2006 National Air Monitoring Conference “Port of Tampa” Air Emissions and Monitoring Equipment Comparison Study
November 6-9 Las Vegas, Nevada Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County Clemente Lopez Debra Price, Ph.D.
Where is the Port of Tampa? This is Florida
Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties
Where isPort of Tampa Port of Tampa?” the “
• Insert pict of Tampa Bay Area here
Harbour Island
Port- industrial- all pollutants, UV, FTIR And FRM monitoring
Davis Island
Hookers Point
Gandy site- all pollutants, located at the USMC military base
ydney site
Sydney- Rural, but quickly turning urban With growth occurring in area, monitoring all pollutants for reference comparison
Gas & ammonia storage and transport, sewage treatment plant
Why is Tampa important?
• Tampa has a large range of point sources
• Fuel oil fired power plant, large natural gas-fired power plant, 7 bulk
petroleum, 3 shipbuilding and repair facilities, 4 liquid sulfur terminals/tank complexes, large wastewater treatment plant, waste incinerator and many other important emission sources
• Mobile sources are also considerate • And the Tampa Bay Area is highly populated
• 2004 Census reports Hillsborough County of 1.1 million
• Lots of pollution….
….and lots of people…. ….can lead to health problems
• So….in 2004 EPA proposed the FY2004
Community –Based monitoring project.
– EPC hypothesized that emissions from the Port might be harmful to the public • And set out to find….
“Inhalation Risk Posed by Toxic Emissions from the Port of Tampa ” • Focus of the study;
– Investigate/compare monitoring systems – Determine if sources at Port pose a health threat – Identify the chemicals of concern
EPA Method
Core Pollutants Benzene 1,3-butadiene Carbon tetrachloride Chloroform 1,2-dichloropropane Methylene Chloride Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl Chloride
Additional HAPS Methyl Chloride Methyl Bromide Ethyl Chloride 1,1-dichloroethene 1,1-dichloroethane 1,1,1-trichloroethane 1,1,2-trichloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene M-xylene
Additional HAPS Styrene O-xylene 1,4-dichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene Acrylonitrile 1,2-dibromoethane cis-1,3-dichloropropene trans-1,3-dichloropropene 1,2-dichloroethane 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
TO-15 Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium (total) Lead Manganese IO-3 Nickel Acetaldehyde TO-11 Formaldehyde Acrolein Hexavalent Chromium
P-xylene Antimony Cobalt Selenium
Propionaldehyde
Sites, equipment and chemicals
Site PORT Type area Industrial Equipment FTIR UV SO2 NO2 Ozone VOC's At site? yes yes no no yes yes Fed approved ? no no no no yes yes Chems. Monitored ? all all none none Ozone VOC's
GANDY
City Urban
FTIR UV SO2 NO2 Ozone VOC's
no no yes yes yes yes
no no yes yes yes yes SO2 NO2 Ozone VOC's
SYDNEY
Rural
FTIR UV SO2 NO2 Ozone VOC's
no yes yes yes yes yes
no no yes yes yes yes all SO2 NO2 Ozone VOC's
Monitoring Method Comparison: Open Path (FTIR & UV) vs. Fixed Monitor (FRM)
• Open Path Samplers
• Fourier Transform InfraRed (FTIR) Spectrometer
– Air toxics, criteria pollutants
• UV Sentry
– Air toxics, criteria pollutants
FRM FTIR vs UV Sentry
Method Comparison Con’t
• Fixed Point Monitors (left)
– Mobile monitoring unit
Compare the new techniques to older already approved techniques…
• Air Toxics Samplers
– Using…Canisters and passive samplers
• VOC’s
– Cylindrical gel cartridges
• Carbonyl comps
– Quartz filter media
• Metals
– Treated 47 mm filters
• Hexavalent Chromium
Equipment comparison…Fixed Point monitor and Open path monitor (UV) Both track each other pretty well. R2 = 0.97
Comparison of Fixed Point Monitor and Open Path Monitor Data on April 4, 2005
70
60
50
40 P o in t M o n it o r y = 0.8551x - 9.7647 R2 = 0.9694
30
20
10
0 0 -10 UVS UVS vs. Point Linear (UVS vs. Point) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
• Equipment comparison… Hourly ozone data from the two types of monitors, Fixed point and Open Path. • Open path (blue) shows that there is ozone in the background reference spectrum being used by the UV system of about 10 ppm
April 4 Data Summary Ozone Hourly
90
80
70
60 C o n c e n t ra t io n ( P P M )
50
40
30
20
R2 = 0.9694
10
0 700 800 900 1000 1100 Time (hours) 1200 1300 1400 1500
UVS
Point Monitor
… Hourly data on a different day.
y = 1.0863x + 8.5331 R2 = 70
4-18-05 Ozone Data Summary Hourly
60
50
C o n c e n tr a tio n
40
30
20
10
0 700 800 900 1000 1100 Time (hour) UVS Point Monitor 1200 1300 1400 1500
… and a summary of minute data.
C o n c e n tr a tio n (P P M ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 7 :2 4 7 :3 8 7 :5 0 8 :0 2 8 :1 4 8 :2 8 8 :4 0 8 :5 3 9 :0 5 9 :1 7 9 :2 9 9 :4 1 9 :5 3 1 0 :0 6 1 0 :1 8 1 0 :3 2 1 0 :4 4 1 0 :5 6 1 1 :0 8 1 1 :2 0 1 1 :3 2 1 1 :4 4 1 1 :5 7 1 2 :0 9 1 2 :2 1 1 2 :3 3 1 2 :4 6 1 2 :5 8 1 3 :1 0 1 3 :2 2 1 3 :3 4 1 3 :4 6 1 3 :5 9 1 4 :1 1 1 4 :2 6 1 4 :3 8 1 4 :5 0 1 5 :0 2 1 5 :1 6 1 5 :2 8 1 5 :4 0
4-18-06 Data Summary Ozone Minute
Time (min)
UVS Point
Additional work needed
• Data analysis completion and summary • Intercomparison of open path method • Risk assessment
And… More pictures of our three Comparison sites… • PORT
– Industrial area
• GANDY
– City Urban area
• SYDNEY
– Rural area
SO2 data from our 3 sites for Sept 16, 2005: Gandy City urban Sydney rural Port industrial…appear to track well No stats on data to see if differences in UV FRM and Open path are significant
SULFUR DIOXIDE ONE HOUR AVERAGES
50
P A R T S P E R B IL L IO N
40 30 20 10 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
HOUR
GANDY PORT SYDNEY PORT UV
Again… last Friday’s Ozone data from our 3 sites for Oct 24, 2005: Gandy City urban Sydney rural Port industrial…also appear to track well No stats on data to see if differences in UV FRM and Open path are significant
OZONE ONE HOUR AVERAGES
120
P A R T S P E R B IL L IO N
100 80 60 40 20 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
HOUR
GANDY PORT SYDNEY PORT UV
And our last graph…Ozone vs SO2 data from the PORT Oct 24, 2005: Compares the fixed point monitor and the open path monitor; SO2 fixed vs. open Ozone fixed vs open Shows interaction between Sulfur dioxide and Ozone No stats on data to see if differences in UV FRM and Open path are significant
PORT OZONE VS SULFUR DIOXIDE
50
P A R T S P E R B IL L IO N
40 30 20 10 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
HOUR
OZONE SULFUR DIOXIDE OZONE UV SULFUR DIOXIDE UV
Additional work needed…
• Finish analysis on UV data • FTIR data has not been evaluated yet • Risk assessment
Thank you