UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania 19103 DATE: July 2, 2013 SUBJECT: Technical Support Document for the Pennsylvania Determination of Attainment

of the 2006 24
- Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Pittsburgh
- Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area FROM: Loretta H yden, Environmental Engineer /s/

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis TO: File THRU: Alice Chow, Acting Associate Director /s/

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis I . INTRODUCTION This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides a technical review of the air quality monitoring data used to support the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) determination that the Pittsburgh
- Beaver Valley nonattainment area (hereafter “the P ittsburgh Area” or “the Area”) has attained the 2006 24
- hour fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Additional details of EPA’s determination of attainment of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS can be found in the notice of pro posed rulemaking entitled, “ Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24
- Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard for the Pittsburgh
- Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area ,” which is availab le online at www.regulations.gov , Docket ID No. EPA - R03 - OAR - 2012 - 0753 . I I . EPA’S REQUIREMENTS FOR A DETERMINATION OF ATTAINMENT A . Air Quality Monitoring Data and Monitoring Network Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.13(c), the 2006 24
- hour primary and secondary PM 2.5 NAAQS are met when the 98 th percentile 24
- hour concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or equal to 35 ug/m 3 . Data handling conven tions and computations necessary for determining whether areas have met the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard, including requirements for data completeness, are also listed in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N. Specifically, the 24
- hour PM 2 .5 NAAQS is met when the 24
- hour standard design value, that is, the 3
- year average of annual 98 th percentile 24
- hour average values, recorded at each monitoring site is less than or equal to the standard, 35 ug/m 3 . The 9 8 th percentile is2

defined as the daily value out of a year of PM 2.5 monitoring data below which 98 percent of all daily values fall. The comparison of the 24
- hour standard design value (hereafter “the 24
- hour design value”) to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS shall be based on three consecutive, complete calendar year s of air quality data. A year meets data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data. However, years shall be considered valid, notwithstanding quarters with less than complete data ( even q uarters with less than eleven samples), if the resulting annual 98 th percentile value or resulting 24
- hour standard design value is greater than the level of the standard. The use of less than complete data is subject to the approval of EPA which ma y consider factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data for comparisons to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Only complete quality
- assured, quality
- controlled, and cert ified PM 2.5 data from Federal Reference Method (FRM), Federal Equivalent Method (FEM), or Approved Regional Method (ARM ) monitors submitted to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) can be used in the 24
- hour design value calculations for comparing to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, the PM 2.5 data must be collected from monitoring sites that are eligible for making comparisons with the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, as set forth in 40 CFR 58.30. An adequate monitoring network for PM 2.5 should satisfy the specific minimum criteria for establishing state and local air monitoring stations for PM 2.5 data collection, as described in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.7. Additionally, the monitoring network in place should be consistent with the most recent annual monitoring network plan submitted by the s tate or local agency and approved by EPA. See 40 CFR 58.10. III . EPA’S EVALUATION OF AIR QUALITY IN THE PITTSBURGH AREA A . Monitoring Network EPA previously determined that the PM 2.5 monitoring network for the Pittsburgh Area is adequate. EPA found that the number of monitors in the Pittsburgh Area meets the minimum regulatory requirements given in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.7, and that the monitoring network in place is i n accordance with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Allegheny County ’ s most recent annual monitoring network plan s approved by EPA, as required by 40 CFR 58.10. 1 During the 20 10
- 201 2 monitoring period, t he Pittsburgh Area had in place a total of twelve PM 2.5 monitoring sites, whose data was eligible for comparison to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. ( See Figure 1 of Appendix B
- “ Application of Imputation/ Bootstra p 1 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 201 2 annual ambient monitoring network plan was approved by EPA in a February 21 , 201 3 letter from Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III, to Michael L. Krancer, Secretary of the Pennsylvania De partment of Environmental Protection (PADEP). Allegheny County’s 2012 annual ambient monitoring network plan was approved by EPA in a February 21, 2013 letter from Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III, to Dr . Ronald Voorhees, MD, MPH Act ing Director of the Allegheny Health Department.3

