a
I
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 7
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, Kansas 66115
907/9-84-006
August, 1984
Environmental Services Division
EPA REGION VII IRC
Evaluation of
Ambient Air Quality
In The State of Kansas
Based on Monitoring Data
Through 1983
069215
Final
-------
EVALUATION OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
IN THE STATE OF KANSAS
Prepared by
Jeffrey A. Wandtke
Environmental Monitoring and
Compliance Branch
August 1984
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, Kansas 66115
816-236-3884
FTS: 926-3884
ACTIVITY NUMBER: SEH48
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an evaluation of recent ambient air quality in Kansas,
based on 1982 and 1983 monitoring data for the criteria pollutants [Total
Suspended Particulates (TSP), Sulfur Dioxide (SO?), Carbon Monoxide (CO),
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02), Ozone (03) and Lead (Pb)J. Trend evaluations are
based on five years of data, 1979-1983. All monitoring data used were
retrieved from the Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD) system.
The report presents the following information in graphical form:
- Recent air quality and trends
- Boundaries of designated non-attainment areas
- Spatial scale of representativeness and data completeness by monitor
- Emissions and stack height relative to monitor locations
- Population within designated non-attainment areas.
Tabular summaries in the Appendices show the numerical data on which the
graphics are based.
The findings and recommendations of the evaluation can be summarized in
three categories: Attainment/Non-Attainment Designations; Areas of
Continuing Air Quality Concern; and Monitor Operation.
A. Attainment/Non-Attainment Designations
Recent data show sufficient air quality improvement to clearly meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards in two areas which have been
designated non-attainment. Redesignations are recommended for:
TSP in Topeka (Secondary Non-Attainment to Attainment);
TSP in Kansas City (significant size reductions for the Primary and
Secondary Non-Attainment areas)
B. Areas of Continuing Air Quality Concern
Relatively few serious air quality problems were found in the State, based
on the monitoring data available in SAROAD. The recent data show violation
of the health-related (primary) standards in only one area of the State:
0 CO in Wichita (in 1982, but not in 1983).
This area is still under review by the State of Kansas. The exceedences of
the secondary TSP standard in Johnson County were not anticipated and review
by the State has commenced.
-C. Monitor Operation
The overall picture of monitor operation in Kansas shows commendable
performance by State and local agency personnel in ensuring data
completeness, in performing the quality control checks required by
the regulations of 40 CFR 58, Appendix A.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report draws on the work and talents of several people in.addition
to the author.
State and local agency personnel collected, processed and reported the
monitoring data which forms the basis of this evaluation. Based on their
first-hand experience at the monitoring locations, they have also provided
valuable insights into local conditions, both in cooperative discussions
and in formal reports which they have prepared. We appreciate their help.
Dr. Thomas T. Holloway of EPA Region VII, his insights and organization of
previous reports have made this report easier to compile. Carl Hess, a
former employee of Computer Sciences Corporation, wrote the software to
translate air quality data and emissions data into symbols for the maps in
the text.
Mary LaSala Region VII typed the manuscript. Rob Ireson of Systems
Applications, Inc., developed software which we requested for computing
population estimates for designated non-attainment areas. Tim Matzke
of the Environmental Results Branch, OMSE, EPA Headquarters, provided
coordination for the funding of that software.
The unique contributions of each of those individuals to this project are
gratefully acknowledged.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction • 1
II. Graphical Evaluation Procedures 2
A. Monitoring Data Maps . 4
B. Emissions Data Maps 7
III. Data Description - Information Sources, 8
Limitations and Analysis Procedures
A. Ambient Air Monitoring Data 8
B. Precision and Accuracy 8
C. Trends 9
D. Scale of Representativeness 10
E. Attainment Status Designations 10
F. Data Completeness 11
G. Emission Data 11
H. Population Data 11
IV. Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 12
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designation 12
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations 13
V. Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 22
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designation 22
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations 22
VI. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 26
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designation 26
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations 26
VII. Nitrogen Dioxide (NC>2) 32
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designation 32
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations 32
VIII. Ozone (03) 35
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designation 35
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations ~ 35
IX. Lead (Pb) 40
X. Precision and Accuracy 43
XI. Trends 46
XII. Population Exposure 47
-------
XIII. Summary and Recommendations . 49
Appendix A - Tabular Summaries of Data 50
Appendix B - Statistical Evaluation of Trends 70
Appendix C - Population Exposure Estimates 75
-------
INDEX OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Alert Levels 3
2 Legend for Ambient Monitoring Data Maps 5
3 Legend for Emissions Data Maps 6
4 Summary of TSP Recommendations 14
5 Population Within Designated Non-Attainment Areas 48
Al Ambient Air Monitoring Data 53
A2 Precision and Accuracy Estimates for Ambient Air Monitoring Data 60
A3 Attainment Status Designations 66
A4 Emissions Data 68
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Services Division of EPA Region VII prepares-an
evaluation of ambient air quality for each State within the Region,
periodically. The evaluation report serves as a basic reference
document which summarizes the following information for the State:
0 recent monitoring data
0 current attainment and non-attainment area designations
0 air quality trends
0 ambient monitor locations
0 emissions
0 population
° data completeness
0 monitor scales of representativeness
0 precision and accuracy estimates
Data summaries are presented both in graphical form (on maps) and in
tabular form.
This evaluation is based on information available as of May I, 1984.
That information includes non-attainment area designation changes which
were made during 1983. Emissions data reflect the latest National
Emissions Data System (NEDS) update supplied by the State. Ambient
monitoring data for 1982 and 1983 are included for all pollutants.
In addition, since the ozone standard is based on a three-year average,
1981 data are included for ozone.
-------
II. GRAPHICAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES
A primary goal of the Clean Air Act is the protection of public health
and welfare through the attainment and maintenance of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS's). Those standards have been set for six
"criteria pollutants" [total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide
(S02), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (N02) and
lead (Pb).] Before the standards were set, studies of the effects of
each pollutant were carefully reviewed and evaluated. Primary standards
are designed to protect human health, and are required by law to provide
a margin of safety in order to protect sensitive segments of the popula-
tion. Secondary standards protect public welfare (crops, building
materials, animals, etc.). Numerical values of those standards are
given in Table 1.
The regulations which implement the Clean Air Act require that public
announcement be made and that measures be taken to reduce pollutant
emissions when the ambient concentration exceeds the alert level for
that pollutant. Numerical values for these alert levels are also
given in Table 1.
The evaluation of air quality presented in this report is based on the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. So that the results of the
evaluation may be readily seen, the body of the text is designed around
graphic presentations which summarize a wide variety of air quality
information. Those presentations include two different types of maps.
Detailed numerical data summaries, from which the graphical summaries
were prepared, are included as appendices to the report.
The first type of maps show:
0 the boundaries of designated non-attainment and unclassified
areas,
0 the locations and scales of representativeness of ambient
monitors,
0 the comparison of ambient data with the standards,
° the specific standard(s) exceeded (if any) at each site,
0 the statistical trend observed at each site (subject to data
availability), and
° data completeness (relative to the National Aerometric Data
Branch data summary criteria.)
The second type of maps show:
0 the locations of large point sources (emitting 100 or more tons/year)
° the magnitude of emissions for each source
0 the stack height for each source, if available from NEDS
0 the locations of ambient monitors
0 the monitor type designation—National Air Monitoring Station
(NAMS), State and Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) or
Special Purpose Monitoring Station (SPMS)--for each monitor
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND ALER-T LEVELS
POLLUTANT
Particulate
Matter
Sul fur
Dioxide
Carbon
Monoxide
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Ozone
AVERAGING
TIME
Annual
(Geometric Mean)
24-hour*
Annual
(Arithmetic Mean)
24-hour*
3-hour*
8-hour*
1-hour*
Annual
(Arithmetic Mean)
1-hour
24-hour
1-hour**
PRIMARY
STANDARDS
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
80 ug/m3
(0.03 pom)
365 ug/m3
(0.14 ppm)
10 mg/m3
(9 ppm)
40 mg/m-5
(35 ppm)
100 ug/m3
(0.05 ppm)
0.12 ppm
(235 ug/m3)
SECONDARY ALERT
STANDARDS LEVEL
150 ug/m3 375 ug/m3
800 ug/m3
(0.3 ppm)
1300 ug/m3
(0.5 ppm)
(Same as primary) 17 mg/m3
(15 ppm)
(Same as primary)
1130 ug/m3
(0.6 ppm)
282 ug/m3
(0.15 ppm)
(Same as primary) 400 ug/m3
(0.2 ppm)
Lead
Calendar Quarter 1.5 ug/m3
(Same as primary)
* Not to be exceeded more than once per year, for primary and secondary standards,
** Not more than 1.0 expected exceedance per year, three-year average.
-------
The above items are illustrated in the legends to the maps (Tables 2 and 3)
The following paragraphs explain in detail the interpretation of the maps.
For convenience, an extra copy of the legends, a map with county names,
and a map of population density by county are inserted unbound at the
back of this report.
A. Monitoring Data Maps
For each monitor, the symbol location on the map shows the monitor
location. The symbol size displays the scale of representativeness of
the monitor - microscale, middle scale, neighborhood scale, urban scale
or regional scale. Symbol shading indicates data completeness. If
the data did not meet the completeness criteria described in Section III.F
in any one year evaluated, an open symbol "0" is shown. If the data
met the criteria in each year included in the evaluation, a filled
circle is shown. The symbol color presents the comparison of recent
monitoring data with the NAAQS's. Green indicates no violation of the
standards. Blue depicts violation of the secondary standard, but no
violation of the primary standard. Red highlights violation of the
primary standard. If the alert level was exceeded during the years
evaluated, a red flag is placed on top of the symbol. If any violation
of standards was observed, annotations next to the symbol specify which
standard(s) was (were) violated. Red annotations specify primary
standards, while blue annotations specify secondary standards. Where
the primary and secondary standards are identical, only the primary
standard is shown. Possible annotations include A, Q, 24, 8, 3 and 1,
signifying annual, quarterly, 24-hour, 8-hour, 3-hour and 1-hour standards,
respecti vely.
The boundaries of the designated non-attainment areas and unclassified
areas are shown as lines on the map. Red solid lines outline primary non-
attainment areas, blue solid lines outline secondary non-attainment areas,
and dashed lines show unclassified areas. Consequently, if the attainment
status designations are consistent with recent data, red monitor symbols
should appear only in red-outlined areas, and blue monitor symbols only
in blue-outlined areas.
For monitors which have recorded sufficient data during the five years
from 1979 through 1983, trends are presented as an additional annotation.
The trend labels and their respective symbols are: increasing trend (t),
probable increasing trend (A), no trend (-), probable decreasing trend
(v), and decreasing trend (4-). For pollutants which have only short-term
standards (CO and 03), the trend presented is for the 90th percentile
hourly concentrations observed each month over those five years.
F-or N02, which has only an annual standard, the trend presented~is for
the monthly average concentrations. For pollutants which have both
short-term and long-term standards (TSP and SO?), two trend symbols are
presented. The first symbol is for long-term averages, the second for
90th percentile concentrations. For lead, lack of sufficient data and
software precludes trend analysis at this time. Further details of the
trend analysis procedure are given later in this report (Section III. C).
-------
TABLE 2
LEGEND FOR AMBIENT MONITORING DATA MAPS
Boundaries
Primary Nonattai nment Area
Secondary Nonattai nment Area
Unclassified Area
Monitor Symbol Colors and Flag
"j No Violation of Standard
® Violation of Secondary
Standard
* Violation of Primary
Standard
r Exceedance of Alert Level
Annotation for Standards Violated
A Annual Primary Standard
Q Quarterly Primary Standard
24 24-hour Primary Standard
24
24-hour Secondary Standard
8-hour Primary Standard
3-hour Secondary Standard
1-hour Primary Standard
Annotation for Trends
t Increasing Trend
A Probable Increasing Trend
— No Trend
V Probable Decreasing Trend
4, Decreasing Trend
(Where two trend symbols are
shown, the first is for long-term
averages, the second for 24-hour
observations.)
Monitor Symbol Sizes
Microscale
c » Middle Scale
Q ty Neighborhood
Scale
/IiH!h\ Urban Scale
I ji (\\\\\ti Regional
VJ •vl'iv Scale
Data Completeness
'if1 Data met completeness
criteria each year.
