PHOENIX - TUCSON METROPOLITAN ARE/
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION INVENTORY
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued by
the Office of Air programst Environmental Protection AgencYt to report
Technical data of interest ~o a limited number of readers. Copies of
APTD reports are available free of charge to Federal emp10yeest current
contractors and granteest and nonprofit organizations - as supplies
permit - from the Office of Technical Information and Pub1icationst
Environmental Protection AgencYt Research Triangle Parkt North Carolina
27711 or from the National Technical Information Servicet 5285 Port
Royal Roadt Springfie1dt Virginia 22151.
-------
r fl.
fWTD -O~;;:l'l
....
PHOENIX - TUCSON METROPOLITAN AREA
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION INVENTORY
-
~ u. s. DEPAR1JI.ENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATlqN, AND WaFARE
lit Public Health Service
and Environmental Health Service
EPA LIBRARY SERVICES RTP NC
EPA~flPrtJ ~ () f~7 .
-------
.
t .
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued by
the Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report
Technical data of interest ~o a limited number of readers. Copies of
APTD reports are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies
permit - from the Office of Technical Information and Publications,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711 or from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
Office of Air Programs Publication No. APTD-0827
.
-------
PHOENIX-TUCSON METROPOLITAN AREA
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION INVENTORY
Clyde B. Morita
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
Division
of Air Quality and Emission Data
Durham, North Carolina
October, 1969
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
..
The National Air Pollution Control Administration acknowledges
with appreciation the many contributions of cooperating agencies
in the compilation of this report. In particular, we are grateful
for the use of data and personnel assistance furnished by the
following agencies:
l.
2.
3.
Arizona State Department of Health
Maricopa County Health Department
Pima County Air Pollution Control
District
"
"
," '
-------
PREFACE
This report, which presents the emission inventory of the Phoenix-
Tucson metropolitan area, is another in a series of studies outlining
the sources and emissions of air pollutants for major metropolitan
areas in the country. These reports provide estimates of total emissions
of oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide
and particulate matter. The emissions of these pollutants are delin-
eated with respect to source type, season of the year, and by their
geographical distribution within the area. These surveys are also
intended to determine the present level of emissions and status of
their control..
The general procedure for these surveys is based on the rapid
survey technique.l The Study Area is divided into grid zones that
serve as the basis for locating sources and reporting their emissions.
All sources of pollutants are divided into two subgroups--point and
area sources. Sources that emit large quantities of air pollutants
are considered individually and located specifically within the area.
This group generally contains about fifty to one hundred sources and
typically includes large industries, power plants, and central refuse
burning facilities. The remaining multitude of sources are considered
collectively as area sources and their emissions are reported as
totals for grid zones. This category includes motor vehicles, home
heating, smaller industries, on-site refuse burning, etc.
Emissions for the most part are estimated using various indicators
\'
of pollutant emissions and average emission factors that are related
to these. Information and data are collected on fuel consumption,
refuse burning rates, vehicle miles of travel, as well as various
production data. These are then translated into emission estimates
2
by use of average emission factors. These factors, for the most
part, represent average emission rates for a particular industry or
':
fuel type.
Because of the inherent difference in types of equipment, operating
rates, .control equipment, and efficiency of operation among the plants
-------
and fuel users within a given category, the application of the emission
factors to any individual plant or even a smaller number of similar
plants or processes may result in a discrepancy between the actual and
the estimated emissions. However, the estimates of total pollutants
from all sources in the study area should be reasonably accurate since
J
the emission factors are based on average conditions.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In t rodu c t ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
1
Summary of Results..
Study Area...
Topography.
... ........ .... ...... ... ....
................
2
5
5
5
...................... ........
..... .....................
.....................
............ .............
C 1 ima t e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... ...... .... ...... ....... ................
Grid Coordinate System.....
Emissions by Source Category.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
............................. ,10
Transportation.............
.............
.......10
..........13
.....18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Fuel
Combustion in Stationary Sources.
Solid Waste Disposal.......
.......
. . . . . . . .
..................
. . . . . . . .
Industrial Process Losses...
........... ......... ....
Organic Solvent Evaporation....................................
AgriculturalOperations.....
Emissions by Jurisdiction..........
Emissions by Grid................................................."""
. . . .24
... .... ....... ..... ...... ...........
..25
Contribution of Point
Sources..
.........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
.34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Emission Densities.
.. ....... ................
References...........
....................
-------
Table
17
18
19
20
21
22
LIST OF TABLES
1
Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in the
Phoenix-Tucson Study Area.............................. .'....
Population and Area Characteristics for the
Phoenix-Tucson Study Area. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
5
6
7
Motor Fuel Consumption and Vehicle-Miles of Travel..........
Air Pollutant Emissions from Transportation Sources.........
Air Pollutant Emissions from Aircraft.................... ...
Fuel Consumption by User Category...........................
Fuel Consumption in Steam-Electric Generating Plants........
8
9
Analysis of Fuels Consumed in the Study Area................
Air Pollutant Emissions from Stationary Fuel
Combustion Sources..........................................
10
11
Solid Wastes Disposal by Jurisdiction.... ...................
Air Pollutant Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal...........
Distribution of Crop Acreage by County......................
Air Pollutant Emissions from Industrial
Process Sources.............................................
12
13
14
Summary of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Organic
Solvent Evaporation.........................................
Air Pollutant Emissions from Agricultural Operations........
15
16
Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Maricopa
Coun ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Pima Coun ty . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Pinal Cou n ty . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Five-County
Ar ea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relative Contribution of Each County to Total
Air Pollutant Emissions.....................................
Summary of Emissions from Point Sources in the
Phoenix-Tucson Area... .. ..... ..... .. . .. .. ... ... . .... .... . . . .
Sununary of Rmissions by Grid in the Phoenix-
Tucson Area.................................................
Page
3 ,,:
9
9
12
14
14
16
16
17
19
20
23
23
26
26
29
30
31
32
33
36
37
I
-------
Figure
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1
Location of the Phoenix-Tucson Study Area
Within the State of Arizona.................................
Grid Coordinate System for the Phoenix-Tucson
2
Study Area[[[
3
4
Location of Point Sources in the Phoenix-Tucson Area........
Sulfur Oxide Emission Density Map of the
Phoenix -Ttlcson Area.........................................
s
Particulate Matter Emission Density Map of the
Phoenix -Tucson Area.........................................
6
Carbon Monoxide Emission Density Map of the Phoenix-
Tucson Area.......... ......... . .. . . . ............... .. .. .....
7
Hydrocarbon Emission Density Map of the
Phoenix -Tucson Area..........................................
Nitrogen Oxides Emission Density Map of the .
Phoenix -Tucson Area............................. . . . . . . .. . . . . .
8
Page
6
-------
INTRODUCTION
;:.
The information and data presented in this report were gathered
in cooperation with the acknowledged State and local agencies during
a survey conducted in November, 1968. The data obtained is for the
most part representative of 1967 and the emission estimates presented
herein should be considered as describing the levels and conditions
during that year.
The purposes of this study are to establish the magnitude and
sources of air pollutant emissions in this area for incorporation
into a national emission baseline, and
to use the emission estimates
in a diffusion model to establish the relative extent of air pollution
in the area.
These data are used as the basis of the engineering
evaluation in the designation of an air quality control region for
the Phoenix-Tucson area.
"
-------
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The estimated annual emissions of the five surveyed pollutants
in the Phoenix-Tucson metropolitan area are 2,068,000 tons of sulfur
oxides, 34,300 tons of particulate matter, 535,000 tons of carbon
monoxide, 125,000 tons of hydrocarbons, and 62,400 tons of oxides of
nitrogen. The air pollution problem in the urbanized areas is mainly
automotive in nature.
