REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA
INTRASTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
(GEORGIA)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
-------
itBPoRT FO& COJiSULTAI'IOR 05 'l1li
MlTltOfOLlUII AfLAIIA'
IIft'8AS1'AI'E All quALIft CDIII-. 88..
(GIGIGIA)
U.S. DBPAIl1NBNT or HIW.!U. £DUCAY". AD .......
, , Public ""1'" 18nic8' ,
CouuIier 'rotecelena aDd' lavin_letal ...atla .......
MaUonal Ail' hlluU.Oft COecl'ol, "".18&"88-
. 'Jaaua~ lt70
-------
CONTENTS
Preface.
i
Introduction
ii
Evaluation of Urban Factors.
1
Geography of The Region
2
Present Population and Industrial
Pattern of Region
4
Probable Scale of Population and.
Economic Growth
16
Probable Directions of Physical
Growth
23
Evaluation of Technical Factors
27
The Emission Inventory.
27
Air Quality Analysis.
40
Meteorology.
41
Modeling Results.
43
Air Sampling Data
44
Regional Governmental Organization
50
Planning Activities
50
Air Pollution Control Activities.
S3
Indicated Air Quality Control Region
54
Discussion.
S4
-------
PREFACE.
The Clean Air Act as am~nded dir'ec't's .the Secretary of Health,
Education,
and Welfare. to designate '''air. qual,it:y co~trol J~egions"
to provide a basis for the adoption of,regional a~r quality
. .
~tandards and the i~plementation of thos~ itandards~
The Ac t
stipulates that the designation of a region shall be preceded by
consultation with appropriate State and local authorities..
This
report is intended to provide the basic background information
needed for the consultation.
In addition, on the basis of the
information developed,
the report proposes boundaries for the
Atlanta Intrastate Air Quality Control Region and. discusses the
factors underlying the proposed boundaries.
The boundaries proposed for t~~ Regio~*
in
this report
remain
subject to
revisions
suggested during consultation with State
and local authorities.
Formal designation of the Region will be
m~de Qnly after a careful review of all opinions and sugg~stions
submitted during the consultation process.
The ~ational Air Pollution Control Administration appreciates
, .
assistance received from the State of Georgia, the local govern-
ments of the area and from the sever~l p~anning agencies
in the
Region.
*For the purposes of this report, the word "region", when capitalized,
will refer to the Atlanta Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.
-i-
-------
INTRODUCTION
THE REGIONAL APPROACH
Air pollution in the urban areas of the Unite~ States
is a
J'egional problem which frequently extends across State and local
governmental boundaries.
Since air pollution problems are rarely
confined to any single municipality or county, succe.ssful control
requires coordinated planning, standard setting, and enforce=ent
by the several political jurisdictions which share a common proble:.
At the present, State and local governments across
the ~ation have
only begun to develop a regional approach to air pollution control.
The Clean Air Act as amended provides a regional approach
which depends upon coordination and cooperation between all levels
~ .;. ,.
of government; municipal, county,
State, and Federal.
To set in
motion the machinery for regional air pollution control, the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare f1rs~ designates
air
quality control regions, issues air quality criteria, and publishes
reports on control techniques.
The region designation indicates
which State and local jurisdictions will be involved in a regional
air
pollution control effort.
The air quality criteria indicate
the extent to which various concentrations of an air pollutant
are harmful to health and damaging to property.
The reports on
control techniques provi~e information on the costs and effectiveness
of various techniques for controlling air pollutant emissions.
After the Department of Health, Education, and Welf~re co=pletes
these initial steps, State governments develop air quality standards
-11-
-------
and plans for implementation of those standards
in areas
which
have been designated as air quality control regions.
An air quality
standard defines the desired limit of the concentration of a pol-
lutant in the ambient air of the region.
It represents the level
of air quality which the regional cQntrol program will attempt
~
to achieve.
An implementation plan is a blueprint of the steps
which will be taken to insure achievement of the air quality
standards within a reasonable time.
The Governors have 90 day~
from the time they are furnished the criteria and control technology
reports by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare to
submiL letters indicating that they intend to set standards.
They
have an additional 180 days to set the standards, and another 180
days to develop plans for implementing the standards.
The procedure
for setting standards includes a public hearing which allows resi-.
dents of a region to express their views concern~ng the propos~d
central program.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
revie,,,s air
quality standards and implementation plans as developed by the
regions
in order to ascertain their consistency with the provisions
of the Clean Air Act as amended.
When air quality standards and implementation plans are approved,
States proceed to prevent and control air pollution in accordance
..
with those standards and plans.
This system for establishing a
regional approach to air pollution control is outlined in Figure 1.
-iii-
-------
>1-'
1-'-0
t1 (
I
<
I-'-
I
(",)HI
o 0
::s t1
rt
t1 rt
o ::T
1-'111
::ot:'
It' III
f/J
t-'" I-'-
o
::s ::s
f/J CI
t~
.....
o
::s
~
H
CO)
c:::
::0
t'1
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
. EMISSIONS INVENTORY
. TOPOGRAPHY
. METEOROLOGY
. .AIR QUALITY ANAL YS:S
EXIST!!'!G AIR QUALITY DATA
DIFFUSION MODEL OUTPUT
,
PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION FORMAL
DELINEATION ... WITH STATE AND ... DESIGNATION BY
OF REGIONS ... LOCAL OFFICIALS ... SECRETARY.HEW
URBAN FACTORS EVALUATION
A
. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
. URBAN.INDUSTRiAL CONCENTRATIONS
. COOPERATIVE REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
. PATTERNS AND RATES OF GROWTH
. EXISTING STATE AND lOCAL AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS & LEGISLATION
I'-'
o
HI
\
-------
DESIGKATION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
Designation of an air quality control region is
or.e of t:,e
first steps in the regional approach
to air
pollutio~ cor.rr~l.
Section 107 (a)
(2) of the Clean Air Act as amended directs t~e
Secretary. Department of Health,
Education,
and Welfare to cake
such designations.
The portions of the section relevant to this
discussion state:
"...The Secretary. after consultation with appropria:~
State and local authorities shall. ..designate air qu~lit:
control regions based on jurisdictional boundaries, ~rban-
industrial concentrations. and other factors including
atmospheric areas necessary to provide adequat~ i~pl~-
mentation of air quality standards. The S~cretar: ~3Y...
revise the designation of such regions...The Secretary
shall immediately notify the Governor or Governors oi
the affected State or States of such designation."
Procedure For Designation of Regions
Figure 2 illustrates the procedures used by the ~atio~al Air
Pollution Control Administration for designating air quality cocere:
regions.
After evaluating relevant technical and urban factors.
t~2
~ational Air Pollution Control Administration publishes a prop05ec
delineation of the region boundaries.
At the same tin:.e
X.';'PCA 5':::5
a time and place for a consultation meeting and distributes to
State and local authorities a report of the
evaluation stu~y (s~ct
as this "Report for Consultation") which includes the bo~nc.ary
proposal.
At the consultation meeting State and local authorities
are encouraged to present fully their views and suggestions co~cer=~=b
the proposed boundaries of the region.
Interested parties ~ho do
not have official status may submit comments in written :or= for
-------
""1
>1-'
1""- 0
11 ~
I
<
.....
I
()I-I>
o 0
::s 11
rt
11 rt
o P'
1-'111
~t:;:j
(t\ III
Cf)
..........
o
::s ::s
en III
I~
.....
o
::s
>Tj
H
(j)
c:::
~
t%j
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
. EMISSIONSINVENTORY
. TOPOGRAPHY
. METEOROLOGY
. .AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
EXIST!!'!G AIR QUALITY DATA
DIFFUSION MODEL OUTPUT
,
PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION FORMAL
DELINEATION ... WITH STATE AND .. DESIGNATION BY
OF REGIONS .... LOCAL OFFICIALS .... SECRETARY.HEW
URBAN FACTORS EVALUATION
A
. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
. URBAN.INDUSTRiAL CONCENTRATIONS
. COOPERATIVE REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
. PATTERNS AND RATES OF GROWTH
. EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS & LEGISLATION
N
o
1-1>
\
-------
'\
")
t
the record.
After careful review of all suggestions
, ".
a:1\l O?:'~:'C:-..':;
submitted for the record by interested parties, the Secretary ~i
Health, Education, and Welfare makes a formal designation ~i ~~c
region boundaries and notifies
the Governors of the desig~atio~.
The Size of a Region
As stipulated in Section 107
( a )- ( 2 ) ,
the designation
of air
quality control regions should be- based on "ju-risdictional
bO~:l~c.~:.e..sJ
urban-industrial concentrations, and other factors includi..g
atmospheric areas necessary to provide adequate
imple~en~atio.. of
air quality standards."
This language suggests a number or
o b j c C t .:. \" c .5
which are important in determining how large an air quality
co~tro~
region should be.
Basically,
these objectives can be divi~ed
io::.-co
three separate categories.
First, a region should be self-contained with respect
to air
pollution sources and receptors.
In other words, a region
shoulc
include most of the important sources in the area as well as
::v~:
of the people and property affected:by those
sources.
In t:'1is
..... a:; J
all the major elements of the regional problem will lie ~ithin o~e
unified administrative jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, since air
pollutants can travel long distances,
it is impractical if not
impossible to delineate regions which are completely self-~onta.:.~~~.
The air over a region will usually have at least trace a~ounts of
-vii-
-------
pollutants from external sources.
During episodic conditiocs,
s I.:C:1
contributions from external sources may even reach signi£ica~t
le"""c:~s .
Conversely, air pollution generated within a region and
transpor4:cC
out of it can affect external receptors to some degree.
It \.:cul.:i
be impractical and inefficient to make all air quality control
regions large enough to encompass these low-level trace effe~~s.
The geographic extent of trace effects overestimates the true proclc=
area which should be the focus of air pollution control effor~s.
Thus.
the first objective,
that a region be self-contained. beco=cs
a question of relative magnitude and frequen:y.
The dividing li~~
between "important influence" and "trace effect" \o7ill be a matter
of judgment.
The judgment should be based on estimates of the
impact a source has upon a region,
and the level of pollution to
which receptors are subjected.
In this res?ect.
annual and sea50~~1
data on pollutant emissions and ambient air concentrations are a
better measure of relative influence than short term data on
episodic conditions.
The second general objective requires that region bou:daries
be designed to meet not only present conditions but also future
conditions.
In other words,
the region should include areas ~here
industrial and residenti~l expansion are likely to create air
pollution problems in the foreseeable future.
