REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION FOR THE
NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNECTICUT INTERSTATE AREA
'DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH/ EDUCATION/ AND WELFARE
•J, S, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
-------
REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION FOR THE
NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNECTICUT INTERSTATE AREA
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
U.s. Public Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
August 30, 1968
-------
CONTENTS
Preface
..... .............................................. ........
Introduction
............................................... .......
Proposed Region
.......................... .........................
Discussion of Proposal
.......................... ...... .......
Evaluation of Urban Factors
............... ........................
Summary
[[[ .
EvaJuation of Engineering Factors
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary
.............. ........................................
Appendices
... [[[
A.
Emission Inventory Procedures and Results
................
B.
Diffusion Model Procedure and Results
-------
PREFACE.
The Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, is
directed by the Air Quality Act of 1967 to designate "air quality con-
trol regions" to provide a basis for the establishment of air quality
standards and the implementation of air quality control programs.
In
addition to listing the major factors to be considered in the develop-
ment of region boundaries, the Act stipulates that the designation of
a region shall be preceded by consultation with appropriate State and
local authorities.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration, DHEW, has CQn-
ducted a study of the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut urban area, the
results of which are presented in this report.
The Region* boundaries
proposed in this report reflect consideration of all available and per-
tinent data; however, the boundaries remain subject to revision suggest-
ed by consultation with State and local authorities.
Formal designation
will be withheld pending the outcome of that meeting.
This report is
intended to serve as the starting point for the consultation.
The Administration is appreciative of assistance received either
directly during the course of this study or indirectly during previous
activities in the New York City Metropolitan Area from the official
air pollution agencies of the City of New York and the States of New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
Useful data was also supplied by
*For the purposes of this report, the word region, when capitalized,
will refer to the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate Air Quality
Control Region. When not capitalized, unless otherwise noted, it will
refer to air quality control regions in general.
-------
the Tri-State Transportation Commission, the Regional Plan Associ-
ation, and the New York City Council on Economic Education.
-------
1
INTRODUCTION
"For the purpose of establishing ambient air
quality standards pursuant to section 108, and for
administrative and other purposes, the Secretary,
after consultation with appropriate State and local
authorities shall, to the extent feasible, within
18 months after the date of enactment of the Air
Quality Act of 1967 designate air quality control
regions based on jurisdictional boundaries, urban-
industrial concentrations, and other factors including
atmospheric areas necessary to provide adequate
implementation of air quality standards. The
Secretary may from time to time thereafter, as he
determines necessary to protect the public health
and welfare and after consultation with appropriate
State and local authorities, revise the designation
of such regions and designate additional air quality
control regions. The Secretary shall immediately
notify the Governor or Governors of the affected
State or States of such designation."
Section 107 (a) (2), Air Quality Act of 1967
THE AIR QUALITY ACT
Air pollution in most of the Nation's urban areas is a regional
problem.
Consistent with the problem, the solution demands coordinated
regional planning and regional effort.
Yet, with few exceptions, such
coordinated efforts are notable by their absence in the Nation "8 urban
complexes.
Beginning with the Section quoted above, in which the Secretary
is required to designate air quality control regions, the Air Quality
Act presents an approach to air pollution control involving closely
coordinated efforts by Federal, State, and local governments, as shown
in Figure 1.
After the Secretary has (1) designated regions, (2) pub-
lished air quality criteria, and (3) published corresponding documents
-------
HEW designates
air quality
control regions.
HEW develops and
publishes air
quality criteria
based on scientific
evidence of air
pollution effects.
HEW prepares
and pu blishes
information on
available control
techniques.
States hold
hearings and
set air quality
standards in the
air quality
control regions.
States establish plans for implementation, .
considering factors such as:
. Existing pollutant levels in the region
.Number, location, and types of sources
. Meteorology
. Control tech nology
. Air pollution growth trends
Implementation plans would set forth
abatement procedures, outlining factors
such as:
. Emission standards for the categories of
sources in the region.
HEW
reviews
State
standards.
. How enforcement will be employed to
i nsu re uniform a nd coord inated contr,)!
action involving State, local, and regional
authorities.
. Abatement schedules for the sources t~'
insure that air quality standards wili r.W
achieved within a reasonable time.
HEW reviews
State implementation plans.
States act to control air
pollution in accordance with
air quality standards and plans
for implementation.
Figure 1. Flow diagram for State action to control air pollution on a regional basis.
N
-------
3
on control technology and associated costs, the State(s) must file
with the Secretary, HEW, within 90 days a letter of intent, indicating
the State(s) will adopt within 180 days ambient air quality standards
for the pollutants covered by the criteria documents, and, within an
additional 180 days plans for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of those standards adopted for designated air quality
control regions.
The new Federal legislation provides for a regional attack on
the problem and, at the same time, provides latitude for these region-
al efforts.
While the Secretary has approval authority, the State or
States involved in a designated region assume responsibility for develop-
ing standards and an implementation plan which includes administrative
procedures for abatement and control.
It is conceivable that an infor-
mal cooperative arrangement with proper safeguards will be adequate in
some regions, whereas in others, more formal arrangements, such as in-
terstate compacts, may be selected.
The objective in each instance
will be to provide effective mechanisms for control on a regional basis.
PROCEDURE IN DESIGNATION OF REGIONS
Figure 2 illustrates the procedure used by the Administration
in the designation of an air quality control region.
A preliminary
delineation of the region is developed by bringing together two es-
sentially separate studies -- the "Engineering Evaluation" and the
research into "Urban Factors."
To be successful, an air quality
control region must include jurisdictions capable of administering a
-------
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Input Computer Output
- Emissions ~ Pollutant ... Iso-Intensity
- Meteorology Diffusion
-.Physical Dim. Model Graphs
I Existing Air
~
I Quality
j Sampling 1 r
I Data
. Preliminary Consultation Formal
!
Delineation ~ with State ~ Desi~nation
of and Local by
Regions Officials Secretary-HEW
URBAN FACTORS
. Jurisdictional Boundaries
. Urban-Industrial Concentrations
. Cooperative Regional Arrangements
. I'attern and Rate of Growth
. Existing State and Local Air
Pollution Control Legislation & Programs
Figure 2. Flow diagram for the designation of air quality control regions.
.j:>.
-------
5
coordinated control effort, and the combination must include an area
large enough for a comprehensive attack on the problem of air pollu-
tion.
The study of urban factors provides insight on the nature of
the jurisdictions
and the engineering evaluation provides an indica-
tion of the geographical extent of the problem.
For air pollution that is truly regional in scope, air quality
control regions must be defined so as to include the majority of the
pollution sources contributing to the problem in an urban area and
must be extensive enough to encompass the majority of the population
and property affected by pollution emanating from the sources within
the area.
This requirement could be generally satisfied by individual
evaluation of the major factors -- the location, nature, and quantity
of pollutant emissions; present and projected patterns of urban develop-
ment; existing air quality levels; and prevailing air pollution meteor-
ology.
While separate consideration of these individual factors provides
useful insight on the nature of an urban area, it does not provide a
direct or dynamic indication of the extent of influence of sources in
an urban complex.
To supplement available air quality data, a constantly-evolving
technique referred to as diffusion modeling is employed.
Diffusion
modeling is a semi-dynamic process in which the air quality levels
at selected locations are estimated by calculating and adding to-
gether the weighted centribution from each of the sources, or groups
of sources, within the area under consideration.
As with most mathe-
matical simulation approaches, the calculations are repetitive and
-------
6
time-consuming, and so they are routinely carried out with the aid of
a computer.
These steps are outlined under "Engineering Evaluation" in Figure
2, and the box labeled "Input" describes the information required to
apply the diffusion model.
This information consists of data on the
nature and quantity of the pollutants being released and the physical
location of the sources, the average depth of air available for mixing
and dilution, the frequency of various wind velocities (direction
and speed) and the physical dimensions and topography of the urban
area under study.
The necessary calculations are made with this infor-
mation in the next step, labeled "Computer."
The result or "Output"
of the diffusion model approach is the estimated pattern of air quality
levels caused by the sources of a given pollutant within the area.
Because of the experimental nature of diffusion modeling, the results
are interpreted as theoretical.
After making necessary empirical
adjustments, "iso-intensity" lines (which will usually be closed,
irregulary-shaped contours of equal concentrations) can be developed
and presented in graphic or map form;
These graphs help establish
general geographical limits for the extent of influence of pollution
sources in a given area and, thus, serve as a guide to the necessary
size of the air quality control region.
The term "Urban Factors" encompasses all consicieratiolls of a
non-engineering nature.
Several examples are listed in Figure 2,
but many other factors are covered.
The existence and extent of
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Planning Areas of the
-------
7
Department of Housing and Urban Development are examples of some of
the additional factors that influence the final result in a given
region.
Based on the concept that, with some possible exceptions, it
is inadvisable to consider the inclusion of only part of a county in
a region, the study of urban factors results in a preliminary region
made up of the most reasonable combination of counties consistent with
the engineering evaluation.
The recommendation as to size and shape of the air quality control
region for the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut area and the supporting
documentation make up the body of this report.
The report itself is
meant to serve as the background document for the formal consultation
with the appropriate State and local authorities, and based on the
consultation, the Region boundaries proposed herein are subject to
revision within the discretion of the Secretary, HEW.
Following the
consultation, the Secretary will publish the final determination of
the Region in the Federal Register and will notify Governors of
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut of his official designation.
-------
8
THE PROPOSED REGION
Subject to the scheduled consultation, the Secretary, Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, proposes to designate an air quality
control region for the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut interstate area,
consisting of the following jurisdictions:
In the State of Connecticut
Greenwich Township
Stamford Township
Darien Township
New Canaan Township
Norwalk Township
Wilton Township
Weston Township
Westport Township
Fairfield Township
Easton Township
Bridgeport Township
Stratford Township
Trumbull Township
Monroe Township
Ridgefield Township
Redding Township
Newtown Township
Bethel Township
Danbury Township
Brookfield Township
New Fairfield Township
In the State of New York
Kings County
Bronx County
Nassau County
New York County
Queens County
Richmond County
Westchester County
Rockland County
In the State of New Jersey
Bergen County
Essex County
Hudson County
Middlesex County
Monmouth County
Morris County
Passaic County
Somerset County
Union County
-------
9
As so proposed, the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate Air
Quality Control Region would consist of the territorial area encom-
passed by the outermost boundaries of the above jurisdictions and
the territorial area of all municipalities located therein and as
defined in Section 302 (f) of the Clean Air Act, 42 D.S.C. l857h (f).
The proposed region is illustrated in Figure 3.
!
I)
I \
i \
,_\
~"V'\
-"'7
'"'
"
~,-,
I "
-,
S -',
; .
//
Figure 3.
',,-
\
".
'\
~
.J
(""-.
--.J
/"
"
-------
10
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL
There are three major conditions to be met in designating an
air quality control region.
First, the boundaries should encompass
most pollution sources as well as most people and property affected
by those sources.
Second, the boundaries should encompass those
locations where industrial and residential development will create
significant air pollution problems in the near future.
Third, the
boundaries should be chosen in a way which is compatible with and
even fosters unified and cooperative governmental administration of
the air resource throughout the region.
The Evaluation of Engineering Factors (discussion beginning on
page 25) was directed toward the first of these conditions and the
Evaluation of Urban Factors (page 13), the other two.
A combination
of eight New York and nine New Jersey counties and twenty-one Connecticut
townships was common to all three of the stated conditions, leading to
the proposal made herein.