Protocol to the Pittsburgh
- Beaver Valley 2006 NAAQS (24
- hr STD) Nonattainment Area for the Design Value Period, 20 10
- 201 2) . B. Air Quality Monitoring Data In order to determine that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard, quality
assured, quality
- controlled and state certified ambient air monitoring data of the Area for the monitoring period of 20 10
- 201 2 was reviewed. The PM 2.5 monitoring data was measured by FRM, FEM, or ARM monitors, in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N. The monitoring data for 20 10
- 201 2 for the Pittsburgh Area is provided in Table 1, Se e Appendix A of this document for AQS Preliminary Design Value Reports (AMP480). Several monitors in the Pittsburgh Area had incomplete 24
- hour design values for the 20 10
- 201 2 period. The “Completeness Status” column of Table 1 identifies which monitors in the Pittsburgh Area did not satisfy the data completeness requirement for one or more quarter s of the 20 10
- 201 2 period, as well as the substitution technique applied to deem each monitor complete. EPA has addressed missing data from incomplete monitors by applying one of t hese procedures: the maximum quarter substitution test (“maximum quarter test”) , and EPA’s statistical procedure. 2 A detailed discussion on the completeness issues for the 20 10
- 201 2 24
- hour PM 2.5 data for the Pittsburgh Area i s provided in section C “Data C ompleteness Issues” of this document. Table 1. Pittsburgh Area’s 20 10 - 201 2 24 - hour PM 2.5 Air Quality Data (in μg/m 3 ) County AQS Site

ID Site Name 98 th Percentile Value 2010
- 2012

24
- hour Design Value Completeness

Status a 20 10 201 1 201 2 Allegheny 42
- 003
-

0002 Avalon * 33 21 27 Incomplete Allegheny 42
- 003
-

0008 Lawrence 30 27 20 26 C omplete Allegheny 42
- 003
-

0067 S. Fayette 29 31 18 26 C omplete Allegheny 42
- 003
-

0093 North Park 27 26 16 23 Max . Quarter Allegheny 42
- 003
-

0095 Moon 26 * * 26 Incomplete Allegheny 42
- 003
-

1008 Harrison 34 30 21 28 Max. Quarter Allegheny 42
- 003
-

1301 N.

Braddock 37 34 27 33 Max. Quarter Beaver 42
- 007
- Beaver Falls 29 30 23 2 7 C omplete

2 The maximum quarter substitution test follows procedures in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.4 0014 Washington 42
- 125
-

0005 Charleroi 27 29 23 2 6 Max . Quarter Washington 42
- 125
-

0200 Washington 27 27 2 1 25 C omplete Washington 42
- 125
-

5001 Florence 22 12 1 6 17 C omplete Westmoreland 42
- 129
-

0008 Greensburg 3 2 33 2 3 29 Stat istical
a This column indicates if the 24
- hour design value for the monitor is : valid and complete (“Complete”) or incomplete (“Incomplete”). It also i ndicates which data substitution method, if any, was used to deem an incomplete 24
- hour de sign value valid and “complete.” “Max. Quarter ” denotes the maximum quarter data substitution test , and “Stat istical ” denotes that EPA’s statistical procedure has been applied to address the missing data. Note that these techniques are discretionary. EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM 2.5 , consistent with the re quirements contained in 40 CFR part 50. The 20 10
- 201 2 24
- hour design value determined for the Pittsburgh Area is the highest 3
- year average of the annual 98 th percentile measured at all the monitors in the Area during this time, which meets the criteria to be used for comparison to the 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Currently all monitors are measuring concentrations averaging below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS of 35 ug /m 3 . The 24
- hour design value of the Pittsburgh PM 2.5 Area for 20 10
- 201 2 is 3 3 ug/m 3 , based on monitoring data collected at the North Brad d ock site (42
- 003
- 1301) . C. Data Completeness Issues 1. Monitoring Sites Shutdowns and Startups Two monitor s in the Pittsburgh Area , 42
- 003
- 0002 ( Avalon ) and 42
- 003
- 0095 (Moon), were not operational for the complete 20 10
- 201 2 period . The Avalon site started operating an FRM monitor in June 201 1 . As approved by EPA, the Moon site was shutdown on December 31, 20 10 as it was statistically insignificant and redundant. See “Allegheny County’s 2010 Five Year Monitoring Assessment,” and “Pennsylvania’s 2010 Annual Network Plan.” Data from these monitors were not considered as part of this determination of attainment . 2. Data Substitution Tests Several monitors in the P ittsburgh Area were not meeting the completeness requirement for one or more quarter during 20 10
- 201 2 monitoring period . To address the missing data, EPA applied the data substitution tests described in EPA ’s April 1999 guidance document “Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS.” T he maximum quarter data substitution test (maximum quarter test) was applied to each incomplete monitor in the Pittsburgh Area for 20 10
- 201 2. In the maximum quarter test, maximum recorded values are substituted for the missing data, and the resulting 24
- hour design value is compared to the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. A monitor with incomplete data passes the te st if the 24
- hour design value with maximum values5

