i 

# Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Summary of Pennsylvania’s
PM 2.5 

# 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.usii This page left intentionally blankiii Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................... ...... 1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ ........ 1 1.0 Overview of PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas in the Commonwealth............................. 1 1.1. Background on Fine-Particulate Pollution.................................................................. 1
1.2 PM 2.5 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 NO
x Budget Trading Program (NO
x 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 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Analysis.......................................................................... 13 4.1 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley....................................................................................... 14 4.1.1 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 Monitoring Analysis ................................... 15 4.2. Liberty-Clairton PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area......................................................... 22 4.2.1. Liberty-Clairton M onitoring 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 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitoring Analysis

............................................................................................................................... .... 29 4.5. York PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitoring Analysis.. 45 5.0 References................................................................................................................ .. 51iv Table of Figures

Figure 2-1. Pennsylvania PM 2.5 Monitoring Network ....................................................... 4 Figure 2-2. Pennsylvania’s Atmospheri c Deposition Monitoring Network ...................... 6 Figure 3-1. Sulfur dioxide emissi ons 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 NO
x SIP Call Region, Program Implementation............................................ 10 Figure 4-1 Pennsylvania PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas ..................................................... 13 Figure 4-2. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 Speciation Results ..................................... 18 Figure 4-3. Beaver Falls: FRM vs. TEOM ...................................................................... 20 Figure 4-4. Beaver Falls Conti nuous Data: Hourly Averages ........................................ 21 Figure 4-5. Beaver Falls Con tinuous Data: Day of Week .............................................. 22 Figure 4-6. Lawrenceville Conti nuous Data: Day of Week ........................................... 23 Figure 4-7. Liberty PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Speciation Results........................................................... 31 Figure 4-12. Harrisburg: FRM vs. BAM ......................................................................... 32 Figure 4-13. Harrisburg PM 2.5 Continuous Data: Day of Week..................................... 33 Figure 4-14 York PM 2.5 Speciation Results..................................................................... 35 Figure 4-15 York: FRM vs. BAM ................................................................................... 35 Figure 4-16. York Continuous PM 2.5 Data: Day of Week.............................................. 36 Figure 4-17 Lancaster PM 2.5 Speciation Results ............................................................. 38 Figure 4-18. Lancaster: FRM vs. BAM........................................................................... 39 Figure 4-19 Lancaster Continuous PM 2.5 Data: Day of Week........................................ 39 Figure 4-20. PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Speciation Results .................................... 48 Figure 4-24 Norristown: FRM vs. TEOM ....................................................................... 50 Figure 4-25 Norristown Conti nuous Data: Day of Week ............................................... 51v Table of Tables

Table 1-1 PM 2.5 Standards.................................................................................................. 3 Table 4-1. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.................................... 14 Table 4-2 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitors..................... 14 Table 4-3 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM Annual PM 2.5 Design Values........................ 15 Table 4-4 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM PM 2.5 Design Value Trends.......................... 16 Table 4-5. Pittsburgh-Beaver Vall ey FRM Statistical Analysis ...................................... 17 Table 4-6 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 Continuous Monitor Summary .................... 20 Table 4-7 Liberty-Clairt on Nonattainment Area ............................................................. 23 Table 4-8. Liberty-Cl airton Nonattainment PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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-Ca rlisle Nonattainment Area ....................................... 29 Table 4-16. Harrisbur g-Lebanon-Carlisle PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary

............................................................................................................................... .... 30 Table 4-17. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlis le FRM Annual Concentrations ........................ 30 Table 4-18. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle FRM Annual Design Value Trends .............. 30 Table 4-19. York PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Design Value Trends ................................... 37 Table 4-21. Reading Nonattain ment Area Monitor Summary......................................... 40 Table 4-22. Reading FRM Annual PM 2.5 Design Value Trends ..................................... 41 Table 4-23. Philadelphia- Wilmington, PA, NJ, DE PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area ............. 45 Table 4-24. Philadelphia- Wilmington, PA, NJ, DE PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitors

............................................................................................................................... .... 46 Table 4-25 Philadelphia- Wilmington FRM Annual PM 2.5 Design Value Trends ........... 471 Introduction

This document was created to provide an overview of the Pennsylvania’s annual PM 2.5 nonattainment problem. The document in cludes monitoring and nonattainment area information that will be useful in developing Pennsylvania’s PM 2.5 attainment demonstrations. Information provided in this re port reflects the state of affairs at the time of its preparation.

Purpose This document will serve the following purposes:

• Identify and describe Pennsylvania’s PM 2.5 nonattainment areas.

• Provide a source document for the Department of Environmental Protection’s modeling and attainment demonstrations.

• Provide an overview of PM 2.5 monitoring data and PM 2.5 data analysis.

• Facilitate the understandi ng of what contributes to Pennsylvania’s annual
PM 2.5 nonattainment problems and provide a pathway for future analysis.

1.0 Overview of PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas in the Commonwealth

This section provides a brief overview of PM 2.5 health effects, PM 2.5 attainment status and Pennsylvania’s nonattainment areas. Info rmation contained in the section reflects conditions at the time of th is report’s preparation.

1.1. Background on Fine-Particulate Pollution

Background information on PM 2.5 included in this section wa s taken from EPA’s website (www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/). This include s basic information on the components and health affects of PM 2.5

.

