Loading...
2008 EPSILON AIR QUALITY MODELING REPORTAIR QUALITY MODELING REPORT d Northside Carting, Inc. 12 Swampscott Street Salem, MA Prepared for: TBI, Inc. 2'10 Holt Road North Andover. MA 01845 Prepared by: Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 May, 2008 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-2 2.0 AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODELING 2-1 2.1 CAL3QHCR 2-1 2.3 MOBILE6.2 Emissions 2-3 2.3 CAL3QHCR Receptors 2-4 2.4 Meteorological Data 2-4 2.6 Background Air Quality Data 2-4 2.8 Modeling Results 2-6 3.0 REFERENCES 3-1 Appendix A Modeling Assumptions Appendix B CAL3QHCR Input and Output File Appendix C MOBILE6.2 Modeling Files List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 Modeled Receptor Locations List of Tables Table 1 Emission Factors Generated by MOBILE6.2 Table 2 Observed Ambient Air Quality Concentrations and Selected Background Levels Table 3 CAL3QI-ICR Modeling Results For Northside Carting Facility Alone Table 4 CAL3QI-ICR Modeling Results For Existing Conditions Table 5 CAL3QFICR Modeling ResUlts For Future Conditions 2268/N6rt1iside CirtingSaicrnheport i Table of Contents Epsilon Associates, lir. 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY An air quality dispersion modeling analysis was conducted to assess the potential impact of ambient air quality from the proposed expansion of the Northside Carting Transfer Station in Salem, MA. Particulate emissions associated with the additional truck trips including existing traffic volumes were modeled for comparison to ambient air quality standards using refined air quality dispersion models. The analysis was completed in response to the Salem Board of Health request to analyze the potential impact of diesel truck emissions at residential areas along Highland Avenue (Route 107) and the nearby neighborhood to the southeast of the facility. The modeling was conducted using EPA -approved dispersion models and emission generating software. The modeling results were compared to the Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2s and PMm along with the EPA Reference concentration (RfC) for diesel particulate matter (DPM). The EPA has established an RfC of 5 ug/m' over an annual period', The RFC is an estimate of inhalation exposure which humans may be exposed throughout there lifetime without being likely to experience adverse non -cancer respiratory effects. The analysis indicates that the existing anti proposed truck trips affiliated with Northside Carting are below the NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PMz.e) and PM,o and also below the EPA RfC for DPM. The analysis was performed consistent with DEP policies and modeling guidance and methodologies for performing mobile source dispersion modeling. I U.S. EPA, "Health Assessment Document for Diesel Particulate Matter", EPA/600/8-90/057 F, May 2002. 2268/T81 S.=idem/Report 1-7 Introduction antl5umman' C/l5ilon rlssodales, Ine. 2.0 AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODELING An air quality dispersion modeling analysis was conducted for the existing and proposed truck volumes associated with Northside Carting's Salem facility along with existing and proposed traffic volumes from other vehicles. Figure 1 shows the project site location and surrounding area. The dispersion modeling was conducted using EPA's CAL3QHCR model with emission rates derived from EPA's MO61LE6.2 emission generating program. 2.1 CAL3QHCR The model typically employed to estimate impacts of emissions from mobile sources is the EPA -approved CAL3QHCR model (EPA, 1995). The CAUQHCR model is an enhanced version of EPA's CAL3QHC mobile source model. The CAL3QHCR model has the capability of modeling particulate emissions from motor vehicles during idling and free flow conditions. The model incorporates the CALINE-3 line source dispersion model. Other features of the CAL3QHCR model include: 1) the use of hourly meteorological data to simulate dispersion of emissions on a sequential, hour -by -hour basis for one full year, 2) the complete ISC dispersion model mixing height algorithm, and 3) the ability to vary Iraffic-related input variables by the hour of the week. The CAL3QHCR model uses emission factors generated by MOBILE6.2 along with traffic volumes, geometry of the free flow and queue links, and source specific parameters (i.e., emission heights, cycle times, etc.) to determine impacts at receptors of concern. The study area is based on the traffic study conducted by Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (Vanasse) and encompasses the area from the Northsicle Carting site northward along Swampscott Road to the intersection of Route 107 (Highland Avenue). The study also includes the intersection of Marlboro Road and Route 107 to the northeast. The traffic is divided into free flow and queue links. A free flow link is a straight segment of roadway with a constant volume, speed and emission factor. A queue link is a straight segment of roadway on which vehicles are idling for a specified period of time. The free flow links follow the path of the trucks along Route 107 as they enter the Swampscott Road intersection from the northeast and southwest and travel southward along Swampscott Road and enter the Northside Carting site. The trucks then travel around the site and exit onto Swampscott Road. Daily traffic volumes were estimated from the a.m: and p.m. peak hour volumes based on adjustment factors (K factors) in the Vanasse report. Conservatively, worst case daily volumes from the a.m. or p.m. were input into the CAL3QHCR model. For the existing conditions at the transfer station an average weekday volume of 140 trips were assumed (70 in and 70 out). For the proposed expansion an additional 54 trips were assumed (27 in and 27 out) for a total of 194 trips per day. 1268/1-8/ Salem/Report 2-1 Air Quality Epsilon Associates, Inc. A A ;��° :-.'�`t� y ;".•� t»� `, � *�L-.� �,�S��t�x`yay`f} nYeKfy i`�,_fi The modeling assumptions (i.e., source heights, lane widths, queue times, etc.) used in the analysis are presented in Appendix A. Input and output files for CAL3QHCR are presented in Appendix B. 2.3 MOBILE6.2 Emissions Diesel exhaust emissions were estimated using the EPA -approved MOBILE6.2 emission software program for existing and future build conditions (2012). Separate emissions were derived for existing traffic (not including Northside Carting trips) and Northside Carting truck volumes since not all the existing volumes are comprised of heavy duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) like the Northside Carting trucks. Therefore average size vehicle (all vehicles from MOBILE6.2) emission factor was used for non Northside Carting traffic and the HDDV factor was used for the Northside Carting trucks. The MOBILE6.2 emissions model has the ability to estimate current and future total exhaust particulate (PMto) and fine particulate (PM, >) from a variety of vehicle types, including diesel trucks. The total exhaust particulate is the sum of the lead and sulfate in the fuel, soluble organic fraction, and carbon, brake, and tire wear. Emissions of PMio were used to estimate DPM impacts for comparison to the RfC. Table 1 presents the emissions factors generated by MOBILE6.2. The input parameters used in the MOBILE6.2 run are consistent with [he latest MADEP assumption's (or vehicle mix and the inspection and maintenance program (I&M). Table 1 Emission Factors Generated by MOBILE6.2 Notes: 1. The higher of the summertime and winter emissions were used. The volume queue times at each intersection were estimated based on the Synchro reports provided in the traffic analysis. The Massachusetts anti -idling regulation prohibiting engines idling for greater than 5 -minutes will be observed at the facility and was accounted in the modeling. The MOBILE6.2 output files are presented in Appendix C. 2268/x8! Salem/Report 2-3 Air Quality Epsilon ASSOdX 5, MC PM2.5' PM10/DPM' Condition Average Northside Average Northside Vehicle Carting Vehicle Carting (g/mile) Trucks (g/mile) Trucks (g/mile) (g/mile) Existing 0.0365 0.2767 0.0532 0.3236 Future Build 0.02090.1 142 0.0363 0.1489 Notes: 1. The higher of the summertime and winter emissions were used. The volume queue times at each intersection were estimated based on the Synchro reports provided in the traffic analysis. The Massachusetts anti -idling regulation prohibiting engines idling for greater than 5 -minutes will be observed at the facility and was accounted in the modeling. The MOBILE6.2 output files are presented in Appendix C. 2268/x8! Salem/Report 2-3 Air Quality Epsilon ASSOdX 5, MC 2.3 CAL3QHCR Receptors For the CAL3QHCR modeling analysis receptors chosen for the analysis consisted of fenceline receptors and residential areas along Route 107 and to the southeast of the facility. A total of 20 receptors were chosen for the CAL3QHCR analysis. Figure 2 shows the receptor locations used in the analysis. 2.4 Meteorological Data Five years of hourly meteorological data from Boston's Logan International Airport (2001 to 2005) in conjunction with five years of upper an- data from Grey, Maine were used in the modeling analysis. Boston is the closest most representative data available which represents the coastal environs of Salem. 2.6 Background Air Quality Data Modeled concentrations from the mobile sources were added to ambient background concentrations to obtain total concentrations. These total concentrations were compared to the NAAQS. To estimate background pollutant levels representative of the area, the most recent data obtained from the EPA AIRS database were reviewed. For the short-term average period, the highest second highest yearly observations were selected for the background concentration consistent with the short-term ambient air quality standards. For long-term averages, the highest yearly observation was used as the background concentration. To estimate background pollutant levels representative of the area, the most recent data obtained from the EPA AIRS database for the years 2004 to 2006 were obtained. The closest and most representative monitoring station to Salem Northside Carting was the Kenmore Square monitor in Boston for (PMm and the Lynn monitor for PMzs. A summary of the background air quality concentrations are presented in Table 2. salem/ReporYY 2-4 Air Quality Epsilon Assobates, Inc. r it �,e��� ��. � a ._ N+uTl a: � �r G '. � :.3 l Table 2 Observed Ambient Air Quality Concentrations and Selected Background Levels Notes: i. Background values represent overall maximum values except PM2.5 which is based on average of the maximum per MADEP guidance. 2.8 Modeling Results Table 3 pre sents the maximum modeled CAL3QHCR modeling results for the Northside Carting operations alone for existing and build conditions. Maximum annual PM10 concentrations were compared to the EPA's RfC for DPM. The results show that impacts from the Northside Carting facility alone are small and are well below the EPA R(C. Table 4 and Table 5 presents the CAL3QHCR modeling results for the existing and future build conditions compared to the NAAQS which includes Northside Carting along with existing and proposed volumes from other vehicles. The predicted ground level concentrations were added to monitored background levels and compared with the NAAQS. The contributions to the CAL3QHCR modeled concentrations from the Northside Carting facility were included in the table. The results of the analysis show that maximtnrl impacts from the daily traffic volumes for both conditions are below the NAAQS. A CD-ROM containing CAL3QHCR input and output files for all pollutants are enclosed in Appendix B. 2268ITBI Salenr/Report 2-6 Air Quality Epsilon Associares; loc. Averaging Background Period 2004 2005 2006 Level' NAAQS PM,u (ttghn') 24 -Hour 58 58 41 58 150 µglen' Annual 22 29 22 29 50 µghn' PMzs (µglen') 24 -Hour 26 27 25 26 35 µg/m' Annual 9 9S 8.5 9.0 15 ttg/m' Notes: i. Background values represent overall maximum values except PM2.5 which is based on average of the maximum per MADEP guidance. 2.8 Modeling Results Table 3 pre sents the maximum modeled CAL3QHCR modeling results for the Northside Carting operations alone for existing and build conditions. Maximum annual PM10 concentrations were compared to the EPA's RfC for DPM. The results show that impacts from the Northside Carting facility alone are small and are well below the EPA R(C. Table 4 and Table 5 presents the CAL3QHCR modeling results for the existing and future build conditions compared to the NAAQS which includes Northside Carting along with existing and proposed volumes from other vehicles. The predicted ground level concentrations were added to monitored background levels and compared with the NAAQS. The contributions to the CAL3QHCR modeled concentrations from the Northside Carting facility were included in the table. The results of the analysis show that maximtnrl impacts from the daily traffic volumes for both conditions are below the NAAQS. A CD-ROM containing CAL3QHCR input and output files for all pollutants are enclosed in Appendix B. 2268ITBI Salenr/Report 2-6 Air Quality Epsilon Associares; loc. Table 3 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Northside Carting Facility Alone Notes: 1. n/a does not apply for determining the DPM RIC Table 4 CAL3QFICR Modeling Results For Existing Conditions Maximum Maximum Monitored Averaging Existing Future R(C Percentage of Pollutant Period Northside Northside (pgim') RFC (°b) Existing Truck From Existing Carting Truck Carting Truck NAAQS Percentage of Pollutant Period Trips (pg/m') Trips (pg(m') (ltgim') (pg/m') PMro 24 -Hour 0.08 0.04 n/a n/a Annual 0.01 <0.01 5 0.2 PM2.5 24 -1 -lour 0.06 0.03 n/a rtla PMru Annual 0.01 <0.01 n/a n!a Notes: 1. n/a does not apply for determining the DPM RIC Table 4 CAL3QFICR Modeling Results For Existing Conditions Notes 1. The PN410 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 8"' highest concentrations consistenl. with the NAAQS. 2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration consistent with the NAAQS. 22681W 5aIent/Report 2-7 Air Quality L%uilon : (zmcinte., Arc. Monitored CAL3QHCR Contributions Background Total Averaging Existing Truck From Existing Concentration Concentration NAAQS Percentage of Pollutant Period Trips (pgim') Northside (ltgim') (pg/m') (ug/m') NAAQS (9a) Carting Truck Trips (pg(m') PMru 24-H21-1 0.83 '<0.01 58 58.83 150 39.2 Annual 0.2 0.01 29 29.21 50 58.4 PWS 24-1-18H 0.62 <0.01 26 26.62 35 76.0 Annual 0.16 0.01 9 9.17 iS 61.1 Notes 1. The PN410 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 8"' highest concentrations consistenl. with the NAAQS. 2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration consistent with the NAAQS. 22681W 5aIent/Report 2-7 Air Quality L%uilon : (zmcinte., Arc. Table 5 CAL3OHCR Modeline Results For Future Build Conditions Notes 1. The PM70 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 8"' highest concentrations consistent with the NAAQS. 2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration consistent with the NAAQS 2268AM S,7/err/Report 2-8 Air Quality Epsilon A55o6a(es, Inc. Monitored CAL3QHCR Contributions Background Total Averaging Future Truck From Future Concentration Concentration NAAQS Percentage of Pollutant Period Trips (gg/m') Northside (pgIm') (pg/m') (pg/m') NAAQS (%) Carting Truck Trips (pg/m') PMm 24-H2H 0.71 <0.01 v58 58.71 150 39.1 Annual 0.17 <0.01 29 29.17 50 58.3 PM2.5 24-1-181-1 0.31 i <0.01 26 26.31 35 75.2 Annual 0.08 <0.01 9 9.08 15 61.0 Notes 1. The PM70 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 8"' highest concentrations consistent with the NAAQS. 2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration consistent with the NAAQS 2268AM S,7/err/Report 2-8 Air Quality Epsilon A55o6a(es, Inc. 3.0 REFERENCES EPA, 2005. Guideline on Air Qualily Models (Revised) 40 CFR 51, Appendix W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA, 2003. Users Guide to MOBILE -6.1 ant/ MOBILE -6.2. f_PA-420-R-03-010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA, 1995. Addendum to the Users Guide to CA13QHC Version 2.0 (Users Guide to CA13QHC'R). 2345/MIT/Repo» 3-1 References cpsilon Associates hrc. APPENDIX A Modeling Assumptions 2268 NorthsideCarting, Ine. Assumptions for CAL3QIICR Source Heights • TrUCk emission exhaust height— 12 feet • Car emission exhaust height— 1.1 feet Site • Lane width for path traveled by trucks onsite assumed to be I I feet. Unsignalized Intersection (Project Site/Swampscott Road) • Free Flow links and queues used for traffic analysis as well as to connect the intersections of Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road to represent the truck movements to and from the Project Site. • Free Flow links on Project Site represent movements inbound and outbound. • Queues assumed for telt turn onto Project Site from Swampscott Road and leaving the Project Site for one exit (Existing Case) and both exits (Build Case). • Cycle L.engtli equals 60 seconds. • Red 'rime equals 30 seconds • Unused Yellow Time equals 0 seconds. Route 107/Marlborough Road (Signalized Intersection) • Free flow and Queue links were analyzed in traffic analysis connecting the Marlborough Road and Highland Avenue to DiPietro Avenue and Highland Avenue intersections. • Two lanes of a width of 12 feet used onto Route 107. Swampscott Road/Route 107 (Signalized Intersection) • Free Flow and Queue links analyzed in traffic analysis connecting the DiPictro Avenue and highland intersection with the Project Site. • Assumed 11 foot width lanes. Truck Idling Onsite • Each truck idles for 1 minute at the truck scale when entering the site. • Each truck assumed to idle for 5 minutes during unloading. • Each truck idles for I minute at the truck scale when leaving the site. Receptor Height • Assumed 6 feet — typical breathing height. Miscellaneous • Existing (2006) Traffic Volumes and 2012 Build with Mitigation used from traffic analysis. • Daily truck volarncs derived from peak hour VoILUiteS using k {actors. • Conservative assumptions - taking the higher volume between the Morning and Evening Analysis. • Rural land use. • Surface roughness length of 108 cm assumed (single family residential) • Arrival rate for vehicles is average progression. • Meteorological Data years 2000-2004 from Boston. • PM 2.5 and PMI 0 Pollutants analyzed. • Project truck trips run separately from the Existing Vehicle analysis, Which excluded Project truck volumes. Impacts front Existing and Project related trips were added together. APPENDIX B CAL3QHCR input and Output File APPENDIX C MOBILE6.2 Modeling Files a afrr♦ {a ♦iit«riti aaiiiat{t{tYai«i{i«i««ai+YFi{tt{tt Y{YfiaFF{a ii« +«MOBILE6`2+03 (24-Sep=2003) + Input file: MA06-TS.INP (file 1, run 1). ` i # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # • PM 2.5 - Idle Scenario - Summer (multiply S/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) File 1, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # d # # # # # # # # # # a # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. npm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. npm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDCV LDCV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT <6000 HDGV LDDV ------ 0.3794 LDDT HDDV ------------------------------------------ Composite Emission MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ VJMT Distribution: ______ 0.3794 ______ 0.3530 ------ 0.1386 ------ ______ 0.0361 ------ 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 Composite Emission Factors (a/mi): _______________________________________________r._..... Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0490 ------ ------ ______ 0.0142 0.0051 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0385 0.1576 ------ 0.0138 OCARSON: ------ ______ ------ ------ ------ ____-_ 0.0249 0.0553 0.0788 ------ 0.0069 SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0011 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0002 0.0024 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0510 0.1170 0.1002 0.2578 0.0144 0.0282 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0116 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0584 0.1244 0.1076 0.2692 0.0207 0.0359 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0344 MH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # t PM 2.5 - Summer 25 mph * File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2 + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # k Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. opm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350.. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDCV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GWIRi: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ __-_-- VMT Distribution: ------ 0.3794 ------ 0.3530 ------ ------ ------ ______ 0.1386 0.0361 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 ------------------------------------------ Composite Emission Factors jg/mi): ___________________________________________________________________ Lead: 0.0000 LDGV 0.0000 LDGT34. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000. ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 MC 0.0000 Veh GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 >6000 0.0038 0.0038 0.0499 ------ ----- ------ 0.0142 _-_-_- 0.0052 VMT Distribution: ECARBON: ------ ------ 0.3530 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 ____________________ 0.0385 0.1576 ------ 0.0138 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0249 0.0553 Lead: 0.0788 ------ 0.0000 0.0069 0.0000 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0012 0.0037 0.0038 0.0064 0.0038 0.0213 0.0038 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0,0042 0.0044 0..0044 0.0044 ------ 0.0511 ------ 0.1170 ------ 0.1002 0.0864 0.2578 0.0385 0.0143 0.1576 0.0282 ------ Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 ------ 0.0053 ------ 0.0053 ------ 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0005 0.0020 0.0013 0.0020 0.0037 0.0021 0.0064 0.0020 0.0213 0.0020 0.0001 0.0062 0.0023 0.0010 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0115 0.0043 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0586 0.1244 0.1076 0.2692 0.0053 0..0207 0.0053 0.0359 0.0053 SO2: 0.0067 0.0053 0.0087 0.0053 0.0114 0.0053 0.0095 0.0053 0.0165 0.0053 0.0703 Tire: 0.1229 0.3051 0.0020 0.0033 0.0021 0.0345 0.0020 NH3: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 0.1915 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0115 0.0068 0.0117 0.0068 0.0117 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ' # # # # # # # # # # k # :: # # # # # # # # ' PM 2.5 - Summer 30 mph File 1, Run. 1, Scenario 3. ' # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # it # # > Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sul -.fur Content: 3S0, pnm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34. LDGT HDCV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ------ _-_-_- VMT Distribution: ------ 0.3794 ------ 0.3530 ------ 0.1386 ------ ----- 0.0361 ______ 0.0008 ______ 0.0015 0.0865 ____________________ 0.0041 1.0000 ----------- _------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0499 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 £CARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0864 0.0385 0.1576 ------ 0.0138 OCARBON: ------ ------ ----- ` ------ ------ 0.0249 0.0553 0.0788 ------ 0.0069 504: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0512 0.1170 0.1002 0.2578 0.0143 0.0281 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0115 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0587 0.1244 0.1076 0.2692 0.0206 0.0358 SO2: 0.00ES 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051. 0.0033 0.0345 NH3: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 0.1015 0.1014 0.10-4 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 + # # # # # # # # # # # # 4 # # # 4 # # # _ - # # 8 • PM 10 - Idle Scenario - Summer (mulcinly g/mi by 2.5 mphto get g/hr) File 1, Run 1, Scenario 4. ' # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel. Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: ------ 0.3794 ------ 0.3530 ------ 0.1386 ------ ------ 0.0361 ------------•------------------------------------ ------ 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0..0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0041 0.0041 0.0041 0.0041 0.0550 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0418 0.1713 ------ 0.0150 OCARBON: ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ 0.0271 0.0602 0.0857 ------ 0.0075 504: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0011 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0002 0.0024 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0046 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0571 0.1269 0.1084 0.2783 0.0207 0.0306 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0086 0.0080 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0252 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0782 0.1474 0.1289 0.3155 0.0372 0.0525 SO2: 0.0057 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: 0.10i5 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.006`8 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 Y .f k N .1 4 Y ### t # n# C F 4 6 14 ,0y.1014 Y 4 # ## PM 10 - Summer 25 mph File 1, Run 1, Scenario 5. # # n # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Tvoe: LDGV LDGT12 LDCT34 LDGT EDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Vel: GVWR: x6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: ------ 0.3794 ------ 0.3530 ------ 0.1386 ------ ----- 0.0361 ' ------ 0.0008 0.0015 .------------------------------ 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 ------------------------------ Composite..-mission Factors ---------------------------------------------------------- (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0-0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0041 0,0042 0.0041 0.004.2 0.0560 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0..0057 ECAP.BON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0^.18 0.1713 ------ 0.0150 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ 0.0271 0.0602 0.0857 ------ 0.0075 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0012 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0045 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0573 0.1269 0.1084 0.2783 0.0206 0.0305 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0325 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0086 0.00SO 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0251 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0184 0.1474 0.1289 0.3155 0.0372 0.0525 SO2: 0.0067 0..0087 0.0114 00095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0345 NH3: ----------------------------------------------------------- 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 ----------------------- 0.0451 0.0066 0.0068 ------------------------------------- 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 # # # # # # # # # # # # # k # # # # # # # # # # # PM 10 - Summer 30 mph a File 1, Run 1, Scenario 6. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # k # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. npm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Tvne: LDCV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT .HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GV R: c6000 >6000 (all) ------ ------ _----- ------ ------ V4T Distribution: 0.3754 0.3530 ______ 0.1386 ------ ------ 0.0361 ______ 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.___-- Comnosite Emission Factors Ig/mi): bead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0..0091 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0560 ------ ----- ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0418 0.1713 ------ 0.0150 CCARBON: ----- ----- ------ ------ ------ 0.0271 0.0602 0.0857 ------ 0.0075 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PPI: 0.0045 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0574 0.1269 0.1084 0.2763 010206 0.0305 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0060 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0086 0.0080 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0250 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0785 0.1474 0.1289 0.3155 0.0371 0.0525 502: 0.0068 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0703 0.1229 0..3051 0.0033 0.0345 MM3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068. 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 __________________________________________________________________________________________._--_----_______--___-__-_____ ««....a. ........w.. «rw..+. a.. ..awa. vas.a«.....«...«w.«a.a.•. •.++««+a w.w. • MOSILE6.2.03 (.24 -Sep -2003) Input file: MA06-TS.INP (file 1, run 2). PM 2.5 - Idle Scenario - winter Imultinly g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/h:-) « File 1, Run 2, SCenari0 1. „ # # # # # # # #'» # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVtaR: c6000 >6000 (All) ______ ------ ------ ______ ---.--- ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3868 0.3485 ------ 0.1366 ______ ------ 0.0355 ------ 0.0008 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 --------------------------------- __________________________.___--__________________-___--_--____________--------________ Composite Emission. .Factors ;g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ----- ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0502 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 ECARBON: ----- ------ ^---- ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0402 0.1626 ------ 0.0141 OCARHON: ------ ------ ------ LDGT34 ------ ------ HDCV 0.0249 LDDV 0.0579 LDDT 0.0813 HDDV ------ 0.0071 All SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 <6000 0.0006 (All) 0.0006 0.0010 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0002 0.0024 ------ 0.38E8 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 ----- 0.1366 0.0044 ______ 0.0355 0.0044 ------ 0.0008 0.0044 0.0025 0.0512 0.0862 0.1170 0.0040 0.1046 .1.0000 0.2652 ______________i______________-______________-_______-_______ Composite Emission Factors 0.0144 0.0288 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Lead: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0000 0.0053 0.0000 0.0053 ------ Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0038 0.0020 0.0038 0.0020 0.0038 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0116 0.0142 0.0118 0.0052 0.0118 ECAR8ON: 0.0118 0.0587 ------ 0.1244 ------ 0.1129 0.0884 0.2767 0.0402 0.0207 0.1626 0.0365 ------ SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0343 NH3: --------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1015 0.1014 0.0005 0.1013 0,0012 0.1014 0.0037 0.0451 ------------------------------------------------- 0.0068 0.0214 0.0066 0..0001 0.0270 0.0023 0.0113 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0924 # # # # # # # # # 4 # # ## # # # # # # k # # # # ' PM 2.5 - Winter 25 mph File 1, Run 2, Scenario 2. ' @ # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30, ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulaced Gas: Yes Vehicle Tvoe: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDCV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVhTc: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ------ ------ ______ WMT Distribution: ------ 0.38E8 ------ 0.3485 ----- 0.1366 ______ ______ 0.0355 __________--________-_________________________ ------ 0.0008 0.0025 0.0862 0.0040 .1.0000 ______________i______________-______________-_______-_______ Composite Emission Factors (a/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0502 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 ECAR8ON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0402 0.1626 ------ 0.0141 OCARBON; - 0.0249 0.0579 0.0813 0.0071 5O4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0,0012 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0..0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0042 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0513 0.1170 0.1046 0.2652 0.0143 0.0288 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0116 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0588 0.1244 0.1119 0.2767 0.0207 0.0365 502: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 # # # # # # # # # k # k # # # k # # k # # k ' PM 2.5 - Winter 30 mph " File 1, Run 2, Scenario 3. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## k #r. # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan, Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDDV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: LDGV <6000 x6000 (All) HDGV LOW ______ LDDT ______ HDDV ------ MC ______ Veh VMT Distribution: ------ 0.3868 ______ 0.3485 ______ 0.1366 ______ ______ 0.0355 ------ 0.0008 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 --------------- _------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): ______ 0.3485 ______ O.i366 ______ ------ 0.0355 ------ 0.0008 __-_-___-___-_---__-_-____-_--_ 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 ___ 1.0000 Lead: 0.0000 Factors 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ______ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 Lead: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0502 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 ECARBON: ------ GASPM: ------ ------ ----- ----- 0.0042 0.0884 0.0402 0.1626 ------ 0.0141 OCARBON: ------ ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0249 0.0579 0.0813 ------ 0.0071 504: 0.0003 OCARBON: 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 ------ 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PH: 0.0042 SO4: 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0514 0.0006 0.1170 0.1046 0.2652 0.0143 0.0287 Brake: 0.0053 Tocal Exhaust PM: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0048 0,0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 6.0053 Tire: 0.0020 Brake: 0.0020 0..0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0125 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0115 Tire: 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0589 0.0080 0,1244 0.1119 0.2767 0.0206 0.0364 SO2: 0.0068 Total PM: 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0253 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: -------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1015 SO2: 0,1014 0.1013 0,1014 0.0451 _________________________________________________________ 0.0095 0.0068 0.0068 0.02?0 0.0113 0.0924 # # # # # # # # # # # 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 ' PM 10 - Idle Scenario - Winter (multinly g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) ' File 1 Run 2, Scenario 4. + # # # # # # 4 # # # # # # # # # # # u # k Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LOW LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 06000 (All) ------ ------ ______ -__--- VMT Distribution: ______ 0.3868 ______ 0.3485 ______ O.i366 ______ ------ 0.0355 ------ 0.0008 __-_-___-___-_---__-_-____-_--_ 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 ___ 1.0000 ____________________________________________.__-_____-_-____ Composite Emission. Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0041 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0565 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0437 0.1768 ------ 0.0154 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0271. 0.0629 0.0883 ------ 0.0077 SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0010 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0002 0.0024 Tocal Exhaust PM: 0.0046 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0576 0.1269 0.1131. 0.2864 0.0207 0.0312 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0252 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0787 0.1474 0.1336 0.3236 0.0372 0.0532 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0343 NH3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # + Ptd 10 - Winter 25 mph • File i, Run 21 Scenario S. • # 4 4 # # # # # # # 4 # # 4 # # # # 4 4 # # 4 Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10,00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GV4R: <6000 06000 (All) ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: ______ ------ 0.3868 0.3485 ______ 0.1366 ______ ------ 0.0355 ______ 0.0006 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0041 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0565 ------ ----- ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECAPRON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.096i 0.0437 0,1768 ------ 0.0154 OCARBONe ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ 0.0271 0.0629 0.0883 ------ 0.0077 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0012 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.000.1 0.0023 Total Exhaust Pio: 0.0046 0.0048 0.0048 0,0048 0.0577 0..1269 0.1131 0.2864 0.0206 0.0312 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0060 0.0246 0,0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0251 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0788 0.1474 0.1336 0.3236 0.0372 0.0531 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0344 N -H3: ------------------------------------ 0,1015 0.1014 _--------------------------------- 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 _________________________________________________ 0.0068 0.0068, 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 -« 4«# 4 4 4« 4 ff t «« 4 # « k 4« a q PM 10 - Winter 30 mph File 1, Rim 21 Scenario 6. Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350, ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Tyne: LDCV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR; <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ______ ------ ------ vmT Distribution: ------ ------ 0.3866 0.3485 ------ 0.1366 --------------- ------ 0.0355 ____ ---- ------------------ ------ 0.0008 0.0015 _______-___________________________ 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.000O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ----- 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0,0042 0.0565 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205. 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0437 0.1768 ------ 0.0154 OCARBON: ------ ----- ------ ----- ------ 0.0271 0.0629 0.0883 ------ 0.0077 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0,0005 0.0013 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0045 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0578 0,1269 0.1131 0.2864 0.0206 0.0311 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0..0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0,0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0250 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0789 0.1424 0.1336 0.3236 0.0371 0.0531 SO2: 0-0068 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 s aa«+«arrra+aaa+aa+aaa+++aaa+a aaaaaalaaaaaiaaaa aaaaaa aaaa«aaa++++arr La aaiar • MOBILEG..2.03 (24 -Sep -2003) + • InDut file: MA12 TS.INP (file 1, run 1). ` # # # # # # # # # # • PM 2.5 - idle Scenario - Summer (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) • File 1, Run 1. Scenario 1 • # # # # # # » # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sul`ur Content: 15, ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDG-V LDG712 LDGT34 LDGT HDCV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWF: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054. ------ ------ 0.1595 ------ 0.0369 ------ 0.0002 0.0015 _______-______ 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 ----- -----.__-________.________-__-___-.______ Composite Fac -o -s g/mi): - p Emission Lead 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.00344 0.0198 ------ ----- -`---- 0.0142 0.0038 ECARBON: ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0103 0.0631 ------ 0.0054 OCARBON: ------ ------ ----- "'--- ------ 0.0194 0.0148 0.0316 ------ 0.0027 SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0013 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0211 0.0883 0.0253 0.0955 0.0144 0.0126 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.00.53 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0052 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0114 0.0113 0.0113 0.0285 0.0956 0.0326 0.1071 0.0207 0.0203 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NF.3: O.IOli 0.1015 ______________.-_______________________-______-_______-_.__-___________-__-_____________-__________________-_____-_______ 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0053 .0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 • # # # # # # # # # » # # # n # # F K # # # # $ # # • PM 2.5 - Summer 25 mph File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Tale: LDGV LDGT12 LOGT34 LDGT HDCV LOOV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVYIR: x6000 >6000 (All) ______ ------ ______ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054 ------ ____-_ ______ 0.1595 ____-___--__-___.______________.______-______-______________ ------ 0.0369 ______ 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000. ------- ____________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 LDGV 0.0000 LDGT34 0.0000 HDGV 0.0000 LDDV 0.0000 LDDT ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 Veh 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 >6000 0.0035 0.0034 0.0035 0.0196 ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.30'1 0.0142 ------ 0.4054 0.0038 ------ ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ 0.0857 ------ 0.0036 ------ 1.0000 0.0688 ..-.--__--------------.------_____-_-__----------__.__-----_-______---_---____----_--_------____-__----__-_--_____------- Composite Emission 0.0103 0.0631 ------ 0.0054 CCARBON: ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0000 0.0146 0.0000 0.0316 ------ 0.0027 SO4: 0.0004 0.0000 0.0005 GASPM: 0.0005 0.0005 0.0035 0.0015 0.0195 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 ------ 0.0040 ------ 0.0040 0.0212 0.0883 0.0253 0.0955 0.0143 ------ 0.0126 ------ Brake: 0.0053 ----- 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0003 0.0053 0.0005 0.0053 0.0005 0.0053 0.0002 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 O.0O20 0.0020 0.0021 0.0040 0.0020 0.0040 0.0020 0.0040 0.0062 0.0883 0.0010 0.0253 0.0024 0.0955 Total PM: O.Oi13 0.0113 0.0113 0.0053 0,0113 0.0053 0.0286 0.0053 0.0956 0.0053 0.0326 0.4053 0,1071 0.0053 0.0207 0.0053 0.0203 0.0053 SO2: 0.0067 0.0020 0.0088 0.0020 0.0115 0.0020 0.0095 0.0020 O.oi63 0.0020 0.0029 0.0062 0.DC52 0.0010 0.0131 0.0024 0.0033 Total PM: 0.0092 vd3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1011 0.0113 0.1015 0.0956 0.1017 0.0326 0.1016 0.1071 0.0451 0.0206 0.0068 0.0202 0.0068 SO2: 0,0270 0.0113 0.0115 0.0925 0.0162 # # # # # k # # # # # # # # # # # k # # # # # @ • PM 2.5 - Summer 30 mph File 1, Rua 1, Scenario 3. # n e Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff`: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GV14R: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ -___-- VMT Distribution: ------ 0.30'1 ------ 0.4054 ______ 0.1595 ------ ----- 0.0369 ------ 0.0002 ------ 0.0015 0.0857 0.0036 1.0000 ..-.--__--------------.------_____-_-__----------__.__-----_-______---_---____----_--_------____-__----__-_--_____------- Composite Emission Factors Ig/mi); Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0077 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0195 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0039 ECA.RBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0638 0.0103 0.0631 ------ 0.0054 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- 0.0194 0.0148 0.0316 ---- 0.0027 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 D. 00i? 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0212 0.0883 0.0253 0.0955 0.0143 0.0125 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0-0053 0.0053 0.4053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0287 0.0956 0.0326 0.1071 0.0206 0.0202 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0162 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 vd3: --------------------------------------------------- 0.1011 0.1015 0.1017 0.1016 ------------------------------------------------------- 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 ------------- 0.0925 + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # k # # # # # # # k # # PM 10 - Idle Scenario - Summer (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) « File 1, Run 1, Scenario 4. * # # # # k # # # # # # k #-0, # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 X6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ------ V14T Distribution: ------ ______ 0.3071 0.4054 ______ 0.1595 ------ ------ 0.0369 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 __________________._______________________._________________-_______________________________-___________________________ Composite Emission Factors !g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0. 0038 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0220 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0042 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0111 0.0685 ------ 0.0059 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0160 0.0343 -- 0.0030 SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0013 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.004.3 0.0233 0.0960 0.0275 0.1037 0.0207 0.0136 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0090 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0090 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0249 0.0249 0.0248 0.0249 0.0443 0.1165 0.0480 0.1411 0.0372 0.0356 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0029 O.00S2 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: ----------------------------------------------- 0.1011 0.1015 0.1017 ________________________________________________________________________ 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 # # # # # # # # # # # ,^. # # # n # # # ii # # # # • PM 10 - Summer 25 mph + File 1, Run 11 Scenario 5. # # #'. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cucoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle T,oe: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LOGT HDGV LDD`J I -DDT HDDV MC All Veh GP'dR: <6000 >6000 4All) ______ ------ ______ VMT Distribution.: ------ ______ 0.3071 0.4054 ______ 0.1595 ______ _____ ______ 0.0369 --------------------- ------ 0.0002 ______ 0.0015 ______-_____-______-________-_______ 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 --------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors ;g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0039 0.0038 0.0037 0.0038 0.0218 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0042 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- 0.0747 0.0111 0.0685 ------ 0.0059 OCARBON: ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0160 0.0343 ------ 0.0030 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0233 0.0960 0.0275 0.1037 0.0206 0.0136 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0249 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0248 0.0245 0.0248 0.0248 0.0444 0.1165 0.0480 0.1411 0.0372 0.0356 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0163 0;0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3+ --------------- 0.10"1 0.1015 __________--------------------- 0.1017 0.1016 _________________________________________________________________ 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 r # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # -# # # # # # • PM 10 - Summer 30 mph ` File 1, Run 1, Scenario G. ` # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15, ppm particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT F:DGV LDDV LDDT 14DDV MC All Veh .GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ------ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054 ______ 0.1595 ______ ------ 0.0369 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): 0.0000 0.0000 Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ GASPM: 0.0040 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0216 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0042 £CARBON: ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0111 0.0685 ------ 0.0059 OCAR30N: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0160 0.0343 ------ 0.0030 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0234 0.0960 0.0275 0.1037 0.0206 0.0136 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0-0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 C.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0..0444 0.1165 0..0480 0.1411 0.0371 0.0356 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.01i5 0.0096 0.0162 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 N9.3: 0.101' 0.1015 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 __________________________________________.______________________________________________________.______________._________ a+aaaa+aaaa+++aaaa+a+++a+a+a++aa++aaaa++aa.a+aa++aa+aaa+a+..aaaaaa+««+a+a.« + MOSIL£6.2.03 (24 -Sep -2003) ` Input file: MA12 TS. !NP (file 1, run 21. a # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # & # + PM 2.5 - Idle Scenario - Winter (multiply Simi by 2.5 mph to get a/hr) File 1, Run 2, Scenario 1. ` # # # # # % # 4 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur .Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated. Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT !?DGV LDDV LDDT NDD'I MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ------ ______ ------ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3121 0.4027 ______ 0.1582 ------ ___-________________________________ ------ 0.0364 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 ______________________________.______-__-______.___.__ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0-0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0214 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0039 ECARBON: ---- ------ ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0109 0.0678 ------ 0.0058 OCARBON: ------ ------ LDGT12 ------ LDGT ------ ------ 0.0194 LDDV 0.0157 LDDT 0.0340 HDDV ----- MC 0.0029 Veh SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 >6000 0.0006 0.0006 0.0013 0.0002 ------ 0.0003 ------ 0.0009 ------ 0.0002 VMT Distribution: 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 ------ 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0226 0.0883 0.0268 0.1027 Factors lq/mil: 0.0144 0.0132 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0000 0.0053 0.0000 0.0053 0.0000 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 ------ 0.0020 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0020 GASPM: 0.0021 0.0020 0.0035 0.0020 0.0212 0.0062 ------ 0.0010 ------ 0.0024 ----- Total PM: 0.0114 0.0114 0.0113 ------ 0.0114 ------ 0.0301 ------ 0.0956 0.0341 0.1142 0.0207 0.0209 SO2: 0.0067 OCA:iBON: 0.0088 0.0115 ---'-- 0.0095 ------ 0.0164 0.0194 0.0029 0.0157 0.0052 0.0340 0.0131 ------ 0.0033 0.0029 0.0091 SO4: NH3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1012 0.0005 0.1016 0.0005 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0..0270 0.0113 0.0040 0.0926 0.0040 + # # # # 4 # # 4 # 9 # r, # # 4 4 # « # « # # + PM 2.5 - Winter 25 mph File 1, Run 2, Scenario 2. # # « # # # # # # # # # « # # # # # « # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDCV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDCV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: ------ 0.3121 ------ 0.4.027 ------ 0.1582 ------ ------ 0.0364 ------ 0.0002 ------ 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors lq/mil: Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: O.DOS6 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0212 ------ ------ ----- 0.0142 0.0039 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0638 0.0109 0.0678 ------ 0.0058 OCA:iBON: ------ ------ ---'-- ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0157 0.0340 ------ 0.0029 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0006 Total 'Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0227 0.0883 0.0268 0.1027 0.0143 0.0132 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: .0.0133 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0302 0.0956 0.0341 0.1142 0.0207 0.0209 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0163 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 # # r: « # # 4 # # # 4 ;: n 4 # # 4 # 4 4 # # # # * PM 2.5 - Winter 30 Mph • File 1, Run 2, Scenario 3. + # # # it € # # # # # # # # # 4 # 4 # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC A11 Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ VMT Distribution: ______ ______ 0.3121 0.4027 ______ 0.1582 ______ ______ 0.0364 ______ 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________.__________________._____________________________ Composite Emission Factors (9/mi): 0.0000 0.0000 Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -- - -- - - -- ------ GASPM: 0.0037 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0210 ------ ------ ------ 0.0192 0.0039 ECP.RHON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0109 0.0678 ------ 0.0058 OCARBON: ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0157 0.0340 ------ 0.0029 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0228 0.0883 0.0268 0.1027 0.0143 0.0132 Stake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0,0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0133 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0302 0.0956 0.0341 0.1142 0.0206 0.0209 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0162 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: ___________________________________________________________________________.__________________________________________-_ 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 .0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 ~ PM 10 - Idlert Scenario - Win.ter(multiply g:)mi. by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) File 1, Run 2, Scenario 4. Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. Ppm Diesel Fuel Sul`_ur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff`: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LOGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ `+'MT Distribution: ______ ______ 0..3121 0.4027 ______________________._.__________________________ ______ 0.1562 ______ ______ 0.0364 ______ 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 ______________________________ Composite Emission Factors (9/mi): 0.0000 0.0000 Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ GASPM: 0.0038 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0237 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0042 ECARSON: ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0118 0.0737 ------ 0.0063 OCA_aSON: ______ ______ ______ ______ ------ 0.0211 0.0170 0.0369 ------ 0.0032 SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0013 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0.0006 Total Exhaust PDI: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0250 0.0960 0.0291 0.1115 0.0207 0.0143 Brake': 0.0125 0,0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0249 0.0249 0.0249 0.0249 0.0460 0.1165 0.0497 0.1489 0.0372 0.0363 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0091 NH3: --------------- __------------------- 0.1012 0.1016 ______________________________________________________________._________-_____.