0 Data did not meet complete-
ness criteria one or more
years.
-------
TAHLIC 3
IJCGKiND FOR EMISSIONS DATA MAPS
POINT SOURCK SYMBOL SIZE - EMISSIONS
(TONS/'YMAR)
NOi-j-.i FAD It AD
*- 9 :ji
:# ' ^
I'OINT HOURCI' SYMB01, COLOR STACK I1UIGHT
(MKTKHS)
AMBIKNT MONITOR SYMBOLS
n NAMS
®J SLAMS
A SPI>/;S
-------
B. Emissions Data Maps
The emissions data maps provide an overview of the monitoring network.
No State maps were produced due to incomplete coordinates for sources
outside major metropolitan areas. If the locations and stack heights
can be included in the next NEDS update which the State submits, those
overviews can be prepared for the FY-85 air quality evaluation report.
The locations of large point sources are shown by an asterisk. The
size of the symbol indicates the magnitude of the emissions, in three
ranges: 100-1000 tons/year, 1001-5000 tons/year and over 5000 tons/year
The symbol color indicates the stack height as follows: red for 1-45
meters, blue for 46-120 meters, and green for 121 meters or taller. If
the stack height is shown as zero in NEDS, a red question mark replaces
the asterisk.
Ambient monitor locations are shown as squares, circles or triangles
indicating NAMS, SLAMS and SPMS monitors, respectively.
-------
III. DATA DESCRIPTION - Information Sources, Limitations and Analysis
Procedures
The evaluation procedure described above requires detailed examination
of various kinds of data from various sources. The following paragraphs
describe the information sources, the limitations and the analysis pro-
cedures for the necessary data.
A. Ambient Air Monitoring Data
A network of ambient air monitoring stations has been established by
the State of Kansas, as required by 40 CFR §58.20 and §58.30. The
network includes not only the required National Air Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS), but also a
number of Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (SPMS) designed to address
short-term monitoring needs or special situations of interest to the State.
During the early and mid-1970's, an extensive air monitoring network
was maintained across the State, including monitors for all five pollutants
for which NAAQS's had been established by that time. (The NAAQS for
lead was promulgated in 1978, and siting criteria for lead monitors
were published as final rules in 1981.) Because the observed concentra-
tions at most sites were well below the respective standards, the
extent of the network was reduced considerably such that monitoring
resources were focused on populous areas where higher concentrations
had been monitored. The current network includes monitoring for several
pollutants in Kansas City, Lawrence, and Wichita, plus particulate
sampling in Topeka, Goodland, Concordia and Dodge City.
The locations of those monitors, shown in the graphical presentations
of this report, were obtained from the site file of the Storage and
Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD) system.
The ambient data used in this report were obtained from the SAROAD
data base. A copy of the SAROAD Quick Look Summary is included as
Table Al of the Appendix. The recorded values were compared with the
alert levels, the primary standards and the secondary standards for
graphical display on the maps. Data for 1982 and 1983 were used in the
analysis of recent air quality for all six criteria pollutants. Since
the ozone standard is based on a three-year average, 1981 data were
also included for ozone. For the analysis of trends, five years of
data (1979 through 1983) were used.
B. Precision and Accuracy
Each organization which reports air monitoring data is required to
calculate and report 95 percent probability limits for precision and
accuracy for all NAMS data collected after January 1, 1981, and for
all SLAMS data collected after January 1, 1983. Those probability
limits, which are calculated using specific equations from 40 CFR 58
-------
Appendix A, summarize the results of quality control checks which those
same regulations require. The meaning of the probability limits and
the procedures for performing the quality control checks are discussed
below in Section X.
The precision and accuracy reports available in SAROAD as of May 1984
are provided as Table A2 of the Appendix.
C. Trends
The trend analyses were performed on data from 1979 through 1983, using
the same statistical procedure as in prior years. That procedure
calculates the Sen non-parametric statistic, using the NADB*TRENDRUN
programs on the UNIVAC computer associated with the National Aerometric
Data Branch (NADB).
The analysis procedure can be visualized as follows. From all the data
for a given month, one single value is computed. The monthly values
are adjusted to account for seasonal variation. Each month's adjusted
value is compared with the value for every preceding month in the
measurement period. Next, for each month, tallies are made of how many
preceding months' values were higher and how many were lower than the
month in question. Those tallies are then summed to give grand totals
of months with higher readings and months with lower readings. Those
two grand totals are compared using the Sen statistic to determine
whether or not a statistically significant trend existed. Appendix B
gives the detailed step-by-step procedure, including the mathematical
equation for the Sen statistic. That appendix also provides a sample
calculation.
The values used for each month were selected as follows. Two trend
calculations were performed for TSP. For the first calculation, the
value used for a month was the geometric mean of all values measured
during the month. For the second calculation, the value used was the
90th percentile 24-hour concentration for all concentrations measured
during the month. (Because of the small number of TSP samples each
month, the 90th percentile concentration is also the maximum concentra-
tion.) Two calculations were likewise performed for SOg. The first
used the monthly arithmetic mean, the second the 90th percentile 24-hour
concentration. For N02 and Pb, the monthly arithmetic mean was used.
For CO and 03, which have only short-term standards, the value used was
the 90th percentile 1-hour concentration.
As noted above, the trend evaluations for short-term high concentrations
.use 90th percentile concentrations, rather than maximum concentrations.
The reason for that choice is that the 90th percentile values give more
stable trend estimates, and minimize the bias which would result from
extreme values caused by data handling errors, unusual weather conditions,
etc.
-------
Since the trend evaluation uses a statistical technique, erroneous
results could be obtained if a limited amount of data were used.
Minimum criteria chosen were at least 50% complete data for the- five
years 1979-1983, and at least 75% complete data for at least three of
those years. These criteria disallowed trend evaluation at many mon-
itoring sites.
The results of recent pollution abatement actions may not be reflected
in the five-year trend analysis, since concentration increases early in
the time period could mask recent short-term improvements. As mentioned
before, the trends are based on 1979 through 1983 data. The data used
in reviewing attainment or non-attainment of the NAAQS's, however,
cover only the periods 1981-1983 for ozone and 1982-1983 for the other
pollutants.
D. Scale of Representativeness
Spatial Scales of Representativeness are described in 40 CFR Part 58,
Appendix D. The scale of representativeness identifies the size of an
air parcel around a monitor which is homogeneous in terms of pollutant
concentrations, population density and geographical features. The
scales pertinent to the present analysis are, in order of increasing size:
microscale (part of a city block); middle scale (a few square blocks);
neighborhood scale (a few square kilometers); urban scale (the size of
an entire city); and regional scale (several hundred to several thousand
square kilometers, generally in rural areas). The air quality analysis
includes the scale of representativeness for each monitor in order to
depict the expected geographical extent of the concentrations monitored.
The scales of representativeness for the monitors were obtained from
the report entitled "Annual Ambient Air System Audit of Kansas..." for
calendar year 1984, which was prepared by Richard Tripp of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
E. Attainment Status Designations
The designations of attainment, non-attainment and unclassified areas are
found in 40 CFR §81.317. The designations used in the analysis are
included as Table A3 of Appendix A. Because of the logistics of graphics
preparation, a cut-off date of May 1, 1984 was used. The map presenta-
tions show boundaries for non-attainment areas and unclassified areas,
obtained from those designations. In cases where the wording of 40 CFR
§81.317 does not provide specific boundaries, the boundaries were
obtained from maps which the state submitted to EPA with the designation
requests. Where non-attainment or unclassified area boundaries follow
-county lines, those lines on the map do not precisely coincidev in order
that both lines can be clearly seen. In some cases, larger discrepancies
in the boundaries are evident, because the county boundaries in the ZMAP
computer mapping system are not exact.
10
-------
F. Data Completeness
If monitoring data for a site are incomplete, they may give a distorted
picture of air quality. Annual or quarterly averages calculated from
incomplete data may be biased either high or low, making comparisons
with long-term NAAQS's uncertain. Where the NAAQS's are based on short-
term averages (1, 3, 8 or 24 hours), incomplete data may reduce the
number of detected exceedances of the standard. For all such pollutants
except ozone, any bias resulting from incomplete data would make short-term
air quality appear better than it actually was. For ozone, the standard
is based on "expected exceedances," which consider both the number of
measured exceedances and the time period over which they were measured,
in order to project the number of exceedances expected for a full year
of monitoring. Therefore, incomplete ozone data could make the air
quality appear either better or worse. For the analysis presented in
this report, the data are considered "complete" if they include
enough observations (reported as valid) to meet the minimum NADB data
requirements for calculating average concentrations. (Sites which
do not meet these criteria are indicated by a question mark in Table Al
of Appendix A). Those criteria are applied by the NADB to pollutants
which have NAAQS's based on annual or quarterly averages (TSP, S02, NC>2
and Pb). For CO and 03, however, annual averages are not computed by
the NADB. For those two pollutants, a minimum criterion of 75% complete
data for the entire year is chosen for the analysis in this report.
G. Emi ssions Data
The emissions data used in this report were obtained from the National
Emissions Data System (NEDS). The graphical analysis procedure applied
to those data shows the locations and stack heights of large point
sources. The emission estimates stored in NEDS for Kansas sources were
hand-calculated by the KDHE.
On the maps, a single symbol is shown for each plant. If a plant has
two or more stacks, it is still treated as a single source. In that
case, the stack height used is a weighted average of the heights of the
individual stacks. The weighting factors are the fractions of the
total emissions coming from each stack.
H. Population Data
Population data are used in two contexts in the report. First, a
map of population density by county is provided at the back of the report.
That map is based on 1980 population data which was obtained directly
from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Second, population exposure
estimates are presented in Section XII for non-attainment areas, based
on 1970 census data which are available at a higher level of spatial
resolution. Those estimates were produced by Systems Applications,
Inc., using block group and enumeration district population data,
and were scaled to approximate 1978 values using county-level growth
factors. Appendix C describes the procedures used for those calculations.
11
-------
IV. TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICIPATES (TSP)
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designations
The State map shows an extensive TSP monitoring network in Kansas City,
Topeka and Wichita, and additional monitors in three smaller cities in
the central and western portions of the State. This review will focus
first on the smaller cities, then on information presented for the larger
cities on inset maps.
Data from Concordia show an annual geometric mean of 79 ug/rn-^ in 1983
(an apparent violation of the annual primary standard of 75 ug/m^). The
data showed one and four 24-hour observations in 1982 and 1983, respec-
tively, in excess of 150 ug/nr (apparent violations of the secondary
standards) and one value in 1983 in excess of 260 ug/m^. Trend analysis
at this site showed no trend in particulate concentration.
Data from Dodge City show no violation of any of the particulate standards
in 1982 or 1983. However, the 1982 data from Dodge City were only about
50% complete.
Data from Goodland show six and four 24-hour observations in 1982 and 1983,
respectively, in excess of 150 ug/m^ (apparent violations of the secondary
standards). Trend analysis at this site showed a decreasing trend in par-
ticulate concentration.
The fugitive dust policy was described in the Federal Register, Volume 3,
Number 43 (Friday, March 3, 1978) page 8963.
"EPA's fugitive dust policy recognizes the generally greater
health impact due to fugitive dust in urban areas in contrast to
rural areas. In urban areas, the windblown soil contains various
man-made toxic pollutants. But, rural windblown dust is usually
not significantly contaminated by industrial pollutants. Therefore,
for the purposes of these designations [TSP attainment status desig-
nations], any rural areas experiencing TSP violations which could
be attributed to fugitive dust could claim attainment of the TSP
NAAQS. Rural areas for this purpose are defined as those which
have: (1) a lack of major industrial development or the absence
of significant industrial particulate emissions, and (2) low
urbanized population densities."
The following comments highlight the detailed analyses presented on the
inset maps. The abbreviations PNA and SNA are used for "primary non-
attainment area" and "secondary non-attainment area," respectively,
based on current designations.
Kansas City - Data throughout the area show attainment of the primary
standards. The data showed four and fourteen 24-hour observations in 1982
and 1983, respectively, in excess of 150 ug/rrH (apparent violations of the
secondary standards) at four of the seven monitors in the Kansas City area.