This objective
requires careful consideration of existing metropolitan develo?oe~t
plans. expected population growth, and projected industrial
expansion.
Such considerations should result in the designa:i~n
of regions \o7hich will contain the sources &nd receptors of regioeal
-viii-
-------
air pollution for a number of years to come.
Of course,
region
boundaries need not be permanently fixed, once designated.
Boundaries
should be reviewed periodically and altered when changing conditioDs
warrant readjustment.
The third objective is that region bo~ndaries should be
compatible with and even foster unified and cooperative gvvern~ental
administration of the air resource thro~ghout the region.
Air
pollution is a regional problem which often extends across
several
, muni cip al,
county, and even state boundaries.
Clearly, the col-
laboration of several governmental jurisdictions is prerequisite
to the solution of the problem.
Therefore, the region should be
delineated in a way which encourages regional cooperation a=ong
the various governmental bodies involved in air pollution control.
In this regard, the existing pattern of governmental cooperation
on the whole range of urban problems may become an important
consideration.
Certainly the pattern of cooperation among existing
air pollution control programs is a relevant factor.
In general,
administrative considerations dictate that governmental juris-.
dictions should not be divided.
Although it would be impractical
to preserve State jurisdictions undivided, usually it is possible
to preserve the unity of county governments by including or
excluding them in their entirety.
Occasionally, even this would
be impractical due to a county's large size, wide variation in
level of development, or striking topographical features.
To the extent that any two of .the above three objectives lead
to incompatible conclusions concerning region boundaries, the region
-------
must represent a reasonable compromise.
A region should represec~
the best way of sa~isfying the three objectives
siu-.ulta.:!oOC;Jsly.
As noted above, the evaluation of relevant technical factors
and urban factors forms the basis of the boundary proposals ?ublis~ed
by KAPCA.
The evaluation of technical factors is designed to
indicate the location of pollution sources and the geographic
extent of serious pollutant concentrations in the ambient air.
Pollution sources are located by taking an inv~ntory of e~issions
from power generation, industrial activities, space heating,
,..aste
disposal, and other pollution generators.
The transport and
distribution of pollutants in the ambient air are analyzed on the
basis of measure~ air quality data, the location of emissions,
meteorological data, and topographic information.
A mathet:atical
diffusion model which predicts ambient pollution concentrations
from information on emissions and meteorology c~n be used in areas
where irregular topographicgl features would not invalidat~ thoO
theoretical model.
As a whole,
the technical study indicates ~o,..
large the air quality control region must be in order to encc=pass
most pollution sources and most people and property affected by
those sources.
The study of urban factors encompasses a different set ~f
considerations.
It reviews existing governmental jurisdictiQ~s,
the location of urban and industrial concentrations, ex?ecte~
patterns of urban growth, cooperative regional arrangements,
existing State and local air pollution control
prograr:.s, .a:1d
o:her
associated factors.
As a whole,
the study of urban factors 1.s
-x-
-------
designed to indicate how large a region must be in order to
encompass expected: regional! growth and to encourage cooperation
among political units in controlling air pollution.
The body of this report contains a proposal for the boundaries
of the Atlanta Intrastate Air Quality Contrel Region and outlines
Lhe evaluation of technical and urban factors which was the basis
of the proposal.
The report is intended to serve as the background
dccument for the consultation with appropriate State and local
authorities.
I,
-xi-
-------
1
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS
In determining the boundaries of an air quality control
region,
urban factors are of importance for it is the concentration
of population and work in ur~an centers that at once creates many
sources of air pollution and exposes both high investments in
property and more important, large numbers of people to their
effects.
In this discussion of ~he Atlanta area, the geography of
the region is first considered since the location and physical
characteristics of
an area
can significantly affect the scale and
direction of .urban growth.
There are then considered the present population and economic
activity pattern of the region, the probable future growth of
population and shifts in activity pattern of the labor force,
and the likely physical directions and concentrations of that.
growth.
As in other planning activities,
the shape of the future
to the extent that it can be foreseen has an important bearing on
Iresent decisions with res~ect to the boundaries of the proposed
air quality control region.
Finally, following an evaluation of technical factors requiring
consideration, there are summarized the status of existing air
pollution abatement and cOltrol efforts in the State and region
and the jurisdictional scope of established regional governmental.
organizations dealing with regionwide matters.
The latter is of
significance because the Clean Air Act has an objective, regional
air quality control programs based on cooperative efforts among
affected political jurisdictions.
-------
2
GEOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
~
~
The Atlanta area is located in the northwestern section of
Georgia where mountains and ridges of the Appalach~an Range give
.. .
way to a gently rolling plateau with elevations of around 900-
1,000 feet above sea level.
Within the area, only the isolated
outcrops of historic Keunesaw Mountain and granite-crowned Stone
Mountain rise substantially above this level.
North and northeast of the Atlanta
area are
the Blue Ridge
Mountains which stretch down from North Carolina into Georgia.
To the northwest and west lie a series of ridges which slant south-
l~esterly across Georgia from Tennessee toward Alabama.
The ridges,
which rise to peak elevations of 1,500-2,000 feet, are broken by gaps,
and one famous succession of these gaps establishes a direct route
from the Tennessee border into Georgia.
East and south of the
Atlanta area, the plateau merges into a gradually descending
terrain with no major obstructions barring the way to the Savannah
River,
the Atlantic Ocean, and Georgia's boundary with Florida.
The Atlanta area is at the headwaters of numerous river
systems fed by literally hundreds of smaller streams.
The Chatta-
hoochee River,
flowing through Metropolitan Atlanta and dammed to
form Lake Sidney Lanier northeast of the City, is the major river
of the area.
It is, however, not navigable, so that Atlanta, sur-
rounded by streams and rivers, is landlocked.
The City of Atlanta owes its origin to geograpby.
In 1837,
as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considered a railroad route
from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to the Chattahoochee River in
-------
j
Georgia,
the engineering advantages of the gaps in the Appalachian
ridges of northwest Georgia are likely to have weighed heavily
in the decision to build the line.
On the Chattahoochee River,
the terminus chosen was a point on the southeastern bank of the
River, now in the heart of ,the City of Atlanta.
The City, originated
as a
settlement of construction workers building the end of a rail-
road line, might have vanished on completion of its construction.
But in 1845, it was convert~d into an important link of a southern
overland route to the Atlantic Ocean, when another railroad from
the port of Augusta on the Savannah River c~me to meet the terminus
of the line from Tennessee.
Well before the Civil War,
therefore, Atlanta was a trans-
portation center.
This locationally-influenced transportation
advantage has been greatly augmented in recent times, by highway
and airline routes crisscrossing in the area.
Today, Atlanta is
the hub of three Interstate highways (I-20, 1-75, end 1-85) and
nine
scheduled airlines.
The Atlanta
area's wa~er
resources, combined with its loca-
tion in a cotton plantation region, led to the establishment in
the 19th century of textile mills at scattered sites throughout
the area
(for ex~mple, in;Canton,
Cherokee County; Griffin,
Spalding County; as well as in Atlanta itself).
Because no major physical obstructions like high mountains
or a wide river existed within a wide radius of the City of
Atlanta, it early developed and continued a roughly circular
-------
4
spatial outline rather than the elongated shapes of valley cities
or the semi-circular patterns of cities along major rivers and
at ports.
More recently, Atlanta's central,location in the south~ast
section of the Nation, its transport~tion .advantages, and an
, ."
equable climate have brought both ser~ice as well as newer manu-
~acturing industries into the area.
Today, Atlanta
serves a
seven-State markei area as its largest city. 1/
PRESENT POPULATION AND INDUSTRIAL PATTERN OF REGION
There is no readily apparent boundary line dividing urban
from nonurban areas in the Atlanta region.
Even. the large Atlanta
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Ar~a of five counties (Fulton,
Cobb, Clayton, DeKalb, and Gwinnett), cov~r~ng an expanse of
1,728 square mile~, does. ~ot give way neatly to nonurban area~.
Metropolitan Atlanta is ringed by counties. with populatians
dominantly engaged in nonfarm occu~ations, whether or not the~r
place of residence is classified as a farm.
Although the pro-
portion of. land area in farms is generally higher in the outlying
counties than in the counties of Metropolitan Atlanta, the ratio
9f nonfarm income ea~ned by farmers is not much less in the. former
than in the latter (Table I).
1./
Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi~ North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee .
-------
5
Table I
Farm Area and Nonfarm Income of
Farm-Operator Households, 1964
Counties
Percent, Land
Area in Farms
Percent, . Income
Farm-Operator
Households From
Nonfarm Sources
Atlanta SMSA
Clayton
Cobb.
DeKalb
Fulton
Gwinnett
23.3
24.7
14.3
26.0
33.7
95.4
91. 7
78.5
87.1
86.6
Adjoining Counties
Barrow
Bartow
Carroll
Cherokee
Coweta
Douglas
Fayette
Forsyth
Hall
Henry
Paulding
Rockdale
Spalding
Walton
58.0
50.2
48.5
36.1
51.2
25.6
46.4
58.7
45.9
50.7
31. 3
53.0
55.6
58.8
87.7
82.6
85.4
92.1
84.7
89.1
91.9
85.8
84.7
87.2
86.4
82.1
84.0
81. 7
Source:
u.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City
Data Book, 1967.
-------
6
As Table II shows, the five-county Metropolitan Area has an
estimated 1969 population of 1,302,000, but 14 adjoining counties
contain another 385,000 persons, roughly 30 percent of the five-
county total.
If population density on a county-wide area basis
~s used as a measure of urbanization, outlying Spalding and Hall
Counties are more urban than Gwinnett County within the five-
~ounty Metropolitan Area, and Rockdale and Douglas Counties are
not essentially less urban than Gwinnett (Figure 3).
A better idea of the present urban extensio~ of Atlanta as
depicted by population can be obtained by examining Figure 4 in
conjunction with Figure 5.
The former, prepared by the Atlanta
~egion Metropolitan Planning Commission (ARMPC) using 1967 popu-
latation estimates, shows Metropolitan Atlanta with a densely
populated core around which there is a ring of somewhat lesser
density.
From this ring, there projects out well-defined spokes
of similar density to the northwest and south, and less well-defined
extensions to the north, northeast,
southwest,
and west.
In between
the projecting spokes and at the edges of Metropolitan Atlanta,
densities are lower.
But, as Figure 5 shows, ~t certain points
just outside these relativ~ly sparsely settled areas,
there are
not only sizable urban concentrations but they lie on main highways
radiating out from Atlanta.