Particle pollution is a mixture of microscopi c solids and liquid droplets suspended in air. This pollution, also known as particulate matte r, is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrat es and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust particles, and allergens (such as fr agments of pollen or mold spores).

Fine particle pollution or PM 2.5 describes particulate matter th at is less than or equal to
2.5 μ m 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 emissi ons 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 asso ciation between exposur e to fine particles and premature death from heart or lung diseas e. Fine particles can aggravate heart and lung diseases and have been linked to effect s such as: cardiovascular symptoms; cardiac arrhythmias; heart attacks; re spiratory symptoms; asthma attacks; and bronchitis. These effects can result in increased hospital admissi ons, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days. I ndividuals that may be particularly sensitive to fine particle exposure include people w ith heart or lung disease, older adults, and children.

1.2 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Overview

EPA promulgated fine-particle national am bient air quality sta ndards 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 ( μ g/m 3 ), based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. EPA established a twenty-four hour standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 ), determined by the 3-year average of the annual 98th pe rcentile concentrations.

In April 2003, EPA issued a memorandum outlining a schedule for designating areas under the PM 2.5 standard and related guidance on nine factors to consid er in identifying nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act pr ovides for states and tribes to submit designation recommendations to EPA, a nd it requires EPA to provide time for consultation in cases where the Administrato r plans to promulgate a designation that modifies the state or tribal recommenda tion. On December 17, 2004, EPA published its air quality designations and classifi cations for the fine particles (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). These desi gnations became effective on April 5, 2005.

1.3 Anticipated Changes and Schedule

The Commonwealth is responsible for develo ping State Implementation Plan revisions for its eight (8) annual PM 2.5 nonattainment areas that demonstrate each nonattainment area will comply with the 1997 PM 2.5 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 tighten ed the twenty-four hour PM 2.5 standard to 35 μ g/m 3

. Because the nonattainment designations for the 24-hour PM 2.5 are not yet in place, the Commonwealth’s PM 2.5 modeling analyses for its Apr il 2008 SIP submittal will use the twenty-four hour standard established in 1997, 65 μ g/m 3 . Table 1-1 lists standards established in 1997 along with the current PM 2.5 standards.3 Table 1-1 PM 2.5 Standards

Date Standard Established 24-Hour Annual July 18, 1997 ≤ 65 μ g/m 3 ≤ 15.0 μ g/m 3
September 21, 2006 ≤ 35 μ g/m 3 ≤ 15.0 μ g/m 3

Timetables for the lower twenty-four hour PM 2.5 standard established on September 21 st

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

• States will make recommendations by November 2007 for areas to be designated attainment (meeting the st andards) 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 PM 2.5 monitors operated in the Commonwealth. These include Federal Reference Method (FRM) mon itors, 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 PM 2.5 monitors. This section will give a brief description of each type of mon itor and their location.

2.1 Monitor Types

Figure 2-1 shows information regarding the PM 2.5 monitoring network. The Department’s annual ambient air-quality reports contain additional information regarding the PA DEP’s monitoring network (Pennsyl vania Ambient Air Quality Report, 2004).

FRM Monitors

PM 2.5 concentrations are measur ed using both discrete (si ngle sample) monitors and continuous real-time instruments. Discrete m onitors collect particulate matter on a filter for twenty-four hours. The filte r is then collected from th e monitor on a set schedule. Depending on the monitoring site and type, department personnel collect filters either4 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 PM 2.5 Monitoring Network

Only the discrete PM 2.5 sampler is approved by the U.S. EPA as a Federal Reference Method (FRM) for compliance purposes. FR M monitors are maintained at various locations across the Commonwealth by the PA DEP, the Allegheny County Health Department and Philadelphia Count y’s Air Management Services.

Continuous Monitors

There are several manufactures of continuous PM 2.5 samplers. The analyzer reports onehour data, which are then used to calculate daily twenty-four hour av erages (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 th an 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 PM 2.5 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 th e filter decreases. So the detector measures the number of beta particles transmitted thr ough the exposed filter tape, and then the instrument calculates the particul ate mass using a correlation equation.

Speciation Monitors

Pennsylvania began operating a PM 2.5 speciation network, consis ting of thirteen sampling sites, in April 2002. Speciation is a physical or chemical analysis of the captured particles that provide a first order charac terization of the meta ls, ions, and carbon constituents of PM 2.5 . Knowing the chemical composition of the PM 2.5 mix is also important for determining sources of po llution. By developing seasonal and annual chemical characterizations of ambient pa rticulates across the Commonwealth, this speciation data will be used to perform s ource attribution analyses, evaluate emission inventories and air quality models, and s upport 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 Mon itoring Network since 1981. The purpose of this program is to determine how much acid rain is falling in Pennsylvania for environmental assessment purposes. The object ives of this proj ect and subsequent revisions were: (1) to determine the magn itude and distribution of wet atmospheric deposition and associated toxic and nutrient elements in Pennsyl vania, (2) to assess their potential environmental impacts, (3) to dete rmine 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 deposit ion patterns, (5) to determ ine the optimum number of sites needed to define spatial variability in atmospheric deposition in Pennsylvania, and (6) to provide a quantitative means of evalua ting the effectiveness of present and future air pollution control legislat ion, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, aimed at reducing atmospheric deposition in the Unite d 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, pot assium, sodium, and specific conductance.6 The PA DEP produces annual reports that are po sted on its website. Specific analytical techniques and results can be found in these reports.

