Phase II Air Quality Monitoring Study Logan International ... · 9 Hourly Continuous Data Recovery...

Phase II Air Quality Monitoring Study Logan International Airport

Boston, Massachusetts

Prepared for

Massachusetts Port Authority Capital Programs – Environmental Management

Logan Office Center One Harborside Drive, Suite200S

East Boston, Massachusetts 02128-2909

Prepared by

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2374 Post Road, Suite 102

Warwick, Rhode Island 02886

May 2012 Version: FINAL

EA Project No.: 14774.04.0004

EA Project No.: 14774.04.0004 Version: FINAL

Contents, Page 1 of 3 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. May 2012

Logan International Airport Phase II Air Quality Boston, Massachusetts Monitoring Study

CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ACRONYMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1

1.1 MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CERTIFICATE AND

STUDY OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................1 1.2 EXISTING AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................3

2. STUDY OBJECTIVES ...........................................................................................................5 2.1 UNDERSTANDING THE MASSACUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE AIR QUALITY MONITORING STUDY ...............................................................................................5 2.2 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE ...............................................................................................6 2.3 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................6

3. TECHNICAL APPROACH OVERVIEW .............................................................................9

3.1 MONITORING SITES ..................................................................................................9 3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................9 3.1.2 Primary Monitoring Locations .........................................................................10 3.1.3 Satellite Monitoring Locations ........................................................................12 3.2 TARGET POLLUTANTS ...........................................................................................13

3.2.1 Background Information ..................................................................................14 3.2.2 Evaluation Criteria ...........................................................................................15 3.2.3 Selection Criteria .............................................................................................16 3.2.4 Selected Pollutants ...........................................................................................16

3.3 MEASUREMENT METHODS ...................................................................................17

3.3.1 Time-Integrated Sampling Devices .................................................................19 3.3.2 Real Time Continuous Monitoring Devices ....................................................20

4. QUALITY CONTROL .........................................................................................................22




Page 4.1 FIELD BLANKS .........................................................................................................22 4.2 DATA PRECISION (REPLICATE AND DUPLICATE SAMPLING) .....................22 4.3 DATA ANOMALY EVALUATION AND REMOVAL ............................................23

4.3.1 Beta Attenuation Monitor PM2.5 ......................................................................23 4.3.2 Black Carbon ...................................................................................................24 4.3.3 Volatile Organic Compound Data ...................................................................24 4.3.4 Carbonyl Data ..................................................................................................24 4.3.5 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data ........................................................24 4.3.6 MiniVol PM2.5 Data .........................................................................................24 4.3.7 Federal Reference Method PM2.5 Data ............................................................25

5. PRESENTATION DATA .....................................................................................................26

5.1 CONTINUOUS DATA ...............................................................................................27

5.1.1 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................27 5.1.1.1 Basic Summary Statistics ..................................................................27 5.1.1.2 Percent of Data Recovery .................................................................29 5.1.1.3 Percent of Data Reported Below Minimum Detection Limit ...........30 5.1.2 Time Series and Comparative Analysis ...........................................................31 5.1.2.1 Beta Attenuation Monitor PM2.5 Results ..........................................31 5.1.2.2 Black Carbon Results ........................................................................32 5.1.2.3 Meteorological Data Results .............................................................33

5.2 TIME-INTEGRATED DATA .....................................................................................33

5.2.1 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................34 5.2.1.1 Summary Statistics ............................................................................34 5.2.1.2 Percent of Data Recovery .................................................................37 5.2.1.3 Percent of Data Reported Below Minimum Detection Limit ...........39 5.2.2 Time Series and Comparative Analyses ..........................................................39 5.2.2.1 Time-Integrated Samples ..................................................................40




Page

6. DISCUSSION OF SUPPORTING DATA ...........................................................................42 6.1 AIRPORT FLIGHT OPERATIONS ...........................................................................42 6.2 MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...............................................................42 6.3 CONCURRENT AIR MONITORING DATA FROM MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .......................................42

REFERENCES APPENDIX A: SAMPLING SCHEDULE APPENDIX B: THIRD PARTY AUDIT AND EA RESPONSE MEMORANDUM APPENDIX C: REDUCED DATA SET (ON DVD) APPENDIX D: RAW DATA SET (ON DVD) APPENDIX E: LOGAN FLIGHT OPERATIONS AND AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC DATA

(ON DVD)


List of Figures, Page 1 of 3 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. May 2012


LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 1 Site Locus 2 Monitoring Locations 3 Summary of 1-Hour BAM PM2.5 Concentrations 4 Summary of 24-Hour BAM PM2.5 Concentrations 5 1-Hour BAM PM2.5 Concentrations 6 Distribution of Hourly BAM PM2.5 Concentrations 7 Distribution of 24-Hour BAM PM2.5 Concentrations 8 Average BAM PM2.5 Concentrations by Hour of Day 9 Average BAM PM2.5 Concentrations by Day of Week 10 Summary of 1-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations 11 Summary of 24-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations 12 1-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations 13 Distribution of Hourly Black Carbon Concentrations 14 Distribution of 24-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations 15 Black Carbon Concentrations by Hour of Day 16 Black Carbon Concentrations by Day of Week 17 Monthly Wind Roses 18 Annual Wind Roses 19 1,3-Butadiene Distribution 20 Benzene Distribution




Number Title 21 Toluene Distribution 22 Ethyl Benzene Distribution 23 m,p-Xylenes Distribution 24 o-Xylene Distribution 25 Styrene Distribution 26 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – 1,3-Butadiene 27 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Benzene 28 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Toluene 29 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Ethyl Benzene 30 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – m,p-Xylene 31 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – o-Xylene 32 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Styrene 33 Formaldehyde Distribution 34 Acrolein Distribution 35 Acetaldehyde Distribution 36 Propionaldehyde Distribution 37 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Formaldehyde 38 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Acrolein 39 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Acetaldehyde 40 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Propionaldehyde 41 Naphthalene Distribution 42 1-Methyl Naphthalene Distribution




Number Title 43 2-Methyl Naphthalene Distribution 44 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – Naphthalene 45 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – 1-Methyl Naphthalene 46 Volatile Organic Compound Sampling – 2-Methyl Naphthalene 47 PM2.5 Federal Reference Method 48 PM2.5 from MiniVol Measurement


List of Tables, Page 1 of 1 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. May 2012


LIST OF TABLES Number Table 1 Attainment/Non-Attainment Designations for Metropolitan Boston 2 Summary of Air Monitoring Locations, Station Type, and Instrumentation 3 Airport-Related Hazardous Air Pollutants 4 Target Pollutants 5 Air Monitoring Methods 6 Summary of Samples Collected with Blanks and Duplicates 7 Continuous Data Summary Statistics 8 Meteorological Data 9 Hourly Continuous Data Recovery 10 Hourly Continuous Data Below Detection Limit 11 Active Time-Integrated Sample Summary Statistics 12 Federal Reference Method PM2.5 Sample Summary Statistics 13 MiniVol PM2.5 Sample Summary Statistics 14 Time-Integrated Data Recovery 15 Time-Integrated Data Recovery Below Detection Limit


List of Acronyms, Page 1 of 1 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. May 2012


LIST OF ACRONYMS BAM Beta attenuation monitor DEP Department of Environmental Protection EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. EDR Environmental Data Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESPR Environmental Status and Planning Report FRM Federal Reference Method HAP Hazardous air pollutant Logan Logan International Airport MADPH Massachusetts Department of Public Health MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massport Massachusetts Port Authority MDL Minimum detection limit MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act µg/m3 Microgram(s) per cubic meter NAAQS National ambient air quality standard NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PM2.5 Particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers PM10 Particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers RfC Reference concentration Study Logan International Airport Air Quality Monitoring Study SVOC Semivolatile organic compound TAP Toxic air pollutant VOC Volatile organic compound


Executive Summary, Page ES-1 of ES-1 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. May 2012


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Certificate on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Logan Airside Improvements Project, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has called for an air quality study (the Study) to be conducted by Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport). The purpose of the Study is to monitor air quality conditions with a focus on air toxics in the vicinity of Logan International Airport (Logan) in advance of, and following, implementation of the new Centerfield Taxiway. The Centerfield Taxiway is one of the primary components of the Logan Airside Improvements Project. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Certificate required air quality conditions to be monitored for 2 years. The first year (Year 1) study was performed between September 2007 and September 2008. The second year (Year 2) study was performed between September 2010 and September 2011. This Phase II Study Final Report documents the second year of monitoring including planning, execution, and data reporting. The overall technical approach for conducting the second year of the Study is provided in the Logan Air Quality Monitoring Study Final Air Quality Work Plan, May 2011. The field and laboratory procedures, data management program, and methods for conducting the monitoring program are presented in the Quality Assurance Work Plan, May 2011. Massport is responsible for overall implementation and completion of the Study. The technical aspects of Year 2 of the Study have been managed by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.


Page 1 of 42 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. May 2012


1. INTRODUCTION This document prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA) represents the Phase II Study Final Report for conducting Year 2 of the Logan International Airport (Logan) Air Quality Monitoring Study (the Study). The Study is required by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs in a Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Certificate on the final Environmental Impact Report for the Logan Airside Improvements Project1. Briefly stated, the Study is comprised of a monitoring program designed to measure air quality conditions (with a focus on air toxics) under (or near) the flight paths and in the neighborhoods surrounding Logan. The Study was completed by the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), which owns and operates Logan. The MEPA Certificate required air quality conditions to be monitored for 2 years. The first year (Year 1) study was performed between September 2007 and September 2008. The second year (Year 2) study was performed between September 2010 and September 2011. Within the sections that follow, the Study objectives are clearly defined, the overall approach to meeting the objectives is discussed, and the technical elements of the monitoring program are presented. Summarized below is further information on Logan, the Logan Airside Improvements Project, and the MEPA Certificate as it pertains to the Study. Appendices provided with this document include the following:

• Appendix A – Sampling Schedule • Appendix B – Third Party Audit and EA Response Memorandum • Appendix C – Reduced Data Set (on DVD) • Appendix D – Raw Data Set (on DVD) • Appendix E – Logan Flight Operations and Automobile Traffic Data (on DVD).

1.1 MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CERTIFICATE AND

STUDY OVERVIEW Logan is New England’s largest transportation center and occupies approximately 2,400 acres in East Boston, Massachusetts (Figure 1). In 2005, Logan ranked as the 20th busiest airport in the United States based on volume of over 27 million passengers. The airfield contains six runways (4R/22L, 4L/22R, 15R/33L, 15L/33R, 9/27, and 14/32) and associated taxiways, aprons, and terminal facilities; and is surrounded by Boston Harbor and the communities of East Boston, South Boston, and Winthrop.

1 Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Logan Airside Improvements Planning Projects. 15 June 2001.




On 15 June 2001, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Secretary issued a MEPA Certificate on the Logan Airside Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Report. The Logan Airside Improvements Project serves as the blueprint for a series of improvements to Logan over several years. One important component of the Logan Airside Improvements Project is the Centerfield Taxiway, a new 9,300-foot taxiway to be constructed between existing runways 4R/22L and 4L/22R. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Secretary issued the following condition in the MEPA Certificate with respect to the Centerfield Taxiway:

[I]n addition, within the Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR) process Massport shall conduct follow-up air quality monitoring in neighborhoods surrounding the airport and under the flight path of Logan Airport. This information will be shared with the Department of Public Health and reported in the ESPR update, to provide baseline data for future studies. Massport should consult with Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Public Health in developing an air quality monitoring protocol using periodic air sampling in residential areas with a special focus on air toxics. Massport should also complete within the next 5 years a special air toxics monitoring study that will include a public meeting to discuss the results.

The Study was initiated in 2007, with air monitoring being performed over two distinct periods: the Year 1 baseline period (September 2007 – September 2008) and the Year 2 monitoring (September 2010 – September 2011). This report provides the objectives, approach, and results of the Year 2 Study. 1.2 EXISTING AIR QUALITY To protect public health and welfare, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the following seven air pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (PM10), particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and lead. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has adopted these standards. Logan is located in the Metropolitan Boston Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, which includes the city of Boston and its outlying suburbs.2 As shown in Table 1, this area is presently designated by EPA as being in attainment with all of the NAAQS with the exception of carbon monoxide and ozone, for which it is designated as maintenance and non-attainment, respectively3. 2 Beverly, Boston, Brockton, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Gloucester, Lynn, Malden, Marlborough, Medford, Melrose, Newton, Peabody, Quincy, Revere, Salem, Somerville, Waltham, Woburn. 3 Attainment means there are no recorded exceedances of the NAAQS in the area, non-attainment means exceedances of the NAAQS have occurred in the area, and maintenance means the area is in transition from non-attainment to attainment.




TABLE 1 ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS FOR METROPOLITAN BOSTON

Pollutant Designation Carbon monoxide Maintenance Lead Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Ozone3 (8-hour) Non-attainment PM10 Attainment PM2.5 Attainment Sulfur dioxide Attainment Source: EPA 2011.

There are no NAAQS for toxic air pollutants (TAPs) similar to those for criteria pollutants. MassDEP has developed allowable ambient limits for source permitting purposes. As part of its statewide air monitoring network, MassDEP operates an air monitoring station on Harrison Avenue in Roxbury, approximately 4 miles southwest of Logan. This is the closest urban-scale monitoring station to the airport, is located in an urban setting, and is used to monitor the EPA criteria pollutants as well as a variety of TAPs. MassDEP also operates a similar air monitoring station in Lynn, approximately 7.5 miles north-northeast of Logan and is in a more rural setting. A third station was located on Bremen Street adjacent to the airport but was closed at the end of May 2011 and was dismantled in June 2011.




2. STUDY OBJECTIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTION This section identifies and describes the specific objectives of the Study based on the MEPA Certificate. The importance of the Study objectives cannot be overstated as they form the guiding principles upon which the Work Plan is designed. These principles include the locations of air monitoring sites, selection of the pollutants analyzed, and monitoring or sampling methods employed. 2.2 UNDERSTANDING THE MASSACHUSETS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE AIR QUALITY MONITORING STUDY The MEPA Certificate contains four statements on the intended scope of the Study. These are restated below (in italics), followed by explanations of how they have been incorporated into the Study. A. Within the ESPR process, Massport shall conduct follow-up air quality monitoring in

neighborhoods surrounding the airport and under the flight path of Logan Airport.

In this context, the term follow-up air quality monitoring is taken to mean air monitoring following implementation of the Centerfield Taxiway. The expression in neighborhoods surrounding the airport and under the flight path is interpreted to comprise areas in Winthrop, East Boston, and South Boston that are closest to the airport and under (or near) the arrival and departure tracks for inbound and outbound aircraft.

B. This information will be shared with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH) and reported in the ESPR Update, to provide baseline data for future studies.

It is understood that Massport will report on the Study in the annual ESPR/Environmental Data Report (EDR) documents, and the collected data will be provided to MADPH/MassDEP4. The term baseline data is taken to mean the data collected before the implementation of the Centerfield Taxiway. The reference to future studies means the follow-up air monitoring discussed under Item “A” above.

C. Massport should consult with MassDEP and MADPH in developing an air quality

monitoring protocol using periodic air sampling in residential areas with a specific focus on air toxics.

4 EDR/ESPR – Boston Logan International Airport Environmental Data Report/Environmental Status Progress Report.




From this, it is understood that Massport will develop an approach for conducting the Study and consult with MassDEP/MADPH on the approach and its implementation. The term protocol is taken to include the Work Plan as well as the Quality Assurance Project Plan. The term periodic air sampling is taken to mean air sampling (or monitoring) on a temporal (i.e., seasonal, monthly, weekly, and/or daily) basis that will best evaluate air toxics in the vicinity of the airport. The term residential areas includes the same neighborhoods mentioned above under Item “A.” Finally, the term air toxics is considered to be synonymous with TAPs and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), but may also include particulate matter and/or black carbon as potential indicators (or “surrogates”) of fine particulate matter and jet exhaust.

D. Massport should also complete within the next 5 years a special air toxics monitoring study that will include a public meeting to discuss the results.

Based on this statement, it is understood that the entire Study must be completed within 5 years and the results will be presented to the general public. The term special air toxics monitoring study is understood to mean the Study outlined in the Work Plan. The term public meeting is taken to mean a forum, announced in advance and planned for a certain time and place, where the public has the opportunity to review, ask questions, and discuss the Study findings.

This information was used as the framework for formulating the objectives for this Study, which are subdivided below into Primary and Supporting Objectives. 2.3 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE As a means of focusing and simplifying the Work Plan, the primary objective of the Study has been summarized into one sentence, as follows:

Primary Objective—Collect air quality data with an emphasis on air toxics under (or near) the flight paths and in the neighborhoods surrounding Logan in advance of, and following, the implementation of the Centerfield Taxiway.

