REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH INTRASTATE
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
-------
REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH
INTRASTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
FEBRUARY 1969
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE. . . . .
.......
.....
.....
INTRODUCTION.
. . . .
......
.......
. . 1
EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING FACTORS
EMISSION INVENTORY. . .
......
.....9
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS. . .
. . . . . . . . . . 18
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS. .
8.8.8
. . . . . 29
THE PROPOSED REGION. . .
. . . .
.....
. . . . 44
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL.
. . . .
. . . .
......44
REFERENCES.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
APPENDIX A. .
.....
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 54
-------
PREFACE
The Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, is
directed by the Air Quality Act of 1967 to designate !lair quality
control regions" to provide a basis for the establishment of air quality
standards and the implementation of air quality control programs. In
addition to listing the major factors to be considered in the designation
of region boundaries, the Act stipulates that the designation of a
region shall be preceded by a consultation with appropriate State and
local authorities.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration, DHEW, has
conducted a study of the Metropolitan Pittsburgh urban area, the results
of which are presented in this report. The boundaries of the Region*, as
proposed in this report, reflect consideration of all available and
pertinent data; however, the boundaries remain sub;ect to revision
suggested by consultation with State and local authorities. Formal
designation will be withheld pending the outcome of that consultation.
The Administration is appreciative of assistance received either
directly during the course of this study or during previous activities
in the metropolitan Pittsburgh area from the Division of Air Pollution
Control of the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Allegheny
County Bureau of Air Pollution Control. Useful data was also supplied
*For the purposes of this report, the word region, when capitalized,
will refer to the Metropolitan Pittsburgh Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region. When not capitalized, unless otherwise noted, it will refer to
air quality control regions in general.
-------
by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission, the
Southwestern Pennsylvania Economic Development District, and the
Pennsylvania State Planning Board.
-------
1
INTRODUCTION
"For the purpose of establishing ambient
air quality standards pursuant to section 108,
and for administrative and other purposes, the
Secretary, after consultation with appropriate
State and local authorities shall, to the extent
feasible, within 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967 designate
air quality control regions based on jurisdictional
boundaries, urban-industrial concentrations, and
other factors including atmospheric areas necessary
to provide adequate implementation of air quality
standards. The Secretary may from time to time
thereafter, as he determines necessary to protect
the public health and welfare and after consultation
with appropriate State and local authorities, revise
the designation of such regions and designate
additional air quality control regions. The Secretary
shall immediately notify the Governor or Governors
of the affected State or States of such designation."
Section 107(a)(2), Air Quality Act of 1967
THE AIR QUALITY ACT
Air Pollution in most of the Nation's urban areas is a regional
problem. 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
-------
1'0)
air quality
States establish plans for implementation,
considering factors such as: !
. Existing pollutant levels in the region
-Number, location, and types of sources
. Meteorology
. Control technology
. Air pollution growth trends
HEW designates
control regions.
HEW develops and
publishes air
quality criteria
based on scientific
evidence of air
States hold
Implementation plans would set forth
abatement procedures, outlining factors
suc has:
. Emission standards for the categories of
sources in the region.
hearings and
set air quality
HEW
reviews
State
standards.
. How enforcement will be employed to
insure uniform and coordinated contre:
action involving State, local, and region31
authorities.
standards in the
pollution effects.
air quality
control regions.
8 Abatement schedules for the sources :'::
insure that air quality standards wil! [)(~
achieved within a reasonable time.
l
r
( HEW reviews
State implementation
I
..-....-I
i
'-
'.
l'
,
HEW prepares
and publishes
plans.
information on
techniques.
States act to control air
pollution in accordance with
air quality standards and plans
for implementation.
available control
Figure 1. Flc;w diagram for State action to control air pollution on a regional basis.
-------
3
technology and associated costs, the Governor(s) of the States(s)
must file with the Secretary within 90 days a letter of intent,
indicating that the States(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 region.
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 retains approval authority,
the States(s) involved in a designated region assumes the responsibility
for developing standards and an implementation 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.
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 respect to air pollution sources and receptors. In other
wordsD 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.
-------
4
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 usually have at least trace amounts of
pollutants from external sources. During episodic conditions, such
contributions from external sources may even reach significant levels.
Conversely, air pollution generated within a region and transported out
of it' can affect external receptors to some degree. It would be impractical
and inefficient to make all air quality control regions large enough to
encompass these low-level effects. The geographic extent of trace effects
overestimates the true problem area which should be the focus of air
pollution control efforts. Thus, the first objective, that a region be
self-contained, becomes a question of relative magnitude and frequency.
The dividing line between "important influence" and "trace effect" will
be a matter of judgement. The judgement should be based on estimates of
the impact a source has upon a region, and the level of pollution to
which receptors are subjected. In this 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 requires 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 create air pollution problems in
the foreseeable future. This objective requires careful consideration
-------
5
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
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.
-------
6
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.
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 "Evaluation of Engineering Factors" considers pollutant source
locations and the geographic extent of significant pollutant concentrations
in the ambient air. An inventory of air pollutant emissions determines the
geographic location and quantities of the various pollutants emitted from
the sources in a region. Major quantities of pollution are emitted by
automobiles and industry, and from refuse disposal operations, power
generation, and space heating. The subsequent effect of the pollution
emitted into the atmosphere is determined by measuring ambient air quality.
The air quality analysis presented in this report is divided into two
major parts. The first part deals with the topography and meteorology
of the area and measured air quality based on past studies in southwestern
Pennsylvania. It relates how the topography influences the meteorology in
the area, and how both these factors affect air quality. The second part
of the analysis describes the results of the diffusion model applied to
-------
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
. EMISSIONS INVENTORY
,
i . METEOROLOGY
i
I
, .AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
i
EXISTING AIR QUALITY DATA
i DIFFUSION MODEL OUTPUT
I
\ ,
I
I Preliminary . Consultation I Formal
!
Delineation ~ with State ~ Designation
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.
"
-------
8
the Pittsburgh area. It describes some of the limitations of the model
in the area of concern. Some of the basic conclusions drawn from the
model results, as they relate to the size of the proposed Region, are
outlined.
The "Evaluation of Urban Factors" encompasses all considerations
of a non-engineering nature. This evaluation consists of a review
of existing governmental jurisdictions, current air pollution control
programs, demographic data, current urbanization, and projected patterns
of urbanization. The study of urban factors represents an attempt to
determine the size of the region that is necessary to include areas
where projected urbanization will create increasing air pollution
problems.
The findings of the engineering evaluation are combined with the
results of the urban factors evaluation, and an initial proposal for the
air quality control region is made. As indicated in Figure 2, the
proposal is submitted for consultation with State and local officials.
After reviewing the official transcript of the consultation proceedings
which provides the viewpoints of State and local officials toward the
proposal, the Secretary formally designates the region. Formal designation
includes a notice in the Federal Register and a notification to the
Governor(s) of the State(s) affected by the designation.
The body of this report contains a proposal for the boundaries of
the Metropolitan Pittsburgh Intrastate Air Quality Control Region and
the engineering and urban factors evaluations supporting the proposal.
The report itself is intended to serve as a background document for the
formal consultation with appropriate State and local authorities.
-------
9
EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING FACTORS
EMISSION INVENTORY
A quantitative evaluation of air pollutant emissions provides the
basic framework for air conservation activities. The compilation of an
emissions inventory makes possible the correlation of pollutant emissions
with specific geographic locations. This procedure generally results in the
identification of the "core" of an air quality control region----that is,
the area where the bulk of the pollutant emissions occur. In this study,
the emissions inventory results are further utilized as input data to a
meteorological diffusion model. In this manner the spatial and temporal
distribution of the pollution emitted into the atmosphere can be
systematically predicted. For these reasons, a presentation of the
emissions inventory results serves as a logical starting point in the
engineering evaluation.