______ 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 • # # # # # # # 4 # # # 9 # @ # # # # » # # # # # a PM 10 - Winter 25 mph ` File 1, Run 2, Scenario 5. # 4 # # # # # # 4 0 # # # # # # # # # d #.# # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ VMT Distribution: ------ ------ 0.3121 0.4027 ------ 0.1582 ------ ______ 0.0364 ______ 0.0002 0.0015 _ 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 --------------------------- Composite Emission Factors _______------------------------------------------------ fg/mi): 0.0000 0.0000 Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ GASPM: 0.00:9 0.0038 0.0036 0.0038 0.0235 ----- ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0043 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0118 0.0737 ------ 0.0063 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0170 0.0369 ------ 0.0032 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0006 Total 'Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0250 0.0960 0.0291 0.1115 0.0206 0.0143 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0248 0.0249 0.0248 0.0248 0.0461 0.1165 0.0497 0.1489 O.0372 0.0363 SO2: 0.0067 0.0086 0.0115 0.0095 0.0153 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # k + PM 10 - Winter 30 mph + File 1, Run 2, Scenario 6. + # # # 4 # # # # # # # a # # # k # # # # # n Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. u Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Tyne: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT 14DGV LDDV LDOT KDDV MC All Veh GWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ------ ______ VMT Distribution: ------ ______ 0.3121 0.4027 ------ 0.1582 ______ __________________________________________.-_______._________-__ ______ 0.0364 ------ 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 --------------- _----------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 '0.0000 ------ ----- ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0040 0.0.038 0.0038 0.0038 0.02333 ------ ------ --- --- 0.0205 0.0043 ECAP2014: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0118 0.0737 ------ 0.0063 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0170 0.0369 ------ 0.0032 SO4e 0.00033 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total ixhaust Ptd: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0251 0.0960 0.0291 0.1115 0.0206 0.0143 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0248 0.0248 0.0246 0.0248 0.0462 0.1165 0.0497 0.1489 0.0371 0.0363 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0162 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 Noise Impact Assessment Study Salem Transfer Station Salem, MA Swampscott Road Salem, MA Prepared for., Northside Carting 210 Holt Road North Andover, MA 01845 Prepared by: Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 March 21, 2008 Noise Impact Assessment Study Salem Transfer Station Salem, MA Swampscott Road Salem, MA Prepared for: Northside Carting 210 Holt Road North Andover, MA 01845 Prepared by: Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 March 21, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1 2.0 NOISE METRICS 2-1 3.0 RELEVANT NOISE REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA 3-1 3.1 Massachusetts State Regulations 3-1 3.2 Local Regulations 3-1 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4-1 4.1 Baseline Noise Environment 4-1 4.2 Sound Level Measurement Locations 4-1 4.3 Measurement Methodology 4-3 4.4 Measurement Equipment 44 4.5 Baseline Ambient Noise Levels 4-5 5.0 REFERENCE SOUND LEVEL DATA 5-1 6.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS 6-1 6.1 Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 6-3 6.2 CadnaA Computer Software Sound Model 6-3 6.2 Predicted Sound Level Results 64 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CONTROL MEASURES 7-1 Appendix A Beverly Airport Weather Data, March 11, 2008 Appendix B Cadna/A Noise Model Output 23295alem Transfer Noiselreporl.doc Table of Contents Epsilon Associates, Inc. List of Figures Figure 1 Sound Levels in the Environment 2-2 Figure 2 Aerial Site Locus and Sound Level Measurement Locations 4-2 Figure 3 Hourly Sound Level Plot of Continuous Sound Level Data 4-8 Figure 4 Predictive Sound -Level Modeling Locations 6-2 List of Tables Table 1: Baseline Ambient Noise Measurements...............................................................4-6 Table 2: Location CM Continuous 9 -Hour Sound Measurement Data................................4-7 Table 3: Measured Equipment Sound Levels (at 50 feet)....................................................5-1 Table 4: Equipment Sound Power Levels, dB (re 1 pW).....................................................5-2 Table 5: Predicted Noise Levels — MA Noise Policy Criteria..............................................6-5 13295alemTransferNoiselreportdoc it -2 Table of Contents Epsilon Associates, Inc. 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This report presents an analysis of potential community noise impacts associated with the proposed expansion and processing -rate increase at the Salem Transfer Station in Salem, Massachusetts. The analysis has been prepared to address the requirements of the Massachusetts DEP noise regulations. The report discusses the potential noise levels in the surrounding community due to operations within the facility. A sound level measurement program was conducted at potentially sensitive locations around the proposed site. The goal was to determine existing background sound levels during transfer -station operating hours. The existing background levels were then compared with predicted sound levels associated with a future increase in processing volume. The modeling results were compared against existing conditions and regulatory standards. [Community noise attributable to the recycling facility may arise from the following sources: I ♦ Trucks operating onsite and within the property boundary s ♦ ,Front=end-loaders-used-to move -materials; -occurring inside-the-tippirng=floor buildin—g-4 Xw 7 yl ♦ Back-up alarms from trucks on the site k� ��rtq ) The equipment expected to be used at the facility will operate at noise levels within the MA DEP noise regulations, and without substantial impact to the surrounding ambient noise environment. 2329Salem Transfer Noiselreportdoc 7J Introduction Epsilon Associates, Inc. 2.0 NOISE METRICS There are several metrics with which sound (noise) levels are measured and quantified. All of them use the logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. The following information defines the noise measurement terminology used in this analysis. The decibel scale is logarithmic, to accommodate the wide range of sound intensities found in the environment. A property of the decibel scale is that the sound pressure levels of two separate sounds are not directly additive. For example, if a sound of 50 dB is added to another sound of 50 dB, the total is only a 3 -decibel increase (to 53 dB), not a doubling to 100 d6. Thus, every 3 dB change in sound levels represents a doubling/halving of sound energy. Related to this is the fact that a change in sound levels of less than 3 dB is imperceptible to the human ear. Another property of decibels is that if one source of noise is 10 dB (or more) louder than another source, then the total sound level is simply the sound level of the higher source. For example, a source of sound at 60 dB plus another source of sound at 47 dB is 60 dB." Sound level meters used to measure noise are standardized instruments. They contain "weighting networks" to adjust the frequency response of the instrument to approximate that of the human ear under various circumstances. The network used for community noise surveys is the A -weighting network. Sounds detected with the A -weighting network of the sound level meter are reported in decibels designated as "dBA." The A -weighted scale (dBA) most closely approximates how the human ear responds to sound at various frequencies: it emphasizes the middle frequency (i.e., middle pitched - around 1,000 Hertz - sounds), and de-emphasizes lower and higher frequency sounds. Figure 1 presents an example of some common indoor and outdoor activities, and their typical sound levels in our environment. Because the sounds in the environment vary with time, they cannot simply be described with a single number. Two methods are used for describing variable sounds: the percent - exceeded levels (Ln) and the equivalent level (Leq). Both are derived from a large number of moment -to -moment A -weighted sound level measurements. Percent -exceeded levels are values from the cumulative amplitude distribution of all of the sound levels observed during a measurement period. Percent -exceeded levels are designated Ln, where n can have a value of 0 to 100 percent. Some common metrics reported in community noise monitoring studies are described below. ♦ L90 is the sound level in dBA exceeded 90 percent of the time during the measurement period. The Lso is close to the lowest sound level observed. It is essentially the same as the residual sound level, which is the sound level observed when there are no obvious nearby intermittent noise sources. 2329 5alem Transfer Noise I report doc 2-1 Noise Metrics Epsilon Associates, Inc. Sound Pressure CO• MMON INDOOR SOUNDSLevel, dBA COMMON OUTDOOR SOUNDS Rock Band -- Inside Subway train (NYC) -- Food Blender at 3 feet -- Garbage disposal at 3 feet -- Shouting at 3 feet -- Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet -- Normal speech at 3 feet -- Quiet speech at 3 feet -- Dishwasher next room -- Soft whisper at 3 feet -- Library -- Bedroom at night -- Broadcast and recording studio -- Threshold of hearing -- - Jet takeoff at 300 feet Jet flyover at 1000 feet Gas lawnmower at 3 feet Heavy truck at 50 feet Noisy urban daytime Gas lawnmower at 100 feet Auto (60 mph) at 100 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet Quiet urban daytime Quiet urban nighttime - Quiet suburban nighttime _ North rim of Grand Canyon Quiet rural nighttime References: 1. Hams, Cyril, "Handbook of Noise Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control", p 1-10., 1998 2. "Controlling Noise", USAF, AFMC, AFDTC, Elgin AFB, Fact Sheet, August 19%. 3. California Dept of Trans. '-Technical Noise Supplement' Oct 1998 Northside Carting, Inc. 1 1111:1:11 - : – – _— Epsilon Figure 7 9550C4tf5 i".. Sound Levels in the Environment ♦ Lso is the median sound level, which is the sound level in dBA exceeded 50 percent of the time during the measurement period. ♦ L,o is the sound level in dBA exceeded only 10 percent of the time. It is close to the maximum level observed during the measurement period. The L,o is sometimes called the intrusive sound level because it is caused by occasional louder noises like those from passing motor vehicles. ♦ Leq, the equivalent level, is the level of a hypothetical steady sound that would have the same energy (i.e., the same time -averaged mean square sound pressure) as the actual fluctuating sound observed. The equivalent level is designated Leq; and is also A - weighted. The equivalent level represents the time average of the fluctuating sound pressure, but because sound is represented on a logarithmic scale and the averaging is done with linear mean square sound pressure values, the Leq is most often determined by occasional loud, intrusive noises. ♦ The maximum sound level during a given time is designated as the Lma.. The Lma. are typically due to discrete, identifiable events such as an airplane overflight, car or truck passby, or a dog barking for example. By using various noise metrics it is possible to separate prevailing, steady sounds (the Loo) from occasional, louder sounds (L,o or Lmax) in the noise environment. The frequency content of noises are also stated in terms of octave band sound pressure levels, in dB, with the octave frequency bands being those established by standard. If noise control treatments are required for a source, it is very useful to know something about the frequency spectrum of the noise of interest. Noise control treatments do not function like the human ear, so simple A -weighted levels are not useful for noise -control design. In the event that noise -control is necessary for this project, the estimates of noise levels due to equipment operation are also presented in terms of octave band sound pressure levels. 13195alemTransfer Noise lreport. doc 1-3 Noise Metrics Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3.0 RELEVANT NOISE REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA Noise is officially defined as "unwanted sound". The principal feature of this definition is that there must be sound energy and someone hearing it who considers it unwanted. Noise impact is judged on two bases: the extent to which governmental regulations or guidelines may be exceeded, and the extent to which it is estimated that people may be annoyed or otherwise adversely affected by the sound. Specific regulatory references are as follows. 3.1 Massachusetts State Regulations The DEP has the authority to regulate noise under 310 CMR 7.10, which is part of the Commonwealth's air pollution control regulations. Under the DEP regulations, noise is considered to be an air contaminant and, thus, 310 CMR 7.10 prohibits "unnecessary emissions" of noise. DEP administers this regulation through Noise Policy DAQC 90-001 dated February 1, 1990. The policy limits a source to a 10-dBA increase in the ambient sound measured (1-9o) at the property line for the Project and at the nearest residences. For developed areas, the DEP has utilized a "waiver provision" at the property line in certain cases. This is appropriate when are there are no noise -sensitive land uses at the property line and the adjacent property owner agrees to waive the 10-dBA limit. The ambient level is defined as the background L90 measured when the facility is not operating (or, in this case, before an expansion that has not yet occurred), but during a time period when it would normally operate. For a source which will or could operate all day, the ambient level typically occurs during the quietest period (9 a.m. to 4 p.m.). The DEP policy further prohibits "pure tone" conditions where one octave band frequency is 3 dB or more greater than an adjacent frequency band. An example of a "pure tone" is a fan with a bad bearing that is producing an objectionable squealing sound. Although the transfer station currently exists, and the sound level measurement program was conducted during operating hours, current operations have been "part of the background" for decades. 3.2 Local Regulations The City of Salem does have a quantifiable noise standard as part of the Code of Ordinances (Article I, Section 22-1 within the Salem Code of Ordinances). The Article does not state a specific sound level limit at the property boundary for a commercial operation. 23295alemTransferNoiselreportdoc 3-1 Relevant Noise Regulations Epsilon Associates, Inc. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The facility is located on a parcel of land bordered by Swampscott Road to the east and businesses zoned for commercial use to the north, west, and south. The property immediately to the northwest contains a bank, a gas station, and a convenience store. To the west and southwest, the parcel is bordered by the Forest River and a wooded area (immediately beyond which are commercially -zoned properties). The property to the south contains a self -storage facility and a health club. Figure 2 is an aerial photograph of the area, and it also shows noise measurement locations with an overlay of the site footprint. The nearest residential locations are located slightly further to the southwest (in the vicinity of Barnes Road) and to the southeast (a development at the intersection of Swampscott Road and First Street). There also are a few homes on the north side of Highland Avenue at the intersection with Swampscott Road. Trucks enter and exit the transfer station through an entrance on Swampscott Road, and this will not change in the future. Currently, the facility processes approximately 100 tons of construction and demolition debris per day. rA=trafficstudy—conducted—by Vanasse-&�,. Associates-concluded=that, during-a.weekday romningpeakhour_ conditions=wilItresult-.in approximately -9 -trucks -entering -and 11Ttrucks-exiting-per hour. 4.1 Baseline Noise Environment An ambient noise level survey was conducted during the daytime hours to characterize the existing "baseline" acoustical environment in the vicinity of the site. Existing noise sources in the vicinity include: car, bus, and truck traffic on Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road; airplane overflights; birds; and existing -condition activity at the transfer station. 4.2 Sound Level Measurement Locations The selection of both the continuous and short-term sound monitoring locations was based upon a review of the current land use in the area, with emphasis placed on the nearest residential locations. The three short-term noise -monitoring locations were selected at the nearest residences to the northwest, southwest, and southeast. The measurement locations are depicted in Figure 2 are described below. 