njdep teterboro airport air quality study presentation 021108.pdfnjdep teterboro airport air quality...
TRANSCRIPT
NJDEP TETERBORO AIRPORTAIR QUALITY STUDY
Alan Kao, PrincipalENVIRON International Corporation
Groton, Massachusetts
Final Project PresentationFebruary 11, 2008
2
OUTLINE
Background
Recap of monitoring program design– What we monitored– Where we monitored
Air quality characterization– Monitoring data collected at Teterboro Airport– Comparison with NJDEP monitoring network and health
benchmarks
Temporal variations – VOCs, BC, PM2.5– Compare to traffic patterns, airport activity, wind
3
BACKGROUND
2001 ENVIRON Screening Study– 48-hour monitoring study (June 27-29)– The overall results of the Screening Study indicate that airport
operations might be affecting ambient air quality in the immediate vicinity.
– The major limitation of the Screening Study is that its results represent a single point in time, and thus may not reflect long-term conditions
– Based on the results of the Screening Study, a more extensive study was recommended
4
BACKGROUND
2003 EOHSI Modeling Study– Using emissions estimates for various sources in the airport
vicinity (e.g., aircraft, mobiles sources, local industry), modeled ambient air concentrations
– Concluded that airport operations were a minor contributor to local air quality, accounting for 1-5% of air toxics concentrations in ambient air
5
Major Goals of NJDEP/ENVIRON Study:
Measure ambient concentrations of specific compounds of potential concern over an extended period of time
Provide monitoring results consistent with other data being collected by NJDEP, which would allow for a comparison of the Teterboro area results to data collected for other locations in New Jersey
Evaluate whether the target compound emissions from Teterboro Airport have a measurable impact on air quality in the airport vicinity
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
6
TETERBORO AIRPORT VICINITY
7
Gas phase constituents:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)– Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes– Carbonyls (e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde)
Particle-phase constituents:
Fine particles (PM2.5)
Black carbon
WHAT DID WE MONITOR?
Air Pollutants of Concern
8
Gas phase constituents:
Automated canister / cartridge samplers (ATEC Toxic Air Sampler) – discrete measurement of VOCs and carbonyls (24-hour samples every six days)
WHAT DID WE MONITOR?
9
Gas phase constituents:
Open path DOAS monitoring systems (CerexEnvironmental UVSentry) – continuous measurement of certain gaseous pollutants (e.g., VOCs, NO)
WHAT DID WE MONITOR?
10
Particle-phase constituents
Beta-attenuation monitors (Met One EBAM) – continuous measurement of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
Aethalometers (Magee Scientific) –continuous measurement of black carbon (BC)
WHAT DID WE MONITOR?
11
Other parameters:
Meteorological parameters – wind speed and direction
Traffic flow
Aircraft landings and takeoffs (provided by TEB)
WHAT DID WE MONITOR?
12
24
1
19
6
S1
P2
P1
S2
1
6
24
19
WHERE DID WE MONITOR?
13
WHERE DID WE MONITOR?
24
19
P1
SpeciatedVOCs
gases
BC
PM2.5
wind data
traffic
14
1
6
P2
WHERE DID WE MONITOR?
SpeciatedVOCs
gases
BC
PM2.5
wind data
traffic
15
24
1
19
6
S1
S2
WHERE DID WE MONITOR?
SpeciatedVOCs
SpeciatedVOCs
AIRPORT ACTIVITY ANDTRAFFIC MONITORING
What was happening at the airport?
What was happening on the roads?
17
WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE AIRPORT?
18
WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE AIRPORT?
Runway 1, 41968, 24%
Runway 19, 52605, 30%
Runway 6, 30846, 18%
Runway 24, 49082, 28%
19
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE ROADS?
20
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE ROADS?
21
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE ROADS?
22
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE ROADS?
