REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
INTRASTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
-------
REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
INTRASTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
DECEMBER 1968
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE. . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
.............
INTRODUCTION. . . . . .
. . . . .8 . . .
..........
. '. . 1
EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING FACTORS
EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS .
. . . . .
. . . 8
DIFFUSION MODEL METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS.
. . . . . .
. . . .23
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS.
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . .39
THE PROPOSED REGION. .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . .59
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . .63
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .69
-------
PREFACE
The Secretary, Department of Health? Education, and Welfare, is
directed by the Air Quality Act of 1967 to designate "air quality
control 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 designation of region boundaries, the~ct stipulates that the
designation of a region shall be preceded by a consultation with
appropriate State and local authorities.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration, DHEW, has
conducted a study of the Metropolitan Boston urban area, the
results of which are presented in this report. The boundaries of the
Region*, as proposed in this report, reflect consideration of all
available and pertinent data; however, the boundaries remain subject
,
to revision suggested by consultation with State and local authori-
ties. Formal designation will be withheld pending the outcome of that
consultation. This report is intended to serve as the starting point
for the consultation.
The Administration is appreciative of assistance received either
i
directly during the course of this study or during previous activi-
ties in the metropolitan Boston area from the official air pollution
agencies in the State of Massachusetts. Useful data was also supplied
*For the purposes of this report, the word region, when capitalized,
will refer to the Metropolitan Boston Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region. When not capitalized, unless otherwise noted, it will refer
to air quality control regions in general.
-------
by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the Old Colony Planning
Council, the Central Merrimac Valley Regional Planning District, and
the Greater Lowell Area Planning Commission.
-------
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's 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) published
air quality criteria, and (3) published corresponding documents on
-------
1'0)
States establish plans for implementation,
HEW designates considering factors such as: .
. Existing pollutant levels in the region
air quality - . Number, location, and types of sources
.Meteorology
control regions. . Control technology
. Air pollution growth trends
Implementation plans would set forth
~ abatement procedures, outlining factors
such as:
States hold . Emission standards for the categories of
HEW develops and .. sources in the region.
......
publishes air hearings and . How enforcement will be employed to
HEW insure uniform and coordinated contro!.
quality criteria set air quality reviews action involving State, local, and regional
based on scientific '" .. State -' authorities.
standards in the
evidence of air standards. . Abatement schedules for the sources to
air quality insure that air quality standards will be
pollution effects. achieved within a reasonable time.
... control regions.
1
......
I HEW reviews
HEW prepares State implementation plans.
~
and publishes 1
information on ~
States act to control air
available control pollution in accordance with
techniques. air quality standards and plans
for implementation.
Figure L Flow diagram for State action to control air pollution on a regional basis.
-------
3
control technology and associated costs, the Governor(s) of the
State(s) must file with the Secretary within 90 days a letter of
intent, indicating that the State(s) will adopt within 180 days
ambient air quality standards for the pollutants covered by the
published criteria and control technology documents and adopt within
an additional 180 days plans for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of those standards in the designated air quality control
regions.
l
The new Federal legislation provides for a regional attack on
air pollution and, at the same time, allows latitude in the form
which regional efforts may take.
While the Secretary reserves
approval authority, the State(s) involved in a designated region
assumes the responsibility for developing standards and an implemen-
tation plan which includes administrative procedures for abatement
and control.
Informal cooperative arrangements with proper safeguards
may be adequate in some regions, whereas in others, more formal
arrangements, such as interstate compacts, may be selected.
The
objective in each instance will be to provide effective mechanisms for
control on a regional basis.
PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATION OF REGIONS
Figure 2 illustrates the procedures used by the National Air
Pollution Control Administration for designating air quality control
regions.
A preliminary delineation of the region is developed by bringing
together two essentially separate studies - the "Evaluation of
Engineering Factors," and the "Evaluation of Urban Factors."
-------
.j:'-
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Input Computer 0 utput
. Emissions ... Pollutant ... Iso-Intensity
. Meteorology Diffusion
Model Graphs
Existing Air
i Quality
~ Sampling 1
. Data
I 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
- Pattern 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.
-------
5
The "Evaluation of Engineering Factors" considers pollutant
source locations and the geographic extent of significant pollutant
concentrations in the ambient air.
An inventory of air pollutant
emissions determines the geographic location and quantities of the
various pollutants emitted from the sources in a region.
Major
quantities of pollution are emitted by automobiles and industry,
and from refuse disposal operations, power generation, and space
heating.
The subsequent effect of the pollution emitted into the atmos-
phere is determined by measuring ambient air quality.
Since air
sampling networks are seldom extensive enough geographically to be
used to fix the outer bounds of an air quality control region, a
meteorological diffusion model has been developed to predict air
quality.
Figure 2 indicates that emissions and meteorological input
parameters are used by the model to predict spatial dispersion
patterns of pollutants.
Diffusion model output is presented in terms
of equal-concentration contour maps.
These graphically describe
the predicted pollutant dispersion patterns.
In addition, they
indicate the geographic extent of pollutant concentration levels in
the ambient air.
The predicted relative distribution of pollutants
is used as a guide to establishing the appropriate size of an air
quality control region.
If adequate air quality data is available it may be used to
determine the R8gion.
In this study the limited air quality data
is used merely as a check on the reliability of the model to
predict absolute concentrations.
It is also used as an indicator
-------
6
of the appropriateness of the region determined by comparison with
relative concentrations.
However, greater emphasis remains on
determining the R~gion by review of the relative pollutant dispersion
characteristics.
The "Evaluation of Urban Factors" encompasses all considerations
of a non-engineering nature.
This evaluation consists of a review
of existing governmental jurisdictions, current air pollution control
programs, demographic data, current urbanization, and projected patterns
of urbanization.
The study of urban factors represents an attempt to
determine the size of the region that is necessary to include areas
where projected urbanization will create increasing air pollution
problems.
The findings of the engineering evaluation are combined with the
results of the urban factors evaluation, and an initial proposal for
the air quality control region is made.
As indicated in Figure 2,
the proposal is submitted for consultation with State and local
officials.
After reviewing the official transcript of the consul-
tation proceedings which provide~ the viewpoints of State and local
officials toward the proposal, the Secretary formally designat~s
the region.
Formal designation includes a notice in the Federal
Register and a notification to the governor(s) of the State(s)
affected by the designation.
The body of this report contains a proposal for the boundaries
of the Metropolitan Boston Intrastate Air Quality Control Region and
the engineering and urban factors evaluations supporting the proposal.
-------
The report itself is intended to serve as a background document for
the formal consultation with appropriate State and local authorities.
7
-------
8
EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING FACTORS
EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
A quantitative evaluation of air pollutant emissions provides
the basic framework for air conservation activities.
The compila-
tion of an emissions inventory makes possible the correlation of
pollutant emissions with specific geographic locations.
-This
procedure generally results in the identification of the "core" of
an air quality control region ----- that is~ the area where the bulk
of the pollutant emissions occur.
In this study~ the emissions
inventory results are further utilized as input data to a meteoro-
logical diffusion model.
In this manner the spatial and temporal
distribution of the pollution emitted into the atmosphere can be
systematically predicted.
For these reasons~ a presentation of the
emissions inventory results serves as a logical starting point in
the engineering evaluation.
The emissions inventory for metropolitan Boston was conducted
by the National Air Pollution Control Administration.
The combined
areas of the Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and the
Brockton Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area comprised the region
over which the survey was conducted.
This 1445 square mile area
contains the bulk of the population and urbanization associated with
metropolitan Boston.
Thus~ the inventory conducted over this region
includes the preponderance of pollutant emissions in the metropolis.
Though pollutant sources in municipalities immediately outside these
-------
9
SMSA's are not considered, it is felt that the role of these outer
areas as receptors of inventoried pollutant emissions will be
adequately des~ribed, in terms of ambient air quality, by the
diffusion model.
The inventory method used, with some modification, for the
evaluation of the quantities of the five major pollutants (sulfur
oxides*, €arbon monoxide, total particulates, hydrocarbons, and
oxides of nitrogen) was the Public Health Service rapid survey
technique for -estimating pollutant emissions.l
The pollutant
emissions were calculated for the year 1967 using Public Health
Service emission factors.2
These factors represent statistical
averages of the rate at which pollutants are emitted from the burning
or processing of a given quantity of material (e.g., fuel consumption).
Emissions for the survey area were grouped in four general cate-
gories.
These categories are transportation, refuse disposal,
stationary sources, and industrial process emissions.
Table I provides
a breakdown of S02' CO, and total particulate emissions according to
these four categories.
These four categories are further broken
down into subcategories.
For transportation emissions, gasoline con-
sumption was calculated using 1966 vehicle-mile data up-dated to 1967.
*Sulfur dioxide constitutes the overwhelming majority of sulfur
oxide emissions. In this evaluation, sulfur oxide emissions are
assumed to be composed entirely of sulfur dioxide. Therefore, S02
concentrations predicted by the diffusion model, while based on
sulfur oxide emissions rather than on S02 emissions, will not be
significantly overestimated.
-------
t-'
o
TABLE I. SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE BOSTON AND BROCKTON SMSA'S, 1967. (TONS/YEAR)
POLLUTANT SULFUR DIOXIDE CARBmT MONOXIDE TOTAL PARTICULATES
SOURCE BOSTON BROCKTON BOSTON BROCKTON BOSTON BROCKTON
CATEGORY
TRANSPORTATION
GASOLINE VEHICLES 3,200 190 820,000 52,450 4,300 260
DIESEL VEHICLES 400 80 600 150 1,200 200
AIRCRAFT Neg. N.A. 10,500 N.A. 1,800 N.A.