However, in some of the rural areas, the
eight copper smelters release thousands of tons of sulfur oxides
daily.
The pollution from the smelters is believed to affect portions
of the metropolitan area at times.
The breakdown of pollutant emissions by source category is listed
in Table 1. The following is a brief summary of pollutant emission
and sources:
Sulfur Oxides
The predominant source of the more than 2 million
tons of sulfur oxides emitted annually is the
copper smelting industry.
The eight smelters
collectively emit 99.7 percent of the sulfur
oxides. The contribution from all other sources
is negligible.
Particulate Matter
The annual emissions of 34,300 tons of particulate
matter are distributed between the various source
types. Transportation sources account for 29 per-
cent, industrial process losses 38 percent, and
agricultural operations 16 percent of the total
particulate matter emissions.
An additional 17
percent is divided between stationary fuel com-
bustion and solid waste disposal.
Carbon Monoxide
Motor vehicles contribute 94 percent of the 535,000
tons of carbon monoxide emitted annually. Other
sources include solid waste disposal operations
-------
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE
PHOENIX-TUCSON STUDY AREA, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
Source Category
Sulfur
Oxides
Partic-
ulates
Carbon
Monoxide
Hydro-
carbons
Nitrogen
Oxides
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Gasoline
2,100
700
Diesel
Aircraft
N
1,100
Railroads
Stationary Fue1*
Combustion
Industrial
Stearn-Electric
770
10
Residential
Commercial-
Institutional
70
150
Solid Waste
Disposal
Open Burning
N
40
Incineration
Industrial Process 2,062,000
Solvent Evaporation
Agriculture
1 , 480
"'-
2,068,000
'l'OTAL
2,800
1,900
2,300
2,900
2,000
290
230
300
3,000
200
13,000
5,400
34,300
500,000
1,030
12,000
1,600
68,700
2,400
4,400
3,700
1,060
N
2,400
N
5
25
120
290
15,900
1,500
5,700
20
360
35,500
980
21200
535,000
125,000
62,400
N = Negligible
* Emissions from agricultural fuel combustion included in
agriculture column.
- 3 -
30,000
3,900
2,000
2,700
5 , 100
7,500
1 ,300
I , J 00
2,040
80
N
1,000
-------
Hydrocarbons
Oxides of Nitrogen
and aircraft which account for 2 and 3 percent,
respectively, of carbon monoxide emissions.
The two largest sources of the 125,000 tons of
hydrocarbon emitted are motor vehicles and organic
solvent evaporation. They contribute 57 percent and
28 percent, respectively, of the total hydrocarbon
emissions.
Other transportation sources account
for approximately 6 percent, solid waste disposal 5
percent, and other sources 4 percent of hydrocarbon
emissions.
Motor vehicles contribute more than 55 percent of the
total of 62,400 tons of nitrogen oxides emitted
annually. Fuel combustion in stationary sources
accounts for 25 percent of total nitrogen oxides
with natural gas combustion accounting for about
three-fourths of this total.
Other contributing
sources are agricultural operations at 9 percent,
other transportation sources at 7 percent, and solid
waste disposal and industrial processes collectively
at 4 percent.
-------
STUDY AREA
The Study Area for the Phoenix-Tucson Metropolitan Area Air
Pollutant Emission Inventory consists of eight counties located in
the southern part of the State of Ar~zona. In fact the Study Area
includes 84 percent of the population and 37 percent of the land area
of the State of Arizona. Figure 1 presents the Study Area in relation
to the rest of the State.
The eight counties consist of the cities of Phoenix and Tucson and
the following counties--Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Pima,
Pinal, and Santa Cruz. This area occupies 42,700 square miles and
3
contains an estimated 1967 population of 1,390,000. Most of the pop-
ulation (86 percent) lives in Maricopa and Pima Counties (see Table 2).
This area has had a population increase of 25 percent from 1960 to
1967. This rate of increase is much higher than the national average
and is probably due to the increasing popularity of this area as a
tourist and retirement resort.
The Study Area contains two Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (SMSA) as defined by the Bureau of Budget. The Phoenix SMSA,
which includes all of Maricopa County~ and the Tucson SMSA, which
includes all of Pima County, are the thirty-fourth and eighty-ninth
largest (population wise) SMSA's, respectively, in this country.
The remaining six counties were included in the Study Area primarily
because of the existence of copper smelters in four of these six
counties.
Topography and Climate
"-
The Phoenix-Tucson area is a contrast between flat desert plains
and rugged mountain ranges and jutting hills. Phoenix is located in
the center of the Salt River Valley, a broad, oval-shaped, nearly flat
plain. The Salt River runs from east to wel'it through the valley, but
because of impounding dams upstream, it is usually dry. Tucson,
located southeast of Phoenix, is practically surrounded by mountains
rising to an altitude of 4,000 to 6,000 feet.
-------
. I SANTA I
CRUZ '
mi les
Figure 1. Location of the Phoenix-Tucson study area within the state of Arizona.
-------
The climate ,of the area is characterized by a long hot season
beginning in April and ending in October. Surface winds are generally
light, with no important seasonal changes in either velocity or pre-
vailing wind direction. The prevailing wind direction is easterly
around Phoenix and southeasterly around Tucson.
~
Grid Coordinate System
For the purposes of this survey, the Study Area was divided into
67 grids. As' shown on Figure 2, grids of 100, 400, 1600, and 6400 square
kilometers were used to show the geographical distribution of sources
and emissions.
Mercator System.
The grid system is based on the Universal Transverse
The easting'(east-west) and northing (north-south)
coordinates are expressed in meters.
Different sizes of grids are used to limit the number of grid
zones yet allow a satisfactory definition of the geographical gradation
of emissions in areas where the majority of pollution occurs. For
this reason, the smaller grids are used in the urban areas where
emission densities tend to change abruptly within short distances.
In areas primarily rural in nature, the use of small zones are not
warranted.
~-
-------
3780000 2 3 5
I
..
MARICOPA \ GILA
3740000
6 9 20 t 21
'
).
10 \. I" I
\
, I
3700000 36 41 ",1"- I
23 24 , w
PIN L \ I ...J
, i GRAHAM I z
\ ' I w
w
' r-t I Q::
3660000 r' I C>
40 "
37 . r I .
, \'
" '
I \
I ""'.
I.
3620000 44 46 47 48 49 63 .
3 I ~
,
""---- ..r---- " ,
PIMA ------ -
3580000
64 50 52 53 61
54 55
56 57 58
59 60
65 66 67
I
I
f I
r- - --- -- --]
3500000 1 SANT I
36 0000 I
r---j CRUZ '
. I
N 3460000
440000 520000 600000 680000
40 0
~--
ki lometers
40
80
I
Figure 2. Grid coordinate system for the Phoenix-Tucson study area.
-------
TABLE 2
POPULATION AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE
PHOENIX-TUCSON STUDY AREA, 1967
Land Area 1960 1967 1967 Population Density
County (sq. mi.) Population Population People/sq. mi.
