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.

NYS Ambient Air Monitoring Program Network Assessment (May 2010)

Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance
Division of Air Resources
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Executive Summary

This document is prepared in part to fulfill the new requirements specified in the revised Monitoring Regulations Parts 53 and 58. All monitoring networks operated by the Bureau of Air Surveillance, Division of Air Resources were evaluated to determine if they meet the monitoring objectives as defined by the regulations. Considerations were given to: population and geographical coverage; air quality trends; attainment classification; emissions inventory; parameters monitored; special purpose monitors; health related and scientific research; external data users; new and proposed regulations; quality assurance; technology; personnel and training.

As a whole New York has one of the most comprehensive and robust ambient air monitoring programs in the nation. New York meets or exceeds current monitoring requirements in nearly all instances. There are adequate monitoring stations in populated areas, including where sensitive subgroups reside. Networks for criteria and non-criteria pollutants meet specified monitoring objectives. The toxics analytical laboratory has proven to be one of the best in the country, as demonstrated by data produced for the School Air Toxics Project and the Tonawanda Community Air Quality Study. New York is amongst the first to deploy new monitoring technology in the network. Staff routinely communicates findings via publication in peer reviewed scientific journals as well as presenting these data at technical conferences. There is potentially some redundancy in parameters measured in terms of sampling frequency and site locations which should be further reviewed and prioritized for consolidation.

As new regulations and implementation rules go into effect it will place more and more burden on the states, taxing already limited resources. Some states may not be able to carry out the required monitoring. It appears that New York will be able to meet additional monitoring requirements for most of the new and proposed rules with the exception of nitrogen dioxide. The near-road monitoring requirements associated with the new NO2 rule are particularly onerous. The resources needed to carry out this mandate will severely strain the already short staffed program.

One emerging issue that requires serious consideration is the aging of current monitoring staff. To address this matter, program management needs to recruit young professionals into the organization to replace retiring staff. In addition, funding needs to be secured that is specifically earmarked for the hiring of new personnel.

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations Parts 53 and Part 58 on October 17, 2006. As required by §58.10(d), "the State, or where applicable local, agency shall perform and submit to the EPA Regional Administrator an assessment of the air quality surveillance system every 5 years to determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the monitoring objectives defined in appendix D to this Part, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network." The first assessment is due July 1, 2010. This Network Assessment (NA) document is prepared and submitted along with the 2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP) to fulfill these new requirements.

New York State Ambient Air Monitoring Networks

The Division of Air Resources, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) operates 76 monitoring sites statewide for the measurement of criteria and non-criteria contaminants. A site map depicting monitor locations is shown in Figure 1 below. The continuous monitoring network comprises of 33 ozone (O3), 23 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 7 oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 9 carbon monoxide (CO), 28 continuous PM2.5 (TEOM), 3 PM10 (TEOM), 2 speciated carbon, 2 black carbon (aethalometer), 2 speciated mercury, 4 particulate sulfate, 5 total hydrocarbon monitors, 1 size distribution ultrafine particle counter, and 23 meteorological data stations. In addition, there are manual sampling networks in place for the measurement of PM2.5 (24 FRM, 8 Speciation), toxics (13 VOCs, 10 carbonyls, 2 PAHs), lead (3), PM10 metals (2), and acid deposition (20). New York's ambient air monitoring program is one of the most robust and comprehensive operations in the country. Detailed information about the monitoring networks is provided in the 2010 AMNP.

The objectives of New York's ambient air monitoring networks are:

  1. Provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner.
    Using our monitoring data NYSDEC meteorologists provide daily Air Quality Index (AQI) forecasts and health advisories when warranted to the public through the news media as well as the Department's website, on which up to the hour air quality measurements from all monitoring sites are posted. Annual or more frequent reports for all other monitored parameters are available on our website. Ozone and PM2.5 data are electronically transmitted hourly to EPA's AIRNow Program, which can be accessed from the "Offsite Links" section on the right side of the page.
  2. Support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emissions strategy development.
    Data from our monitors for the criteria pollutants are used for comparing an area's air pollution levels against the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to determine attainment status classification. In addition, the data are utilized for the development of attainment and maintenance plans, evaluation of the regional air quality models used in developing emission strategies, and the tracking of trends in air pollution abatement control measures aimed at improving air quality. In monitoring locations near major air pollution sources, source-oriented monitoring data provide insight into how well industrial sources are controlling their pollutant emissions.
  3. Support for air pollution research studies.
    Our monitoring data have been used to supplement data collected by researchers working on health effects assessments and atmospheric processes, and for monitoring methods development work. Collaborations with external researchers have culminated in the publication of significant findings in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles in many instances. A listing of publications and presentations can be found in the AMNP.
Figure 1. Location Map of Monitoring Sites in New York State
Figure 1. Location Map of Monitoring Sites in New York State

Population

The 2000 Census lists the state population for New York as 18,976,457. According to Census Bureau estimates the NY state population in 2009 totaled 19,541,453, the third most populous state in the nation. The population change in the previous 5 year period indicates a net increase of 243,520 for the entire State, with a net migration loss of 508,013 individuals. A Census Bureau estimated population breakdown of major Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) is provided in Table 1 below. The State saw a modest growth overall in the 5-year period, mostly in the downstate areas at the expense of the western MSAs.

Table 1. Estimated Population for Major Metropolitan Statistical Areas in New York
MSA 2003 2008 Difference %
Albany-Schenectady-Troy 839,545 853,919 14,374 1.71
Binghamton 249,622 245,189 -4,433 -1.78
Buffalo-Niagara Falls 1,154,569 1,124,309 -30,260 -2.62
Elmira 89,822 87,813 -2,009 -2.24
Glens Falls 125,872 128,775 2,903 2.31
Ithaca 99,272 101,136 1,864 1.88
Kingston 180,282 181,670 1,388 0.77
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown 651,878 672,525 20,647 3.17
Nassau-Suffolk 2,839,842 2,863,849 24,007 0.85
New York-White Plains 9,459,273 9,715,442 256,169 2.71
Rochester 1,040,259 1,034,090 -6,169 -0.59
Syracuse 649,719 643,794 -5,925 -0.91
Utica-Rome 295,953 293,790 -481 -0.16
State Total 19,231,101 19,467,789 233,688 1.22

A population density map by county based on the 2008 estimated data is depicted in Figure 2.

Population Density in New York State by County
Figure 2. Population Density in New York State by County
Data Set: 2008 Population Estimates (Source: Census Bureau Thematic Maps)

Environmental Justice Areas

Environmental justice (EJ) is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Environmental justice efforts focus on improving the environment in communities, specifically minority and low-income communities, and addressing disproportionate adverse environmental impacts that may exist in those communities.

A map of potential EJ areas in the State is shown in Figure 3. Approximately 37% of New York's population resides in potential EJ areas. In our network, there are 26 air monitors, 18 of which are downstate, sited within areas designated as such. The number of air monitoring sites located in potential EJ areas is commensurate with the population percentage residing therein. In the populous downstate area, 54% of the network monitors are located in potential EJ areas, where 52% of the population lives. Table 2 lists potential EJ monitors in the network.

Potential Environmental Justice Areas in New York State
Figure 3. Potential Environmental Justice Areas in New York State
Table 2. Monitoring Sites Located in Potential Environmental Justice Areas
DEC Region AIRS # DEC # Site Name County Location
2 36-005-0080 7094-05 Morrisania II Bronx Family Care Ctr, 1225-57 Gerard Ave
2 36-005-0083 7094-06 NYBG Pfizer Lab Bronx 200th St. & Southern Blvd.
2 36-005-0110 7094-07 IS 52 Bronx 681 Kelly St., E 156th St.
2 36-005-0112 7094-08 IS 74 Bronx 730 Bryant Avenue
2 36-005-0113 7094-09 PS 154 Bronx 333 East 135th Street
2 36-005-0133 7094-10 NYBG Harding Lab Bronx 200th St. & Southern Blvd.
2 36-047-0052 7095-07 PS 314 Kings 330 59th St.
2 36-047-0118 7095-98 PS 274 Kings 800 Bushwick Ave
2 36-061-0079 7093-08 JHS 45 New York 2351 1st Avenue
2 36-061-0115 7093-15 IS 143 New York 511 W 182nd St.
2 36-061-0119 7093-17 Manhattanville P.O. New York 365 W 125th St.
2 36-061-0125 7093-18 Park Row New York 1 Pace Plaza
2 36-061-0128 7093-21 PS 19 New York 185 1st Avenue
2 36-061-0134 7093-24 Division Street New York Division Street
2 36-061-0135 7093-25 CCNY New York 160 Convent Avenue
2 36-081-0120 7096-13 Maspeth Library Queens 69-70 Grand Avenue
2 36-081-0124 7096-14 PS 219 Queens 144-39 Gravett Rd (Kew Gardens)
2 36-081-0124 7096-15 Queens College II Queens NYSDEC Monitoring Building
2 36-085-0067 7097-01 Susan Wagner Richmond 1200 Manor Road (near Brielle Ave)
2 36-085-0055 7097-03 Port Richmond Richmond 364 Port Richmond Avenue
2 36-085-0114 7097-18 PS 44 Richmond 80 Maple Parkway
3 36-071-0002 3502-04 Newburgh Orange Public Safety Building
4 36-001-0005 0101-13 Albany Albany Albany County Health Department
4 36-001-0012 0101-33 Loudonville Albany Reservoir
6 36-065-2001 3202-01 Utica Oneida Utica Health Dept
7 36-067-0017 3301-22 Syracuse Onondaga Syracuse COMS
9 36-063-2008 3102-25 Niagara Falls Niagara Frontier Ave & 55th St.
9 36-029-0005 1401-18 Buffalo Erie Off Dingens St., near Weiss
9 36-029-1007 1402-14 Lackawanna Erie Simon St.

Sensitive Sub-Populations

Children, the elderly, and people with underlying health issues may be more susceptible to the deleterious effects associated with air pollution, and are considered to be under the sensitive sub-populations category. Sixteen monitoring sites in the network are located on public school grounds, where attending students are of grade school to high school age.

Citizens groups often bring attention to areas where they believe there are high incidences of health related problems due to air pollution, such as asthma, respiratory diseases, and cancer clusters. Where possible we try to accommodate concerned citizens by providing air quality data from nearby monitoring sites. For example, IS 143 serves the Lower Washington Heights Neighborhood Association; Manhattanville Post Office serves the North River Community Environmental Review Board; and IS 74 and PS 154 serve the Nos Quedamos Community Development Corporation. In the case of the Clean Air Coalition of WNY, we were able to obtain EPA funding to carry out the Tonawanda Community Air Quality Study.

Air Quality in New York State

Statewide concentration trends for all criteria contaminants are provided in the pollutant specific discussion below. Other than ozone and fine particulate matter, there has been no contravention of the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants in the entire State in recent years. Therefore, considerations are given here for ozone and PM2.5 only.

The Air Quality Index (AQI) is an index for reporting daily air quality. It was created as an easy way to correlate levels of different pollutants to one scale to show the public how clean or polluted the air is, and what associated health effects might be of concern. When levels of ozone and/or fine particles are expected to exceed an AQI value of 100, an Air Quality Health Advisory is issued alerting sensitive groups to take the necessary precautions.

As an alternative to using the actual pollutant concentrations, one can assess air quality by using the number of AQI days that are unhealthy for sensitive groups (AQI>100) as a metric. The following tables show the number of unhealthy AQI days for ozone and fine particles during the last three years based on the current NAAQS. Also listed is the three-year average, which serves to lessen the influence of year-to-year variations.

