NY.gov Portal State Agency Listing Search all of NY.gov
D E C banner
D E C banner

Disclaimer

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has added a link to a translation service developed by Microsoft Inc., entitled Bing Translator, as a convenience to visitors to the DEC website who speak languages other than English.

Additional information can be found at DEC's Language Assistance Page.

5.0 Air Quality Trends, Baselines and Projections for the New York Nonattainment Area (New York Metropolitan Area, Connecticut and Northern New Jersey)

5.1 Air Quality Trends - New York

With the promulgation of the annual and daily PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 1997, and the establishment of the Federal Reference Method (FRM) for monitoring PM2.5 and the PM2.5 monitoring network, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) initiated monitoring for this pollutant on a statewide basis beginning in 1998/1999. A majority of the monitoring efforts to date have involved 24-hour, filter-based FRM samplers. Most of the FRM samplers operate on a 1-in-3-day schedule, although a few monitors operate on a daily basis. Also, as per network design requirements, several FRM sites have collocated duplicate samplers.

The PM2.5 NAAQS is mass-based, but ambient PM2.5 has a complex morphology and chemical composition. In order to obtain information on species composition, the Department also has operated Speciation Trends Network (STN) monitors at several locations across the state. Similar to the FRM network, the STN samplers operate on a 1-in-3-day schedule. The STN program provides for the concentration of major ions, carbon compounds, and trace elements, which generally constitute the bulk of PM2.5 mass.

5.1.1 FRM data

Table 5-2 lists the site locations and sampling periods between 1999-2006 for all FRM monitors in the three Department sub-regions that cover parts of the New York Metropolitan Non-Attainment Area (NY Metro NAA): Region 1 (Long Island; 6 sites), Region 2 (New York City; 19 sites), and Region 3 (Lower Hudson River Valley; 3 sites). The analysis included Dutchess County for completeness, even though it is not part of the NY Metro NAA area. Seven of the Region 2 sites have collocated duplicate monitors. Three of the sites also operated daily for at least part of the time. A map of the FRM locations is shown in Figure 5-2.

Table 5-3 lists the linear trends in PM2.5 mass at the longest-running FRM sites in the New York metropolitan area. These sites operated from 1999/2000 through 2006, and the trends reported in Table 5-3 are based on quarterly average values at each site. Only those quarters with at least 10 valid data points were included in the linear trend estimates. Consistent with the composite averages presented earlier, PM2.5 mass appears to be decreasing at each of these longest-running sites, by ~0.1-0.5 µg/m3/yr.

5.1.2 STN data

Table 5-4 lists the site locations and sampling periods of the STN monitors. Each of these sites is collocated with an FRM monitor. The STN samplers collect five ions - sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3), ammonium (NH4), potassium (K), and sodium (Na) - nearly 50 trace elements, and various carbon species - elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC). For this analysis, it was assumed that PM2.5 is primarily composed of only SO4, NO3, NH4, EC, OC, and major crustal species (major oxides of Al, Ca, Fe, Si, and Ti; e.g., US EPA, 2007), and hereafter refer to the sum of these species as the "reconstructed mass." Although the PM2.5 NAAQS is strictly mass-based, here an attempt is made to approximate the average species composition of the ambient PM2.5 in New York City.

Figure 5-2 displays the annual, wintertime, and summertime average major PM2.5 speciation levels. On an overall annual basis, SO4 and OC account for about 27 percent and 35 percent, respectively, of the reconstructed mass in New York City, roughly twice the contribution of NO3. During the winter months, OC is the largest contributor to the reconstructed mass (34 percent), while SO4 and NO3 also account for about 20 percent. The relative importance of NO3 is higher during the winter months because NO3 volatilization is much lower during the colder months. During the summer months, SO4 and OC levels are considerably higher than during the winter months, and account for about 70 percent of the reconstructed mass. The smallest components of reconstructed mass correspond to EC and crustal mass (~4-8 percent). On average, the reconstructed mass in New York City is about 18.2 µg/m3 during the summer months, and about 15.2 µg/m3 during the winter months.

5.1.3 Trend Summary - New York

The FRM data collected across the New York metropolitan area over the past seven years suggest that PM2.5 levels are generally higher in the core urban areas compared to the surrounding suburban counties. While this is a rather short time period, it appears that PM2.5 levels have been decreasing across the entire metropolitan area since the early 2000's. In terms of species composition, SO4 and OC are the most important species, especially during the summer months, while NO3 is also an important species during the winter months. It appears that emissions control programs that target precursors of SO4, NO3, and OC will be needed to further reduce PM2.5 levels across the metropolitan area.

5.2 Air Quality Trends - Connecticut and New Jersey

An analysis was conducted of the ambient data for those monitors in Connecticut (two counties) and New Jersey (10 counties) that are part of the NY Metro NAA for PM2.5. The analysis is based upon the FRM data covering the period of 1999 to 2006, which were extracted from the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) data on December 26, 2007. To be consistent with the analysis reported in TSD-3a (2007) "Analysis of Ambient PM2.5 Mass and Speciation for the New York metropolitan area through 2006. NYSDEC, Division of Air Resources, Albany, NY 12233," the data from July 6-9, 2002 that was associated with large-scale Canadian forest fires were excluded.

5.2.1 Connecticut

The Connecticut portion of the NY Metro NAA had 14 sites at various times during this period; five of these sites have collocated duplicate monitors and two of the sites had every day sampling for at least a portion of the time. It should be noted that the New Haven/Stiles St. monitor was designated as a "special purpose" monitor, and as such cannot be used to make an attainment or non-attainment designation. The stations are listed in Table 5-5 along with their operational dates.

5.2.2 New Jersey

The New Jersey portion of the NY Metro NAA had 15 monitoring sites at various times during this period; three of these sites have collocated duplicate monitors and two of the sites had every day sampling for at least a portion of the time. Information on these monitors is listed in Table 5-5.

5.2.3 Analysis

A very brief analysis was performed on these data, similar to what was done for the NY sites. The annual average estimates are listed in Table 5-6. Only those monitors with at least 75 percent valid samples in a given year are shown and blank cells indicate that either the sampler was not in operation or it did not meet the 75 percent criteria.

In general, the CT monitors are below the level of the annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 15 µg/m3, with the exception of the New Haven/Stile Street special purpose monitoring site.

In the case of NJ, there is obvious year-to-year variation at some of the sites, and a few of the monitors are above the level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, this estimated annual average should not be confused with that based on the regulatory process that requires estimation of the annual average based upon individual quarterly data.

Table 5-7 lists the 98th percentile of the PM2.5 concentration at each of these monitors, and again, only those years that had 75 percent valid samples are shown.

5.2.4 Trend Summary - Connecticut and New Jersey

The above data were used to estimate the annual trends at the longest-running sites. For this analysis, quarterly averages were computed at these sites. Quarters were considered to be complete if there were at least 10 valid samples.

Table 5-8 lists the estimated linear trends on an annual basis. All monitors except for the New Haven/Stiles Street special purpose monitor show a downward trend, varying between 0.05 µg/m3 and 0.49 µg/m3, indicating general improvement in PM2.5 air quality over the region and consistent with what was reported for the NY monitors.

5.3 Baseline and Future PM2.5 Design Values

Baseline PM2.5 design values for a given area are based solely on measured Federal Reference Method (FRM) data, whereas air quality model-based results utilizing emissions from a target future year are needed to project PM2.5 design values to determine future attainment status of that area. The modeling guidance (USEPA, 2007a) states that the results from the regulatory applications of air quality models are not to be used in an absolute sense; rather, they are to be used to estimate the effects of changes in emissions on pollutant levels in a relative sense. For a single pollutant like ozone, the future design value at a given location is the product of the current observed value and the ratio of the future-to-current model predictions. The ratio of the future-to-current model prediction is also known as the relative response factor (RRF). Unlike ozone, PM2.5 is comprised of a variety of ions, trace elements, and carbon species. To demonstrate future attainment of air quality standards for PM2.5, one needs to project how each of the major species changes between the baseline and future model years. That is, it is necessary to estimate speciated RRF values. In this document, an overview is presented of the calculation of the baseline PM2.5 design values and speciated RRFs for monitors in the 22-county New York City non-attainment area (NYC NAA), which when combined yield future year PM2.5 design values across the NYC NAA.

The technical support documentation (See Appendix A) for the annual PM2.5 SIP for the New York City non-attainment area (NYC NAA), "Current and Future PM2.5 Design Values in the New York City Metropolitan Non-Attainment Area (TSD-5)" was addended on February 11, 2005. The USEPA has since released a beta version of the Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS, version 1.3.1) for computing baseline and future design values for the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This Addendum does not replace TSD-5, although all design values listed in TSD-5 should be considered preliminary because they were not computed with the MATS. Note that one site - 340172002 (Union City [Hudson County], NJ) - was included in TSD-5 but is not included in the addendum. The data from this site were classified as complete in the MATS because of "minimum value substitution," with a design value exceeding 15 µg/m3 for the 2001-2002 period; however, the monitor was shut down during the first quarter of 2002. With only one complete, classifiable year of actual monitoring data during the five-year baseline design value period (2000-2004), this site was not used by the MATS and is, therefore, not included in this Addendum.

