EPA-450/3-77-021a
    November 1977
     AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
                 FOR SUSPENDED
          PARTICIPATE MATTER
          IN THE PHOENIX AREA
                       VOLUME I -
         AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
w
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Office of Air and Waste Management
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
     AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
  FOR SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE
  MATTER IN THE  PHOENIX AREA
VOLUME I.  AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
                      by

                George Richard and Ron Tan

             TRW Environmental Engineering Division
                   One Space Park
               Redondo Beach, California 90278
                 Con I met No. 68-01 •:
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of
interest to a limited  number of readers. Copies are available free of charge to Federal
employees, current contractors  and. grantees,  and nonprofit  organizations - in  limited-
quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the Natonal Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.                                                     -      •'
This report was  furnished  to the Environmental  Protection Agency by Environmental
Engineering  Division  of  TRW, Inc.,  One  Space Park, Redondo  Beach, California,  in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-3152. Prior to final preparation,  the report underwent
extensive review and editing by the Environmental Protection Agency, the contents reflect
current Agency thinking and are subject to clarification and procedural changes.

The mention of trade  names of commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation  for use by  the Environmental Protection Agency.
                          Publication No. KPA-r>0/:J-77-02lii

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0  INTRODUCTION	1-1
     1.1  Conclusions	1-2
     1.2  Recommendations	.1-4
2.0  GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY REGION  	 2-1
     2.1  Topography	2-1
     2.2  Climatology and Meteorology 	 2-4
     2.3  Population	2-7
     2.4  Land Use	2-10
     2.5  Economy	2-13
3.0  MONITOR SITE SURVEY	3-1
     3.1  General Discussion	3-1
     3.2  Siting Evaluation 	 .3-4
4.0  STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF HI-VOL MONITORING DATA  	 4-1
     4.1  Available Hi-Vol Monitoring Data  	 4-1
     4.2  Methods for Statistical Analysis of Hi-Vol Data 	 4-1
     4.3  Frequency Distributions of Suspended Particulate Levels
          and Calculation of Maximal 24-Hour Levels 	 4-9
     4.4  Comparison of Expected Suspended Particulate Values
          With Yearly Measured Values	 4-25
5.0 .SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SUSPENDED PARTICULATE LEVELS 	 5-1
6.0  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METEOROLOGY AND SUSPENDED
     PARTICULATE LEVELS 	 6-1
     6.1  Seasonal Patterns of Total Particulate Concentrations ... 6-1
     6.2  Analysis of Daily Air Quality and Meteorology Data  . . . .6-17
     6.3  Analysis of Particulate Episodes  	 6-25
                                   11 i

-------
References	7_1





Appendix A:   	/\_]





Appendix B:	'	B-l

-------
                            1.0   INTRODUCTION

     Under contract to the Environmental  Protection Agency, TRW
Environmental Engineering has developed control strategies for total
suspended participates in the Phoenix area.  The'methodology developed
for Phoenix has been extended into a general guidelines document for
application to areas with fugitive dust problems.   This report is the
first of four technical support documents prepared for the project.  The
report concerns a review of air quality data in the Phoenix area, including
a monitoring site survey, statistical analysis of aerometric data, and
discussion of apparent relationships between total suspended particulate
levels and meteorology.

     The support  document  is  organized into six sections.   The  present
section serves as a general introduction and provides a summary of major
findings and conclusions.  Section 2 consists of  a general  description of the
Phoenix area,  in  terms of  the topography,  climatology and meteorology,
population,  land  use, and  economy.  The discussion provides a qualitative
indication of  factors that may be related  to the  total suspended  particulate.
problem.

     Section 3 presents an evaluation of the siting of particulate
monitoring stations in the Phoenix area.   The section includes a
discussion of the general notions of siting criteria and "useful"
representativeness.  Based on a field survey of the monitoring
sites, a station by station description of the environment'at each
monitoring site is documented.  Both the local environment immediately
around, the monitor and the general area around the site are considered.
Finally, the representativeness  of air quality measured at each of the
monitoring sites is evaluated, and the utility of the data obtained
at the sites is assessed.
     Section 4 summarizes the hi-vol  particulate data for the Phoenix
area.  The section begins with a brief discussion of statistical
methods.  These methods are then employed to establish particulate
                                   1-1

-------
level distributions at the various stations  and to compute expected
annual geometric means and yearly 24 hour maxima.  The expected values
are compared to observed annual means and maxima and the discrepancies
are explained.
     Section 5 provides an assessment of the spatial pattern of sus-
pended particulate levels.  Categories of monitoring sites are
classified geographically and environmentally and related to con-
centration regimes.  The apparent influence of local sources on spatial
distribution of ambient particulate levels is discussed.
     Section 6 investigates the apparent relationships between sus-
pended particulate levels and meteorology.  Observed particulate
concentrations are correlated to various meteorological variables
such as wind speed, rainfall and rainfall frequency, temperature, and
mixing height.    Seasonal patterns of particulate levels and the
associated seasonal meteorology are investigated.  Daily meteorology
and particulate concentrations are studied.  Finally, the meteorological
circumstances associated with specific particulate episodes are eval-
uated.
1.1  CONCLUSIONS
     •   Air quality at most of the monitor sites is influenced by
         local sources of fugitive soil dust.  However, air quality
         at these sites appears to be representative of the general
         area because the sites are subject to the same type of local
         sources characteristic of the general area.  In a few cases,
         particulate levels at the monitor are site specific, and may
         not represent the general area.  In cases where the signi-
         ficance of the site specific sources is indeterminate, the
         utility of the particulate measurements there is doubtful.
                                   1-2

-------
•   While there is no clear spatial pattern for participate
    concentrations in the Phoenix area, there is a distinct
    pattern in the concentration by type of local environment.
    Six types of site environments can be identified.  (Section 5.0).
    Measured concentrations conform roughly to a limited range for each
    of the identified site categories.
•   The National Ambient Primary Air Quality Standards are exceeded at
    all monitoring sites except the remote Carefree Airport
    station.   The expected maximal  24 hour values are generally
    higher than the measured values.   Due to the rather limited
    number of samples collected from the monitoring network, the
    computed expected values should be used to characterize
    maximal levels at the monitoring sites.
•   Seasonal  patterns of particulate concentrations vary markedly
    from year to year, but are consistent from station to station.
    The seasonal patterns fluctuate considerably due to variations
    in seasonal meteorology from year to year, particularly with
    respect to rainfall.  Given a normal rainfall for each quarter,
    it appears that particulate levels will be highest in the
    winter season, and least during the early summer.
•   Measured levels of suspended particulates are inversely
    proportional to rainfall frequency for any given season of
    the ^ear.  This relationship is less sensitive to rainfall
    frequency in the winter months than in the warmer summer
    months.
                                1-3

-------
         The apparent relationship between  measured  levels  of part-
         iculate and wind speed  varies  among  the  monitor  station
         categories.   Because of differences  in local  source
         strengths,  the relative contribution of  wind  blown dust
         and dust arising from human  activities to  the ambient
         total  dust  level changes from  station to station.   In
         areas  where limited human activities occur, and  where there
         are substantial  soil surfaces  susceptible  to  wind  erosion,
         ambient particulate levels are proportional to wind  speed.
         At stations where local dust emissions result primarily
         from human  activity, concentrations  are  observed to  be
         inversely proportional  to wind speed (except  when  dust
         storms occur).
1.2  RECOMMENDATIONS
         For the purpose of control  strategy formulation,  a number
         of environments have been identified for consideration.
         Each of these environmental  categories experiences a  different
         regime of suspended particulate levels.   In the rural
         environments, wind blown dust is a major contributor  to
         high particulate levels, while in the city regions, dust
         arising from human activity appears to contribute to  higher
         levels.   Distinctions should be made among the different
         source environments in the  formulation and evaluation of
         control  strategies.
         In developing a source-receptor model, it will  be necessary
         to account for meteorological influences on both  emission
         levels and particulate concentrations.  The spatial variation
         of the various contributing sources, both in the  general
         area, and in the area immediately surrounding the moni-
         tors (receptors), must be carefully resolved and  in-
         corporated into the source  receptor model.
                                1-4

-------
The dramatic effect of certain meteorological  variations
on suspended participate levels provides insights into
potentail source control mechanisms.   Potential  actions
which would render surface soils less susceptible to wind
erosion, short term and long term, should be studied.
                          1-5

-------
                 2.0  GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY REGION

     The study region should consist of an area which includes those emis-
sion sources having impact on the suspended particulate levels around
Phoenix, and which includes important topographical  boundaries affecting  .
local meteorology.  As such, the study region is explicitly formulated
as the project proceeds and as distribution and extent of emission sources
surrounding the Phoenix area are documented.  Based on the location of
Phoenix, it is initially clear that most of Maricopa County will  comprise
the major portion of the study region.

     Figure 2-1 illustrates the orientation of Maricopa county within
Arizona, and Figure 2-2 presents a map of the county.

     The following sections of this chapter contain  a general description
of the characteristics of the study region, including its topography,
climatology and meteorology, population, land use and economy.

2.1  TOPOGRAPHY
     The topographical features of Maricopa County are illustrated in
Figure 2-3.  The map indicates that most of the County is situated in a
broad flat valley, the Salt River Valley, which slopes downward to the
southwest from an elevation of approximately 2,000 feet to a few hundred
                                               Figure  2-1.   State  of
                                                            Arizona
                                   2-1

-------





                                                                  .
                                                                •\0udle>jjll»'
                                                             •
                                                                             nslon
Figure  2-2.  Maricopa County, Arizona

-------
Topoconpuy
  LEGEND
   ELEVATIONS IN FEET AIOVE SEA LEVEL
 [ | UHOER 1000 pj^ JOCO lo WOO  L ^] 600° w T00°
   1000 to 2000  I 4COO '

   200C taJOOO I n      I i**ES
 ^" ] Vti.f^ i' '


 	COUNTY UWTS

-------
feet above sea level.  Sharply rising mountains are located to the north
and the southeast of the valley and numerous other mountains are scattered
throughout.  The northeast portion of the County contains the McDowell,
Goldfield, Superstition and the Mazatzal  Mountains which rise sharply in  r
some places to be above 7,000 feet, while the southeast portion contains
the Maricopa, Sand Tank and Sauceda Mountains which rise slightly above
3,000 feet.  The County is characterized  by extreme variations in elevation
ranging from the Four Peaks Mountain on the northeast border at 7,645 feet
above sea level to the Gila River Bed on  the west county boundary line at
436 feet above sea level.  Most of the urban activities are concentrated
on a relatively flat plain in the Phoenix Metropolitan area.  Seventy-
eight percent of the County land area has a general slope of less than
ten percent.  The topography has played an important role in the agricul-
tural activities of the County by permitting dams and reservoirs to be es-
tablished in the mountain areas which are used to irrigate the floor of
the valley.  Some additional discussion of topographical features is con-
tained in section 2.5 which describes the  County's existing land use.
2.2  CLIMATOLOGY AND METEOROLOGY
     The climate in Phoenix may be characterized as desert-like with low
annual rainfall and low relative humidity.  The following is a summary
of the salient climatological characteristics of the region obtained from
                                                    2
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
     Daytime temperatures in the region are high in the summer months, begin-
ning in June and extending through August.  The autumn season1, beginning
in the latter part of September, is characterized by sudden changes in
temperature.  The change from the heat of summer to the mild winter tempera-
tures "usually occurs in October.  The normal temperature change from the
beginning to the end of October is the greatest of any month of the year
in central Arizona.  By November, the mild winter season is established in
the Salt River Valley region.  During the winter months the temperature
is marginal for some types of crops, such as citrus.  Areas with milder
temperatures around the edges of the valley are utilized by these crops.
However, the entire valley is subject to  occasional hard freezes.  During
the spring temperatures are warm during the day and mild in the evening.
Average monthly temperatures recorded between 1935 and 1974 are contained
in Table 2-1.
                                      2-4

-------
            TABLE  2-1.   AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURES  IN  PHOENIX
              Year I Jan | feb ) Mar | Apr j May ! Junei July i Aug I Sept | Pel j Nov i Dec [Annual
1936
1937
1939
193'
1940
H-3
1944
1945
1946
1949
195C
1»51
1952
1933
1954
1953
1956
1957
1».M
19J9
1960
19M
1962
1963
196*
1965
1967
196S
1970
1971
197!
1973
1974
32.8
5?. ft

51.7
• 9.9
30.4
56.4 64. II
54.4 57
47.0 61

57. t 13
5!.? 5'

43.7, 51.P 59
49.7
51.4

34.0
53.0
53.3
54.2
51 .!
41.4
46.7
52.7
58.9 6?
54.? 55

61
59
53
5,
5«
60
*9
"
"•; i"
52.1
52.2
51.2
34.0
60
1*
5?
56

<• M
e 57
0 63
*> 5'
'' 5t>
2 61
3 56


2 59
,1 ^
* 5t
«

?
•"
".
1


4

1'
T
<;


?
*
*

•S.6
-.2

r.7
*.i

7?.7 83.1. 96.3
77.' S" .6 9: .C

77.5 3 3 . t 91.0
•>..- 79. f- 88.-

dB
90

J7
91

C.6
76. ?' Si.3'
2.*' 76
7.' I*,

*.5
ft ,~

7?. 3
3. a
i.?


~2
ai
76

73
,n

C 3^.9'
ft; 8-.-

4
3
3

5


*.7; 79. *
- .2
a?. r
89.1
90.?

83.!'
81.-
62.%i


6 e . : '
35.?"
iO.i eg. t.

