Air Quality Monitoring Program at the Port of Los Angeles Year Eleven Data Summary May April 2016

Transcription

1 Air Quality Monitoring Program at the Port of Los Angeles Year Eleven Data Summary May April 2016 Prepared For: Port of Los Angeles Environmental Management Division 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, California August 2016

2 This page is intentionally left blank.

3 Air Quality Monitoring Program at the Port of Los Angeles Year Eleven Data Summary May April 2016 Prepared for: Port of Los Angeles Environmental Management Division 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, California Prepared by: Leidos, Inc Campus Point Drive M/S H-4 San Diego, California August 2016

4 This page is intentionally left blank.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Siting of the Monitoring s DESCRIPTION OF AIR MONITORING PROGRAM Locations of the Monitoring Network stations The Monitoring Network DATA ANALYSIS Regulatory Background Air Quality Data Summary Year PM Data Summary EC Data BC Data PM 2.5 Data PM 10 Data Gaseous Criteria Pollutant Data Summary CO Data Summary NO 2 Data Summary O 3 Data Summary SO 2 Data Summary Summary of Monitoring for Ultrafine Particles Meteorological Data Data Quality Assurance TRENDS ANALYSIS Trends in EC, BC, PM 2.5, and PM 10 Data Trends in EC Concentrations Trends in BC Concentrations Trends in PM 2.5 Concentrations Trends in PM 10 Concentrations Trends in Gaseous Criteria Pollutants Trends in CO Concentrations Trends in NO 2 Concentrations Trends in O 3 Concentrations Trends in SO 2 Concentrations CONCLUSIONS th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report i August 2016

6 No. FIGURES Page Figure ES-1. Annual Average Elemental Carbon Concentrations at Port of Los Angeles... 4 Figure ES-2. Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations at the Port of Los Angeles... 5 Figure ES-3. Annual Average PM 10 Concentrations at Port of Los Angeles... 5 Figure ES-4. Monthly Average Elemental Carbon Concentrations at Port of Los Angeles... 6 Figure 2-1. Locations of the Port's Monitoring s... 8 Figure 4-1. Wind Roses for Port Air Monitoring s: May 2015 to April Figure 5-1. Annual Average EC Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure 5-2. Seasonal Averages of Black Carbon Concentrations Figure 5-3. Diurnal Variation in BC Concentrations at the Port Monitoring s during Monitoring Year Figure 5-4. Seasonally-Averaged BC at Source Dominated Diurnal Variation Figure 5-5. Seasonally-Averaged BC at POLB Outer Harbor Diurnal Variation Figure 5-6. Annually-Averaged BC Concentrations at Port s - Day of the Week Figure 5-7. Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure th Percentile of 24-Hour Averaged PM 2.5 Concentrations over the Period of Record.. 38 Figure 5-9. Annual Average PM 10 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure Maximum 24-Hour Average PM 10 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure Maximum 1-hour CO Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure th Percentile of the Daily Maximum 1-Hour NO 2 Concentration over the Period of Record Figure Maximum 1-Hour NO 2 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure Annual NO 2 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure Fourth Highest Average 8-Hour O 3 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure Maximum 8-Hour O 3 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure Maximum 1-Hour O 3 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure th Percentile of 1-Hour Daily Maximum SO 2 Concentrations over Period of Record. 49 Figure Maximum 1-Hour SO 2 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure Maximum 24-Hour SO 2 Concentration over the Period of Record th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report ii August 2016

7 No. LIST OF TABLES Page Table ES- 1. Exceedances of NAAQS and CAAQS during Reporting Year 11 at the Port s Air Monitoring s... 3 Table 3-1. Air Quality and Meteorological Instrumentation Currently in Operation at the Port of Los Angeles Monitoring s Table 4-1. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table 4-2. Annual Average EC Concentrations at POLA Monitoring s ( ) Table 4-3. Annual Average BC Concentrations at the POLA and POLB s Table 4-4. NAAQS Comparison Three-Year Average of 98 th Percentile of 24-hour, and Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations Table 4-5. CAAQS Comparison Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations Table 4-6. NAAQS Comparison Highest 24-hour Average PM 10 Concentrations Table 4-7. CAAQS Comparison Highest 24-hour and Annual Average PM 10 Concentrations Table 4-8. NAAQS Comparison Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO Concentrations Table 4-9. CAAQS Comparison Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO Concentrations Table NAAQS Comparison Three Year Average of the 98 th Percentile 1-hour Average and Annual Average NO 2 Concentrations Table CAAQS Compliance Maximum 1-hour and Annual NO 2 Concentrations Table NAAQS Comparison 3-Year Average of Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average O 3 Concentrations Table CAAQS Comparison Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour Average O 3 Concentrations Table NAAQS Comparison 3 year Average of the 99 th Percentile 1-hour Daily Maximum and 2 nd Highest 3-hour Average SO 2 Concentrations Table CAAQS Comparison Highest 1-hour and 24-hour Average SO 2 Concentrations Table Annual Average Ultrafine Particle Counts th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report iii August 2016

8 ACRONYMS AQ Air Quality BAM Beta Attenuation Monitors BC Black Carbon CAAP Clean Air Action Plan CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CO Carbon Monoxide DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DRI Desert Research Institute EC Elemental Carbon EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEM Federal Equivalent Method FRM Federal Reference Method MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study m/s Meters per Second µg/m 3 Micrograms per Meter Cubed µm Micrometer NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NO Nitrogen Oxide NO X Nitrogen Oxides NO 2 Nitrogen Dioxide OC Organic Carbon O 3 Ozone PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCAC Port Advisory Committee PM Particulate Matter PM 10 Particulate Matter of Aerodynamic Diameter Less than 10 Microns PM 2.5 Particulate Matter of Aerodynamic Diameter Less than 2.5 Microns POLA Port of Los Angeles Port Port of Los Angeles ppb Parts per Billion ppm Parts per Million ROI Region of Influence SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SFS Sequential Filter Sampler SO x Sulfur Oxides SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide SPPS Saints Peter and Paul Elementary School TITP Terminal Island Treatment Plant UFP Ultrafine Particle Count USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VOC Volatile Organic Compound 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report iv August 2016

9 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Port of Los Angeles (Port or POLA) began an air monitoring program in February The program includes a network of four monitoring stations in the vicinity of the Port, including a Coastal Boundary station located in the southern end of the Port between the Cabrillo Marina and the San Pedro Breakwater; a Source-Dominated station located near the center of Port operations; and the San Pedro and Wilmington stations located within those communities. This report provides a summary of the data collected by the Port of Los Angeles Air Quality Monitoring Program during the most recent reporting year, Year 11: May 2015 through April The main objective of the air monitoring program is to estimate ambient levels of diesel particulate matter (DPM) in proximity to the Port. DPM has become a focal point since the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified it as an air toxic. DPM levels have often been a significant contributor in health risk assessments conducted in the area. DPM is a complex mixture of pollutants from diesel exhaust, consisting of both a gaseous phase and a particle phase. Because of the complex nature of DPM emissions, it cannot be measured directly in the ambient atmosphere; however, elemental carbon (EC) is a surrogate for DPM in monitoring. EC is measured in the Port s air monitoring network and analyzed in this report as a DPM surrogate in order to show ambient levels and trends in the area. Historical Port emission inventories provide an annual estimate of DPM emissions from Port activities, and these estimates are compared to annual trends in EC measurements. Recent research suggests that Black Carbon (BC) and EC can both be used as surrogates for DPM. The two measurement methods are typically highly correlated, but BC is measured using an optical method, whereas EC is measured using a completely different thermal-optical method. Consequently, the absolute values of BC and EC measurements may differ at a monitoring station. The advantage of BC is that it is measured using an Aethalometer, a real-time instrument that produces a more comprehensive, continuous data set. The Port installed an Aethalometer for measuring BC at the Source Dominated in July of A secondary program objective is to estimate ambient gaseous pollutants and particulate matter (PM) levels within adjacent communities. Two different filter-based PM measurements are conducted in this monitoring network, collecting particles less than 10 and 2.5 micrometer (µm) size thresholds (PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively). These two particle sizes correspond to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that have been set for PM. DPM generally consists of very small particles (the particle phase) with organic compounds (the gaseous phase) adsorbed onto the particle phase. Generally, DPM makes up a small fraction of the particles collected by the PM 10 and PM 2.5 measurements, so EC measurements are considered a much better surrogate for DPM. Expansion of the program in 2008 now allows for real-time continuous measurement of additional pollutants. Under this expansion, the following four gaseous criteria air pollutants are measured on a continuous basis under this program: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), ozone (O 3). Additionally, PM 2.5, and PM 10 are collected using beta attenuation monitors (BAMs), and ultrafine particles (less than 0.1 µm or 100 nanometers) are collected using instruments called condensation particle counters. In addition to the air quality data, meteorological parameters are continuously measured at all four stations. Meteorological measurements are helpful for interpretation of air quality data and for use in special studies such as ambient air quality modeling. Preliminary real-time data from the air monitoring stations are available for public review at the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) website: Historical filter-based particulate monitoring data are also available for public review on the Port s website: The data collected at the Port s monitoring stations during this reporting year were compared to the NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) established for each pollutant on the applicable averaging periods. While such comparisons are presented, this report does not make any 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 1 August 2016

10 representations as to compliance with NAAQS or CAAQS, and the information presented herein should not be construed to the contrary. NAAQS compliance determinations are made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) with input from state and regional air agencies. CAAQS compliance determinations are made by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). For the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the Los Angeles metropolitan region, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for operating separate air quality monitoring stations that are used for those demonstrations. While the Port s monitoring stations are operated in accordance with these same federal and state regulations and guidelines, the Port s stations are outside the official monitoring network and are not used in those determinations. Ambient air pollution levels near the San Pedro Bay are influenced by a number of factors including local pollutant emissions, regional air pollution levels, and meteorology. Several important criteria air pollutants for which EPA has established air quality standards are created at least in part by chemical reactions (particularly ozone and PM 2.5), which occur after the release of emissions into the atmosphere. As such, concentrations from these pollutants are expected to be more regional. Other pollutants, like PM 10, SO 2 or EC, are more localized in nature. Emissions from goods movement are an important contributor to air pollution levels in the SCAB region. DPM emissions, an important air toxic, are a contributor to PM 2.5 concentrations. Based on the latest available Port Emissions Inventory, emissions from mobile sources operating at the Port are estimated to contribute approximately 4.4% of the regional nitrogen oxide (NO X) emissions and 4.8% of the regional DPM emissions in 2015; the contribution to regional NOx and DPM emissions from mobile sources operating at the Port has been relatively constant during recent years while the Port s contribution to regional SOx emissions continues to trend lower. 1 Between 2005, the CAAP baseline year, and 2015, emissions associated with Port of Los Angeles operations showed an 85% reduction in DPM, a 97% reduction in sulfur oxides (SOx) and a 51% reduction in NOx. These emission reductions were due to a number of factors including the successful implementation of control measures under the CAAP and other voluntary tenant actions, along with state regulatory action, which have significantly reduced emissions rates from goods movement sources such as heavy duty trucks, ocean going vessels, and cargo handling equipment. Over the same timeframe, container throughput at the Port has increased by approximately 9%. Meteorology can also have a significant influence on regional air pollution levels from one year to the next. While CAAP measures have improved air emissions levels around the Port, the amount of any decrease (or increase) in Port ambient air pollutant concentrations attributed to goods movementfocused control measures under the CAAP cannot be quantified solely through air quality monitoring. CAAP-related emissions reductions are estimated in the Port s annual Emission Inventories. The data collected during this monitoring period have been averaged and compared to the various NAAQS and CAAQS established for each pollutant. Table ES-1 presents the results of a comparison between the data collected by the monitoring network and the NAAQS and CAAQS during the most recent 12-month period. The recently lowered eight-hour ozone NAAQS was exceeded at the Coastal Boundary station. No other NAAQS were exceeded for any pollutants measured within the monitoring network. There were some exceedances of the more restrictive CAAQS. Both the annual and the 24- hour CAAQS for PM 10 were exceeded at both the Wilmington and Coastal Boundary stations. Additionally, the one hour CAAQS for O 3 was exceeded at the Wilmington, San Pedro and Coastal Boundary stations and the eight hour CAAQS was exceeded at Wilmington and Coastal Boundary stations. The SCAB is designated as being in nonattainment for O 3 and PM 2.5, and a maintenance area for PM 10. Although the EC data are analyzed and presented in this report, there are no NAAQS or CAAQS associated with this parameter. 1 Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions Starcrest Consulting Group LLC. ( July th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 2 August 2016