The emissions inventory for metropolitan Pittsburgh was conducted by the
National Air Pollution Control Administration. The inventory #as confined
to the four county Pittsburgh Standard :Metropolitan Statistical Area. The
counties involved are Allegheny, Beaver, Washington and Westmoreland. The
3,054 square mile study area contains the bulk of the population (2,547,100
est. 1967) and urbanization associated with metropolitan Pittsburgh. Though
pollutant sources located in counties adjacent to the study area are not
considered, it is felt that the role of these outlying areas as
receptors
of inventoried pollutant emissions will be adequately described, in terms
of ambient air quality, by the section entitled "AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS"
-------
10
beginning on page 18.
The inventory method used, with some modification, for the evaluation
of the quantities of the five major pollutants (sulfur oxides*, carbon
monoxide, total particulates, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen) was
the Public Health Service rapid survey technique for estimating pollutant
emissions. 1
The pollutant emissions were calculated from data representa-
tive of the year 1967 using Publ~c Health Service emission factors.2
These
factors represent statistical averages of the rate at which pollutants are
emitted from the burning or processing of a given quantity of material
(e.g., fuel consumption).
Emission estimates for the survey area were grouped in four general
categories.
These categories are transportation, refuse disposal, fuel
combustion in stationary sources, and industrial process emissions.
For
the purposes of this report, only sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and total
particulate emissions are considered.
These three pollutants best represent
the spectrum of air pollution sources.
Sulfur dioxide emissions best char-
acterize fuel burning activities in stationary sources (77% of total ernis-
sions).
Carbon monoxide emissions provide the best indication of the impact
of the motor vehicle in an area.
Ninety-one percent of the total CO
emitted in the survey area during 1967 was attributed to the gasoline
powered motor vehicle.
Total particulate emissions provide an index of the
noncombustible components of fuels.
All pollution source types contribute
*Sulfur dioxide constitutes the overwhelming majority of sulfur oxide
emissions. In this evaluation, sulfur oxide emissions are assumed to be
composed entirely of sulfur dioxide. Therefore, S02 concentrations
predicted by the diffusion model, while based on sulfur oxide emissions
rather than S02 emissions, will not be significantly overestimated.
-------
11
significantly to total particulate emissions, with the largest single
source category, power plants, accountable for 34% of the total emissions.
Table I provides a breakdown of S02, CO, and total particulate emissions
by county according to source type in each of the four categories.
Geographic locations over the survey area are defined by the use
of a grid system based on the Universal Transverse Mercator Projection
(UTM). The numbered grid system is shown in Figure 3, superimposed over
a map of the study area. Grid squares 5,000 meters on a side are used in
the areas of most dense population and industrialization. Grid squares
10,000 meters and 20,000 meters on a side are used in areas of less dense
urbanization. In certain instances the outlying portions of counties are
not included in the grid zones. In those areas the air pollutant emissions
are considered negligible.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 represent emission density maps for S02' CO, and
total particulates respectively, based on the grid system. The density
maps are constructed according to the yearly average daily emissions for
each pollutant. The densities are computed on the basis of emissions from
point sources and area sources within each grid zone. The areas of highest
emissions are located within and immediately surrounding the City of
Pittsburgh. Also, the Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela River valleys are
areas of high emissions. This would be expected since most of the large
industries in the area are located in these river valleys. Figure 7 shows
the location of major pollutant point sources in the Pittsburgh area.
The air quality analysis presented in the next section will aid in
defining the bounds of the Region on the basis of the effects of the area-
wide pollutant emissions.
-------
.....
r->
TABLE I. SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH
STUDY AREA, 1967. (TONS /YEAR)
TRANSPORTATION COMBUSTION OF FUELS, STATIONARY SOURCES REFUSE DISPOSAL IND. PROCESS EMISSIONS
COUNTY Road Aircraft Railroads Vessels Industry Steam-E1ec. Residential Comm..& Incineration Open
Vehicles Utilities Inst. Burning
Q) Allegheny 2,600 N 505 130 49,300 137,100 4,200 9,250 450 100 179,000
1-<'1:1 Beaver 350 15'~ .158,900 0 4,330 7,450 20 25 14,200
:J'M
4-1 X Washington 500 N'~ 163,400 76,400 7,260 8,600 5 25 N.A.
...... 0
:J'M Westmoreland 800 N* 63,500 22,100 10,000 3,700 0 50 9,000
"'~
~ Allegheny 4,400 535 1,390 360 22,600 83,000 3,190 3,530 1,890 790 68,400
"""'M Beaver 620 40'~ 46,000 0 2,660 1,840 90 220 21,500
"'..., Washington 1,900 N'~ 39,800 40,700 4,430 2,170 30 195 N.A.
..., I-<
0 '" Westmoreland 1,200 N'~ 18,000 6,560 6,100 1,180 0 370 2,050
0-<10<
Q) Allegheny 509,800 14,490 760 200 1,500 900 2,520 5,790 230 4,190 N
'1:1
O::'M Beaver 2,420 20'~ 5,700 0 2,650 4,650 10 1,160 N.A.
0 x
.0 0 Washington 100,700 N'~ 6,110 870 4,500 10,400 5 1,050 N.A.
I-< 0::
'" 0 Westmoreland 145,500 N* 2,400 130 6,150 3,870 0 1,970 N.A.
u;:o:
N: Negligible
NA: Information Not Available or Not Reported
*: Combined Total for Aircraft, Railroads, and Vessels.
-------
,----- i
I
I
\
~-------
s c&
9 '0
, 15 1&
1;1. 13 ,,,
1.0 1.1 Z4 2.5"
,
34 "
,
1.
3 '--
BE/Wi: I
1
N
I
~
13
"'''-.
\r-
&3
64
WE TMOR[=L/I.f1D
8 49
I
"'''' WAS"iINGTOf'!
/
1&9 70 71
77 ~''---
"-V
..r
79 80 81
o 10
~i--I_1-i1--11
!.1iles
o 10
~ HH HHt
Kilometers
FIGURE 3.
EMISSION INVENTORY NUMBERED GRID SYSTEM.
65
;'
i
,
7~
-------
"14
N
I
~.._-_.
r- ..
J
~ .-
~! j !Ji\SH~:~G~1 I ~ ,~
-..-- ~ -- "'-....' ,,,c'
--~L- .... . ......1_- _I
SO TONS PER AVERAGE DAY PER SQUAKt 1',111.E
2
20,000
,
CJ
~
V{{:}~:I
-
~
-
<0.01
0.01 -0.1
0.1 -.0.2
0.2 - 0.5
o 5000
I.I""."'-
ki lorneters
0.5 - 2.0
2.0 - 37.0
FIGURE 4. SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION DENSITIES.
-------
15
N
_0 -.. --~.--.
o 5000
W"..."'.
ki lometers
20,000
I
0,2 - 0.5
0.5 - 1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0 - 3.0
::> 3.0
FIGURE 5.
CARBON MONOXIDE
EMISSION DENSITIES.
-------
16
N
o 5000
Iof'".~-
k i lometers
20,000
,
PARTICULATE TONS PER AVERAGE DAY PER SQUARE MII.E
c=J
~
I:::::::fffl
-
~
-
FIGURE 6. TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION DENSITIES.
<0,01
0.01 - 0.1
0.1 - 0,2
0.2 - 0.5
0.5 - 1,0
1,0 - 8,5
-------
17
I
I
II
I
f--~EAV1 -I t
r--- I N
~ X : _F-1~~G~n.:---~~~-;I
f---- -~ ~ . _c \ ~ ~ cd .~"osj \._- 'i
L. - -( -~'.- '-. . ,., C~ .: -1__~- I.\'-.A~T' 1
~--- ---" - :' . A ~ x IX J \, "- f~.,
''\., ~__i-iP.~~~, .-/'-"l.~'- Y
. I1J,,-X I " ~~ -/
" - I~:_.:t liT ~--~-"S-I.,....xo!).rr I r.r:DI /,. oj
,d07 ~> .c. I. .....
o -~A-- I
\(J - ,
OJ .0___- ,- ,,~
~ ~_I
[,,rASH I I-;GTOiJ
/",--..