0.5
*. '

?!.*•
?3.6

'3.2
2.0
0.6


67
90
90
2 3w.» &9.? !?.; 53
3 3?.-^ 6«.t 6.-.h 53

2 7?.;
t 69.2
! 7C.2

i c<..o, ?i . : . 59.*, 5: .^ 70. a
i' B3.0 73.2 56, t !. .C t?,?
i
6
3
9

;^.c
52.7
db. i
»h
91
97
Bs
6
7
1
2

3^ 1 , S8.5- t*.*, 5'. .3 6^.6
82.?' 78.3, ft-.r J7.J 72.3
8,.2| 7,., 5C.6I ,2.1 70.1
»'." '».» .-'.I: SI.--- 73.-.
tt.!\ 7'.9i 64.;,. j-.n 7?.i
- • '
83.
8^.
33.
80.
84.
a».
30. <

?;:?: t;;.
5.0: ^2. s 5:.
-.9! "9.3 6T,#


3..1
i ;.:6= ?.
7i.ft| 6'.
. 72.7. to
! S9.6 5-
• 71.6' 61
i ?;•;' »
1 ;

! 69.;, 61
! 6". 3' 50
i 7*.t 6T
f. l*>
« 53
9 i.'
G: 5;


*• 5:
t
7' 5 '.

C 70, 7
0 7^.7
*' ?2.0
? 7?,?
->• 70,6
3 71,0
0 67,?
1

6 71,-
2 70,5
- ? . ;
'• 72,0
6 73,1
              RECCRf.
              MEAN
                           !2.3, fcdr 6B.E-i 77.5! 76.;' 6<5.2I 56.5  45.0' 33.91 55."
                  3«.;1 41.! 1,6.}'.
     Sunshine  In  the area  averages 86 percent of the possible  amount,
ranging from a minimum monthly average of 77 percent in  January and De-
cember to a maximum  of 94  percent in June.  During the winter, skies are
sometimes cloudy,  but clear skies predominate.  During the  spring,  skies
are also predominantly clear.   During July and August, there  is often con-
siderable afternoon  cloudiness associated with cumulous  clouds building
up over the nearby mountains.
     The valley floor is generally free of wind.  During the  spring months
southwest and west winds predominate and are associated  with  the passage
of low pressure troughs.   During the thunderstorm season local gusty winds
often occur, usually flowing from an easterly direction.  Throughout the
year there are periods, often  several days in length, in which winds re-
main under 10 miles  an hour.
     There are two separate rainfall seasons in the region.   The first occurs
during the winter  months from  November to March when the area  is subjected
to occasional storms from  the  Pacific Ocean.  Although this is considered
a rainfall season, there can be periods of a month or more when practically
                                     2-5

-------
no precipitation occurs.  Snowfall occurs very rarely in the  Salt  River
Valley, while light snows occasionally fall in the higher mountains  surround-
ing the valley.  The second rainfall period occurs during July  and August
when Arizona is subjected to widespread thunderstorm activity which  varies
in intensity and location.  The spring and fall months are  generally dry,
although precipitation in substantial amounts has fallen on occasion during
every month of the year.  Precipitation and snowfall recorded between 1935
and 1974 are contained in Tables 2-2 and 2-3, respectively.
     TABLE 2-2.  MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
                . IN PHOENIX
TABLE 2-3.
MONTHLY SNOWFALL
IN PHEONIX
Year
535
36
3?
33
39
•.0
1
2
3
5
9
0
2
3
6
7
9
0
I
2
i
5
7
9
974
Jan | Feb | Mar J Apr ! May ' June; July Aug ; Sept | Oc! j Nov \ Dec 'Annual Season July lAug'sept'Oct ; Nov' Dec 1 Jan|Fcb|Mar] Aprj MayjjuneJTotal

o.aV i ,ci : .5.", j. 4 - - i.,-> c .3; :>.<•* s. n c.35 2 . :; !.
0.51. 5.6! 0.7' 0. 2 * '. . 3 i , . J 3 ".';•• T 0.00 1..13 1.6; i.
0.01 C.Sl T 3.4 - - ;..- ' :-. i.*? 1.35 :.rp j.94 9.
o.9" 2.0; -.i- 2. - : . 3-. - :. " ' :. ••< i.e.- c. s> i . u i .o-. i*.
•) . 3 •> c . 2 1 0.2? o . * ; . ; • : . _' ...• '..'.'> : '. o T . •. : ~ c . 2 =» » .
c.fc*- c. :» c. i* 0.-5 o.;. j.o; . . > • *. .ti ;.7? .-.-- 0.13 u-2 <).
t.oi : . i > 3.7^ • c.oo o. :: ; , > t c.se » -53 :.;>c o,-* *.

3.41. I.'.* 3.2* * * 0.1: 0. *4i. C .37 O.t^ O..C J.')t 0.03 *.
o.2> •/.;:• '.'•• c..1? ;.^i " c.es ..3. 3.:r T C.TJ s.c? 3.
Q.B1 r, . 5 « 1.2? C.O? 0'. . I i. 02 C.iS C .55 •J.'.* C.I? T O.Ol fc.
o.s" ;.6i o.or> o. :i * c.oi 0.^2 c .-i :'.o_- c-.^t 3. "3 o.oi 2.
o.c'' i.:« '. .9* o.o'- :.o* c .0.* : . 3i . . •: ;. i* :.5" c. 15 c. r; e.
0 . 2 * ' : . 0 1 3 . <• ! * * • C . i ,,ll -1 . 2 1 -.J .'.!.> C . a J 4.
;•?; ?•:! vll' M; .'.. ,-i.- ;" ••>, ;-;, =-.: ?•;? ••:; ,?•
o.:s i.ir ;.?« • -.:- :.• •.)- :• : J" :.;: j.?= »
i.j' :.'• o.»« J.:' o.;- •. • "...-- ;... ; .: . t :.-•- ;.»• •
i
O.T, T • T :.:. :.l :• 1" • -: •. . : l.ic ;A
o.:i ;.»• :.s" o." -, .." • :.>• • .0' 3 .-. 1.1- c .r «
!3
9
3
6
7
3
0
S
2
6
;
2
2
9
C
:

i
A
35-3S , 0. . t 0.0 C.C ! O.C i 0. J ! T .0 0 ' i -'.3 0.0 ' 0,0 ! O'.O
36-3" £>.?• '!.? ;..T: O.Oi O.JJ C.O 1 O1 O.O1 0.0: O.o' O.'J
? 7 - > e . -.31 o . : i •) . j • . . ii i : . 3 . o . -• c- J 1 ? . r 1 c . c o.o1 c.o
39-
42*

so-
il-
11:
59-
60-
01-

69-
r | : . 3 | o . ; t o . o \ 'i.,:- : . •« ' '. . 3 o o i o.o; u . c i 0.0,0.0
i 1 0 . 0 i T , 3 0.0^.; ,' , . r, 1 0 ' i . 0 i 0 . 0 0 . 0 j S . 0
3 i C.O, 3 . .'. ; 3 . 0 | 0 . r j ? . 0 .

:, -'..); :.-, ...| c.oj o.3|
£ ' j . c ' :- . - ' o.o! o.o! o.c
?! o.o o . •• ! >* . : c . c | c.oj
si o.O' i . n -j . : i r, . n i c . o i
"I 0.3. O.C. O.C' 0 .1 1 C.O
8' ",. • .",.-> 0.51 o.o: r.ol
; ~).c •'. n .;.0j :.-i • c.o
i o . « • : . - ' ;.". • o.ci o.o!
2 o , .) ' " . ; : .: [ o , .: i i . o !
3 J . : , J . ^> 5 . '- . O.C, 3 . 0 ;

I
0
c
0
r.
c
,3
.-. ^ i i c.oi o.o ',.0 ! o.o^ :
.r'..,>3.3|0.0 'j . C ' 0 . 0 ' '^
• ' i : ' |
.::, :.j| c.;i; o.: " . o ' o.o
I i 1
.C 0 . r ' 0,.-! 0.^ 0.0; O.C
.0 • 0.3' C.O 3.3 0.0 C.O
.n' o.oj o.o c.o; •>.<)( c.o
.0) O.i. j O.C O.C' O.o] 0.0
. n 3 . 3 , 0 . 0 j 'J . 0 0.30.0
. U ' 0 . .7 | 0 . 0 ! 0.0 0 . '. ' 0 '. 0
.r o.oi 3 . t c . : o.oi c.c
.0' 0.&! J.''| O.C 0.3! 0.0
.0 T i n . 0 ! C . 0 C . 0 • C . C
.0 3.01 0,3- , . : o . o J j . o
.3 0,0 , c.r o. : o.o ! c'.o
•
0
-,
"
r.
n
o
0
o
.0 3 Lj . ... 0. | .J.
:;-i :!.>! o!?1 f ,:,:! .;:•'•.! ^\ •'.
?! ; o; N- r-ic, o!^ c!o r i o'.:- ;io o!o' c^i ^o"
'too j.- j . - . o . f^ c.o - r.J1:,- c.o c . c ; o . o
oo ;: ..^ c.. •: . c ! .• . o i c . \- 3.0 c.o o.; oo^o,;
i , '
7 1 - ? ? , o ; r . • , . ". : , :- ; • -..•• : . o i D . c o . n o . c • c . ;
T3-'- < •'. : .0 o.' '.5 - .• :. ' .0 o.i:, o.o c.o
T 4 - 7 ' C- ,• ' . ' }. D .(••.-. ' . .1 | ' . , ,
•-
'-'
C 1 .0
r o.o
0 ! 0,6
C | 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
C J.O
i 0.0
0 i 0.0
r • o.o
k : T
C i 3.0
') ! T
3.0
^ . c
0 C.O
o ; >.o
0 ' O.-i
0 C . '!
0 C.O
3 0.0
T
C r 0.0
r i i1 . c
f| 0..
3 T
0 T
3 0.0
oi ^.io
B-:j "-J
        0.73 o.6< o.3> o.i;
                                 O.*l o.ao' ;.8
                                       2-6

-------
 2.3 POPULATION
     Historical and projected population levels for Maricopa County are
 listed in Table 2-4.  The County has been growing rapidly since 1940
 with most of the growth occurring in the Phoenix urban area.
                                TABLE 2-4.
                          POPULATION ESTIMATES
                             MARICOPA COUNTY
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Population Percent Change
186,193 	
331,770 78.2
663,510 100.0
969,425 46.1
1,362,000*
1,713,000*
2,069,000*
2,425,000*
               Source:  Maricopa Association of Governments
               * projected population
In 1970, 89.7 percent of the population resided in incorporated cities and
towns within the County.  A population estimate prepared by the Maricopa
Planning and Zoning Department indicated that the population increased from
969,425 in 1970 to approximately 1,180,000 in 1973, an increase of over
21 percent.
     Table 2-5 contains a listing of population data by districts for 1970
and 1974.  The data for 1974 were compiled from a survey conducted in Octo-
         3
ber 1974.   Districts are comprised of aggregations of census tracts as
illustrated in Figure 2-4.  These data illustrate the distribution of popu-
lation throughout the County and the concentration in the Phoenix urban
area.  It should be noted that a special census is presently being conducted
in Maricopa County and the preliminary results indicated that these popu-
lation estimates may be somewhat overestimated.
                                    2-7

-------
                                                               Mari'copa Bounty
Phoenix Standard Metropolitan Statistical  Area
             Figure 2-4.  Population Districts
                               2-8

-------
               TABLE  2-5
   POPULATION ESTIMATED  BY DISTRICTS
District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total
1970 •
Population
69,085
34,570
41,340
57,614
21,170
38,494
51,962
49,943
42,320
48,480
48,755
55,146
34,635
50,935
37,143
45,497
68,523
70,963
44,763
58,087
969,425
Estimated
1974 Population
94,000
48,000
70,000
102,000
43,000
69,000
65,000
62,000
47,000
49,000
54,000
82,000
33,000
59,000
38,000
62,000
101,000
108,000
82,000
86,000
1,294,000
a.  U.S.  Census
b.  Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette Survey
                     2-9

-------
2.4  LAND USE
     Maricopa County comprises approximately 9,226 sq. miles of land area.
The County's existing land use is illustrated in Figure 2-5.  Area and
percentage breakdowns by land use category are given below in Table 2-6.
                                TABLE 2-6
                        EXISTING GENERAL LAND USE
                             MARICOPA COUNTY
Area In
Land Use Square Miles
Urban Development
Agricultural Areas
Major Park and Recreation Areas
Airports and Military Res.
Mountains and Desert
TOTAL COUNTY AREA
323 sq. mi.
882
1,305
1,260
5,456
9,226 sq. mi.
Percent of Total
County Area
3.5%
9.6
14.1
13.7
59.1
100.0%
     Source:  Maricopa County Planning Department
The presently urbanized areas, those developed for residential, commercial,
public or industrial purposes, occupy 323 square miles or 3.5 percent of
the total land area.  Most of this urbanized area is concentrated in the
Phoenix Urban Area which contains 90 percent of the total county population
while occupying approximately 307 square miles or 3.3 percent of the total
land area.  The average population density for the urban area based on
1970 population was 4.4 persons per acre.  The Phoenix Urban Area includes
the major incorporated cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa and Glen-
dale and the unincorporated area of Sun City.
     The central urbanized area is surrounded by small pockets of urban
development, particularly in the agricultural  area to the west and southeast
of Phoenix.   Included are Chandler and Gilbert in the southeast portion of
the County;  Avondale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Tolleson and Cashion in the
west central portion; Buckeye, ^ila Bend and Wickenburg in the western
portion; and Cave-Creek-Carefree to the north.
     Approximately 882 square miles or 9.6 percent of the total land area of
Maricopa County is used for agricultural purposes.  The major portion of
agricultural development surrounds the Phoenix Urban Area and extends from