Taken separately, some of the factors considered suggested the
inclusion of a few jurisdictions bordering those proposed here.
As
discussed in the Evaluation of Engineering Factors, the major impact
of pollution sources located within the proposed Region is also within
the Region, with the following exceptions:
(1) known or theoretically
predicted SOX levels of concern extend into small portions of Mercer
County, New Jersey, and Suffolk and Orange Counties, New York; and
(2) known or theoretically predicted CO levels of concern encompass all of
Putnam County and part of Suffolk, Orange, and Dutchess Counties in
-------
11
New York, and New Haven and Litchfield Counties in Connecticut.
Yet,
the Evaluation of Urban Factors provided sufficient reason to rule
out serious consideration of all but one of the above-named juris-
dictions, the exception being Suffolk County, New York.
Orange,
Putnam, and Dutchess Counties in New York and Litchfield County in
Connecticut are essentially non-urban areas. Mercer and New Haven
have substantial populations and industrial activities but they are
more intimately involved in other centers of regional activity.
With respect to Suffolk County, the Evaluation of Urban Factors
brought to light conflicting considerations.
The majority of the
county's almost one million inhabitants reside in the western portion
of the county.
This, together with the results of the engineering
analysis strongly suggest that at least a portion of the county is as
subject to inclusion in the Region as some parts of the jurisdictions
proposed here.
However, a decision to bring the affected portion of
Suffolk County into the region, coupled with a desire to maintain the
entity of whole counties, might increase the size and nature of the
Region to a degree that would make a regional attack on the problem
of air pollution more difficult.
For this reason, Suffolk County has
not been proposed for inclusion at this time.
Comments received
during the consultation on this proposed Region from officials of
New York and of Suffolk County itself will have direct bearing on
the final disposition of Suffolk County in this regard.
As is true of most efforts to draw boundaries around an area to
differentiate it from its surroundings, there is always a likelihood
-------
12
of boundary conditions existing or developing.
In the case of air
quality control regions, such a boundary condition would exist where
there are sources of pollution on one side of the region boundary
affecting in some real way air quality on the other side of the
boundary. Relocating the boundary would only rarely provide relief
from this condition (especially along the urbanized East Coast).
The
solution is to be found in the way in which control efforts are imple-
mented following the designation of an air quality control region.
Consonant with the basic objective of providing desirable air quality
within the problem area being designated as an air quality control
region, the implementation plan that follows the designation should
have provisions for the control of sources located close to but beyond
the region boundaries.
The level of control for such sources would
be a function of, among other factors, the degree to which emissions
from such sources cause air quality levels to exceed the standards
chosen for application within the air quality control region.
The remaining two sections of this report describe the initial
evaluation of urban and engineering factors.
Each is, as much as is
possible, independent of the other--both with respect to subject and
conclusions.
As this discussion has indicated, the final proposal
is based upon both studies where there was agreement between them
and upon the balancing of the two where the two had differing con-
clusions.
The Region proposed herein is considered on the whole to
be the most cohesive and yet inclusive area within which an effective
regional effort can be mounted to prevent and control air pollution
in the three-State urban area surrounding New York City.
-------
13
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS
The New Jersey-New York-Connecticut interstate area constitutes
the largest urban center in this Nation by almost any criteria.
It
also lies at the heart of the so-called megalopolis which stretches
from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia.
This region will, there-
fore, be one of the most important air quality control regions desig-
nated.
A large number of jurisdictions were considered for inclusion in
the Region.
Jurisdictions participating in the New York-New Jersey
Abatement Action, conducted recently by this Administration, were
taken as the natural core of the Region.
This section of the Report
presents an evaluation of the urban character of jurisdictions bordering
the core area.
The evaluation points toward the combination of juris-
dictions thought most capable of administering a coordinated control
effort.
The most significant potential addition to the l7-county* area
covered by the Abatement Action is a portion of the State of Connecticut.
The State of Connecticut, or specific portions of it, are intimately
involved in many activities centered in and around New York City.
The
Department of Housing and Urban Development has designated the Tri-
State Transportation Commission, which includes a portion of Connecticut,
as its official planning agency for this interstate area.
Perhaps most
*Kings County, Bronx County, Nassau County, New York County, Queens
County, Richmond County, Westchester County, Rockland County, Bergen
County, Essex County, Hudson County, Middlesex County, Monmouth
County, Morris County, Passaic County, Somerset County, Union County
-------
14
importantt there is no clear break between the New York-New Jersey
urban concentration and the heavily populated and industrialized
portion of Southwestern Connecticut.
Inclusion of a portion of Connecticut gives rise to some special
problems.
Connecticut does not normally utilize counties as admin-
istrative units.
This being the case, it is necessary to select
another jurisdictional unit as the basis for Region boundaries within
that State.
The most obvious unit is the township; however, townships
are of such limited geographic area that it seems desirable to decide
upon some method of combining them into functional units when desig-
nating regions.
Perhaps the most useful combination of townships
currently operational are the planning regions defined by the Connecticut
Development Commission.
These planning regions provide a useful
method of utilizing established cooperative arrangements between town-
ships in each portion of the State.
While counties do not function as administrative unitst they are
used for some data-gathering purposes and serve as the basis for many
informal working relationships.
It, thereforet is desirable to combine
planning regions so that they approximate the boundaries of Connecticut
counties.
The Connecticut County bordering the New York-New Jersey
urban area is Fairfield County.
Three planning regions--the Southwestern,
Greater Bridgeportt and Housatonic Valley planning regions--include
all the townships in Fairfield County with the exception of the
townships of Sherman and Shelton.
They do not extend beyond the
borders of Fairfield County.
-------
15
New Haven County, lying immediately to the East of Fairfield
County, contains urban-industrial concentrations at New Haven,
Waterbury, and the Derby-Ansonia area, but they are not nearly as
closely tied to the New York-New Jersey urban area.
Litchfield
County, immediately to the North, is one of t~e least industrialized
and most sparsely populated counties in the State.
If it was decided
to include portions of Connecticut beyond the borders of Fairfield
County, it would be difficult to find combinations of planning
regions which approximate county boundaries and at the same time,
include jurisdictions that could be rationally linked to the New York-
New Jersey interstate area.
Several New York counties bordering on the eight counties included
in the Abatement Action area were also evaluated for inclusion in the
Region.
Suffolk County is the jurisdiction most similar in nature to
the counties of the core area.
This county has approximately one
million inhabitants and had the third highest growth rate in the
Nation during the last eight years. 1
The population projections in
Table I indicate that this growth rate will continue through the
coroming years 80 that, by 1985, Suffolk County will probably become
the third most populous county in the New York metropolitan area.
Housing starts in Suffolk County, a further indication of population
growth, are shown in Table II to be significantly above the rate of
any other suburban county under consideration.
lCommercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, Chicago:
Company, 1968.
Rand McNally and
-------
TABLE 1.
POPUlATION IN THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION 1920-1960, AND PROJECTIONS TO 1985
(IN THOUSANDS)
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Metropolitan Region 9,139 11,643 12,518 13,951 16,141 17 , 180 1~,440 19,700 20,935 22,170
New York: 6,469 8,224 8,985 9,866 11,087 11,560 12,019 12,480 12,907 13,335
New York City 5,620 6,930 7,455 7,893 7,782 7,750 7,694 7,640 7,632 7,625
Bronx 732 1,265 1,395 1,451 1,424 1,400 1,375 1,350 1,350 1,350
Kings 2,018 2,561 2,698 2,739 2,627 2,600 2,549 2,500 2,475 2,450
New York 2,284 1,867 1,890 1,960 1,698 1,625 1,575 1,525 1,500 1,475
Queens 469 1,079 1,298 1,551 1,810 1,875 1,900 1,925 1,925 1,925
Richmond 117 158 174 192 222 250 295 340 382 425
Other New York 849 1,294 1,530 1,973 3,305 3,810 4,325 4,840 5,275 5,710
Dutchess 92 105 121 137 176 200 260 320 373 425
Nassau 126 303 407 673 1,300 1,400 1,499 1,500 1,525 1,550
Orange 120 130 140 152 184 205 278 350 445 540
Putnam 11 14 17 20 32 35 45 55 70 85
Rockland 46 60 74 89 137 170 195 320 335 350
Suffolk 110 161 197 276 667 910 1,103 1,295 1,477 1,660
Westchester 344 521 574 626 809 890 945 1,000 1,050 1,100
New Jersey 2,349 3,032 3,114 3,581 4,400 4,870 5,513 6,155 6,785 7,415
Bergen 211 365 410 539 780 920 1,009 1,100 1,150 1,200
Essex 652 835 837 907 924 940 950 960 955 950
Hudson 629 691 652 647 611 590 575 560 550 540
Middlesex 162 212 217 265 434 535 690 845 995 1,145
Momnouth 105 147 161 225 334 400 573 745 950 1,155
Morris 83 110 126 164 262 320 425 530 630 730
Passaic 259 302 309 337 407 435 448 460 472 485
Somerset 48 65 74 99 144 170 243 315 433 550
Union 200 305 328 398 504 560 600 640 650 660
Connecticut:
Fairfield 321 387 418 504 654 750 908 1,065 1,243 1,420
Sources: Griffin, John I., and Namis, Jean; Fact Book: New York Metropolitan Region; New York: New York City Council on
Economic Education, 1965.
......
a>
-------
TABLE II
NEW DWELLING UNITS AUTHORIZED
1960 - 1964
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
Mu1ti- Multi Mu1ti- Multi Mu1ti-
Total family Total family Total fami 1y Total family Total family
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
New York City:
Bronx 7,470 93.0 10,890 95.9 9,690 97.0 9,020 96.4 3,681 93.3
Kings 10,050 96.2 13 , 290 96.0 21,330 97.1 9,860 95.3 4,997 92.4
New York 13 , 830 100.0 19,190 100.0 21,810 100.0 10,620 100.0 2,940 100.0
Queens 13 , 100 91.1 25,880 94.2 14,980 91.3 17,250 93.0 6,008 85.2
Richmond 2,250 57.4 1,360 32.7 2,810 50.0 3,150 43.7 2,968 47.8
Other New York:
Dutchess 680 8.8 750 8.4 900 24.3 1,270 23.1 1,833 37.4
Nassau 7,590 32.0 7,780 36.2 5,940 21.4 5,710 37.0 5,090 28.7
Orange 710 2.3 930 4.1 1,020 11. 9 1,050 11.2 1,621 25.8
Putnam 300 0.0 270 1.1 510 0.0 560 1.1 631 7.0
Rockland 2,020 19.4 2,030 20.2 2,780 27.4 3,690 47.8 2,886 29.4
Suffolk 10,934 5.5 11,250 6.3 14,290 17.7 11 , 800 7.1 13,405 7.6
Westchester 4,030 44.5 4,490 51.0 5,430 59.2 5,280 59.9 4,574 55.0
New Jersey:
Bergen 4,810 32.0 4,900 41.6 4,570 42.7 6,380 56.7 6,004 48.2
Essex 3,780 63.0 5,660 84.1 3,950 77.6 3,230 74.9 4,623 84.5
Hudson 1,410 75.6 1,740 86.0 1,180 73.0 1,870 88.3 2,958 93.7
Middlesex 3,840 23.7 3,900 27.7 3,560 31.4 3,770 40.6 9,049 67.8
Monmouth 2,360 22.3 3,570 27.6 3,890 37.6 5,920 53.3 5,997 59.3
Morris 2,010 4.2 2,670 32.2 3,040 25.7 4,470 52.3 7,629 65.0
Passaic 2,160 40.0 2,390 48.2 3,720 64.1 2,820 53.4 3,238 65.2
Somerset 1,390 12.8 1,850 23.6 1,690 13.0 1,770 12.4 3,063 37.2
Union 3,530 47.2 3,460 53.9 3,170 55.8 2,850 60.6 3,786 63.7
Connecticut
Fairfield 4,920 22.7 4,960 24.0 4,740 19.1 4,420 13.9 6,889 32.1
Sources: Griffin, John I., and Namis, Jean; Fact Book: New York Metropolitan Region; New York: New York City Council on
Economic Education, 1965.
f-'
"
-------
18
Mitigating against the inclusion of Suffolk County is its size.
