GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Air Protection Branch Ambient Monitoring Program 2006 Ambient Air Surveillance Report 2005-2006 Risk Assessment Discussion This document is published annually by the Ambient Monitoring Program, in the Air Protection Branch of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Date of Initial Publication November 1, 2007 Table of Contents List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................v Executive Summary .................................................................................................................1 Glossary ...................................................................................................................................3 Introduction...............................................................................................................................5 Chemical Monitoring Activities..................................................................................................7 Carbon Monoxide (CO) .....................................................................................14 Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOx and NOy)....................................................16 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)..........................................................................................20 Ozone (O3)........................................................................................................22 Lead ..................................................................................................................31 Particulate Matter..............................................................................................33 PM10 ..................................................................................................................34 PM2.5 .................................................................................................................39 PM2.5 Speciation ...............................................................................................47 Acid Precipitation ..............................................................................................55 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) ......................................................61 Carbonyl Compounds .......................................................................................67 Air Toxics Monitoring ..............................................................................................................75 Metals ...............................................................................................................77 Hexavalent Chromium ......................................................................................85 Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) ..........................................................87 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................................................93 Meteorological Report ............................................................................................................99 Summary of Meteorological Measurements (2006) ........................................101 Select Meteorological and Air Quality Case Studies for 2006 .........................105 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................109 Quality Control and Quality Assessment.........................................................110 Gaseous Pollutants.........................................................................................111 Particulate Matter............................................................................................113 Air Toxics ........................................................................................................117 NATTS ............................................................................................................126 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring ..........................................................131 Meteorology ....................................................................................................132 Quality Control Reports...................................................................................134 Standards Laboratory .....................................................................................134 Laboratory and Field Standard Operating Procedures....................................134 Siting Evaluations ...........................................................................................134 2005-2006 Risk Assessment Discussion..............................................................................137 Introduction .....................................................................................................137 Results and Interpretation ...............................................................................137 Summary and Discussion ...............................................................................158 Outreach and Education.......................................................................................................163 Media Outreach ..............................................................................................166 Other Outreach Opportunities .........................................................................166 Appendix A: Additional Criteria Pollutant Data .....................................................................169 Carbon Monoxide (CO) ...................................................................................169 i Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)................................................................................... 169 Nitric Oxide (NO) ............................................................................................ 169 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) ............................................................................... 170 Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen (NOy) ................................................................ 170 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) ....................................................................................... 171 Ozone (O3) ..................................................................................................... 172 Lead (Pb) ....................................................................................................... 174 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) ....................................................................... 175 Particulate Matter (PM10)................................................................................ 178 Appendix B: Additional PM2.5 Particle Speciation Data........................................................ 181 Appendix C: Additional Meteorological Data........................................................................ 187 Appendix D: Additional PAMS Data..................................................................................... 195 PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June- August 2006)........................... 195 PAMS 2006 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons ................................................. 201 Appendix E: Additional Toxics Data..................................................................................... 207 2006 Metals.................................................................................................... 207 2006 Semi-Volatile Compounds ..................................................................... 212 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds................................................................. 219 2006 Carbonyl Compounds, 24-hour ............................................................. 238 2006 Carbonyl Compounds, 3-hour (June-August) ....................................... 239 Appendix F: Monitoring Network Survey.............................................................................. 241 Appendix G: Siting Criteria .................................................................................................. 247 Appendix H: Instrument and Sensor Control Limits ............................................................. 249 References .......................................................................................................................... 251 ii List of Figures Figure 1: North Georgia Air Monitoring Site Map....................................................................12 Figure 2: South Georgia Air Monitoring Site Map ...................................................................13 Figure 3: Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Site Map ...................................................................15 Figure 4: Oxides of Nitrogen Monitoring Site Map..................................................................19 Figure 5: Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Site Map .........................................................................21 Figure 6: Typical Urban 1-Hour Ozone Diurnal Pattern ..........................................................22 Figure 7: Ozone Formation Process.......................................................................................23 Figure 8: Ozone Monitoring Site Map .....................................................................................25 Figure 9: Georgia's 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Map.................................................28 Figure 10: Metro Atlanta Ozone- Number of Violation Days per Year ....................................29 Figure 11: Metro Atlanta Ozone Exceedance Map.................................................................30 Figure 12: Lead Monitoring Site Map .....................................................................................32 Figure 13: PM10 Monitoring Site Map .....................................................................................35 Figure 14: PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean Chart......................................................................37 Figure 15: PM10 24-Hour Averages ........................................................................................38 Figure 16: PM2.5 Federal Reference Method Monitoring Site Map..........................................41 Figure 17: PM2.5 Monitoring Site Map, Continuous and Speciation Monitors .........................42 Figure 18: Georgia's PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Map.............................................................44 Figure 19: PM2.5 Design Value, Annual Standard, By Site .....................................................45 Figure 20: PM2.5 Design Value, Daily Standard, By Site.........................................................46 Figure 21: 2003 PM2.5 Speciation ...........................................................................................48 Figure 22: 2004 PM2.5 Speciation ...........................................................................................48 Figure 23: 2005 PM2.5 Speciation ...........................................................................................49 Figure 24: 2006 PM2.5 Speciation ...........................................................................................49 Figure 25: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Ammonium Concentrations .......................................51 Figure 26: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Elemental Carbon Concentrations ............................51 Figure 27: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Organic Carbon Concentrations ................................52 Figure 28: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Sulfate Concentrations..............................................52 Figure 29: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Nitrate Concentrations ..............................................53 Figure 30: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Crustal Matter Concentrations...................................53 Figure 31: Acid Rain Monitoring Site Map ..............................................................................56 Figure 32: Acid Rain Trends, Statewide .................................................................................57 Figure 33: Acid Rain Trends, by Location...............................................................................58 Figure 34: Comparison of DNR and NADP Acid Rain Averages ............................................59 Figure 35: PAMS Monitoring Site Map ...................................................................................62 Figure 36: Isoprene Yearly Profile, 2003-2006 .......................................................................64 Figure 37: Toluene Yearly Profile, 2003-2006 ........................................................................65 Figure 38: Toluene & Isoprene, Typical Urban Daily Profile ...................................................66 Figure 39: Carbonyls Monitoring Site Map .............................................................................68 Figure 40: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration and Number of Detects, 2005 ...........69 Figure 41: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration and Number of Detects, 2006 ...........69 Figure 42: Average South DeKalb 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2005.............................70 Figure 43: Average South DeKalb 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2006.............................71 Figure 44: Average Tucker 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2005 ........................................72 Figure 45: Average Tucker 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2006 ........................................72 Figure 46: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration vs. Number of Detects, by Species, 2005 .................................................................................................................................73 iii Figure 47: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration vs. Number of Detects, by Species, 2006................................................................................................................................. 73 Figure 48: Metals Monitoring Site Map .................................................................................. 79 Figure 49: Total Detections of Metals, by Site, 2004-2006 .................................................... 80 Figure 50: Total Detections of Metals, by Species, 2004-2006.............................................. 83 Figure 51: Total Average Concentration of Metals, 2004-2006 ............................................. 83 Figure 52: Yearly Average Comparison of Zinc, by Site, 2004-2006 ..................................... 84 Figure 53: Hexavalent Chromium at South DeKalb ............................................................... 86 Figure 54: Total Volatile Organic Compounds Detected per Site, 2004-2006 ....................... 87 Figure 55: Number of Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Detected, Select Compounds, 20042006 ................................................................................................. 88 Figure 56: Total Average Concentration of Select Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15), 20042006....................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 57: Total Volatile Organic Compound Loading all Species, by Site, 2004-2006 ......... 89 Figure 58: Volatile Organic Compounds, Seasonal Effects, 2004-2006 ................................ 91 Figure 59: VOC and SVOC Monitoring Site Map ................................................................... 92 Figure 60: Total Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Detections Per Site, 2004-2006 ............ 94 Figure 61: Number of Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Detections, by Compound, 2004- 2006................................................................................................................................. 95 Figure 62: Total Average Concentration of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, 2004-2006 . 95 Figure 63: Forecasted and Observed 8-hr Ozone for Metro Atlanta, May-July 2006........... 103 Figure 64: Forecasted and Observed 8-hr Ozone for Metro Atlanta, August-September 2006 ....................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 65: PM2.5 Observations For Atlanta Area By AQI Category, October 2003 May 2007 ....................................................................................................................................... 104 Figure 66: Forecast Team Performance, Atlanta PM2.5, October 2003 May 2007 ............ 105 Figure 67: Gaseous Criteria Pollutants Accuracy Analysis .................................................. 112 Figure 68: Particulate Air Pollutants Accuracy Analysis....................................................... 114 Figure 69: Metals Monitoring, Collocated Precision............................................................. 121 Figure 70: VOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision ............................................................... 122 Figure 71: SVOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision ............................................................. 123 Figure 72: Yearly Summary of Sampling Flow Rate Accuracy, Air Toxics Network............. 125 Figure 73: VOC Monitoring Accuracy Analysis .................................................................... 132 Figure 74: Meteorological Measurements Accuracy Results ............................................... 133 Figure 75: Formulas For Calculating Risk and Hazard Quotient.......................................... 146 Figure 76: The AQI .............................................................................................................. 164 Figure 77: Sample AIRNOW Ozone Concentration Map ..................................................... 167 iv List of Tables Table 1: Georgia Ambient Air Standards Summary..................................................................9 Table 2: Georgia Air Sampling Station Locations for 2006 .....................................................11 Table 3: Common Oxides of Nitrogen Species and Terms.....................................................17 Table 4: Monthly Rainfall For 2006 and 30-Year Average, Selected Cities ............................99 Table 5: Temperature and Rainfall Statistics for 2006, Selected Cities................................100 Table 6: Meteorological Parameters Measured, 2006..........................................................101 Table 7: Audits Performed for Each Air Monitoring Program in 2006 ...................................110 Table 8: Results for Criteria Pollutants Performance Audits.................................................112 Table 9: Results for Particulate Sampler Performance Audits..............................................114 Table 10: Summary of Unexposed Filter Mass Replicates ...................................................116 Table 11: Summary of Exposed Filter Mass Replicates .......................................................116 Table 12: Total Precision Concentrations for the Georgia Air Toxics Network .....................118 Table 13: Yearly Summary of Flow Rate Accuracy Performance Audit, Air Toxics Network 124 Table 14: NATTS Sites with EPA Region Numbers and AQS Site Codes ...........................127 Table 15: Measurement Quality Objectives for the NATTS Program ...................................128 Table 16: MQO Data Sources for the Georgia NAATS Program..........................................128 Table 17: 23 Selected HAPs and Their AQS Parameter Codes...........................................129 Table 18: Percent Completeness of Georgia's 2006 AQS Data, Selected Compounds .......130 Table 19: Laboratory Analytical Precision Estimate .............................................................130 Table 20: Laboratory Speciated VOC Audit Results for PAMS Network ..............................131 Table 21: Compounds Monitored and Screening Values Used in Initial Assessment ..........139 Table 22: Summary of Chemicals Analyzed in 2005 ............................................................140 Table 23: Summary of Chemicals Analyzed in 2006 ............................................................141 Table 24: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration, 2005......142 Table 25: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration, 2006......144 Table 26: Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient by Location and Chemical, 2005 ....................148 Table 27: Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient by Location and Chemical, 2006 ....................150 Table 28: Aggregate Cancer Risk and Hazard Indices for Each Site, Excluding Carbonyls, 2005 ...............................................................................................................................152 Table 29: Aggregate Cancer Risk and Hazard Indices for Each Site, Excluding Carbonyls, 2006 ...............................................................................................................................153 Table 30: Summary Data for Select VOCs at PAMS Sites, 2005 .........................................154 Table 31: Summary Data for Select VOCs at PAMS Sites, 2006 .........................................155 Table 32: Summary Observations, Cancer Risk, and Hazard Quotient from Carbonyls, 2005 .......................................................................................................................................156 Table 33: Summary Observations, Cancer Risk, and Hazard Quotient from Carbonyls, 2006 .......................................................................................................................................157 Table 34: AQI Summary Data, 2006 ....................................................................................165 Table 35: AIRNOW Participation Evaluation Results ...........................................................168 v vi Executive Summary The Ambient Monitoring Program of the Air Protection Branch of the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has monitored air quality in the State of Georgia for more than thirty years. The list of compounds monitored has grown over the thirty years to more than 200 pollutants using several types of samplers at sites statewide. This monitoring is performed to protect public health and environmental quality. The resulting data is used for a broad range of regulatory and research purposes, as well as to inform the public. This report is the summary of the monitoring data from 2006, and is an assessment of the data in conjunction with previous years' findings. The Chemical Monitoring Activities, Photochemical Assessment Monitoring (PAMS), and Air Toxics Monitoring sections provide an in-depth discussion of the chemicals that are monitored with maps identifying individual monitoring sites. These sections also contain discussions on health effects, measurement techniques, and attainment designations for the chemicals that are monitored. Additionally, these sections discuss trends and common sources for the monitored pollutants. Six (6) pollutants fall within the criteria pollutant list. These pollutants are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (now regulated in two size categories). The ambient concentrations of these pollutants must meet a regulatory standard. The regulatory standard is health-based. Concentrations above the standard are considered unhealthy for sensitive groups. After several years of favorable weather patterns, though, Georgia's 2005 and 2006 data show an uptick in ozone concentrations. It is possible that, given the long-term trend toward improving air quality in the state, that this change is a result of natural variation in weather patterns. At the same time, this recent data is less favorable to Georgia's regulatory status with respect to the national standards. Also, in December 2006 the national limit on 24-hour averaged concentrations of fine particulate matter was reduced. No exceedances of the stricter 24-hour standard occurred before the end of the year, but several sites recorded design values that violate the annual standard. Another set of compounds called air toxics are monitored throughout the state in the Air Toxics Network. The sources of these emitted compounds include vehicle emissions, stationary source emissions, and natural sources. These air toxic compounds do not have ambient air regulatory standards. However, the compounds monitored in the Air Toxics Network are analyzed annually for theoretical lifetime cancer risk and potential non-cancer health effects. This analysis is presented in the Risk Assessment section of this report. Estimates of theoretical cancer risk posed by these compounds are primarily driven by a small number of chemicals in the metals, volatile organic compounds, and carbonyls groups of the air toxics. The estimates of theoretical lifetime cancer risk related to air toxic pollutants in the areas monitored across the state ranged from 7 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000,000. The potential risk of non-cancer health effects from air toxic pollutants is estimated differently, and most chemicals were well below the `acceptable' hazard quotient of 1. The Ambient Monitoring Program also operates an extensive network of meteorological stations. The Meteorological Report section discusses Georgia's climatology based on the meteorological data captured at the PAMS sites and the sites located statewide. The meteorological sites provide, at a minimum, wind speed and wind direction data. Some stations are very sophisticated and provide information on barometric pressure, relative 1 humidity, solar radiation, temperature, and precipitation. A discussion of the Georgia ozone and PM2.5 forecasting effort is also included in this section. The Quality Assurance section shows the Ambient Monitoring Program's effort in producing quality data. The data has to be collected and measured in a certain manner to meet requirements that are set forth by the EPA. The requirements for each monitored pollutant is provided, including field and laboratory techniques, as well as results of the quality assurance audits. The Outreach and Education section provides information concerning the efforts of the Clean Air Campaign to change the commuting habits of residents of Atlanta. The voluntary program partners with the public and private sector to reduce vehicle congestion and aid in reducing vehicle emissions. This section includes a description of educational and news media outreach activities, and explains how the Air Quality Index (AQI) is used to offer the public an easy to use indicator of air quality. The appendices of this document contain summary tables for the pollutants measured during 2006. Included in the summary tables is information on where air toxic compounds were detected, the number of samples collected, and average and maximum concentrations. Copies of this and previous annual reports are available in Adobe Acrobat format via the Ambient Monitoring Internet website at http://www.georgiaair.org/amp. A limited number of print copies are available and may be requested at 404-363-7006. Real time air monitoring information for the criteria pollutants may be found at the above website by selecting the pollutant of concern. In addition, the website also provides links to the Clean Air Campaign and the smog forecast. 2 Aerosols AM APB AQCR Anthropogenic ARITH MEAN BAM CAA CFR CO CV EPA EPD FRM GEO MEAN HAP HI HQ IUR LOD g/m3 m/s mean MSA NAAQS NAMS NATTS NMHC NO2 NOx NOy NUM OBS NWS ODC O3 PAH PAMS Pb PM2.5 PM10 ppbC ppm Precursor PUF 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Glossary A gaseous suspension of fine solid or liquid particles Annual Mean Air Protection Branch Air Quality Control Region Resulting from human activity Arithmetic Mean Beta Attenuation Monitor Clean Air Act Code of Federal Regulations Carbon Monoxide Coefficient of Variation Environmental Protection Agency (federal agency) Environmental Protection Division (state agency) Federal Reference Method- the official measurement technique for a given pollutant Geometric Mean Hazardous Air Pollutant Hazard Index Hazard Quotient Inhalation Unit Risk Limit of Detection Micrograms per cubic meter Meters per second Average Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the US Census Bureau National Ambient Air Quality Standard National Ambient Monitoring Site National Air Toxics Trends Station Non-Methane Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Dioxide Oxides of Nitrogen Reactive oxides of Nitrogen Number of Observations National Weather Service Ozone depleting Chemicals Ozone Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station Lead Particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less Particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less Parts per billion Carbon Parts per million A substance from which another substance is formed Polyurethane Foam 3 QTR Rawinsonde RfC Screening Value SLAMS SO2 SPMS TEOM TNMOC TRS TSP UV VOC w/m2 Calendar Quarter A source of meteorological data for the upper atmosphere Reference Concentration Initial level of air toxic compounds used in risk assessment State and Local Air Monitoring Site Sulfur Dioxide Special Purpose Monitoring Site Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance Total Non-Methane Organic Compounds Total Reduced Sulfur Total Suspended Particulates Ultraviolet Volatile Organic Compound Watts per square meter 4 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Introduction This report summarizes the air quality data collected by the State of Georgia during calendar year 2006. The Air Protection Branch is a subdivision of the state's Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates air quality standards nationwide through authority granted by Congress in the Clean Air Act. Few people realize, though, that the air quality monitoring that is required by the Act is performed almost entirely by state and local governments. The Ambient Monitoring Program conducts monitoring in Georgia, both to satisfy Clean Air Act monitoring requirements and to exceed them in cases where additional monitoring proves beneficial to the citizens and industries of the State. Monitoring is performed to facilitate the protection of public health, as well as to protect our natural environment. The data is collected and quality assured using equipment and techniques specified by EPA. Once the data is ready, it is submitted to EPA's national air quality database, where it is available to a broad community of data users. Despite the technical nature of the information collected, every effort has been made to make the data relevant and useful to those who do not routinely study air quality data. To provide additional information for those who have interest in more detailed technical information, extensive Appendices are included. Further information about air quality in Georgia and nationwide is available from EPA. 5 6 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Chemical Monitoring Activities This section is a summary of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the monitoring techniques used to measure ambient air quality for comparison with these standards. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA Administrator to identify pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Act also requires the Administrator to issue air quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare that may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in ambient air. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator establishes NAAQS for each pollutant for which air quality criteria have been issued. The EPA is to set standards where "the attainment and maintenance are requisite to protect public health" with "an adequate margin of safety." In 1971, the EPA established standards for five "criteria" pollutants as required by the Clean Air Act. The standards and pollutants have changed over time to keep up with improvements in scientific knowledge. The current list is summarized in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, there are primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. Primary standards are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in a population. These sensitive individuals include children, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses. The secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare or quality of life. This includes visibility protection, limiting economic damage, damage to man-made material, wildlife, or the climate. The various averaging times are to address the health impacts of the pollutants. Short-term averages, such as the limit for 8-hour ozone averages, are to protect against acute effects. Long term averaging, such as the annual limit for fine particles, is to protect against chronic effects. The Georgia ambient air monitoring network provides information on the measured concentrations of criteria and non-criteria pollutants at selected locations. The 2006 Georgia Air Sampling Network collects data at 65 locations in 37 counties. Monitoring takes place year-round, with the exception of ozone, which is sampled from March through October, and the continuous Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) volatile organic compounds that sample from June to August. For a list of all the sites in the monitoring network, detailing what pollutants are monitored at which sites, see Table 2. That information is followed by Figure 1 and Figure 2, which are overview maps of all the air monitoring locations in the state. Not all pollutants are monitored at all sites. Maps of the monitoring locations for individual pollutants are provided in each pollutant's respective section. The number and location of the individual sites varies from year to year, depending on: availability of long-term space allocation, regulatory needs, etc. Once a site is established, the most common goal for its use is to monitor for long-term trends. All official monitoring performed in support of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must use U.S. EPA-defined reference methods described in 40 CFR Part 53, Appendix A, or equivalent methods designated in accordance with Part 53 of that chapter. All 7 the data collected in the networks undergoes extensive quality assurance review and is then submitted to the Air Quality System (AQS) database maintained by EPA. In general, the basic monitoring objectives that govern the selection of sites are: 1) to measure the highest observable concentration; 2) to determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density; 3) to determine the impact of significant sources or source categories on ambient pollution levels; 4) to determine the general background concentration levels; and 5) to determine the concentration of a number of compounds which contribute to the formation of ground level ozone. Data from EPD's continuous monitors are published on EPD's web site at http://www.georgiaair.org/amp. The data is updated hourly. Specific annual summary data for 2006 may be found in Appendix A of this document. 8 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Criteria Pollutants Compound Sulfur Dioxide Primary Standard 0.14 0.03 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Particulate Matter (PM10) Carbon Monoxide 15.0 98th percentile: 65.01/35.0 50.02 150.0 2nd Maximum: 35.0 2nd Maximum: 9.0 Ozone 4th Maximum: 0.085 Secondary Standard 0.50 Same as Primary Same as Primary Same as Primary Same as Primary Same as Primary Units Time Interval ppm micrograms per cubic meter 3 Hour 24 Hour Annual Mean Annual Arithmetic Mean (3 years) 24 Hour micrograms per cubic meter Annual Arithmetic Mean 24 Hour 1 Hour ppm 8 Hour Average ppm 8 Hour Average Nitrogen Dioxide Lead 0.053 1.5 Same as Primary Same as Primary ppm Annual Mean micrograms per Calendar cubic meter Quarter Average Table 1: Georgia Ambient Air Standards Summary 1 The 24-hour PM2.5 standard was strengthened by EPA effective December 17, 2006. 2 The annual average PM10 standard was revoked by EPA effective December 17, 2006. 9 Site ID 130090001 130210007 130210012 130210013 130510014 130510017 130510021 130510091 130511002 130550001 130590001 130590002 130630091 130670003 130670004 130690002 130730001 130770002 130850001 130890002 130890003 130892001 130893001 130950007 130970003 130970004 131110091 131130001 131150003 131150004 131150005 131210001 131210020 131210032 131210039 Common Name Baldwin Co. Airport Allied Chemical Georgia Forestry Comm. Lake Tobesofkee Shuman Middle School Market St. E. President St. Mercer Middle W. Lathrop & Augusta Ave. DNR Fish Hatchery UGA College Station Rd. Georgia DOT National Guard Macland Aquatic Center General Coffee State Park Riverside Park Univ. of West Georgia Georgia Forestry Comm. South DeKalb DMRC Police Dept. Idlewood Rd. Turner Elementary Beulah Pump Station W. Strickland St. McCaysville Elementary Georgia DOT Coosa Elementary Floyd Co. Health Dept. Coosa High School Fulton Co. Health Dept. Utoy Creek E. Rivers School Fire Station #8* City Milledgeville Macon Macon Macon Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Savannah Summerville Athens Athens Forest Park Kennesaw Powder Springs Douglas Evans Newnan Dawsonville Decatur Decatur Doraville Tucker Albany Douglasville Douglasville McCaysville Fayetteville Rome Rome Rome Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta County O3 CO Baldwin Bibb PM2.5 24h FRM X PM2.5 Cont PM2.5 Speciation NO2 NOy SO2 X X TRS Bibb X X X X Bibb X Chatham Chatham X Chatham X Chatham X X X Chatham X X Chattooga X Clarke Clarke X Clayton Cobb X X X X X X Cobb X Coffee Columbia X Coweta X X Dawson X DeKalb X X X X DeKalb DeKalb X DeKalb X Dougherty X Douglas Douglas X Fannin Fayette X Floyd Floyd Floyd X Fulton Fulton Fulton X Fulton X X X X X X X X X X X Lead PM10 Acid Rain X X X X X X X X X X X X X PAMS VOCS X X VOC (TO14/15) X X X X X X X X SVOC X X X X X X X Carbonyls X X X X Trace Metals X X X X X X X X Site ID 131210048 131210055 131210099 131270004 131270006 Common Name Georgia Tech Confederate Ave. Roswell Road Arco Pump Station Risley Middle School City Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Brunswick Brunswick County O3 CO Fulton Fulton X Fulton X Glynn Glynn X PM2.5 24h FRM X PM2.5 Cont PM2.5 Speciation NO2 NOy SO2 X X X X TRS X Lead PM10 Acid Rain X X PAMS VOCS VOC (TO14/15) SVOC Carbonyls Trace Metals 131273001 131350002 Brunswick College Brunswick Gwinnett Tech Lawrenceville Glynn Gwinnett X X X X X X X 131390003 Fair St. Elementary Gainesville Hall X X X X 131510002 131530001 131850003 County Extension Robins Air Base Mason Elementary McDonough Warner Robins Valdosta Henry X Houston Lowndes X X X X X X X X X 131890001 DNR Fish Hatchery Thomson McDuffie X 132130003 Fort Mountain Chatsworth Murray X 132150001 Health Dept. Columbus Muscogee X 132150008 Columbus Airport Columbus Muscogee X X X 132150011 Cusseta Elementary Columbus Muscogee X X X X 132151003 Columbus Crime Lab Columbus Muscogee X 132155000 Columbus State Univ. Columbus Muscogee X X X 132230003 Yorkville Yorkville Paulding X X X X X X X X X 132450005 132450091 132450092 Medical College of GA Bungalow Rd. Elementary Clara Jenkins School Augusta Richmond Augusta Richmond X Augusta Richmond X X X X X X X X 132470001 132550002 132611001 Monastery UGA Experiment Station Union High School Conyers Griffin Leslie Rockdale X Spalding Sumter X X X X 132810001 Lake Burton Hiawassee Towns X 132950002 Health Dept. Rossville Walker X X 132970001 DNR Fish Hatchery Social Circle Walton X 133030001 Health Dept. Sandersville Washington X X 133190001 Police Dept. Gordon Wilkinson X * The Fire Station #8 was shut down because it did not meet siting requirements. With EPA's permission, the PM10 monitoring was discontinued. PM2.5 FRM monitoring was moved to Georgia Tech. Table 2: Georgia Air Sampling Station Locations for 2006 Hamilton Catoosa Walker Whitfield Murray Floyd Bartow Pickens Cherokee Dawson Hall Forsyth Haralson Carroll Heard Paulding Cobb Gwinnett Barrow Douglas Coweta Fulton De Kalb Fayette Clayton Henry Spalding Rockdale Walton Newton Butts Jasper Madison Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Harris Muscogee North Georgia Monitoring Sites Urban BAibbreas Crawford MSAs Shown asTwSiggos lid Color Houston Figure 1: North Georgia Air Monitoring Site Map 12 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Floyd Bartow Pickens Dawson Cherokee Hall Forsyth Paulding Haralson Cobb Carroll Douglas Fulton Clayton Barrow Gwinnett De Kalb Walton Rockdale Newton Coweta Heard Fayette Henry Spalding Butts Jasper Madison Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Harris Muscogee Chattahoochee Russell Marion Crawford Bibb Twiggs Houston Terrell Lee Dougherty Baker Worth Lanier Brooks Lowndes Echols Edgefield Columbia McDuffie Richmond Aiken Burke Effingham Bryan Long Liberty Chatham McIntosh Brantley Glynn South Georgia Monitoring Sites Urban Areas MSA's Shown as Solid Color Figure 2: South Georgia Air Monitoring Site Map 13 Carbon Monoxide (CO) General Information Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is a byproduct of the incomplete burning of fuels. The principal source of CO pollution in most large urban areas, including Metro Atlanta, is the automobile, which contributes approximately 60% of CO emissions nationwide. Other sources include fires, industrial processes, cigarettes, and other sources of incomplete burning in the indoor environment. High concentrations of ambient CO tend to occur in the colder months of the year. In cool weather, weather patterns called inversion layers occur more frequently. These inversions trap pollutants near the surface. CO is inhaled and enters the blood stream, where it binds chemically to hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is the component of blood that carries oxygen to the cells. When CO binds to hemoglobin, it reduces the ability of hemoglobin to do its job, which reduces the amount of oxygen delivered to all tissues of the body. The percentage of hemoglobin affected by CO depends on the amount of air inhaled, the concentration of CO in air, and length of exposure. At the levels usually found in ambient air, CO primarily affects people with cardiovascular disease. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with a population greater than 500,000, as determined by the last census (2000), have at least two CO National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS). In Georgia, only the Atlanta MSA meets the population requirement. Currently, the NAMS site is located at Roswell Road (Figure 3). The Roswell Road site was established to monitor for CO at a microscale level. The purpose of microscale measurements is to measure peak concentrations in major urban traffic areas. A microscale site monitors an air mass that covers a distance of several meters to about 100 meters. In substitution for a second NAMS monitor, high sensitivity CO monitors have been installed at the Yorkville and South DeKalb sites. The purpose of these monitors is to detect very small concentrations of CO in order to gain a more complete understanding of the background levels of CO and its role in atmospheric chemistry. 14 Floyd Bartow 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Pickens Dawson Cherokee Forsyth Hall Yorkville Paulding Cobb Gwinnett Roswell Rd Haralson De Kalb Douglas Fulton S DeKalb Carroll Clayton Rockdale Newton Fayette Henry Heard Coweta Meriwether Pike Figure 3: Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Site Map CO Sites UrbaSnpalAdinrgeas Butts MSAs Shown as Solid Color Lamar 15 Health Effects The health effects of CO include weakening the contractions of the heart, which reduces blood flow to various parts of the body, decreasing the oxygen available to the muscles and various organs. In a healthy person, this effect significantly reduces the ability to perform physical activities. In persons with chronic heart disease, these effects can threaten the overall quality of life, because their systems may be unable to compensate for the decrease in oxygen. CO pollution is also likely to cause such individuals to experience chest pain during activity. Adverse effects have also been observed in individuals with heart conditions who are exposed to CO pollution in heavy freeway traffic for one or more hours. In addition, fetuses, young infants, pregnant women, elderly people, and individuals with anemia or emphysema are likely to be more susceptible to the effects of CO. For these individuals, the effects are more pronounced when exposure takes place at high altitude locations, where oxygen concentration is lower. CO can also affect mental function, visual acuity, and the alertness of healthy individuals, even at relatively low concentrations. Measurement Techniques CO is monitored using specialized analyzers made for that specific purpose. The analyzers continuously measure the concentration of CO in ambient air using the non-dispersive infrared analysis and gas filter correlation methods. Attainment Designation Data collected from the continuous monitors is used to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) 8-hour and 1-hour standard for CO. This standard requires that, for 8-hour averages, no concentration greater than 9 ppm may be observed more than once per year. For 1-hour averages, no concentration greater than 35 ppm may be observed more than once a year. If the data shows that these criteria are met, then the area is considered to be in attainment of the standard. All of Georgia is in attainment of both the 8-hour and 1-hour standards for carbon monoxide. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A. Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOx and NOy) General Information Oxides of Nitrogen (see Table 3) exist in various forms in the atmosphere. The most common is nitric oxide (NO), but other forms such as NO2, HNO3 and N2O5 also occur. High temperature combustion and lightning produce the bulk of these compounds in the atmosphere. Nitrogen is a very stable molecule and is essentially inert unless subjected to extreme conditions. The oxides of nitrogen are less stable, however, and are key participants in atmospheric chemistry, reacting back and forth between numerous states depending on conditions. Many of these reactions involve the conversion of oxygen atoms between their atomic (O2) and ozone (O3) forms. As such oxides of nitrogen are studied more intensely than their direct health impacts would imply; they are precursors of (and alternately byproducts of) ozone formation. The many forms of oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere are the reason that they are sometimes referred to using the generic terms NOx or NOy. 16 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report NO is changed to NO2 in very rapid atmospheric reactions. During daylight hours, UV radiation from the sun breaks apart NO2 into NO and free oxygen (O). The free oxygen atom will attach itself to molecular oxygen (O2) creating an ozone (O3) molecule. This is the origin of all ground level ozone. Daytime levels of NO2 and N2O5 are low but their concentration rises rapidly in overnight. When the sun rises again in the morning, they are converted back to NO and ozone. Nitric acid (HNO3) is the most oxidized form of nitrogen in the atmosphere. This species is water-soluble and is removed from the atmosphere in the form of acidic raindrops. Abbreviation Full Name Creation Processes Elimination Processes NO NO2 HNO3 PAN NOx NOy Nitrous Oxide Result of ozone photochemistry Reacts with ozone to form NO2 and oxygen High-temperature combustion Nitrogen Dioxide High-temperature Reacts with combustion oxygen in strong Reaction of NO and ozone sun to form ozone plus NO "Washes out" in rain Nitric Acid NO2 + H2O "Washes out" in rain Peroxyacetyl Nitrate Oxidation of hydrocarbons Slow devolution to NO2 in sunlight Catch-all name for NO + NO2 Catch-all name for all atmospheric oxides of nitrogen- mostly NO, NO2, HNO3, N2O5, and PAN Table 3: Common Oxides of Nitrogen Species and Terms Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), is one of the important oxides of nitrogen. It is a light brown gas, and can be an important component of urban haze. Nitrogen oxides usually enter the air as the result of high-temperature combustion processes, such as those occurring in automobiles and power plants. Home heaters and gas stoves also produce substantial amounts of NO2. NO2 is formed from the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO), which has a pungent odor at high concentrations and a bleach smell at lower concentrations. NO2 is a precursor to ozone formation and can be oxidized to form nitric acid (HNO3), one of the compounds that contribute to acid rain. NO2 and sulfur dioxide (SO2) can react with other substances in the atmosphere to form acidic products that can be deposited in rain, fog, snow, or as particle pollution. Nitrate particles and NO2 can block the transmission of light, reducing visibility. Health Impacts Individuals experience respiratory problems when exposed to high levels of NO2 for short durations (less than three hours). Asthmatics are especially sensitive to NO2. Changes in airway responsiveness have been observed in some studies of exercising asthmatics exposed to relatively low levels of NO2. Studies also indicate a relationship between indoor 17 NO2 exposures and increased respiratory illness rates in young children, but definitive results are still lacking. Many animal studies suggest that NO2 impairs respiratory defense mechanisms and increases susceptibility to infection. Several studies also show that chronic exposure to relatively low NO2 pollution levels may cause structural changes in the lungs of animals. These studies suggest that chronic exposure to NO2 could lead to adverse health effects in humans, but specific levels and durations likely to cause such effects have not yet been determined. Measurement Techniques Oxides of Nitrogen, and in particular NO2, are monitored using specialized analyzers made for that specific purpose. The analyzers continuously measure the concentration of oxides of nitrogen in ambient air using the ozone-phase chemiluminescent method. There are two major instrument designs. While they are closely related, they do not monitor the same species. NOx analyzers measure NO, NO2, and NOx. NOy analyzers measure NO and NOy, but cannot measure NO2. The NOy analyzers are also specialized for measuring trace-level concentrations; as such they cannot measure higher concentrations. Because of these tradeoffs, it is necessary to operate a network of both instrument types to get a complete picture of local conditions. Of the oxides of nitrogen, only NO2 is regulated under the NAAQS. As such only the NOx type analyzers produce data directly relevant to the standard. NO2 monitoring is required in urban areas with populations greater than 1,000,000. Atlanta is the only urban area in Georgia that meets that population requirement. Atlanta metro area has five NO2 sites. They are located at the South DeKalb, Georgia Tech, Conyers, Yorkville, and Tucker sites. The complete oxides of nitrogen monitoring network, including NOx and NOy monitor locations, can be found in Figure 4. Attainment Designation Data collected from the continuous monitors is used to determine compliance with the NAAQS primary and secondary annual standards for NO2. This standard requires that a site's annual average concentration exceed 0.053 ppm no more than an average of once a year over a three-year period. The Atlanta MSA, as well as the rest of the nation, is in attainment of the NO2 standard. Los Angeles was the only urban area nationwide that ever recorded violations of the NAAQS for NO2. In July 1998, EPA announced the redesignation of that area to attainment. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A. 18 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Catoosa Whitfield Murray Walker Floyd Bartow Pickens Cherokee Dawson Hall Forsyth Paulding Yorkville Haralson Cobb Carroll Douglas Fulton Barrow Gwinnett Tucker GA TechDe Kalb Rockdale S DeKalb Walton Clayton ConyersNewton Heard Coweta Fayette Henry Spalding Butts Jasper Madison Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Harris Muscogee Chattahoochee Russell Marion BibbLake Tobesofkee Twiggs Crawford Houston Edgefield McDuffie Evans Columbia Aiken Richmond Burke Terrell Lee Long Dougherty Baker Worth Brooks Lanier Lowndes NOx/NOy Urban Areas Brantley MSAs Shown as Solid Color Figure 4: Oxides of Nitrogen Monitoring Site Map 19 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) General Information Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless reactive gas that is formed by burning of sulfur-containing material, such as coal, or by processing sulfur-containing ores. It is odorless at low concentrations, but pungent at very high concentrations. It can be oxidized in the atmosphere into sulfuric acid. When sulfur-bearing fuel is burned or ores that contain sulfur are processed, the sulfur is oxidized to form SO2, which can react with other pollutants to form aerosols. In liquid form, SO2 may be found in clouds, fog, rain, aerosol particles, and in surface liquid films on these particles. Both SO2 and NO2 are precursors to the formation of acid rain and lead to acidic deposition. SO2 can also be a precursor for sulfate particles. Major sources of SO2 are fossil fuel-burning power plants and industrial boilers. Health Impacts Exposure to SO2 can cause impairment of respiratory function, aggravation of existing respiratory disease (especially bronchitis), and a decrease in the ability of the lungs to clear foreign particles. It can also lead to increased mortality, especially if elevated levels of particulate matter (PM) are also present. Groups that appear most sensitive to the effects of SO2 include asthmatics and other individuals with hyperactive airways, and individuals with chronic obstructive lung or cardiovascular disease. Elderly people and children are also likely to be sensitive to SO2. Effects of short-term peak exposures have been evaluated in controlled human exposure studies. These studies show that SO2 generally increases airway resistance in the lungs, and can cause significant constriction of air passages in sensitive asthmatics. These impacts have been observed in subjects engaged in moderate to heavy exercise while exposed to relatively high peak concentrations. These changes in lung function are accompanied by perceptible symptoms such as wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing in these sensitive groups. The presence of particle pollution appears to aggravate the impact of SO2 pollution. Several studies of chronic effects have found that people living in areas with high PM and SO2 levels have a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses and symptoms than people living in areas without such a synergistic combination of pollutants. Figure 5 shows the locations of the Georgia SO2 monitoring stations for 2006. Measurement Techniques Sulfur dioxide is measured in the ambient air using EPA-approved "equivalent method" instruments as defined in 40 CFR Part 53, Appendix A. Georgia's network consists of instruments using a pulsed UV fluorescence technique. In Brunswick, a variation of this instrument is configured to monitor for total reduced sulfur (TRS), which monitors for other sulfur-bearing compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. 20 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Figure 5: Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Site Map 21 Attainment Designation To demonstrate attainment, the annual arithmetic mean and the second-highest 24-hour average must be based upon hourly data that is at least 75 percent complete in each calendar quarter. A 24-hour block average is considered valid if at least 75 percent of the hourly averages for the 24-hour period are available [61 FR 25579, May 22, 1996]. To be considered in attainment, a site must have an annual mean less than 0.03 parts per million (ppm), no more than one 24-hour average exceeding 0.14 ppm, and no more than one 3hour average exceeding 0.50 ppm. All of Georgia is in attainment of the sulfur dioxide standard. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A. Ozone (O3) General Information Ozone is a colorless gas. Ground level ozone, unlike the other gaseous air pollutants previously discussed, is not a primary pollutant. This means that ozone is not directly emitted by any sources, mobile or stationary. Ozone forms through a complex series of chemical reactions, which take place in the presence of strong sunlight (photochemical reactions). For these reactions to take place, certain ingredients (precursors) must be available. Since the reactions must take place in the presence of strong sunlight, ozone concentrations have a strong diurnal pattern (Figure 6). Figure 6: Typical Urban 1-Hour Ozone Diurnal Pattern The precursors3 to ozone formation are oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic substances (sometimes referred to as VOCs or hydrocarbons). Examples of such reactive organic substances include hydrocarbons found in automobile exhaust (like benzene and propane), vapors from cleaning solvents (like toluene), and biogenic emissions (like isoprene). Ozone, when mixed with particles and other pollutants, such as NO2, forms smog, a brownish, acrid mixture (see Figure 7). This type of pollution first gained attention in the 1940's as Los Angeles photochemical "smog". Since then, photochemical smog has been observed frequently in many other cities. 3 For a more complete discussion on ozone precursors, please see the NO2 section and the PAMS section of this report. 22 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report As indicated above, ozone is formed when its precursors come together in the presence of strong sunlight. This reaction can only occur as long as both precursors are present, and the reaction itself consumes the precursors as it produces ozone. The amount of ozone produced, assuming sufficient sunlight, is controlled by what is known as the "limiting reactant." This limiting reactant can be thought of in terms of household baking. You can only bake cookies until you run out of any one of the ingredients you need. If you run out of flour, it doesn't matter how much milk and sugar you have on hand; you can't make any more cookies without more flour. In the same way, ozone production can only occur until the process has consumed all of any one of the required ingredients. As it turns out, natural background hydrocarbon levels are quite low in Los Angeles, so in that area hydrocarbons are typically the reactant that limits how much ozone can be produced. The control measures that proved effective in reducing smog there involved reducing hydrocarbon emissions. These control measures and the science behind them have become relatively advanced because the Los Angeles ozone problem was so severe and developed so long ago. But many of the fundamental lessons learned about smog formation in Los Angeles over many years of research have proven not to apply in the same way in Georgia. Figure 7: Ozone Formation Process As air quality control measures were first implemented in Georgia, the then-standard assumption was made that Georgia was also hydrocarbon limited. However, the initial control measures seemed ineffective in actually reducing ozone levels. In time, researchers discovered that trees naturally emit large quantities of hydrocarbons. The quantity of hydrocarbons emitted by the abundant trees in this region is sufficient that Atlanta could theoretically violate ambient ozone standards even if humans reduced their hydrocarbon emissions to zero4. Even in that impossible case, there would still be plenty of natural 4 Note that this is not to say that trees cause "pollution"; in the absence of emissions of oxides of nitrogen caused by humans, these hydrocarbons would not react to produce ozone. 23 hydrocarbons around to react with any oxides of nitrogen that human activities were to produce, so virtually the same amount of ozone would be produced. The solution to ozone control in Georgia, then, would have to focus on a different limiting reactant. Since there will always be strong sunshine in the summer, and there will always be oxygen, the only effective way left to control ozone production is to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen. Air quality science had not, and still has not, had time to fully catch up with this discovery. The control technologies that reduce hydrocarbon emissions are generally not effective on oxides of nitrogen, so a whole new set of control technologies had to be developed. This area has been in some ways unable to take full advantage of the technologies developed for Los Angeles, then, because those technologies were not suited to local conditions. With respect to reducing emissions from automobile engines, for example, the addition of relatively simple and inexpensive catalytic converters to existing engine designs was a great leap forward in reducing hydrocarbon emissions. Catalytic converters have been used with great success since the early 1970s. Thus far, emissions of oxides of nitrogen have proven more difficult to control than hydrocarbon emissions, especially given that the control measures have not had forty years to mature. Research on the topic continues, and new emissions control equipment is always under development. For example, where catalytic converters could be added to existing engine designs to greatly reduce hydrocarbon emissions, solutions for reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen have generally required far more reengineering of the engines themselves. There is no easy "bolt on" solution. Ozone in Georgia, unlike other pollutants previously discussed, is only monitored during the "summer" months (March through October). The reason for the shorter season is that long periods of strong sunlight and warm temperatures are needed for ozone formation. Many urban areas experience high levels of ground level ozone during the summer months. We also see high ozone levels in rural and mountainous areas. This is often caused by ozone and/or its precursors being transported by wind for many hundreds of miles. A final difference between ozone and the other pollutants is that ozone is sometimes good. While ground level ozone is considered a hazardous pollutant, the ozone in the upper atmosphere, approximately 10-22 miles above the earth's surface, protects life on earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. This ozone is gradually being depleted due to manmade products called ozone depleting chemicals, including chloroflourocarbons (CFC), which when released naturally migrate to the upper atmosphere. Once in the upper atmosphere, the CFCs break down due to the intensity of the sun's UV rays, releasing chlorine and bromine atoms. These atoms react with the ozone and destroy it. Scientists say that one chlorine atom can destroy as many as 100,000 "good" ozone molecules. The destruction of this ozone may lead to more harmful ultraviolet rays reaching the earth's surface, causing increased skin cancer rates. This reduction in the protection provided by ozone in the upper atmosphere is usually referred to as the "ozone hole" and is most pronounced in polar regions. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division monitors ground level ozone at 24 sites throughout the state (Figure 8). 24 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Sequatchie Marion Hamilton Dade Catoosa Walker Whitfield Murray Fort Mtn Summerville Pickens Dawson Dawsonville Hall Floyd Bartow Cherokee Forsyth Madison Kennesaw Gwinnett Tech Yorkville Paulding Cobb Gwinnett HaralsonDouglasville Tucker DougClasonfeSdeDFruealtoKtnealb DeKalb Rockdale Barrow Clarke College Station Oconee Walton Carroll ClayCtoon nyers Newton Fayetteville Henry Newnan Coweta Heard Fayette McDonough Spalding Butts Jasper Oglethorpe Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Harris Crime Lab Columbus Airport Muscogee Russell Chattahoochee Marion Lake Tobesofkee Crawford GA Forestry Bibb Twiggs Houston Leslie Terrell Lee Dougherty Baker Worth Brooks Lanier Lowndes Echols Ozone Monitors Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Edgefield Evans Columbia McDuffie Bungalow ES Richmond Aiken Burke Effingham E President Bryan Chatham Long Liberty McIntosh Glynn Brantley Brunswick Figure 8: Ozone Monitoring Site Map 25 Health Impacts Ozone and other photochemical oxidants such as peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) and aldehydes are associated with adverse health effects in humans. Peroxyacetyl nitrate and aldehydes cause irritation that is characteristic of photochemical pollution. Ozone has a greater impact on the respiratory system, where it irritates the mucous membranes of the nose, throat, and airways; ninety percent of the ozone inhaled into the lungs is never exhaled. Symptoms associated with exposure include cough, chest pain, and throat irritation. Ozone can also increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. In addition, ozone impairs normal functioning of the lungs and reduces the ability to perform physical exercise. Recent studies also suggest that even at lower ozone concentrations some healthy individuals engaged in moderate exercise for 6 to 8 hours may experience symptoms. All of these effects are more severe in individuals with sensitive respiratory systems, and studies show that moderate levels may impair the ability of individuals with asthma or respiratory disease to engage in normal daily activities. The potential chronic effects of repeated exposure to ozone are of even greater concern. Laboratory studies show that people exposed over a six to eight hour period to relatively low ozone levels develop lung inflammation. Animal studies suggest that if exposures are repeated over a long period (e.g. months, years, lifetime), inflammation of this type may lead to permanent scarring of lung tissue, loss of lung function, and reduced lung elasticity. Measurement Techniques Ozone is monitored using specialized commercial instruments made for that specific purpose. The analyzers continuously measure the concentration of ozone in ambient air using the U.V. photometric method and are EPA-approved for regulatory air monitoring programs. Data gained from the continuous monitors is used to determine compliance with the NAAQS ozone. Attainment Designation Ozone monitoring has been in place in the Atlanta area since 1980. The 1980 network consisted of two monitors located in DeKalb and Rockdale Counties. Currently the metro Atlanta ozone network includes eleven monitors located in ten counties. In July 1997 the US EPA issued a new 8-hour ozone standard intended to eventually replace the older 1-hour standard. This 8-hour standard is attained when the average of the fourth highest concentration measured is equal to or below 0.08 ppm (0.085 ppm with the EPA rounding convention) averaged over three years (see Table 1; 62 FR 38894, July 18, 1997). Areas EPA has declared in attainment of 1-hour standard are immediately exempt from that standard, but thereafter are subject to the 8-hour standard. In the summer of 2005, metro Atlanta was declared in attainment of the 1-hour standard. As of the printing of this report, then, only the 8-hour ozone standard is applicable in Georgia. The Atlanta ozone nonattainment area was officially expanded in 2004. Previously Rockdale, Coweta, Fulton, Cherokee, Henry, Clayton, Fayette, Gwinnett, Paulding, Forsyth, Cobb, Douglas, and DeKalb Counties were included. With new monitoring data, implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard, and the results of the 2000 Census, the following counties were added to the nonattainment area: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Douglas, Hall, Newton, Spalding, and Walton. Catoosa County is part of the Chattanooga Early Action Compact area. New basic nonattainment areas were also declared in 2004. The Macon metro area was declared 26 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report a new nonattainment area. It includes Bibb County and part of Monroe County. Finally, portions of Murray County were added to a new Chattahoochee National Forest nonattainment area. Figure 9 shows the boundaries of these nonattainment areas. A number of activities to aid in controlling the precursors to ozone formation have been implemented. As new areas are declared in nonattainment, these control measures may be expanded to include them. These activities could include a strict vehicle inspection program, controls on stationary emission sources, and the establishment of a voluntary mobile emissions reduction program. An example of such a program in metro Atlanta is called The Clean Air Campaign (CAC). Activities of The Clean Air Campaign include distributing daily ozone forecasts (as well as PM2.5 forecasts produced by EPD) during the ozone season to enable citizens in the sensitive group category as well as industries to alter activities on days that are forecasted to be conducive to ozone formation. This is also done for the Macon area. In addition to the daily forecasts, citizens have access to forecast and monitoring data on an as needed basis by either calling 1-800-427-9605 or by accessing our website at http://www.georgiaair.org/amp. For a more detailed discussion concerning the CAC, see the section titled "Outreach and Education". 27 DADE CATOOSA WALKER WHITFIELD MURRAY CHATTOOGA GORDON FLOYD BARTOW FANNIN UNION TOWNS RABUN ChGIaLMttEaRhoochee N.F. LUMPKIN PICKENS DAWSON CHEROKEE FORSYTH WHITE HABERSHAM STEPHENS HALL BANKS FRANKLIN JACKSON MADISON HART ELBERT POLK HARALSON CARROLL HEARD PAULDING DOUGLAS COWETA COBB GWINNETT BARROW CLARKE DEKALB WALTON OCONEE FULTON CLAYTON ROCKDALE NEWTON MORGAN FAYETTE HENRY OGLETHORPE WILKES LINCOLN GREENE TALIAFERRO COLUMBIA MCDUFFIE WARREN SPALDING BUTTS JASPER PUTNAM HANCOCK GLASCOCK TROUP MERIWETHER PIKE LAMAR Monroe partial MONROE JONES BALDWIN HARRIS UPSON TALBOT CRAWFORD BIBB TWIGGS WILKINSON JEFFERSON WASHINGTON JOHNSON MUSCOGEE TAYLOR CHATTAHOOCHEE MARION SCHLEY MACON STEWART WEBSTER SUMTER PEACH HOUSTON BLECKLEY LAURENS EMANUEL TREUTLEN DOOLY PULASKI WILCOX DODGE MONTGOMERY WHEELER TOOMBS TELFAIR Figure 9: Georgia's 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Map 28 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Figure 10 shows how past air quality would relate to the new standard and how current air quality relates to the old standard. This chart was produced by comparing measurement data against both ambient standards. This demonstrates the relative strictness of each standard and shows how our air quality has changed over time. Despite a great deal of fluctuation, over the course of the past twenty years we have seen a gradual reduction in the number of days exceeding either ozone standard. The trendline, produced by regression analysis, shows that the number of days that exceed the current 8-hour ozone standard has fallen by about a half day each year over this time period. The most recent years of data show an upturn in the number of exceedance days. This is believed to be a result of natural variation in weather patterns, not a sign of a reversal of the long-term trend. Metro Atlanta OzoneNumber of Days Exceeding NAAQS per Year 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Exceedance Days 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1-Hour Year 8-Hour Trendline of 8-Hour Figure 10: Metro Atlanta Ozone- Number of Violation Days per Year 29 Figure 11 maps each Metro Atlanta ozone monitor that exceeded the 8-hour ozone standard in 2006, and also indicates the monthly breakdown of the exceedances. Figure 11: Metro Atlanta Ozone Exceedance Map 30 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Lead General Information In the past the Clean Air Act required extensive lead monitoring in order to detect the high levels of airborne lead that resulted from the use of leaded gasoline. With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, lead concentrations decreased to nearly zero by the late 1980s. Since then, the concentrations have hovered just above zero. Today, metals processing is the major source of lead emissions to the atmosphere. Other sources of lead emissions include the combustion of solid waste, coal, oils, emissions from iron and steel production, and the two remaining uses for lead in gasoline (aviation gasoline and racing gasoline). Based on EPA guidance and the very small amounts of lead pollution remaining in Georgia, the lead monitoring network shrunk in 2005. Two lead monitoring sites in Columbus were closed. There are now two dedicated lead monitors remaining in Georgia for comparison to the NAAQS lead standard. One is in the Atlanta area for monitoring long-term trends in ambient lead levels as part of the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) network. The other is in Columbus for industrial source monitoring, given the historical issues with lead pollution in the area. The current criteria lead monitoring network is as indicated in Figure 12. For more information on criteria lead monitoring, see Appendix A. In addition to the criteria network sites, lead is also being monitored at 15 sites throughout Georgia as a trace metal in the Georgia Air Toxics Monitoring Network. The equipment used at those sites can detect far smaller concentrations. For additional summary data on lead as collected as an Air Toxics trace metal, see Appendix E. Health Impacts Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues. Lead can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause neurological impairments, such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses and young children, resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ. Recent studies also show that lead may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease. Lead can also be deposited on the leaves of plants, presenting a hazard to grazing animals. Lead deposition in soil puts children at particular risk exposure since they commonly put hands, toys, and other items in their mouths, which may come in contact with the lead-containing dust and dirt. 31 Sequatchie Marion Hamilton Dade Catoosa Walker Murray Whitfield Floyd Bartow Pickens Dawson Hall Cherokee Forsyth Haralson Carroll Heard Paulding Cobb Gwinnett Barrow De Kalb Walton Douglas Rockdale Fulton DMRC Coweta Clayton Fayette Newton Henry Spalding Jasper Butts Madison Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Russell Harris Muscogee Cusseta ES Chattahoochee Marion Crawford Bibb Twiggs Houston Terrell Lee Dougherty Baker Worth Brooks Lanier Lowndes Echols Edgefield Columbia McDuffie Richmond Aiken Burke Effingham Bryan Liberty Long Chatham McIntosh Brantley Glynn Lead Sites Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Figure 12: Lead Monitoring Site Map 32 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Measurement Techniques Measurement for ambient air lead concentrations is performed using a manual method, unlike measurements for ozone, SO2, NO2 and CO. Samples are collected on 8" x 10" preweighed fiberglass filters with a high-volume sampler for 24 hours. The filter sample is shipped to a laboratory for analysis using inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (commonly known as ICP-MS). Data gained from the lead sampler is used to determine compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead. Attainment Designation The compliance with the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds is determined based on the assumption that all lead is elemental lead. In order to comply with both the primary and secondary standard, the concentration of lead in the air must have an arithmetic mean no higher than 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over a calendar quarter. (See Secs. 109, 301(a) Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7409, 7601(a)) [43 FR 46258, Oct. 5, 1978]. All of Georgia is in attainment of the lead standard. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A. Particulate Matter General Information Particulate matter is a broad range of material that consists of solid particles, fine liquid droplets, or condensed liquids absorbed onto solid particles. Airborne particulates are not a single pollutant as discussed for the other criteria pollutants, but rather a mixture of many different air pollutants. Primary sources that emit particles include combustion, incineration, construction, mining, metals smelting, metal processing, and grinding. Other sources include motor vehicle exhaust, road dust, wind blown soil, forest fires, open burning of vegetation for land clearing or waste removal, ocean spray, and volcanic activity. There are two ways that particulate matter is formed. Primary particulate is emitted directly from a source, like a vehicle's tailpipe or a factory's smokestack. But a great deal of particulate matter is not directly emitted from such sources. In fact, the vast majority of primary air pollution is in the form of gases. But those gaseous air pollutants readily react in the atmosphere- with oxygen, each other, and the like. While many of those reactions produce other gases, they frequently produce particles. Particles formed through this process are known as secondary particulate matter. Examples of secondary particulates include: Atmospheric sulfate particles, formed from the oxidation of gaseous SO2. Atmospheric nitrate particles, such as ammonium nitrate, formed from a complex series of reactions that transform gaseous NOx. Atmospheric calcium nitrate or sodium nitrate particulates formed from a series of atmospheric reactions involving gaseous nitric acid (HNO3) reacting with sodium chloride/calcium carbonate. Particulate pollution may also be categorized by size since there are different health impacts associated with the different sizes. The Ambient Air Monitoring Program monitors for two sizes of particles: PM10 (up to 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 (up to 2.5 microns in 33 diameter). Both of these particles are very small in size. For example, approximately ten (10) PM10 particles can fit on a cross section of a human hair, and approximately thirty (30) PM2.5 particles would fit on a cross section of a hair. Figure 13 shows the location of Georgia's PM10 monitoring sites, Figure 16 shows the location of the PM2.5 reference method monitoring sites, and Figure 17 shows the location of the PM2.5 continuous monitoring sites. For information on the makeup of these particles, see the following section (PM2.5 Speciation). PM10 Particulate matter (PM) less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter is defined as PM10. These particles can be solid matter or liquid droplets from smoke, dust, fly ash, or condensing vapors that can be suspended in the air for long periods of time. PM10 represents part of a broad class of chemically diverse particles that range in size from molecular clusters of 0.005 microns in diameter to coarse particles of 10 microns in diameter (for comparison, an average human hair is 70-100 microns in diameter). PM results from all types of combustion. The carbon-based particles that result from incomplete burning of diesel fuel in buses, trucks, and cars are of particular concern. Another important combustion source is the burning of wood in stoves and fireplaces in residential settings. Also of concern are the sulfate and nitrate particles that are formed as a byproduct of SO2 and NO2 emissions, primarily from fossil fuel-burning power plants and vehicular exhausts. The U.S. national ambient air quality standard was originally based on particles up to 25-45 microns in size, termed "total suspended particles" (TSP). In 1987, EPA replaced TSP with an indicator that includes only those particles smaller than 10 microns, termed PM10. These smaller particles cause most of the adverse health effects because of their ability to penetrate deeply into the lungs. The observed human health effects of PM include breathing and respiratory problems, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense system against inhaled materials and organisms, and damage to lung tissue. Groups that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of PM include individuals with chronic lung or cardiovascular disease, individuals with influenza, asthmatics, elderly people, and children. Health Impacts Marked increases in daily mortality have been statistically associated with very high 24-hour concentrations of PM10, with some increased risk of mortality at lower concentrations. Small increases in mortality appear to exist at even lower levels. Risks to sensitive individuals increase with consecutive, multi-day exposures to elevated PM10 concentrations. The research also indicates that aggravation of bronchitis occurs with elevated 24-hour PM10 levels, and small decreases in lung function take place when children are exposed to lower 24-hour peak PM10 levels. Lung function impairment lasts for 2-3 weeks following exposure to PM10. 34 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Sequatchie Hamilton Marion Dade Rossville Catoosa Walker Whitfield Murray Summerville Pickens Dawson Hall Floyd Coosa HS Bartow Cherokee Forsyth Haralson Carroll Heard Paulding CobbDoraville Gwinnett Fire Station 8 GA Tech E Rivers Sch De Kalb Douglas Fulton FCHD Rockdale Barrow Walton Clayton Newton Coweta Fayette Henry Griffin Butts Spalding Jasper Madison Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Harris Russell Muscogee Cusseta ES Chattahoochee Marion Bibb Allied Chem Crawford Twiggs Houston Terrell Lee Dougherty Albany Worth Baker Lanier Bartow Cherokee Forsyth Paulding Cobb Gwinnett Doraville Fire Station 8 E Rivers Sch Douglasville Douglas Fulton GA Tech De Kalb FCHD Clayton Coweta Fayette Edgefield McDuffie Columbia Aiken Bungalow ES Richmond Rockdale Henry Burke Sandersville Lathrop Augusta Shuman MS Long Liberty McIntosh Brantley Glynn Brunswick Brooks Lowndes Echols PM 10 Sites Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Figure 13: PM10 Monitoring Site Map 35 Measurement Techniques The Georgia PM10 monitoring network consists of two types of monitors. The first is an event monitor in which samples are collected for 24 hours on a quartz microfiber filter. A specialized sample-sorting device is used so that the filter collects only particles 10 microns in size and smaller. The filters are weighed in a laboratory before and after the sampling period. The change in the filter weight corresponds to the mass of PM10 particles collected. That mass, divided by the total volume of air sampled, corresponds to the mass concentration of the particles in the air. Because of the need for manual filter loading and unloading, shipping back to the laboratory, and so forth, there is significant time lag between taking the measurement and obtaining data. The other monitor is fundamentally similar, but has been greatly modernized. It draws particle-laden air through a filter and analyzes how the mass of the filter changes on an hourly or nearly continuous basis. This monitor gives much more information about how PM10 concentrations vary over time, is less labor-intensive, and produces results almost instantly. Attainment Designation The primary and secondary standards for PM10 are the same. In order for an area to be considered in compliance with the standard, the 99th percentile 24-hour concentration is less than or equal to 150 micrograms per cubic meter [62 FR 38711, July 18, 1997]. For example, if 100 PM10 samples were taken over the course of the year and one sample exceeded 150 micrograms per cubic meter, then the area would meet the standard. If two or more samples were over 150 micrograms per cubic meter, then the area would not be in attainment of the standard. There was also an annual average standard for PM10 until December 17, 2006. EPA revoked the standard because of a lack of evidence of chronic health effects resulting from long-term exposure to moderate levels of PM10. All of Georgia is currently in attainment of the PM10 standard. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A. 36 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Average Concentration (g/m3) 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2002 PM10 Annual Arithmetic Means 2003 2004 Year 2005 2006 Albany Augusta Brunswick Columbus Macon Metro Atlanta Metro Savannah Rome Rossville Sandersville Summerville Figure 14: PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean Chart Figure 14 shows how the metro areas in Georgia stand relative to the annual average PM10 standard. On an annual basis, PM10 levels in Georgia are relatively low. Most inland areas have similar annual average concentrations, and coastal areas typically have less PM10 than inland areas. Longer-term PM10 data generally suggest a slow decrease in PM10 concentrations overall, though 2003 2006 data suggest a minor upturn. This is believed to be a result of natural variation in weather patterns, not an indication of a significant trend toward higher PM10 concentrations. Figure 15 shows how the same areas compare to the 24-hour standard for PM10, which remains set at 150 g/m3. Because the standard allows one exceedance per year, this chart shows the 2nd highest 24-hour average for each site or metro area. Though there is a great deal of variation from year to year at any given site, the statewide average is relatively stable. Statistical analysis of the statewide average PM10 concentrations from 1998 through 2006 indicates a trend of improvement, with an average decrease of 1.26 g/m3 per year. 37 Statewide (avg) PM10 24-Hour Design Values Sandersville Rossville Augusta Columbus Brunswick Site Rome Albany 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Metro Atlanta Summerville Savannah Macon 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Second Highest 24-Hour PM10 Concentration (g/m3) Figure 15: PM10 24-Hour Averages 38 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report PM2.5 Particulate matter including PM2.5 consists of the solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Individually, these particles and droplets are invisible to the naked eye. Collectively, however, they can appear as clouds or a fog-like haze. Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter is referred to as "fine" particles. In comparison, a human hair is 70-100 microns in diameter. Fine particles are produced by many different sources, including industrial combustion, residential combustion, and vehicle exhaust, so their composition varies widely. Fine particles can also be formed when combustion gases are chemically transformed into particles. Considerable effort is being undertaken by Georgia to analyze the fine PM2.5 particles for the chemical constituents that make up the particles, so pollution control efforts can be focused in areas that create the greatest reductions. We currently monitor fifty-three (53) particle species, which include gold, sulfate, lead, arsenic, and silicon. Health Impacts Fine particles are of health concern because they can penetrate into the sensitive regions of the respiratory tract and they are linked to the most serious health effects. They can cause persistent coughs, phlegm, wheezing, and physical discomfort. Several recently published community health studies indicate that significant respiratory and cardiovascular-related problems are associated with exposure to particle levels well below the existing particulate matter standards. These negative effects include premature death, hospital admissions from respiratory causes, and increased respiratory problems. Long-term exposure to particulate matter may increase the rate of respiratory and cardiovascular illness and reduce life span. Some data also suggests that fine particles can pass through lung tissues and into the bloodstream. Children, the elderly, and individuals with cardiovascular disease or lung diseases such as emphysema and asthma are especially vulnerable. Much new evidence of these health impacts is discussed in EPA's "Air Quality Criteria for Fine Particulate Matter" document. It indicates that fine particles are also thought to enhance the delivery of other pollutants and allergens deep into lung tissue, where their effects are more pronounced. The cancer risk alone of long-term exposure to elevated fine particle concentrations has been estimated to be similar to that of the additional risk to a non-smoker of living with a smoker. Early estimates of the impact of long-term exposure to elevated fine particle concentrations indicate an average life span reduction of one to two years (U.S. EPA, 2004a). Taking this information and that from many other studies into account, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard effective December 17, 2006. Fine particles can soil man-made materials, making them look sooty and speeding their deterioration. They also impair visibility and are an important contributor to haze, especially in humid conditions. The visibility effect is roughly doubled at 85% relative humidity as compared to humidities under 60% (U.S. EPA, 2004a). Measurement Techniques Measurement techniques for PM2.5 are very similar to those for PM10. The official reference method requires that samples are collected on Teflon filters with a PM2.5 sampler for 24 39 hours. A specialized sample-sorting device is used so that the filter collects only particles 2.5 microns in size and smaller. The filters are weighed in a laboratory before and after the sampling period. The change in the filter weight corresponds to the mass of PM2.5 particles collected. That mass, divided by the total volume of air sampled, corresponds to the mass concentration of the particles in the air for that 24-hour period. Only these reference method filters may be used for attainment determinations. But because of the delay in picking up each filter, shipping it to the laboratory, and weighing each filter, weeks pass before the results are known. As such this method is very accurate but is useless when trying to decide if it is safe to go jogging or to let children play outside. As with PM10, continuous samplers for PM2.5 are also used to report "real time" data to support programs like air quality forecasting and public information efforts like the AQI. These instruments produce hourly averaged data that is available almost immediately after the end of each hour. By having information available so quickly, the public can make informed decisions about their levels of physical activity. It is important to note that the EPA does not certify these continuous samplers as being fully equivalent to the reference method when sampling PM2.5. This means that data from these continuous samplers cannot be used for determining if an area is in attainment of the NAAQS; only data from the reference method may be used. Continuous PM2.5 data is reported every hour on the Ambient Air Monitoring web page located at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the location of Georgia's PM2.5 monitors. 40 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Sequatchie Hamilton Marion Dade Rossville Catoosa Walker Whitfield Murray Pickens Dawson Floyd Coosa HS Bartow Cherokee Forsyth Hall Gainesville Madison Haralson Paulding Kennesaw Cobb Doraville Gwinnett TechBarrow Clarke UGA Yorkville Macland Ctr Gwinnett E Rivers Sch Fire Station 8 DeKalb Walton College Station Oconee Oglethorpe Douglas Fulton S DeKalbRockdale Carroll Forest Park Clayton Newton Heard Coweta Fayette Henry Spalding Butts Jasper Edgefield McDuffie Columbia Richmond Aiken Bungalow ES GA Med Col Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Harris Columbus Airport Muscogee Muscogee Cusseta ES Chattahoochee Marion Russell Bibb GA ForeGstoryrdon Crawford Allied ChemTwiggs Warner Robins Houston Sandersville Terrell Lee Albany Dougherty Worth Burke Effingham Market St Bryan Mercer Mid Chatham Long Liberty McIntosh Baker Lanier Brantley Glynn Brunswick Brooks Valdosta Lowndes Echols PM 2.5 FRM Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Figure 16: PM2.5 Federal Reference Method Monitoring Site Map 41 Sequatchie Hamilton Rossville Catoosa Walker Whitfield Murray Pickens Dawson Floyd Bartow Coosa HS Cherokee Forsyth Hall Madison Yorkville Paulding Haralson Douglas Carroll Newnan Heard Coweta Cobb Gwinnett Tech Gwinnett DeKalb Barrow College Station UGA Clarke Oglethorpe Oconee Confederate Fulton Rockdale Clayton S DeKalb Walton Social Circle Henry Newton Fayette McDonough Spalding Butts Jasper Pike Meriwether Harris Columbus Airport Muscogee Cusseta ESChattahoochee Russell Marion Lamar Monroe Jones GA Forestry Bibb Allied Chem Crawford Twiggs Houston Terrell Lee Dougherty Baker Worth Lanier Edgefield McDuffie Columbia Aiken Richmond Bungalow ES Burke General Coffee Effingham Lathrop Augusta Bryan Chatham Long Liberty Brantley McIntosh Glynn Brooks PM 2.5 Continuous PM 2.5 Speciation Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Lowndes Echols Figure 17: PM2.5 Monitoring Site Map, Continuous and Speciation Monitors 42 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Attainment Designation For an area to be in attainment of the national primary and secondary annual ambient air PM2.5 standard, it must have an annual arithmetic mean concentration of less than or equal to 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter. In addition, there was a 24-hour primary and secondary standard that requires that the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration be less than or equal to 65 micrograms per cubic meter [62 FR 38711, July 18, 1997]. This 24-hour limit was reduced to a 35-microgram limit effective December 17, 2006. All sample analyses used for determining compliance with the standards must use a reference method based on information in 40 CFR Appendix L or an equivalent method as designated in accordance with Part 53. Because the PM2.5 standard required three years of monitoring data before attainment or nonattainment could be determined, Georgia's attainment status was not determined until late 2004. As was expected, large portions of the United States were found to be in nonattainment of the standard when EPA made its initial attainment determinations. Based on the three years of data, EPA officially declared several areas of Georgia in nonattainment of the standard. Walker and Catoosa Counties are included in the metro Chattanooga nonattainment area. All of Bibb County and portions of Monroe County have been included in the Macon nonattainment area. Floyd County itself has been declared a nonattainment area. Finally, the metro Atlanta nonattainment area has been also declared. This includes Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton Counties, along with portions of Heard and Putnam Counties. Figure 18 illustrates the boundaries of Georgia's PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 43 CATOOSA WALKER FLOYD BARTOW CHEROKEE FORSYTH HALL PAULDING COBB GWINNETT BARROW CARROLL DOUGLAS Heard partial COWETA FULTON DEKALB ROCKDALE WALTON CLAYTON NEWTON FAYETTE HENRY SPALDING Putnam partial Monroe partial BIBB Figure 18: Georgia's PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Map 44 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report PM2.5 Mass Concentration Annual Average (Arithmetic Mean) Gordon Sandersville Rossville Augusta Bungalow Rd. Augusta Medical Col. Yorkville Columbus Cusseta Rd. Columbus Airport* Columbus Health Dept. Valdosta Warner Robins Gainesville Site Gwinnett Brunswick Atlanta Fire Station # 8 Atlanta E. Rivers School Rome Albany Doraville South DeKalb Powder Springs Kennesaw Forest Park Athens UGA** Athens College Station Rd.