The PM2.5 data across much of the northeastern United States was dramatically affected by large forest fires in eastern Canada during the July 6-9, 2002 period. Many states submitted exceptional event flags with the data on selected days during this period. In March 2003, the Department sent documentation (see Appendix E) to USEPA Region 2 seeking concurrence that the data from July 7, 2002 be excluded for the estimation of the daily and annual standards. Since the USEPA did not concur with these exceptional event flags at the time, the data from this day and other flagged days around this day were included in the official Federal Reference Method (FRM) database in the beta version of the MATS. This issue was raised again with USEPA Region 2 in January 2008, which has since concurred with the Department's findings (see Appendix E). In terms of official FRM locations in the NYC NAA, there are two daily sites in New York (360050110, I.S. 52 [Bronx County]; and 360810124, Queens College [Queens County]) and one daily site in New Jersey (340390004, Elizabeth/NJ Turnpike [Union County]). In the USEPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database, the data from the daily New York sites are flagged as exceptional events on July 6 and 7, while the Elizabeth data are flagged from July 7-9.

It should be noted that Connecticut flagged all data from July 6-9, 2002 and received EPA concurrence. New York flagged all data from July 6-7, 2002 and received EPA concurrence on February 12, 2008. Therefore, the official quarterly average FRM database in this beta version of the MATS does not include these days at the Connecticut monitors, and as such, the design values at these monitors are not impacted by this unusual period.

5.3.1 Current PM2.5 Design Values

The first step in the modeled attainment test for the annual NAAQS is to compute the baseline design values at each FRM site in the NYC NAA. The current design value is based on a five-year weighted average of observations from 2000-2004 to straddle the baseline emissions/modeling year of 2002 (USEPA, 2007). MATS was used to compute the baseline PM2.5 design values two ways. The first method takes the official quarterly average database included in the MATS, which incorporates the flagged FRM data from New York and New Jersey during July 2002. For the second method, the FRM data on these flagged days were ignored at the New York and New Jersey monitors, and recomputed the averages for the third quarter of 2002. Table 5-9 lists the average PM2.5 levels at the New York and New Jersey monitors during the third quarter of 2002, both including and excluding the flagged days. By ignoring these exceptional days, the averages during this quarter were lower by about 2 µg/m3 across these sites. The only site whose quarterly average was not impacted by this day was 360390006 (Elizabeth [Union County], NJ), because the FRM data were already missing on this day.

Table 5-10 lists the baseline PM2.5 design values using these two methods. At the Connecticut monitors there is no difference between these two methods, since the data from this day were already flagged and not used. At most of the New York and New Jersey monitors, exclusion of the flagged data from July 2002 results in lowering of the baseline PM2.5 design values which by about 0.1-0.2 µg/m3. All subsequent analyses presented here disregard all flagged data from July 2002.

5.3.1.1 Baseline Species Concentrations

The next step in the modeled attainment test is to determine the baseline species composition at each FRM monitor, based on measured species data. The PM2.5 species composition is highly complex, but if the goal of air quality management decisions is to reduce PM2.5, it is necessary to know the dominant chemical species. The MATS includes speciation data for the 2002-2004 period, which are derived from Speciation Trends Network (STN) and Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitor data. These networks measure major ions, including sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3), and ammonium (NH4); carbonaceous species, including elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC); and dozens of trace elements.

It is known that FRM monitor filters do not retain semi-volatile species such as ammonium nitrate and some organics with high efficiency, particularly during the warmer months. Hence, one cannot simply add up the major species measured by the STN or IMPROVE monitors and expect to relate this identically to the total mass from the FRM monitor. According to the modeling guidance (USEPA, 2007) the mass from the FRM monitor can be expressed as:

PM2.5 = "retained nitrate mass" + "ammoniated sulfate mass" + "ammonium [Eq. 1] associated with sulfate and retained nitrate" + "particle-bound water"+ "other primary PM2.5" + "salt" + "blank mass" + "carbonaceous mass"

Where PM2.5 refers to the total mass measured at each FRM site; "retained nitrate mass" (NO3r) and "ammonium associated with sulfate and retained nitrate" refer only to the fractions of NO3 and NH4, respectively, that are not volatilized; "ammoniated sulfate mass" refers to the SO4 that is measured by the STN; "particle-bound water" refers to water that is associated with the hygroscopic ammonium sulfate and nitrate, and can be estimated as a polynomial function of retained ammonium, sulfate, and nitrate; "other primary PM2.5" refers to unspeciated, inert PM2.5 such as soil/crustal elements (here assumed to be the sum of major crustal oxides - Si, Ca, Fe, and Ti); "salt" is 1.8×Cl; "blank mass" refers to passively collected contamination, assumed to be 0.5 mg m-3; and "carbonaceous mass" refers to EC and an estimate of retained OC. Because of uncertainties in the measured OC, the modeling guidance suggests that organic mass be computed as the difference between the measured FRM mass and the sum of the other species listed above.

MATS and the official speciation database, which includes adjustments to the various species, were used to compute baseline species concentrations at each FRM site in the NYC NAA. The MATS also performs spatial averaging of the adjusted speciation data since actual STN or IMPROVE data are not available at every FRM location. It should be noted that the July 7, 2002 data from the STN monitors in the NYC NAA in the official MATS database were flagged by EPA and, hence, not used to compute baseline species composition. Table 5-11 lists the non-blank baseline species composition, as defined in Equation 1 above. Note that in the case of retained NH4, the actual measured data were not used here, due to uncertainties in its measurement. The modeling guidance (USEPA, 2007) suggests that NH4 be estimated according to degree of neutralization (DON) of sulfate:

NH4 = DON×SO4 + 0.29×NO3r [Eq. 2]

to allow the future NH4 value to depend only on SO4 and NO3r, since reductions in emissions generally are targeting precursors of SO4 and NO3.

5.3.1.2 Relative Response Factors

As stated in the modeling guidance (USEPA, 2007), the air quality modeling results are to be used in a relative sense to compute future PM2.5 design values. For each species i, the future concentration of each species (CFi) is the product of the current concentration (CCi) and the corresponding RRFi:

CFi = Cci×RRFi [Eq. 3]

The RRF values for SO4, NO3r, OM, EC, and OPP were based on application of the CMAQ model for the baseline year of 2002 and future year of 2009. All RRF values were computed by the MATS on a quarterly basis. Earlier chapters of the technical supporting documentation describe the annual model applications in detail: biogenic emissions (TSD-2a), base year 2002 emissions (TSD-2b), emissions processing and air quality modeling using CMAQ (TSD-2c), and future year 2009 emissions (TSD-4).

5.3.2 Future PM2.5 Design Values

Table 5-12 lists the current and future design values at each FRM location in the NYC NAA. Note that on the average the design values across the NYC NAA were lowered by about 1.6 µg/m3, ranging from 1.3-2.1 µg/m3, in 2009 compared to the baseline 2002 design values. Also note that every site has a future design below the annual NAAQS level of 15 µg/m3, with the exception of one site - P.S. 59 (360610056) in New York County, NY - which has a future design value of 15.2 µg/m3. Additional corroboratory analyses and weight of evidence (WOE) determinations are necessary to demonstrate attainment at this monitor, since this future design value falls within the 14.5-15.5 µg/m3 WOE guideline range. In addition, the Canal Street (360610062) monitor, also in New York County, has a future year design value of 14.5 µg/m3. Attachment 2 from TSD-5 (see Appendix A) details the Department's WOE analysis that supports the projection that the NYC NAA, including New York County, will be considered to be in attainment of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's response to the analysis, in which the Department's analysis is approved, appears as Attachment 3 from TSD-5 of Appendix A.

5.4 Weight of Evidence (WOE) in Support of Modeled Attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the New York City Nonattainment Area

The EPA modeling guidance (US EPA, 2007), in conjunction with ambient Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5 mass data from 2000-2004 and baseline and future air quality modeling results, has been applied to determine the attainment status of the NY Metro NAA with respect to the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The application of the EPA guidance for estimating the future design values based on the use of relative response factor (RRF) has resulted in one monitor - P.S. 59 (360610056), located in New York County, NY - to exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS level of 15 µg/m3. The estimated future PM2.5 design value at this monitor, based on this procedure, is 15.3 µg/m3 (See Table 5-16). This value falls within the uncertainty range of ±0.5 µg/m3 of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and supplemental analyses are needed for this monitor to be considered to be in attainment. In the following sections, information is provided to suggest that there is high degree of potential that estimated future design value will be below the annual NAAQS.

5.4.1 Monitoring Network in New York County and Surroundings

For most of the 2000-2004 period New York County, NY had 4 FRM monitors, but only one Speciation Trends Network (STN) monitor collocated with the FRM at the Canal Street site (360610062) to provide information on composition of the baseline PM2.5 species. Figure 5-3 displays the location of the four monitors as well as monitors in the surrounding counties. Table 5-13 lists the dates of operation of the FRM monitors in New York County; the base year design value for 2002, which is a weighted average of the measurements in the 2000 to 2004 period; and the nearest STN monitor. It should be noted that not all monitors in New York County were assigned the same STN monitor, because the approach selected was to use the nearest neighborhood monitor to link the FRM and STN. In the case of the J.H.S.45 (36061007) FRM monitor in New York County, the nearest STN monitor is the Bronx County I.S.52 site (360050110), and this site is also included in Table 5-13.

The current speciation levels estimated at these monitors are listed in Table 5-14. Only two of these sites - Canal Street and I.S.52 - have collocated STN monitors, while the species composition at the other FRM sites are only estimates based on the speciation data from a nearby monitor. Examination of the speciation data at Canal Street and I.S.52 suggests that there may be fairly substantial gradients in PM2.5 species composition over the non-attainment area, on the order of several tenths of a µg/m3. Thus the estimates listed for the other monitors should only be considered approximate, and in some cases may not necessarily be representative of species composition at these monitors. This is certainly a limitation that needs to be taken into consideration when projecting the future design values using the model results and the current speciation levels.

