REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
PUGET SOUND
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
(WASHINGTON)
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
PUGET SOUND
AIR QUALITY CONTROL ~EGION
(WASHINGTON)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
July
1969
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
... .................. .... ........... ......
Introduction
.... .......... ....... ................
Evaluation of Urban Factors
.......... ..... .......
. Summary
............... ................. .....
Evaluation of Engineering Factors
................
Summary
........ ....... ......................
Proposal
................... ....... ... ............
Discussion of Proposal
.... ... ...............
References
........... ............................
Page
3
4
12
24
27
49
51
51
56
-------
3
PREFACE
The Secretary,. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, is
directed by the Air Quality Act of 1967 to designate "air quality control
regions" as an initial step toward the establishment of regional air
quality'management.
In addition to listing the major factors to be
considered in the development of region boundaries, the Act stipulates
that the designation of a region shall be preceded by consultation with
appropriate State and locai authorities.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration, DHEW, has conducted
a study of the Puget Sound area, the 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 revisions suggested during consultation with State and
local authorities.
Formal designation of a Region will follow the con-
su1tation meeting.
This report is intended to serve as background material
for the consultation.
The Administration appreciates assistance received either directly
during the c~urse of this study or indirectly during previous activities
in the Puget Sound area from official air pollution control agencies at
the State and local level, and the Puget Sound Governmental Conference.
*For tha purposes'ofthis report, the word region, when capitalized, will
refer to the Puget Sound Air Quality Control Region. Whe~ not capitalized,
unless otherwise noted, it will refer to air quality control regions in
general.
-------
4
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 imple-
mentation 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 l07(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. This regional problem demands a regional solution, consisting of
coordinated planning, data gathering, standard setting, and enforcement.
Yet, with few exceptions, such coordinated efforts are notably absent among
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 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 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
-------
HEW DESIGNATES
AI R QUALITY
CONTROL REGIONS.
HEW DEVELOPS AND
PUBLISHES AIR
QUALITY CRITERIA
BASED ON SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE OF AI R
POllUTION EFFECTS.
HEW PREPARES
AND PUBLISHES
REPORTS ON
AVAilABLE CONTROL
TECHNIQUES
STATES INDICATE
THEIR INTENT
TO SET STANDARDS. (PUBLIC
HEARINGS)
STATES SET
AI R QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR THE AIR
QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS.
STATES SUBMIT
STANDARDS FOR
HEW REVIEW.
STATES ESTABLISH
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
FOR IMPLEMENTING
AI R QUALITY
STANDARDS.
STATES SUBMIT
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
FOR HEW REVIEW.
STATES ACT-TO CONTROL
AIR POLLUTION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
Figure 1 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR ACTION TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION ON A REGIONAL
BASIS, UNDER THE AIR QUALITY ACT.
U1
-------
6
covered by the published criteria and control technology documents and
adopt within an additional 180 days plans for the implementation, main-
tenance, and enforcement of those standards in the designated air quality
control regions.
The new Federal legislation provides for a regional attack on air
pol1utibn and, at the same time, allows latitude in the form which regional
efforts may take. While the Secretary retains approval authority, the State(s)
involved in a designated region assumes the responsibility for developing
standards and an implemeqtation plan which includes administrative procedures
for abatement and control. For regions which extend across jurisdictional
boundaries, informal cooperative arrangements may be adequate in some cases
to insure compatible standards and enforcement among the jurisdictions. In
other case~, 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.
THE SIZE OF A REGION
Several objectives are important in determining how large an air
quality control region should be. Basically, these objectives can be divided
into three separate categories. First, a region should be self-contained
with r~spect to air pollution sources and receptors. In other words, a
region should include most of the important sources.in the area as well
as most of the people and' property affected by those sources. In this way,
all the major elements of the regional problem will lie within one unified
administrative jurisdiction. Unfortunately, since air pollutants can
travel long distances, it is impractical if not impossible to delineate
regions which are completely self-contained. The .air over a region will
-------
7
usually have at least trace amounts of pollutants from external sou~ces.
During epi~odic conditions, such contributions from external source~ may
. .
even reach significant levels.
Conversely, air ,pollution g~nerated within.
a region and transported out of it can affect external receptors ~o some
degree.
It would pe impractical and inefficient ~o make all air quality
control regions large enough to encompass these low-level trace effects.
The geographic extent of tra~e effects overestimates the true problem area
which should be the focus of air pollution contr~l efforts.
Thus, the first
objective, that a region be self-contained, becomes a questio~of.relative
magnitude and frequency.
The dividing line between "important influence"
and "trace effect," will be a matter of judgment.
The judgment should be
based on estimates of the impact a source has upon a region, and the
. ,
level of pollution to which receptors are subject~d.
In this respect,
annual and seasonal data on pollutant emissions and ambient air concentrations
are a better measure of relative influence than short term data on episodic
conditions.
The second general objective requi~es that region boundaries be
designed to meet. not only , present conditions but,also future conditions.
In other words, the region should include areas where industrial and
residential ,expansion are likely to creat~ air pollution problems in the
foreseeable future.
This objective requires ,careful consideration of
existing metropolitan development plans, expected population growth, and
projected industrial expansion.
Such considerations should result in the
designation of regions which will contain the sources and receptors of
regional air pollution for a number of years to come.
Of course, region
boundaries need not be permanently fixed, once
designated.
Boundaries'
-------
8
should be reviewed periodically and altered when changing conditions
warrant readjustment.
The third objective is that region boundaries should be compatible
with and even foster unified and cooperative governmental administration
of the air resource throughout the region.
Air pollution is a regional
problem which often extends across several municipal, county, and even
state boundaries.
Clearly, the collaboration of several governmental
jurisdictions is prerequisite to the solution of the problem.
Therefore,
the region should be delineated in a way which encourages regional
cooperation among the various governmental bodies involved in air pollution
control.
In this regard, the existing pattern of governmental cooperation
on the whole range of urban problems may become an important consideration.
Certainly the pattern of cooperation among existing air pollution control
programs is a relevant factor.
In general, administrative considerations
dictate that governmental jurisdictions should not be divided.
Although
it would be impractical to preserve State jurisdictions undivided, usually
it is possible to preserve the unity of county governments by including or
excluding them in their entirety.
Occasionally, even this would be
impractical due to a county's large size, wide variation in level of
development, or striking topographical features.
To the extent that any two of the above three objectives lead to
incompatible conclusions concerning region boundaries, the region must
represent a reasonable compromise.
A region should represent the best
way of satisfying the three objectives simultaneously.
-------
9
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."
The study of "Engineering Factors" indicates the location of
pollution sources and the geographic extent of serious pollutant concen-
trations in the ambient air.