23
WIND SPEED PATTERN
Average Hourly Wind Speed at P1 and P2 in 2006
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12:00
AM
1:00 A
M2:0
0 AM
3:00 A
M4:0
0 AM
5:00 A
M6:0
0 AM
7:00 A
M8:0
0 AM
9:00 A
M10
:00 A
M11
:00 A
M12
:00 P
M1:0
0 PM
2:00 P
M3:0
0 PM
4:00 P
M5:0
0 PM
6:00 P
M7:0
0 PM
8:00 P
M9:0
0 PM
10:00
PM
11:00
PM
Hour
Win
d sp
eed
(mph
)
Primary 1Primary 2
AIR MONITORING RESULTS
What’s in the air?
How does it compare with the rest of New Jersey?
Where is it coming from?
25
WHAT WAS MEASURED IN THE AIR?
The following 16 compounds were consistently detected (>70%) in the canister/cartridge samples:
• Acetone• Benzene• Dichlorodifluoromethane• Ethylbenzene• Methyl ethyl ketone• Methylene chloride• Toluene• Trichlorofluoromethane• Xylenes
• Acetaldehyde• Benzaldehyde• Butyraldehyde• Formaldehyde• Hexaldehyde• Propionaldehyde• Valeraldehyde
• Acetone• Benzene• Dichlorodifluoromethane• Ethylbenzene• Methyl ethyl ketone• Methylene chloride• Toluene• Trichlorofluoromethane• Xylenes
• Acetaldehyde• Benzaldehyde• Butyraldehyde• Formaldehyde• Hexaldehyde• Propionaldehyde• Valeraldehyde
13 of these 16 were higher at Teterboro than at other NJ stations
26
COMPARISON WITH OTHER NJ LOCATIONS
Camden(urban)
New Brunswick(suburban)
Chester(background)
Elizabeth(mobile source dominated)
27
COMPARISON WITH OTHER NJ LOCATIONS
Elizabeth Station dominated by mobile sources
28
CERTAIN VOCs ARE ELEVATED COMPARED TO OTHER NJ LOCATIONS
29
CERTAIN VOCs ARE COMPARABLE OR LOWER THAN AT OTHER NJ LOCATIONS
30
RISK SCREENING CALCULATIONS
Cancer risks at P2 are comparable to Elizabeth; P1 is about two times higher
31
RISK SCREENING CALCULATIONS
Noncancer risks at P2 are comparable to Elizabeth; P1 is about two times higher
32
SUMMERTIME INCREASE IN ALDEHYDES
33
PM2.5 IS ELEVATED COMPARED TO OTHER NJ LOCATIONS
BUT method used in this study for PM2.5 is different than method used by NJDEP
34
PM2.5 TRENDS – P1Average Hourly Wind Speed at P1 and P2 in 2006
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12:00
AM
1:00 A
M2:0
0 AM
3:00 A
M4:0
0 AM
5:00 A
M6:0
0 AM
7:00 A
M8:0
0 AM
9:00 A
M10
:00 A
M11
:00 A
M12
:00 P
M1:0
0 PM
2:00 P
M3:0
0 PM
4:00 P
M5:0
0 PM
6:00 P
M7:0
0 PM
8:00 P
M9:0
0 PM
10:00
PM
11:00
PM
Hour
Win
d sp
eed
(mph
)
Primary 1Primary 2
35
PM2.5 TRENDS – P2 Average Hourly Wind Speed at P1 and P2 in 2006
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12:00
AM
1:00 A
M2:0
0 AM
3:00 A
M4:0
0 AM
5:00 A
M6:0
0 AM
7:00 A
M8:0
0 AM
9:00 A
M10
:00 A
M11
:00 A
M12
:00 P
M1:0
0 PM
2:00 P
M3:0
0 PM
4:00 P
M5:0
0 PM
6:00 P
M7:0
0 PM
8:00 P
M9:0
0 PM
10:00
PM
11:00
PM
Hour
Win
d sp
eed
(mph
)
Primary 1Primary 2
36
PM2.5 CONCENTRATION IS RELATED TO WIND SPEED
Average PM2.5 Concentration by Wind Speed in 2006
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wind Speed (mph)
PM C
once
ntra
tion
(ug/
m3)
P1 PM2.5 Concentration P2 PM2.5 Concentration
37
EVALUATION OF WIND-FILTERED DATA
24
1
19