Figure 2-2. Pennsylvania’s Atmospheri c Deposition Monitoring Network

Figure 2-1. Site locations of the 2005 Pennsylvania Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network Sites marked with an empty circl e are part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN).

Results for sulfates, nitrates and ammonia c ould be used to supplement the department’s
PM 2.5 monitoring network. Some of the monitoring sites predate the PM 2.5 monitoring network and could provide trends information that may be useful.

3.0 . Emissions/Control Programs

This section outlines source types that contribute to PM 2.5 and some of the control programs that help reduce anth ropogenic emissions that c ontribute to fine-particulate pollution.

3.1. Contributing Sources

Design of effective SIP revi sions and other regulatory pol icies requires knowledge of source-receptor relationships that link ambient PM 2.5 levels with emissions. The design of these strategies is complicated by the importance of secondary aerosol to PM 2.5 . A broad range of anthropogenic and biogenic sources can contribute to local PM 2.5 concentrations. Primary emissions can come from power plants fired by coal, oil, or gas, diesel- or7 gasoline-powered trans portation, meat cooking, coke pl ants, 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 b een 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, ac id rain, particulates and air toxics. These controls, though not specifically designed to control fine particulates, have none the less helped lower direct and s econdary fine-particulate emissions. The following sections identify some of these cont rol programs and when they take or took affect. This section provides a general out line 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 st reams 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, a nd sculptures. Prior to falling to the earth, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxide (NO
x ) gases and their particulate matter derivatives (sulfates and nitrat es) contribute to visibility degradation and harm public health (U.S. EPA Acid Rain site: http://www.epa.gov/aci drain/index.html ).

The Acid Rain Program uses a market-based cap and trade mechanism that sets a permanent cap on the total amount of SO 2 that may be emitted by electric power plants nationwide. The first phase of the program be gan 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, tighten ed the annual emissions limit imposed on these large, higher emitting plants and also se t restrictions on smaller and cleaner plants fired by coal, oil, and gas (U.S. EPA, Cap a nd Trade: Acid Rain Program Basics). The Acid Rain Program affects existing power gene rating units greater th an 25 megawatts and all new units.

Beginning in 2000, SO 2 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 re ductions has been drawn down. At full implementation, the cap cuts SO 2 emissions from power plants to one half of the amount of SO 2 emitted in 1980. The cap ensures that the mandated emissions reductions are achieved and maintained over time.

The Acid Rain Program did not cap NO
x emissions, but instead set emission rate limitations for coal-fired units and allo wed companies to develop system-wide compliance strategies with a degree of flexibility. The NO
x program component, also8 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 SO 2 and NO
x emission trends from sources affected by the Acid Rain program. These figur es 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 De partment (Grant Number ME359494).

Emissions data indicate incremental decreases in SO 2 and NO
x 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 emissi ons for 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 through 2005
from Title IV affected sources of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 19909 Figure 3-2 Nitrogen oxides emissions for 1990 and 1995 through 2005 from Title IV
affected sources of the Clea n Air Act Amendments of 1990

3.2.2 NO
x Budget Trading Program (NO
x SIP Call)

NO
x emissions from large fossil fuel fired power plants have been recognized as significant contributors to ozone forma tion. The U.S. EPA established the NO
x Budget Trading Program (NBP) to reduce these emissi ons and help alleviate widespread ozone nonattainment problems across the US. The NBP lead to substantial NO
x 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 NO
x emissions that could lead to fo rmation of nitrates, one of the major components of fine-particulate pollution. Initially, NO
x controls were imposed on fossil fuel-fired electric generating units and large industrial boilers and turbines through an ozone season (May 1 through Septembe r 30) in the Northeast under the Ozone Transport Commission’s (OTC) NO
x Budget Program. The second phase of the OTC
NO
x Budget Program was slated to begin on May 1, 2003, but was superseded by EPA’s
NO
x SIP Call.

Compliance with the NO
x SIP Call was scheduled to begin in 2003. The OTC states adopted the original compliance date of May 1, 2003, in transitioning to the NO
x SIP Call. In states outside the OTC region, howev er, litigation delayed the initial deadline until May 31, 2004. For those states, the first compliance period (2004) was for a10 shorter-than-normal ozone season (see Figure 3-3) . In addition, litigatio n delayed the start date for portions of Georgia and Missouri until 2007.

Figure 3-3 NO
x 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 40,00 0 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 (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO
x ) in the eastern United States. CAIR achieves large reductions of SO 2 and/or NO
x emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO 2 emissions in these states by over 70 percent and NO
x 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 (NO
x ) and 2010 (SO 2 ). These caps will be redu ced further (Phase II) in 2015. It is expected that so me CAIR-affected facilities wi ll put emission reductions in place prior to when the Phase I caps become eff ective. There are seve ral facilities in the Commonwealth that have alrea dy 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 NO
x controls year round further alleviating emissions that contribute to nitrate formation, a significant component of PM 2.5

.

3.2.4 Regional Haze Controls

The regional haze program is designed to im prove visibility at 156 national parks and wilderness areas (designated Class I ar eas) 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 emi ssions that contribute to haze.