Table 3. Days AQI>100 for Ozone Based on 24 hr Monitoring Data
MSA Site Days O3 AQI>100 (24 hr) 3-year average
2007 2008 2009
New York-White Plains CCNY 5 6 1 4
Pfizer Lab 4 5 1 3.3
IS 52 4 5 0 3
Queens College 3 6 0 3
Susan Wagner 4 1 (partial) 5 not applicable
White Plains 7 9 2 6
Mt. Ninham 8 5 2 5
Rockland - - 0 (partial) not applicable
Buffalo-Niagara Falls Amherst 11 3 1 5
Middleport 10 2 1 4.3
Nassau-Suffolk Babylon 8 8 4 6.7
Holtsville 8 6 3 5.7
Riverhead 6 7 1 4.7
Albany-Schenectady-Troy Loudonville 4 4 0 2.7
Schenectady 2 1 0 1
Grafton Lake 6 3 2 3.7
Stillwater 9 5 1 5
Utica-Rome Camden 1 2 0 1
Nicks Lake 2 2 0 1.3
Syracuse Camp Georgetown 4 3 0 2.3
East Syracuse 4 2 1 2.3
Fulton 6 2 0 2.7
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown Millbrook 8 4 1 4.3
Rochester Rochester 8 3 0 3.7
Williamson 6 2 0 2.7
Watertown-Fort Drum Perch River 5 2 2 3
Kingston Belleayre 1 1 0 0.7
Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia Westfield 7 0 1 2.7
Dunkirk 14 3 1 6
Elmira Elmira 1 2 0 1
Corning Pinnacle 2 1 1 1.3
Essex County Whiteface Summit 9 3 2 4.7
Whiteface Base 5 1 1 2.3
Hamilton County Piseco Lake 2 2 0 1.3

The three-year average number in Table 3 is a good indicator of the severity of ozone pollution in the monitored area. A value greater than three potentially will result in contravention of the NAAQS. Areas downstate and some in the western parts of the State show ozone standard exceedances.

Table 4. Days AQI>100 for PM2.5 Based on 24 hr Monitoring Data
MSA Site Days PM2.5 AQI>100 (total AQI days) 3 yr average
2007 2008 2009
New York-White Plains IS 52 8 0 1 3
IS 74 1 0 2 1
PS 154 7 2 1 3.3
PS 314 4 1 0 1.7
PS 274 5 2 0 2.3
IS 293 6 1 0 2.3
IS 143 9 2 2 4.3
Manhattanville 8 2 1 3.7
Park Row 6 2 1 3
PS 19 7 (partial) 0 (partial) 0 2.3
Division St. 6 1 1 2.7
CCNY 7 (partial) 0 2 3
Maspeth Library 4 4 0 2.7
PS 219 2 0 0 0.7
Fresh Kills West 3 1 0 1.3
PS 44 5 0 0 1.7
White Plains 4 0 0 1.3
Buffalo-Niagara Falls Buffalo 9 1 1 3.7
Tonawanda 4 (partial) 2 1 2.3
Niagara Falls 6 1 0 2.3
Nassau-Suffolk Hempstead 4 2 1 2.3
Albany-Schenectady-Troy Albany 2 0 0 0.8
Utica-Rome Utica 1 0 0 0.3
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown Newburgh 3 0 0 1.3
Rochester Rochester 4 0 0 1.3

The data used Table 4 above for fine particles are measurements from our continuous PM2.5 monitoring network. The three-year average numbers indicate that fine particulate is a pollutant of concern in the downstate area. For attainment classification determinations, the Federal Reference Method (FRM) manual sampling network data are utilized, since the continuous instrument measurements cannot be used for such purposes.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

EPA is required to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for wide-spread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The Clean Air Act requires periodic review of the science upon which the standards are based and the standards themselves. Listed below are the NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants. Monitoring data from our networks are used for comparison against these standards to determine attainment classifications. Except for ozone and PM2.5, all other criteria contaminants meet the NAAQS in New York State.

Table 5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Primary Stds. Averaging Times Secondary Stds.
Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm(10 mg/m3) 8-hour(1) None
35 ppm(40 mg/m3) 1-hour(1) None
Lead 0.15 µg/m3(2) Rolling 3-month Average Same as Primary
Nitrogen Dioxide 0.053 ppm(100 µg/m3) Annual (Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary
.100 ppm 1-hour(3)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 µg/m3 24-hour(4)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15.0 µg/m3 Annual(5) (Arith. Mean) Same as Primary
35 µg/m3 24-hour(6)
Ozone 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hour(7) Same as Primary
0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hour(8) Same as Primary
0.12 ppm 1-hour(9)Not applicable in NYS Same as Primary
Sulfur Oxides 0.03 ppm Annual (Arith. Mean) -------
0.14 ppm 24-hour(1) -------
------- 3-hour(1) 0.5 ppm(1300 µg/m3)

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
(2) Effective 1/12/2009, replaces the previous quarterly average value of 1.5µg/m3.
(3) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor
within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010).
(4) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.
(5) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single
or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3.
(6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented
monitor within an area must not exceed 35µg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006).
(7) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured
at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008).
(8) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at
each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
(b) The 1997 standard-and the implementation rules for that standard-will remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard.
(c) EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008).
(9) (a) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is < 1.
(b) As of June 15, 2005 EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas.

Ozone Nonattainment Classification

Based on 3 years of monitoring data ending December 2008, against the former 8-hr standard of 0.08 ppm EPA designated 30 counties in New York State as nonattainment areas (Table 6). Figure 4 depicts the nonattainment counties and the population affected (16.6 million).

Table 6. Nonattainment Area Designations for 8 hr Ozone as of December 2008
Nonattainment Area Counties
Capital Region Albany, Greene, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie
Buffalo-Niagara Falls Erie, Niagara
Essex County (Whiteface Mtn) Essex (Partial)
Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia Chautauqua
Watertown-Fort Drum Jefferson
New York-White Plains-Long Island Bronx, Kings, New York, Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown Dutchess, Orange
Rochester- Batavia Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Orleans, Wayne, Genesee
New York State 8-hr Ozone Nonattainment Counties
Figure 4. New York State 8-hr Ozone Nonattainment Counties

Additional projected nonattainment counties based on the current 8-hr ozone standard of 0.075 ppm include: Ulster, Warren, and Washington.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Classification

Based on 3 years of monitoring data ending December 2008, EPA designated 10 counties in New York State as nonattainment areas (Table 7). Figure 5 depicts the nonattainment counties and the population affected (12.2 million).

Table 7. Nonattainment Area Designations for 24 hr PM2.5 as of December 2008
Nonattainment Area Counties
New York-White Plains-Long Island Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown Orange
New York State 24-hr PM2.5 Nonattainment Counties
Figure 5. New York State 24-hr PM2.5 Nonattainment Counties

Consideration of Meteorological Conditions

Wind data in the form of wind roses for multiple years of hourly data from NYSDEC air monitoring sites were examined and compared to similar plots for nearby National Weather Service (NWS) weather observation sites. Many of our air monitoring sites are not in ideal locations for measuring wind, since they are sometimes subject to effects from obstructions. However, examination of these plots indicates that for most monitors there is general agreement between the NYSDEC sites and the NWS sites.

In the New York City/Long Island/Lower Hudson Valley metropolitan area, northwesterly and southerly winds are the most common. The frequency of northeast and southeast winds varies with location relative to the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound, due to the localized sea-breezes.

In the Poughkeepsie/Newburgh area, data from two NWS sites and our Millbrook monitor are in agreement that most of the stronger winds are either from the SW to W or NNW to NNE. Light winds are especially common in this area, and the directions of the light winds vary extensively with location. The Millbrook monitor site frequently sees light SE winds, while the directions of the light winds at Poughkeepsie are more variable.

In the Albany area, agreement is good between the NWS site at Albany International Airport and the DEC monitor sites. In the Hudson Valley, winds from the S to SSE and from the NW quadrant predominate, with very little in the way of SW or E winds. At the Grafton Lakes air monitor site on the Rensselaer Plateau, the situation is similar except that SW winds are seen more often than at valley locations.

In the Buffalo area, good agreement is seen between the wind roses from the NWS sites and the NYSDEC monitoring sites. Southwesterly winds prevail throughout the area, with secondary maximum directions showing variation depending on the site's location relative to the lakeshores.

Wind data from NYSDEC's monitor site in Chautauqua County at Westfield match up very well with those from the NWS site at Erie, PA.

NYSDEC meteorologists regularly use a wide variety of sources for important upper air information and other real-time meteorological data, including stagnation data, for use in forecasting and SIP decision making. They include the following, among many others:

  • NOAA/NWS/NCEP Model Analyses and Forecasts website
  • NOAA Air Resources Lab READY website
  • NOAA/NWS WFO websites for local data
  • SUNY Stony Brook MM5 Modeling website
  • SUNY Albany Meteorology website

Appendix A (PDF) (2.6 MB) provides a comparison of wind roses generated from representative monitoring sites vs. those obtained from NWS sources, pollutant roses for selected episodes, and associated back trajectory plots. Selected pollution episodes in nonattainment areas are discussed below.

Ozone Nonattainment Areas

1. NYC Metro Area

Weather data were examined for the dates of all ozone NAAQS exceedances in the NYC area for 2007-2009. The data showed the patterns that have come to be recognized over the years as being conducive to high ozone. Local wind circulation patterns, particularly those related to sea breezes, show influences on the timing and location of high ozone within the metro area. Seasonal and day-to-day differences in these circulations cause the highest ozone levels to occur in different places within the area on different days. In the spring and early summer when sea-breeze circulations are the strongest, they often push the polluted air completely out of NYC proper by late afternoon, and the highest ozone levels occur at White Plains. On midsummer days, it is common to see a sea-breeze circulation from Long Island Sound competing with one from the ocean waters, which may concentrate pollutants in various locations around the NYC area. It appears that most of the variability in ozone levels within the metro area is explained by mesoscale, rather than microscale, wind patterns. The monitoring network currently in place is deemed sufficient to give the air quality forecasters a reasonably good idea of what is happening on a mesoscale level.

2. Albany Area

Weather data were examined for the dates of all exceedances of the ozone NAAQS for 2007-2009 (the NAAQS was 85 ppb in 2007, 75 ppb in 2008-2009). In almost all of the cases, winds at Albany airport were predominantly out of the south during the afternoon/early evening periods. In some of these cases the general weather pattern was conducive to southwesterly winds, but due to the local topography the surface winds in those cases usually turn out to be southerly. Morning winds were sometimes light and variable, though usually had a southerly component. In one instance a cold front passed through during the afternoon, bringing a shift to moderate NW winds, but not in time to prevent an exceedance. Back trajectory plots for many of the exceedance dates were also examined. The source areas (as indicated by back trajectory plots) were variable, but often included either parts of the NYC metro area or Connecticut. Overall, it appears that local emissions in the Albany area are the primary driver for the ozone exceedances, but emissions from the NYC and Connecticut areas often contribute as well. Since winds are predominantly from the S to SW on the warm days that are conducive to ozone formation, the highest ozone readings are often seen to the north and east of the core of the metro area, i.e. at Grafton Lakes and Stillwater. Exceedances are far less common at the Schenectady monitor, which is normally upstream of most of the metro area during high ozone events. This shows the strong influence of local emissions on ozone levels.

3. Buffalo/Niagara Falls Area

Weather data, including back trajectory plots, were examined for the dates of all exceedances of the ozone NAAQS for 2007-2009. The predominant wind direction on the exceedance days was southwesterly, though there were also a small number of exceedances on days with winds from the northwest or northeast. Exceedances were somewhat more common (7 vs. 9) at Amherst than at Middleport, probably a reflection of Amherst's location just downwind of the urban core (on southwesterly winds).

4. Rochester Area

Rochester weather data were examined for the dates of the five ozone exceedances during 2007-2009. Most of the exceedances occurred on days when the regional wind flow was from the south or southwest, but winds tended to become light and variable during the afternoon at the Rochester airport due to the lake breeze effect working counter to the southerly wind flow. Exceedances were more frequent at the Rochester monitor, close to the urban core, than at the Williamson monitor to the east-northeast.

5. Jefferson County

Watertown weather data were looked at for the dates of the six ozone exceedances at the Perch River monitor between 2007 and 2009. On five of the six days, SW to WSW winds prevailed. The exception was 19 April 2008, when stations throughout western New York saw high ozone on N to NE winds.

PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

Five dates were chosen out of the period 2007-2009 when multiple monitors in the NYC area recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels in excess of 35µg/m3:

  • 3/14/07 - Regional haze/PM had been building up over the Mid-Atlantic area, an approaching warm front caused a very stable atmosphere in low levels over NYC in the morning, then regional haze overspread the area after the warm front passed.
  • 6/26/07 - Mostly regional haze, but winds were light which allowed a significant local contribution as well.
  • 7/9/07 - Warm front with associated low level inversion early, then strong regional component after the warm front passed.
  • 7/29/08 - Mostly due to Canadian and/or Russian forest fires, adding to a moderate regional component.
  • 11/9/09 - Stagnation with strong local component, also some regional component.

Again, the findings agreed with the patterns that the air quality forecasters have observed over the years. The highest 24-hour PM2.5 levels usually occur when two or more of these factors combine:

  1. Strong low-level temperature inversion - can be caused by radiational cooling on clear/calm nights, but in the NYC area it is more commonly due to a warm or stationary front where a shallow layer of cool maritime air at the surface underlies warm air aloft. This causes trapping of local emissions and can result in quick rises in PM2.5 concentrations.
  2. Stagnation due to prolonged periods of very light wind flow across the area - especially common in fall and winter with stationary high pressure over the area.
  3. Transport of particulates from outside the area. This can be caused by transport from an area to our south/west that has had stagnant conditions for a period of time, allowing general pollutant buildup which is then pushed our way when the wind picks up. It is also caused by long-distance transport of smoke from forest fires and agricultural burning. Smoke from as far away as Russia can affect our surface air quality if it is transported in the free troposphere then mixes down into the boundary layer when it arrives here.
  4. An approaching cold front or trough from the west or northwest is often preceded by a spike in PM2.5 levels - the spike usually only lasts for a few hours, somewhat limiting its effect on 24-hour average PM levels.

Usually one of these factors alone is not sufficient to cause the 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration to exceed 35µg/m3. An example of a pattern that commonly causes exceedances is: a warm front approaching from the south or west in the early morning in the spring or early summer - this will cause pollutants to be trapped in the shallow boundary layer as the front approaches, and the strength of the inversion tends to be enhanced by the relatively cold ocean waters (light E or SE wind ahead of warm front). By midday the warm front passes through, putting the New York area into a warm air mass with southwest winds, but allowing transported pollutants from the south/west of the region to mix down to the surface.

Emissions Inventories

Emissions inventories are the basis for numerous efforts including trends analysis, regional and local scale air quality modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure modeling.

In general emissions arise from the following source categories:

  • Point sources - Point sources are large, stationary (non-mobile), identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere.
  • Area sources - Area sources collectively represent individual sources that have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. These individual sources are typically too small, numerous, or difficult to inventory using the methods for the other classes of sources.
  • Mobile source (on-road and off-road) - A motor vehicle, non-road engine or non-road vehicle.
  • Biogenic sources (natural) - Biogenic emissions are all pollutants emitted from non-anthropogenic sources.

Accurate accounting of emissions inventory is vital in the development of pollution reduction strategies. It also supports the selection of proper site locations for the intended monitoring objectives.

Tables 8 through 10 below are compiled from EPA's National Emission Inventory database showing emissions for various pollutants in New York and upwind states. The inventory is updated every three years. The 2008 database is still under preparation. Here PMcon and VOC denote condensable particulate matter and volatile organic compounds, respectively.

Table 8. 2002 Summary of Emissions (tons/yr) for Selected States
State CO NH3 NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 PMcon SO2 VOC
Delaware 245,519 13,941 57,516 32,820 11,015 1,678 84,803 40,774
Maryland 1,677,580 31,356 283,610 225,218 66,802 14,990 344,128 260,936
Michigan 3,960,962 66,955 696,962 875,185 164,721 13,154 497,414 672,992
New Jersey 2,072,136 14,819 316,534 127,170 34,537 3,484 93,578 347,789
New York 4,491,968 71,723 619,820 789,974 163,539 11,603 446,889 982,885
Ohio 3,952,471 125,119 995,637 1,032,789 233,285 51,573 1,308,497 630,889
Pennsylvania 3,688,993 92,948 776,347 891,790 198,904 50,809 1,085,658 603,231
Virginia 2,540,348 57,173 502,013 497,227 133,268 14,263 356,935 442,217
West Virginia 796,036 12,847 389748 297,207 90,241 28,546 587,349 130,107
Table 9. 2005 Summary of Emissions (tons/yr) for Selected States
State CO NH3 NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 PMcon SO2 VOC
Delaware 218,772 14,045 54,832 34,869 12,750 2,849 85,174 34,807
Maryland 1,497,254 31,814 273,777 230,829 72,506 17,115 381,313 224,255
Michigan 3,396,590 67,921 614,767 882,271 166,319 15,131 490,378 610,508
New Jersey 1,770,326 15,221 294775 129,549 36,450 4,418 101,433 295,479
New York 3,675,261 71,796 567,101 756,827 138,114 10,743 391,199 739,179
Ohio 3,406,329 124,902 805,368 1,021,631 224,562 48,880 1,276,364 590,514
Pennsylvania 3,137,787 94,066 677,499 885,233 200,392 54,728 1,181,249 560,136
Virginia 2,397,570 58,246 436,358 505,086 140,579 12,500 34,5669 405,053
West Virginia 727,532 14,216 291,372 274,182 86,804 26,981 53,6392 137,768

The difference between 2005 and 2002 is tabulated below.

Table 10. Difference (2002-2005) of Emissions (tons/yr) for Selected States
State CO NH3 NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 PMcon SO2 VOC
Delaware 26,747 -104 2,684 -2,049 -1,735 -1,171 -371 5,967
Maryland 180,326 -458 9,833 -5,611 -5,704 -2,125 -37,185 36,681
Michigan 564,372 -966 82,195 -7,086 -1,598 -1,977 7,036 62,484
New Jersey 301,810 -402 21,759 -2,379 -1,913 -934 -7,855 52,310
New York 816,707 -73 52,719 33,147 25,425 860 55,690 243,706
Ohio 546,142 217 190,269 11,158 8,723 2,693 32,133 40,375
Pennsylvania 551,206 -1,118 98,848 6,557 -1,488 -3,919 -95,591 43,095
Virginia 142,778 -1,073 65,655 -7,859 -7,311 1,763 11,266 37,164
West Virginia 68,504 -1,369 98,376 23,025 3,437 1,565 50,957 -7,661

The change of emissions for all listed pollutants is charted in Figure 6, from which it is evident that New York State achieved the most reduction in CO and VOC as compared to other states.

Federal and New York State cap and trade regulations have proved effective in significantly controlling NOx and SO2 emissions. New York is moving forward to further reduce SO2 emissions by regulating sulfur levels in home heating fuel.

Difference (2002-2005) of Emissions (tons/yr) for Selected States
Figure 6. Difference (2002-2005) of Emissions (tons/yr) for Selected States

Pollutant Specific Discussion

Ozone

Currently, the minimum number of ozone monitors required in an MSA ranges from zero (for an area with a population of at least 50,000 and under 350,000 and no recent history of an ozone design value greater than 85 percent of the level of the NAAQS) to four (for an area with a population greater than 10 million and an ozone design value greater than 85 percent of the level of the NAAQS). A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given area relative to the level of the NAAQS. Design values are especially helpful when the standard is exceedance-based (e.g. 1-hour ozone, 24-hour PM2.5) because they are expressed as a concentration instead of an exceedance count, thereby allowing a direct comparison to the level of the standard. Because these requirements apply at the MSA level, large urban areas consisting of multiple MSAs can be required to have more than four monitors.

Population Based Monitor Requirements
MSA population1,2 Most recent 3-year design value
concentrations =85% of any O3 NAAQS3
Most recent 3-year design value
concentrations <85% of any O3 NAAQS3,4
>10 million 4 2
4 - 10 million 3 1
350,000 - <4 million 2 1
50,000 - <350,0005 1 0

1 Minimum monitoring requirements apply to the Metropolitan statistical area (MSA).
2 Population based on latest available census figures.
3 The ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) levels and forms are defined in 40 CFR part 50.
4 These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value.
5 Metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) must contain an urbanized area of 50,000 or more population.

A proposed monitoring rule is currently undergoing review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that have additional monitoring requirements to ensure that the ozone network was adequate in light of the 2008 revised standards.

An annual trend plot of the statewide 1-hr ozone levels is presented in Figure 7 below. The 1-hour standard, which was revoked in 2008 when the more stringent 8-hr standard became effective, is shown on the graph for historic reference.

Statewide Trend for Annual 1-hr Ozone Levels
Figure 7. Statewide Trend for Annual 1-hr Ozone Levels

Figure 8 shows the trend line for the current 8-hr standard.

Statewide Trend for Annual 8-hr Ozone Levels
Figure 8. Statewide Trend for Annual 8-hr Ozone Levels

Table 11 below lists each monitoring site, county, and the attainment status designated by EPA based on three years' data from 2006-2008, against the former 8-hr standard of 0.08 ppm, as well as the 2007-2009 design value. Final attainment status classification against the current 8-hr standard of 0.075 ppm (effective May 2008) is still under development by EPA as of this writing. A location map of ozone sites is shown in Figure 9.

Table 11. Listing of Site Locations and Attainment Status for the Ozone Network
Site County Attainment (2006-2008)
0.08 ppm 8-hr std.
Design Value
(2007-2009) ppm
Babylon Suffolk no 0.081
Holtsville Suffolk no 0.079
Riverhead Suffolk no 0.081
City College of NY (CCNY) New York no 0.076
Pfizer Lab Bronx no 0.073
IS 52 Bronx no 0.072
Queens College Queens no 0.074
Susan Wagner Richmond no 0.076
White Plains Westchester no 0.083
Valley Central Orange no 0.076
Rockland Rockland no n/a
Millbrook Dutchess no 0.075
Mt. Ninham Putnam no 0.078
Belleayre Ulster yes 0.069
Loudonville Albany no 0.072
Schenectady Schenectady no 0.067
Grafton Lake Rensselaer no 0.073
Stillwater Saratoga no 0.075
Whiteface Summit Essex no 0.076
Whiteface Base Lodge Essex yes 0.071
Piseco Lake Hamilton yes 0.070
Perch River Jefferson no 0.074
Camden Oneida yes 0.064
Nicks Lake Herkimer yes 0.070
Camp Georgetown Madison yes 0.072
East Syracuse Onondaga yes 0.071
Fulton Oswego yes 0.070
Elmira Chemung yes 0.069
Rochester Monroe no 0.072
Williamson Wayne no 0.070
Pinnacle State Park Steuben yes 0.067
Westfield Chautauqua no 0.074
Dunkirk Chautauqua no 0.079
Amherst Erie no 0.076
Middleport Niagara no 0.073
Location Map of Ozone Monitoring Sites in New York State
Figure 9. Location Map of Ozone Monitoring Sites in New York State

The current network has 35 monitors sited at various locations statewide in order to meet the monitoring objectives specified in appendix D to Part 58. However, the proposed lowering of the standards due to be finalized this August will certainly require additional monitoring (see section on New and Proposed Rules). Furthermore, concerned citizen groups continue to apply political pressure and petition for the establishment of new sites, even though ozone has been demonstrated to be a regional pollutant. An example is the Rockland site, which became a permanent addition to the network in spite of three seasons of temporary measurements showing the area to experience the same air mass as surrounding counties with existing monitors.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

A historic trend of the statewide annual PM2.5 levels is presented in Figure 10 below. The annual NAAQS for PM2.5 is set at 15µg/m3. Based on the most current three consecutive years of monitoring data 2007-2009, it appears that all areas in the State are in attainment status.