This simple and direct understanding of the MEPA Certificate’s intent facilitated the formulation of the Work Plan, enabled the work to fully address the specific aims of the Study, and increases the likelihood that the program will reach successful completion. 2.4 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVES From the MEPA Certificate, it is clear that there are other particular elements to the air monitoring program that are considered necessary (bulleted under “MEPA Certificate” below). These include consultation with MADPH/MassDEP, sharing and reporting of collected data, and a timeframe for completing the Study.




Added to these are several features of any investigation of ambient air quality conditions that are regarded as essential to achieving a successful outcome. These factors are particularly applicable when measuring TAPs that are emitted from many and varied sources. Such considerations include the use of reliable and cost-feasible methods; efficient use of funds and resources; and the ability to evaluate the findings properly based on the potential uncertainties, limitations, and unforeseen events that are inherent to this type of investigation. For clarity and simplicity, these supporting objectives are restated below as one-sentence summaries. Supporting Objectives MEPA Certificate

• Consult with MADPH and MassDEP on preparation of the Air Quality Protocol • Share the collected baseline data with MADPH for future studies • Provide information on the program in the annual ESPR/EDR documents • Complete the study within 5 years • Hold a meeting for the public to review and discuss the findings.

MADPH, MassDEP, and Community Comments

• Collect 1 year of data in advance and following implementation of the Centerfield Taxiway

• Perform real-time measurements

• Discuss scientific findings in terms that are comprehensible to laypersons. Other Considerations

• Use reliable and scientifically-proven monitoring methods that allow for multiple locations and extended periods of monitoring

• Monitor compounds that are representative of airport-related emission sources.

• Select monitoring sites that are feasible and secure for data collection

• Use general findings from air monitoring studies already completed or underway at other airports and specific local monitoring data collected by MassDEP

• Identify and evaluate possible cause(s) of data trends, outliers, and other findings




• Identify and evaluate potential effects on data from meteorology, temporal, and spatial influences

• Allow for adjustments and other changes to the Work Plan as the monitoring program

progresses and data become available

• Identify and evaluate potential impacts on data from airport-related and non-airport related emission sources

• Identify and evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of the air monitoring program.

The approach and methodology employed to meet the objectives of the Study are discussed in the following sections.




3. TECHNICAL APPROACH OVERVIEW This section summarizes the overall technical approach for conducting the Study and addresses several important considerations such as the choice and locations of air monitoring sites, selection of the pollutants analyzed, and monitoring or sampling methods to be used. Notably, the development of this approach relied heavily on input from MassDEP/MADPH, the prior experiences of the Project Team in this highly specialized field, as well as the outcomes of similar air monitoring programs conducted at other airports both in the United States and abroad. 3.1 MONITORING SITES The identification, evaluation, and selection of the monitoring sites were performed prior to Year 1 of the Study. The sites remained consistent for the Year 2 Study (except for the termination of meteorological monitoring at Bremen Street at the end of May 2011 and the subsequent dismantling of the meteorological monitoring equipment operated by others in June 2011). This process involved several key considerations that can have direct and significant effects on the utility of the data collected and the overall success of the program. The most significant effects of these factors are briefly discussed below. 3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria For this assessment, relevant information for each potential site was obtained from several sources including the review of aerial photography; maps and charts of the airport and surrounding areas; online computer searches of sites and addresses; consultations with Massport, MassDEP/MADPH, and Federal Aviation Administration staff; and in-the-field site visits by the Project Team. This information was assessed using the following criteria:

• MEPA Certificate Requirements—In keeping with the Primary Objective of the Study, potential monitoring site locations were evaluated with respect to the inbound and outbound flight tracks as well as their proximity to residential neighborhoods surrounding the airport. Sites that are characterized as being both residential and near the flight paths, with those located closest to the airport, are of greatest potential interest.

• Distance and Direction from the Centerfield Taxiway—Because the primary aim of the

Study is to monitor the potential effects of the Centerfield Taxiway on air quality conditions, the distances and directions from this facility to the candidate monitoring sites were considered. The new taxiway is located midway between Runways 4L/22R and 4R/22L, and the shortest straight-line measurements were used. Sites located 1 mile away or closer to the Centerfield Taxiway are of more interest than those further away.

• Nearby Emission Sources and Other Potential Influences—Logan is located in an urban

area characterized by a wide assortment of other emission sources including motor vehicle surface traffic, railroads, ships and other marine port activities, home heating




units, industry, and power generation. All of these were considered as potential influences on data collected from the candidate sites.

• Meteorological Conditions—Although wind direction and speed in the vicinity of Logan

vary throughout the year, some consistent patterns occur. Wind direction and wind speed data collected at Logan over a representative 5-year period (1991-1995) were used to develop wind roses (i.e., wind frequency distribution data) to determine seasonal and annual wind patterns. For example, in the winter months the winds are predominantly from the west-northwest varying to the southwest, with an average speed of 14 miles per hour, and few calm periods. In the summer months, the prevailing winds switch direction and are mostly from the southwest varying to the west-northwest, with an average speed of 11 miles per hour, and more frequent calm periods. (During the spring and fall months, the winds are generally in transition between the northwest and southwest.) From this information, downwind locations from the airport are mostly to the east and southeast (i.e., Winthrop, Boston Harbor, Deer Island, and Port Shirley) in winter and to the east and north-northeast (i.e., Winthrop and East Boston) in summer. For this assessment, monitoring sites in neighborhoods that are located generally downwind of the airport are of greatest potential interest.

• Site Ownership, Accessibility, and Security—Air quality sampling involves monitoring

equipment, devices, and various other apparatus that require shelter from the elements, routine maintenance, and security from vandalism. Some of the equipment is sensitive to disturbance and costly; therefore, the property owner, ease of access, and other safeguards are important considerations. In locations where access is limited due to security concerns, Federal Aviation Administration involvement also becomes a factor.

• Other Factors and Considerations—Several other potentially important factors were also

considered in the identification, evaluation, and selection of air monitoring sites. For example, the availability of a building to house the equipment and electricity to power the equipment are two practical considerations. The availability of the site in the immediate term and over the 5-year timeframe was also considered. Finally, areas around the airport historically experiencing odor complaints were evaluated, and particular notice was given to runway landing/take-off events as well as areas located closest to ground-based operations (i.e., taxi-in, taxi-out, and queues).

Based on the above criteria, three primary monitoring locations and eight secondary monitoring locations were selected. These monitoring sites are discussed in the following sections. 3.1.2 Primary Monitoring Locations Based on an analysis of potential sites and after consultation with MassDEP and MADPH, three sites (Annavoy Street, Court Road, and Bremen Street) were chosen as the primary monitoring locations. Brief descriptions of these primary sites are presented below, and the site locations are provided in Figure 2.




• Annavoy Street (Location 1 on Figure 2)—This site is located in East Boston near the intersection of Annavoy and Saratoga streets (Route 145). It is adjacent to the Winthrop town line directly across from the northern end of the Centerfield Taxiway. The location is separated from the airport by approximately 0.4 miles of open water and is located adjacent to a residential neighborhood and under the primary Logan flight path (Runway 4R/22L). This site is also predominantly downwind from the airport during the summertime and periodically during the remainder of the year. The site is owned by Massport and partially occupied by a Federal Aviation Administration navigation aid system. Other nearby emission sources include motor vehicle traffic operating on the local roadway network and the use of lawn maintenance equipment.

• Bremen Street (Location 2 on Figure 2)—This site is formerly a MassDEP monitoring

site and is located in East Boston approximately 1.2 miles to the west of the Centerfield Taxiway. It meets the study objectives of being located in a residential neighborhood and near the flight path of Runway 33L/15R. This site is predominantly upwind from the airport. Nearby sources of emissions include local traffic and the nearby commercial/light-industrial areas.

• Court Road (Location 3 on Figure 2)—This site is located in Winthrop approximately 0.3 miles east of the proposed Centerfield Taxiway. It meets the primary objective of being located in a residential neighborhood and in close proximity to the Centerfield Taxiway. This site is frequently downwind from Logan during both the winter and summer. Nearby sources of emissions include local traffic, the burning of fuel for residential and commercial heating, and the use of lawn maintenance equipment.

3.1.3 Satellite Monitoring Locations The purpose of using satellite sites was to expand the Study area into neighborhoods surrounding the airport that are spatially more distant from the primary monitoring locations.

Seven satellite neighborhood monitoring locations and one urban background monitoring location (Harrison Avenue) were used in the Study:

• Harrison Avenue (MassDEP site), Roxbury (Site 4) • Cottage Park Yacht Club, Winthrop (Site 5) • Constitution Beach, East Boston (Site 6) • Jeffries Cove, East Boston (Site 7) • South Boston Yacht Club, South Boston (Site 8) • Logan Satellite Fire Station, Logan Airport (Site 9) • Coughlin Park, Winthrop (Site 10) • Bayswater Street, East Boston (Site 11).

Two background monitoring sites were designated for the Study: the MassDEP station on Harrison Avenue in Roxbury and the MassDEP station at the Lynn Water Treatment Plant.




The first was selected as urban background and the second as suburban background. They were selected to provide ambient concentration data away from Logan. Both of these MassDEP sites are considered urban and center-city monitoring locations. The Harrison Avenue site is in Suffolk County within the immediate Boston metropolitan area, and the Lynn site is in southern Essex County, farther removed from Boston. The MassDEP station on Harrison Avenue measures TAPs, PM2.5 and black carbon. The MassDEP Lynn site measures TAPs and PM2.5. These monitoring methods are described in Section 3.3. The Year 1 Project Work Plan (Camp, Dresser, & McKee 2007) provides additional details on the site selection process. The air monitoring locations are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF AIR MONITORING LOCATIONS, STATION TYPE, AND INSTRUMENTATION

Site ID Site Description

Monitoring Station Type Monitoring Instrumentation

01 Annavoy Street Primary Real Time: Beta attenuation monitor (BAM) PM2.5, aethalometer, meteorological (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity), Time Integrated: Volaltile organic compounds (VOCs), carbonyls, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), MiniVol™ PM2.5, Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5

02 Bremen Street Primary Real Time: BAM PM2.5, aethalometer, meteorological (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity), Time Integrated: VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, MiniVol PM2.5

03 Court Road Primary Real Time: BAM PM2.5, aethalometer, meteorological (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity), Time Integrated: VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, MiniVol PM2.5

04 Harrison Avenue Satellite (urban background)

Time Integrated: PAHs, MiniVol PM2.5

05 Cottage Park Yacht Club Satellite Time Integrated: MiniVol PM2.5 06 Constitution Beach Satellite Time Integrated: MiniVol PM2.5 07 Jeffries Cove Satellite Time Integrated: MiniVol PM2.5 08 South Boston Yacht Club Satellite Time Integrated: MiniVol PM2.5 09 Logan Satellite Fire Station Satellite Time Integrated: MiniVol PM2.5 10 Coughlin Park Satellite Time Integrated: MiniVol PM2.5 11 Bayswater Street Satellite Time Integrated: MiniVol PM2.5

3.2 TARGET POLLUTANTS The MEPA Certificate states that the Study should place “a special focus on air toxics.” TAPs, also referred to as HAPs, include a broad range of pollutants (i.e., organic and inorganic gases, aerosols, and particles) for which there are no NAAQS. However, under the Federal Clean Air Act, EPA currently recognizes and regulates a total of 188 compounds (or compound categories) as HAPs emitted by industrial sources.




3.2.1 Background Information HAPs are emitted from a variety of emission sources, both natural and anthropogenic. Within the environs of a commercial airport, i.e., Logan, categories of HAPs emission sources can include stationary point sources (e.g., boilers, backup generators, and fuel facilities), area sources (e.g., fire training and construction activities), on-road mobile sources (e.g., cars, vans, and buses), and non-road mobile sources (e.g., aircraft, ground support equipment, auxiliary power units, and snow removal and melting equipment). HAPs emitted from airport-related sources are similar to those emitted from the myriad sources present in an urban area (motor vehicles traveling on the surface roadway network, power plants and other industries, home heating units, etc.). The majority of HAPs derived as products of combustion or released as evaporative emissions from fuel are generally classifiable into three categories, as briefly discussed below:

• VOCs—These pollutants are gaseous and at ambient (e.g., outdoor) conditions. The list of VOCs is extensive, but some of the more common species include benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylenes, and 1,3-butadiene.

• Carbonyls—These pollutants are similar to VOCs but are more chemically reactive at

ambient conditions. The category of carbonyls comprises several subcategories such as aldehydes (e.g., acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde) and ketones (e.g., methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl ketone).

• Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)—Compared to VOCs, these pollutants have

a lower vapor pressure; are less reactive than carbonyls; and include PAHs such as anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene.

Potentially classifiable as a HAP, particulate matter can adversely affect lung function and play a role in the formation and dispersion of HAPs. Segregated by size (PM10 [inhalable], PM2.5 [fine], and PM0.1 [ultrafine]), the term particulate matter generally represents more common references to atmospheric fallout, soot, and dust. Particulate matter may contain constituents from natural sources such as smoke particles from forest fires, salt particles from sea spray, windblown dust from unstabilized soil, or viable particles such as pollen and spores. From anthropogenic activities, particulate matter can contain inorganic materials such as trace metals (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, and lead), pure elemental material (e.g., elemental carbon), or complex mixtures of unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons (e.g., fine and ultrafine particulate matter). Particulate matter may also form in the atmosphere from chemical reactions involving precursor inorganic compounds, such as oxides of nitrogen or sulfur, and form inorganic particulate compounds (e.g., nitrates and sulfates).




3.2.2 Evaluation Criteria As with the monitoring site selection process, the identification and selection of pollutants to be included in the Study are central to its overall success. This process, conducted prior to Year 1 of the Study, involved several key considerations, the most significant of which are briefly discussed below:

• Representative of Airport-Related Emissions—EPA and Federal Aviation Administration have identified the 13 compounds listed in Table 2 that are classifiable as toxic and together represent over 96 percent of the total HAPs associated with airports.5 Adding fine particulate matter (i.e., PM2.5) to this list provides a comprehensive record of pollutants expected to occur near Logan.

• Useful as Baseline Data for Future Studies—Consideration is given to the usefulness

and application of the collected data by other researchers in the future. Such studies may focus on compounds that are common to airport activities and of potential interest from the standpoint of human health. For example, trace levels of benzene, which is a known human carcinogen, exist in the exhausts of aircraft, ground support equipment, and other airport sources.

• Comparison to Criteria and Other Monitoring Data—As noted above, there are no

NAAQS for the vast majority of compounds classifiable as air toxics or HAPs (except lead). However, EPA has published guideline values (called Reference Concentrations [RfCs]) for acceptable inhalation exposure levels of some HAPs. Another potential basis for comparison is air monitoring data collected in other areas of Boston, i.e., the MassDEP Harrison Avenue and Lynn monitoring sites.6 These factors are considered, and other attempts are made to select compounds to which the results of the Study can be meaningfully compared and evaluated.

• Substitute and Surrogate Compounds—Because outdoor levels of HAPs occur in such

low concentrations, it can be difficult to obtain air samples that contain sufficient amounts of the compounds to measure. This is particularly true when sampling in real-time and over short time intervals (e.g., < 24 hours for some compounds and < 3 days for others). Therefore, consideration is also given to monitoring substances that are not classifiable as HAPs but may serve as indicators of their presence and relative abundance. For this Study, these surrogates include PM2.5, black carbon, and total VOCs.

The recommended Target Pollutants for Year 1 and Year 2 and the basis for their selections are discussed in the following sections. 5 Select Resource Materials and Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of Hazardous Air Pollutants Associated with Aircraft, Airports and Aviation, prepared for the Federal Aviation Administration, July 2003. 6 The Harrison Avenue site in Roxbury is approximately 4 miles southwest of Logan, and the Lynn site is approximately 7.5 miles north-northeast of Logan.




3.2.3 Selection Criteria The basis for the identification, evaluation, and selection of the Target Pollutants is centered largely on the following factors or considerations:

• Classifiable as a HAP by EPA • Representative of airport-related emissions • Useful as baseline data for future studies • Comparable to regulatory criteria and monitoring data collected elsewhere by MassDEP • Identified in other studies as being useful in the assessment of potential airport air quality

impacts.

The full listing of compounds classified as HAPs by EPA is too voluminous to be reprinted here, so the reviewer is referred to the agency website on this topic (EPA 2011). The categories and individual species of HAPs most commonly associated with airports by the Federal Aviation Administration are listed in Table 3.