11 Table ES-1. Exceedances of NAAQS and CAAQS during Reporting Year 11 at the Port s Air Monitoring s Monitoring s Parameter Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated PM hour and annual NAAQS PM 2.5 Annual CAAQS PM hour NAAQS n/a* n/a* PM hour CAAQS Yes Yes n/a* n/a* PM 10 annual CAAQS Yes Yes n/a* n/a* CO 1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS CO 1-hour and 8-hour CAAQS NO 2 1-hour and annual NAAQS NO 2 1-hour and annual CAAQS O 3 8-hour NAAQS -- Yes O 3 1-hour CAAQS Yes Yes Yes -- O 3 8-hour CAAQS Yes Yes SO 2 1-hour and 3-hour NAAQS SO 2 1-hour and 24-hour CAAQS n/a*: PM 10 data were not collected at this station The POLA air monitoring network now has an 11-year period of record for PM data that can be used to determine trends over this period. Over this period of record, annual average EC concentrations have decreased by an average of 64 percent over all four stations (Figure ES-1). A comparison is made between the decreases in calculated DPM emissions (as reported in the annual Port Emissions Inventory) and measured ambient EC concentrations, since EC is considered a surrogate of DPM for monitoring purposes. Over the 11-year monitoring period from to , annual Port-wide DPM emissions decreased by 85 percent, while average ambient EC concentrations at the Source-Dominated station, located in the center of Port operations, decreased by 80 percent over a similar 11-year period (May 2005 April 2016). This indicates a good correlation between annual DPM emissions and average annual ambient EC concentrations. From monitoring year to monitoring year , annual average PM 2.5 concentrations decreased by 54 percent at the Source-Dominated station, much less than the 83 percent reduction in Port-wide PM 2.5 emissions during the period (Figure ES-2). Ambient PM 2.5 levels around the Port have not followed decreases in PM 2.5 emissions nearly as well as ambient EC levels appear to have followed decreases in DPM emissions, likely due to the differing characteristics and sources of these two pollutants. For example, ambient PM 2.5 levels can be affected by regional sources of PM 2.5 emissions, through processes such as the secondary formation of PM 2.5, and are thus not as 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 3 August 2016

12 sensitive to Port-focused emission reduction measures in the CAAP as are EC levels, which is more of a localized pollutant. PM 10 measurements have only been recorded for the entire 11-year period of record at the Wilmington station; additional PM 10 measurements were incorporated into the monitoring program in 2009 at the Coastal Boundary station, as shown in Figure ES-3. PM 10 concentrations tend to have a low correlation with CAAP emission reductions, due to the localized nature of PM 10 particulates, which are often released as fugitive emissions from construction activities or wind-blown dust. Overall, there has been a modest decrease of 16 percent in PM 10 concentrations over the 11-year period of record. The only large yearly increase occurred during monitoring year , which has been attributed to extensive construction projects near both monitoring stations. Figures ES-1 through ES-3 present annual average EC, PM 2.5, and PM 10, concentrations measured at the Port s air monitoring network since the beginning of the monitoring program in Figure ES-1. Annual Average Elemental Carbon Concentrations at Port of Los Angeles 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 4 August 2016

13 Figure ES-2. Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations at the Port of Los Angeles * Coastal Boundary SFS data incomplete for Year 11; sample data unavailable from November 2015 through April 2016 due to an instrument issue. Figure ES-3. Annual Average PM 10 Concentrations at Port of Los Angeles 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 5 August 2016

14 Figure ES-4 illustrates monthly-averaged EC concentrations at all four stations over the 11-year monitoring period and provides additional information on the variability and trends of DPM levels around the Port (since EC is considered a surrogate of DPM). The graph shows a remarkably consistent pattern of peaks and valleys in EC concentrations over a given year. The maximum monthly EC levels occur primarily during the fall and winter months when atmospheric inversions are more common. Under these conditions, surface-based temperature inversions (generally found during nocturnal hours) create light winds and stable atmospheric conditions which limit the dispersion of emissions near the earth s surface. Airborne pollutants effectively become trapped in the lower atmosphere leading to elevated concentrations during periods of strong temperature inversions. Figures ES-1 and ES-4 show two additional features over the period of record: 1) decreasing annual average EC concentrations at each station for the first six years of the monitoring program, with relatively constant averages for the past five monitoring years, and 2) a strong trend of lower annual maximum and lower annual minimum EC concentrations over the period of record. This is particularly evident at the Source-Dominated station near the center of Port operations, where monthly averages during the first years of the monitoring program ( ) were several times higher in the fall/winter period than in the spring/summer period. This yearly pattern of EC concentrations evident in ES-4 has a much larger amplitude and more consistent pattern than the corresponding figures for PM 2.5 and PM 10 concentrations (Figures A-3 and A-7, respectively, in Appendix A-1). Figure ES-4. Monthly Average Elemental Carbon Concentrations at Port of Los Angeles 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 6 August 2016

15 2 INTRODUCTION The Port of Los Angeles (Port or POLA) began its air quality monitoring program in February Under the initial program, representative ambient elemental carbon (EC, as a surrogate for diesel particulate matter (DPM)), particulate matter (PM), and meteorological data were collected within the Port s operational region of influence (ROI). The collected PM data included two sizes of particulate matter: (1) fine PM that is less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5) and (2) PM that is less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM 10). In early 2008, the Port completed an expansion of the monitoring program to include continuous monitoring of four gaseous criteria air pollutants ozone (O 3), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), and carbon monoxide (CO). The Port also expanded the particulates monitoring to include continuous sampling of PM 2.5, PM 10, and ultrafine particle counts (UFP). In July of 2013, the Port added an Aethalometer to the Source Dominated to measure black carbon (BC) concentrations. The driver of this program was the increased concern over health effects from DPM. The expanded monitoring program provides additional data to help provide an indication of the Port s area compliance with air quality standards, access to real-time data and presentation of that data for public review on a website. Furthermore, it provides the opportunity to conduct additional detailed analyses and an enhanced evaluation of source-receptor relationships in future studies. The monitoring program consists of a network of four stations located in the vicinity of the Port of Los Angeles: one each in San Pedro and Wilmington, the two communities adjacent to the Port; one near the southern coastal boundary of the Port; and one on Terminal Island, near the operational center of the Port. The station locations are shown in Figure 2-1. The design of the network was developed during 2003 and A monitoring work plan was developed and extensive discussions were held with the Port Advisory Committee (PCAC), and with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The monitoring work plan was revised in 2008 to reflect the upgrades made to the air monitoring program to include the continuous, real-time instrumentation SITING OF THE MONITORING STATIONS The locations of the monitoring stations were selected to be representative of ambient air quality conditions within the Port and the adjacent communities of San Pedro and Wilmington. Each monitoring site was selected based on three factors: (1) sites that met EPA criteria for locating monitoring stations (particularly unobstructed exposure to the local air flow), (2) site availability, and (3) site security. The candidate locations for the San Pedro and Wilmington stations were subjected to a validation monitoring study to ensure the representativeness of the locations, and that the best available site was chosen in each community. Additional details of this selection process are provided in earlier annual reports 3. In late 2007/early 2008, the air monitoring program was expanded to include real-time monitoring of gaseous criteria pollutants and particulates. During the planning stage of this expansion, it was discovered that the San Pedro and Source-Dominated station had to be moved short distances, because the existing rooftop locations used at those sites could not support the shelters required to house the real-time monitoring instruments. Validation studies were conducted for each of these moves, which were detailed in previous annual reports 3. 2 The Port of Los Angeles Air Quality Monitoring Program Maintenance Plan, Port of Los Angeles, Air Quality Monitoring Program at the Port of Los Angeles Summary of Data Collected During the Fifth Year, May 2009 April Available at: 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 7 August 2016

16 Figure 2-1. Locations of the Port's Monitoring s 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 8 August 2016

17 3 DESCRIPTION OF AIR MONITORING PROGRAM The following discussion presents a summary of the Port s air monitoring network. The main objective of the air monitoring program is to estimate ambient levels of DPM in proximity to the Port. Although DPM is a focal point of the monitoring program, it cannot be measured directly in the ambient atmosphere, so the network has been monitoring EC as a surrogate of DPM. EC is a regulatoryaccepted surrogate of DPM in monitoring, and has been monitored at each station since the inception of the program. This allows estimates of ambient levels of EC in the vicinity of the Port, and as well as trends in EC over the 11-year program. In addition, Port emission inventories provide annual estimates of DPM emissions from maritime-related activities, which have been used to determine if there are correlations between the trends in EC measurements and trends in DPM emissions. In June 2013, an Aethalometer was added to the Source-Dominated to measure ambient black carbon (BC) levels. Recent studies have shown that both BC and EC can be used as a surrogate for DPM emissions. BC and EC measurements are unique, in that they are defined by their respective measurement techniques. BC concentrations are measured with a real-time continuous instrument (Aethalometer), which uses an optical measurement method. EC concentrations are measured using a monitor that collects an integrated air sample on a filter, which is then analyzed using a thermaloptical methodology in a laboratory. Because BC and EC are analyzed using two different methodologies, the absolute values of the BC and EC concentrations at the same location may differ, even though simultaneous BC and EC measurements are typically highly correlated. That is, they are estimating the same surrogate parameter (DPM), but by two different methods. Although the historical record of BC data at the Port is much shorter than the EC data, the advantage of the BC data is that the real-time Aethalometer produces a more comprehensive, continuous BC data set, similar to those produced by the real-time PM 2.5, PM 10, CO, NO 2, O 3, and SO 2 analyzers deployed within the POLA monitoring network. This more robust dataset allows additional insight and analysis into BC measurements, as shown later in the report. A secondary program objective is to estimate ambient levels of gaseous pollutants and particulate matter (PM) levels within adjacent communities. The monitoring network uses two different size measures of PM, PM 10 and PM 2.5, which refer to the maximum particle sizes measured, 10 and 2.5 micrometers (µm). These two particle sizes correspond to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that have been set for PM. One component of PM, DPM, consists of very small particles (the particle phase) with organic compounds (the gaseous phase) adsorbed onto the particle phase, Generally, DPM makes up a small fraction of the particles collected by the PM 2.5 and PM 10 measurements, so EC and BC measurements are considered much better surrogates for DPM. A third objective of the monitoring program is to estimate ambient gaseous pollutants and PM levels within adjacent communities. Expansion of the program in 2008 allowed for continuous, real-time monitoring of additional pollutants, using gaseous analyzers to measure carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), and ozone (O 3), and beta attenuation monitors (BAMs) to measure PM 2.5 and PM 10. In May 2011, additional real-time condensation particle counters were deployed to provide ultrafine particle count (UFP) measurements at all four stations in the monitoring network. 3.1 LOCATIONS OF THE MONITORING NETWORK STATIONS The locations of the four stations currently in operation in the Port s air monitoring network are shown in Figure 2-1 and include the following stations: Wilmington Monitoring (33 o N, 118 o W) This station is located at the Saints Peter and Paul Elementary School (SPPS) in the City of Wilmington. This station is designed to collect air quality data that are representative of the residential areas of Wilmington. It is centrally located and is approximately 0.5 miles north of Port operations. San Pedro Monitoring (33 o N, 118 o W) This station is located adjacent to the Promenade walkway along Harbor Drive, across the street from the 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 9 August 2016

