APTD-1369
A TRANSPORTATION
CONTROL STRATEGY
FOR THE PHOENIX-TUCSON
AIR QUALITY AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Dffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
^esearch Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
A TRANSPORTATION
CONTROL STRATEGY
FOR THE PHOENIX-TUCSON
AIR QUALITY AREA
Prepared by
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
Contract No. 68-02-0048
EPA Project Officer: Fred Winkler
Prepared for
ENVIRONHENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 1973
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued
by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and
Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of APTD reports
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors
and grantees, and non-profit organizations as supplies permit from
the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or may be obtained,
for a nominal cost, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations of Redondo Beach,
California, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-0048, Task Order No. 11.
The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from the
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations. The opinions, findings,
and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily
those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. APTD-1369
ii
-------
PREFACE
Presented herein is a report which discusses the formulation of
a transportation control strategy for meeting the promulgated air
quality standards in the Phoenix-Tucson area.
Development of this
plan was in full recognition that exhaust emissions from automobiles
presently constitute a major source of the air pollution problem.
The approach taken in developing a viable plan consisted of identi-
fying those transportation control measures which would have the
widest possible public acceptance and yet in the limit meet the
imposed standards.
Hopefully, this report and the proposed transportation
control strategy achieve both objectives.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TRW would like to acknowledge the efforts extended by the Arizona
State Department of Health. the Maricopa County Bureau of Air Pollution
Control and the Arizona State Highway Department in supporting this project,
The contributions of Messrs. Arthur A. Aymar and Bruce Scott of the
Arizona State Department of Health. and Mr. Robert Taylor of the Maricopa
County Bureau of Air Pollution Control were of particular significance.
Mr. Fred Winkler of the Land Use Planning Branch served as Project
Officer.
Work under the ~ontract was monitored by Mr. Robert Clark of
Land Use Planning.,and Mr. Ron Mueller of Region IX.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
PRE FACt . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
. . " . . . . . "
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . 0 .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . ..
. . . . . .
" . . .
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . .
INTRODUCTION. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
Study Purpose.
Background. .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
Problem Definition
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
Technical Approach. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT. . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Baseline Estimates. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Control Measure Assessment ..
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
Proposed Control Stragegy
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION. .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Procedure and Time Schedule. .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agency Involvement
Legal Authority.
" . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Implementation Surveillance
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
v
Page
iii
iv
vii
viii
13
17
18
19
22
23
28
29
41
72
86
87
92
95
97
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Ai r Qua 1 i ty . . . . . . . .
Vehicl~ Emissions.
. . . . . . .
Transportation. .
. . . . . .
Appendix A Gl~ssary . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B Emissions Data
. . . . . . . .
Appendix C Air Quality Data
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .
Appendix D The Transportation System. .
Appendix E Contact Reports. . . . . . . . .
Appendix F Organizations Consulted
. . . .
Appendix G
Ai r Qua 1 ity r~ode 1. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
Appendix H Phoenix Attitude Survey
. . . .
Appendix I
References. . . . . . . .
vi
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
Page
97
106
106
108
109
135
142
161
209
211
222
229
-------
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
LIST OF FIGURES
Schematic of Air Quality Simulation Model.
. . . .
. . . .
Comparison of Yearly Total HC Variation in Phoenix
in 1969 and 1971 (MCHD Data) . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Comparision of Yearly CO Variation in Phoenix
in 1969 and 1971 (MCHD Data) . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Yearly N02 Variation in Phoenix
in 1969 and 1971 (MCHD Data) . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Comparison of Yearly Ox Variation in Phoenix
in 1969 and 1971 (~1CHD Data) . . . . . . .
. . .- . . . .
CO Concentrations, Panel A and Ox Concentrations, Panel B.
Vapor Return and Recovery System for Evaporative Loss
Control
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adsorber or Condenser System for Evaporative Loss
Control.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.
Present and Proposed Reid Vapor Pressure Standard
. . . .
Proposed Air Quality Management Organization.
. . . . . . .
Proposed Air Quality Surveillance System. . . .
. . . . . .
vii
Page
26
31
32
33
34
35
52
53
54
93
103
-------
LIST OF TABL-~
Table
l.
2.
Summary of Proposed Implementation Schedule
. . . . . . .
Summary of Phoenix Air Quality Data. . . .
. . . . . . .
3.
~elative Emissions of Nonmethane Hydrocarbons by
Source Categories. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
4.
Relative Emissions of Carbon Monoxide by Source
Categories
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
5.
Relative Emissions of Carbon Monoxide by Source
Categories
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
6.
Relative Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides by Source
Categories
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
7.
8.
Candidate Control Measures
. . . . . . .
Impact of Proposed Control Strategy on Future
Phoenix Air Quality
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
9.
Impact of Proposed Control Strategy on Future
Phoenix Air Quality
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
10.
Impact of Proposed Control Strategy on Future
Phoenix Air Quality
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
ll.
12.
Proposed Implementation Schedule
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Agencies Responsible for the Administration, Monitoring
and Enforcement of the Proposed Transportation Control
Strategy. . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
13.
Legal Authority for Implementation of the Proposed
Transportation Control Strategy
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
14.
Existing and Proposed Air Quality Surveillance Network. . .
Capital Cost of Additions to Air Quality Surveillance
15.
System Recommended by the Transportation Control
Strategy. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
v.i i i
Page
12
36
37
38
39
40
42
80
81
82
88
94
96
98
102
-------
SUMMARY
This report, prepared by TRW for the Environmental Protection Agency,
deals with the formulation of viable transportation control strategy for
meeting the promulgated national air ambient standards in the Phoenix-Tucson
area. Specifically, this report is concerned with:
. The identification of the most promising transportation control
measures to achieve the required air quality standards.
. The prediction of emission reductions and air quality impact
anticipated from each of the control measures and strategies
considered.
. The assessment and documentation of those political, institutional,
legal, and socio-economic obstacles that can be expected in the
implementation process.
. The formulation of a timetable of key checkpoints to be used by
the Environmental Protection Agency in monitoring implementation
progress.
The development of a comprehensive transportation contr~l strategy
constitutes a major step towards achieving the desired air quality standards
in the Phoenix-Tucson area. Unfortunately, existing Set II pollutant con-
centration data for Tucson and other areas outside Phoenix is not sufficient
for use as a basis for forecasting air quality in those areas. For this
reason, control measures included in this study could not be evaluated for
use specifically in Tucson. However, it is recommended that the general
results of this study be used as much as possible in current and future
Tucson air quality programs.
The proposed transportation control strategy is specifically designed
to meet the hydrocarbon (HC) and primary oxidant (Ox) standards by 1975,
and the carbon monoxide (CO) standard by 1977. The strategy does not
directly address itself to achieving the nitrogen dioxide (N02) standard
The Arizona State Implementation Plan [19] was reviewed and the 1969
emissions inventory and air quality data from this plan were used as the.
baseline for making projections. Estimates of future air quality were made
based on current stationary source control policies and forecasted growth.
The results ot tnis study must be viewed within this context.
-------
CONTROL STRATEGY SPECIFICATION
A wide variety of promising control measures were examined during the
course of this investigation.
Selection of the "best" measure for incorpo-
ration into the proposed transportation control strategy was based, in part,
on two general criteria:
(1) Maximum cost effectiveness'with proven reliability
(2) Widest possible public acceptance with minimum
socio-economic impact.
The proposed transportation control strategy developed for the Phoenix
area consists of two distinct phases,
Phase I is designed to accomplish
substantial improvements in air quality for the 1975 through 1977 period.
Based on analysis of current data (1969), however. additional controls may
be necessary.
Consequently, a Phase II program has been formulated in
order to insure compliance with the standards.
The need for implementing
Phase II should be based on the results obtained from Phase I.
The meas.ures
associated with both phases of the proposed transportation control strategy
are listed below~
Phase I
o Air quality surveillance system
o Mandatory vehicle inspection/maintenance for all vehicles
o Retrofit emission control for all pre-1968 vehicles
o Evaporative emission control.
Phase II ( if necessary)
o Vehicle exchange program
o Limited second vehicle registration
2
-------
A brief description of each measure is presented in the following.
A more definitive description of these measures appears in the next
section.
Air Quality Surveillance System
The surveillance system proposed in this strategy uses the existing
system and the system recommended by the Arizona State Implementation Plan
as a foundation for developing the capability for monitoring Set II pollutants
in the Phoenix-Tucson problem area.
The recommendations in this strategy
consist mostly of expanding the use of CO and Ox monitors through the
metropolitan area to provide for reasonable accuracy in evaluating peaks
and trends in air quality and in assessing the effectiveness of the imp1e-
mentation plan.
It has been found that sites used or proposed prior to
this strategy can generally be used and that they provide an effective
distribution of monitors.
The approximate cost of equipment for the system
proposed in this strategy is $24,000 and $33,000.
In addition, the MCHD
mobile lab is regarded as a highly useful means of determining the spread
of pollutant concentration and of identifying the need for longer-term
monitoring and source control.
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance
One of the key components of the transportation control strategy
involves a mandatory program of vehicle inspection/maintenance.
Such a
program will yield not only moderate emission reductions from the present
vehicle fleet, but will also insure the proper operation of advanced con-
trol systems as they are introduced into 4he automobile population.
It is
this second factor that, in the long run, will have the largest impact on
air quality.
3
-------
Current studies indicate that the most cost-effective program involves
a yearly exhaust emission inspection under load, followed as necessary by
fuel ratio, ignition system (misfire), air cleaner, and PCV valve.
Pass/
fail exhaust emission criteria should be established to obtain the necessary
for the first year.
A rejection rate of 30 to 40 percent may be required
The program should include a certification
emission reductions.
of service garages involved to insure reliable maintenance repair.
Any
retest of emissions after maintenance should be made optional.
Estimates
of potential emission reductions for the total population are 12 percent
for hydrocarbons, 10 percent for carbon monoxide, and 0 percent for oxides
of nitrogen.
These reductions can be achieved for an annual cost of between
$5 and $15 per car.
Retrofit Emission Control
The second recommended control measure consists of retrofitting the
pre-1968 portion of the vehicle population.
Basically, there are two retro-
fit approaches that are suitable for use in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The first one -- Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect (VSAD) -- is particularly
attractive for use on older vehicles in terms of potential emission reduc-
tion, cost, reliability and ease of implementation.
Costs, including labor
and with a simple override mechanism, should be from $15 to $30.
Some
deterioration in fuel economy and driveability will occur on the average.
Overheating may be a serious problem, especially during hot weather.
The other retrofit approach -- Lean Idle Setting (LIS) -- has good
possibilities except for a high probability of owner or mechanic tampering.
This procedure involves the additional leaning out of the air/fuel ratio
beyond the manufacturer's specification.
The cost per adjustment should be
nominal -- $3 to $6 -- and fuel economy should improve slightly on the
4
-------
average.
This modification is theoretically simple. but present mechanic
ability and instrumentation limitations indicate the need .for substantial
improvement.
The combined emission reduction potential for both retrofit devices
was computed as 25 percent for HC. ~ percent for CO. and 23 percent for
NOx'
Again. this is consistent with current EPA estimates.
In order to
insure proper operation of these two systems. especially LIS. it is sug-
gested that both be incorporated into the annual inspection program.
Evaporative Emission Control
The third element of the control strategy calls for the control of
evaporative losses.
Vehicle operation (carburetor and gas tank) and gaso-
line marketing (gas tank and storage tank filling) represent the two main
sources of hydrocarbon evaporative losses in the Phoenix area.
For con-
trolling losses from the inuse fleet (pre-197l), it is recommended that
the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) for all gasoline marketed in the Phoenix
area be controlled seasor.ally.
This should yield more than a 30 percent
reduction in vehicle operating losses [23J with moderate impact (approxi-
mately l-2~ per gallon) on overall marketing operations [7,32J.
Some
driveability problems may occur (during start-up), although they should be
of a minimal nature [23J.
The photochemical reactivity of the evaporated
hydrocarbons may be altered by changing the RVP, but it appears that the
change will be small [23, 34, 37J.
Several methods are available for controlling evaporative losses from
gasoline marketing.
These include a totally enclosed transfer system used
with either an adsorber, condenser or vapor return system.
Approximately
70 percent of the vehicles on the road (mostly domestic) can be serviced
5
-------
from one adaptive system. The average costs of equipping service stations
in the Phoenix area with evaporative recovery systems should run about
$2000 per station.
Vehicle Exchange Program
All things considered, older vehicles (pre-1968) emit higher emissions
per mile than do later model automobiles. The Vehicle Exchange Program is
designed to take advantage of this situation by limiting the importation of
pre-1968 vehicles and by replacing some of the older vintage cars with newer,
lower emitting vehicles.
Considerations should be given to limiting out-of-
state vehicle registration for pre-1968 cars after 31 December 1973.
This
would have the effect of reducing the aggregate exhaust emissions by about
three (3) percent.
Coupled with this would be a program to replace a segment of the older
in-use cars with newer state and local government vehicles.
One phase of
this program would be to increase the rate of turnover of state owned ve-
hicles to around 50 percent per year.
Based on the current size of the
state fleet, approximately 5000 cars would be available for exchange with
pre-19G8 vehicles on a yearly basis.
Criteria for exchange would have to be developed, based upon income
considerations, in order to maximize program effectiveness. This cOllibilled
program would be of short-term value. since by 1980 only about three (3)
percent of the vehicle population will consist of pre-19G8 automobiles.
The administrative costs of this program should only add a small increment
to ongoing registration costs.
However, the costs associated with exchang-
ing these vehicles may be on the order of several million additional dollars
annually.
6
-------
ffle~t effect of both programs in terms of emission reduction potential
should be around six (6) percent.
Limited Second Vehicle Registration
A preliminary assessment of the impact of the foregoing measures on
air quality indicates the potential need for additional vehicle control.
Specifically, it appears that up to thirty (30) percent reduction in vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) -- implying a need for an additional thirty percent
air quality improvement -- may be required to achieve the national stan-
dards.
The uncertainty in this estimate is closely related to the uncer-
tainty in the baseline emissions data and limitations in the current methods
used for predicting future air quality.
One approach for insuring such a reduction in VMT is by restricting
the use of second and third family cars.
This could be accomplished through
the registration process, but the details and implications of a specific
program would have to be very carefully assessed in terms of the political,
institutional, legal and socio-economic impact on the Phoenix area.
One
positive benefit of such a program would be more efficient use of the
family's primary vehicle which in turn would tend to encourage car pooling
and some additional use of the mass transit system.
Variances on this
restriction could be granted if the vehicle were converted over to operate
on gaseous fuels.
Preliminary estimates of the carrying capacity of the Phoenix trans-
portation system indicate sufficient flexibility to accommodate a substantial
portion of the affected motoring public.
It should be re-emphasized, how-
ever, that vehicle use restriction control measures should not be implemented
until further analysis (using refined air quality data and improved fore-
casting techniques) can demonstrate the inherent need.
7
-------
PREDICTED AIR QUALITY
The impact of each of these control measures, taken individually and
collectively, on future air quality has been made for the 1975 through 1980
period.* The reference air quality data used in conducting this assessment comes
from the Arizona State Implementation Plan. Forecasts of air quality indi-
cate that some form of additional controls will be needed to meet the car-
bon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and oxides of nitrogen standards.
Specifically, a 50 percent reduction in CO and a Z5 percent red~ction in
o above that achieved from ongoing and/or planned programswill be necessary.
x
Estimates of required NOZ reductions are not given, since the transpoy'ta-
tion plan has not been designed to directly control NOZ'
Based on the above, control of CO (8 Hr Max) becomes the constraining
element of the control plan. That is, the application of a control plan
designed to achieve the standard for CO (8 Hr Max) may yield air quality
concentrations for the other Set II pollutants substantially below the
required levels.
This situation generally results in the expenditure of
excessive resources.
Application of the proposed control strategy on forecasted Set II
concentration levels for the Phoenix area yielded the following results:
o Hydrocarbon
by 1975
o Carbon Monoxide levels (1 Hr Max) are well below the standard
levels (6-9 AM Max) are well below the standard
by 1977
o Carbon Monoxide levels (8 Hr Max) are within the standard
by 1977
*Estimates of future air quality were made using the computer simulation
model described in Appendix G.
8
-------
o Nitrogen Dioxide levels (annual) are substantially above the
standard through 1980
o Photochemical oxidants levels (1 Hr Max) are within the standard
by 1975
The variances in predicted air quality for CO and 0 vis-a-vis the standards
x
are well within the limits of uncertainty associated with the data base and
methods of forecasting.
Obstacle Evaluation
The proposed transportation control strategy has been designed to yield
maximum benefits while minimizing the number of potential implementation
obstacles.
The general philosophy adopted in developing the plan was to
enlarge or accelerate the existing programs as much as feasible, rather
than specify new ones.
Consequently, the plan begins with air quality
management procedures which have already been legislated, instituted, and
generally accepted, and attempts to provide a smooth administrative ~,ogres-
sion to attainment of national ambient standards by Federal deadlines.
No major problems are anticipated for implementation of the vehicle
inspection/maintenance program, vehicle retrofit program and gasoline evap-
orative emission control program, since these programs are either ongoing
or have a high probability of social and political acceptance, as demonstra-
ted, for example, in the Phoenix Attitude Survey. * However, some opposition
to evaporative emission control should be expected from the oil companies.
The final two control programs, vehicle exchange and limited registra-
tion, are obviously the most controversial and, therefore, are subject to
the most discussion and debate.
Statements of concern can be expected from
almost every segment of the community and in all likelihood would result in
*See Appendix H.
9
-------
a number of obstacles which could delay the implementation of this particu-
lar program. Again, the importance of determining the actual need for these
two programs cannot be over emphasized.
The Air Quality Surveillance Program, although not an emission reduction
measure, represents an integral element of the control strategy. The present
surveillance system should be expanded in order to provide comprehensive
air quality data for the Phoenix-Tucson area. The main obstacle to be
overcome is the acquisition of sufficient resources to fund the expanded
program.
EPA grant assistance is vital to this program in both Maricopa and
Pima counties. The county health departments should continue their leadership
in the expanded program.
10
-------
IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE
Table 1
presents an overview of the timetable developed for implement-
ing the proposed transportation control strategy.
This schedule can be used
by the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor the progress of the various
proposed programs.
This progress will depend heavily on the availability of
EPA funds.
Time delays due to lawsuits and other overt actions have not been
factored into the schedule since it is impossible to anticipate and charac-
L
terize the impact of these events.
It is clear, however, that some delays
will occur due to uncontrollable events such as labor disputes and political/
legislative entanglements.
Some "pad" has been added to the basic schedule
to cover such contingencies; however, it may be insufficient to overcome
this class of obstacles.
The schedule is keyed to the early deployment of the inspection/main-
tenance and air quality surveillance programs.
Both programs, taken
collectively, form the cornerstone of the entire plan and provide the basis
and justification for the remaining programs.
Consequently, a great deal
of attention should be placed on guaranteeing their proper implementation.
Both programs should be fully operational, at the county level, by the
middle of 1974.
This would actually permit nearly one year to determine
the need for the last two control measures.
If a two-year variance (1975
to ~977) is granted for achieving the photochemical oxidant levels, as
recommended by this study, the timetable for the entire program can be
relaxed.
It appears that the schedule specified by the State for deploying
the inspection/maintenance program must be accelerated to be consistent
with the recommended timetable.
11
-------
Table 1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Element
Important Dates
Completed 31 December 1972.
Development of proposed transportation
control strategy.
Recommended additions to air quality
surveillance system.
Installed by August 1974.
--'
N
Pha!e r Programs:
Traffic system modifications.
Inspection/Maintenance Program.
Ongoing through 1977.
Mandatory inspections in Maricopa and
Pima completed July 1974.
Completed July 1974.
Effective by 1 January 1975.
Retrofft of pre-1968 vehicles.
Gasoline evaporative loss control.
Phase II Programs (if necessary):
Vehicle exchange.
limited vehicle registration.
Effective 1 January 1975a.
Effective 1 January 1975a.
a Date could be extended two years if state is granted variance for meeting Ox standard.
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Presented below are the major conclusions and recommendations that
have emerged as a result of this study.
The conclusions are based for
the most part on the results developed under current study ground-
rules and assumptions. The recommendations have been designed to expand
the scope and breadth of the study as well as to insure the proper imple-
mentation of the proposed transportation control strategy.
CONCLUSIONS
o
Forecasts of air quality based on existing and/or planned
programs indicate the need for additional control to meet
the national standards for all Set II pollutants. These
estimates of future air quality for the period of 1975
through 1980 could have a variance of at least ~ 30 percent.
o
Based on the currently available air quality data and
approved analytical methodology, the proposed trans-
portation control strategy will achieve the air
quality standards for hydrocarbons and photochemical
oxidants by 1975 and for carbon monoxide by 1977.
The control measures selected for incorporation into the
transportation plan are all technically feasible and
economically viable. However, large uncertainties exist
in terms of the political implications of Phase II Pro-
grams. (Vehicle exchange and second car use restriction.)
o
o
Results from the public survey reveal that inspection/
maintenance is the most attractive alternative whereas
second car use restriction appears the least accept-
able measure.
13
-------
o
Conversion of older cars (pre-1971) to liquid petroleum
gas appears politically and economically unattractive.
Direct incentives to encourage car pooling and new freeway
construction to reduce stop-and-go traffic offer only
marginal gains.
o
o
Measures employing various rationing concepts are particularly
unattractive due to their administrative and socio-political
complications.
o
Stationary sources will contribute the major portion of N02
emissions by 1975. The impact of this shift on the formulation
of photochemical oxidants is presently unknown.
o
Existing transit service in the Phoenix area is well run
and provides good coverage. The area's highly dispersed
population patterns, however, limit the effectiveness of
potential rapid transit systems.
o
The application of the proposed plan on a
should help achieve the nationalst~ndards
County region.
The estimated cost for the Phase I Program is approximately
$20 to $30 per car per year. The potential cost for Phase II
may run $5 to $10 per car per year. Funding from both EPA
and the state will be essential to insure the effectiveness of
the strategy.
state wide basis
for the Tucson-Pima
o
RECOMMENDATIONS
o
The proposed transportation control strategy should be
considered for statewide application.
o
The Arizona State Department of Health should oversee and
manage the transportation control strategy. Co-operation
from local agencies is necessary for monitoring and enforc-
ing the strategy.
14
-------
o
The state should request from the EPA a two year extension to
1977 for reaching the oxidant standard in Phoenix. This would
allow sufficient time to insure the maximum effect of Phase I
of the proposed strategy and may obviate the necessity for
employing the less attractive Phase II measures.
o
Forecasts of future air quality should be made using an updated
emissions inventory and air quality data base (1971). The ef-
fectiveness of each control measure should be assessed against
these forecasts.
o
The Phase I control measures should be implemented during 1974
in order to determine the actual need (both analytically and
pmDirica11y) for imposing the Phase II measures.
o
The current air quality surv~i11ance network in the Phoenix
area should be expanded to provide more complete coverage.
o
Consistent air quality data should be collected for the Tucson-
Pima County area in order to determine the impact of the state
wide control strategy on local air quality.
o
The role of stationary sources in defining air quality should
be carefully examined since it effects the necessity and effec-
tiveness of the proposed strategy.
15
-------
o The ongoing vehicle inspection/maintenance program should be
accelerated. The program should contain the capability for
assessing both retrofit and advance emissions control systems.
o Regulations should be designed to provide for statewide
availability of at least one grade of non-leaded fuel
in sufficient quantity to meet the demands of the Federal
New Car Program.
o
Additional studies should be undertaken to assess, in more
detail, the following elements
o Emissions inventory and air quality data
o Political and institutional implications of the strategy
o Legal and socia-economic implications of the strategy
16
-------
INTRODUCTION
The continuingdegradatior. in am~ient air quality in our urban area
has been a subject of intense public concern and interest over the last
fifteen to twenty years.
With the promulgation of National Air Quality
Standards the search for ways of ameliorating the problem of air pollution
has been expanded.
Since exhaust emissions from automobiles presently
constitute a major source of the overall air pollution problem, they
become a likely candidate for future investigation and control.
At the time the air quality standard was set forth it was recognized
that some metropolitan areas would have to impose additional transportation
controls in order to achieve the required levels.
While this approach appears
~traightforward in design, a number of potential problems exist which
tend to restrict the effectiveness of many transportation control proposals.
The primary factor influencing the selection and implementation of addi-
tional transportation controls involves public acceptance. Unfortunately,
there presently exists a wide disparity between the public's expectation of
acceptahle air quality and the price they may be willing to pay to achieve
that level.
Therefore, any transportation program designed around vol un-
tary public action or offering unacceptable alternatives is probably
doomed to failure.
This situation is especially sensitive to the resi-
dents of the Phoenix area due to results of the recent motor vehicle safety
program
17
-------
STUDY PURPOSE
On June 20. 1972 the administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency published notice of rule making that proposed amendments to Title
40 CFR Part 51. The act and the administration's regulations require
states to take steps to reduce emissions from transportation sources
in order to meet national ambient air quality standards. The Arizona
State Implementation Plan [19] has been reviewed. and it was found that
the plan does not in1cude transportation controls sufficient to meet
Set II pollutant standards in the Phoenix-Tucson area.
Subsequently.
the state of Arizona has been notified to submit a detailed plan of
compliance of the Phoenix-Tucson area.
This report is in partial fulfillment of that requirement. The pur-
pose of the report is fourfold:
First, to identify and assess the most
promising transportation control measures to achieve the air quality stan-
dards; second. to predict the impact on future air quality of the various
candidate measures; third. to develop a proposed transportation control
strategy and to document potential implementation obstacles; and fourth.
to formulate a timetable for monitoring the progress of the strategy.
Taken collectively, these tasks constitute a first step in meeting
the air quality standards set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The developed results have been coordinated with city. county. state and
EPA personnel to insure proper compliance and local acceptance. As such.
the report hopefully reflects the thinking of the agencies who particpated
in this study.
18
-------
BACKGROUND
During the post World War II period, the Phoenix region has undergone
a growth process common to most urban regions in North America. On the one
hand, previously unattainable concentrations of specialized land uses have
been achieved at the urban core while on the other hand, the percentage of
regional urban activity at the city centers has declined as residential and
other land use development has been characterized by horizontal expansion
in dispersed, low density patterns at the region's fringes. The separation
by long distances of housing, employment opportunities, stores, schools,
and community service facilities has been made possible by, and at the same
time created an absolute reliance Upon, mechanized transportation, partic-
ularly the automobile.
Staggering rates of auto utilization -- nearly 13
million vehicle miles were driven in the Phoenix region on the average day
in 1972 -- coupled with the relatively high pollution emissions from auto-
mobile engines has made the auto a substantial contributor to air pollution
and, along w1th stationary sources, a key target for pollution control stra-
tegies.
Strategies to combat the automobile-related elements of air ~ollution
must recognize the influence of land use and travel patterns developed over
time. The trips which people make each day represent a substitute for near-
ness.
Basic personal and societal needs ca~ only be met by maintaining
these important transportation and communication links.
Because trip gen-
eration is built-in to life styles and land use patterns, it will be difficult
to dramatically alter the number of -Wpes of trips over a: five year period.
19
-------
To mollify the perceived needs of individuals and groups and to bring
about fundamental changes in the alternatives which our society makes
available (i .e., a transit line versus a highway) are long-term processes.
This makes it all the more important to immediately begin a program for
exploring and evaluating alternatives. This process could begin with a
concerted educational program, designed to encourage public officials,
special interest groups and individual citizens to consider our collective
future in an urban industrialized society. This is an intellectual, philo-
sophical and long-term view of the task ahead of us. This fundamental role
of education should be cultivated at every level of society.
The intra state area, the Phoenix-Tucson Air Quality Control Region,
is composed of the five Arizona counties of Maricopa, Gila, Pinal, Pima,
and Santa Cruz. A total of 1,431,954 people reside in this region, 80.8
percent of the total state population.
The region encompasses 29,753
square miles, 26.2 percent of the total state area.
Due to the scarcity
of data, the analysis was limited in scope to Maricopa County.
Lo ca ted
in the Southwest-Central part of the state, Maricopa County has an area of
9.155 square miles and a population of one million (the most populous county
in Ari zona).
Phoenix, the capital city of the state and the county seat,
has a population of 968,487, largest in the state.
Other cities and pop-
ulations are as follows:
Scottsdale, 67,823; Tempe, 63,550; Mesa, 62,853;
and Glendale, 36,228.
The leading industries are manufacturing, agri-
culture, wholesale and retail trade and tourism.
The 1980 projected
population of Maricopa County is 1,356,700 (40 percent growth) while
that of Phoenix 'is 810,000 (39 percent growth).
20
-------
The continuing growth of the automobile population (estimated at one
million by 1980) and vehicle travel within the Phoenix area has lead to
high projected concentrations of all four Set II pollutants.
This situation
is further aggravated by the existence of an inversion layer. The
impact of this layer on air quality is extremely severe during the winter
months.
Peak values of carbon monoxide recorded during an extended stag-
nation period in Phoenix in December 1969 were substantially higher than
any maximum concentration since that time.
Unfortunately, the only air
quality data available for use in the study came from that recording
period.
Data for the 1971 period has been collected, but has not been
reduced to a form suitable for detailed analysis.
21
-------
PROBLEM DEFINITION
Although the Arizona State Implementation Plan calls for the control
of all pollutants by 1975, recent evidence indicates that without additional
controls carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and oxidant levels will
still exceed the national standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator has extended for 2 years the attainment date (1977) for the
carbon monoxide standards.
Similar provisions have not been made for
either oxides of nitrogen or photochemical oxidants.
The problem, taken in its simplest form, becomes one of identifying
and characterizing methods for improving air quality in the Phoenix areas
within the given time frame.
Satisfaction of this requirement depends
upon a detailed knowledge of current air quality levels and a quantifi-
cation of the pollutant emissions in the region.
The forecasting of air
quality and the assessment of proposed methods for reducing emissions
represented the other key elements in attacking the problem.
For the present study, methods for improving air quality (measures)
are limited to those affecting transportation sources.
That is, no
attempt has been made to identify measures for controlling stationary
sources above those ongoing or presently planned programs.
This can,
in some instances, severely limit the options available for reducing
emissions in a cost effective manner.
Achieving the air quality standards in the Phoenix Area can be
technically accomplished with several transportation oriented measures
(e.g., vheicle use restriction).
The problem is that these severe measures
are politically, institutionally, legally and socio-economically unviable.
Consequently. the number alternatives that are both technically (yield
reasonable emission reduction) and otherwise acceptable is quite small.
22
-------
TECHNICAL APPROACH
The relationships between regional emissions, proposed control
measures and r~sultant air qualtiy are multi-dimensional and complex.
To overcome these difficulties it is useful to adopt a systematic approach
)r framework.
Such an approach offers a logical structure for developing
solutions to complex socio-economic technical problems.
A three-phased approach was utilized in conducting the Phoenix-Tucson
transportation control study.
. Survey of emissions inventory and air quality data
. Formulation of an air quality strategy simulation model
. Public attitude survey on potential transportation control
measures
Estimates of baseline (1969) emissions and air quality were obtained
from the Arizona State Implementation Plan and other public and private
sources.
An analysis of the relevant data set revealed large
potential variances in the basic estimates.
The existence of such
uncertainties underscored the need for caution in assessing and inter-
preting the derived results.
The formulation of an air quality simulation model provided the
vehicle for systematically evaluating the merits of a variety of pro-
posed control measures.
Many of the elements included in the model came
from ongoing or existing programs.
Figure 1 presents a schematic
description of the simulation model.
The model ,tilizes estimates of
current and future vehicle demographic and emission data in developing
estimates of future air quality.
Also included is a description of the
stationary sources for the region.
Two different methods (Simple
Rollback and Semi-Diffusion) are used in making air quality forecasts.
The model can be used to determine the sensitivity of inputs and
23
-------
assumptions of estimated outcomes.
This last capability becomes
exceedingly important due to the basic uncertainty of the de I.
The Phoenix Attitude Survey was carried out in an attempt to verify and
validate the acceptability of any proposed plan.
Although by no means
comprehensive the survey does provide meaningful insight into the
public's general attitude regarding air pollution control.
The survey
also yields cost estimates in what the public would support in the way
of added controls.
Taken collectively, these three elements constitute a first step
in better understanding the air pollution problem in the Phoenix area
and for identifying viable alternatives for control.