TABLE 3 AIRPORT-RELATED HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 1,3-Butadiene (VOC) Lead (metal) Acetaldehyde (carbonyl) Naphthalene (SVOC) Acrolein (carbonyl) Proprionaldehyde (carbonyl) Benzene (VOC) Styrene (VOC) Ethylbenzene (VOC) Toluene (VOC) Formaldehyde (carbonyl) Xylene (VOC) PAHs: 2,2,4-trimethylpentane,acenaphthylene, phenanthrene, fluorene, fluoranthene, pyrene, anthracene, acenphthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(bk)fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, indeno(123-cd)pyrene, and dibenzo(ah)anthracene (SVOCs). Source: URS Corporation 2003.

3.2.4 Selected Pollutants Following the approach and consideration discussed above, the Target Pollutants selected for this Study are listed in Table 4. For ease of reference, both the categories and names of the pollutants are shown, along with indicators of their compatibility with the selection criteria. Importantly, VOCs, carbonyls, and SVOCs/PAHs are included among the group, as they represent all the forms of combustion products or evaporative emissions from airport-related sources. Although not classified as HAPs by EPA, particulate matter and black carbon also play a role in the formation and dispersion of HAPs. Moreover, aircraft-related emissions have been characterized by the presence of fine particulate matter and black carbon. As surrogates to




HAPs, they offer the double advantage of being quantifiable and potential indicators of airport air quality impacts. Therefore, they are also included as Target Pollutants for this Study.

TABLE 4 TARGET POLLUTANTS

Category Pollutant(1) Classifiable

HAPs(2) Airport-Related(3)

Baseline Useful(4)

Criteria Comparable

Other Studies(5)

VOCs 1,3-butadiene X X X X X Benzene X X X X X Carbon tetrachloride

X X

Chloroform X X Ethene X X Ethylbenzene X X X X X Styrene X X X X X Toluene X X X X X Vinyl chloride X X Xylenes X X X X X

Carbonyls Acetaldehyde X X X X X Acrolein X X X X X Formaldehyde X X X X X Propionaldehyde X X X X X

Metals Arsenic X X Cadmium X X Chromium X X Lead X X Manganese X X Zinc X X

SVOCs /PAHs

Naphthalene X X X X X 1-Methyl Naphthalene

X(6) X X X X

2-Methyl Naphthalene

X(6) X X X X

Particulate Matter

PM2.5 (7) X X X X Black carbon (7) X X X X

1. Bolded compounds are included as Target Pollutants for this Study. 2. Compounds classified as HAPs by EPA and MassDEP. 3. HAPs most commonly associated with airports by EPA and Federal Aviation Administration. 4. Based on how well the findings can ascertain the effects of the Centerfield Taxiway on air quality by

comparison to pre-construction conditions and monitoring conducted elsewhere in the Boston area. 5. Identified as beneficial for assessing air quality conditions at other airports based upon other similar

studies. 6. As constituents of polycyclic organic matter. 7. As a surrogate for products of combustion.

3.3 MEASUREMENT METHODS Equally important to the selection of the monitoring sites and the Target Pollutants for the Study is the evaluation and choice of monitoring methods.7 Ambient levels of HAPs typically occur in 7 For the purposes of this document, the terms “monitoring” and “sampling” are used interchangeably.




very low concentrations, and many of them are easily volatilized or are otherwise reactive. These characteristics present a unique set of challenges that are less important when monitoring other types of air pollutants. Over the years, numerous methods have been developed to collect and analyze air pollutant samples. In general terms, typical sampling techniques involve using mechanical means (e.g., a pump) to move air into, or through, a collection medium to capture a sample for analysis. Typical examples include samplers for particulate matter, VOCs, SVOCs, and carbonyls as well as continuous monitors for carbon monoxide, ozone, and black carbon. Applied to this Study, the evaluation of candidate monitoring methods for HAPs involved the assessment of the following factors:

• Reliability of Measurements—Because the results of the Study will be used to evaluate low levels of air pollutants and be shared with MassDEP/MADPH, the data must be as accurate and reliable as possible. Therefore, EPA-approved methods are to be used wherever possible.

• Applicability to Periodic and Follow-Up Monitoring—The MEPA Certificate calls for

the periodic air sampling of HAPs—meaning monitoring on a regular and repetitive basis. Similarly, monitoring in advance of, and following, implementation of the Centerfield Taxiway is also required. These two directives involve the equipment setup, calibration, and take-down between sampling periods or events. Therefore, the evaluation of monitoring methods takes into consideration the time and financial resources, as well as the potential wear and tear on the equipment during this process.

• Cost Effectiveness of Measurements—In order to evaluate air quality conditions around

the airport both spatially and temporally, a number of monitors or sampling devices must be run simultaneously at multiple locations. For this Study, meeting these requirements involves the careful balancing of available resources so that the types and quantity of data are appropriate and optimal, while ensuring that the data quality is not compromised.

Based upon these criteria, a combination of both real-time and time-integrated monitoring was developed for this application at Logan. This monitoring approach expands the effectiveness of the monitoring network and enables the most comprehensive assessment of ambient conditions possible in keeping with established monitoring methods and reference conditions. Passive sampling that was conducted in Year 1 of the Study was omitted from the Year 2 scope due to inconsistent analytical results and questionable accuracy of reported compound specific concentrations. In addition, passive monitoring is not an EPA-approved methodology for the ambient monitoring of VOCs and SVOCs. The selected methodology monitors air quality both in real-time and as time-integrated samples over short time intervals (i.e., from 1 minute to 24 hours). Combined with concurrent meteorological and airport operational data, these measurements may lead to a better




understanding of emissions from airport activities or events. The selected methodology is summarized in Table 5 and further discussed in the following section.

TABLE 5 AIR MONITORING METHODS

Pollutant Sampling/

Analytical Method Technique Frequency Duration Averaging

Time Start Time

Wind speed/ direction,

temperature, humidity

Meteorological station Real time Continuous Continuous 1 hour Not applicable

Black carbon 7-wavelength aethalometer Real time Continuous

Continuous

5 minutes Not applicable

PM2.5 1 BAM Real time Continuous

Continuous

1 hour Not applicable

FRM Time-integrated

Every 6 days

24 hours 24 hours Midnight

MiniVol Every 6 days


VOCs2 Canister with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis

Time-integrated

Every 6 days


Carbonyl compounds3

Dinitrophenylhydrazineadsorber with high performance liquid chromatography analysis

Time-integrated

Every 6 days


PAHs4 Teflon-coated glass-fiber filter/XAD®5 cartridge with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis

Time-integrated

Every 6 days


1. PM2.5 = Particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 µm. 2. Target VOCs include 1,3-butadiene, benzene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylenes, o-xylene, styrene, toluene, and total

xylenes. 3. Target carbonyl compounds include acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde. 4. Target PAHs include naphthalene, 1-methyl naphthalene, and 2-methyl naphthalene. 5. XAD® = a proprietary resin XAD sorbent.

3.3.1 Time-Integrated Sampling Devices The time-integrated techniques are described below, by pollutant:

• VOCs—A time-integrated VOC sampler consists of an evacuated stainless steel canister having the interior surface polished, cleaned, and passivated using the Summa® process. Outside ambient air is drawn into the canister through a Teflon sampling line and particulate filter with the flow rate controlled by a calibrated volumetric flowmeter. A timer equipped with a solenoid valve controls the duration of sampling. Ambient samples were collected using a 6-liter canister. This method is consistent with EPA Method TO-15, Determination of VOCs in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.




• Carbonyls—A time-integrated carbonyl sampler consists of a prepackaged cartridge containing acidified 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine. A sampling pump provides the mechanical means to induce air flow into the cartridge. Outside ambient air is drawn through the cartridge using a stainless steel sampling line having the sample rate controlled by a calibrated pump. The pump also controls the duration of sampling. The flow rate is established to sample a known volume of air for an appropriate integration period. This method is consistent with EPA Method TO-11A, Determination of Formaldehyde in Ambient Air Using Adsorbent Cartridge Followed by high performance liquid chromatography.

• SVOCs/PAHs—A time-integrated PAH sampler consists of a high-volume air sampler

utilizing a filter and sorbent cartridge containing Poly-Urethane Foam and XAD-2 sorbent in a “sandwich” configuration. Outside air is drawn into a sampling train with the sampling rate controlled by a calibrated blower fan, bringing the air sample through the filter then through the sorbent cartridge. A timer controls the duration of sampling. The flow rate is established to sample a known volume of air for an appropriate integration period. This method is consistent with EPA Method TO-13A, Determination of PAHs in Ambient Air Using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.

• PM2.5—A time-integrated PM2.5 sampler consists of a low volume air sampler utilizing a

filter substrate to collect fine particulate matter. Outside air is drawn through a precision cut-point inlet head by a calibrated blower fan, bringing the air sample through the filter. The blower fan also controls the duration of sampling. The flow rate is established to sample a known volume of air for an appropriate integration period. At one of the primary sites (Annavoy Street), PM2.5 was collected using an EPA Federal reference method (40 Code of Federal Regulation 50 Appendix L—Reference Method for the Determination of Fine Particulate Matter as PM2.5 in the Atmosphere), specifically, a BGI PQ200 FRM. At primary and satellite sites, PM2.5 was collected using an Airmetrics MiniVol Portable Air Sampler which has shown good correlation to results from FRM sampling.

A sampling period of 24 consecutive hours (midnight to midnight) was utilized for these time-integrated sampling methods to obtain adequate sample for analysis with low levels of detection. An air inlet, manifold system, and blower supplied outside air to the samplers (except for the PM2.5, samplers which have their own inlets), drawing air from a height above the ground representing the breathing zone of an adult human. 3.3.2 Real Time Continuous Monitoring Devices The real-time techniques are described below, by pollutant:

• PM2.5—Ambient concentrations of PM2.5 were monitored in real-time using a BAM

with a sharp cut cyclone PM2.5 sampling inlet. The BAM uses a continuous glass fiber filter tape to measure nearly continuous concentrations of PM2.5. The instrument uses a




small 14C source of beta particles coupled with a sensitive detector to count the beta particles. The detector measures the transmission of beta particles through a clean section of the tape. The tape is then mechanically advanced, ambient air is drawn into the instrument sampling inlet, and particulate matter is deposited on the tape. At completion of the sampling period, the tape is returned to the original location and the beta particle transmission is remeasured. The difference between the two measurements is proportional to the PM2.5 concentration; as the mass of particulate matter deposited on the tape increases, the measured beta particle count is reduced according to a known equation. While this monitoring instrument has not yet been designated by EPA as a reference or equivalent method for purposes of PM2.5 compliance monitoring, research studies have found it to produce reliable measurements.

• Black Carbon—Ambient concentrations of black carbon were monitored continuously

using a seven-wavelength aethalometer. The aethalometer collects particulate matter continuously on a quartz fiber filter tape and determines the increment of optically absorbing material collected per unit volume of sampled air. Since elemental (or black) carbon is the dominant optically absorbing material in the submicron size range, this measurement is interpreted as a mass of black carbon according to calibrations determined by intercomparisons with chemical analysis techniques. The optical measurement is ratiometric, and no external calibration materials are required.

• Meteorological Parameters—Wind speed and direction, temperature, and humidity

measurements were made at each primary monitoring station. Instruments were mounted on a mast and installed on top of two of the primary monitoring stations (Annavoy Street and Court Road stations). Data were collected in a data logger and downloaded to a laptop weekly. Data were retrieved from NStar’s meteorological station at the MassDEP Bremen Street monitoring station and the National Weather Service meteorological station at Logan Airport to compare to data collected at each monitoring site.




4. QUALITY CONTROL Quality assurance/quality control activities include those routine and non-routine activities that are intended to improve or assure the quality of measured data. The following discussion briefly addresses those activities conducted during this monitoring period. The Quality Assurance Project Plan provides more in-depth discussion of the monitoring quality assurance/quality control procedures. Table 6 provides tallies of the field and laboratory blank samples that were analyzed during the Year 2 monitoring.

TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF SAMPLES COLLECTED WITH BLANKS AND DUPLICATES

Samples/Blanks/ Duplicates

Active

VOC Carbonyl PAH Particulate

Matter (FRM) Particulate

Matter (MiniVol) Field Samples 180 186 181 54 599 Field Blanks 0 14 6 10 37 Lab Blanks 34 44 67 0 0 Lab Duplicates 33 43 0 0 0

4.1 FIELD BLANKS The practice of conducting and analyzing field blanks is to provide information about contamination that may be introduced during sample collection, storage, and transport. Field blanks are to be collected on the scheduled sample day and shipped back to the laboratory for analysis. For the time-integrated sampling portion of the Study during Year 2, there were eight field blanks analyzed for speciated PAHs and 15 for speciated carbonyls. For time-integrated PM2.5 sampling, eight FRM field blanks were collected and 36 MiniVol field blanks were collected. Details of the field blank results are provided in Appendix D. 4.2 DATA PRECISION (REPLICATE AND DUPLICATE SAMPLING) Data precision is of one of the measures used to assess the quality of the monitoring data. Data precision is the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements under identical or substantially similar conditions measured as either the range or as the standard deviation. This can be done by either using the same analytical instrument to make repeated analyses of the same (replicate) sample, or it can be done by collecting, processing, and analyzing collocated (duplicate) samples. For time-integrated samples with subsequent laboratory analysis, precision was determined by periodic laboratory replicate analyses. Laboratory replication involves splitting a single sample in the laboratory and performing replicate tests. For samples analyzed via gravimetric analysis (i.e., PM2.5, which is deposited onto a filter and weighed), the samples could not be split and,




therefore, no laboratory blanks or duplicates were analyzed. For continuous measurements, precision is determined by periodic presentation of transfer standards to the measurement system. For the time-integrated portion of the Study during Year 2, there were no collocated (duplicate) samples collected in the field. There were 33 and 43 valid replicate analyses for speciated VOCs and carbonyls, respectively, performed in the laboratory which provide a measure of the precision, or reproducibility, of the sample data. There were 34, 44, and 67 laboratory blanks analyzed for speciated VOCs, carbonyls, and PAHs, respectively, which confirm that the sampling media is not contaminated prior to distribution. It should be noted that there are collocated measurements of PM2.5 at the three primary sites. The Annavoy Street site includes sample collection for PM2.5 via an FRM as well as via a MiniVol and continuous measurement of PM2.5 via the BAM. Both the Bremen Street site and Court Road site include a MiniVol and BAM. However, since the collocated methods at each of these sites represent different methodologies, a direct comparison of the collocated results is not a true measure of precision for PM2.5. 4.3 DATA ANOMALY EVALUATION AND REMOVAL All data sets were reviewed to ensure that an accurate data set was provided for potential future analysis and to ensure comparability between the Year 1 and Year 2 studies. The data sets were analyzed using standard statistical techniques to identify anomalies. The average and standard deviations were calculated for each data set. Any data points outside of two standard deviations from the average were further evaluated as a potential data anomaly to determine if the data points were valid or if they should be removed from the data set. Two standard deviations from the average were selected for the anomaly evaluation because, for normally distributed data sets, approximately 95 percent of the data lies within two standard deviations from the average. Each data set is discussed below in detail. 4.3.1 Beta Attenuation Monitor PM2.5 BAM PM2.5 units can be sensitive to precipitation and high humidity and, therefore, a detailed review of the data was conducted. Review of the data sets obtained through the BAM PM2.5 samplers indicated 0.96 percent of the data points were outside of two standard deviations of the average of the data set. Further review of these data suggested a strong correlation between the data points furthest removed from the average and moist conditions (i.e., precipitation, snow melt, humidity, etc.). The anomalous data points were then further evaluated in relation to the: BAM data collected at the other locations, collocated aethalometer black carbon data, and meteorological data (i.e., precipitation, humidity, etc.). When a correlation between precipitation and/or high humidity could be made but a correlation between the other monitoring devices could not be made, the anomalous data point was removed from the data set.