Although the air quality modeling results are to be used in a relative sense, it is instructive to examine the changes in PM2.5 mass that the model predicts in an absolute sense to see the direct impacts of emissions reductions. The CMAQ-predicted average PM2.5 mass over the nine-grid cells that surround each of these FRM monitors (see Table 5-15) in the base (2002) and future (2009) years was examined. Note that CMAQ predicts a consistent reduction of about 16 percent over each FRM monitor in New York County. Based on modeling results, future PM2.5 concentrations at each FRM location across the 22-county NY Metro NAA are predicted by CMAQ to decrease by 12-18 percent.

5.4.2 Other Data Analysis

A recent study by Qin et al. (2006) suggest that sum of sulfate and nitrate comprise about 40 percent or more of the PM2.5 mass in the NYC metropolitan area, and that 70 percent or more of the PM2.5 measured in NYC results from transport into the region. Based on results from source apportionment modeling using Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF), the authors determined that the largest single source factor affecting NYC is "secondary sulfate" associated with SO2 emissions from upwind regions. It is clear that emission reductions in upwind states will be needed to further reduce PM2.5 in the NY Metro NAA.

In TSD-3a, found in the appendices to this document, PM2.5 levels appear to be decreasing across the NY Metro NAA. Although the data records for PM2.5 are somewhat short, it is estimated that PM2.5 mass is decreasing by about 0.1-0.5µg/m3/yr. At the P.S.59 site PM2.5 mass measurements are decreasing by about 0.3µg/m3/yr during 1999-2006. In addition to PM2.5 mass, several criteria pollutants are also measured at the P.S.59 site. The trends in SO2 and NO2 from 1993 to 2006 were examined using the seasonal Kendall test, and found that ambient levels are declining at rates of 3.4 percent per year and 1.7 percent per year, respectively. This again points to the potential that this area would be meeting the annual NAAQS, given that there are various measures under consideration that are aimed at decreasing the emissions of PM2.5 precursors.

5.4.3 Summary

In summary, the above analysis shows that, based upon the EPA guidance, only one monitor in the New York PM2.5 nonattainment area falls slightly above the level of the annual NAAQS, but still within the framework of uncertainty. The analysis suggests that lack of collocated speciation monitors and use of speciation information from the nearest neighborhood monitor may have contributed to the estimate of PM2.5 being above the level of NAAQS at the P.S.59 monitor. Examining the trends in precursors as well as measured PM2.5 at P.S.59 suggests a downward path and that coupled with the observation that the contribution to the secondary species is from upwind regions rather than local, favors strongly that this monitor will also be in attainment similar to the rest of them in the region. Analysis based on the only other monitor (360610062) with similar PM2.5 concentrations is projected to be below the level of the annual NAAQS, suggests that P.S.59 (360610056) would also be similarly be below the level of the annual NAAQS.

5.4.4 Additional Information

It should be noted that more specific information and the detailed analyses on the determination of baseline and future design values, and air quality trends, are presented in Appendix A, "Modeling Technical Support Documents" of this document.

5.5 Weight of Evidence: Additional Measures Not Accounted for in Modeling Projections

A number of control programs are being adopted or implemented that are not represented in the projection inventories for 2009. The control programs in this section include:

  • Part 222, Distributed Generation
  • Part 227-2, NOx RACT (High Electric Demand Day Units)
  • Clean Air Interstate Rule
  • Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2006
  • Existing and New/Revised State VOC Reduction Measures
  • Federal Rules for VOC Reductions
  • Proposed Federal Rules for VOC, NOx and PM Reductions
  • Canadian Air Quality Efforts
  • "15 by 15" Initiative
  • NYSERDA Programs

As discussed in section 5.1 of this document, the species composition of PM2.5 has a significant influence on the measured levels. In terms of species composition, SO4 and OC (the primary sources of which are VOC emissions) are the most important species, especially during the summer months, while NO3 is also an important species during the winter months. It appears that emissions control programs that target precursors of SO4, NO3, and OC will be needed to further reduce PM2.5 levels across the New York metropolitan area. The measures described below will reduce PM and precursor emissions by significant amounts. The Part 222 and Subpart 227-2 regulations being adopted by the Department will yield quantifiable, enforceable NOx emissions reductions on the order of 50 tons per day. When compared to those measures included in the modeling and the base and projected NOx inventories, it is apparent that reductions of this magnitude have the ability to reduce PM2.5 levels substantially. Given that New Jersey and Connecticut as well as other northeastern states (Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania) are committing to similar measures that will also yield substantial reductions in PM2.5 and precursor emissions, it is expected that NOx and PM2.5 emissions on days of high electricity demand will be reduced 50 tons per day throughout the Northeast corridor.

5.5.1 Part 222, Distributed Generation

This regulation will set limits on small generators that are not currently controlled. This regulation will place NOx and PM emissions limits on existing sources as well as restrict the number of existing sources that can be called to operate under demand response. It will also set strict NOx and CO emission standards for new units. It is expected that NOx emissions on High Electricity Demand Days (HEDD) could be reduced by 10 to 15 tons per day in 2012 through the implementation of this regulation.

5.5.2 NOx RACT: High Electricity Demand Day Units

This regulatory revision will set new more stringent NOx limits on electricity generating units. On High Electricity Demand Days (HEDD) base loaded, load following and peaking units all increase operations to meet demand. HEDDs are generally those days when the potential for ozone formation is highest (hazy, hot and humid weather). The Department is specifically moving to revise the NOx emission limits for all very large boilers and combustion turbines. These emission limits are expected to result in the reduction of 35 to 40 tons per day of NOx emissions.

5.5.3 Clean Air Interstate Rule

On May 12, 2005, EPA published its Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162) designed to reduce northeastern U.S. power plant emissions which affect air quality in downwind states. Because New York State contributes to ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas in downwind states, it was required to address NOx and SO2 emissions under CAIR. CAIR specified the reductions necessary in order to fulfill its obligations under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D), and established budgets for EGUs in New York and the other CAIR states.

The CAIR Trading Program was implemented in three parts under Title 6 which establish the necessary allowance programs for New York State: Part 243, "CAIR NOx Ozone Season Trading Program; Part 244, "CAIR NOx Annual Trading Program; and Part 245, "CAIR SO2 Trading Program." These three regulations represent the three model rules released by EPA in association with CAIR, which the Department chose to adopt.

All three regulations were effective October 19, 2007. Within the regulations, CAIR NOx units and CAIR SO2 units are defined. Also included are permit and monitoring requirements, emission requirements pertaining to allowances, and guidelines for recordkeeping and reporting.

EPA's CAIR Program set the goal of 70 percent SO2 and NOx emissions reductions. Aside from the intended goal of aiding the nonattainment areas in downwind states, these reductions through CAIR were expected to greatly benefit PM2.5 levels within New York State.

On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that would have vacated CAIR. EPA appealed the ruling on September 24, 2008. On December 23, 2008, instead of vacating the rule, the CAIR regulations were remanded to the EPA to address deficiencies identified by the court.

While the CAIR program rules are being revised by EPA, the original requirements remain in effect at the federal level and reductions will continue while a replacement program is being promulgated. New York commits to implementing the requirements of the replacement program as they become effective to continue reducing emissions of precursors.

5.5.4 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2006

New York State enacted the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2006, for which the Part 248 regulations became effective in July 2009. This initiative requires thousands of state-owned or operated diesel-powered vehicles to be retrofitted with emission control equipment to cut down on the release of exhaust particles. The benefit will be seen with existing engines which are not expected to be replaced with new, cleaner engines for some time.

5.5.5 Existing State VOC Reduction Measures

5.5.5.1 Part 205: Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings

Applicability of 6 NYCRR Part 205, "Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings," extends to anyone who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use within New York State, as well as anyone who applies or solicits the application of any architectural coating within the state. This regulation places VOC content limits on a wide variety of architectural coatings. Part 205 also contains labeling and reporting requirements, compliance provisions and test methods.

5.5.5.2 Part 208: Landfill Gas Collection & Control Systems for Certain Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

The operation of certain municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills is regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 208, "Landfill Gas Collection & Control Systems for Certain Municipal Solid Waste Landfills." For landfills whose non-methane hydrocarbon emissions exceed 50 megagrams per year, the operator must design and install a collection and control system to be operated in accordance with the provisions of the regulation. The regulation additionally contains requirements for monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting.

5.5.5.3 Part 226: Solvent Metal Cleaning

Guidelines for the cleaning of metal surfaces by VOC-containing substances are expressed in 6 NYCRR Part 226, "Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes." Listed in this regulation are general provisions for storage and recordkeeping, specifications for the types of control equipment to be used, and operating practices for solvent metal cleaning. The Department may accept a lesser degree of control upon submission of satisfactory evidence that the person engaging in solvent metal cleaning is applying RACT and has a plan to develop the technologies necessary to comply with the aforementioned requirements.

5.5.5.4 Part 228: Surface Coating Processes

6 NYCRR Part 228 limits the VOC content for each gallon of coating and sets minimum efficiency for VOC incinerators used as control equipment for VOC emissions from coating processes. It also provides for the use of source-specific analyses of control requirements where the requirements of the rules cannot be met. Additionally, Part 228 contains requirements for paints and coatings used in auto body refinishing and repairing, including spray equipment and housekeeping.