* Savannah Mercer Savannah Market St. Macon Forestry Macon Allied Chem. 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 Concentration (g/m3) * Sites established in 2005; only 2005-2006 data used for graph ** Site was shut down early in 2005; 2003-2005 average does not include three full years 01-03 02-04 03-05 04-06 15 g/m3 limit 17.5 20.0 Figure 19: PM2.5 Design Value, Annual Standard, By Site As can be seen in Figure 19, many monitoring sites in Georgia do not attain the annual PM2.5 standard. The sites exceeding the standard are generally in north and central Georgia, and the sites attaining the standard are generally in coastal areas. 45 PM2.5 24-Hour Standard Gordon Sandersville Rossville Augusta Bungalow Rd. Augusta Med. Col. Yorkville Columbus Cussetta Rd. Columbus Airport* Columbus H.D. Valdosta Warner Robins Gainesville Gwinnett Brunswick Site Atl. F.S. # 8** Atl. E. Rivers Sch. Rome Albany Doraville South DeKalb Powder Springs Kennesaw Forest Park Athens Athens College Station Rd.* Sav. Mercer Sav. Market St. Macon Forestry Macon Allied Chem. 00-02 01-03 02-04 03-05 04-06 New 35 g/m3 limit 5.0 15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 55.0 98th Percentile Concentration (g/m3) * Sites established in 2005; only 2005-2006 data used for graph ** Site was shut down early in 2005; 2003-2005 average does not include three full years Figure 20: PM2.5 Design Value, Daily Standard, By Site 46 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Figure 20 is of particular interest this year, with EPA's release of a stricter 24-hour limit on PM2.5 concentrations. While all Georgia monitors were comfortably achieving the previous 65 g/m3 limit, many are close to the new 35 g/m3 limit, and the Forest Park monitor was over the limit for the 2004-2006 period. It is reassuring to note, though, that while variations in weather patterns have masked any recent progress in controlling annual average PM2.5 concentrations, significant improvement in 24-hour concentrations are visible over the same period. If this trend continues, Georgia may be able to achieve full attainment of the stricter 24-hour standard. Specific annual summaries for 2006 may be found in Appendix A. PM2.5 Speciation As required by the National PM2.5 Speciation program (40 CFR 58), EPD now monitors not only the mass concentration of fine particulate matter (in micrograms per cubic meter of air) but also for the chemical composition of those particles. Doing so serves a number of important purposes. As controlling fine particulate matter concentrations has now become a national priority through their listing in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, regulations intended to reduce levels of fine particulate matter are now being implemented on a widespread basis. The desired reduction of fine particulate matter concentrations is expected to produce benefits in human health and to improve visibility by reducing the presence of haze. These particles may have varying health effects depending on their size and chemical composition. The fine particles that compose fine particulate matter are not uniform. While they are all smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, their size varies. Some are emitted into the air directly from sources like engine exhaust, fossil fuel combustion, unpaved roads, and the tilling of fields; others are formed in the atmosphere through reactions between gaseous pollutants. Each individual particle, regardless of its source, has a distinct chemical composition. The overall composition of all of the particles that make up the fine particulate matter in a given volume of air may also vary, depending on local sources and a variety of other factors. Georgia currently monitors fifty-three (53) species, which include gold, sulfate, lead, arsenic, and silicon. However, there are only approximately six (6) chemicals that are detected frequently (the chemical elements typical of the Earth's crust are grouped together as "crustal"). Of these, sulfate and organic carbon are detected in the highest concentrations. Figure 21, Figure 22, Figure 23, and Figure 24 illustrate the average concentrations of these six chemicals from 2003 to 2006. Below the figures is a listing of the most significant chemical constituents of fine particulate matter. 47 Concentration (g/m3) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Ammonium Ion Elemental Carbon 2003 PM2.5 Speciation Parameters Arithmetic Mean Organic Carbon Sulfate Species Nitrate Crustal Figure 21: 2003 PM2.5 Speciation Concentration (g/m3) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Ammonium Ion Elemental Carbon 2004 PM2.5 Speciation Parameters Arithmetic Mean Organic Carbon Sulfate Species Nitrate Crustal Figure 22: 2004 PM2.5 Speciation Other Other Macon Savannah Athens General Coffee Atlanta Rome Columbus Augusta Macon Savannah Athens General Coffee Atlanta Rome Columbus Augusta 48 Concentration (g/m3) 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Ammonium Ion Elemental Carbon 2005 PM2.5 Speciation Parameters Organic Carbon Sulfate Species Nitrate Crustal Other Macon Athens General Coffee Atlanta Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville Figure 23: 2005 PM2.5 Speciation Concentration (g/m3) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Ammonium Ion Elemental Carbon 2006 PM2.5 Speciation Parameters Organic Carbon Sulfate Species Nitrate Crustal Other Macon Athens General Coffee Atlanta Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville Figure 24: 2006 PM2.5 Speciation 49 Predominant Species Found in PM2.5 Ammonium Ion is commonly released by fertilizer production, livestock production, coke production, and some large refrigeration systems. Ironically, it can also be emitted by NOx control systems installed on large fossil fuel combustion systems, which use ammonia or urea as a reactant. Sulfate products form from the oxidation of SO2 in the atmosphere. SO2 is primarily produced by coal burning boilers. Nitrate products are formed through a complex series of reactions that convert NOx to nitrates. Vehicle emissions and fossil fuel burning produce NOx. Crustal products are those components that are the result of weathering of the Earth's crust. They may include ocean salt and volcanic discharges. Crustal products include aluminum, calcium, iron, titanium, and silicon. These components released by metals production, and can also be resuspended in the atmosphere by mechanisms that stir up fine dust, such as mining, agricultural processes, and vehicle traffic. Elemental carbon is carbon in the form of soot. Sources of elemental carbon include diesel engine emissions, wood-burning fireplaces, and forest fires. Organic carbon particles consist of hundreds of organic compounds that contain more than 20 carbon atoms. These particles are released directly and are also formed are formed through a series of chemical reactions in the air, mostly as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and wood. Data on the composition of the particles that make up fine particulate matter is a useful input to scientific models of air quality, and will help scientists and regulators track the progress and effectiveness of new pollution controls that are implemented. The data will also greatly improve scientific understanding of how particle composition relates to visibility impairment and adverse effects on human health. Monitoring for chemical speciation for fine particles began late in 2001, so there is limited data available. As the data set becomes more robust, other conclusions may be drawn. Some general observations can already be made. The concentrations of sulfate and organic carbon are less at the General Coffee site than at the remaining seven (7) sites. This is to be expected since the sulfate and organic carbon fractions are mainly caused by human activities. The Douglas-General Coffee site is considered a rural background site and will be used in future comparisons between rural and urban areas. Now that four years of speciation data is available from a variety of sites, we can begin to evaluate the data for trends. Figure 25, Figure 26, Figure 27, Figure 28, Figure 29, and Figure 30 present a different view of the same data to facilitate visualization of trends. Note that because each chemical component presented is present in widely varying concentrations, each chart uses a different scale for the mass concentrations. 50 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Ammonium Arithmetic Mean Mass Concentration 2003-2006 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Macon Savannah Athens General Coffee Atlanta Site Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville 2003 2004 2005 2006 g/m3 Figure 25: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Ammonium Concentrations g/m3 Elemental Carbon Arithmetic Mean Mass Concentration 2003-2006 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Macon Savannah Athens General Coffee Atlanta Site Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 26: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Elemental Carbon Concentrations 51 g/m3 Organic Carbon Arithmetic Mean Mass Concentration 2003-2006 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Macon Savannah Athens General Coffee Atlanta Site Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 27: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Organic Carbon Concentrations g/m3 Sulfate Arithmetic Mean Mass Concentration 2003-2006 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Macon Savannah Athens General Coffee Atlanta Site Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 28: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Sulfate Concentrations 52 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Nitrate Arithmetic Mean Mass Concentration 2003-2006 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Macon Savannah Athens General Coffee Atlanta Site Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville 2003 2004 2005 2006 g/m3 Figure 29: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Nitrate Concentrations g/m3 Crustal Matter Arithmetic Mean Mass Concentration 2003-2006 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Macon Savannah Athens General Coffee Atlanta Site Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 30: PM2.5 Speciation, Trends in Crustal Matter Concentrations 53 Ammonium Ion concentrations are relatively even statewide, ignoring some unexplained high and low averages observed during 2005. The Atlanta and Macon areas have the highest elemental carbon concentrations, which is no surprise given their location on major Interstate trucking corridors. Cities with less heavy vehicle traffic have lower concentrations, and the rural site (General Coffee) has the least elemental carbon. Organic carbon concentrations are also relatively consistent throughout the state, though rural areas like General Coffee are slightly lower. Note how organic carbon concentrations are much higher than typical ammonium ion or elemental carbon concentrations. This means that organic carbon is a relatively large contributor to the total PM2.5 mass concentrations that are a direct regulatory concern. Sulfate concentrations can be described much the same as organic carbon concentrations. They are relatively consistent statewide, though somewhat lower in rural areas, and their relatively large observed mass means that they are also a major contributor to overall PM2.5mass concentrations. Nitrate concentrations are relatively small, but are less consistent from site to site. Their concentrations do seem to track somewhat with NOx emission patterns, but the high concentrations at Athens are not readily explained. Crustal matter concentrations are relatively low and consistent in most areas. Rome and Macon have in some years recorded unexpectedly high crustal matter concentrations. This may be a sign of poor dust control at agricultural, construction, or mining operations in those areas. For additional PM2.5 speciation data, see Appendix B. Measurement Techniques Particle speciation measurements require the use of a wide variety of analytical techniques, but all generally use filter media to collect the particles to be analyzed. Laboratory techniques currently in use are gravimetric (microweighing); X-ray fluorescence and particleinduced X-ray emission for trace elements; ion chromatography for anions and selected cations; controlled combustion for carbon; and gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) for semi-volatile organic particles. Attainment Designation Particle speciation measurements are performed to support the regulatory, analytical, and public health purposes of the program. There are no ambient air quality standards regarding the speciation of particles. 54 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Acid Precipitation Acid precipitation was monitored in four counties in 2006. The samples were collected weekly and were weighed and analyzed for acidity, conductivity, and selected compounds. The Air Protection Branch operated three of these sites and the Georgia Forestry Commission operated the fourth. There are no national or state standards for acid precipitation, but it is generally desirable for rain to have a relatively neutral pH. This is in contrast to the rain that falls in many regions of industrialized nations, which absorbs ions from air emissions that make it acidic (lower pH numbers). Most of the culprits of this acidification are sulfur and nitrogen compounds; the result is rain that contains excess acidity from sulfuric acid and nitric acid. The excess acidity in the rain causes damage to buildings and vehicles, and can acidify ponds and small lakes to the point of killing off all life in them. Georgia's Acid Rain monitoring network is shown in Figure 31. 55 Sequatchie Marion Hamilton Dade Catoosa Walker Whitfield Murray Hiawassee Summerville Floyd Bartow Pickens Cherokee Dawson Dawsonville Hall Forsyth Haralson Carroll Heard Paulding Cobb Gwinnett Barrow Douglas Coweta Fulton DeKalb Clayton Fayette Henry Spalding Walton Rockdale Newton Butts Jasper Madison Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Harris Russell Muscogee Chattahoochee Marion Crawford Bibb Twiggs Houston Columbia McDuffie McDuffie Terrell Lee Dougherty Worth Figure 31: Acid Rain Monitoring Site Map Acid Rain Sites Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors 56 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report As in Figure 32, analysis of statewide average data back to 1982 indicates a small but significant trend toward pH neutrality. The rate of this increase is a pH gain of 0.007 per year over the period shown. Average pH Statewide Acid Rain Trends 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.1 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Monitoring Year Statewide Avg. pH of pristine rain Trendline Figure 32: Acid Rain Trends, Statewide 57 pH 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Acid Rain, by Location 5.2 5 4.8 Dawsonville Hiawassee 4.6 McDuffie Summerville 4.4 4.2 4 Year Figure 33: Acid Rain Trends, by Location Analysis of the same data set for individual areas (Figure 33) shows that while through the 1990s Summerville was the most acidic and McDuffie the most neutral, in recent years the difference between these areas has diminished and all of the sites have rainfall with roughly the same pH. Figure 34 depicts a comparison between the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) acid rain monitoring sites and the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP) annual average pH readings for 2006. As discussed above, Dawsonville, Hiawassee, McDuffie, and Summerville are in the DNR network. The sites that met the completeness criteria for 2005 in the NADP network are in Bellville, Chula, and Okefenokee. It appears that the annual averages for the NADP sites are slightly less acidic. These NADP sites are south of the Fall Line. The less acidic rain in the NADP monitoring areas is interesting. The difference may be related to South Georgia's greater proximity to sea breezes, which carry sodium ions that could affect the pH of rain in those areas. 58 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report p H 2006 pH for DNR and NADP Sites in Georgia 4.9 4.85 4.8 4.75 4.7 4.65 4.6 4.55 4.5 4.45 Dawsonville (DNR) Hiawassee (DNR) McDuffie (DNR) Summerville (DNR) Bellville (NADP) Site Chula (NADP)Okefenokee (NADP) Figure 34: Comparison of DNR and NADP Acid Rain Averages 59 60 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) General Information Ozone is the most prevalent photochemical oxidant and an important contributor to smog. The understanding of the chemical processes in ozone formation and the specific understanding of the atmospheric mixture in various nonattainment areas nationwide was considered essential by EPA for solving the ozone nonattainment problems and developing a suitable strategy for solving those problems. In February 1993, the EPA revised the ambient air quality surveillance regulations in Title 40, Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 58) to include provisions for enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), selected carbonyl compounds, and monitoring of meteorological parameters. The enhanced monitoring was to be implemented in cities that were classified as serious, severe, or extreme for ozone nonattainment. The classifications were based on the number of exceedances of the ozone standard, and the severity of those exceedances. Nineteen areas nationwide were required to implement a PAMS network. In the Atlanta metropolitan area, a network of four sites (Figure 35) was established beginning in 1993. The monitoring sites were selected based on the purpose of the monitors in light of the prevailing winds in the area. The Yorkville site serves as a rural background site, upwind of the city, which aids in determining the role of transport of pollutants into the Atlanta area. The South DeKalb and Tucker sites are the primary and secondary wind directions for an urban core-type site. These sites are expected to measure the highest precursor concentrations of NOx and VOCs in the Atlanta area. The Conyers site is the downwind site where titration of the precursors has occurred and the ozone concentrations should be at their highest. 61 Floyd Bartow Pickens Cherokee Dawson Hall Forsyth Yorkville Paulding Haralson Carroll Douglas Heard Coweta Cobb Fulton Fayette Gwinnett Barrow Tucker DeKalb Walton S DeKalb Clayton Rockdale Conyers Newton Henry Spalding Butts Jasper Jasper Meriwether Figure 35: PAMS Monitoring Site Map Pike Lamar PAMS sites Monroe Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Bibb 62 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report An analysis of the PAMS data finds that the top ten volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for all sites contained the following species consistently across the years: isoprene (which is naturally released by vegetation), m/p xylene, toluene, propane, ethane, isopentane or isopentane/cyclopentane, n-butane and n-pentane. Propane, ethane, isopentane, n-butane, and n-pentane have a limited reactivity for ozone formation and therefore were the most prevalent of the volatile organic compounds measured. However, when the characterization of the top ten species is based upon contributions to ozone formation potential, we find that the list is slightly different. Isoprene, the tracer for VOC emissions from vegetation, is by far the largest contributor to ozone formation at every site. The anthropogenic compounds detected at all sites with the highest ozone formation potential were toluene, m/p xylene, propylene, ethylene, and isopentane. The sources for these five compounds are varied. All five compounds are emitted by mobile sources, with ethylene being an important tracer for vehicle emissions. Toluene, the most abundant species in urban air, m/p xylene, and isopentane also are emitted by solvent use and refinery activities. Isoprene is a 5 carbon organic compound released in large quantities by conifer trees. These trees are very abundant in the Southeastern United States contributing a significant portion to the overall carbon loading of the atmosphere in this region. Isoprene's chemical structure makes it a highly reactive substance with a short atmospheric lifetime and large ozone forming potential. Toluene reaches the air from a variety of sources such as combustion of fossil fuels and evaporative emissions. It has a substituted benzene ring possessing modest atmospheric reactivity. This hydrocarbon is in motor vehicle fuel and is also used a common solvent in many products such as paint. 63 Concentration (ppbC) Isoprene Yearly Profile, 2003-2006 25 South DeKalb Tucker Yorkville 20 Conyers 15 10 5 0 JanuaryM-0a3rch-0M3 ay-S0J3eupltye-m0N3boevre-m03bJear-n0u3aryM-0a4rch-0M4 ay-S0J4eupltye-m0N4boevre-m04bJear-n0u4aryM-0a5rch-0M5 ay-S0J5eupltye-m0N5boevre-m05bJear-n0u5aryM-0a6rch-0M6 ay-S0J6eupltye-m0N6boevre-m06ber-06 Date Figure 36: Isoprene Yearly Profile, 2003-2006 Figure 36 and Figure 37 compare the seasonal occurrence of these two compounds throughout the years of 2003 to 2006. These figures combine the 6-day, 24-hour data from the four PAMS sites, and concentrations are given in parts per billion Carbon (ppbC). Evidence of isoprene's natural origin is shown in Figure 36, where the ambient concentration is essentially non-existent from November to May. All four sites exhibit the seasonal cycle, with an occasional spike outside the consistent cycle. The site with the highest concentration of isoprene appears to vary year to year. One would expect to see Yorkville or Conyers with the higher levels, considering the rural area or semi-rural area in which these sites are located. This has been true for most years. As part of the seasonal cycle, in 2003, Conyers had the highest concentration with 16 ppbC, in 2004 Yorkville had the highest with 17 ppbC, in 2005, South DeKalb had the highest with 18 ppbC, and in 2006, Conyers had the highest concentration with 22 ppbC. Tucker had a spike of isoprene concentration (18 ppbC) in November of 2003, which did not fit the seasonal pattern seen for the majority of the four years of data. With the 2006 data, there appears to be a slight upward turn in the highest 64 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report seasonal levels of isoprene data. However, since there are a limited number of years worth of data at this point, it would be hard to discern a distinguishable trend. Concentration (ppbC) Toluene Yearly Profile, 2003-2006 50 45 South DeKalb 40 Tucker 35 Yorkville Conyers 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 JanuaryM-0a3rch-0M3 ay-S0J3eupltye-m0N3boevre-m03bJear-n0u3aryM-0a4rch-0M4 ay-S0J4eupltye-m0N4boevre-m04bJear-n0u4aryM-0a5rch-0M5 ay-S0J5eupltye-m0N5boevre-m05bJear-n0u5aryM-0a6rch-0M6 ay-S0J6eupltye-m0N6boevre-m06ber-06 Date Figure 37: Toluene Yearly Profile, 2003-2006 Toluene's atmospheric levels are more or less constant throughout the year, suggesting a constant level of emissions year-round (Figure 37). There is an occasional spike in concentration, but no evident high or low pattern for most of the four years of data. Overall, the PAMS sites that are situated in the urban areas (South DeKalb and Tucker) have slightly higher levels of toluene, while the sites located on the outskirts of the Atlanta metropolitan area (Yorkville and Conyers) show lower levels of toluene. Yorkville appears to have an upward swing throughout the 2006 data. As data is collected in the future, this site can be examined for a possible trend. The jaggedness of these graphs is an artifact of the sampling frequency. 65 The daily profile plots for toluene and isoprene found in Figure 38, produced using data gathered in the summer, show a constant background of toluene emissions with spikes of toluene resulting from morning and evening rush hour traffic. This graphs depicts the typical diurnal, or daily, profile for an urban area. During morning hours, when the nocturnal inversion has not yet broken, emissions become trapped within the boundary layer resulting, in a temporary increase in atmospheric concentration. Nighttime toluene levels are constant from midnight to 5:00 am. From 6:00 am to 7:00 am, enhanced vehicular activity releasing its emissions into an atmosphere with limited dispersing ability produces an increase in the ambient concentration. This behavior is typical of area source anthropogenic emissions with modest to long atmospheric lifetimes. Isoprene, on the other hand, exhibits very different behavior. At night emissions go to zero as photosynthesis ceases. At sunrise (about 6:00 am) concentrations begin to rise and continue to do so throughout the daylight hours. The vertical flux, or mass input per unit area, in the atmosphere of this substance is massive, being only slightly influenced by the enhanced mid-morning mixing. This effect can be seen at 9:00 am when slight drop in concentration occurs followed by a quick resumption in rise. Typical Urban Diurnal Profile, Toluene & Isoprene Concentration (ppbC) 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Time of Day Figure 38: Toluene & Isoprene, Typical Urban Daily Profile Toluene Isoprene 66 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Carbonyl Compounds Carbonyl compounds define a large group of substances, which include acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. These compounds can act as precursors to ozone formation. The majority of carbonyl compounds come from vehicle exhaust or the combustion of wood. Depending on the amount inhaled, exposure to these compounds can cause irritation to the eyes, ears, nose, and throat, dizziness, and damage to the lungs. Each of the seven carbonyls compounds that Georgia EPD monitors is discussed further in the following paragraphs. The Tucker site is part of the PAMS network and the South DeKalb site is part of both the PAMS network and the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) network. Both of these sites sample every six days. Savannah, Dawsonville, and Brunswick are part of the Air Toxics Network and sample every twelve days. For a map of monitoring locations, see Figure 39. Acrolein is primarily used as an intermediate in the manufacture of acrylic acid. It can be formed from the breakdown of certain organic pollutants in outdoor air, from forest fires and wildfires, as well as from vehicle exhaust. It is also found in cigarette smoke. Acetaldehyde is mainly used as an intermediate in the production of other chemicals. Acetaldehyde is formed as a product of incomplete wood combustion (in fireplaces and woodstoves, forest fires, and wildfires), pulp and paper production, stationary internal combustion engines and turbines, vehicle exhaust, and wastewater processing. Formaldehyde is used mainly to produce resins used in particleboard products and as an intermediate in the production of other chemicals. The major sources of emissions to the air are forest fires and wildfires, marshes, stationary internal combustion engines and turbines, pulp and paper plants, petroleum refineries, power plants, manufacturing facilities, incinerators, cigarette smoke, and vehicle exhaust. Acetone is used industrially as a reactant with phenol to produce bisphenol A, which is an important component of polymers. It is used in nail polish removers, superglue removers, and as a drying agent. It is also used to dissolve plastic. Acetone is highly volatile and evaporates quickly. Inhalation of acetone can lead to liver damage. Benzaldehyde is the simplest form of the aromatic aldehydes. It has an almond scent and is used in the food industry. It is also used as an industrial solvent, and is used in making pharmaceuticals, plastic additives, and aniline dyes. Liquid phase oxidation or chlorination of toluene can form benzaldehyde; so can a reaction between benzene and carbon monoxide. The combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel, wood burning, and incinerators emit benzaldehyde into the atmosphere. Butyraldehyde is used in the manufacture of synthetic resins, solvents, and plasticizers. It is emitted into the air by combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel, and wood. Propionaldehyde is a highly volatile compound that is produced or used in the making of propionic acid, plastics, rubber chemicals, alkyd resins, and is also used as a disinfectant and preservative. It is released into the atmosphere by combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel, wood, and polyethylene. 67 Whitfield Murray Pickens Bartow Cherokee Dawson DawsonvilleHall Forsyth Paulding Cobb Douglas Fulton Carroll Barrow Gwinnett Tucker De Kalb Walton S DeKalb Rockdale Clayton Newton Coweta Fayette Henry Spalding Butts Jasper Madison Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Meriwether Pike Lamar Monroe Jones Harris Muscogee Chattahoochee Russell Marion Bibb Crawford Twiggs Houston Terrell Lee Dougherty Baker Worth Lanier Brooks Lowndes Echols Edgefield McDuffie Columbia Richmond Aiken Burke Long Liberty E President McIntosh Brantley Glynn Brunswick Carbonyls Sites Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Color Figure 39: Carbonyls Monitoring Site Map As can be seen in Figure 40 and Figure 41, when the average concentration of all carbonyls is compared with the total number of detections at each of the sampling sites, the carbonyl detections and concentrations tend to track each other directly. It should be noted that South DeKalb's average carbonyl concentration is about half that of Tucker's. This is unexpected 68 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report due to the relative proximity of the two sites, but may be a result of their positioning relative to local roads. The Tucker site is very close to a secondary road (few feet away), while South DeKalb farther from any roads (hundreds of feet away), is in an area dominated by the intersection of Interstates 20 and 285. It should be noted that the South DeKalb and Tucker sites collect data every six days, while Savannah, Dawsonville, and Brunswick collect data every twelve days. All else being equal, by taking twice as many samples at those locations, one would normally expect to see twice as many detections. To compare the data collected in 2005 and 2006 (Figure 40 and Figure 41), the data is almost exactly the same year to year. The Brunswick site shows a lower average concentration (18.4 g/m3 in 2005 to 10.5 g/m3 in 2006), but overall the number of detections and averages are roughly the same. Total Number of Detections Total Average Concentration (g/m3) 2005 Carbonyls, 24-Hour, All Species 35.0 30.0 Total Average 224 Concentration (g/m3) 200 25.0 Total Number of Detections 20.0 15.0 89 10.0 75 5.0 0.0 Savannah Dawsonville S. DeKalb Name of Site Tucker 250 200 150 96 100 50 0 Brunswick Figure 40: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration and Number of Detects, 2005 Total Number of Detections Total Average Concentration (ug/m3) 2006 Carbonyls, 24-Hour, All Species 35.0 250 30.0 Total Average 220 207 200 25.0 Concentration (g/m3) Total Number of 20.0 Detections 150 15.0 10.0 72 81 5.0 90 100 50 0.0 Savannah Dawsonville S. DeKalb Name of Site Tucker 0 Brunswick Figure 41: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration and Number of Detects, 2006 69 The average concentration value of all 3-hour samples of carbonyls collected during the summer months (June, July, and August) has been combined for a given hour and is shown in Figure 42 and Figure 43 for the South DeKalb site and Figure 44 and Figure 45 for the Tucker site. The early morning ambient formaldehyde and acetone concentrations at the Tucker site are two times as large as at the South DeKalb site for 2005 and remain higher for 2006, however not twice as large. Acetaldehyde levels differ by a somewhat lesser amount between the two sites. The difference between sites becomes a bit reduced in the afternoon hours. A strong emissions source appears to be present in the vicinity of the Tucker site. There are a few noticeable changes when comparing the 2005 and 2006 3-hour carbonyl data. The concentrations of acetone are higher in 2006 at both sites, sometimes reaching twice as high for the South DeKalb site. There was a slight increase in the formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations. However, the concentrations of benzaldehyde are more than two times lower at both sites, sometimes reaching seven times lower in 2006. The concentrations of propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde overall show a decrease in 2006. There were no detections of acrolein in 2006, down from about 1 to 4 detections per hour and an average concentration of about 0.57 g/m3 at each hour in 2005. Acetyladehyde, acetone, and formaldehyde continue to be the biggest contributors, with the averages increasing from the 6:00 to 9:00, and again from the 9:00 to 12:00 hours, then decreasing at the 15:00 hour. 2005 South DeK alb Carbonyls, 3-H our Average Concentration (g/m3) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6:00 9:00 Tim e 12:00 15:00 Form aldehyde A c e to n e A c e ta ld e h yd e B e n za ld e h y d e P ropionaldehyde B utyraldehyde A crolein Figure 42: Average South DeKalb 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2005 70 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 South D eK alb C arbonyls, 3-H our Average Concentration (g/m3) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6:00 9:00 Tim e 12:00 15:00 Form aldehyde A c e to n e A c e ta ld e h y d e B e n za ld e h yd e P ro p io n a ld e h y d e B u tyra ld e h yd e A crolein Figure 43: Average South DeKalb 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2006 71 2005 Tucker Carbonyls, 3-hour Average Concentration (g/m3) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6:00 9:00 Tim e 12:00 15:00 Form aldehyde A c e to n e A cetaldehyde B enzaldehyde P ropionaldehyde B u ty ra ld e h y d e A crolein Figure 44: Average Tucker 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2005 2006 Tucker Carbonyls, 3-hour Average Concentration (g/m3) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6:00 9:00 Tim e 12:00 15:00 Form aldehyde Acetone A c e ta ld e h yd e B e n z a ld e h y d e P ro p io n a ld e h yd e B u ty ra ld e h y d e A c ro le in Figure 45: Average Tucker 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2006 Figure 46 and Figure 47 shows the seven (7) species in the analyte group according to their statewide annual abundance, based on number of detections and average concentration. A gradient is evident from this graph, with formaldehyde as the most ubiquitous carbonyl. For 72 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report the most part, it appears that the number of detections track the average concentration. Acetaldehyde does not follow this pattern, with more detections per concentration. The 2005 and 2006 carbonyl data seem to follow the same pattern. The proportion of each compound remained about the same from 2005 to 2006, with the biggest contributors (formaldeyhde, acetone, and acetaldehyde) remaining the same. One noticeable change is the number of benzaldehyde detections. In 2006, the number of benzaldehyde detections decreased from 50 in 2005 to 17, however the average concentration remained about the same, 4.6 g/m3 in 2005 to 3.6 g/m3 in 2006. This would indicate that although there were fewer detections, each detection would have carried a little bit more weight per detection in 2006. Total Average Concentration (g/m3) 2005 Carbonyls, 24-Hour, All Sites Total Number of Detections 35.0 30.0 182 170 25.0 200 170 150 20.0 15.0 100 10.0 67 41 50 50 5.0 0.0 4 0 FormaldehydeAcetaldehPyrdoepionaldehydBeutyraldehyde Acrolein Name of Carbonyls Species AcetonBeenzaldehyde Total Average Concentration (g/m3) Total Number of Detections Figure 46: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration vs. Number of Detects, by Species, 2005 Total Average Concentration (g/m3) Total Number of Detections 2006 Carbonyls, 24-Hour, All Sites 35.0 30.0 190 174 25.0 192 200 150 20.0 15.0 100 10.0 5.0 0.0 61 36 0 50 17 0 FormaldehydeAcetaldehPyrdoepionaldehydBeutyraldehyde Acrolein Name of Carbonyls Species AcetonBeenzaldehyde Total Average Concentration (ug/m3) Total Number of Detections Figure 47: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration vs. Number of Detects, by Species, 2006 73 Measurement Techniques A number of methods are used to conduct the PAMS hydrocarbon portion of the analyses. Throughout the year, 24-hour integrated hydrocarbon samples are taken and analyzed in the EPD laboratory for 56 hydrocarbon compounds. A 24-hour integrated carbonyl sample is taken once every sixth day throughout the year and analyzed. During June, July, and August, four integrated three-hour carbonyl samples are taken every third day. All analyses are conducted at the EPD Laboratory. During June, July, and August, hydrocarbon samples are analyzed hourly on-site using a gas chromatography unit with a Flame Ionization Detector (FID). The gas chromatograph produces analyses of the ambient air for the same 56 hydrocarbons. Specific annual summaries for 2006 may be found in Appendix D. Attainment Designation There are no specific ambient air standards for the hydrocarbon and aldehyde species measured. PAMS measurements are performed to support the regulatory, analytical, and public health purposes of the program. By performing these measurements, we can better serve two major goals. First, by studying local atmospheric chemistry, we improve our ability to control the formation of secondary pollutants like ozone and particulate matter. Second, we are monitoring the concentration of pollutants (aside from the defined criteria air pollutants) expected to be harmful to human health, but are not well enough understood to be regulated. By making such data available, scientists who study human health as it relates to air quality can study how these pollutants may affect our health. When this understanding is further refined, their data can serve to guide policymakers toward making decisions that protect public health. 74 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Air Toxics Monitoring General Information The citizens of Georgia have demonstrated a long-term interest in the quality of Georgia's air. Since the 1970's ambient ozone concentrations have been monitored in several communities throughout the state. As the state's population has grown, more compounds have been monitored in ambient air as required by the Federal Clean Air Act. In 1993 the EPD began to monitor a number of compounds that have no established ambient air standard. The monitoring has been conducted under two efforts, the first being the previously discussed Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) project, a federally mandated program for areas in serious, severe, or extreme non-attainment of the ozone standard. The second effort is the EPD-sponsored monitoring activities for ambient concentration of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). That effort was undertaken since monitoring only criteria pollutants would not provide an adequate understanding of the quality of Georgia's air. In 1994, the EPD conducted an intensive air quality study in Savannah (GADNR, 1996a). In 1996, the EPD conducted an intensive study in Glynn County as part of a multimedia event with EPA (GADNR, 1996b). These studies provided detailed pictures of the air quality in the communities, but the studies were not long-term studies and could not provide information on seasonal variation or trends. A reassessment of the toxic monitoring program occurred, and in 1996 the EPD embarked on an ambitious project of establishing a statewide hazardous air pollutant-monitoring network. The network was not designed to monitor any one particular industry, but to provide information concerning trend, seasonal variation, and rural versus urban ambient concentration of air toxics. To evaluate the rural air quality, two background sites were proposed: one in North Georgia and one in South Georgia. The majority of the other sites were located in areas with documented emissions to the atmosphere of HAPs exceeding one million (1,000,000) pounds per year as indicated by the 1991 Toxic Release Inventory (GADNR, 1993). By 2002 the Air Toxics Network consisted of fifteen (15) sites statewide, including a collocated site at Utoy Creek and South DeKalb's National Air Toxics Trends site, monitoring for a common set of toxic compounds. The compounds selected for monitoring are from the list of 188 metals and other compounds identified by EPA as being HAPs. These air pollutants can have effects on human health, ranging from causing headaches, nausea, and dizziness to causing cancer, birth defects, problems breathing, and other serious illnesses. These effects can vary depending on how often one is exposed, how long one is exposed, the health of the person that is exposed, and the toxicity of the compound. These air pollutants also affect the environment. Wildlife experiences symptoms similar to those in humans. Pollutants accumulate in the food chain. Many air pollutants can also be absorbed into waterways and have toxic effects on aquatic wildlife. Some of the substances tend to have only one critical effect, while others may have several. Some of the effects may occur after a short exposure and others appear after long-term exposure or many years after being exposed. Exposure is not only through direct inhalation of the pollutant, but also through the consumption of organisms such as fish that have absorbed the pollutant. Air toxic compounds are released from many different sources, including mobile sources (such as vehicles), stationary industrial sources, small area sources, indoor sources (such as cleaning materials), and other environmental sources (such as wildfires). The lifetime, 75 transportation, and make-up of these pollutants are affected by both weather (rain and wind) and landscape (mountains and valleys). They can be transported far away from the original source, or be caught in rain and brought down to waterways or land. The following section discusses air toxic compounds, possible sources, monitoring techniques, findings for 2006 and a comparison of 2006 data to previous years. In 2004, the Air Toxics Network underwent changes to the detection limits and reporting limits of the chemicals in this network. Each of the new limits is discussed more thoroughly in the following respective sections. Lowering the limit of detection helps the data better represent reality. Instead of only seeing the higher numbers that were detected and using those numbers for average concentrations, one is able to see both sides of the spectrum and have a truer average for each chemical. Also, including the lower concentrations for each chemical allows for a better understanding of what levels can cause chronic health problems. Seeing only the higher levels of concentration, or possibly spikes, only yields data useful for identifying acute health effects. However, with the lower concentration levels included in the data, there can be further assessment of potential chronic health effects. With the lower limits included in the data, one is able to see all possible effects of the chemicals analyzed. 