EPA 902/4-78-001
DEMONSTRATION OF
GROWTH TRACKING
GUIDELINES
IN
NEW YORK STATE
JANUARY 1978
FINAL REPORT
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inxntc lions on tlie reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 902/4-78-001
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Demonstration of Growth Tracking Guidelines in
New York State
7. AUTHOR(S)
Michael A. Stawarz
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Division of Air Resources
N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, _NY 12233
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York 10007
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOf*NO.
5. REPORT DATE
January, 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2844
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE" - — «-v f \
16. ABSTRACT
Guidelines developed by the GCA Corporation, to track growth for assessing
potential violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards are demonstrated
by application in Hew York State. Estimates of manpower resources needed to
complete .an analysis are given. Recommendations are made concerning problems
and usefulness of the guidelines.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution Forecasts
Urban Planning
Regional Planning
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Distribution Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Quality Maintenance
Air Pollution Potential
Emissions Growth
Implementation - Air
Pollution Planning
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tlii.1 Kfport/
Unclassified
70. SECURITY CLASS fTliii page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
32. PRICE
EPA Korm 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
EPA 902/4-78-001
January, 1978
DEMONSTRATION OF GROWTH TRACKING GUIDELINES
IN NEW YORK STATE
By
Michael A, Stawarz
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Albany, New York 12233
CONTRACT NO. 68-02-2844
FINAL REPORT
Project Officer
Dr. George Kerr
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York 10007
Martha Burke
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
This air pollution report is issued by Region II, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency to assist state and local air
pollution control agencies in carrying out their program
activities. Copies of this report may be obtained, for a
nominal cost, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection
Agency by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York, in fulfillment of EPA Contract
No. 68-02-2844. This report has been reviewed by Region II,
EPA and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendations for use.
Region II Publication No. 902/4-78-001
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
Guidelines developed by the GCA Corporation to
track growth for assessing potential violations of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards are demonstrated
by application in New York State. Estimates of manpower
resources needed to complete an analysis are given.
Recommendations are made concerning problems and use-
fulness of the guidelines.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Figures vi
Tables vii
Summary and Conclusions 1
Categorization of Counties 4
Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides 5
Category 1 5
Category 2 6
Category 3 7
Discussion and Recommendations...... 8
Oxidants 10
Category 1 10
Category 2 10
Category 3 11
Discussion and Recommendations 11
Nitrogen Oxides 13
Category 1 13
Category 2 13
Category 3 14
Discussion and Recommendations 14
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Air Quality Maintenance Areas... 15
2 Air Quality Control Regions 16
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Manpower Requirements 17
2 Counties with Permanent Monitoring 18
3 Categorization of Counties for Growth Tracking
Analysis 20
4 Growth Rate Analysis for Category 1 Counties - TSP _
and SC«2 (Per Draft Final Report, Step 1) 22
5 Projected Air Quality for Category 1 Counties -
TSP and SC>2 (Step 2) '. 23
6 Projected Air Quality for Category 2 Counties -
TSP and S02 (Step 2) 24
7 Growth Rate Analyses for Category 3 Counties - TSP
and SC-2 (Step Ib) 25
8 Projected Air Quality for Category 3 Counties - TSP
and SC-2 (Step 2) 26
9 Projected VMT Density for Category 1 AQCR - Ox
(Step 3) 27
10 Projected and Required Emission Reductions for
Category 2 AQCRs - Ox (Step 2) 27
11 Growth Rate Analyses for Category 3 AQCR - Ox
(Step Ib) 28
12 Analysis of Projected Population for Category 1
Counties - N02 (Step 1) 29
13 Projected Air Quality for Category 2 Counties -
NC-2 (Step 2) 30
14 Growth Rate Analyses for Category 3 Counties - N02
(Step Ib) 31
vii
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The development of guidelines for growth tracking to assess potential
violations of national ambient air quality standards is an admittedly
difficult task. To be of value, the guidelines should be uncomplicated,
require a relatively small amount of manpower, and yet be capable of
identifying areas of potential violations for more detailed analysis.
The guidelines developed by the GCA Corporation are essentially a
condensation of the established EPA methods for projecting emissions and
air quality, although new approaches are provided in a few instances.
The emphasis is on making use of those growth factors that, hopefully,
will be easy to obtain and will be indicative of actual emissions increases.
Some sections, however, do not appear to work as well as others.
An initial problem is the text of the guidelines itself. The guide-
lines are often difficult to follow; if readability were improved, possible
confusion could be avoided. Also, the treatment of the material presented
is somewhat uneven. For example, Appendix B, Sources of Data, and Appendix C,
Geographic Information Systems, may well be superfluous for the typical
guideline user. However, Appendix A, Screening Methods for Projecting
Emissions and Air Quality, is quite brief although it is a key part of the
guideline procedures. Additional information, such as discussion of the
choice of constants for the simplified form of the Hanna-Gifford model for
annual average concentrations, would be useful.
General comments that pertain to the instructions for each of the
category groupings are as follows:
Category 1 includes counties or air quality control regions (AQCRs) that do
not have monitoring and have not had any analysis of projected air quality
for a specified pollutant. These instructions are generally the weakest
part of the guidelines. Since there is no monitoring information available,
there is an attempt to establish a basis for comparison for future years.
For particulate matter and sulfur oxides, the Hanna-Gifford model is used
dependent upon the development of an error-prone theoretical maximum
emission density. For oxidants, the basis is gasoline sales, and/or vehicle
miles traveled; for nitrogen oxides, a statistical analysis of possible
violation sites based upon population and population density. Except for
the case of nitrogen oxides, these methods do not appear to work very well.
Category 2 includes counties or AQCRs that do have monitoring, but have not
had any analysis of projected air quality for a specified pollutant. In
contrast, the guidelines for this category are quite efficient. A form of
the proportional roll-forward model is used with an appropriate growth
indicator as the proportional factor. Once the data is compiled, this
method can be completed very quickly.