States are required to co nduct certain analyses to ensure th at they consider the possibility of setting an ambitious reasonable progress goa l, one that is aimed at reaching natural background conditions in 60 years. The rule re quires States to establish goals for each affected Class I area to 1) improve visibi lity on the haziest da ys and 2) ensure no degradation occurs on the clea rest 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 reas onable progress goals. The first long-term strategy will cover 10 to 15 years, with r eassessment and revision of those goals and strategies in 2018 and every 10 years thereaft er. States strategies should address their contribution to visibility pr oblems in Class I areas both w ithin 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 contribu te to visibility impairment at a designated Class I area and are eligible to impose NO
x , SO 2 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. Additiona l engineering analyses are conducted to determine if controls ar e feasible and economical.

Any controls imposed on facilities, as part of the state’s regional haze SIP, will reduce
PM 2.5 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 source s of air pollution are moto r vehicles, but airplanes, ships, construction equipment and lawn mowers also produce significant amounts of12 pollutants. Emissions from the mobile-source sector contribute to fine-particulate concentrations through direct emissions and secondary formation from NO
x and SO 2 emissions. A number of emission controls programs have been enacted to lower the mobile-source sector’s cont ribution 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 wi ll therefore be increm ental 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, NO
x and CO limits per mile) have been pe riodically lowered since the enactment of the Clean Ai r 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 PM 2.5 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 af fects 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-p articulate emissions along with SO 2 and NO
x emissions that contribute to fine-particulate pollution on a hi gher per vehicle basis than vehicles in the light-duty category.

Again, a number of federal and state progr ams 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. Be nefits from these programs are expected to be incremental since they rely heavily on repl acing older vehicles with new cleaner ones.
NO
x emissions were recently reduced from all 2002 and newer vehicles. Additional NO
x and direct fine-particulate emission reductio ns are expected from 2007 models with further NO
x reductions expected in model year 2010.13 3.2.5.3 Nonroad Sources

This category includes many types of intern al combustion engine s. These include combustion engines, small-spark ignition, la rge-spark ignition, marine diesel, marinespark ignition, recreation vehicle, locomo tive and aviation. Emission limits for these types of engines are generally developed on th e federal level and have been lowered since the inception of the Clean Air Act Amendm ents of 1990. Additional fuel-formulation changes have been imposed to help meet th ese 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 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Analysis

There are currently eight (8) annual PM 2.5 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 m onitor results for each nonattainment area. The Allegheny County Health Depa rtment will provide a more detailed analysis for the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area.

Figure 4-1 Pennsylvania PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas14 4.1 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

Table 4-1 lists the counties and parts of coun ties included in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
PM 2.5 nonattainment area.

Table 4-1. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area

County Partial County Allegheny -all except City of Clairt on, 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) PM 2.5 monitoring sites in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area. These sites are listed in Table 4-2. The table also contains the types of PM 2.5 monitors operati ng at each site.

Table 4-2 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 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 1/315 Figure 4-2 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Nona ttainment 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 PM 2.5 Monitoring Analysis

The following sections provi de a brief summary of PM 2.5 monitoring concentrations within the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The PM 2.5 collected in 2006 generally represents the mo st recently available data.

FRM Monitoring Analysis:

Table 4-3 summarizes cu rrent (2006) annual PM 2.5 design values for the FRM monitors inside the Pittsburgh-Beaver Va lley nonattainment area.

Table 4-3 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM Annual PM 2.5 Design Values

Site County FRM Annual Design Value

μ g/m 3 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 15.416 The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley’s most recent (2006) annual PM 2.5 design values range from a peak of 16.2 μ g/m 3 to a low of 12.4 μ g/m 3 . 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 μ g/m 3 of the annual standard. All monitors within the nonattainment area have 24-hour PM 2.5 design values below the 65 μ g/m 3 level established in 1997 by the U.S. EPA.

Table 4-4 shows the overall trends in the PM 2.5 nonattainment area’s annual PM 2.5 design values. The sampling period is limited to the la st several years since the earliest monitors in the region only began operating in 1999.

Table 4-4 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley FRM PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 design values. Table 4-5 summarizes the results for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area. Resu lts were mixed with seven monitors indicating statistically significant tr ends 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 Anal sysis Section at the e nd 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area appear to have statistic ally significant trends. . The PittsburghBeaver Valley PM 2.5 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 refl ects recent controls on the mobile-source sector.

Speciated Monitoring Analysis:

Three speciated monitors operate wi thin the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The department operate s two of these monitors (Florence and Greensburg) while the Lawrenceville mon itor is operated by the Allegheny County Health Department. Results for the Commonw ealth’s thirteen (13) speciated monitors are contained in the department’s annual Ambient Air Quality Reports.

Speciation is a physical or chemi cal analysis of the captured particles that provide a first order characterization of the metals , ions, and carbon constituents of PM 2.5 . Physical and chemical speciation data can be used to support several areas of study such as:

• Inputs to air quality modeling anal yses used to implement the PM 2.5 standard;

• Indicators to track the progr ess of air pollution controls;

• Aids to interpret studies linking health effects to PM 2.5 constituents;

• Aids to understand the effects of at mospheric constituents on visibility impairment; and

• Aids in designing and siting monitoring networks.

PM 2.5 is composed of a mixture of primary a nd secondary particles, both having long lifetimes in the atmosphere (days to week s), traveling long dist ances (hundreds to thousands of kilometers) and hence, not easily traced back to their individual sources.18 Primary particles include soil-related partic les such as road dust, construction and agriculture and combustion-rela ted particles. Combustion-rela ted particles come from a variety of sources such as diesel and gasoline vehicles , open burning operations, and utility and commercial boilers. The principl e types of secondary aerosols are organics, sulfates and nitrates. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ammonia (ammonium sulfate, ammonium bisulfate, ammonium nitrate) are important precursor s to secondary particles.