76 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Metals The metals subcategory includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, and zinc. Antimony is used as a hardener in lead for storage batteries, in matches, as an alloy in internal combustion engines, and in linotype printing machines. Antimony compounds are used in making materials flame-retardant, and in making glass, ceramic enamels, and paints. Forms of the antimony metal are also used in medicines, and can be found in gasoline and diesel exhaust. Arsenic occurs naturally at trace levels in soil and water. Most people are not exposed to arsenic through air pollution, but it can be found in food. The arsenic found in air comes mainly from the burning of coal or fuel oil, from metal smelters or iron foundries, and from the burning of waste. Beryllium is a lightweight and rigid metal and used in watch springs, computer equipment, and used in the production of beryllium-copper as an alloying agent. This strong alloy is used to conduct heat and electricity, in spot welding, electrical contacts, and high-speed aircraft. Until 1949, beryllium was used in fluorescent lighting, until it was determined to have caused berylliosis, a disease that primarily affects the respiratory system and skin. Beryllium in ambient air is mainly a result of the burning of coal or fuel oil. Cadmium emissions, like beryllium and arsenic, are mainly from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal or oil. The incineration of municipal waste and the operation of zinc, lead, or copper smelters also release cadmium to the air. For nonsmokers, food is generally the largest source of cadmium exposure. Chromium sources include the combustion of coal and oil, electroplating, vehicle exhaust, iron and steel plants, and metal smelters. The emissions from these sources are a combination of elemental chromium and compounds including chromium ions. The most toxic form is hexavalent chromium. Cobalt is used as a pigment (blue and green coloring agent), as a drying agent for paints, inks and varnishes, and as a catalyst for the petroleum and chemical industries. It is used as an alloy for parts in turbine aircraft engines, corrosion-resistant alloys, magnets, battery electrodes, and steel-belted tires. Cobalt also has a medicinal use as a radioactive metal in radiotherapy. It is also found in gasoline and diesel exhaust. Cobalt is actually necessary to many forms of life, when ingested through the digestive tract, in small amounts, as a micronutrient. It is a central component of vitamin B-12. As with most micronutrients, however, human activity can cause it to accumulate in unnatural locations or in unnatural concentrations. In those cases, it may be harmful and is considered a pollutant. Lead is used in the manufacturing of batteries. The largest source of lead in the atmosphere used to be from the combustion of leaded gasoline. With the elimination of lead from gasoline, lead levels in the air have decreased considerably. Other sources of lead emissions include combustion of solid waste, coal, oils, emissions from iron and steel production, and lead smelters. Exposure to lead can also occur from food and soil. Children 77 are at particular risk to lead exposure, because they commonly put hands, toys, and other items in their mouths that may come in contact with lead-containing dust and dirt. Leadbased paints were commonly used for many years. Flaking paint, paint chips, and weathered paint powder may be a major source of lead exposure, particularly for children. Manganese is a naturally occurring substance found in many types of rock and soil; it is ubiquitous in the environment and found in low levels in water, air, soil, and food. Manganese can also be released into the air by combustion of coal, oil, wood, the operation of iron and steel production plants. Nickel is found in the air as a result of oil and coal combustion, residential heating, nickel metal refining, lead smelting, sewage sludge incineration, manufacturing facilities, mobile sources, and other sources. Selenium is a byproduct of mining and smelting sulfide ores, such as silver, copper, and pyrite. It is found in soils, and can also be released by burning coal. Selenium has photovoltaic and photoconductive properties and is therefore used in photocells and solar panels. It is used as a pigment (red coloring agent) in enamels and glass. It is also used as a toner in photographs and in photocopying. Selenium is also found in gasoline and diesel exhaust. Selenium is a micronutrient, needed at very low levels for the health of all living creatures. It is normally absorbed through the digestive tract, though, and is not desirable in the air. Zinc is found in gasoline and diesel exhaust. It is used to prevent corrosion of galvanized steel. It is also used in die-casting, and as part of battery containers. Zinc has been used as the primary metal in making the U.S. penny since 1982. Zinc compounds are used in making white pigment, sunscreen, deodorant, calamine lotions, and pigments for glow in the dark items. It is also used in the rubber industry. Like selenium, zinc is also a micronutrient needed for the health of living beings when consumed through the digestive system. When found in the air, though, it may be considered a pollutant. See Figure 48 for a map of monitoring locations for metals. 78 Sequatchie Hamilton 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Catoosa Walker Whitfield Murray Rome Floyd Bartow Pickens Cherokee Dawson Gainesville DawsonvilleHall Forsyth Madison Yorkville Paulding Cobb Gwinnett Barrow Haralson Douglas Utoy Creek SDDe KeaKlb alb Walton Fulton Rockdale Carroll Clayton Newton Heard Coweta Fayette Henry Spalding Butts Jasper Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Milledgeville Harris Pike Meriwether Muscogee Columbus Univ Lamar Monroe Crawford Bibb Jones GA Forestry Twiggs Warner Robins Houston Russell Chattahoochee Marion Edgefield Columbia McDuffie Aiken Augusta Richmond Burke E President Terrell Lee Dougherty Baker Worth Brooks General Coffee Long Liberty McIntosh Lanier Lowndes Valdosta Echols Brantley Glynn Brunswick Metals Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Figure 48: Metals Monitoring Site Map 79 Total Detects Total Detections of Metals Per Site, 2004-2006 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 AugustaBrunGswenicekral CoffeeColumbDusawsonviGlleainesville* MacMonilledgeville RomeSavaSnonuathh DeKalbU*toy Creek ValWdoasrtnaer Robins Yorkville 2004 2005 Site 2006 *The South DeKalb sampler runs twice as often as the other sites. Gainesville runs one extra sample a month. Figure 49: Total Detections of Metals, by Site, 2004-2006 Figure 49 shows the total number of metal species detected at each site for the years 2004 to 2006, including the National Air Toxics Trends Site located at South DeKalb. This site was established January 1st, 2003. Unlike the rest of the network measuring metals, the equipment at South DeKalb collects only the PM10 fraction of the total suspended solids. The South DeKalb site also has data collected every six days, as opposed to every twelve days at the other sites. It should also be noted that that Gainesville site has one extra sampling collection a month. Therefore, it is understandable that these sites have the highest number of detections. Without these sites included in the graph, the distribution across the sites would be relatively similar. Lower limits of detection (LOD)5 were introduced in September of 2004, resulting in an increase in the number of observations. While this only represented one 5 Limits of detection (LOD) were reduced according to the table below. In addition, all numbers, including those occurring below the designated detection limit, are being reported and included in the data. Values are expressed in g/filter. Element Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Manganese Nickel Lead Selenium Zinc Old LOD 1.2 6 1.2 1.2 6 6 1.2 6 1.2 6 6 New LOD 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.05 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.7 80 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report third of a year for 2004, the following graphs include the 2004 data with 2005 and 2006. There has been only two full years of data collected at the lower limits, therefore trends will not be discernible at this time. As more data is collected with consistent lower limits of detection, hopefully trends will be visible. The distribution of metals at the various locations across the state can be examined in Figure 49, as well any changes in the past two years. In 2004 and 2005, Valdosta consistently had fewer detections than most other sites. However in 2006, the number of detections at Valdosta increased to around the same number as the other sites (around 300). Otherwise, there were not dramatic changes from 2005 to 2006. There was a slight decrease in number of detections at Milledgeville and Dawsonville, but most sites had a slight increase or remained the same. The variability across the various sampling locations is modest, considering the vast geographic distribution of the sites, and climatological and anthropogenic influences from nearby urban development. 81 Figure 50 and Figure 51 show the network's frequency of detection and total average concentration by metallic species at all Air Toxics sites during 2004 through 2006. One point of interest when looking at data is to track the number of detections along with the concentration. When examining this aspect, it appears that for most of the metals there are several detections. Therefore, each metal detection contributes little concentration to the overall total concentration. This does not seem to be the case for zinc. While there were about the same number of detections as the other metals, zinc had the highest average concentration for all three years. This would indicate that for each zinc detection, there was a higher concentration of that metal. Some metals including zinc, nickel, antimony, lead, chromium, and cadmium have been associated with emissions from tires and brake linings. The use of vehicles on Georgia's roads could be a reason for higher levels associated with some of these metals. With the concentrations of zinc being much higher than the other metals, zinc is explored further in Figure 52. 82 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Total Detections of Metals, 2004-2006 Number of Detects 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Antimony* Arsenic Berrylium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Lead Manganese Nickel Selenium Zinc 2004 Name of Metal 2005 2006 *Antimony was added to the list of metals starting with the 2005 sampling year. Figure 50: Total Detections of Metals, by Species, 2004-2006 Total Average Concentration (ug/m3) Total Average Concentration of Metals, 2004-2006 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Antimony* Arsenic Berrylium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Lead Manganese Name of Metal Nickel Selenium *Antimony was added to the list of metals starting with the 2005 sampling year. Figure 51: Total Average Concentration of Metals, 2004-2006 Zinc 2004 2005 2006 83 With Figure 52, the total average concentrations of zinc are investigated more closely, divided by site, for 2004 through 2006. Several sites had a consistent level of zinc through the three years, and a few sites even had a decrease in zinc levels with the 2006 data. The General Coffee, Columbus, Gainesville, and Valdosta sites, however, had a noticeable increase in zinc levels from 2005 to 2006. To look at the overall levels of zinc, the Utoy Creek site has consistently had the highest concentration from 2004 to 2006, with levels almost three times as high as the lowest concentrations, which were at the South DeKalb site. It is surprising to see the South DeKalb site, which is situated in the metro Atlanta area, display lower concentrations. The Utoy Creek site is situated at the Utoy Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility. With the particle emissions coming from tires and brake linings, these particles can be washed into waterways. It is a possibility that these emissions are then coming through the wastewater treatment plant, causing the higher numbers to be seen at the Utoy Creek site. Zinc can be used to help keep galvanized steel from corroding, and is possibly used for this reason on the pipes at the wastewater treatment facility. This could be another reason for the higher levels of zinc at the Utoy Creek site. 0.060 Yearly Average Comparison of Zinc, 2004-2006 0.050 Average Concentration (ug/m3) 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 Augusta BrunswGicekneral Coffee ColumbusDawsonville Gainesville MaconMilledgeville Rome South DeKalb SavannahUtoy Creek Name of Site ValdoWstaarner Robins Yorkville 2004 2005 2006 Figure 52: Yearly Average Comparison of Zinc, by Site, 2004-2006 84 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Hexavalent Chromium Hexavalent chromium (chromium in its +6 oxidation state) in the environment is almost always related to human activity. Hexavalent chromium can be released into the atmosphere through the production of stainless steel, chrome plating, coating processes, and painting. It is also found in vehicle engines. The presence of chromium compounds is common at hazardous waste sites. From locations such as these, exposure of populations residing or working nearby can occur through exposure to air containing particulates or mists of chromium compounds. These particles can also find their way into drinking water if soluble forms of chromium leach into groundwater. Human exposure can also occur through skin contact with soil at hazardous waste sites. Hexavalent chromium is absorbed most readily thorough the lungs or digestive tract. Other forms of the metal, such as chromium in the +3 oxidation state, occur naturally in the environment and are not as efficient at entering the body. In general, hexavalent chromium compounds are more toxic than other chromium compounds. The toxicity of hexavalent chromium is in part due to the generation of free radicals formed when biological systems reduce hexavalent chromium to the +3 oxidation state. Effects in humans exposed occupationally to high levels of chromium or its compounds, primarily hexavalent chromium, by inhalation may include nasal septum ulceration and perforation, and other irritating respiratory effects. Cardiovascular effects, gastrointestinal and hematological effects, liver and kidney effects, and increased risks of death from lung cancer may also result from such exposure. In addition to the respiratory effects, exposure to chromium compounds can be associated with allergic responses (e.g., asthma and dermatitis) in sensitized individuals. Hexavalent chromium dioxide is a tetravalent chromium compound with limited industrial application. It is used to make magnetic tape, as a catalyst in chemical reactions, and in ceramics. Because of its limited industrial uses, the potential for human exposure is less for chromium dioxide than for the more industrially important hexavalent chromium and chromium +3 compounds. 85 This is the second year hexavalent chromium has been monitored at our South DeKalb site. The data for 2005 and 2006 is presented in Figure 53. Observed concentrations range over an order of magnitude, from 0.01 to 0.3 ng/m3 (nanograms per cubic meter). The observed concentrations are represented with the points, while the black line represents a moving average across the data set. At this point, true trends are hard to define, but there may be a suggestion of a seasonal trend with lower concentrations in the winter months. As the data set grows, possible seasonal variation in its concentration, the magnitude of its health risk, and which wind directions are most associated with elevated concentrations will be investigated. Hexavalent Chromium, 2005-2006 0.35 0.30 0.25 Concentration Moving Average 0.20 Concentration (ng/m3) 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 02/05 03/05 04/05 05/05 06/05 07/05 08/05 09/05 10/05 11/05 12/05 01/06 02/06 03/06 04/06 05/06 06/06 07/06 08/06 09/06 10/06 11/06 12/06 Date Figure 53: Hexavalent Chromium at South DeKalb 86 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Chlorinated compounds are very stable in the atmosphere, with lifetimes of several years. Dichlorodifluoromethane was the refrigerant of choice for automotive cooling. This material has not been manufactured since the mid-1990s (cars now use R-134a), yet it remains prevalent in the environment. Chloromethane is a volatile industrial solvent. Toluene is major component of paints, solvents and is also present in gasoline. It reaches the atmosphere by way of evaporative emissions as well as incomplete combustion processes. Carbon tetrachloride and the Freons are generally used as refrigerants, industrial solvents, and as fire suppressants (though generally known as Halon in that application). The atmospheric reactivity of aromatic compounds is relatively high, with lifetimes in the weeks to months range. Except for the chlorinated compound, all others are byproducts of burning gasoline. Figure 54 shows the statewide detection distribution of toxic (TO-14/15) type volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 2004, 2005, and 2006 across the Air Toxics Network. Again, the South DeKalb site has samples collected every six days, and Gainesville has an extra monthly sampling, compared to the other sites which have samples collected every twelve days. If South DeKalb is excluded, the distribution is relatively even across the state, with the more urban or industrial sites near the upper extreme and the more rural sites near the lower extreme. With lower limits of detection6 beginning in September 2004, the number of detections increased from 2004 to 2005. With two full years of data (2005 and 2006) at the same detection limit, the number of detections are relatively the same. As more data is collected in the future, with a consistent limit of detection, hopefully a trend will be apparent. Number of Detects Total Volatile Organic Compunds (TO-14/15) Detected Per Site, 2004-2006 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Augusta BrunswGicekneral Coffee ColumbusDawsonville Gainesville MaconMilledgeville Rome SavannaShouth DeKalb Utoy Creek Name of Site ValdoWstaarner Robins Yorkville 2004 2005 2006 Figure 54: Total Volatile Organic Compounds Detected per Site, 2004-2006 6 Detection limits for this analyte group, TO-14/15 Toxic VOCs, were halved beginning in September 2004. The old detection limit was 0.5 ppbv for all species except methylene chloride, which was 5 ppbv. The new detection limits are 0.25 ppbv for all species except methylene chloride, which is at 2.5 ppbv. 87 Number of Detections Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15), 2004-2006 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 TDCrihicclhohlrlooorrmoodfeliutfhlouaroonrmeometehtahnaen(eFrmeo/pnMX1e1yth)leyTnl oeclh(umleo/nrpoe-fDBoriemmne(z1teh,n1ye,l1b-eTnrzicehnleo)roeth1a,C2on,y-e4c)X-lToyrhliemenxeeat(hnoye-lDbiemneztehnyelbenzEetnhTey)elbtreanczhelonreoethylenCearbSotynretenterachloridCehlor222of000o000rm456 Name of Compound Figure 55: Number of Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Detected, Select Compounds, 20042006 Total Average Concentration for Select VOCs 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 TDrCicichhhlloolorrrooomfldueioflturhooamrnoeemtheathnaen(mFerM/epoeXnthy1ylel1nc)eTh(loomlru/oepfn-oDerBmime(n1ez,t1he,yn1leb-Terniczhelnoero) e1t,oh2C-a,4Xny-ceyTl)loreihmneeex(toah-nyDelbimeneztheynlebenEzetThneyetl)braecnhzleonroeethylCeanrebSotnyrteentreachloriCdheloro222f000o000rm456 Name of Compound Figure 56: Total Average Concentration of Select Volatile Organic Compounds (TO14/15), 20042006 88 Total Average Concentration (g/m3) 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report When looking at the make up of samples collected, one relationship to consider is that between the concentrations observed compared to the number of detections of that compound. Figure 55 and Figure 56 compare this relationship, with Figure 55 showing the top fifteen compounds of the VOCs group that were detected for 2004-2006 and Figure 56 showing the corresponding compound's total average concentration. Although there are 42 species in this analyte group, only a relatively smaller subset is typically detected with any regularity. The number of detections was derived using any detection that was above half of the limit of detection. To obtain the average concentration for compounds with at least one detection, the half limit of detection for that compound was substituted for any number lower than that compound's half limit of detection. Chloromethane consistently had one of the highest detection rates, but the total average concentration was the third or fourth highest over the three years. This would indicate that the concentrations of chloromethane are relatively low per detection. Conversely, toluene had the third or fourth highest detection rate, but one of the top average concentrations for 2004 through 2006. This would indicate that each detection of toluene has a relatively high concentration compared to the other VOCs. Concentration (ppb) Total Volatile Organic Compound (TO-14/15) Loading by Site, 2004-2006 180 2004 160 2005 140 2006 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Augusta BrunswGicekneral Coffee ColumbusDawsonville Gainesville MaconMilledgeville Rome SavannaShouth DeKalbUtoy Creek ValdoWstaarner Robins Yorkville Site Figure 57: Total Volatile Organic Compound Loading all Species, by Site, 2004-2006 Figure 57 shows the total volatile organic compound concentration, or loading, at each site for 2004 through 2006. This "total loading" measurement is produced by adding up all the detected concentrations of all VOCs, even those below half of the detection limit as discussed earlier. It is intended as a surrogate measure showing general trends in overall VOC concentrations. When considering Figure 57, it is important to note that the South DeKalb and Gainesville sites would appear elevated since these two sites have a larger number of scheduled samplings than the rest of the sites in the network. South DeKalb samples on a 6-day schedule, and Gainesville has an additional sample collected per month 89 over the network's regular sample days. VOC levels at sites located close to or within urban centers (South DeKalb, Utoy Creek) show higher levels of these pollutants, while sites in smaller communities or rural areas (General Coffee, Dawsonville, and Yorkville) show lower levels. There is an obvious increase from 2004 to 2005 since the detection limits were changed only for the last quarter of 2004, in September. When adding the 2006 data to the graph, most of the data did not show dramatic differences, but there are a couple notable changes from the 2005 data. The Milledgeville site had almost a twofold decrease in VOCs concentration from 2005 to 2006. The Augusta site shows an increase of almost double VOCs concentration from 2005 to 2006. Referring to Figure 54, the Augusta site had the highest number of detections after South DeKalb and Gainesville. The Augusta site is located in an urban industrialized area, near an interstate. As more data is collected, these sites will be examined for possible trends. To look at the VOCs loading concentrations in a different way, Figure 58 shows the seasonal concentration of all volatile organic compounds (TO-14/15) throughout the Air Toxics Network for 2004 through 2006. The limits of detection were lowered in September of 2004, causing the last quarter of data to be higher for that year. With a consistent limit of detection for the 2005 data, the higher concentration is found in the third quarter. It is somewhat surprising to see the highest concentration in the third quarter of 2005, since these compounds are usually degraded in chemical activity in the warmer months. For the 2006 data, the pattern of lower concentration is seen in the third quarter. In 2006, the second and fourth quarters are also almost identical, with the fourth quarter showing the highest concentration of the year, by a slight measure. However, overall, with the data represented at this point, each year has varied. It is hard to suggest a trend when there is only two full years worth of data under the newer detection limits. As more data is collected in the coming years, trends may be seen. 90 Concentration (ppb) 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Seasonal Observations Total Loading Statew ide, 2004-2006 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1st 2nd 3rd Quarter 2006 2005 2004 4th Figure 58: Volatile Organic Compounds, Seasonal Effects, 2004-2006 For a map of VOC and SVOC monitoring locations, see Figure 59. 91 Sequatchie Hamilton Catoosa Whitfield Murray Walker Floyd Bartow Rome Pickens Cherokee Dawson DawsonvilleHall Gainesville Forsyth Madison Yorkville Paulding Cobb Gwinnett Barrow Haralson Douglas Utoy Creek De Kalb Walton Fulton { Rockdale Carroll S DeKalb Clayton Newton Heard Coweta Fayette Henry Spalding Butts Jasper Clarke Oconee Oglethorpe Milledgeville Harris Pike Meriwether Muscogee Columbus Univ Lamar Monroe Crawford Bibb Jones GA Forestry Twiggs Warner Robins Houston Chattahoochee Russell Marion Edgefield Columbia McDuffie Aiken Augusta Richmond Burke E President Terrell Lee Dougherty Worth General Coffee Long Liberty McIntosh Baker Brooks SVOC / VOC Sites { VOC Site Lanier Lowndes Valdosta Echols Brantley Glynn Brunswick Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Figure 59: VOC and SVOC Monitoring Site Map 92 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, also called semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) are chemical compounds that consist of fused, six-carbon aromatic rings. They are formed by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel fuel, fat or tobacco. Over 100 different chemicals are comprised within this designation. Many of them are known or suspected carcinogens. Some environmental facts about this class of compounds are mentioned below. PAHs enter the air mostly as releases from volcanoes, forest fires, burning coal, and automobile exhaust. PAHs can occur in air attached to dust particles. Some PAH particles can readily evaporate into the air from soil or surface waters. PAHs can break down by reacting with sunlight and other chemicals in the air over a period of days to weeks. PAHs can enter water through discharges from industrial and wastewater treatment plants. Most PAHs do not dissolve easily in water. They stick to solid particles and settle to the bottoms of lakes or rivers. Microorganisms can break down PAHs in the soil or water after a period of weeks to months. In soils, PAHs are most likely to stick tightly to particles. Certain PAHs move through soil to contaminate groundwater. PAH content of plants and animals may be much higher than the PAH content of the soil or water in which they live. For a map of SVOC monitoring locations, see Figure 59. 93 Number of Detections Total Semi-Volatile Compounds Detected, Per Site, 2004-2006 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 AugustaBrunGsweincekral CoffeeColumbuDsawsonvillGe ainesville MacMonilledgeville RomeSavannaUhtoy Creek Valdoasrtnaer Robins Yorkville W 2004 Name of Site 2005 2006 Figure 60: Total Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Detections Per Site, 2004-2006 Figure 60 displays the number of detections according to site for 2004 through 2006 for all semi-volatile organic compounds combined in the Air Toxics Network. Detections were counted for any number that was above half of the limit of detection. As can be seen from this graph, the semi-volatile organic compounds are detected much less frequently than the other groups of compounds in the Air Toxics Network. Of the three years represented in this graph, 2005 had the most detections. Figure 61 and Figure 62 show the total number of times each of the semi-volatile organic compounds were detected and the total average concentration of those compounds across the statewide network of sites from 2004 through 2006. The number of detections was derived using any detection that was above half of the limit of detection. To obtain the average concentration for compounds with at least one detection, the half limit of detection for that compound was substituted for any number lower than that compound's half limit of detection. Even with the few detections and low concentrations, the relationship between these two measures can still be examined. With the 2005 data, the compound with the highest number of detections was benzo(g,h,i)perylene, but this compound had one of the lowest detectable concentrations of the group. This would show that each detection of benzo(g,h,i)perylene had a low concentration. The compound with the highest average concentration was phenanthrene, but this compound had one of the lowest detection rates. In 2006, phenanthrene again had the highest average concentration, though at about half the 2005 concentration level, and had the fewest detections of the compounds detected. This would mean that for the each detection of phenanthrene, there was a higher concentration. 94 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Number of Detections Total Detections of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, 2004-2006 18 16 14 2004 2005 12 2006 10 8 6 4 2 0 NaphtAhcaelennaepAhctheennpehthylenFeluPohreennaenthrAenntehraFclueonreanthene PyBreennCzehorB(yaes)naeznnoteh(brBa)efclnuezonorea(kn)tfhlueonDreBaibenenthnzeozno(ee(a)p,Bhy)reaennnzteoh(rga,che,ni)epBIneedrneyzlneoon((ae1),p2y,3re-cnde)pyrene Name of Compound Figure 61: Number of Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Detections, by Compound, 2004-2006 Concentration (g/m 3) 0.007 0.006 0.005 Total Average Concentration of Sem i-Volatile Organic Com pounds, 2004-2006 2004 2005 2006 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 NaphtAhcaelennaepAhtcheennpehthyleneFluPohreenneanthrAennethracFelunoeranthene PyBreennCezhor(yBase)eannnzetoh(rbaB)cfeleunnozeroa(nkt)hfleunoerBaDneibtnhezenonz(eeo)(pay,hrBe)eannnezthor(agc,he,ni)epBeIenrndylzeeonn(oea()1p,y2r,e3n-ced)pyrene Nam e of Com pound Figure 62: Total Average Concentration of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, 20042006 95 Monitoring Techniques In 2006, samples were collected from a total of fifteen (15) sites, including a collocated site (a site that has two monitors of each type and acts as a quality assurance site for precision and accuracy calculations) and two background (rural) sites. The compounds sampled at the ATN sites are shown in Appendix E. The list was derived from the 188 compounds EPA has designated as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS). Many of the HAPS do not have standardized ambient air sampling and analytical methods. In order to collect the compounds of interest for the Georgia network, three types of samplers are used at all locations: the HIVOL, PUF, and canister. Also, carbonyls are monitored at three of the air toxics sites (as well as two PAMS sites). This equipment samples for metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, and volatile organic compounds once every twelve days following a pre-established schedule that corresponds to a nationwide sampling schedule. On the twelfth day the sampler runs midnight to midnight and takes a 24 hour composite sample. The South DeKalb site, which monitors metals and volatile organic compounds, collects samples every six days, as part of the National Air Toxics Trends (NATTS) network. The HIVOL sampler used for sampling for metals is a timed sampler. The sampler is calibrated to collect 1300 to 2000 liters of air per minute. Particulate material is trapped on an 8" x 10" quartz fiber filter. The particulates include dust, pollen, diesel fuel by-products, particulate metal, etc. The filters are pre-weighed at a remote laboratory prior to use and weighed again after sampling. The filters are subjected to a chemical digestion process and are analyzed on an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer. The PUF (polyurethane foam) sampler used for sampling for semi-volatile organic compounds is a timed sampler. The sampler is calibrated to collect 198 to 242 liters (L) of air per minute. A multi-layer cartridge is prepared which collects both the particulate fraction and the volatile fraction of this group of compounds. The plug, filter and absorbent are extracted at a remote laboratory and analyzed using a gas chromatograph with an Electron Capture Detector (ECD). The canister sampler used for sampling volatile organic compounds is also a timed sampler. A SUMMA polished canister is evacuated to a near-perfect vacuum and attached to a sampler with a pump controlled by a timer. The canister is filled to greater than 10 psig. The canister is analyzed using a gas chromatograph with mass spectroscopy detection (GC/MS). The carbonyl sampler at both PAMS and ATN sites is also a timed sampler. An absorbent cartridge filled with dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) coated silica is attached to a pump to allow approximately 180 L of air to be sampled. The cartridge is analyzed using High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Some of the chemicals monitored in the Air Toxics Network (ATN) are also monitored at sites in the PAMS network. While the monitoring schedule and some analysis methods are different at the PAMS and ATN sites, the PAMS sites were also evaluated and compared to concentrations measured at nearby ATN sites for this analysis. 96 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Attainment Designation Currently, there are no attainment standards for the air toxics compounds, with the exception of lead, which has its designation as a criteria pollutant. Air toxics measurements are performed to support the regulatory, analytical, and public health purposes of the program. While it is understood that these compounds are toxic, it is not well understood what airborne concentrations of each compound may be harmful. By collecting data about their current concentrations, researchers can later compare our data with health data to determine what levels of each compound may be safe. Eventually, this information can be used in making policy decisions about regulating limits like the NAAQS for these other pollutants. 97 98 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Meteorological Report Variance in climate across north and central Georgia is largely a function of terrain. Most of the northern half of the state is made up of rolling hills with elevation ranging from 400 feet to between 800 and 1100 feet. The northeast region of the state occupied by the Appalachian Mountains is termed the "Northeast Georgia Mountains" and has a climate similar to the rest of North Georgia. The average annual rainfall is between 55 and 60 inches of rain, with the driest months on average being September and October, and the wettest month being March. The climate of central Georgia, which includes the metropolitan areas of Atlanta and Macon, involves summers of warm, humid weather and variable temperatures during the winter months. The average date of first freeze is in mid-November. The average date of the last freeze in the spring is mid to late March. Average amounts of rainfall reach between 45 and 50 inches, with September and October averaging as the driest month and the wettest being March. According to the National Weather Service, the weather across north and central Georgia during 2006 was predominantly characterized by warm and dry conditions (see Table 4 and Table 5), primarily due to persistence of high pressure aloft and near the surface, and the Gulf being cutoff. January set the trend with unseasonably mild temperatures and rainfall deficits recorded for Athens, Columbus, and Macon. Average monthly temperatures in February were colder than normal, with near or above normal rainfall recorded at most of the metro sites. Atlanta 19712000 J F M A M J J A S O N D Yearly +/- 2006 5.1 5.50 2.93 2.48 2.86 5.80 1.31 8.66 3.31 3.04 4.39 3.08 -1.74 30 yr avg 5.0 4.68 5.38 3.62 3.95 3.63 5.12 3.67 4.09 3.11 4.10 3.82 Athens 19712000 2006 4.2 4.71 2.53 2.35 2.17 1.93 3.66 5.76 2.22 3.52 3.18 3.91 30 yr avg 4.6 4.39 4.99 3.35 3.86 3.94 4.41 3.78 3.53 3.47 3.71 3.71 -7.63 Macon 19712000 2006 2.0 3.81 1.24 2.48 1.52 5.12 3.42 2.28 1.46 2.23 3.05 5.99 -10.38 30 yr avg 5.0 4.55 4.90 3.14 2.98 3.54 4.32 3.79 3.26 2.37 3.22 3.93 Columbus 2006 2.9 4.46 2.77 2.91 3.18 1.77 2.86 3.77 3.49 3.14 4.63 2.89 19712000 30 yr avg 4.7 4.48 5.75 3.84 3.62 3.51 5.04 3.78 3.07 2.33 3.97 4.40 (Data compiled by National Weather Service at Peachtree City) -9.73 Table 4: Monthly Rainfall For 2006 and 30-Year Average, Selected Cities 99 City Mean Temperature for 2006 Normal Mean Temperature Mean Temperature Departure from Normal Atlanta 63.5 62.1 +1.4 Athens 63.2 61.5 +1.7 Macon 65.2 63.7 +1.5 Columbus 67.1 65.1 +2.0 (Data compiled by National Weather Service at Peachtree City) Total Rainfall for 2006 48.46" 40.20" 34.62" 38.84" Normal Total Rainfall Total Rainfall Departure from Normal 50.38" 47.83" 45.00" 48.57" -1.74 -7.63 -10.38" -9.73" Table 5: Temperature and Rainfall Statistics for 2006, Selected Cities In March, temperatures moderated again to near normal or to slightly above normal monthly readings. However, abnormally dry conditions returned resulting in hefty rainfall deficits for the month. The drier than average conditions continued in April as Atlanta, Athens, Columbus and Macon all recorded deficits for the 2nd consecutive month. May temperatures were the closest to average for any month during the year. An unseasonably cool 10-day period during the middle of the month offset an early heat wave, which occurred toward the end of the month. This heat was also accompanied by a prolonged dry spell, which contributed to rainfall deficits of 1.69 inches at Athens and 1.46 inches at Macon. The early summer heat continued through June, as 90 degrees was reached 17 times in Atlanta. The heat wave accompanied by localized rainfall initiated a moderate drought for most of central and northern Georgia by mid June. July will long be remembered for its persistent 100+ degree heat over a broad area of the Great Plains and Midwest. In Atlanta, the mercury topped 90 degrees or more on 23 days, the most July occurrences since 1996. In August, more frequent thunderstorm activity brought some wellneeded relief from the persistent drought. However, not all areas benefited from the generally localized rainfall. Whereas Atlanta had its' wettest August since 1967 with 8.66 inches of rainfall, Macon received only 2.28 inches, which was 1.51 inches below normal. One big difference was a major rain event that occurred on the last day of the month. A slow moving upper level wave over Mississippi/Alabama approached Georgia on the heels of Tropical Storm Ernesto. A persistent training effect of thunderstorms set up over Atlanta, but not across central Georgia. The result, a record amount of rainfall (3.72") for the day in Atlanta, but just 0.15 inches fell in Macon. September finally brought relief from the heat with all four metro cities recording a below normal monthly temperature. The cooler than average temperatures continued in October. A welcomed change was a more active lower Mississippi valley storm track, which brought near normal or above normal precipitation to the region. November provided near normal to above normal rainfall, while experiencing very close to average monthly temperatures. December began where November left off with 70 degree or more high temperatures on the 1st in Atlanta, Columbus, and Macon. This warmth soon ended however, as some of the coldest temperatures in 2 years were ushered in for the 7th through 11th. Mild temperatures continued though late December and led to all four cities recording monthly averages well above normal. 100 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Summary of Meteorological Measurements (2006) A complete suite of meteorological instrumentation is used to characterize meteorological conditions around metropolitan Atlanta. The basic surface meteorological parameters measured at the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Sites (PAMS) are shown in Table 6. The PAMS sites are Conyers, South DeKalb, Tucker, and Yorkville. All PAMS sensors measure hourly-averaged scalar wind speed and vector-averaged wind direction at the 10meter level, and hourly-averaged surface temperature, relative humidity and barometric pressure at the 2-meter level. Several sites include instruments to record hourly-averaged precipitation, global solar radiation, and total ultraviolet radiation. The standard deviation of the wind direction is also computed at one of the PAMS sites (South DeKalb). Other surface meteorological measurements were made across the state in 2006 and are also shown in Table 6. Statewide Monitoring Sites Wind Speed (m/s) Wind Direction (deg) Sigth (deg) Relative Humidity (%) Solar Radiation (W/m2) Total Ultraviolet Radiation (W/m2) Barometric Pressure (mb) Precip. (in) Temp (C) Conyers a a a a a a a South DeKalb a a a a a a a Tucker a a a a a a a a Yorkville a a a a a a a Fort Mountain a a a a Brunswick a a Confederate Avenue a a Dawsonville a a Savannah E. President a a Macon a a Douglasville a a Fayetteville a a Newnan a a Savannah L&A a a Table 6: Meteorological Parameters Measured, 2006 101 Metro Atlanta had 30 ozone violations during (May through September) 2006, three of which were consecutive code reds on June 21-23rd. This particular case study in June will be described below. Augusta and Macon had 4 ozone violations each in 2006, with north Georgia having one ozone violation at Dawsonville on July 11th. This was considered to be a fairly typical ozone season for Metro Atlanta, with a fairly wide distribution of violations throughout the season as a whole. Monthly time series plots of ozone predictions and observations for Metro Atlanta during 2006 ozone season are shown in Figure 63 and Figure 64. Overall team forecasting performance for the 2006 ozone season was 83% on an event to non-event basis and 60% on an AQI basis. Overall performance for PM2.5 forecasting between May and September for 2006 was 83.7% on an Air Quality Index (AQI) basis. Of particular interest was the lack of tropical activity during 2006. Only 10 named tropical cyclones occurred with only 3 tropical storms making landfall in the United States. Alberto and Ernesto were the only two tropical storms to affect the Southeast United States. Both systems seemed to play a minimal role in surface ozone concentrations around Metro Atlanta in 2006. 102 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Maximun O3 concentrations (ppbv) 2006 120 O3 observed O3 predicted 100 80 60 40 MAY 20 140 120 100 80 60 40 JUN 20 120 110 JUL 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 Day of the month (Data compiled by Georgia Tech Dr. Carlos Cardelino) Figure 63: Forecasted and Observed 8-hr Ozone for Metro Atlanta, May-July 2006 2006 O3 observed O3 predicted Maximun 8-hrs O3 concentrations (ppbv) 100 80 60 AUG 40 100 80 60 40 SEP 20 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 Day of the month (Data compiled by Georgia Tech Dr. Carlos Cardelino) Figure 64: Forecasted and Observed 8-hr Ozone for Metro Atlanta, August-September 2006 103 Observations of PM2.5 for Metro Atlanta are presented in Figure 65. As the figure shows, most PM2.5 violations occur during summer, however, some have been observed during winter months as well. Code orange violations for PM2.5 during summer 2006 were observed during June, July, and August. Overall team performance, as presented in Figure 66, has shown to improve relative to previous years, since the team began forecasting in October 2003, with an averaged forecasting accuracy shown to be near 80% for 2006. Of particular interest is the lower accuracy shown during the transitional months, relative to winter and summer months, possibly due to less air stagnation events. The shift in storm track and upper level jet position, as well as fire/smoke activity, play an important role in the frequency of air stagnation events and particle pollution episodes across the Southeast. PM2.5 forecasting by EPD will expand in the future to include the Columbus/Phenix City area, as well as continued O3 forecasting in Macon and Augusta. PM 2.5 O bservations 30 G reen Y e llo w O range 25 Number of days 20 15 10 5 0 OND J FMAM J J ASOND J FMAM J J ASOND J FMAM J J ASOND J FM Oct 2003 - Mar 2007 (Data compiled by Georgia Tech Dr. Carlos Cardelino) Figure 65: PM2.5 Observations For Atlanta Area By AQI Category, October 2003 May 2007 104 Accuracy (%) 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report TEAM PERFORMANCE 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 OND J FMAMJ JASOND J FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAMJ JASOND J FM October 2003 - March 2007 (Data compiled by Georgia Tech Dr. Carlos Cardelino) Figure 66: Forecast Team Performance, Atlanta PM2.5, October 2003 May 2007 Select Meteorological and Air Quality Case Studies for 2006 (see Appendix C for relevant imagery) April 14, 2006 - Several ambient monitoring sites in Metropolitan Atlanta experienced highly elevated 1-hour PM2.5 readings during the late afternoon/evening hours of April 14, 2006. The three sites, Confederate Avenue, South DeKalb, and Gwinnett, experienced peak hourly values of 54.7 g/m3, 47.8 g/m3, and 55.2 g/m3 respectively, during that time period. Synoptic conditions involved a Gulf surface ridge holding firm over the region, with north Georgia positioned on the eastern flank of a large upper level ridge. A weak impulse over the Great Lakes region with associated frontal boundary remained to the north during the period. Sounding data from Peachtree City shows a dry, stable air mass with light westerly flow at the surface and northwesterly flow aloft over the top of the ridge. Stable conditions and limited vertical mixing allowed PM2.5 24-hour averaged levels to reach moderate values. The fire and smoke product from the Hazard Mapping System (HMS), depicts numerous hotspots across the state on April 14th. Several fires were in close proximity and southwest 105 of Atlanta, as well as central Alabama. Backward trajectory analysis at the 1500m level shows that these fires likely had an impact on our region through particulate matter transport, as low level trajectories wrapped around from the southwest. June 20-24, 2006 - This was an interesting ozone and PM2.5 episode, because the forecasting team correctly forecasted the middle of the episode but missed the beginning and end. The synoptic situation for this period was dominated by strong mid-Atlantic ridging which promoted enhanced subsidence over north Georgia. The RUC/MAPS analysis showed a dry, stable pocket over north Georgia on the 21 June at 1600Z. This was accompanied by hot downslope flow down the eastern slopes of the Appalachians. The dry pocket over north Georgia was enhanced by subsidence from outflow from an MCS that had developed along a lee-side trough over South Carolina. This dry pocket of air and MCS outflow boundary is well depicted in the visible satellite imagery shown in Appendix C. This particular exceedance was interesting and difficult to forecast because metro Atlanta reached code red for ozone on June 23rd, and this was a fairly isolated pocket of dry air situated between two convective outflow boundaries. June 26, 2006 - Elevated ozone readings were observed on June 26, 2006 for the Evans monitoring site, located at latitude: 33.582 and longitude: -82.13134. The Evans site is located just west of the Augusta, Georgia metropolitan area. One-hour ozone readings peaked above 0.110 parts per million (ppm) at four different hours during the day, with a maximum reading of 0.309 ppm at 1800. Synoptic conditions for this time period involved a tropical wave just off the Florida coast with outer rain bands reaching into the northern and central parts of Georgia. Moist and unstable conditions, coupled with the outer rain bands and leftover outflow boundaries, allowed for heavy scattered afternoon thunderstorms across the area. The multiple elevated readings at Evans were observed in the presence of such heavy storms, which suggests several possibilities as to their occurrence: 1) Lightning-induced ozone - Lightning is known to produce nitrogen oxides within thunderstorms. These chemicals can react with others in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone. Above the Earth's surface in the free troposphere (3-8 miles high), during the summer months, lightning activity increases NOx by as much as 90 percent and ozone by more than 30 percent. Since most lightning occurs inside a storm, the added ozone tends to show up several miles high rather than near the earth's surface. While lightning was prevalent in and around the Evans area, it is difficult to prove that the sudden increases in surface concentrations of ozone were directly related to lightning or a cloud-to-ground lightning strike. 