EPA-450/3-74-056-b
  OCTOBER 1973
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
      AIR POLLUTION STUDY -
        EMISSION PROJECTION
                 METHODOLOGY
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Office of Air and Waste Management
    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
                               EPA-450/3-74-056-B
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
   AIR POLLUTION STUDY -
    EMISSION PROJECTION
         METHODOLOGY
                  by

              John C. Goodrich

     Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.
              429 Marrett Road
         Lexington, Massachusetts 02173


            Contract No. EHSD 71-39


        EPA Project Officer:  John Robson


               Prepared for

       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        Office of Air and Waste Management
      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
        Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711

               October 1973

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers.  Copies are available free
of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit
organizations r as supplies permit-from the Air Pollution Technical Information
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia  22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by the
Environmental Research and Technology, Inc. , in fulfillment of Contract
No. EHSD 71-39. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received
from the Environmental Protection Agency. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those
of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Mention of company or product
names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
                    Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-056-b
                                  11

-------
                                   PREFACE






      Increasing recognition is being placed on the importance of land use



planning as a means of improving future air quality.  As a part of this




recognition the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the




U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency jointly sponsored a study to develop




methods to assess the air pollution impact of land use plans, and to apply




these methods to the evaluation of alternative land use plans for the New



Jersey Hackensack Meadowlands as a case study.




      Environmental Research 5 Technology, Inc. (ERT) of Lexington, Mass.



was selected to undertake the study.  In response to the study objectives,



ERT designed a computer-oriented tool, called the AQUIP (Air Quality for



Urban § Industrial Planning) System, which is intended for use by planners




to incorporate air pollution considerations more directly into the planning



process.



      The specific study objectives included the development and application



of techniques for projecting to the year 1990 the total air pollutant



emissions from an urbanized area.  This methodology for computing emissions



based on planning data inputs is one of the basic features of the AQUIP



System.  Since AQUIP permits direct input of land use and transportation



planning data, it can be used by urban planners to compute ambient air




quality related to specific land use activities.



     The Hackensack Meadowlands Air Pollution Study final report consists of



a summary report, 5 task reports, and 3 appendices, each bound separately.



This report is the first of the 5 task reports.   It describes the emission




projection methodology that was developed and its application to the
                                    ill

-------
Hackensack Meadowlands  Development  Plans.  The report  is  divided  into  three



major parts:




            PART I - Emission Projection Methodology



            PART II - Discussion of the Emission Inventories



            The Appendices - Data Sets and Emission Inventories




     Part I covers the  procedures developed, requirements of the methodology,



and the major  clarifying  assumptions  and  constraints.   Figures  are numbered



1-1, 1-2, etc.   It is divided into  sections  as follows:



     1.  Background,including the form of planning activity data.



     2.  Those requirements of  the  AQUIP  system  and  the dispersion model  that



         influence the  structure of the emission inventories.



     3.  The role of regulations and  control technology in ,the study.



     4.  The actual development  of  the methodology.



     5.  The assumptions  and constraints, including a discussion of the



         decisions concerning activity data, activity indices, fuel use,



         and emission   factors.



     Part II describes  the  actual emission inventories  as developed, partic-



ularly for the Meadowlands  plans.   Figures are numbered II-l,  II-2, etc.



It is divided  into sections  covering:




     1.  The emissions  catalog  specifications.



     2.  The current emission inventory.



     3.  The background emission inventory.



     4.  The inventories  for the 1990 land use plans.




     The  emissions inventory was prepared  before  Nation Emission



Data System (NEDS) forms were available from the  U.  S.  Environmental



Protection  Agency (EPA).  Readers are  cautioned  that emissions  inventories
                                     IV

-------
now prepared in conjunction with any EPA requirement must be in compliance

with NEDS forms and procedures.  The Appendix material includes:


     Appendix A - Plan Data Sets and Conversion Factors Catalog

     Appendix B - Current and Background Emission Inventories
                  (Confidential Material)

It is intended as a supplement to the software descriptions of the Task 5

Report and as a user manual for those interested in using the data and

techniques for further study; several test cases are included.

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS








     The work upon which this report is based was performed pursuant to




Contract No. EHSD-71-39 with the Environmental Protection Agency,  and



Contract No. IP-290 with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.



     The comments and assistance of Mr. George D. Cascino, Engineer,



Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission and other members of the staff



are gratefully acknowledged as are the efforts of numerous individuals in



the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Jersey Department



of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).  The significant contribution of our




subcontractor, Burns and Roe, Inc., of Oradell, N.J., particularly of



Mr. William Foy of their staff, is gratefully acknowledged.  Mr. David




Berghcffer of the ERT staff was 'responsible for the majority of the software




development for Task 1.
                                  VI1

-------
                          SUMMARY OF FINDINGS








     Application of the emissions projection methodology to the Meadowlands



plans showed that we could achieve our basic objectives.  In addition, the




five step procedure developed to transform activity levels into emission




strengths was workable and, in fact, quite adaptable to the land use consid-



erations which were encountered.  In particular, the development of the con-



version factors catalog demonstrated that the planner need input only planning-



related data.



     However, it was found that the planner must specify data he does not



normally deal with, including the size of a development as it relates to



heating demand and the types of manufacturing operations anticipated.



Furthermore, the level of detail obtainable from the data was unsatisfactory



for discerning between related activities, particularly for calculating



default parameters such as the propensity to use different fuels and the



amount of separate process emissions.  Consequently, the greatest need for



further work involves the empirical derivation of activity indices and



default parameters.  The availability of current region wide emissions data



for model validation and determination of protective indices was inadequate



as well.



     The methodology as developed and applied allows for meaningful comparison



I etween the alternative land use plans and provides a useful tool for use by



others in determining the effect of incremental changes in a plan or in the



testing of additional plans.  This methodology is combined with the other




aspects of the AQUIP system, namely:



     1.   A model for computing air quality based on emission and meteorolo-



         gical data
                                  IX

-------
2.   Methods for evaluating the air pollution impact associated with a




    given plan and ranking alternative land use plans based on air



    quality criteria,  this methodology for computing emissions




    should permit planners to incorporate air pollution considera-




    tions more directly into the planning process

-------
                              TERMINOLOGY








     Because the terminologies of several different professions are used in




this report, often in unfamiliar ways, this brief discussion of terminology



is presented to show the context within which different terms were used in




our study.  Specific definitions of these and other terms are listed in the



Glossary.



     The basic land use and transportation planning units of intensity of



use - vehicles per day on a highway, acres of residential land use, square




feet of industrial plant space - are called the activities or the activity



level.   The parameters which translate the activity levels into demand for



fuel for heating purposes are called activity indices; for instance, BTU's




(British thermal units of heat demand) per square foot for industrial plant



space.



     We distinguish between fuel related and non-fuel related activities or



sources of emissions.   The fuel related sources use fuel for:



     1.  heating area, such as heating a school in the winter; the amount of



     heat required and the fuel consumed is a function of the temperature or



     the number of degree-days (the sum of negative departures of average



     daily temperature from 65°F).   We have termed this fuel  use  as that



     required for heating,  or space heating.



     2.  raising a product to a certain temperature during an industrial



     process, or for cooking (with gas) in the home; the amount of fuel con-



     sumed is a function of the activity and is generally not related to



     outside temperature.  We have termed this fuel use as that required



     for process heating, or non-space heating.
                                      XI

-------
     The area to be heated for space heating purposes and the amount of the

year it will be heated  (a function of the schedule, such as 250 days per

year for an industrial plant) help determine the heating requirements for an

activity.  If the activity requires process heat as well, the total heating

requirements will be the sum of the space heating requirements and the non-

space heating requirements.  The percent of the total allocated to either

type is called the percent space heat, or, conversely, percent process heat.

     The total heat requirement determines the demand for fuel; different

activities are more apt to use one fuel than another.  The propensity to

use a particular fuel or fuels (the fuel use propensity) determines the

actual fuel used to satisfy the heat requirement.

     Different types of activities may have varying activity indices or per-

cent space heat or fuel use propensities; for instance, each industrial

category in the U.S. census 4-digit SIC classification may have a unique

value.  However, we may know information only by broad industrial groups

(1 or 2 digit SIC).   The value applying to the larger or broader group being

used for the smaller or more detailed group when the unique value is not

known has been termed a default parameter in our study.

     There are two types of non-fuel related activities or sources of emis-

sions.  Transportation sources - motor vehicles, vessels, and airplanes -

that do not burn fuel primarily for heating purposes have been termed non-

fuel burning sources.  The emissions are a function of:

     1.   activity level, times
     2.   emission factors, yields
     3.   emissions

whereas, for what we term fuel burning sources the emissions are a function of:
                                     XI1

-------
      1.   activity levels,  times
      2.   activity indices,  yields
      3.   fuel demand;  fuel  use,  times
      4.   emission factors,  yields
      5.   emissions

      The other type of non-fuel  related activity  is  composed of emissions

 from sources, often industrial,  that do not  come  from the burning  of fuel;

 for example,  evaporation from a  refinery storage  tank.   Refuse  burning  and

 incineration  fall into this category.   These are  termed  separate process

 emissions or  process emissions in our study.  Note the distinction between

 process heating related  emissions and separate process emissions.  Separate

 process emissions  are  a  function of:

     1.  activity level, times
     2.  emission factors,  yields
     3.  emissions

     There are several distinctions made geographically or spatially, or in

 terms of different portions of the study area.  Our main effort in determining

 emissions is concentrated on the Meadowlands planning area and emissions re-

 sulting from activities presented in the plans.  All other sources of emissions

 are considered to be background sources and are discussed as a part of the

background inventory for the year 1990.  On the other hand all background

 sources for 1969 and all sources presently within the Meadowlands are treated

 equally and discussed as a part of the current inventory.  In brief, there are

 three emissions inventories and all sources are discussed relative to these:

     1. current inventory - all sources for 1969

     2. background inventory - all sources for 1990 not directly related
                               to the Meadowlands plans.

     3. plans inventories - all sources for 1990 related to the Meadow-
                            lands plans.
                                       Xlll
                                                                                 j

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                     Page
PREFACE                                                               iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                                      vii
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS                                                   ix
TERMINOLOGY                                                           xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                     xv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - Part I                                        xx
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - Part II
                 PART I  EMISSION PROJECT METHODOLOGY
1.   BACKGROUND                                                        1
     1.1  General Applicability                                        1
     1.2  Pollutants Investigated                                      1
     1.3  Confidentiality      .                                        2
     1.4  Planning Activitiy Data                                      2
     1.5  Meadowlands Case Study                                       4
2.   REQUIREMENTS OF THE AQUIP SYSTEM                                  7
     2.1  Role of Emissions in the System                              7
     2.2  Requirements Due to Modeling                                10
          2.2.1  Scale of Analysis                                    10
          2.2.2  Criteria for Grid Size Selection                     11
3.   REGULATIONS AND" CONTROL TECHNOLOGY                               15
     3.1  Role of Control Technology                                  15
     3.2  Emission Control Regulations                                17
          3.2.1  Quantifying the Regulations                          18
          3.2.2  Applicable Regulations                               20
          3.2.3  Regulations Tested                                   22
          3.2.4  Summary of Findings                                  22
     3.3  Air Quality Standards                                       23
                                   xv

-------
                              TABLE  OF  CONTENTS, contd.
                                                                     Page
    4.  DEVELOPMENT OF THE METHODOLOGY                                27


    4.1  General Philosophy                                           27


         4.1.1  Development of New Approaches                         27


         4.1.2  Constraints                                           29


    4.2  Use of a Multi-Step Approach                                 30


         4.2.1  Procedures for Determining Emissions                  33


         4.2.2  Examples of the Procedures                            36


         4.2.3  Problems in Obtaining Data                            39


    4.3  Current Inventory Data                                       42


         4.3.1  Zones of Analysis                                     42


         4.3.2  Initial Criteria                                      44


         4.3.3  Final Criteria    "                                   45


         4.3.4  General Approach                                      47


    4.4  Background Inventory Criteria                                47

         4.4.1  Zones of Analysis                                     50


         4.4.2  Changes in Criteria                                   50


         4.4.3  General Approach                                      53


5.  ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS                                       55


    5.1  Activity Data                                                55


         5.1.1  The Four Land Use Plans                                55


         5.1.2  Sources of Data                                       61


         5.1.3  Problems with Data Hierarchy                          63


         5.1.4  Summary of Planning Decisions                         54


         5.1.5  Determination of Development Characteristics          55


         5.1.6  Determination of Heating Requirements                59


         5.1.7  Determination of Non-Heating Emissions                70
                                   xvi

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS, contd
                                                                 Page

     5.1.8   Industrial Sources                                   71

     5.1.9   Data Procedures                                      72

     5.1.10  Existing Land Uses                                   73

     5.1.11  Changes in the Plans                                 73

     5.1.12  Background Activity Data                             74

5.2  Activity Indices                                             75

     5.2.1   Activity Indices for Meadowlands Plans               75

     5.2.2   Activity Indices for Background Point Sources        82

     5.2.3   Activity Indices for Background Area Sources         86

5.3  Fuel Supply and Demand                                       90

     5.3.1   Current Fuel Consumption                             91

     5.3.2   Total Fuel Consumption - 1990                        95

     5.3.3   1990 Point Source Fuel Use                           95

     5.3.4   1990 Area Source Fuel Use                            98

5.4  Emission Factors                                             98

     5.4.1   Present Emission Factors                             99

     5.4.2   Projection Methodology                              101

     5.4.3   1990 Emission Factors                               102

5.5  Emission Characteristics                                    107
                               xvi i

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS, contd.
                                                                     Page
                                 PART II                             111

PREFACE TO PART II                                                   113

1.   EMISSION CATALOG SPECIFICATIONS                                 115

     1.1.  AQUIP Emission Data Sets                                  115

     1.2.  Sources of Data                                           117

2.   CURRENT EMISSION INVENTORY                                      121

     2.1.  Components of the Inventory                               121

     2.2.  Current Point Source Emission Inventory                   121

           2.2.1.  Approach to Data Acquisition                      128

           2.2.2.  Development of the Data                           128

           2.2.3.  Types of Information Sought                       130

           2.2.4.  Supplemental Data                                 132

           2.2.5.  Data Completeness and Quality                     138

           2.2.6.  General Comments on Future Information Gathering  144
                                                •»'
           2.2.7.  Default Parameters                                145

     2.3.  Current Line Source Emission Inventory                    146

     2.4.  Current Area Source Emission Inventory                    152

           2.4.1.  New Jersey Fuel Emissions                         153

           2.4.2.  New Jersey Non-Fuel Emissions                     154

           2.4.3.  New York City Emissions                           155

           2.4.4.  New York State Emissions                          158

           2.4.5.  Summary of Inventory

           2.4.6.  Accuracy of Analysis
                                     xvm

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS, contd.

                                                                     Page
     BACKGROUND EMISSION INVENTORY                                   163

     3.1.  Components of the Inventory                               163

     3.2.  Background Point Source Emission Inventory                163

           3.2.1.  Industrial Point Source Projections               164

           3.2.2.  Power Plant Projection                            176

           3.2.3.  Refuse Incineration                               189

     3.3.  Background Line Source Emission Inventory                 195

     3.4.  Background Area Source Emission Inventory                 196

           3.4.1.  Determination of Fuel Burning Emissions           197

           3.4.2.  Determination of Non-Fuel Emissions               202

           3.4.3.  Summary of Inventory                              207

4.   1990 LAND USE PLANS                                             211

     4.1.  Introduction                                              211

 :          4.1.1.  Major Land Use Categories                         211

           4.1.2.  Determining Heating Requirements                  214

           4.1.3.  Calculating Emissions                             215

     4.2.  Activities and Activity Indices                           215

           4.2.1.  Description of the Activity Categories            216

           4.2.2.  Decisions Affecting Heating Demand                217

     4.3.  Fuel Decisions                                            226

     4.4.  Emission Factors                                          233

     4.5.  Criteria for Determining Point Sources                    237

     4.6.  Highway Emissions                                         238

     4.7.  Meadowlands Incinerator Emissions                         240

REFERENCES                                                           245

GLOSSARY                                                             249
                                    xix

-------
                          LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

                                 PART I

Figure                                                               Page

1-1     AQUIP System Information Flow                                  8

1-2     AQUIP System Information Flow:   Background Emission
        Inventories                                                    9

1-3     Seventeen County Influence Region                             13

1-4     Area Source Grid System                                       14

1-5     Emission Control Regulations                                   21

1-6     Derivation of Air Quality Standards                            24

1-7     Five Steps to Determine Emissions from Activities              34

1-8     Two Phases to Projecting Emissions                            35

1-9     Examples of Steps in Determining Emissions                    37

I-10    Analysis Zones for Current Inventory                          43

I-11    Current Inventory Point Source  Criteria                       48

1-12    Analysis Zone for 1990 Inventory                              51

1-13    1990 Background Inventory Point Source Criteria               52

1-14    Plan 1                                                        56

1-15    Plan 1A                                                       57

1-16    Plan IB                                           .            58

1-17    Plan 1C                                                       59

1-18    Distribution of Land Uses for the Four Alternative
        Plans                                                         60

1-19    Schematic of Island Residential Land Use                      66

1-20    Schematic of Commercial and Industrial Land Uses               68

1-21    Activity Indices for Meadowlands Plans                        76

1-22    Activity Indices for Background Inventory Point Sources        77

1-23    Activity Indices for Background Inventory Area Sources  -
        Fuel Burning                                                  78
                                   xxi

-------
                      LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Contd.

Figure

1-24    Activity Indices for Background Inventory Area Sources  -
        Non Fuel Burning                                              79

1-25    Summary of Fuel Use - 1965                                    92

1-26    Summary of Fuel Use - 1969                                    93

1-27    Summary of Fuel Use - 1990                                    94

1-28    Comparison of Fuel  Use Propensities                          96

1-29    Comparison of Total Fuel Demand                               97

1-30    Summary of Emission Factors                                  100

1-31    Pollutant Priority Rating                                    103

1-32    Seasonal and Stack Parameters                                 108

                                 PART  II

II-1    Flow of Information for 1990 Model Inputs                    116

II-2    Relation of Sources of Information                           118

II-3    Summary Information for All Point Sources -  Current
        Inventory                                                    123

II-4    1969 Point Source Fuel Emissions                             133

II-5    1969 Point Source Industrial Process Emissions                137

II-6    New Jersey Point Sources for Zones 1 through 3                139

II-7    Point Source Activity Data                                   141

II-8    Summary of Line Source Parameters                            147

II-9    Summary of Line Source Emissions                             150

11-10   Highway Link for 1969 and 1990                               151

11-11   Area Source Fuel Emissions                                   156

11-12   Area Sources Non-Fuel Emissions                              157

11-13   Current Area Source Emission Inventory                       159

11-14   Area Source Grid System                                      160
                                  xxi i

-------
                      LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Contd.

Figure                                                               Page

11-15   Tri-State Grid                                               166

11-16   Point Source Projecting Data                                 167

11-17   1990 Point Source Fuel Emissions - New Jersey                170

11-18   Point Source Fuel Use Changes - New York                     173

11-19   1990 Point Source Industrial Process Emissions  -
        New Jersey                                                   174

11-20   Summary Information for all New Point Sources                177

11-21   Installed Capacity for Region's Power Plants                  180

11-22   Point Source Power and Incinerator Assumptions                183

11-23   Summary of Tests Against Emission Regulations                186

11-24   Determination of Incineration                                191

11-25 _  Background Area Source Assumptions - Fuel Demand and Use     198

11-26   Area Source Fuel Emissions - 1990 for New Jersey             203

11-27   Area Source Power and Incineration Assumptions                204

11-28   Derivation of Area Source Transportation Emissions            206

11-29   Area Source Non-Fuel Emissions - 1990 for New Jersey         208

11-30   Background Area Source Emissions Inventory                    209

11-31   Flow Information From Activities to Emissions        .        212

II-32   Land Use Activities                                          213

11-33   Decisions Affecting Heating Demand                           218

11-34   Plan Activities Indices                                      220

11-35   Plan Fuel Use Allocation                                     227

11-36   List of Plan Emission Factors as Presented  by the
        LANTRAN Program                                              234

11-37   Allocation of Emissions to Point and Area Sources            239

11-38   Plan Highway Allocation                                      241
                                  XXlll

-------
                 PART I:  EMISSION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY






                              1.  BACKGROUND








 1.1  General Applicability






     One of the major purposes of the study was to develop a general tool



 to aid planners in determining emissions directly from activity data, and




 to apply this tool to a case study for the Hackensack Meadowlands.  As the



 study developed compromises had to be made when the requirements of the




 Meadowlands analysis were in conflict with the general methodology.  In all



 cases the premise was made that the procedures should be transferable  to



 other regions and that no procedure should be used if it were specific to




 the Meadowlands.  Wherever possible particular approaches or applications




 which reflect unique characteristics of the Meadowlands and their  transla-




 tion to a general case have been pointed out.






 1.2  Pollutants Investigated






     EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection were    /



 originally interested in six pollutants:  total suspended particulates




 (herein referred to as particulates or TSP), sulfur dioxide (SOO, carbon



 monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitrogen (NO,.), and oxidants.



 It was recognized from the outset that oxidants could not  be modeled directly



 and would have to be examined by a secondary analysis.   Furthermore,  there



was no way to validate our estimates for oxidants.  Therefore,  it was agreed



upon early in the analysis that oxidants would not be considered in the study.



     Although much of the existing emissions information is confined to



 sulfur dioxides and particulates all of the analyses were carried out



 for all five pollutants equally.  In many cases this meant a great deal of



 extra effort, as in the determination of separate process  emissions for

-------
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen, but it was essential



for maintaining a consistent analysis of each pollutant so that the final



determination of impact for Meadowlands plans could involve comparison be-



tween pollutants as well as the combined effect of all pollutants.



     As a result of these efforts the first comprehensive detailed inven-



tory for certain pollutants for this region has been developed.  However,



the scope of the task did not include improvement, updating or verification




of current emission inventories for the New York region and therefore these



data should not be used for purposes beyond those intended.






1.3  Confidentiality





     The development of emissions inventories depends to a very large extent



on the cooperation of individual emitters.  Because of the nature of the data



and the competitiveness of many of the industries, it is extremely important



that the confidentiality of the information for individual sources  be main-



tained.  Accordingly, as a part of this study, all point sources are referred



to only by number and industrial category.  No mention is made or is intended



for individual sources by name.  In addition, only data from Federal and



state air pollution agencies provided specifically for this study was used.



In turn it is these same agencies who will be reviewing the results; there-



fore, there is no net transfer of confidential information on point sources



from one interested party to another.





1.4  Planning Activity Data





     As a part of this study air pollution emissions have been characterized



as a function of land use and transportation planning data, referred to as



"activities".  Such planning information may consist of specific data on the

-------
development of parcels of land, zoning regulations,  tables of statistics



such as employment projections, vehicular travel assignments, capital  im-




provement programs, and information specific to an activity such as  the



extension of utility lines.  In general this study was concerned only with




planning data for activities which would contribute to air pollutant emissions,




Furthermore, it was necessary that the planning data be spatially located



so that emissions could likewise be spatially assigned.  This makes  it




difficult to use a great deal of information, such as general tables of



statistics or capital improvement program material, that do not locate



specific projects and give their magnitude.



     Air pollutant emission patterns are a function of the intensity of



land use as well as the type and location of the land use.  In most cases




neither regional nor local plans give an adequate indication of the inten-



sity of development so that emissions can be accurately assessed.  The infor-



mation provided by the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission was very detailed



due in part to the fact that it was designed for this study.  Information



existed from zoning ordinances on the intensity of development by detailed



categories of activity.



     However, investigation of the Tri-State Transportation data and the




New York City Planning Commission data as representative of what might be



available showed that estimates are forthcoming, in general, for only such,



pvrameters as population, total employment, square foot usage by various



categories, and vehicular travel.  Therefore, the extension of the procedures



to other regions must take into account the less detailed information that



characterizes most planning data.  The procedures that were formulated for



the background area, using Tri-State Transportation data, may be more

-------
representative of certain general situations.  On the other hand the air


quality determined from such data can only be assessed on a regional basis.


Furthermore, the development of the procedures for the background area was


of secondary priority in this study and, therefore, the applicability was


not adequately tested.



1.5  Meadowlands Case Study



     The proposed development of the Hackensack Meadowlands area is quite


unique in many aspects.  It involves very intensive development in a highly


industrialized and densely populated area.  It is, therefore, not character-


istic of many proposed new town projects.  Secondly, because it does involve


new development in an area where little current development exists, it can-


not be characterized as representative of urban redevelopment programs.


These differences should be kept in mind when attempts are made to translate


the methodologies to other planning situations.


     Furthermore the Meadowlands area represents the possibility of highly


controlled development with many single projects built at a much larger


scale than normally found.  For this reason the concept of large scale


central heating systems is much more heavily emphasized for the Meadowlands


plans than would generally be true.  In addition, because of the high den-


sity development anticipated, the concepts of low, medium, and high density


housing takes on a different meaning here.  A density of ten housing units

                 *
or dwelling units  per acre would generally be considered fairly high;


however, this is the low density category specified for the Meadowlands,


whereas high density is 50 to 80 dwelling units per acre.
  The term "dwelling unit" is used in this report since it was contained

  in the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commissions land use plans  and
  supporting data.

                                    4

-------
     The reliance on large-scale planned projects with integrated commercial




and institutional facilities greatly lessens the need for the automobile for



local travel.  Therefore most vehicular travel is assigned to major highways.




This, too, would not be representative of many other planning situations.




     These unique characteristics of the Meadowlands in no way invalidate




the procedures developed.  However, their existence means that caution should



be exercised in translating the exact indices used for the Meadowlands to



other situations.  For instance, the analysis of low density housing for



the Meadowlands should not be transferred intact to 2 and 3 acre zoning,



nor should the negligible amount of local motor vehicle emissions.

-------
                   2.  REQUIREMENTS OF THE AQUIP SYSTEM








 2.1  Role of Emissions in the System






     The development and the use of the emissions inventories are only one



set of steps in the AQUIP system.  Figure 1-1 shows the general flow of



 information in the AQUIP system from the specification of land use plans



 through to plan evaluation and ranking.  Only the first three boxes relate




 to emissions inventories.  In a general sense the information on land use



plans is translated directly into emissions by the use of the conversion



 factors catalog.  This catalog contains all necessary information on heating



requirements, fuel use, process emissions and the manner in which specific




activities produce air pollutant emissions.



     It is intended as the black box for the planner to use: he can input



his land use planning information and obtain a profile of the air pollution



emissions that would result.  The content and form of the land use plan is



determined by the specific interests of the planner.  On the other hand,



the content and form of the emissions inventories is mainly a function of




aodeling requirements.  Finally, the conversion factors catalog is directly



a function of the information needed to translate the land use plans into



the required emissions inventories.




     Figure 1-2 shows the relationship of the background emission inventories



^o this process and to the initial step of model validation using current air



quality data.   As noted in the glossary of terms the background inventories



include all sources not directly related to the Meadowlands plans.

-------
5141
                                                                                 Land Use
                                                                                Receptors
                                         Emissions
                                         Inventory
Projected
   Air
 Quality
Evaluation
                                      Figure 1-1  AQUIP System  Information  Flow

-------
5142
                   Figure  1-2  AQUIP System Information Flow:   Background Emission Inventories

-------
2.2  Requirements Due To Modeling




                                  1 2
     The diffusion model  (MARTIK) '   used in this study accepts



data on emission rates for discrete point, line and area sources.



Point sources can be defined as major single emitters termed significant



by the particular criteria of the study.  Line sources represent mobile



emissions characterized by highway or other transportation line segments



that are similarly of significance according to the criteria of the study.



All other individual sources of emission and mobile sources, together with



general area-wide sources (such as home heating) are aggregated into area



grid cells.  The emission rate for any one grid cell is assumed to be uni-



form over its area and is the sum of all contributing sources contained



within that cell.



     The criteria for deciding what sources should be point, line, or area



specific were determined in conjunction with the modeling requirements for



this study.  This approach greatly determined the form and content of the



emissions inventories developed.   Furthermore, the area-wide sources assigned



to grid cells are, by definition, the residual of total emissions minus the



specific point and line sources.   It should be stressed that the emissions



inventories used were in response to the specific study objectives and con-



straints and were not designed to improve our knowledge of total emissions



in the New York area or for any other purposes outside the scope of the study.





     2.2.1  Scale of Analysis





     The scale of analysis to be  undertaken is a function of both the model



requirements and the availability of information.  Stated simply, if the



model could distinguish among all sources of emissions and if every source
                                   10

-------
could be identified uniquely, both the data and the corresponding results



would be more accurate.  However, a point of diminishing returns is rapidly



reached in terms of the amount of information that the model.can accurately



reflect on a small scale basis and the cost of obtaining and using that



information.  It was hoped that at least two different scales of analysis



could be identified in the existing emissions inventories so as to test out



the question of accuracy in emissions estimation.  One scale was to have


                                                           3 4
consisted of the EPA 1965-1966 Regional Abatement Inventory  '  while the



other was to have been a more detailed assessment of current emissions



prepared as a part of the study.  The availability of information was such



that no reasonable comparative analysis could be made relative to present



air quality; therefore, it was necessary to make the assessment based upon



an incomplete current inventory and its comparison to the current air



quality.





     2.2.2  Criteria For Grid Size Selection





     The selection of a grid size for area source modeling depends upon many



factors including accuracy of the diffusion model, emissions inventory data,



and the meteorological, topographical and climatological features of the



region under study.  It was felt that a grid size much below 2,000 ft. on



•-\ side would tend to overpower the model while not yielding more accurate



results.  Further, grid sizes much smaller than the zone sizes of the original



land use and planning data can lead to misleading conclusions in terms of



data accuracy.



     The 1 km  grid system established by the Meadowlands Commission served



as a base for all future grid cell decisions.  Grid cells used for the area



source inventories were always multiples of this system.  Improved data for
                                     11

-------
the area sources for the region surrounding the Meadowlands would have
allowed investigation of a grid system for that area in more detail; however,
it is not possible to conclude how much this would have increased the accuracy
of the analysis.
     One aspect of the validation analysis was to define the region of in-
fluence for the Meadowlands area.  Based upon the availability of information,
the 17 county New York Abatement Region '  was defined as the initial area for
analysis with the assumption that some influence from the Philadelphia
area might be required.  The data available from the 17 county region was not
accurate enough in practice to warrant selecting a subsection of the 17 county
area for use in 1990.  Therefore, the entire 17 county region was used as the
influence region for both the current and 1990 analysis.
     Sensitivity tests showed that the influence of the Philadelphia area
would not be significant.  Furthermore, the degree to which this influence
could be specified would not have significantly increased the accuracy of
the analysis.  Figure 1-3 shows the 17 county.influence region while Figure
1-4 shows the area source grid cell system to which the influence region data
were assigned.
                                     12

-------
 NEW    Y/'O
           	X
NEW   J  E
      Figure 1-3  Seventeen County  Influence  Region
                           13

-------
                                                            4589
                                                            4573
                                                            4551
                                                            4:41
                                                            4525
                                                            4509
                                                            4493
                                                            4477
                                                            4461
                                                            4445
490     506     522      538     554      570      586     602     618
                                                 634     650
                                                            4429
Figure  1-4   Area  Source Grid System
                  14

-------
                  3.  REGULATIONS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY








3.1  Role of Control Technology






     One of the important peripheral aspects of this study was the examination



of control technology as it would influence emissions for 1990.  Because of




the enormous scope of such a task it was necessary to make a number of



simplifying assumptions at the outset.  First, changes in the actual level




of activity or production of emission sources were made only according to



available information from planning, commerce, and air pollution agencies.



Np_ attempt was made to analyze changes in manufacturing processes as they




would influence emissions (definitely outside the scope of this study).



     Secondly, changes in habits or patterns such as the amount of heat that



would be required per square foot for a dwelling or an office building were



made only where it was strongly evident.  Otherwise a conservative approach



was used and the heat requirement that was found for the current inventory




was carried forward to 1990.



     Thirdly, changes in overall fuel use patterns were again made with




conservatism. Major shifts such as from coal to oil and gas were naturally



taken into account.  However, unless there was strong evidence to the contrary



the fuel use propensity for individual sources was kept the same in 1990 as



found in 1969.  For new sources and particularly for sources resulting from



•_he Meadowlands Plans, logical design fuels were assigned.  The most important




assumption was that there would not be as drastic a switch to natural gas as has



been suggested by numerous sources.  This switch was tempered in our analysis



due to more recent appraisals of the supply.  Sulfur content of fuels burned



in the study area has major direct effect on the determination of sulfur dioxide
                                    15

-------
emissions.  The 1968 New Jersey sulfur regulations were used for all calcu-




lations of the current inventory.  This consists of anthracite coal .7%




sulfur, bituminous coal 1% sulfur, residual oil 1% sulfur and distillate oil




.7% sulfur.  For all sources in New York and Connecticut, EPA had used the




most applicable sulfur contents in calculating the emissions for their region-




al update inventory .  These emissions were used directly in this study.  In




calculating the 1990 emissions the appropriate sulfur regulations for the




State of New Jersey as promulgated were used in determining 1990 emission



factors.




     Fourthly, in determining emission factors for 1990 published feasible




control technology for fuel burning was used wherever appropriate. However,



process control for that time period is unclear and more of a problem to



incorporate into the emission factors for several reasons.  In many cases the




appropriate indices for determining process rate are not available. Further-



more, new emission regulations for processes were being promulgated while



the study was being conducted, but were not yet available at the time deci-



sions had to be made.  Therefore, a proportional reduction emission factor




for sources that exist now was used in consultation with the appropriate



air pollution agencies and a proportion of the fuel emissions was applied



for industrial separate process sources occurring as a result of the Meadow-




lands Plans.  As the requisite information becomes available it can be in-



corporated into the procedures and into the data sets of the AQUIP system.



     Fifthly, it was necessary to derive default stack height and plume



rise values for numerous fuel and process stacks in the current inventory.



Furthermore, for 1990 with the exception of power plant design parameters,



it was necessary to rely on the existing stack height and plume rise values



adjusted for an increase in plume rise of approximately 20% where a default




values was necessary.



                                     16

-------
     In summary, it was possible to incorporate the latest control technology




only insofar as it could be determined for the fuel emission factors, as ex-



plained in the literature.  There were insufficient data to adequately assess




process emissions control and we did not examine changes in manufacturing




processes themselves were not examined, this being beyond the scope of this study.





3.2  Emission Control Regulations






     Various federal, state and local air pollution agencies have promulgated



or will be promulgating emission control regulations.  These limit the amount



of effluent that may be released from a stack under various conditions.   It




is possible for a future time period such as 1990 that with the most appro-



priate emission factors and control technology information a source may still




not meet the applicable emission control regulations.  Therefore, it is  impor-



tant to include as a final step in the emissions projection methodology a



check against applicable emission control regulations.  If the emissions as



determined do not meet regulations then a feed back loop in the process  becomes




necessary to re-determine activities or fuel.



     As a part of the study, therefore, it was necessary to determine the



applicable emission control regulations affecting the Meadowlands and the



influence region.  As a result of the available information the existing or



proposed regulations as of August 1971 were used as representative of 1990



control, thereby unavoidably introducing a weakness into the analysis.  It



should be recognized that several of the involved federal, state and local




agencies are presently contemplating changing their emission regulations



and certainly new regulations will be promulgated in the future.  However,



it was  beyond the scope of this study to try to determine the nature of these




possible regulations.  As a part of any future analysis the appropriate
                                    17

-------
emission control regulations should be updated to reflect the most recent




information.




     There are six major jurisdictions that formulate and enforce emission




control regulations in the study area.  These are Federal, State of New




Jersey, State of New York, New York City, State of Connecticut, and the




Hackensack Meadowlands Commission.  Because the Hackensack Meadowlands




Commission regulations had not been finalized at the time of analysis and




because they dealt with density controls}it was decided to use only the




applicable New Jersey regulations for that area.  Unfortunately there is a



pyramiding effect in the areas controlled by the respective agencies.  Local




agencies have jurisdiction over the immediate vicinity, state agencies over




the entire state, including the local areas, and the federal agency has



jurisdiction over the entire 17 county region.  Accordingly, a particular




source such as a power plant in New York City may be subject to the emission



control regulations of at least three jurisdictions.  It is likewise possible



for a single agency to have more than one regulation affecting the emission of



any particular pollutant from a specific source.






     3.2.1  Quantifying the Regulations






     An emission standard or control regulation is a limit on the amount




of a pollutant emitted from a source.  The concentration in the effluent



may be stated subjectively in terms of its appearance to the observer



or objectively in terms of the stack height or rated heat input.



Subjective standards based on visual measurements could not be analyzed in




this study since the regulation could not be quantified for comparison pur-



poses.  Since fuel regulations are incorporated into the emission factor



analysis those regulations which can be tested for 1990 are those which
                                    18

-------
directly limit emissions based on weight or volumetric bases.   Accordingly,




the respective emission control regulations of the Federal government,  the




States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and the City of New York were



analyzed to determine the applicable regulations based on weight or volumetric



consideration.




     It was found that the regulations promulgated by the various agencies fr




the same pollutant often consider a different parameter as the basis for con-



trol.  For instance, particulate emissions may be regulated based on indices



of stack height, distance from property line, boiler capacity, percent  of




exit gas volume or weight of the gas.   Because of the great variation in the



regulations and in the manner in which they are stated a number of simplifi-




cations and definitions were made for the purpose of the analysis.



     1.  An emission control regulation or standard is a mechanism which



controls the emission of one of the five major air pollutants  by restriction



based on some characteristic of the source.  For the purpose of this study



the regulations quantify the restriction.



     2.  Restrictions on fuel composition (specifically on the  content of



sulfur)are not considered to be emission regulations per se and are incor-



porated into the 1990 emission factors.



     3.  Regulations on the opacity of smoke which generally employ the



Ringelmann Charts are not considered emission regulations although they




may indirectly control particulates.  Opacity cannot be quantified for  use.



Furthermore, many factors besides particulate emissions can and do effect the




use of opacity charts.
                                    19

-------
     3.2.2  Applicable Regulations


     When these various problems and assumptions were taken into account

twenty-seven regulations were found to be appropriate for consideration in

the study.  These are summarized in Figure 1-5.  The regulations were dis-
                                 *
cussed at the Milestone 5 meeting  and the following decisions made.  All

federal regulations were eliminated from analysis under the assumption that

the appropriate state regulations were more stringent and therefore should

supersede the federal regulations.  Secondly, a number of regulations were

eliminated from further consideration because no sources existed in the

inventory to which the regulations would apply.  The remaining regulations

were analyzed in greater detail to determine the ability to quantify their

restrictions and to use them in the study.

     Unfortunately, the remaining three regulations applying to the State

of New Jersey were found to be inappropriate for analysis because insuf-

ficient data were available through the emission inventory to assess whether

or not the particular sources could meet the emission control regulation.

These regulations require a great deal of detailed information about the

particular source and in most cases cannot be assessed adequately without

stack testing.   In brief there was not sufficient information in the current

point source inventory to allow accurate analysis of the regulations.  There-

fore, it would be impossible to try to project parameters forward to 1990

to test the regulations.   Furthermore, the type of averaged parameters that

can be estimated for point sources occurring in the Meadowlands do not lend

themselves at all to this type of analysis.
*  A series of Milestone meetings were held throughout the study between EPA,
   NJDEP, and ERT to review progress and approve aspects of both the approach
   and data used.  Many decisions stated herein are a result of these meetings,
                                    20

-------
                                                      FIGURE  1-5
                                            Emission  Control  Regulations
Pollutant
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Jurisdiction
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
N.J.
N.J.
N.J.
N.Y.
N.Y.
.N.Y.
N.Y.
N.Y.C.
N.Y.C.
N.Y.C.
Conn.
Conn.
Conn .
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
N.J.
N.Y.C.
N.Y.C.
Oxides of Nitrogen Federal
Oxides of Nitrogen N.Y.C.
Regulation
Sect. 3.4.1
Sect. 3.4.21
Sect. 3.5.1
Sect. 3.3.1
Sect. 5.2.1
Sect. 7.2.15 5 .16
Sect. 11.1
Sect. 202.2
Sect. 187. 3a
Sect. 194.4
Sect. 188.3
Sect. 1403.2-9.09 (a) (2)
Sect. 1403.2-9.23
Sect. 1403.2-9.09 (a) (1)
Sect. 19-13 G38
Sect. 19-13 B32
Sect. 19-13 G16a
Sect. 4.12
Sect. 4.1.3
Sect. 4.2.1
Sect. 4.4.1
Sect. 4.5.1
Sect. 8.22 (a) 6 (b)
Sect. 140.3. 2-9. 07b
Sect. 1403.2-9.07(a)
Sect. 7.1.1-7.12
Sect. 1403.2-9.13
Sources
Fuel Burning (Solid)
Fuel Burning (Oil)
Process
Incineration
Solid Fuel
Process
Incineration
Solid Fuel, power
Process
Incineration
Ferrous Jobbing Foundaries
Fuel Burning
Process
Incineration
Fuel Burning
Process
Incineration
Fuel Burning
Refineries
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Nonferrous Smelters
Sulphyte Pulp Mills
Sulfur Compounds
Fuel Burning
Processes
Fuel Burning
Fuel Burning
Analysis
No*
No*
No*
No*
None in 1990, assumed
Insufficient data: rate
Insufficient data: exhaust volume
None in 1990, assumed
None in inventory
Yes
None in inventory
Yes
None in inventory
Yes
Yes
None in inventory
None in inventory
No*
No*
No*
No*
No*
Insufficient data: stack
Yes
None in inventory
No*
Yes
*Agreed upon between ERT,  EPA,  and NJDEP  not to consider any  federal  regulations.