Category 3 includes counties or AQCRs that have been subjected to a con-
densed level of analysis, i.e., equivalent to an Air Quality Maintenance
Area (AQMA) designation analysis. These instructions are the most difficult
to follow, particularly those under Step l(a). It is recommended that the
instructions be simplified so that if either current estimates of growth
-------
indicators or new projections are greater than previous estimates or
projections respectively, air quality must be modelled per Appendix A.
Category 4 includes counties or AQCRs that have undergone a detailed level
of analysis of projected air quality in accordance with Subpart D,
40CFR51. These guidelines were precluded from a direct test in this
demonstration due to the fact that the initial Subpart D analyses have
not been completed at this time. However, the procedure is quite similar
to that used in Category 3. It is recommended that these guidelines be
used with one important modification. When it is necessary to revise a
Subpart D analysis, it is questionable whether a simple substitution of
new growth projections will always be adequate. Growth in an area will
not necessarily be concentrated at the same locations; shifts of popula-
tion and other related activities within an area are common as well. The
results of Subpart D analyses completed thus far indicates, for example,
that transportation sources could be the crucial factor in the control of
total suspended particulates. Thus, to obtain an accurate picture of air
quality, at some point in the future' it will be necessary to reallocate
emissions rather than just substitute new growth projections. This could
be a significant effort depending upon the particular circumstances. It
is suggested, therefore, that since the federal regulations specify five
year analysis intervals, the validity of a well prepared Subpart D
analysis be assumed for the five year period with a minimal annual review.
In this way, states could schedule and prepare for a more comprehensive
updating of Subpart D analyses.
More specific comments resulting from implementation of the instructions
for the first three guideline categories are presented in the body of this
report. All of the guidelines, however, share one other fault that should
be mentioned here. Often the initial step in the analysis is a comparison
of either current year estimates versus previous projections or of new
versus previous long-term growth rates. According to the guidelines, an
unanticipated increase of any magnitude warrants further analysis
regardless of its significance to the county's air quality status. Thus,
Clinton County (per Table 4, current population estimate of 85,100 versus
a previous projection of 85,000) and Herkimer County (per Table 7, a new
ten year population growth rate of 1.03 versus the previous 1.00) were
subjected to further analysis. It is recommended, therefore, that the
guidelines allow the user to terminate analysis where new growth is so
obviously not a meaningful factor in relation to future air quality. The
requirement for analysis at five year intervals, regardless of growth,
should be an adequate safeguard.
Two additional major areas of concern involve oxidants and carbon
monoxide. In the case of oxidants, New York State, and many other states,
are likely to be designated as non-attainment areas. It is obvious that
the phenomenon of oxidant formation is yet to be described by a single
model and successfully counteracted by control strategies. The variations
in the approaches of the growth tracking methods that are presented only
serve to emphasize the difficulties of the oxidant problem. It is rec-
ommended, therefore, that growth tracking for oxidants be delayed.
-------
A special situation developed for carbon monoxide. Since no area
of the state had undergone detailed analysis, it was agreed to consider
the use of the separate GCA hot spot screening techniques. The complete
drafts of these guidelines were not available until late in the project;
thus, they were subjected to a review without the benefit of testing.
The hot spot screening guidelines are well prepared and quite detailed.
Their purpose appears to be directed toward design correction of problem
sites. To obtain quantitative estimates of carbon monoxide levels, the
first and second steps would have to be performed. This becomes a rather
open ended activity as an unlimited amount of time could be spent
analyzing sites. The hot spot screening techniques could be an invaluable
aid for special studies, but probably should remain only an option for
growth tracking purposes. :
A final consideration of growth tracking is the manpower required
to complete an annual review. Each annual review could, of course, differ
considerably according to the extent- of analysis required. However, it
is estimated that if the analysis as presented in the following pages had
been performed as a routine exercise, approximately four man-weeks would
have been required. A breakdown of the time required for each guideline
category is provided in Table 1.
-------
CATEGORIZATION OF COUNTIES
The initial step in the demonstration of the GCA growth tracking
guidelines is the categorization of the State's counties. For particulate
matter, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides, counties are grouped in one
of four categories depending upon the existence of permanent monitoring
and the extent of previously completed air quality and growth analyses.
Similarly, for oxidants, Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR's) are grouped
according to the same criteria. Carbon monoxide, however, is treated
differently, with the emphasis on detecting localized violations.
Figure 1 shows the Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMA's) that have
been identified by New York State and the Administrator of the US EPA as
having the potential to exceed specified air quality standards within ten
years. The Areas, and the pollutants of concern, are as follows:
Binghamton Particulate matter
New York City Metropolitan Particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide
and photochemical oxidants
Niagara Frontier Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide
Utica-Rome Particulate matter
Elmira-Corning Particulate matter
Rochester Particulate matter
Jamestown Particulate matter
Syracuse Particulate matter
Capital District Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide
Mid-Hudson Particulate matter
According to the GCA guidelines, all of the counties in these AQMA's
should be placed in Category 4 (except for carbon monoxide which does not
apply) for the pollutant that is listed. However, since a Subpart D
analysis has not yet been completed for any of these counties, it was
decided to consider them as Category 3 counties. It should be noted also
that for some of the counties, only a portion of their land area is in a
designated AQMA. However, it was felt that since these areas represent
a significant concentration of activity, the counties should be placed in
the higher category.
Figure 2 depicts the State's eight AQCR's. The final version of the
GCA guidelines changed the analysis area for oxidants from the county to
the AQCR in consideration of the more widespread nature of this pollutant.
Thus, the categorization changed considerably. If just one county within
an AQCR has permanent monitoring, then the AQCR must be designated as
Category 2. As a result, only the Southern Tier West is designated as
Category 1 and the Metropolitan as Category 3; the remaining six AQCR's
are in Category 2.
Table 2 indicates those counties in the State that have permanent
monitoring for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, oxidants and
nitrogen dioxide. In conjunction with the considerations presented above,
the categorization of the counties is given in Table 3 for these four
pollutants. Not shown is a categorization for carbon monoxide since all
counties are considered to be without detailed analysis.