----
/'~
..
'~"t
o 10
I::;IH HHHI
o 10
HHHHHI
[.Jiles
Kilometers
x Industrial
o Steam Electri c Util ity
A Industrial Power Generation
C Institutional
. Incineration
-----
... Airport
FIGURE 7. LOCATION OF MAJOR POINT SOURCES.
-------
18
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
Introduction
The first major condition established prior to the determination
of an air quality control region's boundaries is that the regional
boundaries should encompass most pollution sources as well as most
people and property adversely affected by the source emissions.
The
core area of a region can be roughly defined on the basis of point source
locations and relative emission densities.
The above-mentioned condition
is not fully satisfied, however, until the bounds of the area significant-
ly affected by the source emissions are determined.
Unfortunately, the
areal extent of the region, chosen to comply with this condition, cannot
be rationally extrapolated from the emissions data alone.
A thorough review of air quality in the Pittsburgh area would make
it possible to define the outer bounds of the Region and fully satisfy
the source-receptor boundary condition specified above.
Two alternatives
exist for the determination of air quality in the Pittsburgh region.
The
first, and most logical approach, is to measure quantitatively the levels
of pollutants existing in the ambient air.
This approach should also
consider the meteorology and topography in the area.
The second approach is to predict ambient air quality in terms of
concentrations of individual pollutants.
This approach is generallt
desirable since existing air sampling networks do not encompass large
enough areas, nor have they been in operation over sufficient lengths
-------
19
of time, that they may be considered reliable and irrefutable guides
to the establishing of the Region's limits.
Both of these techniques
are discussed in the following two sections.
Since both approaches
contain some drawbacks, the conclusions drawn from each are considered
both independently and interdependently.
In this manner, the most
unbiased review of the pollution problem in Pittsburgh, as it exists
today, can be made.
Topography, Meteorology, and Measured Air Quality
Topographically, the Pittsburgh area is classified as "mature."
The region consists of a series of dissected plateaus of varying eleva-
tions.
The area is characterized by flat-topped hills and steep-sided,
moderately-wide stream valleys.
The tops of the hills are as much as
500 feet above the level of the large rivers, while the average relief
is
300 feet.
Pittsburgh lies at the foothills of the Allegheny mountains
at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers which form
the Ohio River.
Pittsburgh has a humid continental type of climate modified only
slightly by its nearness to the Atlantic Seaboard and the Great Lakes.
The climatological and topographical influences lead to meteorological
conditions conducive to localized air pollution problems.
For example,
differential heating causes mountain-valley winds.
At night radiative
cooling of the elevated ground creates density gradients which lead to
down-slope and down valley winds.
This results in thermal stability
conditions, which when coupled with the shielding effect of valley sides,
prohibit air exchange.
This leads to
a build-up of high pollutant
-------
20
concentration levels in the stagnant air mass at the valley bottom.
The combination of these environmental factors, and the fact that most
major urban-industrial concentrations in the region occur in the river
valleys, has led to severe localized air pollution problems in the south-
western Pennsylvania area.
Extensive air sampling has taken place in southwestern Pennsylvania
by the Division of Air Pollution Control of the State Department of Health
and by the Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollution Control.
This sampling
has occurred either as part of continuous air monitoring activities or
as individual studies in areas where particularly severe air pollution
problems exist.
The State Division of Air Pollution Control has conducted surveys
in the Monongahela Valley, the Beaver Valley, the City of Monessen and
the Boroughs of Avalon and Bessemer.
With the exception of the Bessemer
study, the surveys were primarily concerned with measuring air quality in
the river valleys.
The Borough of Avalon is adjacent to the Ohio River
in Allegheny County while Monessen is situated on the bank of the Monongahela
River in Westmoreland County.
The Monessen study, completed in 1962, indicated a high level of
suspended particulate pollution.
A three month average concentration of
189 j1g/m3 (during portions of the heating and non-heating season)
indicated that Monessen's particulate pollution problem is greater than
that of many larger cities.
Monessen is located just south of Donora
(Washington County), the scene of the nation's first widely publicized
air pollution tragedy.
The Borough of Avalon study, conducted in 1959, indicated that the
-------
21
settleable and suspended particulate pollution in that municipality
was as serious as that in the City of Pittsburgh itself.
The dustfall
measurements averaged 62.5 tons/sq. mile per month, while the average
suspended particulate concentration was 163 rg/m3.
industrialized community but does lie within the industrialized portion
Avalon is not an
of metropolitan Pittsburgh.
The results of this survey indicate that
Avalon is the receptor of a great deal of pollution transported from
nearby sources.
The Bessemer study (Lawrence County) in 1960 indicated that average
suspended particulate concentrations for cities of 3 million or more did
not exceed average values for Bessemer whose population numbers approximately
The average suspended particulate level in Bessemer was 284.4 rg/m3.
Dustfall measurements at selected sites exceeded 80 tons/sq. mile per month.
1500.
The Beaver Valley study was conducted in 1961 over a sizeable portion
of Beaver and Lawrence Counties.
The bulk of the air sampling occurred
in the Ohio and Beaver River valleys.
These areas were selected for
sampling because of the existence of an industrial complex along the rivers
and because of the large number of complaints received in the area.
High
concentrations of suspended and settleable particulate pollution were
recorded in New Castle, Bessemer and Ellwood City in Lawrence County.
In Beaver County these same high concentrations were recorded in the
Beaver Falls area, in Midland, Aliquippa, and at the~nction of the Ohio
and Beaver Rivers.
Significant concentrations of sulfur dioxide pollution
were also recorded by the use of lead candles.
Evidence suggests that
considerable transport of pollution occurs between Lawrence and Beaver
Counties along the relatively deep Beaver River valley.
The same situation
-------
22
exists along the Ohio River valley between Allegheny and Beaver Counties.
A study in the Monongahela Valley in the southern portion of Allegheny
County and a portion of Washington and Westmoreland Counties indicated
that here, too, particulate pollution was excessive.
In 1963 a survey in
Duquesne, located on the Monongahela River, revealed that sulfur dioxide,
and particulate pollution in the immediacy of that city was a major problem.
The Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollution Control has an extensive
sampling network throughout that County.
Sampling is for suspended and
settleable particulates, sulfation rate, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide,
and carbon monoxide.
Measurements over the past few years have indicated
that dustfall in Allegheny County averages between 30 and 40 tons/sq. mile
per month.
Carbon monoxide measurements at one station located within the
City of Pittsburgh indicate that occasionally extremely high concentrations
occur over short-duration averaging times.
Sulfur dioxide measurements at
three sites during 1967 indicate abnormally high concentrations averaged
over monthly periods.
Pollutant levels in Allegheny County show a distinct
seasonal variation.
Generally, the ambient air contains highest concentra-
tions of sulfur dioxide and suspended particulates during the winter months.
Diffusion Model Results
The diffusion model has been used to compute sulfur dioxide, suspended
particulate and carbon monoxide concentrations in the ambient air at
specified receptor points in the Pittsburgh urban area.
The model is based
on the mathematical treatment of pollutant emissions and meteorological
*
data.
While inherent limitations in the model are recognized, its results
have been appropriately modified and interpreted in the past to provide
*See Appendix A for further discussion.
-------
23
reasonable spatial distributions of long-term (seasonal and annual)*
average pollutant concentrations.
It is questionable whether the diffusion model results can be con-
sidered valid in southwestern Pennsylvania since topographical and
localized meteorological conditions are considerations largely neglected
by the model.
Thus, the model will not present a true picture of conditions
in areas (e.g., river valleys) susceptible to severe air pollution
problems.
Nevertheless, the model results are presented here to indicate
that a definite area-wide pollution problem exists and to indicate
patterns of pollutant dispersion assuming minimal topographic and micro-
meteorological constraints.
Figure 8 shows predicted 502 concentration contours for the winter.**
Greatest 502 concentrations were predicted by the model for this period.