Some of these highways are also
those along which there exist the spokes of relatively heavy
densities outward from the City core.
Thus, although there are
no continuous corridors of urban-scale settlement,
the physical
setting for such a d~velopment exists.
-------
7
Table II
Estimated Population of Atlanta Area Counties. 1969
Counties
Total
. (thousands)
Atlanta SMSA, total
'Clayton County
C'obb County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
(1.302.0)
82.3
181. 7
364.7
609.3
64.0
Adjoining Counties,
Barrow
Bartow
Carroll
Cherokee
Coweta
Douglas
Fayette
Forsyth
Hall
Henry
Paulding
Rockda1e
Spalding
Walton
total
(384.8)
15.9
35.0
43.5
'1.7.9
31.6
24.6
9.4
16.1
56.9
25.3
16.6
16.1
41.5
24.4
Sources:
Estimates for City of Atlanta and Atlanta Metropolitan Area
Counties are those of Atlanta Region Metropolitan Plannirig
Commission, Population and Housing as of April 1. 1969.
Estimates for other nearby Counties are those of Rand McNally
& Company as of January 1, 1969.. Commercial Atlas and Marketing
Guide, 100th edition, 1969.
-------
....:
..~. .
8
i .
. .
. ..
CARROLL
88
5ARTOW
76
CHEROKEE
67
FORSYTH
74
COBB
: 530
PAULDING
52
DOUGLAS
122
o
I
15
.
30
...1
4?
miles
FIGURE 3 - Population Per Square Mile of Atlanta
Area Counties, 1969
-------
9
~IGURE 4 - Estimated Metropolitan Atlanta Population Density,
1967
Source:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission.
-------
10
r--- ,
~ ,
,."/ HALL >
- --...,.... --1-""'------- ~ I
BA.T(TJ!-1 r CHEROKEE 1.- - - - - - - ~ \.
I I I F1~SYTH '"Gainesville)
, )8 17,500 ..
r'. r ,J ~' 1-85;/
., " ' S /
i Cartersville I. I L- ,.. ~u;,..
'- - 7 _1~ ~O~r\~ - - - J'" "''''', { .. -y-'\
'" I ........---..
I I' I ~
/. U ~ 9 --X- 13ARRO~ \.
-I PAULDI:~G I ATLANTA ~ ,\Hnaer,>
r I METROPOLITAN. A... 5,555 ,/
I : I AREA US 78 /' \.......,~-\
I ~ALTON ..
L ' -- 1,302,000 / ")
I ~".... S " .--""",
, 0 r- -- '> " ... /
--1 1-2 . l)OUGLAS ,/ ,.........., Monroe
..- - I ,/ US41 it... !,826 /'
r - r 11 ...... I J ,
Y.Arro ton. ",' r--("V I '.,,/'
12,000 I ' ,,~,
. r ' ',- / ROCKDALE
\ . ~-"""'7 J "-
J r'" ""'.' "I
, '- --- - "'\ I HENRY "-
\ CARROLL ~ /' Newnan I FAYETTE l I ..~\
\-- -- - -('"VI, 12,900 \ l r J r'
\ . \... I J
\ .: '\ /:;;iff~n -\._~I/""
\ ...
\. COWETA tJ 23,500)
~--f-----',.r.2'~~~J'
o
,
15
,
30
.
45
miles
FIGURE 5 - Population of Principal Cities of Atlanta Area and Their
Location in Relation to Highway Pattern of Area, 1969
-------
11
The industrial pattern of the 19-county Atlanta area, as
measured by manufacturing employment, like the population pattern,
is one of a primary concentration in the five-county Metropolitan
Area with significant smaller concentrations in the tier of ad-
joining counties.
As Table III shows, manufacturing employment
in the Metropolitan Area counties now totals 143,840, but the
adjoining counties add another 50,583, about 35 percent of the
Metropolitan Area total.
As may be exrected, most of the manuiacturing employment
in
the outer tier counties is concentrated in their largest cities,
30tably in Gainesville in Hall County; Winder, Barrow County;
Monroe,
Walton County; Conyers, Rockdale County; Griffin, Spalding
County; Newnan, Coweta County; Carrollton, Carroll County;
Cartersville, Bartow County; and Canton, Cherokee County (Figure 6).
Although textile mills and apparel manufacturing are of major
importance in most of these cities,
there is a1so substantial diver-
sification.
For example, aircraft engine nacelle manufacturing
in Winder; chemicals and plastics in Cartersville; wire, cable,
and auto body parts in Carrollton; aluminum extrusions and pressure
tanks in Newnan; broiler production in Gainesville; and bus and
truck podies in Griffin.
Some
of the plants are very large -- a
textile mill
in
Gr.iffin has a total employment of over 2,000; a wire
and cable manufacturer in Carollton has 1,400 employees; and a broiler
produc~r in Gainesville employs over 900 persons.
At least 15
plants in the outer tier counties now employ 400 work~rs or
more.
-------
12
table III
Manufacturing Employment. 1969
Counties
Total
.EmP'IO'Yiiien l
Atlanta SMSA. total
(143.840)
Clayton
Cobb
DeKalb
Fulton
, Gwinne t t
3.634
28.262
15.916
91.945
4.083
Adjoining Counties, total
(50.583)
Barrow
Bartow
Carroll
Cherokee
Coweta
Douglas
Fayette
Forsyth
Hall
Henry
Paulding
Rockdale
Spalding
Walton'
2,519
5,428
7.978
2,875
5,354
630
752
1.074
9.809
1,256
450
2.264
6,829
3,365
Source: 'Georgia Manufacturing Directory. 1969
'.'1
~ ~
-------
13
r--- '\
, ,
,/ llo\LL >
r- ---- --1-'------- f ,
I BARTJH r CHE10KEE 1- - -- - - - -- ~ \
I I I Fl~SYTH '",. )
i ,'. I ) Ga~~:~~ill/"
r . Canton.-J ".,' ,
Cartersville I 2.600 j' I ;..... /
I 4 . 800 I l- I ~........ - /"
i.... .,- -- -T -~-- - - -~.... ''-'''', " ..~'\...
. -...J I "-~---
, ~
/ I C BARROH \
PAULDI~G I ~ . ')
r-' ATLANTA \ ~inder /,'
. ' METROPOLITAN ' ~. 00Jl-(
! ! AREA / / WAL~)N .'\',
,...... ~ ,-- - , / I
, .... r- -- -'. 143.840 ..<, . /'
--1 . DOUGLAS > /" ~ Monroe
- - . I / I. , ... 2,500 I
... - - Villa Ric~.,.,' ,Conyers, , /
\ 1.000 ,,/' r-\~V 2,300,A ",./1
, L- - -I' . '""\... / ROCKDALE
\ Carroll ton OJ ,..-'" -, .J -,
, 4.200. - - - - - -r-' "'\ I HENRY "-
\ /' r' ..."""\
CARROLL" , FAYETTE I' \
'--- - - - -("" Newnan \ I r-J /
\ 5,400 \.. \ I J
\ . '\ ,,~r.iff~ln -\...,~,/
\ CO~'}ETA LJ 6,800. )
\-.. - - - - - - - -\ SPALDING j'
v--""..........----
o
15
I
30
I
45
miles
FIGURE 6 - Manufacturing Employment of Atlanta Metropolitan Area
and of Principal Cities in Adjoining Counties, 1969
-------
14
The outstanding characteristic of industry in Metropolitan
Atlanta is the heavy dominance of transportation equipment which
currently accounts for nearly 30 percent of total manufacturing
employment (Figure 7).
Thiv work includes virtually no manufac-
turing as such.
l~ consists almost entirely of the assembly
Jf parts manufactured elsewhere into vehicles by three firms at
four locations.
One plant is a huge aircraft assembly complex
now employing an annual average of some 23,000 persons.
Three. .
others are automobile and truck assembly plants having a total
of over 10,000 employees.
The remainder of Atlanta manufacturing is broadly diversi-
fied except for relatively larger shares of employment in food
processing,
textile and apparel manufacture, and metals and
machinery.
The third of these categories is now of greater
relative importance than either of the first
two.
Manufacture
of electrical equipment, pressure tanks, and other products
requiring high quality steels has been stimulated by the availa-,
bility in Atlanta of electric furnace steels produced at the
, .
City's one steel mill.
Chemicals manufacture has been and
con-
tinues to be of relatively minor significance.
The extent to which 6anufacturing in Metropolitan Atlanta
is
linked to that of the smaller urban centers in the adjoining
counties is difficult to establish.
That there are connections
beyond
mere
reliance on Atlanta as a service and tr8nsporta~ion
center
is certai'n.
For example.
the aircraft engine nacelles
-------
Transportation Equipment
Lumber and Furniture
Metals and ~achinery
,
tOOn and Kindred Prbducts
15.:'
Textile and Apparel ?rodu:;ts
15.6
,Paper and Allied ,Products
Printing and Publishing
Chemicals and Ai1ied Products
All Other,
10.9
1 ~)(iO
Percent
:£4.5
11. 8
13. :3
FIGUlU:: 7 - 'Distribution o!--.iL.<:..tropolitan At1antd i1anufacturing
-~I!!Pl.£~.!ltent, 1960 and 1968
Source of data;
6.'7
~[Jlf*~~~fi~1~fi@)
Georgia Department of Labor figures cited by
Atlanta Chamber of Commerce.
10. ','
........
.......u.
........
~........
\.~.......
.........
.....-...
ffl~J11
'.'. I
i .1
~, . 5
15
l'JL8
Percent
29.2
- .
81 III 0 iii
II II II iii II
II II III II
II II IJ II II
II II . III
II II II II II
II D " iii
II II III IJJ I!I
II iii [J tJ
II II i:I II II
II EJ II II
CiI II Ci II II
Iii Ci II 1:1
III II EI II III
III iii C 19
II II iii C iii
II I!J I!I D
Iii iii 0 D IJJ
iii II D II
III
5.6
;~1.~)\j!~\~{{{Mfii;;W
13.8
e.oGo8eC
:.:.:.g.:
.8080.080
.-"OeOollc
e Ge. .,0", 00
0.0°0°0°0
0.0"'0.0.,
I,It'll
r f'
v.J
7.2
11.0
J.O
q / .'
-------
16
made in Winder are sent for final assembly to the aircraft plant~
in Marietta.
Atlanta produced steel is no doubt utilized in
~roducts ranging from auto body parts anci containers to mobile'
homes mad~ in plants in adjoining counties.
