REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN PHILADELPHIA
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
(PENNSYLVANIA-NEW JERSEY-DELAWARE)
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 PHILADELPHIA
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
(PENNSYLVANIA-NEW JERSEY -DELA.WARE)
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
U. S. Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
October 1968
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................. ............................
INTRODUCTION.....................
................................. .
1
THE PROPOSED REGION...............".....................
............
8
DISCUSS ION OF PROPOSAL.........................................
10
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS........................................
13
S~RY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING FACTORS
EMISSION
INVENTORY. . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
DIFFUSION MODEL RESULTS........................................ 28
S~RY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
APPENDICES
A.
EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOGY............................. 41
B.
DIFFUSION MODEL DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY................ 52
C.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA........................................... 67
-------
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 development of region boundari~s, the Act stipulates that the
designation of a region shall be preceded by consultation with appro-
priate State and local authorities.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration, DHEW, has
conducted a study of the Metropol-itan.Philad'elphi>a-:. urban,~mea:;' thee:
results of which are presented in this report.
The Region* boundaries
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 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 this three-State area from the official air,po11ution
agencies of the City of Philadelphia and the States of Pennsylvania,
*For the purposes of this report, the word region, when capitalized,
will refer to the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality
Control Region" When not capitalized, unless otherwise noted, it
will refer to air quality control regions in general.
-------
New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.
Useful data. was also supplied by
the Regional Conference of Elected Officials, the Delaware Valley
Citizens' Council for Clean Air, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission, the Salem County Planning Board, the New Castle County
Land Use and Transportation Program, the New Castle County Department
of Planning, the Fels Institute of State and Local Government, and the
Regional Science Research Institute of the University of Pennsylvania.
-------
1
INTRODUCTION
"For the purpose of est~blishing ambient air
quality standards pursuanL to section 108, and for
administrative and other pu~poses, 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
inc~uding 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 regionsG 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
problemG
Consistent with the problem, the solution demands coordinated
regional planning and regional eff~rt.~- Yet, with few exceptions, such
coordinated efforts are notable' by their absence in the Nation's urban
complexes.
Beginning with the-SectioIl 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 i~vo1vin~ closely
coordinated efforts by Federal, State, and local govermnents, as shown
in Figure 1G
After the Secretary has (1) designated regions, ~(2) p;ub1ished
. .
air quality criteria, and (3) published corr~sponding documents on
-------
i',)
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
~ sources in the region.
HEW develops and ...
publishes air hearings and . How enforcement will be employed to
HEW insure uniform and coordinated control
quality criteria set air quality reviews action involving State, local, and regional
- -
based on scientific standards in the - State authorities.
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.
p control regions.
.
r
HEW reviews
HEW prepares State implementation plans.
and publishes !'
information on -
States act to control air
available control pollution in accordance with
techniques. air quality standards and plans
for implementation.
Figure ,1. 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.
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 Output
. Emissions ... Polluta nt ~ Iso-Intensity
. Meteorology Diffusion
. Physical Dim. Model Graphs
Existing Air
i Quality
I Sampling ~
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
. 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 study of "Engineering Factors" indicates the location of
pollution sources and the geographic extent of serious pollutant
concentrations in the ambient airo
Pollution sources are located by
an inventory of emissions from automobiles, industrial activities,
space heating, waste disposal, and other pollution generators.
Pollution concentrations in the ambient air are estimated from air
quality sampling data and from a theoretical diffusion model.
When
it exists, air quality sampling data is more reliable than the
theoretical diffusion model results since the data is directly recorded
by pollution measuring instruments.
Unfortunately, in many cases
air quality sampling data is available for only one or two pollutants
measured at an insufficient number of locations.
The theoretical
model is used to supplement inadequate air quality sampling datao
The box labeled "Input" in Figure 2 describes the information
required to apply the diffusion modelo
This information consists
of data on the type, quantity, and location of pollution emissions,
the average depth of air available for mixing and dilution, the
frequency of various wind velocities (direction and speed), and
the physical dimensions of the urban area under studyo
Calculations
are made with this information in the next step labeled "Computero"
The result, or "Output," of the diffusion model approach is
the estimated pattern of air pollution caused by the sources
of a given pollutant within the areao
These patterns describe
the geographic extent of air pollution in the area and serve as a
-------
6
guide to the appropriate size of the air quality control region.
As
a whole, the engineering study indicates how large the air quality
control region must be in order to encompass most pollution sources
and most people and property affected by those sources.
The study of "Urban Factors" encompasses all considerations of a
non-engineering nature.
It reviews existing governmental jurisdictions,
current air pollution control programs, present concentrations of
population and industry, and expected patterns of urban growth.
Other
non-engineering factors are discussed When they are relevant.
As a
Whole, the study of urban factors indicates how large an air quality
control region must be in order to encompass expected growth of pol-
lution sources in the future.
It also considers which group of
governmental jurisdictions will most effectively administer a strong
regional air quality control program.
The conclusions of the engineering study are combined with the
results of the urban factors study to form the basis of an initial
proposal for an air quality control region.
As shown in Figure 2,
the proposal is then submitted for consultation with.State and local
officials.
After reviewing the suggestions raised during the con-
sultation, the Secretary formally designates the region with a notice
in the Federal Register and notifies the governors of the States
affected by the designation.
The body of this report contains a proposal for the boundaries of
the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality ContrQl Region and
supporting studies on engineering and urban factors.
The report
-------
itself is intended to serve as the background document for the
formal consultation with appropriate State and local authorities.
7
-------
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 Metropolitan Philadelphia interstate area, con~
sisting of the following jurisdictions:
In The State Of Pennsylvania
Bucks County
Chester County
Delaware County
Montgomery County
Philadelphia County
In The State Of New Jersey
Burlington County
Camden County
Gloucester County
Mercer County
Salem County
In The State Of Delaware
New Castle County
As so proposed, the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality
Control Region would consist of the teritorial area encompassed by the
outermost bou~daries of the above jurisdictions and the territorial
area of all ~nicipalities located therein and as defined in Section
302(f) of the Clean Air Act, 42 DoS.C. l857h (f).
Figure 3 shows the
boundaries of the proposed Region and indicates the geographic relation-
ship of the proposed Region to the surrounding areas.
-------
- ---.. . -...- .--
-~-
--/ I.
l
9
_/
/
I
,
)
t,",
I
I
)
,r
\T:RlI,n'JT (
I
.I
/
t
1 .
~ Hl\INL
\
\
\ -
/
PE\iNSYL VAN 1A
MASSACI tUSEI'TS
/
!------'-"R-I\-
. . ~
I CONNLCTlCUT \ '..,
! . \ I
~" f ~
(:;~:'''~I '\~
) I
, . u;? .
NEW YORK CITY
NI:\\'
. (I lAMPS!; mE
I ;
J' .-
'\ Jj
1,._--------,-
/
I
/
j10'~
J
/
'-.,
1','EW YORK
.-----.------"
VIRGINIA-
PI 1 IlADEL PI 111\
-.--. -"..
..........
PROPOSED METROPOLITAN PHILADELPHIA
n~TERSTATL AIR QUALITY CONfROL REGION
r -\ !vID .
I" .~. BAL T mORE
. , I~.
/ "-il
',,"
WASHI NGfON '.
D.C.
FIGURE 3. RELATIOI\SIJIP OF PROPOSED
HETROPOLI'J'.\i\; PIIIlAI1ELPfIlA INn:r~STATE
AIR QUALITY CONfHOL FlliGION TO
SURROUNDING APL'\S.
-------
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 20 ) was directed toward the first of these condititons and the
Evaluation of Urban Factors (page 13 ), the other two.
The combination
of one Delaware county, five Pennsylvania counties, and five New Jersey
counties was common to all three of the stated conditions, leading to
the proposal made herein.
With the exception of Chester and Montgomery Counties in Pennsy1-
vania,
the remaining nine counties border on the Delaware River.