substituted meets the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the maximum quarter test requires replacing the missing data with the maximum concentration recorded at the site during the same quarter over the three
- year period in question, provided that the following criteria are met. The site must have valid data for at least 50 percent of the scheduled number of samples for each quarter for all three years, and the emissions and meteorology for the quart ers to be substituted must be comparable to the emissions and meteorology for the quarters in question. The “Complete ness Status” columns of Table 1 indicate which incomplete monitors passed the maximum quarter test, and therefore attain the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. For more information on these substitution techniques, s ee EPA’s April 1999 “Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS,” available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oar pg/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf . 3. Addressing Incomplete Data with EPA’s Statistical Method One monitor in the Pittsburg Area , the Greensburg monitor (at site 42
- 129
- 0008 ), did not meet the completeness requirement for one quarter of 2011. EPA has addressed missing data from the Greensburg monitor by applying EPA’s statistical procedure. This procedure is used to compute a “diagnostic 24
- hour design value,” which is used to judge whether the Greensburg monitor would likely have monitored attai nment of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS had it collected complete valid data during this time. The diagnostic 24
- hour design value for the Greensburg monitor is 29  g/m 3 , thus showing the monitor is attaining the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. A detailed explanation of how the missing data was addressed using EPA’s statistical procedure is provided in the following section. a. Description of EPA’s Statistical Method The general concept of the statistical method used is to determine whether an incomple te monitor (target monitor) would have met the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by replacing the missing data of the target monitor with data from another monitor (candidate monitor) located within or in the vicinity of the nonattainment area. The first step of t he statistical method is to establish a linear regression relationship between the target monitor and the candidate monitor, and then to use the linear regression to fill in the missing data for the target monitor in any quarter of the three
- year period th at did not satisfy the 75 percent completeness requirements based on actual observations. A “diagnostic 24
- hour design value ” for the monitoring period is calculated with the imputed data and then checked with an additional statistical technique, referred to as bootstrapping, to verify if the monitor has attained the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The diagnostic 24
- hour design value is used to judge whether a monitoring location would likely have monitored attainment of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS had the monitor collected complete valid data during this time. The candidate monitor is selected based on 3 different aspects: correlatio n value, quarterly data captured, and site pairing. The correlation value (R 2 ) from the linear regression should indicate a “strong” linear relationship of the PM 2.5 data from the candidate monitor and the target monitor. Then, the mean of the quarterly data captured (expressed in percentage) which provides the average data collection rate at each site, should determine that the site has sufficient data during6