4.3.2 Black Carbon The Magee Seven Wavelength Aethalometer averages consecutive positive and negative measurements to determine the concentration of black carbon in ambient air. Therefore, this process can occasionally produce negative values for the black carbon concentrations. These negative values have been treated as “zero” measurements in the data set, as a negative value of black carbon is not possible. This methodology is consistent with the data analysis conducted following the Year 1 study. Additionally, EA created a macro to replicate the Data Masher program created by Dr. Jay Turner, of the Washington University Air Quality Laboratory. The macro was created to overcome the limitation of the Data Masher in processing large data sets. The Data Masher Program and EA’s replicating macro process the 5-minute readings into usable 1-hour average readings and flag any suspect data points. This macro was tested by processing the same data set using the Data Masher and EA’s program. The outputs of this test were identical, thereby ensuring an accurate replication of the Data Masher. Anomalous data points were then evaluated further, although several values were removed from the data set when erratic readings due to moisture were apparent. 4.3.3 Volatile Organic Compound Data VOC analytical and field data were reviewed to ensure that the finalized data set met the quality assurance goals set out in the Quality Assurance Project Plan. As such, this data set was used in its raw form. 4.3.4 Carbonyl Data Carbonyl analytical and field data were reviewed to ensure that the finalized data set met the quality assurance goals set out in the Quality Assurance Project Plan. Based on the information reviewed, several samples did not extend for a full 24 hours (due to pump battery failure), potentially skewing the data concentrations high. However, the sample concentrations were calculated based on the actual sampling period and volume of air sampled; therefore, these data were not removed from the data set. Based on the information reviewed, no data points were removed from this data set. 4.3.5 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data PAH analytical and field data were reviewed to ensure that the finalized data set met the quality assurance goals set out in the Quality Assurance Project Plan. Based on the information reviewed, no data points were removed from this data set. 4.3.6 MiniVol PM2.5 Data MiniVol PM2.5 analytical and field data were reviewed to ensure that the finalized data set met the quality assurance goals set out in the Quality Assurance Project Plan. Based on the




information reviewed, it appears that MiniVol data collected in the first quarter of the study were more erratic and qualitatively higher compared to the Year 1 data and other PM2.5 monitoring methods. EA conducted a review of the operating procedures and found vacuum grease that is utilized in the MiniVol units to capture particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter was not applied to the units during the first quarter. Therefore, total particulate matter (i.e., PM2.5 as well as particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter) was captured on the filters that were then submitted to the laboratory and weighed. The analytical results indicate particulate matter concentrations that were outside of the normal range of particulate matter captured when the MiniVols were operated properly (i.e., Quarters 2 through 4). EA, through the data anomaly review, removed all data points that were outside of two standard deviations from the average of the entire data set. All data points collected during Quarter 1 that were within two standard deviations from the average remain in the data set. 4.3.7 Federal Reference Method PM2.5 Data FRM PM2.5 analytical and field data were reviewed to ensure that the finalized data set met the quality assurance goals set out in the Quality Assurance Project Plan. Based on the information reviewed, one sample was removed from the data set. Laboratory analysis of the FRM sample collected on 21 March 2011 indicated a concentration of 422.36 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3). This represents 523 percent of the next highest result (80.61 µg/m3, observed on 17 October 2010). EA could not identify a cause for this elevated result. Therefore, the 21 March 2011 sample is considered anomalous and was removed from the data set.




5. PRESENTATION OF DATA

Air monitoring for Year 2 of the Study commenced on 1 September 2010 and extended through 6 September 2011. Included in this section are statistical and graphical representations of data from real-time and time-integrated monitoring methods for the entirety of Year 2 monitoring. Data are also presented from several monitoring locations operated by MassDEP (Harrison Avenue and Lynn) and Massport (Logan meteorological station). The data summarized herein reflects the reduced data set, which is provided in its complete form in Appendix C. A complete set of the raw monitoring data from Year 2 is provided in Appendix D. Real-time monitoring data include:

• Mass of black carbon measured using a seven-wavelength aethalometer

• Mass of particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) measured using a BAM

• Meteorological data including wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and relative

humidity. Time-integrated monitoring data include:

• Speciated VOC, analyzed via EPA Method TO-15 SIM • Speciated SVOCs, analyzed via EPA Method TO-13a • Speciated carbonyls, analyzed via EPA Method TO-11a • Mass of PM2.5, by gravimetric analysis.

The time-integrated samples were collected over 24-hour periods from midnight to midnight and the real time data were collected continuously. In addition to air pollutant data, meteorological data, including wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, and relative humidity, were measured continuously at two of the primary sites. Additional meteorological data were also obtained from instruments operated by others near the third primary site (Bremen Street), and from the National Weather Service meteorological station at Logan. Continuous (or real time) pollutant data are summarized based on 1-hour and 24-hour average concentrations. Time-integrated data are presented as 24-hour and annual averages. MassDEP also provided data they collected including PM2.5 via BAM, black carbon, PM2.5 via FRM, VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs. These data sets were utilized as comparisons to the data collected by EA and are tabulated and charted in the following sections.




5.1 CONTINUOUS DATA Continuous pollutant data collected for the study include the black carbon data, measured via seven-wavelength aethalometers, and the PM2.5 data, measured via BAMs, at the three primary sites. The other continuous data collected include wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, and relative humidity, measured at the Annavoy Street and Court Road sites. In addition, comparable meteorological data were obtained through MADEP for a site adjacent to the Bremen Street site and from the National Weather Service for the meteorological station at Logan. 5.1.1 Descriptive Statistics The continuous data collected over the baseline period are characterized by basic summary statistics, including the maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation for each data set by pollutant by site by measurement technique. Additional information collected for each data set by pollutant by site by measurement technique includes percent of data recovery and percent of data reported below the minimum detection limit (MDL). 5.1.1.1 Basic Summary Statistics Table 7 presents the summary statistics for the continuous data collected during Year 2 for black carbon and PM2.5 by BAM. The mean value is calculated for pollutants as the arithmetic average of all valid 1-hour average concentration values and is a measure of central tendency. The median value is calculated for pollutants as the 50 percentile value of all valid 1-hour average concentration values and is also a measure of central tendency. Measures of data variability are provided by the range between the maximum and minimum of the data set as well as by the standard deviation.




TABLE 7 CONTINUOUS DATA SUMMARY STATISTICS

Site Name Minimum Maximum Median AverageStandard Deviation Benchmarks

Hourly Black Carbon/Aethalometer Data (µg/m3)Annavoy 0.00 8.15 0.35 0.52 0.52 Not applicable Bremen 0.00 11.03 0.48 0.63 0.57 Court 0.00 36.19 0.42 0.65 0.77 Harrison (Department of Environmental Protection [DEP])

0.00 8.15 0.46 0.61 0.54

24-Hour Black Carbon/Aethalometer Data (µg/m3)Annavoy 0.04 2.26 0.44 0.52 0.35 5 Bremen 0.05 2.81 0.56 0.63 0.37 Court 0.05 2.58 0.55 0.65 0.45 Harrison (DEP) 0.10 2.59 0.52 0.60 0.35

Hourly PM2.5/BAM Data (µg/m3)Annavoy -15.00 240.00 6.00 8.33 8.41 Not applicable Bremen -7.00 67.00 8.00 9.77 6.95 Court -7.00 403.00 7.00 8.66 9.09 Harrison (DEP) -5.20 63.30 6.90 8.57 6.53 Lynn (DEP) -4.70 72.60 6.70 8.47 7.03

24-Hour PM2.5/BAM Data (µg/m3)Annavoy -9.36 48.38 6.98 8.37 5.87 35 and 15 Bremen 0.75 37.68 8.42 9.71 5.55 Court -0.71 36.83 7.31 8.63 5.41 Harrison (DEP) 1.28 37.83 6.92 8.53 5.13 Lynn (DEP) 0.73 33.28 7.20 8.43 5.50 1. Benchmark for 24-hour black carbon is the RfC for diesel engine exhaust from EPA’s Integrated Risk

Information System. The benchmark values should be compared to the average measured concentrations. 2. Benchmark values for the 24-hour BAM data are the 24-hour (35 µg/m3) and annual (15 µg/m3) NAAQS,

respectively, for PM2.5. The 24-hour NAAQS (to be compared to the maximum measured concentrations) is not to be exceeded more than once per year while the annual NAAQS (to be compared to the average measured concentrations) is not to be exceeded.

3. -15 µg/m3 measurement reflects negative offset of BAM units to reflect urban background conditions. Table 8 presents the summary statistics for the meteorological data. The mean value for wind direction is a vector average of all valid 1-hour average wind direction values. The maximum and minimum values for wind direction are of little utility since the measurements are limited by the extremes of the compass (i.e., 0 and 360 degrees, respectively).




TABLE 8 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Site Name Minimum Maximum Median Average Standard Deviation

Relative Humidity (Percent) Annavoy 12.21 100.00 71.24 69.85 20.34 Court 13.98 100.00 71.60 71.32 19.26 Logan (NOAA) 13.00 100.00 65.00 65.22 19.07

Temperature (Degrees Centigrade) Annavoy -20.05 39.60 13.06 12.34 9.88 Court -19.19 37.73 10.74 10.71 10.85 Logan (NOAA) -19.00 39.00 11.00 11.27 10.22

Wind Direction (Degrees) Annavoy 0.00 354.62 152.34 167.71 107.23 Bremen 1.00 360.00 245.00 214.24 103.35 Court 0.00 355.20 202.44 179.26 113.08 Logan (NOAA) 0.00 360.00 230.00 206.71 104.19

Wind Speed (Meters/Second) Annavoy 0.28 19.48 2.68 3.13 2.17 Bremen 0.57 11.11 3.70 3.86 1.74 Court 0.19 15.95 3.05 3.51 2.32 Logan (NOAA) 0.00 15.65 4.02 4.30 2.16 NOTE: NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

5.1.1.2 Percent of Data Recovery The Year 2 of data collection covered a period from 1 September 2010 through 6 September 2011. This period covers a total time span of 8,880 hours. The goal in the Quality Assurance Project Plan was to have at least 75 percent annual data recovery (i.e., at least 75 percent of scheduled samples would have validated results). For continuous monitoring instruments, this would be 6,660 hours of valid data collected during the Phase II period. The data recovery goal was met for all of the continuous airport related HAP data. Table 9 shows the number of valid hours of data and percent data recovery for the continuous data collected during the reporting period. The data recovery for black carbon and PM2.5 measured via BAM at each of the three primary sites (as well as the MassDEP site) was greater than 75 percent, the minimum being 87 percent (Bremen aethalometer). Data recovery for meteorological data ranged from 70 to 100 percent. The low recovery at the Bremen Street meteorological station is related to NStar, the operator of the meteorological station, ending their meteorological monitoring commitment in May 2011. The low recovery at Court Road is related to a faulty data logger identified at the commencement of the Year 2 monitoring (online by 7 December 2010). The repair of this unit by the manufacturer took much longer than anticipated.




TABLE 9 HOURLY CONTINUOUS DATA RECOVERY Site Name Valid Hours Percent Recovery

Black Carbon – Aethalometer (µg/m3) Annavoy 8718 98 Bremen (DEP) 7769 87 Court 8362 94 Harrison (DEP) 8562 96

PM2.5 – BAM (µg/m3) Annavoy 8171 92 Bremen (DEP) 8400 94 Court 8297 93 Harrison (DEP) 8247 93 Lynn (DEP) 8590 96

Wind Speed (Miles per Hour) Annavoy 7172 81 Bremen (DEP) 6417 72 Court 6694 75 Logan (NOAA) 8879 100

Wind Direction (Degrees) Annavoy 8902 100 Bremen (DEP) 5786 65 Court 7259 82 Logan (NOAA) 8814 99

Temperature (Degrees Centigrade) Annavoy 6973 78 Court 6250 70 Logan (NOAA) 8879 100

Relative Humidity (Percent) Annavoy 8901 100 Court 6297 71 Logan (NOAA) 8879 100

5.1.1.3 Percent of Data Reported Below Minimum Detection Limit Air pollutant concentrations tend to be lognormally distributed in the ambient air, with most measured values at relatively low concentrations and a much lower proportion of values measured at higher concentrations. Because of analytical testing and equipment sensitivity limitations, some lower concentrations cannot be definitively quantified and must be considered to have a value under the MDL of the method. For these data, EA reported half of the laboratory detection limit, consistent with the data analysis technique utilized in the Year 1 study. Table 10 presents the percent of continuous data reported below MDL. The MDL concept does not apply to meteorological parameters.




TABLE 10 HOURLY CONTINUOUS DATA BELOW DETECTION LIMIT Site Name Percent below MDL Black Carbon – Aethalometer (µg/m3)

MDL = 0.05 µg/m3

Annavoy 2 Bremen 0 Court 2 Harrison (DEP) 0

PM2.5 BAM (µg/m3) MDL = 5 µg/m3

Annavoy 32 Bremen 18 Court 28 Harrison (DEP) 30 Lynn (DEP) 37

Wind Speed (Miles per Hour) MDL = 1.1 Miles per Hour

Annavoy 7 Bremen (DEP) 1 Court 6 Logan (NOAA) 3

5.1.2 Time Series and Comparative Analyses Particulate matter (measured using the BAM) and black carbon, along with several meteorological parameters, were monitored continuously during Year 2 at three locations. The BAM PM2.5 and black carbon measurements were recorded as 1-hour average values at the three primary sites. Meteorological measurements were also recorded as 1-hour average values at the Annavoy Street and Court Road sites. The BAM and black carbon instruments analyze their respective pollutant concentrations in situ and provide real-time data. Because PM2.5 is an aggregate of various inorganic and organic components, the BAM data represent emissions from various types of sources, including stationary source combustion, vehicle exhaust, fugitive dust, sea salt spray, and other sources. Black carbon data represent the elemental carbon portion of the particulate matter and comes primarily from combustion sources. Black carbon is a subset of the BAM PM2.5 data. 5.1.2.1 Beta Attenuation Monitor PM2.5 Results Figure 38 presents “box and whisker” plots of the 1-hour average BAM PM2.5 data for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. These plots show the range and variability of the one-hour average PM2.5 at each site, including:

8 NOTE: Figures 3 through 48 are provided at the end of the report text.




• Maximum and minimum concentrations at the upper and lower end points, respectively (the “whiskers”)

• 25 percent, 50 percent (median), and 75 percent frequency values in the bottom, middle,

and top levels, respectively (the “box”) • Arithmetic mean concentration shown as the “♦” symbol (typically in the interior of the

box but sometimes outside the box for skewed data). Figure 4 presents box and whisker plots of the 24-hour average BAM PM2.5 data for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. The mean concentration for each site was less than the annual NAAQS (15 µg/m3). Figure 5 shows BAM PM2.5 data for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites over a 7-day sampling period and shows qualitatively the similarity of temporal trends in the concentrations measured concurrently at these five sites. Figure 6 presents frequency distributions of the 1-hour average BAM PM2.5 concentration measurements for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. The majority of PM2.5 measurements are in the range of 5-10 µg/m3 except for the Lynn site operated by MassDEP. Figure 7 presents frequency distributions of the 24-hour average BAM PM2.5 concentration measurements for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. The majority of PM2.5 measurements are in the range of 5-10 µg/m3. Figure 8 presents the average of 1-hour average BAM PM2.5 measurements by hour of the day for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. Figure 9 presents the average of 1-hour average BAM PM2.5 measurements by day of the week for the three primary sites and the two MADEP sites. 5.1.2.2 Black Carbon Results Figure 10 presents box and whisker plots of the 1-hour average black carbon data for the three primary sites and one MADEP site (Harrison Avenue—black carbon data are not measured at the Lynn site). These plots show the range and variability of the 1-hour average black carbon at each site. Figure 11 presents box and whisker plots of the 24-hour average black carbon data for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. Included on Figure 11 is the EPA chronic inhalation RfC value for diesel engine exhaust (5.0 µg/m3). A chronic inhalation RfC value is deemed a safe level for non-carcinogenic effects for long-term exposure. Although there is no RfC value for black carbon per se, diesel engine exhaust does contain black carbon, and the two indicators tend




to be highly correlated in the ambient air. The comparison of black carbon data to the diesel engine exhaust RfC is consistent with the Year 1 analysis. Figure 12 shows black carbon data for the three primary sites and one MADEP site over a 7-day sampling period and shows qualitatively the similarity of temporal trends in the concentrations measured concurrently at these four sites. Figure 13 presents frequency distributions of the 1-hour average black carbon concentration measurements for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. At all sites, the majority of 1-hour average concentrations measured have been less than 0.5 µg/m3. Figure 14 presents frequency distributions of the 24-hour average black carbon concentration measurements for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. At all sites, the majority of 24-hour concentrations measured have been less than -1.0 µg/m3. Figure 15 presents the average of 1-hour average black carbon measurements by hour of the day for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. Figure 16 presents the average of 1-hour average black carbon measurements by day of the week for the three primary sites and one MADEP site. 5.1.2.3 Meteorological Data Results Wind roses representing the frequency distribution of wind speed and wind direction by month are presented as Figure 17. Each rose is made up of 16 “petals,” each representing a 22.5-degree arc of compass direction (direction represents that from which the wind is blowing). Each arc is divided into segmented areas representing the distribution of wind speed observed in each 22.5- degree arc. Figure 17 presents the monthly wind roses for Annavoy Street, Bremen Street, Court Road, and Logan from September 2010 through August 2011. Figure 18 presents the annual wind roses for Annavoy Street, Bremen Street, Court Road, and Logan over the same baseline period. 5.2 TIME-INTEGRATED DATA Time-integrated samples were collected for various pollutants, as detailed in Section 3.3.1. Time-integrated samples of PM2.5 were collected at the Annavoy Street site once every sixth day using an EPA-approved federal reference method BGI PQ200 speciation PM2.5 sampler. Time-integrated PM2.5 samples were also collected at each of the three primary sites, the seven satellite sites, and one urban background site once every sixth day using an Air Metrics MiniVol sampler. Time-integrated samples were collected once every sixth day in passivated Summa canisters for analysis of speciated VOCs at each of the three primary sites once every sixth day. Time-integrated samples were also collected once every sixth day on dinitrophenylhydrazine medium for analysis of speciated carbonyl compounds at each primary site. In addition, time-integrated




samples were collected once every sixth day on XAD resin with pre-filters for analysis of speciated PAHs at two of the primary sites (Annavoy Street and Court Road) and at the urban background site (Harrison Avenue). See Section 3.3 for more details on time-integrated sampling. 5.2.1 Descriptive Statistics Time-integrated data collected during the Year 2 period have also been characterized using basic summary statistics, including the maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation for each pollutant data set by location and measurement technique. Additionally, percent of data recovery and percent of data reported below the MDL for each data set by pollutant and measurement technique are provided. 5.2.1.1 Summary Statistics Table 11 presents the summary statistics for the active time-integrated samples for organics (VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs).




