Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0012-1012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-04-27T04:00Z

1
Evaluating
the
Occupational
and
Environmental
Impact
of
Nonroad
Diesel
Equipment
in
the
Northeast
Final
Report
Northeast
States
for
Coordinated
Air
Use
Management
(
NESCAUM)
2
Acknowledgements
NESCAUM
would
like
to
acknowledge
the
financial
support
provided
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
and
Breakthrough
Technologies,
Inc.
(
BTI)
for
the
work
performed
in
this
project.
We
would
also
like
to
acknowledge
the
technical
advice
and
support
provided
by
EPA
staff
and
Mr.
Richard
Rumba
(
New
Hampshire
Department
of
Environmental
Resources)
and
the
critical
sampling
and
analytical
support
provide
by
Ms.
Sniega
Stapinsaite
and
Michael
Trijotas,
Environmental
Research
Institute,
Storrs,
CT;
and
staff
at
the
Scott
Lawson
Group,
Concord,
NH;
DataChem,
Salt
Lake
City,
UT;
the
University
of
Massachusetts­
Lowell,
Lowell,
MA;
Keene
State
College,
Keene,
NH;
and
Dartmouth
College,
Hanover,
NH.
Furthermore,
this
project
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
dedicated
collaboration
of
Dr.
Susan
Woskie
and
Dr.
Fred
Youngs
from
the
University
of
Massachusetts­
Lowell.
3
I.
Study
Overview
and
Findings
A.
BACKGROUND
This
study
was
conducted
by
the
Northeast
States
for
Coordinated
Air
Use
Management1
(
NESCAUM),
in
collaboration
with
researchers
from
Keene
State
College
(
Dr.
Melinda
Treadwell)
and
the
University
of
Massachusetts
Lowell
(
Drs.
Susan
Woskie
and
Fred
Youngs).
The
objective
of
this
work
was
to
evaluate
the
potential
health
risks
from
nonroad
sources
by
monitoring
selected
hazardous
air
pollutant
and
particulate
matter
exposures
in
the
cabin
of
operating
nonroad
diesel
equipment
and
at
the
perimeter
of
the
active
work
site.
During
the
past
decade,
a
number
of
analyses
have
concluded
that
mobile
source
air
toxic
emissions
pose
a
significant
public
health
threat
across
the
entire
nation.
In
the
northeast
region,
review
of
national
computer
modeling
analyses
and
ambient
air
monitoring
data
have
concluded
that
emissions
from
mobile
sources
are
the
dominant
contributors
to
elevated
ambient
levels
of
several
key
toxic
air
pollutants
across
the
region.
A
number
of
analyses
are
ongoing
to
investigate
important
mobile
source
contributors
and
means
to
reduce
these
emissions.
However,
the
contribution
of
nonroad
heavy­
duty
diesel
(
HDD)
equipment
emissions
in
the
region
has
been
relatively
uncharacterized.
This
study
was
undertaken
in
an
effort
to
gather
quantitative
and
qualitative
evidence
of
the
range
of
public
health
and
environmental
impacts
associated
with
nonroad
equipment
operations
in
the
northeast
region
and
to
determine
the
significance
of
these
exposures
when
considering
the
health
risks
for
residents
and
equipment
operators.

Diesel
equipment
emissions
from
the
agricultural,
construction
(
building
and
roadway),
and
lumber
industries
were
examined.
Initial
pilot
work
was
conducted
at
a
construction
site
in
June
2002.
Site
work
was
then
conducted
at
a
New
Hampshire
construction
site
and
a
roadway
construction
project,
a
lumberyard
in
Maine,
a
Vermont
dairy
farm,
and
a
New
York
City
construction
site.
Final
field
monitoring
was
completed
May
29,
2003;
complete
data
are
presented
in
the
appendices
to
this
summary
report.
Manuscripts
are
under
development
and
will
be
submitted
for
consideration
by
relevant
peer­
reviewed
journals
in
the
coming
weeks
and
months.

For
each
location,
the
researchers
used
established
federal
methods
to
monitor
the
daily
average
exposures,
and
in
some
cases
minute­
to­
minute
exposures,
to
diesel
soot,
fine
particulate
matter
(
PM2.5),
and
a
suite
of
highly
toxic
gaseous
pollutants
including
acetaldehyde,
benzene,
and
formaldehyde.
In
addition
to
these
analyses,
measurement
techniques
were
used
to
provide
qualitative
and
quantitative
analyses
of
the
metal
content
of
selected
PM2.5
samples.

1
a
nonprofit
association
of
the
eight
air
quality
agencies
of
the
Northeast
states
4
B.
STUDY
FINDINGS
1.
In
all
locations,
diesel
equipment
activity
substantially
increased
fine
particulate
matter
exposures
for
workers
and
nearby
residents,
in
some
cases
by
as
much
as
16
times.
When
comparing
the
integrated
daily
PM2.5
concentrations
collected
in
and
around
operating
equipment
at
the
three
sites,
concentrations
were
1­
16
times
greater
than
the
average
ambient
concentrations
normally
recorded
in
each
monitoring
area.
This
observation
underscores
the
adverse
impact
diesel
equipment
activity
can
have
on
air
quality.
In
addition
to
increasing
the
average
exposure
to
PM2.5,
short­
term
exposures
at
the
perimeter
of
the
site
varied
widely
during
the
day.
The
peak
concentrations
observed
during
very
active
work
may
present
acute
health
risks
for
workers
and
nearby
residents.

With
our
growing
understanding
of
the
adverse
health
impacts
associated
with
both
acute
and
chronic
fine
particulate
matter
exposure,
this
finding
also
raises
the
concern
of
the
potential
adverse
health
impact
for
individuals
working
and
living
near
worksites
like
those
evaluated
in
this
study.

2.
Individual's
estimated
24­
hour
exposures
exceed
the
current
air
quality
standard
by
nearly
2
to
3.5
times
 
substantially
increasing
workers'
health
risk.

In­
cabin
exposures
to
PM2.5
for
operators
of
monitored
diesel
equipment
ranged
from
2
µ
g/
m3
to
over
660
µ
g/
m3
across
the
five
sites
evaluated.
At
the
higher
end
of
this
monitored
exposure
range,
if
one
were
to
average
the
individual's
eight­
hour
workday
exposure
with
the
remaining
16­
hours
of
the
day
at
average
ambient
concentrations
for
that
area,
the
24­
hour
exposure
would
exceed
the
NAAQS
by
1.9
to
3.5
times.

3.
The
most
potent
portion
of
particulate
matter
(
PM
2.5)
 
diesel
particulate
matter
­­
was
monitored
(
as
black
carbon
and
elemental
carbon)
at
levels
that
pose
risk
of
chronic
inflammation
and
lung
damage
in
exposed
individuals.
In
all
five
locations,
diesel
equipment
activity
increased
diesel
particulate
matter
exposure,
average
concentrations
were
1
 
6
times
greater
than
expected
in
urban
and
rural
locations
monitored
in
this
study.
The
integrated
daily
average
elemental
carbon
concentrations
and
real­
time
black
carbon
concentrations
monitored
at
the
sites
were
observed
to
be
elevated
by
as
much
as
six
times
above
the
concentration
of
diesel
particulate
matter
normally
expected
in
the
monitoring
locations.
In
all
locations
except
New
York
City,
no
sources
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
other
than
the
monitored
equipment
and
associated
mobile
sources
were
evident.
Monitoring
was
conducted
during
non
heating
seasons
as
well,
so
the
background
concentrations
are
expected
to
be
low.
Recently
scientists
and
regulatory
agencies
across
the
country
and
around
the
world
have
concluded
that
diesel
exhaust
and/
or
diesel
particulate
matter
is
highly
likely
to
be
carcinogenic
to
humans
and
causes
pulmonary
tissue
damage
following
repeated
exposures
at
low
concentrations.
Diesel
particulate
matter
concentrations
monitored
in
this
study
were,
in
some
instances,
above
the
established
reference
concentration
(
5
µ
g/
m3)
in
both
in­
cabin
and
the
perimeter
5
samples2.
Repeated
exposures
above
this
concentration
are
believed
to
present
some
risk
of
damage
(
i.
e.:
chronic
inflammation
and
histopathological
changes)
in
the
lungs
of
exposed
individuals.
When
considering
the
potential
carcinogenic
risk(
s)
associated
with
diesel
particulate
matter,
it
is
not
clear
that
a
"
safe"
exposure
exists.

4.
As
many
as
200,000
workers
may
be
exposed
to
these
harmful
concentration
levels
of
nonroad
equipment
emissions
in
the
Northeast
region.

Based
on
a
recent
nonroad
equipment
inventory
completed
in
the
Northeast,
it
is
estimated
that
between
48,262
and
201,022
employees
are
exposed
daily
to
diesel
exhaust
concentrations
similar
to
those
monitored
in
this
study.

5.
Measured
concentrations
of
acetaldehyde,
benzene,
and
formaldehyde
around
the
tested
nonroad
equipment
operations
were
as
much
as
140
times
the
Federally
established
screening
threshold
for
cancer
risk.

