i 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection

Summary of Pennsylvania’s 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Analysis

September 2007 

Bureau of Air Quality 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

P.O. Box 8468 

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468 

717-787-9495 

www.dep.state.pa.us 
ii 

This page left intentionally blank 
iii 

Table of Contents 

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose................................................................................................................................ 1 

1.0 Overview of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas in the Commonwealth............................. 1 

1.1. Background on Fine-Particulate Pollution.................................................................. 1 

1.2 PM2.5 Nonattainment Overview............................................................................... 2 

1.3 Anticipated Changes and Schedule.......................................................................... 2 

2.0 Monitoring Overview................................................................................................... 3 

2.1 Monitor Types.......................................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Other Monitoring Information ................................................................................. 5 

3.0 Emissions/Control Programs ....................................................................................... 6 

3.1. Contributing Sources .............................................................................................. 6 

3.2. Control Programs.................................................................................................... 7 

3.2.1 Acid Rain Program (Title IV)........................................................................... 7 

3.2.2 NOx Budget Trading Program (NOx SIP Call) ................................................. 9 

3.2.3 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ................................................................... 10 

3.2.4 Regional Haze Controls .................................................................................. 11 

3.2.5 Mobil-Source Sector Controls ........................................................................ 11 

4.0 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Analysis.......................................................................... 13 

4.1 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley....................................................................................... 14 

4.1.1 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Monitoring Analysis ................................... 15 

4.2. Liberty-Clairton PM2.5 Nonattainment Area......................................................... 22 

4.2.1. Liberty-Clairton Monitoring Analysis ........................................................... 24 

4.3 Johnstown Nonattainment Area............................................................................. 26 

4.3.1 Johnstown Monitoring Analysis ..................................................................... 27 

4.4. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Nonattainment Area............................................... 29 

4.4.1. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitoring Analysis

................................................................................................................................... 29 

4.5. York PM2.5 Nonattainment Area........................................................................... 33 

4.5.1 York Monitoring Analysis .............................................................................. 33 

4.6 Lancaster Nonattainment Area .............................................................................. 36 

4.6.1 Lancaster Monitoring Analysis....................................................................... 37 

4.7 Reading PM2.5 Nonattainment Area....................................................................... 40 

4.7.1. Reading Monitoring Analysis........................................................................ 40 

4.8 Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Nonattainment Area.................................. 45 

4.8.1 Philadelphia-Wilmington PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitoring Analysis.. 45 

5.0 References.................................................................................................................. 51 
iv 

Table of Figures

Figure 2-1. Pennsylvania PM2.5 Monitoring Network ....................................................... 4 

Figure 2-2. Pennsylvania’s Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network ...................... 6 

Figure 3-1. Sulfur dioxide emissions for 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 through 2005 from 

Title IV affected sources of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990........................ 8 

Figure 3-2 Nitrogen oxides emissions for 1990 and 1995 through 2005 from Title IV 

affected sources of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ..................................... 9 

Figure 3-3 NOx SIP Call Region, Program Implementation............................................ 10 

Figure 4-1 Pennsylvania PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas ..................................................... 13 

Figure 4-2. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Speciation Results ..................................... 18 

Figure 4-3. Beaver Falls: FRM vs. TEOM ...................................................................... 20 

Figure 4-4. Beaver Falls Continuous Data: Hourly Averages ........................................ 21 

Figure 4-5. Beaver Falls Continuous Data: Day of Week .............................................. 22 

Figure 4-6. Lawrenceville Continuous Data: Day of Week ........................................... 23 

Figure 4-7. Liberty PM2.5 Speciation Results .................................................................. 25 

Figure 4-8. Liberty Continuous Data: Day of Week....................................................... 26 

Figure 4-9 Johnstown: FRM vs. TEOM .......................................................................... 28 

Figure 4-10. Johnstown Continuous Data: Day of Week ............................................... 29 

Figure 4-11. Harrisburg PM2.5 Speciation Results........................................................... 31 

Figure 4-12. Harrisburg: FRM vs. BAM ......................................................................... 32 

Figure 4-13. Harrisburg PM2.5 Continuous Data: Day of Week..................................... 33 

Figure 4-14 York PM2.5 Speciation Results..................................................................... 35 

Figure 4-15 York: FRM vs. BAM ................................................................................... 35 

Figure 4-16. York Continuous PM2.5 Data: Day of Week.............................................. 36 

Figure 4-17 Lancaster PM2.5 Speciation Results ............................................................. 38 

Figure 4-18. Lancaster: FRM vs. BAM........................................................................... 39 

Figure 4-19 Lancaster Continuous PM2.5 Data: Day of Week........................................ 39 

Figure 4-20. PM2.5 Scatter Plots for Berks County Monitors .......................................... 41 

Figure 4-21. Reading (UGI & Downtown) : FRM vs. TEOM ........................................ 42 

Figure 4-22 Reading (UGI & Downtown) Continuous Data: Day of Week .................. 44 

Figure 4-23 Philadelphia-Wilmington PM2.5 Speciation Results .................................... 48 

Figure 4-24 Norristown: FRM vs. TEOM ....................................................................... 50 

Figure 4-25 Norristown Continuous Data: Day of Week ............................................... 51 
v 

Table of Tables

Table 1-1 PM2.5 Standards.................................................................................................. 3 

Table 4-1. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.................................... 14 

Table 4-2 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitors..................... 14 

Table 4-3 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM Annual PM2.5 Design Values........................ 15 

Table 4-4 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM PM2.5 Design Value Trends.......................... 16 

Table 4-5. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM Statistical Analysis ...................................... 17 

Table 4-6 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Continuous Monitor Summary .................... 20 

Table 4-7 Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment Area ............................................................. 23 

Table 4-8. Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment PM2.5 Area Monitors................................... 23 

Table 4-9 Liberty-Clairton FRM Annual Design Value.................................................. 24 

Table 4-10 Liberty-Clairton FRM Annual Design Value Trends.................................... 24 

Table 4-11 Johnstown Nonattainment Area .................................................................... 26 

Table 4-12 Johnstown PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary............................ 27 

Table 4-13 Johnstown FRM Annual Concentrations....................................................... 27 

Table 4-14 Johnstown FRM Design Value Trends.......................................................... 27 

Table 4-15 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Nonattainment Area ....................................... 29 

Table 4-16. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary

................................................................................................................................... 30 

Table 4-17. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle FRM Annual Concentrations ........................ 30 

Table 4-18. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle FRM Annual Design Value Trends .............. 30 

Table 4-19. York PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary.................................... 33 

Table 4-20. York FRM Annual Design Value Trends..................................................... 34 

Table 4-21 Lancaster Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary ....................................... 37 

Table 4-20. Lancaster FRM Annual PM2.5 Design Value Trends ................................... 37 

Table 4-21. Reading Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary......................................... 40 

Table 4-22. Reading FRM Annual PM2.5 Design Value Trends ..................................... 41 

Table 4-23. Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA, NJ, DE PM2.5 Nonattainment Area ............. 45 

Table 4-24. Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA, NJ, DE PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitors

................................................................................................................................... 46 

Table 4-25 Philadelphia-Wilmington FRM Annual PM2.5 Design Value Trends ........... 47 
1 

Introduction 

This document was created to provide an overview of the Pennsylvania’s annual PM2.5

nonattainment problem. The document includes monitoring and nonattainment area 

information that will be useful in developing Pennsylvania’s PM2.5 attainment 

demonstrations. Information provided in this report reflects the state of affairs at the time 

of its preparation. 

Purpose 

This document will serve the following purposes: 

• Identify and describe Pennsylvania’s PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

• Provide a source document for the Department of Environmental Protection’s 

modeling and attainment demonstrations. 

• Provide an overview of PM2.5 monitoring data and PM2.5 data analysis. 

• Facilitate the understanding of what contributes to Pennsylvania’s annual 

PM2.5 nonattainment problems and provide a pathway for future analysis. 

1.0 Overview of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas in the Commonwealth 

This section provides a brief overview of PM2.5 health effects, PM2.5 attainment status 

and Pennsylvania’s nonattainment areas. Information contained in the section reflects 

conditions at the time of this report’s preparation. 

1.1. Background on Fine-Particulate Pollution 

Background information on PM2.5 included in this section was taken from EPA’s website 

(www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/). This includes basic information on the components and 

health affects of PM2.5. 

Particle pollution is a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air. 

This pollution, also known as particulate matter, is made up of a number of components, 

including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust 

particles, and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold spores). 

Fine particle pollution or PM2.5 describes particulate matter that is less than or equal to 

2.5 μm in diameter, approximately 1/30th the diameter of a human hair. 

Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere. 

Examples of some of the primary forms of secondary pollutants include: 

Sulfates: These are formed from sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and 

industrial facilities. 

Nitrates: These are formed from emissions of nitrogen oxides from power plants, 

automobiles, and other combustion sources. 
2 

The chemical composition of particles depends on location, time of year, and weather. 

Health studies have shown a significant association between exposure to fine particles 

and premature death from heart or lung disease. Fine particles can aggravate heart and 

lung diseases and have been linked to effects such as: cardiovascular symptoms; cardiac 

arrhythmias; heart attacks; respiratory symptoms; asthma attacks; and bronchitis. These 

effects can result in increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from 

school or work, and restricted activity days. Individuals that may be particularly sensitive 

to fine particle exposure include people with heart or lung disease, older adults, and 

children. 

1.2 PM2.5 Nonattainment Overview 

EPA promulgated fine-particle national ambient air quality standards in 1997 after 

evaluating hundreds of health studies and conducting an extensive peer review process. 

The annual standard is a level of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

), based on the 

3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. EPA established a twenty-four 

hour standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), determined by the 3-year 

average of the annual 98th percentile concentrations. 