2) Tropopause Fold - Tropopause folding in the upper-levels is consistent with the formation of upper fronts and is one of the contributors to lower-level cyclogenesis. A tropopause fold is literally a break in the tropopause between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Large horizontal and vertical wind shears such as the jet streaks create this folding process as lower stratospheric air intrudes into upper-troposphere air. For a tropopause fold to occur there needs to be a deep upper low and strong jet aloft. 3) Electrical Noise Another possible cause of the elevated surface ozone readings at Evans is that of electrical noise or power surges from nearby lightning 106 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report strikes. Thunderstorms and lightning are the most dramatic and destructive causes of power line problems and can create power surges. These surges are literally surges of overexcited electrons, which contain a lot of energy in short duration bursts. Indirect effects of lightning strikes or discharge include over voltages in electric and telecommunication lines. Although each of these factors has the slight possibility of being the cause of the elevated ozone readings at the Evans site on June 26, electrical noise from nearby lightning seemed more probable. 107 108 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Quality Assurance The purpose of this report is to provide ambient air quality users and the general public with a summary of the quality of the 2006 ambient air monitoring data in quantifiable terms. This is the second edition of the report and presents an overview of various quality assurance and quality control activities. The tables included in this report provide summary data for ambient air monitoring stations in the statewide network. The Georgia Air Protection Branch mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the state. The Ambient Air Monitoring Program provides a key element of that mission through collecting and reporting on quality information on a large number of pollutants and for a vast air-monitoring network. The Ambient Air Monitoring Programs, directed by state law, conducts various monitoring projects in support of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protections Division (EPD), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The monitoring projects include gaseous criteria and non-criteria pollutants, particulate matter, air toxics, non-methane hydrocarbons, and meteorological parameters. Data from these monitoring sources provide the means to determine the nature of the pollution problem and assess the effectiveness of the control measures and programs. It is the goal of the Ambient Monitoring Program to provide accurate, relevant, and timely measurements of air pollutants and their precursors associated with the corresponding meteorological data to support Georgia's Air Protection Branch for the protection of environment and public health. The Quality Assurance Program conducts various quality assurance activities to ensure that data collected comply with procedures and regulations set forth by the U.S. EPA and can be considered good quality data and data for record. What is quality assurance? Quality assurance is an integrated system of management activities that involves planning, implementing, assessing, and assuring data quality through a process, item, or service that meets users needs for quality, completeness, representativeness and usefulness. Known data quality enables users to make judgment about compliance with quality standards, air quality trends and health effects based on sound data with a known level of confidence. The objective of quality assurance is to provide accurate and precise data, minimize data loss due to malfunctions, and to assess the validity of the air monitoring data to provide representative and comparable data of known precision and accuracy. Quality assurance (QA) is composed of two activities: quality control and quality assessment. Quality control (QC) is composed of a set of internal tasks performed routinely at the instrument level that ensures accurate and precise measured ambient air quality data. Quality control tasks address sample collection, handling, analysis, and reporting. Examples include calibrations, routine service checks, chain-of-custody documentation, duplicate analysis, development and maintenance of standard operating procedures, and routine preparation of quality control reports. 109 Quality assessment is a set of external, quantitative tasks that provide certainty that the quality control system is satisfactory and that the stated quantitative programmatic objectives for air quality data are indeed met. Staff independent of those generating data perform these external tasks. Tasks include conducting regular performance audits, on site system audits; inter-laboratory comparisons, and periodic evaluations of internal quality control data. Table 7 illustrates the types of performance audits currently performed by the QA program in 2006. Field and laboratory performance audits are the most common. System audits are performed on an as needed basis or by request. Whole air sample comparisons are conducted for the toxic air contaminants and non-methane hydrocarbons. Air Monitoring Program Gaseous Pollutants Particulate Matter Air Toxic Contaminants Non-Methane Hydrocarbons Field Performance Audit X X X X Laboratory Performance Audit X X X X System Audit X X X Whole Air Audit X X Meteorology X X Table 7: Audits Performed for Each Air Monitoring Program in 2006 Quality Control and Quality Assessment The Quality Assurance Program supports all ambient monitoring programs undertaken by Georgia EPD, which in 2006 includes gaseous pollutants, particulate pollutants, air toxics contaminants, non-methane hydrocarbons and meteorological sensors run by the Ambient Monitoring Program. There are approximately 65 air monitoring sites operating in Georgia. Appendix F provides information about the air-monitoring network (i.e., sampling schedules, number of instruments, collection/analysis method, etc.). The air quality monitors collect data in both real-time and on a time integrated basis. The data is used to define the nature, extent, and trends of air quality in the state; to support programs required by state and federal laws; and to track progress in attaining air quality standards. The precision and accuracy necessary depends on how the data will be used. Data that must meet specific requirements (i.e., criteria pollutants) are referred to as controlled data sets. Criteria for the accuracy, precision, completeness, and sensitivity of the measurement in controlled data sets must be met and documented. Air Quality Data Actions (AQDA) are key tools used by the Quality Assurance Program to confirm the data set meets the established control limits. They are initiated generally by auditors upon a failed audit and resolved after a review of calibrations, precision checks, and 110 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report audit results. The AQDA must confirm that an analyzer/sampler has operated within Georgia Air Sampling Network's control limits of 15% (10% for PM10 and 4% for PM2.5), or for sitting temperature conditions. Otherwise, further action is taken. Data without formal data quality objectives (i.e., toxics) are called descriptive data sets. The data quality measurements are made as accurately as possible in consideration of how the data are being used. Quantified quality assessment results describe the measurement variability in standard terminology, but no effort is made to confine the data set to values within a predetermined quality limit. The Georgia Air Sampling Network's (GASN) Quality Assurance Program is outlined in a fivevolume Quality Assurance Manual. The volumes, listed below, guide the operation of the quality assurance programs used by the GASN. Volume I: Quality Assurance Plan Volume II: Standard Operating Procedures for Air Quality Monitoring Volume III: Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures Volume IV: Monitoring Methods for the State Ambient Air Quality standards Volume V: Audit Procedures for Air Quality Monitoring Volume I lists the data quality objectives and describes quality control and quality assessment activities used to ensure that the data quality objectives are met. Gaseous Pollutants Ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are continuously monitored by an automated network of stations run by the Georgia Ambient Air Monitoring Program. Exposure to these pollutants may cause adverse health effects such as: respiratory impairment, fatigue, permanent lung damage, and increased susceptibility to infection in the general population. Gaseous criteria and non-criteria pollutant data are a controlled data set and are subject to meeting mandatory regulations. Sampling Cone Accuracy (field): Annually, EPA conducts field through-the probe (TTP) performance audits for gaseous pollutants to verify the system accuracy of the automated methods and to ensure the integrity of the sampling system. 111 Accuracy is represented as an average percent difference. The average percent difference is the combined differences from the certified value of all the individual audit points. The upper and lower probability limits represent the expected accuracy of 95 percent of all the single analyzer's individual percent differences for all audit test levels at a single site. Overall, the responses of the individual analyzers indicate that as a whole, the network is providing accurate data. Ninety-five percent of the gaseous pollutant instruments audited in 2006 were found to be operating within the Georgia Ambient Air Monitoring control limits (15%). The most common causes for audit failure are malfunctions within the instrument and leaks in the sampling system. Table 8 and Figure 67 summarize the 2006 performance audit results for the criteria pollutants. UL stands for upper limit and LL stands for lower limit. Number Average Probability Limits Pollutant of % Analyzers Difference 95%UL 95%LL CO 3 8.33 14.68 1.98 NO2 5 -0.84 3.44 -5.12 O3 24 2.14 5.38 -1.11 SO2 8 3.54 13.54 -6.47 Source: Quality Assurance Unit, Accuracy Estimates Table 8: Results for Criteria Pollutants Performance Audits 2006 Georgia Gaseous Criteria Air Pollutants Overall Accuracy 20.00% Overall Average % Difference 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% -5.00% -10.00% Lower 95% Probability Limit Overall Average % Difference Upper 95% Probability Limit O3 -1.11% 2.14% 5.38% SO2 NO2 -7.16% -5.63% 3.54% -0.84% 14.23% 3.95% Gaseous Criteria Air Pollutants CO 0.56% 8.33% 16.11% Figure 67: Gaseous Criteria Pollutants Accuracy Analysis In general, the Georgia Ambient Monitoring Program satisfied the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) 40 CFR Part 58 and U.S. EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, August 112 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 1998. Compliance with these regulations is necessary if the data are to be considered datafor-record. Precision (field): On a weekly basis, site operators confirm the linear response of the instrument by performing zero, precision and span checks. The zero precision check confirms the instrument's ability to maintain a stable reading. The span precision check confirms the instrument's ability to respond to a known concentration of gas. The degree of variability in each of these weekly measurements is computed as the precision of that instrument's measurements. Annually, the Quality Assurance Unit conducts a precision data analysis as an overall indicator of data quality. The analysis addresses three parameters: precision data submission, precision data validity, and a combination of the two referred to as data usability rates. The precision performance goal for all three parameters is 85%. The submission rate is the number of precision points submitted for a pollutant divided by the expected number of bi-weekly submissions. Data validity is the percent difference of the actual and indicated values of each precision check. These differences should not exceed 15% for gaseous analyzers. Usable data rates are determined by multiplying the data submission and data validity rates. They indicate the completeness of verifiable air quality data on the official database. Particulate Matter Particulate matter is a mixture of substances that include elements such as carbon, metals, nitrates, organic compounds and sulfates; complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and soil. Particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or smaller pose an increased health risk because they can deposit deep in the lung and contain substances that are particularly harmful to human health. Respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) increase the chance of respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Particulate matter monitoring is conducted using both manual and continuous type samplers. Manual samplers are operated on a six-day sampling schedule for PM10, and a similar, or more frequent schedule, for PM2.5. The Georgia Ambient Monitoring particulate program also includes total suspended particulates (TSP) sulfate, mass and lead monitoring. Particulate matter is a controlled data set, and as such is subject to formal data quality objectives and federal and state regulations. Accuracy (field): The accuracy of particulate samplers is determined by comparing the instrument's flow rate to a certified variable orifice (PM10 and TSP), or a calibrated mass flow meter (TEOM, BAM, and PM2.5 samplers) that is certified against a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable flow device or calibrator. Since an accurate measurement of particulate matter is dependent upon flow rate, the Ambient Monitoring Program conducts annual flow rate audits at each site. The average percent difference between the sampler flow rates and the audit flow rates represents the combined differences 113 from the certified value of all the individual audit points for each sampler. The upper and lower probability limits represent the expected flow rate accuracy for 95 percent of all the single analyzer's individual percent differences for all audit test levels at a single site. Overall, the 2006 flow audit results indicate that the flow rates of samplers in the network are almost all within bounds. Approximately ninety-eight percent of the instruments audited in 2006 operated within the Georgia Ambient Monitoring Program's control limits. The 2006 performance audit results are listed below in Table 9 and Figure 68. Pollutant Number Average of % Samplers Difference Audited Probability Limits 95%UL 95%LL PM10 3 1.8 2.84 0.76 PM2.5 35 0.74 2.94 -1.47 PM10 Partisol 13 1.36 3.87 -1.16 Source: Quality Assurance Program, Accuracy Estimates Table 9: Results for Particulate Sampler Performance Audits 2006 Particulate Air Pollutants Overall Average % Difference 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% -1.00% -2.00% Upper 95% Probability Limit Overall Average Percent Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit PM10 2.84% 1.80% 0.76% PM2.5 2.94% 0.74% -1.47% Particulate Air Pollutants PM10 Partisol 3.87% 1.36% -1.16% Figure 68: Particulate Air Pollutants Accuracy Analysis Precision (field): Precision data for non-continuous particulate samplers is obtained through collocated sampling whereby two identical samplers are operated side-by-side and the same laboratory conducts filter analyses. Collocated samplers are located at selected sites and are intended to represent overall network precision. Validity of the data is based on the percent difference of the mass concentrations of the two samplers. In 2006, collocated PM2.5 samplers were operated at Augusta Medical College, Atlanta E. Rivers, Columbus Health 114 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Department, Atlanta Doraville Health Department, Savannah Scott School and Macon Allied. Collocated PM10 samplers were operated at Atlanta Fire Station #8 and Macon Allied. Collocated TSP samplers were operated at Atlanta Utoy Creek and Atlanta DMRC. Particulate samplers (collocated PM10 and TSP) must have mass concentrations greater than or equal to 20 g/m3 to be used in data validity calculations. The difference between the mass concentrations must be no greater than 5 g/m3. If the mass concentrations are greater than 80 g/m3, the difference must be within 7% of each other. TSP (lead) samplers must have both mass concentrations greater than or equal to 0.15 g/m3 to be used in data validity calculations. For collocated PM2.5 samplers, data probability limits validity is based on the sampler's coefficient of variation, which cannot exceed 10%. Both sample masses must also be greater than 6 g/m3. Precision for continuous PM2.5 monitors is based on the comparison of the sampler's/analyzer's indicated and actual flow rates. The differences between the flow rates must be within 15. Accuracy (lab): Annual performance audits for PM10 and PM2.5 mass analysis programs include an on-site check and assessment of the filter weighing balance, relative humidity and temperature sensors, and their documentation. The performance audits conducted in 2006 found that the Ambient Monitoring Program was operating in accordance with U.S. EPA guidelines and that the data were of good quality and should be considered data-for-record. Precision (lab): Laboratories perform various quality control tasks to ensure that quality data are produced. Tasks include duplicate weighing on exposed and unexposed filters, replicate analysis on every tenth filter, and a calibration of the balance before each weighing session. Upon receipt of particulate matter filters from the field, laboratory staff has up to 30 days to analyze the PM10 and PM2.5 samples. Filters are visually inspected for pinholes, loose material, poor workmanship, discoloration, non-uniformity, and irregularities, and are equilibrated in a controlled environment for a minimum of 24 hours prior to the filters being weighed. If room conditions are not within the established U.S. EPA control limits, weighing is done only after the proper environment is re-established and maintained for 24 hours. 115 In 2006, there were no occurrences in which the Georgia's Ambient Monitoring laboratory balance room was outside of control limits. The analytical precision results indicate that the Ambient Monitoring Program is providing precise particulate matter data. Table 10 and Table 11 show the unexposed and exposed filter replicate results for the Air Protection Branch's (APB) laboratory in 2006. QC Checks for Pre-weighed Filters PM10 Total # of sample analyzed Total # of replicates Total % replicated Total # out-of-range 1189 59 5 0 Source: Laboratory Section, Quality Control Report PM2.5 5419 361 7 0 Table 10: Summary of Unexposed Filter Mass Replicates QC Checks for Pre-weighed Filters PM10 Total # of samples analyzed Total # of replicates Total % replicated Total # out-of-range 1026 51 5 0 Source: Laboratory Section, Quality Control Report Table 11: Summary of Exposed Filter Mass Replicates PM2.5 4494 300 7 0 116 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Air Toxics In 1996, the Air Protection Branch established an Air Toxics Network in major urban areas of the state to determine the average annual concentrations of air toxics. The program was established to assess the effectiveness of control measures in reducing air toxics exposures. Compounds identified as air toxics vaporize at ambient temperatures, play a critical role in the formation of ozone, and have adverse chronic and acute health effects. Sources of air toxics include motor vehicle exhaust, waste burning, gasoline marketing, industrial and consumer products, pesticides, industrial processes, degreasing operations, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and dry cleaning operations. Under the current air toxic sampling schedule, ambient air is collected in a stainless steel canister (or cartridge) every 12 days over a 24hour sampling period at each of the network stations. Toxic particulate samples are also collected and analyzed for air toxic contaminants to support the Georgia Air Toxic and Control Unit. By using a low-flow multi-channel sampler capable of sampling onto filters or cartridges, ambient air is collected and analyzed for carbonyl and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) compounds (also called semi-volatile organic compounds) and toxic metals. The quality of the air toxic data set is governed by a series of quality assurance activities, including audits. However, because this is a descriptive data set, no mandatory corrections are made to the data based on audit results. The laboratory and monitoring staff are made aware of any exceedance found during an audit, and every effort is made to ensure that the data collected is as accurate as possible. Flow audits of the toxic metal, VOCs, semi-VOCs and carbonyl samplers are typically conducted annually at each site to ensure the accuracy of measuring toxic metals and carbonyl compounds. Flow rates are a determining factor in calculating concentration and are included as part of the Quality Assurance Program. Overall, the 2006 results indicate that the samplers maintained stable flows. Although toxics data are a descriptive data set, completeness is issued based on the operating parameters of the sampler. Corrections are made to the data if an audit is found to be outside the Air Toxic Program control limits. Precision (field and lab): As part of the Air Toxic Program laboratory analyses, internal QC techniques such as blanks, control samples, and duplicate samples are applied to ensure the precision of the analytical methods and that the toxics data are within statistical control. Precision data for non-continuous toxics particulate samplers are obtained through collocated sampling whereby two identical samplers operate side-by side simultaneously and the same laboratory conducts filter analyses. The collocated toxic sampler located at Utoy Creek is intended to represent overall network precision. In 2006, all compounds analyzed were within their respective control limits and results for blanks, spikes, and duplicate samples as established in the Laboratory QC Manual. Duplicate analyses were performed on 10% of the toxic samples. In 2006, all duplicate results (concentrations must be greater than five times the published limit of detection) were within the established limits for all target analytes. Data exceeding duplicate criteria of three times the assigned percent relative standard deviation (from control samples collected during the control limit evaluation) are deleted from the toxics database and samples reanalyzed. Table 12 shows the total precision concentrations for the Georgia Air Toxics Network. 117 Parameter TSP Metals IO-2.1 Antimony (TSP) Arsenic (TSP) Berrylium (TSP) Cadmium (TSP) Chromium (TSP) Cobalt (TSP) Lead (TSP) Manganese (TSP) Nickel (TSP) Selenium (TSP) Zinc (TSP) AQS Parameter Code Completeness Overall Avg. Std. Dev. Lower 95% Probability Limit Upper 95% Probability Limit 12102 12103 12105 12110 12112 12113 12128 12132 12136 12154 12167 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% -1.59% 43.46% 0.11% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% -19.76% 44.09% 10.68% 65.98% -5.01% 65.50% -0.90% 39.71% 2.69% 45.87% -5.16% 84.81% -2.05% 45.27% 0.30% 30.34% -61.8% 0.0% 0.0% -80.9% -80.8% -95.8% -55.9% -60.9% -122.7% -64.8% -41.8% 58.6% 0.2% 0.0% 41.4% 102.1% 85.8% 54.1% 66.3% 112.4% 60.7% 42.4% VOCs TO-14/15 Freon 113 Freon 114 1-3-Butadiene Cyclohexane Chloromethane DiChloroMethane (Methylene Chloride) Chloroform Carbon Tetrachloride TriChloroFluoroMethane (Freon 11) Chloroethane 1-1-DiChloroEthane MethylChloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) Ethylene DiChloride (1,2-Dichlororethane) TetraChloroEthylene 1-1-2-2-Tetrachloroethane Bromomethane 1-1-2-Trichloroethane DiChloroDiFluoroMethane TriChloroEthylene 1-1-DiChloroEthylene 1-2-DiChloroPropane Trans-1-3-DiChloroPropylene cis-1-3-DiChloroPropylene cis-1-2-DiChloroEthene Ethylene DiBromide (1,2-Dibromoethane) HexaChloroButadiene 43207 43208 43218 43248 43801 43802 43803 43804 43811 43812 43813 43814 43815 43817 43818 43819 43820 43823 43824 43826 43829 43830 43831 43839 43843 43844 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 7.80% 41.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -0.72% 52.01% 0.44% 19.97% 0.00% 0.00% 8.26% 64.73% 2.78% 17.71% 2.43% 19.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.76% 72.73% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.98% 18.72% 0.72% 3.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -49.1% 0.0% 0.0% -72.8% -27.2% 0.0% -81.5% -21.8% -24.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -87.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -23.0% -4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 64.7% 0.0% 0.0% 71.4% 28.1% 0.0% 98.0% 27.3% 29.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 114.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.9% 6.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Table 12: Total Precision Concentrations for the Georgia Air Toxics Network 118 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Parameter AQS Parameter Code Completeness VOCs TO-14/15 (continued) Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene) M/P Xylene (m- & p-Dimethylbenzene) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene O-Xylene (o-Dimethylbenzene) 1-3-5-TriMethylBenzene 1-2-4-TriMethylBenzene Styrene 4-EthylToluene Chlorobenzene 1-2-DiChloroBenzene 1-3-DichloroBenzene 1-4-DichloroBenzene BenzylChloride 1-2-4-TriChloroBenzene 43860 45109 45201 45202 45203 45204 45207 45208 45220 45228 45801 45805 45806 45807 45809 45810 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% Overall Avg. Std. Dev. Lower Upper 95% 95% Probability Probability Limit Limit 0.0% -1.7% -3.8% -1.9% -2.0% -3.3% 0.0% -2.8% -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 8.5% 10.1% 7.3% 6.7% 7.5% 0.0% 8.9% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 12.4% 0.0% 37.1% 0.0% 12.4% 0.0% -13.5% -17.8% -12.0% -11.2% -13.8% 0.0% -15.1% -9.6% 0.0% 0.0% -14.9% 0.0% -44.6% 0.0% -14.9% 0.0% 10.0% 10.2% 8.2% 7.3% 7.1% 0.0% 9.6% 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 19.5% 0.0% 58.4% 0.0% 19.5% SVOCs TO-13 Naphthalene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Chrysene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(e)pyrene Dibenzo(a-h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,I)perylene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1-2-3-cd)pyrene 17141 17147 17148 17149 17150 17151 17201 17204 17208 17215 17220 17223 17224 17231 17237 17242 17243 100.0% 100.0% 96.7% 96.7% 100.0% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 6.0% 6.7% 6.9% 0.0% -22.0% 0.0% -15.6% 6.7% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 6.3% -6.7% 0.0% 36.8% 36.5% 37.1% 0.0% 61.3% 0.0% 105.9% 36.5% 36.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.5% 36.6% 36.5% 0.0% -45.0% -43.9% -44.5% 0.0% -106.9% 0.0% -162.4% -43.9% -43.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -43.9% -44.4% -57.3% 0.0% 57.0% 57.3% 58.4% 0.0% 62.9% 0.0% 131.1% 57.3% 57.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.3% 57.1% 43.9% 0.0% Table 12: Total Precision Concentrations for the Georgia Air Toxics Network (continued) 119 Figure 69, Figure 70, and Figure 71 show the yearly precision numbers for the Utoy Creek collocated air toxics site. 120 Overall Average % Difference 2006 Georgia Air Toxics TSP Metals Monitoring Concentration Collocated Precision (Utoy Creek Site) 200.0% 150.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% -50.0% -100.0% -150.0% -200.0% Upper 95% Probability Limit Average % Difference Low er 95% Probability Limit Antimony (TSP) 58.6% -1.59% -61.8% Arsenic (TSP) 0.2% 0.11% 0.0% Berrylium (TSP) 0.0% 0.00% 0.0% Cadmium (TSP) 41.4% -19.76% -80.9% Chromium Cobalt (TSP) Lead (TSP) Manganese Nickel (TSP) (TSP) (TSP) 102.1% 85.8% 54.1% 66.3% 112.4% 10.68% -5.01% -0.90% 2.69% -5.16% -80.8% -95.8% -55.9% -60.9% -122.7% TSP Metals HAPs Selenium (TSP) 60.7% -2.05% -64.8% Zinc (TSP) 42.4% 0.30% -41.8% Figure 69: Metals Monitoring, Collocated Precision 121 Figure 70: VOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision VOCs HAPs Freon 113 Freon 114 1-3-Butadiene Cyclohexane Chloromethane DiChloroMethane(Methylene Chloride) Chloroform Carbon Tetrachloride TriChloroFluoroMethane(Freon 11) Chloroethane 1-1-DiChloroEthane MethylChloroform(1,1,1EthyTlernicehlDoriCoehtlhoarindee)(1,2- Dichlororethane) TetraChloroEthylene 1-1-2-2-Tetrachloroethane Bromomethane 1-1-2-Trichloroethane DiChloroDiFluoroMethane TriChloroEthylene 1-1-DiChloroEthylene 1-2-DiChloroPropane Trans-1-3-DiChloroPropylene cis-1-3-DiChloroPropylene cis-1-2-DiChloroEthene Ethylene DiBromide(1,2- Dibromoethane) HexaChloroButadiene Vinyl Chloride(Chloroethene) M/P Xylene (m & pDimethylbenzene) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene O-Xylene (o-Dimethylbenzene) 1-3-5-TriMethylBenzene 1-2-4-TriMethylBenzene Styrene 4-EthylToluene Chlorobenzene 1-2-DiChloroBenzene 1-3-DichloroBenzene 1-4-DichloroBenzene BenzylChloride 1-2-4-TriChloroBenzene 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% -100% -150% -200% Overall Average % Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit Overall Average % Difference Upper 95% Probability Limit 2006 Georgia Air Toxics VOCs Monitoring Concentrations Collocated Precision (Utoy Creek) 2006 Georgia Air Toxics Semi-VOCs Monitoring Concentration Collocated Precision (Utoy Creek) Overall Average % Difference 200.0% 150.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% -50.0% -100.0% -150.0% -200.0% NaphthaleneAcenaphthenAecenaphthylene FluorenePhenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene ChrByesneznoe(a)anthBreanczeon(eb)fluoraBnethnezon(ek)fluoranthenBeenzoD(ieb)epnyzreon(ae-h)anthBraecneznoe(g,h,I)perylenBeenzoI(nad)peynroe(n1e-2-3-cd)pyrene Semi-VOCs HAPs Upper 95% Probability Limit Overall Average % Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit Figure 71: SVOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision 123 Stainless steel canisters used to collect ambient air samples are also checked for contamination. Canisters are analyzed for aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbons. One canister per batch of eight is assayed to ensure individual compound measurements fall below the limit of detection. In the event a compound exceeds canister cleanliness criteria, the canister and all other canisters represented in the batch are re-cleaned until compounds meet the cleanliness criteria. In addition, Xontech 910A air samplers are checked for cleanliness. Failed air collection media are re-cleaned and re-tested until they pass Xontech 910A cleanliness criteria. Overall, the network is providing precise air toxic contaminants data. Accuracy (field): The accuracy of air toxic samples is determined by comparing the instrument's flow rate to a certified variable orifice (PM10 and TSP), or a calibrated mass flow meter (PM2.5 samplers) that is certified against a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable flow device or calibrator. Since an accurate measurement of particulate matter is dependent upon flow rate, the Ambient Monitoring Program conducts annual flow rate audits at each site. The average percent difference between the sampler flow rates and the audit flow rates represents the combined differences from the certified value of all the individual audit points for each sampler. The upper and lower probability limits represent the expected flow rate accuracy for 95 percent of all the single analyzer's individual percent differences for all audit test levels at a single site. Overall, the 2006 flow audit results indicate that the flow rates of samplers in the network are almost all within bounds. Approximately ninety-eight percent of the instruments audited in 2006 operated within the Georgia Air Toxics Network control limits. The total 2006 performance audit results for the Air Toxics Network are listed below in Table 13 and Figure 72, showing the network's sampling flow rate accuracy. Air Toxics Network Average Upper Limit Lower Limit Std. Dev 11 TSP Metals (15 Samplers) 2.0% 6.0% -2.0% 2.0 17 PUF Semi-VOCs (15 samplers) -0.1% 5.9% -6.1% 3.1 42 Canister VOCs (15 samplers) 2.3% 9.8% -5.1% 3.8 7 Carbonyls (3 Samplers) 1.4% 17.1% -14.3% 7.9 Table 13: Yearly Summary of Flow Rate Accuracy Performance Audit, Air Toxics Network 124 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Overall Average % Difference 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% -30.0% -40.0% -50.0% Upper 95% Probability Limit Overall Average % Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit 2006 Georgia Air Toxics Network Overall Average Sampling Flow Rate Accuracy 11 TSP Metals (15 Samplers) 6.0% 2.0% -2.0% 17 PUF Semi-VOCs 42 Canister VOCs (15 (15 samplers) samplers) 5.9% 9.8% -0.1% 2.3% -6.1% -5.1% Air Toxic Speciated HAPs 7 Carbonyls (3 Samplers) 17.1% 1.4% -14.3% Figure 72: Yearly Summary of Sampling Flow Rate Accuracy, Air Toxics Network 125 NATTS There are currently 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or air toxics, regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). These compounds have been associated with a wide variety of adverse human health and ecological effects, including cancer, neurological effects, reproductive effects, and developmental effects. According to the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is committed to reducing air toxics emissions by 75 percent from 1993 levels in order to significantly reduce Americans' risk of cancer and of other serious health effects caused by airborne toxic chemicals. Early efforts toward this end have focused on emissions reductions through the assessment of technical feasibility. However, as new assessment tools are developed, more attention is being placed on the goal of risk reduction associated with exposure to air toxics. To meet the GPRA goals, the National Air Toxics Trends Station (NATTS) network has been established, consisting of 23 stations in the contiguous 48 states, with one in Georgia. Having data of sufficient quality is paramount for a network such as the NATTS. As such, Georgia has closely followed the Quality System (QS) for the NATTS, established by U.S. EPA, two aspects of which are Technical Systems Audits (TSAs) and Instrument Performance Audits (IPAs) of each network station and its affiliated sample analysis laboratory. Another integral part of the QS is the quarterly analysis of performance evaluation (PE) samples. Furthermore, the sampling and analytical techniques selected to collect and quantify the air toxics of concern must demonstrate acceptable analytical and overall sampling precision as well as suitable overall method detection limits that are compatible with expected ambient air toxics concentrations. There are 23 sites in the NATTS network. Georgia joined the network with one site established in Decatur at the South DeKalb Monitoring Station. The EPA Region in which the sites are located, the location of the sites (site identifier), whether the site is located in an urban or rural area, and the unique AQS identification code (site code) for all the sites are given in Table 14. 126 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Region I I I II II III IV IV IV IV IV V V V VI VI VII VIII Site Identifier Boston-Roxbury, MA Chittenden City, VT Providence, RI Bronx, NY Rochester, NY Washington, DC Chesterfield, SC Decatur, GA Hazard, KY Hillsborough City, Tampa, FL Pinellas City, Tampa, FL Dearborn, MI Mayville, WI Northbrook, IL Deer Park, TX Harrison County, TX St. Louis, MO Bountiful, UT VIII Grand Junction, CO IX Phoenix, AZ IX San Jose, CA X La Grande, OR X Seattle, WA Type Urban Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Urban Urban Rural Urban Urban Rural Urban Urban Rural Urban Urban Rural Urban AQS Site Code 25-025-0042 50-007-0007 44-007-0022 36-005-0110 36-055-1001 11-001-0043 45-025-0001 13-089-0002 21-193-0003 12-057-3002 12-103-0026 26-163-0033 55-027-0007 17-031-4201 48-201-1039 48-203-0002 29-510-0085 49-011-0004 08-077-0017, -0018 04-013-9997 06-085-0005 41-061-0119 53-033-0080 Table 14: NATTS Sites with EPA Region Numbers and AQS Site Codes 127 Several Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) have been established for the NATTS network in order to ensure that only data of the highest quality are collected by the NATTS network, and to meet the NATTS Data Quality Objective (DQO): "to be able to detect a 15 percent difference (trend) between two consecutive 3-year annual mean concentrations within acceptable levels of decision error"7. The four compounds of primary importance to the NATTS program are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and PM10 arsenic. The MQOs for these four compounds are summarized in Table 15 below. Compound Precision Completeness (Coefficient of Variation) Benzene > 85 % < 15 % 1,3-Butadiene > 85 % < 15 % Formaldehyde > 85 % < 15 % Arsenic > 85 % < 15 % Laboratory Bias < 25 % < 25 % < 25 % < 25 % Method Detection Limit (MDL) 0.044 g/m3 0.020 g/m3 0.014 g/m3 0.046 ng/m3 Table 15: Measurement Quality Objectives for the NATTS Program The MQOs require that (1) sampling occurs every sixth day and is successful 85 percent of the time; (2) precision as measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) be controlled to less than 15 percent; and (3) that laboratory (measurement) bias be less than 25 percent. Data acquired to assess compliance with the above stated MQOs are derived from a variety of sources. These sources are given in Table 16. Criteria Completeness Precision Bias Laboratory Bias - Field MDL Data Source Air Quality System (AQS) AQS and Proficiency Testing Proficiency Testing Audits of sampler flowrates Laboratories MQO Limit < 15 % < 15 % < 25 % < 10 % 0.046 ng/m3 to 0.044 g/m3 Table 16: MQO Data Sources for the Georgia NAATS Program The Air Quality System (AQS) database contains raw data that is used to assess data completeness, and to estimate precision from results of replicate analyses and collocated 7 Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement System. Volume 1. Principles. EPA-600/R94/038A, January 1994. 128 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report sampling. In addition, results from the analysis of proficiency testing samples allow one to calculate laboratory precision and bias. Field bias is evaluated by measurement of sampler flow rates during on-site Instrument Performance Audits. Completeness (of NATTS Data): The AQS database was accessed and the raw data records analyzed 23 compounds having the AQS codes given in Table 17. The completeness of the 2006 AQS dataset was assessed for four compounds: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and arsenic. The results are shown in Table 18. The presence of 61 concentration values in the database indicates 100 percent completeness, since sampling is to occur every sixth day. Furthermore, the completeness data presented here are composite values for both the primary and collocated sampler at the South DeKalb site. Primary and collocated data are differentiated in AQS by use of parameter occurrence codes (POCs). Compound Name AQS Code Benzene 45201 1,3-Butadiene 43218 Carbon Tetrachloride 43804 Chloroform 43803 1,2-Dibromoethane 43843 1,2-Dichloropropane 43829 1,2-Dichloroethane 43815 Dichloromethane 43802 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 43818 Tetrachloroethylene 43817 Trichloroethylene 43824 Vinyl Chloride 43860 Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 43831 Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 43830 Formaldehyde 43502 Acetaldehyde 43503 Arsenic 82103 Beryllium 82105 Cadmium 82110 Lead 82128 Manganese 82132 Mercury 82142 Nickel 82136 Table 17: 23 Selected HAPs and Their AQS Parameter Codes 129 Completeness of Compound by AQS Number and by Name 45201 43218 43502 82103 Site benzene 1,3-butadiene formaldehyde arsenic Decatur, GA 90% 89% 95% 90% Table 18: Percent Completeness of Georgia's 2006 AQS Data, Selected Compounds Precision (of NATTS Data): The precision of the data in AQS for Georgia was assessed for all 23 compounds identified in Table 17. Replicate data transactions were retrieved from AQS. For a given sampling moment, site, and compound, AQS replicate data can have three separate transactions with Precision IDs of 1, 2, or 3. Concentration information is given in the transaction labeled with Precision ID 1; the value obtained from the replicate analysis of the primary sample is recorded with Precision ID 2; and the replicate analysis of the collocated sample is given in the transaction with Precision ID 3. Thus, both the analytical and overall sampling and analysis precision can be determined. Table 19 reveals that Georgia had large CV values for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, and manganese. Compound Name AQS Code Precision Estimate Benzene 45201 -6.6% 1,3-Butadiene 43218 3.3% Carbon Tetrachloride 43804 -5.4% Chloroform 43803 -5.4% 1,2-Dibromoethane 43843 -6.3% 1,2-Dichloropropane 43829 4.6% 1,2-Dichloroethane 43815 1.1% Dichloromethane 43802 -0.3% 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 43818 -1.4% Tetrachloroethylene 43817 -11.1% Trichloroethylene 43824 0.8% Vinyl Chloride 43860 -5.3% Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 43831 2.4% Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 43830 4.5% Table 19: Laboratory Analytical Precision Estimate 130 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Photochemical Assessment Monitoring In 1996, the Air Protection Branch began a routine seasonal sampling program to gather information about non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) species that were precursors to ozone formation in high ozone areas. In 1994, Federal regulations required states to establish photochemical assessment monitoring stations (PAMS) as part of their State Implementation Plan monitoring networks in areas designated as serious or higher for ozone. Monitoring is to continue until the ozone standard is reached. The PAMS program is intended to supplement ozone monitoring and add detailed sampling for its precursors. PAMS sites collect data on real-time total NMHC, PAMS speciated VOCs, carbonyls, and various meteorological parameters at ground level and aloft. As this is a descriptive data set, there are currently no mandatory data quality objectives or regulations for the data. However, efforts are made to ensure that accurate data are collected and that the analyzers are operating within PAMS audit standards. Accuracy (field and lab): Laboratory performance audits are conducted annually to assess the laboratory's ability to measure ambient levels of hydrocarbons. Through the probe sampler performance audits are typically conducted annually at each monitoring site to assess the integrity of the sampling, analysis, and transport system. The 2006 laboratory performance audit results are shown in Table 20 and Figure 73. The 2006 audit results were within the PAM's control limits of 20%, with the exception of isoprene and n-decane. 