Suffolk is so large that a majority of its land area is beyond the
densely populated and heavily industrialized concentration, and it
extends eastward to the Connecticut-Rhode Island boundary.
Further,
present growth projections indicate that a suburban growth pattern
will probably develop for Suffolk County which may be basically devoid
of major heavy industrialization.
A second New York county considered for possible inclusion in
the Region is Putnam County which borders the core area on the north.
Putnam County is perhaps the most sparsely populated county in the
Tri-State area.
As can easily be seen from figures 4, 5, and 6, it
has less developed land and practically no industry as well as having
few areas of population concentration.
Further, its projected growth
suggests no major changes in its present configuration.
It is usually
considered as a recreation and forest area.
Much the same information applies to Orange and Dutchess Counties.
While major population centers do exist, these cities are surrounded
by open space.
They are also considered to be largely autonomous
from the urbanized complex surrounding New York City.
The counties in New Jersey bordering on the nine counties of
the Abatement Action area, with the exception of Mercer County, con-
stitute the rural counties of that State.
All but Mercer have few
built-up areas and even counties with urban centers have rather low
overall population densities.
Any industrial sources of pollution
could probably best be handled on an individual basis and not through
a broadly based regional approach.
-------
Tri-State Region Reconnaissance - Summer 1963
FIG.5
y
o
T
RES IDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY -1960
PERSONS I GROSS SQ. MI.
~-J -100
8101-1,000
8 \,001-10,000
. 10 001-100 000
, ,
. MORE THAN 100,000
SOURCE: u.S. CENSUS 1960
.....
..0
-------
Tri-State Region Reconnaissance -
FIG.5
y
o
T
... DEVELOPED LAND 1962
N
o
-------
Tri-State Region Reconnaissance - Summer 1963
.FIG.6
y
o
T
REG I ONAl CENTERS
.
SELECTED MAJOR
I NDUSTR IAl
AREAS
IV
-
-------
22
Mercer County is heavily built up and contains significant
industrial concentrations.
However, many commercial indicators2
suggest that it is closely tied to the Penjerdel area surrounding
Philadelphia and might best be considered for inclusion in a region
developed for that area.
Appendix C contains additional data on urban factors in the
New Jersey-New York-Connecticut interstate area.
In that appendix,
data is arranged in tabular form to provide a well-organized summary
of quanitiative information relevant to designation of the Region.
~Ibid.
-------
23
SUMMARY
All available information on current measures of urbanization
suggest that there are eight counties in New York, nine counties
in New Jersey, and all but a small portion of one county in Connecticut
that share common characteristics; the counties are:
in New York--Kings,
Bronx, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Weschester, and Rockland;
in New Jersey--Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris,
Passaic, Somerset, and Union; and in Connecticut--Fairfield.
The
characteristics that they share--heavy urbanization, related patterns
of expected growth, interdependence of dwelling and employment locations,
and cooperative regional planning--make these 18 counties (located in
three States) a logical choice to serve as at least the core of an
air quality control region.
At the same time, there is (with three
exceptions) enough undeveloped land in and beyond the outermost of
these 18 counties to provide a "buffer" for future growth.
The
exceptions are:
(1) Mercer County in New Jersey; (2) Suffolk County
in New York; and (3) New Haven County in Connecticut.
Both Mercer and New Haven counties are well populated and
industrialized, but neither of them are closely related to the New
York urban area socially, commercially, or governmentally.
Mercer
County is more closely tied to the combination of, jurisdictions which
looks to Philadelphia as its economic, cultural, and social center.
New Haven is an autonomous urban area in South-central Connecticut.
These two counties could be ruled out of the New York-New Jersey-
Connecticut Region on this basis.
-------
24
Of the three exceptions mentioned, Suffolk County in Long Island
presents the only real difficulty.
Population densities range from
10,000,per square mile in the western part of the county to less than
100 people per square mile in the eastern portion.
The county is
approximately 85 miles long and essentially parallels the entire
sea coast of the State of Connecticut.
While Suffolk County has relatively
few large sources of air pollution when compared to the other counties,
it is presently the sixth most populated New York county in the area,
and is projected to rank third by 1985.
The final determination on
Suffolk County should weigh the need to provide e large suburban
population protection from and a voice in the control of regional air
pollution against administrative difficulties that might be generated
by the inclusion in the Region of such a large and diverse county.
-------
25
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
The engineering evaluation was based on studies of pollutant
emissions, meteorology, available ambient air quality data, and
air quality levels as determined on the basis of diffusion model
calculations.
With the exception of the diffusion model results,
the two major sources of data were the technical report for the
New York-New Jersey Air pollution Abatement Activityl, and Air
Pollution Measurements of the National Air Sampling Network.2
The Abatement Action emission inventory included estimates for
three major pollutants--sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and suspended
particulates for the New York and New Jersey portions of the three-
1
State urban area.
The results of that work are summarized on an
annual basis for major jurisdictions and source categories in Tables
A-2 through A-4 in Appendix A.
Table A-5 presents similar results
for the three major SMSA's in southwestern Connecticut.
The estimated
annual emissions of each of the three pollutants were then converted
to average or mean daily emissions for three different time periods--
annual, winter, and summer--by apportioning according to heating-degree
days those emissions that vary as a function of heating season;3
ilie
results (Table A~6 in Appendix A and Table III) served as the basis of
the diffusion model calculations.
The pattern of sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate
emissions and the resultant concentration patterns provide a good
measure of the general geographical extent of the overall problem.
The estimate of sulfur oxide pollution levels illustrates the impact
-------
TABLE III. MEAN DAY EMISSIONS FOR VARIOUS AVERAGING TIMES
(TONS)
Sulfur Dioxide., Carbon Monoxide Particulates
County or City Annual Winter Summer Annual Winter.' Summer Annual Winter Summer
Bergen Co. 246 332 178 1,366 1,295 1,430 30 42 21
Essex Co. 283 464 140 1,301 1,230 1,360 31 47 18
Hudson Co. 404 551 288 645 615 680 43 52 35
Middlesex Co. 517 619 437 1,074 1,020 1,120 26 28 24
Monmouth Co. 45 72 23 544 515 570 12 17 8
Morris Co. 58 101 23 459 435 480 13 18 9
Passaid Co. 85 147 36 550 520 575 16 21 12
Somerset Co. 60 88 38 190 180 200 11 14 9
Union County 365 480 274 826 785 860 21 26 18
New Jersey Subtotal 2,063 2,854 1,437 6,955 6,595 7;275 202 264 153
Bronx Bor. 252 433 109 610 580 635 35 49 25
Kings Co. (Brooklyn) 535 895 251 980 930 1,020 62 83 45
Nassau Co. 156 213 112 1,699 1,610 1,775 34 42 29
New York Co. (Manh .) 621 888 410 1,057 1,000 1,105 57 65 51
Queens Bor. 529 762 345 1,735 1,645 1,810 41 66 21
Richmond Co. 64 88 45 134 125 140 9 12 6
Rockland Co. 29 34 25 274 260 285 12 14 10
Westchester Co. 85 145 38 1,245 1,180 1,300 27 35 20
Suffolk Co.
New York Subtotal 2,271 3,458 1,335 7,734 7,330 8,070 277 366 207
Stamford SMSA 46 69 27 284 270 295 11 13 8
Norwalk SMSA 157 234 94 168 160 175 7 9 6
Bridgeport SMSA 355 531 213 436 415 455 18 21 16
AREA TOTALS 4,892 7,146 3,106 15 , 577 14 , 770 17,070 515 673 390
.----
N
0-.
-------
27
of fuel burning activities at private and commercial sources, or govern-
ment-owned power plants.
Carbon monoxide pollutant levels provide the
best indication of the impact of gasoline-powered motor vehicles on
4
the regional air pollution pattern since over 95 per cent of all
carbon monoxide emitted in the New York City metropolitan area comes
from motor vehicles.
Diffusion model estimates of suspended particulate
levels provide the best measure of the combined impact of all source
categories, since, of the three pollutants covered in the emission
inventory, particulate emissions are the most evenly distributed by
source category (no single source category accounts for more than 29
per cent of the total--see Tables A-2, A-3, and A-4).
There are
undoubtedly, other pollutants that on occasion will have different
dispersion patterns, but the three used here are considered to ade-
quately reflect the "average" geographical extent of the problem.
By estimating the patterns of dispersion of these three major
pollutants, the diffusion model technique provides a guide as to a
possible minimum boundary for the region but does not dictate the
exact boundary location.
By way of example, significant levels of
one or more of the three pollutants extending into a county contiguous
to the major urbanized area would indicate that that county is being
subjected to a pollutant load that constitutes a part of the total-ar.ea
problem.
This county, then, should be considered for inclusion in the
air quality control region, but the final decision will be based on
joint consideration of this as well as the non-engineering evaluation.
Average emission densities for each of the three pollutants in
tons/sq. mi./ day were determined by relating the total quantity of
-------
28
pollutants emitted in each of the reporting zones for average space-
heating-day conditions to land area of each zone.
The resulting emission
densities are presented graphically in Figures 7, 8, and 9.
The
general pattern of emission densities for each of the three pollutants
is closely related to the pattern of urbanization in the central
portion of the New York-New Jersey area.
The highest emission densities
occur in or close to the Manhattan area, but the density pattern in
each case extends well into Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx in New
York, and into Hudson, Essex, Union, Bergen and Middlesex counties in
New Jersey.
DIFFUSION MODEL RESULTS
While the geographical distribution of pollutant sources
illustrates clearly the core of the air quality control region, it
does not, by itself, provide complete insight as to the extent of
influence of the combined sources on the people and property located
outside the highly urbanized portion of the greater New York City
metropolitan area.
A study of air quality levels known or estimated
to occur is useful in determining the area affected by the pollution
sources and thus subject to inclusion in the air quality region. Such
analysis can be based directly on air quality sampling data in those
instances where the sampling program covers a large-enough area and
has been in existence long enough to provide reliable patterns of
air quality throughout the region under study.
Such air quality data
rarely exists, and it becomes necessary to develop estimates of prevailing
air quality.
The diffusion model is the technique by which such
-------
N
tons/day per mi2
D < O.1~2
WJz
~ 10 --30
II ) 30
- 10
Figure 7.
SOx Emission
Density;
tons/sq. mi./day;
average space-
heating day.
.
Point sources
emi tting »10
N
~
-------
"',
\...
"
'"
..J
,..-.
,I
-"~
./
"
/7
"
/
'-- /
)--:~ . .
i'" .
,...,.J
\ /~.__._~
. /
\ /' ~
\ / -V I-
\~/ (
co DENSITY
tons/day per mi2
D (0.1-2
[J]]J2
~10
~)30
Figure 8.
. 10
CO Emission Density;
tons/sq. mi./day;
average space-
heating day.
N
. 30
. Point sources
emitting large
quantities
1,0)
o
-------
!
i)
1\
i \
----r:\~.