In April 2003, EPA issued a memorandum outlining a schedule for designating areas 

under the PM2.5 standard and related guidance on nine factors to consider in identifying 

nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act provides for states and tribes to submit 

designation recommendations to EPA, and it requires EPA to provide time for 

consultation in cases where the Administrator plans to promulgate a designation that 

modifies the state or tribal recommendation. On December 17, 2004, EPA published its 

air quality designations and classifications for the fine particles (PM2.5) national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS). These designations became effective on April 5, 2005. 

1.3 Anticipated Changes and Schedule 

The Commonwealth is responsible for developing State Implementation Plan revisions 

for its eight (8) annual PM2.5 nonattainment areas that demonstrate each nonattainment 

area will comply with the 1997 PM2.5 standards. SIP revisions will be due in April of 

2008 demonstrating attainment by April of 2010. The Department is currently 

developing final modeling protocols for each nonattainment area. These SIP revisions 

are due to the U. S. EPA’s Region III office by September 30, 2007. 

In 2006, the U.S. EPA tightened the twenty-four hour PM2.5 standard to 35 μg/m3. 

Because the nonattainment designations for the 24-hour PM2.5 are not yet in place, the 

Commonwealth’s PM2.5 modeling analyses for its April 2008 SIP submittal will use the 

twenty-four hour standard established in 1997, 65 μg/m3

. Table 1-1 lists standards 

established in 1997 along with the current PM2.5 standards. 
3 

Table 1-1 PM2.5 Standards 

Date Standard Established 24-Hour Annual 

July 18, 1997 ≤ 65 μg/m3 ≤ 15.0 μg/m3

September 21, 2006 ≤ 35 μg/m3 ≤ 15.0 μg/m3

Timetables for the lower twenty-four hour PM2.5 standard established on September 21st

, 

2006 by the U.S. EPA are as follows: 

• States will make recommendations by November 2007 for areas to be 

designated attainment (meeting the standards) and nonattainment (violating 

the standards). 

• EPA will make designations by November 2009; those designations will 

become effective in April 2010. 

• State Implementation Plan revisions, which outline how states will reduce 

pollution to meet the standards, will be due three years after designations, in 

April 2013. 

• States must meet the standards by April 2015, with a possible extension to 

April 2020. 

2.0 Monitoring Overview 

There are three general types of PM2.5 monitors operated in the Commonwealth. These 

include Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitors, speciation monitors and continuous 

monitors. Sulfate and Nitrate concentration and deposition information is also collected 

at various locations across the Commonwealth as part of the Acid Rain Monitoring 

Program sometimes referred to as Title IV. These measurements could be used to 

supplement information from PM2.5 monitors. This section will give a brief description 

of each type of monitor and their location. 

2.1 Monitor Types 

Figure 2-1 shows information regarding the PM2.5 monitoring network. The 

Department’s annual ambient air-quality reports contain additional information regarding 

the PA DEP’s monitoring network (Pennsylvania Ambient Air Quality Report, 2004). 

FRM Monitors 

PM2.5 concentrations are measured using both discrete (single sample) monitors and 

continuous real-time instruments. Discrete monitors collect particulate matter on a filter 

for twenty-four hours. The filter is then collected from the monitor on a set schedule. 

Depending on the monitoring site and type, department personnel collect filters either 
4 

once a day (1/1), once every third day (1/3) or once every sixth day (1/6). Collected 

filters are shipped to a specialized lab to be weighed and analyzed. 

Figure 2-1. Pennsylvania PM2.5 Monitoring Network 

Only the discrete PM2.5 sampler is approved by the U.S. EPA as a Federal Reference 

Method (FRM) for compliance purposes. FRM monitors are maintained at various 

locations across the Commonwealth by the PA DEP, the Allegheny County Health 

Department and Philadelphia County’s Air Management Services. 

Continuous Monitors 

There are several manufactures of continuous PM2.5 samplers. The analyzer reports onehour data, which are then used to calculate daily twenty-four hour averages (midnight to 

midnight), for comparison to the ambient air quality standard. These monitors are used 

primarily for air-quality forecasting purposes to provide “instantaneous” information 

since FRM monitors can take weeks to provide results and may not provide information 

for every day (due to less than 1/1 sampling frequencies). 
5 

The PA DEP possesses two types of continuous samplers. These are: 

Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) monitor: a gravimetric 

instrument that draws ambient air through a filter, constantly weighing the filter 

and calculating real-time PM2.5 concentrations. 

Beta-Attenuation Mass (BAM) sampler: draws ambient air through a section 

of filter tape. The filter tape passes between a beta ray source and a beta ray 

detector. As the particulate mass on the filter increases, the number of beta ray 

particles transmitted through the filter decreases. So the detector measures the 

number of beta particles transmitted through the exposed filter tape, and then the 

instrument calculates the particulate mass using a correlation equation. 

Speciation Monitors 

Pennsylvania began operating a PM2.5 speciation network, consisting of thirteen sampling 

sites, in April 2002. Speciation is a physical or chemical analysis of the captured 

particles that provide a first order characterization of the metals, ions, and carbon 

constituents of PM2.5. Knowing the chemical composition of the PM2.5 mix is also 

important for determining sources of pollution. By developing seasonal and annual 

chemical characterizations of ambient particulates across the Commonwealth, this 

speciation data will be used to perform source attribution analyses, evaluate emission 

inventories and air quality models, and support health related research studies and 

regional haze assessments. 

2.2 Other Monitoring Information 

The PA DEP, under cooperative agreement with Penn State, has maintained the 

Pennsylvania Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network since 1981. The purpose of 

this program is to determine how much acid rain is falling in Pennsylvania for 

environmental assessment purposes. The objectives of this project and subsequent 

revisions were: (1) to determine the magnitude and distribution of wet atmospheric 

deposition and associated toxic and nutrient elements in Pennsylvania, (2) to assess their 

potential environmental impacts, (3) to determine temporal trends in the chemistry of 

precipitation in the state, (4) to evaluate the influence of local emissions and variations in 

precipitation volume on wet deposition patterns, (5) to determine the optimum number of 

sites needed to define spatial variability in atmospheric deposition in Pennsylvania, and 

(6) to provide a quantitative means of evaluating the effectiveness of present and future 

air pollution control legislation, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, aimed at 

reducing atmospheric deposition in the United States (Lynch et al., 2005). Figure 2-1 

displays the current Acid Rain Monitoring Network. 

Precipitation samples are collected once per week and analyzed for pH, sulfate, nitrate, 

ammonium, chloride, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and specific conductance. 
6 

The PA DEP produces annual reports that are posted on its website. Specific analytical 

techniques and results can be found in these reports. 

Figure 2-2. Pennsylvania’s Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network 

Figure 2-1. Site locations of the 2005 Pennsylvania Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring 

Network Sites marked with an empty circle are part of the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN). 

Results for sulfates, nitrates and ammonia could be used to supplement the department’s 

PM2.5 monitoring network. Some of the monitoring sites predate the PM2.5 monitoring 

network and could provide trends information that may be useful. 

3.0 . Emissions/Control Programs 

This section outlines source types that contribute to PM2.5 and some of the control 

programs that help reduce anthropogenic emissions that contribute to fine-particulate 

pollution. 

3.1. Contributing Sources 

Design of effective SIP revisions and other regulatory policies requires knowledge of 

source-receptor relationships that link ambient PM2.5 levels with emissions. The design of 

these strategies is complicated by the importance of secondary aerosol to PM2.5. A broad 

range of anthropogenic and biogenic sources can contribute to local PM2.5 concentrations. 

Primary emissions can come from power plants fired by coal, oil, or gas, diesel- or 
7 

gasoline-powered transportation, meat cooking, coke plants, biogenics, biomass burning, 

incineration, and crustal sources. Sources of secondary compounds include power plants, 

and transportation systems (Pittsburgh Air Quality Study). 

3.2. Control Programs 

A broad range of emission controls have been implemented under the 1990 Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Controls on power plants, industrial sources and the mobile source sector have 

been enacted to control emissions that contribute to ozone, acid rain, particulates and air 

toxics. These controls, though not specifically designed to control fine particulates, have 

none the less helped lower direct and secondary fine-particulate emissions. The 

following sections identify some of these control programs and when they take or took 

affect. This section provides a general outline of the control programs, what pollutants 

were controlled and when controls were put in place. 

3.2.1 Acid Rain Program (Title IV) 

Acid rain causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees 

at high elevations and many sensitive forest soils. Additionally, acid rain accelerates the 

decay of building materials, paints, statues, and sculptures. Prior to falling to the earth, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases and their particulate matter 

derivatives (sulfates and nitrates) contribute to visibility degradation and harm public 

health (U.S. EPA Acid Rain site: http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/index.html). 

The Acid Rain Program uses a market-based cap and trade mechanism that sets a 

permanent cap on the total amount of SO2 that may be emitted by electric power plants 

nationwide. The first phase of the program began in 1995 and affected a core set of 263 

units at 110 mostly coal-burning electric power plants in eastern and Midwestern states. 

The second phase, which began in 2000, tightened the annual emissions limit imposed on 

these large, higher emitting plants and also set restrictions on smaller and cleaner plants 

fired by coal, oil, and gas (U.S. EPA, Cap and Trade: Acid Rain Program Basics). The 

Acid Rain Program affects existing power generating units greater than 25 megawatts and 

all new units. 

Beginning in 2000, SO2 emissions from these sources were capped at 9.5 million tons 

(compared to 1980 emissions of 17.3 million tons), and in 2010, the final annual 

emissions cap is set at 8.95 million tons. Emissions will reach the cap level after the 

sizeable allowance bank created by early reductions has been drawn down. At full 

implementation, the cap cuts SO2 emissions from power plants to one half of the amount 

of SO2 emitted in 1980. The cap ensures that the mandated emissions reductions are 

achieved and maintained over time. 

The Acid Rain Program did not cap NOx emissions, but instead set emission rate 

limitations for coal-fired units and allowed companies to develop system-wide 

compliance strategies with a degree of flexibility. The NOx program component, also 
8 

achieved in two phases, requires achievement of a performance standard representing 

about a 27 percent reduction from 1990 levels. 

