNJ.
• All four New Jersey sites sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds.
35-17
-------
• For CANJ and CHNJ, 15 pollutants failed at least one screen. Seventeen pollutants
failed screens for ELNJ and 14 failed screens for NBNJ. Formaldehyde and benzene
failed 100 percent of screens for all four sites.
• Of the pollutants of interest, formaldehyde had the highest daily average
concentration for CANJ, CHNJ, and ELNJ in 2008 and all four sites in 2009.
Acetaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration for NBNJ in 2008.
• Compared to other NMP sites, CANJ had the highest daily average concentration of
tetrachloroethylene among sites sampling VOC.
• Carbonyl compound sampling has been conducted at each of the New Jersey sites for
at least five consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted for acetaldehyde
and formaldehyde. The rolling average concentrations of acetaldehyde showed a
decreasing trend for all four sites, though averages for CANJ in the final time frames
were slightly higher than previous years. Formaldehyde exhibited a similar trend.
• VOC sampling has been conducted at each of the New Jersey sites for at least five
consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted for benzene and
1,3-butadiene. Benzene has shown a decreasing trend in recent years of sampling for
all four sites. The rolling average concentrations of 1,3-butadiene have decreased
overall for CANJ and ELNJ. CFINJ exhibited an increasing trend for 1,3-butadiene
through the 2006-2008 time frame, after which a decreasing trend is noted. Rolling
average concentrations for NBNJ have remained relatively constant over the sampling
period for 1,3-butadiene.
• One preprocessed daily measurement of benzene for ELNJ was higher than the acute
ATSDR MRL noncancer health risk benchmark. This is the only instance where a
benzene measurement was higher than an ATSDR MRL noncancer health risk
benchmark among all NMP monitoring sites sampling this pollutant.
• Cancer and noncancer risk approximations could not be calculated for CANJ because
this site did not meet the method completeness criteria. Formaldehyde had the highest
cancer risk approximations for CFINJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ for both years. None of the
pollutants of interest for any of the New Jersey sites had noncancer risk
approximations greater than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer URE in Union, Middlesex,
Morris, and Camden Counties. Benzene also had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for each county.
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in all four
counties, while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for
each county.
35-18
-------
New York.
• Two New York monitoring sites, located in Rochester (ROCH) and New York City
(BXNY), are NATTS sites. The third New York monitoring site is located north of
Buffalo in Tonawanda (TONY).
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at each of the New York
sites, though less frequently from the east. The 24-hour air shed domains for all three
sites were comparable in size to other NMP monitoring sites, with the majority of
back trajectories originating within 400 miles of the sites.
• Winds from a variety of directions were observed near BXNY, although
northwesterly and southerly winds were observed the most. Winds from the south to
southwest to west were observed more frequently than winds from other directions
near ROCH and TONY.
• All three New York sites sampled PAH. BXNY and ROCH also sampled for
hexavalent chromium.
• Three pollutants, all of which are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens for
BXNY. Naphthalene and hexavalent chromium failed screens for ROCH. Four PAH,
of which two are NATTS MQO Core Analytes, failed screens for TONY.
Naphthalene failed the majority of screens for all three New York sites.
• Naphthalene had the highest daily average concentration of all the pollutants of
interest for each of the New York sites. The daily average concentration of
naphthalene for TONY was significantly higher than BXNY and ROCH, as well as
all other NMP sites sampling PAH. TONY also had the highest daily average
concentration of benzo(a)pyrene among sites sampling PAH.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the New York sites were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Naphthalene had the highest cancer risk approximation for all three sites (in 2009).
None of the pollutants of interest had a noncancer risk approximation greater than
1.0.
• Tetrachloroethylene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in
Bronx County, while naphthalene had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions
for that county. Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor
and had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions for both Monroe and Erie
Counties.
35-19
-------
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in Bronx,
Monroe, and Erie Counties, while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-
weighted emissions for all three counties.
Ohio.
• The Ohio monitoring site (COOH) located in Columbus is a UATMP monitoring site
that collected samples between December 2007 and December 2008.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at COOH. The 24-hour air
shed domain for COOH was comparable in size to other NMP sites, with majority of
trajectories originating within 400 miles of the site.
• The wind roses show that southerly, westerly, and northerly winds were the most
frequently observed wind directions near COOH.
• The Ohio site sampled for carbonyl compounds only.
• Acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde were the only pollutants to fail
screens for COOH and are the only carbonyl compounds with risk screening values.
Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde each failed 100 percent of screens, while
propionaldehyde failed fewer than 5 percent.
• The daily average concentrations of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are similar to
each other. The daily average concentration of act
among NMP sites sampling carbonyl compounds.
each other. The daily average concentration of acetaldehyde was the 10th highest
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for COOH were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Both formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had cancer risk approximations greater than
1.0 in-a-million, although the cancer risk approximation for formaldehyde was an
order of magnitude higher than for acetaldehyde. Neither pollutant had a noncancer
risk approximation greater than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Franklin
County; benzene also had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions. Toluene was the
highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in Franklin County, while
acrolein had the highest toxicity-weighted emissions.
Oklahoma.
• Three Oklahoma monitoring sites were initially located Tulsa (TOOK, TSOK,
TUOK) and one was located outside Tulsa in Pryor Creek (CNEP). The
instrumentation at TSOK was moved in October 2008 to Pryor Creek (PROK), north
35-20
-------
of the CNEP site. The instrumentation at TUOK moved to a new location in Tulsa at
the end of March 2009 (TMOK). The MWOK site is located in Midwest City and
OCOK is located in Oklahoma City. All eight are UATMP sites.
• The back trajectory maps for the Tulsa, Pry or Creek and Oklahoma City sites are
similar in trajectory distribution, with a strong tendency for back trajectories to
originate from the south-southeast to south-southwest and from the northwest to
northeast of the sites.
• The wind roses show that southerly winds prevailed near each monitoring site.
• The four Tulsa sites, PROK, OCOK, and MWOK sampled for VOC, carbonyl
compounds, and metals (TSP); CNEP sampled for VOC in the first quarter of 2008
and metals (TSP) in the first half of 2009.
• Six pollutants failed at least one screen for CNEP; 12 pollutants failed screens for
MWOK; 13 pollutants failed screens for OCOK and TSOK; 14 pollutants failed
screens for PROK; 17 pollutants failed at least one screen for TUOK and TMOK; and
20 pollutants failed screens for TOOK. Benzene failed 100 percent of screens for all
eight monitoring sites and formaldehyde failed 100 percent of screens for all
Oklahoma sites sampling carbonyl compounds.
• Of the pollutants of interest, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde generally had the highest
daily average concentrations for each Oklahoma site. The exception is for CNEP,
which did not sample carbonyl compounds; at CNEP, benzene had the highest daily
average concentration.
• Formaldehyde was the only pollutant of interest with a preprocessed daily
measurement that was higher than the acute ATSDR MRL noncancer health risk
benchmark. Two of the measured detections for PROK in 2009 exceeded the ASTDR
acute MRL for formaldehyde.
• Formaldehyde and benzene had the highest cancer risk approximations, where they
could be calculated, for all of the Oklahoma monitoring sites. Arsenic had the highest
cancer risk approximations among the metals. None of the pollutants of interest for
the Oklahoma sites had a noncancer risk approximation greater than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Mayes,
Oklahoma, and Tulsa Counties. Arsenic had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions for Mayes County, benzene had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions for Oklahoma County, and hexavalent chromium had the highest cancer
toxicity-weighted emissions for Tulsa County.
• Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in all three
counties, while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
35-21
-------
Oregon.
• The Oregon monitoring site in Portland is a NATTS site. PAH samples from PLOR
were analyzed by ERG from March to June 2008 only, after which the State of
Oregon began analyzing their own samples.
• Back trajectories at PLOR originated primarily from the west and northwest. The
24-hour air shed domain is smaller in size than other NMP monitoring sites, with
most trajectories originating within 250 miles of the site.
• The wind roses show that winds from the northwest quadrant were prevalent near
PLOR, though winds from the east-southeast were also commonly observed.
• PLOR sampled for PAH only. Naphthalene failed 100 percent of screens in the 16
valid samples that were collected.