Pollution sources are located by taking an
inventory of emissions from automobiles, industrial activities, space
heating, waste disposal, and other pollution generators.
The distribu-
tion of pollutants in the ambient air is analyzed on the basis of measured
air quality data, the location of emissions, and meteorological informa-
tion.
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 nonengineering considera-
tions.
It reviews existing governmental jurisdictions, current air
pollution control programs, present concentrations of population and
industry, and expected patterns of urban growth.
Other nonengineering
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 the pollution problem in the
-------
......
o
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Input Co m puter 0 utput
. Emissions ~ Poll uta nt ~ Iso-Intensity
. Meteorology Diffusion
Gra phs .
. Physical Dim. Model
I Existing Air
I Quality
Sampling ,.
Data
I Preliminary Consu Itation Formal
Delineation ... with State ... Designation
of and Local by
Regions Officials Secretary-HEW
URBP\N FACTORS . ~
8 Jurisdictional Boundaries
8 Urban-Industrial Concentrations
8 Cooperative Regional Arrangements
8 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.
..
-------
11
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 consultation, 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
Puget Sound Air Quality Control Region and supporting studies on engineer-
ing and urban factors.
The report itself is intended to serve as the
background document for the formal consultation with appropriate State and
local authorities.
-------
12
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS
INTRODUCTrON
A number of urban factors are relevant to the problem of defining
air quality control region boundaries.
First, the location of population
is an important consideration, since human activity is the primary cause
of air pollution, and humans are the ultimate victims.
The projected
population growth pattern is another important consideration, since an
air quality control region should be designed not only for the present
but also for the future.
The location of industrial activity and the
industrial growth pattern are relevant considerations for similar
reasons.
Political and jurisdictional considerations are important,
since the Air Quality Act of 1967 envisions regional air pollution pro-
grams based on cooperative efforts among many political jurisdictions.
The following discussion of urban factors will present these considera-
tions as they apply to the Puget Sound area.
POPULATION
Figure 3 displays present population densities in the Puget Sound
area (1).
The counties in the area can be divided into three categories
according to population density.
The category with the highest popula-
tion density (over 500 residents per square mile) contains only King
County.
The category with moderate population densities (from 100 to
500 residents per square mile) contains four counties:
Pierce, Kitsap,
Snohomish, and Island.
Together these five counties contain more than
85% of the total population of the twelve counties adjacent to the
-------
13
:Figure .3:
Vancouver
Island
CANADA
~ "::~. .:::::::::I:::::::::::::::Im:mr:::I:r::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;.
~ ~(::::::, I SAN .:::::::::::.:.:.:-:.:-:-: WHATCOl1 38 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::.:.
\ ~ ~~; ~ ':::!i!!I!j!liii'!i!i!!!ii!i~ili;:i!iiii:!i:.:!i:!i!:!!!!i!lli!!I!I!!i!!!!lii!!!!!:!!.!!'!:!!:.
\~~ I :. .. :-:-:.:.:. SKAGIT 31. ::::::::::::::::::::::::-:.:
/'- - -' «~}}}{}!~}ff\W~~UW}ttit!{
"'.... - - - -; ISLAND """"""'"
'\
,
CLALLAM 18
JEFFERSON
5
-.
.......
-"
"
LEWIS
19
~
0 10 20
I
miles
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
1968 POPULATION DENSITY
Residents Per Square Mile
more than 500;
~~~~t~~ 100 to 500;
I2:3J -20 to 100;
r I less than 20;
-------
14
Puget Sound.
In fact, three of .these counties aione, King, Pierce, and
Snohomish, contain nearly 80% of the total population.
In turn, nearly
50% of the population of these last three counties resides within the
three largest cities in the Puget Sound area; Seattle, Tacoma, and
Everett.
Each of these cities lies adjacent to the Sound in a basin
formed by the Olympic Mountains on the west and the Cascade Range on the
east.
Most of the population in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties
outside of the three cities resides in suburban communities which are
located along the corridor of land which connects the three. cities.
In
other words~ King, Pierce, and Snohomish are heavily populated along the
corridor, but sparsely populated elsewhere.
Thus, the population densi-
ties calculated on a county-wide basis and presented in Figure 3 are
averages which underestimate the actual population densities along the
corridor.
On the other hand, population in Kitsap and Island Counties
is more evenly distributed, so that the average densities presented in
Figure 3 more accurately indicate the actual population density of those
portions of Kitsap and Island Counties which are involved in the Puget
Sound area.
Therefore, it is misleading to include Kitsap and Island
Counties in the same population density category as Pierce and
Snohomish, since the corridor portions of Pierce and Snohomish are much
more densely developed than counterpart areas in Kitsap and Island.
The group of counties with the lowest population densities (less
than 100 residents per square mile) contains all of the counties sur-
rounding the five mentioned above.
Within this group, the county which
has the highest population density is Thurston, which contains the State
Capitol, Olympia.
-------
15
A number of organizations have projected population growth by
county in the Puget Sound area.
For the purposes of this report, the
projections published during 1966 by the Department of Commerce and..
Economic Development of the State of Washington are the most useful
since they cover all of the counties in the study area (2).
Figure 4
displays population growth expected to take place during the next 16
years, according to the State projections.
King County is expected to
experience the largest absolute population growth, with 191 additional
residents per square mile by 1985.
Pierce, Island, Kitsap, and Snohomish
follow, with 50 to 80 additional residents per square mile anticipated.
Surrounding counties are likely to register little or no growth, except
for Thurston, which is projected to have 27 additional residents per
square mile by 1985.
In sum, on the basis of population estimates and projections, the
corridor of land along the eastern shoreline of the Puget Sound consti-
tutes the core of the. urbanized area.
At the present time, Seattle,
Tacoma, and Everett are the three focal points of urbanization along this
corridor.
The bulk of population growth during the next 16 years is
expected to spread along the corridor between these three cities.
H~-
ever, there will be some tendency for population growth to extend into
the western side of Puget Sound.
The proposed development of regional
transportation facilities will accelerate the spread of population north
and south along the eastern side of the Sound and to communities on the
western side of the Sound.
Areas not adjacent to the Sound are expected
to register little or no growth during the near future.
-------
16
Figure 4:
Vancouver
Island' .
WHATCOM 6
SKAGIT 12
-0
o
n
_0
.....
_0
n
LEWIS 2
t
WESTERN WASHINGTON
10 20
mt'es I .
POPULATION GROWTH, 1968 - 1985
Additional Residents Per Square Mile:
more than 100;
50 to 100;
25 to 50;
less than 25;
-------
17
INDUSTRY.
One method for determining the location of manufacturing activity
is based on the number of people employed in manufacturing firms.
