2013

ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN

New York State Ambient Air Monitoring Program

Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental ConservationAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 2 of 202

Table of Contents

Section Page

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... ........ 8 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ ........ 8 1.2 Topography and Climate of New York State .................................................................. 11 1.3 Population and Demographics ......................................................................................... 12 2. Chronology of Air Monitoring in New York State .............................................15 2.1 Monitoring Related Research and Investigations ............................................................ 17

2.1.1 Publications ............................................................................................................... 18

2.1.2 Posters/Presentations ................................................................................................... ..... 23 3. Monitoring Sites ........................................................................................................... ... 29 3.1 Northern Monitoring Site Listings ................................................................................... 31 3.2 Southern Monitoring Site Listings ................................................................................. 92

4. Criteria Contaminants .................................................................................................... 1 41

4.1 Carbon Monoxide .......................................................................................................... 143 4.2 Nitrogen Dioxide ........................................................................................................... 146

4.3 Lead ...................................................................................................................... .......... 150

4.4 Particulate Matter ........................................................................................................ ... 153 4.4.1 Total Suspended Particulate ........................................................................................... 153

4.4.2 PM 10

............................................................................................................................... 154

4.4.3 PM 2.5

............................................................................................................................... 156 4.4.4 Continuous PM Monitoring ........................................................................................... 161 4.4.5 Speciation .............................................................................................................. ......... 163 4.4.6 Continuous Speciation ................................................................................................... 164 4.4.7 Additional Monitoring Initiatives ................................................................................. 165

4.4.7.1 PM 2.5 Technology Assessment and Characte rization Study-New York Supersite ........ 166 4.4.7.2 Organic Carbon: Molecular Ma rker Characterization ................................................... 166 4.4.7.3 PM Coarse Monitoring .................................................................................................. 167

4.4.8 Air Pollution and Environmental Conditions ................................................................ 167 4.4.8.1 NYC Microscale Street Canyon Monitoring ................................................................. 167 4.4.8.2 Rochester PM Center Clarkson, Univ. of Rochester Medical Center ............................ 167 4.4.8.3 Air Pollution Microscopy ....................................................................................... 167 4.4.8.4 Ultrafine Particulate Monitoring .................................................................................... 168

4.5 Sulfur Dioxide ................................................................................................................ 171

4.6 Ozone ..................................................................................................................... ........ 174 5. EPA’s National Toxics Program .................................................................................... 178 5.1 National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) ............................................................. 179 5.2 NY Toxics Monitoring Network .................................................................................... 180 5.3 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) ............................................ 189

6. NCore Sites ................................................................................................................ .... 194 7. Acid Deposition Network .............................................................................................. 196Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 3 of 202

Table of Contents (continued)

Section Page

8. Anticipated Changes in the Next 18 Months ................................................................. 198 8.1 Lead Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 198 8.2 Special Purpose Monitors .............................................................................................. 198 8.2.1 Tonawanda Community Air Quality Study ................................................................... 198 8.2.2 New York State Ambient Mercury Baseline Study ....................................................... 200 8.2.3 Community Air Screen .......................................................................... 200 8.2.4 Airport Lead Monitoring ........................................................................ 201 8.2.5 Peace Bridge Air Quality Study ................................................................. 201 8.2.6 Hurricane Sandy Clean-up Ac tivities Monitoring ........................................... 201 8.3 Proposed Changes at Existing Sites ............................................................................... 201

8.3.1 PS 19 ...................................................................................................................... 202Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 4 of 202

List of Tables

Table Page

1.1 2010 Census Population for Major Metropoli tan Statistical Areas in New York ......... 12 3.1 Location Listing for Northern Monitoring Sites ............................................................. 31 3.2 Location Listing for Southern Monitoring Sites .............................................................. 92 4.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................................................... 141

5.1 NATTS Pollutants of Concern ....................................................................................... 179 5.2 Target List of Volatile Organic Compounds ................................................................ 180

5.3 Information on PAMS Sites .......................................................................................... 189

5.4 Instrumentation for Gaseous Pollutants ......................................................................... 190 5.5 Equipment for Meteorological Measurements .............................................................. 190 5.6 Target Compound List for Carbonyl Sampling ............................................................ 191 5.7 VOC Methods and Sampling Frequencies ..................................................................... 191 5.8 PAMS Target Compounds List ...................................................................................... 191Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 5 of 202

List of Figures

Figure Page

1.1 Population Density in New York State by County ............................................ 13

1.2 Potential Environmental Justice Areas in New York State .................................. 14 2.1 Location Map of Monitoring Sites in New York State Excluding NYC ......................... 16 2.2 Location Map of Ambient Air Monitoring Sites in NYC ..................................... 17

3.1 Site Locations for Northe rn Monitoring Operation ......................................................... 29

3.2 Site Locations for Southe rn Monitoring Operation ......................................................... 30

4.1 Carbon Monoxide Monitors and Concentration Trends................................................. 144 4.2 Location Map for Carbon Monoxi de Monitoring Sites ................................................. 145 4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide Monitors and Concentration Trends ................................................. 147 4.4 Location Map for NO

x Monitoring Sites ...................................................................... 148

4.5 Lead Monitors and Concentration Trends ..................................................................... 152 4.6 Total Suspended Particulate Monito rs and Concentration Trends ................................ 154

4.7 PM 10 Monitors and Concentration Trends ..................................................................... 155 4.8 Location Map of Manual PM 10 Monitoring Sites .......................................................... 156 4.9 Location Map of Manual PM 2.5 Monitoring Sites ......................................................... 160

4.10 PM 2.5 Monitors and Concentration Trends ................................................................... 161 4.11 Location Map of Continuous TEOM Monitoring Sites ................................................. 162 4.12 Location Map of Speciation Trends Network Sites ....................................................... 164

4.13 Sulfur Dioxide Monitors a nd Concentration Trends .................................................... 172 4.14 Location Map of Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Sites ....................................................... 173

4.15 Ozone Monitors and 1 hr Concentration Trends ........................................................... 176

4.16 Ozone Monitors and 8 hr Concentration Trends ........................................................... 176 4.17 Location Map of Ozone Monitoring Sites ..................................................................... 177 5.1 Annual Averages for Benzene ..................................................................................... 182 5.2 Annual Averages for Toluene ................................................................................. 183 5.3 Annual Averages for m/p-Xylene .............................................................................. 183 5.4 Annual Averages for o-Xylene ................................................................................... 184 5.5 Annual Averages for 1,3-Butadiene .............................................................................. 184 5.6 Annual Averages for Dichloromethane ......................................................................... 185 5.7 Annual Averages for Chloroform .................................................................................. 185 5.8 Annual Averages for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................... 186 5.9 Annual Averages for Formaldehyde .............................................................................. 186 5.10 Annual Averages for Acetaldehyde ............................................................................. 187 5.11 Location Map of Toxics Monitoring Sites ..................................................................... 188 7.1 Location Map of Acid Deposition Monitoring Sites .................................................... 197 8.1 Annual Averages for Benzene at Tonawanda Sites .......................................... 199 8.2 Annual Averages for Formaldehyde at Tonawanda Sites ................................... 199Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 6 of 202

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System AQI Air Quality Index AQS Air Quality System AMoN Ammonia Gas Monitoring Network ARM Approved Regional Method ASRC Atmospheric Sciences Research Center BAQS Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule

CASTNet Clean Air Status and Trends Network

CBSA Core-Based Statistical Area CCNY City College of New York CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMSA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area

CO Carbon Monoxide

Cr Chromium CSN Chemical Speciation Network CTDEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection DNPH 2,4-Dinitrophenyl hydrazine EAC Early Action Compact

EC Elemental Carbon EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEM Federal Equivalent Method

FRM Federal Reference Method

GC Gas Chromatography GCMS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HPLC High Performance Liquid Chromatography

ICP- MS Inductively Coupled Plas ma -Mass Spectrometry IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments MDN Mercury Deposition Network NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program

NATTS National Air Toxics Trends Stations

NCore National Core NESCAUM New England States Coordinated Air Use Management NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NO Nitric oxide

NO 2 Nitrogen dioxide

NO

x Nitrogen oxides

NO y Sum of reactive nitrogen oxides

NSR New Source Review

NYC New York City NYCRR New York State Codes, Rules and RegulationsAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 7 of 202

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

O 3 Ozone

OC Organic Carbon ORD Office of Research and Development (EPA) PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PAMS Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations

Pb Lead

PM Particulate Matter

PM 10 Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less

PM 2.5 Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less

PMTACS PM 2 5 Technology Assessment and Characterization Study ppb Parts per billion ppm Parts per million PUF Polyurethane Foam PWEI Population Weighted Emissions Index SADCA State Acid Deposition Control Act SIP State Implementation Plan SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations

SO 2 Sulfur dioxide SOAP Speciation of Organics for Apportionment of PM 2.5 SO

x Sulfur oxides

SPM Special Purpose Monitors SUNY State University of New York TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance TSP Total Suspended Particulate

UV Ultra Violet VOCs Volatile Organic CompoundsAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 8 of 202

1. Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized amendments to the ambient air monitoring regulations on October 17, 2006. The amendments revise the technical requirements for certain types of sites, add provisions for monitoring of PM 10 -2.5 , and reduce certain monitoring requirements for criteria pollutants. Monitoring agencies are required to submit annual monitoring network plans, conduct network assessments every 5 years, perform quality assurance activities, and, in certain instances, establish NCore sites by January 1, 2011.

Starting in July 2007, each State, or where applicable local, agency is r equired to ―adopt and submit to the Regional Administrator an annual monitoring network plan which shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of an air quality surveillance system that consists of a network of SLAMS monitoring stations including FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore stations, CSN stations, State speciation stations, SPM stations, and/or, in serious, severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and SPM monitoring stations.‖ This document is prepar ed and submitted as part of the fulfillment to these requirements.

1.1 Background

New York State began a concerted effort to control the air pollution problem back in 1957, when the State Legislature enacted one of the nation‘s first comprehensive air p ollution control laws. An Air Pollution Control Board was established to develop and direct a public information program for monitoring contaminant levels, and to conduct area studies and inventories outlining major problems. In December 1964, New York State developed air quality standards to protect its citizens against adverse health effects. These standards provided a long-range planning tool and established numerical air quality limits for the following contaminants: particulates, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxidants, hydrogen sulfide, fluoride, beryllium and sulfuric acid mist.

In 1966 the Legislature responded to the increasing pollution levels by restructuring the administrative authority into the Department of Health, under which the Division of Air Resources was created. Major legislation was also introduced to provide increased efficacy of rules and regulations. That year also marked the severe New York City Thanksgiving holiday air pollution episode brought upon by a temperature inversion that lasted through the weekend.

By the time when the first Earth Day was held in 1970, it had become apparent that pollution abatement strategies in place were inadequate, and air quality

— along with water quality and

solid waste

—

became cornerstones of the emerging U.S. environmental conscience. The 1970 Clean Air Act Extension, along with the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in that same year, were defining moments in the history of air quality in this country.

Another development which has had a major effect on air pollution control in New York State was the creation of the Department of Environmental Conservation in 1970. The Division of Air Resources was transferred to the new Department and its administrative functions restructured and streamlined. Nine new regional offices were established to carry out responsibilities relating to pollution control of sources within their respective part of the State.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 9 of 202

In 1977, the first set of Clean Air Act amendments was adopted because many states failed to meet mandated targets. One of the most effective of these was the New Source Review (NSR), which addresses older facilities that had been "grandfathered" by the original law. In 1990, additional amendments to the Clean Air Act included provisions for attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards, mobile sources, air toxics, acid deposition control, permits, stratospheric ozone and global climate protection, enforcement; visibility improvement near National Parks, and other provisions relating to research, development and air monitoring.

In 1997, EPA announced more strict national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, the primary constituent of smog. After a lengthy scientific review process,

in cluding extensive external scientific review, EPA determined that these changes were necessary to protect public health and the environment. The new standard was intended to be more protective of the health of children and adults who play and work outdoors in the summer. In establishing the 8-hour standard, EPA set the standard at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) as an average over an 8-hour period and defines the new standard as a "concentration-based" form, specifically the 3-year average of the annual 4th- hi ghest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations. EPA also added new standards, using PM 2 5 as the indicator for fine particles (with PM 2 5 referring to particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and retained PM 10 standards for the purpose of regulating the coarse fraction of PM 10 (referred to as thoracic coarse particles or coarse-fraction particles, generally including particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm,

or PM 10 -2.5 ). EPA established two new PM 2.5 standards: an annual standard of 15 μg/m 3 based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM 2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors; and a 24- hour standard of 65 μg/m 3 , based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area. These new standards were challenged by industry and in May of 1999 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court ruled that U.S. EPA must reconsider the new 8-hr ozone and fine particulate standards. The court did not throw out the standards, but ruled that U.S. EPA could not enforce them. On February 27, 2001, the Supreme Court substantially reversed the ruling of the lower court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for resolution of any remaining issues that had not been addressed in that

court‘s earlier rulings. In March 2002, the Court of Appeals rejected all remaining challenges to

the standards.

In December 2006, EPA issued the final rule revising the NAAQS for PM to provide increased protection of public health and welfare, respectively. EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard to 35 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) and retained the level of the annual PM 2.5 standard at 15μg/m 3 . With regard to PM 10 , the 24-hour standard was retained, but the annual

PM 10 standard was revoked.

The current 8-hr ozone standard of 0.075 ppm, effective since May 27, 2008 is under reconsideration and will most certainly be revised to a lower value. The final rule is expected this August.

In November 2008 EPA revised the NAAQS for lead from the previous quarterly average of 1.5μg/m 3 to the more protective 3-month rolling average of 0.15μg/m 3 . As part of the lead monitoring requirements, monitoring agencies are required to monitor ambient air near leadAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 10 of 20 2

sources which are expected to or have been shown to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month average lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. At a minimum, monitoring agencies must monitor near lead sources that emit 1.0 ton per year (tpy) or more. Monitoring is also required in each Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) with a population equal to or greater than 500,000 people as determined by the latest available census figures. Revisions to the monitoring requirements pertaining to where State and local monitoring agencies would be required to conduct lead monitoring were finalized and became effective January 26, 2011. The new regulations replaced the population oriented monitoring requirement with a requirement to

add Pb monitors to the urban NCore monitors. The EPA also lowered the emission threshold from 1.0 tpy to 0.50 tpy for industrial sources of lead (e.g., lead smelters and foundries). However, the emission threshold for airports was maintained at 1.0 tpy. In addition, an airport monitoring study has been implemented to determine the need for monitoring of airports which emit less than 1.0 tpy of lead. Under this new rule lead monitoring is required for a minimum of one year at 15 additional airports that have been identified as having characteristics that could lead to ambient lead concentrations approaching or exceeding the lead NAAQS. Brookhaven and Republic airports in Suffolk County, New York have been designated as such. The Brookhaven study was completed in October, 2012, at which time Repbulic Airport monitoring

commenced.

The annual NAAQS for NO 2 is set at 0.053 ppm. In 2010 EPA revised the NAAQS to include an hourly standard of 0.100 ppm

. Under the new NO 2 rule that became effective January 22, 2010 each MSA with population larger than 500,000 will be required to operate a near-road monitor beginning in 2013. On March 7, 2013, EPA issued a final rule to revise the deadlines by

which the near-road monitors within the NO 2 monitoring network are to be operational. States and local agencies are required to begin operating the near-road component of the NO 2 network in phases between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2017. This replaces the 2010 rule requirement that originally required all new NO 2 monitors to begin operating on January 1, 2013.

In June, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour SO 2 standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Additionally, both the 24-hour and annual primary SO 2 standards were revoked. EPA also established requirements for SO 2 monitoring in areas where there is an increased coincidence of population and SO 2 emissions.

On Dec. 14, 2012 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened the nation‘s air quality standards for fine particle pollution to improve public health protection by revising the primary annual PM 2.5 standard from 15 to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) and retaining

the 24- hour fine particle standard of 35 μg/m 3 . The new standards became effective on March 18, 2013.

Through the years, ambient monitoring has always been an important and integral part of the overall effort to manage our environmental resources. The Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance, which was originally established in the Division of Air Resources under the Department of Health in 1966, has been performing ambient air monitoring since.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 11 of 202

1.2 Topography and Climate of New York State

New York State contains 49,576 square miles, inclusive of 1,637 square miles of inland water, but exclusive of the boundary-water areas of Long Island Sound, New York Harbor, LakeOntario, and Lake Erie. The Adirondacks cover most of the northeast and occupy about onefourth of the state's total area. The Appalachian Highlands, including the Catskill Mountains and Kittatinny Mountain Ridge (or Shawangunk Mountains), extend across the southern half of the state, from the Hudson River Valley to the basin of Lake Erie. Between these two upland regions, and also along the state's northern and eastern borders, lies a network of lowlands, including the Great Lakes Plain; the Hudson, Mohawk, Lake Champlain, and St. Lawrence valleys; and the coastal areas of New York City and Long Island.

The climate of New York State is broadly representative of the humid continental type, which prevails in the northeastern United States, but its diversity is not usually encountered within an area of comparable size. The geographical position of the state and the usual course of air masses, governed by the large-scale patterns of atmospheric circulation, provide general climatic controls. Differences in latitude, character of the topography, and proximity to large bodies of water have pronounced effects on the climate.

The planetary atmospheric circulation brings a great variety of air masses to New York State. Masses of cold, dry air frequently arrive from the northern interior of the continent. Prevailing winds from the south and southwest transport warm, humid air, which has been conditioned by the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent subtropical waters. These two air masses provide the dominant continental characteristics of the climate. The third great air mass flows inland from the North Atlantic Ocean and produces cool, cloudy, and damp weather conditions. This maritime influence is important to New York's climatic regime, especially in the southeastern portion of the state, but it is secondary to that of the more prevalent air mass flow from the continent.

The prevailing wind is generally from the west in New York State. A southwest component becomes evident in winds during the warmer months while a northwest component is characteristic of the colder one-half of the year. The climate of the state features much cloudy weather during the months of November, December, and January in upstate New York, especially those regions that adjoin the Great Lakes and Finger Lakes and include the southern tier of counties. From June through September, however, about 60 to 70 percent of the possible sunshine hours are received. In the Atlantic coastal region, the sunshine hours increases from 50 percent of possible in the winter to about 65 percent of possible in the summer.

