CHEC GIS Maps
- Click anywhere on the maps to see larger versions in a new window.
- Hold your cursor over areas of interest on the maps (such as power plants or text) to learn more.
1998 - 2008 Boundaries & Places from EPA-Listed Monitoring Sites - Southwestern PA - Inverse Distance Weighting Interpolation
 |
Figure 1. 1998 – 2008 PM2.5 (ug/m3) mean of annual means air concentrations by air monitoring stations throughout southwestern Pennsylvania. Inverse distance weighting was applied to formulate interpolation values. Coal-fired power plants (CFPP_Events) are depicted as points. Basemap includes boundaries, places & transportation from ESRI’s Online Services (ERSI, 2009; USEPA, 2009a). The EPA’s 24 hour PM2.5 regulatory standard is 15 µg/m3(USEPA, 2009a). Review Methods»
1998 - 2008 98% Max Boundaries from EPA-Listed Monitoring Sites - Southwestern PA - Inverse Distance Weighting Interpolation
 |
Figure 2. 1998 – 2008 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 98th percentile 24-hour value. These values are higher than 98 percent of 24-hour values annually averaged over 10 years from southwestern Pennsylvania monitors. Inverse distance weighting was applied to formulate interpolation values. Coal fired power plants (CFPP Events) are depicted as points. Basemap includes boundaries, places, transportation & hydrography from ESRI’s Online Services (ERSI, 2009). Concentrations are rounded to the nearest 1 microgram for comparison with the 24-hour standard (USEPA, 2009a). The current annual PM2.5 standard set forth by the Clean Air Act is 15.0 µg/m3. The arithmetic mean is obtained by a 3-year average of the weighted annual mean concentration, & the single or multiple oriented monitor must not exceed this concentration to attain air standards. The viewing area exists as an EPA nonattainment county state designation according to 1997 air quality standards. 98th percentile 24-hour values are reported by the EPA & were chosen to be used in correlations as there may be a threshold phenomena that exists in relation to public health (USEPA, 2009a, 2009b). Review Methods»
2006 All Mercury Emissions (Pounds) from EPA-Listed TRI Sites - PA, WV, OH - Inverse Distance Weighting Interpolation
 |
Figure 3. 2006 total mercury air emissions in pounds from EPA listed Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) sites. Inverse distance weighting was applied to formulate interpolative values. EPA Hg emission point sources are depicted as blue circles. Basemap includes Pennsylvania, West Virginia, & Ohio boundaries, places, transportation & hydrography ESRI’s Online Services (ERSI, 2009; USEPA, 2009b). Review Methods»
2006 All Mercury Emissions (Pounds) from EPA-Listed TRI Sites - Southwestern PA - Inverse Distance Weighting Interpolation
 |
Figure 4. 2006 total mercury air emissions in pounds from EPA listed Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) sites. Inverse distance weighting was applied to formulate interpolative values. Basemap includes southwestern Pennsylvania boundaries, places, transportation & hydrography ESRI’s Online Services (ERSI, 2009; USEPA, 2009b). Review Methods»
2006 Annual Average PM10 Concentration - Bruce Mansfield Power Plant
|
Hold your cursor over areas of interest on the map (such as the power plant or text) to learn more.
Figure 5. Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, Particulate matter (PM10)concentration (ug/m3) was modeled using U.S. EPA-approved CalPuff atmospheric dispersion model. This symbolized model incorporates total particulate matter (tons/year) emmitted, meteorological conditions, topographical geography, and land use to track PM emission from the Bruce Mansfield Coal-Fired Power Plant Source across PA, WV, and OH. Review Methods»
2006 24hr Max 98th Percentile of PM10 Concentration - Bruce Mansfield Power Plant
|
Hold your cursor over areas of interest on the map (such as the power plant or text) to learn more.
Figure 6. Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, Particulate matter (PM10)concentration (ug/m3) was modeled using U.S. EPA-approved CalPuff atmospheric dispersion model. This symbolized model incorporates total particulate matter (tons/year) emmitted, meteorological conditions, topographical geography, and land use to track PM emission from the Bruce Mansfield Coal-Fired Power Plant Source across PA, WV, and OH. Review Methods»
2006 24hr Max 98th Percentile of Total Particulate Matter Concentration - Bruce Mansfield Power Plant
|
Hold your cursor over areas of interest on the map (such as the power plant or text) to learn more.