Three years ago, sample savers were added to TSP monitors in Kansas City.
Data collected with and without the sample savers (since 1981) are not
really comparable for trend analysis, yet the trend analysis covers a
12
-------
five year period. Also, the Air Pollution Mapping System runs trends
on the entire State. Therefore, the trend indicators shown on the map
for the Kansas City sites may not be accurate. However, the use of
recent data is valid for assessing compliance with the NAAQS.
Based on the 1982-1983 data, significant reductions in the sizes of the
non-attainment areas appear justified. We recommend redesignating the
Fairfax and Ann Street areas to secondary non-attainment and shrinking
the PNA to the Armourdale area. After industrial production increases
again, the most current monitoring data should be reviewed to verify
that the primary NAAQS's are still being met in the Fairfax area. Redesig-
nation of the remaining area to attainment is supported by the data with
the exception of the 8715 west 49th Street site. The data show six
24-hour observations in 1983 in excess of 150 ug/m^ (apparent violations
of the secondary standards). If continued monitoring indicates observations
in excess of 150 ug/m^, designation to SNA would be justified.
Topeka - Data continue to show no violation of the NAAQS's during 1982 or
1983. Those data meet the NADB summary criteria for completeness and trend
analysis show probable decreasing to decreasing pollutant concentrations at
three of the four sites. Therefore, redesignation of the SNA to attainment
would be supported by the data.
Wichita - Data show three 24-hour observations in 1983 in excess of 150 ug/m^
(apparent violations of the secondary standard), all occurring at one site.
Trend analysis show no trend has developed at this site. If continued mon-
itoring indicates observations in excess of 150 ug/m-^, designation to SNA
would be justified.
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations
Particulate point sources are shown for the three cities (Kansas City, Topeka
and Wichita) where coordinates were available. (The numbers beside the
point source symbols refer to the left-most column of Table A4 of Appendix A.)
The three areas of interest have numerous point sources with emissions in the
range 100 to 1000 tons/year. Only one plant emits over 1000 tons/year, based
on the NEDS printout, and none emit over 5000 tons/year. Stack heights are
not available in NEDS for most of the sources. The monitoring network includes
monitors in most areas with large emissions.
Synopsis and Recommendations
Decreases in monitored TSP concentrations have been observed in recent years
_in each of the designated non-attainment areas, but two sites i_n urban areas
show an increase in TSP concentrations. Based on the recent data, several
changes in attainment status designations are recommended, as shown in
Table 4.
13
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF TSP RECOMMENDATIONS
Kansas City Redesignate Fairfax and the Ann Street
areas from primary non-attainment to
secondary non-attainment.
Shrink the primary non-attainment area
to the industrial-residential area
around the 420 Kansas Avenue site.
Redesignate the area around 8715 West 49th
Street to secondary non-attainment if
exceedances recur.
Topeka Redesignate the secondary non-attainment
area to attainment.
Wichita Redesignate the area around 401 South Tyler
Road to secondary non-attainment if
exceedances recur.
14
-------
Q
P.
i/j
X
W
K *^
CQ
-------
i T T
AtJji.
CVTCVTV\T _ vTVfT
O •• :D_V V -1 v uj V VI
V3 0
1
j
-------
ffi'V
AMBIENT TSP DATA - TOPKKA AREA
0-1253.1
17
-------
—,
AMBIENT TSP DATA - WICHITA AREA
18
-------
29
TSP EMISSIONS AND TSP MONITORS
KANSAS CITY AREA
19
-------
TSP EMISSIONS AND TSP MONITORS - TOPEKA AREA
20
-------
13
m
• /-
11
TSP EMISSIONS AND TSP MONITORS - WICHITA AREA
07COS-!
21
-------
V. SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02)
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designations
Sulfur dioxide monitoring is conducted at two SLAMS locations in the
Kansas City area. The entire area is designated as "Better Than National
Standards" for SC^. Since recent monitoring data show no violation
of standards, that designation remains consistent with the data. The
site on Fairfax Road shows an increasing trend in 90th percentile concen-
trations over the period 1979 through 1983. However, since the second
maximum 24-hour concentrations do not exceed half of the NAAQS, it
seems unlikely that the present S02 standards will be exceeded in the
Kansas City area in the near future.
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations
Sulfur dioxide point sources for the Kansas City area are shown. (The
numbers beside the point source symbols refer to the left-most column
of Table A4 of Appendix A.) Those sources show two points emit in the
range of 100 to 1000 tons/year, three in the 1000 to 5000 tons/year, and
two emit over 10,000 tons/year. Stack heights are not available in
NEDS for most of the sources. The two monitors are located near the
two largest sources of emissions.
Review of the emissions data for Topeka and Wichita show three sources
emitting in the range of 100-1000 tons/year and two in the range of
1000-5000 tons/year.
22
-------
t -s F T~> T T-I -\ - rp r r\ o TN t m *
AAi n i it A i S (J ,c i) A i A
-------
AMBIENT S02 DATA - KANSAS CITY AREA
24
-------
36
EMISSIONS AND S02 MONITORS
KANSAS CITY AREA
25
-------
VI. CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designations
Carbon monoxide monitoring is conducted in the Kansas City and Wichita
areas. The following comments refer to the detailed analyses presented
on the inset maps.
Kansas City - Data show no violation of the NAAQS's during 1982 or 1983.
Furthermore, those data meet the NADB summary criteria for completeness.
The entire area is designated as "Better Than National Standards".
Wichita - Part of Wichita, including the downtown area, is designated
as non-attainment for CO. Monitoring data are available in SAROAD from
two SLAMS monitors in the non-attainment area. In addition, a special
purpose monitor (SPM) was established in July of 1982 to determine
whether or not maximum CO concentrations were being measured by the
SLAMS monitors. Data from the SPM are not available in SAROAD. The
1982 data show a few exceedances, but 1983 data show no exceedances of
the standard. Data from a peak concentration CO monitoring site should
be included in SAROAD for purposes of determining attainment status.
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations
The emissions maps for Kansas City and Wichita show all point sources
emit less than 1000 tons/year. As would be expected for CO, area sources
are much more significant than point sources in the largest cities. The
current CO monitoring network includes monitors in Kansas City and Wichita,
and addresses the highest priority CO monitoring needs.
26
-------
i_
~T
—
T
-j!— -v- --L~
—I
T
i—
L
1
I
I
T
'i
L_._J
i
!
I
|
__l
1
i
J
* ^. rrjTTTIvrri /'''A T\ \ T1 \
'v.MOillA i. LU DAiA
-------
C; \ t< f'TrPV
Nki/VO LI i 1
28
-------
•' T ) T v "^ * m ( '• f\ T \ , rn -i Ti7- T f 1 T T r m i s Y) T,I i
.iJii^; •, A (, 0 J.^i.v -- ili(iiil;i AKl^A
29
-------
1 /
I/
CO EMISSIONS AND CO MONITORS
Y~ '•, "\TC « o r'TTV •> PV ^
IV i V i N i ^ i\ > ^ \, ill i 11\ I j r\
30
-------
r
i
CO EMISSIONS AND CO MONITORS - WICHITA AREA
31
-------
VII. NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designations
Monitoring for N02 is conducted in the Kansas City area only at 619
Ann Street. Monitoring was resumed in April, 1982, after being dis-
continued in 1979. Data from the last three quarters of 1982 show an
average of about one-third of the standard. No data was reported for
the last quarter of 1983 due to the monitor not running properly. The
entire area is designated as "Better Than National Standards" for N02,
which is consistent with the most recent data.
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations
Review of Table A4 of the Appendix for the three largest cities (Kansas
City, Topeka and Wichita) show that the largest emissions came from
power plants with 45% of the NOX emissions occurring in the Kansas
City area. Stack heights for most sources are not available in NEDS.
The current N02 monitoring network appears adequate to address the N02
monitoring needs.
32
-------
rr
(
LI i
..... - ...... ......
r
i —
\ t-
t- -^ -V-
--,1-
1
1
L
! :
1- _i -1 f
..j.
o
h
T ..... -i ..... J
T"
i
L_.
33
-------
co
C/j
O
GO
-------
VIII. OZONE (03)
A. Ambient Data and Attainment Status Designations
Three counties in Kansas (Wyandotte and Johnson Counties in the"Kansas
City area, and Douglas County surrounding Lawrence) are designated as
non-attainment areas for ozone. SLAMS monitors are operated in the
Kansas City and Wichita areas. A special purpose monitor has been
established in Lawrence to resolve the question of whether or not that
non-attainment designation should be changed.
Ozone is formed by a complex photochemical reaction among non-methane
hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. The
reaction time is measured in hours, and during that time the wind usually
carries the pollutants tens of miles from the locations where the
precursors were emitted. Therefore, ozone concentrations measured at
a point some 25-50 miles downwind of a city may indicate a need for
emission reductions throughout the city. Consequently, the following
ozone evaluations focus on entire metropolitan areas, rather than on
limited areas around specific monitors. Furthermore, the inset map for
Kansas City includes both Kansas and Missouri counties, in order to
show that broader perspective.
Kansas City - The inset map shows limited monitoring data on the Kansas
side.The monitor in Wyandotte County was established early in 1982,
and reported over 98% complete data for 1982 and 1983. During 1983,
one exceedance of the standard was observed. (That was not a violation
of the standard, since one exceedance per year is allowed.)
Data on the Missouri side show one exceedance each at two sites in 1981,
no exceedance at any site in 1982, and three exceedances at one site in
1983. Atypical meteorological conditions have been suggested as the pre-
dominant cause of the exceedances in 1983. The non-attainment designation
remains consistent with the data.
Lawrence - Since the SPMS data have not been reported to SAROAD, this
report makes no recommendations regarding changes in the non-attainment
designation. The data would be included with any redesignation request
submitted by the State, and will be reviewed when such a request is
received.
Wichita - Data from both monitoring sites in the Wichita area show no
violation of the ozone standard, but increasing trends in concentrations.
Continued monitoring is suggested to validate the trends findings.
B. Emissions Data and Monitor Locations
Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by a complex photochemical reaction
involving hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, oxygen and sunlight. The
reaction may take several hours, resulting in maximum concentrations
well downwind of the locations where the precursors were emitted.
35
-------
Review of Table A4 of the Appendix for the three largest cities (Kansas
City, Topeka and Wichita) show that 66% of the VOC emissions occur in
the Kansas City area. Stack heights for most sources are not available
in NEDS. Due to the locations of the sources (Kansas City area) and
the State border, a downwind site operated by the State is not possible.
Close coordination between the State of Kansas and the State of Missouri
is encouraged to continue the decrease in emissions of the precursors.
36
-------
r
—r —t-
-t™
f--- - —r—
T
,,'"'
*• 1
V <
X1 .
- 3
;',j
!
i
i
1
i
T ' - "]
i
i
j
\ —
!-T-
1 I
; i
• f i. J ; '
; ! "" 1 ! !
1 1 ! 1
' ! i
! T['
1 ; ! i
] 1 " " " a~T" *'"T " "
" "~i- n _^ i
i i
' i !
I ^.L 1-
h — • r-
' 1 I !
1 i r
._ j ^.j r
r 1 1 ..^ --(
\ 1 ^
"
T ~ "•
!
i
s-~~'\
X" 'A
f"
i
i
i
i
,
•;ri •*' (
I /
, 1
—r
i
I
/
-------
c/:
CO
CO
. /
-------
6£
T 7 r T \ T T, 7 \ T T A ( I \ '
V iHlci V AJJ.J O v
SHOJ.IXOK CO (JMV SNOISSIIVM
-------
IX. LEAD (Pb)
The State established two SLAMS lead monitoring sites (including one
NAMS site) by March 1, 1982, well ahead of the deadlines of July 1,
1982 for NAMS and January 1, 1983 for SLAMS. In addition, data were
reported to SAROAD in 1982 for lead analyses performed by EPA Headquarters
on TSP Hi-vol filters from one site in Wichita. None of the data showed
any violation of the lead standard.
40
-------
r ^—[
"T
—^ ^
—r T'
—I
-I
J
r\.
i V
~l
j
i
4--
j
i
j
I—-
I
—I
!