Actual measurements indicate that the greatest 502 concentrations occur
in the winter, while the lowest measurements are recorded during the summer
months.
The pattern of the contours in Figure 8 indicate greatest pre-
dicted concentrations in and near Pittsburgh and in areas of high industrial
density generally located along the three major rivers.
These high concen-
tration areas may be correlated to some extent with areas of high emissions
and with point source locations (Figures 4 and 7).
The predicted concentra-
tions indicate a decreased concentration gradient at the .04 ppm contour.
*The averaging times are as follows: the winter averaging time
the months of December, January, and February while the summer
ing period includes the months of June, July, and August. The
averaging time includes. all 12 months of the year.
includes
averag-
annual
**These predicted concentrations are based on a 3-hour 502 half-life.
-------
24
r-'-'-'- .fl_'-'~'-I
'--'1
._.-.J ..-.-.-
VENANGO CO.
i_f'- '-j ,..
I ..-.,
)_.1- r'- "',-:
I ..:'
CLARION CO.
I JEFFERSON CO.
I
I TRUMBULL CO.
1.-.- .-.-
I
.J
MERCER CO.
HAHONING CO.
COLUMBIANA CO.
-.-
I
-,
.-,
I
r
.01
'-.-
o
u
;z;
o
en
oe:
~
f«
f«
~
....,
I
I.
I
I -.--
- -----.#"'- .
(....
<.
l.-
f '-
r
\
l
?
(
WEST VIRGINIA /
.
)
\..
I-
f
(
'"
PENNSYLVA~iA
(
SOMERSET CO.
I
,
(
I
\
\
/
/
«
H
'-'- ~ ./'-.-. 2V
> ,/".r "-../"'
-S=' ~. '"\
. en
« ;Z;
> ;Z;
Eo< ~ GREENE CO.
en
~
3:
MARYLAND
(
KILOMETERS
r
o 5 10
.
20 30 40 50
FIGURE 8. THEORETICAL S02 CONCENTRATIONS IN.PPM;
WINTER AVERAGE (ASSill1ED 3 HR. HALF LIFE).
-------
25
It can be said that the area enclosed by this contour is that whose ambient
air is most seriously affected by the inventoried emissions.
This includes
most of Allegheny County and portions of Butler, Beaver, Washington,
Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties.
As indicated previously, it cannot
be assumed that the concentrations indicated in Figure 8 are accurate or
that the contour patterns are without error in predicting 502 dispersion
characteristics.
~
Figure 9 shows theoretical suspended particulate concentrations
predicted by the model.
It is during the space-heating season that
particulate emissions, hence suspended particulate concentrations, are
the greatest.
The concentration gradient decreases significantly at about
3
the 60 fg/m contour.
and portions of Beaver, Butler, Armstrong, Indiana, Westmoreland, Fayette,
This contour encloses the bulk of Allegheny County
and Washington Counties.
The area enclosed by this contour appears to be
most affected by the inventoried source emissions.
On this basis, the
diffusion model indicates that a definite area-wide problem exists with
regard to suspended particulate pollution.
Actual measurements
of partic-
ulate pollution, discussed in the previous section, reveal this same basic
conclusion.
As was true with the 502 predicted concentrations, it cannot
be assumed that the concentrations shown in Figure 9 are precise, though
a certain amount of reliance can be placed on the model to predict repre-
sentative spatial variations in concentration.
Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations are shown in Figure 10.
Highest concentrations are predicted for the summer averaging time.
This
is in agreement with measured data for most urban areas.
Allegheny County
and portions of Washington and Westmoreland Counties constitute the area
most affected by carbon monoxide pollution.
The greatest concentrations
-------
26
,--.-.-.- ""1 .-
--.-.~ I
---.
I
I TRUMBULL CO.
1.-.-.-.-
I
.J
I
I
. (
I ;'
,r'---'---:
'-'-'--' / ,1.
-'--', . 20 . ~
VENANGO co.
i .-'-'-.
i-.J
I _.
. .---' "-
r'- . '-. ':
I I:!
MERCER CO.
_.1-
I
,-'
CLARION CO.
HAHONING CO.
i JEFFERSON CO.
./
I
I
I
. .
/-.-.---.---.---!
. I
I .
I
/
/
I
.,,/
/
..L.
(
I
'-----
f
/
~
v' -..J'--""'"'-./
BlITLER CO
60
AR
I
-,
.-1
I
r
'-'-
c....
<,
.~
{
I
1
WEST VIRGINIA J
.
)
/--,.
. "\
\.
I
I
(
'\
PENNSYLVA~iA
(
..
z
E-< ~ GREENE CO.
U)
t
-------
27
I
I TRUMBULL CO.
1.-.-.-.-
I
.J
I~-'-'-'- ..fl_._.-z-'-,
I
I
i )(
'-'-'-' /r-'-'-i~
-'-'>. .')
HAHONING CO. LAWRENCE CO. .
VENANGO CO.
I .-'-'-.
'_.1
I
I ,..
. .----''''''''''
r'- ..........~
I ~!
,-
MERCER CO.
1-
,-'
,"
CLARION CO.
-.-
~
v' --...J'--''\,,/''
j JEFFERSON CO. (
./ .
I
I
BIITLER CO
/-.-.-.
I
/
FAYETTE CO.
I
/
/
/
/
. .".
""""..J /
..L._.
/'
I
/"J
"'\ .
\. /
I-
f
--_o-
f
/
I
--,
1-'
I
r
"---
(....
<.
\,..
r '-
"
)
WEST VIRGINIA /
.
)
'"
PENNSYLV AtfiA
<'
I
,
,. .
I
I
\
I
/
.05
MARYLAND
(
KILOMETERS
r
o 5 10
.
20 30 40 50
FIGURE 10. THEORETICAL CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
I:'l'H; SlJ}INER AVERAGE.
-------
28
are predicted to occur in the City of Pittsburgh.
since vehicular traffic and subsequently CO emissions (see Figure 5)
This is to be expected
are greatest in or near Pittsburgh.
-------
29
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS
Section 107 (a) (2) of the Air Quality Act of 1967 calls for the
designation of air quality control regions "based on jurisdictional
boundaries, urban-industrial concentrations, and other factors...
necessary to provide adequate implementation of air quality standards."
The. designation of air quality control regions must be based on a
consideration of existing cooperative regional arrangements, existing
State and local air pollution control legislation, and patterns and
rates of urban growth. These considerations, referred to as "urban
factors," lead to the establishing of two chief conditions to be met
if an air quality control region is to prove effective as a basic
tool to an air resource management program. First, the boundaries of
a region should encompass those locations where present and projected
'urbanization will account for significant air pollution problems in
the foreseeable future. Second, the boundaries should be chosen in a
way which is compatible with and fosters unified and cooperative
governmental administration of the air resource throughout the region.
Existing and potential air pollution problems can be related
geographically to areas harboring present or anticipated residential
and industrial development. Similarly, population statistics are useful
in determining the probable existence of air pollutant emissions since
human activity is the basic cause of pollution. Table II shows provisional
present and 1980 provisional projected population estimates for Pittsburgh,
Allegheny County and its surrounding counties in southwestern Pennsylvania.
-------
30
The 1980 projections are subject to periodic revision, but nevertheless
give some idea of growth trends in the area.
These figures indicate
that only Butler, Greene, and Westmoreland Counties are expected to
increase in population.
All other counties listed are expected to
experience decreases in population.
TABLE II.
PROVISIONAL PRESENT POPULATION AND
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
JURISDICTION
July 1, 1967
Provisional
Population
1967
Pop.
Density
1980
Projected
Population
1980
Projected
Pop. Density
Pittsburgh City 544,200 989 n.a.* n.a.