As
shown in Figure 5, which is based on 1967 data'(3), King County has by far
the highest density of people employed in manufacturing firms.
Pierce
County follows with a moderate density of manufacturing activity, ~nd
surrounding counties have little or no activity.
Employment statistics
(4) reveal that nearly two-thirds of the people employed by manufacturing
firms in King County work in the a~rospace industry.
Fabricated metal
products, machinery, and ship building account for another 10% of the
manufacturing employment i~ King County.
In Pierce County nearly 25% of
the manufacturing employment is involved in lumber and wood products and
about 16% in food products.' In Snohomish County nearly 50% of the manu-
facturing employment is involved in' lumber, wood.', and paper produc.ts.
In 1967, somewhat less than 20% of the manufacturing employment worked
on aircraft products, but this type of employment has increased signifi-
cantly during the last two years due to the. recent completion of a new
. aircraft factory.
Kitsap and Island Counties are primarily residential
and recreational, except for the shipyard activity in Kitsap.
Growth of ~mployment in the Puget Sound area has been anticipated
in the land use plan for 1990 which was re~ommended by the Puget Sound
Re.gional Transportation Study.
Most of the employment growth is expected
to occur along the corridor connecting Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett on
the eastern side of Puget Sound.
Only limited industrial development in
Kitsap and Island Counties is expected.
-------
18
Figure 5:
WHATCOM 2
Vancouver
Is/and.
SKAGIT 2
SNOHOMISH 5
......
-"
i"
LEWIS 1
t
o 10 20
. mt'es .
WESTERN
WASH I NGTON
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT DENSITY~ 1967
Employees Per Square Mile:
~~~iII more than 50;
r-.:.:.:...~ 10 to 50'
. . . ~ ~ '.'. ,
c=:=J less than 10;
-------
19
EXISTING AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
The Washington Clean Air Act of 1967 established, within the State
Department of Health, an Air Pollution Control Board which is composed of
nine members appointed by the Governor.
Among the duties assigned to the
Board by the 1967 Act were the responsibilities to adopt and enforce air
quality goals and emission regulations, to monitor air quality, and to
give technical assistance to local programs within the State.
Amendments
to the law enacted during 1969 expanded and further defined the duties of
the Board.
It was given the authority to adopt air quality objectives
(levels' of contaminants in the air below which undesirable effects will
not occur), air quality standards (levels of air pollution which shall not
be exceeded), and emission standards (limitations on the release of con tam-
inants into the ambient air).
The State Board was assigned responsibility
for enforcement of its standards except in areas where local programs are
enforcing standards which are at least as stringent as those of the State.
However, the State was directed to exercise statewide control over emis-
sions from certain categories of pollution sources if such control was
determined to be in the public interest and for the protection of the
welfare of the citizens.
One primary function of the State program has been to foster the
development of county and multicounty programs throughout the State.
To
serve this end, the State program may assist the various local programs
with financial aid.
The present annual budget of the State program is
slightly more than one million dollars.
-------
20
The 1967 Washington Clean Air Act declared as public policy that
"regional air pollution control programs are to be encouraged and sup-
ported to the extent practicable as essential instruments for the
securing and maintenance of appropriate levels of air quality."
In
order to facil~tate this policy, the Act created in each county an air
pollution control authority.
For certain classes Df counties, the air
pollution control authorities were declared "activated;" in others, the
authorities were declared "inactive."
The Act provided, however, that a
county may change its status from "inactive" to "activated" on its own
initiative.
The 1967 Act further required certain contiguous counti~s
to join in establishing one multi-county authority rather than several
separate county authorities.
Counties which were not required to join
multi-county authorities nevertheless were allowed to do so on their own
initiative if they desired.
In addition, the 1967 Act defined several
regional air pollution control authorities, composed of various multi-
county and single-county ~uthorities.
Regional authorities were not
required to become "activated" until July 1, 1969, and even then only
regional authorities with at least one million population were required
to become "activated."
However, regional authorities were allowed to
become activated on their own initiative prior to the required deadline
provided the member counties so desired.
In general, a multi-county
authority superseded county authorities, and a regional authority super-
seded both multi-county and county authorities.
Each type of authority
was granted the power to adopt resolutions and issue orders to control air
pollution. Furthermore, they could hold hearings, prepare comprehensive plans,
require registration and reporting of air pollution sources, require notice
-------
21
of construction of facilities which might be air contaminant sources,
issue stop-constru~tion orders, and grant variances.
Between 1967 and 1969 three multi-county authorities were established
in the ge~eral Puget Sound area under the provisions of the 1967 Washing-
ton Clean Air A~t (see Figure 6). The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency was created with jurisdiction over King, Pierce, and Snohomish
Counties. The Northwest Air Polution Control Agency contains Whatcom,
Skagit, San Juan, and Island Counties. The Olympic Air Pollution Control
Agency contains Clallam, Jefferson, Mason, Grays Harbor, Thurston, and
Pacific Counties. Kitsap County, in the center of the Puget Sound area,
did not activate its county authority or join any of these multi-county
authorities. Of these three multi-county authorities, only the Puget Sound
I
Agnecy was required by the 1967 Act to become activated. The other two
multi-county authorities were established at the initiative of the member
counties.
As defined in the 1967 Act, the Regional Air Pollution Control
Authority for the Pu~et Sound area contained all twelve counties which
have a border on the Puget Sound and Juan de Fuca Strait: Whatcom, Skagit,
Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Kitsap, Mason, Jefferson, Clallam,
Island, and San Juan Counties. Since together these counties contained more
than one million residents, they were required to establish a regional
authority by July 1, 1969. However, before that deadline became due, the
Washington State Legislature amended the 1969 Act by deleting all require-
ments for the activation of regional authorities. Therefore, the Puget
Sound Regional Authority has not been created.
-------
22
Figure 6:
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITIES
CAN A DA
Va ncouver
Island
Lewis t
o 10 20
WASHINGTON mtles
-------
23
The 1969 amendments to the 1967 Act created "air pollution control
districts." The Puget Sound air pollution control district was defined
to include fourteen counties - the twelve counties formerly in the Puget
Sound Regional Authority plus Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties. Thus,
the Puget Sound air pollution control district includes all of the counties
presently in the Puget Sound, Northwest, and Olympic multi-county air
pollution control authorities as well as Kitsap County, which has not yet
joined any of these authorities. The 1969 amendments require the State.
Board to establish a district office in the Puget Sound district. The
district office will be responsible for assisting the multi-county author-
ities in abating air pollution, aiding" the State Board in est~blishing air
quality standards and minimum emission standards for the district, insuring
the enforcement of such standards, and carrying out other functions.