• Of the two pollutants of interest for PLOR, naphthalene had the highest daily average
concentration.
• None of the measured detections or second quarter 2008 average concentrations of
the pollutants of interest for PLOR were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Annual averages could not be calculated for PLOR; thus, cancer and noncancer
surrogate risk approximations could not be calculated.
• Dichloromethane was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in
Multnomah County, while POM Group 1 had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions. Toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor,
while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for Multnomah
County.
Rhode Island.
• The Rhode Island monitoring site is located in Providence and is a NATTS site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at PRRI. The 24-hour air
shed domain for PRRI was similar in size to other NMP monitoring sites, with more
than 85 percent of trajectories originating within 450 miles of the site.
• The wind roses show that winds from the north, south, or with a westerly component
were prevalent near PRRI.
• PRRI sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium.
35-22
-------
• Naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, and hexavalent chromium failed screens for PRRI;
97 percent of failed screens are attributed to naphthalene.
• The daily average concentrations of naphthalene were significantly higher than that of
the other two pollutants of interest for both years.
• Hexavalent chromium sampling has been conducted at PRRI for at least five
consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted. Hexavalent chromium
exhibited a slight decreasing trend, though confidence intervals indicate that the
decrease is not statistically significant.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for PRRI were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• The cancer and noncancer risk approximations for hexavalent chromium were both
low for 2008 and could not be calculated for 2009. Annual averages for the PAH
could not be calculated in 2008. For 2009, naphthalene had a cancer risk
approximation greater than 1.0 in-a-million for PRRI; the noncancer risk
approximation for naphthalene was less than an HQ of 1.0. For 2009, benzo(a)pyrene
had a cancer risk approximation well below 1.0 in-a-million; a noncancer risk factor
is not available for this pollutant.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Providence
County, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor.
Benzene also had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions, while acrolein had
the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for Providence County.
South Carolina.
• The South Carolina monitoring site is located near Chesterfield and is a NATTS site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at CHSC, though many
originated from southwesterly and westerly directions. The 24-hour air shed domain
for CHSC was similar in size to other NMP monitoring sites, with the average
trajectory length just over 200 miles from the site.
• The wind roses show that calm winds, southwesterly winds, and northeasterly winds
were prevalent near CHSC.
• CHSC sampled for hexavalent chromium and PAH.
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant to fail screens for CHSC (9 of 102 measured
detections). CHSC had the third lowest number of failed screens among all NMP
sites.
35-23
-------
• The daily average concentrations of naphthalene were significantly higher than the
daily average concentrations of the other two pollutants of interest. Compared to
other program sites sampling PAH and hexavalent chromium, CHSC had some of the
lowest daily average concentrations.
• Hexavalent chromium sampling has been conducted at CHSC for at least five
consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted. Hexavalent chromium
exhibited a decreasing trend over the period of sampling.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for CHSC were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Naphthalene was the only pollutant for which annual average concentrations could be
calculated. Both the cancer and noncancer risk approximations were less than the
levels of concern for CHSC.
• Formaldehyde was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in
Chesterfield County, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a
noncancer risk factor. Formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions, while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
South Dakota,
• In 2008, the UATMP sites in South Dakota were located in Sioux Falls (SSSD) and
Custer (CUSD). Sampling was completed at CUSD at the end of 2008 and the
instrumentation at the site was moved to Union County (UCSD) for 2009.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the South Dakota sites. The
air shed domains for the South Dakota sites were some of the larger domains
compared to other NMP monitoring sites.
• The wind roses for CUSD show that west-southwesterly to northwesterly winds
accounted for more than 40 percent of the wind measurements near this site. Winds
from a variety of directions were observed near SSSD, although southerly winds were
the most common wind direction. Winds from the southeast and northwest quadrants
were the most frequently observed wind directions near UCSD.
• All three South Dakota sites sampled for VOC, SNMOC, and carbonyl compounds.
• Twelve pollutants failed screens for CUSD and SSSD, of which six were NATTS
MQO Core Analytes for each site. Thirteen pollutants failed screens for UCSD, of
which seven are also NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Formaldehyde and acrylonitrile
failed 100 percent of screens for each site.
35-24
-------
• Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration for CUSD and SSSD in
2008 and UCSD in 2009. Acetaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration
for SSSD in 2009. UCSD had the highest concentration of trichloroethylene and
eighth highest ethylbenzene concentration among all NMP sites sampling VOC, as
well as the fourth highest concentration of formaldehyde and seventh highest
acetaldehyde concentration.
• Carbonyl compound and VOC sampling has been conducted at CUSD for seven
consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted for acetaldehyde, benzene,
1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde. Decreasing trends in the rolling average
concentrations of acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde were not statistically
significant. The slight increasing trend for 1,3-butadiene was also not statistically
significant.
• One formaldehyde measurement from UCSD was greater than the acute ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmark for formaldehyde, while none of the quarterly
or annual average concentrations for the pollutants of interest for the South Dakota
sites were greater than their respective intermediate or chronic MRLs.
• Formaldehyde had the highest cancer risk approximations for all three sites. None of
the pollutants of interest for any of the South Dakota sites had a noncancer risk
approximation greater than 1.0.
• Formaldehyde was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Custer
County, while benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in
Minnehaha and Union Counties. Formaldehyde had the highest toxicity-weighted
emissions for all three counties.
• Formaldehyde was also the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in
Custer County, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk
factor in Minnehaha and Union Counties. Acrolein had the highest noncancer
toxicity-weighted emissions for all three counties.
Tennessee.
• Two Tennessee monitoring sites (LDTN and MSTN) are UATMP sites located in
Loudon, southwest of Knoxville. A third UATMP site (METN) is located in
Memphis, Tennessee.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at all three Tennessee sites.
The air shed domains for the Tennessee sites were similar in size compared to other
NMP monitoring sites, with average trajectory lengths just over 200 miles.
• The wind roses show that calm winds account for one quarter of the observations near
the Loudon monitoring sites, and that southwesterly to westerly winds were observed
35-25
-------
the most for winds greater than 2 knots. Southerly and south-southwesterly winds
were the most prevalent wind directions near METN.
• All three Tennessee sites sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds.
• Fifteen pollutants failed screens for LDTN, 13 failed screens for METN, and 11
failed screens for MSTN. Seven pollutants that failed screens for LDTN are NATTS
MQO Core Analytes, while six pollutants that failed screens for METN and MSTN
are NATTS MQO Core Analytes. Formaldehyde, benzene, acrylonitrile, and
1,2-dichloroethane failed 100 percent of screens for each of the Tennessee sites.
• Of the pollutants of interest for LDTN, carbon disulfide had the highest daily average
concentration both years. Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration
for both METN and MSTN for 2008 and 2009. Of the NMP sites sampling VOC,
LDTN had the seventh and ninth highest daily average concentrations of chloroform.
METN had the second highest daily average concentration of acetaldehyde among all
NMP sites sampling carbonyl compounds.
• Carbonyl compound and VOC sampling has been conducted at LDTN for at least five
consecutive years; thus, a trends analysis was conducted for acetaldehyde, benzene,
1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde. Concentrations of benzene have a decreasing trend
over the sampling periods; changes in concentrations of acetaldehyde, formaldehyde,
and 1,3-butadiene were not statistically significant.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the Tennessee sites were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Formaldehyde had the highest cancer risk approximations for all three sites. None of
the pollutants of interest had a noncancer risk approximation greater than 1.0 for any
of the Tennessee sites.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in both Loudon
and Shelby Counties. Benzene also had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions for Shelby County, while arsenic had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions for Loudon County.
• Carbon disulfide was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in
Loudon County, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer
risk factory in Shelby County. Acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted
emissions for both Loudon and Shelby Counties.
35-26
-------
Texas.
• The Texas monitoring site is located in Deer Park (CAMS 35) and is a NATTS site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the Texas monitoring site,
although most trajectories originated to the southeast over the Gulf of Mexico.
• The wind roses show that winds from the southeasterly quadrant (including easterly
and southerly winds) were the most commonly observed wind directions near
CAMS 35.
• The CAMS 35 site sampled for PAH only.
• Naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene failed screens for CAMS 35, both of which are
NATTS MQO Core Analytes, although naphthalene failed the bulk of the screens.
• Of the pollutants of interest, naphthalene had the highest daily average concentrations
for both years and tended to be higher during the second half of the year.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the Texas site were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Naphthalene had the highest cancer risk approximations among the pollutants of
interest for CAMS 35. None of naphthalene's noncancer risk approximations were
higher than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Harris County,
while methyl tert-buty\ ether was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk
factor. 1,3-Butadiene had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions for Harris
County, while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
Utah.
• The NATTS site in Utah is located in Bountiful, north of Salt Lake City.
• The majority of back trajectories originated within 150 mile of BTUT. The 24-hour
air shed domain for BTUT was smaller in size compared to other NMP monitoring
sites.
• The wind roses show that southeasterly, south-southeasterly, and southerly winds
were prevalent near BTUT.
• BTUT sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, SNMOC, PAH, metals (PMio), and
hexavalent chromium.
35-27
-------
• Twenty-two pollutants failed screens for BTUT, of which 13 are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde failed 100
percent of screens for BTUT. BTUT failed the third highest number of screens among
all NMP sites.
• Of the pollutants of interest, dichloromethane had the highest daily average
concentration for BTUT, followed by formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and benzene for
both years. BTUT had the fourth highest daily average concentration of acrylonitrile
(2008) and the third (2008) and sixth (2009) highest daily average concentrations of
/>-dichlorobenzene among all NMP sites sampling VOC. BTUT also had the highest
daily average concentration of nickel (2008), the second highest daily average
concentration of arsenic (2009), and the third and fourth highest daily average
concentrations of beryllium (2008 and 2009, respectively) among all NMP sites
sampling metals (PMi0).
• Carbonyl compounds, VOC, SNMOC, metals (PMio), and hexavalent chromium
sampling have been conducted at BTUT for at least five consecutive years; thus, a
trends analysis was conducted for acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, and manganese. Concentrations of
acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, and formaldehyde have decreased since the onset of
sampling while concentrations of 1,3-butadiene, manganese, and hexavalent
chromium have not changed over the period of sampling.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the Utah site were higher than their respective ATSDR MRL
noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• The pollutant with the highest cancer surrogate risk approximations for BTUT was
formaldehyde for both years. None of the pollutants of interest had a noncancer risk
approximation greater than 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Davis County
and had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions. Toluene was the highest
emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor, while acrolein had the highest
noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions for Davis County.
Vermont.
• Two Vermont monitoring sites are located in or near Burlington (UNVT and
BURVT); a third monitoring site is located in Rutland (RUVT). However, at the
request of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division, the results of the data analyses
for BURVT and RUVT have been removed from the Vermont state section. The data
analyses for the Underhill NATTS site (UNVT) have been retained and are
summarized below.
35-28
-------
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at the Vermont NATTS site.
The 24-hour air shed domain for the Vermont NATTS site was smaller in size than
many other NMP monitoring sites, with the average trajectory length approximately
215 miles in length.
• The wind roses for the Vermont NATTS site show that calm winds were prevalent
near UNVT.
• UNVT sampled for VOC, carbonyl compounds, hexavalent chromium, PAH, and
metals (PMio).
• Ten pollutants failed screens for UNVT, of which eight are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-dichloroethane, and acrylonitrile
failed 100 percent of screens for UNVT.
• The state of Vermont blank-corrected their metals data for UNVT.
• Formaldehyde had the highest daily average concentration for UNVT. Measured
concentrations of the PMio metals pollutants of interest for UNVT were among the
lowest compared to NMP sites sampling these pollutants.
• UNVT has sampled hexavalent chromium for at least five consecutive years; thus, a
trends analysis was conducted for hexavalent chromium. A decreasing trend is shown
for hexavalent chromium over the period of sampling. At least 50 percent of the
measurements were non-detects for each 3-year period.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the Vermont NATTS site were higher than their respective
ATSDR MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• For 2008, arsenic had the highest cancer risk approximation for UNVT. For 2009,
carbon tetrachloride had the highest cancer risk approximation for UNVT, but recall
that VOC and carbonyl compounds sampling (with analysis performed by ERG)
began at UNVT in 2009. None of the noncancer risk approximations, where they
could be calculated, were greater than an HQ of 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Chittenden
County and also had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions. Toluene was the
highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in Chittenden County, while
acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
35-29
-------
Virginia.
• The NATTS site in Virginia is located near Richmond and began sampling in October
2008.
• Back trajectories originated primarily from the southwest, west, and northwest at
RIVA. The 24-hour air shed domain is similar in size to other NMP sites, with an
average trajectory length of 225 miles.
• The historical wind rose shows that northerly to north-northeasterly winds and
southerly to southwesterly winds were the most commonly observed wind directions
near RIVA. The 2008 and 2009 wind roses exhibit a lower percentage of northerly
and southerly winds.
• RIVA sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium.
• Naphthalene, which is a NATTS MQO Core Analyte, was the only pollutant to fail
screens for RIVA. This pollutant failed 100 percent of its screens.
• Of the pollutants of interest, naphthalene had the highest daily average
concentrations. RIVA's 2008 daily average naphthalene concentration was the fifth
highest daily average of naphthalene among all sites sampling PAH, while the 2009
daily average concentration of naphthalene was ranked much lower.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the Virginia site were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Because sampling did not begin at RIVA until October 2008, annual averages, and
thus cancer and noncancer risk approximations, could not be calculated for that year.
For 2009, surrogate risk approximations could only be calculated for naphthalene.
The cancer risk approximation was 3.86 in-a-million, while the noncancer risk
approximation was well below an HQ of 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Henrico
County, while arsenic had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions. Toluene
was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor in Henrico County,
while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
Washington.
• The NATTS site in Washington is located in Seattle (SEWA). The four CSATAM
sites in Washington are located in Seattle (CEWA) and Tacoma (EQWA, ESWA, and
EYWA) and began sampling in November 2008 and ended sampling in October
2009.
35-30
-------
• Back trajectories for the Washington sites originated from a variety of directions. The
24-hour air shed domains for the Washington sites were smaller than most other NMP
monitoring sites, with average trajectories between 175 and 185 miles in length.
• The wind roses show that southeasterly to southerly winds were prevalent near the
Seattle sites. Winds from the south were prevalent near the Tacoma sites as well, but
south-southwesterly, northerly, and north-northeasterly winds were also commonly
observed.
• EYWA sampled for carbonyl compounds and VOC; CEWA, EQWA, and ESWA
sampled for PAH, carbonyl compounds, and VOC; SEWA sampled for PAH,
carbonyl compounds, VOC, PMio metals, and hexavalent chromium.
• The Puget Sound Clean Air Authority discovered a leak in the instrument probe and
invalidated all carbonyl compound samples for EYWA. In addition, selected
individual pollutant results from VOC samples were also invalidated or flagged, at
the agency's discretion. As a result, all carbonyl compounds and some VOC are
excluded from the analyses contained in this report.
• Nineteen pollutants failed screens for SEWA, of which 13 are NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. Fifteen pollutants failed at least one screen for CEWA and EQWA; 14
pollutants failed screens for ESWA; and nine pollutants failed screens for EYWA.
Carbon tetrachloride failed 100 percent of screens for each Washington monitoring
site.
• Of the pollutants of interest for SEWA, carbon tetrachloride had the highest daily
average concentration for 2008, while formaldehyde was highest for 2009.
• Formaldehyde had the highest study average concentrations for CEWA, EQWA, and
ESWA; benzene had the highest study average concentration for EYWA.
• The Washington sites account for six of the 10 highest daily average concentrations
of carbon tetrachloride. SEWA had the second (2009) and third (2008) highest daily
average concentrations of nickel; the fourth (2008) and seventh (2009) highest daily
average concentrations of manganese; and the seventh (2008) and eighth (2009)
highest daily average concentrations of hexavalent chromium. The ESWA site had
the second (2008) and fifth (2009) highest daily average concentrations of
benzo(a)pyrene and sixth (2008) highest daily average concentration of naphthalene.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the Washington sites were higher than their respective
ATSDR MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• For the sites sampling carbonyl compounds, formaldehyde had the highest cancer
surrogate risk approximations. Benzene had the highest cancer risk approximation for
35-31
-------
EYWA. All of the noncancer risk approximations for the pollutants of interest for the
Washington sites were less than an HQ of 1.0.