Allegheny Co. 1,561,600 2,140 1,402,418 1,925
Armstrong Co. 76,300 116 65,082 99
Beaver Co. 201,700 458 190,826 433
Butler Co. 122,300 154 128,651 162
Fayette Co. 166,400 208 147,936 184
Greene Co 39,400 68 40,625 70
Indiana Co. 73,500 89 61,403 74
Lawrence Co. 109,400 298 100,363 273
Washington Co. 210,100 246 201,447 245
Westmoreland Co. 375,100 366 379,705 370
*Information not available
Figure 11 shows 1980 population densities from the data in Table II. As
expected, the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County are and will continue
to be the most densely populated areas. Westmoreland, Washington, Beaver,
Fayette, Butler, and Lawrence Counties are decreasingly less populous than
Allegheny County.
The population densities of these counties vary and are a function of
their -respective land areas.
These density values do not, however, give an
adequate or accurate picture of the geographic population distribution.
-------
r-'-'-'- JI_'-'~'-I
I I VENANGO CO. !-.j-'- '-j ...
. .--''''''''''
I TRUMBULL CO. . MERCER CO. \ )_'1- r'- '>-..., ':
1 i /' CLARION CO. ! /:..!
,- ,- .-,- '-'-'--'-'-'. //"-'-'-11. I JEFFERSON CO. II'
I . ~/ I ~-- /1' .
.J MAHONING CO. LAWRENCE CO. / ,~.....-'. I
._.--'_.!._-~ 273 I B\!fI.ER co I ",-.~_.-v' I-.-.-.--i
COLUMBIANA CO. -,- ,_.~ 162 II' 'I i,
, ARMSTRONG CO.
o I . 99 / I
~ BEA~E3R3CO. \ - ._,--'---. / /
I} "'1 / /'
o .r' ...J \'. -(' INDIANA CO.
U / ALLEGHENY CO. I
g ,,/ 1925'1 '\.. , 74 I
~ .- ,-, \ f~'\"") PITTslBuRGH "'J""\... '"'-, .----.1
:: '\ lj"":J (. ""-......J /
~,~ i L.-
...... WESTMORELANiJ CO.
',>.l 370 /' \..-.-
, ,> ,/
-'~ j/ i
<:'-,-, /', /' I
,) "-..,r-" '\ .r '
/".r ---..../"'1..1 \
~. \., FAYETTE CO. I SOMERSET CO.
~ ~ \ 185 ( \
t; ... GRE~~ CO. t .'\ I
~ ? PENNSYLVAt<'iA
~ ( I
WEST VIRGINIA j MARYLAND!
. (
)
-.-
I
-,
1-'
I
r
o
U
"-.-
.5
CJ)
IX
~
to..
to..
~
"'1
I
I.
I
I -.--
- .- .---r0- .
31
WASHINGTON CO.
235
("..
<.
l.-
f '-
,-
KILOMETERS
,
20 30 40 50
~
o 5 10
FIGURE 11. 1980 PROJECTElJ POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
IN SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA.
-------
32
Figure 12 represents a land use map for the six county area under the
jurisdiction of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission.
This map shows commercial, residential, and manufacturing land use patterns,
and is based on a 1958 generalized land use map produced by the SPRPC.
Figure 12 indicates that in Allegheny County the bulk of the population
is located in or closely surrounding the core City of Pittsburgh.
Population concentrations toward the outskirts of Allegheny County exist
in the valleys of the Monongahela, Allegheny and Ohio Rivers. The same
conclusions can be reached with respect to the locations of industry. In
the outlying counties residential and industrial land is generally
situated along the major rivers or at the intersection of major highways.
A major factor which must be considered further is the role of
industrial and manufacturing activities in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Not only the relative intensity of industrial development and activity,
but also the geographic location of such activity should be considered.
As mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, the steel mills and most other
industrial plants and complexes are clustered in the river valleys along
the three major navigable rivers in southwestern Pennsylvania. Smaller
concentrations of industry occur along secondary and tertiary streams.
These river valleys possess a unique combination of physical and access
advantages which have made them prime locations for industrial development.
They provide level building sites and are natural routes for highways and
rail lines. Furthermore, the location of industry in these valleys reflects
the need for process water and water transportation.
-------
33
o
H
:r::
o
/-._._.~
. ()
'-'-'-, /
-'-'-,
'/ ~
/
I
I
I
BUTLER COUNTY; ;
@1! p S" I
, 'l~~. ~ j
\" 0 d f
'-'-'- G I
._._.~
I t:I i\LLEGHE~~ CO!1~TY
. ~"
~' D ~
C'J
<:
H
Z
<:
:::-
<~
HCI)
ZZ
HZ
~~
0::;"
H
:::-
E-<
CI)
~
~
/'
/
--_1-"
" ">3'
"0 "
D 0 \.
~ '\. .
...... <1
)'oiJ"
.~
.
~
~
l) 0
WASHINGTON COUNTY
63
\
I
r
I
.'rl~~lJ ~~
~ ~~ WESTMORELAND CO.
i~~ ~
~~ 'I CY 'II
i::Ip' . 0
~ f <;7
~ '\) a
~......... 0
. '" at"" ,r' \"" '\) ,""v'
'....... '-. J. .,
, .
, "'"
,J8
,r' I
.'t. ""t..f1J" .".... i
~
I
1
.
,
~Q)
,/
./
/
./
/
/
'if' ...tYb U
D. 11:31 ~
,.-.r'....J 't.., '-. ,. ../'~
,
." COHMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
<:;1 RESIDENTIAL
FIGURE 12. LAND USE IN THE PITTSBURGH
URBAN AREA.
-------
34
Table III provides a breakdown of manufacturing employment in
southwestern Pennsylvania. Clearly, Allegheny County accounts for
the majority of total manufacturing employment in this area. Four
of the 5 counties immediately surrounding Allegheny County (excepting
Armstrong
County) are important areas for manufacturing employment,
as is Lawrence County. In southwestern Pennsylvania, Allegheny County
is most important as far as steel making capacity is concerned. Beaver
County follows in importance, followed by Cambria, Mercer, Washington
and Westmoreland. Two other counties producing lesser amounts of
steel are Lawrence and Butler Counties.
While manufacturing employment is not expected to increase
greatly in the region by 1985 (it may even decrease), the need for
additional industrial land will be great. Most of the land demand
will be in Allegheny County. However, as prime industrial land becomes
scarce the demand for sites in adjacent counties will increase. It is
anticipated that these outlying counties will increase in industrial
importance by 1985. However, the outermost fringes of these counties
have little or no potential for industrial development. This reflects
their remoteness from the facilities of the Pittsburgh urban core.
This low potential is also a function of the rugged terrain and strip
mine devastation characterizing the outer portions of the counties
adjacent to and including Allegheny County.
-------
JURISDICTION
35
TABLE III.
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT IN
SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
1963
1963 Value
Added by
Manufacture
1966 Estimated
Pittsburgh City
Allegheny Co.
Armstrong Co.
Beaver Co.
Butler Co.
Washington Co.
Westmoreland Co.
Greene Co.
Fayette Co.
Indiana Co.
Lawrence Co.
81,707
173,097
5,605
43,371
11,436
16,823
38,892
1,036*
7,459
3,988
11,260
66,479
199,053
6,869
53,446
15,688
21,875
47,266
n.a.**
n.a.
651,396
1,718,139
78,504
526,434
176,660
179,794
454,792
3,734
66,886
43,497
128,130
n.a.
n.a.
*1960 Figure
**Information not available
Approximately half of the projected requirements for industrial land
are expected to depend upon access to highway rather than river and rail
transportation.
This indicates that new industrial development (those not
requiring process water) will locate in areas adjacent to highways, and
will not necessarily be confined to the river valleys.
However, the
existing patterns of development along the major waterways are expected to
remain largely unaltered for several years.
Due to the influences of
topography and frequent inversion conditions, the location of industry
in the river valleys poses serious local air pollution problems which are
likely to continue sometime into the future.
Figure 13 shows the existing highway network for the core area of
Pittsburgh and for surrounding counties.
A complete pattern of circum-
ferential and radial highways surrounds the City of Pittsburgh.
