Massachusetts Port Authority Logan International Airport. Air Quality Monitoring Study Baseline Year Report August Final Baseline Report

Transcription

1 Massachusetts Port Authority Logan International Airport Air Quality Monitoring Study Baseline Year Report August 2010 Final Baseline Report

2 Contents Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background, Initial Planning Scope of Study Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology 2.1 Study Objectives Technical Approach Target Pollutants Monitoring Locations Primary Monitoring Locations Satellite Monitoring Locations Monitoring Methods as Planned and Executed Active Methods Passive Methods Laboratory Methods Active Methods Passive Methods Quality Assurance and Quality Control Quality Assurance Project Plan Quality Control Results Missing or Invalid Data Data Validation Section 3 Presentation of Data 3.1 Continuous Data Descriptive Statistics Time Series and Comparative Analyses Time-Integrated Data Descriptive Statistics Time Series and Comparative Analyses Section 4 Discussion of Supporting Data 4.1 Airport Flight Operations Motor Vehicle Traffic Volumes Centerfield Taxiway Construction Concurrent Air Monitoring Data from MADEP Appendices Appendix A Field Sampling Schedule Appendix B Performance Audit Memorandum Appendix C Monitoring and Supporting Data A i

3 Table of Contents Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Appendix E Fourth Quarter Court Road BAM Data Memorandum A ii

4 Tables Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology 2-1 Target Compounds Summary of Air Monitoring Methods Summary of Monitoring Sites, Station Type and Instrumentation Section 3 Presentation of Data 3-1 Continuous Data Summary Statistics Hourly Meteorological Data Summary Statistics Active Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics FRM PM 2.5 Samples Summary Statistics MiniVol TM PM 2.5 Samples Summary Statistics Passive Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics Appendix D D-1 Hourly Continuous Data Recovery... D-1 D-2 Hourly Continuous Data Minimum Detection Limit... D-2 D-3 Active Time-Integrated Sample Recovery... D-3 D-4 PM 2.5 Time-Integrated Sample Recovery... D-4 D-5 Passive Time-Integrated Sample Recovery... D-5 D-6 Active Time-Integrated Samples Minimum Detection Limit... D-6 D-7 Active Time-Integrated Samples Minimum Detection Limit... D-8 A iii

5 Figures Section 1 Introduction 1-1 Logan International Airport Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology 2-1 Monitoring Locations Section 3 Presentation of Data 3-1 Summary of 1-Hour BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations Summary of 24-Hour BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations Hour BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations (2/23/08-2/29/08) Distribution of Hourly BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations Distribution of 24-Hour BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations Average BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations by Hour of Day Average BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations by Day of Week Summary of 1-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations Summary of 24-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations Hour Black Carbon Concentrations (2/23/08-2/29/08) Distribution of Hourly Black Carbon Concentrations Distribution of 24-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations Black Carbon Concentrations by Hour of Day Black Carbon Concentrations by Day of Week Monthly Wind Roses Annual Wind Roses Active Method 1,3-Butadiene Distribution Active Method Benzene Distribution Active Method Toluene Distribution Active Method Ethylbenzene Distribution Active Method m, p-xylenes Distribution Active Method o-xylene Distribution Active Method Styrene Distribution Active VOC Sampling 1,3-Butadiene Active VOC Sampling Benzene Active VOC Sampling Toluene Active VOC Sampling Ethylbenzene Active VOC Sampling m, p-xylenes Active VOC Sampling o-xylene Active VOC Sampling Styrene Active Method Formaldehyde Distribution Active Method Acrolein Distribution Active Method Acetaldehyde Distribution Active Method Propionaldehyde Distribution A iv

6 List of Figures 3-35 Active Carbonyl Sampling - Formaldehyde Active Carbonyl Sampling - Acrolein Active Carbonyl Sampling - Acetaldehyde Active Carbonyl Sampling - Propionaldehyde Active Method Naphthalene Distribution Active Method 1-Methyl Naphthalene Distribution Active Method 2-Methyl Naphthalene Distribution Active PAH Sampling Naphthalene Active PAH Sampling 1-Methyl Naphthalene Active PAH Sampling 2-Methyl Naphthalene Active PM 2.5 FRM Active PM 2.5 from MiniVol TM Measurement Benzene Passive Sampling Box Plot Toluene Passive Sampling Box Plot Ethyl Benzene Passive Sampling Box Plot m, p-xylenes Passive Sampling Box Plot o-xylene Passive Sampling Box Plot Styrene Passive Sampling Box Plot Formaldehyde Passive Sampling Box Plot Acrolein Passive Sampling Box Plot Acetaldehyde Passive Sampling Box Plot Propionaldehyde Passive Sampling Box Plot Naphthalene Passive Sampling Box Plot Methyl Naphthalene Passive Sampling Box Plot Methyl Naphthalene Passive Sampling Box Plot Month Average Benzene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average Toluene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average Ethyl Benzene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average m, p-xylenes Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average o-xylene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average Styrene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average Formaldehyde Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average Acrolein Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average Acetaldehyde Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods A v

7 List of Figures Month Average Propionaldehyde Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average Naphthalene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average 1-Methyl Naphthalene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Month Average 2-Methyl Naphthalene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Appendix A A-1 Field Sampling Schedule... A-1 A vi

8 Section 1 Introduction The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) began the preparations for a two -year air quality monitoring study at Boston s Logan International Airport (Logan) in late This report documents the first (baseline) year of the monitoring including the planning, execution, and data reporting. The baseline year of monitoring ran from October 1, 2007, through September 30, Logan, which is owned and operated by Massport, is New England s largest airport occupying approximately 2,400 acres in East Boston, Massachusetts (see Figure 1-1). In 2007, it ranked as the 20 th busiest airport in the U.S., with a volume of over 28 million passengers. 1 The airfield contains six runways, associated taxiways, aprons and terminal facilities. It is surrounded by Boston Harbor and the communities of East Boston, South Boston, and Winthrop. 1.1 Project Background, Initial Planning The air monitoring study was required in the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) certificate issued by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) for the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Logan Airside Improvements Project (LAIP), which included several airside improvements. The study was required relative to the construction of a new centerfield taxiway 9,300 feet long running between the two major parallel runways 4 and 22. On June 15, 2001, the EOEA Secretary issued a MEPA certificate on the LAIP Final EIR. Because of concerns of residents in surrounding communities over potential adverse air quality and odor from the operational changes due to the new centerfield taxiway, the EOEA Secretary issued the following condition in the MEPA certificate, as related to the construction of the new centerfield taxiway. [I]n addition, within the ESPR 2 process Massport shall conduct follow-up air quality monitoring in neighborhoods surrounding the airport and under the flight path of Logan Airport. This information will be shared with the Department of Public Health (DPH) and reported in the ESPR update, to provide baseline data for future studies. Massport should consult with DEP and DPH in developing an air quality monitoring protocol using periodic air sampling in residential areas with a special focus on air toxics. Massport should also complete within the next five years a special air toxics monitoring study that will include a public meeting to discuss the results. In August 2006, Massport issued a Request for Qualifications to identify a qualified consultant to conduct the air monitoring program. The monitoring was to occur over approximately 24 months with a special focus on air toxics. The study was 1 Airports Council International North America (ACI-NA), statistics taken from ACI-NA website ( accessed on February 9, Massport is required to prepare an Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR) every five years by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs to evaluate the cumulative effect of growth and change at Logan. A 1-1

9 Section 1 Introduction designed to monitor air quality before the installation of the centerfield taxiway, and then after the taxiway was operational and new aircraft traffic patterns were established. Following selection of a consultant team, planning for the baseline monitoring period began in November 2006 in consultation with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH). The draft Work Plan for the study was completed in February 2007, and Massport made the draft Work Plan available for review by the MADEP and MADPH. Massport also met with representatives from the communities of East Boston and Winthrop to review and discuss the plan. The final Work Plan (available on the Massport website) which addressed agency and public comments was issued in September Companion documents to the Work Plan -- the Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for the monitoring program -- were also issued in September The QAPPs (available from Massport) were updated in January 2008 with programmatic changes. On-site monitoring and sampling equipment began to be deployed in June 2007, and all sites were fully operational by September Due to the phasing in of the sampling stations the baseline monitoring period was considered to have begun on October 1, During the monitoring period, the consultant team prepared quarterly monitoring reports with information on data collection activities, analytical results, recovery rates, detection limits, and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) results. The quarterly reports were submitted to Massport in March, May, July, and October 2008 and subsequently reviewed with the MADEP and MADPH after each submission 1.2 Scope of Study The MEPA certificate contains four statements addressing the requirements of the study. The MEPA language is restated below (in italics) followed by explanations of how it is incorporated within the study. a. Within the ESPR process Massport shall conduct follow-up air quality monitoring in neighborhoods surrounding the airport and under the flight path of Logan Airport. In this context, the term follow-up air quality monitoring was interpreted as air monitoring after the issuance of the LAIP and prior to the installation of the new taxiway to enable assessment of air quality changes due to the new taxiway. The expression in neighborhoods surrounding the airport and under the flight path was understood to include areas in Winthrop, East Boston, and South Boston closest to the airport and under (or near) the arrival and departure tracks for in- and outbound aircraft. A 1-2

10 Section 1 Introduction b. This information will be shared with the MADPH and reported in the ESPR Update, to provide baseline data for future studies. Once the study has been completed, Massport will report the study results in the annual EDR/ESPR documents and provide the collected data to the MADPH and MADEP for their use in future air quality evaluations and studies. The reference to baseline data for future studies was taken to mean the data collected by Massport during the two-year monitoring study that may be used by others in future studies. c. Massport should consult MADEP and MADPH in developing an air quality monitoring protocol using periodic air sampling in residential areas with a specific focus on air toxics. In developing the monitoring program, Massport consulted with the MADEP and MADPH on both approach and implementation. The term protocol was taken to include the Work Plan as well as the QAPP. The term periodic air sampling was taken to mean air sampling (or monitoring) on a temporal (i.e., seasonal, monthly, weekly and/or daily) basis that will best evaluate air quality near the airport. Residential areas include the same neighborhoods in item a. Air toxics are considered to be synonymous with toxic air pollutants (TAPs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), but may also include particulate matter and/or black carbon as potential indicators of, or surrogates for, fine particulate matter (PM) and jet exhaust. d. Massport should also complete within the next five years a special air toxics monitoring study that will include a public meeting to discuss the results. Based on this statement, it was understood that the study must be completed within five years and the results presented to the public. Special air toxics monitoring study was understood to mean the study as outlined in the original work plan. Public meeting was interpreted as a forum, announced in advance and planned for a certain time and place, where the public can review, ask questions, and discuss the study findings. A 1-3

11

12 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology The study approach and methodology are documented in the Work Plan and QAPPs (separate plans for active and passive methodologies). These documents were prepared to be used as a guide to monitoring methodology, equipment siting and operation, sample collection and chain of custody, laboratory analyses, data reporting, and quality control and assurance throughout the Study. The Work Plan and QAPPs were developed in cooperation with the MADEP and MADPH as well as local communities. This section of the report discusses the approach for identifying the target pollutants, the monitoring locations, and the sampling and analysis methods. Additional details can be found in the Work Plan. 2.1 Study Objectives The MEPA Certificate was used as the framework for formulating the objectives for this Study, which are subdivided below into primary and supporting objectives. As a means of focusing the Study, the primary objective was summarized as follows: Primary Objective Collect air quality data with an emphasis on air toxics under (or near) the flight paths and in the neighborhoods surrounding Logan International Airport in advance of, and following, the implementation of the Centerfield Taxiway. From the MEPA Certificate, it is clear that there are other particular elements to the air monitoring program that are considered necessary (bulleted ( ) under MEPA Certificate below). These include consultation with MADPH/MADEP, sharing and reporting of collected data, and a timeframe for completing the Study. Some comments on the proposed Study from MADEP, MADPH, and communities (bulleted under MADPH, MADEP, and Community Comments below) are also important. 1,2,3 These include definitive timeframes for conducting the monitoring and recommendations on monitoring methods. 1 Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH), Meeting with MADPH, CDM, Emory University and Massport, Toxic Air Pollutant Monitoring Plan Development for Logan Airport, February 10, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP), Meeting with MADEP, CDM, Emory University and Massport, Air Toxics Monitoring Program at Logan International Airport: Background and other Studies. February 28, Flavin, A., A Neighborhood Representative s Perspective on the Proceedings of the Centerfield Taxiway Evaluation Committee and Recommendations for Environmental Fairness for the People of Winthrop and East Boston, May 18, A 2-1