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show SO2 and NOx emission trends from sources affected by the 

Acid Rain program. These figures are taken from Lynch et al. (2005). Yearly reports on 

the Commonwealth’s acid rain monitoring program are provided by researched from 

Penn State, which are funded by the Department (Grant Number ME359494). 

Emissions data indicate incremental decreases in SO2 and NOx emissions affected by 

Title IV controls with the largest decrease occurring before most fine-particulate 

monitoring programs were put in place (~1999). Subsequent incremental emission 

changes may be too small to be picked up by the current monitoring network.

Figure 3-1. Sulfur dioxide emissions for 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 through 2005 

from Title IV affected sources of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
9 

Figure 3-2 Nitrogen oxides emissions for 1990 and 1995 through 2005 from Title IV 

affected sources of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

3.2.2 NOx Budget Trading Program (NOx SIP Call) 

NOx emissions from large fossil fuel fired power plants have been recognized as 

significant contributors to ozone formation. The U.S. EPA established the NOx Budget 

Trading Program (NBP) to reduce these emissions and help alleviate widespread ozone 

nonattainment problems across the US. The NBP lead to substantial NOx controls across 

the eastern US during the ozone season. 

While the NBP was not designed specifically to reduce fine-particulate emission it does 

limit ozone season NOx emissions that could lead to formation of nitrates, one of the 

major components of fine-particulate pollution. Initially, NOx controls were imposed on 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating units and large industrial boilers and turbines through 

an ozone season (May 1 through September 30) in the Northeast under the Ozone 

Transport Commission’s (OTC) NOx Budget Program. The second phase of the OTC 

NOx Budget Program was slated to begin on May 1, 2003, but was superseded by EPA’s 

NOx SIP Call. 

Compliance with the NOx SIP Call was scheduled to begin in 2003. The OTC states 

adopted the original compliance date of May 1, 2003, in transitioning to the NOx SIP 

Call. In states outside the OTC region, however, litigation delayed the initial deadline 

until May 31, 2004. For those states, the first compliance period (2004) was for a 
10 

shorter-than-normal ozone season (see Figure 3-3). In addition, litigation delayed the start 

date for portions of Georgia and Missouri until 2007. 

Figure 3-3 NOx SIP Call Region, Program Implementation 

(From U.S. EPA Report, August 2005) 

Collectively, affected NBP industrial units reduced emissions approximately 25 percent 

from 2003 to 2004, despite the shorter 2004 control period. Emissions from these sources 

in the full 2004 ozone season were about 40,000 tons, compared to 53,000 tons for the 

same period in 2003. 

3.2.3 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). CAIR will 

permanently cap emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the 

eastern United States. CAIR achieves large reductions of SO2 and/or NOx emissions 

across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. When fully implemented, CAIR 

will reduce SO2 emissions in these states by over 70 percent and NOx emissions by over 

60 percent from 2003 levels. 
11 

Controls will be phased in over the next decade. CAIR Phase I caps will become 

effective in 2009 (NOx) and 2010 (SO2). These caps will be reduced further (Phase II) in 

2015. It is expected that some CAIR-affected facilities will put emission reductions in 

place prior to when the Phase I caps become effective. There are several facilities in the 

Commonwealth that have already received approval to install Flue-Gas Desufurization 

(FGD) units that will be operational in the 2008-09 time frame. In addition we expect 

most CAIR-affected sources to extend their NOx controls year round further alleviating 

emissions that contribute to nitrate formation, a significant component of PM2.5. 

3.2.4 Regional Haze Controls 

The regional haze program is designed to improve visibility at 156 national parks and 

wilderness areas (designated Class I areas) throughout the US. The Regional Haze 

regulations allow states to develop coordinated strategies and implement programs to 

make reasonable progress toward the goal of “no manmade impairment” in national parks 

and wilderness areas by reducing emissions that contribute to haze. 

States are required to conduct certain analyses to ensure that they consider the possibility 

of setting an ambitious reasonable progress goal, one that is aimed at reaching natural 

background conditions in 60 years. The rule requires States to establish goals for each 

affected Class I area to 1) improve visibility on the haziest days and 2) ensure no 

degradation occurs on the clearest days over the period of each implementation plan. 

The Regional Haze rule requires States to develop long-term strategies including 

enforceable measures designed to meet reasonable progress goals. The first long-term 

strategy will cover 10 to 15 years, with reassessment and revision of those goals and 

strategies in 2018 and every 10 years thereafter. States strategies should address their 

contribution to visibility problems in Class I areas both within and outside the State. 

Pennsylvania, in partnership with the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) member states and tribes, is currently developing its regional haze SIP. This SIP 

will identify facilities that significantly contribute to visibility impairment at a designated 

Class I area and are eligible to impose NOx, SO2 or particulate controls. Eligibility is 

limited to facilities in one of 26 source categories that have units installed and operating 

between 1962 and 1977 with the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of a 

visibility impairing pollutant. Additional engineering analyses are conducted to 

determine if controls are feasible and economical. 

Any controls imposed on facilities, as part of the state’s regional haze SIP, will reduce 

PM2.5 concentrations in nearby nonattainment areas. Regional haze controls are projected 

to be installed in 2013. 

3.2.5 Mobil-Source Sector Controls 

The most common mobile sources of air pollution are motor vehicles, but airplanes, 

ships, construction equipment and lawn mowers also produce significant amounts of 
12 

pollutants. Emissions from the mobile-source sector contribute to fine-particulate 

concentrations through direct emissions and secondary formation from NOx and SO2 

emissions. A number of emission controls programs have been enacted to lower the 

mobile-source sector’s contribution to fine-particulate pollution. These controls, 

however, generally affect new equipment so any benefits are tied to “fleet turnover” 

meaning lower emitting units will eventually replace the older higher emitting units over 

time. Controls on various mobile sources will therefore be incremental and may not be 

immediately noticeable in the monitoring data. 

3.2.5.1 Light-Duty Vehicles 

Light-duty vehicles include all passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. EPA and 

Pennsylvania have established emission limits for all new vehicles in this category. 

Emission standards (hydrocarbon, NOx and CO limits per mile) have been periodically 

lowered since the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Tighter vehicle 

emission standards were recently imposed on 2004 and after models. These cleaner 

vehicles will replace older higher emitting vehicles thus lowering PM2.5 emissions along 

with precursor emission that contribute to fine-particulate concentrations from this fleet 

category. 

Pennsylvania amended the former New Motor Vehicle Control Program (which included 

the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program) in 2006. The Clean Vehicles Program 

continues to incorporate the California Low Emission Vehicle Program (CA LEV II) by 

reference. As amended, the program affects MY 2008 and newer passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks vehicles less than 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating. 36 Pa B. 7424 

(December 9, 2006). 

3.2.5.2 Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

Heavy-duty vehicles include heavy-duty diesel engine trucks and buses. These mobile 

sources contribute higher direct fine-particulate emissions along with SO2 and NOx

emissions that contribute to fine-particulate pollution on a higher per vehicle basis than 

vehicles in the light-duty category. 

Again, a number of federal and state programs are lowering emission limits from new 

heavy-duty vehicles. There are also a number of programs that retrofit controls on older 

vehicles and attempt to limit idling times. Benefits from these programs are expected to 

be incremental since they rely heavily on replacing older vehicles with new cleaner ones. 

NOx emissions were recently reduced from all 2002 and newer vehicles. Additional NOx

and direct fine-particulate emission reductions are expected from 2007 models with 

further NOx reductions expected in model year 2010. 
13 

3.2.5.3 Nonroad Sources 

This category includes many types of internal combustion engines. These include 

combustion engines, small-spark ignition, large-spark ignition, marine diesel, marinespark ignition, recreation vehicle, locomotive and aviation. Emission limits for these 

types of engines are generally developed on the federal level and have been lowered since 

the inception of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Additional fuel-formulation 

changes have been imposed to help meet these cleaner engine requirements. Most of 

these emission limits have been established over the last five years and will become fully 

effective as newer cleaner units replace older units. Again any benefits in the monitoring 

data from these programs should occur incrementally over time. 

4.0 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Analysis 

There are currently eight (8) annual PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Pennsylvanian. Figure 

4-1 depicts the areas, which the U.S. EPA made final on April 2005. The following 

sections will provide a brief overview of monitor results for each nonattainment area. 

The Allegheny County Health Department will provide a more detailed analysis for the 

Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area. 

Figure 4-1 Pennsylvania PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 
14 

4.1 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Table 4-1 lists the counties and parts of counties included in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Table 4-1. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

County Partial County 

Allegheny-all except City of Clairton, Borough of Glassport, 

Borough of Liberty, Borough of Lincoln, Borough of Port Vue

Armstrong-only Washington Twp. and Plumbcreek Twp. 

Beaver 

Butler 

Greene-only Monongahela Twp. 

Lawrence-only Taylor Twp. 

Washington 

Westmoreland 

There are eleven (11) PM2.5 monitoring sites in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

nonattainment area. These sites are listed in Table 4-2. The table also contains the types 

of PM2.5 monitors operating at each site. 

Table 4-2 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitors 

Federal Reference Method (FRM) Monitors 

Site County Sample Frequency 

Harrison Allegheny 1/3 

Lawrenceville Allegheny 1/1 

Moon Allegheny 1/6 

North Braddock Allegheny 1/3 

North Park Allegheny 1/3 

South Fayette Allegheny 1/3 

Beaver Falls Beaver 1/3 

Charleroi Washington 1/3 

Florence Washington 1/1 

Washington Washington 1/3 

Greensburg Westmoreland 1/3 
15 

Figure 4-2 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area Monitors (continued) 

Speciated Monitors 

Site County Sample Frequency 

Florence Washington 1/6 

Greensburg Westmoreland 1/6 

Lawrenceville Allegheny 1/6 

Continuous Monitors 

Site County Type 

Beaver Falls Beaver TEOM FDMS 

Florence Washington TEOM 

Lawrenceville Allegheny TEOM 

4.1.1 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Monitoring Analysis 

The following sections provide a brief summary of PM2.5 monitoring concentrations 

within the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area. The PM2.5 collected in 

2006 generally represents the most recently available data. 