Figure 7. Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, Total particulate matter (PM) concentration (ug/m3) was modeled using U.S. EPA-approved CalPuff atmospheric dispersion model. This symbolized model incorporates total particulate matter (tons/year) emmitted, meteorological conditions, topographical geography, and land use to track PM emission from the Bruce Mansfield Coal-Fired Power Plant Source across PA, WV, and OH. Review Methods»
2006 24hr Max 98th Percentile of Total Particulate Matter Concentration - Bruce Mansfield Power Plant - Zoomed In
|
Hold your cursor over areas of interest on the map (such as the power plant or text) to learn more.
Figure 8. Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, (Same as Figure 7. Zoomed In.) Total particulate matter (PM) concentration (ug/m3) was modeled using U.S. EPA-approved CalPuff atmospheric dispersion model. This symbolized model incorporates total particulate matter (tons/year) emmitted, meteorological conditions, topographical geography, and land use to track PM emission from the Bruce Mansfield Coal-Fired Power Plant Source across PA, WV, and OH. Review Methods»
2006 Total Particulate Matter Concentration - Bruce Mansfield Power Plant
|
Hold your cursor over areas of interest on the map (such as the power plant or text) to learn more.
Figure 9. Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, Total particulate matter (PM) concentration (ug/m3) was modeled using U.S. EPA-approved CalPuff atmospheric dispersion model. This symbolized model incorporates total particulate matter (tons/year) emmitted, meteorological conditions, topographical geography, and land use to track PM emission from the Bruce Mansfield Coal-Fired Power Plant Source across PA, WV, and OH. Review Methods»
Coal Combustion Waste Exposure Sites - PA
 |
Figure 10. The term ‘coal combustion waste’ (CCW), refers to all categories of residual solid waste refused by all varieties of Coal Fire Power Plants (CFPPs). CCW is a mixture of burnt coal ash (carbon) & various trace elements including Silicon, Iron, Aluminum, Arsenic, Chromium, & Mercury. CCW particulate can be entrained in air, & inhaled by people & animals, or CCW can leach into surface water & groundwater, where communities may have wells for drinking water. In the map, all sites labeled as “CCW Exposure” identify some form of present CCW. Review Methods»
Coal Combustion Waste Storage Sites - PA
 |
Figure 11. Substantive amounts of CCW are stored on site at a CFPP until the CCW is shipped to a final destination. Storage on site poses occupational exposure risks for plant workers & presents an exposure hazard for surrounding populations. If the CCW is not used for industrial manufacturing processes, such as for gypsum production, the CCW is stored in “impoundments”, dumped into landfills, or used in land reclamation projects, often with a negative impact on surface water. Review Methods»
Toxic Release Inventory Sites (2006) & Coal-Fired Power Plants - PA, WV, OH
 |
Figure 12. Location of Coal-Fired Power Plants & the 2006 Toxics Release Inventory Sites in southwestern Pennsylvania, Ohio, & West Virginia (ESRI, 2009; Think Resources, 2006; USEPA, 2009b). Review Methods»
Methods: Exposure Assessment (Modeling of PM10 & PM2.5 monitoring station data)
A geographic information system (GIS) was used to integrate geographical imaging with point source attributes for spatial & geostatistical analysis. To control for geo-coding errors, spatial coordinates & longitude & latitudes were transformed into decimal degrees for manipulation in GIS.
State Shapefiles for ArcView
Before adding data to ArcMap, individual state maps have to be added to ArcMap. (The study that resulted in the creation of these GIS maps called for data Pennsylvania, Ohio, & West Virginia air quality data to be obtained). Shapefiles are files that can be opened in ArcView & added to ArcMap as a base layer. The state shapefiles were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau website www.census.gov (ESRI, 2009). Under the “Geography” heading on the site, the “TIGER” files were listed. The state shapefiles are located within the TIGER/Line shapefiles. The aforementioned states’ shapefiles were downloaded & added to ArcMap. Each shapefile contains geographic entity codes such as census tract codes, county codes, & state codes.