1319 Salem Transfer Noise I report doc 4-1 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. v w � �'� "p� 4 n^ � '• k "2 rt 71 # p e i > r" � a w It ..ISR. aiAi., 1 esu 4.3 ♦ Location CM, the continuous 9 -hour measurement location, is located along the southern property border of the transfer station and is adjacent to the storage facility property. The location is approximately 100 feet from Swampscott Road. It was chosen due to its close proximity to the nearest residences, which are located at the intersection of Swampscott Road and First Street. Location CM is considered to be very representative of the current background sound level near the transfer station. The primary noise source here was vehicle traffic along Swampscott Road. Truck activity within the transfer station was audible here. There was also an excavator operating on that day, but it was not a major source of noise (compared to vehicle traffic, the excavator was barely audible at location CM). ♦ Location ST -1 is located on the north development of houses on Thomas Circle. audible sound source there. side of Highland Avenue, within a small Vehicle noise on Highland was the primary ♦ Location ST -2 is within the townhouse development at the intersection of First Street and Swampscott Road, approximately 200 feet from the transfer station's southern property line. The townhouses sit at an elevation of approximately 30 feet above the Swampscott Road. From that location the entire vicinity can be seen (including the transfer station). Vehicular traffic on Swampscott Road and First Street were the primary noise sources at ST -2. ♦ Location ST -3 was in a residential neighborhood approximately 1,300 feet to the southwest of the transfer station. This is a traditional neighborhood of single-family homes, and sound levels here were quieter than at the other locations (quiet enough to hear birds chirping). It was not possible to single -out sounds from the transfer station, since vehicular traffic on Highland Avenue was the primary audible source of background noise. Measurement Methodology Daytime sound level measurements were made for 30 minutes per short-term location on Tuesday March 11, 2008, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. In addition to the sampling data, one continuous programmable unattended sound level meter was placed at Location CM. This monitor continuously measured and stored hourly sound level statistics for 9 consecutive hours, to determine the temporal variation of the background noise levels, and to confirm that the short-term sampling was indeed representative. The monitor ran from 7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday March 11. These hours were selected to match the operating hours of the transfer station. Field personnel checked on the integrity of the continuous equipment intermittently throughout the 9 -hour period. Noise sources at each location were observed and noted throughout the day. 2329 Salem Transfer Noise lreportdoc 4-3 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. em The sound levels were measured at a height of five feet above the ground and at locations where there were no large reflective surfaces to affect the measured levels. The measurements were made under low wind conditions and with dry roadway surfaces. Wind speed measurements were made with a Davis Instruments TurboMeter electronic wind speed indicator, and temperature and humidity measurements were made using a Mannix digital psychrometer. Unofficial observations about meteorology or land use in the community were made solely to characterize the existing sound levels in the area and to estimate the noise sensitivity at properties near the proposed Project. Wind speeds were measured several times throughout the day at microphone height. Speeds were calm between 7 a.m. and 12 p.m. and ranged between 3 to 5 mph during the rest of the measurement period. National Weather Service (NWS) observations from Beverly Municipal Airport meteorological station were obtained for the 9 -hour period and are provided as Appendix A. The wind speeds at the airport (measured at a height of 33 feet above ground level) ranged between 5 and 13 mph between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. However, conditions near the transfer station were much less windy, and it is not believed that wind significantly affected the measurement equipment or data. Measurement Equipment A CEL Instruments Model 593.C1 Precision Sound Level Analyzer (serial number 3/0162197) equipped with a CEL -257 Type 1 Preamplifier, a CEL -250 half-inch electret microphone (serial number 6259) and a four -inch foam windscreen were used to collect the short-term broadband and octave band ambient sound pressure level data. The instrumentation meets the "Type 1 - Precision" requirements set forth in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 51.4-1983 for acoustical measuring devices, as well as IEC Publication 804 (1985). The meter was equipped with an internal octave band filter set along with automatic data logging capabilities conforming to ANSI 51.11-1986. The meter time -weighting was set for the "slow" response (1 second) and the data were logged every one second. Octave band levels for this study correspond to the same data set processed for the broadband levels. The CEL sound level meter was calibrated in the field before and after the surveys with a CEL -110/1 acoustical calibrator, which meets the standards of IEC 942 Class 1L and ANSI 51.40-1984. The calibration frequency is 1000 Hz with an accuracy of +/- 0.25 dB at the calibration level of 114.0 dB. The calibrator and analyzer were certified as accurate, to standards set by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology by an independent laboratory within the past 12 months. A calibration check was performed before and after each measurement program. All calibration level changes were 0.5 dB or less, thus validating the data precision. A Larson Davis model 812 sound level meter (serial number 0632) was used for the continuous monitoring. This meter meets Type 1 ANSI 51.4-1983 standards for sound level meters. The meter was calibrated immediately before and after the measurement with a 2329 Salem Transfer Noiselreport.doc 4-4 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. 4.5 Larson Davis CAL200 acoustical calibrator which meets the standards of IEC 942 Class 1 L and ANSI 51.40-1984. The model 812 meter has been calibrated and certified as accurate to standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology by an independent laboratory within the past 12 months. The model 812 has data logging capability and was programmed to log statistical data every hour for the following parameters: L,, 110, Lso, L9o, Lmax, Lmin, and Leq. Baseline Ambient Noise Levels The existing short-term ambient baseline sound level measurements are summarized below and are presented in detail in Table 1. Detailed sound level data from the continuous measurement program can be found in Table 2 (Location CM). Figure 3 depicts the hour by hour sound level measurements at Location CM for the 9 -hour continuous measurement. The continuous sound level data confirm the short-term data as a reasonable representation of area sound levels. The sound level data shown in Figure 3 demonstrates that noise levels were fairly constant throughout the day, most likely due to the steady traffic pattern on Swamp. ♦ The short-term daytime Leq (equivalent) measurements ranged from 50 to 59 dBA. ♦ The short-term daytime L90 (background) measurements ranged from 42 to 50 dBA. ♦ The 9 -hour continuous Leq (equivalent) measurements ranged from 53 to 57 dBA at Location CM, and the L90 (background) measurements ranged from 48 to 50 dBA. The arithmetically averaged hourly background sound level (1-90) equaled 48 dBA for the entire measurement period (7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.). 1329 Salem Transfer Noiselreport.doe 4-5 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 1: Baseline Ambient Noise Measurements — Salem Transfer Station, Salem, MA Receptor LD, ;Start Time ,. L,o (d6A) Lso (dBA) L90 (dBA) L�' (dBA) Octave Bands (Hz) 31.5 Leq(d6), I'63 Le -(dB) 125 w, L�(dB) 250 u,' „Lea(d8) `500 L�(d6 .1000 ';.2000 Le (d6) w 4000` ;LN(dB) "8000 11 Lee(d6) 9:04 54 50 57 62 62 56 49 46 46 41 30 21 [a] 4A.M.49 52 59 57 56 53 51 49 49 43 34 26 E9:3357 45 42 50 51 49 43 36 34 33 29 35 24 Notes. L Weather: Temperature = 35'F, RE = 26%, skies clear, winds from the northwest at 04 mph. 2. Road surfaces were dry during all short-term measurements. 3. All sampling periods were approximately 30 minutes duration. 4. Measurements were collected on March 11, 2005 23195alem Transfer Noise lreport.doc 4-6 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 2: Location CM Continuous 9 -Hour Sound Measurement Data Hour LrQ, Hr (dBA) F L90 ,O. (dBA) 7:00 57 50 8:00 56 50 9:00 54 48 10:00 55 48 11:00 54 48 12:00 54 48 13:00 55 48 14:00 57 49 15:00 53 48 23295alem Transfer Noiselreport.doc 4-7 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. 65 M : 55 Figure 3: Salem Transfer Station, Salem, MA: Continuous Sound Levels at Southern Property Line, 7 am - 4 pm, March 11, 2008 45 40 35 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hour of Day (Starting Hour) =-Leq 5.0 REFERENCE SOUND LEVEL DATA The key potential source of operational noise at the transfer station will be truck traffic within the property boundaries. Predictive modeling was conducted with the Traffic Noise Model (TNM), in order to determine impact due to increased truck traffic. The method is described in more detail within Section 6.1. In addition to truck traffic, there will be some noise due to truck back-up alarms and front- end loader activity within the tipping -floor building. Reference sound level data for operation of such equipment was collected by Epsilon Associates through previous projects. Those data were used to estimate impacts at the nearest lot boundaries and residences near the transfer station. Although the front-end loader will operate intermittently and at different times, a worst-case assumption was used where all equipment would operate continuously and simultaneously. Back-up alarms emit sound that is most prominent within the 1,000 - hertz (Hz) frequency region, but they emit very little at other frequencies. They are safety devices designed that way, because the human ear is particularly sensitive to sounds within the 1,000 -hertz region. Reference sound level data for both sources were measured at 50 feet and are summarized below in Table 3. The loader was operating at full -throttle during the measurement. Table 3: Measured Equipment Sound Levels (at 50 �, �. Equipment Lam- - •� , � ., Octave Bands (Hz) - "31.5,= -63 "4125 250 500' .1000 2000' 4000- 8000 " Lea L, Leq' LN U4 " LN Gq G, (dBA). '(d6) `' ti (dB) (dB) ,.(d6) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) Volvo Model L60E Front- 68 74 87 74 62 57 60 63 50 44 end Loader Truck Back-up Alarm 83 - - - 83 - - - The Cadna/A model (Computer Aided Noise Abatement, described in more detail with Section 6.2) calculates sound levels based on the sound power levels of the sources. The sound power output of a source is the total amount of energy radiated into the atmosphere, designated in units of Watts. Sound power data for this equipment was not available, so approximate sound power levels were calculated using the measured sound levels listed above. The following equation was used to approximate the sound power level of the equipment, assuming hemi -spherical spreading over hard ground: L w = L p + 20Logio(r) + 8 where: 13195alemTransfer Noise lreport.doc 5-1 Reference Sound Level Data Epsilon Associates, Inc. Lw = sound power level Lp = sound pressure level measured at 50 feet (15.24 meters) r = distance from measurement microphone to source 8 dB = increase in sound level, accounting for hemispherical spreading The resulting approximate octave -band sound power levels used in the CadnaA model are listed below in Table 4. Table 4: Sound Power Levels, dB (re 1 23295alem Tran5ferftl5elreportdoc 5-2 Reference 5ound Zevel Data Epsilon Associates, Inc Octave Bands (Hz) Equipment,-, L, 31.5 63 125 1250 500 < ;1000 2000 4000 8000 (d BA) (dB) (d (dB) (d 8) (c[B)� (dB) (d B) (d B Volvo Model L60E Front-end Loader 99 95 105 101 104 94 91 88 80 74 Truck Back-up Alarm 115 - - - - - 115 - I 23295alem Tran5ferftl5elreportdoc 5-2 Reference 5ound Zevel Data Epsilon Associates, Inc 6.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS Predictive sound level modeling was conducted with the Traffic Noise Model program and the Cadna/A program at the nearest lot lines to the facility's noise -producing activities, as required by MA DEP regulation. The sound level modeling was also done for the same locations where ambient sound levels were measured. If sound levels are acceptable at these evaluation points, then noise at other more distant locations will be even less as sound decreases with distance from the source. The evaluation points are listed below. All evaluation points were modeled at a height of five feet above the ground. ♦ Point A: Nearest the southern property boundary; this was also the location of the continuous sound level monitor. ♦ Point B: Nearest the northern property boundary shared with the gas station/convenience store (a commercially -zoned parcel). This is not a noise -sensitive residential location, so background sound levels were not measured here. Due to the close proximity of the heavy vehicular traffic on Highland Avenue, it is estimated that the L90 background sound level at this location is between 55 and 60 dBA. ♦ Point C: Nearest the western property boundary in the woods. The abutting parcel is commercially -zoned "Business Park Development" and is not residential. Background sound levels were not measured here, but Leo sound levels are probably similar to what was measured at Location CM (an average Leo of 48 dBA). ♦ Point D: Nearest the eastern property line along Swampscott Road. There are no noise - sensitive or residential land use parcels along that section of Swampscott Road. Background sound levels were not measured here, but existing Leo sound levels are estimated to be between 55 and 60 dBA. ♦ Point E: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -1, near the houses on Thomas Circle, across from the Swampscott Road/Highland Avenue Intersection. ♦ Point F: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -2, near the townhouses at the Swampscott Road/First Street intersection. ♦ Point G: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -3, near houses on Barnes Road. The sound levels were predicted within the wooded area in between the two houses that are closest to the transfer station. ♦ Point H: Houses on Highland Avenue near Barcelona Avenue. Although sound level measurements were not made here, those houses are within 700 feet of the transfer station. Figure 4 shows the location of the transfer station and the modeled points of evaluation. 2329 Salem Transfer Noise report doc 6-1 Future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. LEGEND ah 12R 'Vi 1 r . . scale 0- 100 20 fir • feet �5 1]l�,A � �y P r �'.!• 'a`-�a moi. e 1% T aL} '� `v �!• 9�K' Ii1YY fry + la� 1 .. • x s y�3 {P N i '+-AIS➢ 4 1 + • , !'.pt* [},,{'y� eF �s.. 1k Z �•' whir Y ' � • �� �(' :rx. V�y�°foo' 11"irfvr. yk 1� i,.. n' w., I d 'A eld A. r�5 ,az ,4. x - 6.1 Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Predicting increases in sound level due to increased truck activity was an important consideration when modeling future conditions. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 is used to predict sound levels near roadways. TNM predicts the hourly average sound level from vehicular traffic. Input information includes roadway width, noise -sensitive evaluation points, the hourly number and speed of vehicles, and ground elevations. In this case, the input parameters were "heavy trucks" travelling within the transfer station property. It was assumed that trucks would travel ata speed of approximately 15 miles per hour. Using data taken from a traffic study conducted by Vanasse & Associates, it was possible to determine the sound level increase due to increases in truck volume at the facility. The study cites an increase of 6 trucks during a weekday morning peak hour' (an additional 3 trucks entering and 3 trucks exiting). The transfer station will have newly -paved surfaces, so the pavement types modeled within TNM are valid. The width and location of the truck driveways were determined from an AutoCAD file of the site plan. Also, the site plan provided the elevations of the driveway sections. With all of the necessary parameters known, it was possible to predict the increase in sound levels resulting from an additional 6 trucks per hour. Location CM was used as the point of reference. Using the input assumptions above, TNM predicted that the hourly sound level would increase by no more than 2 dBA at the nearest locations. This 2 dBA increase was then assumed for all predictive modeling locations, to be added to the sound levels predicted by Cadna/A. This is described in Section 6.3. 6.2 Cadna/A Computer Software Sound Model The sound modeling for the front-end loader and back-up alarms was conducted using the Cadna/A sound calculation model (DataKustik Corporation, 2005). This physics -based computer software model uses the ISO 9613-2 industrial standard for sound propagation (Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors - Part 2: General method of calculation). The Cadna/A model allows for octave band calculation of noise from multiple sources, as well as computation of diffraction around building edges, and multiple reflections off parallel buildings and solid ground areas. In this manner, all significant noise sources and geometric propagation effects are accounted for in the noise modeling. Shielding credit from onsite structures was taken in the modeling where appropriate. ' "Traffic Impact And Access Study: Proposed Transfer Station Expansion, Salem, MA", Vanasse & Associates, Inc., December 2007 2329 Salem Transfer Noise lreportdoc 6-3 Future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. The front-end loader was assumed to operate inside the tipping -floor building. However, the side of the building facing the gas station (northern property line) was assumed to be open to the outside, which is where trucks will back in. This was determined from the building elevation plans dated October 2007. Additionally, noise radiating from the other three walls (eastern, southern, and western elevations) of the tipping -floor building were modeled within Cadna/A. Though those three walls will not have windows, this is anticipated to be a metal building with limited sound insulation. It is reasonable to assume that sound from the front-end loader may transmit through the walls somewhat. Trucks were assumed to operate at low idle while inside the building. Furthermore, it was assumed that the front-end loader would be considerably louder than the sound of refuse emptying from the trucks. It should also be remembered that the front-end loader was modeled at high -idle conditions and assumed to operate continuously throughout the day. This will not be the case under actual conditions. The back-up alarm was modeled outdoors near the northern side of the tipping -floor building, where the trucks will back up. The Vanasse & Associates traffic study stated that an additional 3 trucks would enter the facility during a weekday morning peak hour (the largest number of trucks for any hour of the day). The Cadna/A model allows the user to input the total amount of time (throughout the entire day) during which a sound source is expected to operate. It was assumed that each truck's back-up alarm would operate for 30 seconds during a drop-off. The three (3) additional back-up alarm events per hour result in a 1-dBA sound level increase for any given hour. Note: it was assumed that exiting trucks would not operate a back-up alarm. This corresponds approximately to an additional 15 minutes per day during which alarms might operate (3 additional truck alarms for 30 seconds during each of the 9 hours of operation). As with the TNM results, the increases due to back-up alarms were added to the overall Cadna/A results. This will be shown in Section 6.3. The Cadna/A model was run using standard meteorological conditions of 20 degrees C (68 degrees F), 50% relative humidity, and no wind. To be conservative, no ground attenuation credit was taken by the model. The maximum order of reflections was set to seven in Cadna/A. The reflection type of the building wall was modeled as a smooth fa�ade/reflective barrier. That calculates a loss of 1 dB for sound reflecting off of the building. 