13 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Added to these are several typical features (bulleted under Other Considerations below) of ambient air monitoring studies regarded as essential to achieving a successful outcome. These factors are particularly applicable when measuring toxic air pollutants that are emitted from a variety of sources (airport related and nonairport related). Such considerations include the use of reliable and cost-effective methods; program efficiency; and the ability to validate and evaluate the collected data based on the program uncertainties, limitations, and unforeseen events that are inherent to this type of investigation. For clarity, these supporting objectives are summarized below. Supporting Objectives MEPA Certificate ---- Consult with MADPH and MADEP on program development. Share the collected baseline data with MADPH and MADEP Provide information of the program in the annual EDR/ESPR documents. Complete the study within five years. Hold a meeting for the public to review and discuss the findings MADPH, MADEP, and Community Comments Collect one year of data in advance, and following the implementation, of the Centerfield Taxiway. Perform real-time measurements. Discuss scientific findings in terms that are comprehensible to lay-persons Other Considerations Use reliable and scientifically proven monitoring methods including both active (i.e., using a pump) and passive (i.e., not using a pump) techniques that allow for multiple locations and extended periods of monitoring. Monitor compounds that are representative of airport-related emission sources. Select monitoring sites that are feasible and secure for data collection. Use general findings from air monitoring studies already completed or under way at other airports and specific local monitoring data collected by MADEP. Identify and evaluate possible cause(s) of data trends, outliers, and other findings. Identify and evaluate potential effects on data from meteorology, temporal, and spatial influences. Allow for adjustments and other changes to the Work Plan as the monitoring program progresses and data become available. Identify and evaluate potential impacts on data from airport-related and nonairport related emission sources. Identify and evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of the air monitoring program. A 2-2

14 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Although these objectives are termed as Supporting they are neither treated nor looked upon as incidental or less important. The approach and methodology for accomplishing the objectives of the Study are discussed in the following sections. 2.2 Technical Approach Target compounds were selected as the result of applying the following evaluation criteria: could be representative of airport-related emissions; could be useful as baseline data for future studies; could be useful for comparison to criteria pollutants and/or other air monitoring data; and may include substitute and surrogate compounds. In all, 15 pollutants were selected as target pollutants. The target pollutants are discussed in more detail in Section 2.3. As with the selection of the target pollutants, selection of monitoring locations was also important for the Study. Candidate sites were identified, screened, and ranked based on the following evaluation criteria: MEPA Certificate language; distance and direction from the Centerfield Taxiway; nearby emission sources and other potential influences; prevailing meteorological conditions; site ownership, accessibility, and security; other factors and considerations (e.g., power availability, existing structure for shelter). The site selection process resulted in the identification of three primary sites, seven satellite sites, and one background site. The monitoring locations are discussed in more detail in Section 2.4. Numerous methods have been developed over time to collect and analyze air pollutant samples, using both active and passive techniques. In general terms, active sampling techniques involve using mechanical means (e.g., a pump) or a vacuum to move air into, or through, a collection medium for analysis. Sampling may involve collection of discrete quantities of material for later analysis or continuous and selective in-situ monitoring for specific compounds. Typical examples include high volume (hi-vol) samplers for particulate matter (PM) and continuous monitors for carbon monoxide or ozone. By comparison, passive sampling techniques involve using non-active means (e.g., diffusion, gravitational settling) to collect samples. Table 2-1 summarizes the air monitoring methods used in the Study. Candidate sampling and analysis methods were identified, screened, and ranked based on the following evaluation criteria: reliability of measurements; applicability to periodic and follow-up monitoring; and cost effectiveness of measurements. In this case, the establishment of primary (collocated full suite of active and passive monitoring) sites in select areas of particular interest coupled with satellite (primarily passive monitoring) sites enables the collection of representative data at 11 locations in the Study area. Massport developed this hybrid approach of using both active (real-time as well as time-integrated) measurements and passive (timeintegrated) measurements. The sampling methods are discussed in Section 2.5, and the analysis methods are discussed in Section 2.6. The QAPPs, which were developed to standardize the field and laboratory procedures and establish data quality objectives for the Study, are discussed in Section 2.7. A 2-3

15 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology 2.3 Target Pollutants The MEPA Certificate states that the Study be conducted with a special focus on air toxics. Air toxics, also referred to as toxic air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), include a broad range of compounds for which there are no National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), but are regulated by EPA because of their potential effects on human health. Currently, 187 HAP compounds and compound categories with over 700 subspecies are regulated under the Clean Air Act. HAPs may be emitted from a variety of sources, both natural and anthropogenic. Of those that are man-made, many are emitted during combustion of fossil fuels while others are emitted from industrial, chemical and waste treatment processes. Airportrelated sources of HAPs include aircraft, motor vehicles, ground support equipment, construction equipment, fueling, boilers and other sources, such as live-fire training activities and emergency generators. HAPs are also emitted from a variety of emission sources located in the vicinity of the airport such as vehicular traffic, power plants, home heating units, industry, dry cleaners, and autobody shops. The types of HAPs most commonly associated with airport sources include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbonyl compounds, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). VOCs are organic gases generated from combustion or due to chemical evaporation. Carbonyls are similar to VOCs but are more chemically reactive. PAHs are semi-volatile organic compounds that do not volatilize as easily as VOCs or do not react as easily as carbonyls. Target pollutants for this Study were selected to represent the primary combustion products or evaporative emissions from airport related sources. The selected compounds listed in Table 2-2 meet the following criteria: Classifiable as a HAP by EPA; Representative of airport-related emissions; Typically used in air quality studies and could be useful as baseline data for future studies; Comparable to regulatory criteria and monitoring data collected elsewhere by MADEP; and Identified in other studies as being useful in the assessment of potential airport air quality impacts Although not classified as HAPs by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particulate matter (PM) and black carbon (BC) can play a role in the formation and dispersion of HAPs. PM may contain smoke, particles, soot, dust, pollen, metals, and mixtures of unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons. Aircraft-related emissions A 2-4

16 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology are known to be characterized by the presence of PM and BC making them a potential indicator of airport emissions. Both PM and BC are pollutants of concern to MADEP, MADPH, EPA, and the general public. 2.4 Monitoring Locations The identification, evaluation, and selection of potential monitoring locations were an important element of the Study. There were several key considerations in the final selection of monitoring sites, including: Consistency with the MEPA Certificate as being under (or near) the airport flight paths and in neighborhoods surrounding Logan; Proximity to the Centerfield Taxiway; Potential representativeness of the collected data; Prevailing wind directions; Other nearby sources of emissions; and Site access and security. Relevant information for each potential site was obtained from review of aerial photography, maps of the airport and surrounding areas, Internet sites, consultation with Massport, MADEP, MADPH, and FAA staffs, and site visits by the Project Team members. Emphasis was placed on meeting the objectives of the Study as described previously. This included locating monitors under the primary Logan flight paths and in the nearby communities at locations that would most likely be impacted by airportrelated emissions due to prevailing winds and proximity to the airport. Locations that were considered for monitoring included portions of East Boston, Winthrop, and South Boston Primary Monitoring Locations Based on an analysis of potential sites and after consulting with the MADEP and MADPH, three sites, Annavoy Street, Court Road, and Bremen Street, were chosen as the primary monitoring locations. Brief descriptions of these Primary Sites are presented below and the site locations can be seen in Figure 2-1. Annavoy Street (Location 1 on Figure 2-1): This site is located in East Boston near the intersection of Annavoy Street and Saratoga Street (Route 145). It is adjacent to the Winthrop town line directly across from the northern end of the Centerfield Taxiway. The location is separated from the airport by approximately 0.4 mile of open water and is located adjacent to a residential neighborhood and under the primary Logan flight path (Runway 4R/22L). This site is also predominantly downwind from the airport during the summertime and periodically during the remainder of the year. The site is owned by Massport and partially occupied by A 2-5

17 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology an FAA navigation aid system. Other nearby emission sources include motor vehicle traffic operating on the local roadway network and the burning of fuel in home heating units. Court Road (Location 3 on Figure 2-1): This site is located in Winthrop approximately 0.3 mile east of the proposed Centerfield Taxiway. It meets the Primary Objective of being located in a residential neighborhood and near the Centerfield Taxiway. This site is frequently downwind from Logan during both the winter and summertime. Bremen Street (Location 2 on Figure 2-1): This site is formerly a MADEP monitoring site and is located in East Boston approximately 1.2 miles to the west of the Centerfield Taxiway. It meets the study objectives of being located in a residential neighborhood and near the flight path of Runway 33L/15R. This site is predominantly upwind from the airport. Nearby sources of emissions include local traffic and the nearby commercial/light-industrial areas Satellite Monitoring Locations The purpose of using satellite sites was to expand the Study Area into neighborhoods surrounding the airport that are spatially more distant from the primary monitoring locations. Seven Satellite neighborhood monitoring locations and one urban background monitoring location (Harrison Avenue) were used in the Study, including: Harrison Avenue (MADEP site), Roxbury (site 4); Cottage Park Yacht Club, Winthrop (site 5); Constitution Beach, East Boston (site 6); Jeffries Cove, East Boston (site 7); South Boston Yacht Club, South Boston (site 8); Logan Satellite Fire Station, Logan Airport (site 9) Coughlin Park, Winthrop (site 10); and Bayswater Street, East Boston (site 11). Two background monitoring sites were designated for the Study: the MADEP station on Harrison Avenue, Roxbury; and the MADEP station at the Lynn Water Treatment Plant. The first was selected as urban background and the second as suburban background. They were selected to provide ambient concentration data away from Logan. Although both of these MADEP sites are considered urban and A 2-6

18 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology center-city monitoring locations, the Harrison Avenue site is in Suffolk County within the immediate Boston metropolitan area whereas the Lynn site is in southern Essex County farther removed from Boston. The MADEP station on Harrison Avenue measures toxic air pollutants, PM 2.5 and black carbon. For the Study, Massport collocated a PM 2.5 MiniVol TM, an active PAH sampler, and passive samplers for VOC, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs at MADEP s Harrison Avenue site. The MADEP Lynn site measures toxic air pollutants and PM 2.5. These monitoring methods are described in Section 2.5. The Project Work Plan provides additional details on the site selection process. 2.5 Monitoring Methods as Planned and Executed Massport developed a hybrid approach of using both active (real-time as well as time-integrated) measurements in the short term and passive (time-integrated) measurements in the long term. Use of the hybrid approach allowed data collection at 11 total locations, including the three primary sites. One major difference between the active and passive monitoring methods is the duration of the sampling period. Active methods monitor air quality both in real time (24/7) and as discrete (one sample over the sample collection period) samples taken over a relatively short time interval (i.e., 1 minute to 24 hours). Passive methods collect discrete samples over longer periods of time normally from several days to a week or more. When the results from passive monitoring are reviewed together, the data can reveal air quality trends or patterns based on location (i.e., direction and distance from the airport). Real-time measurements occurred continuously during the study. The monitoring program for the discrete samples followed a specific sampling schedule (e.g., every 12 days). A set sampling schedule is intended to provide an unbiased and standardized sampling approach over the sampling period. When possible, samples were collected on days to coincide with MADEP s statewide network sampling schedule. Following a standard schedule helps to provide representative annual average concentrations when pollutants are being sampled on a non-continuous basis. The passive sampling was conducted over one discrete period each month. The passive samplers were initially deployed for seven consecutive days, but beginning in November 2007, they were deployed for 14 consecutive days to lower (improve) the pollutant detection limits. Figure A-1 in Appendix A presents the sampling schedule to portray the relationships and overlaps between the different monitoring methods. In order to gauge the potential for impact of local traffic on monitoring results, a traffic counter was installed across Saratoga Street adjacent to the Annavoy Street site. The traffic counter collected traffic volume data over the period from July 2008 through September Section 4 contains additional details on the traffic counts. A 2-7