The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency is a multi-county author-
ity created during July, 1967, under the provisions of the Washington Clean
Air Act. Its jurisdiction includes three counties; King, Pierce, and Sno-
homish. Thus, it encompasses the cities of Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett.
"
In exercising the powers granted to it by State law, the Puget Sound Agency
has adopted emission standards which control some types of outdoor burning
and prohibit certain levels of particulate and sulfur oxide emissions. The
Agency requires registration of most emission sources and notice of constuc-
tion for potential new emission sources. A monitoring system has been.estab-
lished in the three-county area to measure air quality. The present annual
budget of the Puget Sound Agency is about 730 thousand dollars.
-------
24
REGIONAL COORDINATION AND PLANNING THE THE PUGET SOUND AREA
The only multi-county planning agency in the Puget Sound area is the
Puget Sound Governmental Conference, which is composed of members from four
counties; King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap. The Conference was created
during 1957 in response to a growing need for regional coordination and
planning. During its twelve years in existence, the Governmental Confer~,
ence has adopted an open space plan, a street and highway plan, a regional
transit plan, and a metropolitan area public transportation plan. These
various plans form elements of a comprehensive plan for the development
of the four-county region. Recently the Con!erence developed a work pro-
gram for the next five years. The work program contains activities in eight
major component area: economic and demographic study, regional social environ-
ment, regional physical environment, regional transportation planning, regional
urban form and land use, program and policy communication and coordination,
regional information systems, and special studies. Under the component "region-
al physical environment", the Conference expects to deal with water policy
coordination, air policy coordination, solid waste disposal systems, water
and sever systems, and open space conservation. The Conference has been
expanding its manpower and budget to meet this ambitious expansion of program
activities. The Conference budget for 1969 is larger than one million dollars.
SUMMARY
The evaluation of urban factors has shown that about 80% of the
population in the Puget Sound area resides in three counties; King,
Pierce, and Snohomish. Furthermore, the major ,portion of expected population
-------
25
growth during the next sixteen years will probably be located in these
three counties. Two additional counties, Kitsap and Island, have population
densities at the present time which are lower than those of lowland portions
of Pierce and Snohomish, but are significant nevertheless. The density of
population growth in Kitsap and Island is expected to be comparable to that
of Pierce and Snohomish. The highest density of manufacturing employment is
in King County, largely due to the aircraft industry located there. Although
Pierce and Snohomish have a lower density of manufacturing employn~nt, the
types of industries located within these two counties have a significant air
pollution potential. Island County is primarily residential and recreational,
with limited possibilities for major industrial development. Kitsap County
is also primarily residential and recreational except for industrial activi-
ties associated with the shipyard. Under provisions in the Washington State
Clean Air Act, all of the counties in the Puget Sound area except for Kitsap
have activated their air pollution control authority and joined one of three
multi-county agencies. The agency which has jurisdiction over the most highly
urbanized area is the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Its area
encompasses three counties at the present time; King, Pierce, and Snohomish.
Island County has joined San Juan, Skagit, and Whatcom to form the North-
west Air Pollution Control Agency. Six counties to the west of the Sound
have joined to form the Olympic Air Pollution Control Agency. The thirteen
counties included in these multi-county agencies and Kitsap County have been
designated as an air pollution control district by recent amendments to the
Washington State Statutes. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference, which
handles a number of regional planning functions in the Puget Sound area,
-------
26
covers a four-county area; King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap. On the
basis of these findings, it appears that the present proposal for a Puget
Sound Air Quality Control Region, to be designated in accordance with
Federal statutes, should include at least three counties; King, Pierce,
and Snohomish. Two other counties, Island and Kitsap, are candidates for
inclusion due to their population densities, likelihood to experience
significant population growth, and proximity to the Seattle urbanized area.
However, since Island County has chosen to join with San Juan, Skagit,
and Whatcom Counties, in accordance with State law, for the purpose of
controlling air pollution on a multi-county basis, it would be undesirable
to disrupt this existing multi-county relationship. Although Kitsap has
not yet joined any multi-county air pollution control agency, it has estab-
lished its membership within the Puget Sound Governmental Conference in
order to coordinate its activities with King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties
on other regional problems. Therefore, it would seem natural for Kitsap to
expand its relationship with the other three counties to include air pollution
control activities.
-------
27
EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
A study of the technical aspects of air pollution in the Puget
Sound area was based on consideration of pollutant emissions, topography,
meteorology, and available ambient air quality data.
EMISSIONS INVENTORY
An emissions inventory is a quantitative description of emission
sources broken down by geographic location and each type of pollutant.
The inventory usually identifies the "core" of an air quality control
region -- that is, the area where the bulk of the emissions occur and'
throughout which control activities must take place in order to deal with
a regional air pollution problem. For this reason, a presentation of the'
emissions inventory serves as a logical starting point in the engineering
evaluation.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration conducted an in-
ventory of air pollutant emissions for the Puget Sound area. The inven-
tory was based on estimated rather than measured emissions. Emissions
from about fifty major point sources (sources emitting more than 100 tons
per year of any pollutant) were specifically listed in the inventory.
Three major pollutants -- sulfur oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide --
were considered in this study since emissions of these pollutants provide
a general measure of the location and density of air pollution sources in
the Puget Sound area. The emissions inventory emcompasses most of ten
counties; Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Kitsap,
-------
28
Jefferson, and Clallam. This area was divided into the grid coordinate system
shown in Figure 7. The estimated emissions of each of the three pollutants
were expressed by grid zone as average daily emissions on the basis of an
annual averaging time. Table I shows the annual-average daily emissions.
Emissions densities for each of the three pollutants, expressed in
tons per square mile per day, were determined by relating the total emissions
in each of the grid zones to the land area of that zone. Figures 8,.9, and
10 show the resulting densities on maps. Where point sources are responsible
for more than 50% of the emissions in a grid zone, this fact is indicated
in both Table I and the figures.
In general, the emission inventory maps indicate high emission rates
in the central urban areas and along the corridor connecting Seattle, Tacoma,
and Everett. Thus, the core area of emission sources appears to be contained
by King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. In addition, moderately dense car-
bon monoxide emissions occur in Kitsap and Thurston Counties. Also, a few
major point ~ources more than 40 miles away fr-om downtown Seattle are res-
ponsible for significant emissions of sulfur oxides in Clallam, Skagit, and
Whatcom Counties. Figure 11 shows the relative contribution of the various
counties and various source categories to the total emissions of each pol-
lutant. King, Pierce, and Snohomish are the t?ree largest contributors to
both particulate and carbon monoxide emissions. Pierce and Skagit are the
largest contributors to sulfur oxides emissions. Among the source categories,
road vehicles are responsible for about 95% of carbon monoxide emissions,
industrial process losses for about 82% of sulfur oxide emissions,' and
-------
29
Figure 7:
EMISSIONS INVENTORY GRID SYSTEM
A
..............