None of the above elements, and especially the forecasting model,
account for the impact of large changes in the growth and development
patterns of the Phoenix area.
Furthermore, they do not consider the
implications of technological transportation breakthroughs and/or their
application for Phoenix.
Consequently, results derived and discussed
from this analysis should be viewed within this context.
The following presents a list of the main ground rules and
assumptions used in developing the proposed transportation control
strategy.
. Forecasts were made using maximum observed concentration
levels for the baseline year. Since current EPA rules
allow the standard to be exceeded once per year, use of
the second highest observed maximums would yield the same
level of future air quality with fewer controls.
. Forecasted air quality concentration levels which were
within ten (10) percent of standard were assumed to
be within standard.
24
-------
. Forecasted air quality concentration levels which were
within the uncertainty band of standard were assumed
to approach the standard.
. The air quality baseline data used in making forecasts is
representative of the greater Phoenix area. (Consideration
should be given to using time averaging concepts in developing
representative air quality data for the area,)
. Regional variations on the effectiveness of the various
vehicular oriented control measures is small.
. The emission inventory data for 1969 is consistent with
the observed air quality.
. The results obtained from'the Phoenix Attitude Survey re-
flect an accurate assessment of the public's view on
potential transportation control.
25
-;
-------
VEH ICLE
DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA
N
m
VEHICLE POPULAT ION
MODEL
(PRED ICTS POPULAT ION
DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
FUTURE YEARS.)
CONTROL MEASURE EVALUATION
METHODOLOGY
CONTROL MEASURE
DATA
o VEHICLE MILES
TRAVELED
o AVERAGE SPEED
o EMISSION REDUCTIONS
BASELINE AIR
QUALITY AND
EMISS ION
DATA
VEHICLE EMISSIONS
MODE L
(DETERMINES EXPECTED
EMISS IONS FROM
VEHICLES.)
ROLL BACK MODEL
(ESTIMATES AIR QUALITY
BASED ON COMPARISON
OF FUTURE AND PAST
EMISSIONS.)
VEHICULAR
EMISSION
DATA
ST ATiONARY
SOURCE
DATA
Figure 1. Schematic of Air Quality Simulation Model
-------
The report begins with a detailed description of air quality, emission
sources, and the existing transportation system.
Following that, the report
deals with an assessment of various transportation control measures and the
prediction of future air quality.
Next, the procedures and time schedule
required for implementing the control plan are discussed along with the
developed surveillance program.
Finally, a set of conclusions and recom-
mendations are put forth which summarize the findings of the study and
focus attention on future courses of action.
v
-------
CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
The development of a viable strategy for improving air quality in
the Phoenix area represent~ the key elements of this study.
Developing a comprehensive plan requires a basic, understanding of the
existing air quality problem. This section focuses on the nature and
extent of the problem. Quantitative estimates of current and forecasted
concentration levels are presented along with selected air quality data.
Secondly, it identifies and discusses a broad spectrum of alternative
policies to control transportation sources of pollution. The spectrum
encompasses technological and non-technological approaches as well as
combinations of both.
Finally, a specific strategy is proposed for ameliorating the air
pollution problem in the Phoenix area.
Included in this are:
1) a definitive description of the strategy. 2) an assessment of its
impact on future air quality. 3) an estimate of the economic and financial
implications, 4) documentation of potential implementation obstacles, and
5) an analysis of alternative measures and strategies.
28
-------
BASELINE ESTIMATES
Figures 2 through 5 show monthly air quality concentration measurements
for Hydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO),
Photochemical Oxidants (Ox), respective1y*.
line year (1969) and for 1971. Although the
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)' and
The data is presented for the base-
concentration levels for 1971
appeared generally lower than for the baseline, this data was not used in
the forecasting process.
This is due primarily to the lack of supportive
emissions inventory data.
As can be seen the maximum concentration
levels for the pollutants occur at different times of the season (i.e.,
HC in October, CO in January, N02 in November and 0xin June). The
seasonal variation in concentration levels obviously compounds the problem
of identifying effective control measures. The problem is further
aggravated due also to diurnal variation in these pollution concentrations
(see Appendix C for plots of Diurnal Concentration Data).
The observed data in Figure 6 further illustrates improvements in
air quality between the 1969 and 1971 period.
Panels A and B show fre-:
quency distributions of the days the standard was exceeded for CO and
o . respectively. This obvious distinction between the 1969 and 1971
x
measurements clearly emphasizes the need for utilizing the latest air
quality data in forecasting concentration levels. The utilization of
data over 10 years old in forecasting 1980 air quality is clearly mar-
ginal.
Furthermore, the use of these estimates in formulating policy
cannot be justified.
*Values plotted are monthly averages of hourly concentrations.
29
-------
Estimates of future air quality were made using the air quality
model. Results of these simulations for the baseline case (assuming the
continuation of ongoing and current planned program but without added
transportation controls) are presented in Table 2. Also shown are the
National and State standards. A comparison of the forecasted results
with these standards indicates the need for additional strategy control
for CO (8-Hr max), N02 and Ox' Two estimates are presented for the CO
(8-Hr max). The first one is based on the baseline values given in the
Arizona State Implementation Plan while the other represents the value
confirmed by this study.
,The relative importance of the various emissions categories in terms
of their impact on baseline air quality are shown in Tables 3 through 6
for HC, CO, N02 and Ox' respectively. The estimated values for 1975 and
1977 are based on the following assumptions:
.
Continuation of the Federal New Car Program
MAGTPP Five Year Program
.
.
FAA Jet Aircraft Retrofit Program
Hydrocarbon Proc~s Losses Control
.
.
Other Traffic Improvement Programs
Normal Vehicle Attrition
.
.
Forecast of Continued Vehicle Population Growth
30
-------
3000
CONCENTRAT ION
f.J.G/M3
1000
o
JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
MONTH
OCT NOV DEC
Figure 2.
COMPARISON OF YEARLY TOTAL HC VARIATION IN PHOENIX IN 1969 AND 1971
(MCHD DATA)
(Values Plotted are Monthly Averages of Hourly Concentrations)
31
-------
12
CONCENTRATION
MG/M3
4
1971
2
o
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
MONTH
SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure 3.
COMPARISON OF YEARLY CO VARIATION IN PHOENIX IN 1969 AND 197.]
(MCHD DATA)
t Values Plotted are Monthly Averages of Hourly Concentrations)
32
-------
100
CONCENTRATION
I1G/M3
80
1969
70
60
50
1971
30
20
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 00
MONTH
NOV DEC
Fi gure 4.
COMPARISON OF YEARLY N02 VARIATION IN PHOENIX IN 1969 AND 1971
(MCHD DATA)
(Values Plotted are Monthly Averages of Hourly Concentratio"s )
'33
-------
20
196'
60
50
CONCENTRATION
liG/M3
1971
10
JAN
FEB
MAR APR
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
MONTH
OCT NOV
DEC
Figure 5.
COMPARISON OF YEARLY Ox VARIATION IN PHOENIX IN 1969 AND 1971
(MCHD DAT A)
( Values Plotted are Monthly Averages of Hourly Concentrations)
34
-------
CO (l-HOUR) CONCENTRATI ONS
1969 c:J
1971 K'","'''I
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - I--- -
- - ~- -
I
, I "
10
9
8
--.I
c:(
Z
a 7
......
I-
c:(O
z: lLJ
0 6
V) lLJ
>- lLJ
c:( U
Ox
lLJ 5
I..L.
a 0
c:::
c:::c:( 4
lLJO
co Z
::EC:(
=>1-
Z V) 3
2
10
9
8
--.I
c:(
Z 7
a
......
I-
c:(O
ZlLJ 6
o
V) lLJ
>- lLJ
c:( u 5
ox
lLJ
I..L.
ao
c::: 4
C:::c:(
lLJO
co Z
::EC:(
=> I- 3
Z V)
2
o
JAN
o
JAN
FEB
MAR
JUL
AUG
PANEL A
SEPT
OCT
DEC
APR
MAY
JUN
HOiHH
NOV
PANEL B
1969 D
1971 t....1
SEP
OCT
Ox CONCENTRATIONS
FEB
MAR
Figure 6. COMPARISON OF 1969 AND 1971 AIR QUALITY DATA
35
-------
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF PHOENIX AIR QUALITY DATA
NATIONAL STATE NATIO~L 1975 1977 197B 1980
AMBIENT AMBIENT SAMPLE 1969 MEASURED FORECASTED FORECASTED FORECASTED FORECASTED
POLLUTANT STANDARDS STANDARDS BASIS MAX MAX MAX MAX MAX
1 0 MG/M~ 7 MG/M3 8-HR MAX 3B/47 MG/M3 25/31 20/25 18/21 14/18
CO 40 MG/M 40 MG/M3 1-HR MAX 58 MG/M3 40 3~ 28 23
PHOTOCHEMICAL 160 IlG/M3 80 IlG/M3 300 IlG/M3 233 226 224 219
w OXIDANTS 1-HR MAX
0'1
HYDROCARBONS 160 IlG/M3 80 ]JG/M3 3-HR MAX 13 IlG/M3 6.6 5.9 5.7 5.5
(6-9 AM)
100 IlG/M3 227 214 208
NOx 100 ]JG/M3 ANNUAL 168 IlG/M3 254
ARITH
MEAN
-------
Table 3. RELATIVE EMISSIONS OF NONMETHANE
HYDROCARBONS BY SOURCE CATEGORIES
(Sample Basis: 3-Hour Average)
1969 1975 1977
Emissions Emissions Emissions
(Per Cent (Per Cent (Per Cent
Source Category of Total) of Total) of Total)
Uncontrolled Vehiclesa 29.7 12.4 7.6
Contro 11 ed Vehi cl es b 6.4 7.4 6.5
Post-1970 Vehicles Negligible 14.9 14.5
Heavy-Duty Vehicles 11 .1 19.9 21.6
Crankcase & Evaporative 26.1 18.1 14.7
Losses
Filling Stations 4.3 11.6 16.2
Diesel Vehicles Negligible Negligible Negligible
Metallurgical Processes Negligible Negligible Negligible
Industrial Processes Negligible Negligible Negligible
Aircraft 3.8 1.9 2.4
Bulk Fuel Terminal 3.6 7.0 8.7
Open Burning Dumps Negligible Negligible Negligible
Power Plants 0.6 1.8 2.5
Process Losses 14.5 4.3 5.3
Total 100% 100% 100%
Note:
All values in this table are for the baseline case; i.e., no control measures
recommended in this report have been applied.
a Pre-1968 vintage
b 1968 through 1970 vintage
37
-------
Table 4. RELATIVE EMISSIONS OF CARBON
MONOXIDE BY SOURCE CATEGORIES
(Sample Basis: 8-Hour Average)
1969 1975 1977
Emissions Emissions Emissions
(Per Cent (Per Cent (Per Cent
Source Category of Total) of Total) of Total)
Uncontrolled Vehiclesa 59.2 22.0 14.9
Controlled Vehiclesb 16.4 19.9 19.5
Post-1970 Vehicles Negligible 27.7 29.5
Heavy-Duty Vehicles 17.5 28.7 33.8
Crankcase & Evaporative Negligible Negligible Negligible
Losses
Filling Stations Negligible Negligible Negligible
Diesel Vehicles Negligible Negligible Negligible
Metallurgical Processes 0.4 0.7 1.0
Industrial Processes Negligible Negligible Negligihle
Aircraft 2.1 1.0 1.4
Bulk Fuel Terminal Negligible Negligible Negligible
Open Burning Dumps 4.4 Negligible Negligible
Power Plants Negligible Negligible Negligible
Process Losses Negligible Negligible Negligible
Total 100% 100% 100%
Note:
All values in this table are for the baseline case; i.e., no control measures
recommended in this report have been applied.
a Pre-1968 vintage
b 1968 through 1970 vintage
38
-------
Table 5. RELATIVE EMISSIONS OF CARBON
MONOXIDE BY SOURCE CATEGORIES
(Sample Basis: l-Hour Average)
1969 1975 1977
Emissions Emissions Emissions
(Per Cent (Per Cent (Per Cent
Source Category of Total) of Total) of Tota 1)
Uncontrolled Vehiclesa 62.6 22.1 15.0
Controlled Vehiclesb 17.3 20.1 19.7
Post-1970 Vehicles Negligible 27.9 29.8
Heavy-Duty Vehicles 18.5 28.9 34.1
Crankcase! Evaporative Negligible Negligible Negligible
Losses
Filling Stations Negligible Negligible Negligible
Diesel Vehicles Negligible Negligible Negligible
Metallurgical Processes 0.3 0.4 0.6
Industrial Processes Negligible Negligible Negligible
Aircraft 1.3 0.6 0.8
Bulk Fuel Terminal Negligible Negligible Negligible
Open Burning Dumps Negligible Negligible Negligible
Power Plants Negligible Negligible Negligible
Process Losses Negligible Negligible Negligible
Total 100% 100% 100%
Note:
All values in this table are for the baseline case; i.e., no control measures
recommended in this report have been applied.
a Pre-1968 vintage
b 1968 through 1970 vintage
39
-------
Table 6. RELATIVE EMISSIONS OF NITROGEN
OXIDES BY SOURCE CATEGORIES
(Sample Basis: Annual Arithmetic Mean)
1969 1975 1977
Emissions Emissions Emissions
(Per Cent (Per Cent (Per Cent
Source Category of Total) of Total) of Total)
Uncontrolled Vehiclesa 21.1 2.6 1.6
Controlled Vehiclesb 19.6 5.6 4.9
Post-1970 Vehicles Negligible 15. 1 14.9
Heavy-Duty Vehicles 15.5 9.8 12.7
Crankcase & Evaporative Negligible Negligible Negligible
Losses
Filling Stations Negligible Negligible Negligible
Diesel Vehicles 10.2 6.3 8.1
Metallurgical Processes Negligible Negligible Negligible
Industrial Processes 5.8 3.5 4.5
Aircraft 2.6 1.6 2.0
Bulk Fuel Terminal Negligible Negligible Negligible
Open Burning Dumps 1.1 Negligible Negligible
Power Plants 24.1 55.6 51.2
Process Losses Negligible Negligible Negligible
Total 100% 100% 100%
Note:
All values in this table are for the baseline case; i.e.. no control measures
recommended in this report have been applied.
a Pre-1968 vintage
b 1968 through 1970 vintage
40
-------
CONTROL MEASURE ASSESSMENT
A wide range of ~romising control measures was assessed during the
course of the analysis. Table 7 presents a list of general measures
considered for this study.
Broadly speaking, these measures can be
classified into two major areas:
vehicle population control.
1) vehicle emission control and 2)
Measures common to the first category are vehicle inspection/
maintenance and vehicle retrofit.
emissions on a per vehicle bases.
These programs are designed to reduce
They are generally easier t9 charac-
terize in terms of performance and cost than programs designed to reduce
vehicle travel.
However, they normally yield, on the average, less
emission reduction results than many of the more restrictive population
control programs.
Population oriented programs are designed to reduce 'emission levels
from the aggregate vehicle fleet. These include improvements in the
traffic system, acceleration of attrition of older vehicles and vehicle
travel reductions.
Basically, there are three ways to ~educe the total
amount of motor vehicle travel within a metropolitan area:
regulation,
pricing, and demand shift to other transportation modes.
The following presents some discussion on the salient features of each
of the control measures listed in Table 7.
41
-------
Table 7.
CANDIDATE CONTROL MEASURES
Vehicular Oriented
Vehicle Population Oriented
. Traffic System Improveme~ts
. Inspection/Maintenance
. Retrofi t
. Fuels Modification
. Vehicle Exchange
Vehicle Travel Reduction
. Lowering Reid Vapor Pressure
. Replacing Reactive Hydrocarbons
. Regulation
- Limited Registration
. Lead Removal
- Fuel Rationing
. Gaseous Fuel Conversion
- Travel Rationing
- Parking Limitations
- Free Zones
- Work Schedule Shifts
. Pricing
- Increase Cost of Ownership
~ Increase Fuel Taxes
. Demand Shift
- Improve Mass Transit Service
- Slow Traffic Improvements
42
-------
Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance
A program of mandatory vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) repre-
sents one short term approach for controlling exhaust emissions from auto-
mobiles.
A program of I/M
is in principle, a simole yet adaptive
approach which has an effect on all vehicles in the population.
Automotive
emission control through
I/M can be accomplished by employing anyone of
a number of basic procedures.
In general, an I/M program requires a
periodic inspection of each vehicle in the population to determine whether
or not it conforms to existing emissions standards or manufacturer speci-
fications.
Those vehicles failing the inspection procedure are required
to undergo subsequent maintenance to return their emission levels to
acceptable levels.
All cars, both old and new, feel the direct impact of
this control approach.
The State of Arizona presently has underway a three-part vehicle
inspection and testing program.
Part One involves the erection of a
prototype inspection station and testing laboratory for engineerina and
technical evaluation of various inspection and maintenance procedures
(scheduled in July 1972).
Part Two calls for the initiation of a man-
datory vehicle emission inspection program in Phoenix Intra-State Region
(to begin in J~iy 1973).
Finally,
Part Three expands the program to a
statewiue basis beginning July 1975.
While specific inspection and maintenance
procedures have not been defined,the selection of a state lane emission
test program appears most appropriate.
Cost effective studies have shown
that a yearly exhaust emission inspection under load, followed as necessary
by corrective maintenance yields optimal
results.
The most cost effective
maintenance treatment involves the adjustment and/or replacement of the
following engine components:
idle air/fuel ratio, ignition (misfire), air
43
-------
cleaner and PCV.
Since maintenance plays the key role in a mandatory pro-
gram, steps should be taken to improve the overall reliability and unifor-
mity of service garage performance.
of mechanics.
One such step could be the licensing
11M has the advantage of having a fairly predictable impact on emissions
Since it is a compulsory program it does not depend upon any unpredictable
behavioral response patterns on the part of vehicle owners.
The require-
ment of periodic 11M together with knowledge of the vehicle population
characteristics is sufficient to predict the control impact with a reason-
able degree of accuracy.
It is important to recognize, however, that a compulsory program would
still not impact equally on all owners from an economic standpoint.
Since
it is a strategy that focuses on older cars and those whose owners are less
ltkely to maintain them to high ~tandards, the economic burden of 11M would
fall proportionately more on lower income than high income groups.
individuals also typically have few alternatives in terms of either
These
public transporation or the purchase of a newer vehicle.
What 11M may re-
quire then is a set of partially offsetting public subsidies such as:
a)
b)
State or Federal tax deductibility.
Prorated cost based on income with the balance covered from
general tax revenues which would be obtained through a pro-
gressive tax structure.
Welfare assistance.
c)
44
-------
There is a need in this strategy design for utilizing an equitable distri-
bution of the financial burden according to ability to pay while retaining
control tactics which discriminate against high emission vehicles.
Other relevant economic concerns relate to the costs of maintenance.
The short run elasticity of maintenance capacity is fairly low. This
means then that the initiation of an 11M program will lead to inflated
mechanic and repair costs for everyone, not only the individual who is
forced by 11M to maintain his car to a higher than desired standard.
This is likely to create general concern among the public regarding the
reliability of the strategy and may necessitate public policy designed
to eliminate or at least lessen the short run maintenance shortage.
4~
-------
Retrofit Systems
A retrofit program has some of the same characteristics as inspection/
maintenance.
It is even more of a short run strategy since it focuses
on older cars that, due to attrition, are likely to account for only a
minor portion of vehicle population by the mid-1970's.
For that group,
though, predictability of control effectiveness is high so that the
reduction achieved by retrofit can be known to within reasonable limits.
The distributional effects of retrofit are even clearer than for
inspection/maintenance.
Since it focuses purely on precontrol vehicles,
its costs would be born primarily by lower income groups.
Without any
offsetting subsidy program, the discriminatory economic impact of retro-
fit, compared with its purely short run effects, may negate its general
attractiveness.
An estimate of the average cost of retrofit can be obtained quite
easily.
This figure ranges from about 30 to 50 dollars/year including
both proration of the initial purchase and installation cost and esti-
mate of direct costs of operation and maintenance.
If this cost were
averaged over the entire vehicle population, it woula not differ signi-
ficantly from the overall average cost of inspection/maintenance.
this masks the very real distributional questions mentioned above.
Again,
above.
46
-------
Presented below is a brief discussion of the technical and economic
elements of the various systems.
For this study, the values used for
average emission reduction per vehicle were adopted from EPA estimates.
Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
A highly attractive approach. Reductions of HC and NOX of from 30%
to 50% have been demonstrated. There are no durability problems unless
override mechanisms are included. Even with overrides durability should be
good.
Driveability and fuel economy will deteriorate moderately on average.
However. some vehicles may have sizeable fuel economy reductions (perhaps
20%).
Costs. including labor and simple override mechanisms. should be
from $15 to $30. Overheating is hot climates and reported exhaust valve
burning are possibilities which need to be investigated more thoroughly.
Lean Idle Setting
Has good possibilities except for a high probability of owner or
mechanic tampering.
Fair to low reductions in HC and CO can be expected
depending on the average state of the population (5% to 20%). The only.
durability problems would be due to carburetor deterioration (fuel
deposits) and the above mentioned tampering due to an expected decrease
in idle quality. to which most owners are sensitive.
Fuel economy should
improve only very slightly on average (5% would be good). The cost should
be nominal - $3 to $6.
The ease of performing this modification i~ theo-
retically simple. but mechanic ability and instrumentation limitations
in the field indicate that 50% performance is presently a high estimate.
Exhaust Catalysts
Oxidizing catalysts are now avilable which offer substantial reductions
in HC and CO (maybe up to 90%).
Dual bed catalysts (oxidizing plus reducing)
47
-------
are currently being developed which also offer reductions in NOX (maybe
50%). At least for the case of the oxidizing catalyst, the reductions
in emissions are not realized until warm-up has taken place. The greatest
concern with catalyst durability is poisoning due to even low levels of
lead, phosphorous, and sulfur in currently available fuels.
Another
possible problem, with catalyst being installed on older and probably
very dirty vehicles, is extreme heat being generated causing damage to
either the catalyst and its container or nearby vehicle components.
The
cost of catalysts will probably come down substantially as they become
production items in 1975.
Estimates of retail prices range from $40 to
$90.
Installation should be easy and almost fool-proof.
Air Bleed
In general, a "well designed" air bleed will accomplish about the
same reductions as a lean idle setting (see above), or leaner carburetor
jets.
Durability should be no problem, driveability would suffer, instal-
lation should be generally easy, and cost should be low.
Basic Timing Retard
This would offer the same benefits as VSAD (see above) except that
reductions would be lower unless timing is retarded severely (on the
order of 10 to 15 degrees). The penalties would also be the same except
that cost would be less ($2 to $4) and owner tampering would be probable.
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
This offers reductions primarily in nitrogen oxides - probably in
the range of 30% to 50%.
OEM installations that are currently in use
have obviously demonstrated 50,000 mile durability.
However, field
experience indicates that high leaded fuels and possibly malfunctioning
48
-------
engines (misfire, carburetor flooding, and oil burners) may cause plugging
Repairs due to plugging should not be too difficult.
certainly expected to suffer - from mild to severe.
Driveability is
Fuel economy is
expected to deteriorate to some degree, also. The retail costs, which
includes installation in this estimate, are expected to range from $40 to
$65.
Installation can be performed with only slight difficulty, provided
minimal training is supplied.
49
-------
Evaporative Emission Control
Evaporative losses from the carburetor and fuel tank account for an
estimated 25% of the average vehicles hydrocarbon emissions (or about
15% of the total hydrocarbon emissions in the Phoenix area). Additionally,
evaporative losses from gasoline marketing (filling automobile tanks and
service station tanks) constitute another 5% of the total.
Control of
evaporative losses from automobiles has been in effect nationally since
1971.
The cost of controlling operating losses from older vintage cars
(pre-1971) with "add-on" hardware devices appears prohibitive.
However,
a substantial reduction can be achieved through the reduction of low
volatility gasoline.
Studies have shown [23, 24J that a 2.0 psi reduction
in Reid vapor pressure (from 9.0 to 7.0) would reduce evaporative emissions
by more than 30%.
It appears that public acceptance of low volatility
gasoline will be satisfactory.
Such a reduction may increase the photochemical reactivity of the
evaporated hydrocarbons, depending on the type of process change made at
the refinery.
However,studies indicate [23, 34, 37J that this change is
small and that it does not strongly affect the efficacy of this increase.
In addition, other refinery process changes (typically involving sub-
stitution of certain C4 and C5 hydrocarbons) which reduce the reactivity
per gram of the gasoline product may be made at the same time the RVP is
lowered.
The ultimate effect would be a double reduction in reactive
hydrocarbon evaporative emission.
Several methods have been proposed for
determining reactivity scales based on constitnent hydrocarbons [37, 38,
39J.
50
-------
Effective control of evaporative marketing losses is also well within
the current state of technology.
For the gasoline tank, the most straight-
forward approach involves a vacuum return line from the pump nozzle to the
storage tank.
This allows the vapor accumulated in the gas tank to flow
back to the storage tank or recovery unit instead of venting to the
atomosphere. Approximately 70% of the vehicles on the road (mostly domes-
tic) can be serviced from one adaptive pump nozzle.
Such an approach
would recover about 70% of tank filling vapors upon the installation of the
appropriate hardware became standardized.
Recovering evaporative losses from auto gas tank filling and from
(either during filling operation or normal venting) can be accomplished
with a condenser or a charcoal canister device which absorbs excess vapors.
Vapors accumulated in the underground storage tanks are displaced back to
the fuel supply truck during each delivery (closed system).
Recovery of
the vapors in the supply truck is accomplished at the fuel supply terminal.
Regeneration of the charcoal canisters and condenser units should also be
undertaken at the fuel supply depot.
Figures 7 and 8 depict schematically
the principle characteristics of the two most promising sys.tems for control-
ling marketing losses while Figure 9 shows present and proposed standards
for regulating maximum Reid vapor pressure of gasoline.
(Note that the
lower RVP standard is proposed only during spring, summer, and fall months -
- the period during which Ox standards are exceeded in Phoenix.)
51
-------
RELIEF
VALVE
U'1
N
TOP CAPS CLOSED
\
~
-- -~
lHOW'S iHE ')
.. ~ ~~~~~J
-' -- --- ..-J
. ~~
~
_.~-
"
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE
TANK
......
~
VAPOR RETURN
AND
RECOVERY SYST EM
BASELINE /
SYSTEM
Pigure 7. VAPOR RETURN AND RECOVERY SYSTEM FOR EVAPORATIVE LOSS CONTROL
-------
tTI
W
RE LI EF
/ VALVE
ADSORBER OR
CONDENSER SYSTEM
I
PUMP
000
= 00
--
"
t
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE
TANK
-.....
-.-
~
BASELINE /
SYSTEM
Figure 8. AD SORBER OR CONDENSER SYSTEM FOR EVAPORATIVE LOSS CONTROL
-------
"'T'J
-'.
(Q
s::: "'T'J
-s
CD
~
~
"
:;0
IT1
VI
IT1 »
:z
-I
)::>
:z
0 ~
"
:;0
0
"
0 '-
VI
U1 IT1 ~
""" 0
:;0 ...,.
IT1 ::t:: '-
.....
o
<:
)::>
" »
o
:;0
"
:;0
IT1 VI
VI
VI
c:
:;0
IT1
VI a
-I
)::>
:z
0
)::> Z
:;0
0
0
'-
MAXIMUM REID VAPOR PRESSURE - PSI
a
'-
01
o
01
1 I I r . I , I . " I I
_J -
I
I
I
I
I
.------- -
I
I
;
I
I :
I
I !
I i
I
"" I
:;0:;0
am I
"VI
am
VlZ !
m-l
OVI ----,
VI-I I
-I»
»Z I
ZO 1_-_-
0»
»:;0
:;00
0 ------,
I
I
I
-------
Gaseous Fuel Conversion
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) has been used as an automotive fuel
for many years, usually because it provided an economic advantage.
LPG
is available in limited quantities in urban areas across the nation.
About 300,000 LPG-powered vehicles are estimated to be in operation at
this time.
Natural gas is also used as a motor fuel and has greater capabilities
for reducing emissions than LPG.
Natural gas is used in two forms;
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Compressed (CNG).
Gaseous-fueled vehicles
are currently being operated experimentally throughout the country, mostly
using CNG.
Components for conversion to gaseous fuel operation are produced
by several manufacturers.
Some systems are more successful than others
in lowering emissions while maintaining acceptable vehicle driveability.
While gasoline-gaseous dual-fuel systems greatly increase the driving
range of the vehicle and provide a reserve fuel supply for emergencies,
they require compromises for either fuel from performance, fuel con-
sumption and emission standpoints.
The degree of compromise of one fuel
over the other depends on the utilization of the fleet vehicle.
The
operating ranges of vehicles fueled by LPG or LNG are comparable to
gasoline fueled vehicles, but CNG fueled vehicles are usually limited
in range to about 70 miles, although new tank designs have increased
the range to approximately 100 miles.
Due to the limited number of fleet oriented vehicles in the Phoenix
area (the entire state has only about 250 taxi cabs) the conversion to
gaseous fuels does not look particularly attractive.
and distribution further compound the problem.
Questions of
55
-------
Traffic System Improvements
This approach is designed to improve traffic flow by upgrading the
City of Phoenix traffic signal system to operate under dirr t computer
control. A 1971 study by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company recommended
modification of the existing system, comprised of some 240 signalized in-
tersections, to accept direct computer control. This would provide un-
limited timing options, increased traffic responsiveness and system expand-
ibility. According to the PMM report, the computerized control system,
even if the Papago Freeway were not completed by 1977, would result in a
reduction in travel time on the streets affected of 8.5 percent, or in
other words, would increase average travel speed by 8.5 percent.
If the
Papago Freeway were completed, the travel time reduction or speed increase
on the affected streets would be 6.5 percent.
These changes would affect
some 1.95 million vehicle miles of operations on the average day.
However,
travel time studies (Valley Area Traffic and Transportation Study, Report
No.7) indicate that less than 20 percent of the operations on the urban
major and urban collector streets affected by the signal system improve-
ment are in the critical range below 20 miles per hour.
Thus, the impa~t
of the system in terms of emission reduction is likely to be small.
Implementation is programmed for Fiscal Year 1972/1973.
System cost
of $750,000 will be funded through TOPICS program.
The City of Phoenix
has a well qualified and efficient Department of Traffic Engineering which
will operate and maintain the system.
Numerous other projects designed to improve traffic flow in the area
thr9ugh operational improvements such as channelization, signalization,
intersection widenings, addition of lanes and provisions of grade separa-
tions, are programmed for completion during the period of concern.
56
-------
Under the auspices of the Maricopa Association of Government Trans-
portation Planning Program, a five-year program, 1972 through 1977, for
transportation facilities improvements by all jurisdictions in the area
has been prepared. Of the $400 million program, $306.5 million is
allocated to construction of 26.1 miles of new freeway facilities and
is considered separately.
An additional $53.1 million is devoted
to drainage, pavement resurfacing and other elements not directed to
traffic flow improvements. Some $38.6 million over the FY 1972-73 period
is allocated to traffic flow improvements such as channelization, signal-
ization and widening. These latter projects will affect a total of some
79 miles of streets and highways excluding the City of Phoenix computer-
ized signal system described previously.
The subject projects are pro-
grammed, priority-ranked improvements of the MAGTPP component jurisdictions.
Project costs have been estimated and anticipated funding sources have been
determined.
While the individual projects included in this program are likely
to have significant localized impact on traffic flow, the impact on area-
wide average travel speed is likely to be quite small, probably on the
order of about 2 to 3 miles per hour.
Such a change will. likely result
in only marginal reductions in emissions.
57
-------
Vehicle Exchange Program
This is another strategy aimed at controlling emissions of older
vehicles, only now their actual retirement would be publicly encouraged.
The existence of a fleet of state-owned vehicles which is. turned over
every few years creates a car pool which could be transferred in priciple
to owners of older cars in return for their retirement. This plan is,
nowever, fraught with several problems.
First, the potential vehicle pool is limited by the needs of the state
and would therefore represent only a small percentage of the total vehicle
population.
Its impact on the population characteristics would then be
small. Second, give~ a limited number of vehicles available, they would
have to be rationed among potential "trades" through some mechanism to
maximize the number of old vehicles eliminated and thus to maximize the
reduction in emissions.
But any non-price mechanism would necessarily lead
to "winners" and "losers" and a politically undesirable situation.