Cochise 6,260 55,000 65,700 10.5
Gila 4,790 25,700 27,000 5.6
Graham 4.,640 14,000 15,800 3.4
Greenlee 1,880 11 ,500 10,400 5.5
Maricopa 9,250 663,500 872,100 94.3
Pima 9.240 265,700 322,200 34.9
Pinal 5,390 62,700 64,000 11.9
Santa Cruz 1,250 10,800 14,000 11;2
TOTAL 42,700 1 , 11 0, 000 1,390,000 32.5
TABLE 3
MOTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION AND VEHICLE-MILES OF
TRAVEL, 1967
Gasoline Consumption Diesel Fuel Consumption Total Vehicle -Miles
County (103 gallons) (103 gallons) . (106 Vehicle Miles/Yr)
Cochise 24,200 2,690 360
Gila 12,700 1,410 190
Graham 6,300 700 90
Greenlee 3,000 340 45
Maricopa 337,800 18,600 4,520
Pima 108,600 6,100 1,630
Pinal 22,300 2,480 330
Santa Cruz 5,200 580 80
~
TOTAL 520,100 32,900 7,240
-------
EMISSIONS BY SOURCE CATEGORY
For the purposes of compiling the basic data and emission estimates,
the sources of air pollutants were classified into the following six
categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Transportation
Fuel combustion in stationary sources
Solid wastes disposal
Industrial process losses
Organic solvent evaporation
Agriculture
Each of these categories are considered individually in this section.
The data sources and necessary assumptions are presented with further
breakdowns of emissions. Most of the estimates presented here are area-
wide totals.
The section on emissions by jurisdiction presents the
emissions by source for every county.
The estimates presented herein, especially in the industrial process
loss category, are for the most part partial totals. The lack of
emission factors and appropriate process and control data prevent a
complete inventory of all sources and emissions.
However, the major
sources have been included and the sources not considered should be
negligible.
The results should be viewed with these limitations.
Transportation
Three types of transportation sources are considered in this
survey-~otor vehicles, aircraft, and railroads.
Motor vehicles,
which are by far the most significant source of air pollution in this
category are further subdivided according to type of fuel used--gasoline
and diesel.
Motor Vehicles
More than 7.2 billion miles were traveled by motor vehicles in
In the process, 520 million gallons of gasoline and 33 million
1967.
-------
~
gallons of diesel fuel were consumed for highway purposes.3 Table 3
indicates that about 85 percent of all motor vehicle travel occurs in
Maricopa and Pima Counties.
Approximately 1.5 to 2.0 percent of gasoline is lost through
evaporation from the gasoline tanks and carburetor losses resulting in
annual losses of about 7.8 million gallons. It was assumed that no
diesel fuel was lost by evaporation. Since 1963, most new automobiles
were equipped with positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valves that
reduce hydrocarbon emissions from the crankcase by about 90 percent.
Due to a lag time in the automobile replacement rate, it was assumed
that only 20 percent of the automobiles were not equiped with PCV
valves.
The vehicle miles of travel were apportioned
the use of traffic information (vehicle miles and
4
obtained from Arizona Highway Department. This information was
available for the urban portions of Maricopa and Pima Counties.
Population was used as the basis of apportionment in the other counties.
onto the grids by
traffic flow maps)
Appropriate speeds were assigned to each grid depending on the type
of are~ and emissions were calculated on the basis of speed and vehicle
miles.
The resulting emissions from motor vehicles are shown on Table 4
along with emissions from other transportation sources. Motor vehicles
are by far the most significant transportation source accounting for
72 percent of the sulfur oxides, 48 percent of the particulate matter,
97 percent of the carbon monoxide, 92 percent of the hydrocarbons, and
88 percent of the oxides of nitrogen emitted from transportation sources.
c
Aircraft
There are five major airports operating in the Study Area. Of
these five, two are municipal airports, while the others are air force
bases. Sky Harbor ~rport is by far the busiest of the five airports.
Collectively a total of 444,000 flights (take off and landing) were
567
performed during 1967. ' ,
Table 5 indicetes that the Sky Harbor Airport j8 ~igher in emissions
of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons than the other airports, but Luke AFB
emits the highest amounts of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.
- 11 -
,
-------
TABLE 4 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION
SOURCES, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
~
Su lfu r Partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides u1ates Monoxide carbons Oxides
Motor Vehicles
Gasoline
Exhaust 2,100 2,800 501,000 39,000 30,000
Evaporation N N N 30,000 N
Diesel 700 1,950 1,070 2,400 3,900
TOTAL 2,800 4,800 502,000 71 ,400 33,400
Aircraft
Jet N 250 2,460 780 1,550
Turboprop N 10 40 10 20
Piston N 2,200 9,400 1,770 450
TOTAL N 2,300 12,000 2,600 2,000
Railroads 1,090 2,920 1,610 3,150 2,670
TOTAL 1 , 090 2,920 1,610 3,150 2,670
GRAND TOTAL 3,900 10,000 515,600 77 ,200 38,100
N = Negligible
-------
Although Luke AFB has only about a third of the flights as Sky Harbor
Airport, there are more jet flights annually (for training purposes).
Table 4 shows the contribution of jet, turboprop and piston aircraft
to the total emissions from transportation sources.
Railroads
Railroad operations (mainly locomotive) consume about 42 million
gallons of diesel fuel annually within the Phoenix-Tucson area. This
quantity is about 25 percent more than the amount of diesel fuel con-
sumed by motor vehicles. Diesel fuel consumption data were available
for Maricopa and Pima Counties and estimated from state totals for the
other counties.6,7
Railroad operations contribute approximately 8 percent of the total
particulate matter emissions in the Study Area. They account for less
than 4 percent of total emissions from any other pollutant.
Fuel Combustion in Stationary Sources
Although all of the three major fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas)
and liquified petroleum gases are consumed within the Study Area, natural
gas is the most important by far. In 1967, natural gas accounted for
104 trillion BTU's or approximately 86 percent of the total energy
consumption. As shown on Table 6, 100 billion cubic feet of natural gas,
85 million gallons of distillate fuel oil, 2.9 million gallons of
redisual fuel oil, 45 million gallons of liquified petroleum gases, and
only 800 tons of coal were consumed in the Study Area.
For the purposes of this survey, fuel combustion in stationary
sources has been divided into five user categories--residential, commercial~
v
institutional, industrial, steam-electric utility, and agricultural.
Fuel combustion in agricultural operations has been included here,
however, the emissions are presented in the Agriculture Section of this
repor t .
Natural gas is consumed to a large extent in a'l f;ve consumer
categories. Steam-electric utilities consume the largest amount with
residential users consuming almost as much. Distillate fuel oil, mainly
-------
TABLE 5
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM AIRCRAFT
1967, (TONS/YEAR}
Sulfur partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Airport Total Flights Oxides u1ates Monoxide carbons Oxides
Sky Harbor 190,000 N 130 7,000 1,400 450'
Tucson International 98,000 N 410 2,700 540 380
Luke AFBi( 61,000 N 940 1,370 350 650
Williams AFB 58,000 N 490 510 150 330
Davis-Monthan AFB 38,000 N 300 420 120 210
TOTAL 444,000 N 2,270 12,000 2,560 2,020
N = Negligible
'i'< Includes 3 separate facilities
TABLE 6
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY USER CATEGORY, 1967
Natural Gas Distilla~e Residual Liquified Petro- Coal
User Category 106 cu. ft. Fuel Oil ( Fuel Oil leum Gases Tons
103 ga 1. 103 gal. 103 ga 1.
Residential 22,800 2,300 31,000 800
Commercial-
Institutional 13,300 2,500 450 5,000 N
Industrial 11 ,500 30,000 500 3,000 N
Steam-Electric 38,300 110 N N N
Agricultural 14,100 50,000 1,900 600 N
TOTAL 100,000 85,000 2,850 45,000 800
BTU's, 1012 104 12 0.4 4.3 .02
N = Negligible
,'( Includes diesel fuel
-------
diesel fuel, is consumed predominantly in industrial and agricultural
operations. The diesel fuel is used to operate pumps, generators,
construction equipment, and miscellaneous types of engines. A small
amount of residual fuel oil is consumed in the Study Area. It is
mainly used in agricultural operations.