The Atlantic Coastal Plain and lower Hudson Valley experience conditions of high temperature and high humidity with some frequency and duration during the summer. By comparison, such conditions occur less frequently in the broad interior of New York State where they are usually shortened by the arrival of cooler, drier air masses from the northwest.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 12 of 202

1.3 Population and Demographics

The US Census Bureau data for 2010 provide the following information for the State and 13 Metropolitan Areas of New York. The New York portion of the NY

-- NJ

-- CT

-- PA CMSA population numbered 13,038,826, constituting 69% of the State‘s total residents.

Table 1.1 2010 Census Population for Major Metropolitan Statistical Areas in New York

MSA 2000 2008 * 2010 20 12 * Difference (2000

- 2012 ) %

Albany

- Schenectady

Troy 875,583 853,919 870,716 874

, 646

- 937

- 0.11

Binghamton 252,320 245,189 251,725 248

, 538

- 3

, 782

- 1.52

Buffalo

- Niagara Falls 1,170,111 1,124,309 1,135,509 1134210

- 35

, 901

- 3 .17

Elmira 91,070 87,813 88,830 88

, 911

- 2

, 159

- 2.43

Glens Falls 124,345 128,775 128,923 128

, 472 4

, 127 3.21

Ithaca 96,501 101,136 101,564 102

, 554 6

, 053 5.90

Kingston 177,749 181,670 182,493 181

, 791 4

, 042 2.22

Poughkeepsie

Newburgh

- Middletown 621,517 672,525 670,301 671

, 834 50

, 317 7.49

Nassau

- Suffolk 2,753,913 2,863,849 2,832,882 2

, 875

, 904 121

, 991 4.24

New York

- White

Plains 9,314,235 9,715,442 9,908,456 10

, 090

, 243 776

, 008 7 .69

Rochester 1,098,201 1,034,090 1,054,323 1

, 082

, 284

- 15

, 917

- 1.47

Syracuse 732,117 643,794 662,577 660

, 934

- 71

, 183

- 10.77

Utica

- Rome 299,896 293,790 299,397 298

, 064

- 1

, 832

- 0.61

State Total 18,976,457 19,467,789 1 9,378,102 19

, 570

, 261 593

, 804 3.03

* Census Bureau estimation

According to Census Bureau the NY state population in 2010 totaled 19,378,102, the third most populous state in the nation. The population change from 2000 indicates a net increase of 401,645 for the entire State. The State saw a modest growth overall in the 10-year period, mostly in the downstate areas at the expense of the western MSAs. A population density map by county based on the 2010 data is depicted in Figure 1.1Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 13 of 202

Figure 1.1 Population Density in New York State by County

Environmental Justice Areas Environmental justice (EJ) is defined as the fa ir treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of envir onmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Environmental justice efforts focus on improving the environment in communities, specifically minority and low-income communities, and addr essing disproportionate adverse environmental impacts that may exist in those communities.

A map of potential EJ areas in the State is shown in Figure 1.2. Approximately 37% of New York’s population resides in potential EJ areas. In our network, there are 19 air monitors, 14 of which downstate, sited within areas designated as such. The number of air monitoring sites located in potential EJ areas is commensurate with the population percentage residing therein. In the populous downstate area, 61% of the network monitors are loca ted in potential EJ areas, in which 52% of the population lives.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 14 of 202

Figure 1.2 Potential Environmental Justice Areas in New York State

Sensitive Sub-Populations

Children, the elderly, and people wi th underlying health issues ma y be more susceptible to the deleterious effects associated with air pollution, and are considered to be under the sensitive subpopulations category. Sixteen monitoring sites in the network are located on public school grounds, where attending st udents are of grade school to high school age.

Citizens groups often bring a ttention to NYSDEC the areas wh ere they believe have high incidences of health related problems due to ai r pollution, such as asthma, respiratory diseases, and cancer clusters. Where possible we try to accommodate concerned citizens by providing air quality data from nearby monitoring sites. Fo r example, IS 143 serves the Lower Washington Heights Neighborhood Association; and IS 74 the Nos Quedamos Community Development Corporation. In the case of the Clean Air Coalition of WNY, we were able to obtain EPA funding to carry out the Tonawanda Community Air Quality Study. In the Community Air Screen Program that began in the fall of 2012, 90 % of the selected community groups are in or within half mile of potential EJ areas.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 15 of 202

2. Chronology of Air Monitoring in New York State

Manual sampling programs began in 1958. Most of the early sampling stations measured suspended particulates, settleable particulates, and sulfation (an indicator of sulfur dioxide concentration). The early monitoring system employed high volume samplers, and for the first year, operated on a daily basis. Subsequently sampling was reduced to a 1- in -6 day schedule, after statistical analysis of the first year‘s data indicated that such sampling frequency would provide an adequate representation of particulate pollution. By 1964, the manual monitoring system had evolved to 104 full-time stations, 140 stations by 1970, and 250 by the mid 70's.

New York was among the first to install and operate a continuous air quality monitoring system. The parameters monitored in the early 70's included: sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, soiling, and meteorological data.

Trace metal analysis of high volume sampler filters was initiated in 1979. Historically the NYS Department of Health provided laboratory services until 2003, when the positions funded by our Department for the analysis work were eliminated due to a statewide workforce reduction. The lead analysis continued until 2005. The lack of formal funding mechanisms between the two state agencies precluded the continuation of laboratory analysis support. The necessary laboratory work is now provided by a contract laboratory.

In 1986, New York began measuring inhalable particulates using high volume air samplers with a 0-10 micron size selective inlet. In the same year the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network was also established. In 1987, EPA revised the PM standard to regulate PM 10

.

In 1988, the NYS ambient monitoring networks consisted of 85 TSP sites, 16 PM 10 , 15 carbon monoxide monitors, 27 sulfur dioxide sites, 20 ozone stations, 8 NO

x monitors, and 18 lead sampling sites. There were 17 operational acid deposition sites statewide, and the initial phase of the toxics network was completed with the establishment of six toxic monitors in Staten Island. By 1990, the networks had the following make up: 58 TSP, 60 PM 10 , 25 SO 2 , 16 CO, 26 ozone,

7 NO

x , 16 lead, 18 acid deposition, 10 toxics, and 8 trace metals sites, respectively.

In accordance with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in 1994 BAQS established the first of two ambient air monitoring sites for enhanced ozone monitoring called Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) to collect and report detailed data for volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, ozone and meteorological parameters.

BAQS began implementing the PM 2.5 monitoring networks of FRM and TEOM monitors in 1998. At its peak, there were 46 FRM instruments deployed. After sufficient data were obtained for attainment determination, FRM sites were reduced and some sites were augmented with

TEOM instruments in order to provide realtime inputs for EPA‘s AIRNow website for Air Quality Index (AQI) reporting.

BAQS currently operates the following monitors: 29 ozone, 19 SO 2 , 7 NO

x (including 3 NO y ), 7 CO, 19 FRM PM 2.5 , 26 TEOM PM 2.5 , 6 FRM PM 10 , 3 TEOM 1405-DF(PM 2.5, PM 10 , PMcourse), 7 CSN, 2 speciated carbon, 2 black carbon (aethalometer), 2 speciated mercury, 4 particulate sulfate, 7 acid deposition, 4 TSP-lead, 1 PM 10 -lead, 2 PM 10 metals, 11 toxics, 8 carbonyls, 2Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 16 of 202

PAMS, 2 hexavalent chromium, 2 PAHs, and 20 meteorological stati ons. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 below show the geographic locatio ns of monitoring sites in al l nine regions of the State.

Figure 2.1 Location Map of Monitoring Sites in New York State Excluding NYCAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 17 of 202

Figure 2.2 Location Map of Ambien t Air Monitoring Sites in NYC

2.1 Monitoring Related Research and Investigations

In addition to the routine monitoring work, bureau staff collaborate with researchers from other agencies and academic institutions on a multitude of air pollution related studies. Over the years we have participated in research projects with the following partners: New York State Department of Health, New Jersey Departme nt of Environmental Protection, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Stat e University of New York, Albany, Clarkson University, Massachusetts Institute of Tec hnology, Rutgers University, Drexel University, University of Rochester Medical Center, Desert Research Institute, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, City University of New York, and Columbia University. These endeavors provided valuable data for the regulatory, scientific, a nd health research communities. Study findings are communicated through journal publica tions, as well as presentations at technical meetings and conferences. Listings of peer-reviewed scientific articles and oral/poster presentations resulting from recent BAQS monitoring act ivities are provided below.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 18 of 202

2.1.1 Publications

Oliver V. Rattigan, Kevin Civerolo, Prakash Doraiswamy, H. Dirk Felton and Philip K. Hopke. Long term black carbon measurements at two urban locations in New York. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. Accepted, 2013. Monitoring intraurban spatial patterns of multiple combustion air pollutants in New York City: Design and implementation. Thomas D. Matte, Zev Ross, Iyad Kheirbek, Holger Eisl, Sarah Johnson, John E. Gorczynski, Daniel Kass, Steven Markowitz, Grant Pezeshki and Jane E. Clougherty. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 23, 223-231, 2013.

Intra-urban spatial variability in wintertime street-level concentrations of multiple combustionrelated air pollutants: The New York City Community Air Survey (NYCCAS). Jane E. Clougherty, Iyad Kheirbek, Holger M. Eisl, Zev Ross, Grant Pezeshki, John E. Gorczynski, Sarah Johnson, Steven Markowitz, Daniel Kass and Thomas Matte. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 23, 232-240, 2013.

Yungang Wang, Jiaoyan Huang, Philip K. Hopke, Oliver V. Rattigan, David C. Chalupa, Mark J. Utell, Thomas M. Holsen. Effect of the shutdown of a large co al -fired power plant on ambient mercury species. Chemosphere, In press, 2013

Hyun-Deok Choi, Jiaoyan Huang, Sumona Mondal, Thomas M. Holsen. Variation in concentrations of three mercury (Hg) forms at a rural and a suburban site in New York State. Science of the Total Environment, 448, 96-106, 2013.

Zheming Tong, Yan Jason Wang, Molini Patel, Patrick Kinney, Steven Chrillrud and K. Max Zhang. Modeling Spatial Variations of Black Carbon Particles in an Urban Highway-Building Environment. Environmental Science & Technology, 46, 312-319, 2012.

Yungang Wang, Philip K. Hopke, Oliver V. Rattigan, David C. Chalupa, Mark J. Utell. Multiyear black carbon measurement and source apportionment using Delta-C in Rochester, NY. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 62, 880-887, 2012.

Yungang Wang, Philip K. Hopke, Oliver V. Rattigan, A new Indicator of Firework Emissions in Rochester, New York. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184, 7293-7297, 2012.

Yu Chi Lin, James J. Schwab, Kenneth L. Demerjian, Min-Suk Bae, Wei-Nai Chen, Yele Sun, Qi Zhang, Hui-Ming Hung, and Jacqueline Perry, Summertime formaldehyde observations in New York City: Ambient levels, sources and its contribution to HOx radicals. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 117, D08305, 14 PP., 2012 doi:10.1029/2011JD016504

Yungang Wang, Philip K. Hopke, Xiaoyan Xia, Oliver V. Rattigan, David C. Chalupa, Mark J. Utell. Source apportionment of airborne particulate matter using inorganic and organic species as tracers. Atmospheric Environment, 55, 525-532, 2012.

Jiaoyan Huang, Philip K. Hopke, Hyun-Deok Choi, James R. Laing, Huailue Cui, Tiffany J. Zananski, Sriraam Ramanathan Chandrasekaran, Oliver V. Rattigan and Thomas M. Holsen,Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 19 of 202

Mercury (Hg) emissions from domestic biomass combustion for space heating, Chemosphere 84, 1694-1699, 2011.

Yungang Wang, Philip K. Hopke, Oliver V. Rattigan and Yifang Zhu, Characterization of ambient black carbon and wood burning particles in two urban areas, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13, 1919-1926, 2011.

Y. -L. Sun, Q. Zhang, J. J. Schwab, K. L. Demerjian, W.-N. Chen, M.-S. Bae, H.-M. Hung, O. Hogrefe, B. Frank, O. V. Rattigan, and Y.-C. Lin, Characterization of the sources and processes of organic and inorganic aerosols in New York city with a high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1581

– 1602, 2011.

Min-Suk Bae, James J. Schwab, Wei-Nai Chen1, Chuan-Yao Lin, Oliver V. Rattigan, Kenneth L. Demerjian. Identifying pollutant source directions using multiple analysis at a rural location in New York, Atmospheric Environment, 45, 2531-2540, 2011.

Oliver V. Rattigan, H. Dirk Felton, Min-Suk Bae, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian Comparison of long-term PM 2 5 carbon measurements at an urban and rural location in New York. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 3228-3236, 2011.

Yungang Wang, Philip K. Hopke, Oliver V. Rattigan and Xiaoyan Xia. Characterization of residential wood combustion particles using the two-wavelength aethalometer, Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 7387-7393, 2011.

Oliver V. Rattigan, H. Dirk Felton, Min-Suk Bae, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian, Multi-year hourly PM 2.5 carbon measurements in New York: Diurnal, day of week and seasonal patterns, Atmospheric Environment, 44, 2043-2053, 2011. Yungang Wang, Philip K. Hopke, David C. Chalupa, Mark J. Utell. Long-term study of urban ultrafine particles and other pollutants. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 7672-7680, 2011.

Vincent A. Dutkiewicz, Liaquat Husain, Utpal K. Roychowdhury, Kenneth L. Demerjian. Impact of Canadian wildfire smoke on air quality at two rural sites in NY State, Atmospheric Environment, 45, 2028-2033, 2011.

Vincent A. Dutkiewicz, Liaquat Husain, Utpal K. Roychowdhury, Kenneth L. Demerjian, Black carbon transport to a remote mountaintop in the northeastern US and relationship with other pollutants, Atmospheric Environment, 45, 2011-2019, 2011.

Yungang Wang, Philip K. Hopke, Mark. J. Utell, Urban-scale Spatial-temporal Variability of Black Carbon and Winter Residential Wood Combustion Particles, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 11, 473

– 481, 2011.

Yungang Wang, Jiaoyan Huang, Tiffany J Zananski, Philip K Hopke, Thomas M Holsen, Impacts of the Canadian forest fires on atmospheric mercury and carbonaceous particles in Northern New York. Environmental Science & Technology, vol 44, 8435-8440, 2010.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 20 of 202

Ozone, Trace Gas, and Particulate Matter Measurements at a Rural Site in Southwestern New

York State: 1995

– 2005, James J. Schwab, John B. Spicer, and Kenneth L. Demerjian, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 59:293

– 309, 2009.

Dirk Felton, Is it Time to Upgrade the PM 2.5 Federal Reference Method? Air & Waste Management EM Magazine, February, 2009.

Haider A. Khwajaa, Pravin P. Parekha, Adil R. Khana , Daniel L. Hershey, Ronaq R. Naqvie, Abdul Malikf, Khalid Khanf, In-Depth Characterization of Urban Aerosols Using Electron Microscopy and Energy-Dispersive X-ray Analysis, CLEAN, 37(7), Pages 544-554, 2009.

Valerie B Haley, Thomas O Talbot and Henry D Felton, Surveillance of the Impact of Air
Pollution on Cardiovascular Disease in New York State, Environmental Health, 2009. 8 : 42 (22 September 2009).

Stephen R. McDow, Monica A. Mazurek, Min Li, Lee Alter, John Graham, H. Dirk Felton, Thomas McKenna, Charles Pietarinen, Alan Leston, Steve Bailey, Sania W. Tong Argao, Speciation and Atmospheric Abundance of Organic Compounds in PM 2.5 from the New York City Area. I. Sampling Network, Sampler Evaluation, Molecular Level Blank Evaluation. Aerosol Science and Technology, 42:50

– 63, 2008.

Vincent A. Dutkiewicz, Sumizah Qureshi, Adil R. Khan, Liaquat Husain, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian, Field test data for 42 liter per minute PM 2.5 aerosol sampler used during the PMTACS-NY intensives held at Queens College, Queens, NY, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 40, Supplement 2, 2006, Pages 182-191.

Sumizah Qureshi, Vincent A. Dutkiewicz, Adil R. Khan, Kamal Swami, Karl X.Yang, Liaquat Husain, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian, Elemental composition of PM 2.5 aerosols in Queens, New York: Solubility and temporal trends, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 40, Supplement 2, 2006, Pages 238-251.

Vincent A. Dutkiewicz, Sumizah Qureshi, Liaquat Husain, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian, Elemental composition of PM 2.5 aerosols in Queens, New York: Evaluation of sources of fine-particle mass, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 40, Supplement 2, 2006, Pages

347-359.

Min-Suk Bae, Kenneth L. Demerjian and James J. Schwab, Seasonal estimation of organic mass to organic carbon in PM 2.5 at rural and urban locations in New York state, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 40, Issue 39, December 2006, Pages 7467-7479.

Oliver V. Rattigan, Olga Hogrefe, H.D. Felton, James J. Schwab, Utpal K. Roychowdhury, Liaquat Husain, Vincent A. Dutkiewicz and Kenneth L. Demerjian, Multi-year urban and rural

semi-continuous PM 2.5 sulfate and nitrate measurements in New York state: Evaluation and comparison with filter based measurements, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 40, Supplement 2, 2006, Pages 192-205.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 21 of 202

Xinrong Ren, William H. Brune, Jingqiu Mao, Michael J. Mitchell, Robert L. Lesher, James B. Simpas, Andrew R. Metcalf, James J. Schwab, Yongquan Li, Kenneth L. Demerjian, Henry D.

Fe lton, Garry Boynton, Allen Adams, Jacqueline Perry, Yi He, Xianliang Zhou, and Jian Hou,

Behavior of OH and HO 2 in the Winter Atmosphere in New York City, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 40, Supplement 2, 2006, Pages 252-263.

Liming Zhou, Philip K. Hopke and Prasanna Venkatachari, Cluster analysis of single particle mass spectra measured at Flushing, NY, Analytica Chimica Acta, Volume 555, Issue 1, 5 January 2006, Pages 47-56.

Schwab J.J., Felton H.D., Rattigan O.V., Demerjian K.L., New York State Urban and Rural

Measurements of Continuous PM 2.5 Mass by FDMS, TEOM and BAM, Journal Air & Waste Management Assoc. 2006, Volume 56:372-383.

Schwab, J.J., O. Hogrefe, K. L. Demerjian, V. A. Dutkiewicz, L. Husain, O. V. Rattigan, and H. D. Felton, Field and Laboratory Evaluation of the Thermo Electron 5020 Sulfate Particulate Analyzer, Aerosol Science & Technology, 2006, 40, S1, 36-44.