RAILROADS 10 N.A. 20 N.A. 30 N.1\..
STATIONARY SOURCES
STEAM, ELECTRIC
UTILITIES 137,800 540 6,500 Neg. 23,700 10
RES IDENTIAL 37,600 1,600 4,700 550 12,200 550
. COMMERCIAL 187,200 (2,160)7( 1,100 (15)7( 11 , 500 (140)*
INDUSTRIAL 54,800 400 3,200
REFUSE DISPOSAL
INCINERATION 300 N.A. 400 N.A. 7 , 200 N.A.
OPEN BURNING 0 N.A. 11 , 200 840 3,20() 4,500
OPEN DUMP 0 N.A. 55,400 N.A. 10,400 N.A.
BARGE BURNING 0 0 10,200 0 2,000 0
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
EMISSIONS 2,200 Neg. Neg. 840 1,600 60
TOTALS 423,500 4,570 921,000 58,500 82,300 .2,060
Neg..: Neg ligib Ie
N.A.: Not Available
~'(Combined value for commercial and industrial sources.
-------
11
Diesel fuel usage was assumed to be 3% of total motor fuel use, as
calculated from total vehicle miles traveled.
Aircraft emissions
data for Logan International Airport (assumed as a point source)
was computed using air traffic data (type of aircraft and number of
operations) obtained from the Federal Aviation Agency.
Railroad
fuel consumption was ignored when distributing emissions over the
grid system since it amounted to less than 0.5% of total fuel consumed.
Solid-waste generation was based on a national average of 4.5
pounds per capita per day.
Estimates of the location and method of
disposal by city or town were made, which in turn led to estimates
of emissions caused by open dump burning, incineration, backyard
burning, and barge burning.
Barge burning emissions were not appor.-
tioned within the survey area, however, since the burning occurred
in the extreme outer harbor.
Stationary source emissions include emissions from both point
and area sources.
Point sources include power plants and major
institutions and industries.
Together they account for roughly 50%
of the estimated total industrial fuel oil consumption in the survey
area.
To facilitate the calculation of area source emissions, fuel
oil consumption was calculated by pro-rating 1966 Bureau of Mines
figures to 1967.
The majority of distillate heating oil was assumed
to be residential fuel, while most residual oil was assumed to be
commercial and institutional fuel.
Natural gas usage was apportioned
to the cities and towns on the basis of the ratio of gas meters in
each city or town to the total number of meters serviced by each
gas company.
Approximately 65% of the coal consumed in the study
-------
12
area in 1967 was burned by power plants.
Process emissions were calculated based on available information
collected by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
The
industries for which process emissions were calculated were chosen
by categories where emission factor data were available.
For the purposes of this report, only sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and total particulate emissions are considered.
These
three pollutants best represent the spectrum of air pollution
sources.
Sulfur dioxide emissions best characterize fuel burning
activities, especially at point sources.
Together, power plants
and commercial sources produce, roughly, 77% of the total sulfur
dioxide emissions.
Carbon monoxide emissions provide the best
indication of the impact of the motor vehicle in an area.
Eighty-
nine percent of the total CO emitted in the survey areas during 1967
was attributed to gasoline consumption, primarily that emanating
from automobile exhausts.
Total particulate emissions provide an
index of the noncombustible components of fuels.
All pollution
source types contribute significantly to total particulate emissions,
with the largest single source category, power plants"producing 28%
of the total emissions.
Geographic locations over the survey area are defined by the
use of a grid system based on the Massachusetts State Plane Co-
ordinate System.
The numbered grid system is shown in Figure 3,
superimposed over a map of the study area.
Grid squares 20,000 feet
on a side are located in the highly urbanized portions of the SMSA,
-------
13
o
L.....
5
b...d
10
I
20
I
Z!I
I
~
I
15
I
SCALE........ MILES
FIGURE 3. EMISSIONS INVENTORY NUMBERED GRID SYSTEM.
-------
14
while grid squares 40,000 feet on a side are employed in the less
densely developed areas.
The total of 63 grid squares form the
bounds within which pollutant emissions are geographically distributed.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 represent e~ission density maps for 802,
CO, and total particulates respectively, based on the grid system.
These density maps are constructed according to the yearly average
"
daily emissions for each pollutant, and consider area source emissions
only.
Table II lists quantities of pollution emitted (tons/day) by
time period* and by grid zone for the various pollutants.
This
table considers area sources only and is the basis for the emission
density maps.
Table III lists the quantities of pollution emitted
from point ,sources.
It lists the type of source (power plant, etc.),
as well as the grid zone in which it is located and the emissions
for each averaging time.
Figure 7 shows the location of major point
sources.
Taken together, Figures 4 through 7 clearly indicate that
the bulk of pollutant emissions occurs in Boston or the immediate
vicini ty .
The magnitude of emissions decreases toward the periphery
of the survey area.
The correlation between magnitude of emissions
and degree of urbanization for the Boston area can be observed by
studying the population and residential density maps in the urban
factors evaluation.
The diffusion model results presented in the
next section will help to define the bounds of the Region on the basis
of the effects of the inventoried pollutant emissions.
*The various averaging times are broken down as follows: the winter
season includes the months of December, January, and February while
the summer season includes the months of June, July, and August. The
annual averaging period includes all 12 months of the year.
-------
15
o.
l.d
S02 DENSITY
0<.2
g .2-1
8]1-3
...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
::::i:i::~~::::~; 3 -5
1>5
p
&
II
b..d
zo
I
30
I
10
I
III
I
ZII
I
SCALE", MILES
FIGURE 4. SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION DENSITIES.
-------
16
o
L.d
CARBON MONOXIDE
0<.5
i' .5-1
E3 1-5
1:1:II:t~.liiII15- 1 0
[[;;~iJ > 10
5
U
15
I
zo
I
211
I
10'
I
10
I
SCALE"" MILES
FIGURE 5.
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION DENSITIES.
-------
17
TOTAL PARTICULATES (TON!DAY)/MI?
o (.05
m .05-. 1
o
L.....i
~ . 1-.5
............... 5-1
t~~rt~ .
5
.....J
10 15
I I
SCALE", MILES
20
I
25
I
50
I
FIGURE 6. TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION DENSITIES.
-------
TABLE II. POLLUTANT GRID ZONE EMISSIONS FOR AVERAGE ANNUAL, SUMMER, AND WINTER DAYS (TONS/DAY).