In
recent
years
a
number
of
national
analyses
conducted
by
the
EPA
have
used
computer
models
to
predict
ambient
concentrations
and
exposures
to
a
toxic
air
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Four
pollutants
resulting
primarily
from
the
combustion
of
gasoline
 
benzene,
1,3­
butadiene,
formaldehyde
and
acetaldehyde
 
have
consistently
been
shown
to
exceed
1
in
1
million
cancer
health
benchmarks
across
the
country3.
Benzene,
1,3­
butadiene
and
formaldehyde
also
each
exceed
one
in
one
hundred
thousand
cancer
risk
thresholds
in
all
urban
areas
in
the
Northeast.
The
results
of
this
study
suggest
that
nonroad
HDD
equipment
operations
can
elevate
levels
of
acetaldehyde,
benzene,
and
formaldehyde
in
and
around
nonroad
equipment
sites.

6.
Concentrations
of
metals
such
as
iron,
nickel
and
vanadium,
are
elevated
in
samples
collected
around
nonroad
equipment.
These
metals
are
known
to
cause
inflammatory
responses
and
damage
in
pulmonary
cells.
The
results
of
this
study
indicate
that
the
concentrations
of
toxic
metals
observed
in
ambient
PM2.5
samples
are
increased
when
nonroad
equipment
is
operating.
These
concentrations
vary
across
sites
and
may
present
adverse
health
impact
risk(
s)
for
workers
and
nearby
residents.
Metals
such
as
nickel,
vanadium
and
iron
are
higher
in
samples
collected
in­
cabin
or
near
the
perimeter
of
monitoring
sites.
These
metals
vary
by
location
and
may
be
of
great
significance
when
considering
respiratory
damage
and
potential
long­
term
health
effects.

2
Assuming
based
on
USEPA
data,
that
diesel
particulate
matter
constitutes
between
6
and
36%
of
the
ambient
particulate
matter
concentrations
nationwide
and
in
urban
areas.
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Health
Assessment
Document
for
Diesel
Engine
Exhaust,
USEPA/
600/
8­
90/
057F,
May
2002.
3
For
cancer
effects,
the
risk
screening
benchmarks
used
by
the
EPA
reflect
the
assumption
that
there
is
no
concentration
below,
which
there
is
no
risk
(
e.
g.
no
threshold).
The
one
in
one
million
risk
benchmark
is
an
estimated
exposure
concentration,
which
would
result
in
one
excess
cancer
in
one
million
individuals
exposed
for
a
lifetime.
6
II.
Study
Method
Note:
For
a
summary
chart
of
sampling
methods
and
sampling
locations,
please
refer
to
Appendix
A
of
this
report.

For
each
location,
the
researchers
used
established
federal
methods
to
monitor
the
daily
average
exposures,
and
in
some
cases
minute­
to­
minute
exposures,
to
diesel
soot,
fine
particulate
matter
(
PM2.5),
and
a
suite
of
gaseous
pollutants
including
acetaldehyde,
benzene,
and
formaldehyde.
In
addition
to
these
analyses,
x­
ray
fluorescence
spectrometry
and
inductively
coupled
mass
spectrometry
were
used
to
provide
qualitative
and
quantitative
analyses
of
the
metal
content
of
selected
PM2.5
samples.

Samples
were
collected
in
the
cab
of
HDD
equipment
operators
and
at
the
perimeter
of
the
worksite.
The
in
cab
samples
were
collected
to
characterize
occupational
exposures
for
equipment
operators4.
The
equipment
type,
model
year,
and
horsepower
for
each
site
are
shown
in
Table
I
below.
Table
I.
Monitored
Equipment
Summary
Carmel,
ME
(
Lumberyard)
Brattleboro,
VT
(
Agricultural
Operation)
Keene,
NH
(
Building
and
Roadway
Construction)
Manchester,
NH
(
Roadway
Construction)
New
York,
New
York
(
Building
Construction)
1986
Detroit,
Mill
Engine
200
HP
1979
Ford
6700
Spreader
256
HP
1999
JCB
4362,
Front
Loader
163
HP
1997
Caterpillar
DR6xL
Bulldozer
165
HP
1995
Komatsu
PC100
Excavator
84
HP
1995
Pettibone
Cary­
Lift
Super
15
Model
#
154D
130
HP
1976
Ford,
Front
Bucket
Loader
250
HP
1998
Ingersoll
Rand,
Variable
Reach
Lift
(
Lull)
642B
80
HP
2002
Caterpillar
It386
Loader,
145
HP
1988
Caterpillar
245B
Drill
(
Excavator)
320
HP
1985
Detroit,
Planer
Engine
180
HP
1997
John
Deere
Tractor
170
HP
1997
Hyster
Variable
Reach
Lift
(
Lull)
90
HP
1992
Caterpillar
235D
Excavator,
145
HP
1988
Caterpillar
245D
Excavator
320
HP
1988
John
Deere
with
Harrow
170
HP
1997
John
Deere,
550
GTC
Bulldozer
80
 
83
HP
The
worksite
perimeter
samples5
(
at
the
property
boundary
with
nearby
residential
receptors)
were
also
collected
to
characterize
the
near­
field
ambient
air
quality
impact
of
worksite
operations.
Eight­
hour
integrated
monitoring
was
conducted
to
quantify
worker
exposure
to
carcinogenic
compounds
of
concern
(
i.
e.
benzene,
1,3­
butadiene,
acetaldehyde,
and
formaldehyde),
particulate
matter
(
PM2.5),
and
diesel
soot.
Real
time
sampling
for
PM2.5
and
diesel
soot
was
also
conducted
at
the
worksite
perimeter
locations
to
determine
whether
peak,
episodic
exposures
during
a
shorter
averaging
time
might
4
Using
appropriate
absorbent
media
for
the
various
analytes
of
concern
and
Gilian
or
SKC
personal
air
sampling
pumps
or
BGI
Inc.
Cyclone
pumps
that
were
calibrated
to
draw
an
acceptable
air
volume
across
the
sampling
duration.
5
Each
site
was
approximately
300'
X
300'
square,
perimeter
sampling
stations
were
positioned
at
the
upwind
and
downwind
edge
of
the
site
at
the
beginning
of
the
monitoring
day.
7
present
potential
non­
cancer
health
effect
of
concern
in
exposed
workers
or
nearby
residents.

After
sampling,
and
post
sampling
pump
calibration,
the
absorbent
tubes
and
filter
cassettes
were
removed
from
the
air
pumps,
capped,
bagged
and
stored
in
a
freezer
(
if
appropriate)
until
analyzed.
Analyses
for
this
project
were
completed
by:
Environmental
Research
Institute
(
ERI),
DataChem,
the
Scott
Lawson
Group,
Keene
State
College,
the
University
of
Massachusetts­
Lowell,
and
Dartmouth
College,
as
described
below.

Carbonyl
Analyses
(
EPA
Method
TO­
11):
Samples
for
carbonyl
compounds
(
monitoring
targets:
acetaldehyde,
acrolein
and
formaldehyde)
were
collected
on
2,4­
dinitrophenylhydrazine
(
DNPH­
with
ozone
scrubber)
coated
SKC
sorbent
tubes
(
stock
#
226­
120).
In
cab
or
perimeter
samples
were
collected
using
appropriately
calibrated
Gilian
personal
air
sampling
pumps.
The
cartridges
used
for
these
analyses
were
stored
at
a
temperature
less
than
4
°
C
before
and
after
sampling.
The
carbonyl
compounds
react
to
form
hydrazones,
which
are
retained
on
the
cartridge.
The
hydrazones
are
then
extracted
from
the
cartridge
using
a
solvent
and
the
extract
is
analyzed
by
high
performance
liquid
chromatography
(
HPLC)
with
UV­
visible
detection
by
ERI
personnel.

Volatile
Organic
Compound
Analysis
(
EPA
Methods
TO­
17­
UMASS­
Lowell
and
TO­
15­
ERI):
In
cabin
exposures
benzene,
1,3­
butadiene,
ethyl
benzene,
and
xylene
were
collected
using
Carbotrap
X
and
Carboxen
1016
absorbent
traps
and
were
analyzed
by
UMASSLowell
using
thermal
desorption
mass
spectrometry.
Tubes
are
stored
at
less
than
4
°
C
before
and
after
sampling.

A
major
goal
for
this
monitoring
project
was
to
evaluate
the
range
of
organic
compounds
generated
from
nonroad
equipment
and
the
impact
on
worker
exposure
and
ambient
air
quality.
Therefore,
in
addition
to
the
targeted
breathing
zone
sampling
with
personal
air
sampling
techniques,
8
hour
average
concentrations
of
volatile
organic
compounds
were
collected
in
cleaned,
evacuated
SUMMA
canisters
using
eight­
hour
restrictive
flow
orifices.
The
SUMMA
canister
samples
were
analyzed
by
gas
chromatography
with
mass
spectrometry
detection
for
compound
identification
confirmation.
Laboratory
standard
operating
procedures
for
the
analytical
laboratory
performing
TO­
11
and
TO­
15
are
included
as
Attachment
I
and
II
to
this
report.