18 intersection of Harbor Boulevard and West 3 rd Street. This station is designed to collect air quality data that are representative of the residential areas of San Pedro. It is centrally located and is approximately 0.1 mile west of the main ship channel. Coastal Boundary (33 o N, 118 o W) This station is located at Berth 47 (Berth 47 station) in the southern end of the Port between the Cabrillo Marina and the San Pedro Breakwater. This location has the least direct exposure to emissions from Port operations. Source-Dominated (33 o N, 118 o W) This station is located on Pier 300, at the Terminal Island Treatment Plant (TITP) on Ferry Street. This station is expected to have the highest exposure to emissions from Port operations, as it is in direct proximity to terminal operations which use a large number of diesel engine sources (trucks, trains, ships, and cargo handling equipment). It is also referred to as the Source-Dominated station, because of the predominance of on-road and off-road diesel emission sources in the area. 3.2 THE MONITORING NETWORK All four stations have an identical set of instruments, which collect a comprehensive set of integrated 24-hour average filter-based PM 2.5 and PM 10 samples, as well as real-time measurement of gaseous criteria pollutants, PM 2.5 and PM 10, ultrafine particle counts, and meteorological data, as shown in Table 3-1. In addition, the Wilmington and Coastal Boundary Monitoring stations include a few supplemental instruments, as shown in the table and discussed below. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 10 August 2016

19 Table 3-1. Air Quality and Meteorological Instrumentation Currently in Operation at the Port of Los Angeles Monitoring s Monitoring s Parameter Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated PM 2.5 Integrated Filter Sampler (PM 2.5 mass and EC/OC) PM 2.5 Continuous Monitor (PM 2.5 mass) PM 10 Continuous Monitor (PM 10 mass) PM 2.5 FRM Filter Monitor (PM 2.5 mass) X X X X X X X X X X X X X PM 10 FRM Filter Monitor (PM 10 mass) X X Ultrafine Particle Counters X X X X Aethalometer (BC) X CO Monitor X X X X NO 2 Analyzer X X X X O 3 Analyzer X X X X SO 2 Analyzer X X X X Meteorological Instruments (wind speed & direction, temp.) Supplemental Meteorological Instruments (rel. humidity, solar radiation, barometric pressure) X X X X X Note: Instrumentation located at individual stations is identified by checked boxes. The stations in the Port s network are equipped with the following components: 1. Detailed 24-hour Sampling for PM 2.5 Each station is equipped with a multi-port PM 2.5 sequential filter sampler (SFS) monitor that simultaneously collects samples on a 24-hour basis on two different filter media (Teflon and quartz). This allows for the analysis of samples for mass (Teflon filters) and detailed chemical speciation (quartz and Teflon filters combined), including carbon fractions (elemental carbon/organic carbon), metals, and soluble ions. Samples are collected at each site every third day, following EPA s nationwide schedule. This allows direct comparison of the data collected at stations in the POLA and POLB monitoring networks and at other agency stations in the vicinity. 2. Continuous Monitoring of PM 2.5 and PM 10 In addition to the detailed 24-hr PM 2.5 sampling described above, each of the Port s monitoring stations are equipped to monitor PM 2.5 and 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 11 August 2016

20 PM 10 on a continuous and real-time hourly basis using Met One Instruments Beta Attenuation Monitors (BAMs). 3. PM 10 Filter-based Monitoring The Wilmington and Coastal Boundary stations have Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM 10 monitors with EPA design certification to measure PM 2.5 concentrations for compliance with the NAAQS and CAAQS. 4. PM 2.5 Filter-based Monitoring The Wilmington station has an FRM PM 2.5 monitor to verify operation of the SFS monitors and to measure PM 2.5 concentrations for compliance with the NAAQS and CAAQS. 5. Continuous Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring Each station is equipped with analyzers to determine real-time air pollutant concentrations for the gaseous pollutants (i.e. NO-NO 2-NO x, O 3, CO, and SO 2). These analyzers are FRM or federal equivalent method (FEM) designated monitors and include the following: a. Pulsed Fluorescence SO 2 Analyzer b. Chemiluminescent NO-NO 2-NO x Analyzer c. Gas Filter Correlation CO Analyzer d. U.V. Photometric Ozone (O 3) Analyzer 6. Ultrafine Particle Monitoring In May 2011, water-based ultrafine particle counters (TSI Model 3783) were installed at each station in the network. 7. Black Carbon Monitoring In June 2013, a real-time Aethalometer (Teledyne API Model 633) was installed at Source-Dominated. A data logger is located at each site, which automatically calculates 1-hour average of the data from the real-time continuous monitors. Averages for other time periods specified in the NAAQS and CAAQS (such as 8 hours, 24 hours or annually), are calculated after the real-time data have been reviewed and incorporated into the database in Leidos San Diego offices. Filter-based PM data are collected as continuous samples over a 24-hour period, as reported by our analytical laboratory. 4 DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Air quality is determined by the size and topography of the air basin, the local and regional meteorological influences, and the type and concentration of pollutants in the atmosphere, which are generally expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ). Comparison of these pollutant concentrations with the federal and state ambient air quality standards is often made to evaluate air quality conditions in an area. The USEPA has established the NAAQS which are maximum pollutant limits averaged over specific time periods (e.g., 1-hour, 8-hours, 24- hours, annually) and shall not be exceeded more than specified in the individual NAAQS. Annual pollutant averages are never to exceed the annual NAAQS. Primary standards are set at levels designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, including the health of sensitive populations such as children and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments delegate the enforcement of these standards to the states, which may adopt the NAAQS as state standards or establish more stringent acceptable pollutant concentration levels if they deem necessary. CARB has established a set of state 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 12 August 2016

21 standards (CAAQS) that are often more stringent than the NAAQS. There are no regulatory standards at present for EC or BC. Table 4-1 presents the California and national ambient air quality standards. Table 4-1. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Times California Standards Primary National Standards Secondary Ozone (O3) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Lead Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 8-hour ppm ppm* 1-hour ppm --- Same as Primary 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm hour 20.0 ppm 35.0 ppm --- Annual ppm ppm 1-hour ppm ppm Same as Primary 24-hour ppm hour ppm 1-hour ppm ppm day 1.5 µg/m Rolling 3-Month µg/m 3 Same as Primary Annual 20 µg/m hour 50 µg/m µg/m 3 Same as Primary Annual 12 µg/m 3 12 µg/m 3 ** 24-hour µg/m 3 Same as Primary Notes: National Primary Standards: Levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health. National Secondary Standards: Levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. * The new 8-hour O 3 NAAQS was promulgated on October 26, ** The new annual PM 2.5 NAAQS was promulgated on December 14, AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY YEAR 11 The following analysis summarizes the data collected from May 2015 through April 2016 and draws comparisons to the NAAQS and CAAQS. These summaries include the following parameters: [1] EC, [2] BC, [3] PM 2.5, [4] PM 10, [5] CO, [6] NO 2, [7] SO 2, [8] O 3, and [9] UFP. The wind speed and direction measurements collected during this period are also summarized. In addition to written summaries, the data are presented in several ways: 1. A graphical format (Figures A-1 through A-16 and A-21 through A-24 in Appendix A-1 4 ). 2. Wind roses (Figures A-17 through A-20 in Appendix A-1). 3. Summaries in Tables A-1 through A-24 (Appendix A-2). This data summary is a compilation and presentation of data collected during the eleventh year of ambient monitoring (May April 2016). These data are also available on the Port s website (filter- 4 The tabular and graphic data presentations are quite extensive, such that most figures and tables have been included in Appendix A of this report. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 13 August 2016

22 based data) at and the Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) website (real-time data) at The data summary is presented below PM Data Summary PM measurements are presented for EC, PM 2.5, and PM 10 and BC data. Filter-based monitoring began in early 2005, while the real-time monitoring (using BAMs) was initiated in EC Data EC is a pollutant which has been measured during the entire period of record, and is considered to be the most representative of the impact from Port operations, because of the diesel emissions from mobile sources operating at the Port (e.g., ships, locomotives, trucks, cargo handling equipment, and harbor craft). There are no federal or state standards for EC, but it has been used as a surrogate for DPM in the SCAQMD MATES studies. Therefore, the EC data are included to supplement the data for which there are standards. EC concentrations are measured by analyzing the PM 2.5 filters collected on the filter-based monitors located at each station. The EC data shows some patterns and trends over the course of the monitoring program. The data in Table A-1 (Appendix A-2) is also shown graphically in Figure A-1, which presents a bar graph of annual average EC concentrations from the filter-based integrated monitors over the 11-year period of record (Figure ES-1 in the Executive Summary is identical to Figure A-1). Figure A-1 shows that over the period of record, annual average EC concentrations have decreased at a greater rate than annual average PM 2.5 or PM 10 concentrations (Figures A-4 and A-8, respectively). With a few exceptions, annual average EC concentrations measured at the four stations decreased relatively steadily over the five-year period starting in about 2006 (Monitoring Year 2). During the latest five-year monitoring period ( through ), EC levels appear to have stabilized (with considerable year-to-year variability), although there appears to be a decrease in EC concentrations over the last three years. Whether this is due to activities associated with maritimerelated operations or due to emissions from other sources is unknown. Over the 11-year period of record, annually-averaged EC concentrations have shown a 64% reduction, averaged over the Portwide network. This will be discussed in more detail in the data trends section (Section 5.1). The EC monitoring data was collected in accordance with the EPA s 3-day monitoring schedule, and is presented in Table A-1 and shown graphically in Figure A-2 as monthly-averaged EC concentrations over the reporting year. The figure shows that EC concentrations were generally lower during the spring and early summer months and higher in the winter season. The observed variability in monthly average EC concentrations is likely due to seasonal meteorological variations associated with the frequency of atmospheric inversions. During the fall and winter months, when atmospheric inversions are most common, light winds and stable atmospheric conditions limit the dispersion of emissions near the earth s surface. Under these conditions, DPM emissions are effectively confined to the lower atmosphere with little convective or mechanical turbulence present to disperse emissions. During months when atmospheric inversions are most frequent, measured EC concentrations tend to increase as greater atmospheric stability at the near-surface level tends to limit dispersion. Also, EC is considered to be a more localized pollutant. Consequently, EC measurements tend to be more sitespecific than PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels, and concentrations are more influenced by local emission sources. Figure A-3 shows that during the most recent two years, peak EC concentrations during the winter months (November - January) observed at all four monitoring stations were less than previous years. Figure A-3, the monthly average EC levels since the monitoring program began, shows that there has been a remarkably consistent seasonal pattern of EC concentrations over the course of the year during the entire period of record, with maximum values occurring the fall and winter months, and minimum values during the late spring/summer period. This seasonal pattern is also seen in the corresponding figure for PM 2.5 (A-6), but it is not as consistent. A similar seasonal pattern for PM 10 (Figure A-10) is 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 14 August 2016