FRM Monitoring Analysis: 

Table 4-3 summarizes current (2006) annual PM2.5 design values for the FRM monitors 

inside the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area. 

Table 4-3 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM Annual PM2.5 Design Values 

Site County FRM Annual Design Value 

μg/m3 

Harrison (Natrona) Allegheny 15.0 

Lawrenceville (BAPC) Allegheny 15.2 

Moon (Coraopolis) Allegheny 13.4 

North Braddock Allegheny 16.0 

North Park Allegheny 12.7 

South Fayette Allegheny 12.8 

Beaver Falls Beaver 16.2 

Charleroi Washington 14.9 

Florence Washington 13.1 

Washington Washington 14.4 

Greensburg Westmoreland 15.4 
16 

The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley’s most recent (2006) annual PM2.5 design values range 

from a peak of 16.2 μg/m3

 to a low of 12.4 μg/m3. Only four (4) of the eleven (11) FRM 

monitors with valid 2006 annual design values exceed the standard; three (3) additional 

monitors are within 1.0 μg/m3

 of the annual standard. All monitors within the 

nonattainment area have 24-hour PM2.5 design values below the 65 μg/m3

 level 

established in 1997 by the U.S. EPA. 

Table 4-4 shows the overall trends in the PM2.5 nonattainment area’s annual PM2.5 design 

values. The sampling period is limited to the last several years since the earliest monitors 

in the region only began operating in 1999. 

Table 4-4 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM PM2.5 Design Value Trends 

SITE 1999-2001 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06

Harrison (Natrona) 16.6 16.1 15.9 15.5 15.5 15.0 

Lawrenceville 

(BAPC) 

16.1 15.8 15.7 15.3 15.5 15.2 

Moon (Coraopolis) 14.8 14.1 14.9 14.2 14.5 13.4 

North Braddock 16.8 16.9 16.5 16.6 16.0 

North Park 13.8 14.3 14.2 13.3 13.6 12.7 

South Fayette 14.4 13.5 13.2 12.8 13.5 12.8 

Beaver Falls 16.2 16.0 15.4 16.5 16.2 

Charleroi 15.5 15.7 15.6 14.9 15.1 14.9 

Florence 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.3 13.6 13.1 

Washington 15.2 15.2 15.0 14.5 14.9 14.4 

Greensburg 15.6 15.6 15.4 15.1 15.7 15.4 

The PA DEP completed an analysis to determine if there were any statistically 

significant trends in the FRM PM2.5 design values. Table 4-5 summarizes the results for 

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area. Results were mixed with seven 

monitors indicating statistically significant trends of varying strength and four monitors 

with no statistically significant trends noted in the data. A more detailed description of 

this analysis is included in the Trends Analsysis Section at the end of this document. 
17 

Table 4-5. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM Statistical Analysis 

Site t-Statistic Trend 

Harrison (Natrona) 9.671 Yes 

Lawrenceville (BAPC) 5.151 Yes 

North Braddock 4.478 Yes 

Washington 3.218 Yes 

Charleroi 2.965 Yes 

North Park 2.424 Yes 

South Fayette 2.359 Yes 

Moon (Coraopolis) 1.696 No 

Florence 1.523 No 

Greensburg 0.713 No 

Beaver Falls 0.611 No 

Further analysis will be needed to determine why some monitors in the PM2.5

nonattainment area appear to have statistically significant trends. . The PittsburghBeaver Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area covers a rather large area and has a relatively 

wide range of design values within it. To see this much variety in the trends and the 

design values is both interesting and unexpected. At this time, we can only speculate that 

the variation across the nonattainment area is due to recent changes in local emission 

sources or possibly it reflects recent controls on the mobile-source sector. 

Speciated Monitoring Analysis:

Three speciated monitors operate within the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area. The department operates two of these monitors (Florence and 

Greensburg) while the Lawrenceville monitor is operated by the Allegheny County 

Health Department. Results for the Commonwealth’s thirteen (13) speciated monitors 

are contained in the department’s annual Ambient Air Quality Reports. 

Speciation is a physical or chemical analysis of the captured particles that provide a first 

order characterization of the metals, ions, and carbon constituents of PM2.5. Physical and 

chemical speciation data can be used to support several areas of study such as: 

• Inputs to air quality modeling analyses used to implement the PM2.5 standard; 

• Indicators to track the progress of air pollution controls; 

• Aids to interpret studies linking health effects to PM2.5 constituents; 

• Aids to understand the effects of atmospheric constituents on visibility 

impairment; and 

• Aids in designing and siting monitoring networks. 

PM2.5 is composed of a mixture of primary and secondary particles, both having long 

lifetimes in the atmosphere (days to weeks), traveling long distances (hundreds to 

thousands of kilometers) and hence, not easily traced back to their individual sources. 
18 

Primary particles include soil-related particles such as road dust, construction and 

agriculture and combustion-related particles. Combustion-related particles come from a 

variety of sources such as diesel and gasoline vehicles, open burning operations, and 

utility and commercial boilers. The principle types of secondary aerosols are organics, 

sulfates and nitrates. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ammonia (ammonium sulfate, 

ammonium bisulfate, ammonium nitrate) are important precursors to secondary particles. 

Knowing the chemical composition of the PM2.5 mix is also important for determining 

sources of pollution. By developing seasonal and annual chemical characterizations of 

ambient particulates across the nation, this speciation data will be used to perform source 

attribution analyses, evaluate emission inventories and air quality models, and support 

health related research studies and regional haze assessments. 

Pennsylvania began operating a PM2.5 speciation network, consisting of 13 sampling 

sites, in April 2002. Figure 4-2 show speciation results for the most recent (2005) sample 

year (Pennsylvania Ambient Air Quality Report, 2005; Allegheny County Health 

Department Annual Air Quality Report for 2005). 

A cursory review of the 2005 data indicates percentages of the two largest PM2.5 

components are roughly identical (sulfates ~33%, organic carbon ~ 25%) between the 

three (3) speciated monitors in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area. 

Ammonium and Nitrates are the next most common identified elements within the data. 

The data indicate secondary components not directly emitted (i.e. sulfates and nitrates) 

make up a large portion of PM2.5 in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area. 

Figure 4-2. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Speciation Results 

Florence

Percentage of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

7%

Sulfate

34%

Ammonium

11%

Organic carbon

21%

Elemental carbon

4%

Crustal component

3%

Other

20%
19 

Figure 4-2. (Continued) Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Speciation Results 

Greensburg

Percentage of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

9%

Sulfate

33%

Ammonium

13%

Organic carbon

25%

Elemental carbon

5%

Crustal component

3%

Other

12%

Lawrenceville

Percentage of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

10%

Sulfate

31%

Ammonium

13%

Organic Carbon

26%

Elemental Carbon

5%

Crustal Component

4%

Other Species

11%
20 

Continuous Monitoring Analysis: 

Three continuous PM2.5 monitors operate within the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area. All of the continuous monitors are collocated with a FRM sampler. 

Continuous PM2.5 monitors were installed to give the instantaneous measurements needed 

for air-quality forecasting purposes. Monitor locations are depicted in Figure 2-1. Table 

4-6 lists details on the continuous monitors including manufacturer and date of 

installation. 

Table 4-6 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 Continuous Monitor Summary 

Site County Type Installation Date 

Beaver Falls Beaver TEOM FDMS July 2004 

Charleroi Washington BAM August 2006 

Lawrenceville Allegheny TEOM May 2000 

Continuous PM2.5 monitoring data can be used in several ways. These include a 

crosscheck with FRM measurements (on the days a FRM sample is collected) and an 

analysis of daily patterns in the data. 

Figure 4-3 shows the relationship between the FRM data and the corresponding data 

collected by the continuous monitor at Beaver Falls. The graph indicates there is a good 

correlation between the measurements from the continuous monitor and the FRM 

monitor. This is important because it indicates the continuous monitor gives a reasonable 

estimate of air quality on the days a FRM sample is not taken at Beaver Falls. 

Figure 4-3. Beaver Falls: FRM vs. TEOM 

Beaver Falls

PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM

July, 2004 to December, 2006 (265 Points)

y = 0.887x + 1.6385

R2

 = 0.8945

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

TEOM (ug/m3)

FRM (ug/m3)
21 

Another analysis that can be done with the continuous monitoring data is to examine 

average values by hour of collection. This reveals the average daily changes in local 

PM2.5 concentrations at a particular site. Fluctuations in daily PM2.5 concentrations are 

likely the result of local emissions and meteorology. 

Figure 4-4 depicts the hourly averaged PM2.5 concentrations at the Beaver Falls 

continuous monitor. All values are averaged for each hour so that there are twenty-four 

(24) values representing each hour of the day. 

Beaver Falls’ PM2.5 concentrations tend to be much higher during the overnight hours 

with a small peak (~1.0 μg/m3) occurring during hours eight (8), nine (9) and ten (10). 

This slight peak probably reflects changes in local traffic patterns due to primary 

particulate emissions from the mobile-source sector (morning rush). This peak is 

followed by a general decline in concentrations reflecting meteorological factors (vertical 

daytime mixing) that help dilute local PM2.5 concentrations that had built up overnight 

within the Beaver River valley. 

Figure 4-4. Beaver Falls Continuous Data: Hourly Averages 

A further analysis of continuous monitor data from Beaver Falls appears to confirm there 

is a traffic signal imbedded in the data. Separating the hourly averages by day of the 

week indicates this morning peak generally disappears over the weekend (see Figure 4-

5). The data also indicated PM2.5 concentrations tend to run higher on Tuesdays and 

Wednesdays and lower on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. 