t-'
00
GRID ZONE AREA SULFUR DIOXIDE CARBON MONOXIDE PARTICULATES
ZONE (mi. 2) Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter 'Annual Summer Winter
1 57.4 4.46 1. 52 7.29 21. 39 21. 34 21.45 .77 .50 1.08 I
2 57.4 9.89 3.04 16.34 57.75 57.64 57.88 1. 87 1. 25 2.60
3 57.4 10.36 3.00 17.23 31. 97 31.86 32.11 1. 79 1.13 2.56
4 14.4 0.38 0.11 0.61 2.44 2.44 2.45 .07 ;05 .10 i
5 57.4 16.14 11. 47 22.60 58.02 57.89 57.17 2.02 1.34 2.83
6 14.4 5.79 1. 80 9.58 36.37 36.30 36.45 1.08 .72 1.50
7 14.4 8.87 2.61 14.75 34.22 34.15 34.35 1. 47 .92 2.11
8 14.4 6.40 1. 80 10.69 2.60 2.52 2.70 1.06 .65 1.56
9 14.4 10.37 3.38 17.05 4.30 2.97 4.42 1.02 1.57 2.37
10 57.4 16.06 4.55 26.93 35.45 35.26 35.65 2.60 1.59 3.79
11 14.4 I 1. 35 0.42 2.22 9.85 9.84 9.87 .26 .18 .36
12 14.4 I 9.92 2.97 16.46 48.02 47.91 48.16 .98 1.59 2.32
i 13 14.4 12.46 3.66 20.70 47.55 47.42 47.69 2.07 1.30 2.99
14 14.4 13.58 3.62 22.80 50.82 51. 56 51.38 2.44 1.39 3.68
15 '14.4 28.57 8.01 47.99 54.98 53.79 56.40 4.98 2.67 7.72
16 57.4 0.75 0.59 1. 03 33.94 33.91 33.99 2.63 2.59 2.75
17 14.4 2.08 0.64 3.44 14.08 14.04 14.13 .41 .28 .57
18 14.4 9.04 2.69 14.92 52.63 52.38 52.91 1.64 1.01 2.38
19 14.4 26.20 7.52 43.69 68.18 67.69 68.77 4.18 2.42 6.26
20 14.4 33.33 9.01 55.88 86.30 84.54 88.38' 6.08 3.20 9.48
21 14.4 26.50 7.51 44.41 89.80 89.06 90.67 5.05 3.14 7.33
22 14.4 2.11 0.56 3.52 5.65 5.65 5.86 .36 .18 .56
23 14.4 2.57 0.85 4.19 30.61 31.18 31. 87 .58 .42 .76
24 14.4 28.70 8.11 47.90 95.41 94.55 96.43 5.05 2.92 7.55 I
25 14.4 32.10 8.75 53.87 96.86 95.29 98.72 6.61 2.47 8.42
26 14.4 62.17 16.38 104.68 151. 70 147.57 156.72 10.60 4.73 17.59
27 14.4 20.78 5.62 34.85 62.04 60.90 63.39 3.15 1.33 5.30
28 14.4 3.13 0.86 5.23 4.85 4.81 4.88 .51 .31 .75
29 57.4 20.63 6.13 34.23 93.70 93.47 93.98 3.76 2.46 5.30
30 14.4 6.10 1. 89 10.08 45.08 45.02 45.16 1.14 .76 1.58 \
31 I 14.4 14.99 4.37 25.02 .65.76 65.46 66.13 2.61 1.60 3.83
32 14.4 22.79 6.23 38.17 93.44 91. 97 95.18 4.62 2.17 7.50
33 14.4 58.86 15.65 98.83 164.97 160.95 169.72 7.71 2.13 14.30
34 14.4 15.45 4.10 25.93 43.64 42.59 44.87 2.01 .55 3.74 i
1
-------
TABLE II. (CONTINUED)
GRID ZONE AREA SULFUR DIOXIDE CARBON MONOXIDE PARTICULATES
ZONE (mi.2)
Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter
35 14.4 0.99 0.27 1. 66 2.42 2.42 2.44 .15 .09 . .23
36 14.4 0.25 0.05 0.42 0.09 0.09 0.09 .03 .02 .05
37 14.4 4.69 1. 38 7.83 23.91 23.86 23.97 .83 .53 1.17
38 14.4 6.65 1. 97 11. 03 24.74 24.66 24.82 1. 23 .81 1.72
39 14.4 33.98 9.23 56.93 119.41 117.35 121. 84 4.61 1. 53 8.25
40 14.4 30.13 8.14 50.52 112.60 96.45 131. 64 4.01 1. 25 7.27
41 14.4 17.31 4.60 29.08 62.56 61. 57 63.57 2.85 1.49 4.67
42 14.4 5.43 1. 52 9.08 20.05 19.85 20.27 .91 .50 1.40
43 14.4 2.83 0.81 4.93 11.79 11. 77 11. 83 1.09 .91 1.30
44 14.4 1.03 0.28 1. 74 4.22 4.22 4.25 .17 .11 .25
45 14.4 1. 33 0.38 2.22 4.91 4.90 4.92 .22 .14 .32
46 14.4 4.13 1. 22 6.87 17.81 17.31 18>41 .73 .47 1.03
47 14.4 7.54 2.22 12.52 32.97 36.80 37.06 1. 34 .85 1.91
48 14.4 8.39 2.44 13.98 40.87 40.66 41.12 1. 50 .90 2.20
49 14.4 10.72 3.22 17.76 65.78 65.54 66.06 1.94 1. 21 2.80
50 14.4 9.23 2.75 15.31 43.05 42.95 43.17 1. 70 1.15 2.37
51 14.4 2.96 0.89 4.90 20.55 20.53 20.59 .56 .38 .78
52 14.4 2.63 0.77 4.38 10.81 10.78 10.84 .46 " .29 .65
53 14.4 1.35 0.38 2.25 4.62 4.60 4.63 .22 .14 .33
54 57.4 6.67 1. 99 11.05 31.40 31. 33 31. 49 1. 24 .83 1. 73
55 57.4 7.00 >'<1. 81 >'<10.12 63.10 *36.21 >'<36.35 2.12 *.96 >'<1. 75
56 57.4 19.11 >'<3.93 *22.29 112.25 *50.56 >'<50.89 4.88 >'<1.49 *3.31
57 57.4 7.31 >'<2.21 >'<12.03 45.24 >'<43.41 >'<43.58 1.41 *.90 >'<1.89
58 57.4 3.36 1.00 5.59 17.86 17.83 5.69 .63 .41 .89
59 57.4 .43 >'<0.06 >'<0.06 13.81 >'<0.74 >'<0.74 .48 >'< .10 *.10
60 57.4 5.03 N.A. N.A. 42.17 N.A. N.A. 1.44 N.A. N.A.
91 57.4 1. 35 *0.30 >'<1.69 15.29 *7.19 *7.22 .41 *.12 *.26
62 57.4 1.41 0.44 2.30 14.58 14.57 14.59 .28 .20 .39
63 57.4 .17 N.A. N.A. 6.77 N.A. N.A. .18 N.A. N.A.
*Does not include emissions from Brockton SMSA.
N.A.: Not available.
I-'
\D
-------
TRBLEIII. MAJOR POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS BY GRID ZONE FOR AVERAGE ANNUAL, SUMMER AND WINTER DAYS (TONS/ DAY).
N
o
GRID TYPE OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CARBON MONOXIDE PARTICULATES
,
ZONE SOURCE Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter Annua 1 . Summer Winter
20 ~hemica1 1.23 0.22 2.45 .03 .01 .07 .06 0.01 .13
26 lPower Plant 1.12 .20 2.21 .0 .0 .0 .05 .00 .09
26 Industry .59 .10 1.16 .0 .0 .0 .02 .00 .50
25 Institution .90 .16 1.77 .0 .0 .0 .04 .0 .07
26 Chemical .72 .13 1.41 .0 .0 .0 .03 .0 .58
12 Industry 2.69 .47 5.30 .01 .0 .02 .n .19 .22
13 Institition 5.46 .96 10.75 .02 .0 .05 .23 .04 .45
25 Institution 3.37 .59 6.62 .01 .0 .02 .14 .02 .27
26 Industry 2.00 .35 3.94 .0 .0 .0 .09 .0 .18
20 Industry 0.70 .13 1. 43 .0 .0 .0 .03 .0 .06
27 Industry 1. 21 .21 2.38 .0 .0 .01 .07 .01 .13
47 Industry 0.70 .12 1.34 .0 .0 .0 .02 .0 .07
25 Chemical 1.14 . .20 2.24 .0 .0 .0 .05 .0 .09
21 Industry .70 .12 1.39 .0 .0 ,0 .02 .0 .06
20 Industry .57 .10 1.12 .0 .0 .0 .02 .0 .05
20 Industry .92 .18 1. 96 .0 .0 .0 .06 .01 .11
31 Industry .71 .12 1.39 .03 .0 .06 .03 .0 .06
9 Industry 3.10 .55 6.04 .02 .0 .03 .12 .02 .25
9 Industry .70 .12 1.37 .0 .0 .0 .03 .0 .06
9 Industry 2.72 .48 5.35 .01 .0 .02 .12 .02 .24
26 Industry 1.35 .23 2.60 .0 .0 .01 .06 .01 .12
40 Industry 2.84 .80 5.21 .01 .0 .02 .12 .03 .22
32 Industry .64 .18 1.17 .0 .0 .0 .03 .0 .05
33 Industry 2.67 .76 4.89 .01 .0 .02 .11 .03 .20
33 Industry .78 .22 1.43 .0 .0 .0 .04 .01 .08
13 Industry .80 .16 1. 76 .0 .0 .0 .04 .01 .08
41 Industry 2.80 .50 5.60 .02 .0 .03 .15 .02 .24
25 Industry 2.70 .48 5.30 .02 .0 .03 .10 .02 .22
20 Institution .57 .16 1.04 .0 .0 .0 .02 .0 .04
32 Institution .95 .16 1. 80 .0 .0 .02 .04 .0 .08
31 Industry .52 .15 .95 .0 .0 .0 .03 .0 .05
26 Commercial .95 .17 1.90 .0 .0 .0 .04 .0 .08
24 Institution 1.88 .53 3.44 .0 .0 .02 .08 .02 .15
19 Industry .91 .26 1. 67 .0 .0 .0 .04 .01 .07
-------
TABLE III. (CONTINUED).
GRID TYPE OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CARBON MONOXIDE PARTICULATES
ZONE SOURCE Annual Summe r Winter Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter
25 Institution .80 .22 1. 47 .0 .0 -f .O .03 .0 .0(>
10 Institution .85 .24 1.56 .0 .0 .0 .05 .01 .08
49 Industry .98 .17 1. 91 .0 . .0 .0 .03 .00 .08
26 IIldustry 4.60 1.30 8.43 .02 .0 .04 .20 .06 .36
27 Fed. Facility 1.12 .32 2.06 .0 .0 .0 .05 .01 .08
46 Industry .81 .23 1.49 .0 .0 .0 .03 .0 .06
25 Industry 1.11. .31 2.03 .0 .0 .0 .05 .01 .08
25 Industry 6.52 ' 1. 85 11. 95 .03 .0 .05 .27 .08 .49
40 Industry .0 .0 .0 44.22 44.22 44.22 13 . 58 13.58 13.58
34 Power Plant I 33.86 33.86 33.86 .01 .01 .01 1.72 1.72 1.72
42 Power Plant 93.80 93.80 93.80 .0 .0 .0 2.30 2.30 2.30
26 Power Plant 113.41 113.41 113.41 .01 .01 .01 2.78 2.78 2.78
10 Power Plant 91. 72 91. 72 91. 72 .45 .45 .45 33.35 33.35 33.35
15 Power Plant 8.30 8.30 8.30 .0 .0 .0 .22 .22 .22
26 Power Plant 4.90 4.90 4.90 .0 .0 .0 .14 .14 .14
26 Power Plant 10.97 10.97 10.97 .0 .0 .0 .30 .30 .30
50 Power Plant 3.84 . 3.84 3.84 .0 .0 .0 .10 .10 .10
42 Power Plant 4.40 4.40 4.40 .0 .0 .0 .10 .iO .10
22 Power Plant 13.33 13 . 33. 13.33 .0 .0 .0 .33 .33 .33
N
I-'
-------
22
II
U
EMISSION RATE (TONS/DAY)
A >50
10-50
. <10
.
o
L
10
I
III
I
20
I
211
I
50-
I
SCALE"" MILES
FIGURE 7. LOCATION OF MAJOR POINT SOURCES.
