vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 7
25 Funston Rd.
Kansas City, Kansas 66115
907/9-83-004
Environmental Services Divis
August, 1983
EPA REGION VII IRC
Evaluation Of
Ambient Air Quality
In The State of Kansas
Based on Monitoring Data Through 1982
069123
-------
EVALUATION OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
IN THE STATE OF KANSAS
Prepared by
Thomas T. Holloway, Ph.D.
Environmental Monitoring and
Compliance Branch
August 1983
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, Kansas 66115
816-236-3884
FTS: 926-3884
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an evaluation of recent ambient air quality in Kansas,
based on 1981 and 1982 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, 1978-1982. 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 three 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)
CO in Kansas City (Unclassified to Attainment)
The State has already submitted redesignation requests for two of those
areas (TSP in Topeka and CO in Kansas City), and for 03 in Kansas City.
Those requests are under review by the Air Branch of EPA Region VII.
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 two areas of the State:
0 TSP in part of Kansas City (in 1981, but not in 1982)
0 CO in Wichita (in 1981 and 1982).
Those areas are the focus of Section XII, which summarizes previous studies
in the areas, presents pollution roses for each monitor which showed
violations, and evaluates possible causes of the high concentrations observed,
While the conclusions of that section generally agree with those of previous
-------
studies, the pollution roses provide a different perspective which may be
useful to the continuing efforts of the State and local agencies"to improve
air quality in those two areas.
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, and in performing a modeling
study to resolve a question of whether or not monitoring was needed
near a large point source.
-------
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.
Jeff Wandtke, of EPA Region VII, who has a special ability to coax
useful data and graphic output from reluctant computers, provided data
retrievals and map production runs in a consistently timely manner.
Carl Hess, of the Computer Sciences Corporation, wrote the software
to translate air quality data and emissions data into symbols for the
maps in the text. That software is now available from Region VII.
Mick Daye, the Regional Meteorologist for EPA Region VII, provided
the meteorological data for pollution roses and useful, objective
insights into the utility and the limitations of pollution roses.
Barbara Nichols of EPA 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
C. Pollution Roses 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. Meteorological Data 11
I. Pollution Roses 12
J. Population Data 15
IV. Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 16
V. Sulfur Dioxide ($03) 23
VI. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 26
VII. Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) 30
VIII. Ozone (03) 32
IX. Lead (Pb) 35
X. Precision and Accuracy 38
XI. Trends 41
XII. Further Evaluation of Selected Problem Areas 42
A. TSP in Kansas City 42
B. CO in Wichita 51
XIII. Emissions 59
XIV. Population Exposure 61
-------
XV. Summary and Recommendations 63
Appendix A - Tabular Summaries of Data 65
Appendix B - Statistical Evaluation of Trends 79
Appendix C - Population Exposure Estimates 84
-------
INDEX OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Al
A2
A3
Page
Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Alert Levels 3
Legend for Ambient Monitoring Data Maps
Legend for Emissions Data Maps
Summary of TSP Recommendations
Point Source Summary, 420 Kansas Avenue
Updated Point Source Summary, 420 Kansas Avenue
Emissions Summary - Sedgwick County
Emissions Summary - Grant County
Population Within Designated Non-Attainment Areas
Ambient Air Monitoring Data
Attainment Status Designations
Figures
1 Sample Pollution Rose and Monitor Location
2 Area Surrounding 420 Kansas Avenue Site
3 TSP in Kansas City (420 Kansas Avenue)
4 TSP in Kansas City (420 Kansas Avenue)
5 Particulate Point Sources Around 420 Kansas Avenue
6 Historical Wind Rose - Kansas City Downtown Airport
7 CO in Wichita (Topeka at Lewis)
8 Historical Wind Rose - Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita
9 CO Point Sources and CO Monitors - Wichita Area
10 Traffic Density Map - Wichita
11 CO in Wichita (Health Department)
5
6
18
44
49
54
60
62
68
Precision and Accuracy Estimates for Ambient Air Monitoring Data 75
77
14
43
46
47
48
50
52
53
55
56
57
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Services Division of EPA Region VII prepares an
annual evaluation of ambient air quality for each State within the
Region. 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
0 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.
While the format and evaluation methods are similar to the FY-82 report,
three features have been added this year. First, pollution roses have
been constructed, subject to data availability, to aid in identifying
possible sources of high pollutant concentrations. (The description of
evaluation methods in Section II.C of this report highlights the nature
and limitations of those roses.) Second, maps showing the locations of
point sources and the locations of ambient monitors have been prepared
for selected areas. Third, estimates of population within designated
non-attainment areas have been calculated. (The population density
maps on which those calculations were based are included as Appendix C.)
The evaluation is based on information available as of March 31, 1983.
That information includes non-attainment area designation changes which
were made during 1982. Emissions data reflect the latest National
Emissions Data System (NEDS) update supplied by the State. Ambient
monitoring data for 1981 and 1982 are included for all pollutants.
In addition, since the ozone standard is based on a three-year average,
1980 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
(SO?), 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 pollution roses and 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,
0 the specific standard(s) exceeded (if any) at each site,
0 the statistical trend observed at each site (subject to data
availability), and
0 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
of particulates or CO)
0 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 ALERT LEVELS
POLLUTANT
Parti oil ate
Matter
Sulfur
Dioxide
Carbon
Monoxide
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Ozone
Lead
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**
Calendar Quarter
PRIMARY
STANDARDS
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
80 ug/m3
(0.03 ppm)
365 ug/m3
(0.14 ppm)
10 mg/m3
(9 ppm)
40 mg/m3
(35 ppm)
100 ug/m3
(0.05 ppm)
0.12 ppm
(235 ug/m3)
1.5 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)
(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 (Tablss 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,
respectively.
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 1978 through 1982, 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.
For 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 S02), 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
_ J
Primary Nonattainment Area
Secondary Nonattainment Area
—i
Unclassified Area
Monitor Symbol Colors and Flag
* No Violation of Standard
* Violation of Secondary
Standard
* Violation of Primary
Standard
T Exceedance of Alert Level
Annotation for Standards Violated
^ Annual Primary Standard
Q Quarterly Primary Standard
/4 24-hour Primary Standard
14 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
0
Neighborhood
Scale
Urban Scale
Data Completeness
* Data met completeness
criteria each year.
0 Data did not meet complete-
ness criteria one or more
years.
Regional
Scale
-------
TAHLU 3
•I-XiUNI) FOR EMISSIONS DATA MAPS
POINT SOURCE .SYMBOL SIZE EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
NON--IEAD LEAD
,V_. 9 n iOO -- 1000 r; - 2L;
lOCi - SOOO 26 • 100
OVFR SOOO OVRR 100
POINT SOURCE' SYMBOL COLOR - STACK HEIGHT
(METERS)
'*> UNKNOWN
4f. -• 120
AMBIENT MONITOR SYMBOLS
»
PU MAMS
f> SLAMS
A SPVlS
-------
B. Emissions Data Maps
In the present report, emissions data maps are used as background
information in the analysis of possible pollutant sources in problem
areas (Section XII). Such maps can also provide an overview of the
monitoring network, if the locations and stack heights for large point
sources are available in NEDS. That information is not available for
over 200 large sources in Kansas. 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-84 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.
C. Pollution Roses
In areas where the NAAQS's have been exceeded, pollution roses can be
useful in evaluating possible sources of high pollutant concentrations.
Those roses show the wind speeds and the directions from which the wind
blew when high pollutant concentrations were monitored in the ambient
air. The longest arms of the rose point toward the locations of
possible causes of the high concentrations. Section III.I discusses
the meaning, construction, and limitations of the roses. Because of
their inherent limitations, the roses do not provide positive identifi-
cations of the definitive causes of elevated concentrations. They do,
however, provide useful indications of possible causes.
-------
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 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 1981 and 1982 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, 1980 data were
also included for ozone. For the analysis of trends, five years of
data (1978 through 1982) 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 whie*). 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 April 1983
are provided as Table A2 of the Appendix.
C. Trends
The trend analyses were performed on data from 1978 through 1982, 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 S02. The first
used the monthly arithmetic mean, the second the 90th percentile 24-hour
concentration. For N02, 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. The computer program, which was
used to perform the trends analyses, was not equipped for lead analyses.
Furthermore, since final lead monitor siting criteria were not promul-
gated until late 1981, with deadlines for monitor siting in 1982 and
1983, historical lead data from sites meeting those criteria are scarce.
Therefore, trend analyses were not performed for lead.
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
1978-1982, and at least 75% complete data for at least three of those
years. These criteria disallowed trend evaluation at many monitoring
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 1978 through 1982 data. The
data used in reviewing attainment or non-attainment of the NAAQS's, however,
cover only the periods 1980-1982 for ozone and 1981-1982 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 "Kansas Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Summary
Report for Calendar Year 1982," which was prepared by the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment.
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 March 31, 1983 was used. The map
presentations 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 coincide, in order that both lines can be clearly seen.
In some cases, larger discrepancies in the boundaries are evident,
10
-------
because the county boundaries in the ZMAP computer mapping system
are not exact.
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,
and Pb). For CO and 63, 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. Emissions 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. Meteorological Data
Construction of wind roses or pollution roses requires wind speed and
direction data. The ideal is to have meteorological instrumentation
at the pollutant monitoring site. Data collected by such instrumentation
would be stored in SAROAD.
The SLAMS sites in Kansas do not include wind measurements, however.
Therefore, data from a nearby National Weather Service station are
used. The pollutant monitoring station and the meteorological station
are identified for each pollution rose presented.
11
-------
I. Pollution Roses
The pollution roses presented in this report are diagrams which
summarize wind speeds and wind directions during periods when elevated
pollutant concentrations were observed. The term "elevated pollutant
concentrations" implies a threshold concentration, which must be selected
as appropriate for the specific pollutant and averaging time of interest.
For example, TSP has three different standards, as shown in Table 1:
a) a primary standard of 75 ug/m3, annual geometric mean concen-
tration;
b) a secondary standard of 150 ug/m3, 24-hour concentration,
not to be exceeded more than once per year; and
c) a different primary standard of 260 ug/m3, 24-hour concen-
tration, not to be exceeded more than once per year.
For sites exceeding the annual primary standard, only days with concentra-
tions over 75 ug/m3 will contribute to the exceedance, so only those
days are included in the pollution rose. The resulting rose indicates
possible sources of chronic, moderately elevated TSP concentrations.
Where sites also show exceedances of the 24-hour secondary standard, a
pollution rose constructed from only those days when TSP concentrations
exceeded 150 ug/m3 could indicate different or fewer sources of those
higher concentrations.
The following threshold values were used in constructing the pollution
roses in this report:
For TSP - Days with TSP concentrations above 75 ug/m3, for sites
exceeding the annual primary standard.
- Days with TSP concentrations above 150 ug/m3 for sites
showing many exceedances of the 24-hour secondary
standard.
