 

2006 Annual PM2.5 Network Review for Michigan

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Air Quality Division

July 25, 2006

Table of Contents

Item			Page

1.0	Purpose	1

	A.	Annual Review Requirements	1

Proposed Changes to the Monitoring Regulations and PM2.5

NAAQS that Impact on PM2.5 FRM, Continuous and Speciation 

	Network Design	2

	A.	Impact from Possible Changes to the Monitoring Regulations	2

	B.	Impact from the Proposed PM NAAQS	8

	

3.0	Monitoring Objectives	10

4.0	Network Design & Deployment Status	11

	A.	PM2.5  FRM Network Design	11

	B.	Continuous Network Design  and Deployment Status	13

	C.	Speciation Network Design	16

		

5.0	PM2.5 FRM Network Proposed Changes	18

	A.	Co-Location Changes	18

	B.	Sampling Frequency Changes	18

	C.	Monitor Site Changes	21

6.0	PM2.5 Continuous Network Proposed Changes	21

	A	Monitor Site Changes	21

	B	TEOM Operational Changes	22

7.0	PM2.5 Speciation Network Proposed Changes	24

	A.	Sampling Frequency Changes	24

	B.    Monitor Site Changes	24

8.0	Fine Particulate Data Summary	23

	A.	Data Completeness	23

	B.	Annual Averages	23

	C.	24-Hour Values	24

9.0	Quality Assurance/Quality Control	37

	A.	Co-located Sites	37

	B.	Precision	39

	C.	Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) Audit Results	42

10.0	Summary/Conclusions	42

List of Figures

Figure #				Title						    Page

Figure 1:	Impact of Proposed PM2.5 Network Design Elements	5

Figure 2: 	Comparison of Network Designs using Combined

	vs. Individual Metropolitan Areas	7

Figure 3: 	Impact of Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS on Future Attainment	9

Figure 4: 	Range of Possible Impact of Proposed Visibility NAAQS	10

Figure 5:	2006 PM2.5  FRM Monitoring Network 	12

Figure 6:	2006 Continuous PM2.5 Monitoring Network	16

Figure 7:	2006 PM2.5 Speciation Network	17

Figure 8: 	Comparison of the Effect of Changing Sampling

Frequency on Attainment Status	20

Figure 9: 	Comparison of the Impact of a Once Every Three Day

	vs. Once Every Six Day Sampling Schedule on Attainment	20

Figure 10: 	Evaluation of MDEQ’s Continuous Data to Determine

Eligibility as an Approved Regional Method	23

Figure 11: 	Impact of Seasonality on Eligibility as an Approved

Regional Method	24

List of Tables

Table #			Title							    Page

Table 1:	PM2.5  Network Design Criteria Published in the Proposed 

	Revisions to the Air Monitoring Requirements	3

Table 2: 	Impact of the Application of PM2.5  Design Elements Shown in 

	Table 1 (D-4) on Michigan’s PM2.5 FRM Network	4

Table 3:	Impact of the Application of PM2.5 Design Elements 

	shown in Table 1 (D-4) on Michigan’s PM2.5 FRM Network

	if Metropolitan Areas are not Combined	6

Table 4: 	Michigan PM2.5 Network Summary 2006 	13

Table 5: 	Start up Dates for PM2.5 TEOMs & FDMS Upgrades	15

Table 6:	Start up Dates for PM2.5 5 Speciation Monitors	17

Table 7: 	Changes in FRM Sampling Frequency of Primary Monitor	19

Table 8: 	Removal Dates for FDMS Inlets	22

Table 9:	Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine

	Particulate Material in Michigan	27

Table 10:	98th Percentile PM2.5 Values Averaged Over 3 Years	35

Table 11:	Locations of Co-Located PM2.5 Monitors	37

Table 12:    Percent Difference for Co-located Measurements 

	Greater than 6.0 ug/m3 and 3.0 ug/m3	40

Table 13:	PEP Audit Results 1999 – December 2005	43

1.0	Purpose

Annual Review Requirements:

According to 40 CFR part 58.26, an annual State fine particulate (PM2.5)
air monitoring report must be submitted to the regional administrator by
July 1, 2006, which describes the “proposed changes to the PM
Monitoring Network Description" and must be in accordance with the
annual network review requirements in § 58.25.  Recent additions to
federal grant performance guidelines, according to 40 CFR Part 31.40,
stipulate that recipients are required to submit performance reports
summarizing accomplishments, reasons for “slippage” if expected
outcomes are not met, and any cost over runs, if appropriate.  This
report is intended to fulfill these requirements.

An additional goal of the network review is to summarize the design of
the particulate network currently in operation, identify deficiencies
and redundancies and to propose modifications.  More details about
requirements of the contents of the annual report are found in previous
reports, but are omitted here for brevity.  Also, in-depth discussions
about the network design are contained in the PM Monitoring Network
Description and the annual reviews from previous years.  These documents
provide the necessary background for the particulate monitoring
networks.

On January 17, 2006, the EPA proposed changes to the Ambient Air
Monitoring Network design and the particulate matter National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).,  The proposed changes to the monitoring
network include more use of continuous technologies if the continuous
monitors can reach an Approved Regional Method (ARM) status or become
designated as a Federally Equivalent Method (FEM).  Another proposed
change is the reduction of the number of sites using Federal Reference
Method (FRM) and/or speciation samplers.  The design of the resulting
PM2.5 network may be quite sparse when compared to the current network,
especially in heavily populated areas that have been designated as
nonattainment.  

The proposed changes to the NAAQS state that the 98th percentile of
24-hour readings cannot exceed 35 ug/m3 when averaged over three years. 
The annual form of the standard remains the same at 15.0 ug/m3.  The EPA
is also taking comments about a short-term visibility standard.  One
possible scenario for this visibility component is to use a 4-hour
average calculated from noon to 4:00 p.m.  The form of the standard
could be any where from the 92nd to 98th percentile.  The level of the
visibility component of the PM standard may be from 20 ug/m3 to 30
ug/m3. 

The 2006 PM2.5 Annual Report uses historical data to evaluate the impact
of these scenarios on the status of attaining the NAAQS.  Samplers in
jeopardy of not meeting the proposed NAAQS need to be retained. 

2.0	Proposed Changes to the Monitoring Regulations and PM2.5

NAAQS that Impact on PM2.5 FRM, Continuous and Speciation 

	Network Design

Impact from Possible Changes to the Monitoring Regulations

The following discussion summarizes the PM network design elements in
the January 17, 2006 proposal.  Siting criteria still focus on
population-oriented sites that are neighborhood-scale and larger.  Data
generated from population-oriented middle-scale sites can still be
compared to both the 24-hour and annual forms of the NAAQS, if the site
can represent other middle-scale sites.  However, if the middle-scale
site is unique, the data it generates can only be compared to the
24-hour form of the NAAQS.  Background and transport sites are still
required in the network design.  IMPROVE stations can be substituted for
background locations. 

The proposed regulations also change the number of monitors that are
required by population levels and spatial coverage of a population unit.
 These are summarized in Table 1 as originally published in Table D-4 of
the Revisions to the Ambient Monitoring Regulations.  Even though the
NAAQS may be more stringent and more areas may face nonattainment, if
metropolitan statistical areas are combined into combined statistical
areas, fewer monitoring sites are required by the design in Table 1. 
The reduction in monitoring sites is especially evident in areas with
particulate levels above the NAAQS. 

Table 1: PM2.5 Network Design Criteria Published in the Proposed
Revisions to the Air Monitoring Requirements

Table D-4 of Appendix D to Part 58 – PM2.5 Minimum Monitoring
Requirements

MSA or CSA Population 3,5	Most Recent 3 Yr Design Value >= 115% any
PM2.5 NAAQS1	Most Recent 3 Yr Design Value +/- 15% any PM2.5 NAAQS1	Most
Recent 3 Yr Design Value <= 85% any PM2.5 NAAQS 1,2

> 1,000,000	2	3	2

500,000 - 1,000,000	1	2	1

250,000 - 500,000	1	1	0

100,000 - 250,000	1	1	0

50,000 - , 100,000 4	1	1	0



1 The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) levels and
forms are defined in 40 CFR part 50.

2These minimum monitoring requirements apply in absence of a design
value.

3 Minimum monitoring requirements apply to the Combined Statistical Area
(CSA) as a whole, where applicable.

4 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) must contain an urbanized area of
50,000 or more population.

5 Population based on latest available census figures. 

The EPA has said that the goal is to reduce the number of FRM monitors
by 40 percent.  If the network design elements in Table 1 are applied,
the network described in Table 2 results.  These changes illustrated in
Figure 1.  The density of monitoring sites in the Detroit area may be
reduced from 13 to 2 and is clearly inadequate to support various
multifaceted data needs.

Table 2: Impact of the Application of PM2.5 Design Elements shown in
Table 1 

(D-4) on Michigan’s PM2.5 FRM Network

MSA or CSA	

2000 Population	

Urban Area > 50,000?	Most Recent 3-Year Design Value: 2003-2005 	Most
Recent 3-Year Design Value: 2004-2006 (1st Q)	

FRM Sites Required



Detroit - Warren - Flint CSA	

5,357,538

	

  yes	

18.2 / 44.1	

18.1 / 44.3	

2



Grand Rapids -  Muskegon - Holland CSA	

1,254,661

	

yes	

13.1 / 37.2	

13.0 / 39.0	

3



Lansing – East Lansing – Owosso CSA	

519,415

	

yes	

12.5 / 32.2	

12.4 / 33.2	

2



Saginaw - Bay City - Saginaw Twp. North CSA	

320,196

	

yes	

11.1 / 31.7	

11.3 / 33.8	

1



Kalamazoo -  Portage Metropolitan Area	

314,866	

yes	

13.0 / 32.5	

12.9/ 29.4	

1



Niles-Benton Harbor Metropolitan Area	

162,453

	

yes	

11.9 / 32.3	

11.6 / 29.5	

1



Jackson Metropolitan Area	

158,422

	

yes	

no data	

no data	

0 *



Battle Creek Metropolitan Area

	

137,985

	

yes	

no data	

no data	

0 *



Values > 115 any NAAQS = Bold, italicized

Values +/- 15% any NAAQS = italicized

* S to N geographical distribution of PM2.5 indicates that Southern
lower MI can’t meet the 24-Hr NAAQS

       Transportation Site:	 1

Background Site: 	 1

Total MI FRM Sites:    12



Table 3: Impact of the Application of PM2.5 Design Elements shown in
Table 1 

(D-4) on Michigan’s PM2.5 FRM Network if Metropolitan Areas are not
Combined

MSA 	

2000 Population	

Urban Area > 50,000?	Most Recent 3-Year Design Value: 2003-2005 	Most
Recent 3-Year Design Value: 2004-2006 (1st Q)	

No FRM Sites Required

Ann Arbor Metropolitan Area	

322,895	yes	

14.4 / 40.8	

14.4 / 41.0	

1

Detroit-Warren-Livonia Metropolitan Area	

4,452,557

	yes	

18.2 / 44.1	

18.1/ 44.3	

2

Flint Metropolitan Area	

436,141	yes	

11.8 / 32.0	

11.8 / 31.3	

1

Monroe Metropolitan Area	

149,253	yes	

14.2 / 39.7	

14.4 / 40.3	

1

Allegan Metropolitan Area	

105,665	yes	

12.0 / 34.0	

11.8 / 33. 8	

1

Grand Rapids-Wyoming Metropolitan Area	

740,482

	yes	

13.1 / 37.2	

13.0 / 39.0	

2

Holland-Grand Haven Metropolitan Area	

245,913

	yes	

12.7 / 34.7	

12.5 / 33.9	

1

Muskegon-Norton Shores Metropolitan Area	

170,200

	yes	

11.7 / 36.7	

11.2 / 34.9	

1

Lansing-East Lansing Metropolitan Area*	

447,728

	yes	

12.5 / 32.2	

12.4 / 33.2	

1

Bay City Metropolitan Area	110,157

	yes	11.1 / 31.7	11.3 / 33.8	

1

Saginaw-Saginaw Twp. North Metropolitan Area

	

210,039

	yes	

10.3 / 30.7	

 No data	

1

Kalamazoo -  Portage Metropolitan Area	

314,866	yes	

13.0 / 32.5	

12.9/ 29.4	

1

Niles-Benton Harbor Metropolitan Area	162,453	yes	11.9 / 32.3	11.6 /
29.5	1

Jackson Metropolitan Area	158,422

	yes	no data	no data	0 *

Battle Creek Metropolitan Area

	

137,985

	

yes	

no data	

no data	

0 *

* Owosso is a metropolitan area and part of the Lansing- East
Transportation Site:	 1

Lansing CSA.  Since this table shows MSA’s only, Owosso		Background
Site: 	 1

has been omitted.

Total MI FRM Sites:         17

If a network design based on individual MSAs is used instead of the CSA
approach, coverage is increased in other areas of the state.  The
Detroit nonattainment area still has insufficient numbers of monitors to
collect the data necessary to develop attainment strategies and
implementation plans, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 2.  Data from all
monitors in Southeast Michigan has been used to understand the nature of
PM2.5 and its spatial variability.  Developing a workable SIP is
especially difficult because of inexperience working with PM2.5, lack of
adequate models, chemical variability of PM2.5 and a possibly more
stringent NAAQS.  Ambient data is a critical tool for development of the
SIP. 

The proposed monitoring regulations state that the co-location
requirement for the FRM samplers will remain at 15 percent.  The
sampling frequency for co-location may be changed from once every six to
once every 12 days, but contradictory statements are made in the January
17, 2006 CFR.  The proposed monitoring regulations also state that half
of all PM2.5 sites will be required to contain a continuous sampler,
even if the continuous sampler cannot achieve status as an FEM or as an
ARM.  Thirty percent of the ARMs must be co-located with a FRM sampler
that operates on a minimum sampling frequency of once every six days.

Sites that are more “influential” in determining the attainment
status of the 24-hour NAAQS may need continuous and/or speciation
samplers moved to these locations. 