23 even less apparent. Figure A-3 shows a dramatic reduction in the seasonal fall and winter peaks of EC concentrations over the last three years, which supports the apparent decrease in annual average EC concentrations at all stations, also shown in Figure A-1 and discussed above. Table 4-2 presents annual average EC concentrations at the POLA Monitoring s during the past three years. Table 4-2 shows that annual average EC concentrations measured in the Port s network, with the exception of the Coastal Boundary station, have demonstrated consistent reductions over the past 3 monitoring years. Table 4-2. Annual Average EC Concentrations at POLA Monitoring s ( ) Averaging Time Annual Annual Annual Period May April 2014 May April 2015 May April 2016 Wilmington EC Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated BC Data Ambient BC concentrations have been measured at the Port s Source-Dominated station since June 2013, using a real-time Aethalometer (API Model 633). This is the newest air quality parameter to be measured within the POLA network, and being conducted at just one station at this time. The following summary includes results from the first three full years of BC monitoring (May 2013 April 2016) at the Source-Dominated station. As discussed previously, BC and EC are of interest because they are both considered surrogates for diesel particulate matter (DPM) by regulatory agencies including the SCAQMD and CARB. DPM is a very complex mixture of gases and particulates, and ambient concentrations of DPM cannot be measured directly. Hourly BC averages are collected by the realtime Aethalometers, in contrast to EC data which is collected as an integrated 24-hour filter-based sample following the EPA s three-day sampling schedule and analyzed by a laboratory. As discussed in the introduction (Section 3), BC and EC are analyzed using two different methodologies. Consequently, the absolute values of the BC and EC concentrations at the same location may differ, even though BC and EC measurements are typically highly correlated. The continuous BC dataset, measured by the Aethalometer, provides additional insight and increased temporal resolution to the DPM levels measured at the Source-Dominated station. Although BC data are collected only at the Source-Dominated station in the POLA network, the Port of Long Beach (POLB) air quality monitoring program also deploys identical real-time Aethalometers at their Inner Harbor and Outer Harbor stations. POLB allowed BC data from these stations to be included in this report for comparative purposes, which allows for a comprehensive review of BC levels in the San Pedro Bay Ports area. The SCAQMD s MATES IV report 5 provides an additional summary of BC measurements collected at ten SCAQMD stations in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The West Long Beach (WLB) station is 5 SCAQMD. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES IV. Draft Final Report, Appendix VI Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, April, th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 15 August 2016

24 of particular interest since the station was located approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the POLB Inner Harbor station. BC data for the MATES IV program was collected during an earlier time period (July 2012 to June 2013), so direct comparison of the BC data is not possible. However, BC data collected at the WLB station can be used to assess whether BC patterns currently observed at the Ports stations were also evident in the data collected at the SCAQMD s WLB site 3 years earlier. Table 4-3 presents annual average BC concentrations at the POLA Source-Dominated station and at the POLB Inner and Outer Harbor stations. The Inner Harbor monitoring station is in a location similar to POLA s Source-Dominated station, near the center of POLB s operations. The Inner Harbor station is impacted by Port operations from nearby truck distribution sites. The Outer Harbor station is located in the southern portion of the Port s harbor complex adjacent to POLB s main shipping channel, and is comparable to POLA s Coastal Boundary station, with little Port-related sources in the immediate vicinity. Table 4-3 shows that annual average BC concentrations, measured at the three Port stations, decreased during the three years that BC has been monitored, similar to the decrease seen in the EC concentrations at the POLA monitoring stations over the same time period. POLB s Outer Harbor (site furthest from center of POLB operations) measured the lowest annual BC concentration (1.08 µg/m 3 ) during the past monitoring year. Conversely, POLB s Inner Harbor station recorded the highest annual average BC concentration at 1.38 µg/m 3, which is expected due to localized emissions from Port operations. At POLA s Source-Dominated station, annual average BC concentrations (1.12 µg/m 3 ) are approximately mid-way between the BC concentrations measured at the two POLB stations. Table 4-3. Annual Average BC Concentrations at the POLA and POLB s BC Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Averaging Time Period POLA Source-Dominated POLB Inner Harbor POLB Outer Harbor Annual Annual Annual May April 2014 May April 2015 May April Note: There are no existing regulatory standards for BC data. (1) Partial year - Monitoring at the Source-Dominated station began on 6/2/ th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 16 August 2016

25 PM2.5 Data The results of the PM 2.5 monitoring program are shown in Figures A-4 through A-7 in Appendix A-1 and Tables A-3 through A-6 in Appendix A-2. These figures and tables are discussed in this section and in Section 5.1. The data in Table A-3 is shown graphically in Figure A-4, which presents a bar graph of annual average PM 2.5 concentrations from the filter-based integrated monitors over the monitoring period (Figure A-4 is also shown as Figure ES-2 in the Executive Summary). The figure shows a relatively constant decrease in PM 2.5 concentrations starting around 2006 and continuing until PM 2.5 concentrations have been roughly constant (with significant year-to year variability) since the monitoring year. As mentioned in the footnotes accompanying these tables and graphs, due to a problem with the SFS unit at the Coastal Boundary, the sample year for this site is incomplete. Since the data is unavailable during winter months during which the highest concentrations are generally observed, averages and standard comparisons likely do not include the highest concentrations. Figure A-5 provides monthly-averaged PM 2.5 concentrations during the current year. Figure A-6 presents a graph of monthly-averaged PM 2.5 concentrations from the filter-based data collected at the four stations over the entire 11-year monitoring period. At each station, there is a general tendency for higher PM 2.5 concentrations to occur in the late fall and winter. Since early 2008, PM 2.5 concentrations have also been measured at the four Port stations using realtime particulate monitors (BAMs). Figure A-7 presents a graph of real-time BAM PM 2.5 concentrations averaged on a monthly basis over the current monitoring year to illustrate the overall trend and remove day-to-day variability in the data. Patterns in filter-based and real-time measurements for the PM 2.5 monitors are similar, although real-time BAM data from the Port monitoring stations are consistently higher than PM 2.5 data collected on filter media. Real-time PM 2.5 data collected by the BAM instruments are used to supplement the integrated 24-hour data collected by the filter-based FRM units and generally have not been used for direct comparison with the NAAQS. This approach is consistent with the SCAQMD s policy 6 (SCAQMD, 2014), which proposed to EPA to exclude PM 2.5 data collected with continuous monitors from comparison with the NAAQS. The EPA offers guidance on how to request the continuous data exclusion per 40 CFR 58.11(e) since, on average this data is from 0% to 60% higher than traditional filter-based FRMs. NAAQS Comparison The 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is met when the 98 th percentile of the daily average PM 2.5 concentrations, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 35 g/m 3. The annual average NAAQS for PM 2.5 is 12 g/m 3. The three-year averages (May April 2016) of the 98 th percentile of the 24-hour average PM 2.5 concentrations at the four Port stations are less than the NAAQS (35 g/m 3 ), as shown in Table 4-4. Thus, data from the monitors show the stations are currently meeting the 24-hour average PM 2.5 NAAQS. For the current year, the annual average PM 2.5 concentrations measured by the filterbased monitors are also shown in Table 4-4. There were no exceedances of the NAAQS. 6 SCAQMD. Instructions and Template for Requesting that Data from PM 2.5 Continuous FEMs are not Compared to the NAAQS Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, April, th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 17 August 2016

26 Table 4-4. NAAQS Comparison Three-Year Average of 98 th Percentile of 24-hour, and Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations Averaging Time Period Wilmington PM 2.5 Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated NAAQS 24-hour 1 Annual May April 2016 May April Three Year Average of 98 th Percentile of 24-hour average. 2 Coastal Boundary SFS data incomplete for Year 11; sample data unavailable from November 2015 through April 2016 due to an instrument issue. CAAQS Comparison The annual PM 2.5 CAAQS is met when the annual average PM 2.5 concentration is equal to or less than 12 g/m 3. There is no separate 24-hour PM 2.5 CAAQS. For the current monitoring year, the annual average PM 2.5 concentrations measured by the filter-based monitors are shown in Table 4-5. There were no exceedances of the CAAQS. Table 4-5. CAAQS Comparison Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations PM 2.5 Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated CAAQS Annual May April Coastal Boundary SFS data incomplete for Year 11; sample data unavailable from November 2015 through April 2016 due to an instrument issue PM10 Data Starting in 2005, the initial monitoring program collected filter-based ambient PM 10 measurements at two stations within the Port s operational region of influence: the Wilmington and Coastal Boundary stations. However in early 2008, the Port completed an expansion of the monitoring program to include continuous PM 10 monitoring (using BAMs) at all four monitoring stations in the network. The results of the filter-based and continuous PM 10 monitoring data are shown in Figures A- 8 through A-11 in Appendix A-1 and Tables A-7 through A-9 in Appendix A-2. These figures and tables are discussed in this section and Section 5.1. The data in Table A-7 is shown graphically in Figure A-8, which presents a bar graph illustrating the annual average PM 10 concentrations from the filter-based integrated monitors over the monitoring period (Figure A-8 is also shown as Figure ES-3 in the Executive Summary). The graph shows a relatively constant annual average PM 10 concentration for Years 1-3 of the monitoring program ( through ) at the Wilmington station (the only long-term monitoring record for PM 10). This was followed by a relatively steady decrease in PM 10 levels during Years 4-6 ( through ). 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 18 August 2016

27 During the monitoring year (Year 7), annually-averaged PM 10 concentrations increased at both the Wilmington and Coastal Boundary stations compared to the previous year. This increase was attributed in part to large construction projects in the vicinity of both stations, which typically produce large quantities of fugitive dust due to construction activities (PM 10 is a significant component of fugitive dust). Over the past four years, PM 10 levels have decreased somewhat from the higher levels, and have been relatively stable. The monthly-averaged PM 10 data presented in Table A-7 is shown graphically in Figure A-9. The figure shows the highest monthly-averaged PM 10 concentrations generally occur during the fall and early winter periods. This is similar to the pattern observed in the PM 2.5 data. However, there are secondary peaks in PM 10 levels at the Coastal boundary station in February and April of Figure A-10 presents a graph of monthly-averaged PM 10 concentrations collected using the filterbased monitors at all stations over the 11-year period of record. PM 10 concentrations show considerable variability over the period of record. January 2014 recorded the highest monthlyaveraged PM 10 concentration since the inception of the monitoring program. The January 2014 monthly average exceeded the previously highest PM 10 concentration, which occurred during November 2007 when widespread wildfires were present in Southern California. The elevated PM 10 concentrations measured in January 2014, and generally throughout the fall and winter of , were likely due to Santa Ana wind events and generally a very dry winter season (Figures A-9 and A- 10). These conditions are conducive to wind erosion at the ground surface, resulting in elevated levels of fugitive emissions and PM 10. In addition, dispersion patterns are often present which limit vertical mixing heights and potentially transport regional SCAB pollutants to the monitoring network. The effect of the El Nino event during the current year, with subsequently greater rainfall, appears to have resulted in lower PM 10 concentrations. Since early 2008, PM 10 concentrations have also been measured at the four Port stations using realtime particulate monitors (BAMs). This PM 10 data is presented in Table A-9 and shown graphically in Figure A-11, which presents the real-time BAM PM 10 concentrations averaged on a monthly basis over the current monitoring year. The patterns of PM 10 measurements in the filter-based and real-time monitors are similar, but the real-time BAM PM 10 concentrations demonstrate more variability, and are somewhat higher. NAAQS Comparison The 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS is attained when the number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m 3 is equal to or less than one. The annual average NAAQS for PM 10 was revoked in The 24-hour maximum PM 10 concentrations are shown in Table 4-6. There were no exceedances of the federal 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS measured at any of the Port stations during the current year. The 24-hour monitoring results are also presented in Table A-6. Table 4-6. NAAQS Comparison Highest 24-hour Average PM 10 Concentrations PM 10 Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary NAAQS 24-hour May April th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 19 August 2016