-------
PAKTICULATE MATTER AND SULFUR OXIDES
AH of the guidelines, except for Category 4, were revised in the
final report. Categories 1, 2 and 3 were modified to provide alternate
instructions dependent upon the availability of new projections. In
addition, Categories 1 and 2 now require that ten-year projections be
completed in the first year of analysis so that there will be a basis for
comparison in future years.
The analysis was updated to the extent possible to reflect those
changes. However, one additional county in Category 3 and twenty-one
additional counties in Category 1 would now be required to undergo further
analysis. Since this would require considerable time and would not
significantly influence the testing of the guidelines, it was decided
to omit all but one of these counties from further analysis. At the
request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sullivan County,
the only county classified in Category 1 for particulate matter, was
also reviewed.
Category 1 - No monitoring and no previous analysis.
This category includes thirty counties for sulfur dioxide and one
additional county for both particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
The guideline instructions now direct the user to Step 2 to prepare
a worst case ten-year projection in the first year of analysis. Step 1,
in the following years, will depend upon comparisons with the growth
factors and forecasts of that initial analysis. Since, as noted above,
time did not allow for the analysis of all thirty-one counties, results
are given only for the ten counties that were previously singled out
by the draft final report version of the guidelines and the specially
selected Sullivan County. Table 4 illustrates the procedure that
was used to determine the ten counties that appear to require further
analysis for sulfur dioxide.
According to the instructions of Step 2, an emission inventory
was prepared and projected to 1986 for each of the counties. The
inventories were based upon the 1975 fuel use survey and the NYC
Department of Transportation projections of vehicle miles traveled.
The next task was the determination of a theoretical maximum emis-
sion density, obtained by dividing the county emissions by the "settled"
area of each county. A problem developed here in determining the
amount of land area that could be considered urbanized or developed
enough so that it would be truly representative as a receptor of
maximum emissions in a county. Obviously, incorporated areas such as
cities and villages could be expected to be densely populated areas.
Towns in New York State, however, are minor civil subdivisions often
encompassing large land areas throughout which population density
can vary greatly.
-------
Eventually, four alternatives, i.e. combinations of part or all
of the aggregate emissions and various definitions of settled areas
were used to test each county's emissions growth potential. These
were as follows:
1. Total emissions in county divided by the land area where
population density exceeds 100 persons per square mile.
2. Amount of emissions proportional to the population living
in the defined land area divided by the land area of
cities and villages.
• 3. Amount of emissions proportional to the population living
in the defined land area divided by the land area of cities,
villages, and also those towns where population density
exceeds 250 persons per square mile.
4. Total emissions in county divided by the land area of
cities and villages.
The emission densities were then entered into the Hanna-Gifford
model. A wind speed of 3.3 meters/second was used, representative
of actual data for the Syracuse and Albany AQMA's. Also, a constant
of 50 was selected for S02 and 91.7 for TSP from the USEPA Guidelines,
Volume 12.
The results for four alternative maximum emissions densities are
listed in Table 5. The projected air quality includes the background
concentration and an estimate, for two counties, of the effect of
existing power plants.
The significance of the guideline requirements are discussed
further in the Discussion and Recommendations.
Category 2 - Monitoring, but no previous analysis .
This category includes seven counties for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide, twenty-two counties for particulate matter only, and
eight counties for sulfur dioxide only. There is no record of either
a condensed or detailed growth analysis, as described by the guide-
lines, for any of these counties.
Step 1 provides instructions that vary according to the availability
of new projections; in either case, a comparison is made with a previous
projection. Since that previous projection has never been made, it was
necessary to proceed to the next step.
Step 2 employs the use of a modified form of the proportional roll-
forward model. The highest annual average for TSP (geometric mean)
and/or S02 (arithmetic mean) was determined from the monitoring records
for each county for 1976. The ten-year growth factor used was the
larger of either the population or employment forecasts. As before,
the population forecasts were based upon NYS Economic Development
-------
Board numbers.. Employment projections were available in only six
counties based upon unofficial NYS Department of Labor figures; all
of the rest were extrapolated from estimates of actual 1970-76
employment.
Table 6 shows the growth rates and the actual and projected air
quality levels. None of the counties would be within ten percent of
the annual ambient standard.
For the short-term standard for TSP, a guideline value of
60 |ig/m , annual geometric mean, was used to assess the 24-hour standard
per 40 CFR 50.7(a). Only one county, Greene, appeared to have a
potential problem. However, a check of the monitor site revealed
that it is located in the hamlet of Cementon and is principally
affected by a cement plant operation. A second monitoring site in the
county recorded a value of 31 ng/m3 and is considered to be a more
accurate indicator of county-wide conditions. Using that figure,
expected growth would not result .in violations.
The value of checking for short-term standards in a growth
tracking procedure is discussed further in the Discussion and
Recommendations.
It should be noted that for two of the counties listed, Clinton
and Franklin, lack of valid monitoring data precluded an analysis.
However, if data from previous years were considered, expected growth
would not generate future violations.
Category 3 - Monitoring with a previous limited analysis .
All of the remaining counties, sixteen for TSP and S02, and sixteen
for TSP only, were classified in this category for the purpose of this
demonstration.
The first step in the revised guidelines is now separated into two
options, the choice dependent upon the availability of projections.
Since "new" projections are available, Step l(b), the comparison of
growth projections, applied.
Table 7 shows the results of that comparison of current and
previous ten-year projections for both population and non-agricultural
employment (total employment projections being unavailable). For
population, the growth factors based upon current NYS Economic Develop-
ment Board projections are compared with those of the June, 1972
projection prepared by the NYS Office of Planning Services. For non-
agricultural employment, the growth factors for major labor areas
within AQCR's from the latest, although unofficial, study of the NYS
Department of Labor are compared with projections made in July, 1971.