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in King and
Pierce Counties, while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer
risk factor for both counties. Benzene had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted
emissions for King County, while formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-
weighted emissions for Pierce County. Acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-
weighted emissions for both counties.
Wisconsin.
• The Wisconsin monitoring site is located in Mayville and is a NATTS site.
• Back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at MVWI, although less
frequently from the east. The 24-hour air shed domain for MVWI was larger in size
compared to other NMP monitoring sites, with an average trajectory length just less
than 300 miles.
• The wind roses show that calm winds accounted for approximately one quarter of the
wind observations near MVWI. For winds greater than 2 knots, westerly and west-
northwesterly winds were observed most frequently.
• MVWI sampled for PAH and hexavalent chromium.
• Naphthalene and hexavalent chromium failed screens for MVWI, though all but one
of those failures were for naphthalene.
• The daily average concentrations of naphthalene were significantly higher than the
other pollutants of interest.
• Hexavalent chromium has been sampled at MVWI for at least five consecutive years;
thus, a trends analysis was conducted for hexavalent chromium. Although rolling
average concentrations show a slight decreasing trend, this trend is not statistically
significant.
• None of the measured detections or time-period average concentrations of the
pollutants of interest for the Wisconsin site were higher than their respective ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• The cancer surrogate risk approximations for naphthalene and hexavalent chromium
were both less than 1.0 in-a-million for 2008. For 2009, the cancer risk approximation
for naphthalene was just over 1.0 in-a-million, while cancer risk approximations
could not be calculated for hexavalent chromium or benzo(a)pyrene. All of the
noncancer surrogate risk approximations for the pollutants of interest, where they
could be calculated, were less than an HQ of 1.0.
35-32
-------
• Benzene was the highest emitted pollutant with a cancer risk factor in Dodge County,
while toluene was the highest emitted pollutant with a noncancer risk factor.
Formaldehyde had the highest cancer toxicity-weighted emissions, while acrolein had
the highest noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions.
35.1.3 Composite Site-level Summary
• Twenty-four pollutants were identified as site-specific pollutants of interest, based on
the risk screening process. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were the two most
common pollutants of interest among the monitoring sites. All sites (46) that sampled
carbonyl compounds had acetaldehyde and formaldehyde as pollutants of interest
(note that EYWA is excluded here). Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and carbon tetrachloride
were the most common VOC pollutants of interest. Every site that sampled benzene
(44) had this as a pollutant of interest. Every site that sampled PAH (32) had
naphthalene as a pollutant of interest.
• Among the site-specific pollutants of interest, formaldehyde frequently had the
highest daily average concentration among the monitoring sites; formaldehyde had
the highest daily average concentration for 58 site and sample year combinations.
Naphthalene had the next highest at 34 site and sample year combinations.
• The toxicity factor for formaldehyde used in the preliminary risk screening process,
the cancer risk approximation calculations, and the toxicity-weighting of emissions
decreased substantially since the 2007 report. This translated to a much higher
toxicity potential for formaldehyde, leading to more failed screens, higher cancer risk
approximations, and relatively higher toxicity-weighted emissions values for the
2008-2009 report than in previous reports.
• Carbon tetrachloride often had relatively high cancer risk approximations based on
annual or study averages among the monitoring sites, but tended to have relatively
low emissions and toxicity-weighted emissions according to the NEI. This suggests
that this pollutant is present in "background" levels of ambient air; that is, it is
consistently present at similar levels at any given location. Although production of
this pollutant has declined sharply over the last 30 years due to its role as an ozone
depleting substance, it has a relatively long atmospheric lifetime.
• Acrolein emissions were relatively low when compared to other pollutants. However,
due to the high toxicity of this pollutant, even low emissions translated into high
noncancer toxicity-weighted emissions; the toxicity-weighted value was often several
orders of magnitude higher than other pollutants. Acrolein is a national noncancer
risk driver according to NAT A.
35.1.4 Data Quality Summary
Method precision and analytical precision was determined for the 2008-2009 NMP
monitoring efforts using RPD, CV, and average concentration difference calculations based on
35-33
-------
duplicate, collocated, and replicate samples. The overall method precision for some methods was
well within data quality objective specifications and monitoring method guidelines (TO-11A and
IO-3.5), while other methods exceeded the data quality objective specifications
(TO-15/SNMOC, TO-13 A, and hexavalent chromium). Sampling and analytical method
accuracy is ensured by using proven methods, as demonstrated by third-party analysis of
proficiency test audit samples, and following strict quality control and quality assurance
guidelines.
Ambient air concentration data sets generally met data quality objectives for
completeness. Completeness, or the number of valid samples collected compared to the number
expected from a l-in-6 or l-in-12 day sampling schedule, measures the reliability of the
sampling and analytical equipment as well as the efficiency of the program. Typically, a
completeness of 85-100 percent is desired for a complete data set. Only 10 out of 291 data sets
failed to comply with the data quality objective of 85 percent completeness. One hundred
seventeen data sets achieved 100 percent completeness.
35.2 Conclusions
Conclusions resulting from the data analyses of the data generated from the 2008-2009
NMP monitoring efforts are presented below.
• There are a large number of concentrations that are greater than their respective
preliminary risk screening values, particularly for many of the NATTS MQO Core
Analytes. However, there are few instances where the preprocessed daily
measurements or time-period average concentrations were greater than the ATSDR
MRL noncancer health risk benchmarks.
• Where annual averages could be calculated and for those pollutants with available
cancer UREs, three of the cancer surrogate risk approximations were greater than
100-in-a-million (two for formaldehyde and one for acrylonitrile); 83 were greater
than 10-in-a-million (59 for formaldehyde, 22 for benzene, and one each for
acrylonitrile and naphthalene); and, over half were greater than 1.0 in-a-million.
• Where annual averages could be calculated and for those pollutants with available
noncancer RfCs, only one of the noncancer surrogate risk approximations was greater
than an HQ of 1.0. This noncancer surrogate risk approximation was based on
INDEM's 2008 formaldehyde annual average concentration.
35-34
-------
• When comparing the highest emitted pollutants for a specific county to the pollutants
with the highest toxicity-weighted emissions, the listed pollutants were more similar
for the pollutants with cancer UREs than for pollutants with noncancer RfCs. This
indicates that pollutants with cancer UREs that are emitted in higher quantities are
often more toxic than pollutants emitted in lower quantities; conversely, the highest
emitted pollutants with noncancer RfCs are not necessarily the most toxic. For
example, toluene is the noncancer pollutant that was emitted in the highest quantities
for many NMP counties, yet was rarely one of the pollutants with highest toxicity-
weighted emissions. Further, while acrolein had the highest noncancer toxicity-
weighted emissions for every NMP county, it was rarely among the highest emitted
pollutants.
• While the number of states and sites participating in the NMP has increased (as it has
in previous years), many of the data analyses utilized here require data from year-
round (or nearly year-round) sampling. Of the 73 sites whose data are including in the
2008-2009 report, 31 sampled for an abbreviated duration (due to site/method
initialization and/or site closure/relocation) for one or more years. As a result, time-
period averages and subsequent risk-based analyses could not be calculated for nearly
one-third of participating sites. While these gaps have ramifications for the results
contained in this report, they also inhibit the potential determination of trends.
• Of the 73 sites participating in the 2008-2009 NMP, only two sampled for all six
available analytical methods under the national program. Another four sites sampled
all five methods required for NATTS sites through the national program. The wide
range of methods/pollutants sampled among the sites makes it difficult to draw
definitive conclusions regarding air toxics in ambient air in a global manner.
• This report strives to utilize the best laboratory and data analysis techniques available
(which includes the improvement of MDLs and the incorporation
of updated values for various risk factors, for example). This often leads to adjusting
the focus of the report to concentrate on the air quality issues of highest concern.
Thus, the NMP report is dynamic in nature and scope; yet this approach may prevent
the direct comparison of the current report to past reports.