6
SEC-1
PRI-2
PRI-1
SEC-2
1
6
24
19
15-90 deg
315-70 deg
160-270 deg
135-225 deg
38
PM2.5 OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS
39
PM2.5 OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS
40
BLACK CARBON TRENDS – P1
Day-of-week temporal pattern for BC is similar to large vehicle automotive traffic
41
BLACK CARBON TRENDS – P2
Day-of-week temporal pattern for BC is similar to large vehicle automotive traffic
42
BLACK CARBON CONCENTRATION IS RELATED TO WIND SPEED
Average Black Carbon Concentration by Wind Speed in 2006
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wind Speed (mph)
BC C
once
ntra
tion
(ug/
m3)
P1 BC Concentration P2 BC Concentration
43
BLACK CARBON OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS
44
BLACK CARBON OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS
45
OPEN PATH SYSTEM – OVERVIEW
TRANSMITTER RECEIVER
Nonlocalized Emission Source
When some gases are exposed to UV light, they will absorb specific wavelengths of light. Measure of total absorption is called “DUV Intensity”.
46
OPEN PATH SYSTEM – OVERVIEW
DUV Intensity represents all gases that absorb in certain wavelengths, including hazardous and nonhazardous compounds
Methods are still under development to identify specific individual compounds (e.g., NO)
NOTE: This is an experimental technique; has not been officially validated or approved by USEPA or other regulatory agencies
47
DUV-DOAS OPEN PATH SYSTEM – P1
TRANSMITTER
RECEIVER
PATH LENGTH = 190 meters
48
DUV-DOAS OPEN PATH SYSTEM – P2
TRANSMITTER
RECEIVER
PATH LENGTH = 188 meters
49
DUV SIGNAL DROPS WITH TIME FROM LTO
50
DUV SIGNAL OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS
51
DUV SIGNAL OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS
52
DUV SIGNAL FROM AIRPORT
P2 DUV Intensity for Aug 30-31, 2006Using five-second open path and wind data
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Wed 8/30
6:00 A
MWed 8
/30 8:00
AM
Wed 8/30
10:00 AM
Wed 8/30
12:00 PM
Wed 8/30
2:00 P
MWed 8
/30 4:00
PM
Wed 8/30
6:00 P
MWed 8
/30 8:00
PM
Wed 8/30
10:00 PM
Thu 8/31
12:00 AM
Thu 8/31
2:00 A
MThu 8
/31 4:00
AM
Thu 8/31
6:00 A
MThu 8
/31 8:00
AM
Thu 8/31
10:00 AM
Thu 8/31
12:00 PM
Thu 8/31
2:00 P
M
Date/Time
DU
V In
tens
ity (2
80-2
07)
Wind from roads (90-270)Wind from airport (315-70)Crosswind (70-90, 270-315)
53
DUV SIGNAL FROM AIRPORT
P2 DUV Intensity and LTOs for Wed, August 30, 2006, 7-10amUsing five-second open path and wind data
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
7:00 A
M
7:15 A
M
7:30 A
M
7:45 A
M
8:00 A
M
8:15 A
M
8:30 A
M
8:45 A
M
9:00 A
M
9:15 A
M
9:30 A
M
9:45 A
M
10:00
AM
Date/Time
DU
V In
tens
ity (2
80-2
07)
Wind from roads (90-270)Wind from airport (315-70)Crosswind (70-90, 270-315)
7:13a:1 plane LTO
7:45a:1 heliport LTO
7:54a:1 heliport LTO
8:16-8:20: 4 plane LTOs
8:44-8:54a:11 plane LTOs
8:59-9:05a:5 plane LTOs
Wind speeds are approximately 5-7 mph during this time period.