Knowing the chemical composition of the PM 2.5 mix is also important for determining sources of pollution. By developing seasonal and annual chemical characterizations of ambient particulates across the nation, this sp eciation data will be used to perform source attribution analyses, evaluate emission i nventories and air quality models, and support health related research studies and regional haze assessments.

Pennsylvania began operating a PM 2.5 speciation network, consisting of 13 sampling sites, in April 2002. Figure 4-2 show speciatio n results for the most recent (2005) sample year (Pennsylvania Ambient Air Qualit y Report, 2005; Allegheny County Health Department Annual Air Quality Report for 2005).

A cursory review of the 2005 data indicat es percentages of the two largest PM 2.5 components are roughly identical (sulfate s ~33%, organic carbon ~ 25%) between the three (3) speciated monitors in the Pitts burgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area. Ammonium and Nitrates are the next most common identified elements within the data. The data indicate secondary components not di rectly emitted (i.e. sulfates and nitrates) make up a large portion of PM 2.5 in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area.

Figure 4-2. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 monitors operate within th e Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area. All of the continuous monitors are colloc ated with a FRM sampler. Continuous PM 2.5 monitors were installed to give th e instantaneous measurements needed for air-quality forecasting purposes. Monitor lo cations are depicted in Figure 2-1. Table 4-6 lists details on the continuous monitors includ ing manufacturer and date of installation.

Table 4-6 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 mon itor at Beaver Falls. The gr aph indicates there is a good correlation between the measurements fr om the continuous monitor and the FRM monitor. This is important because it indi cates 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

R 2

= 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 th e continuous monitoring data is to examine average values by hour of collection. This reveals the average daily changes in local
PM 2.5 concentrations at a particular site. Fluctuations in daily PM 2.5 concentrations are likely the result of local emissions and meteorology.

Figure 4-4 depicts the hourly averaged PM 2.5 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’ PM 2.5 concentrations tend to be much higher during the overnight hours with a small peak (~1.0 μ g/m 3 ) occurring during hours eight (8), nine (9) and ten (10). This slight peak probably reflects changes in local traffic patt erns due to primary particulate emissions from the mobile-source sector (morning rush). This peak is followed by a general decline in concentrations reflecting mete orological factors (vertical daytime mixing) that help dilute local PM 2.5 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 av erages by day of the week indicates this morning peak generall y disappears over the weekend (see Figure 4- 5). The data also indicated PM 2.5 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

HourConcentration ug/m322 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 sh ows the average hourly PM 2.5 concentrations broken down by day of the week. A bimodal peak is s een in this monitor with elevated PM 2.5 concentrations observed in the morning a nd late evening hours corresponding to the morning and afternoon peaks in traffic.

Note that Lawrenceville’s PM 2.5 concentrations are much hi gher during the weekdays than during the weekends with the weekday concentrations above the monitor average and weekend concentrations below the monitor av erage. It is also interesting to note the Lawrenceville monitor has a statistically signifi cant trend in its FRM design values while Beaver Falls does not. This may be due to th e recent reductions in emissions from the mobile-source sector, which would be more a pparent at monitors heavily influenced by local traffic patterns like Lawrenceville.

4.2. Liberty-Clairton PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area

Table 4-4 lists the municipalities that make up the Liberty-Clairton PM 2.5 nonattainment area. Additional data analysis may be incl uded 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

HourConcentration ug/m3 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday23 Figure 4-6. Lawrenceville Conti nuous Data: Day of Week

Table 4-7 Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment Area

County Partial County Allegheny- only the City of Clairt on, Borough of Glassport, Borough of Liberty, Borough of Li ncoln, Borough of Port Vue

There are two monitors in the Liberty-Clairton PM 2.5 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-Clai rton Nonattainment PM 2.5 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

HourConcentration ug/m3 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday24 4.2.1. Liberty-Clairton Monitoring Analysis

The following sections provi de a brief summary of PM 2.5 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 cu rrent (2006) annual PM 2.5 design values for the FRM monitors inside the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area. The Libe rty monitor has the highest annual PM 2.5 design value in the Commonwealth. No te there are significant differences between these two monitors, which are locat ed within a few miles of one another.

Table 4-9 Liberty-Clairton FRM Annual Design Value

Site County FRM Annual Design Value

μ g/m 3 Liberty Allegheny 20.4
Clairton Allegheny 14.9

Table 4-10 shows the overall trends in the nonattainment area’s annual PM 2.5 design values. The sampling period is limited to the la st 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 analys is of the Liberty-Clairton monitors to determine if there were any statistically si gnificant trends in thei r 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 Analsy sis 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 PM 2.5 components at the Liberty monitor for 2005. Additional information regarding the speciated data can be found in the Allegheny County Health Depart ment’s Annual Report (2005).25 The Liberty speciated components have simila r percentages to other speciated monitors in the surrounding Pittsbur gh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area. The two largest components are sulfates and organic carbon; bo th 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 PM 2.5 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 th e hourly averages for the entire data set. The results indicate on average PM 2.5 concentrations are typically higher during the overnight hours than during the day. This suggests local emissions are “accumulating” underneath the nighttime inversion then bei ng “diluted” during the day when daytime heating enhances vertical mixing. The difference between the average overnight concentrations and daytime concentra tions is significant. Overnight PM 2.5 concentrations at Liberty are approximately two times greater than during the day.