Organic
and
Elemental
Carbon
Analysis
(
NIOSH
Method
5040):
Eight
hour
respirable
particulate
samples
were
collected
in
the
cab
of
selected
equipment
and
at
the
perimeter
of
the
worksite
using
a
BGI
Inc.
cyclone
sampler
and
pre­
fired
pure
quartz
fiber
filters.
DataChem
analyzed
these
particulate
exposure
samples
to
quantify
the
elemental
carbon/
organic
carbon
content.
The
quartz
filters
are
heated
to
900
°
C
prior
to
sampling
to
remove
all
organic
and
elemental
carbon
adsorbed
on
the
filter.
The
filters
are
then
sealed
in
special
petri
dishes,
which
are
then
individually
wrapped
in
foil
to
prevent
adsorption
of
organic
carbon
during
shipping
and
storage.
8
For
analysis,
a
small
punch
from
the
filter
(
rectangular,
1.5
cm2)
is
removed
and
placed
it
in
a
small
tube
furnace.
The
sample
is
heated
from
25
°
C
to
850
°
C
in
a
pure
helium
(
He)
atmosphere
to
evolve
the
organic
carbon.
The
carbon
is
oxidized
to
CO2
then
reduced
to
methane
(
CH4)
for
detection
by
a
flame
ionization
detector.
The
temperature
is
reduced
to
550
°
C
and
the
atmosphere
is
changed
to
2%
O2
in
He.
The
heating
continues
to
850
°
C.
The
carbon
evolved
during
this
stage
is
elemental
carbon.
A
correction
is
made
for
charring
of
the
organic
carbon
in
the
later
stage
of
the
first
temperature
ramp,
using
the
measured
reflectance
of
the
filter
sample.
The
light
reflected
by
the
surface
of
the
filter
from
a
laser
is
measured
throughout.
This
reflectance
decreases
as
the
organic
carbon
is
charred.
Upon
switching
the
purge
gas
to
2%
O2
in
He,
the
reflectance
of
the
filter
returns
to
its
initial
value.
The
carbon
evolved
during
this
segment
of
the
analysis
is
defined
as
organic
carbon
and
the
results
are
reported
accordingly.

Assessing
the
impact
of
equipment
activity
on
monitored
concentrations:

During
the
field
monitoring
studies
described
above,
field­
monitoring
technicians
prepared
daily
time
activity
diaries
in
20­
minute
increments
for
each
monitoring
location
(
equipment
and
perimeter).
These
journals
will
record
episodic
exposures
as
well
as
general
employee
activities
throughout
the
workday.
The
field
technicians
also
recorded
the
type
and
activity
of
equipment
used
on
the
worksite
during
the
day,
the
equipment
horsepower,
the
fuel
type
and
consumption
data
(
if
available
for
worksite),
the
hours
of
operation,
and
any
unique
duty
cycle
activities
throughout
the
monitoring
day
that
may
later
be
correlated
with
episodic
exposures
peaks
recorded
by
the
real­
time
monitors
for
diesel
soot
and
PM2.5.
Time
activity
diaries
for
each
site
monitored
are
presented
in
Appendix
D.

Controlling
variability
in
the
study
population:

The
sampling
goal
of
this
study
was
to
monitor
similar
equipment
across
the
project
worksites
in
an
effort
to
increase
the
sample
population
per
equipment
type.
Since
the
worksites
monitored
were
similar,
comparable
types
of
nonroad
equipment
were
available.
As
with
all
exposure
monitoring
studies;
however,
it
was
not
possible
to
monitor
all
workplace
conditions
or
all
worker
populations
at
each
of
the
worksites.
The
original
aim
of
the
study
was
to
characterize
exposure
to
similar
types
of
nonroad
equipment
between
worksites,
and
to
provide
exposure/
ambient
impact
data
across
a
number
of
days
at
each
site.
These
monitoring
data
provide
ranges
of
exposure
and
ambient
air
quality
impact
across
the
study
population
that
will
ultimately
be
compared
with
ranges
of
potential
adverse
health
endpoints.
The
monitoring
approach
is
intended
to
provide
quantitative
evidence
useful
in
estimating
the
potential
public
health
impact
in
high­
end
exposed
sub­
populations
and
near­
field
residents
at
specific
worksites.
Further,
quantitative
monitoring
evidence,
when
coupled
with
knowledge
of
the
potency
of
monitored
toxicants,
and
an
understanding
of
the
scope
of
nonroad
construction
activities
in
the
region,
will
support
a
qualitative
estimate
of
the
potential
regional
impact
of
nonroad
equipment
activities.
With
respect
to
sample
variability,
the
researchers
anticipated
the
variability
in
worksite
activities
on
any
given
day,
difference
in
meteorological
conditions
during
a
sample
collection
period
at
a
given
site,
and
due
to
9
regional
air
mass
transport
the
project
team
expected
differences
in
the
background
concentrations
of
the
compounds
characterized
in
the
study.
By
carefully
recording
twenty
minute
time­
activity
data
for
all
monitored
equipment
each
day
on
each
site,
by
recording
the
minute­
to­
minute
meteorological
conditions
on
each
day
of
monitoring
at
each
site,
and
by
evaluating
state
ambient
air
quality
monitoring
data
across
the
region
it
is
anticipated
that
variability
in
quantitative
evidence
will
likely
be
controlled
to
some
degree.
Statistical
analyses
of
the
time
activity
data,
real­
time
monitoring
results,
weather
conditions,
and
integrated
sampling
results
are
being
conducted
and
will
be
presented
in
a
manuscript
currently
under
development.

Estimation
of
number
of
workers
using
heavy
equipment
In
order
to
estimate
the
number
of
workers
in
the
region
operating
heavy­
duty
diesel
nonroad
machines,
three
sources
of
information
were
used.
The
first
source
was
Census
Bureau
employee
data
from
1997.
The
Census
Bureau
provides
information
on
the
number
of
employees
in
a
variety
of
industry
sectors.
For
this
analysis
we
took
from
the
Census
Bureau
the
numbers
of
workers
in
the
region
from
several
industry
segments
that
use
heavy
equipment
such
as
building
construction,
road
building,
mining,
agriculture,
and
excavation.
The
second
column
in
Table
1
(
entitled
8
state
employees)
provides
the
number
of
workers
in
the
region
for
each
of
the
industry
segments
included
in
this
analysis.

In
order
to
estimate
the
number
of
pieces
of
equipment
used
per
employee,
we
used
NESCAUM
survey
data
gathered
as
part
of
a
recent
study
on
construction
equipment
activity
in
the
region.
This
data
provided
an
estimation
of
the
number
of
pieces
of
heavy
equipment
per
employee
for
each
industry
segments.
Columns
3,
4,
and
5
of
Table
2
provide
the
ratio
of
equipment
to
employees
for
three
different
counties
studied.
The
survey
showed
that
for
some
industries
such
as
Heavy
Construction
Contractors
and
Excavation
&
Demolition
the
ratio
of
heavy
duty
diesel
equipment
to
employees
is
high,
while
for
other
sectors,
such
as
Lumber
and
Wood
Products
the
ratio
of
equipment
to
employees
is
relatively
low.

Table
2.
Ratio
of
Equipment
to
Employees
in
Three
Counties
Equipment
counts
per
employee
Description
8
State
Employees
Franklin
Providence
Albany
Forestry
NA
0.00
0.25
ND
Nonmetallic
Mining
9,093
0.63
0.13
ND
General
Building
Contractors
154,781
0.12
0.03
0.040
Heavy
Construction
Contractors
90,684
0.73
0.17
0.037
Specialty
Trade
Contractors
398,913
0.01
0.01
0.013
Excavation
&
Demolition
24,516
1.41
0.60
1.000
10
Lumber
and
Wood
Products
32,954
0.02
0.01
0.000
Stone,
Glass,
and
Concrete
Products
52,685
0.09
0.04
0.051
Garden
Supply
&
Nurseries
136,247
0.00
0.07
0.031
Landfills
6,854
NA
NA
NA
Scrap
Metals
18,407
­­­
0.68
­­­

Municipal*
41,518,048
Population
0.001003
0.00004
0.00320
*
Equipment
counts
as
a
function
of
human
population
The
combination
of
equipment
counts
per
employee
and
employees
in
each
industry
category
can
be
combined
to
estimate
the
equipment
operational
in
the
8­
State
NESCAUM
region.
Since
some
employees
do
not
operate
heavy
equipment,
but
rather
do
office
or
administrative
work,
repair,
or
other
functions,
properly
estimating
the
equipment/
operator
ratio
is
important
to
this
analysis.

Once
the
number
of
employees
was
established
and
the
equipment/
operator
ratio
estimated,
the
number
of
hours
each
worker
spends
operating
the
equipment
needed
to
be
estimated.

Information
on
hours
of
operation
per
piece
of
equipment
was
taken
from
both
the
NESCAUM
survey
and
the
EPA
NONROAD
model.
The
average
annual
hours
of
equipment
usage
(
engine
on)
ranges
from
about
400
to
1100
hours
or
about
20
 
50%
of
an
average
8­
hour
workday.

Possible
underestimation
of
exposed
workers
The
reason
there
is
a
wide
range
of
workers
exposed
estimated
in
this
study
is
due
to
the
fact
that
some
information
key
to
the
calculation
was
not
available.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
estimate
of
number
of
workers
exposed
to
heavy­
duty
nonroad
diesel
emissions
in
this
analysis
likely
underestimates
the
actual
number
of
workers.
The
reasons
for
this
are:
lack
of
rental
equipment
data,
other
industry
segments
that
use
heavy
equipment
not
well
identified,
and
workers
other
than
operators
exposed
to
emissions
from
these
pieces
of
equipment.