It is
therefore not clear that an efficient mechanism for rationing the vehicles
could be established that would be free of undesirable political overtones,
particularly in light of the program's modest potential for reducing emis-
sions.
Limited Second Vehicle Registration
In general, vehicle use restrictions are socially and politically dif-
ficult strategies to sell for they bring the broader cost/benefit question
of control right down to the fundamental questions of personal mobility.
Our society places a premium on individual mobility and any public action
which restricted this mobility would face strong social and political
opposition, particularly if the benefits of reduced mobility are vague and
uncertain while its costs are all too obvious.
58
-------
Any vehicle use restrictions which might be unnecessary in the long
run could bring about undesirable changes in patterns of work and living
in the short run as individuals attempted to adjust to the new mobility
constraints.
They would particularly discriminate against those individuals
whose short run flexibility in living and business patterns were severely
limited.
In addition, such restrictions would cause modal-mix problems
and impose higher burdens on modes other than private vehicles.
This would
obviously cause short run supply problems in these modes and necessitate
additional capital investment in them in the long run.
59
-------
Pue1/Trave1 Rationing
The rationing of fuel and/or travel represent two of the most severe
measures suggested to date. Although highly quantifiable in context,
they are both socially regressive and the legal status is unclear.
Gasoline rationing could lead to major distortions in the gasoline
market and a black market could develop.
In addition, no good criterion
for rationing is apparent.
It would, therefore, be difficult to
establish rationing on a meaningful and equitable basis.
Gasoline was
rationed on a nation wide basis during World War II.
Gasoline rationing
would have a greater affect on mobility in the Phoenix area today than
it did during the War. A low level of cooperation from the motoring
public should be expected from any gasoline rationing program.
Rationing travel poses: similar problems.
It would be particularly
difficult to enforce.
It would undoubtedly bring about major distortions
in driving behavior that would be socially disfunctional and. could even
weaken the effectiveness of control. Again, no equitable criterion for
determining a distribution of allowable mileage is apparent. particularly
in light of short run inelasticity in living and work patterns and the
large variation in such patterns among the population as a whole. As
with gasoline rationing, distortions in living and work patterns would
be generated with no obvious long run purpose or design. Modal mix
problems would also be accentuated, with the obvious short run supply
problems within alternate modes.
60
-------
Parking Limitations
Control of parking either through pricing policies or by direct
regulation of the availability of spaces has been proposed as a means of
discouraging auto travel to central cities for purposes of VMT reductions.
However, a number of factors limit the potential effectiveness of this
potential application in Phoenix.
Price elasticity of parking demand is not well documented.
But
experience in cities with close parking supply-demand relationships and
high parking fees (daily rates on the order of $2 to $3 or more)
indicates that parking demand (auto use) is insensitive to price to a
high degree.
Where parking controls (pricing or availability limitation) are in
force, the tendency is for motorists to drive to«.the boundary of the
restricted district and park there. This is particularly true in areas
where a high level of public transit service is not or cannot be pro-
vided as an alternative to auto usage. The result would still be
desirable if the problem were a localized hot spot but in Phoenix the
problem is area wide and virtually all the CBO travellers' VMT has been
generated by the time they reach the boundaries of the restricted district.
Parking pricing or reduced availability schemes could reduce central
district property values and negatively affect central area retail trade.
Over time this may reinforce the tendency to decentralized development
of retail and employment activities, increasing auto travel and
decreasing the potential for transit usage.
An additional negative impact of parking availability limitation is
that additional VMT may be generated in the CBO by vehicles circling blocks
(at low speeds which produce disproportiona11y high emissions) seeking the
scarce spaces.
61
-------
However, most damning in the Phoenix context is the fact that CBD
oriented travel constitutes such a small percentage of regional travel that
even if 100 percent of the VMT generated by travel to and from that area
were eliminated, only a marginal reduction in area wide VMT could be
identified.
Despite all the factors which limit their effectiveness, pro-
grams to restrict parking in major activity centers are assessed as having
positive, although marginal, impact on air quality and emission reductions.
Some measures which could be implemented in Phoenix, but for which no
emission reduction credit has been taken, include:
. Strict enforcement of all existing parking regulations
. Elimination of preferential rates for all-day parking
. Elimination of free parking for state and city governmental
employees
. Adopt regulations to control development and pricing of
off street parking
. Higher metered parking rates
Vehicle Free Zones
This approach bans motor vehicles from a single street (pedestrian
mall treatment) or from a more extensive area such as the central business
district.
Bans could apply to all vehicles or selected vehicle types.
Banning some or all motor vehicles from certain areas would obviously
eliminate emissions in these areas.
However, a number of factors reduce
the potential effectiveness of this strategy in Phoenix.
62
-------
In most mall treatments, to maintain the economic vitality of the
area, copious parking is provided accessible from parallel streets.
Thus,
the mall treatment does not generally result in a reduction in auto travel
but, at best, no change in the VMT. Additionally, there is a tendency to
induce congestion on streets adjacent to the mall area.
Emission reduc-
tions resulting from a mall treatment are highly localized and actually
are not emission reductions but shifts of emissions to parallel streets.
The larger scale ban as applied to a whole central business district might
in some cases, produce significant emission reductions.
But public transit
in Phoenix at its current and planned levels of operation would not provide
sufficient service to be the primary access mode if a large portion of the
CBD were closed to motor vehicle traffic.
Substantial provisions for
parking at the fringes of the "vehlcle free" area would be workable but
the only emissions reductions resultant would be from elimination of a
few blocks of travel within the vehicle-free area itself; most of the VMT
on trips destined for the affected area would be run up before reaching
the fringe parking areas.
More remote parking facilities with park and
ride transit operations could counter this problem but the low residential
density in the Phoenix area and the dispersed pattern of trip origins and
destinations makes it difficult to identify corridors for potential park
and ride operation.
Due to the absence of a highly developed radial and circumferential
freeway system, substantial traffic on central Phoenix surface streets is
passing through rather than originating in or destined for the central
area.
Traffic bans over a large portion of the central area would tend
to concentrate the through traffic on streets bordering vehicle-free zone
resulting in increased VMT's due to less direct routings and possibly
producing congestion.
(;3
-------
In summary, the emission reduction potential is small and localized in
nature unless an extensive park and ride system can be developed.
Some
emissions increase can be expected due to adverse effect on through trips
using central area surface streets.
Lead time would be required for deve1-
opment of fringe parking and a park and ride system. This can be imp1e-
mented prior to 1977.
Emission reductions would be principally localized
in "Vehicle-Free Zones." Size of the zone is dependent on emission reduc-
tion desired, ability to provide peripheral parking and/or alternative
access modes to maintain economic vitality of the area.
Some congestion
due to concentration of through traffic on fringes can be anticipated.
Large scale Vehicle-Free Zones require internal people movers.
Providing
access on a large scale by conventional bus transit or park and ride is a
difficult problem in Phoenix.
Considerable resistance can be anticipated
from public and business interests in affected area, particularly retailers.
The overall contribution of Vehicle-Free Zones to mobil source emission
reduction is positive.
No reduction credits resulting from this measure
have been taken, as specific proposals for such zones have not been defined.
However. Vehicle-Free Zones are encouraged whenever they respond to other
planning goals and objectives of the community.
Work Schedule Shifts
These strategies produce elements of both flow improvements and vehicle
travel reductions, but since the results are achieved through modifications
in the temporal patterns of business activity rather than through a direct
change in elements of the transportation system, they are treated separately.
Shifts from the conventional five-day work week to a four-day work week
would produce substantial reductions in journey to work travel and, in cases
where it has been tested, has proved cost effective from an employer
64
-------
standpoint in that it has resulted in net productivity increases.
The
four-day week would also result in some traffic flow improvements (with
attendant marginal emission reductions) on Mondays and Fridays, if half the
labor force could take their extra day off on each of these days.
Improve-
ments could be realized on each of the week-days if it were possible and
acceptable to apportion the extra day off evenly.
The four-day work week measure appears to have more potential where
mobile source air pollution problems are related to hot spots near employ-
ment concentrations during peak commuter periods.
In Phoenix, however,
where the problem is primarily regionally oriented, this approach will have
less impact.
This is because total travel in the region on a typical week-
end day is only marginally less than that on the typical midweek day which
it would effectively replace.
Another form of work schedule change is that of staggered work hours --
staggering employment starting and quitting hours.
This would not produce
VMT reductions but, by spreading peak traffic, would result in some flow
improvements.
However, since the Phoenix problem is a total all-day area-
wide emissions problem rather than a concentrated temporal and area problem,
and because flow improvements provide only marginal emission improvements,
this is not seen as a high leverage strategy.
65
-------
Improved Mass Transit Service
As detailed in Appendix D, the Phoenix area is characterized by a
highly dispersed, low-density pattern of development in residential as
well as employment and retail activities.
Concomitant with decentralized
development is a highly dispersed pattern of trip origins and destinations
with scant definition of common travel-desire-line corridors and little
convergence of travel lines on the city center or other activity node. ,
Such a pattern of development and trip making is not well suited
for services by the higher types of public transit service--rail rapid
transit, other forums of fixed guideway systems, and conventional buses
operating on exclusive grade separated rights-of-way, and linear systems are
hereafter referred to generically as rapid transit.
Rapid transit
services are effective only when large numbers of persons can be trans-
ported along a relatively limited number of linear routes, with origins
and destinations in such proximity to stations that door-to-door travel time by
transit is comparable to travel time by auto.
do not exist in Phoenix today.
These prerequisite conditions
The conventional bus transit operation in Phoenix today is well
run and has fairly extensive area coverage ,but the level of service is
designed primarily to meet the basic needs of transit dependent groups
rather than to achieve high levels of choice ridership.
To be sure,
increases in choice ridership could be achieved through provision of
higher levels of service (lower headways, extended route coverage,
extended hours of operations), conventional innovations (such as
exclusive lanes on surface streets, freeway express service, subscription
services, etc.) and cosmetic improvements (air conditioning, provision
of benches and shelters at bus stops, publicity and marketing, etc.).
66
-------
Reductions in VMT which can be achieved through conventional service
improvements are limited, however.
Even with the generous assumption that
all new riders are choice riders (attracted from their autos) rather than
captive riders making new trips and assuming a very low auto occupancy
factor of 1.2 persons per car, a 100 percent increase in current transit
ridership would result in only an approximately four-tenths of one percent
(.0043) decrease in the area VMT total.
An increase over current rider-
ship which would result in a meaningful VMT decrease, say 1,000 percent
is an order of magnitude change, achievable only through an order of
magnitude change in level of transit service (including rapid transit
operation).
Even if such transit facilities could be planned, constructed and
placed in service in the time frame required for meeting the Federal
air quality standards, which they cannot be, the character of the
Phoenix area, as discussed above, is unsuitable for their effective
operation.
One new form of transit operation has proven effective in a limited
number of cities for servicing low density development.
This concept of
flexible-routed, demand-actuated transit service is popularly called Dial-
a-Bus or Dial-a-Ride.
In the limited number of communities in which it
is in operation, Dial-a-Ride has proven a highly attractive form of transit
service.
But it's potential for large scale contribution to area-wide VMT,
hence emission, reduction in Phoenix is limited by the fact that to be
effective, the flexibly-routed, demand-actuated service must be limited to
small, defined service domains.
Thus, a typical work trip of about six
miles might have to transfer between two or three Dial-a-Buses or to a fixed
67
-------
route and then another Dfa1-a-Bus to complete the journey, with patronage
strongly discouraged by each transfer required. The principal vehicle
trips which would be replaced by diversion to Dia1-a-Ride would be short
range trips which within the localized domain of a single Dia1-a-Ride
operation. Despite the fact that VMT reductions which might result from
such operations appear low and no credit is taken for them herein, Dia1-a-
Ride operations are encouraged where they coincide with other community
policy and planning goals and objectives.
Jitney service is a 10ng-stan~ing form of transit operation which
has been proposed in several cities as a measure for attracting transit
ridership and reducing auto traffic and emissions.
It is essentially a
shared-taxi service opetating along a basic fixed route with small
diversions possible and current operations in intense activity corridors
in the larger cities attract high patronage. However, a number of factors
limit the potential for this service as a control measure for the Phoenix
air quality problem:
. There are few, if any, corridors in Phoenix having activity
concentrations sufficient to support Jitney operation.
. A high percentage of typical Jitney riders are diverted from
pedestrian rather than auto mode. Those who are diverted
from autos are typically making very short trips so actual
VMT reduction per pass~nger carried is low.
. Jitney reduction contributions might be identifiable in a heavily
travelled corridor with hotspot concentrations of pollutants.
But in Phoenix, where the problem is area-wide, potential
reduction contribution due to Jitney operation is too small
to quantify.
68
-------
Pricing Schemes
Schemes to reduce VMT through gasoline pricing techniques are highly
ineffective and heavily regressive. The average American spends 9 percent
of his income on transportation and although elasticies of gasoline cost
are not well defined, even major increases, perhaps doubling the price,
do not appear likely to affect consumption.
This is borne out by the
staggering increases in European auto travel with fuel costs double those
in the U.S.
Pricing auto ownership is similarly ineffective. Auto owners have
a fixed investment in their current vehicles and are unlikely to dispose
of them. When purchasing new vehicles they wo~l~ simply buy a cheaper
model new or older used car than they might otherwise purchase.
Pricing
schemes d,'e indiscriminately imposed on all segments of society but the
impact, those who are priced off the road, falls on limited income groups.
Moratorium on Traffic Improvements
Several factors mitigate against schemes to reduce VMT by permitting
traffic service conditions to decay, thereby encouraging shifts to
transit or discouraging auto trips from being made at all. Although
exclusive bus lanes may be provided in some areas, conventional transit
service must generally operate on the same streets as the autos and
would also be negatively impacted.
Experience in most U.S. cities con-
firms the motorists' dogged determinination to drive in spite of seem~
ingly intolerable levels of congestion. And added, to the safety com-
promise which would be implied by a moratorium on traffic improvements
is the fact that going from VMT reductions due to shifts to transit
would be outweighed by pollution increases due to increased auto
operations in the low-speed, high-emission range.
69
-------
New Freeway Construction
New freeway construction appears to offer positive but limited con-
tribution to reduction of mobile source emissions over the period of
concern in this study.
Even if all 26 miles of 1-10 construction
currently programmed for the period were to be completed and serving an
average daily traffic of 50,000 on each mile by 1977, the net change in
area-wide average travel speed would be less than two miles per hour.
Most
of the speed increases would come in speed ranges within which the payoff
in terms of emission reductions is quite marginal.
Thus, while new
freeway construction's contribution to the area-wide air pollution
problem is evaluated as positive, no reduction credit has been taken
because of the marginal nature of the contribution and the high level
of uncertainty that all or any of the proposed construction will be com-
p1eted and in use by 1977.
The above analysis is not intended as a blanket endorsement of the
freeway program in the Phoenix area.
Experience over the past 20 years
in cities nation-wide gives some indication that the dramatic changes in
accessibility which result with opening of new freeways tend.to induce
new and longer vehicle trip making, accelerating the VMT growth rate and
lending further support to a dispersed pattern of development not well
served by public transit, resulting in continued dependence on the
automobile. These impacts, however, are long term in nature, not well
defined, and are not of concern in the immediate study time frame.
However, any overall evaluation of the freeway program must investigate
possible negative long-term impacts on air quality as well as the positive
impacts which have been identified herein.
70
-------
Moreover, the analyses herein have been based on area-wide air
quality considerations.
Planning of each individual element of the free.
way system should include careful evaluation of positive and negative
effects on air quality in the travel corridor affected.
71
-------
PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY
The proposed transportation control strategy developed for the
Phoenix area consists of two phases.
Phase I is designed to accomplish
substantial improvements in air quality for the 1975 through 1980 period.
Based on an analysis of current data (1969), however, additional controls
may be necessary.
Consequently, a Phase II program has been formulated
in order to insure compliance with the standards. The need for imple-
menting Phase II should be based on the results obtained from Phase I.
The measures associated with both phases of the proposed transportation
control strategy are listed below:
Phase I
. Improved air quality surveillance system
. Mandatory vehicle inspection/maintenance for all vehicles
. Retrofit emission control for all pre-1968 vehicles
. Evaporative emission control
Phase II (if necessary)
. Vehicle exchange program
. limited second vehicle registration
A brief description of each measure is presented in the following.
7~
-------
Air Quality S~rveillance System
The surveillance system proposed by this plan uses the existing
system and the system recommended by the Arizona State Implementation Plan
as a foundation for developinq the capability for monitoring Set II
pollutants in the Phoenix-Tucson problem area. The recommendations in
this plan consist mostly of expanding the use of CO and Ox monitors through
the metropolitan area to Drovide for reasonable accuracy in evaluating
peaks and trends in air quality and in assessing the effectiveness of the
implementation plan.
It has been foun~ that sites used or proposed prior
to this plan can generally be used and that they provide an effective
distribution o~ monitors. The approximate cost of e~uipment for the system
proposed in this plan is $24,000 to $33,000.
In addition, the MCHD mobile
lab is regarded as a highly useful means of determining the spread of
pollutant concentration and of identifying the need for longer-term
monitoring and source control.
73
-------
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance
One of the key compon~ts of the transpbrtation control study involves
a mandatory program of vehicle inspection/maintenance.
Such a program will
yield not only moderate emission reductiQn~ from the present vehicle fleet,
but will also insure the proper operation of advanced control systems as
they are introduced into the automobile population.
It is this second
factor that, in the long run, Will have the largest impact on air quality.
The state of Arizona recently passed legislation for a three-phased
inspection/maintenance program.
Funds have been allocated, approximately
one million dollars, for the construction and testing of a prototype system.
Results from this phase will determine the shape of the full program (to be
completed by 1975).
Current studies indicate that the most cost-effective program involves
a yearly exhaust emission inspection unde~ load, followed as necessary by
the adjustment and/or repair of the following engine components: idle air/
fuel ratio, ignition system (misfire), air cleaner, and PCV valve.
Pass/fail
exhaust emission criteria shou1d be established to obtain the necessary
reductions.
A rejection rate of 30 to 40 percent may be required for the
The program should include a certification of service garages
first year.
involved to insure reliable maintenance repair. Any retest of emissions
after maintenance should be made optional.
Extreme care should be taken to
insure consistency in testing between the various state lartes.
Estimates
of potential emission reductions for the total population are 12 percent
for hydrocarbons, 10 percent for carbon monoxide, and 0 percent for oxides
of nitrogen.
These reductions can be achieved for an annual cost of between
$5 and $15 per car.
74
-------
Retrofit Emission Control
The second recommended control measure consists of retrofitting
the pre-1968 portion of the vehicle population.
Basically, there are
two retrofit approaches that are suitable for use in the Phoenix
metropolitan area.
The first one -- Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
(VSAD) -- is particularly attractive for use on older vehicles in
terms of potential emission reduction, cost, reliability and ease of
implementation.
Costs, including labor and a simple override
mechanism, should be from $15 to $30.
Some deterioration in fuel
economy and driveabi1ity will occur on the average.
The other retrofit approach -- Lean Idle Setting (LIS) -- has
good possibilities except for a high probability of owner or mechanic
tampering.
This procedure involves the additional leaning out of the
air/fuel ratio beyond the manufacturer's specification.
The cost per
adjustment should be nominal - $3 to $6 - and fuel economy should
improve slightly on the average.
This modification is theoretically
simple, but present mechanic ability and instrumentation limitations
indicate the need for substantial improvement.
The combined emission reduction potential for both retrofit devices
was computed as 25 percent for HC, 9 percent for CO, and 28 percent
for NO .
x
Again, this is consistent with current EPA estimates.
In order
to insure proper operation of these two systems, especially LIS, it
is suggested that both be incorporated into the annual inspection
program.
75
-------
Evaporative Emission Control
The third element of the transportation plan calls for the control
of evaporative losses.
Vehicle operation (carburetor and gas tank) and
gasoline marketing (gas tank and storage tank filling) represent the two
main sources of Hydrocarbon (HC) evaporative losses in the Phoenix area.
For controlling losses from the in use fleet (pre-197l). it is recommended
that the Reid Vapor Pressure for all gasoline marketed in the Phoenix area
be controlled seasonally. This should yield over a 30 percent reduction
in losses [23. 24J with moderate impact (approximately' l-2~ per gallon
on overall marketing operations [7.32].
Some driveability problems may
occur during start-up. although they should be of a minimal nature [23J.
Several methods are available for controlling evaporative losses
from gasoline marketing.
These include an adaptive pump nozzle. absorber
or condenser system. and/or a vapor return and recovery system.
Approxi-
mately 70 percent of the vehicles on the road (mostly domestic) can be
serviced from one adaptive pump nozzle.
The average costs of equipping
service stations in the Phoenix area with evaporative recovery systems
should run about $2000 per station.
Developmental and distribution problems may limit the availability
of this type of equipment for the near term.
The economic impact of
this control approach should be further investigated.
Vehicle Exchange Program
All things considered. older vehicles (pre-1968) emit higher
emissions per mile than do later model automobiles.
The Vehicle Exchange
Program is designed to take advantage of this situation by limiting the
76
-------
importation of pre-1968 vehicles and by replacing some of the older
vintage cards with newer, lower emitting vehicles. Considerations should
be given to limiting out-of-state vehicle registration for pre-1968 cars
after 31 December 1973. This would have the effect of reducing the
aggregate exhaust emissions by about three percent.
Coupled with this would be a program to replace a segment of the
older in use cars with newer state and local government vehicles.
One
phase of this program would be to increase the rate of turnover of state
owned vehicles to around 50 percent per year.
Based on the current size
of the state fleet, approximately 5000 cars would be available for exchange
with pre-1968 vehicles on a yearly basis.
Criteria for exchange would have to be developed in order to maximize
program effectiveness (including income considerations). This combined
program would be of short-term value, since by 1980 only about three
percent of the vehicle population will consist of pre-1968 automobiles.
The administrative costs of this program should only add a small increment
to ongoing registration costs.
However, the costs associated with
exchanging these vehicles may be on the order of several million additional
dollars annually.
The net effect of both programs in terms of emission reduction
potential should be around six percent.
Limited Second Vehicle Registration
A preliminary assessment of the impact of the foregoing measures on
air quality indicates the potential need for additional vehicle control.
Specifically, it appears that approximately a thirty percent reduction in
77
-------
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (implying a need for an additional thirty percent
quality improvement) may be required to achieve the national standards.
The uncertainty in this estimate is closely related to the uncertainty
in the baseline emissions data and limitations in the method used for
predicting future air quality.
One approach for ensuring such a reduction in VMT is by restricting
the use of second and third family cars. This could be accomplished
through the registration process. but the details and implications of a
specific program would have to be very carefully assessed in terms of the
political. institutional. legal and socio-economic impact on the Phoenix
area. One positive benefit of such a program would be more efficient use
of the family's primary vehicle. which in turn. would tend to encourage
car pooling and some additional use of the mass transit system.
Variances
on this moratorium could be granted if the vehicle were converted to
operate on gaseous fuels.
78
-------
Impact of Proposed Strategy
The impact of these control measures taken singularly and collectively
on air quality is presented in Tables 8 through 10 for CO (8 hour maximum),
N02 and Ox' respectively. These results were developed using the air qual-
ity model (see Appendix G). The CO levels were forecasted using confirmed
maximum values for 1969.
The effect of" these measures on the various pol-
lutants is dramatic.
For example, the Evaporative Emission Control Program
has no impact on CO, but has a substantial effect on photochemical oxidants.
Few, if any, of the vehicular oriented measures have a major effect on CO.
This is due primarily to the lack of cost-effective measures for controlling
co.
Oxidizing catalysts for the in use fleet offer high potential reductions
(maybe 50 percent) for CO; however, the costs of these units may exceed the
market value of the car.
These results also reveal the impact of time on air quantity concen-
trations. Specifically, the forecasted CO level is 16 mg/m3 by 1975 and
9 mg/m3 by 1980. This nearly 50 percent reduction in concentration can be
attributed to both the Federal New Car Program and the proposed Transporta-
tion Control Strategy.
The forecasted concentration levels for N02 and Ox'
although less dramatic, show similar trends.
79
-------
Table 8. 'Impact of Proposed Control Strategy
on Future Phoenix Air Quality
Pollutant: Carbon Monoxide (8 hour maximum) MG/M3
. "Time
Measure 1975 1977 1978 1980
1. Baseline 25 20 18 14
2. Inspection/Maintenance Program (wi th #1) 24 19 17 14
'00 3. R.etrofit Program (with #2) 23 18 16 13
o
4. Evaporative loss Program (with #3) 23 18 16 13
5. Vehicle Exchange Program (with #4) 22 17 15 12
6. Limited Registration Program (with #5) 16 11 10 9
NOTE: The values in this Table were forecasted using the air Quality model described in Appendix G.
-------
Table 9. Impact of Proposed Control Strategy
on Future Phoenix Air Quality
Pollutant: Oxides of Nitrogen (Annual) I1G/M3
Time
Measure 1975 1977 1978 1980
1. Baseline 254 277 214 208
2. Inspection/Maintenance Program (with #1) 254 227 214 208
ex> 3. Retrofit Program (with #2) 252 225 213 208
-'
4. Evaporative Loss Program (with #3) 252 225 213 208
5. Vehi~le Exchange Program (with #4) 255 227 216 209
6. Limited Registration Program (with #5) 213 191 181 178
NOTE: The values in this Table were forecasted using the air quality model described in Appendix, G.
-------
Table 10. Impact of Proposed Control Strategy
on Future Phoenix Air Quality
Pollutant: Photochemical Oxidants (1 hour maximum) ~G/M3
Time
Measure 1975 1977 1978 1980
1. Baseline 233 226 224 219
2. Inspection/Maintenance Program (wi th #1) 231 225 222 214
00 3. Retrofit Program (with #2) 229 224 219 213
N
4. Evaporative Loss Program (with #3) 211 187 180 170
5. Vehicle Exchange Program (with #4) 211 184 176 168
6. Limited Registration Program (with #5) 165 148 144 139
NOTE: The values in this Table were forecasted using the air quality model described in Appendix G.
-------
Obstacles to Implementation
The relative significance of obstacles .to implementation of the
proposed transportation control strategy has been estimated using the
following categories:
Technical obstacles - obstacles involving the design of hardware,
details of administrative procedure, or specification of standards
or acceptance limits necessary for implementing recommended control
measures.
Political obstacles - obstacles involving the feasibility of produc-
tive interaction among appropriate leaders, administrators, legis-
lators, and special interest groups for the purpose of instituting
recommended control measures.
Legal/institutional obstacles - obstacles involving writing and
passing laws, rules, and regulations required for instituting and
administering control measures.
Socio-economic obstacles - obstacles involving the impact of control
measures on the public, commerce, and industry.
In general, there appear to be few significant obstacles that would
limit the implementation for the first three control measures.
Mandatory
inspection/maintenance may encounter a few moderate political obstacles
depending on the eventual shape of the proposed parts of the program.
These obstacles are not expected to be major, since the program has so
far had good public acceptance and generally good political acceptance.
Socio-economic obstacles to the implementation of retrofit emission
control should be of moderate significance, at most.
According to the
citizen survey results done in connection with the Phoenix-Tucson plan
(see Appendix H), the public will generally accept the cost of this program.
There will be some moderate adjustments necessary in local commerce to
provide for supplying retrofit devices.
83
-------
Evaporative emission control should meet only minor legislative and
socio-economic obstacles.
Necessary laws and regulations are easily
specified since there is a large backlog of feasibility studies and
investigations involving this measure, and since at least one local
agency in the country has already instituted requirements for a similar
measure and can serve as a model.
There should be very little socio-
economic impact due to this measure.
The cost of changes in gasoline
refining and marketing will indeed be passed on to the consumer, but the
actual cost increase per gallon should be small.
Public convenience and
vehicle driveability should barely be affected at all; consequently.
minimal public reaction is expected in these areas.
Moderate technical
obstacles will appear in the forms of hardware development and design
for gasoline marketing control systems and of refinery processes and
operation changes required to reduce the RVP of gasoline.
These technical
obstacles will fall generally within the realm of the oil companies which
supply Phoenix with gasoline, since it will be their responsibility to
select technical means for meeting standards for gasoline handling loss
control and RVP.
It is expected that their reaction to the proposal for
the evaporative emission control measure will present a moderate political
obstacle to implementation.
The last two measures should encounter obstacles of major significance
in the categories of socio-economics and politics.
It is expected that
these two programs -- vehicle exchange and limited vehicle registration --
will be the most controversial and will encounter the greatest amounts of
debate, regarding public acceptance and political feasibility, of all
84
-------
measures proposed. One of the largest obstacles to implementation of the
vehicle exchange program is the possibly unpopular implication of social
programs associated with this measure.
For this reason, its implementation
must be carefully planned to insure equitable distribution of exchanged
\
vehicles, and this equity must be visible to the public to minimize socio-
economic and political impact.
The funding for fleet vehicle purchase
presents another major obstacle to implementation, although, as a result
of preliminary investigation, it seems possible that the Federal Revenue
Sharing Program may indirectly provide assistance by providing local
governments with funds which can be used to replace fleet vehicles.
Authorizing legislation and the technical details and mechanics of the
actual exchange of vehicles represent moderately sensitive issues.
The limited vehicle registration program may encounter major legis-
lative, socio-economic, and political obstacles and moderate technical
obstacles.
Laws will be necessary to authorize the State Highway Depart-
ment to administer such a program, and regulations must be adopted which
will dictate exactly what categories of vehicles may not be registered.
Such legislation may significantly impact the socio-economic and political
arenas.
The public will very likely view this measure as a serious
infringement on personal freedom, and it may have virtual ill effects on
convenience and one-family budgets (although the actual effect should be
more efficient use of transportation and resultant decrease in family costs)
85
-------
CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
Included in the following section are the recommendations concerning
the schedule for implementation and legislative, procedural, and adminis-
trative requirements for implementation of the transportation control
strategy.
The actual implementation of this or other related strategies
will depend heavily on Federal assistance. This is especially the case
for the inspection/maintenance and vehicle exchange programs.
Furthermore,
the limited time available for achieving the air quality standards will
require maximum cooperation between the State of Arizona and the EPA.
86
-------
PROCEDURE AND TIME SCHEDULE
The schedule for plan implementation is shown in Table 10. The
table is generally self-explanatory.
It assumes acceptance of the
proposed plan and indicates dates for plan completion, approval, and
necessary legislation. The pollution control measures are listed
separately and dates for their implementation are indicated. The
following are highlights of the implementation schedule:
(1.) Additions to the air quality surveillance system are
to be installed by August 1974, provided that sufficient
EDA funding is available. These are discussed later in
this report.
(2.) Traffic system improvements have already been implemented
and are ongoing. The traffic surveillance system should
be completed by 1 January 1975 and is discussed later in
this report.
(3.) The 11M Program schedule is shown as planned by the ASHD.
This schedule is discussed later in this document.
(4.)
The Retrofit Program will require one year and should
be completed by July 1974. This date allows for the
solution, before 1975, of unforeseen problems which
may occur.
(G.)
(5.) New gasoline filling stations and bulk storage terminals
will be required to have evaporative control systems by
1 January 1974. Stations existing before that time must
submit compliance schedules by 1 July 1974 and must comply
by 1 January 1975. Thus, over one year from the present
date is provided for oil company evaluation of currently
available control systems or for the final development of
current prototype systems.
The reduction in the gasoline RVP standard will become
effective 1 July 1974. This allows several summer
months for verification by ASHD that gasoline piped to
and sold in Phoenix does indeed meet this new standard.
This also means that refineries supplying Phoenix (most
of these are in Texas and California) have over a year
and a half to make process changes necessary for reducing
the RVP of the product.
If Phase II is necessary, funds should be appropriated in
mid- 1974 for the vehicle exchange program. Exchange will
actually begin 1 January 1975 and continue through 1980.
87
-------
Table 11.
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Element
1978
1980
1979
1972
1974
1976
1977
1973
1975
co
co
Phoenix-Tucson Transportation Plan
, Development of plan (completed 31 Dec 72) LJ
, Public hearing on Phoenix Plan (25 Jan 73) f:1
, Board of Health approval of plan (25 Jan 73) f:1
, Plan officially submitted by State to EPA e:.
(15 Feb 73)
Legal Requirements of Plan
, Legal authority to adopt regulations
obtained by Arizona State Board of Health f:1
through stat~ legislation (1 July 73)
, Regulations recommended in Phoenix Plan
adopted by ~oard of Health (31 Dee 73) f:1i
Recommended Additions to Air Quality Surveillance ... ...