There does not appear to be a significant tra ffic 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 mon itoring site and the heavy infl uence 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 2 0 21 22 23 24 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday27 4.3.1 Johnstown Monitoring Analysis

The following sections provi de a brief summary of PM 2.5 monitoring concentrations within the Johnstown nonattainment area. 2006 generally represents the most recently available data.

The Johnstown monitor is the on ly monitor in the nonattainmen t area. The site contains an FRM sampler and a continuous monito r. Table 4-12 summarizes the monitor description.

Table 4-12 Johnstown PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary

Site Description
Johnstown FRM (1/3), Continuous BAM

FRM Monitoring Analysis:

Table 4-13 lists the Johnstown PM 2.5 nonattainment area’s current (2006) design value. Johnstown’s current annual design value, 15.3 μ g/m 3

, is quite close to the annual standard. Table 4-14 shows Johnstown’s de sign value trend. The FRM monitor began operations in 1999. Design values have fluctu ated over the last se veral years, which matches our statistical trend analysis (see Tr ends 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

μ g/m 3

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 co ntinuous monitor at Johnstown in addition to an FRM sampler. The continuous BAM unit began operations in August 2004. Figure 4-928 compares the FRM data and the corr esponding BAM data from the Johnstown monitoring site (scatter plot). Results between the conti nuous and FRM sampler are still quite good indicating the continuou s monitor generally reflects actual concentrations as measured by the FRM sampler.

Figure 4-9 Johnstown: FRM vs. TEOM

The continuous monitor provides additional da ta not available from the FRM monitor. This includes any diurnal patterns, how PM 2.5 concentrations vary during the day, and any patterns based on day or the week.

Figure 4-10 shows the average daily concentra tions by hour and day of the week for the Johnstown BAM unit. Two patterns are appare nt in the BAM data. One is a “morning rush hour” signal seen as a peak in PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 concentrations are higher during the weekdays than the weekends (~1-3 μ g/m 3 ). It’s also interesting to note that concentrations, on average, trend upwards about midway through Monday, remain high during the week then de crease to weekend levels early Saturday morning. There is also a general decline in PM 2.5 concentrations in the early morning hours during the weekday. This information gi ve 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

R

2 = 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 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitoring Analysis

The following sections provi de a brief summary of PM 2.5 monitoring concentrations within the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The 2006 PM 2.5 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

HourConcentration ug/m3 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday30 generally represents the most recently availabl e data. Table 4-16 summarizes the types of monitors within the nonattainment area.

Table 4-16. Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitor Summary

Site County Description Harrisburg Dauphin FRM (1/1), C ontinuous TEOM, Speciated (1/6)

Carlisle Cumberland FRM (1/1)

FRM Monitoring Analysis:

Table 4-17 lists the Harrisbur g-Lebanon-Carlisle nonattainme nt area’s current (2006) annual design value. The nonatt ainment area’s current value, 15.0 μ g/m 3 at Harrisburg
, meets the annual PM 2.5 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

μ g/m 3 Harrisburg Dauphin 15.0

Carlisle Cumberland 14.4

Table 4-18 shows the design valu e trend over the last several years. The Harrisburg FRM monitor began operations in 1999 while the Ca rlisle FRM monitor began operations in 2000. Design values within the nonattainment ar ea have fluctuated over the last several years. Statistical analyses have confirme d 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 da ys (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 PM 2.5 components at Harrisburg appear to be sulfate and organic carbon followed by nitrat e and ammonium. Percentages of these components appear to be similar to other speciated monitors in side the Commonwealth.

Figure 4-11. Harrisburg PM 2.5 Speciation Results

Continuous Monitoring Analysis:

The Department has operated a continuous (B AM) 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 DE P’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 PM 2.5 concentration than the FRM sampler. This may be due to the BAM un it’s sample methodology. Results between the continuous and FRM sampler ar e still quite good indicati ng 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 concentra tions by hour and day of the week for the Harrisburg BAM unit. Several patterns are apparent. The first being PM 2.5 concentrations tend to run highe r overnight than during the da y. This is probably due to meteorological conditions (nocturnal inversion trapping local emissions). There is also an apparent “morning rush-hour” signal cente red on hour nine (9). This peak is not apparent during the weekend. Also PM 2.5 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 st rong anthropogenic signal in the PM 2.5 data. 

### Harrisburg
PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM May, 2004 to December, 2006 (296 Points)

y = 0.7354x + 1.5373

R

2 = 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 PM 2.5 Continuous Data: Day of Week

4.5. York PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area

The York PM 2.5 nonattainment area includes the entire county of York and is bordered by nonattainment areas to the north, east and sout h. Adams County (to the west) contains a monitor that meets the annual standard.

4.5.1 York Monitoring Analysis

The following sections provi de a brief summary of PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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

HourConcentration ug/m3 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday34 FRM Monitoring Analysis:

Table 4-20 lists the York nonattainment area’s PM 2.5 design values from 2001 through 2006. The monitor’s current annual design value is 16.2 μ g/m 3 , which exceeds the annual PM 2.5 standard.