35.3 Recommendations
Based on the conclusions from the 2008-2009 NMP, a number of recommendations for
future ambient air monitoring efforts are presented below.
• Continue participation in the National Monitoring Programs. Ongoing ambient air
monitoring at fixed locations can provide insight into long-term trends in air quality
and the potential for air pollution to cause adverse health effects among the general
population. Therefore, state and local agencies should be encouraged to either 1)
develop and implement their own ambient air monitoring programs based on proven,
consistent sampling and analysis methods and EPA technical and quality assurance
guidance, or 2) consider participation in the NMP.
35-35
-------
• Participate in the National Monitoring Programs year-round. Many of the analyses
presented in the 2008-2009 report require a full year of data to be most useful and
representative of conditions experienced at each specified location. Therefore, state
and local agencies should be encouraged to implement year-long ambient air
monitoring programs in addition to participating in future monitoring efforts.
• Monitor for additional pollutant groups based on the results of data analyses in the
annual report. The risk-based analysis where county-level emissions are weighted
based on toxicity identifies those pollutants whose emissions may result in adverse
health effects in a specific area. If a site is not sampling for a pollutant or pollutant
group identified as particularly hazardous in a given area, the agency responsible for
that site should consider sampling for those compounds.
• Strive to develop standard conventions for interpreting air monitoring data. The lack
of consistent approaches to present and summarize ambient air monitoring data
complicates direct comparisons between different studies. Thought should be given to
the feasibility of establishing standard approaches for analyzing and reporting air
monitoring data for programs with similar objectives.
• 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 the measurement of ambient air concentrations of 11 pollutants
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 area. Further research is encouraged to identify other
method improvements that would allow for the characterization of an even wider
range of components in air pollution and enhance the ability of the methods to
quantify all cancer and noncancer pollutants to at least their levels of concern (risk
screening concentrations).
• Require consistency in sampling and analytical methods. The development of the
NATTS program has shown that there are inconsistencies in collection and analytical
methods that make data comparison difficult across agencies. Requiring agencies to
use specified and accepted measurement methods is integral to the identification of
trends and the impacts of regulation.
• Establish and apply tiered DQOs for analytical precision that reflect the impact of
concentration level. There are two primary reasons that select analytical methods
encompassed in the NMP do not meet the established DQO for precision. First,
although the MDLs have been driven down to the lowest levels that can be supported
by the current procedures, a large volume of the data being considered reflects very
low concentrations, which are often below the established MDLs. Second, when the
paired concentrations used to determine precision are low, very small differences in
concentrations manifest very large percent differences between them. These large
percent differences falsely portray analytical imprecision. A tired approach that
considers multiple precision objectives reflecting different concentrations levels, such
35-36
-------
as below the MDL, at or above the MDL, and at the risk screening level, would allow
analytical precision to be more realistically appraised.
• Perform case studies based on findings from the annual report. Often, the annual
report identifies an interesting tendency or trend, or highlights an event at a particular
site(s). For example, the 2006 annual report included observations of high hexavalent
chromium concentrations on July 4, 2006. Further examination of the data in
conjunction with meteorological phenomena and potential emissions events or
incidents, or further site characterization may help identify state and local agencies
pinpoint issues affecting air quality in their area.
• Consider more rigorous study of the impact of automobile emissions on ambient air
quality using multiple years of data. Because many NMP sites have generated years
of continuous data, a real opportunity exists to evaluate the importance and impact of
automobile emissions on ambient air quality. Suggested areas of study include
additional signature compound assessments and parking lot characterizations.
• Develop and/or verify HAP and VOC emissions inventories. State/local/tribal
agencies should use the data collected from the NMP sites to develop and validate
emissions inventories, or at the very least, identify and/or verify emissions sources of
concern. Ideally, state/local/tribal agencies would compare the ambient monitoring
results with an emissions inventory for source category completeness. The emissions
inventory could then be used to develop modeled concentrations useful to compare
against ambient monitoring data.
• Promulgate ambient air standards for HAPs. Several of the pollutants sampled during
the 2008-2009 program years were higher than risk screening factors developed by
various government agencies. One way to reduce the risk to human health would be
to develop standards similar to the NAAQS for pollutants that frequently exceed
published risk screening levels.
• Incorporate/Update Risk in State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Use risk calculations
to design State Implementation Plans to implement policies that reduce the potential
for human health risk. This would be easier to enforce if ambient standards for certain
HAPs were developed (refer to above recommendation).
S5-37
-------
36.0 References
ACE, 2011. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Huntington District, Grayson Lake website. Last
accessed 9/15/2011. http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/projects/lakes/grl/
AK DMV, 2011. Alaska Department of Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles. 2008
Currently Registered Vehicles website. Last accessed 9/23/2011.
http://www.state.ak.us/dmv/research/curreg08.htm
AK DOT, 2008. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Average Daily
Traffic Count Maps, 2008. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/adt.shtml
ASTM, 2004. ASTM, International. 2004. ASTM D6209-98(2004) Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous and Paniculate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient
Air (Collection on Sorbent-Backed Filters with Gas Chromatographic/Mass
Spectrometric Analysis). http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6209.htm
ATSDR, 2009. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry. December 2009. Minimal
Risk Levels (MRLs).
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/pdfs/atsdr_mrls_december_2009.pdf
ATSDR, 2011. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry. Toxic Substance Portal
website, Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs). Last accessed 9/7/2011.
http ://www. atsdr. cdc. gov/mrls/index.html
AZ DOT, 2007. Arizona Department of Transportation. State Highway Traffic Log, AADT
2007. http://mpd.azdot.gov/mpd/data/aadt.asp
AZ DOT, 2009. Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division. June 30, 2009.
Registered Vehicles by Category Detail and County.
http ://www. azdot. gov/mvd/statistics/documents/F Y2009PITReg.pdf
Bair, 1992. Bair, Frank E. 1992. Weather of U.S. Cities, 4th ed. Gale Research Inc. Detroit, MI.
Boubel, et al., 1994. Boubel, R.W., D.L. Fox, D.B. Turner, and A.C. Stern. 1994. Fundamentals
of Air Pollution, 3rd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp 263.
CA DMV, 2008. California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2008. Estimated Vehicles Registered
by County for the Period of January 1 through December 31, 2008.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/est fees_pd by county.pdf
CCRPC, 2002. Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Transportation Data-Annual
Average Daily Traffic website. 2002 Data. Last accessed 11/16/2011.
http://www.ccmpo.us/data/traffic data.php
CCRPC, 2005. Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Transportation Data-Annual
Average Daily Traffic website. 2005 Data. Last accessed 11/16/2011.
http://www.ccmpo.us/data/traffic data.php
36-1
-------
Census Bureau, 2007. U.S. Census Bureau. November 2007. Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas and Components. Last accessed 11/29/2011.
http://www.census.gov/population/metro/files/lists/2007/Listl.txt
Census Bureau, 2009. U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Released March 2009.
http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2008-01.html
Census Bureau, 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009. Released March 2010.
http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2009-01.html
City of Sioux Falls, 2011. City of Sioux Falls Public Works, Flood Control website. Last
accessed 9/16/2011.
http ://www. siouxfalls. org/PublicWorks/water_conservation/flood_control. aspx
CO DOR, 2009. Colorado Department of Revenue. 2009 Colorado Department of Revenue
Annual Report. Denver, CO.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite? c=Page&cid=1213867975035&pagename=Revenu
e-Main%2FXRMLavout
CO DOT, 2009. Colorado Department of Transportation. Traffic Data website, Annual Average
Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes (2009).
http://apps.coloradodot.info/dataaccess/Traffic/index.cfm?fuseaction=TrafficMain&Men
uType=Traffic
DC DOT, 2008. District Department of Transportation. 2008 Traffic Volumes.
http ://ddot. dc. gov/DC/DDOT/About+DDOT/Maps/Traffic+Volume+Maps
Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., 1997. Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D. 1997. Description of the
HYSPLIT_4 modeling system. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory. NOAA Tech. Memo.
ERL ARL-224. Silver Spring, MD. 24 pp. http://www.arl.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT_pubs.php
Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., 1998. Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D. 1998. An overview of the
HYSPLIT_4 modeling system of trajectories, dispersion, and deposition. Aust. Meteor.