The major
highways extend outward to surrounding counties and serve to integrate
-------
36
o
H
6
,-'
,/f
..../ .
~v'""f..I"'r.i'-'
I
.
f
,
/
/
<
H
Z
~
>-
~
en
z
<: Z
H ~
Z p.,
H
<-'
e>::
......
>-
r-<
en
~
:3:
.,
,..J"', ~ .
,.,' --
""... -
"".
FIGURE 13. EXISTING ANV PROPOSED HIGH\~A Y NETWORK
IN SOUTH\-JESTERN PENNSYLVANIA.
-------
37
1--.-.-.- ""' .-
-' _.-.~ I
MERCER CO.
_.1-
I
,-'
(
I .-'-'-.
i-.I I _.
r'-'--' ",.
. ~
CLARION CO. I ,:.!
I JEFF,"SON CO. (
I
I
I TRUMBULL CO.
1.-.-.-.-
I
.-'
VENANGO CO.
'-.-
i~.
I ~.
I
._.~_.!._. _.
-.-.-. I .,
COLUMBIANA CO.
. \. ARMSTRONG CO.
o \ . /
~ BEAVER CO. 1.-.-._._._1-. /
I .> '''-.'1 /
o ~ ~.
U / ALLEGHENY CO. I \. -('
::.::. '-.., '\....
g / I.
u .- .-', "
~ '\ r;'\""') PITTs!BURGH 'J'.'\... "'- .
\ Z0~ ~ ".J
. .
.......... I
" .
-......... ?
r?' ?
--.~
" '\
'i '-'"J""'/'" .~.
~ 1 'l.. (4
~ ./'-..-...y ~
>./.r """"....r,-<
. tJ) . ""'. FA YETTE CO. ~
~ ~ ~ ~
Ii; ~ GREENE CO. l, .~
~ ? PENNSYLVA~iA
<'
HAHONING CO.
.-.-' -.-.-, ~.
IJ
LAWRENCE CO.~.
\
I BUTLER CO
I
-,
.-1
-.-
I
I.
I
I -.--
- "_.--..r-- .
INDIANA CO.
I
r
.
o
u
~
.;::)
tJ)
CIG
to:!
to..
to..
to:!
..,
WESTMORELAND CO.
'..-.-
j
/
WASHINGTON CO.
SOMERSET CO.
I
,
,.
I
\
\
/
/
<.
I.-
( '-
,-
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
/
.
)
KILOMETERS
r
o 5 10
I
20 30 40 50
FIGURE 14. STATE PLANNING REGION IN SOlITHWESTERN
PENNSYLVANIA.
-------
38
more closely the metropolitan Pittsburgh area.
The relationship of highway
location to land use may be observed by comparison of Figures 12 and 13.
In order that the most suitable air quality control region for
Pittsburgh might be determined, it is desirable to look geyond present
and anticipated patterns of urbanization and industrialization.
It becomes
necessary to determine the combination of jurisdictions that have developed
physically, socially, and economically as a result of regional interaction.
Such interaction suggests that these jurisdictions should be included in
the Region so that the most effective
administration of a regional air
resource management program will occur.
In southwestern Pennsylvania, a 9-county area was designated in 1966
by the State Planning Board as a State Planning Region.
This Region is
shown in Figure 14.
The purposes of delineating the State Planning Region
were twofold.
First, the intent was to "acknowledge the characteristic
regional difference in current development trends or problems which will
require a varied and individual approach in later work on a State Department
3
Plan."
Secondly, it was desirable to "provide a setting for State-local
coordination which will acknowledge not only the requirements of State
planning, but also the inter-county cooperation most likely to be sought
in preparation or coordination of local planning activities.,,3
The Planning Regions were defined on the basis of demographic
considerations (with reference to common metropolitan centers, and popula-
tion growth rates, density, and distribution), topographic considerations
(mountain barriers, river valley links), economic similarities, and
existing regional industrial and planning organizations.
The county unit
was retained in delineating Planning Regions since much statistical
-------
39
information is unavailable for small municipalities and since the county
is becoming an increasingly important decision-making level of local
government with which the State Planning Board will require close contact.
The 9-county southwestern Pennsylvania Planning Region includes a
6-county (Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington, Westmoreland)
Pittsburgh-oriented core.
Greene and Fayette Counties are not too closely
integrated with Pittsburgh at present.
Indiana County is linked to
Westmoreland and Armstrong Counties in its most populous southern portion
by highways and a tributary to the Allegheny River.
However, the county
is oriented toward the east by its closeness to the City of Johnstown,
located in Cambria County.
The reason for orientation of Indiana County
to the above described 9-county Planning Region was largely a matter of
administrative convenience.
Coextensive with the 9-county Planning Region is the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Economic Development District.
The basic rationale for the
determination of the bounds of this economic development district were
essentially the same as those of the State Planning Region.
The Pittsburgh Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) consists
of the following four counties:
Allegheny, Beaver, Washington, and
Westmoreland.
By definition, SMSA's serve to identify an economically and
socially integrated group of communities.
They also serve as a
geographic base for the gathering of statistical data.
In southwestern
Pennsylvania, however, a 6-county regional planning agency exists.
This
agency is the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission
(SPRPC).
It has been designated by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development as its regional planning commission for the purposes of
-------
40
Section 204 of the ,Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act
of 1966.
The jurisdiction of the SPRPC includes the four counties of the
Pittsburgh SMSA as well as Butler and Armstrong Counties.
There are many reasons why the 6-county area was chosen for the
SPRPC.
First, the .boundaries were established on the basis of economic
interdependence.
It was seen that the economy of the six counties
"constitutes a whole that is far more than the sum of its parts."4
Secondly, the six counties form a district banking region.
In conformance
with State law, a bank whose central office is located in Allegheny County
would have a financial sphere of interest limited to the six counties of
the SPRPC.
Thirdly, the 6-county area forms a cohesive trade area.
Of
the industrial or commercial activities of these six counties, large
fractions of the market, of the source of supply, or both, lie within
these same counties.
Fourth, this multi-county area is a single labor
market.
Extensive commuting across county lines occurs.
However, only
a small fraction of the workers within the 6-county area work outside its
limits, or vice versa.
A substantial proportion of the workers resident
in Beaver, Butler, Armstrong, Washington, or Westmoreland Counties have
jobs in Allegheny County.
This interdependence of work and residence
areas is becoming more important with increasing travel facilities.
Finally, the 6~county area is appropriate with respect to inter-Regional
transportation costs, a factor of high importance in industrial and commercial
location and competitive survival.
The third condition to be met by the Region is that it be conducive
toward the development of effective governmental administration of a
regional air resource management program.
The degree of cooperation and
the jurisdictional relationship of existing air pollution control programs
-------
41
is an important factor.
Therefore, a review of these existing programs
responsible for the control of air pollution in metropolitan Pittsburgh
is necessary.
The official air pollution control agency for the City of Pittsburgh
is
the Bureau of Air Pollution Control of the Allegheny County Health
Department.
Legal authority for the County air pollution control program
is provided through three Pennsylvania enabling acts.
Act 315, the Local
Health Administration Law, dated August 24, 1951, provides for the
establishment of local health services.
The second enabling Act, Public
Law 723, dated July 28, 1953, enables cOunties of the second class to
regulate smoke and particulate emissions.
Allegheny County is the only
county of the second class in Pennsylvania.
Article XIII of the Rules and Regulations of the Allegheny County
Health Department provides for the mandatory reduction of particulate
emissions to the atmosphere from fuel-burning activities and other
manufacturing processes, and is adopted under the powers and duties of
the Board of Health, as defined in Act 315.*
The Allegheny County
Board of County Commissioners has adopted an Ordinance identical to
Article XIII, and designated the same staff (Bureau of Air Pollution
Control) to enforce the Ordinance.
This Ordinance permits the Bureau of
Air Pollution Control to regulate smoke and particulate emissions in the
entire County, including the seven municipalities not covered under
Act 315.