,----.-.- -- I-
"""l .. ~_..
1,.. I 1.--- \
-v-~ \. . , '--'-_.-J-~ \~\ ~/~
I j -.- I' ......--" , -/~
-~ ~-_.__._,. .\:.-. . '..:.... . /\ .
./ ~-) - ,/ {----<, --
./ \. /~('----(( - \ ~,..""\
.. / .. , \ \ j
J '- ./ . r 8 fell t s , t . ~ '-'\ '\ ~...'-"'"
'\ ~ I' \ ,.-~J\~-
(' ~ / \ ",. --\ --< 1 1-
/ '"" .. k.. \--
I' / "'" /'" (I C . l " . 0 ') ........A... "- /~.. \ ..
. ,- "oJ .. \--r ,-,
/ . . '( ,"", \ (-.
/ ........... . ( \-'[-.
"I \ 1-' ,"
/)... . . , ,I -"'" i - \, ,
/ll ,I ,
~......
,
;
N
PARTICUlATE
H>USSION DENSITY
tons/day-mi2
o 0.00-0.50
ITJ] 0.50---1.00
III 1.00-2.00
~ (2.00
Figure~. Particulate
Emission Density;
tons/sq. mi./day;
average space-heating
day.
( ~>
V"""~:
"\ Y.
.~ ,"'"
. I
\' r---~
,.) \ ...
rv \. / ,'\
./ '.......' 1
/---
"
U)
....
-------
32
estimates are made on the basis of information on pollutant emissions,
meteorological conditions, and the physical character of the urban
complex.
The diffusion ~odel used in this study and the results obtained
are covered in detail in AppendixB and summarized briefly below.
The model is based on the long-term Gaussian diffusion equation,
described by Pasquil15 and modified in recent years6, 7 for application
to the multiple-source situation of an urban area.
The basic equation
assumes that the concentration of a pollutant within
a plume has a
Gaussian distribution about the plume centerline in the vertical and
horizontal
directions, with the standard deviations in the two directions
being a function of distance from the source and certain characteristics
of mixing layer, collectively referred to as "stability class."
Graphs
have been developed which give U-z (vertical) andUj (horizonal) diffusion
coeffiecients versus stability class and distance downwind.
Reference
5 describes the Gaussian-based diffusion model and the inherent
assumptions made when it is applied.
The diffusion model was applied for each of the three pollutants
for the three different time periods--annual, winter, and summer.
Figure 10and Table IV show the meteorological data required to apply
the model for each of the three time periods.
Figure 10 shows the
percent frequency of occurrence of wind direction from 1951 through 1960
at John F. Kennedy Airport for summer, winter, and annual conditions.
The wind rose data (speed and direction) for JFK Airport were used in
the diffusion model calculation on the assumption that it adequately
-------
8
8
9
10
ANNUAL
(J
9
13
14
SUMMER
(June, July, August)
4
3
5
33
Figure 10. Percent frequency
of wind direction for various
averaging times, based on 1951-
60 data from Kennedy International
Airport.
N
PERCENT
5 10
o
1
7
13
3
9
8
6
5
WINTER
(December, January, February)
-------
34
represents (for long-period averaging) prevailing wind patterns through-
out the area.
The mixing depths for the time periods are an average
of the mean daytime and mean nighttime values as shown in Table IV;
these data were obtained from the National Weather Records Center
(ESSA).
Combined with wind data, these data are used in the diffusion
model to assess the spatial distribution of pollutant concentrations
on the 16 points of the compass.
Table IV.
Average mixing depths for New York City by season.
Mixing Depths, Meters
Season Daytime Nighttime Average Daytime
Average Average and Nighttime
Winter
(Dec., Jan., Feb.) 907 870 889
Summer
(June, July, Aug.) 1513 650 1081
Annual 1216 745 981
Using the foregoing information on emissions and meteorology,
concentrations were calculated for each of the three pollutants for
each of the three time periods at a total of 97 ground-level receptor
points (20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 100 kilometers from an assumed center
point located in Central Park, Manhattan, at each of 16 compass points,
plus a calculation of the concentration of the center point itself).
The theoretical concentrations estimated by this process are in addition
to "background" levels since the model was not supplied with information
-------
35
on sources located outside the area initially surveyed.
The results
are presented in Figures B-1 through B-13 in Appendix B as theoretical
- "
concentrations and are discussed in greater detail below.
SULFUR OXIDES
Figures B-1 through B-3 in Appendix B show the results of the
theoretical model calculations for SOx.
Actual sampling data suggest
that the model over-estimates concentrations of this pollutant by a
factor of 3-4 (Figure B-2), in part because no allowance was made for
SOx decay (the reaction of SOx in the atmosphere into other sulfur
compounds).
Figure 11 was produced by applying a "decay factor" involving
a 3-hour half-life to the initial output of the model.
Figures B-5
and B-6 in Appendix B show resulting contour lines after decay factors
involving 6-hour and l2-hour half-lives, respectively, were arbitrarily
selected for analysis.
The result incorporating the 3-hour half-life
was chosen for discussion here because the results, though still
theoretical, gave the best correlation with sampling data.
Comparison
of the diffusion model contours and the available monitoring data
in Figure 11 show the estimates fall well within a factor of two of the
measured concentrations.
Concentration contours are presented in Figure 11 down to a
concentration of 0.01 ppm.
This has been pointed out as the average
annual concentration at which human health begins to show signs of
deterioration; it is also assumed that this level is close to the
background level in highly urbanized areas.
CARBON MONOXIDE
The results of the theoretical model estimates of carbon monoxide
-------
,
b
,.
. ,
i \
.'-'
(------~t
1"""~
.-.-.-.-- - ,- '
~"'"
\~
....
~
i -
I
/
~
"
.'\
,.........J
/-/
~/
\
\ /,,-.----
\ /. \
\,./ L-v" I
\1
Aerometrie Datal
Station
ConeentratO
lon
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.09
SOx - -ppm
Figure 11
. Theoret °
leal SO
eoneentrat' x
annual av lon, .
include erage,
sana
3-hour half ~sumed
-bfe.
w
'"
-------
37
concentrations for the three seasonal conditions are presented in
Figures B-3 through B-10 in Appendix B.
The results for an average
summer day are discussed here since, of the three seasons considered,
this gave. the highest theoretical results.
Aerometric data from seven
stations plotted on Figure B-9 indicate that the model routinely
estimated concentrations 2-11 times lower than those reported at actual
sampling sites.
For the purpose of showing the. relative distribution.
of CO levels, the model estimates are adequate; but choosing a cut-off
level that has relevance in terms of those values routinely reported
. . . -
from sampling is difficult because of the 2-11 factor mentioned above.
The diffusion model does not reflect the built-up nature of the area in
which most of the CO is emitted and thus assumed that the pollutant
has more immediate space and volume within which to disperse.
Until
the air into which the pollutant is being emitted moves away from the
built-up part of the urban area, the pollutant is channeled through
streets and around buildings.
This fact is assumed to cause some of
the discrepancy between estimated and measured concentrations of CO.
Also, it is recognized that most CO measurements were made at judiciously
selected locations (e.g., near highways, shopping centers, etc.) which
would be expected to yield higher concentrations than theoretical
average values.
Based on the 2-11 difference, an
average factor of 4.5 was
derived and applied to the theoretical diffusion model estimates to
give "adjusted" CO concentrations.
In so doing, the relative
distribution of CO levels calculated by the model is preserved, while
-------
38
the finite values assigned to the contours are brought more into line with
actual sampling results.
The resulting CO level estimate is shown in
Figure 12.
Theoretical contours have been plotted for 4, 3, 2, and 1 ppm
of the pollutant.
1 ppm of CO is assumed to be close to the background
level in most highly urbanized areas; this value at the outskirts of
an area, then, might be used as a starting point in defining the area
affected by sources within the Region.
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
The diffusion model estimates of theoretical suspended particulate
concentrations are less than ideal for two reasons:
1) they do not
include an allowance for background concentrations; and, 2) they are
based on an emission inventory that estimates total particulate emis-
sions, and therefore, no deposition term is applied.
The first would
cause the model estimate to be lower than measured concentrations, and
the second would cause the estimate
to be higher than measured con-
centrations of suspended particulates.
Theoretical results are compared with aerometric data for 13
stations in New York and New Jersey in Table V.
The theoretical
values were, on the average, 0.60 of the measured results.
When this
factor was applied to the diffusion model contour lines, the "adjusted
theoretical" contour lines of Figure 13 resulted.
Two methods were utilized to analyze the particulate contours shown
in Figure 13.
Assuming 40* ;ug/m3 as a background level for the non-urban
*Based on average suspended particulate concentrations for non-urban
stations in this area from National Air Sampling Network.
-------
'"'"'\."'-1
"\
(~
I '
/
co- -ppm
~/,.'
Figure 12.
Adjusted th
concentrat.eoretical CO
summer em.10t; based on
1SS10n level
s.
~
~
/"
W
\0
-------
40
TABLE V- RELATIONSHIP OF DIFFUSION MODEL. RESULTS FOR SUSPENDED
PARTICULATES TO AEROMETRIC DATA.
3 Ratio
Concentration, m Estimated
Location Estimated Measured To Measured
Willowbrook 60 85 0.71
Roselle 45 102 0.44
Fairview 70 112 0.63
Ft. Hamil ton 48 82 0.59
Bayonne 50 96 0.52
Newark 55 189 0.28
NYU 70 111 0.64
121st Street lOO 150 0.67
New Rochelle 50 104 0.48
Ancora 17 42 0.40
Lower Manh. 85 100 0.85
Mid-Manh. 123 141 0.87
Jersey City 80 112 O~ 72
Total, New York, New Jersey
7.80
Average ratio: 7.80/13 = 0.60
-------
~
~ II
. .
/' "1-.---.
. . .
(
~
\
\
\.
3
Particulate. Matter-;ag/m
~'.r\--7
'"\
/..........,"...........
.....,
. ''.......
~ /",..~
1./,
.I /
/ /
/ /~. . .
/
/
/
./
Figure 13.
. t" a1
Adju:ted1 ~he~~~c~~tration,
partlcu a e
winter average.
'"
\
,.."
~
.,J
,..-.
/
~.
/
,
-I'-
,......
-------
42
areas surrounding the New York City urban complex, the area enclosed
by this contour line might be considered the area most affected by
particulate emissions in the New York City metropolitan area.
Relative
values of particulate concentration are shown in Figures 14 and 15.
The "relative concentrations" are plotted versus location along the
two major axes (north. south, east-west) and along the northeast-
southwest axis.
Shown also are the boundary locations along the axes
for the jurisdictional entities.
The relative impact of pollution
emissions within the New York City metropolitan area becomes less
significant with increasing distance outward from the Central Park
reference point.
The slope towards the bottom portion of each curve
approaches zero, thus pointing out approximately where the impact of
-the sources within the region begins to lose significance in the
outlying areas.
-------
o CO \0 -
-------
Figure 15.
o
.-4
00
\0
--::t
Fairfield County
N
44
o
......
o
\0
o
11')
o
--::t
o U)
.j.J ('f') Q)
U) .-4
C1:I .r-!
Q) ::E:
..c:
.j.J 0 ~
~ N'r-!
0'
~ ~
1-1
C1:I
p.,
o
.-4.-4
Bronx C1:I
1-1
.j.J
~
Manhattan Q)
u
o
13
o
~
Hudson County 4-1
o
.-4 Q)
U
~
C1:I
.j.J
.j.J U)
U) O'r-!