An
important
and
growing
industry
category
not
characterized
in
the
survey
was
the
rental
or
leasing
companies.
This
category
could
prove
to
be
a
significant
source
of
equipment
and
has
not
been
addressed
in
this
analysis.
There
could
be
other
industry
categories
not
well
characterized
in
the
estimates
presented
here.
Shipping
(
primarily
around
marine
ports
but
other
intermodal
points
as
well)
was
another
category
not
represented
in
these
estimates.

In
addition,
equipment
types
other
than
construction
and
mining
(
such
as
forklifts,
aerial
lifts,
generators)
are
used
by
construction
and
industrial
operations
but
were
not
11
surveyed.
So
the
total
equipment
counts
calculated
above
underestimates
the
diesel
equipment
operational
within
these
industry
categories.

Finally,
operator
worker
exposure
is
only
one
element
of
the
exposure
at
a
construction
site.
Any
number
of
supervisors,
spotters,
welders,
and
other
workers
are
engaged
in
proximity
to
active
construction
and
mining
equipment.

III.
Discussion
When
evaluating
the
results
of
this
study,
one
must
be
aware
of
the
health
endpoints
being
considered.
A
number
of
federal
agencies
develop
occupational
and
environmental
"
safe"
exposure
guidelines
for
carcinogens
and
non­
carcinogens
and
several
are
presented
here
for
comparison.
Agencies
such
as
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
and
the
Mine
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
MSHA)
are
responsible
for
occupational
safety
and
health
for
general
industry
or
the
mining
industry,
respectively.
These
agencies
often
seek
input
from
organizations
such
as
the
American
Conference
of
Governmental
Industrial
Hygienists
(
ACGIH)
or
the
National
Institutes
of
Health
(
NIOSH),
which
develop
guidance
values
or
recommendations
based
upon
industrial
experience
assessing
exposures
and
health
outcomes.
Occupational
exposure
limits
are
values
that
are
expected
to
result
in
no
adverse
health
outcomes
if
a
worker
is
exposed
40
hours
per
week
each
year
for
a
working
career.
Environmental
exposure
standards
established
by
the
EPA
are
intended
to
protect
the
entire
population
for
24
hours
per
day
for
a
lifetime
of
exposure.
Typically
environmental
exposure
standards
are
more
restrictive
as
they
are
established
to
ensure
all
members
(
even
the
ill,
very
young,
and
elderly)
of
the
population
will
not
suffer
adverse
health
outcomes
following
continuous
lifetime
exposure.

Substantial
data
exist
regarding
the
occupational
and
environmental
exposure
to
diesel
engine
emissions
as
well
as
the
acute
and
chronic
health
impacts
associated
with
the
pollutants
to
be
targeted
in
this
work.
The
project
participants
developed
a
summary
database
that
compiles
the
critical
target
organ
effects
and
carcinogenic
and
noncarcinogenic
potency,
or
potency
range,
for
inhalation
exposure
to
acetaldehyde,
acrolein,
benzene,
1,3­
butadiene,
formaldehyde,
and
respirable
particulate
matter
(
summary
sheets
shown
in
Appendix
B).
This
database
was
developed
following
review
of
the
current
information
available
from
the
peer­
reviewed
scientific
literature,
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry,
the
ACGIH,
various
EPA
Staff
Papers
or
Criteria
Documents,
the
Hazardous
Substances
Data
Bank,
the
Integrated
Risk
Information
System,
and
NIOSH.
Comparing
monitoring
results
with
established
occupational
and
environmental
standards
provides
an
initial
assessment
of
the
potential
risk
to
workers
and
nearby
residents
associated
with
the
exposures
monitored
during
fieldwork.
12
When
considering
the
non­
cancer
health
impacts
of
diesel
exhaust
exposure6,
the
US
EPA
recently
finalized
a
health­
protective
reference
concentration
of
5
µ
g/
m3
for
diesel
particulate
matter
(
DPM)
7.
The
MSHA
has
established
an
interim
allowable
occupational
exposure
standard8
for
diesel
particulate
matter
of
400
µ
g/
m3
this
standard
will
drop
to
a
final
allowable
exposure
limit
for
this
worker
population
of
160
µ
g/
m3
within
five
years.
The
OSHA
has
yet
to
adopt
a
standard
for
diesel
exhaust
particulate
matter.
However,
OSHA
has
identified
diesel
exhaust
as
a
compound
of
concern
and
is
developing
an
action
plan
to
reduce
worker
exposure
to
this
hazard.
NIOSH
considers
diesel
exhaust
a
potential
occupational
carcinogen
and,
as
such,
recommends
that
occupational
exposures
be
reduced
to
the
"
lowest
feasible
concentration."
The
ACGIH
is
considering
a
recommendation
for
diesel
exhaust
but
has
yet
to
establish
one.
A
challenge
when
assessing
exposure
to
DPM
is
that
diesel
exposure
is
typically
measured
using
a
surrogate,
such
as
quantification
of
elemental
carbon
and
organic
carbon
as
done
in
this
study.
The
results
of
EC/
OC
analysis
are
presented
in
Appendix
C.
Other
researchers
have
used
mass
balance
and
emissions
inventory
data
to
estimate
diesel
particulate
matter
contribution
to
ambient
fine
particulate
matter
concentrations,
these
projects
have
estimated
that
DPM
constitutes
a
minimum
of
6
%
of
the
national
total
ambient
inventory
for
PM2.5,
which
can
be
measured
directly.
In
urban
areas
(
and
very
likely
on
the
nonroad
construction
sites
evaluated
in
this
study)
the
percentage
of
DPM
could
range
from
10
to
36%
of
the
PM2.5
mass9.

When
considering
the
non­
cancer
health
effects
associated
with
exposure
to
PM2.5
mass
in
general,
the
current
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
of
65
µ
g/
m3
(
24­
hour)
established
by
the
United
State
Environmental
Protection
Agency
may
used
to
compare
integrated
24­
hour
exposures
on
or
near
project
sites.
When
considering
allowable
occupational
exposures
for
fine
(
respirable)
particulate
matter,
not
otherwise
specified,
the
OSHA
has
established
a
permissible
exposure
limit
of
5000
µ
g/
m3
and
the
ACGIH,
has
established
a
threshold
limit
value
of
3000
µ
g/
m3.
TheMSHA
standard
of
400
µ
g/
m3
may
also
be
used.

When
evaluating
cancer
effects,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
has
not
yet
determined
a
unit
risk
value
for
DPM,
therefore
carcinogenic
risks
associated
with
exposures
at
the
concentrations
measured
on
the
four
sites
are
not
estimated
here.

When
considering
the
cancer
effects
of
the
gaseous
pollutants
measured
in
this
study
the
benchmarks
used
by
the
EPA
reflect
the
assumption
that
there
is
no
concentration
below
which
there
is
no
risk
(
eg.
no
threshold).
Concentrations,
which
are
assumed
to
present
a
potential
public
health
concern,
are
derived
by
estimating
a
risk
concentration
for
humans
from
observed
tumor
incidence
in
animals.
The
approach
typically
incorporates
the
idea
of
multiple
steps
in
cancer
development,
but
assumes
that
the
transition
from
one
step
to
the
next
is
irreversible.
This
approach
has
been
criticized
for
these
assumptions
and
the
6
The
established
reference
concentration
is
based
upon
demonstrated
inflammatory
and
histopathological
changes
in
the
lung
in
numerous
species
following
diesel
exhaust
exposure.
7
9United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Health
Assessment
Document
for
Diesel
Engine
Exhaust,
USEPA/
600/
8­
90/
057F,
May
2002.
8
This
standard
addressed
exposures
for
underground
metal
and
nonmetal
miners.
13
conservative
concentrations,
which
are
calculated
using
this
"
linear
multistage
model"
approach.
The
EPA
has
recently
been
revising
its
guidelines
for
carcinogen
risk
assessment
guidelines.
The
revisions
are
meant
to
allow
flexibility
in
presentation
of
carcinogen
risk
assessment.
A
benchmark
concentration
represents
the
atmospheric
concentration
of
a
pollutant
above
which
there
may
be
potential
public
health
concerns.
The
benchmark
values
essentially
serve
as
"
yardsticks"
to
assess
the
potential
threat
to
public
health
posed
by
a
toxicant.
These
values
represent
the
current
state
of
scientific
understanding
about
the
health
effects
of
the
pollutants
of
concern.