the missing period of the target monitor. Additionally, pairing the site data assists in establ ishing more precise comparisons with fewer observations. The target monitor in this analysis is the Greensburg monitor ( at site 42
- 129
- 0008 ) . The methodology is used to appropriately fill in the missing data of 2011 for this monitor, to judge whether the monitoring location would likely have monitored attainment of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS had the monitor collected complete valid data during this time . The PM 2.5 monitoring network within the Pittsburgh Area has twelve PM 2.5 monitoring locations . The Avalon monitor (site 42
- 003
- 00 02 ) was selected as the candidate monitor, because it meets the eligibility requirements described below. b. Eligibility EPA established criteria to assure that the diagnostic 24
- hour design values estimated by the method are robust enough to allow consideration of the results in a weight of evidence decision. EPA established criteria for both the operating period of the candidate monitor and the number of days of samples that the candidate monitor and each of t he possible target monitors have in common. EPA has not established bright lines or specific requirements for determining diagnostic 24
- hour design values for monitors with less than complete data. Operating Time In order to establish a significant relationship between the monitors, the candidate monitor must have operated during the monitoring period in the nonattainment area (i.e., during 20 10
- 201 2 in the Pittsburgh Area ) . The candidate monitor is not required t o have complete data in all 12 quarters of each 3
- year period, yet should have collected sufficient observations to fill in the missing days of the target monitor, for the target monitor to satisfy the 75 percent completeness in each quarter. Paired samp les Pairs of sam ple data for the target monitor and the candidate monitor from the most recent 20
- quarter period of operation of the target monitor were used. The “period of operation” of the target monitor was based on the date of the last reported samp le from the monitor. The candidate monitor had at least 100 historical sample pairs in common with the target monitor during this period. When there were more than 100 pairs in the 20
- quarter period all available pairs were used. In addition to the 100 pairs over the 20 quarters, the candidate monitor had at least 20 paired days of data in common with the target monitor for each calendar quarter (adding together the number of days in a given calendar quarter [Q1, Q2, Q3, or Q4] across the 20
- quart er peri od). For this analysis, the one candidate site ( Avalon ) met the eligibility criteria of 100 pairs over the 20
- quarters, and had a t least 20 paired days of data in common with the target monitor for each calendar quarter.7

c. Method for Determining Diag nostic 24 - hour Design Values The following includes a step
- by
- step explanation of the methodology used to determine the diagnostic 24
- hour desig n value for the target monitor ( Greensburg ). Results are discussed in detail in the following section. Step 1

– Organize data and perform linear regression(s) between target monitor and possible candidate monitors. All the available paired data within the period limit ( see the Eligibility section) was used to develop a linear regression to predict target concentrations from candidate concentrations. A regression was performed for each possible pairing that met the criteria utilized for 100 data points and 20 data points pe r calendar quarter (across all years) in the most recent 20 quarters for each potential candidate monitor in the nonattainment area. Step 2

– Select c andidate site The following steps were used to select the candidate monitor: (1) All possible cand idate monitors were placed in order of highest correlation (based on the highest “R
- squared” of the linear regression) with the target monitor. (2) Using the regression equation relating concentrations at the target monitor and the candidate monitor, estimates of the 24
- hour average concentrations were made at the target monitor for all missing scheduled days in the initially incomplete quarter, during the most recent three
- year period at the target monitor. Estimates were only made for days on which a concentration is available at the candidate monitor. Estimates were not made for any days in the quarter for which the target monitor had 75 perc ent or more complete data initially. The estimates were combined with any reported data at the target monitor during the recent 3
- year period, and the data capture rates were computed for the originally incomplete quarter. The computation of these data c apture rates was based on the assumption that the required sampling frequency for the target monitor was recorded. If the candidate monitor had a lower sampling frequency than the target monitor, some missing scheduled days for the target were not substit uted for the regression
- based estimates. When the candidate monitor had a lower sampling frequency than the target monitor, the target monitor sampling schedule was assumed to be a combination of the target and candidate monitors schedules, weighted by th e number of originally present and originally missing scheduled days at the target monitor. (3) If after performing the process in step 2, the results produced all 12 quarters at the target monitor having at least 75 percent of scheduled values, the po tential candidate monitor was selected as the candidate monitor for the remaining steps. If the 75 percent of the scheduled values for the target monitor were not obtained, then step 2 was repeated for the next best correlated site. This process was repe ated until the target monitor had 75 percent of its scheduled values.8

For the analysis of the Pittsburgh Area during 2010
- 2012, this step was completed for the one potential candidate monitor, the Avalon monitor (at site 42
- 003
- 00 02 ). The Avalon site was selected as the candidate monitor for the Greensburg monitor . Step 3

– Diagnostic 24
- hour d esign v alue c omputed The diagnostic three
- year averaged 24
- hour design value for 2010
- 2012 w as calculated using the actual observations of the target m onitor and the regression
- based estimates of daily concentrations. The 2010
- 2012 24
- hour diagnostic design value computed for the Greensburg monitor was below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard l evel , 35 μg/m 3
. Step 4