19 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Active Methods Active sampling typically involves using mechanical means (e.g., a pump) or a vacuum to move air into (or through) a collection medium (e.g., activated charcoal, chemically treated sieves, vacuum cylinders). The collected samples are then extracted for analysis in a laboratory using selected chemical and physical methods. A variation on the collection and analytical steps involves continuous monitoring instruments that collect and analyze the air sample in-situ (or within the monitoring device) Time Integrated Sampling Devices The time-integrated techniques are described below, by pollutant category: VOCs - An active VOC sampler consists of an evacuated 6-liter stainless steel canister having the interior surface polished, cleaned, and passivated. A metal bellows-type pump is used to draw outside ambient air into the canister, pressurizing it to above atmospheric pressure. Outside ambient air is drawn into the canister through a Teflon sampling line and particulate filter with the flow rate controlled by a calibrated volumetric flowmeter. This method is consistent with EPA Method TO-15 Determination of VOCs in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed By GS/MS. At the beginning of the Study, these samples were collected once every 12 days; in June 2008, the schedule was changed to collect samples once every six days to coincide with the sampling schedule used by MADEP. Carbonyls - An active carbonyl sampler consists of a prepackaged cartridge containing acidified 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH). A sampling pump provides the mechanical means to induce air flow into the cartridge. Outside ambient air is drawn through the cartridge using a Teflon sampling line having the sample rate controlled by a calibrated pump. This method is consistent with EPA Method TO-11A Determination of Formaldehyde in Ambient Air Using Adsorbent Cartridge Followed by HPLC. Carbonyl samples were collected once every 12 days. PAHs - An active PAH sampler consists of an air sampler utilizing a pump, filter, and sorbent cartridge containing XAD-2 sorbent. Outside ambient air is drawn into a sampling train with the sampling rate controlled by a calibrated pump, bringing the air sample through the filter then through the sorbent cartridge. A timer on the pump controls the duration of sampling. This method is consistent with EPA Method TO-13A Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Using GC/MS. PAH samples were collected once a month. PM 2.5 An active PM 2.5 sampler consists of an air sampler utilizing a filter substrate to collect fine particulate matter. Outside ambient air is drawn through a precision cut-point inlet head by a calibrated pump, bringing the air sample through the filter. At one of the Primary sites (Annavoy Street), PM 2.5 was collected using an EPA federal reference method (40 CFR 50 Appendix L A 2-8

20 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Reference Method for the Determination of Fine Particulate Matter as PM 2.5 in the Atmosphere). At all Primary and Satellite Sites, PM 2.5 was also collected using an Airmetrics MiniVol Portable Air Sampler, which is a non-federal reference method. A federal reference method refers to the sampling or monitoring method included under 40 CFR 50 or designated under 40 CFR 53 as acceptable for determining compliance with the NAAQS. A sampling period of 24 consecutive hours (midnight to midnight) was used for these time-integrated sampling methods. An air inlet, manifold system, and blower supplied outside air to each sampler. Each sample was documented with a unique sample number, and sample handling was controlled following strict chain-ofcustody procedures Real-Time Continuous Monitoring Devices The real-time techniques are described below, by pollutant: PM Ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 were monitored at the three Primary sites in real time using a Met One Model 1020 beta attenuation monitor (BAM) with a very sharp cut cyclone PM 2.5 sampling inlet. This method was designated as a federal equivalent method (FEM) for PM 2.5 on March 12, The BAM uses a continuous glass fiber filter tape to measure nearly continuous concentrations of PM 2.5. The instrument uses a small 14 C source of beta particles coupled with a sensitive detector to count the beta particles. The detector measures the transmission of beta particles through a clean section of the tape. The tape is then mechanically advanced and ambient air is drawn into the instrument sampling inlet and particulate matter is deposited on the tape. At completion of the sampling period, the tape is returned to the original location and the beta particle transmission is re-measured. The difference between the two measurements is proportional to the PM 2.5 concentration; as the mass of particulate matter deposited on the tape increases, the measured beta particle count is reduced according to a known equation. Data stored in the instrument were downloaded approximately every 12 days. Black Carbon - Ambient concentrations of black carbon were monitored continuously at the three Primary sites using a Magee Scientific Model AE-31 seven-wavelength aethalometer. The aethalometer collects particulate matter continuously on a quartz fiber filter tape and determines the increment of optically absorbing material collected per unit volume of sampled air. Since elemental (or black) carbon is the dominant optically absorbing material in the submicron-particle size range, this measurement is a good indicator of the mass of black carbon based on the calibration performed against other chemical analysis techniques. Data stored in the instrument were downloaded approximately every 12 days. Meteorological Parameters Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and humidity data was collected at Annavoy Street and Court Road stations using A 2-9

21 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology standard meteorological instruments. The instruments (Campbell Scientific) were mounted on a mast above the equipment shelters. Logged data was downloaded approximately every 12 days. Meteorological data at the Bremen Street location was provided by the MADEP from a meteorological station owned by NStar within 100 meters of the Bremen monitoring station. Logan Airport meteorological data was provided by the National Weather Service Passive Methods Passive sampling involves using non-active means (e.g., molecular diffusion, gravitational settling, wind currents) to collect pollutants on an adsorbent medium. The collected samples are then extracted for analysis in a laboratory using selected chemical and physical methods. Passive monitoring methods were used for VOCs, carbonyls and PAHs. While these monitoring methods are not EPA reference sampling methods, they have been used in numerous field studies and air quality investigations including occupational settings, indoor air quality, and ambient air monitoring. Personnel from Emory University were responsible for collecting and analyzing the passive samples. VOCs - A passive VOC sampler consists of an adsorbent medium housed in a collector having small pores to allow air to diffuse into the adsorbent. The adsorbent medium typically consists of charcoal or some proprietary sorbent. The sampler is small, approximately 7 centimeters (cm) in diameter and 2 cm thick. Carbonyls - A passive carbonyl sampler consists of an adsorbent medium housed in a collector having an opening to allow air to diffuse into the adsorbent. These samplers adsorb carbonyl compounds using the hydrazine-hydazone reaction commonly used for aldehyde sample collection. An alternative sorbent to dinitrophenylhydrazine, dansyl hydrazine (DNSH), offers a significant improvement in sensitivity for passive sampling which was used on this project. The sampler has a barrel length of about 7 cm and a diameter of about 0.5 cm. PAHs - A passive PAH sampler consists of an adsorbent medium housed in a collector having openings to allow air to diffuse into the adsorbent. The method used standard gas chromatographic (GC) column material as an adsorption medium. The sampler is about 7 cm long, 2 cm wide and 1 cm thick. The passive monitoring is considered time-integrated since it takes a period of seven to fourteen consecutive days to collect an adequate sample mass for analysis. Passive samplers were located in a secure location at each primary and satellite monitoring station. Samplers were suspended within a bottomless enclosure to protect them from precipitation, wind, and direct sunlight. Each passive sample was A 2-10

22 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology documented with a unique sample number, and sample handling was controlled following standard chain-ofcustody procedures. Table 2-3 summarizes the monitoring methods used at each monitoring station. 2.6 Laboratory Methods Samples collected using both the passive and active field methods were preserved, stored, and transported to contracted laboratories for subsequent analyses. In accordance with the QAPPs, all samples were transferred between the field and laboratory following chain-of-custody procedures including applicable holding times and preservation requirements. Passive samples were analyzed by Emory University. Data collected from continuously reading instruments was analyzed by CDM and Desert Research Institute (DRI). Active VOC and PAH samples were analyzed by either DRI or Alpha Analytical. Active carbonyl samples were analyzed by either DRI or Air Toxics. PM samples (FRM and MiniVol TM ) were analyzed by DRI Active Methods Analysis of the VOC samples was performed in accordance with requirements for EPA Method TO-15 Determination of VOCs in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed By GS/MS. Beginning in June 2008, the minimum detection limit for VOCs was improved by approximately one order of magnitude by implementing the use of Method TO-15 selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Analysis of the active carbonyl samples was performed in accordance with EPA Method TO-11A Determination of Formaldehyde in Ambient Air Using Adsorbent Cartridge Followed by HPLC. Analysis of the active PAH samples was performed in accordance with EPA Method TO-13A Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Ambient Air Using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Analysis of the time-integrated PM 2.5 samples was performed using gravimetric analysis following the EPA federal reference method (40 CFR 50 Appendix L Reference Method For the Determination of Fine Particulate Matter as PM 2.5 in the Atmosphere) Passive Methods At the laboratory, the analysis of the passive VOC samples was accomplished through solvent extraction of the charcoal bed using carbon disulfide or similar solvent. After extraction, the extract containing the collected VOCs was injected directly into the gas chromatograph (GC) injection port. Quantification was accomplished with a flame ionization detector (FID). A 2-11

23 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Analysis of the passive carbonyl samples was accomplished through solvent extraction of the carbonyl compound from the sorbent using acetonitrile. Quantification involved gradient high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and fluorescence detection. Analysis of the passive PAH samples was accomplished through solvent extraction and GC analysis with a FID, similar to that described above for the passive VOC samples above. 2.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control To the extent they can be quantified, indicators of data quality may serve as metrics of project performance. Common data quality indicators of ambient air monitoring programs include representativeness, comparability, completeness, accuracy, precision, and detectability (method detection limits). The following discussion addresses some of these issues for the Study. Additional information on the quality assurance and quality control aspects of the Study were contained in the quarterly data reports and the QAPPs. As with any other ambient air monitoring program of similar magnitude, start-up problems were encountered and in some cases were not resolved immediately. Incomplete documentation of sampling data by the field operators led to loss or invalidation of some samples collected prior to October The monitoring program was started with used, rather than new, instrumentation for the PM 2.5 MiniVol TM samplers and BC aethalometers. These used instruments deteriorated more quickly than expected, with resultant loss of data. Repeated attempts to repair the samplers and monitors and keep them running ultimately were unsuccessful, resulting in the need to acquire new samplers and monitors and integrate them into the Study. Data recoveries for the parameters of the active portion of the Study for this reporting period were often unsatisfactory for many of the parameters. Data recoveries for the passive portion of the Study for this reporting period were generally satisfactory; only one set of samples was lost due to vandalism at Constitution Beach in September Data recoveries for all passive parameters for the remainder of the baseline period were satisfactory. It should also be noted that, to improve data detection and resolution for the passive samplers, the passive sampling period was increased from seven consecutive days (for samples collected October 2007) to 14 consecutive days (for samples collected beginning in November 2007). This allowed the passive media to collect a larger sample Quality Assurance Project Plan A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was prepared for this project following EPA guidance. According to EPA guidance, projects involving environmental data collection should be conducted in three phases: a) Planning, b) Implementation, and c) Assessment. In the Planning phase, project objectives are clarified so that the A 2-12

24 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology requirements for the end user of the data are met. In the Implementation phase, the QAPP translates these data requirements into measurement performance specifications and quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures. In the Assessment phase, the collected data are evaluated using statistical tools to evaluate whether the project objectives were met and whether the data are suitable for scientific interpretation and (if applicable) policy-making. A Work Plan was created to represent the first phase (Planning) of the QAPP by stating the primary and supporting objectives of the Study, including the purpose of the program and the intended use of the data. The second phase (Implementation) and third phase (Assessment) were preceded by written QAPPs that contain the QA/QC procedures for field and laboratory personnel and data management efforts. These documents were reviewed by the Project Team, MADEP, and MADPH. Quality assurance activities include those routine and non-routine activities that are intended to improve or assure the quality of measured data. The following discussion briefly addresses those activities that can be used to assess the quality of the collected data Quality Control Results As a measure of the accuracy of the data results, an independent consultant (URS Corporation) was hired to conduct a performance audit of the monitoring instruments and sampling equipment. The audit was performed on October 22 through 25, 2007, and consisted of comparing monitoring instrument and sampling equipment parameters to appropriate transfer standards of known accuracy. The audit findings were documented in a memo from URS to CDM dated December 12, A copy of the memo is contained in Appendix B. The performance audit found the sampling flow rates to be within acceptable limits for all active pollutant monitoring instruments and sampling equipment, including the aethalometers, BAMs, PM 2.5 FRM, PM 2.5 MiniVol TM samplers, VOC samplers, carbonyl compound samplers, and PAH samplers. The audit also checked the meteorological monitoring instruments at the Annavoy Street site and the Court Road site. The meteorological instrumentation was found to be within acceptable limits at the Court Road site. The meteorological instrumentation at the Annavoy Street site was found to be within acceptable limits except that the wind direction was found to be 12 degrees west of the correct orientation and the wind speed was found to be 1.2 miles per hour greater than the audit value at the midpoint. The auditor recommended that the wind direction measured at the Annavoy Street site prior to October 24, 2007 (date of the audit at that site), be corrected for the 12 degree deviation. The data reported herein have been so corrected. The practice of analyzing media blanks is to provide information about contamination that may be introduced during either sample collection, storage, and transport (field blanks) or laboratory storage and handling (laboratory blanks). Field blanks were collected on or near the scheduled sample day and shipped back to the laboratory for A 2-13