TABLE 11 ACTIVE TIME-INTEGRATED SAMPLE SUMMARY STATISTICS (all concentrations in parts per billion by volume)

Site Name Minimum Maximum Median Average Standard Deviation BenchmarkAcetaldehyde

Annavoy Street 0.0021 4.2190 0.297 0.471 0.610 5.0 Bremen Street 0.0021 3.9040 0.472 0.751 0.798 Court Road 0.0022 3.2667 0.154 0.319 0.569 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.0300 1.6900 0.705 0.768 0.350 Lynn (DEP) 0.3000 2.2400 0.670 0.784 0.383

Acrolein Annavoy Street 0.2451 0.8213 0.245 0.278 0.114 0.009 Bremen Street 0.2451 1.8146 0.245 0.562 0.439 Court Road 0.2451 0.7998 0.245 0.357 0.183 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.0245 0.2410 0.093 0.103 0.055 Lynn (DEP) 0.0180 0.1800 0.062 0.071 0.043

Formaldehyde Annavoy Street 0.0410 20.5184 1.340 3.539 4.321 570 Bremen Street 0.0016 30.9735 1.678 3.333 4.647 Court Road 0.0198 37.8012 0.385 1.418 4.899 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.2400 5.8400 1.835 1.986 1.030 Lynn (DEP) 0.3600 5.8200 1.240 1.593 1.110

Propionaldehyde Annavoy Street 0.00002 4.3177 0.040 0.153 0.568 3.4 Bremen Street 0.00002 1.4633 0.041 0.121 0.246 Court Road 0.00002 8.5183 0.045 0.190 1.087

1-MethylnaphthaleneAnnavoy Street 0.0002 0.0333 0.002 0.005 0.007 Not

applicable Court Road 0.0001 0.0095 0.001 0.002 0.002 Harrison Avenue 0.0001 0.0062 0.001 0.002 0.001

2-MethylnaphthaleneAnnavoy Street 0.0004 0.0669 0.003 0.013 0.019 2.6 Court Road 0.0001 0.0168 0.002 0.003 0.003 Harrison Avenue 0.0001 0.0108 0.003 0.003 0.003

NaphthaleneAnnavoy Street 0.0011 0.1743 0.008 0.022 0.031 0.57 Court Road 0.0002 0.0291 0.005 0.008 0.007 Harrison Avenue 0.0001 0.0285 0.007 0.008 0.006

1,3-Butadiene Annavoy Street 0.0248 0.0729 0.025 0.026 0.007 0.9 Bremen Street 0.0248 0.1215 0.025 0.032 0.017 Court Road 0.0248 0.1166 0.025 0.031 0.017 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.0040 0.0760 0.021 0.025 0.014 0.9 Lynn (DEP) 0.0020 0.0280 0.009 0.010 0.006

Benzene Annavoy Street 0.0546 0.5611 0.125 0.150 0.085 9.4 Bremen Street 0.0654 0.4929 0.224 0.236 0.082 Court Road 0.0632 0.5890 0.169 0.189 0.096 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.0690 0.3500 0.146 0.164 0.063 Lynn (DEP) 0.0400 0.1960 0.097 0.103 0.043




Site Name Minimum Maximum Median Average Standard Deviation BenchmarkEthylbenzene

Annavoy Street 0.0250 1.2788 0.065 0.207 0.302 230 Bremen Street 0.0250 4.4160 0.598 0.801 0.785 Court Road 0.0250 3.1050 0.744 1.029 1.037 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.0130 0.2040 0.042 0.052 0.035 Lynn (DEP) 0.0050 0.0710 0.023 0.024 0.015

m,p-XylenesAnnavoy Street 0.0250 1.6560 0.124 0.271 0.333 23 Bremen Street 0.0529 4.1860 0.725 0.932 0.746 Court Road 0.0589 2.9900 0.773 1.070 0.988 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.0290 0.6920 0.097 0.131 0.113 Lynn (DEP) 0.0085 0.1510 0.046 0.052 0.034

o-XyleneAnnavoy Street 0.0250 3.2660 0.120 0.261 0.503 23 Bremen Street 0.0550 1.2742 0.224 0.305 0.226 Court Road 0.0250 4.0480 0.720 0.670 0.663 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.0060 0.2010 0.037 0.049 0.036 Lynn (DEP) 0.0035 0.0710 0.019 0.021 0.014

StyreneAnnavoy Street 0.0245 0.6118 0.024 0.079 0.103 230 Bremen Street 0.0245 2.5990 0.112 0.404 0.521 Court Road 0.0245 1.2926 0.172 0.318 0.333 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.0010 0.0230 0.009 0.009 0.003 Lynn (DEP) 0.0000 0.0100 0.007 0.008 0.002

TolueneAnnavoy Street 0.0970 2.9120 0.309 0.594 0.635 1300 Bremen Street 0.1430 7.4100 1.391 1.679 1.477 Court Road 0.1243 3.9780 1.022 1.444 1.224 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 0.1180 1.6040 0.333 0.398 0.258 Lynn (DEP) 0.0220 0.4970 0.130 0.158 0.115 NOTE: All concentrations presented in parts per billion by volume. Benchmark values are chronic inhalation RfCs, except for formaldehyde and 2-methyl naphthalene,

which are based on chronic oral reference doses, from EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System. The benchmark values should be compared to the average result.

If target analyte is not detected, half of the laboratory reporting limit is used. Acrolein typically not detected above laboratory reporting limits, however detection limit exceeds the

Benchmark value when collected via TO-15 SIM. Table 12 presents the summary statistics for the time-integrated PM2.5 FRM samples while Table 13 presents the summary statistics for the time-integrated PM2.5 MiniVol samples. The tables include the maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation for the measured values as well as benchmark values where available and appropriate.




TABLE 12 FEDERAL REFERENCE METHOD PM2.5 SAMPLE SUMMARY STATISTICS

(all concentrations in µg/m3) Site Name Minimum Maximum Median Average Standard Deviation Benchmark

Annavoy 0.08 80.61 7.83 10.62 14.12 35 and 15 Harrison (DEP) 0.90 26.80 6.60 8.29 4.86 Lynn (DEP) 0.50 25.40 5.80 7.23 4.46

TABLE 13 MiniVol PM2.5 SAMPLE SUMMARY STATISTICS

(all concentrations in µg/m3) Site Name Minimum Maximum Median Average Standard Deviation

Annavoy Street 0.26 57.77 13.16 14.15 13.58 Bremen Street 0.25 58.38 9.75 12.48 12.10 Court Road 0.26 43.55 9.02 10.95 10.71 Coughlin Park 0.25 44.26 9.95 10.82 9.46 Jeffries Cove 0.23 30.78 12.96 11.94 8.05 South Boston Yacht Club 0.23 56.86 12.96 15.33 11.86 Bayswater Street 0.26 50.03 9.89 11.13 10.47 Cottage Park Yacht Club 0.30 58.81 14.04 14.94 13.02 Constitution Beach 0.25 34.13 10.88 11.70 8.79 Logan Satellite Fire Station 0.18 45.94 5.71 8.33 9.28 Harrison Avenue 0.26 59.19 12.24 11.96 11.11

5.2.1.2 Percent of Data Recovery Data collection for the 1 September 2010 – 6 September 2011 reporting period was scheduled for:

• 62 total samples of:

— Time-integrated VOC at the three primary sites

— Time-integrated PAH at the three primary sites

— Time-integrated carbonyls at the three primary sites — PM2.5 via the Federal reference method at one of the primary sites — PM2.5 via MiniVol at each of the 8 satellite and 3 primary sites.

To meet the 75 percent data recovery goal for time-integrated samples, it was necessary to capture 47 of the scheduled 62 total samples. The number of valid samples and percent data recovery for the organics (VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs) and time-integrated PM2.5 FRM, and PM2.5 MiniVol appear in Table 14. Data recovery results indicate that the 75 percent recovery goal was met for all monitoring locations except for PM2.5 MiniVol sampling conducted at the Logan Satellite Fire Station.




Early in Year 2, several samples at the Satellite Fire Station could not be collected primarily due to access issues. This was resolved through coordination with Massport and utilization of Massport personnel in the sample collection effort.

TABLE 14 TIME INTEGRATED DATA RECOVERY Sampling Location Valid Samples Percent Recovery

VOC Annavoy Street 59 95 Bremen Street 61 98 Court Road 60 97 Harrison Avenue (DEP) 66 106 Lynn (DEP) 66 106

Carbonyl Annavoy Street 62 100 Bremen Street 62 100 Court Road 62 100 Harrison Avenue 66 106 Lynn 68 110

PAH Annavoy Street 59 95 Court Road 61 98 Harrison Avenue1 61 98

FRM Annavoy Street 53 85 Harrison Avenue 122 197 Lynn 119 192

PM2.5 MiniVol Annavoy Street 54 87 Bayswater Street 52 84 Bremen Street 53 85 Constitution Beach 50 81 Cottage Park Yacht Club 53 85 Coughlin Park 55 89 Court Road 54 87 Harrison Avenue(1) 53 85 Jeffries Cove 51 82 Logan Satellite Fire Station 44 71 South Boston Yacht Club 50 81 1. Percentages are relative to EA’s sampling schedule; therefore, the

percentages exceeding 100 percent for DEP’s samples, as DEP collects duplicate samples and/or sample every 3 days, rather than the 6-day sampling schedule maintained by EA.




5.2.1.3 Percent of Data Reported Below Minimum Detection Limit Table 15 presents the percent of time-integrated data reported below MDL organics (VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs). A concentration below the MDL indicates it cannot be reliably quantified; however, the sample concentration is no greater than the level of the MDL. Most of the samples for some compounds were below the MDL. Several analytes including 1, 3-butadiene, acrolein, and styrene were often not detected above the respective MDLs.

TABLE 15 TIME-INTEGRATED DATA BELOW DETECTION LIMIT

Analyte

Detection Limit Range

(parts per billion by volume)

Percent

Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison

(DEP) Lynn (DEP)

VOC 1,3-Butadiene 0.002–0.1458 98 1 86 4 40Benzene 0.01–0.14508 0 0 0 0 0Ethylbenzene 0.005–0.14628 43 0 25 0 20m,p-Xylenes 0.0085–0.14628 7 0 0 0 12o-Xylene 0.0035–0.14628 40 22 13 5 33Styrene 0.001–0.14352 62 0 34 93 91Toluene 0.013–0.14352 0 0 0 0 0

Carbonyl Acetaldehyde 0.0025–3.90407 4 56 7 2 0Acrolein 0.018–1.4448 94 1 69 12 26Formaldehyde 0.0018–2.87477 1 28 5 0 0Propionaldehyde 0.0004–1.41968 34 0 40 Not

applicable Not

applicablePAH(1)

1-Methylnaphthalene 0.00009–0.2423 1 Not applicable

4 1 Not applicable

2-Methylnaphthalene 0.00009–0.2423 1 Not applicable

4 1 Not applicable

Naphthalene 0.0001–0.67703 1 Not applicable

4 1 Not applicable

1. PAH data collected at Harrison Avenue and tabulated here were collected by EA; all other data in this table collected at Harrison Avenue were collected by MassDEP.

5.2.2 Time Series and Comparative Analyses For the time-integrated sample results, data are presented for the three primary Massport sites and two MADEP sites (where data are available). Data presentations include sample time-series plots by site, annual average concentrations by site, and box and whisker plots. Some VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs in addition to the target pollutants (Section 2.3) were identified and quantified during analysis of the samples. These additional VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs quantified during analysis of the samples are included on a DVD disk in Appendix D.




5.2.2.1 Time-Integrated Samples For perspective on the concentration levels measured for each compound, the data are compared to benchmark values where such values are available and appropriate. For the VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and PAHs, the benchmark is the applicable EPA’s RfC, which is deemed a safe level for non-carcinogenic effects for long-term exposure. For time-integrated PM2.5, the benchmark is the EPA’s NAAQS which applies only to the PM2.5 concentrations measured using the FRM since the EPA has not designated the MiniVol as a reference or equivalent measurement method at the time of this report. Individual sample results are shown in time-series plots. For comparison, each figure contains the concentration results for one target compound at the:

• Three primary sites and two MADEP sites (for the organics and PM2.5 data)

• Annavoy Street site and two MADEP sites (for the PM2.5 FRM data)

• Three primary sites and one MADEP site for black carbon data

• Three primary sites, seven satellite sites, and one urban background site (for the PM2.5 MiniVol data).

In the figures, a line connects data for each site; however, this does not imply concentrations for time periods between actual samples. The data are intermittent and not continuous, and the connecting lines only aid the reader in isolating data results for each site. Volatile Organic Compound Results Figures 19 through 25 present the box and whisker plots for samples of each target VOC. The target VOCs consist of 1,3-butadiene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylene, o-xylene, and styrene. Sample results for the target VOCs indicate that the three primary sites had a broader range of measured concentrations and higher maximum measured concentrations than the two MADEP sites. Figures 26 through 32 show sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for samples of each target VOC collected for the reporting period. The data for each compound among the three primary and two MADEP sites are generally similar, except for isolated peak values for some compounds. The detection limit for the MassDEP sampling locations for 1,3-butadiene is lower than the detection limit observed with EA’s contract laboratory.




Carbonyl Compound Results Figures 33 through 36 present the box and whisker plots for samples of each target carbonyl compound. The target carbonyl compounds consist of formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and propionaldehyde. Results varied by target pollutant between sites. Generally, maximum values observed at EA monitoring locations exceeded those observed at the MassDEP monitoring locations. Figures 37 through 40 present the individual sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for active samples of each target carbonyl compound collected for the reporting period. The data for each compound among the three primary and two MADEP sites are generally similar, except for isolated peak values for some compounds. Generally, maximum values observed at EA monitoring locations exceeded those observed at the MassDEP monitoring locations. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Results Figures 41 through 43 present the box and whisker plots for samples of each target PAH. Sample maximums for naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2- methylnaphthalene at Annavoy were higher than the maximum values observed at Court Road and Harrison Avenue. Figures 44 through 46 present the individual sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for samples of each target PAH collected for the reporting period. The data for each compound among the two primary sites and one urban background site are generally similar, except for isolated peak values identified at Harrison Avenue, which is the urban background monitoring location. The detection limit for the MassDEP sampling locations for acrolein is lower than the detection limit observed with EA’s contract laboratory. PM2.5 Federal Reference Method Results Figure 47 presents the individual sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for FRM samples of PM2.5 collected for the reporting period. The data trends at the three sites are similar except for several isolated peaks. PM2.5 MiniVol Results Figure 48 presents the individual sample concentration results by sampling date (time series) for active MiniVol samples of PM2.5 collected at all sites for the reporting period. The data trends at the eleven sites are similar except for several isolated peaks. MiniVol PM2.5 data for the first quarter likely represent total particulate matter (see discussion in Section 4.3.6) and, therefore, resulting in a broader range of results and higher maximum measurements.