Design values within the nonattainment area have fluctuated over the la st several years. Statistical analyses have confirmed this finding the York monitor has no statistically significant trend (see Trends Analsysis S ection 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 mon itor at the York site since April 2002. Speciated samples are collected once every six da ys (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 PM 2.5 components at York appear to be sulfate and organic carbon followed by nitrate a nd ammonium. Percentages of these components appear to be similar to other speciated monitors in side the Commonwealth.

Continuous Monitoring Analysis:

The Department has operated a continuous (TEOM) unit at the York monitoring site since August 2004. This is th e 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 PM 2.5 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, 2 004 to December, 2006 (248 Points)

y = 0.844x + 1.5068

R

2 = 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 concentra tions by hour and day of the week for the York TEOM unit. Several patterns are a pparent in the data. The first being PM 2.5 concentrations tend to run highe r overnight than during the da y. 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 μ g/m 3 ). This peak is less apparent over the weekend. York’s PM 2.5 concentrations tend to run higher during the workweek (Monday through Fr iday) with the exception of the early morning hours of Monday. These patterns sugg est a strong anthropogenic signal in the
PM 2.5 data.

Figure 4-16. York Continuous PM 2.5 Data: Day of Week

4.6 Lancaster Nonattainment Area

The Lancaster nonattainment area include s the entire county of Lancaster. Nonattainment areas surround the county. The Lancaster monitor and the York monitor to the west have the highest annual PM 2.5 design values in the Co mmonwealth outside of the Liberty-Clairton nonatta inment 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

HourConcentration ug/m3 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday37 4.6.1 Lancaster Monitoring Analysis

The following sections provi de a brief summary of PM 2.5 monitoring concentrations within the Lancaster nonattainment area. 2006 generally represents the most recently available data. Table 4-21 lists the ty pes 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 Lancaste r nonattainment area’s design values from 2001 through 2006. The monitor’s current annual design value is 16.3 μ g/m 3 , which exceeds the annual PM 2.5 standard.

Design values within the nonattainment area have fluctuated over the la st several years. Statistical analyses have confirmed this fi nding the Lancaster monitor has no statistically significant trend (see Trends Analsysis S ection at the end of this document).

Table 4-20. Lancaster FRM Annual PM 2.5 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 monito r at the Lancaster site since April 2002. Speciated samples are collected once every six da ys (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 PM 2.5 components at Lancaster appear to be sulfate and organic carbon followed by nitrat e and ammonium. Percentages of these components appear to be similar to other speciated monitors in side the Commonwealth.38 Figure 4-17 Lancaster PM 2.5 Speciation Results

Continuous Monitoring Analysis:

The Department has operated a continuous (TEO M) unit at the Lancas ter monitoring site since November 2003. This is the only conti nuous 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 concentra tions by hour and day of the week for the Lancaster TEOM unit. Several patterns are apparent in the data. The first being PM 2.5 concentrations tend to run highe r overnight than during the da y. This is probably due to meteorological conditions (nocturnal inversion trapping local emissions). There is also an apparent “morning rush-hour” signal cente red on hour eight (8). Lancaster’s morning peak is somewhat significant, ~2 μ g/m 3 . This peak is less apparent over the weekend.
Lancaster’s PM 2.5 concentrations tend to run hi gher during the workweek (Monday through Friday) with the exception of th e early morning hours of Monday. These patterns suggest a strong an thropogenic signal in the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Data: Day of Week 

### Lancaster
PM-2.5 Continuous vs. FRM November, 2003 to December, 2006 (365 Points)

y = 0.8752x + 0.1548

R

2 = 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

HourConcentration ug/m3 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday40 4.7 Reading PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area

The Reading PM 2.5 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 th e northeast, currently meets the annual PM 2.5 standard.

4.7.1. Reading Monitoring Analysis

The following sections provi de a brief summary of PM 2.5 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 perman ent site near the R eading Airport (Spaatz Field) in July of 2007. The original site , Reading (UGI), was discontinued due to property leasing issues in May of 2006. A te mporary site in the City of Reading was operated until a final leasing agreement was fo rmalized and the new site prepared. An additional FRM sampler, located at the DE P’s Reading District Office (RDO) near Tuckerton, was established to determine PM 2.5 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 leas ing 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 pr esent 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area’s design values from 2001 through 2005. The nonattainment area’s most r ecent annual design value (2005) is 16.2 μ g/m 3

, which exceeds the annual PM 2.5 standard. If data are combin ed for the three sites, Berks County’s annual design value is estimated to be 15.8 μ g/m 3

.

All four monitoring sites in Berks County are wi thin five miles of each other. The scatter plots for the two Reading site s (UGI and Downtown) and the Reading District Office site indicate PM 2.5 concentrations are very similar to each other (Figure 2-20) suggesting41 there is a relatively uniform PM 2.5 gradient in the vicinity of the City of Reading. This result suggests that it may acceptable to combine all of the PM 2.5 data to generate a design value.

Table 4-22. Reading FRM Annual PM 2.5 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. PM 2.5 Scatter Plots for Berks County Monitors

Design values within the nonattainment area have fluctuated over the la st several years. Statistical analyses have confirmed this no ting the Reading monitor has no statistically significant trend (see Trends Analsysis S ection 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 PM 2.5 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

R 2 = 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

R 2 = 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 site s is presented even though both data sets are relatively small. Comparing both Readi ng 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 R eading’s Maintenance Garage located off of 6 th Street. Both sites are approximately two miles apart.