Locating Coal Fire Power Plants (CFPP)
The main focus of the study is the pollution emitted from coal-fired power plants in Southwest PA, OH, & WV. The location of coal-fired power plants was obtained through the use of searches on the internet. Generating Facilities were found on the sites of the various energy companies such as Allegheny Energy Supply & Reliant Energy. Energy company sites provided the station name/ facility, location, net capacity in megawatts, & fuel source. Another source for locating power plants was the PowerPlant jobs site www.powerplantjobs.com (Think Resources, 2006). This site provided the utility name, plant name, city, state, & [capacity] megawatts. A basic Google search on each plant name confirmed the fuel source & capacity. Longitude & latitude data for each power plant was provided on the aforementioned cites or found using Google Earth.
Locating Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Sites
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that manages information for toxic chemicals that are utilized, manufactured, produced, transported, or released into the environment through various media. The data contained by TRI is made available as public mandate through Section 313 of the Emergency Planning & Community Right-To-Know (EPCRA) & Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (USEPA, 2008b). Particulate matter is regulated by the EPA Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule which provides guidance on the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for State & Tribal plans to implement the 1997 fine particulate national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (US EPA, 2007). Mercury (Hg) exposures are limited by the Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) & the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) (USEPA, 2008a). Mercury is considered a hazardous air pollutant & is regulated accordingly, PM 2.5 is considered a criteria air pollutant set forth by NAAQS. Mercury (Hg) total air emissions & particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring levels were obtained from the EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System Database (AIRSData). The most recent TRI data files were from the 2006 reporting year (RY2006). The various TRI sites emitting toxic chemicals are located within these files on the EPA website. RY2006 data consisted of six files that contained TRI reporting information & certification statements. For the purpose of this study, File Type 1 was utilized for the maps & analyses. File 1 includes the information that would be included on the reporting form (Form R) that is completed by reporting facilities. Facility name, facility address, geographic coordinates (longitude & latitude) chemicals released, & on-site releases are a few of the items provided in the file. Each file was specific to the state & year chosen to review. This study only looked at data from PA, OH, & WV for 2006.
Basemaps
Arcview 9.3.1 was used to create interpolative geographical representations of air pollutants. Tab delimited databases of AIRSData information including chemical type, facility name, facility geographic location, public contact, coordinates, chemical classification, total pounds or concentration released, & discharges were downloaded & transformed into dBase IV files using SPSS 16.0 for both Hg emissions & PM2.5 monitor values. Database files were added to seamless basemaps obtained from ERSI’s ArcGIS Online Standard Services (ERSI, 2009). Census tracts & hydrography were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Tiger/Line Data (ESRI, 2009). Coal-fired powerplants (CFPP), landfills, TRI sites, & beneficial use sites were added as point sources by latitude & longitude or geocoding of addresses.
Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW)
Interpolative mapping assumes a spatial similarity in terms of proximity. Inverse-distance weighting (IDW) is a deterministic spatial interpolative model that is used to determine unknown attribute values from known sample points. IDW is an exact nonparametric method of interpolation that was used to estimate pollution exposure. IDW is based on the assumption that the attribute value of an unknown point is the weighted average of known values within the defined neighborhood. The weights are inversely proportional to the distances between the unknown point & the sampled values; therefore the exposure proxy is inversely related to distance. The weighting factor is controlled by a constant power or distance-decaying value that diminishes strength in relation with increasing power. The power or decaying factor was set to 2 for both pollutants. The study area exists in a neighborhood by varying distance-decay relationships, so the weighting parameter was set to variable to account for disorder of point sources. Allowing this variability suggests that the source-distance relationship can be a function of the point pattern of the neighborhood. The variable search radius was set to include at least 12 points (Bartier, 1996; ERSI, 2008; Zimmerman D., 1999). IDW interpolant method was used for both Hg emissions & PM2.5 representations.