Q) N~
]
.j.J
;j
0
U) 0
('f')
0
--::t
Relative concentration of
suspended particulates on
northeast-southwest axis
centered on Central Park.
o
,11')
o
\0
o
......
-------
45
SUMMARY
The 0.01 ppm SOx contour line includes all or most of the land
area in the following counties:
nine counties in New Jersey--Passaic,
Morris, Somerset, Middlesex, Monmouth, Essex, Bergen, Hudson, and
Union; eight counties in New York--Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Kings,
Richmond, Nassau, Westchester, and Rockland; and Fairfield County in
Connecticut.
The line also includes small portions of Mercer County,
New Jersey, and Suffolk and Orange Counties, New York.
Enclosed by the 1 ppm CO contour line are the same nine counties
in New Jersey, the same eight counties plus Putnam County in New York,
and Fairfield County, Connecticut.
The 1 ppm contour line also in-'
cludes small portions of Orange, Dutchess, and Suffolk Counties in New
York, and of New Haven and Litchfield Counties in Connecticut.
The 40~g/m3 contour line for particulates encompasses most or
all of Hudson, Union, Essex, and Bergen Counties in New Jersey, and
Manhattan, Bronx, Richmond, Queens, Kings, and Nassau Counties in New
York.
Partly included counties are Monmouth and Middlesex Counties in
New Jersey, Rockland, Westchester and Suffolk Counties in New York, and
Fairfield County in Connecticut.
The relative concentration curves indicate that particulate pollu-
tion emanating from within the area covered by the emission inventory
tends to become significant at the outer edge of Morris County to the
west and Suffolk County to the east, at the outer edge of Monmouth to
the south and Putnam County to the north.
Similarly, the NE-SW con-
centration profile shows that the relative impact is insignificant
-------
at the outer edge of Middlesex County to the southwest and Fairfield
County to the northeast.
46
-------
47
References
1.
Technical Report, New York-New Jersey Air Pollution Abatement
Activity, Phase 1-- Sulfur Compounds and Carbon Monoxide, January,
1967; Phase II--Particu1ate Matter, December, 1967, USDHEW, PHS.
2.
Air Quality Data from the National Air Sampling Networks and Con-
tributing State and Local Networks, 1957-1961, USHDEW, PHS, 1962.
3.
"Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating Conununity Air Pollution
Emissions," PHS, Publication No. 999-AP-29, Environmental Health
Series, USDHEW, NCAPC, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1966.
4.
Technical Report, New York-New Jersey Air Pollution Abatement
Activity, Phase I, January 1967,.USDHEW, PHS, Page 51.
5.
Pasquill, F., "The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborn
Material," Meteorology Magazine, 90, 1963, pp. 33-49.
6.
Turner, D. B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,"
USDHEW, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
7.
Martin, D.O., "A General Atmospheric Diffusion Model for Esti-
mating the Effects on Air Quality of One or More Sources", paper
no. 68-148, 61st Annual Meeting, APCA, St. Paul, Minnesota, June
1968.
-------
48
APPENDIX A.
EMISSION INVENTORY PROCEDURE
The recent emission inventory as part of the New York-
New Jersey Air Pollution Abatem~nt Activityl provided the information
on emissions necessary to study the area prior' to the designation
of an air quality control region.
Data for New York and New Jersey
were compiled during a 3-month period from June through August, 1966,
for SOx and CO, and f;rom February to October, 1967, for particulates.
Data for Connecticut are also for 1966 and were obtained through
personal communication with the State of Connecticut.
The Pub lic
Health Service2 and the New York State emission inventory procedures
were employed with some modifications.
The emission inventory
.consisted of evaluating the consumption of gasoline, diesel fuel,
coal, fuel oil, and natural gas and of determining emissions from
refuse incineration and process industries.
Emissions were
determined directly from the fuel input to the equipment for both
Emission factors3 and sulfur
automotive and stationary sources.
contents are listed in Table A-I.
These factors were used wherever
more specific information was not available.
Annual consumption of all fuels, process emissions, and
incineration emissions were determined for each zone in the
New York-New Jersey portion of the study area.
Tables A-~ through A-~ summarize the estimates of annual
emissions of sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulates by
source category and political jurisdiction for New York and New
Jersey.
Less complete data are shown in Table A-5 for Connecticut
by SMSA.
-------
49
~ABLE A-1--EMISSION FACTORS AND SULFUR CONTENTS OF
PRINCIPLE FUELS USED IN STUDY AREA AND EMISSION
FACTORS .FOR INCINERATION.
Sulfur SOx
Content as CO Particulate
% S02
Ind. Other
Anthracite Coal 6.625 25 1blton 50 lb/ton 50 1b/t 35 1b/ton
Bituminous Coal 1.875 75 1blton lIb/ton 50 1b/t 35 1b/ton
Distillate Oil 0.575 85 1b/1000 gal. 22 lb/1000 gal. 11.1 1b/1000 gal.
Residual Oil 2.45 390 1b/1000 gal. a 12 1b/1000 gal.
Natural Gas Neg. 0.6 1b/106ft3 0.4 1b/106ft3 19 1b/106ft3
Diesel Fuel 0.30 45 1b/1000 gal. 60 lb/1000 gal. 110 1b/lOOO gal.
Gasoline 0.03 5 1b/1000 gal. 2910 lb/1000 gal. lllb/1000 gal.
Municip1e I
Incinerator
(mu1tip1e-
chamber) 1. 9 1blton 0.71b/ton 4.5 1blton
Flue-fed I
Incinerator 25 1b/ton
Other Small or
single-chamber
Incinerator 0.3 1blton 25 1b/ton 25 1b/ton
Backyard (open-
burning)
Incinerator 0.3 1b/ton a 1b/ton 20 1b/ton
-------
Grand Emissions by Source Category
r.ounty or City Total From Fuel Burning
Cormnercia1 & Industrial Refuse
Residential Government Industrial Power Plants Transportation Processes Disposal
lBergen 89929 11159 13281 18146 46016 1207 52
IEsse 104174 18116 32829 35308 13555 1085 12
Hudson 147908 1043L 29129 37154 70371 553 114
~dd1esex 189312 6221 18313 45911 87904 788 20
~onmouth 17476 5631 3001 8181 ---- 656 7
~orris 21180 4208 8213 8:a26 ---- 522 11
Passaic 31363 I 6318 10862 13600 ' ---- 554 4
~omerset 22087 2264 4934 9365 ---- 1108 3
~nion 133454 8891 20957 36639 42604 734 14
~ew Jersey Total 756883 73239 141519 212530 260448 7207 237
Bronx 92750 49406 15597 4421 22555 564 207
Brooklyn 196981 67962 42622 24622 60089 857 830
Staten Island 23763 4184 2483 2909 14045 138 4
Manhattan 227860 81035 19187 7667 118262 937 772
Queens 193914 41510 28305 17327 104982 1687 103
Nassau 57189 13555 4386 4050 33519 1259 390
Rockland 10634 382 833 2673 6527 193 26
Westchester 31377 11450 7854 6114 4835 894 219
New York Total 834468 269484 121267 69783 364814 6529 2551
Table A-2
Sulfur Oxide Emissions in New iork City Metropolitan Area
Tons/Year
'"
o
-------
Table A-3
Carbon Monixide Emissions in New York City Metropolitan Area
Tons/Year
Grand Emissions by Source Category
Countv or Citv Total From Fuel Burnin
Commercial & Industrial Refuse
Residential Government Industrial Power Plants TransDortation Processes Disposal
Bergen County 493008 2173 56 90 468 490211 10
Essex County 469028 7187 138 90 57 461480 76
Hudson County 234026 3651 73 1868 585 227778 71
Middlesex County 387551 1482 24 540 610 230146 49
Monmouth County lS6453 1073 5 25 --- 195350 Neg.
Morris County 164981 1120 19 37 --- 163783 22
Passaic County 198690 2524 41 1338 --- 194733 54
Somerset County 68255 575 245 2729 --- 64701 5
Union County 298087 3118 74 133 293562 350
New Jersey Total 2510079 22903 675 6850 1720 2321744 637
Bronx 220175 3146 1024 40 2 212095 3868
Brooklyn 353271 4161 1834 39 216 341052 5969
Staten Island 48272 193 771 6 335 46646 321
Manhattan 381504 4359 1658 20 1121 368764 5582
Queens 625314 1353 1283 22 964 617920 3772
Naussau 612120 1392 178 30 153 610030 337
Rockland 98828 105 15 102 88 96051 17
Westchester 448920 1152 163 99 --- 447093 413
New York Total 2786404 15861 6926 358 2879 2740101 20279
V>
...
-------
Emissions by Source Category
From Fuel Burning
Grand . Commercial' & Industrial Refuse
County or City Total Residential Goyeriunent Industrial Power plants Transportation Processes Disposal
Bergen County 14460 2940 1020 2246 3468 2962 1160 664
Essex County 12242 3337 2124 1008 1036 2758 996 983
Hudson County 18751 2107 1347 7315 3247 1361 2548 826
Middlesex County 23338 1644 1068 5668 6856 1987 5705 408
Monmouth County 4302 1421 362 181 ---... 1654 332 352
Morris County 4618 1053 475 1426 ---- 1309 110 245
Passaic County 6964 1425 627 2724 ---... 1381 381 426
Somerset County 4105 583 449 947 ---- 725 1264 137
Union County 11182 1913 1001 1936 . 1028 1878 2055 1371
New Jersey Total 99962 16423 8473 23451 15635 16015 14553 5412
Bronx 12915 4332 1603 675 648 1567 35 4055
Brooklyn 25950 7044 3282 1411 2681 2409 255 8868
Staten Island 3170 418 688 157 948 378 360 221
Manhattan 31593 5792 2087 787 9750 2617. 230 10330
Queens 22020 3926 1999 975 6029 5389 347 3355
Nassau 13629 1754 404 1013 1524 3580 189 5165
Rockland 8017 115 251 890 2714 494 3248 305
Westchester 12982 1269 909 4240 113 2211 697 3543
New York Total 130276 24650 11223 10148 24407 18645 5361 35842
Table A-4
Particulate Emissions in New York City Metropolitan Area
Tons/Year
U1
N
-------
TABLE A-5. EMISSIONS IN SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT-TONS/YEAR
SULFUR OXIDE CARBON MONOXIDE PARTICULATE
SMSA
TOTAL POWER PLANT S TOTAL TOTAL . POWER PLANTS
,
I
STAMFORD 16700 --- 102000 3783 --- i
NORWALK 57100 35200 60200 2519 --- I
,
BRIDGEPORT 128400 --- 157400 6680 ---
Milford
Power Pl. --- 38600 --- --- 1387
Bridgeport
Power Pl. --- 25300 --- --- 949
I
CONNECTICUT i I
I
I
TOTAL 203200 99100 319600 12982 2336
V1
lJ,)
-------
The emission data were converted to show mean-day emissions
for annual, winter (December, January, February), and summer
(June, July, August) seasons (Table A-~) to facilitate diffusion
model calculations of mean-day concentrations for each of the three
seasons.
The conversion was accomplished by apportioning variable
emissions to each of the seasons in accordance with information on
monthly heating-degree days and then calculating the average-day
emissions for each season.