25 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology analysis. Laboratory blanks were analyzed as a percent of actual samples analyzed per batch. Throughout the active sampling portion of the Study, there were six field blanks analyzed for target carbonyl compounds, four field blanks analyzed for target PAHs, no field blanks analyzed for target VOCs, four field blanks analyzed for the PM 2.5 FRM, and 31 field blanks analyzed for the PM 2.5 Minivol TM samplers. Throughout the active sampling portion of the Study, there were 24 laboratory blanks analyzed for target carbonyl compounds, ten laboratory blanks analyzed for target PAHs, 34 laboratory blanks analyzed for target VOCs, one laboratory blank analyzed for the PM 2.5 FRM, and 10 laboratory blanks analyzed for the PM 2.5 Minivol TM samplers. Active sample results were corrected for laboratory blanks prior to reporting, but were not corrected for results of the field blanks. Details of the field blank results can be found in the data tables in Appendix C. Throughout the passive sampling portion of the Study, there were 27 field blanks analyzed for target carbonyl compounds, no field blanks analyzed for target PAHs, and 27 field blanks analyzed for target VOCs. There were also 22 laboratory blanks analyzed for target carbonyl compounds, 36 laboratory blanks analyzed for target PAHs, and six laboratory blanks analyzed for target VOCs. Details of the field blank results can be found in the data tables in Appendix C. Data precision is of one of the measures used to assess the quality of the monitoring data. Data precision is the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements under identical or substantially similar conditions measured as either the range or as the standard deviation. This can be done by either using the same analytical instrument to make repeated analyses of the same (laboratory duplicate, or replicate) sample, or it can be done by collecting, processing and analyzing collocated (field duplicate) samples. For the active sampling portion of the Study, there were five field duplicates analyzed for target carbonyl compounds (collected only at the Bremen Street site beginning in April 2008), no field duplicates analyzed for target PAHs, five field duplicates analyzed for target VOCs (collected only at the Bremen Street site beginning in May 2008), no field duplicates analyzed for the PM 2.5 FRM, and six field duplicates analyzed for the PM 2.5 Minivol TM samplers (collected at rotating sites beginning in May 2008). Throughout the active sampling portion of the Study, there were 24 laboratory duplicates analyzed for target carbonyl compounds, no laboratory duplicates analyzed for target PAHs, 34 laboratory duplicates analyzed for target VOCs, no laboratory duplicates analyzed for the PM 2.5 FRM, and no laboratory duplicates analyzed for the PM 2.5 Minivol TM samplers. Details of the field duplicate results can be found in the data tables in Appendix C. Throughout the passive sampling portion of the Study, there were 104 field duplicates analyzed for target carbonyl compounds, 56 field duplicates analyzed for target A 2-14

26 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology PAHs, and 59 field duplicates analyzed for target VOCs. For the passive sampling portion of the Study, there were no laboratory duplicates analyzed for any target compounds. Details of the field duplicate results can be found in the data tables in Appendix C Missing or Invalid Data This air quality monitoring study utilized a variety of integrated sampling and realtime monitoring methods to collect data. Air monitoring studies are prone to data losses or invalid data due to equipment failure, down time for maintenance, equipment changes, lost samples, human error, and other factors. Missing data leads to a variety of complications including reduced program efficiency, incomplete data sets, potential incomparable data sets, and potential data bias (i.e., unrepresentative data). When possible, additional samples were collected outside the scheduled sampling dates to improve data recovery or provide additional data points following loss of samples due to sampler or monitor malfunction. In some cases, new equipment was purchased to improve the reliability of data collection. A significant amount of continuous PM 2.5 data was lost at the Court Road station due to a malfunction of the BAM. While those data cannot be recovered, an analysis demonstrated that the continuous PM 2.5 data collected at the Annavoy Street station is highly correlated to the PM 2.5 data at the Court Road station (see Appendix D). Since the continuous PM 2.5 data record for the Annavoy Street station is nearly complete, a review of those data is suggestive of the pattern of continuous PM 2.5 data that could have been expected to be captured at the Court Road station during the lost-data period. Based on a review of the passive benzene results obtained in January 2008, most evident is the unusually high limit of detection (LOD) of about 1.6 ppb. None of the samples exceeded the LOD for that month. The unusually high LOD resulted from substantial variability in blank benzene concentration on the badge (sampling medium) itself. More than one lot of samplers was used in this period and one lot contained considerably more benzene on the blanks than the others. Hence the passive data from January 2008 for benzene is not useful. When we went to the two-week passive sampling cycle, no values exceeded the LOD for styrene. This may be due to either there possibly being no styrene in the air or, more likely, styrene s reactivity coupled with the longer sampling duration resulting in loss of the compound and artificially low measured concentrations because of the procedure. Thus, styrene, like 1, 3-butadiene, is likely too reactive to be measured reliably over a two-week sampling period using the passive methodology. Passive sampling results for carbonyl compounds were substantially lower than those found using active sampling methods. Assuming active sampling methods are goldstandard, one of two sampling problems may be occurring. Either the sampler may be undersampling the carbonyl compounds or the compounds themselves are reversibly bound to the sampling medium surface or, more likely, degrade over time. A 2-15

27 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Either case would lower calculated concentrations in passive sampling. The LOD for all carbonyl compounds is very low compared to the values measured. Estimated values below the LOD reflect a sample with no discernible chromatographic peak Data Validation Data was validated through routine procedures recommended by EPA, including data identification checks, unusual event reviews, and deterministic relationship checks. Validation included a review of any suspect data as compared to available field documentation and laboratory QC data to determine if the data had reasonable values given expected values and data from other sources. These procedures were completed as follows: DRI validated the continuous BC and BAM data, as well as the PM 2.5 FRM and PM 2.5 MiniVol TM sample data; First DRI, then Alpha Analytical, validated the active organic sample data (VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs); Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) validated the passive samples (VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs); and CDM reviewed the meteorological data. A 2-16

28 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Table 2-1 Target Compounds Category Pollutant VOCs 1,3-Butadiene Benzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Toluene Xylenes Carbonyls Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde Propionaldehyde PAHs Naphthalene 1-Methyl Naphthalene 2-Methyl Naphthalene PM PM 2.5 Black Carbon A 2-17

29 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Pollutant Wind speed/ direction, temperature, humidity Black carbon PM Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 2 Carbonyl compounds 8 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 12 Table 2-2 Summary of Air Monitoring Methods Sampling/Analytical Technique Frequency Duration Method Meteorological station 7-wavelength aethalometer Beta attenuation monitor (BAM) Federal reference method (FRM) MiniVol Canister with GC/MS 3 analysis Passive adsorber with GC/FID 5 analysis 6 DNPH 9 adsorber with HPLC 10 analysis DNSH 11 passive adsorber with HPLC/fluorescence analysis Teflon-coated glassfiber filter/xad 13 cartridge with GC/MS analysis Diffusive passive sampler with GC/FID analysis Active real time Active real time Active real time Active timeintegrated Active timeintegrated Passive timeintegrated Active timeintegrated Passive timeintegrated Active timeintegrated Passive timeintegrated Averaging Time Start Time Continuous Continuous 15 minutes N/A Continuous Continuous 5 minutes N/A Continuous Continuous 1 hour N/A Every 6 days 24 hours 24 hours Midnight Every 12 days 24 hours 24 hours Midnight Every 6 or 4 12 days 24 hours 24 hours Midnight Once per month Every 12 days Once per month Every 12 days Once per month 7 or 14 days 7 7 or 14 days Variable 24 hours 24 hours Midnight 7 or 14 7 or 14 days 7 days Variable 24 hours 24 hours Midnight 7 or 14 7 or 14 days 7 days Variable 1 PM 2.5 = particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 µm 2 Target VOCs include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, styrene, and 1,3-butadiene. 3 GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 4 Sampling frequency was increased to every 6 days starting June 14, GC/FID = gas chromatography/flame ionization detector. 6 The passive VOC sampler will not be able to resolve 1, 3-butadiene. 7 Sampling duration increased to 14 days for increased sensitivity beginning in November Target carbonyl compounds include acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde. 9 DNPH = dinitrophenylhydrazine. 10 HPLC = high performance liquid chromatography. 11 DNSH = dansyl hydrazine. 12 Target PAHs include naphthalene, 1-methyl naphthalene, and 2-methyl naphthalene. 13 XAD = a proprietary resin XAD sorbent. A 2-18

30 Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology Table 2-3 Summary of Monitoring Sites, Station Type and Instrumentation Site ID Site Description Monitoring Monitoring Instrumentation Station Type BAM PM 2.5, Aethalometer, meteorological (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative 01 Annavoy Street Primary humidity), active samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, MiniVol PM 2.5, FRM PM 2.5 ), passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) 02 Bremen Street Primary BAM PM 2.5, Aethalometer, active samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, MiniVol PM 2.5 ), passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) 03 Court Road Primary BAM PM 2.5, Aethalometer, meteorological (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity), active samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, MiniVol PM 2.5 ), passive samplers (VOCs, 04 Harrison Avenue Satellite (urban background) 05 Cottage Park Yacht Club Satellite 06 Constitution Beach Satellite 07 Jeffries Cove Satellite South Boston Yacht Club Logan Satellite Fire Station Satellite Satellite 10 Coughlin Park Satellite 11 Bayswater Street Satellite carbonyls, PAHs) Active samplers (PAHs, MiniVol PM 2.5 ), passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) MiniVol PM 2.5, passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) MiniVol PM 2.5, passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) MiniVol PM 2.5, passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) MiniVol PM 2.5, passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) MiniVol PM 2.5, passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) MiniVol PM 2.5, passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) MiniVol PM 2.5, passive samplers (VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs) A 2-19

31 Figure 2-1 Monitoring Locations A Section 2 Study Approach and Methodology 2-20

32 Section 3 Presentation of Data Monitoring stations and equipment were deployed during the summer of 2007 with all stations becoming fully functional by October 1, Monitoring continued through September 30, A complete set of the monitoring data from this baseline year is contained in Appendix C. A summary of each data type by location along with basic statistical analyses and graphical representations are contained in this section of the report. Appendix C also includes the data collected prior to the monitoring network being fully operational (October 2007), although that data is not discussed in this report. Included in this section are air pollutant concentrations, measured both with instruments that monitor continuously and equipment that collects discrete samples (time-integrated). Continuous monitoring included: Mass of black carbon (BC) measured using a seven-wavelength Aethalometer; Mass of particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 ) measured using a beta attenuation monitor (BAM); and Meteorological data including wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and relative humidity. Time-integrated ambient air data include samples collected using both active and passive techniques. Examples include: Speciated VOCs Speciated carbonyl compounds Speciated PAHs PM 2.5 mass (active only) The active time-integrated samples were collected over 24-hour periods from midnight to midnight, whereas the passive time-integrated samples were collected over seven consecutive days (October 2007) or 14 consecutive days (November 2007 through September 2008). In addition to air pollutant data, meteorological data, including wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, and relative humidity, were measured continuously at two of the primary sites. Additional meteorological data was also obtained from instruments operated by others near the third primary site (Bremen Street), and from the National Weather Service meteorological station at Logan. A 3-1

33 Section 3 Presentation of Data Continuous pollutant data are summarized based on one- and 24-hour average concentrations. For time-integrated data, active data are presented as 24-hour and annual averages, and passive data are presented as one- or two-week (sample) as well as annual averages. 3.1 Continuous Data Continuous pollutant data collected for the study include the BC data, measured via aethalometer, and the PM 2.5 data, measured via BAM, at the three primary sites. The other continuous data collected include wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, and relative humidity, measured at the Annavoy Street and Court Road sites and in addition, comparable meteorological data were obtained through MADEP for a site adjacent to the Bremen Street site and from the National Weather Service for the meteorological station at Logan Descriptive Statistics The continuous data collected over the baseline period are characterized by basic summary statistics, including the maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation for each data set by pollutant by site by measurement technique. Additional information collected for each data set by pollutant by site by measurement technique includes percent of data recovery and percent of data reported below the minimum detection limit (MDL) Basic Summary Statistics Table 3-1 presents the summary statistics for the continuous data collected during the study for black carbon and PM 2.5 by BAM, and Table 3-2 presents the summary statistics for the meteorological data. The mean value is calculated for pollutants as the arithmetic average of all valid one-hour average concentration values and is a measure of central tendency. The median value is calculated for pollutants as the 50 percentile value of all valid one-hour average concentration values and is also a measure of central tendency. Measures of data variability are provided by the range between the maximum (max) and minimum (min) of the data set as well as by the standard deviation. The mean value for wind direction is a vector average of all valid one-hour average wind direction values. The maximum and minimum values for wind direction are of little utility since the measurements are limited by the extremes of the compass (i.e., 360 and 0 degrees, respectively) Percent of Data Recovery The baseline year of data collection covered a period from October 2007 through September This year covers a total time period of 8,784 hours. The goal in the QAPP was to have at least 75 percent annual data recovery. This means that at least 75 percent of scheduled samples would have validated results. For continuous monitoring instruments, this would be 6,570 hours of valid data collected during the baseline period. A 3-2