For CO - Hours with CO concentrations above 10 mg/m3 for sites
exceeding the eight-hour standard. (Only those hours
could contribute to eight-hour averages above the
standard.)
The following steps were followed in constructing pollution roses:
1. The times (days or days and hours) when pollutant concentrations
exceeded the threshold concentration were identified. That information
was obtained from the raw data (daily or hourly concentrations) in
SAROAD.
2. The wind speed and wind direction were retrieved for each of
the times identified in Step 1. On-site meteorological data are preferred,
if available. Otherwise, National Weather Service data from a nearby
12
-------
station may be used, with the understanding that the separation.,between
the weather station and the pollutant monitoring station introduces
uncertainty into the interpretation of the pollution rose.
3. The weather data were summarized by ranges of wind speeds
(e.g. 1-3 mph) and ranges of wind directions (e.g. 15-45°). The frequency
of occurrence was then computed for each combination of speed range and
direction range.
4. The rose was plotted, using different bar widths and shading
patterns for each wind speed range.
Interpretation of a pollution rose considers not only the wind directions
displayed, but also the wind speeds and significant pollutant sources
in the vicinity of the monitor. If the rose is strongly directional
(one or two arms much longer than the others), influence of a single
point source or a small cluster of sources is indicated. A more diverse
directional pattern would indicate influence by line or area sources or
by several point sources located in various directions from the monitor.
As stated earlier, if off-site meteorological data are used, uncertainty
in the meaning of the pollution rose is introduced. The following
three factors tend to increase that uncertainty:
a) short observation times,
b) large distances between the pollutant monitoring site and the
weather station,
c) large variations in terrain between the pollutant monitor and the
weather station.
Therefore, due caution should be exercised and the advice of the Regional
Meteorologist should be sought in interpreting roses constructed from
off-site weather data.
Uncertainty of a different type is introduced where a resultant wind speed
and direction are used to represent winds for a 24-hour period for a
TSP pollution rose. Wind shifts of more than 90° are common over the course
of a day. The high pollutant concentrations may occur during only a
part of the day, when the wind direction may be different from the
resultant direction. In that case, the time resolution of pollutant
monitoring data is not sufficient to detect that effect. Therefore,
these pollution roses can provide only preliminary indications of
probable sources of high concentrations.
The following description of the pollution rose, shown in Figure 1 (a)
illustrates the evaluation process. The rose was constructed from
on-site weather data for hours during which the CO concentration exceeded
10 mg/m3. With very few exceptions, wind speeds were low (below 3 mph)
when those concentrations were observed. From the spread of the directional
pattern, a single point source is probably not the cause of the elevated
13
-------
Figure 1(a). Sample Pollution Rose
0-1
1-3 3-5 5-7
J
Wind Speeds (M.P.H.)
N
Percent of hours over threshold
•nd with indicated wind speed
•nd direction
Figure 1(b). Monitor Location for the Rose of Figure 1(a).
14
-------
concentrations. Rather, an area source or a line source would b«
expected. In Figure l(b), the monitor location is shown, along with
the adjacent freeway. Considering the location, wind speeds and wind
directions, vehicle traffic on the freeway is indicated as the probable
cause of the elevated concentrations.
J. 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 XIV 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.
15
-------
IV. TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (TSP)
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 and Dodge City show no violation of any of the
particulate standards in 1981 or 1982. However, the 1982 data from
Dodge City were only about 50% complete.
Data from Good!and show an annual geometric mean of 84 ug/m^ in 1981
(an apparent violation of the annual primary standard of 75 ug/m^).
The data showed five and six 24-hour observations in 1981 and 1982,
respectively, in excess of 150 ug/m^ (apparent violations of the secondary
standards). However, under the EPA fugitive dust policy (described
below), Good!and may claim attainment of the TSP standards.
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 both primary
and secondary standards, with the exception of two monitors. The monitor
in Fairfax shows two exceedences of the secondary standard in 1982.
The monitor at 420 Kansas Avenue shows violations of the annual primary
standard and the secondary standard in 1981 (but no violations of either
standard in 1982). Both of those monitors are located in industrial
areas, and both have shown large decreases in TSP concentrations in
recent years. The portion of those decreases which is due to reduced
industrial production during the economic recession is unknown. Another
factor which has decreased the monitored concentrations at both sites
is the installation of a sample savers on the Hi-vols in September of
16
-------
1981. Data collected with and without the sample saver are not-really
comparable for trend analysis. However, the use of recent data is
valid for assessing compliance with the NAAQS.
Based on the 1981-1982 data, significant reductions in the sizes of the
non-attainment areas appear justified. Specifically, we recommend
redesignating the Fairfax industrial area to secondary non-attainment,
shrinking the PNA to the Armourdale area, and redesignating the remainder
of the area to attainment. The question of the size of the PNA in the
Armourdale area is clouded by the absence of recent monitoring data in
the residential area west of 7th Street. Based on the findings of
previous studies that fugitive sources account for most of the particulate
matter in the air, and based on visual comparisons of street loadings
in the areas east and west of 7th Street, the Environmental Services
Division has recommended inclusion of both areas in the PNA. 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.
Topeka - Data throughout the area show no violation of the NAAQS's
during 1981 or 1982. Furthermore, those data meet the NADB summary
criteria for completeness. Therefore, redesignation of the SNA to
attainment would be supported by the data.
Wichita - The entire area is designated as "Better Than National Standards."
Since monitoring data for 1981 and 1982 show no violation of the standards,
that designation remains appropriate.
Synopsis and Recommendations
Decreases in monitored TSP concentrations have been observed in recent
years in each of the designated non-attainment areas. Based on the
recent data, several changes in attainment status designations are
recommended, as shown in Table 4. The State has formally requested
redesignation in Topeka, and is considering a redesignation request
for Kansas City.
Only one urban area in the State has recorded recent violations of the
primary standard. That area contains the monitor at 420 Kansas Avenue
in Kansas City. Section XII of this report will focus in more detail
on that area, summarizing the results of studies conducted to identify
possible sources of the high concentrations. If the concentration
levels observed prior to 1982 recur, that summary may be useful in the
State's efforts to ensure that the particulate standards are met.
17
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF TSP RECOMMENDATIONS
Kansas City Redesignate Fairfax 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 rest of the area to
attainment
Topeka *Redesignate the secondary non-attainment
area to attainment
* Request has been submitted by the State.
18
-------
X
19
-------
ro
O
A T * L" * VQ \ Q T TTV \ PTT
'iiA — i\riAoAo Li 11 /irCH
-------
AMBIENT TSP DATA - TOPEKA AREA
21
-------
tf»T, T
Ot.
UIHIKNT TSP DATA - WICHITA AREA
22
-------
V. SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02)
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 S0£. 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 1978 through 1982. 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.
23
-------
\ " T '• •
S Jj *
~ QC T ^' V'tTT-"'
L V/ J uj-V 4. i A CA Jt v •
-------
r
r
\MWKNT S02 DATA - KANSAS CITY ARKA
25
-------
VI. CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
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 - A small area in downtown Kansas City, Kansas is designated
as unclassified for CO. When that designation was made, a special
purpose monitor at 7th and State was operated for one year to resolve
the question of the CO attainment status. Data from that monitor
showed no violation of the standard during that year.
The FY-82 air quality evaluation recommended redesignation to attainment,
and the State has recently requested that redesignation. The data for
1981 and 1982 continue to support an attainment designation around the
current SLAMS monitor.
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
1981 and 1982 SLAMS data continue to show a few exceedances of the
standard each year, and are more than 97% complete. Because of the
continuing exceedances of the standard, the non-attainment designation
is still appropriate. Section XII presents pollution roses for the two
SLAMS sites, in order to indicate possible sources of the high concen-
trations. Those observations may be useful to the efforts to meet
the CO standards.
26
-------
o
I J
27
-------
/
AMHIKNT CO DATA - KANSAS CITY ARKA
28
-------
AMBIENT CO DATA » WICHITA AREA
-------
VII. NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
Monitoring for N0£ 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. Those concentrations are
consistent with the concentrations measured in the 1970's. The monitor
reported data for 99% of the total possible hourly observations after
it was installed. The entire area is designated as "Better Than National
Standards" for N0£, which is consistent with the most recent data.
30
-------
o
c...
31
-------
VIII. OZONE (03)
Three counties in Kansas (Vlyandotte 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 Johnson County was operated on a temporary basis
as part of a special study, and observed only one exceedance of the
standard during the year it was operated. (That was not a violation of
the standard, since one exceedance per year is allowed.) The monitor
in Wyandotte County was established early in 1982, and reported over
98% complete data for 1982, with no exceedances of the standard.
Data on the Missouri side show several exceedances of the standard at
three sites in 1980, one exceedance each at two sites in 1981, and no
exceedance at any site in 1982. Based on the 1981-82 data, coupled
with documented hydrocarbon emission reductions, redesignation of
Kansas City to attainment has been requested by the State agencies of
Kansas and Missouri. That request is under review by the Air Branch of
EPA Region VII.
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 and stable or probable decreasing trends
in concentrations. The attainment designation, therefore, remains
consistent with the data.
32
-------
CO
CO
-------
0
L
r
V
i
HilKNT
DATA -- KANSAS CITY ARKA
34
-------
IX. LEAD (Pb)
The State established two SLAMS lead monitoring sites (including one
NAMS site) on February 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 1981 for lead analyses performed by EPA Headquarters
on TSP Hi-vol filters from two sites in Kansas City and one site in Topeka.
None of the data showed any violation of the lead standard. The establish-
ment of SLAMS monitors specifically sited for lead analyses is a significant
step in documenting lead concentrations relative to the standard. Because
those monitors were installed in the middle of the time interval covered
by this report, they are shown on the map as having incomplete data.
However, the last three quarters of 1982 show data completeness which
meets the NADB summary criteria at each monitor.
35
-------
CO
• - '7)T v" ~rn T:>T} n •r" '•
..-..,»ii,.'-i A i) i.'.li.l
-------
c
MIHKXT PH DATA - KANSAS CITY AREA
37
-------
X. PRECISION AND ACCURACY
For continuous monitors (CO, S02, NOg, 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 1981 and 1982. 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,
81-5 gives the estimates for the full calendar year 1981).
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:
38
-------
NO?, Os, SO? (ppm) CO (ppm) TSP (cfm)
.03 to
.15 to
.40 to
.80 to
.08
.20
.45
.90
3
15
40
80
to
to
to
to
8
20 40-60
45
90
Pb (ug/strip)
100-300
600-1000
—
«»_ .
LI
L2
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 +07
for calendar year 1982 (line 82-5), based on a total of 72 precision
checks. Therefore, 95% of the precision checks would be expected to
fall between 7% below and 7% above the known concentration of the test
gas used for the precision checks.
b. The accuracy data for $03 show limits of -18 and +01 for the
audits performed at concentration level 2 (column L2) during the fourth
quarter of 1981 (line 81-4). Therefore, 95% of the audits performed
at that time at that concentration level would be expected to fall
between 18% 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 thus far is limited. Since both
monitors are designated as NAMS, at least one audit per
calendar quarter is required by the regulations. Since
the reporting of probability limits for accuracy must
be based on at least two audits, semi-annual reporting is
permitted. The table shows a total of only two audits
in 1982. We encourage the State to ensure that at least
the required minimum number of S02 audits are performed.