28 CAAQS Comparison The 24-hour PM 10 CAAQS is 50 µg/m 3, and the annual average CAAQS is 20 µg/m 3. There was one exceedance of the 24-hour PM 10 CAAQS of 50 g/m 3 measured at the Wilmington station and two exceedances at the Coastal Boundary station during the current monitoring year, as shown in Table 4-7. Concentrations at both sites exceeded the standard on December 8 th, The second exceedance at the Coastal Boundary station recorded on September 9 th, 2015 appears to be from a localized event, elevated concentrations were not recorded at the other monitoring stations on this day. Table 4-7 shows that annual average PM 10 concentrations measured with the filter-based monitors were above the annual CAAQS of 20 g/m 3 at both monitoring sites during the current year. This is consistent with data collected throughout the SCAB, which has only recently been designated as being in maintenance for PM 10. The annually-averaged monitoring results for the entire 11-year period of record are presented in Table A-7. Table 4-7. CAAQS Comparison Highest 24-hour and Annual Average PM 10 Concentrations PM 10 Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary CAAQS 24-hour Annual May April 2016 May April Gaseous Criteria Pollutant Data Summary The Port monitoring network has collected real-time measurements for CO, NO 2, O 3, and SO 2 since These results are discussed below, arranged by individual pollutant CO Data Summary Figure A-12 illustrates monthly averaged CO concentrations over the period of record. Graphs of average monthly pollutant concentrations have been selected as a convenient scale for illustration of the main features in the data set. The highlights of this graph are: Average CO concentrations are relatively low throughout the period, compared to the short-term standards for this pollutant. There is a slight increase in CO concentrations during the winter months, presumably due to the light wind conditions and surface-based temperature inversions commonly present during this time of year, which tend to trap pollutants in the lower atmosphere. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 20 August 2016

29 NAAQS Comparison The NAAQS for CO are 9 ppm during an 8-hour period and 35 ppm during a 1-hour period, and are not to be exceeded more than once per year. During the current monitoring year, no exceedances of the NAAQS for CO were recorded at the Port s monitoring stations. During the current monitoring year, the maximum 1-hour average CO concentration recorded within the network was 4.3 ppm measured the Source Dominated station (shown in Table 4-8). This is well below the 1-hour NAAQS of 35 ppm. The maximum 8-hour average CO concentration was 2.4 ppm, measured at the Wilmington station, as shown in Table 4-8. Thus, there were no exceedances of the 8-hour NAAQS of 9 ppm. Table 4-8. NAAQS Comparison Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO Concentrations CO Concentration (ppm) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated NAAQS Max 1-hr CO Concentration Max 8-hr CO Concentration May April 2016 May April CAAQS Comparison The CAAQSs for CO are 9 ppm during an 8-hour period and 20 ppm over a 1-hour period, and are not to be exceeded. During the current monitoring year, no exceedances of the CAAQS for CO were recorded at the Port s monitoring stations, as shown in Table 4-9 below. Table 4-9. CAAQS Comparison Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO Concentrations CO Concentration (ppm) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated CAAQS Max 1-hr CO Concentration Max 8-hr CO Concentration May April 2016 May April th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 21 August 2016

30 NO2 Data Summary Figure A-13 shows the average monthly concentrations of NO 2 over the current monitoring year. The graph illustrates an annual cyclical pattern in the NO 2 concentrations. Average monthly NO 2 concentrations fall to a minimum level during the summer months and gradually increase through the winter months. There are two possible explanations for this pattern: 1. The lower concentrations in the summer may be due to the complex series of atmospheric chemical reactions that exist between NO 2 and ground-level O Surface-based temperature inversions commonly present during the winter months may trap the NO 2 closer to the ground, increasing ground level concentrations of this pollutant. NAAQS Comparison The NAAQS for NO 2 is an annual arithmetic mean of ppm. In addition, effective January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour NAAQS for NO 2 which is attained when the 3-year average of the 98 th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average does not exceed ppm. During the 12-month reporting period, neither the 1-hour average NO 2 NAAQS nor the annual average was exceeded at any of the Port s monitoring stations, as shown in Table The latest 3-year (May 2013 through April of 2016) average of the 98 th percentile 1-hour NO 2 concentration ranged from ppm at the Coastal Boundary station to ppm at the Source-Dominated station. Average concentrations from all stations were below the NAAQS of ppm. The annual average NO 2 concentration measured during the current monitoring year was a maximum of ppm at the Wilmington station, which is well below the NO 2 annual average NAAQS of ppm. Table NAAQS Comparison Three Year Average of the 98 th Percentile 1-hour Average and Annual Average NO 2 Concentrations NO2 Concentrations (ppm) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated NAAQS 1-hour * Annual May April 2016 May April * Three Year Average of 98 th Percentile of 1-hour Average 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 22 August 2016

31 CAAQS Comparison The annual average CAAQS for NO 2 is ppm, and the 1-hour CAAQS for NO 2 is ppm. Both are not to be exceeded. During the current monitoring year, the 1-hour NO 2 CAAQS of ppm was not exceeded at any of the stations, as shown in Table A maximum concentration of ppm was recorded at the Wilmington station. The maximum annual average NO 2 concentrations during the current reporting year was ppm, measured at the Wilmington station, as shown in Table The annual average NO 2 concentrations for all Port stations were below the NO 2 annual average CAAQS of ppm. Table CAAQS Compliance Maximum 1-hour and Annual NO 2 Concentrations NO2 Concentrations (ppm) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated CAAQS 1-hour Annual May April 2016 May April O3 Data Summary Figure A-14 shows the average monthly concentration of O 3 for the current monitoring year. The graph shows that O 3 concentrations peak during the summer months at each station, as photochemical reactions required to produce O 3 are stronger during the summer (O 3 is a secondary pollutant formed from VOCs and NO x in presence of sunlight). The monthly average O 3 concentrations measured at the Coastal Boundary station are generally slightly higher than the other stations, despite the fact that this station is more removed from Port operations and other localized emission sources. All of the stations are exposed to similar regional levels of O 3, but it is likely that the NO x emissions from local sources deplete the local ozone levels at the other stations through atmospheric chemical reactions. NAAQS Comparison The 8-hour average O 3 NAAQS is met when the fourth-highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than ppm. During the reporting period the Coastal Boundary site was in exceedance of the O 3 8-hour NAAQS, as shown in Table The three year average fourth-highest 8-hour O 3 concentrations ranged from ppm at the Source-Dominated station to ppm at the Coastal Boundary station. Concentrations at all other sites, except the Coastal Boundary site, are below the 8-hour NAAQS. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 23 August 2016

32 Table NAAQS Comparison 3-Year Average of Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average O 3 Concentrations O3 Concentrations (ppm) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated NAAQS 8-hour * May April * 3 Year Average of Fourth Highest 8-hr Average CAAQS Comparison The CAAQSs for O 3 are ppm during an 8-hour period and ppm over a 1-hour period, and are not to be exceeded. During the current monitoring year, exceedances of the maximum 8-hour average CAAQS were observed at the Wilmington and Coastal Boundary stations, and exceedances of the 1-hour CAAQS were observed at the Wilmington, San Pedro and Coastal Boundary stations. Maximum 1-hour average O 3 concentrations exceeded the 1-hour O 3 CAAQS of ppm at the Wilmington and San Pedro stations one time each and at the Coastal Boundary station on two days during the current monitoring year. Table 4-13 shows that the Coastal Boundary station had the highest 1-hour O 3 concentration of ppm. During the current monitoring year, the maximum 8-hour average O 3 CAAQS was exceeded on one day at the Wilmington station and four days at the Coastal Boundary station. Exceedances of the CAAQS maximum 8-hour average all occurred during September and October of Table CAAQS Comparison Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour Average O 3 Concentrations O3 Concentrations (ppm) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated CAAQS 1-hour 8-hour May April 2016 May April th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 24 August 2016

33 SO2 Data Summary Figure A-15 shows average monthly SO 2 concentrations for the current monitoring year. Figure A-15 shows that SO 2 concentrations remained low and fairly constant over the current monitoring period. NAAQS Comparison Effective August 23, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour NAAQS for SO 2 which is attained when the 3-year average of the 99 th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average does not exceed ppm. The secondary NAAQS for SO 2 is a 3-hour average that is attained if the second highest daily 3-hour maximum does not exceed ppm. (Primary standards are designed to protect public health, while secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment and damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings). During the reporting period, no exceedances of the primary and secondary NAAQSs for SO 2 were recorded at the Port s monitoring stations. The latest 3-year (May 2013 through April 2016) average of the 99 th percentile SO 2 concentrations ranged from ppm at the Coastal Boundary station to ppm at the San Pedro station, as shown in Table These are well below the 1- hour NAAQS for SO 2 of ppm. The second highest 3-hour average SO 2 concentrations measure during the current monitoring year ranged from ppm at the Wilmington station to ppm at the Source-Dominated station, as shown in Table These concentrations are well below the 3-hour average SO 2 secondary NAAQS of ppm. Table NAAQS Comparison 3 year Average of the 99 th Percentile 1-hour Daily Maximum and 2 nd Highest 3-hour Average SO 2 Concentrations SO2 Concentrations (ppm) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated NAAQS 1-hour * 3-hour ** May April 2016 May April * Three Year Average of 99 th Percentile of 1-hour daily maximums ** Second highest 3-hour Average 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 25 August 2016

34 CAAQS Comparison The CAAQS for SO 2 are ppm over a 1-hour period and ppm over a 24-hour averaging period, and are not to be exceeded. During the current monitoring year, the maximum 1-hour SO 2 concentrations ranged from ppm at the Coastal Boundary station to ppm at the San Pedro station, as shown in Table These concentrations are below the SO 2 1-hour CAAQS of ppm. The maximum 24-hour average SO 2 concentrations measured during the current monitoring year ranged from ppm at the Wilmington station to ppm at the Source-Dominated station, as shown in Table These concentrations are below the SO 2 maximum 24-hour average CAAQS of ppm. Table CAAQS Comparison Highest 1-hour and 24-hour Average SO 2 Concentrations SO2 Concentrations (ppm) Averaging Time Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated CAAQS 1-hour 24-hour May April 2016 May April Summary of Monitoring for Ultrafine Particles Particulate matter is broadly classified as coarse PM with a diameter of 2.5 to 10 µm, or fine PM with a diameter of less than 2.5 µm. Ultrafine particles (UFP) are generally defined as those with a diameter less than 0.1 µm (100 nm or nanometers). Due to their small size, UFP generally make up a very small fraction of the ambient PM 2.5 or PM 10 mass, but constitute the majority of airborne particles by number. For example, a particle mass concentration of 10 µg/m 3 is equivalent to one particle per cm 3 for particulates with a diameter of 2.5 µm, but more than 2 million particles per cm 3 for particles of a diameter of 0.02 µm (SCAQMD, 2007) 7. UFP counts are typically in the range of 10,000 to 40,000 particles/cm 3 in urban air and 40,000 to 1,000,000 particles/cm 3 near freeways, because motor vehicles are a major source of UFP (SCAQMD, 2007). A sharp reduction in the UFP count has been shown to occur meters downwind of roadways (SCAQMD, 2007). The interest in UFP arises because several health-related studies have shown that the ultrafine portion of PM may be important in determining the toxicity of ambient particulates (SCAQMD, 2007). Because of the interest in this new parameter, the Port began initial monitoring for UFP in May The instrument selected for this task is the TSI Model 3783 and measures UFP in number of particles/cm 3. This annual report includes a summary of the four complete years of UFP data. Table 4-16 shows annually-averaged UFP counts at the four stations during the last four years of monitoring. Annually-averaged UFP levels have ranged between 4,800 to 14,800 particles/cm 3. Average UFP levels have been higher at the Source-dominated station and the two 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA. Available at: 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 26 August 2016