The large aircraft
assembly plant draws heavily on workers resident in counties out-.
side Metropolitan Atlanta b~t who commute to work at the plant.
Some 3,300 employees of this category came from Bartow, Carroll,
Cherokee, Douglas, Forsyth, and Hall Counties. 1/
On the 'otherhartd,
the still heavy dominanc~ of the textile
and apparel .industries in the smaller urban centers of the outlying
counties, with firms oriented to national markets, indicate that
those centers are far from being mere satellites of their large
neighbor at this time.
PROBABLE SCALE OF POPULATIUN AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
ARMPC currently estimates that in the nine-year period,
1960-69, 1/ Metropolitan A~lanta population increased at an annual
rate of 2.7 perce~t.
Cont1nued growth at this rate would imply a
Metropolitan Atlanta population in 1983 -- the target year used
for planning purposes by ARMPC -- of about 1,890,000.
Compared
to the decade of the 50's when Metropolitan Atlanta added populatto~
1/
Press release, Newsbureau, Lockheed-Georgia Co~pany,
Octobe~ 23, 1969.
. ,
1/
Atlanta Stan~ard Metropolitan Statistical Area Population and
Housing, ,April I, 1969.
-------
17
at an annual rate of 3.4 percent,
the ARMPC estimate indicates
that growth has now moderated.
As to the period ahead, there is a considerable divergence
in estimates.
The National Planning Association ventures a rate
of 2.8 percent per year while the Bureau of the Census suggests
lower alternate annual rateu of 2.5 and 2.1 percent. il
Use of
these rates results in 1983 estimated population totals for
Metropolitan Atlanta of 1,917,000, 1,840,000 and 1,742,000,
respectively.
The counties adjoining Metropolitan Atlanta have also grown
vigorously during the 60's.
Bureau of the Census eatimates of
population changes between 1960 and 1966 il indicate an average
growth of these counties like that estimated for Metropolitan
Atlanta during 1960-69, i.e., in the range of 2.7 percent per year.
Growth was especially marked in Rockdale, Douglas, Henry, and
Forsyth Counties.
If growth in the outlying counties continues
at the 1960-66 pace,
they could have a 1983 population in excess
of 560,000, three-fifths of whom resided in Hall, Carroll, Rockdale,
Spalding, Bartow, and Henry Counties.
The Atlanta area, including
these counties, would then have a total population of 2,300,000
to 2,500,000 in 1983, compared to an estimated 1,690,000 today.
il
National Planning Association, Looking Ahead, Vol. 17, No.4,
May, 1969; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Projections of the Population of Metropolitan Areas: 1975,
Series P-25, No. 415, January 31, 1969. The difference in the
two census estimates is due mainly to different assumptions
with respect to national fertility rates.
U:S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Estimates
of the Population of Counties and Metropolitan Areas, July 1,
1966, A Summary Report, Series P-25, No. 427, July 31, 1969
il
-------
18
Whether population growth of this magnitude occurs in the
Atlanta area is in large pait dependent on its economic growth
prospects.
This is 60 because in-migration responding to the
pull of job opportunities accounts for a major share of popula-
tion increases in the most rapidly growing urban areas.
Recent economic expansion of Metropolitan Atlanta has been
impressive.
The u.s. Department of Commerce estimates that total
,personal income in the Atlanta Metropolitan area increased 89
percent between 1959 and 1967, compared to an i~crease of 63
percent in all metropolitan areas in the United States.
Despite
high population growth,
t~erefore, per capita personal
income
in Atlanta a1so grew faster. than in metropolitan areas as a whole
(Table IV).
This upsurge has not been due to any basic,shifts in Atlanta's
economic
structure which is that of a regional rather than a
national center.
The essentially regional and local service
activities of government; contract constru~tion, transportation,
communication and publ~c utilities; wholesale and retail trade;
finance,
insurance and real estate;
and consumer and business
services
contributed roughly two-thirds of Atlanta's total personal
income in 1967 as well as in 1959.
Manufacturing provided only
about 20 percent of the total in both years (Table V).
It seems reasonable to assume,
therefore,
that economic
expansion of Metropolitan Atlanta, will in the future as well as
the past,
depend more on demands for its services as a regional
center than on national market demands for goods provided by its
-------
Table IV
Growth in Personal Income and Per Capita Personal Income
Atlanta Metropolitan Area * Compared to all Metropolitan
Areas, 1959-67
Personal Income
Per Capita Personal Income
1959 1967
(Millions of Dollars)
Percent
Increase,
1959-67 .
1959 1967
(Dollars)
Percent
Increase,
1959-67
Atlanta Metropolitan
Area *
2,371
4,479
89.0
2,310
3.371
46.0
All Metropolitan
Areas
290.062
473.246
63.0
2,448
3.511
43.0
*
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Counties of Fulton. DeKalb. Cobb. Clayton and Gwinnett.
.....
. \D
Source:
u.S. Department of Comnierce. "Metropolitan Area Income in 1967," Survey of Current Business.
May. 1969. pp. 13-33.
-------
Table V
Sources of Personal Income in the Atlanta Metropolitan
Area, * 1959 and 1967
(Percent of total personal income)
Total Personal income
Property income and transfer payments,
less personal contributions for social insurance
Total ,earnings
Farm earnings
Total nonfarm earnings
Government, earnings
Total Federal
Federal civilian
Military
State and local
Private nonfarm earnings
Manufacturing
Mining "
Contract construction,
Transportation, Communication and Pub. uti1.
Wholesale and retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services
Other
1959
100.0
16.1
83.9
.3
83.6
.9.9
5.6
4.4
1.2
4.3
73.7
19.8
.1
4.9
9.7
'20.9
6.6
11.6
.1
*
Includes Counties of Fulton, DeKa1b, Cobb, Clayton and Gwinnett.
N - Negligible
20
"
1967
100.0
14.3 '
85.7
N
85.7
10.5
5.9
4.9
1.0
4.6
75.2
20.0
.1
5.7
9.9
20.6
6.5
12.3'
.1 '
. "
Source:
Unpublished analysis obtained from the U.S. Department of Conunerce.
-------
21
industry.
These will include banking and financial services,
facilitated by Atlanta's being a Federal Reservp- District city;
Federal and State government services; as well as wholesale,
trade, transportation, and communications.
In the 1959-67 period, strong economic growth in the
seven
Southeastern States served by Metropolitan Atlanta provided impetus
for growth of the City.
Except in the case of Alabama, this group
of states grew faster than the United State~ as a whole, at annual
rates ranging from 7.1 percent in Mississippi and Tennessee to
about 8 percent in Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas.
As a
result,
the gap between the lower per capita incomes in these
States and the U.S. average, was reduced very considerably during
the period.
This rise in per capita incomes was as significant
for Atlanta's progress as the expansion in total income (Table VI).
In the period ahead into the mid-70's, above average growth
of these States, with strong growth in Florida and Georgia, is
predicted by the National Planning Association. ~/
However, as'
in the case of the National economy as a whole, annual rates of
growth of these States are expected to be lower and to vary from
around 4.5 percent to just under 6 percent instead of the 7-8
percent range of the 1959-67 period.
Should this happen, Metro-
pJlitan Atlanta's population and economic activity may also exhibit
lower growth rates in the future.
~/
Looking Ahead, op. cit.
-------
Table VI
Growth in Personal Income, Seven Southeastern States
and in the United States, 1959-1967
Per CaJ)fta
Personal Income
Ratio, State to
U.S. as whole.
1959 1967
Total- Personal-Income - - - -
Percent Annual Percentage
Increase, Rate of Growth,
1959-67 1959-67
Alabama 67.8 68.5 63.1 6.3
Florida 89.6 90.3 83.7 7.9
Georgia 74.5 80.4 84.2 8.0
Mississippi 55.7 60.0 73.1 7.1
North Carolina 69.9 77.2 82.2 7.8
South Carolina 61.7 70.0 83.7 7.9
Tennessee 70.9 75.8 72.7 7.1
United States 100.0 100.0 64.1 6.4
N
N
-Source: Computed from data in U .S-. Department of Commerce, Survey of -Current Business, Augus t. 1968.
-------
23
PROBABLE DIRECTIONS OF PHYSICAL GROWTH
The population projections discussed above for Metropolitan
Atlanta will require development accommodating the residential,
commercial, and occupation.l needs of a minimum of 33 percent to
a maximum of 48 percent more people by the ARMPC plan~ing target
year of 1983.
In addition, the adjoining outer tier counties are
likely to require development for a roughly similar proportionate
addition to their population.
What does t~is portend for the
directions of physical growth in the Atlanta area?
At the present time, a massive urban renewal program is well
underway toward concentrating business facilities in 2,600 acres
of Atlanta's central business district.
However, according
to ARMPC, recent residential development
in Metropolitan Atlanta has proceeded outward from the central
core in all directions, with growth especially strong north and
northeast of the City (Figure 8).
This centrifugal tendency,
attributed by a 1964 ARMPC study 2/ to the extension of public
water systems into rural areas of Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett
Counties, was characterized by the study as "scattered and hap-
hazard suburban development" inconsistent with a "compact and
serviceable pattern of growth".
In a recent planning document ~/
2/
~/
Open Land, Regional Problems and Opportunities, June, 1964.
Regional Improvements Program, 1969-1973, March, 1969.
"
-------
24
-J
\
'.
/
~,
. ":J,-.
. .,...,.- \...
.:'
.~--_./-
'I.
'.
,
/
,
..
-<
, -.
,- "'----
f' .,~
t'.;\
:' I ",
, I
I I
!
/ ,I
> I
; .I
\ . ...., /...,~
" ',j/ Y
\ ,.-~:~.'t/-..,// .
I"" \ /' (
.,:~-, ....,'
'.~-/-. / ,.' '- >',\. '~/'.
'. ..' '.,. , .\ \, /1
I'-:'~ ;.,,' ) ~., / \
. P /. i' /. '<,,-,: '\
./ / '. ",,-~'.r!'-.. ~\. "
'.. j .-.."", './"'" '-'r"'--'
~/ /1'. ~
''"..~/. \, /'
'..
/ \
i' ):
\ ,~\ '.
'-,
",,,,; ,r
'- ~.~."
,,~''''~''''';-'...~,-,.~.~...,.,....
/'
\ -
\ .. \"'<"
\, '
!
,;
/
/
, .'
)
I
/
,
/
,
,
,
I -',
V
'-
,
,
I
J-
\,
,'.
".
\,
.'