Venkatachari P., Zhou L., Hopke P.K., Felton D., Rattigan O.V., Schwab J.J., Demerjian K.L., Spatial and Temporal Variability of Black Carbon in New York City, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006, Vol 111, D10S05, 1-9.

Venkatachari P., Zhou L., Hopke P.K., Schwab J.J., Demerjian K.L., Weimer, S., Hogrefe O., Felton D., Rattigan O.,., An Intercomparison of Measurement Methods for Carbonaceous Aerosol in the Ambient Air in New York City, Aerosol Science & Technology, 2006, 40, 788-

795.

Nenad Aleksic, Garry Boynton, Gopal Sistla, Jacqueline Perry, Concentrations and Trends of Benzene in Ambient Air over New York State during 1990-2003 Atmospheric Environment Volume 39 (2005) 7894-7905.

Zheng Li, Philip K. Hopke, Liaquat Husain, Sumizah Qureshi, Vincent A. Dutkiewicz, James J. Schwab, Frank Drewnick and Kenneth L. Demerjian, Sources of fine particle composition in New York city, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 38, Issue 38, December 2004, Pages 6521-

6529.

Drewnick, F., J. J. Schwab, J. T. Jayne, M. Canagaratna, D.R. Worsnop, and K.L. Demerjian, Measurement of ambient aerosol composition during the PMTACS-NY 2001 campaign using an aerosol mass spectrometer. Part I: Mass concentrations, Aerosol Science and Technology, 38(SI), 92-103, 2004.

Drewnick, F., J.T. Jayne, M. Canagaratna, D.R. Worsnop and K.L. Demerjian, Measurement of ambient aerosol composition during the PMTACS-NY 2001 campaign using an aerosol mass spectrometer. Part II: Chemically speciated mass distribution, Aerosol Science and Technology, 38(SI):104-117, 2004.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 22 of 202

Dutkiewicz, V. A., S.Qureshi, A.R. Khan, V. Ferrara, J. Schwab, K. Demerjian, and L. Husain , Sources of fine pa rticulate sulfate in New York‖. Atmos. Environ., 38, 3179 -3189, 2004.

Hogrefe, O., F. Drewnick, G.G. Lala, J. J. Schwab, and K.L. Demerjian , Development, operation and applications of an aerosol generation, calibration and research facility, new instruments and data inversion methods, Aerosol Science and Technol.ogy, 38(SI): 196-214,

2004.

Hogrefe, O., J. Schwab, F. Drewnick, K. Rhoads, G.G. Lala, H.D. Felton, O.V. Rattigan, L. Husain, V.A. Dutkiewicz, S. Peters, and K.L. Demerjian , Semi-continuous PM 2 5 sulfate and

nitrate measurements at an urban and a rural location in New York: PMTACS-NY Summer 2001 and 2002 campaigns., J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 54, 1040-1060, 2004.

Schwab, J.J., H.D. Felton, and K.L. Demerjian, Aerosol chemical composition in New York state from integrated filter samples: Urban/rural and seasonal contrasts‖. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D16S05, doi:10.1029/2003JD004078, 2004.

Schwab, J.J., J. Spicer, K.L. Demerjian, J.L. Ambs, and H.D. Felton, Long-term field characterization of TEOM and modified TEOM samplers in urban and rural New York State locations‖. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 54, 1264 -1280, 2004.

Schwab, J.J., O. Hogrefe, K.L. Demerjian, and J.L. Ambs, Laboratory characterization of modified TEOM samplers‖, J. Air & Waste M anage. Assoc. 54, 1254-1263, 2004.

Schwab, J.J., Y.-Q. Li, and K.L. Demerjian, Semi-continuous formaldehyde measurements with a diffusion scrubber/liquid fluorescence analyzer. In Symposium on air quality measurement methods and technology

– 2004 [CD-ROM in press], Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2004. Canagaratna, M. J., J. T. Jayne, D. Ghertner, S. Herndon, Q. Shi, J. L. Jimenez , P.J. Silva, P. Williams, T. Lanni, F. Drewnick, K. L. Demerjian, C. Kolb, D. Worsnop, Chase Studies of Particulate Emissions from inuse New York City Vehicles, Aerosol Science & Technology, 38, 555-573, 2004. Li, Z., P.K. Hopke, L.Husain, S. Qureshi, V.A. Dutkiewicz, J.J. Schwab, F. Drewnick, and K.L. Demerjian, Sources of Fine Particle Composition in New York City, Atmospheric Environment, 38, 6521-6529, 2004.

Drewnick, F., J.J. Schwab, O. Hogrefe, S. Peters, L. Husain, D. Diamond, R. Weber, and K.L. Demerjian, Intercomparison and evaluation of four semi-continuous PM 2.5 sulfate instruments, Atmospheric Environment, 37, 3335- 3350, 2003.

Ren, X., H. Harder, M. Martinez, R.L. Lesher, A. Oliger, T. Shirley, J. Adams, J. B. Simpas, and W.H. Brune, J, HOx concentrations and OH reactivity observations in New York City during PMTACS-NY 2001, Atmospheric Environment, 37, 3627-3637, 2003.

Ren, X., H. Harder, M. Martinez, R.L. Lesher, A. Oliger, J. B. Simpas, W.H. Brune, J. J. Schwab, K.L. Demerjian, Y. He, X. Zhou, and H. Gao, OH and HO2 chemistry in the urban atmosphere of New York City, Atmospheric Environment, 37, 3639-3651, 2003.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 23 of 202

Schwab, J.J., J. Spicer, H.D. Felton, J.A. Ambs, and K.L. Demerjian, Long-term comparison of TEOM, SES TEOM and FRM measurements at rural and urban New York sites, in Symposium on Air Quality Measurements and Technology

– 2002I, VIP-115-CD, ISBN 0-923204-50-4, Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

Yu, F., T. Lanni, and B. Frank, Measurements of ion concentration in gasoline and diesel engine exhaust, Atmospheric Environment, 38, 10, 1417-1423, 2003.

Zhou, X., H. Gao, Y. He, G. Hung, S.B. Bertman, K. Civerolo, and J. Schwab, ―Nitric acid photolysis on surfaces in low- NOx environments: Significant atmospheric implications‖. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 2217, doi:10.1029/2003GL108620, 2003.

2.1.2 Posters/Presentations

Ultrafine Particle Measurements and Evaluation of Mobile Source Contribution in New York City. Brian P. Frank, James J. Schwab, G. Garland Lala, Oliver V. Rattigan, H. D. Felton, Kenneth L. Demerjian, Robert C. Anderson , Gil LaDuke, and Hongyu Li. 23rd CRC Real World Emissions Workshop, San Diego, CA, April 7-10, 2013.

Ultrafine Particle Monitor (TSI 3031) Measurements and Evaluation in New York City, James J. Schwab, G. Garland Lala, Kenneth L, Demerjian, Brian P. Frank, H. D. Felton, Oliver V. Rattigan, Presented at the American Association for Aerosol Research 31st Annual Conference, October 8-12, 2012, Minneapolis, MN.

Spatial Extent of New Particle Formation and Growth Events, James J. Schwab, G. Garland Lala, Kenneth L, Demerjian, Brian P. Frank, H. D. Felton, Oliver V. Rattigan, Presented at the American Association for Aerosol Research 31st Annual Conference, October 8-12, 2012, Minneapolis, MN.

The Age Old Question: Continuous or 24-hr Integrated Measurements, Oliver V. Rattigan, Kevin L. Civerolo, H. D. Felton and James J. Schwab, Presented at the American Association for Aerosol Research 31st Annual Conference, October 8-12, 2012, Minneapolis, MN.

NYSDEC Collaborative Community Air Screening, Dirk Felton, Randi Walker, National Air Monitoring Conference, Denver, CO May, 2012.

Temporal Patterns of Air Pollutants at Urban Locations, Oliver V. Rattigan, 30th Regional Meeting on Kinetics and Dynamics, Wadsworth Center, Albany, Jan 28, 2012.

The following 4 Posters were presented at the EMEP Conference, November 15-16, 2011.

Behavior of ultrafine particles and related particulate and gaseous species at two geographically distributed sites in new york city, B.P. Frank, H.D. Felton, O. Hogrefe, J. Perry, O.V. Rattigan,

and R.A. Anderson.

A method to extract and interpret additional aerosol organic carbon fractions from thermal optical analysis of filter-based data, M. B ae , J.J. Schwab, O.V. Rattigan, K.L. Demerjian, M. Choe, and

S. Kim.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 24 of 202

PM 2 5 Class III FEMS: performance evaluation at Queens College, New York, O. V. Rattigan, D. H. Felton, and M. Christophersen.

Variations and trends in PM 2.5 mass, sulfate, and carbon concentrations at a rural and an urban site in new york state , J. J. Schwab, K. L. Demerjian, O. V. Rattigan, and H. D. Felton.

Variations and trends in PM 2.5 mass, sulfate, and carbon concentrations at a rural and an urban site in New York State, James J. Schwab, Kenneth L. Demerjian, Oliver V. Rattigan, and H. D. Felton, Presented at the American Geophysical Union Annual meeting, San Francisco, November

2011.

A Method to Extract and Interpret Additional Aerosol Organic Carbon Fractions from Thermal Optical Analysis of Filter-Based Data, Min-Suk Bae, James J. Schwab, Oliver V. Rattigan, Kenneth L. Demerjian, American Association for Aerosol Research, 30th annual conference October 3-7, 2011, Orlando, FL.

Characterization of residential wood combustion particles using the two-wavelength aethalometer, Yungang Wang, Philip K. Hopke, Oliver V. Rattigan and Xiaoyan Xia, American Association for Aerosol Research, 30th annual conference October 3-7, 2011, Orlando, FL.

Comparison of Long-Term and Seasonal Behavior of Ultrafine Particles and Related Species Between Urban Near-Road and Area-Wide Monitors in New York City. Brian P Frank, HD Felton, Olga Hogrefe, Jacqueline Perry, ROBERT A ANDERSON. American Association for Aerosol Research, 30th annual conference October 3-7, 2011, Orlando, FL.

Establishing an Ambient Mercury Baseline in New York State: Results from an EPA Community Assessment Grant, National Air Toxics Monitoring and Data Analysis Workshop Dallas, TX, April 4-7, 2011.

The View From Ground Level, a Perspective from the States, Well, at Least the Ambient Air Monitoring Perspective from one State, Dirk Felton, P.E., Health Effects Institute Annual Conference, May 1-3, 2011 Boston, MA.

Comparison of new and old CSN carbon with collocated measurements in New York. Oliver V. Rattigan and H. Dirk Felton, Min-Suk Bae, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian, 29 th

Annual AAAR Conference, Portland OR, October 25-29, 2010.

Life in the Big City: Evolution of Particle Concentration, Size Distribution, and Composition on a ―Typical‖ Summer Day in Queens, New York City. Schwab et al., (co -authors; ASRC and DEC) 29 th Annual AAAR Conference, Portland OR, October 25-29, 2010. Intercomparison of Long-Term Ambient Ultrafine Particle Size Distribution Measurements at a Near-Roadway and a Representative Urban Site in New York City. Brian P. Frank, Jacqueline Perry, H. D. Felton, Robert A. Anderson, Oliver V. Rattigan. 29 th Annual AAAR Conference, Portland OR, October 25-29, 2010.

Urban Mercury Monitoring: Data Review and Operational Notes: A Year Spent with the Tekran Speciated Ambient Mercury Analyzer at Two Urban Locations in New York State and an update of the AMNET program

, Dirk Felton, Kevin Civerolo, Matt Hirsh: NYSDEC, MARAMA Monitoring Conference, February 23, 2010.

NYSDEC Experience with the Synspec BTEX Instrument, Paul Sierzenga, NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation, 2009 EPA National Ambient Air Monitoring Conference.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 25 of 202

A Year Spent with the Tekran Speciated Ambient Mercury Analyzer at Two Urban Locations in New York State, Dirk Felton, Kevin Civerolo, Matt Hirsh: NYSDEC Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance, 2009 EPA National Ambient Air Monitoring Conference.

Tonawanda New York Community Air Quality Study, Paul Sierzenga, NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation, 2009 EPA National Ambient Air Monitoring Conference.

Calibration System for Low Range GPT Calibrations of High Sensitivity NO

x and NO y Monitors, Dirk Felton, Malcolm Baker: NYSDEC Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance Kirk Lovewell, Mark Cogan: Teledyne API, 2009 EPA National Ambient Air Monitoring

Conference.

Aerosol Carbon Measurements Using Different Techniques in New York: Comparison of Total Carbon, Oliver Rattigan, Atmospheric Sciences Research Center Seminar, December 9, 2008.

Aerosol Optical Properties Obtained from Continuous Mass, Composition and Scattering Measurements, James J. Schwab, Min-Suk Bae, Olga Hogrefe, Qi Zhang, G. Garland Lala, Ken Demerjian and Oliver Rattigan, American Association for Aerosol Research Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, October 20-24, 2008.

Effect of Particle Properties on Determination of Mean Particle Size Using the Electrical Aerosol Detector, Brian P. Frank, Olga Hogrefe, Daniel Hershey, American Association for Aerosol Research 27th Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, October 20-24, 2008.

Aerosol Carbon Measurements Using Different Techniques in New York, Oliver Rattigan, Dirk Felton, James Schwab, Min-Suk Bae and Kenneth Demerjian, American Association for Aerosol Research Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, October 20-24, 2008.

Continuous PM 2.5 Speciation Measurements in New York, Oliver V. Rattigan, H. Dirk Felton, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian, Extended Abstract # 524, Air & Waste Management Association Annual Conference, Portland, OR, June 24-27, 2008.

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Health Research Workshop to Discuss Key Issues, Session 1: Elemental and Organic Carbon Measurements, Chemical Speciation Network: Carbon Issues, Eastern and Western Perspectives on Air Quality Monitoring, Dirk Felton, EPA

– RTP, April 16- 17, 2008.

Air Quality Monitoring in New York State, Northeast/New England Regional Air Quality Conference, Dirk Felton, April, 2008.

Why continuous PM 2.5 FEM III data may not be appropriate for attainment demonstrations, National Air Quality Conference, Dirk Felton, Portland, OR, April 6-9, 2008

Results of PM 2.5 Continuous Speciation Measurements in New York, Oliver Rattigan, NYSDEC PE Seminar, March 11, 2008.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 26 of 202

Air Quality Data Summit, Session: Inventory of Data Systems, Data provider perspectives, Dirk Felton, RTP, NC, February 12-13, 2008.

Predicting near real-time PM2.5 FRM Concentrations from Continuous Mass and Species Measurements in New York City. Dirk H. Felton, Oliver V. Rattigan, James J. Schwab, Kenneth L. Demerjian, AAAR, Reno, NV, Sept 25, 2007.

Highlights of PM 2.5 Continuous Speciation Measurements in New York, Oliver, V. Rattigan, AAAR 26 th Annual Conference, Reno, NV, Sept 25, 2007.

PM 2.5 Carbon Measurements in New York; Comparison of Techniques and Seasonal, Weekday and Diurnal Patterns, Oliver V. Rattigan, Air & Waste Management Association Symposium on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, San Francisco, May 2, 2007.

Multi-Year Measurements of Black Carbon at two Urban Locations in New York: Comparison with Elemental Carbon, Oliver V. Rattigan, H. (Dirk) Felton, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian, AAAR 2006.

Speciated PMcoarse by Difference: A look at a year of XRF data in New York City and in Niagara Falls, New York , Dirk Felton, Kevin Civerolo and Oliver Rattigan, EPA National Monitoring Conference, 2006.

Semi-Continuous Measurements of PM 2.5 Carbon at the South Bronx, NY: Comparison with Filter Measurements, Oliver Rattigan, EPA National Monitoring Conference, 2006. ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/2006conference/schwabsemi.pdf )

Concentrations of PM 2.5 and Selected Trace Metals Across the NYC Metropolitan Region, Kevin Civerolo, EPA National Monitoring Conference, 2006.

Modifying 50 oC TEOM Data to be more "FRM like" for AQI Reporting using a Non-linear Correction based on the Julian Day, Dirk Felton, Oliver Rattigan, EPA National Monitoring Conference, 2006.

Multiyear Evaluations of PMcoarse by Difference Utilizing Low and High Volume Samplers and Collocated 50 Deg. C TEOMs, Dirk Felton, Oliver V. Rattigan, Robert Baker and Paul

Si erzenga, EPA National Monitoring Conference, 2006.

Level 1 Data Validation - Validation at the Grass Roots Level, Paul Sierzenga, EPA National Monitoring Conference, 2006.

Measurement of Ambient Aerosol Composition Using an Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer in New York City: Winter 2004 Intensive Study, Silke Weimer, Frank Drewnick, James J. Schwab, Kevin Rhoads, Douglas Orsini, Kenneth L. Demerjian, Douglas R. Worsnop, Qi Zhang, Jose J. Jimenez, Dirk Felton, AAAR, 2005.

Continuous Sulfate, Carbon, and PM 2.5 Mass at Addison, NY during the Summer 2004 NEAQS/ITCT Field Intensive, James J. Schwab,John Spicer, Olga Hogrefe, Oliver V. Rattigan,Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 27 of 202

H. D. Felton, Kevin Rhoads, Silke Weimer, Yongquan Li, G. Garland Lala, and Kenneth L. Demerjian, AAAR, 2005.

Measurement Uncertainty in the Determination of Fine Particle Mass, Sulfate, and Selected Transition Metals, James J. Schwab, H. D. Fe lton, Liaquat Husain, and Kenneth L. Demerjian, AAAR, 2005.

Urban and Rural Chemical Composition of Fine Part iculate Matter in New York State, James J. Schwab, H. D. Felton, Kevin Civerolo, Lia quat Husain, and Kenneth L. Demerjian, AAAR,

2005.

Continuous PM 2.5 Sulfate and Carbon at Addison in Rural New York State: Measurements from

and Evaluations of the Thermo 5020 Sulfate and th e Sunset Labs OCEC Instruments, James J. Schwab, Olga Hogrefe, Oliver V. Rattigan, H. D. Felton, Vincent Dutkiewicz, Liaquat Husain and Kenneth L. Demerjian, AAAR, Atlanta, February 7-11, 2005.