35 stations, compared to the Coastal Boundary station. There are heavily-travelled roadways in the proximity of all of these stations with the exception of the Coastal Boundary, so it is likely these average levels reflect the influence of nearby traffic. Only the Coastal Boundary did not record at least one hour when UFP counts exceeded 50,000 particles/cm 3. The three stations with heavily-travelled roads nearby (the Source-Dominated and stations) had quite variable UFP levels during the four years of record, but year-to-year changes at the three stations had similar patterns. Particle counts were moderately high during year , considerably lower in year , again moderately high in year , and then considerably lower in the current year Table 4-16 shows that annually-averaged UFP counts at the Wilmington station demonstrate the most year-to-year variability: in the second year, particle counts dropped almost 50% from levels measured in the first year, from 14,800 to 7,800 particles/cm 3. During the third year, particle counts increased nearly 100% back to 14,000 particles/cm 3, and decreased by 50% again in the fourth year down to 7,500 particles/cm 3. It is not clear if this pattern results from external events, or if it simply reflects typical year-to-year variability in particle counts in the area. Contrasting the UFP patterns at the Source-Dominated and stations, annually-averaged UFP counts at the Coastal Boundary station demonstrate a consistent decrease over the four-year period of record. As mentioned above, there are no heavily-travelled roads in the vicinity of the Coastal Boundary station, and it is located adjacent to the ocean, so it has significantly lower exposure to localized sources of ultra-fine particles. Table Annual Average Ultrafine Particle Counts Ultrafine Particle Counts (particles/cm 3 ) Period Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source- Dominated May April ,800 6,600 12,700 12,100 May April ,800 6,300 8,000 9,000 May April ,000 5,400 14,000 12,400 May April ,500 4,800 8,300 9,700 Distribution of UFP Data Another manner to present UFP data is through the use of pollution roses, which plot hourly UFP data with the corresponding hourly wind direction. Pollution roses provide an indication of wind directions during periods of low and high UFP measurements. UFP pollution roses are also helpful in providing insight into the location of potential sources impacting a particular station. The concept is similar to a wind rose and provides a distribution of the UFP count levels by wind direction. Figures A-21 through A-24 provide UFP pollution plots for each station. To clarify the graphs, the UFP counts are subdivided into three color-coded categories: <25,000 particles/cm 3 (green); between 25,000 and 50,000 particles/cm 3 (blue); and >50,000 particles/cm 3 (red). Each point on the graph represents the average hourly UFP count (number/cm 3 ) and associated average wind direction during that hour. The distance the point is located from the center of the graph represents the magnitude of the UFP count. The three concentric rings (representing 25,000, 50,000 and 100,000 particles/cm 3 ) help the interpretation of UFP levels on the graph. The largest number of high hourly UFP counts (>50,000 particles/cm 3 ) was measured to the northeast of the San Pedro station, in the direction of the ships berthed along the main ship channel, and to the northwest and north of the Wilmington station, in the direction of the heavily- 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 27 August 2016

36 travelled West Anaheim Street. The Coastal Boundary station has the greatest number of green dots (lowest UFP counts) and zero hours recording high UFP counts (>50,000 particles/cm 3 in red). This reinforces the discussion above, which indicates that the Coastal Boundary station is located in an area with minimal UFP sources Meteorological Data The meteorological data collected at each of the four stations are useful in interpreting the air quality data collected at each site. In addition, the meteorological data sets can be used in air dispersion modeling and other data analyses. Wind roses, which graphically illustrate the frequency and direction of wind speed at a site, have been constructed using the wind data collected by this monitoring program. By convention, winds are shown in the direction from which they came; for example, a west wind blows from the west. Data from the most recent reporting year ( ) were used to develop the wind roses that are projected on the Port base map in Figure Wind roses were also created using the meteorological data collected at each station for the current monitoring year, and are shown in Appendix A-1 as Figures A-17 through A-20. The wind roses at each station during the reporting period of are very similar to the historical wind roses from earlier years, showing that year-to-year annual wind flow patterns are quite consistent. However, the predominant wind patterns at the individual stations are considerably different, indicating that the San Pedro Bay Ports area experiences complex air flow patterns. The wind data is therefore an important component in improving our understanding of how local emissions are dispersed. 8 The wind speed scale typically included with a wind rose is not shown on Figure 4-1 for clarity. The full wind roses, with wind speed scales included, are provided in Figures A-16 to A-19 in Appendix A th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 28 August 2016

37 Figure 4-1. Wind Roses for Port Air Monitoring s: May 2015 to April th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 29 August 2016

38 4.3 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE Several quality assurance (QA) measures have been incorporated into this program. These QA measures include: 1. Collocated monitors at the Wilmington station. The Desert Research Institute (DRI) SFS used at each site for speciation sample collection are not FRM monitors. PM 2.5 and PM 10 FRM monitors are collocated with the SFS at the Wilmington station to validate the operation of the SFS monitors in the Port monitoring network. 2. Field blanks were periodically taken at each station to ensure that there was no systematic contamination of the filters. 3. Monitoring checklists were routinely completed by the field technicians during every station visit, conducted on a third-day schedule. 4. Semi-annual external audits of the system were performed by an independent contractor. 5 Trend Analysis With eleven years of data for the filter-based monitors and eight years of data for the real-time instruments, an analysis of overall air quality data trends was conducted. This analysis uses annual averages to assess long-term trends in the datasets, even if there are no annual standards for a particular pollutant. Ambient air pollution levels near the San Pedro Bay are influenced by a number of factors including local pollutant emissions, regional air pollution levels, and meteorology. Several important criteria air pollutants (i.e., ozone, PM 2.5) are created (in whole or in part) by chemical reactions which occur after the release of emissions into the atmosphere. As such, concentrations from these pollutants are expected to be more regional in nature. Others pollutants, like SO 2, are more localized and can be directly influenced by nearby emissions sources. Based on the latest available Port Emissions Inventory, emissions from mobile sources operating at the Port are estimated to contribute approximately 4.4% of the regional nitrogen oxide (NO X) emissions and 4.8% of the regional DPM emissions in 2015; the regional contribution of NOx and DPM emissions from mobile sources operating at the Port has been relatively constant during recent years while the Port s contribution to regional SOx emissions continues to trend lower. 9 Between 2005, the CAAP baseline year, and 2015, emissions associated with Port of Los Angeles operations showed an 85% reduction in DPM, a 97% reduction in sulfur oxides (SOx) and a 51% reduction in NOx. These emission reductions were due to a number of factors including the successful implementation of control measures under the CAAP and voluntary tenant actions, along with state regulatory action, which have significantly reduced emissions rates from goods movement sources such as heavy duty trucks, ocean going vessels, and cargo handling equipment. Over the same timeframe, container throughput at the Port has increased by approximately 9% since 2005, the CAAP baseline year. Meteorology can also have a significant influence on regional air pollution levels from one year to the next. So while CAAP measures have improved air emission levels, it is not presently known how much of any decrease (or increase) in ambient air pollutant concentrations measured at the Port air monitoring stations can be directly attributed to the Port s goods movement-focused control measures under the CAAP. 5.1 TRENDS IN EC, BC, PM2.5, AND PM10 DATA Eleven years of EC, PM 2.5, and PM 10 data are now available from the Port s air monitoring network, which allow for trend analysis over the period of record for PM data from the network. Figures Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions Starcrest Consulting Group LLC. ( July th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 30 August 2016

39 through 5-4 present the annual and maximum hourly averages EC, PM 2.5, and PM 10 data collected by the filter-based monitors in the Port s air monitoring network over the 11-year period of record. BC is a pollutant for which monitoring has been conducted only over the last three years. Consequently, the BC dataset is not as extensive as the other PM parameters measured in this monitoring program; however, BC is an important pollutant as it is considered a surrogate for DPM and the initial trends evident in the BC dataset show some interesting characteristics Trends in EC Concentrations Figure 5-1 shows that annually-averaged EC concentrations have decreased significantly over the 11- year monitoring record at the four Port stations. These data are shown in Table A-1 as well. Reductions in annually-averaged EC concentrations over the period of record range from 59 percent at the San Pedro station to 80 percent at the Source-Dominated station. The average reduction in annually-averaged EC concentrations is 64 percent across the four-station monitoring network. For the period of record, the 64 percent decrease in EC concentrations is greater than the 32 percent reduction in PM 2.5 levels over the same period (Figure 5-2). Figure 5-1. Annual Average EC Concentrations over the Period of Record As previously discussed, EC is considered as a surrogate for DPM. With the 11-year EC dataset, analysis can be performed to estimate of how well measured EC concentrations track with DPM emissions. This analysis employs the Port s Emissions Inventory (EI) to compare reductions in DPM emissions from mobile sources operating at the Port in against measured reductions in EC concentrations over the same time period. Annual EC levels show a consistent trend of decreasing concentrations from the to the reporting periods. Annually-averaged EC concentrations have been relatively constant over the last five years with some variability from station-to-station (decreasing at two stations and slightly increasing at two stations). The strong overall decrease during the 11-year period of record is likely a reflection of reductions in DPM emissions (EC is a surrogate) as a result of the emission control measures implemented by the CAAP program. The large decrease in annually-averaged EC 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 31 August 2016