FIGURE 8 -
Directions of Metropolitan Atlanta Estimated Population Growth
1960-1969 (Bars show population volume and not density of
Settlement)
Source:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission.
.J
-------
25
ARMPC, therefore, recommends that Metropolitan Atlanta limit
outward development twenty years hence in 1968, to a largely
contiguous area within the bounds of the five counties, except for
extensions
to the borders of Rockdale, Henry, and Douglas Counties.
Weighing in the balance against successful execution of this
recommendation are the actu&l trends of centrifugal growth which
are encouraged by the radial pattern of the interstate highways
and unconfined by beltways outside the already developed area
(Figure 9).
In addition to this outward push,
there could also
be strong pulls from expanding urban areas in the adjoining
counties,
for example by Cartersville via the Smyrna-oMarietta-
Kennesaw-Acworth corridor; by Gainesville via the Norcross-Suwanee-
Buford corridor; or by Griffin via Jonesboro.
Finally, development
into Henry County is certain to occur if it is selected for location
of a second major airport for the Atlanta area.
-------
r--- "\
" '
,./ HALL
- ---. - --l-"""L------- r
BARTO\! J CHE1UKEE l-------~.
I I Fl~SYTH >
I ) /~
I .J ,.-'" "
, , I ' /
I ., I l ,I...... .. - L ~
-~ ~ - - - J ''''"', I -y- \
'-J ~--- ~'"\
~ 13AR~OH \
~ //
, '....,' ~
/ .-\.
" WALTON "')
,,-<-, /
''''''-..
f, ' " /
r"""("V' :x
I ~'""\. / ROCKDALE
J "-
, ~
I HENRY ,~-"\
I ,
\
I
(
./J
..
I
I
'--7- .---
, I
/ PAULi)l~G I
r~
I '
1-285
\
~.. -.
"
,
, FAYETTE I
~ ' r-
\ ~ I
\... ).1
'\ } - - -L - .
"
C ~.JETA \..J I
- - - - - - -,. SPALDING J'
V--"'.........----
o
15
I
30
.
45
miles
FIGURE 9 - ~ketch of National Interstate Highways -- Completed,
Under Construction, and Proposed in Atlanta Area, 1969
26
>
I
~
\
)
/1-20
-------
27
EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FACTORS
The technical factors of importance in considering the
boundaries of a proposed air quality region
are:
the total
quantity of pollutants emitted,
the geographic pattern of
emission sources, and patterns of pollutant dispersion.
In the Atlanta area, information with respect to these
factors was obtained from an emission inventory conducted by
the National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA), air'
quality monitoring data obtained locally,
c.nd a
theoretical dif-
fusion model developed from the inventory data.
THE EMISSION INVENTORY
The emission inventor.y, based on 1968 data,
included the
five-county Metropolitan Area of Atlanta (Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb,
Clayton, and Gwinnett Cou~ties) together with adjoining Henry
and Douglas Counties.
Pollution sources in other counties ad-
joining Metropolitan Atlanta were not included in the
emission
inventory, although their urban aspects were examined in the
preceding section.
The NAPCA emission inventory, which considered nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon as well as sulfur oxides
and particulate matter, is available in a more complete form
as a separate NAPCA publication.
For the purpose of this report
two major pollutants - sulfur oxides and total particulates -
are considered as representative of pollution problems from
sources other than the automobile.
Nearly 90 percent of carbon
-------
28
monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions in the Atlanta survey area
result from the operation of road vehicles.
Since motor vehicles
are subject to nationwide uniform federal standards, carbon
~onoxide and hydrocarbon emissions were not used as a factor to
select preliminary Region boundaries.
On the other hand, 94
percent of sulfur oxides and 75 percent of particulates, are
emitted from point sources and need to be considered.
The quantity of sulfur oxides and total particulates emitted
in
the Atlanta area was estimated individually for major point
sources and areawide for all other sources by use of a survey
technique developed by the Public Health Service. ~/
Major point
sources included power plants, large industrial plants, central
refuse burning installations, and airports.
Area sources included
space heating,
smaller industrial plants, and refuse burning.
Emission estimates were derived by applying average
emission
factors lQ/ to indicators of pollutant emissions such as pro-
duction data and type of fuel burned.
Because these factors
are averages, the estimates for a particular point source may
vary from actual emissions to the extent that its operating,
characteristics vary from the average.
Estimates for a large
~/
Public Health Service, Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
Community Air Pollution Emissions. Publication No. 999-AP-29~
Environmental Health Series, U.S.D.H.E.W., Division of Air
Pollution, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1966
lQ/
Public Health Service, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. Publication No. 999-AP-42, Environmental Health
Series, U.S.D.H.E.W., NAPCA, Durham, North Carolina.
-------
29
number of sources, however, are likely to approximate actual
conditions since their characteristics as a group would tend to
be similar to those used in calculating the emission factors.
The point source estimates are combined with area-wide
estimates to arrive at total estimated emissions in tons per
year of each pollutant.
These estimates are shown in Table
VII.
Note that coal-burning power plants contribute about 90
percent of sulfur oxide
emissions,
and nearly 50 percent of total
particulate emissions.
Figure 10 shows gr~phically the sources
of each pollutant.
To determine the geographic distribution of these
emissions,
the study area was divided into grid zones (Figure 11).
The
estimated poin~ and area source emissions were apportioned to
their respective grid zones (Figure 12).
Point source emissions
by grid zones are shown in Table VIII.
Area-wide pollutant
estimates are shown in Table IX.
Density variations among
the grid zones are graphically represented in Figures 13 and 14.
These figures indicate that the greatest emission densities occur in
the City of Atlanta and its immediate vicinity.
In considering thes~ data, patterns of fuel consumption in
the emission study area should be kept in mind.
Coal, oil, and
natural gas are all used; natural gas provides the major energy
source for all local requirements other than electric power pro-
duction.
In 1968, over 15 billion cubic feet of natural gas
(about 3,000,000 tons coal equivalent) and 560 thousand barrels
of oil (about 140,000 tons coal equivalent) were consumed in the
-------
66,250 23.750
1.900 900
62,750 22.000
1,150 500
450 350
850 11.050
850 7.300
3.750
Table VII
Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions for the
Atlanta Study Area, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Cate~ory
Sulfur
Oxides
Transportation
1.900
Road Vehicles
1,900
Other
Combustion of Fuels by
Stationary Sources
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Industrial Process
Emissions
50
Total Emissions
69.050
Particulates
7.000
3,350
3.650
4.900
46.700
30
-------
~ U L1. f_' R () X IDE ~
INCLUDING ROAD VEIlICL...S
Solid Waste
Disposal
U
Industrial
Processes
0:.,
31
EXCLUDING ROAD VEHICLES
Solid Waste
Disposal
Other
Transportation 8%
8",
I.
TOTAL
PARTICULATES
FIGURE 10 - Estimated Distribution of Emissions by Source.
Inclusive and Exclusive of Road Vehicles, Atlanta
Study Area. 1968
.L- ,,'
-------
I~CLUDING ROAD VEHICLES
Fuel
Combustion
..03%
Solid Waste
Disposal 5~~
Other Trans-
portation );~
industrial
l' roc e sse s
2/~
CARBON MONOXlI:E
Solid Waste
Disposal 2%
HYDRUCAREOt;S
Industrial
Processes
13;;~
Solid Waste
Disposal 57.
Other
Trans-
portation 6;~
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
"
EXCLUDH,G iWAD VEHICLES
31(a)
~olid Waste
Disposal 41%
Other
T ran s _.
portation
41/0
In~;ustrial
:'rocesses
t) :~
Fuel
Combustion
3/~
Other
Transportation
38 /~
Industrial
Processes
2 o;~
Other
Trans-
ortation
81.
fIGURE lQ - (Continued) Estimated Distribution of Emissions by
Source, Inclusive and Exclusive of Road Vehicles, Atlanta
St~Area, 1968
.' I
-------
~ a.. coum---r'-..--",---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
l
I
I
I
I
,--'
:'
--_.,~
o
t,
~
H
C')
c::
~
....
....
I
C')
1'1
.... _.-----
c:l. I
n I
o I
o I
'1
c:l. I
.... I
::s I
I\)
rt I
ftI I
I
tn I
I
en I
rt
ftI 0
51 L,
111.1011 (0UII1T
..-'
../'
0-
I
o
!
_L
.- 'l
,
t
, L-~
~-_.~,"
"
,
~s
10
:-"------1
( .
, .
! I
. :
~ .
'---'"', )
.., j
.. I
-", I
'-. "
-7
r"-"
,-1--, )
r' .'
J
"T'-"- /
. 1 '
\ ~J
\.
,
\-r'.--- .f
, '
""\., I
e.(
:It
'.
,
''"'
"',
ATIAIITA
,
I
t~\...r '"\ .J~
I ~':.? \.~ /
tD£CAnJI ~w""
I~/""'-~';'=..
I 1-"" ,,.,
_I
<.
tc ,,-
I' ""lit
ClAYtOII COUII1T
-- DE IAIJ (
S-l...r
'1
l,
L,
JCIIfSI080
n-
......
f~
o
rJ
I
'"" 0
\ i
f\ :
r -...., ,-.J
'\ ~ \-.-oJ
I I
( :
f I
, :
-- .L-
"- -. -.., HfJ8T (cum
~--
---,
,
IS ~':':J ':~:~..
IDICIOSS
t/
"
"-
\"
"
"
IIcDOIIOUGM
"
{.j
'--."
. ( "
l ~'-
'.
"
//,'
#'
"
)0'
/
I
;
f'./
,j
,...
'---..r,_r'
<] //
-"'."'~ "
!
I
/
.'
/
..,
"
\
\.
\
/
/'
,
W
N
-------
\-
":I
H
C)
c::
~
....
N
I
"tI
o
.....
:;1
I"t
en
o
c:
11
n
III
t""
o
n
1\1
I"t
.....
o
:.:s
III
.....
:.:s
>
I"t
....
1\1
:.:s
I"t
II>
en
I"t
c:
c..
>
11
III
1\1
r ___......r~......~__-
1 C08 COUIIIT
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
l
r"--'
.
-----~
I
t,
,-""-----1
I I
I I
~ I
I I
I' l :
'--...-..,,\ .)
'''''-, j
''----7
r--"
,..r, )
I .'
r)
IIIIICIOSS
,--..........
( "
I ~
"
..,
,
"\,
'"
"
(....-
"
IV
-----
I '.--"
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
L..____...J""'-
"
"
-',
>-
/
,
,
¥"
//
"
J7J:iI>
I
I
.