-------
     3.2.3  Regulations Tested






     As a result of these decisions six regulations were chosen as appro-




priate for analysis.  Four of these regulations concerned particulates and




one each for sulfur oxides and oxides of nitrogen.  Three of the regulations




concerned fuel burning in New York City (for particulates, sulfur oxides and




nitrogen oxides).  The remaining three regulations affecting particulates




were for New York City incineration, incineration for the remaining counties




of New York State within the study area, and fuel burning in Connecticut.




     Since the greatest efforts of the study were concentrated on New Jersey




sources, particularly point sources, the information available to test the



regulations for New York and Connecticut was not as good as might be hoped



for.  Furthermore, the projection methodology to determine 1990 point sources




was also concentrated on the New Jersey area and, therefore, 1990 point




source decisions for New York and Connecticut were based predominately on



exogenous factors and existing data extrapolated forward to 1990.  In




particular, this includes the power plant and incinerator projections made




independently from the projection methodology due to the special expertise



of the study team in these areas.






     3.2.4  Summary of Findings






     The actual comparison of the six regulations to the appropriate point



sources is discussed under the area on background point sources.  However,




the following points should be made in summary:



     1.  In no case could a satisfactory comparison be made resulting in



a yes or no decision as to whether a source would meet an emission control




regulation.
                                    22

-------
     2.  In no case were the available data sufficient to characterize the




individual point source to the level of detail required by the regulations.




     3.  The relationship of annual fuel use to the number of hours of




operation as expressed in the regulations is inconsistent with the form of




the data in the inventory.




     4.  The use of average emission factors may not be representative of




a particular source.




     5.  The use of existing stack parameters for projected sources when no




other information is available skews the analysis further.




     6.  When all possible margin of error is taken into account it would




appear that several New York City power plants may not meet the NO  emission
                                                                  A.



control regulations.  However, it is not possible to make a definitive state-




ment due to the inaccuracies of the data available relative to the analysis




requirements.






3.3  Air Quality Standards






     One of the major tasks of the study was to examine the air quality




resulting from each of the four plans for the Hackensack Meadowlands relative




to the appropriate air quality standards.  Both federal and state standards




have been established for each of the five pollutants.  As a result of the




Milestone 4 meeting it was determined that the New Jersey State standards




would have precedent and that Federal standards would be used only if the




New Jersey standards were inappropriate to the time period modeled.  Since




the modeled air quality represents an annual arithmetic mean (or a seasonal




arithmetic mean) it was determined that the only standard for which compar-




isons could be made would be the annual arithmetic mean.  Unfortunately,




the standards that have been promulgated are for various time averaging




periods as shown in Figure 1-6.



                                     23

-------
                                                     FIGURE 1-6

                                        Derivation of Air Quality Standards


TSP
so2
CO
HC
N02
1-hr, max
P. S. N.J.


3-hr, max
P. S. N.J.

468.
40000.40000.15000.


160. 160. 160.

ug/m
8-hr, max
P. S. N.J.


3
24-hr, max
P. S. N.J.
260. 150. 150.
365. 260. 260.
10000.10000.10000.



250. 250.
Annual
Geom. Mean
P. S. N.J.
75. 60. 65.




Annual
Arith. Mean
P. S. N.J.

80. 60. 53.


100. 100. 100.
Baseline and
Jurisdiction

65. N.J.
53. N.J.
10000. N.J.
160. Fed.
100. N.J.
Annual
Arith Mean *

70.1
53.0 0.020
1425.0 1.250
160. 0.24
100.0 0.053
NOTES:
          P = Federal primary standard
          S = Federal secondary standard
          Federal primary and secondary maxima may be exceeded once per year;
          New Jersey maxima may be attained once.

          Baseline values are in yg/m  and are for
               verifying averaging periods as follows:

               TSP   annual geometric mean
               SO-   annual arithmetic mean
               CO    8-hr maximum
               HC    3-hr maximum
               N0?   annual arithmetic mean

          Annual arithmetic mean values for TSP and CO
               derived from above using Larson's model.

          * Extrapolation of 3-hour standard to an
               annual average not considered valid.

-------
 It was therefore necessary to determine the appropriate baseline standards

 and then to translate these into the annual arithmetic mean standard.

     As a result of the Milestone 4 meeting the following baseline standards

 were adopted:

     0   For particulates, the New Jersey annual geometric mean

     0   For sulfur dioxide, the New Jersey annual arithmetic mean

     0   For carbon monoxide, the New Jersey eight-hour maximum value

     0   For hydrocarbon, the federal secondary three-hour maximum value

     «   For nitrogen dioxide, the New Jersey annual arithmetic mean.

     In each of the three cases where the baseline standard was not the

annual arithmetic mean a standard procedure incorporating Larson's model  was

 to be used to calculate the annual arithmetic mean.  Larson's model requires

 information on the standard deviation of measurements.   Accordingly, information

 from recent New Jersey measurement programs was used to determine appropriate

 standard deviations.  The last two columns in Figure 1-6 show the annual

arithmetic means to be used in the analysis, in terms of micrograms per

cubic meter and parts per million.
                                          •i~
     The air quality standards did not enter into the emission inventory

procedure directly in any way.  Rather they were determined at this stage

in the analysis for later use in assessing the impact of each^of the land

use plans on air quality.
                                     25

-------
                    4.  DEVELOPMENT. OF THE METHODOLOGY








4.1  General Philosophy






     Air pollutant emissions are generally determined as multiple or area



sources because: 1) it is not possible to survey all single source emitters



individually; 2) for most modeling and control purposes many small sources



can be treated as one area-wide source; and 3) the data handling and modeling




procedures have practical limits on the total number of sources to be con-



sidered.  Furthermore, when future sources of pollution are considered,



protective data does not usually exist to handle emissions on a single source



basis.  In fact, land use planners rarely deal with information that would



indicate individual sources of pollution.  Rather, they are concerned-with



general zones of land use which may or may not be sources of pollution.




     Accordingly, there is no correct scale or scope of analysis for area



source data.  Flexibility is needed for updating;for cell aggregation and



disaggregation, conversion to single source information}and computerized



interfacing for the uses desired, such as modeling.  In traditional approaches




to emission inventories , area-wide sources have generally been based too



heavily on population variables with emissions allocated to grid cells on a




gross scale.






     4.1.1  Development of New Approaches






     More reliable and detailed area-wide emission inventories can be developed



utilizing available socio-economic and planning data, including the censuses



of population, housing, manufacturing and fuel use.  Further, a computerized



system can be used to allocate the emissions to grid cells of varying size.
                                     27

-------
     Such techniques are aptly suited to continuous updating and projecting




analyses.  Area source emissions can be categorized as to whether they are




population and housing or employment related.  For instance, residential



space heating is housing related; commercial activities may fall into two




types: central area clustering related to employment and localized scattering




related to population.  Industrial activities, exclusive of those emitters




considered to be point sources, are related to industrial employment.




Institutional emissions may be population related with the exception of major




institutional complexes which are handled in a manner similar to commercial




clustering.  Finally, the information may be melded into a continuously




updated inventory on the most consistent data base possible, generally by



counties, cities and often by census tracts in the central part of the region.




     By orienting our thinking to such procedures for current emission



inventories we are in a much better position to develop techniques for future



emission inventories.  This is because future inventories must depend directly



upon planning related data..  Furthermore, it is only through an excellent



understanding of the relationship between planning and emissions for current



inventories that the necessary conversion factors can be developed to




project future emissions.



     Too often emission inventories are tied heavily to the grid cell used for




modeling purposes.  Much of the original information by land use zones or



political jurisdiction is lost in the process of transferring to the grid



system.  The grid cell size cannot be changed at a later date for different




purposes and a great deal of manual input of data must be undertaken.



     To avoid these problems, a powerful and innovative technique was developed




to make the processing of information independent of grid size.  The key to



the technique is the initial listing of land use activities and characteristics
                                    28

-------
 in a computer data bank by geographical coordinates and land use zones.




 Emissions data for each land use zone are computed by referencing the con-




 version factors catalog.  Finally, any specified grid size can be superimposed



 and the emissions contained within each grid cell calculated.




     If changes are desired in the initial land use data or if a different



 grid cell system is desired incremental changes can be made without destroying



 the entire data system.  Such a system provides for the maximum in updating



 and flexibility of use.






     4.1.2  Constraints






     To put such a philosophy into practice requires assumptions and com-



 promises: the data may not be available according to the land use zones




 and political jurisdictions desired; many of the parameters necessary for



 the conversion factors catalog may be missing from the data base.  The



 flexibility of the system is essential in the first case.  Since any size




 land use zone and any grid cell size can be used, information can initially



be coded by large jurisdictions, such as counties in a regional analysis.



 When more detailed information becomes available on a town or census tract



 basis, this information can be incorporated and more detailed values



 assigned to any arbitrary grid system.




     For missing data the concept of "default parameters" was developed.



 If information is desired according to an industrial classification  (such



 as the 4-digit SIC code) for the propensity to use  different fuels and the



 data are only available as a total  for all industries in the region,  a de-



 fault parameter is used to assign the industry-wide factor to each individual



 industry.  If, at a  later date, specific information for an  industry  is  known,



 it can be used in place of the  default parameter.





                                    29

-------
     The development of the conversion factors catalog itself requires a



great deal of analysis since numerous steps are involved to translate acti-




vities into emissions.  These steps vary according to the land use code.




Some activities produce fuel emissions whereas others produce only non-fuel



or process emissions.




     Finally, the step by step procedures and checking methods required to




develop and verify the default parameters involve careful coordination between




existing data and future requirements.






4.2  Use of a Multi-Step Approach






     The first step in developing an emission projection methodology useful



to planners involved identifying the major requirements or constraints of the




methodology.  Four broad requirements were defined as follows:




     1.  All procedures should be compatible with both the planning-related




data (inputs) and the diffusion modeling formats (outputs).



     2.  All assumptions should be applicable to other situations and not



specific to the Meadowlands; likewise, the scale of analysis should be



sensitive to individual land use activities and not just to overall develop-



ment plans.




     3.  All data needed for future time periods should be derivable from



existing information, unless normally supplied by planners.



     4.  All assumptions and constraints should be updatable as new information



becomes available.



     The first requirement was the most important.  Land use and transportation




planning data are typically in the form of:



     1.  Parcels of land of arbitrary size and shape, with their associated



permitted uses and densities of development.
                                     30

-------
     2.  Tables of statistics (such as employment projections by industrial



category), capital improvement plans and other non-spatial information.



     3.  Vehicular travel (assigned to network links or aggregated by zones).



In all cases a "level of activity" is specified or implied;  however,  this



may give little indication of the pollution-generating potential of the



activity.


                                                                  1 2
     On the other hand the modified Martin-Tikvart diffusion model '   used for



the study requires the specification of point, line and area source locations



together with their associated emission strengths and relevant stack dispersion



data.  The procedures, therefore, must be capable of transforming the land use



and transportation planning data - representing levels of activities for oddly



shaped land use zones, specific point locations, and highway links - into



emission strengths for any configuration of area source grid cells required



by the diffusion model, and for those individual point and line sources  not



aggregated into these area cells.  Ideally, source emission "size criteria",



used to determine which points and lines are treated separately and which



are aggregated into area cells, should be completely responsive to the



modeling decisions which govern the detail of the pollutant isopleths and be



fixed during emission inventory development.



     In many cases, emission inventories have been developed for a specific



use as a function of the limited data available.  As a second requirement of



the study all decisions regarding procedures to be used were to preserve the



adaptability of the techniques to other regions, to other development plans



and time periods for the same region, and to the analysis of component



activities of a land use plan as well as to overall comparison between plans.



Because of the time and budget constraints of the study, this requirement



demanded compromise:  the sensitivity to component activities could not be
                                    31

-------
analyzed and it is not possible to assess how readily translatable are all



techniques.




     The third requirement was the most complicated.  In order to have a



system that would require only planning-related data as routine input,




all other data should take the form of "default parameters" which the planner




would override only when he has more appropriate information for his region




or time period.  All of these parameters had to be estimated from available




national data  (as in the case of fuel and process emission factor trends for




1990) or be derived empirically from the existing emission inventories for the




New York - New Jersey area (as in the case of the percent of fuel used for



heating for each activity category).




     To satisfy the last requirement it was necessary to have all assumptions



and constraints fully disclosed and documented in this report and at the




Milestone meetings, and all default parameters capable of modification or




specification in greater detail by either activity category or geographical



area.  Most emission inventories have suffered from their static nature




since 1) assumptions and procedures are not well explained;  2) new infor-



mation cannot be incorporated into the inventory because of the aggregation



procedures;  and 3) accuracy tests can rarely be performed.



     The nature of the procedures as defined and implemented tended to preserve



this requirement.  However, the particular development characteristics of the



Meadowlands plans and the default parameters that had to be incorporated in




response to these characteristics limit the dynamic aspects of the techniques.
                                     32

-------
     4.2.1  Procedures for Determining Emissions






     Research presently being conducted on procedures for estimating emissions




from land use and transportation planning data often emphasizes empirical



derivation of emission indices as a direct one-step function of activity




categories.  For this study, however, a multi-step approach was necessary,




so that all assumptions and constraints involved in transforming the levels



of activities into emission strengths could be examined, and the procedures



for updating the default parameters specified.



     In response to the four requirements identified above, a five-step



procedure was formulated as shown in Figure 1-7:



     Step 1 - activities:  For all land use and transportation planning data



the level of activity is specified.




     Step 2 - activity indices: For each category of activity, default



parameters for determining fuel requirements are developed.



     Step 3 - fuel use:  For each category of activity (and geographical area)



default parameters for the propensity to use different fuels are applied to



the fuel requirements.



     Step 4 - emission factors: For each category of activity, engineering




estimates of fuel and process source emission factors are developed and




applied to fuel use and process rates.



     Step 5 - emissions:  Emissions calculated from fuel and process sources



are adjusted for seasons,  based on temperature variation (degree days)  and



default parameters representing the percent of fuel used for heating purposes.



     Furthermore, a two-phase procedure was employed as portrayed in Figure



1-8.  In the first phase current planning data and current fuel use are



correlated to produce projecting indices.  In the second phase these pro-



jecting indices are modified to reflect future time periods and are applied





                                     33

-------
5143
Activities


Activity
Indices


i
Fuel 1 Fuel
Demand j Use
1


Emission
Factors


Emissions
                          FIGURE 1-7    FIVE STEPS TO Di-TTJ'INE EMISSIONS  TROM ACTIVITIES

-------
5144
PHASE  I

Current
Inventories
Activities



Activity
Indices


Fuel Balance
\
Emission
Factors




Emissions

Default
Parameters
PHASE  g

Future
Inventories
Activities


Activity
Indices


\
Fuel | Fuel
Demand \ Use
\


Emission
Factors


Emissions
Planner
Inputs
                                           Figure 1-8   Two Phases to  Projecting Emissions

-------
to planning data so as to generate future fuel demand and emission levels.



     Current data on fuel use and emission factors are likewise used to pre-



dict future information.  The Phase I analysis provides the majority of the



default parameters to be used in Phase II in conjunction with the planner



inputs.  Phase I and Phase II can actually represent the same time period



if an iterative process is used.






     4.2.2  Examples of the Procedures






     Examples of the information needed to proceed from activities to emissions



are illustrated in Figure 1-9.  The three examples show, respectively, 1) a



residential land use zone represented as an area source; 2) an industrial



activity represented as a point source; and 3) a highway segment represented



as a line source.  The upper row of boxes deals with the kind of information



that the planner must provide; the next row summarizes some of the necessary



default parameters; and the bottom rows show typical dimensional units for




each step.  In practice a conversion must be made in the last step to the



dimensional units required by the diffusion model.



     First, looking specifically at the residential land use category shown



in Figure 1-9 there are several planning inputs that are required:



     Step 1^: The density and acreage can be used to determine the number of



dwelling units.



     Step 2: The average number of rooms and type of dwelling unit can be



used to determine the heating requirement per dwelling unit.



     Step 3: The mix of single family homes, town houses and apartments



can be used to determine what fuels will be burned and with what size



equipment.
                                    36

-------
                                                              Figure T.-9

                                             Examples  of Steps in Determining Emissions

i) area
ii) point
iii) line
Default Parameters
i) area
ii) point
iii) line
Dimensional Units
used in the study
i) area
ii) point
iii) line

Corresponding metric
Dimensional units
i) area
j ii) point
iii) line
Step 1 Step 2
Activities Activity Indices
dwelling units per acre rooms per dwelling unit
sq.ft. of industrial floor space ' floors per building
number of vehicles n.a.

BTU per dwelling unit
BTU per sq.ft. ;% fuel
for space heat
n.a.

d.u./acre x BTU/d.u.
sq.ft. x BTU/sq.ft.
veh. n.a.


d.u./km2 x Cal./d,u.
m2 x Cal./nT
veh. x n.a.
Step 3 i Step 4
i
Fuel Demand: Fuel Use i Emission Factors
type of development '•
type of development
n.a.

type of fuel used factors by fuel type
type of fuel used factors by fuel and
process type
n.a. factors by vehicle type

BTU/ acre : gal. /acre x Ibs/gal
BTU : gal. x Ibs/gal
n.a. 'x Ibs/veh-mi.

1
= Cal./km : liter/km i x g/liter
= Cal. : liter ; x g/liter
n.a. x g/veh-km
Step 5
Emissions




= Ibs/acre
= Ibs
= Ibs/mi.


= g/km
= g
= g/km
The examples shown are for

                         i) area - a residential land use zone
                        ii) point - an industrial activity
                       iii) line - a highway segment

        BTU is British Thermal Units, a measure of heating requirements.
        The dimensional analysis assumes the use of fuel oil for heating.
        Note: the terms 'dwelling unit'  and 'housing unit' are used interchangeably in this study.

        n.a. = not applicable.

        Neither the planning nor emissions inventory data given to use for our .study were in metric units;
        therefore, we have used the original units throughout this report since conversion of all data was
        outside the scope of the study.

-------
     Several default parameters may also be required,  as shown in Step 2.




Current data on activity levels and fuel use can be used to calculate a




default parameter for heating demand - British thermal units (or Calories)




per dwelling unit (BTU/d.u.); this value can be adjusted for a future time




period and for differences between residential categories, particularly for




the number of rooms per dwelling unit.  In practice, the results of the first




phase -- empirically deriving parameters from the existing data -- may not be




conclusive; engineering judgement may be very important in determining th




actual values to be used in the second phase which is  concerned with the




future time period.




     The level of activity shown in Step 1  (d.u./acre) is multiplied times




the activity index shown in Step 2 (BTU/d.u.) to produce the fuel demand



for the residential  land use  zone shown in  Step 3  (BTU/acre).   It is then



necessary  to answer  several important questions concerning how  this fuel



demand will be satisfied:



     1.  What fuel will be used (oil, coal, gas, steam or electricity).



     2.  What other  home activities in addition to heating will use the



fuel (cooking, hot water).



     3.  What type of fuel-burning apparatus will be used (individual home



heating, or a central heating system for several thousand dwelling units).



     National or  regional  default parameters  can  usually be  relied  upon to




answer  the first  two questions, but  the  third question  is basically a plan-




ning decision.  There is a significant  trend  towards  centralized heating  and



cooling systems for  reasons of economy in large-scale developments such as



the Meadowlands.  The governing factor is the scale of the individual develop-



ment, particularly:



     1.  The density,which governs the number of units.



     2.  The clustering,which governs the heating distribution  system



necessary  with central heating facilities.




                                     38

-------
     3.  The overall size,which governs whether a developer will put up



the capital for a central system.




     Finally, for each fuel and type of fuel burning equipment (individual




house or central system), the appropriate EPA emission factors, as depicted




in Step 4, are used to translate the amount of fuel burned into the quantity



of emissions for various pollutants as represented by Step 5.   The size of



the fuel-burning installation determines which factors should be used and



whether or not emission control devices are apt to be used.






     4.2.3  Problems in Obtaining Data






     For an industrial activity such as that shown as example 2 in Figure




1-9, the problem may be more complex.  For an existing major emitter rep-



resented as a point source, there may be adequate emissions information




from a current inventory; however, neither the present level of activity



nor projected changes in that level may be known.  Conversely, planning



information tends to deal with industries by broad categories and rarely



with a specific firm and its characteristics which will influence the



level of emissions at a particular location.  The land use planner does work




with parameters such as acres and lot coverage which can yield an estimate of



the number of square feet of floor space for a new facility as shown in



Step 1 of Figure 1-9.



     Empirically derived estimates of BTU's per square foot for heating



purposes (Step 2) show great variation.  Even greater variation is exhibited



in the empirical data for the percent of fuel used by industries for heating;



it may be 100% for a warehouse and close to zero for a. foundry.  Propensities




to use different fuels (Step 3) may be empirically derived by industrial



category, such as the 2-digit or 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification



(SIC) adopted by the U.S. Census.




                                    39

-------
     For example, in the first phase of the procedures existing fuel use data



from the current emission inventories can be examined and homogeneous categories



derived.  These are then modified according to national,  regional, and local



trends, by category, and employed in the second phase to produce fuel use



propensities for the appropriate future time period;



     The least reliable information involves separate process emissions from



industrial sources, such as the evaporation from a tank farm or area-wide



solvent evaporation.  Source emission inventories have generally been incom-



plete in this area; therefore, little empirical data are available from which



to derive default parameters.  Furthermore, where emission factors have been



determined, they are related to process rate: the total quantity of material



processed per unit time for the operation producing the emissions.  Process



rate has not as yet been correlated with parameters that are readily available



to the planner; virtually no planning effort would include projections of



process rate.  Therefore, very crude default parameters have been developed



in this study to relate process emission by activity category directly to fuel



emissions or to activity level, such as employment.  In general, if reasonable



engineering data are not available for process emissions for a particular



source, current land use planning based estimating procedures will not yield



satisfactory results; the estimation procedures described here have been in-



cluded in the analysis merely for completeness rather than for accuracy.



Complete data by even the most detailed classification schemes, such as the



4-digit SIC code, will not solve the problem: both nitric and sulfuric acid



plants can be found in the same 4-digit SIC category.



     If an activity such as the industrial land use example shown in Figure 1-9



reaches a certain scale, by virtue of its emissions, it should be considered



a point source rather than an area source for modeling purposes.  It is
                                     40

-------
possible to determine default "size criteria" for each activity category




to allow the planner to decide, objectively, whether a development should be



considered a point source or not.




     Example 3 in Figure 1-9 shows the procedure for determining line source




emissions from a highway network.  Activities (Step 1) are multiplied directly



by emission factors  (Step 4) to produce emissions (Step 5).  The emission factors




vary by vehicle class: cars and light-duty trucks, heavy-duty gasoline trucks,



and diesel trucks and buses; in addition certain pollutants vary with speed.



Transportation planners routinely determine all of the activity data needed




although not necessarily on a detailed basis; default parameters for vehicle



class mix, model year mix and average speed can be used where local data are




not available.  Whether or not a particular traffic segment should be a line



source or an area source can be determined by a "size criteria", based, on



vehicle miles per unit time.



     The procedures to go from activity levels (Step 1) to emission strengths



(Step 5) for all other activities represent combinations of and modifications



to the three examples shown in Figure 1-9.  In many cases commercial, institu-



tional or transportation activity emissions can be determined as a function



of the residential activities they serve.  This is particularly relevant when a



planned development is involved, with apartments, offices, stores and parking



areas built as one unit.
                                    41

-------
4.3  Current Inventory Data





     The current emission inventory was developed for three very specific



purposes: 1) validation of the model for the Meadowlands area; 2) as a basis



for the background inventory to be used for 1990; and 3) as a basis for



developing activity and default parameters to be used with the Meadowlands



plans.



     The first purpose required the most detailed spatial information, ;^ ice



the accuracy of the emissions inventory determines in large part the success



of the validation procedure.  The first decision to be made involved the size



of the region to be inventoried.  This was governed mainly by the availabilit/


                                                        3 4
of information for a 17 county area around New York City '  and formed the



boundary of  the initial influence region.



     The second decision involved the detail of data to be gathered within



this region.  There were three criteria to consider: 1)  the availability of



information; 2) the requirements of the model; and 3) the necessity of having



accuracy to validate the model and to characterize future emissions in and



around the Meadowlands.





     4.3.1  Zones of Analysis





     Accordingly the region was divided into several zones approximating



concentric circles around the Meadowlands.  For each zone a differing level of



detail for data gathering was assigned.  Figure 1-10 shows the analysis zones



derived for the current inventory.  In brief, zone 1 is the Meadowlands district;



the zone 2 boundary is approximately 1 mile outside the Meadowlands - it is



defined by town boundaries everywhere except to the south in the cities of



Newark and Jersey City; the zone 3 boundary is a circle approximately 5 miles
                                     42

-------
 A, Validation  Sites
Note:   Actual boundaries between zones usually followed town boundaries;
        they were developed only to define differing levels of detail  and
        have no physical or political significance.

            Figure 1-10  Analysis Zones for Current Inventory
                                    43

-------
outside the Meadowlands - it also is defined by town lines and includes only



Manhattan in the New York part of the region; finally, zone 4 includes all of



the remaining parts of New Jersey and New York contained within the 17 county



abatement region.





     4.3.2  Initial Criteria





     Separate rules were established for point, line and area sources fo,  each



of these zones.  The criteria proposed for point sources were reviewed at



the Milestone 4 meeting and agreed upon by EPA and NJDEP.  They were based
  t


upori several general rules for selection including: 1) that all significant



point sources within and immediately surrounding the Meadowlands would be



treated as point sources; 2) that a point of diminishing returns concerning



model accuracy is reached when approximately 100 separate point sources are



considered; and 3) beyond about 5 miles from the Meadowlands boundary the



specification of individual stack parameters is no longer important to model



accuracy within the Meadowlands.  At that time the selection rules for point



sources were tentatively given as follows:



     1.  For zone 1 all sources with rates greater than 100 tons per year for



any one single pollutant would be considered.  For sources with multiple



stacks having different stack parameters,separate point sources would be



specified.



     2.  For zone 2 the criteria would be the same as zone 1, except that all



stacks for a plant would be aggregated into one source using major stack



parameters.



     3.  For zone 3 the same criteria as zone 2,except that much of the data



would have to be estimated and the cutoff for the point sources might be



raised to 200 tons per year.
                                     44

-------
     4.  Zone 3B, a separate part of zone 3, was defined for Manhattan;  the




criteria were the same as for New Jersey zone 3, except that the cutoff would




be 500 tons per year.  This was determined for two reasons:



     a)  The area sources for Manhattan have much greater emissions  than



other areas of equal size; therefore, 100 tons per year is less significant



as a point source in relation to the area source density; and




     b)   There are a manageable number of point sources in Manhattan greater




than 500 tons per year but too many greater than 100 tons for the model  to



handle reasonably.




     5.  For zone 4A, the remainder of Bergen, Passaic, Essex and Union



counties, a point source cutoff of 500 tons per year would be used.



     6.  For zone 4B, the remainder of the 17 county region plus the Connecticut




area of the Air Quality Control Region (as of 1969), a cutoff of 1,000 tons



per year would be used.  Only point sources in Connecticut were considered in




the analysis.



     The criteria established for line sources were as follows:



     1.  For zones 1 and 2 all major highway links as provided by the New



Jersey Department of Transportation would be considered as separate  line



sources.



     2.  For zones 3 and 4 all transportation emissions would be treated



as a part of the area source data.



     Finally, the tentative criteria for area sources were defined as follows:




     1.  For zone 1, within the Meadowlands, emissions would be handled  on



a scale of approximately 1 km  cells.



     2.  For zone 2 emissions would be projected from Tri-State Transportation



Commission data on a one square mile basis or from census tract information.



     3.  For zone 3 emissions would be developed from data by townships  or
                                    45

-------
the one square mile grid; special procedures would be developed for Manhattan




if necessary.




     4.  For zone 4 emissions would be grouped according to counties.






     4.3.3  Final Criteria






     As the development of t!ie current emission inventories and determinatior




of the validation procedures progressed,a number of modifications to th si,




tentative criteria had to be made.  For point sources very few cases were




found in zones 2 and 3 where data existed for more than one stack group for



a single source; therefore, all information was used separately and no data




were aggregated to a single stack for a particular source.  Furthermore, there



were so few sources in the 100 to 200 ton range that the 100 ton criterion



was kept for all of zones 1 through 3.




     For area sources, based upon computer running times and efficiencies1



as well as  availability  of  information on a  sub-county  level,  it was deter-




mined  that  the following breakdown would be  more useful:



     1.  For zones 1, 2, and part of 3, 2 km  grid cells would be used, with




the option of using 1 km  cells where emission density variation warranted



their use.



     2.  For the remainder of zone 3 and part of zone 4, 8 km  cells would




be used.



     3.  For the outer parts of zone 4, 16 km  cells.



     When the final validation runs were made only the 8 and 16 km  cells were



used for several reasons: 1) The initial runs had shown the area sources to




be a very small part of  the total emissions.  When this was later found to



be questionable, there was not sufficient time to assemble census and one



square mile data to develop accurate 2 km grid cell area sources.  2) Reason-
                                    46

-------
able current data did not exist at the sub-county level; it was not meaning-



ful to allocate the county data below approximately an 8 km grid size.




3) Sensitivity tests with the model were inconclusive as to the effect the




smaller grid cells would have on the validation sites.



     Figure 1-4 shows the actual area source grid used for the current inventory




runs.  Figure 1-11 summarizes both the criteria used for point.source deter-



mination and the number of separate point sources found.  For New Jersey the



separate stack groups are also noted.  All but 34 of these point sources fall



within the 8 km  area source region shown in Figure 1-4; 17 fall outside in



New Jersey and 17 in New York.






     4.3.4  General Approach






     The current inventory as developed for use with the Meadowlands study is



very much a function of the available information and the specific requirements



for validation.  Further, it represents a point in time for a specific region




and, therefore, it is difficult to translate more than the general criteria



to other regions.  However, the three main criteria used - the availability of



information, the requirements of the model used,and the development of sufficient




accuracy for both the validation sites and to characterize the areas in and



around the immediate study area - will hold for any region studied.






4.4  Background Inventory Criteria






     The criteria used to develop the background emissions inventory were a



logical outgrowth of those used with the current inventory.  In developing the




current inventory only emissions data already available from federal, state,



and local authorities were used.  New sources for which data did not exist




were not inventoried, nor were fuel use or separate process emissions
                                     47

-------
                                                          FIGURE  1-11
                                           Current Inventory Point Source Criteria
Criteria

Zone 1 100 tons
Zone 2 100 tons
Zone 3a 100 tons
Zone 3b 500 tons
Zone 4a 500 tons
Zone 4b 1000 tons
TOTAL
Number of Sources
N.J.
8
16
28
--
13
18
83
(stack groups)
(13)
(23)
(30)

(14)
(19)
(99)
N.Y.City
--
--
—
12
—
14
26
New York State § Conn.
--
--
--
--
--
18
18
Total
8
16
28
12
13
50
127
00

-------
determined where they were not known.  In many cases, however, where emis-




sions were not known for all five pollutants, the remaining pollutant emis-




sions were determined in the study, based upon the known fuel use and



current emission factors.




     For the background inventory, however,  it was necessary to start with basic




activity data, in most cases, and to develop fuel-use profiles directly.   Because



of the magnitude of this task alone, and the necessity to keep it of secondary



importance to the analysis of the Meadowlands plans,  strict criteria were set




up at the outset.



     For point sources these included the following:



     1.  No new sources would be considered, other than power plants and



incinerators for which Burns § Roe could independently project the necessary



information from available sources;  such new sources were automatically



scheduled as  area sources but were not treated in detail.




     2.  For existing New Jersey industrial  sources,  changes in the level of



activity would be made only insofar as projective activity data could be  made




available from government agencies and clarification  made in consultation



with these agencies.



     3.  No changes in the level of activity for non-New Jersey sources would



be considered unless readily available information existed.



     4.  Changes in activity indices, fuel use propensity and related



factors, would be made only insofar as published trends were available and



clarification could be made in conjunction with appropriate agencies.



     5.  Projections for emission factors were confined to non-process sources.



     Most of these decisions and the way in  which they were implemented are



described in later sections of the report.  For line  sources all data were to



be derived from the New Jersey Department of Transportation and the Tri-State



Transportation Commission figures as available.  Area source data were to be





                                    49

-------
developed from Tri-State population, employment and square feet of floor space




projections to 1985, and from regional trends in fuel use.






     4.4.1  Zones of Analysis






     As a result of the validation procedures, it was decided that nearly



the same zones should be used for 1990 as were used for 1969.  Figure 1-1



shows the analysis zones for the 1990 inventory.  Point source projections



for zone 1 were made in consultation with the Hackensack Meadowlands Com-




mission.  For zones 2 and 3 the Tri-State and New Jersey Bureau of Labor



and Industry data were used to project activity levels for existing point




sources.  Existing sources for both New Jersey and New York were treated



identically for  zones 3 and 4.  Nearly all new point sources are in zone 4.




     Line sources were treated for zones 1 and 2 in the same manner as with the



current inventory.  Finally, area sources were determined on a county basis ts



in the current inventory and then allocated to the 16 and 8 km  grid shown in



Figure 1-4.






     4.4.2  Changes in Criteria






     One of the major reasons for the similarity between the criteria used in



the background inventory and in the current inventory was so that consis-



tency could be maintained for modeling purposes.  Figure 1-13 summarizes



the point source criteria used in the background inventory.  An initial



decision had been made to use a criteria of 100 tons per year as used with



the current inventory.  However, fuel burning emission factors - particu-




larly for particulates, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen (the largest



point sources in 1969) - were reduced significantly from 1969 to 1990.
                                     50

-------
New Jersey

(Zone 4)
                             • HACKS N SACK"
                             MEADOWLANOS
                          -< DISTRICT
        Figure 1-12   Analysis  Zone for 1990 Inventory
                               51

-------
                                                           FIGURE  1-13


                                        1990 Background  Inventory Point Source  Criteria
Criteria


Zone 1 25 tons
Zone 2 25 tons*
Zone 3 25 tons
Zone 4 25 tons
TOTAL
h
N.J.
[1969 -New Removed]
8+1-1 = 8
16 + 1 - 0 = 17
28 + 0 - 4 = 24
31 + 9 - 0 = 40
83 +11 - 5 = 89
(umber of Source:
(stack groups)

(13)
(24)
(26)
(42)
(105)
> : Changes
N.Y.City
[1969 'New]
12 + 0 = 12
14 + 6 = 20
26 + 6 = 32

N.Y. State § Conn.
[1969 -New]
18 + 9 = 27
18 + 9 = 27

Total
[1969 'New- Removed]
8+1-1 = 8
16 + 1 - 0 = 17
40 + 0 - 4 = 36
63 +24 - 0 = 87
127 +26 - 5 =148
en
to
    *0ne  source  at 24 tons was retained.


    Zone  1 New Source is the Meadowlands  Incinerator,  assumed at only one  location.

-------
     A criteria of 25 tons per year for any one pollutant was ultimately




decided upon.  One of the major deciding factors was the desire to keep as



many of the 1969 point sources in the inventory as possible for model  consis-



tency purposes; no distinction was made by zone.  Figure 1-13 shows the 1969



point sources, the new point sources and the 5 sources removed from the



inventory.  One was removed because it was anticipated that it would shut down;



the other four were removed because emissions did not exceed 25 tons per



year for any of the pollutants.  The new source shown in zone 1 is the



Meadowlands incinerator, while the source in zone 2 accounts for the pro-




vision of expanded power plant facilities at an existing site.  All of the




new sources in zone 4 are power plants and incinerators.






     4.4.3  General Approach






     As with the current inventory, the criteria used to develop the background



inventory are highly related to the information available and the specific



requirements of the study.  However, a general approach should not differ



greatly from what was attempted here.  Current data should be used as  much



as possible to develop the background inventory.  For consistency purposes,



sources in the current inventory should be carried forward to the future time



period and only the most significant new sources added as point sources.



Regional and national projective data and "control totals" as to fuel use,



population and employment should be used in conjunction with the most rea-



sonable activity indices.  Many of these indices, such as the heating demand



per square foot, need not vary greatly from region to region, except with



variation in temperature.  Others, such as propensity to use different



fuels, are highly a function of current uses in the particular region.
                                    53

-------
                     5.  ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

5.1  Activity Data

     The most important aspect of the data gathering involved the planning or
land use data - generally termed "activity data" in this study.  It is impor-
tant to determine what data can and should be provided by the planner, as
opposed to the information that should be standard or default as a part of
the AQUIP system.  It was necessary, therefore, to assess how detailed the
planning data was for the Meadowlands plans as well as how unique.  In general
it can be said that the data provided for the Hackensack Meadowlands plans were
excellent in terms of the details required for the methodology; however, they
were often unique, both in terms of the degree of detail and the peculiar
types of development and heating requirements involved.  On the other hand,
the type of data available for the background region (which is quite repre-
sentative of regional planning) lacks the detail necessary to create a reason-
ably accurate inventory; this is reflected in the analysis of the background.

     5.1.1  The Four Land Use Plans

     Figures 1-14 through 1-17 show each of the four land use plans analyzed in
the study.  Plan 1 is the Master Plan developed by the Hackensack Meadowlands
Commission.  Plans 1A and IB represent two alternative plans previously developed,
the first embodying a New Town concept and the second representing an expansion
of this portion of the existing New York metropolitan area.  Finally, Plan 1C
represents no plan at all.  It shows what would result if the normal development
pressures (taking into account zoning ordinances) were allowed to take their
course.  Figure 1-18 summarizes the distribution of land use for the existing
development and the additional land uses for each of the four plans.  Plan IB
                                    55

-------
45"
45"
45*'
45 '•
45 '
45"
45 '»
45"
45"
45'
                        •H        -t-
45 "
     572     573      574      575      576      577      578     579      580      581       582      583      584
               D- —-H Manufacturing





               F'.*j.';;'y.| Conservation


               ]Mmtmlh La* Density Residential IK) Dul


               I        I Island Residential (SO Du)


                         Parks/do Residential ISODu)
               k-;-;-;-I-J Specie/Uses
               —	Afoss Transit and Commuter Railroad
               	Turnpike and Limited Access
Cultural Center
Business District
Transportation .Center
                                                                    Commercial Recreation
                                                                    Hotel -Off ice -Highway Commercial
Distribution
                                           Figure   1-14    Plan  1

                                                            56

-------
              4       4-      -I-       4-      +       +
45
    572     573     574      575     576      577     578     579     580     581     582      583     584
h~ ==.-^3 Manufacturing
\'/l\fs,*A Low Density Residential !K> Du>
                                                     O Kro^j CWA'/a/ Cmfer






                                                     * IH Busimss





                                                     P" '     Water
[>  '  ' \Hiyr) Density Residential (SO Oul      11111111 Holel~olfKe'H'9h'«Vc°mme":i<'l





KC-IHXH Special Uses                              Distritx.