-------
23
DIFFUSION MODEL METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The first major condition established prior to the determination
of an air quality control region's boundaries is that the regional
boundaries should encompass most pollution sources as well as most
people and property adversely affected by the source emissions.
The
core area of a region can be roughly defined on the basis of point
source locations and relative emission densities of "area" sources.
The above mentioned condition is not fully satisfied, however, until
the bounds of the area significantly affected by the source emissions
are determined.
Unfortunately, the areal extent of the region, chosen
to comply with this condition, cannot be rationally extrapolated
from the emissions data alone.
A thorough review of existin~ air quality in the Boston area
would make it possible to define the outer bounds of the region
and fully satisfy the source-receptor boundary condition specified
above.
In Boston, however, existing air sampling networks do not
encompass a large enough area, nor have they been in operation over
a sufficient length of time, that they may be considered reliable
and irrefutable guides to the establishing of the limits of the Region.
In light of this
lack of air quality data, a meteorological
diffusion model is used to compute pollutant concent~ations in the
ambient air at specified receptor points.
The diffusion model is
based on the mathematical treatment of pollutant emissions and
meteorological dat~.
While inherent limitations in the model are
-------
24
recognized, its results can be appropriately modified and interpreted
to provide reasonable spatial distributions of long-term (seasonal
and annual) average pollutant concentrations.
The available air
quality data in the Boston area has been used as a means of validating
the theoretical concentrations computed by the model.
A comparison
of predicted concentrations with measured values indicated that an
adjustment was necessary to the predicted concentrations so that they
might conform to measured levels.
However, greater reliance has
been placed on relative pollutant concentrations in defining the
Re'gion than has been placed on the predicted absolute concentrations.
Relative concentration distributions identify those areas most affected
by urban area pollutant emissions.
The diffusion model is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation,
described by Pasquilll, 2 and modified for long-term averages3,4
for application to the multiple-source situation typical of an urban
complex.
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.
The dispersion
of the plume is a function of the emission rate, effective source
and receptor heights, atmospheric stability and the distance from
the source.
The plume is assumed to move downwind according to the
mean wind.
The model was used to predict concentrations of 502' CO, and
total suspended particulates.
The averaging times were the summer
and winter seasons and the year.
In order that the theoretical
-------
25
pollutant levels could be determined, it was necessary to evaluate
certain meteorological input parameters.
These parameters are wind
direction and frequency of occurrence in each direction, effective
wind speeds for each direction, and mixing depths for various
averaging times.
Figure 8 shows the wind roses for the summer, winter, and year
for the Boston area*.
They represent graphically the frequency of
occurrence of the wind from the various compass directions.
This
data, along with effective wind speeds for the respective compass
directions was used as input data to the computerized model.
The
characteristic prevailing wind directions for each of the seasons,
as depicted by the length of the wind rose radials, produce a direct
influence over the dispersion of pollutants. This relationship may
be observed by correlating the shapes of the concentration isopleths
for the pollutants (see Figures 9, 11, and 13) and the wind rose for
the appropriate averaging time.
Table IV shows average mixing depths for the winter, summer,
and annual seasons**. A significant diurnal variation in the mixing
depth is in4icated.
These mixing depths define the volume of air
above the surface through which pollutants are allowed to mix, and
are assumed to have no spatial variation (i.e., mixing depth is constant)
over the receptor grid system.
*U.S. Weather Bureau Data for Logan International Airport, Boston,
Mass., 1951 through 1960.
**Computed mixing depths documented by Holzworth5, 6 and by recent
tabulations furnished to the Meteorologi~al Program, NAPCA, by the
National Weather Record Center, ESSA.
-------
26
WI NTER,
ANNUAL
SUMMER
N
PER CENT FREQUENCY
OF OCCURRENCE
,15
FIGURE 8 . WIND DIRECTION PER CENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE
FOR VARIOUS AVERAGING TIMES.
-------
27
Table IV
Average Mixing Depths for Boston
by Season and Time of Day (meters).
Average, Morning
Season Morning Average Afternoon Average and Afternoon
Winter 625 800 712
Summer 390 1300 845
Annual 529 1050 789
(all four seasons)
The diffusion model was used to compute the ground level con-
centrations of pollutants at 225 receptor points.
Their locations
were defined by an orthogonal grid system with mesh points 15
kilometers apart.
This grid, 210 km. on a side, was centered at
the State House in the City of Boston.
An effective source height
of 75 meters was assumed for all pollutant point sources, while topo-
graphical features were neglected for area-source emissions and for
the 225 receptor points.
This partial neglect of source and receptor
height considerations can be tolerated since the distances between
source-receptor points involved are suff~ciently great so as. to
diminish elevations as a variable for the outer portions of the 210
km. by 210 km.
area.
Long term pollutant concentrations have been used in this
study as a guide for determining the size of the region.
Past
experience has shown that the smaller region defined on this basis,
-------
28
in contrast to a region defined on the basis of more severe but
less frequent "episodic" conditions, encompasses a multi-jurisdictional
region amenable to regional control efforts.
In addition, a reliance
has been placed upon existing jurisdictional arrangements (towns)
in arriving at the boundaries of the region.
This arrangement
provides a certain geographical latitude for the diffusion model
results.
.
It also tends to reduce the significance of minor diffusion
model misestimations insofar as the size of the region is concerned.
Following is a presentation of the results of the diffusion
model analysis for the metropolitan Boston area.
Sulfur Dioxide
A known phenomenon associated with the gaseous pollutant sulfur
dioxide is its ability to react either photochemically or catalytically
with other substances in the atmosphere to form 803' sulfuric acid,
and acid salts.
This is commonly referred to as the "decay" of 802
The length of time assumed for the "half-life" of 802
wi th time.
is a measure of the rate of decay of that pollutant.
Diffusion model
results presented here are based on a 3-hour 802 half-life.
The predicted 802 concentrations for the winter averaging time
are shown in Figure 9.
The results for the winter averaging time are
presented here since the greatest land areas are affected by any given
802 concentration contour.
This is due to the greater space-heating
requirements during the winter.
The shape of the isopleths reflect
the influence of the winter winds.
These winds are primarily directed
-------
~~
t-<~
~~
H"
t-.j
to::!
'-'
i
RHO D E
ISLAND
)1
,;--
..
seAL!
OS
..
~~.-
pe::J C>
N
\.0
zo
..
MI LES
-------
30
from the northwest and southwest quadrants (see Figure 8).
As a
result those cities and towns to the northeast and southeast of
Boston serve as chief receptors of the pollutant emissions.
The
relative concentrations show a tendency toward leveling to a constant
value beginning at the .02 ppm isopleth.
The concentration gradient
is less in the vicinity of the .02 ppm contour than at the core of
the area where the closely spaced contours appear.
The .02 ppm
contour is a good indicator of the region whose ambient air is most
affected by urban~area source emissions.
This contour extends north
to Topsfield and Hamilton, west to Wellesley and Weston, and south
to Brockton.
The determination of the Region on the basis of relative
concentrations---as was done above---places a reliance on the model
to predict pollutant dispersion characteristics.
If however, a
reliance is placed on the model to predict absolute concentrations
accurately, then verification of the model by comparison with air
quality data is desirable.
There exists in the Boston area a
limited amount of ambient air quality data, collected by the Air Use
Management Section of the Massachusetts State Department of Public
9
Health.
Comparison of S02 con~entrations, measured at 10 urban sites
in or near Boston, with predicted concentrations at these same
locations, indicates that the model tends to overestimate measured
-------
i
10
SCALE
'"
~2J.-
~D
50
20
..
w
....
-------
32
concentrations.*
Thus, an average correction factor of 0.46** was
applied to the theoretical concentrations.
Figure 10 represents
the result of this adjustment.
The spatial relationship of the
contours, and the overall dispersion patterns predicted by the model,
are retained in Figure 10.
The .01 ppm contour line coincides
roughly with the .02 ppm contour of Figure 9.
As indicated in
Figure 10, it extends north to Hamilton, west to Weston, and south to
Brockton.
Suspended Particulates
Figure 11 shows the theoretical suspended particulate concentra-
tions predicted by the diffusion model.
The winter averaging time
is shown here since the greatest particulate emissions occur during
that period, and since the build-up of particulate concentrations
in the ambient air affects the greatest land area during the winter.
Two distinct centers of high concentrations are shown.
One occurs
over the city of Boston where dense urbanization harbors a similarly
dense conglomeration of particulate emission sources.
The other
exists northeast of the city of Boston, reflecting the existence of
a large, predominantly coal burning, power plant.
The influence of
this source may tend to be distorted by the model since the assumed
effective stack height of 75 meters is not representative of this
power plant.
*Sampling measurements averaged for the winter season were collected
during January and February, 1966. Diffusion model concentrations
were computed using meteorological data for the months of January,
February, and March; emissions input data is for the year 1967.
**This average correction factor is assumed to be valid over the
entire receptor grid, though the factor was derived from concentration
comparisons near the center of the grid only.