!
.-1--.
.- l..
/
T'-"-j .
. -"'J
\.
"\
"-r',..... .f
"", /'
e(
:ii,
DEWIC
n~-1._r-
1
:.,
L,
r
I
,.J
I
RJlTOll ccum
,,.-"
../
JOIIfSIOIO
n.
'...)
.,
..
t
'" :
\ I
./ j
r ---,,..-
" : L....J
\, I
~ i
I ,
'--1---.---, - com
'---
McOOIICUGH
.-,
, .
'of
');~
---;
- ._.~ -- ..'. :-~-~-,,::
,.. h" ..
",,-..~__r
,
.......
~--~
J7IO'
,../
I
.J
)6'.,'
~
'..
Jr.'-' .//
....1" "
!
,
I
"
I
L,
'"
\
,,,N '\
,;
,/'
,
]17,..
.."
P POWER PLANT
INDUSTRY
X INCINERATOR
A AIRPORT
i INSTITUTION
w
w
-------
Table VIII
Summary of Point Source Emissions by Season
For the Atlanta Study Area, 1967 (Tons/Day)
SOx . PART
Source Category Grid S W A S W A
Industrial 6 .01 .21 .09 .09 .04
Industrial 8
Airport 8 0.18 0.18 0.18
Industr-ial 9 .05 .02
Airport 13 0.16 0.16 0.16
Power Plant 14 33.86 33.86 33.40 18.49 18.49 18.24
Power Plant 14 136.84 136.84 134.96 37.24 37.24 36.72
Incineration " 21 .38 .38 .38' 3.21 3.21 3.21
Industrial 21 .49 .49 .49 4.70 4.70 4.70
Industrial 22 .13 .13 .13
Industrial 22 .82 .82 .82
Incineration 26 .43 .43 .43 3.73 3.73 3.73
Power Plant 30 5.02 1.77 7 .38 2.60
Industrial 31 .07 .07 .07 4.79 4.79 4.79
Industrial 31 2.64 3.78 3.11 0.20 0.29 0.24
Incineration 31 0.57 0.57 0.57 4.82 4.82 4.82
Power Plant 31 5.02 1. 77 7.38 2. 60
Industrial 35 .41 .41 .41'
Airport 45 9.62 9.62 9.62
Industrial 45 .05 .06 .05 .05 .06 .05
Industrial 46 .01 .03 .02 .01 .04 .02
Industrial 49 .88 .88 .88
Industrial 51 2.06 2.06 2.06
Institutional 52 .59 .24 .22 .09
w
.c-
-------
35
Table IX
Emissions from Total Sources in Atlanta Study Area by Grid (tons/day)
Grid Area SUM SOx AVG SUM PART. AVG
(m! 2) WIN WIN
1 154.40 0.24 0.82 0.48 1.12 1.29 1.19
2 154.40 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.88 0.90 0.89
3 154.40 0.06 0.25 0.14 0.59 0.64 0.61
4 154.40 0.08 0.45 0.23 0.30 0.41 0.34
5 38.60 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.16
6 38.60 0.28 1.15 0.64 1.23 1.54 1. 36
7 38.60 0.18 0.19 0.18 1.02 1.04 1.03
a 38.60 0.30 0.31 O.JO 1.83 1.86 1.86
9 38.60 0.15 0.23 0.18 0.67 0.77 0.71
10 38.60 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.17 0.15
11 154.40 0.03 v.20 0.10 0.18 0.22 0.19
12 38.60 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.30
13 38.60 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.44 0.44 0.44
14 9.65 170 . 77 170.79 168.43 55.99 56.01 55.22
15 9.65 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.38 0.39 0.38
16 9.65 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.60 0.67 0.63
17 9.65 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.42 0.44 0.43
18 9.65 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.34 0.35 0.34
. 19 9.65 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.14 0.17 0.15
20 38.60 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.21 0.22 0.21
21 9.65 1.22 1. 35 1.27 8.72 8.88 8.79
22 9.65 0.33 0.48 0.39 1.88 2.09 1.97
~. 9.65 .0.38
23 1.07" 0.67 1.06 1.45 1.22
24 9.65 0.16 0.35 0.24 0.59 0.68 0.63
25 9.65 0.12 '0.28 0.18 0.43 0.50 0.46
26 9.65 0.47 0.47 0.47 3.89 3.90 3.90
27 38.60 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33
28 38.60 0.15 .0.17 0.16 0.69 0.71 0.70
29 9.65 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.54 0.55 0.55
30 9.65 0.45 6.32 2.58 1.28 8.98 4.01
31 9.65 4.03 13.20 7.51 11. 77 20.84 15.06
32 9.65 '0.22 0.45 0.31 0.81 0.91 0.85
33 9.65 0.14 . 0.34 0.22 0.51 0.59 0.54
34 9.65 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.:34 0.35 0.34
35 38.60 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.58 0.59 0.59
36 9.65 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.25 0.26 0.26
37 9.65 0.23 0.32 0.26 0.69 0.85 0.75
38 9.65 0.31 0.83 0.53 0.94 1.26 1.06
39 9.65 0.08 0.18 0.12 0.31 0.34 0.32
40 9.65 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.08
41 9.65 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.06
42 38.60 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
43 38.60 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.32 0.33 0.33
44 9.65 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.21
45 9.65 0.24 0.28 0.25 10.27 10.35 10.30
-------
. .
Table IX
. 35(a).
Emissions from Total Sources (cont.)
Grid Area SUM SOx AVG SUM PART. AVG
(mi2) WIN WIN
46 9.65 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.31 .0.36 0.33
47 9.65 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.07
48 38.60 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.09
49 . 9.65 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.01 1.01 1.01
50 9.65 0.04 0.04 . 0.04 0.28 0.29 0.28
51 9.65 0.09 0.34 0.19 2.64 2.71 2.67
52 9.65 0.02 0.61 0.26 0.18 0.41 0.28
53 38.60 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.25
54 38.60 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.26 0.27 0.26
55 38.60 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.08
56 38.60 0.07 '0.32 0.18 0.63 0.68 0.65
57 38.60 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.08
58 154.40 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
59 154.40 0.06 0.31 0.16 0.19 0.25 0.21
60 154.40 0.02 0.18 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.07
61 154.40 0.05 0.37 0.18 0.76 0.84 0.79
-------
>
" t;:;
.....8
IU I-'-
::3 en
" en
IU ....
o
tIJ::3
rt
~ t::1
p.1!)
::3
tI)
>1-'-
1'1 rt
~
"Jj
H
C')
c::
~
.....
W
tIJ
C
.....
,..,.
C
1'1
o
><
I-'-
P.
I!)
H>
'1
o
S
>
.....
.....
tIJ
o
C
'1
()
~
u<
..~_...-
I
I
i
I
\
I
i
I
i
L.._--
r-,-U--l
I I ,--............
!! / "'-.."
,j l :' I' "
r' '-.-, /
t '''''",",;
----~ ' I
, -~ ,
( ---7
,.-.,
,-1--, )
: .'
,f
I ..-s
,
/
,'-"-, ,
. '''J
\
\ .
"-.J'" .J
--, .
\., /
&('
:It_~
"
r -----_r\........-",----
I CC8I COUII1'f
I
I
I
I
\
.
i.
I"';' l'
(...,'"
-"""
"
"
"
-------
fill TOIl COUIITT
--
n-
'-J
r"
,
,.J
I
"
..
'.... :
\) I
:
rf" --..., ...J
'"" : L.......J
\, I
~ i
, I
'--.L-..-----, -
'----
..
t
-
!.)
r,"
-----;
,.. .)"
"---.. r- ..r
,
~
~--=--=-~.:.:-:. =' ~-i"
"
--~. p,.....,
1 ~ . ...' .
/
,
,
)1)!rO
)11 ~e
r.J
j
}~ ~~~
"'-"
,'.'" ,/1
..../i "
/
,
I
I
,
.
I
'"...
..
,
.
,
....
L
\
)
,/"
,
JU,MI
3'.011
'I"~
o
D
tIJ..e<.
.: :;.;
-X; k
i~~;
II
SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS,
ton s/mi 2 -day
< 0.01
0.01 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.75
0,75 - 2.50
w
a-
> 2.50
-------
,-,..------\
,. ;
~ I
. .
l :
"-..-, ,)
\,.,'\ j
-, I
, ....
---7
r'--'
.....r, )
J .-
f
II3IICIOS$
...,
H
~
c::
~
I-'
~
..,
HI
1"\
0
e
>
I-'
I-'
en
0
~
1"\ t
(')
~
C/)
"
..
''\ i
) ---. j
'\ ~ L......r
. I
( ~
, I
, .
'--1------.., - cum
'---
1S~
L
1(1
.L- -
"
,.
II
:JD ..r.~_.
IS ,,_....1....1..
~~
,---..........
( "
I ...............
"
..
IIcDOIIOUGII
..,
{./
--~
"O~ ..
\.,-~,- ._1'
...,f//
~.
J7J)Q
"
..." ./1
../' "
!
I
I
I
.
I
",
"~I
,
"
l
\
/
/'
,
,
Ju,"
)7."
7'~O
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS,
Ion 11m i 2.day
r..!
I
.J
J'.O(
J.,QQ
o
Lid
111
II
II
< 0.01
0.01 - 0.10
0.10 - 1.00
1.00 - 2.00
> 2.00
W
-...J
-------
'.
38
area.
About 2 million tons of coal were consumed; 97 percent
of this was used by the steam power plants.
Residential and
industrial users consume little coal because of the availability
of natural gas from two major pipeline systems pas~ing through
Atlanta.
Most of the oil consumed is low sulfur distillate
fuel oil for residential heating.
Relatively small amounts
of htgher sulfur residual oi1 are consumed in industrial
opera~ions.
Coal used in the area has a low sulfur content
(an average of 1.7 percent).
The sulfur conteut of natural
gas is practically negligible (an average of
.0008 percent).
The present major electric power generating plants in
the Atlanta area are the two steam plants on the Chattahoochee
River in Cobb County.
In addition to consuming most of the
coal used in the area,
these plants uaed about 13 billion
cubic feet of natural gas on an interrupted basis and consumed
a small quantity (7,000 barrels) of fuel oil.
As a result,
high emission densit~es 'are found in the grid
zone containing
these power plants
even
though the coal burned has a low
sulfur content.
The Atlanta
area is
supplied power by the Georgia Power
Company and the Southern Company, with interties to TVA and
private utilities in Virginia and the Carolinas.