	Turnpike and Limited Access
                                                                tributiort
                                      Figure  1-15    Plan  1A




                                                      57

-------
45"
45'
45Z
45!1
45 z
45"
45'
45"
45'
45"
45'°
                                                                                             +       +
     572     573      574      575      576     577     578      579      580      581      582     583     584
              [f~^j Manufacturing                      O y///fa Cultural Center



              feS^'s'tSrl Par/!S                             * l^m Buslness afslr'cf


              \ff////////]h Law Density Residential (lODul        |f--!d§] W4''e''


              I        I Medium Density Residential tlODu)     Yy/$'/ff/\ Commercial Recreation


              ^ '.    j High Density Residential (SODu)       HS||j| Hotel-Office-Highway Commercial

              ,	                                  I	1
              [-^-'>X-:] Of/ler ^as                                 Distribution


              — - — Mass Transit
              —	—  Turnpike  and Limited Access
                                       Figure   1-16    Plan  IB
                                                          58

-------
 45 *
45'
45Z
45'"
45'
45"
45"
45 "
45"
45"
45'°
    572     573     574      575      576      577     578      579     580     581      582      583     584
                      Manufacturing






                      Paris






                      Low Density Residential






                      Transportation Center






                      Turnpike and Limited Access
 .. .  ,.   Water






j|{|j|j||j Hotel-Office-Highway Commercial






Y//v.  I-- '\ Commercial Recreation






         Airport
                                     Figure  1-17    Plan  1C
                                                      59

-------
                       Figure 1-18
Distribution of Land Uses for the Four Alternative  Plans
                                       Areas,  in acres

Land Use Types
low density residential
medium density resid.
high density resid.
schools
special uses
commercial
manufacturing and
research
distribution
airport and transport.
center
parks and recreation
water
highways and railroads
Total
Population
Existing
Land Use


235
-
-
-
-
190
800
1800
670
105
1400
1995
7195
6000
Additional Land Use
Plan 1:
Master Plan
.
-
1400
250
750
575
2100
2200
230
2895
800
1205
12405
Plan 1-A:
New Town
235
1250
1250
400
500
800
2400
2500
100
1900
-
1070
12405
180,000 320,000
Plan 1-B:
Expansion

1000
2800
450
400
400
2200
2500
100
1480
-
1075
12405
445,000
Plan 1-C:
Zoning
.
-
-
-
-
-
hl675
100
200
-
430
12405
-
                             60

-------
 projects  the  highest population whereas Plan  1C is almost totally devoted to



 industrial  development.





      5.1.2  Sources of Data





     One  of the major premises established was the use of the planning data



provided  by the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission in its original form as



much as possible and reliance upon default parameters wherever additional



information was necessary.  Furthermore, since computerized procedures were



being developed to determine the emissions, it was necessary to set up



numerous  rules to estimate missing information and resolve conflicting in-



formation as to how each of the four plans would be developed.-



     Four different sources of information were provided by the Meadowlands



planners.   These were:



      1.   The  four  land use maps shown in Figures 1-14 through 1-17.


                                  8 9
      2.   An extensive zoning code. '



      3.   A  set of  summary statistics, including tables similar to that shown



 in Figure 1-18.



      4.   Clarifying information solicited from the planners through numerous



working sessions.





     Use  of Land Use Maps




     The  maps were used to provide the basic  information for all land uses



 except manufacturing.  For instance, the total number of acres of residential



 land  for  low  density in Plan 1 as analyzed in the study represents those areas



 shown in  Figure 1-14, rather than the total acreage shown in Figure 1-18



 (which was derived from the summary statistics).  In the case of manufacturing



land use, the Meadowlands planners had developed a list of 10 acre lots to
                                     61

-------
be devoted to manufacturing for each plan.  The list contained the location



of the centroid of each 10 acre lot, together with the 4-digit SIC code



most representative of the development that would take place there.  This



10 acre lot served as the module for all industrial development.  However,



in cases where adjoining lots were assigned the same 4-digit SIC code, this



was taken to represent a single larger industrial facility covering 20, 30,



40, or more acres.




     Use of Zoning Codes





     The zoning code was used to determine the intensity of most development.



For instance, for each residential category a permissible maximum density of



dwelling units per acre is given in the zoning code.  This value was used as



the value assumed for development.  When the total acreage from the land use



plan is multiplied by the dwelling units per acre for each land use and the



average population per dwelling unit given in the zoning regulations,it does



not produce the population figures shown in Figure 1-18.  This is not surpris-



ing, due to the averaging procedures used to develop the summary statistics.



However, to be consistent our analyses used information from the plan together



with the zoning code, rather than the data shown in Figure 1-18.




     Use of Summary Statistics and Clarifying Information.




     The summary  statistics were used only for the manufacturing category.



In general, the fourth type of information - the clarifying information obtained



through the working sessions - overrode any other source.
                                    62

-------
     5.1.3  Problems with Data Hierarchy

     Although this hierarchy of decisions proved very workable during the study,
it did introduce one significant error into the final analysis. In the land use
summary shown in Figure 1-18 for Plan 1C, the acreage for distribution and
manufacturing were not separately stated.  Likewise, for Plan 1C in Figure 1-17
the areas representing both these land uses were shaded with the same code.
Accordingly, when the land use zones were computerized according to the estab-
lished procedures,it was assumed that all of this land use was assigned to
manufacturing as in the other three plans. However, manufacturing 10 acre lots
taken from the summary statistics in actuality cover only a little over 3,000
of the more than 11,000 acres assigned to the joint category.
     Since the distribution land use had not been separately shown on Plan 1C,
it was never identified as such nor transferred to a computer form and was,
therefore, not included in the analysis.  Since all of the procedures set up
for checking information referred back to the original premises of using either
the plan maps or the industrial SIC list as a guide, this error was never dis-
covered until the final analyses were being made as a part of plan evaluation.
in Task 3.

     Error Introduced
     Although the acreage involved is large^the error introduced is not as
significant as might be expected because the land use category of distribution
is a low producer of fuel emissions per acre.  A calculation was done after
the fact to determine the relative emission rate of the distribution area
compared with the manufacturing land uses for Plan 1C.  This showed that
inclusion of the emissions from distribution would increase the total emission
rate by only  about  10%.

                                    63

-------
     Effect On Evaluation





     In the discussions of the air quality resulting from the plans, a new



code of Plan ID has been assigned to the Plan 1C land uses actually




examined.  In other words, Plan ID consists of the original Plan 1C minus



the distribution land use.  This is the same as assuming that more than



8,000 acres zoned for distribution were not developed in Plan ID.  This




assumption may not be that much further from reality than what was proposed



in Plan 1C, since the Plan 1C distribution land use assumed extremely intensive




development of warehousing and distribution without any provision for the




necessary ancillary services, including transportation networks.






     5.1.4  Summary of Planning Decisions






     A great many planning decisions had to be developed out of the working



sessions with the Meadowlands planners.  All of these decisions relate to tbe



basic premises of what land uses are to be heated under what conditions and




what other types of emission sources exist.  Any land uses that were not



considered to be significant sources of fuel or process emissions were not



analyzed.



     Since this study was confined to estimating emissions on an annual or



seasonal average basis, sources such as a sports complex (which is heated



only a few days a year) do not become significant sources on an annual basis;



likewise peak-hour traffic congestion and open-burning landfall fires are



averaged out to be negligible sources.   Of the land uses shown in Figure




1-18, parks, recreation, water and railroads were all eliminated from con-



sideration on an annual and seasonal basis.  Residential categories,  commercial,



distribution, manufacturing and research, special uses, schools and the trans-



portation  center were all considered to be significant sources of fuel and
                                    64

-------
heating-related emissions.  The airport, highway systems and parking lots in


the  sports  complex  were  considered  to  be  sources of non-fuel  emissions.



     5.1.5  Determination of Development Characteristics



     Having decided what categories of land use would have fuel or heating-


related emissions, the next question was how would each of these land u- e.c be


in fact heated.  The Meadowlands area has a peculiarity which affects b "h i ,ie


manner in which it will be developed and the way in which the development will

be heated.  This condition results from the large open tracts available for


development and the individual ownership of very large parcels.  It is also


influenced by the great demand for development.  All of these combine to in-


dicate that extremely large developments will be built at one time with cen-


tral heating and cooling systems.

     In conjunction with the Meadowlands planners a series of large resident'.al


and commercial zones were identified which would be developed at a'single


time.  The individual residential and commercial areas were then assigned to

                               •
these large zones and locations defined for the new central heating .systems.


Figure 1-19 shows a schematic of this type of development for an island


residential land use in the Master Plan.  Three residential islands to be


comprised of high rise apartments with some lower developments are shown

numbered 1, 2. and 3.  Each has a school associated with it: numbers 4, 5 and


6.  The schools will be built individually by the appropriate government


agencies.   Each of the residential islands has neighborhood commercial shop-

ping associated with it  (numbers 8, 9 and 10).  Since these will be built as

part of the residential complex their heating will also be served by the


central heating system.  Land uses 7 and 11 show, respectively, a secondary
                                     65

-------
  5145
O\
ISLAND  RESIDENTIAL
ISLAND  RESIDENTIAL
ISLAND  RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SECONDARY SCHOOL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMUNITY  COMMERCIA
ISLAND  RESIDENTIAL
                                   FIGURE  1-19   SCHEMATIC  OF IT LAND -}E3IDEKTIAL LAND USES

-------
school and community commercial facilities that would be built and heated




separately.




     The central heating system has been located at number 12. Therefore, as




far as fuel emissions are concerned, the sources of pollution for -Figure 1-19




consist of the three schools (numbers 4, 5 and 6), the secondary school




(number 7), the commercial area (number 11) and the central heating system




(number 12).  In reality the residential areas 1, 2 and 3 and the commercial




areas, 8, 9 and 10, do not enter into the final pattern of emissions -  spatially.




This is a fundamental characteristic of the way in which the Meadowlands will




be developed and the complex procedures used to translate land use planning




data into fuel-related emissions.  In one other type of case - the Berry's




Creek Shopping Center - several separate land use zones assigned to commercial




use would all be built at one time as part of a major shopping center with a




central heating system.  Similar linking of land use zones for heating




purposes were therefore assigned to this area.




     All other fuel-related land uses were treated individually as shown in




Figure 1-20.  The intensity of development assigned to the commercial area,




number 14, and the distribution area, number 15, would determine the total




heating demand.  This would be assigned uniformly to the whole area shown and




then reassigned by the LANTRAN program to the area source grid cells used for




modeling.  Numbers 17 through 24 in Figure 1-20 represent 10 acre industrial




lots.  In the case of numbers 23 and 24 the same 4-digit. SIC is involved;




therefore, these would be combined as one 20 acre lot and a single heating




system located at number 25.
                                    67

-------
5146
                                                           AIRPORT
                                                              16
OO
                                                           RIVER
                                                     —i
//-  PARK
14'  COMMERCIAL
15-  DISTRIBUTION
16'  AIRPORT
//-  INDUSTRIAL-2011
18'  INDUSTRIAL-2012
19-  INDUSTRIAL-3214
20-  INDUSTRIAL-3310
//=  INDUSTRIAL-3840
22-  INDUSTRIAL-2390
23=  INDUSTRIAL-3150
24'  INDUSTRIAL-3150
25-  INDUSTRIAL-3150
                                 FIGURE 1-20    SCHEMATIC OF  COMMERCIAL AND  INDUSTRIAL LAND  USES

-------
     ;>.1.6  Determination of Heating Requirements

     The next step was to determine how much heat would be required for each
of the land use zones.   All of the necessary planning information was avail-
able from the zoning codes or through discussion with the Meadowlands planners.
     For residential land uses the heating demand is a function of the numarr
of dwelling units and the permissible dwelling units per acre, which is   jvr-t
of the zoning code.  For commercial land uses related to the residential area,
such as points 8, 9 and 10, in Figure 1-19, the heating demand is a function
of the number of square feet of commercial space.  The zoning code describes
an allowable percentage of residential square footage to be put into commer-
cial development.  By knowing the square feet per dwelling unit and this allow-
able percent, the total square footage of commercial development in the compl ^x
was determined.
     For commercial development in hotel and highway commercial areas or in ;ae
Berry Creek Shopping Center lot coverage and floor area ratios from the zoning
code were used to develop the number of square feet of  commercial space
for each land use area.  Assumptions had to be made in conjunction with the
Meadowlands planners as to what the net lot coverage would be for various land
use categories.
     Likewise for distribution, manufacturing and research areas, lot coverage
and floor area ratios were used to develop square foot figures.  It was decided
in working sessions with the Meadowlands planners that such land use categories
as special use, transportation centers and cultural centers would be treated
in the same manner as the distribution category, since more specific informa-
tion was lacking.
     The heating  demand  for schools was  a  function  of the  number of classrooms.
 In  all  cases  the  size  of a school  was  directly related to  the residential  area
                                    69

-------
served; therefore, knowing the number of dwelling  units  and  the  average pupil
per dwelling unit ratio for the particular residential code, the total number
of pupils in a residential area could be derived.   Using the estimated percentage
of pupils who would go to either the primary or secondary schools as contained
in the summary statistics, the number of pupils could be assigned to  a school.
A representative figure of pupils per classroom by school type was developed
in conjunction with the Meadowlands planners yielding the assumed number  ot*
classrooms for each school.  If, as in certain residential areas, more than
one school would serve the students, it was assumed that each school would
take an equal number of students.

     5.1.7  Determination of Non-Heating Emissions

     Several planning decisions were necessary for the non-heating and fuel-
related sources.   The Hackensack Meadowlands Commission estimated on a regional
basis the number of flights per year that could be expected from Teterboro
Airport.  The final number used was 400,000.  The  emissions  from these flights
were distributed uniformly over the area of the airport.  If the study had
been examining sources of emissions on a more detailed basis than the annual
and seasonal averages used, other sources at the airport (such as motor vehicle
traffic, the heating plant and the actual location of runways) would have become
significant.  Similarly, because of the averaging  to annual  and seasonal  conditions,
the only significant source included in the new sports complex was a point source
representing the idling of vehicles in the parking lots during congestion periods.
An estimate was made in conjunction with the Meadowlands planners that
4,500,000 vehicles per year would idle for approximately one hour; however,
when this idling time is averaged over a year it is not as significant a
source as might be expected.
                                   70

-------
     Consideration was given to assigning transportation emissions to eac,  land




use zone according to the intensity of development.   In fact, the LANTRAK pro-




gram can accommodate this approach.  However, the Hackensack Meadowlands planners




felt that assigning all motor vehicle emissions to the highway network would




adequately represent the situation, because, as a part of the land use plan,




far less local automobile traffic is expected than would normally be the ca^,




particularly for the Master Plan.






     Other Planning Decisions






     The remaining planning decisions were a function of the activity indices




rather  than the activity data themselves.   Planning-related  inputs includ- 1




decisions as to the percent process heat and the number of hours of operation




for each of the types of land uses.  These again were made in consultation with




the Meadowlands planners.






     5.1.8  Industrial Sources






     A  great deal of time was spent discussing the possible industrial sources




within  the Meadowlands boundary.  Existing point sources were handled separate!;




since the Meadowlands planners had reasonable information as to the future




activities of these sources.  In one case it was assumed that a  facility




would shut down.




     The industrial sources are of special significance because of the un-




certainty as to the amount of fuel required for process heating and the




incidence of separate process emissions.  Efforts to develop a statistical




sample  of the propensity to use fuel for process heating by industrial




category, based upon the current emission inventory, were not successful.




It was  possible to divide the industrial SIC codes into only two  major  cate-




gories  of "relatively clean" and "relatively unclean" industries.  The clean
                                      71

-------
 industries were assumed to operate fewer hours per year and use a greater




 percentage of their fuel for space heating.






     Process Emissions






     A separate study of process emissions corresponding to the 4-digit SIC



industries proposed for the Meadowlands was made.  With the exception of




possible sources in the chemical and petrochemical and primary metals area,



the SICs proposed for the Meadowlands are not significant separate process




emitters.  There are some potential emissions of particulates and hydrocarbons




from selected SICs.  These were accounted for by adding a percentage of the




fuel burning emissions to determine the total emissions since no information



was available on process rate.   The Meadowlands planners felt that there would



be no petrochemical or primary metals smelting operations in the Meadowlands.








     5.1.9  Data Procedures






     Once these decisions had been made, it was possible to set up the



 computerized procedures for transferring the data from the land use maps,



 zoning codes and statistical tables into the various data banks used.  Each



plan is referenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator (U.T.M.) grid system.



This grid system was laid out on base maps of the Meadowlands district at



 the same scale as the existing plans.  The land  use data for each plan were



 then transferred to the new maps for those areas that had  a significant



 emission potential; parks, water areas and recreation were not transferred.




Areas for residential, commercial, distribution and related zones were coded



 as enclosed polygons composed of the three or more line segments approximating



as close as possible the curvalinear shapes of the original zones.
                                    72

-------
     The X and Y location of each vertex in UTM coordinates  and the land use




code were recorded.  Sources such as local schools and community shopping




centers which were represented on the plan as a round dot were transferred




as discrete points.  The roadways contained in the proposed plan were coded




separately as line sources composed of straight line segments approximating



as closely as possible the curvalinear roadways on the plans.






     5.1.10  Existing Land Uses






     In order to prevent duplication of sources from existing land uses



within the areas adjacent to the Meadowlands, a template was prepared showing




all major industrial land uses in the area.  This template was then compared



to each plan to locate zones where the proposed land uses overlapped existing



ones.  In most instances where there was an overlap the existing land us • wa'



retained and the proposed land use disregarded.






     5.1.11  Changes in the Plans






     A number of changes were made by the Meadowlands planners in the course



of the study.  The only one of significance involved the development of the



sports complex which is to be located in the western part of the Meadowlands



just north of Route 3.  It was assumed that this complex would be built in



all four plans.  Land uses that existed in this area were eliminated, although



in a few cases residential  zones and associated schools were moved to another




location, replacing industry or distribution zones.  The land use type most



consistently eliminated was industrial, although some net loss in residential



and commercial land exists as well.



     A cutoff was established in August 1971 for incorporating any new changes



into the land use plans as considered for this study.  Figures  1-14 through



1-17 show those land uses that were actually considered with the exception of





                                    73

-------
the modifications for the sports complex and the elimination of the distri-




bution land use from Plan 1C.  It should be realized that the Meadowlands



plan as it currently exists does differ, in some cases significantly, from



Plan 1 as analyzed.






     5.1.12  Background Activity Data






     Because of the amount of time that had to be devoted to the Meadowian' s



activity data and the complexities involved, a rather strict approach was taken




to the amount of activity data to be obtained for the background area.   For,




the current emissions inventory existing information and the activity data



associated with it formed the entire base, although a great deal of time had



to be spent to verify certain portions of the inventory.  For the 1990 back-




ground inventory the following criteria were set up regarding the obtaining



of activity data:



     1.  All activity data would be estimated by Burns & Roe for power plants



and incinerators, due to their particular expertise in that area.



     2.  No other new point sources were to be considered outside the



Meadowlands.



     3.  For existing point sources regional and local projections of




employment changes from the New Jersey Bureau of Labor and Industry and the



Tri-State Transportation Commission were to be used to project forward employ-



ment for existing firms; this parameter would then be used to project forward




heating demand for 1990.



     4.  All available published information on process change would be



assembled; however, in the final analysis decisions as to changes in process



emissions had to be made in consultation with the New Jersey Department of



Environmental Protection on an industry by industry basis.
                                    74

-------
     5.  For line sources all activity data would be supplied directly by




the New Jersey Department of Transportation and any missing information



would be determined in consultation with them and the Hackensack Meadowlands



planners.




     6.  For area sources, regional and national fuel use projections,




population, employment and square feet of floor space data from the Tri  "t ite




Transportation Commission for 1985, together with parameters from the ^ ' re^t



inventory were to be used.  New point sources not otherwise  considered  were



automatically included in this category.







5.2  Activity Indices






     The most complicated part of the emission projection methodology and



the area of most usefulness and interest to the planner is the development



of the activity indices which relate land use and transportation planning



data to emission characteristics, such as fuel use and process emissions.



Figures 1-21, 1-22, 1-23 and 1-24 summarize all of the decisions that had to



be made in this study.






     5.2.1  Activity Indices for Meadowlands Plans






     Figure 1-21 summarizes the activity indices required for the Meadowlands



plans.  It shows how the example indices of Figure 1-9 were actually applied.



All of the activity-related indices in columns 1, 2 and 3 were discusses in



the previous section and reference was made to the heat requirements, schedule



and percent process heat as planner inputs in columns 4, 5 and 6.  The step



by step procedures for each  land use  category are discussed  below briefly.
                                    75

-------
                                                     FIGURE   1-21

                                      Activity Indices  for Meadowlands  Plans

Residential
-neighborhood commercial
-neighborhood schools
Commercial
Distribution
-transportation center
-special uses
-cultural center
Research
Industrial
-4 digit SIC's
Airport
Parking Lot
Water
Parks
Conservation
Commercial Recreation
Activity
1
d.u./acre
% sq. ft.
% primary
% coverage
% coverage
% coverage
% coverage
% coverage
% coverage
% coverage
% coverage
flights/yr.
veh./day
--
-_ .
--
--
Related
2
(pupils/d.u.)
pupils/class
F.A.R.
F.A.R.
F.A.R.
F.A.R.
F.A.R.
F.A.R.
F.A.R.
F.A.R.






Indices
3
(sq.ft./d.u.)



acres/lot
acres /lot






Heat Requirement
4
BTU/d.u.
BTU/ft2
BTU/ class room
BTU/ft2
BTU/ft2
BTU/ft2
BTU/ft2
BTU/ft2
BTU/ft2
BTU/ft2
BTU/ft2
--
—
--
--
--
--
Schedule
5
}k,
hr.
hr.
hr.
hr.
hr.
hr.
hr.
hr.
hr.
--
Process Heat
6
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
% proc. ht.
--
hr. idling
--
--
--
--
--
--
'
--
Fuel Propensity
7
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
% ea. fuel
--
--
—
—
--
—
F.A.R. = floor area ratio; ratio of total square footage  to ground floor square footage
B.T.U. = British Thermal Units; measure of heating requirements used in the study.
         (metric units are Cal/d.u., Cal/m2, and Cal/classroom)

-------
                                                             FIGURE   1-22

                                              Activity Indices  for Background Inventory

                                                            Point  Sources
     Indices sought
Current Activity Data
   (1969 inventory)
          Derived  Indices
By Individual Source
                                                                                By SIC Category
                                                                                                                    Exogenous Data
1969
   •All Sources
    % process heat
                                                   % process heat by SIC
1990
   •N.J.  Industrial
    % process heat
    schedule
    f ue 1 us e
    process  emission

   •N.Y. Industrial
    % process heat
    schedule
    fuel use

   •All Power Plants
    schedule
    f ue 1 us e

   'Existing Incinerators
    emissions
   'New Incinerators
    emissions
•employees
enclosed space
gross area

% process heat
schedule
f ue 1 us e
process rate
% process heat
schedule
fuel use
                             emissions
                             emission factors
                                                        BTU/hr/employee
                                                        (space heating)
 BTU/hr
 proc.  rate/employee
                           refuse per day
BTU/hr/employee by SIC
    (space heating)


% process heat by SIC
Schedule by SIC
Fuel propensity by SIC
proc. rate/employee by SIC
                                                          ratio  1980  to  1969  employment
                                                            by  county and SIC
                                                          ratio  1985  to  1963  employment
                                                            by  Tri-State  1 sq.  mi.  grid
Fuel use trends by SIC and county
Process control by SIC
                                                                                   Fuel use trends by  county
                                                                                   Schedule,  duty, heat  rating
                                                                                   System fuel propensity
                                                                                   Refuse per  day
    Notes:   Current  activity  date  and  exogenous  data  were  used  to  derive  indices  to be  applied  to  the point  io;;•>-.-
            to  produce  the  indices  sought;  the derived  indices  by  SIC  category  imy be modific '  for future  ti...

-------
                                                                   FIGURE  1-23

                                                    Activity Indices for Background Inventory

                                                           Area Sources - Fuel Burning
    Indices Sought
        Existing Activity Data

1965 Inventory      I  196961970  Inventory
                              Derived  Indices
                                                                       Exogenous  Data
                                                           Tri-State Transportation  I
                                                                                                                                      Other
1969
   'Fuel  Burning
    % process  heat
fuel use
                                                 % process heat, by category
                                                    and county	
1990
   'Fuel Burning
    heat demand
    % process  heat
    fuel propensity


    emission factors
                        fuel  use
                        %  process heat
fuel use
% process heat
N.Y. Fuel Tables

% residual oil
% Indust., Commerc.
   use by fuel 5
   state
1969 N.J.  Fuel Tables

% residual oil trend
                                                  (1965 space heat BTU, by state)
                                                  BTU/sq. ft. by state
                            (1985  space heat  BTU, by state)
                            %  process heat by state
                            space  heat multiplier by state
% oil, gas for resid,non-resid,
   by state

% residual oil trend
weighted averages of fuel use
   by state
                                1963 Resid § Non-Resid
                                   sq.ft. by state
                                1985 Resid § Non-Resid
                                   sq.ft.,  by county

                                % increase in non-resid.
                                   sq.ft.,  1963-1985
                                   by state
                                                                                        Meadow lands
                                                                                            BTU/sq.ft.
trend in Resid.
Assume non-resid
interpolate betw.
% now § % if
fixed amount
trend in commerc.

NYC trend in gas
                                                                                                                                      Resid.,Commerc.,
                                                                                                                                      Indust.  Emiss .
                                                                                                                                      Factors  for oil
                                                                                                                                      and gas
[* in general," by state1'means: N.J., N.Y.C., N.Y. other]

  Notes:  Data from the 1965 inventory  refer to  the N.Y. Region Abatement Inventory; Data from the 1969 and 1970
          inventory refer to the state  inventory and the EPA regional update for the N.Y. area.  Other exogenous
          data are for 1990 unless  otherwise stated.

-------
                                                                    FIGURE  1-24

                                                     Activity Indices for Background Inventory-

                                                          Area Sources - Non-Fuel Burning
   Indices Sought
        Existing Activity Data

1965 Inventory     I   196951970  Inventory
                                                                            Derived Indices
              Exogenous Data

Tri-State Transportation   I  Other
 1990

 'Non-Fuel  Burning

 'Incineration
  process rate

 'Power
  heat input
 'Evaporation
  emissions

 'Motor Vehicles

  veh-mi
  vehicle mix

 'Aircraft
  emissions
                         pop. by  county
                         gas. consumpt. by
                            county
 'Other
  process  emissions
  other transp.  emiss.
  gas.  marketing emiss,
                      1969 N.J.  veh.  mix


                      1969 N.J.  emiss.  by county
                      1970 N.Y.  emiss.  by county
                      1969 commercial aircraft
                         emission factors
                      1970 emissions by county
                      1970 emissions by county
                      1970 emissions by county
                                                  (1965 gals/capita by county)
                                                  N.J.  veh-mi/capita oy county
                                                  .N'.J.  mi/gal by county
                                                  N.Y.  mi/gal by county
                                                  N.Y.  veh-mi/capita by county
                                                                          ratio 1990/1969 Emiss. Factors
                                                                                  1985 population by county
1985 N.J. pop. by county
                                                                                                           1985 N.Y. pop. by  county
                                                                                                               refuse by county

                                                                                                               heat input by
                                                                                                               utility company;
                                                                                                               assigned by
                                                                                                               counties served.
                             tPA emiss/capita
N.J.DOT veh-mi
   by county
(categorize
   mi/gal)
N.J. veh. mix
                              commercial  air-
                                craft  emiss.
                                factors
                              trend  in flights
                                 for region


                              trend  to 1975
                              trend  to 1975
                              trend  to 1975
Notes:   Data from the 1965 inventory refer to  the .N.Y.  Region Abatement  Inventor)-;  Llata  from  the  1969  and  1970
        inventory refer to the state inventory and  the  EPA  regional  update  for  tiie  N.Y.  area.  Other exogenous
        data are for 1990 unless  otherwise specified.

-------
     Residential






     For all residential zones the dwelling units per acre are multiplied



times the number of acres for the land use zone to produce total dwelling



units.  The space heating requirement is then derived by multiplying the



number of dwelling units by the BTUs per dwelling unit shown in column 4.



All of the numbers for the parameter shown in this column, "Heat Requirement",



were developed as design parameters by engineers at Burns § Roe, using


                                       11  12
standard published engineering manuals.   '   .  This approach was thought to



be more accurate than developing default parameters from the incomplete  data



of the current inventory.  The information on schedule and process heat was



developed in conjunction with the Meadowlands planners for each category.




     Fuel propensity for each land use was assigned by the study team in



consultation with the Meadowlands planners, taking into account: 1)  regional



fuel use propensities by land use category; 2)  expected fuels due to design



criteria; and 3) the type and scale of development anticipated.  In  most cases



it was assumed that distillate oil would be burned, although natural gas was



assigned to low density residential development.






     Other Land Uses





     The activity indices for the neighborhood commercial land use category



are a bit more complicated since the heating demand is a function of the



residential area served.  The dwelling units per acre times the assumed



square feet per dwelling unit and the percentage of square feet in the complex



that will be devoted to commercial use yields the total number of square feet



for the commercial facility.  For this and the remaining fuel-burning land



uses the procedures for columns 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the same as discussed under



Residential and the necessary information was obtained in the same way.
                                     80

-------
Neighborhood schools are also a function of the residential area.  Dwelling




units per acre, pupils per dwelling unit and percent pupils going to a




particular school yield the number of students at that school; dividing by




the pupils per classroom yields the number of classrooms for the school.



All of the remaining fuel-related land uses: commercial, distribution, trans-



portation centers,, special uses, cultural center, research and industrial, use




the same parameters: number of acres of land use, the percent lot coverage



allowed, and the floor area ratios.  These yield the total square footage



to be heated.  In all cases this information was determined in consultation



with the Meadowlands planners.



     In theory the heating requirements, schedules, percent process heat and



fuel propensity would be determined individually for each 4-digit SIC code.



In practice this was not possible because of the available information.  All



industries were divided into only two categories of activity indices: the



BTUs per square foot were the same for both categories but the schedule, process



heat and fuel propensity varied.



     The information for the remaining land uses - the airport and the parking



lot - was all provided as planning input in conjunction with the Meadowlands



planners.  No exogenous activity indices were required.






     Quality of Data






     In summary, although the procedures required to develop the activity



indices for the Meadowlands plans are in theory quite complex, the actual



numbers required fall into a few rather simple categories.  These consist of




the BTUs per dwelling unit, square foot, or classroom that represent the



heat requirement, the schedule, the percentage of heat used for space heating



versus process heating and the relative propensity of fuel use for each of



the categories.  The design information for the first category is as accurate





                                    81

-------
as the distinctions that the planner can make in land use codes.   Fairly




reasonable estimates can be made of the number of hours  of operation for each




type of facility and for process heat for all categories except industrial.




Lack of information and tremendous variation in this variable as  experienced




in the point source inventory affects the results of the Meadowlands analysis




as well.  Finally, with the uncertainty in international fuel supplies even



one to two years in the future it is virtually impossible to make reasonable




estimates by land use category for 1990 as to fuel usage.  In using the




activity indices the planner is constrained by the national and regional




availability of fuel-use related data.



      The  actual  numbers  used are discussed in Part II and their  role in the



 activities  packages of LANTRAN is covered in the Appendix to Task 1.




 the  individual  source  and  by SIC categories,  as  well as data on  current employees,







      5.2.2  Activity Indices for  Background Point Sources






      Figure 1-22  shows the activity  indices developed for  the background



inventory for point sources.  As  can be seen from the first entry a default



parameter was required in the current inventory for percent process heat for



many  of the sources.  The required values were developed from a statistical



sample of other current point sources.  This of necessity affects the



accuracy involved in projecting this parameter forward to 1990, since the



accuracy of any activity index in the future time period is conditioned by



our present knowledge of its behavior.






         New Jersey Industrial Sources






     An elaborate system was set up to project percent process heating,



schedule, fuel use propensity and process emissions for existing New Jersey
                                    82

-------
  industrial sources to 1990.   Indices derived from current  activity  data  for




  the individual source and by category as  well as  data  on current  employees,




  enclosed space and gross plant area were  requested for each  industrial source



  in our inventory.    The data obtainable for a large number of sources were the




  number of employees; therefore, this parameter was used as the major projective




  variable.





            For  each point source the number of BTUs for space heating per hour




  and per employee was derived.  It was assumed that this parameter would




  not vary  significantly by industrial category; however, when summaries were




  made by industrial  category, wide variation  was  found and no statistical con-




  clusions  could be drawn.  This is no doubt due in part to  the inaccuracy in




  the percent process heat variable from which the amount of space heating versus




  process heating is derived.




       Information was determined on the ratio of 1980 to 1969 employment by




  county and SIC code from the New Jersey Bureau of Labor and Industry.   Quite




  a few assumptions had to be made because of the categories of SIC codes  for




  which that data are available and the labor market areas (cutting across




  county boundaries) for which information is assembled.




     A ratio of 1985 to 1963 total employment by Tri-State one square mile grid




areas was also developed for zones 1 through 3.  It was intended to project 1990




space heating directly in BTUs per hour using the employment ratios and any




assumed change in the BTU per hour and employee index.  This would then be com-




bined with  a new projection of percent process heat to yield total BTU heat




demand for  a source for 1990.  Accordingly, information on current percent pro-




cess heat was used to develop an index of percent process heat by SIC.  This




parameter yielded two broad categories of industrial use.  It was therefore,




concluded that present information was not sufficient to carry through the




analysis as intended.






                                       83

-------
     The employment ratio was applied to the total BTUs per hour per employee


to generate a 1990 total BTUs per hour.  No distinction could be made between


space heating and process heating.  In this way the same implied percent pro-


cess heat figure was carried forward to 1990.  When more accurate percent pro-


cess heating data can be determined, projections for these figures can be more


reliably made for future time periods.


       Information on number of hours  of operation for each source was aggre-


  gated  into  industrial categories.  Again no clear cut patterns could be found.


  Accordingly, the current schedule for each firm was carried  forward to 1990.
                         i

  Unfortunately  similar findings were made for fuel use.  No significant fuel


  propensity  by  SIC could be determined.  Again, two broad categories of fuel


  use were derived and these were  applied to the Meadowlands industrial sources.


      Furthermore, no exogenous information on fuel use trends by industry or


  county could be determined.  Accordingly, the fuel use for point sources was


  assumed to  maintain the current  proportions for 1990, except for switches from


  coal to oil or gas which were analyzed separately.


      Attempts were made to adequately assess changes in process emissions for


  each source for 1990.  The necessary information includes the current process


  rate and the number of employees.  An index of process rate per employee


  was to be developed by industrial category and then national and regional


  information on process control by category applied to this index.  Adequate


  information on process rate does not exist for most of the current sources.


  Furthermore, very little information exists on process control in a form that


  could  be used.  Therefore, blanket percent reductions in emissions by indus-


  trial  category were applied to each  source in consultation with the New Jersey


  Department  of  Environmental Protection.


      In summary, of all the elaborate procedures involving activity indices set


  up for use  with the background point source inventory, the only one that could



                                      84

-------
be implemented was the ratioing of future to current employment by industrial



category and geographic area.  In all other cases current information had to be



extrapolated forward or engineering judgement used.




      New York Industrial  Sources
      Since the primary concern was for the New Jersey sources and the current



 information for New York sources was so incomplete, no attempt was made to do



 a detailed analysis .for them.   Current percent process heat was carried forward



 to 1990,  as was schedule.   For fuel  use the  current propensities were used,



 except for general  trends  identified by counties.   The only  trends that



 could be  ascertained in practice were  a few  shifts  from coal  to oil and gas.





      Power Plants
      Information on schedule  and  fuel use  for  all power plants, both existing

                                                                            14-17
 and new,  was  determined separately,based upon  the expertise  of  Burns &  Roe.



 Using the information on schedule, duty assignment, heat  input  rating and


 system fuel use propensities  the  schedule  and  fuel use for each power plant


 were determined.  All other information  was carried forward to  1990 for exist-



 ing sources;  data were developed  from design parameters or on the basis of



 current sources for new plants where needed.




      Incinerators
      Emissions  for existing  incinerators  for  1990 were based upon current data.



 The amount  of refuse  per  day burned was assumed  to remain constant and only the



 emission factors  were changed.   For those sources where  the current amount of



 refuse burned per day was not known,  current  inventory data on  emissions and



 emissions factors were used  to  generate the necessary information.  For new



 incinerators  emissions were  developed from the separate  estimates of  Burns §



 Roe on refuse per day.



                                      85

-------
     5.2.3  Activity Indices for Background Area Sources





     The procedures established to determine the 1990 background area source



inventory involved a complex use of activity indices as shown in Figures



1-23 and 1-24.  As with the point source inventory the data necessary to carry



forward these procedures were often lacking.





     Fuel Burning Sources





     Figure 1-23 shows all of the activity indices required for estimating



1990 fuel burning emissions.  Four parameters were used; heat demand, percent



process heat, fuel use propensity and weighted emission factors.  Again existing



activity data, derived indices and exogenous data were relied upon.



     The first column indicates all existing data developed from the 1965-



1966 Abatement Region inventory, whereas, the second column shows data derived


                                                                                 22
from the 1969 New Jersey Fuel Tables or the 1970 Implementation Plan inventories,



except as noted.  The derived indices are all for 1990, except where otherwise



shown.  Finally, the exogenous data represents 1990 estimates either from the


                                   23
Tri-State Transportation Commission   or from other sources, except where other



dates are shown.



     Heating demand estimates relied upon current fuel use and percent process



heat data from the Abatement Region inventory.  1969 data did not exist for the



New York portion of the region and were not in sufficient detail for the New



Jersey areas.  From these data 1965 estimates of space heating BTUs by "state"



were developed.  The state breakdown, as referred to here, means the three



jurisdictions of New York City, New Jersey, and the remaining counties in the



17 county region of New York outside of New York City.  Using the space heating



BTUs and Tri-State information on 1963 residential and non-residential square
                                     86

-------
feet of floor space by state, an index of the BTUs per square foot by state was
developed.  Great variation was found in what was thought to be a relatively
simple index.  The calculations were, therefore, tempered by the design factors
found for the Meadowlands and applied to the 1985 square feet of residential and
non-residential floor space from the Tri-State Transportation Commission.  This
yielded a county by county heating demand value for residential and non-
residential use.
     The percent process heat was likewise estimated using 1965 data on fuel
use and percent process heat.  The 1965 space heating demand and the Tri-State
percent increase in non-residential square feet from 1963 - 1985 was used to
determine the 1985 space heating demand for non-residential use.  Assuming that
the non-residential percent process heat could be approximated by a number in-
between the present percent and the percent that would be derived empirically
by projecting space heating while holding actual process heat constant, a new
percent process heat value for non-residential land use was derived. On the
other hand, local trends in residential process heat were used to develop the
residential index.  From these, multipliers were derived for each state and
applied to the space heating demand to produce total BTUs for both space and
process heating.
     Projection of fuel propensity for residential and non-residential use
relied upon the 1965 New York Fuel Tables.    Estimates were made of the percent
of oil and gas used for residential and non-residential purposes taking into
account regional trends such as the increase in natural gas usage for New York
City.  Lacking additional information, a conservative approach was taken and
the 1969 percent distribution was generally used for 1990.
                                    87

-------
     Fuel Emission Factors






     Although the emission factors were generally developed independently



from the activity indices, a special circumstance existed for the 1990 area



source data.  Because the projective planning data from the Tri-State




Transportation Commission were broken down into only two categories - residential




and non-residential - the 1990 emission factors for industrial and commercial




land uses had to be weighted to produce a single set of emission factors for




non-residential land use.  As can be seen from Figure 1-23 this was done by



using current information on the percentage of residual versus distillate




oil, and the percentage use by fuel and state for industrial and commercial



purposes.  From these a percentage residual oil trend was derived, as well as



the weighted averages of fuel use by state.  Using the projected 1990 emission




factors for oil and gas, a new set of weighted emission factors were derived.






     Non-Fuel Burning Sources






     Less information was available for projecting 1990 non-fuel burning



emissions than for the fuel burning ones.   As can be seen from Figure 1-24




the activity indices were highly tempered by the available data.  In



the case of incineration and power the Burns § Roe data were used directly.