Statewide Trend for PM2.5 Annual Averages
Figure 10. Statewide Trend for PM2.5 Annual Averages

Table 12 below lists each FRM site, county, and the attainment status designated by EPA based on data from 2006-2008, against the 24-hr standard of 35µg/m3, as well as the 2007-2009 design values. As mentioned above, only the FRM data are used for attainment determination. The continuous PM2.5 network complements the FRM network and provides data for AIRNow and AQI forecasting. Location maps of PM2.5 FRM and TEOM monitors are shown in Figures 11 and 12, respectively.

Table12. Listing of Site Locations and Attainment Status for PM2.5 Networks
Site FRM TEOM County Attainment Design Value
('07-'09) µg/m3
(2006-2008) annual 24-hr
Eisenhower Park x Nassau no n/a n/a
Hempstead x Nassau no 10.30 27.8
Babylon x Suffolk no 9.69 25.7
Morrisania II x Bronx no 13.95 32.5
NY Botanical Garden x x Bronx no 11.59† 29.9†
IS 52 x x Bronx no 11.79 31.6
IS 74 x Bronx no n/a n/a
PS 154 x Bronx no n/a n/a
JHS 126 x Kings no 12.17 30.0
PS 314 x Kings no n/a n/a
IS 293 x Kings no n/a n/a
PS 274 x Kings no n/a n/a
JHS 45 x New York no 12.06 31.8
PS 19 x x New York no 13.19† 30.8†
Division Street x x New York no 13.21† 32.6†
IS 143 x New York no n/a n/a
Manhattanville P.O. x New York no n/a n/a
Park Row x New York no n/a n/a
City College of NY x New York no n/a n/a
Queens College x x Queens no 10.64 29.6
Maspeth Library x Queens no n/a n/a
Susan Wagner x Richmond no 10.22 26.5
Port Richmond x Richmond no 11.61 28.7
Fresh Kills West x Richmond no n/a n/a
PS 44 x Richmond no n/a n/a
Mamaroneck x Westchester no 10.58 29.3
White Plains x Westchester no n/a n/a
Newburgh x x Orange no 9.35 25.7
Rockland x Rockland no n/a n/a
Albany x x Albany yes 9.26 26.5
Loudonville x Albany yes 7.60† 20.7†
Whiteface Base Lodge x x Essex yes 4.81 14.0
Utica x Oneida yes n/a n/a
E. Syracuse x Onondaga yes 8.62† 24.9†
Rochester x x Monroe yes 8.82 25.6
Pinnacle State Park x x Steuben yes 7.67 22.2
Niagara Falls x Niagara yes 9.77 25.4
Westfield x Chautauqua yes 8.33 23.5
Buffalo x Erie yes 10.70 28.9
Lackawana x Erie yes 10.32 28.3
Tonawanda II x Erie yes n/a n/a
Grand Island Blvd x Erie yes n/a n/a

† data capture <75% in one quarter or more

Site Location Map of Manual PM2.5 (FRM) Monitoring Network
Figure 11. Site Location Map of Manual PM2.5 (FRM) Monitoring Network

For PM2.5 currently there are 24 FRM monitors in the manual network, and 29 sites in the continuous network.

The NYSDEC has recommended that the EPA select continuous monitoring methods for the PM2.5 FRM in the past two reviews of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA did not do this and the current filter based FRM suffers from poor retention of semi-volatile PM components. Since the Class III FEMs are approved based on their performance in comparison to the filter based FRM, the measured values obtained by the Class III FEMs can differ substantially from those generated by the FRMs in areas with a high proportion of volatile PM components. The NYSDEC has spent considerable effort to evaluate candidate and approved continuous PM PM2.5 FEMs over the past 10 years. To date, NYS believes that none of the currently available Class III PM2.5 FEMs can successfully meet the DQOs in all seasons, in all areas of New York State. Collocated instrument tests are being conducted to explore this concern further.

The NYSDEC is still committed to the goal of using continuous PM instruments in place of manual instruments to the extent possible. The benefits of the continuous instruments include the nearly instantaneous availability of the data for health messaging, the hourly frequency of the data which can be used for short term health assessments and for source apportionment and the reduced labor and costs associated with operations and maintenance. The NYSDEC is currently evaluating 3 FEMs and a candidate FEM in comparison to the filter based FRM at a location in NYC. The results of this 8 month comparison will be used to help inform the Department's decisions regarding monitor selection in the future. In the meantime, the NYSDEC has decided to utilize 1405 DFs at the three NCore monitoring locations. These FEMs were selected because they can provide the required PM2.5, PM10 and PMc data for these sites.

Site Location Map of Continuous PM2.5 (TEOM) Monitoring Network
Figure 12. Site Location Map of Continuous PM2.5 (TEOM) Monitoring Network

In the future, the NYSDEC would like to be able to utilize a continuous FEM for PM2.5 that meets the relevant DQOs in all seasons anywhere in New York State. The causes of the differences between the filter based FRM and the continuous instruments are due to the variable nature of the retention of semi-volatile PM components on the FRM. The EPA should consider updating the FRM method to make it more consistent rather than continue to ask the manufacturers of the continuous instruments to emulate the FRM. The following article provides further insight on this issue: "Is it Time to Upgrade the PM2.5 Federal Reference Method?" EM Magazine, A&WMA, February 2009.

The NYSDEC utilizes standard PM2.5 TEOMs to provide data for near real-time reporting and forecasting purposes. These instruments are less expensive and easier to operate than the newer TEOMs that are designed to capture the semi-volatile components of PM2.5. This data is adjusted on-site via a non-linear equation in the site data logger. The equation uses the historical regional correlation between filter based measurements and the TEOM and the Julian day to adjust the data to more closely emulate filter based measurements. Five different data adjustments are used in different areas of the State. Since each adjustment is based on the variation of the comparison between filter based and continuous data over the course of a year, the day to day accuracy of the adjustment is not as good as when examined over a longer period.

Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) set forth for the comparison of the adjusted TEOM values to collocated FRM measurements are: (a) within +/- 10% total bias and (b) above 0.9 for correlation (0.81 r2). These DQOs are met when considering data collected over the course of a year. Our approach, however, does not accurately predict the day to day variability between the filter based and continuous instruments. Our adjustment method cannot account for individual meteorological events or the component mix found in air masses at each monitoring site thus the data adjustment is less accurate for individual sample days.

Inhalable Particulate (PM10)

A historic trend of the statewide annual PM10 levels is presented in Figure 13 below. The 24-hr NAAQS for PM10 is set at 150µg/m3.

Statewide Annual Trend for 24-hr PM10 Levels
Figure 13. Statewide Annual Trend for 24-hr PM10 Levels

Table 13 below lists each PM10 site, county, and the attainment status against the 24-hr standard of 150µg/m3.

Table 13. Listing of Site Locations and Attainment Status for the FRM PM10 Network
Site County Attainment
Madison Ave‡ New York* yes
PS 19 New York yes
Division Street New York yes
IS 52† Bronx yes
Queens College Queens yes
Rochester† Monroe yes
Niagara Falls Niagara yes

‡ street canyon micro-meteorology research site, not for NAAQS determination
*EPA still lists New York County as a moderate nonattainment
†NATTS site, PM10 metals analysis

Listed in Table 14 are the annual maximum 24-hr PM10 concentrations in Kings County for the past several years.

Table 14. Annual Maximum PM10 Concentrations Observed in New York County
Site Annual Maximum 24-hr Concentration, µg/m3
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Canal St 63 67 57 Site closed -
PS 59 - 60 52 53 Site closed
Division St - - 56 60 62
Madison Ave - - - 85 71
PS 19 - - - - 61

Figure 14 shows a location map of the low-volume PM10 sampling sites in the State.

Site Location Map of Manual PM10 Monitoring Network
Figure 14. Site Location Map of Manual PM10 Monitoring Network

A continuous PM10 (TEOM) instrument is also operated at the NY Botanical Garden, Park Row, and Pinnacle State Park sites.

Chemical Speciation Network Sites

A chemical speciation network (CNS) of eight PM2.5 sites across the State that provide a first order characterization of the metals, ions, and carbon constituents of PM2.5 was established as part of the monitoring requirements and principles set forth in 40 CFR Part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for Particulate Matter. Figure 15 shows a location map of the CNS sites in the State. Both the Buffalo and Whiteface sites have a one day in six sampling frequency, while the remainder of the sites have one in three day measurements. After nearly a decade of monitoring in the NY area, modelers within our Division have indicated the need for more spatial coverage, particularly in the Long Island area, as the population there approaches 3 millions. We are considering establishing a new site in the Long Island area with current resources by reducing the sampling frequency of other sites.

Figure 15. Site Location Map of PM2.5 Chemical Specition Monitoring Network
Figure 15. Site Location Map of PM2.5 Chemical Specition Monitoring Network

The PM2.5 annual standard design value site in the NY Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) was a site that was closed due to construction activity (PS 59). The building was substantially modified by the new construction and no longer met siting criteria. The site was replaced by Division St (36-061-0134) which has an FRM, a CSN and a continuous PM2.5 instrument. The NY CBSA also has a CSN sampler in both the Bronx and Queens which help determine the spatial gradient of components of PM2.5 across the CBSA. The sites in Queens and the Bronx have suitable interior space and are hosting continuous speciation samplers as well as complementary gas analyzers. This highly temporally resolved PM2.5 speciation data adds tremendous value to the filter based CSN data. The NY CBSA 24-Hr design value site is in New Jersey. This site does not have a CSN sampler and significantly complicates the interpretation of speciation data.

In order to obtain higher resolution temporal data on two major components of PM2.5, we operate two speciated carbon monitors (IS 52 and Queens College) and four continuous sulfate instruments (IS 52, Queens College, Whiteface and Pinnacle). The following is a brief discussion of the trends and findings, demonstrating the informational values of these monitoring efforts.

PM2.5 mass in NYC shows a seasonal trend with highest values in summer and a secondary maximum in winter as shown in the mean monthly concentrations from 2003-2009 for the South Bronx site (Figure 16). Speciation trends data which provides measurements of the components of PM2.5 can be used to understand the temporal patterns in PM2.5 mass.

Mean Monthly PM2.5 Mass Concentrations at IS 52 (2003-2009)
Figure 16. Mean Monthly PM2.5 Mass Concentrations at IS 52 (2003-2009)

Speciation data at the South Bronx for example shows that ammonium sulfate and organic carbon are the major chemical components of PM2.5 particularly during summer months with ammonium nitrate being important during colder months (Figure 17). Ammonium sulfate varies from 4-5 µg/m3 in winter to a high of 7-9 µg/m3 in summer whereas organic carbon averages 3-4 µg/m3 in winter to 5-6 µg/m3 in summer. These seasonal patterns reflect enhanced photochemical secondary aerosol production of sulfate and organic carbon during summer when daylight hours are longer and solar intensity is greater compared to winter. Average monthly ammonium nitrate during winter varies from 3-4.5 µg/m3 decreasing to values of 1-2 µg/m3 in summer. Ammonium nitrate is elevated during winter because it is more stable at lower ambient temperatures. Other factors such as a lowering of the boundary layer which concentrates pollutants nearer ground level combined with additional emissions from space heating sources in colder months can lead to enhanced PM levels in winter.

Seasonal Variations of Major PM2.5 Components
Figure 17. Seasonal Variations of Major PM2.5 Components

On a relative basis Sulfate aerosol contributes 25-30% of the PM2.5 mass in winter and 40-55% in summer months. Organic carbon amounts to 25-30% in winter to 25-35% in summer whereas ammonium nitrate accounts for approximately 25% of the PM2.5 mass in winter and 10% in summer months. Elemental carbon averages 10% or less throughout the year. Measurements at the rural site in Pinnacle State Park show that ammonium sulfate and organic carbon are the major components of PM2.5 mass with similar concentrations as observed in metropolitan New York. This indicates that a large fraction of these species are regional in nature. This is further supported by the high correlation between aerosol sulfate and organic carbon during summer months indicating similar formation (photochemical) and transport processes.