-------
C')H
0g;
Zo
~:;d
~~
g;~
~~
o .
Zen
ene:::
en
H;:g
Z,.,.
~@
OQ 1:>:1
-...t:;I
Et..v "d
~. :x>
:E:~
HH
ZC')
He:::
~~
H
:»1:>:1
<:
1:>:1
~
1:>:1
>,j
H
<;)
e:::
:;d
1:>:1
I-'
I-'
~
RHO D E
ISLAND
)J
V
..
"A'"
..
~~.-
~C>
w
w
zo
..
..
MILES
-------
34
The spatial relationship of the contours indicates that the
tendency to a constant concentration level occurs at the 15 pg/m3
concentration contour.
Here the concentration gradient exhibits a
distinct decrease as one travels further outward from the core
area.
Hence, it might be said that the a,tmosphere over the area
enclosed by the 15 pg/m3 concentration contour is that most heavily
burdened by the inventoried source emissions.
This area extends
northward to Hamilton, west to Newton and Waltham, and south to
Brockton.
The identification of the area in this manner places a reliance
on the diffusion model to predict relative concentrations only, and
to indicate pollutant dispersion patterns.
This eliminates the need
to equate predicted concentrations to measured particulate concentra-
tions where such a gross simplification would no doubt be misleading.
Air quality data does exist, however, in the core of the area.
Comparison of measured data9 at 20 sampling stations* with predicted
concentrations at these same locations indicated that the measured
concentrations exceeded those predicted by an average factor of
2.35.
It is. assumed that this correction factor is valid for adjust-
ing predicted concentrations over the entire extent of the receptor
grid.
Figure 12 represents the adjusted theoretical concentrations.
A review of available air quality datalO,11,12
for suspended
particulates has shown that an approximate level of 30 pg/m3 can be
* Data collected during January qnd February 1966.
-------
HE;
Z~
""1::C/)
~1-3
!t..>~
C/)
:E:C::
HC/)
Z~
t;3e
:;dt'=:!
~t:;j
~S
t'=:!::=::
c::
S
t'=:!
C":)
o
z
C":)
t'=:!
~
H
~
C/)
'"%j
H
GJ
~
I--'
N
i
RHOD[
ISLAND
10
SCALE
..
2.
..
I
~~.-
~CJ
VJ
V1
20
-------
36
regarded as the normal background concentration* in the metropolitan
Boston area.
This represents an average of yearly geometric means
taken from sampling stations in the several States bordering
Massachusetts.**
The sampling at these stations occurred in the
years 1959, 1961, and 1963 through 1967.***
For this reason, the
adjusted concentrations were carried out to a concentration of
3
30 pg/m .
mates the 15 pg/m3 isopleth in Figure 11.
The area included within this isopleth closely approxi-
3
The 30 pg/m contour
reaches south to Brockton, north to Hamilton, and west to Waltham
and Weston. This was the boundary where relative concentrations
began to noticeably level off.
Carbon Monoxide
Figure 13 shows the theoretical concentrations of carbon monoxide
pollution predicted by the diffusion model.
The results are for the
winter averaging time since the greatest emissions occur during that
period.
The influence of any major point source is not visually
evident since the primary emitter of this type of pollution is the
automobile, treated as an area source.
The predicted concentration gradient for carbon monoxide falls
off rapidly from the core to the 0.10 ppm isopleth.
Indications are
* This includes particulate pollution from natural sources and from
nearby urban centers~
** Stations located in the States of New York, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
*** Air Quality data-for 1966 and 1967 was obtained from the National
Air Quality, Data Bank, National Air Sampling Network (NASN).
-------
I-:tj
H
o
~
t':I
t-'
W
HH
Z::r::
t':I
!-dO
~~
.. H
H
:E:n
H:J>
Zt"""'
Hn
~[;;
~~
t':IZ
~~
00
t':IZ
. 0
:x:
H
~
t':I
n
o
Z
n
t':I
~
~
H
H
o
Z
CJJ
~
RHODE
ISLAND
)i
./
.. ..
SCALI ZO I
.. OS
MILES
W
'-I
-------
38
that the urban area emissions have the greatest relative effect on
a region extending north to Middleton and Topsfield, west to
Framingham, and south to Brockton.
This corresponds roughly to the
same area significantly affected by 802 (Fig~re 9) and suspended
particulate (Figure 11) pollution.
Past analyses in other urban areas have proven that the model
generally tends to underestimate actual CO concentrations in the
ambient air*.
However, no attempt has been made to correlate
measured data with the predicted values since few actual air quality
measurements have been taken.
Nevertheless, it is believed that
a certain reliability can be placed on the model for predicting
relative CO concentration distributions, particularly at the fringe
areas. '
On this basis, the outlying jurisdictions mentioned above
define the limits of the region whose ambient air quality is most
affected by CO emissions.
* In past studies correction factors ranging from 3.4 to 5.0 have
been applied to the predicted concentrations to bring them in
agreement with air quality data. The underestimates are assumed
to be the result of the diffusion model's neglect of the built-up
nature of an urban area (it therefore assumes more volume for CO
diffusion than is the actual case) coupled with the fact that most
measurements occur at locations proximate to nearby streets.
The diffusion model, however, distributes the contributions of CO
from individual streets over the entire urban area.
-------
39
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS
Section 107 (a) (2) of the Air Quality Act of 1967 calls for
the designation of air quality control regions "based on
jurisdictional boundaries, urban-industrial concentrations, and
other factors...necessary to provide adequate implementation of
air quality standards." The designation of air quality control
regions must be based on a consideration of existing cooperative
regional arrangements, existing State and local air pollution control
legislation, and also patterns and rates of urban growth. These
considerations, referred to as "urban factors," lead to the
establishing of two chief conditions to be met if an air quality
control region is to prove effective as a basic tool to an overall
air resource management program. First, the boundaries of a region
should encompass those locations where projected urbanization will
create significant air pollution prob~ems in the foreseeable future.
Second, the boundaries should be chosen in a way which is compatible
with and fosters unified and cooperative governmental administration
of the air resource throughout the region.
A close look at the anticipated character of u~banization in the
Boston area requires first, that we limit ourselves to those
municipalities felt to develop physically, socially, and economically
as a'resu1 t of regional or mu1 ti- jurisdictional interaction. Such
interaction suggests that these municipalities should be included
in the Region in order that the most effective administration of an
air resource management program will
occur.
A review of those cities
and towns involved in .the past, or at present,. in regional planning
-------
40
efforts, will help us to define initially a cohesive yet inclusive
"metropolitan Boston" are~.
Figure 14 represents a map of 6 Standard Metropolitan Statistical
-/(
Areas (SMSA's) or portions of SMSA's in Eastern Massachusetts. By
definition, SMSA's serve to identify an economically and socially
integrated group of communities. They also serve as a geographic
base for the gathering of statistical data. Brockton, Lawrence,
Lowell, and Worcester are center cities for SMSA's which surround
the Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. These center. cities,
as well as the peripheral cities and towns included in each SMSA, are
indirectly dependent on metropolitan Boston as a basic employment and
trading area. The Worcester SMSA is separated from the Boston SMSA by
a corridor one town wide at its narrowest section, while the Lawrence,
Lowell, and Brockton SMSA's are directly adjacent to the Boston SMSA.
The Providence SMSA abuts the Boston SMSA, though only the
Massachusetts portion is shown in the figure.
The limits of the Boston SMSA define the smallest logical study
area for the purpose of this evaluation. This area comprises the
cities and towns most closely allied with Boston. The sole inclusion
of these communities in the Region would facilitate a future control
program on the basis of the wealth of statistical data that has been
accumulated. It would be somewhat shortsighted, however, to neglect
to consider areas beyond this SMSA since it has been mentioned that
*Portions of the Lawrence-Haverhill SMSA extend into New Hampshire.
-------
~~
CJ:!>
I-3Z
t'j~
~~
~::s:
CJ:!t'j
CJ:!1-3
>~
(J'1:j
:I: 0
gt""'
t'jH
1-3~
~Z
CJ:!
~
H
CJ:!
1-3
H
(J
~
>
:;c
t'j
>
CJ:!
hj
~
c:::
gg
I-'
~
~
I-'
LAWRENCE-HAVERHILL, MASS.-N.H. SMSA.
NE.W
HAMPSHIRE
i
BOSTON, MASS. SMSA.
WORCESTER, MASS. SMSA.
H
Z
RHODE
ISLAND
MASSACHUSETTS PORTION
PROVIDENCE, R.I.-MASS.
"
SCALE
"
3.~
, ~.-
~o
20
..
..
-------
42
future urbanization is to be considered.
Figure 15 identifies the region encompassed by the Eastern
Massachusetts Regional Planning Project (EMRPP), formerly known
as the Boston Regional Planning Project. The EMRPP includes 152
cities and towns and was organized in 1962 on an interagency basis
by the State Department of Public Works, the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council (MAPC), and the State Department of Commerce and
Development. The EMRPP was established to develop comprehensive
land use and transportation planning, a prerequisite for Federal
aid to highways in urban areas. This region contains peripheral
cities and towns physically and economically remote to the City
of Boston.
Figure 15 also shows 114 contiguous cities and towns comprising
the "metropolitan Boston area"--an area defined by the Massachusetts
Department of Commerce and Development in their 1966 Interim Definition
of Regions for the purpose of facilitating regional organization. This
was identified as a logical p1anni~g region in Eastern Massachusetts.