PM10-2.5 will not be addressed in this annual report.  After the
PM10-2.5 network design is finalized and network deployment begins,
PM10-2.5 will be added to in the annual PM report.  At this point,
funding is too uncertain to begin to undertake the design of the
network.

We need to remain cognizant of the proposed changes to the monitoring
regulations when performing the annual network review to insure that the
resulting network continues to meet all regulations.

Impact from the Proposed PM NAAQS

The impact of the new PM2.5 NAAQS must be considered before any changes
are made in the design of network or, ideally, before any reduction in
federal funding occurs.  The proposed NAAQS includes modifications to
the level of the annual standard, possible adjustments to the form of
the 24-hour standard and a wide range of changes to the level of the
24-hour standard.  A secondary standard, based on a short-term average
ranging from 4 to 8 hours, as well as PM10-2.5 (coarse) standard are
also proposed. 

Historical data from all of the monitors in Michigan was compared to the
levels of the NAAQS proposed in January.  Figure 3 shows the possible
future attainment status in Michigan using the proposed annual and
24-Hour forms of the NAAQS.  The Grand Rapids area and Detroit
metropolitan area will have difficulty meeting the new 24-hour form of
the standard. 

From the preceding analysis, it is evident that certain FRM monitors
will need to be retained to meet the proposed monitoring regulations:
Lansing (260650012), Bay City (260170014), Coloma (260210014) and
Kalamazoo (260770008).  In addition, Houghton Lake (261130001) needs to
remain functional as a background site.  This will be especially
critical if the Seney IMPROVE site is lost.  Since Dearborn (261630033)
is the controlling site in the Detroit nonattainment area, it will need
to be retained.  The Allen Park Site (261630001) is the trend site for
Michigan and therefore will need to be retained.   

The extent of possible nonattainment areas will be heavily impacted by
network design as well as the level and form of the NAAQS.  At this
time, it is premature to remove any PM2.5 FRM samplers.  The individual
monitors in Kent, Ottawa, Allegan, Muskegon, Saint Clair, Genesee,
Oakland, Macomb, Monroe and Washtenaw will need to be retained to
eventually prove attainment of those counties (providing that an
attaining county may be split out of a CSA) to accurately assess the
extent of the possible nonattainment area in Grand Rapids and  to
accurately determine the extent of nonattainment in the Detroit area. 
As discussed above, the high density of monitors in Wayne County, as
well as other Detroit area locations, are critical in the development of
an attainment strategy.

Another component of the PM2.5 NAAQS is the introduction of a possible
short-term visibility standard.  If enacted, depending upon the level
and form of the standard, many locations in Michigan could face
nonattainment as shown in Figure 4.  Therefore, given the risk of
possible nonattainment across Michigan, it is premature to discontinue
any continuous monitoring stations until the status of the visibility
component of the PM NAAQS becomes clear. 

Since the status of the monitoring regulations and NAAQS legislation is
pending, the MDEQ is unable to suggest definite changes to the network
at this time.  This year’s annual report will focus on the merits of
each monitor, and outline plans for their continuation.  As usual, the
MDEQ will summarize data collected during the previous year and identify
modifications to the network.  A discussion of the PM10 network or
proposed PM10-2.5 network are beyond the scope of this report, but will
be considered in the annual network review, scheduled for summer/fall
2006.

3.0	Monitoring Objectives

The objectives of the PM2.5 monitoring program in Michigan are to:

	(	Elucidate levels of fine particulate material at population-oriented
sites in major population centers in Michigan;

	(	Provide real time reports on concentrations of fine particulates in
major metropolitan areas; 

	(	Generate data to determine long-term trends;

	(	Measure PM2.5 levels being transported into Michigan;

	(	Determine transnational transport;

	(	Assess background levels of fine particulate material;

	(	Collect data to assess compliance with 24-hour and annual National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS);

	(	Investigate spatial and temporal variations; assess homogeneity;

	(	Determine source culpability in areas expected to have the highest
levels of fine particulates; and

	(	Determine the chemical composition of fine particulate material.

4.0	Network Design & Deployment Status

Michigan’s particulate network is multi-faceted to help provide a more
complete picture of the nature of particulate material within the state.
 PM2.5 concentrations are measured over a 24-hour time period using the
federal reference method (FRM).  Short-term PM2.5 or PM10 are determined
on an hourly basis at sites in the continuous network.  Chemical
composition of fine particles is determined by the speciation network
and by chemical analysis of a limited number of filters from the FRM
network.  

In addition to these networks, specialized measurements of fine
particulate are made in Michigan.  Continuous measurements of carbon
black have been added to Michigan’s network at four locations by using
aethalometers manufactured by MacGee Scientific.  A continuous elemental
carbon/organic carbon (EC/OC) monitor from Sunset Labs was recently
added to the Detroit/Newberry School (261630038) site, as was speciated
organic carbon measurements. 

PM2.5 FRM Network Design:

Rupprecht and Pattashnick (R&P) sequential PM2.5 samplers have been
deployed at the 25 sites that make up Michigan’s PM2.5 FRM network,
shown in Figure 5.  Additional information about network operations and
monitoring objectives are provided in Table 4.  Changes to the network
are discussed in part 5.0.



Table 4:  Michigan PM2.5 Network Summary 2006

County	City	Address	AIRS ID	Type	NAMS Candi-date?	Objective	Scale	Std
Freq	FRM Colocated?	Speciation	PM2.5 TEOM	FRM Start Date

Detroit PMSA  (6 CORE sites required)

	Oak Park	13701 Oak Park Blvd	26 125 0001	CORE	NAMS	Population	Urban
Both	1/3



12/25/98

	Allen Park	14700 Goddard	26 163 0001	CORE	NAMS	Population	Neighbor-hood
Both	1/1	Yes	Trend/ IMPROVE	Yes	05/12/99

	SW High Sch.	6401 W Fort Street	26 163 0015	SLAMS

Pop./Max	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3



02/26/99

	Linwood	6050 Linwood	26 163 0016	CORE

Population	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/1



05/12/99

	Dearborn	2842 Wyoming, Salina School	26 163 0033	CORE

Pop./Max	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3

Yes	Yes	02/05/99

	Wyandotte	3625 Biddle	26 163 0036	CORE

Population	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3



02/20/99

	E 7 Mile	11600 E 7 Mile	26 163 0019	SLAMS

Population	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3



04/30/00

	Livonia	38707 W 7 Mile	26 163 0025	CORE	NAMS	Population	Neighbor-hood
Both	1/3



08/21/99

	Delray	Newberry School	26 163 0038	SPM

Mobile Source	Urban

1/3

Org C spec & metals	Yes, no FDMS	12/26/04

	Ambassador Bridge	2000 W Lafayette	26 163 0039	SPM

Mobile Source	Urban

1/3

	2 units, 1 with & 1 without FDMS	08/26/05

Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland MSA  (2 CORE sites required)

	Holland	970 W 32nd St	26 005 0003	SLAMS

Population	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/1

Yes	Yes	10/31/98

	Grand Rapids	1179 Monroe St	26 081 0020	CORE	NAMS	Population
Neighbor-hood	Both	1/1	Yes	Yes	Yes	10/23/98

	Muskegon	199 E Apple	26 121 0040	CORE

Population	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3	99 & 00

	12/18/98

Ann Arbor MSA  (1 CORE site required)

	Ypsilanti	555 Towner Ave	26 161 0008	SLAMS

Population	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3	Yes	Yes	Yes	08/04/99

Lansing-East Lansing MSU  (1 CORE site required)

	Lansing	220 N Pennsylvania	26 065 0012	CORE	NAMS	Population
Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3	99-03

Yes	11/07/98

Flint MSA  (1 CORE site required)

	Flint	3610 Iowa Whaley Park	26 049 0021	CORE	NAMS	Population
Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3

	Yes	12/16/98

Kalamazoo-Battle Creek MSU  (1 CORE site required)

	Kalamazoo	1400 Olmstead Rd	26 077 0008	CORE	NAMS	Population
Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3	Yes	Yes	Yes	11/19/98



Table 4:  Michigan PM2.5 Network Summary 2006, continued

County	City	Address	AIRS ID	Type	NAMS Candi-date?	Objective	Scale	Std
Freq	FRM Colocated?	Speciation	PM2.5 TEOM	FRM Start Date

Saginaw-Bay City-Midland MSA  (1 CORE site required)

	Bay City	1001 Jennison Rd	26 017 0014	SLAMS

Population	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3



08/24/00

Other Sites

	Coloma	4689 Defield Rd	26 021 0014	SLAMS

Transport	Regional	Both	1/3



11/07/98

	New Haven	57700 Gratiot	26 099 0009	SLAMS

Pop./Max	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3



12/22/98

	Manistee	3031 Domres Rd	26 101 0922	Tribal

Transport	Regional	Both	1/3



04/02/06

	Luna Pier	Erie Shooting Club	26 115 0005	SLAMS

Transport	Regional	Both	1/3

Yes

12/17/99

	Jenison	6981 28th Ave	26 139 0005	SLAMS

Population	Neighbor-hood	Both	1/3



11/07/98

	Port Huron	2525 Dove Rd	26 147 0005	SLAMS

Population	Regional	Both	1/3	99-03

	02/11/99

	Houghton Lake	1769 S Jeffs Rd	26 113 0001	SPM

Back-ground	Regional	Both	1/3

Yes	Yes	02/08/03

	Seney Wildlife Refuge	Seney National Wildlife Refuge	26 153 0001	SPM

Visibility	Regional



IMPROVE	Yes

	Continuous Network Design and Deployment Status:

In 2006, the MDEQ continues to operate a continuous fine particulate
network of thirteen sites, shown in Figure 6.  Other than the LADCO site
at Seney, and the two new special purpose sites in Detroit, all the
PM2.5 continuous monitors in Michigan are R&P Tapered Element
Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) instruments equipped with a filter
dynamic measuring system (FDMS) to make the data as FRM-like as
possible.

The new station at the Michigan Family Independence Agency (FIA) at 2000
West. Lafayette Street became operational in August 2005.  An older
model TEOM was added to the site to allow comparisons with Newberry
School (261630038).  A second TEOM that is equipped with a FDMS was also
added to FIA to permit comparisons with the rest of the continuous
network. 

However, due to persistent monitor malfunctions during periods with
elevated dew points, the MDEQ will be operating TEOMs without the FDMS
inlets during the ozone seasons (April 1 – September 30) at all sites
except FIA where a FDMS-equipped TEOM is operating for comparison
purposes. 

Table 5 summarizes the start-up dates for the TEOMs and the dates that
the FDMSs were added to the monitors.  LADCO has opted not to add an
FDMS to their TEOM at Seney. 

Table 5: Start up Dates for PM2.5 TEOMs & FDMS Upgrades

Site	AIRS ID	TEOM Start Date	FDMS Start Date

Holland	260050003	4/8/04	4/8/04

Flint	260490021	5/23/02	10/29/03

Lansing	260650012	12/1/99	11/2/03

Kalamazoo	260770008	8/17/00	10/14/03

Grand Rapids	260810020	11/4/99	10/22/03

Saginaw	261450018	2/1/99	10/15/03

Port Huron	261470005	9/18/03	9/18/03

Seney	261530001	1/1/02	No FDMS

Ypsilanti	261610008	2/24/00	10/20/03

Allen Park	261630001	12/1/00	11/7/03

Dearborn	261630033	9/26/03	9/26/03

Houghton Lake	261130001	10/9/03	10/9/03

Newberry School	261630038	1/1/05	No FDMS

FIA/Lafayette	261630039	8/20/05	No FDMS &  FDMS





Speciation Network Design:

The primary monitoring objectives of Michigan’s speciation network are
to provide data that will be used to support the development of
attainment strategies and to determine robust air quality exposure data
in population-oriented areas.  Single event Met-One spiral ambient
speciation samplers (SASS) are used throughout Michigan’s network. 
Most of the sites shown in Figure 7 are population-oriented stations. 
Table 6 shows the start-up dates for the speciation network in Michigan.


A subset of these speciation stations are located in areas recently
designated by the EPA as nonattainment for fine particulate.  The
speciation data collected by the monitors at Allen Park (261630001),
Dearborn (261630033) and Luna Pier (261150005) sites in the Detroit MSA
may be used in the development of attainment strategies for these areas.
 The data from Luna Pier is being used to characterize PM2.5 arising
from transport.  Data from the nearby Ypsilanti (261610008) monitor may
also help in SIP development by supplying urban upwind data. 

Table 6: Start up dates for PM2.5 Speciation Monitors

Site	AIRS ID	Start Date

Holland	260050003	2/8/03

Kalamazoo	260770008	2/8/03

Grand Rapids	260810020	6/1/02

Houghton Lake	261130001	1/11/02

Luna Pier	261150005	5/2/02

Ypsilanti	261610008	6/26/03

Allen Park	261630001	12/1/00

Dearborn	261630033	5/2/02

Sault Ste. Marie

(tribal)	260330901	8/15/01



The Ypsilanti speciation site (261610008) also provides air quality data
for Washtenaw County Health Department and other researchers in their
investigation of elevated asthma levels in that area. 

Although Grand Rapids is currently attaining the NAAQS, it isn’t
likely to meet a more stringent form of the standard.  The speciated
PM2.5 data collected at this site (260810020) will be valuable for
future SIP planning purposes and in comparing the differences in
chemical composition across large metropolitan areas.  Grand Rapids is
the second largest population center in Michigan, with the MSA exceeding
1 million people.  In various documents discussing the NCORE plans,
Michigan would be allocated two NCORE level 2 sites.  Grand Rapids will
likely be the second NCORE site. 

The Holland (260050003) speciation site characterized the composition of
material that is transported from Chicago, providing valuable
comparisons between the west and east side of the state.  Speciation
monitoring was discontinued April 2006 due to insufficient funds.