One
of
the
most
significant
challenges
presented
by
this
work
is
that
exposure
to
diesel
exhaust
around
non­
road
HDD
equipment
sites
results
in
exceedances
of
environmental
exposure
standards
but
not
occupational
standards.
For
pollutants
such
as
particulate
matter,
not
otherwise
specified,
this
is
a
dilemma
as
an
individual's
exposure
would
be
acceptable
by
one
agency
and
unacceptable
by
another.
This
is
a
significant
future
policy
challenge
for
occupational
and
environmental
health
professionals.
15
Appendix
A:
Summary
Testing
Matrix10
Date
Location
In
Cabin
Monitoring
(
3
­
5
pieces)
Upwind
Site
 
Perimeter
#
1
(
~
300ft
X
300
ft
site)
Downwind
Site
 
Perimeter
#
2
(
~
300ft
X
300
ft
site)

July
2002
through
June
2003
Roadway
Construction
Keene,
NH
Forestry
Operations
Carmel,
ME
Building
Construction
New
York
City
Agricultural
Operations
Brattleboro,
VT
Roadway
Construction
Manchester,
NH
EC/
OC11
Respirable
cyclone
(
PM4)

@
4.2
liters/
minute
PM.
2.5
12
PM
2.5
cyclone
@
3.5
liters/
minute
Volatile
Organic
Compounds13
(
Carbotrap
X
and
Carboxen
1016
absorbent
trap)
@

0.200
liters/
minute
Carbonyls14
(
DNPH
with
O3
scrubber)

@
0.200
liters/
minute
EC/
OC
Respirable
cyclone
(
PM4)

@
4.2
liters/
minute
PM.
2.5
PM
2.5
cyclone
@
3.5
liters/
minute
Volatile
Organic
Compounds15
SUMMA
Canister
with
8­
hr
orifice
Carbonyls
(
DNPH
w/
O3
scrubber)

@
0.200
liters/
minute
Real
Time
Black
Carbon
Aethelometer
(
PM4)

Real
Time
PM2.5
EPAM­
5000
(
PM2.5
kit)

Data
Logging
Weather
Station
Tracking
temperature,
relative
humidity,

wind
speed/
direction,
and
dew
point
EC/
OC
Respirable
cyclone
(
PM4)

@
4.2
liters/
minute
EC/
OC
BGI
PQ100
(
PM.
2.5)

@
16.7
liters/
minute
PM.
2.5
PM
2.5
cyclone
@
3.5
liters/
minute
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
SUMMA
Canister
with
8­
hr
orifice
Carbonyls
(
DNPH
w/
O3
scrubber)

@
0.200
liters/
minute
Real
Time
Black
Carbon
Aethelometer
(
PM4)

Real
Time
PM2.5
EPAM
5000
(
PM2.5
kit)

10
For
each
location
evaluated
three
days
(
8­
9
hour
samples
each
day).
This
figure
summarizes
the
monitoring
conducted
each
of
the
three
days
for
each
location.

11
Elemental
Carbon/
Organic
Carbon,
NIOSH
Method
#
5040
12
Gravimetric
Analyses
for
total
particulate
mass
13
EPA
Method
TO­
17
14
EPA
Method
TO­
11
15
EPA
Method
TO­
15
16
Samples
were
collected
on
nonroad
heavy­
duty
diesel
equipment
operators
and
at
the
perimeter
of
each
site
using
established
federal
methods
and
novel
real­
time
monitoring
strategies.
Each
site
was
defined
as
a
square
approximately
300'
X
300'.
Global
positioning
system
(
GPS)
coordinates
were
taken
for
each
site
and
are
being
used
to
integrate
the
movement
of
equipment
within
the
site
on
site
maps
that
will
be
provided
in
final
reports
developed
under
this
project.
Perimeter
monitors
were
positioned
at
an
upwind
and
downwind
location
on
this
site
grid
at
the
start
of
each
monitoring
day.
Due
to
wind
direction
changes
throughout
the
monitoring
day
however
these
sites
are
not
consistently
upwind
or
downwind
sites,

rather
perimeter
monitors.
The
wind
speed
and
direction
was
monitored
on
site
as
well
and
are
being
integrated
with
real­
time
monitoring
results
and
subjected
to
statistical
analyses.
Until
these
analyses
are
completed,
data
are
presented
as
perimeter
#
1
(
initial
upwind
site)
and
perimeter
#
2
(
initial
downwind
site).

The"
in­
cabin"
exposure
measurements
for
three
pieces
of
heavy­
duty
equipment
at
each
site
were
expected
to
characterize
high­
end
exposures.

Perimeter
monitoring
samples
were
collected
to
characterize
the
near­
field
ambient
air
quality
impact
of
worksite
operations.
Eight­
hour
average
integrated
personal
and
perimeter
exposure
monitoring
was
conducted
to
quantify
exposure
to
carcinogenic
compounds
and
respiratory
irritants
of
concern
(
i.
e.
benzene,
1,3­
butadiene,
acetaldehyde,
and
formaldehyde)
and
for
respirable
particulate
matter
(
PM2.5)
and
diesel
soot
(
PM4).
Real­
time
monitoring
was
also
conducted,
as
detailed
above,
to
quantify
respirable
particulate
matter
(
PM2.5),
diesel
soot
(
PM4),
and
site
weather
conditions.
17
Appendix
B:
Health
Effects
Database
Summary
Sheets
Acetaldehyde
CAS:
75­
07­
0
Molecular
Weight
44
RfC
9x10­
3
mg/
m3
RfD
No
Data
EPA
Unit
Cancer
Risk
Value
1
:
1,000,000
5x10­
4
mg/
m3
Occupational
Limits
15
­
minute
STEL
none
specified
OSHA
PEL
8­
hour
TWA
200
ppm
ACGIH
TLV
25ppm
NIOSH
REL
carcinogen,
lowest
feasible
Ceiling
45
mg/
m3
Ceiling­
ACGIH
Recommendation
NH
State
Ambient
Air
Limit
161=
24­
hour
AAL
http://
www.
des.
state.
nh.
us/
rules/
env­
a1400.
pdf
Target
Organs
Type
of
effect
in
humans
NIOSH
Type
of
effect
in
animals­
RATS
Eyes
Irritation
eyes,
eyes
burning,
Blurred
vision.
Skin
dermatitis,
skin
burning
squamous
cell
carcinomas
Respiratory
System
Irritation­
nose,
throat,
Shortness
of
breath.
Nasal
Cancer,
Male/
Female
Rats
Central
Nervous
System
Depression,
Unconsciousness.
Reproductive
System
kidney,
reproductive,
teratogenic
effects
Developmental
Kidneys
Potential
Human
Carcinogen
B2
Classification,
Nasal
in
animals
NOAEL
LOAEL­
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris/
subst/
0290.
htm#
carc
LC50http://
www.
hhmi.
org/
research/
labsafe/
lcss/
lcss.
html
OR
http://
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
hlthef/
acetalde.
html
Rat­
150ppm
or
48.75
mg/
cu.
m
Rat­
16.9
mg/
cu.
m­
adenocarcinomas
from
olfactory
epithelium
Rat­
20,550
ppm
inhalation/
37,000mg/
m3
Rat
inhalation
Sampling
Methods
OSHA
Primary
Method
No.
2(
OSHA
68)

ANL
Solvent:
Toluene
Max
Volume
(
TWA)
3
liters
Max
Flow
(
TWA)
0.05
L/
min
Max
Volume
(
STEL)
0.75
L
Max
Flow
(
STEL)
0.05
L/
min
ANL
1:
Gas
Chromatography
SAE
0.1
Class
Fully
Validated
Chemical
Formula:
CH3CHO
Media:
Coated
XAD­
2
Tube
(
450/
225
mg
sections,
20/
60
mesh)
Coating
is
10%
(
w/
w)
2­(
Hydroxymethyl)
piperidine.
18
Benzene
CAS:
71­
43­
2
Chemical
Formula:
C6H6
Molecular
Weight
78
RfC
RfC
of
9
E­
3
mg/
m
3
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nceawww1/
pdfs/
benzene/
benztox.
htm
RfD
EPA
Unit
Cancer
Risk
Value
1
:
1,000,000
1.3x
10­
4
or
4.5x10­
4
mg/
m
3
Occupational
Limits
15
­
minute
STEL
5
ppm
OSHA
PEL
8­
hour
TWA
1
ppm
(
Action
Level­.
5
ppm)
ACGIH
TLV
0.5
ppm
NIOSH
REL
0.1
ppm
Ceiling
25
ppm
NH
State
Ambient
Air
Limit
5.714
=
24­
hour
AAL
http://
www.
des.
state.
nh.
us/
rules/
env­
a1400.
pdf
Target
Organs­
NIOSH
Type
of
effect
in
humans
Type
of
effect
in
animals
Eyes
Contact
of
vapor­
Irritating,
Contact
with
liquid­
irritation,
pain;
prolonged
cause
tissue
damage
Skin
Irritation,
Redness,
Repeated
exposure,
dermatitus,
removes
oil
from
skin,
dryness
squamous
cell
carcinomas
Respiratory
System
cough,
hoarseness,
general
irritation
of
nose,
throat
and
resp.
tract
Blood
cause
anemia,
leukemia,
Hodgkin's
Disease
leukemia
Central
Nervous
System
Drowsiness,
headache,
nausea,
incoordination
Bone
Marrow
Decrease
in
production
or
changes
to
the
cells
of
hemoglobin,
hematocrit,
red/
white
blood
cells
reduced
the
cellularity
of
the
bone
marrow
Reproductive
Developmental
potential
occupational
carcinogen
Leukemia
NOAELwww.
atsdr.
com
LOAELwww.
atsdr.
com
LC50
www.
atsdr.
com/
EPA
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttnatw01/
urban/
natpapp.
pdf
Item
#
65=
10
ppm
Rat
Item
#
11=
Rat­
47ppm
(
decreased
maternal
weight
gain)
LC50
Mouse
ihl
9980
ppm
EPA=
31,887
mg/
m3
Item
#
31,
50=
3
ppm
Mouse
Item
#
68=
Mouse­
9.6ppm
(
increased
spleen
weight)
LC50
Rat
ihl
10,000ppm/
7
hr
EPA=
31,951
mg/
m3
Item
#
14=
Mouse­
47ppm
(
decreased
WBC
Count)
Item#
85=
Rat­
88ppm
(
leukpenia)
Item
#
131=
Rat­
960ppm
(
30%
depression
of
evoked
electricalm
activity)
Item
#
135=
Rat­
6,600ppm
(
testicular
weight
increase)
Item
#
140=
Rat­
200ppm
(
CEL:
hepatomes)
Item
#
178=
Rat­
100ppm
(
Liver
tumors)