In the case of evaporative emissions the 1985 Tri-State population by county



and an estimate from EPA of emissions per capita were used.



     When the evaporations category is considered relative to the entire



inventory it is found to be extremely important, accounting for nearly one-



half of the hydrocarbon emissions predicted for 1990.  An estimate of 20 pounds




per capita rather than the 30 used would reduce the hydrocarbon emissions  for



the region by nearly 100,000 tons.  Furthermore, the use of some other index
                                    88

-------
rather than population distribution would greatly change the spatial allocation




of hydrocarbon emissions for the region.  However, it is unclear how the spatial




patterns might change in the Meadowlands area since local variations are probably




more the result of local transportation and process sources.  The population




density surface does not exhibit significant local variations in our analysis.




     The activity indices for motor vehicle estimation shown in Figure 1-24




are different from those originally intended.  The simplest procedure would have




been to use the Tri-State 1985 vehicle mile data aggregated by county and to




apply the 1990 emission factors directly to them.  However, since the aggre- ,




gated county data were not available at the time of the calculation, the New




Jersey Department of Transportation county estimates for the New Jersey portion




were relied upon, together with a series of assumptions as follows for deter-




mining the New York estimates:




    1.  1965 population and gasoline consumption by county were used to




determine gallons per capita.




    2.  From the New Jersey vehicle miles per capita based on projected




population and vehicle miles, the implied miles per gallon for New Jersey




could be derived.  These were categorized and similar assignments made to




the New York counties for miles per gallon.




      3.  When the gallons per capita were applied to the 1985 estimates of




population, vehicle miles for each county were derived.




     Although this approach  is not as accurate as could be achieved and is




not recommended, it is presented here for documentation because it was the one




actually followed in practice.  Current New Jersey vehicle mix data and pro-




jective data from the New Jersey Department of Transportation and the Hackensack




Meadowlands Commission were used to derive a vehicle mix estimate to be applied




to the entire region.




     Aircraft emissions were extrapolated forward from current emissions by




county, using a general regional trend in the number of flights, 1990 estimates




                                    89

-------
of emission factors and the current emission factors.  Knowledge of regional



trends in aircraft flights is in the same state of chaos as fuel use propen-



sities; however, a general doubling in the number of flights uniformly for



all counties was assumed.



     For all other sources of non-fuel emissions (including area-wide process



emission, other transportation sources and gasoline marketing) the 1970


                                                   22 24
emissions from the Implementation Plan inventories,  '   taking into account



1975 trends, were extrapolated forward to 1990.





5.3  Fuel Supply and Demand





    The projection of fuel consumption for 1990 made in this study was based



largely on national trends.  Little information is available on the different



regional areas such as the New York metropolitan area.  Furthermore, it was



beyond the scope of the study to undertake a detailed regional fuel projection



analysis.  Several nationwide projections are available, the results of which



are inconsistent with each other.  The majority of these projections were made



before 1965 and all projections make assumptions that are suspect.  These



assumptions are:



     1.  That the reserves of all types of fuel are sufficiently abundant



to meet the anticipated demands.  Frankly, with the current rationing practices



in the natural gas supply, this is difficult to agree with.



     2.  That the recent environmental concern will not affect traditional



growth trends in fuel consumption.  With the kind of fuel switching currently



being carried out, for environmental control purposes, this assumption has



been violated already.



     In addition, all projections of 1990 fuel demand include fuel consumption



by mobile sources.  Since 1990 emissions from mobile sources were projected
                                     90

-------
separately on a vehicle mile basis and the fuel projection to be used was




based on stationary sources only, it was therefore, necessary to modify the




1990 baseline fuel projections made by others to remove fuel consumed by




mobile sources.






     5.3.1  Current Fuel Consumption






     Figures 1-25 and 1-26, following, are the 1965 and current fuel consumption




totals in the 17 county region by fuel and source type.  The totals have been.




converted to a BTU basis because in the energy form the proportional use of




each of the fuels can be compared and changes for 1990 can be mitigated by




known differences between the New York region and the national totals.




     Throughout this study the following conversion factors were used for




heating demand, taken from the 1965 New York Abatement Region Report.




         Anthracite Coal       26,000,000         BTU per ton




         Bituminous Coal       26,000,000         BTU per ton




         Residual Oil             152,000         BTU per gallon




         Distillate Oil           142,000         BTU per gallon




         Natural Gas                1,100         BTU per cubic foot




     In addition,  coal  gas was assumed to yield  1,100  BTU  per  cubic foot



for use with the 1990 inventory.




     As can be seen from the figures, coal is used predominately by a few.




power plants and some of the larger industries.   Its use has declined sig-




nificantly in the region in the last 10 years, as evidenced by the decrease




for New Jersey from 1965 to 1969.  Residual  oil  has become the mainstay for




energy production in the industrial sector and the use of distillate oil and




natural gas is significant in the area source category (residential and




commercial space heating).  Figure 1-27 shows the summary of fuel use developed




for 1990.   The following sections explain how it was determined.






                                    91

-------
     FIGURE  1-25
Summary of Fuel Use
       1965


New Jersey
Coal
Resid. Oil
Distil. Oil
Gas

New York City
Coal
Resid. Oil
Disti. Oil
Gas

New York State
Coal
Resid. Oil
Distil. Oil
Gas

Residential


959.
21.
1289.
97.


509.
982.
1074.
68.


89.
28.
440.
21.

Commercial


316.
637.
138.
24.


265.
454.
365.
23.


34.
38.
107.
17.

Industrial


1110.
886.
183.
44.


77.
264.
61.
11.


188.
49.
26.
2.

Power


3429.
476.
--
21.


5251.
886.
--
65.


474.
139.
--
17.

Total


5805.
2019.
1610.
185.


6104.
2586.
1500.
167.


786.
254.
573.
56.

BTU


151.
303.
242.
20A-
900.

159.
388.
225.
1 JW •_
956.

21.
38.
86.
62 .
207.
Units :
coal 10 tons
oil 106 gallons
gas 109 eu. ft.
BTU 10 12 BTU
Source :
1965 N.Y. Region
Abatement Report
         92

-------
     FIGURE  1-26
Summary of Fuel Use
       1969


New Jersey
Coal
Resid. Oil
Distil. Oil
Gas

Residential


379
21
1347
92

Commercial


130
791
129
31

Industrial


793
1134
194
59

Power


2086
859
--
31

Total


3388
2805
1670
213

BTU


88
420
250
234
992
Units :



coal
oil
gas
BTU
10 3 tons
106 gallons
109 cu. ft.
10 12 BTU
Source: 1969 NJDEP county
fuel use tables


        93

-------
                       FIGURE   1-27




                  SUMMARY OF FUEL USE






                           1990



New Jersey
Oil
Gas

New York City
Oil
Gas
New York State
Oil
Gas

Residential

1487
110

2079
100
673
31
Non-
Residential

1889
95

1216
56
395
36
Industrial
Point

629
15

	
	

Power*

1278

3167
934

Total

5283
220

6462
156
2002
67
1
BTU

792
242
1034
970
172
1142
300
74
"377
Units:  Oil -- 10  gallons



        Gas -- 10  cubic feet



        BTU -- 1012 BTU



Source:  Derived from 1990 background inventory
*In addition, power plants will consume 228 x 10  cubic feet coal



gas, representing 251 x 10



natural gas in gas turbines.
                          12                    12
gas, representing 251 x 10   BTU and use 11 x 10   BTU input of
                            94

-------
     5.3.2  Total Fuel Consumption - 1990





    The baseline used for 1990 fuel consumption was the "Energy Model for the


                                                                          25
United States" prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior, July 1968.



This estimate was used for convenience since it separates out transportation



sources and provides a breakdown by the same consumption sectors used in this



study.  The bottom half of Figure 1-28, following, presents that projection;



it was used to check the 1990 fuel use totals (shown in Figure 1-27 and the



top of Figure 1-28) that resulted from the fuel allocation process.  As can



be seen from the table,  total energy consumption is expected to increase 50%



between 1970 and 1990.   The use of the fluid fuels will  increase 50% and the



use of coal will decline in all sectors except in power  production where it



will nearly double.





     Fuel Assignment





     Area sources in the background inventory for the Tri-State region  were



assigned fuels based on existing fuel use for the same source category,



weighted by regional trends.



     Figure 1-29 summarizes the resulting fuel demand per square foot of



residential and non-residential space.  Decreases in demand reflect design



efficiencies postulated in heating as well as differing  assumptions made in



determining total BTU demand.





     5.3.3  1990 Point Source Fuel Use





     The 1990 fuel use by existing (1969) sources was projected to be the



same as at present with the following exceptions.  The use of coal by



industrial point sources will decrease and be replaced by residual oil.   The



other known cases of fuel switching presently being made were incorporated





                                    95

-------
 NEW YORK REGION
 Resident.§ Commercial
 Industrial**
 Power
          /
 TOTAL
                                     FIGURE  1-28
                          Comparison of Fuel  Use  Propensities
[1965]
Coal
56
36
258
330
Oil
835
220
225
1280
Gas
275
62
112
449
[1990]
Total 1 Coal
1166
318
575
2059
0
0
	 0
0
Oil
1160
94
J506
2060
Gas
573
17
262*
752
Tota1
If "3
i.i '
1
1066 ,
2812 )
 NATION

 Resident. § Commercial
 Industrial
 Power
 TOTAL
[1970]
508
5901
8035
14444
5979
5481
856
13316
7350
8988
2589
18927
13837
20370
11480.
45687
[1990]
160
3875
15618
19653
4470
10097
861
15428
14600
14640
3552
32792
192PO
286' '
200^1
670. J
            .12
 Units are 10   BTU
 * Includes coal gas and gas turbines
**For 1965, all industrial sources; however, for 1990 only point sources - area
  sources are included with the residential and commercial.
                                        96

-------
                               Figure   1-29

                     Comparison of Total Fuel Demand

Year
Residential
Non- Residential*
Power**
BTU
xlO L£
(1965)
820.
664.
575.
Sq.Ft.
xlO9
(1963)
5.3
2.8
8.1
BTU/sq.ft.
xlO
-
155.
237.
71.
Year
Residential
Non- Residential*
Power**
(1990)
902.
842.
1068.
(1985)
8.0
4.3
12.3
-
113.
196.
87.
 *.For 1965, combination of commercial and industrial fuel use from
   Figure 1-25;  for 1990 combination of non-residential and industrial
   point source  fuel use from Figure 1-27.

** Sq.ft. used to compare power  BTU is sum of residential and non-
   residential.

   Source:   BTU  from Figures 1-25 through 1-27;  sq.  ft. from Tri-State  Trans-
            portation Commission; 1985 values are for 'Plan C1.
                                      97

-------
 into the projection.  The use of coal by power plants in the region was re-




 placed by increases in gas consumption using coal gas supplemented by natural




 gas.  New sources from any of the Meadowlands plans were assigned a fuel de-




 mand based on the existing industrial mix or a fuel propensity based on SIC



 classification.  New power plants were assigned fuel based on individual




 utility fuel consumption patterns.






     5.3.4   1990 Area Source Fuel Use






     The various area sources in the Meadowlands district were assigned




 fuels individually  according to the type and scale  of development of each



 source.






 5.4  Emission Factors






     Emission factors are usually given as pounds of pollutant emitted per




 unit quantity of fuel burned; or for process emissions, pounds of pollutant



per ton of finished product.  It was one of the tasks of the study to develop



 a list of emission factors to be used to validate the 1969 inventory, to dis-



 cuss the various ways that emission factors may change in the future and,



 finally,  to estimate what the emission factors will be in 1990.






     Scope






     The emission factor analysis did not attempt to cover all changes that



may effect emissions.  For instance, a cessation of a particular activity at



 a source or sources was not covered by the emission factor analysis.  A change



 in fuel type such as a switch from oil to gas, or a change in raw material for



an industrial process were likewise not covered.  These types of emission




changes,  while they may result  from the application of a total air pollution
                                     98

-------
control strategy, are not changes in emission factors, as defined, and their


effects were covered elsewhere in the study.

     Given an activity that presently exists and will also exist in 1990 the

emission factor analysis covered how each activity emits the five subject

pollutants both now and in 1990.


     5.4.1  Present Emission Factors


     Figure 1-30, following, is a listing of all the major emission factors

used for this study.  The classification of emission activities are by fuel

burning and non-fuel burning source categories.  Each classification is sub-

divided into small subclasses of emissions.  For instance, within non-fuel

burning, refuse incineration includes open burning, domestic incineration,

apartment house incineration, commercial incineration and central station

municipal incineration.  For each identifiable activity to be found in the

study an emission factor was recorded if data were available.  While the

dimensional units may not be the ones used in the modeling, they are the ones

for which emission data were published at the time of the analysis and carried

through the emission factor modification process.  The table includes those

categories which account for approximately 95% of the emissions of the five

basic pollutants.  Emissions from industrial processes .were deleted from the

list.  These emissions are discussed at the end of this section.

     Following the listing of the activities and the emission factor dimen-

sional unit are the current emission factors for the five subject pollutants.

These are taken from the document Compilation of Emission Factors published
                             jt o o
by the Public Health Service.       The current emission factors were used

for the 1969 inventory and they incorporate the New Jersey sulfur standards

existing at that time.  The emission factors for automobile travel were ob-

tained by private communication from EPA since the most up-to-date informa-

tion had not been published at the time of the analysis.


                                    99

-------
                                                                                    Figure  1-30
                                                                            Summary  of  Emission Factors


A. FUEL BURNING
A-l Power Anthracite Coal
Plants Bituminous Coal
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
Coal Gas
Turbine-D-Oil
(base)
Turbine-D-Oil
(peak)
Turbine-N-Gas
(base)
Turbine-N-Gas
(peak)
A-2 Industrial Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
A- 3 Commer- Anthracite Coal
cial Bituminous Coal
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
A-4 Residen- Coal
tial Distillate Oil
Natural Gas


English
'/ton
'/ton
»/1000 gal
*/106 ft3
'/106 ft3
*/106 BTU
input
'/106 BTU
input
' '/106 BTU
input
»/10s BTU
input
'/ton
'/ton
»/1000 gal
»/1000 gal
«/106 ft3
#/ton
'/ton
*/1000 gal
«/1000 gal
»/106 ft3
'/ton
*/1000 gal
*/106 ft3


Metric
g/kg
g/kg
g/liter
g/m3
g/m3
g/cal.

g/cal.

g/cal.

g/cal.

g/kg
g/kg
g/liter
g/liter.
g/m3
g/kg
g/kg
g/liter
g/liter
g/m3
g/fcg
g/liter
g/m3

Conversion-
Factors ll>
0.5
0.5
1.2 x 10s
1.6 x 1010
1.6 x 1010
1.8 x 10s

1.8 x 106

1.8 x 106

1.8 x 10s

0.5
0.5
1.2 x 105
1.2 x 105
1.6 x 1010
0.5
0.5
1.2 x 10s
1.2 x 10s
1.6 x 1010
0.5
1.2 x 10s
1.6 x 1010
Current Emission Factors
PART

3
4
6
15

_

_

_

_

15
12
23
15
18
10
18
23
15
19
20
10
19
so2

27
38
159
0.6

_

_

_

_

27
38
159
43
0.6
36
38
159
43
0.6
38
43
0.6
CO

S
1
0.04
0.4

_

_

_

_

5
2
0.2
0.2
0.4
90
10
0.2
0.2
20
90
0.2
20
HC

0.1
0.3
5
40

_

_

_

_

0.1
1
3
3
40
2.5
3
3
3
8
20
3
8
NO,

12
36
105
390

_

_

_

_

12
15
60
60
175
3
6
60
60
100
3
12
50
Total Modification*-2-*
PART

75
75
90
NEF.

_

_

_

_

75
75

_
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
so2

90
90
85
NEC.

_

_

_

_

90
90
85
85

80
80
75
75

80
85
CO

_
_
_
_
_
_

_

_

_

.
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
HC

_
_
_
_
_
_

_

_

_

_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
:
NOX

60
60
70
70

.-

_

_

_

60
60
70
70
20
-
-
60
60
20
-
60
1990 Emission Factors^2'
PART

0.75
1.0
0.6
15
30
0.12

0.11

_

_

3.75
3.0
23-
15
18
• 10
. 18
23
15
19
20
10
19
so2

3
3.8
24
0.6
0.2
0.1

0.1

_

_

3
3.8
24
6
0.6
7
7.6
40
11
0.6
7.6
6.5
0.6
CO

5
1
0.04
0.4
0.3
-

_

_

_

s.o
2.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
90
10
0.2
0.2
20
90
0.2
20
HC

0.1
0.3
S
40
80
_

_

_

_

0.1
1.0
3.0
3.0
40
2.5
3
3
3
8
20
3
8
NO,

4.8
14.4
31
117
400
0.845

0.895

0.57

0.64

4.8
6
18
18
140
3
6
24
24
8
3
4.8
50
B. NON-FUEL
BURNING
B-l Inciner-
ation Open Burning
Incineration
(Domestic)
Incineration
(Apartment)
Commercial
(1 Chamber)
Commercial
(2 Chamber)
Municipal
B-2 Motor Cars
Vehicle Trucks - Gas
Trucks - Diesel
B-3 Aircraft Commercial
General Aviation
B-4 Evapo- Solvents
ration

'/ton refuse

'/ton refuse

'/ton refuse

'/ton refuse

'/ton refuse
'/ton refuse
»/1000 veh.rai
»/1000 veh.mi
»/1000 veh.mi
'/flight
'/flight
'/capita


g/kg refuse

g/kg refuse

g/kg refuse

g/kg refuse

g/kg refuse
g/kg refuse
g/veh.kro
g/veh.km
g/veh.km
g/flight
g/flight
g/capita


0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5
O.S
2.82 x 105
2.82 x 105
2.82 x 105
454
454
454


16

35

30

15

7
14
1.3
1.3
S
8
0.2
_


1

0.5

O.S

1.5

1.5
1.5
0.4
0.4
9
2
2
_


85

300

20

20

10
1
139
500
65
28
12
_


30

100

15

15

3
1.5
12.9
66
13
17
0.4
_


6

2

3

2 .

3
2
14.9
24
68
5
0.2
_


_

_

90

_

_
90
50
50
SO
-
_


_

_

_

_

_
-
-
-
-
-
_


„

_

_

_

_
-
92
97
87
80
SO
_


_

_

_

_

.
-
92
97
66
80
50
_


_

^

_

_

.
50
90
91
72
30



16

35

3

15

7
1.5
0.7
0.7
2.5
8
0.2
_


1

0.5

0.5

1.5

l.S
l.S
0.4
0.4
9
2
2
_


85

300

20

20

10
1
11
15
8
6
6
_


30

100

15

15

3
l.S
1.0
2.0
0.8
4
0.2
30


6

2

3

2

3
1
1.5
2.2
1.7
3.S
0.2
_

(1)   Multiply English units by indicated conversion factor to obtain metric units.

(2)   English units.

-------
     5.4.2  Projection Methodology






     It is anticipated that these current emission factors will change sub-




stantially by 1990.  Changes will occur from the application of more restric-



tive emission controls recently promulgated and also because of improved



methods of testing.  Changes of the latter type are largely speculative at



this time.  Changes in emission factors due to the proposed emission con-



trols will cause significant reduction in future emission levels.  There are




three types of changes that would affect current emission factors.  The first



type of change is called a process change.  This type of change includes



such things as the development of a more efficient internal combustion engine



and modification in operating procedures for fuel burning equipment.  The



second type of change is fuel modification which includes such things as the




removal of ash from coal or sulfur from oil.  It would also include a change



in raw material for an industrial process.  The third type of change will



result in improvements in flue gas cleaning technology.



     A literature search was made for information concerning the application



of each type of change to the control of the five subject pollutants.



Generally, each possible change is directed toward one specific pollutant.



For instance, a more efficient electrostatic precipitator is developed to



control particulates; therefore, the literature will have information con-



cerning the removal of particulates.  However, no information will be avail-



able concerning the effect of this device on the remaining four pollutants.



In cases like these the other pollutants have been assumed to pass through



unchanged.




     The columns labeled TOTAL MODIFICATION represent a subjective estimate




of the total reduction in 1990 emission factors based on the components of




change discussed above.  These factors were reviewed and approved by EPA
                                    101

-------
and NJDEP at the Milestone 5 meeting.  These percentages were applied to



the current (1969) factors to produce the 1990 emission factors projections.



Recent reductions in particulate emissions have been brought about in part by



process change, fuel modification and the installation of flue gas cleaning



equipment.  It is believed that this will be the case for future emission?



factor changes as well.  Rather than 100% reduction by gas cleaning, a



partial reduction will be made by process change, by fuel modification and



by the installation of devices.



     Not all five pollutants from each source category are considered to be



critical from an air pollution point of view.  It would be expected that re-



sources would be concentrated on the control of emissions for a pollutant



placed high on the list.  Since relatively little effort is being expended



toward the control of emissions of those pollutants at the bottom of the



list, little future reduction would be expected in these emission factors.



Priority ratings can be set up for the major categories of emission as shown



in Figure 1-31.





     5.4.3  1990 Emission Factors





     Power Plants
     A great deal of research is being conducted on air pollution emissions



from power plants.  Particulates can be controlled under current technology



to 98% efficiency.  New electrostatic precipitator/scrubber combinations



are expected to have a capacity of 99.5% (a reduction of 75% over current)



when applied to coal burners.  The installation of precipitators to oil



burning plants is anticipated, with an overall reduction in emission factors



of 90%.  A reduction in particulates from gas burning power plants is not



anticipated.
                                    102

-------
                                                       Figure    1-31


                                            Pollutant  Priority  Rating


Fuel Burning
Power Plants
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Non-Fuel Burning
Incineration
Motor Vehicle
Parti culates


1
1
1
1

1
4
Sulfur Dioxide


2
2
2
2

5
5
Carbon Monoxide


4
4
4
3

2
1
Hydrocarbon


5
5
5
5

4
2
Nitrogen Dioxide


3
3
3
4

3
3
o
C/4

-------
     Significant reductions in SO  emissions from power plants are antici-



pated.  This will be accomplished in part by the reduction of sulfur con-



centrations in coal and fuel oil and in part by advances in the gas cleaning



technology.  There are presently available several processes for the reduc-



tion of 90% of SCL from power plants.  This level is considered to be a re-



alistic overall goal that is attainable.



     NO   control from power plants will be accomplished largely by modifica-



tions to  fuel burning equipment and changes in operating procedures.  The



limestone injection system is a flue gas cleaning system that is directed



toward S0_ control but also reduces NO  emissions significantly.  Significant



reductions in CO and HC emissions from power plants are not anticipated.






     Industrial Fuel Burning





     The same 75% reduction in particulates is predicted from industrial



coal burners as for power plants.  However, since these emission factors



are currently higher, the 1990 emission factors will also be higher.  SO



control will be provided by sulfur reduction in the fuel.  NO  emission
                                                             A.


factors will be reduced by process change and no substantial changes in



emission factors from CO and HC are anticipated.





     Refuse Incineration





     The use of open burning and domestic incineration have largely been



banned in the New York - New Jersey areas.  There is no feasible method of



emissions control for this activity to the levels required by current regu-



lations.  For these reasons, it is expected that these methods will largely




disappear and therefore, no effort is anticipated in emission factor reduction.



     The upgrading of apartment house incinerators has been ordered in



New York City.  The order is being met, in some cases, by the installation
                                    104

-------
of auxiliary burning equipment and scrubbing devices; in other cases the




incinerators are being shut down in favor of compactor units.  It is antici-




pated that there will be a reduction of about 90% in particulate emission



factors.  While reductions in CO and NO  emissions factors are anticipated,




no data are available on the extent of the reductions in these areas.  For



municipal incinerators, the installation of electrostatic precipitators and




scrubber/precipitator combinations will reduce particulate emission factors



by 95% over the time period considered.  CO emissions from new installations



are already sufficiently low, with good operating practice.  The installation



of water walls for the purpose of steam generation will reduce the NO  emis-



sion factor by providing a mechanism for the control of furnace temperatures;



this waste heat recovery will probably be standard in the area by 1990.






     Transportation






     The reduced emission factors for gasoline burning vehicles were extracted



directly from the information supplied by EPA, urban traffic data were used




(with an average speed of 25 mph) for this analysis.  Significant reductions



in particulate and sulfur oxide emissions are not expected, since these are



not presently considered troublesome with respect to gasoline burning vehicles.



Little information was available as to possible reductions in the emission



factors for aircraft although emission standards were soon to be promulgated



at the time of the analysis.   The greater emissions from the new larger air-



craft will probably be offset to a great extent by more efficient controls,



and thus result in a relatively small change in emissions per flight.





     Commercial and Residential Fuel Burning





     Emissions from these sources will be largely affected by changes in



fuels and fuel substitution.   The installation of complex fuel gas cleaning
                                    105

-------
devices is not economical in these small sizes.  Some operational changes



can be made to effect a reduction in NO  emissions.  These, however, would
                                       A


tend to increase CO and HC emissions.



     Several emission factors were ascertained for 1990 that were not neces-



sary for the current emission inventory.  These included the coal gas and



gas turbine data for power plants and emission from solvent evaporation.



All of the information was obtained directly from EPA after the Milestone 5



meeting with the exception of coal gas estimates which were determined by



Burns & Roe.





     Industrial Separate Process Emissions





     Industrial separate process emissions need to be handled on an indivi-



dual source by source basis because emission factors are greatly affected



bv detailed information on product type, production rates, equipment types



and age.  Using a standard factor for all refinery operations as an example



would be greatly misleading.  Even 4-digit SIC categories do not give suf-



ficient delineation - sulfuric acid and nitric plants are in the same cate-



gory.
                                    106

-------
 5.5   Emission Characteristics



      The emission inventories prepared as a part of this study represent


 only  the average annual day, the average summer day and the average winter


 day.  The average annual day, for example, assumes that all total fuel and


 non-fuel emissions for the year are divided equally by 365 days.  Any vari-


 ations that occur between weekday and weekend, month of the year, hour of the


 day,  in the level of activity or in the type of fuel used are completely


 averaged out.  This means that sources which occur intermittently are generally


 obscured and considered negligible.  This includes such things as heating of
                        i

 a stadium or a sports complex a few weekends a year, open burning from land


 fires and rush hour traffic jams.  Therefore, the inventory that has been


 prepared is a statistical one.  It does not truly exist at any one time.


     The annual activity level for a particular source is multiplied by the


 activity index to produce the annual fuel use.  The fuel or fuels assigned


 are multiplied times the average emission factor to yield a fuel emission for


 the year.  For non-fuel emissions, the annual activity level is multiplied


 times the average emission factor.


     The summer and winter seasonal inventories were developed simply by


 ratioing the space heating portion of fuel use according to the number of


 degree days (as shown in Figure 1-32)and the percentage of fuel used for


 space heating for each source or source category.  In many cases, the per-


 centage of fuel used for space heating was not known.  For point sources,


 default parameters were developed directly from the known current point


 sources.   These are shown in Figure 1-32.  The same default parameters were


used for 1969 and 1990 sources.   The only new sources were power plants and


 incinerators, all of which have 0% space heating factor.  1969 assumptions


for percent space heating for area sources are shown in Figure 1-32. These were



                                   107

-------
                                                     Figure   1-32

                                         Seasonal and Stack Parameters

Annual
Winter
Summer
no. of days
365.
91.
91.
degree days
4859.
2780.
0.
avg. daily degree days
13.3
30.5
0.
ratio to annual
1.0
2.3
0.
ambient temp.
285.60°K
276.00°K
295.00°K
Percent of Fuel Used for Space Heating

Point Sources :
Industrial (SIC 20-29)
Industrial (SIC 30-39)
Power Plants
Institutional
Area Sources (New Jersey)
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Area Sources (New York)
Industrial
Commercial
Residential

10%
25%
0%
90%

25%
100%
90%

25-50%
100%
70-85%
Default Stack
Height *

Point Sources :
Fuel Burning

100 feet
Separate Process 50 feet

Line Sources :

Area Sources :

(as a function
> 50, 000 pop/mi
10,000-50,000
1,000-10,000
< 1,000 pop/mi

0



of population density)
100 feet
50 feet
30 feet
20 feet
o
00
                                                              *in each case the average effective stack height
                                                               is 1.5 times the height shown; this is for a
                                                               4 m/sec wind speed and changes with wind speed
                                                               as a function of the stability class.

-------
developed from the 1965 - 1966  New York Abatement Region inventory.  The
1990 percent space-.heating figures were developed separately and are discussed
in the section on the background area source inventory.
     In addition to information on location of each source and emission rate
for each of the five pollutants, the model requires information on stack
height and plume rise factor.  These are used to calculate the effective
stack height in MARTIK for each source.  The equation for determining plume
rise is as follows:

  plume rise (m /sec)  = 0.0929 x velocity (ft/sec) x Diameter (ft)  x
    1.5 +{ 8.17 x 10   x 1000 x  Temp  (°K) - Temp.ambient x Diameter(ft)}
                                            Temp

As a part of the data gathering for the current point source inventory infor-
mation on stack height, diameter, exit velocity and exit temperature were
obtained.  In many cases, the information was not available and default
parameters had to be used.  These default parameters were developed in con-
junction with the modeling decisions of Task 2: if any of the three parameters
needed to develop plume rise were missing, the plume rise factor was auto-
matically set at 1/2 times the height, multiplied by a wind speed of 4 meters
per second.  Within MARTIK, the plume rise is divided by wind speed  (a func-
tion of stability class)to derive the effective stack height.  Accordingly,
the effective stack height used for modeling is variable with stability
class but averages one and one-half the times the actual stack height in the
default case.
     Where stack height itself was not known, a default value of 100 ft.
was used for fuel burning stacks, 50 ft. for separate process stacks and 100
ft. for combined stacks or cases where the stack type was not known.
                                    109

-------
Actual and effective stack height of 0 was used for all line sources.  Very


little information exists on what are the appropriate stack heights and


effective stack heights to use for area sources, because of the multiplicity


of sources contributing to an area-wide grid cell.  A procedure was developed


to relate the stack height to the population density of the cell under consid-


eration.  It was felt that population density was one of the most readily


available parameters that could be used to indicate the general height of


buildings for an area-wide source.  Figure 1-32 shows the assumed stack


heights (also taken to be the effective stack heights) for various population


densities representative of the study region.


     One important but controversial feature of a land use planning methodology


is the use of dimensional units which can be understood by the planner.


Recent emission inventories have been assembled in both metric and English


units.  The units associated with the Meadowlands plans and the current


state and federal inventories were mainly English units, and were used in


this study unaltered.  Although EPA is stressing the use of the metric system


for all air pollution work, it is still necessary as part of a land use plan-


ning approach to use units that the planner currently works with.  Accordingly,


all calculations were performed in the units most commonly found in planning


and related literature and then transformed as a final step to the metric units


used by MARTIK.  These consist of the following:  For point source grams per


second, for line sources grams per meter-second, and for area sources grams

         2
per meter  second.  The figures in Part II of this report generally present


point sources in units of tons, pounds or tons per year.  Line sources are


generally discussed in the transportation units of vehicle miles per day or


vehicle miles per year, while area sources are usually presented as tons or


pounds per square mile per year.  In the discussion of the land use plans the


areal unit,  acres, is generally used.

                                    110

-------
               PART II:
DISCUSSION OF THE EMISSION INVENTORIES
                  111

-------
                             PREFACE TO PART II




      Part II presents the discussion of each of the emission inventories,



including the way in which they were developed, the problems encountered,




areas for improvement, and a summary of the component data sets themselves.




The actual data sets and their description are found in Appendix A and



Appendix  B;  the  reasons  for  developing  the  inventories in the  manner  chosen



have  been discussed in Part  I.



      The  first section of Part  II  describes  the overall emission catalog




specifications and  the interrelationships of the  components  of the inventories,



The  following two sections present the  data associated with  the current  and



background inventories.   The final section  of Part  II covers the major efforts



of the  study:  the  actual application of the techniques to the Meadowlands



plans and the translating of the activity data into  emissions  using the  con-



version factors  catalog.
                                     113

-------
                    1. EMISSION CATALOG SPECIFICATIONS








1.1  AQUIP Emission Data Sets






     Figure II-l shows each of the emission data sets used in the study,




together with the flow of information from these data sets to the inventories




used as inputs to MARTIK.  The creation of each labeled box for each of the



emission inventories is discussed in the following sections.  Furthermore,



this figure illustrates the actual data sets which are discussed in the



Appendix.



     As can be seen from Figure II-l, the current emission inventory




has three components:  point, line, and area sources.  The current inven-



tory was used for three purposes.  First of all, and most importantly, it



was used for the validation runs from which the calibration constants were



developed.  Secondly, it provided some of the projective data used for the



background emission inventory.  Finally it provided projective data used



in the actual conversion factors catalog for the Meadowlands plans.



Similarly, the background emission inventory has three major components:



point, line, and area, as well as a special separate component included for



the Meadowlands Incinerator.  Finally, the 1990 Hackensack Meadowlands plans



each have three components:  Point, line and area.  The point  and  area



inventories are created with the conversion factors catalog and the LANTRAN



Program.  Each plan's line sources are handled in a similar manner as the



current and background line sources.




     The right hand side of Figure II-l shows three of the four components



required to run MARTIK for 1990 air quality.  The fourth component is the



meteorological data.
                                    115

-------
   5153
O\
Current
Point

Current
Line

Current
Area

Land Use
Plans




».

Current
Emission
Inventory
{ Proje
\ Do
\
Active \

^~
fa j
/\
,
Conversion Factors
Catalog



"^


Model
Validation
Runs

Background
Area

Background
Point

Background
Line

Incinerator

Plan
Area

Plan
Point

Plan
Line










Calibration
Constants

Background
Emission
Inventory

Plan
Emission
Inventory
—

                                   Figure  II-l    Flow of Information for 1990 Model  Inputs

-------
 1.2   Sources of Data





      The most time-consuming part of the study was locating, obtaining,



 and verifying the information necessary to create the emission inventories.




 In Figure  II-2, along the left side are listed the major agencies and




 other sources of information used.  Along the top of the figure are listed




 categories of data which were obtained.  In terms of a land use planning



 methodology this table is quite revealing, since information on only three



 categories of data were obtained from the planning agency, the Hackensack    ;



 Meadowlands Commission.  This included the majority of the data on the




 land  use plans and some of the information on activity indices and the



 background point inventory.



     The regional planning agency, the Tri-State Transportation Commission,




was able to provide data on activity indices, fuel use, background point



 sources, and background area sources.   The Environmental Protection Agency



 (EPA) provided information of a more national nature in the form of emission




 factors and standards, and of a regional nature for fuel use and current



 point sources.  However, it was necessary to resort to local and state air



 pollution  and other government agencies for a large portion of the data.



 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey



 Department of Transportation we have heavily relied upon, as Figure II-2



 shows.  These data were supplemented with information from the New Jersey



 Bureau of  Labor and Industry and the New York State Division of Air Resources,



 as well as the New York City Division of Air Resources.



     The initial literature search was of great use in the areas of



 activity indices,  fuel use, emission factors, background point sources,
                                   117

-------













Hackensack Meadowlands
Commission

USE PA
N . J . Dept . Envir . Protection
N.J.Dept.of Transportation
N.J. Bureau Labor 5 Industry









I/)
%
.-i
Cu
X




• H

c

^j
3
u






rt
(U

•^
•P
c
d>

3
U


•P
C
•l-l
O
a,

•d
§
s
00
•a
a)
CQ
X


0)
c
•H
, 1

•d
§
2
00
•8
rt
00



Oj
d>
M
«jj

•d
§
2
00
•8
rt
CQ







V)
c
0
•H
rt
^H
a
(U










•3
M
rt
•d
s
P
W3








X

X
X



X



X
X




X


X



X

X


X


X
X





X
X


N.Y. State Div.Air Resources
N.Y.City Div. Air Resources








X
X


X
X




X
X





Tri-State Transportation
X
X




X

X



literature search
professional judgment

X
X
X
X

X


X



X
X
X



X
X

X

              Figure 11-2



Relation of Sources  of Information
                 118

-------
 regulations and standards.   The last line  indicates  that  professional




 judgment was a significant  input in the interpretation of the  plans,




 the development of activity indices, the interpretation of the current




 point and area source inventories,  as well as  the  development  of the




 background point and area source inventories.   This  indicates  some  of




 the areas where problems will  be encountered in translating the results




 to other regions, because of the necessity of  using  state and  local




 air pollution data,  as well as the  need for professional  judgment.




     In reviewing the following sections the assumptions and constraints




discussed in Part I, Emission Projection Methodology, should be kept in




mind.  In particular, it should be stressed that the projecting indices




had to be developed as well  as applied as a part of this study; this affects




the accuracy obtainable.  Likewise,  it should be stressed that  the first




priority was in preparing emissions  inventories for the Meadowlands  plans;




all other emission inventories were  subserviant to this task since they do




not directly affect either the modeling or the  performance of the AQUIP




system.
                                    119

-------
                     2.  CURRENT EMISSION INVENTORY








 2.1  Components of the Inventory






      The current emission inventory was divided into three components -



 point, line, and area sources - because of the separate model require-




 ments and the availability of information.   Point source information



 was constructed from existing federal and state inventories with indivi-



 dual source verification.  Line source information was developed entirely



 from data supplied by a separate transportation agency.  Finally, area




 source information was assembled from many sources to form a residual



 inventory when the most reasonable level of detail had been reached in



 characterizing the point and line sources.



      The discussion of the point source inventory covers:  (1) the



 sources of data; (2) approach to data acquisition; (3) development of



 the data; (4) types of information sought; (5.) supplemental data required;



 (6) data completeness and quality; and (7) the use of default parameters.



 The discussion of the line source inventory covers the simple steps



 required to assemble and use the traffic data.



      The section on the current area source inventory discusses:  (1) data



 sources;  (2) New Jersey fuel emissions; (3) New Jersey non-fuel emissions;



 (4) New York City emissions; (5) New York State emissions; (6) an inven-




 tory summary; and (7) accuracy of analysis.






 2.2  Current Point Source Inventory






     The major source of data for the point source inventory was  the  files



of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  From  the Trenton



office the following sources were utilized:




                                    121

-------
          1.  Initial screening of all large sources which included plant




name, county location, UTM coordinate, average daily emission in tons/



day for particulates and SO  .





          2.  Fuel consumption for all major point sources, annual quantities




by fuel type as well as recent and projected changes.





          3.  The 1965-1966 and 1969  N.Y.  Region  EPA  inventories.  These




questionnaires provided some information on operating schedules, fuel




distribution and air pollution control data.





         The second largest source of information was the enforcement files




located in the department's field office.  These files provided the most



extensive information on stack parameters and separate process emissions.




However, because of voluminous amounts of material contained in these files



they were only examined for those sources nearest the Meadowlands (first



60 sources in Figure II-3).





         The New Jersey Department of Commerce provided some projective



information on plant employment, enclosed space and plant area.  Additional



employment data were provided by the New Jersey Department of Labor and




Industry.