CO The total number of audits is more than the minimum number
required by 40 CFR 58 Appendix A.
an encouraging trend.
39
-------
03 Data from both the precision checks and the audits, show
a narrowing of the probability limits from 1981 to 1982,
an encouraging trend.
N02 The one NOg SLAMS monitor is not designated as a NAMS
monitor. Therefore, precision and accuracy estimates were
not required to begin until January 1, 1983.
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.
40
-------
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
Pb
Monitors with
Sufficient Data
Total for Trend
Monitors Analysis
21
2
5
4
1
6
18
1
3
2
0
0
Monitors with
Decreasing or
Probable
Decreasing
Trend
7
0
2
1
0
0
Monitors with
Increasing or
Probable
Increasing
Trend
5
1
1
0
0
0
Monitors with
Violations and
Increasing or
Probable
Increasing Trend
1
0
1
0
0
0
The TSP site which showed apparent violations of the standards and an
increasing trend in geometric mean concentrations is located in
Goodland. As noted in the text, the elevated concentrations are due
to rural fugitive dust, and the area can claim attainment of the
primary NAAQS's. The CO site which showed violations of the 8-hour
primary standard and an increasing trend in the 90th percentile concen-
trations is located at 1900 East Ninth Street in Wichita.
In summary, the trend analyses show more sites with improving trends
than with worsening trends. Areas of immediate concern (identified by
the combination of violations of a primary standard and increasing
trends in concentrations) were limited to one monitor in Wichita.
41
-------
XII. FURTHER EVALUATION OF SELECTED PROBLEM AREAS
The following subsections examine in greater detail the two areas where
pollutant concentrations during some portion of the period 1981-1982
exceeded the primary (health-related) standards. For both areas,
pollution roses are presented and evaluated, and the results of any
previous special studies are summarized, in an attempt to understand
the causes of the high concentrations. At the time the pollution rose
preparation was begun, available meteorological data included 1980 and
1981, but not 1982. Therefore, the roses are based on air quality data
and meteorological data for 1980 and 1981. Consequently, any significant
new pollutant sources or any recent pollution abatements are not reflected
in the roses. Because of the limitations discussed in Section III.I,
the roses provide indications of possible causes, rather than concrete
identifications of definite causes.
A. TSP in Kansas City
A special study was conducted by PEDCO Environmental, Inc. during the
period July 24 through November 25, 1980, in order to better define
contributing particulate sources around the 420 Kansas Avenue monitoring
site. The study included collection and analysis of 90 samples, each
covering a 12-hour period. Of those 90 samples, 36 showed concentrations
over 150 ug/m3 (the secondary standard for a 24-hour sampling time).
The final report of the study (EPA 907/9-81-006) identified the following
sources as the predominant contributors to the TSP concentrations:
Traffic on Kansas Avenue
Construction activity across Kansas Avenue from the monitor
Traffic in the truck terminal or rail yard northwest
of the monitor.
The attached map (Figure 2), reproduced from that report, shows the
locations of those non-point sources. While a number of point sources
are located in the general vicinity, the largest are over a mile away
from the monitor. A list of point sources within five miles of the
monitor is shown in Table 5, which is reproduced from the PEDCO report.
In that report, contributions from point sources were found to account
for only about 4% of the observed TSP concentrations.
Since separate samples were run from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and from 6 p.m.
to 6 a.m., the results were analyzed separately for daytime and night-
time conditions. That analysis showed prominent daytime contributions
from the north, south, east and northwest. Prominent nighttime
contributions came from the northwest and southwest. Nighttime con-
centrations were significantly lower than daytime concentrations.
The study described above was based on intensive sampling during a
period of four months. An additional perspective is provided by the
TSP SLAMS data for a longer time period. The two-year period 1980-81
42
-------
'. I I.
1-70
KANSAS
AVENUE
OSAQE
CHEYENNE
LEGEND
1. Land fill operations
2. Rock Island parking lot
3. Demolition activity
4. Building construction
5. National Compressed Steel
Figure 2 - Area surrounding 4
-------
TABLE 5 - POINT SOURCE SUMMARY, 420 KANSAS AVENUE
Plant ID
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plant name
KCP&l, Grand
KCP&L, Northeast
Ralston Purina
Checkerboard
Gouch Mill
CSG No. 7 (Certalnteed)
Tobin Construction
Onwes Corning
Proctor and Gamble
Smoot Grain
Phillips Petroleum
Far-Mar-Co.
Bartlett Grain
Bunge
Cargill
Natrena Feeds
CSG No. 5 (Certalnteed)
Quindaro Power Plant
Kaw Power Plant '
McFadden Company
S-G Metals
Turnpike Elevator
Wolcott & Lincoln
Lone Star Industries
Nearman Creek
Emission level ,
ton/year
341.3
48.6
117.5
125.8
33.0
522.0
46.0
552.0
72.0
96.0
336.0
45.5
53.3
30.5
185.3
128.0
75.0
3187.0
6879.0
17.0
74.3
62.3
16.4
13.0
44.4
Distance from
site, mi
2.8
4.1
4.3
4.5
5.0
3.7
1.3
4.2
1.7
1.4
3.3
4.3
2.2
1.5
2.9
1.3
3.6
4.3
1.6
1.9
1.3
0.94
2.7
0.7
3.9
Wind
quadrant
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
4
1
2
4
1
1
4
3
3
1
4
1
1
3
UTM coordinates
x y
363.4
365.2
365.7
364.8
365.3
360.4
358.1
360.5
357.0
357.4
361.5
359.2
360.6
360.5
355.0
360.9
360.4
358.3
357.2
359.6
360.4
358.2
361:*'
359.8
353.5
4330.2
4331.3
4331.1
4332.7
4333.7
4333.5
4326.5
4334.3
4327.6
4327.5
4332.7
4334.5
4331.1
4325.5
4328.0
4329. 3
4334.4
4334.5
4327.5
4324.6
4329.7
4327.8
4331.4
4328.9
4327.0
-------
was chosen, based on availability of weather data. During those,years,
115 samples were collected on the National Aerometric Schedule, with
each sample covering 24 hours. Of those 115 samples, 22 showed concen-
trations over 150 ug/nv* and 87 were over 75 ug/m^. The two pollution
roses prepared are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3 shows that, when the 24-hour secondary standard (150 ug/m^)
was exceeded, the winds were most often from the east-northeast.
However, a few such concentrations were also observed for most of the
other wind directions. Figure 4 indicates that the most frequent
contributions to annual averages above the primary standard (75 ug/m^)
occurred when the winds were from the east-northeast, south and south-
southwest. Examination of the raw data shows that those concentrations
include every month of the year.
The locations of sources which emitted over 100 tons/year are shown in
Figure 5. That figure is based on the emission data and UTM coordinates
shown in Table 5, and reflects the point source emissions corresponding
to the time frame of the pollution roses. (It should be noted that the
latest NEDS submittals reflect substantial emission reductions at
several locations, especially the Kaw and Quindaro Power plants. The
emissions increase at the Nearman Creek plant when it began full operation
was only about 10% as large as the decrease at the other two plants.
Table 6 shows the most recent emission estimates for the sources in
Table 5.)
Based on the distance of the sources from the monitor and the directional
pattern of the pollution roses, area sources appear to be the predominant
contributors to the observed concentrations.
A different kind of meteorological rose, a wind rose, is shown in Figure 6.
Two essential differences distinguish the wind rose from the pollution
roses shown in Figures 3 and 4.
0 First, the wind rose includes all wind observations, regardless of
the pollutant concentrations. The pollution roses included only
the wind observations recorded when the pollutant concentrations
exceeded a specified threshold.
0 Second, since the data summaries used to construct the wind rose
classify wind directions in 16 directional sectors, the rose
includes 16 arms, each representing a 22.5° sector. By contrast,
the wind data used for constructing pollution roses were reported
by the National Weather Service in 10° increments. Those roses
present 12 arms, each representing a 30° sector (three of the 10°
directional increments). Conversion formulas are not available for
transforming a 12-arm rose to a 16-arm rose, or vice versa.
Therefore, comparisons between the wind roses and the pollution
roses are qualitative, rather than quantitative.
Figure 6 shows a wind rose for Kansas City based on a summary of historical
weather data collected at the Downtown Airport. If all of the pollutant
45
-------
Figure 3. TSP in Kansas City
0-3
4-7 R-11 12-15 16 +
Wind Speeds (M.P.H.)
Percent of days with TSP over
threshhold and with indicated
wind speed and direction.
I
i i i i
I
i i i i
I
Met. Station: Downtown Airport
Air Quality Site: 420 Kansas Ave.
TSP>150;jg/m3
22 Observations
1980 and 1981 data
46
-------
Figure 4. TSP in Kansas City
0-3
4-7 8-11 12-1516
Wind Speeds (M.P.H.)
Percent of days with TSP over
threshhold and with indicated
wind speed and direction.
I
I I
I
I I I I
I
Met. Station: Downtown Airport
Air Quality Site: 420 Kansas Ave.
TSP>75/jg/m3 .
87 Observations
1980 and 1981 data
10%
47
-------
8 ;3 x)
9& I
915 '"' J
16
19 ;•",
FIGURE 5
PARTICULATE POINT SOURCES AROUND 1^0 KANSAS AYE
48
-------
TADLE 6
UPDATED POINT SOURCE SUMMARY, 420 KANSAS AVENUE
.P.
<£>
Plant ID
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plant name
KCP&L, Grand
KCP&L, Northeast
Ralston Purina
Checkerboard
Gouch Mill
CSG No. 7 (Certainteed;
Tobin Construction
Owens Corning
Proctor and Gamble
Smoot Grain
Phillips Petroleum
Far-Mar-Co.
Bartlett Grain
Bunge
Cargill
Natrena Feeds
CSG No. 5 (Certainteed
Quindaro Power Plant
Kaw Power Plant
McFadden Company
S-G Metals
Turnpike Elevator
Wolcott & Lincoln
Lone Star Industries
Nearman Creek
Emission level,
ton/year
202
1
117.5
316
310
22
1
34
0
27
28
169
36
8
48
100
582
930
849
11
0
6
23
1
381
-------
Figure 6. Historical Wind Rose-Kansas City Downtown Airport
Percent of observations with
indicated wind direction.
5%
107.
N
1975-1979 Data
43824 Observations
50
-------
emission sources were equally distributed around the monitor, the wind
rose and the pollution rose should approximately coincide. Comparison
of Figures 3 and 4 with Figure 6 indicates larger contributions to high
concentrations with east-northeasterly and possibly southerly winds
than would be expected solely from the wind rose.