The Kalamazoo (260770008) site has the highest PM levels outside of the
Detroit area.  This area will likely be designated as nonattainment
under more stringent form of the NAAQS.  Speciation data will be
invaluable in developing an attainment strategy for this location.  

Due to the population-oriented nature of the site, Allen Park
(261630001) is the trend site for the Detroit MSA.  It has been
operational since January 1, 2001, and samples on a once every three day
schedule with a single event Met-One SASS.  This site will provide
valuable data for attainment strategies, trend data and data to identify
spatial patterns.

A speciation monitor is operational at Houghton Lake (261130001) to
provide background information for regional modeling.  To address
transport from the west and from the south, and to assess more rural
concentrations of speciated PM2.5, an additional site is located at Luna
Pier (261150005). 

An IMPROVE site at Seney Wildlife Refuge (261530001) is collecting
information to support visibility modeling efforts.  It is in jeopardy
of being discontinued due to cuts in the IMPROVE budget.

5.0	PM2.5 FRM Network Proposed Changes

Co-location Changes:

None are proposed. 

Sampling Frequency Changes:

In April 2006, sampling frequency changes were implemented at selected
sites in response to a federal budget cut as shown in Table 7.  The
possible impact of these changes on future attainment status is assessed
by altering the sampling frequency of historical data and analyzing the
impact.

Table 7: Changes in FRM Sampling Frequency of Primary Monitors

Site	

AIRS ID	2005 Sampling Frequency	Sampling Frequency After April 2006

Holland	260050003	Daily	Once every 6 days

Bay City	260170014	Once every 3 days	Once every 6 days

Coloma	260210014	Once every 3 days	Once every 6 days

Flint	260490021	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Lansing	260650012	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Kalamazoo	260770008	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Grand Rapids	260810020	Daily	Once every 3 days

New Haven	260990009	Once every 3 days	Once every 6 days

Houghton Lake	261130001	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Luna Pier	261150005	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Muskegon	261210040	Once every 3 days	Once every 6 days

Oak Park	261250001	Once every 3 days	Once every 6 days

Jenison	261390005	Once every 3 days	Once every 6 days

Port Huron	261470005	Once every 3 days	Once every 6 days

Ypsilanti	261610008	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Allen Park	261630001	Daily	Daily

SWHS	261630015	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Linwood	261630016	Daily	Once every 6 days

E 7 Mile	261630019	Once every 3 days	Once every 6 days

Dearborn	261630033	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Wyandotte	261630036	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Newberry School	261630039	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days

Lafayette	261630039	Once every 3 days	Once every 3 days



An analysis of the impact of sampling frequency changes on attainment
status was performed using historical data and modifying the sampling
frequency to reflect the changes shown in Table 7.  The results are
shown in Figures 8 to 9.  In this example, reducing the sampling
frequency  results in reduction of both the annual average and 98th
percentile values.  Even though the number of samples collected at the
effected sites is markedly reduced, requiring the use of the maximum
24-hour value as the 98th percentile value, the dates with higher PM2.5
levels were missed by using the once every six day sampling schedule. 
The effect becomes even more dramatic if the once every three day
schedule used at all sites is compared with the once every six day
schedule used at all sites except Allen Park.  A reduction in sampling
frequency tends to under estimate the risk to Michigan’s population. 
For this reason, the MDEQ requests funding to restore the sampling
frequency to a minimum of once every three days for all primary
monitors. 

This analysis also shows that the sampling frequency of the PM2.5 FRM
sampler in Kent County is a critical factor in determining attainment
status.  This site shows much “flip flopping” in and out of
attainment as a function of changes in the sampling.  It is essential
that the Grand Rapids site be restored to daily sampling to prevent the
occurrence of this attainment pattern.

Figure 8: Comparison of the Effect of Changing Sampling Frequency on
Attainment Status

   Using 2005 Sampling Frequency 		Using April 2006 Sampling frequency

Figure 9: Comparison of the Impact of a Once Every Three Day vs. Once
Every Six Day Sampling Schedule on Attainment

      Once Every Three Days				Once Every Six Days

Monitor Site Changes: 

The Saginaw site was closed in December 30, 2005 due to loss of site
access.  Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) has been expanding
regularly since the station was established and student housing had
encroached upon the station.  The TEOM at Saginaw was shut down on
December 1, 2005.  Prior to shut-down of the Saginaw site, another TEOM
began operation at Bay City on November 19, 2005 to ensure that a
continuous stream of overlapping data was collected.

The Ann Arbor (261610005) PM2.5 FRM sampler was located on a roof top on
Hayward Drive on University of Michigan (U of M) campus.  Trees began
encroaching upon the rooftop, so the site was closed.  Access was also
problematic.  However, another FRM sampler is still operational in
Washtenaw County at the Ypsilanti (261610008) site. 

A new tribal site was established in Manistee (261010922) by the Little
River Band of Ottawa Indians.  It began operation on April 2, 2006.

A special purpose monitoring project was conducted in Michigan’s Upper
Peninsula to investigate the impacts from smoke from Outdoor Wood
Boilers (OWB) on fine particulate levels.  Monitoring began in October
2005 and continued through April 2006.  A background site was
established in Crystal Falls (260710001) in Iron County.  A site
impacted by OWBs was established in Channing (260430002) in Dickinson
County.

PM2.5 Continuous Network Proposed Changes

Monitor Site Changes: 

Since the last PM2.5 Annual Air Quality Report was written, two TEOMs --
one equipped with an FDMS and the other an inlet adapter -- became
operational at FIA/Lafayette (261630039) on August 20, 2005. 

The continuous site at Saginaw (261450018) was discontinued on December
1, 2005 due to site access problems.  To maintain coverage necessary for
AIRNOW and PM2.5 forecasting, a TEOM was added to the Bay City
(260170014) on November 19, 2005 to replace the Saginaw site. 

As a result of budget cuts, the TEOM/FDMS B unit at Holland was shut
down on April 1, 2006. 

It appears that the Seney TEOM will be closed at the end of the ozone
season due to loss of funding by the Midwest RPO.

TEOM Operational Changes: 

In an attempt to make the continuous data more FRM-like and avoid
humidity problems associated with the FDMS inlets, all FDMs inlets were
removed from the TEOMs before April 1, 2006.  They will be replaced
after September 30, 2006.  The exact dates the FDMS inlets were removed
in shown in Table 8.  Since FIA has TEOMs equipped both ways, no changes
were made to configurations at that site.

Table 8: Removal Dates for FDMS Inlets

Site	AIRS ID	FDMS Removal Date & Time

Holland	260050003	Shut down 4/5/06

Flint	260490021	3/29/06 11:10 am

Lansing	260650012	3/30/06 at 9:16 am

Kalamazoo	260770008	3/20/06 at 9:52 am

Grand Rapids	260810020	3/22/06 at 11:51 am

Saginaw	261450018	Moved to Bay City

Port Huron	261470005	3/21/06 at 9:47 am

Seney	261530001	No FDMS

Ypsilanti	261610008	3/24/06 at 9:20 am

Allen Park	261630001	3/27/06 at 11:50 am

Dearborn	261630033	3/27/06 at 10:05 am

Bay City	260170014	3/29/06 at 9:10 am

Newberry School	261630038	No FDMS

FIA	261630039	no changes



The proposed changes to the monitoring regulations suggest that if
continuous data is deemed “FRM-like” it may be used to determine
attainment status and, as a result, some of the manual FRM samplers may
be shut down.  Region 5 EPA, in conjunction with state and local
agencies in the region as well as LADCO, has analyzed continuous data
generated in the region to determine if it qualifies as an Approved
Regional Method (ARM).  According to specifications outlined in the CFR,
data points falling within the trapezoid are deemed FRM-like.  Figure 10
shows how Michigan’s data fares.  Like other states in Region 5, most
of Michigan’s data can’t meet the FRM-like status. 

 

Figure 10: Evaluation of MDEQ’s Continuous Data to Determine
Eligibility

as an Approved Regional Method.

Only one TEOM meets the performance characteristics to satisfy the ARM
require-ments.  The Lansing TEOM is an old style monitor with the older
flow controllers.  Michigan has two of the newer model B FDMS inlet
adapters.  One was installed at the Saginaw monitor and the other at
Holland.  Note the variability in performance of the TEOM/FDMS B units. 
Holland meets the specifications to qualify as an ARM, but Saginaw does
not.  

Figure 11 shows how the seasonal performance of the TEOM/FDMS in
relation to the ARM specifications.  This casts doubt on the accuracy of
the method over different seasons in the Midwest. 

Figure 11: Impact of Seasonality on Eligibility  as an Approved Regional
Method.

PM2.5 Speciation Network Proposed Changes

Sampling Frequency Changes:

No changes to the sampling frequencies of speciation samplers are
anticipated at this time.  Because the laboratory costs associated with
operating the speciation network have risen rapidly over the previous
few years, it appears likely that if additional cuts are made to the
PM2.5 budget, a reduction in the speciation sampling frequency may be
necessary to help preserve the spatial coverage of the network while
still collecting some of the speciation data necessary for planning
purposes. 

Monitor Site Changes:

As a result of budget cuts, the SASS speciation sampler at Holland was
shut down on April 1, 2006. 

The site at Seney (261530001) is in jeopardy of being discontinued due
to cuts in the IMPROVE budget.   Data redundancy will be one of the
factors used to determine which IMPROVE sites will be selected for
closure.  Fortunately, the data generated by the Seney site is unique,
so it may be spared. 

Fine Particulate Data Summary

The following section summarizes the degree of data capture and the
observed PM2.5 values for each monitor since its start-up date.  For
2006, only January through March data are available.  Beginning in
April, sampling frequencies were changed as a result of the cut to the
PM2.5 budget. 

Data Completeness:

Table 9 illustrates the data capture by monitoring site. The
calculations in the table are limited to each individual monitor; no
data substitution has been performed to correct for missing data.  The
table also shows the changes to the sampling frequencies that occurred
beginning in the second quarter. 

The co-located precision monitor at Kalamazoo didn’t achieve 75
percent data capture during the forth quarter 2005.  Saginaw collected
74% complete data during the second quarter 2005.

Repeated vandalism beginning on September 5, 2005 caused Newberry to be
temporarily shut down on September 10, 2005.  Security measures were
enhanced and the station was reopened on April 2, 2006.  A portion (73
percent) of the scheduled samples were collected during the third
quarter 2005.  No data was captured during the fourth quarter 2005 and
first quarter 2006. 

All data was validated and uploaded to AIRS within 90 days after the end
of each quarter. 

Annual Averages:

Table 9 also shows the annual averages for each monitoring site.  Annual
averages for sites that have been closed are also included in the table.
 

The highest annual average of 18.55 ug/m3 was measured at Dearborn
(261630033) during 2005, which is an increase from the 2004 average of
16.8 ug/m3.  The three-year running average at Dearborn equals 18.2
ug/m3.  Nearby sites had three-year annual averages equaling 16.4, 15.1
and 15.5 ug/m3 for SWHS (261630015), Allen Park (261630001) and
Wyandotte (261630036), respectively.  Too few measurements have been
collected so far at Newberry School (261630038) for a valid comparison,
but the levels appear to be about 2.1 ug/m3 less than those at Dearborn.


The possible downward trend that began in 2004 was fleeting due to the
unusual meteorological conditions that were common in 2004. 

24-Hour Values:

Three-year annual averages of the 98th percentile values are shown in
Table 10.  The 98th percentile values that are greater than the proposed
level of 35.0 ug/m3 are shown in bold.  The highest 24-hour values were
measured at Dearborn (261630033), usually reaching into the low to mid
40 ug/m3 range.  During the first quarter of 2006, the 98th percentile
at Dearborn reached 43.4 ug/m3. 

  

 

Table 9: Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine Particulate
Material in Michigan, cont….





First Quarter 	Second Quarter 	Third Quarter 	Fourth Quarter 

3-Yr





Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch
#	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Annual 	Annual 

AIRSID 	Site	POC

Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.
Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Avg	Avg

260330901	Sault Ste. Marie #1	2	2005	15	15	100	8.00	15	14	93	9.64	15	13
87	10.23	16	 monitor shut down	9.29	8.3

260330902	Sault Ste. Marie #2	1	2001	20	18	90	6.35	31	31	100	10.00	30	29
97	8.20	31	29	94	7.19	7.94	 

260330902	Sault Ste. Marie #2	1	2002	30	30	100	6.03	30	28	93	8.23	31	27
87	11.69	31	27	87	5.20	7.79	7.9

260330902	Sault Ste. Marie #2	1	2003	30	26	87	9.73	30	29	97	7.59	31	29
94	9.21	30	28	93	6.08	8.15	8.0

260330902	Sault Ste. Marie #2	1	2004	31	30	97	8.37	30	28	93	6.16	31	29
94	8.38	30	27	90	4.04	6.74	7.6

260330902	Sault Ste. Marie #2	1	2005	30	27	90	8.44	31	31	100	8.67	30	30
100	9.34	31	31	100	5.32	7.94	8.0

260330902	Sault Ste. Marie #2	1	2006	30	28	93	8.11	MDEQ support services
 to the Inter Tribal Council discontinued due to budget.