The speciation data shows the major contributors to PM2.5 and their likely source contributions. This information is very important in understanding PM2.5 exceedances and indicates control strategies that would likely be effective in lowering PM2.5 levels. A sufficiently long term data record is critical in determining if control strategies are effective in lowering PM levels because other factors such as meteorology also impacts ambient pollutant concentrations.

Long term measurements are also important to determine trends. For example the annual average PM2.5 mass in the South Bronx was approximately 25% lower in 2009 compared to the average from 2002-2007. Aerosol SO4 was 15% lower in 2008 and 35% lower in 2009 than the average from 2002-2007 with summer sulfate approximately 50% in 2009 than 2002-2007. However, a longer data record is required to fully evaluate the data because of the impact from meteorology (summer of 2008 and 2009 were also wetter than average).

Trend for Annual PM2.5 Mass Concentrations at IS 52
Figure 18. Trend for Annual PM2.5 Mass Concentrations at IS 52

Higher time resolution data in the New York Metropolitan area such as hourly measurements of elemental carbon and organic carbon as well as aerosol sulfate and nitrate are more useful in understanding individual plume events and local source impacts. For example the day of week pattern in elemental carbon at the South Bronx shows statistically higher concentrations during weekdays compared to weekends. This pattern is also reflected in NOx indicating a significant mobile source contribution from nearby roadways. The weekday/weekend difference in elemental carbon and NOx is most significant in summer months (top panel) and least noticeable in winter (bottom panel) because of additional emissions during cold months from space heating sources (oil boilers for example) which are not likely to have a day of week pattern.

Day of the Week Pattern for Elemental Carbon Concentrations at IS 52
Figure 19. Day of the Week Pattern for Elemental Carbon Concentrations
at IS 52

The diurnal pattern for elemental carbon is similar to that of NOx with a peak in the early morning indicative of fresh emissions into a relatively shallow boundary layer from local mobile sources during the commute period (Figure 20). Concentrations decrease again in the late morning as the boundary layer height increases and pollutants are diluted and dispersed. Concentrations rise again in the late evening because the boundary layer height decreases (concentrating pollutants) and additional emissions from space heating sources during winter months. Organic carbon sometimes shows a similar pattern in winter (top panel) because of a significant primary source contribution most likely from traffic. The organic carbon diurnal pattern is different in summer months (bottom panel) because secondary organic aerosol production during the day results in a relatively flat diurnal profile. Hourly measurements indicate that secondary organic aerosol accounts for approximately 40-50% of total organic carbon during winter and up to 63-73% of during summer months.

Diurnal Pattern for Various Parameters Measured at IS 52
Figure 20. Diurnal Pattern for Various Parameters Measured at IS 52

Ultrafine Particulate Monitoring

NYSDEC first began ultrafine particulate monitoring with the deployment of a TSI Model 3031 Ultrafine Particle Monitor (UPM) at Queens College in June of 2009. This instrument provides continuous measurements of size distribution and particle number concentrations of fine particles below1 micron, in the range from to 20 to 500 nanometers. The Queens College NCore site was selected for the UPM so as to complement a suite of parameters already being measured there. Concurrently a demo UPM unit on loan for one year from the manufacturer was installed at the Eisenhower Park location in Nassau County, which is expected to have a significant impact from mobile sources. Preliminary data suggest that the ultrafine particles are to a large extent regional in nature and less impacted by local mobile sources. The particle counts and size distributions for the two sites are similar, and also track the PM2.5 profile in some cases. It is possible that the mobile signal is damped out due to the siting of the monitor, as the inlet probe height may not be optimal and there may be interference from nearby trees. In addition, a resource recovery facility located about ¼ mile west of the site, as well as other local sources (wood-fired pizza ovens, etc.) may influence the measurements. Alternate explanations may be that mobile ultrafine emissions are predominantly smaller than the 20 nanometer cut-off point or affect the measurements only on a short time scale. Data on particle size distribution and concentration will provide valuable information for the understanding of PM2.5 formation mechanisms, as well as source apportionment determination.

It appears worthwhile to conduct short duration intensive studies in the future that simultaneously employ a suite of particle counting instruments including the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS), Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS), Condensation Particle Counter (CPC), and our UPM to further evaluate the mobile component. The new NOx rule requiring the establishment of near-roadway monitors in populated areas starting in 2013 (see below) will afford an opportunity to collocate UPMs to further investigate the mobile contribution to the overall ultrafine concentration. The recent establishment of initial regulations intended to address ultrafine particle emissions from mobile sources (LEV-3 in California, Euro V-VII in the EU) is an early indicator of more extensive regulation of ultrafine particle emissions from mobile sources expected in the future, and suggests the potential emergence of regulations for ambient ultrafine particles as well.

In our Air Pollution Microscopy laboratory, three particle characterization techniques (Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy, and Atomic Force Microscopy) are used to investigate the morphology of real world ultrafine particles, such as those from mobile source emissions and other industrial sources. As an example, the changes in ultrafine particle morphology resulting from the use of two strategies for reducing diesel emissions, i.e., exhaust after-treatment and the use of alternative diesel fuels were studied. These activities complement the ambient monitoring data in understanding the formation, distribution and transport of ultrafine particulate.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

A historic trend of the statewide nitrogen dioxide annual levels is presented in Figure 21 below. The annual NAAQS for NOx is set at 0.053 ppm. This past January EPA revised the NAAQS to include an hourly standard of 0.100 ppm.

Statewide Trend for Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Averages
Figure 21. Statewide Trend for Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Averages

At present, there are seven NOx monitors in the network, a location map of which is shown in Figure 22. Table 15 lists each site, county and MSA it serves.

Table 15. Site Location Listing of NOx Monitors
Site County MSA
Eisenhower Park Nassau Nassau-Suffolk
NY Botanical Gardena Bronx New York-White Plains
IS 52 Bronx New York-White Plains
Queens Collegea,b Queens New York-White Plains
Pinnacle State Park b Steuben Corning
Amherst Erie Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Buffalo Erie Buffalo-Niagara Falls

a PAMS site
bNCore site

Site Location Map of NOx Monitoring Network
Figure 22. Site Location Map of NOx Monitoring Network

Under the new NOx rule that became effective January 22, 2010 each MSA with population larger than 500,000 will be required to operate a near-road monitor beginning in 2013. New York State will need to establish such a site in each of the following areas: Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, Nassau-Suffolk, New York-White Plains, Rochester and Syracuse. One urban community wide monitor will be located in each of the three MSAs with population greater than 1 million: New York, Buffalo and Rochester. Furthermore, the Regional Administrators at their discretion, have the authority to require 40 additional sites nationwide in communities where susceptible and vulnerable populations are located. Therefore, relocation of some current monitors will most likely take place in addition to the establishment of new near-road monitors.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

There are no minimum requirements for the number of CO monitoring sites. Continued operation of existing SLAMS CO sites using FRM or FEM is required until discontinuation is approved by the EPA Regional Administrator. Where SLAMS CO monitoring is ongoing, at least one site must be a maximum concentration site for that area under investigation.

A historic trend of the statewide CO average 8-hr levels is presented in Figure 23 below. The 8-hr and 1-hr NAAQS for CO are 9 and 35 ppm, respectively.

Statewide Average Trend for 2nd Maximum 8-hr Annual Values
Figure 23. Statewide Average Trend for 2nd Maximum 8-hr Annual Values

CO is a product of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 60 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. High concentrations of CO generally occur in areas with heavy traffic congestion. In cities, as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions may emanate from automobile exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes such as carbon black manufacturing, non-transportation fuel combustion, and natural sources such as wildfires. Woodstoves, cooking, cigarette smoke, and space heating are sources of CO in indoor environments. Peak CO concentrations typically occur during the colder months of the year when CO automotive emissions are greater and nighttime inversion conditions are more frequent.

At present, there are ten CO monitors in the network, a location map of which is shown in Figure 24. Table 15 lists each site, county and MSA it serves.

Table 15. Site Location Listing of CO Monitors
Site County MSA
NY Botanical Garden Bronx New York-White Plains
Queens College Queens New York-White Plains
City College of NY New York New York-White Plains
Loudonville Albany Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Schenectady Schenectady Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Syracuse Onondaga Syracuse
Pinnacle State Park Steuben Corning
Rochester Monroe Rochester
Niagara Falls Niagara Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Buffalo Erie Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Site Location Map of CO Monitoring Network
Figure 24. Site Location Map of CO Monitoring Network

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

There are no minimum requirements for the number of SO2 monitoring sites. Continued operation of existing SLAMS SO2 sites using FRM or FEM is required until discontinuation is approved by the EPA Regional Administrator. Where SLAMS SO2 monitoring is ongoing, at least one of the SLAMS SO2 sites must be a maximum concentration site for that specific area.

A historic trend of the statewide SO2 annual average is presented in Figure 25 below. The annual, 24-hr, and 3-hr NAAQS for SO2 are 0.03, 0.14, and 0.50 ppm, respectively.

Sulfur dioxide is produced during the burning of sulfur-containing fuels such as coal and oil, during metal smelting, and by other industrial processes. It belongs to a family of gases called sulfur oxides (SOx). Major sources include power plants, industrial boilers, petroleum refineries, smelters, iron and steel mills. Generally, the highest concentrations of sulfur dioxide are found near large fuel combustion sources.

Statewide Trend for SO2 Annual Averages
Figure 25. Statewide Trend for SO2 Annual Averages

At present, there are 23 SO2 monitors in the network, a location map of which is shown in Figure 26. Table 15 lists each site, county and MSA it serves.

Table 15. Site Location Listing of SO2 Monitors
Site County MSA
Eisenhower Park Nassau Nassau-Suffolk
NY Botanical Gardena Bronx New York-White Plains
IS 52 Bronx New York-White Plains
Queens Collegea,b Queens New York-White Plains
Mt. Ninham Putnum New York-White Plains
Belleayre Ulster New York-White Plains
Loudonville Albany Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Grafton Rensselaer Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Schenectady Schenectady Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Whiteface Base Lodge Essex Essex County
Piseco Lake Hamilton Hamilton County
Paul Smiths College Franklin Malone
Nick's Lake Herkimer Utica-Rome
Camp Georgetown Madison Syracuse
East Syracuse Onondaga Syracuse
Elmira Chemung Elmira
Pinnacle State Park Steuben Corning
Rochester Monroe Rochester
Niagara Falls Niagara Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Buffalo Erie Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Tonawanda II Erie Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Westfield Chautauqua Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia
Dunkirk Chautauqua Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia
Site Location Map of SO2 Monitoring Network
Figure 26. Site Location Map of SO2 Monitoring Network

In November 2009 EPA proposed to revise the primary SO2 standard to a level of between 50 and 100 parts per billion (ppb) measured over 1-hour. The existing primary standards are 140 ppb measured over 24-hours, and 30 ppb measured over an entire year. This rule is expected to be finalized in June 2010. Monitoring and reporting requirements will be added. Prior to this rule only NCore sites are required to include SO2 monitoring. Under the proposed rule a minimum of thirteen sites will be required across the State to be operational by January 2013.

Lead (Pb)

In November 2008 EPA revised the NAAQS for lead from the previous quarterly average of 1.5µg/m3 to the more protective 3-month rolling average of 0.15µg/m3. As part of the lead monitoring requirements, monitoring agencies are required to monitor ambient air near lead sources which are expected to or have been shown to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month average lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. At a minimum, monitoring agencies must monitor near lead sources that emit 1.0 ton per year (tpy) or more. Monitoring is also required in each CBSA with a population equal to or greater than 500,000 people as determined by the latest available census figures. In December 2009 EPA proposed changes to these requirements.

The major sources of lead emissions have historically been from fuels in motor vehicles (such as cars and trucks) and industrial sources. Emissions from on-road vehicles decreased 99% between 1970 and 1995 due primarily to the use of unleaded gasoline. Use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles was prohibited on December 31, 1995. The major sources of lead emissions to the air today are ore and metals processing and leaded aviation gasoline (lead is no longer used in motor vehicle fuel). An annual trend plot of the statewide lead levels is presented in Figure 27 below. The quarterly average standard of 1.5µg/m3, which was replaced in 2008 by the more stringent 3-month rolling average of 0.15µg/m3, is shown on the graph for historic reference.