6. DISCUSSION OF SUPPORTING DATA

Additional data were collected by others to aid in the analysis of the pollutant data collected during the Year 2 monitoring period. These data include flight operation data for Logan, traffic count data collected by Massport, and pollutant monitoring data from the MasssDEP monitoring sites on Harrison Avenue in the Roxbury area of Boston and at Parkland Avenue in Lynn. 6.1 AIRPORT FLIGHT OPERATIONS To complement the ambient pollutant and meteorological data collected during the reporting period and to support potential analysis of the data by others, Massport has provided flight operations data for Logan for the period from September 2010 through September 2011. The data files are extensive and contain information on a flight by flight basis, i.e., type of aircraft, time of activity, runway, and designation of departure or arrival, for every day of the reporting period. The complete flight operations data files can be found electronically in Appendix E. 6.2 MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic count data have been provided by Massport for all major inbound and outbound routes in the vicinity of Logan. The traffic count data include all months of the Year 2 Study (September 2010 through September 2011). The traffic count data are available electronically as Appendix E. 6.3 CONCURRENT AIR MONITORING DATA FROM MASSACHUSETTS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION As indicated previously, MassDEP has provided Massport validated data from its routine monitoring activities at the stations located on Harrison Avenue in the Roxbury area of Boston and at the station on Parkland Avenue in Lynn. The complete MassDEP data sets as provided by MassDEP, summaries of which were used as comparative data sets in this report, are provided in Appendix D. The data include continuous monitoring results for PM2.5 BAM, black carbon, and meteorological data as well as time-integrated data for PM2.5 FRM, VOCs, and carbonyl compounds. All non-detect values for chemical compounds were reported as half of the method reporting limit for consistency with the Year 1 data.


References, Page 1 of 1 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. May 2012


REFERENCES

Camp, Dresser, & McKee. 2007. Massachusetts Port Authority Logan International Airport; Air Quality Monitoring Study Final Work Plan. September.

Camp, Dresser, & McKee. 2009. Air Quality Monitoring Study, Baseline Year Report, Logan

International Airport. October. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA). 2011. Final Work Plan, Massachusetts

Port Authority Air Quality Study, Year 2, Logan International Airport. June. URS Corporation. 2003. Select Resource Materials and Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of

Hazardous Air Pollutants Associated with Aircraft, Airports and Aviation. Prepared for the Federal Aviation Administration. July.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. List of Hazardous Air Pollutants.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html.

Figures

EA Project No.: 14774.01/0004 Version: FINAL



*No NAAQS Standard exists for 1-hour measurements of PM2.5.

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP)

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Monitoring Station

Figure 3 Summary of 1-Hour BAM PM2.5 Concentrations(All Sites)

Mean

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP) Lynn (DEP)

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Monitoring Station

Figure 4 Summary of 24-Hour BAM PM2.5 Concentrations(All Sites)

Mean98th PercentileAnnual NAAQS24-hr NAAQS




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2/12/2011 2/13/2011 2/14/2011 2/15/2011 2/16/2011 2/17/2011 2/18/2011 2/19/2011

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Date

Figure 5 1-Hour BAM PM2.5 Concentrations (2/12/11 - 2/18/11)

AnnavoyBremenCourtHarrison (DEP)Lynn (DEP)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

<5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 >50

No.

of O

bser

vatio

ns

Concentration Range (µg/m3)

Figure 6 Distribution of Hourly BAM PM2.5Concentrations





0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

<5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 >50

No.

of O

bser

vatio

ns


Figure 7 Distribution of 24-Hour BAM PM2.5Concentrations


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

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

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Hour of Day

Figure 8 Average BAM PM2.5 Concentrationsby Hour of Day





0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Day of Week

Figure 9 Average BAM PM2.5 Concentrationsby Day of Week


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP)

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Monitoring Station

Figure 10 Summary of 1-Hour Black CarbonConcentrations (All Sites)

Mean




0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Annavoy Bremen Court Harrison (DEP)

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Monitoring Station

Figure 11 Summary of 24-Hour Black CarbonConcentrations (All Sites)

MeanRfC

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2/12/2011 2/13/2011 2/14/2011 2/15/2011 2/16/2011 2/17/2011 2/18/2011 2/19/2011

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Date

Figure 12 1-Hour Black Carbon Concentrations(2/12/11 - 2/18/11)

AnnavoyBremenCourtHarrison (DEP)




0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

<0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 4.5-5.0 >5.0

No.

of O

bser

vatio

ns


Figure 13 Distribution of Hourly Black CarbonConcentrations


0

50

100

150

200

<0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 4.5-5.0 >5.0

No.

of O

bser

vatio

ns


Figure 14 Distribution of 24-Hour Black CarbonConcentrations





0

0.5

1

1.5

2

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

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Hour of Day

Figure 15 Black Carbon Concentrations by Hour of Day


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Day of Week

Figure 16 Black Carbon Concentrations by Day of Week


Figure 17 – Monthly Wind Roses

Annavoy Street Court Road Bremen Street Logan Airport September 2010

October 2010

November 2010


Annavoy Street Court Road Bremen Street Logan Airport December 2010

January 2011

February 2011


Annavoy Street Court Road Bremen Street Logan Airport

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011


Annavoy Street Court Road Bremen Street Logan Airport June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

Figure 18 – Annual Wind Roses Annavoy Street Bremen Street

Court Road Logan Airport

EA Engine

Logan InteBoston, M

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

eering, Science

ernational Airpassachusetts

0

2

4

6

8

0

2

4

Annav

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Annav

e, and Technolo

port

voy

Figur

voy

Fig

ogy, Inc.

Bremen

re 19 1,3-B

Bremen

gure 20 B

CourtMonitoring S

Butadiene

CourtMonitoring S

enzene Di

HarrisStation

Distribut

HarrisStation

istribution

EA Project N

son (DEP)

tion

son (DEP)

n

No.: 14774.01Version: F

Page 8May

Phase II Air QMonitoring

Lynn (DEP)

Lynn (DEP)

1/0004 FINAL 8 of 23 y 2012

Quality Study

EA Engine

Logan InteBoston, M

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

eering, Science


Annavo

Annavo

e, and Technolo

port

oy B

Fig

oy B

Figure

ogy, Inc.

BremenM

gure 21 T

BremenM

e 22 Ethy

CourtMonitoring St

Toluene Dis

CourtMonitoring St

yl Benzene

Harristation

stribution

Harristation

e Distribut

EA Project N

son (DEP)

n

son (DEP)

tion


Page 9May


Lynn (DEP)

Lynn (DEP)

1/0004 FINAL 9 of 23 y 2012

Quality Study

EA Engine

Logan InteBoston, M

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

eering, Science


Annavo

Annavo

e, and Technolo

port

oy B

Figur

oy B

Fig

ogy, Inc.

BremenM

re 23 m,p

BremenM

gure 24 o-

CourtMonitoring St

p-Xylenes D

CourtMonitoring St

-Xylene Di

Harristation

Distributi

Harristation

istribution

EA Project N

son (DEP)

on

son (DEP)

n


Page 10May


Lynn (DEP)

Lynn (DEP)

1/0004 FINAL 0 of 23 y 2012

Quality Study

EA Engine

Logan InteBoston, M

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

eering, Science


Annavo

0

2

4

6

8

0

2

4

6

e, and Technolo

port

oy B

Fig

Figure

ogy, Inc.

BremenM

gure 25 S

26 VOC

CourtMonitoring St

tyrene Dis

Date

Sampling

Harristation

stribution

g ─ 1,3-But

ABCHL

EA Project N

son (DEP)

tadiene

AnnavoyBremenCourtHarrison (DEPLynn (DEP)


Page 11May


Lynn (DEP)

P)

1/0004 FINAL 1 of 23 y 2012

Quality Study




0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 27 VOC Sampling ─ Benzene


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 28 VOC Sampling ─ Toluene





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 29 VOC Sampling ─ Ethyl Benzene


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 30 VOC Sampling ─ m/p-Xylene





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 31 VOC Sampling ─ o-Xylene


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 32 VOC Sampling ─ Styrene


EA Engine

Logan InteBoston, M

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

eering, Science


Annavo

Annavo

e, and Technolo

port

oy B

Figure

oy B

Fig

ogy, Inc.

BremenM

e 33 Form

BremenM

gure 34 Ac

CourtMonitoring St

maldehyde

CourtMonitoring St

crolein Di

Harristation

e Distribut

Harristation

istribution

EA Project N

on (DEP)

tion

son (DEP)

n


Page 15May


Lynn (DEP)

Lynn (DEP)

1/0004 FINAL 5 of 23 y 2012

Quality Study

EA Engine

Logan InteBoston, M

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

eering, Science


Annavo

A

e, and Technolo

port

oy B

Figur

Annavoy

Figure

ogy, Inc.

BremenM

re 35 Acet

M

36 Propio

CourtMonitoring St

taldehyde

BremenMonitoring St

onaldehyd

Harristation

Distributi

tation

de Distribu

EA Project N

son (DEP)

ion

C

ution


Page 16May


Lynn (DEP)

ourt

1/0004 FINAL 6 of 23 y 2012

Quality Study




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 37 VOC Sampling ─ Formaldehyde


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 38 VOC Sampling ─ Acrolein





0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 39 VOC Sampling ─ Acetaldehyde


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 40 VOC Sampling ─ Propionaldehyde

AnnavoyBremenCourt

EA Engine

Logan InteBoston, M

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.10

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

eering, Science


01234567890

0

1

1

2

2

3

F

e, and Technolo

port

Annavoy

Figur

Annavoy

Figure 42

ogy, Inc.

re 41 Nap

1-Methyl

CourtMonitoring S

phthalene D

CourtMonitoring S

l Naphtha

Station

Distributi

Station

alene Distr

EA Project N

Har

ion

Har

ribution


Page 19May


rrison

rrison

1/0004 FINAL 9 of 23 y 2012

Quality Study

EA Engine

Logan InteBoston, M

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

eering, Science


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

F

0

5

0

5

0

5

0

5

0

e, and Technolo

port

Annavoy

Figure 43

Figure 4

ogy, Inc.

2-Methyl

44 VOC S

CourtMonitoring S

l Naphtha

Date

Sampling ─

Station

alene Distr

─ Naphth

EA Project N

Har

ribution

alene

AnnavoyCourtHarrison


Page 20May


rrison

1/0004 FINAL 0 of 23 y 2012

Quality Study




0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 45 VOC Sampling ─ 1-Methyl Naphthalene


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pbv)

Date

Figure 46 VOC Sampling ─ 2-Methyl Naphthalene





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Sample Date

Figure 47 PM2.5 FRM

Annavoy

Harrison (DEP)

Lynn (DEP)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Sample Date

Figure 48 PM2.5 from MiniVol MeasurementPrimary Locations

AnnavoyBremenCourt




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Sample Date

Figure 49 PM2.5 from MiniVol MeasurementSatellite Locations (1 of 2)

ConstitutionCottageHarrisonJeffries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

Sample Date

Figure 50 PM2.5 from MiniVol MeasurementSatellite Locations (2 of 2)

BayswaterCoughlinLoganS Boston

Appendix A

Sampling Schedule

2011 Monitoring Schedule3-day & 6-day Monitoring Schedule for TSP, Pb, PM-10, PM-2.5, and VOC. 12-day Monitoring Schedule for PM-2.5 Collocation.

January February March

Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 129 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 13 14 15 16 17 18 1916 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 21 22 23 24 25 2623 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 27 28 29 30 3130 31

April May June

Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 1110 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 1817 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 2524 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30

July August September

Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 1010 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 1717 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 2424 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 3031

October November December

Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 1716 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 2423 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 3130 31

& & = 1/3 day sampling & = 1/6 day sampling = 1/12 day sampling

Appendix B

Third Party Audit and EA Response Memorandum

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

Airport Professional Park

2374 Post Road, Suite 102 Warwick, Rhode Island 02886

Telephone: 401-736-3440 Fax: 401-736-3423

www.eaest.com

14 March 2011

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Patricia Haederle FROM: Robert P. Newman, P.E., BCEE, Vice President SUBJECT: Massport Ambient Air Monitoring Third-Party Audit Actions EA Project No. 14774.04.0001 TRC issued a revised audit report on 2 March 2011 addressing the comments made on the initial audit findings report. EA has taken immediate actions to address key audit findings and to enhance the monitoring program. These actions were initiated after receiving the first draft of the audit report (February 2011). It should be noted that the TRC audit report mixed legitimate audit findings with recommendations. As such, EA disagrees with summary statements in the audit report since the TRC auditor performed the site visit in a very short period (several hours) and developed many findings based on draft documents (e.g. Work Plan, QAPP, First Quarter Report) that have not been finalized. EA is working to correct any identified deficiencies and has already closed the majority of the findings and implemented TRC’s recommendations where appropriate. The following table summarizes the findings and recommendations presented and the associated actions that have been taken by EA.

Audit Finding Recommended Action Response/Action Taken

No site logs A bound log should be placed at each of the three primary locations.

A bound log book is located at each primary location.

No data tables or summaries in the Quarterly Report

Revise quarterly report and include actual results summarized in the appropriate units (ug/m3).

The draft report is presently under regulatory review. This material will be added before finalized.

No Copies of SOPs or Work Plan at sampling sites

TRC recommends this as a good monitoring practice.

The materials were in the possession of field personnel and have been updated and returned to the sites.

PUF sampler covered in snow Remove snow from the area.

Snow was removed before the next sampling event. It should be noted that the snow was placed on the platform by the homeowner after a recent snowstorm.

Flow rate on the BAM 1020 at Annavoy outside of acceptable range

The flow rate must be corrected. All data from this instrument is to be considered estimated until the flow rate is corrected.

Sampling protocols have been modified to include a flow rate check on each BAM once each sampling round. The BAM was calibrated subsequent to receipt of the audit findings.

Quarterly Report did not demonstrate compliance with QA/QC goals

The Quarterly Report needs to be corrected to include QA/QC compliance table.

The quarterly report was prepared in a format consistent with the Year 1 monitoring program. This data was not included in past quarterly reports. The report is currently in draft form, and this data can easily be added for the final report if requested by Massport and project stakeholders.

Patricia Haederle 14 March 2011

Page 2

Audit Finding Recommended Action Response/Action Taken No calibration, maintenance, or activity logs

Log books should be placed at the primary sampling locations to record these activities.

New log books with updated forms are in place at each primary monitoring station.

No certification of transfer standards used in the monitoring network

A copy of the certification standard used to verify the flow of all samplers should be stored onsite and made presentable to auditors.

The transfer standards have been calibrated against a primary standard. Flow rates and volumes are being corrected to ensure data validity.

Lack of selected SOPs SOPs should be written for the PUF sampler(TO-13A) and the SKC Air Check (TO-11)

The auditor reviewed a draft version of the QAPP that did not have these SOPs. These SOPs have been finalized and will be included in the final QAPP.

No information on any maintenance or calibration checks

The site log should be placed at the primary sampling locations.

New log books with updated forms indicating maintenance and calibration activities and dates are in place.

No dated stickers on the sampling tape

TRC recommends that the SOP be edited to remove this requirement.

The requirement has been removed from the SOP.

No flow verification performed during every site visit

A certification sheet for the flow transfer standard needs to be documented and a site log needs to be in place to document this flow check on the instrument.

Flow verification is performed during each weekly sampling event. Documentation procedures have been updated to capture information regarding flow verification.

No leak or flow checks performed or documented

Site logs need to document these flow checks and maintenance being performed. The flow transfer standard needs to be certified and the certification sheet made available.

The field activities of the audit were conducted on non-sampling days. Leak and flow checks are performed per manufacturer and method requirements. Logs for all activities have been implemented to capture data from these leak and flow checks.

No maintenance records to ensure proper operation of the instrument. Oil needs to be added to ensure proper particle size cut.

Monthly maintenance records need to be kept at the sampling location to document any and all maintenance performed to ensure proper instrument operation.

New log books with updated forms are in place to record maintenance history. This model of the BGI unit utilizes a very sharp cut cyclone, not a WINS impactor, which the auditor is referring to. Therefore, oil is not required, only scheduled cleaning.

No routine service checks being performed or documented


A monthly program has been initiated and associated recordkeeping is in place.

No calibration record or certification sheet for replacement temperature sensor

The replacement of the sensor was documented, but no certification sheet for the new sensor was provided. Serial numbers should be recorded to track the current sensors and any maintenance performed on the sensors.

Manufacturer’s guidance does not recommend field calibrations of the temperature/relative humidity sensors.


Page 3


No documentation of mandatory checks that must be performed during each and every site visit


New log books with updated forms are in place that record all maintenance and calibration activity

No documentation of required leak and flow checks

Site logs need to document these flow checks and maintenance being performed. The flow transfer standard needs to be certified and the certification sheet made available.

Leak and flow checks are performed per manufacturer and method requirements. Logs for all activities have been implemented to capture data from the leak and flow checks.

No documentation of any cleaning procedures being performed

Site logs need to be present to document any and all cleaning performed on the instrument.

New log books with updated forms are in place to record maintenance activity

No documentation of flow verification prior to sampling events

The flow checks need to be documented on the sampling data sheets. The use of certified flow transfer standard ensures proper operation of the sampler.

For the MiniVol sampling, leak and flow checks are performed per manufacturer and method requirements. Logs for all activities have been implemented to capture data from these leak and flow checks.