Semi-continuous PM 2.5 Sulfate and Nitrate Measurements in New York: Routine Field Measurements and Intensive Field Campaigns, Ol ga Hogrefe, Oliver V. Rattigan, James J. Schwab, Frank Drewnick, Silke Weimer, Kevin R hoads, Kenneth L. Demerjian, PM Supersites AAAR Conference, February 7-11, 2005, Atlanta, GA.

Intercomparison and Evaluation of Semi-Conti nuous PM-2.5 Nitrate and Sulfate Instruments During PMTACS-NY Summer 20 01 Campaign in New York City, Olga Hogrefe, Frank Drewnick, James J. Schwab, Henry D. Felton, Kenneth L. Demerjian, AGU 2004.

Semi-Continuous PM 2.5 Sulfate and Nitrate Measurements in New York: Routine Field Measurements and Intensive Field Campaigns, Ol ga Hogrefe, Oliver V. Rattigan, James J. Schwab, Utpal Roychowdhury, Frank Drewnick, S ilke Weimer, Kevin Rhoads and Kenneth L. Demerjian, AAAR, Atlanta, 2005.

Relationship Between NOy, PM, Nitrate And PM 2.5 At A Mountain Site In Upstate New York During The PMTACS-NY Program, U. K. Roychow dhury, R. A. Lamica, J. Schwab and K. L. Demerjian, O. Rattigan, H.D. Felton. AAAR, Atlanta, February 7-11, 2005.

Estimates Of PM 2.5 Aerosol Acidity From Inorganic Ion Balance Measurements At Urban And Rural New York State Locations From CSN Integrat ed Filters, James Schwab, Rachelle Jenkins, Kenneth Demerjian, Dirk Felton, AAAR, Atlanta, February 7-11, 2005

.

Highlights And Lessons Learned: PM 2.5 Technology Assessment And Characterization Study In New York – PMTACS-NY Supersite Program, Kenne th L. Demerjian, J. Schwab, G. Lala, O. Hogrefe, Y. Li, S. Weimer, AAAR 2005.

Real-time PM 2.5 Black Carbon Measurements at Roch ester and the South Bronx, NY, O. V. Rattigan, H. D. Felton and K. L. Ci verolo, EMEP, NYSERDA, October 25, 2005.

( http://www.nyserda.org/programs/Environm ent/EMEP/conference_2005/Rattigan_post.pdf )Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 28 of 202

Air Quality and Related Health Research: Particulates (PM) and Co-Pollutants: What is in Ambient Particulate Matter?, Dirk Felton, NYSERDA EMEP Conference, 2005.

A Review and Update of PM-2.5 Mass and Species Monitoring in New York State, Dirk Felton, NYSDOH Division of Environmental Health Assessment, 2005

Measurements of PM 2.5 Carbon in New York City, Oliver V. Rattigan and H. D. Felton, James J. Schwab and Kenneth L. Demerjian, Organic Speciation Workshop, Las Vegas, 2004.

( http://www.wrapair.org/APACE/SPECIATION/VegasOC 2004 Rattigan.pdf )

Semi-Continuous Measurements of PM 2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate and Co-Pollutants at an urban and a rural location. Oliver V. Rattigan, Olga Hogrefe, D.H. Felton, James J. Schwab, and Kenneth L. Demerjian, AAAR 2004.

R&P 8400S and R&P 8400N Ambient Particulate Sulfate and Nitrate Monitors: Performance during PMTACS-NY Intensive Field Campaigns and Routine Measurements, O. Hogrefe, O.V. Rattigan, James J. Schwab, Frank Drewnick, Kevin Rhoads, Silke Weimer, Douglas Orsini, and Kenneth L. Demerjian, EMEP NYSERDA Conference, 2004.

FDMS Instrument Evaluation, Dirk Felton, National Supersite Data Review Meeting, 2004

Particulate Sampling Issues: Why does the Division of Air have to do scientific research above and beyond EPA particulate sampling requirements?, Dirk Felton, NYSDEC Commissioner Briefing, 2004.

NY Metals Analysis: Method Comparison, Dirk Felton, EPA & NESCAUM Toxics Methods Meeting, 2003.

Semi-continuous PM 2.5 Sulfate and Nitrate Measurements in New York City and Whiteface Mountain, O. V. Rattigan, D. H. Felton, J. J. Schwab, U.K. Roychowdhury and K. L. Demerjian, EMEP Conference, NYSERDA, Oct 2003.

PM -2.5 Monitoring in New York State: Speciation Data, TEOM / FRM Comparisons, PM Coarse, Dirk Felton, MARAMA Air Monitoring Committee Meeting, 2002.

NY Discussion of Issues: TEOM Correlations, Quebec Smoke, PM 2.5 Speciation Data, PMcoarse, Dirk Felton, EPA SAMWG Meeting, 2002.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 141 of 202

4. Criteria Contaminants

EPA is required to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for wide-spread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The Clean Air Act requires periodic review of the science upon which the standards are based and the standards themselves. Listed below are the NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants.

Table 4.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Level Averagi ng Times Level Averaging Times

Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) 8

- hour (1)

None

35 ppm (40 mg/m 3 ) 1

- hour (1)

Lead 0.15 μg/m 3(2) Rolling 3

- month Average Same as Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb Annual (Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary

100 ppb 1

- hour (3 ) None

Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) 150 μg/m 3 24

- hour (4) Same as Primary

Particulate Matter (PM 2 5 ) 12 .0 μg/m 3 Annual (5) (Arith. Mean) Same as Primary

35 μg/m 3 24

- hour (6) Same as Primary

Ozone 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8

- hour (7) Same as Primary

0.08 ppm ( 1997 std) 8

- hour (8) Same as Primary

0.12 ppm 1

- hour (9)

Not applicable in NYS Same as Primary

Sulfur Oxides 75 ppb 1

- hour (10) 3

- hour (1) 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m 3 )Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 142 of 202

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

(2) Effective 1/12/2009, replaces the previous quarterly average value of 1.5μg/m 3

.

(3) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010).

(4) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

( 5 ) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 12.0μg/m 3 . Effective March 18, 2013.

( 6 ) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m 3 (effective December 17, 2006).

( 7 ) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008).

( 8 ) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8- hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. (b) The 1997 standard

— and the implementation rules for that standard

— will remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the

transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard.

( c) EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008).

( 9 ) (a) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is < 1. (b) As of June 15, 2005 EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas.

(10) Effective August 23, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 143 of 202

4.1 Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide, a colorless and odorless gas, is produced as a primary pollutant during the combustion of fossil and biomass fuels. Vegetation also can emit CO directly into the atmosphere as a metabolic by-product. Sources such as motor vehicles, non-road combustion engines or vehicles, and biomass burning can cause high concentrations of CO in the outdoor environment. Indoor sources include unvented, malfunctioning, or misused combustion appliances, combustion engines in garages or basements, and tobacco combustion. In both of these environments, CO is of direct concern because of the health effects that can result from human exposure to these high concentrations.

CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs and reduces oxygen delivery to the body‘s organs

and tissues. The health threat from levels of CO sometimes found in the ambient air is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease such as angina pectoris. At much higher levels of exposure not commonly found in ambient air, CO can be poisonous, and even healthy individuals may be affected. Visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, and difficulty in performing complex tasks are all associated with exposure to elevated CO levels.

There are two primary NAAQS for ambient CO: a 1-hour average of 35 ppm and an 8-hour average of 9 ppm. These concentrations are not to be exceeded more than once per year. There currently are no secondary standards for CO.

Motor vehicle exhaust contributes about 60 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. High concentrations of CO generally occur in areas with heavy traffic congestion. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes, non-transportation fuel combustion, and natural sources such as wildfires. Peak CO concentrations typically occur during the colder months of the year when CO automotive emissions are greater and nighttime inversion conditions are more frequent.

Technological advancements in pollution control have brought about a downward trend for ambient CO concentrations over the past few decades. According to EPA estimates, annual CO emissions decreased from 197.3 million tons in 1970 to 89 million tons in 2005 nationally.

The number of monitors and concentration trends chart over the years in New York State are depicted in Figure 4.1. It clearly demonstrates that the current ambient levels of CO are well below the NAAQS, in spite of the continual increase in automobiles and vehicle-miles traveled in the State. As of 2002, all counties in the State have achieved attainment designation.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 144 of 202

Figure 4.1 Carbon Monoxide Monitors and Concentration Trends

NYSDEC uses TEI Model 48C instruments that employ the NDIR gas filter correlation method for the continuous measurement of CO. Currently there are seven CO monitors in operation statewide as shown in Figure 4.2. 0.0 4.5 9.0 13.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Statewide Average 2nd Highest 8 hrPPM#CO Monitors CO in NYS

- Monitors vs. Statewide Average 2nd Highest 8 hr

# CO MonitorsAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 145 of 202

Figure 4.2 Location Map for Carb on Monoxide Monitoring SitesAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 146 of 202

4.2 Nitrogen Dioxide

Many chemical species of nitrogen oxides (NO

x ) exist, but the air pollutant species of most interest from the point of view of human health is nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). Nitrogen dioxide is soluble in water, reddish-brown in color, and a strong oxidant.

Nitrogen dioxide is an important atmospheric trace gas, not only because of its health effects but also because (a) it absorbs visible solar radiation and contributes to impaired atmospheric visibility; (b) as an absorber of visible radiation it could have a potential direct role in global climate change if its concentrations were to become high enough; (c) it is, along with nitric oxide(NO), a chief regulator of the oxidizing capacity of the free troposphere by controlling the buildup and fate of radical species, including hydroxyl radicals; and (d) it plays a critical role in determining ozone (O 3 ) concentrations in the troposphere because the photolysis of nitrogen dioxide is the only key initiator of the photochemical formation of ozone, whether in polluted or unpolluted atmospheres.

Natural sources include intrusion of stratospheric nitrogen oxides, bacterial and volcanic action, and lightning. The major source of anthropogenic emissions of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere is the combustion of fossil fuels in stationary sources (heating, power generation) and in motor vehicles (internal combustion engines).

In most ambient situations, nitric oxide is emitted and transformed into nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere. Oxidation of nitric oxide by atmospheric oxidants such as ozone occurs rapidly, even at the low levels of reactants present in the atmosphere. Consequently, this reaction is

re garded as the most important route for nitrogen dioxide production in the atmosphere. Other contributions of nitrogen dioxide to the atmosphere come from specific non-combustion industrial processes, such as the manufacture of nitric acid, the use of explosives and welding. Indoor sources include tobacco smoking and the use of gas-fired appliances and oil stoves.

Nitrogen dioxide is the most widespread and commonly found nitrogen oxide and is a matter of public health concern. The most troubling health effects associated with short term exposures (i.e., less than 3 hours) to NO

x at or near the ambient NO

x concentrations seen in the United States include cough and increased changes in airway responsiveness and pulmonary function in individuals with preexisting respiratory illnesses, as well as increases in respiratory illnesses in children 5 to 12 years old. Evidence suggests that long-term exposures to NO

x may lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and may cause structural alterations in the lungs.

Atmospheric transformation of NO

x can lead to the formation of ozone and nitrogen-bearing particles (e.g., nitrates and nitric acid). As discussed in the ozone and particulate matter sections of this document, exposure to both PM and O 3 is associated with adverse health effects.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 147 of 202

Nitrogen oxides contribute to a wide range of effects on public welfare and the environment, including global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion. Deposition of nitrogen can lead to fertilization, eutrophication, or acidification of terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic (e.g., fresh water bodies, estuaries, and coastal water) systems. These effects can alter competition between existing species, leading to changes in the number and type of species (composition) within a community. For example, eutrophic conditions in aquatic systems can produce explosive algae growth leading to a depletion of oxygen in the water and/or an increase in levels of toxins harmful to fish and other aquatic life.

The level for both the primary and secondary NAAQS for NO 2 is 0.053 ppm annual arithmetic average (mean), not to be exceeded. This past January EPA revised the NAAQS to include an hourly standard of 0.100 ppm. Figure 4.3 shows the number of monitoring sites and NO 2 concentration trends over the years. The current ambient levels of NO 2 observed in New York State are well below the NAAQS.

Figure 4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide Monitors and Concentration Trends

In New York, the TEI Model 42C instruments are deployed for continuous NO 2 measurements using the gas phase chemiluminescence method. Currently there are four NO

x monitoring sites statewide, and NO/NO y monitors in Rochester, Pinnacle, and Queens College (both NO 2 and

NO y ) as shown in Figure 4.4. NO/NOy measurements are included within the NCore multipollutant site requirements and the PAMS program. These NO/NO y measurements will produce

conservative estimates for NO 2 that can be used to ensure tracking continued compliance with

the NO 2 NAAQS. NO/NO y monitors are used at these sites because it is important to collect data on total reactive nitrogen species for understanding O 3 photochemistry. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011Statewide Annual Average (PPB)#NO2 Monitors NO2 in NYS

- Monitors vs. Statewide Annual Average

# NO2 Monitors Statewide Annual AverageAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 148 of 202

The EPA considered setting a secondary standard for NO

x and SO

x that would specifically target the impact of acidic deposition on wilderness areas. The EPA ultimately decided that there was not enough information at this time to tie speci fic water quality thresholds with ambient air concentrations. In the July 2011 final rule for NO

x and SO

x , the EPA stated that they would set up a monitoring program in sensitive areas to coll ect information to link water quality impacts to ambient air quality measurements. The NYSDEC is participating in this pilot monitoring program in the Adirondacks. Additional monitoring equipment has been inst alled at several sites to determine the concentrations of gasses and pa rticles including ammonia. These data will be

used in the future to inform the next review of the NO

x /SO

x standard.

Figure 4.4 Location Map for Nitr ogen Oxides Monitoring Sites

Although ambient NO 2 levels are not expected to c ontravene the NAAQS, monitoring is necessary due to it being an ozone precursor, and to track the effectivene ss of emission reduction programs. Under the new NO

x rule that became effective January 22, 2010 each MSA with population larger than 500,000 will be required to operate a near-road monitor beginning in

2013. New York State will need to establish such a site in each of the following areas: AlbanySchenectady-Troy, Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NassauSuffolk, New York-White Plains, Rochester and Syracuse. One urban community wide monitorAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 149 of 202

will be located in each of the three MSAs with population greater than 1 million: New York, Buffalo and Rochester. Furthermore, the Regional Administrators at their discretion, have the authority to require 40 additional sites nationwide in communities where susceptible and vulnerable populations are located. On March 7, 2013, EPA issued a final rule to revise the deadlines by which the ne ar -road monitors within the NO 2 monitoring network are to be operational. States and local agencies will begin operating the near-road component of the NO 2 network in phases between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2017. This replaces the 2010 rule requirement that originally required all new NO 2 monitors to begin operating on January 1, 2013. New York is working closely with EPA Region 2 to implement this rule. We have identified possible sites in New York and Buffalo and anticipate operation by 2014. We are actively pursuing a suitable site location in Rochester.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 150 of 202

4.3 Lead

Elemental lead (Pb) possesses an array of useful physical and chemical properties, making it among the first metals to be extracted and used by humankind. It has a relatively low melting point (327.5 C), is a soft, malleable, and ductile metal, a poor electrical conductor, and is easily cast, rolled and extruded. Although sensitive to environmental acids, after exposure to environmental sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4 ), metallic Pb becomes impervious to corrosion due to weathering and submersion in water. This effect is due to the fact that Pb lead sulfate (PbSO 4 ), the relatively insoluble precipitate produced by reaction of Pb with H 2 SO 4 , forms a protective barrier against further chemical reactions. This aspect of its chemistry made Pb especially convenient for protective surface coatings (e.g. paint), roofing, containment of corrosive liquids, and (until the discovery of its adverse health effects), construction of water supply systems.

Pb will only exist in the vapor phase at or above 1750°C. Therefore, at ambient atmospheric temperatures, elemental Pb will deposit to surfaces or exist in the atmosphere as a component of atmospheric aerosol.

Exposure to lead occurs through ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust and through inhalation. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues. Lead can also adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause neurological impairments such as seizures, mental retardation, and/or behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, Pb exposure is associated with changes in fundamental enzymatic, energy transfer, and homeostatic mechanisms in the human body. Additionally, even low levels of Pb exposure may cause central nervous system damage in fetuses and children. Recent studies show that neurobehavioral changes may result from Pb exposure during the child‘s first years of life and that lead may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease.

Airborne lead can also have adverse impacts on the environment. Wild and domestic grazing animals may ingest lead that has deposited on plant or soil surfaces or that has been absorbed by plants through leaves or roots. Animals, however, do not appear to be more susceptible or more sensitive to adverse effects from lead than are humans. Therefore, the secondary standard for lead is identical to the primary standard.

In November of 2008 EPA published the final rule for the revision of the NAAQS for lead. The prima ry lead standard was revised to 0.15μg/m 3 in total suspended particles (Pb-TSP). The averaging time was changed to a rolling 3-month period with a maximum (not- to -be-exceeded) form, evaluated over a 3-year period. The revised secondary standard was set to be identical in all respects to the new primary standard. These new standards became effective on January 12, 2009, superseding the old standard of quarterly average concentration not to exceed 1.5μg/m 3

. As part of the lead monitoring requirements, monitoring agencies are required to monitor ambient air near lead sources which are expected to or have been shown to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month average lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. At a minimum, monitoring agencies must monitor near lead sources that emit 1.0 ton per year (tpy) or more. Monitoring is also required in each CBSA with a population equal to or greater than 500,000 people as determined by the latest available census figures. Revisions toAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 151 of 202

the monitoring requirements pertaining to where State and local monitoring agencies would be required to conduct lead monitoring were finalized and became effective January 26, 2011. The new regulations replaced the population oriented monitoring requirement with a requirement to

add Pb monitors to the urban NCore monitors. The EPA also lowered the emission threshold from 1.0 tpy to 0.50 tpy for industrial sources of lead (e.g., lead smelters and foundries). However, the emission threshold for airports was maintained at 1.0 tpy. In addition, an airport monitoring study will be implemented to determine the need for monitoring of airports which emit less than 1.0 tpy of lead. Under this new rule lead monitoring is required for a minimum of one year at 15 additional airports that have been identified as having characteristics that could lead to ambient lead concentrations approaching or exceeding the lead NAAQS. Brookhaven and Republic airports in Suffolk County, New York have been designated as such. A 12-month monitoring study at Brookhaven Airport concluded in October, 2012 and all data were submitted to AQS. The Republic Airport monitoring did not start until October, 2012 due to protracted site lease negotiations.