System (July 72 to August 74)
Traffic System Modifications
, Traffic signalization improvements (completed ...
July 73)
. MAGTPP 5-yr Prog (72 thru 77)
Deployment of traffic surveillance system I
, A
(July 73 to 1 Jan 75) ,
PHASE I
Inspection/~aintenance Program ,
, Part I - prototype inspection station A A
(July 72 to July 73)
, Part II - mandatory i nspecti on 11ari copa and ...
Pima (July 73 to July 75) A (State Sch dule)
... ... (p oposed S hedule)
-------
Element
Inspection/Maintenance Program (Continued)
.
Part III - mandatory inspection statewide
(beginning July 75)
Retrofit of Pre-196B Vehicles (lean idle
setting & vacuum spark advance disconnect)
(July 73 to July 74)
Gasoline Evaporative Loss Control
. Evaporative control systems required on
new major gasoline marketing facilities
(starting 1 Jan 74)
. Compliance schedule required from
gasoline marketing facilities in
existence before 1 Jan 74 (1 July 73)
\D
. Final date for compliance of gasoline
marketing facilities (1 Jan 75)
. Max
to
PHASE I I
Vehicle
imum gasoline RVP standard reduced
7 PSI (effective 1 July 74)
(If j'lecessary)
Exchange Program
. Funds appropriated by Arizona & Phoenix
to replace fleet vehicles (l July 74)
. Yearly exchange of fleet vehicles for
private pre-196B vehicles and subsequent
deportation of pre-196B vehicles
(effective 1 Jan 75)
Limited Vehicle Registration Program
. No pre-196B vehicles from out of state
allowed to be registered in Arizona
(beginning 1 Jan 75)
Tab 1 e
1972
11.
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Continued)
1973
1974
1975
1976
1979
1977
197B
19BO
( tate Sche u1e) .
(Prop sed Sched le).
+ I
l
,
~
C>
~
~
~.""''''II ........-. """""'1 11-1I...II....n........,.. ......1.1--:
r"""'" "'"'''''''r'''''''''''j'''''''''l'''''''''''r'''''''''''
-------
Table 11.
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Continued)
Element
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Limited Vehicle Registration Program (Continued)
, Moritorium on registration of multiple
vehicles by households .'''..111111. 111111111111 11111111'"''
(1 Jan 75 to 31 Dec 77)
) i
, .
\.~ , )
,
t
KEY
il
Significant milestone
\0
o
..
Beginning or end of action
Action taken
III""'"
Possible action taken
-------
(7.)
The two limited vehicle registration measures, if necessary,
should go into effect with 1975 registration, at the first
of the year. This date allows two years for determining,
from close observation of air quality, whether these measures
are necessary.
91
-------
AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
It is recommended that the Arizona State Department of Health.
Division of Air Pollution Control. be responsible for the general admin-
istration of the Phoenix-Tucson Transportation Control Strategy (see
Figure 10).
The State Department of Health should have supra-management
responsibility for the following:
1. Administration of contract and grant programs related to the
transportation control strategy.
2.
Coordination of air pollution control programs which involve
multi-county areas.
Representation of Arizona in finding solutions to Set II
pollutant problems which extend across state boundaries.
3.
The department should have power to appoint task force teams
selected from local agencies to aid and advise the department regarding
studies and programs specific to certain areas of Arizona (such as air
quality control regions. counties. and towns).
The department should
focus air pollution control administration and should act as an integrator
and coordinator in ensuring the efftcient development and implementation
of the air pollution control programs.
Agency responsibility with regard to the specific programs in the
control strategy is described in Table 12. The Arizona State Health
92
-------
MARICOPA
COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT,
BUREAU OF
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
GILA-PINAL
JOINT COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
t-----
I.C
W
GREENLEE
COUNTY AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
DISTRICT
Figure 10.
'"
"
"
/
/
/
/
/
PIMA COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
E NY IRO NME NT AL
HEALTH SERVICES
------
YUMA COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT-
a ir po II ut ion control
personnel
I
I
I
I
I
"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'\
MOHA VE
COUNTY HEALTH
SERVICES -
air pollution
control personnel
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT -
air pollution
control personnel
Proposed Air Quality Management Organization
-------
Table 12. AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION. MONITORING AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY
Air Control Board Geographical Area of Responsibility
Program City of Maricopa Pima
Phoenix County County
Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection Program ASHD ASHD ASHD
Motor Vehicle Retrofit Program ASHD ASHD ASHD
Gasoline Marketing Evaporative Control Program MCHD MCHD PCI1D
'\0 Gasoline Maximum RVP Standard Program ASHD ASHD ASHD
~
Vehicle Exchange Program MVD MVD MVD
Limited Vehicle Registration Program MVD MVD MVD
Air Quality Surveillance Program MCHD MCHD PCHD
ASHD: Arizona State Health Department ,
MVD: Arizona State Highway Department (Motor Vehicle Division)
MCHD: Maricopa County Health Department
PCHD: Pima County Health Departffient
-------
Department has responsibility for administering, monitoring, and enforcing
the inspection program, the retrofit program, and the gasoline maximum RVP
standard program in both Maricopa and Pima counties. The Motor Vehicle
Division of the Arizona State Highway Department is responsible for vehicle
exchange and for limiting vehicle registration.
Air quality surveillance
and the administration and enforcement of the Gasoline Marketing Evaporative
Control Program are the responsibility of the County Health Departments in
Maricopa and Pima counties, respectively.
LEGAL AUTHORITY'
Authorizing legislation for the Air Quality Surveillance Program
and each control measure is indicated on Table 13.
The entries in the
column labeled "Federal Regulation" refer to subsections of environmental
regulations developed by EPA for implementation planning.
The other two
columns quote statutes in the State of Arizona Air Pollution ,Control Laws
which provide legislative authority for state and local agencies, respec-
tively.
gS
-------
Table 13. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY
Air Control Board
Program
Authorizing Legislation
Federal State Local (County)
Regulation Statute Section Statute Section
420. 11 (b)(l) 36-1717B.
420. 11 (a)(5) [36-1717C.
36-1717D.
420. 11 (a)(5) 36-779 thru -788
420. 11 (a)(2) [36-1707A.
36-1717E.
TBL
TBL
Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection Program
Motor Vehicle Retrofit Program
Gasoline Evaporative Emission Control Program
\0
m
Gasoline Maximum RVP Standard Program
Vehicle Exchange Program
Limited Vehicle Registration Program
Air Quality Surveillance Program
f36-773
L36-774
TBL: To be legislated
-------
IMPLEMENTATION SURVEILLANCE
Air Quality
Table 14 summarizes the proposed air quality surveillance system for
Phoenix and suburbs of Phoenix.
This table includes descriptions of the
following (for Set II Pollutants):
1) Existing sampling sites
2) Sampling sites recommended by the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (ASIP)
3) Sampling sites recommended by the Transportation Control Strategy
Information from 1) and 2) comes directly from the ASIP and from contact
with ASHD and MCHD personnel (Contact Report E-3). The strategy endorses
the ASIP recommendations and, using 1) and 2) as a foundation, proposes an
augmented system which will satisfy surveillance requiremen~s for trans-
portation pollution control strategies as determined in this study. The
implementation of this augmented system will depend heavily on the avail-
ability of federal financial assistance.
Installation of continuous CO and Ox monitors is recommended at the
following stations (station designation numbers are parenthesized after
each station name):
South Phoenix (2)
West Phoenix (3)
Sunnyslope (4)
Scottsdale (6)
All four Ox monitors should be installed by the end of April 1973, and the
CO monitors should be installed by the end of August 1973. This staggered
timetable will provide for measurement of Ox and CO during the seasons,
starting with 1973, in which they typically reach peak concentrations and,
at the same time, will create less budgetary strain than a single
97
-------
Table 14.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE NETWORK
UTM CO-ORDS Agency Main- Means of Sampling
Designation Address X Y taining Site Pollutant and Analysis Status
MCHD (l) 1825 E. Roosevelt, 403.4 3702.6 MCHD CO Beckman NDIR, Continuous Currently being used
Phoenix
MCHD N02 Jacobs-Hochheiser (NASN) Currently being used
24-Hr Bubbler, every 12 days
MCHD N02 Beckman K-76, Continuous Currently being used
MCHD Ox Beckman Colorimetric, Currently being used
Continuous
MCHD Tota 1 Beckman Fl ame Ionization, Currently being used
HC Continuous
South Phoenix 30 W. Corona 400.5 3696.9 MCHD CO NDIR, Continuous Strategy recommended
<0 (2) installation Aug 1973
co
MCHD Ox Chemiluminescence, Continuous Strategy recommended
insta11ation'Apr 1973
West 47th Ave. and 392.7 3705.5 MCHD CO MSA NDIR, Continuous Temporary station used
Phoenix (3) Osborn during summer 1971
MCHD Ox Bendix Chemiluminescence, (same as above)
Continuous
MCHD N02 Jacobs-Hochheiser 24-Hr ASIP recommended
Bubbler, every 6 days i nsta 11 ati on
July 1972, not yet
operative
MCHD CO NDIR, Continuous Strategy recommended
installation Aug 1973
MCHD Ox Chemiluminescence, Continuous Strategy recommended
installation Anr 1973
-------
Table 14.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE NETWORK (Continued)
Designation
Pollutant
Sunnys10pe (4) 8531 N. 6th St.
Address
UTM
X
CO-ORDS
Y
Agency Main-
taining Site
Means of Sampling
and Analysis
Status
ASIP recommended
installation May 1974
MCHD CO NDIR, Continuous Strate~J recommended I
insta11~tion Aug 1973
MCHD 0 Chemiluminescence, Continuous Strate~ recommended
x instal. ation Apr 1973
I
MCHD CO Beckman NDIR, Continuous ASIP recommended
instal1~tion May 1971
MCHD Ox Chemiluminescence, Continuous Stra~~iJ conditionally
recommended insta11a-
ti on ;"/,ril 1974
MCHO N02 24-Hr Bubbler, every 6 days ASIP re~ommendation
install~tion July 1973
MCHO CO NOIR, Continuous StratetY recommended
instal.ation Aug 1973
MCHO Ox Chemiluminescence, Continuous Strat~ recommended
instal ation Apr 1973 f
MCHO NOZ 24-Hr Bubbler, every 6 days ASIJ1c r.ecolJ111endation
instal1atian nee 1912
Melfi) c.a NDIR. Continuous ~tra~egy conditionally f
,- '.'tan~
t10n AIIr 1974
MCHI). Ox Chemiluminescence, Continuous Strategy conditionally
recommended installa-
tionAor 1974
Paradise
Valley (5)
\D
\D
Scottsdale (6)
GM Proving
Phoenix (7)
36th and
Sweetwater
315 E. 2nd St.
1330 S. Ellsworth
401.1
3713.2
406.5 3717.8
413.8 3705.9
439.7 3689.9
MCHO
N02
24-Hr Bubbler, every 6 days
-------
Table 14.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE NETWORK (Continued)
UTM CO-ORDS Agency Main- Means of Sampling
Designation Address X Y taining Site Po 11 utant and Analysis
Down town (To be determined) 40013 370113 MCHD N02 24-Hr Bubbler, every 6 days
Phoenix (37)
MCHD CO Mobil e Lab
MCHD Ox Mobile Lab
NCHD NC Mobil e Lab
Status
ASIP recommended
installation July 1972
Strategy recommended
sampling Aug thru
Apr
Strategy recommended
sampl ing. Apr thru
Aug' .
Strategy recommended
sampling Apr thru
Aug
o
o
rWTES
ASIP:
Strategy:
Arizona State Implementation Plan
Transportation Control Strategy for the Phoenix-Tucson Air Quality Area
Outlined areas are strategy recommendations
-------
step-function investment. The approximate cost for equipment acquisition
and installation for all four of these sites is $24,000 (see Table 15).
The strategy has been based on data from samples taken at MCHD (1)
in 1969.
It has been assumed, for the purpose of this study, that
this data is representative of worst-case air quality in Phoenix.
ever, because of Phoenix's relatively broad population and traffic
How-
distributions, it is not unlikely that other areas of the city experi-
ence consistently worse air quality than the area sampled by the MCHD
(1)
station.
Furthermore, the sample intake for MCHD (1) analyzers
is over 30 feet from ground level (Contact Report ~).
This
accomplishes MCHD's objective in eliminating readout "noise" for better
long-term analysis, but it may allow high concentrations of pollutants
(especially CO, which is emitted near ground level) to be overlooked in
areas of the city experiencing high traffic density.
The Phoenix map (Figure 11) indicates that these four recommended
sites are evenly distributed through the Phoenix metropolitan area.
addition, they are in close proximity to areas of Paradise Valley,
In
Scottsdale, South Phoenix, and West Phoenix which are prone to traffic
bottleneck formation.
Data from these four sites and the MCHD (1)
site will provide necessary information for monitoring strategy progress
in improving air quality.
The strategy conditio~ally recommends installation of a continuous Ox
analyzer at Paradise Valley (5) and conditionally recommends instal-
lation of continuous CO and Ox analyzers at the GM Proving Grounds (7),
both in 1974. The condition upon which these recommendations are based
is that air quality in consecutive years degrade significantly as
101
-------
Table 15.
PTTP Recommended Site
South Phoenix (2)
West Phoenix (3)
Sunnyslope (4)
Paradise Valley (5) (Conditional)
Scottsdale (6)
o
N
GM Proving Grounds (7) (Conditional)
Downtown Phoenix (37)
1973 Total
1974 Conditional Total
Grand Total
CAPITAL COST OF ADDITIONS TO AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM RECOMMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY
Approximate Capital Cost
$6000.
$6000.
$6000.
$3000.
$6000.
$6000.
$24000.
$9000.
$24000. to $33000.
Year of Installation
1973
1973
1973
1974
1973
1974
-------
o
w
i 1-
r- I.'
I
\/. f
-.1 -- -. KEY:
-. -
t- IO!-- PQ,ood.wt,1 (1) MCHD
~r-
51 (2) SOUTH PHOENIX
5!
(
, ~ (3)
0 VAIH' WEST PHOENIX
I '
-- i!'>1 (4) SUNNYSLOPE
--,
(5) PARADISE VALLEY
< - (6) SCOTTSDAL E
~ ~ ~ (7) Gt~ PROVIrJG GROUNDS
(37) DOWNTOWN PHOENIX
E X a
.""-
(37 t .(1) ~ ...,-
I"
{I
itch!i Id P
I
I;
19
I
! '
i
-',
t ~.~ (~) Pho nix 0 (7 t 'j -- I
' "'+'--T- ," , , I" ~." .-- I
.,_._,---~~ ,~ e -" 'I~._~.._~,~-+-
G'LA -- = i ,--. ,l---;--'-.-, j,' Uo alupe .~~.~ g ~'. :'~..::. .~
RIVER '. ;--, ~-_...J s~ - (~ S ,: ~ & [~. Gil e
INDIAN ! ~-l.;-_--.:"-.I ----' ~--' ~!j~ ,- Hl'OT tOAD~: ~i '..
QE5ERVATION j ~, ,J ~HO""'. SOUTH MOU""""" ..,o,R. !:'~; -r'::::'.i tv~C ... "I
1 ;-..r'~ - !:; I /-i ~ ; : ~I I
,,>-, I', .. I;JI~~' I ,.
. ~ ~ -'. --- ~J;~ ~ -- ;--~: ,~=J.~-;-
ro Tue SON
--------
'1-'
CENTR/\L
~": ;"aICOPI1.
r:~):.Jj"~1'
Figure 11.
Proposed Air Quality Surveillance System (tlap Courtesy of First National Bank of Arizona)
-------
compared to each previous year.
This air quality comparison can be
made in terms of the number of days ea~h year the national CO and Ox
. I
standards are exceeded.
If this number increases from one year to the
next, these two sites should be installed.
Such a comparison of currently
available data suggests that CO and Ox air quality is actually improving,
and it is unli kely that these two stations will be required.
However, if
1972 or 1973 data indicates air quality degradation, it becomes important
to measure the dispersion of pollutants into the suburbs, and these two
stations should be used to maintain this surveillance. The additional
capital cost for equipment and installation would be approximately
$9000.
With regard to monitoring in downtown Phoenix, the strategy recommends
that the MCHD mobile lab be used to measure (as a minimum) CO one week
per month from August through April and Ox and HC one week per month
from April through August. This data should be used to establish and
update the correlation between air quality in the heart of Phoenix and
data taken at MCHD (1), which is approximately 18 blocks east.
It has
been reported (Contact Report E-3 ) that such analyses have been made
and that data from the two locations correlates closely; however, it is
important to monitor any changes in this correlation which growth
effects or population redistribution may produce.
It is suggested that the MCHD mobile lab also be used to sample
CO near intersections or street sections which are prone to traffic
congestion. A detailed schedule of time and location is not suggested;
however, such sampling should be carried out in the fall and winter
months (August through April) during the hours 4 p.m. to 1 p.m., since
this is the typical period of maximum CO concentration.
1M
-------
The following are strategy recommendations involving the administration
of the Phoenix air quality surveillance system:
1 )
It is of the utmost importance with regard to measuring progress
of strategy implementation that ambient air quality data be
reduced to the sample bases and format required in state reports
to the EPA and that these reports be submitted punctually.
Because of the seriousness of the air quality problem in Phoenix,
it is especially important that close cooperation be practiced
between ASHD and MCHD. It is specifically recommended that MCHD
provide ASHD with a monthly data report which summarizes measured
pollutant concentrations for the month.
2)
3)
It is recommended that the utilization of comp~ter systems for
data reduction and transmission be evaluated by MCHD in light
of the expanded surveillance network recommended by the strategy.
Included among candidate systems are computer leasing, program-
mable calculators and timesharing. For example, such repetitive
manipulations as sample base reductions are naturally within the
realm of computer applications. Furthermore, automated or semi-
automated tending of additional sampling stations is likely to be
more cost-effective than using manpower only.
The ASIP has recommended that CO, Ox' and NOZ monitors be installed
in Tucson in 1973 and 1974. The strategy recommends that these monitors
Federal
not be installed later than the dates indicated by the ASIP.
The following
cooperation in funding this installation is encouraged.
items should be primary objectives of the utilization of the Tucson Set II
pollutant surveillance system:
1)
Evaluate the natural background concentrations of CO, HC,
Ox' and N02'
Evaluate nonmethane HC as a percent of total HC.
Identify and document seasonal and diurnal trends in the
ambient concentration of each pollutant in Tucson, and
correlate these trends with meteorological conditions.
Determine the geographical extent of high pollutant
concentrations in and near Tucson.
2)
3)
4)
5)
Determine the relationship between HC concentration and
Ox concentration (this will probably consist of verifying
the Barth data).
105
-------
These items will provide a strong foundation for determining
strategies for control of Set II pollutants in Tucson.
Vehicle Emissions
The Periodic Vehicle Inspection (PVI) Program begun by the ASHD
appears to be a good basic program for the surveillance of vehicle
emissions in the State of Arizona.
The technical, social, and economic
aspects of this program have not yet been completely evaluated but are
currently under study by ASHD.
Precise details in planning future
phases of this program will be developed as a result of this study by
ASHD.
The strategy endorses the Arizona PVI Program but strongly advises
that its implementation be expedited. The current ASHD timetable
(described in Table 11)
proposes that Part II, mandatory inspection
in Maricopa and Pima counties, be carried out from July 1973 to July
1975.
Within this time period, the actual target date for Part II
completion should be moved as clos~ to the start date as possible; a
preferable target date would be July 1974.
This would allow several
months leeway before the beginning of 1975 for so1ving start-up problems
which are almost inevitable in program implementation.
Transportation
As an input to the continuing surveillance of air quality and mobi1
source emissions, MAGTPP, the area wide transportation planning coordi-
nating agency. should regularly report travel data to the state health
department.
1~
-------
In the initial stage of the program, this would consist of reporting
on an annual basis estimates of average area-wide daily VMT stratified
by vehicle type.
This data should be supplemented by estimates of VMT
variations by day of week and month of year and estimates of distribution
of VMT by speed ranges.
Appropriate arrangments would be necessary to
insure input of required data by local jurisdictions and the Arizona
State Highway Department to MAGTPP for processing.
After 1975, if Phase II VMT reduction measures were deemed necessary,
more frequent reporting would be required to monitor effectiveness in
achieving the specified VMT reductions.
Development of an efficient
method of estimating area-wide average daily VMT on the basis of selected
sample counts to minimize the time effort and cost of more frequent
reporting appears desirable.
The following is a suggested surveillance
program if the Phase II VMT restriction measures are imposed:
.
Identify a selected number of traffic counting stations
(probably no more than 30) which can be regularly monitored,
preferably by the highway department and from which reliable
estimates of area-wide average daily VMT can be made. Use
of permanent count stations with induction loop counters
appears desirable.
Develop factors for estimating area-wide daily VMT on the
basis of the count sampling.
.
.
Conduct counts and estimate area-wide average daily VMT
every three months and report this data to the state
health department. The detailed supplementary data need be
reported only on an annual basis.
lID
-------
PLAN
CONTROL MEASURE
CONTROL STRATEGY
REID VAPOR
PRESSURE (RVP)
PRIMARY STANDARD
SECONDARY STANDARD
NATIONAL STANDARD
REGION
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
An implementation plan, under Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act, to attain and maintain a neutral
standard.
A specific method or approach for reducing
emission from one or more sources.
A combination of measures designated to achieve
the aggregate reduction of emissions necessary
to attain national standard.
A measure of gasoline volatility based on a
specific test procedure.
A national primary ambient air quality standard
promulgated pursuant to Section 109 of the Clean
Air Act. (Designed to protect public health.)
A national secondary ambient air quality standard
promulgated pursuant to Section 109 of the Clean
Air Act. (Designed to protect public welfare.)
Either a primary or secondary standard.
An air quality control region designated by the
Secretary of HEW or the Administrator or any area
designated by a state agency as an air quality
control region and approved by the administrator
or any area of a state not designated as included
in quality control region under the above.
100
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSIONS DATA
This appendix summarizes calculations and data developed for emissions
from specific source categories.
The first calculation provides an estimate for future fuel oil use
at Salt River Project power plants.
This estimate is based on the pre-
dieted power production of SRP plants and the projected fuel use schedule
at Arizona Public Services plants; proportionality is assumed.
Table B-1 shows exhaust non-methane hydrocarbons emitted from local
Arizona Public Services and Salt River Project power plants.
Fuel use
schedules* and the appropriate emission factor [35J for oil-burning
power plants (HC emissions from natural gas burning are assumed negligible)
were used in the following manner:
oil use per year X Emission factor = emissions per year
Emission rate units were converted to g/sec on a continuous operating
basis.
Tables B-2 through B-4 were prepared in similar manner, using the
appropriate emission factor in each case.
Since the fuel throughput for
the plants was a total value for each plant, throughput per tank was
calculated on the assumption that relative throughput per tank is propor-
tional to the relative capacity of the tank as compared to the total plant
storage capacity.
*Contact Reports E-5 and E~6
l~
-------
power Plants
SRP - Projected Oil Use
1973
1977
Projected Fuel Use
Gas Oil (D2)
? 3 x 106 Bbl
Year
o
?
'ear
Projected Power Generation
Agua ~rene ~rene
Fria StIn. Gas Turb.
(106 KWH) (106 KWH) (106 KWH)
1973
3060
380
260
Assume distribution of fuel equivalent to power production:
Total 1973 KWH = 3700 KWH
Agua Fria: 3060 (3 x 106 Bbl) = 2.5 x 106 Bbl
3700
~rene Stm: 380 (3 x 106) = 0.3 x 106
3700
~rene Gas Turb.: 260 (3 x 106) = 0.2 x 106
3700
110
-------
Assume SRP Fuel Use Schedule will be the same as APS Plants
relat;ve to use ;n 1973.
APS Steam
K. =
,
Total Oil (Bbl Oil; )
Year (106 Bbl) Bbl Oil1973
1969 0 0
1973 1.3 i.O
1975 3.6 2.8
1977 3.0 2.3
1978 2.6 2.0
1980 2.4 1.8
APS Gas Turb.
K;
Tota 1 Oil eb1 Oil; )
Year (106 Bbl) Bb1 Oil1973
1969 0
1973 .060 1.0
1975 0.98 16.
1977 0.60 10.
1978 0.50 8.3
1980 0.58 9.7
111
-------
Apply these relative figures to SRP 1973 Oil Use:
Year
1973 Oil Use = 2.5 x 106 Bb1
K1 2.5 x 106
= 011 Use
(106 Bb1)
Agua Fr1a (Stm.):
~
1973 1.0 2.5
1975 2.8 7.0
1977 2.3 5.8
1978 2.0 5.0
1980 1.8 4.5
~rene Stm.: 0.3 x 106 Bb1
1973 1.0 0.3
1975 2.8 0.8
1977 2.3 0.7
1978 2.0 0.6
1980 1.8 0.5
112
-------
Kyrene Gas Turb.: 0.2 x 106 Bb1
Year
s
K; 0.2
( 1 06 Bb 1 )
1973 1.0 0.2
1975 16. 3.2
1977 10. 2.0
1978 8.3 1.7
1980 9.7 1.9
113
-------
Table B-1. CALCULATION SUMMARY: NON-METHANE EXHAUST HC EMISSIONS FROM LOCAL POWER PLANTS
Steam Turbine
Units: un~ ts:
106 10
Power Gal. HCa HCb Gal. HCa HCb
Plant Agency Year Oil Ton/Yr g/sec. Oil Ton/Yr q/sec.
Ocoti 11 0 APS 1969 0 0 0 0 0 0
1975 B2.53 82.53 2.38 10.16 10.16 0.293
1977 61.95 61.95 1. 78 6.26 6.26 0.180
1978 51.53 51.53 1.48 5.17 5.17 0.149
1980 46.45 46.45 1. 34 6.05 6.05 0.174
West APS 1969 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phoenix 1975 5.25 5.25 0.151 10.21 10.21 0.294
1977 3.95 3.95 0.114 6.30 6.30 0.181
1978 3.28 3.28 0.094 5.21 5.21 0.150
~ 1980 2.94 2.94 0.085 6.05 6.05 0.174
~
~
Agua SRP 1969 0.67 0.67 0.019
Fria 1975 290. 290. 8.35
1977 240. 240. 6.91
1978 210. 210. 6.05
1980 190. 190. 5.47
I\yrene SRP 1969 .036 .036 0.001 0 0 0
1975 34. 34. 0.979 130. 130. 3.74
1977 29. 29. 0.835 84. 84. 2.42
1978 25. 25. 0.720 71. 71. 2.04
1980 21. 21. 0.605 80. 80. 2.30
a EF = 2 1b/103 Gal. = 1 Ton/106 Gal.
b 1 Ton/Yr = .0288g/sec. (Continuous Operation Through Year)
-------
Table B-2. HC EMISSIONS FROM POWER PLANT FUEL STORAGE
Tota 1 Total
1969 1969 1975 1975
Type Type Tank Storage Sto6age Storage c Storage
Plant Oil or Roof (Bbl) (10 Gal.) (Bbl) (]06 Gal.)
Ocoti 110 Resid. r~ix Fixed 1-55,000 1-2.3 1-55,000 1-2.3
#5, #6 Floati ng 3-100,000 3-4.2
Light Oil Fixed 1-21 ,000 1-0.88 1-21,000 1-0.88
Diesel #2 Fixed 1-30,000 1-1. 3 1-30,000 1-1.3
West Resid. Fixed 1-55,000 1-2.3 1-55,000 1-2.3
Phoenix #6 Fixed 1-4,000 1-0.68 1-4,000 1-0.68
~
~
U1 Diesel #2 Fixed 1-30,000 1-1.3 1-30,000 1-1.3
Agua Diesel #2 Sealed a 1-131,000 1-5.5 1-131,000 1-5.5
Fria Sealed 1-200,000 1-8.4
Vented b 1-11 0,000 1-4.6 1 -11 0 ,000 1-4.6
I\y rene Diesel #2 Sealed 1-23,000 1-0.97 1-23,000 1 -0.97
Sealed 2 - 131 ,000 2-5.5
Vented 1-10,000 1-0.42 1-10,000 1 -0.42
a Assumed Equivalent to Flotation Roof
b Assumed Equivalent to Fixed Roof
c 1977, 1978 and 1980 Storage was Assumed Same as 1975, Since Power Demand Does Not Increase
-------
Table B-2 (Continued) BREATHING LOSSES
1969 1975 d
Breathing HC Emissions HC Emissions
Loss Per Per
Emission Tank Per Oi 1 THe Tank Per Oi 1 Type
Plant Factor (103 LB/YR) ( 1 03 LB/Y (103 LB/YR) (103 LB/YR)
Ocoti 11 0 0.4 LB/Day-l,OOO Gal. 340. } 340. }
340. 760.
140 LB/Day- Tank 420.
0.4 LB/Day-1,000 Gal. 130. 130. 130. 130.
0.4 LB/Day-l,OOO Gal. 200. 200. 200. 200.
West 0.4 LB/Day-l,OOO Gal. 340. J 440. 340. } 440.
Phoenix 0.4 LB/Day-1,000 Gal. 100. 100.
~
~
en 0.4 LB/Day-1,000 Gal. 200. 200. 200. 200.
Agua 140 LB/Day- Tank 51. 51.
Fria 140 LB/Day-Tank 740. 51. 790.
0.4 LB/Day-l,OOO Gal. 690. 690.
K,yrene 140 LB/Day- Tank 51. 51.
140 LB/Day- Tank 11 O. 100. 210.
0.4 LB/Day-1,000 Gal. 63. 63.
d Losses for 1977, 1978, 1980 Assumed Equal to 1975 Losses
-------
Table B-2. (Continued) BREATHING LOSSES
1969 1975
HC Emi ssi ons HC Emissions
Per Oi 1 Type Pl ant Tota 1 Per Oi 1 Type Plant Total
Plant (G/See) (G/See) (G/See) (G/See)
Oeoti11o 4.9 11
9.7 15.8
1.9 1.9
2.9 2.9
West
Phoenix 6.3 f 6.3
-' 9.2 9.2
-' ,
"-J 2.9 2.9
Aqua 11 11 11 11
Fria
Kyrene
.1.6
1.6
3.0
3.0
-------
Tabie B-2. (Continued)
WORKING LOSSES
Working Loss 1978
Emi ss i on Factor 1969 1975 1977 1980
(LB/103 Ga 1. Throughpute Throughputf Throughput Throughput Throughfut
Plant Throughput) (106 Gal. /yr.) (106 Gal ./Yr) (106 Gal./Yr) (106 Gal./'{r ) ( 1 06 Ga . /y r )
Ocoti110 11. Negligible 13. 10. 9. 8.
Negligible Negligible 69. 52. 43. 38.
11. Negligible 10. 10. 10. 10.
11. Negligible 10. 6. 5. 6.
West 11. Negligible 4.9 3.7 3.1 2.8
Phoenix 11. Negligible 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
~
~ 11. Negligible 10. 5. 6.
ex> 6.
Agua Negligible Negligible
Fria Negligible Negligible
11. Negligible 70. 60. 50. 50.
Kyrene Negligible Negligible
Negligible Negligible
11. Negligible 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8
e In 1909 Oil was Stored for Standby Use Only
f When more than One Tank was Used at a Plant. Throughput was Assumed Proportional to Re1ative Tank Capacity
-------
Tab 1 e B-2. WORKING LOSSES (continued)
1975 1977 1978 1980
HC Emissions HC Emissions HC Emissions HC Emissions
Per Tank Pl ant Per Tank Plant Per Tank Plant Per lanK H1~Y
Type Total Type Total TYPj Total Type
Plant (103 LB/YR) 003 LB/YR} 003 LB/YR} 003 LB/Yf(} (10 LB/YR) (l03 LB/YR) (l Q3 LB/YR) (103 LB/Y"
Ocotillo 140. 110. 99. 88. I
760. 570. 470. 420. 680.
1100. 860. 730.
110. 110. 110. 110.
11 O. 66. 55. 66.
West 54. 41. I 34. I 31.
Phoenix 3.3 170. 3.3 2.2 99.
~ 110. 2.2 \ 91.
~ 110. 66.
\0 66. 55.
Agua Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Fria Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
770. 770. 660. 660. 550. 550. 550. 550.
I<..yrene Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
15. 15. 13. 13. 11. 11. 9. 9.