No documentation of cleaning procedures performed every fifth sampling event

Site logs should be used to document any and all cleaning procedures

New log books with updated forms are in place to record required maintenance and cleaning for the MiniVols.

No documentation of leak or flow checks


New log books with updated forms are in place to record maintenance and cleaning.

Not all information is being recorded on the sample data sheets to validate the sampling events

Verification of sampling rates is required to validate the sample volumes.

Sample volumes are being tracked electronically using spreadsheets upon demobilization.

No actual sample volumes were displayed or found

It is good standard practice to calculate the sample volumes at the conclusion of the sampling event. Sampling data sheets should be modified to include a space for this value.

Sample volumes are being tracked electronically using spreadsheets upon demobilization from the sampling event. These sample volumes are being stored as part of the sample data set.

Could not verify sample volume calculations

There were no sample volumes, so the equations to calculate these values could not be verified.

Volume calculation spreadsheets have been updated to more accurately correct flow rates and volumes to standard temperature and pressure. The calculations and spreadsheet template are provided by the manufacturer of the EPA-approved sampling device.


Page 4


No single point calibration verification for PUF samplers

The requirement can be added to the sample data sheets

Single point calibrations are not noted in the manufacturer’s operations manual. Single point flow verification has been implemented and documented in the volume calculations spreadsheet.

Could not verify PUF calibrations

Calibration spreadsheets should be updated to better reflect the example given in TO-13A.

The instrument has been calibrated to a primary standard per the manufacturer’s requirements. Documentation has been updated to more clearly illustrate these calibrations.

Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (410) 329-5155. RPN:RGM/elh

A

P

E2W

Annual

Prepared fo

EA Enginee2350 Post RWarwick, R

QualityAudit

M

or:

ering, ScieRoad RI 02886

Finay Assurt of the

MonitorBoston

ence, and T

al Re

rance SyMasspo

ring Stun, Massa

Technology

eporystems ort Air

udy, Yeaachuset

y

Lowe

rt and PerQualityar 2 tts

TRC CWan650

ell, Massac(

Marc

rformany

Prepared

Companies,nnalancit M

0 Suffolk Schusetts 01978) 970-5

ch 2, 20

nce

d by:

, Inc. Mills Street 1854 5600

011

TRC Project No. 182071

March 2, 2011

Final Report

Annual Quality Assurance Systems and Performance Audit of the Massport Air Quality

Monitoring Study, Year 2 Boston, Massachusetts

Prepared for:

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 2350 Post Road

Warwick, RI 02886

Prepared by

TRC Companies, Inc.

Wannalancit Mills 650 Suffolk Street

Lowell, Massachusetts 01854 (978) 970-5600

DISCLAIMER

This document is intended for use solely by EA Engineering, for the specific purposes described in the contractual documents between TRC Environmental Corporation and EA Engineering. All professional services performed and reports generated by TRC have been prepared for EA Engineering purposes as described in the contract. The information, statements and conclusions contained in the document have been prepared in accordance with the work statement and contract terms and conditions. The document may be subject to differing interpretations and/or may be misinterpreted by third persons or entities who were not involved in the investigative or consultation process. TRC Environmental Corporation therefore expressly disclaims any liability to persons other than EA Engineering who may use or rely upon this document in any way or for any purpose.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

L2011-113 i

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 AUDIT SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 MONITORING NETWORK .......................................................................................... 2

2.0 AUDIT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 4

2.1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 DOCUMENT REVIEW.................................................................................................. 4 2.3 SITE VISIT ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 On-Site Records Review ............................................................................................. 5 2.3.2 Staff Interviews ........................................................................................................... 5 2.3.3 Facility Inspection ....................................................................................................... 6

3.0 AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 7

3.1 OVERALL FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 7 3.2 NETWORK MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Availability and Revision status of Work Plan and SOPs ........................................ 12 3.2.2 Network Design and Siting of Monitoring Locations............................................... 12 3.2.3 Current Operating Status of the Monitoring Network .............................................. 12 3.2.4 Adequacy of Facilities and Equipment ..................................................................... 12

3.3 FIELD OPERATIONS ................................................................................................. 12 3.3.1 General Housekeeping and Environmental Conditions at Monitoring Locations .... 12 3.3.2 Operating Status and Condition of Monitoring Equipment and Related Systems .... 13 3.3.3 Conformance to and adequacy of Work Plan and SOPs........................................... 15 3.3.4 Frequency and Timeliness of Preventive Maintenance Activities ............................ 18 3.3.5 Inventory of Spare Parts, Consumable Items and Tools ........................................... 18 3.3.6 Adequacy, Availability and Up-To-Date Record Keeping ....................................... 19

3.4 QA/QC .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.4.1 Frequency and Timeliness of QC Checks ................................................................. 19 3.4.2 Traceability of Reference Standards ......................................................................... 19 3.4.3 Integrity of Audit Devices and Traceability of TRC Audit Reference Standards .... 19

3.5 DATA MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 19 3.5.1 Data Sheets................................................................................................................ 19 3.5.2 PUF Calibration Records .......................................................................................... 20 3.5.3 Sample Volumes ....................................................................................................... 20

3.6 REPORTING ................................................................................................................ 20 TABLES Table 1 Monitoring Sites ................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 7 Table 3-MiniVol - TAS PM2.5 ...................................................................................................... 14

L2011-113 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 AUDIT SCOPE OF WORK

TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC) of Lowell, Massachusetts was retained by EA Engineering Science,

and Technology (EA), to conduct an annual Quality Assurance Systems and Performance Audit

of systems currently operated by EA in the vicinity of Logan International Airport in Boston

(Logan) in accordance with Final Work Plan Massport Air Quality Monitoring Study, Year 2

(Work Plan). This air quality monitoring is part of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act

(MEPA) Certificate on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Logan Airside

Improvement Project (LAIP).

The purpose of this audit was to assess whether EA is operating the continuous air emissions

monitors and discrete sample collection systems in accordance with the requirements prescribed

in the Work Plan companion Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and established in the

associated standard operating procedures (SOPs). TRC reviewed the following program areas

during the audit: network management; field operations; QA/QC; data management; and

reporting. The specific elements of each program area are defined as follows:

Network Management

Availability and revision status of Work Plan and SOPs,

Network design and siting of monitoring locations,

Current operating status of monitoring network,

Adequacy of facilities and equipment, and proposed modifications, and

Field Operations

General housekeeping and environmental conditions at monitoring locations,

Operating status and condition of monitoring equipment and related systems,

Conformance to and adequacy of Work Plan and SOPs,

Frequency and timeliness of preventive maintenance activities,

Inventory of spare parts, consumable items and tools, and

L2011-113 2

Adequacy, and availability of record keeping;

QA/QC

Frequency and timeliness of QC checks, flow rate verifications and calibrations,

Traceability of reference standards used for QC checks,

Integrity of Audit Devices and Traceability of TRC Audit Reference Standards;

Data Management

Data Sheet,

PUF Calibration Records,

Sample Volumes;

Reporting

Review and approval process for periodic reports Completeness of periodic reports and

related documentation, and conformance with regulatory reporting requirements, and

Timeliness of monitoring data, QA Performance.

This audit report provides a summary of the activities TRC performed to conduct the audit and

the findings of the quality assurance systems and performance audit. The summary of audit

activities performed is provided in Section 2. Section 3 presents TRC’s audit findings and

recommendations.

1.2 MONITORING NETWORK

EA is currently operating an ambient air monitoring network in the area of Logan International

Airport in Boston, MA. The primary sources for pollutants of concern are the combustion

products and other emissions from airport activities. The pollutants of concern that are being

monitored are volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), carbonyls, semi-volatile compounds

(SVOC’s), particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micron (PM2.5), and black carbon.

The network has 3 active monitoring sites, 7 satellite sites, and 1 background site. TRC

understands that these sites were chosen based on several criteria including MEPA certificate

L2011-113 3

requirements, distance and direction from the centerfield taxiway project, nearby emission

sources and potential influences, prevailing wind direction, site ownership accessibility and the

availability of electricity. TRC understands that site selection was not the responsibility of EA.

The actual sampling methods and equipment at each site is listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Monitoring Sites

Site Type Monitoring Instrumentation

Annavoy Active

BAM PM2.5,Carbonyl, SUMMA Canister,

Aethalometer, PUF Sampler, MiniVol PM2.5, BGI

PM2.5, Meteorological

Court Rd Active

BAM PM2.5,Carbonyl, SUMMA Canister,

Aethalometer, PUF Sampler, MiniVol PM2.5,

Meteorological

Bremen St Active BAM PM2.5,Carbonyl, SUMMA Canister,

Aethalometer, MiniVol PM2.5

Harrison St Background MiniVol PM2.5, PUF Sampler Bayswater Satellite MiniVol PM2.5 Constitution Beach Satellite MiniVol PM2.5 Coughlin Park Satellite MiniVol PM2.5 Cottage Park YC Satellite MiniVol PM2.5 Jeffries Cove Satellite MiniVol PM2.5 Logan Fire Station Satellite MiniVol PM2.5 South Boston YC Satellite MiniVol PM2.5

L2011-113 4

2.0 AUDIT ACTIVITIES

2.1 SUMMARY

The Quality Assurance Systems and Performance audit was performed on the subject ambient air

network to determine whether the network is being operated in conformance with the

requirements of the approved Final Work Plan and companion QAPP.

The site visit portion of the audit was performed on January 25, 2011. Activities conducted by

TRC during the audit included a review of the network documents, monitoring location visits,

and auditing the flow rates of the instruments as described below.

2.2 DOCUMENT REVIEW The following documents were reviewed during this audit:

Final Work Plan, Massport Air Quality Monitoring Study, Year 2, Logan International

Airport, Version: Draft, August 2010 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Massport Air Quality Monitoring Study, Year 2,

Logan International Airport, Version: Draft, July 2010 Massport Field Sampling Checklist, Standard Operating Procedure, Version: Draft,

September 2010 Magee Aethalometer: Operation and Maintenance, Standard Operating Procedure,

Version: Draft, July 2010 PQ200 and PQ200A Air Sampler Instruction Manual, Version: Draft, July 2010 Very Sharp Cut Cyclone Instructions for Use and Maintenance, Version: Draft, July

2010 Campbell Scientific Meteorological Station, Standard Operating Procedure, Version:

Draft, July 2010 MetOne BAM 1020 Operation, Maintenance and Field Calibration, Standard

Operating Procedure, Version: Draft, July 2010

L2011-113 5

Airmetrics Minivol Portable PM Survey Sampler Field Operations, Standard Operating Procedure, Version: Draft, July 2010

Technical Memorandum, From Robert Newman (EA), To Keith Beasley (Massport),

January 24, 2011 2.3 SITE VISIT The site visit was performed to determine if the QA requirements and the procedures presented

in the Work Plan QAPP and SOPs were being implemented and to verify the physical adequacy

of the sampling equipment. The site visit consisted of reviewing on-site records, interviewing the

Project staff member (now referred to as “the staff” throughout this document), and the

inspection of the monitoring locations, maintenance and data management/storage facilities.

2.3.1 On-Site Records Review

The audit consisted of the on-site review of the following records:

Inspection and Maintenance Records,

Calibration/Audit Records,

Periodic Data Reports,

Reference Standard Certifications.

These records were reviewed to aid the auditor in determining if the implementation of the

sampling program adheres to the QA/QC requirements and the inspection/maintenance,

calibration/audit, and data management procedures prescribed in the documents listed in Section

2.2.

2.3.2 Staff Interviews

Informal interviews with the staff were performed to aid the auditor in determining the staff’s

expertise and training as well as how the inspection/maintenance, calibration/audit, and data

management procedures prescribed in the Project documents listed in Section 2.2 of this report

are actually implemented. The following staff member was interviewed:

L2011-113 6

Ron Mack – Environmental Engineer

2.3.3 Facility Inspection

As noted above, the sampling program utilizes three (3) primary monitoring locations, seven (7)

satellite monitoring locations and one (1) background location. The Bremen Street location acts

as a staging area for the satellite locations. The samplers are stored and maintained here when

not in use.

The facility inspection was performed to determine the adequacy of the monitoring equipment

and related systems as these pertain to meeting the data quality objectives of the sampling

program. The facility inspection consisted of visiting the three permanent shelters and the

background location where the equipment is operating.

L2011-113 7

3.0 AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 OVERALL FINDINGS

The findings of this audit indicate that documentation and methodology in general are inadequate

and as a result, data generated by the network cannot be properly validated. The audit did verify

that the network conforms to the Work Plan requirements in terms of the sampling equipment

and locations in use as summarized in Table 1.

The audit discovered several deficiencies that TRC considers significant and should be addressed

immediately. These are noted in the following table and then discussed in more detail in the text

to follow.

Table 2 Findings and Recommendations

Audit Finding Citation Recommended Action

No Site logs. QAPP Page

11.

A bound log should be placed at each of the

three primary locations.

No data tables or data

summaries in the Quarterly

Report.

Work Plan

Section 9.5.

Revise the quarterly report and include actual

results summarized in appropriate units

(ug/m3).

No copies of SOPs or Work

Plan at sampling sites.

Good

Engineering

Practice.

TRC recommends this as a good monitoring

practice.

PUF sampler covered in

snow.

Good

Engineering

Practice.

Remove the snow from the area.

Flow rate on the BAM 1020

at Annavoy St. is outside

acceptable range.

SOPs. The flowrate must be corrected. All data from

this instrument is to be considered estimated

until the flow rate is corrected.

L2011-113 8

Table 2 Findings and Recommendations Audit Finding Citation Recommended Action

The Quarterly Report did not

demonstrate compliance with

QA/QC goals.

QAPP

Section 1.4.

The quarterly report needs to be corrected to

include QA/QC compliance table.

No calibration, maintenance,

or activity logs.

QAPP

Section 1.6.

Log books should be placed at the primary

sampling locations to record these activities.

No certification of transfer

standards used in the

monitoring network.

QAPP

Section 2.5.

A copy of the certification standards used to

verify the flow of all samplers should be stored

on site and made presentable for auditors.

Lack of selected SOPs. Good

Engineering

Practice.

SOPs should be written for the PUF sampler

(TO-13A), SKC Air Check (TO-11).

No information on any

maintenance, or calibration

checks.

SOP Magee

Aethalometer

Section 2.2.

Site log should be placed at the primary

sampling locations

No dated stickers on the

sampling tape.

SOP Magee

Aethalometer

Section 2.2.

TRC recommends that the SOP be edited to

remove this requirement.

No flow verification

performed during every site

visit.

SOP Magee

Aethalometer

Section 3.

A certification sheet for the flow transfer

standard needs to be documented and a site log

needs to be in place to document this flow

check on the instrument.

No leak or flow checks

performed or documented.

SOP PQ200

BGI

Section 2.2.

Site logs need to document theses flow checks

and maintenance being performed. The flow

transfer standard needs to be certified and the

certification sheet made available.

L2011-113 9


No maintenance records to

ensure proper operation of

the instrument. Oil needs to

be added to ensure proper

particle size cut.

SOP PQ200

BGI

Section 1.1.3.

Monthly maintenance records need to be kept

at the sampling location to document any and

all maintenance performed to ensure proper

instrument operation.

No routine service checks

being performed or

documented.

SOP

Meteorologic

al Station

Section 6.





No calibration record or

certification sheet for

replacement temperature

sensor.

Good

Engineering

Practice.

The replacement of the sensor was documented

but no certification sheet for the new sensor

was provided. Serial numbers should be

recorded to track the current sensors and any

maintenance performed on the sensors.

No documentation of

mandatory checks that must

be performed during each

and every site visit.

SOP BAM

1020

Section 5.1.





No documentation of

required leak and flow

checks.

SOP BAM

1020

Section 5.2

and 5.3.

Site logs need to document these flow checks

and maintenance being performed. The flow

transfer standard needs to be certified and the

certification sheet made available.

No documentation of any

cleaning procedures being

performed.

SOP BAM

1020

Section 5.3.2

and 5.5

Site logs need to be present to document any

and all cleaning performed on the instrument.

L2011-113 10


No documentation of flow

verification prior to sampling

events.

SOP Minivol

Section 3.

The flow checks need to be documented on

sampling data sheets. The use of certified flow

transfer standards ensures proper operation of

the sampler.

No documentation of

cleaning procedures

performed every 5th sampling

event.

SOP Minivol

Section 4.2.1.

Site logs should be used to document all or any

cleaning procedures.

No documentation of leak or

flow checks.

SOP Minivol

Section 3.





Not all information is being

recorded on the sample data

sheets to validate the

sampling event.

Good

Engineering

Practice.

Verification of sampling rates is required to

validate the sample volumes.

No actual sample volumes

were displayed or found.

Good

Engineering

Practice.

It is good standard practice to calculate the

sample volumes at the conclusion of the

sampling event. Sampling data sheets should

be modified to include a space for this value.