A significant amount of
Ii.' .
liquified petroleum gases (LPG) is used for heating purposes. Most
of the LPG is used in residences and mobile trailer parks where
natural gas lines are not available. Only about 800 tons of coal are
consumed for residential heating pruposes, mainly in the more isolated
sections of the Study Area.
't, .
There are seven steam-electric generating plants within the
Study Area. These plants consume 38 percent of the natural gas and
about 33 percent of the total energy consumption in the Study Area.
The fuel combustion by plant is summarized in Table 7. There are no
air pollution control systems on any of these plants.
Whereas the natural gas consumption data, which was obtained
from the gas utility companies, is fairly accurate, the fuel oil, LPG,
and coal data are rough approximations. These data were primarily
extrapolated from state totals published by the Bureau of Mines.8,9
The sulfur and ash contents of the fuels used in the Study Area are
~ .
summarized in Table 8.
The emissions from fuel combustion in stationary sources were
apportioned to the individual grids mainly by population.
Maricopa County, industrial ana commercial-institutional
10
were apportioned on the basis of land use maps..
The air pollutant emissions resulting from fuel combustion in
stationary sources are summarized in Table 9. The combustion of
In
emissions
distillate fuel oil, although providing only 10 percent of the energy
imput, produces the majority of air pollutants from the combustion
of fuels. Only in the case of oxides of nitrogen does natural gas
supply about two-thirds of the emissions. Coal, residual fuel oil,
and LPG produce an insignificant amount of emissions.
Fuel combustion in stationary 90u~ces contributes about 7.5 p~r-
cent of total nitrogen oxides emissions in the Study Area. Otherwise,
it is not a significant contributor to emissions of the other four
pollutants surveyed. This is a result of the predominance of natural
-------
TABLE 7
FUEL CONSUMPTION IN STEAM-ELECTRIC
GENERATING PLANTS, 1967
Nagural Gas Distillate Fuel Oil
Plant County 10 Cubic Feet 103 Gallons
Aqua Fria Maricopa 11,729 84
Apache Cochise 1,938
DeMoss-Petrie Pima 1,152
Irvington Pima 14,773
Kyrene Maricopa '2,167 29
Ocoti11o Maricopa 5,405
Saquaro Pinal 1,114
TOTAL 38,278 113
TABLE 8
ANALYSIS OF FUELS CONSUMED IN THE STUDY AREA
ok "k
Fuel Percent Sulfur Percent Ash
Natural Gas 0.0008 N.A.
Distillate Fuel Oil 0.3 N.A.
Residual Fuel Oil 1.5 N.A.
Coal 0.6 8.0
Liquified Petroleum
Gases 0.0008 N.A.
N.A. = Not Applicable
oJ( = By weight
-------
TABLE 9
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION
SOURCES, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)a
Sulfur. Partic- Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
Fuel User Category Oxides u1ates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Coal Res'identia1 7 4 20 30 1
Total 7 4 20 30 1
Distillate b
Fuel Oil Residential 50 7 1 1 12
Cormnercia1-
Institutional 90 240 130 300 480
Industrial 710 1,820 1,050 2,400 3,900
Steam-Electric N N N N N
Total 850 2,070 1,180 2,700 4,390
Residual
Fuel Oil Cormnercial-
Institutional 60 5 N N 20
Industrial 60 5 N N 20
Total 120 10 N N 40
Liquified
Petroleum
Gases Residential N 10 N N 70
Cormnercia1-
Institutional N 3 N N 15
Industrial N 1 N N 5
Total N 14 N N 90
Natural
Gas Residential 3 210 3 N 1,320
Cormnercial-
Ins ti tu tiona 1 N 130 N N 760
Industrial N 100 N N 1,230
'- Steam-Electric 10 290 N N 7,500
Total 13 730 3 N 10,800
GRAND TOTAL 1,000 2,800 1,.200 2,700 15,300
N = Negligible
aExcludes emissions from agriculture
bIncludes diesel fuel
-------
gas as the source of heat and power.
Solid Wastes Disposal
More than 1.3 million tons of solid wastes are generated annually
within the Study Area.
The bulk of this refuse is disposed of by means
of landfills at which no burning takes place (see Table 10).
According
to a comprehensive solid wastes disposal report, 690,000 tons of
11
refuse are disposed of at five different landfills in Maricopa County.
Of these five landfills, only two were classified as "sanitary land-
fills" in 1967. The other three sites have since been converted to
sanitary landfills. An additional 165,000 tons of refuse are disposed
of at landfills in Pima County. There are no municipal. incinerators
in the Study Area, but about 90,000 tons are disposed of at on-site
commercial, industrial, and residential incinerators.
Excluding Maricopa and Pima Counties, there is a lack of infor-
mation on solid waste disposal sites in the Study Area. However, open
burning iis prevalent, and it was assumed that all refuse generated
was disposed of by open burning. An average generation rate of 4.5
pounds per capita per day was used. Emissions from solid wastes
disposal were apportioned on the basis of population.
As indicated in Table 11, solid waste disposal by open burning and
on-site incineration contributes 40 tons of sulfur oxides, 3,200 tons
of particulate matter, 17,400 tons of carbon4llonoxide, 5,720 tons of
hydrocarbons, and 2,140 tons of nitrogen oxides annually. The bulk
of emissions from solid wastes disposal are attributable to open
burning activities.
Industrial Process Losses
. .'
The Study Area is notably void of any heavy industrial complexes
with the exception of the copper smelting industry. From an air pollution
standpoint, the copper smelters, sand and gravel operations, and cotton
ginning operations are the most significant industrial process sources
of air pollutants. The industries that generate air pollutant emissions
from their processes include 5 asphalt batching plants, a portland
-------
TABLE 10
SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL BY JURISDICTION
I v
r
I u
1967, (TONS/YEAR)
County Amount Generated Landfill Incineration Open Burning
Cochise 51,000 N N 51,000
Gila 26,000 N N 26,000
Graham 13,000 N N 13 , 000
Greenlee 10,000 N N 10,!)00
Maricopa 895,000 690,000 80,000 125,000
Pima 260,000 165,000 10,000 85,000
Pinal 53,000 N N 53,000
Santa Cruz 12,000 N N 12,000
TOTAL 1,320,000 855,000 90,000 375,000
N = Negligible
'-
-------
TABLE 11
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
Su 1 fu r Partie - Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
County Source Oxides u1ates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Cochise Open Burning 410 2,160 770 280
Gila Open Burning 205 1,080 340 140
Graham Open Burning 105 560 200 70
Greenlee Open Burning 80 420 160 50
Maricopa Open Burning 1,000 5,370 1,970 690
Incineration 36 120 390 20 80
Pima Open Burning 680 3,600 1,260 480
Incineration 4 80 1,070 10 4
Pinal Open Burning 430 2,270 810 290
Santa Cruz Incineration 90 490 175 60
TOTAL 40 3,200 17,400 5,720 2,140
-------
cement manufacturing plant, numerous cotton ginning operations, 8
copper smelters, 8 metal operations, 20 sand and gravel plants, 2
chemical plants, and a number of miscellaneous operations.
As is the case in any emission inventory, the laek of emission
factors and process information for some industrial processes did
not allow a complete estimation of process emissions. Most notably
lacking are emission factors for particulate matter from copper
amelting operations. Despite the fact that most of the smelters are
equipped with electrostatic precipitators, significant quantities of
dust and fumes are emitted. However, the lack of an emission factor
prevented a quantitative analysis of particulate matter emissions from
smelters.