-------
Table B-2. (Continued) WORKING LOSSES and TOTAL DHSSIONS
Total Evaporative HC Emissions:
Working Losses Working Loss & Breathing Loss
1969 1975 1977 1978 1980 1969 1975 1977 1978 1980
Plant (G/See) (G/See) (G/See) (G/See) (G/See) (G/See) (G/ See) (G/See) (G/See) (G/See)
Oeoti11 0 0 16. 12. 10. 10. 9.7 32. 28. 26. 26.
West 0 2.4 1.6 1.3 1.4 9.2 12. 11. 10. 11.
Phoenix
Agua 0 11. 9.5 7.9 7.9 11. 22. 20. 19. 19.
Fda
N
0
Kyrene 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1
-------
Table B-3. CALCULATION SUMMARY: NOx EMISSIONS FROM LOCAL POWER PLANTS (STEAM UNITS)
106 106 N01 NOx NOx
Power Type Bbl Gal.a 10 TON/YR 1 06 FT 103TON/YR 103TON/YR Data
Plant Agency Oil Year Oil Oil (Oil )b Gas ( Gas }c Total Ref.
Ocotillo APS Resid. 1969 0 u 0 9,330.423 1.819 1.819
Mix 1975 1.965 82.53 4.333 582.0 0 . 1135 4.446
#5, #6
1977 1.475 61. 95 3.252 0 0 3.252
1978 1.227 51.53 2.706 0 0 2.706
1980 1.106 46.45 2.438 0 0 2.438
N West APS Resid. 1969 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ Phoenix Mix
#5, #6 1975 0.125 5.25 0.275 36.96 .00721 0.282
1977 0.094 3.95 C_L.07 0 0 0.207
1978 0.078 3.28 0.172 0 0 0.172
1980 0.070 2.94 0.154 0 0 0.154
a 1 Bbl :; 42 Gal. (Oi 1)
b EF :; 105 LB NOx/l03 Gal. :; .0525 TOrVl03 Gal.
c EF :; 390 LB NOx/l06FT3 :; .195 TON/l06 FT3
-------
Table B-3. (Continued)
106 106 NO 106 NO~ NO
Power Type Bb1 Gal. 10~TON/YR FT3 10 TON/YR 10~TON/YR Data
Plant Agency Oil Year Oil Oil (Oil) Gas (Gas) Total Ref.
Agua SRP D2 1969 0.016 0.067 .035 18,800. 3.67 3.70
Fria Diesel
1975 7.0 290. 15. 770. 0.150 15.
1977 5.8 240. 13. 0 0 13.
1978 5.0 210. 11. 0 0 1.1.
-'
N 1980 4.5 190. 10. 0 0 10.
N
Kyrene SRP 02 1969 0.00085 .036 .0019 2 , 160. 0.421 0.423
Oi ese 1
1975 0.8 34. 1.8 99. 0.19 2.0
1977 0.7 29. 1.5 0 0 1.5
1978 0.6 25. 1.3 0 0 1.3
1980 0.5 21. 1.1 0 0 1.1
-------
Table B-4. CALCULATION SUMMARY: NOx EMISSIONS FROM LOCAL POWER PLANTS (TURBINE UNITS)
106 106 106 Turbine
NOx NOx NOx
Power Type Bb1 Gal. 103fON/YR FT3 103 TON/YR 103 TON/YR Data
P1 ant Agency Oil Year Oil Oil (Oi) Gas (Gas) Total Ref.
Ocoti 11 0 APS Res i d. 1969 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mix
#5, #6 1975 0.242 10.16 0.533 110.7 .0216 0.5546
1977 0.149 6.26 0.329 0 0 0.329
1978 0.123 5.17 0.271 0 0 0.271
N 1980 0.144 6.05 0.318 0 0 0.318
w
West APS Res i d. 1969 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phoenix Mix
#5, #6 1975 0.243 10.21 0.536 111.2 .0217 0.558
1977 0.150 .6.30 0.331 0 0 0.331
1978 0.124 5.21 0.274 0 0 0.274
1980 0.144 6.05 0.318 0 0 0.318
-------
Table 8-4. (Continued)
106 106 NOx 106 NOx
NO 1 03TON/YR
Power Type Bbl Gal. 1 03TON/YR FT3 101rON/YR Turbine Data
Plant Agency Oil Year Oil Oil (Oi l}a Gas (Gas)b Tota 1 Ref.
Kyrene SRP 02 1969 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diesel
1975 3.2 130. 6.8 66 .013 6.8
1977 2.0 84. 4.4 0 0 4.4
1978 1.7 71. 3.7 0 0 3.7
N 1980 1.9 80. 4.2 0 0 4.2
.f::>
a EF = .0525 TON/103 Gal.
b EF = .195 TON/106 FT3
-------
Power Plant Operating Schedules
Daily Schedu1e*:
Summer:
10 A.M. to 10 P.M.: 75% to 100% full load
10 P.M. to 10 A.M.: 10% to 30% full load
Winter:
8 A.M.: Small peak; assume 50% full loac
Seasonal Schedu1e+:
November thru April:
0% to 40% of fuel
May thru October: 60% to 100% of fuel
* Contact Report E-3
+ Contact Reports E-3 and E-6
125
-------
Tank Farm
Breathing Losses
1969
o No. fixed-roof tanks:
o
68
o No. floating-roof tanks:
(Assume cone-covered floating roof tanks
emit at same rate as floating roof tanks)
1975
o No. fixed-roof tanks:
o
71
o No. floating-roof tanks:
Emi ss i on Factor = 140. LB/Day- Tank for fl oati ng roof tanks [35]
1969 HC Emissions =
(68 tanks)(140 LB ~ 1 Hr
Day. Tank 24 Hr 3600 sec
453.6 G
LB
= 50. G
sec
on continuous basis
1975 HC Emission = 50 71 = 52 G
68 see
Assuming emissions increase
at 1 G Year:
3" sec.
1977: ~9I.sec
1978: ag/sec
1980: ~_g/sec
126
-------
Working Losses
1972
Gasoline = 1.4 x 106 Bbl/Mo
Throughput*
= (1.4 x 106)(42 ;~~) = 58.8 x 106 ~~~
= 705.6 x 106 Gal/Yr.
Assume gasoline throughput varies as vehicle registration in Maricopa
+
County:
Registration - 840,000 - 500,000 = 34 000/Yr2
Rate - 10 yrs '
1972 Registration 570,000
34
Per cent yearly change = 570 = 6%
Thus
Gaso 1 i ne ()
Throughput = 705.6 (1.06 n-1972 )x 106
(year n )
1969
1975
Gaso 1i ne
Throughput (106 Gal/Yr)
592.4
Year
1977
1978
840.4
944.2
1980
1000.9
1124.6
* Contact Report E-4
+ Data from [l.J
127
-------
Assume tank truck filling is 75% submerged fill. Emission factor [35]
= 12 - .75(5) = 8.4 1b/103 Gal
Thus:
Emi ss ion's
Year 106 Lb/Yr G/Sec
1969 5.0 72
1975 7.0 100
1977 7.9 110
1978 8.4 120
1980 9.4 140
128
-------
Filling Station Losses
1969 Emi ss ions
Gaso 11 ne Throughput, Maricopa County, 1969 = 434 x 106 ga 1. [1. ]
HC Emission Factors [35.J
Filling Service Station Tanks }
(MCHD ~ecommends 90% splash fill,
10% submerged [18. J )
Fill i ng Auto Tanks:
11 . 5 l-b/ 1 000 ga 1 .
12 lb/l000 gal.
Calculated '
1969 Emissions = (434 x 106 gal.) (23.5 lb/l03 gal) ~ 10.2 x 106 lb
(5.1 x 103 tons)
Converting units to g/sec on a continuous basis
(24 hr/day, 365 days/yr):
(10.2 x 106 lb/yr) (.0144 ~e~rlOJ lb ) = 147 G/sec
The MCHD Emission Inventory for 1970 [18.J estimates service station
losses at 16.88 ton/day (177 G/sec). This is 20% higher than my
estimate., However, the MCHD inventory seems to contain a multi-
plicative error. Using their numbers, (1182 x 103 gal/day)
(11 + 11.6) lb/l03gal = 13.36 tons/day, (Not 16.88). This con-
verts to 140 G/sec.
129
-------
Proj~cted Emissions: (No Control)
Estimate yearly increase, from Arizona Statistical Review 1972:
(Mari copa Cty) Consumption
Gasoline Increase
.Ylli. Consumption Ra ti 0
1966 331 }
1.03
1967 340
1'. 11
1968 379'
434} 1.14
1969
1.10
1970 480 t
506 j 1.05
1971
Use Ratio of 1.1 to project consumptions
Consumption in Years from 1971 = ( 506) (1. 10) n
Projected Projected
Consumption HC Emission*
~ n (Years) (1.l}n (l06 gal) (G/sec)
19.75 4 1.46 739. 250.
1977 6 1. 77 896. 303.
1978 7 1. 95 987. 334.
1980 9 2.36 1194. 404.
*Using same emission factor as 1969: 23.5 lb/103 gal.
130
-------
Effective Stack Heights
From Turner Workbook, [3, P.31]
~H = Vsd (1.5 + 2.68 x 10-3 P Ts - Ta d)
u Ts
~H = Rise of plume above stack
Vs = Stack gas veloc, ~
sec
d = Stack 1.0., m
u = Wind speed, m/sec
p = Atmospheric Pressure, mb
Ts = Stack gas temp, ok
Ta = Air temp, ok
NOTE:
Exact calculations for effective stack height (Heff = Hstack + ~H)
are probably not required for the source, - receptor distances
involved.
Assume, for all sources with actual stacks:*
Vs = 10 mlsec
d = (8 ft)(.3 m/ft) = 2.4
u = (3 mi/hr) 1 hr
3600 sec
1609 m = 1.34 m/sec
iiiT
p = 1013 mb
Ts = 120°C = 3930K
T = lOoF = 21°C = 2940K
a
*Contact Report E-6
131
-------
Thus:
6H = 10(2.4)(1.5 + 2.68 x 10-3(1013)(393 - 294)(2.4))
1.34 423
= 10(2.4)(1.5 + 1.5) = 50 m
1.34
Effective Stack HT = Heff = Hstack + 50 m
132
-------
Salt River Indian Reservation Landfill
(Open Burning)
Population:
Towns Hauling 1970 1975
to SRIR Landfill Census Projection
Scottsdale } 85,000*
133,000*
Mesa 83,000*
SR Reservation 1 , 600t 2,500*
Tempe 64,000* 84,000+
Paradise Valley 7,000* 9,000+
Total 206,000 264,000
Refuse:
Use 4 1 b/capi ta . day*
(206,000) (4) = 824,000 lb/day
(264,000) (4) = 1056,000 lb/day
1970:
1975:
Assume:
1. 1969 refuse haul was same as 1970
2.
3.
In 1969, 10% of hauled refuse was burnt*
In 1975, 0% of hauled refuse will be burnt*
*Contact Report E-7
+My estimate
:J{1,P.38]
133
-------
Tonnage Burnt
1969: (824 x 103 1b/day) (.10) ( 100Jo~b ) ~ 41.2 ton/day
1975:
(1056 x 103) (0) = 0
Emissions:
Emi ss i on
Factor [35.J
1 b/ton
Emission
Rate
(G/sec)
CO
HC
85
30
1B.4
6.4
NOx
6
1.3
co:
41.2 ton/day (B5) HI/ton (454 g/lb) (1 day/24 hr) (1 hr/3600 see)
= 41.2 (85) (.0052) = 18.4 g/see
HC:
30 (41.2) (.0052)
=
6.4
NOx: 6 (41.2) (.0052)
=
1.3
134
-------
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY DATA
Figures C-1 through C-4 present diurnal peak maximum air concentration
data for HC, CO, N02' and Ox' respectively. These data were taken from
1969 baseline worst day measurements. The time phase between the various
pollutant measurements indicates the complexity in developing straight-
forward approaches and their control.
For example, CO concentration are
maximum at 12 midni9ht whereas N02 and Ox are maximum near noon. Figure C-5
further amplifies the importance of these time lags by comparing the con-
centrations of all four pollutants.
The assignment of stability classes represents a necessary step in
utilizing the Semi-Diffusion Method for forecasting air quality. Table C-1
depicts the assignment of stability classes used in this analysis. The
appropriate class is shown for each pollutant, depending on the amount of
sunlight, cloud cover, and wind speed during the seasonal and daily periods
which are typical for maximum concentrations of the pollutant. These
classes were input to the air quality model described in Appendix G to
estimate future air quality.
135
-------
12,000
10,000
z
o
8,000
-'
U)
0'
I-
~
I-
ZC')
W ::E
~ "6, 000
o ~
u
U
:I:
2,000
o
12:00
MIDNIGHT
2 A.M.
4A.M.
6 A.M.
12:00
NOON
6 P.M.
4 P.M.
2 P.M
8 A.M.
10 A.M.
Fi:;)ure C-l.
TIME
Diurnal Variation of Hourly Average HC Concentration
in Phoenix on 10 January 1969* (MCHD Data)
~I~e Peak Hourly Average for 1969 Occurred on this date.
8 P.M.
10 P.M.
-------
W
'-I
z
o
~
0<:("')
t- ::;E
Z "'--
w () 30
~ ::;E
o
u
o
u
60
50
40
20
10
o
12:00 2 A. M.
MIDNIGHT
4 A.M.
6 A.M.
2 P.M.
4 P.M.
8 P.M.
10 P.M.
6 F'.M.
Figure C-2.
12:00
NOON
TIME
Diurnal Variation of Hourly Average CO Concen~ration
in phoenix on 13 December 1969* (r.1CHD Data)
8 A.M. 10 A.M.
*The Peak Hourly Average for 1969 Occurred on this Date.
-------
2 A.M. 4 A.M. 6 A.M. 8 A.M. 10 A.M. 12:00
NOON
TIME
Figure C-3. Diurnal Variation of Hourly AveraDe r~~ ~oncentration
in Phoenix on 15 November 1969* (MCHD bata)
~'(Le Peak Hourly Average for 1969 Occurred on this Date.
.....
w
co
z
Q
I-
~ C")
z ~
u (3- 150
Z ::s.
o
U
N
o
Z
300
250
200
100
50
o
12:00
MIDNIGHT
2 P;M.
4 P.M.
6 P.M.
8 P.M.
10 P.M.
-------
300
250
200
W
\D
z
Q
I-
~ ~M
33 0- 150
u ::1.
Z
o
u
x
o
100
50
12:00
MIDNIGHT
--- ---
I
-t-
2 A.M
6 A.M
8 A.M
10A.M.
12:00
NOON
10 P.M.
2 P.M.
6 P.M.
8 P.M.
4 P.M.
4A.M
Figure C-4.
Diurnal Variation of Hourly Average Ox Concen~ration
in Phoenix on 26 May 1969* (MCHD Data)
*The Peak Hourly Average for 1969 Occurred on this date.
-------
N
0
Z
Q 300
Z
<{
x
0
Z
0
>- 200
<{
""
>-
Z
UJ (")
u ::E
z 6
0
u ~
100
,
,
,
,
,
I
/
I
/
/
/-
o
12:00
MIDNIGHT
4A.M.
8 A.M.
I
I :
HC
........... N02
--- - Ox
/
,.
/\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
",
.'
. '.
. .
6000
Figure C-5.
\ :
\ :
-'\ :
\ :
.
.
5000
U
J:
4000 -'
<{
>-
°
>-
I
z
°
3000 ;::
~
>-
z
UJ (")
U ::E
66
2000 U ~
1000
o
12:00
MIDNIGHT
Comparison: Diurnal Variation of Hourly Average
Concentrations of HC, N02' and Ox in Phoenix
on 26 May 1969*
*The Peak Hourly Average of ° Concentration for 1969 Occurred on this Date.
x
12:00
NOON
TIME
8 P.M.
4 P.M.
140
-------
Tab1 e C-1. ASSIGNMENT OF STABILITY CLASSES
.j::o
......
ApproXlmate Wlna :>peea Assi gned
Po 11 u tan t Peak Season Approximate Peak During This Periodb Stabi 1 i ty
Daily Perioda (MPH) (M/See) C1asse
CO Fall-Wi nter 6pm - 2am 0 0 F
HC Fall-Wi nter 5pm - lOam 0-3 0-1 F
Ox Spring-Summer 8am - 6pm 1-6 0.5-3 A
N02 Fall-Winter 1 pm- 5pm 0-4 0-2 B
a Figures C-1 through C-4
b
Worst case, from MCHD data for peak days in 1969 (1 MPH = .447 M/see)
c [2,P.6]
-------
APPENDIX D
THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
For purposes of transportation system analysis, the Phoenix planning
area has been assumed to coincide with that of the Maricopa Association of
Governments Transportation Planning Program (MAGTPP), a cooperative venture
established under executive order in Maricopa County and the agency respon-
sible for continuing comprehensive transportation planning in the region.
The MAGTPP Area encompasses 1,200 square miles and includes the City of
Phoenix.
Travel in the Phoenix region is almost entirely by private personal
transportation. Less than one per cent of all personal trips in the area are
made by public transportation. Urban activity in the region is charac-
terized by a highly dispersed, low-density pattern.
The 1970 decennial census indicates a Maricopa County population of
some 970,000 with over 90 per cent residing in the MAGTPP planning area.
giving an average population density of 800 persons per square mile.
How-
ever. overall population density is deceptive as distribution of population
is non-homogeneous.
Large parcels of land in agricultural use with virtually
no population are interspersed among the urbanized land areas. The City of
Phoenix. the area's largest municipality has a gross density of 2,300 persons
per square mile with a few small areas of the most intensely developed land
having densities at the 8.000 to 9.000 persons per square mi Ie level. [1]
Yet the area generally has lower population density than most cities of
comparable size.
In addition to dispersed residential development, the
Phoenix Urban Area exhibits dispersed patterns of employment and retail
142
-------
activities. For example, five suburban shopping centers are patronized by
more area households than is downtown Phoenix.~~
Concomitant with low residential densities (as compared to other urban
areas with similar populations) and the dispersed pattern" of employment and
retail activity, is a trip-making pattern which is also highly dispersed
and lacking a strong focal point.
Although downtown Phoenix has the area's
greatest activity concentration, less than 10 per cent of the region's travel
has origin or destination in the central area.
A dispersed pattern of development and trip making without a strong
focal point is not well suited for public transportation because few major
corridors of heavy travel exist. Transit service is most effective when
large numbers of persons can be transported along a relatively limited num-
ber of linear routes, with origins and destinations in walking distance of
the route.
Absence of heavily defined travel corridors limits the role of
transit in Phoenix.
In general, the street and highway system provides an adequate level
of service throughout the region although some localized congestion prob-
lems are identifiable.
Extensive freeway system planning has been done,
but in terms of facilities constructed, the system has not reached a high
level of development.
Only some 10 per cent of the vehicle miles traveled
in the Phoenix area are traveled on freeways.
Parking is generally in
adequate supply.
The following charts and tables provide some details of travel in the
Phoenix area.
143
-------
TABLE D-l PRESENT AND PROJECTED INTERNAL TRAVEL [31]
1970 1995
Trip Type # Trips Duration # Trips Duration
Minutes) (Minutes)
Work 513,000 19.8 930,000 21.1
Shop 316,000 9.6 604,000 9.3
Social/Recreation 232,000 16.0 420,000 16.9
Misc. Home Based 416,000 15.2 718,000 15.9
Non-Home Based 451 , 000 14.2 817,000 15.1
Light Trucks 229,000 14.7 405,000 15.3
Heavy Trucks 139,000 13.8 238,000 14.3
2,297,000 4, 133,000
TABLE D-2 CURRENT & FUTURE EXTERNAL AND THRU TRAFFIC [31]
1970 1995
Length Length
Type #Trips (Miles) #Trips (Miles)
Thru 4,000 42 10,000 42
Local 54,000 25 129,000 25
(Externa I)
As can be seen by comparison of Tables D-l and D-2, thru external travel
only slightly over 2 per cent of the regional travel.
TABLE D-3
DAILY VEHICLE MILE TOTALS [31],
Year
Vehicle Mile Total
Daily vehicle mile
1970 11,500,000
1975 14,700,000
1995 28,200,000
totals were estimated for 1972 and
1977, the base and
forecast years by linear projection of the 1970-1975 growth rate as implied
on Table D-3. Vehicle type breakdown was estimated from the trip data
presented in Table 1 and average travel speed data.[31] Table D-4 indicates
1972 and 1977 daily miles traveled by vehicle type.
144
-------
TABLE 0-4
DAILY VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Vehicle
Type
Per Cent
Total
1972
1977
Auto
Light Truck
Heavy Truck
82.7
12.0
5.3
100.000
All
10,545,000
1,530,000
675,000
12,750,000
13,232,000
1 ,920,000
848,000
16,000,000
TABLE 0-5
Breakdowns were similarly developed for travel within the City of Phoenix
DAILY VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED WITHIN PHOENIX CITY LIMITS
Per Cent
Type Total 1972 1977
Auto 82,7 5,892,000 7,217,000
Light Truck 12.0 855,000 1 , 045, 000
Heavy Truck 5.3 377,000 462,000
All 100.0 7,124,000 8,724,000
County.
Table 0-6 presents 1970 and 1971 motor vehicle registration for Maricopa
Note that personal use panel and pick-up trucks (non-commercial
trucks in the table) constitute more than 10 per cent of the private
passenger vehicle fleet.
TABLE 0-6
MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION, MARICOPA COUNTY[l]
Passenger Cars
Trucks - Commercial,
Trucks - Non-Commercial
Buses
Taxis
Motorcycles &
Scooters
1971
518,951
75,392
64,813
334
190
24,141
Per Cent
Increase
+ 7.5
+9.3
+11.0
+ 4.0
+12.4
+22.1
1970
482,930
68,985
58,370
321
169
19,768
145
-------
Figure 0-1 presents population and auto registration projections for
Mari copa County.
700,000 vehicles.
By 1977 auto registration is anticipated to exceed
Since a major portion of the region's growth, both in
terms of population and vehicle registration, results from migration rather
than internal growth, limitation of importation of older vehicles appears
to have high potential for effectuation of mobil source emission reductions.
Tables 0-7 through 0-14 present 1972 and projected 1977 daily vehicle
miles of travel by vehicle type and age.
For light vehicles, population
age distribution is based on current registration statistics with the dis-
tribution for the projection year smoothed to eliminate unusual variances
in past model years.
Figure 0-2 presents the current age distribution of
automobiles registered in Maricopa County and Phoenix city limits and con-
trasts these with that of Los Angeles County.
The figure indicates the
tendency of vehicles over 10 years age to remain a substantial portion of
the in-use fleet in temperate climes where no winter salting of roads for
antifreeze purposes occurs.
Age distribution for heavy vehicles is based
on national statistics as are the relative annual mileage driven figures
for both heavy and light vehicles.
Although public transit services are provided by several operating
agencies, one, the Phoenix Transit Corporation (PTC), serves more than 90
per cent of all transit patrons in the Phoenix area.
PTC operates some 484
route miles over 30 routes on varying headways the minimum of which is 30
minutes, serving roughly 12,000 passengers on the average weekday.
The
system primarily serves transit dependent persons; some 90 per cent of the
patronage is by persons who have no alternative to transit for their speci-
fic trip.
146
-------
,
,
,
,
,
" 1,800,500
,
,
,
"
,
"
'"
'"
"
---" 1 ,385.000
",-
",'
--
,...
969,425
I
_....-'
_.,
-
--
--
~ 500,000
-'
--
,,"
-....
-"
,,"
-
-
-
840,000
1,340,000
~
-'"
"
330,000
100,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
1995
Figure 0-1.
Population and Vehicle Registration -- r.1aricopa County
Source:
De Leuw, Cather/TRW Inc.
Estimated from various local projections.
-------
.;.
())
10.
o
LU
0<:
LU
~ 8
o
LU
0<:
VI
0<:
-«
U
~ 6
o
Z
LU
VI
~
a..
...J
-« 4
I-
o
I-
....
o
Z
LU
U
0<:
LU
a..
2
o
1972
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
-- PHOENIX
..- MARICOPA COUNTY
1970
1966
1958
1968
Figure 0-2.
1964
MODEL YEAR
1962
1960
Comparison of Passenger Car Age Distribution --
For Los Angeles County, Maricopa County, and the
City of Phoenix as of 1 July 1971
1956
-------
TABLE D-7
PHOENIX REGIONAL AREA
1972 VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY BY LIGHT VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Per Cent Relative Weighted Daily VMT VMT Light
Age Lt. Vehicles Annual Mile- Per Cent of Autos Trucks
(years) In Use age Driven Daily Travel (Thousands) (Thousands)
0 .059 3.8 2.899 306 44
1 .098 7.5 9.484 1,000 145
2 .107 11.4 15.752 1,660 241
3 .094 10.4 12.621 1,330 193
4 .088 9.5 10.790 1,140 165
5 .094 8.5 10.311 1,090 158
6 .092 7.8 9.279 980 142
7 .079 7.1 7.252 765 111
8 .071 6.4 5.875 620 90
9 .056 5.9 4.272 450 65
10 .037 5.5 2.631 277 40
11 .035 5.4 2.560 270 39
12 .023 5.4 1.606 169 25
Over 12 .067 5.4 4.678 493 72
- - -
1.000 100.0 100.00 10,550 1,530
(1) POLK DATA, 1971 I
(3)-(1)x(2) expressed as per cent
-L(l) x (2)
Per Cent Total
Light Vehicles Daily VMT VMT
Autos (incl. taxis) 1 0,545, 000 82.7
Light trucks 1,530,000 12.0
Total light 1 2, 075, 000 94.7
149
-------
TABLE 0-8
PHOENIX REGIONAL AREA
1977 VMT (DAILY BY LIGHT VEHICLES)
(1) (2) (3) 1977 1977
Fraction of Relative Weighted VMT VMT
Age Lt. Vehicles Annual Mile- Fraction of (Autos (Lt. Trucks)
(years) in Use age Driven Daily VMT (Thousands) (Thousands)
o .059 3.8 .029 379 55
1 .099 7.5 .095 1,256 181
2 .107 11.4 .156 2,061 299
3 .104 10.4 1.38 1,831 265
4 .099 9.5 .120 1 , 586 230
5 .094 8.5 .103 1 , 357 197
6 .089 7.8 .089 1,180 171
7 .074 7.1 .068 895 130
8 .064 6.4 .052 692 100
9 .054 5.9 .041 542 79
10 .043 5.5 .031 407 59
11 .033 5.4 .220 298 43
12 .023 5.4 .016 218 33
Over 12 .058 5.4 .040 530 78
- - -
1.000 1.000 13,232 1 ,920
(3) (1) x (2)
~(1) x (2)
1977 VMT Light Vehicles (Daily)
Auto 13,232,000
, Light Truck 1,920,000
150
-------
TABLE D-9
PHOENIX REGIONAL AREA
1972 AND 1977 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER DAY BY HEAVY TRUCKS
(1) (2) (3)
Per Cent Relative 1972 1977
Age Heavy Trucks Annual Mile- Daily Daily
(years) in Use age Driven Weighted VMT VMT
o .034 3.6 .016 11, 000 14,000
1 .071 7.6 .074 50,000 63,000
2 .100 11.6 .156 105,000 132,000
3 .095 10.9 .140 94,000 119,000
4 .088 10.2 .121 82,000 103,000
5 .080 9.4 .102 69,000 86,000
6 .070 8.5 .081 55,000 69,000
7 .062 7.7 .064 43,000 54,000
8 .053 6.9 .049 33,000 42,000
9 .038 6.2 .032 22,000 27,000
10 .037 5.3 .026 18,000 22,000
11 .033 4.6 .021 14,000 18,000
12 .032 3.8 .016 11 , 000 14,000
Over 12 .207 3.7 .102 69,000 87,000
- -
1.000 1. 000 675,000 848,000
(3) (1) x (2)
1:(1) x (2)
Heavy VMT % Total VMT
1972 675,000 5.3
1977 848,000 5.3
Per 1967 Federal Census of Transportation:
Of all trucks registered in Arizona (excluding pickup and panel) 85.0 per cent gas,
12.3 per cent diese I or LPG, 2.7 per cent not reported. Assume 87.5 per cent
heavy trucks gas, 12.5 per cent diesel or LPG.
151
-------
TABLE 0-10
PHOENIX URBAN AREA
SUMMARY OF VMT - ALL VEHICLES 1972 AND 1977
1972 Daily VMT (Thousands) 1977 Daily VMT
Age Light Heavy Light Heavy
(years) Auto Truck Truck Auto Truck Truck
o 306 44 11 379 55 14
1 1,000 145 50 1,256 181 63
2 1,660 241 105 2,061 299 132
3 1,330 193 94 1,831 265 119
4 1 , 140 165 82 1 ,586 230 103
5 1,090 158 69 1,357 197 86
6 980 142 55 1 , 180 171 69
7 765 111 43 895 130 54
8 620 90 33 692 100 42
9 450 65 22 542 79 27
10 277 40 18 407 59 22
11 270 39 14 298 43 18
12 169 25 11 218 33 14
Over 12 493 72 69 53Q 78 87
- - - - -
10,550 1,530 675 13,232 1 , 920 848
152
-------
TABLE D-11
1972 VMT FOR LIGHT VEHICLES
CITY OF PHOENIX ONLY
(1) (2) (3) 1972 1972
Per Cent Relative Weighted VMT VMT
Age of Vehicles Annual Fraction of Autos Lt. Trucks
(years) in Use Mi leage Daily VMT (thousands) (thousands)
o 6.03 3.8 .030 175 26
1 9.48 7.5 .095 558 81
2 10.10 11.4 .150 885 129
3 8.98 10.4 .121 718 104
4 8.46 9.5 .104 618 89
5 9.79 8.5 .103 609 88
6 9.15 7.8 .093 549 79
7 8.07 7.1 .075 441 64
8 7.27 6.4 .061 357 52
9 5.82 5.9 .045 266 38
10 3.86 5.5 .028 154 24
11 3.67 5.4 .026 152 22
12 2.47 5.4 .017 102 15
Over 12 7.35 5.4 .052 308 44
- -
5,892 855
(3) = (1) x (2)
~(1) x (2)
153
-------
TABLE "0-12
1977 VMT FOR LIGHT VEHICLES
CITY OF PHOENIX ONLY
(1) (2) (3) 1977 1977
Fraction of Relative Weighted VMT VMT
Age Vehicles Annual Fraction of Autos Lt. Trucks
(years) in Use Mileage Daily VMT (thousands) (thousands)
o .059 3.8 .029 209 30
1 .099 7.5 .096 684 100
2 .107 11.4 .156 1, 123 162
3 .104 10.4 .138 998 144
4 .099 9.5 .120 866 124
5 .094 8.5 .102 740 108
6 .089 7.8 .089 644 93
7 .074 7.1 .068 688 71
8 .064 6.4 .052 377 54
9 .054 5.9 .041 296 43
10 .043 5.5 .031 222 32
11 .033 5.4 .023 163 24
12 .023 5.4 .016 118 17
Over 12 .058 5.4 .040 289 43
- - -
1.000 7,217 1 ,045
(3) = (1) x (2)
~(1)x(2)
154
-------
TABLE 0-13
1972 AND 1977 HEAVY VEHICLE VMT
CITY OF PHOENIX ONLY
(1) (2) (3) 1972 1977
Fraction of Relative Weighted VMT VMT
Age Vehicles Annual Mile- Fraction of Heavy Heavy
(years) in Use age/Vehicle Daily VMT (thousands) (thousands)
o .034 3.6 .016 6 7
1 .071 7.6 .074 29 34
2 .100 11.6 .156 59 72
3 .095 10.9 .140 53 65
4 .089 10.2 .121 46 56
i 5 .080 9.4 .102 38 47
I
I
6 .070 8.5 .081 30 37
7 .062 7.7 .064 24 30
8 .053 6.9 .049 18 23
9 .038 6.2 .032 12 15
10 .037 5.3 .026 10 12
11 .033 4.6 .021 8 10
12 .032 3.8 .016 6 7
Over 12 .207 3.7 .102 38 47
- - - -
1.000 1.000 377 462
,
I
(3) = (1) x (2)
~(1)x(2)
155
-------
TABLE D-14
SUMMARY OF VMT'S
CITY OF PHOENIX ONLY
1972 Daily VMT (thousands) 1977 Daily VMT (thousands)
Age Light Heavy Light Heavy
(years) Auto Truck Truck Auto Truck Truck
o 175 26 6 209 30 7
1 558 81 29 684 100 34
2 885 129 59 1 , 123 162 72
3 718 104 53 998 144 65
4 618 89 46 866 124 56
5 609 88 38 740 108 47
6 549 79 30 644 93 37
7 441 64 24 488 71 30
8 357 52 18 377 54 23
9 266 38 12 298 43 15
10 154 24 10 222 32 12
11 152 22 8 153 24 10
12 102 15 6 118 17 7
Over 12 308 44 38 289 43 47
- - - - - -
5,892 855 377 7,217 1,045 462
156
-------
Table 0-15 presents current daily vehicle miles of travel by local
jurisdictional areas within the Phoenix region.