– Statistical confidence of a diagnostic 24
- hour design value below the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS In order to show that there is, at most, a 10 percent probability that the actual 24
- hour design value (had the Greensburg monitor operated more days) w as above the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, further analysis was performed as follows: (1) Residuals were calculated from the regression. (2) A bootstrap analysis was performed, repeating the regression
- based substitution in Step 2 but adding to each estimated 24
- hour value that substitutes for a missing schedu led monitored value a plus or minus residual that has been randomly drawn (with replacement) from the pool of regression residuals. This step randomly applies real residuals from the linear regression to the imputed current
- period target values. (3) Rep eat (2) for a total of 1000 runs. (4) For each of the 1000 bootstrap trials, the 3
- year 24
- hour design value was calculated. This will provide a pseudo confidence interval for the partially imputed current
- period 24
- hour design value for the target mo nitor. (5) Since none of the 1000 runs resulted in diagnostic 24
- hour design values above the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS , the Greensburg monitor was considered to have met the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. d. Statistical Results for the Greensburg Monitoring Site (42 - 129 - 0008 ) ( Greensburg ) Figure B1 in Appendix B, shows the 20 10
- 201 2 24
- hour desi gn values and data capture rates for the monitoring site s in the P ittsburgh Area. In Figure B2, Appendix B , the target monitor , Greensburg (site 42
- 129
- 0008 ), is identified as Site A and the candidate site, Avalon ( site 42
- 003
- 00 02 ), is identified as Site B . The Avalon monitor h ad the highest correlation with the Greensburg monitor and met the operating period and paired data eligibility criteria for being a c andidate site. The results of the linear regression between the Greensburg and Avalon monitors for the 20 10
- 201 2 24
- hour design value are shown in Figure B 3 , Appendix B . Estimates for the d eficient quarterly data for 2010
- 2012 were made. As a result of filling in the missing data , the9

Greensburg monitor now had all complete quarters for 2010
- 2012. A 2010
- 201 2 diagnostic 24
- hour design value of 29  g/m 3 was calculated for the Greensburg monitor ( see Figure B 4 , Appendix B ). The statistical confidence of the diagnostic 24
- hour design value was checked using the method outlined in Step 4. None of the 1000 bootstrapping trials resulted in a violating 24
- hour design value, which pr ovides statistical confidence that the Greensburg monitor is attaining the 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The results of the 1000 bootstrap trials are provided in Figure B 5 , Appendix B. Attachments

- Appendix A : EPA AQS Preliminary Design Value Report (AMP480) dated June 6 , 201 3 , containing air quality data for 20 10
- 201 2 for the Allegheny and Armstrong Counties portion of the Pittsburgh Area

- Appendix B: Application of Imputation/B ootstra p Protocol to the Pittsburgh
- Beaver Valley 2006 NAAQS (24
- hr Std) Nonattainment Area for the Design Value Period, 20 10
- 2012UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Jun. 6, 2013 Report Request ID: 1104852 Report Code: AMP480

Selection Criteria Page 1 User ID: HXN

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 003

003 003 003 003 007 125 125 0008

0067 0093 1008 1301 0014 0005 0200 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS Parameter Classification Parameter Method Duration DESIGN VALUE 88101

SELECTED OPTIONS
SINGLE EVENT PROCESSING WORKFILE DELIMITER USER SITE METADATA MERGE PDF FILES QUARTERLY DATA IN WORKFILE

Option Type Option Value EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS

, STREET ADDRESS YES NO GLOBAL DATES
2012 Start Date End Date 2012 Tribal Code

APPLICABLE STANDARDS Standard Description PM25 24-hour 2006 PM25 Annual 2006UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jun. 6, 2013

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 1 of 2UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Jun. 6, 2013

Notes: 1. Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Some PM2.5 24-hour DVs for incomplete data that are marked invalid here may be marked valid in the Official report due to additional analysis. 3. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 2 of 2 Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2012

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Pennsylvania Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert&