         Another significant source of information was the 1969 regional




update printout provided by EPA.  This source provided the bulk of the



point source inventory data for the New York-Connecticut region as well



as many of the stack parameters for the zone 3 and zone 4 sources in New



Jersey.
                                    122

-------
                                Figure  H-3
                  Summary  Information for all Point Sources
                               Current  Inventory

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41

42
County
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen

Bergen
Bergen
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson

Hudson
Zone
3
3
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3

3
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3

3
Disposition


removed




removed


removed




removed

removed




removed
removed


removed




removed



removed


removed

removed


Comments


< 100 tons




< 100 tons


insuffici-
ent data



< 100 tons

< 100 tons




< 100 tons
< 100 tons


< 100 tons




< 100 tons



< 100 tons


<100 tons

Process




X




X




X



X
X




X
X




X



X

X



insuffici-
ent data



Code
39
26

38
36
26
28

49
28


28
28
32

80

35
27
44
20


34
28

49
49
49
34

40
36
29

28
32

40


39
1 2 3 t
Default Parameters










































X
X


X









X


X


X
X
X


X








X
X

X
X




X



X





X









X
X





.".
X
X
X



X
X







X
*1 = height, 2 = plume rise, 3 = % process heat.
                                     123

-------
                                    Figure II-3   Cont'd

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75

76

77
78
79

80
81
82
83
84
County
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Essex
Essex
Hudson

Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Passaie
Passaic

Passaic

Passaic
Bergen
Passaic

Bergen
Union
Union
Union
Union
Zone
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3

2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

3

3
1
3

4
4
4
4
4
Disposition
removed




removed
removed
removed
removed

removed

removed





removed

removed
removed


removed








removed

removed


removed
removed






Comments
<100 tons
1970 data

1970 data

<500 tons
< 100 tons
< 100 tons
< 100 tons

< 100 tons

< 100 tons





<100 tons

<100 tons
insuffici-
ent data

< 100 tons








insuffici-
ent data
insuffici-
ent data

<100 tons
insuffici-
ent data




1970 data
Process

X

X



















X






X











X
X
X
X
Code
49-1
29
20
29
28




20



20
33
30
28
28

28



28

20
26
30
30
34
34
28
28




30



26
28
28
28
29
1
Defai

X

X





X



















X
X
X













X
2
lit Para

X
X
X
X




X



X
X

X
X

X





X

X

X
X
X
X








X



X
3 *
meters


X
X













X

X





X



X
X
X
X













*1 = height, 2 = plume rise, 3 = % process heat,
                                        124

-------
                             Figure II-3   Cont'd

85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108

109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
County
Union
Union
Union
Union
Union
Unio
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Essex
Union
Passaic
Morris
Essex
Morris
Morris
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex

Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Bronx
Queens
Queens
Richmond
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Brooklyn
Zone
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Disposition




removed
removed

removed
removed
removed
removed
removed





removed





removed








removed
removed
removed













Comments




<500 tons
< 500 tons

<500 tons
<500 tons
< 500 tons
< 500 tons
<500 tons





< 1000 tons

1970 data

1970 data

unresolved
emissions

1970 data


1970 data


< 1000 tons
< 1000 tons
< 500 tons













Process
X


X


X







X



X
X
X




X

X
X
X
X
X



X












Code
28
49
26
28


35





26
26
39
28
90

28
29
33
49
49


33
49
33
28
29
39
39



28
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
1
Defa






X





















X



















2 ' 3
ult Parameters *
X





X





X


X





X




X

X

X
































X









X

.







X












*1 = height, 2 = plume rise, 3 = % process heat
                                     125

-------
                             Figure II-3   Cont'd


132

133
134

135
136
137
138
139

140

141

142

143

144

145

147

148

149
150
151
152
153
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163

164
165
166
County






Nassau
Queens
Nassau
Rock land
Connecti-
cut
Connecti-
cut
West-
chester
Connecti-
cut
Connecti-
cut
Connecti-
cut
West-
chester
Connecti-
cut
West-
chester
Rockland
Richmond
Bronx
Queens
Bronx
Brooklyn
Brooklyn
Nassau
Nassau
Nassau
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
West
Chester
Brooklyn
Rockland
Brooklyn
Zone






4
4
4
4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
Disposition

removed

removed
removed























removed














removed

removed
Comments

insuffici-
ent data
shutdown
insuffici-
ent data






















< 1000 tons














<1000 tons

< 1000 tons
Process














































Code






49
49
49
49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

34

35

28
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1

49-1

80

1
Defa














































2
ult Para
3
.meters



































X ,
































X

X

X

X










•





cl  = height,  2  =  plume  rise,  3 = % process heat.
                                      126

-------
                              Figure II-3   Cont'd

167
168
169
170
171
172
173
County
Richmond
Manhattan
Manhattan
Brooklyn
Middlesex
Middlesex
Union
Zone

4
3
3
4
4
4
4
Disposition




removed
removed

Comments




< 1000 tons
1970 data.
< 1000 tons
1970 data
Process




X

X
Code

80
80
80
35

34
1
Defa
2
alt Par
3 *
ameters




X





X





X

X
Notes:
     Zones defined in Part I, Figure 1-10; criterion for removing sources from
          point source inventory related to the zone.
     1969 data used except where noted that 1970 data were used.
     An "X" under process means that the source has separate process emissions
          (excludes incinerators).
     An "X" under default parameters means that the data were missing and a
          default parameter for the value had to be used.
     Code is the activity code assigned to each source as follows:
          20-39  Manufacturing sources - corresponds to the 2-digit SIC
                 (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes used by the
                 U.S. Census.
          40     Warehouse, distribution, etc.
          44     Railroad
          49     Power plants
          49-1   Incinerators
          80     Hospitals, other institutions
          90     U.S. Government facilities
                                     127

-------
     The New York City Environmental Protection Administration and the New



York State Department of Environmental Conservation were also contacted.




The latter provided clarification of the New York data contained in the




1969 EPA regional update.






     2.2.1  Approach to Data Acquisition






     Figure II-3 shows the summary information for all point sources in the




current inventory.  The county name, AQUIP zone number, and two-digit SIC




code are included.  The approach to data acquisition for the point sources



as well as the sources of information (as shown in Figure II-2)  for point



sources depended upon the location of the various points with respect to



the four AQUIP zones.  In general, effort was concentrated on those sources




which are closest to the Meadowlands region.  For these points it is felt



that all possible data sources have been exhausted and that the  most complete



set of consistent data available has been compiled.  For those sources in the



outer reaches of Zone 3 and for all sources in New York and Connecticut infor-



mation from the appropriate state and federal agencies was relied upon, and




only a minimum of original work was performed as a part of the study to




supply missing information.






     2.2.2  Development of the Data






     The completion of the point source inventory included assembly of the



useful information from the above-mentioned sources as well as initial gen-



erating of some of the input.   Input from the study was concentrated on those



sources in zones 1 and 2 and the inner region of zone 3.  The inventory was




developed roughly as follows:
                                      128

-------
          Sources  1-60





          The  largest amount of time was spent on these sources since




they are  located within and immediately surrounding the Meadowlands.  An




onsite inspection was made of each of these sources to determine their




exact location.  These locations were plotted, in the field, on USGS  •




series 1:20,000 topographic maps which contain the UTM coordinate system.



In this manner the exact location of each source was determined.  The fuel




data were provided by the New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection



with some small supplement   for fuel consumption by power plants.  The



Trenton files of the  NJDEP as well as the enforcement files in Springfield,




N.J. , were examined in detail for each of these sources.  The Trenton



files produced the information on operating schedules and fuel distribution.



The enforcement files produced most of the stack parameters and .separate



process emission data.  Some stack parameters were obtained from the 1969




regional update printout.  The Commerce Data Guide gave the only infor-



mation on enclosed space and gross plant area that could be obtained;



it also contained much of the information on plant employment.  The remain-




ing employment data were obtained from the Bureau of Labor and Industry.



Emissions of the five pollutants were generated in the study directly from



the fuel data using standard emission factors and employing the current



1969 N.J.  fuel regulations.




         Sources 61-119 and 171-173





         These sources are located in the outer regions of zones 3 and 4.



This information was largely accepted without modification from the central



office files of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
                                   129

-------
Tliis information included all aspects of plant location, the emissions for



particulates and S02, the fuel data and separate process emission.  Some



stack parameters for the largest sources were obtained from the EPA 1969



update.  The study team prepared the emissions inventory for CO, HC and



NO. from fuel burning based on the current emission factors.
  A.



         Sources 120-170




         These sources are located in New York and Connecticut.  The


entire inventory was taken from the 1969 fcPA regional update printout.



The study team again generated the emissions for CO, HC and NO  from fuel



burning using standard emission factors.





     2.2.3  Types of Information Sought





     The data search for point sources, particularly in the New Jersey



portion of the study area, was very comprehensive in view of the importance



which this part of the inventory has to the total program.  The following



types of information were sought, particularly for New Jersey sources



examined in detail:




         Plant Name and Location




         The current name of each plant is very important since many



of the country's largest corporations are included in our inventory and



these companies have plants at several locations in the region; only some



of which are major emitters.  The correct municipality and county location



for each plant is necessary because incorrect location of a major source



can cause discrepancies in county totals, producing large errors in the



area source inventory derived therefrom.  The UTM coordinate location is



used to reference each source for modeling purposes.
                                    130

-------
         Stack Parameters





         Standard stack parameters sought for each of the sources




included the total number of stacks at each location and the designation




of each as a process stack or a fuel-burning stack; the maximum spread




between individual stacks; and the plume rise parameters of stack height,



stack diameter, exit gas temperature, exit gas velocity and mass flow rate.




         Fuel Data




         The total 1969 consumption by each plant of the four major



fuels, coal (anthracite and bituminous), residual oil, distillate oil and



natural gas was sought.  In addition, any information on seasonal usages




of individual fuels was sought.



         Plant Operation Schedule





         The plant operating schedule was sought.  This included the



number of eight hour shifts per day; the number of days operated in the



week and the number of weeks operated annually.  The percentage of fuel



burned for space heating and for process operation was also sought.  This



factor provides an estimate of that part of the fuel burning emission that



is constant and the part which varies with ambient temperature.




         Boiler Data and Air Pollution Control Equipment




         This information was  concerned with coal burning boilers only.



For these boilers the burner configuration was determined, as was the rated



capacity in millions of BTUs per hour which affects emission potential, and



the type and efficiency of particulate  collection  equipment which  affects




the controlled emissions.
                                    131

-------
          Separate Process Data





          For those sources that have separate process emissions the average




process rate was sought; this usually is stated in terms of tons of product




produced by each process on an hourly time basis.  In addition, the average




emission of the five pollutants from each process source was sought.





          Projecting Data





          In addition to the process rate, other information was sought rela-




tive to the point sources which would be useful for projection of both exist-



ing point sources and any new ones that might emerge in the Meadowlands.




These parameters include the identification of the various products produced



at each plant, the number of employees at each plant, the gross plant area,




and the total enclosed space.






     2.2.4  Supplemental Data






     At the Milestone 4 meeting a list of the 60-odd New Jersey point sources



in zones 3 and 4 was submitted to the NJDEP and assistance requested in filling




in missing data.  The additional information received was incorporated into the



inventory.  A final check with the department (over some of the larger sources)



was required prior to finalizing the inventory.  This resulted from some dis-



crepancies in county total emissions.  The result of this check were changes




in some of the separate process emissions.  Figures II-4 and II-5 show the fuel



emissions and process emissions for each source.  Figure II-4 also shows fuel



emissions from New York and Connecticut sources; no point source process emis-



sions outside New Jersey met criteria for inclusion.
                                     132

-------
                         Figure  11-4




           1969 Point Source Fuel Emissions
Source ID
New Jersey
-Zone 1
4
7
9
13
14
16
28
34
P articulates


63
64
2600
61
20
32
1400
175
-Zones 2 § 3
1
2
5
6
10
12
18
19
20
21
24
25
27
29
30
32
33
36
37
40
42
43*
44
45
46
47
52
54
56
57
58
59
103
35
582
230
41
96
142
12
40
105
35
39
1620
375
1020
1450
75
20
102
2640
46
1038
1590
76
44
212
67
1030
138
53
95
51
A°2


432
445
74800
419
-
218
61200
120

714
238
1590
938
282
664
355
85
278
857
246
240
27600
6420
162
921
517
-
687
418
319
501
5490
527
160
1470
460
17400
954
564
655
349
CO


_
-
988
_
4
-
516
10

_
-
80
38
_
-
10
-
-
51
-
-
8
2
60
34
-
-
-
31
-
157
14
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
-
-
HC


9
8
322
10
44
4
990
5

14
5
1
4
5
13
2
2
5
67
5
14
1010
218
9
7
10
46
20
16
6
241
208
10
6
29
9
680
18
7
12
7
NOX


204
202
32700
204
253
99
28700
80

324
108
632
383
128
303
219
39
126
652
113
164
21400
4920
152
614
234
200
350
232
144
435
4140
243
137
630
208
13800
432
168
297
162
units are 10  pounds of pollutant per year; * means incinerators
                             133

-------
                     Figure II-4   Cont'd
Source ID

60
62
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
77
-Zone 4
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
91
97
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
106
107
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
119
171
173
P articulates

168
58
24
174
207
51
1510
32
27
41
46
4760

161
11
115
400
1230
345
143
386
6
161
771
770
2
221
2430
5340
401
282
1380
594
236
1770
529
2420
1590
169
545
3620
81
22
SO

1160
434
165
1210
1430
356
240
219
187
286
318
756

1110
87
795
2770
8520
2380
22000
1740
44
1110
5330
5340
13
1530
1770
4950
1170
1440
26700
13700
2800
45600
3660
2240
5490
280
3600
22100
560
151
CO

_
-
2
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
-
28

1
-
1
3
11
3
21
-
-
1
_
7
-
2
93
240
4
2
595
141
-
26
5
118
1
1
5
1
-
-
HC

22
8
3
23
27
7
27
4
4
5
6
56

21
2
15
52
161
45
314
7
-
21
7
101
_
29
47
152
184
42
423
306
12
158
69
59
216
22
68
_
11
3
NO
A
525
183
75
546
648
161
303
99
85
130
144
504

504
39
360
1250
3860
1080
7530
176
20
504
178
2410
10
691
701
2570
1490
752
21500
9720
229
30800
1660
885
4190
528
1630
9
254
68
units are 10  pounds of pollutant per year; * means incinerators,
                          .  134

-------
                  Figure II-4   Cont'd
Source ID

New York
-Zone 3
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
160*
161*
162*
168
169
-Zone 4
120
121
122
123
1.31
135
.136
137
138
141
146
148'
150
151*
152*
153*
154*
155* .
156*
157*
158*
159*
163*
165
167
P articulates



686
1320
577
431
1010
4640
458
1340
2530
3430
132
1510

1380
4350
6240
2830
2970
905
445
17
5980
.379
11200
934
174
1090
2750
8080
8770
5350
8510
5410
2630
4100
1200
2460
3460
SO
L


8120
18600
7380
4910
11500
19300
3800
298
702
503
1560
117

18400
68600
66100
41300
396.00
25600
5940
27200
42200
5470
4800
2190
2000
109
402
950
1030
667
1000
720
438
548
160
1500
1730
CO



14
26
2
9
20
54
6
198
467
335
1
1

_
1040
1760
1010
60
112
9
3
543
8
54
-
_
73
268
633
687
445
667
480
292
365
107
219
292
HC



2070
393
288
129
301
428
92
298
702
503
20
17

690
1230
613
386
894
728
134
430
257
114
17
46
73
109
402
950
1030
667
1000
720
438
548
160
66
88
NOV



4960
9430
6040
3100
7230
11500
2230
397
936
670
476
418

14500
78500
101000
57200
21400
20500
3220
9040
33000
3030
3000
982
1050
145
535
1270
1370
890
1330
960
585
730
213
131
175
units are 103 pounds of pollutant per year; * means incinerators,
                          135

-------
                        Figure II-4    Cont'd
Source ID
Connecticut
-Zone 4
139
140
142
143
144
145
147
Particulates


646
5840
795
1200
2360
1700
212
so2


87000
84800
6340
3280
77800
22600
3240
CO


850
730
60
48
1
3
-
H£


256
538
305
15
174
342
45
NO


46800
46800
9180
2660
3700
7200
944
units are 10  pounds of pollutant per year
                                 136

-------
                           Figure II-5



      1969 Point Source Industrial Process Emissions
Source ID
New Jersey
-Zone 1
14
34
P articulates


432
840
-Zones 2$3
5
10
18
19
24
25
30
36
44
46
65
72
-Zone 4
81
82
83
84
85
88
91
99
103
104
105
109
111
112
113
114
115
119
171
173

21

536 .

860
172

332
100

189



39
1230
2800



3370

900
142
1180
9990
29000


472



.
so2










28




3090


8480
850
1140
13300
228
6800



3030
112






10000



CO





















4760





155000





2080



4400

HC






20

7300


2600

400000
4350

3300







3200


5760



84
18700
2500


1800
3880

NO













4140












2300

44










units are 10  pounds of pollutant per year
                               137

-------
     2.2.5  Data Completeness and Quality






     Some general comments on the completeness and quality are necessary




 at this point.  The information used in the inventory is complete in some



 aspects and very spotty in others.  In terms of the general information



 categories sought the data used have the following quality.





         Locations
     Field inspection of the Meadowlands and surrounding areas provided a




check on the completeness and locations of the initial point source list




provided.  With a few exceptions — for some plants which appeared to be




significant emitters and for a few minor changes in UTM locations -- the




inspection confirmed these data.  The point source locations for zones 1




through 3 are shown in Figure II-6.  It is assumed that the information



for the balance of the N.J.  region is at least as good.  The location of



some of the New York City power plants was checked against base maps, and




again reasonable agreement was found.  The data on point source screening



and location is considered to be good.




         Stack  Parameters





     About 75 percent of the stack heights for the point source list could



be obtained.  For the balance of the required stack parameters fewer than



50% were available.  (These are shown as parameters 1 and 2 in Figure II-3.)




There was no way to check the accuracy of any of these other than visual



observation.  The New York stack parameters had fewer missing values, but




there was no way of checking the accuracy or completeness of that inventory.




The stack data  are considered to be poor.
                                     138

-------
A Validation Sites

Note:   Locations are only schematic,
        Power Plants and Process  sources  are circled; numbers refer
        to the source ID used  in  the  study.

   Figure II-6   New Jersey Point Sources for Zones  1 through 3
                                 139

-------
         Fuel Data




          The fuel data for all point sources in New Jersey and New York



was quite complete.   The New Jersey information compared well with the



county-wide totals after adjustments were made through consultation with



the NJDEP.   The New  York data could not be checked as completely.   The



information is considered to be excellent.





         Plant Operation and Seasonality




         Fuel distribution data (space heating versus process heating) were



available for about 50% of the New Jersey firms and for none of those in



New York and Connecticut.   (This  is  shown as  parameter  3  in  Figure  II-3,



for industrial  sources.)  However,  since  fuel distribution information



is  obtained from subjective estimates  of  the  various  plant managers,  and



there is no  consistency in this information it is considered to be question-



able.   The  operating  schedule  information is  good and quite  complete  as



shown by parameter  2  in Figure II-7.




         Separate Process Data




         Since separate process information does not  lend itself to emis-



sion factor  analysis  as well as do fuel burning emissions, it was not possible



to  check the accuracy of these emissions.  Several estimates were obtained



from different sources and for different  time periods for many of the



industrial process emitters in the inventory; some of the data, particu-



larly for refineries were for  1970, rather than 1969.  The discrepancies



in  these separate findings are very large.  There are other industrial



sources, whose operations indicated significant process emission, for



which no record of process emission was available from any source.
                                   140

-------
         Figure  II-7



Point Source Activity Data

Source ID
Zone 1
4
7
13
14
16
34
Zone 2 § 3
1
2
5
6
10
12
18
19
20
21
24
25
30
32
33
36
37
40
42
44
45
46
47
52
56
57
58
59
60
62
65
67
68
1



X
X
X
X


X
X
X
X

X
X


X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X


X
X
X
X
X
X


X

X
2
345
Parameters

a
X
X
X
X


X
X
X
X

X
X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
X


X

X
a
X
X


X

X

X
X X
X X
XXX
X
X X

X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X

X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
XXX
X X
X
X
XXX
X
X X
X
10 BTU/employee/hour
Heat Demand .


24
36
16
27


370
10
25
80

130
16


5
72
16
310
460

140
0


24


56

26

28
6


20

12
             141

-------
                            Figure II-7  Cont'd

Source ID

69
70
71
72
73
74
77
Zone 4
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
91
97
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
108
109
111
112
113
114
115
119
171
173
1


X
X




X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X



2
345
Parameters


X
X
a




X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
a
X

X

a
a

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

XXX
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X

10 BTU/employee/hour
Heat Demand


230






23
3
0
50
0
67
78
53


11
0
180

42
710
62


240

3100

12



Notes to Figure  II-7

parameters:  l - percent fuel for space heating
             2 - hours of operation per yeat
             3 - number of employees
             4 - gross area
             5 - enclosed plant area
An 'x' means that the information was available.
                                   142

-------
                          Figure II-7   Cont'd


Estimates were made as follows:
          for percent heating, SIC 20-29, 10%

                               SIC 30-39, 25%
                          Institutional , 90%

          for hours of operation, if marked with an "a", 4800 hrs.
                                  all others,            8736 hrs.

Heat Demand is 10  BTU/employee/hour for space heating only and is
derived from fuel use and the first three parameters.
                                   143

-------
 The  separate  emission  data are  considered  to be poor.  The  information  is



 presented in  Figures II-3 and II-5.





          Projective Data




          Of the four protective factors sought (in addition to stack and fuel



 distribution information)   -- production rates, employment,, enclosed space,



 and gross plant area -- only the data received on employment were sufficient



 to be of  any use.  We believe this category to be poor in general, as shown



 under parameters 3 through  5 in Figure II-7.  No consistency in heat demand



 per employee per square foot could be found (Figure II-7), making it impossible



 to develop projective parameters by industrial category.
     2.2.6  General Comments on Future Information Gathering






     In view of the apparent weakness of the inventory as regards separate



process data and projective information, it is necessary to comment on the



reasons for this and how subsequent studies of this type might improve the




quality of the information.



     The New Jersey Air Pollution Control Program, as well as those from



most states, is based on compliance with specific emission control regu-



lations.  In connection with each regulation, there are specific forms



and procedures to determine compliance.  However, unless a complaint



against a particular source is filed, the department is not authorized to



enter private property to  gather information.  Complaints may originate



from private citizens or may be initiated by the Department in the course




of their areawide surveillance activities.  In the process of checking a



complaint, it is not standard practice to check for all violations of the



code but rather to concentrate on the specific complaint.





                                    144

-------
      In the course of making their inspection the inspectors take compre-



hensive information including, in some cases, source testing.  From these




forms and appendixed material comes the most detailed information on



specific sources.  However, since not all large sources have been flagged




for violations, many sources do not have these detailed forms.



      In addition, the department periodically makes statewide surveys



of major sources using questionnaire and follow-up procedures.  While



the information requested in these forms is often valuable, the procedure




places heavy emphasis on the cooperation and judgment of individual plant



managers.  These people have no direct positive incentive for compliance



or completeness of their information, often cannot spend the time to



gather the required information, and often are not technically competent



to provide the required information.  Therefore much of the information



requested often is not provided.  An alternate approach that was brought



to light too late in the study to be adopted was the use of a limited



telephone canvas of the major firms requesting the required information



on production rates, employment, plant area and enclosed space.  Since



this information does not directly affect emissions, there would be no



reason for the appropriate company official to refuse.  However, since



the study team was requested not to contact industrial firms directly, this



procedure was not used in the study.






     2.2.7  Default Parameters






     In place of missing data, default parameters were substituted to



expedite subsequent work (as specified in the methodology).  These para-



meters were developed from the balance of the inventory and the experience



of the project members.  Figure II-3 shows which sources required default
                                    145

-------
parameters for stack height, plume rise, and percent fuel used for process




heat.  The default parameters themselves are shown in Figure 1-32.




     Size criteria were established for each state and zone as shown in




Figure 1-11.  When these criteria were applied to the current point source




inventory several sources were removed as shown in Figure II-3.  In a few



cases sources were removed due to insufficient data for determining reasonable



emission levels.




     Emission rates for each source for the summer and winter seasons were



developed from the numbers in Figure I1-4 according to the percent of fuel




used for space heating and the number of degree days per season shown in



Figure 1-32.






2.3  Current Line Source Emission Inventory






     Motor vehicle emissions were represented as line sources in this



study only for zones 1 and 2.  For other portions of the region motor




vehicle emissions were characterized as area sources.  The 1969 emissions



were determined almost entirely from data supplied by the New Jersey Department



of Transportation.  This consisted of vehicle counts per day by highway



links for 1969.  These links are shown in Figure 11-10.  Figure II-8 shows



a summary of the line source parameters for both 1969 and 1990.



              Since the published emission factors vary by speed and




vehicle type, it is usually necessary to determine vehicle counts for each



link according to speed and vehicle type.  The first assumption made was



that for the entire study region an average urban speed of 25 mph would




not introduce significant error.  Therefore, the EPA Urban Emission Factors




could be used directly and it was not necessary to vary emissions with speed.



Secondly, vehicle type was derived empirically from vehicle counts taken
                                    146

-------
                                Figure   II-8




                    Summary of Line Source Parameters
Source ID














































1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Road Type
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
C
B
B
C
C
C
B
C
A
A
C
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
C
B
C
B
B
C
B
A
1969 Veh.
85
49
83
-
-
-
37
40
45
33
45
65
39
28
-
-
36
-
17
44
25
39
-
32
-
8
36
33
39
86
13
68
89
8
-
93
85
93
30
85
-
85
170
18
36
75
Estimate Code



2
2
1






8
4,7
2
2,7
7
2
7
7
7
8
1

2,7
4,7
7
7
8
7
7
7


1
3
3
4
4
4
2

3
5


1990 Veh.
122
86
137
28
23
106
34
71
63
73
54
64
120
40
20
20
50
11
15
60
25
40
80
45 .
25
35
50
60
40
100
18
120
110
22 ,
43
131
115
131
42
115
19
106
213
27
57
79
Est.Yr.SVeh.
i'












(87) 39

(87) 18
(87) 46

(80) 14
(80) 49
(85) 26



(85) 16
(85) 27
(80) 40
(85) 52

(80) 86
(80) 15
(85) 109














Veh. units are 10  vehicle counts/day (both directions)
                                     147

-------
                            Figure  II-8    Cont'd
Source It





























47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
72
74
75
Road Type
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
B
A
C
C
1969 Veh.
33
-
48
15
18
18
18
75
-
-
•• -
-
30
12
30
64
20
12
-
_
75
50
-
_
_
_
_
-
-
Estimate Code
4
2
6
6


5

2
1
1
1



4,6


1
1
3
5
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1990 Veh.
51
26
62
34
40
40
27
79
26
47
47.
93
50
82
50
82
73
14
67
67
174
76
52
52
26
128
67
60
50
Est.Yr.^Veh.





























Notes
     Estimate Codes:

        1 = future  construction - used for 1990 only

        2 = insufficient data for 1969 - used for 1990 only

        3 = incomplete data for 1969 - estimated as equalling adjacent link

        4 - incomplete data for 1969 - estimated from ratio of adjacent
            link for 1969 § 1990 values

        5 = incomplete data for 1969 - no sound basis for estimate

        6 = incomplete data for 1990 - estimated from adjacent links

        7 = incomplete data for 1990 - estimate from 1980, 1985 and 1987
            vehicle data according to balanced network.

        8 = incomplete data for 1969 - estimated from N.J. Turnpike data.

Determination of vehicle mix:

         Road type    % auto and light truck   .% heavy duty truck    % diesel
            A
            B
            C
84
81
65
12
14
20
 4
 5
15
                                    148

-------
by the New Jersey Department of Transportation at about 10 sites in and




around our region of interest.  From this information three categories of



road use were developed, termed A, B, and C as shown in Figure II-8.  Type



A represents the highest percentage of automobile and light truck such as




would be found on an interstate highway.  Type B represents an intermediate




percentage of automobile usage such as would be found on major roads like



Route 3.  Finally, type C represents high truck usage such as would be found



in an industrial area containing local service roads.  The actual percent-




age breakdowns for auto and light truck, heavy duty truck and diesel usage



as found empirically are shown in the notes to Figure II-8.



     Although estimates have been made by the New Jersey Department of



Transportation (NJDEP) of vehicle counts for almost all the links shown



in Figure 11-10 for 1990, no information was available for many of the



links for 1969.  Accordingly, estimates were made for all links within




zone 1.  Where information was not available for links in zone 2, these



were left out of the 1969 inventory.  Figure II-8 shows the codes for



the different forms of estimation procedure used.  For some cases, as



shown by code 1, future construction was involved and therefore there were



no emissions for 1969.  In other cases however, as shown by codes 3, 4,



and 8, estimates were made from New Jersey Turnpike data or adjacent links



for which information was known.  In a number of cases, as shown by code 5,



no sound basis for an estimate existed; therefore, an estimate was made in



conjunction with the New Jersey Department of Transportation.  Using the



vehicle counts shown in Figure II-8 the emission factors in Figure 1-30,



and the vehicle mix by road type shown in Figure II-8, the emissions were



calculated for each link.  These are summarized in Figure II-9.
                                    149

-------
         FIGURE  II-9




Summary of Line Source Emissions


1969
-Zone 1
-Zone 2
1990
-Zone 1 •
-Zone 2
106
Veh-Mi/Yr

505
453
•
930
931
106 pound/year
Particulates

0.7
0.6

0.7
0 .7
so2

0.2
0.2

0.4
0.4
CO

69.5
63.0

10.3
10.3
HC ,

6.5
5.9

0.9
0.9
N0y

7.5
6.8

1.4
1.4
                150

-------
           4      4      4-     4-     4
4 3 !•'!
    572
                                                                561     532    58J    5S1


                                                             •«	1969 HIGHWAY LINKS MODELED
                                                             -.	ADDITIONAL  LINKS FOR 1990
                Figure  11-10    Planned Highway Links for  1969 and  1990
                    Note:  Numbers  refer to  source  ID  for each  link.
                                         151

-------
      Information on monthly variation in vehicle flow for this area was



obtained from the New Jersey Department of Transportation.  It showed that



for road types A, B, and C in the study area, no more than 2% variation




could be found between the summer, winter and annual average vehicle flow.




Therefore, the same emissions were used for the summer and winter seasons.




As shown in Figure 1-32 a stack height arid plume rise of zero were assumed




for motor vehicle emissions modeled as line sources.






2.4  Current Area Source Emission Inventory






     Although the current point source inventory required the greatest



effort because of the amount of information involved, the current area




source inventory involved more subjective input.  It had been the




original intention to develop a reasonable area source inventory from  ,



existing information particularly the 1965, 1966 and 1969 federal inven-



tories for the New York Abatement Region.  However, it became evident near



the beginning of the study that this would not be possible for several




reasons:




     1.  There were considerable changes in fuel use patterns from 1965



to 1969.  This precluded the use of most of the 1965 and 1966 detailed




fuel use information for the current inventory.





     2.  The procedures used to derive intermediate fuel and emission



totals in the federal inventories were not always available nor readily



usable.





      3.  The  1969 federal regional update was of little use insofar as




the area sources  were  concerned because it consisted of a grid cell  by grid



cell  proportional update of the 1965/1966 data.
                                    152

-------
     4.  Since, by definition, the area source inventory was the residual




of total emissions minus those specified as point and line sources,  and,




since new point and line source inventories had been developed in the study,




it was necessary to derive a new residual set of sources.



     Therefore, it was decided to use the best available current state




information to develop the area source inventory.  This consisted of



the following:





     1.  For New Jersey, 1969 fuel use information by counties and



source categories, and a mix of 1969 and 1970 non-fuel emissions by




counties.





     2.  For New York City, total emissions by four categories for the



five boroughs combined.





     3.  For the remainder of New York State, a breakdown by source



category of emissions for each county; some of this information was  for



1970 rather than for 1969.





     It is, therefore, evident that we have neither a consistent set



of information for each county nor consistency within the nominal year for



the inventory.  In general, we have reasonable estimates of fuel emissions



for all counties for 1969 but varying degrees of accuracy for the non-fuel



emissions.   It was not possible to obtain a more recent data base than the



1965/1966 one or greater detail than the county breakdown used.






     2.4.1  New Jersey Fuel Emissions






     The New Jersey fuel-related emissions were developed from county



fuel use totals supplied by the New Jersey Department of Environmental



Protection.  These totals included fuel use for both point and
                                   153

-------
area sources;  therefore, it was necessary to subtract out point source



fuel use by county from the total.  When this was done it was discovered



that for a number of counties there was more coal used by point sources



than the total supposedly consumed in the county.  This necessitated



checking back through  all of the fuel use data with the New Jersey



Department of Environmental Protection.  The discrepancies had arisen



because of differing assumptions in the shift in  coal use from 1965-1969



and was resolved, but  not without a great deal of extra time and expended
                               t


effort.



     Percentages for fuel used for space heating and non-space heating



by county and source category (the source categories being residential,



industrial, and commercial, including institutional and government) were



developed from the 1965 Abatement Region Report information.  These



were the only default parameters needed for the 1969 area inventory. From



this information emissions by season (summer, winter, and annual average)



were developed from the fuel use data, using the appropriate emission



factors in Figure 1-30.





     2.4.2  New Jersey Non-Fuel Emissions





     All of the information for New Jersey non-fuel emissions (with



the exception of motor vehicle emissions) was obtained directly from



the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  In all cases the



data were for 1970 rather than 1969.   Information was provided on solvent



and gasoline marketing evaporative emissions, area wide incineration, and



aircraft emissions by county.   Area wide process emissions were considered



to be negligible.
                                   154

-------
      In the case of motor vehicle  emissions  1969 vehicle-mile data by
                                           «

 county were obtained from the  New  Jersey Department of Transportation.


 An average  urban speed of 25 mph was  assumed to hold for the entire region


 and the vehicle mix was assumed to average 80% automobile and light truck,


 15% heavy duty truck,  and 5% diesel,  comparable to road type B in our line


 source inventory.   The 1969 motor  vehicle emission factors in Figure 1-30
                                                                      i

 were used to calculate the emissions  for each county.


      Figure 11-11  shows the annual  area source fuel emissions by county


 for New Jersey,  rounded to the nearest million pounds per year.  Similarly,


 Figure 11-12 shows  the annual  area source non-fuel emissions.  Fuel emis-


 sions  predominate  only for sulfur  dioxide, are nearly equal for particu-


 lates,  and  represent about 1%  of the  total for carbon monoxide.  The


 largest single source  in several categories  is motor vehicle emissions


 --  particularly  for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.




      2.4.3   New  York City Emissions




     Total  emissions in tons per year for each of the pollutants were


 obtained for 1969 for  the five boroughs of New York City by five source


 categories:   space heating, motor vehicle transportation, industrial


process,  incineration,  and evaporation.  Point sources for space heating


 and incineration were  subtracted from these  totals.  Allocations were then


made to  the  five boroughs  based upon the distribution of emissions in the


1965 inventory.  More up-to-date information has become available since  the


time this analysis was undertaken,  in particular the 1970 borough by borough


source inventory developed as  a part of the State Implementation Plan.   How-


ever, it was not available at  the time the current area source allocation had


to be made and it might not increase significantly the accuracy of the analysis,




                                    155

-------
                                 FIGURE  11-11

                         Area Source  Fuel  Emissions

                               1969 New  Jersey

                               10  pounds/year

Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morri s
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Particulates
10
12
9
10
3
4
5
4
9
so2
50
56
46
50
12
19
26
15
44
CO
5
8
5
4
3
3
4
3
4
HC
3
4
3
3
1
3
2
9
3
NO,
20
24
20
22
5
8
11
7
20
Note:  Due to aggregation and rounding procedures, this table is presented
       only for report summary purposes.
                                     156

-------
                                 FIGURE  11-12
                      Area Source Non-Fuel Emissions
                              1969 New Jersey

                              10  pounds/year

Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Particulates
16
; 11
6
11
9
'6
!
5
4
8
so2
5
4
2
3
4
2
2
2
4
CO
900
652
278
788
602
438
400
252
576
HC
112
82
36
90
86
56
54
30
70
NO,
90
66
28
80
60
50
40
26
58
Note:  Due to aggregation and rounding procedures, this table is presented
       only for report summary purposes.
                                    157

-------
     2.4.4  New York State Emissions






     The 1969 emissions were obtained from the New York State Division




of Air Resources for those counties in New York State outside of New York




City.  This included total emissions for transportation, process, power



generation, space heating, refuse, and evaporation.  As with the other




jurisdictions, point sources in the inventory were subtracted from the




area totals for a particular category.  Difficulties were resolved in




consultation with the New York State Division of Air Resources.  However,



the accuracy of both the point and area source results for these counties




is more questionable than for New Jersey and New York City.






     2.4.5  Summary of Inventory






     Figure 11-13 shows the complete current area source emission inven-



tory in the units used for input to the dispersion model, MARTIK.  The emis-



sion densities show variations of 1 to 2 orders of magnitude, indicating that



the area source background cannot be considered uniform for modeling.  Similar



emissions were generated for the summer and winter seasons, based upon



variations in the percent space heating for each of the applicable source



categories.




     The average county emission densities were located at the popula-



tion centroid of each county and the SYMAP computer mapping program



was used to interpolate continuous emission density surfaces between the



county centroids; then, values were read from each emission density surface




at the centroids of the area source grid cells shown in Figure 11-14.  These



were the values used for modeling with MARTIK.  Although this may sound



complicated, it is merely an objective interpolation procedure used to
                                    158

-------
                                FIGURE  11-13

                  Current Area Source Emission Inventory


                               106  g/ro2  -  sec

Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Bronx
Brooklyn
Richmond
Manhattan
Queens
Nassau
Rock land
Westchester
Particulates
0.63
0.98
1.93
0.38
0.15
0.12
0.29
0.15
0.89
1.86
1.74
0.28
5.01
1.27
0.44
0.12
0.16
so2
1.30
2.60
5.88
0.98
0.18
0.26
0.79
0.30
2.59
12.50
12.50
1.97
32.10
5.66
1.05
0.13
0.44
CO
21.6
28.6
34.9
14.1
7.1
5.2
11.6
4.6
31.2
83.5
72.6
14.3
273.0
108.0
38.4
7.9
13.7
HC
2.8
3.7
4.9
1.7
1.0
0.7
1.6
0.7
3.9
14.7
13.5
2.3
41.3
14.1
6.6
1.3
2.3
NOX
2.7
3.9
6.0
1.8
0.8
0,7
1.5
0.6
4.2
12.7
11.9
2.1
37.0
11.0
4.3
0.9
1.7
Note: due to rounding, this
      purposes.
table is presented only for report summary
                                    159

-------
                                      554   562   570   578
     594   602
                                                                                               -i 4589
                                                                                                 4573
                                                                                                 4551
                                                                                                 4541
                                                                                                 4525
                                                                                               = 4509
                                                                                                 4493
                                                                                                 4477
                                                                                                 4461
                                                                                               - 4445
490      506      522      538      554
                                               570
586      602       618       634      650
                                                                                                 4429
                          Figure  11-14    Area Source Grid  System
       Notes:   Outer  16 km grid has 36 cells; blank cells are water or outside study area.
               Inner  8 km grid (1-1,  etc.) has 35 cells.   Area source inventory combined
               as  inner 8 km cells with 24 outer 16 km ones  (the 36, minus cell numbers
               10,  11, 12, 16, 17, 18,  23, and 24) for a  total of 59 cells.
               In  the 16 km grid,  no  number is assigned to the cell between numbers 23 and
               24  because this area is  largely water and  assumed to have no emissions; for
               the same reason no  number is assigned to the  cell to the right  of 1-35 in
               the inner grid.
                                                160

-------
 transform  the  area  source  data  from  irregularly shaped political jurisdic-




 tions  to a grid  system which  is required for modeling.  The LANTRAN



 program is designed to do  this  type  of surface interpolation; however, at




 the  time the particular  analysis was  done, SYMAP was used because LANTRAN was




 still  undergoing testing.





     2.4.6 Accuracy of Analysis





     As a  part of the validation procedures of Task 2,emission densities



 were determined  from the county emission inventory for an 8 kilometer




grid in addition to the original 16 km grid.   This generated a total of 59



area source cells for the combined 8 and 16 km grid shown in Figure 11-14.



To examine the sensitivity of the model to different source categories as




a part of validation, one square mile area source cells were calculated



in the vicinity of the monitoring stations using the 1965 Abatement Region



Report inventory as the base for small scale variation in emission densi-



ties.  No definitive conclusions could be reached as to how much the



accuracy of the calculations were increased;  however,  it is evident from



the 1965 data used as a base that significant local variation does occur    ,



in area source emissions.



     The original intention had been  to use county data for the outlying



 regions and town and census tract data for the inner portions of the



 study  area as  the basis  for varying  area source emissions.  However,



 since  the  monitoring stations used for validation  as shown  in Figure  I-10



 were scattered over the  central portion of the region, there was no clear



 cut distinction between inner areas which would require detail and outlying



 areas  warranting  less detail.
                                     161

-------
     Without the sufficient air quality and emissions data to conduct




an extremely detailed validation procedure, it is not possible to deter-




mine what level of accuracy is necessary — either in the original data




for political jurisdictions or in emissions data for the grid cells used




for modeling.  It is, therefore, not possible to affirm or deny the



choice of grid cell size.  As the analysis progressed it became more and




more evident that the area source contribution to total emissions is large;



therefore, greater detail in this portion of the inventory should increase




accuracy.  The use of 2 or 4 km cells in the region of greatest interest




warrants consideration; the original data by land use zones and political



jurisdictions should, therefore, be of a similar scale.
                                    162

-------
                      3.  BACKGROUND EMISSION INVENTORY








3.1  Components of the Inventory






     The background emission inventory was divided into three components



parallel to the current emission inventory -- point, line, and area --



again, because of the separate modeling requirements and the availability




of information.  Point source information was constructed from the cur-



rent point source inventory, projective data gathered specifically for




the task, and from separate data on power plant and incineration require-



ments.  Line source information was  again developed from data supplied




by a separate transportation agency.  The area source information was not



assembled to form a residual inventory for 1990; instead, the current



area source inventory and separate regional planning data were used to



construct the background area source inventory.



