CPANA Baseline VOC Study Final

In the Fall of 2010, the Central Park Area Neighbors Association (CPANA) Board of Directorsresponded to citizen concerns about the air quality effects of proposed gas drilling inSouthern Lewisville by approving a study that would undertake some baseline readings of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) over the course of a full year. The study, which wouldhopefully (at the time) be concluded prior to the commencement of gas drilling activitywould give an estimate of the amount of VOCs in the air before gas activity, in order toprovide a basis for comparison after gas activity.

Results Summary

Most of the volatile organic compounds detected in this study were picked up in quantitiesless than 0.1 parts per billion (ppb). The highest maximum concentration of any substancewas only 0.49 ppb. The highest concentration for benzene in any given month was 0.27 ppb,well below the 1.4 ppb long-term effects screening level (LTESL) established by the TexasCommission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The highest monthly VOC load for any givensample was 1.81 ppb for all substances detected, and averaged only 0.82 ppb. Although thelevels detected were very low, the data suggest a difference between the two general areasbeing surveyed, with one area showing about twice the VOC load. In any case, nocompounds came close to any air monitoring comparison values (AMCVs).

Methodology Chosen

Other studies conducted around the Barnett shale typically used summa canisters for this,taking a sample anywhere from 30 minutes to 24 hours. Not only are these testsprohibitively expensive for the type of study CPANA could afford, but they are hardlyrepresentative of the dynamic nature of wind and the effects of weather, season, andtemperature as they vary over time. Some VOCs may occur naturally, and be seasonal basedon flora and fauna, so we thought it best to get samples that would show a picture of what itlooks like over the course of a year.The sampling method CPANA chose was the passive diffusion tube. Stainless steel tubescontaining a specially chosen sorbent material were placed at the sampling locations and leftopen to the air for periods averaging about a month each. As ambient air diffuses up thetubes, the sorbent material locks in the contaminants. The tubes are then sent to thelaboratory for analysis using Thermal Desorption -Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry(TD-GC/MS) In this process, the tubes are heated to force the sorbent to release thecontaminants into a specialized machine that determines the compounds and approximateconcentrations on the tube. Using a formula for the amount of air that diffuses into the tubeover the time period exposed, the approximate average concentration in the air over thesampling period is calculated.

Laboratory

CPANA utilized Ormantine USA, Ltd., an analytical laboratory company to supply the tubesand do the analysis on them after exposure. Ormantine was chosen because of theirproduct and method, and because they have no ties to any of the local gas operators.Ormantine is affiliated with Gradko Environmental, a UKAS accredited laboratory in England.Gradko supplies the pre-conditioned diffusion tubes, and analyzes them after exposure.Gradko's accreditation applies only to the methods they use to determine the mass of theanalytes on the tubes, and not to the parts-per-billion figures calculated based on that mass.

CPANA Baseline VOC Study

CPANA Baseline VOC Study Page 1

Analytes

This study is concerned with VOCs only. Because benzene was a major concern with gas-related activities in other communities, CPANA wanted a quantitative analysis of benzenewith each sample. In order to get a feel for the other possible compounds in the air, weasked Ormantine to provide the top nine other compounds (semi-quantitatively, based ontoluene standards) with each sample.

Wind Direction

Wind direction and speed measurements were not taken due to the length of the study.However, wind speed and directional averages for our area are attached. The wind rosedata is from 1984 -1992, so it is possible that there is an updated version somewhere thatwould account for any climate change since then.Accurate day-by-day wind speed and directional info is available from the TCEQ airmonitoring station in nearby Flower Mound:http://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/tamis/index.cfm?fuseaction=report.view_site&siteAQS=481211007

Quality and Reliability

The GLM-13 testing method for VOCs, carried out by TD-GC/MS for quantitative analysiscarries an overall Measurement Uncertainty (MU) of +/-14.42% at 95% confidence. Semi-quantitative results for the other VOCs were provided using toluene standards, and thushave more uncertainty.CPANA sent a blind trip blank (unexposed sample tube) along with one of the true samples,and did receive three false hits on analyte substances, although all of them were at very lowlevels just barely over the limit of detection. Impact is discussed in the "PossibleShortcomings" section.

Security

Because our sampling was very long-term, we were concerned about the possibility of tampering by the curious or malicious person. For this reason we sought sampling locationson private property in somewhat controlled areas where it would be unlikely for someone tohappen upon them. The test sites were kept confidential throughout the study to reducethe chances that someone would attempt to tamper. We also built ventilated steel boxesthat could be padlocked and security-sealed so that any tampering would be evident. Theboxes were screened to prevent insect entry. At each and every installation or removal of asample tube, a strict protocol was followed requiring at least one CPANA board member, anda witness. During the study, no signs of tampering were observed. The boxes were checkedfor signs of insects at each opening.A strict chain of custody was observed, beginning with the shipment of sample tubes toCPANA, which would stay sealed in the shipping container until ready for installation. Serialnumbers were observed and recorded upon opening, installation, and retrieval. Completedsamples were processed under witness, and mailed from the U.S. Post Office in Lewisvilleeach time with at least one board member and one witness, who was most often anotherboard member.

Possible Shortcomings

CPANA's board members are not environmental engineers. As such, we may have missedsomething in our methodology. No study is perfect, but it's important to lay out any possible

CPANA Baseline VOC Study Page 2

There was a general lack of experience and credentials of the volunteers conductingthe study.•Possible over-exposure of the tubes on several occasions when we could not round upvolunteers to retrieve tubes.•Security enclosures could have affected airflow to the sample tubes in ways that we donot understand. We felt that with the very tiny amount of air diffusion expected in thetubes, and the very long periods of exposure, any effects of slow air exchange in theenclosure would average out.•Our security would not have been able to defeat all possible avenues of tampering -either in temporarily blocking vents to cause under-reporting or in maliciouslyreleasing contaminants in proximity to the sample tubes to cause over-reporting. Thiswould be true of any air sampling method that did not involve having a watchman onthe sample 24/7.•A blind trip blank's analysis at the end of the study came back showing three low-levelhits on analyte substances. The hits were just barely above thelimit of detection, butdo serve as a reminder that there is a level of measurement uncertainty, especially atthe very low levels.•In only one sample, a housefly was observed as the box was opened, but we couldn'tbe sure of whether it was in the box. The screening material around the vents wasintact.•shortcomings openly and honestly for objective evaluation. Here are the possibleshortcomings that could skew the results of this study in one direction or another:

Comparison Values

CPANA used TCEQ AMCVs where available, and long-term ESLs where AMCVs were nototherwise available. These AMCVs would indicate a level which if reached would causeconcern based on health. As mentioned before, no compounds were detected aboveAMCVs. Some compounds had no AMCVs or LTESLs, and are shown with N/A in the AMCVcolumn. This may be because the compound is considered harmless, or it may be that thereis no data on the compound. In some cases, TCEQ LTESLs were expressed in micrograms percubic meter (



g/m

3

). In these cases, for consistency, a formula was used to convert this intoppb.

Questions and Concerns

Anyone with questions or concerns about this study can contact CPANA Board MemberSteve Southwell: 469-322-4265 or ses@whosplayin.comAir Sample History -Dates and Times SampledA.Sampling LocationsB.Compounds DetectedC.VOC Chart -Benzene, Toluene, Total VOC LoadD.Sample LogsE.ORM VOC Tech sheetF.Laboratory ResultsG.Wind Roses -Average by MonthH.

Documents Attached

CPANA Baseline VOC Study Page 3