The result of the comparisons is that six of the counties should
be subject to further analysis. One of these counties, Chautauqua,
was not included in this group in accordance with the instructions of
-------
the draft final report guidelines. Since its inclusion would require
additional calculations and would not significantly affect the demon-
stration, it was omitted.
Step 2 requires projecting emissions ten years and modeling air
quality using the procedure of Appendix A of the guidelines. Emissions
were estimated based upon the 1975 point source inventory and the
1975 fuel-use survey, and then were updated (to 1976) and projected
(to 1986). Transportation source emissions were based upon NYS
Department of Transportation estimates of vehicle miles traveled.
Also, total employment growth factors were developed through extrap-
olation of estimates of 1970-1976 employment.
The emissions estimate and projections, and the results of the
air quality modeling are listed in Table 8. None of the counties
appear to have the potential to exceed standards based on this pro-
cedure.
Discussion and Recommendations
The procedures for these categories present some difficulties
which should be reviewed in greater detail.
Category 1 is possibly the biggest problem in that the results
could be manipulated, and, even if not, could predict erroneously to
either extreme. The eleven counties which were subjected to further
analysis are a good cross-section for this study. They include pri-
marily suburban, small city/rural, and primarily rural counties.
Based on New York's experience with more heavily populated counties
with much larger emission loads, and with an awareness of the
anticipated growth rates, there is little likelihood that the annual
standards would be violated. Yet, analysis can produce widely
varying results.
The stumbling block is the development of a theoretical emission
density which is dependent upon the estimation of the "settled area."
(The development of the maximum emission density in any square mile
area in a county would require a relatively great amount of time and
effort). These counties vary considerably in population densities
and in definable receptor areas, whether they are or are not
incorporated. The methods chosen were an attempt to compensate for
these differences so that a useful and consistent set of emission
densities would be calculated. However, as Table 5 demonstrates,
although there is plausibility for each of the methods used, the
results are unpredictable.
The effect is that, despite careful consideration by the guide-
line user, there will always be uncertainty as to the value of pro-
jected air quality in this step of the analysis. Thus, unnecessary
additional analysis may be required for one county, while a problem
area may go undetected in another.
8
-------
In Category 2, a problem arose in determining the potential for
violations of the short-term standards. The Division of Air Resources
objects to the use of a proportional roll-forward model for short-
term standards. Therefore, in the demonstration, the EPA guideline
value of 60 n.g/m.3 annual geometric mean, was used to assess the
24-hour standard for TSP. The possibility was raised that a similar
guideline value could be developed for S02. However, further
discussion revealed that large point sources are most likely to
influence short-term violations; this potential is controlled by other
methods, i.e., diffusion analysis. Long-term violations reflect the
impact of all the sources in the area and would properly be moni-
tored through growth tracking. The conclusion, therefore, is that a
short-term guideline for SC>2 is not necessary.
Category 3 presents a procedure that is, at least in part, un-
necessarily complicated and confusing. If new ten year projections are
available, and they indicate greater growth, then the guideline user
is directed to project emissions 'and model air quality per Appendix
A (Step 2). However, if new projections are unavailable, then
sequential comparisons are made between current estimates of growth
indicators and previous forecasts, and between current estimates of
emissions loading and a linearly interpolated figure from the previous
condensed analysis. If the previous values are exceeded, the guide-
line user is instructed to somehow assess the validity of final year
forecasts; if they are no longer valid, he must proceed to Step 2.
The significance is that, in either case if higher growth has
occurred or is anticipated, emissions loading must be determined.
Once this is known, it is a relatively small task to update and project
them using estimates of growth factors and, if new projections are
unavailable, extrapolation. The result is that the guideline user
will eventually calculate what he needs to know, a new estimate of
final year air quality.
On this basis, it is recommended that if either current
estimates of growth indicators or new projections appear to be
significantly higher, then the guideline user should be directed
to Step 2.
-------
OXIDANTS
The final GCA guidelines, as noted previously, changed the area
of analysis for oxidants from the county to the AQCR in consideration
of the apparent non-localized nature of this pollutant problem. This
necessitated a transfer of 35 counties from Category 1 to 2 as they
are located within an AQCR with monitoring.
In addition, specific instructions for each category were revised;
the analysis was updated to the extent possible to reflect those
changes.
Category 1 - No monitoring and no previous analysis.
One AQCR, the Southern Tier West, is classified in this category
at this time.
The initial instruction now directs the guideline user to Step 3
if a recently prepared ten-year projection of AQCR vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) is readily available. Since VMT projections for counties
are available from the NYS Department of Transportation, Step 3 was
easily completed. The result, shown in Table 9, is that the projected
1986 VMT/square mile figure for the Southern Tier West is far below
the critical level presented in the guidelines table. Thus, it is
concluded from this step that the AQCR does not have a potential
oxidant problem and further analysis is not necessary.
Category 2 - Monitoring, but no previous analysis.
The Hudson Valley, Northern, Central, Southern Tier East, Genesee
Finger Lakes, and Niagara Frontier AQCR's are now listed in this
category. Of the total 46 counties, monitoring is conducted in 11 counties
and provides the representative data for this analysis.
Step 1 requires an estimate of gasoline sales in the AQCR to
determine if positive growth has occurred. Since statewide sales of
gasoline have increased each year since 1974, it was assumed that
positive growth had probably occurred in each of the AQCR's.
Step 2 involves the possible use of two models provided by the
guidelines. The first is a proportional model; it is to be used for
projecting future air quality when an AQCR is currently in compliance.
In this instance, the alternate model, "projected emission reduction,"
was used since all of the six AQCR's are currently in violation. The
factor P, the proportion of hydrocarbon emissions from light-duty
mobile sources, had previously been calculated for the 11 counties
with monitoring sites, using VMT estimates, unedited point source
inventories, and the 1975 fuel use survey. Time did not permit a
complete recalculation, so these results were used to determine a
representative P for each AQCR. As is now suggested, in Step 2, a
growth factor based upon VMT, rather than on population, was developed
for each AQCR. Finally, a value of ER equal to 0.20 was taken from
Appendix A of the guidelines.