..........
Vancouver
Island
i:~:iiiJ:i~1 i]:~:iJ:::JJi::Jiii:Ji
...........
..............
.............
..............
.............
-'
.....
-'
t'\
Lewis t
WESTERN 0 10 20
WASH I NGTON mt'es
-------
30
Table I
SEATTLE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Tons Per Day
Sulfur Carbon
Grid Oxide Particulate Monoxide
Number Emissions Emissions Emissions
1 45.50* 3.57* .87
2 .06 .03 .09
3 .05 .04 2.03
4 76.00* 2.92* 33.25
5 .33 .29 8.77
6 .12 .12 8.03
7 .08 .07 5.07
8 .06 .21 13.37
9 .05 .16 10.03
10 .09 .09 5.65
11 .07 .06 4.25
12 19.30* 2.44* 35.55
13 4.50* 3.95* 12.89
14 .00 .00 .00
15 .11 .31 20.89
16 .03 .07 5.35
17 10.10* 7.68* 62.94
18 .26* .40 15.50
19 .11 .11 .7.19
20 .00 .00 .05
21 .01 .01 1.15
22 .01 .02 2.28
23 .31 .19 11.80
24 4.14 2.61 148.99
25 3.28 3.58 245.28
26 .03 .09 6.33
27 .05 .03 1.82
28 1. 74 1.29 50.42
29 14.96 11.65* 251. 38
30 11.15 10.35 329.77
31 .13 1. 36* 21. 07
32 .09 .11 9.85
33 1.11* .40 20.35
34 .04 .05 3.41
35 .22 .39 17.61
* Indicates that more than 50% of the emissions in the grid zone are due
to point sources.
-------
31
Sulfur Carbon
Grid Oxide Particulate Monoxide
Number Emissions Emissions Emissions
36 .44 .75 75.32
37 2.37 5.06 234.02
38 .16 .27 24.19
39 .02 .06 4.84
40 535.32* 4.39 148.73
41 24.10* 14.40* 126.31
42 .71 1.72 102.17
43 .14 .75* 22.47
44 .04 .06 8.36
45 .04 .07 8.40
46 .51 1.21 86.36
47 2.45* 1.00 51. 27
48 .14 .39 26.87
49 .80* .71* 8.22
50 .00 .01 1.20
51 .03 .07 6.06
52 .04 .08 7.50
53 .03 .07 6.10
54 .04 .05 3.05
55 .03 .01 1.59
56 .01 .01 1. 78
* Indicates that more than 50% of the emissions in the grid zone are due
to point sources.
-------
32
Figure
8:
Vancouver
Island
Whale m
kog il
-'
.....
-'
t'
Thur Ion
Lewis
WEsHRN
WASH I NGTON
SULFUR OXIDES EMISSION DENSITY
Tons Per
Square Mile Per Day
more than 1. 0;
0.1 to 1. 0 ;
0.01 to 0.1;
less than 0.01;
-
f:::::::::::::,~
I I
t
o 10 20
mi'/es
*indicates that more
than 50% of the
emissions in the
grid are due to
point sources.
-------
Figure 9:
A
Vancouver
Island
Whalc m
kagil
_0
.....
_0
(\
T hur Ion
Lewis
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
PARTICULATE EMISSION DENSITY
Tons Per Square Mile Per Day
33
~
10 20
mi"es
more than 1.0;
0.1 to 1. 0 ;
0.01 to 0.1;
less than 0.01;
*indicates that more
than 50% of the emissions
in the grid are due to
point sources.
-------
34
Figure
10:
A
Whatc
m
Vancouver
Island
.0::::::.:::::::;::.::::::::::::::::::::
iii::i:i~ i11111111111111111111111111:
-0
o
('\
-'
.......
-'
('\
o
('\
~
o
'j
Lewis
t
10 20
mi'les
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS .DENSITY
Tons Per Square Mile Per Day
more than 1. 0;
O. 1 to 1. 0 ;
0.01 to 0.1;
less than 0.01;
~
8m
I I
-------
Figure 11:
PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL EMISSIONS
A. By County
Sulfur Oxides Particulate Carbon Monoxide
Emissions Emissions Emissions
Pierce 74% King 42% King 59%
Skagit 10 Pierce 26 Pierce 20
W\1atcom 5 Snohomish 10 Snohomish 5
King 4 What com 4 Thurston 4
C1allam 2 Skagit 4 Kitsap 3
other 5 other 14 other 9
B. By Source Category
Sulfur Oxides
Emissions
Particulate
Emissions
Carbon Monoxide
Emissions
Industrial
Process
Industrial
Fuel Use
Other
12
6
28%
24
18
Road Vehicles
Refuse Disposal
Other
82%
Losses
Industrial
Process Losses
Road Vehicles
Refuse Disposal
Industrial
Fuel Use
Other
17
13
95%
4
1
W
\JI
-------
36
industrial process losses, road vehicles, refuse desposal, and industrial
fuel use for the bulk of particulate emissions.
TOPOGRAPHY
The emissions inventory identified the location of air pollution
sources in the Puget Sound area. This section on topography and the
following section on meteorology will consider the possibility of trans-
port of pollution from the source locations to neighboring areas.
The Puget Sound forms a basin oriented in a north-south direction
and bordered on the east by the Cascade Mountain Range and on the west by
the Olympic Mountains. Both of these mountain ranges rise to elevations
well over 5,000 feet. Figure 12 indicates those portions of the basin
which lie below 2,000 feet elevation. These topographic features are the
dominating influence on meteorology and air movement in the Puget Sound
area, ahd therefore on the transport of air pollutants.
METEOROLOGY
For previous urban areas subject to designation as air quality
control regions, a diffusion model has been generally employed to estab-
lish the long term concentrations of pollutants transported in the ambient
air. The reliability of this model is questionable in 'areas which have an
uneven terrain or encompass large bodies of water. Since the Puget Sound
is itself a large body of water and since it is bordered on two sides by
mountainous areas, this section analysing pollutant transport will depend
upon descriptions of air flow patterns, mixing depths, and dilution potential
-------
37
rather than upon an application of the diffusion model.
Air Flow Patterns
Air flow patterns are indicators o~ the manner in which pollutants
are transported from sources to receptors. If a pattern shows that winds
are generally weak or that there is no marked movement in one direction
for a prolonged period, pollutants can be expected to stay relatively close
to the sources. When winds persist in one direction for a long period,
pollutants can be carried downwind long distances. The primary concern of
this analysis is to determine the location of the outermost area affected
by pollution from the metropolitan area. Major emphsis is on (1) persistent
flows which would carry pollutants long distances and (2) light and variable
winds which allow pollution to spread out radially.