6.3 Predicted Sound Level Results The model output is shown in Appendix B, produced directly from Cadna/A with the results at the evaluation points. The sound level results at each point are shown in Table 5. Note that the results account for the presence of back-up alarms and truck traffic in incremental terms. Even with the back-up alarm increase and the 2-dBA increase from truck activity, all equipment operation will meet the MA DEP noise policy. 2329 Salem Transfer Noise I report doc 6-4 future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5: Predicted Noise Levels Due to Tipping -Floor Building Operations vs. Baseline Ambient Background Sound Levels — MA Noise Policv Criteria Point A: Nearest the southern property boundary and continuous sound level monitor. Point B: Nearest the northern property boundary shared with the gas station Point C: Nearest the western property boundary in the woods Point D: Nearest the eastern property line along Swampscott Road. Point E: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -1, near the houses on Thomas Circle Point F: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -2, near the townhouses Point G: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -3, near houses on Barnes Road Point H: Nearest houses on Highland Avenue near Barcelona Avenue. 1. 48 dBA was the average Lzo sound level for the entire 9 -hour continuous measurement period at Location CM 2. 55 dBA is an estimated L90 sound level and is conservative. The actual daytime L90 sound level near the gas station at the intersection of Highland Ave and Swampscott Street is probably higher, 3. Measured L90 sound level at Location ST -1 4. Measured L90 sound level at Location ST -2 5. Measured L90 sound level at Location ST -3 6. The Lw sound level here was assumed to be the same as Location ST -1, since the locations are very close to one another. 2329 Salem Transfer Noise lreport.cloc 6-5 Future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. Tipping- m - Baseline Total: TNM: Increase Increase Floor Leo Back- Project + Increase Due to Over Location Activityto Activity ground Lowest Leo Alarms Back - (dBA) (dBA (dBA) Trucks (+ 1 dBA) ground (+ 2 dBA) (dBA) A 42 48' 49 51 52 4 B 50 55' 56 58 59 4 C 43 48' 50 52 53 4 D 55 55' 58 60 61 6 E (residential) 41 503 50 52 53 3 (residential) 39 52" 52 54 55 3 (residential) 37 425 43 45 46 4 H (residential) 40 506 50 52 53 3 Point A: Nearest the southern property boundary and continuous sound level monitor. Point B: Nearest the northern property boundary shared with the gas station Point C: Nearest the western property boundary in the woods Point D: Nearest the eastern property line along Swampscott Road. Point E: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -1, near the houses on Thomas Circle Point F: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -2, near the townhouses Point G: Nearest short-term measurement location ST -3, near houses on Barnes Road Point H: Nearest houses on Highland Avenue near Barcelona Avenue. 1. 48 dBA was the average Lzo sound level for the entire 9 -hour continuous measurement period at Location CM 2. 55 dBA is an estimated L90 sound level and is conservative. The actual daytime L90 sound level near the gas station at the intersection of Highland Ave and Swampscott Street is probably higher, 3. Measured L90 sound level at Location ST -1 4. Measured L90 sound level at Location ST -2 5. Measured L90 sound level at Location ST -3 6. The Lw sound level here was assumed to be the same as Location ST -1, since the locations are very close to one another. 2329 Salem Transfer Noise lreport.cloc 6-5 Future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CONTROL MEASURES The sound level impact assessment for the proposed expansion at the Salem Transfer Station indicates that predicted noise levels will comply with the most stringent daytime noise regulations. Expected worst-case future sound levels from increased truck volumes, loader activity within the tipping -floor building, and truck back-up alarms will be slightly above current property -line noise levels to the north, east, south, and west. Sound levels at the closest residential locations are also predicted to be slightly above the existing ambient (background) sound level. However, the transfer station will be far enough away from all residential zones, such that worst-case increases in background sound levels will range from 3-4 dBA at the nearest residences. This is well within the MA DEP criteria. Also, the tipping -floor building was intentionally situated such that the open end of the building would face in the direction of Highland Avenue. This will help considerably to shield the townhouses on First Street from tipping -floor activity. When they are operating, the back-up alarms may temporarily result in "pure -tone" conditions at locations to the north and west. However, as described earlier, these events will be very brief (less than 30 seconds during each back-up). Alarms will not operate continuously throughout the day. Also, actual alarm sound levels will probably be much lower than what was assumed in the modeling. The total increase in the occurrence of back-up alarms will be 15 minutes per day compared to current conditions. Appendix A Beverly Airport Weather Data, March 11, 2008 Observations for Beverly, MA (BVY) Relative Wind STN Date Time PMSL ALTM Temp DEW Humidity DIR Speed VIS CLOUDS hPa inches Hg F F % deg knots mile 1 BVY 11 -Mar -08 6:50 AM 1021.1 30.16 20 9 62 300 5 10 CLR 2 BVY 11 -Mar -08 7:50 AM 1021.2 30.16 22 9 57 290 5 10 CLR 3 BVY 11 -Mar -08 8:50 AM 1020.7 30.15 26 9 48 290 5 10 CLR 4 BVY 11 -Mar -08 9:50 AM 1020.5 30.14 29 7 39 290 10 10 CLR 5 BVY 11 -Mar -08 10:50 AM 1019.8 30.12 31 6 34 300 9 10 CLR 6 BVY 11 -Mar -08 11:50 AM 1018.7 30.09 33 5 30 270 8 10 CLR 7 BVY 11 -Mar -08 12:50 PM 1017.8 30.06 35 5 28 260 11 10 CLR 8 BVY 11 -Mar -08 1:50 PM 1016.9 30.04 36 5 27 270 5 10 CLR 9 BVY 11 -Mar -08 2:50 PM 1015.9 30.01 39 7 26 240 10 10 CLR 10 BVY 11 -Mar -08 3:50 PM 1014.8 29.98 40 7 25 260 9 10 CLR 11 BVY 11 -Mar -08 4:50 PM 1014.1 29.95 41 6 23 220 7 10 CLR 12 BVY 11 -Mar -08 5:50 PM 1013.7 29.94 36 17 46 160 8 10 CLR 0 Ri Salem Transfer Station: Predictive Noise Modeling Results Receiver Lr w/o Noise Control Name ID Day dB(A) Point E: Thomas Circle near ST -1 Immi 40.6 Point F: Townhouses near ST -2 Imm 38.7 Point G: Barnes Road Woods near ST -3 Imm 36.6 Point A: near CMI -Also Southern Prope Imm 41.6 Point B: Northern Property Line near Ga Imm 49.8 Point C: Western Property Line - In Woo Imm 43.4 Point D: Swampscott Road - Eastern Prop Imm 55.5 Point H: Barcelona Ave and Highland Imm 40.2 FOCUSED RISK CHARACTERIZATION SALEM TRANSFER STATION 12 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for: City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Prepared by: Wilcox & Barton, Inc. 1115 Route I OOB, Suite 200 Moretown, Vermont 05660 Contact: Ms. Cynthia Fuller, (401) 323-9571 June 3, 2008 - Revision for review Wilcox & Barton, Inc. Project No.:BETA0008 WWW.WILCOXANDBARTON.COM 1 (888) 777-5805 CERTIFICATION The following personnel have prepared and/or reviewed this report for accuracy, content, and quality of presentation. Document Name: Focused Risk Characterization Salem Transfer Station 12 Swampscott Road, Salem, Massachusetts DateNersion: June 3, 2008 Cynthia Fuller, MFH Health Risk Assessor TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................E-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND............................................................................................................1 3.0 AIR EMISSION MODELING...............................................................................................1 3.1 Input and Assumptions.................................................................................................1 3.2 Modeling Results..........................................................................................................3 3.2.1 Particulate Matter.............................................................................................3 3.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds...........................................................................3 4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RISK OF HARM TO HUMAN HEALTH................4 4.1 Hazard Identification....................................................................................................4 4.1.1 Constituents of Concern ...................................................................................4 4.1.2 Toxicity Values................................................................................................4 4.1.3 Applicable or Suitably Analogous Standards...................................................5 4.2 Exposure Assessment.................................................................................................... 5 4.2.1 Receptors and Exposure Scenarios................................................................... 5 4.2.2 Exposure Point Concentrations........................................................................5 4.2.3 Quantitation of Exposure..................................................................................6 4.3 Risk Characterization....................................................................................................6 4.3.1 Overview..........................................................................................................6 4.3.2 Diesel Particulate Matter..................................................................................6 4.3.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.................................................................7 4.3.4 Volatile Organic Compounds...........................................................................8 4.3.5 Combined Health Risks.................................................................................... 8 5.0 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................9 6.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................9 Tables Table 1 Summary of Modeling Output for Particulate Matter Table 2 Summary of Modeling Results for Volatile Organic Compounds Table 3 Summary of the Composition of Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Table 4 Summary of Toxicity Values Figures Figure 1 Air Toxics Modeled Receptor Locations Appendices Appendix A Air Modeling Output for Volatile Organic Compounds Appendix B Risk Characterization Calculations - Particulate Matter Appendix C Risk Characterization Calculations - Volatile Organic Compounds W B1 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A focused risk characterization was performed for air emissions associated with diesel truck traffic at the Salem Transfer Station ("transfer station") located at 12 Swampcott Road, Salem, Massachusetts. The focused risk characterization evaluated the potential risk of harm to human health associated with transfer station truck emissions under current transfer station operations and those potentially emitted under the proposed expansion of the transfer station. The risk characterization was based on air quality dispersion modeling conducted by Epsilon Associates, Inc. using EPA -approved dispersion models and emission -generating software. The modeling estimated emissions of particulate matter KPMIe, PM2,5, and diesel particulate matter (DPM)] and five volatile organic compounds (VOCs: acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 -butadiene, and formaldehyde) associated with emissions from truck traffic to and from the transfer station, under current transfer station operations and under the proposed transfer station expansion. Emissions from existing non -transfer station -related traffic in the immediate area of the station werez, also examined as a comparison. The risk characterization assumed that background air qua i"as identical in both scenarios, so the background contribution was not considered. This allowed a direct comparison of transfer station traffic impacts without interference from other sources. Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) of PMte, DPM, and five VOCs were the maximum ambient air concentrations predicted by modeling under two time -averaging periods: the maximum 24-hour air concentration (applied to assess short term exposures) and the maximum annual average air concentration (applied to assess long term exposure). PMIo modeling results and information on the composition of diesel particulate matter were used to estimate EPCs for total and carcinogenic PAHs. Exposure through inhalation was assumed to occur 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, for 30 years, which is a conventional period for assessing residential exposure. Results of the VOC and PAH assessments were combined to derive the total non -cancer health hazards and cancer risks posed by emissions from transfer station truck traffic under current and proposed expansion scenarios and non - transfer station traffic. The risk characterization results are presented in the following table: ` iy n M � ti -. i f M' e, Y©CSA'ND,R,nIiSFR0MYTRANSIFER21 a g ,SOurce , tli 1 ti,rr r i;_ , , i g; ,,, r ' ,.i i an n {+ �c"R15K'CHtt�t{1CTERIZATIO�I.SU111111AR}.' ' r rr� r r i +i- x a+ � $TAT101!1ANDNON-'PI2ANS GRS�'A2'IONrTRAIrFIC ", ti r `y. i i Cgrre'ht Operabog S�eoarm yar, �y_ r {P�ropose`d Exps:n's��n $cerieit+p �si r� ,�i N i'SNon Caucer Hazard Index jCancer Risk Non Cancer Hazard Index Cancer lLsk u �,Chromc r, itm Chronic � , Subchrbmc Ch;Komc r �hromc , S:_,Ex osure , •, Ex osure � Ex osdre';- osure Eosure, .,Ex osure �: TransfeiStat�on,IruckVTaaffici VOCs 0.007 0.02 5 x 10"s 0.008 0.02 6 x 10_s PAHs 0.000002 0.00002 3 x 10-9 11 0.000002 0.00002 3 x 10 Transfer Station Total 0.007 0.02 6 x 10"s 0.008 0.02 6x 10-s Lyon Transfer Station Traffic - � ' ' ' VOCs 0.2 0.3 2 x 10-6 0.09 0.2 1 x 10-1 PAHs 0.0002 0.0005 6 x 10"s 0.0002 0.0004 5 x 10 Non -Transfer Station Total 0.2 0.3 2 x 10 0.09 0.2 1 x10-1 Combined Transfer and 0.2 Non -Transfer Station Traffic 0.4 2 x 10-` I 0.1 IF 0.2 1 x 10.s Maximum Acceptable Level 1 1 I I x 10 11 1 1 1 x 10.s E-1 Total non -cancer hazard indices (HIs) associated with emissions from transfer station traffic and non - transfer station traffic are below the maximum acceptable level for short-term (subchronic) and long- term (chronic) exposure in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. Acrolein is the primary contributor to the HI in all scenarios and averaging periods. Similarly, the excess lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from transfer station traffic and non -transfer station traffic are below the maximum acceptable cancer risk in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. Benzene is the primary contributor to the cancer risk. In all scenarios, non -transfer station traffic contributed the majority to the HIs and cancer risks. Assessment results for DPM were not combined with results for PAHs and VOCs because assessing emissions as DPM is an alternate way of assessing diesel emissions and its inclusion would result in "double" counting. The results of the DPM assessment are presented in the following table: i-' 'RiSK"CHAR�'ACTERIZATION SUMMARYa O,�f Q. I:!:h FAIESEL;YARTICUL'ATE+MAT,f;ER P �'A$SESShiENaw,.' �' y - .