Particulate lead samples are collected on glass fiber filters using a standard TSP high volume sampler which are subsequently analyzed by the laboratory using atomic absorption spectroscopy. Under the new rule, EPA is allowing Pb- PM 10 in lieu of Pb-TSP where the

maximum 3- month arithmetic mean Pb concentration is expected to be less than 0.10μg/m 3 (i.e., two thirds of the NAAQS) and where sources are not expected to emit ultra-coarse Pb. The population oriented Pb monitors at the NCore or NATTS sites are located away from known

sources of Pb and will utilize Pb- PM 10 samplers.

Figure 4.5 depicts the number of monitoring sites and lead concentration trends for New York State over the years.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 152 of 202

Figure 4.5 Lead Monitors and Concentration Trends

Currently there are four Pb-TSP monitors (one collocated) in operation in Middletown, where a lead acid battery recycling facility is located, and two urban CBSA monitors (low volume PM 10 ) at the NATTS sites in the Bronx and Rochester. The source oriented monitoring sites (AQS site

ID # 36-071-3001

, 36-071-3002

, 36-071-3004) are in place as the facility has the potential to contribute to a 3-month average lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. Routine data review showed that during the first quarter of 2011, there were a couple of sample dates that showed high levels of lead, which would lead to contravention of the new standard. Investigations at the facility led to enforcement actions although specific caus es for the observed values were not discovered. Consequently an additional low volume PM 10 sampler was put in place to collect daily filter samples for mass measurement and lead analysis using XRF in August 2011. The PM 10 mass data collected at this site was low and mass determination was discontinued in November 2012. The highest 3 Month average PM 10 lead concentration at this

site was 0.021 μg Pb/m 3 which is well below the standard. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011Highest Quarterly Averageμg/m^3#Lead Monitors Lead in NYS

- Monitors vs. Highest Quarterly Average

# Lead Monitors Highest Quarterly AverageAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 153 of 202

4.4 Particulate Matter

4.4.1 Total Suspended Particulate

Particulate matter is the generic term for a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances that exist as discrete particles (liquid droplets or solids) over a wide range of sizes. Particles originate from a variety of anthropogenic stationary and mobile sources as well as natural sources. Particles may be emitted directly or formed in the atmosphere by transformations of gaseous emissions such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. The chemical and physical properties of PM vary greatly with time, location, meteorology, and source category, thus complicating the assessment of health and welfare

effects.

EPA first established national ambient air quality standards for PM in 1971. The reference method specified for determining attainment of the original standards was the high-volume sampler, which collects PM up to a nominal size of 25 to 45 micrometers (μm), referred to as total suspended particles or TSP. The primary standards (measured by the indicator TSP) were 260μg/m 3 24- hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per year, and 75μg/m 3 annual geometric mean. The secondary standard was 150μg/m 3 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per year. These standards were in place until 1987 when EPA changed the particle indicator from TSP to PM 10 , the latter referring to particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to10 μm.

Figure 4.6 shows the number of monitoring sites and the composite annual geometric means of TSP over the years. Trace metal analysis was also performed on the TSP filters until 1998. NYSDEC terminated the TSP sampling program when DOH could no longer provide laboratory analysis support.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 154 of 202

4.6 Total Suspended Particulate Monitors and Concentration Trends

4.4.2 PM 10

In 1987 EPA revised the 1971 standards in order to protect against adverse health effects of inhalable airborne particles that can be deposited in the lower (thoracic) regions of the human respiratory tract, with PM 10 as the indicator. EPA established identical primary and secondary

PM 10 standards for two averaging times: 150μg/m 3 (24-h average, with no more than one expected exceedance per year) and 50 μg/m 3 (expected annual arithmetic mean, averaged over three years). These standards remained in effect until 2002, when the courts finally upheld the 1997 revisions put forth by EPA as a result of the mandated periodic scientific review. After the most recent scientific review on PM, EPA issued the final rule in December, 2006 revising the

PM 2.5 standards, at the same time revoking the PM 10 annual standard while retaining the 24 hr standard at 150μg/m 3

.

Wedding & Associates PM 10 Critical Flow High Volume Sampler (WED PM 10 sampler) were employed for the NYSDEC network. The quartz filters were collected and submitted to the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005μg/m^3# of Moniotrs TSP in NYS

- # Monitors vs. Statewide Geometric Mean

# TSP Monitors Statewide Geo. Mean Air Quality StandardAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 155 of 202

Department of Health for laboratory analysis until 2005, when support services were terminated. Figure 4.7 shows the number of monitors and the composite annual arithmetic mean for PM 10

. Starting in 2004, the R&P Partisol 2025 samplers were used for manual PM 10 collection b y removing the PM 2.5 size selective inlet. The filter cartridges are submitted to RTI (EPA contract laboratory) for mass analysis.

Figure 4.7 PM 10 Monitors and Concentration Trends

Currently there are five such sites in operation, as shown in Figure 4.8. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Statewide Arithmetic Meanμg/m^3# PM10 Monitors PM10 in NYS

- # Monitors vs. Statewide Arithmetic Mean

# PM10 Monitors Statewide Arith. MeanAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 156 of 202

Figure 4.8 Location Map for PM 10 Monitoring Sites

Continuous PM 10 data are also obtained using Thermo Scientific 1405-DF instruments that simultaneously measure PM 2.5 , PM Coarse (PM 10 - PM 2.5 ) and PM 10 mass concentrations at the IS 52, Queens College, and Pi nnacle State Park sites.

4.4.3 PM 2.5

In July 1997, EPA Administrator promulgated significant revisions to the PM NAAQS, after taking into account scie ntific information and assessments presented by staff, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committ ee advice and recommendations, a nd public comments. While it was determined that the PM NAAQS should continue to focus on particles less than or equal to

10 μ m in diameter, it was also determined th at the fine and coarse fractions of PM 10 should be considered separately. New standards were added, using PM 2.5 as the indicator for fine particles;

and PM 10 standards were retained for the purpose of regulating coarse-fraction particles. Two

new PM 2.5 standards were set: an annual standard of 15 μ g/m 3 , based on the 3-year average of

annual arithmetic mean PM 2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors; and a 24- h standard of 65 μ g/m 3 , based on the 3-year averag e of the 98th percentile ofAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 157 of 202

24-h PM 2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area. To continue to address coarse-fraction particles, the annual PM 10 standard was retained, and the form, but not the level, of the 24-h PM 10 standard was revised to be based on the 99th percentile of 24-h PM 10 concentrations at each monitor in an area. The secondary standards were revised by making them identical in all respects to the PM 2.5 and PM 10 primary standards.

EP A lowered the NAAQS for PM in December of 2006 to provide increased protection of public health and welfare, respectively. EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard from 65 to 35 micrograms pe r cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) and retained the level of the annual PM 2.5 standard at 15 μg/m 3 . With regard to PM 10 , the 24-hour standard was retained, but the annual PM 10 standard was revoked. On Dec. 14, 2012 EPA further strengthened the nation‘s air quality sta ndards for fine particle pollution to by revising the primary annual PM 2.5 standard from 15 to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) and retaining the 24- hour fine particle standard of 35 μg/m 3

. The new standards became effective on March 18, 2013.

The NYSDEC PM 2.5 monitoring network deploys a combination of filter based Federal Reference Method (FRM) samplers, continuous mass monitors, filter based speciation samplers and continuous speciation samplers. The data from the FRM samplers are used to determine if the State‘s air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The continuous mass sampler data are used for the reporting of near real-time air quality data for health related warnings and forecasts. The speciation filter sampler data are used to determine the chemical constituents that make up PM 2.5 . The continuous speciation data are used to examine the short term fluctuations in the concentrations of individual species or components that make up PM 2.5

.

PM Monitoring Objectives

The principal objective of the PM 2.5 monitoring network is to determine the exposure of the State‘s population to ambient PM 2 5 . This objective is the primary focus of the FRM filter based samplers as well as for the continuous mass monitoring network. The protocols and equipment used for the FRM network are meticulously specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

to insure that the measurements are consistent from one State to another. The continuous mass monitoring instruments cannot accurately provide data for direct comparison with the NAAQS but these instruments actually provide the most useful data for population exposure. The

continuous PM 2.5 data is updated every hour for near real-time health related warnings, PM 2.5 forecasts and updates as to current pollution concentrations.

The NYSDEC has attempted to adjust the PM 2.5 network in light of EPA expectations, updated regulations and prioritized funding. The FRM network consisted of 40 sites when it was fully established using the original design criteria from 1998. Since then the number of sites have been reduced because fewer sites were required to determine compliance with the Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. The latest revisions to the Federal regulations have reduced the number of required monitors even further. These new requirements base the number of required monitors on population and the expected PM 2 5 concentration. The NYSDEC network exceeds theseAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 158 of 202

requirements in all areas that are expected to be near or above either the Annual or Daily PM 2.5
st andard.

The other monitoring objectives for the PM 2.5 network include transport and background monitoring. Transport monitoring sites are sites that are situated so that the data are representative of the air masses moving into the State from areas upwind. These sites are important because the sources of PM 2.5 that are outside of New York can contribute to New
York‘s PM 2.5 ambient concentration. Background monitoring sites are sites that are representative of PM 2.5 concentrations that are generally not related to specific sources but impact wide areas. The concentrations measured at these background sites generally represent the lowest expected PM 2.5 concentrations in New York State.

Monitoring Scale and Representativeness

The geography of New York State encompasses a lake shore to the west, plateaus and rolling hills in the center, mountains to the northeast and south and sea shores to the southeast. All of these areas have varying population densities and meteorology. The populations living in these areas are exposed to PM 2.5 that is generated locally as well as from PM 2.5 that is transported from areas outside of their region.

The actual design of the network is a compromise that minimizes the number of monitoring locations while ensuring that the measured concentrations for each area are indicative of actual population exposures. Each sampler is assigned a scale or ―zone of representativeness‖ when it is installed. The scale determines how large a geographical area the resulting data will represent. EPA has defined ambient monitoring scales as:

Microscale: Represents (10 - 100 meters) Middle Scale: Represents (100 - 500 meters) Neighborhood Scale: Represents (500 meters - 4 km) Urban Scale: Represents (4 - 100 km) Regional Scale: Represents (100 to 1000 km)

The scale of the FRM monitoring sites that have population exposure as their objective is Neighborhood or Urban. The definitions of scale primarily serve to identify the site‘s sensitivity to individual sources. A monitoring site that is routinely impacted by a specific source has a much smaller ―scale‖ than a site that only sees an effect from numerous widespread sources. The FRM sites in New York State are located in places that will likely have high concentrations and large monitoring scales. This ensures that the public is not exposed to higher ambient PM 2.5 concentrations than the concentrations from the FRM network reported for their area.

The PM 2.5 monitoring network works well for determining average ambient exposures for most

of the State‘s population. The limitations of the network stem from the inability to monitor in smaller scales such as Middle and Microscale. An example of an urban microscale influence not addressed by the network would be PM 2.5 emissions from traffic in a street canyon. Certainly if New York residents spent much of their time in this type of confined area, then their exposure toAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 159 of 202

ambient PM 2.5 would be considerably higher than that indicated by the closest neighborhood or urban scale monitor. Similarly, a person in a rural valley area subject to daily woodsmoke would also be exposed to higher PM 2.5 concentrations than those measured at the nearest Neighborhood

or Urban scale monitor.

The PM 2.5 ambient monitoring network is also not able to determine the po pulation‘s overall exposure to PM 2.5 . Personal habits such as smoking and occupations such as mining, farming and construction can lead to much higher exposures to PM 2.5 than that of the majority of the population. Other factors such as widely varying indoor PM 2.5 concentrations can lead to uncertainty in overall PM 2.5 exposures.

PM 2.5 Monitoring Instrumentation

The filter based FRM samplers used in New York are the Model 2025 sequential samplers made by the Thermo Environmental Company (Franklin, MA). The sampler has been designated by

EPA as a reference method instrument for PM 2.5 particle collection. The designation is: RFPS0498-118.

Currently there are 19 FRM monitors in operation statewide, as shown in Figure 4.9.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 160 of 202

Figure 4.9 Site Location Map of Manual PM 2.5 (FRM) Monitoring Network

Figure 4.10 below shows the number of manual PM 2.5 monitoring sites and the composite annual

arithmetic means in New York State si nce the network was implemented in 1998.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 161 of 202

Figure 4.10 PM 2.5 Monitors and Concentration Trends

The continuous mass monitoring instruments used in New York are the TEOM 1400ab also made by the Thermo Environmental Company. These instruments have received designation by

EPA for PM 10 but not for PM 2.5 . PM 2.5 is more difficult to measure than PM 10 with automated samplers because PM 2.5 contains a higher fraction of volatile components. The heated measurement sensor for the TEOM reduces the amount of volatile mass measured as compared to filter based FRMs. The NYSDEC utilizes non-linear data adjustments to make the TEOM data more comparable with the FRM data. The adjusted data are used for public reporting and

forecasts of PM 2.5 concentrations.

The NYSDEC uses seven MetOne SuperSass and URG 3000N samplers for the collection of samples for the speciation of PM 2.5 . The samplers collect 3 and 1 filter samples respectively every third day or sixth day for a period of 24 hours. The samples are then sent to an EPA contract laboratory for chemical analysis. There are over fifty species consisting of ions, metals and carbon species quantified by the analyses.

4.4.4 Continuous PM Monitoring

Continuous mass monitoring is performed primarily with a network of TEOM 1400ab instruments. In addition, there are three Thermo Scientific 1405- DF‘s deployed (IS 52, Queens College, and Pinnacle) to simultaneously measure PM 2 5 , PM Coarse (PM 10 - PM 2.5 ) and PM 10 mass concentrations. This element of the PM 2.5 monitoring network provides the data used for public reporting purposes including; the NYSDEC website, the AIRNow website and for PM 2.5 forecasting. The data from the TEOMs are polled and reported every hour to insure that the public has access to the most recent air quality information. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Statewide Arithmetic Meanμg/m^3# PM2.5 Monitors PM 2.5 in NYS

- # Monitors vs. Statewide Arithmetic Mean

# PM2.5 Monitors Statewide Arith. MeanAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 162 of 202

The TEOM data are compared to the filter base d FRM data on an annual basis. The comparison allows the analysts to create non-linear correction factors that modify the TEOM data to more closely resemble FRM data. This is necessary be cause FRM data is not available for near realtime public reporting purposes. EPA has recently r ecognized the value of these data adjustments and has created new method codes so this adjusted data can be submitted to the AQS database.

The NYSDEC now submits TEOM data from each site in its original unadjusted format as well as the adjusted data to matc h more closely with the FRM.

There are 26 continuous PM 2.5 monitoring sites as shown in Figure 4.11.

Figure 4.11 Site Location Map of Continuous PM 2.5 (TEOM) Monitoring Network

The NYSDEC also operates some of the newe st continuous mass monitors which have undergone Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) desi gnation. These instruments collect more of

the volatile PM mass that the filter based FRM may or may not retain depending on the environmental conditions during and after the peri od in which the filter sample was collected. The Department has been evaluatin g the technological improvements that have led to the current

PM 2.5 continuous FEMs for more than 10 years. The Thermo Scientific 1405-DF FEM performed better than the other instruments in on-site deployme nts at urban and rural locations in the state. The Department purchased several of these but they have not operated reliably andAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 163 of 202

have not produced data that compares acceptably with the FRM. The equipment manufacturer is aware of the issues and seems to be working towards resolutions of the problems. The Department will continue to rely on the FRM network to provide data for comparison with the

ambient PM 2.5 air quality standards. Currently there are three 1405- DF ‘s deployed (IS 52, Queens College, and Pinnacle) to simultaneously measure PM 2.5 , PM Coarse (PM 10 - PM 2.5 ) and

PM 10 mass concentrations. The Dep ar tment does not intend to use data collected by the FEMs for comparison to the NAAQS.

4.4.5 Speciation

Speciation monitoring is performed with a network of seven MetOne SuperSass samplers. There are eight sites in New York State operating with the Speciation Trends Network (CSN) sampling protocol. Five operate on a 1/3 day schedule and two operate on a 1/6 day schedule. All of these sites host collocated FRM and continuous mass monitoring instruments. A rural and an urban site also host collocated IMPROVE protocol samplers. The data from these sites is used to assist in the comparison between CSN and IMPROVE data sets. The goal of the urban installation will be to further relate the mostly rural IMPROVE network to the mostly urban CSN network.

In order to address inconsistencies in carbon sampling and analysis procedures used in urban CSN/SLAMS and rural IMPROVE programs, EPA determined that the URG sampler would be used at all CSN sites. The conversion was completed 2008 for all of the NY sites.

Figure 4.12 shows the seven CSN sites currently in operation.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 164 of 202

Figure 4.12 Location Map of Speciation Sampling Sites

4.4.6 Continuous Speciation

The NYSDEC recognizes the value of high tempor al measurements (hourly or higher) of PM 2.5 species. This data is useful for the examination of pollutant trends (and temporal patterns) and can provide information necessary for identificati on of pollutant sources. This is critically important for areas facing non-attainment for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Identifying seasonality of species is necessary to develop control strategies. Long term mon itoring is vital to this effort because in addition to changes in source emissions, variations in meteorology also affect ambient pollutant concentrations (e.g. wett er than average conditions lead to a washout of pollutants and a lowering of ambient concentrations).

The NYSDEC continuous speciation program is expanding and currently includes monitoring at

urban and rural locations. Sulf ate, nitrate, organic carbon, el emental carbon and black carbon species data are collected at hour ly or higher frequency. In this manner both the regional and inter-urban variability of these species are being investigated. The NYSDEC uses instruments toAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 165 of 202

examine the species of PM 2.5 on a higher frequency than what is available from the filter based speciation sampling network. This continuous speciation data is useful in the examination of source strengths and the relationship between pollutant concentrations and meteorology. The operation of continuous speciation equipment is also less expensive than long term filter species measurements due to the high costs associated with filter lab analysis. Operation of continuous speciation in conjunction with 24-hr CSN sampling is beneficial in accounting for biases in measurements when a change to the CSN method occurs. This is demonstrated in the case of CSN carbon which was changed to the IMPROVE method in 2007. Long term collocated

co ntinuous carbon measurements prior to and following this change are being used to assess the bias between the old and the new carbon methods. This data will be important in determining the long term trends in PM 2.5 carbon species.