260330903	Bay Mills	1	2005	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
---	15	15	100	4.31



260330903	Bay Mills	1	2006	15	14	93	8.41	MDEQ support services  to the
Inter Tribal Council discontinued due to budget.

260490021	Flint	1	1999	30	20	67	10.68	30	24	80	11.87	31	31	100	13.22	30
25	83	11.96	11.93

	260490021	Flint	1	2000	31	29	94	15.29	30	23	77	13.62	31	29	94	11.03	30
30	100	11.85	12.95

	260490021	Flint	1	2001	30	26	87	12.55	31	30	97	14.30	30	27	90	14.94	31
28	90	10.70	13.10	12.7

260490021	Flint	1	2002	30	24	80	11.76	30	26	87	12.34	31	31	100	14.31	31
30	97	11.76	12.54	12.9

260490021	Flint	1	2003	30	28	93	13.30	30	30	100	12.02	31	30	97	12.30	30
30	100	10.64	12.07	12.6

260490021	Flint	1	2004	31	28	90	11.77	30	24	80	9.37	31	31	100	11.55	30
30	100	9.27	10.49	11.7

260490021	Flint	1	2005	30	29	97	13.72	31	30	97	12.70	30	30	100	14.80	31
30	97	10.32	12.89	11.8

260490021	Flint	1	2006	30	29	97	11.87	30



31



31





	260550003	Traverse City	1	1999	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
---	---	6	6	100	6.72	6.72

	260550003	Traverse City	1	2000	31	24	77	10.18	30	26	87	8.26	31	24	77
10.22	30	9	30	5.99	8.66

	260550003	Traverse City	1	2001	30	25	83	8.55	31	29	94	10.12	30	30	100
9.77	31	31	100	8.76	9.30	9.0

260550003	Traverse City	1	2002	30	26	87	7.06	30	27	90	9.56	31	18	58
10.09	31	15	48	5.25	8.00	8.7

260550003	Traverse City	1	2003	Site Closed



260650012	Lansing	1	1999	30	24	80	10.82	30	19	63	13.73	31	28	90	13.83	30
30	100	11.78	12.54

	260650012	Lansing	1	2000	31	29	94	15.32	30	25	83	12.43	31	26	84	12.45
30	25	83	12.08	13.07

	260650012	Lansing	1	2001	30	28	93	15.46	31	29	94	14.68	30	29	97	13.93
31	31	100	12.09	14.04	13.2

260650012	Lansing	1	2002	30	30	100	12.38	30	28	93	14.40	31	28	90	14.86
31	26	84	12.45	13.52	13.5

260650012	Lansing	1	2003	30	26	87	15.04	30	27	90	12.55	31	29	94	13.51	30
30	100	11.12	13.06	13.5

260650012	Lansing	1	2004	31	28	90	13.15	30	28	93	10.13	31	31	100	10.94
30	29	97	10.02	11.06	12.5

260650012	Lansing	1	2005	30	30	100	14.17	31	30	97	13.97	30	30	100	14.77
31	30	97	11.22	13.53	12.5

260650012	Lansing	1	2006	30	30	100	12.70	30



31



31





	260650012	Lansing	2	1999	15	44	293	11.72	15	24	160	13.33	15	26	173
14.22	15	29	193	12.10	12.84

	260650012	Lansing	2	2000	16	30	188	15.26	15	24	160	12.00	15	29	193
12.07	15	19	127	14.96	13.57

	260650012	Lansing	2	2001	15	15	100	15.01	16	16	100	12.62	15	15	100
13.06	15	15	100	12.55	13.31	13.2

260650012	Lansing	2	2002	15	15	100	11.81	15	14	93	13.45	16	15	94	13.14
15	14	93	11.35	12.44	13.1

260650012	Lansing	2	2003	15	13	87	16.18	15	14	93	11.50	16	11	69	16.42	15
15	100	12.23	14.08	13.3

260650012	Lansing	2	2004	Monitor Shut Down- reduced co-location
requirements





Table 9: Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine Particulate
Material in Michigan, cont….





First Quarter 	Second Quarter 	Third Quarter 	Fourth Quarter 

3-Yr





Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart.	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch
#	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Annual 	Annual 

AIRSID 	Site	POC

Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.
Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Avg	Avg

260770008	Kalamazoo	1	1999	30	22	73	15.68	30	21	70	14.54	31	20	65	14.66
30	29	97	14.33	14.80

	260770008	Kalamazoo	1	2000	31	25	81	19.33	30	28	93	12.93	31	30	97	13.48
30	28	93	14.66	15.10

	260770008	Kalamazoo	1	2002	30	29	97	14.34	30	30	100	14.81	31	25	81
16.36	31	28	90	13.63	14.79	15.2

260770008	Kalamazoo	1	2003	30	29	97	16.57	30	28	93	11.81	31	29	94	14.32
30	26	87	12.97	13.92	14.8

260770008	Kalamazoo	1	2004	31	29	94	11.77	30	28	93	10.90	31	31	100	12.34
30	26	87	10.30	11.33	13.3

260770008	Kalamazoo	1	2005	30	26	87	12.64	31	31	100	12.98	30	30	100
17.07	31	29	94	12.62	13.83	13.0

260770008	Kalamazoo	1	2006	30	28	93	13.42	30



31



31





	260770008	Kalamazoo	2	1999	15	15	100	14.95	15	26	173	14.11	15	27	180
15.10	15	29	193	13.98	14.53

	260770008	Kalamazoo	2	2000	16	28	175	17.49	15	28	187	12.49	15	30	200
13.49	15	29	193	15.19	14.66

	260770008	Kalamazoo	2	2001	15	16	107	17.16	16	15	94	12.99	15	13	87
13.08	15	13	87	15.26	14.60	14.6

260770008	Kalamazoo	2	2002	15	15	100	15.54	15	14	93	14.94	16	11	69	18.03
15	15	100	12.61	15.00	14.8

260770008	Kalamazoo	2	2003	15	15	100	16.41	15	14	93	13.37	16	15	94	16.07
15	15	100	11.25	14.28	14.6

260770008	Kalamazoo	2	2004	15	12	80	11.08	15	14	93	9.47	16	16	100	12.86
15	14	93	10.94	11.09	13.5

260770008	Kalamazoo	2	2005	15	14	93	12.66	15	13	87	12.36	15	14	93	19.95
16	10	63	13.61	14.65	13.3

260770008	Kalamazoo	2	2006	15	13	87	16.28	15



15



16





	260810020	Grand Rapids	1	1999	90	82	91	14.23	91	87	96	13.64	92	86	93
14.00	92	87	95	13.47	13.83

	260810020	Grand Rapids	1	2000	91	88	97	16.35	91	88	97	11.48	92	89	97
12.99	92	88	96	14.41	13.81

	260810020	Grand Rapids	1	2001	90	88	98	17.28	91	84	92	13.22	92	91	99
14.79	92	90	98	12.12	14.35	14.0

260810020	Grand Rapids	1	2002	90	88	98	13.85	91	90	99	12.83	92	85	92
13.95	92	89	97	12.82	13.36	13.8

260810020	Grand Rapids	1	2003	90	86	96	15.82	91	90	99	12.33	92	90	98
13.65	92	90	98	12.32	13.53	13.7

260810020	Grand Rapids	1	2004	91	86	95	14.78	91	85	93	9.76	92	88	96
12.37	92	85	92	11.10	12.00	13.0

260810020	Grand Rapids	1	2005	90	87	97	17.41	91	86	95	11.44	92	91	99
14.34	92	92	100	11.68	13.72	13.1

260810020	Grand Rapids	1	2006	90	87	97	13.23	15



15



16





	260810020	Grand Rapids	2	1999	15	25	167	16.54	15	10	67	8.80	15	15	100
16.45	15	15	100	13.83	13.91

	260810020	Grand Rapids	2	2000	16	16	100	17.48	15	15	100	11.00	15	13	87
11.98	15	13	87	14.73	13.80

	260810020	Grand Rapids	2	2001	15	14	93	15.61	16	15	94	13.34	15	14	93
11.76	16	16	100	16.02	14.18	14.0

260810020	Grand Rapids	2	2002	15	14	93	13.99	15	15	100	13.66	16	16	100
13.08	16	15	94	11.97	13.18	13.7

260810020	Grand Rapids	2	2003	15	15	100	18.01	15	15	100	10.90	16	15	94
14.69	15	14	93	12.39	14.00	13.8

260810020	Grand Rapids	2	2004	15	14	93	12.19	15	14	93	9.15	16	16	100
11.89	15	15	100	11.82	11.26	12.8

260810020	Grand Rapids	2	2005	15	15	100	17.63	15	15	100	13.78	15	15	100
18.43	16	15	94	11.63	15.37	13.5

260810020	Grand Rapids	2	2006	15	14	93	15.78	15



15



16





	260990009	New Haven	1	1999	30	24	80	11.66	30	22	73	13.55	31	31	100
13.95	5	27	540	11.45	12.66

	260990009	New Haven	1	2000	31	29	94	16.26	30	29	97	12.76	31	30	97	12.43
30	25	83	12.22	13.42

	260990009	New Haven	1	2001	30	28	93	14.75	31	28	90	14.68	30	29	97	13.18
31	30	97	11.78	13.60	13.2

260990009	New Haven	1	2002	30	28	93	11.86	30	28	93	13.37	31	30	97	15.19
31	31	100	12.98	13.35	13.5

260990009	New Haven	1	2003	30	29	97	14.47	30	26	87	12.92	31	31	100	13.08
30	28	93	10.92	12.85	13.3



Table 9: Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine Particulate
Material in Michigan, cont….





First Quarter 	Second Quarter 	Third Quarter 	Fourth Quarter 

3-Yr





Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch
#	Obs. #	%	Quart.	Annual 	Annual 

AIRSID 	Site	POC

Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.
Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Avg	Avg

260990009	New Haven	1	2004	31	31	100	11.82	30	30	100	11.49	31	30	97
14.23	30	30	100	10.29	11.96	12.7

260990009	New Haven	1	2005	30	30	100	15.21	31	31	100	14.21	30	29	97
16.14	31	30	97	11.94	14.38	13.1

260990009	New Haven	1	2006	30	30	100	13.68	15



15



16





	261130001	Houghton Lake	1	2003	13	12	92	8.18	30	26	87	7.29	31	30	97
9.93	30	25	83	6.43	7.96

	261130001	Houghton Lake	1	2004	31	30	97	7.16	30	29	97	7.59	31	25	81
9.24	30	27	90	5.16	7.29	7.6

261130001	Houghton Lake	1	2005	30	28	93	8.64	31	28	90	10.50	30	27	90
11.93	31	27	87	6.45	9.38	8.2

261130001	Houghton Lake	1	2006	30	27	90	7.40	30



31



31





	261150005	Luna Pier	1	1999	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
---	5	5	100	12.56	12.56

	261150005	Luna Pier	1	2000	31	30	97	16.92	30	29	97	14.54	31	29	94	14.33
30	29	97	14.96	15.19

	261150005	Luna Pier	1	2001	30	27	90	16.24	31	25	81	16.58	30	29	97	15.68
31	30	97	12.69	15.30	15.2

261150005	Luna Pier	1	2002	30	30	100	14.99	30	27	90	17.77	31	28	90	15.96
31	25	81	16.30	16.26	15.8

261150005	Luna Pier	1	2003	30	28	93	15.93	30	27	90	12.84	31	31	100	14.36
30	30	100	12.01	13.79	15.1

261150005	Luna Pier	1	2004	31	26	84	13.02	30	30	100	12.61	31	31	100
14.83	30	29	90	11.47	12.98	14.3

261150005	Luna Pier	1	2005	30	28	93	16.50	31	27	87	13.40	30	27	90	19.78
31	30	97	13.10	15.70	14.2

261150005	Luna Pier	1	2006	30	27	90	14.55	30



31



31





	261210040	Muskegon	1	1999	80	66	83	11.20	30	29	97	13.06	31	20	65	13.14
30	24	80	11.41	12.20

	261210040	Muskegon	1	2000	31	30	97	14.45	30	28	93	10.64	31	29	94	12.41
30	30	100	9.91	11.85

	261210040	Muskegon	1	2001	30	30	100	12.39	31	30	97	13.09	30	30	100
12.72	31	31	100	12.09	12.57	12.2

261210040	Muskegon	1	2002	30	28	93	11.21	30	27	90	12.73	31	31	100	14.55
31	30	97	10.95	12.36	12.3

261210040	Muskegon	1	2003	30	29	97	13.70	30	30	100	10.50	31	29	94	12.83
30	30	100	10.57	11.90	12.3

261210040	Muskegon	1	2004	31	30	97	10.14	30	29	97	9.19	31	30	97	11.52	30
30	100	9.81	10.17	11.5

261210040	Muskegon	1	2005	30	30	100	14.81	31	30	97	12.64	30	26	87	15.13
31	30	97	9.70	13.07	11.7

261210040	Muskegon	1	2006	30	27	90	10.44	15



15



16





	261210040	Muskegon	2	1999	15	16	107	11.15	15	13	87	15.24	15	10	67	19.05
15	14	93	11.89	14.33

	261210040	Muskegon	2	2000	16	16	100	13.33	15	14	93	9.64	15	15	100	11.17
15	14	93	10.03	11.04

	261210040	Muskegon	2	2001

Co-located Monitor moved to Ypsilanti

12.7

261250001	Oak Park	1	1999	30	25	83	13.83	30	18	60	14.84	31	25	81	14.64
30	26	87	13.32	14.16

	261250001	Oak Park	1	2000	31	24	77	18.57	30	28	93	14.79	31	18	58	11.88
30	20	67	16.31	15.39

	261250001	Oak Park	1	2001	30	28	93	15.58	31	26	84	17.30	30	26	87	14.81
31	16	52	12.23	14.70	14.7

261250001	Oak Park	1	2002	30	15	50	12.73	30	21	70	17.29	31	27	87	16.07
31	27	87	13.90	15.00	15.0

261250001	Oak Park	1	2003	30	28	93	18.39	30	27	90	13.79	31	30	97	13.66
30	30	100	12.48	14.58	14.8

261250001	Oak Park	1	2004	31	30	97	13.73	30	30	100	11.26	31	30	97	14.78
30	27	90	11.26	12.76	14.1

261250001	Oak Park	1	2005	30	27	90	17.49	31	31	100	13.77	30	30	100	17.61
31	30	97	12.99	15.47	14.3

261250001	Oak Park	1	2006	30	27	90	13.51	15



15



16





	261390005	Jenison	1	1999	30	27	90	13.95	30	30	100	12.40	31	29	94	13.54
30	29	97	11.70	12.90

	261390005	Jenison	1	2000	31	30	97	16.98	30	28	93	11.22	31	31	100	12.26
30	30	100	12.37	13.21

	

 Table 9: Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine Particulate
Material in Michigan, cont….