While these pollution roses are in basic agreement with the PEDCo study,
they may indicate a more extensive impact from traffic on Kansas Avenue
over the longer time period.
B. CO in Wichita
Previous studies of CO in Wichita have attributed the elevated concen-
trations to vehicular traffic.
The pollution rose of Figure 7 shows wind speeds and directions when
hourly CO concentrations monitored at the Fire Station exceeded the
8-hour standard of 10 mg/m^. (Only those hours could contribute to
8-hour averages exceeding the standard). Figure 8 shows the historical
wind rose for the area. Since those two figures show distinctly different
patterns, the wind distributions alone are not sufficient to explain
the pollution rose. Increased contributions to high concentrations
are noted under calm conditions, and with light-to-moderate winds in a
150° sector west of the monitor.
Table 7 lists point source emissions for the county, based on the
State-submitted NEDS data. Figure 9 shows the locations of those point
sources emitting 100 or more tons/year of CO. Based on the distances
and directions of those sources from the monitor, negligible point
source impact is indicated. Figure 10 shows traffic counts near the
monitor, which is located at Topeka and Lewis Streets. The pollution
rose indicates that traffic along Topeka, Broadway and Kellogg Streets
is probably the major source of the elevated CO concentrations. That
interpretation is based on the directional pattern of the rose (major
contributions from the directions SSW through NNW) and on the wind
speeds (generally 0-7 knots).
Therefore, the indications of the pollution roses further support the
previous conclusion that traffic is the major cause of the CO concentrations,
Figure 11 shows the pollution rose for the monitor located at the Wichita-
Sedgwick County Health Department (1900 East 9th Street).
Comparison of Figures 8 and 11 shows that, as for the previous CO rose,
this pollution rose cannot be explained in terms of the wind rose and
a uniform distribution of emission sources. Increased contributions
to high CO concentrations are noted under calm conditions, and with
light to moderate winds from the northwest and the southwest.
5,1
-------
Figure 7 . CO in Wichita
1-3
4-7 8-11 12-1516
""''I If11!!"11
Wind Speeds (Kts.)
Percent o1 hours over threshold
and with indicated wind speed
and direction.
I i i i i 1 i i i i I
0 5% 10%
N
Met. Station: Mid-Continent Airport
Air Quality Site: Topeka at Lewis
C0>10 mg/m3
94 Observations
1980 and 1981 data
52
-------
Figure 8. Historical Wind Rose-Mid Continent Airport, Wichita
Percent of observations with
indicated wind direction.
I
, I
i i i
I
57.
N
1965-1974 Data
29215 Observations
53
-------
en
TABLE 7 EMISSIONS SUMMARY - SEDGWICK COUNTY
"5 f »TE 1 1 i " "KANSAS CUUMTYUS/O SEDGWICK en
PLNT NAHE AND ADOHFSS TntlTACT Sir AOW CITY t.T-u MTvY PT Y*
•«•* »»m»****«*»*******»*****»«***********« »***•»***• **•* *»* *•»* *«** ***** »* »*
L«BOi CtRTAL FOOD PR.QCE8BORB IMC... TOi.K 17TH DAVE NATTS 2041 099 3740 6473 41753_OA^10_
0002 ROOFERS SKHVlCb SUPPLY. INC. RON HtNT 2152 099 3740 6470 41779 01 fll
0003 CITIES SERVICE OIL CU. -WICHITA W TEMPLk.To 4922 099 3740 03 81
0004 MAYSVILLE FAR" CENTEH- HAYSVIt.LE D MtMi-.AP '•1S3 091 Of)OO ft4-)S 41*>gfLM HI
"0005 NC CONNELL AFB WICHITA KANSAS 67221 J R KDWAR 9711 099 3740 6560 41670 02 81
000* GREDE FOUNDRIES INC. 1120 S 1ST F.R.H. ALL 3121 099 3740 6476 41699 04 81
0007 SERVICE IKON FOUNDRY 14Q N. RQCK 18UPP FLQY.P BOWE 1321.099 1740 6474 41727 0.4 BL.
6008"FERROLOY FOWIORY 51b E 29TH ST.N. <>7201 «.J. K.ASTO 3321 091 3740 h470 417 fH 05 81
0009 FARMERS CO-OP tLEVATUR CO HT, HOPE R NATTIER 5151 099 6173 41915 Oft HI
0010 MIDLAND BEKININC; TO. C HAHMSTEH 2992 099 1740 03 «1
6611 10SS INDUSTRIESIDEPT.-CARCILD-TERNINAL *1S3 099 3740 05 81
0012 KANSAB G&E CORDON EVANS STN COLWICH G KOESTER 4911 099 0000 «104 41838 02 80
Afitt «IM«I* r.cr BTDi.tv *T« «4ntt N AEMCCA •* KOESTER 4911 099 3740 4451 41BD8 05 80.
0014 KANSAS G™ HURRY GIl.L STN 6100 WSSTH P1NKSTAFF 4111 099 1740 6401 41619 04 80
0015 INTERNATIONAL PLASTICS, INC. COLWICH L. PAUL 2»1« 099 0000 01 78
0016 CHANCF MFG. CO.. INC. . a*V "99 3740 01 ai
0017 PEOPLES NATURAL GAfl-CHINET ITA, * HELLER 49220990000 «l§0
001B CITIES SERVICE GAB CO.-HAYBVILtt J DANCER 4923 099 0000 01 BO
.0019 CESSNA. AIRCRAFT CPtt WALLACE D|¥»V..,,,. . ,tl MNC ,-3724099^740 T fl4 40.
'0020'DEKBY HEFINIHG CU, 1100 E.21ST ST, 67210 R W KbMSEY 2H1 099 3740 6478 41762 19 80
0021 SERVICE BRASS AND ALUHINUN FOUNDRY INC F WESTWOOD 3361 099 3740 6475 41729 02 81
002? RFFCH ATHPHAFT CORP.-WICHlT* T FERGUSON 3721 099 3740 03 flO
0641 ABBOTT LABORATORIES- WICHITA " B FOUTY 2869 099 3740 03 81
0024 NAJOR INC 4323 W J1ST SOUTH 11217 C TOHLIN 2951 099 3740 441* 4166« 02 10
.0028 RtLBTQN PURINA CD 710 C: i3tH. 47204-.,^.. 1. VAN LQM .2048 Q99 3740 4473 41744 04 IO
*0026 TWECO PRODUCTS INC BuX 666 J KESIF.H 3162 099 3740 6419 41697 02 bl
0027 WESTERN IRON fc FOUNDRY 702 E.2ND 67202 F..E. UHHAN 3321 099 3740 6474 41725 04 81
0028 BERT t WETTA SAI ES INC bOX J)7 MAIZE P E RLHT 2048 099 0000 6144 4IK21 02 Bl
0029 CARGILL INC. 1501 N NOSLEY 47214 NEST MOREL 2075 099 3740 4473 41750 14 80
0030 MULVANC COOPERATIVE UNION MMTK C LONG 915S 099 4437 41495 08 80
OQH RACON. INC BOH 198 WICHITA K| 57201- ^ t. ECC*XliL-2«|*9 9«1 1740 01 I(L
"ooJJ'A-l CONCRETE, INC. 54bO N.BROAPWAY 67219 KEN HARRI 3273 099 3740 6466 41H29 01 78
0034 HEINAN ELEVATOR, INC. -WICHITA 5153 099 3740 04 81
0015 AfMF PHTCK CO 13?"> NQRiH xnsLEY BILL CONNK 3271 099 374Q 6473 41747 01 81
0034 MID-KANBAB CONSTRUCTION INC, •— 2951 099 3740 01 81
0037 AIR CAPITAL CONCRETE INC PO BO* 1H04 L KANESS 3273 099 3740 445* 41408 01 78
oolf MAJOR. IMC. ... Q TO"LIH._295i..Q99 1740 01 Bi
" 00 19" PEOPLES NATURAL GAS-ANADARKO STA, R HELLER 4122 0<*9 01 81
0040 ALLEY'S, INC. 45TH AT POCH ROAD 67204 DEAN HITCH 3273 099 3740 6550 41639 01 78
0041 ALLFN'S CONCRFTE, 1NC,-1R^O H. MOSlEY OEAfl PITCH 3771 099 3740 647ft 4t7S»> 01 RO
"0043'ALLerf'i,lNC. Ji*T i, ANfe K-il 6l4o4 bEAN RlTCH 3273 099 3740 6498 41665 01 78
0043 ALLEN'S, INC, 200W, IOTH 67204 DEAN RITCH 3273 099 3740 6463 41739 01 78
0044 ALLtms CONCRETE. I«C.-i5QO *. 2UT DEAN BITCH 3373 09» J740 647^ 41754 01 BO
0045 PHILLIPS PIPE LINE CU.-wiCHlTA TENMIHAL 42V6 091 1740 04 82
~~A. .u^»i r Bc-ar.« ui« . urM>. c <.inn* .1 f U UllITTl. Ill \ nod OOOH ^707 4lM1h fll Rl
pftKI ir
********
100*
3
4
o
0
20
..... .JL .
15
24
0
24
38«
36
0
0—
0
0
- - •• *
33*
0
2
5
'• o.
0
14
2-
158*
18
0
B
4
0~
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
snjf
********
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
24
,_^. 14*
285*
0
0
0
0
.-*•-— *
223*
0
JL.
0
0
0
0
Q_
1
0
ifc< ii Mm ttm
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
TOTAL REPf'HT
STATE REPORT
NflX
******** ***
as*
0
142*
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
2575*
0
0
121*
260*
._._ aa ^
808*
0
0
0
•' v ° •'
0
0
17
0 .V,
0
0
0 L
0
0
• '; « •--
70*
0
0
0
0
0
54*
O
PAGEl
PAGE!
*****
o
3
38*
o
•
0
,m a tL ..
0
0
o
0
1*
1 •
9
0
ill*
107*
1630*
0
o
iZ;L
4
0
t
0
.,101
0
0
o
0
0
... 0.
29*
0
0
0
o
242*
0
•«*
-------
01
tn
0 • 2 5
20
FIGURE 9
\ l' <~\ ^ ' I \ ~ ' r ri^ { \ ^
( 0 /••;{.). *i i U;
-------
FIGURE 10 - TRAFFIC DENSITY MAP - WICHITA
-------
Figure 11. CO in Wichita
1-3
4-7 ft-11 12-15 16 +
1
Wind Speeds (Kts.)
Percent of hours over threshold
and with indicated wind speed
and direction
I i i i i I i i i i I
Met. Station: Mid-Continent Airport
Air Quality Site: Health Department
C0>10 mg/m3
139 Observations
1980 and 1981 data
N
57
-------
Figure 9 shows one point source emitting over 100 tons/year, located
about two miles northwest of the monitor. Based on the distance and the
magnitude of emissions, the impact of that source on the monitored
concentrations is probably small. When Figures 10 and 11 are overlaid,
the longest arms of the pollution rose coincide with the directions of
interchanges on 1-135. The pollution rose indicates that traffic on,
and/or approaching, 1-135 is probably the major source of the elevated
CO concentrations.