Statewide Annual Trend for Lead Maximum Quarterly Averages
Figure 27. Statewide Annual Trend for Lead Maximum Quarterly Averages

At present, New York's lead monitoring network consists of three source oriented sites at Wallkill in Orange County (TSP), and two urban CBSA monitors (low volume PM10) at the NATTS sites in the Bronx and Rochester. Additional monitoring sites are expected to be required pending the final implementation rule due to be published later this year.

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) Network

The PAMS network is designed to enable the characterization of precursor emission sources within the area, transport of O3 and its precursors, and the photochemical processes related to O3 nonattainment. NYSDEC operates two Type 2 monitors in the Bronx and Queens. Type 2 sites are established to monitor the magnitude and type of precursor emissions in the area where maximum precursor emissions are expected to impact and are suited for the monitoring of urban air toxic pollutants. The relevant parameters sampled at each site are listed in the following tables.

Table 16. PAMS Parameters Monitored at Queens College
Parameter Sampling Method Analysis Method Schedule
Ozone TEI 49C Method 047 Ultraviolet Photometric Continuous
Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOX) TEI 42C Method 074 Chemiluminescence Continuous
Carbon Monoxide TEI 48C Method 054 Non Dispersive Infrared Continuous
Sulfate TEI 5020i Pulsed Fluorescence Continuous
NMOC - Total HC Method 160 Method 161 Flame Ionization Continuous
VOCs Canister Method 150 GC/MS 1 day in 6
Carbonyl DNPH Cartridge Method 202 HPLC - Ultraviolet Absorption 1 day in 6
Temperature Method 040 --- Continuous
Barometric Pressure Method 011 --- Continuous
Relative Humidity Method 011 --- Continuous
Table 17. PAMS Parameters Monitored at New York Botanical Garden: Pfizer/Harding
Parameter Sampling Method Analysis Method Schedule
Ozone TEI 49C Method 047 Ultraviolet Photometric Continuous
Oxides of Nitrogen(NO, NO2, NOX) TEI 42C Method 074 Chemiluminescence Continuous
Carbon Monoxide TEI 48C Method 054 Non Dispersive Infrared Continuous
NMOC - Total HC Method 160 Method 161 Flame Ionization Continuous
PAMS precursor Method 128 GC/FID Continuous
VOC Canister Method 150 GC/MS 1 day in 6
Carbonyl DNPH Cartridge Method 202 HPLC - Ultraviolet Absorption 1 day in 6 Daily (PAMS)
Wind Speed/direction Method 020 --- Continuous
Precipitation Tipping Bucket --- Event based
Relative Humidity Method 011 --- Continuous
Temperature Method 040 --- Continuous

The PAMS target compounds include 55 C2-C12 hydrocarbons and 3 carbonyls. For the New York metro area it appears that ozone exceedances are VOC limited. Although VOCs as a class are subject to control and reduction, particularly in nonattainment areas, specific compounds of high reactivity are not individually targeted. Controls and regulations are mainly aimed at toxic organic compounds rather than ozone precursors.

The continuous GC data verification is extremely labor intensive as peak intensities for the majority of the targeted compounds are barely above background noise levels. The analyst has to manually adjust each peak baseline for quantification. The PAMS data are used by modelers within the Division for SIP development. It would be most helpful if EPA ORD will provide guidance to reduce the number of targeted compounds, eliminating those that are at insignificant concentrations, and adjust the models accordingly.

NYSDEC does not conduct any upper air meteorological measurements at the PAMS sites. Modelers use data available at closest installations for distinguishing stagnation events vs. transport.

NCore Monitoring Network

The NCore multipollutant sites are sites that measure multiple pollutants in order to provide support to integrated air quality management data needs. NCore sites include both neighborhood and urban scale measurements in general, in a selection of metropolitan areas and a limited number of more rural locations. These sites are required to measure O3, CO, SO2, and total reactive nitrogen (NOy) (using high-sensitivity methods, where appropriate); PM2.5 (with both a FRM and a continuous monitor); PM2.5 chemical speciation; PM10-2.5 (with a continuous FEM); and meteorological parameters including temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and relative humidity. The three sites in the State are at Queens College, Rochester, and Pinnacle State Park.

A complete listing of parameters measured is provided below.

Table 18. NCore Multi-parameter Site at Queens College
Parameter Sampling Method Analysis Method Schedule
Ozone TEI 49C Method 047 Ultraviolet Photometric Continuous
Low Level SO2 TEI 43i TLE Method 560 Pulsed Fluorescence Continuous
Oxides of Nitrogen(NO, NO2, NOx) TEI 42C Method 074 Chemiluminescence Continuous
Carbon Monoxide TEI 48C Method 054 Non Dispersive Infrared Continuous
PM2.5 Thermo Scientific FDMS TEOM FDMS TEOM Continuous
R&P Partisol 2025 Method 118 Gravimetric Daily
PM2.5 Speciation MetOne SASS Method 811 XRF 1 day in 3
Carbon URG 3000 Method 838 IMPROVE TOR 1 day in 3
Sunset LaboratoryMethod 5040 Thermal Optical Semi-continuous
PM10 R&P Partisol 2025 Method 127 Gravimetric Daily
Ultrafine Particulate TSI Model 3031 Electrical Mobility Continuous
Sulfate TEI 5020i Pulsed Fluorescence Continuous
NMOC - Total HC Method 160 Method 161 Flame Ionization Continuous
VOC/Toxics Canister Method 150 GC/MS 1 day in 6
Carbonyl DNPH Cartridge Method 202 HPLC - Ultraviolet Absorption 1 day in 6
Wind Speed/direction Method 020 --- Continuous
Temperature Method 040 --- Continuous
Barometric Pressure Method 011 --- Continuous
Relative Humidity Method 011 --- Continuous

This site is being utilized for the New York City Community Air Survey as part of the PlaNYC initiative. Currently NYSDEC is evaluating multiple particulate samplers in a side-by-side comparison at Queens College.

Table 19. Manufacturer Instrument Evaluation Studies Conducted at Queens College
Parameter Manufacturer/Model Methodology Schedule Installed
PM2.5 TEI 5014i Beta Attenuation Continuous 12/16/09
PM2.5 and PM10 TEI 1405-DF Dicot FDMS TEOM Continuous 12/16/09
PM2.5 MetOne BAM-1020 Beta Attenuation Continuous 01/12/10

Table 20. NCore Multi-parameter Site at Pinnacle State Park
Parameter Sampling Method Analysis Method Schedule
Ozone TEI 49C Method 047 Ultraviolet Photometric Continuous
Low Level SO2 TEI 43i TLE Method 560 Pulsed Fluorescence Continuous
Low Level CO API 300EU Method 593 Non DispersiveInfrared Continuous
NOy API 200EU Method 082 Chemiluminescence Continuous
PM2.5 Low volume FRM R&P 2025 Method 118 Gravimetric Daily
PM2.5, PMcourse, PM10 TEI 1405 DF Method 790 TEOM 30ºC Gravimetric Continuous
PM2.5 Speciation Met One SASS Method 811 XRF 1 day in 3
PM2.5 Speciation IMPROVE Sampler IMPROVE 1 day in 3
Wind Speed/direction Method 020 --- Continuous
Temperature Method 040 --- Continuous
Barometric Pressure Method 011 --- Continuous
Relative Humidity Method 011 --- Continuous
Table 21. NCore Multi-parameter/NATTS Site at Rochester
Parameter Sampling Method Analysis Method Schedule
Ozone TEI 49C Method 047 Ultraviolet Photometric Continuous
Sulfur Dioxide TEI 43C Method 060 Pulsed Fluorescence Continuous
PM2.5 Low volume FRM R&P 2025 Method 118 Gravimetric 1 in 6
PM 2.5 R&P TEOM 1400 Method 702 Continuous
PM10 R&P Partisol 2025 Method 127 Gravimetric 1 in 6
PM10 - Metals Method 907 ICPMS 1 in 6
PM2.5 Speciation Met One Super SASS Method 851 RTI Laboratory 1 in 3
Black Carbon Magee Scientific Aethalometer Method 866 Optical Absorption Continuous
MercuryElemental/Reactive Gas TekranMercury Vapor Analyzer Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry Continuous
Toxics/VOC Canister Method 150 GC/MS 1 in 6
Carbonyl DNPH Cartridge Method 202 HPLC - Ultraviolet Absorption 1 in 6
Chromium Eastern Research Group (ERG) EPA/ERG 1 in 6
Wind Speed/direction Climatronics Sonic Method 020 --- Continuous
Precipitation Belfort Rain Gauge --- Continuous
Relative Humidity Teledyne RH200 Method 011 --- Continuous
Temperature Teledyne RH200 Method 040 --- Continuous
Barometric Pressure Teledyne BP300 Method 011 --- Continuous
Acid Deposition Hyteometer DEC Lab Weekly

All remaining monitoring requirements are scheduled to be implemented before the start date of January 2011.

National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) Network

The two New York NATTS sites, Rochester and IS 52 in the Bronx, are part of a 27-site national network of air toxics monitoring stations. The primary purpose of the NATTS network is tracking trends in ambient air toxics levels to facilitate measuring progress toward emission and risk reduction goals. The monitoring network is intended, over a six-year period, to be able to detect a 15% difference (trend) between two successive 3-year annual mean concentrations within acceptable levels of decision error. Parameters monitored for the Rochester and Bronx sites are given Tables 21 and 22, respectively.

Table 22. IS 52 NATTS Site
Parameter Sampling Method Analysis Method Schedule
Ozone TEI 49C Method 047 Ultraviolet Photometric Continuous
Oxides of Nitrogen TEI 42C Method 074 Chemiluminescence Continuous
PM2.5 R&P TEOM 1400 Method 701Method 702 TEOM Gravimetric 50ºC Continuous
Low volume FRM R&P 2025 Method 118 Gravimetric Daily 1 day in 3a
PM2.5 Speciation Met One SASS Method 811 XRF 1 day in 3
IMPROVE Sampler IMPROVE 1 day in 3
Carbon URG 3000 Method 838 IMPROVE TOR 1 day in 3
PM10 R&P TEOM 1400 Method 079 TEOM Gravimetric 50ºC Continuous
Low volume FRM R&P 2025 Method 127 Gravimetric 1 day in 6a
PM10 - Metals Method 907 ICPMS 1 day in 6a
PM2.5 - Nitrate Thermo Scientific 8400N --- Continuous
Sulfate Thermo Scientific5020i Sulfate Particulate Pulsed Florescence Continuous
Black Carbon Magee Scientific Aethalometer Method 866 Optical Absorption Continuous
Elemental Carbon/ Organic Carbon Sunset Laboratory Method 5040 Thermal Optical Semi-Continuous
Toxics Canister Method 150 GC/MS 1 day in 6
Carbonyl DNPH tube Method 202 HPLC - Ultraviolet Absorption 1 day in 6
Chromium Eastern Research Group --- 1 day in 6

a Collocated unit

Prior to the establishment of the NATTS network, NYSDEC began a statewide toxics monitoring network back in 1990. Currently we monitor toxics (TO-15) at 13 sites and carbonyls at ten sites. Sample analysis is conducted by in-house laboratory staff, whose superb performance was well demonstrated in the recently completed School Air Toxics/Acrolein Study (see Special Purpose Monitors section below).