     The discussion of the point source inventory is divided into



three broad areas: (a) industrial point source projecting for both fuel



and process sources;  (b)  power plant projections; and (c) refuse incinera-



tion estimates.  The discussion of the line source inventory briefly



explains the steps required to assemble and use the traffic data.



     The section on the background area source inventory discusses:



(a) data sources, (b) fuel burning emissions, and (c) non-fuel femissions.



It is divided by source type rather than jurisidiction,  as in the current



area source inventory.






3.2  Background Point Source Emission Inventory






     This portion of the  analysis was concerned with some of the changes



and additions to the point source inventory that are likely to occur






                                    163

-------
 by 1990.    Some  of  the  changes will result from the evolution of the




 existing  point sources  and  others will be contingent upon realization




 of the alternate Meadowlands plans  themselves.  The  types  of changes  to be




 covered in this  section include  cessation  of operations,  additions  of new




 sources,  increases  and declines  in  point source activities,  and changes in




 the methods used to carry out certain activities.  Changes in the manner




 in which the various specific activities emit the  five pollutants were




 incorporated in  the emission factor analysis along with the  regulations




 concerning fuel  constituents shown  in Figure 1-30.



     The  types of sources for which specific projections were made are



 industrial  plants,  power plants and refuse incinerators.  Together,  these




 three  categories account  for over 95% of the  point sources in  the 1969



 inventory and over  991  of the  emissions  from point sources.  While  there




 are a  few additional point  sources, namely institutional and governmental



 facilities, they were too few  in number  and  too small  in size  to warrant




 special projective  considerations.






     3.2.1   Industrial Point Source Projections






     The projections  of changes in the industrial  point sources proved




to be the most difficult to make since the range of activities is very



broad and the data  available to make  projections are scarce  and diffused




among widely scattered sources.  The  industrial point source projection



covers two  components:  fuel use and process  sources.





          Industrial Fuel Emission Projections





         Several basic information sources  were used  to project fuel



emissions from industrial point sources for New Jersey.  The Meadowlands



Development Commission is thoroughly familiar with the sources and





                                    164

-------
industries within its jurisdiction and was able to predict both cessation




of operations as well as new industrial background sources in its area.   The




New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry provided a listing of possible




new sources to be constructed between 1969 and 1975 based on enclosed space




for all counties in the study.  There was not sufficient information, how-




ever, to incorporate these into the inventory.




        Changes in level of activity for industrial background sources




were based on changes in employment.  This expediency was used since the




initial data search for production rates and changes, enclosed space and




gross plant area produced only limited information as shown in Figure II-7.




The only consistent set of protective data are changes in employment.




Estimates of total employment without regard to industrial classification




were available on a one square mile grid from the Tri-State Transportation




Commission for 1985 as shown in Figure 11-15.  Estimates of employment




changes by two, three, and in some cases four digit SIC for the various




labor market regions in the study area were also available.  This infor-




mation was provided by the N.J. Department of Labor and Industry.



         Figure 11-16 shows the appropriate ratio of 1980 to 1969 employ-




ment for each New Jersey industrial source for the Bureau of Labor and




Industry, Tri-State, and Hackensack Meadowlands Commission assumptions.




It also shows the actual ratio decided upon by subjectively weighting these




three sources of information.  For non-industrial sources (hospitals, etc.)



or sources where employment was not known, an implied ratio of 1.0 was used.




         The ratio was applied directly to 1969 heating demand to




determine 1990 heating demand; the same fuels were used as in  1969 except




for  fuel switching from coal to gas or oil as determined  in consultation
                                    165

-------
   Zone 4
(New  Jersey)
               HacKnsack
/ Passaic
                  HAC KEN SAC
                  MEADOWLA
                  DISTRICT
                                           'yOueens
                                             °0
      Richmond

  Zones
 (New  York)
 Figure 11-15   Tri-State  Grid
                  166
                                                               01
                                                               to

-------
         Figure 11-16
Point Source Projecting Data
Source ID

Zone 1
4
"7
13
14
In
34
Zones 2i',3
I
1
5
(>
10
i:
is
10
20
:i
24
25
30
32
53
56
57
40
42
44
45
46
47
52
56
57
58
59
60
62
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Bi.t; r


1.10
I . h()
1.60




1.55
1.20
1.05
1.20
1.60
1.60
0.70
O.S5

0.90
0.70
0.95
0.70

0.95
0.95
1.00

1.55
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.25
0.80
1.80
0.55
1.70
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.80
1.20
1.70
1.70
1.40
1.40
1.60
1.60
Tri .


0.95
1.15
0.90
1 . 29



0.95
0.95
1.14
1.20
2.87
0.95
1.21
0.85

0.90
1.21
1.73
0.95

1.23
0.90


1.10

1.00

1.25
0.95
1.12
0.92
1.35
2.00
0.93
1.10
1.13

1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
0.95
1.20
0.95
IIMC


1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0








































Actual


1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0

1.00
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.60
1.25
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
0.95
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.15
1.15
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.40
1.00
Fuel Change











Coal to gas
Coal to oi 1


Coal to oil





Coal to gas
Coal to oil



Coal to oil
















Coal to gas




            167

-------
                         Figure 11-16   Cont'd
Source ID
Zones 253
77
Zone 4
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
91
97
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
108
109
111
112
113
114
115
119
171
173
BL$I
1.75

1.20
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.25
1.45
1.20
1.00

1.25

1.30
1.00
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
1.30
1.00
1.30
1.55
1.30
1.10

Tri,
1.25




























HMC





























Actual
1.00

1.20
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.25
1.45
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.30
1.00
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
1.30
1.00
1.30
1.55
1.30
1.10
1.00
Fuel Change
Coal to oil







Coal to oil






Coal to oil






Coal to oil



Coal to oil


NOTES to Figure 41

Employment changes - ratio of years in parentheses.
    BUI  -
    Tri
    HMC
    Actual -
Fuel Changes -
N.J. Bureau of Labor and Industry, according to industrial
category and labor market area (1980-1969)

Tri-State Transportation Commission total (1985-1963)
employment data per square mile grid.

Hackensack Meadowlands Commission, subjective estimates
(1972-1990)

Decision reached as to fuel use index to be used (1990-
1969).
    No changes were made in the propensity to use different fuels except
    for the shifts from coal to oil and gas as shown.
                                 168

-------
with the NJDEP.  The 1990 emission factors from Figure 1-30 were then




applied to calculate the fuel emissions shown in Figure 11-17.   The point




source cut-off criteria of 25 tons for any one pollutant as shown in Figure




1-13 was derived empirically from Figure 11-17 by considering:




     1.  The general level of point source emissions as reflected




         in the 1990 emission factors.





     2.  Consistency in the number and location of point sources




         for the 1969 and 1990 model runs.





Only five sources were removed from the inventory.





         All existing New York industrial and institutional sources




were assumed to remain the same for 1990, except  for the fuel switching




shown in Figure 11-18 and the use of the 1990 emission factors.  It was



beyond the scope of this analysis to either determine changes in the level




of activity for these sources or ascertain new sources.  In general, they




are not significant compared to the New Jersey industrial sources or the




New York and Connecticut power plants and incinerators.  Because of the




shift away from coal and the 1990 emission factors their 1990 emissions




are greatly reduced; they are shown to be negligible, by comparison, in




the summary of 1990 fuel use shown in Figure 1-27.





         Industrial Process Emission Projections





         Very little information with which to project changes  in 1990




industrial process emissions was available; it was not possible to adequately




characterize current activities to produce a base for projecting either 1990




activities or 1990 emission factors.  Accordingly, the default  procedure




shown in Figure 11-19 was used.  Where estimates could be made  by the
                                   169

-------
                              Figure 11-17

             1990 Point Source Fuel Emissions - New Jersey
Source ID
Zone 1
4
7
9
13
14
16
28
34
Zones 2S3
1
2
5
6
10
12
18
19
20
21
24
25
27
29
30
32
33
36
37
40
42
43*
44
45
46
47
52
54
56
57
58
Particulates

58
64
981
61
20
32
1635


104

20
127
65
120
141
10

106
36
39
53
13
4
135
75
20
102
61
58
25
783
76
44
266
63
32
124
47
95
SO 2

50
67
6
61
-
55
11


108

-
133
68
124
147
11

98
37
36
2112
504
-
140
78
-
104
64
60
961
816
78
46
276
66
1272
130
48
98
CO

„
-
10
-
-
_
16


_

-
1
-
1
1
_

1
-
-
3
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
2
7
-
-
2
-
2
1
-
-
HC

8
8
2616
10
44
4
4360


14

44
17
8
16
18
1

15
5
14
440
105
10
18
10
44
. 20
8
8
201
102
10
6
36
8
265
16
6
12
N0y

45
50
13080
54
154
33
21800


81

155
100
51
95
110
8

91
28
60
2728
651
35
105
59
153
101
48
45
1240
613
61
34
212
50
1643
97
38
74
Comments

<50 tons
<50 tons

<50 tons

<50 tons

removed: shut down

<100 tons
removed: <25 tons
<100 tons
< 100 tons

<100 tons


removed: < 25 tons
< 100 tons





< 100 tons
< 100 tons

< 100 tons
< 100 tons
< 100 tons


<100 tons


< 100 tons

< 100 tons
< 100 tons
< 100 tons
 Units are 10  pounds of pollutant per year;
*Means incineration.
                                     170

-------
Figure 1 1
                                        Cont'd
Source ID
Zones 2§3
59
60
62
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
77
Zone 4
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
91
97
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
119
171
173
Particulates

63
168
67
28
175 '
207
52
15

27
58

110

193
16
144
499
1233
430
113
150
8
232
69
771
2
276
184
909
401
213
440
99
2484
30
199
290
301
1238
219
805
3
89
22
so2

64
175
70
29
182
216
54
-
,'
28
61

115

202
16
150
521
1286
449 .
4512
156
8
242
72
804
-
288
320
806
355
215
3
-
2592
23
7944
302
314
1179
229 %
840
3
93
23
CO

v
i
9
m
2
I
i»
«

«
V

- •

2
fl»
1
4
11
4
8
•I

2
f*
7
- •
2
2
778
4
2
4
-
22
T
13
3
3
12
2
7
-"
_
\
' ;
HC
y«i 'i

8
22
9
4
23
P
7
13

4
' a

14

25
2,
19
65
161
56
940
2Q
1
3Q
9
m
••
36
24
58
184
32
1184
'264
324
7
1655
38
39
388
29
105
a
12
3
NO^

51
131
53
22
137
162
40
117

21
45

86

151
12
113
391
965
337
5828
117
7
182
54
603
2
216
192
1000
755
184
5920
1320
^944
35
10250
227
236
1727
172
630
2
70
17
Comments

<100 tons
<100 tons
<100 tons

<100 tons

<100 tons

removed :< 25 tons
1
<100 tons
removed: <25 tons
<100 tons








<100 tons


<100 tons









Not in 1969 inventory.



\






 Units  are  10  pounds of pollutant pe? year} *me^n? incineration.
* Means  incineration.

-------
                           Figure 11-17    Cont'd
Source ID
Zone 4
206*
207*
208*
209*
210*
217
218
219
220
221
Particulates

360
225
225
270.
270
170
188
-
-
-
S°2

360
225
225
270
270
6816
7512
-
_
-
££

240
156
150
180
180
11
13
-
-
-
HC

360
225
225
270
270
1420
1565
-
-
-
NOY
A

240
150
150
180
180
8804
9703
1843
922
979
Comments











 Units are 10° pounds of pollutant per year;  *means incineration.
* Means incineration.
                                      172

-------
Source ID
                             Figure  11-18






                   Point Source Fuel Use Changes




                               New York
  146




  147




  148




  150




  165




  167




  168




  169
shift from coal § distillate to residual




no change




no change




no change




shift from coal to residual




shift from coal to residual




no change




no change
  Notes:  In all cases the 1969 BTU heat demand, percent fuel for




          space heating, and hours of operation were used for 1990;



          only shifts in fuel use as noted were made.
                                  173

-------
                                Figure   11-19
         1990 Point Source  Industrial Process Emissions - New Jersey
Source ID
Zone 1
14
Decision

HMC
Zones 2§3
5
10
18
19
24
25
30
36
44
46
65
72
Zone 4
81
82
83
84
85
88
91
99
103
104
105
108*
109
111
112
113
114
115
119
171
173
Override
NJDEP
NJDEP
BL§I
NJDEP
NJDEP
BLSI/Tri.
BUI
NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP

NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP
Override
NJDEP
NJDEP
BLSI
BL&I
BLSI
BLU
NJDEP
NJDEP
Override
Override
NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP
Change

1.00

1.00
1.00
0.90
0.85
0.90
1.00
0.79
0.95
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.90

1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
Particulates

432

21

482

774
172

315
50

189



39
1230
1400



3370

450
78
225
649
5490
29000


472



SO,








28




3090


8480
850
1140
6650
228
6800



1510
62
9790






1000


CO



















2380





77500





'
2000



2960
HC




20

6200


1950

200000
2180

2970







2880


2880
24



84
9350
2500


1620
3490
NO,











2070












2300












*Not in 1969 inventory.
 Units are 10  pounds of pollutant per year
                                     174

-------
Notes to Figure 11-19:

     EXPLANATION OF DECISIONS
     HMC
     NJDEP
     BL$I/Tri.-
     Override -
Estimate made by Hackensack Meadowlands Commission;
all point sources in Meadowlands stay the same, except
34, which would shut down.

Estimate made in conjunction with New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection; all refinery process emis-
sions would be 0.50 times present, all machinery and
fabricated metals process emissions would be 0.90 times
present, all chemicals would be equal to present.

Based on ratio of 1980 to 1969 employment.

Estimates of the New Jersey Bureau of Labor and Industry,
by labor market area and industrial category; where
Tri. State Transportation Commission data also known
(change in number of employees total per square mile)
from 1963 to 1985, the two indices were subjectively
weighted.

If the estimate in any case were greater than 1.0, this
value was used as an override; e.g., in no case were
process emissions increased.
                                   175

-------
 Hackensack Meadowlands Commission,  these took precedent.   For four




 industrial categories  - chemicals,  refineries,  fabricated metals,




 and machinery  (SIC's 28,  29,  34,  and  35)  -  across-the-board percentage




 reductions  in process  emissions were  made subjectively in  conjunction




 with the NJDEP.  For other  categories the Bureau of Labor  and  Industry and




 Tri-State  1980 to  1969  employment ratios  were used, as with the  fuel




 emissions.




         Finally, to reflect the strict and necessary attitude for pro-




 cess control in New Jersey, where the employment ratios showed an increase




 in emissions, a value of  1.0 was used as  an override so that in no case




would process emissions for a source  increase from 1969 to 1990.




         This portion of the background point source inventory, as with




 the 1990 emission factors, requires the greatest amount of continued




analysis.






     3.2.2  Power Plant Projection






     Projections of all power plants and incinerators  in the study area --




both existing and new -- were made independently of the general projec-




tion methodology because of the special expertise of Burns and Roe in




this area.  Summary information for all new point sources (power plants




and incinerators) is shown in Figure 11-20.




     The basic approach to power plant projections was presented at



the Milestone 5 meeting in Trenton and it was suggested at that time that the




concerned utilities be contacted to solicit (i) their comments on the approach,




and (ii) their assistance in providing detailed information concerning




 total energy consumption, additional  new  installations and plans for
                                   176

-------
                                 Figure  11-20
                 Summary Information for all New Point Sources
Source ID
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
County
Richmond
Bronx
Queens
Brooklyn
Connecticut
Passaic
Monmouth
Morris
Middlesex
Union
Nassau
Westchester
Westchester
Rockland
Queens
Brooklyn
Union
Middlesex
Essex

Middlesex
Nassau
Nassau
Rockland
Connecticut
Zone
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Code
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-rl
49-1
49-1
49-1
49-1
49
49
49 -GT
49
49
49-GT
49-GT
49-GT
49-GT
49-GT
49-GT
49
1
Defa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
nit Param
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
eters*





















* 1 = Height, 2 = plume rise,  3 = % process.
 Code  is that used in Figure II-3:
    49     Power plant
    49-GT  Power plant, Gas Turbine
    49-1   Incinerator
                                     177

-------
 retiring old  equipment.  Since this information could not be made available



 in time for the study, it was necessary to base the projections on the latest




 information currently available.




         Projection  was  based on matching total installed generat-




 ing capacity  (both existing and proposed) against total energy demand in




 1990.  Using  appropriate assumptions based on plant age and type, each




plant was assigned to a specific duty cycle in each utility system and




 the annual hours of operation from which emissions can be computed were




thereby determined.  The basic assumption was that essentially all energy




required in the region will be generated within the region; individual utilities




 within the region may export and import from a neighbor utility to take




 advantage of  the best economic usage of total installed equipment.





         Utilities in the 17-County Region





         There are eight major utilities in the 17-county region.  They




 are as follows:



         Consolidated Edison




         Public Service Electric § Gas




         Long Island Lighting




         New Jersey Power § Light




         Orange £ Rockland  Utilities




         Connecticut Power & Light




         Hartford Electric




         United Illuminating





The study was expanded, at the start,  to include all installed capacity,




existing and proposed, in the area served as  well  as the entire energy demand




in the region.
                                    178

-------
         Installed Capacity





         Figure 11-21 is a summation of the total presently installed




capacity for all utilities in the region broken down by category of unit




(fossil fuel, nuclear, hydro-electric and peaking)  and by location inside




or outside the 17 county region.  The total presently installed capacity




as shown in the Table is 21,367 MW.




         In addition, all information on proposed new capacity for the




eight utilities in the region who assembled.  This additional capacity




amounts to some 26,962 MW which, when added to the existing capacity, makes




a total generating capacity in 1990 of some 48,329 MW.





         System Load Factor





         A utility system load factor represents the percentage of




time the equipment of a utility is operated at capacity.  For the eight




utilities in the 17  county region, the system load factor averaged 0.55




for the years  1969 and 1970.  The average  load factor for the fifty  largest




electric utilities in the nation for the same period was 0.60.  There are




two reasons for the  poor performance of the region  utilities.  The main




reason is the  age of the equipment, primarily in the Con Edison and Public




Service inventories.  The other reason is  the extreme peaks experienced




in regional demand,  particularly in the summer periods,, which require




additional standby equipment.  A gradual improvement in the load factor for




the regional utilities is expected as the  peaking factors are moderated and




new equipment  is built.  Therefore, a 1990 system load factor of 0.60 for




the region's utilities was used.
                                    179

-------
                                 Figure 11-21

                INSTALLED CAPACITY FOR REGION'S POWER PLANTS
                    Inside 17 County Area
               Outside 17 County Area

1969 Existing Capacity
Con Ed.
PSE5G
Lilco
Conn. L§P
UN. Ilium.
JCPSL
Hart Elec.
Orange 5 Rock

1980 Proposed Additions
Con. Ed
PSESG
Lilco
Conn L$P
Un. Ilium.
JCP&L
Hart Elec.
Orange § Rock

Fossil Nuclear

7,565 275
3, 806
800
334
746
468
54
518 •
14,291 275
1 Capacity
2,578 7,068
880
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,458 7,068
Hydro Peak

199
507
50*
100
39
-
-
-
895

636
1,035
313
-
-
129 366
-

129 2,404
Fossil

-
1,493
1,188
657
135
276
632
-
4,381 •

480
-
-
400
400
-
1,200
-
2,480
Nuclear

-
-
-
-
-
530
-
-
530

210
3,888
800
130
-
2,000
130
-
7,158
Hydro

-
165
-
122
-
165
10
44
506

4,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,000
Peak

-
180
120*
115
-
-
74
-
489

-
-
56
-
-
155
-
54
265
                                   Summary
                Inside 17 County Area
Outside 17 County Area     Total
1969
Proposed
1980 Total
15,461
13,059
28,520
5,906
13,903
19,809
21,367
26,962
48,329
*Estimated
 Units are megawatts.
                                     180

-------
          Projection of Regional  Energy Demand





         The energy consumption in 1969 for the area was used to provide




a baseline estimate of energy demand for the region.  The sales




to customers in the region amounted to  some 85,691 x 10  Kwh.  Adding 5%




for transmission losses,these utilities generated some 89,975 x 10  Kwh in




1969.  Using an annual compounded growth in energy demand of 5% the 1990




energy demand becomes 238,000 x 10  Kwh.  This compares with the Tri-State




Transportation Commission estimate of 200,000 x 10  Kwh in 1985.  A compar-




ative figure may be calculated from the total installed capacity and system




load factor as follows:




              net generation = installed capacity x load factor x annual




              hours




              NG = 48,329  x 103 x (0.60) x 8760




                 = 254,000 x 106 Kwh




There is a reasonable agreement among these three estimates;  therefore




the 1990 baseline energy demand for the eight utilities in the region was




set as follows:




              Consolidated Edison - 31,810 x 10  Kwh




              Public Service      - 24,800 x 10  Kwh




              Long Is. Lighting   -  9,450 x 106 Kwh




              Conn. Power § Light -  7,550 x 1.0  Kwh




              United Illuminating -  3,950 x 10  Kwh




              N. J. Power § Light -  5,650 x 106 Kwh




              Hartford Electric   -  4,280 x 106 Kwh




              Orange g Rockland   _  ^^ x 1Q6




                Utility
                                    181

-------
              Determination of Total Energy Generated




              Using the plant capacities, the annual hours of operation




and the system load factor, determination of the total energy produced by




each utility was obtained for the particular duties assigned to each of




its units.  This number was then compared to the projected energy demand




calculated above.  Any differences between the two numbers were rectified




by successive iterations using revised duty assignments and hours allowing




for exports or imports of power and removal of aging equipment from




service.  Basically, the projection method worked well.  There seemed to




be adequate capacity in the major utilities nearest to the Meadowlands.




Some of Con Edison's oldest equipment was assumed to shift from high service



power generation to low pressure steam generation following a pattern pre-



sently used by the system.   A major export of power from New Jersey Power and



Light to Public Service provided a much needed balance of capacity for



these two systems which already are highly integrated.  There was a




significant under capacity in some of the smaller utilities in the outer



regions.  No attempt was made to cover these shortages since these utilities



are entirely in Zone 4 and additional capacity is unlikely to constitute




significant emission sources.





              Determining Total BTU Expended



              Having allocated the total energy demand to the individual



plants in 1990, the scope was narrowed from the total utility system to



fuel.  These are the only power plants that are air pollution sources in the



study area.  To determine the total heat consumed by each power plant as shown



in Figure 11-22 the plant heat rates were used; these, within fairly close
                                    182

-------
                                 Figure  11-22
              Point  Source  Power and Incineration Assumptions
Source ID
Incinerators

201
202
203
204
205*
206*
207*
208*
209*
, 210*
211*
212*
213*
County
Richmond
Bronx
Queens
Brooklyn
Fairfield, Conn.
Passaic
Monmouth
Morris
Middlesex
Union
Nassau
Incineration (tons/ day)

5000
3200
5000
6000
985
800
500.
500
600
600
810
Westchester (north) 430
Westchester (south) 1000
Power Plants
Source ID
: 9
27
28
29
54
86
106
107
110
120
121
122
123
County
Bergen
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Essex
Union
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Bronx
Queens
Queens
Richmond
Load (1012 BTU)
heat input/year
36
13
60
31
8
29
16
4
50
6
86
56
30
Fuel Assigned

Coal Gas
R-oil
Coal Gas
R-oil
R-oil
R-oil
Coal Gas
Coal Gas
R-oil
R-oil
R-oil
** D-oil
** D-oil
Note:  All power plant  load  estimates have been rounded; only fossil fuel
       estimates are  included.
* These  are hypothetical  locations  at county population centers; all other
  sites  are proposed  or under  construction.
                   Fuel Abbreviations:   R-oil:   Residual oil
                                        D-oil:   Distillate oil
                                        N-gas:   Natural gas

** Denotes major fuel shift,  generally  from coal to coal gas,  or to a second
   fuel currently being used.
                                    183

-------
                          Figure 11-22   Cont'd
Power Plants
Source ID
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
County
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Brooklyn
Nassau
Queens
Nassau
Rock land
Load (1012 BTU)
heat input/year
88
62
2
8
14
8
4
8
15
5
15
31
Fairfield, Conn. 20
Fairfield, Conn. 31
Westchester 6
Fairfield, Conn. 24
Fairfield, Conn. 7
Fairfield, Conn. 40
Fairfield, Conn. 6
Rock land
Queens
Brooklyn
Union
Middlesex
Essex
Burlington
Middlesex
Nassau
Nassau
Rock land
49
79
Fuel Assigned

D-oil
U-oil
R-oil
U-oil
U-oil
** U-oil ;
U-oil
U-oil
** R-oil
U-oil
R-oil
** Coal Gas
** Coal Gas
** Coal Gas
U-oil
** Coal Gas
** Coal Gas
R-oil
R-oil
U-oil
U-oil
3 (Turbine) N-Gas
43
48
R-oil
R-oil
3 (Turbine) N-Gas
1 (Turbine) N-Gas
2 (Turbine) N-Gas
2 (Turbine) N-Gas
1 (Turbine) N-Gas
1 (Turbine) N-Gas
Fairfield, Conn. 22
** Coal Gas
                Fuel Abbreviations:
R-oil :  Residual oil
U-oil :  Uistillate oil
N-gas :  Natural gas
** denotes major fuel shift, generally from coal to coal gas, or to a
   second fuel currently being used.
                                    184

-------
 limits, are a function of plant age  (actually a function of the year con-




 structed).  Some of Con Edison's oldest equipment may have heat rates as




 high as 14,000 BTU per kilowatt hour.  The newest plants may have heat




 rates as low as 9000 BTU per Kwh.





              Determination of Power Plant Emission




              With the total heat requirement for each plant known,assign-




 ment was made of the particular fuel to be used.  Knowing the average heat




 content of each fuel, the quantities of fuel consumed at each plant could



be determined.   It was assumed that the fuels currently burned would con-




 tinue to be burned in 1990, except for complete switching from coal to coal




 gas, or to oil if both coal and oil were currently used.  The 1990 emission




 factors in Figure 1-30 were then used to calculate emissions.




              For existing power plants the 1969 stack parameters were




used unchanged for 1990; for new plants default parameters (as shown in




Figure 11-20)  were used based upon a plant currently under construction.



 Since it was not possible to contact the utilities directly for design infor-




 mation, no better estimates of stack data could be made.





              Comparison of Emissions with Emission Control Regulations




              Each of the power plants was tested against the applicable




N.Y.C.  and Connecticut regulations as shown in Figure 11-23.   Twelve of




the power plants failed at least one regulation and five failed to meet the




regulations for both SO- and NO ^.




              As discussed  in an earlier  section no  definitive  conclusions




 could be made about the validity of  these  findings because of the  inade-




 quacy of the information used.  Capacity, fuel use, emission  factors,




 schedule of operations, and stack parameters all enter  into  the  calculation
                                    185

-------
                             Figure  11-23
          Summary of Tests against Emission Regulations
Source

120
121
122
123
124

125

127
128

131

142
215
216

Following Pollutant(s)
Failed Test
S00, NO
7 v
SO^, NOA
so:: NojJ
NO '
SO^ NO v
/ v
S07 NOA
2 Y
NO 7 A
NOA
x
NOA
x
Particulates
NO
NO
X
Significant *

SO NO
NOV' X
X
NOV
x
NOA
x









Notes:  all but no. 142 are N.Y.C. power plants subject to fuel burning
        regulations; no. 142 is a Connecticut power plant subject to a
        fuel burning regulation.

*       For these sources and pollutants, the wide margin of error
        possible in determining allowable emissions is probably not
        sufficient to explain the actual pollutant levels calculated.

        Test for N.Y.C.  NOy and S0~ is summarized as follows:
             actual emissions <(constant) x (diameter)  x (exit velocity)
             x (hours of operation)

             with a different constant for each pollutant.

        Test for Conn,  particulates  is summarized as follows:
             actual emissions< (hours of operation) x (allowable
             emissions  per hour) where allowable read from table
             as a function of the BTU rating of the boiler.
                                 186

-------
 of emissions and allowable emissions; all of these parameters were determ-




 ined by different means with different assumptions, based upon the available




 information.  The equations for allowable emissions in N.Y.C. for SO- and




 NO^ are a function of stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and hours of




 operation.  When the same amount of fuel was assumed to be burned over a




 full year of operation (base load) rather than some shorter period, and




 with design rather than current exit gas velocities, the allowable emission




 rates increased an average of 400%.  However, even under these assumptions,




 four N.Y.C. power plants as shown in Figure 11-23 still failed to meet one




 or more regulations.  Although the violations cannot be quantified it can




 be determined from the analysis that these four cases are significant emitters




 with respect to emission limitations and therefore need further study.







               Discussion of Detailed Projection Approach




               The approach used in this study relied heavily on extracting




 relationships from the operation of existing plants in the area and using




 these relationships with only minor modification to estimate 1990 emissions.





 Since the present energy crisis is apt to introduce a great deal of change




 in the manner that electric power is generated and consumed in 1990,  this




 type of projection has obvious weaknesses.  It was not the study team's first




 choice for an approach to determining 1990 power plant 'emissions.




              The preferred approach would have been to obtain certain




protective data directly from the seven major utilities serving the area.




(The 17 County - Tri-State area).  Much of the data needed is prepared



by these utilities on a regular basis.  This information is used to explain




the companies' operation to their stockholders,to support bonding requests
                                    187

-------
and to support applications for licensing before the Federal Power
Commission, the AEC and others.
              The work to be done would have included the following:
              Step 1 - Establish existing power plant inventory - This was
done under the current point source summary (Figure II-3).  Some additional
statistics such as total energy produced per year per KW of installed
capacity, (use factor), plant age, etc. are available from other sources.
              Step 2 - Determine location, size and fueling characteristics
for new and planned plants. - Much of this is available and has already
been extrapolated to 1980.  The estimates  of the separate utilities for
new plant construction between 1980 and 1990 would be a useful addition,
              Step 5 - Projection of peak demand (KW) load factor, and
total energy demand for 1990 - This is where the official projection of peak
demand would permit the specification of the gap in .capacity above that of the
existing plus proposed future plants.  This gap will have to be filled with
hypothetical installations.  The total annual energy demand would permit the
determination (albeit with several limiting assumptions) of the total energy
produced by each plant.  This is a better index of emissions than installed
capacity.  The curves for an average, peak and minimum day would allow
differentiation between the three cases normally specified..  Projections
should cover the entire area serviced by each utility and not just those parts
that are in the study area.  All seven utilities should be canvassed.  The
contributions of Con Edison and N.J. Public Service alone are not enough
because their share of the region's energy supply will diminish while those
of the other utilities will increase between now and 1990.
              Step 4 - The disposition of existing old plants must be
determined - The assumption that plants older than 25 years will be
                                    188

-------
dismantled is not consistent with current status.  Both Con Edison and




Public Service have several plants over fifty years old that are still




heavily used.  The utilities themselves would be better able to estimate




the 1990 disposition of the older plants still in service.




              Step 5 - Rules for System Operation - The projected 1990




capacity must be matched against anticipated demands to determine the




usage of each plant in the system as in the approach followed.  New nuclear




capacity will generally be assigned to base load duty (more than 4000 hours




per year of operation).  Gas turbines and pumped storage plants will




usually be assigned to intermediate and/or intermittent duty (2000-4000




hours per year operation).




              Step 6 - Determine 1990 Emissions - Having assigned the total




demand to the individual generating units, it would then be possible to narrow




the scope to only those fossil fuel plants located in the study area, as in




the approach followed.   Knowing the hours of operation at rated capacity and




the amount and types of fuels being used as contemplated for use, the 1990




emissions can be determined by employing the emission factors determined




previously.









     3.2.3  Refuse Incineration






     A number of factors combine to make central station refuse incinera-




tion a larger factor in future solid waste management in the region.




Among these are increased populations and a decrease in open space




suitable for landfilling operation; the closing down of smaller resi-




dential and commercial incinerators for air pollution control reasons




and the resultant increase in solid waste quantities; and the rapidly




emerging technologies in waste heat utilization and air pollution control




                                    189

-------
relative to these facilities.  Competing with refuse incineration will be




new concepts of materials utilization and recycling which are currently




receiving a large share of the Federal solid waste research and development




funds.  Implicit in the approach used in this study is the hypothesis that




all wastes produced in the region will be disposed of in the region.  The




current interest in exporting solid waste materials from the densely popu-




lated suburban and exurban rings is a temporary expediency and will most likely




not stand the reaction which can be expected from these outlying communities.








              Study Basis




              The basic political unit for handling the solid waste manage-




ment problem will be the county.  The states of New York and New Jersey




have taken official positions supporting the county-wide approach,  and




both have programs of financial support for studies of county-wide  solid




waste  management systems.  An exception to this is New York City where




refuse quantities may be moved interborough for disposal purposes.




Another exception is. likely to be the Meadowlands district where the




Development Commission seeks to find an alternate solution for disposal of




wastes from large parts of Bergen,  Hudson and Essex Counties.





              Population Projections




              Population estimates  were used as a base in the projection as




shown in Figure 11-24.  For the New York State and Connecticut counties,




population estimates of the Tri-State Transportation Commission were used.  These




were prepared for 1985.  For the New Jersey counties,  population estimates




were taken from the State-Wide Solid Waste Management  Plans and are pro-




jections for 1987.
                                    190

-------
                                                    Figure  11-24
                                           DETERMINATION OF INCINERATION
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Bronx
Brooklyn
Richmond
Manhattan
Queens
Nassau
Rockland
Westchester
Fairfield, Conn.
Bridgeport,  Conn.
10 People
Population
1114
1021
613
884
758
657
604
462
682
1531
2600
340
1632
1872
1368
. 2814
1211
435
350
Incineration
50
75
75
50
25
25
25
25
50
75
75
50
75
75
50
25
50
25
75
Tons/day Incineration amounts
Demand
2890
2690
1750
970
700
590
930
495
1055
4310
7400
635
4760
5260
2560
214
2275
407
985
Existing
-
-
324
-
-
-
-
-
-
300
1355
-
1650
590
1750
-
845
-
-
Proposed
"j
y 6000
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
3200
6000
5000
-
5000
-
-
-
-
-
Additional
250
300
180
970
700
590
930
495
1055

\ o
J


810
214
1930
407
985
 Notes:    Population  estimates  for  New  Jersey are  1987  State-wide Solid Waste Disposal.Plan; for New York
          and  Connecticut,  1985 Tri-State.
          Solid waste estimate  used to  determine  incineration amount based on State-wide plan for New Jersey
          and  7.5 ff/capita/day  for  New  York and Connecticut.
          Proposed include  Meadowlands  and  N.Y.C.  proposed capacity.

-------
              Refuse Quantities




              Refuse quantities for the New Jersey counties were also taken




from the State-Wide Plan and include domestic, commercial and industrial




wastes but exclude agricultural wastes.  For the New York and Connecticut




areas an average present per capita waste generation rate of 5#/day was used;




a compounded growth rate of 2% per year for twenty years was also used to




obtain 1990 refuse generation rates.





              Waste Recycling




              A significant increase in material recycling activities is




anticipated by 1990.  Materials that can conceivably be recycled include




glass, various ferrous and non-ferrous metals and paper.  Together these




components account for approximately half of the total weight of whole




mixed refuse.  It is not logical to assume that markets for all of this




potentially recyclable materials can be created,  nor even that all these




components can be economically separated in an uncontaminated condition.




Therefore a recycle factor of 25% of the total refuse generated has been




used and applied to all counties.




              Currently, less than 10% of the region's refuse is inciner-




ated.  This is due to several factors.




              1.  Up to now, there has been sufficient landfill area for




disposal of refuse at a cost significantly less than incineration in most




parts of the region.




              2.  Current incinerators are large emitters of particulates




and are found objectionable by the surrounding population.




              The situation for 1990 is estimated to be such that the




above two factors will not be applicable.   First, little area will remain
                                    192

-------
available for landfill in most counties.  The Meadowlands itself, the last




large area available for landfilling, is seeking to halt the present




dumping operations in favor of large incinerators.  Second, advances have




been made in electrostatic precipitator, high energy scrubber and other




air pollution control device technology that will enable achievement of




significantly reduced emissions from municipal incinerators.  Offsetting




those factors that tend to increase the volume of refuse incinerated will




be the increase in material recycling.





              Refuse Quantities Incinerated




              The basis for determining the split between sanitary landfill




and incineration in central stations was population density in the various




counties in 1990.  The higher the population density,  the less land avail-




able for landfilling and the higher the percentage of refuse incinerated.




For population densities greater than 5000 persons per square mile it was




assumed that virtually all materials not recycled are incinerated.  This




means that, with recycled materials removed, 75% of the refuse generated




in these counties will be incinerated.  For those counties with 1990 popu-




lation densities between 2500-5000 persons per square mile, an estimated 50%




of the refuse generated will be incinerated; for densities less than 2500




only 25% will be incinerated.  These quantities incinerated in each county



are recorded in Figure 11-24.





              Existing and Proposed Incinerators




              All existing incinerators are included in the 1990 projection.




This assumes that old incinerators are abandoned and replaced at the same




location by new units of the same capacity and same operating parameters.




New proposed incinerators for the region have also been included at the
                                    193

-------
locations and capacities proposed by their sponsors. The proposed Meadowlands




incinerator was figured at 6000 tons/day and will service areas in Bergen,




Hudson and Essex County as proposed byrthe Meadowlands Commission.




      Additional Incineration Capacity




      The existing and proposed capacity was subtracted from the total refuse



incinerated and the balance recorded in Figure 11-24.  This additional amount




of refuse to be incinerated was allocated as follows:  Central county in-



cinerators of at least 500 tons per day were located at the county center




of population.  These will service an area of about 200 square miles (the



area of a circle with a radius of about 15 miles centered on the centroid




of the county).  This will insure a round trip haul from the furthest



collection route to the site of the incinerator of about one hour.  Addition-




al central incinerators were located in counties where one unit cannot



serve widely spaced population centers.   The refuse per day for these new



incinerators is shown in Figure 11-22.
                                    194

-------
3.3  Background Line Source Emission Inventory






     Unlike the background point source emission inventory no elaborate




projection methodology was needed for the line sources.  Information was



obtained from the New Jersey Department of Transportation for 1990 vehicle



counts by links in exactly the same form as the 1969 vehicle counts.  Further-



more, the inventory was more extensive and fewer estimates were necessary.



Figure 11-10 shows all of the links for which vehicle counts were determined.



Figure II-8 shows the actual vehicle counts used for 1-90.  In a number of




cases the New Jersey Department of Transportation estimates were for earlier



years -- 1980, 1985 and 1987.  These counts were extrapolated to 1990 accord-



ing to rules set up in accordance with a balanced network for adjacent links.




accordance with a balanced network for adjacent links.



     In consultation with the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission road



types A, B, and C were assigned to the new links.  There was no evidence



that the road types developed for the 1969 links warranted changes for



1990.  The same percentages for vehicle mix were carried forward to 1990



as well, as the result of consultation with the Hackensack Meadowlands



Commission.  Using the 1990 vehicle counts shown in Figure II-8, the



1990 emission factors in Figure 1-30, and the percentage distribution by



road type shown in Figure I1-8, emissions were determined for each link.



These are summarized in Figure I1-9.  No significant variation was assumed




by season as in 1969 and, therefore, the same emissions were used for the



summer and winter seasons.  Stack height and plume rise of zero were assumed



as with the current inventory.
                                    195

-------
3.4  Background Area Source Emission Inventory






     The requirements for the background area source emission inventory




were slightly different from the current area source inventory.  First




of all, a general but representative background inventory for all sources




outsi.de the Meadowlands excluding point and line sources was desired.  As




with the current inventory the most consistent data base for analysis was




the county,             .