58
-------
XIII. EMISSIONS
In addition to the two graphical overviews of point sources and ambient
monitors included in Section XII, the NEDS listing was reviewed to
identify any extremely large emissions with no monitoring nearby.
One such source was identified in Grant County, with estimated CO
emissions over 50,000 tons/year. (The emissions summary for the County
is shown in Table 8.) The stack height for that source is not available
in NEDS. The SAROAD data do not include any CO monitoring nearby, as
far back as 1971. The emissions from that single source are more than
85% as large as the total NEDS estimated emissions for Wyandotte County.
With that magnitude of emissions emanating from a small area, large CO
concentrations might be expected in the ambient air.
The State has verified the emission estimates, and has modeled ambient
air concentrations around the source. The results of that modeling
study showed no predicted violations of the ambient air quality standards.
59
-------
TABLE 8 - EMISSIONS SUMMARY - GRANT COUNTY
8TATEH7
KANSAS
PLNT NAME Ann UDDRFSS
COUNTY 11300
CONTACT
GRANT C()
AQR CITY UTMX UTHY PT YP PAHT1C
TI1TAL KKPMHT PAGE! 34
STATK HEPPHT PAGEl 17- 34
M** ••••«*•••*•**•*•**•*••***•••****••*•****
i40ffi>XZTXKl §/'WPl "H.e« TMC.&MI E or HICKQIL
000) AMUCU PROD. CO ULYSSES PLT ULYSSKS bT29JH
0004 AMOCO PROD.CO-KINSLEN PLT, ULYSSES
0005 BUMGE CORp GANQ D|V MlCKUK
0006 DKKALB AGRE8EARCH BOX 704 ULYSSES 67880
0007 COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS CO. -HICKOK
,,0001 IQBIU OIL CORP. HICKOK. CAS PLANT^ULYSSES
0009 SULLIVAN INC..HMY 25 fc U{» 160 ULY3SLS
0010 MESA PETROLEUM us HNY 270 67880
0011 PIONEER ELECTRIC COOP BOX. 36« ULYSSES
001) SULLIVAN INC HICKOK
^ 0014 ULYSSES COOP, 222 E. INDUSTRIAL AVE 67880
o 0015 ULYSSES COOP OILfcSUPPLYiSULLIVAJt TRACKS .
0016 ULYSSES COUP OIL (. SUPPLY, HICKOK
0017 CITIES SERVICE GAS CU ASHLAND A 26T29R3S
0018 CITIES SERVICE GAS CO ASM A"0 6 S5T30RJ5
001* CITIES SERVICE GAS CO S ULYSSES A
0020 CITIES SERVICE CAS CO S ULYSSES B
0021 CITIES SERVICE GAS CO a_ULYSBEA c , ,-.
0022 CITItS SERVICE GAS CU H ULYSSES A
0023 CITIES SERVICE GAS CU M ULYSSES B
0024 CITIES SERVICE GAS Cu M ULYSSES C
0025 PANHANDLE EASTERN PL CO COLUMBIAN
0026 PANHANDLE EASTERN PL CO ULYSSES
0027 ULYSSES IRRIGATION PIPE CO 80X687 67880.
0028 BUNGE CORP SULLIVAN SPUR PFD ULYSSES
0029 CITIES SERV GAS CO HUGOTuN 3T29R35
0030 CITIES SERV GAS CO SuUTH ULYSSES 5T30R38
0031 CITIES SERV CAS CO UNITED 3T29R35
00)2 CITIES SERV GAS CO WEST ULYSSES 28T28R38
00)) COLLING WOOD GRAIN INC RYU8 R2 SATANTA
OOJ4 EL PASO dTL 'CAS eft CHANT flNwui.YSsFs
0035 KANSAS PHR t LT CO ULYSSfcS 10T30R37
0036 PEOPLES NTL GAS DTV Ut.YS.sES 1?T?9»J8
0037 PEOPLES NTL GAS DIV ULYSSES N T28R37
0036 SULLIVAN INC 8ULLYVAN SPUR BOX703ULY8SE8
003» ULYSSES CP OIL t SUP CO INULYSSES MILL. .. .
0040 WEAVER POPCORN CO INC B(U6«1 67HBO
004) WHEATLAND ELECTRIC ULYS&FS 67HHO
0044 COLORADO INTERSTATE G»S CO HUGOTdit N() 6
0045 MHRIL OIL COPP LMERAL C COMP 5YA
0046 MOBIL OIL CORP LATERAL H COMP STA
«I»AI oajuAunt.v ••••i-ruy orufi.iuf rn rncNAC KTA
**********
f H UILHAM
G BENNKf
L L HUHST
J R |XITT"M
PAN WIDDEH
J L DOUGLA
J \, SHI.LTV
J FAHKCLL.
K CONftWAY
J SULLIVAN
H C NORTON
H .C MORTON
H C MORTON
A BLANCHAR
A BLANCHAH
C HENSLEY
C HENSLEY
C HLNBLEY
C HfcNSLEY
C HENSLEY
C HENSt.EY
C KENT
C KENT
r WILSON
J OUTTOM
A Bt.ANCHAR
C HENSl-t'Y
A BLANCHAR
C HENSLEY
J RAMSEY .
E KOt.N
0 ANOKRSON
M HAYS
M HAYS
J SMITH
L MARTIN
M TRAftTKR
R SCOTT
J BmlGl.ASs
J DOUGLASS
H. JOHNSON
**»»
2911
2999
5153
289S
_2JjJL
4422
4911
5153
515)
&1&3
51 S3
4922
4927,
4922
4927
4922
4922
4922
4922
4922
3079.
5153
4922
4972
4922
4922
915)
4922
4922
492?
4922
5151
515)
5153
4911
4-177
4925
4922
49??
*»*
1DO
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
ion
100
100
100
100
100
100
ICO
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
JL9JL
100
100
IOP
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
lofl
100
100
**** ***• ***** **
0000 09
onoo
oooo
oooo
3600
oooo
3600
oooo
3*00
oooo
3600
OOQQ
oooo
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
OOOO
oooo
oooo
3600
oooo
onoo
onoo
oooo
oooo
oooo _ _
oooo
oooo
oooo
OOOO
oooo
oooo
3600
3600
oooo
04
04
04
OS
04
OK
"5
0)
f'4
05
04
01
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
— 04
02
02
01
01
04
... 06
04
02
0]
01
01
01
** »*»*•**• •••«**»• ««***••* **••»*••
•0 !• . • flflfta IA1*
BO
74
71
72
80
BO.
80
80
IB mm
o o o
[
80
80
BO
74
74
80. ^
74
80
80
80
80
JUL—
71
80
72
80
80
80^.
80
80
72
72
74
80
74
74
00
80
80
60 ^
12
0
HP*
62*
130*
44
1
0
20
2
...i. 11
17
0
0
0
• o ..,
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
ft
0-t ..»•*,
0
J! — .-
0
0
0
0
49*
39
4
0
0
0
0 .'
1
0
o
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
^Jl
0
0
f)
1
0
0
0
0
0
fi
0
0
p
0
0
B
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
2
n
0
0
9
869*
0
0
0
-•'fc f HP** •
0
337*
0
0
0
22
13*
-..- 7
b
24
40*
47)*
0
2)25*
246*
617*
•07*
303*
1277*
51*
26*
0
0
0
446*
1r>4*
101*
205*
112*
289*
0
0
0
1670*
iftr •!*'**•
0
131*
0
0
V .°
0
9
14
• ','"'. °
0
10
17
115*
.1^;,. «••
0
958*
110*
251*
; 250*
526*
1
1
0
0
0
12
67*
42*
84*
•*•«*•••
103*
0
n
0
•1*2)*
0
50*
n
0
0 .
0
4
I
' '. *
1
5
60*
)5*
0
294*
34*
81*
77*
0
3«*
161*
3
0
, 0 ...
0
59*
71
13
26*
-------
XIV. 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 9 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.
61
-------
TABLE 9
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
62
-------
XV. 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 and CO. The TSP recommendations, which were
summarized in Table 4, would redesignate the remaining secondary non-attain-
ment area in Topeka to attainment, and would significantly reduce the
size of the primary and secondary non-attainment areas in Kansas City.
The Topeka redesignation request has been submitted by the State, and
is under review by the Air Branch of EPA Region VII. The CO recommendation
would redesignate the unclassified area in Kansas City to attainment.
That request has, likewise, been submitted by the State and is under review.
Redesignation of the Kansas City ozone non-attainment area to attainment
has also been requested by the State agencies of Missouri and Kansas.
That request is also under review by the Air Branch.
B. Air Quality Concern Areas
Two areas of the State exceeded the primary (health-related) NAAQS's
during 1981 and/or 1982.
0 TSP data collected at 420 Kansas Avenue in Kansas City exceeded
the annnual primary standard in 1981, but not in 1982
0 CO data collected at two sites in Wichita show a few exceedances
of the 8-hour primary standard each year.
Those areas were addressed more extensively in Section XII, which
included indications of possible sources of the elevated concentrations.
We encourage the State personnel to continue their efforts to reduce
the CO concentrations in Wichita. Should the high TSP concentrations
recur in Kansas City, we would encourage further efforts to identify
and control the sources of those particulates.
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. An increase in the
number of SOg audits is recommended. The overall picture of monitor
operation shows commendable performance by State and local agency
63
-------
personnel. The review of emissions data highlighted a need for-,CO
modeling around a large point source in Grant County. The State performed
the needed modeling study, and found no predicted violations of the ambient
air quality standards. The prompt attention which the State gave to
that project reflects the spirit of cooperation between EPA and the State.
64
-------
APPENDIX A
Tabular Summaries of Data '"-
Table Description
Al Ambient Air Monitoring Data
A2 Precision and Accuracy Estimates for Ambient
Air Monitoring Data
A3 Attainment Status Designations
65
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE Al
SITE ID
YR
REP ORG
f OBS
MAX 24-HR 1ST
MAX 24-HR 2ND
OBS >260
OBS >150
ARIT MEAN .