34 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table D-1 in Appendix D shows the number of valid hours of data and percent data recovery for the continuous data collected during the reporting period. The data recovery for BC measured at each of the three primary sites was greater than 75 percent, as was that for continuous PM 2.5 measured via BAM at the Annavoy Street and the Bremen Street sites. Meteorological data from each of the two primary sites operated by Massport also had a recovery greater than 75 percent. Data recovery for continuous PM 2.5 measured via BAM at the Court Road site, however, was less than 75 percent due to an extended instrument outage (see Appendix E) Percent of Data Reported Below Minimum Detection Limit Air pollutant concentrations tend to be lognormally distributed in the ambient air, with most measured values at relatively low concentrations and a much lower proportion of values measured at higher concentrations. Because of analytical testing and equipment sensitivity limitations, some lower concentrations cannot be definitively quantified and must be considered to have a value under the minimum detection limit (MDL) of the method. Table D-2 in Appendix D presents the percent of continuous data reported below MDL. The MDL concept does not apply to meteorological parameters Time Series and Comparative Analyses Particulate matter (measured using the BAM) and black carbon, along with several meteorological parameters, were monitored continuously during the baseline period at three locations. The BAM PM 2.5 and BC measurements were recorded as one-hour average values at the three primary sites. Meteorological measurements were also recorded as one-hour average values at the Annavoy Street and Court Road sites. The BAM and BC instruments analyze their respective pollutant concentrations in situ and provide real-time data. Because PM 2.5 is an aggregate of various inorganic and organic components, the BAM data represent emissions from various types of sources, including stationary source combustion, vehicle exhaust, fugitive dust, sea salt spray, and other sources. BC data represent the elemental carbon portion of the particulate matter and comes primarily from combustion sources. BC is a subset of the BAM PM 2.5 data BAM PM 2.5 Results Figure 3-1 presents box and whisker plots of the one-hour average BAM PM 2.5 data for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. These plots show the range and variability of the one-hour average PM 2.5 at each site, including: Maximum and minimum concentrations at the upper and lower end points, respectively (the whiskers ); 25 percent, 50 percent (median), and 75 percent frequency values in the bottom, middle, and top levels, respectively (the box ); and A 3-3

35 Section 3 Presentation of Data Arithmetic mean concentration in the + symbol (typically in the interior of the box but sometimes outside the box for highly skewed data). Figure 3-2 presents box and whisker plots of the 24-hour average BAM PM 2.5 data for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. The mean concentration for each site was less than the annual average NAAQS. Figure 3-3 shows BAM PM 2.5 data for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites over a typical seven-day period and shows qualitatively the similarity of temporal trends in the concentrations measured concurrently at these five sites. This suggests regional influences may be affecting PM 2.5 concentrations at these sites. The correlation coefficient (a measure of the linear relationship between two variables) for the one-hour data ranges from 0.7 to 0.8 and for the 24-hour data ranges from 0.85 to The highest correlation is between the 24-hour data at the Annavoy Street and Court Road sites. Figure 3-4 presents frequency distributions of the one-hour average BAM PM 2.5 concentration measurements for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. All sites have the highest frequency of PM 2.5 measurements in the range of 5 to 10 µg/m 3. Figure 3-5 presents frequency distributions of the 24-hour average BAM PM 2.5 concentration measurements for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. All sites have the highest frequency of PM 2.5 measurements in the range of 5 to 10 µg/m 3. Figure 3-6 presents the average of one-hour average BAM PM 2.5 measurements by hour of the day for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. Figure 3-7 presents the average of one-hour average BAM PM 2.5 measurements by day of the week for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites BC Results Figure 3-8 presents box and whisker plots of the one-hour average BC data for the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue BC data are not measured at the Lynn site). These plots show the range and variability of the one-hour average BC at each site. Figure 3-9 presents box and whisker plots of the 24-hour average BC data for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. Included on Figure 3-9 is the EPA chronic inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC) value for diesel engine exhaust. A chronic inhalation RfC value is deemed a safe level for noncarcinogenic effects for long-term exposure. Although there is no RfC value for BC per se, diesel engine exhaust does contain BC, and the two indicators tend to be highly correlated in the ambient air. Figure 3-10 shows BC data for the three primary sites and one MADEP site over a typical consecutive seven-day period and shows qualitatively the similarity of A 3-4

36 Section 3 Presentation of Data temporal trends in the concentrations measured concurrently at these four sites. This suggests regional influences may be affecting the BC concentrations at these sites similar to the relationship noted for BAM PM 2.5. The correlation coefficient for the one-hour data range from 0.5 to 0.8 and for the 24- hour data range from 0.65 to 0.9. The highest correlation is between the 24-hour data at the Annavoy Street and Court Road sites (see Appendix E). Figure 3-11 presents frequency distributions of the one-hour average BC concentration measurements for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. The data for all sites but Bremen Street have the highest frequency of measurements <0.5 µg/m 3, indicating most measurements are at very low concentrations. Figure 3-12 presents frequency distributions of the 24-hour average BC concentration measurements for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. The data for all sites have the highest frequency of measurements in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 µg/m 3, indicating most measurements are at low concentrations. Figure 3-13 presents the average of one-hour average BC measurements by hour of the day for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. Figure 3-14 presents the average of one-hour average BC measurements by day of the week for the three primary sites and one MADEP site Meteorological Data Results Wind roses representing the frequency distribution of wind speed and wind direction by month are presented below. Each rose is made up of 16 petals representing a 22.5-degree arc of compass direction (direction represents that from which the wind is blowing). The rose presents the frequency of wind speed categories for each degree arc. Figure 3-15 presents the monthly wind roses for Annavoy Street, Bremen Street, Court Road, and Logan from October 2007 through September Figure 3-16 presents the annual wind roses for Annavoy Street, Bremen Street, Court Road, and Logan over the same baseline period. 3.2 Time-Integrated Data Time-integrated samples were collected for various pollutants, as noted above. Active samples of PM 2.5 were collected at the Annavoy Street site once every sixth day using a federal reference method Anderson RAAS speciation PM 2.5 sampler. Active PM 2.5 samples were also collected at each of the three primary sites, the seven satellite sites, and the one urban background site once every 12th day using an Air Metrics MiniVol sampler. Active whole air samples were collected once every 12th day in passivated Summa canisters for analysis of speciated VOCs at each of the three primary sites; this sampling schedule was changed to once every sixth day in June Active samples were also collected once every 12th day on dinitrophenylhydrazine medium for analysis of speciated carbonyl compounds at A 3-5

37 Section 3 Presentation of Data each primary site. In addition, active samples were collected one day per month on XAD resin with pre-filters for analysis of speciated PAHs at two of the primary sites (Annavoy Street and Court Road) and at the urban background site (Harrison Avenue). See Section for more details on active sampling. All passive samples were collected once per month over a consecutive seven-day period (or 14-day period beginning in November 2008) at the three primary sites, the seven satellite sites, and the one urban background site. An activated charcoal medium was used to collect passive samples for analysis of speciated VOCs. Passive samples were also collected on a dansylhydrazine medium to analyze speciated carbonyl compounds and through a gas chromatographic column medium for analysis of speciated PAHs. See Section for more details on passive sampling Descriptive Statistics Time-integrated data was collected over the baseline period similar to continuous data, using basic summary statistics as well as percent of data recovery and percent of data reported below the MDL for each data set by pollutant by site by measurement technique Summary Statistics Table 3-3 presents the summary statistics for the active time-integrated samples for organics (VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs). Table 3-4 presents the summary statistics for the active time-integrated PM 2.5 FRM samples while Table 3-5 presents the summary statistics for the active time-integrated PM 2.5 MiniVol TM samples. Table 3-6 presents the summary statistics for the passive time-integrated samples. The tables include the maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation for the measured values as well as benchmark values where available and appropriate Percent of Data Recovery Data collection for the October September 2008 reporting period was scheduled for: 61 total samples of PM 2.5 via the federal reference method at one of the primary sites 30 active samples for PM 2.5 via MiniVol TM at each of the 11 sites 45 active samples for VOCs at each of the primary sites 30 active samples for carbonyl compounds at each of the primary sites 12 active samples for PAHs at two of the primary sites and the one urban background site A 3-6

38 Section 3 Presentation of Data 12 passive samples each for VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs at each of the 11 sites To meet the 75 percent data recovery goal for time-integrated samples, it was necessary to capture 46 of the scheduled 61 total samples, 22 of the scheduled 30 total samples, 34 of the scheduled 45 total samples, and nine of the scheduled 12 total samples. The number of valid samples and percent data recovery for the active organics (VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs), active PM 2.5 FRM and PM 2.5 MiniVol TM, and passive time-integrated data collected during the reporting period appear in Tables D-3, D-4, and D-5, respectively in Appendix D. Results show that data recovery for: PM 2.5 via the federal reference method measured at the Annavoy Street site was greater than 75 percent and via MiniVol TM was greater than 75 percent at all 11 sites Active samples for VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs was greater than 75 percent at all three primary sites Passive samples for VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs was greater than 75 percent for all 11 sites Percent of Data Reported Below Minimum Detection Limit Tables D-6 and D-7 in Appendix D present the percent of time-integrated data reported below MDL for both the active organics (VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs) and passive sampling program, respectively. A concentration below the MDL indicates it cannot be reliably quantified, but the sample concentration is no greater than the level of the MDL. Most of the samples for some compounds were below the MDL. Of the active samples, 1, 3-butadiene, acrolein, and styrene all had approximately 80 percent of the samples below the respective MDLs. Of the passive samples, most of the target VOCs were reliably quantified except for 1, 3-butadiene and styrene; however, most of the samples for target carbonyl compounds and the target PAHs fell below the respective MDLs Time Series and Comparative Analyses For the active time-integrated sample results, data are presented for the three primary Massport sites and two MADEP sites (where data are available). For the passive timeintegrated sample results, data are presented for the three primary sites, seven satellite sites, and one urban background site. Data presentations include sample time-series plots by site, annual average concentrations by site, and box and whisker plots. Some VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs in addition to the target pollutants (see Section 2.3) were identified and quantified during analysis of the samples. These additional VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs quantified during analysis of the samples are included on a CD-ROM disk in Appendix C. A 3-7

39 Section 3 Presentation of Data Active Samples For perspective on the concentration levels measured for each compound, the data are compared to benchmark values where such values are available and appropriate. For the VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs, the benchmark is the applicable EPA s RfC, which is deemed a safe level for noncarcinogenic effects for long-term exposure. For PM 2.5, the benchmark is the EPA s NAAQS which applies only to the PM 2.5 concentrations measured using the FRM since the EPA has not designated the MiniVol TM as a reference or equivalent measurement method at the time of this report. Individual sample results are shown in time-series plots. For comparison, each figure contains the concentration results for one target compound at the: Three primary sites and the two MADEP sites (for the organics data) Annavoy Street site and the two MADEP sites (for the PM 2.5 FRM data) Three primary sites, seven satellite sites, and one urban background site (for the PM 2.5 MiniVol TM data) In the figures, a line connects data for each site, but this does not imply concentrations for time periods between actual samples; the data are intermittent and not continuous, and the connecting lines only aid the reader in isolating data results for each site. Although results vary from pollutant to pollutant and from site to site throughout the baseline period, they provide evidence of area-wide (i.e., regional) trends based on frequent increasing or decreasing concentrations of a given pollutant on the same sampling date at multiple sites VOC Results Figures 3-17 through 3-23 present the box and whisker plots for active samples of each target VOC. Sample results for the target VOCs indicate the data for the three primary sites had a larger range than for the data at the two MADEP sites. Figures 3-24 through 3-30 show sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for active samples of each target VOCs collected for the reporting period. The data for each compound among the three primary and two MADEP sites are generally similar, except for isolated peak values for some compounds Carbonyl Compound Results Figures 3-31 through 3-34 present the box and whisker plots for active samples of each target carbonyl compound. Results varied by target pollutant between sites. A 3-8