40 concentrations over the period of record may be due to the more localized nature of EC. It appears that EC concentrations tend to be more sensitive to nearby emission sources than PM 2.5 and PM 10. Although EC data are collected at all four stations, data collected at the Source-Dominated station located near the center of Port activity should be most representative of EC levels for Port-related operations. There are a number of reasons why this analysis is not exact: 1) Variety of DPM emission sources in the area (e.g., non-port-related vehicle emissions); 2) The nature of widely-scattered, individual DPM emission sources around the Port versus passive EC monitoring with measurements collected at a single location; and 3) The influence of long-term meteorological patterns on the dispersion of DPM emissions. Regardless, there appears to be a positive correlation between DPM emission reductions and reductions in measured EC concentrations at the Port monitoring stations. From 2005 to 2015 (the latest available year for Port emissions), annual DPM emissions decreased by 85 percent, while annual average EC measurements at the Source-Dominated station from monitoring year to monitoring year decreased by 80 percent (Table A-1). Thus, EC measurements at the Port appear to track DPM emission reductions well. Figure A-3 in Appendix A-1 shows monthly-averaged EC concentrations over the period of record for each station. The dramatic seasonal variations are clearly evident with peaks in the fall/early winter and valleys in the spring/summer period. Also evident in Figure A-3 is the strong trend of decreasing maximum and decreasing minimum EC concentrations within each year, particularly during the first six years of the program Trends in BC Concentrations With only three years of black carbon data available from the POLA monitoring network, trend analysis for BC concentrations was not performed in a similar manner (historical annual analysis) to the approach used for other pollutants. However, the BC dataset allows for detailed trend analysis by season, as well as analysis of diurnal variations and by day-of-week. Availability of BC data from the POLB monitoring network allows expansion of the analysis to the entire San Pedro Ports area. Figure 5-2 presents a seasonal average comparison of BC concentrations at POLA s Source- Dominated station with corresponding BC data from POLB s monitoring stations for the current monitoring year ( ). These data are also shown in Table A-2. There is significant seasonal variation of BC concentrations at the stations, with each station following a similar pattern. The winter season (defined as December, January and February) consistently has the highest BC levels, averaging approximately 1.95 µg/m 3 over the three stations. During the fall season (defined as September, October and November), the measured BC levels were somewhat lower, averaging 1.46 µg/m 3. The lowest seasonally-averaged BC concentrations (0.66 µg/m 3 ) were measured during the spring season (defined as March, April, and May). BC levels measured during the summer are approximately 66 percent less than BC levels measured during the winter months. This is likely the result of lower ambient temperatures during the winter months leading to decreased nocturnal mixing. Under those conditions, there is generally less atmospheric dispersion leading to higher pollutant concentrations of near-ground emission sources (typical of emissions in the vicinity of the Ports). Seasonal BC levels at the SCAQMD s West Long Beach station during the earlier period were comparable to these levels. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 32 August 2016

41 Figure 5-2. Seasonal Averages of Black Carbon Concentrations Figure 5-3 shows the diurnal variation of BC concentrations at the Ports three stations during the current monitoring year ( ). Examination of Figure 5-3 illustrates a distinct profile in BC levels. The highest concentrations occur during the late evening and morning hours, overnight from approximately 2100 to the 0900 hour the next morning. Conversely, the lowest BC concentrations are generally measured during the mid-day hours from about 1100 to 1800 hours. During the overnight hours, the boundary layer mixing height is generally lower than during the day which results in less mechanical and convective turbulence. With less overall dispersion of pollutants, BC levels tend to rise overnight and subsequently decrease during the day as convection increases the boundary layer height (convective dispersion) and onshore winds pick up, which enhances mechanical turbulence. Anthropogenic influences also impact BC levels as increased car and truck traffic results during the morning rush hour combines with minimal dispersion to result in higher BC emissions on average. At the Source-Dominated station, a secondary peak is evident just after midnight. During the afternoon hours, average BC concentrations at the three Ports stations were between 50% and 60% lower than average BC concentrations during the morning hours. This pattern was also observed at the SCAQMD MATES IV stations. The amplitude of the diurnal variation of BC concentrations is lowest at POLB s Gull Park (Outer Harbor) station, which (similar to the Coastal Boundary station) is at some distance from heavily-travelled roads. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 33 August 2016

42 Figure 5-3. Diurnal Variation in BC Concentrations at the Port Monitoring s during Monitoring Year Figure 5-4 shows the diurnal pattern of BC concentrations for each of the four seasons at POLA s Source-Dominated station. In the fall and winter seasons, two distinct peaks are observed. One peak occurs just after midnight and the second occurs during the morning rush hour. During the spring and summer seasons, the amplitude of these peaks is greatly reduced compared to the fall and winter months, to the point where there is only a slight increase in BC levels during the morning (and evening) rush hours. This is likely due to the increased mixing layer height and reduced nocturnal inversion levels during the spring and summer months. The increase in convective turbulence creates more dispersion and lower concentrations during these seasons. The seasonal patterns are even more noticeable in Figure 5-5, which shows diurnal variation by season at the POLB Outer Harbor station. Since the Outer Harbor station is located some distance away from localized emission sources, the early morning and rush hour peaks in BC are observed clearly in the fall and winter months; however these peaks are not evident during the summer months when diurnal BC levels are fairly consistent throughout the day. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 34 August 2016

43 Figure 5-4. Seasonally-Averaged BC at Source Dominated Diurnal Variation Figure 5-5. Seasonally-Averaged BC at POLB Outer Harbor Diurnal Variation 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 35 August 2016

44 Additional insight into BC levels at the Ports monitoring stations can been seen in Figure 5-6, which presents annually-averaged BC concentrations by day of the week for the monitoring year. These data are also shown in Table A-2. The objective of this analysis was to determine if there was a weekday/weekend effect in BC concentrations, due to expected changes in emissions due to operations at the Ports. As illustrated in the figure, the period from Tuesday through Friday has the highest average BC concentrations, without somewhat lower concentrations during the weekends. The amplitude of the average daily variation of BC concentrations is greatest at the Superblock station, which also has the highest number of localized sources of BC concentrations Figure 5-6. Annually-Averaged BC Concentrations at Port s - Day of the Week Trends in PM2.5 Concentrations Annually averaged PM 2.5 concentrations at each station over the current monitoring year are shown in Figure 5-7, below. The figure shows that annually-averaged PM 2.5 concentrations have varied considerably over the 11-year monitoring record. However across the four Port stations, annuallyaveraged PM 2.5 concentrations have decreased by 43 percent over the period of record (using the Year 10 data from Berth 47 as Year 11 is incomplete). The measured reduction in annually-averaged PM 2.5 concentrations ranges from a decrease of 54 percent at the Source-Dominated station to a decrease of 33 percent at the Wilmington station. The big decrease in PM 2.5 concentrations at the Source-Dominated station probably reflects, at least in part, the improved emission controls on Port-related operations. Over the 11-year monitoring period, annual average PM 2.5 concentrations decreased by 54 percent at the Source-Dominated station, and by 43 percent across the entire POLA network. This 43 percent reduction in measured PM 2.5 concentrations is considerably less than the 83 percent reduction in Portwide PM 2.5 emissions during the period. The percentage reduction in annually-averaged PM 2.5 concentrations in the Port s monitoring network does not match the larger reductions observed 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 36 August 2016

45 in the Port s ambient EC measurements. This is likely due to the distinct characteristics and different emission sources of these two pollutants. The 2015 Port Emissions Inventory shows that the Port contributes 4.8 percent of the DPM (EC) emissions in the SCAB, but only 0.6 percent of the PM 2.5 emissions in the SCAB 10. Thus, PM 2.5 is primarily a regional pollutant and localized PM 2.5 emission reductions by the Port can be expected to have less impact on ambient levels of this pollutant. Because EC is more of a localized pollutant, Portfocused emission reduction measures in the CAAP are more effective in reducing ambient EC levels. During the last seven years, annually-averaged PM 2.5 concentrations have been below the NAAQS and CAAQS (12 µg/m 3 ) at all stations. These data are also shown in Table A-3. Figure 5-7 illustrates the decreasing trend in annual average PM 2.5 concentrations. The decrease is relatively consistent over a five-year period from to During the past six monitoring years ( to ), annually-averaged PM 2.5 concentrations have remained at approximately the same overall level, with occasional year-to-year increases evident at each of the stations sometime during this period. Figure 5-7. Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations over the Period of Record * Coastal Boundary SFS data incomplete for Year 11; sample data unavailable from November 2015 through April 2016 due to an instrument issue. Figure 5-8 shows the 98 th percentile of 24-hour averaged PM 2.5 concentration over the 11-year period of monitoring record. Overall, PM 2.5 concentrations have varied, from a decrease of 60 percent at the Source-dominated station to a decrease of 44% at the Wilmington station. This trend is similar to the decreases observed in annually averaged PM 2.5 concentrations. The 98 th percentile 10 Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions Starcrest Consulting Group LLC. ( July th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 37 August 2016

46 values are presented to be consistent with the form of the 24-hour NAAQS standard. The 98 th percentile of 24-hour averaged PM 2.5 concentrations for the filter-based samplers is the secondhighest measurement in a year, and thus it is much more sensitive to the highest concentrations measured within a given year than is the overall annual average. Consequently, there is more variability shown within the period of record at each station in Figure 5-8 (98 th percentile) than in Figure 5-7 (annual average). Nevertheless, the general trend of lower PM 2.5 concentrations over the period of record is evident in the figure. Figure th Percentile of 24-Hour Averaged PM 2.5 Concentrations over the Period of Record * Coastal Boundary SFS data incomplete for Year 11; sample data unavailable from November 2015 through April 2016 due to an instrument issue Trends in PM10 Concentrations Figure 5-9 shows that annually-averaged PM 10 concentrations at the Wilmington station decreased over the first six years (through 2011) of the 11-year period of record, followed by an increase in 2011/2012, and then a moderate decrease over the past four years. Overall, there has been a 16 percent decrease in PM 10 concentrations over the 11- year monitoring record. No distinct year-to-year trend is clearly apparent and annually-averaged PM 10 concentrations have been rather variable over the period of record. The increase in annually-averaged PM 10 concentrations in monitoring Year 7 ( ) is believed to be a result of extensive, long-term construction projects near the stations during that year. Localized activities such as construction projects typically produce large quantities of fugitive emissions, which can cause significant increases in PM 10 measurements. Annually-averaged PM 10 concentrations at both stations over the period of record are shown in Figure 5-9, below (the period of record for the Coastal Boundary station is 7 years). Figure 5-9 illustrates that most of the decrease in PM 10 concentrations has occurred during the three-year period from th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 38 August 2016

47 2009 through , with the increases measured in the monitoring year likely due to construction activities, as discussed earlier. Figure A-10 in Appendix A-1 shows monthly averaged PM 10 concentrations over the period of monitoring record. There is less of a seasonal trend in PM 10 concentrations compared to PM 2.5 concentrations, which may be due to PM 10 emissions source types (primarily fugitive emissions from construction activities, open areas, and roads). Figure 5-9. Annual Average PM 10 Concentrations over the Period of Record Figure 5-10 shows the maximum 24-hour PM 10 concentrations at the Wilmington and Coastal Boundary stations over the period of record. It is evident from the figure that the maximum PM 10 concentrations measured within a year show greater year-to-year variability than the annual PM 10 concentrations. This is likely because the maximum concentrations within a year will result from specific, infrequent, outlier conditions or events, rather than long-term pollutant trends. For example, the highest PM 10 concentrations ever recorded during the program occurred in October and November 2007, when large wildfires were present throughout southern California. The second highest PM 10 concentrations were measured during the year, and were a result of a large weekend carnival that was held in May at the St. Peter and Paul School, where the Wilmington is located. Therefore, the maximum 24-hour PM 10 concentrations tend to be dependent on specific events or conditions, and are not necessarily indicative of overall trends in PM 10 levels. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 39 August 2016

48 Figure Maximum 24-Hour Average PM 10 Concentrations over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 40 August 2016

49 5.2 TRENDS IN GASEOUS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Real-time instruments measuring gaseous criteria pollutants were installed and operational in early Seven complete years are available to evaluate data trends for gaseous criteria pollutants Trends in CO Concentrations Figure 5-11 presents the maximum 1-hour CO concentrations measured at the four stations within the Port s air monitoring network over the eight-year period that the real-time instrumentation has been operational (i.e., since early 2008). These data are also shown in Table A-10. Figure Maximum 1-hour CO Concentrations over the Period of Record The maximum 1-hour CO concentrations show no discernible trend, with all stations showing relatively low maximum CO concentrations throughout the period of record. This is probably reflective of the lack of large sources of CO emissions present around the monitoring stations. All 1-hour maximum values are well below the 1-hour CO NAAQS of 35 ppm and 1-hour CO CAAQS of 20 ppm. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 41 August 2016