First Quarter 	Second Quarter 	Third Quarter 	Fourth Quarter 

3-Yr





Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart.	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch
#	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Annual 	Annual 

AIRSID 	Site	POC

Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.
Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Avg	Avg

261390005	Jenison	1	2001	30	30	100	15.93	31	28	90	14.06	30	29	97	12.72
31	29	94	12.65	13.84	13.3

261390005	Jenison	1	2002	30	28	93	12.93	30	29	97	14.09	31	30	97	14.97	31
28	90	12.32	13.58	13.5

261390005	Jenison	1	2003	30	28	93	16.01	30	30	100	11.34	31	31	100	12.58
30	30	100	11.04	12.74	13.4

261390005	Jenison	1	2004	31	30	97	12.90	30	30	100	10.18	31	29	94	11.81
30	28	93	10.42	11.33	12.5

261390005	Jenison	1	2005	30	29	97	16.21	31	31	100	12.71	30	27	90	14.89
31	30	97	12.16	13.99	12.7

261390005	Jenison	1	2006	30	28	93	12.04	15



15



16





	261450018	Saginaw	1	1999	10	8	80	7.38	30	20	67	10.90	31	27	87	11.44	30
18	60	8.83	9.64

	261450018	Saginaw	1	2000	31	22	71	13.40	30	22	73	9.60	31	29	94	9.71	30
22	73	9.35	10.51

	261450018	Saginaw	1	2001	30	29	97	12.28	31	30	97	13.15	30	28	93	10.48
31	31	100	10.08	11.50	10.5

261450018	Saginaw	1	2002	30	26	87	9.76	30	28	93	11.42	31	27	87	11.91	31
25	81	10.03	10.78	10.9

261450018	Saginaw	1	2003	30	24	80	12.15	30	28	93	9.56	31	31	100	11.44	30
29	97	9.60	10.69	11.0

261450018	Saginaw	1	2004	31	31	100	11.26	30	29	97	8.64	31	30	97	10.93	30
28	100	7.23	9.52	10.3

261450018	Saginaw	1	2005	30	30	100	12.77	31	23	74	11.56	30	30	100	13.06
31	31	100	9.50	11.72	10.6

261450018	Saginaw	1	2006	Site access lost. Site shut down Decemnber
2005.



261470005	Saginaw 	2	1999	15	12	80	8.92	15	22	147	10.87	15	21	140	12.29
15	15	100	9.66	10.43

	261470005	Saginaw	2	2000	16	11	69	9.54	15	21	140	9.11	15	30	200	10.07
15	14	93	10.44	9.79

	261470005	Saginaw	2	2001

Co-located Monitor moved to Port Huron

10.1

261470005	Port Huron	1	1999	16	23	144	12.13	30	25	83	13.46	31	28	90
15.12	30	27	90	11.94	13.16

	261470005	Port Huron	1	2000	31	21	68	17.04	30	26	87	14.65	31	29	94
12.83	30	26	87	12.87	14.35

	261470005	Port Huron	1	2001	30	28	93	13.65	31	30	97	16.26	30	27	90
14.12	31	27	87	11.81	13.96	13.8

261470005	Port Huron	1	2002	30	29	97	12.13	30	26	87	14.03	31	29	94	16.28
31	29	94	12.91	13.84	14.0

261470005	Port Huron	1	2003	30	24	80	18.73	30	30	100	13.11	31	29	94
13.05	30	27	90	12.11	14.25	14.0

261470005	Port Huron	1	2004	31	28	90	11.44	30	28	93	12.81	31	27	87	13.18
30	29	97	10.99	12.11	13.4

261470005	Port Huron	1	2005	30	30	100	16.76	31	28	90	14.73	30	24	80
16.47	31	29	94	12.41	15.09	13.8

261470005	Port Huron	1	2006	30	30	100	15.52	15



15



16





	261470005	Port Huron	2	2001	15	12	80	14.36	16	15	94	15.57	15	14	93
11.79	15	13	87	11.16	13.22

	261470005	Port Huron	2	2002	15	14	93	12.19	15	14	93	14.36	15	14	93
12.38	15	14	93	12.91	12.96	13.1

261470005	Port Huron	2	2003	15	14	93	18.46	15	16	107	16.02	16	15	94
14.49	15	11	73	13.70	15.67	13.9

261470005	Port Huron	2	2004	Monitor Shut Down- reduced co-location
requirements



261610005	Ann Arbor	1	1999	---	---	---	---	2	2	100	10.50	31	29	94	14.92
30	27	90	12.96	12.79

	261610005	Ann Arbor	1	2000	31	26	84	16.93	30	15	50	11.98	31	26	84	11.85
30	29	97	12.05	13.20

	261610005	Ann Arbor	1	2001	30	30	100	14.78	31	29	94	14.76	30	23	77
13.46	31	31	100	11.04	13.50	13.2

261610005	Ann Arbor	1	2002	30	30	100	12.62	30	30	100	13.46	31	28	90
16.01	31	30	97	12.20	13.57	13.4

261610005	Ann Arbor	1	2003	30	27	90	14.79	30	29	97	13.01	31	26	84	12.95
30	22	73	11.72	13.12	13.4

261610005	Ann Arbor	1	2004	31	29	94	10.23	30	27	90	10.51	31	28	90	12.10
30	30	100	9.85	10.67	12.5

261610005	Ann Arbor	1	2005	30	27	90	13.06	31	30	97	12.47	30	27	90	16.01
31	26	84	11.25	13.20	12.3



 Table 9: Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine Particulate
Material in Michigan, cont….





First Quarter 	Second Quarter 	Third Quarter 	Fourth Quarter 

3-Yr





Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch
#	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Annual 	Annual 

AIRSID 	Site	POC

Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.
Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Avg	Avg

261610005	Ann Arbor	1	2006	Site shut down Decemnber 2005.



261610008	Ypsilanti	1	1999	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	20	18	90
14.72	30	28	93	13.66	14.19

	261610008	Ypsilanti	1	2000	31	13	42	16.82	30	28	93	12.85	31	31	100
13.21	30	30	100	14.16	14.26

	261610008	Ypsilanti	1	2001	30	28	93	15.92	31	30	97	15.46	30	29	97	14.15
31	30	97	12.44	14.49	14.3

261610008	Ypsilanti	1	2002	30	29	97	14.71	30	30	100	14.57	31	26	84	16.43
31	29	94	13.72	14.86	14.5

261610008	Ypsilanti	1	2003	30	25	83	16.70	30	28	93	15.05	31	30	97	14.39
30	29	97	12.78	14.73	14.7

261610008	Ypsilanti	1	2004	31	30	97	13.74	30	28	93	11.76	31	31	100	14.17
30	29	97	11.79	12.87	14.2

261610008	Ypsilanti	1	2005	30	29	97	17.49	31	27	87	14.27	30	29	97	17.69
31	29	94	13.00	15.61	14.4

261610008	Ypsilanti	1	2006	30	24	80	14.80	30



31



31





	261610008	Ypsilanti	2	2001	15	14	93	16.19	16	16	100	13.99	15	12	80
12.18	15	14	93	12.86	13.80

	261610008	Ypsilanti	2	2002	15	13	87	12.35	15	11	73	13.34	15	11	73	13.17
15	14	93	13.14	13.00	13.4

261610008	Ypsilanti	2	2003	15	14	93	16.80	15	14	93	13.59	16	16	100	17.41
15	14	93	12.69	15.12	14.0

261610008	Ypsilanti	2	2004	15	14	93	10.29	15	14	93	9.83	16	16	100	13.21
15	15	100	11.01	11.09	13.1

261610008	Ypsilanti	2	2005	15	15	100	18.79	15	15	100	15.01	15	13	87
21.35	16	16	100	11.65	16.70	14.3

261610008	Ypsilanti	2	2006	15	12	80	17.93	16



16



16





	261630001	Allen Park	1	1999	---	---	---	---	17	48	282	18.99	92	78	85
16.63	92	83	90	14.37	16.66

	261630001	Allen Park	1	2000	91	81	89	16.99	91	86	95	13.69	92	87	95
14.46	92	85	92	17.08	15.56

	261630001	Allen Park	1	2001	90	76	84	20.05	91	80	88	16.68	92	86	93
17.46	92	55	60	14.79	17.25	16.5

261630001	Allen Park	1	2002	90	78	87	15.32	91	72	79	16.15	92	66	72	17.33
92	87	95	15.02	15.96	16.3

261630001	Allen Park	1	2003	90	79	88	17.37	91	86	95	15.25	92	80	87	15.11
90	80	89	13.17	15.23	16.1

261630001	Allen Park	1	2004	91	74	81	15.41	91	85	93	12.22	92	89	97	16.18
92	83	90	13.14	14.24	15.1

261630001	Allen Park	1	2005	90	88	98	18.45	91	86	95	13.77	92	89	97	17.15
92	86	93	14.38	15.94	15.1

261630001	Allen Park	1	2006	90	81	90	13.70	91

0

92

0

92

0



	261630001	Allen Park	2	1999	---	---	---	---	9	6	67	26.08	15	13	87	18.22
15	12	80	14.54	19.62

	261630001	Allen Park	2	2000	16	13	81	16.82	15	12	80	13.32	15	14	93
15.29	15	15	100	18.57	16.00

	261630001	Allen Park	2	2001	15	14	93	18.62	16	15	94	15.82	15	15	100
16.22	15	13	87	14.22	16.22	17.3

261630001	Allen Park	2	2002	15	6	40	13.10	15	9	60	11.80	15	7	47	16.19	15
15	100	14.63	13.93	15.4

261630001	Allen Park	2	2003	15	10	67	21.21	15	15	100	16.63	16	15	94
18.77	15	15	100	13.45	17.52	15.9

261630001	Allen Park	2	2004	15	15	100	12.03	15	14	93	10.63	16	15	94
13.68	15	14	93	12.96	12.33	14.6

261630001	Allen Park	2	2005	15	14	93	19.61	15	15	100	16.22	15	15	100
22.47	16	15	94	12.35	17.66	15.8

261630001	Allen Park	2	2006	15	13	87	17.32	15

0

15

0

16

0



	261630015	SW HS	1	1999	12	8	67	18.69	30	27	90	16.54	31	25	81	18.54	30
25	83	16.53	17.57

	261630015	SW HS	1	2000	31	30	97	20.34	30	28	93	17.04	31	31	100	16.29	30
30	100	18.71	18.10

	261630015	SW HS	1	2001	30	29	97	19.33	31	28	90	20.05	30	30	100	17.67	31
27	87	16.07	18.28	18.0

261630015	SW HS	1	2002	30	27	90	16.80	30	27	90	17.42	31	25	81	18.27	31
29	94	17.20	17.42	17.9

261630015	SW HS	1	2003	30	26	87	17.41	30	27	90	15.39	31	30	97	16.68	30
27	90	17.26	16.69	17.5



Table 9: Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine Particulate
Material in Michigan, cont….





First Quarter 	Second Quarter 	Third Quarter 	Fourth Quarter 

3-Yr





Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch
#	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Annual 	Annual 

AIRSID 	Site	POC

Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.
Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Avg	Avg