40 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figures 3-35 through 3-38 present the individual sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for active samples of each target carbonyl compound collected for the reporting period. The data for each compound among the three primary and two MADEP sites are generally similar, except for isolated peak values for some compounds PAH Results Figures 3-39 through 3-41 present the box and whisker plots for active samples of each target PAH. Sample results for naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2- methylnaphthalene were similar. Figures 3-42 through 3-44 present the individual sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for active samples of each target PAH collected for the reporting period. The data for each compound among the two primary and one urban background site are generally similar, except for isolated peak values PM 2.5 FRM Results Figure 3-45 presents the individual sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for active FRM samples of PM 2.5 collected for the reporting period. The data trends at the three sites are similar and generally appear to reflect regional influences, although some of the data do suggest localized influences in some samples PM 2.5 MiniVol TM Results Figure 3-46 presents the individual sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for active MiniVol TM samples of PM 2.5 collected at all sites for the reporting period. The data trends at the 11 sites are similar and generally appear to reflect regional influences similar to the data collected for the PM 2.5 FRM, although some of the data do suggest localized influences in some samples Passive Samples A box and whisker plot appears in the respective figures below for each of the 11 monitoring sites where passive sampling was conducted. Each plot represents all data for a given target pollutant at that site throughout the full baseline monitoring period. For comparisons, a similar plot for the respective target pollutant LOD value is included in the same figure. Each figure summarizes statistical data for each site. For each figure, Q1 is the first quartile (25 th percentile of the data), Q2 is the second quartile (50 th percentile, or median), and Q3 is the third quartile (75 th percentile). Sites are identified using the site numbers and descriptions in the following table. A 3-9

41 Section 3 Presentation of Data Site Number Site Descriptor 1 Annavoy Street 2 Bremen Street 3 Court Road 4 Harrison Avenue 5 Cottage Park Yacht Club 6 Constitution Beach 7 Jeffries Point Cove 8 South Boston Yacht Club 9 Logan Satellite Fire Station 10 Coughlin Park 11 Bayswater Street 13 Limit of Detection Indicator VOC Results There were six target compounds for VOCs, which included five different compounds and isomers of xylene. Because 1, 3-butadiene could not be quantified using the passive sampling and analysis methodology as applied in the Study, there are no passive results for this target pollutant. The box and whisker plots for benzene are displayed on Figure They show similar distributions for this compound across the 11 monitoring sites. The box and whisker plots for toluene are displayed on Figure Annual distribution data for the sites are quite similar for this compound. The box and whisker plots for ethyl benzene are displayed on Figure Although at first glance data may suggest a more substantial variability across sites for this compound, concentrations are in fact much lower than those for other VOCs, and thus the variability is relatively small. The box and whisker plots for the various xylene isomers are on Figures 3-50 and These xylene figures show similar characteristics with only the absolute magnitude differing. Although the data for styrene are presented in box and whisker plot form on Figure 3-52, they are of doubtful utility as most of the sample results were less than the LOD Carbonyl Compound Results There are four target carbonyl-containing compounds measured using passive sampling. These are the first three aldehydes - formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and propionaldehyde - and, the simplest unsaturated aldehyde, acrolein (2-propenal). A 3-10

42 Section 3 Presentation of Data Formaldehyde box and whisker plots presented on Figure 3-53 are similar for all sites. Differences in maximum values may reflect local sources, but generally similarity in distributions suggests a regional source for this contaminant. Acrolein box and whisker plots presented on Figure 3-54 are similar for all sites and uniformly low. Acetaldehyde box and whisker plots presented on Figure 3-55 are similar for all sites and show variability across the reporting period. Propionaldehyde box and whisker plots presented on Figure 3-56 are similar for all sites and display little variability across the reporting period PAH Results Three target PAHs were analyzed in both the active and passive sampling protocols. These three are the smallest and most volatile PAHs - naphthalene, 1- methylnaphtalene and 2-methylnaphthalene. The passive method for collection of PAHs relies primarily on their non-volatility, suggesting a potential low bias in these values. Naphthalene box and whisker plots presented on Figure 3-57 are generally similar across sites. The 1-methylnaphthalene box and whisker plots presented on Figure 3-58 are generally similar across sites. The 2-methylnaphthalene box and whisker plots presented on Figure 3-59 are generally similar across sites and to similar to results for 1-methylnapththalene, albeit at somewhat lower concentrations Comparisons Between Active and Passive Results The following discussion focuses on how the average concentrations for the target pollutants over the baseline year compare based on the active and passive sampling methods VOC Comparisons Figure 3-60 compares annual average concentrations for benzene measured at the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At all sites, the annual average values for the passive method are greater than those for the active method. Figure 3-61 compares the annual average concentrations for toluene measured at the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue) using both the active and A 3-11

43 Section 3 Presentation of Data the passive methods. At all sites but the Bremen Street site, the annual average values for the passive method are greater than those for the active method. Figure 3-62 compares annual average concentrations for ethyl benzene measured at the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At the Annavoy Street and Court Road sites, the annual average values for the active method are much greater than those for the passive method, while at the Bremen Street and Harrison Avenue sites the annual average values for the passive method are greater than those for the active method. Figure 3-63 compares annual average concentrations for m- and p-xylene measured at the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At the Annavoy Street, Bremen Street, and Harrison Avenue sites, the annual average values for the passive method are greater than those for the active method; at the Court Road site, the annual average values for the active method are much greater than those for the passive method. Figure 3-64 compares annual average concentrations for o-xylene measured at the three primary sites and the one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At the Annavoy Street site, the annual average values for the active method are greater than those for the passive method; at the Court Road site, the annual average values for the active method are much greater than those for the passive method; and at the Bremen Street and Harrison Avenue sites, the annual average values for the passive method are greater than those for the active method. Figure 3-65 compares annual average concentrations for styrene measured at the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At all sites, the annual average values for the active method are much greater than those for the passive method. As noted above, because 1, 3-butadiene could not be quantified by the passive sampling and analysis methodology as applied in the Study, there are no passive results for this target pollutant for comparison to the active results Carbonyl Compound Comparisons Figure 3-66 compares annual average concentrations for formaldehyde measured at the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At all sites the annual average values for the active method are much greater than those for the passive method. Figure 3-67 compares the annual average concentrations for acrolein measured at the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At the Annavoy Street site, the annual average values for the passive method are much greater than those for the active method; at the Bremen A 3-12

44 Section 3 Presentation of Data Street and Court Road sites, the annual average values for the active method are much greater than those for the passive method. Figure 3-68 compares annual average concentrations for acetaldehyde measured at the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At all sites, the annual average values for the active method are much greater than those for the passive method. Figure 3-69 compares annual average concentrations for propionaldehyde measured at the three primary sites, using both the active and the passive methods. There were no analytical results available for propionaldehyde for the MADEP site (Harrison Avenue). At all three sites, the annual average values for the active method are much greater than those for the passive method PAH Comparisons Figure 3-70 compares the annual average naphthalene concentrations measured at two primary sites (Annavoy Street and Court Road) and the one urban background site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At all sites the annual average values for the passive method are greater than those for the active method. Figure 3-71 compares annual average concentrations for 1-methylnaphthalene measured at two primary sites (Annavoy Street and Court Road) and the one urban background site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At all sites the annual average values for the passive method are greater than those for the active method. Figure 3-72 compares annual average concentrations for 2-methylnaphthalene measured at two primary sites (Annavoy Street and Court Road) and the one urban background site (Harrison Avenue), using both the active and the passive methods. At all sites the annual average values for the passive method are greater than those for the active method Recommendations for Follow-on Monitoring As noted in Section 2.1, the primary objective of the Study is to collect air quality data before and after the implementation of the Centerfield Taxiway (Taxiway Mike). Based on the comparisons between active and passive results presented above, it appears that only a limited number of compounds can be effectively quantified using passive methods as implemented in the Study. It is therefore recommended that all passive monitoring be discontinued in favor of more intensive time-integrated active sampling. This would include active sampling every six days (instead of every 12 days) to be coincident with the MADEP s statewide monitoring program and to allow for an improved direct comparison between the Study results and other known monitoring results in the Boston area. Additionally, it is recommended that a real- A 3-13

45 Section 3 Presentation of Data time telemetry system be installed to monitor the equipment operation and data collection processes. Implementing this measure could provide improved system reliability and data recovery. A 3-14

46 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-1 Continuous Data Summary Statistics Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Benchmarks 1 Hourly Black Carbon/Aethalometer Data (ug/m3) Annavoy Bremen Court N/A Harrison (DEP) Hour Black Carbon/Aethalometer Data (ug/m3) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Hourly PM2.5/BAM Data (ug/m3) Annavoy Bremen Court N/A Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Hour PM2.5/BAM Data (ug/m3) Annavoy Bremen Court and 15 Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Benchmark for 24-Hour black carbon is the chronic inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for diesel engine exhaust from US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The benchmark values should be compared to the average measured concentrations. Benchmark values for the 24-hour BAM data are the 24-hour and annual NAAQS, respectively, for PM2.5. The 24-hour NAAQS (to be compared to the maximum measured concentrations) is not to be exceeded more than once per year while the annual NAAQS (to be compared to the average measured concentrations) is not to be exceeded. A 3-15

47 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-2 Hourly Meteorological Data Summary Statistics Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Wind Speed (mph) Annavoy Bremen (DEP) Court Logan (NOAA) Wind Direction (degrees) Annavoy Bremen (DEP) Court Logan (NOAA) Temperature (F) Annavoy Court Logan (NOAA) Relative Humidity (%) Annavoy Court Logan (NOAA) A 3-16

48 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-3 Active Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ppbv) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Benchmark 1 1,3-Butadiene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Benzene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Toluene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Ethylbenzene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) m,p-xylene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) o-xylene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Styrene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) A 3-17

49 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-3 continued Active Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ppbv) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Benchmark 1 Acrolein Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Formaldehyde Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Acetaldehyde Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Propionaldehyde Annavoy Bremen Court Naphthalene Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) Methyl Naphthalene Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) Methyl Naphthalene Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) Benchmark values are chronic inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs), except for formaldehyde and 2-methyl naphthalene which are based on chronic oral reference doses (RfDs), from US EPA s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The benchmark values should be compared to the average measured concentrations. Propionaldehyde, naphthalene, 1-methyl naphthalene, and 2-methyl naphthalene data from DEP monitoring sites were not available N/A 2.6 A 3-18

50 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-4 FRM PM 2.5 Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ug/m3) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Benchmarks 1 Annavoy Harrison (DEP) and 15 Lynn (DEP) Benchmark values are the 24-hour and annual NAAQS, respectively, for PM 2.5. The 24-hour NAAQS (to be compared to the maximum measured concentrations) is not to be exceeded more than once per year while the annual NAAQS (to be compared to the average measured concentrations) is not to be exceeded. Table 3-5 MiniVol TM PM 2.5 Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ug/m3) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Park Constitution Jeffries Point South Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater A 3-19

51 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-6 Passive Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ppbv) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Benzene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater Toluene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater Ethylbenzene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater A 3-20

52 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-6 continued Passive Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ppbv) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev m,p-xylene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater o-xylene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater Styrene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater A 3-21

53 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-6 continued Passive Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ppbv) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Acrolein Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater Formaldehyde Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater Acetaldehyde Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater A 3-22

54 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-6 continued Passive Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ppbv) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev Propionaldehyde Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater Naphthalene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater Methyl Naphthalene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater A 3-23

55 Section 3 Presentation of Data Table 3-6 continued Passive Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics (All concentrations in ppbv) Site Name Max Min Median Avg Std Dev 2-Methyl Naphthalene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater ,3-Butadiene was not quantified using passive methods. A 3-24

56 Section 3 Presentation of Data Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Figure 3-1 Summary of 1-Hour BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations (All Sites) Max Min Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Monitoring Site Mean Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Figure 3-2 Summary of 24-Hour BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations (All Sites) Max Min Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Monitoring Site Mean 98th Percentile 24-hr NAAQS Annual NAAQS A 3-25