                                   2-10

-------
ro
i
                                                                  EXISTING
                                                       LAND  USE  PATTERN
                                                                      1973
                                                                                N
      L    E   G   E
   URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CZl AGRICULTURE
   MAJOR PARKS S  RECREATION
CZl AIRPORTS S  MILITARY RESERVATIONS
•i MOUNTAINS
   DESERT
                                 Figure 2-5.  Land Use 1n Maricopa County

-------
Pinal County on the east to the White Tank Mountains and the Buckeye area
on the west.  Other smaller agricultural areas are dispersed throughout
the county mostly along drainage channels.  Agriculture, which is sustained
in the county by a major irrigation system, is an important component of
the county's economy, second only to manufacturing as a source of income.
Agricultural land use, however, has declined considerably in recent decades
because of urban expansion, changes in water conditions and other economic
factors.  Although agricultural land use is increasing in the western por-
tions of the County, it has not kept pace with the agricultural land de-
veloped in the Phoenix Urban Area.  Table 2-7 shows the total cropped
acreage from 1950 to 1972.
                                TABLE 2-7
                          AGRICULTURE CROP AREA
                             Maricopa County
Year
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1971
1972
Total Cropped
Area (Acres)
535,000
485,000
523,863
481,120
462,710
442,635
442,600
               Source:  "Arizona Agricultural", Annual Bulletin of
               Cooperative Extension Service Agricultural Experi-
               ment Station, University of Arizona.
     Park and recreational land uses occupy an estimated 1,306 square miles
or 14.1 percent of the total County land area.  Included are County and
municipal park systems and Tonto National Forest.
     Airports and military installations occupy 1,260 square miles or
13.7 percent of the total land area in Maricopa County.  Most recent esti-
mates indicate that there are 40 airports (12 municipal and 28 private)
currently located in Maricopa County* in addition to Sky Harbor Airport,
which is the only general aviation airport in the County, and eight other
* Personal communication with the staff of the Maricopa Association of Governments
                                      2-12

-------
municipal airports.  There are two major military air bases in the County:
Williams Air  Force Base, located nine miles east of Chandler, and Luke
Air  Force Base,  located ten miles west of Glendale.  The largest military
installation  is  the Gila Bend Bombing and Gunnery Range in the southwestern
part of the County.
     Mountainous and desert areas cover approximately 5,456 square miles
or 59.1 percent of the total land area in Maricopa County.  All of the County
falls within  the desert region of the Basin and Range Geological Province,
except for the extreme northeastern portion.  There are approximately 640
square miles, or 6.9 percent of the total land area, of mountainous areas in
the  County outside of areas designed for other primary uses (i.e., parks
and  recreation).  Desert areas cover 4,816 square miles or 52.2 percent of
the  total County land area.  Desert soils vary from very thin, rocky and
gravel type soils on the steeper slopes adjacent to the mountainous dreds,
to thick sandy and clay-like loams towards the major drainage channels.
2.5  ECONOMY
     Personal  income, manufacturing, agriculture and tourism are the major
sources of income in Maricopa County.  Income from these four sectors in
1974 is listed in Table 2-8.   Forecasts for 1975 are also included in the
table.   Income trends in manufacturing, agriculture and tourism are illus-
trated in Figure 2-6, which shows manufacturing to be the leading source
of income (excluding personal  income).   According to the Arizona Depart-
ment of Economic Security,  a total  of 1408 manufacturing establishments
were operating in 1974 in Maricopa County.   They are listed by industry in
Table 2-9.
                                TABLE 2-8
                         INCOME BY MAJOR SECTOR
                             MARICOPA COUNTY
1974 Income
Sector (millions
Personal Income
Manufacturing Value
Added
Agriculture
Tourism
6,080
1,725
409
340
1975 Forecast
of dollars)
6,635
1,846
434
348
           Source:  Inside Phoenix - 1975
                                     2-13

-------
I
1






J
••''







..
» •
/
/
/
/
r !






!







/











M/




	 "









NUF

C

I1'1''



SOI






ACT
x


TO



BCC






JR^

	







>

"AG

URISTS



Vfl LL



E v N






**
*••.
R1CU
ll'1'1'1





ATION





V

....
LTU





L BA




^


,..«•
^E
il1'"'1





„
                         1950   1952    1954   1956    1958   I960
                                      YEAR

                        Figure 2-6.   Economic Trends
                                 TABLE  2-9
                       MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS
Industry
ordnance
food
apparel
lumber
furniture
paper
printing
chemicals
petroleum
rubber and plastic
Number of Plants
        2
      104
       43
       62
       60
       14
      223
       45
        7
       68
Industry
leather
stone, clay, glass
primary metal
fabricated metal
machinery
elec. machinery
trans, equipment
instruments
miscellaneous
TOTAL
Number of Plants
       10
       82
       30
      167
      182
       88
      130
       28
       62
     1408
                                      2-14

-------
     Second to manufacturing, agriculture is the major source of income in
Maricopa County.  As mentioned in section 2.5, a significant, though de-
clining, amount of land is used in the County for agriculture.   In 1972,
442,600 acres or approximately 7 percent of the County's total  land area
was in use as cropland, orchards, vineyards, pasturelands, or fallow crop-
land.  This represents a decline of 21 percent from 1950 when 535,000 acres
were in agricultural use.  Table 2-10 contains a summary of agricultural
statistics for the County including acreages in use by crop, yields and
products (where available).
     The soil, climate and irrigation system in the County make it possible
for farmers to grow and market seasonal  crops the year round.  Gross re-
ceipts from the sale of agricultural  products in 1974 were $441 million,
split between crops and livestock.  A breakdown of these receipts by pro-
duct is given in Table 2-11.
     Total employment in the  County in 1970 and 1975 by industry is listed
in Table 2-12.  Between 1970  and 1975, total employment has grown signifi-
cantly, increasing approximately 30 percent from 371,200 to 484,400.  Agri-
culture was the only sector in which employment declined (9 percent).  The
highest percentage increases  occurred in trade, finance, insurance, real
estate and service industries.
                                    2-15

-------
                                             TABLE   2-10
                                    AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS
                                          MARICOPA COUNTY
CROP
i
ACRES I/
1972 1 1973 j

1974

Unit
YIELD PER

1972
HARVESTED ACRE
I 1973
1974
PRODUCTION
Unit
1972
1973
! 1974
mm C«CPS

  Upland cotton _;/              101,200     99,100    151,650      Lb.       1,128      1,122     1,348     Bale     238,100   231,550    425,900
  American Plua cotton 21.         8,800      7,500     8,100      Lb.         688        695       711     Bale      12,620    10,850     12,000
  Alfalfa hay                   100,000    100,000    95,000      Tor.         6.2        6.8       6.9     Ton      620,000   684,000    655.500
  All cither hay                 12,100     12,000    11,900      Ton        2.65       2.49      2.50     Ton       32,100    29,820     29,800
  Safflouer                    17,100     11,900     7,700      Lb.       2,550      2,090     2,400     Ton       21,800    12,450      9,250
  Sugarbeeti                    6,760      7,890     4,590      Ton        22.8       22.8      25.5     Ten      153,900   180,050    117,000
  Barley

    Harvested for grain          45,000     52,000    43,200      Lb.       3,600      3,390     3,740     Ton       81,000   101,090     60,870
  Scrghua	

    Harvested for grain          30,300     29,000    29,500      Lb.       3,640      3,420     3,700     Ton       55,150    49,530     54,520
  Wheat	                                	
    Planted all purposes         69,000     84,000    74,000      ^r^f^^^?^^':j-95H3¥XtuZ*T-i5!5yi.l-JUI5aB      ytMLi'.im j;\lmjm)lif*f">wt.*M^^*qgffffsC!f^m
    Harvested :or grain          58,000     78,000    71,000      Lb.       4,200      4,320     4,200     Ton
  Corn
    Planted all purposes          7,700      7,000     5,300      m^LJ*iTfnr***^' m*t **i';gg'yr'*::*-mW"llMifTI     •KBKKMVaa0sjejSjagga9HMlBnBaAeejBa
    Harvested for grain           4,000        500     1,000      Lb.       3,700    '  3,420     3,470     Ton        7,390       850      1,740

VEGETABLES AND KELONS

  Lettuce                      12.330     10,100     8,350      Cwt.        174        153       220  Thou. Cvt.    2,140     1,545      1,837
  Cantaloups                      970      1,730     1,500      Cut.         90        132   "   142   Thou. Cwt.      87       229       213
  Carrots V                    2,800      2,750     1,940      Cvt.        132        83       147   Thou. Cwt.     370       229       285
  Dry onions                    1.130      1,400     1,200      Cwt.        483        519       500   Thou. Cwt.     551       726       600
  Hateraelona                    2.950      3,000     1,450      Cwt.        211        130       187   Thou. Cvt.     623       390       271
                                                                                               121,800    163,480   Ii9,100
                               CITRUS,   DECIDUOUS  FRUIT,  PECANS
CROP
<~ - --" t *
1973 | 1974
' 	 1
1975
Acres In groves or orchards

Oranges
| Grapefruit
Lenons
Other citrus
Crapes
Peaches
Nectar Inrs
Plum
j Apricots
Apples
Pecans

11.880 11,600
6,230 7,040
2,920 3,120
3,020 3,030
2,828 2,895
475 475
205 205
420 420
135 135
— —
750 1,420

11,970
7*170 .
3,050 '
2,810 1
2,910
475
205
560
135
—
1,420
                            LIVESTOCK  PRODUCTION  AND  MARKETINGS
ITEM 19
Eggs produced (Thou.) 83,
Milk produced (Thcu. Lbs.) 568,
Cattle marketed from
feedlots (Sunber) 345,
72 1973
804 83,468
000 651,000

000 304,000
1974 I
81,200
721,000

274,000
Source:   Maricopa  County  Agricultural  Statistics
             and  Livestock  Reporting  Service.
                                                        2-16
                                                                                   -  1974, Arizona Crop

-------
                            TABLE 2-11

                RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Product
Livestock
Cotton
Dairy Products
Alfalfa
Lettuce
Wheat
Potatoes
Citrus
Other
1974 Sales
(millions of dollars)
110.2
110.2
49.1
29.2
17.5
14.3
11.1
7.9
81.4
441.0
Percent
of Total
25
25
13
6
4
3
3
2
19
100
Source:  Maricopa County Agricultural  Statistics 1974
                            TABLE 2-12

                         TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
                          MARICOPA COUNTY
Industry
Agriculture
Manufacturing
Mining and Quarrying
Contract Construction
Transportation, Communications
Public Utilities
Trade
Finance Insurance and Real
Estate
Services & Miscellaneous
Government
Othera
TOTAL
Employment
1970 1975
12,000
70,900
300
21,300
17,700
81 ,000
22,800
55,000
48,200
32,000
371 ,200b
11,000
71,100
400
29,200
23,900
113,600
32,200
82,000
82,400
39,000
484,400C
Percent
Change
-9
1
33
37
35
40
41
49
34
22
Source:  Arizona Department of Economic Security
^ includes self employed
b unadjusted total.  Total employment adjusted for commuting
  job holding and labor management disputes = 363,800.
  unadjusted total.  Total employment ad/justed for commuting
  job holding and labor management disputes = 474,400.
                                2-17
                                                              multiple

                                                              multiple

-------
                         3.0 MONITOR SITE SURVEY

     This section provides an evaluation of the siting of each of the
particulate monitoring stations in Phoenix.  The evaluations were
developed following a detailed monitor site survey in which the description
of the environment of each monitor site was documented.  This included
an investigation of previous and existing emission sources in the locale,
as well as physical descriptions of the monitoring sites.  These descrip-
tions were used to estimate the representativeness of each of the monitor
sites, and to establish the utility of data obtained there.
     The siting evaluation is organized into 2 sections.   In section 3.1,
the general notions of siting criteria and "useful" representativeness
are discussed.  This includes methodology for the assessment of the
potential utility of air quality data from a given site.   Section 3.2
provides a summary of a siting evaluation performed for the Phoenix Hi-Vol•
monitoring network.
3.1 General Discussion
     Many decisions concerning air program planning are dependent upon the
placement of the sensors used to measure air quality.   Because ambient
pollutant levels often vary substantially throughout a planning area,  it
is evident that contrasting siting procedures can result in totally
different air quality characterizations.  These differences have important
implications for the nature of planning decisions for air quality standards
and implementation programs.
     Suitable resources rarely exist to site the number of sensors needed
for comprehensive description of spatial air quality variations.  Instead,
a limited number of air monitors are generally placed  at "representative
sites" selected as characteristic of air quality levels in the immediate
area.  This notion of representativeness is, of course, approximate,  since

                                    3-1

-------
the emission sources (and hence the air quality)  in  or around any single
locale, are generally far from homogenious.   However,  there  are degrees
of homogeneity and practical  considerations  dictate  that monitors should
be sited in areas where the source homogeneity is not  too divergent.   An
exception to this siting procedure consists  of the case where it is
desired that a monitor be source oriented to be representative of maximal
concentrations arising from a single source  or a  "hot  spot".  However,
representativeness  of this kind is fiction  also, since a single siting
will provide the desired measurement only under a single set of temporal
and meteorological conditions.
     In addition to difficulties associated  with  siting of monitors to be
representative of a given area, there is a problem concerning the deter-
mination of the areas which should be represented in the network.
Generally, it is desirable to select those areas  suspected to incur high
exposure levels of ambient pollutants.  The  precise  location of such areas
is often unclear.  For one thing, these locations may  vary from day to day,
or from year to year.  This is because of normal  variations  in important
air quality determinants such as meteorology and  emission levels, and
because of changes which occur in the environment (i.e. sources and source
locations).
     Ultimately, a monitoring network cannot possibly  satisfy all siting
criteria.  However, the network can still be very useful. This utility
can be assured when an understanding of the  representativeness of the
monitors, is fully developed.  One means of developing this  understanding
is the site survey.