Eval | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert& Eval | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert&

Eval | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2012 2011 2010
42-003-0008 42-003-0067 42-003-0093 42-003-1008 42-003-1301 42-007-0014 42-125-0005 42-125-0200 301 39TH ST, BLDG #7, LAWRENCEVILLE 3640 OLD OAKDALE RD, SOUTH FAYETTE KUMMER RD, GOLF CLUBHOUSE, NORTH PARK PACIFIC & IDAHO AVE, HARRISON 600 ANDERSON ST, NORTH BRADDOCK EIGHT STREET AND RIVER ALLEY CHARLER01 WASTE TREATMENT PLANT MCCARRELL AND FAYETTE STS 344 108 54 110 100 358 351 366 4

4 4 4 3 4 4 4 20.4 18.1 16.4 20.7 26.8 22.6 23.4 20.6 * 10.1

9.2 8.6 10.5 11.5 11.9 10.4 10.5 * S

S S S S 347 107 50 104 100 364 317 364 4

4 3 3 3 4 3 4 27.3 30.6 25.6 29.8 33.7 29.8 28.6 27.4 *
*
*

* 11.1 10.6 9.0 11.6 12.3 11.7 12.0 10.8 *

*

*

* 346

111 52 111 106 319 352 351 4

4 3 4 4 4 4 4 29.7 28.5 26.5 34.0 37.2 29.4 27.0 27.0 * 12.2

11.7 10.5 13.0 13.7 12.5 13.2 12.1 * 26 26 23 28 33 27 26 25 Y Y N N N Y N Y 11.1 10.5 9.4 11.7 12.5 12.0 11.9 11.1 Y

Y N N N Y N Y

# Application of Imputation / Bootstrap Protocol to the Pittsburgh - Beaver Valley 2006 NAAQS (24 - hr Std) Nonattainment Area for the Design Value Period,

2010 - 2012

Schmidt 6 - 4 - 2013 • Region 3 has requested that the draft imputation / bootstrap protocol be run for the Pittsburgh - Beaver Valley 2006 NAAQS (24 - hr standard) nonattainment area, specifically for site 421290008 that was incomplete for part of 2011. Hence, that site is the “Site A” in the analysis.

# 10 - year Annual DV History

Site A  Site 421290008 (  ) is incomplete in 2010 - 2012  24 - hour designations based on 2005 - 2007 data



### Figure B1

# Site - level Data Capture, 2010 - 2012 5 - year (2008 - 2012) # Data Pairs & Associated Correlation

• Site 420030002 has , 1) the highest correlation (in the NAA) with Site A1; and 2) sufficient paired data (i.e., 30+ obs quarter required to establish a good relationship with site A1; and , 3) sufficient (i.e., complete) data available in key quarters of 2010 -

2012 (i.e., those deficient in the Site A). It is the Site B! Site A  Site B  Site A  Site B 



### Figure B2

# Linear Regression Results

• The computed 421290008 (Site A) : 420030008 (Site B) linear relationship is :

• The linear regression is 

# based on the most recent 5 years ( 1/2008
– 12/2012) of paired (Site A : Site B) data

• The residuals from this model are used in the subsequent bootstrapping N = 1,389 R - square = 0.70 

## Site A concentration ( v_a ) = 2.100243 + (0.950215 * Site B conc. ( v_b ))

Figure B3

# Imputation & Resulting Data Capture & DV Recalculation Before

After 2011 Q4 is deficient

2011 Q4 is now complete Incomplete DV is 29

“Complete” DV is 29 Figure B4

# Bootstrapping Residuals (& DV Recalculations)

• FYI Residual distribution for 

## 421290008 (Site A) : 420030002 (Site B) linear fit

• Using the entire distribution of residuals (overall stats shown to left), the next step randomly applies (i.e., adds) actual individual residuals from the linear regression to the imputed current - period Site A values. 

# • A 1000 bootstrap runs will provide a pseudo confidence interval for the partially imputed Site A 2010 - 2012 design value

• Bootstrap results (for a run of 1000):

• Final result: 

# PASS (clean data determination) 

# • All 1000 simulations produced a passing DV

Figure B5