10
-------
Table 10 lists the growth and hydrocarbon emissions factors,
the 1976 air quality (second highest concentration), the projected
emission reduction and the emission reduction required according to
Appendix J. Only one of the AQCR's, the Niagara Frontier, appears
to have a projected emission reduction less than what is required.
The analysis was concluded at this point, but is dealt with in
greater detail in the Discussion and Recommendations.
Category 3 - Monitoring with a previous limited analysis.
• The remaining AQCR, the New York City Metropolitan, is classified
in this category for the purpose of this demonstration.
The first step in the revised guidelines is now separated into
two options; the choice dependent upon the availability of projections.
Since "new" projections are available, it was decided to apply Step l(b),
Table 11 shows the analysis for both population and non-agri-
cultural employment. For population, the growth factor based on the
current NYS Economic Development Board projections is compared with
that of the June, 1972 projections prepared by the NYS Office of
Planning Services. For non-agricultural employment in the major labor
areas within the AQCR, the latest, although unofficial, annual average
growth rates prepared by the NYS Department of Labor are compared with
the previous projections of July, 1971.
In both cases, the new growth rate is seen to be less than that
anticipated at the time of maintenance area designation. Thus, a
previously prepared analysis of projected air quality would still be
considered valid.
Discussion and Recommendations
In reviewing the guidelines for oxidants, several considerations
have been kept in mind. The first is that New York considers the
entire state to be a non-attainment area for this pollutant. Further,
the Division of Air Resources, among others, has expressed its
dissatisfaction with current methodology (including Appendix J), and
is representing the state in the joint efforts of the Moodus Committee
to determine a reasonable control strategy. Finally, the experience
of ambient air quality monitoring over several years shows that despite
positive or negative growth and the increase in hydrocarbon controls,
i.e., through normal replacement of motor vehicles, oxidant peaks
have not changed significantly.
The guidelines attempt to assess the future oxidant problem on
the established basis of estimated hydrocarbons emissions, projected
growth rates, and the anticipated hydrocarbons reduction due to new
motor vehicle emissions controls.
11
-------
Category 1 uses a Hanna-Gifford model assuming no atmospheric
transformation of hydrocarbons to determine critical levels of
gasoline sales, vehicles miles traveled, and emissions loading.
According to this specialized procedure, an AQCR suspected of non-
compliance is shown to be of little cause for concern.
Category 2 offers two models. The first is a form of the pro-
portional method which should not be applied to project future oxi-
dant air quality according to the USEPA's own criteria. The second
method, used in the demonstration because of existing noncompliance,
predicts an emissions reduction for comparison with a yet unseen
revision of the aforementioned Appendix J. While the accuracy of the
hydrocarbon proportion factor P may be challenged as high (the point
source inventories are completely unedited and probably incomplete -
however, space heating sources are included despite the seasonal
aspects of oxidant violations), the results, using the current
Appendix J, show only one AQCR with real difficulty in meeting the
standard.
Similarly, the analyses for Categories 3 and 4 would ultimately
be dependent upon Appendix J or its replacement methodology.
Obviously, the oxidant problem is one of the most complex of the
air pollution problems today. There are many remaining questions
concerning photochemical reactions between hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides, reactivity of types of emitted hydrocarbons, meteorological
conditions, natural concentrations of oxidants, and long range transport
of oxidants. No simple model will account for all of these factors.
Appendix J has not been an acceptable model and it is uncertain how
much of an improvement the promised revised version of Appendix J
would provide. Thus, the value of implementing the guidelines even
as the roughest of approximations is highly questionable. It is
recommended, therefore, that their use be postponed.
12
-------
NITROGEN OXIDES
All of the guidelines, except for Category 4, were revised in
the final report. For Category 1, population and population density
numbers were provided as a result of GCA's statistical analysis. For
Category 2, the model for projecting air quality was modified to
include the growth effect of electric utility emissions and vehicle
miles traveled. Both Category 2 and 3 were modified to accommodate
the availability of new projections.
The analysis was updated completely to include the additions
and revisions.
Category 1 - No monitoring and no previous analysis.
There are 43 counties which currently are not monitored for
nitrogen oxides and have not undergone any analysis of projected
emissions growth.
Step 1 requires that ten-year projections of population be ob-
tained. If either the population exceeds 800,000, or the population
density exceeds 1250 persons per square mile (revised from 140
according to M. Burke letter of December 22, 1977), then ambient air
quality monitoring should be initiated in that county.
Table 12 shows the results of this analysis. None of the 43
counties will exceed the threshold values for population or population
density by 1986. Thus, none would require monitoring.
Category 2 - Monitoring, but with no previous analysis.
Ten counties have permanent monitoring for nitrogen oxides but
have never undergone condensed or detailed growth analysis as
described by the guidelines.
Step 1 offers the guideline user two options to follow depending
upon the availability of new projections. Since the described guide-
line analysis had never been performed, comparisons could not be made
and it was necessary to proceed to Step 2.
Step 2 now offers a model that includes a factor G, the projected
emissions growth, based upon the projected increase in electric
utility emissions and the projected increase in vehicle miles traveled.
Table 13 shows the results of the application of this model. Four of
the counties have electric utility facilities located in their
jurisdictions, but, according to the 1977 Report of Member Electric
Systems of the New York Power Pool and the Empire State Electric
Energy Research Corporation, will not have increased capacity
(therefore, emissions) in the next ten years. The growth in vehicle
miles traveled for all counties is greater than the anticipated
growth in population for the same time period.
13
-------
Using the proportional model with the highest annual nitrogen
dioxide average recorded in a county, and assuming a background
concentration of 20 ^.g/np, it was found that all of the counties
in this category had projected concentrations well below the N02
standard.
Category 3 - Monitoring with a previous limited analysis.
The remaining nine counties were classified in this category
for the purpose of this demonstration.