50 Figure 5-12 presents the maximum 8-hour CO concentrations measured at the four stations within the Port s air monitoring network over the eight-year period of monitoring record. These data are also shown in Table A-11. The maximum 8-hour CO concentrations also show no discernible trend, and all of the 8-hour maximum values are below the 8-hour CO NAAQS and CAAQS of 9 ppm. Because these concentrations are the highest daily values recorded during a year, they are likely to be more variable from year to year. Figure Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 42 August 2016

51 5.2.2 Trends in NO2 Concentrations Figure 5-13 presents the 98 th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour NO 2 concentrations at the four stations in the Port s air monitoring network over the eight-year period of record. These data are also shown in Table A-13. The figure shows a moderate decrease in the 98 th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour NO 2 concentrations over the eight-year period of record. During the current year, these NO 2 concentrations were almost identical at all four stations, and well below the applicable NAAQS. The 98 th percentile daily maximum 1-hour NO 2 concentrations in a given year can be very sensitive to a few high measurements. For example, a detailed review of the data during the reporting year showed that the maximum 1-hour NO 2 concentrations ever recorded during this monitoring program occurred at the San Pedro station during December This may have been a result of repaving the parking lot that is adjacent to the station, which occurred during that time period. Therefore, it is likely that the higher NO x concentrations measured during that year were probably an anomaly due to the unusual construction activity near the San Pedro station. In subsequent years, the 98 th percentile daily maximum 1-hour NO 2 concentrations have dropped considerably at that station. Figure th Percentile of the Daily Maximum 1-Hour NO 2 Concentration over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 43 August 2016

52 Figure 5-14 presents maximum 1-hour NO 2 concentrations at the four stations in the Port s air monitoring network over the eight-year period of record. These data are also shown in Table A-14. Similar to the data presented in Figure 5-8, the maximum hourly NO 2 concentrations were highest at the San Pedro station during the year. This appears to be an anomaly, as discussed above. The maximum 1-hour NO 2 concentrations appear to show a slight decrease over the eight-year period of record. Figure Maximum 1-Hour NO 2 Concentrations over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 44 August 2016

53 Figure 5-15 presents the annual average NO 2 concentrations at the four stations over the eight-year period of record. These data are also shown in Table A-15. The annual NO 2 concentrations have not exceeded the NAAQS or CAAQS during the period of record. There has been a moderate decrease in annual average NO 2 concentrations over the eight-year period of record, ranging from 15 to 27 percent. Figure Annual NO 2 Concentrations over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 45 August 2016

54 5.2.3 Trends in O3 Concentrations Figure 5-16 presents the fourth-highest average 8-hour O 3 concentrations at the four stations in the Port s air monitoring network over the eight-year period of monitoring record. These data are also shown in Table A-17. Very small trends in O 3 concentrations are observed at the individual stations during this period, ranging from a decrease of 8 percent to an increase of 13 percent. Because O 3 is a secondary pollutant that takes several hours to form from volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight, ozone concentrations are more reflective of regional air quality pollutant levels in the SCAB rather than localized pollutant levels. Figure Fourth Highest Average 8-Hour O 3 Concentrations over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 46 August 2016

55 Figure 5-17 presents the maximum 8-hour O 3 concentration for the eight-year period of record. These data are also shown in Table A-19. The maximum 8-hour concentrations have shown a decrease at each station during the period of record, ranging from 8 percent at the Wilmington station to 27 percent at the Source-Dominated station. Figure Maximum 8-Hour O 3 Concentrations over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 47 August 2016

56 Figure 5-18 presents the maximum 1-hour O 3 concentrations at the four sites for the eight-year period of record. These data are also shown in Table A-18. The maximum 1-hour concentrations do not show a consistent pattern, with highest concentrations measured at all stations in , but relatively similar concentrations for the rest of the period of record, with no consistent trend. Because O 3 is generally more of a regional pollutant, and the maximum 1-hour concentrations will be affected by the highest measurements that occur within a year, it is difficult to draw any conclusions from these data. Figure Maximum 1-Hour O 3 Concentrations over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 48 August 2016

57 5.2.4 Trends in SO2 Concentrations Figure 5-19 presents the 99 th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum SO 2 concentrations at the four stations in the Port s air monitoring network over the eight-year period of record. These data are also shown in Table A-21. The figure shows that although there were some yearly fluctuations in maximum SO 2 concentrations, there is an overall pattern of decreasing concentrations. During this eight-year period, the 1-hour daily maximum SO 2 concentrations decreased an average of 39 percent across the four stations. Figure th Percentile of 1-Hour Daily Maximum SO 2 Concentrations over Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 49 August 2016

58 Figure 5-20 presents the maximum 1-hour SO 2 concentration for the eight-year period of record. These data are also shown in Table A-22. The maximum 1-hour concentrations vary considerably among the stations and from year-to-year, as might be expected when considering the maximum annual SO 2 concentrations. The highest maximum 1-hr SO 2 concentration was measured during at the Coastal Boundary station and likely occurred during a short-term berthing of a ship at Berth 47, which is adjacent to the Coastal Boundary station. Figure Maximum 1-Hour SO 2 Concentrations over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 50 August 2016

59 Figure 5-21 presents the maximum 24-hour SO 2 concentrations at the four sites for the eight-year period of record. These data are also shown in Table A-23. Maximum 24-hour SO 2 concentrations have dropped from 46 percent at the Coastal Boundary station to 62 percent at the Wilmington station during the eight-year period of record. Figure Maximum 24-Hour SO 2 Concentration over the Period of Record 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 51 August 2016

60 6 Conclusions This report presents a summary of the monitoring data collected by the Port s air quality monitoring program during the 12-month period of May 2015 to April In addition, data trends are presented for filter (PM/EC) measurements for the 11-year period (May 2005 through April 2016) of monitoring record and for gaseous criteria pollutant data for the 8-year period (May 2008 through April 2016) of monitoring record. BC data and trends over the last three years are also presented. During the current reporting monitoring period there was one exceedance of a NAAQS. The 8-hour ozone standard was slightly exceeded at the Coastal Boundary station. There were also a few exceedances of the more restrictive CAAQS recorded by the Port s monitoring program: The 24-hour and annual PM 10 CAAQS were exceeded based on measurements from the filter-based monitor at both the Coastal Boundary and Wilmington stations. The high 24-hour readings were taken on December 8 th, 2015 at both sites and on September 9 th, 2015 at the Coastal Boundary site. The 1-hour O 3 CAAQS was exceeded at the Wilmington, San Pedro and Coastal Boundary stations and the 8-hour O 3 CAAQS was exceeded at the Wilmington and Coastal Boundary stations. The SCAB has been designated by EPA as nonattainment for ozone and PM 2.5, and it is designated as a maintenance area for PM 10. Average decreases of 43 and 64 percent in annual average PM 2.5 and EC concentrations, respectively, have been measured across the four-station monitoring network over the 11-year period of record. There was no significant change in annually-averaged PM 10 concentrations evident over the same time period. 11 th Year Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 52 August 2016

61 Appendix A Port of Los Angeles Monitoring Program Annual Report May April 2016 Figures and Tables

62 Appendix A1 Port of Los Angeles Monitoring Program Annual Report May April 2016 Summary Figures of Monitoring Results

63 Appendix A-1 Table of Contents Figure Page Figure A-1. Annual Average Filter-Based Elemental Carbon Concentrations at POLA Monitoring Years A-1 Figure A-2. Monthly Average Filter-Based Elemental Carbon Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-2 Figure A-3. Monthly Average Filter-Based Elemental Carbon Concentrations at POLA February 2005 April A-3 Figure A-4. Annual Average Filter-Based PM 2.5 Concentrations at POLA Monitoring Years A-4 Figure A-5. Monthly Average Filter-Based PM 2.5 Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-5 Figure A-6. Monthly Average Filter-Based PM 2.5 Concentrations at POLA February 2005 April A-6 Figure A-7. Monthly Average BAM PM 2.5 Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-7 Figure A-8. Annual Average Filter-Based PM 10 Concentrations at POLA Monitoring Years A-8 Figure A-9. Monthly Average Filter-Based PM 10 Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-9 Figure A-10. Monthly Average Filter-Based PM 10 Concentrations at POLA February 2005 April A-10 Figure A-11. Monthly Average BAM PM 10 Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-11 Figure A-12. Monthly Average CO Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-12 Figure A-13. Monthly Average NO 2 Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-13 Figure A-14. Monthly Average O 3 Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-14 Figure A-15. Monthly Average SO 2 Concentrations at POLA May 2015 April A-15 Figure A-16. Monthly Average BC Concentrations at POLA and POLB May 2015 April A-16 Figure A-17. Coastal Boundary Year 11 Wind Rose... A-17 Figure A-18. Source-Dominated Year 11 Wind Rose... A-18 Figure A-19. Wilmington Year 11 Wind Rose... A-19 Figure A-20. San Pedro Year 11 Wind Rose... A-20 Figure A-21. Coastal Boundary Ultrafine Particle Count Pollution Rose May 2015 April A-21 Figure A-22. San Pedro Ultrafine Particle Count Pollution Rose May 2015 April A-22 Figure A-23. Wilmington Ultrafine Particle Count Pollution Rose May 2015 April A-23 Figure A-24. Source-Dominated Ultrafine Particle Count Pollution Rose May 2015 April A-24

64 Annual Average Elemental Carbon Conc. (µg/m 3 ) Figure A-1 Annual Average Filter-Based Elemental Carbon Concentrations at the Port of Los Angeles (Monitoring Years 1-11) Wilmington Coastal Boundary San Pedro Source-Dominated 0 May 05 - Apr 06 May 06 - Apr 07 May 07 - Apr 08 May 08 - Apr 09 May 09 - Apr 10 May 10 - Apr 11 Year May 11 - Apr 12 May 12 - Apr 13 May 13 - Apr 14 May 14 - Apr 15 May 15 - Apr 16 A-1

65 Elemental Carbon Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Figure A-2 Monthly Average Filter-Based Elemental Carbon Concentrations at the Port of Los Angeles (May April 2016) Wilmington Site Coastal Boundary San Pedro Site Source-Dominated 0 Month A-2

66 Elemental Carbon Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Figure A-3 Monthly Average Filter-Based Elemental Carbon Concentrations at the Port of Los Angeles (February April 2016) Wilmington Site Coastal Boundary San Pedro Site Source-Dominated 0 Month A-3

67 Annual Average PM 2.5 Conc. (µg/m 3 ) Figure A-4 Annual Average Filter-Based PM 2.5 Concentrations at the Port of Los Angeles (Monitoring Years 1-11) Coastal Boundary San Pedro Wilmington Source-Dominated Annual Average NAAQS/CAAQS 0 May 05 - Apr 06 May 06 - Apr 07 May 07 - Apr 08 May 08 - Apr 09 May 09 - Apr 10 May 10 - Apr 11 Year May 11 - Apr 12 May 12 - Apr 13 May 13 - Apr 14 May 14 - Apr 15 May 15 - Apr 16 * Note: Coastal Boundary SFS data incomplete for Year 11; sample data unavailable from November 2015 through April 2016 due to an instrument issue. A-4