GEO MEAN
GSD
METH
QTRLY ARITH MEAN 1ST
QTRLY ARITH MEAN 2ND
QTRLY ARITH MEAN 3RD
QTRLY ARITH MEAN 4TH
MEANS >1.5
MAX VALUES 1ST
MAX VALUES 2ND
MAX 1-HR 1ST
MAX 1-HR 2ND
OBS > 40
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 24-hour period
Second highest value recorded in a 24-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 40
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
66
-------
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
67
-------
04/19/83
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER (U6/M3) KANSAS
81-82
PAGE
METHOD: GRAVIMETRIC, 24-HouR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE-PI
CT>
SITE 10
170680001F01
17068000IF01
17080000IF01
170800001F01
171240001F01
171240001F01
171800001F01
171800001F01
171800007F01
171800007F01
171800011F02
171800011F02
171800013F01
171800014F01
171800014F01
171800015F02
171800015F02
171800017J03
171800018F01
172340001F01
173320004F01
173320004F01
173390003F01
173330003F01
173560002F01
173560002F01
173560005F01
173560005F01
173560007F02
173560007F02
173740001F01
173740001F01
173740007F01
173740007F01
173740006F01
17374000'3F01
173740009F01
173740009F01
173740012F02
LOCATION
CONCORD I A
CONCORD I A
DODGE CITY
DODGE CITY
GOOD LAND
GOOOLAND
KANSAS CITY
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
SEOGWICK CO
SEDG1JICK CO
SHAIJNEE 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
WYAHDOTTE CO
WYAi:?OTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYANDOTTE CO
JOHNSON CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGHICK CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAIJNEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHAl.flEE CO
SHAWNEE CO
SHA11NEE CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEOGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGIJICK CO
SEDGHICK 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 RO
3105 FAIRFAX RD
9400 STATE AVE
36TH t RAINBOI1 B
36TH ft RAINBOW B
420 KANSAS AVE.
420 KANSAS AVE.
2815 NORTH 115TH
5429 LEAVEN; :OHT
8715 WEST 49TH.S
CO. FIRE STA*3,40
CO. FIRE STAI»3,40
1941 NE 39TH
1941 NE 39TH
HEALTH CENTER 16
HEALTH CENTER 16
37TH ft BURLINGAM
37TH ft BURLINGAM
1500 N.QUINCY
1500 N.QUIMCY
FIRE STA HI 402
FIRE STA SI 402
ST PAUL ft WEST 1
ST PAUL ft UEST 1
GEO WASH BLVD t
GEO WASH BLVD ft
GLEN ft WEST PAWN
GLEN ft WEST PAWN
COLEMAN CO 3600
REP
YR ORG
81 001
82 001
81 001
82 001
81 001
82 001
81 001
82 001
81 001
62 001
81 001
62 001
81 001
81 001
82 001
81 001
82 001
61
82
82
81 001
82 001
81 001
82 001
61 001
82 001
81 001
82 001
81 001
82 001
81 001
62 C01
81 001
62 001
81 001
82 001
81 001
82 001
61 001
tOBS
60
55
55
29
60
56
53
53
56
58
58
53
59
55
61
57
61
176
54
41
61
61
60
53
58
57
55
61
54
56
54
55
61
58
58
61
60
30
52
MAX 24-HR OBS> OBS>
1ST 2ND 260 150
143
214
164
286
185
231
165
177
106
118
160
153
98
132
131
244
183
132
110
120
142
167
124
113
107
142
121
131
139
166
145
173
145
151
134
116
128
131
132
119
126
105
150
163
231
150
140
101
116
140
151
78
120
121
215
147
126
87
110
141
140
91
90
106
128
106
120
133
125
128
135
144
139
133
112
123
118
129
1
1
1 1
5
6
1
1
1
2
12
1
1
1
1
1
ARIT GEO
MEAN MEAN
70
78
51
62?
92
90
73
65
57
53
80
68
49
68
58
109
77
51?
50
50?
76
75
52
47
59
66
61
56
71
70
69
71
76
69
66
61
71
71?
66
65
70
45
49?
64
75
67
59
53
48
73
61
46
63
54
96
71
46?
47
45?
71
69
48
43
55
60
57
51
65
64
64
66
68
63
61
57
66
67?
64
GSD
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5 .'•
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
CO
I—
m
3»
70
O
•z.
i—i
O
•yo
z
C7>
O
3>
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
04/19/83 NATIOHAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK PAGE
Ql'ICK LOOK REPORT
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER (UG/M3I KANSAS 81-82
METHOD: GRAVIMETRIC, 2'4-HouR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE-?!
REP MAX 24-HR OBS> OBS> ARIT GEO
SITE ID LOCATION COUNTY ADDRESS YR ORG HOBS 1ST 2ND 260 150 MEAN MEAN GSD
173740012F02 WICHITA SEDGWICK CO COLEMAN CO 3600 82 001 54 191 146 1 75 60 1.6
CM
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
04/19/83
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
PAGE 15
SULFUR DIOXIDE (US/M3)
KANSAS
81-82
METHODS: HOURLY VALUES HEST-GAEKE COLORIMETRIC-UI CONDUCTIMETRIC-IS, COULOMETRIC-W, FLAME PHOTOMETRIC-16.
HYDPOGEN PEROXIDE NAOH TITRATION-18, CATALYST FLAME PHOTOMETRIC-19, PULSED FLUOPESCEMT-20, SECOND DERIVATIVE SPECTROSCOPY-21,
CONDUCTANCE ASARCO-22, ULTRA VIOLET STIMULATED FLL'ORESCEMCE-23,SEQUENTIAL COHOUCTIMETRIC-33,
24-HOUR GAS BUBBLERS PARAROSANILINE-SULFAMIC ACID-91, PARAR05ANILINE SULFAMIC ACID TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED-97
SITE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
REP MAX 24-HR OBS> MAX 3-HR OBS>
ADDRESS YR OPG fOBS 1ST 2ND 365 1ST 2ND 1300
MAX 1-HR ARIT
1ST 2ND MEAN MTH
171600001F01 KANSAS CITY
171800001F01 KANSAS CITY
171800001F01 KANSAS CITY
171800011F02 KANSAS CITY
1718000I1F02 KANSAS CITY
171800017J03 KANSAS CITY
MYANDOTTE CO
HYAUDOTTE CO
MYANDOTTE CO
HYANDOTTE CO
HYANDOTTE CO
MYANDOTTE CO
619 ANN ST 81 001
619 ANN ST 81 001
619 ANN ST 82 001
3105 FAIRFAX RD 81 001
3105 FAIRFAX PD 82 001
2815 NORTH 115TH 81
6287
1445
8*70
8599
8083
4713
150
150
198
102
165
71
133
131
183
100
131
68
530
490
593
483
353
210
450
357
543
437
333
175
700
1000
1000
1000
790
381
700
1000
1000
940
500
251
32?
39?
26
IB
15
15?
20
23
23
16
16
20
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
04/19/83
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
PAGE 19
CARBON MONOXIDE (MG/M3)
KANSAS
81-62
METHOD: NONDISPERSIVE INFRARED INDIR) CONTINUOUS, HOURLY VALUES-H, FLAME IONIZATION-ZI
SITE ID
171800001F01
meOOOOlFOl
171P00016F05
172760002F05
173740003F01
173740003F01
17T-740010F01
173740010F01
LOCATION
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
OVERLAND PARK
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
COUNTY
WYANOOTTE CO
WYAHDOTTE CO
WYANOOTTE CO
JOHNSON CO
SEOGUICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEOGUICK CO
SEOGUICK CO
ADDRESS
619 ANN ST
619 ANN ST
7TH ( STATE
FIRE STAZ 9500
FIRE STA TOPEKA
FIRE STA TOPEKA
1900 E NINTH ST
1900 E NINTH ST
YR
81
82
81
81
81
82
81
82
REP
ORG
001
001
001
001
001
001
*OBS
8667
7897
335
1310
8564
8640
8664
8717
MAX 1-HR OB
1ST 2ND 4
21.0 13.0
11.0 11.0
15.0 12.0
21.0 14.0
22.0 21.0
22.0 19.0
19.0 18.0
20.0 20.0
S> MAX
0 1ST
10.1
6.9
8.3
4.6
16.8
13.5
15.0
13.4
8-HR i
2ND
8.0
6.5
7.6
4.6
12.4
11.4
12.9
12.3
OBS>
10
5
2
7
4
METH
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
-------
04/19/83 NATIONAL AEROMETPIC DATA BANK * PAGE 23
QUICK LOOK REPORT
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (UG/M3J KANSAS 81-8Z
METHODS: HOURLY VALUES COLORIMETRIC-LYSHKOW-II, COLORIMETRIC-GRIESS-SALTZMAN-IJ, COULOMETRIC-IS, CHEMILUMiNEScENCE-Mt
24-HOUR GAS BUBBLERS NASN SODIUM ARSENITE ORIFICE-84, NASN SODIUM ARSENITE FRIT-94, TEA METHOD-95, TGS METHOO-96
REP MAX I-HR MAX 24-HR ARIT
SITE ID LOCATION COUNTY ADDRESS YR ORG SOBS 1ST 2HD 1ST 2ND MEAN METH
171800001F01 KANSAS CITY HYAi*?OTTE CO 619 AW ST 82 6550 180 170 32? 14
171800017J03 KANSAS CITY MYANDOTTE CO 2815 NORTH 115TH 81 4533 163 134 27? 14
? INDICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
04/19/83
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK
QUICK LOOK REPORT
OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION) KANSAS
PAGE 27
80-62
METHODS: HOURLY VALUES CHEMILUMINESCENCE-II, ULTRA VIOLET DASIBI CORPORATION-^, CHEMILUMINESCENCE RHOOAMINE B DYE-IS
SITE ID
171760005F05
171760005F05
171800001F01
171800017J03
173320001F01
173320001F01
173320001F01
173740010F01
173740010F01
173740010F01
LOCATION
JOHNSON CO
JOHNSON CO
KANSAS CITY
KAHSAS CITY
SEOGWICK CO
SEDGUICK CO
SEDGMICK CO
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
COUNTY
JOHNSON CO
JOHMSON CO
WYANDOTTE CO
WYAMDOTTE CO
SEDGUICK CO
SEOGMICK CO
SEDGUICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEDGWICK CO
SEOGWICK CO
REP
ADDRESS YR OPG
WASHINGTON * ALL 80
WASHINGTON & ALL 81 001
619 AH»I ST 82
2815 NORTH 115TH 81
200 E 53RO NORTH 80
200 E 53RO NORTH 81 001
200 E 53RD NORTH 82 001
1900 E NINTH ST 80
1900 E NINTH ST 81 001
1900 E NINTH ST 82 001
DAI LI
*OBS 1ST
5599 .133
1957 .076
8650 .112
4754 .155
8282 .092
7406 .090
8073 .090
8693 .112
8596 .100
8545 .115
' MAX
2ND
.117
.076
.102
.124
.092
.089
.075
.094
.095
.095
1-HR \
3PO h
.107
.071
.097
.110
.076
.037
.075
.087
.095
.085
'ALS >
IE AS
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.125 t
EST t
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4BR VALID 1
IAILY MAX
233
82
360
200
343
303
333
361
357
355
MISS DAY!