Table 23. Site Location Listing of Toxics Monitors
Site County MSA Toxics Carbonyls
NY Botanical Garden Bronx New York-White Plains x x
IS 52a Bronx New York-White Plains x x
PS 274 Kings New York-White Plains x
Queens College Queens New York-White Plains x x
Madison Avenue New York New York-White Plains x
Fresh Kills West Richmond New York-White Plains x x
La Tourette Richmond New York-White Plains x xxxxxxxx
Troy Rensselaer Albany-Schenectady-Troy x
Whiteface Base Lodge Essex Essex County x x
Rochestera Monroe Rochester x x
Niagara Falls Niagara Buffalo-Niagara Falls x
Lakawana Erie Buffalo-Niagara Falls x
Tonawanda II Erie Buffalo-Niagara Falls x x
Grand Island Blvdb Erie Buffalo-Niagara Falls x x

aNATTS site
bSpecial Purpose Monitor

Figure 28 shows the site location map of the toxics monitoring network.

Site Location Map of Toxics Network
Figure 28. Site Location Map of Toxics Network

The primary purpose of the NATTS network is tracking trends in ambient air toxics levels to facilitate measuring progress toward emission and risk reduction goals. The monitoring network is intended, over a six-year period, to be able to detect a 15% difference (trend) between two successive 3-year annual mean concentrations within acceptable levels of decision error.

The following charts (Figures 29 and 30) illustrate the statewide annual averages for benzene and 1,3-butadiene. In Figures 31 and 32, seasonal trends for the carbonyls formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are demonstrated for the NY Botanical Garden and Grand Island Blvd (Tonawanda) sites.

Benzene Annual Average Trends for Toxics Network Sites
Figure 29. Benzene Annual Average Trends for Toxics Network Sites
1,3-Butadiene Annual Average Trends for Toxics Network Sites
Figure 30. 1,3-Butadiene Annual Average Trends for Toxics Network Sites
Seasonal Trends of Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde at Tonawanda
Figure 31. Seasonal Trends of Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde at Tonawanda
Seasonal Trends of Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde at NY Botanical Garden
Figure 32. Seasonal Trends of Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde at NY Botanical Garden

The 2-month data gap was a direct consequence of very restrictive purchasing procedures implemented by State government that created unreasonable delays for supplies and material purchases, eight months in this instance. The fiscal policy that was instituted in November 2008 has affected the entire monitoring program leading to critical shortages of needed supplies/replacement parts, thereby interrupting continuity of some monitoring activities.

Acid Deposition Network

New York monitors and tests for acid deposition through the New York State Acid Deposition Monitoring Network, which was designed in 1985 to carry out requirements of the State Acid Deposition Control Act (SADCA). Measurements of acid deposition and related quantities are used to assess the effectiveness of sulfur control policy and other strategies aimed at reducing the effects of acid rain. Federal and State programs were implemented in recent years to further control emissions contributing to acid deposition. These include the NOx and SO2 Budget Trading Programs, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading Programs. The monitoring network consists of 20 sites located throughout the state, as shown in Table 24 and Figure 33.

Table 24. Site Location Listing of Acid Deposition Monitors
Site County Region
Altmar Oswego Central NY
Belleayre Mt. Ulster Catskill
Buffalo Erie Niagara Frontier
Camp Georgetown Madison Central NY
East Syracuse Onondaga Central NY
Eisenhower Park Nassau Long Island
Elmira Chemung Southern Tier
Grafton Lakes/Dyken Pond Rensselaer Upper Hudson Valley
Loudonville Albany Upper Hudson Valley
Mt. Ninham Putnam Hudson Highlands
Niagara Falls Niagara Niagara Frontier
Nicks Lake Campground Herkimer Adirondack Mountains
New York Botanical Garden Bronx Metro NY
Paul Smith's College Franklin Adirondack Mountains
Piseco Lake Hamilton Adirondack Mountains
Rochester Monroe Central NY
Wanakena Ranger Station St. Lawrence Adirondack Mountains
Westfield Chautauqua Niagara Frontier
White Plains Westchester Lower Hudson Valley
Whiteface Mt. Essex N. Adirondacks
 Site Location Map of Acid Deposition Network
Figure 33. Site Location Map of Acid Deposition Network

The following trends charts for selected parameters show the progress made over the years through regulations and effective control strategies.

Statewide Concentration Trends Chart for pH
Figure 34. Statewide Concentration Trends Chart for pH
Statewide Concentration Trends Chart for Sulfate
Figure 35. Statewide Concentration Trends Chart for Sulfate
Statewide Concentration Trends Chart for Nitrate
Figure 36. Statewide Concentration Trends Chart for Nitrate

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) also operates 11 sites in New York as shown in Table 25 and Figure 37.

Location Map of NADP Acid Deposition Sites
Figure 37. Location Map of NADP Acid Deposition Sites
Table 25. Site Location Listing of NADP Monitors in New York
Site County Region
Alfred (NY01) Allegany Southern Tier
Aurora Research Farm (NY08) Cayuga Finger Lakes
Chautauqua (NY10) Chautauqua Niagara Frontier
Huntington Wildlife (NY20) Essex Adirondack Mountains
Akwesasne Mohawk-Fort Covington (NY22) Franklin St. Lawrence
Moss Lake (NY29) Herkimer Adirondack Mountains
Bennett Bridge (NY52) Oswego Central NY
Biscuit Brook (NY68) Ulster Lower Hudson Valley
Cedar Beach, Southold (NY96) Suffolk Long Island
Whiteface Mountain (NY98) Essex Adirondack Mountains
West Point (NY99) Orange Lower Hudson Valley

It is apparent that there is some overlap/redundancy between the two independent networks. A closer examination is warranted to evaluate the possibility of streamlining New York's operations. In the 2010 AMNP, we have proposed to suspend operation at several sites in order to conserve limited resources.

Special Purpose Monitors

NYSDEC occasionally conducts short-term special ambient monitoring studies when the need arises. These include research oriented projects, sometimes grant supported, as well as studies necessitated by citizen concerns. In the past year concluded studies include Summer Streets in NYC, Columbia County Air Study, School Air Toxics/Acrolein Study, and the EPA grant funded Tonawanda Community Air Quality Study.

Tonawanda Community Air Quality Study

The final report of the completed study (PDF) (431 kB)was submitted to EPA in October 2009.

Although the EPA grant period concluded in July 2008, NYSDEC continued sampling at two of the four original study sites with State monies. Measurements for PM2.5, VOCs and carbonyls are still on-going at the Tonawanda II (Brookside Terrace) and Grand Island Blvd (GIB) sites. Sampling for PAHs which started in July 2008 at GIB will conclude at the end of July this year. In addition, a continuous BTEX gas chromatograph has been in operation since late summer 2008 at GIB. NYSDEC will continue to operate these two monitors until funding/resources are exhausted, at which time GIB will be terminated. The anticipated closure date of this site is December 31, 2010.

As a direct outcome of this study, the source of the high benzene levels was traced to a coke oven facility using pollution roses. Follow up actions by federal and State officials identified deficiencies in the facility's operation and remedies are being put in place. By continuing air monitoring in the study area, NYSDEC can track the progress of the control measures, and continue to support neighborhood community groups.

New York State Ambient Mercury Baseline Study

The New York State Ambient Mercury Baseline Study funded by EPA is a two-year data collection project that will conclude this fall. Speciated (elemental, reactive gaseous and particle bound mercury) as well as MDN wet deposition mercury monitoring began in 2008 at two sites, NY Botanical Garden in the Bronx and the NCore site in Rochester. We have submitted a grant application to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative for funding to continue operation at the Rochester site, the data from which are vital for the development of the mercury Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). In many waterbodies, mercury originates largely from air sources, such as coal-fired power plants and incinerators that deposit in waters or adjacent lands that then wash into nearby waters. Contributions of mercury also likely come from a combination of local, regional, and international sources.

6NYCRR Part 246 mercury reduction program for coal-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) went into effect in 2010. On the federal side, EPA is under a consent decree to propose Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for EGUs by March 16, 2011 and to finalize those standards by November 16, 2011. Therefore, it is absolutely essential to continue monitoring mercury baseline levels.

School Air Toxics (SAT) Study

As part of a new air toxics monitoring initiative, EPA spearheaded the SAT project last summer/fall to monitor the outdoor air around schools for hazardous air pollutants, or air toxics. EPA selected schools after evaluating a number of factors including results from an EPA computer modeling analysis, the mix of pollution sources near the schools, results from an analysis conducted for a recent newspaper series on air toxics at schools, and information from state and local air pollution agencies. The two schools selected in NY were Intermediate School 143 in New York and the Olean Middle School in Olean. NYSDEC staff provided support for this sampling effort over a period of 60 days.

During the data evaluation it was discovered that in some samples elevated levels of acrylonitrile and dichloromethane observed were due to a timer leak/contamination problem. Consequently EPA decided on re-sampling at 23 schools, which included IS 143 in New York. The Olean school sampling for TDI (toluene diisocyanate) utilized different equipment that did not experience the same problem. The IS 143 re-sampling just commenced and again EPA enlisted our staff to help in this project.

Acrolein Study

NYSDEC participated in a recently completed short-term acrolein study that included four other agencies: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Eastern Research Group, and EPA Office of Research and Development. The results showed :

  • Not using heat to clean canisters may affect acrolein monitoring results (making results somewhat higher); and
  • Results can be affected by the amount of time that passes between the time canisters are prepared to take air quality samples and the time those samples are analyzed.
  • In addition, when EPA's contract lab and participating state and local air quality labs analyzed samples containing a known level of acrolein, the results varied significantly.

These findings have raised significant questions about the consistency and reliability of acrolein monitoring results. Subsequently EPA decided not to use the acrolein data produced by its contractor in evaluating the potential for health concerns from exposure to air toxics in outdoor air as part of the School Air Toxics Monitoring Project.

NYSDEC analytical laboratory measurements, based on blind proficiency testing samples for this study, demonstrated excellent agreement with the "true" values. This lends credence to our reported values in the NATTS program, and reflects well on the professionalism of our laboratory staff.

Health-Related and Scientific Research

NYSDEC air staff routinely provide support to health related and other scientific research endeavors that take place. Some examples are listed below.

MESA

Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This is a joint project with the University of Washington, Columbia University School of Public Health and various other institutions to examine the relationship between air pollution exposures and the progression of cardiovascular disease over time. The study involves thousands of participants, representing different areas of the United States. April 2005 through July 2009.

CAPAS

Mount Sinai School of Medicine conducted the Children's Air Pollution Asthma Study (CAPAS) at IS 52 and CCNY. The CAPAS project is an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) funded, comprehensive health study to investigate the association between air pollutants and asthma. March 2008 through September 2009

Cornell University NOx/Ammonia Study in New York City

Cornell University conducted a NOx/Ammonia study at various Department air monitoring sites from July 2008 to July 2009. The Cornell study is evaluating sources of nitrogen to the Hudson River estuary and the potential impacts of nitrogen on estuary water quality as well as focusing on deposition of ammonia in the NYC metropolitan area.

SUNY - Albany Atmospheric Sciences Research Center

Intensive air quality monitoring project at Queens College.

Johns Hopkins University - School of Public Health Particulate Matter Research Center

Particulate sampling at PS 219 for heart disease related research. November 2009 through March 2010.

Rochester PM Center Clarkson, Univ. of Rochester Medical Center

The NYSDEC collaborates with researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Center and Clarkson University who have been awarded a second PM health research grant from EPA. Their work focuses on the pathways and effects from PM pollution on the cardiovascular system. The NYSDEC provides data and support for a fine particle classifying instrument at a monitoring location near the University of Rochester. A second instrument provided by Clarkson University was also installed at IS52.

External Data Users

There are a multitude of organizations and individuals that use the data that are produced by our monitoring networks. They include other regulatory government agencies, health researchers, academics, citizen groups, consulting firms and other private citizens. For example, the American Lung Association uses our data and its own methodology to grade the air quality of states each year. Community groups also use the air quality data to alert their citizens of the potential "bad air" days. More notable uses are listed below:

  • Environmental Public Health Tracking Program (EPHT) - CDC with state and local Health Depts. EPHT is the ongoing collection, integration, analysis, and interpretation of data about the following factors: 1) Environmental hazards; 2) Exposure to environmental hazards; and 3)Health effects potentially related to exposure to environmental hazards
  • AIRNow
  • DOH Asthma Study
  • A project underway by a digital artist Christiane Robins, who will use our real-time monitoring data "in a hybrid digital media and locative project utilizing the intersections and commonalities of physical, ephemeral and virtual spaces" in the lower Hudson area.