     Unlike the current inventory the area source calculations do not



represent the residual of total fuel use and emissions less point sources.



In the case of the current inventory the base parameter for fuel burning




was,generally,actual fuel use by county; the known point source fuel use was



subtracted from the known total fuel use to generate a residual area source




fuel use.  For 1990, however, the base parameter is generally square feet



of residential and non-residential land use.  The amount of square footage



associated with the point sources is relatively small compared to the



county totals of square footage.  This is not surprising since, in general,




the major point sources are intensive users of land in terms of their fuel



use and emissions.  They are most often power plants, incinerators, large



process sources or large users of fuel for process heat.  Accordingly,




it was assumed that the error introduced by not subtracting the point source



square footage from total square footage would be negligible.




     For validation with the current area source inventory, the concern was



with air quality at a number of locations throughout the 17-county region;



however, for 1990, the concern was with air quality only in a very small




portion of the region:  the Meadowlands.  Because variations in the area



source inventory are not as significant in this case, the background inven-
                                    196

-------
 tory  (1990)  did not have to be as detailed as the current one  (1969).  The




 available  information for  1990 influenced the procedures for determining




 the 1990 inventory.  This  information consisted of the current emission




 inventories, Tri-State Transportation planning data, New Jersey Department




 of Transportation highway  data, the 1975 Implementation Plans for New




 Jersey and New York, certain regional fuel projections, and engineering




 judgment for the remainder of the information required.




     In summary, the purpose of the inventory and the availability of the




 information to determine the inventory governed the manner in which the




 approach embodied in the activity indices shown in Figures 1-23 and 1-24




 could be put into .effect.






     3.4.1  Determination  of Fuel Burning Emissions






     Figure 11-25 shows the steps by which the procedures in Figure 1-23




were carried out for the background area source inventory.  The first




 step was to determine the  actual space heating demand by county for the




 portion of the Tri-State planning region coterminous with the 17-county




area.   Since fuel information was available for only New Jersey for 1969,




the "consistent data base" was the 1965 N.Y.  Abatement Region inventory.




     From the fuel data in this inventory, total BTUs were determined separa-




tely for (i) New Jersey, (ii)  New York City,  and (iii) the remainder of New




York State.  Then, the percent space heating from the 1965 and 1969 inventories,




as shown in Figure 11-25, was  applied to calculate the BTUs used for space heat-




ing alone.   Tri-State Transportation Commission 1963 floor space data on




residential and non-residential land uses was then used to determine




 indices of BTUs per square foot.   It was assumed that residential  fuel




use was comparable to the Tri-State residential square foot figures and
                                   197

-------
                                                         Figure  H-25

                                              Background Area Source Assumptions

                                                      Fuel Demand and Use
A. Space Heating Demand
1. Determine total BTU from 1965 data
2. Apply percent space heating
(1965 § 1969)
Resid. Indust. Commerc.
NT 90 2^ 100
N.Y.C. 85 50 100
N.Y. State 85 25 100
3. Calculate BTU for space heating
4. Determine BTU/sq.ft. using Tri-Stat
1963 floor space data.

io3
BTU/sq.ft.
Resid. Non-Resid.
N.J. 214 203
N.Y.C. 125 150
N.Y. State 123 134
N.J. (1969) 188
Meadowlands 90 120
Actual used 125 150
B. Percent Fuel for Space Heating
1. Determine existing weighted average
Resid. Non-Resid.
N.J. 90 54
N.Y.C. 85 86
N.Y. State 85 78
2. Assume Resid. = 90%
3. For non-resid. assume interpolate
between present percent and implied
percent if actual non-space heating
fuel amount held constant.
N I NYC NY State

Tri-State
increase in
floor space
('63- '85) 160% 125% 160%
present 54 86 78
implied 65 91 85
interpolated 59 91 83
5 adjusted.
C. Propensity to Use Fuels
1. Determine percent oil § gas
from 1969 data for N.J. and
1965 data for N.Y.
2. Adjust gas up 5% for N.Y.C.
Residential
oil gas
N.J. 65 35
N.Y.C. 75 25
N.Y. State 75 25
Non-Residential

oil gas
N.J. 75 25
NYC 7^ ?£,
N.Y. State 60 40

-------
                             Figure 11-25  contd.
                       Background Area Source Assumptions

                               Emission Factors
Non-Residential
Fuel Burning
Oil - New Jersey
New York
Gas - New Jersey
New York
Particulates

22.0
22.0
18.0
18.0
80,
20*
25*
0.6
0.6
CO

0.2
0.2
8.0*
20.0*
HC

3.0
3.0
30.0*
15.0*
NOX
20.0*
22.0*'
100.0*
35.0*
Units
lb/1000 gal
lb/1000 gal
lb/106cu.ft.
*These weighted average emission fact'ors were derived as follows:

   For oil, averaging of the use of residual and distillate oil by industrial
   and commercial users.  From 1965 Abatement Report it was determined that
   for New Jersey 60% of the use is industrial; for New York 20%;   there is a
   shift towards residual - 80% of the industrial oil was residual, 60% of the
   commercial, except for New York City.

   For gas, averaging of industrial and commercial users.  New Jersey has 70%
   of use industrial, while New York has only 30%.

Those factors not marked  '*' and all residential  factors are unchanged
from those in Figure  1-30.

All non-fuel burning factors are unchanged  from  those  in Figure 25 except
for aircraft emissions; a weighted average  was made which resulted in ratios
of 1990  to 1969  factors of  1.0 for particulates  and S0_, 0.25  for CO and HC,
and 0.7  for N0-
                                  199

-------
that the combination of commercial and industrial fuel use was comparable



to the Tri-State non-residential square foot figures.




     As can be seen in Figure 11-25, significant variation was found in




the BTU per square foot indices.  Variation in the non-residential category




can be explained by differences in the percent of commercial vs. industrial



square foot land use and the intensity of use.  However, there appears no




clear explanation for the differences in the residential category.  The




actual values decided upon, taking into account the Meadowlands design



figures, were much closer to the New York figures than the New Jersey ones.




It is felt that efficiencies in heating and the tendency towards multiple



family units will make this assumption bear out.  However, this is a




parameter that one may wish to vary in the future to better reflect the



historical New Jersey information.  The variation found in this index




also explains the different numbers for BTUs per square foot shown in



Figure 1-29 for the inventory as a whole.




     The second step in calculating fuel burning emissions was to estimate



the percentage of fuel that would be used for space heating in 1990.  Because



all of the fuel projections were based upon square foot heating intensity,




the factor that divides space heating from process heat demand becomes an



extremely important multiplier.   Unfortunately, as pointed out previously,




this is an area where there is not sufficient information to make accurate



judgments.  First, a weighted average was determined for the existing percent




space heating for non-residential land uses.  This involved combining the



commercial and industrial figures from the 1965 inventory as shown in




Figure 11-25.



     The current New Jersey average residential figures was carried forward



to 1990 for all portions of the region.  This assumes that in the New York
                                   200

-------
portion of the region more cooking and heating will be done by electricity




in the future than at present. However, it should be pointed out that there




are no clear trends one way or the other and that the figure of 90% is, at



best, a guess based on current information.



     Assumptions also had to be made for the non-residential percent space




heating.   At the two ends of the spectrum are (i) the use of the present percent



space heating carried forward to 1990, and (ii) the estimate that total process



heat would remain constant, thereby generating a new implied percentage.



Lacking any further information, it was decided to interpolate a value



midway between the values that would be derived from these two assumptions.



The Tri-State data on the increase in floor space from 1963 to 1985 gave



an index of the increase in space heating demand, assuming the same demand



per square foot.  From this an implied space heating percent was derived



which assumed the constant value for process heat; finally, as shown in



Figure 11-25, the adjusted percent space heating values were determined.




     The third step was to estimate 1990 propensity to use different fuels.



Because of the uncertain nature of fuel shifts in this region from year



to year and with no clear trends, a conservative approach was taken: most



source categories were assumed to use the same percentages of fuels in 1990



as at the present time.  The only exception to this was an adjustment upward



in the percent using gas for New York City because of a concerted effort



to bring natural gas into this area.  Similar suggestions have been put



forth as to trends for eastern portions of northern New Jersey but discussions



with the New  Jersey Department of Environmental Protection indicated that




this may not be realistic.



     The 1969 fuel data for New Jersey and 1965 data for New York were used



to determine the current percentage use of oil and gas for residential and
                                    201

-------
non-residential heating.  The percentages as adjusted for use with the 1990




data are shown in Figure 11-25.  Because the different fuels vary widely in




their emission factors, this is another portion of the inventory that may




require significant change in the future as more information becomes avail-



able.




     Using the 1985 Tri-State square foot data for residential and non-




residential land use by county, the BTU per square foot values, the percent




fuel for space heating, and the propensities to use various fuels, the amount




of fuel for each county was calculated.  The emission factors for 1990 fuel



burning as presented in Figure 1-30 are broken down into the categories of



residential, commercial and industrial.  It was necessary to perform a



weighted average of the commercial and industrial factors, to produce a



non-residential fuel burning factor for 1990.  The procedures and calcula-




tions are shown in Figure 11-25.  Emission factors were applied to the fuel



data to produce the area source fuel emissions as shown in Figure 11-26.






     3.4.2  Determination of Non-Fuel Emissions






     Less information was available to determine non-fuel emissions than



fuel emissions.  In general, the same categories were used for 1990 as



had been used in 1969.  These are summarized in Figure 1-24 together with



the activity indices necessary for determining the emissions.  Independent



projections were made of area source incineration and power as described



in the section on the background point source inventory.  Figure 11-27



shows for each county the number of tons per day of refuse incineration



and the number of BTUs heat input from gas turbines.




     Hydrocarbon emissions from evaporative losses are an extremely



important part of the 1990 inventory.  Little information is known on how
                                    202

-------
                               Figure  11-26
                         Area Source Fuel Emissions
                            1990 for New Jersey

                              10  pounds/year


Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Union
Particulates

10
10
7
7
6
5
5
6
S09

8
8
6
5
5
4
4
5
CO

1
1
-
1
1
-
-
-
HC

3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
NOY

9
9
7
6
5
5
5
7
NOTE:  Due to aggregation and rounding procedures,  this  table  is  presented
       only for report summary purposes.
                                  203

-------
                                            Figure  11-27



                         Area Source  Power  and  Incineration Assumptions
Counties/ Bo roughs
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Bronx
Brooklyn
Richmond
Manhattan
Queens
Nassau
Rock land
Westchester
Incinerations [tons/day of refuse)
250
300
180
370
200
90
130
495
455
500
1000
100
600
700
.
215
-
12
Gas Turbines (10 BTU heat input/year)
) 12.7 *
)
)
1.8
-
-
-
-
*
) 1.8
)
)
)
)
1.5
-
-
Note:  * Gas turbine heat input were divided up equally for those counties served by a single utility;

                 12
         1.8 x 10   BTU were divided up equally for the fiv


         BTU for Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and Union counties.
1.8 x 10   BTU were divided up equally for the  five  boroughs  of New York City,  and 12.7 x 1012

-------
best to characterize this source since it had not been heavily emphasized




in any of the current emission inventories. Evaporation emissions were



included, however, in the 1969 data.  For 1990 Tri-State population esti-




mates by county for 1985 and an emission factor per capita as supplied by



EPA were used to calculate the hydrocarbon emissions.  Very high numbers



were generated by this process, aggregating some 250,000 tons per year for



the study area and comprising nearly 50% of all hydrocarbon emissions.



Whenever more specific information becomes available on evaporation emis-



sions it should be incorporated into the inventory; any analysis of hydro-



carbon air quality should recognize the importance of this source and the




lack of definitive information on emission levels.



     Motor vehicle emissions were estimated in two ways, as shown in Figure H-28



New Jersey Dept. of Transportation vehicle-mile data by county were used directly



in conjunction with estimates of vehicle mix and the 1990 emission factors.



A more involved process was used for the counties in New York State.  First




of all information on population by county and gasoline consumption by



county from the 1965 inventory were used to determine the gallons per capita



on a county basis.  This was combined with the New Jersey vehicle-mile per



capita data for 1990, derived from the 1985 population estimates, to produce



the number of miles per gallon assumed for each county in New Jersey.



     These were categorized and assumptions made as to the similarity of



this parameter for various counties in New York.  These assumed miles per



gallon for the New York counties were multiplied times the gallons per



capita to yield vehicle miles per capita.  Finally, using the 1985 population



estimates vehicle miles per county were derived.  A more straightforward



procedure would have involved the use of the Tri-State Transportation Com-



mission estimates on vehicle mile use per square mile.  However, this
                                    205

-------
                                                      Figure 11-28
                                   Derivation of Area Source Transportation Emissions
                              10
New Jersey counties    1965 Population
                   10
            1965 fuel
                      consumption  1965 galIons/capita
     column § procedure:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
?.
8.
9.
New

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
York counties
column 5 procedure
Bronx
Brooklyn
Richmond
Manhattan
Queens
Nassau
R"ckland
Westch ester
  1

0.85
0.95
0.60
0.55
0.44
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.55
                             45
                             65
                           0.25
                           1.70
                           2.00
                           1.40
                           0.20
                           0.85
                                                360
                                                340
                                                165
                                                170
                                                140
                                                120
                                                140
                                                 50
                                                215
                    195
                    300
                     45
                    340
                    570
                    545
                     75
                    340
3 = 2/1

  425
  360
  275
  310
  320
  390
  310
  330
  390
3 = 2/1

  135
  115
  180
  200
  285
  390
  375
  400
106
1985 Population
4
1.223
0.958
0.622
0.994
0.749
0.631
0.519
0.528
0.562
io9
1990 veh-mi/yr
5
7.02
4.27
1.87
6.18
5.82
5.38
3.35
3.42
3.49

85' -90' veh
6 = 5 /
5750
4460
3000
6230
7770
8520
6470
6300
6200

mi/capita
4









1.531
2.600
0.340
1.632
1.872
1.368
0.281
1.211
                                                                                                            6X4
2.07
2.99
0.61
3.26
5.34
8.00
2.39
9.69
6 = 3X7

  1350
  1150
  1800
  2000
  2850
  5850
  8500
  8000
                                                       7  = 6/3

                                                        15  (15)
                                                        12  (10)
                                                        11  (10)
                                                        20  (20)
                                                        24  (25)
                                                        22  (20)
                                                        21  (20)
                                                        19  (20)
                                                        16  (IS)
7 = Estimate

   (10)
   (10)
   (10)
   (10)
   (10)
   (15)
   (22.5)
   (20)
          Sources:   1965 NY Abatement Region report
                     1985 Tri-State population estimates
                     1990 NJDOT veh-mi estimate

-------
information was not available to the study at the time the specific analysis




was undertaken.




     Estimates of 1990 aircraft emissions were made based upon current



emission levels and regionwide projections in aircraft use.  Unfortunately,




aircraft use projections have varied widely in the last few years and there



are no consistent trends.  An average doubling of aircraft use per county for



the entire region was assumed as a reasonable estimate.  Using current emis-



sion levels and emission factors, and the ratio of 1990 to 1969 emission




factors derived  from Figure 1-30, 1990 emissions were calculated.



     The remaining nom-fuel burning emissions consist of area process



sources, other transportation sources, and gasoline marketing.  In each



case the 1970 Implementation Plan inventories and the 1975 inventory trends



were used to calculate emissions for 1990.  No additional information was



available to adjust the current emission levels to some better estimate of



the 1990 levels.






     3.4.3  Summary of Inventory






     Figure 11-29 shows the total area source non-fuel emissions for the



New Jersey counties for 1990 and Figure 11-30 shows the combined fuel



burning and non-fuel burning emissions for the entire study area in the



units for input to the model.  The same assumptions as to degree days and



percent space heating as used in the 1969 inventory were used for the back-



ground inventory.  The only exception involved the use of weighted average



percent space heating for the non-residential category.  The county emis-



sion densities were allocated to the 16  and  8 km  grid  cells shown  in  Figure




11-14 according to the same procedures used with the current inventory.
                                    207

-------
                              Figure 11-29

                   Area Source Non-Fuel Emissions

                        1990 for New Jersey

                           10  pounds/ year

Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Particulates

13
8
2
6
6
7
3
4
3
SO,,
z
8
3
3
11
8
4
1
2
3
CO

97
59
23
74
70
68
38
44
42
HC

58
46
25
40
36
31
22
25
28
NO
18
10
7
13
13
11
6
7
9
NOTE:  Due to aggregation and rounding procedures,  this table is presented
       only for report summary purposes.
                                 208

-------
                                FIGURE  11-30

                 Background Area Source Emission Inventory
                              10  g /m -sec

Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Bronx
Brooklyn
Richmond
Manhattan
Queens
Nassau
Rock land
Westchester
Particulates
0.55
0.75
1.33
0.23
0.14
0.15
0.22
0.15
0.50
1.26
1.21
0.24
5.70
1.45
0.25
0.13
0.18
so2
0.37
0.48
1.16
0.27
0.14
0.09
0.17
0.10
0.42
0.89
0.85
0.20
5.07
0.49
0.18
0.08
0.13
CO
2.3
2.6
2.9
1.3
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.8
2.3
3.5
3.0
0.7
11.0
3.7
1.6
0.9
1.4
HC
1.4
2.1
3.3
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
1.6
7.2
11.7
3.0
15.9
5.0
1.4
0.4
0.7
NOX
0.6
0.8
1.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.8
1.2
1.4
0.5
6.5
1.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
Note: due to rounding, this table is presented only for report summary
      purposes.
                                    209

-------
                     4.  1990 LAND USE PLANS






4.1  Introduction






     The major part of the study involved the application of the emission




projection methodologies to the Hackensack Meadowlands alternative land use



plans.  Because one aspect of this methodology was the development and imple-




mentation of the software to transform land use activities directly into



emissions, all of the procedures described in this section parallel the



software steps involved.  These software steps are accomplished for the most



part by the compute routines of the LANTRAN program described in the Appen-



dix.



     Figure 11-31 shows the flow of information from activities to emissions.



The first step involves the land use figures (the zone areas and separate



points, as shown in Figures 1-19 and 1-20) with their associated activity



codes.  The specific activity or land use codes used are presented in Figure



11-32.






     4.1.1  Major Land Use Categories






     The numerous land use categories as shown in Figures 1-18 and 1-21 were



aggregated into six major categories for purposes of analysis.  These are



open space, institutional, residential, commercial, industrial and transpor-



tation as shown in Figure 11-31.  Emissions from open space were considered




negligible on an annual average basis  and not treated in the  analysis..  Emis-



sions from institutional, residential  and commercial were  considered  to be



only fuel use related, whereas emissions from industrial sources  included



both fuel and process emissions.
                                    211

-------
     Negligible
r
   Activity lndices:
i
|  Density           .
I  Lot Coverage     p
.  Pupils/Classroom '

'  Heat Demand
|  per Unit
I  % Space Heating
|  Hrs. of Operation
  Fuel Use
|	"
•  Emission Factors  I
I                   I
I  Fuel Emissions
I  Process Emissions
    Determine
No. of Classrooms
                                                     Land-Use Figures with Activity
                                                                Codes
                                                  RESIDENTIAL
                                                COMMERCIAL
                           Heating
Heating
Heating £< Process
                                                                 I
                                                           Total Emissions
Non-Heating
\ \
Determine Determine
No. of D.U. No. of Sq. Ft.
\ /
Determine Heat Demand per hour
for Each Land-Use Figure to be Heated
\
Determine Fuel Use for Each Land
Use Figure
\
Determine Fuel Emissions for Each
Land- Use Figure
i
Determine Process Emissions
Each Land-Use Figure
1
Determine
No. of Sq. Ft.
.^






\

                                 Figure  11-31   Flow of Information  from Activities to Emissions

-------
                                  Figure  11-32

                           Land  Use Plan Activities
Category
Residential
low density (10 du/acre)
medium density (20 du/acre)
medium density (30 du/acre)
high density (50 du/acre)
high density (80 du/acre)
island resid. (50 du/acre)
parkside resid. (50 du/acre)
Commercial
business -neighborhood
business -community
business-Berry's Creek Center
hotel § highway
Institutional
primary schools
secondary schools
cultural center
special uses
Industrial
manufacturing
distribution
research
Transportation
transportation center
airport
stadium parking lot
Open Space
conservation
parks
water
commercial recreation
Code

R01
R21
R31
R32
R22
Rll
R12

Cll
C12
C31
C21

111
112
171
190

S20xx-S39xx
S42
S89

T10
T20
T30

Zll
Z12
Z20
Z31
Plan 1

X




X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
- 1A -

X
X


X




X

X

X
X

X

X
X



X
X


X
X
X
IB -

X

X
X





X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X



X
X


X
X
X
1C

X










X






X



X
X
X


X
X
X
Notes:
     Code pertains to the land use activity codes as used with the LANTRAN
     program; the above is the complete list used in the study.  Four-digit
     SIC codes (2000-3999) were used for manufacturing activities.  Other
     codes were developed for this study and do not correspond to any
     published classification system.  The activity indices and emission factors
     used with the Meadowlands Plans are referenced to this activity code list.
                                     213

-------
     Transportation emissions were divided into several categories.




Discussions with the Meadowlands planners indicated that all highway




emissions should be treated as line sources separately from the plans.




Railroad emissions were considered negligible since most propulsion  involves




electric engines.  Emissions from water transportation vehicles were considered




negligible as well.  The airport was handled as a non-fuel burning source



with emissions related directly to the number of flights.  A further refine-



ment could have involved the specification of terminal areas as separate




fuel-burning sources, but these were considered to be negligible in the




regional scale annual average case.  The parking lots for the sports stadium



were also treated as separate non-fuel burning sources of emissions  related




to the number of vehicles idling at any one time..  Actual transportation cen-



ters (similar to a bus terminal) were treated like any other commercial fuel-



burning land use.







     4.1.2  Determining Heating Refinements






     Figure 1-21 shows that for each land use a heating requirement  had to



be determined in terms of BTUs per dwelling unit, classroom or square foot.



Accordingly, as shown in Figure 11-31, it was necessary to determine the



number of classrooms, dwelling units, or square feet for the respective



categories of land use.  The activity indices such as density, lot coverage,



and pupils per classroom that are a part of the conversion factors catalog



were used to convert the land use data into the number of classrooms,



dwelling units, and square feet.  Once this information is known activity



indices for heat demand per unit of  activity can be used  to determine  the  heat




demand per hour for each land use  figure that is to be heated.
                                    214

-------
     4.1.3  Calculating Emissions






     The next step was to incorporate the fuel use information,including




the schedule, percent process heat, and fuel use propensity as shown in




Figure 1-21, into the analysis to determine the fuel used for each land use



figure, as shown on the fifth line of Figure 11-31.  The final step in



determining the fuel emissions involved the incorporation of the appropri-



ate fuel emission factors.



     Process emissions for each land use figure that involved  industrial



sources were calculated by use of the process emission factors.  Similarly,



process type emission factors for transportation, the airport, and parking




lot were used to determine the transportation related emissions.  The sum-




mation of fuel and process emissions yielded the last line in Figure 11-31,



representing the total emissions for each land use figure.



     The following sections describe in more detail each of the steps



required in this process.






4.2  Activities and Activity Indices






     Each of the land use activities shown in the plans in Figures 1-14



through 1-17 was assigned an activity code.  These are listed in Figure 11-32,



grouped according to the six land use categories shown in Figure 11-31.



There are seven possible categories of residential land use although no



more than three occur in any one plan.  These are generally low, medium and



high density residual use with densities defined by the Meadowlands planners.



However, in Plan 1, the Master Plan, no distinction is made between medium



and high density; rather, the distinction is between island and riverside dev-



elopment called "island residential" and "parkside-residential", respectively.
                                     215

-------
     4.2.1  Description of the Activity Categories






     The four commercial categories are distinguished by their relationship




to residential land use.  Neighborhood and community business are generally



directly related to residential use whereas the Berry's Creek center is a single




large shopping complex.  The fourth category (hotel and highway commercial)




contains all the separate commercial development to be found in all plans.




     Institutional land use is generally reserved for primary and secondary




schools.  In all cases these are directly related to the residential areas




they serve.  Provision is made in the Master Plan for a Cultural Center.



Although it is coded as an institutional land use, it is generally treated




in the same manner as a distribution land use for heating purposes.



     The industrial category is by far the largest in terms of percent land




area as well as emissions.  It is subdivided into manufacturing, distribution,




and (in the case of the Master Plan) research parks.  The manufacturing land



use category is further subdivided into four-digit SIC categories.




     The transportation category is subdivided into the transportation



center (treated similarly to a distribution activity), the airport, and the




stadium parking lot; roadways were handled as separate line sources and,



therefore, not coded for use with the LANTRAN program.



     Four categories of open space were identified: conservation, parks, water



and commercial recreation.  None of these were thought to have significant




emission levels.  However, they are important "receptors" of the air quality



calculated.




     Figures 1-19 and 1-20 depict the spatial arrangements characteristic



of these various land uses for the Master Plan.  Residential sources may




be large areas of single family homes with individual heating or they may



be clusters of island residential apartment towers all heated from a central



facility.  Similarly, commercial establishments may be separate stores or





                                   216

-------
hotels with individual heating systems, the large Berry's Creek shopping




center with a central system, or neighborhood stores heated by the central




residential heating system.  Schools were all assumed to be built as indi-



vidual buildings; however, the amount of space involved is a function of the




residential area served.



     Distribution is generally considered to be a land use zone with homo-



geneous heating requirements served by individual systems.  It is,  thei '-



fore, characteristic of an area-wide source.  For simplicity, the cultural



center, most special uses, the transportation centers, and research activities




were assumed to behave in a similar manner as distribution.  All manufacturing



activity was specified as a function of individual 10-acre lots.  However,



where adjacent lots are of the same four-digit SIC this implies a large



facility of 20, 30, 40 or more .acres with a single heating system.  The



airport was assumed to be an area-wide source; emissions were not allocated




to individual runways.  Because of the uncertainty as to where parking lots



will be in the stadium complex, a single point source was used to represent



the idling emissions from automobiles in the parking lots.






     4.2.2  Decisions Affecting Heating Demand






     It became apparent that the particular ways in which each of the four



plans would be built and have their heating requirements satisfied required



a complex procedure for determining heating demand.  The steps in the pro-



cedure developed are shown in Figure 11-33 for each of the four major cate-



gories of fuel-related emissions: institutional, residential, commercial



and industrial.  Each of these will be discussed in detail.
                                    217

-------
   5165
N)
t—•
oo
INSTITUTIONAL
/. Indk
\
fidual
i
Determine
Sq. Ft.
\
(

2. Func
Reside
^
~tion
•>ntial
\
Determine
No. Classr'ms
1
i
««-
RESIDENTIAL
/. Indi
\
wduol
i
Determine
D.U.
i
i
Determine Heat Demand


COMMERCIAL
2. Grouped with 1. Combine with
Central Heat Resiential
\
Combine
Resid. Areas
i

Determine
D.U.
i
1
\
*~ Determine
_». Sq.Ft.
\
Determine
Heat Demand
\
i
Determine
Heat Demand
\
i
Combine Commercial
Heat Demand with
Residential

2. Indh
\
'idual
Determine
Sq.Ft.
\
i


INDUSTRIAL
/. Indiv
Non-1
\
'dual 6* 2. Multiple Loi
/lanuf. 1
Combine
Indust. Lots
1 i
i
Determine Determine
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
\
i
i
Determine Heat Demand

                                          Figure 11-33   Decisions Affecting Heating Demand

-------
     Institutional





     The few cases of institutional land use that were to be treated on an



individual basis (the cultural center and special uses) involve only one



step to determine the number of square feet heated as a function of the area




of the land use zone.  The information required is shown in Figure 1-21.



Since the cultural center was to be treated similarly to a distribution



source, it is listed in that table under "distribution".  Columns 1 and 2




in Figure 1-21 show that the percent lot coverage and the floor area ratio



are necessary to perform the calculation.  The number of acres of land use,



and the percent lot coverage tell us how many square feet of the lot will




be built upon; the floor area ratio (as used here) shows how many floors will



exist in the building.  Figure 11-34 shows the actual numbers assigned to the



parameters in Figure 1-21.  If we read down the left-hand column until we en-



counter Example no. 1, activity code 1-71 (the code for cultural center) and



we read across to the columns labeled A-l and A-2 we see the number 40 (the



percent: lot coverage) and the number 1 (the floor area ratio).



     Having determined the number of square feet assigned to the cultural



center we can multiply by the BTU per square foot to calculate the heat




demand.  The appropriate number for BTUs per square foot is found in the



first column of Figure 11-34, labeled ACTV; the value is 12.5.



     The majority of institutional land uses are the schools; their heat



demand is a function of the number of classrooms.  The number of classrooms



is related to the number of pupils per classroom, the number of pupils per



dwelling unit, and the number of dwelling units in the residential area



which the school serves.  Figure 1-21 shows that two of these parameters



(the number of dwelling units and the pupils per dwelling unit) are activity
                                     219

-------
EXAMPLE NO. .' ' KEY-ACTIVITY
2,3 Low Density (^ ROJ,
4,5 Mid Density f~ Rll
R12
R21
R22
H31
R32
Neighborhood ( Cll
C12
C21
6 Berry's Creek C2l
2 Primary School ( 111
)
;





)



)
112
1 Cultural Center^ 1 71
T10
T20
T30
)



7 Distribution ^ S42 J
S42
9 Manufacturing ( S^5'
S39
S39
S39
S39
S39
S3*
S39
S39
S39
S39
SJ9
S39
S39
S39
S39
)















        Figure 11-34   Plan Activity Indices
ACTIVfTY  ACTIVITY  NAMES
C
C31
 I9U
S20J2

S2U3-5

S2U34

S2304
S2041

S2043
S*05l

S2052
S2U86
ACTV
(l8750.t/00 )
C 7500,000^
750U.OOO
1375U.OOO
4000.000
8750.000
7500.000
(^ 16.250 J
16.250
16.250'
V 16.2*0 )
C 15000,000 J
15000,000
( i2.5UOj
12,500
a.o
0.0
(^ 12.5(10 J
1?,500
( 27.500 J
27.500
27.500
27,500
27,500
27,500
27,500
27.500
27, ,500
27.500
27.500 •
27. SCO
27,500
27.500
27.500
Al
(
\^ 10.000 j
C 50.000
50,000
20,000
80.000
30,000
50.000
V^ 0.500
1.500
35.0011
(^ 35.000 J
(25.000
J
30.000
(^ 40.000 ^
4 0 . 'J 0 0
0.0
0.0
(3d .000
30.000
( 40.000
40. OOC
40.000
40.000
4 o , o o n
40.000
40.000
40,000
40.000
40.000
40.0CO
40.000
40,000
40,000
40.000
A2	

  1,500

  0,500

  1,000

.  1.000

  0,500

  1,000

  1,000

  1.000

  1,000



  0.750

  0,450

  0,200

  1,000

  1.C30

  0.0

  I), J

  1.U30

  1.000

  1.000

  l.OCO

  1,000

  1.000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1.000

  1.000

  1,000

  1,000
 A4

   0,0

1500,000

2000.000

   0.0

   0,0

   o.u

   0, J

   u,(;

   O.C

   0,0

   O.li
                                                                   0,0

                                                                   0,0

                                                                   0,1)

                                                                   O.i)

                                                                   O.o

                                                                   0.0

                                                                   O.u

                                                                   0,0

                                                                   0.0

                                                                   0.0

                                                                   0,1

                                                                   O.C

                                                                   o.o

                                                                   G ,<•

-------
Figure 11-34   Cont'd     I  I
— .. 	 : 	
S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

539

S39
S39
S3-9
S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

539

S39

S39

S39

S39

$39

S39

S39

539

S39

S39

S39

539

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S209B

S2295

S26A1

S2721

52015

S2S1C>

S2B18
S2H19
S2S31
S2d33

52634

S2U42

S2843

S2B44

S3'»33

S3S51

536b2

SSbb'l

S355b

53561

SS562

S 3 b 6 6

S3567

S3b73

535B1

S35Hi!

S3585

S3bb9

S3013

53635

53636
27.500

27,500

27,500

27,500

27.500

27.500

27.500
27.500
27.500
27.500

27,bOO

27,500

27,500

27.500

27.500

27.500

27.500

27.500

27.500

27.50U

27, SOU

27,500

27.500

?7.5')0

27.SUO

27.500

27,500

27.5UO

27.500

27.500

27.500

27.500

27,500

27; 500

27,500

27,500

27,500

40,000

40.000

40.000

40,000

40.000

40.000

40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40, QUO

40.000

40 . OOU

40.000

4 0 . 0 U 11

40. OOU

40,000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

40". 000

40.000

40.000

40.000

1,000 "

1,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

1,000
1,000
1,300
1,000

1,000

1,090

. . 1,000

1,000

1.000

1,000

1,000

i.aoo

1.000

1,0(10

i.ouo

1.000

i.noo

1.000

l.OOC

1. 000

1,000

l.uOO

1,000

1,000

l.OOP

1.000

1,000

l.OCO

• I..OOQ

1,000

1,000

" 0,0"

0,0

0,0

O.n

0,0

o,u

' a,1'
' '-0,n
• 0,0
0.0

0. ,

O.U

U, j

0,0

0,0

0.0

0.0

0.0

o.n

n.o

0.0

o.o

O.U

0.0

O.n

U . U

0 .11

t' . 0

0.0

o.n

O.U

ii , M

t'.O

O.U

0,0

0 ,0

O.U

      221

-------
                                                               Figure 11-34   Cont'd
8    Research

S39

S39
S39

S39

539

S39

539

S39

S39

539

539

539

539

S39

339

S39

S39

S39

S«9 J
539

b39
S3V

339

S39

S39

b.i9
b39
27,500
S363V
27.500
S3641
27,500
S3642
27.500
S3643
27.500
53644
27,500
S3651
27.500
53652
27.500
S3661
27,500
S3fr62
27,500
S3691
27,500
b J69i;
27,500
S36V3
27,500
Si/15
'(.1 ,500
S ^ / 1 4
i^ / & o u
S 2 H 4 \
27.500
S3' * ?
27.5UO
S 5 '-4 '.
27.5UU
s A i< (> :
i!V.50il
( ? C . I' 0 11 }
bit 41
27.5UO
S 3 6 .5 4
P 7 . 5u ij
5
-------
indices related directly to the residential area.  If the school serves a




single family, low density area we would look in Figure 11-34 under the




activity code R-01 (Example No. 2).  The value (10.) in the column labeled A-l




is the number of pupils per dwelling unit.  Therefore, each acre of low



density land has 15 pupils assigned to the school serving that area.   Since



both primary and secondary schools exist it is important to know what per-




centage of the eligible pupils go to each of the different types of schools.



If we are interested in the heat demand for a primary school, we would look




in Figure 11-34 under activity code 1-11.  The column labeled A-2 contains



the number .45 which means that 45% of the school children would be going



to the primary school.



     Finally, using the value in column A-l of 25 pupils per classroom we



can determine the total number of classrooms necessary in primary schools



to serve the particular residential area.  If we have 100 acres of low den-



sity residential land, this would yield 1500 pupils, 45% of which is 675




primary school pupils; at 25 pupils per classroom this yields 27 classrooms.



Multiplying by the BTUs per classroom found in the first column, 15,000,



would yield the heat demand for that school.





     Residential
     Residential land uses have two sub-categories similar to institutional:



individual heating and heating provided by central facilities.  In the case



of the individual heating (found in low-density housing) the heat demand is



a direct function of the number of dwelling units .  In Figure 11-34 for Example



no. 3, under activity R-01 (low density residual), the column labeled A-l shows



10 dwelling units per acre.  Multiplying this times the BTU per dwelling unit
                                     223

-------
value of  18,750 would yield the heat demand for an acre of low-density




residential land use.




     Most of the medium and high density development in the Meadowlands




Master Plan and alternative Plans 1-A and 1-B would be satisfied by central




facilities.  A more complicated process is therefore required.  First of all,




it is necessary to determine which residential land use zones should be



grouped together to be heated by a particular central system.  The grouping




results in a total number of dwelling units to be heated, assigned to a




particular heating facility.  This is accomplished by summing the acreage



of all the affected land use zones and multiplying times the dwelling units




per acre.



     For instance, for island residential with a code of R-ll, Figure 11-34




Example no. 4, shows a value of 50 dwelling units per acre in column A-l.



Because the average dwelling unit size in high density development is smaller



and the efficiency of a central heating system is greater the BID per dwelling



unit value is only 7500 for this land use category.  When the total heat demand



is determined it is assigned to the location of the central facility.





     Commercial





     Community and neighborhood shopping facilities are entirely a function



of the residential land uses  they serve.  In the Master Plan these are the



island and parkside residential areas.  First of all, the actual square



footage of commercial development must be determined as a direct function




of the number and size of the dwelling units in the residential area; this



procedure is depicted in Figure 11-33. Neighborhood shopping with a code




of C-ll (Example no's) has a BTU per square foot demand of 16.25 as shown in



Figure 11-34.   The number in the column labeled A-l tells us that 0.5% of the
                                     224

-------
square footage of the residential development will be assigned to commercial



use; this is the number specified in the Hackensack Meadowlands zoning regulations,



But, for an island residential area with a code of R-ll, how do we deter-



mine what the total square feet of residential area is?  Figure 11-34,



column A-4, gives us a value of 1500 square feet per dwelling unit.   When



this is multiplied by the number of dwelling units, we obtain the'total



residential square feet.  Once the heating demand in BTUs per hour is deter-



mined for this commercial use it must be added to the heat demand for the



residential area since all heating will be taken care of by the central



facility.



     Separate commercial facilities such as the Berry's Creek shopping



center will be heated individually.  The number of square feet is a function



of the lot coverage and the flopr area ratio.  The code for Berry's  Creek



(C-31)  does not appear in the left column of Figure 11-34 (Example no. 6);



it is indented and the code C-21 for hotel and highway appears.in the left



column.  This indicates an assumption that Berry's'Creek will be heated accord-



ing to the same parameters as hotel and highway (C-21).  Column A-l  gives us



the lot average, and Column A-2 the floor area ratio.  Multiply the  number of



square feet times the value of 16.25 BTUs per square foot yields the total



heat demand per hour.  Some of the special facilities such as Berry's Creek



may consist of more than one land use zone with a central heating facility.



In this case, the procedure is similar to the island residential. The



commercial areas are combined before the activity indices are applied to the



total acreage.
                                    .225

-------
      Industrial





      Most industrial land uses are handled in a similar manner to the sep-




arate commercial facility.  All distribution, research, and individual




10-acre lots are heated separately.  In the case of a large distribution




area  this would take the form of homogeneous area-wide emissions from




numerous distribution facilities.  In the case of a 10-acre manufacturing




lot this would probably mean emissions from a single facility.  In Figure




11-34, columns A-l and A-2, respectively, give the percent lot coverage and floor




area  ratio for Example no. 7, distribution (S-42), Example no. 8, research (S-89),




and Example no. 9, manufacturing (S-39).   All four-digit SIC code manufacturing



activities are assumed to behave in a similar manner as S-39 for the purposes of



heating.   This assumption was made simply because of the available information.



      Where adjacent 10-acre industrial losts have the same SIC code and




are,  therefore, to be combined as a single facility, the total acreage is



added together and assigned to a single central heating system, at a point.




Then  the same procedures are used to calculate BTUs per hour.





      Other Categories





      Since no heat demand is assumed to occur for the transportation sources,



they  are not involved in this part of the analysis.






4.3   Fuel Decisions






           parameters are necessary to translate heat demand in BTUs per




hour  into quantities of fuel used for both space heating and process heating




purposes.  These are: the schedule (number of hours of operation per year),



the percent fuel used for process heat, and the percent of fuel demand satis-



fied  by each of the fuels.  Figure 1-21 showed that these parameters  are  the




same  for all land uses.  The actual values used are shown in Figure 11-35.




