Status of Garfield County

1
Status of Garfield Countys Air Quality
Monitoring Program

• April 6, 2006
• Energy Advisory Board Meeting

2
Todays Presentation

• Air Monitoring Study Overview
• PM10, what is it and what have we found?
• VOC, what is it and what have we found?
• How does our air compare so far?
• What do we know?
• Where do we go from here?

3
Basis of theAir Quality Monitoring Study

• Evaluate air quality characteristics within a
  portion Garfield County
• Address public concern regarding potentially
  degraded air quality from industrial activity
• Characterize air quality concerns of all types
  throughout central portion of Garfield County

4
Sampling Locations

• PM10 at 7 sites (every 3rd day)
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) monitoring at 17
  locations
• Fixed monitoring sites monthly or quarterly
• Six additional locations are also being sampled
  monthly for VOC only
• Grab samples
• Garfield County staff in response to complaints
• Local residents during strong odor events

5
(No Transcript)
6
Additional Monitoring

• Meteorological equipment has been installed at 6
  of the fixed monitoring stations
• Stations will continuously record
• Windspeed direction
• Temperature
• Relative humidity
• Barometric pressure
• Precipitation (Summer)
• Passive ozone monitoring planned during the 2006
  ozone season (June thru September)

7
Current Air Monitoring
8
What is PM10?

• Particles less than or equal to 10 µm in
  diameter.
• Mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets
  
• many sizes and shapes
• can be made up of hundreds of different
  chemicals
• Health effects (particularly in sensitive
  populations)
• pulmonary disease
• cardiac disease
• Environmental effects
• physical damage to buildings and vegetation
• soil and water chemistry effects
• haze and smog
• EPA current PM10 standards
• 50 µg/m3 (monthly annual average)
• 150 µg/m3 (24 hour maximum)

Source http//www.epa.gov/airtrends/pmr
eport03/pmunderstand_2405.pdfpage1
9
How Small?
10
Particulate Sampling Unit
Intake/impact area
Motor
Barometer
Flow Controller
Elapsed Time Meter
11
PM10 Monitoring Results, 5/2005 2/2006
Silt-Cox high value in 7/2005 due to dirt moving
activity nearby. New Castle high value in
9/2005 due to railroad re-bedding across street
from site.
12

13
(No Transcript)
14
VOC Collection
West Landfill
15
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

• Any compound of carbon, excluding carbon
  monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
  carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,
  which participates in atmospheric photochemical
  reactions
• Can react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of
  sunlight to form ozone and photochemical smog
• Some can be toxic to humans, animals or
  vegetation.
• There are currently no National Ambient Air
  Quality Standards for VOC

Source Federal Code of Regulations
16
VOC --- June 2005 - February 2006 June 2005 - February 2006 June 2005 - February 2006

Detected compounds Detected compounds Detected compounds 89 samples (81 24-hour samples and 8 grab samples) (81 24-hour samples and 8 grab samples) (81 24-hour samples and 8 grab samples) (81 24-hour samples and 8 grab samples) (81 24-hour samples and 8 grab samples)

CAS CAS Compound Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
    µg/m³ µg/m³ µg/m³ ppb ppb ppb detected detected
74-87-3 74-87-3 Chloromethane 2.2 2.2 0.02 1.10 1.10 0.01 1 1.1
67-64-1 67-64-1 Acetone 8.6 81.0 14.8 3.60 34.00 6.22 61 68.5
75-69-4 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.5 26.0 0.3 0.27 4.70 0.06 2 2.2
75-09-2 75-09-2 Methylene chloride 1.8 3.5 0.1 0.53 1.00 0.02 3 3.4
108-05-4 108-05-4 Vinyl Acetate 5.9 7.9 0.2 1.70 2.30 0.07 3 3.4
78-93-3 78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) 1.5 12.0 1.8 0.52 4.20 0.60 48 53.9
67-66-3 67-66-3 Chloroform 1.6 1.6 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.004 1 1.1
71-43-2 71-43-2 Benzene 1.6 180.0 5.7 0.49 57.00 1.80 46 51.7
108-88-3 108-88-3 Toluene 1.6 540.0 16.7 0.43 140.0 4.38 82 92.1
591-78-6 591-78-6 2-Hexanone 2.1 4.4 0.1 0.51 1.10 0.03 3 3.4
127-18-4 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 2.3 2.3 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.004 1 1.1
100-41-4 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 2.0 28.0 0.7 0.46 6.40 0.15 8 9.0
136777-61-2 136777-61-2 m,p-Xylenes 1.8 290.0 9.7 0.40 67.00 2.24 65 73.0
95-47-6 95-47-6 o-Xylene 1.8 46.0 1.2 0.42 10.00 0.27 13 14.6
106-46-7 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4.6 4.6 0.05 0.76 0.76 0.008 1 1.1


17
VOC Monitoring Results6/2005 2/2006
18
VOC Monitoring Results 6/2005 2/2006
19
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TIC)

• November only,10 samples,
• 8-24 hour, 2 Grab
• Additional 29 organic compounds
  identified
• Widely varying concentrations
• Additional sample analysis likely needed
• Significant review/analysis needed to
  determine relevant information of source,
  exposure, health risk, etc.

20
VOC Comparisons(Denver and Grand Junction)

• Difficult to Draw Strong Conclusions at this time
• Differences in the amount of data
• All compounds are detected in relatively small
  concentrations
• Of the 15 compounds detected, several appear to
  be higher than Denver or Grand Junction

21
So, What Do We Know?

• PM10 levels are generally low in Garfield County.
• Highest average PM10 levels are in the urbanized
  areas.
• Ambient VOC levels, when detected, are very low.
• Grab samples in odor plumes show much higher
  concentrations of VOC than ambient air.
• Tentatively identified compounds need deeper
  investigation.
• More data, exposure information and source
  information is needed to determine health risks.

22
What else are we doing now?

• Air Quality Technical Work Group
• Ongoing data analysis, monitoring analysis,
  emissions inventory, research, information and
  data gathering, professional and community
  networking
• Ozone monitoring plan
• Collaboration with the White River National
  Forest ozone monitoring program
• Open Burning Permit/Education Work
• Collaboration with Local Fire Chiefs and
  Sheriffs Department
• Complaint Response

23
What Does the Future Hold?

• Regular update meetings
• Presentation series on more specific subjects
• Publish the monitoring results
• Refine monitoring/analysis needs
• Secure funding for ongoing monitoring and other
  air quality efforts
• Continue to gather public input
• Develop and implement a community-based air
  quality management program

24
Challenges to the EAB

• Work to establish perpetual funding base for
  ongoing air quality monitoring
• Spearhead efforts to raise the standards for Best
  Available Control Technologies (BACT) in Garfield
  County
• Establish a leadership role in attacking air
  quality issues countywide

25
Questions???
26
(No Transcript)