       In conducting the site  surveys, the geographic range of representa-
tiveness of the monitor is estimated by observation  of local sources and
topography surrounding the monitor.  Figures 3-1  through 3-3 illustrate
some potential source orientations with respect to monitor stations.  In
Figure 3-1, the monitor is located in a rather homogenious field of sources,
and unless the sensor is subject to distorting local phenomena, the measure-
ments  should be representative of the general area.   In Figure 3-2, the
                                     3-2

-------
monitor  is  source oriented  in an uneven field of sources, and measurements

there may only  be representative of a very limited space around the

sensor.  In  Figure 3-3, the monitor is representative of the shaded region

of area  source  emissions.
Figure 3-1. Monitor in Homo-
gem'ous Field of Point Sources.
Representation of General  Area.
Figure 3-2.  Monitor in Inhomo-
genious Field of Point Sources.
Site Specific Representativeness
                    Figure  3-3.   Monitor in  Field
                    of Area Sources  (shaded).
                    Site Specific Representativeness,
                                    3-3

-------
     A major issue in the representativeness of any monitor (such as that
in the examples above) concerns the placement of the sensor with respect
to sources and topography immediately adjacent to the site.  If the sensor
is placed directly in an emissions plume, the measurements derived from
the sensor will be dominated by this local source.  If the source is well
described and can be quantitatively assessed, the domination of measure-
ments may also be assessed and the readings recorded by the monitor may
serve as indicators for air quality nearby.   However, it is more desirable
that the sensor be placed in areas where source emissions are relatively
mixed and spatial  variations in concentrations are less dramatic.  This
is particularly the case when the local  influences next to the monitor
are not easily described, and their accountability in the measurements is
indeterminant.   In addition to source orientation, local  influences by
topography can be important.   A sensor located next to physical  obstructions
(i.e. too close to ground, next to a wall) can fail  to sense the desired
pollutant concentrations because ambient air streamlines are directed  away
from the site.
      In summary, the air quality measured at a given monitor may be
 representative of either a broad or confined area.  In either case,
 if the relationship of air quality at the sensor site to air quality
 at other nearby points can be understood, the monitor is representative
 in a useful way.  If it is not possible to estimate or assume this
 relationship with some certainty, the measurements obtained at the
 monitor are of limited utility.  Site surveys can provide the information
 necessary for these appraisals.
 3.2  SITING EVALUATION
      Figure 3-4 shows the location of the various hi-Vol monitoring sites
 in Maricopa County.   All monitors but the Arizona State Station are operated
 by the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control.  The history of the various
 sites is varied.   Many of the stations have been sampling for a limited
 time, having been established as recently as 1974.   Other stations were
 established several  years before the period of interest of the current
 study.   During the sampling history of some stations, significant changes

                                     3-4

-------
                                                                                  Carefree Airport
GO
en
                                                                    ParadlseVaTley   North SeQttsda1e/Parad1«:i> Valley
                             Figure  3.4    Location  of Hi-Vol Monitors  in Phoenix Area,

-------
in the surrounding environment have affected air quality levels and repre-
sentativeness at the monitor site.   The present status  of representative-
ness for the various stations has been investigated  in  a recent site survey
conducted in November of 1975.   The survey included  judgments  regarding
historical  and future characterizations of the sites as well.   Table 3-1
identifies  each of the monitor sites addressed in the site survey.

     There  are several variations in the site locations and monitor place-
ment.  These concern the height of sampler, the type and orientation of
sources near the monitor, the characterization of the general  area in which
the monitor is located, historical  and forecasted environmental changes at
the site, and the representativeness of the monitor  site.  Table 3-2 provides
a summary of the survey's pertinent findings for each of the sites.

     One of the most obvious differences in the various monitor sitings
concerns the elevation of the sensor above ground level.  Seven of the
sites included monitors at elevations of five feet above ground, four
from ten to fifteen feet, and the remaining six at 20 to 25 feet.  It
was not clear without further analysis (to be undertaken in a  subsequent
task) the significance of these differences on observed levels of sus-
pended particulates.  For sites located in general areas containing
fugitive dust sources, monitor elevation may prove a significant issue,
due to tendency of fugitive dust particles to distribute unevenly  as a
function of vertical height.  Moreover, since fugitive  dust is the primary
spurce of region-wide suspended particulates, the elevation issue is im-
portant (in varying degrees) at all the monitor sites.   Ultimately, air
quality data should probably be adjusted to a common level of  represent-
ativeness before control strategy formulations- can reasonably  commence.
This concept will be discussed in the emissions diffusion modeling task.

     The majority of the monitor sites are placed within a residential
community.   Only two sites differ: the Carefree Site, which is remote,
and the Downtown Phoenix Site, located in a commercial  area.  Because
there are few urban areas in Phoenix, most of the sites are located  in
                                   3-6

-------
           TABLE 3-1.  HI-VOL MONITOR SITES IN PHOENIX AREA
3.
4.,

 6.
    Central  Phoenix Station
    03-0600-002(0)
    1845 E.  Roosevelt, Phoenix
    South Phoenix Station
    03-0600-013
    4732 S.  Central  Ave., Phoenix
    Arizona State Station
    03-0600-014
    1740 W. Adams, Phoenix
    Glendale Station
    03-0320-001
    Glendale Community College
    6000 W.  Olive,  Glendale

    West Phoenix Station
    03-0600-006
    Grand Canyon College
    3300 W.  Camelback, Phoenix

    North Phoenix Station
    03-0600-004
    601  E.  Butler,  Phoenix
                                       [_at:  33  27'  30"  N
                                       Long:  112°  02'  30" W
                                       UTM Northing:   3702388
                                       UTM Easting:   403195

                                       Lat:   33° 24'  15"  N
                                       Long:   112° 04' 10" W
                                       UTM Northing:   3692438
                                       UTM Easting:   00400550

                                       Lat:   33° 26'  56"  N
                                       Long:   112° 05' 48" W
                                       UTM Northing:   3701424
                                       UTM Easting:   00398076

                                       Lat:   33° 33'  45"  N
                                       Long:   112° IT 15" W
                                       UTM Northing:   3710058
                                       UTM: Easting:   00389772

                                       Lat:   33° 29'  16"  N
                                       Long:   112° 09' 49" W
                                       UTM Northing:   3705772
                                       UTM Easting:   391897

                                       Lat:   33° 33'  12"  N
                                       Long:   112° 03' 49" W
                                       UTM Northing:  3712940
                                       UTM Easting:  401263
7.  North  Scottsdale/Paradise          Lat:   33° 36' 15" N
    Valley Station                     Long:  llio 55' 40" W
    03-0740-004                        UTM Northing:  3719250
    13665  No.  Scottsdale Rd.., Scottsdale UTM Easting:  414500
8.  Scottsdale Station
    03-0740-003
    2857 N.  Miller Rd., Scottsdale
                                       Lat:   33°  28'  50"  N
                                       Long:   111°  55'  10" W
                                       UTM Northing:  3704651
                                       UTM Easting:   00414885
                                3-7

-------
            TABLE 3-1.   HI-VOL  MONITOR  SITES  IN  PHOENIX AREA  (continued)
    9.   Mesa  Station
         03-0460-002
         3rd Place  & Center, Mesa
    10   Downtown  Phoenix  Site
         03-0600-010
         500  S.  3rd Ave.,  Phoenix
    11.  St.  John's  Site
         03-0440-011
         St.  John's  Indian School
    12.  Sun  City  Site
         03-0790-002
         10401 Thunderbird Blvd.,
         Sun  City

    13   Paradise  Valley Pump Site
         03-0570-002
         3546 E. Sweetwater Rd.,
         Paradise  Valley

    14   Carefree  Airport Site
         03-0440-006
         Carefree, Arizona
    15.  Chandler  Site
         03-0120-001
         250  E. Commonwealth, Chandler
    16. Guadalupe Site
        03-0440-008
        Encinas Rd., vacant
        pump station

    17  Litchfield Station
        03-0440-009
        Litchfield & Villa Nuera Rds.,
        Litchfield
Lat:  33° 25' 30" N
Long:  111° 49' 45" W
UTM Northing:  3698514
UTM Easting:  422913

Lat:  33° 26' 38" N
Long:  112° 04' 45" W
UTM Northing:  3700819
UTM Easting:  399692

Lat:  33° 17' 25" N
Long:  1120 10' 10" W
UTM Northing:  3683881
UTM Easting:  391110

Lat:  33° 36' 30" N
Long:  1120 17' 00" W
UTM Northing:  3719270
UTM Easting:  380940

Lat:  33° 36' 15" N
Long:  112° 00' 10" W
UTM Northing:  3718521
UTM Easting:  406964

Lat:  33° 49' 05" N
Long:  110° 53' 50" W
UTM Northing:  3742146
UTM Easting:  416964

Lat: 33° 18' 30" N
Long:  111° 50' 14" W
UTM Northing:  3685585
UTM Easting:  422035

Lat:  33°22' 00" N
Long:  110° 57' 37" W
UTM Northing:  3692151
UTM Easting:  410665

Lat:  33° 29' 30" N
Long:  112° 21' 30" W
UTM Northing:  3702423
UTM Easting:  00373811
Source:  Maricopa County Health Department,  Bureau of Air Pollution Control
                                    3-8

-------
                                        TABLE 3-2.   SITE SURVEY SUMMARY
NMITOR SITE
1. St. Johns


2. Lltchfleld
Park


3. Sun City



«. Glendale




5. West
Phoenix
6. North
Phoenix

7. Paradise




8. North
Scottsdale/
Paradise
Valley
9. Carefree

10. ScottstUlf



11. South
Phoenli






12. Guadaluw



13. Chandler




14. Mesa




15. Downtown
Phoenix


State



17. Centra]



CHARACTERIZATION
OF GENERAL AREA
Rural/residential.
Indian Reservation
In open desert.
Suburban/residential.
Relatively new cotmnlty
with substantial growth
In progress.
Suburban/residential



Surburan-rural/
residential -agricultural



Suburban/residential
Suburban/residential


Suburban/residential
Considerable new
development 1n progress


Rural/res1dent1al-
Connerclal


Remote

Suburban/residential



Urban/residential -
Comnerclal






Rural/residential



Suburban/res Identlal -




Suburban/resident lal-
Coinnerclal



Urban/Conmerclal



Suburban/residential



Urban/residential



ELEVATIOH OF
KMITOR ABOVE
GROUND
15 ft.


10 ft.



25 ft.



20 ft.




5 ft.
5 ft.


5 ft




5 ft.



5 ft.

15 ft.




36 ft.






5 ft



21 ft.




5 ft.




23 ft.



15 ft.



22 ft.



SITE SPECIFIC
SOURCES
Soil dust froQ unpaved
roads, residence yards.
and open fields.
Soil dust fron unpaved
roads, disturbed open
fields, construction-
excavation activities.
Soil dust froet disturbed
open fields. Motor ve-
hicle exhaust, entrained
dust from paved roads.
Hotor vehicle exhaust
In parking lot. entrained
dust from paved roads.


None significant.
Soil dust frotn unpaved
roadways and unpaved
parking lots, entrained
dust from paved roads.
Soil dust from disturbed
open fields, unpaved ex-
cavation and construc-
tion activities. entrained
dust frotn paved roaos.
Soil dust from disturbed
open fields.


Soil dust from disturbed
desert ground.
Hotor vehicle exhaust.
entrained dust from paved
roads .


Soil dust from resi-
dence yards, unpaved road
shoulders, and open field
Motor exhaust from parkin
lots and Central Ave.
Entrained dust from paved
roads.
Soil dust from resi-
dence yards, disturbed
vacant lots, entrained
dust from paved roads.
Soil dust from open
fields, unpaved roads
and parking lots, from
open fields, agricul-
tural property, entrained
dust from paved roads.
Soil dust from unoaved
roadways and parking
lots, soil yards, en-
trained dust from paved
roads.
Soil dust from unpaved
roads and parking areas,
entrained dust from
paved roads.
Soil dust from vacant
lots, open fields, and
excavation/construction
activities. Motor ve-
hicle exhaust, entrained
dust from paved roads.
Soil dust from vacant
fields, residence yards.
and road shoulders, Mo to
vehicle exhaust, entralnet
dust from paved roads.
SOURCES 111
6EHERAL AREA
Soil dust from un-
paved roads.

Soil dust from unpaved
roads, disturbed open field, con-
struction-excavation activities.
Soil dust from open fields.
Soil dust from disturbed
open fields, entrained dust
from paved roads.

Power plant 1/2 mile SU of site.
Agricultural fields, and dis-
turbed fields, and disturbed
vacant lots, entrained dust from
paved roads.
Soil dust from open fields.
Soil dust from unpaved road-
ways and vacant lots, entrained
dust from paved roads.

Soil dust from disturbed open
fields, ex cavatlon and con-
struction, and unpaved roads.
Entralneddust from paved roads.

Soil dust from disturbed open
fields, excavation and con-
struction, and unpaved roads.
Entrained dust from paved roads.
Soil dust from disturbed
desert ground.
Entrained dust from paved roads.




Soil dust from residence yards.
unpaved road shoulders, and open
.fields. Hotor vehicle exhaust,
entrained dust from paved roads.