All
eleven counties possess a degree of urban and industrial development
sufficient to warrant inclusion of at least part of each county in the
Region.
Consideration of the dispersive'nature of the pollutants
emitted in ~he more densely built-up portions of these eleven counties
expands the necessary boundary of the Region well out into all but
Chester County.
Theoretical pollutant levels used as guides to the
location of the Region's boundary encompass the easternmost portion
-------
11
of Chester County, including most of its population and industrial base.
The proposal that the Region inc~ude the entirety of these eleven
counties satisfies the requirement that the Region be large enough to
include the vast majority of pollutant sources affecting the air quglity
of the urban area.
The extension of the Region boundaries to the outer
perimeter of the eleven-county group is consistent with the second and
third guidelines quoted above.
Firs t, this arrangement provides' a
"buffer-zone" against the expected growth in population in the suburban
portions of these counties and the potential increase in pollutant
emissions that can be associated with such growth.
Second, there are
several institutions--both governmental and non-governmental--that
involve these same eleven counties.
These arrangements, which represent
previous identity as a region, should be conducive to compatible and
cooperative governmental administration of the air resource once the
Region has been established.
As is true of most efforts to draw boundaries around an area to
differentiate it from its surroundings, there is always a likelihood
of ~oundary 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.
This condition will undoubtedly exist along the western
Doundary of this Region because of the location of Allentown,
Bethlehem, Easton, Reading, and Lancaster urban areas in the adjacent
counties.
Relocating the boundary would only rarely provide relief from
-------
12
this condition (especially along the urbanized East Coast).
The
solution is to be found in the way in which control efforts are im-
plemented following the designation of 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 be-
yond the region boundaries.
the remaining two sections of this report describe the initial
evaluation of urban and engineering 'factors.
Each is, as much as
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 conclusions differed.
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 Philadelphia.
-------
13
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS
In establishing air quality control regions, it is highly
desirable to utilize to the fullest possible extent all existing
administrative and technical relationships which could be useful in
controlling air pollution on a regional basis.
The number, variety,
and quality of working relationships within the eleven county area*
indicates these to be the best possible combination of jurisdictions
within which the air pollution problem of this tri-State urban complex
should be considered.
There are presently three State agencies, one large municipal
agency, and a few smaller ~ounty and municipal agencies established
to control air pollution within their respective jurisdictions in the
Delaware Valley urban area.
Of these, the four major administrative
agencies responsible for air pollution control are the Delaware Water
and Air Resources Commission; the New Jersey State Department of Health;
the Pennsylvania Department of Health; and the City of Philadelphia,
Department of Public Health.
In May 1966, these agencies signed a
"Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania Interstate Cooperative Agreement
on Air Pollution."
A committee created by this Agreement is:
1.
Developing and implementing administrative procedures to
facilitate the abatement of interstate "point source" air
pollution problems.
*The area includes the following counties: New Castle County, Delaware;
Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties in
Pennsylvania; Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem
Counties in New Jersey.
-------
14
2.
Developing procedures for cooperative action during periods
of atmospheric stagnation.
3.
Developing procedures to coordinate the activities of the
four agencies.
In November 1966, the Mayor of Philadelphia requested the
assistance of the Federal Government in improving the City's air
pollution control program.
In March 1967, a representative group of
Federal, State, and local control officials participated in a meeting
in Philadelphia tp discuss the formation of an expanded regional air
quality achievement program for the eleven county Delaware Valley area.
The responsibility for developing the operational protocol plus pro-
viding the nucleus on-site staff; to implement this activity was given
to the Abatement and Control Programs, National Center for Air Pol-
lution Control--this Administration's organizational predecessor.
Since that time, the Federal air pollution program has been collecting
and analyzing air quality data from the eleven county area.
An important general area-wide arrangement is the Regional
Conference of Elected Officials (RCEO) which again coincides with
the eleven county area.
RCEO includes representatives of the
elected bcdies in all local jurisdictions in the eleven counties.
This group has worked together for a variety of planning purposes
and recently sponsored a study into methods of controlling air pol-
lution in the area, a regional effort which should not be wasted.
Cit~zens groups have also been active on a regional basis.
The
largest of these, the Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air,
is and has been active in the eleven county area.
This group employs
a full time Executive Director and maintains an office.
It is
-------
15
conducting a full scale educational and informational campaign
throughout the Delaware Valley, and has received wide coverage from
the press, radio, and television.
The eleven county area has been the logical focus of planning
activities for a variety of planning agencies.
The Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) was originally formed to plan
for the entire eleven counties.
While its planning is presently
restricted to nine counties (Salem County, New Jersey and New Castle
County, Delaware have separate planning functions), there exists much
sentiment toward the formation of an agency which will eventually plan
for all eleven counties as a unit.
The eleven county area is a combination of the Philadelphia,
Trenton, and Wilmington Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(Cecil County, Maryl~nd was recently added to the Wilmington S.M.S.A.,
but has not otherwise become integrated into the region).
Utilizing
the S.M.S.A. as a basis for delineating a region makes available a
much more comprehensive and sophisticated body of data.
State, local,
and Federal agencies also ~re usually able to work with a relatively
high degree of facility when using the common data unit of the S.M.S.A.
as a basis for instituting multi-jurisdictional programs.
The eleven county area also encompasses a cohesive combination
of sources and receptors of air pollution.
Figure 4 shows the approxi-
mate extent of developed land in the eleven county area.
(The compi-
lation of the map was made difficult by the lack of a single planning
authority for the eleven county area, but the result indicates
I .
-------
16
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
~ 0 5 10 152025
N ~_.- -....1"""'1
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE 4. DEVELOPED LAND PATTERN
-------
17
general characteristics of land use patterns).
Available projections
indicate that land use patterns will remain approximately the same
for the foreseeable future.
As can be clearly seen, urban centers lie
near the center of the eleven county area, following the Delaware River.
Many of the counties surrounding the eleven county area contain
urban-industrial complexes and should be considered for inclusion in
a region.
It might be helpful to analyze these counties, briefly,
in conjunction with the Philadelphia urban area.
In New Jersey, the Counties of Monmouth, Middlesex, and Somerset
lie in the area recently proposed by this Administration as the New
Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate Air Quality Control Region.
Other New Jersey counties bordering the eleven county area do not
contain major urban or industrial concentrations which could serve as
either sources or receptors of air pollution.
In Delaware, New Castle County contains the major urban and indus-
trial centers in the State.
Since the vast majority of these urban-
industrial concentrations are in the northernmost portion of the county,
it seems likely that this county will remain the major center of that
State's air pollution problem in the years to come.
In Pennsylvania, Lehigh and Northampton Counties form a part of
the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton S.M.S.A. and probably constitute a
separate problem though there is an exchange of air pollution across
the proposed boundary under certain meteorological conditions.
As
these counties are not presently coordinated with the eleven counties
for air pollution or other administrative purposes, however, they
cannot really be considered a cohesive component of any region defined
-------
18
for that area.
The other two Pennsylvania counties bordering the
eleven county area do not contain enough urban or industrial concen-
trations and are not so closely tied to the eleven counties to
necessitate their inclusion in an air quality control region at
this time.
Cecil County, Maryland, provides the most ambiguous choice of all
jurisdictions considered for the Region.
This county has recently
been added to the Wilmington S.M.S.A. and is beginning to coordinate
its planning functions with the planning departments of New Castle
County, Delaware, and Salem County, New Jersey.
At the present time,
it has not developed any formal working relationships with the eleven
counties of RCED.
While census figures and estimates show it to be
one of the most rapidly growing counties bordering the area, its growth
is not concentrated in any manner which would encourage its inclusion
in the Region.
A further important consideration mitigating against
its inclusion in the Region at this time is that the addition of a
fourth State, even more than the addition of a twelfth county, to a
regional program in which they have not participated in the past,
would be quite likely to make any control program unnecessarily
cumbersome.