                                   226

-------
                                                             Figure  11-35    Plan  Fuel Use Allocation
KEY-ACTIVITY
                      ACTIVITY   ACTIVITY

Residential






Commercial

•

Institutional

Transportation

Miscellaneous
Distribution

Rll
Hll
Rll
Rll
Rll
Rll
Cll
Cll
Cll
Cll
111
111
T20
T30
S42
iiC:(cU
1U O.J.
a toe , uoo
ALL --U1.TI-SE5.
S V 6 u , U d U
nl'£
9760 . UOJ
•J 7 1 0 . 0 U 0
a 7 6 u . o 
-------
Figure 11-35   Cont'd
Research
Transportation
Center
Cultural
Center
Special Uses
Manufacturing














sa9
TIG
171
190
339
320
339
339
339
339
S39
339
339
339
339
339
S39
339
339






S3551
33552
SJ554
33555
33*61
S3I>62
S^t>66
S3S67
Si3^3
S35bl
33562
S35*5'J
535C9
KESbAnO"
2 c o •;, , o o o
TRA,\S'J, CTn
3 7 6 u , I" 0 0
O'JLHMAL CT'i.
IOC J.GU3
SPECIAL USES
36Uu . UllO
KAMJF - GLii,
361/0. OtO
B760.COO
36UU, 000
3600.000
3600. OUR
360u.UOO
360 u. OOP
36UJ.OOO
360J. 000
3600.000
360 U. 00 3
3oOu .000
360 U. 000
3600. OdO

U.u
U.O
0.0
O.t
75.UOC
90.000
75.0UO
75.000
75.000
75.000
75.000
75.000
75.000
75.00(1
75. JOO
75.00U
75.000
75.300

o.n
0 , 0
0, .)
o.n
0,950
U.750
0.950
0,950
J.950
0.950
0,950
1.950
11.950
0.950
0, 950
J.9?0
0,950
0.95J

1 . t' >.'• "
1 . U 0 j
1 . n i o
1 . 0 d 0
o.n
o.o
o.o
o.o
0,1)
0 ,0
o.o
o.o
o.n
o.o
0.3
0,0
o . n
0,0

o.o
U. 0
0.0
0.0
0. 050
0.250
0. 050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0,050
0,050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
U.050

o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o .
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.3
0 .0

0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0.


-------
Figure 11-35   Cont'd

S39

S39

539

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S39

S3«

S39

S39

S39

339


S3 6 1.1

SJ6J5

S3636

S3639

33641

SJ642

S3M3

SJ644

S3651

S3652

S3661

S3662

S3691

S3692

33093

S3715

33/14

S.J.J41

Jtioo. aou

3600.303

3600.000

3609,000

3600, COO

3600,000

3600,000

3600,000

3600.000

3600,000

3600.000

3600, '000

3600.000

360J.OOO

36UO.OOO-

36ua,ouo

360U.UUO

360U, 000

3tOu,UOO
75 .00(1

75.0uO

75.000

75. QUO

75.000

75.000

75,000

75.000

75.000

75.300

75.000

75.000

75.000

75.000

75,000

75.000

75.100

75.000 '

75.000
U.^PO

0,950

0,950

0.950

0,950

0,950

0,950

0,950

0.950

0,950

0,950

3,950

0,953

3,953

0,950

0,950

0,950

0,950

J.95U
0,1)

0, J

O.lt

0.0

0,0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0,0

0,0

0,3

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0.0

0.0

o.o

0,3
0.050

0.050

0.050

0,050

0.050

U.050

0.050

0,050

0,050

0,050

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.050

0,050

0,050

0.050

0.053
• o . o

0.0

0 .()

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

o.o
0 , 0

0,0

0, 0

0 .0

0.0

0 . 0
w , V
0 , 0

0,0

0,0

0.0
W f V
0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0.0

0,0'
w ^ w
0,0

-------
S39




S.59





S39




S20




S20




S20




S20




S20




S20




320




S20




320




S20




S20




320




S20




S20




S20




S20
SSSoX




SWSl




S2US2




S.J0.5}




S2U34




S2.JU4
5203^
Figure 11-35 Cont1
36u;<
JftOj
J6Li u
B76J
t*76j
6760
37hO
376J
3760
!»76li
0760
8760
876U
«76U
6760
6760
9760
876 J
. u u n
. 0 'J .1
.uiiu
.000
,0,)0
,000
.UOO
.000
.000
.000
,000
.UOO
,uuu
.000
.UOO
.ouo'
.000
.000
7r>
75
7y
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
.000
. 9 in)
. J'jj
. OLD
. 0 ') U
.ooc
. 0 0 !i
.uoo
.000
.OiiJ
.OOJ
.0(10
.coo
.000
.1)00
.000
.00(1
.000
•1
I)
u
J
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 9rjJ
, 950
,?iO
,730
.7Ji)
,75J
.750
, 7^0
,750
,75U
.750
, 750
,750
,750
, 750
.750
.750
.750
d
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

. ;l
, l!
. •-'
. J
, 0
.0
.0
.0
t IJ
.0
.0
.0
,•)
.0
.0
,'J
.1)
.0
0.05U




0. 050




0.05'J




i).?50




0.2-i'J




0.253




U. 250




0.250




U.250




0.250




0.250




0. 250




0.250




0.250




U.250




0 . 2 5 U




0.250




0.250
0.0




0.0




0.0




3.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0,0




0.0




O.J




0.0




3.0




0.0
0.0




0.0




3.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0,0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0




0.0

-------
Figure 11-35 Cont'd

S20

520

520

520
520
520
520
520
520
S20 •
S20
520
S20
520

520
520
520
520


s 2 2 '-i 5

S2^>61

52721

S2/J1
52815
S2B16
52818
S2819
S2U31
52833
S2834
52042
S2d43
52844

. 52851*
52992
33275
S.J2V1

li/hO

'J/6 J

S76U

8760
37&U
8760
8760
8760
8760
876J
8760
876J
8760
8760
8760

H76U
8760

-------
Figure 11-35   Cont'd
S2J
520

320

339

339

320

320

S2C

SJ9

320

SJi!92
'-.71.U
33"il
8761
SJ4J3
t»'6ii
S3*34
3 'J 0 j
S-S&21
36Uu
32d«l
S7GU
32035
1760
S2UJ7
8760
S«69
3oOO
S272C
8760
. lid'J

.DOC

.01)0

, u o u

,000

, 0 L 0

.uon

, o e o

. i; f' o

.OUC
•;n

9.)

90

7b

75

90

91)

90

75

90
.Ui'u

.OCO

. u i1 1:

.00:)

. 0 J >i

. U J •-'

.Ore

. 1, il 0

.000

.000
0

'j

;j

a

0

0

0

it

0

0
. 7'iO

,7^0

.760

, 940

,950

.7*50

. 75(1

.750

,95C

.75U
0 , 0

n . i.

'i , u

O.i;

0 . ;

f: ,0

O.i/

O.o

0.0

O.'J
J

0

;j

U

0

0

0

0

0

0
.250

.233 '

.250

.050

.050

.250

.250

.250

.050

.250
il. J

U.O

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0
0,0

0,0

0.0

0,0

0,0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0,0

-------
     The column labeled SCHED gives the number of hours per year of operation



assumed for each land use code.  The column labeled PROC gives the percent



of fuel used for process heat.  The next three columns show the portion of



total fuel demand assigned to residual oil, distillate oil, and natural gas.



     Sufficient information existed to divide four-digit manufacturing SICs



into two categories for these parameters.  One is ooded S-20 and the other



S-39;  all industrial lots are assigned to one of these two categories.



S-20 represents heavier industry, operating almost continuously throughout



the year and using 90% of the fuel for process heat.  S-39 represents 12-hour



per day operation, 6 days a week with only 75% of the fuel used for procrs-



heat.  S-39 type industries are much more apt to use oil, as evidenced by



existing point sources in the current inventory.





4i4  Emission Factors





     The emission factors used in conjunction with the Meadow lands plans .IT-..



shown in Figure II~36 for each activity code and fuel used by that activity.



Emission factors for each of the five pollutants are shown in the same uni's



used in Figure 1-30.  Fuel burning was aggregated into residential, commer-



cial and industrial.



     For the airport the names PROC 1 and PROC 2 were used, respectively,



for commercial and general aviation emissions.  In Figure 11-35 for activity



T-20 the last two columns show values of 0. for PROC 1 and 1.0 for PROC.2.



This means that all aircraft assigned to the airport are of the general



aviation (PROC 2)  category.  For T-30 in Figure 11-36 the emission factors



assigned to PROC 1 represent automobile idling.  These factors were developed



independently of the emission factor analysis and solely for the purposes of



the parking lot emissions.  This was done because of the emission factor analysis
                                    233

-------
                                  List  of Plan Enission Factors as Printed by the LANTRAN program.
 Residential
Commercial f,
Institutional
Manufacturing
Parking Lot
4-Digit SIC  .
Manufacturing

Rll
**••****•
P-UIL
N-GAS
Cll
••»*•*•«*
R-OIL*
D-OIL
N-GAS
S39
R-OlL
D-OIL
N-GAS
T20
PROC1
PROC2
T30
PROC1
S2031
H-QlL
D-OIL
N-GAS
PROP
S2041
R-OIL
D-OIL
N-GAS
PROP
S2051
R-OIL
D-OlL
N-GAS
PROP
S2082
R-OIL
PROP
S2095
R-OlL
D-O!L
N-GAS
PROP
R-0 IL
P*Q' I.
PROP
S2661
R-OIL
D-OIL
N-GAS
PROP
S2843
R-QIL
D-OIL
N-GAS
PROP
S2851
R-OIL
n-oiL
N-GAS
PROP
S3275
R-OIL
D-Olt
N-GAS
PROP
S3292
R-OIL
PROP
S3691
R-OIL
D-OIL
N-GAS
PROP
TSP S02 CO HC NQX
. WES, FUEL BURNING
FUELNAMfc NOT FOUND IN AVNAMUOCAT10NS 3 TO 7).
10,0000 6,5000 0,2000 3,0000 4.6066
iSIODOO 0,6000 2(S!0000 B.OOOO 5.UQOO
CUMMEHC, FUEL aUHNING
FUELNAMb NO* FOUND IN AVNAMILOCAT IONS 3 TO 7.1.
f'UtLNAMb NOT FOUND IN AVN*M(LOCAT IONS 3 TO 7 ,
23,0000 40,0000 0,2000 3,0000 24,0000
IS.OOOO 11,0000 0,2000 3,0000 24.QOOO
19,0000 0,6000 20,0000 8,0000 8,0000
lUDUST, FUEL BURNING
FUbLNAMfc NOT FOUND IN AVNiM < LOCAT IONS 3 TO 7),
FUtLNAMb NOT FOUND IN AVNAMtLOCAT lo^S 3 TO 7).
23,0000 24,0000 0,2000 3.0000 18.0000
IS.bOOu 6,0000 0,2000 3.00QO 18,0000
18,0000 0,6000 0,4000 40,0000 140,0000
AIRHOKTS- IBCCMMEKC. 2sGtN. AVIATION
8,0000 2,0000 6,0000 4,0000 3.5000
C.200C 2,0000 6.0000 0.7001 0,2000
4,3000 4,4000 . 1?.20UP 2,7000 O.SCOO
23,0000 24,0000 0.200(1 3,1)000 Ifa.UOGO
llJ.OObl1 6,0000 C'.kOOO .5,1)000 '5»j.OfiOO
1 r , u 0 b b 0.6000 0.4COC 40.')000 140.0000
Ic.JiUOb n.n o.u 2i:o,ubcii o.n

?3.0boO Z4,'lOOb O.«no') 3.0000 IP.unijU
IS, 3000 6.00HO n , 000 24,0000 0,2000 3,'JJOO 1H.UOIIO
15,0000 6.000J 0. dud a J, it 000 lti.li 000
iH.oOou n,60 no 0,4000 4n,oonO 1 4 n , o o n u
10.0000 C,:) 0.0 0.-) 0.0
23,(lOOO 24,oOO>) 0.2'JOO S.OUnO IH.nOOO
is.oooo 6,ngJO 0.2000 3,0000 tfa.riooo
iS.OOOU 0.6000 0.4000 40,0000 140,0000
ic.oooa o.o o.c 100.0000 o.o
is'.oooo j'.jooo o.^ooo '3!uooo- is!oooo
18.0000 0.6000 0.4000 40,'jOnO 140.0000
2S.uooo !>.o u|o as.'JQiin (i.o
2.5,ijOOO 24,0000 0,2000 3,0000 11.0000
13,0000 6,0000 0.2000 3,0000 18,0000
IH.QUOU o.60ao a. 4000 4g,ooo6 i4n.oooo
in, oooo u,o u.o 200,0000 o.o
23,0000 24,11000 0.2JOO 3,3000 10.0000
li.OOOO 6,0000 0.2000 .5,0000 lfl.0000
IC.pOQO 0.6000 0,4000 4(1,0000 140,0000
Pi., OOOO 0,11 C.U 0.0 0.0
>3.0000 24.JOOO 0.20UO 3.UOUO 13.0000
is.oooo 6, anon 0,2000 3,0000 is. oooo
Id.OOOO 0,6000 0.4000 40,0000 140.0000
25,0000 C,0 Q,D 0,0 0,0
23.0000 24,1)000 0.2000 3.0000 18.0000
Ib OOOO 6,0000 0.2000 3,'.)0on lo. 000-0
18,0000 0,6000 0,-*000 40,0000 140.0000
10,0000 C.O 0.0 0.1 0.0
23.0000 24, ,1000 0.2000 3,0000 19.0COO
15,0000 f.OOOO 0.2000 . 3.000J IS.OOOO
iH.oooo 0,6000 a.-iooj 40.onon i4;i,jooo
i c . o b o o o.o o.o n . d r, . >.)
?3,ooou ?4,oono 0.2000 3,0'jon IB.OOHO
15,0001) 6,0000 0.2li(IU 3.0000 IP.OOiiC
38.000L 0,60(10 O.-IOOo '40,0000 140.0000'
In. oooo o.n o.n o.o c.p
23,0000 24,0000 0.20(10 3,0000 l>..noOQ
15 OOOO 6.0000 b.20tO 3.0000 ib.OOOO
18.0000 0.6000 0,4000 40,0000 140,0000
0,0 25,0000 0,0 0,0 0.0

FUEL IS B-COA
FUEL is A-CUA
FUEL IS. B-COA
FUEL IS A-CUA
FUEL IS B-COA















                                                       234

-------
                                         Figure 11-36  Cont'd
                   Cll
                   Cll
                   Cll
                   Cll
                   Cll
                   Cll
           112
           171
           190
           TlO
           542
           SB9
(Other Codus
 Linked to
 above Factors)
Rll
Rll
Mil
Rll
Rll
Rll
Cll
Cll
Cll
Cll
R01
(U2
R21
R22
R31
K32
Cl?
C21
C31
111
539
539
539
539
539
S31)
539
539
539
539
539
539
539
539
539
S39
539
539
539
539
539
539
S39
539
52(1.53
b;>l«34
b2.('"l
S2-J,|7
52'M3
52(115
SZu1^
S2uh6
S2LM7
S2T98
S27;?l
52731
S2bl5
S2W16
S2B1S
S2(:19
S2931
S2S33
52^34
S2?12
S2fc14
52992
S3m
S3431
                                                  235

-------
                      Figure  11-36   Cont'd
    S39
    S39
    S39
    S39
    S39
    S39
    S39
    S39
    S39
    S39
    S39
    $39
    S39        S3irt'y
    S39        S3M3
    S39        bjb^b
    S39        S3f>36

    S39
    S39
    S39        S3A43
    S39
    S39        S3ftli;>
    S39        53f>61
    S39        S3692
    S39
    S39         Si'li.
    b39         S3B41
    S39         53*542
    S39         S3b43
    S39         S38fil
    S39         S^^4l

    S39         S3634
    S39         S2U35
    S39         S2U37
    S39
    S39
   S39         S272Q
Notes:  Units vary according to fuel.  See Figure 1-30 for explanation of units.
       The use of this data set is covered in the Appendix to Task 1, under the
       discussion of the case study.  It is shown here merely to present the
       complete list of data used in the study.

                               236

-------
had been concluded prior to the identification of the stadium and its

parking lots as a land use.  The most current information on idling emis-

sion rates was obtained from EPA as a part of another study.  Lacking

further information, it was assumed that the same percent reduction in urban
                       I
vehicle speed emission factors from 1969 to 1990 would apply to the idling

emission factors.  This produced the numbers shown in Figure 11-36 in pounds

per thousand hours of vehicle idling time.

     Each of the four-digit industrial codes for the Meadowlands Plans

analyzed as to its propensity to produce process emissions, twelve 4-digit

SIC categories were identified as significant process sources; these are

shown in Figure 11-36.  Because no specific information was available a?  . re-

sult of the emission factor analysis, and because no activity data had been

developed as a part of the plans which would indicate process rates or

even process type, the emission factors were determined as proportionate to

fuel emissions.  They are labeled PROP in Figure 11-36.   The fuel emission

factors for these SICs are the same as those given for industrial fuel

burning.   As mentioned under the discussion of current background emissio •>

the subject area of process emission sources requires the most additional wori,

     The fuel emission factors were applied to the fuel uses as  calculated

according to the procedures discussed.   Industrial process emissions were

then proportioned to these.  Emissions from the airport and the  parking

lot were calculated as a direct function of the activity (number of air-

craft flights per year, and thousand hours of automobile idling  per year).


4.5  Criteria for Determining Point Sources


     The procedures discussed produced total emissions by season for each

of the land use figures.   The figures consisted of both land use zones,
                                   237

-------
such as distribution areas or low density residential areas, and individual




point locations, including manufacturing sources, schools, and central




heating systems for large residential areas.  For these point sources it




remained to be determined which ones should be treated as separate point




sources for modeling and which should be aggregated into the area source



grid cells.




     The size criterion established for point source status was 25 tons per



year of any one pollutant, the same as that used for the background point



source inventory.  For each plan most of the industrial sources resulting




from zones greater than 10 acre lots became point sources, as did several



of the large residential areas.




     Figure 11-37 shows the information flow for allocating the emissions




to point and area sources, based upon the size criteria.  In the case of




the point sources stack parameters had to be assigned.   The default numbers



in Figure 1-32 were used and the information formatted for input to the



model.   No emission control regulations for New Jersey sources could be




quantified for testing.  In the case of the area sources, the land use



figures were assigned to the grid cells in terms of emission densities, using




the LANTRAN allocation procedures, and the data formatted for direct input to



the model.






4.6  Highway Emissions






     In addition to the background line sources resulting from the regional




highway network in and around the Meadowlands, each of the four land use



plans contained additional  through and local streets.  Because no network




assignments were made in conjunction with vehicle trip mile demand, it was



necessary to develop a highway allocation procedure.  Initially, two types
                                   238

-------
                                                                              Total
                                                                           Emissions by
                                                                              Season
                       r~
                          Activity Indices
                         Size Criteria
    Point Source
Emissions by Season
Ni
                         Stack
                         Parameter
                       •  Conversion Units    i
  Land-Use Figure
Emissions by Season
                                                                                        Emissions Allocated
                                                                                              to Grid
   Point Sources
         in
   Model Format
   Area Sources
         in
   Model Format
                               Figure 11-37    Allocation  of Emissions  to  "oint and Area Sources

-------
of roads were postulated.  One with a 50,000 vehicle per day design volume




and the other with 25,000.  Using the initial network from each of the




plans, the total number of vehicle miles per day as satisfied by the plan




highway network, was calculated.  This is shown in Figure 11-38 at the




bottom, under the heading First Round Calculation.



     At the same time the estimated number of vehicle miles per day, as  a




demand from each of the four plans, was determined, based upon the popula-




tion and employment associated with each plan.  This procedure is shown




in Figure 11-38.  The number of vehicle miles per day was determined as  a



function of the total work trips; the work trips were assumed to be a



function of the people who (1) live in the Meadowlands and work both inside




and outside the Meadowlands, and (2) those who live outside the Meadowlands




but work inside.  Since very little development of a non-regional nature



was anticipated in Plan 1-C, it was assumed that the regional and plan net-



work should directly satisfy the demand of Plan 1-C.  Using this assumption



a net demand not satisfied by the regional network was determined as shown



in Figure 11-38 and compared to the first round calculation from the highway



network.  The ratio of these two showed that the Plan 1 network was over-built,



whereas the Plan 1-A and Plan 1-B networks would be overloaded as the assumed



vehicle mile design figures.  For consistency the net demand figures were




assigned to the network, yielding figures for total vehicle miles per year



for each plan used in the analysis.






4.7  Meadowlands Incinerator Emissions






     At the request of the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission, emissions



from the two proposed sites for the Hackensack Meadowlands incinerator were
                                    240

-------
                                                             Figure 11-38

                                                       Plan Highway Allocation

Plan 1
1A
IB
1C
3
10 people
Population
185
325
450
6
(1)
Work

(50%) 92
(50%) 162
(60%) 270
(2)
Live in,
Work in
(50%) 46
(60%) 96
(20%) 54
(3)
Total
Work in
186
326
234
200
(4)=(3)-(2)
Live out,
Work in
140
230
. 180
200
CD + C4)
Total
rfork Trips
232
392
450
200
10 veh-mi/day
Estimated t1i1t
Total Demand
1392
2352
2700
1200
NJ





Plan 1
1A
IB
1C
10 veh-mi/day
Estimated
Total Demand-
Rounded

1400
2400
2700
1200
1
Net
Demand


300
1300
1600
100
1st Round
Calculation


1500
1000
1200*
100

Adjustment
Factor


0.2
1.3
1.3
1.0

AADT
Assignments
Uld
bOUOO
New
— 10000
66000
66000**
—
25000

5000
33000
-
25000


Comment


overbuilt
overloaded
overloaded

                         Comments:  Employment  assumptions  from Hackensack Meadowlands Commission.

                         *  By definition factor =1.0 for Plan 1C, thereby determining that 1100
                            veh-mi/day will be satisfied for aU_ plans by the regional highway network.

                        **  For Plan IB all 25000 veh-mi/day capacity roads w^re  'upgr<,dr  ! to 50000
                            veh-mi/day at the start of round one; otherwise the factor would have been  2.6.

                       ***  Assume total travel -+- rate of 6 mile/—/, per work trip.

-------
calculated separately from the background emissions inventory.   The




proposed southern location of the incinerator is in the vicinity of Source




#28 in Figure II-6; the proposed northern site is in the vicinity of Source




#9 in Figure I1-6.  Only the emissions from the southern incinerator were




included in the actual background inventory used for modeling purposes.




     As a part of the study of regional incineration, an incinerator of




6,000 tons per day capacity was assigned to the Meadowlands region, as



proposed by the Meadowlands Commission.  However, since only five of the




six units would be used at any one time, the actual emission rate is based




on 5,000 tons of refuse per day.  The incinerator would operate 24 hours a



day, six days a week and 52 weeks a year.  This would yield approximately




1.5 million tons of refuse burned per year.




     Using the 1990 incinerator emission factor in Figure 1-30, this yields



1,125 tons per year each of particulates, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbons



and 750 tons per year of carbon monoxide  and nitrogen oxides.   For modeling




purposes, the height was estimated to be 300 feet and the effective stack



height, 345 feet, as estimated by the Meadowlands Commission.



     Any source emitting over a thousand tons per year of any pollutant, parti-



cularly in 1990, must be considered a major point source.  To ascertain the




relative importance of this facility, it was compared to the other major point



sources in the area.  Examining Figure II-6, it is seen that there are 14 point



sources clustered neat the southern edge of the Meadowlands, in the vicinity



of the southern incinerator.  Using the 1990 fuel and process emissions  from




Figures 11-17 and 11-23, the following totals are found:  For particulates,



2000 tons per year; sulfur dioxide, 2400 tons; and nitrogen oxides, 14,000 tons.



The emissions for the four power plants and three process sources alone  are:



1,600, 2,000 and 13,500 tons per year, respectively.
                                    242

-------
If the projected emissions from the incinerator are added to these,  the



contribution of the incinerator, out of the new total  of 15 point sources




in the area, would be 35% for particulates, 30% for sulfur dioxide,  and 5%



for nitrogen  oxides.   This may serve as a useful measure of the relative




importance of the incinerator's emissions.




     The northern incinerator has the same emission levels; however, due




to the predominant winds in the region, more of the emissions from the north-



ern incinerator would fall outside the Meadowlands boundary.  There are five



point sources shown in Figure II-6 in the general vicinity of the northern



incinerator location.  For 1990 they would contribute  625 tons of particu-



lates, 125 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 6,750 tons of nitrogen dioxide.  The



one power plant and single-process source would contribute 500, zero, and



6,600 tons, respectively.  If the emissions for the northern incinerator



are added to these totals, this incinerator would contribute the following



percentages of the total emission from the six sources in the area:   65%



for particulates, 90% for sulfur dioxide, and 19% for  nitrogen oxides.




      Because very  little of  the  fuel  use  for these point sources  is  for



space heating, we would not  expect  the  emission  levels  to  vary  signifi-



cantly  for  the summer  and winter seasons.
                                    243

-------
                                 REFERENCES
1.   Martin, D.O., and Tikvart, J., "A General Atmospheric Diffusion Model
     for Estimating the Effects of One or More Sources on Air Quality,"
     APCA paper No. 68-148, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Air
     Pollution Control Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, June, 1968.

2.   Egan, B.A., "Development and Validation of a Modeling Technique for
     Predicting Air Quality Levels for the Meadowlands Planning Region
     Environmental Research § Technology, Inc., Lexington, Mass., Projer
     P-244, Task 2 Report, May 1972.

3.   New York - New Jersey Air Pollution Abatement Activity (17 county
     study) Volume 1, SOX & CO.  U.S.  Department of Health, Education $
     Welfare, Public Health Service 1967.

4.   New York - New Jersey Air Pollution Abatement Activity (17 county
     study) Volume 2, Particulate Matter, U.S. Dept. of Health Education
     § Welfare, Public Health Service, 1967.

5.   Environmental Protection Agency,  1969 computer printout: "Regional
     Update of New York Region Inventory" (unpublished).

6.   Larsen, R.I., "A Mathematical Model for Relating Air Quality Measure-
     ments to Air Quality Standards",  U.S•. Environmental Protection Agency,
     November, 1971.

7.   Ozolins, G., and Smith, R., "A Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
     Community Air Pollution Emissions," U.S. Public Health Service Publi-
     cation No. 999-AP-29, October, 1966.

8.   Goldman, C., and Mattson, C., "Hackensack Meadowlands Comprehensive
     Land Use Plan", Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, State
     of New Jersey, October, 1970.

9.   State of New Jersey, "Master Plan - Hackensack Meadowlands District
     Zoning Regulations", Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission,
     State of New Jersey, December 28, 1971."

10.  State of New Jersey, "Summary of Statistical Data Provided by
     Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission for Air Pollution Study"
     (Not for Publication), Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission,
     State of New Jersey, January, 1971.

11.  ASHRAE Guide and Data Book, "Fundamentals and Equipment", American
     Society of Heating,Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1965.

12.  ASHRAE Guide and Data Book, "Applications", American Society of Heating,
     Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1966.
                                   245

-------
 13.  Industrial Data Guide - New Jersey Department of Commerce - 1969.

 14.  Steam Electric Plant Factors - 1970 Edition, National Coal Assoc.

 15.  Air Pollution Aspects of Emission Sources
     Electric Power Production
     (a Bibliography with Abstracts)
     U.S.E.P.A. - Publication No. AP-96

 16.  Recommended Guide for the Prediction of the Dispersion of Airborne
     Effluents,A.S.M.E. Publication

 17.  The Next Twenty Years - a forecast of population and jobs in New York,
     New Jersey - Connecticut Metropolitan Region 1965-1985,Port of New York
     Authority.

 18.  Tri-State Transportation Commission, "Air Pollution and Solid Waste
     Generation in the Tri-State region," June, 1968.

 19.  Tri-State Transportation Commission, "Managing the Natural Environment -
     A Plan for Water, Sewage, Air and Refuse".

 20.  Planners Associates Inc., "New Jersey State Solid Waste Management Plan",
     July, 1970.

 21.  Zurn Environmental Engineers, "Analysis of Alternate Solid Wastes
     Management Systems for the Hackensack Meadowlands District", May, 1970.

 22.  IBM Corporation, Emission Inventory for the State of New Jersey, Final
     Report under Contract No. BOA 68-02-0043 for EPA, Air Pollution Control
     Office, IBM Corporation, Federal Systems Division, Gaithersburg,
     Maryland, August 27, 1971.

 23.  Pawling, D.F., et al, Plan Evaluation Series: No. 5, Land Area, Floor
     Space, Population, Employment; Tri-State Counties and Planning Regions,
     1963 and 1985, Interim Technical Report (Not for Public Release).Land
     Development Division, Tri-State Transportation Commission, New York,
     N.Y., January, 1970.

 24.  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York City
     Metropolitan Area Air Quality Implementation Plan - January 1972, New
     York State of Environmental Conservation.

25.  Energy Model for the United States,  U.S. Department of the Interior,
     July, 1968.
                                     246

-------
26.  "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors", U.S. Dept. of Health
     Education § Welfare, Public Health Service, 1968.

27.  McGraw, M.J., and Duprey, R.L., "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
     Factors:  Preliminary Document", Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
     search Triangle Park, North Carolina, April, 1971.

28.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant
     Emission Factors, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, North Carolina, February, 1972.

29.  Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants, U.S. Department of
     Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service - 1969.

30.  Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants (as above) 1969.

31.  Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emission from Stationary Sources
     (as above) - 1970.

32.  Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon $ Organic Solvent from Stationary
     Sources (as above) - 1970.

33.  Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources
     (as above) 1970.

34.  Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, and Hydrocarbon
     Emissions from Mobile Sources.

35.  Air Pollution § the Regulated Electric Power and Natural Gas Industries,
     staff report - Federal Power Commission 1968.

36.  Pinhuro, G.,"Precipitators for Oil Fired Boilers", Power Engineering,
     April 1971.
                                    247

-------
                                   GLOSSARY








Activity, Activity Level - basic land use and transportation planning




     units of intensity of use - vehicles per day on a highway, acres




     of residential land use, square feet of industrial plant space.



Activity Index - a numerical conversion factor to transform the level of




     activity specified for a land use category into demand for fuel for




     heating purposes.



Air Quality Contour - a contour line in a plane (usually the horizontal



     or vertical) representing points of equal concentrations for a specified




     air pollutant.



Air Quality Criteria - factors used in this study that represent a basis




     for decision-making, for example ambient air quality standards.



Air Quality Prediction - the calculation of current or future air pollutant



     concentrations at specified receptor points resulting from the action



     of meteorological conditions on source emissions.




Albedo - the fraction of solar radiation reflected from the ground surface.




Ambient Air - that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to




     which the general public has access.




Ambient Air Quality - concentration levels in ambient air for a specified



    pollutant and a specified averaging time period within a given geographic




     region.



Ambient Air Quality Standard - a level of air quality established by federal




     or state agencies which is to be achieved and maintained; primary



     standards are those judged necessary, with an adequate margin of



     safety, to protect the public health; secondary standards are those




     judged necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or



     anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.






                                       249

-------
 AQUIP  -  an  acronym for Air Duality for Urban and  Industrial Planning,




     a computer-based tool for  incorporating air  pollution considerations




     into the  land use and transportation planning process.




 Atmospheric Boundary Layer -  the  lower region of  the atmosphere  (to




     altitudes of  1 to 2 km)  where meteorological conditions are strongly




     influenced by the ground surface features.




 Atmospheric Dispersion Model  -  a  mathematical procedure for calculating




     air pollution concentrations that result from a specified array of




     emission  sources and a specified set of meteorological conditions.




Average Receptor Exposure - a measure of the average impact of air quality




     levels on  specific receptors; the measure is based on the integrated



     receptor  exposure divided by the total number of receptors in the




     study region.




Background Air Quality - levels of pollutant concentrations within a study



     region which are the result of emissions from all  other sources not



     incorporated in the model for the study region.




Background Emissions - the emissions inventory applicable to the background



     region; that is,  all emission sources not explicitly included in the




     inventory for the study region.



Climatology - the study of long term weather as  represented by statistical



     records of parameters such as winds, temperature,  cloud cover, rainfall,



     and humidity which determine the characteristic climate of a region;




     climatology is distinguished from meteorology in that it is primarily



     concerned with average,  not actual,  weather conditions.




Concentrations - a measure of the average density of pollutants usually




     specified in terms of pollutant weight per unit (typically in units



     of micrograms per cubic meter), or in terms of relative volume of pollutant



     per unit volume of air (typically in units  of parts per million).






                                       250

-------
Default Parameters - values associated with a parameter for a category of




     activities  (such as heavy manufacturing) assigned to the activity para-




     meter for a subcategory of activities (such as electrical machinery




     production) when the actual value for the subcategory is not known.




Degree Days (Heating Degree Days) - the sum of negative departures of a1 rrage



     temperature from 65°F; used to determine demand for fuel for heating purposes,




Effective Stack Height - the height of the plume center-line when it be-




     comes horizontal.



Emission Factor - a numerical conversion factor applied to fuel use and



     process rates to determine emissions and emission rates.



Emissions - effluents into the atmosphere, usually specified in terms of




     weight per unit time for a given pollutant from a given source.



Emissions Inventory - a data set describing the location and source strength



     of air pollution emissions within a geographical region.




Emissions Projection - the quantitative estimate of emissions for a speci^i^c!



     source and a specified future time.



Equivalent Ambient Air Quality Standards - air quality levels adopted in



     this study to permit analysis of all air pollutants in terms of annual



     averages; in cases where state and federal annual standards do not exist,



     the adopted levels are based on the extrapolation of short period stan-




     dards .



Fuel Related Sources, Fuel Emissions - fuel related sources use fuel to heat



     area, or to raise a product to a certain temperature during an industrial



     process,  or for cooking in the house; they produce fuel emissions.



     (See also Non-Fuel Related Sources.)
                                       251

-------
Fuel Use Propensity, Fuel Demand - the total heat requirement (space




     heating plus process heating) determines the fuel demand; the propensity




     to use a particular fuel or fuels determines the actual amounts of various




     fuels used to satisfy the heat requirement.




Heating Requirements - the demand for fuel is specified in terms of the




     heating requirements:




         space heating - the fuel used to heat area, such as the floor space




         of a school in the winter, is that required for space heating; the




         heat content or value of that fuel defines the space heating re-



         quirement (BTUs, British Thermal Units of heating content).




         non-space heating, process heating - the fuel used to raise a pro-




         duct to a certain temperature during an industrial process or for



         cooking (with gas) in the home is that required for process heating




         or non-space heating.  It is generally not related to outside tempera-



         ture whereas space heating requirements are.




         percent space heating, percent process heating - the relative pro-



         portion of a fuel or its heat content that is used for space heating




         or process heating defines,respectively,  the percent space heating



         or percent process heating.



Impact Measure (or Parameter) - a quantitative representation of the degree



     of impact on air quality or specific receptors resulting from concentrations



     of specified pollutants.



Influence Region - the influence region for a study area is the geographical



     region containing the emission sources responsible for at least 90% of



     the ground level concentrations  (averaged throughout the study area) of



     all pollutants considered.
                                       252

-------
Integrated Receptor Exposure - a measure of the total impact of air quality




     levels on specific receptors; the measure is based on the summation




     within the study region of the number of receptors times the concentration



     levels to which they are exposed.




Inventories - the aggregation of all fuel and process emissions source  is




     called the emissions inventory; the components for use with the model:




         current inventory - all sources for 1969




         background inventory - all sources for 1990 not directly relatei



         to the meadowlands plans.




         plan inventories - all sources for 1990 related to the Meadowlands



         plans; this excludes any source outside the Meadowlands boundai/




         and also excludes existing major single sources and the highway



         network.



Isppleth - the locus of points of equal value in a multidimensional space.



Land Use Intensity - the level of activity associated with a given land use



     category, for example the population density of residential areas.



Land Use Mix - the percent of total study region area allocated to specific



     land use categories.



Meteorology - the study of atmospheric motions and phenomena.



Microscale Air Quality - the representation of air quality in a geographical



     scale characterized by distances between source and receptor ranging




     from a few meters to a few tens of meters.



Mixing Depth - the vertical distance from the ground to the base of a stable



     atmospheric layer (also called inversion height).




Model Calibration - the process of correlating model predictions with observed



     (measurements) data, usually to determine calibration factors relating



     predicted to observed values for each pollutant.
                                     253

-------
Model Validation  - the detailed investigation of model results by comparison




     with measured values to identify systematic discrepencies that may be



     corrected by alterations of model parameters or model mechanics.




Non-Fuel Related Sources, Process Emissions, Separate Process Emissions -




     non-fuel related sources do not burn fuel primarily for heating purposes




     or do not burn fuel at all; these include transportation sources, in-



     cineration, and certain industrial processes; they produce process or




     separate process emissions. (See also Fuel Related Sources.)




Ranking Index - a quantitative representation of the net impact on air




     quality or specific receptors resulting from all pollutants being con-




     sidered.




Receptor - a physical object which is exposed to air pollution concentrations;



     objects may be animate or inanimate, and may be arbitrarily defined in




     terms of size, numbers, and degree of specificity of the object.



Receptor Point - a geographical point at which air pollution concentrations



     are measured or predicted.



Regional Air Quality - the representation of air quality in a geographical



     scale characterized by large areas,  for example, on the order of 50




     square kilometers or greater.



Schedule - number of hours per year a fuel burning activity will consume fuel;




     used to determine heating requirements.



Source - any stationary or mobile activity which produces air pollutant




     emissions.



Source Geometry - all sources for modeling purposes are considered to exist




     as a point,  line,  or area, defined as follows:



         point source - a single major emitter located at a point.



         line source -  a major highway link,  denoted by its end points.
                                        254

-------
         area source - a rectangular area referenced to a grid system; in-



         cludes not only area-wide sources, such as residential emitters,



         but single emitters and highway links deemed too small to be con-



         sidered individual point or line sources by the model.



Stability Category - a classification of atmospheric stability conditions



     based on surface wind speed, cloud cover and ceiling, supplemented by



     solar elevation data (latitude, time of day, and time of year).



Stability Wind Rose - a tabulation of the joint frequency of occurrences of



     wind speed and wind direction by atmospheric stability class at  a



     specific location.



Total Air Quality - the air quality at a receptor point resulting from back-



     ground emission sources and from emission sources specifically within



     the study region.



Trapping Distance - the distance downwind of a source at which vertical



     mixing of a plume begins to be significantly inhibited by the base



     of the stability layer, and gaussian vertical distribution can no



     longer be assumed.



Wind Sector - a 22-1/2 degree wind direction range whose center-line  is one



     of the sixteen points of the compass.
                                      255

-------
                       PRINCIPAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS









Environmental Research § Technology, Inc.




     Dr. Byron H. Willis, Study Director - Plan Evaluation



     John C. Goodrich - Emissions Projection




     Dr. James R. Mahoney - Air Pollution Meteorology



     Dr. Bruce A. Egan - Air Pollution Modeling



     Dr. Edward C. Reifenstein, III - System Software Design and Development




     Michael J. Keefe - Software Design and Programming




     David A. Berghofer - Computer Programming








Burns § Roe, Inc. (subcontractor to ERT)



     William A. Foy - Combustion and Process Emission Technology



     William E. Wechter - Combustion and Process Emission Technology
                                     257

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
   EPA-450/3-74-056-b
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
 4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
   Hackensack Meadowlands  Air Pollution Study - Emission
   Projection Methodology
             5. REPORT DATE
               October 1973
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)

   John  C.  Goodrich
             8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
   Environmental Research  and  Technology, Inc.
   429  Marrett  Road
   Lexington,  Massachusetts  02173
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                             EHSD 71-39
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
   Research  Triangle Park, North  Carolina  27711
              13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               Final             	
              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  Prepared in cooperation with  the  New Jersey Department  of Environmental Protection,
  Office  of the Commissioner, Labor and Industry Building,  Trenton, N.J.  08625
 16. ABSTRACT
       The  Hackensack Meadowlands  Air Pollution Study consists  of a summary report  and
  five task reports.  The summary  report discusses the procedures developed for

  considering air pollution in the planning process and the  use of these procedures
  to evaluate four alternative land use plans for the New Jersey Hackensack Meadowlands
  for 1990.   The task reports describe (1)  the emission projection methodology and  its

  application to the Hackensack Meadowlands; (2) the model for  predicting air quality
  levels  and  its validation and calibration; (3) the evaluation and ranking of the

  land use  plans; (4) the planning guidelines derived from the  analysis of the plans;
  and, (5)  the software system.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI Field/Group
  Land Use
  Planning and Zoning
  Local Governments
 'County Governments
  State Governments
  Regional Governments
 'Air
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
  unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
  276
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                Unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                              258

-------