Beaver Falls, PA

Continuous Monitoring Results - Average Concentration by Hour

7/15/2004 through 4/30/2007

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 
22 

Figure 4-5. Beaver Falls Continuous Data: Day of Week 

The downtown Pittsburgh site (Lawrenceville) shows an even stronger mobile source 

signature. Figure 4-6 shows the average hourly PM2.5 concentrations broken down by 

day of the week. A bimodal peak is seen in this monitor with elevated PM2.5 

concentrations observed in the morning and late evening hours corresponding to the 

morning and afternoon peaks in traffic. 

Note that Lawrenceville’s PM2.5 concentrations are much higher during the weekdays 

than during the weekends with the weekday concentrations above the monitor average 

and weekend concentrations below the monitor average. It is also interesting to note the 

Lawrenceville monitor has a statistically significant trend in its FRM design values while 

Beaver Falls does not. This may be due to the recent reductions in emissions from the 

mobile-source sector, which would be more apparent at monitors heavily influenced by 

local traffic patterns like Lawrenceville. 

4.2. Liberty-Clairton PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

Table 4-4 lists the municipalities that make up the Liberty-Clairton PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. Additional data analysis may be included in reports generated by the Allegheny 

County Health Department. 

Beaver Falls, PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

7/15/2004 through 4/30/2007

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
23 

Figure 4-6. Lawrenceville Continuous Data: Day of Week 

Table 4-7 Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment Area 

County Partial County 

Allegheny-only the City of Clairton, Borough of Glassport, 

Borough of Liberty, Borough of Lincoln, Borough of Port Vue

There are two monitors in the Liberty-Clairton PM2.5 nonattainment area. Both sites are 

maintained by the Allegheny County Health Department. Information on these two 

monitoring sites is summarized in Table 4-8. 

Table 4-8. Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment PM2.5 Area Monitors 

Site Description 

Liberty FRM (1/1), Continuous TEOM, Speciated 

Clairton FRM (1/6) 

Lawrenceville, PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

5/24/2000 through 12/31/2006

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
24 

4.2.1. Liberty-Clairton Monitoring Analysis 

The following sections provide a brief summary of PM2.5 monitoring concentrations 

within the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area. 2006 generally represents the most 

recently available data. Allegheny County may provide additional data analysis for this 

nonattainment area. 

FRM Monitoring Analysis: 

Table 4-9 summarizes current (2006) annual PM2.5 design values for the FRM monitors 

inside the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area. The Liberty monitor has the highest 

annual PM2.5 design value in the Commonwealth. Note there are significant differences 

between these two monitors, which are located within a few miles of one another. 

Table 4-9 Liberty-Clairton FRM Annual Design Value 

Site County FRM Annual Design Value 

μg/m3 

Liberty Allegheny 20.4 

Clairton Allegheny 14.9 

Table 4-10 shows the overall trends in the nonattainment area’s annual PM2.5 design 

values. The sampling period is limited to the last several years since the monitors in the 

nonattainment area only began operating in 1999. 

Table 4-10 Liberty-Clairton FRM Annual Design Value Trends 

SITE 1999-2001 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06

Liberty 20.9 21.4 21.2 20.4 20.8 20.4 

Clairton 18.7 17.3 17.2 15.6 15.7 14.9 

The PA DEP conducted a statistical analysis of the Liberty-Clairton monitors to 

determine if there were any statistically significant trends in their design values. Our 

analysis showed that there was a statistically significant trend at the Clairton monitor. No 

statistically significant trend, however, was found at Liberty. Results of the statistical 

analysis can be found in the Trends Analsysis Section at the end of this document. 

Speciated Monitoring Analysis: 

Only one speciated monitor (Liberty) operates in the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area. 

Figure 4-7 shows the breakdown of the major PM2.5 components at the Liberty monitor 

for 2005. Additional information regarding the speciated data can be found in the 

Allegheny County Health Department’s Annual Report (2005). 
25 

The Liberty speciated components have similar percentages to other speciated monitors 

in the surrounding Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area. The two largest 

components are sulfates and organic carbon; both have roughly identical percentages to 

the surrounding monitors. There is, however, a significant difference in elemental carbon 

percentage; Liberty has a roughly two to three times higher percentage than the 

surrounding monitors (12% vs. 4-5%). 

Figure 4-7. Liberty PM2.5 Speciation Results 

Continuous Monitoring Analysis: 

The Allegheny County Health Department operates one continuous monitor in the 

Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area. A TEOM monitor has been operated at the Liberty 

site since January of 2000. Figure 4-8 shows the hourly averages for the entire data set. 

The results indicate on average PM2.5 concentrations are typically higher during the 

overnight hours than during the day. This suggests local emissions are “accumulating” 

underneath the nighttime inversion then being “diluted” during the day when daytime 

heating enhances vertical mixing. The difference between the average overnight 

concentrations and daytime concentrations is significant. Overnight PM2.5 concentrations 

at Liberty are approximately two times greater than during the day. 

There does not appear to be a significant traffic signal in the Liberty data like those noted 

at the Beaver Falls and Lawrenceville sites. This is probably due to the lack of a major 

Liberty

Percentage of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

6%

Sulfate

29%

Ammonium

12%

Organic Carbon

25%

Elemental Carbon

12%

Crustal Component

3%

Other Species

13%
26 

highway near the Liberty monitoring site and the heavy influence of local sources on the 

monitor. 

Figure 4-8. Liberty Continuous Data: Day of Week 

4.3 Johnstown Nonattainment Area 

Table 4-11 lists the county and townships that make up the Johnstown nonattainment 

area. The nonattainment area consists of the entire county of Cambria and portions of 

Indiana County. 

Table 4-11 Johnstown Nonattainment Area 

County Partial County 

Indiana – only Center Twp, East Wheatfield Twp, West 

Wheatfield Township, Homer City Borough, Armagh Borough

Cambria 

Liberty Monitor

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

12/15/1999 through 12/31/2006

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
27 

4.3.1 Johnstown Monitoring Analysis 

The following sections provide a brief summary of PM2.5 monitoring concentrations 

within the Johnstown nonattainment area. 2006 generally represents the most recently 

available data. 

The Johnstown monitor is the only monitor in the nonattainment area. The site contains 

an FRM sampler and a continuous monitor. Table 4-12 summarizes the monitor 

description. 

Table 4-12 Johnstown PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary 

Site Description 

Johnstown FRM (1/3), Continuous BAM 

FRM Monitoring Analysis: 

Table 4-13 lists the Johnstown PM2.5 nonattainment area’s current (2006) design value. 

Johnstown’s current annual design value, 15.3 μg/m3, is quite close to the annual 

standard. Table 4-14 shows Johnstown’s design value trend. The FRM monitor began 

operations in 1999. Design values have fluctuated over the last several years, which 

matches our statistical trend analysis (see Trends Analsysis Section at the end of this 

document) indicating no firm trend in the data. 

Table 4-13 Johnstown FRM Annual Concentrations 

Site County FRM Annual Design Value 

μg/m3 

Johnstown Cambria 15.3 

Table 4-14 Johnstown FRM Design Value Trends 

SITE 1999-2001 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06

Johnstown 15.3 15.8 15.8 15.3 15.6 15.3 

Continuous Monitoring Analysis: 

The Department maintains a continuous monitor at Johnstown in addition to an FRM 

sampler. The continuous BAM unit began operations in August 2004. Figure 4-9 
28 

compares the FRM data and the corresponding BAM data from the Johnstown 

monitoring site (scatter plot). Results between the continuous and FRM sampler are still 

quite good indicating the continuous monitor generally reflects actual concentrations as 

measured by the FRM sampler. 

Figure 4-9 Johnstown: FRM vs. TEOM 

The continuous monitor provides additional data not available from the FRM monitor. 

This includes any diurnal patterns, how PM2.5 concentrations vary during the day, and 

any patterns based on day or the week. 

Figure 4-10 shows the average daily concentrations by hour and day of the week for the 

Johnstown BAM unit. Two patterns are apparent in the BAM data. One is a “morning 

rush hour” signal seen as a peak in PM2.5 concentrations centered on hour nine (9). Note 

that this peak is completely absent during the weekend (Saturday and Sunday). There is 

also a difference in overall concentrations based on the day of the week. Generally PM2.5

concentrations are higher during the weekdays than the weekends (~1-3 μg/m3

). It’s also 

interesting to note that concentrations, on average, trend upwards about midway through 

Monday, remain high during the week then decrease to weekend levels early Saturday 

morning. There is also a general decline in PM2.5 concentrations in the early morning 

hours during the weekday. This information give may be useful in determining which 

sources are contributing to Johnstown’s nonattainment problem. 

Johnstown

PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM

August, 2004 to December, 2006 (272 Points)

y = 0.8833x + 1.3357

R2

 = 0.9613

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

BAM (ug/m3)

FRM (ug/m3)
29 

Figure 4-10. Johnstown Continuous Data: Day of Week 

4.4. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Nonattainment Area 

Table 4-15 lists the counties that make up the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle nonattainment 

area. The nonattainment area consists of three counties: Dauphin, Cumberland and 

Lebanon. 

Table 4-15 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Nonattainment Area 

County Partial County 

Cumberland 

Dauphin 

Lebanon 

4.4.1. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitoring 

Analysis 

The following sections provide a brief summary of PM2.5 monitoring concentrations 

within the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PM2.5 nonattainment area. The 2006 PM2.5 data 

Johnstown, PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

8/04/2004 through 12/31/2006

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
30 

generally represents the most recently available data. Table 4-16 summarizes the types of 

monitors within the nonattainment area. 