-------
19
SUMMARY
The eleven county area which is coextensive with the Regional
Conference of Elected Officials and the currently operating interstate
cooperative effort at air pollution control constitutes a cohesive
combination of urban-industrial complexes highly functional as an air
pollution control unit.
The existence of such a large number of
existing working relationships augurs well for the success of any addi-
tional efforts at air pollution control.
Cecil County, Maryland should continue to be viewed as a poten-
tial member of the Regional air pollution control effort, but its
inclusion is not considered necessary at this time.
-------
20
EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING FACTORS
EMISSION INVENTORY
A quantitative evaluation of air pollution emissions provides the
basic framework for air conservation activities.
Accordingly, a presen-
tat ion of the emissions inventory results serves as a logical starting
point in the engineering evaluation.
The inventory reveals areas that
are habitually the emitters of air pollution in varying degrees.
In
addition, the emissions inventory data is utilized by the diffusion
model to systematically predict the spatial and temporal distribution
of the pollution emitted into the atmosphere.
The emissions inventory was conducted as part of the Delaware
Valley Regional Air Quality Program.
It was compiled by the Abatement
Program of the National Air Pollution Control Administration, and was
conducted over an eleven county area*.
The pollutant emissions were
calculated on the basis of 1967 data.
Within the geographic boundaries
of the emission inventory lie the bulk of the population and urbanization
associated ,with metropolitan Philadelphia.
The eleven counties also
contain the majority of area, point, mobile and stationary sources 'in
the area.
In the maps that follow, a heavy line is used to distinguish
these eleven counties from the outlying areas.
Five major pollutants were considered in the inventory.
These
include sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, total particulates, hydro-
*This area includes the following counties: New Castle County,
Delaware; Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia
Counties in Pennsylvania; Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Mercer,
and Salem Counties in New Jersey.
-------
21
carbons and nitrogen dioxide.
For the purposes of this report,
however, only sulfur oxides*, carbon monoxide and total particulates
are considered.
These pollutants best represent the spectrum of air
pollution sources.
Sulfur dioxide levels characterize fuel burning
activities, especially at point sources (power plant and other major
coal burning plants).
Carbon monoxide levels provide the best indi-
cation of the impact of motor vehicle emissions in an area.
A study
of particulate pollution provides a good indication of the effects of
all pollutant sources when taken together since all source types con-
tribute significantly to its presence.
Table I summarizes the mean day emissions based on the annual
season for the eleven county area.
The table also indicates the per
cent of the total pollution emitted by each county.
Philadelphia,
Delaware, and. New Castle Counties are the jurisdictions contributing
the majority of the pollution emitted.
Figures 5, 6, and 7 are emission density maps for sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide, and total particulates.
These have been constructed
for each pollutant according to the season** of greatest emissions.
These maps represent the emission densities in relation to the study
area by indicating their spatial distribution.
A grid system*** over
which the density values are distributed provides a more accurate
*Sulfur dioxide constitutes the majority of sulfur oxide pollution.
In this evaluation, sulfur oxide emissions are assumed to be composed
entirely of sulfur dioxide. Therefore, diffusion model estimates of
S02 concentrations based on sulfur oxide emissions will not be signi-
ficantly in error.
**The winter season includes the months of December, January, and
February. The summer season includes the months of June, July,
and August.
***See Figure A-1, Page 44.
-------
TABLE 1.
MEAN DAY EMISSIONS* AND PER CENT CONTRIBUTION BY COUNTY
N
N
~
Sulfur Dioxide Percent Total Carbon Monoxide Percent Total Total Particulates Percent Total
COUNTY Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day
Delaware
New Castle County 429 13.4 724 9.8 54 8.5
Pennsylvania
Bucks County 93 2.9 371 5.0 36 5.7
Chester County 180 5.6 292 4.0 39 6.2
Delaware County 471 14.7 1129 15.3 71 11.2
,Montgomery County 219 6.8 806 10.9 78 12.3
Philadelphia County 1025 31.9 2280 30.9 225 35.4
Pennsylvania Sub-Total 1988 62.0 4878 66.0 449 70.8
New Jersey
Burlington County 104 3.2 318 4.3 20 3.2
Camden County 134 4.2 610 8.2 35 5.4
Gloucester County 169 5.3 381 5.2 22 3.5
Mercer County 224 7.0 394 5.3 29 4.5
Salem County 160 5.0 81 '1.1 26 4.1
New Jersey Sub-Total 791 24.6 1784 24.2 132 20.7
GRAND T
-------
CJ
~
..
-
..
< .2
.2-.5
. 5-1. 0
1.0-3.0
> 3.0
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
S02 DEN
S!TY, TONS/ 2
MI. -DAY
23
NEW JERSEY
~ 0 5 10 152025
N ""..J' -
-~
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE 5.
S02 EMISSION DENS I
. TIES BASED
ON WINTE A
R VERAGE V
ALUES.
-------
Z4.
CJ < 1.0
~ 1-5
.. 5-10
18 10-20
.. > 20
MARYLAND
III
CARBON MoNOXIDE D
ENSITY, TONS/MI~-DAY
~ 0 5 10 1520 25
N 11.8..'.....- 1""""1
Kilom.';;rs
FIGURE 6.
DELAWARE
CARBON MONOXIDE EMls .
SION DENSITITES BASE
D ON Su
MMER AVERAGE VALUES.
-------
CJ
IB
..
..
..
.:: .10
.10-.50
. 50-1. 0
1.0-2.0
) 2.0
25
TONS/MI?-DAV
DENS !TV I
PART! CULA TE
~. ~~;...:~~S
N Kilometers
FIGURE 7.
DELAWARE WINTER AVERAGE VALUES,
T! ES BASED ON
PARTICULATE EMISSION DENSI .
TOTAL
'I
1
-------
26
representation of density magnitudes than does a similar distribution
confined by county boundaries.
The areas of greatest pollutant density are those adjacent to the
Delaware River or are those areas within or immediately surrounding
Philadelphia County.
The periphery 'of the eleven county area shows
lower emission densities as evidence of their lack of urbanization.
Figure 8 shows the location and relative size of the major air
pollution point sources in the study area.
Once again; the majority
of the emitters &re located along the river, while a few are located
at the outskirts of the region.
I:
-------
~ SOURCES EMITTING MORE THAN 50 TON/DAY
OF ANY SINGLE POLLUTANT
27
. OTHER MAJOR POINT SOURCES
DATA BASEP ON AVERAGE ANNUAL
EMISSION LEVELS,
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
~ 0 510152025
N I\,.."_-..J""!
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE 8.
LOCATION OF MAJOR POINT SOURCES,
-------
28
DIFFUSION MODEL RESULTS
The geographical distribution of pollutant emissions (as Figures 5,
6, and 7 show) provides a good indication of the core area of an air
quality control region.
Figures showing the location of pollutant
emissions permit the identification of the areas that have fostered
existing air pollution problems.
However, a region that includes not
only the areas emitting pollution, but also the areas that are adversely
affected by this pollution, cannot be rationally extrapolated from the
emissions data alone.
Consideration of air quality data along with emissions data helps
to decide the 10cat.ion of an air quality control region's boundaries.
In most cases though, 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 regional boundaries.
A meteorological diffusion model, based on the mathematical
treatment of emissions inventory and meteorological data, has been
devised.
Its results attempt to complement available measurements of
air quality.
While inherent limitations in the model are recognized,
its results can be appropriately modified and interpreted to provide
reasonable spatial distributions of long term (seasonal and annual)
average pollutant concentrations.
The reliance upon existing juris-
dictional arrangements (counties) in arriving at the boundaries of a
region provides a certain geographical latitude for the diffusion model
results.
Keeping this in mind, it is improbable that the jurisdictional
extent of a region will be significantly altered by minor diffusion
model misestimations.
-------
29
Following ~s a presentation of the results of the diffusion model
as applied to the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware interstate area.
Appendix B explains in detail the methodology and assumptions made in
arriving at these results.