Once again, the first step in the revised guidelines is now
separated into two options; the choice dependent upon the availa-
bility of projections. Since "new" projections are available,
Step l(b), the comparison of growth projections, applied.
Table 14 shows the results of comparing the most recent growth
projections for population and non-agricultural employment with those
that were available at the time of the designation analysis. Pro-
jections for electric utility emissions were not compared because a
previous projection was not available.
The comparison demonstrates that, for all nine counties, the
new growth rates are less than what was previously anticipated.
Therefore, the projected air quality of a condensed analysis would
still be adequate.
Discussion and Recommendations
General comments previously given on the procedure for Categories
3 and 4 would, of course, apply to this section as well. There
is only one additional comment and that pertains to Category 2.
The proportional model of Category 2 has been improved by the
addition of a growth factor formula that accounts for the major
emissions contributions from electric utility facilities and motor
vehicles. One flaw should be corrected, however. The Qp/Qc factor
works only if a county has an existing electric utility facility.
However, if a new facility is to be located in a county where there
currently is no such facility, the factor is useless as Qp/0 equals
infinity.
14
-------
AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS
K
T
SYRACUSE
/CAPITAL
''DISTRICT
THER(J TIER
I 1 H1AWAU
UlUtiN ', T i I .,_
EA^T
BINGHAMTON \.w-x'
soutriiERN TIER! WEST
JAMESTOWN
ELMIRA-CORNING
NEW YORK STATE
MID-HUDSON
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Peter A. A. Berle COMMISSIONER
N.Y. METRO"
-------
Air Quality Control Regions
Department of Environmental Conservation
Regions
FIGURE 2
-------
TABLE 1
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
Activity Man-Days
Data collection and review; categori- 6
zation of counties; review of monitoring
sites and air quality data
Growth analysis for TSP and S02:
Category 1 3
Category 2 2
Category 3 3
Growth analysis for Ox:
Category 1 • 0.2
Category 2 2
Category 3 0.2
Growth analysis for N02:
Category 1 0.2
Category 2 1
Category 3 0.2
Calculations check; report preparation 2
TOTAL approximately 20
17
-------
TABLE 2
COUNTIES WITH PERMANENT MONITORING
County TSP S02 Ox NO
Albany XX X
Allegany X
Bronx XX X X
Broome XX X
Cattaraugus X
Cayuga X X
Chautauqua X X
Chemung X X
Chenango X
Clinton X
Columbia X . X •
Cortland X
Delaware X
Dutchess X X
Erie XXX X
Essex X X X
Franklin X
Fulton X
Genesee X X
Greene X
Hamilton X
Herkimer X
Jefferson X
Kings XXX X
Lewis X
Livingston X
Madison X
Monroe XX X X
Montgomery X
Nassau X X X X
New York X XX X
Niagara XXX X
Oneida X X X X
Onondaga XX X X
Ontario X
Orange X
Orleans X
Oswego X X
Otsego X
Putnam X
Queens XX X X
Rensselaer XX X X
18
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
COUNTIES WITH PERMANENT MONITORING
County TSP S02 0* N02
Richmond X X (1) (1)
Rockland X X
St. Lawrence X
Saratoga X
Schenectady XX XX
Schoharie X
Schuyler X
Seneca X
Steuben X
Suffolk X X X
Sullivan (1)
Tioga X
Tompkins X
Ulster XX XX
Warren XX XX
Washington X
Wayne X
Westchester XX XX
Wyoming X X
Yates X
(1) Monitoring to begin during 1977
19
-------
TABLE 3
CATEGORIZATION OF COUNTIES
FOR
GROWTH TRACKING ANALYSIS
POLLUTANT
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkiraer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
TSP
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Sp_2
3
1
a
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
1 '
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
fix
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
t
NO?
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
I
i.
?
^
3
2
3
3
20
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
CATEGORIZATION OF COUNTIES
FOR
GROWTH TRACKING ANALYSIS
POLLUTANT
County
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
TSP
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
SO?
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
2*
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
NO?
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1 - County (for Oxidants, county within AQCR) without monitoring
2 - County (for Oxidants, county within AQCR) with monitoring
3 - County (for Oxidants, county within AQCR) with condensed analysis
21
-------
TABLE 4
GROWTH RATE ANALYSIS
FOR CATEGORY 1 COUNTIES - TSP AND S02
(Per Draft Final Report, Step 1)
Particulates and S02
Sullivan
S02 Only
Allegany
Cattaraugus
Chenango
Clinton
Co rt land
Delaware
Franklin
Fulton
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Otsego
Putnam
St. Lawrence
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Tioga
Tompkins
Washington
Wayne
Yates
1976 Population
Current Estimate
(OOOs)
61.9
50.3
85.4
46.8 •
85.1
48.5
47.5
44.9
55.1
39.3
5.0
69.0
90.8
25.3
57.8
65.9
86.5
246.9
38.3
58.4
71.6
116.8
29.3
17.8
33.6
101.4
48.7
85.9
54.7
82.9
21.2
1976 Population
Previous Forecast
(OOOs)
63.2
51.6
85.8
47.4
85.0
47.2
48.4
45.2
56.6
40.2
5.2
68.0
92.8
25.2
57.6
66.6
86.2
250.0
39.2
58.4
70.2
118.2
31.0
18.2
33.8
101.2
48.4
85.0
55.6
83.6
21.2
Actual Growth
+/-
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
.