In April, 1968, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council published a
14 . 'k
population projection study for a reg~on closely approximating
that given by the Interim Definition.
Figure 16 identifies the jurisdictions encompassed by the various
planning agencies within or abutting the EMRPP region. The central shaded
portion represents the 97 member communities** of the Metropolitan
*Inc1udes all cities and towns given by the
that the town of Bolton is included in the
P1ympton, and Plymouth are excluded.
**Member communities as of June, 1968.
Interim Definition except
study while Kingston, Carver,
-------
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
"':!
H
o
d
J;d
t:r:I
I-'
\J1
~~OYA~~:- -! ::;~O:'I' -- -,~,-=: - i TOIN~:O
~,.-, I ASHBURNHAN ! .-- l_.
/ l"':~, /-/...., ./t 1 -----.
'ATHOL ~\ .. ~ GAROIER '-.r' I'FITCNBURG \lIJ1IEIBURG
J ~ ~ L,~ / '
I '~'\ B 7 , " .""",
i, /\ ~ . ~ '>'. ~STlIIiSTER'l'-/ '.
Y' '>'f. \ ...,/ <. /" LIONIHSTER
. Y '. '/"" .
( . HUBBAROSTON;-" !-.--
I'!TERSHAN . .l \
, / --""':'--..... ,/.. PRINCETON )STERLING
/ ./ BARRE ,-/ --..... /\
i ,..-'..1""""" .~ RUTLAND '>, \ -.-;').
, ,I ',>- /.. / HOLDEN \i:i~ $
Y HARD'IC~ j '<., WHAM \ ....\-. ,"~ if
, I ~,./ \ /\1~.
L-.....,.../IOBRAI~_~_...r:\:PmON'J / ~,Ii
f......... r \ . \ '" .
flES! ..... NORTH --. , ~
(IIOOIFlELD1JBROIIIITIu.D' '\ il;' WOReESlER ~!l!
/\ x- ~SP!IICER f$ \~, .1""-'
I \ r~ ~~~ . , ~ 1.. 'y"; GRAFTOI
("'RREI Vi (~ .~~\.A~(.I' .
, '-......-. J!,../- , \ '--1~'
) I J . YSUTWI
\ BRINFIELO ' /l (CHARLTON \OXFORD 1-,.
~._,_.~ i j~ "\ ---"\. /\\..\/
!fAlES l!llllMD! I;j /~~ GOLEY ~sm \ DOUGLAS
.. ::::J---1-C_---"--_...i..-_--,--~--
~
H
Z
o
J;d
t:r:I
o
H
o
Z
en
H
Z
t:r:I
>
en
>-3
t:r:I
gg
~
en
en
>
(')
2
en
t:r:I
>-3
>-3
en
RHODE
ISLAND
..
ICAU
..
zo
~
w
~
EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS REGIONAL
PLANNING PROJECT
1966 INTERIM DEFINITION OF
REGIONS
i
..
..
~~.-
~o
-------
~gg
C/)C::::
g;s
~~
C/)t<:I
t<:IC/)
1-'3
1-'30
C/)t':!:j
'"d
~
Z
Z
H
Z
G)
~
G)
t<:I
Z
C"J
H
t<:I
C/)
H
Z
t<:I
~
C/)
1-'3
t<:I
~
Z
t':!:j
H
G)
c::::
~
t<:I
......
Q"\
GREATER LOWELL AREA
PLANNING COMMISSION \
NEW HAMPSHIRE ---~\
~OYA::T:- -r WINCH~~:r-'~---I-- - - -
\, --, i I ASHBURNJlAM '[ ~:~ '~~ilNO ~ -,
/ !'<":~' /"""', _/t 1 ---'--1\ ,OROTON :
, 'I '- ' LUItEWBAJRG',
J ATHOL ~\ - ~AROI£R ,J /FllWUNC\ II::; )- ,
{ ,~. ~ 7 .I . 'Y'. g \ W~7 .
, \ -\ i<' ( , ,-", =. ,
I, / ~,~ "-,: \ ,/, /', LfONINSTER /' -', HARVARO )...,~ .
, Y', / " ~ j ,
( " HUBBAROSTON)-' \--..J,; ,"
PETERS HAW '...... ' , I
. / '" "~A PRINC£TON )STERlINJ: '!...'
I .../' BARRE .Y "....... /\---. ~1I101
I .""-""""",, ,/\ RUllANO'/ \ ~>. '-) BERliN
, I '..", , /, / " t;;jg/ .. ,
Y HARDWICK .J
20
2.
..
I
-------
45
Area Planning Council. The MAPC was organized in 1964, and at that
time was given responsibility by the State Legislature for conducting
research and compiling data necessary to improve the physical, social,
and economic conditions within its planning district. The MAPC receives
an annual appropriation from the State Legislature which is paid for
on a per capita basis by the member communities. Membership in the
MAPC is open to any city or town immediately adjacent to the present
district.
It is noteworthy that the City of Brockton is a member of both
the MAPC and the Old Colony Planning Council (OCPC). The OCPC includes
all the Brockton SMSA communities wit~ the exception of Stoughton.
The 1966 Interim Definition of the metropolitan Boston area includes
all member communities of the OCPC and the Brockton SMSA within its
boundaries, while no jurisdictional entities from the Lawrence and
Lowell SMSA's are so inc1uded~ It is clear that Brockton, and
therefore its neighboring cities and towns have been allied with
the City of Boston in the past for planning purposes.
Lawrence and Lowell, are the core cities for planning agencies
in their respective areas. The boundaries of these planning agencies,
shown in Figure 16, abut the outer limits of the MAPC.* The EMRPP
area included all or part of the jurisdictions of these two
planning agencies, along with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council
*Threeadditiona1 planning agencies abut the MAPC. These are the
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission to the west,
the Southeastern Massachusetts Regiona1'P1anning Commission, and
Rhode Island Development Council to the south. Member communities
of these agencies were not considered for inclusion in the Region
due to their geographic and socio-economic remoteness from the
Boston metropolis.
-------
46
and the Old Colony Planning Council. Nevertheless, the communities
within the jurisdiction of the Central Merrimac Valley Regional
Planning District and the Greater Lowell Area Planning Commission
will not be considered for inclusion in the Region at this time.
These areas possess loose social and economic ties with Boston, and
have lacked inclusion in any regional planning efforts aimed at
their ~.!:.::L.!. integration with metropolitan Boston. The inclusion
of these l1reas in a region of their own may be necessary at a later
date, owing to the magnitude of the pollution problem, a problem
distinct from that of metropolitan Boston.
Based on the above arguments, the outer bounds of the area
encompassed by theMAPC and the OCPC identifies the municipalities
to be considered for inclusion in the Region at this time. The
following study of the trends toward urbanization in the area will
determine whether the Region should be lesser in extent than the
combined area of these two planning agencies.
Figure 17 shows the population distribution for the jurisdictions
within the MAPC and oCPC based on figures from the 1965 Massachusetts
State Census. This 1965 population density map shows a corridor of
high population extending west to Framingham and south to Brockton.
A ring of municipalities of high population density extending north
to Burlington, Reading, and Beverly also exists. Correlation of the
present population distribution with Figure 20 reveals that the areas
of high population density outward from Boston follow roughly the
patterns of the existing major circumferential and radial highways
-------
47
KEY:
POPULATION DENSITY
(PERSONS/SQUARE MILE)
) 5000
Will
(M
D
1500-5000
750-1500
o
~
I
...d
10
I
II
I
MILES
FIGURE 17.
1965 POPULATION DENSITY.
-------
48
in
the region (e.g., Routes 9 and 1-90 to the west, 24 to the
south, and circumferential routes 128 and 495) .
d .. 14
Figure 18 depicts 1990 predicted population ens1t1es.
Figure 19 indicates the municipalities where greatest growth
(1965-1990) is projected to occur, in terms of additional residents
per square mile. This figure shows the trend toward little growth,
and sometimes a population loss, in the core of the region.
Observations in Boston and other cities have led to,the theory
that population growth occurs in a ripple-like pattern outward
from the center (Boston). Figure 19 reflects this to an extent,
though distortions created by topography and by the highway systems
are evident. The ten communities projected to have a population
increase of between 25 and 50% between 1960 and 1990 lie in a ring
on route 128. The existence of route 1-495 and a proposed circum-
ferential highway between it and route 128 will tend to carry this
uniform growth pattern further out to the north, west, and south
of Boston.
Further review of Figure 20, the 1990 proposed highway network,
shows that a comprehensive system of belt and radial arteries will
tie the outer portions of the area to the core city, but at the same
time this extensive system will promote grea~er traffic volumes.
Auto ownership in the Boston area is expected to increase at a rate
greater than either population or employment. Along with this increase
in traffic volume will be a concommitant increase in carbon monoxide
emissions.
The geographic patterns of the major highways in the area
are in a way reflective of the spatial emission pattern of carbon
-------
KEY:
POPULATION DENSITY
(PERSONS/SQUARE MILE)
> 5000
Ptfftl 1500- 5000 ~r
,/
../ IPS'ICH.~. / i\
EErn 750 -1500 ~ /fe.Jn--.f.J. I~;;:{
1:::I:f:::H . lSIJ.l ~ V" '" It :~j
I. ~~~ESSEX: 1Y.
o <: 750 _::::::)i ~t;;:~~.\ ~ III
0[!?W:~1:7~?tj~J}t'~W:::' ~ IJ
.,,"",. , , . " ''J';:'~I~\..:,.;.:2,::""",'./:lrJ.:::~J.:.:';',::'~, ,;.~..n~..,.. ::':"". ~. &
/.~::' "..'.. :2\:':;:~1:t ;: ~:>!.'.'.',',':' ' .