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 S03; sulfuric acid, and
acid salts.
This is commonly referred to as the "decay" of S02 with
time.
Figures B-2 and B-3, located in Appendix B show the diffusion
model results for S02 based on assumed 6 hour and 12 hour half-lives.
These are based on meteorological and emissions inptlt data for the
annual season.
Figure 9 shows adjusted* annual average conceritration contours
for an assumed 3 hour half-life for S02.
The assumption of a 3 hour
half-life had resulted in concentrations closest in value to measured
S02 levels.
The adjusted contours in Figure 9 were drawn for concentrations
of .01 ppm of S02 or greater.-
The .01 ppm isopleth is used here as
a guide to the minimum size of the region because of its proximity to
background levels.
Furthermore, an S02 concentration of .01 ppm is
implicated as the threshold (on an annual average basis) of human
health effects.
*See discussion in Appendix B, page 55.
-------
30
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
~ 0 5 10 1520 25
N ~."'--...J"""'I
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE g, THEORETICAL SO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM; ANNUAL AVERAGE
2
ADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS),
(ASSUMED 3 HOUR HALF-LIFE WITH VALUES
-------
31
Consequently, the following counties are seen to be significantly
affected by sulfur dioxide pollution and should be considered for
inclusion as part of the proposed Region:
in the State of Delaware --
New Castle County; in the State of New Jersey -- Salem, Gloucester,
Camden, Burlington, and Mercer Counties; in the State of Pennsylvania --
Chester, Delaware, Philadelphia, Montgomery, and Bucks Counties.
Carbon Monoxide
The areal extent of the proposed Region, using carbon monoxide
concentrations as a guide, is determined on the basis of diffusion
model output for the summer season.
There are several reasons for
this.
First, the results of the emission inventory show that carbon
monoxide emissions were greatest during the summer s~ason; accordingly,
the greatest areas affected by any given CO concentration contour occur
during the summer season.
The unmodified diffusion model results for
the various seasons show this clearly (see Figures B-4, B-5, and B-6).
Second, the estimated CO concentrations for the summer season are
closest in value to measured air quality levels.
Figure 10 shows the adjusted CO isopleths* for the summer season.
The outermost isopleth represents a concentration of 1 ppm.
This
concentration is assumed to be close to the background level in most
highly urbanized areas.
One ppm is not a conservative value and there-
fore includes within its bounds areas affected greatest by the sources
within the scop~ of the emission inventory.
*See Appendix B, page 56, for a discussion of how this was accomplished.
-------
3Z
PENNSYLVANIA
~ 0 510152025
N ~..."'- - poII\
Kilometers
MARyLAND
DELAWARE
FIGURE 10. THEORETICAL CO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM: SUMMER AVERAGE (VALUES ADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS).
-------
33
The 1 ppm concentration contour for carbon monoxide encloses a
significant portion of-the following counties:
in the State of
Pennsylvania -- Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia
Counties; in the State of New Jersey -- Burlington, Camden, Gloucester,
and Mercer Counties.
As a result, these counties should be considered
for inclusion in the proposed Region.
Suspended Particulates
In order to study the effects of suspended particulates, the
diffusion model results for the annual season were used.
The theoretical
values were adjusted to conform to available air quality data.
The
annual season was chosen because the greatest areas were enclosed by
any given concentration contour and also because more reliable air
quality data with which to compare the model results was available for
the annual season.
Figure 11 shows the adjusted* theoretical concentrations of
suspended particulates.
of 40rg/m3 or greater.
The contours are drawn for concentrations
A value of 42fg/m3** was assumed as a back-
ground level for suspended particulates in the area.
The higher
concentration levels shown in Figure 11 are the effects of the major
air pollution sources within the region.
*See Appendix B, page 62, for a more detailed discussion.
**An average concentration of suspended particulates for non-urban
areas in several States whose territory will comprise part of the
Region o~ are nearby States. Values are taken from Air Pollution
Measurements of the National Air Sampling Network, Analysis of
Suspended Particulates, 1963. u.S. DREW, Division of Air Pollution,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1965.
-------
34
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
~ 0 5 10 1520 25
N ",.."---""",,
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE 11. THEORETICAL PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS IN ~G/M3; ANNUAL AVERAGE (VALUES ADJUSTED TO CONFORM
TO MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS),
-------
35
The inclusion of the following counties is warranted since they
are significantly affected by above-background levels of suspended
particulate pollution:
in the State of Pennsylvania -- Bucks, Delaware,
Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties; in the State of New Jersey --
Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties.
These counties are recommended for inclusion in the proposed
Region on the premise that while these jurisdictions may be only
partially affected by adverse pollution levels in terms of area, it
is necessary to include the entire county in an air quality control
region.
Interstate Air Pollution Effects
The use of the diffusion model provides the opportunity to eval-
uate the impact of selected source-area emissions on air quality in
the surrounding areas.
By proper restriction ,of emissions input data in the diffusion
model to sources located only within the State, the impact on the air
quality in its own and adjoining State environments can be evaluated.
Figures 12, 13, and 14 show the distribution of S02, assuming no decay,
from Pennsy1vania~ New Jersey, and Delaware sources respectively.
These figures show relative concentrations of S02 and give an indication
of the extent of interstate transport of air pollution.
It is evident that considerable air pollution in Wilmington,
Delaware, is emitted. outside of Delaware while Delaware sources do
not measureab1y contribute to the pollution in Philadelphia or Trenton.
Considerable air pollution in Wilmington is also seen to emanate in
New Jersey.
Salem. County, New Jersey, across the Delaware River,
-------
36
PENNSYLVANIA
~ 0 5 10 IS 20 25
N ""8.9_-"""""
Kilometers
MARYLAND
DELAWARE
SUSSEX
FIGURE.12. THEORETICAL S02 CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM; ANNUAL AVERAGE (No DECAY).
PENNSYLVANIA SOURCES ONLY.
-------
37
PENNSYLVANIA
OCEAN
8
1l
MARYLAND
~ 0 5 10 152025
N II...,,--~
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE 13. THEORETICAL S02 CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM; ANNUAL AVERAGE (No DECAY).
NEW JERSEY SOURCES ONLY,
-------
38
PENNSYLVANIA
NEW JERSEY
MARYLAND
~ 0 510152025
N ~.~--~
Kilometers
FIGURE 14. THEORETICAL S02 CONCENTRATION IN PPM; ANNUAL AVERAGE (No DECAY).
DELAWARE SOURCES ONLY,
-------
39
harbors an industrial area consisting of many air pollutant sources.
A logical conclusion is that the bulk of the air pollution in Wilmington
is attributed to Salem County, New Jersey.
These facts are sufficient
justification for inclusion of both Salem County, New Jersey, and New
Castle County, Delaware, as constituents of the proposed Region.
These figures also show exchange of air pollution between the
States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
This is reason enough to
propose an interstate region including areas in the States of New
Jersey and Pennsylvania.
-------
40
SUMMARY
The major pollutant emissions in the metropolitan Philadelphia
interstate area occur along a relatively narrow corridor of land.
The
corridor stretches from Wilmington northeastward through Philadelphia,
Camden, and Trenton.
If the location of pollution sources was the only
criteria used to determine the boundaries of a region, the Philadelphia
Region would include all of Philadelphia and portions of Delaware,
Montgomery, and Bucks Counties in Pea~sy1vania; portions of Mercer,
Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Sa1e~ Counties in New Jersey; and
the northernmost part of New Castle County, Delaware.
When the results of the diffusion model calculations are used as
a guide in expanding the Region to include people and property affected
by emissions, the Region boundaries are extended further into the ten
counties listed above and into the eastern portions of Chester County,
Pennsylvania.
-------
41
APPENDIX A.
EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
The Abatement Program of the National Air Pollution Control
Administration recently completed a preliminary emission inventory as
part of the Delaware Valley Regional Air Quality Project.
It is an
evaluation of the quantities of the five major pollutants (sulfur di-
oxide, carbon monoxide, particulates, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen dioxide)
emitted during the year 1967.