-------
* T
: \ i A
f:TTY
V./ II I
42
-------
X. PRECISION AND ACCURACY
For continuous monitors (CO, S02, N02, and 03), the regulations of 40 CFR
Part 58, Appendix A require precision checks in order to assess precision
for each pollutant, and audits in order to assess accuracy.
Precision checks are performed by introducing a gas of known concentra-
tion into the analyzer, and comparing the concentration reading from the
monitor with the known concentration of the gas. These checks are
required every two weeks, and involve one gas concentration. Audits
likewise involve comparison of known gas concentrations with the analyzer
readings. Audits are more extensive than precision checks, requiring
at least three different concentrations of gases. Audit of each analyzer
is required annually, and audit of at least 25% of the SLAMS analyzers
for each pollutant is required each quarter.
For manual methods (TSP, Pb, S02 bubblers and N02 bubblers), the regula-
tions require duplicate (collocated) sampling to assess precision and
audits to assess accuracy. Each collocated sampler is operated at the
same time and in the same manner as the SLAMS monitor at the same site.
The percent difference between the two sample concentrations forms the
basis for precision estimates. For lead, analysis of duplicate portions
of a single Hi-vol filter may be substituted for collocated sampling.
Audits for manual methods differ by method. For TSP, the audits are
performed by comparing the flow rate indicated by the Hi-vol sampler to
the true flow rate determined from a flow standard. The audit frequency
required for Hi-vol samplers is the same as that required for continuous
monitors.
Audit procedures for S02 bubblers, N02 bubblers and Pb, require that
the analytical measurement process be audited. Details of those procedures
are found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A.
Use of specific equations is required for the calculation of precision
and accuracy. Each organization which reports data is required to
calculate and report precision and accuracy estimates for all NAMS data
collected after January 1, 1981, and for all SLAMS data collected after
January 1, 1983.
Table A2 of Appendix A summarizes the precision and accuracy estimates
reported by the State during 1982 and 1983. The numbers under the
heading "YR-Q" near the left of each printout specify the year and
calendar quarter to which the precision and accuracy data apply. (For
example, 82-2 refers to the second quarter of 1982.) Composite data
for the entire year are identified as quarter number 5. (For example,
82-5 gives the estimates for the full calendar year 1982).
The accuracy estimates are arranged by concentration levels LI (low
concentration) through L4 (high concentration). Specific ranges for the
concentration levels are required by 40 CFR 58, Appendix A, as follows:
43
-------
NO?, 03, SO? (ppm) CO (ppm) TSP (cfm)
.03 to
.15 to
.35 to
.80 to
.08
.20
.45
.90
3
15
35
80
to
to
to
to
8
20 40-60
45
90
Pb (ug/strip)
100-300
600-1000
—
LI
12
L3
L4
The precision and accuracy estimates are expressed as 95% probability
limits, as required by the same regulations. The meaning of those
limits is illustrated by the following three examples taken from Table A2.
a. The precision data for CO show composite limits of -07 and +04
for calendar year 1983 (line 83-5), based on a total of 64 precision
checks. Therefore, 95% of the precision checks would be expected to
fall between 7% below and 4% above the known concentration of the test
gas used for the precision checks.
b. The accuracy data for S02 show limits of -20 and +01 for the
audits performed at concentration level 2 (column L2) during the fourth
quarter of 1982 (line 82-4). Therefore, 95% of the audits performed
at that time at that concentration level would be expected to fall
between 20% below and 1% above the known concentration of the audit
gas.
c. The precision data for TSP show probability limits of -20 and +09
for the first quarter of 1982 (line 82-1), based on 23 valid collocated
data pairs. Therefore, 95% of the concentrations measured by the
collocated sampler would be expected to fall between 20% lower and 9%
higher than the corresponding concentrations measured at the same time
by the SLAMS monitor at the same site.
The following observations are drawn from Table A2.
TSP The precision and accuracy data reflect conscientious
performance of the required collocated sampling and monitor
audits.
S02 The number of audits have doubled since 1982 showing a
conscientious performance of the required monitor audits.
CO The total number of audits is more than the minimum number
required by 40 CFR 58 Appendix A, an encouraging^trend.
44
-------
N02 Precision and accuracy estimates are required for SLAMS
monitors beginning on January 1, 1983. Precision checks
were performed, however, no audits were. We encourage
the State to ensure that at least the required minimum
number of N02 audits are performed.
03 The precision and accuracy data reflect conscientious
performance of the required monitor audits.
Pb The precision and accuracy data reflect conscientious
performance of the required collocated sampling and monitor
audits.
The overall conclusion which emerges from the precision and accuracy
summaries is that the State has conscientiously performed the data
assessment and reporting activities required by 40 CFR 58, Appendix A.
We commend the State personnel, and encourage them to continue those
efforts to provide timely assessments of precision and accuracy.
45
-------
XI. TRENDS
The results of trend analyses were presented graphically in the preceding
sections for each monitor whose data met the required completeness
criteria (described in Section III.C). The following table gives a
summary of the trend evaluations, with the last column designed to
highlight areas of concern.
Pollutant
TSP
S02
CO
N02
03
Pb
Monitors with
Sufficient Data
Total for Trend
Monitors Analysis
20
2
3
1
3
3
18
2
2
0
1
1
Monitors with
Decreasing or
Probable
Decreasing
Trend
9
1
2
0
0
1
(A mean)
Monitors with
Increasing or
Probable
Increasing
Trend
2
1
0
0
1
0
(90%-A)
Monitors with
Violations and
Increasing or
Probable
Increasing Trend
0
0
0
0
0
0
The S0£ site in Fairfax showed an increasing trend in the 90th percentile
and a decreasing trend in the monthly arithmetic mean.
In last years report (EPA 907/9-83-004), the CO site at 1900 East Ninth
Street in Wichita showed violations of the 8-hour primary standard and an
increasing trend in the 90th percentile. This site showed no exceedances
in 1983 and, due to a problem in the trends software, we were unable to
run trends at this site this year.
In summary, the trend analyses
than with worsening trends.
show more sites with improving trends
46
-------
XII. POPULATION EXPOSURE
Population exposure to elevated pollutant concentrations is difficult
to measure accurately. (People spend varying amounts of time in
different parts of a city which may have localized areas with high
pollutant concentrations. Population estimates within such localized
areas are difficult to compute manually because that calculation requires
locating and summing the populations of numerous small, detailed geogra-
phical areas.) Previous attempts to estimate population exposure have
focused on populations of entire counties or metropolitan areas, even
though the designated non-attainment areas were only portions of those
counties or cities. While such approximations are understandable,
given the difficulty of obtaining and using population data with more
detailed spatial resolution, they may greatly overestimate the populations
exposed to elevated pollutant concentrations. A better approximation
of exposed population would be a determination of just that segment of
the population living within the designated non-attainment areas. (For
03, while that number may over-estimate the population actually exposed
to high ozone concentrations, it should closely approximate the population
affected by pollution control measures.) At our request, Systems Applications,
Inc. (SAI) has developed software to estimate the population within any
given closed polygon, using the detailed census Block Group/Enumeration
District data in their computer data base. The non-attainment areas
shown on the maps in Sections IV through VIII of this report were sent
to SAI for computation of the enclosed populations. Table 5 summarizes
the results of those calculations. The population density maps from
which the table was prepared are shown in Appendix C. That Appendix
also describes the calculation procedure more fully.
It should be noted that redesignations were recommended which would
reduce the size of some non-attainment areas. The populations in the
table show that significant numbers of people have benefitted from the
recent reductions in pollutant concentrations.
47
-------
TABLE 5
POPULATIONS WITHIN DESIGNATED NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS
TSP
Kansas City
Topeka
CO
Wichita
Kansas City
Lawrence
Primary
90,000
Primary and Secondary
22,000
Primary and Secondary
434,000
67,000
Secondary
117,000 (includes PNA)
7,000
48
-------
XIII. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Attainment Status Designations
The evaluations of ambient air quality based on recent monitoring
data found the attainment status designations to be generally consistent
with recent data. Recommendations were made in this report for attainment
status changes for TSP. The TSP recommendations, which were summarized
in Table 4, would redesignate the remaining secondary non-attainment
area in Topeka to attainment, and would significantly reduce the size of
the primary and secondary non-attainment areas in Kansas City.
B. Air Quality Concern Areas
One area of the State exceeded the primary (health-related) NAAQS's for
the period of this study.
0 CO data collected at two sites in Wichita show a few exceedances
of the 8-hour primary standard in 1982, but not in 1983.
We encourage the State personnel to continue their efforts to reduce
the CO concentrations in Wichita.
In recent years, there have been reductions in both the number and the
size of areas which exceed the primary standards. Those reductions are
encouraging indications of progress made by the State and local agencies.
C. Monitor Operation
The monitors were operated in such a way that the data from those monitors
generally meet or exceed the minimum completeness criteria used by the
National Aerometric Data Bank. The precision and accuracy data generally
indicate a conscientious effort toward meeting the data assessment and
reporting requirements of 40 CFR 58, Appendix A. The overall picture
of monitor operation shows commendable performance by State and local
agency personnel.
49
-------
APPENDIX A
Tabular Summaries of Data
Table Description
Al Ambient Air Monitoring Data
A2 Precision and Accuracy Estimates for Ambient
Ai r Monitoring Data
A3 Attainment Status Designations
A4 Emissions Data
50
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE Al
SITE ID
YR
REP ORG
f OBS
MAX 20-HR 1ST
MAX 20-HR 2ND
OBS >260
OBS >150
ARIT MEAN
CEO MEAN
GSD
METH
QTRLY ARITH MEAN 1ST
QTRLY ARITH MEAN 2ND
QTRLY ARITH MEAN 3RD
QTRLY ARITH MEAN OTH
MEANS >1.5
MAX VALUES 1ST
MAX VALUES 2ND
MAX 1-HR 1ST
MAX 1-HR 2ND
OBS>00
MAX 8-HR 1ST
MAX 8-HR 2ND
OBS >10
OBS >365
MAX 3-HR 1ST
MAX 3-HR 2ND
OBS >1300
.DAILY MAX 1-HR 1ST
DAILY MAX 1-HR 2ND
DAILY MAX 1-HR 3RD
Site identification number
Year
Reporting organization
Number of observations
Highest value recorded in a 20-hour period
Second highest value recorded in a 20-hour period
Number of observations greater than 260
Number of observations greater than 150
Arithmetic mean
Geometric mean
Geometric standard deviation
Method
First quarter arithmetic mean
Second quarter arithmetic mean
Third quarter arithmetic mean
Fourth quarter arithmetic mean
Number of quarterly means greater than 1.5
Highest value recorded for the year
Second highest value recorded for the year
Highest value recorded in a one-hour period
Second highest value recorded in a one-hour period
Number of observations greater than 00
Highest value recorded in an eight-hour period
Second highest value recorded in an eight-hour period
Number of observations greater than 10
Number of observations greater than 365
Highest value recorded in a three-hour period
Second highest value recorded in a three-hour period
Number of observations greater than 1300
Maximum hourly ozone value for a day
Second maximum hourly ozone value for a day
Third maximum hourly ozone value for a day
51
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE Al (Continued)
VALS >.125 MEAS Number of measured values greater than .125
VALS >.125 EST Number of expected violations
NBR VALID DAILY MAX Number of valid daily maximum values
MISS DAYS ASS < STD Number of missing days assumed to be less than the
standard
? The mean does not satisfy summary criteria
52
-------
04/13/84
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER (UG/M3) KANSAS
82-83
PAGE
METHOD; GRAVIMETRIC, 24-HOUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE-SI
SITE ID
170680001F01
170680001F01
170800001F01
170800001F01
171240001F01
171240001F01
171800001F01
171800001F01
171800007F01
171800007F01
171800011F02
171800011F02
171800014F01
171800014F01
171800015F02
£" 171800015F02
171800018F01
171800018F01
172340001F01
172340001F01
173320004F01
173320004F01
1733S0003F01
173380003F01
173560002F01
173560002F01
173560005F01
173560005F01
173560007F02
173560007F02
173740001F01
173740001F01
173740007F01
173740007F01
173740008F01
173740008F01
173740009F01
173740009F01
173740012F02
LOCATION
COHCORDIA
CONCORDIA
DODGE CITY
DODGE CITY
GOOD LAND
GOOD LAUD
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
MERRIAM
MERRIAM
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGUICK CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