Deposition Analysis & Mapping Technique
EPA-approved CALPUFF software was employed to analyze the plume deposition of the Bruce Mansfield Coal Fired Power Plant (CFPP) for the year 2006. The CALPUFF program includes CALPUFF version 5.8, level 070623 CALMET version 5.8, level 070623, & CALPOST version 5.6394, level 070622. The program is "a multi-layer, multi-species non-steady-state puff dispersion model that simulates the effects of time- & space-varying meteorological conditions on pollution transport, transformation & removal. CALPUFF can be applied on scales of tens to hundreds of kilometers.” CALPUFF was run in conjunction with BEEST version 9.6 to design custom receptor grids, using the BeestXpress client & Professional CalPuff interfaces designed by Oris Solutions, LLC (Allwine, 1998).
CALPUFF was chosen over AERMOD & other available modeling programs on account of the particular modeling scenario. AERMOD software is the most typically applied steady-state dispersion model, although certain geographical characteristics can make the assumptions of steady-state straight-line transport inappropriate (Brode, 2008). In the case of the Bruce Mansfield CFPP, geographically-induced wind circulation effects cause inhomogeneous local wind patterns. The unique geography is due to the proximity of the Ohio River & very rugged hilly & mountainous terrain separating the source & receptor grid. Steady-state models have the potential to underestimate deposition due to plume persistence. Valley channeling & other complex valley circulations dominate the plume transport such that the design concentration is controlled by other phenomena than line-of-sight plume impaction (Brode, 2008). Full spatial field of impacts may contribute to the determination of total risk & exposure, & therefore necessitate the non-steady-state CALPUFF model (Brode, 2008).
The mapping software ArcView version 9.3.1 was used to generate the plume deposition maps for the Bruce Mansfield CFPP & the Coal Combustion Waste (CCW) site maps. Receptor site deposition patterns were used to predict intermediate concentrations by kriging the CALPUFF generated receptor site concentrations. CCW placement sites had never previously been amassed & mapped for the PA, OH, WV, & MD areas cumulatively or separately. The PA Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), & United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) records & documents were reviewed to locate permitted CCW placements. Community activists & concerned professionals also assisted in revealing legacy CCW landfill sites. Maps layers from ESRI & Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) were utilized to present all the data.
Online Resources
- Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
- Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)
- Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA)
- West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP)
References
- Allwine, J. K., Dabbert Walter, Simmons, F., Larry, L. (1998). Peer Review of the Calmet/Calpuff Modeling System: The Kevric Company Inc.
- Bartier, M. P., C. Peter Keller. (1996). Multivariate Interpolation to Incorporate Thematic Surface Data Using Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW). Computers & Geosciences, 22(7), 5.
- Brode, W. R., Brett Anderson. (2008). Technical Issues Related to CALPUFF Near-field Applications: USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards.
- ERSI. (2008). ArcGIS Desktop Help (Version ArcMap 9.3): ERSI ArcMap Inc.
- ERSI. (2009). ArcGIS Online Standard Services. Retrieved February 18, 2009, 2009. Learn more»
- ESRI. (2009). Census 2000 TIGER/Line Data. Free Data Retrieved February 18, 2009, 2009. Learn more»
- Think Resources, I. (2006). Power Plant Jobs Resources. Power Plant Jobs Database Retrieved February 18, 2009, 2009. Learn more»
- USEPA. (2007). Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule; Final Rule. Retrieved February 18, 2009. Learn more»
- USEPA. (2008a). Laws & Regulations. Mercury Retrieved February 18, 2009, 2009. Learn more»
- USEPA. (2008b). Textiles Processing Industry Guidance Document. Retrieved Feburary 18, 2009. Learn more»
- USEPA. (2009a, August 28, 2008). AirData - Criteria Air Pollutants Standards. Retrieved February 18, 2009, 2009, Learn more»
- USEPA. (2009b, February 13, 2009). Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. Retrieved February 18, 2009, 2009. Learn more»
- Zimmerman D., P. C., Ruggles Amy, Armstrong P. Marc. (1999). An Experimental Comparison of Ordinary & Universal Kriging & Inverse Distance Weighting. Mathmatical Geology, 31(4), 16.
All Center for Healthy Environments & Communities' GIS maps are soley for non-commercial use. Visit www.esri.com for more information.