*Seven of the 129 municipalities in Allegheny County are not under the
jurisdiction of the Allegheny County Health Department, as defined in
Act 315. As a result, only 122 municipalities are covered by this
Article XIII.
-------
42
The third enabling Act, Act 199, an amendment to Public Law 723,
became effective January 11, 1967.
Act 199 authorizes the Bureau of Air
Pollution Control to regulate gaseous emissions and all other forms
of air contaminants.
The Allegheny County Health Department has initiated
steps to adopt regulations for the control of gaseous emissions under
the new Act.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health, under State legislation of
January 1967, has reviewed and approved the Allegheny County Health
Department, Bureau of Air Pollution Control program.
This approval
authorizes the Bureau of Air Pollution Control exclusively, to prevent,
abate, and control air pollution from all sources within Allegheny County.
The counties surrounding Allegheny County are under the jurisdiction
of the Pennsylvania Department of Health for the control of air pollution.
Authority has been granted to this agency by the Air Pollution Control
Act, Public Law 2119, of January 8, 1960, and by the rules and regulations
promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Air Pollution Control Act.
Four such regulations have since been adopted to prevent and control
pollution from a variety of source types.
A proposed Regulation V is
designed to control air pollution in specifically designated areas of
the State.
By designating air-basins, any air contamination sources located
within these basins will be subject to the provisions of Regulation V
and all other regulations of the State Air Pollution Commission.
In the area of concern, an air-basin is proposed in the Beaver
Valley.
Its bounds extend one mile from each bank of the Ohio River
along the course of the river from the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line
to the Allegheny-Beaver County line, and extends one mile from each
-------
43
bank of the Beaver and Shenango Rivers along the course of the river
from its junction with the Ohio River to and including the City of
New Castle.
This basin extends into both Beaver and Lawrence Counties.
The Air Pollution Control Act also provides for cooperation "with
the appropriate agencies of the United States or of other States or any
interstate agencies with respect to the control, prevention, abatement
and reduction of air pollution, and where appropriate formulate interstate
air pollution control compacts or agreements...."
Initial steps have
been taken to establish a regional agreement between the Pennsylvania and
Ohio Departments of Health, the West Virginia Air Pollution Commission and
the Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollution Control for the control on
a voluntary basis of interstate air pollution.
The area to be encompassed
by the agreement (counties) has not been determined as yet.
In Eastern
Pennsylvania the precedent for such an agreement exists between the
States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
-------
44
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 Pittsburgh area. consisting of
the following jurisdictions in the State of Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County
Armstrong County
Beaver County
Butler County
Lawrence County
Washington County
Westmoreland County
As so proposed. the Metropolitan Pittsburgh Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region would consist of the territorial area encompassed by
the outermost boundaries of the above jurisdictions and the territorial
area of all municipalities located therein and as defined in Section 302(f)
of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. l857h(f).
Figure 15 shows the boundaries
of the proposed Region while Figure 16 indicates the geographic relation-
ship of the Region to surrounding areas.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL
To implement a successful air resource management program, an air
quality control region should be sufficiently large so as to encompass
most pollution sources as well as most people and property affected by
these sources.
The boundaries should also encompass those locations
where present and projected urbanization and indusxrialization will
create significant future air pollution problems.
Finally. the boundaries
chosen should be compatible with and foster unified and cooperative
-------
o
,.....
6
/.------- :
/
.- '-'--' .
. -'-'-""'./
./ .,
I .
i BtrrLER COUNTY ,
.-.i ,
i ,
i !
j-.-.-.- .-.-'
ALLEGHENY CO.
~
,.....
Z
,.....
~
,.....
:>
Eo<
U)
W
~
/
/
_.-.~
~ .
,..... "
~
:> "
~ .
~ "-
Z .
W .........
~ '"
".
'-.
I
PITTSBUR1H
r'
,r'
i
I
WASHINGTON COUNTY
,.."..1""">.,,- '..,.,.
,...,' '......... J'')
/. 1.,
-..
45
,
,
J
-
.f"" i
'....." j\,~"....r-' .
,",.1./' \: I
I
I
I
.f
/
/
/
/
.I
r
,;
.J
)
)
.1
..r"" I
'"",-: ..; '",. ,...
"".,J ~ r'
'1.J\/
WESTMORELAND COUNTY
FIGURE 15. PROPOSED METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH INTRASTATE
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION.
-------
46
NEW YORK
VERMON;r
MAINE
N.H.
NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIO
MASS.
PENNSYLVANIA
PROPOSED METROPOLITAN
PITTSBURGH INTRASTATE
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
METROPOLITAN PHILADELPHIA
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGION
WASHINGTON D.C. NATIONAL CAPITAL
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGION
FIGURE 16. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED METROPOLITAN
PITTSBURGH INTRASTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGION TO SURROUNDING AREAS.
-------
47
regional governmental administration of the air resource.
The proposed
Metropolitan Pittsburgh Intrastate Air Quality Control Region was
designed to satisfy these requirements.
The Region as proposed consists of the follo~tng seven counties in
southwestern Pennsylvania:
Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Lawrence,
Washington, and Westmoreland.
The determination of the Region involved
a consideration of both engineering and urban factors.
The boundaries
chosen create an inclusive yet cohesive combination of jurisdictions
for the administering of a region-wide air resource management program.
On the basis of engineering factors, the Region should be no less
in extent than the following five counties:
Allegheny, Beaver, Lawrence,
Washington, and Westmoreland.
A survey of pollutant emissions in the
Pittsburgh SMSA revealed that the greatest emission densities occur in
or near Pittsburgh.
Areas of high emissions also occur along the
Allegheny, Monongahela, Ohio, and Beaver Rivers where urban and industrial
concentrations are greatest.
A study of air quality was based upon a review of existing measured
air quality and upon the application of a diffusion model to southwestern
Pennsylvania.
It is clear that the influences of topography on meteorology
in the area produce stable atmospheric conditions conducive toward the
build-up of high pollutant concentrations.
Sources located in the river
valleys emit pollutants whose dispersion is restricted vertically by
atmospheric inversions and laterally by the valley sides.
A study in the Beaver Valley, including portions of Beaver and
Lawrence Counties, revealed that in certain areas suspended and settleable
particulate pollution represents a definite problem.
Most of the sampling
-------
48
occurred adjacent to the Ohio and Beaver Rivers near the industrial
and population centers.
It is likely that considerable transport of
pollution occurs down valley between Lawrence and Beaver Counties
and Beaver and Allegheny Counties.
A past survey of the Monongahela Valley in the southern portion of
Allegheny County, and Washington and Westmoreland Counties, indicated
that particulate pollution was, and no doubt remains, at high levels.
Studies in Bessemer (Lawrence County), Avalon and Duquesne (Allegheny
County) and Monessen (Westmoreland County) indicated that in these
communities, suspended particulate pollution exceeded those levels
typical of much more populous areas.
The same situation exists for
settleable particulate pollution.
A continuing program of air monitoring in Allegheny County both
within and without the City of Pittsburgh indicates that many areas of
the County experience high levels of particulate pollution.
Carbon
monoxide levels in the City of Pittsburgh at times reach high levels
whether averaged over monthly or hourly periods.
Sampling at three
locations in Allegheny County have revealed high concentrations of
sulfur dioxide, based on monthly averages.
The application of the mathematical diffusion model to the Pittsburgh
urban area is questionable due to the Region's topography.
The model
essentially neglects to consider the variable elevation of sources and
receptors and the effect of topography on localized meteorology.
The
model results. presented through the use of concentration contour maps
may be considered as crude estimates of the spatial distribution of
pollutants.
The absolute concentration values predicted cannot be considered
accurate.
-------
49
Assuming that the shapes of the predicted contours and their
relationship to one another are reasonably correct, it appears that Beaver,
Allegheny, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties are most affected by the
pollutant emissions. Since other counties were not included in the emissions
inventory, it is not expected that the model would predict accurately their
air quality except through the geographic proximity of pollutant sources
which emit large amounts of pollution. In addition, inter-county pollution
transport is likely to depend greatly on local topographical and meteor-
ological considerations in many areas. Finally, diffusion model results
are not inclusive of pollutant background concentrations.