Mag. 47, 295-308. http://www.arl.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT_pubs.php
Draxler, R.R., 1999. Draxler, R.R. 1999. HYSPLIT4 user's guide. NOAA Air Resources
Laboratory. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL ARL-230. Silver Spring, MD.
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT_pubs.php
Draxler, R.R., et al, 2009. Draxler, R.R., et al. January 2009. HYSPLIT 4 User's Guide, Version
4.9. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory. Silver Spring, MD.
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/hysplit user guide.pdf
36-2
-------
EPA, 1998. U.S. EPA. September 1998. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and
Analysis of Ozone Precursors. EPA/600-R-98/161. Research Triangle Park, NC.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnamtil/files/ambient/pams/newtad.pdf
EPA, 1999a. U.S. EPA. January, 1999. Compendium Method TO-15: Determination of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and
Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). EPA/625/R-96/010b.
Cincinnati, OH. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html
EPA, 1999b. U.S. EPA. January, 1999. Compendium Method TO-11A: Determination of
Formaldehyde in Ambient Air Using Adsorbent Cartridge Followed by High
Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). EPA/625/R-96/010b. Cincinnati, OH.
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html
EPA, 1999c. U.S. EPA. January 1999. Compendium Method TO-13A: Determination of
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Ambient Air Using Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). EPA/625/R-96/010b. Cincinnati, OH.
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html
EPA, 1999d. U.S. EPA. June 1999. Compendium Method IO-3.5: Determination of Metals in
Ambient Particulate Matter Using Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry
(ICP/MS). EPA/625/R-96/010a. Cincinnati, OH.
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/inorganic/mthd-3 -5 .pdf
EPA, 2006a. U.S. EPA. December 2006. Standard Operating Procedure for the Determination of
Hexavalent Chromium in Ambient Air Analyzed by Ion Chromatography (1C).
EPA 68-D-00-264. Research Triangle Park, NC.
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html
EPA, 2006b. U.S. EPA. February 2006. A Preliminary Risk-based Screening Approach for Air
Toxics Monitoring Data Sets. EPA-904-B-06-001. Atlanta, GA.
http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/airtoxic/Screening-041106-KM.pdf
EPA, 2007. U.S. EPA. May 2007. 1990-2002 NEI HAP Trends: Success of CAA Air Toxic
Programs in Reducing HAP Emissions and Risk. Paper presented by Anne Pope at the
16th Annual International Emission Inventory Conference. Raleigh, NC.
http://www.epa.gOv/ttn/chief/conference/eil6/session6/a.pope.pdf
EPA, 2009a. U.S. EPA. April 2009. UATMP, NATTS, CSATAM, PAMS, and NMOC Support,
Contract No. EP-D-09-48. Pages 1-2 through 1-3.
EPA, 2009b. U.S. EPA. April 1, 2009. Technical Assistance Document for the National Air
Toxics Trends Stations Program, Revision 2. Research Triangle Park, NC.
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html
EPA, 2009c. U.S. EPA. December 2009. Air Toxics-National Air Toxics Trends Stations
website, Listing of NATTS sites, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/natts.html
36-2
-------
EPA, 2009d. U.S. EPA. September 10, 2009. Schools Air Toxics Monitoring Activity (2009)
Uses of Health Effects Information in Evaluating Sample Results.
http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/pdfs/UsesOfHealthEffectsInfoinEvalSampleResults.pdf
EPA, 2009e. U.S. EPA. 2009. Approach for Modeling POM. 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment, Assessment Methods website. Last accessed 10/14/2011.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/02pdfs/pom approach.pdf
EPA, 2010a. U.S. EPA. April 2010. Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values (4/27/10).
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary. html
EPA, 2010b. U.S. EPA. April 2010. Status of Acrolein Monitoring at Schools website. Last
accessed 11/29/2011. http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/acrolein.html
EPA, 201 la. U.S. EPA. Air Toxics-National Air Toxics Trends Stations website. Last accessed
9/7/2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/natts.html
EPA, 201 Ib. U.S. EPA. March 2011. 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA),
State-Specific NATA Emissions, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/tables.html
EPA, 201 Ic. U.S. EPA. 1986. 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B. Definition and Procedure for the
Determination of the Method Detection Limit, Revision 1.11. Last accessed 9/7/2011.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfrl36 main O2.tpl
EPA, 201 Id. U.S. EPA. June 2011. Technical Report for School: Assessing Outdoor Air Near
Schools: Riggins School, North Birmingham Elemenary School, and Lewis Elementary
School (Birmingham, Alabama). Defmtion of 95% confidence interval, pp 5.
http ://www. epa. gov/schoolair/NorthBirmi .html
EPA, 201 le. U.S EPA. March 2011. The 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
glosssary website. Last accessed 9/7/2011.
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/natamain/gloss 1 .html
EPA, 201 If. U.S. EPA. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics, Pollutants and Sources
website. Last accessed 9/7/2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollsour.html
EPA, 201 Ig. U.S. EPA. Mobile Source Emissions-Past, Present, and Future, What are Mobile
Sources website. Last accessed 9/7/2011.
http ://www. epa. gov/otaq/invntory/overview/examples.htm
EPA, 201 Ih. U.S. EPA. Climate change, Science website. Last accessed 9/7/2011.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html
EPA, 201 li. U.S. EPA. High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases website. Last accessed
9/7/2011. http://epa.gov/highgwp/
36-4
-------
EPA, 201 Ij. U.S. EPA. Technology Transfer Network, Air Quality System (AQS) website. Last
accessed 9/7/2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/
EPA, 201 Ik. U.S. EPA. March 2011. Health Effects Information Used in Cancer and Noncancer
Risk Characterization for the 2005 National-scale Assessment.
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/heal th_effects.pdf
EPA, 20111. U.S. EPA. Mobile Source Emissions-Past, Present, and Future, Hydrocarbons
website. Last accessed 9/8/2011.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/hydrocarbons.htm
ERG, 2008. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008. Support for the EPA National Monitoring
Programs (NMOC, UATMP, PAMS, HAPs, and NATTS), Quality Assurance Project
Plan, Category 1. Contract No. 68-D-03-049. Morrisville, NC.
ERG, 2009. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2009. Support for the EPA National Monitoring
Programs (NMOC, UATMP, PAMS, HAPs, and NATTS), Quality Assurance Project
Plan, Category 1. Contract No. EP-D-09-048. Morrisville, NC.
FAC, 2007. Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitation
Approaches and Uses In Clean Water Act Programs, Appendix D: DQ FAC Single
Laboratory Procedure v2.4. December 28, 2007. Submitted to the U.S. EPA.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/det/upload/fmal-report-200712.pdf
FCC, 2011. Florida Climate Center, Florida State University. 2011. Special Topics website,
Climate of Florida. Last accessed 9/13/2011.
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/specials.shtml
FHWA, 2008. Federal Highway Administration. November 2008. Highway Statistics 2007. State
Motor Vehicle Registrations-2007 (MV-1).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/mvl.cfm
FHWA, 2009a. Federal Highway Administration. December 2009. Highway Statistics 2008.
State Motor Vehicle Registrations-2008 (MV-1).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policvinformation/statistics/2008/mvl.cfm
FHWA, 2009b. Federal Highway Administration. October 2009. Highway Statistics 2008.