TOPEKA
TOPEKA
TOPEKA
TOPEKA
TOPEKA
TOPEKA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
COUNTY
CLOUD CO
CLOUD CO
FORD CO
FORD CO
SHERMAN CO
SHERMAN CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
JOHNSON CO
JOHNSON CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAU'IJEE CO
SHAV.'NEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
1 SEDGWICK CO
SEDGUICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
ADDRESS
135 EAST 6TH ,CI
135 EAST 6TH ,CI
PUMP STA.,2100 1
PUMP STA. ,2100 1
CITY FIRE STA 10
CITY FIRE STA 10
619 ANN ST
619 ANN ST
1312 S 55TH ST
1312 S 55TH ST
3105 FAIRFAX RD
3105 FAIRFAX RD
36TH * RAINBOW B
36TH & RAINBOW B
420 KANSAS AVE.
420 KANSAS AVE.
5429 LEAVENWORT
5429 LEAVENWORT
8715 WEST 49TH.S
8715 WEST 49TH.S
CO. FIRE STA83.40
CO. FIRE STA83.40
1941 NE 39TH
1941 NE 39TH
HEALTH CENTER 16
HEALTH CENTER 16
37TH » BURLINGAM
37TH & BURLINGAM
1500 N.QUINCY
1500 N.QUINCY
FIRE STA 91 402
FIRE STA 91 402
ST PAUL ft WEST 1
ST PAUL ft WEST 1
GEO WASH BLVD ft
GEO WASH BLVD &
GLEN * WEST PAWN
GLEN & WEST PAWN
COLEMAH CO 3600
REP
YR ORG
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
82 001
«OBS
55
46
29
43
56
42
53
54
58
55
53
40
61
56
61
56
54
54
41
48
61
58
53
58
57
55
61
57
56
53
55
56
58
59
61
60
30
59
54
MAX 24-HR OBS>
1ST 2ND 260
214
285
286
114
231
164
177
156
118
157
153
204
131
117
183
236
110
118
120
195
167
234
113
116
142
130
131
142
186
144
173
133
151
147
116
121
131
139
191
126
213 1
150 1
107
231
163
140
152
116
137
151
144
121
117
147
193
87
106
110
195
140
191
90
96
128
119
120
131
125
124
135
129
139
134
112
116
118
136
146
OBS>
150
1
4
1
6
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
6
1
3
1
1
1
1
ARIT GEO
MEAN MEAN
78
93
62?
45
90
64
65
68
53
57
68
78
58
56
77
80
50
50
50?
75
75
73
47
44
66
57
56
58
70
64
71
62
69
63
61
56
71?
62
75
70
79
49?
37
75
48
59
61
48
51
61
66
54
50
71
70
47
45
45?
63
69
61
43
36
60
50
51
51
64
56
66
54
63
55
57
51
67?
55
68
GSD
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
f
TO
TO
2
O
O
73
CD
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
04/13/84 NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK PAGE
QUICK LOOK REPORT
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER (UG/M3) KANSAS 82-83
METHOD: GRAVIMETRIC, 24-nouR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE-9i
REP MAX 24-HR OBS> OBS> ARIT 6EO
SITE ID LOCATION COUNTY ADDRESS YR ORG SOBS 1ST 2ND 260 150 MEAN MEAN GSD
173740012F02 WICHITA SEDGWICK CO COLEMAN CO 3600 83 001 45 129 125 60 52 1.8
tn
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
04/16/84 NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK PAGE
QUICK LOOK REPORT
SULFUR DIOXIDE (UG/M3) KANSAS 82-83
METHODS; HOURLY VALUES WEST-GAEKE COLORIMETRIC-II, CONDUCTIMETRIC-IS, COULOMETRIC-I<», FLAME PHOTOMETRic-i6,
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE NAOH TITRATION-18, CATALYST FLAME PHOTOMETRIC-19, PULSED FLUORESCENT-20, SECOND DERIVATIVE SPECTROSCOPY-21,
CONDUCTANCE ASAPCO-22, ULTRA VIOLET STIMULATED FLUORESCENCE-23,SEQUENTIAL CONDUCTIMETRIC-33,
24-HOUR GAS BUBBLERS PARAROSANILINE-SULFAMIC ACID-91, PARAROSANILINE SULFAMIC ACID TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED-97
SITE ID LOCATION
171800001F01 KANSAS CITY
I71600001F01 KANSAS CITY
171800011F02 KANSAS CITY
171800011F02 KANSAS CITY
COUNTY
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
ADDRESS
619 ANN ST
619 ANN ST
3105 FAIRFAX RD
3105 FAIRFAX RD
REP
YR ORG
82 001
83 001
82 001
83 001
MAX 24-HR
SOBS
8470
7916
8083
8681
1ST
198
114
165
52
2ND
183
111
131
50
OBS> MAX
365 1ST
593
340
353
207
3-HR
2ND
543
273
333
167
OBS> MAX
1300 1ST
1000
430
790
250
1-HR ARIT
2ND MEAN
1000 26
400 29
500 15
250 12
MTH
23
23
16
16
cn
en
-------
04/13/64 NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK PAGE
QUICK LOOK REPORT
CARBON MONOXIDE (MG/M3) KANSAS 82-83
METHOD; NONDISPERSIVE INFRARED (NDIR) CONTINUOUS, HOURLY VALUES-II, FLAME IONIZATION-SI
SITE ID
I71800001F01
171800001F01
173740003F01
173740003F01
173740010F01
173740010F01
LOCATION
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
COUNTY
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
ADDRESS
619 ANN ST
619 ANN ST
FIRE STA TOPEKA
FIRE STA TOPEKA
1900 E NINTH ST
1900 E NINTH ST
YR
82
83
82
83
82
83
REP
ORG
001
001
001
001
001
001
SOBS
7897
8520
8640
8138
8717
8455
MAX
1ST
11.0
12.0
22.0
13.0
20.0
14.0
1-HR OBS> MAX
2ND 40 1ST
11.0
11.0
19.0
13.0
20.0
13.0
6.9
5.8
13.5
9.0
13.4
8.3
8-HR OBS>
2ND 10
6
5
11
6
12
8
.5
.1
.4 Z
.0
.3 4
.1
METH
11
11
11
11
11
11
cn
-------
04/13/84 NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK PAGE
QUICK LOOK REPORT
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (UG/M3) KANSAS 82-83
METHODS: HOURLY VALUES COLORIMETRIC-LYSHKOW-II, COLORIMETRIC-GRIESS-SALTZMAN-IJ, COULOMETRIC-IS, CHEMILUMINESCENCE-IA,
24-HOUR GAS BUBBLERS NASN SODIUM ARSENITE ORIFICE-84, NASN SODIUM ARSENITE FRIT-94, TEA METHOD-95, TGS METHOD-96
REP MAX 1-HR MAX 24-HR ARIT
SITE 10 LOCATION COUNTY ADDRESS YR ORG «OBS 1ST 2ND 1ST 2HD MEAN METH
171600001F01 KANSAS CITY WYANDOTTE CO 619 ANN ST 82 001 6550 180 170 32? 14
171800001F01 KANSAS CITY WYANDOTTE CO 619 ANN ST 83 001 6515 190 180 31? 14
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
04/13/84
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION) KANSAS
OZONE SEASON: APRIL TO OCTOBER
PAGE
81-83
METHODS: HOURLY VALUES CHEMILUMINESCENCE-U, ULTRA VIOLET DASIBI CORPORATION-^, CHEMILUMINESCENCE RHOOAMINE B DYE-IS
SITE ID
171800001F01
171800001F01
171800017J03
173320001F01
173320001F01
173320001F01
173740010F01
173740010F01
173740010F01
LOCATION
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDG'.JICK CO
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
COUNTY
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANOOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGUICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
ADDRESS
619 ANN ST
619 AW4 ST
2815 NORTH 115TH
200 E 53RD NORTH
200 E 53RD NORTH
200 E 53RD NORTH
1900 E NINTH ST
1900 E NINTH ST
1900 E NINTH ST
YR
82
83
81
81
82
83
81
82
83
*
REP *
ORG *
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
VALID
8 ft
MEAS REQ
209
210
184
193
203
213
206
205
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
DAILY
1ST 2ND
.112
.127
.155
.090
.090
.095
.100
.115
.120
.102
.107
.124
.089
.075
.095
.095
.095
.105
1-HR MAXIMUM *
VALS > .125 *
3RD MEAS EST *
.097
.097 1 1.0
.110 1 1.2
.087
.075
.095
.095
.085
.100
MISS DAYS
ASS < STD ME
1
1
2
6
2
1
3
2
14
14
14
11
11
11
11
11
11
cn
CO
-------
04/13/84 NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK PAGE
QUICK LOOK REPORT
LEAD (UG/M3) KANSAS 82-83
METHODS; JARRELL-ASH EMISSION SPECTRA ICAP-PO, EMISSION SPECT MUFFLE FURNACE-91, ATOMIC ABSORPTiON-92, DITHIOZONE METHon-93
EMISSION SPECT (LOW TEMP ASH)-95, X-RAY FLUORESCENCE-96, FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION-97
SITE
ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
REP
YR ORG
METH
«OBS
QTRLY
1ST
ARITH
2ND 3RD
MEAN
4TH
MEANS>
1.5
MAX VALUES
1ST 2ND
171800014F01 KANSAS CITY WYANDOTTE CO 36TH * RAINBOW B 82 001 61 92 .15 .14 .08 .12 .30 .28
171800014F01 KANSAS CITY WYANDOTTE CO 36TH & RAINBOW B 83 001 56 92 .11 .11 .15 .13 .40 .34
172340001F01 MERRIAM JOHNSON CO 8715 WEST 49TH.S 82 001 41 92 .05? .22 .13 .10 .44 .38
172340001F01 MEPRIAM JOHNSON CO 8715 WEST 49TH.S 83 001 48 92 .16 .15 .15 .13 .40 .36
173740012A02 WICHITA SEDGWICK CO WICHITA 82 11 90 .29 .11 .75 .43
tn
UD
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
TABLE A2
PRECISION AND ACCURACY ESTIMATES FOR AMBIENT AIR MONITORING DATA
O- o
tH Q.
<
- 2
Kl X
r4 Kl
UJ K
ID D; c\j
< Q. <
0. < 2
t-
>- o;
^ CJ O
CD o o:
<
< V
t- 2 U
< o <
OMg
u o u
M UJ O
CK t- <
t- O 1
UJ D: 2
§0. o
W
a — i in
UJ < 1-1
< t- U
2 UJ
-J uj a:
SOD
w a <
H- n O
Z 2 <
uj in
10
< in
in a
2 O
< X
ii t-
UJ
u. z:
o
in — >
^ UJ ^
in t- rj
2 < 2
* r a.
» W 3
* -J 1
* Kl
* CO -I
* O 1
* D. O
* Q. -J
< *
1- *
* r a.
< * M r>
v — j i
O * CM
* 00 -J
* O 1
*rv o
U. LJ
>- * a. -i
*
0 *
*
< * r: a.
tt * -J i
* iH
3 * to -I
* O 1
O * a: O
* a. -i
o *
*
< *
* in
* t— Kl
!fc h-4 1
* 0 f-l
» < >
» «t -1
* -J 10
* -i a
* O Q.
* o
* •<
* — 1 t-
* <£ <
* > O
»
*
< * o. r:
* r M
(-*<-!
* in
< * 3
* -J O
0 * -J -J
* O UJ
* O CD
2 *
*
0 * S 3
in * CD
* o
M » a -i
o *
UJ *
* u in
* -J r-
Q. * — " M
» O in
* U
*
* 10
* o:
* U. -J
* i:
* «* <
* 10
>- * a
UJ * 1
< *
r- *
< * — 1
D * -1
* 0
>- * D-
u *
< *
§* Q.