Soil dust from residence yards.
open fields, disturbed vacant
lots, entrained dust from paved
roads .
Soil dust from open fields,
unpaved roads and parking lots,
and agricultural property,
entrained dust from paved roads.


Soil dust from unpaved parking lots
and roadways, disturbed vacant lots
entrained dust from paved roads.


Soil dust from unpaved roads and
parking areas, motor vehicle ex-
roads.

fields, escavation/constructlon
activities, motor vehicle exhaust,
entrained dust from paved roads.


Soil dust from vacant fields,
Motor vehicle exhaust, entrained dus
from paved roads.

REPRESENT*- ,
TIVENESS i
Site Specific


Area-Wide



Area-Wide



Area-Wide




Area-Wide
Site Specific


Area-Wide




Area-Wide



Area -Wide






Area-Wide






Area-Wide



Area -Wide




Site Specific




Site Specific







A re a -Wide



IWACT OF
CKVIRONKNTAL
CHANGES AT SITE
Not significant


Previous changes are representative
of areawlde trends and probably
have not affected areawld*
representativeness.
Future development will Intensify
local fugitive sources, then
towards completion, reduce them.

Not significant.




Not significant
Not significant


Construction activity near site
In late 1974 may have resulted
in site specific representation
of air quality

Not significant



Not significant

Previously an unpaved driveway and
parking lot may have resulted In
slightly higher levels of
participates.
Not significant







Not significant



Municipal landscaping activities In
recent years may have limited re-
presentativeness to a site specific
characterization.


Not significant




Not significant



earlier (1973) may have affected
monitor.


Not significant.



UTILITY OF MONITOR DATA
Useful as Indicator, but significance
of site and specific sources HIS t be
determined.
Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.


Useful representation of air quality
for the general area'.


Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.



Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.
source can be determined. Measurements
may have to be deleted from data base.

Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.



Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.


Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.
Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.


Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.






Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.


Useful representation of general area
at present. Previous potential levels
measured In 1973 are probably somewhat
higher than general area trend.


Doubtful If significance of soeclflc
sources can be determined and If air
quality data can be useful.


Doubtful If significance of specific
source can be determined and 1f air
quality data can be useful.

Useful representation of air quality
for the general area.



Useful representation of air quality



OBSERVED
TSP
IN 1975
145


139*



88*



101






121

184




149



42

115



144







173



119*




117




200*



169



112



CO
<£>

-------
suburban or rural  areas.   The communities in some of these areas are long-
established, while others are relatively new and presently undergoing sub-
stantial growth trends.
     Almost all of the monitor sites appear to experience fugitive soil
dust as the most  significant site-specific source of suspended particulates,
Soil dust  sources in the vicinity of the various monitors varies sub-
stantially, in magnitude and type.  Generally, soil  dust is most apt to
be generated in areas where there is substantial activity on soil surfaces.
Soil dust  particles are emitted by the actual activity (i.e., vehicle
travel, pedestrian, excavation) or are suspended by wind after being dis-
turbed by  these activities.  Numerous acres of soil  surfaces are exposed
throughout the Phoenix area, and are subject to constant activity and
suspension influences.  These surfaces consist of vacant lots, open fields,
unpaved road shoulders, residence yards, unpaved roads, excavation piles,
and agricultural  lands.  Dust which is deposited from these sources on
other surfaces  (e.g. paved roads) may be considered as another source.
When suspended, this source is known as  "entrained dust".
     Consistent with the specific site environment, the most significant
sources of suspended particulates in the general areas encircling the
monitor sites  is  soil dust.  These sources are generally similar to those
characterizing  the specific site, both in type, and apparent magnitude
and distribution.  Hence, air quality at most of the sites is representa-
tive of both site specific sources as well as the area-wide sources.
However, four  of  the sites do appear to  be representative of only site
specific air quality.  At the St. Johns  Site, the monitor appears to be
located in a hotspot of  fugitive dust activity which is unrepresentative
of  the  otherwise  remote  and mostly undisturbed soil of the general area.
At  North Phoenix, the site is subject to soil dust raised by vehicle
traffic on an  unpaved alleyway 30 feet from the monitor.  Although the
general area contains several such unpaved alleyways, the proximity of
the monitor to  the site-specific source  limits this location to a site
specific representativeness.  The same type of problem occurs at the Mesa
Site.  An  unpaved vehicle accessway, and disturbed soil surfaces under
and encircling  the monitor, appears to create a site specific air quality
                                   3-10

-------
which is non-representative of the general area.  At the Downtown Phoenix
Site, unpaved vehicle accessways and unpaved parking areas contribute sus-
pended dust loadings to the nearby monitor sensor.  These loadings do not
appear to be representative, in magnitude and distribution of emission
sources throughout the general area.
     On the basis of the site reviews, the utility of the monitor data
appears to be in doubt from only four sites.  These sites are Downtown
Phoenix, Mesa, St. Johns, and North Phoenix.  It is doubtful  if the
significance of the fugitive sources near the monitor at these sites may
be definitively estimated.   If the effect of the local  sources can be
determined, it may be possible to factor out the local  influence of these
sources, permitting the monitor to act as a useful indicator  of area-wide
air quality.  The potential utility of these problem sites will  be explored
in later tasks concerning analysis of fugitive emissions and  diffusion
modeling of these sources.

     Appendix A contains the station by station monitor site  descriptions.
Each description is organized into two parts.  In the first part, the
locale in the immediate vicinity of the sensor is characterized.  Site
inspections, photography, and local interviews form the basis for the
characterization.  Emission sources are identified, and obstructions and
topography around the monitor are discussed.  Relevant changes which have
occurred (or are forecast) in the site environment are considered.  In
the second part, the representativeness of the monitor in expressing air
quality of the local area is assessed, and the implications of this
assessment for the utility of air quality measurements from the sites is
evaluated.
                                  3-11

-------
        4.0  STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF HI-VOL MONITORING DATA

     This section presents and analyzes the statistical  distributions
of Hi-Vol data from monitoring sites in the Phoenix study region.   The
data are from seventeen monitoring sites for the years  1973 to 1975.
The analysis attempts to derive distributions typical  of 1975, the base
year for the implementation planning phase of this project.  Monitoring
data are used for three years, rather than one year, to provide a
larger number of samples for estimating the Statistical  distributions.
     Section 4.1 briefly discusses the nature and extent of the moni-
toring data.  Section 4.2 describes the statistical methodology which
is used.  The method basically involves fitting log normal  distributions
to the data.  Section 4.3 summarizes the annual geometric means and
expected 24 hour maximal values that are derived from the data. These
expected values are compared with yearly measured values in Section 4.4.
4.1  AVAILABLE HI-VOL MONITORING DATA
     Hi-Vol monitoring data were available from two data sources for
the air quality review:  1) the National Aerometric Data Bank (Raw Data
Listing), from which 1973 through 1974 data were obtained,  and  2) the
Maricopa County Health Department, Bureau of Air Pollution  Control, from
which 1975 data were obtained.  These Hi-Vol data, representing 24-hour
averages of suspended particulate matter measured every six days (60
samples per year), were available for seventeen monitoring  locations.
These monitoring sites were adequately distributed throughout the  Phoenix
area; the locations of the sites are shown in Figure 4-1.
     The duration of the overall sampling periods during 1973 to 1975 was
not consistent among all of the stations.  For instance, only fifteen
of the seventeen monitoring stations provided some data for 1975.   The
overall sampling period for each station is documented  in Section  4.3.
4.2  METHODS FOR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF HI-VOL DATA
                                                                i
     Routine Hi-Vol monitoring data typically represent 24  hour samples
of particulate air quality.  Since particulate concentrations vary with
                                   4-1

-------
                                            Carefree Airport
                               Paradise Valley   North
           St. Johns
Figure  4-1.   Hi-Vol  Monitoring Sites Within the Phoenix Area.

-------
time due to meteorological  variance and emission fluctuations,
the Hi-Vol  samples from any location occur in the form of a statistical
distribution.    National  Ambient Air Quality Standards for suspended
particulate matter, summarized in Table 4-1,  have been established
for two parameters of this  distribution, the yearly maximal 24 hour
value and the  annual  geometric mean.  In comparing monitoring data
to the NAAQS,  statistical analyses should be performed to account for
the stochastic nature of the data.
     In this report,  plots  of the data on log-probability paper will
be used as  the basic  statistical methodology.  A straight line on log-
probability paper represents a log-normal frequency distribution, the
case where  the logarithms of the data form a normal or Gaussian
distribution.   Aerometric data form "one-tailed" distributions (no
data occur  less then  zero), and these distributions generally approx-
imate the shape of a  log-normal curve .  It is not expected that
all air quality data  will have a perfect log-normal frequency distri-
bution, and deviations from log-normality will be reflected in a curved
line on log-probability paper.  A study of the curvature of actual air
quality distributions indicates that it is a result of certain mete-
orological  parameters and is also related to the type of source'(i .e.,
area source or point  source) .
    TABLE  4-1 .   NATIONAL  AMBIENT AIR QUALITY  STANDARDS  FOR  SUSPENDED
                PARTICULATE  MATTER.
.
Primary Standard
Secondary Standard
i
Annual
Geometric
Mean
75 y g/m
60-ug/m3*
Maximum: Not to be .
exceeded more than once j
a year j
i
3 '
260 yg/m for 24 hours i
150 ug/m3 for 24 hours
    *Guideline for attainment of 24 hour Secondary Standard.
                                   4-3

-------
     A typical frequency distribution of suspended particulate data
(Hi-Vol sampling data) is illustrated by the histogram in Figure 4-2.
A log-normal distribution of this data is represented by the super-
imposed line on that histogram.   The same data plotted on log-prob-
ability paper (with a probability scale on the abscissa)  is  illustrated
in Figure 4-3.
     Two statistical parameters are utilized to characterize a log-
normal distribution:  the geometric mean (m ) and the standard geometric
deviation (s  ).  For  a  number of individual observations of size "n",
these are defined below:

where:
and
                                                                 (2)
                           m  = geometric mean,
                           exp= the base of natural  logarithms,  2.718,
                            c = the summation  of the natural  logarithms
                                of the individual  concentrations
                                measured,
                            n = the number of  individual  concentrations
                                measured,
                            s = standard geometric deviation.
The arithmetic mean (m) ,  geometric mean (m ), standard deviation (s),
and standard geometric deviation (s )  for a log-normal distribution are
related as follows:
                                                                 (3)
           mn -
            9
                                 exp (0.5 lns )
                                                                 (4)
or, taking the logarithms  of the  terms:
           In m  = In m - 0.5 In  s
                                                                 (5)
                                   4-4

-------
                                                                                                MAX -   330.000000
       -3.0  50.0 103.0  150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0  400.0 450.0 5JO.U 550.0 600.0 650.0 7UU.O 750.C  800.0 850.0
          25.J  75.0 125.0  175.0 225.0  275.0 325.0 J75.0 4*5.0 475.0  525.0 575.0 625.0  b75.0 7*5.0 775.0 825.0
   5C.C
   4S.O
   4S.O
   47.C
   46. C
   45.C
   44.C
   4 3.0
(O
   41,
   27.
   26
J-
Ol
"i
   C
   C
   C
   C
2 J.C
2.'. . C
21.C
21.0
   I?
   I '
   It.
   I'..
   14.
   13,
   12.
   II .
   1C,
50.0
49.U
48.0
4 7.G
46.0
45.0
44.0
43.U
4<.0
41.0
40.0
J9.U
jB.O
Jf.O
_>t. .0
J5.0
34.0
33.0
J2.0
Jl.O
ja.o
i'.-O
26.0
<:7.C
26.0
25.0
<.t. 0
23.0
<.l.O
21.0
20.0
ISi.O
18.0
1 7.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
 s.o
 b.U
 7.0
 6.0
 5.0
 4.0
 3.0
 2.0
 1.0
                   .»«»...•••...»»»...»»»... •«»...»*». ..»**. .«*»*.. ^ •»»»•«•*»».••»»»•••»**• ..+*»••• »»»t.. •»»...
       -0.3  30.0 100.0 15C.J  ^00.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0  450.0 50U.O 530.0 600.0 653.0  700.0 750.C 800.0 050.0
          25.)  75.0 125.0  175.0 225.0 275.0 325.0 375.0 425.0 475.0 525.0 575.0 625.0 675.0 725.0 775.0 825.0

                                                     yg/m


               Figure  4-2.  Frequency  Distribution  of 24 Hour Suspended  Particulates

                 at Mesa Site  (v g/m  ).   February 1974  through December 1975.
                                                       4-5

-------
)00>
600
4OT
200-
 100.


