NJDEP TETERBORO AIRPORT AIR QUALITY STUDY Alan Kao, Principal - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NJDEP TETERBORO AIRPORT AIR QUALITY STUDY

Alan Kao, Principal

ENVIRON International Corporation Groton, Massachusetts Final Project Presentation February 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

• perations 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 (Cerex Environmental UVSentry) – continuous measurement

• f 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

Speciated VOCs gases BC PM2.5 wind data traffic

14

1 6 P2

WHERE DID WE MONITOR?

Speciated VOCs gases BC PM2.5 wind data traffic

15

24 1 19 6 S1 S2

WHERE DID WE MONITOR?

Speciated VOCs Speciated VOCs

AIRPORT ACTIVITY AND TRAFFIC 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

2 4 6 8 10 12 1 2 : A M 1 : A M 2 : A M 3 : A M 4 : A M 5 : A M 6 : A M 7 : A M 8 : A M 9 : A M 1 : A M 1 1 : A M 1 2 : P M 1 : P M 2 : P M 3 : P M 4 : P M 5 : P M 6 : P M 7 : P M 8 : P M 9 : P M 1 : P M 1 1 : P M Hour Wind speed (mph) Primary 1 Primary 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 – P1

Average Hourly Wind Speed at P1 and P2 in 2006

35

PM2.5 TRENDS – P2

Average Hourly Wind Speed at P1 and P2 in 2006

36

PM2.5 CONCENTRATION IS RELATED TO WIND SPEED

Average PM2.5 Concentration by Wind Speed in 2006 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 Wind Speed (mph) PM Concentration (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 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Wind Speed (mph) BC Concentration (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

• fficially 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, 2006 Using five-second open path and wind data

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 W e d 8 / 3 6 : A M W e d 8 / 3 8 : A M W e d 8 / 3 1 : A M W e d 8 / 3 1 2 : P M W e d 8 / 3 2 : P M W e d 8 / 3 4 : P M W e d 8 / 3 6 : P M W e d 8 / 3 8 : P M W e d 8 / 3 1 : P M T h u 8 / 3 1 1 2 : A M T h u 8 / 3 1 2 : A M T h u 8 / 3 1 4 : A M T h u 8 / 3 1 6 : A M T h u 8 / 3 1 8 : A M T h u 8 / 3 1 1 : A M T h u 8 / 3 1 1 2 : P M T h u 8 / 3 1 2 : P M Date/Time DUV Intensity (280-207)

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, 7-10am Using five-second open path and wind data

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 7 : A M 7 : 1 5 A M 7 : 3 A M 7 : 4 5 A M 8 : A M 8 : 1 5 A M 8 : 3 A M 8 : 4 5 A M 9 : A M 9 : 1 5 A M 9 : 3 A M 9 : 4 5 A M 1 : A M Date/Time DUV Intensity (280-207)

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

• f P2

54

DUV SIGNAL FROM AIRPORT

P2 DUV Intensity and LTOs for Wed, August 30, 2006, 7-10am Using five-second open path and wind data

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 7 : A M 7 : 1 5 A M 7 : 3 A M 7 : 4 5 A M 8 : A M 8 : 1 5 A M 8 : 3 A M 8 : 4 5 A M 9 : A M 9 : 1 5 A M 9 : 3 A M 9 : 4 5 A M 1 : A M Date/Time DUV Intensity (280-207)

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

• f 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, although the 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 Teterboro Airport exceed health benchmarks. These exceedances are typical of urban areas in the U.S.

IS THE AIR NEAR THE AIRPORT HAZARDOUS TO 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

• bserved 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 THE LOCAL 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 airport is 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 THE LOCAL AIR QUALITY?

63

RECOMMENDATIONS

Additional study is needed to identify and quantify potential emission sources of certain detected VOCs and carbonyls, such as

• formaldehyde. 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

• perations 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