261630015	SW HS	1	2004	31	31	100	14.95	30	27	90	15.01	31	29	94	17.69	30
28	93	13.90	15.39	16.5

261630015	SW HS	1	2005	30	27	90	20.20	31	27	87	14.73	30	30	100	18.73	31
30	97	15.18	17.21	16.4

261630015	SW HS	1	2006	30	29	97	16.98	30



31



31





	261630016	Linwood 	1	1999	---	---	---	---	17	28	165	19.30	92	79	86
15.76	92	82	89	16.17	17.08

	261630016	Linwood	1	2000	91	83	91	17.67	91	74	81	13.82	92	78	85	13.52
92	90	98	16.94	15.49

	261630016	Linwood	1	2001	90	81	90	17.19	91	84	92	15.66	92	83	90	16.57
92	79	86	13.47	15.72	16.1

261630016	Linwood	1	2002	90	73	81	15.04	91	82	90	15.61	92	75	82	16.78	92
88	96	14.95	15.60	15.6

261630016	Linwood	1	2003	90	84	93	18.36	91	85	93	15.33	92	86	93	14.94	92
71	77	14.78	15.85	15.7

261630016	Linwood	1	2004	91	76	84	14.87	91	80	88	12.10	92	82	89	14.78	92
86	93	13.00	13.69	15.0

261630016	Linwood	1	2005	90	87	97	18.92	91	79	87	14.78	92	84	91	16.62	92
88	96	13.70	16.01	15.2

261630016	Linwood	1	2006	90	79	88	13.04	15



15



16





	261630019	E 7 Mile	1	2000	---	---	---	---	21	17	81	13.93	31	24	77	13.74
30	29	97	15.87	14.51

	261630019	E 7 Mile	1	2001	30	26	87	14.58	31	29	94	14.88	30	30	100	14.76
31	30	97	13.79	14.50

	261630019	E 7 Mile	1	2002	30	26	87	14.39	30	28	93	15.83	31	28	90	17.86
31	30	97	14.48	15.64	14.9

261630019	E 7 Mile	1	2003	30	26	87	17.05	30	30	100	14.80	31	30	97	13.98
30	29	97	13.01	14.71	15.0

261630019	E 7 Mile	1	2004	31	31	100	13.23	30	29	97	12.47	31	30	97	15.44
30	29	97	11.76	13.23	14.5

261630019	E 7 Mile	1	2005	30	28	93	19.82	31	31	100	14.48	30	29	97	17.43
31	29	94	14.20	16.48	14.8

261630019	E 7 Mile	1	2006	30	30	100	15.20	15



15



16





	261630025	Livonia	1	1999	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	15	15	100
15.21	30	19	63	10.93	13.07

	261630025	Livonia	1	2000	31	30	97	16.53	30	28	93	14.08	31	30	97	13.28
30	25	83	14.46	14.59

	261630025	Livonia	1	2001	30	27	90	15.39	31	30	97	15.67	30	29	97	15.14
31	29	94	12.18	14.60	14.1

261630025	Livonia	1	2002	30	18	60	13.33	30	28	93	14.26	31	29	94	16.47	31
28	90	13.43	14.37	14.5

261630025	Livonia	1	2003	30	26	87	15.96	30	28	100	15.36	31	31	100	13.89
30	27	90	11.59	14.20	14.4

261630025	Livonia	1	2004	31	29	94	12.72	30	25	83	11.98	31	28	90	14.13	30
30	100	11.45	12.57	13.7

261630025	Livonia	1	2005	30	26	87	17.86	31	28	90	11.74	30	30	100	17.45
31	30	97	12.68	14.93	13.9

261630025	Livonia	1	2006	30	27	90	13.34	15



15



16





	261630033	Dearborn	1	1999	19	8	42	13.98	30	26	87	16.75	31	28	90	18.31
30	29	97	18.24	16.82

	261630033	Dearborn	1	2000	31	29	94	22.76	30	23	77	20.13	31	27	87	17.56
30	29	97	20.06	20.13

	261630033	Dearborn	1	2001	30	29	97	20.95	31	29	94	18.58	30	28	93	18.27
31	29	94	20.63	19.61	18.9

261630033	Dearborn	1	2002	30	29	97	20.99	30	28	93	18.15	31	29	94	20.22
31	30	97	20.00	19.84	19.9

261630033	Dearborn	1	2003	30	28	93	22.59	30	27	90	19.03	31	27	87	17.83
30	28	93	17.34	19.20	19.5

261630033	Dearborn	1	2004	31	29	94	17.71	30	25	83	16.10	31	25	81	17.46
30	28	93	16.06	16.83	18.6

261630033	Dearborn	1	2005	30	28	93	21.50	31	31	100	16.57	30	28	93	18.22
31	28	90	17.90	18.55	18.2

261630033	Dearborn	1	2006	30	28	93	18.79	30



31



31





	261630036	Wyandotte	1	1999	14	7	50	17.06	30	17	57	14.55	31	26	84	18.85
30	21	70	14.67	16.28

	261630036	Wyandotte	1	2000	31	16	52	19.30	30	28	93	16.52	31	29	94	15.64
30	30	100	19.07	17.63

	Table 9: Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine Particulate
Material in Michigan, cont….





First Quarter 	Second Quarter 	Third Quarter 	Fourth Quarter 

3-Yr





Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch #	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Sch
#	Obs. #	%	Quart. 	Annual 	Annual 

AIRSID 	Site	POC

Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.
Rdgs	Rdgs	Complete	Avg.	Avg	Avg

261630036	Wyandotte	1	2001	30	30	100	21.49	31	30	97	17.53	30	29	97	18.53
31	24	77	15.26	18.20	17.4

261630036	Wyandotte	1	2002	30	24	80	15.40	30	28	93	15.98	31	28	90	16.51
31	25	81	17.24	16.28	17.4

261630036	Wyandotte	1	2003	30	24	80	15.07	30	24	80	20.37	31	28	90	16.37
30	29	97	13.45	16.32	16.9

261630036	Wyandotte	1	2004	31	27	87	14.48	30	29	97	12.74	31	29	94	15.91
30	28	93	11.52	13.66	15.4

261630036	Wyandotte	1	2005	30	29	97	16.96	31	28	90	14.93	30	29	97	18.58
31	27	87	15.19	16.42	15.5

261630036	Wyandotte	1	2006	30	29	97	15.10	30



31



31





	261630038	Newberry	1	2004	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
---	2	2	100	29.70



261630038	Newberry	1	2005	30	28	93	16.98	31	25	81	14.60	30	22	73	17.66
vandalism

	16.41

	261630038	Newberry	1	2006	vandalism

	30



31



31





	261630039	FIA\Lafayette St	1	2005







	---	7	---	18.20	31	28	90	14.25



261630039	FIA\Lafayette St	1	2006	30	29	97	14.78	30



31



31





	 

Table 10: 98th Percentile PM2.5 Values Averaged Over 3 Years

2006 reflects data through March 31, 2006 and is subject to validation.



AIRS

I.D.	

Site	

POC	Current Sampling

Freq.	2001

98th percentile	2002

98th

percentile	2003

98th

percentile	2004

98th

percentile	2005

98th

percentile	2006

98th

percentile	

99-01

Avg	

00-02

Avg	

01-03

Avg	

02-04

Avg	

03-05

Avg	

04-06

Avg

260050003	Holland	1	1 in 6	37.0	36.7	35.6	30.3	36.1	35.0	34.6	35.2	36.4
34.2	34.0	33.8

260070005	Alpena	1	--	35.1	27.3	--	--	--	--	30.3	29.3	--	--	--

	260140014	Bay City	1	1 in 6	34.2	32.0	26.7	28.0	40.5	32.9	31.0	31.3
31.0	28.9	31.7	33.8

260210014	Coloma	1	1 in 6	32.3	30.6	34.1	29.0	33.8	25.8	32.5	30.9	32.3
31.2	32.3	29.5

260330901	Sault Ste Marie #1	1	1 in 3	27.9	22.1	26.3	22.3	25.1	31.6	27.9
25.0	25.4	23.6	24.6	26.3

260330901	Sault Ste Marie #1	2	1 in 6	25.4	21.4	38.3	15.4	28.3	--	25.4
23.4	28.4	25.0	27.3	21.9

260330902	Sault Ste Marie #2	1	1 in 3	28.0	27.0	25.4	23.2	25.1	30.1	28.0
27.5	26.8	25.2	24.6	26.1

260490021	Flint	1	1 in 3	38.0	30.8	32.2	27.9	35.9	30.1	34.3	33.7	33.7
30.3	32.0	31.3

260550003	Traverse City	1	--	32.7	23.3	--	--	--	--	23.9	27.7	--	--	--

	260650012	Lansing	1	1 in 3	37.2	32.8	29.0	29.4	38.1	32.1	36.3	35.7	33.0
30.4	32.2	33.2

260650012	Lansing	2	--	40.4	30.1	28.9	--	--	--	38.4	36.2	33.1	--	--

	260770008	Kalamazoo	1	1 in 3	40.0	32.3	36.9	27.3	33.3	27.6	37.8	35.9
36.4	32.2	32.5	29.4

260770008	Kalamazoo	2	1 in 6	36.0	32.0	35.7	28.9	31.5	31.1	37.1	34.9
34.6	32.2	32.0	30.5

260810020	Grand Rapids	1	1 in 3	39.0	35.1	35.0	31.8	44.7	40.4	36.9	36.4
36.4	34.0	37.2	39.0

260810020	Grand Rapids	2	1 in 6	39.4	32.4	29.6	30.5	45.6	38.5	35.6	33.3
33.8	30.8	35.2	38.2

260990009	New Haven	1	1 in 6	42.0	35.6	31.8	31.9	41.5	37.7	35.7	36.9
36.5	33.1	35.1	37.0

261130001	Houghton Lake	1	1 in 3	--	--	23.6	21.0	30.8	21.6	--	--	--	--
25.1	24.5

261150005	Luna Pier	1	1 in 3	39.2	42.7	34.7	35.0	49.3	36.6	31.5	39.7
38.9	37.5	39.7	40.3

261210040	Muskegon	1	1 in 6	34.9	29.8	36.3	32.7	41.0	31.1	36.0	33.2	33.7
32.9	36.7	34.9

261210040	Muskegon	2	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	31.3	--	--	--	--

	261250001	Oak Park	1	1 in 6	39.4	38.4	36.6	32.5	52.2	35.6	41.0	39.5
38.1	35.8	40.4	40.1

261390005	Jenison	1	1 in 6	35.0	36.8	31.0	30.9	42.3	28.6	35.8	35.2	34.3
32.9	34.7	33.9

261450018	Saginaw	1	--	34.6	26.0	26.8	27.4	37.8	--	31.0	29.4	29.1	26.7
30.7	32.6

261450018	Saginaw	2	--	10.3	--	--	--	--	--	24.3	--	--	--	--

	261470005	Port Huron	1	1 in 6	40.5	35.3	37.2	32.2	47.6	44.6	39.4	36.3
37.7	34.9	39.0	41.5

261470005	Port Huron	2	--	35.9	37.7	38.0	--	--	--	35.9	36.8	37.2	--	--

	261610005	Ann Arbor	1	--	38.5	31.3	33.3	28.4	39.1	--	36.6	34.3	34.4
31.0	33.6	33.8

261610008	Ypsilanti	1	1 in 3	39.7	30.9	38.8	31.5	52.1	39.5	36.9	33.6
36.5	33.7	40.8	41.0

261610008	Ypsilanti	2	1 in 6	39.0	32.6	32.5	31.2	54.6	42.7	39.0	35.8
34.7	32.1	39.4	42.8

261630001	Allen Park	1	1 in 1	44.2	39.6	40.5	36.9	43.0	36.0	42.2	40.8
41.4	39.0	40.1	38.6

261630001	Allen Park	2	1 in 6	40.1	30.9	39.2	33.8	58.0	37.6	39.6	35.2
36.7	34.6	43.7	43.1

261630015	SW High Schl.	1	1 in 3	42.9	38.2	33.6	36.0	49.7	42.1	45.9	41.9
38.2	35.9	39.8	42.6

261630016	Linwood	1	1 in 6	40.9	42.7	46.2	38.3	51.8	37.3	41.9	41.3	43.3
42.4	45.4	42.5

261630019	E 7 Mile	1	1 in 6	42.0	34.4	37.1	35.0	52.3	38.9	42.0	39.5	37.8
35.5	41.5	42.1

Italics = Sampling frequency changed to 1:6 on April 1, 2006 due to
budget cuts.	Proposed 24-hr NAAQS = 35 ug/m3

Underlined = Sampling frequency changed from 1:1 to 1:3 on April 1, 2006
due to budget cuts.

Muskegon and Holland changed sampling frequency Jan and Feb 1999.  This
reflects most recent sampling frequency.

Table 10: 98th Percentile PM2.5 Values Averaged Over 3 Years, continued

2006 reflects data through March 31, 2006 and is subject to validation.



AIRS

I.D.	

Site	

POC	Current Sampling

Freq.	2001

98th percentile	2002

98th

percentile	2003

98th

percentile	2004

98th

percentile	2005

98th

percentile	2006

98th

percentile	

99-01

Avg	

00-02

Avg	

01-03

Avg	

02-04

Avg	

03-05

Avg	

04-06

Avg

261630025	Livonia	1	1 in 6	44.7	32.7	38.1	32.2	40.2	39.3	39.7	37.8	38.5
34.3	36.8	37.2

261630033	Dearborn	1	1 in 3	43.2	45.7	42.8	39.4	50.2	43.4	44.5	44.7	43.9
42.6	44.1	44.3

261630036	Wyandotte	1	1 in 3	46.6	34.1	34.8	32.3	46.7	35.6	44.8	41.1
38.5	33.7	37.9	38.2

261630038	Newberry	1	1 in 3	--	--	--	36.8	57.7	--	--	--	--	--	--

	261630039	FIA/Lafayette	1	1 in 3	--	--	--	--	43.9	34.5	--	--	--	--	--
39.2



	No Gr 35	25	12	15	5	26

23	20	17	7	17





Total N	35	34	33	32	33

36	34	32	30	31





%	71	35	45	16	79

64	59	53	23	55

	Italics = Sampling frequency changed to 1:6 on April 1, 2006 due to
budget cuts.	Proposed 24-hr NAAQS = 35 ug/m3

Underlined = Sampling frequency changed from 1:1 to 1:3 on April 1, 2006
due to budget cuts.

Muskegon and Holland changed sampling frequency Jan and Feb 1999.  This
reflects most recent sampling frequency.

9.0	Quality Assurance/Quality Control

In accordance to 40 CFR Part 58, independent audits are conducted
quarterly by the MDEQ quality assurance staff on each PM2.5  FRM and
SASS monitor.  Each TEOM is audited at least once a year.  The results
of these audits are available by request through the Air Monitoring
Unit’s Quality Assurance Coordinator. 

Specific protocols regarding quality assurance, laboratory analysis
sample handling, collection, transport, laboratory sample identification
and archive procedures are covered in the Quality Assurance Project Plan
for the PM2.5 Program in Michigan.

Co-located Sites:

Fifteen percent of the monitoring sites in Michigan contain a co-located
R&P sequential FRM monitor, meeting the national precision requirement. 
The locations are listed in Table 11.