Figure 4-21 compares twenty -four hour averaged PM 2.5 concentrations collected using the FRM and corresponding TEOM values. Re sults between the continuous and FRM sampler are still quite good i ndicating the continuous monitor generally reflects actual concentrations as measured by the FRM sampler.

Figure 4-22 shows the average daily concentra tions 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 di fferences in location. Both sites exhibit a strong jump in morning PM 2.5 concentrations (~3.0 μ g/m 3 ) centered on hour eight (8). Both sites also show significant difference s 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 hi gher concentrations on Saturday than the downtown site. This is probably du e 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

R 2 = 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

R 2 = 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

HourConcentration 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

HourConcentration ug/m3 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday45 4.8 Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-N J-DE Nonattainment Area

The Philadelphia-Wilmington PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the corresponding eight-hour ozone nonattainment area with the form er including far fewer counties.

Table 4-23. Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA, NJ, DE PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Monitoring Analysis

The following sections provide a brief summary of annual PM 2.5 monitoring concentrations within the Ph iladelphia-Wilmington nonattainment area. Generally only data from monitors inside the Commonwea lth of Pennsylvania is included in this analysis. Data from other states in the nona ttainment area are includ ed if provided by the appropriate agency.

The 2006 data generally represents the most r ecently available data. Table 4-24 lists the types of monitors inside the Pennsylva nia 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 Ph iladelphia County’s Department of Health, Air-Management Servi ces. Of these ten (10) monitoring sites only eight (8) continued operations into 2006.46 Table 4-24. Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA, NJ, DE PM 2.5 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 po rtion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington PM 2.5 nonattainment area’s design values. The PM 2.5 nonattainment area’s most recent annual design value (2006) is
15.2 μ g/m 3 , which exceeds the annual PM 2.5 standard. Monitoring values for Delaware and New Jersey are also provide d in the table. All data wa s considered for New Jersey regardless of completeness.

Annual design values in Table 4-25 indicat e, as of 2006, only one monitor in the Philadelphia-Wilmington nonattainment area ex ceeds the annual PM2.5 standard. This is tempered by the fact that th ere are some extended periods of missing data from the 50047 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 la st several years. Statistical analyses indicate some mixe d trends in the Philadelphia-Wilmington nonattainment area (see Trends Analsysis Sectio n at the end of this document). All of the monitors in Philadelphia County and the No rristown monitor appear to be trending downward. The Chester and Br istol monitors do not. Down ward trending monitors appear to be in heavy traffic areas and thus may be tracking reductions in mobile source emissions enacted over th e last several years.

Table 4-25 Philadelphia-Wilmington FRM Annual PM 2.5 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 monito rs at the Chester and New Garden sites since April 2002. Additional speciated monito rs are located at the Air Management Services lab and Ritner mon itor in Philadelphia County. Sp eciated samples are collected once every six days (1/6). Filter samples ar e 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 Phila delphia County’s Department of Health, Air-Management Services. These results were taken fr om the PA DEP (2005) Annual Ambient AirQuality Report. Philadelphia County provide d the 2005-speciated data for the Lab and Ritner sites. The largest PM 2.5 components at all the specia ted monitors appear to be48 sulfate and organic carbon followed by nitrat e and ammonium. Percentages of these components appear to be similar to other speciated monitors in side the Commonwealth.

Figure 4-23 Philadelphia-Wilmington PM 2.5 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 contin uous 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 BA MS unit installed at Chester in May of 2006 and two monitors in Philad elphia County also in 2006.

A comparison of Norristown’s FRM and con tinuous unit is shown in Figure 4-24. Results between the continuous and FRM sa mpler are relatively good though the TEOM FDMS values run consistently higher than the FRM values at Norristown. Nonetheless, the correlation is still pre tty good indicating the continuous monitor generally reflects actual concentrations as measured by the FRM sampler.

Figure 4-25 shows the average daily concentra tions by hour and day of the week for the Norristown TEOM FDMS unit. Several patterns are apparent in the data. The first being
PM 2.5 concentrations tend to run higher ove rnight than during the day though the difference is not as large as some of the ot her monitors in the Co mmonwealth. This is probably due to meteorological conditions (nocturnal inversio n 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 μ g/m 3 . 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 Decemb er, 2006 (336 Points)

y = 0.718x + 0.2216

R

2 = 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/airqua l/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/deputat e/airwaste/aq/aqm/aqreport.htm

Evaluating Ozone Control Programs in the Eastern United States: Focus on the NO
x Budget Trading Program, 2004, U.S. EP A Report (EPA454-K-05-001), August 2005, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets /progress/docs/ozonenbp.pdf

Lynch, J.A., Carrick, H, Ho rner, 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

HourConcentration ug/m3 Average
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Saturday1 

## Trend Analysis Section

## Methodology

This analysis began with 3-year mean PM 2.5 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 ( ˆ

β 1 ) and the y-intercept ( ˆ β 0 ) resulted in the lowest possible value for the residual term in equation 2, that is ( y

− ˆ y ).

ˆ y = ˆ β 0 + ˆ β 1 x (1)

X ( y

− ˆ y ) 2

= X  y

− ˆ

β 0 − ˆ β 1 x  2 (2)

Because data with no trend would necessarily have a slope of zero, that established the null hypothesis as H 0 : ˆ β 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

− μ 0 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 R 1 language. 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.

1 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2007), available at http://www.R-project.org.

1Table 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

2Table 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