* >-
l_) * f—
U *
< *
1 * O
2*0:
0 *
M *
in * t-
•H * in
u *
UJ *
COCOC\JOC\IW'3'K!*±*O
OOiHCJrHCJOOOO
OK>*CJCJlflsOOlfll>'
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
^ ^ Ifl ^- K) CO
OOOi-HKlOOOOrH
oooooooooo
0 0
Klf^CO^^KlOOvOCO
i-l iH
OOOOOOOOCMCJ
oSSS*^2SKS
owO'eor^vDr^r^-c-in
i i i i i i i i i i
oooooooooo
rjc\jc\jcjcjrjcgfj
-------
KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAROAD/PRECISIOM-ACCURACY REPORT
PAGE 1
APR 16, 1984
NA273/NAPOOO
PRECISION-ACCURACY DATA KEY
****««**«*****tt******W*K***
RG ST RO TYP POLL YR-Q
PRECISION DATA
***»»*»******»*»****»*»»***
» OF PRECIS PROS LIM
ANLYZRS CHECKS LO UP
ACCURACY DATA
*********************************************************************
SOURCE TRACE 8 AUDITS PROB LIM PROB LIM PROB LIM PROS LIM
AUD GAS ABLTY Ll-3 L4 LO-L1-UP LO-L2-UP LO-L3-UP LO-L4-UP
07 17 001 C
** SULFUP DIOXIDE ***
82-1
82-2
82-3
82-4
82-5
83-1
83-2
83-3
83-4
83-5
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
0011
0011
0008
0011
0041
0010
0011
0011
0011
0043
-20
-24
-36
-38
-30
-31
-40
-13
-20
-26
-01
+ 02
-04
+ 06
+ 01
+ 03
+ 38
+ 15
+42
+ 25
C
C
C
2
2
2
002
0002
002
002
0004
000
0000
000
000
0000
-25
-25
-28
-23
-26
+ 04
+ 04
-20
+ 15
-03
-20
-20
-19
+ 01
-09
+ 01
+ 01
-14
+ 08
-03
-10
-10
-18
-02
-10
-00
+ 00
-05
+ 06
+ 01
CTl
-------
KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
PRECISION-ACCURACY DATA KEY
«*«*«***M*****««*W*«*******
RG ST RO TYP POLL YR-Q
07 17 001 C 42101
*# CARBON MONOXIDE **
82-1
82-2
82-3
82-4
82-5
83-1
83-2
83-3
83-4
83-5
PRECISION DATA
»«*#*****»*****************
* OF PRECIS PROB LIM
ANLYZRS CHECKS LO UP
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
0016
0019
0020
0017
0072
0017
0016
0017
0014
0064
-07
-06
-09
-05
-07
-02
-12
-06
-07
-07
+ 03
+ 03
+ 13
+ 07
+ 07
+ 03
+ 03
+ 05
+ 05
+ 04
ROMETRIC DATA BANK
,L PROTECTION AGENCY
SIOH-ACCURACY REPORT
^HHHHHHf11"" "w **"WMMWWU wfc
SOUPCE
AUD GAS
B
C
C
C
ACCURACY
jrwwwwirwww^wwTTWTTW^ww*
TRACE * AUDITS
ABLTY Ll-3 L4
2 005
2 002
0007
2 003
2 006
0009
000
000
0000
000
000
0000
PROB LIM
LO-L1-UP
-21
-15
-18
-11
-08
-10
+ 09
+ 10
+ 10
+ 01
+ 08
+ 05
D A
T A
PROB LIM
LO-L2-UP
-04
-09
-07
-09
-06
-08
+ 06
+ 08
+ 07
+ 03
+ 04
+ 04
PAGE 1
APR 13, 1984
NA273/NAPOOO
W 1C 1£ .1C 1C. 1C. .1C 1C KM. M.^ It .^
PROB LIM PROB LIM
LO-L3-UP LO-L4-UP
-03
-04
-04
-08
-04
-06
+ 03
-01
+ 01
+ 03
+03
+ 03
cr>
ro
-------
KANSAS NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK PAGE 1
STATE OF KANSAS , ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APR I3t 1984
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS SAROAD/PRECISION-ACCURACY REPORT NA273/NAPOOO
PRECISION DATA ACCURACY DATA
PRECISION-ACCURACY DATA KEY *»*»*»*******»*»*»******»*» «****»*****************»****»****»»***#*****«*****»*»*»*******»******
ft************************** « OF PRECIS PROS LIM SOURCE TRACE * AUDITS PP03 LIM PROB LIM PROB LIM PROB LIM
RG ST RO TYP POLL YR-Q ANLYZRS CHECKS LO UP AUD GAS ABLTY Ll-3 L4 LO-L1-UP LO-L2-UP LO-L3-UP LO-L4-UP
07 17 001 C 43602 82-3 001 0004 -58 -01
** NITROGEN DIOXIDE * 82-4 001 0006 -53 +19
82-5 001 0010 -56 +09 0000 0000
83-1 001 0004 -59 +16
83-2 001 0007 -50 +14
83-3 001 0006 -55 +05
83-5 001 0017 -55 +12 0000 0000
Oi
OJ
-------
KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAROAD/PRECISION-ACCURACY REPORT
PAGE
APR 13,
NA273/NAPOOO
PRECISION-ACCURACY DATA KEY
»W*W***»**»****************
RG ST RO TYP POLL YR-Q
PRECISION DATA
***************************
9 OF PRECIS PROS LIM
ANLYZRS CHECKS LO UP
ACCURACY DATA
SOURCE
AUD GAS
TRACE
ABLTY
» AUDITS PROB LIM
Ll-3 L4 LO-L1-UP
PROB LIM
LO-L2-UP
PRCB LIM
LO-L3-UP
PROB LIM
LO-L4-UP
07 17 001 C
******* OZONE *
CT>
81-1
81-2
81-3
81 -4
81-5
82-1
82-2
82-3
82-4
82-5
83-1
83-2
83-3
83-4
83-5
002
002
002
002
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
0004
0006
0005
0015
0018
0018
0017
0017
0070
0016
0016
0016
0017
0065
-13
-50
-55
-39
-11
-12
-29
-28
-20
-23
-19
-03
-09
-14
+ 04
+ 33
+ 25
+ 21
+ 12
+ 16
+ 14
+ 04
+ 12
+ 08
+ 06
+ 18
+11
+ 11
D
D
D
D
D
2
2
2
2
2
002
0002
002
002
003
0007
003
003
0006
0000
000
000
000
0000
000
000
0000
-47
-47
-02
-17
-16
-12
-39
-20
-30
+ 17
+ 17
+ 08
+ 14
+ 11
+ 11
+ 11
+ 21
+ 16
-12
-12
+ 03
-02
+ 01
-09
-16
-13
-07
-07
+ 04
+04
+04
+04
+16
+ 10
-08
-08
-07
-01
-08
-05
-05
-13
-09
-06
-06
+ 05
-01
+ 10
+05
+ 05
+ 16
+11
-------
KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS
MANUAL METHODS
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAROAD/PRECISION-ACCURACY REPORT
PAGE
APR 13,
NA273/NAPOOO
PRECISION-ACCURACY DATA KEY
ft**************************
R6 ST RO TYP POLL YR-Q
PRECISION DATA
* OF COLLOC
SAMPLRS SITES
FECB LIM
LO UP
COLL SAMP
BELOW LIM
VAL COLL
DATA PRS
ACCURACY DATA
*****************************************
8 AUDITS PROS LIM PROB LIM PROB LIM
LEV 1-3 LO-L1-UP LO-L2-UP LO-L3-UP
07 17 001 I 12128
******* LEAD ********
82-1
82-2
82-3
82-4
82-5
83-1
83-2
83-3
83-4
83-5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-29
-43
-36
-29
-15
-42
-95
-45
+ 38
+ 78
+ 58
+ 23
+ 17
+57
+ 99
+49
4
13
17
5
8
7
7
27
6
15
21
11
13
11
12
47
024
002
005
006
0037
006
004
006
006
0022
-21
-31
-01
+ 08
-34 +08
-30 +06
-29 +05
-25 +05
-17 +10
-27 +14
-06 +08
-19 +09
-05 -05
-21 -01
-25 -04
-17 -03
-25 -10
-14 -03
-14 +01
-20 +02
-18 -03
cr>
en
-------
§81.316
Title 40—Protection of Environment
towa-TSP
CtowQncted KM
tWTraTBon Townitvp
Rtfnwndw o( Polk County.
The western portion of Council Btuftt and Carter Lake
Lake Township
The central portion ot Davenport
Portion* of Buffalo. Davenport, Bettendorf and Riverdale
Remainder of Wapeso County
Remainder ol State
Does not
meet
pnmary
standard!
X
Does not
meet
secondary
standards
'X
X
'X
•X
•X
Cannot be
classified
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Better than
national
standards
X
X
X
X
X
>
1 EPA designation replace* State designation
Designated area
Enure Stale
Primary
standard
exceeded
l(d)d)(B)
Secondary
standard
exceeded
!(d)(1)(C)
Unclasailiable
i(d)(1)(D)
Attain-
ment
X
Iowa—Ozone (O>)
Designated area
Entire Stale
Primary
standard
exceeded
>(d)(1)(A)
Unclasssitia-
ble and/or
attainment
j(rJ)(')(E)
X
towa-CO
Designated area
Des Momes Township
Lea Township
Remainder ol Polk County
Remainder ol Slate
Does not
meet
primary
standards
Cannol be
classified or
better than
national
standards
Chapter I—Environmental Protection Agency
Iowa—NO,
Designated area
Entire Stale
Does not
meet
primary
standards
§81.317
Cannot be
classified or
better than
national
standards
[43 PR 8964, Mar. 3, 1978, as amended at 45 PR 14574, Mar. 6, 1980; 46 FR 17558. Mar. 19,
1981; 46 FR 48930, Oct. 5, 1981; 47 FR 19526, May 6, 1982; 47 FR 38322, Aug. 31, 1982; 47 FR
43061. Sept. 30. 1982]
§81.317 Kanna».
Kansas—TSP
Designated Area
Wyandotte County:
a. Most of the area between 1-635 and the Missouri state line....
Topeka, Kansas, area bounded by: Kansas River on the east and
south. Vail Avenue on the west and Lyman Avenue on the north ...
Remainder of State
Does not
meet
primary
standards
X
Does not
meet
secondary
standards
X
X
Cannot be
classified
Better than
national
standards
X
Kansas—SO,
Designated area
Entire Slate
Does not
meet
primary
standards
Does not
meet
secondary
standards
Cannol be
classified
Better than
national
standards
X
Kansas—Ozone (O,)
Designated area
Kansas City AOCR (094):
Wyandotte County
Johnson County
South Central AOCR (099) Sedgwick County
Northwest AOCR (095): Douglas County
Remainder ot State
' EPA designation replaces Slate designation.
Does not
primary
standards
Cannot be
classified or
better than
national
standards
Kansas—CO
Designated area
Kansas City, Kansas area, bounded by: 6th Street on the east. Washington Street on the north,
18th Street on the west, and Barnett Street on the south
Does not
meet
primary
standards
Cannol be
classified or
better than
national
standards
.
m
•z.