The air flow over northwestern Washington has been documented in a
number of summaries (7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20). The most detailed of these
summaries
(11, 15) are the major sources of the data presented here.
The winds within the Puget Sound basin.are very strongly influenced by
the topography and the north-south orientation of the basin. Winds blow
primarily from either the north or the south, and follow the general
orientation of the surrounding mountains. During storm periods, winds
blow from the south, and when high pressure systems approach the area, the
winds are usually northerly. Duri~g times of weak pressure gradients, local
winds, such as sea breezes and air drainages from h!gher elevations, tend
to dominate the circulation pattern. Figures 12-15 show the general flow
patterns in the Puget Sound area based on the prevailing winds at various
-------
38
Figure 12:
PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION;
JANUARY
,'.,',',',','.',','.',',',',','.',',','.',',',','."'.',','.','.',",',.
-'
.......
-'
("\
..
t
;{1:::['fi\:\~;~:.\::ii'%::~[;: t:0'~;~i.ltb.
10
20
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
mi'les
~ Areas over 2,000 feet elevation.
-------
_0
......
_0
('\
Figure 13:
PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION;
APRIL
~J
CANADA
o
"r;!'i'f!fi'iiffiiii'ffi'ii,fi, ifift';~:~JI::i::,
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
~ Areas over 2,000 feet
elevation.
39
t
10
mi"es
20
-------
40
Figure 14:
PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION; JULY
CAN A DA
.. ......,......,....".......,..,.....""....
""""""""""""""""""""""""'"
':','.':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':',',
......................................
-'
.....
-'
('\
o
('\
(1)
o
='
Thurston
;.,
"IM;'''~tfi.ti::~~t~ .If!ri~'fI:::iik:..
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
~m Areas over 2,000 feet elevation.
:,1
t
o
10
20
mi'les
-------
Figure 15:
PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION;
OcrOBER
CAN A DA
-0
o
o
-"
--
-.
o
o
o
a>
o
';)
Thurston
:~~
Lewis
Po< ~tfl)fu~ 1!I:Wi
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
~ Areas over ~,OOO feet elevation.
41
t'
10 20
mi'les
-------
42
locations for the months of January, April, July, and October. The data
used were wind speed and direction for all hours of the day for a five
to ten year period.
The prevailing circulation in winter is illustrated by the January
winds in Figure 12. The winds blow counter-clockwise around and toward
the semi~permanent low pressure area off the coast creating a flow from
south to north through the basin. There are brief periods of northerly winds
after the passage of storms and when high pressure moves into the area.
Wind speeds are fairly strong during winter, averaging 7 to 8 miles per
hour. Periods of negligible or little flow (that is, calms) occur only
6 to 10 percent of the time in the northern portions of the basin and
slightly more frequently in the south. Calms are somewhat more frequent
during night than daytime.
During the spring months, there is a transition from the winter
storminess to the summer dry season. The early spring winds are pre-
dominantly from the south. By April, Figure 13, a diurnal variation in
wind direction becomes apparent at most locations along the Sound. The
nighttime winds become almost exclusively southerly, while during the
afternoon and early evening there is a marked tendency for westerly or
northerly winds. At night, calms occur approximately 25% of the time at
the southern end of Puget Sound and 10% at the northern end. During the day
calms are infrequent.
In the summer months, air flows into the Puget Sound area from the
ocean, passing through the Straits of Juan de Fuca into the northern
portion and over the Grays Harbor area into the southern portion. This
-------
43
creates a general flow from the north along the coast of Snohomish County
and northern portions of King County, while southwest winds prevail over
the southern Puget Sound area, Figure 14. There is a diurnal variation in
wind direction at all locations along the Sound. From Seattle southward,
daytime winds show a definite northerly component while nighttime winds
are almost exclusively southerly. North of Seattle, the winds are pre-
dominantly northerly both day and night, but exhibit a westerly component
during the daytime. Calms occur slightly more frequently during summer
nights than spring nights, but occur rarely during summer days.
Fall is another transition period. September conditions closely
resemble the summer circulation while November approximates the winter
situation. ~he diurnal variation .of the winds continues through September.
During the day, northerly winds prevail at all locations from Everett to
Olympia. During the night, the winds are southerly from Seattle southward,
but remain northerly at other locations. An increase in the percentage of
southerly winds occurs at all locations in October, Figure 15, and there
is less evidence of reversing directions. By November, winds are primarily
southerly. Calms in October are infrequent in the daytime, and at night
occur 25% or more of the time at the southern end and 10 to 15 percent at
the northern end.
Mixing ,Depths
The calculated mixing depths for Seattle (14) are shown in Table II.
-------
44
Table II
-Average Mixing Depths, Meters:
Seattle, Washington, 1959-1961
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Annual
. Morning 626 681 532 476 679
Afternoon 580 1490 1398 898 1092
Average 603 1086 965 687 835
(100 meters = 328 feet)
These values, particularly in the fall and winter, are lower than the
national average (13, 16) and indicate there is restricted vertical
mixing and a limited volume of air available for dilution compared to
many section of the nation. However, several investigators (7, 9, 10, 11)
have reported that during the warm half of the year a subsidence inversion
or stable layer with a base a little below 900 meters commonly occurs.
These observations would indicate that the vertical mixing depths in the
afternoon of late spring and summer are less than those shown in the table.
Diffusion Potential
When light winds occur from variable directions, pollutants tend
to remain within relatively short distances of the source and to
accumulate. Periods of light and variable winds are frequently accompanied
by very limited vertical mixing depths. In western Washington, these conditions
occur most frequently in the warmer months, April through October. Periods
-------
45
with limited vertical mixing and light winds occur during the winter
months on an average of only six days each month and seldom persist longer
than 24 to 36 hours. Limited vertical mixing may also occur during the
winter in conjunction with winds of stronger speed and more persistent
direction. Under these circumstances, pollutants could be expected to
travel greater distances while maintaining fairly high concentrations. The
diurnal variation of both speed and directio~ during the warmer months
indicates that pollutants generated within the Puget Sound basin area would
tend to remain close to the major source areas unless dispersed vertically.
Th~ high frequency of low-level staple conditions dur~ng the warmer months
leads to the conclusion that pollutants would accumulate during the
nighttime near the source, travel only short distances during the day, and
disperse vertically ,only when sufficient daytime heating occurs. The mixing
depth figures in Table II and the findings of several investigators (7,
9, 10, 11) indicate that there is sufficient heating during spring and
summer to allow vertical dispersion through approximately 3,000 feet during
the day a large percentage of the time. Drainage winds at night and sea
breezes in the daytime tend to reduce mixing depths and probably cause
mixing depths less than the averages shown in Table II. The wind statistics
indicate that these local winds may occur ,at least a third of the days.