The method used, with some modification,
was the Public Health Service rapid survey technique for estimating pol-
lutant emissions.1
Following is a summary of the survey scope and
methodology for the various source categories.
Emissions from area fuel combustion in stationary sources were
calculated on the basis of consumed quantities of anthracite coal, bitu-
minous coal, distillate oil, residual oil, and natural gas.
Industrial
coal burning was assumed to be 30% controlled, while the combustion of
all other fuels was considered to occur without control equipment.
The inventorying of transportation emissions involved consideration
of oil-fired vessels, trains, aircraft, and motor vehicles as source
categories.
In calculating emissions from vessels, it was assumed that
all vessels were oil-fired and that fuel consumption was directly re-
1ated to ton-miles of shipping.
The pollutant quantities were allocated
to specific grid emission. zones on the basis of ton-miles at each port
in the study area.
Railroad fuel comsumption was allocated to counties
on the basis of statewide figures and the ratio of county to State
-------
42
transportation employees.
Aircraft emissions were computed from data
supplied by the airports in the study area.
This data included the
number of annual operations at each airport and their distribution by the
. type and size of the aircraft involved.
Motor vehicle emissions were
computed for both gasoline and diesel-oil burning vehicles.
Fuel con-
sumption figures were first apportioned to each county from State service
station sales, and then apportioned to grid emission zones on the basis
of land usage (i.e., residential, commerica1, and industrial areas).
Philadelphia vehicular emissions were distributed into the appropriate
grid zones on the basis of vehicle miles traveled within the respective
zones.
Emissions from solid waste disposal were based on data collected
from the Office of Solid Wastes of the U. S. Public Health Service.
Data
obtained directly from the incinerators located in the study area was
also used.
The total quantity of refuse generated was based on a value
of five pounds/capita-day and was apportioned to either municipal inciner-
ation, burning dumps, landfill operations or domestic and commercia1-
industrial on-site incineration.
It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of process emissions
in a short term survey.
As a result, process emission figures were taken
from the results of the emissions inventory conducted by the Environ-
mental Engineering and Science Program at the Drexel Institute of
Technology. 2
This survey was conducted over an eleven county area co-
extensive with the National Air Pollution Control Administration's
emissions study.
-------
43
Emissions from power plants were computed on the basis of fuel use,
boiler, .collection efficiency and control equipment data submitted by
these companies themselves.
Public Health Service emission factors3 were used in making
estimations of air pollutant emissions from the various sources.
They
represent statistical averages of the rate at which pollutants are
emitted from the burning or processing of a g~ven quantity of material.
The grid system used in the emissions inventory is shown in Figure
A-l; it is superimposed over a map of the study area involved in the
inventory.
The pollutant emissions normally allocated to the various
counties involved in the survey were allocated to the numbered grid zones.
This served to provide a more definitive geographic breakdown of emissions
and provided a means by which the diffusion model analysis could be -
effectuated.
Figures 5, 6, and 7, the emission density maps, are based on this
grid system.
The large grid block over Philadelphis was subdivided into
25 smaller blocks for the sake of accuracy in an area where the magnitude
of pollution emission is the greatest.
Table A-l lists the emission den-
sity values by grid zone for the various pollutants.
These values are
for area sources only and are exclusive of point source contributions.
The emissions of these air pollution point sources are included in the
diffusion model study, however.
Table A-l gives emission densities in terms of mean-day values over
annual, summer, and winter seasons for each of the three pollutants used
in the diffusion model study.
This was done in order that the diffusion
-------
44
.~
184 185 186 187 188
209 210 211 212 213
235 236 237 238 239
261 262 263 264 265
287 28~ 289 290 291
PHILADELPHIA GRID NUMBERS
II
NEW JERSEY
~ 0 5 10 1520 25
N ,......--........,
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE A-I. EMISSION INVENTORY GRID SYSTEM
-------
TABLE A-l,
DAILY EMISSION DENSITIES FOR AVERAGE ANNUAL, SUMMER, AND WINTER DAYS
(tons/mi2-day)
GRID ZONE AREA SULFUR DIOXIDE CARBON MONOXIDE P ART I CULATES
ZONE (mi. 2) Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter
1 147 .091 .074 .12 .441 .468 .421 .035 .023 .042
2 206 .028 .019 .04 .030 .030 .030 .010 .007 .013
3 138 .028 .024 .034 .97 1.03 .96 .088 .08 .10
4 241 .27 .23 .33 1.06 1.15 1.01 .85 .075 .095
5 241 .27 .21 .35 1.25 1.31 1.19 .92 .075 .114
6 241 .36 .28 .46 1.75 1.89 1.66 .12 .11 .15
7 127 .21 .15 .29 1.46 1.57 1.37 .10 .088 .11
8 241 .12 .087 .15 .47 .50 .45 .038 .033 .046
9 241 .33 .24 .44 2.39 2.49 2.32 .14 .11 .18
10 241 .31 .17 .51. 1.19 1.26 1.13 .08 .063 .10
11 153 ;03 .015 .05 .20 .21 .18 .012 .01 .014
12 112 .009 .008 .02 .090 .096 .086 .004 .002 .006
13 225 .18 .12 .26 1.45 1.55 1.37 .048 .038 .061
14 216 .57 .53 .94 4.04 4.20 3.90 .27 .16 .20
15 233 .26 .18 .37 1.93 1.85 2.02 .057 .043 .075
16 230 .12 .085 .17 .66 .71 .63 .036 .031 .043
17 231 .007 .002 .01 .026 .028 .024 .001 .001 .002
18 167 .17 .16 .18 .94 1.00 .89 .046 .040 .047
19 184 .084 .078 .09 .16 .18 .15 .025 .024 .026
20 161 .071 .015 .09 .47 .49 .45 .020 .018 .022
21 110 .006 .002 .010 .080 .085 .075 .002 .002 .003
22 16.4 .72 .79 .66 .005 .005 .004 .051 .055 .048
-I"
U1
-------
~
0\
TABLE A-1.
DAILY EMISSION DENSITIES FOR AVERAGE ANNUAL, SUMMER, AND WINTER DAYS
(tons/mi2-day)
GRID ZONE ~REA SULFUR DIOXIDE CARBON MONOXIDE PARTICULATES
ZONE (mi ) Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter Annua 1 Summer Winter
184 9.64 1.21 1.10 1.35 3.23 3.43 3.06 .35 .33 .38
185 9.64 .42 .034 .91 3.87 3.85 3.76 .16 .066 .28
186 9.64 .38 .045 ;79 3.82 3.86 3.84 .22 .083 .40
187 9.64 .51 .048 1.08 4.22 4.35 4.17 .22 .085 .38
188 9.64 2.13 1.56 2.73 10.2 10.6 9.81 .73 .60 .88
209 9.64 .60 .36 .90 2.57 2.69 2.48 .28 .23 .35
210 9.64 .77 .062 1.65 6.55 6.78 6.46 .30 .092 .56
211 9.64 3.02 1.83 4.52 15.1 15.6 14.8 1.05 .73 1.46
212 9.64 3.81 2.69 5.20 17.0 17.5 16.7 1.34 1.03 1. 74
213 9.64 3.85 2.68 5.32 13.3 13.6 13.2 1.27 .98 1.64
235 9.64 1,.28 .91 1. 74 5.80 5.87 5..78 .49 .37 .66
236 ,9.64 3.46 2.72 4.39 19.7 20.7 18.9 1.28 1.10 1.51
237 9.64 4.76 3.60 6.21 25.1 26.1 24.2 1. 73 1.42 2.13
238 9.64 5.61 3.54 7.04 19.8 20.4 19.4 2.96 2.83 3.21
239 9.64 4.12 3.69 4.68 11.9 12.4 11.5 1.14 1.06 1.24
261 9.64 1.82 1.20 2.59 10.5 10.8 10.4 .61 .45 .87
262 9.64 1.85 .77 3.78 28.5 30.1 27.2 1.82 1.55 2.19
263 9.64 6.]4 4.91 8.70 26.2 27.6 25.1 2.90 2.56 3.40
264 9.64 5.54 4.90 6.45 12.9 13.6 12.3 1.08 .96 1.24
265 9.64 .81 .46 1.25 5.04 5.41 4.74 .23 .18 .29
287 9.64 2.12 1.69 2.66 12.9 13.2 12.7 .81 .67 1.00
288 9.64 1.42 .95 1.99 10.6 11.2 10.2 2.55 2.43 2.72
289 9.64 6.04 5.67 6.88 15.0 15.5 14.6 1.87 1. 75 2.03
290 9.64 .73 .47 1.06 5.56 5.93 5.33 .23 .19 .29
291 9.64 .62 .30 1.02 5.68 6.11 5.33 .20 .15 .26
-------
47
model could provide concentration distributions for each of the three
seasons.