ASS < STC
2
0
1
2
2
6
3
3
3
3
\
1 ME
11
11
14
14
11
11
11
11
11
11
-------
04/19/83 NATIONAL AEROMETPIC DATA BANK PACK 32
QUICK LOOK REPORT
LEAD (UG/M3) KANSAS 81-62
METHODS! JARRELL-ASH EMISSION SPECTRA ICAP-90, EMISSION SPECT MUFFLE FURHACE-91, ATOMIC ABSORPTION-92t DITHIOZONC HETHOO-93
EMISSION SPECT «LOW TEMP ASH)-95, X-RAY FLUOPESCEHCE-96, FLAMELESS ATOMIC ADSOPPTION-97
SITE ID
LOCATION
COUNTY
ADDRESS
REP
YR ORG
HOBS
METH
QTRLY
1ST
ARITH
2ND 3RD
MEAN
4TH
MEANS>
1.5
MAX VALUES
1ST 2ND
meoooiiAoi KANSAS CITY HYANDOTTE co KANSAS CITY ei 2? 90 .30 .14 .19? .19 .6* .43
171800014F01 KANSAS CITY HYANDOTTE CO 36TH ft RAINBOW B 82 61 92 .15 .14 .08 .12 .30 .28
171800015A01 KANSAS CITY HYAIIDOTTE CO 420 KANSAS AVE 81 29 90 .43 .19 .30 .30 1.10 .92
172340001F01 MERRIAM JOHNSON CO 8715 WEST 49TH.S 82 001 41 92 .05? .22 .13 .10 .44 .38
173560007A01 TOPEKA SHAWIIEE CO QUINCY SCHOOL 81 29 90 .33 .12 .14 .20 .85 .40
173740012A02 WICHITA SEDGWICK CO WICHITA 82 11 90 .29 .11 .75 .43
? IKTJICATES THAT THE MEAN DOES NOT SATISFY SUMMARY CRITERIA
-------
TABLE A2. PRECISION AND ACCURACY ESTIMATES FOR AMBIENT
AIR MONITORING DATA
7
19. 1963
3/NAPOOO
w r-
(9 ft CM
sis
^M
>- tt
Z !Z Q.
4 u u
0 O tt
c^
§^J
«<
Cd *H R^
u u u
tH UJ U
ft r- <
P O 1
uj a 2
§a o
M
ft —1 10
u < M
< t- u
Z u
-1 UJ tt
•H ft t
f- rH o
« > ft
Z Z <
u in
in
lu
M
n >-
||
18
O f-
m <
< ui r
jn r— o
^ r- 3
* in <
*
*
*
*
«
*
«
*
*
*
»
m
A
*
*
*
*
*
»
at
A
< at
«
t- »
X
« »
*
O *
at
*
>- *
u *
at
< at
at
DC *
*
3 *
(J *
at
(J *
at
at
at
at
at
at
*
*
*
*
*
at
at
*
at
at
at
at
at
at
Jf_
^ X
*
^" fc
< *
O »
at
at
Z at
O »
M *
m *
«
M at
u at
at
u *
*
ft »
at
a «
u
r-
o
V
u
i
u
i
g
M
in
r^
CL
r a
M 3
.j i
8?
gs
56
K»
gv
gs
r a
M 3
_j i
CM
CD -J
O 1
£3
56
iH
CJ 1
ft O
a -J
in *
r- — '
M
B M
< i
tH
• -1
U V*
U r-
< -1
a co
i- <
m
u <
L) U
D B
V) <
r a
CD
o
£S
in to
D O
£5
«n
A- ^
3 >-
•t Z
l
*"
„ J
g
a
O
ft
t-
in
u
ft
in
in
o
N
e
^
o
i
Kl CM
0 0
O O
Kl
IH
^
IH
1
CM
O
O
fft
o
o
1 1
CO CO
tH at
o at
|H
CM III
« o
M
00
tH E
0
°g
CD
f- ft
IH •<
U
•>• »
o «
•H MJ * K>
O 0 O 0
•H in * KI
o o o o
1 1 1 1
inNOM)
O O 0 0
CM rH
O O
CO O
Kl fO
1 1
tH rH
O O
O O
CM CM
O O
e o
i i
CO CO
0
1
CO
o
1
N
o
1
CM
1
£
f^
*
1
CM
0
o
*
o
Kl
rH
1
*
O
O
o
CM
O
o
1 '
CO tt
IH at
0 *
CM *
•3 *
4- *
U
IH O
O KJ
o O
r- at
tH *
at
at
f- at
o at
KI in
Kl CM
o in
in in
i i
~o in
o o
o o
o o
CM CM
O O
O O
1 1
CO 03
Sin rH
0 0
1*1
CO N rH
O O O
1 1 1
N *
0 0
1 +
CM Kl
IH 0
1 *
N CO *
IH O r-l
N CM N
» O rH
1 1 1
O 0 0
O O O
O O O
o
CM CM CM
O O O
000
0
CM CM
O 0
rH CM M) *
CM rH rH r-l
O> iH CM O-
Kl iH IH CM
1 1 1 1
in co co N
o o o o
o o o o
CM f^ VO Kl
0 O O O
o o o o
1 1 1 1
CO CO CO CO
o in
rH 0
* *
e in
o o
1 1
« *
O 0
CM rH
o o
i *
rH rH
IH tH
-------
KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS
MANUAL METHODS
NATIONAL ACROMETP1C DATA BANK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAROAD/PRECISION-ACCURACY REPORT
PAGE a
APR 19. 1983
NA273/NAPOOO
PRECISION-ACCURACY DATA KEY
UK*************************
RG ST RO TYP POLL YR-Q
PRECISION DATA
*»»*»»»*«»»*»**»»»*»»»*»»»#»*»»»****«»»*«**«»»»»*
t OF COLLOC PROS LIM COLL SAMP VAL COLL
SAMPLRS SITES LO UP BELOH LIM DATA PRS
ACCURACY DATA
«**«**«**«»«««««***•«**««*«*«•»«*»*««*«**
» AUDITS PROB LIM PROB LIM PROB LIM
LEV 1-3 LO-L1-UP LO-LZ-UP LO-L3-UP
07 17 001 I 11101
«««« PARTICULATE «»**
07 17 001 I 12128
*«*«**» LEAD K*«V«»N»
en
81-1
81-2
81-3
81-*
61-5
62-1
82-2
82-3
82-4
82-5
82-1
82-2
82-3
82-*
82-5
21
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
-09
-15
-17
-08
-12
-20
-12
-19
-18
-17
-29
-43
-36
+ 14
+12
+27
+ 15
+ 17
+ 09
+ 0*
+21
+62
+2*
+38
+78
+58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
13
17
0
23
27
28
26
104
6
15
21
Oil
013
010
009
0043
004
007
005
017
0033
024
002
005
006
0037
-21 -01
-31 +08
-34 +08
-30 +06
-29 +05
-11 +15
-19 +09
-16 +13
-10 +13
-14 +13
-10 +08
-13 +08
-14 +12
-12 +20
-12 +12
-05 -05
-21 -01
-25 -04
-17 -03
-------
§ 81.316
Title 40—Protection of Environment
TSP
•EPA
'EPAdMlgn
MgniMmi
CattffQt Tovntfrip
FertUf TowvwMp .
Mono* TomiMi
ftonwvtar ol Linn Counly
dini^iitfti of MttiMi Coimfy
TTi* c^n^^ ml toutfiani poi%uni of MuKaHnt
FivrtOTd Town«hip .. .
MOII^H^ Townvftp , .
R«i^nd*f ol MuKMfcw County
ATMI in eanfrvl On Muiii»» Anli«ny and part of W«t1 DM MufciM
An VM wound »n Mow* an* gvwniRy mckxVig DM MonM «nd
d*y ToOTiMp
nnuglw Townrtto
n«i^oilii of Po* County _..
The *MMm portion ol Count* BWtl and Cdtv Ijto
UI«TmmN>
IMM To»n»^
Tn« ovnnl pof%u« of Davonport
n«n^nitt» ol Sooll County _
C«nMr Toxncne .._._.
Tn» omM pw*on Fort Dodni
CMhoTowMNp _ _
n*nnmo«r ol Tfitoni County
Th« omtnri and gouBMin poi«l*j>
n»m«iri»• o.
§•1.317
DmgnaMd *>M
Er** Son*
towa-CO
—
DHkUnMToMMNp
IM Townhp
n*m*»«>*t of Po* County 1
Oly ol Dubuqu* (ptrMQ
BamUnoai ol Oubuqu* County
n*m*ind*r ol Slat*
km* NO.
,
Emm SUM
1 WHIM A)
DOM not
MaWIOVCM
)(
)(
)(
DOM not
if**
MutfVluWOII
llncnuiifl*
M* and/or
Cynolba ^
Mandardt m
CO
•
]l
X ~^
x 5
3E
m
—I
Cmtb* co
I »— .
• u
CO
143 PR 8984. Mar. 9. 1978. at amended at 45 PR 14574. Mar. 8. 1980. 48 PR 17558. Mar. 10. n
1*81; 48 PR 48930. Oct. 5. 1981; 47 PR 19528. May 8.19821 g
Emcrivi DATE Norr. At 47 PR 19528. May 8. 1982. effective July 8. IMS. bi the table -H
••Iow»-TSP." the line reading "areas In central and southern Des Molne*. Ankeny and part Q
of West Des Molnes" was amended by removing the words "and southern." z
I8U17 Kansas.
Kmw— TSP
DrtomHJ AHM
WiWKtent County:
• Moil m UK (TM. b«l«Mii I-63S and ttt
b. An VM «t*ndmg •boul IhrM mlM M
TojMta. K*ntM. *>M bounded by K*n*M R
Mutn. VMI AVWIM on tt» *M) and Lymm
"•wmair oi SIM*
• IMMouri sun* Nn*
tv«t on lh» *MI Mid
ftv*nu* on th* north
DOM not
primary
•UVXMHH
X
DOM not
m**«
VBCondMfy
• ••ml. itm
•wnovo*
X
X
Cannot b*
chrarMd
•MMrtMin
(•CbOfliM
•tancterdt
X
-------
oo
§ 81.311
KmM-SO
DiiHriHrtoMO
KpgfcBB StaM
KanjM-O.
Tiff* JA_
•
DOM not
mMl
P***f;*V
•Undvdl
DOM not
mMl
Mcondify
(Umuvdf
Cmnotlw
CHMMM
roniMrt
BM*r««
mnonn
•tandmji
X
DMkjrMMdM
KOTM C*y AOCR ION*
Jotvoon County _ „
DOM not
mMl
P^**
Mnomiv
'X
•X
'X
dM**iMa
bMlwlnin
"•**+
•tandmh
X
X
KMM-CO
{MOMMM
KmM C%. KMM «M. bounded by- Mi 9kMt on ft* MM. WMNnjton Mnwl
on ww nofv).
1«h SVMI on fto *Mt. ind Bvnoll Stwt on tw> nut)
Wchil*. KWIM* VM. taoundod by: Grow S**M on t» MA IMi SnM on •» north. •»
ArtuviM* River on VMJ wMt and KMogg Avonut on VMJ Mutti
Romano* ol SIMo
Kmn-NO,
~— -
Enllr* SMM) ..
DOM not
.CZ3.