2006 PAMS Speciated VOCs Audits Number of GC/FIDs Audited Ethane 5 Propane 5 Isobutane 5 Trans-2-Butene 5 n-Pentane 5 2-Methyl-Pentane 5 Isoprene 5 n-Hexane 5 Benzene 5 n-Heptane 5 Toluene 5 Ethylbenzene 5 n-Decane 5 1,2,3-TrimethylBenzene 5 Average % Difference -3.1 -10.2 -13.1 -21.5 -37.9 -20.1 -41.5 -4.0 -9.4 -9.2 -12.2 -14.3 -20.1 -22.1 Probability Limits 95% LL -9.3 -14.7 -17.5 -55.9 -99.1 -52.0 -59.5 -19.8 -20.0 -22.0 -23.7 -26.6 -45.9 -35.4 95% UL 3.2 -5.8 -8.7 13.0 23.4 11.9 -23.4 11.9 1.1 3.7 -0.7 -2.0 5.7 -8.7 Table 20: Laboratory Speciated VOC Audit Results for PAMS Network 131 % Difference 2006 Georgia PAMS NetworkGC/FID Continuous PAMS Speciated VOCs Monitoring Overall Average Accuracies 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% -20.0% -40.0% -60.0% -80.0% -100.0% Ethane Propane IsobuTtraannes-2-Butenen-P2e-nMtaenthePylA-PMenStanSepeIscopiaretneednV-HOexCasneinBeAnuzednietnS-HteapntadnaerdTolueEntehylbenze1n,e2,n3--Dtriemceatnheyl-Benzene Upper 95% Probability Limit Average % Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit Figure 73: VOC Monitoring Accuracy Analysis Meteorology The Ambient Monitoring Program monitors meteorological parameters such as wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure, total ultra violet radiation, precipitation and total solar radiation. Real-time meteorological data are generated to characterize meteorological processes such as transport and diffusion, and to make air quality forecasts and burnday decisions. The data are also used for control strategy modeling case study analysis and urban airshed modeling. A state/local meteorology subcommittee of the Air Monitoring Technical Advisory Commission (AMTAC) agreed to define the level of acceptability for meteorological data as those used by the U.S. EPA for both the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) programs. The Quality Assurance Unit audits to those levels. The data variability collected by this element of the monitoring program is generally described as meeting or not meeting the PSD requirements. No mandatory corrections are made to the data. However, station operators are notified whether they passed the audit or not. Most operators make an effort to meet the audit standards. The wind speed, wind direction, 132 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report ambient temperature and relative humidity data sets are controlled data sets, and subject to meeting PAMS objectives. Since the inception of the meteorological audit program, the data quality has improved significantly. Accuracy (field): The accuracy of meteorological sensors is checked by annual performance audits. Figure 74 summarizes the 2006 audit results. The average difference (average degree difference with respect to ambient temperature) represents the combined differences from the certified value of all the individual audit points for each sensor. The upper and lower probability limits represent the expected accuracy of 95 percent of all the single sensor's individual percent differences for all audit test levels at a single site. % Difference 2006 Georgia EPD Meteorological Measurements Network Performance Overall Average Audit Results 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% -4.0% -6.0% -8.0% -10.0% Wind speed Wind Direction Ambient Relative humidity temperature Barometric pressure Meteorological Parameters Precipitation Upper 95% Probability Limit Average % Difference Lower 95% Probablity Limit Figure 74: Meteorological Measurements Accuracy Results 133 Quality Control Reports Quality Control (QC) reports are summaries of the quality control activities conducted by the laboratory to support accurate and precise measurements. These activities include: blanks, duplicates, controls, spiked samples, limits of detection, calibrations, and audit results. Standards Laboratory The U.S. EPA Region IV Standards Laboratory yearly performs technical support and certification services for Georgia's ozone primary standard. Flow rate transfer standards and certification of compressed gas cylinders are sent to the manufactures for re-certification to ensure that all are traceable to standards of the NIST. A calibration establishes a correction factor to adjust or correct the output of an instrument; a certification establishes traceability of a transfer standard to a NIST-traceable standard; and verification establishes comparability of a standard to a NIST-traceable standard of equal rank. Laboratory and Field Standard Operating Procedures Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are guidance documents for the operation of quality assurance programs used by the Georgia Ambient Monitoring Program. The SOPs are intended for field operators and supervisors; laboratory, data processing and engineering personnel; and program managers responsible for implementing, designing, and coordinating air quality monitoring projects. Each SOP has a specific method that must be followed to produce data-for-record. The SOPs are developed and published to ensure that, regardless of the person performing the operation, the results will be consistent. Siting Evaluations To generate accurate and representative data, ambient monitoring stations should meet specific siting requirements and conditions. It is assumed that the stations meet the siting criteria in place at the time initial operation began. The siting requirements of the AMP Quality Assurance Manual Volume II; 40 CFR 58, Appendix E; U.S. EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook Volume IV: U.S. EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); and U.S. EPA's PAMS guidelines, present siting criteria to ensure the collection of accurate and representative data. The siting criterion for each pollutant varies depending on the pollutant's properties, monitoring objective and intended spatial scale. The U.S. EPA's siting criteria are stated as either "must meet" or "should meet". According to 40 CFR 58, Appendix E, the "must meet" requirements are necessary for high quality data. Any exception from the "must meet" requirements must be formally approved through the Appendix E waiver provision. The "should meet" criteria establish a goal for data consistency. Siting criteria are requirements for locating and establishing stations and samplers to meet selected monitoring objectives, and to help ensure that the data from each site are collected uniformly. There are four main monitoring objectives: to determine highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network; to determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density; to determine the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources 134 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report or source categories; and to determine general background concentration levels. Typical siting designations are: micro, middle, neighborhood, and regional. These designations represent the size of the area surrounding the monitoring site which experiences relatively uniform pollutant concentrations. Typical considerations for each of these site designations are, for example, the terrain, climate, population, existing emission sources, and distances from trees and roadways. Siting evaluations are conducted annually by the Quality Assurance Unit. Physical measurements and observations include probe/sensor height above ground level, distance from trees, type of ground cover, residence time, obstructions to air flow, and distance to local sources. These measurements and observations are taken to determine compliance with 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E requirements. 135 136 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2005-2006 Risk Assessment Discussion Introduction In 2005 and 2006, ATN samples were collected from a total of fifteen sites, including a collocated site (a site that has two monitors of each type and acts as a quality assurance site for precision and accuracy calculations), and two background (rural) sites. The compounds sampled at the ATN sites are shown in Table 21. The list was derived from the 188 compounds EPA has designated as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS). Many of the HAPS do not have standardized ambient air sampling and analytical methods. In order to collect the compounds of interest for the Georgia network, at least three types of samplers are used at all locations (except South DeKalb): HIVOL, PUF, and canister. A carbonyls sampler is located at the Brunswick, Dawsonville, Savannah, South DeKalb (NATTS and PAMS), and Tucker (PAMS) sites. This equipment samples for metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, volatile organic compounds, and carbonyls once every twelve days following a preestablished schedule that corresponds to a nationwide sampling schedule. On the twelfth day the sampler runs midnight to midnight and takes a 24-hour composite sample. Exceptions to this sampling schedule are the South DeKalb and Tucker sites. The South DeKalb site samples for metals, volatile organic compounds, and carbonyls but not semivolatile organic compounds, every 6 days as part of the National Air Toxics Trends Station (NATTS) and PAMS network. The Tucker site samples only carbonyls and volatile organic compounds, every 6 days as part of the PAMS network. Some of the chemicals monitored in the Air Toxics Network (ATN) are also monitored at sites in the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) network. While the monitoring schedule and some analysis methods are different at the PAMS sites and ATN sites, several of the compounds from the PAMS sites were also evaluated and compared to values measured at nearby ATN sites for this report. Results and Interpretation The air toxic data ((volatile organic compounds (VOC), semi-volatile organic compounds, and metals)) collected during 2005 and 2006 from the Air Toxics Network was evaluated to assess the potential for health concerns. The data collected for the group of chemicals known as carbonyls were assessed separately from the other air toxics because those chemicals were only monitored at three of the ATN sites and two of the PAMS locations. The initial evaluation consisted of a comparison of the monitored results to "health based" screening values. These values were calculated using procedures recommended in EPA's latest guidance on risk assessment for air toxics (U.S EPA, 2006). Briefly, EPA's prioritized chronic dose-response values for both noncancer (reference concentrations, RfC) and cancer (inhalation unit risks, IUR) were used to generate screening air concentrations. To screen for noncancer effects, the reference concentration was used as a starting point. However, to account for possible exposure to multiple contaminants, the screening air concentration was obtained by dividing the RfC by 10. Screening values for the cancer endpoint were determined by calculating air concentrations equivalent to a risk level of one in one million. Most screening values utilized in this assessment are listed in Appendix A of the previously 137 mentioned guidance document (U.S. EPA, 2006). These screening values and the chemicals monitored are displayed in Table 21. For a limited number of chemicals, other resources such as toxicity values from EPA's Region IX risk program were used to calculate conservative screening values. These compounds are indicated with an asterisk. When available, both the name derived from the International Union of Chemistry (IUC) and the common names are given. It is important to emphasize that the screening values were calculated in a very conservative manner. Assumptions were made that accounted for the potential for continuous exposure to air toxics for 24 hours per day for 70 years. The conservative screening process was utilized so that the chance of underestimating the potential for health impacts would be minimized, as chemicals were excluded from further quantitative analysis. Because results for many of the chemicals assessed were routinely below detection limits of the analytical methods available, the initial review of the data was based on an assessment of the number of chemicals detected and the frequency with which they were detected. The process included determining how often (if at all) a chemical was detected (present), if it was present above detection limits, and if those concentrations were above screening values of concern. 138 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Chemical Screen Value Chemical (g/m3) Screen Value (g/m3) Metals Antimony 0.02 Cobalt 0.01 Arsenic 0.00023 Lead 0.15 Beryllium 0.00042 Manganese 0.005 Cadmium 0.00056 Nickel 0.0021 Chromium 0.000083 Selenium 2 Chromium VI 0.000083 Zinc N/A Semi-Volatiles Acenaphthene 0.3 Chrysene 0.091 Acenaphthylene 0.3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.00083 Anthracene 0.3 Fluoranthene 0.3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0091 Fluorene 0.3 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0091 Ideno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.0091 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0091 Naphthalene 0.029 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.3 Phenanthrene 0.3 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00091 Pyrene 0.3 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.3 Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene 0.13 1,2-Dimethylbenzene (o-Xylene) 10 Benzenecarbonal (Benzaldehyde) 370* 1,3 and 1,4-Dimethylbenzene (m/p-Xylene) 10 Benzyl chloride 0.02 Ethanal (Acetaldehyde) 0.45 Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) 0.5 Ethylbenzene 100 1,3-Butadiene Butanal (Butyraldehyde) 0.03 Ethenylbenzene (Styrene) 100 N/A 1-Ethyl,4-methyl benzene (4-Ethyltoluene) N/A Chlorobenzene (Phenyl chloride) 100 Freon 113 31000* Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride) 1000 Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene(Hexachlorobutadiene) 0.045 Chloroethene (Vinyl chloride) 0.11 Methanal (Formaldehyde) 0.98 Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) 9.0 Methybenzene/Phenylmethane (Toluene) 40 Cyclohexane 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene bromide) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 6200* 0.002 0.091 Propanal (Propionaldehyde) 2-Propanone (Acetone) Propenal (Acrolein) N/A 3300* 0.002 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 110* 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.017 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.091 Tetrachloroethene (Perchloroethylene) 0.17 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) 210* Tetrachlormethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 0.067 1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene chloride) 0.63 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 20 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 370 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 6.2* 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-Dichloroethylene) 210* 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 6.2* Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 2.10 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methylchloroform) 100 1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene chloride) 0.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.063 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene N/A Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene) 0.5 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene N/A Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 1,1-Dichloro-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethane(Freon114) N/A Trichloromethane (Chloroform) 730* 9.8 *From EPA's Region IX Risk Program Table 21: Compounds Monitored and Screening Values Used in Initial Assessment 139 Table 22 and Table 23 summarize the total number of chemicals monitored at each site (excluding carbonyls), the number of chemicals detected, and the number of chemicals detected above the health based screening values for 2005 and 2006. Seventy chemicals were monitored at all the ATN sites, except the South DeKalb site, where 54 air toxic chemicals were monitored. In 2005, twenty-four of the 70 sampled compounds were not detected at the sites, and an additional 13 compounds had 3 or fewer sites with detections. The number of chemicals that were detected at concentrations above the screening levels was even less, with a mean value of 6.2. Of the three categories of chemicals measured at all sites (VOC, semi-VOC, metals), most of the chemicals that were detected above screening values belonged to the metals group. In 2006, thirty-three of the 70 compounds were not detected and thirteen compounds had 3 or fewer sites with detections. The number of chemicals above the screening value was an average of 5.5. The group most detected above the screening value was metals in 2006 as well. Location County Number of Compounds Monitored Number of Compounds Detected Number Greater than Screening Value Augusta Richmond 70 36 8 Brunswick Glynn 70* 32 6 Columbus Muscogee 70 30 5 Dawsonville Dawson 70* 23 6 Douglas Coffee 70 34 5 Gainesville Hall 70 29 7 Macon Bibb 70 28 6 Milledgeville Baldwin 70 30 5 Rome Floyd 70 33 7 Savannah Chatham 70* 30 6 South DeKalb DeKalb 54* 30 6 Utoy Creek Fulton 70 35 9 Valdosta Lowndes 70 30 5 Warner Robins Houston 70 32 7 Yorkville Paulding 70 27 5 * 7 additional chemicals were monitored at these locations, but that information is summarized in Table 32. Table 22: Summary of Chemicals Analyzed in 2005 140 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Location County Number of Compounds Monitored Number of Compounds Detected Number Greater than Screening Value Augusta Richmond 70 27 5 Brunswick Glynn 70* 18 3 Columbus Muscogee 70 25 6 Dawsonville Dawson 70* 16 5 Douglas Coffee 70 21 6 Gainesville Hall 70 22 7 Macon Bibb 70 19 5 Milledgeville Baldwin 70 20 4 Rome Floyd 70 24 6 Savannah Chatham 70* 21 6 South DeKalb DeKalb 54* 22 5 Utoy Creek Fulton 70 23 7 Valdosta Lowndes 70 23 6 Warner Robins Houston 70 24 6 Yorkville Paulding 70 16 5 * 7 additional chemicals were monitored at these locations, but that information is summarized in Table 33. Table 23: Summary of Chemicals Analyzed in 2006 Table 24 and Table 25, on the following pages, show only the chemicals that were detected above screening values at each site in 2005 and 2006. They also provide detailed information on how often they were detected (frequency), and the overall average (mean) in micrograms per cubic meter. The number of detects were counted as any number that was above half the limit of detection. The average was computed using the sample value when it was above half the limit of detection and substituting half the limit of detection if the sample value was below this limit. 141 Location Augusta Brunswick Columbus Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville Macon Milledgeville Chemical Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Naphthalene Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Mean (g/m3) 9.9 x 10-4 2.06 x 10-3 1.38 x 10-2 3.54 x 10-3 3.88 x 10-2 9.16 x 10-1 4.41 x 10-1 2.38 x 10-1 5.7 x 10-4 2.06 x 10-3 2.95 x 10-3 5.97 x 10-1 5.04 x 10-1 2.38 x 10-1 8.3 x 10-4 1.48 x 10-3 8.62 x 10-3 8.90 x 10-1 4.41 x 10-1 8.4 x 10-4 5.29 x 10-3 9.07 x 10-3 4.79 x 10-3 4.21 x 10-1 5.04 x 10-1 9.2 x 10-4 1.58 x 10-3 4.26 x 10-1 5.04 x 10-1 2.04 x 10-1 8.0 x 10-4 7.05 x 10-3 1.24 x 10-2 5.9 x 10-3 5.15 x 10-1 5.04 x 10-1 3.39 x 10-1 7.0 x 10-4 1.82 x 10-3 7.67 x 10-3 4.80 x 10-1 5.04 x 10-1 2.38 x 10-1 6.4 x 10-4 1.52 x 10-3 1.34 x 10-2 4.58 x 10-1 4.41 x 10-1 Detection Frequency 23/27 26/27 26/27 26/27 1/28 30/30 12/30 1/30 12/25 25/25 25/25 26/27 16/27 1/27 21/30 28/30 28/30 30/30 14/30 24/29 29/29 29/29 29/29 28/29 18/29 25/29 28/29 24/27 16/27 1/27 41/41 41/41 41/41 41/41 41/41 25/41 9/41 22/29 29/29 29/29 27/28 15/28 1/28 21/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 14/30 Table 24: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration, 2005 142 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Rome Savannah South DeKalb Utoy Creek Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Manganese Nickel Naphthalene Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Naphthalene Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene 1.16 x 10-3 1.75 x 10-3 1.46 x 10-2 2.32 x 10-3 9.27 x 10-1 4.41 x 10-1 6.45 x 10-1 8.8 x 10-4 3.92 x 10-3 8.21 x 10-3 4.47 x 10-3 5.65 x 10-1 5.04 x 10-1 7.0 x 10-4 1.5 x 10-3 2.26 x 10-3 1.30 5.04 x 10-1 3.05 x 10-1 2.31 x 10-1 1.06 x 10-3 5.7 x 10-4 2.63 x 10-3 1.20 x 10-2 2.42 x 10-3 3.85 x 10-2 9.59 x 10-1 5.04 x 10-1 3.05 x 10-1 8.2 x 10-4 1.44 x 10-3 5.65 x 10-1 4.41 x 10-1 2.04 x 10-1 7.0 x 10-4 1.91 x 10-3 6.36 x 10-3 4.03 x 10-2 7.73 x 10-1 5.04 x 10-1 4.07 x 10-1 1.27 x 10-3 1.69 x 10-3 5.51 x 10-3 4.0 x 10-1 4.41 x 10-1 2.38 x 10-1 28/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 28/28 12/28 17/28 23/28 27/28 27/28 27/28 27/28 16/28 50/55 55/55 55/55 53/53 28/53 10/53 5/53 29/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 1/30 29/29 17/29 8/29 8/27 26/27 28/28 14/28 1/28 23/30 30/30 30/30 1/30 29/29 17/29 3/29 26/29 27/29 29/29 25/27 14/27 1/27 Table 24: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration, 2005 (continued) 143 Location Augusta Brunswick Columbus Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville Macon Milledgeville Chemical Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Benzene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Mean (g/m3) 1.39 x 10-3 1.42 x 10-3 1.18 x 10-2 1.1 8.62 x 10-1 7.4 x 10-4 1.73 x 10-3 5.15 x 10-1 9.8 x 10-4 3.18 x 10-3 1.17 x 10-2 5.57 x 10-3 8.84 x 10-1 8.62 x 10-1 7.1 x 10-4 1.73 x 10-3 5.06 x 10-3 3.22 x 10-3 4.45 x 10-1 9.0 x 10-4 2.67 x 10-3 5.15 x 10-3 3.55 x 10-3 4.26 x 10-1 7.87 x 10-1 8.6 x 10-4 2.33 x 10-3 8.29 x 10-3 4.67 x 10-3 6.45 x 10-1 7.87 x 10-1 8.53 x 10-1 2.08 x 10-3 3.67 x 10-3 9.18 x 10-3 4.62 x 10-3 5.02 x 10-1 6.1 x 10-4 1.4 x 10-3 6.68 x 10-3 5.35 x 10-1 Detection Frequency 27/31 31/31 31/31 20/30 1/30 20/28 26/28 12/29 23/31 31/31 31/31 31/31 25/31 1/31 23/29 28/29 29/29 29/29 12/30 26/29 28/29 29/29 29/29 7/30 1/30 36/42 42/42 42/42 42/42 31/43 1/43 1/43 22/29 28/29 29/29 29/29 20/29 18/28 26/28 28/28 18/29 Table 25: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration, 2006 144 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Rome Savannah South DeKalb Utoy Creek Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Dichloromethane Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Nickel Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene 1.17 x 10-3 1.69 x 10-3 7.2 x 10-3 7.48 x 10-1 3.67 9.59 x 10-1 8.8 x 10-4 1.72 x 10-3 5.26 x 10-3 2.45 x 10-3 6.17 x 10-1 7.87 x 10-1 8.6 x 10-4 2.79 x 10-3 3.25 x 10-3 9.45 x 10-1 8.6 x 10-1 1.09 x 10-3 4.14 x 10-3 9.63 x 10-3 4.07 x 10-3 8.25 x 10-1 7.87 x 10-1 8.71x 10-1 9.4 x 10-4 4.41 x 10-3 8.34 x 10-3 5.41 x 10-3 5.96 x 10-1 8.56 x 10-1 7.8 x 10-4 4.5 x 10-3 8.35 x 10-3 6.33 x 10-3 6.04 x 10-1 9.75 x 10-1 1.06 x 10-3 3.12 x 10-3 5.55 x 10-3 3.72 x 10-3 4.34 x 10-1 27/30 30/30 30/30 12/25 1/25 4/25 25/30 28/30 29/30 29/30 18/31 1/31 49/59 58/59 58/59 51/61 2/61 27/31 31/31 31/31 31/31 26/31 1/31 1/31 25/31 29/31 31/31 30/31 20/29 1/29 26/31 31/31 31/31 31/31 16/27 3/27 26/29 29/29 29/29 29/29 8/24 Table 25: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration, 2006 (continued) 145 Formula For Calculating Risk Using IUR For Carcinogens Risk = IUR*Conc Formula For Calculating Hazard Quotient Using RfC For Noncarcinogens HQ = Conc RfC Equation Parameters Risk Theoretical lifetime cancer risk (unitless probability) HQ Hazard quotient (unitless ratio) Conc Measured ambient air concentration in g/m3 IUR Inhalation unit risk (1/(g/m3)) RfC Reference concentration (g/m3) Figure 75: Formulas For Calculating Risk and Hazard Quotient Figure 75 shows the formulas used to calculate cancer risk and non-cancer hazard for chemicals that were carried beyond the screening process into the quantitative assessment. 146 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Table 26 and Table 27, on the following pages, show the theoretical cancer risk and noncancer hazard that would result from an individual breathing air containing the detected chemicals at the estimated concentrations daily for seventy years, or a full lifetime. These cancer risk and hazard quotient estimates are likely conservative because they were calculated assuming continuous exposure to outdoor air at breathing rates typical of moderate exertion. Real risk cannot be calculated, but may be substantially lower. Lifetime cancer risks for the limited number of chemicals exceeding screening values (and excluding that from carbonyls) exceeded 1 x 10-6 or one in one million, a value generally deemed as insignificant. However, lifetime cancer risks for these chemicals did not exceed 1 x 10-4 or one in ten thousand. This value is generally taken as a crude upper limit for "allowable" risk in many regulatory contexts. Individual hazard quotients (HQs) are ratios that relate daily exposure concentrations, or dose, to a concentration or an amount thought to be without appreciable risks of causing deleterious non-cancer effects in sensitive individuals as well as the general population. HQ values less than 1.0 indicate the air "dose" is less than the amount required to cause toxic effects other than cancer. HQs for all individual ATN chemicals (excluding carbonyls) were well below 1.0 at all of the sites monitored in 2005 and 2006. 147 Location Augusta Brunswick Columbus Dawsonville General Coffee Gainesville Macon Milledgeville Chemical Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Naphthalene Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Cancer Risk 4 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 1 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 7 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 6 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 3 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 8 x 10-5 3 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 4 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 4 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 Hazard Quotient 0.03 0.02 0.3 0.04 0.1 0.03 0.002 0.0009 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.003 0.0009 0.03 0.01 0.2 0.03 0.002 0.03 0.05 0.2 0.05 0.01 0.003 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.003 0.0008 0.03 0.07 0.2 0.07 0.02 0.003 0.001 0.02 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.003 0.0009 0.02 0.02 0.3 0.02 0.002 Table 26: Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient by Location and Chemical, 2005 148 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Rome Savannah South DeKalb Utoy Creek Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Manganese Nickel Naphthalene Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Naphthalene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene 7 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 1 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 5 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 1 x 10-6 1 x 10-5 8 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 3 x 10-5 1 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 4 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 1 x 10-6 6 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 3 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 0.04 0.02 0.3 0.03 0.03 0.002 0.002 0.03 0.04 0.2 0.05 0.02 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.003 0.001 0.0003 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.2 0.03 0.1 0.03 0.003 0.001 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.0008 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.003 0.002 0.04 0.02 0.1 0.01 0.002 0.0009 Table 26: Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient by Location and Chemical, 2005 (continued) 149 Location Augusta Brunswick Columbus Dawsonville General Coffee Gainesville Macon Milledgeville Chemical Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Benzene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Cancer Risk 6 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 9 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 4 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 4 x 10-5 3 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 3 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 1 x 10-5 4 x 10-6 3 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 1 x 10-5 5 x 10-6 9 x 10-6 4 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 4 x 10-6 Hazard Quotient 0.05 0.01 0.2 0.04 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.2 0.06 0.03 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.04 0.01 0.004 0.03 0.02 0.2 0.05 0.02 0.004 0.003 0.07 0.04 0.2 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.02 Table 27: Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient by Location and Chemical, 2006 150 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Rome Savannah South DeKalb Utoy Creek Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Dichloromethane Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Arsenic Chromium Nickel Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene Tetrachloroethene Arsenic Chromium Manganese Nickel Benzene 5 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 6 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 6 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 1 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 1 x 10-5 4 x 10-6 3 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 5 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 6 x 10-6 1 x 10-5 5 x 10-6 4 x 10-6 5 x 10-5 3 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 5 x 10-5 3 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 6 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 4 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 0.04 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.004 0.004 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.03 0.02 0.004 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.003 0.04 0.04 0.2 0.05 0.03 0.004 0.003 0.03 0.04 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.003 0.03 0.05 0.2 0.07 0.02 0.004 0.04 0.03 0.1 0.04 0.01 Table 27: Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient by Location and Chemical, 2006 (continued) 151 Table 28 and Table 29 show total or aggregate theoretical cancer risk and hazard indices (added hazard quotients) for the chemicals (VOCs, semi-VOCS, and metals) carried through the quantitative assessment. It is considered appropriate to treat the potential for effects in an additive manner and to sum cancer risk and hazard quotients. For example, if cancer risk for two separate chemicals were 1 x 10-4 and 2 x 10-4, then the sum or aggregate cancer risk would equal 3 x 10-4. Likewise, if cancer risk for two separate chemicals were 1 x 10-4 and 1 x 10-5, then total cancer risk for the two would equal 1.1 x 10-4, or rounded to 1 x 10-4. Similarly, if hazard quotients were 0.6 and 0.5 for two different chemicals it would indicate that each chemical alone is not likely to result in detrimental effects. However, summing the two would yield a Hazard Index (HI) of 1.1 or rounded to 1. Comparing this value to the threshold value of 1.0, this HI suggests at least the potential for detrimental effects from the combination of the two chemicals. Location Augusta Brunswick Columbus Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville Macon Milledgeville Rome Savannah South DeKalb Utoy Creek Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville Cancer Risk 4 x 10-5 4 x 10-5 4 x 10-5 8 x 10-5 4 x 10-5 1 x 10-4 4 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 5 x 10-5 7 x 10-5 5 x 10-5 6 x 10-5 4 x 10-5 4 x 10-5 4 x 10-5 Hazard Index 0.5 0.09 0.3 0.3 0.06 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.06 0.3 0.2 Table 28: Aggregate Cancer Risk and Hazard Indices for Each Site, Excluding Carbonyls, 2005 152 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Location Augusta Brunswick Columbus Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville Macon Milledgeville Rome Savannah South DeKalb Utoy Creek Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville Cancer Risk 4 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 6 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 5 x 10-5 6 x 10-5 6 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 4 x 10-5 4 x 10-5 5 x 10-5 8 x 10-5 7 x 10-5 7 x 10-5 5 x 10-5 Hazard Index 0.3 0.06 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 Table 29: Aggregate Cancer Risk and Hazard Indices for Each Site, Excluding Carbonyls, 2006 In 2005, the aggregate theoretical cancer risk (excluding carbonyls) for all ATN sites exceeded 1 x 10-6, with risks ranging from 3 x 10-5 at the Milledgeville site and 1 x 10-4 at the Gainesville site. Hazard indices (HIs) were well below 1, with no value exceeding 0.5. In 2006, the aggregate theoretical cancer risk for the ATN sites ranged from 3 x 10-5 for Brunswick, Dawsonville, and Milledgeville to 8 x 10-5 at Utoy Creek. The hazard indices (HIs) were also below 0.5 for 2006. These findings suggest little potential for non-cancer effects from the chemicals assessed in this study. Some data collected from the PAMS network was evaluated in conjunction with the ATN data. The PAMS network is a federally mandated network required to monitor for ozone precursors in those areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme for ozone non-attainment. Fifty-four (54) chemicals are monitored on six-day intervals at these sites. In Georgia, PAMS sites are located in Conyers, South DeKalb, Tucker, and Yorkville. Of the 54 chemicals monitored at these sites, many are ozone precursors, and are not truly comparable to the chemicals monitored at the ATN sites, or appropriate to evaluate as air toxics. Therefore, for this study, only twelve chemicals were assessed for their potential to have detrimental effects on human health if present in ambient air. Those twelve chemicals were benzene, cyclohexane, ethyl benzene, p-ethyltoluene, n-hexane, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, m,p-xylene, and o-xylene. 153 Of those twelve chemicals evaluated from the PAMS network, only benzene, m/p xylenes, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene were found in concentrations above the screening values in 2005 and 2006. The 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene data was not reportable for some of the sites. The 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene data for the Conyers site was not reportable for 2005, and not reportable for the Conyers and South DeKalb sites in 2006, therefore it could not be evaluated. Table 30 and Table 31 show the number of samples collected, first and second highest sample values (1st and 2nd Max), averages (means) in micrograms per cubic meter, hazard quotients (HQ) and cancer risk (CR) for chemicals evaluated in the quantitative assessment at each of the four PAMS sites for 2005 and 2006. In 2005, benzene was detected consistently and when evaluated as a potential carcinogen, produced theoretical cancer risks as great as 7 x 10-5 at the South DeKalb site. Although it could not be evaluated for Conyers, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected above the screening value at all the other sites, and when evaluated as a non-cancer hazard, produced HQs ranging from 1 to 3. In 2005, the m/p-xylenes were found at the South DeKalb and Tucker sites, and produced HQs of only 0.1. In 2006, the same three PAMS compounds (benzene, m/p-xylenes, and1,2,4trimethylbenzene) were found above the screening value. Benzene was consistently found at all four PAMS sites, producing a theoretical cancer risk as great as 6 x 10-5. In 2006, the highest theoretical cancer risk values for benzene were at both the South DeKalb and Yorkville PAMS sites. For the Yorkville site, this theoretical cancer risk value for benzene increased from 2 x 10-5 in 2005 to 6 x 10-5 in 2006. For South DeKalb this theoretical cancer risk value for benzene decreased from 7 x 10-5 in 2005 to 6 x 10-5 in 2006. In 2006, the m/pxylene compounds were found only at the South DeKalb and Tucker sites, and produced a non-cancer hazard quotient of only 0.1, as was the case for 2005. Although 1,2,4trimethylbenzene could not be evaluated for the South DeKalb and Conyers sites in 2006, it was evaluated for the Tucker and Yorkville sites. It was found above the screening value only for the Tucker site in 2006. The non-cancer HQs produced for the Tucker site for 1,2,4trimethylbenzene decreased from 2 in 2005 to 1 in 2006. Location Chemical Mean Samples 1st Max 2nd Max (g/m3) HQ CR Conyers Benzene 58 15.0 8.6 4.76 0.2 4 x 10-5 South DeKalb Benzene 54 27.2 21.1 8.78 0.3 7 x 10-5 m/p Xylenes 54 43.4 37.4 13.86 0.1 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene 54 68.8 54.1 15.83 3 Tucker Benzene 48 51.1 13.1 8.24 0.3 6 x 10-5 m/p Xylenes 48 91.2 33.0 14.46 0.1 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene 48 78.7 63.9 15.39 2 Yorkville Benzene 55 6.7 4.8 2.30 0.08 2 x 10-5 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene 55 20.2 19.7 6.29 1 Table 30: Summary Data for Select VOCs at PAMS Sites, 2005 154 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Location Chemical # Mean Samples 1st Max 2nd Max (g/m3) HQ CR Conyers Benzene 59 14.7 12.1 3.74 0.1 3 x 10-5 South DeKalb Benzene 62 25.9 23.3 7.09 0.2 6 x 10-5 m/p Xylenes 62 52.1 47.8 12.51 0.1 Tucker Benzene 59 17.6 16.6 6.87 0.2 5 x 10-5 m/p Xylenes 59 39.1 36.1 12.38 0.1 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene 59 30.0 20.7 6.93 1 Yorkville Benzene 55 156.5 111.8 7.06 0.2 6 x 10-5 Table 31: Summary Data for Select VOCs at PAMS Sites, 2006 The carbonyls (acetaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, benzylaldehyde, butyraldehyde, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde) were measured at only three of the ATN sites (Brunswick, Savannah, and Dawsonville) and two of the PAMS sites (South DeKalb and Tucker). For that reason, their results are displayed separately from the rest of the data. Detection frequency, average (mean) concentration in micrograms per cubic meter, cancer risk, and non-cancer HQs for the carbonyls are shown in Table 32 and Table 33. These tables also show the sum of the cancer risk and hazard quotients, which are the aggregate cancer risk and hazard index (HI), per site. Of the seven carbonyls sampled, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein were detected above the screening value for 2005, and only acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were detected above the screening value for 2006. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were evaluated as carcinogens, and acrolein as a noncarcinogen. All the sites monitoring for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde detected these compounds with a relatively high detection frequency. In 2005, acetaldehyde was detected 64% to 98% of the time, and formaldehyde was detected 75% to 100% of the time, with the Dawsonville site having the lowest detection rates and the Tucker site having the highest. However, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde had relatively low theoretical cancer risks, ranging from 1 x 10-8 to 8 x 10-6, and relatively low hazard quotients, ranging from 0.1 to 2. Acrolein was detected only at the South DeKalb and Tucker sites in 2005. Detection frequencies of acrolein were relatively low, ranging from approximately 3 to 4%. However, when acrolein was detected, the hazard quotients were quite high, at 28. In 2006, acetaldehyde was detected 61% to 100% of the time while formaldehyde was detected 77% to 100% of the time. With both compounds, the Dawsonville site had the lowest detection frequency, and the South DeKalb and Tucker sites had the highest detection frequency. The higher detection frequency at the South DeKalb and Tucker sites possibly reflects the urban setting in which these sites are located. The theoretical cancer risk and hazard quotients for these carbonyls were relatively low for 2006 as well, with theoretical cancer risks ranging from 1 x 10-8 to 8 x 10-6, and hazard quotients at 1 or below. 155 Location Brunswick Dawsonville Savannah South DeKalb Tucker Chemical Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde SUM Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde SUM Detection Frequency Mean (g/m3) Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient 25/28 2.94 6 x 10-6 0.3 25/28 4.37 2 x 10-8 0.4 6 x 10-6 0.7 18/28 1.13 2 x 10-6 0.1 21/28 2.14 1 x 10-8 0.2 2 x 10-6 0.3 18/26 1.52 3 x 10-6 0.2 24/26 2.96 2 x 10-8 0.3 3 x 10-6 0.5 56/58 3.06 7 x 10-6 0.3 2/58 5.68 x 10-1 28 58/58 7.54 4 x 10-8 0.8 7 x 10-6 29 53/54 3.80 8 x 10-6 0.4 2/54 5.67 x 10-1 28 54/54 16.57 9 x 10-8 2 8 x 10-6 30 Table 32: Summary Observations, Cancer Risk, and Hazard Quotient from Carbonyls, 2005 156 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Location Brunswick Dawsonville Savannah South DeKalb Tucker Chemical Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM Detection Frequency 23/29 28/29 19/31 24/31 19/28 26/28 56/56 55/55 57/57 57/57 Mean (g/m3) 1.48 3.58 1.10 1.68 1.32 2.88 2.93 8.41 4.62 13.59 Cancer Risk 6 x 10-6 2 x 10-8 6 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 1 x 10-8 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-8 3 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 4 x 10-8 7 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 9 x 10-8 8 x 10-6 Hazard Quotient 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.9 1 0.5 1 2 Table 33: Summary Observations, Cancer Risk, and Hazard Quotient from Carbonyls, 2006 157 Summary and Discussion In both 2005 and 2006, there were 70 air toxics compounds monitored at the 15 sites across the state, with the exception of the South DeKalb site that monitored 54 air toxic compounds. In 2005, of these compounds monitored, 24 were not detected and 13 compounds were detected at three sites or less. 52.6% of the compounds detected above the screening value were in the metals category, 44.2% were in the volatile organic compounds category, and 3.2% were in the semi-volatile organic compounds category. The average number of compounds that were above the screening value for 2005 was 6.2. Even though more compounds were monitored and more compounds were detected in 2005 (with the lower detection limits that started in September of 2004), this number is not significantly higher than the average number of compounds above the screening value for the 2004 data. In 2004, the average number of compounds detected was 5.5. In 2006, 33 compounds were not detected, and 13 compounds were detected at three sites or less. In 2006, 65.9% of the compounds detected were in the metals category and 34.1% were in the volatile organic compounds category. There were no semi-volatile organic compounds found above the screening value in 2006. The average number of compounds detected above the screening value for 2006 was 5.5, the same number of compounds above the screening value for 2004. Benzene is one of the volatile organic compounds found at all sites. In 2005, average benzene concentrations at the ATN sites ranged from 0.4 to 1.3 g/m3. These concentrations correspond to the predicted theoretical lifetime cancer risk in the range of 3 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-5. Average concentrations of benzene measured in the PAMS network ranged from 2.30 to 8.78 g/m3. These concentrations correspond to predicted theoretical lifetime cancer risks in the range of 2 x 10-5 to 7 x 10-5 for the PAMS sites. In 2006 benzene concentrations ranged from 0.43 to 1.1 g/m3 at the ATN sites, with corresponding predicted theoretical lifetime cancer risks ranging from 3 x 10-6 to 9 x10-6. At the PAMS sites for 2006, benzene concentrations ranged from 3.74 to 7.09 g/m3, with corresponding predicted lifetime cancer risks ranging from 3 x 10-5 to 6 x 10-5. Major sources of benzene to the environment include automobile service stations, exhaust from motor vehicles, and industrial emissions (ATSDR, 1997). Most data relating effects of long-term exposure to benzene are from studies of workers employed in industries that make or use benzene, where people were exposed to amounts hundreds or thousands of times greater than those reported herein. Under these circumstances of high exposure, benzene can cause problems in the blood, including anemia, excessive bleeding, and harm to the immune system. Exposure to large amounts of benzene for long periods of time may also cause cancer of the bloodforming organs, or leukemia (ATSDR, 1997). The potential for these types of health effects from exposure to low levels of benzene, as reported in this study, are not well understood. Benzene has been determined to be a known carcinogen (U.S. EPA, 2000) and was evaluated as such in this study. In 2005, carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) was detected at all fifteen sites with a detection frequency of approximately 53%. Lifetime theoretical cancer risks calculated from the mean concentrations of CCl4 were in the range of 8 x 10-6. In 2006 carbon tetrachloride was found at only 4 sites, with a detection frequency of 2.3% to 4.2%, and lifetime theoretical cancer risks were around 1 x 10-5. CCl4 was used to produce refrigeration fluids, as propellants for aerosol cans, as a pesticide, in fire extinguishers, as a spot cleaner, and as a degreasing agent (ATSDR, 2005a). Because of concerns regarding CCl4's toxicity, these uses have been stopped or severely restricted. When exposures to CCl4 are relatively large, it can 158 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report damage the liver, the kidneys, and the nervous system. U.S. EPA has classified CCl4 as a probable human carcinogen (U.S. EPA, 1991a). In 2005, tetrachloroethene was detected at eleven of the fifteen sites, but with a relatively low frequency at most sites. At five sites there was only one detection, and at the other six sites detection frequencies ranged from 10% to 61%. In 2006, tetrachloroethene was detected at eight of the fifteen sites, again with a low detection frequency. Five of the sites each had one detection and the other three sites had a detection frequency that ranged from 3% to 16%. Tetrachloroethene is used for dry cleaning fabrics, where it is often called perchloroethylene, referred to as "perc". It is also used as a metal degreaser. In the body, it acts as a central nervous system depressant. For this study, the chemical was evaluated as a carcinogen. Theoretical cancer risk calculated from the mean ambient air concentrations (accounting for non-detected samples) was approximately 1 x 10-6 to 4 x 10-6 for 2005 and 5 x 10-6 to 6 x 10-6 for 2006. It should be noted that almost half of these contributions arise from measurements made on one day of sampling. With that in mind, the estimate may not be a reasonable estimate of risk considering the low frequency of detection. In 2005, two compounds were found with very low detection frequencies: naphthalene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Napthalene was the only semi-volatile organic compound found above the screening value in 2005. It was detected at only three of the fifteen sites, and detected only one time at each site. The theoretical lifetime cancer risk was approximately 1 x 10-6, which includes adding the half detection limit for the non-detected samples. 1,4Diclorobenzene was found at one ATN site, with approximately a 9.4% detection rate. The estimated lifetime cancer risk was 3 x 10-6. However, with such low detection numbers for both of these compounds, these may not be reasonable estimates of risk. In 2006, neither of these compounds were detected above the screening value. In 2005 and 2006, along with benzene, there were two other VOCs detected above the screening value at the PAMS sites. These two VOCs were 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and m/pxylenes. As stated earlier, in 2005, the Conyers 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene data was not reportable, and in 2006 the South DeKalb and Conyers sites had 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene data that was not reportable. Therefore, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene was assessed at three sites in 2005 and two sites in 2006. It was detected above the screening value at the three other PAMS sites in 2005, and only at the Tucker site in 2006. M/p-xylenes were detected above the screening value at only the South DeKalb and Tucker sites in both 2005 and 2006. 1,2,4Trimethylbenzene occurs naturally in coal tar and petroleum crude oil. It is a component of gasoline, and has other uses in industry as an intermediate in the production of dyes, drugs, and coatings. Exposure to very large amounts of 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene may cause skin and respiratory irritancy and nervous system depression, fatigue, headache, and drowsiness. However, risks resulting from exposure to low ambient concentrations of 1,2,4trimethylbenzene have not been studied extensively (U.S. EPA, 1994a). For this study, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was evaluated as a non-carcinogen with potential to cause central nervous system and irritant effects (U.S. EPA, 2004b). 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene HQs ranged from approximately 1 to 3 for the South DeKalb, Tucker, and Yorkville sites for 2005, and was 1 for the Tucker site in 2006. M/p-xylenes were also evaluated as a non-carcinogen, and the HQs were 0.1 for each site (South DeKalb and Tucker) for both 2005 and 2006. M/p-xylenes are released into the air from auto exhaust, industrial emissions, and used as solvents. It also has the potential to cause harm to the central nervous system with long-term exposure (ATSDR, 2006b). 