5.5.5.5 Part 229: Petroleum and Volatile Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer

Limitations are placed on VOC emissions from applicable gasoline bulk plants, gasoline loading terminals, marine loading vessels, petroleum liquid storage tanks, and organic liquid storage tanks in 6 NYCRR Part 229, "Petroleum and Volatile Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer." The regulation details the separate applicability thresholds and compliance schedules for NYMA, the Lower Orange County metropolitan area, upstate ozone non-attainment areas, and remaining areas.

5.5.5.6 Part 230: Gasoline Dispensing Sites and Transport Vehicles

Requirements for Stage I and Stage II gasoline dispensing sites are contained in 6 NYCRR Part 230, "Gasoline Dispensing Sites and Transport Vehicles." Stage I systems are required state-wide, while Stage II systems are mandated only in the New York Metropolitan Area (NYMA) and lower Orange County. Part 230 affects those gasoline-dispensing sites whose annual throughput exceeds 120,000 gallons. (This minimum throughput level is waived for NYMA.)

A Stage I vapor collection system captures gasoline vapors which are displaced from underground gasoline storage tanks when those tanks are filled. These vapors are forced into a vapor-tight gasoline transport vehicle or vapor control system through direct displacement by the gasoline being loaded. A Stage II vapor collection system captures at least 90 percent, by weight, of the gasoline vapors that are displaced or drawn from a vehicle fuel tank during refueling; these vapors are then captured and either retained in the storage tanks or destroyed in an emission control device.

5.5.5.7 Part 233: Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing Processes

VOC emissions from synthesized pharmaceutical or cosmetic manufacturing processes at a major source facility are limited under 6 NYCRR Part 233, "Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing Processes." This regulation outlines the separate requirements and compliance schedules for NYMA, the Lower Orange County metropolitan area, and facilities outside these areas. Compliance requires the installation of control devices, along with monitoring, recordkeeping, and leak repair.

5.5.6 New or Revised State VOC Reduction Measures

5.5.6.1 Part 228: Surface Coating Processes

As a method to combat ozone issues in nonattainment areas throughout New York State, the Department worked in conjunction with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) on measures to reduce NOx and VOC emissions from a number of sources. In 2006 the OTC released its model rule for VOC emissions from adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers and sealant primers. The Department intends to use this model rule as a guide in revising 6 NYCRR Part 228, "Surface Coating Processes." Emission reductions should be observed for area sources as well as point sources, due to the variety of industrial and commercial applications for the subject products.

EPA's consumer and commercial products rule was published September 11, 1998 (40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D). This rule applied only to household adhesive use, and did not regulate adhesives used in commercial and industrial applications. The OTC's 2001 model rule proposed additional product categories and stricter standards, but its definitions of products generally exempted those products being sold in large containers.

The OTC 2006 model rule, based upon 1998 RACT and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) developments by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), places stricter VOC limits on a greater range of products. The draft rule prohibits the sale or use of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers or sealant primers in excess of its proposed VOC content limits after January 1, 2010. It also requires that labels have the product's VOC content clearly expressed, and presents an alternative add-on control system requirement of at least 85 percent by weight for industrial processes which use adhesives and sealants. OTC calculations predict that New York State will see a savings of 21.5 tons of VOC each summer day, or 3290 tons over the entire 153-day ozone season lasting from May 1-September 30.

5.5.6.2 Part 234: Graphic Arts

Amendments are being made to the graphic arts industry regulations under 6 NYCRR Part 234, "Graphic Arts." This requirement is expanded statewide for Ozone Transport Region States (CAA Section 184). These amendments are in response to two Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents published by the EPA in September 2006: "Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing" and "Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing."

CAA Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for non-attainment areas designated moderate or worse, RACT provisions must be included in the applicable SIP for "each category of VOC sources in the area covered by a CTG document issued by the Administrator between the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the date of attainment." These CTGs present guidance in determining RACT for VOC emissions from inks, coatings, adhesives and cleaning materials within facilities that conduct the aforementioned printing processes. The Department will use the CTG emission limit and control technology recommendations for flexible package printing, offset lithographic printing, and letterpress printing in its revisions to Part 234.

5.5.6.3 Part 235: Consumer Products

The Department has modified 6 NYCRR Part 235, "Consumer Products," under which a VOC content limit is placed on a range of consumer and commercial products. A federal consumer and commercial products rule was published on September 11, 1998 as 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D. Believing this rule regulated an inadequate portion of the consumer and commercial products inventory, the OTC in 2001 developed a model rule for additional product categories requiring more stringent VOC limits for consumer and commercial products. These suggestions were used as a basis for the VOC limits contained in Part 235, which took effect on January 1, 2005.

The OTC developed its 2006 model rule, finalized September 13, 2006, to again expand the VOC content limitations that participating states may adopt for their own programs. The OTC rule is influenced by amendments put forth by CARB in July 2005. The Department used the OTC's proposed model rule as a guideline for its amendment of Part 235. The Department's revised regulation includes VOC limits for 11 new categories (including subcategories), one revised VOC limit for a previously regulated category, and additional requirements for two other previously regulated categories. The Department's revised Part 235 became effective on October 15, 2009 and compliance with updated Part 235 is required by January 1, 2010.

CARB calculated per capita VOC reductions in conjunction with its 2005 rule. Because the proposed rule mirrors that of CARB so closely, it is assumed that a similar per capita savings will result, which equates to a yearly reduction of 0.122 lb/capita. These reductions come in addition to the 6.06 lb/capita witnessed from the 2001 model rule. Adoption and implementation of the OTC 2006 model rule will result in VOC emissions reductions of 3.7 tons per summer day and 566 tons over the ozone season in New York State in 2009.

5.5.6.4 Part 239: Portable Fuel Containers

EPA finalized the rule, "Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources" (72 FR 8427) and it became effective January 1, 2009. The Department has used the federal rule as a basis for amending the existing 6 NYCRR Part 239, "Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control."

With the federal rule, EPA sets regulations for portable fuel containers (PFCs), as well as for gasoline and passenger vehicles. The purpose is to significantly reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources, referred to as "mobile source air toxics" (MSATs), to which exposure is known or suspected to cause serious health effects, including cancer. The PFC controls will considerably reduce such MSATs as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and naphthalene, in addition to the secondary PM reductions.

Since the Department issued Part 239 in October 2002, a number of problems have been identified, as follows:

  • An automatic shutoff feature, intended to cut off fuel flow when the tank reaches a prescribed level, has proven to be incompatible with many types of fuel tanks. This leads to additional spillage and has frustrated many consumers;
  • Poor production quality of the PFCs, as demonstrated by a CARB compliance test resulting in nearly 50 percent failure of PFCs that have already been introduced to the market; and
  • Storage of gasoline in non-regulated containers designed for other fluids, such as kerosene.

As a result of these issues, emissions will still result due to evaporation through the diurnal cycle, as well as through spillage. The federal rule contains methods considered "best available controls" to correct these problems. The modifications to Part 239 will:

  • Allow more flexibility in the manufacture of PFCs to simplify fueling and lessen spillage;
  • Require certification and compliance of PFCs prior to their introduction to the market; and
  • Expand the definition of a non-compliant container, effectively regulating diesel and kerosene containers in the same manner as PFCs.

Along with these modifications, EPA has issued a standard of 0.3 grams per gallon per day (g/gal/day) of hydrocarbons. This standard was established based upon the emissions from a can over a diurnal test cycle, and requires stringent compliance testing to ensure emissions control over the life of the product. This standard must be met for containers manufactured on or after January 1, 2009 and is consistent with the revised NYCRR Part 239, effective July 30, 2009.

Both area and non-road source inventories are expected to be affected by these amendments. Of the projected VOC emission reductions, approximately 70 percent will be attributed to the area source inventory. These changes come from reductions in diurnal and permeation emissions from storage, and transport/spillage emissions from re-fueling at gas pumps. The remaining 30 percent will be accounted for in the non-road source inventory, where emissions will be reduced during re-fueling of non-road sources (e.g. lawnmowers, personal watercraft, etc.).

5.5.6.5 Part 241: Asphalt Formulation

The Department is considering changes to the use of cutback and emulsified asphalts in paving operations. The proposed ban on cutback asphalts and increased restrictions on emulsified asphalts will be made in 6 NYCRR Part 241, "Asphalt Formulation."

While cutback and emulsified asphalts are used in similar applications, they differ in how they are prepared. In preparing cutback asphalt, asphalt cement is blended with a diluent that is typically 25 to 45 percent by volume petroleum distillate. Emulsified asphalt preparation involves mixing asphalt cement with water and an emulsifying agent, such as soap. It is possible for emulsified asphalts to contain no VOCs, though some may contain up to 12 percent VOC by volume.

Currently, New York permits the use of cutback asphalt only during the cooler portion of the year from October 16 to May 1, and allows for emulsified asphalt to contain 2 to 12 percent VOCs, depending on the grade established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). This proposed rule will have a similar, ozone-season ban on cutback asphalt; and will also limit the use of emulsified asphalt to that which contains not more than 0.5mL oil distillate from a 200mL sample-effectively 0.25 percent VOC content.

In calculating reductions resulting from these anticipated rule changes, an average baseline VOC content of 2.5 percent for emulsified asphalt was assumed. Thus, reducing the average VOC content from 2.5 percent to 0.25 percent represents a 90 percent reduction in emissions. This would lead to a projected savings of 16.5 tons VOC per summer day, or 2525 tons per ozone season for New York State in 2009. It is believed that no additional costs would be incurred from the use of low-VOC emulsified asphalts due to their current availability.

