Results of Monitoring for the Urban Leaf Burning Project Conducted in Monona, Wisconsin
Internal DNR Memo, March 24, 2000*
Introduction
The City of Monona permits limited open burning of yard waste by city residents. Allowing yard waste burning is a controversial issue within the community with support for both allowing and eliminating burning. Current city regulations allow yard waste burning on the first and third Sundays, Mondays and Tuesdays of April, May, June, September, October, and November.
Both Department of Natural Resources and the City of Monona are interested in determining ambient air impacts from the open burning. The Bureau of Air Management Monitoring Section conducted monitoring during the fall of 1999 to measure any air impacts from fine particulate matter. The air monitoring was conducted in a limited program for monitoring fine particulate matter during time periods open for permitted burning. The monitoring objectives were to obtain information on the ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter in two selected residential neighborhoods during periods when open burning is permitted.
The first monitoring site (A) is a city pumping station located near the corner of Winnequah and Vogts Street. Monitoring was conducted at this location during three periods of permitted burning. The second monitoring site (B) was located near Frostwood Park on the corner of Frostwood and Ridgeway Street. Monitoring was conducted at this location only during only two periods of permitted burning.
Results
Monitoring Results are summarized in Table 1 at the end of this report.
Discussion
The USEPA has proposed a fine particulate concentration of 65 ug/m3 as the 24-hour ambient air standard. All measured concentration for this project fall below this proposed standard. At this time, the monitoring section has no plans for future particulate monitoring in Monona.
Table 1: Summary Air Monitoring Data for Urban Burning Monitoring |
||||
|
Period |
Site |
Start Date |
Sampling (hours) |
Concentration |
|
1 |
A |
10/03/99 |
15.03 |
11 |
|
1 |
A |
10/03/99 |
0.01 |
na |
|
1 |
A |
10/03/99 |
23.91 |
12 |
|
2 |
A |
10/17/99 |
16.86 |
9 |
|
2 |
B |
10/17/99 |
0.04 |
na |
|
2 |
A |
10/18/99 |
13.93 |
11 |
|
2 |
B |
10/18/99 |
16.5 |
4 |
|
2 |
B |
10/19/99 |
20.26 |
20 |
|
2 |
A |
10/19/99 |
21.39 |
9 |
|
3 |
A |
11/07/99 |
13.9 |
25 |
|
3 |
B |
11/07/99 |
19.13 |
24 |
|
3 |
B |
11/08/99 |
23.52 |
14 |
|
3 |
A |
11/08/99 |
23.31 |
21 |
|
3 |
A |
11/09/99 |
23.32 |
19 |
|
3 |
B |
11/09/99 |
14.86 |
18 |
|
Site Average |
A |
15 |
||
|
Site Average |
B |
19 |
||
|
Notes: Only data in bold print meets the criteria for 75% data capture. This is the only data averaged. Sampler battery failure was the most frequent cause of short sampling times. |
||||
* Memo written by Mark Allen, DNR chemist, to Tom Sheffy, Monitoring Section Chief, Bureau of Air Management, and Brad Pyle, DNR South Central Region compliance specialist
Today's Air Quality || Recent Monitoring Data || Air Monitoring Network
Next Review: December 6, 2007
Last Revised: Thursday May 10 2007
RSS