Table 4-16. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor 

Summary 

Site County Description 

Harrisburg Dauphin FRM (1/1), Continuous TEOM, Speciated (1/6) 

Carlisle Cumberland FRM (1/1) 

FRM Monitoring Analysis: 

Table 4-17 lists the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle nonattainment area’s current (2006) 

annual design value. The nonattainment area’s current value, 15.0 μg/m3 at Harrisburg, 

meets the annual PM2.5 standard. Annual design values at least one of the two monitors 

in the nonattainment area exceeded the standard prior to 2006. 

Table 4-17. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle FRM Annual Concentrations 

Site County FRM Annual Design Value 

μg/m3 

Harrisburg Dauphin 15.0 

Carlisle Cumberland 14.4 

Table 4-18 shows the design value trend over the last several years. The Harrisburg FRM 

monitor began operations in 1999 while the Carlisle FRM monitor began operations in 

2000. Design values within the nonattainment area have fluctuated over the last several 

years. Statistical analyses have confirmed this finding neither the Harrisburg nor the 

Carlisle FRM monitors have a statistically significant trend (see Trends Analsysis Section 

at the end of this document). 

Table 4-18. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle FRM Annual Design Value Trends 

SITE 1999-2001 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06

Harrisburg 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.4 15.8 15.0 

Carlisle 14.9 15.1 14.4 

Speciated Monitoring Analysis: 

The PA DEP has operated a speciated monitor at the Harrisburg site since April 2002. 

Speciated samples are collected once every six days (1/6). The filter sample is then sent 

to a lab for special analysis. 
31 

Figure 4-11 shows the results from the most recently available speciated data for the 

Harrisburg monitor (2005). These results were taken from the PA DEP (2005) Annual 

Ambient Air-Quality Report. The largest PM2.5 components at Harrisburg appear to be 

sulfate and organic carbon followed by nitrate and ammonium. Percentages of these 

components appear to be similar to other speciated monitors inside the Commonwealth. 

Figure 4-11. Harrisburg PM2.5 Speciation Results 

Continuous Monitoring Analysis: 

The Department has operated a continuous (BAM) unit at the Harrisburg monitoring site 

since May 2004. This is the only continuous monitor in the nonattainment area and was 

installed to assist the PA DEP’s air-quality forecasters. 

A comparison of the FRM and continuous unit is shown in Figure 4-12. The scatter plot 

indicates the continuous unit tends to yield a higher PM2.5 concentration than the FRM 

sampler. This may be due to the BAM unit’s sample methodology. Results between the 

continuous and FRM sampler are still quite good indicating the continuous monitor 

generally reflects actual concentrations as measured by the FRM sampler. 

Harrisburg

Percentage Of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

17%

Sulfate

28%

Ammonium

14%

Organic carbon

23%

Elemental carbon

5%

Crustal component

3%

Other

10%
32 

Figure 4-12. Harrisburg: FRM vs. BAM 

Figure 4-13 shows the average daily concentrations by hour and day of the week for the 

Harrisburg BAM unit. Several patterns are apparent. The first being PM2.5 

concentrations tend to run higher overnight than during the day. This is probably due to 

meteorological conditions (nocturnal inversion trapping local emissions). There is also 

an apparent “morning rush-hour” signal centered on hour nine (9). This peak is not 

apparent during the weekend. Also PM2.5 concentrations tend to run higher during the 

workweek (Monday through Friday) with the exception of the early morning hours of 

Monday. These patterns suggest a strong anthropogenic signal in the PM2.5 data. 

Harrisburg

PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM

May, 2004 to December, 2006 (296 Points)

y = 0.7354x + 1.5373

R2

 = 0.8928

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

BAM (ug/m3)

FRM (ug/m3)
33 

Figure 4-13. Harrisburg PM2.5 Continuous Data: Day of Week 

4.5. York PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

The York PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the entire county of York and is bordered by 

nonattainment areas to the north, east and south. Adams County (to the west) contains a 

monitor that meets the annual standard. 

4.5.1 York Monitoring Analysis 

The following sections provide a brief summary of PM2.5 monitoring concentrations 

within the York nonattainment area. 2006 generally represents the most recently 

available data. Table 4-19 lists the types of monitors at the York site. 

Table 4-19. York PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary 

Site County Description 

York York FRM (1/3), Continuous TEOM, Speciated (1/6) 

Harrisburg, PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

5/11/2004 through 12/31/2006

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
34 

FRM Monitoring Analysis: 

Table 4-20 lists the York nonattainment area’s PM2.5 design values from 2001 through 

2006. The monitor’s current annual design value is 16.2 μg/m3

, which exceeds the 

annual PM2.5 standard. 

Design values within the nonattainment area have fluctuated over the last several years. 

Statistical analyses have confirmed this finding the York monitor has no statistically 

significant trend (see Trends Analsysis Section at the end of this document). 

Table 4-20. York FRM Annual Design Value Trends 

SITE 1999-2001 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06

York 16.2 16.8 17.0 17.0 17.3 16.2 

Speciated Monitoring Analysis: 

The PA DEP has operated a speciated monitor at the York site since April 2002. 

Speciated samples are collected once every six days (1/6). The filter sample is then sent 

to a lab for special analysis. 

Figure 4-14 shows the results from the most recently available speciated data for the 

York monitor (2005). These results were taken from the PA DEP’s 2005 Annual 

Ambient Air-Quality Report. The largest PM2.5 components at York appear to be sulfate 

and organic carbon followed by nitrate and ammonium. Percentages of these 

components appear to be similar to other speciated monitors inside the Commonwealth. 

Continuous Monitoring Analysis: 

The Department has operated a continuous (TEOM) unit at the York monitoring site 

since August 2004. This is the only continuous monitor in the nonattainment area and 

was installed in order to assist the PA DEP’s air-quality forecasters. 

A comparison of the FRM and continuous unit is shown in Figure 4-15. Results between 

the continuous and FRM sampler are still quite good indicating the continuous monitor 

generally reflects actual concentrations as measured by the FRM sampler. 
35 

Figure 4-14 York PM2.5 Speciation Results 

Figure 4-15 York: FRM vs. BAM 

York

Percentage Of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

17%

Sulfate

26%

Ammonium

14%

Organic carbon

24%

Elemental carbon

5%

Crustal component

3%

Other

11%

York

PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM

August, 2004 to December, 2006 (248 Points)

y = 0.844x + 1.5068

R2

 = 0.8921

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

TEOM (ug/m3)

FRM (ug/m3)
36 

Figure 4-16 shows the average daily concentrations by hour and day of the week for the 

York TEOM unit. Several patterns are apparent in the data. The first being PM2.5 

concentrations tend to run higher overnight than during the day. This is probably due to 

meteorological conditions (nocturnal inversion trapping local emissions). There is also 

an apparent “morning rush-hour” signal centered on hour eight (8). York’s morning peak 

is one of the largest ones noted in the Commonwealth’s continuous monitors (> 3 μg/m3). 

This peak is less apparent over the weekend. York’s PM2.5 concentrations tend to run 

higher during the workweek (Monday through Friday) with the exception of the early 

morning hours of Monday. These patterns suggest a strong anthropogenic signal in the 

PM2.5 data. 

Figure 4-16. York Continuous PM2.5 Data: Day of Week 

4.6 Lancaster Nonattainment Area 

The Lancaster nonattainment area includes the entire county of Lancaster. 

Nonattainment areas surround the county. The Lancaster monitor and the York monitor 

to the west have the highest annual PM2.5 design values in the Commonwealth outside of 

the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area near Pittsburgh. 

York, PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

8/18/2004 through 12/31/2006

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
37 

4.6.1 Lancaster Monitoring Analysis 

The following sections provide a brief summary of PM2.5 monitoring concentrations 

within the Lancaster nonattainment area. 2006 generally represents the most recently 

available data. Table 4-21 lists the types of monitors at the Lancaster site. 

Table 4-21 Lancaster Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary 

Site County Description 

Lancaster Lancaster FRM (1/3), Continuous TEOM, Speciated (1/6) 

FRM Monitoring Analysis: 

Table 4-21 lists the Lancaster nonattainment area’s design values from 2001 through 

2006. The monitor’s current annual design value is 16.3 μg/m3

, which exceeds the 

annual PM2.5 standard. 

Design values within the nonattainment area have fluctuated over the last several years. 

Statistical analyses have confirmed this finding the Lancaster monitor has no statistically 

significant trend (see Trends Analsysis Section at the end of this document). 

Table 4-20. Lancaster FRM Annual PM2.5 Design Value Trends 

SITE 1999-2001 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06

Lancaster 17.0 17.2 17.0 16.8 17.5 16.3 

Speciated Monitoring Analysis: 

The PA DEP has operated a speciated monitor at the Lancaster site since April 2002. 

Speciated samples are collected once every six days (1/6). The filter sample is sent to a 

lab for special analysis. 

Figure 4-17 shows the results from the most recently available speciated data for the 

Lancaster monitor (2005). These results were taken from the PA DEP 2005 Annual 

Ambient Air-Quality Report. The largest PM2.5 components at Lancaster appear to be 

sulfate and organic carbon followed by nitrate and ammonium. Percentages of these 

components appear to be similar to other speciated monitors inside the Commonwealth. 
38 

Figure 4-17 Lancaster PM2.5 Speciation Results 

Continuous Monitoring Analysis: 

The Department has operated a continuous (TEOM) unit at the Lancaster monitoring site 

since November 2003. This is the only continuous monitor in the nonattainment area and 

was installed to assist the PA DEP’s air-quality forecasters. 

A comparison of the FRM and continuous unit is shown in Figure 4-18. Results between 

the continuous and FRM sampler are still quite good indicating the continuous monitor 

generally reflects actual concentrations as measured by the FRM sampler. 

Figure 4-19 shows the average daily concentrations by hour and day of the week for the 

Lancaster TEOM unit. Several patterns are apparent in the data. The first being PM2.5 

concentrations tend to run higher overnight than during the day. This is probably due to 

meteorological conditions (nocturnal inversion trapping local emissions). There is also 

an apparent “morning rush-hour” signal centered on hour eight (8). Lancaster’s morning 

peak is somewhat significant, ~2 μg/m3

. This peak is less apparent over the weekend. 