54
-------
TABLE A-6. MEAN DAY EMISSIONS FOR VARIOUS AVERAGING TIMES
(TONS)
Suflur Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Particulates
County or City Annual Winter Summer Annual Winter Summer Annual Winter Summer
Bergen Co. 246 332 178 1,366 1,295 1,430 30 42 21
Essex Co. 283 464 140 1 ,301 1,230 1,360 31 47 18
Hudson Co. 404 551 288 645 615 680 43 52 35
Middlesex Co. 517 619 437 1,074 1,020 1,120 26 28 24
Monmouth Co. 45 72 23 544 515 570 12 17 8
Morris Co. 58 101 23 459 435 480 13 18 9
Passaid Co. 85 147 36 550 520 575 16 21 12
Somerset Co. 60 8tS 38 190 180 200 11 14 9
Union Co. 365 ..80 274 826 785 860 21 26 18
New Jersey Subtotal Z,063 2,854 1,437 0,955 6,595 7.275 L02 204 153
Bronx Bor. z52 4]3 109 610 .)80 6]5 35 49 25
Kings Co. {Brooklyn) 535 895 251 980 930 1,020 62 83 45
Nassau Co. 156 213 112 1,699 1,610 1.775 34 42 29
New York Co. (Manh.) 621 888 410 1,057 1,000 1,105 57 65 51
Queens Bor. 529 762 345 1,735 1,645 1.810 41 66 21
Richmond Co. 64 88 45 134 125 140 9 12 6
Rockland Co. 29 34 25 27<+ 260 285 12 14 10
Westchester Co. 85 165 38 1,245 1,180 1,300 27 35 20
Suffolk Co.
New York Subtotal 2 ,271 3,458 1,335 7,734 7,330 8,070 277 366 207
Stamford SMSA 46 69 27 284 270 295 11 13 8
Norwalk SMSA 157 234 94 168 160 175 7 9 6
Bridgeport SMSA 355 531 213 436 415 455 18 21 16
AREA TOTALS 4,e92 7,146 3,106 15 ,577 14 ,770 .17 ,070 515 673 390
U1
U1
-------
'References for Appendix A.
1.
Technical Report, New York-New Jersey Air Pollution Abatement
Activity, Phase I--pp. 38-57, Appendix C; Phase II--pp. 45-71,
Appendix C; Jam~ary, 1967, Decembe"r, 1967, resp., USDHEW, PHS. .
2.
"Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating Cormnunity Air Pollution
Emissions," PHS,Publication'No. 999-AP-29, Environmental,
Health Series, USDHEW, NCAPC, Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1966.
3.
Mayer, M., . "A Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors
for Combustion Processes, Gaso1ineEvapor~tion, and Seiected
Industrial Processes," USDHEW, PHS, DAP, TAB, Cincinnati, Ohio,'
May, 1965. '
56
-------
57
APPENDIX B.
DIFFUSION MODEL DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS
Title I, Section 107 (a) (2) of the Air Quality Act of 1967
(Public Law 90-148, dated November 21, 1967), calls for the
designation of air quality control regions, based on a number of
factors, including "atmospheric conditions", interpreted to mean
that the boundaries of air quality control regions should reflect
the technical aspects of air pollution and its dispersion.
Within
this guideline, however, the position has been taken that region
boundaries cannot be based on an extreme set of circumstances which
might have a theoretical chance of occurence.
Hence the analysis
of a region's atmospheric dilution potential is largely based on
mean annual values, although summer and winter mean values are
analyzed with respect to reviewing seasonal variations in meteorology
and pollutant emissions.
With the realization that the meteorological analysis would
help define tentative boundaries only and that final boundaries
would be developed subsequently to reflect local government aspects,
it was decided that the meteorological assessment should be as
unpretentious as possible.
Accordingly, the widely accepted long-term
Gaussian diffusion equation, described by Pasquilll, has been applied
with a few modifications to accomodate certain requirements inherent
to the delineation of air quality control regions.
These modifications
are discussed in the next section.
In summary, the Gaussian diffusion
equation is utilized to provide a theoretical estimate of the
-------
58
geographical distribution of long-period mean ground-level
concentrations of SOx, CO, and suspended particulates.
The model
used has the necessary flexibility to utilize information on
emissions from both point and area-wide sources.
To maintain simplicity, all pollutant sources were assumed to
be at ground level; for CO this assumption is realistic.
The s~e
assumption is used for major point sources of SOX and particulates,
since the distances of interest are sufficiently great to obviate
the source-height effect for most receptors.
Also, since there
is no agreement to what an appropriate half-life and deposition
rate for SOx and particulates, respectively, these factors were
not applied to the computations of ground-level pollutant concentra-
tions during the initial diffusion model analysis.
As discussed
earlier in the report (page35) and briefly below, certain modifications
have been applied to the theoretical model results to allow
comparative interpretation.
METHODOLOGY
The diffusion model used to compute theoretical long-term
average pollutant concentration distributions for respective pollutants
is based on Pasquill's Gaussian diffusion equationl, as modified by
M . 2
art~n .
Essentially, the diffusion model sums the effects (ground-
level concentration) of a number of sources (area and point) for a
specified number of receptors, averaged over a season or a year; the
receptor points are at distances of 20,30,40,50,70, and 100 kilometers
-------
from a defined central grid point for each of i6 compass directions.
AIl. average pollutant concentration is computed for the central grid
receptor (designated in the downtown or central city area) for
comparison to air quality measurements that might be available.
The meteorological data input to the model is screened to.
determine the representiveness of the data.
Appropriate surface
wind rose data are selected from U.S. Weather Bureau records; if
necessary, special wind data tabulations are obtained from the
National Weather Records Center (NWRC)o
The mean mixing depth for
each region, for each respective time period (seasonal and average),
is determined on the basis of computed mixing depths documented by
HOlzworth4,5 and recent tabulations furnished the Meteorology Program
by the National Weather Records Center (ESSA).
RESULTS
A comparison of calculated concentrations of CO to air quality
data for the New York City metropolitan area shows reasonable
agreement in relative ~, but the model consistently underestimates
the concentration in comparison to measured values in the central
urban area6.
As is discussed in the text of this report, an
empirically derived correction factor has been applied to the output
to allow comparative use of the CO data.
For SOX the initial model calculations were systematically higher
than measured calculations.
This over-calculation is thought to
result from the fact that SOX reacts in the atmosphere, leading to
59
-------
60
concentrations lower than those predicted by the model.
As discussed
in the body of this report, three "decay factors" representing
arbitrary half-life assumptions of 3, 6, and 12 hours have been
applied to the ~heoretica1 model output to aid in the analysis.
For suspended particulates, the model gave relatively good results
when the finite values were compared to measured concentrations in
and around the center of the proposed New York City region.
The
good correlation seems to be the result of two apparently compensating
limitations of the model.
The model estimates for suspended particulates
are also interpreted in this report in a relative sense.
Figures B-! through B-~ present unmodified SOx results for the
,three time periods and, B-~ through B-6, SOX results as modified by
three half-life assumptions.
Figure B-1 shows theoretical 0.01 ppm
contour lines for SOx for the three half-life assumptions.
Figures
B-~ through B-13 show diffusion model results for CO and suspended
particulates for the three time periods investigated.
The model results can be appropriately modified and interpreted
to provide reasonable spatial distributions of long-term (seasonal
and annual averages) pollutant concentrations resulting from the.
release of pollutants within a region.
-------
0.01
Figure B-1.
~
"-
."
'"
,....--J
/.-/
"
SOx --ppm
Theoretical.SO
concentration x
annual averag~
no decay. '
'"
......
-------
0.01
0.02
Station Concen- Concen- Ratio
tration tration ElM
measured6 Estimated
(M) (E)
A 0.05 0.18 3.60
B 0.03 0.18 6.00
C 0.05 0.40 8.00
D 0.10 0.10 1.00
E 0.09 0.16 1. 78
F 0.08 0.12 1.50
G 0.08 0.21 2.63
H 0.05 0.11 2.20
I 0.06 0.30 5.00
J 0.05 0.05 1.00
K 0.08 0.30 3.75
L 0.05 0.42 8.40
M 0.08 0.40 5.00
N 0.03 0.09 3.00
o 0.07 0.08 1.14
TOTAL 54.00
54.00/15=3.60
~--ppm
~
...)
f-'
/.--'
Figure B-2.
Theoretical SOx
concentration,
Sunmer average,
no decay.
'"
~
-------
!
b
I \
, \
0.02
0.01
SOx- -ppm
Figure B-3.
Theoretical SO
. x
concentratlon,
winter average,
no decay.
" /'
\ J
" \ r'--'-
0.02 \,...-// ~..,/'\
0'>
W
-------
/
/
/
./
r/ .
,~ -c
, }.. ...
(
~
\
\
\
\
\--
SOx --ppm
~-V'4
"
/.)."
",
"
,
~ "'~
{ ,
/"
,/./
Figure B'-4.
Theoretical SOx
con cent rat lon,
annual average, includes
an assumed 3-hour
half-life.
',,\
\,
"'\
'"
,.,J
,..-".
_.../
/"
,
o u ,
/,...-
,."J
\ ~.__._,
\ // \
\. /.. ~--J'\
\..../ .
C1'
.p.
-------
~-V'
\4
.....
?,
/ -',
) '-'-
<
f
/
/
I
i)
I \
1 \
,-.-\
.-'-'- -.-.-.-.-- i--~
SOx - -ppm
Figure B-S.
Theoretical SOx
concentration,
annual average,
includes an assumed
6-hour half-life.
''\
\.,.
."
\,
--j
,..-.,
.-./
/
,.
~
VI
-------
0.01
~"'-~
"'-
/~'"
~
l
I"
.,.-
./
(/
~'
.-
,
.-
l~.
/
\
\
\
\
\
SDx--ppm
Figure B-6.
. 1 SO
Theoretlca. x
conc€mtra hon,
ua1 average, d
ann an assume
inc1udesha1f-1ife.
12-hour
"'\"
,J
,..-.,
./
/'--
"
C"\
C"\
-------
~v,~
'"
/.)..,
f "
s
;
./
/
<:T'
so --ppm
x
",
"
~
,)
f"-"
'-'/
/'
"
Theoretical 0.01 ppm
contour lines for half-life
assumptions of 3, 6, and
12 hours based on annual
condi tions .
'"
.....,
-------
0.10
~, "'\
-"""7
"-
"-
/-""'.......
/
~
l
/
/"
/
/
/
0.10
(j'
/
/
~--
Figure B-3.
Theoretical CO
concentration,
annual average.
a-
ex>
-------
0.20
~,--
"'--?
.....
/.:-.,
"
'.........
, .
"
S
i
.I
//
0.20
Station Concen- Concen- Ratio
tration tration
Measured Estimated M/E
(M) (E)
A 2 0.53 3.8
B 6 0.54 11.1
C 3 1. 25 2.4
D 2 0.40 5.0
E 2 0.70 2.9
F 5 1. 25 4.0
G 3 1. 25 2.4
TOTAL 31.6
31.6/7=4.51
CO--ppm
Figure B-9.
Theoretical CO
concentration,
summer average.
'"",
".
'\
\"
...J
,..-.
/
.~
/..-
~
l--:/
" .
,/
I
.-v-'
\ /-.---.-.."
\ // "
\ / L-..J'\
\.,./
0\
\D
-------
""'"'\.,~
r'\,.....
"......
......
{
I
/
.//
0.10
CO--ppm
Figure. B-IO.
Theoretical CO
conce.ntration,
winte.r average.
'-
0.08
.10
-...&
o
-------
~,/\
""7
'"\
/.A",'-......
/ -'-
<
l
.I
/
Particulate matter-jUg/m3
~'
'"
"
r"""'~
-~
/"
"
Figure B-ll.
Theoretical particulate
concentrat1on, annual average.