Sampling
Methods
OSHA
Primary
Method
No.
2
(
OSHA
1005)

ANL
Solvent:
Carbon
Disulfide
ALT
Solvent:
(
99:
1)
Carbon
Disulfide/
Dimethylformamide
Max
Volume
(
TWA)
12
Liters
Max
Flow
(
TWA)
0.05
L/
min
(
TWA)
Max
Volume
(
STEL)
0.75
Liters
Max
Flow
(
STEL)
0.05
L/
min
(
STEL)
ANL
1:
Gas
Chromatography;
GC/
FID
SAE
none
specified
Class
Fully
Validated
Media:
Charcoal
Tube
(
100/
50
mg
sections,
20/
40
mesh)
19
1,3
­
Butadiene
CAS:
106­
99­
0
Chemical
Formula:

Molecular
Weight
54
RfC
2
×
10­
3;
mg/
m
3
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris/
subst/
0139.
htm#
top
RfD
No
Data
EPA
Unit
Cancer
Risk
Value
1
:
1,000,000
2.1x10­
6
µ
g/
m3
Occupational
Limits
15
­
minute
STEL
5
ppm
OSHA
PEL
8­
hour
TWA
1
ppm
(
Action
level­
.5ppm)
ACGIH
TLV
2
ppm,
4.4
mg/
m3
TWA
NIOSH
REL
Lowest
Feasible
Concentration
Ceiling
None
Specified
NH
State
Ambient
Air
Limit
16=
24­
hour
AAL
http://
www.
des.
state.
nh.
us/
rules/
env­
a1400.
pdf
Target
Organs­
NIOSH
Type
of
effect
in
humans
Type
of
effect
in
animals(
MICE)
Eyes
Irritation
eyes,
Blurred
Vision
Central
Nervous
System
Drowsiness,
headache,
fatigue
CNS
Depression
Respiratory
System
Irritation
Nose,
Dryness
Irritation,
respiratory
paralysis
bronchiolar
adenomas,
neoplasms
Reproductive
System
Teratogenic
Reproductive
Effects
granulosa
cell
tumors,(
females)
acinar
cell
carcinomas
of
mammary
gland,
testicular
atrophy
Skin
(
liquid
exposure)
Frostbite,
Irritation
Reproductive
Developmental
potential
occupational
carcinogen
Hematopoetic
Cancer
NOAELwww.
atsdr.
com
LOAELwww.
atsdr.
com
LC50
www.
atsdr.
com/
EPA
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttnatw01/
urban/
natpapp.
pdf
Item
#
7=
200ppm
Rat
Item
#
7=
Rat­
1000
ppm
(
wavy
ribs)
LC50
Rat
inhalation
285,000
mg/
cu
m/
4
hr
EPA=
269,896
mg/
m3
Item
#
22=
6.25
ppm­
Mice
Item
#
22=
Mouse­
20ppm
(
Increased
Mortality)
LC50
Mouse
inhalation
270,000
mg/
cu
m/
2
hr
EPA=
285,382
mg/
m3
Sampling
Methods
OSHA
Primary
Method
No.
2
(
OSHA
56)

ANL
Solvent:
Carbon
Disulfide
Max
Volume
(
TWA)
3
Liter
Max
Flow
(
TWA)
0.05
L/
min
(
TWA
&
STEL)
Max
Volume
(
STEL)
Max
Flow
(
STEL)
ANL
1:
Gas
Chromatography;
GC/
FID
SAE
0.11
Class
Fully
Validated
Media:
Coated
Charcoal
Tube
(
100/
50
mg
sections,
20/
40
mesh);
Coating
is
10%
(
w/
w)
4­
t­
Butylcatechol.
20
Formaldehyde
CAS:
50­
00­
0
Chemical
Formula:
CH2O
Molecular
Weight
30
RfC
no
data
RfD
2E­
1
mg/
kg/
day
EPA
Unit
Cancer
Risk
Value
1
:
1,000,000
8E­
2
ug/
m
3
Occupational
Limits
15
­
minute
STEL
2ppm
OSHA
PEL
8­
hour
TWA
0.75ppm
(
action
level­
0.5ppm)
ACGIH
TLV
0.3ppm
NIOSH
REL
0.016ppm
Ceiling
0.3
ppm
ceiling
(
ACGIH)
NH
State
Ambient
Air
Limit
1.321=
24­
hour
AAL
http://
www.
des.
state.
nh.
us/
rules/
env­
a1400.
pdf
Target
Organs­
NIOSH
Type
of
effect
in
humans
Type
of
effect
in
animals(
MICE)
Eyes
Irritation
eyes,
Blurred
Vision
Respiratory
System
potential
occupational
carcinogen
nasal
cancer
NOAEL­
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris/
subst/
0419.
htm#
refinhal
LOAEL­
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris/
subst/
0419.
htm#
refinhal
LC50
http://
www.
jtbaker.
com/
msds/
englishhtml/
F5522.
htm
82
mg/
kg/
day
(
rat)
2
year
Bioassay
LC50
Rat
inhalation
203
mg/
m3
LC50:
64000
ppm/
4H
0.2
(
nasal
irritation)
Human
(
atsdr.
cdc.
gov)
2ppm
(
eye
irritation)
Rat
(
atsdr.
cdc.
gov)

Sampling
Methods
OSHA
Primary
Method
No.
OSHA
52
ANL
Solvent:
desorbed
with
toluene
Max
Volume
(
TWA)
24
L
Max
Flow
(
TWA)
0.1
L/
min
Max
Volume
(
STEL)
3
L
Max
Flow
(
STEL)
0.2
L/
min
ANL
1:
GC
w/
nitrogen
phosphorus
flame
ionization
detector.
Class
Evaluated
method
Media:
sampling
tubes
containing
XAD­
2
adsorbent
which
has
been
coated
with
2­(
hydroxymethyl)
piperidine.
Irritation
nose,
throat,
respiratory
system;
lacrimation
(
discharge
of
tears);
cough;
wheezing
15
mg/
kg/
day
(
male
rat)
Reduced
weight
gain,
histopathology
in
rats
21
Diesel
Exhaust
CAS:
none
Molecular
Weight
Not
available
RfC
5
µ
g/
m
³
RfD
Not
available
EPA
Unit
Cancer
Risk
Value
1
:
1,000,000
diesel
exhaust
(
DE)
is
likely
to
be
carcinogenic
to
humans
Occupational
Limits
15
­
minute
STEL
none
OSHA
PEL
8­
hour
TWA
none
ACGIH
TLV
none
NIOSH
REL
lowest
feasible
Ceiling
none
NH
State
Ambient
Air
Limit
24­
hour
AAL
http://
www.
des.
state.
nh.
us/
rules/
env­
a1400.
pdf
Target
Organs
Type
of
effect
in
humans
NIOSH
Eyes
Irritation
eyes,
slight
redness
Respiratory
System
pulmonary
function
changes;
[
potential
occupational
carcinogen]
Central
Nervous
System
neurophysiological
symptoms,
lightheadedness,
nausea
Potential
Human
Carcinogen
not
available
NOAEL
LOAEL­
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris/
subst/
0642.
htm#
carc
Rat
chronic
inhalation
study
Ishinishi
et
al.
(
1988)
NOAEL:
0.46
mg/
m
³
NOAEL/
HEC:
0.144
mg
DPM/
m
³
0.96
Ishinishi
et
al.
(
1988)
(
HD)

Sampling
Methods
OSHA
Primary
Method
No.
ID­
196
(
Carbon
Black
in
Workplace
Atmospheres)

Max
Volume
(
TWA)
480
to
960
liters
Max
Flow
(
TWA)
2
liters/
minute
ANL
1:
gravimetric
CLASS
Fully
Validated
Media:
Samples
are
collected
on
polyvinyl
chloride
(
PVC)
filters.
37mm.
5.0­
micrometer
pore
size
22
Appendix
C:
Monitoring
Results
All
Sites
By
Pollutant
Daily
Minute­
to­
Minute
Exposure
PM2.5:

The
peak
concentrations
observed
during
very
active
work
may
present
acute
health
risks
for
workers
and
nearby
residents
as
shown
in
the
following
figures
for
each
site.
Note
the
wide
differences
in
concentration
between
the
Maine
Lumberyard
and
the
New
York
City
Construction
site.
Future
analyses
will
identify
specific
instances
of
potential
adverse
acute
exposure
health
effects
and
variability
between
sites.