This data was utilized to
generate the generalized relationship between vehicle travel density and
distance from the Phoenix city center (location of the air quality monitor-
ing station) which is indicated on Figure 0-3. The figure indicates rela-
tively low variation of vehicle travel density with distance from the CBO
and little concentration at the city center. This is consistent with the
highly dispersed pattern of land use, residential and employment activity
in the region.
Figure 0-4 indicates temporal distribution of daily vehicle travel by
facility type for the Los Angeles area which was assumed to reasonably
reflect temporal distribution in the Phoenix-Maricopa County region to the
level of detail required for input to the air quality models.
l~
-------
TABLE 0-15. VMT Data for Phoenix Jurisdictional Areas
Direction Distance
From From
Jurisdi ctiona I Gross Area VMT/ City Dtwn P.
Area (Sq. Mi.) VMT Sq. Mi Ie Center (miles)
Avonda Ie 2.5 22,000 8,800 W 16.0
Chandler 6.6 47,000 7,100 SE 16.8
Gilbert 1.0 6,000 7,000 SE 17.9
Glendale 16.8 331,000 19,700 W 8.8
Mesa 24.2 541,000 22,40Q E 9.2
Paradise Valley 13.3 70,000 5,300 NE 9.4
Phoenix 248.0 6,959,900 28,100 C 0-5.0
Scottsdale 67.3 714,000 10,600 NE 9.2
Surprise 1.0 2,000 1,000 NW 19.6
Peoria 2.8 13,000 4,600 NW 13.:?
Goodyear 0.9 500 600 W 16.5
Tempe 25.3 681,000 26,900 SE 8.0
158
-------
<"'I 25
.
0
-
*
~
~ 20
.
a
U)
--
E-+
~
>
15
~,
01.
"', ><
u
Z
fiI
;J 10
a
r.l
a:
~
s
30
o
o
2
"
a.
10
4
12
14
10
MILES FROM DOWNTOWN
Figure D-3.
Spatial Mileage Distribution for Phoenix
-------
0\
o
FRACTION OF
DAILY TRAFFIC
ASS IGNABLE TO
HOURLY PERIOD
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FOR FREEWAYS AND
SURFACE STREETS IN L.A. COUNTY
FREEWA YS
--- - SURFACE STREETS r-'
,.... I I
I
i
I
I
...-.---- .-1
1 i I
I C1! -- -,
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I L___-
""'1
1
...------- ~
I I I
.09
.06
.03
MIDNIGHT
6 A.M.
NOON
4 P.M.
MIDNIGHT
Figure D-4.
Frequency Distribution
-------
APPENDIX E
CONTACT REPORTS
Contact Report:
Subject:
E-l
Date:
Trip to Phoenix and Tucson by P. J. Weller
14-15 September 1972
Source of Information:
(See Text)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Visits were made to Phoenix and Tucson government personnel to obtain
base data on ambient pollution, pollutant emission, and transportation
systems for the 14 Cities Project in the Phoenix - Tucson area. The
following trip report describes who was contacted and summarizes general
discussion with each.
Published information obtained from these personnel
is separate from this document.
2.0 PHOENIX AMBIENT DATA
2.1
Persons Contacted
Robert Taylor, Director, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, Maricopa
County Health Department (MCHD), 1825 E. Roosevelt, Phoenix, Arizona 85006.
James E. Layden, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, MCHD, 1825 East Roosevelt
Phoenix, Arizona 85006.
2.2 Summary of Visit
At Taylor's office in the MCHD building I was introduced to Layden,
who is responsible for ambient sampling.
I toured the sampling facility
in the building and observed analyzers and wind speed re~orders in
operation.
161
-------
The worst Set II pollutant readings generally occur in winter during
nightly inversions.
These inversions begin at approximately 5 p.m. and
last until morning, when the highest pollution levels are. attained.
Normally about 2 p.m., the inversion breaks.
The summer pollutant con-
centration follows almost exactly the same daily cycle, except values
are much lower.
Maximum wind speeds in summer are 7 - 8 MPH, in winter
4 - 5 MPH.
The MCHD building is located a little southeast of the heart of town.
However, according to Taylor, the correlation between downtown concentra-
tions and readings at the MCHD building has been checked and found to be
almost exactly 1:1, both in magnitude and periodicity.
I wa~ shown data sheets for readings from 1969 through 1971, and
arranged to have copies of these sent to me.
Some sheets for 1970 and
1971 have not been completed; it was agreed that these would be completed
in the necessary detail to be of utility to us before being sent
(requires 1 - 2 weeks).
Several cumulative and limit values are sum-
marized at the bottom of each sheet, but no separate summary report for
yearly data exists (other than the state I.P. for 1969).
3.0 PHOENIX EMISSION DATA
3.1
Persons Contacted
Arthur A. Aymar, Chief, Vehicular Emissions Control Section, Division
of Air Pollution Control, Environmental Health Services, Arizona State
Department of Health.
Hayden Plaza West, 4019 North 33rd Avenue,
Phoenix, Arizona 85017.
162
-------
3.2 Summary Of Visit
I met with Aymar to discuss the state vehicle inspection data and
facilities.
According to Aymar, Ron Frey (same organization and address)
is really the man to talk to in detail about the computer program used
for data analysis and about the state vehicle emissions testing program.
Unfortunately. Frey was out of town during my visit, so Aymar told me
as much as he could.
Arizona obtained a mobile test unit for vehicle emissions testing
in January 1970.
Tests have been run in 1970 and 1971, using volunteered
automobiles in public locations such as shopping centers and parking lots.
C6mputer programs used for data analysis have been developed jointly
by the states of Colorado and Arizona.
5000 vehicles have been tested in several modes of operation:
(1. )
Dynamic Mode:
idle for each
Mode Test, in
Readings are taken at 50 MPH, 30 MPH, and
car and then averaged (unlike the Clayton 3 -
which the three readings are analyzed separately.)
(2.)
Idle Mode:
(a) loaded
50 MPH
- reading at RPM values representative of
and 30 MPH.
(b)
unloaded - readings at RPM values representative of
50 MPH and 30 MPH.
Arizona is admittedly uncertain about whether their methodologies
for both vehicle testing and data manipulation are correct.
For example:
(1. )
Should the three dynamic - mode readings be,
should the readings be weighted differently,
three readings be analyzed separate1y?*
indeed, averaged,
or should the
*Arizona emission standards are expressed as an average of the three
readings.
163
-------
(2. )
the same
(as in
Should the carburetor butterfly valves be kept at
~osition or allowed to assume different positions
Arizona) during the idle mode test?
There is a program currently underway in which a preliminary design
for state inspection stations is being developed by an architect and
Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc. (AESI) of San Bernardino, California.
4.0 TUCSON ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRAFFIC DATA
4.1
Persons Contacted:
John Ensdorff, Director, Environmental Health Services, Pima County
Health Department (PCHD), 151 West Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701.
Clint Jarvis, air nn11ution engineering, PCHD, 151 West Congress,
Tucson, Arizona 85701.
Chuck Rider, Tucson Area Transportation Planning Agency. 409 Lawyer's
Title Bldg., Tucson, Arizona 85701.
4.2 Summary of Visit:
4.2.1
Environmental Data
After a few brief words with Ensdorff, I was introduced to Jarvis,
who gave me several pieces of pertinent literature and discussed the
Tucson situation.
Very 1 i'tt1e ambient samp1 ing data exists for Set II
pollutants. According to both Ensdorff and Jarvis, the data that does
exist is admittedly unreliable, due to possible equipment malfunction
and the location of the samplers.
Pollutant analyzers have been ordered
by the PCHD and have recently been delivered.
The sources of Set II pollutants in Tucson are probably almost
entirely related to the automobile, with a few exceptions:
164
-------
(1. )
An aluminum sweater southwest of town which is used to
reclaim metal and alloy from aircraft frames and parts;
A copper smelter northwest of town;
(2. )
(3. )
The burning of natural gas as fuel in high-density areas
such as hospitals, shopping centers, etc.
The characteristic shape of the Set I pollutant isopleths in
Tucson is as in FigureE-l. It is expected that the Set II pollutants
are similar.
4.2.2 Traffic Data
Jarvis introduced me to Rider for the transportation data.
This data
seemed to be complete with regard to forming a basis for control measure
analysis.
In fact, they have data which is probably much more detailed
than we require (trip tables, turning frequency, etc.).
Rider recommended
however, that we not use the transportation systems data in a booklet I
obtained from the Tucson City Clerk entitled "Air Pollution in Tucson"
by the Tucson Advisory Committee on Air Pollution.
Tucson population growth is approximately 4% per annum at the present
The car population is, of course, growing more rapidly, and this seems to
be one of the major bases for concern with regard to the air pollution
problem.
Rider gave me several pieces of information and said he would send
more involving projections, among other things.
He will also send more
detailed information, if requested.
165
-------
'-
(~;)
.... .,...".
~ --
--
,.
/:
(t
..... -
r;{f\'
I
L~1
"7VC.SON
Figure E-l. Set I pollutant isopleths in Tucson
166
~
/.jOf'lE- rn1
-------
Contact Report:
Subject:
E-2
Background Pollutant Concentrations in Phoenix
Date:
12 October 1972
Source of Information:
Alan Raphael, Chemist, MCHD, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control
1.0
I NTRODUCTI ON
Mr. Raphael was contacted by phone by P. J. Weller to discuss back-
ground concentrations of HC, CO, Ox' and N02 in Phoenix.
2.0
INFORMATION GATHERED
2.1
HC
The background for total HC is approximately 2 ppm. However,
the zero gas used in MCHD continuous analyzers has 2 to'4 ppm HC in it;
therefore, the analyzers effectively subtract background from the total
concentration readings.
2.2
Ox and N02
No background concentration data exists for Ox and N02'
Zero gas is not used in the continuous analyzers.
2.3
CO
Background CO has not been quantified, but it is believed
to be very low. Zero gas is used in the analyzer, but the concentration
of CO in this gas is too low to be measured.
167
-------
Contact Report:
Subject:
E-3
Date:
Trip to Phoenix by P. J. Weller"
24-25 October 1972
Source of Information:
(See Text)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A trip was made by Peter J. Weller on 24 and 25 October 1972 to
Phoenix, Arizona, as part of theTRW contract in the Fourteen Cities
Program.
The purposes of this visit were:
(1.) to gather information on stationary sources of pollutants
and vehicle demographics
(2.) to present the Arizona State Health Department (ASHD) and
Maricopa County Health Department (MCHD) a preview of the
material TRW will present .at the review meeting on
30 October 1972.
The following agencies and personnel are 1 isted in the order in which
they were contacted:
AGENCY
ASHD
CONTACT
Bruce Scott
Division of Air Pollution
Hayden Plaza West
4019 North 33rd Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
(602) 271-5306
Control (DAPC)
MCHD
Alan Raphael, Chemist
Bureau of Air Pollution
1825 East Roosevelt
Phoenix, Arizona 85006
(602) 258-6381
Control
168
-------
AGENCY
ASHD
CONTACT
Ron Frey
DAPC
(602) 271-5067
ASHD
Don Moon
Staff Meteorologist
DAPC
(602) 271-5306
ASHD
Arthur Aymar
Director
DAPC
(602) 271-5067
Arizona Public
Service Co. (APS)
Ramon Fierroz
(For Bill Kimsey)
411 North Central
Phoenix, Arizona
(602) 271-7900
Salt River Project
(SRP)
Frank Scussel
Director, Project Planning
P.O. Box 1980
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
(602) 273-5402
SRP
Donald R. Squire
Gen. Supt., Steam Generation
P.O. Box 1980
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
(602) 273-2115
SRP
Jack A. Rassi
Senior Environmental Analyst
P.O. Box 1980
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
(602) 273-2503
Southern Pacific
Pipel ines, Inc.
(SPPI)
L. L. Stamper
Station Supervisor
P.O. Box 14750
Phoenix, Arizona
Business: 278-8564
Residence: 9F6-3087
169
-------
2.0 BRUCE SCOTT, ASHD
2.1
Power Pl ants
According to Scott, all power plants in the Phoenix area will begin
converting from natural gas to fuel oil within a year.
The reason for
this is the shortage of natural qas; talifornia is pre-empttng natural
gas, and, besides, domestic use has a higher priority for natural gas:
than power production.
power plants:
The following are the chief operators of these
OPERATOR
CONTACT
Arizona Public Service
Salt River Project
Bill Kimsey
Frank Scussel
Ali these plants are essentially peaking plants; base load power comes
mostly from Four Corners, Mohave, and other non-local plants.
2.2 Gasoline Evaporation
2.2.1
Filling Station Storage Tanks
A rule has been proposed in Arizona for the filling of gasoline
storage tanks but was rejected by the Arizona Board of Health.
This rule
(see Attachment A) was very similar to Appendix B of the Federal Register
of 14 August 1971.
The estimated cost for each station to comply with
this rule is approximately $15,000.
The major objection to the rule was
the fact that many ranches maintain gasoline storage tanks, and compliance
would be an unreasonable financial burden.
A similar rule, reworded to
exclude ranchers from the requirements, would probably be accepted.
The laws of Arizona currently provide guidelines for submerged
filling (see Arizona State Department of Health "Rules and Regulations
for Air Pollution Control", Section 7.1.5).
170
-------
2.2.2 Bulk Storage
There is a tank farm at 51st Avenue and West Van Buren.
(The manager
of this tank farm was subsequently contacted; see Section 8.0.)
2.3 Open Burning
Open burning is currently practiced at three dumps in the Phoenix
area:
DUMP
OPERATION
Buckeye
Tolleson
Salt River
Indian Reservation (SRIR)
Municipal
Municipal
Contract
It is unclear whether ASHD or MCHD has jurisdiction over the first two.
The SRIR dump is 3 miles east of
Scottsdale and about 15 miles east of Phoenix.
The towns of Tempe, Mesa,
and Scottsdale have disposal contracts with the dump operators and haul
municipal waste there.
These cities have land which can be used for
landfill, but they have found that it is cheaper to contract with SRIR
than to maintain their own landfills.
This dump was initially a landfill.
When space ran out, the operators
began burning the waste to allow more to be brought In.
Since Indian r.eservations are Federal (Dept. of Interior) lands,
evidently neither ASHD or MCHD has authority to halt burning.
At least
one emotional confrontation has occurred, and the situation is a potentially
sensitive one, although several solutions are in the offing. However,
meetings with the landfill operators r~sulted in the development of a
new landfill and the curtailment of burning at the old site.
171
-------
2.4 Process Losses - Metallurgica1 Industries
These sources are typically scrap metal dealers and processors and
are too small (less than 75 ton/day) to come under the jurisdiction of
ASHD. The MCHD would have records on these.
2.5 Aircraft
In response to a question about whether the emission reduction
shown for aircraft in the Arizona State Implementation Plan (ASIP) seemed
reasonable, Scott stated a significant reduction is reasonable because
of FAA retrofit regulations and new engine specifications. According
to these, when an engine is serviced, it is retrofitted with a burner can
which provides for leaner mixing and, therefore, lower particulate and CO
emissions. This type of burner is a standard item on newer planes, such
as the L10ll, DC 10 and 747.
2.6 Emission Inventories
There are two recent inventories, in addition to the one done by
Reta (St. Louis) for the ASIP: the 1969-1970 ASHD Inventory and the
1969 MCHD Inventory.
The ASHD Inventory served as a basis for the
172
-------
corrected and improved ASIP inventory, and, therefore, does not provide
better accuracy or more pertinent detail.
The MCHD Inventory deals only.
with Maricopa County emissions, and could be a good source of information.
It is being photocopied and sent by Scott.
2.7 Papago Freeway (Interstate 10 addition)
The plans for this freeway have been aff~cted in two ways by different
branches of EPA:
(1. )
On the one hand, the ASIP has recognized that the freeway will
have a beneficial effect on air quality by removing traffic
from city streets and increasing average speed.
(2. )
The impact statement issued by the Highway Department of the
freeway was rejected by EPA, evi.dently because it did not deal
with the entire planned freeway system, of which the Papago
Freeway is only a part. .
TRW recommendations emanating from this study will almost surely
influence the acceptance of construction plans for this freeway.
2.8 Freeway Access Controls
Scott submitted a newspaper article describing a signal-controlled
access sytem on the Black Canyon Freeway [6]
3.0 ALAN RAPHAEL, MCHD
3.1
Nonmethane HC Concentration
The MCHD estimate for nonmethane HC concentration as a percent of
total hydrocarbon (minus background) is 10%.
This estimate resulted
from three days of testing which produced similar results (in the range
5 % to 15 %) .
There is no available test report which documents this
estimate.
173
-------
3.Z Maricopa County Sampling Locations and Capabilities
3. Z. 1
West Phoenix
This was a temporary station set up by the EPA in the summer of
1971 to measure the following:
CO
Ox
Particulate
Wind Speed
Wind Direction
Temperilture
Humi dity
3.Z.Z
Paradise Valley
This is mobile lab data (see Section 3.Z.5).
3.Z.3 NASN
NASN samplers had been set up at MCHD on Roosevelt Avenue to test for
NOZ and Ox.
Currently an NASN unit at MCHD is taking a Z4-hour NOZ sample
every lZth day.
Test results are used to compute an annual arithmetic
mean.
This analyzer is being operated by MCHD personnel.
3.Z.4 MCHD Continuous Analyzers
MCHD uses Beckman analyzers with strip-chart recorders for continuous
measurement of CO, NOx' HC, and Ox.
Wind speed, direction and incident
solar radiation are also measured on a continuous basis in the MCHD building,
Sensors and sample intakes are located on the roof of the building, approxi-
mately 35 feet from the ground.
The reason samples are not taken nearer
ground level is that MCHD wishes to avoid noise (superimposed short-period
fluctuations) in the readout.
174
-------
3.2.5
MCHD Mobile Lab
Mobile instrumentation is installed in an 18-ft. Clark-Cortez camper
with a 110 volt refrigeration unit.
The lab requires external power for
refrigeration and instrument operation.
Analyzers include:
o Beckman NDIR for CO analysis
o Beckman flame ionization unit for total HC
o Salzman-type portable NOx analyzer
o Mast ozone meter for total oxidant
The mobile lab is scheduled for use at the corner of 19th Avenue and
McDowell from 17 October 1972 to 13 November 1972 or longer to measure
the effect of the Arizona State Fair while it is in town.
CO, NOx' and
particulate will be measured.
3.3 Phoenix Inversion
Inversions occur every night in the winter, but never in the summer.
Typically, they start one hour after sunset, begi.n lifting at approxi-
mately 8 a.m. and are completely broken up by noon or 1 p.m.
Break up
is largely due to the heat-up of the ground and is often coincident with
an increase in wind speed.
4.0 RON FREY AND DON MOON, ASHD
4.1
Ambient Sampling
ASHD personnel are sampling CO and particulate and are gathering
wind data at three locations in Phoenix.
Samples are taken and analyzed
every six days.
Sixteen samples have been taken so far; it is expected
that results will be issued on 1 December 1972.
175
-------
HC concentration may be measured eventually in this effort.
it will be tested once a month with a Beckman analyzer.
If so,
4.2 Diffusion Modeling
ASHD plans to use the Air Quality Implementation Planning Program
(IPP) developed by TRW to predict the influence of traffic, on air quality,
As a first step, IPP will be used to replicate the ambient data presently
bei ng ga the red .
The ultimate goal is to predict air qual ity a given dis-
tance from the freeway.
According to Moon, Phoenix experiences all six atmospheric stability
classes (A, B, C, D, E and F - discussed in the Turner "Workbook for
Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates" [2J in a 24-hour period.
5.0 ARTHUR AYMAR, ASHD
5.1
Vehicle Demographic Data
5. 1 .1
Incremental Odometer Reading
Arizona MVD does not have this data.
Aymar suggested checking with
an insurance company.
5.1.2 Scrappage Rate
Information unavailable.
5.2 Gasoline Storage and Distribution
5.2.1
Gasoline Distribution and Retail Sale
The following is a suggested information source:
Robert N. Harrison
Western Oil and Gas Association
609 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90017
(213) 624-6386
176
-------
5.2.2 Tank Farm in Phoenix
Suggested source:
L. L. Stamper, Station Supervisor
Southern Pacific Pipelines,' Inc.'
P.O. Box 14750
Phoenix, Arizona
Business: 278-8564
Residence: 966-3087
6.0 RAMON FIERROZ (FOR BILL KIMSEY) ASPC
6.1
Information Requested
Kimsey was out sick; Fierroz gave me as much information as he had
and promised additional information, if available, by 30 October 1972, on
(1. )
(2. )
(3. )
(4. )
the switch to fuel oil
pollutant emissions, as affected by the switch
plant street addresses
plant operating schedules
6.2
Information Received Immediate1y*
6.2.1
Ocoti110 Power Plant (Tempe, Arizona)
o capabi 1 ity:
both oil and gas combustion
o present fuel used:
natural gas
o stack dimensions:
2 stacks, 8 1/2 ft. 1.0.,170 ft. high
6.2.2 West Phoenix Plant (West Van Buren Avenue)
o stack dimensions:
1 stack, 8 ft. 1.0.,104 ft. high
1 stack, 7 ft. 1.0., 135 ft. high
1 stack, 13 1/2 ft. 1.0., 135 ft. high
NOTE:
This is a standby plant; it is normally not operated in the
winter and is smaller and older than the Ocoti110 plant.
* Better and more complete data is presented in Contact Report E-5.
177
-------
6.2.3 Red Rock Plant
This plant is 60 miles from Phoenix.
7.0 FRANK SCUSSEL, DON SQUIRE, AND JACK RASSI: SRP*
7.1 General Description
Phoenix plants never exceed a load factor (on an annual basis) of
60%. Present natural gas use corresponds to 5 MM Bbl of oil per year
(1971) .
In 1971 300 M Bbl of actual oil was used.
Squire promised to
mail a schedule for the planned fuel switch, providing management does
not object to release of the information.
In 1975, base load power for
Phoenix will be entirely provided by the Four Corners and Mohave Plants;
local plants will be used only for peaking.
Phoenix experiences .jts
greatest power demand in summer, because of air conditioning.
7.2 Specific Plants
7.2.1
Agua Fria
o location:
75th Avenue and Northern Avenue, between Peoria
and Glendale
o generating units;
3 steam units
2 - 100 megawatt
1 - 65 megawatt
o fuel schedule:
This plant will burn most of the oil.
winter 1973 - 400 M Bbl/mo.
summer 1973 - 100 M to 300 MBbl/mo.
o generating schedule:
In summer;
10 a.m. to 10 p.m. - full load (100% LF)
10 p.m. to 10 a.m. - 30% full load
In winter;
8 a.m.
small peak
* Better and more complete data is presented in Contact Report E-6.
178
-------
o
~iesel Fuel (02) Storage:
Current Tanks
j 1 - 11 0,000 Bbl, vented to atmosphere
{l - 131,000 Bb 1, sea 1 ed
Probable Addition
1 - 200,000 Bbl, sealed
7.2.2
Kyrene
o
location:
1 1/2 miles south of Baseline Rd. at Kyrene Rd.
o generating units:
currently two steam units and two turbine units
Steam
I~
33 megawatt
66 megawatt
Turbine
2 - 50 megawatt
There are plant to add two more turbines in 1973.
o schedule:
Kyrene is almost always kept in reserve in both
summer and winter.
o storage:
f - 10,000 Bbl, vented to atmosphere
Current Tanks 1 - 23,000 Bbl, sealed
1 - 131,000 Bbl, sealed
Probable Addition 131,000 Bb 1, sealed
7.3 Emissions
7.3.1
CO
CO emission is expected to be negligible.
7.3.2 HC
HC evaporation loss may result from filling of storage tanks.
Otherwise, Reid vapor pressure is low with 02 fuels, and evaporative
loss is not expected to be a problem.
179
-------
7.3.3 NO
x
Scussel talked to the SRP Power Commission and received approval
for a 6 to 8 month test on NOx emissions.
SRP Board approval is required,
and it is ~xpected.
This will occur 6 Novemb.er,,1972.
KVB Co. w,ill perform
tests.
SRP intends to meet EPA NOx emis$ionregulations accor,ding to tile
31 July 1973 schedule.
7.3~4 Additional Notes
(1.) SRP filed a report with ASHO describing expected emissions -
report dated 8 October 1972.
(2.) SRP is using 02 diesel fuel" 1/2%, sulfur. which !11ore than
,I '
meets standards for sulfur content.
7.4 Additional Information Expected by Mail
7.4.1
Schedule for fuel use (oil/gas) at both plants
7.4.2 Plant specification,
7.4.3 8 October 1972 report to ASHO on expected emissions.
8.0 L.L. STAMPER, SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPELIN~S, INC.
few.
Oil companies ?wn most of the tanksvon the farm; ~PPI owns only?
Either floating roofs or cone-covered floating roofs are used on
the tanks.
Stamper was at his home when I calleq him and much of the information
I requested was unavailable. , It was Clr:ranged that I call him the next
day at his office on the tank farm so that he could provide me with the
following:
o number of tanks vs
o tank size vs roof
o type of product vs
roof type
type
roof type
180' ,
-------
Attachment A
Sec. 7.1.5 Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources.
Reg. 7.1.5.1 Stora~e of Volatile Or~anicCompounds -
A. No person shall place. store or hold in any reservoir, st~tionary
tank. or other container having a capacity of 65.000 or more gallons any
gasoline or any petroleum distillate having a vapor pressure of 2 pounds
per square inch absolute or greater u,nder actual storage conditions, unless
such tank. reservoir. or other container is a pressure tank maintaining
working pressure sufficient at all times to prevent hydrocarbon vapor or
gas loss to the atmosphere. or is equipped with one of the following vapor
loss control devices. properly installed. in good working order and in
operation:
1.
A floating roof consisti~ of a pontoon type of double-deck type
roof resting on the surface of the liquid contents and equipped with a
closure seal to close the spaCe between the roof eave and tank well, a
vapor baloon or vapor dome, designed in accordance with accepted
standards of the petroleum industry.
The control equipment shall not be
used if the gasoline or petroleum distillate has a vapor pressure of 12
pounds per square inch absolute or greater under actual storage con-
~~itions. All tank gauging and sampling devices shall be gas-tight
except when gauging or sampling is taking place.
2.
Other equipment proven to be of equal efficiency for preventing
discharge of hydrocarbon gases and vapors to the atmosphere.
* Excerpted from 8,11 presented at Hearing before Board of Health.
181
-------
B.
Any other petroleum storage tank which is constructed or ex-
tensively remodeled on or after the effective date of these regulations
shall be equipped with a submerged filling device or acceptable equivalent
for the control of hydrocarbon emissions.
Reg. 7.1.5.2
Loading of Volatile Organic Compounds -
All facilities for dock loading of petroleum products, having a
vapor pressure of 1.5 pounds per square inch absolute o~ greater at
loading pressure, shall provide for submerged filling or acceptable
equivalent for control of hydrocarbon emissions.
(The following part was struck in hearing:
The loading facility shall
be equipped with a loading arm with a vapor collection adaptor with
pneumatic, hydraulic, or other mechanical means to force a vapor-tight
seal between the adaptor and the hatch. Ameans shall be provided to
prevent drainage of liquid organic compounds from the loading device
when it is removed from the hatch of any tank, truck, or trailer, or
to accomplish complete drainage before removal.
When loading is
effected through means other than hatches, all loading and vapor lines
shall be equipped with fittings which make vapor-tight connections and
which close automatically when disconnected.)
182
-------
Contact Report:
Subject:
E-4
Tank Farm
Date:
26 October 1972
Source of Information:
L. L. Stamper
Southern Pacific Pipelines, Inc.
P.O. Box 14750
Phoenix, Arizona
Business 602-278-8564
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Stamper was contacted by phone by P. J. Weller to discuss infor-
mation concerning the operations and capacity of the tank farm operated by
SPPI.
Discussed were storage capacity, number of tanks, and throughput of
the tank farm.
Below is a summary of that telephone conversation.
2.0
2.1
INFORMATION GATHERED
Storage Capacity
Gasoline (including Aviation* Fuel):
Total:
750,000 Bbl
1,400,000 Bbl
2.2 Tanks
Floating roof:
gasoline - 60
turbo fuel 1
JP4 2
diesel 2
Total - 65
Cone roof: Total
(3 being bui It)
3
2.3 Throughput
Gasoline (3 grades + Aviation*)
Current oil (including JP4)
Oil increase expected
Total throughput
1,400,000
400,000
600,000
2,000,000
Bbl/mo.
Bbl/mo.
* Aviation gas is a very small per cent of total gasoline.
183
-------
Contact R~port:
E-5
Subject:
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) Power Plants in and near
Phoenix; Description and Fuel Use.
Date:
1 November 1972
Source of Information:
W. L. Kimsey, Manager
Environmental Consulting
Arizona Public Service Company
The following pages provide data on APS power plants in and near
Phoenix. This data includes plant stack heights, locations, fuel
descriptions, heat rates, and historic and projected fuel use.
1M
-------
~~
~[[@ ~~@[@j @@~w
P. O. BOX 21666
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85036
November 1, 1972
Mr. Pete Weller
TRW, Inc. El-4048
1 Space Park
Redondo Beach, California
90278
Dear Mr. Weller:
You will find the attached information that you requested,
concerning our Company's three generating plants located
in the Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.
The (projected) fuel data on our gas turbine units is
slightly different than that which I gave you over the
phone.
Please let me know if we can be of further help to you
on your project for the State Health Department.
Sincerely,
,1.-" .J.' -< '
~/-
W. L. Kimsey, Manager
Environ~ental Consulting
) j. .
, r .-!.--.. '. .
WLK/b
Enclosures:
185
-------
TABLE E-l.
APS POWER PLANTS
1.
Ocotillo
Location:
Tempe, ARizona (Maricopa County)
Units:
(Steam)
# 1
# 2
- 114.9 MW (Net generating capacity)
- 114.5 MW (Net generating capacity
Design Heat Rate:
10,420 btu/kwhr @ 110.7 MW
Stacks:
2 - 178' above ground level
8.5' loD.
Max Gas Demand:
2)00 mcf/hr.
Fuel Consumption:
GAS
Oil
1970
1971
8,18),205 mcf
10,464,62) mcf
)6,160 bbls.
Oil Storage:
Existing
Dec. '72
Fuel Oil (#6)
1-55,000 bbl.
1-100,000 bbl.
Light Oil
Diesel (#2)
1-21,000 gal.
1-)0,000 bbl.
Gas Turbine
1 - Westinghouse W-501-G
58 MW (Add 1 - 197))
Stack Height
- 50' above ground level
Heat Rate
- 12,220 btu/kwh (base load)
11,930 btu/kwh
(peak load)
186
April '73
2-100,000 bbl.
-------
TABLE E-l.
(continued) APS POWER PLANTS
II.
West Phoenix
Location:
Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa County)
~:
(Steam) - 3
*
Total Net generating capacity - 113.3 MW
Design Heat Rate:
14,420 btu/kwh j 14,100 btu/kwh ; and 12,180 btu/KWH
~:
104'
- 8.0 LD.
Max. Gas Demand:
1625 mer/hr.
Fuel Consumption:
~
Oil
1970
1971
42,284 mcf
398,667 mcf
Oil Storage:
Existing
Fuel Oil (#6)
Diesel (#2)
55,000 bbl and 4,000 bbl.
30,000 bbl.
Gas Turbine
1 - Westinghouse
W-501-G
58 MW (Add 1-1973)
Stack Height -
50' above ground level
Heat Rate
- Same as Ocotillo's
* 33.3 MWj 13.2 MWj and 66.8 MW
187
-------
TABLE E-l.
(continued)
APS Power Plants
III.
Sa,guaro
Location:
Red Rock, Arizona (Pinal County)
Units:
2 (Steam)
Net Generating Capacity:
# 1
#2
- 99.0 MW
- 99.0 MW
Design Heat Rate:
11 ,090 btu/kwh
Max. Gas Demand
2,100 mef/hr.