The conversion of mean-day emissions based on total annual. .
emissions values to mean-day winter and summer seasonal values was accom-
plished using appropriate heating-degree-day values for the study area
and the portion of fuels used for space heating purposes.
Factors were
applied to emissions from other sources (e.g., motor vehicles) which
would bring the seasonal emission values in line with observed trends
for various sources and pollutants.
Tables A-2, A-3 and A-4 summarize the estimates of annual emissions
by source classification and by jurisdiction for 502' CO and total par-
ticulates respectively.
-------
~
ex>
TABLE A-2.
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY SOURCE CLASSIFICATION
( tons/year)
SOURCE
~ GRAND FUEL CCMBUSTION POWER PROCESS SOLID WASTE MOTOR OTHER FORMS OF
TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES PLANTS EMISSIONS DISPOSAL VEHICLES TRANSPORTATION
COUNTY
DELAWARE
New Castle County 156,307 27,755 100,811 21,400 19 978 5,344
PENNSYLVANIA
Bucks County 33,853 12,809 280 19,050 25 656 1,033
Chester County 65,597 10,423 41,268 13,310 8 528 60
Delaware County 171,651 20,673 83,746 63,680 320 1,021 2,211
Montgomery County 79,596 30,093 13,386 34,450 229 1,295 143
Philadelphia County 373,090 106,713 124,621 124,485 932 2,859 13 , 480
Pennsylvania Sub-Total 723,787 180,711 263,301 254,975 1,514 6,359 16,927
NEW JERSEY
Burlington County 37,773 15,364 11,383 8,610 14 545 1,857
Camden County 48,888 17,057 -- 19,830 67 926 11 , 008
Gloucester County 61,507 4,857 9,905 43,490 8 303 2,944
Mercer County 81,631 10,601 59,188 10, 700 79 667 396
Salem County 58,178 5,761 37,224 8,875 2 152 6,164
New Jersey Sub-Total 287,977 53,640 117,700 91,505 170 2,593 22,369
,
GRAND TOTAL 1,168,098 262,106 481,812 367,880 1,703 9,930 44,640
-------
TABLE A-3.
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS BY SOURCE CLASSIFICATION
(tons/year)
~
CLASSIFICATION GRAND FUEL COMBUSTION POWER PROCESS SOLID WASTE MarOR OTHER FORMS OF
TarAL STATIONARY SOURCES PLANTS EMISSIONS DISPOSAL VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION
COUNTY
DELAWARE
New Castle County 263;753 1,630 341 46, 710 5,222 206,108 3,742
PENNSYLVANIA
Bucks County 134,903 2,663 4 8,090 4,187 119,644 315
Chester County 106,458 1,887 223 6,000 2,006 96,253 89
Delaware County 410,634 4,584 411 210,345 8,693 186,281 320
Montgomery County 293,369 5,110 73 35,230 15,891 234,917 2,148
Philadelphia County 831,942 18,445 501 273,500 10,441 521,266 7,789
Pennsylvania Sub-Total 1,777,306 32,689 1,212 533,165 41,218 1,158,361 10,661
NEW JERSEY
Burlington County 115,858 659 3 8,350 4,830 101,424 592
Camden County 222;076 1,073 -- 41,495 7,247 172,076 185
. Gloucester County 138,860 356 48 80,380 1,770 56,244 62
Mercer County 143,288 1,014 322 9,395 4,108 123,900 4,549
Salem County 29,637 168 100 780 755 27,781 53
New Jersey Sub-Total 649,719 3,270 473 140,400 18,710 481,425 5,441
GRAND TOTAL 2,690,778 37,589 2,026 720,275 65,150 1,845,894 19,844
-I>-
'"
-------
\J1
o
TABLE A-4.
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS BY SOURCE CLASSIFICATION
{tons/year}
SOURCE
~ GRAND FUEL CCtmUSTION POWER PROCESS SOLID WASTE MOTOR OTHER FORMS OF
TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES PLANTS EMISSIONS DISPOSAL VEHICLES TRANSPORTATION
COUNTY
DELAWARE
New Castle County 19,718 3,192 7,482 6,260 695 1,547 542
PENNSYLVANIA
Bucks County 10,212 3,349 340 7,570 515 1,143 295
Chester County 14,312 2,441 5,292 5,220 286 919 164
Delaware County 25,907 5,355 3,506 12,525 2,038 1,779 704
Montgomery County 28,527 7,148 3,507 13 ,050 2,167 2,263 392
Philadelphia County 81,911 24,930 9,165 36,535 3,271 4,979 3,031
Pennsylvania Sub-Total 163,879 43,223 21,810 74,900 8,277 11,083 4,586
NEW JERSEY
Burlington County 7,290 1,905 509 2,870 635 938 433
Camden County 12,600 2,884 --- 6,260 870 1,595 991
Gloucester County 8,069 862 1,492 4,695 215 521 284
Mercer County 10,407 1,832 1,545 4,960 740 1,148 182
Salem County 9,481 609 3,101 4,960 87 226 458
New Jersey Sub-Total 47,847 8,092 6,647 23,745 2,547 4,468 2,348
GRAND TOTAL 231,444 54,507 35,939 104,905 11,519 17,098 7,476
-------
51
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A
1.
Public Health Service. Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
Community Air Pollution Emissions. Publication No. 999-AP-29, ,
Environmental Health Series, D.S.DHEW, Division of Air Pollution;
Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1966.
2.
Wohlers, H. C., Jackson, W. H. Air Pollution Emissions in the
Delaware Valley. Environmental Engineering and Science Program,
Drexel Institute of Technology, RCEO Air Pollution Survey Report,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1968.
3.
Public Health Service. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. Publication No. 999-AP-42, Environmental Health Series,
D.S.DHEW, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Durham, North
Carolina .
-------
52
APPENDIX B.
DIFFUSION MODEL DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
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 "atmos-
pheric areas" interpreted to mean that the bouncaries of air quality
control regions should reflect the technical aspects of air pollution
(climate, meteorology, topography) &nd the dispersion of this pollution.
Within this guideline, however, the position has been taken that boun-
daries 9f a region cannot be seasonally dependant nor should these
boundaries be based on an extreme and theoretically plausible set of
circumstances leading to an enlarged or diminished region.
The dif-
fusion model analysis does distinguish between annual, summer, and
winter mean values with regard to variable meteorological and emission
parameters.
These conditions, however, are not indicative of an extreme
set of circumstances such as are mentioned above.
The diffusion model is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation,
described by Pasqui11l,2 for long term averages, and modified in recent
years3,4 for application to the multiple-source situations typical of an
urban comp lex.
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 direction.
The dispersion of
this plume is a function of atmospheric stability conditions and the
distance from the source.
The plume is assumed to move downwind
according to the mean wind.
-------
53
The diffusion model was applied to the three pollutants of concern
(CO, S02, and particulates).
Results were derived for the dispersion of
these pollutants on the basis of annual, winter, and summer seasons.