Real­
time
PM2.5
concentrations
at
the
perimeter
of
nonroad
equipment
sites.

Brattleboro,
VT
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentration,
Day
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
23
Brattleboro,
VT
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentration,
Day
2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
3:

40
PM
4:

00
PM
4:

20
PM
4:

40
PM
5:

00
PM
5:

20
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
Brattleboro,
VT
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentration,
Day
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
24
Manchester,
NH
Fine
Particulate
Concentration,
Day
1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
3:

40
PM
4:

00
PM
4:

20
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
Manchester,
NH
Fine
Particulate
Concentration,
Day
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
7:

00
AM
7:

20
AM
7:

40
AM
8:

00
AM
8:

20
AM
8:

40
AM
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
25
Manchester,
NH
Fine
Particulate
Concentration,
Day
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
7:

00
AM
7:

20
AM
7:

40
AM
8:

00
AM
8:

20
AM
8:

40
AM
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
New
York,
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentration,
Day
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
7:

25
AM
7:

45
AM
8:

05
AM
8:

25
AM
8:

45
AM
9:

05
AM
9:

25
AM
9:

45
AM
10:

05
AM
10:

25
AM
10:

45
AM
11:

05
AM
11:

25
AM
11:

45
AM
12:

05
PM
12:

25
PM
12:

45
PM
1:

05
PM
1:

25
PM
1:

45
PM
2:

05
PM
2:

25
PM
2:

45
PM
3:

05
PM
3:

25
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
26
New
York
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentration,
Day
2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
7:

10
AM
7:

30
AM
7:

50
AM
8:

10
AM
8:

30
AM
8:

50
AM
9:

10
AM
9:

30
AM
9:

50
AM
10:

10
AM
10:

30
AM
10:

50
AM
11:

10
AM
11:

30
AM
11:

50
AM
12:

10
PM
12:

30
PM
12:

50
PM
1:

10
PM
1:

30
PM
1:

50
PM
2:

10
PM
2:

30
PM
2:

50
PM
3:

10
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
New
York
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentration,
Day
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
6:

50
AM
7:

10
AM
7:

30
AM
7:

50
AM
8:

10
AM
8:

30
AM
8:

50
AM
9:

10
AM
9:

30
AM
9:

50
AM
10:

10
AM
10:

30
AM
10:

50
AM
11:

10
AM
11:

30
AM
11:

50
AM
12:

10
PM
12:

30
PM
12:

50
PM
1:

10
PM
1:

30
PM
1:

50
PM
2:

10
PM
2:

30
PM
Time
PM2.5
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
27
Daily
Minute­
to­
Minute
Exposure
Diesel
Particulate
Matter
(
diesel
soot­
Black
Carbon)
and
Average
Diesel
Particulate
Matter
Exposure
(
Elemental
Carbon)
:

As
shown
in
the
following
figures,
diesel
soot
concentrations
(
measured
as
black
carbon
 
BC,
by
aethelometers)
vary
throughout
the
day,
anticipated
to
be
due
to
nonroad
equipment
activity
on
the
site.
Additionally,
daily
avearge
elemental
carbon
concentrations
(
as
measured
as
elemental
carbon
 
EC
using
filter
sampling
and
NIOSH
method
5040)
are
shown
to
be
elevated
at
all
sites
evaluated
and
to
vary
between
sites.
Future
analyses
will
compare
these
results
to
observations
recorded
in
the
time­
activities
diaries
for
each
site.
Note
the
vast
difference,
as
shown
in
the
previous
fine
particulate
matter
figures
as
well
between
the
urban
and
rural
sites
monitored
in
this
study.
Recalling
that
the
reference
concentration
for
diesel
particulate
matter
is
5
µ
g/
m3,
it
is
possible
to
identify
daily
overexposures
either
by
calculating
the
average
BC
concentration
for
the
monitoring
day
or
by
evaluating
the
daily
average
EC
concentration.

Keene,
NH,
Black
Carbon
Concentrations,
Day
1
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
8:

10
AM
8:

30
AM
8:

50
AM
9:

10
AM
9:

30
AM
9:

50
AM
10:

10
AM
10:

30
AM
10:

50
AM
11:

10
AM
11:

30
AM
11:

50
AM
12:

10
PM
12:

30
PM
12:

50
PM
1:

10
PM
1:

30
PM
1:

50
PM
2:

10
PM
2:

30
PM
2:

50
PM
3:

10
PM
3:

30
PM
3:

50
PM
4:

10
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
28
Keene,
NH
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
2
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
8:

20
AM
8:

40
AM
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
AM
12:

20
PM
12:

50
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

30
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
3:

50
PM
4:

00
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Keene,
NH
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
8:

00
AM
8:

20
AM
8:

40
AM
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
AM
12:

20
PM
12:

50
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

30
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
29
Brattleboro,
VT
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
1
­
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
3:

40
PM
4:

00
PM
4:

20
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Brattleboro,
VT
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
2
­
0.4
­
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
3:

40
PM
4:

00
PM
4:

20
PM
4:

40
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
30
Brattleboro,
VT
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
3
­
1.0
­
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
3:

20
PM
3:

40
PM
4:

00
PM
4:

20
PM
4:

40
PM
5:

00
PM
5:

20
PM
5:

40
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Manchester,
NH
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
1
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
2:

00
PM
2:

20
PM
2:

40
PM
3:

00
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
31
Manchester,
NH
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
7:

00
AM
7:

20
AM
7:

40
AM
8:

00
AM
8:

20
AM
8:

40
AM
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
Manchester,
NH
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
7:

00
AM
7:

20
AM
7:

40
AM
8:

00
AM
8:

20
AM
8:

40
AM
9:

00
AM
9:

20
AM
9:

40
AM
10:

00
AM
10:

20
AM
10:

40
AM
11:

00
AM
11:

20
AM
11:

40
AM
12:

00
PM
12:

20
PM
12:

40
PM
1:

00
PM
1:

20
PM
1:

40
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m
3)
Perimeter
#
1
32
New
York
City
Black
Carbon
Concentrations,
Day
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
7:

25
AM
7:

45
AM
8:

05
AM
8:

25
AM
8:

45
AM
9:

05
AM
9:

25
AM
9:

45
AM
10:

05
AM
10:

25
AM
10:

45
AM
11:

05
AM
11:

25
AM
11:

45
AM
12:

05
PM
12:

25
PM
12:

45
PM
1:

05
PM
1:

25
PM
1:

45
PM
2:

05
PM
2:

25
PM
2:

45
PM
3:

05
PM
3:

25
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
New
York
City
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
7:

10
AM
7:

30
AM
7:

50
AM
8:

10
AM
8:

30
AM
8:

50
AM
9:

10
AM
9:

30
AM
9:

50
AM
10:

10
AM
10:

30
AM
10:

50
AM
11:

10
AM
11:

30
AM
11:

50
AM
12:

10
PM
12:

30
PM
12:

50
PM
1:

10
PM
1:

30
PM
1:

50
PM
2:

10
PM
2:

30
PM
2:

50
PM
3:

10
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
33
New
York
City
Black
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
6:

50
AM
7:

10
AM
7:

30
AM
7:

50
AM
8:

10
AM
8:

30
AM
8:

50
AM
9:

10
AM
9:

30
AM
9:

50
AM
10:

10
AM
10:

30
AM
10:

50
AM
11:

10
AM
11:

30
AM
11:

50
AM
12:

10
PM
12:

30
PM
12:

50
PM
1:

10
PM
1:

30
PM
1:

50
PM
2:

10
PM
2:

30
PM
2:

50
PM
Time
BC
(
µ
g/
m3)
Perimeter
#
2
34
Carmel,
ME,
Elemental
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
1
­
3
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Mill
Cab
Near
worker
Petibone
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Mill
Cab
Near
worker
Petibone
Perimeter
#
2
(
PM
only)
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Northwest
Southeast
Petibone
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Integrated
Elemental
Carbon
Concentration
35
Brattelboro,
VT,
Elemental
Carbon
Concentration,
Day
1
­
3
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Spreader
Loader
Tractor
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Spreader
Loader
Harrow
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Spreader
Loader
Tractor
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Integrated
Elemental
Carbon
Concentration
36
Keene,
NH
Elemental
Carbon
Concentration,
Days
1­
3
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hys
ter
Lull
Lull,
Ingersoll
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hyster
Lull
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hyster
Lull
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentrations
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Integrated
Elemental
Carbon
Concentrations
37
Manchester,
NH,
Elemental
Carbon
Concentrations,
Day
1
­
3
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Dozer
235D
Excavator
Loader
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Dozer
235D
Excavator
Loader
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Dozer
235D
Excavator
Loader
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Integrated
Elemental
Carbon
Concentration
*

*
No
data
currently
available
38
New
York
City,
Elemental
Carbon
Concentration,
Days
1
­
3
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
PC
100
PC
100
(
B)
Drill
Excavator
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
PC
100
Drill
Drill
(
B)
Excavator
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
PC
100
PC
100
(
B)
Drill
Excavator
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Integrated
Elemental
Carbon
Concentration
39
Site
Average
Elemental
Carbon
Concentrations
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Equipment
#
1
Equipment
#
2
Equipment
#
3
Monitoring
Location
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Carmel,
ME
Brattelboro,
VT
Keene,
NH
Manchester,
NH
New
York
City
BC
(
aethelometer)
and
EC
(
NIOSH
5040)
Sampling
methodology
comparison.