5.5.6.6 Rulemaking Schedule

The following table contains the schedule for the promulgation of emission reduction requirements for VOC's under the weight of evidence provisions of this section. It should be noted that these measures are anticipated but that this schedule is also enforceable under the 8-hour ozone SIP. A commitment letter to adopt these has been submitted to EPA in association with the 8-hour ozone SIP.

Table 5-1 - VOC Rulemaking Schedule
VOC Emission Reductions - Weight of Evidence Rulemaking Schedule
6 NYCRR Part Rule Name Proposal
Published in
State Register
Regulatory
Package to
Environmental
Board
File Regulation
with
Secretary
of State
Regulation
Effective
228 Adhesives and Sealants 01/2010 05/2010 06/2010 07/2010
234 Graphic Arts 01/2010 05/2010 06/2010 07/2010
235 Consumer Products 06/17/09 08/14/09 9/15/09 10/15/09
239 Portable Fuel Containers 10/22/08 05/05/09 06/30/09 07/30/09
241 Asphalt Formulation 01/2010 05/2010 06/2010 07/2010

5.5.7 Federal VOC Measures

5.5.7.1 VOC MACT

Pursuant to Section 112 of the CAA, the EPA is required to promulgate National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), otherwise known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for chemicals known to cause cancer or other serious health effects. As EPA updates or releases new MACT standards, they are incorporated by reference into 6 NYCRR Part 200. Many of the chemical substances regulated as VOCs are also listed as HAPs. Therefore, many of the MACT control requirements effectively reduce emissions of VOCs as well.

5.5.7.2 Federal Reformulated Gasoline

Section 211(k) of the CAA requires that reformulated gasoline, which is blended to burn cleaner and reduce emissions of certain pollutants, is sold in major metropolitan areas with the worst ozone air pollution problems. Federal reformulated gasoline allows for a maximum of 1 percent benzene by volume. Phase I of the rule took effect January 1, 1995 with preliminary VOC and air toxics standards. These reformulated gasoline standards were replaced with Phase II standards, effective January 1, 2000, which called for broader emissions controls, requiring 25 to 29 percent VOC emission reductions and 20 to 22 percent air toxics reductions. Retail distribution of reformulated gasoline is required in the New York Metropolitan Area and Orange County. Dutchess County and a portion of Essex County have voluntarily opted to use reformulated gasoline.

5.5.8 Federal Rules

5.5.8.1 Federal Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment

EPA issued final emission standards for spark-ignition engines used in marine vessels, including outboard engines, personal watercraft, and sterndrive/inboard engines in their proposed rule, "Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment," 73 FR 59034, effective October 8, 2008. The engines and vehicles covered by this proposal are significant sources of air pollution. They account for about 25 percent of mobile source hydrocarbon emissions and 30 percent of mobile source carbon monoxide emissions.

These standards continue the process of establishing nonroad standards as required by the Clean Air Act. EPA is required to study emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles and to set emissions standards if the level of pollutants from these sources cause or significantly contribute to air pollution and, more specifically, if the emissions of CO, NOx or hydrocarbons contribute significantly to the formation of ozone and carbon monoxide in more than one area of the country currently not meeting ozone and carbon monoxide standards.

EPA has set a more stringent level of emission standards for outboard and personal watercraft engines starting with the 2010 model year. HC + NOx standards were set at 30 g/kW-hr for engines 4.3 kW or smaller, and are variable for larger engines. CO standards are variable for engines 40 kW or smaller, and 300 g/kW-hr for engines larger than 40 kW. It is expected that manufacturers will meet these standards with improved fueling systems and other in-cylinder controls. The levels of the HC + NOx standards are consistent with the requirements recently adopted by California ARB for 2008 and later model years.

EPA has also set new exhaust emission standards for sterndrive and inboard marine engines. The standards are 5 g/kW-hr for HC+NOx and 75 g/kW-hr for CO starting with the 2010 model year. Manufacturers are expected to meet these standards with three-way catalysts and closed-loop fuel injection. To ensure proper functioning of these emission control systems in use, a requirement is set that engines have a diagnostic system for detecting a failure in the emission control system. For sterndrive and inboard marine engines above 373 kW with high-performance characteristics (generally referred to as "SD/I high-performance engines"), EPA has set a variety of special provisions to reflect their unique operating characteristics. In the 2010 model year, HC + NOx emission standards have been set at 20 g/kW-hr for engines 485 kW or smaller, and 25 g/kW-hr for engines larger than 485 kW. In the 2011 model year and onward, HC + NOx emission standards have been set at 16 g/kW-hr for engines 485 kW or smaller, and 22 g/kW-hr for engines larger than 485 kW. CO standards were set at 350 g/kW-hr for all SD/I high performance engines. The emission standards described above relate to engine operation over a prescribed duty cycle for testing in the laboratory.

EPA set new standards to control evaporative emissions for all vessels using marine spark-ignition engines. The new standards include requirements to control fuel tank permeation, fuel line permeation, and diurnal emissions, including provisions to ensure that refueling emissions do not increase.

EPA estimates that by 2030, the standards will result in significant annual reductions of pollutant emissions from regulated engine and equipment sources nationwide, including 604,000 tons of volatile organic hydrocarbon emissions, 132,200 tons of NOx emissions, and 5,500 tons of direct particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions. These reductions correspond to significant reductions in the formation of ground-level ozone and ambient PM2.5.

5.5.9 Canadian Emission Reductions

Some portion of the particulate matter present in the air in the northern United States originates in Canada. The sources of this contamination are the industrial and commercial operations, fossil fuel and woodburning and especially the emissions of particulate matter and its precursors from coal-fired power plants A number of initiatives have been put in place in Canada that will reduce emissions and have a positive effect in the air quality in the northeast United States.

The first of these are the Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Power Generation Plants. Under these provisions, a reduction of approximately 52 percent to 58 percent in mercury emissions is expected nationally by 2010. The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) has been directed to replace Ontario's coal-fired generation facilities by cleaner sources "in the earliest practical time frame that ensures adequate generating capacity and electricity system reliability in Ontario." The reduction in mercury emissions is expected to have the co-benefit of the reduction of the emission of other pollutants as well, including particulate and its precursors (SO2 and NOx), organics, metals and greenhouse gases. The replacement of coal-fired units in Ontario, which are most likely to affect New York's air quality, will have a significant effect on ambient particulate concentrations and haze.

The second initiative in Canada that will affect New York's air quality is the promulgation of air quality standards for PM2.5 and ozone at a level of 30µg/m3 on a 24-hour basis and 65 ppb on an 8-hour basis, respectively. The intention is to meet these standards by 2010, and the result of which will have a positive effect on New York's air quality as well. Quebec's five-year report on their reduction efforts to date discusses the measures taken from 2001 to 20051. The control measures instituted by Canada are aimed at reducing industrial emissions. Specifically, regulations like Quebec's "Regulation respecting the quality of the atmosphere"2 contain control measures for new and existing sources of VOC's similar to those in New York and other states, and set ambient air quality standards. VOC controls address surface coating processes, automotive painting operations, printing, dry cleaning, formaldehyde from panelboard mills, pulp and paper operations, styrene from composite material manufacturing (fiberglass and resins), and transportation. Particulate emissions measures include the control of fugitive emissions from mining and sandblasting, granaries, mills, distilleries, breweries, powder milk plants, fertilizer mixing plants, concrete plants, vitreous enamel operations, earthenware and ceramic products plant, polyvinyl chloride production or processing plant, wood processing plants, and aluminum manufacturing. Programs also control particulate and NOx emissions from combustion operations (boilers, turbines, and internal combustion), as well as fuel sulfur content (2.0 percent by weight for "heavy oil," 1.0 percent by weight for "intermediate oil," 0.5 percent by weight for "light oil," and 2.0 percent in weight for coal). Many other categories are covered as well woodburning, smelting, charcoal kilns, incinerators, refineries, storage tanks, metallic processing plants, as well as other industrial processes.

Additional measures are planned in the next five years to achieve their goals by 2010, including reducing emissions from residential wood heating, establishing and inspection and maintenance program for light vehicles, and implementing "other measures in the transportation, energy and climate change sectors."

The above measures are efforts by the Canadian or Provincial governments to improve air quality. They were not included in the present attainment demonstration and will not be enforceable by New York or the federal government. However, give the proximity to New York State, air quality improvements in Canada will certainly impact New York and the northeastern United States.

5.5.10 New York State's "15 by 15" Initiative

New York State has initiated a clean energy plan with the goal of reducing New York's energy demand by 15 percent by 2015. The plan, known as the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (or the "15 by 15 Initiative,") focuses on energy efficiency, conservation, and investment in renewable energy sources as the keys to achieving economic and environmental goals. The specific goals and highlights of the plan include:

  • Reduce electricity use by 15 percent from forecasted levels by the year 2015 through new energy efficiency programs in industry and government;
  • Eliminate incentives in the marketplace that discourages utilities from conserving energy by requiring annual adjustments to rates to make utilities whole for lost revenues caused by energy efficiency programs; and
  • Establish new appliance efficiency standards and set more rigorous energy building codes.

The benefits of this plan for New York and for the environment include a reduction in the electricity that must be purchased, the creation of new jobs, and a reduction in emissions as a result of the need to produce less power and the substitution of clean power sources for those already in operation. The emission reductions for the "15 by 15 Initiative" are also estimated to result in an annual carbon dioxide reduction of about 12.8 million tons, which is the equivalent of removing 2.5 million cars from the road.

The Department is not committing to the inclusion of any of these measures as part of the SIP at this time. The Department will evaluate each measure resulting from this initiative individually to determine if it is appropriate to be included in the SIP. The Department will need to consider among other things whether the measure is quantifiable, enforceable, and include emissions reductions that are additional to other adopted SIP measures.