The 5 asphalt batching plants produce about 860,000 tons per year
of asphalt. The plants range in size from 120 t~ 1100 tons per day.
The three largest plants are equipped with a combination of cyclones
and wet scrubbers while the other two plants are uncontrolled.
A portland cement plant located in Pima County produces 1.8
million barrels of cement annually by the dry process. The kilns
are equipped with electrostatic precipitators, arid the rotary driers
are equipped with fabric baghouses.
The State of Arizona leads the nation in copper production.
All
of the copper smelters located in Arizona are included in the Study
Area. In ~967, the 8 copper smelters produced 502,000 tons of copper.
This tonnage accounted for about 53 percent of the total U.S. production
3
of copper. Arizona's production would have been even higher except
for an industry-wide strike from July, 1967, to March, 1968. All of
the smelters use reverberatory furnaces and converters.
Most of the
plants are equipped with electrostatic precipitators for recovery
purposes. In addition, about 94,000 tons per year of sulfuric acid
is produced from a sulfur recovery plant located next to one of the
smelters.
'"
There are about 20 sand and gravel operations processing more
than 2.3 million tons of aggregate per year.
A few of the plants
utilize wet scrubbers on the crushing units, but most are uncontrolled.
In addition to the handling of aggregate, about 700,000 cubic yards
of concrete are produced at the plants that contain ready-mix facilities.
-------
There are 5 steel foundries and 3 non-ferrous foundries operating
in the Study Area. About 170,000 tons of steel castings are produced
annually. Most of the steel is produced in electric arc furnaces
I
that are equipped with wet scrubbers or baghouses.
In 1967, 245,000 acres of land were devoted to the production of
cotton in Arizona.3 90 percent of this acreage was located in the
Study Area as shown on Table 12. At an annual yield of 901 pounds
of cotton per acre, about 99,000 tons of cotton were produced in
the Study Area. Cotton ginning operations are a large source of
fires, lint and dust during the harvest months. Most of the gins are
equipped with cyclones.
There are a couple of chemical plants in the Study Area.
Among
these are producers of sulfuric acid, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate,
ammonia and nitroglycerin.
is not significant.
The quantities of these chemicals produced
There are a number of miscellaneous establishments in the Study
Area that contribute a small amount to the total air pollutant emissions.
They include a beet sugar processing plant, a brick manufacturing plant
and a number of grain mills.
The various industries in the area were contacted for fuel use
and process information. Much of these data were available in the
State and local agencies' files. From this information, industrial
2
process losses were determined with appropriate emission factors.
Air pollutants from industrial process losses amount to 2,062,000
tons of suffur oxides, 13,000 tons of particulate matter and 1,000
tons of oxides of nitrogen.
hydrocarbons are negligible.
The emissions of carbon monoxide and
The breakdown of air pollutant emissions
by process types is shown on Table 13.
The copper smelting industry generated more than 2 million tons of
sulfur oxides. The Study Area thus has one of the highest rates of
sulfur oxides emissions in the nation. According to a recent NAPCA
survey, an estimated 31 million tons of sulfur oxides are emitted
annually by all sources in the nation.12 Thus, the Study Area contains
about 7 percent of the total emissions of sulfur oxides throughout the
country.
-------
TABLE 12
DISTRIBUTION OF CROP ACREAGE BY COUNTY, 1967 (ACRES)
County Alfalfa Citrus Cotton Grains Vegetables Total
Cochise 8,300 8,654 90,050 2,100 114,604
Gila 400 11 50 761
Graham 5,300 13,200 38,550 59,000
Greenlee 1,500 1,215 2,950 5,815
Maricopa 97,700 16,700 92,300 226,000 52,120 510,880
Pima 1,800 50 16,140 31,700 2,030 52,460
Pinal 21,000 380 87,400 99,000 7,090 222,270
Santa Cruz 800 120 1,000 2,420
STATE TOTAL 196,000 41,335 245,000 589,000 93,750 1,222,000
TABLE 13
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
SOURCES, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
Su lfur Partic- Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
Source Oxides u1ates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Asphalt Batching N 620 N N N
Cement Manufacturing N 450 N N 260
Cotton Ginning N 2,400 N N N
Copper Smelting 2,062,000 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Grain Mi lling N 950 N N N
Metal Operations N 330 360 N N
Sand and Gravel N 8,230 N N N
Operations
Other 290 N N N 730
TOTAL .2,062,000 13,000 360 N 1,000
N = Negligible
N.A. = Not available
-------
The dust and fumes generated from sand and gravel openations accounts
for about 60 percent of the particulate matter generated by industrial
pr,ocess losses. Cotton ginning operations contribute an additional
20 percent.
The remainder of particulate emissions is generated by
diverse sources.
Organic Solvent Evaporation
Hydrocarbons are emitted during the evaporation of organic solvents
used for various purposes. For the purpose of this survey, hydro-
carbon emissions from evaporation due to gasoline marketing and "cut-
back" asphalt are included in this section also. Solvents are used
for many miscellaneous purposes such as dry cleaning, painting, degreasing,
printing, etc.
Solvent Use
The Maricopa County Health Department estimates the per capita
13
solvent usage as 24.5 pounds of solvents per year in Maricopa County.
Of this total, 3.9 pounds are used for dry cleaning, 8.1 pounds are
used for surface coating operations (including painting), and 12.5
pounds are used for industrial and other domestic uses. Using these
values but adjusting the per capita consumption of solvents for in-
dustria1 uses by the ratio of manufacturing employment for the other
counties, the resulting hydrocarbon emissions are shown on Table 14.
It was assumed that all solvents used are eventually emitted into the
air by evaporation.
Gasoline Marketing
There are four major points, (excluding evaporation from the motor
vehicle) of hydrocarbon emissions in the storage and handling of gas-
oline. They are:
1. Breathing and filling losses from storage tanks.
2. Filling losses from loading tank conveyances.
3. Filling losses from loading underground storage tanks at
service stations.
4.
Spillage and filling losses in filling automobile gas tanks
at service stations.
-------
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC
SOLVENT EVAPORATION, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
Solvent Gasoline Asphalt
County Use Marketing (Cut -back) TOTAL
Cochise 620 620 870 2 , 100
Gila 260 320 390 970
Graham 130 160 220 510
Greenlee 70 80 90 240
Maricopa 10,900 7,750 3,320 22,000
Pima 3,150 2,790 1,100 7,040
Pinal 590 570 1,040 2,200
San ta Cruz 100 130 190 420
TOTAL 15,800 12,400 7,200 35,500
TABLE 15
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL
OPERATIONS, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
SuI fur Par tic- Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
Source Oxides ulates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Fuel Combustion
Distillate Fuel Oil 1,240 1,960 980 2,200 4. ,620
Residual Fuel Oil 240 20 N N 70
Natural Gas N 130 N N 810
Liquified Petroleum N 5 N N 20
Gas
Pes ticide Application N 3,300 N N N
TOTAL 1,480 5,400 980 2,200 5,520
N = Negligible
-------
Most of this fuel was used to operate farm machinery such as tractors,
pumps, generators, and harvesting equipment.
A summary of emissions from agricultural operations is presented
in Table 15. The maximum contribution to any pollutant is 15 percent
of the total emissions of particulate matter. This percentage is
somewhat higher during the harvest months when there is an increase
in agricultural activities.
-------
EMISSIONS BY JURISDICTION
The previous section presents the emissions by source category
and, in some cases, by jurisdiction.
The emissions by county and
source are summarized here in Tables 16 through 19.
Table 16, Table 17,
and Table 18 show the emissions in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties,
respectively. The emissions are shown for the remaining five counties
collectively in Table 19.