"
i-'
-------
~......./\
""l
r'"
"',
,
)
~
;
/"
,1/
Particulate matter~'}lg/m3
/
Figure B-l2.
Theoretical particulate
concentration, summer
average.
\'\
"
~
...J
,..-.
"I
.-,..-J
/'"
'"
N
-------
~"'./\
"""7
'"
/.)..'
-,
-"""'-
\
/
I
/.
Particulate matter -jilg/m3
Figure B-13.
Theoretical particulate
concentration, winter
average
,..-..
_./
//
--..J
\..U
-------
References for Appendix B.
1.
pasquill, F. "The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborn
Material," Meteorology Magazine, 90, 1963, pp. 33-49.
2.
Martin, D. 0., "A General Atmospheric Diffusion Model for
Estimating the Effects on Air Quality of One or More Sources",
paper no. 68-148, 61st Annual Meeting, APCA, St. Paul,
Minnesota, June, 1968.
3.
Turner, D. B., ''Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,"
USDHEW, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
4.
Holzworth, G. C., "Mixing depths, wind speeds and air pollution
potential for selected locations in the United States, J.
App1. Meteor., No.6, December, 1967, pp. 1039-1044.
5.
Holzworth, G. C., "Estimates of mean maximum mixing depths in
the contiguous United States," Mon. Weather Rev. 92, No.5,
May, 1964, pp. 235-242.
6.
Technical Report, New York-New Jersey Air Pollution Abatement
Activity, Phase I--Su1fur Compounds and Carbon Monoxide,
January, 1967; Phase II--Particu1ate Matter, December, 1967;
USDHEW, PHS.
74
-------
APPENDIX C.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
This appendix consists of tables and charts showing various
parameters of the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut urban area.
Some of this data is referred to in the body of this report, and
some is not.
All has relevance to the tri-State area and is
included in this report for possible future use.
75
-------
Table C-l to C-13
Table C-14
Table C-15
Table C-16 to C-18
Appendex C
Contents of Demographic Data
Current Population & Sales Data ...........
Land area and Population Density...........
Place of work (Nassau & Soffolk Co.).......
New York State, County Population Density..
References for Appendex C..................
76
77-89
90
91
92-94
95
-------
77
Table C-1. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
County Fairfie1 Conn. Bronx. N.Y. Kings. N.Y. Nassau. N.Y.
Irountv Seat None Bronx Brook1vn Mineo1a
.tlpdgepoJ;"t New York New York New York
tBasic Trading Area btaYif~~d City City City
an ur
New York New York New York New York
ka;or Trading Area City City City City
IJand Area (Sq. miles) 626 41 70 289
IPopu1ation (1950) 504.342 1.451.277 2.738 175 672.765
(1960) 653.589 1 424 815 2 627.319 1.300.171
est. (968) 777 .000 1. 520.000 2.670 000 1.450 000
Households (1968 est.) 231.300 495.100 864 100 388.700
frota1 Retail Trade 1966
($1000) 1.456.120 1.334.917 2 914 732 2 762 035
~hopping Goods Sales 1966
($1000) 253.425 267.223 599 504 715.877
Food Store Sales 1966
. ($1000) 396.910 493.199 995 010 681.686
Drug Store Sales 1966
($1000) 47.247 37.122 81 662 64.660
Passenger Car Registrations 376.130 456.310 31 750 622.690
~ota1 Wholesale Trade
(1963) ($1000) 884.406 1.078.953 2 552 643 1. 950.267
~nufactures 1963
~ota1 Employees 114.425 56 400 219 060 97.613
Value Added ($1000) 1.280.135 473 464 2.127 556 1. 132 .168
Agriculture: 1964
Number of Farms 408 6 14 187
'Pota1 Value of Products Sold
($1000) 5.553 77 395 6.848
d
-------
78
Table C-2 New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
County
New York N Y
Queens N.Y.
Richmond N Y Rockland N Y
. . , , . . , .
County Seat New York Jamaica Staten Island New City
New York New York New York New York
Basic Trading Area r.if"v City Citv City
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area Citv City City Citv
Land Area (So. miles) ?3 108 58 176
Pouu1ation (1950) 1. 960 101 1,550,849 191,555 89,276
(1960) 1.698 281 1.809,578 221. 991 136.803
est. (1968) 1. 580 000 1,970,000 280.000 208.000
Households (1968 est.) 647 500 635.500 77 800 52 800
Total Retail Trade 1966
($1000) 4 821. 907 2,309.044 271.874 218,034
Shopping Goods Sales 1966
($iOOO) . 1,702,473 421,239 44,679 33,419
Food Store Sales 1966
($1000) 760,958 774,076 95,267 63,975
Drug Store Sales 1966
(51000) 140,921 61,875 7,306 5,321
Passenger Car Registrations 191,980 541,650 80,940 77,360
Total Wholesale Trade
(1963) ($1000) 46,368,331 2,851,298 80,500 79,349
~anufactures: 1963
rota1 Emu10vees 509,249 133.140 9,564 12,127
Value Added ($1000) 4 713.283 1.416.943 130.496 257,162
~gricu1ture: 1964
Number of Farms --- 43 52 97
l'ota1 Value of Products S(J1d
($1000) --- 1 404 719 1.647
-------
79
Table C-3. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C
t
W
t h
t
NY
S ff 1k N Y
P t
NY
B
N J
oun:v es c es er, . . u 0 ,. . u nam, . . ergen,. .
Count v Seat White Plains Riverhead Carmel Hackensack
New York New York New York New York
Basic Trading Area City City City City
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area City City City City
Land Area (Sq. miles) 443 929 231 234
Population (1950) 625,816 276,129 20.307 539,139
(1960) 808,891 666 784 31.722 780.255
est. (1968) 873,000 1,030,000 47,500 890,000
Housho1ds (1968 est.) 260,600 267.500 13 900 259,500
Total Retail Trade 1966
($1000) 1,596,815 1 304,059 53.504 1.403.440
Shopping Goods Sales 1966
($1000) 415.669 322.728 1.598 304,802
Food Store Sales 1966
($1000) 400,636 341,343 14,374 379,754
Drug Store Sales 1966
($1000) 36,582 30,738 1. 751 36 513
Passenger Car Registration 363,920 388,730 23,200 392,930
Total Wholesale Trade
(1963) ($1000) 2,218,220 384,901 7 903 2.708 335
Manufactures 1963
Total Employees 66,543 43,507 945 95,891
Value Added ($1000) 755,095 431 176 9,416 1 162 265
Agriculture: 1964
Number of Farms 231 1,138 122 270
Total Value of Products
Sold ($1000) 4,960 48,713 1.474 5,515
-------
80
Table C-4. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
County Essex.N.T Hudson N.J. Middlesex. N.J Monmouth N J
County Seat Newark .Tersev Cj.tv New Brunswick ' .l,-!
New York New York New York New York
Basic Tradin12: Area City City City City
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area City City City City
Land Area (Sa. Miles) 129 47 312 476
Population (1950) 905,949 647.437 264.872 225 327
(1960) 923 545 610.734 433,856 334 401
est. (1968) 975,000 607,000 564 000 437.000
Households (1968 est.) 301,900 195.200 152,400 123,100
Total Retail Trade 1966
($1000) 1,638,122 822,106 721.226 605.123
Shopping Goods Sales 1966
($1000) 419,656 167.215 173,330 114,495
Food Store Sales 1966
($1000) 378,428 246,025 184.762 158,220
Drug Store Sales 1966
($1000) 47 353 23,396 21.247 16 184
Passen12:er Car Registrations 400,210 214.170 194 530 168,210
Total Wholesale Trade
(1963) ($1000) 2,753,880 1. 121. 303 611,198 178,469
Manufactures 1963
Total Employees 126.489 109.534 76.364 20,759
Value Added ($1000) 1,373,277 1.385,223 1,074,307 204,410
A12:ricu1ture: 1964
Number of Farms 73 8 388 927
Total Value of Products Sol
($1000) 886 241 10,717 21,189
-------
81
Table C-5. New Jersey-New York-Connecticutl
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
County Morris. N.J. Passaic. N.J. Somerset. N.J. Union. N.J.
('ounty Seat Morristown Paterson Somerville Elizabeth
New York New York New York New York
Basic Trading Area City City City City
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area City City City City
J...and Area (Sq. miles) 468 193 307 103
Population (1950) 164,371 337,093 99 052 398 138
(1960) 261.620 406 618 143 913 504 255
est. (1968) 355,000 450,000 195 000 560,000
Households (1968 est.) 95,400 137 200 53 000 164.700
.
Total Retail Trade 1966
($1000) 453,614 777,274 247 217 917 899
Shopping Goods Sales 1966
($1000) 74.729 170.199 47 948 157,976
J;'ood Store Sales 1966
($1000) 131.470 185.583 74 327 215.862
Drug Store Sales 1966
($1000) 12.145 19.029 7 743 25.459
Passenger Car Registrations 134.220 190.720 62 510 259,920
Pota1 Wholesale Trade
(1963) ($1000) 144.986 940.841 210.240 2 159.274
'1anufactures: 1963
Pota1 Emp10vees 31,332 80,599 19,224 92.414
Value Added ($1000) 366,430 840.620 218.378 1 275.875
Agriculture: 1964
Number of Farms 421 120 471 103
Total Value of Products Sold
($1000) 6.196 1,469 7.386 3.152
-------
82
Table C-6. New Jersey New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C1ty Br11geport. Conn. Dan ury onn. Faufield .Conno Greenwlcl.Conn.
County Fairfield Fairfield Fairfield Fairfield
Bridgeport ,Dan- Bridgeport,Dan IBridgeport,Dan- Bridgeport, Dan-
Basic Trading Area bury. Stamford bury. Stamford bury. Stamford bury. Stamford
New York New York New York New York
Ma;or Trading Area City City City City
Rana11 y City Rating 2-A 3-B 4-S 3-S
Dm - Suburban &
Economic Activity Code Manufacturing Manufacturing D - Suburban Manufacturing
Population: 1960 156.748 39.382 46 183 53.793
est. 1968 152,000 44,500 55 500 66.000
Households (est. 1968) 48,100 14 200 15 600 18.500
Total Retail Trade
(1966) ($1000) 313.704 108911 96.100 123.748
Shopping Goods Sales
(1966) ($1000) 68,683 20 015 11 ,900 16.283
Total Wholesale Trade
1963 410,514 42 303 41.876 62.558
Manufactures: 1963
Total Employees 36,834 7 434 2.868 5 , 115
Value Added ($1000) 419,305 68,117 44,959 63 495
'd
b
C
. h
-------
Table C-7. New Jersey-New York-Connecticutl
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
83
City Norw.<>lk r.nnn Stamford.Conn. Mt. Vernon. N.Y. New Rochelle N
County Fairfield Fairfield tJest,.h",s""''''
Bridgeport,Dan- tlridgeport,Dan- New York New York
Basic Trading Area bury. Stamford bury. Stamford City City
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area City City City City
Ranally City Rating 3-SS 2-S 3-SS 3-SS
Mm(D) - Mfg., Mm(D) - Mfg., Dm-Suburban
Economic Activity Code Suburban Suburban ManufacturinQ D-Suburban
Population: 1960 67 775 92.713 76.010 76.812
est. 1968 75 500 109.500 72 .000 75.000
Households (est. 1968) 22 900 33.000 23.300 22.300
Total Retail Trade
(1966) ($1000) 126.231 226 814 142 755 156.694
Shopping Goods Sales
(1966) ($1000) 21. 932 51. 140 19.514 35.273
1963
Total Wholesale Trade 61 944 201. 666 269.673 114.190
Manufactures: 1963
Total Employees 16,428 18 350 9.536 3.816
Value Added ($1000) 169,052 214,606 94,395 42,175
. Y.