Fuel ConsuT11ption:
~
Oil
1970
1971
2,748,933 mcf
6,056,158 mcf
21,462 bbls.
Oil Storage
Existing
Dec. '72
June '73
Fuel Oil (#6)
Diesel (#2)
55,000 bbL
30,000 bbL
1-100,000 bbL
1-100,000 bbL
Gas Turbine
1 - Westinghouse
W-501-G 58 MW (Add 1-1973)
Stack Height - 50' above ground level
Heat Rate - Same as Ocotillo's
188
-------
TABLE E-2 APS STEAM GENERATING UNITS
(Projected Fuel Usage - Bb1s of Oil & Mcfof Gas)
....
00
\0
I Ocoti110 Saguaro W. Phoenix Yucca Tota 1 s
Year Bb1s MeF Bb1s MCF Bb1 s MCF Bb1s MCF Bb1s MCF
1972 1 54,170 10,918,555 80,755 5 ,719,240 9,790 693,245 13,885 2,657,330 258,860 1 9,988,370
1973 929,060 5,607,000 486,650 2,937,000 58,990 356,000 314,200 818,000 1,788,900 9,718,000
1974 1 ,828,830 1,427,490 957,600 747,730 116,480 90 ,635 375,600 750,000 3,278,510 3,015,855
1975 1,965,470 582,025 1,029,530 304,870 124,780 36,955 523,300 165,000 3,643,080 1,088,850
1976 1,787,095 -- 932,800 -- 116,765 -- 600 ,900 -- 3,437,560 --
1977 1,475,395 -- 772,825 -- 93,675 -- 651,000 -- 2,992,895 --
1978 1,226,920 -- 642,670 -- 77 ,905 -- 651,000 -- 2,598,495 --
1979 1,137,870 -- 596,030 -- 7~,245 -- 651,000 -- 2,457,145 --
1980 1,105,870 -- 579,265 -- 70,210 -- 651 ,000 -- 2,406,345 --
1981 1,076,195 -- 563,720 -- 68,330 -- 651 ,000 -- 2,359,245 --
1982 944,765 -- 494,880 -- 59,985 -- 651,000 -- 2,150,630 --
aMCF = Thousand Cubic Feet
-------
TABLE E-3. APS GAS TURBINE GENERATING UNITS
(Projected Fuel Usage - Bb1s of Oil & MCFaof Gas)
--
~
o
Ocoti110 Sa gua ro Yucca W. Phoenix Douglas Tota 1 s
Year
Bb1s MCF Bb1s MCF Bb1s MCF Bb1s MCF Bb1s MCF Bb1s MCF
1972 2,705 119,880 2,660 117,920 2,095 92,970 2,715 120,370 860 38,165 11,035 489,305
1973 14,735 695,195 14,435 681,065 13,475 635,850 14,795 698,020 2,450 115 ,870 59,890 2,826,000
1974 39,035 911,985 38,240 893,450 35,700 834,130 39,190 915,690 6,506 151 ,995 158,671 3,707,250
1975 241,950 110,700 237,035 108,450 221,295 101 ,250 242,935 111,150 40,323 18,450 983,538 450,000
1976 207,900 -- 203,675 -- 190,150 -- 208,745 -- 34,652 -- 845,122 --
1977 148,895 -- 146,355 -- 136 , 185 -- 149,500 -- 24,339 -- 605,274 --
1978 123,205 -- 120,700 -- 112,685 -- 123,705 -- 20,530 -- 500,825 --
1979 122,480 -- 119,990 -- 112,025 -- 122,975 -- 20,412 -- 497,882 --
1980 143,855 -- 140,930 -- 131,575 -- 144,435 -- 23,972 -- 584,767 --
1981 154,495 -- 151,355 -- 141,305 -- 155,125 -- 25,749 -- 628,029 --
1982 105,195 -- 103,055 -- 105,625 -- 96,215 -- 17 ,532' -- 427,622 --
aMCF = Thousand Cubic Feet
-------
Contact Report:
Subject:
E-6
Salt River Project (SRP) Power Plants in and
near Phoenix; Description and Fuel Use
Date:
3-9 November 1972
Source of
Information:
John O. Ri ch
Assistant General
Power Operations
Salt River Project
Manager
The following pages provide data on SRP power p1ants in and near
Phoenix.
This data includes plant stack heights, locations, fuel
descriptions, heat rates, and historic and projected fuel use.
191
-------
SALT RIVER PROJECT
P. O. BO)( 1980
.,,~
..HOENIX, AR'ZONA 815001
("02) 273- ..900
MA"L Ft. .8EL. PRESIDENT
JOHN N. LASSENt "'CE PRESIDENT
November 3, 1972
fit. J. McMULLIN, OENERAL "'AHAGER
Mr. Pete Weller
TRW, Inc.
EI 4048
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA
Dear Mr. Weller:
90278
Attached is data you requested concerning SRP plants in the
Phoenix area. In addition to the information on the attachments
there are two gas turbines installed at Kyrene. The information
concerning the gas turbines .is penned in on the attachments.
The gas turbines will be equipped with water injection to reduce
NOx emissions therefore your studies might include NOx emissions
from gas turbines similar to this that are installed in California.
The best information we can supply on fuel usage is that we
expect to burn about three million barrels of diesel fuel in
1973. The Agua Fria Plant will generate 3060 millions of
KWH's, Kyrene Steam 380 millions of KWH's and Kyrene Gas
Turbine .260 millions of KWH's in 1973. It is not possible to
present a more detailed breakdown at this time.
Fuel consumption in the Phoenix area plants for use in the
foreseeable future is No.2 diesel with a maximum sulfur content
of 1/2 of 1%.
We hope this supplies the information you need in your studies
for the EPA.
sd
Attachments
~verY t~U1Y:, yo,;~! ,
I, ~,/' /::.~.,.(
/' . JOHN O. RICH
A~ stant General Manager
, Power Operations
192
-------
STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PART I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
COMPANY NAME -
PLANT NAME -
COMPANY PLANT CODE
SALT RIVER PROJECT
AGUA FRIA STEAM PLANT
433000-0100 -, REPORT FOR YEAR ENDED - DECEMBER 31. 1969
SCHEDULE E - Eauloment (Des Ian Parameters) - Continued
Section 3 - Stack Data
~
w
z
......
--J
~-Q-L_--~~, 9----- -lP5. 0
STACK STACK S~
N~M~ER NUMBER NUMBER
Ibl Ie) (d)
lA & lB 2A & 2B ~A & ~B
STACK CHECK FOR
N~:~ER FOO~~~TE*
PLANT MW
--_.------
ia)
43 Stack Numbers. . . . .
44 Installed Cost (Thousands of dollars)
(Instruction 12, page 8). . . . . . . . . .
45 Stack Height (Feet above Ground Elevation).
~6 Inside Diameter Of Flue at Top (Inches)
FLUE GAS RATE (CUBIC FEET/MINUTE)
~7 At 100~ Load
~8 At 75% Load.
~9 At 50% Load.
EXIT GAS TEMPERATURE
o At 100% Load
1 At 75% Load.
2 At 50% Load.
EXIT GAS VELOCITY (FEET/SECOND)
3 At 100% Load tAL. 99
4 At 75% Load CAL 74
5 At 50% Load. . CA~ . 50
56 Distance to next stack, Center to center (Feet * 113
57 Orientation of Line of Stacks - Degrees Clock-
Wise From True North**
72
120
~b
.29.85xl04
CA~ . .22.39xl04
CA~ ... 14.93x104
(DEGREES FARENHEIT}
. CAL .
CAL .
300
248
220
90.
81 111
120 123
:;0 III
29.85xl04 46.66xl04
22.39xl04 35.00xl04
14.93xl04 23.33x164
300 242
24/S 190
220 170
99 116
74 1!7
50 51!
113 :l,:;
X
Ie All footnotes should be shown on Page 12.
** Show position of stacks by stack number to correspond with the Identification In line 43.
true north on the diagram.
Stacks Orientation Diagram:
FLUE GAS CLEANING E UIP. MANUFACTURERS See
AAFC - American Air Filter Co., Inc.
AMST American Standard, Inc.
BELC - Belco Pollution Control Corp.
BUEL - Buell Engineering Co., Inc.
DUCO - The Ducon Co., Inc.
FIKL - Fischer-Klosterman, Inc.
FULL Fuller Co., Draco Products
KIRK Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Co.
KOPP - Koppers Co., Inc.
PPCI Precipitair Pollution Control Inc.
PAOA Precipitation Associates of America,
PLVR - Pulverizing Machinery Division'
COTT - Research-Cottrell, Inc.
SVRS - Seversky Electronatom Corp.
UOP UOP Air Correction Division
TWO STACKS FOR EACH OF THE THREE BOILERS.
193
Enter
1N
~1131- ~
- 22' 1- - 22' ~
o 0 0 0
IA lB ZA 28
259'
~ 28' ~
o
3A
o
3B
The Torlt Corp.
Western Precipitation Division
- Wheelabrator Corp.
Zurn Industries, Inc.
Other (Specify In footnote)
-------
COMPANY NAME -
PLANT NAME -
,COMPANY PLANT CODE
STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PART I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
SALT RIVER PROJECT
KYRENE STEAM PLANT
433000 - 0600
REPORT FOR YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1969
SCHEDULE E - Equipment (Des ign Parameters) - Continued
ection 3 - Stack Data
,0 PLANT MW r 33.0 66.0 57.0 (each) CHEC
'2 I STACK STACK STACK STACK FOR
iw
12 I NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER FOOTN
i:::; (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
143 Stack Numbers 1 2 3 & 4
:44 Ins ta I led Cos t (Thousands of dollars)
Instruction 12, page 8) 10.3 158.0 3 X
45 Stack Height (Feet above Ground Elevation~ 75' 9" 120' 0" 37' 37'
46 Inside Diameter of Flue at Top (Inches) 8' 0" 11' 0" 12' x21' 12'x21'
:471 FLUE GAS RATE (CUB I C FEET/MINUTE)
At 100% Load 142,306 248,811 ss4 000 SCFM(each)
[48 At 75% Load 106 1''\0 186.608 -----
149 At 50% Load 71 IS, 124,406 ---...-
EXIT GAS TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FARENHE I T)
50 At 100% Load ''!CiO 320 8500F. (Nor. Fu!1 Load) X
I~~ At 75% Load 280 275 ----- X
At 50% Load 260 240 ----- X
EXIT GAS VELOCITY (FEET/SECOND)
53 At 100% Load . 47 Cal 43 Cal 102 fps
54 At 75% Load 35.4 Cal ,2.7 Cal -----
55 At 50% Load 23.6 Cal 21.8 Ca I -----
56 Distance to next stack, Center to center
(Feet)'" 224 224
57 Orientation of Li ne of Stacks - DegreesClock
Wise From True North** 0 0 I
FLUE GAS CLEAI~ I NG EQU I P. MANUFACTURERS
AAFC American Air Filter Co., Inc.
AMST American Standard, Inc.
BELC Bel co Pollution Control Corp.
BUEL Buell Enoineering Co., Inc.
DUCO The Ducon Co., Inc.
FIKL Fischer-Klosterman, Inc.
FULL Fuller Co., Draco Products
KIRK Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Co.
KOPP Koppers Co., Inc.
PPCI Precipitair 'Pollution Control Inc.
PAOA Precipitation Associates of America, Inc.
PLVR Pulverizing Machinery Division
COTT Research-Cottrell, Inc.
SVRS Seversky Electronatom Corp.
UOP UOP Air Correction Division
jN
~
-f-0~
I 224'
~
II'
r
99'
~ All footnotes should be shown on Page 12.
** Show position of stacks by stack number to correspond
with the identification in line 43. Enter true north
on the d i ag ram.
Stacks Orientation Diagram:
-~
TORI -
WEST -
WHEE
ZURI~
OTHE
The Torit Corp.
Western Precipitation Division
Wheelabrator Corp.
Zurn Industries Inc.
Other (Specify in footnote)
194
-------
SALT RIVER PRO.JECT
1-'. u. eox 1960
.~
PHOENIX, "'"IZON'" 85001
(eoz) 273.5..00
K"'''L ", "'8EL, I"RE:SIDENT
.JOHN R. LASSEN. VICE PRESIDENT
November 9. 1972
1It..J. McMULLIN, GENERAL MAN"c.;ER
Mr. Pete Weller
TRW. Inc.
E 1 4048
One Space Park
Redondo Beach. CA
90278
Dear Mr. Weller:
Additional history of SRP fuel usage is provided here per
your verbal request.
ANNUAL FUEL CONS UMPTI ON OF SRP PLANTS
Year Agua Fria Kyrene Cross Cut
Oil Gas 0 i 1 Gas 0 i 1 Gas
Bb1s MCF Bb1s MCF Bb1s MC F
1969 16,483 18,770,000 854 2,160,000 0 0
1970 16,858 18,780,000 554 1,602,000 18 16,028
1971 175,131 18,235,000 19,923 3,102,000 1,478 14,197
The symbol Bbls represents 42 gallon barrels and MCF is thousands
of cubic feet. The oil burned was mostly 0.9% sulfur residual.
JOHN O. RICH
istant General Manager
Power Operations
195
-------
Contact Report:
Subject:
E-7
Date:
Open Burning Dumps
9 November 1972
Source of Information: Barry Abbott, Arizona State Department of Health,
Division of Sanitation
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Abbott was contacted by telephone by P. J. Weller to obtain
data on open burning dumps near Phoenix. The data included refuse tonnage
and projected influences on emissions and was required for estimating
emission rates in 1969 and future years. Dump sites at the Salt River
Indian reservation, Tolleson, and Buckeye were discussed.
In addition,
Mr. Abbott stated that his office is developing a state solid waste
plan which should include the elimination of open burning at dumps by
1975.
2.0
2. 1
INFORMATION GATHERED
Salt River Indian Reservation
There is no data available for the base year, 1969. Tonnage
estimates were based on 1970 census data and an assumption for per
capita refuse production of 4 1b/person-day. The population figures are
as follows for the towns hauling refuse to the dump:
Town
Scottsdale I
Mesa
Tempe
Paradise Valley
Salt River Indian reservation
1970 Census Figure
132,873
63,550
7,155
1,650
196
-------
Projected 1975 populations are as follows:
Town
1975 Census Figure
Scottsdale
Mesa
Tempe*
Paradise Valley
Salt River Indian
85,000
83,000
Reservation
9,000
2,500
Currently, 20 to 40% of the refuse tonnage is burnt.
burnt in ~979. No burning is expected in 1975.
Less than this was
2.2
Tolleson
The Tolleson dump is located three (3) miles south of the city
of Tolleson.
Very little (much less than 5% of the tonnage) is current-
ly burned and 1969 data is unavailable. No burning is expected in 1975.
2.3
Buckeye
The Buckeye dump is located one (1) miles west of the city of
Buckeye.
In 1969 100% of the refuse tonnage was burnt. No burning is
expected in 1975.
* Since 1972 Tempe has used its own dump rather than the Salt River
Indian Reservation dump.
197
-------
Contact Report: E-8
Subject: Trip Report on Gasoline Evaporative Loss Control Systems
Date: 10 November 1972
Source of Information:
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
A trip to San Diego was made by Peter J. Weller on 8 October 1972 for
the purpose of gathering information from the San Diego Air Pollution Control
District (SDAPCD) on the control of hydrocarbon (HC) emissions from gasoline
marketing.
1.2 Contacts
The following personnel were contacted:
Clark Gaulding, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
John Farnsworth, Senior Air Pollution Engineer
Barnard R. McEntre, Air Pollution Engineer
Ray Skoff, Air Pollution Engineer
All work at:
County of San Diego Air Pollution Control
Department of Public Health
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92101
(714) 236-3826
District
(McEntre and Skoff provided me with most of the information described in
this report.)
198
-------
2.0
2.1
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
2.1.1
General System Design
Baseline System
The baseline system is as follows: The tank truck fills an
underground storage tank at the service station and car tanks are filled
from pumps which bring gasoline from the underground tank. The dis-
advantages of this system are:
(1.) Since the temperature of the gasoline in the tank truck
is very probably (in moderate to hot climates) higher than the
gasoline temperature in the underground storage tank, the total
vapor pressure in the underground tank is increased. Normally
a 1.0 PSI relief valve is used for underground tanks, if the
increase in vapor pressure exceeds this, gasoline vapor will be
emitted to the atmosphere. (See Attachment A).
(2,) The empty car tank is similarly full of vapor, which
is displaced to the atmosphere as the car tank is refilled.
(3.) The topcaps on the tank truck are opened during the
transfer of gasoline to the underground tank. This allows air
to enter the truck tank and gasoline vapor to exit from it.
The air in the truck forms (according to McEntre) an explosive
mixture* with the gasoline vapor in the truck. Thus, the driver
returns to the bulk terminal with a highly dangerous cargo.
2.1. 2
Recovery by Condensation
To recover vapor displaced from the underground tank (or car
tank), some systems condense the vapor and either hold the condensate
or return it to storage in the underground tank. Typically 10% of
the hydrocarbon throughput is lost to the atmosphere with such a system.
* Minimum air-fuel ratio (weight basis) for explosive mixtures is 9:
optimum (i.e., most effective for combustion) ratio for explosive
mixtures is 14 to 16.
199
-------
2.1.3
Recovery by Adsorption
Some systems use carbon canisters to adsorb the vapor. The
canister may be periodically back-flushed (without removal) or may be
removed and the trapped gasoline destroyed or recovered.
2.1.4
Recovery by Vapor-Return
With a vapor-return system. a vapor line running from the
underground tank to the tank truck carries displaced vapor from the
tank back to the truck. The truck is kept closed, except for the fill
line and vapor line to the underground tank. When filling of the under-
ground tank is complete. the truck returns to the bulk terminal with a
load of saturated (and, therefore. non-explosive) gasoline vapor.
Vapor-return applied to car tank filling takes a similar form.
A vapor line running parallel to the gasoline line used for filling car
tanks returns displaced vapor to the storage tank. Both vapor-return
applications require a vapor-tight coupling with each tank.
2.2
Specific Systems and Hardware
See Table E-4.
3.0
LEGAL AND POLITICAL INFORMATION
3.1
Rules 61 and 63
A package sent by Gaulding to gasoline marketing operators .
includes the applicable SDAPCD rules (61 and 63) and a
200
-------
compliance form for permitting.
Rule 61: (1.)
(2. )
Rule 63: (1.)
(2. )
(3. )
(4. )
3.2
Key aspects of these rules are:
Lower tank size limit for control requirement
is 250 gallons.
Last paragraph in (a) is subject to misinter-
pretation and should be more explicit.
Lower tank size limit for control requirement
is 250 gallons for stationary tanks and 5 gallons
for boat and MV tanks. (Average ranch or farm
storage tank is 550 to 1000 gallons)i filling station
tanks range from 8000 to 10.000 gallons).
"AU II in 1 i ne 11. sentence begi nni ng with "Loadi ng.. II
is defined as 100% by SDAPCD.
Items (1) and (2) of the rule requires 90%
efficiency for absorption and condensation
and 100% efficiency ("all") for fuel handling
(e.g.. vapor return) systems.
Existing sources must have submitted a compliance
schedule by 1 July 1972* and must be in compliance
by 1 January 1974.
Legal and Political History
3.2.1 Suit by California Oil Jobbers Association
COJA supplies gasoline to private accounts and independent service
stations. It filed a suit recently to challenge the rules but the suit
has been dropped because COJA did not exhaust the administrative pro-
cedures specified in the rules (namely. the right of hearing and appeal.)
A major contention is that COJA will be hurt economically by the new
rules, but the organization has not been able to show an economic dis-
advantage.
*The date for this requirement has not been enforced rigorously -
some schedules have been received, others are in progress.
201
-------
3.2.2 Filling Stations
One station operator recently applied for authority to construct
a station in San Diego. The application was initially rejected because
of insufficient contro1. but the operator resubmitted the application.
this time with a description of a recovery system. Action on this appli-
cation has been delayed pending the development of tank farm facilities
for disposal of vapor recovered from vapor-return systems at filling
stations.
4.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Contact suppliers of recovery systems and hardware. obtain speci-
fications and higher resolution on cost figures and status.
4.2 Using the SDAPCD Rules 61 and 63 as a pattern,
rules for the study area. Re-evaluate and improve on
specifically with regard to the key aspects described
the above.
propose similar
the SDAPCD rules.
in Section 3.1 of
202
-------
Supp 1 i"er
Atlantic Engineering
Calgon Corp.
(Prttsburgh Actrvated
Carbon Drv.)
Dover Corp.
(OPW Div.)
'"
o
to)
Ocean Resources,
Inc.
Shields, Harper
Vaporex
Russell, Birdsall
& Ward (RBW)
Table E-4.
SYSTEM SUPPLIERS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Description
Condenser. Condensate is returned to
underground storage tank.
Adsorber. Replaceable carbon canisters;
OPW pump. nozzles are used. System being
tested at San Diego County OperatiQnal
Center, where county vehicles are serviced.
PAC has funded modification of the Center.
Nozzle only. This is the only
commercially available nozzle at present.
Definition of system is presently vague.
Technical description has not yet been
disclosed. Shields, Harper & Co. will
own and lease out their recovery equip-
ment. They will 81so own all gasoline
recovered.
System reduces the volume of entrained air
mixed with vapor and returns recovered
gasol ine to storage tank. (Major restraint
on this type system is that recovered gas-
oline must be at same temperature as gas-
oline in storage tanks.) A prototype is
being used by Chula Vista Yellow Cab Co.
Adsorber. Parallel carbon canisters. One
canister is heated and backflushed by vacuum
to the storage tank while the other remains
in operation. Recovered vapor is bubbled
thru liquid gasoline in storage tank. System
Includes a nozzle design (see Fig. 4).
Approximate
Capi tal Cost',
$5000
$65
(Price wi 11
probably be
reduced to $35
if/when nozzles
are produced in
large quantities)
Not determi ned
$1500
$2300
* Does not include installation and peripheral hardware (piping, valves, etc.)
vo 1 at r1 e.
Status
Avai lable
Developmental
Available
Unknown
Developmental
Prototype
avai lable
Developmental
These estimated costs are
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Estimates of Pressure Increase in Underground
Storage Tank During Filling
Estimate (considered conservative):
Temperature of gdsol ine in truck
Temperature of gasol ine storage tank
90°F
70°F
Assume:
2000 gal. gasol ine in truck
400 gal. gasoline initially in storage tank
Thus:
Temperature of mixture after filling
Initial tank pr~s5ure (before fi lling):
gasol in:; vapor: 6.8 PSIA
tank air: 7.9
87°F
--
tota 1 :
14.7 PSIA
Tank preSSL"t: -J~Ler filling:
totill:
9.4 PSIA
7.9
17.3 PSIA
gasol i ne vapor:
tank air:
Increase in vapor pressure
17.3 - 14.7 = 2.6 PSIA
204
-------
Contact Report:
Subject:
E-9
Date:
Reduction of Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure
14 November 1972
Source of Information:
Edwin E. Nelson
General Motors Corp. .
Environmental Activities Staff
Warren, Michigan
(313) 575-1259
Mr. Nelson was asked whether lowering the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
of gasoline would conflict with Detroit requirements (or requests) for
1975 vintage vehicles, i.e., that higher fuel volatility will be required
for efficient mixing with air.
He answered that these two fuel properties
are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as illustrated in Figure E-2.
The solid-line curve represents a typical fuel in use today.
(Gaso-
line distillation curves vary with brand, geographic area, and season.)
The dashed curve represents a possible fuel which has both properties.
It has lower volatility at temperatures between ambient and carburetor
temperatures (area Ci) of the graph), yet it has higher volatility at
cylinder operating temperatures (area
-------
Figure £-2. OA1J'OU'A/~ O/(f T7( C-/9 7lfJ.(; (!(/,e"FS
4'(00 -- 7WJ/~1Ot. 6IlIIJdUk£
-- PROPO&C() OII(MOUNtF
~
~
.....
\u
~ ~s-o
~
~
~
,
~ I
.... I
~ 1&0
~
~
1<0
~
o
6.0
, ()()
//O'(/~G
6VAJPOI2~n:o I %
206
-------
(1. )
Such an alteration may mean capital expenditure for
process modification.
(2.)
Propane, butane, and other "light end" components of
gasoline must be added in lower quantities in the re-
fining process (to reduce RVP*).
This will reduce the gasoline output per barrel of
crude and will have a detrimental effect on operating
economics~
*Heavy ends must be removed at upper end of distillation curve t(
increase volatility there.
207
-------
Contact Report:
Subject:
CONTACT REPORTS
E-10
Source of Information:
Phoenix Area Transportation Planning Data
Mr. Tom Buick, Maricopa Association of
Governments Transportation Planning Program
(MAGTPP)
During the course of this project, Dan Smith of De Leuw, Cather
and Co. had several meetings and telephone conversations with Mr. Tom Buick
of MAGTPP, the regional agency responsible for coordinating ongoing
transportation programs and continuing transportation planning in the
Phoenix area.
MAGTPP served as a clearing house for information on ongoing and
programmed improvement projects of all jurisdictions in the area as well
as for transportation planning projection data.
Much of the information
contained in Append'ix D as well as information on plans, programs and
travel data utilized throughout this report has been furnished by MAGTPP
with the consideration and assistance of Mr- Buick.
208
-------
APPENDIX F
ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Arizona Automobile Association ..
Arizona Automobile Dealers Association
Arizona Association of Government
Arizona Public Service Company
Arizona State Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture
Arizona State Department of Health, Division of Sanitation
Arizona State Department of Public Safety
Arizona State Highway Department
Arizona State Inspector of Weights and Measures
Arizona State Tax Commission
Automobile Association of America (AAA)
Battelle Memorial Institute
California Air Resources Board
City of Phoenix Advance Transportation Planning Team
City of Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
City of Phoenix Traffic Engineering Department
Ethyl Corporation
First National Bank of Arizona
General Motors Corporation, Environmental Activities Staff
Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Planning Program
Maricopa County Health Department, Bureau of Air Pollution Control
Maricopa County Highway Department
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
Pima County Health Department
209
-------
APPENDIX F (Continued)
ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Salt River Project
Shell Oil Company
Standard Oil Company
Southern Pacific Pipelines, Inc.
Texaco
The Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette
Union Oil Company
Valley National Bank
Western Oil and Gas Association
210
-------
APPENDIX G
AIR QUALITY MODEL
The state of air quality in our metropolitan area is influenced by
a large number of complex relationships and interactions.
Any attempt
to forecast future air quality must account for these factors.
One
method for addressing this problem in a systematic framework involves
the use of a computer simulation model.
Here, the various relationships
affecting air quality (such as transportation controls) can be assessed
quantitatively.
The model developed for this study permits the forecasting of future
air quality of each Set II pollutant for the 1975 through 1980 period.
Basically, the model consists of the following three elements.
. Vehicle Population Model (VPM)
.
Vehicle Emissions Model (VEM)
.
Rollback Model (RBM)
Each describes a different facet in the process used to forecast
future air quality.
Figure G-l presents a schematic overview of the
composition and relationships between the various model elements..
Since
the model was developed for evaluating the merit of various transportation
control .measures, it quite naturally focuses with more detail on the
mobile as opposed to stationary sources. The model is sufficiently
flexible in design, however, to permit a more elaborate description of
211
-------
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
.
.
I
..................
fi8lllml1IUA:
" ~nfll aIImI flll:'a
.8WI8IIfDIMTt
'..1. '." U + Iif)
~.Q.P"..1iF
P n . 1GU.A1IfII AT YEM "
"'.J. 'eMS j fUlSCUI UlTWn
YEHlttfOPlXillAPHItIlAJA:
. INITIAL VEHICU POP\OTlIIN
OISTRIMIOIIS
. Y(KleU IIILEA&E YS. N,L TMU:
" VEHICLE SC!W'PA6( RArn
CALC1A.AtE TDUtLE POI'II..ATlIIN
fOlt£AalTW, II
.1I.J..1I-1.j.l~
-".J- ,tARSj TEARS OLD II1URII
Dn.J . PUCOOA&E Of eMS J fEARS 01.0
REMIMIII& II TItE FlEET
VPM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
,.......................
VlII1CL(PO)f'I.I..ATlOllIU!£L
...............................................
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..............................................
CQIIP\ITEEMISSIOIIMTES FOR EACH
SUB.JECJTW:
COIITROtI'lE'5U\EDATA
E..' !: "I 111.."151
'-"1
En. EPtiSSIOli RATE 1M T£AJI n {6/J111}
"1."2" YllfToW;YWlIII115fORTIliSCOIITROlTYPE
C1" lOWIIILEA6![IIISSUIIIlATESFORM)[J{LyEAJl1
0111" OnSSIOll O£TERIORATlIJI FACTOR
lit. ~J~~ ~H~~LE v:~~~~m~
51" 5J>EEDflDJUSTMDITFN:'TC8.
. YEHICLEIULESTAAVELED(YHT)
'£IIU1.£ OOSSIIE IGIEl.
. IlEWCAREMISSIOllAATES
" EMISSIOllD«ArIlAT.[S
. 5J'EED CORARTiCII FACTOAS
. TDRIRAL'MTDlSTRIBUTIOII
VEM
I .
I .
I .
I .
. It.J'~~~..~j .
. CIJII'UTELOCAflOIIfACTORSfDltf.IQI HJ . STM:r.ttElGfITFOR .
. SlJJllt(CATE6OIT' SC :~ICSTA8JLlTf .
. Q.ASS.
: "'.J' ',', ..1 '5.-) :
\2°1
I .
. °1,°1. ~IGA./:-'RlEru:= .
. Oflt,J.SC .
. lFj.J. ~~r:-~~SCIIE[ .
I I
. :~~I:.
. REtEPlDIt.
. . =~~ OU55ID1 AT .
. """,:~=:=:.., : WI6lO.lll~TIDI .
. Ct.I.I~IlliI-I) .
I I
. CI . CCII:oov.flOII AT REC£l'TOil I .
I I
I I
. [J' ~~Erl~:muSiUC[ .
I I
I I
. CM\JT[ CDIICEJlTRAflOII 8T .
. SElIIOlffIlSIDI: .
. E lft,j Ej .
CI-O.t!iwBA5.Ej-B) L-
I 17 ",.J EWEJ I
I: RBM I:
Ct-C(JICOITJlAflIWIATR£CEPTORi
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I......................................
........... .................
I I
: OUTPUT:
I I
I I
I I
. '."~"':::~::~:::~::~",.::"'L'" "<>.a... .
I .."",. ..,,,,, - _. ,.. I
: ,,"".. "...-. ,,,... ."" ,,- ...N ,.. ..,,- ,,,.. I
I .." .." .." "" :
I :i::~ iii:S i~::: iE:: i:i:i: ii::~ i:t~ IE::: I
I in::: i:1:E i::~E ::::~ ii:::: i:i::: ::-::~ i~E I
I ii::E iii:E i~:: IE:: m:ii ::i:~ i?.::; I::::: I
. :::::; 1:::~; 1~t:~ m:E 1E:E :ir:: E::E m:~~ .
I '-.- ".' ,.,." "'.. .... "." "." ".. I
I .
.............................
212
-------
stationary sources, as approprl'ate. Th f 11 .
e 0 oWlng presents a more
detailed discussion of these three model elements and describes the
methOdology used for strategy assessment.
VEHICLE POPULATION MODEL
The Vehicle Population Model (VPM) is a general methodology for
projecting future distributions of vehicle population versus vintage year,
Used in conjunction with the Vehicle Emission Model, VPM can provide
estimates of net emissions for the period 1975 1980 'under a variety of
alternate control measure considerations.
The basic model methodology involves analytically describing the
"birth and death" process taking place within the vehicle population
itse If .
Older vehicles are continually aging, with the oldest leaving
the population entirely after many years of service.
5i mul taneous 1 y,
new vehicles are being added to the population at some pre-assigned rate.
Because of this process, the relative weights of various vehicle age
groups in determining the net emissions change with time.
emissions projection must account for this phenomenon.
Any accurate
VPM computes the vehicle age distribution over time, adjusting for
both new cars and vehicle attrition.
This distribution provides a set
of weighting factors for each age class and for each year analyzed.
Combined with independently estimated vehicle emission rates, this dis-
tribution data can lead to emission projections weighted for changes in
vehicle population characteristics.
213
-------
This weighting process is crucial in making accurate projections.