Table 11: Mass Comparison between R&P  FRM and

Met-One Speciation Monitors

Only values > 6 ug/m3 used

Annual 

Quarterly





No. Pairs	annual	No. Pairs	quarterly

AIRSID	Site Name	Year	Quarter	> 6 ug/m3	CV	> 6 ug/m3	CV

261630001	Allen Park	2000	4	1	40.16	 	40.16

261630019	E. 7 Mile	2000	4	1	17.88	 	17.88

260330901	Lake State Univ	2001	3	4	4.26	3	4.85

260330901	Lake State Univ	2001	4	 	 	1	1.38

261630001	Allen Park	2001	1	76	22.23	15	24.82

261630001	Allen Park	2001	2

	24	32.00

261630001	Allen Park	2001	3

	24	9.98

261630001	Allen Park	2001	4	 	 	13	10.12

261630019	E. 7 Mile	2001	1	34	29.34	9	22.75

261630019	E. 7 Mile	2001	2

	10	39.37

261630019	E. 7 Mile	2001	3

	9	18.82

261630019	E. 7 Mile	2001	4	 	 	6	31.44

260330901	Lake State Univ	2002	1	31	13.88	7	22.24

260330901	Lake State Univ	2002	2

	8	11.33

260330901	Lake State Univ	2002	3

	9	11.05

260330901	Lake State Univ	2002	4	 	 	7	7.38

260810020	Grand Rapids	2002	2	23	12.08	4	8.09

260810020	Grand Rapids	2002	3

	11	16.02

260810020	Grand Rapids	2002	4	 	 	8	5.82

261150005	Luna Pier	2002	2	25	8.94	7	10.60

261150005	Luna Pier	2002	3

	11	5.90

261150005	Luna Pier	2002	4	 	 	7	10.87

Table 11, Continued

Only values > 6 ug/m3 used

Annual 







No. Pairs	annual	No. Pairs	Quarterly

AIRSID	Site Name	Year	Quarter	> 6 ug/m3	CV	> 6 ug/m3	CV

261630001	Allen Park	2002	1	80	12.16	22	17.12

261630001	Allen Park	2002	2

	20	7.95

261630001	Allen Park	2002	3

	19	7.98

261630001	Allen Park	2002	4	 	 	19	12.35

261630019	E. 7 Mile	2002	1	12	35.14	9	35.32

261630019	E. 7 Mile	2002	2	 	 	3	34.60

261630033	Dearborn	2002	2	31	8.31	6	6.83

261630033	Dearborn	2002	3

	14	10.00

261630033	Dearborn	2002	4	 	 	11	6.48

260050003	Holland	2003	1	44	2.20	8	2.25

260050003	Holland	2003	2

	12	2.30

260050003	Holland	2003	3

	14	2.16

260050003	Holland	2003	4	 	 	10	2.10

260330901	Lake State Univ	2003	1	61	3.27	18	2.31

260330901	Lake State Univ	2003	2

	16	2.27

260330901	Lake State Univ	2003	3

	17	4.51

260330901	Lake State Univ	2003	4	 	 	10	3.60

260770008	Kalamazoo	2003	1	42	2.63	6	2.10

260770008	Kalamazoo	2003	2

	11	3.27

260770008	Kalamazoo	2003	3

	14	2.08

260770008	Kalamazoo	2003	4	 	 	11	2.80

260810020	Grand Rapids	2003	1	52	2.27	13	1.75

260810020	Grand Rapids	2003	2

	13	2.19

260810020	Grand Rapids	2003	3

	14	2.92

260810020	Grand Rapids	2003	4	 	 	12	1.96

261130001	Houghton Lake	2003	1	30	2.40	5	3.20

261130001	Houghton Lake	2003	2

	6	2.28

261130001	Houghton Lake	2003	3

	12	1.27

261130001	Houghton Lake	2003	4	 	 	7	3.18

261150005	Luna Pier	2003	1	53	4.69	12	2.99

261150005	Luna Pier	2003	2

	12	6.11

261150005	Luna Pier	2003	3

	15	5.09

261150005	Luna Pier	2003	4	 	 	14	3.96

261610008	Ypsilanti	2003	2	28	1.70	1	0.64

261610008	Ypsilanti	2003	3

	14	0.98

261610008	Ypsilanti	2003	4	 	 	13	2.27

261630001	Allen Park	2003	1	96	2.78	22	1.96

261630001	Allen Park	2003	2

	27	1.85

261630001	Allen Park	2003	3

	24	3.87

261630001	Allen Park	2003	4	 	 	23	2.99

Table 11, Continued

Only values > 6 ug/m3 used

Annual 







No. Pairs	annual	No. Pairs	Quarterly

AIRSID	Site Name	Year	Quarter	> 6 ug/m3	CV	> 6 ug/m3	CV

261630033	Dearborn	2003	1	48	2.87	12	1.22

261630033	Dearborn	2003	2

	12	2.60

261630033	Dearborn	2003	3

	13	1.44

261630033	Dearborn	2003	4	 	 	11	4.95



Precision:

Table 12 shows the coefficient of variation for co-located pairs of FRM
monitors from 1999 through 2005 for those data points with a
concentration greater than 6.0 ug/m3.  For the same time span, the
coefficient of variation is also calculated using a cut-off value of 3.0
ug/m3 to compare the impact the proposed changes to the monitoring
regulations would have on precision, and to provide a historical record
using the proposed criteria.  As shown by the historical data, it
appears that the co-located monitors will easily be able to meet the new
precision requirements.

Table 12: Percent Difference for Co-located Measurements Greater than

6.0 ug/m3 and 3.0 ug/m3

updated 6-22-06

 	 	POC 1	 	 	Coefficient 	 	Coefficient 

 	 	Sampling	 	No. Pairs	of Variation	No. Pairs	of Variation

AIRSID	Site Name	Freq.	Year	> 6 ug/m3	> 6 ug/m3	> 3 ug/m3	> 3 ug/m3

260770008	Kalamazoo	1 in 3 day	2006	12	0.77	12	0.77

260810020	Grand Rapids	1 in 1 day	2006	12	1.20	13	1.67

261610008	Ypsilanti	1 in 3 day	2006	8	0.77	8	0.77

261630001	Allen Park 	1 in 1 day	2006	10	0.70	11	1.06

 

	2006 total N and Average	42	0.86	44	1.06

260330901	Lake State Univ.	1 in 3 day	2005	22	1.00	37	1.64

260770008	Kalamazoo	1 in 3 day	2005	40	0.79	49	0.84

260810020	Grand Rapids	1 in 1 day	2005	49	1.29	59	1.46

261610008	Ypsilanti	1 in 3 day	2005	46	0.84	53	0.94

261630001	Allen Park 	1 in 1 day	2005	53	0.55	56	0.60

 

	2005 total N and Average	210	0.89	254	1.09

260330901	Lake State Univ.	1 in 3 day	2004	22	2.49	48	2.38

260770008	Kalamazoo	1 in 3 day	2004	37	1.39	51	1.67

260810020	Grand Rapids	1 in 1 day	2004	39	2.19	57	2.19

261610008	Ypsilanti	1 in 3 day	2004	40	0.83	56	1.25

261630001	Allen Park 	1 in 1 day	2004	46	1.76	54	1.66

 	 	 	2004 total N and Average	184	1.73	266	1.83

260330901	Lake State Univ.	1 in 3 day	2003	28	1.88	39	1.98

260650012	Lansing	1 in 3 day	2003	42	1.10	47	1.08

260770008	Kalamazoo	1 in 3 day	2003	50	1.08	55	1.07

260810020	Grand Rapids	1 in 1 day	2003	53	1.10	59	1.20

261470005	Port Huron	1 in 3 day	2003	46	1.62	53	1.64

261610008	Ypsilanti	1 in 3 day	2003	49	1.48	51	1.50

261630001	Allen Park 	1 in 1 day	2003	48	1.22	50	1.29

 	 	 	2003 total N and Average	316	1.36	354	1.39

260330901	Lake State Univ.	1 in 3 day	2002	28	1.42	48	2.05

260650012	Lansing	1 in 3 day	2002	41	1.06	50	1.01

260770008	Kalamazoo	1 in 3 day	2002	43	1.75	50	1.72

260810020	Grand Rapids	1 in 1 day	2002	45	1.78	56	1.81

261470005	Port Huron	1 in 3 day	2002	40	1.49	51	1.46

261610008	Ypsilanti	1 in 3 day	2002	38	2.69	47	2.61

261630001	Allen Park 	1 in 1 day	2002	26	1.42	31	1.38

 	 	 	2002 total N and Average	261	1.66	333	1.72

Table 12: Percent Difference for Co-located Measurements Greater than

6.0 ug/m3 and 3.0 ug/m3 Continued

updated 6-22-06

 	 	POC 1	 	 	Coefficient 	 	Coefficient 

 	 	Sampling	 	No. Pairs	of Variation	No. Pairs	of Variation

AIRSID	Site Name	Freq.	Year	> 6 ug/m3	> 6 ug/m3	> 3 ug/m3	> 3 ug/m3









	260330901	Lake State Univ.	1 in 3 day	2001	20	0.96	35	1.39

260650012	Lansing	1 in 3 day	2001	36	1.96	42	1.83

260770008	Kalamazoo	1 in 3 day	2001	36	0.94	40	0.90

260810020	Grand Rapids	1 in 1 day	2001	41	1.35	43	1.35

261470005	Port Huron	1 in 3 day	2001	28	2.96	35	2.74

261610008	Ypsilanti	1 in 3 day	2001	36	2.05	41	2.11

261630001	Allen Park 	1 in 1 day	2001	32	1.18	34	1.23

 	 	 	2001 total N and Average	229	1.63	270	1.65

260650012	Lansing	1 in 3 day	2000	77	0.78	86	0.82

260770008	Kalamazoo	1 in 3 day	2000	91	0.72	106	0.79

260810020	Grand Rapids	1 in 1 day	2000	47	0.87	53	0.92

261210040	Muskegon	1 in 3 day	2000	39	0.63	55	1.19

261450018	Saginaw	1 in 3 day	2000	41	1.04	60	1.15

261630001	Allen Park 	1 in 1 day	2000	47	1.46	51	1.42

 	 	 	2000 total N and Average	342	0.92	411	1.05

260650012	Lansing	1 in 3 day	1999	71	1.31	92	1.19

260770008	Kalamazoo	1 in 3 day	1999	72	1.16	82	1.19

260810020	Grand Rapids	1 in 1 day	1999	50	1.19	58	1.64

261210040	Muskegon	1 in 3 day	1999	33	1.27	44	1.55

261450018	Saginaw	1 in 3 day	1999	34	0.90	50	1.36

261630001	Allen Park 	1 in 1 day	1999	25	1.44	27	1.49

 	 	 	1999 total N and Average	285	1.21	353	1.40

Performance Evaluation Audit (PEP) Results:

Performance audits are conducted by the EPA to independently verify the
accuracy of data reported by an agency.  For the PM2.5 FRM network, an
EPA contractor deploys a URG audit sampler at preselected stations that
vary every year.  The contractor operates the sampler, independently
from the activities of MDEQ staff, but on the same dates.  The filters
are analyzed by a laboratory other than the MDEQ lab to identify bias
throughout the system.  Table 13 shows the results from the performance
evaluation audits from 1999 to 2005.  POC 1 refers to the primary
sampler operating on either a daily or on a once every three day
schedule.  POC 2 refers to the precision sampler that operates on a once
every six day schedule.

Table 12 summarizes the differences between co-located samplers. 
Because the number of sample pairs is relatively high, the coefficient
of variation is relatively insensitive to a couple of outlying data
points, generating much better comparative data than that shown in Table
13.  The limited number of PEP sample pairs precludes calculation of the
coefficient of variation, and each event must be considered on its own
merit. 

Some of the performance audits show widely divergent results, such as
the January 19, 2005; May 31, 2005; and November 15, 2005 audits at
Saginaw and Bay City.  The levels of PM2.5 at stations in the northern
central region of Michigan track each other very well and are lower than
the results reported on these days by the PEP sampler.

However, the PEP audit conducted at Linwood on April 7, 2005 more
closely reflects PM2.5 levels of other stations in the Detroit area. 
The Linwood value seems to be elevated, but a cause couldn’t be
identified to justify invalidation of that sample.  

10.0	Summary & Conclusions

FRM network design changes that would be mandated by the proposed
monitoring regulations result in a network that is too sparse in large,
densely populated areas not meeting the NAAQS.  Changing the design
metric from using a combined metropolitan area approach to individual
metropolitan statistical areas doesn’t improve.  Monitor placement is
inadequate to support SIP and modeling activities.  Data analysis needs
such as weight of evidence and trends analysis could also be compromised
if these site reductions occur.  

The level and form of the PM NAAQS may have a profound impact on
attainment status in Michigan.  Since it is impossible to prove
attainment without data, no sites in possible nonattainment areas should
be eliminated at this time.

Reducing the sampling frequency of FRMs may create instability in the
value of the 98th percentile causing sites to flip in and out of
attainment.  Sites that may be susceptible to this behavior should
retain a more frequent sampling schedule.  One purpose behind the 1997
modifications to the NAAQS was to promote better stability of the
metrics used to judge attainment.  Funding that is adequate to support
greater sampling frequencies of the FRMs need to be restored as soon as
possible.

Table 13: PEP Audit Results 1999 to December 2005



updated 6/26/06





	--- = no POC 2 monitor	Concentration, ug/m3 	POC 1

	AIRS ID	Site Name	Sample Run Date	EPA FRM 	 State POC 1	State POC 2 
Bias	Comments