159 In 2005 and 2006, four metals, arsenic, chromium, manganese, and nickel, were evaluated in the quantitative assessment. Manganese was detected at eleven sites in 2005 and thirteen sites in 2006. Manganese is a trace element, and small amounts are needed to support good health. However, exposure to very large amounts through inhalation can result in neurological effects (ATSDR, 2000a). Manganese was evaluated as a neurotoxin, but did not contribute significantly in the quantitative assessment with HQs less than 0.3 for 2005 and less than 0.2 for 2006. These HQs suggest that there is little potential for neurological effects from ambient air concentrations of manganese. In 2005 and 2006, arsenic was found at all fifteen ATN sites. Arsenic occurs naturally in soil and rocks, and was used extensively in the past as a pesticide on cotton fields and in orchards (ATSDR, 2005b). However, the majority of arsenic found in the atmosphere comes from the burning of coal and oil, incineration, and smelting operations. Arsenic has been recognized as a human poison since ancient times. Inhalation of large quantities of some forms of arsenic may cause irritation of the throat and upper respiratory tract. Long-term exposure either by inhalation or ingestion may result in a unique pattern of skin changes, and circulatory and peripheral nervous disorders (ATSDR, 2005b). Inhalation of some forms of arsenic may also cause cancer, so arsenic was evaluated as a carcinogen in this assessment. Theoretical lifetime cancer risks estimated from the data collected in 2005 ranged from 2 x 10-6 to 7 x 10-6 and from the 2006 data ranged from 3 x 10-6 to 9 x 10-6. In both 2005 and 2006, chromium was detected at all fifteen ATN sites, with a detection frequency ranging from 93% to 100%. In 2005, the theoretical cancer risk ranged from 2 x 10-5 to 8 x 10-5, and in 2006 the theoretical cancer risk ranged from 2 x 10-5 to 5 x 10-5. In 2005, the site with the highest theoretical cancer risk was Gainesville, with 8 x 10-5, however this theoretical cancer risk dropped to 3 x 10-5 in 2006. Chromium is a naturally occurring element and is common in low amounts in foodstuffs (ATSDR, 2000b). Natural processes such as wind generating dust and even volcanoes may release chromium into the atmosphere. However, many human activities such as coal and oil combustion, electroplating, smelting, and iron and steel production also release it into the atmosphere. The chemistry of chromium is complex. It may occur in different forms or oxidation states in the environment, having very different degrees of toxicity. Chromium+3 is the form that often predominates in the natural environment, and is also an essential element required for good nutrition. Hexavalent chromium (chromium+6) is the most toxic form of chromium and is often related to releases from industrial activities (ATSDR, 2000b). Inhaling large amounts of chromium+6 may cause upper respiratory track irritation, and chromium+6 has also been shown to be a carcinogen, causing increases in the risk of lung cancer (ATSDR, 2000b). Studies have shown that in ambient air, even near industrial sites, chromium+6 is usually only a small portion of total chromium, with measured values for chromium+6 accounting for a range of values from 1 to 25% of total chromium (ATSDR, 2000b). At the South DeKalb site, sampling has begun for chromium+6, however the concentrations detected were below the screening value and were not evaluated further. The South DeKalb site is located within and representative of an urban area. Since the chromium+6 concentrations were below the screening value for the South DeKalb site, this could indicate that chromium+6 levels are low throughout the network. The other sites that measure for chromium, measure for the total form. Therefore, the measurements used in this study were for the total form, and distinctions cannot be made as to how much of the different states are present at the other 160 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report ATN sites. In the interest of conservativeness, chromium was evaluated with the most stringent toxicity index as chromium+6, even though the chromium metal measured was not in this most toxic form. Data collected on the ratio of chromium+6 to total chromium (ATSDR, 2000b) indicates that this process may appreciably overestimate risk. Further work is needed to better understand chemical forms of chromium in Georgia's air, and determine if chromium is an important contributor to risk. In 2005, nickel was detected at eight of the fifteen ATN sites, with theoretical lifetime cancer risk ranging from 1 x 10-6 to 3 x 10-6. When detected, nickel had a high detection frequency, occurring in 96% to 100% of the collected samples. In 2006, nickel was detected above the screening value for eleven of the fifteen sites. The theoretical cancer risk ranged from 1 x 10-6 to 3 x 10-6, as it did for 2005. The detection frequency was also high in 2006, ranging from 97% to 100% detection, with eight of the eleven sites having 100% detection frequency. Nickel is a naturally occurring element used in many consumer and industrial products such as stainless steel, alloys, and coins, and is also released in the burning of oil and coal. If large amounts are breathed, nickel can cause damage to the lungs and nasal cavities, and can be carcinogenic (ATSDR, 2005d). Carbonyls were monitored at five sites in Georgia in 2005 and 2006. Three sites, Brunswick, Dawsonville and Savannah are ATN sites, while the other two sites, South DeKalb and Tucker, are in the PAMS network. Three carbonyls- formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein- were detected with sufficient frequency, and have sufficient potential for toxicity to be included in the quantitative assessment. Formaldehyde, the simplest of the aldehydes, is produced in small quantities by natural processes, and from the fertilizer, paper, and manufactured wood products industries (ATSDR, 1999). It is also found in vehicle emissions. Formaldehyde is a health concern because of its respiratory irritancy and potential as a carcinogen. It may cause irritation of the eye, nose, throat, and skin, and has the potential under certain exposure scenarios to cause cancers of the nose and throat (ATSDR, 1999). Acetaldehyde, as an intermediate product of plant respiration and a product of incomplete combustion, is ubiquitous in the environment. Acetaldehyde, like formaldehyde, is also a concern as an upper respiratory irritant, and because of its potential to cause nasal tumors in animal studies. However, research has shown it to be significantly less potent than formaldehyde (U.S. EPA, 1987; U.S. EPA 1991b). In 2005 and 2006, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were detected at all five locations where carbonyls were assessed. As noted in past studies, concentrations of these aldehydes are much higher at the PAMS sites (South DeKalb and Tucker) compared to the ATN sites. The greatest difference is noted in formaldehyde concentrations, which ranged from approximately 1.68 to 4.37 g/m3 at ATN sites over the two years, compared to a range of 7.54 to 16.57 g/m3 at the PAMS sites. The reason for these differences is not clear at this time. However, it may be related to differences in siting criteria between the two networks. Type II PAMS sites are intentionally located in "urban core" locations to monitor precursors of ozone, but ATN sites are not. Because of this difference, vehicle emissions may play a greater role in measurements made at PAMS sites compared to ATN sites. When the theoretical cancer risk for formaldehyde was evaluated, the risk ranged from 1 x 10-8 to 9 x 10-8 for both 2005 and 2006, with no change in risk for each site. When acetaldehyde was 161 evaluated for theoretical cancer risk, the risk ranged from 2 x 10-6 to 7 x 10-6 for both years, also with no change from 2005 to 2006. It should be noted that the current guidance used by EPD for the air toxics evaluation recommends using a cancer toxicity value for formaldehyde developed by U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). This value, which takes into account physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling for formaldehyde, is less restrictive by a factor of 2400 compared to the cancer toxicity value available in U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). If the more conservative toxicity factor were used, the original theoretical risk found (1 x 10-8 to 9 x 10-8) would result in theoretical formaldehyde risk values in the range of 2 x 10-5 to 2 x 10-4 for 2005 and 2006, with formaldehyde contributing much more significantly to overall risk. In 2005, acrolein was detected at two sites, with the detection frequency of 2% to 4%. The concentrations detected yielded values for the annual average (using half the detection limit for non-detected samples) around 0.57 g/m3. These concentrations were sufficient to yield HQs at approximately 28. In 2006, acrolein was not detected at the sites monitoring for carbonyls. Acrolein may enter the environment as a result of combustion of trees and other plants, tobacco, gasoline, and oil. Additionally, it has a number of industrial uses as a chemical intermediate (ATSDR, 2005c). The potential for acrolein to cause health effects is not well understood. At very low concentrations, it is an upper respiratory irritant. At very high concentrations it may produce more serious damage to the lining of the upper respiratory tract and lungs (ATSDR, 2005c; U.S. EPA, 2003). As stated previously, the estimates of risk presented herein are likely overestimates due to conservative assumptions used in this exercise. Conservative assumptions were used to estimate the potential for possible exposures (high inhalation rates and long term exposure) and toxicity values. In the absence of good exposure information, this practice is warranted to decrease the potential for underestimating risk. The results presented herein suggest that the majority of calculated risk is due to a small number of chemicals. The risk values presented in this report should not be interpreted as indicators of true or "real" risk, but for relative comparisons of a chemicals contribution to aggregate risk, or for comparisons of risk between locations within the monitoring network or in other areas of the country. 162 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Outreach and Education One of the most important tasks of the Ambient Monitoring Program is maintaining effective public outreach and education. The program seeks to address the air quality issues that are most vital to the citizens of Georgia by identifying the pollutants that represent the greatest risks, continually monitoring them, and communicating the monitoring results directly with the public. The goal is to provide an understanding of the presence of air pollution throughout the state and to educate the public on the steps they can take to improve air quality. This is done by issuing smog alerts and information provided in the Air Quality Index (AQI), maintaining a partnership with the Clean Air Campaign in the metro Atlanta nonattainment area, and other outreach strategies aimed at keeping the public up to date on air quality issues. What is the Clean Air Campaign? The Clean Air Campaign (CAC) is a not-for-profit organization that works to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in the metro Atlanta nonattainment area through a variety of voluntary programs and services, including free employer assistance, incentive programs, public information and children's education. EPD is a proud funding sponsor of the CAC. The CAC works with more than 300 public and private sector employers, representing several hundred thousand employees, to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle commuters in metro Atlanta year-round. The program has helped reduce emissions and vehicle miles traveled by encouraging people to alter their commuting habits and to reconsider behaviors-driving in particular. In addition to addressing commuters' driving habits, CAC utilizes the Air Quality Index (AQI) to relay air quality information to metro Atlanta residents. The Air Quality Index The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a national air standard rating system developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The AQI is used state wide to provide the public, on a daily basis, with an analysis of air pollution levels and possible related health risks. Generally, an index scale of 0 to 500 is used to assess the quality of air, and these numbers are synchronized with a corresponding descriptor word such as: Good, Moderate, Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups, Unhealthy and Very Unhealthy. To protect public health the EPA has set an AQI value of 100 to correspond to the NAAQS for the following pollutants: Ozone (O3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Particulate Matter 10 (PM10), Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The AQI for a reporting region equates to the highest rating recoded for any pollutant within that region. Therefore, the larger the AQI value, the greater level of air pollution present, and the greater expectation of potential health concerns. However, this system only addresses air pollution in terms of acute health effects over time periods of 24 hours or less and does not provide an indication of chronic pollution exposure over months or years. Figure 76 shows how the recorded concentrations correspond to the AQI index values, descriptors and health advisories. 163 Maximum Pollutant Concentration PM2.5 PM10 SO2 O3 O3 CO NO2 (24hr) (24hr) (24hr) (8hr) g/m3 g/m3 ppm ppm (1hr) (8hr) (1hr) ppm ppm ppm AQI Value Descriptor EPA Health Advisory 0 15.4 0 54 0 0.034 0 0.064 None 0 4.4 None 0 to 50 Good (green) Air quality is considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk. Moderate Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there 15.5 40.4 55 154 0.035 0.144 0.065 0.084 None 4.5 9.4 None 51 to 100 (yellow) may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people. For example, people who are unusually sensitive to the condition of the air may experience respiratory symptoms. Unhealthy for Members of sensitive groups (people with lung or heart 40.5 65.4 155 254 0.145 0.224 0.085 0.104 0.125 0.164 9.5 12.4 None 101 to 150 Sensitive Groups (orange) disease) are at greater risk from exposure to particle pollution. Those with lung disease are at risk from exposure to ozone. The general public is not likely to be affected in this range. 65.5 150.4 255 354 0.225 0.304 0.105 0.124 0.165 0.204 12.5 15.4 None 151 to 200 Unhealthy (red) Everyone may begin to experience health effects in this range. Members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects. 150.5 250.4 355 424 0.305 0.604 0.125 0.374 0.205 0.404 15.5 30.4 0.65 201 to 1.24 300 Very Unhealthy (purple) AQI values in this range trigger a health alert. Everyone may experience more serious health effects. When the AQI is in this range because of ozone, most people should restrict their outdoor exertion to morning or late evening hours to avoid high ozone exposures. 250.5 500.4 425 604 0.605 1.004 None 0.405 0.604 30.5 50.4 1.25 301 to 2.04 500 Hazardous (maroon) AQI values over 300 trigger health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected. Figure 76: The AQI 164 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Each day the AQI value for the metropolitan areas in Georgia are available to the public through the Environmental Protection Division's website http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/. An analysis of AQI values for the 2006 monitoring year is listed in Table 34. AQI Summary by Region Number of Days AQI Category Good Unhealthy Moderate for Sensitive Unhealthy Groups Very Unhealthy Pollutants Monitored (0-50) (51-100) (101-150) (151-200) (201-300) in 2006 Athens 2006 211 149 5 0 0 O3, PM10, PM2.5 Atlanta 2006 119 210 28 8 O3, SO2, CO, 0 NO2, PM10, PM2.5 Augusta 2006 194 158 5 0 0 O3, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 Brunswick* 2006 256 128 0 0 0 O3, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 Columbus 2006 200 160 5 0 0 O3, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 Macon 2006 195 166 4 0 0 O3, PM10, PM2.5 Savannah 2006 210 155 0 0 0 O3, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 * Values do not add up to 365 because of limited monitoring in cool-weather months. Air quality in this area is likely cleaner during these months than during the warmer months. Table 34: AQI Summary Data, 2006 How does Georgia's Ambient Monitoring Program (AMP) Cooperate with The Clean Air Campaign (CAC)? The Ambient Monitoring Program is responsible for measuring air pollutant levels in metro Atlanta and throughout the state. Equipment at fourteen continuous monitoring stations across metro Atlanta is used for these measurements of particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3). This data is reported hourly on a website which is maintained and updated by the Ambient Monitoring Program. Based on these levels, AMP calculates the Air Quality Index (AQI), which represents overall air quality in a way that is quick and easy for the general public to understand. The Ambient Monitoring Program's website is linked to a website maintained by CAC. The AQI is then 165 displayed on The Clean Air Campaign's website. The CAC also distributes AQI information to people who have signed up to receive daily air quality forecasts via e-mail. When a smog alert is forecasted, an automated fax blast informs all local media as well. Through these connections, thousands of metro Atlanta citizens and businesses keep abreast of current air quality conditions. The Ambient Monitoring Program also encourages the public to access the CAC's website and become aware of what voluntary measures they can take to improve local air quality. Media Outreach The Ambient Monitoring Program is in constant touch with citizens as well as the news media through phone calls, the AMP web site and media interviews. At many times throughout the year, the demand for a story puts AMP in the limelight. The program manager and staff of the Ambient Monitoring Program make themselves available to television and newspaper reporters, thus educating the public about the AQI, the statewide air monitors, and the Clean Air Campaign. Other Outreach Opportunities Meteorologists In cooperation with The Clean Air Campaign, forecasters from the ambient monitoring program visit the weather centers of Atlanta's top four commercial television stations. During these visits, the group is briefed on how each station's weather team receives and uses ambient monitoring information in their daily smog forecasts. The EPD/Clean Air Campaign team provides input and direction to the weathercasters as to how they can best use the data to maximize the usefulness of this information for their viewers. Elementary and Middle Schools Educating school children and incorporating air quality information into the classroomlearning environment is also an outreach strategy for the Ambient Monitoring Program. AMP staff visits Georgia classrooms to discuss air quality, forecasting, and monitoring. Each program presented by the AMP is designed to supplement grade-specific curricula. Learning opportunities include meteorological lessons, such as weather patterns and conditions, as well as forecasting techniques. In many situations, these lessons involve hands-on activities and mini-field trips to the monitoring sites. High School students simulate forecasting conditions and use scientific methods to create their own forecasts. AMP Staff also participate in Career Days at both elementary and high schools to draw excitement into environmental and meteorological careers. Colleges and Universities The Ambient Monitoring Program works with colleges and universities in several capacities. Utilizing a more technical, advanced approach, AMP has participated in several college-level seminars, providing scientific expertise on the subject of meteorology and forecasting. Through this close contact with university staff, AMP staff have co-authored scientific papers 166 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report in peer-reviewed scientific journals. AMP Staff provide technical data to professors as well as students, thus incorporating real-time data into college courses and projects. Additionally, AMP contracts with Georgia Institute of Technology in a joint forecasting effort. Monitoring Data Requests AMP also regularly receives requests for specific, detailed monitoring data from members of the research community and the broader public. Completely fulfilling the needs of these data users often also requires not just providing such data, but also providing guidance on how the data can be interpreted and what the limitations of the data set may be. We welcome these opportunities to serve the public and the research community and to ensure that the data we collect is put to its fullest and most advantageous use in protecting the health and welfare of Georgia's citizens and the state's natural environment. EPA AIRNOW Website Georgia supplies ozone and particulate matter data to the US EPA every hour for pollution mapping activities. AIRNOW is a cooperative effort between EPA, states, and local air pollution control agencies to provide near real-time information on ground level ozone and PM2.5 concentrations. EPA uses the data to produce maps that display ozone and PM2.5 contours covering the Midwest, New England, Mid-Atlantic, southeastern, south central and Pacific coastal regions of the country. Color-coded, animated concentration gradient ozone maps are created that show daily ozone formation and transport at various spatial scales. The information is available on the EPA's AIRNOW website at: http://airnow.gov. See Figure 77 for a sample map. Figure 77: Sample AIRNOW Ozone Concentration Map 167 The AIRNOW Data Management Center (DMC) regularly evaluates the performance of monitoring agencies that participate in the AIRNOW project based on three criteria: 1. Percent of hourly data files received 2. Average arrival time (earlier in the hour is better) 3. Percent completeness of the data within the submission files Since the last reporting period, the AIRNOW DMC has changed their evaluation system. Instead of ranking the participating agencies, they are placed into a three-tier system based on their performance for these criteria. Georgia's evaluation results are as shown in Table 35. Evaluation Criteria Percent of hourly files received Timeliness of file submissions Data completeness within files Source: AIRNOW DMC, 2007 Ozone Season (May 1-September 30, 2006) Top Tier Top Tier Middle Tier PM2.5 Season (whole year) Top Tier Middle Tier Middle Tier Table 35: AIRNOW Participation Evaluation Results While these results are already a relatively strong showing, we believe that the larger monitoring networks are at a relative disadvantage given how these evaluation criteria were implemented. These results are among the best evaluations given to monitoring networks of Georgia's size. EPD Website and Call-In System The Ambient Monitoring Program also provides a public-access web site with Georgiaspecific current and historical air quality data more promptly and with more detail than what is available at the AIRNOW web site. AMP's web site provides hourly information about current pollutant concentrations from Georgia's continuous and semi-continuous monitoring equipment, and is updated with each hour's data only 15 minutes after the hour ends. The site also offers downloads of bulk data, and electronic copies of Annual Reports such as this one, on a self-serve basis to facilitate research projects and satisfy public interest on these topics. Finally, the Ambient Monitoring Program also maintains an automated dial-in system that provides current air quality information for those who may not have ready access to the Internet. These resources are listed below. Ambient Monitoring Program Web Site: http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp Call-In System: (800)427-9605 (statewide) (404)362-4909 (metro Atlanta free calling zone) 168 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Appendix A: Additional Criteria Pollutant Data Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour and 8-Hour Maximum Observations Units: parts per million Site ID City County Site Name Hours Measured 130890002 Decatur DeKalb 131210099 Atlanta Fulton 132230003 Yorkville Paulding South DeKalb Roswell Road Yorkville 8651 8629 8527 Max 1 - Hour 1st 2nd 10.800 2.956 Obs. 35 0 3.5 3.2 0 1.000 0.942 0 Max 8 - Hour 1st 2nd 2.4 2.2 Obs. 9 0 1.8 1.8 0 0.8 0.8 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Units: parts per million Site ID City County Site Name 130890002 130893001 131210048 132230003 132470001 Decatur Tucker Atlanta Yorkville Conyers DeKalb DeKalb Fulton Paulding Rockdale South DeKalb Idlewood Road Georgia Tech Yorkville Monastery Hours Measured 8587 8222 8049 8044 8150 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.0155 0.0126 0.0179 0.0034 0.0057 Obs. > Std. (0.053) 0 0 0 0 0 Nitric Oxide (NO) Units: parts per million Site ID City County Site Name 130890002 130893001 131210048 132230003 132470001 Decatur Tucker Atlanta Yorkville Conyers DeKalb DeKalb Fulton South DeKalb Idlewood Road Georgia Tech Paulding Yorkville Rockdale Monastery Hours Measured 8587 8222 8049 8044 8150 1st Max 0.561 0.252 0.584 0.216 0.083 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.0316 0.0098 0.0149 0.0052 0.0059 169 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Units: parts per million Site ID City County Site Name 130890002 130893001 131210048 132230003 132470001 Decatur Tucker Atlanta Yorkville Conyers DeKalb DeKalb Fulton Paulding Rockdale South DeKalb Idlewood Road Georgia Tech Yorkville Monastery Hours Measured 8587 8222 8049 8044 8150 1st Max 0.614 0.297 0.648 0.219 0.109 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.0444 0.0200 0.0301 0.0057 0.0080 Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen (NOy) Units: parts per million Site ID City County Site Name Hours Measured 1st Max 130210013 130730001 130890002 130893001 Macon Evans Decatur Tucker Bibb Lake Tobesofkee Columbia Riverside Park DeKalb South DeKalb DeKalb Idlewood Road 7407 8364 8049 7693 0.0958 0.0897 0.200* 0.200* Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.00566 0.00667 0.04045 0.02413 * The NOy instrument is specialized for measurement of trace concentrations, so its range is only 00.200 ppm. Actual 1st Max appears to have exceeded the instrument's measurement range. Since all ambient concentrations exceeding the instrument's range are recorded as 0.200 instead of the actual (higher) value, the reported annual arithmetic mean may be biased slightly downward from the true concentration. 170 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 3-Hour and 24-Hour Maximum Observations Units: parts per million Site ID City County 130090001 130210012 130510021 130511002 131110091 131150003 131210048 131210055 Milledgeville Baldwin Macon Bibb Savannah Savannah McCaysville Chatham Chatham Fannin Rome Atlanta Atlanta Floyd Fulton Fulton Site Name Baldwin Co. Airport Georgia Forestry Comm. East President St. W. Lathrop & Augusta Ave. Elementary School Coosa Elem. School Georgia Tech Confederate Ave. Hours Measured 8344 7767 8539 8478 8643 8406 8453 8383 Max 24 - Hour 1st 2nd 0.027 0.018 0.008 0.008 0.025 0.023 0.031 0.018 0.010 0.007 0.020 0.018 0.019 0.018 0.021 0.018 Obs. 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 3 - Hour 1st 2nd 0.095 0.076 0.024 0.022 0.078 0.065 0.081 0.074 0.027 0.025 0.087 0.083 0.074 0.073 0.057 0.049 Obs. 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.0028 0.0020 0.0027 0.0027 0.0017 0.0030 0.0034 0.0033 Ozone (O3) 1-Hour Averages Units: parts per million Site ID City County 130210012 130210013 130510021 130550001 130590002 130670003 130730001 130770002 130850001 130890002 130893001 130970004 131130001 131210055 131270006 131350002 131510002 132130003 132150008 132151003 132230003 Macon Macon Savannah Summerville Athens Kennesaw Evans Newnan Dawsonville Decatur Tucker Douglasville Fayetteville Atlanta Brunswick Lawrenceville McDonough Chatsworth Columbus Columbus Yorkville Bibb Bibb Chatham Chattooga Clarke Cobb Columbia Coweta Dawson DeKalb DeKalb Douglas Fayette Fulton Glynn Gwinnett Henry Murray Muscogee Muscogee Paulding 132450091 Augusta Richmond 132470001 132611001 Conyers Leslie Rockdale Sumter Site Name GA Forestry Comm. Lake Tobesofkee E. President Street DNR Fish Hatchery College Station Rd. Georgia National Guard Riverside Park Univ. of West Georgia GA Forestry Comm. South DeKalb Idlewood Road W. Strickland St. Georgia DOT Confederate Ave. Risley Middle School Gwinnett Tech. County Extension Office Fort Mountain Columbus Airport Columbus Crime Lab Yorkville Bungalow Road Elementary School Conyers Monastery Leslie Community Center Days Measured 245 243 242 245 245 245 238 245 237 243 227 245 245 245 241 244 245 228 245 245 245 239 240 242 1st Max 0.102 0.101 0.085 0.089 0.106 0.133 0.138 0.109 0.106 0.155 0.145 0.137 0.130 0.134 0.085 0.143 0.114 0.096 0.096 0.112 0.123 0.102 0.134 0.091 2nd Max 0.097 0.101 0.080 0.087 0.102 0.110 0.110 0.103 0.087 0.147 0.125 0.121 0.126 0.129 0.078 0.131 0.113 0.084 0.095 0.100 0.110 0.101 0.128 0.085 Number of Days 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Ozone (O3) 8-Hour Averages Units: parts per million Site ID City County Site Name 130210012 130210013 130510021 130550001 130590002 130670003 130730001 130770002 130850001 130890002 130893001 130970004 131130001 131210055 131270006 131350002 131510002 132130003 132150008 132151003 132230003 Macon Macon Savannah Summerville Athens Kennesaw Evans Newnan Dawsonville Decatur Tucker Douglasville Fayetteville Atlanta Brunswick Lawrenceville McDonough Chatsworth Columbus Columbus Yorkville Bibb Bibb Chatham Chattooga Clarke Cobb Columbia Coweta Dawson DeKalb DeKalb Douglas Fayette Fulton Glynn Gwinnett Henry Murray Muscogee Muscogee Paulding 132450091 Augusta Richmond 132470001 132611001 Conyers Leslie Rockdale Sumter GA Forestry Comm. Lake Tobesofkee E. President Street DNR Fish Hatchery College Station Road Georgia National Guard Riverside Park Univ. of West Georgia GA Forestry Comm. South DeKalb Idlewood Road W. Strickland St. Georgia DOT Confederate Ave. Risley Middle School Gwinnett Tech. County Extension Office Fort Mountain Columbus Airport Columbus Crime Lab. Yorkville Bungalow Road Elementary School Conyers Monastery Community Center Days Measured 244 242 240 245 244 245 236 244 236 242 226 245 244 245 239 243 245 228 245 245 242 239 237 240 1st Max 0.091 0.090 0.076 0.083 0.090 0.108 0.090 0.088 0.086 0.121 0.120 0.108 0.103 0.118 0.077 0.119 0.103 0.085 0.087 0.078 0.096 0.093 0.108 0.088 2nd Max 0.088 0.086 0.070 0.076 0.088 0.093 0.085 0.087 0.080 0.103 0.105 0.105 0.103 0.106 0.070 0.111 0.099 0.077 0.087 0.076 0.094 0.091 0.104 0.082 3rd Max 0.083 0.084 0.069 0.075 0.087 0.093 0.076 0.086 0.080 0.098 0.103 0.096 0.102 0.100 0.069 0.108 0.098 0.077 0.086 0.075 0.086 0.083 0.100 0.078 4th Max 0.077 0.083 0.069 0.073 0.086 0.093 0.074 0.086 0.079 0.096 0.094 0.095 0.090 0.092 0.069 0.096 0.095 0.075 0.080 0.073 0.080 0.083 0.099 0.077 Number of Days 0.085 2 2 0 0 5 11 2 4 1 10 8 8 6 11 0 8 9 1 3 0 3 2 10 0 Lead (Pb) Quarterly Composite Averages Units: micrograms per cubic meter Site ID City County Site Name 130890003 Atlanta DeKalb DMRC 132150011 Columbus Muscogee Cusseta School Number of Observations (months) 12 12 1st Quarter Composite Avg. 0.10 0.10 2nd Quarter Composite Avg. 0.10 0.10 3rd Quarter Composite Avg. 0.10 0.10 4th Quarter Composite Avg. 0.10 0.10 Number of Values 1.5 0 0 Note: The analysis method used for lead cannot reliably distinguish values smaller than 0.20. This is known as the Method Detection Limit (MDL). In cases where the analysis results in a raw data value less than the MDL for that method, EPA requires us to report a concentration of one half the MDL. For many purposes, however, these values could alternatively be interpreted as "Not Detected". 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean Integrated Sampling (midnight to midnight) Using Federal Reference Method Units: micrograms per cubic meter Site ID City County Site Name 130210007 Macon 130210012 Macon 130510017 Savannah 130510091 Savannah 130590002 Athens 130630091 Forest Park 130670003 Kennesaw 130670004 Powder Springs 130890002 Decatur 130892001 Doraville 130950007 Albany 131150005 Rome 131210032 Atlanta 131210039 Atlanta Bibb Bibb Chatham Chatham Clarke Clayton Cobb Cobb DeKalb DeKalb Dougherty Floyd Fulton Fulton Allied Chemical GA Forestry Comm. Market St. Mercer School College Station Rd. Georgia DOT GA National Guard Macland Aquatic Center South DeKalb Police Dept. Turner Elem. School Coosa High E. Rivers School Fire Station 8 Days Measured 119 119 111 112 107 119 118 112 333 324 111 114 345 83 98th Percen- tile 29.6 29.4 27.6 25.6 29.5* 31.2 31.8 33.6 32.1 28.8 34.6 33.5 32.0 32.8* Values Exceeding Applicable Daily Standard** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arithmetic mean in bold indicates values above the 15.0 g/m3 annual standard. Annual Arithmetic Mean 16.92 14.08 13.89 13.80 15.75* 16.67 16.24 15.82 15.41 14.45 14.90 15.95 15.30 18.38* * Insufficient data to compute per EPA rules. These values are partial-year estimates. ** The daily standard was reduced from 65 to 35 g/m3 effective December 17, 2006. 175 Site ID City 131270006 Brunswick 131350002 131390003 131530001 Lawrenceville Gainesville Warner Robins 131850003 Valdosta 132150001 132150008 Columbus Columbus 132150011 Columbus 132230003 132450005 Yorkville Augusta 132450091 Augusta 132950002 Rossville 133030001 Sandersville 133190001 Gordon County Glynn Gwinnett Hall Houston Lowndes Muscogee Muscogee Muscogee Paulding Richmond Richmond Walker Washing- ton Wilkinson Site Name Days 98th Meas- Percen- ured tile Risley Middle 113 School Gwinnett Tech 54 Fair St. Elem. 110 Robins AFB 60 S.L. Mason 61 Elem. Health Dept. 118 Columbus Airport 71 Cusseta Rd. 111 School Yorkville 116 Medical College 116 Bungalow Rd. 114 School Health Dept. 57 Health Dept. 59 Police Dept. 120 26.4 30.7 28.9 26.0 25.7 27.8 29.5 28.4* 32.4 29.9 31.1 27.3 29.8 29.5 Values Exceeding Applicable Daily Standard** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arithmetic mean in bold indicates values above the 15.0 g/m3 standard. * Insufficient data to compute per EPA rules. These values are partial-year estimates. ** The daily standard was reduced from 65 to 35 g/m3 effective December 17, 2006. Annual Arithmetic Mean 11.63 16.86 13.84 14.54 12.77 15.28 16.09 14.93* 13.95 16.11 16.34 14.45 16.09 15.40 176 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Annual Arithmetic Mean Semi-Continuous Measurements Units: micrograms per cubic meter Site ID City County 130210012 130511002 130590002 Macon Savannah Athens Bibb Chatham Clarke 130770002 Newnan Coweta 130890002 Decatur DeKalb 131210055 Atlanta Fulton 131350002 Lawrenceville Gwinnett 131510002 McDonough Henry 132150008 Columbus Muscogee Site Name GA Forestry Comm. Market Street College Station Rd. Univ. of West Georgia South DeKalb Confederate Avenue Gwinnett Tech County Extension Office Columbus Airport Hours Measured 8611 8487 8498 8566 8639 8670 8458 8629 8647 98th Percen- tile Daily Value 30.5 29.4 30.7 33.7 34.3 39.8 36.4 34.1 28.5 132230003 Yorkville Paulding Yorkville 8514 36.7 132450091 Augusta Richmond Bungalow Rd. School 8272 31.9 132970001 Social Circle Walton DNR Fish Hatchery 8616 31.3 Values Exceeding Daily Standard* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Mean 14.00 14.69 14.07 14.96 14.88 19.66 15.34 15.37 14.13 13.82 14.75 13.80 Arithmetic mean in bold indicates value above the 15.0 g/m3 standard. These semi-continuous methods for measuring PM2.5 are not approved for use in making attainment determinations. * The daily standard was reduced from 65 to 35 g/m3 effective December 17, 2006. 177 Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour Integrated Measurements Units: micrograms per cubic meter Site ID City County 130210007 Macon 130510014 Savannah Bibb Chatham 130550001 Summerville Chattooga Site Name Allied Chemical Shuman School DNR Fish Hatchery Days Measured 1st Max Number Values 150 59 72 0 58 44 0 58 67 0 Annual Arithmetic Mean 31.9 23.2 19.7 130892001 Doraville DeKalb Police Dept. 58 50 0 22.9 130950007 Albany Dougherty Turner Elementary 56 57 0 29.0 130970003 Douglasville Douglas Beulah Pump Station 59 47 0 20.7 131150005 Rome Floyd Coosa High School 57 50 0 26.1 131210001 Atlanta Fulton Fulton Co. Health Dept. 59 48 0 23.3 131210032 Atlanta Fulton E. Rivers School 54 53 0 26.3 131270004 Brunswick Glynn Arco Pump Station 50 48 0 18.9 132150011 Columbus Muscogee Cusseta Rd. Elem. School 58 48 0 25.3 132450091 Augusta Richmond Bungalow Rd. Elem. School 51 54 0 24.5 Univ. of GA 132550002 Griffin Spalding Experiment 58 43 0 23.3 Station 133030001 Sandersville Washington Health Dept. 59 54 0 26.4 178 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Particulate Matter (PM10) Hourly Averages of Semi-Continuous Measurements Units: micrograms per cubic meter Site ID City County Site Name 131210048 Atlanta Fulton Georgia Tech Hours Measured 8495 1st Max 57 Annual Arithmetic Mean 23.1 179 180 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Appendix B: Additional PM2.5 Particle Speciation Data Particle Speciation- 2006 Statewide Average Crustal 2% Nitrate 4% Other 13% Ammonium Ion 10% Elemental Carbon 5% Sulfate 28% Organic Carbon 38% 181 Particle Speciation- Macon 2006 Other 12% Crustal 3% Nitrate 4% Ammonium Ion 8% Elemental Carbon 5% Sulfate 26% Organic Carbon 42% Particle Speciation- Athens 2006 Other 13% Crustal 1% Nitrate 7% Ammonium Ion 11% Elemental Carbon 4% Sulfate 26% Organic Carbon 38% 182 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Particle Speciation- General Coffee 2006 Other 15% Crustal 3% Nitrate 3% Ammonium Ion 8% Elemental Carbon 4% Sulfate 27% Organic Carbon 40% Particle Speciation- Atlanta 2006 Other 13% Crustal 2% Nitrate 5% Ammonium Ion 10% Elemental Carbon 8% Sulfate 28% Organic Carbon 34% 183 Particle Speciation- Rome 2006 Other 14% Crustal 2% Nitrate 4% Ammonium Ion 10% Elemental Carbon 4% Sulfate 30% Organic Carbon 36% Particle Speciation- Columbus 2006 Other 13% Crustal 2% Nitrate 3% Ammonium Ion 9% Elemental Carbon 4% Sulfate 28% Organic Carbon 41% 184 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Particle Speciation- Augusta 2006 Other 14% Crustal 2% Nitrate 4% Ammonium Ion 10% Elemental Carbon 4% Sulfate 28% Organic Carbon 38% Particle Speciation- Rossville 2006 Other 14% Crustal 2% Nitrate 6% Ammonium Ion 11% Elemental Carbon 4% Sulfate 30% Organic Carbon 33% 185 186 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Appendix C: Additional Meteorological Data Case Study April 14, 2006 187 188 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Case Study June 20-24, 2006 Near 100 degF 189 Ridge Axis 190 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 191 Case Study June 26, 2006 01 Hour Averages 0.5 0.36875 0.2375 0.10625 -0.025 06/26/06 00:00 06/26/06 06:00 06/26/06 12:00 06/26/06 18:00 EVANS O3 PPM 0.5 0.36875 0.2375 0.10625 -0.025 192 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 193 194 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Appendix D: Additional PAMS Data PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June- August 2006) (concentrations in parts per billion Carbon (ppbC)) Name Site # Samples Avg. 1st Max PAMSHC S. DeKalb 1696 57.41 Tucker* Conyers 2028 33.83 Yorkville 1831 20.89 TNMOC S. DeKalb 1696 76.19 Tucker* Conyers 2028 175.29 Yorkville 1831 23.84 Ethane S. DeKalb 1552 3.189 Tucker* Conyers 2028 1.893 Yorkville 1829 1.104 Ethylene S. DeKalb 1552 2.232 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.455 Yorkville 1829 0.370 Propane S. DeKalb 1552 4.394 Tucker* Conyers 2028 2.798 Yorkville 1829 2.564 Propylene S. DeKalb 1552 1.574 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.531 Yorkville 1829 0.344 Acetylene S. DeKalb 1552 0.93 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.16 Yorkville 1829 0.27 n-Butane S. DeKalb 1552 2.365 Tucker* Conyers 2028 1.146 Yorkville 1829 0.769 Isobutane S. DeKalb 1552 1.397 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.522 Yorkville 1829 0.351 *Data not reportable at this time, addendum to follow 327.2 149.4 105.5 406.0 350.0 108.4 11.06 7.77 13.97 14.84 3.09 2.77 43.31 11.43 26.89 7.49 2.36 1.80 11.7 2.9 3.2 20.18 6.01 4.87 9319 3.56 3.42 2nd Max 322.7 135.0 88.0 403.8 350.0 91.8 10.96 7.41 7.73 14.75 2.98 2.76 34.54 11.19 16.26 7.08 2.23 1.70 7.2 2.1 1.6 12.27 5.96 4.72 7.81 3.46 1.94 195 PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2006)(continued) (concentrations in ppbC) Name Site # Samples Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max trans-2-Butene S. DeKalb 1552 0.088 8.52 3.65 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.008 1.09 0.55 Yorkville 1829 0.099 2.01 1.89 cis-2-Butene S. DeKalb 1552 0.05 2.09 1.65 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.006 0.49 0.48 Yorkville 1829 0.081 1.85 1.84 n-Pentane S. DeKalb 1552 2.04 16.83 13.72 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.989 18.87 15.88 Yorkville 1829 0.610 3.90 3.36 Isopentane S. DeKalb 1552 3.499 42.94 28.11 Tucker* Conyers 2028 2.023 17.95 13.34 Yorkville 1829 1.022 8.97 7.92 1-Pentene S. DeKalb 1552 0.053 1.13 1.09 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.007 0.30 0.29 Yorkville 1829 0.005 0.01 0.01 trans-2-Pentene S. DeKalb 1552 0.097 4.3 4.29 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.008 0.46 0.41 Yorkville 1829 0.006 0.39 0.26 cis-2-Pentene S. DeKalb 1552 0.044 4.83 4.81 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.005 0.22 0.20 Yorkville 1829 0.005 0.24 0.22 3-Methylpentane S. DeKalb 1552 0.6 16.39 5.53 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.219 2.25 2.24 Yorkville 1829 0.090 1.11 1.04 n-Hexane S. DeKalb 1625 1.264 8.28 8.2 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.368 3.04 2.61 Yorkville 1828 0.234 1.14 1.06 n-Heptane S. DeKalb 1669 0.54 7.04 3.96 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.188 1.72 1.68 Yorkville 1828 0.018 0.52 0.50 *Data not reportable at this time, addendum to follow 196 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2006)(continued) (concentrations in ppbC) Name Site # Samples Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max n-Octane S. DeKalb 1669 0.151 2.65 1.81 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.041 1.77 1.70 Yorkville 1828 0.007 0.76 0.40 n-Nonane S. DeKalb 1669 0.173 1.68 1.55 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.061 0.90 0.84 Yorkville 1828 0.007 1.17 0.33 n-Decane S. DeKalb 1669 1.122 5.33 4.71 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.072 2.50 2.39 Yorkville 1828 0.031 3.04 2.63 Cyclopentane S. DeKalb 1552 0.191 14.78 4.34 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.052 0.60 0.60 Yorkville 1829 0.011 0.35 0.29 Isoprene S. DeKalb 1552 6.2 46.64 37.4 Tucker* Conyers 2028 7.847 110.93 73.50 Yorkville 1829 7.619 93.81 73.39 2,2-Dimethylbutane S. DeKalb 1552 0.24 3.96 3.05 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.020 0.54 0.51 Yorkville 1829 0.010 0.36 0.33 2,4-Dimethylpentane S. DeKalb 1669 0.254 2.89 2.12 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.043 0.86 0.80 Yorkville 1828 0.009 2.45 2.34 Cyclohexane S. DeKalb 1669 0.146 1.51 1.39 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.034 2.05 1.69 Yorkville 1828 0.008 1.42 0.71 3-Methylhexane S. DeKalb 1669 1.222 7.49 5.35 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.250 2.96 2.54 Yorkville 1828 0.030 2.00 1.55 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane S. DeKalb 1669 1.866 17.27 12.21 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.564 4.14 4.07 Yorkville 1828 0.655 2.07 1.93 *Data not reportable at this time, addendum to follow 197 PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2006)(continued) (concentrations in ppbC) Name Site # Samples Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane S. DeKalb 1669 0.472 6.0 3.36 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.098 1.18 1.17 Yorkville 1828 0.023 5.11 0.54 3-Methylheptane S. DeKalb 1669 0.184 3.7 2.05 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.030 0.99 0.98 Yorkville 1828 0.006 0.48 0.48 Methylcyclohexane S. DeKalb 1669 0.245 3.13 2.48 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.100 1.33 1.27 Yorkville 1828 0.013 0.69 0.62 Methylcyclopentane S. DeKalb 1669 0.574 5.36 4.03 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.106 1.38 1.29 Yorkville 1828 0.016 3.49 0.45 2-Methylhexane S. DeKalb 1669 0.521 5.67 4.02 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.133 1.82 1.58 Yorkville 1828 0.017 3.81 3.58 1-Butene S. DeKalb 1552 0.171 2.37 1.84 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.148 0.53 0.52 Yorkville 1829 0.006 0.29 0.29 2,3-Dimetylbutane S. DeKalb 1552 0.121 4.71 3.31 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.049 2.60 2.46 Yorkville 1829 0.020 0.52 0.45 2-Methylpentane S. DeKalb 1552 0.673 8.71 6.06 Tucker* Conyers 2028 0.262 2.38 2.24 Yorkville 1829 0.218 1.81 1.64 2,3-Dimethylpentane S. DeKalb 1669 0.432 3.59 2.98 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.096 1.53 1.23 Yorkville 1828 0.024 3.21 2.84 n-Undecane S. DeKalb 1669 0.265 3.4 3.08 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.127 2.06 0.73 Yorkville 1828 0.156 3.35 3.31 *Data not reportable at this time, addendum to follow 198 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2006)(continued) (concentrations in ppbC) Name Site # Samples Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max 2-Methylheptane S. DeKalb 1669 0.112 2.84 1.64 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.033 1.12 1.10 Yorkville 1828 0.005 0.22 0.21 m & p Xylenes S. DeKalb 1669 2.365 38.53 22.97 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.670 5.97 5.78 Yorkville 1828 0.197 1.93 1.82 Benzene S. DeKalb 1669 1.71 13.46 10.26 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.560 3.34 3.19 Yorkville 1828 0.103 3.71 2.27 Toluene S. DeKalb 1669 6.167 59.4 53.04 Tucker* Conyers 2017 2.031 15.21 14.32 Yorkville 1828 0.819 5.14 4.81 Ethylbenzene S. DeKalb 1669 0.892 12.03 7.07 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.215 2.39 2.25 Yorkville 1828 0.056 1.09 0.86 o-Xylene S. DeKalb 1669 1.043 24.21 12.32 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.251 2.18 2.17 Yorkville 1828 0.063 1.29 0.70 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb 1669 0.394 3.97 2.62 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.188 4.01 2.95 Yorkville 1828 0.007 0.51 0.50 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb 1669 1.192 10.94 7.06 