+
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
™
22
-------
TABLE 5
PROJECTED AIR QUALITY FOR CATEGORY 1 COUNTIES
TSP AND S02
(Step 2)
TSP
Sullivan
S02
Clinton
Cortland
Herkimer
Lewis
Livingston
Ontario
Putnam
Steuben
Tioga
Tompkins
1986 Air Quality*, ue/ra3
Per Method
1
123.4
27.8
9.7
13.0
64.8
12.1
12.7
8.8
30.6
9.1
37.9
Per Method
2
92.3
48.0
15.0
16.8
29.6
15.0
13.3
13.8
34.5
11.8
40.8
Per Method
3
92.3
19.7
15.0
16.8
29.6
15.0
13.3
9.1
34.5
11.8
36.9
Per Method
4
123.4
109.2
20.2
23.0
64.8
23.2
18.6
85.0
40.5
20.5
51.7
a - Using TSP background concentration of 30
concentration of 8 ng/m^
and S02 background
Method 1: Total emissions in county divided by the land area where
population density exceeds 100 per square mile
Method 2: Amount of emissions proportional to the population living
in land area divided by the land area of cities and
villages
Method 3: Amount of emissions proportional to the population living
in land area divided by the land area of cities and
villages, and also those towns where population density
exceeds 250 per square mile
Method 4: Total emissions in county divided by the land area of
cities and villages
23
-------
TABLE 6
PROJECTED AIR QUALITY FOR 'CATEGORY 2 COUNTIES - TSP AND S02
(Step 2)
Pollutant
County
TSP and S00
Cayuga
Columbia
Essex
Genesee
Oswego
Warren
Wyoming
TSP only
Allegany
Cattaraugus
Chenango
Clinton
Cortland
Delaware
Franklin
Fulton
Greene
Hamilton
Jefferson
Lewis
Madison
Orleans
Otsego
St. Lawrence
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Tompkins
Washington
Yates
S02 only
Broome
Chautauqua
Chemung
Dutches s
Monroe
Oneida
Onondaga
Ulster
1986/1976
Population
Growth
Rate
1.05
1.15
1.08
1.08
1.17
1.14
1.07
1.14
1.09
1.05
1.23
1.11
1.09
1.02
1.07
1.25
1.06
1.04
1.09
1.12
1.07
1.08
1.07
1.26
1.11
0.99
1.15
. 1.08
1.11
1.02
1.04
1.02
1.14
1.06
0.98
1.05
1.16
1986/1976
Employment
Growth
Rate
1,08
1.13
0.94
1.10
1.15C
1.15
1.39
1.14
1.15
1.17
1.30
1.23
1.17
1.11
1.14
1.36
1.48
1.06
1.18
1.15C
1.13C
1.18-
1.06
1.17
1.18
1.00
1.09
1.15
1.25
1.09C
1.09
0.97
1.16
1 . 13C
1.06
1.15C
1.10
ANNUAL
Actual
1976
39
39
25
33
33
45
36
30
39
32
d
46
40
d
31
53
13
29
30
40
33
42
29
28
38
38
47
40
28
TSP; ug/m3
Projected3
1986
39.7
40.4
27.0
33.3
33.5
47.3
38.3
34.2
40.4
32.3
NA
49.7
41.7
NA
31.1
61.3
19.2
30.7
35.4
41.5
33.4
44.2
31.0
35.3
39.4
38.0
49.7
41.5
35.8
ANNUAL
Actual
1976
18.7
18.7
15.0
3.7
37.4
26.2
41.2
29.9
59.9
15.7
37.4
59.9
23.6
39.3
44.5
SO?, .i2/m3
Projected'3
1986
19.6
20.3
15.6
4.1
42.4
28.9
54.1
31.9
64.6
15.9
42.1
66.6
26.7
44.0
50.3
a - Using TSP background concentration of 30 ug/m3
b - Using S02 background concentration of 8 iag/m3
c - Based on unofficial projections for major labor areas for 1974-1985 for
nonagricultural employment, NYS Department of Labor. All others
extrapolated from estimates of total employment for 1970-1976.
d - Available data not valid
24
-------
TABLE 7
GROWTH RATE ANALYSES
FOR CATEGORY 3 COUNTIES - TSP AND S02
(Step Ib)
Pollutant
County
TSP and SOj
Albany
Bronx
Erie
Kings
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rock land
Saratoga
Schenectady
Suffolk
Westchester
TSP only
Broome
Chautauqua
Chemung
Dutchess
Herkimer
Livingston
Monroe
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Putnam
Steuben
Tioga
Ulster
Wayne
P 0 P U
1986/1976
Growth
Rate
(6/77)
1.03
0.93
1.00
0.94
1.05
0.99
0.92
1.01
1.00
1.06
1.22
1.20
1.25
1.03
1.20
0.99
1.02
1.04
1.02
1.14
1.03
1.12
1.06
0.98
1.05
1.17
1.25
1.38
1.06
1.10
1.16
1.10
L A T I 0 N
1985/1975 New
Growth Growth
Rate Rate
C6/72) +/-
1.05
0.98
1.06
0.97
1.00 +
1.08
0.96
1.04
1.03
1.13
1.24
1.29
1.19 +
1.06
1.38
1.11
1.05
1.02 +
1.05
1.40
1.00 +
1.21
1.16
1.05
1.11
1.16 +
1.46
1.49
1.04 +
1.24
1.25
1.20
NON-AG E
1986/19763
Growth
Rate
(3/77)
1.11
0.93
1.05
0.93
NA
1.25
0.93
1.05
0.93
1.11
0.93
1.18
1.11
1.11
1.25
1.18
1.09
NA
NA
NA
1.06
1.13
1.13
1.06
1.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.09
NA
1.13
M P L 0 Y M
1985/1975
Growth
Rate
(7/71)
1.19
1.08
1.14
1.08
NA
1.38
1.08
1.14
1.08
1.19
1.08
1.33
1.19
1.19
1.38
1.33
1.14
NA
NA
NA
1.16
1.26
1.26
1.16
1.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.14
NA
1.26
E N T
New
Growth
Rate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
a - Based on unofficial projections for major labor areas for 1974-1985,
NYS Department of Labor.