Generally,
utilities in the Nat~on have estimated power requ~rements as
doubling every ten years.
In the Atlanta area, capacity needs
for the future have been planned for some time on the basis of
~
-------
39
a doubling of power consumption every eight to nine years,
a compound growth rate of eight to nine percent per year which
has so far provided for Atlanta's needs
even
in a period of
strong growth.
Additional load requirements as determined by
this formula are presently planned to be met by 1,494,000 KW
of additional capacity at Cartersville in Bartow County as
well as by new plants at locations more distant from Atlanta.
No additional capacity is presently propo~ed along the Chatta-
hoochee River.
There may be a problem of continued use of the low-sulfur
coal presently burned at the Smyrna plants, as well as elsewhere
in the statewide Georgia Power Company system, because of
growing demands for such coal in the entire Atlantic Seaboard
area.
It is possible that higher sulfur content coal may have
to be used at the two new large plants being installed at
Cartersville located 5 miles to the northwest of Acworth.
About one-fourth of the particulate matter emitted in
the survey area results from the incineration of refuse.
The source location of incinerator facilities adds to the
seriousness of the problem.
In the central section of Atlanta,
the air quality data indicate that significant quantities of
particulate matter may be generated by demolition activities
associated with urban renewal and expressway construction.
These
sources of particulate pollution are not included in the emission
inventory but must be considered in an overall pollution control
program.
-------
40
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
The boundaries of an air quality control region should be
designed to include both pollution sources and people and
property affected by those sources.
Sources and source areas
were identified by the emission inventory discussed in the pre-
ceding section.
The emission inventory does not.
however,
pro-
vide information about the location of people and property affected
by the identified
sources.
Further examination of air quality
data in the study area is necessary before the regional boundary
can be described.
The best way to determine the atmospheric distribution of
contaminants is to review air quality sampling data which have
been measured over sufficient points and enough times to be
useful.
Air quality sampling networks in Fulton County have
provided useful data for this determination.
The available
air quality data from such sampling. however. are not sufficiently
comprehensive to fully describe the effects of pollutant
emissions in the vicinity of certain large pollutant sources.
A meteorological diffusion model has been used to compute
theoretical concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air.
The model is based on a mathematical treatment of pollutant
emissions
and meteorological factors such as wind speed. wind
direction, and mixing depths.
While there are certain limitations
inherent to the model (e.g.
topographical variations are not
-------
41
taken into account} it has been used to describe probable long
term (seasonal and annual) average pollutant dispersion patterns.
,
METEOROLOGY
In order to understand the mechanism by which emissions are
dispersed, an analysis of meteorological data is needed.
The general climate of the Atlanta area is a function of
its altitude (900-1,000 feet above sea level) and its relation-
ship to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.
The mountains
to the north and west tend to partially block southward movement
of polar air masses so that normal winter temperatures are above
freezing.
Surface winds in the area vary on the average from 7 to
12 miles per hour over the year, adequate for v,entilation but
seldom unpleasant or damaging.
The winds prevail from the
northwest during the winter months, and during the summer they
tend to be westerly and from the northeast (Figure IS).
An important factor in the dispersion of pollution is
the depth of the air layer through which pollutants mix (Table X).
Dispersion in the Atlanta area is greatest during summer after-
noons. but tends to be restricted during mornings throughout
the year.
Prolonged periods of stagnation conditions, when there is
very little wind movement, are considered periods of high air
pollution potential.
The Appalachian Mountain chain develops a
-------
WINTER
~.,t/
-171~
ANNUAL
(Includes All Four Averaging Periods)
~I/Y
-
~I~
42
SUMMER
~IV
~I~
PERCENY FREQUENCY
FIGURE 15 - Wind Direction Percent Frequency of Occurrence
for Various Averaging Times
-------
43
significant number of such days, and Atlanta, near the southern
terminus of the mountains is affected by more than half of the
forecast high pollution potential days.
Stagnation periods are
more than twice as likely in the Atlanta area as in cities such
as Baltimore, New York, or Boston.
Additionally, shorter term
temperature inversions are quite probable, particularly in the
fall.
These inversions tend
to place a "lid" on the atmosphere
for periods of four to eight hours, gener&lly disappearing by
early afternoon.
Low mixing depths in the morning coupled with
the inversion "lid" create short-term periods of seriously de-
graded air quality which are not reflected in tabulations of
"average" air quality.
TABLE X
MIXING DEPTHS
Atlanta
(in meters)
Winter Summer Annual
MORNING 350 380 340
AFTERNOON 975 1,870 1,490
AVERAGE 665 1,125 915
MODELING RESULTS
The contours defined by the diffusion model have been combined
-------
44
in
Figure 16 to show theoretical concentration of sulfur oxides
and particulates in winter and summer. l!/
Note that the dif- .
fusion of pollutants in the area is relatively well-contained.
in and near the city of Atlanta.
This distribution is explained
by the generally moderate air currents usually encountered here.
AIR SAMPLING DATA
The Fulton County Health Department maintains a sampling
program which includes both fixed-station continuous sampling
and a trailer installation which is used in various parts of
the County.
Measurements of sulfur dioxide by the Health Department
confirm the NAPCA inventory and diffusion model.
In the February
1969 report of The Air Pollution Control Section, it is stated
that"
. the highest concentration of 0.420 parts per million
(1201 micrograms per cubic meter) occurred when the trailer was
in the vicinity of the two large power plants which burn coal."
Figure 17 represents measured sulfur dioxide levels from the
Health Department trailer survey over the period August 1967 to
July 1968.
Sampling data for particulates in the period, July 1967
to September 1968, from 203 samples at fifteen stations within
Fulton Cdunty, show a median of 107 micrograms per cubic meter.
The highest measurement was 999 micrograms per cubic meter, and
l!/
It should be kept in mind that the concentration contours
resulting from the diffusion model are theoretical in nature
and not intended to represent measured ambient air quality.
The contours are most useful as a general guide for the further
examination of areas most likely to be affected by emissions.
. .
-------
-.. ,
J l 1'...
J- , ~ "
:- - ~B; - \FULTON '? G\HNNETT .'\
. ~ ) ,,{-~'?q \
, .. 43 /'
~ ~
..
r..-- 71\ /
B6 )-'
, ,
I D'JUGLA3 DeXALB I
i r-' r-' \---Cy'
.--(' FULTON i CLAYTON I \....
,... -"\ ( ,-"
--.. -.V" ''\ (' \.,
, \
< N HEN?Y . )
J ' ,
u.-~~_... ,r'/
\...../
SULFUR 'JXIDES (SU:1"!E1\)
,,-.
, 1 ,-...,
,'/ '-. I ...........-
r - - - ---\ FULTON '., GHINNETT"
I COBB , "\ r- \
, \
I " 20 )
I ~~
I
1 g /'
!-- 7~y'
I DOUGLAS DeKALPl
. /' - ~'"
L----y' FULTON i '..:.
''---....r-lf' \LAYTOf .'"""
~ rJ HENRY ')
I I I
U---,- ,7
-\.../
PARTICULATES (SUMMER)
o
10
f': 45 r-.
.-- - - - ..(.. '-..'-.1
I COBB ..\FULlO:~.~
I f-
I I .{, G""NNET<
I 29
J-- ~~
r-- . \
. I .llt .¥
I ,
I ))')!JGLAS . DeKALB .I
L' ,. ~ 'CLAYTON \ -\:."...j
.-( FULTO~ __,L ('\...,
, \ I '-
'-- ' - \/ ,( HEWlY
) ,..J
I r
\...'--,. -, l
~.
SULFUR OXIDES (WINTER)
-- ,
f'! ('"
, '\. ,
,--- -\ FULTO~ ..~
I C0BB 1 ,,-...,j'CiHNNETT
I r-.
I
I
I
I
--
r---J
i DOUGL~
Ir-'/" FULTON
\ -'
---V.V"
20
~/.O
to
y
. eKALj'
-~v'
( ..
LAYTON I '"'-,
'J "\.
\.. I .
I I HENRY )
(r0 I
: I ~
'yJ- -'\. ---'...-.t'/
PARTICULATES (iJINTER)
20
30
miles
FIGURE 16 - Theoretical Concentrations: Sulfur Oxides
and Particulates.. Values in Micrograms per
Cubic Meter
,1':".
-------
.
!
~
c
....
N
o
en
c,..
o
c
o
....
~
ell
~
~
C
GI
f.)
c
8
1.00
0.10
0.01
.001
46
o Max. 502
(
. Avg. 502
41>
4~ c
8
10
1967
11
3
4
1968
6
7
5
1
2
12
9
~
months
>-
FIGURE 17 - Measured Sulfur Dioxide Levels; Fulton
County Health Department, 1967-68
1-&
2860 OJ
4.1
OJ
S
.
o
u
-------
47
the lowest, 34 micrograms per cubic meter.
Trailer samplings
at seven sites in Fulton County measured a high of 796 micrograms
per cubic meter (in midtown Atlanta, March 1969) and a low of
39 micrograms per cubic meter (at a rural site north of the
City).
TABLE XI
PARTICULATES
(micrograms per cubic meter)
SITE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HIGH 222 282 796 96 150 461 376
LOW 109 142 587 39 81 77 85
AVERAGE 152 216 695 76 118 178 167
Figure 18 identifies the sampling locations.
Analysis of the emission inventory, the diffusion model,
and the air quality data clearly supports the conclusions of the
1969 Fulton County Health Department Report:
"1.
Fulton County has an air pollution problem.
2.
The automobile is the County's major source of pollution.
3.
88% of S02 originates from the burning of coal by the
Georgia Power Company.
4.
Heavy industrial areas,
resulting from zoning, concentrates
industrial emission and creates zones of high pollution.
-------
48
FUL TON
COUNTY
N
.
.
5 0
10-0001 ...--.. 1--.1
5
I
SCALE IN MILES
.
FIGURE 18 - Trailer Sampling Locations
Fulton County, Georgia, 1969
SourCE!:
Fulton County Health Department, Industrial
Hyg~ene and Air Pollution Control Section.
-------
49
5.
Ambient air, continuous monitoring will provide a
baseline against which industrial areas can be evaluated.
6.
Excluding transportation as a source, particulates,
or visible emissions, make up about 31% of the total and
their control would be that most noticed by the public.
7.
Federal regulations on vehicle emissions are mandatory
if Fulton (;ounty is to improve its general air quality."