NYSDEC has been using the continuous speciation data in NYC to examine temporal patterns such as diurnal and day of week patterns of aerosol species related to source strengths and meteorology. For example elemental carbon, black carbon and primary pollutant NO

x in NYC track throughout the day with peak concentrations in the morning coincident with the early commute period. Mobile emissions in the early morning occur into a shallow boundary layer which concentrates pollutants near ground level. An elevation in boundary layer height during the day leads to a dispersion of pollutants and a less pronounced afternoon/evening peak. Concentrations of these species are also higher on weekdays compared to weekends indicating that local mobile emissions are a significant source of these species. During winter months organic carbon sometimes shows similar patterns to EC and NO

x reflecting the primary organic component most likely from mobile emissions. Throughout the year however organic carbon does not track the primary pollutants but is more correlated with PM 2.5 mass (and sulfate during summer months) indicating that there is a significant regional or non-local contribution to organic carbon measured in NYC. Our continuous speciation measurements also reveal temporal patterns in particle nitrate. In cooler months PM 2.5 nitrate has a broader peak than EC which appears later in the morning, consistent with photochemical and secondary aerosol production. During the warm season nitrate concentrations are significantly lower and the late morning nitrate peak (observed in winter) is not observed in the warm season because as temperatures rise during the day aerosol nitrate reverts back to its precursors (nitric acid and ammonia).

Continuous data can also be used to capture the full extent of regional or local plumes that would normally be missed by the 24-hr filter sampling network. It allows us to study plume events and how meteorology can affect measurements. One can also differentiate between plumes which are short term of a few hours long (e.g. plumes from oil boiler emissions) likely driven by carbon versus those that are more regionally driven by sulfate in summer. High temporal pollutant data is also beneficial for public health effect studies that often require resolving confounding factors.

Recently concerns have been raised regarding potential adverse health effects associated withresidential wood burning. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter which can cause shortterm effects such as eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose and shortness of breath. Exposure to PM 2.5 also can affect lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma, allergies and heart disease. Long term exposure to fine PM mayAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 166 of 202

increase the risk from chronic bronchitis, reduce lung function and increase mortality from lung cancer and heart disease. In addition, wood smoke contains known human carcinogens including benzene, formaldehyde, dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

BAQS staff in collaboration with Clarkson University researchers were able to successfully characterize the ambient impact of residential wood combustion using dual wavelength (370 and 880 nm) aethalometer measurements in conjunction with filter measurements of levoglucosan and potassium, markers for wood smoke. The study, which was conducted from October 2009 to October 2010 in Rochester, showed that the wood smoke component of black carbon is most evident from October to March during the late evening hours on cold weekend nights.

Residential wood combustion was estimated to contribute 17% to the PM 2.5 mass during winter

at the Rochester study site.

4.4.7 Additional Monitoring Initiatives

The NYSDEC has been active in additional research and monitoring beyond the mandated Federal requirements. Some of this work has been collaborative with goals ranging from collecting data with the newest technologies, to providing support for health studies to evaluating new monitoring instruments. Other projects undertaken by the NYSDEC such as adding additional monitoring after the World Trade Center attack or monitoring before and after the cap was installed on the Fresh Kills landfill could not have been undertaken by other Agencies.

4.4.7.1 PM 2.5 Technology Assessment and Characterization Study-New York Supersite

The largest collaborative monitoring project undertaken by the NYSDEC and State University of New York ̳s Atmospheric Science Research Center (SUNYA -ASRC) was the Supersite program known as PMTACS. The 5 year monitoring initiative leveraged resources from EPA, NYSERDA and the NYS Environmental Bond Act to obtain detailed highly resolved pollutant measurements from NYC, Whiteface Mountain and an upwind rural site south-west of Corning, NY. This monitoring project also involved participants from the NYSDOH, Penn State University, Aerodyne Research Inc. and Clarkson University. The project‘s website lists many of the program details: http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/pmtacsny/index.html

Some of the instrument method development work initiated under this program has continued after the conclusion of the PMTACS program. This shared effort includes method development work on trace gas monitors, continuous organic carbon monitors, continuous particulate sulfate instruments, continuous particulate nitrate and ammonia instruments. All of these instruments will be needed as NYSDEC designs PM control strategies for non-attainment areas within New

York State.

The current research undertaken by this collaboration involves small particle and precursor gas

concentration measurements from rural and urban locations in NY State. NYSERDA has provided funds for this work which includes an intensive monitoring campaign over several weeks this summer in New York City. The past summer measurements in conjunction with some on-going measurements are being used to compare with data taken at an urban NYSDECAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 167 of 202

monitor and those from a mobile van traveling on nearby highways. These studies will help to determine the impacts of mobile sources at fixed neighborhood monitors.

4.4.7.2 Organic Carbon: Molecular Marker Characterization

The NYSDEC collaborated with Rutgers, Drexel, NESCAUM, NJDEP and CTDEP on a project called the Speciation of Organics for Apportionment of PM 2.5 in the New York City Area (SOAP). The field portion of the project was conducted from May 2002 to May 2003. It operated at four sites: Queens, NYC (high density urban residential); Elizabeth, NJ (adjacent to the NJ Turnpike); Westport, CT (downwind NYC); and a regional background site in Chester, NJ (upwind NYC). The study‘s chief objectives were to expand the chemical characterization of organic compounds and to estimate the source contributions of carbonaceous fine particles at urban and background monitoring sites.

This project continued at a site in NYC and a rural site in Addison, south-west of Corning, NY during 2005 to 2007. Sampling for this project has been completed. The data from this project will provide information about the significance of sources of organic carbon particulate in both urban and rural areas in New York. This type of information will be used to assess the potential viability of local and wide range PM 2.5 control strategies.

4.4.7.3 PM Coarse Monitoring

The NYSDEC is taking an active role in advance of an upcoming EPA directive to monitor for PM Coarse (PM 10 - PM 2.5 ). Filter based monitoring was initiated in NYC and in Niagara Falls to determine approximate concentrations of PM Coarse. This information was used to assess PM

Coarse elemental concentrations. The NYSDEC has also used this data to comment on the proposed PM Coarse standard and network design that were recently part of the draft CFR Parts 53 and 58. Filter based 1 day in 6 PM Coarse monitoring is also underway at the Rochester and IS52 NATTs sites and at the NCore site in Queens.

The NYSDEC has also supported the development of new automated near real-time PM instruments. The NYSDEC is evaluating the 1405-DF Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) PM Coarse instruments at 3 locations in New York State. Data from the filter based samplers already operating at the site will be used to evaluate the performance of these instruments. The benefit of this work for the NYSDEC is that if successful, the instruments can provide high frequency data

that can also be used for comparison to the PM 2.5 and PM 10 NAAQS.

4.4.8 Air Pollution and Environmental Conditions

4.4.8.1 NYC Micro-scale Street Canyon Monitoring The NYSDEC responded to a request by EPA to install 2 street level monitors in an urban area in NYC. The areas are known as canyons due to the tall buildings on either side of the street. The

PM 10 data collected at the one remaining site is used to evaluate the differences between data collected at very low elevations, close to high traffic roadways, and the monitors that are properly sited in the rest of the monitoring network.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 168 of 202

4.4.8.2 Rochester PM Center Clarkson, Univ. of Rochester Medical Center

The NYSDEC collaborates with researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Center and Clarkson University who have been awarded a second PM health research grant from EPA. Their work focuses on the pathways and effects from PM pollution on the cardiovascular system. The NYSDEC provides data and support for a fine particle classifying instrument at a monitoring location near the University of Rochester.

4.4.8.3 Air Pollution Microscopy

In addition to performing toxics and acid deposition laboratory analyses, BAQS Monitoring Support Section at the Rensselaer facility operates a variety of analytical microscopes for particle analysis. These instruments include: Smiths Detection Inc. IlluminatIR Fourier Transform microscope; JEOL 6490LV Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) with a Brucker Spirit Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) System. Together with optical microscopes, staff can provide data on size, morphology, elemental, chemical, and other physical properties of particulate samples of size down to 1 μm in diameter. The information obtained is valuable for the understanding of source origin and provides important input for apportionment analysis.

Ultra fine particles (<0.1 μm), primarily generated from combustion processes, including stationary fossil-fuel electric power generation, industrial processes, boilers, and gasoline and diesel engines, are an important component of PM 2.5 . Scientists are becoming increasingly more interested in these ultra fine or "Nano" size particles. Recently NYSDEC acquired a VEECO Nanoscope Multimode Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) for the analysis of these extremely small particles. With the addition of this new instrument, we are now able to look at particulate an order of magnitude smaller than what the Scanning Electron Microscope (300,000× mag vs. 3,000,000× mag) can provide. Whereas the SEM specializes in particles in the 2.5 micron range, the Nanoscope is currently analyzing particles in the 25-50 nanometer range. Particle size, surface texture and roughness are now available on such particles as diesel exhaust, wood smoke, and other products of combustion.

Recently NYSDEC acquired the Olympus LEXT Laser Confocal Microscope (LCM). It is designed to obtain images of ultrafine particles at ranges smaller than what can be seen with our Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and larger than what we can see with Atomic Force Microscope (AFM). It is the perfect fit between these two pieces of instrumentation and will

comp lement both the AFM and SEM. Each method can ―see‖ in the size range that the other cannot. The LCM works on particles between 500 nm and 200 microns, so it works in between

the two.

The intended use of this instrument will provide information:

• on the use of alternative fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol, as well as their use with different emission after-treatment strategies. Little to no information is currently available on the effect of such fuels on particle morphology.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 169 of 202

• to refine our methodologies for acquiring filter samples for microscopic examination and in performing these examinations. Future samples could potentially be taken both from direct mobile source emissions and also from ambient samplers deployed in the monitoring network.

• to re- ev aluate our earlier ultrafine particle measurements. For example, earlier results suggest the presence of a secondary small particle mode in biodiesel emissions (smaller particles pose greater risks of health effects). Microscopic examination could provid e evidence to either support or dismiss this finding.

4.4.8.4 Ultrafine Particulate Monitoring

NYSDEC first began ultrafine particulate monitoring with the deployment of a TSI Model 3031 Ultrafine Particle Monitor (UPM) at Queens College in June of 2009. This instrument provides continuous measurements of size distribution and particle number concentrations of fine particles below1 micron, in the range from to 20 to 500 nanometers. The Queens College NCore site was selected for the UPM so as to complement a suite of parameters already being measured there. Concurrently a demo UPM unit on loan for one year from the manufacturer was installed at the Eisenhower Park location in Nassau County, which is expected to have a significant impact from mobile sources. Preliminary data suggest that the ultrafine particles are to a large extent regional in nature and less impacted by local mobile sources. The particle counts and size distributions for the two sites are similar, and also track the PM 2.5 profile in some cases. It is possible that the mobile signal is damped out due to the siting of the monitor, as the inlet probe height may not be optimal and there may be interference from nearby trees. In addition, a resource recovery facility located about 1⁄4 mile west of the site, as well as other local sources (wood-fired pizza ovens, etc.) may influence the measurements. Alternate explanations may be that mobile ultrafine emissions are predominantly smaller than the 20 nanometer cut-off point or affect the measurements only on a short time scale. Data on particle size distribution and concentration will provide valuable information for the understanding of PM 2.5 formation mechanisms, as well as source apportionment determination.

It appears worthwhile to conduct short duration intensive studies in the future that simultaneously employ a suite of particle counting instruments including the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS), Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS), Condensation Particle Counter (CPC), and our UPM to further evaluate the mobile component. The new NO

x rule requiring the establishment of near-roadway monitors in populated areas starting in 2013 (see NO 2 Section ) will afford an opportunity to collocate UPMs to further investigate the mobile contribution to the overall ultrafine concentration. The recent establishment of initial regulations intended to address ultrafine particle emissions from mobile sources (LEV-3 in California, Euro V-VII in the EU) is an early indicator of more extensive regulation of ultrafine particle emissions from mobile sources expected in the future, and suggests the potential emergence of regulations for ambient ultrafine particles as well.

In our Air Pollution Microscopy laboratory, three particle characterization techniques (Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy, and Atomic Force Microscopy) are used to investigate the morphology of real world ultrafine particles, such as those fromAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 170 of 202

mobile source emissions and other industrial sources. As an example, the changes in ultrafine particle morphology resulting from the use of two strategies for reducing diesel emissions, i.e.,

exhaust after-treatment and the use of alternative diesel fuels were studied. These activities complement the ambient monitoring data in understanding the formation, distribution and transport of ultrafine particulate.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 171 of 202

4.5 Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), a colorless, reactive gas, is produced during the burning of sulfurcontaining fuels such as coal and oil, during metal smelting, and by other industrial processes. It belongs to a family of gases called sulfur oxides (SO

x ). Major sources include power plants, industrial boilers, petroleum refineries, smelters, iron and steel mills. Generally, the highest concentrations of sulfur dioxide are found near large fuel combustion sources.

High concentrations of SO 2 can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. Short-term exposures of asthmatic individuals to elevated

SO 2 levels while at moderate exertion may result in reduced lung function that may be accompanied by symptoms such as wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath. Other effects that have been associated with longer-term exposures to high concentrations of SO 2 , in conjunction with high levels of PM, include respiratory illness, alterations in the lungs‘ defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. The subgroups of the population that may be affected under these conditions include individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease, as well as children and the elderly.

Additionally, there are a variety of environmental concerns associated with high concentrations

of SO 2 . Because SO 2 , along with NO

x , is a major precursor to acidic deposition (acid rain), it contributes to the acidification of soils, lakes, and streams and the associated adverse impacts on ecosystems. Sulfur dioxide exposure to vegetation can increase foliar injury, decrease plant growth and yield, and decrease the number and variety of plant species in a given community. Sulfur dioxide also is a major precursor to PM 2.5 (aerosols), which is of significant concern to human health, as well as a main pollutant that impairs visibility. Finally, SO 2 can accelerate the corrosion of natural and man-made materials (e.g., concrete and limestone) that are used in buildings and monuments, as well as paper, iron-containing metals, zinc, and other protective coatings.

Figure 4.13 shows the number of SO 2 monitors and the composite annual means in New York State over the years.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 172 of 202

Figure 4.13 Sulfur Dioxide Monito rs and Concentration Trends

Based on its most review of the air quality criteria fo r oxides of sulfur and the primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for oxides of sulfur as measured by sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), EPA replaced the existing 24-hour and annual standa rds with a new short-term standard based on the 3-year average of the 99 th percentile of the yearly distri bution of 1-hour daily maximum SO 2 concentrations. EPA set the level of this new standard at 75 ppb, which became effective August 23, 2010. EPA is also establishing requirements for an SO 2 monitoring network. These new provisions require monitors in areas where there is an increa sed coincidence of population and

SO 2 emissions. In order to do this, EPA deve loped a Population Weighted Emissions Index (PWEI) that uses population and em issions inventory data at the CBSA level to assign required monitoring for a given CBSA (with population and emissions being obvious relevant factors in prioritizing numbers of required monitors). The PWEI for a particular CBSA was proposed to be calculated by multiplying the population (using the latest Census Bureau estimates) of a CBSA by the total amount of SO 2 emissions in that CBSA. The CBSA SO 2 emission value would be in tons per year, and calculated by aggregating th e county level emissions for each county in a CBSA. The PWEI values are being develope d using the 2010 Census numbers. The final network design requires that any SO 2 monitors required in a particular CBSA as determined based on PWEI values shall satisfy the minimum monitoring requirements if they are sited at locations where they can meet any one or more of the monitoring objec tives: Source-Oriented Monitoring, Highest Concentration, Populati on Exposure, General Background, and Regional Transport. EPA is expected to provide additi onal guidance for the implem entation of this rule.

There are 19 SO 2 monitors in operation currently, as shown in Figure 4.14. TEI Model 43C instruments using the pulsed fluoresce nce method are deployed in the network. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011Statewide Annual Average (PPB)#SO2 Monitors SO 2 in NYS - Monitors vs. Statewide Annual Average

# SO2 Monitors Statewide Annual AverageAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 173 of 202

The EPA considered setting a secondary standard for NO

x and SO

x that would specifically target the impact of acidic deposition on wilderness areas. The EPA ultimately decided that there was not enough information at this time to tie speci fic water quality thresholds with ambient air concentrations. In the July 2011 final rule for NO

x and SO

x , the EPA stated that they would set up a monitoring program in sensitive areas to coll ect information to link water quality impacts to ambient air quality measurements. The NYSDEC is participating in this pilot monitoring program in the Adirondacks. Additional monitoring equipment has been inst alled at several sites to determine the concentrations of gasses and pa rticles including ammonia. These data will be

used in the future to inform the next review of the NO

x /SO

x standard.

Figure 4.14 Location Map for Sulfu r Dioxide Monitoring SitesAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 174 of 202

4.6 Ozone

Ozone is a molecule made up of three oxygen atoms (O 3 ), a very reactive gas, and even at low concentrations it is irritating and toxic. It occurs naturally in small amounts in the earth's upper atmosphere, and in the air of the lower atmosphere after a lightning storm. In the stratosphere, between 10km and 50km above the earth‘s surface it forms the Ozone Layer. This is an important protective layer which filters out most of the high energy ultra-violet radiation from the sun which would damage much of the life on earth. When ozone is present at ground level and in the troposphere (10- 18 km above earth‘s surface) it is considered a pollutant and a greenhouse gas. Ozone is used both industrially and commercially due mainly to its reactivity. It is used as a clean way of purifying water both in industry and in the home in hot-tubs and fish tanks. It is also used to disinfect laundry both in hospitals and in the home.

Ground-level O 3 remains a pervasive pollution problem in the United States. Ozone is readily formed in the atmosphere by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NO

x in the presence of heat and sunlight, which are most abundant in the summer. VOCs are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial products, other industries, and natural (biogenic) sources. Nitrogen oxides (a precursor to ozone) are emitted from motor vehicles, power plants, and other sources of combustion, as well as natural sources including lightning and biological processes in soil. Changing weather patterns contribute to yearly differences in O 3 concentrations. Ozone and the precursor pollutants that cause O 3 also can be transported into an area from pollution sources located hundreds of miles upwind.

Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere and provides a protective layer high above the earth. However, at ground level, it is the prime ingredient of smog. Short-term (1- to 3-hour) and prolonged (6- to 8-hour) exposures to ambient O 3 concentrations have been linked to a number of health effects of concern. For example, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory causes have been associated with ambient O 3 exposures.