-------
84
Table C-8. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C'
N
Y k N Y Wh't
PI .
NY Y k
NY B
NY
~tv ew or . . ~ e a~ns,.. . on ers . . ayonne . .
County New York Westchester Westchester Hudson
New York New York New York New York
Basic Trading Area City City City City
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area Citv Citv City City
Rana11y City Rating 1- AAAA 2-S 2-S 3-S
Mr-Manufactur- Mr (D) -Mfg., Re- Dm - Suburban,
Economic Activity Code ing Retail tail, Suburban D-Suburban Manufacturing
Population: 1960 7,781,984 50,485 190 634 74, 215
est. 1968 8,020,000 50,040 205 000 72 ,000
Households (est. 1968) 2 737.200 16,291 64 500 22 100
Total Retail Trade
(1966) ($1000) 11 652.474 272 .472 417 190 99 155
Shopping Goods Sales
(1966) ($1000) 3.035.118 128,383 158,563 13 173
Total Wholesale Trade: 1963 52.929.658 397 850 226,732 65,213
Manufactures: 1963
Total Emp10vees 927.413 8 387 14 701 7,709
Value Added ($1000) 8.861 742 27,384 148,359 108.231
-------
85
Table C-9. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
A rn. QUAL ITY CONTROL REG ION
City Bloomfield. N .1- r.l i ftF'n . N -.1. F,>I~t NT F,1 i~~h~foh lIT .T
County Essex Passaic Essex Union
New York New York New York New York
Basic Trading Area City City City City
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area City City City City
Ranally City Rating 3-S 3-S 3-SS 2-S
Dm - Suburban, Dm - Suburban D-Suburban Mm(D)-Manufac-
Economic Activity Code Manufacturing Manufacturing tnrin,," c::"
Population: 1960 '11 Rh7 A? OAf, 77 259 107 698
est. 1968 53,500 87,000 76,000 117,000
Households (est. 1968 17,100 27,000 26,900 37.100
Total Retail Trade
~ ($1000) 71.879 125.590 126.386 213 . 945
Shopping Goods Sales
(1966) ($1000) 10.351 9.193 22.950 41 946
1968
Total Wholesale Trade 132.551 394.875 316.815 652.531
Manufactures: 1963
Total Employees 9.955 18.970 3.296 19 962
Value Added ($1000) 99.746 221.107 24.853 210.701
-------
86
Table C-10. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
City Ho 0 en N.J. Irv~ngton.N.J. Jersev City N.J. Linden N.J.
County Hudson Essex Hudson Union
New York New York New York New York
Basic Trading Area City City City City
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area City City City City
Ranally City Rating 3-S 3-S 2-S 4-S
'1m(D, T) -Mfg. Dm-Suburban, Dm-Suburban, Mm(D)-Manufac-
Economic Activitv Code ub., TransDor Manufacturing Manufacturing turing.Suburban
Population: 1960 48,441 59.379 276 101 39 931
est. 1968 47.000 60.200 267.000 43.000
Households (est. 1968) 15 100 21,200 85,600 12,600 _-
Total Retail Trade
r-" (196~ ($1000) LO. 428 1~458 - _~29.090 8h~47 ---
Shopping Goods Sales
_..Q.96~~!.000) ----- 1--- 8,037 14 z..Q.~ 50,511 __2L72L__-
-1'.
-------
87
Table C-11. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C'
1.ty
County Essex Essex Middlesex Hudson
New York New York New York New York
Basic Trading Area City City City r.itv
New York New York New York New York
Maior Trading Area City Cit'v r.irv r.irv
Rana11v City Rating 3-S 1-B 1-5S 4-5
Mm(D) -Mfg., Mm(Ed)-Mfg., Mm(D)-Mfg.
Economic Activity Code D-Suburban Suburban Education Suburban
Population: 1960 43.129 405 220 40 139 42 387
est. 1968 44 000 385 000 40 000 42 600
Households (est. 1968) 13 900 121. 500 12 100 14 600
Total Retail Trade
(1966) ($1000) 73.911 816.406 99 926 74.355
Shopping Good Sales 12,530 280,268 24,774 20,908
(1966) ($1000)
1963
Total Wholesale Trade 81,795 1,865,218 101 227 62 437
Manufactures: 1963
.
Total Emp10vees 401 73,728 9,913 9.530
Value Added ($1000) 2,726 798,344 120,272 97,430
-------
88
Table C-12. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C'
N J
P
N
1 . f
1d
~ty Passa~c, . . aterson, .J. P a~n ie ,N.J. Un~on, N.J.
County Passaic Passaic Union Union
New York New York New York New York
Basic TradinQ: Area Citv City City City
New York New York New York New York
Ma i or TradinQ: Area Citv City City City
Rana11 y Ci tv Ra tinQ: 2-S 2-B 2-S 3-S
Mrn(D) - Mfg., Mrn(D) - Mfg., Dmr-Suburban Dm - Suburban,
Economic Activity Code Suburban Suburban Mfg., Retail Manuf ac turing'
POBulation: 1960 53,963 143,663 45,330 51,499
est. 1968 52,000 143,000 46,500 54,500
Households (est. 1968) 17 , 600 45,800 14,400 16,600
Total Retail Trade
(1966) ($1000) 173,051 251,072 145,331 125,496
Shopping Goods Sales
(1966) ($1000) 35,576 59,719 54,073 16,326
1963
Total Wholesale Trade 135,087 264,036 30,932 369,359
'Manuf ac ture s: 1963
Total Enm10yees 16,304 27,528 4,941 11,012
Value Added ($1000) 170,808 258,453 41,707 146,907
-------
89
Table C-13. New Jersey-New York-Connecticut 1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C.
U.
C.
J
l.tv n1.on l.tv~ N. .
County Hudson
New York
Basic Trading Area City
New York
Ma ; or Trading Area Citv.
Rana11y City Rating 3-SS
Dmr - Suburban,
Economic Activitv Code Mfg.. Retail
Population: 1960 52.180
est. 1968 50.500
Households (est. 1968) 18~000
Total Retail Trade
(1966) ($1000) 110.332
Shopping Goods Sales
(1966) ($1000) 31~841
Total Wholesale Trade: 1963 51.148
Manufactures: 1963
Total Employees 6.656
Value Added ($1000) 47.764
-------
90
Table C-14 Land Area and Population per Square Mile, by County 2
1960
County
Land area
(square miles)
Population
per square mile
New York City:
Bronx
Kings
New York
Queens
Richmond
43 33,135
76 34,570
22 77,195
113 16,014
60 3,700
816 216
300 4,334
829 222
I
235 135
178 769
922 723
435 1,860
233 3,349
128 7,215
45 13,572
312 1,391
477 701
467 560
194 2,096
307 469
103 4,896
633 1,033
Other New York:
Dutchess
Nassau
Orange
Putnam
Rockland
Suffolk
Westchester
New Jersey:
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Connecticut:
Fa irfield
Source:
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
-------
91
Table C-15 Place of Work of
Nassau and Suffolk Counties' Resident Labor Force 2
1960
Place of work Nassau Percent Suffolk Percent
Bronx 3,526 0.8% 728 0.3%
Kings 28,716 6.1 5,677 2.7
New York 107,965 23.1 17,098 8.0
Queens 41,867 9.0 9,287 4.4
Richmond 79 16 0.0
New York City
(not further specified) 546 0.1 775 0.4
-
New York City 182,699 39.1% 33,581 15.8%
Nassau 248,409 53.2% 29,982 14.1%
Suffolk 13,459 2.9 136,077 63.9
Rockland 60 8 0.0
Westchester 1,331 0.3 270 0.1
Other 5,030 1.1 1,305 0.6
Place of work not reported 16,235 I 3.5 11,594 5.4
- -
ToTota1 467,223 100.0% 212,817 100.0%
Source:
u. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
-------
92
Table C-16
New York State Counties
with
*Popu1ation Greater than 60,000 and
Population Density Greater than 25 per sq. mi. 3
Population Density
County Rank Total ~ Population per sq. mi.
Albany 7 286,647 9 540
Broome 10 223,268 11 314
Cattaraugus 24 80,336 28 60
Cayuga 26 75,815 23 108
Chautaugua 14 150,090 18 139
Chemung 20 101,796 14 247
Clinton 25 77,918 25 74
Dutchess 11 215,042 12 264
Erie 2 1,088,295 5 1,033
Herkimer 30 69,722 29 48
Jefferson 23 88,945 27 69
Monroe 5 655,892 6 975
Nassau 1 1,435,850 1 4,786
Niagara 9 242,373 10 455
Oneida 8 279,597 15 228
Onondaga 6 470,517 8 594
Ontario 28 74,731 22 115
Orange 12 214,430 13 259
Oswego 22 92,994 24 96
Rensselaer 16 148,308 16 223
Rockland 13 204,168 3 1,147
St. Lawrence 18 117,964 30 43
Saratoga 19 103,892 19 128
Schenectady 15 148,348 7 710
Steuben 21 100,271 26 71
Suffolk 3 1,004,379 4 1,089
Tompkins 29 73,845 17 150
Ulster 17 139,453 21 122
Wayne 27 75,111 20 124
Westchester 4 869,021 2 1,998
30 Counties with a total population of 8,909,018
Population in New York City (estimated as of July 1, 1968)
NEW YORK CITY
Manhattan
Bronx
Brooklyn
Queens
Richmond
8,125,000
1,750,000
1,470,000
2,650,000
1,985,000
270,000
* Based on 1967 population, estimated as of July 1, 1967
-------
93
Table C-17
New York State Counties
with *Popu1ation less than 60,000 and
Population Density greater than 25 per sq. mile 3
Population Density
County Rank To ta 1 Rank Population
-
per sq. mile
Allegany 16 43,166 4 41
Chenango 11 46,408 7 51
Columbia 6 50,052 15 78
Cortland 15 43,877 17 87
Delaware 17 42,420 2 29
Franklin 14 44,099 1 26
Fu 1 ton 5 50,869 20 102
Genesee 2 58,544 22 117
Greene 21 33,160 8 51
Livingston 8 48,675 14 76
Madison 1 59,522 18 90
Montgomery 3 53,977 23 132
Orleans 18 37,855 19 96
Otsego 4 53,801 9 53
Putnam 12 46,289 24 908
Schoharie 22 22,184 3 35
Schuyler 24 15,687 5 47
Seneca 20 34,275 21 104
Sullivan 9 48,205 6 49
Tioga 13 44,629 16 85
Warren 10 47,661 10 54
Washington 7 49,382 12 59
Wyoming 19 36,170 13 60
Ya tes 23 18,953 11 55
* Based on 1967 population, estimated as of July 1, 1967
-------
94
Table C-18
New York State Counties
with *Popu1ations less than 60,000 and
Population Density less than 25 per sq. mi1e3
Population Density
County Rank Total Rank Population
per sq. mile
Essex 1 34,883 1 19
Hami 1 ton 3 4,316 3 2
Lewi s 2 23,553 2 18
3 Counties with a total population of 62,752
* Based on 1967 population, estimated as of July 1, 1967
-------
References for Appendix C.
1.
95
Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, 99th ed.,
Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968.
2.
Griffin, John r., and Namis, Jean; Fact Book:
Metropolitan Region; New York: New York City
Economic Education, 1965
3.
New York State Department of Health.
" u. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970-436-613/47 3)
New York
Council on
------- |