In
order that this could be done, certain fundamental meteorological param-
eters were evaluated for use in the diffusion equation.
Table B-1 shows
average mixing depths for various seasons and periods during the day.
verage ~x~ng DeDt s or t e ~ a e LD ~a rea. Bv Season
Mixing Depths;'( (meters)
SEASON
Morning Average Afternoon Average Average, Morning and
Afternoon
Winter 705 935 820
Summer 514 1699 1106
Annual 592 1360 976
A
M' .
TABLE B-1.
h F h
Ph'l d 1 h'
A
Figure B-1 typifies wind data in the Philadelphia area** in terms of fre-
quency of occurrence in the respective compass directions for the three
seasons of concern.
The characteristic prevailing wind directions for
each of the seasons exerts a major influence over the seasonal disper-
sion of pollutants as may be observed in the shapes of the concentration
isopleths.
*Computed mixing depths documented by HolzworthS,6 and recent tabulations
furnished the Meteorological Program, NAPCA, by National Weather Records
Center, ESSA.
**U.S. Weather Bureau Data.
-------
54
WINI'ER
SUMMER
ANNUAL
N
PER CENT FREQUENCY
OF OCcuRRENCE
FIGUREB-l, WIND DIRECTION PER CENT FREQUENCY OF
OCCURRENCE FOR VARIaJS AVERAGING TIMES.
15
-------
55
The diffusion model was used in this study to compute the ground
level concentrations of pol~utants at 97 points.
These points were
distributed over 16 compass directions up to 100 kilometers from the
assumed center point (the intersection of Vine and Broad Streets,
Philadelphia) .
All pollutant sources were assumed to be at ground
level and topographical features were disregarded.
This nullification
of source and receptor height considerations can be tolerated, to an
extent, since the distances betWeen source-receptors points involved
are sufficiently great so as to diminish elevations as a variable for
the other portions of the area.
SULFUR DIOXIDE
A comparison of mean annual S02concentrations derived from the
diffusion model analysis with measured ambient air quality levels showed
that in all cases the.model tended to over-estimate the measured concen-
trations.
Calculated values assuming no decay showed the greatest dis-
crepancies.
As a result, "decay factors"*.were applied to the diffusion
model output for mean annual S02 concentrations assuming 3, 6, and 12
hour half-lives.
The theoretical concentration values for an assumed 3 hour half-
life were in closest agreement with measured values.
This did not
obviate the necessity of further adjustment of the theoretical values.
A comparison of these theoretical values with reliable measured values
*Such a factor was not included as a modification of any of the diffusion
model equations. Because of this the model output (concentration values)
was treated in order that the adjusted pollutant levels could be obtained.
-------
56
(annual average values) at 7 monitoring stations showed that the
measured values averaged 0.27 of the theoretical values at these station
(min., 0.17; max., 0.48).
Thus 0.27 served as the factor with which the
theoretical concentration contours were adjusted.
Figures B-2 and B-3 show theoretical S02 concentration contours
with assumed 6 hour and 12 hour half-lives respectively.
The theoretical
concentrations have not been adjusted to conform to measured air quality.
CARBON MONOXIDE
Figures B-4, B-5, and B-6 show unadjusted CO isopleths for summer,
annual, and winter seasons, respectively.
Summer average CO concentrations measured at 2 air sampling sta-
tions in the City of Philadelphia are under~,bnated by the diffusion
model concentration (summer/averages) at the sampling station's sites.
The diffusion model does not reflect the built up nature of the area
over which most CO is emitted.
Therefore, the model assumes that the CO
has more volume to disperse in than is the actual case.
Consequently,
an average factor of 3.4 was applied to the theoretical con~entration
values for the summer season in order to align predicted concentration
with measured concentrations*.
The isopleths are a good indication of the relative distribution of
carbon monoxide pollution over the area of concern.
Their shape reflects
the influence of the prevailing wind directions, particularly during the
summer season
(WSW) .
The areas downwind of the major source are affec-
ted by the emissions from these sources while upwind source areas such as
*See Figure 10, page 32. The value of 3.4 as an average factor is com-
patible with sbni1ar factors applied to a study of CO pollution in the.
Washington, D. C. and New York Metropolitan areas.
-------
57
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
KENT
~ 0 5 10 1520 25
N 110.8.9 -",,""",""",
Kilometers
SUSSEX
DELAWARE
FIGURE B-2. THEORETICAL S02 CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM: ANNUAL AVERAGE
(ASSUMED 6 HOUR HALF-LIFE~,
-------
58
PENNSYLVANIA
NEW JERSEY
MARYLAND
~ 0 510152025
N Il"- ..........,..,
Kilomet.rs
DELAWARE
FIGURE B-3. THEORETICAL S02 CONCENTRATIONS IN PPMJ ANNUAL AVERAGE (ASSUMED 12 HOUR HALF-LIFE).
-------
59
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
~ 0 510152025
N II.._~ -.....r""'!
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE B-4. THEORETICAL CO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM; SUMMER AVERAGE.
-------
60
PENNSYLVANIA
.\
,
"
MARYLAND
~ 0 5 10 1520 25
N ~"......... -.....1"""1
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE B-5.
THEORET! CAL CO
CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM: ANNUAL AVERAGE.
-------
61
PENNSYLVANIA
~ 0 5 10152025
N "'''.'"....-.-1''''''1
Kilometers
SUSSEX
FIGURE B-6.
THEORETICAL CO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM: WINTER AVERAGE.
-------
62
New Castle County, Delaware. (contributing 9.8% of the pollution emitted
according to the source inventory) are relatively free of high CO levels.
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
Diffusion model results for the ground level concentrations of .sus-
pended particulates were obtained for the annual, summer, and winter
seasons.
The diffusion model output for these respective seasons are
shown in Figures B-7, B-8, and B-9.
The emissions data input to the diffusion model was based on total
particulate emissions.
The suspended particulate concentrations (mean
. annual values) calculated by the model at the sites of three air sam-
pling station's were greater than the measured concentrations at these
3 stations by a factor of 1.73.
This is logical since the diffusion
model fails to compensate for the deposition of the settleable particu-
late portion of the total particulate emissions.
Figure 11, page 34
shows the calculated concentrations adjusted using the above factor.
-------
63
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
~ 0 5 10152025
N 1\.". -....J""'I
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE B-7. THEORETICAL PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS IN flG/M3: ANNUAL AVERAGE.
-------
64
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
4 0 5 10 152025
N I!..~.....-~
Kilometers
DELAWARE
FIGURE B-8.
THEORETICAL PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS IN fG/M3; SUMMER AVERAGE.
-------
65
PENNSYLVANIA
~ 0 5 10 1520 25
N I\.-"--...J""'!
Kilometers
DElJIWARE
SUSSEX
FIGURE 8-9.
THEORETICAL PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION IN ~G/M3; WINTER AVERAGE
-------
66
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
1.
Pas quill , F. "The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne
Material", Meteorology Magazine, 90, 33-49, 1961.
2.
Atmospheric Diffusion,
190, 1962.
Van Nostrand Co., New York,
pasquill, F.
New York, pp.
3.
Public Health Service, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion EsttmBtes,
Publication No. 999-AP-26, Environmental Health Series, U.S. DREW,
N~tiona1 Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
4.
Martin, D. 0., Tikvart, J. A. "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.
5.
Holzworth, G. C. '~ixing Depths, Wind Speeds and Air pollution
Potential for Selected Locations in the United States", J. Appl.
Meteor., No.6, pp. 1039-1044, December 1967.
6.
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.
-------
67
APPENDIX C.. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
This appendix consists of tables and charts showing various
parameters of the metropolitan Philadelphia urban area.
Some of th~s
data is referred to in the body of this report, and some is not.
All
has relevance to the tri-State metropolitan area and is included in
this report for possible future use.
-------
68
Table C-1. Metropolitan Phi1ade1phia1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C
B k
Ch
P
D 1
P
M
P
ountv uc s ester, a. e aware_, a. ontgomery. a.