Urbanized Areas-2008 Miles and Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled (HM-71).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policvinformation/statistics/2008/hm71.cfm
FHWA, 2011. Federal Highway Administration. January 2011. Highway Statistics 2009. State
Motor Vehicle Registrations-2009.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/mvl.cfm
FL DHSMV, 2009. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Registered
Vehicles by County as of November 1, 2009.
http://www.flhsmv.gov/html/reports and statistics/CVR/09-10/CVR-l l-2009.pdf
36-5
-------
FL DOT, 2007. Florida Department of Transportation. October 2007. Florida Traffic Monitoring
Handbook, Chapter 4. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/tmh/
FL DOT, 2009. Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Traffic Online Mapping
Application, 2009 AADTs. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/trafficdata/
GA DOR, 2009. Georgia Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division. Statistics-Vehicle
Registration webpage. Registrations as of Dec 31, 2009.
http ://motor. etax. dor.ga. gov/stats/renewalsstats. aspx
GA DOT, 2008. Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Data. 2008
Annual Average Daily Traffic Report (AADT).
http ://www. dot, state. ga.us/statistics/TrafficData/Documents/TrafficCounts/cov2008 .pdf
Gary, 2011. Gary Chamber of Commerce. About Gary-Geography and Climate website. Last
accessed 9/15/2011. http://www.garychamber.com/
GCPH, 2007. Garfield County Public Heath. November 2007. Managing Garfield County's Air
Quality, 2008 Air Monitoring Proposal. Rifle, CO. http://www.garfieldcountyaq.net/
GCRBD, 2002. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 2002 Average Daily Traffic,
County Road System, Garfield County, Colorado, http://www.garfield-county.com/road-
bridge/maps, aspx
GSCO, 1998. Georgia State Climate Office, University of Georgia. 1998. Climatology of the
Georgia Piedmont. Athens, Georgia.
http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/education/summit/general/climate/piedmont.pdf
HCPID, 2004. Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, Architecture and Engineering
Department, Traffic and Transportation Group. Traffic Volumes Report. Data from
December 2004. Houston, Texas, http://www.eng.hctx.net/traffic/traffic.htm
Henrico County, 2009. Email from Deborah Oxenreider, County of Henrico, Revenue Division.
July 27, 2010. 2009 Data.
IL DOT, 2009. Illinois Department of Transportation. Getting Around Illinois website. Average
Annual Daily Traffic map viewer, 2009.
http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/default.htm?aspxerrorpath=/default.aspx
IL SOS, 2008. Illinois Secretary of State, Vehicle Services Department. 2008 Vehicle
Registration Counts by County.
http://www.sos.state.il.us/departments/vehicles/2008countycounts.pdf
IN BMV, 2009. Email from Brad Folck, Indian Bureau of Motor Vehicles Communications
Department. January 13, 2009.
IN DOT, 2002. Indiana Department of Transportation. Average Daily Traffic and Commercial
Vehicles Interactive map. 2002 Data, http://www.in.gov/indot/2350.htm
36-6
-------
IN DOT, 2007. Indiana Department of Transportation. Average Daily Traffic and Commercial
Vehicles Interactive map. 2007 Data, http://www.in.gov/indot/2350.htm
IPCC, 2001. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Third Assessment Report
(TAR), http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/
ISCO, 2002. Indiana State Climate Office, Purdue University. About Indiana Climate website.
December 2002. Last accessed 9/15/2011.
http://climate.agry.purdue.edu/climate/narrative.asp
KCC, 2011. Kentucky Climate Center, Western Kentucky University. 2011. Climatology
webpage. Last accessed 9/15/2011. http://kyclim.wku.edu/climatography.html
KY, 2011. Kentucky State Parks. Grayson Lake History website. Last accessed 11/29/2011.
http://parks.kv.gov/parks/recreationparks/gravson-lake/history.aspx
KYTC, 2008. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Traffic Counts mapping application. 2008 Data.
http://kytcgis.ky.gov/TrafficCounts/viewer.htm
KYTC, 2009a. Email from Cathy L. Bickers, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.
February 24, 2009.
KYTC, 2009b. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Traffic Counts mapping application.
2009 Data, http://kytcgi s.ky. gov/TrafficCounts/viewer. htm
LA Almanac, 2005. Los Angeles Almanac. Los Angeles County Freeway and Highway Traffic
Volumes, 2005. Last accessed 11/30/2011.
http ://www.laalmanac. com/transport/tr26b .htm
Lakes, 2010. Lakes Environmental. May 2010. WRPLOT View 6.5.1.
http://www.weblakes.com/products/wrplot/index.html
MA DOT, 2007. Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division. Traffic
Counts for Boston website. Last accessed 10/4/2011.
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/traffic.asp?f=l&C=BOSTON
MA RMV, 2009. Email from Michael Hooton, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.
January 13, 2009.
MCC, 2011. Missouri Climate Center, University of Missouri. Climate of Missouri website. Last
accessed 9/15/2011. http://climate.missouri.edu/climate.php
MDS, 2009. Email from Paul T. Kelly, Michigan Department of State. January 14, 2009.
MDS, 2010. Email from Paul T. Kelly, Michigan Department of State. July 26, 2010.
36-7
-------
MI DOT, 2007. Michigan Department of Transportation. Maps and Publications website, 2007
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) maps. http://www.michigan.gOv/mdot/0,1607,7-151-
9622 11033 11149—.OO.html
MI DOT, 2009. Michigan Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Planning.
Traffic Monitoring Information System (TMIS) website, 2009 Annual Average Daily
Traffic Report. http://mdotnetpublic.state.mi.us/tmispublic/Search.aspx
MO DOR, 2009. Missouri Department of Revenue. Total Motor Vehicles by Kind within County
(DM45080-01), 2009. http://dor.mo.gov/publicreports/index.php
MO DOT, 2009. Missouri Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning. 2009
District 6 Traffic Volume and Commercial Vehicle Count Map (St. Louis-Chesterfield).
http://www.modot.org/safetv/trafficvolumemaps2009.htm
MS DOT, 2007. Mississippi Department of Transportation, Office of Intermodal Planning.
MOOT Traffic Counts mapping application. 2007 Data.
http://www.gomdot.com/Divisions/IntermodalPlanning/Resources/Maps/TrafficVolume
Maps.aspx
MS STC, 2008. Mississippi State Tax Comsission. December 2008. Annual Report Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2008. Jackson, Mississippi, http://www.dor.ms.gov/info/stats/main.html
MSU, 201 la. Michigan State Climatologist's Office, Michigan State University. Climate of
Dearborn Narrative. Last accessed 9/15/2011. http://climate.geo.msu.edu/stations/2015/
MSU, 201 Ib. Michigan State Climatologist's Office, Michigan State University. Climate of Sault
Sainte Marie Narrative. Last accessed 9/15/2011.
http://climate.geo.msu.edu/stations/7366/
NCDC, 2007. National Climatic Data Center. Subscription to Quality Controlled Local
Climatological Data. 2007 Data. Last accessed 9/23/2011.
https://nes.ncdc.noaa.gov/subscriptions.html
NCDC, 2008. National Climatic Data Center. Subscription to Quality Controlled Local
Climatological Data. 2008 Data. Last accessed 9/23/2011.
https://nes.ncdc.noaa.gov/subscriptions.html
NCDC, 2009. National Climatic Data Center. Subscription to Quality Controlled Local
Climatological Data. 2009 Data. Last accessed 9/23/2011.
https://nes.ncdc.noaa.gov/subscriptions.html
NCDC, 2011. National Climatic Data Center. U.S. Climate Normals website, Climate of the
States, Climatography of the United States No. 60. Last accessed 9/15/2011.
http://hurricane.ncdc. noaa.gov/cgi-bin/climatenormal s/climatenormals.pl?directive=prod
select2&prodtype=CLIM60&subrnum
36-8
-------
NIST, 2011. National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of
Statistical Methods website. Last accessed 10/4/2011.
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section4/pmc42.htm
NJ DOT, 2002. New Jersey Department of Transportation. Roadway Information and Traffic
Counts mapping application. 2002 Data. Last accessed 10/5/2011.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadwav/traffic counts/
NJ DOT, 2008. New Jersey Department of Transportation. Roadway Information and Traffic
Counts mapping application. 2008 Data. Last accessed 10/5/2011.
http://www. state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/traffic_counts/
NJ DOT, 2009. New Jersey Department of Transportation. Roadway Information and Traffic
Counts mapping application. 2009 Data. Last accessed 10/5/2011.
http://www.state.nj .us/transportation/refdata/roadway/traffic_counts/
NJ DOT, 2010. New Jersey Department of Transportation. Roadway Information and Traffic
Counts mapping application. 2010 Data. Last accessed 10/5/2011.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/traffic counts/
NLM, 2011. National Library of Medicine. Tox Town website for Chromium. Last accessed
9/8/2011. http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=10
NOAA, 1999. NOAA National Weather Service. April 1999. NOAA Technical Memorandum,
NWS-WR259, Climate of San Jose.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr/sfd_sjc_climate/sjc/SJC_CLIMATE3.php
NOAA, 201 la. NOAA, National Weather Service. NWS glossary website. Last accessed
11/30/2011. http://weather.gov/glossary/
NOAA, 201 Ib. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Carbon Cycle Science website. Last
accessed 9/7/2011. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/
NOAA, 201 Ic. NOAA, National Weather Service, Buffalo, NY. Rochester Climate Narrative.