For
each
site
the
daily
average,
as
calculated
using
20­
minute
average
concentrations
measured
by
the
aethelometer
(
black
carbon),
and
the
daily
integrated
sample
analyzed
using
established
elemental
carbon
and
organic
carbon
quantification
were
compared.
The
results
of
the
comparison
are
presented
below.
These
data
suggest
close
agreement
between
these
methods
in
more
urban
environments
and
a
potential
greater
sensitivity
in
detecting
black
carbon
concentrations
using
a
calculated
average
from
the
real­
time
aethelometers
than
with
the
filter
sampling
analysis
required
in
the
NIOSH
5040
method.
40
Elemental
Carbon
Monitoring
Method
Comparison,
Carmel,
ME
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

NIOSH
5040
Average
Aethelometer
Average
41
Elemental
Carbon
Monitoring
Method
Comparison,
Brattelboro,
VT
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

NIOSH
5040
Average
Aethelometer
Average
42
Elemental
Carbon
Monitoring
Method
Comparison,
Keene,
NH
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Monitoring
Location
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

NIOSH
5040
Average
Aethelometer
Average
43
Elemental
Carbon
Monitoring
Method
Comparison,
Manchester,
NH
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

NIOSH
5040
Average
Aethelometer
Average
*
*
*
*

*
No
Data
Collected/
Available
44
Elemental
Carbon
Monitoring
Method
Comparison,
NYC
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
mg/
m3)

NIOSH
5040
Average
Aethelometer
Average
*

*
No
data
collected
45
Daily
Average
Exposures
to
PM2.5
and
Comparison
of
Variability
of
All
Sites
Assessed
Daily
average
exposure
to
PM2.5
for
all
sites
illustrate
an
increase
in
area
ambient
exposures
above
that
normally
expected.
At
all
sites,
nonroad
equipment
activity
increase
the
concentration
typically
monitored
in
the
area.
Typical
daily
ambient
fine
particulate
matter
concentrations
for
monitoring
sites
are:
Carmel,
ME
4­
5
µ
g/
m3;
Brattleboro,
VT
4­
5
µ
g/
m3;
Keene,
NH
14
µ
g/
m3;
Manchester,
NH
13­
15
µ
g/
m3;
and
New
York
City
22
µ
g/
m3.

Carmel,
ME,
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentration,
Day
1
­
3
­
10.000
0.000
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Mill
Cab
Near
worker
Petibone
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Perimeter
#
2
(
PM)

Mill
Cab
Near
worker
Petibone
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
NW
near
worker
SE
near
worker
Petibone
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

PM2.5
Integrated
Daily
Average
46
Brattelboro,
VT,
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentration,
Day
1
­
3
­
0.200
­
0.100
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Spreader
Spreader
DUP
Loader
Tracto
r
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Spreader
Spreader
DUP
Loader
Harrow
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Spreader
Spreader
DUP
Loader
Tractor
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

PM2.5
Integrated
Daily
Average
47
Keene,
NH,
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentrations,
Day
1
­
3
0.000
100.000
200.000
300.000
400.000
500.000
600.000
700.000
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hyster
Lull­
A
Ingersol
Lull
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hyster
Lull­
A
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hyster
Lull­
B
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

PM2.5
Integrated
Daily
Average
48
Manchester,
NH,
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentrations,
Day
1
­
3
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Dozer
Dozer
DUP
Excavator
Loader
Perimeter
#
1
Peri
meter
#
2
Dozer
Excavator
Excavator
DUP
Loader
Peri
meter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Dozer
Excavator
Loader
Loader
DUP
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

PM2.5
Integrated
Daily
Average
49
NYC,
Fine
Particulate
Matter
Concentrations,
Day
1
­
3
­
10.000
0.000
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
80.000
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
PC
100
Drill
Excavator
Excavator
DUP
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
PC
100
Drill
Excavator
Excavator
DUP
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
PC
100
PC
100
DUP
Drill
Excavator
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

PM2.5
Integrated
Daily
Average
50
Site
Average
Fine
Particulate
Matter
­
20.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
Perimeter
#
1
Perimeter
#
2
Equipment
#
1
Equipment
#
2
Equipment
#
3
Monitoring
Location
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Carmel,
ME
Brattleboro,
VT
Keene,
NH
Manchester,
NH
New
York
City
442
51
Daily
Exposures
to
Gaseous
Toxicants:

Monitored
concentrations
for
acetaldehyde
and
formaldehyde
exceed
conservative
risk
screening
thresholds
for
cancer
as
illustrated
in
the
following
figures.
Note
the
one
in
one
million
risk
screening
threshold
for
acetaldehyde
and
formaldehyde
are
shown
in
the
lower
right
corner
of
each
figure.
Due
to
a
are
not
yet
available
for
the
Manchester,
NH
roadway
construction
site.

Targeted
Carbonyl
Concentrations,
Carmel,
ME
(
Day
1
­
3)

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Mill
Cab
Near
worker
Petibone
Upwind
Downwind
Mill
Cab
Near
worker
Petibone
Upwind
Downwind
Northwest
Southeast
Petibone
Upwind
Downwind
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
=
0.45
µ
g/
m
3
Formaldehyde
=
0.077
µ
g/
m
3
52
Targeted
Carbonyl
Concentrations,
Brattleboro,
VT
(
Days
1
­
3)

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Spreader
Loader
Tra
cto
r
Upwind
Downwind
Spreader
Loader
Harrow
Upwind
Downwind
Spreader
Loader
Tractor
Upwind
Downwind
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
=
0.45
µ
g/
m
3
Formaldehyde
=
0.077
µ
g/
m
3
53
Targeted
Carbonyl
Concentrations,
Keene,
NH
(
Day
1
­
3)

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hyster
Lull­
A
Upw
i
nd
Downwind
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hyster
Lull­
B
Upwind
Downwind
Front
Loader
Bulldozer
Hyster
Lull­
B
Upwind
Downwind
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
=
0.45
µ
g/
m
3
Formaldehyde
=
0.077
µ
g/
m
3
54
Targeted
Carbonyl
Concentration,
New
York
City
(
Days
1
­
3)

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Drill
Excavator
Upwind
Downwind
PC
100
Drill
Excavator
Upwind
Downwind
PC
100
Drill
Excavator
Upwind
Downwind
Monitoring
Location
(
Day
1
­
3,
left
to
right)
Concentration
(
µ
g/
m
3)

Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
=
0.45
µ
g/
m
3
Formaldehyde
=
0.077
µ
g/
m
3
Concentrations
of
Toxic
Metals
in
PM2.5
Collected
by
Operating
HDD
Equipment:

Results
indicate
that
the
concentrations
of
toxic
metals
observed
in
ambient
PM2.5
samples
are
increased
when
nonroad
equipment
is
operating.
These
concentrations
vary
across
sites
and
may
present
adverse
health
impact
risk(
s)
for
workers
and
nearby
residents.
Metals
such
as
nickel,
vanadium
and
iron
are
higher
in
samples
collected
in­
cabin
or
near
the
perimeter
of
monitoring
sites.
These
metals
vary
by
location.
Initial
results
from
x­
ray
fluorescence
and
inductively
coupled
plasma
mass
spectrometry
indicate
that
the
concentrations
of
toxic
metals
observed
in
the
PM2.5
samples
collected
in
operating
equipment
cab
or
near
the
site
perimeter
are
altered.
These
concentrations
vary
across
sites
and
may
present
adverse
health
impact
risk(
s)
for
workers
and
nearby
residents.
As
shown
in
the
figures
below,
the
concentrations
of
several
toxic
metals
vary
between
sampling
locations
(
MEL=
Maine
Lumberyard;
KSC=
NH
Construction
Site;
and
NY=
NY
Construction
Site).
Additionally,
as
shown
in
the
following
figures,
the
concentration
of
vanadium
exceeds
the
ACGIH
recommended
occupational
exposure
limit
for
an
eight­
hour
workday
(
50
ng/
m3).
If
this
exposure
were
repeated,
the
individual(
s)
are
at
risk
of
developing
adverse
health
outcomes
at
this
concentration.
55
Metal
Content
PM2.5
­
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

MEL
Near
Worker
MEL
Mill
Cab
KSC
Perimeter
#
2
KSC
VRL
(
A)
KSC
VRL
(
B)
NY2
Excavator
NY
PC100
NY1
Excavator
Sample
Location
Nickel
Lead
Arsenic
Zinc
Copper
Manganese
Vanadium
56
Vanadium
Concentration
in
PM2.5
­
10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
MEL
Near
Worker
MEL
Mill
Cab
KSC
Perimeter
#
2
KSC
VRL
(
A)
KSC
VRL
(
B)
NY2
Excavator
NY
PC100
NY1
Excavator
Monitoring
Location
Concentration
ng/
m
3
Vanadium