When there are convergi~g flows from the opposite ends of the Sound,
the opposing flows do not move toward each other indefinitely. As they
converge either they form a horizontal eddy or some air moves aloft or a
combination of the two phenomena takes place. In any case, rather than
-------
46
move out of the Puget Sound area, the air tends to remain within the
basin. The limited vertical mixing prevents the low-level air from
escaping into the winfls aloft. Thus, any pollution within either of the
converging flows would tend to stay in the basin.
SUMMARY
The low area between the Olympic and Cascade mountains forms a basin
within which pollutants tend to accumulate. Since the wind flow pattern is
oriented along the north-south axis of the basin, transport of pollutants
tends to be oriented in a north-south direction also. Thus, pollutants
emitted along the urbanized corridor COnnecting Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett
are more likely to move along the corridor than to spread westward across
the Sound into Kitsap and Mason Counties. However, during periods of light
and variable winds, accompanied by low mixing depths, pollutants are likely
to spread out radially from the dense emission areas along the corridor,
and could affect areas on the western side of the Sound. Portions of at least
seven counties share a common air basin; Kitsap, King, Mason, Thurston, Pierce,
Snohomish, and Island. Therefore, all of these counties could be affected
to some degree by pollutants transported in the ambient air of the basin.
Undoubtedly, the counties most. affected are those which contain the most.,
dense concentration of emission sources; King, Pierce, and Snohomish.
MEASURED AIR QUALITY
To the extent that reliable measured air quality data are available,
they provide a direct indication ot how large an area is affected by pollution
sources in the Puget Sound area. Hi-vol samples for suspended particulates
-------
47
have been taken at about twenty stations. However, about one half of
these stations have collected data during only one year or less. Nine of
the stations are located in King County, most of them within or near
Seattle. Four stations are located in Pierce County, within or near Tacoma.
Two stations are located in Snohomish, both in the vicintiy of Everett.
Bellingham, Olympia, Aberdeen, Bremerton, and Mount Olympus each are the
location of one station. Sulfur oxides have been measured at two stations,
one in Seattle and one in Tacoma. Carbon monoxide has" been measured at
three stations, all in Seattle; Although ~ead candle measurements have
been recorded at ten stations, they will not be reported here due to the
lack of specificity in the pollutant measured by the lead candle technique.
Figure 16 portrays the measured suspended particulate data. Since the
number of stations and the amount of data were limited, the concentrations
contours shown in the figure are impressionistic rather than definitive.
The contours indicate that particulate pollution is heaviest along the
corridor from Everett to Tacoma. However, portions of Kitsap and Thurston
Counties appear to be affected by particulate pollution to some degree.
Particulate concentrations in Bellingham and Aberdeen constitute separate
problems unrelated to the Seattle urbanized area.
The sulfur oxide levels recorded in Seattle and "Tacoma are on the
order of 0.03 parts per million based on an annual average. The data are
insufficient to indicate how far sulfur oxide concentrations extend into
surrounding areas. Carbon monoxide concentrations measured in Seattle
range from about 2.0 to 5.0 parts per million on an annual average.
Again, the data are insufficient to indicate how far carbon monoxide
-------
48
Figure 16:
Skagit
Vancouver
Island
Whatcom
Bellingham
Snohomi sh
King
-'
---
-'
(\
o
(\
<0
o
='
Aberdeen
Thurston
Lewis
t
10 20
I .
miles
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
MEASURED SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
Micrograms Per Cubic Meter, Annual Average;
~more than 100;
f:?}~:::::::::{:J 50 to 100;
r::==J less than 50;
-------
49
concentrations extend into surrounding areas.
SUMMARY
On the basis of topography and meteorology, portions of at least
eight counties can be properly called part of the Puget Sound basin.
The emissions inventory demonstrates that the bulk of particulate,
sulfur oxides, and carbon monoxide emissions sources are located along
the corridor of land on the eastern shore of the Puget Sound between
Everett and Tacoma. The meteorological evaluation
indicates that pol-
lutants emitted along the corridor are generally transported along a
north-south direction by prevailing wind patterns. Thus, pollutants
emitted along the corridor are more likely to move along the corridor
than to spread westward across the Sound. However, when winds are light
and variable and when mixing depths are low, pollutants tend to accumu-
late near the source location and slowly spread out in a radial pattern.
Although it is possible that all eight counties which share the Puget Sound
basin are affected to some degree by transport of pollutants from the urban-
ized corridor, those counties most directly affected are King, Pierce, and
Snohomish. Measured air quality data for suspended particulates confirm
these conclusions. Iso-concentration contours are elongated in a north-
south direction, and the highest concentrations of particulates are located
in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. On the basis of the engineering
evaluation, three counties, King, Pierce, and Snohomish, constitute the
minimum amount of area an air quality control region should contain in
order to encompass the bulk of the sources and receptors. Kitsap, Thurston,
-------
50
and Island Counties are associated with the regional air pollution
problem to some degree, primarily as receptor locations. Jefferson,
Mason, Skagit, San Juan, and other counties in the Puget Sound area
are probably independent
of the regional air pollution centered on the
Seattle urbanized area.
-------
51
THE PROPOSED REGION
PROPOSAL
Subject to the scheduled consultation, the Secretary, Depar~ment
of Health, Education and Welfare, proposes to designate an air quality
control region for the Puget Sound area, consisting of the territory
encompasses by the following counties in the State of Washington:
King County
Pierce County
Snohomish County.
The boundaries of the proposed region are illustrated in Figure 17.
DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSAL
To be successful, an air quality control region should meet three
basic objectives, as discu.ssed.. in the section entitled "the size of
a region", page 6. First, a region should be self-contained with respect
to air pollution sources and receptors. Second, a region should be designed
to meet not only present conditions but also future conditions. Third,
region boundaries should foster unified and cooperative governmental
administration of the air resource throughout the region.
The engineering and urban factors evaluations have shown that the
most dense concentrations of air pollution sources and receptors are
located along the corridor of land containing Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma.
Approximately 80% of the total population of all counties which are ad-
jacent to the Puget Sound lives in this corridor. Approximately 78% of the
-------
52
Figure 17:
PROPOSED PUGET SOUND AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
Va ncouver
Island
,
,
,
,
"
"
'.....
Jefferson
'"'0
o
l"
-'
......
-"
l"
Grays
Harbor
CAN A DA
Whatcom
Skog it
Lewis
WESTERN
10
20
WASHINGTON
mi"es '
-------
53
particulate, 80% of the sulfur oxides, and 84% of the carbon monoxide
emissions recorded in the emissions inventory occur within this corridor.
. .