-H
GO
m
GO
O
•z.
oo
-------
§81.318
en
Title 40—Protection of Environment
Kansas—CO
Designated VM
Wehrla. Kansas area, bounded by: Grove Street on the east, 13th Street on the north, the
Arkansas Rivet on the west, and KeNogg Avenue on the »outh
Remainder ot State
-i-
Ooes not
meet
pnmary
standards
Cannot be
classified or
better than
national
standards
Kama*—NO,
Designated area
**.«*.
Does not
meel
primary
standards
Cannot be
classified or
better than
national
standards
X
[43 FR 8964. Mar. 3, 1978. as amended at 45 FR 73048, Nov. 4. 1980]
681.318 Kentucky.
Kentucky—TSP
DMignatad area
That portion of Henderson Co. in Henderson
jettenton County
That portion ot Madison Co in Richmond
MuMenoerg County
That portion of Perry Co. in Hazard
That portion of Pike Co in PikeviUe
That portion of Whrttey Co m Corbin
Rest of Slate
Does not
meet
primary
standards
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Does not
meet
secondary
standards
X
X
Cannot be
classified
Better than
national
standards
X
Kentucky—SO,
Designated area
That portion ol Boyd County south ot UTM northing line 4251 km
Jefferson County
Muhlenberg County
Rest ol State
Does not
meet
primary
standards
X
X
Does not
meet
secondary
standards
X
X
Cannot be
classified
Better than
national
standards
X
Chapter I—Environmental Protection Agency
Kentucky_O,
Designated area
Boyd County
Cincinnati Area—Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties
Fayette County
Jefferson County
Rest o» State
1 Designations of 'Cannot be classified or better than national standards
Does not
meet
primary
standards
" were reaffirmed on Jury 23. 1962
§81.319
Cannot be
classified or
better than
national
standard*'
Kentucky—CO
Designated area
JeHerson County
Rest of State
Does not
meel
pnmary
standards
Cannot ba
classified or
better than
national
standards
Kentucky—NO,
Designated area
Statewide
Does not
meet
pnmary
standards
Cannot be
classified or
better than
national
standards
(Sees. 107, 171, 301 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407. 7501. 7601))
143 FR 8964. Mar. 3, 1978. as amended at 43 FR 40425, Sept. 11, 1978; 44 FR 41783. July 18,
1979; 44 FR 63105, Nov. 2, 1979; 46 FR 46325, Sept. 18, 1981; 46 FR 57047, Nov. 20, 1981; 47
PR 18862. May 3, 1982; 47 FR 31878, July 23, 1982; 48 FR 5728. Feb. 8, 1983; 48 FR 28989.
June 24, 1983]
881.319 Louisiana.
Louisiana—TSP
Designated area
AOCH 019
AOCR 022 .
106
Does not
meet
primary
standards
Does not
meet,
econdary
landards
Cannot ba
classified
Better than
national
standards
X
X
X
Louisiana—SO,
Designated area
AOCR 019
*OCR022..
Does not
meel
primary
standards
Does not
meel
secondary
standards
31
n/
s
Cannot be
classified
Belter than
national
standards
X
X
-------
TABLE A4 EMISSIONS DATA
oooooooocoooooooooooooo o o o o
5 >-
•oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
u. z:
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OOO
tt
c co po*r -^ IH M r-i 1-1 co r; cc
LJ
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO-Co
a ...........................
*Z X O
:x ri <; rj ro r o -o o o o o UT r-i M o o M o o c © c L~ o o
x co 1-1 s3 r-i SD en ri o 1-1 o- IN tn IN •? _i i 1-1 ^ -rn u.«iKt-»»uj aci u z o _• on _i ^
en ui 1-1 en a. • -^ uoD-i i c
en CD220JO oa:£LiULJ^i-ii-Oi;o
*LJ2 CD_IOJOliT2i-(- UI IH w . OJIi3JLi2LJ2CDi:^2CV
ejo>- u. —i"»'en 3 a. •-• i— en *— 3 ^
OI-JL£:_ICL:I— _i-t-iOLJ-*-J2»Lc:o_] LJ ej en ej en
Li Ci CC ^ ^— L_ CD Od* OO—i^ ' '~i •- LJ
u. O 3 g Z « 2 LJU^->*eJOJi7i-_i_j _iCD-i-i£ic:ao2w Lj-a-is^^oT :LJ
-i-t_JOJLJ CdCJCJLL>-)C'—*O en 3 cjenioi_iii-*i-u!L£zej
L£22OCi:criLi:Li:i-*LJLL:oncjLJLj_io'jCDCDLL:-J *-HLu2LiCJCDLi-3^LLl-CJ I^QLL.
if r-i M < \i~ -c IN co e>- o 1-1 ri n f ITS ^o IN oo o- o i-< ri
O i—I I i ^ j , | | ! j *.j ^-.j r-.j
68
-------
STATE: KS
MAJOR POINT
I.MF t> 1 T F I CAT tON
PAGE
NO. NAME
29 CEREAL FOOD PROCESSO
30 SMOOT GRAIN CO.-WOLC
31 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM.
32 FAR-MAR-CO INC 940 K
33 CARGILL INC. 52ND X
34 GM ASSEMBLY HIV 100
35 BOARU OF PUBLIC UTIL
36 HOARD OF PUBLIC UTLr
37 THOMPSON-STRAUSS QUA
38 WILLIAMS PIPE LINE
39 PHILLIPS PIPE LINE C
40 SEALRIGHT CO.INC.-KC
41 INTERNATIONAL PAPER
;,m.iNi Y
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
3840
PI.. ANT
0017
0019
0022
0023
0042
0046
0048
0049
0057
0060
0075
0087
0090
PART.
EMISS.
714.
189.
1 37.
150.
155.
o
495.
92.
147.
0.
0.
0.
0.
nUG.
m .
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
GO?
FMIGS
i .
0.
1463.
0.
0.
27.
14636.
10637.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n','G.
H I .
.0
, 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
CO
KMTSS.
0.
0.
548.
0.
0.
9.
86.
50.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
AMC. .
HT
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
NOX
EMISS.
0.
0.
1152.
0.
0.
38.
4423.
2947.
0.
0.
0.
^ ^
0.
AUG.
HI
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
uoc
EMISS.
0.
0.
1277.
0.
f- .
3270.
11.
6.
0.
552.
134.
115.
119.
AUG.
HT
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
PF<
EMISS.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AUG.
HT
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-------
APPENDIX B
Statistical Evaluation of Trends
The trend evaluation procedure used in the air quality evaluation is based
on the Sen non-parametric statistic. The procedure was recommended by
Vector Research, Incorporated, in a study performed under contract
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It was selected over
other.candidate methods as the method which gives the highest probability
of detecting real trends. Essential advantages of the method include
the following:
1. It takes the seasonality of data into account.
2. It deals with autocorrelation effects in data collected at frequent
intervals e.g., hourly. (Autocorrelation is the tendency for data measured
at nearby times to be more similar than data measured at more distant
times).
3. It does not assume that the data are normally distributed.
4. It identifies continuing trends, even if there is some oscillation
around the trend line.
The latest draft report of the study, "Methods for Classifying Changes
in Environmental Conditions" [VRI-EPA 7.4-FR80-l(R)] describes in more
detail the other candidate methods and the advantages of the Sen statistical
test.
A step-by-step summary of the trend evaluation procedure is given in the
following paragraphs, which were adapted from the above report.
1. Compute one data value for each month of each year. For high-frequency
data series in which autocorrelation may be present (e.g., continuous
monitor data), a monthly average will correct for that autocorrelation.
Alternatively, if trends in high pollutant concentrations at a site are
of greater interest, the 90th percentile concentration for each month
is used. (The 90th percentile concentration produces a more stable
statistical estimate than would the maximum concentration.)
2. Compute the seasonal average of the data for each calendar month,
(i.e., compute the average of all January values, the average of all
February values, etc.). Subtract the appropriate seasonal average from
the value for each month to obtain seasonally adjusted data.
3. Rank the seasonally adjusted data. Replace each adjusted datum
with its rank. (This step makes the procedure non-parametric. It
eliminates the requirement for different statistical methods for different
series of data with different distributional laws governing their
random behavior. It also limits the potential error-producing effects
of outliers.)
4. Compute the Sen test statistic, S, from the formula
12 T2 's— / Y + 1\ / TY + 1
-
(Ryt -R.t)2
70
-------
where
Y = number of years
y = the index of the year (the index of first year is 1, of the second
year, 2, etc.)
T = number of periods per year (12)
t = the index of the month (the index for January is 1, for February 2, etc.)
Ryt = the rank of the seasonally adjusted value for month t of year y
R.t = t^ie mean ran'( f°r month t over aH tne years
RV = the mean rank over all months for year y
The significance of the individual parts of that formula is described as follows,
a) For each year, Ry^ is computed by averaging the ranks of the
seasonally adjusted data'for that year. This will be large if the data
in that year are higher than that in other years, small if the data are
smaller. Thus, an increasing trend in this mean rank indicates an
increasing trend in the data through the years. Likewise, a decreasing
trend in the mean ranks indicates a decreasing trend in the data.
b) The term
/ \ /
_ TY +
represents the covariance between the mean rank for a year and the index
of that year. When large annual mean ranks (Ry> - (TY + l)/2 positive)
occur in late years (y-(Y+l)/2 positive) or small annual mean ranks
(Ry - (TY + l)/2 negative) occur in early years (y-(Y+l)/2 negative) a
positive product will result. Thus, an accumulation of positive products,
and therefore, a large positive result, is associated with a positive
trend. Similarly, an accumulation of negative products, and a large
negative result, is associated with a negative trend.
c) The first term of the equation is a scale factor which normalizes
the covariance calculated above. It is a data-based estimate of the
expected standard deviation of the covariance statistic if there were
no trend. The scaling adjusts the covariance statistic so that it may
be compared with tabulated percentile values of the normal probability
distribution, rather than requiring the generation of special tables
uniquely applicable to this statistic.
5. If the statistic exceeds (in either direction) the appropriate
percentile values of the tabulated normal probability distribution, a
statistically significant trend is present. If it does not exceed those
values, no statistically significant trend is present.
71
-------
Specifically, if the Sen statistic exceeds +_ 1.645 (the 90th percent!le
values of the normal distribution for a two-tailed test), we conclude
that the data show a trend. If the statistic does not exceed those
limits, but does exceed _+1.28 (the 80th percentile values), we conclude
that the data show a probable trend. Otherwise, we conclude that no sta-
tistically significant trend is shown by the data.
The following example illustrates the above process. While the trend
calculations are usually performed by a computer, and include five years
of data, the example shows how the calculations can be done manually.
The example uses only three years of data, so that the calculation can
be more easily followed.
Monthly geometric mean TSP data provide the starting point for the
calculation. The monthly values and the seasonal averages are:
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr May
Jun
1 102
2 136
3 70
Monthly
(Seasonal )
Average 102.67
126
107
67
100.0
142
144
84
123.33
150
68
125
114.33
92
80
112
94.67
112
100
83
98.33
Year
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1 124
2 90
3 95
Monthly
(Seasonal )
Average 103.0
122
104
105
110.33
126
125
107
119.33
117
125
101
114.33
93
102
68
87.67
136
63
98
99.0
The seasonally adjusted data are obtained by subtracting the appropriate
seasonal average from each monthly value.
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr May
Jun
1 -.67
2 33.33
3 -32.67
26
7
-33.0
18.67
20.67
-39.33
35.67
-46.33
10.67
-2.67
-14.67
17.33
13.67
1.67
-15.33
72
-------
Year
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 21.0
2 -13.0
3 -8.0
11.67
-6.33
-5.33
6.67
5.67
-12.33
2.67
10.67
-13.33
5.33
14.33
-19.67
37.0
-36.0
-1.0
The seasonally adjusted data are ranked from lowest to highest and
replaced by the ranks Ry^, as shown in the next table. Ties are handled
by assigning the same average rank to each of the tied values. (Ranks
24 and 25 are tied, so both months are ranked as 24.5). The mean rank
for each season (R.t) anc' the mean ran'< f°r eac'1 year (Ry.) are also
shown.
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr May
Jun
1 17
2 34
3 5
R t 18.67
• L
33
23
4
20
30
31
2
21
35
1
24.5
20.17
15
8
29
17.33
27
18
7
17.33
Year Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rv_
1 32
2 10
3 12
R t 18
• U
26
13
14
17.67
22
21
11
18
19
24.5
9
17.5
20
28
6
18
36
3
16
18.33
^
26.0
17.875
11.625
p
The individual terms (Ryt~R ^) ""n tne summation of the scale factor are
listed in the following tabTe. The summation over all three years
for each individual month, is shown in the last line of the table.
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr May
Jun
1 2.8
2 235.1
3 186.8
Rvt-R J 424.7
169
9
256
434
81
100
361
542
219.9
367.5
18.7
606.1
5.4
87.0
136.2
228.7
93.5
0.4
106.7
200.6
.Year
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1 196
2 64
3 36
3 2
z (Ryt-R.t)
y=l 296
69.4
21.8
13.5
104.7
16
9
49
74
2.25
49.