Last accessed 11/30/2011. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/local data.php?wfo=buf
NOAA, 201 Id. NOAA, National Weather Service, Buffalo, NY. Buffalo Climate Narrative. Last
accessed 11/30/2011. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/local_data.php?wfo=buf
NOAA, 201 le. NOAA, National Severe Storms Laboratory. A Severe Weather Primer:
Questions and Answers about Tornadoes website. Last accessed 9/16/2011.
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/tornado/tor climatology.html
NYS DEC, 2009. Email from Paul Sierzenga, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. January 29, 2009. Map of Tonawanda Toxics Grant, NYSDEC Regulate
Sites.
36-9
-------
NYS DMV, 2008. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Statistics-Vehicle
Registrations in Force-2008. Last accessed 10/5/2011.
http://www.nvdmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/regin08.htm
NYS DOT, 2008. New York State Department of Transportation. Traffic Data Viewer mapping
application. 2008 Data. https://www.nysdot.gov/tdv
OH BMV, 2008. Ohio Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Detailed
Statement of Motor Vehicle Registrations, 2008 Registrations by County and Vehicle
Type. Last accessed 11/30/2011. http://bmv.ohio.gov/registration_statements08.stm
OH DOT, 2006. Ohio Department of Transportation. Traffic Count Information and Maps
website. 2006 data.
http://www.odotonline.org/techservapps/traffmonit/countinformation/default.htm
OK DOT, 2008. Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Planning and Research Division. 2008
Annual Average Daily Traffic Oklahoma Highway System maps. Last accessed
10/5/2011. http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/aadt/index.htm
OKTC, 2008. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Motor Vehicle Division. Annual Vehicle
Registration Report, Fiscal Year July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Last accessed 10/5/2011. http://www.tax.ok.gov/annrpts.html
OKTC, 2009. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Motor Vehicle Division. Annual Vehicle
Registration Report, Fiscal Year July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Last accessed 10/5/2011. http://www.tax.ok.gov/annrpts.html
OR DMV, 2007. Oregon Department of Transportation, Driver and Motor Vehicle Services
Branch. Oregon Motor Vehicle Registrations by County, as of December 31, 2007.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/news/vehicle stats.shtml
OR DOT, 2011. Oregon Department of Transportation. Transportation Data website, Definition
of VMT. Last accessed 9/8/2011.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/tsm/vmtpage.shtml
Pagano, P. and Gauvreau, K., 2000. Pagano, M. and Gauvreau, K. 2000. Principles of
Biostatistics, 2nd edition. Pacifc Grove, CA: Duxbury.
Portland EOT, 2005. Portland Bureau of Transportation. Traffic Counts mapping application
website. 2005 Data. Last accessed 10/5/2011.
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportati on/index.cfm?c=34750&a=l 80473
RI DC, 2006. Telephone conversation with Diane, Rhode Island Data Control.
September 25, 2006.
RI DOT, 2009. Rhode Island Department of Transportation. December 2009. State Highway
Map of Rhode Island, Traffic Flow Map 2009.
http://www.dot.ri.gov/engineering/gis/maps.asp
36-10
-------
Riverside, 2009. County of Riverside Transportation Department. Traffic Count Database, 2009.
http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/trans/eng traffic counts.html
Rutgers, 2011. Office of the NJ State Climatologist, Rutgers University. New Jersery Climate
Overview website. Last accessed 9/15/2011.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_vl/njclimoverview.html
San Jose, 2006. City of San Jose, Transportation Department. March 2006. Average Daily
Traffic (ADTs) Volumes 2005.
http ://www. sanj oseca. gov/transportation/forms/TrafficFlowMap_2005 .pdf
SC DOT, 2010. South Carolina Department of Transportation. May 18, 2010. Average Annual
Daily Traffic website. 2009 Data. Last accessed 10/5/2011.
http ://www. dot, state, sc.us/getting/aadt. asp
SC DPS, 2007. South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Highway Safety. South
Carolina Traffic Collision Fact Book 2007. http://www.scdps.org/ohs/stat_services.asp
SC SCO, 2011. South Carolina State Climate Office, South Carolina Climate website. Last
accessed 9/16/2011. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/ClimateData/cli sc climate.php
SD DENR, 2009. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. South
Dakota Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2009. Last accessed 11/1/2011.
http ://denr. sd. gov/des/aq/monitoring/state-mo. aspx
SD DOT, 2007. South Dakota Department of Transportation, Transportation Inventory
Management. Traffic Map website. 2007 Data.
http://www.sddot.com/pe/data/traf_maps.asp
SD DOT, 2009. South Dakota Department of Transportation, Transportation Inventory
Management. Traffic Map website. 2009 Data.
http://www.sddot.com/pe/data/traf_maps.asp
SD DOR, 2008. South Dakota Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division. Number of
Titles Awarded by Year by County website. 2008 Data. Last accessed 10/6/2011.
http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/motorvehicle/title/history of titlesl2.htm
TAMU, 2011. Office of the Texas State Climatologist, Texas A&M University. Climate of
Texas. Last accessed 9/19/2011.
http://atmo.tamu.edu/osc/libraiY/oscjubs/climate of texas.pdf
TN DOR, 2010. Email from Billy W. Carter, Tennessee Department of Revenue. July 27, 2010.
Data is as of July 23, 2010.
TN DOT, 2009. Tennessee Department of Transportation, Project Planning Division. 2009
AADT Book. Nashville, TN. http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/projectplanning/adt.asp
36-11
-------
TX DMV, 2010. Email from Diane Emrick-Dodson, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles,
Vehicle Titles and Registration Division. July 26, 2010. Currently Registered Vehicles
RegClassCD Totals, by County (as of January 10, 2009).
UT DOT, 2009. Utah Department of Transportation. Traffic Maps 2009. Last accessed
10/6/2011. http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0::::V.T:.528
UT TC, 2009. Utah Tax Commission. 2009 On-road Registrations by County and Vehicle Type.
http ://tax.utah. gov/esu/mv-regi strations
UT, 2011. Tennessee Climatological Service, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Climate Data
for Tennessee website. Last accessed 9/16/2011.
http://climate.tennessee.edu/climate data.html
VA DOT, 2009. Virginia Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division. Average
Daily Traffic Volumes with Vehicle Classification Data on Interstate, Arterial, and
Primary Routes 2009. http://www.virginiadot.org/info/ct-TrafficCounts.asp
VGA, 2011. Vermont Geographic Alliance. Updated Vermont Geography Book website, The
Physiographic Regions of Vermont. Last accessed 10/13/2011.
http://academics.smcvt.edu/vtgeographic/
VT DMV, 2010. Email from Shannon Fassett, Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles.
August 2, 2010. 2010 Data.
Vtrans, 2009. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Planning, Outreach, and Community Affairs
Division, Traffic Research Unit. May 2009. 2008 (Route Log) AADTs State Highways.
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/Planning/Documents/TrafResearch/Publications/pub.htm
WADOL, 2009. Washington State Department of Licensing. Vehicle/Vessel Fee Collection and
Vehicle Counts Program website. 2009 Data.
http://www.dol.wa.gov/about/vehvesselreports.html
WA DOT, 2009. Washington State Department of Transportation. 2009 Annual Traffic Report.
http ://www. wsdot. wa. gov/mapsdata/travel/annual trafficreport.htm
WI DOT, 2004. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Dodge County traffic counts website,
2004 Counts, http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/dodge.htm
WI DOT, 2008. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles. Facts and
Figures 2008, A Reference Guide. Madison, WI.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/facts.htm
WRCC, 2011. Western Region Climate Center. Climate Narrative of the States: Climate of
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah. Last accessed 11/29/2011.
http ://www. wrcc. dri. edu/CLIMATED AT A. html
36-12
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-454/R-1 l-013a
Environmental Protection Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division December 2011
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
-------