Thus, the three counties which contain this corridor, King, Pierce, and
Snohomish, constitute
the basic core of the regional air pollution
problem.
Mason and Jefferson Counties have very low population densities
and growth expectations. Air pollutant emissions in these two counties
are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the proposed Region.
Although Thurston arid Island Counties have greater population
densities than Mason and Jefferson, they do not approach the density of
development found along the eastern side of the Puget Sound between
Everett and Tacoma. Neither of these counties contains industrial develop-
ment large enough to constitute a significant source of emissions. Island
County is expected to experience rapid population growth during the
next sixteen years, but this growth is likely to be residential rather
than industrial. Both Thurston and Island Counties have joined multi-
county air pollution control agencies which do not have jurisdiction over
the urbanized core of the Puget Sound basin. Neither Thurston nor Island
has considered its future development as linked to the urban core closely
enough to warrant membership in the Puget Sound Governmental Conference.
On the basis of these considerations, Thurston and Island Counties have not
been included in the proposed Region.
Kitsap County has a population density of 245 residents per square mile,
which is more than twice as large as that of Snohomish County when computed
-------
54
on a county-wide basis. As discussed in the urban factors evaluation,
this comparison is misleading since most of the population in Snohomish
County r~sides in the small portion of the county west of the Cascade
Mountains. As a result, population concentrations in this section of
Snohomish are much higher than what the county-wide statistics imply.
Nevertheless, the above comparison does indicate that Kitsap has a
sufficient population density to be a significant receptor location.
Bremerton, the main urban center in Kitsap, is located only ten ,to
, .
fifteen miles from the heart of downtown Seattle. The meteorological
evaluation indicates that under certain conditions pollutants generated
along the eastern side of the Sound could be transported to the western
side. Thus, Kitsap is occasionally affected as a receptor of regional
air pollution in the Puget Sound basin. Except for naval facilities,
Kitsap does not contain significant sources of pollutants. Although
the Federal government retains jurisdiction over Federal facilities
located in air quality control regions, control of emissions from those
facilities is definitely influenced by local air quality and emission
standards. Thus, it is possible that control of emissions from the naval
facilities would be enhanced by inclusion of Kits~p in the Region. Kitsap
is expected to register rapid population growth during the next sixteen
years. This development is likely to be linked to increased urbanization
along the eastern side of the Sound. In recognition of its present and
probable future links with King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, K~tsap is
participating in joint planning activities conducted by. the Puget Sound
Governmental Conference. All of the above considerations indicate that it
-------
55
would be natural to include Kitsap County in the proposed Region.
However, since State and local governments have the ultimate
responsibility for air pollution control in air quality control
regions, and since Kitsap County has not yet chosen to join any 'of the
multi-county air pollution control agencies in the Puget Sound area,the
proposed Puget Sound Air Quality Control Region does not include Kitsap
County. Positions expressed by State and local officials at the forthcoming
consultation will be fully considered before any final designation is
make either excluding or including Kitsap in the Region.
Region boundary designations are not intended to be inflexible if
changing 'conditions warrant changes in boundaries. In this regard, if
Kitsap County is not included in the Puget Sound Air Quality Control
Region at this time, it should be the subject of frequent review and
should be considered for inclusion in the Region at a later date if
urban and industrial development in the future warrant such action.
This report and the Region boundaries which it proposes are a
starting point for discussion iri the consultation with appropriate
State and local officials.
-------
56
REFERENCES
1.
Present population estimates are taken from the publication: "April 1,
1968 Population, Counties and Municipalities, State of Washington,"
Washington State Planning and Community Affairs Agency, Population
Series Number I.
2.
"Population Forec.asts, State of Washington, 1965 to 1985," Washington
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, 1966.
3.
"County Business Patterns," U.S. Department of Commerce, 1967.
4.
"Labor Force and Employment in Washington State," Employment Security
Division, 1967.
5.
Church, P. E., "Frequency and Magnitude of Inversions," Seattle,
Washington (unpublished) (date missing).
6.
Church, P. E., "Some New Developments in Micrometeoro1ogica1 Studies
of the Atmosphere." Proceedings of the Second National Air Pollution
Symposium, Pasadena, California, pp. 47-53, 1952.
7.
Church, P. E., "Seattle -- A Spectacular and Clean Air City Weatherwise,"
15 (2), 51-56, 1962.
8.
Church, P. E. and F. 1. Badgley, "Some Characteristics of the Lower
Fifty Meters of Air at Seattle" (unpublished) (date missing).
9.
Cramer, o. P. (Personal communication)
the Pacific Northwest, Oct. 18, 1968.
Letter on airflow patterns in
10.
Cramer, O. P. and R. E. Lynott, "Cross-Section Analysis in the Study of
Windflow over Mountainous Terrain." Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, 42 (10), 693-702, 729, 1961.
11.
Harris, R. G. and M. Rattray, Jr., "The Surface Winds over Puget Sound
and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Their Oceanographic Effects."
Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, Technical Report
No. 37, 101 pp, 1954.
12.
Hendrickson, E. R., D. M. Keagy, and R. L. Stockman, "Evaluation of
Air Pollution in the State of Washington." Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 145 pp, 1957.
13.
Holzworth, G. C., "A Study of Air Pollution Potential for the Western
United States." Journal of Applied Meteorology, 1 (3), 366-382, 1962.
14.
Holzworth, G. C. (Personal communication)
depths over Seattle, Nnv. 25, 1968.
Report on computed mixing
-------
57
15.
Hopper, C. J., Unpublished tabulations of wind rose data on a three
hour basis for 21 stations in the Pacific Northwest, 2016 pp, 1968.
16.
Hosler, C. R., "Climatological Estimates of Diffusion Conditions in.
the United States." Nuclear Safety, 5:2, 184-192, Winter, 1963-1964.
17.
Kusian, R. N., "Effect of Sulfur Dioxide from Scott Paper Company on
an Area in Everett." Environmental Research Laboratory, University
of Washington, 1954.
18.
Martin,'D. O. and J. A. Tikvart, '~ General Atmospheric Diffusion
Model for Estimating the Effects of One or More Sources on Air
Quality." Paper (no. 68-148) presented at Annual Meeting, Air
Pollution Control Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, 46 pp, 1968.
19.
"Climatological Handbook Columbia Basin States Hourly Data," Pacific
Northwest River Basins Commission Meteorology Committee, Volume 3,
Part A. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Vancduver,
Washington, 341 pp, 1968.
20.
Staley, D.O., "The Low-Level Sea Breeze of Northwest Washington."
Journal of Meteorology, 14, 458-470, 1957.
21.
Tyler, R. G., "Report on Air,Pollution Study for the City of Seattle."
Environmental Research Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle,
1952.
------- |