57 Section 3 Presentation of Data Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Figure Hour BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations (2/23/08-2/29/08) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) 0 2/23/08 2/24/08 2/25/08 2/26/08 2/27/08 2/28/08 2/29/08 Date No. of Observations 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Figure 3-4 Distribution of Hourly BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) < >50 Concentration Range (µg/m 3 ) A 3-26

58 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-5 Distribution of 24-Hour BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) No. of Observations < >50 Concentration Range (µg/m 3 ) 20 Figure 3-6 Average BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations by Hour of Day Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Hour of Day A 3-27

59 Section 3 Presentation of Data Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Figure 3-7 Average BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations by Day of Week 6 Annavoy 4 Bremen Court 2 Harrison (DEP) 0 Lynn (DEP) Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Day of Week 25 Figure 3-8 Summary of 1-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations (All Sites) Mean Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Max 0 Min Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Monitoring Site A 3-28

60 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-9 Summary of 24-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations (All Sites) Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Max Mean RfC 0 Min Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Monitoring Site Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Figure Hour Black Carbon Concentrations (2/23/08-2/29/08) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) 1 0 2/23/08 2/24/08 2/25/08 2/26/08 2/27/08 2/28/08 2/29/08 Date A 3-29

61 Section 3 Presentation of Data 4,000 3,500 3,000 Figure 3-11 Distribution of Hourly Black Carbon Concentrations Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) No. of Observations 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, < >5.0 Concentration Range (µg/m 3 ) Figure 3-12 Distribution of 24-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) No. of Observations < >5.0 Concentration Range (µg/m 3 ) A 3-30

62 Section 3 Presentation of Data 2.0 Figure 3-13 Black Carbon Concentrations by Hour of Day Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Hour of Day 2.0 Figure 3-14 Black Carbon Concentrations by Day of Week Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) 0.0 Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Day of Week A 3-31

63 Figure Monthly Wind Roses Section 3 Presentation of Data Annavoy St. Court Rd. Bremen St. Logan Airport October, 2007 November, 2007 December, 2007 A 3-32

64 Figure Monthly Wind Roses (continued) Section 3 Presentation of Data Annavoy St. Court Rd. Bremen St. Logan Airport January, 2008 February, 2008 March, 2008 A 3-33

65 Figure Monthly Wind Roses (continued) Section 3 Presentation of Data Annavoy St. Court Rd. Bremen St. Logan Airport April, 2008 May, 2008 June, 2008 Annavoy St. Court Rd. Bremen St. Logan Airport A 3-34

66 Figure Monthly Wind Roses (continued) Section 3 Presentation of Data July, 2008 August, 2008 September, 2008 A 3-35

67 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-16 Annual Wind Roses Annavoy St. Bremen St. Court Rd. Logan Airport A 3-36

68 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-17 Active Method 1,3-Butadiene Distribution Figure 3-18 Active Method Benzene Distribution Site 1= Annavoy, Site 2= Bremen, Site 3=Court, Site 4=Harrison Site (DEP) 12= Lynn Site (DEP) A 3-37

69 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-19 Active Method Toluene Distribution Figure 3-20 Active Method Ethyl Benzene Distribution Site 1= Annavoy, Site 2= Bremen, Site 3=Court, Site 4=Harrison Site (DEP) 12= Lynn Site (DEP) A 3-38

70 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-21 Active Method m,p-xylenes Distribution Figure 3-22 Active Method o-xylene Distribution Site 1= Annavoy, Site 2= Bremen, Site 3=Court, Site 4=Harrison Site (DEP) 12= Lynn Site (DEP) A 3-39

71 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-23 Active Method Styrene Distribution Site 1= Annavoy, Site 2= Bremen, Site 3=Court, Site 4=Harrison Site (DEP) 12= Lynn Site (DEP) Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-24 Active VOC Sampling- 1,3-Butadiene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Date A 3-40

72 Section 3 Presentation of Data Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-25 Active VOC Sampling- Benzene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Date Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-26 Active VOC Sampling- Toluene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Date A 3-41

73 Section 3 Presentation of Data Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-27 Active VOC Sampling- Ethylbenzene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Date Figure 3-28 Active VOC Sampling- m/p-xylene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Concentration (ppbv) Date A 3-42

74 Section 3 Presentation of Data Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-29 Active VOC Sampling- o-xylene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) 0.0 Date Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-30 Active VOC Sampling- Styrene Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Date A 3-43

75 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-31 Active Method Formaldehyde Distribution Figure 3-32 Active Method Acrolein Distribution Site 1= Annavoy, Site 2= Bremen, Site 3=Court, Site 4=Harrison Site (DEP) 12= Lynn Site (DEP) A 3-44

76 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-33 Active Method Acetaldehyde Distribution Figure 3-34 Active Method Propionaldehyde Distribution Note: Propionaldehyde data from DEP sites were not available. Site 1= Annavoy, Site 2= Bremen, Site 3=Court, Site 4=Harrison Site (DEP) 12= Lynn Site (DEP) A 3-45

77 Section 3 Presentation of Data Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-35 Active Carbonyl Sampling- Formaldehyde Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) 2 0 Date Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-36 Active Carbonyl Sampling- Acrolein Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Date A 3-46

78 Section 3 Presentation of Data Concentration (ppbv) Figure 3-37 Active Carbonyl Sampling- Acetaldehyde Annavoy Court Lynn (DEP) Bremen Harrison (DEP) Date Figure 3-38 Active Carbonyl Sampling- Propionaldehyde Annavoy Bremen Court Concentration (ppbv) Date Note: Propionaldehyde data from DEP sites were not available. A 3-47

79 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-39 Active Method Naphthalene Distribution Figure 3-40 Active Method 1-Methyl Naphthalene Distribution Site 1= Annavoy, Site 2=Court, Site 4=Harrison Site (MPA) A 3-48

80 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-41 Active Method 2-Methyl Naphthalene Distribution Site 1= Annavoy, Site 2=Court, Site 4=Harrison Site (MPA) Figure 3-42 Active PAH Sampling- Naphthalene Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) Concentration (ppbv) /21/07 12/08/07 02/18/08 04/06/08 06/05/08 08/16/08 Date A 3-49

81 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-43 Active PAH Sampling- 1-Methylnaphthalene Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) Concentration (ppbv) /21/07 12/08/07 02/18/08 04/06/08 06/05/08 08/16/08 Date Figure 3-44 Active PAH Sampling- 2-Methylnaphthalene Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) Concentration (ppbv) /21/07 12/08/07 02/18/08 04/06/08 06/05/08 08/16/08 Date A 3-50

82 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-45 Active PM2.5 FRM Annavoy Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP) Concentration (ug/m3) /3/07 10/15/07 10/27/07 11/8/07 11/20/07 12/2/07 12/14/07 12/26/07 1/7/08 1/19/08 1/31/08 2/12/08 2/24/08 3/7/08 3/19/08 3/31/08 4/12/08 4/24/08 5/6/08 5/18/08 5/30/08 6/11/08 6/23/08 7/5/08 7/17/08 7/29/08 8/10/08 8/22/08 9/3/08 9/15/08 9/27/08 Sample Date Concentration (ug/m3) Figure 3-46 Active PM2.5 from MiniVol Measurement Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (MPA) Cottage Constitution Jeffries S Boston Logan Coughlin Bayswater /9/07 10/21/07 11/2/07 11/14/07 11/26/07 12/8/07 12/20/07 1/1/08 1/13/08 1/25/08 2/6/08 2/12/08* 2/18/08 2/24/08* 3/1/08 3/13/08 3/25/08 4/6/08 4/18/08 4/30/08 5/12/08 5/24/08 6/5/08 6/17/08 6/29/08 7/11/08 7/23/08 8/4/08 8/16/08 8/28/08 9/9/08 9/21/08 *Extra sampling dates. Sample Date A 3-51

83 Section 3 Presentation of Data Site descriptors for the passive sampling box plots below are available in Section Figure 3-47 Benzene Passive Sampling Box Plot Figure 3-48 Toluene Passive Sampling Box Plot A 3-52

84 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-49 Ethyl Benzene Passive Sampling Box Plot Figure 3-50 m,p-xylenes Passive Sampling Box Plot A 3-53

85 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-51 o-xylene Passive Sampling Box Plot Figure 3-52 Styrene Passive Sampling Box Plot A 3-54

86 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-53 Formaldehyde Passive Sampling Box Plot Figure 3-54 Acrolein Passive Sampling Box Plot A 3-55

87 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-55 Acetaldehyde Passive Sampling Box Plot Figure 3-56 Propionaldehyde Passive Sampling Box Plot A 3-56

88 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure 3-57 Naphthalene Passive Sampling Box Plot Figure Methyl Naphthalene Passive Sampling Box Plot A 3-57

89 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure Methyl Naphthalene Passive Sampling Box Plot Figure Month Average Benzene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* *Harrison active data obtained from DEP, passive data measured by MPA. A 3-58

90 Section 3 Presentation of Data 1.20 Figure Month Average Toluene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive 1.00 Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* Figure Month Average Ethylbenzene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive 0.12 Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* *Harrison active data obtained from DEP, passive data measured by MPA. A 3-59

91 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure Month Average m&p-xylene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* Figure Month Average o-xylene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* *Harrison active data obtained from DEP, passive data measured by MPA. A 3-60

92 Section 3 Presentation of Data 0.12 Figure Month Average Styrene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive 0.10 Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* 2.5 Figure Month Average Formaldehyde Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive 2.0 Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* *Harrison active data obtained from DEP, passive data measured by MPA. A 3-61

93 Section 3 Presentation of Data 0.25 Figure Month Average Acrolein Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive 0.20 Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* Figure Month Average Acetaldehyde Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison* *Harrison active data obtained from DEP, passive data measured by MPA. A 3-62

94 Section 3 Presentation of Data 0.14 Figure Month Average Propionaldehyde Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive 0.12 Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Bremen Court Figure Month Average Naphthalene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) A 3-63

95 Section 3 Presentation of Data Figure Month Average 1-Methyl Naphthalene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) Figure Month Average 2-Methyl Naphthalene Concentrations Measured Using Active and Passive Methods Active Passive Concentration (ppbv) Annavoy Court Harrison (MPA) A 3-64

96 Section 4 Discussion of Supporting Data Additional data were collected to aid in the analysis of the pollutant data collected during the baseline monitoring period. These data include flight operation data for Logan, limited traffic count data collected along Saratoga Street adjacent to the Annavoy Street site, and pollutant monitoring data from the MADEP monitoring station on Harrison Avenue in the Roxbury area of Boston, Massachusetts and the MADEP monitoring station at 390 Parkland Avenue in Lynn, Massachusetts. This section also includes a brief statement about the first phase of construction of the Centerfield Taxiway at Logan. 4.1 Airport Flight Operations To complement the ambient pollutant data and meteorological data collected during the reporting period, and to support potential analyses of the data by others, Massport has provided flight operations data for Logan for the period from October 2007 through September The data files are extensive and contain information on a flight-by-flight basis, such as type of aircraft, time of activity, runway, and designation of departure or arrival, for every day of the reporting period. The complete flight operations data files can be found in the Appendix C. 4.2 Motor Vehicle Traffic Volumes Traffic counters were installed at 1215 Saratoga Street in East Boston in the summer of This location is adjacent to the Annavoy Street site, approximately 100 to 200 feet to the north through north-northeast of the monitoring station. These traffic counts were collected continuously beginning on July 17, 2008, through October 4, Summary data are included in Appendix C and are presented for traffic volumes, for speed categories, and for vehicle classification types by hour of the day by date for both east-bound and west-bound traffic. 4.3 Centerfield Taxiway Construction The first phase of construction of the Centerfield Taxiway (between Taxiway November and Taxiway Quebec) at Logan began in April 2008 and continued through November Thus, approximately the first half of the baseline monitoring period occurred prior to the commencement of construction activities associated with the Centerfield Taxiway, while approximately the second half of baseline monitoring was performed during on-going construction activities. 4.4 Concurrent Air Monitoring Data from MADEP As noted elsewhere in this report, MADEP provided Massport validated data from its routine monitoring activities at the stations on Harrison Avenue in the Roxbury area of Boston and at the station at 390 Parkland Avenue in Lynn, Massachusetts. The complete MADEP data sets as provided by MADEP, summaries of which were used A 4-1

97 Section 4 Discussion of Supporting Data in some of the data comparisons in this report, are provided in Appendix C. The data include continuous monitoring results for PM 2.5 BAM and BC as well as for timeintegrated active sample results for PM 2.5 FRM, VOCs, and carbonyl compounds where available. A 4-2