5.5.11 NYSERDA Programs

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) was established in 1975 and is primarily funded by state rate payers through the System Benefits Charge (SBC). The SBC has recently been extended through June 30, 2011. NYSERDA has introduced a number of programs and services to promote energy efficiency amongst the industrial, commercial, municipal, and residential sectors throughout the state, for which they provide technical and financial assistance.

One initiative that has seen success is the New York Energy $mart Program. NYSERDA has allocated funding towards energy efficiency programs, low-income energy affordability programs, and research and development projects with focuses on renewable resources, distributed generation, and combined heat and power installations. In the last five years, the New York Energy $mart Program has created a wealth of economic and environmental benefits3:

  • Approximately $198 million in annual energy savings
  • 1,400 Gwh saved per year
  • 860 MW in reduced demand
  • Fuel savings of 3.3 Tbtu
  • Annual carbon dioxide reduction equivalent to 200,000 fewer cars
  • Significant annual greenhouse gas emission reductions:
    Nitrogen Oxides - 1,280 tons
    Sulfur Dioxides - 2,320 tons
    Carbon Dioxide - 1,000,000 tons

In addition to Energy $mart, there are many other programs which result in reductions of emissions of PM and its precursors. For example, the Peak-Load Reduction Program offers incentives to offset costs to companies that implement either short-term demand response measures, or long-term permanent demand reduction, for days in which electric demand is very high. The Enhanced Commercial/Industrial Performance Program contains three tiers of incentives for the installation of energy-efficient equipment resulting in reduced electrical demand and cost. A wide range of businesses, schools, universities, state and local governments, and other institutions are eligible for these incentives. And, NYSERDA's Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Program aims to encourage fleets to purchase vehicles powered by natural gas, propane, biofuels, and electricity, and to encourage the use of emission reduction technologies and anti-idling technologies for diesel vehicles.

Table 5-2 Listing of FRM sites, 1999-2006. Some locations have primary ("P") and duplicate ("D") samplers. Dates with an asterisk denote daily sampling for at least part of the period.

NYSDEC
Region
Site Name County Dates
1 Eisenhower Park Nassau 1/1999 - 12/1999
1 Hempstead Nassau 1/1999 - 12/2006
1 Briarcliffe Nassau 2/2000 - 3/2003
1 Roslyn Nassau 7/2000 - 3/2003
1 Roslyn Heights Nassau 1/1999 - 3/2000
1 Babylon Suffolk 1/1999 - 12/2006
2 Mabel Dean H.S. New York 1/1999 - 6/2001*
2 J.H.S. 45 New York P: 1/2000 - 12/2006
D: 1/2006 - 12/2006
2 P.S. 59 New York P: 1/1999 - 12/2006
D: 1/1999 - 12/2005
2 P.S. 19 New York 10/2001 - 12/2006
2 Canal Street Post Office New York P: 1/1999 - 12/2006
D: 8/1999 - 9/2001
2 I.S. 155 Bronx P: 1/1999 - 7/1999
D: 1/1999 - 7/1999
2 Morrisania II Bronx 1/1999 - 12/2006
2 N.Y. Botanical Gardens Bronx 1/1999 - 12/2006
2 I.S. 52 Bronx P: 9/1999 - 12/2006
D: 9/1999 - 12/2006
2 Greenpoint Kings P: 1/1999 - 12/2000
D: 1/1999 - 7/1999
2 P.S. 321 Kings 1/1999 - 3/2003
2 P.S. 314 Kings 4/2000 - 1/2003
2 J.H.S. 126 Kings 1/2001 - 12/2006
2 Queensboro Community College Queens 1/1999 - 12/2000
2 P.S. 29 Queens P: 7/1999 - 1/2003
D: 8/1999 - 1/2003
2 P.S. 214 Queens 4/2000 - 3/2003
2 Queens College II/P.S. 219 Queens 1/2001 - 4/2006*
2 Susan Wagner H.S. Richmond 1/1999 - 12/2006
2 Port Richmond Post Office Richmond 12/1999 - 12/2006
3 Poughkeepsie Dutchess 7/1999 - 3/2003
3 Newburgh Orange 2/2000 - 12/2006
3 Mamaroneck Westchester 2/2000 - 12/2006

Table 5-3 Trends in PM2.5 mass at the longest running FRM monitors, based on quarterly averages from 1999-2006, in mg m-3 yr-1. Only those quarters with at least 10 valid samples are included in this trend estimate

Site Name Trend
(µg/m3/yr)
Hempstead -0.12)
Babylon -0.34)
J.H.S. 45 -0.42)
P.S. 59 -0.30)
Canal Street Post Office -0.50)
Morrisania II -0.27)
N.Y. Botanical Gardens -0.15)
I.S. 52 (P) -0.33)
I.S. 52 (D) -0.23)
Susan Wagner H.S. -0.13)
Port Richmond Post Office -0.20)
Newburgh -0.20)
Mamaroneck -0.20)

Map of downstate NY showing location of FRM sites

Table 5-4 Listing of Speciation Trends Network (STN) sites, 2000-2006. All sites are located in NYSDEC Region 2.

Site Name County Dates
Canal Street Post Office New York 8/2002 - 12/2006
N.Y. Botanical Gardens Bronx 2/2000 - 12/2005
I.S. 52 Bronx 1/2001 - 12/2006
Queens College II/P.S. 219 Queens 4/2001 - 12/2006

Figure 5-2 Average PM2.5 Speciation - Annual, Winter, and Summer

Comparison of SO4, NO3, NH4, EC, OCB, and crustal components by mass

Table 5-5 Listing of FRM sites, 1999-2006. Some locations have primary ("P") and duplicate ("D") samplers. Dates with an asterisk denote daily sampling for at least part of the period. The New Haven/Stiles St. monitor was designated as "special purpose," and is included here for completeness only (in italics).

State AQS ID Site Name County Dates
CT 090010010 Bridgeport/Roosevelt School Fairfield CT P: 1/1999 - 12/2006
D: 1/1999 - 1/2003
090010113 Bridgeport/Edison School Fairfield CT 9/2000 - 12/2003
090011123 Danbury WCSU Fairfield CT 1/1999 - 12/2006
090012124 Stamford H.S. Fairfield CT 1/1999 - 12/2004
090013005 Norwalk Health Dept. Fairfield CT 3/2000 - 12/2006
090019003 Westport/Sherwood Island Fairfield CT 1/1999 - 12/2006
090090018 New Haven/Stiles St. New Haven CT P: 1/1999 - 9/2005
D: 1/1999 - 1/2003
090090026 New Haven/Woodward Firehouse New Haven CT 4/2003 - 12/2006
090090027 New Haven/Criscuolo Park New Haven CT P: 1/2004 - 12/2006
D: 2/2005 - 12/2006
090091123 New Haven/State St. New Haven CT P: 1/1999 - 12/2006
D: 1/1999 - 2/2005
090092008 New Haven/Ag. Center New Haven CT 4/2003 - 12/2006
090092123 Waterbury/Bank St. New Haven CT P: 1/1999 - 12/2006
D: 1/1999 - 12/2006
090098003 West Haven Toll New Haven CT 4/2003 - 12/2004
090099005 Hamden Mill Basins New Haven CT 7/1999 - 12/2003
NJ 340030003 Fort Lee Library Bergen NJ 1/1999 - 12/2006
340130011 Newark/St. Charles Essex NJ 1/1999 - 12/1999
340130015 Newark/Willis Center Essex NJ 4/1999 - 12/2006
340130016 Newark Lab Essex NJ P: 8/2001 - 5/2003
D: 8/2001 - 5/2003
340171003 Jersey City Firehouse Hudson NJ P: 1/1999 - 12/2006
D: 12/1999 - 12/2006
340172002 Union City Hudson NJ 1/1999 - 3/2002,
7/2005 - 12/2006
340210008 Trenton Mercer NJ 1/1999 - 12/2006
340218001 Washington Crossing Mercer NJ 1/1999 - 12/2006
340230006 New Brunswick Middlesex NJ 1/1999 - 12/2006
340270004 Morristown Ambulance Squad Morris NJ 5/1999 - 12/2006
340273001 Chester Morris NJ 1/1999 - 12/2006
340310005 Paterson Passaic NJ 1/1999 - 12/2006
340390004 Elizabeth Lab Union NJ P: 1/1999 - 12/2006
D: 1/1999 - 12/2006
340390006 Elizabeth/Mitchell Bldg. Union NJ 1/1999 - 12/2006
340392003 Rahway Union NJ 12/1999 - 12/2006*

Table 5-6 Annual average PM2.5 levels (µg/m3) for sites with at least 75 percent valid samples in a given year, 2000-2006. Incomplete years are left blank.