On the basis of urban factors it is concluded that the Region
should consist of the following seven counties: Allegheny, Armstrong,
Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, Washington, and Westmoreland.
Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland
Counties are members of the six-county Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional
Planning Commission (SPRPC). All but Armstrong and Butler Counties
are members of the Pittsburgh SMSA. The boundaries of the SPRPC were
established on the basis of economic interdependence. These six counties
form a distinct banking region, a cohesive trade area, and a single
labor market. A great deal of commuting occurs across county lines.
Only a small proportion of persons residing outside this six-county area
work within its limits and vice-versa.
Of these six counties, Armstrong County and Butler County contain
the lowest population and lowest manufacturing employment. However, a
substantial proportion of residents living in these two counties work
-------
50
in Allegheny County. On the basis of the factors mentioned in the
previous paragraph, it is not recommended that these two counties be
excluded from the Pittsburgh Region.
Beaver, Allegheny, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties contain
areas of high population density and industrialization. These areas
generally occur as clusters along the major rivers. In Lawrence County
the bulk of its population lies in the New Castle and Ellwood City
urban areas. Ellwood City lies on the border of Lawrence and Beaver
Counties near the Beaver River. The Beaver Valley and several major
highways connect Lawrence County to Beaver County and metropolitan
Pittsburgh.
The reasons for proposing the inclusion of Lawrence County in the
Region are not so apparent as they were for the proposed inclusion of
the other six counties. Lawrence County has not been included with
Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Armstrong, Washington, or Westmoreland
Counties in the past in overall planning efforts. Considerations given
to industrial and residential locations indicate that Lawrence County
shares and will continue to share pollution problems with Beaver County.
For this reason its inclusion in the Region is a logical step toward
regional air resource management, particularly in regard to the lessening
of pollutant transport boundary conditions.
The State Department of Planning has designated nine counties in
southwestern Pennsylvania as a Planning Region. These are Allegheny,
Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Washington, and
Westmoreland Counties. These same nine counties form an Economic
Development District. Fayette, Greene, and Indiana Counties have not
been proposed for inclusion in the Region.
-------
51
Greene County has not been integrated with Pittsburgh in the past
for planning purposed, nor is it vitally dependent on Pittsburgh
economically.
Industry does not play an important role in her economy
nor is population projected to increase greatly by 1980.
Fayette
County's population is generally located in its western section and
along a northeast-southwest axis through the center of the county.
Industrial development along the Monongahela River has been limited
because of lack of access to the river.
Most of the land use in
Fayette County is residential.
Its population is projected to decrease
by 1980.
Greene and Fayette Counties were included in the State
Planning Region chiefly because they belonged in no other such district.
For these reasons greene and Fayette Counties have been omitted from
the proposal.
Indiana County is another peripheral county which has been excluded
from the proposal.
It possesses low population density and industrial-
ization and was included in the State Planning Region chiefly on the
basis of administrative convenience.
Otherwise, it has no strong
connections with the Pittsburgh urban area, economic or otherwise.
As is true of most efforts to draw boundaries around an area to
differentiate it from surroundings, there is always the likelihood of
boundary conditions existing or developing.
In the case of the air
quality control regions, such a boundary condition would exist where
sources of pollution on one side of the region affect air quality on
the other side of the boundary.
Relocating the boundary would only rarely
provide relief from this condition.
The solution is to be found in the
way in which control efforts are implemented following the designation
-------
52
of an air quality control region.
Consonant with the basic objective
of providing desirable air quality within the problem area being
designated as an air quality control region, the implementation plan
that follows the designation should have provisions for the control of
sources located close to but beyond the region boundaries.
The level
of control for such sources would be a function of the degree to which
emissions from source areas cause air quality levels to exceed the
standards chosen for application within the air quality control region.
The boundaries of the Pittsburgh Region were selected so as to
minimize the pollutant transport boundary problems mentioned above.
-------
53
REFERENCES
1. Public Health Service. Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
Community Air Pollution Emissions. Publication No. 999-AP-29,
Environmental Health Service, U.S. DREW, Division of Air
Pollution, Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1966.
2. Public Health Service. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission.
Factors. Publication No. 999-AP-42, Environmental Health Series,
U.S. DREW, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Durham
North Carolina, 1968.
3. Pennsylvania State Planning Board. State Planning Regions
Delineation Criteria and Comments. Staff Report, December, 1966.
4. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission:
Industrial Land Study. April, 1964.
-------
54
APPENDIXA. DESCRIPTION OF DIFFUSION MODEL.
The diffusion model is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation,
described by Pasquilll,2 and modified for long-term averages3,4 for
application to the multiple-source situation typical of an urban
complex. The basic equation assumed that the concentration of a
pollutant within a plume has a Gaussian distribution about the plume
centerline in the vertical and horizontal directions. The dispersion of
the plume is a function of the emission rate, effective source and
receptor heights, atmospheric stability and the distance from the source.
The plume is assumed to move downwind according to the mean wind.
The model was used to predict concentrations of S02, and CO, and
total suspended particulates. The averaging times were the summer and
winter seasons and the year. In order that the theoretical pollutant levels
could be determined, it was necessary to evaluate certain meteorological
input parameters. These parameters are wind direction and frequency of
occurrence in each direction, effective wind speeds for each direction,
and mixing depths for various averaging times;
Figure I-A shows the wind roses for the summer, winter, and year
for the Pittsburgh area*. They represent graphically the frequency of
occurrence of the wind from the various compass directions. This data,
along with effective wind speeds for the respective compass directions
*U.S. Weather Bureau Data for Greater Pittsburgh Airport, 1951 through
1960.
-------
WINTER
ANNUAL
55
SUMMER
N
PER CENT FREQUENCY
OF OCCURENCE
FIGURE I-A. WIND DIRECTION PER CENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE FOR
VARIOUS AVERAGING TIMES.
-------
56
was used as input data to the computerized model. The characteristic
prevailing wind directions for each of the averaging times as depicted
by the length of the wind rose radials, produce a direct influence over
the dispersion of pollutants.
Table I-A shows average mixing depths for the winter, summer, and
annual averaging periods*. A significant diurnal variation in the mixing
depth is indicated. These mixing depths define the volume of air above
the surface through which pollutants are allowed to mix, and are assumed
to have no spatial variation (i.e., mixing depth is constant) over the
receptor grid system.
Table I-A.
Average Mixing Depths for Pittsburgh
by Season and Time of Day (meters).
Season Morning Average Afternoon Average
Winter 419 811
Summer 333 1794
Annual 390 1431
(four seasons)
Average, Morning
and Afternoon
615
1064
911
*Computed mixing depths documented by Holzworth5,6
furnished to the Meteorological Program, NAPCA, by
Record Center, ESSA.
and by recent tabulations
the National Weather
-------
57
The diffusion model was used to compute the ground level concentrations
of pollutants at 225 receptor points. Their locations were defined by an
orthogonal grid system with mesh points 15 kilumeters apart. This grid,
210 km. on a side, was centered in the City of Pittsburgh. An effective
source height of 75 meters was assumed for all pollutant point sources,
while topographical features were neglected for area-source emissions and
for the 225 receptor points.
-------
58
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES
1.
Pasquill, F. "The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne
Material," Meteorology Magazine, 90, 33-49, 1961.
2.
Pasquill, F. Atmospheric Diffusion, Van Nostrand Co., New
York, New York, 190 pp., 1962.
3.
Public Health Service. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
Estimates. Publication No. 999-AP-26, Environmental Health
Series, U.S. DREW, National Center for Air Pollution Control,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
4.
Martin, D.O., Tikvart, J.A. '~ General Atmospheric Diffusion
Model for Estimating the Effects on Air Quality of One or
More Sources," Paper No. 68-148, 6lst 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.
"" u. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 344-<142 (5009)
------- |