72.25
123.5
4
100
144
248
312.2
235.0
5.4
552.6
73
-------
Summing across the last line of the table, we have
12 3
£ Z (Ryt-R tr = 3834.9
t=l y=l
Substituting into the formula for the Sen statistic, we have
I /I 4 \ /or n 37 \ i /o 4 \ /
(3 - 4 ) (11.65 .37
= .1938 [ - 7.50 + 0 -6.85 ] = -2.78
Since the test statistic is below the range _+ 1.645 (the 90th percentile
values of the normal distribution), we conclude (with greater than 90%
confidence) that the data show a decreasing trend.
74
-------
APPENDIX C
Population Exposure Estimates
As Section XIV of this report described, previous estimates of population
exposure to elevated concentrations have focused on county-level populations
in areas where all or portions of a county had been designated "as not
meeting the NAAQS's for specific pollutants. Those approximations tend to
overestimate, and sometimes greatly so, the population exposure. In
order to refine those estimates, populations within the designated
non-attainment areas were desired. Systems Applications, Inc. (SAI), of
San Rafael, California has written the software necessary to compute
population estimates within any arbitrary closed polygon at any location
in the United States. The procedure used is based in part on the high
resolution population gridding program used in the SHEAR model for
estimating population exposure to air pollutants (Anderson and Lundberg,
1983). Robert G. Ireson was the SAI project manager for the current
study. Funding for the project came through EPA Headquarters. Tim Matzke
(Environmental Results Branch, OMSE) provided the necessary coordination.
The assistance of both of those individuals is gratefully acknowledged.
This Appendix gives a general description of the software, and provides
copies of the program outputs, including population density maps.
Since those maps show approximate population densities by square kilometer,
they may be useful as a reference for other analyses, in addition to
the population exposure estimates. The abbreviations PNA and SNA in the
map titles stand for "Primary Non-Attainment Area" and "Secondary
Non-Attainment Area," respectively.
The starting point for the population estimation is a set of points
which define a closed polygon (the non-attainment area). These points
were initially obtained by digitizing the outline of each non-attainment
area from appropriate maps. Those points were used both in constructing
the non-attainment area boundaries shown in the body of the report,
and as input to the population estimation software.
The SAI software checks each polygon to verify closure, and selects a
cell size which is appropriate to the size of the non-attainment area
of interest. Map scale is also adjusted according to the size of the
area. Comparison of the Kansas City 03 map (2 km x 2 km cells) with the
Topeka TSP map (1 km x 1 km cells) illustrates both effects. Maps are
plotted with Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate axes, and include
a border extending four cell widths beyond the boundary of the area of
i nterest.
The program searches the population data file, which contains the locations
of the centroids of all census block groups and enumeration districts
(BG/ED's), and the population of each BG/ED. It assigns each_centroid
to the appropriate cell in the final grid, and distributes the population
for each BG/ED according to the density of centroids and the size of
the cells. It then calculates the population density for each cell.
Individual cells are classified as being inside the polygon, outside
the polygon, or divided by the polygon. The population within the
75
-------
polygon is estimated by adding up the populations of all cells in the
polygon. For cells divided by the polygon, the relative areas inside
and outside are used to estimate the population inside.
The population extraction and gridding program produces a listing, by
county, of the number and total population of the BG/ED's extracted for
the grid. For completeness, those listings are also included. Where
the geographical density of the BG/ED's centroids is low, the populations
may be spread over a large number of cells, especially near the edges
of the final grid. In those cases, (which appear on the map as large
areas with uniform low density), population density estimates may be
shifted into or out of the polygon. If the total population is small,
that effect may significantly change the estimate for population within
the polygon.
Because of the approximations discussed above, the population estimates
in the text were rounded to the nearest 1000. Where total population
is low, and the non-attainment area boundary coincides with the city
limits, the city population from census tables was used, rather than
the estimate from the computer-produced population density map.
Reference
Anderson, Gerald E., and Lundberg, Gary W. 1983. User's Manual for
SHEAR. A Computer Code for Modeling Human Exposure and Risk from
Multiple Hazardous Air Pollutants in Selected Regions. Report SYSAPP-
83/124, Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California.
76
-------
639
4177
A 1 C.7
; • P'^iT ' "" \ """" ' •
jpv •<;;••! '
• i' " ;
^ B Ii IT t" | H 1 ll
1 i i
j ,
i 1 "
i :
• ' /•
: •>, \
1 ~~~""~~\
\ 1 H
L-
„
•' i
- : :
'' •• 1
* "*
i^uMMMWMw
1
649
I'1
ji
ii'i iS'n''
[.,',1:,^ j,..
i
tv
\
H
„ » 4-*— -
ii
• I'i.i'itMil
;:|!
i'iiiiilll''
^i'i'rl'i
Wij ijt n
'
I . « 4
1
j
1
1
1
;. ••
.'"I' '
1
1 h
jjiiliii,
•HI
[
i
i
!
!;i
t
E
.'
i
ill
t i
5
\l
lj
{
||
|:
'1
b"
Ti
'
III
lit
II
n
t
>H
! |
j.mwitiiiiiitti i i » t
i |]
|
i
,h
iiji
1 ,,
i /
in
"i!,'"
1,1 1
1,, ill
U
n
1
s
r
i
i"
hi
iij|i|.l
i i
i i
1
it
Ii
i
lj
i
ii
.
~
1
r
i
i
i
M'
i i
n
i
I
ill. .,J;::,^,;i l i .,.i.-_^_,...,J 1. .... I..,,.! ,
639
649
4177
WWIi
111'
-^
—
>2000
1000-2000
500-1000
200-500
100-200
50-100
25-50
<25
Density (people/km')
Enclosed Population is 22.400
A t f. -r
HID/
Easting (km)
Population Density Map for Polygon 1
Wichita CO PNA
-------
oo
350
4338 -
4338
4328
4318
Easting
Population Density Map for Polygon 68
Kansas City TSP PNA
500-1000
200-500
100-200
50-100
25-50
<25
Density (people/km*)
Enclosed Population Is 90.200
f
r-
u
-------
344
4338 -
354
364
4338
4328
4318
364
4318
<25
Density (people/km*)
Enclosed Population is 117.000
Easting (km)
Population Density Map for Polygon 67
Kansas City TSP SNA
-------
262
272
oo
o
4332
en
c
O
z
rrr— — :;riz."----^ ^ ;-. r, pim iff, * ^"fflKII^:
"' 1" "1'1'' 'mm !""-iii^'"i«"9 ~
432,
4 '
'"' " ' ' ,t j h in t,4, T,. ,1
I (i ([ , 1,111 t - I 1 K I 1 Jn L ' {
L:/: . !,.;;: ^n« XL;
272
4332
4322
25-50
<25
Density (people/km*)
Enclosed Population is 6.550
Easting (km)
Population Density Map for Polygon 43
Topeka TSP SNA
-------
CO
274
4380
4360
• 4340
c
c.
c
o
4330
4300 -
4280
274
V* • "•»•*«'*•<>
294
314
334
354
374
394
414
- 4380
- 4360
4340
- 4320
- 4300
334 354
Easting (kml
JLjJ4280
it M.KI*
>?000
1000-2000
500-1000
200-500
100-200
50-100
25-50
<25
Density (people/km*!
Enclosed Population Is
Population Density Map for Polygon 42
Kansas City and Lawrence 03 PNA's
-------
PA
SAI/MEDX POPULATION OR IDDINO PROGRAM
REGION - /
REGION ORIGIN (UTM COORDINATES/METERS)
EASTING - 639000.
NORTHING - 4167OOO.
ZONE - 14
REGION SIZE (METERS)
EAST-WEST - 13OOO.
NORTH-SOUTH - 12OOO.
POPULATION YEAR - 1978
co 91 STATES FOUND ON POPULATION-FILE INDEX,
1X3 3141 COUNTIES,
232367 BG/ED'S,
1000 BO/ED'S PER PAGE IN POPFILE.
283 BO/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 23O27O EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 2O173
283 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 23O27O EXTRACTED
•V-W I
-------
..-:,_« In.. / I t> ' • WJII1 rt llllr-iL r-'llI'lJLrtlllll.l II
RL01I.IN - M-~~V_—
RF.G1ON OfUnN (UTM COQRDINA It S/l If 11 }'i\)
LASTING - ..:.'•»«• 00
NURTHING - 4;.'!:IO
-------
1074 UO/ID-S WITH A TCHAL l-'UI-'ULfM 1 ON O l-1o40ll!
REGION OfUGFN (UTM COORDINATES/MEIERS)
EASTING - L762OOO.
NORTHING - ^'JL'L.'OOO
REGION SIZE (METERS)
EAST-WEST - 1TJOOO
NORTH-SOUTH - KJOOO
POPULATION YEAR - 197B
51 STATES FOUND ON POPULATION-FILE INDEX,
3141 COUNTIES,
232567 BG/ED'S,
oo 1000 BG/ED'S PER PAGE IN POPFILE.
146 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 1O3773 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 20177
V. w •
i
-------
63 BG/^D-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION
REGION - £~7
REGION ORIGIN (UTM COORDINATES/METERS)
FASTJNG - .... . ._ 3440OO
NORTHING - 43180OO.
ZONE - 1'J
REGION SIZE (METERS)
EAST-WEST - 22OOO.
NORTH-SOUTH - 22OOO.
POPULATION YEAR - 1978
LXIHACTLl)
CO
en
51 STATES FOUND ON POPULATION-FILE INDEX,
3141 COUNTIES,
232567 BG/ED'S.
10OO BG/ED'S PER PAGE IN POPFILE.
A TOTAL POPULATION OF
227 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
30 BC/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
244 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION QF_
11 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
87877 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 20091
167503 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 2O209
24436 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 29047
JJ9433 EXTRACTEDJiRpM_CaUNTY 29093
8658 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 29163
-------
» •»'
BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 467907 EXTRACTED
633
REGION
REGION ORfGlN (UTM
EASTING -
NORTHING -
ZONE -
REGION SIZE (METERS)
_ EAST-WEST -_
NORTH-SOUTH -
COORDINATES/ME Vi:n-J)
.J'jOOOO
4:3113000.
1600O.
;>2OOO.
oo
en
POPULATION YEAR - 1970
51 STATES FOUND ON POPULATION-FILE INDEX,
3141 COUNTIES,
232567 DC/ED'S.
1000 BG/ED'S PER PAGE IN POPFILE.
Tl4~BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
201 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
' "3,0 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
244 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
10 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
04399 EXTRACTED
142265 EXTRACTED
24436 EXTRACTED
179433 EXTRACTED
B568 EXTRACTED
FROM COUNTY 20091
FROM COUNTY 20209
FROM COUNTY 29047
FROM COUNTY 29093
FROM COUNTY"2*1«>
-------
Population Density (People/mi2)
->1000
- 200-600
- 50-200
-<50
-------
-------
-------
TABLE 2
LEGEND FOR AMBIENT MONITORING DATA MAPS
Boundaries
f - --
I j Primary Nonattainment Area
Secondary Nonattainment Area
~ -~ ~
Unclassified Area
i__^ „„_
Monitor Symbol Colors and Flag
•-•• No Violation of Standard
@ Violation of Secondary
Standard
** Violation of Primary
Standard
r Exceedance of Alert Level
Annotation for Standards Violated
A Annual Primary Standard
Q Quarterly Primary Standard
24 24-hour Primary Standard
24 24-hour Secondary Standard
- 8-hour Primary Standard
3 3-hour Secondary Standard
i 1-hour Primary Standard
Monitor Symbol Sizes
Microscale
c % Middle Scale
0 £
n $
V-* '-''
O AM
Neighborhood
Scale
Urban Scale
Regional
Scale
Annotation for Trends
t Increasing Trend
A Probable Increasing Trend
— No Trend
V Probable Decreasing Trend
4, Decreasing Trend
(Where two trend symbols are
shown, the first is for long-term
averages, the second for 24-hour
observations.)
Data Completeness
(i Data met completeness
criteria each year.
0 Data did not meet complete-
ness criteria one or more
years.
-------
TAHL1C 3
LEG1CN1) FOR EMISSIONS DATA MAPS
POINT SOURCE SYMBOL SIZE - EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
NO;v-iEAD LEAD
/ \ .7 7
POINT SOURCE' SYMBOL COLOR - STACK HEIGHT
(METERS)
^ -JNKNOJVN
AMBIENT MONITOR SYMBOLS
SLAMS
-------
------- |