» 80-


 60-
 40.
 20
 10-
    "hti
                     znr
                      Hi
                          Ui'

                          li:

                          H'
                     IT
     lii
                                  III!
                                          LL
                   Illl
                   Oil
                   Jill
                   IrH
                                                 H
                                                I!; I

                                T-
                                                           rr
                                                            H-
                                                               Kif
                                                               I I u*
                                                                   r
                                           t
                                                                            |
                                               1
   0.01    0.1
10   20  39 40 -50  60 70 60    90   95   98  39
            Percent
                                                                         99.9    99.99
Figure 4-3.   Cumulative  Frequency Distribution Plot of  Suspended Particulate
              Levels.  Mesa  Site-- February 1974 through December 1975.
       For a  log-normal plot  such as Figure 4-3, the equation of the  best

  fit straight  line has the following form:

                                In  c = In m   +  z  In s                 (6)
                                           J          3
                                       4-6

-------
                  or           c = m  s z                        (7)
                                    *3  »/
where c = individual concentrations measured,
and   z = number of standard deviations that "c" occurs away from the
          geometric mean.
For accumulative frequency distribution, the 84th percentile concen-
tration value and the 16th percentile point are represented by one
standard deviation, z = - 1.  The geometric mean (m ) is represented
by the 50th percentile value (i.e., z = 0).  Therefore,

                            mg = C50%
                    and  In c    = In mg + (1 )  In (sg),          (9)

                                                   -
     The expected maximum value for a number of samples can be calculated
utilizing equation (7), where the "z-value" is dependent on the frequency
with which the expected maximum value occurs.  An empirical equation for
calculating the plotting position frequency for any point other than  the
median, is as follows :

                            f = 100%  r " °'4                   (11)

where f = the plotting position frequency, in percent,
      r = the rank order (e.g., highest, second, third, fourth, etc.,)  and
      n = the number of samples.
Using a normal error table, the frequency determines the statistical
"z-value" associated with the number of deviations from the median [3].
The"z-values" used in calculating the expected maximum concentration
for 60, 70, 90, and 365 samples per year are 2.33, 2.38, 2.47, and 2.94
respectively!  These values for "z" may be obtained very readily from
a "z-curve", which is plotted with "plotting- position frequency"
(equation (11) )  as the abscissa and "number of standard deviations
from median"  (z-value) on the ordinate .
                                   4-7

-------
4.3  FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF SUSPENDED PARTICULATE LEVELS AND
     CALCULATION OF MAXIMAL 24-HOUR LEVELS
     Cumulative frequency distributions of Hi-Vol  data, plotted on
log-probability paper, are presented for the seventeen  sites in  Figures
4-4 through 4-20.  The order of the figures is as  follows:
     Figure  4-4  Central Phoenix      Figure  4-12  Mesa
             4-5  South Phoenix               4-13  Downtown Phoenix
             4-6  Arizona State               4-14  St. John's
             4-7  Glendale                    4-15  Sun City
             4-8  West Phoenix                4-16  Paradise Valley
             4-91 North Phoenix               4-17  Carefree
             4-10 North Scottsdale/           4-18  Chandler
                  Paradise Valley             4_lg  Guada]upe
             4-11 Scottsdale                  4_2Q  Litchfield

In each case, a log-normal distribution (straight  line) has been fit to
the data.  This distribution is defined by the geometric mean (m ) and
geometric standard deviation (s ) calculated from  the Hi-Vol data.  An
alternative presentation of the data, histograms of the frequency
distributions, can be found in Appendix B.
     In most cases, the data in Figures 4-4 through 4-20 approximate
a log-normal distribution (straight line) fairly well.   However, in
three cases (Scottsdale, Downtown Phoenix, and Guadalupe), there is
substantial curvature to the data.  For these  three sites there appears
to be a leveling off of the highest values as  compared to the log-
normal  distributions.  The log-normal distribution might considerably
overestimate maximal value for these sites.  In these three cases, a
separate (dashed) line has been drawn to fit the upper portions of the
distribution.  The dashed lines should provide more realistic predictions
of expected maximal values.
     Table 4-2 summarizes the parameters of the log-normal distributions
that are fit to the data from each site.  Table>4-2 presents the annual
geometric mean, geometric standard deviation,  and  cumulative frequency
distribution for the log-normal lines.  Table  4-2  also presents the
                                    4-8

-------
CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTION  PLOT OF  24-HOUR  SUSPENDED PARTICULATE  VALUES


                                    Figure  4-4.

                          Central Phoenix Site 1/73-12/75
         IMIU-
         too
         4WV
         too
         10CL


       V

          40-
          40.
          10-
             -i-H
                    JJ.
                    -I
                     I-  Ml
                    ~nr
irjr
 •MI
! "I T
                                        u:
                                               '.IT1'
                                                 !L
LIU
ill!
ILLL4
iiil
                                                              IT
                                   i !
                                                                  IH
                                                                       "FT
                                                                            .11!, I-
                                                                            •i !
                                                                           1
                                                  ft
                                                  lU-
                                                  Jtir
           0.01
                 o.l
                                  10   M  38 40 -50 M  79 60   90  95

                                             PilXWt
                                                                          99.9   79.W
                                          4-9

-------
                             Figure 4-5.

                  South Phoenix  Site 4/74-12/75
  0.01
                                                                99.1   W.M
                 Arizona
  Figure 4-

State Site
                              6.

                              6/74-
   12/74
tn


MO




404
100-
ioa
 M.
 to-
 10
.u
               ii
                III!
                I
                   -14
                  '$•
                  it
   ill
                                Fiil

                                   I
        i!

                            ill:
I
I! I
                                          IU
                    JlL
                                               Jj
                      !L
                          M-
                            i
                                    _
                                  rr

                                                             "Nr
                                                                    I Us
                                                                    1
  0.01    0.1
                         10  W  M 40 -SO M TO  W   M   IS  90  »
                                                                9J.9   99 W
                                    4-10

-------
                              FIGURE
                     Glendale Site
                                -4- 7.
                                7/74-12/75
  IOW-
  •oo-
  (09

  4or»
  too*
  loo.
V
   40.
   to
   10-
     4.LL
     ^
§l!
               T
                  1

                       BEIiii;
                       11
                                   rr
                                  llli
M
  liy
  !|H
                                        m
                                        ill
Jii
"il
   jitf
   ml
   ii mil'
IT
                                                                 k.
                                                                       "".FI'
    0.01    0.1
                           10   10  M 40 .50 60 70 80    M  9$   M»
                                                                   ».»   n.M
                              FIGURE
                West  Phoenix Site
                                 4-8.
                                1/73-1,2,3,5/74
                           10   W  30 40 • 53 60  70 80   M  15   90 »
    0.01    0.1
                                      4-11

-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTION PLOT OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED  PARTICULATE VALUES
                                      Figure  4-9.
                           North  Phoenix  Site 1/73-12/75
           .to*-
           MO

           400
           100-
           100.
  rriii
                              T-
                             -U1
                       I
             0.01    0.1
                                    10  »  M 40 • 50 60  ro 60   M   H  9aM
                                                                          W.I   (9.W
                                      Figure  4-10.
               North Scottsdale/Paradlse Valley Site 4/74-12/75
           IOWI-
           tin-
           tin
           tOIh
           ioa
            w.
            40.

               H
J:14J
                    i-f
                           In
in:
                              11
                             -ill
            1
                                    *to
                    Til!
                                                    ilr
                       !.t'.'.
                       Ill1
                       liTj'
                       iffi
                       i
-------
CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION PLOT OF  24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE  VALUES
                                   Figure 4-11.
                          Scottsdale Site 3/74-12/75
        t«K>
                                10  M  39 40  M 60 70 60   M   9J  U »
           0.01
                                                                    99.1   ».»
                                   Figure  4-12.
                            Mesa Site 2/74-12/75
           0.01
                                10  W  39 40 .50  60 70 60   M  If   98 I*
                                                                         n.n
                                           4-13

-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION PLOT  OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE VALUES


                                      Figure 4-13.


                            Downtown Phoenix Site 6/73-2/75
         MO
         40ft
         too-
         100.
         (0.
Iii
            Tt

            1.!
                        I
                           -H-
      iii
          0.01   0.1
               ii!;
               !L
                                        Iiii
                                        I

                                             U
                    ill!
                    M
                                               Til
                                               L ,
                        I
                        im
                                                    »
                                                      n;
                         i
                               u.

                                                                    11
                                                                       J_
                                 10  10  M  40-SO M J9 M   M   9$  MM
                                                                          i.r-i-
                                                                       M.I   ».M
         «w
         Ml*
         100..


       V
            ._-
            ..tTT

             •-i
             _L -
             j
                     rf
in-
in
                                      Figure  4-14.

                             St. John's Site 1/75-12/75

                                      HI!
                           -
    rr
   •
   ..
 v
,/.
  •
         ia
                                     ll
           ,x \.
                                      iffl
          no
          lili
                   !H
                   M;
                               i
                                                : .

                                                •
                                              1
                                    Ini

                          4H
                                                         J!. •
                                                            /
                                                            '
                                             i  •
                                           .-^l— 1 —
                                                                   •n
                                                                         IK
           0.01   O.t
                                  10  10  M  40 -60 60  TO tO   M   IS  M  »
                                                                        W.I   ».!»
                                            4-14

-------
CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION PLOT OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED  PARTICULATE VALUES
                                   Figure  4-15~.
                           Sun  City Site 7/73-3/75
                               10  10  M 40.50 M W M   W   M  M »     W.I  « M
          0.01   «.1     1
         too-
V

            -tri:-
                   *
                     p
                                   Figure 4-16.
                        Paradise Valley Site 6/73-3/75
                                il
                             II
                                    ft
                                                          1
          "0.01   «.l     1
                                10  10  M 40-SO W 70 M   to  M   M »     H.I   W.»


                                          4-15

-------
                                  Figure  4-17.


                        Carefree Site 6/73-12/75
  icon-


  •00-


  too
  too-
  100L

V
   (0-
   40.
   10

         lit-
il
                 iii
     -Hi
tr
-i.i
I
i

            111!
                            tn
itli
 HI
 i
                                                             z
                                                            FI-
                                                                  :7T
                                                      I I



                                                      I"
    0.81    0.1
               10   ZO  30 40-60 M  JO M   90   91   90  »

                           NrcMt
                                                                        99.*   99.99
                                    Figure  4-18.


                          Chandler Site 6/73-3/75
   too
   too-
   „
       •M
      ._ j-i.

      - -T
       -h--:
         -\
         J.
                                           r
                                               ill
                                                 itti
                                                        m.
                                                        !IU

     0.01 '0.1      1
                              10   to  M  40 SO  M 70 M    W   91   90 19      99.t    99
                                        4-16

-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION  PLOT OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE  VALUES
                                   Figure '4-V3~.'
                           Guadalupe  1/74-12/75
                                   ;r
         *.OI   (.1
                                                                n.i   nn
       IODO-

       to*
                                   Floure  4-20.
                         Litchfleld Site 2/75-6/75
       wo-
          m

          i
                        .u
1
rii
                                    y\
                                           ti
                                          'hi
                                             nit
                                              11
                             10  to M W-U M W W
                                                      Lt
                                                         I
                                 43^
                                                           •TT
                                                             ;rrr
                                                                n.i   w.n
                                      4-17

-------
                                                   TABLE 4-2
                     CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
I
00
Central Phoenix
1/73 - 12/75
Less than or equal
to this value (yg/nr)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
mg = 139
V I-*'
C365- 543
Cumulative
Percent
2.0
26.0
57.0
77.0
88.5
94.0
97.0
98.3
99.1

South Phoenix
4/74 - 12/75
Less than or equal
to this value (vg/m3)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400

mg = 170
s = 1.45
C365= 463
Cumulative
Percent
<0.1
7.0
37.0
66.0
85.0
94.0
97.2
99.0



-------
                           TABLE  4-2  (continued)
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
Arizona State
6/74 - 12/74
Less than or equal
to this value (yg/nP)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500

mg " 155
sg= 1.59
C60= 458
C365 = 608
Cumulative
Percent
0.7
16.5
46.0
70.0
84.5
92.0
95.9
97.8
98.8
99.3



Glendale
7/74 - 12/75
Less than or equal Cumulative
to this value (yg/nr) Percent
50 15.0
100 51.0
150 84.0
200 95.5
250 98.7
300 99.6





mg = 97
V ]-54
C60= 264
C365 = 344
West Phoenix
1/73 - 1,2,3,5/74
Less than or equal |
to this value (yg/rn^) :
50
100
150 j
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
mg = 210
sg= 1-56
C6(f 593
C365 - 777
Cumulative
Percent
<0.1
2.5
19.0
44.0
66.0
81.0
90.0
94.5
97.0
98.5
99.2



-------
                                                          TABLE  4-2 (continued)

                               CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
Mesa
2/74 - 12/75
Less than or equal , Cumulative
to this value (yg/nr) Percent
50 0.5
100 25.0
150 69.0
200 90.0
250 97.0
300 99.2









rn = 124
g
sn = 1.45
g
C60= 295
C365 = 37°
Downtown Phoenix *
6/73 - 2/75
Less than or equal Cumulative
to this value (ug/m3) Percent
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
700
800
900






1.6
14.0
33.0
50.0
64.0
74.0
(88) 82.0
(94) 86.0
(97) 90.0
(98.8) 92.2
(99.4) 94.2
(99.7) 95.5
(99. 9+) 97.3
(99. 9+) 98.4
(99. 9+) 99.0
m = 199
g
s = 1.78
g
c6Q= 763 (509)
C365=1085 (619)
St. John's
1/75 - 12/75
Less than or equal
to this value (vg/m3)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
700
800
900
m = 145
g
sn = 2.11
g
C60= 827
C365 = 1304
Cumulative
Percent
7.5
31.0
52.0
66.0
77.0
87.0
88.0
91.0
93.5
95.0
96.0
97.0
98.1
98.8
99.2






I
ro
o
            * Values in parenthesis based on distribution of highest values only.

-------
                                                          TABLE   4-2  (continued)
                              CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
North Phoenix
1/73 - 12/75
.ess than or eoual
to this value (yg/nr)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450



mg = 127
V 1-65
C6Q= 408
Cumulative
Percent
3.0
31.0
62.0
81.0 ;
91.0
95.5
97.8
98.8
99.4




North Scottsdale/Paradise Valley
4/74 - 12/75
.ess than or equal Cumulative
to this value (yg/nr) Percent
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600

3.5
26.0
52.0
71.0
82.5
89.5
93.5
95.9
97.3
98.3
98.9
99.2
mg = 143
sg= 1.75 - ,
C60= 528
c^ = 743
Scottsdale *
8/74 - 12/75
Less than or equal Cumulative
to this value (yg/nr) Percent
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450



9.0
44.0
70.0
(95) 84.5
(98.6) 92.0
(99.6) 95.5
(99.9) 97.5
(99. 9+) 98.5
(99. gt) 99.2



m = 109
sg= 1.79
ccn= 425 (253)
ou
c^ = 606 (323)
ro
             *  Values  in parenthesis  based on distribution of highest values only.