Under the current vehicle breakdown, three separate classes of light
duty vehicles are considered:
uncontrolled
(pre-1968), controlled
(1968 - 1970) and post 1970.
Emission levels of the first two groups rise
substantially over time due to vehicle deterioration.
Yet, due to natural
attrition processes, their numbers decline.
The net contribution of these
groups depends upon the interaction of both vehicle attrition and deterio-
ration.
Similarly, post-1970 vehicles have substantially reduced emission
levels. (The emission levels for new cars are assumed to be in compliance
with promulgated standards~
As they enter the population and represent
an increasingly large fraction, the aggregate emissions characteristics of
the population will approach those of the post 1970 cars.
It is this complex
interaction between vehicle attrition, entrance of new cars and resultant
population emission levels whlch is described quantitatively by VPM and
which can provide a straightforward mechanism for projecting emission levels
over future periods.
The model can also be used for measuring the time related effect-
iveness of various proposed vehicle control strategies, both singularly
and in combination.
This can be accomplished by introducing quantita-
tive point estimates of strategy effectiveness and simulating the model
over a specified time horizon.
VPM requires tne fol lowing as basic input:
o Initial vehicle population
o Initial vehicle age distribution
o Population growth rate
o Vehicle attrition rates
214
-------
VEHICLE EMISSION MODEL
The Vehicle Emissions Model (VEM) characterizes emission levels for
the first five source categories of Table G-l.
Equation G~l presents the
relationship used in estimating emission levels for categories one through
four.
nz
E = L
Ci di Mi Si VMT
(G- 1)
i = n
1
where:
Ci = the new car (low mileage) emission rate for model year i
di = the time decay factor
Mi = the weighing factor for fraction of vehicle miles traveled
5i = the speed correction factor
VMTi = annual vehicle miles traveled per year for one vehicle
in ith model year
nl, n2 = time limits for the appropriate category
E = emission rate by vehicle in grams per year
Similarly, equation G-2shows the relationship for estimating
evaporative and crankcase losses.
E = L hi Mi VMT i
(G-2)
wh ere:
hi = evaporative and crankcase emission rate for ith model yearlr
Conversion of emission rates from grams per year to grams per second,
for incorporation into RBM, requires the use of the diurnal distribution
of vehicle miles traveled within the metropolitan area and *the pollutant
*5ee Appendi x D
215
-------
TableG-l.
EMISSION SOURCE CATEGORIES FOR PHOENIX
1.
Uncontrolled Vehicles
2.
Controlled Vehicles
3.
4.
1970 Vehicles
Post
Heavy-Duty Vehicles
5. Crankcase and Evaporative Losses
6.
7.
Fi 11 i ng Sta ti ons
Diesel Vehicles
8.
9.
Metallurgical Processes
Industrial Processes
10. Aircraft
11.
12.
Bulk Fuel Terminal
Open Burning Dumps
Power Plants
13.
14.
Process Losses
216
-------
measurement sample basis.
Both are used to calibrate annual emission
rates with actual traffic flows and peak pollutant levels.
The effective-
ness of various control measures for these five categories is then applied
directly to the resultant emission rates.
ROLLBACK r~ODEL
Two different methods are used for estimating future air qUplity.
The first one, termed Simple Rollback. assumes that regional
air quality will improve in direct proportion to reductions in regional
emissions.
Future air quality in year x is estimated by Equation G..3,
AQyear x
LE year x
b + (AQbase year - b)' LEbase year
(G-3)
where:
b= background pollutant concentration level
AQ = air quality in year indicated
E = emission rate in year indicated
This technique. although simple to use. has the following restric-
tions:
1 )
It does not account for the fact that some emission sources
are closer than others to the receptor or problem area.
2)
It does not consider differences in effective stack height
of the various sources.
3)
It ignores meteorological conditions.
The Modified Rollback or Semidiffusion Method takes into account
some of these effects while retaining the simple form of the rollback
equation. This modification to Simple Rollback is an attempt to
characterize the atmospheric distribution of emissions while avoiding
a full scale dispersion model.
While applicable dispersion models are
available they have not been applied to the Phoenix area planning.
217
-------
The Semidiffusion M~thod assigns a relative importance to each
source depending on its distance from the receptor
(or hot spot),
the prevailing atmospheric stability class, and, to a small degree,
the effective stack height of the source. This relative importance index
is called the Location
equation (G-4).*
lf
j
Factor (If), defined for a particular source j in
1
ayaz exp(4-\
~az)
(~-4)
where ay and az are functions of the atmospheric stability
class and the distance from source to receptor, and h. is the
J
effective stack height.
The rollback equation using the location factors becomes:
AQyear x = b + (AQbase year-
L: lflj,
b)
Llf.E.
J J'
yeC!r x
(G-5 )
base year
Since the location factors appear in both the numerator and
denominator of the concentration multiplier; only the relative
magnitude is important.
* It is assumed for simplicity that only one receptor is
Multiple receptors require double subscripting.
218
being considered
-------
crz and cry increase. The rate of increase depends on the atmospheric
stability class.
The atmospheric stability class characterizes those meteor.ological
conditions appropriate to the case being analyzed. As described in the Turner
Workbook [ 2], the stability class quantifies the turbulent structure
of the atmosphere around the area being considered. It depends mainly
on the amount of incoming solar radiation, the cloud conditions and
surface wind speed. The stability class ranges from A to F, A being
the most unstable, F the most stable. Figures cQrrelating a and a
y Z
with the stability class along with a complete description of the
technique are found in the Turner Workbook.
The RBM correlates oxi~ant concentrations to hydrocarbon values through
carbon
of the Barth [20] relationship.
The model references the nonmethane
hydrocarbon concentration to derive oxidant concentration values at each
year for each strategy.
Table G~l presents a list of the 14 source categories (both mobile
and stationary) used in characterizing the semidiffusion model for the
Phoenix Region.
In general, when controls are applied to mobile sources
which are relatively closer to the receptor then their stationary counter-
parts, the Semidiffusion Method will yield lower estimates of pollutant
cancentrations than Simple Rollback.
STRATEGY ASSESSMENT
A measure can be defined (in the model) in terms of:
1) the percent-
age drops of emission rates in each source category, 2) a change in average
speed for light and/or heavy duty vehicles, 3) a VMT multiplying factor, or
4) the new average distances between the sources and the receptor.
These parameters are used to compute the aggregate vehicular emission
rates used in the air quality estimation.
219
-------
The percentage emissions drops are applied directly to the aggregate
vehicular emission rates.
Inspection/maintenance, as an example, affects
only the average emission rates and, thus, can be defined with percentage
drops--12 for He, 10 for CO, and 0 for NO with no chang~ in the VMT
x
multiplying factor, speeds or average distances.
The average speeds are used to determine the multiplying
factor, 5i, in equation G-l. As speed increases, 5i decreases in a
monotonic but nonlinear fashion, but has no effect on either NOx emissions
or post 1974 vehicles.
This parameter, along with the VMT multiplying
factor, allows the analysis of road improvement and traffic control
measures.
The VMT multiplying factor affects all gasoline powered vehicle
emission rates in a similar manner.
Using a value of 0.5 means half the
base year mileage can be eliminated by this strategy, resulting in a 50%
drop in mobile source emission rates.
The VMT factor can also be used
to quantify unusual changes in growth patterns.
Distance changes influence the location factors instead of the
emission"rates themselves.
Therefore, a strategy which changes only
distance from source to receptor (such as removing all cars from the
central business district) will affect only the 5emidiffusion Method
results.
In general, moving a source away from the receptor will
decrease the pollutant concentration an amount dependent on the per-
centage emissions contributed by that source and the atmospheric stability
class.
Experience has indicated that the 5emidiffusion Method will
yield lower estimates of pollutant concentrations then the simple method
when the following conditions exist: 1) Mobile sources are located closer
220
-------
than stationary,
2) Mobil e sources constitute a 1 arge component of the
total, and 3) Measures appl ied to mobile sources result in significant
emission. r~ductions.
Combination strategies can be considered by the model by combining
the percentages of separate measures.
In general, the analysis of
measure interactions is made by the user and the total percentage emission
reductions are inputted into the model.
221
-------
APPENDIX H
PHOENIX ATTITUDE SURVEY
Presented on the pages which follow are results of a questionaire
distributed to a small sample of households in the Phoenix area.
The
survey was conducted with the assistance of a professional market re-
search group*which maintains standing panels of households in each major
metropolitan area in the U.S., each panel representing a broad cross
section of households in the given area.
The following table indicates
~.-' ;'-'.;~ --::'
some ch~eristics of the Phoenix panel.
Less than
$4,000
$4,000- $ 8,000- $10,000-
8,000 10,000 15,000
$15,000+ Total
#HH having 18 52 22 59 27 178
Income
#HH havi ng O.,.car l-car 2-car 3+-car
Auto Ownership 7 74 75 20 176
Significant insights to public attitudes which can be gleaned from the
survey are as follows:
o Nearly 97 percent of the respondents feel that air pollution
is a problem in the Phoenix area and 60 percent feel it is a
serious or very serious problem, However, 100 percent of the
respondents feel that air pollution is a problem nationwide
and some 90 percent of them feel that is a serious or very
serious problem. The inference is that Phoenix area residents
perceive that they have a local air pollution problem, but
perceive their air polltuion problem as being less severe
than that of the nation as a whole. (See Question 10)
o Phoenix residents are generally supportive to retrofit pro-
gram for pre-1975 vehicles which would cost about $50 per
vehicle. Some 70 percent of the respondents indicated they
would support such a program and an additional 11 percent
indicated they were not strongly opposed to such a program.
If the retrofit to pre-1975 vehicles were to cost $200 per
vehicle only some 33 percent would support it. Inference
is that low cost retrofits would be highly acceptable but
requirements for catalytic converters would not be highly
pa 1 a ta b 1 e .
"
* Consumer Mail Panels, Chicago, Illinois
222
-------
o Reaction to all types of travel restrictive controls is qenerally
negative. Among the restrictive controls, exclusive bus and car
pool lanes followed by traffic and parking bans in the CtlU were
seen as most acceptable although, evaluated of themselves, only
about 50 percent of the respondents found these acceptable.
The exclusive lanes acceptance is attributed to the fact that
this is perceived as having the least overall impact while
acceptance of CBD restrictions stems from the fact that only a
small percentage of the areas residents now drive there fre-
quently. (See Question 4)
o Some 80 percent of the respondents favor an inspection/maintenance
program. Another 10 percent are not strongly opposed to the
program. The respondents indicated a charge of nearly $7.00
as a reasonable cost for the annual inspection, significantly
above the actual e~timated cost for the inspection program under
consideration. Nearly 50 percent of the respondents feel the
inspection should be conducted at state operated inspection
centers. Some 32 percent feel it should be done at local service
stations or garages. (See Question 3)
o Response to transit related questions generally reflects the
current low utilization of the Phoenix Transit System. Reasons
given as most important in determining reliance on automobile
transportation are'the auto is more available' (reflecting
limited area coveraged routes and lack of all day, 7 day per
week transit operation), 'auto more flexible' (reflecting both
the current system's high headways and the general reluctance
to be tied to a transit schedule) and 'the auto is faster'.
Factors seen as most important in encouraging use of public
transportation are 'more frequent service' (reflecting current
high headway operation), Imore convenient stops and stations I
(a desire for more area coverage) and 'lower fares I . The res
responses indicate that achievement of significant increases
level of transit utilization requires a major capital and
operating commitment to a more extensive and higher level of
service thanmthat currently provided rather than cosmetic
improvements such as cleaner buses, air conditioning, bus
stop benches and shelters, security and the like. (See Question5)
o Some 42 percent of the respondents indicated interest in car
pooling for work commute trips. Less than 5 percent of the
respondents are already in car pools. However, 75 percent
of the respondents indicated it would be difficult for them
to organize new or join an existing car pool. (See Question 6)
o Some 68 percent of the respondents favor staggered work hours
as a means of reducing traffic congestion. Only some 14 percent
oppose this proposal iwth the remainder indifferent. (See
Question 8)
o Only 15 percent of the respondents would consider disposal of
one family car if better public transit services were provided.
Another 13 percent indicated they might consider disposing an
automobile.
223
-------
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNA!RE
13
1.
All autos made in 1975 and thereafter will be equipped with emrnision control devices to reduce air
pollution. If in 1975 you owned a car built before that year, how would you feel about a law re-
quirini( you to put emission control equipment which might c~st $200 on your car? ("X" BEWW)
How would you feel about this law if the cost was reduced by govermnent subsidy to about $50?
("X" BELOW)
14-16
Open
2.
3a.
Feelini( Toward Law: 1. Cost $200 2. Cost $50
Very much in favor of law.. 0112..1 01 4'1A
Somewhat in favor of law. . . 02 (:0~' 0 02 (1 ~t 1>
Somewhat against law. . . . . 03 /1. / 03 /I. '"
Very much against law. . . . 04 '30.0 04 If!. (,:,
IZES'Po"'.:1> EN 15 /4-0 /72-
Even cars properly equipped with emrnision control equipment might still pollute the air if the equip-
ment was not properly maintained. How would you feel about a law requiring periodic inspection of
the emission control system to assure that it was working properly? (IIX" ONE ONLY)
3b.
Very much in 01 Somewhat in 02 Somewhat 03 Very much 04
favor of law favor of law against law against law
53.7 2.6.0 /0.7 9.~
Assuming you.2!.2. to have your car inspected at least once a year, what would you consider a
reasonable cost for the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT) O-A<>TO 45.70
,-lItJio , ,-. '111
1&9 £,E.S'PO,oJr>ErvIS $ 6.69 'L-A"'TO ',;..2.,
3"- /fVTO If 7. 9"
Assunrlng you ~ to have your car inspected at least once a year, where do you think the inspection
should be made? ("X" ONE ONLY)
19
177
,:.ES'PO,)l>EIJ7':;
20 c::::I:J 21
3c.
At state-operated inspection centers. 0149.7
At city-operated inspection centers. .02 13.{.
At local service stations or garages. 03 32.;;t.
177 /CE5'PO"':PE"'/S
At some other place (Specify):
4.5
04
22
4a.
Even if all autos were equipped with properly maintained
emission control systems, some cities might still have auto
air pollution problems due to the large number of cars
either on the streets at the same time or concentrated in
particular areas. Listed below are several possible ways
to reduce pollution under one or both of these conditions.
Please tell me how you feel about each of these proposals.
("X" ONE ON EACH LINE) -
a.
b.
Proposal:
Gasoline rationing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Very high ($500) registration fee pel' auto. . . . . . . . . .
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto but only
for the second, third, etc., auto. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prohibit traffic and parking in central business districts ".~l
A tax on all day parking in central business districts. . /SJj]l
A tax on parking in central business districts regardless .--<211
of whether a person parked only one hour or all day ".lilJ
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways and expressways 2.~1
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways and expressways
but only when traffic wa~ heavy. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.~1
Restrictions on non-essential auto travel during times
of high pollution by issuance of spec1allicense /O.~l
plates or vehicle stickers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
Turn lome existing lane. into "bu. only" and "car pool
only" lanes on major expressways and streets. . . . ,::z.1!J1
34
d.
23
24
25
27
28
9. !g] 2 /o.~3 1f.12]4 S7.~5 -1./8 29
B.[]2 12~3 19.~4 57.[1;j5-/.ZZ 30
20.[!J2 /4.f.5j3 1I.[Q]4 43,[Q]5-0.S5 31
e.
f.
g..
h.
i.
j.
n[Q.J2 12. !'21 3 e,[i2l4 19.~50.4("
-------
~HUEN\)(
Pal8 2
(2-C796)
QUESTIONS 5-8 ASK FOR INFORMA'nON RELATT"lQ TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
CONSULT THEM. IF NECESSARY. FOR THE AN::;WERS.
58.
How often do the various members of your household travel by public transportation? (For ex-
ample, by bus, subway, or commuter train.)
Children
Husband Wife (Over .16 Years Old)
Three or more times a week . 7". .01 ,,7.. .01 1.0.. .01
Oneor~otimesaweek.... 1.~..0z' 2..2.bZ (48) 6!2..~~1"<49)
:.. .1:ii(53) 4.57(54) ti2.(55)
1. . .~(59) ~(60) ~.:.U..(61) (74-78
:. (j)'5.94(65) ~(66) ~(67) open)
:. .'.Ull)71) @ U1L(72.) @/.58(73)~
: @. @ (j) Cd. 2
:.. .2,~Q(18) :Z.'' (19) 1.21)Z,0) D
I - - up.
I 1-14
: ----- (Not Applicable) -----
:. . . ~.Jz'4) 4.:.n(z'5) 3,'-0(z'6)
,
,
,
6.t3(Z8) ~(z'9):
,
k. Car is not available when~ JJ/wf :
I need it . . . . . . . . .. ~(30) 5.00(31) 7""""'(32.):
1. Other (Specify): :
------------------~~~(:~--~'!~;:~--~(~;:~-r::i~~~:~._:-:~;:~._~~M;:~
m. Never use ("X" Box) . .. 01 Oz, 03 (39) :... 01 Oi 03 (40)
14~+~ IS;{7.s bO/"E ~4B %5 %3
g. More flexible (I can come
and go as I please) . . . ~(15)
h. More relaxing (able to
t-ead while traveling). .
j.
I do not have a dt"iver's
- - - - - (Not Applicable) - - -. -
license. . . . . . . . . . .
~...££.(z'7}
- " - - - (Not AppliCable) - - - --
225
-------
Again, consulting other members of your household, please rate in order of effectivene.. which item.
below you feel would be most effective in encouraging- the. u.e of public transporation. (Rate the mo.t
effective item a "1", the next mo.t effective "2", the next "3", etc.)
( MEAN)
Wife
-
5d.
Items:
-
Husband
Cleaner and newer vehic::les . . . . . . . ,g (4.1)
Fa.ter travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q (44)
Air-conditioned veJiic::1ee . . . . . . . . . ~ (47)
More frequent service. . . . . . . . . . . (f) l:.2.. (50)
Lower fares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ('j) 1:.:.2... (53)
Parking facilities at .tops or .tation.
Shelters against bad weather at .top.
or .tat1on8 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~(56)
~ (59)
Better security to auure personal
8afety. . . .. .............
~(62)
More conveniently located .top. 6J
or .tation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ (65)
Other (Specify):
Q(68)
226
~(42)
li (45)
5..3 (48)
6J;:; (51)
~ (54)
~(57)
i:.2.. (60)
!::.:.L (63)
(i)2.9 (66)
2.:.2... (69)
Children
(Over 16 Years Old)
Z:Z (43)
~ J46)
~ (49)
(f) .i:.L (52)
(}H (55)
~ (58)
U (61)
~(64)
(j) g (67)
~ (70)
(71-78 open)
79~80
-------
IZ-C:'796)
Pal. ,
6..
How would you or other hou..hold memben leel about traveUn. to and Irom work in a car pool?
I"X" ONE ONLY) 7.-
Very interuted . . . . . . .01 11,.9
Somewhat interuted.. . .01 25.0
Not at all interuted . . . .03 38.4-
Already in car pool. . . . .04 4.7
Do not travel to and Irom 05 15. I
work by car. . . . . . . .
R £s'PoI.h EN/oS /7:z..
U it became necenary to re.trict the number ol can on exprenway. and .treeto in order to
reduce pollution and car pooh became nece..ary, how di£licult do you think It would be to let
into one an exlltlnl one or organize one among.t your (rlend. neilhboro and/or work a..oclate.
I"X" ONE ONLY) . .
%
Extremely dllClcult. . . . .01 '0. i3
Very difficult. . . . . . . ,[)2 16.8'
Somewhat dllClcult . . . . .03 25.5
Somewhat ea.y .. . . . . .04 14,5
Very euy. . . . . . . . . . .05 4,8
Extremely euy . . . . . . '06 I.:t
Already In car pool. . . .07 4, '8
R..e-S'P",""1>1!."'TS 1"$
One ol the major cau.e. ol area. of hilh pollution 18 tralflc
congutlon. Pollution could be reduced IC traClic congutlon
and .top-and.go traCflc wa. reduced. LI.ted below are
.everalldea. for reducilll traffic conge .tion. Please tell
me how effective you think each of these Idea. would be In
reducinl congudon and pollution. ("X" ONE BOX FOR.
EACH IDEA)
6b.
7.
Idea:
-
a.
b.
Prohibit parking, loadinl and unloading on bu.y streeb so.lQJ I 39.1!I1 1.1Z13 2. ~4
Increa.. the number of one.way .treeta.......... .41.(!]1 43,~1 /I.1iI3 4./lJ4
Establish reversible lane. on busy streeta to be u.ed 2.. ml ....ml la.~3 ".~4
durinl rush houn. . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..".LLJ .... IIi.J I:zJ IIE.J
Prohibit turns at bu.y intersections during ru.h houn . 5'. IiJ 1 ~~1iJ1 S:~3. S~4
Widen major .treets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S~lZJl !l1.1!J1 m3 !.1ZI4
Widen major .treeb at Intersection. only. . . . . . . . . ./~.l5Jl 47.!!:I1 ~[iJ3 1~4
Provide pedutrian underpa..u and/or overpa..u . . .~[jJ1 !!I7.@1 2/.11!13 1.1I)4
Improve timlnll ol tralClc dllnah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .s4.l!:Il 34!1iJ1 AI.1iJ3 1.~4
Increase the number afld frequeflcy of radio traClic re-
porto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1If, 1211 'SZ.~I z.q,ffi3 '.~4 0."9
Turn .ome exi.tInlllanea Iflto "bu.. oflly" afld "car pool
only" laflu Ofl exprenways and bu.y .treeto .... ,2.[jJ1 4D. ~I If. iii 3 7. ~4 0.97
Your Ideu (Ple..e Lilt):
...
d.
/.~~
I. ~~
o. ,,4-
/.1'"
/.47
e.
I.
I.
h.
i.
j.
7~.1SJ1 Ul!ll
-84
-83
,. .,'"
8.
Since traffic conlle stlon Ie most severe at time. when people are lIoinll to or comlnl from work,
one alternative for reducing conllestion would be to have people .tart and stop work at dIC(erent
time. o( the day. That is. some people wouid start work at. 5:00 AM afld quit. at 1:00 PM. othen
wouid work (rom 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. others (rbm 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM, etc. How do you feel about
thh idea? ("X" ONE ONLY)
Very much ifl (avor. . . . .01
Somewhat ifl (avor .. . . . 02
IndICfereflt. . . . . . . . . . .03
Somewhat opposed. . . . .04
Very much oPP08ed. . . . .05
R e~ po",,» e/J7":S
3'-.9
'! I. S
/7, (",
S.~
5.7
17(",
227
Cel. ,
Dup.
1.14
15
16
17
18
19
10
U
22
23
l4
25
16
27
18
-------
Page.
(Z.C79~'
9a.
Please record the model year of each car owned in your household. (WRITE IN BELOW
tJND ER .2!.)
Plea.e estimate the number of mile. each car was driven in the la.t year.
(WRITE IN NUMBER OF MILES UNDER ~ BELOW)
9b.
9c.
For each car, please estimate what percenta~e of last year's mileage was accounted for by
driving outside your local metropolitan area. (For example, vacation, busines8 tri~8,
short weekend trips, etc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER ~)
9b.
Laet Year'.
Milea~e .
9a.
Model Year
9co
Percentage of Mileage
Outside Local Area
29D:r=J31
3Z D:r=J 3.
35D:r=J37
38D:r=J40
Car 1/1 J!1M2 "7 :1.'2-
Car 112 .1:JJiL 814/
Car 113 /9t,(", (.7'14-
Car 1/4 /96.5 312.5
:l3 .,.
lL."
L"
L"
9d.
How many licensed drivers are there in your housebold?
Number of Licensed Drivers:
(WRITE IN)
I. '17
041
ge.
If better public transportation were available. woul,J you consider disposing of any of the
cars you own? /5.2-
Yes oY;,%:'
Maybe oy ~. How many? (WRITE IN) ...Ld1:- cars 7
No 037 72..0
42 c::r::J 43
lOa.
Overall. how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution i. in your city? ("X" ONE BOX
UNDER ~ BELOW)
Overall. how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution i. nationwide? (" X" ONE BOX
UNDER .!.Q!? BELOW)
lOb.
11.
lOa. City
Very .erious problem. . . . .. .2,.1211
Serious problem. . . . . . . .. 3~. ~2 (44)
Slightly .erious problem. . .. '!>6.1!J3
No problem at all. .. . .. ... ~.1?£I4
IL e s 'Pc,';') b E I1'r.:S /7 ~
If you have any views or corrunents regarding any que stion or idea,
lOb. Nationwide
-5b [QJ 1
;1'1.1212 (45)
fa !ZJ3
-£14
/~g
please record them:
(46 -78 open)
79ill)10
Thank you for your help. Please check your answer. and then return the questionnaire to me in the
enclosed postage-paid envelope.
228
-------
APPENDIX I
LIST OF REFERENCES
1.
"Arizona Statistical Review," 26th Annual Edition, Economic Research
Department, Valley National Bank, September 1970.
2.
Turner, Bruce D., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,"
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, National Air Pollution Control Administration, No. PB191482,
1970.
3.
'tontro1 Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources," U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service, Environmental Health Service, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1970.
4.
"Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, and Hydrocarbon
Emissions from Mobile Sources," U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Public Health Service, Environmental Health Service, National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1970.
5.
"Passenger Cars (MLS-4) Registration Counts by-Make and Year of Model,"
Compiled from Official State Records by R. L. Polk & Co., July 1, 1971.
6.
Schatt, Paul, "Car Flow to be Controlled on Freeway," The Arizona Republic
newspaper, October 15, 1972, pp. 28-A.
7.
Hendrickson, D. L., (Mobile Oil Corp.), S. D. Lawson, (Phillips Petroleum
Co.), A. R. Cunningham, (Esso Research and Engineering Co.), J. Byrne,
(Union Oil Co.), E. L. Winkler, (Rock Island Refining Corp.), "Effect of
Changing Gas Volatility on Refining Costs," Cnemical Engineering Progress
(Vol. 65, No.2), February 1969, pp. 51-58.
229
-------
8.
Kircher, David S., D. P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation," Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
October 1972.
9.
"Arizona Vehicular Emissiolls Computer Data Program Specification,"
to be published and incorporated as part of the Arizona-Colorado Cooperative
Agreement.
10.
Aymar, A. A., "Findings of the Vehicular Emissions Test Program,"
Arizona State Department of Health Vehicular Emissions Control Section,
August 5, 1971.
11.
"A:Lr Pollution Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection," Chapter 14, Article 2,
State Department of Health, Phoenix, Arizona, No. 36-1751. 1972.
12.
"Rules and Regulations," County of San Diego, Department of Public Health.
Air Pollution Control District, Revised Edition. February 1972.
13.
"Rules and Regulations," County of Los Angeles Air Pollution Control
District,
14.
"Phoenix Urban Area Public Transportation Study," De Leuw, Cather &
Company.
15.
"Rollback Mode,11ing, Basic and Modified," Noel de Nevers, August 1972.
16.
"Profile of Air Pollution Control." County of Los Angeles, Air Pollution
Control District. 1971.
230
-------
17.
"Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,"
Rubber Co.
44th Edition, The Chemical
18.
Maricopa County Air Pollution Source Inventory," 19q9-l970
"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, February 1972.
19.
"The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan,"
May 1972.
20.
"Relationship of Hydrocarbons to Oxidants in Ambient Atmospheres,"
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Environmental Health
Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Volume 20,
No.5, May 1970, pp. 297-302.
21.
"Enforcement Considerations Regarding Approvable Transportation
Control Strategies," United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
22.
"Regulation 40 CFR Part 51, Protection of Environment:
Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plan,
Transportation Control Measures."
23.
Nelson, Edwin E" "Hydrocarbon Control for Los Angeles by Reducing
Gasoline Volatility," (S.A.E. Paper No. 690087) Detroit, Michigan,
January 1968.
24.
Cole, Edward N., "Progress Toward Achieving 1975 and 1976 Federal
Emission Standards," (Remarks before the American Petroleium
Institute) Pebble Beach, California, September 26, 1972.
25.
"Air Quality Criteria for Hydrocarbons," U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Environmental Health
Service, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Washington,
D.C., March 1970.
26.
"Air Quality Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides," Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Pollution Control Office, Washington, D.C., January 1971.
27.
DeLeuw, Cather and Company, "Phoenix Urban Area Public Transportation
Study,"July 1971.
231
-------
28.
Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette, "Inside Phoenix 1972."
29.
Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Planning Program.
30.
Advanced Transportation Planning Team, City of Phoenix, "Mobility,
Phoenix Style," April 1969.
31.
Valley A~ea Traffic and Transportation Study, "1966 Travel Time
Survey," VAATS Report No.7, September 1967.
32.
"Statement on Cost of Changing Fu.e1 Composition," Western Oil and
Gas Association,
November 10, 1969
33.
"The Economic Effectiveness of Mandatory 'Engine Maintenance for
Reducing Vehicle Exhaust Emissions," CRC Extended Phase I Study
Year-End Report, January 1972.
34. "Gasoline Modification--Its Potential as an Air Pollution Control
Measure in Los Angeles County," Final RepoTt, California Air
Resources Board, Los Angeles County APCD, Western Oil and Gas
Association, November 1969.
35.
Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
Protertion Agency, February 1972.
U.S. Environmental
36.
"The Composition of fuels and Thefr Effect on Emfssions from Motor
Vehicles and Combustion Engines",Arizona State Department of Hea1th,
Division of Air Pollution Control, December 1970.
37.
Jackson, Marvin W., and Everett, R.L., "Effect of Fuel Composition
on Amount and Reactivity of Evaporative Emissions," (SAE Paper No.
69088) Detroit, Michigan, January 1969.
"Reactivities of Exhaust Emissions from Controlled and Uncontrolled
Vehicles", California Department of Public Health, August 1966.
38.
39.
Dimitriades,B., and Fleming, R.D., "Effect of Hydro-
on Reactivity of Exhaust Gases", Chicago, Illinois.
Hurn, R.W.,
carbon Type
May 1965.
40.
"Air Quality Criteria for Photochemical Oxidants," U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1970.
232
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Biblio,l!laphic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
PB-180 600).
1.
Report "umber. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designarion selected by the performing
o
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 11. Report No. (2. 3. Recipient's Accession No.
SHEET IIPTn 11hQ
4. T ide and :SubtItle S. Report Date
A Transportation Control Strategy for the Ph~enix-Tucson Air December 1972
Qual ity Area. 6.
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations DU-72-B895
One Square Park 11. Contract/Grant No.
Redondo Beach, California 90278 68-02-0041
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type 01 Report & Period
.CoTed 8714/72
Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency Fl na ~ ~9:
l?' 'r;./7?
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 1.4.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
15. Supplementary Notes Pr a d t . t' th d 1 f . 1
ep re 0 assls. ln e eve opment 0 trans~ortatl0n contro plans
by thosg State Government~ demonstrating that National~~mbien ..Air Quality Stg~~8rds
cannot e attai ned bv . . "'mic:-~ ; "" "'.
16. Absrracts
The document demonstrates the nature of the Air Quality problem attributed to motor
vehicle operation, the magnitude of the problem and a strategy developed to
neutralize these effects in order that National Ambient air quality standard may
be attained and maintained.
17. Key Words and Documenr Analysis. 170. Descriptors
Motor Vehicle emitted pollutants - air pollutants originating within a motor vehicle
and released into the atmosphere.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards-- Air Quality Standards promulgated by the
Envi ronmental Protection Agency and pub-
lished as a Federal Regulation in the
Federal Register.
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle Mix - distribution of motor vehicle population by age group.
LDV - light duty vehicle - less than 6500 lbs.
HDV - heavy duty vehicle - greater than 6500 lbs.
17c. COSA TI Fie Id/Group En vi ronmenta 1 Qual ity Control of Motor Vehicle Pollutants
18. Availability Statement 19.. Secur;ry Class (This 21. No..of Pages
For release to public Re~?~Tt), all
20. Securuy Class (This 22. Price
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTIS-3!S IREV. 3-72)
USCOMM-DC 14Q!52-P72
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEr
TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS BRANCH
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. N.C. 27711
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300
CE AND FEES PAID
At PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA . 335
SPECIAL FOURTH CLASS RATE
BOOK
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, please CHECK HERE D . tear off this label, and return
it to the above address. Your name will then be promptly removed
from the appropriate mailing list.
PUBLICATION NO. APTD-1369
------- |