X
DOM not
•wndordc
Cannolbt
ctanilMdar
bMtflr then
n»bond
randirdi
X
x
dnnotbi
clmHKdot
btnwtitn
nttxxnl
•UjndMrdl
X
[43 PR 89M. Mar. 3. 1978. ai amended at 46 PR 73048. Nov. 4. 19801
181.318 Kentucky.
Kentucky TW
DMipiiotod mM
DOM not
pnnury
•UJndwd*
DOM not
Mcondiry
•twidacd*
Cinnotb*
dunned
Chapter 1— Environmental f rotoetlon Agene
Kontudiy— T9
. '
OMignmidvM
—
TM portion ot Hondwwn Co. m Mwidwton
Jt*"*"00""* r""toV«iui IIII
ThK porton ol U*mx» Co In Lo«*M
McCnckwi County
UBtfulCounly "•-•"•"
Tlnl ponton ol M«d*on Co. in Richmond
MuntanMrg County
Th- ponton ol Pwy Co. In H.nnJ
TM portion ol f*» Co In P««v»M
TM ponton ol WNMy Co. m Corbm
RMlolSaM
—
KOTkicky-a
Diilgnilirt »M
TM porfcn ol Boyd County MU» of UTO northing m. «2St km....
M*non County
KOTmeky-
r
f
...
DOM not
mMl
PT,
•Undarc*
0.
DOM not
mMl
P""*^
•undvdl
X
X
X
0.
9I1.3I*
DOM not
mMl
McondBfy
•Undvd*
X
„
Comotbl
ckmrtad
BMMMhin
nctionM
•Undvdl
X
DOM not
Mcondwy
•Undwdt
X
X
DMioniUdwM
QnonnMI ATM— Boon*. Konlon, wd CamptMl CuuMM - -
FlyMM County » " "'
RMlolSan* - " " .
tUnfaoky CO
DMkjntMdBtM
I
Mknon County -
Ccmotte
LUiiiHid
DOM not
mMl
££.
X
X
X
X
,•:
DOM not
mMt
pi*in»n^
•lindinll
>
MMrMn
nUioru^
•IvndvdB
X
Cannot b»
LlMHidor
MIMI MX
raltonri
******
X
Jill Hid at
telMr*«n
nwonri
•Mndm*
— _..
x
BMMrM"
ntllonil
(landwk ,
-------
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
Y
12 T2 *^T" / Y + 1
y -
Z (Ryt-R.t)2 y-
79
-------
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 = the mean rank for month t over all the years
Ry> = 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
s \ /
. TY + 1
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.
80
-------
Specifically, if the Sen statistic exceeds +_ 1.645 (the 90th percentile
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 provable 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
81
-------
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 Ryt, 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) and the mean rank ^or eac^ year (Ry.) are
shown.
y=l
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr May
Jun
1 17
2 34
3 5
R.t 18.67
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
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
The individual terms (Ryt-R ^) in the summation of the scale factor are
listed in the following1^able. 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
t-R V 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
.2
yt 'V 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
82
-------
Summing across the last line of the table, we have
3
12
I
t-1
2 "
1 (Ryf R.t) = 3834'9
Substituting into the formula for the Sen statistic, we have
12 (12)2
3(4) (3834.!
(1 - * ) (26.0 - 37 ) + (2 . 4 ) (17.875 .37
(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.
83
-------
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
interest.
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
84
-------
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.
85
-------
639
4177
en
c
00
cr>
4167
639
649
(
i I1 !ii!n in j E '!Ji' il • ,' 1''fft
t tt tt ' 1 : .E
i»',.' ''HosierA,,-1 , .
- 4177
.> i ' i jlrt" , 11 IJ
I I 'l i ' "[ ii!i' ' ' *l t1
".lii1" -"V:!
l ii i i u M Ii ";," i t i l I ll1!! I |U |! l i|li|
, ..[..it llllilll.hl.t..!—JmJ!ij .L,..,. I .....Ul dlii,ll.ll...J.l.l.M. lillllilllliillliLli IhilJl
649
'4167
100-200
50-100
25-50
<25
Density (people/km2)
Enclosed Population is 22.400
Easting (km)
Population Density Map for Polygon 1
Wichita CO PNA
-------
00
--J
274
4380 -
428
294
314
334
354
374
394
414
- 4380
4360
4340
- 4320
- 4300
294
314
334 354
Easting (km)
374
394
414
4280
>2000
1000-2000
;iiI 500-1000
200-500
100-200
50-100
25-50
<25
Density (people/km2)
Enclosed Population
Population Density Map for Polygon 42
l^anc-ae* P -i 4- % / a « rl I a i»» *•» o n r- o C\ A DKIA'c
CO
-------
OSS*9 si
P3SQIOU3
[doadj
SZ>
OS-SZ
OOl-OS
ooz-ooi
oos-ooz
oooi-oos lllii
OOOZ-OOOT
\/NS dSi
joj dew
ZEEf
CM
CO
zzz
Z9Z
-------
344
4338 -
354
364
00
431
354
Easting (km)
364
4318
Population Density Map for Polygon 67
Kansas City TSP SNA
>2000
1000-2000
500-1000
200-500
100-200
50-100
25-50
<25
Density (people/km2)
Enclosed Population is 117.000
r-
LO
-------
350
360
s
4338
4338
4328
431
550
360
4318
Easting (km)
Population Density Map for Polygon 68
Kansas City TSP PNA
>2000
50-100
25-50
<25
Density (people/km2)
Enclosed Population is 90.200
oo
LP
-------
PAGE
SAI/MEDX POPULATION GRIDDING PROGRAM
REGION - /
REGION ORIGIN
-------
;.-r;n L>G/[.D_V-, WITH A TOTAL POPULAI HJN OK
RL::GH:)N - £|- LP—•"
REGION ORlJlN (UTM COORDINA1 b.S/HE itKi!)
EASTING - ._'/ 4GOO
NORTHING - 4;;i!JGOOG
ZONE - i'.j
REGION SIZE (METERS)
_ EAST-WEST - 14OOOO
" NORTH-SOUTH -
277SOO bX IR/.C ILT>
POPULATION YEAR - 1978
PA
51 STATES FOUND ON POPULATION-FILE INDEX,
3141 COUNTIES,
232567 BG/ED'S,
10OO BG/ED'S PER PAGE IN POPFILE.
26
51
5
2
20
293
49
3
3
5
241
8
3
38
190
12
830
4
6
69
16
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
BG/ED-S
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPUL.ATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
TOTAL. POPULATION
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
16124
66790
2886
559
14479
256977
57106
29 5O
1753
4688
176666
3288
1285
32506
137056
7483
624447
2316
2834
4.' '332
9403
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
EXTRACTED
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
20005
20045
20059
20085
20087
2OO91
20103
20121
20139
20177
2O2O9
29O21 I
29025
29037
29047
29O49
29O95
291O1
291O7
29165
29177
-------
1G74 BG/1-D--S WITH A TOTAL POI-'ULrYf ION OK 14 6,4013
REGION - *f-^>
REGION ORIGIN (UTM COORDINATES/METERS)
EASTING - 262OOO.
NORTHING - 4322OOO
ZONE..- _ . 1'j
REGION SIZE (METERS)
EAST-WEST - 13OOO
NORTH-SOUTH - IfJOOO.
POPULATION YEAR - 1978
51 STATES FOUND ON POPULATION-FILE INDEX,
3141 COUNTIES,
232567 BG/ED'S,
1000 BG/ED'S PER PAGE IN POPFILE.
146 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTALPOPULATION OF 103773 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 20177
-------
63 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
REGION ~ C"7
REGION ORIGIN (UTM COORDINATES/METERS)
EXIUACTtID
__EAST ING -
NORTHING -
ZONE -
REGION SIZE (METERS)
EAST-UEST -
NORTH-SOUTH -
POPULATION YEAR - 1978
344000
4318OOO
1'J
22OOO.
51 STATES FOUND ON POPULATION-FILE
3141 COUNTIES,
232567 BG/ED'S.
INDEX,
to
1000 BG/ED'S PER PAGE IN POPFILE.
121 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
227 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
30 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
244 BG/ED-S W H H_A_TQTA1«_P.QPULAT I ON QF _
11 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF
87877 EXTRACTED
167503 EXTRACTED
24436 EXTRACTED
.179433 .EXTRACTED.
8658 EXTRACTED
FROM COUNTY 20O91
FROM COUNTY 2O209
FROM COUNTY 29O47
£RPM -COUNTY .29095.
FROM COUNTY 29165
-------
633 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 4679O7 EXTRACTED
REGION - (^O
REGION ORIGIN (UTM COORDINATES/ME ri:KG >
EASTING - 350000.
NORTHING - 43iaOOO.
ZONE - i&
REGION SIZE (METERS)
.,.. EAST-WEST r_ . . 16OOO.
NORTH-SOUTH - 22OOO.
tn
POPULATION YEAR - 1978
51 STATES FOUND ON POPULATION-FILE INDEX,
3141 COUNTIES,
232567 BG/ED'S,
1OOO BG/ED'S PER PAGE IN POPFILE.
114 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 84399 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 20091
201 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 142265 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 20209
3O BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 24436 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 29047
244 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF 179433 EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 29093
10 BG/ED-S WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF B56B EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY 29163
-------
Figure 1
Population Density (People/mi2)
->1000
- 200-600
- 50-200
-<50
-------
-------
Population Density (People/mi2)
-------
ft I
'ABLE 3
.EGEND FOR EMISSIONS DATA MAPS
POINT SOURCE SYMBOL SIZE EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
NON-IEAD LEAD
-%. ') // iOO - 1000
lOCi - SOOO 26 - 100
OVLR C;OCO OVER 100
POINT SOURCE SYMBOL COLOR - STACK HEIGHT
(METERS)
UNKNOWN
1 - 4S
46 -- 120
AMBIENT MONITOR SYMBOLS
•
m NAMS
» SLAMS
A SPMS
-------
TABLE 2
LEGEND FOR AMBIENT MONITORING DATA MAPS
Boundaries
L 1
Primary Nonattainment Area
Secondary Nonattainment Area
Unclassified Area
Annotation for Standards Violated
A Annual Primary Standard
w Quarterly Primary Standard
24 24-hour Primary Standard
M 24-hour Secondary Standard
* 8-hour Primary Standard
^ 3-hour Secondary Standard
'• 1-hour Primary Standard
Monitor Symbol Sizes
Microscale
. Middle Scale
0 a? Neighborhood
Scale
{} /:•''!!;•; Urban Scale
Monitor Symbol Colors and Flag
"^ No Violation of Standard
* Violation of Secondary
Standard
* Violation of Primary
Standard
r Exceedance of Alert Level
Annotation for Trends
t Increasing Trend
A Probable Increasing Trend
— No Trend
7 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
^ Data met completeness
criteria each year.
0 Data did not meet complete-
ness criteria one or more
years.
'I Regional
1 Scale
-------
------- |