Lancaster’s PM2.5 concentrations tend to run higher during the workweek (Monday 

through Friday) with the exception of the early morning hours of Monday. These 

patterns suggest a strong anthropogenic signal in the PM2.5 data. 

Lancaster

Percentage Of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

20%

Sulfate

25%

Ammonium

15%

Organic carbon

23%

Elemental carbon

4%

Crustal component

2%

Other

11%
39 

Figure 4-18. Lancaster: FRM vs. BAM 

Figure 4-19 Lancaster Continuous PM2.5 Data: Day of Week 

Lancaster

PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM

November, 2003 to December, 2006 (365 Points)

y = 0.8752x + 0.1548

R2

 = 0.9287

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

TEOM (ug/m3)

FRM (ug/m3)

Lancaster, PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

11/7/2003 through 3/31/2007

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
40 

4.7 Reading PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

The Reading PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the entire county of Berks. 

Nonattainment areas surround the county on its western, southern and eastern borders. 

The monitor in Northampton County, to the northeast, currently meets the annual PM2.5 

standard. 

4.7.1. Reading Monitoring Analysis 

The following sections provide a brief summary of PM2.5 monitoring concentrations 

within the Reading nonattainment area. 2005 generally represents the most recently 

available data. Table 4-21 lists the types of monitors in the Reading nonattainment area. 

The Reading monitor was relocated to a permanent site near the Reading Airport (Spaatz 

Field) in July of 2007. The original site, Reading (UGI), was discontinued due to 

property leasing issues in May of 2006. A temporary site in the City of Reading was 

operated until a final leasing agreement was formalized and the new site prepared. An 

additional FRM sampler, located at the DEP’s Reading District Office (RDO) near 

Tuckerton, was established to determine PM2.5 gradients in the region. This site will be 

maintained until a proper design value can be obtained from the new Reading (Airport) 

site, though there are pending leasing issues with this site also. A speciation site was 

added to the Reading (Airport) site in 2007. Thus speciated samples have only been 

collected in Berks County since 2007. 

Table 4-21. Reading Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary 

Site County Operation Description 

Reading (UGI) Berks Discontinued May 2006 FRM (1/3), Continuous TEOM 

Reading 

(Downtown) 

Berks May 2006 through May 2007 FRM (1/3), Continuous TEOM 

Reading (Airport) Berks July 2007 to present FRM (1/3), Speciation (1/6), 

Continuous TEOM 

Reading District 

Office 

Berks August 2005 to present FRM (1/6) 

FRM Monitoring Analysis: 

Table 4-22 lists the Reading PM2.5 nonattainment area’s design values from 2001 through 

2005. The nonattainment area’s most recent annual design value (2005) is 16.2 μg/m3, 

which exceeds the annual PM2.5 standard. If data are combined for the three sites, Berks 

County’s annual design value is estimated to be 15.8 μg/m3. 

All four monitoring sites in Berks County are within five miles of each other. The scatter 

plots for the two Reading sites (UGI and Downtown) and the Reading District Office site 

indicate PM2.5 concentrations are very similar to each other (Figure 2-20) suggesting 
41 

there is a relatively uniform PM2.5 gradient in the vicinity of the City of Reading. This 

result suggests that it may acceptable to combine all of the PM2.5 data to generate a design 

value. 

Table 4-22. Reading FRM Annual PM2.5 Design Value Trends 

SITE 1999-2001 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06

Reading (UGI) 15.6 16.7 16.4 16.1 16.2 15.8 ** 

** Combined data 

Figure 4-20. PM2.5 Scatter Plots for Berks County Monitors 

Design values within the nonattainment area have fluctuated over the last several years. 

Statistical analyses have confirmed this noting the Reading monitor has no statistically 

significant trend (see Trends Analsysis Section at the end of this document). 

Speciated Monitoring Analysis: 

A speciation monitor is currently operating at the Reading Airport site that began 

operations in July 2007. No speciation data was collected in the nonattainment area prior 

to this date. 

Continuous Monitoring Analysis: 

A continuous PM2.5 TEOM monitor was operated at the Reading UGI site from October 

2004 until the site was discontinued in May of 2006. From May 2006 through May of 

2007 the monitor was located within the City of Reading limits. 

Berks County

Reading (UGI) vs. Reading District Office (RDO)

August 2005 to May 2006 (45 Points)

y = 1.0554x - 0.1865

R2

 = 0.9173

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

UGI (ug/m3)

RDO (ug/m3)

Berks County

Reading (Downtown) vs. Reading District Office (RDO)

May 2006 to May 2007 (58 Points)

y = 0.9451x + 1.0855

R2

 = 0.8385

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Downtown (ug/m3)

RDO (ug/m3)
42 

Continuous PM2.5 data from both of these sites is presented even though both data sets 

are relatively small. Comparing both Reading sites will give some indication of the 

variability in the data. The old UGI site was located on the southern side of the City of 

Reading between state route 10 and US 422, a limited access four-lane highway. The 

temporary site was located at the City of Reading’s Maintenance Garage located off of 6th

Street. Both sites are approximately two miles apart. 

Figure 4-21 compares twenty-four hour averaged PM2.5 concentrations collected using the 

FRM and corresponding TEOM values. Results between the continuous and FRM 

sampler are still quite good indicating the continuous monitor generally reflects actual 

concentrations as measured by the FRM sampler. 

Figure 4-22 shows the average daily concentrations by hour and day of the week for both 

the UGI and downtown monitor locations. The daily averages for all days are 

remarkably similar for both sites despite the differences in location. Both sites exhibit a 

strong jump in morning PM2.5 concentrations (~3.0 μg/m3) centered on hour eight (8). 

Both sites also show significant differences in concentrations between weekdays and 

weekends. Concentrations at both sites tend to be a bit lower over the weekend (Saturday 

and Sunday) though the UGI site has much higher concentrations on Saturday than the 

downtown site. This is probably due to traffic pattern differences. 

Figure 4-21. Reading (UGI & Downtown) : FRM vs. TEOM 

Reading (UGI)

PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM

October, 2004 to May, 2006 (170 Points)

y = 0.8936x + 0.1464

R2

 = 0.9315

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

TEOM (ug/m3)

FRM (ug/m3)
43 

Figure 4-21 Continued 

Reading (Downtown)

PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM

May, 2006 to May, 2007 (117 Points)

y = 0.879x - 0.1752

R2

 = 0.961

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

TEOM (ug/m3)

FRM (ug/m3)
44 

Figure 4-22 Reading (UGI & Downtown) Continuous Data: Day of Week 

Reading (UGI), PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

10/06/2004 through 5/10/2006

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Reading (Downtown), PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

5/25/2006 through 5/23/2007

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
45 

4.8 Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Nonattainment Area 

The Philadelphia-Wilmington PM2.5 nonattainment area is a multi-state nonattainment 

area comprised of counties in the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. 

Counties are listed in Table 4-23. There are some slight differences between counties 

included in the annual PM2.5 nonattainment area and the corresponding eight-hour ozone 

nonattainment area with the former including far fewer counties. 

Table 4-23. Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA, NJ, DE PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

State County Partial County 

Pennsylvania Bucks 

 Chester 

 Delaware 

 Montgomery 

 Philadelphia 

Delaware New Castle 

New Jersey Burlington 

 Camden 

 Gloucester 

4.8.1 Philadelphia-Wilmington PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitoring Analysis 

The following sections provide a brief summary of annual PM2.5 monitoring 

concentrations within the Philadelphia-Wilmington nonattainment area. Generally only 

data from monitors inside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is included in this 

analysis. Data from other states in the nonattainment area are included if provided by the 

appropriate agency. 

The 2006 data generally represents the most recently available data. Table 4-24 lists the 

types of monitors inside the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington 

nonattainment area. 

A total of ten (10) monitoring sites have operated in Pennsylvania’s portion of the 

nonattainment area. Four of these monitors are operated by the department with the 

remaining six monitors (in Philadelphia County) operated by Philadelphia County’s 

Department of Health, Air-Management Services. Of these ten (10) monitoring sites 

only eight (8) continued operations into 2006. 
46 

Table 4-24. Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA, NJ, DE PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

Monitors 

Federal Reference Method (FRM) Monitors 

Site County Operation Sample Frequency 

Bristol Bucks Since 1999 1/3 

New Garden Chester Since 2002 1/3 

Chester Delaware Since 1999 1/3 

Norristown Montgomery Since 1999 1/3 

AMS Lab Philadelphia Since 1999 1/1 

Roxboro Philadelphia 2002 - 2004 1/3 

Belmont Philadelphia 1999 - 2005 1/3 

NE Airport Philadelphia Since 1999 1/1 

Broad Street Philadelphia Since 1999 1/3 to 1/1 (2006) 

Elmwood Philadelphia Since 1999 1/1 

Speciated Monitors 

Site County Operation Sample Frequency 

New Garden Chester April 2002 1/6 

Chester Delaware April 2002 1/6 

AMS Lab Philadelphia 1/6 

Elmwood Philadelphia 1/6 

Continuous Monitors 

Site County Operation Type 

Chester Delaware Since May 2006 BAMS 

Norristown Montgomery Since Oct 2003 TEOM FDMS 

AMS Lab Philadelphia Since May 2006 BAMS 

NE Airport Philadelphia Since August 2006 BAMS 

FRM Monitoring Analysis: 

Table 4-25 lists a portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington PM2.5 nonattainment area’s 

design values. The PM2.5 nonattainment area’s most recent annual design value (2006) is 

15.2 μg/m3

, which exceeds the annual PM2.5 standard. Monitoring values for Delaware 

and New Jersey are also provided in the table. All data was considered for New Jersey 

regardless of completeness. 