-------
                                                           TABLE  4-2  (continued)

                                CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
Sun City
7/73 - 3/75
Less than or equal 3 Cumulative
to this value (wg/m ) Percent
50 12.0
100 64.0
150 90.0
200 97.0
250 99.2
300 97.5






•v 84
V i-55
c,n= 233
& - 305
Paradise Valley
6/73 - 3/75
Less than or equal , Cumulative
to this value (vg/m ) Percent
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600

0.2
8.3
30.0
54.0
71.0
83.0
90.0
94.0
96.5
97.9
98.7
99.2
mg = 191
s = 1.61
C60= 578
cw - 773
Carefree
6/73 - 12/75
Less than or equal 3 Cumulative
to this value (vg/m ) Percent
50 64.0
100 93.0
150 98.3
200 99.5
250 98.4







v 41
sg= 1'**
C60= 169
CW? = 244
ro
ro

-------
                                                TABLE  4-2 (continued)
                   CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
Chandler
6/73 - 3/75
Less than or equal 3 ' Cumulative
to this value (ug/m ) Percent
50 1.1
100 24.0
150 58.0
200 80.0
250 91.0
300 96.0
350 98.3
400 99.2
450







m = 136
sg = 1 .56
C60= 384
C3M = 504
Guadalupe *
1/74 - 12/75
Less than or equal ~ Cumulative
to this value (yg/m ) Percent
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
700
800
900
9.0
29.0
46.0
59.0
68.0
(81) 75.0
(88) 80.0
(93) 83.5
(95.5) 86.5
(97.2) 89.0
(98.4) 90.8
(98.9) 92.0
(99.5) 94.3
(99.8) 95.9
(99.9) 96.9
1000 (99. 9+) 97.5

mg = 162
sg = 2.5
C60=1373 (620)
c?fiq = 2400 (835)
Litchfield
2/75 - 6/75
Less than or equal ,
to this value (pg/m )
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600




mg= 139
sg= 1.8
C60= 546
c-,^ = 782
Cumulative
Percent
4.1
29.0
56.0
73.0
84.0
90.0
94.0
96.0
97.5
98.4
98.9
99.3





* Values in parenthesis based on distribution of highest values only.

-------
expected maximal values, CgQ and C^gc. for each site.   The value, Cgg,
is the expected maximum assuming that 60 samples per year are taken,
while C3gc is an estimate of the maximum value that would occur if
sampling were performed every day.  For Scottsdale, Downtown Phoenix,
and Guadalupe, the maximal values and upper end of the cumulative
frequency distribution that are based on the dashed lines are given
in parentheses.
4.4  COMPARISON OF EXPECTED SUSPENDED PARTICULATE VALUES WITH YEARLY
     MEASURED VALUES
     Section 4.3 presented frequency distributions of  suspended
particulate levels and determined expected annual geometric means and
maximal 24-hour levels based on data for the 1973 to 1975 period.  This
section checks these expected values for consistency with the measured
values of individual years.
     Table 4-3 compares expected and actual geometric  means for the
seventeen monitoring sites.  The comparison indicates  that actual
geometric means each year are generally consistent with the expected
values.  The agreement is surprisingly good in light of the fact that
several stations provide only a few months of data for certain years.
Actual values for 1973 are all higher than the expected values based
on three years of data.  This may indicate that the meteorology in
1973 was condusive to high particulate levels, or possibly, that
emission controls reduced particulate levels after 1973.  The expected
values at each site except one (Carefree) indicate violation of the
primary and secondary NAAQS.
     The expected maximal 24-hour values (CgQ) are based on data for
the period 1973 through 1975 and on the assumption that sampling is
performed sixty days per year.  Table 4-4 compares these expected
values with the maximal and second highest values measured each year.*
The expected maximal 24-hour values are generally higher than measured
*  The expected values for Scottsale, Downtown Phoenix, and Guadalupe
   are based on the distribution fit to the highest measured values.
                                   4-24

-------
                                 TABLE 4-3

                ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEANS FOR HI-VOL STATIONS
Monitoring Station
Central Phoenix
South Phoenix
MT 1 ZOfla olalc
Glendale
West Phoenix
North Phoenix
North Scottsdale/Paradise Valley
Scottsdale
Mesa
Downtown Phoenix
Cf Irthn ' c
o t . u U 1 1 n b
Sun City
Paradise Valley
Carefree Airport
Chandler
Guadalupe
Ufc-hf id rl
tCni i e I Q
1973
144
186
01 C
C- \ 0
135 .
	
	
	
250
117
198
56
156
	

1974
168
179
1 CC
1 bo
92 *
1 *7O *
1 to
124
137
94 *
132
178
IV
189
33
131
149

1975
\
v
112
VMWF
' ,•<((' .'.'•
101
121
149
115
117
200 *
145
88. *
184
42
119 *
173
139 *

Ejected
/Annual**
\*
1 139
170
1 CC
lob
97
91 n
C- \ U
127
143
110
124
199
14c
84
191
41
136
162
139

* Less than 6 months of hi-vol data.
**Based on data available for each monitoring station  during  1973 through  1975.
                                      4-25

-------
                                                              TABLE  4-4

                        MAXIMUM EXPECTED AND MEASURED 24-HOUR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS (pg/m3)
Monitoring Station
Central Phoenix
South Phoenix
Arizona State
Glendale
West Phoenix
North Phoenix
North Scottsdale/Paradise
Valley
Scottsdale
Mesa
Downtown Phoenix
St. John's
Sun City
Paradise Valley
Carefree Airport
Chandler
Guadalupe
Litchfield
Maximum Expected 24-
Hour Concentration (ccn)*
ou
409
369
458
264
593
408
528
253**
295
508**
827
233
578
169
384
620**
546
19
Highest
337
480
—
—
450
439
w— —
—
—
482
—
224
459
144
355
—
—
Yearly Ob«
73
2nd Highest
335
456
—
—
423
423
___
—
—
459
—
223
439
123
274
—
—
served 24-
19
Highest
351
287
460
139
279
321
328
168
330
480
—
164
351
91
372
556
—
Hour Concentral
74
2nd Highest
324
252
295
138
244
251
258
153
322
454
—
133
345
78
261
535
—
tion
197
Highest
399
293
—
262
—
343
1083
281
235
338
1916
193
842
277
245
540
519
5
2nd Highest
287
252
—
231
—
335
532
234
228
262
1082
153
173
138
209
420
379
I
IV)
     *Based on data available for each.monitoring station during 1973 through 1975.
   ** Based on distribution of highest values only.

-------
maximal values.  This is demonstrated in Table 4-5  which compares  the
expected maxima to the average of the yearly measured  maxima.   Table
4-5 also reveals the probable reason for the discrepancy.   As  shown
on the right hand side of the table, the average number of samples
per year during the years of measurement is generally  less then 60
samples per year and often as low as 20 to 30 samples  per year. The
low number of samples per year is due, in part, to  the fact that some
of the monitors operated for only a few months during  certain  years.
It is not surprising that the measured maxima, often based on  less
than 60 samples per year, are generally lower than  the expected values
for CgQ.  The low number of samples in certain of the  years should be
a warning against using actual measured maxima to characterize the
expected maximal levels at the monitoring sites.
                                   4-27

-------
                                                         TABLE 4-5



                       COMPARISON  OF  MAXIMUM  EXPECTED  24-HOUR VALUES WITH AVERAGE YEARLY MAXIMAL VALUES (ug/m3)
Monitoring Station



£entral Phoenix
South Phoenix
Arizona State
Glendale

West Phoenix
North Phoenix
North Scottsdale/Paradlse
Valley ,
Scottsdale
Mesa
Downtown Phoenix
St. John's
Sun City
Paradise Valley
Carefree Airport
Chandler
Guadalupe
L1tchf1eld
Maximum Expected 24-
Hour Concentration (Ccn)*



409
369
458
264

593
408

528
253 **
295
508 ***
827
233
578
169 "
384
620 ***
546
Average of Yearly
Maximal Values



362
353
460**
201

365
368

706
225
283
433
1916**
194
551
171
324
548
519**
Monitoring
Period



1/73 to 12/75
1/73 to 12/75
6/74 to 12/74
7/74 to 12/75

1/73 to 5/74
1/73 to 12/75

4/74 to 12/75
8/74 to 12/75
2/74 to 12/75
6/73 to 2/75
1/75 to 12/75
7/73 to 3/75
6/73 to 3/75
6/73 to 12/75
6/73 to 3/75
1/74 to 12/75
1/75 to 12/75
Average Number of Samples
Per Year in Years
Monitored

j
1
56
I 41.0
j 25
! 30.5

34.5
52

43
35.5
51.5
29.3
58
28
31
47
33
52.5
18
ro
oo
        *  Based on data available for each monitoring station during 1973 through 1975.
        ** Only one annual maximum value measured.
        ***Based on distribution of highest values only.

-------
            5 0  SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
                 LEVELS
     The previous chapter derived expected annual geometric mean and
expected 24-hour maximal Hi-Vol levels for seventeen sites in
Phoenix based on data for 1973-1975.  The present chapters analyze the
spatial distributions of the suspended particulate levels.  The spatial
distributions of expected annual geometric mean levels and expected
24-hour levels are shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, respectively.  These
figures reveal that suspended particulate levels do not follow a consistent
overall spatial pattern among the seventeen sites.  It does not seem
meaningful to attempt to draw  isolines to the data.  The lack of an
overall spatial pattern is evidence that localized sources play an
important role in determining the spatial distribution of TSP levels.
The analysis below will attempt to explain (in a qualitative way) the
station to station variance in TSP levels by analyzing the sources
surrounding the various stations.
     The survey of-monitoring sites (Section 3.0) revealed a variety of
different local sources may surround any of the sites.  The significant
local sources affecting air quality at any of the sites are fugitive
dust sources.  Emissions from these sources arise from human activity
(motor vehicles on unpaved roadways or open fields, agricultural activities
on farmland, construction and excavation) and from erosion of disturbed
soils susceptible to suspension.  The nature of the sources is generally
related to the type of development in which the monitor is located.  For
example, many sites which were placed in rural residential areas were
surrounded by numerous vacant fields and unpaved roads.  Construction
activities are frequent in such areas, and much of the soil surface
area is generally disturbed and susceptible to suspension by wind.  By
contrast,other sites which were placed in rural residential areas were
surrounded by fully improved property from which fugitive dust sources
were non-apparent.  Based on the site review,  a plausible source categoriza-
tion of the monitoring site environments is presented in Table  5-1.  Six
site categories are identified.  The expected and observed annual and
                                    5-1

-------
                                                                                        41) Carefree Airport
en

ro
                                                                                      143)North Scottsdale/Paradlse Valley
                                                                 Central Phoenix (State)

                                                                      139'               Scotia le
                                                                                           110
                                                                                                         Mesa  U.S.-60, U.S.-30
                                             Figure 5-1.  Expected  Annual Geometric  Means !
                                              for Suspended  Particulate  Monitoring S1tes\

-------
                                                                                    il69J Carefree Airport
en
i
oo
                                                                                   528)North Scottsdale/Paradise Valley
                                                                                 £20) Guadalupe
                                                                                                      Mesa  U-s--60- U.S.-SO
                                                                                                      2951    U-S.- 89
                                                                                                     Chandler


                                                                                                      384
              Figure  5-2.  Expected.Maximal  24 Hour  Suspended Particulate  Levels  at Monitoring  Sites.

-------
                           TABLE 5-1.  CATEGORIZATION OF SOURCE ENVIRONMENTS SURROUNDING
                                       PARTICULATE MONITORING SITES IN PHOENIX AREA
      SITE ENVIRONMENT
      CATEGORY
                             STATION
EXPECTED ANNUAL
GEOMETRIC MEAN
EXPECTED MAXIMAL
24-HOUR LEVEL
en
  Surrounded by Fugitive
  Sources.

Central City/
  Residential
  No Sources.

  Rural/Residential
  Surrounded by Fugitive
  Sources
        Suburban/Residential
        Surrounded by Fugitive
        Sources.