As is expected due to a higher degree of urbanization than the
other counties, Maricopa County and Pima County contribute the majority
of air pollutants with the exception of sulfur oxides. As shown on
Table 20, Maricopa County contributes a minumum of 40 percent of any
pollutant and Pima County contributes a minumum of 22 percent of any
pollutant (excepting sulfur oxides). On the other hand, Maricopa
and Pima Counties, collectively, account for only 8 percent of total
sulfur oxides emissions.
Naturally, the reason Cochise, Gila, Greenlee,
and Pinal Counties account for 92 percent of the sulfur oxides emissions
is because seven of the eight copper smelters are located in those
counties.
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN MARICOPA
COUNTY, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
Sulfur Par tic- Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
"
Source Category Oxides u1ates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Transportation
Motor Vehicles 1,700 2,790 321,600 44,800 21,000
. . Other 120 1,870 9,020 4,040 2,060
Total 1,820 4,660 330,600 48,800 23,100
Fuel Combustion in
Stationary Sources
Industrial 90 240 130 300 1,310
Steam-Electric 10 150 N N 3,760
Residential 40 140 15 3 810
Commercia1- 10 30 15 40 520
Institutional
Total 150 560 160 340 6,400
Solid Waste Disposal 40 1,120 5,760 1,990 770
Industrial Process 290 5,090 310 N N
Solvent Evaporation N N N 22,000 N
Agriculture 140 2,220 200 460 1,160
GRAND TOTAL 2,400 13,700 337,000 73,600 31,400
N = Negligible
-------
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN PIMA
COUNTY, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
Sulfur Partic- Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides u1ates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Transportation
Motor Vehicles 630 1,040 111,700 15,900 7,590
Other 150 1,110 3,310 1 , 280 1,400
Total 780 2,150 115,000 17 ,200 9,000
Fuel Combustion in
Stationary Sources
Industrial 440 1,170 630 1,420 2,640
Steam-Electric 3 120 N N 3,110
Residential 15 60 4 N 360
Connnercia1- 80 170 70 160 500
Institutional
Total 540 1,520 700 1,580 6,610
Solid Waste Disposal 4 760 4,670 1,270 480
Industrial Process 154,000 6,780 50 N 260
Solvent Evaporation N N N 7,040 N
Agriculture 230 370 130 290 710
GRAND TOTAL 155,500 11 ,600 121,000 27,400 17,100
N = Negligible
-------
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN PINAL
COUNTY, 1967 (TONS/YEAR)
Sulfur Par tic- Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides ulates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Transportian
Motor Vehicles 150 270 20,400 3,130 1,630
Other 180 490 270 610 270
Total 330 760 20,700 3,740 1,900
Fuel Combustion in
Stationary Sources
Industrial 80 190 100 230 430
Steam-Electric N 10 N N 220
Residential 5 10 N N 60
Connnercial- 20 30 10 30 90
Institutional
Total no 240 no 260 800
Solid Waste Disposal N 430 2,270 810 290
Industrial Process 303,000 920 N N N
Solvent Evaporation N N N 2.,200 N
Agriculture 600 1,540 350 780 2,010
GRAND TOTAL 304,000 3,900 23,400 7,800 5,000
N = Negligible
-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN FIVE-
-!(
COUNTY AREA,
1967 (TONS/YEAR)
Sulfur Par tic- Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides ulates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Transportation
Motor Vehicles 320 600 47,300 7,300 3,700
Other 650 1,730 1,000 1,170 970
Total 970 2,330 48,300 8,500 4,700
Fuel Combustion in
Stationary Sources
Industrial 160 400 200 450 720
Steam-Electric N 10 N N 410
Residential 10 20 5 N 70
Commercial- 40 70 20 60 190
Insti tutiona1
Total 210 500 220 510 1,400
Solid Waste Disposal N 890 4,700 1,650 580
Industrial Process 1,604,000 210 N N 740
Solvent Evaporation N N N 4,300 N
Agriculture 510 1,270 300 670 1,620
GRAND TOTAL 1,605,000 5,200 54,000 15,600 9,000
N = Negligible
-!(
Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz Counties
-------
TABLE 20
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF EACH COUNTY TO TOTAL
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS, (PERCENT)
<.J
Sulfur Partie - Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
County Oxides ulates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Cochise 27 7 5 6 8
Gila 30 3 2 3 3
Graham N 4 1 2 2
Greenlee 20 1 1 1 1
Maricopa N 40 63 59 50
Pima 8 33 23 22 27
Pinal 15 11 4 6 8
Santa Cruz N 1 1 1
N = Negligible
<,
<,)
-------
EMISSIONS BY GRID
For the purpose of defining the geographical variation of air pollutant
emissions in the Study Area, the resulting emissions were apportioned on
the grid coordinate system. The emissions were divided into two source
groups--point and area sources. Twenty-nine point sources are identified
individually with respect to location and emissions.
Each of these point
sources emits more than 1 ton per day of any pollutant.
Contribution of Point Sources
Figure 3 shows the location ~f all point sources in the area.
Collectively the twenty-nine point sources account for 99.7 percent of
sulfur oxides, 32 percent of particulate matter, 16 percent of nitrogen
oxides, and only 2 percent of carbon monoxide and 2 percent of hydro-
carbon emissions.
The percent contribution to carbon monoxide emissions
is low because motor vehicles, which are area sources contribute 94
percent of total carbon monoxide emissions.
Similarly, the contribution
to total hydrocarbon emissions is low since two groups of area sources,
motor vehicles and organic solvent evaporation, are the major contributors.
Table 21 presents the emissions of point sources.
It is assumed that the
seasonal variations in point source emissions are negligible.
Area sources are sources of emissions that are insignificant by them-
selves, but as a group emit a significant amount. Examples of area sources
are motor vehicles, residences, light commercial and industrial establish-
ments, and backyard burning. The emissions from area sources have been
added to that for point sources to obtain total emissions by grid as
shown on Table 22.
The emissions are presented for an annual average day, an average
winter (December, January, February) day, and an average summer (June,
July, August) day. .The annual average daily emission rates were
obtained by dividing yearly totals by 365 days per year. Seasonal averages
were calculated by the use of space heating variations in fuel consumption
and variations in motor vehicular traffic activity.
assumed to be constant throughout the year.
Other sources were
-------
.
I
I
f I
3500000 ----1
36 0000 I
,
I
N 3460000
440000 520000 600000 680000
',' ".
3780000
",
< .
"
3740000
a
3700000
. .
3660000
3620000
I
I
-----------~..
----
3580000
40
80
I
40 0
~-
ki lemeters
'\
t
')
\. J"
\
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
,
\
\
\
""'.
I.
\
I \
\
\
.
I'.r--
i
,)
,r' I
. I
". ( I
II.
"
,.
I
I
I
.
~
I
.\,
.
------ .
-..-.--
...r----
Figure 3.