Annual design values in Table 4-25 indicate, as of 2006, only one monitor in the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington nonattainment area exceeds the annual PM2.5 standard. This is 

tempered by the fact that there are some extended periods of missing data from the 500 
47 

Broad Street monitor in Philadelphia County. This monitor was the peak monitor in the 

nonattainment area at time of designation. We also note that the Chester monitor, the 

area’s current design monitor, has had some interference issues from a nearby local 

source. 

Design values within the nonattainment area have fluctuated over the last several years. 

Statistical analyses indicate some mixed trends in the Philadelphia-Wilmington 

nonattainment area (see Trends Analsysis Section at the end of this document). All of the 

monitors in Philadelphia County and the Norristown monitor appear to be trending 

downward. The Chester and Bristol monitors do not. Downward trending monitors 

appear to be in heavy traffic areas and thus may be tracking reductions in mobile source 

emissions enacted over the last several years. 

Table 4-25 Philadelphia-Wilmington FRM Annual PM2.5 Design Value Trends 

SITE 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06 

Philadelphia AMS 15.2 15.2 14.4 14.3 13.9 

Philadelphia NE 14.3 13.8 13.2 13.0 12.8 

Philadelphia Broad St 16.6 16.2 15.4 15.2 15.0 

Philadelphia Elmwood 15.1 14.9 13.6 13.7 13.4 

Bristol 14.1 14.3 13.9 13.9 13.2 

Chester 15.5 15.3 15.0 15.6 15.2 

Norristown 14.0 14.1 13.2 12.8 12.2 

New Garden 14.6 15.1 14.8 15.2 14.2 

DE Bellefonte 15.0 14.8 14.2 14.3 13.5 

DE MLK 16.3 16.0 15.0 15.1 14.8 

DE Newark 15.2 15.0 14.6 14.6 13.9 

DE Lums Pond 13.9 13.6 13.2 13.4 12.8 

NJ Camden Lab Primary 14.3 14.7 14.3 14.6 13.3 

NJ Pennsauken 14.5 14.0 13.7 13.8 13.3 

NJ Gibbstown 14.0 13.5 12.8 13.5 11.9 

Speciated Monitoring Analysis 

The PA DEP has operated a speciated monitors at the Chester and New Garden sites 

since April 2002. Additional speciated monitors are located at the Air Management 

Services lab and Ritner monitor in Philadelphia County. Speciated samples are collected 

once every six days (1/6). Filter samples are then sent to a lab for special analysis. 

Figure 4-23 shows the results from the most recently available speciated data for the 

Chester and New Garden monitors (2005) operated by the PA DEP and the Lab and 

Ritner sites operated by Philadelphia County’s Department of Health, Air-Management 

Services. These results were taken from the PA DEP (2005) Annual Ambient AirQuality Report. Philadelphia County provided the 2005-speciated data for the Lab and 

Ritner sites. The largest PM2.5 components at all the speciated monitors appear to be 
48 

sulfate and organic carbon followed by nitrate and ammonium. Percentages of these 

components appear to be similar to other speciated monitors inside the Commonwealth. 

Figure 4-23 Philadelphia-Wilmington PM2.5 Speciation Results 

Chester

Percentage of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

11%

Sulfate

26%

Ammonium

11%

Organic carbon

23%

Elemental carbon

4%

Crustal component

3%

Other

22%

New Garden

Percentage Of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Nitrate

18%

Sulfate

24%

Ammonium

14%

Organic carbon

20%

Elemental carbon

3%

Crustal component

2%

Other

19%
49 

Figure 4-23 continued

Philadelphia: LAB

Percentage of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Other

12%

Crustal

3%

Nitrate

13%

Sulfate

28%

Ammonium

13%

Organic carbon

26%

Elemental carbon

5%

Philadelphia: Ritner

Percentage of Total Mass

Year: 2005

Elemental carbon

6%

Organic carbon

27%

Ammonium

13%

Sulfate

27%

Nitrate

13% Crustal

3%

Other

12%
50 

Continuous Monitor Analysis: 

The Department has operated a continuous (TEOM FDMS) unit at the Norristown 

monitoring site since October 2003. This continuous monitor was originally installed to 

assist the PA DEP’s air-quality forecasters. Additional continuous monitors have since 

been installed in the region including a BAMS unit installed at Chester in May of 2006 

and two monitors in Philadelphia County also in 2006. 

A comparison of Norristown’s FRM and continuous unit is shown in Figure 4-24. 

Results between the continuous and FRM sampler are relatively good though the TEOM 

FDMS values run consistently higher than the FRM values at Norristown. Nonetheless, 

the correlation is still pretty good indicating the continuous monitor generally reflects 

actual concentrations as measured by the FRM sampler. 

Figure 4-25 shows the average daily concentrations by hour and day of the week for the 

Norristown TEOM FDMS unit. Several patterns are apparent in the data. The first being 

PM2.5 concentrations tend to run higher overnight than during the day though the 

difference is not as large as some of the other monitors in the Commonwealth. This is 

probably due to meteorological conditions (nocturnal inversion trapping local emissions). 

There is also an apparent “morning rush-hour” signal centered on hour seven (7). 

Norristown’s morning peak is somewhat significant, ~2 μg/m3. This morning peak is 

generally missing from Saturday and Sunday. 

Figure 4-24 Norristown: FRM vs. TEOM 

Norristown

PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM

October, 2003 to December, 2006 (336 Points)

y = 0.718x + 0.2216

R2

 = 0.8058

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

TEOM (ug/m3)

FRM (ug/m3)
51 

Figure 4-25 Norristown Continuous Data: Day of Week 

5.0 References 

Allegheny County Health Department Annual Air-Quality Report for 2005, 

http://www.achd.net/airqual/pubs/pdf/05annualrpt.pdf 

Cap and Trade: Acid Rain Program Basics, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/captrade/docs/arbasics.pdf 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Ambient 

Air Quality Report, 2004, 2005: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/aqm/aqreport.htm 

Evaluating Ozone Control Programs in the Eastern United States: Focus on the NOx

Budget Trading Program, 2004, U.S. EPA Report (EPA454-K-05-001), August 2005, 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/docs/ozonenbp.pdf 

Lynch, J.A., Carrick, H, Horner, K.S., Grimm, J.W., Reductions in Acidic Wet 

Deposition in Pennsylvania Following Implementation of the Clean Air Act 1995-

2005, 2006. 

Pittsburgh Air Quality Study, homer.cheme.cmu.edu/index.html

Norristown, PA

Continuous Monitoring Results

Average Concentration by Hour and Day of the Week

11/7/2003 through 3/31/2007

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Concentration ug/m3 

Average

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
1 

Trend Analysis Section
Methodology

This analysis began with 3-year mean PM2.5 design value data for each monitor location in

Pennsylvania. These data were obtained for six periods over 2001 through 2006, where

each given year is the average of that year and the two prior years. (For example, the

“2001” data is actually the mean of the 1999–2001 data.)

At each monitor site, a linear regression line was calculated for the design value data using

the least squares method. That is, a line described by equation 1 was determined where

the slope of the line (βˆ

1) and the y-intercept (βˆ0) resulted in the lowest possible value for

the residual term in equation 2, that is (y − yˆ).

yˆ = βˆ

0 + βˆ1x (1)

X(y − yˆ)

2 =

X

y − βˆ

0 − βˆ1x

2

(2)

Because data with no trend would necessarily have a slope of zero, that established the null

hypothesis as H0 : βˆ

1 = 0. To determine if the slope is non-zero to a statistically significant

degree, the t-test was used for five degrees of freedom (df = n − 1) at a 95% confidence

(α = 0.05). This established a rejection region for the null hypothesis begining at 2.015.

t =

y ̄ − μ0

s/√n

(3)

Where the absolute value of t, as calculated by equation 3, exceeds 2.015, we can therefore

reject the null hypothesis and assume that there is a statistically significant trend in the

data.

Application

For each monitor, t statistics were calculated using the R1language. The results at

Pennsylvania monitors are summarized in table 1 below. Monitors outside of PA are

included in table 2. Sites with a statistically significant trend are listed in bold type.

1R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing

(2007), available at http://www.R-project.org.

1
Table 1: PA Monitors: Results of the analysis

Monitor t-Statistic Trend

Allentown 0.64 No

Arendtsville -0.32 No

Beaver Falls 0.28 No

Bristol -2.4 Yes

Carlisle 0.58 No

Charleroi -3.08 Yes

Chester -0.45 No

Clairton -3.04 Yes

Coraopolis -0.98 No

Erie -2.76 Yes

Farrell -6.86 Yes

Florence -1.56 No

Freemansburg -3.1 Yes

Greensburg -0.35 No

Harrisburg -1.08 No

Johnstown -2.05 Yes

Lancaster -0.81 No

Liberty -2.8 Yes

McKees Rocks 1.26 No

Natrona -7.63 Yes

New Garden -0.7 No

Norristown -5.8 Yes

North Braddock -3.03 Yes

North Park -4.12 Yes

Perry County 0.36 No

Philadelphia AMS -5.24 Yes

Philadelphia Belmont -0.76 No

Philadelphia Broad St -5.87 Yes

Philadelphia Elmwood -3.8 Yes

Philadelphia NE -8.85 Yes

Pittsburgh (BAPC) -3.45 Yes

Pittsburgh (Gladstone) -1.62 No

Reading -3.25 Yes

Scranton -2.23 Yes

South Fayette -1.05 No

Springdale -0.61 No

State College 0.79 No

Washington -2.02 Yes

Wilkes-Barre -0.53 No

York -0.5 No

2
Table 2: DE and NJ Monitors: Results of the analysis

Monitor t-Statistic Trend

DE Lums Pond -3.57 Yes

DE MLK-a -4.47 Yes

DE Newark-a -5.16 Yes

NJ Camden Lab Primary -1.29 No

NJ Gibstown -2.6 Yes

NJ Pennsauken -4.66 Yes

3