County Seat Dov1estown West Chester Media Norristown
Basic Tradin~ Area PhiladelPhia Philadelphia Philade1.phia Philadelphia
Maj or Trading Area PhiladelPhia Philadelphia Philadelphia Philadelphia
Land Area (Sa. miles) 617 760 185 491
Population (1950) 144.620 159.141 414,234 353,068
(1960) 308,567 210,608 553,154 516,682
est. . (1968) 357.000 255.000 598~ 000 605 000
Households (1968 est.) 96,500 68,200 169,400 171,900
Total Retail Trade 1966 519,723 311,412 797,229 1,045,169
($1000)
Shopping Goods Sales 1966 60,246 31,485 139,136 264,272
($1000)
Food Store Sales 1966 124,106 80,925 230,412 257,893
($1000)
Drug Store Sales 1966 14,738 8,717 28,755 30,312
($1000)
Passen~er Car Registrations 146,780 91,990 231,230 233,940
Total Wholesale Trade 116,309 185,413 525,900 2,163,610
(1963)($1000)
Manufactures (1963)
Total Employees 35,123 25,784 53,462 82,229
Value Added ($1000) 522.460 329,830 535,658 984,913
Agriculture (1964)
Number of Farms 1.474 2,339 185 1,347
Total Value of Products 20,173 44,485 3,961 15,428
Sold ($1000)
-------
69
Table C-2. Metropolitan Philadelphia
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONI
C
t
Hliladelphia
P
Burlington
N J
Gloucester
Camden N. J. N J
oun:y enna. . . ' . .
, ..
County Seat Philadelphia Mt. Holley Camden Woodbury
Basic Tradin~ Area Philadelphia N. Y .. N. Y. Hliladelphia Philadelphia
Ma ior Tradimt Area Hliladelphia N.Y.. N.Y. H1iladelphia Philadelphia
Land Area (Sq. miles) 127 234 221 329
Population (1950) 2.071.605 300.743 91.727
(1960) 2.002 512 392.035 134 840
est. (1968) 2.040 000 305,000 450.000 160.000
Households (1968 est.) 627 700 74,400 128,600 44,700
Total Retail Trade 1966 2,992,611 302,864 715,644 173,887
($1000)
Shopping Goods Sales 1966 748,689 49,300 180,251 13,887
($1000)
Food Store Sales 1966 703,098 77,914 164,243 50,795
($1000)
Drug Store'Sales 1966 100,841 7,042 17,966 4,795
($1000)
Passen2er Car Re2istrations 604 270 75.410 166.810 56.860
Total Wholesale Trade 6,100,499 116,697 858,031 185,897
(1963) ($1000)
Manufactures (1963)
Total Employees 264,893 17.505 44.491 12,320
Value Added ($1000) 2.779.004 204,746 491,827 183 194
Agriculture (1964)
Number of Farms 43 1.070 230 942
Total Value of Products Sold 666 19,375 4,646 20,918
($1000)
-------
70
Table C-3. Metropolitan Philadelphial
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C.
Camd
T
Wil .
l.ty en renton m1.ngton
County Camden. N.J. Mercer, N.J. New Castle. Del.
Basic Trad~ng Area Phila. Trenton Wilmington ..
Maior Trading Area Phila. Phila. .Phi~a.
Rana11y City Rating 2-S .2-A 2-A.
Economic Activity Code MIll (D) Mm Mm
Population: 1960 117,159 114,167 97,827
est. 1968 110,000 102.000 87.000
Households (est. 1968) 33,000 30,000 27.900
Total Retail Trade
(1966) ($1000) 192,005 231,230 275,746
Shopping Goods Sales
(1966) ($1000) 47,421 87,484 63,697
Total Wholesale Trade 541,766 199,456 616,779
Manufactures:
Total Employees 31,440 17,660 23,944
Value Added ($1000) 355,155 214,432 108,835
-------
71
Table C-4. Me~ropo1itan Phi1ade1phia1
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
~ountv Berks Lancaster Lehigh Northamptor
'.
Countv.Seat ReadinQ:- Pa LIane as ter Pa. Allentown. Pa. Easton. Pa
Allentown -
Basic Trading Area Re ad ing Lancaster Bethlehem/Easton
Maior Trading Area Phila. Phila. N.Y. N.Y.
Land Area (So. miles) 864 944 347 374
Population (1950) 255.740 234,717 198.207 185,243
(1960) 275,414 278,35'9 227.536 201.412
est. (1968) 288.000 286.000 232.500 207.500
Households (1968 est.) 91.100 82,700 70.900 62.500
Total Retail Trade 1966
($1000) 435.697 465 656 433.361 263.129
Shopping Good~ Sales 1966
($1000) " 89,532 80,200 129.134 46.840
Food Stores Sales
($1000) 101, 383 99 787 85.498 82.006
Drug Store Sales 1966
,- - ($1000) r 8 368 8,767 8;823 8,218
Passenger Car Reg:istrations 123.740 127,810 94.840 102,520
Total Wholesale Trade -
(1963) ($1000) 260,455 362 446 388 018 117,341
.
Manufactures -(1963)
Total Emp10vees 50. 719 47.878 37.031 46,065
Value Added ,($1000) 429,460 532 634- 307,143 407.008
Agriculture (1964) <"
-- .
Nmnber of Farms 2,821 6.247, 1. 120 -. 1,078
Total Value of Products
Sold ($1000) 35,038 109 107 12.877 12,221
-------
72'
Table C-5. Metropolitan Philadelphial
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
C
t
Atl ti
Cumb 1 d
H t d
o
oun;y an c er an un er on cean
Mays Flemington, Toms River
County Seat Land in2. NJ Bridge ton. NJ NJ NJ
Atlantic Vine 1 and-
Basic TradinR Area Citv Hill ville New York. NY New York.lr
Maior Trading Area Phil a . ,- Phila. N.Y. N.Y.
Land Area (Sq. miles) 569 599 434 642
Population (1950) 132.399 88.597 ' 42.736 56.622
.
(1960) 160,880 106,850' 54,107 108,241
est. (1968) 185.000 128.000 . 66.000 162.000
Households (1968 est.) 59.700 37.300 19. 100 48.400
Total Retail Trade 1966
($1000) 337.121 188. 104 90. 771 254,929
Shopping Goocls Sales 1966
($1000) 78.664 47,762 23,055 75,870
Drug Store Sales 1966
($1000) 9.805 4.158 1.834 7.099
PassenRer Car Registrations 75.680 52,560 28;570 56.980
Total Wholesale Trade
(1963) ($1000) 132.338 105.672 41,546 70.535
Manufactures (1963)
Total Employees 8, 740 ' 20 903 5. 138 3.556
Value Added ($1000) 97.963 177 979 53.397 37.879
Agriculture (1964)
Number of Farms 649 1.035 1.031 345
. .
Total Value of Products
Sold ($1000) 14.673 24.829' .16.213 6.573
-------
73
Table 'C.:..6; , Metropolitan Philadelphial
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
County
Warren
County Seat Belvidere, N.J.
Allentown-
Basic Tradine: Area Bethlehem/Easton
Ma tor Trading Area N.Y.
Land Area (So. Miles) 362
Population (1950) 54,374 ---------.
, (1960) 63.220
--
est. (1968) 72,000 --------- ----------- ---------
Househol~1968 est.) 21.500
Total Retail Trade 1966
($1000) 99 785
Shopping Goods Sales
($1000) 6,874
Food Stores Sales 1966
($1000) 29 310
Passenger Car
Registrations 31.850
Total Wholesale Trade
" (1963) ($1000) 40.317
Manufactures (1963) 10.655
Total Emp10vees 10.655
Value Added ($1000) 119.128
ARricu1ture (1964)
Number of Farms 654
Total Value of Products
Sold ($1000) 13.113
-------
74
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
1. ' Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, 99th ed.,
Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968.
"U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970-395-979/36
GPO 864.673
------- |