New and Proposed Rules

As mandated by the Clean Air Act, EPA must periodically review the scientific bases (or criteria) for the various NAAQS by assessing newly available scientific information on a given criteria air pollutant. In addition to revising the NAAQS when deemed appropriate, regulations are also promulgated for the implementation of these standards, which specify monitoring requirements. Often litigations lead to the reconsideration of the adopted rules. There are a number of recently adopted and proposed rules which will significantly affect the existing monitoring networks.

Ozone (O3)

The new 8-hr ozone standard of 0.075 ppm went into effect March 27, 2008. After review of the new standards the incoming Administrator initiated a rule making process to reconsider the 2008 primary and secondary standards for ozone culminating in a proposed rule published on January 19, 2010. EPA proposed to set the primary standard to lower value in the range between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm, in order to provide increased protection for children and other ''at risk'' populations against an array of O3-related adverse health effects that range from decreased lung function and increased respiratory symptoms to serious indicators of respiratory morbidity including emergency department visits and hospital admissions for respiratory causes, and possibly cardiovascular-related morbidity as well as total nonaccidental and cardiopulmonary mortality. For the secondary standard, EPA proposed a new cumulative, seasonal standard expressed as an annual index of the sum of weighted hourly concentrations, cumulated over 12 hours per day (8 am to 8 pm) during the consecutive 3-month period within the O3 season with the maximum index value, set at a level within the range of 7 to 15 ppm-hours, to provide increased protection against O3-related adverse impacts on vegetation and forested ecosystems. EPA plans to issue final standards by August 31, 2010.

The proposed Implementation regulation includes:

  • Modification of the minimum monitoring and siting requirements in urban areas, including monitors in micropolitan areas: Glens Falls, Binghamton, Ithaca, Kingston, Utica.
  • Add new minimum monitoring requirements in rural areas, 1 rural, 1 transport and 1 background.
  • Extend the length of the required ozone monitoring season in several states. (March in NY)

EPA estimates that up to 270 new ozone monitors could be needed to satisfy the new requirements. These must be operational by Jan. 1, 2012.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

As of April 12, 2010 a new 1-hour standard for NO2 went into effect. The new NAAQS is set at a level of 100 ppb, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, to supplement the existing annual standard. EPA is also establishing requirements for an NO2 monitoring network that will include monitors at locations where maximum NO2 concentrations are expected to occur, including within 50 meters of major roadways, as well as monitors sited to measure the area-wide NO2 concentrations that occur more broadly across communities. Under a separate review, EPA is considering the need for changes to the secondary standard in conjunction with the secondary SO2 standard.

EPA is requiring changes to the monitoring network that will capture short-term NO2 concentrations such as those that occur near roads as well as community-wide NO2 concentrations including low income or minority at-risk communities.

  • Near Road: At least one monitor would be located within 50 m of a major road in any urban area with a pop > 500,000 people. A second near road monitor would be required if a population is > 2.5 million people or if one or more road segments have > 250,000 vehicles/day. (7 in NYS)
  • Community-Wide: A minimum of one monitor would be placed in any urban area with a population >1 million (3 in NYS)
  • Susceptible and Vulnerable Communities: Working with the states, EPA Regional Administrators will site at least 40 additional NO2 monitors to help protect communities that are susceptible and vulnerable to NO2 related health effects.

New near-road monitoring sites are to be operational by January 2013. Most likely, these additional monitoring requirements will be difficult to implement by current staff as siting these roadside monitors will be a challenging task. In addition, each site will cost upwards of $100,000 placing additional strain on limited financial resources. Additional resources will be needed to achieve these goals.

Lead (Pb)

Effective January 12, 2009 the lead standard was revised to a rolling 3-month average of 0.15µg/m3 with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form, evaluated over a 3-year period. The current indicator of Pb in total suspended particles (Pb-TSP) was retained. The secondary standard was also set to be identical in all respects to the revised primary standard. Following promulgation of the revised lead NAAQS and monitoring requirements, several environmental groups petitioned for a reconsideration of the lead emission rate at which monitoring is required (the ''emission threshold,'' currently 1.0 tpy). On July 22, 2009, the EPA granted the petition to reconsider aspects of the monitoring requirements. In response to the petition, the EPA reviewed and reconsidered the monitoring requirements and published proposed revisions to the requirements for both source-oriented and non-source-oriented monitoring for lead December 30, 2009. The proposed changes include:

  • Emissions monitoring threshold lowered from 1.0 to 0.50 tons per year (tpy).
  • Require lead monitoring at NCore sites instead of the current requirement to place lead monitors in each CBSA with a population of 500,000 or more people.
  • Treat general aviation (GA) airports identically to other sources of lead when determining if source-oriented lead monitoring is needed.
  • Develop "generic FEM" for Pb-TSP.

Depending on the final rule, additional lead monitoring sites may be needed in New York. EPA is proposing to allow 1 year from the date of the final rule for monitoring agencies to install and begin operation of source-oriented monitors near lead sources emitting 0.50 tpy or more, but less than 1.0 tpy.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

On November 16, 2009, EPA proposed to strengthen the NAAQS for SO2 in order to improve protection for potentially susceptible populations, such as people with asthma, children and the elderly who are especially susceptible to the health problems associated with breathing SO2. EPA is proposing to revise the primary standard of 140 ppb measured over 24-hours, and 30 ppb measured over an entire year to a level of between 50 and 100 ppb measured over 1-hour. Under a separate review, EPA is considering the need for changes to the secondary standard in conjunction with the secondary NO2 standard.

EPA is proposing a "2 pronged" monitoring network design

  • Prong 1- monitors required based on a CBSA's population multiplied by its SO2 emissions. (PWEI: population weighted emissions index) NY will need 13 of these monitors.
  • Prong 2 - monitors required based on a state's contribution to national SO2 emissions. These are to be located at the point of expected maximum impact from a specific source. NY contributes 2.65% to the SO2 NEI and will need 3 of these monitors.

NY has SO2 data for all 6 of the CBSAs where PWEI monitors would be required. Only NYC and Rochester have SO2 values above ½ of the low end of the proposed standard. Monitoring is not warranted in Syracuse, Albany, Poughkeepsie and Buffalo.

Under this proposed rule, the minimally required network are to be operational by January 1, 2013, and the Regional Administrators has the discretion of requiring additional monitors in areas where exposures to concentrations approaching or exceeding the NAAQS may be occurring. The final rule is expected in June 2010.

Particulate Matter (PM)

The existing standards were last revised in 2006, and they are under review currently. A proposed rule is expected this November that will include monitoring requirements for PMcourse(fraction between PM10 and PM2.5), as well as measurements for urban visibility.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

EPA is under court order with the proposed rule , due October 28, 2010, with the final rule due by May 13, 2011. There are no current monitoring requirements except for NCore sites. The near-road network required for NO2 may be a suitable and logical location for CO monitors - EPA is considering how urban canyons might be included in the network design.

Secondary Standards for NOx/SOx

This is another court ordered rulemaking with the proposal due July 12, 2011and the final rule due March 20, 2012. Current indicators (NO2 and SO2) do not take into account all contributions to N and S deposition. The structure of current NAAQS is not designed to protect against deposition impacts to ecological systems. Limited monitoring in ecologically sensitive areas suggests that these effects are occurring in areas that would meet the current standards

As a result, this review has been designed to revise the standard to be ecologically relevant.

Quality Assurance

In addition to the QA/QC procedures implicit in the daily operation of each network component, independent and regularly scheduled audits are performed by personnel from the Ambient Monitoring Section of the Bureau of Quality Assurance. They also carry out the Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) for the FRM PM2.5 network, and Through The Probe (TTP) audits for all gaseous pollutants. All QA requirements specified in the monitoring rules Parts 53 and 58 are adhered to.

One weakness in our monitoring program is the meteorological data. The Sonic weather instruments for meteorological measurements in our network have no field serviceable adjustments for calibration or audits. At present data verification is carried out by site supervising engineers who compare readings with nearby sites and will invalidate unreasonable values and notify the site operator. The malfunctioning equipment is replaced and subsequently returned to the manufacturer for repair and recertification. We are in the process of developing QA procedures that will better address this deficiency.

Technology

We continue to evaluate new equipment and instrumentation as they become available on the market. The Queens College site is often used as a platform for manufacturers to test/certify their instruments for designation. We often provide support for collocated sampling for instruments under development.

Data Acquisition

NYSDEC recently deployed ten digital data acquisition systems in field for continuous instruments. These systems have added functions and capabilities including:

  • i/o for RS 232 or Ethernet connection
  • minute data storage eliminating the need for strip chart/recorder (cost saving)
  • remotely operate and perform diagnostics of equipment
  • connect to new generation instruments that no longer provide analog output

Continuous PM Instruments

The continuous PM2.5 mass monitoring instruments used in New York are the TEOM 1400ab manufactured by ThermoFisher. These instruments have received FEM designation for the measurement of PM10 only. The TEOM 1400ab with FDMS (series 8500) received designation by EPA for PM2.5 in 2009. Several of these instruments have been purchased and judiciously deployed. PM2.5 is more difficult to measure than PM10 with automated samplers because PM2.5 contains a higher fraction of volatile components. The heated inlet for the TEOM 1400ab reduces the amount of volatile mass measured as compared to filter based FRMs. Since most of continuous particulate monitors inn our network are of the older (non FDMS) design, non-linear data adjustments were utilized to make the TEOM data more comparable with the FRM data. The adjusted data are used for public reporting and forecasting PM2.5 concentrations. In addition, NYSDEC continues to evaluate the FDMS Dicot TEOMs that capture more of the volatile components of PM2.5. It is hoped that with a data adjustment, these instruments will be able to provide more accurate "FRM-like" data on an hourly basis until their useful life is realized or we are able to purchase more of the TEOMs with FDMS and phase out the older units.

NYSDEC uses instruments from several manufactures to examine the species of PM2.5 on a higher frequency than what is available from the filter based CSN network. The continuous speciation samplers provide data hourly or more frequent measurements that are useful for examinations of source strength and the relationship between pollutant concentrations and meteorology. We also utilize additional specie-specific equipment in NYC to monitor Sulfate and Organic and Elemental Carbon.

Ultrafine Measurements

NYSDEC first began ultrafine particulate monitoring with the deployment of a TSI Model 3031 Ultrafine Particle Monitor (UPM) at Queens College in June of 2009. This instrument provides continuous measurements of size distribution and particle number concentrations of fine particles below 1 micron, in the range from 20 to 500 nanometers. Concurrently a demo UPM unit on loan for one year from the manufacturer was installed at the Eisenhower Park location in Nassau County, which is expected to have a significant impact from mobile sources. The recent establishment of initial regulations intended to address ultrafine particle emissions from mobile sources (LEV-3 in California, Euro V-VII in the EU) is an early indicator of more extensive regulation of ultrafine particle emissions from mobile sources expected in the future, and suggests the potential emergence of regulations for ambient ultrafine particles as well.

Personnel and Training

In the past five years the monitoring program experienced a 15% staff reduction due to staff separations. Graying of the current staff could potentially lead to another 37% reduction as they become eligible for retirement and elect to do so. A considerable amount of technical expertise and skills will be lost if there is no succession plan to retain this knowledge. It is therefore our highest priority to address this issue.

New York has one of the most robust and advanced air monitoring programs in the nation. In order to maintain this high level of effort and play a major role in the implementation and development of cutting edge measurement technology, it is important for program management to recruit young professionals into the organization to replace outgoing staff. EPA Region 2 has been very supportive of New York's program by providing grant monies for equipment purchase and network upgrade necessary to implement new monitoring requirements. However, recent awards have not included funding for personal services. It will be of tremendous help if grant monies are earmarked for the hiring of new personnel in the future.