Automobile traffic in runway
Idling plane in front of P2
54
DUV SIGNAL FROM AIRPORT
P2 DUV Intensity and LTOs for Wed, August 30, 2006, 7-10amUsing five-second open path and wind data
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
7:00 A
M
7:15 A
M
7:30 A
M
7:45 A
M
8:00 A
M
8:15 A
M
8:30 A
M
8:45 A
M
9:00 A
M
9:15 A
M
9:30 A
M
9:45 A
M
10:00
AM
Date/Time
DU
V In
tens
ity (2
80-2
07)
Wind from roads (90-270)Wind from airport (315-70)Crosswind (70-90, 270-315)
7:13a:1 plane LTO
7:45a:1 heliport LTO
7:54a:1 heliport LTO
8:16-8:20: 4 plane LTOs
8:44-8:54a:11 plane LTOs
8:59-9:05a:5 plane LTOs
Wind speeds are approximately 5-7 mph during this time period.
Automobile traffic in runway
Idling plane in front of P2
55
DUV SIGNAL FROM AIRPORT
56
DUV SIGNAL FROM AIRPORT
57
DUV SIGNAL FROM AIRPORT
58
DUV SIGNAL FROM AIRPORT
59
CONCLUSIONS
Certain VOCs were detected at parts of Teterboro Airport at higher concentrations than other “representative” locations in New Jersey (e.g., formaldehyde, toluene); other VOCs (e.g., benzene,acetaldehyde) were comparable to other NJ locations.
PM2.5 measured around Teterboro Airport appears to have been higher than other NJ monitoring locations in 2006, althoughthe method used to measure PM2.5 around Teterboro Airport in this study typically yields higher results than the method used at the other NJ locations.
IS THE AIR NEAR THE AIRPORT WORSE THAN THE REST OF THE STATE?
60
CONCLUSIONS
Risks associated with the concentrations of VOCs consistently detected around parts of Teterboro Airport are higher than other“representative” locations in New Jersey (based on conservative risk screening calculations intended to overestimate exposures and be health protective).
Similar to other locations in New Jersey, risks around TeterboroAirport exceed health benchmarks. These exceedances are typical of urban areas in the U.S.
IS THE AIR NEAR THE AIRPORT HAZARDOUSTO MY HEALTH?
61
CONCLUSIONS
Airport activities have a measurable effect on local air quality, as do other sources. PM2.5 and DUV intensity signal were observed to come from both roadways and the airport. These conclusions are supported by temporal and wind direction-filtered analyses, as well as review of videotapes.
Black carbon was also observed to come from both roadways and the airport operations, although to a lesser extent. Stronger contributions of BC appear to be coming from large vehicles.
IS THE AIRPORT AFFECTING THELOCAL AIR QUALITY?
62
CONCLUSIONS
Although the data indicate that airport activities have a measurable effect on local air quality, the data were insufficient to quantify the contribution from airport activities. However, the prevalence of these measurable impacts suggests that the airportis not an insignificant source with respect to the local air quality.
Airport contributions appear to be highly dependent on wind direction and wind speed, as well as airport activity.
HOW MUCH IS THE AIRPORT AFFECTING THELOCAL AIR QUALITY?
63
RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional study is needed to identify and quantify potential emission sources of certain detected VOCs and carbonyls, such asformaldehyde. In particular, the summertime increase in formaldehyde concentrations should be further evaluated to understand why it was elevated at P1 but not at other locations.
Other VOC sources in the airport vicinity should be identified and their emissions quantified.
PM2.5 and black carbon concentrations and emission sources should be further evaluated.
64
RECOMMENDATIONS
The DUV-DOAS open path system appears to be a promising tool for evaluating airport impacts on local air quality; more research is needed to develop this technology and to characterize DUV compounds.
Additional study is needed to understand the impact of airport operations on the local community. – Perimeter monitoring around the airport coupled with neighborhood
monitoring, particularly at times when jet fuel odors are apparent
– Short-term sampling (e.g., three hours or less) when winds are steady to quantify upwind and downwind concentrations.
– Short-term VOC monitoring to evaluate temporal trends