Exposures to O 3 result in lung inflammation, aggravate preexisting respiratory diseases such as asthma, and may make people more susceptible to respiratory infection. Other health effects attributed to short-term and prolonged exposures to O 3 , generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, include significant decreases in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms such as chest pain and cough. Children active outdoors during the summer

when O 3 levels are at their highest are most at risk of experiencing such effects. Other at-risk groups include adults who are active outdoors, such as outdoor workers, and individuals with preexisting respiratory disorders such as asthma and chronic obstructive lung disease. Within each of these groups are individuals who are unusually sensitive to O 3 . In addition, repeated long-term exposure to O 3 presents the possibility of irreversible changes in the lungs, which could lead to premature aging of the lungs and/or chronic respiratory illnesses. Ozone also affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems. Specifically, O 3 can lead to reductions in agricultural and commercial forest yields, reduced survivability of sensitive tree seedlings, and increased plant susceptibility to disease, pests, and other environmental stresses such as harsh weather. In long-lived species, these effects may become evident only after several years or evenAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 175 of 202

decades. As these species are out-competed by others, long-term effects on forest ecosystems and habitat quality for wildlife and endangered species become evident. Furthermore, O 3 injury to the foliage of trees and other plants can decrease the aesthetic value of ornamental species as well as the natural beauty of our national parks and recreation areas.

EPA initially established primary and secondary NAAQS for photochemical oxidants on April 30, 1971. Both primary and secondary standards were set at an hourly average of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), total photochemical oxidants, not to be exceeded more than one hour per year.

On February 8, 1979, EPA completed its first periodic review of the criteria and standards for O 3 and other photochemical oxidants and made significant revisions to the original standard: the level of the primary and secondary NAAQS was changed to 0.12 ppm; the indicator was changed

to O 3 ; and the form of the standards was changed to be based on the expected number of days per calendar year with a maximum hourly average concentration above 0.12 ppm (i.e., attainment of the standard occurs when that number is equal to or less than one).

In July, 1997 EPA revised the primary and secondary O 3 standards on the basis of the then latest scientific evidence linking exposures to ambient O 3 to adverse health and welfare effects at levels allowed by the 1-hr average standards. The O 3 standards were revised by replacing the existing primary 1-hr average standard with an 8-hr average O 3 standard set at a level of 0.08 ppm. The form of the primary standard was changed to the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average concentration, averaged over three years. The secondary O 3 standard was changed by making it identical in all respects to the revised primary standard. These standards were challenged in the courts and the litigation lasted until March, 2002 when the D.C. Circuit Court issued its final decision, finding the 1997 O 3 NAAQS to be ―neither arbitrary nor capricious,‖ and denying the remaining petitions for review. As of June 15, 2005 EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the fourteen 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas (none in NY).

After the most recent review of the ozone NAAQS, EPA revised the 8 hr ozone standard (primary and secondary) to 0.075 ppm, which went into effect on May 27, 2008, at which time

the 1-hr standard was revoked.

The number of ozone monitors and concentration trends for both the 1 hr, and 8 hr standards in New York State for the past three decades are shown in Figures 4.15 and 4.16, respectively.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 176 of 202

Figure 4.15 Ozone Monitors and 1 hr Concentration Trends

Figure 4.16 Ozone Monitors and 8 hr Concentration Trends 0.060 0.090 0.120 0.150 0.180

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011Statewide Average of 2nd Highest 1 hourPPM#O3 Monitors O3 in NYS

- Monitors vs. Statewide Average of 2nd Highest

1 hour

# O3 Monitors Statewide average of 2nd Highest 1 hr

0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011Statewide Average 4th Highest 8 hrPPM#O3 Monitors O3 in NYS

- Monitors vs. Statewide Average 4th Highest 8 hr

# O3 Monitors Statewide Average 4th Highest 8 hrAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 177 of 202

At present NYSDEC operates 29 TEI Model 49C ozone monitors statewide, which use the UV photometric method for detection. The site lo cations are depicted in Figure 4.17 below.

Figure 4.17 Location Map fo r Ozone Monitoring SitesAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 178 of 202

5. EPA’s National Toxics Program

In general, EPA plans to use ambient air toxics monitoring to support the air toxics program‘s efforts to reduce human exposure and health risks from air toxics. The monitoring data provided by the ambient air toxics monitoring program is intended to support four major objectives:

• Establish trends and evaluate the effectiveness of air toxics emissions reduction strategies.

• Characterize ambient concentrations (and deposition) in local areas. Air toxics originate from local sources and can concentrate in relatively small geographical areas, producing the greatest risks to human health.

• Provide data to support, evaluate, and improve air quality models. Air quality models are used to develop emission control strategies, perform exposure assessments, and assess program effectiveness.

• Provide data to support scientific studies to better understand the relationship between ambient air toxics concentrations, human exposure, and health effects from these

exposures.

EPA‘s national air toxics monitoring program is comprised of four different monitoring efforts:

• National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS)

• EPA funded local-scale projects to assess conditions at the local level

• Existing State and local program monitoring

• Persistent bio-accumulative toxics monitoring

The objective for the NATTS network is to provide long-term monitoring data for certain priority air toxics across representative areas of the country in order to establish overall trends for these pollutants. Currently there are 23 NATTS established in 22 cities. The two New York NATTS sites are located in the Bronx, and Rochester, respectively.

EPA‘s initial ambient air toxics monitoring pilot studies disclosed that significant variations in pollutant concentrations occurred across a city and that these variations cannot be characterized by a single monitoring site. As a result, EPA decided that local-scale projects consisting of several monitors operated for a period of 1 to 2 years should be incorporated into the national air toxics monitoring strategy. In 2006 New York was awarded a grant for a community air quality air study in Tonawanda which began in July 2007. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and fine particulate matter are measured at 4 locations in the Tonawanda community to address citizen concerns. The field sampling portion of this study was completed in July, 2008.

New York State has been operating a toxics monitoring network since 1990, funded entirely by State monies. Currently there are 11 sites statewide collecting 24 hr canister samples for VOC analysis in a 1 in 6 days interval. See section on NY Toxics Monitoring Network The monitoring program for persistent bio-accumulative toxics primarily consists of deposition monitoring, not ambient air monitoring. Several monitoring programs operated by various Federal agencies have been established to measure the presence of toxics in various media. InAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 179 of 202

2010 New York completed an EPA funded community grant study titled ―New York State

Ambien t Mercury Baseline Study‖ for the measurement of speciated mercury in ambient air, as well as mercury in wet deposition. Instruments at the two study sites are still operating with other funding sources and additional funding is being sought to continue this important monitoring.

In addition to air toxic-specific monitoring activities, several other monitoring programs that are primarily intended to address other air pollution concerns incorporate some aspects of air toxics monitoring. For example, the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) collect data on certain volatile organic compound and carbonyl air toxics. Further, the results of some particulate matter monitoring is speciated (i.e., the individual compounds comprising the particulate matter are analyzed) to identify certain air toxics compounds.

5.1 National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS)

EPA‘s Urban Air Toxics Program identified 33 high -priority urban air toxics. From these 33 air toxics EPA developed a list of 19 ―core‖ air tox ics representing the pollutants for which EPA eventually wants to develop trends information. However, because of limitations in available methodologies, EPA decided that at a minimum, in starting the network, each of the NATTS should monitor for at least 6 of these 19 pollutants. These six pollutants are considered national air toxics ―drivers‖ (i.e., pollutants of concern in all areas of the country).

Table 5.1 NATTS Pollutants of Concern

Required Monitoring Desired Monitoring

1,3

- butadiene trichlo roethylene

acrolein tetrachloroethylene

arsenic beryllium
formaldehyde nickel

benzene cadmium

hexavalent chromium acetaldehyde

1,2

- dichloropropene

carbon tetrachloride

lead

chloroform

manganese methylene chloride
vinyl ch loride

For the two NATTS sites, New York will perform analysis of 42 VOCs (Table 5.2), and 12 carbonyls (Table 5.6). More details on the sampling and analysis are provided in the NY Toxics Monitoring, and Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations sections, respectively. In addition, low volume PM 10 teflon filters are collected for trace metals analysis using ICP-MS.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 180 of 202

The targeted metals include: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, nickel, antimony, cobalt, and selenium, with the last three being potential future HAPs. Hexavalent chromium sampling commenced in November 2007 at the Rochester and Bronx sites. The cellulose filter samples are shipped to EPA/ERG for laboratory analysis.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) sampling at the Rochester and IS 52 sites began in July, 2008. The collection media consists of one 110 mm diameter glass microfiber filter and a tubular glass cartridge containing a combination of Polyurethane Foam (PUF) and XAD-2 resin. The exposed samples are shipped to an EPA contract laboratory (ERG) for analysis.

Due to roof construction work at IS 52, sampling for NATTS parameters was temporarily moved to the Morrisania site, 1.7 miles NW of the original location beginning in mid June, 2010. The relocation interrupted some sample collection. The EPA was notified of the temporary relocation prior to the move and the data will be submitted using the AQS code for the Morrisania site: 36-005-0080. It is anticipated that the construction work at IS 52 will be completed by summer, 2012, at which time the site will be re-established.

5.2 NY Toxics Monitoring Network

The NY ambient air toxics monitoring program was first established in 1985 as part of the Governor's Air Monitoring Modernization Capital Budget Program. This monitoring network measures Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) across the State. The initial development of the network and analytical capabilities was part of a joint Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project (SI/NJ Study) coordinated with U.S. EPA Region II from 1987 through 1989. The network expanded in 1990 to a statewide network.

The goal is to monitor air quality related to toxics in the State's urban, industrial, residential, and rural areas. Implementation of this program starts the development of a long-term toxics air quality database for New York State. The database will be used to define, attain, and preserve good air quality in New York State. The data defines actual air quality impacts of the VOCs. The data is used in the design and management of New York's air quality, including risk assessment, modeling, planning and trend analysis.

Initially only seventeen VOCs were monitored until 1995, when the number of analytes was increased to nineteen. In 2002 the list of VOCs was expanded to include 42 compounds as shown

in Table 5.2 below: Table 5.2 Target List of Volatile Organic Compounds

CHEMICAL CAS # Methylene Chloride 75

- 09

- 2

Chloroform 67

- 66

- 3 1,2 Dichloroethane 107

- 06

- 2 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 71

- 55

- 6

Carbon Tetrachloride 56

- 23

- 5Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 181 of 202

CHEMICAL CAS # Trichloroethylene 79

- 01

- 6 1,1,2 Trichloroethane 79

- 00

- 5 Tetrachloroethylene 127

- 18

- 4

Acrolein 107

- 02

- 8

Benzene 71

- 43

- 2

Toluene 108

- 88

- 3 Ethylbenzene 100

- 41

- 4
M,P

- Xylene 1330

- 20

- 7

O

- Xylene 95

- 47

- 6

Chlorobenzene 108

- 90

- 7 1,2 Dichlorobenzene 95

- 50

- 1 1,3 Dichlorobenzene 541

- 73

- 1 1,4 Dichlorobenzene 106

- 46

- 7 Vinyl Chloride 75

- 01

- 4 1,2 Dichloropropane 78

- 87

- 5 1,2,4

- Trimethylbenzene 95

- 63

- 6 1,3,5

- Trimethylbenzene 108

- 67

- 8 1,1

- Dichloroethylene 75

- 35

- 4

Hexachl oro

- 1,3

- Butadiene 87

- 68

- 3 1,1

- Dichloroethane 75

- 34

- 3

Chloromethane 74

- 87

- 3

Chloroethane 75

- 00

- 3 cis1,2

- Dichloroethylene 156

- 59

- 2 cis 1,3

- Dichloropropene 542

- 75

- 6 trans 1,3

- Dichloropropene 542

- 75

- 6

Dichlorodifluoromethane 75

- 71

- 8

Trichlorofluoro methane 75

- 69

- 4

Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76

- 13

- 1

Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76

- 14

- 2 1,2

- Dibromoethane 106

- 93

- 4

A

- chlorotoluene (Benzylchloride) 100

- 44

- 7

1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 79

- 34

- 5

Bromomethane 74

- 83

- 9 Styrene 100

- 42

- 5

Bromodichlorometha ne 75

- 27

- 4 1,3 Butadiene 106

- 99

- 0 Methyl Tert Butyl Ether 1634

- 04

- 4 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene 120

- 82

- 1

Volatile organic compounds are collected in stainless steel canisters contained in a sampler known as an ambient air canister sampler. The sampler is an air flow calibrated sampling device that pumps ambient air into the canister. A special stainless steel diaphragm pump provides a constant pressure to push the sample through the sampler. A relief valve is used to maintain aAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 182 of 202

steady pressure for the sample flow controller. Samples are collected at a one in six days frequency and shipped back to the Rensselaer laboratory facility for analysis.

The analysis methodology is a modified version of EPA method TO-15. An aliquot of air sample is taken from the canister at a controlled flow and temperature onto an Entech Model 7100A preconcentrator. The preconcentration process involves a series of steps. The first trap consists of glass beads/Tenax held at -110 C which is then heated to room temperature in order to remove water/moisture in the sample. The next trap in line consists of Tenax held at - 30 C. The contaminants of interest are then desorbed at 150 C and collected on the cryofocuser held at -150 C. The sample is then rapidly heated for column injection using a Varian GC coupled with a Saturn MS detection. This method of analysis allows positive identification by retention time and

molecular mass.

Concentration trends charts for some ubiquitous VOCs are provided below.

Note that for 2011, the values shown for IS 52 actually represent those from the site at Morrisania, as all monitoring at IS 52 was relocated to Morrisania in July of 2010 due to roof construction work. In August, 2012 all equipment for NATTS was relocated back to IS 52. The values presented for 2012 represent a composite of the two locations.

Figure 5.1 Annual Averages for Benzene 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500ppbv

Site Benzene Annual Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Guideline Concentration =Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 183 of 202

Figure 5.2 Annual Averages for Toluene

Figure 5.3 Annual Averages for m,p-Xylene 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000ppbv

Site Toluene Annual Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Guideline Concentration = 1326

0.000 0.500 1.000ppbv

Site m,p
- Xylene Annual Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Guideline Concentration = 7.7Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 184 of 202

Figure 5.4 Annual Averages for o-Xylene

Figure 5.5 Annual Averages for 1,3-Butadiene 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500ppbv

Site o
- Xylene Annual Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Guideline Concentration =

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3ppbv

Site 1,3

- Butadiene Annual Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Guideline Concentration =Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 185 of 202

Figure 5.6 Annual Averages for Dichloromethane

Figure 5.7 Annual Averages for Chloroform 0.000 0 500 1.000ppbv

Site

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) Annual Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Guideline Concentration =

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100ppbv Chloroform Annual Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Guideline Concentration =Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 186 of 202

Figure 5.8 Annual Averages for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

Figure 5.9 Annual Averages for Formaldehyde † 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300ppbv 1,4

- Dichlorobenzene Annual Averages

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Guideline Concentration =

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000ppbv Formaldehyde Annual Averages

2009

2010

2011

2012 AGC = 0.049 ppbAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 187 of 202

Figure 5.10 Annual Aver ages for Acetaldehyde †

†Note that the toxics monitori ng operation at IS 52 was temporar ily moved to the Morrisania II

site in mid June 2010 due to extensive constr uction work. In late July 2012, work was completed and monitoring resumed at IS 52. The values shown for 2010 and 2012 represent partial year average only.

Currently there are 11 toxics monitoring sites in operation for the measurement of VOCs, and 8 sites for carbonyls statewide. These lo cations are shown in Figure 5.11 below. 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400ppbv Acetaldehyde Annual Averages

2009

2010

2011

2012 AGC = 0.25 ppbAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 188 of 202

Figure 5.11 Location Map of Toxics Monitoring SitesAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 189 of 202

5.3 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)

The 1993 revisions to 40 CFR Part 58 provide for the establishment and maintenance of network of air monitoring stations called Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) which will supplement the existing State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) network. The selection of parameters to be measured at a PAMS si te varies with the site‘s ozone nonattainment designation and whether a site is upwind or downwind from O 3 precursor source areas. These parameters are O 3 , total oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ), nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), speciated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and specific meteorological measurements.

The purpose of the PAMS program is to provide an air quality database that will assist in evaluating and modifying control strategies for attaining the O 3 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). PAMS data will also be used to better characterize the nature and extent of

the O 3 problem, track VOC and NO

x emission inventory reductions, assess air quality trends and

determine whether areas of New York remain in nonattainment of the O 3 NAAQS.

NYSDEC is required to operate and maintain two sites for metropolitan New York. The New York Botanical Gardens PAMS site (located in Northern Bronx) has been operational since 1994. The Queensborough Community College PAMS station (located in Queens) began monitoring of some species in late 1997. The Queens site was fully operational for the 1998 ozone monitoring season. This site moved to Queens College in the spring of 2001 as the QBCC building was undergoing a major renovation and the equipment had to be removed from the site. The Table 5.3 lists the chronology of monitoring at these sites.

Table 5.3 Information on PAMS Sites

Site Name Parameters Implementation Date

New York Botanical Garden NOx Jun

- 94

CO Jun

- 94

O 3 Jun

- 94

VOCs Jun

- 94 Carbonyls Jun

- 94

NMOC Jun

- 99 Meteorology Jun

- 94

NMOC Sep

- 99 Queens Community College

closed 12/2001 NOx May

- 98

CO May

- 98

O 3 May

- 98

SO 2 May

- 98

VOCs Jun

- 98 Carbonyls Sep

- 97

NMOC Aug

- 98 Queens College NOx Jun

- 01

CO Jun

- 01Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 190 of 202

Site Name Parameters Implementation Date

O 3 Jun

- 01

SO 2 Jun

- 01 Carbonyls Jun

- 01

NMOC Jun

- 01

For gaseous parameters, Table 5.4 lists the sampling instruments and analysis methods.

Table 5.4 Instrumentation for Gaseous Pollutants

Parameter Instrument Analysis Method Frequency

NO TECO 42C Chemil uminescent Continuous

NO 2 TECO 42C Chemiluminescent Continuous

NO

x TECO 42C Chemiluminescent Continuous

O 3 TECO 49C Ultraviolet Continuous

CO TECO 48C Infrared Continuous

The following applies to meteorological measurements.