Site Name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Bridgeport/Roosevelt School (P) 13.88 13.71 12.72 12.98 12.92 14.32 12.51
Bridgeport/Roosevelt School (D) 15.63 13.49 11.82
Bridgeport/Edison School 12.77 12.88 12.27
Danbury WCSU 12.70 13.22 12.51 13.37 11.25 13.44 12.17
Stamford H.S. 12.90 13.01 12.81 13.51 11.78
Norwalk Health Dept. 12.86 13.41 12.58 12.96 12.23 13.32 11.77
Westport/Sherwood Island 13.03 12.15 11.49 11.63 11.06 12.18 10.69
New Haven/Stiles St. (P) 15.94 16.88 16.00 16.91 15.40
New Haven/Stiles St. (D) 18.78 18.60 16.19
New Haven/Woodward Firehouse 11.56 13.05 11.72
New Haven/Criscuolo Park (P) 12.21 13.62 12.21
New Haven/Criscuolo Park (D) 14.01 12.81
New Haven/State St. (P) 14.07 14.32 13.03 13.59 12.66 13.88 12.63
New Haven/State St. (D) 14.58 12.38 15.49 12.39
New Haven/Ag. Center 11.14 11.73 10.76
Waterbury/Bank St. (P) 13.61 13.98 13.23 12.64 12.04 14.00 11.98
Waterbury/Bank St. (D) 14.82 14.21 12.75 14.09 11.97 14.14 12.26
West Haven Toll 12.91
Hamden Mill Basins 11.49 11.88 11.09 12.29
Fort Lee Library 14.57 13.85 12.99 13.34 12.05 14.65 11.82
Newark/Willis Center 15.60 13.06 13.16 13.84 13.17 14.35 12.12
Newark Lab (P) 14.12
Newark Lab (D) 14.05
Jersey City Firehouse (P) 16.78 14.01 14.34 14.81 13.66 15.10 13.35
Jersey City Firehouse (D) 13.99 16.26 12.93 16.07 14.67
Union City 17.08 15.54 13.83
Trenton 14.71 14.46 12.94 13.41 12.48 12.90 12.19
Washington Crossing 12.05 11.35 12.18 10.96 12.27 10.06
New Brunswick 13.00 12.72 11.12 12.91 11.11 13.33 10.77
Morristown Ambulance Squad 12.88 11.48 12.16 11.27 12.33 10.12
Chester 11.09 10.46 10.77 9.99 10.77 9.01
Paterson 13.56 12.90 13.26 12.60 13.44 11.88
Elizabeth Lab (P) 15.53 14.56 15.96 15.08 15.24 14.16
Elizabeth Lab (D) 18.49 15.42 14.78 16.97 14.19 16.65 14.72
Elizabeth/Mitchell Bldg. 15.20 12.88 13.11 13.97 12.68 14.33 12.36
Rahway 14.10 12.77 12.04 13.24 12.53 13.91 11.92

Table 5-7 The 98th percentile of PM2.5 levels (µg/m3) for sites with at least 75 percent valid samples in a given year, 2000-2006. Incomplete years are left blank.

Site Name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Bridgeport/Roosevelt School (P) 41.5 40.1 32.9 39.6 34.2 38.3 36.7
Bridgeport/Roosevelt School (D) 42.8 40.6 34.0
Bridgeport/Edison School 32.1 33.2 40.4
Danbury WCSU 32.9 35.2 30.7 37.3 27.5 33.4 33.8
Stamford H.S. 36.3 37.4 34.5 41.5 32.2
Norwalk Health Dept. 35.3 35.7 34.3 42.9 35.2 34.9 35.9
Westport/Sherwood Island 33.4 34.5 30.8 44.0 30.9 35.2 31.3
New Haven/Stiles St. (P) 39.5 40.6 40.4 44.0 34.9
New Haven/Stiles St. (D) 44.8 43.0 34.5
New Haven/Woodward Firehouse 31.5 36.4 36.5
New Haven/Criscuolo Park (P) 33.2 38.2 36.7
New Haven/Criscuolo Park (D) 39.1 31.6
New Haven/State St. (P) 37.2 39.5 32.4 40.6 36.2 40.8 38.1
New Haven/State St. (D) 40.6 32.3 38.9 29.9
New Haven/Ag. Center 32.1 32.8 33.9
Waterbury/Bank St. (P) 34.4 35.4 32.6 37.7 30.4 34.1 35.6
Waterbury/Bank St. (D) 36.0 34.9 33.5 32.8 26.1 35.9 35.2
West Haven Toll 30.8
Hamden Mill Basins 34.7 32.1 29.4 44.0
Fort Lee Library 36.4 34.4 33.0 38.9 31.0 40.5 38.2
Newark/Willis Center 41.6 32.1 32.3 39.8 34.9 40.4 39.9
Newark Lab (P) 34.6
Newark Lab (D) 39.9
Jersey City Firehouse (P) 39.5 34.1 34.3 46.4 37.4 37.9 41.0
Jersey City Firehouse (D) 36.8 41.1 29.1 38.3 38.9
Union City 39.3 39.5
Trenton 43.1 35.4 35.4 40.5 33.3 33.6 36.2
Washington Crossing 31.5 32.2 34.9 28.0 33.0 29.5
New Brunswick 34.5 34.1 26.0 45.0 35.5 33.8 32.8
Morristown Ambulance Squad 30.2 29.7 36.8 31.1 32.9 30.4
Chester 29.4 30.0 35.7 29.8 33.4 28.3
Paterson 35.4 34.9 39.8 31.0 40.5 33.4
Elizabeth Lab (P) 39.7 41.7 37.0 40.5 42.5 39.8
Elizabeth Lab (D) 46.6 50.3 39.3 41.2 36.5 39.8 41.9
Elizabeth/Mitchell Bldg. 36.0 33.8 30.0 40.9 33.1 38.6 38.7
Rahway 38.0 30.4 31.1 35.2 36.6 38.2 37.5

Table 5-8 Trends in PM2.5 mass at the longest running FRM monitors, based on quarterly averages from 1999-2006, in µg/m3/yr. Only those quarters with at least 10 valid samples are included in this trend estimate.

Site Name Trend (µg/m3//yr)
Bridgeport/Roosevelt School (P) -0.07
Danbury WCSU -0.05
Norwalk Health Dept. -0.18
Westport/Sherwood Island -0.19
New Haven/Stiles St. (P) +0.02
New Haven/State St. (P) -0.19
New Haven/State St. (D) -0.32
Waterbury/Bank St. (P) -0.16
Waterbury/Bank St. (D) -0.13
Fort Lee Library -0.25
Newark/Willis Center -0.37
Jersey City Firehouse (P) -0.34
Jersey City Firehouse (D) -0.25
Trenton -0.27
Washington Crossing -0.14
New Brunswick -0.11
Morristown Ambulance Squad -0.49
Chester -0.21
Paterson -0.06
Elizabeth Lab (P) -0.27
Elizabeth Lab (D) -0.43
Elizabeth/Mitchell Bldg. -0.30
Rahway -0.15

Table 5-9 Third quarter 2002 average PM2.5 values at the NY and NJ FRM monitors in the NYC NAA, both including and excluding the flagged data from July 2002

FRM site County, State 3rd Quarter
2002 Average
PM2.5, µg/m3
(include flagged
days)
3rd Quarter
2002 Average
PM2.5, µg/m3
(exclude
flagged days)
340030003 Bergen County, NJ 16.05 13.99
340171003 Hudson County, NJ 16.83 14.68
340210008 Mercer County, NJ 17.99 15.03
340218001 Mercer County, NJ 16.71 14.74
340230006 Middlesex County, NJ 16.60 13.84
340270004 Morris County, NJ 16.84 14.49
340273001 Morris County, NJ 16.14 13.63
340310005 Passaic County, NJ 16.50 14.43
340390004 Union County, NJ 18.97 17.18
340390006 Union County, NJ 13.69 13.69
340392003 Union County, NJ 17.03 14.37
360050080 Bronx County, NY 16.96 14.92
360050083 Bronx County, NY 15.80 13.66
360050110 Bronx County, NY 16.82 15.85
360470052 Kings County, NY 16.66 13.63
360470076 Kings County, NY 15.82 13.66
360470122 Kings County, NY 16.50 14.34
360590008 Nassau County, NY 13.93 11.62
360610056 New York County, NY 17.38 15.33
360610062 New York County, NY 17.44 15.26
360610079 New York County, NY 16.50 14.39
360610128 New York County, NY 17.61 15.40
360710002 Orange County, NY 14.84 12.96
360810124 Queens County, NY 15.69 14.74
360850055 Richmond County, NY 16.26 13.90
360850067 Richmond County, NY 14.86 12.60
361030001 Suffolk County, NY 14.34 12.16
361191002 Westchester County, NY 14.85 12.76

Table 5-10 Baseline PM2.5 design values at all FRM monitors across the NYC NAA as computed by MATS using the official EPA database (which includes flagged data from July 2002 in NY and NJ), and excluding the flagged data from July 2002 in NY and NJ

FRM site County, State

Baseline
Design Value,
µg/m3
(include
flagged days)

Baseline
Design Value,
µg/m3
(exclude
flagged days)
090010010 Fairfield County, CT 13.1 13.1
090010113 Fairfield County, CT 12.7 12.7
090011123 Fairfield County, CT 12.8 12.8
090012124 Fairfield County, CT 12.9 12.9
090013005 Fairfield County, CT 13.0 13.0
090019003 Fairfield County, CT 11.4 11.4
090091123 New Haven County, CT 13.7 13.7
090092123 New Haven County, CT 13.1 13.1
090099005 New Haven County, CT 11.6 11.6
340030003 Bergen County, NJ 13.0 12.8
340171003 Hudson County, NJ 14.9 14.8
340210008 Mercer County, NJ 13.9 13.7
340218001 Mercer County, NJ 11.6 11.5
340230006 Middlesex County, NJ 12.5 12.2
340270004 Morris County, NJ 11.8 11.6
340273001 Morris County, NJ 10.7 10.5
340310005 Passaic County, NJ 13.1 12.9
340390004 Union County, NJ 15.7 15.5
340390006 Union County, NJ 13.2 13.2
340392003 Union County, NJ 13.1 12.9
360050080 Bronx County, NY 15.8 15.6
360050083 Bronx County, NY 13.8 13.7
360050110 Bronx County, NY 14.3 14.3
360470052 Kings County, NY 15.7 15.5
360470076 Kings County, NY 14.6 14.4
360470122 Kings County, NY 14.7 14.5
360590008 Nassau County, NY 12.2 12.0
360610056 New York County, NY 16.9 16.7
360610062 New York County, NY 16.3 16.1
360610079 New York County, NY 14.7 14.5
360610128 New York County, NY 15.9 15.6
360710002 Orange County, NY 11.5 11.4
360810124 Queens County, NY 12.9 12.8
360850055 Richmond County, NY 14.4 14.2
360850067 Richmond County, NY 12.1 12.0
361030001 Suffolk County, NY 12.1 11.9
361191002 Westchester County, NY 12.2 12.0

Table 5-11 Baseline non-blank species composition at all FRM monitors across the NYC NAA as computed by MATS. "SO4" is sulfate; "NO3r" is retained nitrate; "OM" is organic aerosol mass; "EC" is elemental carbon (OM+EC = carbonaceous mass); "PBW" is particle-bound water; "NH4" is ammonium associated with SO4 and NO3r; "OPP" is other primary PM2.5, assumed to equal the sum of major crustal oxides (Si, Ca, Fe, and Ti); and "Salt" is 1.8×Cl.