Location of point sources in the Phoenix-Tucson area
"
industry
steam-electric utility
.
a airport
-------
TABLE 21
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM POINT SOURCES IN THE
PHOENIX-TUCSON AREA, (TONS/AVERAGE DAY)
Easting Northing SU 1 fur Par tic- Carbon Hydro Nitrogen
Source (100 m.) (100 m.) Oxides u1ates Monoxide Carbons Oxides
Industry 4862 35860 1. 23 0.72
Indus try 5012 35549 2.50
Industry 5168 35627 2.50
Industry 5095 . 35585 2.13
Industry 5156 35658 3.97
Industry 4985 35745 3.30
Industry 5315 35678 1.50
Industry 4000 36980 3.06
Industry\'. 3977 36974 2.41
Industry 3260 35820 420
Industry 6360 34680 1520
Industry 6550 36590 1150
Industry 5215 36520 560
Industry 5205 36525 610
Industry 5130 36975 450
Industry 5360 36080 650
Industry 4920 36830 180
Power Plant 6050 35530 .04 1.04
Power Plant 4153 36982 .11 2.89
Power Plant 4130 36910 .05 1.15
Power Plant 3872 371.32 .27 6.28
Power Plant 4720 36020 .02 0.60
Power Plant 5095 35582 .30 7.88
Power Plant 5008 35680 .02 0.62
Airport 4060 36980 .35 19.10 3.85 1. 22
Airport 3720 37120 2.57 3.75 0.96 1.79
Airport 4380 36850 1.35 1.39 0.40 0.91
Airport 5050 35540 1.12 7.31 1.47 1.05
Airport 5110 35600 .82 1.14 0.32 0.57
- 36 -
-------
()
c.
<:
TABLE 22
SL~fl1ARY OF EMISSIONS BY GRID IN THE PHOEXIX-TUCSON AREA, 1967 (TONS/DAY)
Easting Korthing Area SOx PART. CO HC NOx
Grid (l00 m.) (100 m.) (sq. mi) S W A S W A S W A S W A S W A
3200 37400 2471 .24 .23 .23 1.03 .99 1.02 32.62 29.84 31.08 5.55 5.13 4.71 2.50 2.34 2.40
2 3800 37600 618 .05 .05 .05 .08 .07 .07 8.11 7.42 7.73 1. 29 1.18 1.23 .61 .56 .58
3 4200 37600 618 .06 .06 .06 .10 .09 .09 8.16 7.47 7.78 1.45 1.34 1.39 .63 .59 .61
4 4600 37600 618 .09 .08 .08 .18 .18 .18 10.10 9.27 9.64 1.93 1.80 1.86 .82 .78 .79
5 5000 37600 618 .01 .01 .01 .05 .05 .05 1.80 1.66 1.72 .31 .29 .30 .15 .15 .15
6 3700 37300 154 .20 .19 .20 .29 .28 .28 24.50 22.41 23.34 4.47 4.15 4.29 1.92 1.81 1.85
7 3900 37300 154 .12 .12 .12 .49 .71 .65 16.31 14.92 15.54 2.88 2.67 2.76 1. 27 1.19 1. 22
8 4100 37300 154 .13 .14 .13 .52 .52 .52 8.34 7.65 7.96 2.37 2.26 2.31 .77 .78 .76
....., 9 4300 37300 154 .07 .07 .07 .37 .37 .37 8.19 7.50 7.81 1.66 1.55 1.60 .66 .64 .64
......
10 3700 37100 154 .26 .26 .26 3.56 4.13 3.65 28.43 26.33 27 .26 6.11 5.79 5.93 3.81 3.74 3.75
11 3850 37150 39 .22 .22 .22 .52 .52 .52 16.55 15.27 15.78 4.14 3.93 4.02 7.73 7.70 7.72
12 3950 37150 39 .57 .56 .57 .61 .98 .88 28.77 26.41 27.46 9.44 9.11 9.26 2.62 2.80 2.66
13 4050 37150 39 .31 .30 .31 .38 .38 .38 28.05 25.69 26.74 6.09 5.76 5.90 2.12 2.10 2.09
14 4150 37150 39 .07 .07 .07 .11 .10 .11 8.19 7.50 7.81 1.66 1.55 1.60 .66 .64 .63
15 3850 37050 39 .15 .15 .15 .21 .20 .20 18.53 16.95 17.65 3.38 3.16 3.26 1.32 1. 26 1. 28
16 3950 37050 39 1.14 1.10 1.12 1.76 1. 79 1. 76 97.76 89.54 93.19 21. 31 20.22 20.79 6.72 6.78 6.65
17 4050 37050 39 1.98 1.93 1.95 1.56 2.64 2.55 142.11 130.25 135.52 34.98 33.44 34.12 10.33 10.66 10.32
18 4150 37050 39 .50 .50 .50 .50 .53 .51 19.50 17.93 18.63 7.87 7.65 7.75 1.97 2.18 2.02
19 4300 37100 154 .16 .16 .16 1.46 1.45 1.46 16.38 14.99 15.61 3.32 3.11 3.20 1.33 1. 28 1. 29
20 4600 37200 618 .13 .20 .15 .19 .20 .19 14.66 13.44 13.97 2.77 2.58 2.66 1. 26 1.18 1. 21
21 5000 37200 618 .14 .22 .17 .28 .29 .28 11.28 10.40 10.79 2.69 2.60 2.62 1.05. 1.03 1.03
-------
TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF DIISSIONS BY GRID (cont.)
Easting Xorthing Area SOx PART. CO HC NOx
Grid (100 ::I.) (l00 m.) (sq. mi.) S W A S W A S W A S W A S W A
2a 3200 36600 2471 .16 .16 .16 2.19 2.86 2.70 16.38 15.00 15.61 3.22 3.11 3.20 1.33 1. 28 1. 29
24 3800 36800 618 .45 .47 .46 4.51 5.09 4.93 25.15 23.08 24.00 7.66 7.35 7.49 2.38 2.46 2.38
25 4050 36950 39 1.03 .99 1.01 5.69 5.70 5.68 103.43 96.34 99.49 22.87 21.90 22.34 7.73 7.70 7.63
26 4150 36950 39 .64 .61 .62 1.40 1.39 1.39 75.33 68.94 71. 78 13.47 12.65 13.01 8.81 8.68 8.69
27 4250 36950 39 .71 .68 .69 .91 1.00 .98 85.98 78.68 81.92 15.14 14.19 14.61 5.41 5.24 5.28
28 4350 36950 39 .09 .09 .09 .12 .35 .29 9.34 8.55 8.90 1.89 1. 78 1.83 .69 .68 .68
29 4050 36850 39 .11 .11 .11 .19 .18 .18 16.30 14.91 15.53 2.75 2.54 2.63 1.24 1.16 1.19
30 4150 36850 39 .12 .12 .12 .19 .18 .18 16.31 14.92 15.54 2.88 2.67 2.82 1. 27 1.19 1. 22
31 4250 36850 39 .96 .96 .96 .22 .45 .38 18.53 16.95 17.65 3.51 3.29 3.39 1.33 1. 28 1. 29
'" 32 4350 36850 39 .15 .15 .15 1.56 1.66 1.65 19.94 18.34 18.94 3.78 3.56 3.66 2.23 2.17 2.19
00
33 4100 36700 154 .07 .07 .07 .42 .42 .42 9.42 8.62 8.98 1.63 . 1. 51 1. 57 .73 .69 . 70
34 4300 36700 154 .13 .12 .13 .60 1.15 1.02 11.84 10.86 11.30 2.64 2.48 2.55 1.11 1.07 1.08
35 4600 36800 618 .13 .12 .13 .64 1. 37 1. 20 11.84 10.86 11. 30 2.64 2.48 2.55 1.11 1.07 1.08
36 5000 36800 618 630.00 630.00 630.00 .46 .45 .45 19.04 17.52 18.19 3.96 3.74 3.84 1. 56 1. 51 1. 52
37 3800 36400 618 .07 .07 .07 .11 .10 .11 7.37 6.74 7.02 1.60 1. 50 1. 55 .66 .63 .64
38 4200 36400 618 .17 .16 .16 .41 1. 21 1.02 15.07 13.90 14.41 3.41 3.23 3.31 1.37 1.33 1.33
39 4600 36400 618 .15 .16 .15 .38 1.45 1.17 10.45 9.66 10.01 2.90 2.78 2.83 .95 .96 .94
40 5000 36400 618 .05 .05 .05 .13 .14 .13 3.40 3.16 3.27 .98 .94 .96' .33 .33 .33
41 5600 36600 2471 1170.0 1]70.0 1170.00 .56 .56 .56 16.30 15.07 15.61. 4.13 3.94 4.03 1. 56 1. 55 1. 53
42 6400 36600 2471 1150.0 1150.0 1150.00 .68 1.19 1. 07 23.16 21. 36 22.16 5.52 5.26 5.38 2.00 1.99 1. 97
43 3200 35800 2471 420.00 420.00 420.00 .32 .32 .33 29.38 26.88 27.99 5.23 4.86 5.02 2.29 2.16 2.21
44 3800 36000 618 .08 .10 .09 .14 .13 .13 10.00 9.16 9.53 1.81 1.68 1. 74 .84 .78 .80
-------
"
"
<::
TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF EMISSIOXS BY GRID (cont.)