Table 5.5 Equipment for Meteorological Measurements

Parameter Instrument or

Sampling Method Frequency

Wind Speed SONIC Continuous

Wind Direction SONIC Continuous
Temperature Thermistor Continuous
Relative Humidity Hydroscopic Capacitor Continuous

Barometric Pressure Piezoresistive Sensor Continuous

Carbonyls are sampled using DNPH cartridges and analyzed with HPLC according to EPA Method TO-11a. The target compound list is provided in Table 5.6 below.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 191 of 202

Table 5.6 Target Compound List for Carbonyl Sampling

Compoun d AIRS Code
acetaldehyde 43503

acetone 43551

acrolein 43505
benzaldehyde 45501
crotonaldehyde 43516
formaldehyde 43502

hexanal 43511

methacrolein 43515

m

- tolualdehyde 45504

n

- butyraldehyde 43510
propionaldehyde 43504
valeraldehyde 43518

Volatile organic compounds are monitored using Summa canisters samples followed by laboratory GCMS analysis as well as by an on-site realtime GC. The methods and sampling frequencies are provided in Table 5.7 below.

Table 5.7 VOC Methods and Sampling Frequencies

Sampling Method Analytical Method Frequency

Method TO

- 14a GC/FID Hourly

TO

- 15 (24

- hr) GC/MS Every 6 day

TO

- 15 (40 min) GC/MS Once a week

The targeted compounds are listed below:

Table 5.8 PAMS Target Compounds List

Compound AIRS #

ethen e 43203
acetylene 43206

ethane 43202

propene 43205

propane 43204Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 192 of 202

Compound AIRS #

isobutane 43214

1

- butene 43280

n

- butane 43212

trans

- 2

- butene 43216

cis

- 2

- butene 43217

3

- methyl

- 1

- butene dropped 1995 43282
isopen tane 43221

1

- pentene 43224

n

- pentane 43220
isoprene 43220

trans

- 2

- pentene 43226

cis

- 2

- pentene 43227

2

- methyl

- 2

- butene dropped 1995 43227

2,2

- dimethylbutane 43227
cyclopentane 43242

4

- methyl

- 1

- pentene dropped 1995 432 34
cyclopentene dropped 1995 43283

2

- ,3

- dimethylbutane 43284

2

- methylpentane 43285

3

- methylpentane 43230

2

- methyl

- 1

- pentene dropped 1997 43246

n

- hexane 43231

trans

- 2

- hexene dropped 1995 43289

cis

- 2

- hexen e dropped 1995 43290

n

- hexene added 1997 43245
methylcyclopentane 43262

2,4

- dimethylpentane 43247

benzene 45201
cyclohexane 43248

2

- methylhexane 43263

2,3

- dimethylpentane 43291

3

- methylhexane 4324 9

2,2,4

- trimethylpentane 43250

n

- heptane 43232
methylcyclohexane 43261Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 193 of 202

Compound AIRS #

2,3,4

- trimethylpentane 43252

toluene 45202

2

- methylheptane 43960

3

- methylheptane 43253

n

- octane 43233
ethylbenzene 45203

p/m

- xylene 45109

styrene 45220

o

- xylene 45204

nonane 43235
isopropylbenzene 45210

n

- propylbenzene 45209

m

- ethyltoluene added 1995 45212

p

- ethyltoluene added 1995 45213

1,3,5

- trimethylbenzene 45207

o

- ethyltoluen e added 1995 45211

1,2,4

- trimethylbenzene 45208

n

- decane 43238
1,2,3 trimethylbenzene added 1995 45225

1,3

- diethylbenzene added 1995 45218
1,4 diethylbenzene added 1995 45219

n

- undecane 43954

dodecane added 1997 45218

tnmoc 43102
pamshc 43000

All parameters except for the summer intensive VOCs and carbonyls are run on a continuous basis year round. VOC system startup is scheduled for May 15th each year. The carbonyl's schedule of eight (3 hour) samples every third day ended in September 2005 as the requirement was dropped by EPA to reduce overall cost of the PAMS program. The VOC intensive sampling ends in September after the final system audit. Twenty-four hour carbonyl and canister samples are continued on a six day schedule throughout the year.

The on-site GC system consists of a Markes Unity Air Server-Thermal Desorber System integrated with an Agilent GC. The Summa canisters are shipped to the Rensselaer laboratory facility and analyzed with an Entech preconcentrator with a Varian GCMS System.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 194 of 202

6. NCore Sites

The National Core Monitoring Program (NCore) is an EPA initiative to redesign a portion of the National air monitoring network. The existing compliance oriented network is set up with a parameter specific design that is targeted at the relatively high concentrations near the NAAQS. The data from this network is not as accurate at the low levels needed for trends analysis and model validation. The single parameter design is also not well suited to multi-pollutant health studies, integrated model assessment or the analysis of source attribution through comparisons of

co -pollutants from sources to receptors.

The NCore program has been designed around approximately 75 sites Nationwide that are sited to represent large urban areas away from significant individual sources. A smaller subset of these sites will be located in rural areas. The NYSDEC in conjunction with EPA Region 2 office has suggested 3 of the NYSDEC monitoring sites for inclusion in this new network. The sites are:

AQS ID # Site Name General Location 36-081-0124 Queens College Located in Kew Gardens in Queens, NYC 36-055-1007 Rochester Located Southeast of Rochester, NY 36-101-0003 Pinnacle Located 15 mi. Southwest of Corning, NY

Pinnacle is the only rural site of the three and it was also selected as one of ten pilot NCore sites. This site has hosted monitoring appropriate for the objectives of the NCore program due to its involvement with several research programs so it was well suited to take on the more difficult monitoring parameters required from the NCore monitoring program. SUNY Albany ASRC researchers have been making low level trace gas measurements at this site for the past ten years. Home built analyzers for low level CO and NO y were employed. These prototype instruments required extensive post sampling data processing. They measured ―true‖ NO 2 using direct photolysis method. Commercially available instruments are used for monitoring low level SO 2 , continuous particulate sulfate, and OC/EC particulate carbon. In addition, realtime ammonia data are collected using two different methods

— NO chemiluminescence with catalytic conversion, and ion mobility spectrometer. The Queens site which was recently established is preparing to monitor for some of the NCore parameters.

NCore Monitoring Objectives

a.) Timely Reporting of Data to the Public b.) Support for Development of Emission Strategies c.) Accountability of Emission Strategy Progress d.) Support for Long-Term Health Assessments e.) Compliance f.) Support to Scientific Studies g.) Support to Ecosystem AssessmentsAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 195 of 202

NCore Primary Monitoring Parameters

The NCore sites are required to be sited in conjunction with the PM 2.5 FRM network, the PM 2.5 speciation network and the PMcoarse network. These parameters will be supplemented with the NCore specific parameters that currently include NO y , Low Level CO and Low Level SO 2

. NO y which is defined as the sum of all reactive nitrogen oxides includes NO, and NO 2 , and other nitrogen oxides referred to as NO

z . The NCore program requires NO y monitoring because it is

the best indicator of the results from NO

x reduction strategies, it is valuable for ecosystem assessments, it is important for model evaluation and it supports NO 2 estimates for health effects

studies.

CO is important to the NCore program because it is used in model evaluation, it is a surrogate for many combustion related pollutants, it is included in health effect studies and it can be used to assess control programs. CO is also monitored under the existing criteria monitoring program but NCore requires more accuracy at lower concentrations and siting that makes the data more representative of wider areas than the existing network.

SO 2 is important for model evaluation because of its role in sulfate formation which is a large percentage of PM 2.5 mass particularly in the Northeast. SO 2 is also important for some health effect studies and like CO it must be monitored accurately at low concentrations to meet the objectives of the NCore program.

Nitric acid (HNO 3 ) and ammonia (NH 3 ) are both compounds of interest in EPA‘s NCore program but they are not yet required because the sampling methodology is not yet fully developed. Both compounds are useful for model evaluation because of their contribution to PM

formation.

To meet the monitoring requirements, trace level instruments for SO 2 and CO as well as NO y measurements were all operational at the three NCore sites since the beginning of 2011.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 196 of 202

7. Acid Deposition Monitoring Network

At the end of 2012, the Department discontinued the existing acid rain monitoring program and transitioned 7 monitoring locations to the National Acid Deposition Program (NADP). The old acid deposition program was established in response to the State Acid Deposition Control Act (SADCA) in 1985. This program was designed to provide measurements of acid deposition and related quantities necessary to assess the effectiveness of sulfur control policy and other strategies aimed at reducing the effects of acid rain. By all measures, the monitoring program as well as the NOx and SOx control strategies have improved the environment. For example, the deposition of Sulfate Statewide has decreased by more than 60% since the monitoring program began and the concentrations of acidic pollutants continue to decline.

The transition to the NADP program will result in savings to the Department, provide better and more useful data for use in regulation development and will allow for the comparison of data from New York with other acid sensitive regions across the country. Additionally, because the NADP program provides a uniform operational framework, the data from existing NADP sites within New York and in neighboring States can be utilized in the analysis of deposition in New York.

The NADP program uses IC, ICP and FIA to determine the concentrations of free acidity (H+ as pH), conductance, calcium (Ca 2+ ), magnesium (Mg 2+ ), sodium (Na + ), potassium (K + ), sulfate (SO4 2- ), nitrate (NO3 + ), chloride (Cl - ), and ammonium (NH4 + ). The data and reports from this program from the 7 NYSDEC sites as well as other sites in New York and in the United States can be obtained from: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/data/

The NYSDEC monitoring locations that were converted to the NADP in January 2013:

NY06 Bronx

NY28 Piseco Lake

NY59 Wanakena NY93 Paul Smith's College

NY98 Whiteface Mountain Rochester (Established later in 2013) Amherst (Established later in 2013)

The other NADP sites currently operating in New York but sponsored by other organizations:

NY01 Alfred

NY08 Aurora Research Farm NY10 Chautauqua NY20 Huntington Wildlife NY22 Akwesasne Mohawk-Fort CovingtonAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 197 of 202

NY29 Moss Lake NY52 Bennett Bridge

NY67 Ithaca

NY68 Biscuit Brook NY96 Cedar Beach, Southold

NY99 West Point

Figure 7.1 shows NADP sites operated by DEC as well as other collaborating partners in New

York State.

Figure 7.1 Location Map of Acid Depositi on Monitoring Sites in New York StateAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 198 of 202

8. Anticipated Changes in the Next 18 Months

8.1 Lead Monitoring

Revisions to the monitoring requirements became effective January 26, 2011. The new regulations replaced the population oriented monitoring requirement with a requirement to add

Pb monitors to the urban NCore monitors. The EPA also lowered the emission threshold from 1.0 tpy to 0.50 tpy for industrial sources of lead (e.g., lead smelters and foundries). One source located in Orange County was determined to have the potential to violate the standard due to the amount of lead processed at the facility and the past results from nearby ambient monitoring. The NYSDEC will continue to operate the ambient lead monitor that is already operating near that facility. Routine data review showed that during the first quarter of 2011, there were a couple of sample dates that showed high levels of lead, which would lead to contravention of the new standard. Investigations at the facility led to enforcement actions although specific causes for the observed values were not discovered. Consequently an additional low volume PM 10 sampler was put in place to collect daily filter samples for mass measurement and lead analysis using XRF in August, 2011.

The NYSDEC currently has two urban lead monitors at the NATTS sites (Rochester, Bronx). The Rochester site is also a design ated NCore site. It is the Regional Administrator‘s discretion to approve site substitution for the population oriented monitoring requirement. These monitors will take advantage of the allowance for the submission of PM 10 lead data in place of TSP lead data. The NYSDEC acknowledges that the use of a PM 10 monitor for lead compliance monitoring will be discontinued and replaced with a TSP monitor if a three month average lead concentration from one of these sites exceeds 0.1μg/m 3

.

8.2 Special Purpose Monitors

8.2.1 Tonawanda Community Air Quality Study

Although the original study funded by EPA concluded in 2008, NYSDEC has continued sampling at two of the four study sites with State monies. The Tonawanda II site at Brookside Terrace will remain in operation as part of the permanent network, while the Grand Island Blvd. industrial site will be maintained as a special purpose monitor, resources permitting. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 illustrate trend charts for benzene and formaldehyde demonstrating emission reductions.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15, 2013 Page 199 of 202

Figure 8.1 Annual Averages for Benzene at Tonawanda Sites

Figure 8.2 Annual Averages for Formaldehyde at Tonawanda Sites

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Industrial Site (GIBI) Residential Site (BTRS)Annual Average Conc. (ppb) 

## Benzene Concentration Study Year and Subsequent Years

Study Period (7/07

- 6/08)

1st Year Post Study (7/08

- 6

- 09)

2nd Year Post Study (7/09

- 6/10)

3rd Year Post Study (7/10

- 6/11)

4th Year Post Study (7/11

- 6/12)

2011 Statewide Ave.

Annual Guideline Conc. (AGC) - 57%

- 48%

- 33%

- 42% - 37%

- 20% +1%

+2%

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Industrial Site (GIBI) Residential Site (BTRS)Annual Average Conc. (ppb) 

## Formaldehyde Concentration Study Year and Subsequent Years

Study Period (7/07

- 6/08)

1st Year Post Study (7/08

- 6

- 09)

2nd Year Post Study (7/09

- 6/10)

3rd Year Post Study (7/10

- 6/11)

4th Year Post Study (7/11

- 6/12)

2011 Statewide Ave.

Annual Guideline Conc. (AGC)

- 74%

- 18% - 38%

- 10% +2% +7% +4%

- 6%Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 200 of 202

8.2.2 New York State Ambient Mercury Baseline Study

New York has established regulations to control mercury from coal-fired powered plants in a two-phase approach, with Phase I taking effect on January 1, 2010 and Phase II taking effect on January 1, 2015. The goal of Phase I is to reduce power plant emissions by 50% from 1999 levels, and preliminary indications are that these emissions have actually been reduced by about 65%. Phase II calls for 90% emission cuts. In order to track the progress of in- and out-of-state emissions reductions, the NYSDEC seeks to continue operation and maintenance of mercury wet deposition samplers and speciated Tekran systems.

In 2008 NYSDEC was awarded an EPA grant to conduct this study at two existing urban sites: New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx (AQS Number: 36-005-0083), and Rochester (AQS Number: 36-055-1007) for a period of two years. The Tekran Model 2537B, 1130 and 1135 Mercury Speciation Units were used to measure elemental, reactive gaseous and particle boundmercury species in the ambient air. The wet deposition collector system, manufactured by NCON Systems Co. Inc., and equipped with an ETI NOAH IV Precipitation Gauge was collocated at each site. The field data collection concluded in the fall of 2010. The results of the study were presented at the National Air Toxics Monitoring and Data Analysis Workshop in April 2011. The final report was submitted to the EPA in May 2011. The NYSDEC is seeking additional funding sources to continue data collection at these sites.

8 .2.3 Community Air Screen Program

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), through funding provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), implemented a community-based screening program for toxic air pollutants. The purpose of DEC's Community Air Screen program is to conduct air quality surveillance at the community-level with the help of local community groups and interested citizens.

DEC will provide the sampling equipment, train people on how to use the equipment and work with the community to determine the best location and time period for sampling. All air sampling equipment will be returned to the DEC offices in Albany for analysis of the samples and interpretation of the results.

The deadline for application was May 24, 2012 and applicants were notified of the selection June 25, 2012. Of the 42 applications received, 23 applications were selected statewide covering locations in the following counties: Suffolk, Queens, Kings, Ulster, Dutchess, Albany, Warren, St. Lawerence & Franklin, Onondaga, Ontario & Seneca, Niagara, and Erie. In 2012, 29 samples from nine community groups were collected and analyzed. Sampling for 14 groups is scheduled for 2013. In addition, two follow-up samples will be obtained as a result of findings in the 2012 sampling effort. Additional information is available on the DEC website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/81629.html .

BAQS staff also carried out canister sampling for VOCs in communities that were not part of this study due to environmental and public health concerns. Various duration samples such asAnnual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 201 of 202

grab, 1-hr, as well as 24-hr were obtained and analyzed by our laboratory. Areas studied included Throgs Neck, Attica, and Camillus.

8 .2.4 Airport Lead Monitoring

Under the 2011 lead rule monitoring is required for a minimum of one year at 15 additional airports that have been identified as having characteristics that could lead to ambient lead concentrations approaching or exceeding the lead NAAQS. Brookhaven (36-103-0024) and Republic (36-103-0005) airports in Suffolk County, New York have been designated as such. A 12-month monitoring study at Brookhaven Airport concluded in October, 2012 and all data were submitted to AQS. The Republic Airport monitoring did not start until October, 2012 due to protracted site lease negotiations.

8 .2.5 Peace Bridge Air Quality Study

Partnering with the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority (PBA), Bureau staff initiated an air quality study in the vicinity of the Peace Bridg e in August, 2012. Two monitoring sites, one upwind (Front Park) and the other downwind (Busti Ave), were established for the measurement of fine particulate matter, elemental sulfur, metals, and black carbon. A meteorological station was also installed at the Busti Ave site. A six-month monitoring effortwas concluded prior to the construction of the Plaza to establish baseline levels. A second sixmonth campaign will be carried out after the construction is completed.

8 .2.6 Hurricane Sandy Clean- up Activities Monitoring

In response to air quality concerns in Hurricane Sandy recovery areas (lower Hudson Valley, New York City and Long Island), BAQS Albany and Region 2 staff established supplemental monitoring sites for continuous monitoring for PM 2.5 beginning in November, 2012. Initially EPA provided 3 MetOne EBAM nephelometers that were installed at Mill Basin, Rockaway Beach, and Gerrits en Beach. Subsequently three more sites were added using DEC continuous gravimetric PM 2.5 monitors (TEOM) at Lower Manhatten, Rockaway PS 114, and Midland Beach. Except for the Midland Beach site in Staten Island, monitoring at all other sites has been suspended as recovery activities have concluded.

8.3 Proposed Changes at Existing Sites

As part of the new requirements specified in the revised Monitoring Regulations Parts 53 and 58, a network assessment was performed to determine ― if the network meets the monitoring objectives defined in appendix D to this part, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network.‖ As a result of this exercise, NYSDEC is proposing the following modifications to the existing network.Annual Monitoring Network Plan

Revision 1.0 Date: May 15

, 2013 Page 202 of 202

8.3.1 PS 19

Discontinue redundant PM 10 monitoring as there is already a monitor at the Division Street site. In January, 2013 DEC submitted to EPA requesting that clean data finding for New York County

for the 1987 PM 10 NAAQS be made. Data have demonstrated that New York County was in

attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS when EPA designated it as nonattainment in 1994, and has never had an exceedance of the NAAQS since being so designated.