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.289 2.54 2.43 Yorkville 1828 0.046 0.96 0.60 n-Propylbenzene S. DeKalb 1669 0.208 1.88 1.41 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.073 0.76 0.76 Yorkville 1828 0.007 0.87 0.66 Isopropylbenzene S. DeKalb 1669 0.021 1.77 0.6 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.009 2.80 0.38 Yorkville 1828 0.007 2.96 0.01 *Data not reportable at this time, addendum to follow 199 PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2006)(continued) (concentrations in ppbC) Name Site # Samples Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max o-Ethyltoluene S. DeKalb 1669 0.351 3.06 2.31 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.083 0.94 0.85 Yorkville 1828 0.012 0.59 0.40 m-Ethyltoluene S. DeKalb 1669 2.479 13.97 13.69 Tucker* Conyers 2017 3.138 17.66 17.62 Yorkville 1828 0.616 4.34 3.47 Pinene and p- S.DeKalb 1669 0.627 5.29 4.43 Ethyltoluene Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.074 7.24 6.95 Yorkville 1828 0.012 0.85 0.49 m-Diethylbenzene S. DeKalb 1669 0.031 1.22 0.84 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.271 1.30 1.19 Yorkville 1828 0.008 0.53 0.50 p-Diethylbenzene S. DeKalb 1669 0.216 3.0 1.9 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.056 0.79 0.78 Yorkville 1828 0.008 0.48 0.41 Styrene S. DeKalb 1669 0.242 7.85 2.07 Tucker* Conyers 2017 0.125 1.07 1.05 Yorkville 1828 0.025 1.16 0.77 Beta Pinene and 1,2,3- S. DeKalb 1669 2.950 24.76 21.74 Trimethylbenzene Tucker* Conyers 1860 4.944 49.03 30.97 Yorkville 1828 1.104 13.97 7.73 *Data not reportable at this time, addendum to follow 200 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report PAMS 2006 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (concentrations in parts per billion Carbon (ppbC)) Name PAMSHC TNMOC Ethane Ethylene Propane Propylene Acetylene n-Butane Isobutane Site S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max 62 61 137.34 470.0 408.0 59 59 69.34 200.0 170.0 59 59 144.47 350.0 350.0 55 55 29.84 120.0 66.0 62 61 403.23 1400.0 1100.0 59 59 179.36 370.0 330.0 59 59 376.27 720.0 710.0 55 55 131.33 300.0 290.0 62 57 5.35 14.0 14.0 59 58 5.28 13.0 10.0 59 57 4.17 8.8 8.5 55 54 3.67 8.2 6.3 62 11 0.54 5.2 4.0 59 6 0.39 7.9 3.8 59 8 0.30 2.8 2.1 55 7 0.21 1.5 1.3 62 60 5.96 15.0 14.0 59 59 5.34 13.0 12.0 59 59 4.14 9.4 9.1 55 55 3.50 8.2 8.2 62 55 1.32 5.2 5.2 59 59 1.09 4.0 3.2 59 48 0.50 2.4 1.9 55 7 0.12 0.4 0.3 62 59 2.61 10.0 10.0 59 59 2.14 8.3 7.2 59 59 1.24 4.6 3.7 55 54 0.74 3.9 1.6 62 61 6.87 55.0 32.0 59 59 6.37 22.0 21.0 59 59 2.79 17.0 8.7 55 55 1.60 4.3 4.1 62 61 2.60 16.0 12.0 59 59 2.28 8.1 7.0 59 53 0.91 5.1 3.0 55 39 0.47 1.4 1.4 201 PAMS 2006 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued) Name (concentrations in ppbC) Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max trans-2-Butene S. DeKalb 62 9 0.15 1.0 0.9 Tucker 59 8 0.13 0.5 0.5 Conyers 59 1 0.12 1.5 Yorkville 55 ND cis-2-Butene S. DeKalb 62 15 0.23 1.5 1.2 Tucker 59 7 0.12 0.3 0.3 Conyers 59 8 0.14 0.8 0.5 Yorkville 55 ND n-Pentane S. DeKalb 62 61 3.48 16.0 14.0 Tucker 59 59 4.10 17.0 15.0 Conyers 59 56 1.79 9.6 5.9 Yorkville 55 51 0.61 1.3 1.1 Isopentane S. DeKalb 62 61 7.23 31.0 25.0 Tucker 59 59 6.90 18.0 18.0 Conyers 59 59 3.10 12.0 9.8 Yorkville 55 53 1.63 3.8 3.6 1-Pentene S. DeKalb 62 21 0.20 1.3 0.8 Tucker 59 14 0.16 0.7 0.5 Conyers 59 4 0.12 0.7 0.4 Yorkville 55 ND trans-2-Pentene S. DeKalb 62 28 0.32 2.5 2.0 Tucker 59 29 0.29 1.2 0.9 Conyers 59 4 0.13 1.4 0.2 Yorkville 55 ND cis-2-Pentene S. DeKalb 62 3 0.13 1.0 0.8 Tucker 59 3 0.11 0.4 0.3 Conyers 59 ND Yorkville 55 ND 3-Methylpentane S. DeKalb 62 56 1.08 5.1 4.6 Tucker 59 56 0.98 3.0 2.6 Conyers 59 43 0.41 2.0 1.8 Yorkville 55 10 0.13 0.3 0.3 n-Hexane S. DeKalb 62 56 1.18 5.2 4.9 Tucker 59 57 1.09 3.2 2.6 Conyers 59 46 0.52 3.2 2.1 Yorkville 55 21 0.16 0.4 0.4 n-Heptane S. DeKalb 62 48 0.58 3.0 2.6 Tucker 59 53 0.62 1.9 1.6 Conyers 59 22 0.25 1.5 1.4 Yorkville 55 3 0.11 0.3 0.2 202 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report PAMS 2006 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued) Name (concentrations in ppbC) Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max n-Octane S. DeKalb 62 12 0.17 1.1 0.9 Tucker 59 19 0.18 0.7 0.6 Conyers 59 4 0.13 1.1 0.7 Yorkville 55 ND n-Nonane S. DeKalb 62 16 0.16 1.1 0.7 Tucker 59 22 0.22 1.1 0.6 Conyers 59 3 0.12 0.9 0.5 Yorkville 55 ND n-Decane S. DeKalb 62 28 0.26 1.8 0.9 Tucker 59 32 0.30 1.5 1.0 Conyers 59 6 0.13 0.7 0.4 Yorkville 55 ND Cyclopentane S. DeKalb 62 15 0.17 0.9 0.8 Tucker 59 8 0.13 0.5 0.4 Conyers 59 1 0.1 0.2 Yorkville 55 ND Isoprene S. DeKalb 62 39 3.48 16.0 14.0 Tucker 59 36 2.46 12.0 12.0 Conyers 59 34 4.05 22.0 21.0 Yorkville 55 27 3.31 19.0 18.0 2,2-Dimethylbutane S. DeKalb 62 27 0.32 2.1 2.1 Tucker 59 21 0.23 1.2 0.9 Conyers 59 19 0.47 5.4 3.8 Yorkville 55 ND 2,4-Dimethylpentane S. DeKalb 62 18 0.19 1.1 1.1 Tucker 59 8 0.13 0.6 0.5 Conyers 59 2 0.11 0.3 0.2 Yorkville 55 1 0.10 0.2 Cyclohexane S. DeKalb 62 6 0.13 0.7 0.6 Tucker 59 5 0.12 0.5 0.4 Conyers 59 5 0.12 0.5 0.4 Yorkville 55 32 1.76 11.0 6.7 3-Methylhexane S. DeKalb 62 61 1.29 4.1 3.7 Tucker 59 59 1.60 3.4 3.0 Conyers 59 56 1.36 15.0 12.0 Yorkville 55 51 0.65 1.6 1.4 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane S. DeKalb 62 59 1.76 7.1 6.4 Tucker 59 58 1.49 4.5 4.1 Conyers 59 49 0.61 2.4 2.2 Yorkville 55 13 0.16 0.5 0.5 203 PAMS 2006 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued) (concentrations in ppbC) Name Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2ndMax 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane S. DeKalb 62 41 0.48 2.4 2.2 Tucker 59 40 0.37 1.5 1.4 Conyers 59 12 0.19 1.1 0.9 Yorkville 55 ND 3-Methylheptane S. DeKalb 62 5 0.14 0.9 0.7 Tucker 59 5 0.13 0.5 0.5 Conyers 59 ND Yorkville 55 ND Methylcyclohexane S. DeKalb 62 18 0.19 1.1 1.0 Tucker 59 12 0.17 0.8 0.7 Conyers 59 3 0.11 0.5 0.3 Yorkville 55 ND Methylcyclopentane S. DeKalb 62 46 0.55 2.5 2.5 Tucker 59 42 0.45 1.5 1.3 Conyers 59 21 0.29 3.4 1.7 Yorkville 55 ND 2-Methylhexane S. DeKalb 62 43 0.57 3.2 2.8 Tucker 59 47 0.56 2.1 1.6 Conyers 59 16 0.44 5.5 5.2 Yorkville 55 2 0.11 0.6 0.3 1-Butene S. DeKalb 62 24 0.29 2.3 1.7 Tucker 59 19 0.22 1.1 0.9 Conyers 59 7 0.66 12.0 7.5 Yorkville 55 1 0.10 0.2 2,3-Dimenthylbutane S. DeKalb 62 38 0.42 2.6 2.3 Tucker 59 36 0.34 1.4 1.1 Conyers 59 6 0.14 0.9 0.7 Yorkville 55 ND 2-Methylpentane S. DeKalb 62 58 2.30 8.5 7.4 Tucker 59 59 2.37 5.8 5.5 Conyers 59 51 1.12 4.0 3.4 Yorkville 55 33 0.82 4.0 3.5 2,3-Dimethylpentane S. DeKalb 62 45 0.41 1.6 1.5 Tucker 59 37 0.30 1.1 1.0 Conyers 59 21 0.19 0.7 0.5 Yorkville 55 1 0.10 0.2 n-Undecane S. DeKalb 62 19 0.18 0.8 0.7 Tucker 59 24 0.22 0.9 0.8 Conyers 59 3 0.11 0.5 0.3 Yorkville 55 2 0.11 0.3 0.2 204 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report PAMS 2006 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued) (concentrations in ppbC) Name Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2ndMax 2-Methylheptane S. DeKalb 62 7 0.14 0.8 0.7 Tucker 59 6 0.13 0.5 0.5 Conyers 59 3 0.12 0.6 0.5 Yorkville 55 ND m & p Xylenes S. DeKalb 62 60 2.88 12.0 11.0 Tucker 59 59 2.85 9.0 8.3 Conyers 59 53 1.24 14.0 5.7 Yorkville 55 37 0.32 0.8 0.8 Benzene S. DeKalb 62 61 2.22 8.1 7.3 Tucker 59 59 2.15 5.5 5.2 Conyers 59 59 1.17 4.6 3.8 Yorkville 55 53 2.21 49.0 35.0 Toluene S. DeKalb 62 61 7.41 26.0 25.0 Tucker 59 59 7.42 19.0 16.0 Conyers 59 59 3.20 10.0 10.0 Yorkville 55 55 5.24 15.0 14.0 Ethylbenzene S. DeKalb 62 50 0.78 3.5 3.4 Tucker 59 49 0.77 2.6 2.3 Conyers 59 24 0.26 2.1 1.6 Yorkville 55 ND o-Xylene S. DeKalb 62 54 0.96 4.2 4.1 Tucker 59 55 0.97 3.2 3.0 Conyers 59 36 0.53 11.0 3.6 Yorkville 55 2 0.10 0.2 0.2 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb 62 36 0.33 1.9 1.6 Tucker 59 45 0.46 1.8 1.5 Conyers 59 17 0.20 0.7 0.7 Yorkville 55 ND 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb 62 ++ Tucker 59 56 1.41 6.1 4.2 Conyers 59 ++ Yorkville 55 9 0.13 0.4 0.3 n-Propylbenzene S. DeKalb 62 9 0.15 0.9 0.7 Tucker 59 12 0.16 0.9 0.6 Conyers 59 4 0.12 0.5 0.5 Yorkville 55 ND Isopropylbenzene S. DeKalb 62 4 0.11 0.6 0.3 Tucker 59 2 0.11 0.6 0.2 Conyers 59 1 0.11 0.5 Yorkville 55 2 0.11 0.6 0.3 ++ Data not reportable 205 PAMS 2006 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued) (concentrations in ppbC) Name Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2ndMax o-Ethyltoluene S. DeKalb 62 30 0.32 1.9 1.2 Tucker 59 34 0.47 1.9 1.8 Conyers 59 17 0.21 1.9 1.4 Yorkville 55 9 0.13 0.7 0.7 m-Ethyltoluene S. DeKalb 62 48 0.74 3.7 3.2 Tucker 59 52 0.84 3.7 2.8 Conyers 59 25 0.23 1.1 1.1 Yorkville 55 ND p-Ethyltoluene S. DeKalb 62 38 0.50 2.0 1.8 Tucker 59 41 0.40 2.0 1.4 Conyers 59 38 0.44 1.8 1.8 Yorkville 55 5 0.11 0.3 0.2 m-Diethylbenzene S. DeKalb 62 21 0.20 1.0 1.0 Tucker 59 24 0.23 0.7 0.6 Conyers 59 25 0.25 1.3 1.1 Yorkville 55 28 0.39 1.5 1.1 p-Diethylbenzene S. DeKalb 62 11 0.16 1.1 0.7 Tucker 59 15 0.18 1.0 0.8 Conyers 59 3 0.12 0.6 0.5 Yorkville 55 ND Styrene S. DeKalb 62 22 0.28 1.5 1.2 Tucker 59 40 0.74 3.1 2.8 Conyers 59 27 0.60 6.4 6.2 Yorkville 55 34 0.61 2.2 1.9 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb 62 33 0.33 1.6 1.4 Tucker 59 28 0.30 1.5 1.4 Conyers 59 13 0.20 1.3 1.1 Yorkville 55 ND ND indicates no detection 206 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Appendix E: Additional Toxics Data (concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3)) Name Site Antimony Milledgeville Macon Savannah General Coffee Dawsonville South DeKalb** Rome Utoy Creek Brunswick Gainesville Warner Robins Valdosta Columbus Yorkville Augusta Arsenic Milledgeville Macon Savannah General Coffee Dawsonville South DeKalb** Rome Utoy Creek Brunswick Gainesville Warner Robins Valdosta Columbus Yorkville Augusta Beryllium Milledgeville Macon Savannah General Coffee Dawsonville South DeKalb** 2006 Metals Total Samples 28 29 30 29 29 59 30 31 28 42 31 31 31 29 31 28 29 30 29 29 59 30 31 28 42 31 31 31 29 31 28 29 30 29 29 59 # of Detects 27 28 29 27 26 57 30 31 28 42 29 29 29 29 31 18 22 25 26 23 49 27 27 20 36 26 25 23 26 27 ND ND ND ND ND ND Avg. 0.00068 0.00090 0.00081 0.00050 0.00064 0.00128 0.00146 0.00167 0.00047 0.00117 0.00074 0.00071 0.00118 0.00069 0.00271 0.00061 0.00208 0.00088 0.00090 0.00071 0.00086 0.00117 0.00109 0.00074 0.00086 0.00078 0.00094 0.00098 0.00106 0.00139 1st Max 0.00220 0.00434 0.00266 0.00418 0.00225 0.00515 0.00389 0.00367 0.00206 0.00462 0.00192 0.00164 0.00300 0.00244 0.01189 0.00125 0.04310 0.00271 0.00206 0.00138 0.00874 0.00263 0.00226 0.00516 0.00182 0.00323 0.00208 0.00349 0.00210 0.01048 2nd Max 0.00142 0.00231 0.00241 0.00126 0.00168 0.00472 0.00301 0.00351 0.00132 0.00229 0.00179 0.00144 0.00250 0.00186 0.00854 0.00104 0.00114 0.00209 0.00178 0.00137 0.00209 0.00254 0.00223 0.00118 0.00157 0.00203 0.00198 0.00305 0.00196 0.00274 207 2006 Metals (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. Beryllium Rome 30 ND (continued) Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 28 ND Gainesville 42 ND Warner Robins 31 1 0.00003 Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 29 ND Augusta 31 ND Cadmium Milledgeville 28 28 0.00029 Macon 29 29 0.00029 Savannah 30 29 0.00029 General Coffee 29 29 0.00019 Dawsonville 29 28 0.00016 South DeKalb** 59 58 0.00017 Rome 30 30 0.00024 Utoy Creek 31 31 0.00025 Brunswick 28 28 0.00033 Gainesville 42 42 0.00025 Warner Robins 31 31 0.00030 Valdosta 31 31 0.00015 Columbus 31 31 0.00019 Yorkville 29 29 0.00021 Augusta 31 31 0.00026 Chromium Milledgeville 28 26 0.00140 Macon 29 28 0.00367 Savannah 30 28 0.00172 General Coffee 29 28 0.00267 Dawsonville 29 28 0.00173 South DeKalb** 59 58 0.00279 Rome 30 30 0.00169 Utoy Creek 31 31 0.00414 Brunswick 28 26 0.00173 Gainesville 42 42 0.00233 Warner Robins 31 31 0.00450 Valdosta 31 29 0.00441 Columbus 31 31 0.00318 Yorkville 29 29 0.00312 Augusta 31 31 0.00142 Chromium+6* South DeKalb 57 52 0.00005 1st Max 0.00006 0.00120 0.00177 0.00130 0.00072 0.00125 0.00191 0.00140 0.00102 0.00216 0.00123 0.00147 0.00060 0.00059 0.00109 0.00134 0.00284 0.03921 0.00803 0.01868 0.01340 0.04708 0.00994 0.02881 0.01692 0.02071 0.06513 0.04743 0.04350 0.05167 0.00213 0.00030 2nd Max 0.00113 0.00122 0.00067 0.00046 0.00030 0.00126 0.00124 0.00082 0.00107 0.00093 0.00141 0.00036 0.00050 0.00109 0.00133 0.00240 0.02516 0.00314 0.01196 0.00304 001268 0.00299 0.01660 0.00289 0.01447 0.01723 0.02578 0.00913 0.00508 0.00212 0.00020 208 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Metals (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. Cobalt Milledgeville 28 11 0.00008 Macon 29 16 0.00019 Savannah 30 17 0.00015 General Coffee 29 15 0.00013 Dawsonville 29 10 0.00010 South DeKalb** 59 20 0.00009 Rome 30 17 0.00012 Utoy Creek 31 27 0.00018 Brunswick 28 7 0.00007 Gainesville 42 29 0.00016 Warner Robins 31 12 0.00014 Valdosta 31 14 0.00014 Columbus 31 23 0.00019 Yorkville 29 12 0.00011 Augusta 31 24 0.00014 Lead Milledgeville 28 28 0.00296 Macon 29 29 0.00278 Savannah 30 29 0.00362 General Coffee 29 29 0.00347 Dawsonville 29 29 0.00230 South DeKalb** 59 58 0.00265 Rome 30 30 0.00414 Utoy Creek 31 31 0.00336 Brunswick 28 28 0.00221 Gainesville 42 42 0.00312 Warner Robins 31 31 0.00270 Valdosta 31 31 0.00281 Columbus 31 31 0.00421 Yorkville 29 29 0.00252 Augusta 31 31 0.00450 Manganese Milledgeville 28 28 0.00668 Macon 29 29 0.00918 Savannah 30 29 0.00526 General Coffee 29 29 0.00515 Dawsonville 29 29 0.00506 South DeKalb** 59 58 0.00367 Rome 30 30 0.00720 Utoy Creek 31 31 0.00963 Brunswick 28 28 0.00354 1st Max 0.00023 0.00177 0.00145 0.00044 0.00074 0.00059 0.00034 0.00046 0.00024 0.00118 0.00094 0.00101 0.00100 0.00076 0.00025 0.00791 0.00638 0.01455 0.03041 0.00986 0.03974 0.01242 0.00637 0.00703 0.00667 0.00547 0.00743 0.00931 0.00508 0.01480 0.01359 0.02903 0.00959 0.01242 0.01737 0.01922 0.01696 0.01714 0.00703 2nd Max 0.00018 0.00061 0.00023 0.00043 0.00026 0.00029 0.00025 0.00041 0.00013 0.00037 0.00081 0.00042 0.00075 0.00018 0.00025 0.00477 0.00411 0.00608 0.00760 0.00414 0.00437 0.00698 0.00579 0.00466 0.00541 0.00442 0.00580 0.00886 0.00466 0.00953 0.01326 0.01711 0.00958 0.01216 0.01287 0.01082 0.01690 0.01646 0.00700 209 2006 Metals (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. Manganese Gainesville 42 42 0.00829 continued Warner Robins 31 31 0.00835 Valdosta 31 31 0.00834 Columbus 31 31 0.01169 Yorkville 29 29 0.00555 Augusta 31 31 0.01177 Nickel Milledgeville 28 27 0.00117 Macon 29 29 0.00462 Savannah 30 29 0.00245 General Coffee 29 29 0.00355 Dawsonville 29 29 0.00322 South DeKalb** 59 58 0.00325 Rome 30 30 0.00173 Utoy Creek 31 31 0.00407 Brunswick 28 28 0.00208 Gainesville 42 42 0.00467 Warner Robins 31 31 0.00633 Valdosta 31 30 0.00541 Columbus 31 31 0.00557 Yorkville 29 29 0.00372 Augusta 31 31 0.00172 Selenium Milledgeville 28 27 0.00111 Macon 29 28 0.00094 Savannah 30 28 0.00070 General Coffee 29 27 0.00059 Dawsonville 29 27 0.00075 South DeKalb** 59 56 0.00080 Rome 30 30 0.00106 Utoy Creek 31 31 0.00175 Brunswick 28 27 0.00054 Gainesville 42 42 0.00097 Warner Robins 31 30 0.00086 Valdosta 31 29 0.00060 Columbus 31 28 0.00090 Yorkville 29 28 0.00102 Augusta 31 31 0.00123 1st Max 0.02860 0.02768 0.03935 0.03335 0.02611 0.02627 0.00250 0.03972 0.00954 0.02129 0.05955 0.04708 0.00994 0.03643 0.01598 0.09369 0.07324 0.08073 0.06982 0.06527 0.00554 0.00378 0.00284 0.00186 0.00192 0.00189 0.00262 0.00259 0.00391 0.00128 0.00297 0.00273 0.00183 0.00380 0.00207 0.00349 2nd Max 0.01788 0.02302 0.02009 0.02999 0.01304 0.02601 0.00201 0.03429 0.00568 0.01518 0.00358 0.02684 0.00396 0.01390 0.00336 0.02556 0.07056 0.02925 0.02771 0.00965 0.00397 0.00243 0.00152 0.00170 0.00145 0.00150 0.00243 0.00234 0.00380 0.00124 0.00211 0.00162 0.00118 0.00229 0.00202 0.00329 210 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report (concentrations in g/m3) Name Site Zinc Milledgeville Macon Savannah General Coffee Dawsonville South DeKalb** Rome Utoy Creek Brunswick Gainesville Warner Robins Valdosta Columbus Yorkville Augusta 2006 Metals (continued) Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 28 28 0.01531 29 29 0.02288 30 29 0.01649 29 29 0.02526 29 29 0.02060 59 58 0.01364 30 30 0.02434 31 31 0.05110 28 28 0.01602 42 42 0.03357 31 31 0.01758 31 31 0.02265 31 31 0.03475 29 29 0.01794 31 31 0.02394 1st Max 0.02564 0.05070 0.02723 0.08946 0.18794 0.08346 0.04500 0.28105 0.03414 0.36650 0.04028 0.04743 0.08063 0.05580 0.08166 2nd Max 0.02441 0.04895 0.02674 0.06051 0.05955 0.02814 0.03216 0.18954 0.02817 0.10153 0.03749 0.03998 0.06929 0.03318 0.03760 *Hexavalent Chromium, sample collected every 6 days ** Hi-Vol PM10 selected Total Suspended Particulates, sample collected every 6 days 211 2006 Semi-Volatile Compounds (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. Acenaphthene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Acenaphthylene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 30 ND Savannah 28 ND General Coffee 29 ND Dawsonville 29 ND Rome 27 ND Utoy Creek 30 ND Brunswick 19 ND Gainesville 40 ND Warner Robins 29 ND Valdosta 30 ND Columbus 30 ND Yorkville 27 ND Augusta 30 ND Anthracene Milledgeville 28 ND Macon 28 ND Savannah 26 ND General Coffee 28 ND Dawsonville 28 ND Rome 27 ND Utoy Creek 29 ND Brunswick 17 ND 1st Max 2nd Max 212 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Anthracene (continued) Gainesville 38 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 29 ND Yorkville 26 ND Augusta 29 ND Benzo(a)anthracene Milledgeville 30 1 0.000146 0.00208 Macon 31 1 0.000153 0.00236 Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 1 0.000140 0.00192 Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 2 0.000159 0.00222 Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 1 0.000081 0.00013 Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 1 0.000148 0.00223 Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 1 0.000135 0.00181 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Milledgeville 29 1 0.000107 0.00091 Macon 31 1 0.000114 0.00117 Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 1 0.000104 0.00083 Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 1 0.000112 0.0011 Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 1 0.000103 0.00081 2nd Max 0.00019 213 2006 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Total # of Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Benzo(k)fluoranthene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 1 0.000081 0.00015 Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 1 0.000083 0.00016 Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 1 0.000081 0.00015 Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Benzo(a)pyrene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 1 0.000317 0.00035 Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 1 0.000325 0.00059 Augusta 31 ND Benzo(e)pyrene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 1 0.000079 0.00008 Rome 31 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND 2nd Max 214 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Benzo(e)pyrene (continued) Gainesville 41 1 0.000079 0.00008 Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Chrysene Milledgeville 31 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND 2nd Max 215 2006 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Fluoranthene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 1 0.000325 0.00058 Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 1 0.000317 0.00034 Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Fluorene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND 2nd Max 216 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Fluorene (continued) Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Naphthalene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND 2nd Max 217 2006 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Total # of Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Phenanthrene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 1 0.003201 0.00446 Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND Pyrene Milledgeville 30 ND Macon 31 ND Savannah 29 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND Rome 28 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 20 ND Gainesville 41 ND Warner Robins 30 ND Valdosta 31 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 28 ND Augusta 31 ND 2nd Max ND indicates no detection 218 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. Freon 113 Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Freon 114 Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 1,3-Butadiene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND 1st Max 2nd Max 219 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Site Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 1,3-Butadiene Rome 25 ND (continued) Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Cyclohexane Milledgeville 29 16 0.8936 6.1988 Macon 29 2 0.6181 5.8544 Savannah 31 4 0.4805 1.1709 General Coffee 30 1 0.4471 0.9298 Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 3 0.9656 13.7751 Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 1 0.5166 2.9272 Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 1 0.4413 0.7232 Valdosta 29 1 0.4631 1.3775 Columbus 31 3 0.4799 1.3431 Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 7 0.5527 2.3418 Chloromethane Milledgeville 29 29 1.0263 1.3012 Macon 29 29 1.0947 1.5904 Savannah 31 31 1.1033 1.5697 General Coffee 30 30 1.1601 1.6317 Dawsonville 30 30 0.9831 1.2599 South DeKalb* 61 61 1.0053 1.5491 Rome 25 25 0.9749 1.5697 Utoy Creek 31 31 1.0061 1.6110 Brunswick 29 29 1.0876 1.4458 Gainesville 43 43 0.9732 1.2599 Warner Robins 27 27 1.0434 1.4045 Valdosta 29 29 1.0847 1.4871 Columbus 31 31 1.0167 1.6524 2nd Max 1.7219 0.4477 0.9987 0.4477 0.8265 1.2398 1.2806 1.4871 1.5284 1.6317 1.2393 1.5284 1.2393 1.3425 1.4252 1.2599 1.2806 1.3425 1.2393 220 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Chloromethane (continued) Yorkville 24 24 0.9269 1.4665 Augusta 30 30 1.0740 1.5284 Dichloromethane Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 1 3.6668 8.3337 Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Chloroform Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 1 0.6108 0.6348 Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 2 0.6246 0.9767 Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 1 0.6180 0.8302 Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Carbon tetrachloride Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 1 0.7873 0.8178 2nd Max 1.2599 1.4871 0.6837 221 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Site Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Carbon tetrachloride General Coffee 30 1 0.7873 0.8178 (continued) Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 1 0.7873 0.8178 Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 1 0.7870 0.8178 Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Trichlorofluoromethane Milledgeville 29 28 1.1869 1.7983 Macon 29 29 1.3255 1.8545 Savannah 31 30 1.2282 2.2479 General Coffee 30 29 1.2429 1.8545 Dawsonville 30 30 1.2588 1.6927 South DeKalb* 61 60 1.3307 2.2479 Rome 25 25 1.2835 2.0231 Utoy Creek 31 31 1.2907 2.3603 Brunswick 29 28 1.1947 1.7421 Gainesville 43 43 1.5970 2.4164 Warner Robins 27 27 1.2301 1.6297 Valdosta 29 29 1.2693 2.0231 Columbus 31 30 1.2572 2.0231 Yorkville 24 23 1.1110 1.4611 Augusta 30 30 1.2719 1.9669 Chloroethane Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND 2nd Max 1.5735 1.7983 1.7983 1.7983 1.5735 1.9669 1.8545 2.0231 1.5735 2.2479 1.5735 1.8545 1.7983 1.4611 1.7983 222 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Chloroethane Warner Robins 27 ND (continued) Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 1,1-Dichloroethane Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Methyl chloroform Milledgeville 29 17 2.3593 6.0016 Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 30 13.0035 41.4658 2nd Max 5.4560 30.0082 223 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Site Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Ethylene dichloride Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Tetrachloroethylene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 2 0.8599 1.4240 Rome 25 4 0.9589 1.9665 Utoy Creek 31 1 0.8706 1.5597 Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 1 0.8532 1.0850 Warner Robins 27 3 0.9745 2.5769 Valdosta 29 1 0.8558 1.0850 Columbus 31 1 0.8619 1.2884 Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 1 0.8623 1.2884 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND 2nd Max 1.0172 1.8309 2.5090 224 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane South DeKalb* 61 ND (continued) Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Bromomethane Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND 2nd Max 225 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Site Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Warner (continued) Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Dichlorodifluoromethane Milledgeville 29 29 2.0598 3.0658 Macon 29 29 2.3053 3.4119 Savannah 31 31 2.0704 3.3130 General Coffee 30 30 2.1807 3.1152 Dawsonville 30 30 2.1526 2.7691 South DeKalb* 61 61 2.8615 47.9644 Rome 25 25 2.0847 3.3130 Utoy Creek 31 31 2.1390 3.5603 Brunswick 29 29 2.1297 3.4119 Gainesville 43 43 2.1458 3.0163 Warner Robins 27 27 2.1556 3.1152 Valdosta 29 29 2.1263 3.1152 Columbus 31 31 2.1948 3.4613 Yorkville 24 24 1.9346 2.6702 Augusta 30 30 2.1938 2.9174 Trichloroethylene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 2nd Max 2.7196 2.9669 3.2141 2.9174 2.7691 3.1152 2.9669 3.0163 2.8185 2.9669 2.8680 3.0163 3.4119 2.4724 2.8185 226 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 1,1-Dichloroethylene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 1,2-Dichloropropane Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 2nd Max 227 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max trans-1,3- Dichloropropylene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND cis-1,3- Dichloropropylene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 2nd Max 228 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Ethylene dibromide Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Hexachlorobutadiene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND 2nd Max 229 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Site Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Hexachlorobutadiene Rome 25 ND (continued) Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Vinyl chloride Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND m/p Xylene Milledgeville 29 3 0.5677 0.8687 Macon 29 1 0.5467 0.6515 Savannah 31 9 0.6964 1.7809 General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 32 0.9716 4.3436 Rome 25 10 0.8835 2.3890 Utoy Creek 31 12 0.8708 3.6052 Brunswick 29 4 0.5804 1.1293 Gainesville 43 15 0.7364 2.3890 Warner Robins 27 3 0.6161 2.2152 Valdosta 29 7 0.6500 2.0415 Columbus 31 13 0.8827 2.3890 2nd Max 0.8687 1.5637 3.1274 2.3890 2.4324 0.9121 2.3021 0.7818 1.1728 2.3455 230 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max m/p Xylene (continued) Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 14 1.3610 6.0810 Benzene Milledgeville 29 18 0.5348 0.8944 Macon 29 20 0.5017 0.8305 Savannah 31 18 0.6167 1.7888 General Coffee 30 7 0.4264 0.6708 Dawsonville 30 12 0.4451 0.8305 South DeKalb* 61 51 0.9447 3.5137 Rome 25 12 0.7481 2.7790 Utoy Creek 31 26 0.8248 2.5554 Brunswick 29 12 0.5149 1.3097 Gainesville 43 31 0.6448 1.7888 Warner Robins 27 16 0.6040 2.2360 Valdosta 29 20 0.5964 1.4374 Columbus 31 25 0.8841 2.0763 Yorkville 24 8 0.4339 0.6069 Augusta 30 20 1.1010 3.8331 Toluene Milledgeville 29 22 1.0359 2.5991 Macon 29 17 0.7469 1.9211 Savannah 31 21 1.4922 9.4172 General Coffee 30 3 0.4778 0.6027 Dawsonville 30 9 0.4966 0.6780 South DeKalb* 61 56 2.6124 10.1706 Rome 25 23 2.6850 10.9239 Utoy Creek 31 29 15.8111 41.4359 Brunswick 29 17 0.8755 4.1436 Gainesville 43 36 1.2952 5.6503 Warner Robins 27 18 0.9982 5.6503 Valdosta 29 19 1.0339 5.2736 Columbus 31 27 1.9442 7.1571 Yorkville 24 17 1.6284 6.7804 Augusta 30 20 2.6356 12.0540 2nd Max 5.6466 0.8305 0.7347 1.2458 0.6389 0.6708 3.1943 1.6291 2.4277 0.8305 1.3416 1.1499 1.3735 2.0763 0.5750 3.8331 2.2978 1.4314 4.8969 0.5274 0.6027 9.4172 6.7804 37.6687 2.1848 4.8969 2.6368 3.7669 4.5202 5.6503 10.1706 231 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Site Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Ethylbenzene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 1 0.5450 0.6081 General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 10 0.5800 1.4334 Rome 25 2 0.5530 0.6950 Utoy Creek 31 2 0.5640 1.1293 Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 1 0.5485 0.7818 Warner Robins 27 1 0.5437 0.5647 Valdosta 29 1 0.5437 0.5647 Columbus 31 3 0.5563 0.7818 Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 6 0.6457 1.7374 o- Xylene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 2 0.5457 0.6081 General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 9 0.5846 1.5202 Rome 25 4 0.5655 0.8253 Utoy Creek 31 2 0.5766 1.4334 Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 1 0.5505 0.8687 Warner Robins 27 1 0.5502 0.7384 Valdosta 29 1 0.5512 0.7818 Columbus 31 5 0.5773 0.9121 Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 7 0.7087 2.2152 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND 2nd Max 0.9121 0.6515 0.6081 0.6515 1.5637 0.5647 0.9556 0.7818 0.6950 0.8253 1.9980 232 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Rome 25 ND (continued) Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 1 0.6170 0.6883 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 1 0.6217 0.8357 General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 12 0.6717 1.3765 Rome 25 3 0.6352 0.9832 Utoy Creek 31 5 0.6486 1.2782 Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 1 0.6197 0.8357 Warner Robins 27 1 0.6209 0.7866 Valdosta 29 1 0.6171 0.6883 Columbus 31 5 0.6597 1.0324 Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 7 0.8054 2.4089 Styrene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 2 0.5685 1.3211 Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND 2nd Max 1.1799 0.7374 0.8849 0.9832 2.2123 0.8524 233 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Styrene Warner (continued) Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 6 0.8722 5.1141 Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Benzene, 1-ethenyl-4- methyl Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 1 0.6153 0.6391 Chlorobenzene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND 2nd Max 2.3440 234 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max Chlorobenzene Valdosta 29 ND (continued) Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 1 0.5764 0.5987 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 1,3-Dichlorobenzene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 2nd Max 235 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Name Site Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND Benzyl chloride Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND Rome 25 ND Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Milledgeville 29 ND Macon 29 ND Savannah 31 ND General Coffee 30 ND Dawsonville 30 ND South DeKalb* 61 ND 2nd Max 236 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued) (concentrations in g/m3) Total # of Name Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Rome 25 ND (continued) Utoy Creek 31 ND Brunswick 29 ND Gainesville 43 ND Warner Robins 27 ND Valdosta 29 ND Columbus 31 ND Yorkville 24 ND Augusta 30 ND 2nd Max ND indicates no detection *sample collected every 6 days 237 2006 Carbonyl Compounds, 24-hour (concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter) Name Total # of Site Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max Formaldehyde Savannah 28 Dawsonville 31 S. DeKalb* 55 Tucker* 57 Brunswick 29 Acetaldehyde Savannah 28 Dawsonville 31 S. DeKalb* 56 Tucker* 57 Brunswick 29 Propionaldehyde Savannah 28 Dawsonville 31 S. DeKalb* 56 Tucker* 57 Brunswick 29 Acrolein Savannah 28 Dawsonville 31 S. DeKalb* 56 Tucker* 57 Brunswick 29 Butyraldehyde Savannah 28 Dawsonville 31 S. DeKalb* 56 Tucker* 57 Brunswick 29 Acetone Savannah 28 Dawsonville 31 S. DeKalb* 56 Tucker* 57 Brunswick 29 Benzaldehyde Savannah 28 Dawsonville 31 S. DeKalb* 56 Tucker* 57 Brunswick 29 ND indicates no detection *sample collected every 6 days 26 2.877 6.882 5.406 24 1.678 5.222 3.844 55 8.405 14.353 14.235 57 13.594 49.059 26.412 28 3.575 6.611 6.611 19 1.318 3.681 2.612 19 1.100 3.072 2.517 56 2.929 5.135 5.018 57 4.618 45.118 8.118 23 1.480 3.400 2.665 2 0.604 1.212 1.094 7 0.662 1.372 1.239 19 0.733 2.494 2.147 26 0.850 5.776 2.314 7 0.623 1.522 0.856 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1 0.563 0.600 14 0.660 2.100 1.700 17 0.707 2.594 1.665 4 0.638 1.900 1.144 24 2.998 6.882 6.250 29 2.989 7.111 6.389 56 6.116 10.529 10.235 57 7.029 18.118 16.143 26 3.625 7.222 6.556 1 0.586 1.222 1 0.719 5.433 7 0.797 4.276 3.835 6 0.867 6.000 5.941 2 0.600 1.222 1.011 238 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report 2006 Carbonyl Compounds, 3-hour (June-August) Name (concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter) Site Time # Samples # Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max Formaldehyde S. DeKalb 0600 27 27 5.07 9.00 8.39 Tucker 0600 29 29 7.84 14.67 13.72 S. DeKalb 0900 25 24 9.36 20.61 17.94 Tucker 0900 27 27 10.61 21.83 15.83 S. DeKalb 1200 27 27 10.77 21.89 16.56 Tucker 1200 28 28 10.98 18.11 17.50 S. DeKalb 1500 27 25 9.95 20.11 16.06 Tucker 1500 27 27 10.68 15.89 15.39 Acetaldehyde S. DeKalb 0600 27 27 2.00 3.89 3.46 Tucker 0600 29 29 2.68 4.72 4.44 S. DeKalb 0900 25 24 3.13 5.28 5.23 Tucker 0900 27 27 3.55 8.94 7.06 S. DeKalb 1200 27 27 3.70 5.83 5.26 Tucker 1200 28 28 3.97 8.89 6.22 S. DeKalb 1500 27 25 3.19 4.83 4.49 Tucker 1500 27 27 3.38 6.17 4.60 Propionaldehyde S. DeKalb 0600 27 8 0.16 0.67 0.63 Tucker 0600 29 15 0.33 0.95 0.88 S. DeKalb 0900 25 14 0.33 0.87 0.79 Tucker 0900 27 17 0.41 1.24 0.77 S. DeKalb 1200 27 17 0.39 0.81 0.78 Tucker 1200 28 23 0.55 1.01 0.83 S. DeKalb 1500 27 16 0.37 0.88 0.88 Tucker 1500 27 18 0.43 0.82 0.81 Acrolein S. DeKalb 0600 27 ND Tucker 0600 29 ND S. DeKalb 0900 25 ND Tucker 0900 27 ND S. DeKalb 1200 27 ND Tucker 1200 28 ND S. DeKalb 1500 27 ND Tucker 1500 27 ND Butyraldehyde S. DeKalb 0600 27 9 0.15 0.58 0.56 Tucker 0600 29 20 0.50 2.27 1.53 S. DeKalb 0900 25 20 0.62 2.59 1.54 Tucker 0900 27 21 0.67 2.29 1.92 S. DeKalb 1200 27 21 0.64 2.12 1.95 Tucker 1200 28 26 0.63 2.10 1.52 S. DeKalb 1500 27 19 0.65 2.47 2.04 Tucker 1500 27 24 0.73 1.71 1.64 239 2006 Carbonyl Compounds, 3-hour (June-August) (continued) Name (concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter) Site Time # Samples # Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max Acetone S. DeKalb 0600 27 27 5.30 8.89 8.17 Tucker 0600 29 29 6.69 17.22 12.17 S. DeKalb 0900 25 24 6.78 12.44 11.56 Tucker 0900 27 27 6.90 14.61 11.67 S. DeKalb 1200 27 27 8.36 13.83 13.11 Tucker 1200 28 28 7.51 14.78 13.06 S. DeKalb 1500 27 25 7.49 11.89 11.78 Tucker 1500 27 27 6.89 12.17 10.61 Benzaldehyde S. DeKalb 0600 27 2 0.10 1.82 0.93 Tucker 0600 29 4 0.52 7.50 2.89 S. DeKalb 0900 25 2 0.43 5.78 4.86 Tucker 0900 27 3 0.61 7.17 5.25 S. DeKalb 1200 27 2 0.32 5.20 3.57 Tucker 1200 28 3 0.49 5.28 4.49 S. DeKalb 1500 27 3 0.47 5.29 5.12 Tucker 1500 27 3 0.58 6.22 5.41 240 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Appendix F: Monitoring Network Survey Georgia Gaseous Criteria Pollutant Monitoring as of January 2006 Parameter Measured Sampling Schedule Number of GASN Sites Method Used EPA Reference Method Data Availability Ozone Nitrogen Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Continuous hourly average Sulfur Dioxide 24 5 3 8 Ultraviolet photometry Ultraviolet photometry Ultraviolet photometry Ultraviolet photometry Nondispersive Infrared photometry Nondispersive Infrared photometry Ultraviolet fluorescence detector Spectrophotometry (pararosaniline method) Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S. EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 241 Georgia Ambient Air Particulate Matter Monitoring as of January 2006 Parameter Measured Sampling Schedule Collection Method Sampling Media PM10 PM2.5 Mass (integrated) Every 6 days Mass sequential, single channel Teflon filter 46.2mm, Mass (semicontinuous) Mass (integrated) Mass (semicontinuous) Speciated Continuous hourly averages TEOM; BAM Proprietary filter; filter tape Varies; every day, every third day, or every sixth day FRM sampler Teflon filter 46.2mm Continuous hourly averages TEOM Proprietary filter 1 in 6 days 1 in 3 days for South DeKalb Speciation air sampling system (SASS) Teflon, nylon & quartz filter 46.2mm Number of Sites 15 Analyzed 1 28 12 8 Number of Collocated Sites Analysis Method 3 Method 016 Electronic analytical balance 0 5 0 0 Method 079; TEOM gravimetric at 50 degrees C; Method 122 Beta Attenuation Monitor Method 055 Electronic analytical balance Method 703 R&P TEOM with SCC at 30 degrees C Method 055 Electronic analytical balance Method 014 x-ray fluorescence Method 062 filter preparation Method 064 Ion chromatography Method 065 Thermal/optical carbon Data Availability Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S.EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 242 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Georgia Organic Air Toxic Contaminant Monitoring as of January 2006 Parameter Volatile Organic Measured Compounds (VOCs) Carbonyls Semi - VOCs Metals Method TO-14A/15 TO-11A TO 13A 10-2.I Sampling Schedule Collection Equipment Sampling Media Number of Sites Analyzed Number of Collocated Sites Data Availability Every 12 days, 24-hour; 1 in 6 day schedule for South DeKalb AVOCS or ATEC2200 Polished stainless steel canister Every 12 days, 24-hour ATEC100 DNPH-coated silica cartridges 15** 3 Every 12 days, 24-hour PUF sampler Polyurethane Foam filter 15** Every 12 days, 24-hour; 1 in 6 day schedule for South DeKalb* High volume TSP Quartz microfiber filter 8 x 10 inch 15** 1 0 1 1 Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S.EPA Air Quality System (AQS) * Sampler at this site is a PM10 Hi-Vol ** 14 GA ATN sites, 1 NATTS (South DeKalb) 243 PAMS Monitoring as of January 2006 Parameter Sampling Schedule Collection Equipment Sampling Media Number of Sites Analysis Method Data Availability 54 PAMS-Speciated VOCs & Total NMHC Continuous 54-PAMS Speciated VOCs & Total NMHC Carbonyl Compounds 24-hour 1 in 6 day schedule (all year) ATEC 2200 Polished stainless steel canister Continuous hourly average (June-August) Perkin-Elmer HC GC Direct injection 3-hour sample (June-August); 24-hour, 1 in 6 day (all year) ATEC 8000; PUF Sampler DNPH coated silica gel Cartridge; Polyurethane Foam 4 4 2 PAMS GC/FID GC/FID High performance liquid chromatograph/ultraviolet detector Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S.EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 244 Georgia Meteorological Monitoring as of January 2006 Parameter Wind Speed Measured (m/s) Sampling Schedule Wind Direction (degrees) Ambient Relative Atmosphere Temperature Humidity Pressure (C) (%) (mb) Solar Radiation (w/m2) Continuous hourly average Precip (in) Sig. Theta (deg) Total Ultraviolet Radiation Number of Sites 14 14 5 5 4 3 2 1 3 Method Used Data Availability Propeller or cup anemometer Wind vane potentiometer Aspirated Thermocouple or thermistor Thin film capacitor Pressure transducer Thermopile or Tipping pyranometer bucket Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S.EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Wind direction UV radiometer 245 246 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Appendix G: Siting Criteria Instrument PM10, AISI Nephelo- meter Dichot, TEOM, PM2.5 Lead, TSP O3 CO NO2 Height Above Ground Micro Other 2-7m 2-15m 2-7m 2-15m 207m 2-15m 3-15m 3-15m 2.5 3.5m 3-5m 3-15m 3-15m Space Between Samplers 2m 1m 2m 1m Height Above Obstructions 1m 2 times height of obstacle above inlet 1m Distance From Obstacles 2 times height or obstacle above inlet 2 times height or obstacles above inlet 2 times height of obstacles above inlet 2 times height of obstacles above inlet Micro: must be no trees between sampler and road Others: must be 10m if trees, 5m above sampler 2 times height of obstacle above inlet Distance From Tree Dripline Should be 20m, must be 10m if considered an obstruction Should be 20m, must be 10m if considered an obstruction Micro and middle: no trees between sampler and source Neighborhoo d: should be 20m, must be 10m if considered an obstruction Should be 20m, must be 10m if considered an obstruction Micro: must be no trees between sampler and road Others: must be 10m if trees, 5m above sampler Should be 20m, if individual tree 5m above probe, must be 10m from dripline Distance from Walls, Parapets, etc. 2m 2m 2m 1m 1m 1m Airflow Arc 270 270 270 270, or on side of building 180 270, or on side of building 180 270, or on side of building 180 247 Instrument Height Above Ground Micro Other Space Between Samplers SO2 3-15m 3-15m H2S 3-15m 3-15m CH4, THC, NMHC, PAMS 3-15m 3-15m Toxics: Gaseous 910, 910A, 929, 920 3-15m 3-15m Temperature and Relative 1.25-2m Humidity 2.252m Wind Speed and Direction Solar Radiation Height Above Obstructions 1m 1m 1m 2m Distance From Obstacles 2 times height of obstacle above inlet 2 times height of obstacle above inlet 2 times height of obstacle above inlet 2 times height of obstacle above inlet 4 times height of obstacle above sensor 1.5 times height of obstacle above sensor Distance From Tree Dripline Should be 20m, must be 10m if considered an obstruction Should be 20m, must be 10m if considered an obstruction Should be 20m, must be 10m in direction of urban core 1 tower width from tower side 2 tower widths from tower side, 1 tower width from tower top Distance from Walls, Parapets, etc. 1m 1m 1m 4.5m Airflow Arc 270, or on side of building 180 270, or on side of building 180 270, or on side of building 180 248 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Appendix H: Instrument and Sensor Control Limits ARB'S CONTROL AND WARNING LIMITS Control 15% 15% 10% LIMITS Warning 10% 10% 7% 4% (Flow) 5% (Design) 20% None None None INSTRUMENT All gaseous criteria and non-criteria analyzers Total suspended particulate (TSP) samplers PM10 Dichotomous (Dichot), Lead (Pb), Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalalance (TEOM), Toxic Air Contaminant (XonTech920) Samplers, Beta Attenuation Monitors (BAM), and Carbonyl (XonTech9250) Samplers PM2.5 Laboratory audits (Toxics, PAMS, Motor Vehicle Exhaust and Total Metals) ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR METEOROLOGICAL (MET) SENSORS LIMITS 1.0 Celsius (0.5C PAMS only) 2.25 mm of Mercury (Hg) 3% RH for 10-90% RH 5% RH for <10% or >90% RH 5% Watts/m2 Less than or equal to 5 combined accuracy and orientation error 0.25 m/s between 0.5 and 5m/s and less that 5% difference above 5 m/s Less than or equal to 0.5m/s 0.25 m/s between 0.5 and 5 m/s and less than 5% difference above 5 m/s Less than or equal to 0.5 m/s SENSOR Ambient Temperature Barometric Pressure Relative Humidity Solar Radiation Wind Direction Horizontal Wind Speed Horizontal Wind Speed Starting Threshold Vertical Wind Speed Vertical wind Speed Starting Threshold 249 250 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report References http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=static.aqi. "Air Quality Index (AQI) - A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health." AIRNOW DMC. 2006 Data Polling Summary. Poster presented at the National Air Quality Conference. Sonoma Technology, Petaluma, California. ATSDR, 1992. Toxicological Profile for 1,3-Butadiene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 1997. Toxicological Profile for Benzene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 2000a. Toxicological Profile for Manganese. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 2000b. Toxicological Profile for Chromium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 2001. Toxicological Profile for 1,2-Dichloroethane. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 2005a. Toxicological Profile for Carbon Tetrachloride. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 2005b. Toxicological Profile for Acrolein, Draft for Public Comment. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 2005c. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic, Draft For Public Comment. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 2005d. ToxFAQS for Nickel. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. ATSDR, 2006a. Toxicological Profile for Dichlorobenzenes. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. 251 ATSDR, 2006b. Medical Mangement Guidelines for Xylenes. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Volume 2, Parts 50 to 51, Revised as of July 1, 1998. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, September 2006. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Georgia Ambient Monitoring Network Plan. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Georgia Ambient Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Assurance Plan. GADNR, 1993. Toxic Release Inventory Report, 1991. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia. GADNR, 1996a. The 1994 Chatham County Air Toxics Study, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia. GADNR, 1996b. 1996 Glynn county Initiative: air Toxics Dataset Ground Level Measurements, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia. GADNR, 2006. 2005 Ambient Air Surveillance Report. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. EPA, 1987. Health Assessment Document for Acetaldehyde. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, 1991a. Integrated Risk Information System, Carbon Tetrachloride. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, 1991b. Integrated Risk Information System, Acetaldehyde. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, 1994a. OPPT Chemical Fact Sheet, Chemicals in the environment: 1,2,4trimethylbenzene (CAS No. 95-63-6). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, 1994b. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement System. Volume 1: Principles. EPA-600/R-94/038A, January 1994. U.S. EPA, 1998. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement System. Volume 1: Principles. EPA-600/R-94/038B, April 1998. U.S. EPA, 2000. Integrated Risk Information System, Benzene. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, 2002. Integrated Risk Information System, 1,3-Butadiene. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 252 2006 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report U.S. EPA, 2003. Integrated Risk Information System, Acrolein. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, 2004a. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, 2004b. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. EPA, 2006. A Preliminary Risk-Based Screening Approach for Air Toxics Monitoring Data Sets. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 253