Could not verify sample

volume calculations.

Good

Engineering

Practice.

There were no sample volumes so the

equations to calculate theses values could not

be verified.

No single point calibration

verification for PUF samplers

Method TO-

13A

This requirement can be added to the sample

data sheets.

Could not verify PUF

calibrations

Method TO-

13A

The calibration spreadsheets should be updated

to better reflect the example given in TO-13A.

L2011-113 11

As noted in the above table, the first major area that needs to be addressed is the SOPs. The audit

discovered several errors/issues with the SOPs. The SOPs require a more extensive calibration

and maintenance program than is being performed currently. In particular, TRC found that the

current equipment maintenance being performed is not being documented. TRC also noted that

there are pieces of equipment that do not have SOPs (PUF samplers, SKC Air Check pumps).

Method TO-13A contains several QA procedures that are not being followed. For Example, the

rotometer on the SKC pumps is not a calibrated flow measurement and should not be used to

determine the sample flow rate. A certified flow standard should be used to record the start and

end flow needed to calculate the actual sample volume.

TRC recommends that a site log be placed at each monitoring location and all activities

performed at the station should be documented. The information should include but not

necessarily be limited to;

Date, time, and name of person visiting the station,

Reason for visiting the station (setup sampling event, ending sampling event,

maintenance, calibration),

Actual work being performed,

Serial numbers of the working equipment,

Surrounding observations,

Weather,

Anything out of the ordinary that could have an impact on the results generated at the

station.

TRC has also found that the Quarterly Report does not meet the specifications in the approved

Work Plan. In particular, the quarterly report provided for review during the audit does not

present charts or tables that are called out in the plan. There are no data summaries showing the

highs, lows, and averages for the days, weeks, and months.

3.2 NETWORK MANAGEMENT

L2011-113 12

3.2.1 Availability and Revision status of Work Plan and SOPs

The audit found that the Work Plan and SOPs were not readily available at any of the sampling

locations. TRC recommends that a copy of the Work Plans and SOPs be placed at each location.

If the sampling staff were to have any questions they could thus refer to the Work Plan or SOP at

the site.

TRC found that there are several activities listed in the SOPs that are not being followed. In

addition there were no SOPs for the TISCH PUF samplers or the SKC Air Check sampling

pumps. TRC recommends that the SOPs be revised to better reflect the actual work that is being

done

3.2.2 Network Design and Siting of Monitoring Locations The network design and siting of monitoring locations appears to be adequate to support the data

quality objectives of the Work Plan.

3.2.3 Current Operating Status of the Monitoring Network

During the audit all real time monitors at all monitoring locations were in operation. The

additional sampling equipment was in good working order. The samplers not in use were stored

in a climate controlled area and were ready for deployment.

3.2.4 Adequacy of Facilities and Equipment

The facilities and equipment were found by TRC to be adequate to meet the requirements of the

Work Plan.

3.3 FIELD OPERATIONS

3.3.1 General Housekeeping and Environmental Conditions at Monitoring Locations

During the audit, TRC inspected the following monitoring locations; Annavoy, Court St, Bremen

St, and Harrison Avenue. Equipment at all these locations was found to be clean and in good

L2011-113 13

working order. All monitoring equipment at all the monitoring locations inspected (with the

exception of the Harrison Ave. location) were found to be in enclosures that protected the

equipment from adverse environmental conditions. The enclosures were found to provide

heating and cooling to the instrumentation. The PUF sampler located at Harrison Ave. is

designed to stay outside. The PUF sampler at the Court Rd sampling location was found to be

packed in snow. The platform for the sampler was also completely buried. This does lead to

questions as to whether the sampler has been running on the platform properly or at all for the

last few sample rounds. TRC recommends that the snow be removed from this area so as to not

interfere with the air flow.

3.3.2 Operating Status and Condition of Monitoring Equipment and Related Systems

At the time of the audit all real time monitoring equipment including the periodic sampling

equipment were found to be in good operating condition. Flow rates for the selected sampling

equipment were compared to a certified flow measurement device (Bios Defender 530) during

the audit. The following tables display the results of the flow audit by equipment type.

TRC did not have access to the roof of the shelter at the Court Rd. station and therefore the flow

rates into the instrument could not be verified. The instruments located inside the Court road

shelter did seem to be functioning correctly based on TRCs visual inspection.

The BAM 1020 located at the Annavoy St station was outside of the acceptable flow limits as

stated in the SOPs. This instrument will need to be recalibrated and TRC finds that the data

collected from January 25, 2011 till the recalibration is complete should be considered estimated.

L2011-113 14

Table 3-MiniVol - TAS PM2.5 Difference

Location s/n Desired flow Audit flow LPM % Harrison Ave. 4704 5 4.96 0.04 0.80 Bremen St 4710 5 5.11 -0.113 -2.26Annavoy St 4702 5 5.01 -0.01 -0.20Court Rd 4701 5 5.05 -0.05 -1.00Bayswater 4709 5 5.16 -0.16 -3.20Cottage Park YC 4711 5 4.97 0.03 0.60 Logan Fire Station 4708 5 5.05 -0.05 -1.00Logan Fire Station 4705 5 5.03 -0.03 -0.60Constitution Beach 4703 5 5.04 -0.04 -0.80South Boston YC 4706 5 5.01 -0.01 -0.20Jefferies Cove 4700 5 4.98 0.02 0.40 Coughlin Park 4707 5 5.03 -0.03 -0.60 Acceptance Criteria: +/- 0.2 +/- 2

Aethalometers Difference

Location s/n Desired flow Audit flow LPM % Bremen St 763 4.9 4.893 0.007 0.14

Annavoy St 764 4.9 4.866 0.034 0.69

Court Rd 751 4.9 na

Acceptance Criteria: +/- 0.5 +/- 5

BAM 1020 Difference

Location s/n Desired flow Audit flow LPM % Bremen St G4421 16.67 16.97 -0.3 -1.80

Annavoy St G4522 16.67 17.85 -1.18 -7.08

Court Rd G4520 16.67 na

Acceptance Criteria: +/- 2

L2011-113 15

BGI FRM Difference

Location s/n Desired flow Audit flow LPM % Annavoy St ? 16.67 16.78 -0.11 -0.66

Acceptance Criteria: +/- 2

Flows for two of the Minivols (Bremen St. and Bayswater) were within the acceptance criteria

for liters per minute but outside of the percent error limit as stated in the SOP for the MiniVol.

TRC recommends modifying the SOP by changing the acceptance criteria on the percent error

to 4% which is equal to the current +/- 0.2 LPM.

3.3.3 Conformance to and Adequacy of Work Plan QAPP and SOPs

TRC has found that EA is following the approved Work Plan and it is attempting to meet its

goals and objectives as stated in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP.) EA reported that

they did provide a quarterly report to their client as prescribed in the Work Plan. TRC reviewed

this report and found that the contents of the report are not consistent with the requirements

stated in the Work Plan. This is discussed in Section 3.6 of this Audit Report.

During the review of the QAPP TRC noted the following differences between what is written

and what is actually being done in the field.

Section 1.4 of the QAPP contains specific quality objectives for the network (precision,

accuracy, representativeness, and completeness). In the quarterly reporting reviewed by

TRC, EA does not reference these objectives or demonstrate that they are being met.

Section 1.6 of the QAPP states that there will be logs for different activities including

calibrations, maintenance, and daily activities. None of these logs were provided or

available during the audit. During the interview process with onsite personnel, TRC was

told that the only records maintained are the sample data sheets. There are some notes on

the 1/20-22/11 data sheet that was reviewed during the audit, which indicate that a new

L2011-113 16

temperature probe was installed at Annavoy station. There is no calibration record of the

new sensor, which is an example of the importance of maintaining appropriate logs. TRC

recommends that logs be placed at each station for recording of all activities.

Section 2.5 of the QAPP states that certifications of rotometers, dry gas meters and other

standards will be kept at the EA office. TRC requested this information during this audit

and was not provided. TRC recommends that a copy of all certification and calibration

data that pertains to the Logan ambient air monitoring network be stored at the Bremen

St. station since that appears to be the base location for the monitoring network.

Appendix A of the QAPP contains all the SOPs that pertain to the monitoring network. There

are several SOPs that appear to be missing. The one that stands out the most is the Data Handling

SOP. What happens to the data? How is it stored? How is it gathered? How does it get from the

instrument to the report? TRC recommends that additional SOPs be written for the Tisch PUF

sampler, SKC Air Check, and the VOC sampling. In addition to written SOPs, dedication of

some staff time is recommended to revise the current SOPs to better reflect actual conditions

and operations associated with the Logan Air Monitoring program.

The following specific SOP related issues were noted by TRC during the audit.

Magee Aethalometer: Opertion and Maintenance, SOP.

Section 2.2 of this SOP calls out the use of a field note book to record information from

every site visit. It also states that a dated sticker should be placed on the sampling tape to

track the sample dots. These actions are not taking place at the site. During the audit

there were no dated stickers on the sample tape and no record of any maintenance ever

being performed on the instrument.

Section 3 of this SOP says that the flow through instrument will be checked at every site

visit and the rotameter will also be calibrated against a positive displacement Roots

meter. TRC found during the audit no documentation related to either of these statements.

During the interview process, EA onsite personnel indicated that the instrument flow is

only checked if there appears to be a fault with the instrument.

L2011-113 17

PQ200 and PQ200A Air Sampler, SOP.

Section 2.2 of this SOP covers performance checks of the sampling system including leak

checks and flow checks. These are being conducted according to the EA staff, but there is

no documentation available.

To ensure proper working order of the 2.5 cyclone there has to be a 37mm filter installed

and covered with an oil to collect the oversize particles and prevent them from carrying

over to the actual sample (section 1.1.3 of the SOP). There were no records of this ever

being changed or maintained during TRC’s site visit.

Campbell Scientific Meteorological Station, SOP.

Routine service checks, in accordance with Section 6 of this SOP are being completed

based on the information provided by the EA staff, but there is no documentation of this

being performed as stated in the SOP.

During the sampling round January 21st 2011 there was a note on the data sheet that

stated a temperate sensor was replaced, but there is no calibration record certifying this

new sensor is working properly according to the information provided during the audit.

Metone BAM 1020, SOP.

Section 5.1 of this SOP contains a list of mandatory checks that must be performed

during every site visit. These checks are then to be documented in a site log book.

During the site visit there was no site log.

Section 5.2 and 5.3 of this SOP require leak checks and flow checks to be performed on a

regular basis. These are not being performed according to the EA staff.

Nozzle and cyclone cleaning is to be performed on a regular schedule to ensure proper

working order (section 5.3.2 and 5.5 of the SOP). According to the EA staff this is being

performed but not documented. TRC again recommends that all maintenance activities

be documented in a site log.

L2011-113 18

Minivol, SOP.

Section 3 of this SOP states that the Minivol will be calibrated with a bubble meter at the

beginning of the sampling program. The EA staff said that a Delta Calibrator was used.

There was no documentation of this ever being performed.

Section 4.2.1 of this SOP describes a cleaning procedure that is to be performed every 5th

sampling event. The EA staff said it was done twice during the last quarter, but there was

no documentation of this activity ever being performed.

The quality control section states that the Minivol will be leak checked and have the flow

rates checked on a monthly schedule. From the interview with the EA staff this is not

being performed.

3.3.4 Frequency and Timeliness of Preventative Maintenance Activities

Air measurement instruments were observed to be all in good working order. During the

interview, EA staff indicated that preventative maintenance is being performed but not

documented. TRC did not audit this portion of the network since there is no documentation to

demonstrate the equipment is being maintained according to the SOPs provided by EA. TRC

recommends that all maintenance be documented in the equipment logs. If the work is being

performed then credit should be taken for it.

3.3.5 Inventory of Spare Parts, Consumable Items and Tools

TRC found that there was no formal list or inventory of spare parts. TRC recommends that EA

develop a formal list of spare parts, so that an appropriate inventory can be maintained and the

status of spare equipment can be tracked.

L2011-113 19

3.3.6 Adequacy, Availability and Up-To-Date Record Keeping

Instrument calibration/audit records were not available during the audit. During the interview

process TRC was told that there is maintenance being performed on the instruments, however, it

is not being documented. It is TRC’s recommendation that each sampling location contains a

log book in which all audits, calibrations, and maintenance be tracked.

3.4 QA/QC

3.4.1 Frequency and Timeliness of QC Checks

TRC found that there are no records of any QA/QC being performed as stated in the SOPs.

3.4.2 Traceability of Reference Standards

The original certification sheets for all the instruments were provided. All the instruments

currently being used have been certified by the manufacturer for a year (approximately ending

between June and July 2011). There were no certification sheets or traceability for any of the

flow devices used by EA to validate the flows in the instruments as stated in the SOPs.

3.4.3 Integrity of Audit Devices and Traceability of TRC Audit Reference Standards

There is traceability of audit reference standards from the TRC QA performance audit. This

audit report provides all certifications for the audit reference standards used to perform the audit.

It can be found in the appendix with the data sheets from the audit.

3.5 DATA MANAGEMENT

3.5.1 Data Sheets

TRC was provided data sheets for the sampling round completed on January 21st 2011. The

samplers were setup and deployed on the 20th and then collected on the 22nd. The data sheets

were completely filled in with the exception of temperature and barometric pressure.

L2011-113 20

TRC recommends that several changes be made to the data sheets. One change will be to add a

space for the calculated volumes for each of the time integrated samples. Also a space should be

provided for the single point calibration checks to the PUF sampler as required by Method TO-

13A. A space is also recommended for the identification of the flow transfer standard (rotometer,

Delta Cal, orifice) that is used to check the flow of the samplers as stated in the SOPs.

3.5.2 PUF Calibration Records

TRC was provided an electronic file which contained the last two rounds of calibrations. These

sheets provided data that could not be validated. The actual or standard flow rate could not be

determined for each sampler. TRC recommends that these calibration data sheets be updated to

better reflect what is displayed in the EPA Method TO-13A calibration example.

Method TO-13 also calls for a single point audit check using the calibrated orifice prior to and

following each sampling event. TRC recommends that this be documented on the sample data

sheet.

3.5.3 Sample Volumes

During the auditing process TRC was not able to find in the data provided any sample volumes

or example calculations to determine sample volumes. The sample volumes are needed to

calculate the results from the time integrated air samples. It is good standard practice to calculate

these values at the conclusion of the sampling event. TRC recommends the data sheets be

updated to add a space for volume calculations (both actual and standard).

3.6 REPORTING

TRC was provided with the first Quarterly Report for review. The Appendix A of the report was

not reviewed and was not requested. It is TRC's understanding that the Appendix A only

contains lab reports. It was not part of this audit to review lab data packages.

L2011-113 21

The Quarterly Report did not contain any concentration data from the monitoring network. The

Section discussing the minimum detection limits (MDLs) is not relevant to the network

operation. The report states that the BAM 1020 at Annavoy and Court was operating just over 80

percent of the time. If the instrument was not working then it would be logging zeros. Could this

have been the reason for the 34 percent of the data being below 5 ug/m3?. It has been TRCs

experience that a sampler for PM2.5 very rarely goes to zero in an urban environment.

As Stated in the Work Plan Section 9.5 “To verify and distill this material into meaningful

information, the data (i.e., individual compound or pollutant category) will be assimilated into

summary statistics that are intended to give the reviewers a comprehensive, yet concise,

interpretation of the findings. For the target pollutants, the data will be compiled for each site

according to the overall highs, lows, and average values for the overall sampling period, by day

of the week (Monday, Tuesday, etc.), month (January, February, etc.), and each 12-month

sampling period. For ease in reviewing, the data will be presented both in tabular and graphic

(bar-chart) forms. Wind speed and direction will be summarized in the form of monthly and

annual wind roses.” The Quarterly report did not contain any of these data.

The report did explain the lack of data completeness goals as described in the QAPP. There were

no comparison tables between the EA network and the existing MADEP network as stated in

section 3.2 of the QAPP.

TRC recommends that the following quarterly reports contain actual data tables summarizing

the PM2.5 results as ug/m3. The wind data should be presented as a Wind Rose to show visually

what sampling locations are actually upwind and downwind of the airport. TRC recommends a

section be added discussing the comparison of the Federal Reference Method (FRM) samples to

the real time data and minivol data all collected at the same site.

Appendix C

Reduced Data Set (on DVD)

Appendix D

Raw Data Set (on DVD)

Appendix E

Logan Flight Operations and Automobile Traffic Data

(on DVD)

Phase II Air Quality Monitoring Study Logan International ... · 9 Hourly Continuous Data Recovery...

Documents

Transcript of Phase II Air Quality Monitoring Study Logan International ... · 9 Hourly Continuous Data Recovery...