�§ `I sr a� , w�Source � I( �' u4 Scena�o � Non"C ancer Hazard Index .,,. Transfer Station Traffic Current/Chronic Exposure 0.002 Proposed Expansion/Chronic Exposure 0.002 Maximum Acceptable Level 1 The non -cancer HIs associated with emissions from transfer station traffic are below the maximum acceptable level for chronic exposure in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. DPM emissions were not estimated for non -transfer station traffic. Based on these assessments, the emissions from increased truck traffic associated with the proposed transfer station expansion does not result in a significant risk of harm to human health and contributes only about 10% of the potential health risk associated with emissions from non - transfer station traffic in the immediate area of the transfer station. E-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents a focused risk characterization for air emissions associated with diesel truck traffic at the Salem Transfer Station ("transfer station") located at 12 Swampcott Road, Salem, Massachusetts. The risk characterization evaluates the potential risk of harm to human health associated with the truck emissions under current transfer station operations and emissions occurring under the proposed transfer station expansion. The risk characterization has been prepared in general accordance with risk characterization guidance developed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND The Salem Transfer Station is located on Swampscott Road between Highland Avenue (Route 107) and First Street. Residential areas are located along the northern side of Highland Avenue to the north of the transfer station and to the southeast of First Street. Open space is located immediately east, north and west of the transfer station, beyond which are commercial facilities. The City of Salem has recently renegotiated a three party Administrative Consent Order that obligates the City and Northside Carting (operator of the transfer station) to demolish the former City incinerator and close the ash landfill on Swampscott Road. As part of the arrangement between the City and Northside Carting, the existing transfer station (operating out of the former incinerator building) will be expanded from 100 tons per day (TPD) to 400 tons per day. Traffic, air quality, and noise studies have already been performed; this risk characterization has been prepared to assess human health impacts associated with increased particulate and volatile air emissions from increased truck traffic at the site. 3.0 AIR EMISSION MODELING 3.1 Input and Assumptions An air quality dispersion modeling analysis was conducted by Epsilon Associates, Inc. to assess the potential impact of the proposed expansion of the Salem Transfer Station to ambient air quality. Emissions of particulate matter [PMjo, PM2.5 and diesel particulate matter (DPM)] and five volatile organic compounds (VOCs: acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 -butadiene, and formaldehyde) associated with existing and potential additional truck trips under expansion to and from the transfer station were modeled using EPA -approved dispersion models and emission -generating software. Emissions from non -transfer station -related traffic in the immediate vicinity of the transfer station were also modeled. This analysis was completed in response to the Salem Board of Health's request to analyze the potential impact of diesel truck emissions at residential areas along Highland Avenue and the residential neighborhood southeast of the facility. Dispersion modeling to predict ambient air concentrations of the constituents was conducted using EPA's CAL3QHCR model with emission rates derived from EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission -generating program. Details on the model are presented in the Air Quality Modeling Report (Epsilon Associates, Inc., February 2008). Some pertinent factors of the modeling are summarized below: • Existing (non -transfer station) traffic emissions were obtained from a traffic study performed by Vanasse & Associates, which quantified traffic volumes from the southwest and northeast along Highland Avenue to the Swampscott Road intersection, then traveling southward along Swampscott Road to the transfer station. For the modeling, trucks were assumed to travel around the transfer station and exit onto Swampscott Road. "Worst case" daily traffic volumes were estimated from peak hour volumes, and emissions during straight travel and idling were considered. • For current conditions at the transfer station, 140 trips (70 in and 70 out) by diesel -fueled trucks were assumed. • For the proposed transfer station expansion scenario, an additional 54 trips (27 in and 27 out) were assumed for a total of 194 trips per day by diesel -fueled trucks. • Trucks were assumed to idle for 1 minute at the truck scale when entering the site, 5 minutes while unloading, and 1 minute at the truck scale when leaving. These times were based on the Massachusetts anti -idling regulations that prohibit engine idling for more than 5 minutes. • For particulate emissions, particulate matter with an effective aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (PM10) and 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and DPM were modeled. These were quantified as a sum of a variety of individual constituents, including the lead portion of exhaust particulate matter; the total, elemental, and organic carbon portions of diesel exhaust particulate matter, and brake and tire wear particulate matter emissions, in grams per mile. The "all vehicles" emission factor was used for non -transfer station -related traffic and the heavy duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) emission factor was used for the transfer station -related truck traffic. • The current conditions scenario assumed a gasoline fuel sulfur content of 30 parts per million (ppm) and a diesel fuel sulfur content of 350 ppm. The proposed transfer station expansion scenario assumed a gasoline fuel sulfur content of 30 ppm and a diesel fuel sulfur content of 15 ppm, based on the mandated use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) in all highway vehicles beginning in 2007. • For the particulate matter emission modeling; 20 specific receptor locations (points at which air concentrations were predicted) were assessed along the fenceline of the transfer station and in residential areas along Highland Avenue and southeast of the facility. • For VOC modeling, the above 20 receptors and an additional 40 receptors aligned in a grid pattern in the vicinity of the facility were modeled. • Five years of hourly meteorological data from Boston's Logan Airport and five years of upper air data from Grey, Maine were used. • The end results of the modeling were estimates of ground level air concentrations of modeled parameters at each of the modeled receptor locations. Other modeling assumptions are presented in the modeling report. W�&B 3.2 Modeling Results 3.2.1 Particulate Matter Results of particulate matter modeling, in the form of the maximum predicted ground level ambient air concentration (i.e., maximum impact) resulting from transfer station truck traffic emissions and non -transfer station traffic emissions, are summarized in Table 1 (copied from Tables 3 and 4 of the Air Quality Modeling Report). When the maximum impact contributed by transfer station traffic and non -transfer station traffic are compared assuming the current truck traffic to the transfer station (current scenario) , transfer station traffic contributes between —1 and 5 percent of the PMIO and —2 to 6 percent of the PM2.5 concentration contributed by non - transfer station traffic. Under the proposed transfer station expansion scenario, transfer station traffic contributes between —1 and 6 percent of the PMIO and —3 and 12 percent of the PM2.5 concentration contributed by non -transfer station traffic, representing an increase in the relative contribution. When the maximum transfer station traffic impacts under current and proposed transfer station expansion scenarios are compared with available National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS; also presented on Table 1), the transfer station traffic contribution is 500 -times (or more) below the applicable standard. This indicates that emissions from transfer station traffic under both current and proposed transfer station expansion scenarios are less than that contributed by non -transfer station traffic and are less than NAAQS. 3.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds Results of VOC modeling, in the form of the maximum impact resulting from transfer station traffic emissions and non -transfer station traffic emissions, are presented in Appendix A and summarized in Table 2. When the maximum impacts contributed by transfer station and non - transfer station traffic under current transfer station operations are compared, transfer station traffic contributes between —0.4 and 6 percent of either the maximum 24-hour or annual average VOC concentration contributed by non -transfer station traffic. Under the proposed expansion scenario, transfer station traffic contributes between —1 to 12 percent of the maximum 24-hour or annual average VOC concentration contributed by non -transfer station traffic, representing an increase in the relative contribution. None of the subject VOCs has NAAQS, so a comparison to standards cannot be made. This indicates that ambient air concentrations of VOCs resulting from transfer station traffic emissions under current and proposed expansion scenarios are less than that contributed by non - transfer station traffic. 4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RISK OF HARM TO HUMAN HEALTH Potential human health risks posed by transfer station and non -transfer station traffic emissions under the current and proposed expansion scenarios are assessed using conventional risk characterization methodology adopted by MassDEP. This risk characterization methodology was developed as a decision-making tool for use under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. It is intended to conservatively examine potential health risks posed by releases of oil and/or hazardous materials to the environment over naturally -occurring or anthropogenic background levels. As such, it focuses on specific releases or conditions and does not estimate risks that may be associated with unrelated events or background conditions. The focused risk characterization presented herein is a comparative risk characterization in that it looks at the effect of traffic emissions upon air quality under different scenarios separate from background air quality. 4.1 Hazard Identification 4.1.1 Constituents of Concern Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of unburned fuel, fuel combustion and pyrolysis products, and lubricating oil, with the exact composition depending on engine type, engine operation conditions, fuel composition, additives, and other factors. Constituents contained within diesel particulate matter include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), alkyl -substituted PAHs, oxygenated PAHs, nitrate PAHs, and carboxylic and dicarboxylic acids of PAHs and PAH derivatives. Table 3 presents a list of representative constituents contained in diesel particulate matter emissions. From this list, seven PAHs are considered probable human carcinogens and possess cancer toxicity values with which to assess them: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)- fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Many VOCs are also present in diesel exhaust. However, due to model limitations, five VOCs were modeled and assessed: acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 -butadiene, and formaldehyde. Of these, all but acrolein are considered known or probable human carcinogens. Because of the different forms of the modeling results, risks associated with particulate matter and VOCs are assessed separately and are later combined. 4.1.2 Toxicity Values Toxicity values used to quantify the potential cancer risks and non -cancer health hazards of the COCs were obtained from US EPA and MassDEP sources and are summarized on Table 4. Toxicity values used to assess non -cancer health hazards for inhalation exposures are reference concentrations (RfC). Toxicity values used to assess excess lifetime cancer risks for inhalation exposures are inhalation unit risk (UR) values. Sub -chronic RfCs were used to assess shorter - term exposures to non -carcinogens; if a sub -chronic toxicity value was unavailable for a COC, its chronic toxicity value was applied. M 01 4.1.3 Aoolicable or Suitablv Analoeous Standards Applicable or suitably analogous standards for some of the CDCs are included in the Massachusetts Air Quality Standards (310 CMR 6.00), which adopts federally -established air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Applicable air quality standards were presented on Table 1 for particulate matter; no applicable or suitably analogous standards were identified for the subject VOCs. 4.2 Exposure Assessment 4.2.1 Receptors and Exposure Scenarios Exposure to diesel -associated constituents through inhalation is assumed to occur 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, for 30 years, which represents continual exposure. Because of the manner in which inhalation toxicity values are derived, non -cancer hazard indices will be the same for children, youth, and adults, so assessment of individual age groups is not needed. Cancer risks are conventionally assessed over a long exposure period; the 30 years applied is a conventional chronic exposure period for residential exposure. The assessment of residents also conservatively represents potential exposure of other human receptor groups, such as workers or pedestrians. 4.2.2 Exposure Point Concentrations Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) of the assessed constituents were obtained from the air dispersion modeling results. For PMio, DPM, and the five VOCs, the EPCs are the maximum predicted ground level ambient air concentrations as summarized on Table 1 (PMIc and DPM) and Table 2 (VOCs). The maximum 24-hour air concentration is applied to assess potential non - cancer health risks under subchronic (short term) exposure and the maximum annual average is applied to assess potential cancer risks and non -cancer health hazards under chronic (long term) exposure. PMIO is assessed rather than PM2.5 because of the conventional use of this parameter in representing inhalable particles and because the predicted maximum concentrations are slightly higher. PMIc modeling results and information on the composition of diesel particulate matter presented in Table 3 are used to estimate EPCs for total PAHs and carcinogenic PAHs. The sum of the constituents presented in Table 3 is used as a total PAH concentration to assess potential non - cancer health hazards. EPCs are also estimated for the seven carcinogenic PAHs by multiplying the total PAH concentration by the percentage of the total PAH concentration represented by the individual carcinogen. While additional PAHs may also be considered potential human carcinogens, these seven PAHs are the only ones possessing established inhalation cancer toxicity values. 4.2.3 Quantitation of Exposure COC exposure was quantified by combining the exposure factors described in Section 4.2.1 with EPCs to derive an average daily exposure (ADE) (which, because continuous exposure is assumed, is the same as the EPC). Generally recognized risk characterization equations were used to quantify exposures and are presented in Appendix B for PMjo, DPM, and PAHs, and Appendix C for VOCs. 4.3 Risk Characterization 4.3.1 Overview Potential cancer risks and non -cancer health hazards were quantified for each receptor group by combining calculated ADEs with the toxicity value for the COC. The risk characterization procedure for carcinogenic constituents derives an excess lifetime cancer risk, which is the extra lifetime risk (i.e., over background risk levels) of incurring cancer from exposure to carcinogenic COCs. Cancer risks for each carcinogenic constituent are summed to derive a total excess lifetime cancer risk. Total cancer risks are compared with the maximum acceptable cancer risk adopted by MassDEP: an excess lifetime cancer risk of one -in - one -hundred -thousand, denoted as 1x10-5. A cancer risk at or below 1x10-5 represents no significant risk of harm to human health. The risk characterization procedure for non -cancer constituents derives a Hazard Quotient (HQ), which is the ratio of an estimated exposure to an exposure that poses no health hazard. HQs for individual constituents are summed to derive a total Hazard Index (HI), which is compared with the maximum acceptable HI adopted by MassDEP: one (1). A total HI equal to or below one represents no significant risk of harm to human health. To avoid "double" -counting potential non -cancer effects, the HIs for DPM and total PAHs are expressed separately. 4.3.2 Diesel Particulate Matter DPM generated from transfer station truck emissions was assessed for non -cancer effects. DPM emissions were not estimated for non -transfer station traffic. Since only average annual emissions were estimated, only chronic exposures were assessed. The results are contained in Appendix B and summarized in the following table. " diesel Parl'cla�e Matter;;?(DP1Vn Assessment ; Sogrce Scenario„p Non;CaneerHazard7ndex•- 1'IniBi L.IP L. i.i M1. ti #. ,A� i4 Transfer Station Traffic Current/Chronic ExpEExposuji 0.002 Proposed Expansion/Chronic 0.002 Maximum Acceptable Level 1 Under both current and proposed transfer station expansion scenarios, the HI for chronic exposure is 0.002. This value is below the maximum acceptable HI of 1, indicating that continual exposure to these emissions at the location of maximum impact poses no significant risk of harm to human health. Further, potential increases in emissions associated with the proposed expansion of the transfer station do not result in a quantifiable increase in the HI over current operation conditions. 4.3.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Total and carcinogenic PAHs in transfer station and non -transfer station traffic emissions were assessed for non -cancer health hazards and cancer risks. Both subchronic and chronic exposures were assessed. The results are contained in Appendix B and summarized below: Under the current and proposed expansion scenarios for both subchronic (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposure, Ms are below the maximum acceptable HI of 1 for transfer station traffic, non -transfer station traffic, and the combination of the two. Under subchronic exposures, transfer station traffic emissions contribute less than 2 percent of the combined HI; under chronic exposures, transfer station traffic emissions contribute —5 to 6 percent of the combined HI. Under current and proposed expansion scenarios, excess lifetime cancer risks are below the maximum acceptable excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10.5 for transfer station traffic emissions, non -transfer station traffic emissions, and the combination of the two. Transfer station traffic emissions contribute —5 to 6 percent of the combined cancer risk. The assessment concludes that subchronic and chronic exposure to PAHs in diesel particulate matter from transfer station traffic emissions and non -transfer station traffic emissions poses no significant risk of harm to human health. Further, the proposed expansion of the transfer station does not result in a quantifiable increase in HIs or cancer risks over existing conditions. W&B st:v�:y� "4 PAH;Aessment ss � rti � � � �� �r + i Yh 1 " `1 ,.i ,� Non CancerSeurce, , �i, A , , dexr i e r _ „ r, �r �t 'iCh�onic Chronic ;Subchronic�.,,, rSubchronic E`osure 'Ez'osfer , osures-=i.