25
-------
TABLE 8
PROJECTED AIR QUALITY
FOR CATEGORY 3 COUNTIES - TSP AND S02
(Step 2)
Estimated Projected
1976 1986 ANNUAL TSP. ug/m3 ANNUAL SO?, ug/m3
Pollutant Emissions Emissions Actual Projected3 Actual Projected'3
County tons/yr. tons/yr. 1976 1986 1976 1986
TSP
Herkimer 602 674 36 36.7
Montgomery 772 846 30 32.9
Ontario 1423 1678 45 47.7
Saratoga 2186 2508 45 47.2
Steuben 1149 ' 1227 50 51.4
S02
Montgomery 2027 2082 31C 31.6
Saratoga 7304 7414 31C 31.3
a - Using TSP background concentration of 30 jj.g/m3
b - Using S02 background concentration of 8 (j.g/m3
c - Portion of county designated as part of an AQMA, but no monitors are
located in county; values listed are estimates based upon data from
nearest monitors.
26
-------
TABLE 9
PROJECTED VMT DENSITY
FOR CATEGORY 1 AQCR - Ox
(Step 3)
AQCR
Southern Tier
West
1986
Projected VMT
(106)
4426
Area in
Square miles
6083
1986
Projected VMI/Sq. mile
(106)
0.7
TABLE 10
PROJECTED AND REQUIRED EMISSION REDUCTIONS
FOR CATEGORY 2 AQCRs - Ox
(Step 2)
AQCR
Hudson
Valley
Northern
Central
Southern
Tier East
Genes ee
Finger Lakes
Niagara
Frontier
1976
Air Qualitya
iig/m3
369
226
263
210b
259
345
VMT
Growth
Factor
1986/1976
1.29
1.20
1.25
1.18
1.30
1.21
Proportion
of HC
Emissions
from LDV
0.90
0.98
0.87
0.81
0.70
0.70
Projected
Emission
Reduction
0.64
0.74
0.62
0.59
0.43
0.47
Emission
Reduction
Required
(Appendix J)
0.63
0.27
0.39
0.22
0.38
0.58
a
b
Second highest maximum one hour concentration
Ten months of monitoring data
27
-------
TABLE 11
GROWTH RATE ANALYSES
FOR CATEGORY 3 AQCR - Ox
(Step Ib)
POPULATION
AQCR
1986/1976 Growth 1985/1975 Growth New Growth Rate
Rate (6/77) Rate (6/72) +/-
Metropolitan
1.00
1.06
NON-AG EMPLOYMENT
AQCR
1974-85 Annuala
Average Growth
Rate, % (3/77)
1968-80 Annual
Average Growth
Rate, 7. (7/71)
New Growth Rate
Metropolitan:
New York City
Nassau-Suffolk
Westchester-
Rockland
-0.73
2.54
1.82
0.77
3.83
3.28
_
-
-
a - Based on unofficial projections for major labor areas
for 1974-1985, NYS Department of Labor.
28
-------
TABLE 12
ANALYSIS OF PROJECTED POPULATION
FOR CATEGORY 1 COUNTIES - N02
(Step 1)
County
Allegany
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutches s
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Montgomery
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Washington
Wayne
Wyoming
Yates
Projected
1986
Population
6/77
(OOOs)
57.1
222.7
92.9
82.0
152.9
102.0
49.2
104.9
64.3
53.6
51.9
271.0
38.4
46.0
58.9
65.8
49.1
5.3
71.4
94.3
27.7
64.9
73.8
58.6
101.4
308.2
40.8
130.8
63.3
98.6
124.9
183.2
36.9
19.7
33.0
107.3
75.1
53.6
99.0
61.2
91.1
41.1
23.6
Comparison
to
800,000
+/-
„
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
Projected
1986
Population
Density
(Persons/sq .mi. )
108.6
311.9
70.5
117.5
141.4
245.8
54.5
99.1
99.7
106.8
36.0
333.3
21.1
27.5
118.3
131.3
75.2
3.1
49.8
72.9
21.5
101.7
111.6
143.6
155.8
370.0
103.0
135.7
62.5
426.8
45.1
224.0
59.1
59.7
100.0
76.1
76.6
102.3
205.4
73.2
150.3
68.7
68.8
Comparison
to
1250 Persons/sq. mi.
+/-
^
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
~
-
^
29
-------
TABLE 13
PROJECTED AIR QUALITY FOR CATEGORY 2 COUNTIES - N02
(Step 2)
County
Albany
Erie
Monroe
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Rensselaer
Schenectady
Ulster
Warren
£
1.22
1.22
1.42
1.15
1.35
1.26
1.39
1.34
1.31
1.21
fe
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
f
0.59
0.77
0.27
0
0
0
0
0.27
0
0
G
1.09
1.05
1.31
1.15
1.35
1.26
1.39
1.25
1.31
1.21
Annual NO?, ug/ai^
Actual
1976
47.0
54.5
39.5
33.8
33.8
54.5
30.0
30.0
30.0
33.8
Projected13
1986
49.4
56.2
45.5
35.9
38.6
63.5
33.9
32.5
33.1
36.7
a » pp/*c based on vehicle miles travelled
b " Using N02 background concentration of 20 ug/m3
30
-------
TABLE 14
GROWTH RATE ANALYSES FOR CATEGORY 3 COUNTIES - N02
(Step Ib)
POPULATION
County
Bronx
Kings
Nassau
New York
Queens
Richmond
Rockland
Suffolk
Westchester
1986/1976
Growth Rate
(6/77)
0.93
0.94
0.99
0.92
1.00
1.22
1.20
1.20
0.99
1985/1975
Growth Rate
(6/72)
0.98
0.97
1.08
0.96
1.03
1.24
1.29
1.38
1.11
New Growth Rate
+/-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
NON-AG EMPLOYMENT
County
Bronx
Kings
Nassau
New York
Queens
Richmond
Rockland
Suffolk
Westchester
1974-853
Annual Average
Growth Rate, %
(3/77)
-0.73
-0.73
2.54
-0.73
-0.73
-0.73
1.82
2.54
1.82
1968-80
Annual Average
Growth Rate, %
(7/71)
0.77
0.77
3.83
0.77
0.77
0.77
3.28
3.83
3.28
New Growth Rate
mt
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
a - Based on unofficial projections for major labor areas
for 1974-85, NYS Department of Labor
31
------- |