FRM site SO4 NO3r OM EC PBW NH4 OPP Salt
090010010 3.60 0.59 4.84 0.80 1.05 1.27 0.45 0.03
090010113 3.55 0.55 4.52 0.79 1.04 1.24 0.44 0.03
090011123 3.75 0.65 3.97 0.87 1.15 1.36 0.46 0.04
090012124 3.59 0.67 4.44 0.83 1.06 1.30 0.46 0.03
090013005 3.46 0.55 5.16 0.75 0.97 1.19 0.43 0.02
090019003 3.59 0.62 2.78 0.88 1.19 1.37 0.46 0.06
090091123 3.90 0.50 4.84 0.86 1.21 1.41 0.46 0.04
090092123 3.92 0.69 3.83 0.94 1.26 1.47 0.49 0.05
090099005 3.59 0.65 2.93 0.89 1.18 1.38 0.46 0.06
340030003 3.71 0.80 3.25 1.08 1.28 1.52 0.55 0.08
340171003 3.99 1.14 4.08 1.24 1.36 1.75 0.60 0.09
340210008 4.51 0.98 3.06 0.74 1.52 1.81 0.50 0.05
340218001 3.86 0.67 2.61 0.58 1.30 1.49 0.41 0.03
340230006 3.67 0.70 3.16 0.99 1.26 1.46 0.45 0.05
340270004 3.93 0.59 2.72 0.71 1.28 1.45 0.38 0.03
340273001 3.15 0.50 2.85 0.75 1.08 1.21 0.38 0.03
340310005 3.79 0.80 3.28 1.10 1.31 1.54 0.53 0.07
340390004 4.29 0.99 4.95 1.02 1.45 1.76 0.56 0.08
340390006 3.57 0.78 3.72 1.37 1.23 1.49 0.52 0.06
340392003 3.54 0.76 3.60 1.29 1.22 1.46 0.50 0.05
360050080 4.11 1.02 4.91 1.19 1.41 1.74 0.62 0.12
360050083 4.17 1.01 2.96 1.10 1.43 1.76 0.61 0.12
360050110 3.96 0.93 4.06 1.20 1.34 1.62 0.59 0.08
360470052 4.13 1.18 4.44 1.28 1.41 1.81 0.61 0.10
360470076 3.82 1.12 4.18 1.15 1.30 1.68 0.57 0.09
360470122 4.01 1.12 3.86 1.16 1.37 1.75 0.60 0.10
360590008 3.67 0.82 2.84 0.83 1.26 1.51 0.50 0.09
360610056 4.35 1.17 5.28 1.27 1.49 1.88 0.64 0.11
360610062 4.31 1.04 4.97 1.23 1.48 1.80 0.62 0.12
360610079 4.20 1.05 3.61 1.17 1.44 1.78 0.62 0.12
360610128 4.02 1.19 4.84 1.23 1.37 1.78 0.60 0.10
360710002 3.68 0.62 2.79 0.81 1.15 1.34 0.43 0.03
360810124 3.80 0.89 3.02 1.10 1.31 1.58 0.56 0.09
360850055 3.94 0.92 3.71 1.47 1.36 1.66 0.58 0.08
360850067 3.12 0.67 3.69 1.09 1.08 1.29 0.45 0.06
361030001 3.74 0.73 2.87 0.85 1.23 1.44 0.50 0.06
361191002 3.64 0.76 2.80 1.05 1.23 1.44 0.53 0.06

Table 5-12 Baseline and future PM2.5 design values at all FRM monitors across the NYC NAA as computed by MATS, excluding flagged FRM days

FRM site County, State Baseline
Design Value,
µg/m3
Future
Design Value,
µg/m3
090010010 Fairfield County, CT 13.1 11.7
090010113 Fairfield County, CT 12.7 11.2
090011123 Fairfield County, CT 12.8 11.2
090012124 Fairfield County, CT 12.9 11.5
090013005 Fairfield County, CT 13.0 11.7
090019003 Fairfield County, CT 11.4 9.8
090091123 New Haven County, CT 13.7 12.0
090092123 New Haven County, CT 13.1 11.4
090099005 New Haven County, CT 11.6 10.0
340030003 Bergen County, NJ 12.8 11.3
340171003 Hudson County, NJ 14.8 13.2
340210008 Mercer County, NJ 13.7 11.6
340218001 Mercer County, NJ 11.5 9.6
340230006 Middlesex County, NJ 12.2 10.3
340270004 Morris County, NJ 11.6 9.7
340273001 Morris County, NJ 10.5 8.8
340310005 Passaic County, NJ 12.9 11.1
340390004 Union County, NJ 15.5 13.5
340390006 Union County, NJ 13.2 11.5
340392003 Union County, NJ 12.9 11.2
360050080 Bronx County, NY 15.6 14.2
360050083 Bronx County, NY 13.7 12.2
360050110 Bronx County, NY 14.3 13.0
360470052 Kings County, NY 15.5 14.0
360470076 Kings County, NY 14.4 13.1
360470122 Kings County, NY 14.5 13.1
360590008 Nassau County, NY 12.0 10.7
360610056 New York County, NY 16.7 15.2
360610062 New York County, NY 16.1 14.5
360610079 New York County, NY 14.5 13.2
360610128 New York County, NY 15.6 14.2
360710002 Orange County, NY 11.4 10.0
360810124 Queens County, NY 12.8 11.5
360850055 Richmond County, NY 14.2 12.4
360850067 Richmond County, NY 12.0 10.5
361030001 Suffolk County, NY 11.9 10.5
361191002 Westchester County, NY 12.0 10.6

Table 5-13 Information for the five FRM monitors considered in this analysis: site name and ID, dates of operation during 2000-2004, base year PM2.5 design value, and the nearest STN monitor

Site Name FRM site Operational periods
during 2000-2004
Base year
Design Value,
µg/m3
Nearest
STN monitor
P.S.59 360610056 1st qtr 2000 - 4th qtr 2004 16.9 360610062
Canal St 360610062 1st qtr 2000 - 4th qtr 2004 16.3 360610062
J.H.S.45 360610079 1st qtr 2000 - 4th qtr 2004 14.7 360050110
P.S.19 360610128 3rd qtr 2001 - 4th qtr 2004 15.9 360610062
I.S.52 360050110 1st qtr 2000 - 4th qtr 2004 14.7 360050110

Table 5-14. Current PM2.5 species composition at each site: sulfate (SO4), retained nitrate (NO3r), organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), particle-bound water (PBW), retained ammonium (NH4), and other primary PM2.5 (OPP)

FRM site SO4 NO3r OC EC PBW NH4 OPP
360610056 4.98 1.50 3.81 1.51 1.65 2.19 0.77
360610062* 4.81 1.40 3.66 1.45 1.59 2.10 0.74
360610079 4.41 1.05 3.58 1.13 1.47 1.84 0.71
360610128 4.68 1.39 3.59 1.42 1.55 2.05 0.72
360050110* 4.39 1.08 3.56 1.14 1.46 1.84 0.71

* FRM Monitor with collocated STN

Table 5-15 Annual average PM2.5 mass over the nine grid cells surrounding each monitor from the base year (2002) and future year (2009) CMAQ simulations, as well as the absolute and percent reductions

FRM site 2002 avg.,
µg/m3
2009 avg.,
µg/m3
Change
µg/m3
Change
(percent)
360610056 24.28 20.51 -3.77 -15.5
360610062 23.70 19.80 -3.90 -16.5
360610079 24.28 20.51 -3.77 -15.5
360610128 23.66 20.01 -3.65 -15.4
360050110 24.28 20.51 -3.77 -15.5

Table 5-16 Base and future year PM2.5 design values

FRM site Base Year
Design Value,
µg/m3
Future PM2.5
Design Value,
µg/m3
360610056 16.9 15.3
360610062 16.3 14.4
360610079 14.7 13.3
360610128 15.9 14.3
360050110 14.7 13.3

Figure 5-3 - PM2.5 FRM Sites in New York City

Map of New York City showing location of PM2.5 FRM monitoring sites June 2004

__________
1 http://www.menv.gouv.qc.ca/air/particules_ozone/rapport_quin-en.pdf
2 http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=3&file=/Q_2/Q2R20_A.htm
3 http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Programs/Community-Outreach/Energy-Smart-Communities.aspx