98 A Appendix A Field Sampling Schedule

99 Figure A 1 Appendix A Field Sampling Schedule Massport Logan Air Quality Monitoring Study Field Sampling Schedule - First Quarter October 2007 Parameter MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol November 2007 Parameter THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol December 2007 Parameter SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT SUN MON Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol A A-1

100 Figure A 1 (continued) Appendix A Field Sampling Schedule Massport Logan Air Quality Monitoring Study Field Sampling Schedule - Second Quarter January 2008 Parameter TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol February 2008 Parameter FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol March 2008 Parameter SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol A A-2

101 Figure A 1 (continued) Appendix A Field Sampling Schedule Massport Logan Air Quality Monitoring Study Field Sampling Schedule - Third Quarter April 2008 Parameter TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol May 2008 Parameter THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol June 2008 Parameter SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol A A-3

102 Figure A 1 (continued) Appendix A Field Sampling Schedule Massport Logan Air Quality Monitoring Study Field Sampling Schedule - Fourt Quarter July 2008 Parameter TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol August 2008 Parameter FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol September 2008 Parameter MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT MON TUE WED THU Aethalometer BAM Meteorological PM2.5 FRM VOC - active Carbonyl - active PAH - active VOC - passive Carbonyl - passive PAH - passive PM2.5 minivol A A-4

103 A Appendix B Performance Audit Memorandum

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135 A Appendix C Monitoring and Supporting Data

136 Appendix C Monitoring and Supporting Data Appendix C contains the following monitoring and supporting data in electronic format (see CD-ROM): 1. Massport Continuous Sampling Data a. BC (Aethalometer) b. PM 2.5 (BAM) c. Meteorology 2. Massport Active Time-Integrated Sampling Data a. VOC b. Carbonyl c. PAH d. PM 2.5 FRM & Minivol 3. Massport Passive Time-Integrated Sampling Data a. VOC b. Carbonyl c. PAH 4. MADEP Data a. BC (Aethalometer) and PM 2.5 (BAM & FRM) b. VOC & Carbonyl c. Meteorology 5. Traffic Count Data 6. Logan Airport Data a. Flight Operations b. Meteorology A C-1

137 A Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables

138 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-1 Hourly Continuous Data Recovery Site Name Valid Hours % Recovery Black Carbon/Aethalometer (ug/m3) Annavoy % Bremen % Court % Harrison (DEP) % PM2.5/BAM (ug/m3) Annavoy % Bremen % Court % Harrison (DEP) % Lynn (DEP) % Wind Speed (mph) Annavoy % Bremen (DEP) % Court % Logan (NOAA) % Wind Direction (degrees) Annavoy % Bremen (DEP) % Court % Logan (NOAA) % Temperature (F) Annavoy % Court % Logan (NOAA) % Relative Humidity (%) Annavoy % Court % Logan (NOAA) % Temperature and relative humidity data from Bremen Street station were not available. A D-1

139 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-2 Hourly Continuous Data Detection Limit Site Name Black Carbon/Aethalometer Min. Detection Limit = 0.05 ug/m3 %< MDL Annavoy 0% Bremen 0% Court 1% Harrison (DEP) 1% PM2.5/BAM (ug/m3) Min. Detection Limit = 5 ug/m3 Annavoy 17% Bremen 17% Court 16% Harrison (DEP) 9% Lynn (DEP) 25% Wind Speed (mph) Min. Detection Limit = 1.1 mph Annavoy 15% Bremen (DEP) 0.4% Court 13% Logan (NOAA) N/A Wind speed threshold for Logan airport not available. A D-2

140 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-3 Active Time-Integrated Sample Recovery Site Name Valid Samples % Recovery VOC Annavoy 38 97% Bremen 37 95% Court 36 92% Harrison (DEP) % Lynn (DEP) 58 95% Carbonyl Annavoy % Bremen % Court % Harrison (DEP) 60 98% Lynn (DEP) % PAH Annavoy 9 75% Court 9 75% Harrison (MPA) 10 83% A D-3

141 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-4 PM2.5 Time-Integrated Sample Recovery Site Name Valid Samples % Recovery FRM Annavoy 51 84% Harrison (DEP) % Lynn (DEP) % Minivol Annavoy 28 88% Bremen 27 84% Court 27 84% Harrison 29 91% Cottage Park 27 84% Constitution 25 78% Jeffries Point 28 88% South Boston 28 88% Logan 26 81% Coughlin 27 84% Bayswater 27 84% A D-4

142 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-5 Passive Time-Integrated Sample Recovery Site Name Valid Samples % Recovery VOC Annavoy % Bremen % Court % Harrison % Cottage % Constitution % Jeffries % S Boston % Logan % Coughlin % Bayswater % Carbonyl Annavoy % Bremen 11 92% Court % Harrison % Cottage % Constitution % Jeffries % S Boston % Logan 11 92% Coughlin % Bayswater % PAH Annavoy % Bremen % Court % Harrison % Cottage % Constitution % Jeffries % S Boston % Logan % Coughlin % Bayswater % A D-5

143 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-6 Active Time-Integrated Samples Minimum Detection Limit Site Name % Below MDL 1,3-Butadiene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 87% Bremen 81% Court 89% Harrison (DEP) 0% Lynn (DEP) 3% Benzene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 16% Bremen 5% Court 25% Harrison (DEP) 0% Lynn (DEP) 0% Toluene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 13% Bremen 0% Court 22% Harrison (DEP) 0% Lynn (DEP) 0% Ethylbenzene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 45% Bremen 43% Court 50% Harrison (DEP) 0% Lynn (DEP) 2% m,p-xylene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 29% Bremen 11% Court 33% Harrison (DEP) 0% Lynn (DEP) 0% o-xylene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 47% Bremen 41% Court 47% Harrison (DEP) 0% Lynn (DEP) 5% Styrene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 74% Bremen 86% Court 83% Harrison (DEP) 69% Lynn (DEP) 95% A D-6

144 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-6 continued Active Time-Integrated Samples Minimum Detection Limit Site Name % Below MDL Acrolein MDL: ppmv Annavoy 20% Bremen 14% Court 13% Harrison (DEP) 3% Lynn (DEP) 9% Formaldehyde MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Bremen 0% Court 7% Harrison (DEP) 0% Lynn (DEP) 0% Acetaldehyde MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Bremen 0% Court 3% Harrison (DEP) 0% Lynn (DEP) 0% Propionaldehyde MDL: ppmv Annavoy 37% Bremen 3% Court 17% Naphthalene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Court 0% Harrison (MPA) 0% 1-Methyl Naphthalene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Court 0% Harrison (MPA) 0% 2-Methyl Naphthalene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Court 0% Harrison (MPA) 0% A D-7

145 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-7 Passive Time-Integrated Samples Minimum Detection Limit Site Name % Below MDL Benzene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 25% Bremen 8% Court 25% Harrison 17% Cottage 33% Constitution 17% Jeffries 33% S Boston 33% Logan 33% Coughlin 33% Bayswater 33% Toluene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Bremen 0% Court 0% Harrison 0% Cottage 0% Constitution 0% Jeffries 0% S Boston 0% Logan 0% Coughlin 0% Bayswater 0% Ethylbenzene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Bremen 0% Court 0% Harrison 0% Cottage 0% Constitution 0% Jeffries 0% S Boston 0% Logan 8% Coughlin 8% Bayswater 0% A D-8

146 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-7 continued Passive Time-Integrated Samples Minimum Detection Limit Site Name % Below MDL m,p-xylene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Bremen 0% Court 0% Harrison 0% Cottage 0% Constitution 0% Jeffries 0% S Boston 0% Logan 0% Coughlin 0% Bayswater 0% o-xylene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 0% Bremen 0% Court 0% Harrison 0% Cottage 0% Constitution 0% Jeffries 0% S Boston 0% Logan 8% Coughlin 8% Bayswater 0% Styrene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 83% Bremen 83% Court 83% Harrison 83% Cottage 83% Constitution 83% Jeffries 83% S Boston 83% Logan 83% Coughlin 83% Bayswater 83% A D-9

147 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-7 continued Passive Time-Integrated Samples Minimum Detection Limit Site Name % Below MDL Acrolein MDL: ppmv Annavoy 75% Bremen 82% Court 83% Harrison 83% Cottage 75% Constitution 92% Jeffries 92% S Boston 83% Logan 82% Coughlin 83% Bayswater 83% Formaldehyde MDL: ppmv Annavoy 50% Bremen 55% Court 33% Harrison 42% Cottage 50% Constitution 58% Jeffries 50% S Boston 33% Logan 73% Coughlin 50% Bayswater 58% Acetaldehyde MDL: ppmv Annavoy 67% Bremen 55% Court 58% Harrison 58% Cottage 58% Constitution 67% Jeffries 42% S Boston 58% Logan 55% Coughlin 33% Bayswater 67% A D-10

148 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-7 continued Passive Time-Integrated Samples Minimum Detection Limit Site Name % Below MDL Propionaldehyde MDL: ppmv Annavoy 50% Bremen 55% Court 58% Harrison 67% Cottage 75% Constitution 83% Jeffries 50% S Boston 67% Logan 73% Coughlin 42% Bayswater 58% Naphthalene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 83% Bremen 75% Court 67% Harrison 67% Cottage 67% Constitution 67% Jeffries 67% S Boston 50% Logan 67% Coughlin 58% Bayswater 67% 1-Methyl Naphthalene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 67% Bremen 67% Court 58% Harrison 67% Cottage 58% Constitution 58% Jeffries 50% S Boston 50% Logan 42% Coughlin 58% Bayswater 58% A D-11

149 Appendix D Sample Recovery and Detection Limit Tables Table D-7 continued Passive Time-Integrated Samples Summary Statistics Site Name % Below MDL 2-Methyl Naphthalene MDL: ppmv Annavoy 58% Bremen 50% Court 42% Harrison 50% Cottage 42% Constitution 42% Jeffries 33% S Boston 50% Logan 42% Coughlin 42% Bayswater 50% A D-12

150 A Appendix E Fourth Quarter Court Road BAM Data Memorandum

151 -MEMO- Date: October 30, 2008 To: From: Toros Maksoudian, CDM Mike Kenney, KBE Subject: Logan Airport Air Quality Monitoring Study 4 th Quarter Court Road BAM Data I. Background Information As part of the Logan Airport Air Quality Monitoring Study, beta attenuation monitors (BAM) were deployed at three separate locations (i.e., Annavoy Street, Bremen Street, and Court Road). Due to a system leak and subsequent sampling pump failure, the data collected at the Court Road site was found to be invalid from about the end of April to mid-august. The BAM system diagnostics did not identify the flow abnormalities until August 11 and this matter was discovered primarily from multiple reviews of the BAM PM 2.5 data previously collected from Court Road in comparison with data collected from the near-by Annavoy Street site. The malfunction was fully rectified by August 14 and the BAM continued to operate properly though the end of September and the completion of the Baseline Monitoring Period. Notably, the data recovery for all other parameters measured at the Court Road site met their respective targets during the fourth quarter. II. Preliminary Assessment of Missing Court Road Data A preliminary, multi-level statistical analysis has been performed on the valid BAM PM 2.5 from the Court Road site and data from the Annavoy Street site to determine if a statistically significant relationship exists that could be used to approximate the missing Court Road data in the baseline report. The sites are located approximately 0.5 miles apart. Several potential analysis methods were considered including (a.) visual comparison of the data, (b.) descriptive statistics, (c.) correlation analysis, and (d.) linear regression analysis, which are all standard and reliable methods for interpreting air quality monitoring data. Each of these methods is discussed below. A. Visual Comparison To visualize the PM 2.5 data, the 24-hour average concentrations from the Court Road and nearby Annavoy Street for the 4 th Quarter were plotted together, as shown in Figure Koger Boulevard Pinellas Building Suite 211 St. Petersburg, FL T F

152 As shown, when Court Road site BAM was operating properly, the PM 2.5 concentrations tracked well (e.g., trend and timing) with corresponding PM 2.5 levels at Annavoy Street. Based on this similarity, it can be inferred that concentrations at Court Road would have also tracked well with Annavoy Street during the period of missing data. Figure 2 is an example visual depiction of hourly data from the Annavoy Street and Court Road sites from the 1 st Quarter. Like the 24-hour data presented in Figure 1, the hourly data also track well between the two sites during periods of concurrent data collection. 2