I#~~?~ f l-[-ri'fI~:{ .B~;;:; : ':\:, . "'.: < .
,..,. .--"'~..:: ~( '.'. ....;'~.; . ,',
f.: BOLTON i,. STili ~.~ ... ~ r. ,;):: ,.\: .';,;.:,' .'. .. ,
--.~.~,~.~...'1t :~.~~~u~t stt ~~
A~.~.:::;:,: II ::::iW\H~~::;j'
~~~.:::: ":U ":~':".ST9I:
v..:':::':"':!j;i.:.:""r-:::::tjil;5~:~:::'l:::::::' tP .. t1 A
~\~o~~,}::::?/f.~(k:~:':':'~:':~Jl~:\:.~ .~ .; 1.
,\.80 ~ ~':'::'~::'::J:._:" '~~M ")\.
T ~""'~;ffl:{:'::::\' ::":':":". . "': " .":.
.... . 1/' ' DOVER J::!!!: .::.' ~~ """I":~
. ~1:kt1Ifi: .~::~~J~W ,'';::::::,:.:;. I
,r::::.:\ ~ ~ry;:-::~~;I\~.. iit~.}t: "~ ~
~~r i. ~~~:~?\::i&:,:,...,~:;.' ~:::',r::::::',',':' .
'<~\ ,~~ - T~/::" . ~::fL;/ ::: :.:., ..." ~::::::. ::~~. I '
~ ;i! . I::'!;"'" : :','.', .
iM ~
,
L~~
J1!F1 1:. ~
-~; ., :1:.
,..: : " :
$J}~
U""\.
iE1:
\EASTOI ,~~ -
l--- ~....~~...~~.
""
.;
'..J 'f~ '\
~'1 ~
~. DUXBURY 7'
y
",,""
p"
"
(/
"-
...... ,......."
o
U
II
~
10
I
IS
I
MILES
FIGURE
18. 1990 PROJECTED POPULATION DENSITY.
49
-------
50
KEY:
ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS
(PERSONS/SQUARE MILE)
.
> 1250
r-.,- r---
i: BOLTON"" STO'
......, t
[ill]
D
600-1000
1000-1250
< 600
o
U
I
...d
10
I
II
I
MILES
FIGURE 19. 1965-1990 PROJECTED ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS PER
SQUARE MILE.
-------
51
o
I....i
&
U
10
I
20
I
1&
I
SCALE"" MILES
2&
I
FIGURE 20. 1990 PROPOSED HIGHWAY NETWORK
-------
52
monoxide since the automobile can be held accountable at present for
89% ot all CO emissions in the Boston area.
Figure 21 shows the projected residential density pattern for
new development. This pattern parallels the 1990 population density
distribution. Figure 22 shows existing and proposed (1990) regional
and sub-regional centers for the metropolitan area. This figure
pinpoints areas that are or will become major employment centers.
A comparison of this figure with Figure 20 shows that the majority
of these centers lie immediately adjacent to the major existing
and projected expressways.
The thi.rd condition to be met by the Region is that it be
compatible with and foster the development of effective governmental
administration of a regional air quality control program. This involves
a review of the existing air pollution programs in metropolitan
Boston, especially those responsible for the regional control of
air pollution.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health became actively
involved in air pollution control in 1954 when the State Legislature
transferred the Division of Smoke Inspection from the Department of
Public Utilities to the Department of Public Health. At the same
time the Division of Smoke Inspection was placed under the Division
of Sanitary Engineering within the Department of Public Health. The
Legislature authorized the Department of Public Health to adopt
(minimum) State-wide air-pollution regulations. The application
of such regulations was intended for air pollutant emissions
-------
.0
2
~3-4
~ 5-10
1125
o
L
&
U
53
DWELLING UNITS
PER RESIDENTIAL ACRE
10
I
"
I
20
I
SCALE ("oJ MILES
FIGURE 21. PROJECTED 1990 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
PATTERN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
-------
54
EXiSTING AND PROPOSED
MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS
o 5
~ U
o SUBREGIONAL CENTERS
C REGIONAL CENTERS
10
I,
15
I
20
I
SCALE", MILES
FIGURE 22. EXISTING AND PROPOSED (1990) REGIONAL
AND SUB-REGIONAL CENTERS.
-------
55
arising from State institutions, mobile sources, sources causing
inter-municipal pollution effects, and sources which could and
should be controlled by other agencies, but are not.
Existing law gives local boards of health the authority to
adopt air pollution rules and regulations with the approval of
the Department of Public Health. In the metropolitan area, local
air pollution programs exist in the cities of Brockton, Beverly,
and Salem, and in the town of Natick.
Legislation passed in 1960 established the Metropolitan (Boston)
Air Pollution Control District (MAPCD).
The MAPCD is composed of
Boston and 29 contiguous cities and towns, and became effective
January 1, 1961. The law provided for a comprehensive air pollution
control program for metropolitan Boston to be administered by the
Division of Sanitary Engineering for the State Department of Public
Health. Under this law the State was given authority to regulate all
sources of atmospheric pollution within the MAPCD. The boundaries of
the MAPCD, which encompasses 320 square miles and over two million
people are shown in Figure 23. Other contiguous cities and towns
may be admitted to the MAPCD by the Department of Public Health
upon application. The MAPCD draws funds from member cities and towns,
one half in proportion to population, and one half in proportion to
assessed valuation.
Enabling Legislation, also passed in 1960, authorized the
Department of Public Health to establish multi-municipal regional
'air pollution control districts similar to the MAPCD upon the request
of two or more contiguous municipalities in the Commonwealth. In 1967
-------
56
o
U
5
U
10
I
15
I
MILES
FIGURE 23 ~ THE METROPOLITAN (BOSTON) AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT (MAPCD).
-------
57
the Lower Pioneer Valley Air Pollution Control District was
established following the voluntary request of 10 cities and
towns in the Springfield area. The State Department of Public
Health continues to encourage the formation of more regional
districts in the State. The need for such districts in several
areas, including the Merrimac Valley (Lawrence and Lowell areas)
has been propounded by state air pollution control officials.15,16
In addicion, a goal of the State is to more fully "cooperate with
the Federal Government, where indicated, in such matters as...
air region programs and. interstate problems.,,15 The value of a
regional approach to air pollution control in metropolitan Boston
is recognized by both the State and Federal governments.
The Metropolitan Air Pollution Control District has in the past
proven to be the basis for a sound approach to region-wide air
pollution control. It has been effective in causing the cessation
of pollutant emissions from a variety of source types within its
jurisdiction. With the forthcoming issuance by the Federal government
of air quality criteria, acceptable standards may be set for the
subsequent abatement and control of gaseous pollutant emissions as
well as for visible particulate (smoke) emissions.
A federally designated air quality control region larger than the
present MAPCD would probably lessen, though not completely eliminate,
the boundary problems normally encountered by a regional control
agency. Major sources located immediately outside the present District
-------
58
would be included in a larger Region. These source-receptor
problems then, should be given fullest consideration in
determining the Region. As a result, it may become necessary to
consider a greater area than does the existing regional arrange-
ments (the MAPCD) in order to more effectively administer the air
resource.
-------
59
. 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 metropolitan Boston intrastate area
consisting of the following 20 cities and towns:
Cities
Beverly
Boston
Brockton
Cambridge
Chelsea
Everett
Gloucester
Lynn
Malden
Marlborough
Medford
Melrose
Newton
Peabody
Quincy
Revere
Salem .
Somerville
Waltham
Woburn
Towns
Ab ing ton
Acton
Arlington
Ashland
Avon
Bedford.
Belmont
Braintree
Bridgewater
Brookline
Burlington
Canton
Cohasset
Concord
Danvers
Dedham
Dover
Duxbury
East Bridgewater
Easton
Essex
Foxborough
Framingham
Hamilton
Hanover
Hanson
Hingham
Holbrook
Hudson
Hull
Ipswich
Lexington
Lincoln
Lynnfield
Manchester
Marbl~head
Marshfield
Maynard
Medfield
Middleton
Millis
Mil ton
Nahant
Natick
Needham
Norfolk
North Reading
Norwell
-------
60
Norwood
Pembroke
Randolph
Reading
Rockland
Rockport
Saugus
Scituate
Sharon
Sherborn
Southborough
Stoneham
Stoughton
Sudbury
Swampscott
(Towns (cont.)
Topsfield
Wakefield
Walpole
Watertown
Wayland
Wellesley
Wenham
West Bridgewater
Weston
Westwood
Weymouth
Whitman
Wilmington
Winchester
Winthrop,
Figure 24 shows the boundaries of the proposed Region while
Figure 25 indicates the geographic, relationship of the Region to
the surrounding areas.
-------
i
10
SCALE
IS
2.
50
I
~~.-
~o
0\
I-'
20
-------
62
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
PROPOSED METROPOLITAN
BOSTON INTRASTATE AIR
QUALITY CONTROL REGION
MASS.
CONNECTICUT R.
NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-
CONNECTICUT INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY
CONTROL REGION
METROPOLITAN PHILADELPHIA
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
WASHINGTON, D.C. NATIONAL CAPITAL
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
FIGURE 25. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED
METROPOLITAN BOSTON INTRASTATE AIR
QUALITY CONTROL REGION TO SURROUND-
ING AREAS.
-------
63
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL
To implement a successful air resource management program, an
air quality control region should meet three basic conditions. Fir~t,
its boundaries should encompass most pollution sources as well as
most people and property affected by these sources. Second, the
boundaries should encompass those locations where projected
urbanization will create significant air pollution problems in the
foreseeable future. Third, the boundaries should be chosen to be
compatible with and foster unified and cQoperative governmental
administration of the air resource throughout the region. The
proposed boundary of the Metropolitan Boston Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region was designed to satisfy these requirements.
The "Evaluation of Engineering Factors" was' directed toward the
first of these conditions, while the "Evaluation of Urban Factors"
considers the other two conditions. The Region as proposed consists
of 20 cities and 78 towns. It creates an inclusive yet cohesive
combination of jurisdictions for the administering of a region-wide
air resource management program. The Region: provides not only for
the present needs of metropolitan Boston in order that acceptable
air quality may be obtained, but also has been based upon future
needs.
An examination of pollutant emission levels clearly shows that
the preponderance of emissions (expressed in terms of density)
occur in Boston or its neighboring citie~ and towns. The density
-------
64
of emissions diminishes rapidly as one travels outward from the
City of Boston. A region smaller in extent than that proposed
would suffice to encompass the bulk of the pollutant sources.
However, the majority of the people and property affected by the
pollution emitted by these sources must be included in the Region
in order that the first condition may be satisfied.
For this reason, the engineering evaluation utilizes a meteor-
ological pollutant ,diffusion model to predict the extent of the
pollutant problem. Equal-concentration contour maps depict the
pollutant dispersion characteristics. The extent, shape, and relative
spatial distribu~ion of the contours makes it possible to select the
Region that best satisfies the first condition. The location of the
contour where a noticeable decrease in the concentration gradient
occurs provides a good indication of the size of the Region. Based
on relative predicted concentrations of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
and suspended particulates, the Region extends northward to Hamilton
and Topsfield, westward to Framingham, and southward to the city of
Brockton. Diffusion model results adjusted to conform to measured
concentrations, suggest that the Region should be geographically
similar to that chosen through the use of relative concentrations.
The second condition states that the Region should include those
areas where anticipated urbanization will create significant air
pollution problems in the foreseeable future. This condition provides
for the inclusion in the Region, areas that are at present non-urban
-------
65
in character, or- -that are solely receptors of pollution transported
from the urban areas. This provides for a "buffer zone" aga,inst
pollution sources at the perimeters of the Region, based on present
day, development. Inclusion of these areas will at the same time
allow for future growth. This arrangement provides a logical approach
to an air resource management program by sensing where control efforts,
a prerequisite for air of acceptable quality, will be needed.
An investigation was made to define the outer limits of an initial
study area. The cities and towns within this area would be those
closely integrated in metropolitan Boston, physically, socially, and
economically. This study area was determined to be the combined area
of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and the Old Colony Planning
Council. The municipalities within the jurisdiction of these two
planning agencies. have been included in overall planning with
metropolitan Boston in the past. Peripheral jurisdictions within the
area are not strongly tied to Boston as are others, and will not
experience growth rates commensurate with the metropolis as a
whole. A closer look at the pattern of urbanization was taken to,
determine whether the proposed Region should be lesser in extent
than the above designated area.
Population projections indicate that growth will occur centered
around Framingham, Brockton, and Peabody. These sub-regions serve
as geographic hubs for extensive regional population growth and a
concomitant increase in residential development.
The core city,
-------
66
Boston, and its immediate neighbors are at the same time projected
to undergo a stabilization, and in some cases a decline, in growth.
An extensive network of radial and circumferential highways will
promote growth in the fringe cities and towns while regional
integration through expanded and faster travel will be greatly
induced.
The Region boundaries can be determined in part by combining
the growth factor, applicable to individual cities and towns, with
the concept of retaining a cohesive, yet inclusive area.
Weighing
these requirements against one another, it was concluded that the
Region should extend to the outer bounds of the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council (MAPC) to the north and to the outer bounds of the
MAPC and Old Colony Planning Council to the south.
The Region would
include Ipswich, Middleton and Wilmington to the north, and Duxbury,
Bridgewater and Foxborough to the south.
The proposed western boundary of the Region has been established
by consideration of geographic growth trends.
The towns of Acton,
Maynard, Hudson and Marlborough are projected to undergo great
population growth.
For this reason they have been suggested for
inclusion in the Region.
Southborough has been proposed for inclusion
because of its proximity to Framingham, the center of a highly
urbanized sub-region of Boston.
The likelihood of future urbaniza-
tion spilling into Southborough from its neighboring towns cannot be
discounted.
The peripheral towns of Stow, Bolton, Holliston, Medway
-------
67
and Milford are felt to be marginal in-so-far as inclusion in the
proposed Region is concerned.
For that reason, they have not been
suggested for inclusion in the proposed Region at this time.
Franklin and Bellingham have not been included in the proposal since
they appear to be more closely related geographically and otherwise
to Providence, Rhode Island. However, the final designation of the
Region remains open as to the inclusion of these and other peripheral
cities and towns subject to the comments and suggestions
presented at
the consul~ation by appropriate State and local authorities.
As is true of most efforts to draw boundaries around an area
to differentiate it from its surroundings, there is always a likelihood
of boundary conditions exisiting or developing. In the case of Air
Quality Control Regions, such a boundary condition would exist where
sources of pollution on one side of the region boundary affect in
some real way air quality on the other side of the boundary. Relocating
the boundary would only rarely provide relief from this condition.
The solution is to be found in the way in which control efforts are
implemented 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
-------
68
emissions from sources cause air quality levels to exceed the
standards chosen for application with the Air Quality Control
Region.
The seriousness of these boundary conditions are likely to
be diminished due to the likelihood of contiguous or nearly
contiguous air quality control regions to the north, west, and
south of Metropolitan Boston. Plans have already been announced
by the Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
for the designation of an air quality control region for Providence.
It is likely that air quality control regions will eventually be
designated for the Worcester and Lawrence-Lowell areas. The probability of
these other regions occuring proximate to the Boston Region acted
as constraints upon the extent of the initial study area and the
final Region, as proposed. The Engineering Evaluation does, however,
indicate that from a technical point of view the proposed Region is
inclusive. From a consideration of urban factors the" selection of
boundaries was not always as clear; nevertheless, it is felt that
the second and third conditions stated above are fulfilled in
the Region boundaries, as proposed. As stated previously, however,
the Region b.oundariesremain subject to revision suggested by
consultation with State and local officials.
-------
69
REFERENCES
1.
Public Health Service. Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
Community Air Pollution Emissions. Publication No. 999-AP-29,
Environmental Health Series, U.S. DREW, Division of Air
Pollution, Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1966.
2.
Public Health Service. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. Publication No. 999-AP-42, Environmental Health Series,
U.S. DHEW, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Durham,
North Carolina. \
3.
Pasquill, F. "The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne
Material," Meteorology Magazine, 90, 33-49, 1961.
4.
Pasqui11, F. Atmospheric Diffusion, Van Nostrand Co., New York,
New York, pp. 190, 1962.
5.
Public Health Service. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
Estimates. Publication No. 999-AP-26, Environmental Health
Series, U.S. DHEW, National Center for Air Pollution Control,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
6.
Martin, D.O., Tikvart, J.A. "A Gener,a1 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.
7.
Holzworth, G.C. "Mixing Depths, Wind Speeds and Air Pollution
Potential for Selected Locations in the United States," J. App1.
Meteor., No.6, pp. 1039-1044, December, 1967.
8.
Holzworth, G.C. "Estimates of Mean Maximum Mixing Depths in the
Contiguous United States," Mon. Weather Rev. 92, No.5,
pp. 235-242, May, 1964.
9.
Air Use Management Program, Bureau of Environmental Sanitation,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Special Report on
the Investigation and Study of Air Quality in the Metropolitan
(Boston) Air Pollution Control District, A65-A66, September, 1968.
10.
Public Health Service. Air Pollution Measurements of the National
Air Sampling Network, Analysis 6f Suspended Particulates, 1963.
U.S. DHEW, Division of Air Pollution, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1963.
11.
Public Health Service. Air Quality Data from the National Air
Sampling Network, Analysis of Suspended Particulates, 1957-1961.
U.S. DHEW, Division of Air Pollution, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1962.
-------
70
12.
Public Health Service. Air Quality Data from the National Air
Sampling Network and Contributing State and Local Networks,
1964-1965. U.S. DHEW, Division of Air Pollution, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1966. I
13.
Basbagill, W.J. and Dallas, J.L. Air Quality in Boston,
Massachusetts, November-December, 1963, U.S. DHEW, Public
Health Service, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio, November, 1964.
14.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council. The Population of Cities
and Towns in Metropolitan Boston Projected to 1990. April, 1968.
15.
Frechette,Alfred L., Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of
Public Health. "Presentation before Special Joint Legislative
Committee on Air Pollution in the Commonwealth." July 27, 1967.
16.
Dallas, James L., Sanitary Engineer in Charge, Air Use
Management Program, Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
"Community Action to Clean the Air," November 2, 1967.
." U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1968 344-840 (5004)
------- |