260170014	Bay City	1/19/2005	17.8	13.4	---	-24.7	All MI sites < 16
except Dearborn

260170014	Bay City	5/31/2005	7.6	6.5	---	-14.5	Saginaw = 5.5; Houghton
Lake = 5.0 

260170014	Bay City	11/15/2005	4.8	3.8	---	-20.8	Saginaw = 3.3 ug/m3

261130001	Houghton Lake	2/15/2005	11.4	11.8	---	3.5

	261130001	Houghton Lake	6/21/2005	14.2	14.4	---	1.4

	261130001	Houghton Lake	11/21/2005	5.9	5.8	---	-1.7	 

261150005	Luna Pier	5/25/2005	8.6	8.2	---	-4.7	 

261450015	Saginaw	1/19/2005	22.1	10.3	---	-53.4	All MI sites < 16 except
Dearborn

261450015	Saginaw	5/31/2005	6.8	5.5	---	-19.1	Bay City = 6.5; Houghton
Lake = 5.0 

261450015	Saginaw	11/15/2005	4.7	3.3	---	-29.8	Bay City = 3.8 ug/m3

261630016	Linwood	1/19/2005	15.5	13.8	---	-11

	261630016	Linwood	4/7/2005	12.4	27.2	---	119.4	Other Sites in Detroit
10 - 13 ug/m3

261630016	Linwood	11/9/2005	14.5	13.2	---	-9	 

261630033	Dearborn	4/7/2005	14.2	12.6	---	-11.3

	261630033	Dearborn	11/15/2005	13.8	12	---	-13

	261630033	Dearborn	12/21/2005	27.2	26.6	---	-2.2	 

260050003	Holland	1/7/04	0.50	5.7	---	 	did PEP run?

260050003	Holland	4/6/04	17.20	17.8	---	-3.5

	260050003	Holland	7/8/04	4.90	4.5	---	8.2	less than 6 ug/m3

260050003	Holland	10/6/04	6.20	5.7	---	8.1	less than 6 ug/m3

260210014	Coloma	1/7/04	8.40	6.9	---	17.9

	260210014	Coloma	4/6/04	19.50	17.3	---	11.3

	260210014	Coloma	7/8/04	4.10	4.8	---	-17.1	less than 6 ug/m3

260210014	Coloma	10/6/04	6.20	6.0	---	3.2	 

260490021	Flint	7/14/04	5.40	6.0	---	-11.1	 

260650012	Lansing	3/28/04	16.50	16.7	 	-1.2

	260650012	Lansing	7/14/04	6.20	6.8	---	-9.7	 

260770008	Kalamazoo	2/28/04	14.20	17.5	 	-23.2	not a sched. run date

260770008	Kalamazoo	5/29/04	15.90	17.1	 	-7.5	not a sched. run date

260770008	Kalamazoo	12/7/04	25.90	31.6	 	-22.0	not a sched. run date

260770008	Kalamazoo	9/5/04	5.50	5.6	 	-1.8	not a sched. run date

261250001	Oak Park	3/10/04	13.60	13.3	---	2.2

	261250001	Oak Park	6/8/04	30.60	29	---	5.2

	261250001	Oak Park	9/27/04	14.10	14.4	---	-2.1

	261250001	Oak Park	10/21/04	5.60	5.3	---	5.4	less than 6 ug/m3

261610005	Ann Arbor	6/23/04	6.80	7.2	---	-5.9

	261610005	Ann Arbor	9/15/04	29.60	28.4	---	4.1

	261610005	Ann Arbor	12/8/04	7.80	6.2	---	20.5	 

261610008	Ypsilanti	3/25/04	21.70	21.9	 	-0.9

	261610008	Ypsilanti	6/23/04	6.80	7	 	-2.9

	261610008	Ypsilanti	9/15/04	30.20	30.9	 	-2.3	not a sched. run date

Table 13: PEP Audit Results 1999 to December 2005, continued













Concentration, ug/m3 	POC 1

	AIRS ID	Site Name	Sample Run Date	EPA FRM 	 State POC 1	State POC 2 
Bias	Comments

261630025	Livonia	3/10/04	0.30	13.6	---	 	did PEP run?

261630025	Livonia	6/8/04	41.50	27	---	34.9

	261630025	Livonia	9/27/04	20.20	12.5	---	38.1

	261630025	Livonia	10/21/04	8.70	5	---	42.5	less than 6 ug/m3

260330901	Sault Ste. Marie #1	3/19/03	4.1	4.9	 	-19.5	less than 6 ug/m3

260330901	Sault Ste. Marie #1	6/11/03	7.4	7.0	 	5.4

	260330901	Sault Ste. Marie #1	9/30/03	1.1	2.1	2.6	-90.9	less than 6
ug/m3

260330902	Bahweting	6/11/03	6.8	7.1	---	-4.4

	260330902	Bahweting	9/30/03	1.5	1.6	---	-6.7	less than 6 ug/m3

260810020	Grand Rapids	8/13/03	12.4	12	12.6	3.2

	260810020	Grand Rapids	10/21/03	6.9	6.6	 	4.3	 

260990009	New Haven	2/20/03	16	17.7	---	-10.6	 

261390005	Jenison	10/21/03	6.2	5.8	---	6.5	less than 6 ug/m3

261470005	Port Huron	2/20/03	17.9	20.9	---	-16.8	 

260070005	Alpena	2/28/02	10.60	6	---	43.4

	260070005	Alpena	5/29/02	12.30	21.4	---	-74.0

	260070005	Alpena	9/5/02	6.80	4.7	---	30.9	less than 6 ug/m3

260070005	Alpena	12/7/02	18.80	10.1	---	46.3	not a sched. run date

260770008	Kalamazoo	2/28/02	14.2	17.2	 	-21.1

	260770008	Kalamazoo	5/29/02	15.9	17.1	 	-7.5

	260770008	Kalamazoo	12/7/02	25.9	31.6	 	-22.0

	260770008	Kalamazoo	9/5/02	5.5	5.6	 	-1.8	less than 6 ug/m3

261210040	Muskegon	2/28/02	7.1	10.1	---	-42.3

	261210040	Muskegon	5/29/02	18.4	17	---	7.6

	261210040	Muskegon	9/5/02	4.8	4.3	---	10.4	less than 6 ug/m3

261210040	Muskegon	12/7/02	13.9	16.3	---	-17.3	 

261630019	E 7 Mile	3/21/02	8.7	9.6	---	-10.3	not a sched. run date

261630019	E 7 Mile	5/23/02	20	20.6	---	-3.0

	261630019	E 7 Mile	9/11/02	4.4	4.5	---	-2.3	less than 6 ug/m3

261630019	E 7 Mile	12/19/02	16.4	15.7	---	4.3	 

261630025	Livonia	9/26/02	25.3	25.7	---	-1.6

	261630025	Livonia	10/17/02	6	6.1	---	-1.7

	261630025	Livonia	12/19/02	14.1	13.5	---	4.3	 

261630033	Dearborn	3/21/02	18.8	16.8	---	10.6

	261630033	Dearborn	5/23/02	27.1	27.1	---	0.0

	261630033	Dearborn	9/11/02	5.7	5.9	---	-3.5	 

260170014	Bay City	03/29/01	38.32	37.5	---	2.1

	260170014	Bay City	06/06/01	6.49	7.1	---	-9.4	 

260170014	Bay City	08/23/01	15.22	13.2	---	13.3	 

260170014	Bay City	10/04/01	4.66	5.3	---	-13.8	less than 6 ug/m3

260550003	Traverse City	06/21/01	9.12	10.2	---	-11.9	 

260550003	Traverse City	11/15/01	38.93	38.3	---	1.6	 

Table 13: PEP Audit Results 1999 to December 2005, continued



	Concentration, ug/m3 	POC 1

	AIRS ID	Site Name	Sample Run Date	EPA FRM 	 State POC 1	State POC 2 
Bias	Comments

261150005	Luna Pier	03/14/01	13.73	13.5	---	1.6	 

261150005	Luna Pier	05/16/01	30.07	35.5	---	-18.0	 

261150005	Luna Pier	07/12/01	4.95	4	---	19.2	less than 6 ug/m3

261150005	Luna Pier	10/25/01	5.33	4.9	---	8.1	less than 6 ug/m3

261450018	Saginaw	03/29/01	36.99	36.1	 	2.4	 

261450018	Saginaw	06/06/01	7.00	6.6	 	5.7	 

261450018	Saginaw	09/10/01	5.45	4.2	 	22.9	less than 6 ug/m3

261450018	Saginaw	10/04/01	4.24	5.2	 	-22.5	less than 6 ug/m3

261610008	Ypsilanti	03/14/01	12.37	12	11.7	3.0	 

261610008	Ypsilanti	05/16/01	34.25	32.1	 	6.3	 

261610008	Ypsilanti	07/12/01	5.53	3.5	3.5	36.7	less than 6 ug/m3

261610008	Ypsilanti	12/27/01	10.00	16.3	15.0	-63.0	 

261630016	Linwood	03/14/01	12.49	11.8	---	5.5	 

261630016	Linwood	05/16/01	32.25	30.1	---	6.7	 

261630016	Linwood	07/12/01	6.21	6.2	---	0.1	 

261630016	Linwood	10/25/01	5.28	---	---	 	No  sample

260050003	Holland	3/7/2000	19.7	17.8	---	9.64

	260050003	Holland	5/3/2000	10.4	9.9	---	4.81

	260050003	Holland	8/31/2000	33.5	31.9	---	4.78

	260050003	Holland	10/3/2000	7.8	6.8	---	12.82	 

260210014	Coloma	10/3/2000	8.4	8	---	4.76

	260210014	Coloma	3/7/2000	17.9	17.5	---	2.23

	260210014	Coloma	5/3/2000	11.7	10.8	---	7.69

	260210014	Coloma	5/3/2000	11.4	10.8	---	5.26

	260210014	Coloma	8/31/2000	29.7	28.2	---	5.05	 

260490021	Flint	11/2/2000	15.9	15	---	5.66

	260490021	Flint	3/1/2000	8.8	8.2	---	6.82

	260490021	Flint	7/20/2000	8.7	10.7	---	-22.99	 

260650012	Lansing	11/2/2000	25.1	24.6	 	1.99

	260650012	Lansing	12/20/2000	17.9	18.9	20.4	-5.59

	260650012	Lansing	3/1/2000	8.6	9.2	 	-6.98

	260650012	Lansing	4/27/2000	12.3	10.9	 	11.38

	260650012	Lansing	7/20/2000	8.5	8.6	---	-1.18	 

261250001	Oak Park	10/18/2000	15.2	14.7	---	3.29

	261250001	Oak Park	2/9/2000	35.1	40.7	---	-15.95

	261250001	Oak Park	4/12/2000	11.9	11.5	---	3.36

	261250001	Oak Park	7/26/2000	29.8	no sample	---	 	 

261610007	Ann Arbor	10/18/2000	11.5	12.9	---	-12.17

	261610007	Ann Arbor	2/9/2000	35.1	no sample	---



261610007	Ann Arbor	7/26/2000	28.3	29.1	---	-2.83	 

261630001	Allen Park	10/18/2000	15.1	14.9	 	1.32

	261630001	Allen Park	4/12/2000	13.9	13.2	 	5.04

	Table 13: PEP Audit Results 1999 to December 2005, continued



	Concentration, ug/m3 	POC 1

	AIRS ID	Site Name	Sample Run Date	EPA FRM 	 State POC 1	State POC 2 
Bias	Comments

261630001	Allen Park	7/26/2000	30.4	no sample	 



261630001	Allen Park	2/9/2000	40.0	40.5	 	-1.25	 

260050003	Holland	2/20/1999	5.9	5.3	---	-10.2	less than 6 ug/m3

260210014	Coloma	2/20/1999	7.3	6.7	---	-8.2	 

260810020	Grand Rapids	2/23/1999	12.8	12.9	13.7	0.8

	260810020	Grand Rapids	5/6/1999	11.6	10.5	 	-9.5

	260810020	Grand Rapids	8/25/1999	21.9	21.6	 	-1.4

	260810020	Grand Rapids	11/2/1999	3.1	2.5	2.6	-19.4	less than 6 ug/m3

260990009	New Haven	3/25/1999	4.5	4.3	---	-4.4	less than 6 ug/m3

260990009	New Haven	6/2/1999	12.9	15	---	16.3

	260990009	New Haven	8/19/1999	6.5	5.8	---	-10.8

	260990009	New Haven	10/27/1999	8.4	7.9	---	-6	 

261390005	Jenison	2/23/1999	12.3	13.2	---	7.3

	261390005	Jenison	5/6/1999	10.3	10.4	---	1

	261390005	Jenison	8/25/1999	20.4	19.6	---	-3.9

	261390005	Jenison	11/2/1999	2.3	1.6	---	-31.4	less than 6 ug/m3

261470005	Port Huron	3/25/1999	3.8	4.1	---	7.9	less than 6 ug/m3

261470005	Port Huron	6/2/1999	17.9	14.8	---	-17.3

	261470005	Port Huron	8/19/1999	7.3	void	---



261470005	Port Huron	10/27/1999	9.7	9.2	---	-5.2	 

261630015	SW HS	3/25/1999	8.9	8.4	---	-5.6

	261630015	SW HS	6/2/1999	17	15.3	---	-10

	261630015	SW HS	8/4/1999	12.8	error	---



261635015	SW HS	10/6/1999	 	6	---	 	 

261630036	Wyandotte	3/25/1999	6.3	error	---



261630036	Wyandotte	6/2/1999	13.5	14	---	3.7

	261630036	Wyandotte	8/4/1999	13.6	error	---



261630036	Wyandotte	10/6/1999	 	8.7	---	 	 



Continuous PM2.5 measurements are an important tool for determining
compliance with any visibility component of the NAAQS, AIRNOW reporting
and forecasting levels of fine particulate.  

Due to the uncertainties in the changes to the proposed monitoring
regulations, the level and form of the changes to the PM NAAQS and
funding levels, it is difficult to plan changes to the particulate
network.  The likelihood of nonattainment in western Michigan
necessitates retaining as many FRM sites as possible.  If these areas do
indeed have difficulty meeting a more stringent standard, chemical
speciation data is vital to understanding the nature of the particulate
problem and developing effective controls.  Also, to safe guard the
population of Michigan, it is vital that a once every three day sampling
frequency be retained.  Although it is doubtful that Michigan can
generate continuous data that is more FRM like, forecasting and AIRNOW
mapping require access to continuous data.  Given all these conflicting
objectives and  reductions in funding, prioritizing components of the
particulate program will be a challenge.  Criteria will need to be
developed to evaluate and prioritize various goals in the program.  The
MDEQ will work with Region 5 EPA in this arduous task.

  40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Regulations,
Proposed Rule. January 17, 2006.

  40 CFR Part 50 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter: Proposed Rule, January 17, 2006.

 40 CFR vol 71 no 10. January 17, 2006 proposed rules page 28001.

 The highest 3-year annual average and 3-year average of the 98th
percentile 24-hour readings within the  CSA or MSA are shown in the
table. 

 The highest 3-year annual average and 3-year average of the 98th
percentile 24-hour readings within the CSA or MSA are shown in the
table. 

 Sampling frequency of co-located samplers remains at once every 6 days.

2006 PM2.5 Annual Report for Michigan

 PAGE   xxxix 

 PAGE   xxxix 

2006 PM2.5 Annual Report for Michigan

  PAGE  34 

  PAGE  8 

2006 PM2.5 Annual Report for Michigan

  PAGE  47 

Source: Region 5 EPA

Figure 1: Impact of Proposed PM2.5 Network Design Elements

Figure 2: Comparison of Network Designs using Combined vs. Individual
Metropolitan Areas

Source: Region 5 EPA

Source: Region 5 EPA