-------
50
REGIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
The Atlanta
area is
located entirely within the State of
Georgia.
Within the area, the Atlanta Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area encompasses Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, and
Clayton Counties.
These five counties form the Metropolitan Atlanta
Council of Local Governments (MACLOG) and the district covered by
the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission (ARMPC)
(Figure 19).
Atlanta is a major Federal regional center, containing the
regional offices of most Federal agencies, including the Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare.
Both a United States
District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals are located here.
The City is also the Georgia State Capitol.
It is,
therefore,
an important governmental center for all levels of government.,
PLANNING ACTIVITIES
The principal intergovernmental coordination agency in the
area
is MACLOG, organized in 1964 with representation provided
for each of the local governments in the five-county region.
MACLOG's activities are closely related to those of ARMPC,
the
official planning agency for the five-county region.
MACLOG has a full-time staff of six persons including a
Coordinator, which functions under an Executive Committee of
elected public officials.
Together with ARMPC,
it has carried
out an ambitious work plan including a 1967 Solid Waste Disposal
-------
,_...------\
" I
I I /-'"
J: l ~
~-' l I - "
:" '----- ) -"""'" /1
r-,---_~,_r'-_- . ',: - . -.... ~,
I C0B8 COUNTT ------"------~ "\, -/ ,-
I I '-, I /
I ' ,---.... ,.
: " .7 /
I f'-'.'
'I' -,"\ ) /
,.. fJ .' ""....
, '.., ,''''''''' ' "
!~np I .,_1 IIOIU05S "-...
~ ,,' '> ,-... "'
-J :~ I: \ (/ \
....' , . " ,J
,~-.., .". /'
r./ ~) -', //
...,1 '1' "
..." ' '
,. (~~t') ""-" £/'
,.i-'..'\.l'\\ '"r,J-"..'. t~. '... #c,'
j ',-..;. . ~vi '...1/ '-.
\.,,-,. ,_I,.., ., ."', ~
--:.::. - ATIAIm jOECAU ~...... '\.. / .
~ I ':~::: \... /.,
/".." I I-...~"'/'" '
't ,"1" "I ~:::{~; I,
<,;',;1 ,Y ~r:I
H
C)
c::
,c
tr1
I-'
'"
->
">:Irt
1-'-1-'
< I\)
II> ::s
rt
I\)
.
l,
,
:
I
,
i
.
\
L-------- ",-
., ~
\ ~("."
\ ii
.. ,,-I
\, ~l~
(')
0-
c: CII
=' "
"I\)
,.... ='
II> Q.
In I\)
t;
Q.
I\)
I-'
C/J :.::
.0 II>
III> ~
=' 0
(')
o
E1
o
I-'
....
I\) "
(IJ I\)
C/J ='
:,::cn
>rt
(")1\)
t"'rt
0....
C)(IJ
'"
I\) ....
=' (')
Q.I\)
I-'
t
>
::0>
:'::1'1
'"all>
(")1\)
--
~
~
, -
- 13 :n;
-- -~--
U1
....
"
JO .01,.......,.
15"......_1...,1..
-------
52
Study, a review of fire protection in the area, a library project,
and the establishment of Metropol, a law enforcement project for
the area.
Its present work program includes additional partici-
pation in Comprehensive Health Planning, improvement in regional
library services, and continuation of the Metropol law enforcement
project.
Planning by the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
has been extensive.
Elements of a comprehensive plan have been
published,
including parks and open space, sewer and water, popu-
lation and employment,
capitol improvements, and codes.
Work is
continuing on the 1988 Regional Development Plan.
ARMPC was
authorized by the Georgia legislature in 1960 to "make...a master
plan for the orderly growth and development of the district as a
whole."
It adopted in 1968
a goals statement which has been re-
commended to all of the metropolitan area governments.
Additionally, Atlanta and Fulton County have a Joint Planning
Board, and the City of Atlanta maintains a Planning Department.
Planning for the City of Atlanta is coordinated with ARMPC acti-
vities, and the City's comprehensive plan is being updated in the
four elements of Community Facilities, Land Use, Major Thorough-
fares and Public Improvement.
The Atlanta Area Transportation
Study, now nearing completion, involves elements of each of
these planning agencies.
The Community Council of the Atlanta Area, Inc. has been
designated as the 314 (b) agency
(Com~reh~nsive Health Planning)
-------
53
for the region.
Additionally, the area is served by the Georgia
Regional Medical Program.
Various parts of the larger 19-county area are included
in
three different Economic Development Districts, and the northern
tier of counties are in the Appalachian Regional Commission area.'
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACTIVITIES
Air Pollution Control programs are generally supervised by
the Georgia State Department of Health under 1968 legislation.
Fulton County has an active local program under regulations simi-,
lar to State reg~lations pass~d in 1969.
The County Health
Department is encouraging the enactment of regulations in all of
the municipalities under its jurisdiction.
There are no active
local programs ,in the area other than that in Fulton County.
The Fulton County program has been a leader in the State in
planning and implementing a program.
It employs twelve p~ople
and proposes a 1970 budget of $156,000.
Among its current pro-
jects are:
Registration of pollution
sources ,in
the County
Reviewing const~uction plans for proper control equipment.
Expanding air quality sampling.
Joint industry - health department compliance program.
Public education.
! '
-------
54
INDICATED AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
Subject to the scheduled consultation, it seems appropriate
to consider an air quality control region in the Atlanta
area
consisting of the following counties (Figure 20):
Clayton
Cobb
DeKalb
Douglas
Fulton
Gwinnett
Henry
DISCUSSION
An air quality control region should meet these basic
conditions:
1.
It should encompass most pollution sources as well as
most people and property affected by the sources;
2.
It should include those areas where industrial and
residential growth may create significant future
problems.
3.
It should be consistent with unified and cooperative
administration of the region's air resources.
The Evaluation of Technical Factors section of this report
discusses the first condition, the Evaluation of Urban Factors
deals with the second, and Regional Governmental Organizations
covers the third condition.
The diffusion maps, taken together with the emission 1n-
ventory and available air quality data, show principal
so.urces
-------
'TJ
~
c;')
c:
\:10
tzj
[-,,------,
I '
, I
\! /-----,
__,1' " ~
r'~-- r" l I "
I C088 couiiY--_n_---".....----,,- 0 -----. I
I ---..--\ "
I ' " i
: ( -, I
I ' "'»
: r'--"
i ~-" j /
I ,., fl .,./
" ~ ,'~ r .,
! 1,(" I "4 ..... "
,I \ ,r,~' '
I ,.'. : v ''\
~' .
, . '
i ,', )
, /f'J '" //
i " ~)' .
. . ~- - (/~ 'f """ /
1', -.-----.j POUGW cooli;'.. ..,n (t.rt) "" ~/'
I ,-" \ i .. c', ',,,' '\ '" '. offY
: >'" t.,."': i~? ')! ',;/
I ~ --'" --1-" p' '''. 'f/
, >,; ",£c,';' '>./
I \ - I I ..._....,.,
, 1....,(" ft 'I ""':::{L"I //
~"'JJ ~ (e ',-,
I . (f -,1'- , .
! i. ,~~: I /
, f "" ' '
I fJf-""-~----_.'" .... I,
, ,- '[,..r-T. "-
L---~ \ ......... l, \: - 1..../
I L,
I rr- \
-..-1-, : \.../' f
RIl ......., - l JOIIUBORO rJ ',-
- -- - -- ~_~OUIITT ../ ,r-.( I ... "
---~/ ," ,. I
. . \. ~ 1
'1: 't,,-
.) I
i~ :
L.. I'''' r.J
\ 1 '-..J
; !
~ i
I. I"
'-- 1-
-----I HfHRYCOONTY r.J
1.---- I
--i -j
I~. r'
''''-..r -_J--
"'-, /,1
'- "
.../ ,-
/
;
/
I
,
N
o
0,;
1"\
o
o
I/)
(1)
0.
>
t't
.....
1\1
::s
t't
1\1
>
...'
1"\
n
o
::s
t't
1"\
o
.....
....
o
t
McDOIKIUGH
.-,
, .
\jJ
~
It)
\.11
\.11
~--
o ...-
"
----4- .-
"
"
.. -
"
-~s .~.:<:;':~::."
-------
56
and effects centered in and immediately surrounding the City of
Atlanta.
These data do not, however, take into account the
probability of sources and effects which may be found in the
industrialized areas surrounding the SMSA.
Therefore, while
it can be concluded that the SMSA should be included in the
air quality control region,
technical factors alone do not
permit the determination of outer boundaries because of insuf-
ficient data for the outlying counties.
The Atlanta
area is
characterized by great diversity and
geographic dispersion of manufacturing linked together by an
excellent transportation system.
Even though ARMPC proposes
limiting outward development over the next twenty years, it
does not appear likely that existing trends can be sufficiently
changed to prevent continuation of diffused development into
adjoining counties.
Both the transportation network and the
availability of land appears to support this.
If this assump-
tion of continued centrifugal growth is valid,
then comprehensive
planning activities in the region must take it into
account;
of particular importance will be the development of adequate
water resources in the south and west of
the region.
The Atlanta area is fortunate that, with the exception of
the automobile, pollution sources are not yet beyond control.
By establishing an air quality cont~ol region
now,
the area
will preserve its opportunities for effective air quality control
programs.
-------
57
The third point - consistency with unified and cooperative
administration of the air resource - is in part satisfied
because the proposed Region is entirely intrastate.
While it
is true that neither MACLOG or ARMPC presently concern them-
selves with the entire area, all of the area over which they
have jurisdiction is included.
Further, the air quality control"
regulations now in force in Fulton County are closely tied to
existing State regulations, so that conformity between differing
regulatory schemes is not a difficult problem.
And finally, it
is probable that MACLOG and ARMPC will have to expand their
planning boundaries as further development takes place.
At the same time, continuing consideration must be given
to future inclusion of additional counties, especially Bartow,
Hall, Rockdale, Spalding, Fayette, and Forsyth.
To the south,
the city of Griffin, in Spalding County, is already a sizable
manufacturing community.
To the northwest, Cartersville in Bartow County, the site
of two new power plants, is becoming a chemical and plastics
center; Gainesville in Hall County is a major food processing
center.
Further development can be expected along the north-
east and northwest corridors which are centered on the inter-
state highways.
The indicated Region offers the opporLunity to develop an
effective regional effort to prevent, control and abate air pol-
lution in the Atlanta area.
It preserves county boundaries and
includes within it the entire jurisdiction of regional planQing
organizations.
------- |