� osuie i:.Ex osure,,�l, Station F-1, 0.000002 0.00002 3E-09 0.000002 0.00002 3E-09 cTransfer Station 0.0002 0.0005 6E-08 0.0002 0.0004 5E-08 cbined 0.0002 0.0005 6E-08 0.0002 0.0004 6E-08 mum 11 1E-05 1 1 1E-05 ptable Level Percent of Combined Contributed by 1.2% 4.8% 4.8% 1.41/o5.6% 5.6% Transfer Station Under the current and proposed expansion scenarios for both subchronic (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposure, Ms are below the maximum acceptable HI of 1 for transfer station traffic, non -transfer station traffic, and the combination of the two. Under subchronic exposures, transfer station traffic emissions contribute less than 2 percent of the combined HI; under chronic exposures, transfer station traffic emissions contribute —5 to 6 percent of the combined HI. Under current and proposed expansion scenarios, excess lifetime cancer risks are below the maximum acceptable excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10.5 for transfer station traffic emissions, non -transfer station traffic emissions, and the combination of the two. Transfer station traffic emissions contribute —5 to 6 percent of the combined cancer risk. The assessment concludes that subchronic and chronic exposure to PAHs in diesel particulate matter from transfer station traffic emissions and non -transfer station traffic emissions poses no significant risk of harm to human health. Further, the proposed expansion of the transfer station does not result in a quantifiable increase in HIs or cancer risks over existing conditions. W&B 4.3.4 Volatile Organic Compounds Target VOCs generated from transfer station and non -transfer station traffic emissions were assessed for non -cancer health hazards and cancer risks, as appropriate for the constituent. Both subchronic and chronic exposures were assessed. The results are contained in Appendix C and summarized below: ° ' '� ti Ourrent'SCenarl0p - ,Proposed Expansion Scenario 'I n.i +I i4Y 1 1i+ - m; It h :4 � y� _ - .. I + Ion Cancer End aut Cancer Cancery It 1Von Cancer End nail Source ,�p Enlpomt p r *''IEnrlWin A 4 Spbchromci Chronic Cfiromc + 'Subchronic Chronic Chrome+'ai �F u +i' Eapasure; K 1; Expospre "Exposure. ,, ;Exposure,,; ExpaSur .„ "."i G Transfer Station 0.007 0.02 5E-08 0.008 0.02 6E-08 Traffic Non -Transfer Station 0.2 0.3 2E-06 0.09 0.2 1E-06 Traffic — I Total 0.2 0.4 2E-06 0.1 0.2 IE -06 Percent of Total Contributed by 4.0% 4.6% 2.6% 7.9% 7.9% 4.7% Transfer Station Under the current and proposed expansion scenarios for both subchronic (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposure, HTs are below the maximum acceptable HI of 1 for transfer station traffic emissions, non -transfer station traffic emissions, and the combination of the two. Transfer station traffic emissions under the current scenario contribute less than 5 percent of the total Hl, whereas under the proposed expansion scenario, transfer station traffic emissions contributed about 8 percent of the total HT, for both subchronic and chronic exposure. The primary constituent under subchronic and chronic exposure periods and for both transfer station and non - transfer station traffic emissions was acrolein. Under the current and proposed expansion scenarios, excess lifetime cancer risks are below the maximum acceptable excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-5 for transfer station traffic emissions, non -transfer station traffic emissions, and the combination of the two. Transfer station traffic emissions contribute about 3 percent of the combined cancer risk under the current scenario and about 5 percent under the proposed expansion scenario. The primary constituent contributing to the excess lifetime cancer risk is formaldehyde for transfer station traffic emissions and benzene for non -transfer station traffic emissions. 4.3.5 Combined Health Risks The results of the PAH and VOC risk characterizations are combined to derive total non -cancer health hazards and cancer risks posed by transfer station and non -transfer station traffic emissions under current and proposed expansion scenarios. Results of the DPM assessment are not combined with the results for PAHs and VOCs because its inclusion would result in "double" counting. The combined PAH and VOC risk and hazards are presented in the following table: '' Source , r' ,j, - i' fi if (SIX {�dAF 7'e� Current Scenana,' Tropesed ExpaiiA4Scenano4r Non;CancerHazadlndex �'�Cancer,Rrdk, ��+Non CaucerHazardT¢ilex r�"Cencer �Lsk ,rtr�Subehion�c Chromct�+ 7 ' it T ; f E osure+r1, t'+Ex asure . �' Chronic ' � r; `fit +r E osure�.r: �SutiCtiFonw Chronic �' �; 'sg ��5'd�ySP.r,3 Ex osore.. 'Ex osure Chroiuc ' X F ,,: osure, +' �l,Transfer- vOCs 0.007 1 0.02 5 x 10"s 0.008 1 0.02 6 x 10 PAHs 0.000002 0.00002 3 x 10-' 0.000002 0.00002 3 x 10'' Transfer Station Total 0.007 1 0.02 6 x 10 0.008 0.02 6 x 10 Non -Transfer Station TtafSc ; S a %;; vocs 1 0.2 1 0.3 1 2x 10 0.09 0.2 1 x 10'6 PAHs 0.0002 0.0005 1 6 x 10-s 0.0002 0.0004 5 x 10.s Non -Transfer Stat on Total 0.2 0.3 2 x 10"6 0.09 0.2 1 x104 Combined Transfer and Non -Transfer Station Traffic 0.2 0.4 2 x 10-6 0.1 0.2 1 x 10'6 Maximum Acceptable Level IF 1-1 1 1 1 x 10"6 1 1 1 1 1 x 10"6 The overall non -cancer HIs associated with transfer station and non -transfer station traffic emissions are below the maximum acceptable level for subchronic and chronic exposure in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. Acrolein is the primary contributor to the HI in all scenarios and averaging periods. Similarly, the excess lifetime cancer risks associated with transfer station and non -transfer station traffic emissions are below the maximum acceptable level in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. Benzene is the primary contributor to the cancer risk. For the non -cancer endpoint, under both subchronic and chronic exposure, and for the cancer endpoint, non -transfer station traffic contributed the majority to the HIs and cancer risks. 5.0 CONCLUSION Based on the assessments performed in this risk characterization, emissions from increased truck traffic associated with the proposed transfer station expansion does not result in a significant risk of harm to human health and contributes only about 10% of the potential health risk associated with emissions from non -transfer station traffic in the immediate area of the transfer station. 6.0 Epsilon Associates, Inc. (2008). Air Quality Modeling Report. February. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) (2007) Method 1 Numerical Standards and supporting documentation (November). MassDEP (1995) Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program (1998) Report on Carcinogens: Background Document for Diesel Exhaust Particles. December. US EPA (2008a). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). US EPA (2003). Toxicological Review of Acrolein in Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System. EPA/635/R-03/003, May. 9 w�B TABLES TABLE 1 Summary of Modeling Results for Particulate Matter Salem Transfer Facility Salem, Massachusetts L'+ail ' REM, 2 �.1��� ��� a�ae�c£e�ljlaxtmumtA'mbiel�� rp�oncenfia�ions �a 'teaW�1• a +it -y Ji f'YyW''i -x ��a �, 'Cd rent.Scenaiol:+'� Vu `Rfi.. lam^' i?..5, E4? 8�^vle y anhon2as �xlrcx' x=1^'2`" 5"i s,,opos111111011101 #t"k2v,r 'ati bl'^cbNa -2V'l �j^'.➢t „-a, i.4� Atnbtenfr "'21t��'�c' Q.ra'ib.--b i�� } l M T-a.t"�Yla�b`se �'qU'�. 14"„E¢ 'wL _ 'Frac anslon Scen�arro SL 'k a�i'A.-m iy[n +i+ i" 4rJ'r �'• "fill""Tnlu� s ahonal ra `4aFp•+k.��e, .ate tl2�na�tty JtaQaara JW96ns%.i1aen . ?gg s "iS , a 1 Pe ea" on nansfer' ; ra sfe � - Staho rafficE Y5ia�ton �c Nou ransfe tafio�raffic ESiahon ..raffiel Awa 10YN ONE`, "mom 3 N`�im..f�-�.s. w�` 5� "'n Vx E_ '"*8�� 24 -Hour 0.83 <0.01 0.71<0.01 150 PM a Annual 0.2 0.01 0.17 <0.01 50 DPM Annual -- 0.01 -- <0.01 52 PMZ 24 -Hour 0.62 <0.01 0.31 <0.01 35 s 5 Annual 0.16 0.01 0.08 < 0.01 15 Data transcribed from Epsilon Associates, Inc. (2008) Air Quality Modeling Report. February. Bold Value Value applied as an exposure point concentration; non -detections applied at the reporting limit Ag/m' Micrograms per cubic meter. <)O( Less than value presented. -- Not available or applicable. 1. Annual standard revoked in 2006. 2. No standard available; value is non -carcinogenic inhalation reference concentration (RfC). 3. Standard is effective as of 2007; standard of 65 jig/m' applied prior to 2007. BETA0008 Tl PM Modeling results.xls 6/3/2008 Page 1 of I TABLE 2 Summary of Modeling Results for Volatile Organic Compounds Salem Transfer Station Salem, Massachusetts } 'St rv' � i !�'Cz^'_'f� TF,y;F�,"`�'^'�` i hF 4"'�"J3 M •F:Ti..P.-er�i'^^Y L_n"" ,.�y� °�' y,�g,' -.�t„;,Fr y 6raar�ro ose�GT•ra¢sfert5f_a�ibn3EX anon Scc¢ano " �, ._� �,s .T�1�'��ra�i �.3'�.iF �Y.Fd3�ud'v�f. ail k<, £ '"=�aa-P�.T�`',-�A'nx'n-"Fz" e` �0 `ag AM s ��}..te,�' 0 �i" 3�'a'�:rvg'a�w* � t„-ft-, �_y ��s' '4^-*• ;`.uj"`�' ?c: rY �✓` 3yyee�8',-',�4.$ie r '3r^' ('',ODahtnelltl�i�y, r 2w, J 4-'§M..s=y`'(.ar'''a��-'A.x'°.>�.,agE"r_'d.'ira g 7ahsferfStahon�7raf5c r7 y on ,ran -LYafer'$tahon�0a2fic1e Ih 4` -* x"+ .ut''i, "4`i`'a `� a'"��-ice .� � 34�.,t, '""� P; . 4! +� �^ y� v< y.l C�' iAfaxsmDm 5 ti . anmum3 .� `°i? �ahoni. ' ,Dent✓ -'r- �0t Ag,nsfe';SdaSopi'a n`liganst r8(atbnael g'[ - J` sYt, ��an9�Ery�$tH OD? O. .e,. '� 4�"'.• c+ s r a,.,.Y. r. aximum 'x �. ammo r * s ,� °•� +'a, `'tee '- rm rr pfet centg'0,',f�';�". �• lou-°'� _. oD.`liransfer. 1 �'a_!,w"" �, t<C'S ,, r�,.�,� 4. Amb entArrvj'. vocation T'brentrr�z tConce'ntrahon � a�}. a eConcen ahan n.r r a :..d - bie t'. rr4 �-,froca oD �Amliienti"eLr cahonr� a '1"� once -� . CocrConeentrahonl "S'; * a r" T i,t;am"bleni,e�i .`: s",.i'"'- _" - r .i.^'- '.M'.'�.� yAmbsent _ ier'', ' ?6sone¢ Yra c i Concentra ons__ '�yryy s e _ 1�°cen han3 _ Concentruno"ns WOE s ENE r'a.s'�T+In �'S 3 . • .z.,5.-�`�k3. Acetaldehyde 0.0099 19 0.29 51 3.5% 0.0027 19 0.085 51 3.2% Acrolein 0.0012 19 0.021 51 5.6% 0.00032 19 0.0063 51 5.1% Benzene 0.0036 19 0.87 51 0.4% 0.00097 19 0.24 51 OA% 1,3 -Butadiene 0.0021 19 0.11 51 2.0% 0.00056 19 0.031 51 1.8% Formaldehyde 0.027 19 0.43 51 6.3% 0.0074 19 0.13 51 5.8% } 'St rv' � i !�'Cz^'_'f� TF,y;F�,"`�'^'�` i hF 4"'�"J3 M •F:Ti..P.-er�i'^^Y L_n"" ,.�y� °�' y,�g,' -.�t„;,Fr y 6raar�ro ose�GT•ra¢sfert5f_a�ibn3EX anon Scc¢ano " �, ._� �,s .T�1�'��ra�i �.3'�.iF �Y.Fd3�ud'v�f. ail k<, £ '"=�aa-P�.T�`',-�A'nx'n-"Fz" ate r«^zy '..c. . 'iu'ralAfsssv�cev,F,�ur_r,,�FRYf•"Yrte-..rxin.� ;� SPIN [m "^i`�`f^ni n` raSUN-pier'.cen o , .. 13; 3o- 'i5"'- r'f"� �� I;Hn9fCr�'-$ [IOD' ,o` � �.�,oeahon� m�, IgE .Uti6. o,�. ra¢sf�e�' Al'I,ocationPIP 3� ra�¢^sf-er Pa'non" ra11 `�,„ sI`Ion r'ansfei' Smtion raffi rye ercen o'f' �" la3c�q 9 t i S S.yuw v-+� ',�. r �.' pir '�'"*rd � f nrz �'� Non Tna¢ fertta`.. +'§Am 4ient i r �' ct .:_ it-�mti[eot-A z:� b ;,7ys •» `s i,t;am"bleni,e�i .`: s",.i'"'- _" - r Cbncent a�oo+t yAmbsent _ ier'', ' ?6sone¢ Yra c i Concentra ons__ '�yryy s e _ 1�°cen han3 _ Concentruno"ns WOE s �'S 3 . • .z.,5.-�`�k3. r''�,r .� .�L"'�...ali�';.. Acetaldehyde 0.011 18 F 0.15 59 7.0% 0.0028 18 0.048 51 5.8% Acrolein 0.0013 18 0.012 59 11.300/ 0.00032 18 0.0035 51 9.1% Benzene 0.0040 IS 0.44 51 0.9% 0.0010 18 0.13 51 0.8% 1,3 -Butadiene 0.0023 18 0.05651 4.1% 0.00058 18 0.017 51 3.4% Formaldeh de 0.030 18 0.25 59 0.0076 18 0.076 51 10.1° ugim3 Micrograms per cubic meter. 1. Location denotes the modeling receptor location at which the maximum concentration occurred, as follows: Station 18 is in the northeastern comer of the Salem Transfer Station property. Station 51 is at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road and is the (0,0) grid location for VOC emissions. Station 59 is located along Highland Avenue, midway between its intersection with Swampscott Road and Marlboro RoadtTrader's Way. BETA000817 VOC Modeling resultaxls 6132008 Peg. I of 1 TABLE 3 Summary of the Composition of Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Salem Transfer Station Salem, Massachusetts 2z" !.uC Y3 `r -a �e f'P Yen k`�} '^^ t,ygsi''re 1g h .� `t' y. -k -+7.3°rl.r9ti vgs s�f2}l�axa�l°'fa"Ar ''.J°ni'd i'v{l,C atlNentk�j�3rlm%F$GaznlHNmftCov NGnt�.�,lt m�7h ��y,�µr5, v t°4ti � �6:tiL4 Ga cm�tio;Non Pv 'r�114lN58n �Fy �Conv'�e�' l (rPattmN�ofT tel " } FT -6S CaN`poundf�t 6 1��' i 7 oa0hd}w.Tn�.d {,Y{�IW�a e[d f a M1I n'IYlleull �C r ntrn�00'+44 h ry:A Pa IS e5e1�P .n5 .�v' s drytTozf ryf Uy 4' We}6ht N es v. 4r. y. d', BAtoflatlStD.r+�5 °rew� u (}a l Av y i urnd Exlre t!1 ,)fjl �1 ,21A tl�� pP°rticle l2l t v�cC hatlo �. b14�,r���+� 1-DiniVo vrene Nan-cmcinv en 1 292 043 0.0003% � fHCflrtnt2 Rv"s'm'1� }+��y 151 3 &Didvo none Non-oacitu en 292 0.4 0.0004% 13 %&DiAto ate Non-cucin0 en 292 0.53 131 ]-Ninoflaca nheae Non<emno en 247 0.7 0.0006% 141 WaGnuomnthene N.ccrciao en 247 0.8 0.0!107% 141 -Nina hensoth.e Nan -cortin en 223 1 0.0009% 141 9-NivowNmee°a Non-eartino m 223 1,2 0,001% 141 -Ninnuocene Noncomino en LI 1.8 0.002% 141 1-NitraOuomaNme Noo-cortitt m 247 1,8 OA02% 141 Nibobi hen I Noa-cortin m 199 22 0.003% 141 6,Njnb.f,lp.. Not mMno eo 297 2.5 D.OM% q -Nin hmmlluene Non -.amino en 223 4.1 0.004% a -Nibv.th... Non -amino on I 273 4.4 0.004% a 'efluomnthene Non -.orcin m 247 4.4 0.004% t4l 3.7-Dinio.H.... Ntntcvzuttotsn 292 6 0,005% 4 3-Ninbm.nlbmnG Nan-cmon eo 275 66 0.006% -Methyl-I-ainmthmcena Nan -aria j en 237 8.3 0.007% 141 ,7-Didbo-9-11uormant, Nan,sudit0. 270 8.6 0,008% 6 tuna hthImre Non.ardtt m 152 30 30 68 0.05% 3 I -Nin me Noncmcina m 247 75 Om% a rim et Ibi hen I Noncnmim en 1% 50 - 50 114 0.10°A ) Meth Ibm .mthmcene Nott-enmina en 242 30-50 50 114 0.1D% 3 12-13ina thI N0o-.amino en 254 30-50 50 114 0.10% J 2 no htho I -ti thio hme Non-cvmino m 234 30-53 53 120 all% ) Ibi hmtvl Non -carcinogen 182 30-91 91 207 Us% 3 o hlh°thio hens Noncaaino nt 234 30-126 126 286 OSS%v 3 e Non-arcino en 166 100.168 168 382 0.34% 3 hen.thio hone Nan.cortin. en 212 151-179 1]9 407 0.36% 3 vU'sene OF Nan -..rain. en 242 50-192 192 436 0.39% Ja. hthdene None.min0 . 170 140-20c 200 455 0.40% 3oHo hme Non<ortina m 184 129-246 246 $59 0.50°-9 3o rene Nan -carina m 302 136-254 254 5]7 0.51% 13d dibeozuthio lune Neo-o.ino eo 208 254-333 333 757 pl hthdene Nao-comina en IN 285-351 351 798 0.71% Jent, Non -carcinogen 178 155-356 35fi 809 021% 3 Benzo t nuotmlhme Non -.omit m 226 2018 418 950 0.84% ) Eth I hmmthrme Non -.orcin. en 206 328/64 464 1055 0.93% 3 Phenyl( hmonduene/anthm me Noo-acro o m 154 210.559 559 1170 1.13% ) Eth (meth 1( hm.ntheenelathmcene) Non-emcino ea 220 590-717 717 1630 1.44% J MGN Idibmzalhio hent, Non -amino eo 198 520-772 772 1755 1,55% ] BenzaS vrene Nan -amino a 252 487-946 946 2,150 1.91% 3 Benin anuorrndbevu 0vorene Nomcareinom 216 541-990 990 2250 1,99% 3 H-Cvda mtvde ha.threae Noncvrcino en IM 517-1033 I.D332342 2,08% 3 Bmza M1i a Imo Non -.orcin. en 276 443_1.50 LD50 2,386 2.11% 3 -Phmvin hth l... Nott.intten 204 650-1.336 1.336 3,036 2,69% 5 Bram nuomvthma Non -carcinogen 252 492-1,367 1,367 1107 2.75% 3 Meth Inalwcma Nan-evrcit o en 192 517-1522 1,3n 3.459 3.07% 3 Ba.cm. Nola. Non -carcina m 202 791-1.M3 1,643 3,734 3.31% 3 Cve10 r N.-emcin0 en 226 869-1,671 1,671 3798 3.37% 3 Dimeth I( hmmthrrndmthtocene Non -.orcin. ert 206 1.29K -UN 2354 5,35D 4,74% 3 Melt I(0vomnthaO rene) Non-carei.. en 1 216 1,548-2,412 ;412 5,482 4.86% 131 Methyl henvnthrme Non,arcino en 1 192 2028-2,768 1768 6.291 557% 3 Ph_mthmne N..,.iniotet 178 2186-4883 4,883 11.098 9,83% 3 Fluomnthene, Non-cvmina en ID2 3.]99-7.321 7.231 I6,414 14.56% ) P a Naacvmino ea 202 3532-&002 8.002 18.186 16.12% ) I.d.0,23-idlowene Carcina en 276 30-93 93 211 0.19% 131 Bmtat ah ootlu°cere dibenct ah)mthmcene Comio en 278 50.96 96 218 D.19% 131 Bazv 8 nuom ah. ne Cmcim ti 252 91-289 289 657 0.59% 31 Benma rene Corcituen 252 208-558 558 1168 1.12% ) Benz tmthmc.e Cor.ino en 228 463-1,076 1,076 2,445 117% 131 Benzo 2 Huormthene Carcina en 252 421-1.090 1,090 2.477 120% 131 Ch sene(ortri hen lene) Corrin. en 228 657-1,529 1,529 3,475 308% 3 ff-.w 112AO 100% Sum vrnen v cina ev 107,101 90% um oflmmm cortin° v 10,752 10% - Miwpomlpmgmm. - Nm vppli.Ne mvoiNommdvm 1. UlhmlinW cmvpvmdvenvy atm 4civWdyedpasM,it.. of l..gw but dovapvumvquntiudm I.Atit] vNuervldt oWd N pmfrtm v asuonrnc 2 C.cenwdamrval.Nud f ydgdtonmcuo yyg afpuetlet ueiag s mlue orM% for warmblr mvmdd(,,A,). Tmgmd KmaseB(1984),vpmmtW NAapvnm Cmrinegev: BacYgmtmd➢.nmenrJm➢Ivel Fshvud Panicfm(USNe mtofNm10vnd Hum.SeMcu.Nvliv.ITwvicalagv Pmp Dcm W 3. 1998). Cmnpbe0 oM Ls (19843mpmttnted N RrPan. Caminogw: Bmggmnnd➢onmeNjw➢lettl Filtmm Ponlclu NS OrymmmntafHeNth mtl Hamm Servicv,Nad.d TaNeelagy Program.Oaomber 4. 19987. 3 19998).9B). P2ma1,1983.NpmemmdN AepwraCmrlmMm: gmlgmmdp°.mneN%ar➢3ettl&hmur Panlrlu NS Depvr.evtafHmlth mtl Hmnm SeMcv. Nmb.l Toxicology Pmgmvy Decembm 6 Schurnlv.I9®,m PmlrnudNRrpm.Carinagw: Bartgmtmd➢ontmwfw➢/uel&hmu/Paxhlu NSMpmwentdHedthv°d Humm&Mcm,Nado.ITapcol°p Prvg.RDmmkr1998). 7 Patmgmm, E'no, ,1997(Irv. Madel fiHEL 7127m),v Praunmd in Repan on Cvmhopev: B.ky rmd➢vnmm(ar Olu<IFiAmulPmrldu NS DCPomnemafH.163 and Humm Smricu NvdmdTadwNgy Demmkr 19983 MAMMFAHim[3 a NH3n. Pege I d I TABLE 4 Summary of Toxicity Values Salem Transfer Station Salem, Massachusetts "y 4 ""•r VilAG4heomc's'1'dhaletron }, `�Conshhedt -all `d'^3`R onr4mce'rEn pom't' 'gz.Conceo - hart Siibcbrom alafron 4.° rGancedF siibo� M. `. v s g ...-c�a,-'M.i- w^�grir.v iLrndeuce lff omen Caremox"enIci Ca ce -halo on o y' r" cetaldehyde Degeneration of olfactory epithelium 0.009 pl 0.09 [431 Probable human carcinogen 0.0022 III Acrolein Nasal lesions 0.00002 It] 0.0002 [131 Inadequate information to assess human carcinogenicity - Benzene Decreased lymphocyte count 0.03 V] 0.09 [1,3] Human carcinogen 0,0078 111 1,3 -Butadiene Ovarian atrophy 0.002 111 0.002 (41 Human carcinogen 0.03 11] Diesel Emissions His[o athole ical and functional changes in lung 0.05 (11 Likey to be a human carcinogen - Formaldehyde Reduced weight gain; histopathology in mh (oral) 0.7 151 0.7 [41 Probable human carcinogen 0.013 0] Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (as a group) - 0.05 121 0.5 121 - - Be rro(a)antlnacene See benzo(a)pyrene 0.05 R] 0.5 [21 Probable human carcinogen 0.021 161 Benzo(b)fluomnthene See benzo(a)pymne 0.05 121 0.5 121 Probable human carcinogen 0.021 161 Benzo(k)fluoramhme See benzc(a)pymne 0.05 [2) 0.5 (21 Probable human carcinogen 0.0021 161 enzo(a)pyrene Squamous cell papillomas and carcinomas of forestomach, larynx and esophagus. 0.05 [21 0.5 121 Probable human carcinogen 0.21 [13] Chrysene See beruo(a)pyrene 0.05 121 0.5 121 Probable human carcinogen 0.0021 161 Diberizo(e,h)andaacene See benzo(a)pyrene 0.05 [2) 0.5 121 Pmhable human carcinogen 0.21 161 Indeno(1,2,3-ed)pyrene See benzo(a)pymec 0.05 [2] 0.5 Rl Probable human carcinogen 0.021 161 No value available or not applicable. mg/m° Milligrams per cubic meter 1. US EPA (2008). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2. MassDep (2007) Method 1 Numerical Standards and supporting documentation (November). 3. Removal of uncertainty factor used to extrapolate chronic health effects from subchronic toxicity dare. 4. No subchmnic value available; chronic value applied. 5. Extrapolated fram oral data, assuming 20 cubic meter per day inhalation rate for a 70 kilogram adult. 6. Extrapolated from benzo(a)pymm UR, using toxicity equivalency factors in MassDEP (1995) Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization. BEfA000B T4 T. VWueaabs WV2008 Page I of I FIGURE