Easting :\orthing Area
Grid (100 m.) (l00 m.) (sq. mt.) S W A 5 W A 5 \\' A S W A S W A
46 4600 36000 618 .14 .14 .13 .29 1.69 1.36 16.07 14.73 15.33 3.07 2.85 2.95 2.03 1.94 1.98
47 5000 36000 618 .12 .11 .11 1.57 1.62 1. 57 13.28 12.16 12.66 2.57 2.39 2.47 1.90 1.83 1.95
48 5400 36000 618 650.00 650.00 650.00 .23 .23 .23 8.59 7.91 8.21 2.04 1.94 1.99 .71 .70 .70
49 5800 36000 618 .01 .01 .01 .03 .03 .03 .80 .74 .77 .27 .26 .26 .07 .07 .07
50 4600 35600 618 .06 .06 .06 .08 .07 .07 5.90 5.40 5.62 1.18 1.11 1.14 .47 .46 .46
51 4900 35700 154 .16 .15 .15 3.49 3.48 3.48 13.28 12.16 12.66 2.91 2.73 2.81 1.19 1.16 1.16
52 5050 35750 39 .18 .18 .18 .24 .24 .24 14.89 13.64 14.20 3.43 3.24 3.33 1. 26 1. 26 1.24
53 5150 35750 39 .02 .02 .02 .04 .03 .03 2.98 2.73 2.84 .58 .55 .56 .23 .23 .23
54 5050 35650 39 1.41 1.39 1.40 1. 35 1.51 1.43 79.71 73.14 76.43 23.03 22.19 22.56 6.79 7.37 6.93
55 5150 35650 39 .43 .41 .42 9.65 9.67 9.65 36.33 33.28 34.69 8.10 7.72 7.90 2.99 3.06 2.98
w
\0 56 4900 35500 154 .06 .06 .06 .08 .07 .07 6.67 6.10 6.36 1.23 1.15 1.19 .47 .46 .46
,
57 5050 35550 39 .35 .34 .35 6.66 6.66 6.65 46.10 42.82 44.27 8.60 8.18 8.37 11.41 11. 38 11. 36
58 5150 35550 39 .21 .21 .21 .23 .23 .23 16.84 15.42 16.05 3.83 3.63 3'.72 1. 29 1.31 1.28
59 5050 35450 39 .11 .11 .11 .17 .16 .16 13 .17 12.05 12.55 2.41 2.23 2.31 1.13 1.06 1.09
60 5150 35450 39 .04 .04 .04 .05 .05 .05 2.68 2.45 2.55 .73 .69 .71 .26 .26 .25
61 5400 35600 618 .08 .08 .08 .45 .44 .44 8.82 8.07 8.40 1.62 1.51 1.56 .69 .66 .67
62 5800 35600 618 .06 .06 .06 .16 .16 .16 3.73 3.47 3.59 1.21 1.17 1.19 .39 .39 .39
63 6400 35800 2471 .16 .16 .16 .41 .61 .56 12.25 11. 30 11.72 3.01 2.87 2.93 2.20 2.17 2.17
64 4000 35400 2471 .08 .08 .08 .11 .10 .10 7.93 7.25 7.55 1. 57 1.46 1. 51 .69 .66 .67
65 4800 35000 2471 .26 .25 .26 .53 .52 .52 25.06 23.01 23.92 5.34 5.02 5.17 2.25 2.16 2.18
66 5600 35000 2471 .40 .41 .40 .87 .86 .86 34.74 31.96 33.19 7.92 7.49 7.68 5.17 5.07 5.08
-------
378°000
3740000
37QOOOO
366000°
3620000
3580000
3540000
28 0000
3460000
440000
520000
600000
SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS,
ton s/m i ^/doy
0 - 0.001
0.001 - 0.005
0.005 - 0.02
0.02 -0.10
0.10 - 1.50
Figure 4. Sulfur oxide emission density map of the Phoenix-Tucson area, 1967.
-------
378°°00
3740000
37QOOOO
3540000
28 0000
3460000
440000
520000
6QOOOO
680000
40
40
80
PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS,
tons/mi^/doy
kilometers
0 - 0.001
0.001 - 0.005
0.005 - 0.02
0.02 -0.10
0.10 - 0.30
Figure 5. Paniculate matter emission density map of the Phoenix-Tucson area, 1967.
-------
378°°0 ,
374°00
358°000
3540000.L:
28 0000
440000
520000
600000
68<>000
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
tons/mi /day
0 -0.0)
0.01 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.50
0.50 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
Figure 6. Carbon monoxide emission density map of the Phoenix-Tucson area, 1967,
-------
378°°00
3740000
3580000
3540000
28 0000
440000
520000
6<)0000
680000
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
tons/mi V day
0 -0.01
0.01 - 0.05
0.05 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.50
0.50 - 1.00
Figure 7. Hydrocarbon emission density map of the Phoenix-Tucson area, 1967.
-------
378°0°0
3740000
37QOOOO
3660000
3620000
35gOOOO
3540000
28 °000
N
3460000
440000
520000
600000
680000
NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS,
tons/mi^/day
0 - 0.005
0.005 - 0.01
0.01 - 0.05
0.05 - 0.20
0.20 - 0.40
warn
Figure 8. Nitrogen oxides emission density map of the Phoenix-Tucson area, 1967.
-------
-
r
Q
REFERENCES
1.
Ozolins, G. and Smith, R., Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
Community Air Pollution, USDHEW, PHS, October, 1966.
2.
Duprey, R.L., Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
USDHEW, PHS, April, 1967.
3.
Arizona Statistical Review, Valley National Bank, 24th Annual
edition, September, 1968.
4.
Arizona Traffic, Arizona Highway Department, Planning Survey Division,
1968.
5.
FAA Air Traffic Activity, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, February, 1968.
6.
Files of the Maricopa County Health Department, Bureau of Air
Sanitation.
7.
Files of the Pima County Air Pollution Control District.
8.
Shipments of Fuel Oil and Kerosine in 1967, Bureau of Mines,
Department of the Interior, September 23, 1968.
9.
Shipments of Liquified Petroleum Gases and Ethane in 1967, Bureau
of Mines, Department of the Interior, September 13, 1968.
10.
Comprehensive plan for Maricopa County, Maricopa County Planning
Department, 1964.
11.
Solid Wastes Disposal Report, John Carrollo Engineers, 1968.
12.
Mason, Ozolins, and Morita, Sources and Air Pollutant Emission
Patterns in Major Metropolitan Areas, USDHEW, CPE, NAPCA, June, 1969.
13.
Maricopa County Emission Inventory, Maricopa County Health
Department, 1968.
------- |