        Rural/Residential
        No Sources.
West Phoenix
Arizona State
Central Phoenix
Paradise Valley
Guadalupe
St. Johns
N. Scottsdale/Paradise
Chandler
N. Phoenix
Mesa
Scottsdale
Glendale
Sun City
210
156
139
191
162
145
143
136
127
124
110
97
84
                    593
                    458
                    409

                    578
                    620
                    827
                    528

                    384
                    408
                    295

                    253
                    264
                    233
OBSERVED MAXIMAL
24-HOUR LEVEL
(1973-1975)
Central City/
Residential -Commercial
Downtown Phoenix
South Phoenix
199
170 -
508
369
482
480
                    450
                    460
                    399

                    842
                    556
                   1916
                   1083

                    372
                    439
                    330

                    281
                    262
                    224
        Remote
                             Carefree
   41
  169
  277

-------
maximum 24-hour value of total particulates is also listed.   It is seen
that the magnitude of the ambient particulate levels is closely related
to the site category.  Concentrations appear to conform to a limited
regime for each of the identified site environments.  Annual expected
particulate levels are highest for the sites in the residential-commercial
city areas surrounded by fugitive sources (i.e., unpaved alleyways and
unimproved residence yards composed of dust soil surfaces).   Sites in the
residential central city areas, are also characterized by high expected
annual particulate levels.  The descending order of the remaining categories
by concentration level is somewhat intuitive, and, as shown  in Table 5-1»
rather clearly defined.  Hence, it is clear that while there is probably
no clear pattern of particulate concentration by geographic  distribution,
there is at least a pattern by type of local environment. This pattern
is rather consistent by season, as will be shown by the seasonal  analysis
in Section 6.0.  However it will be shown later that for any given episode
day, air quality at a certain category of sites may be more  affected than
at others.  For example, it appears that the rural/residential sites
surrounded by fugitive sources are inclined to be affected concurrently
during particulate episode days, while levels for the rest of the Phoenix
area are affected to a far lesser degree.  This is also supported by the
expected regime of maximal 24-hour levels at these sites. The 24-hour
maximal forecasts are higher than the other site categories despite the
fact the annual average at these sites is relatively medium  ranged.
This occurs because of the different effects which meteorology exerts on
both the dispersion and generation of particulate emissions  at the dif-
ferent site categories in the basin.
                                   5-5

-------
             6.0  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METEOROLOGY AND
                  SUSPENDED PARTICULATE LEVELS

      In areas where the suspended participate levels originate primarily
from fugitive dust sources, meteorology is a determinant of source emis-
sion rates as well as the rate of dispersion of the particles once air-
borne.   The effect of meteorology on suspended particulate levels is
demonstrated by analysis of empirical data in the following sections.
Section 6.1 consists of an evaluation of seasonal patterns of particulate
levels and the associated seasonal meteorology affecting the levels.
Section 6.2  concerns the analysis of daily meteorology and air quality data to
 isolate effects  of  single  meteorological  parameters  on  air quality.   Section
6.3 provides a summary of the meteorological circumstances  associated
with particulate  episodes and other  days of interest.

6.1  .SEASONAL PATTERNS OF TOTAL PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
      Figure 6-1  illustrates typical  annual meterology for the Phoenix
area.   Climatic changes appear to concide roughly with the calendar
quarters of the year.  Two distinct rainfall seasons occur.  One of these
seasons occurs from November to March, and the other from July to
September.  Temperature variation is  steady throughout the year, peaking
in July and reaching a minimum in January.   Atmospheric  mixing heights parellel  the
temperature variation.  Average summer maximum mixing height is approximately 3200
meters, while in the winter it averages to 1300 meters.   Surface wind in
the Phoenix area is relatively mild,  and does not vary substantially
throughout the year.
      Figure 6-2 provides a summary of indicators for meteorology in the
Phoenix area on a quarterly basis for the study period 1973-1975.  While
mean temperature and average wind speed  for these years very nearly
parallel historical patterns of the area, rainfall and rainfall frequency
are quite variable for any given year.  Depending on the significance of
rainfall as a determinant of total particulate concentrations, any given
year may exhibit a seasonal pattern of particulate levels quite unlike the
overall historical seasonal average.   This characteristic variation of

                                     6-1

-------
 1.2
   .8  J
3
o
S
                    Rainfall
   Temperature
              Days of Rainfall
                                                                          jyly     Ocfc.
Average Wind
                                    Oct.
              Figure 6-1.  Historical  Annual  Meteorology of Phoenix'
                                          6-2

-------
en
i
CO
0 -

Quarterly 2
Rainfall ,
Inches
1 j


*>
































































































































































                    3C  -r
        Number of
        Days of Rain
        in Quarter
        (> .01 Inch)
0  1
                                 1973
                                 1973
                                 197*
197£
Historica'.  Average
                                 1974
1975
Historical Average
        Average
        Wind Speed,  5
        mph

                     0
                    TOO  _.
        Temperature
                     50  \.
                      0  1
                                  1973
                                  1973
                                 1974
                                 1974
1975
Historical Average
1975
 Historical Average
             Figure 6-2.  Quarterly Meteorology for the Phoenix Area, 1973,  1974,  1975  and
                          Historical Averages

-------
rainfall as a somewhat independent variable should facilitate analysis
of the significance of tts effect on total  participate levels by season.
      Figure 6-3 presents the quarterly averages of concentrations of
suspended particulates at the various Hi-vol  monitoring sites throughout
the Phoenix area.  These quarterly plots were compiled to provide an in-
dication of the seasonal distribution of particulate levels, and to in-
vestigate apparent relationships between these concentrations and the
quarterly meteorology for the same periods.  The seasonal patterns and
magnitudes fluctuate considerably from year to year due to:  1) variations
in seasonal meteorology, 2) statistical limitations involving the relatively
few number of Hi-vol measurements conducted each quarter.  An obvious
additional limitation in the plots of Figure 6-3 involves the frequency of
data gaps.  Complete data for the three year study period (1973-1975)
is available for only three of the 17 monitoring stations.   Still the
data do show that:
      •  Concentrations of total particulates do not appear to exibit a
         consistent seasonal pattern (from year to year) at any of the
                                                i   '
         stations.
      •  For any of the three years of the study period, there is a consistent
         seasonal pattern from station to station.
      The apparent relationship between  quarterly total  suspended particulate
levels and quarterly meteorology is suggested by the plots of Figure  6-2  and  6-3.
The variation of quarterly values of total particulates appear to be related
to quarterly rainfall.  This trend is summarized in the matrix of Table 6-1.
In 1973, levels of total particulates were greatest during the forth quarter
when rainfall was unseasonably low compared to other quarters.  In 1974,
highest levels of particulates were recorded during the second quarters.
In 1975, the pattern  is less distinct.  Rainfall was unseasonably low
1n the first quarter, but no station experienced a quarterly high during
this period.  Rainfall during the fourth quarter was relatively normal, but
several stations experienced quarterly highs during this period.  Given a
:normal meteorology for each quarter, it appears that particulate levels will
                                   6-4

-------
Central
Phoenix
200 - •


100-


                    1973
 South     2004-
 Phoenix
           1004
                   "1973
 Arizona  . 20°
 State
           100
Glendale
           2004
           100+
 West
 Phoenix
                   1973

                       1974
 1975
                      1974
1975
                                 1974
                                 1974
                      1974
                                    1975
1973-75
 1973-75
•
1

1

  North
  Phoenix
           200+
           100-f

                   1973
                      1974

1975
1973-75
    Figure 6-3.  Total  Particulate  Quarterly Averages, ug/
                                               m
                                    6-5

-------
 North
 Scottsdale
 Paradise
Scottsdale
   Mesa
 Downtown
 Phoenix
   St.
   Johns
    Sun
    City
200 ••
               100  ••
              200
               100
 100 ••
               200 -
 100  -
                         1973
                        1973
                                     1974
                                   1975
                                     1974
                                   1975
                       1974
 1975
                       1974
1975
Figure 6-3.  (continued)   Total  Particulate  Quarterly  Averages, yg/nf
                               6-6

-------
     Paradise    200 -•
     Valley
                100 +
    Carefree
     Chandler
                200 ••
                100--
                200 -•
                100--
                300  --

                200

    Guadalupe   -|QQ
    Litchfield
I
                          1973
                          1973
                          973
                         1973
          1974
          1974
      1974
          1974

1975
1975
                                                  I
1975
1975
                                                  1975
Figure 6.3.  (continued)  Total Particulate Quarterly Averages, ug/nT
                                6-7

-------
                                TABLE 6-1.  SEASONAL PATTERN OF TOTAL PARTICULATE LEVELS
                                            IN THE PHOENIX AREA
     YEAR
QUARTER OF
HIGHEST TSP
ASSOCIATED
METEOROLOGY
QUARTER OF
LOWEST TSP
ASSOCIATED
METEOROLOGY
     1973     4th quarter.
              (4 out of 4 complete
              cases, probable for
              4 more, and only 2
              known exceptions).
                          Unseasonably low rainfall.
                          Lowest quantity wind speed
                          average.   Normal temperature,
                               1st quarter.
                               (4 out of 4
                               complete cases.)
                     Greatest rainfall
                     of all  quarters in
                     study period.  Normal
                     temperature and wind
                     speed.
     1974     2nd quarter.
              (7 out of 8 complete
              cases).
I
oo
                          Very little rainfall
                          compared to other  quarters.
                          Highest quarterly wind speed.
                               3rd and 4th
                               quarters.  (6 of
                               8 complete cases)
                     Greater than normal
                     rainfall.   Normal
                     temperature and wind
                     speed.
    j 1975     4th quarter.
    j          (5 out of 10 complete
              cases).
                          Rainfall  less than usual.
                          Normal temperature.
                               No clear pattern.

-------
be highest in the fourth quarter.  The  description of this seasonal trend
is obscured in the plots of Figure 6-3  due  to  the highly variable nature of
rainfall and its apparent effect  on  particulate levels.   Other meteorological
parameters exhibited normal seasonal  values for the period of interest.
     The available air quality  data  for the period 1973-75 is relatively
incomplete and does not permit  a  singular approach for the diagnosis of
seasonal patterns.  However,  the  data may be treated in  several ways to
illustrate some of the more dramatic  patterns  which are  apparent.  Since
rainfall frequency is one of  the  most variable meteorological parameters
over a given quarter, it was  appropriate that  it be investigated as an
independent variable in total TSP levels.   Figure 6-4 shows the variation of
TSP with rainfall frequency for specific quarters of the year at four
stations in Phoenix.  Data from all  other stations in the Phoenix area were
incomplete from any given quarter throughout the 1973 to 1975 period, hence,
only a limited number of data points  could  be  assembled  as normalized
                                         Stations:
                                           North Phoenix
                                           Central Phoenix
                                           South Phoenix
                                           Carefree
O  1st quarter
O  2nd quarter
A  3rd quarter
D  4th quarter
                                                         1st Quarter
                    5            10            15           20
                 Number of Days of Rainfall (>.01 Inch) in the Quarter
        Figure  6-4.  Variation of Total  Particulate Level  with
                     Quarterly Rainfall  Frequency
                                    6-9

-------
  a.
  in
   
 C 10
 o i-
1- 

O i-
CJ «O

TJ cy
.01  inch) in the Quarter
                                                                                       25
        Figure 6-5.  Variation  of Total  Particulate  Levels with Quarterly
                     Rainfall Frequency (all Stations  Measuring for One  or
                     More Quarters in 1974 & 1975 Were Included in the Averages).
  
•r- >
-•-><:
10
C i.

CJ 4J
c t-
O (O
CJ 3
  cr
-a •**<
a> o.
N CO
i. i.
O (U
Z 4->
   J-
   
-------
concentration  values  on  the plot.   The same type of plot  is  shown  in
Figure 6-5,  but  for normalized concentrations of quarters  in 1974  and 1975,
a  period  for which  data  was available (partially or totally)  for  13 of the
17 monitoring  stations  addressed in the study.  Figure 6-6 is  a similar
plot, assembled  to  relate the pattern shown by measurements  when  they are
only available for  the years 1973 and 1974.  Each of the  plots suggest the
'following  relationships:
      •  Measured levels  of suspended particulates are inversely
         proportional to  rainfall  frequency for any given  season  of
         the year.
      •  Levels  of  suspended particulates appear to be less  sensitive
         to  rainfall  frequency in the winter months than  in  the warmer
         summer  periods.   Relatively small changes in rainfall frequency
         are associated  with dramatic changes in TSP levels  for the
         months  of  the  second quarter.
      It should  be  remembered that the plots illustrate relative effects
between TSP  and  rainfall.   However, Figure 6-7 shows that  the  magnitude of
of suspended particulate  concentrations varies with rainfall  in different
   to
  C-
   c.
   o
     15C-T
      10C--
 FigUre 6-7.
                                                         O 1st quarter
                                                         O 2nd quarter
                                                         A 3rd quarter
                                                         D 4th quarter
                            -:A.-b-ier.t A'! r Quality
                              Primary Standard I
                              for Particulates
       5            10            15           '20
  ;!u~bor of Days of Rainfall (>.01 Inch) in the Quarter
25
Average Quarterly Levels of. Total  Particulates versus Rainfall
Frequency for all Stations  Measuring Throughout 1973, 74 and 75,
                                    6-11

-------
seasons in a similar pattern.  The plot is based on the averages of the
quarterly levels of TSP for the stations measured throughout the 1973
to 1975 period.  The plot shows:
      •  Levels of TSP are generally highest in the fourth and first
         quarters for a given number of rainfall days in a quarter.
      •  Levels of TSP are the least during the second quarter, but
         increase to levels comparable to wintertime values during
         periods of minimal precipitation.
      •  TSP concentrations are relatively the same in all but the
         second quarter when rainfall frequency increases to more
         than about 8 days per quarter.
      •  While rainfall  appears  to exert a significant influence  on par-
         ti cul ate levels,  the data indicate (for the stations  shown in
         Figure 6-7)  that  only very unusually high  rainfall  frequencies
         will cause ambient air to conform to the federal  air  quality standards,
    The apparent relationships described above are confirmed by statistical
treatment of the quarterly data.  Table 6-2 presents a correlation matrix
for observed meteorology and particulate levels at two of the  Hi-Vol
stations measuring throughout the study period.  The statistical corre-
lation of particulate concentration with rainfall frequency and average
wind speed are both significant.  Considering the number of variables
which can influence ambient particulate levels (i.e., source activity
variations, wind direction variations, previous day carry-over, etc.)
and which are not accounted for in the correlation analysis, the value of
the correlation coefficients is surprisingly good.   Concentration is
shown to be inversely related to both rainfall frequency and wind.speed.
This finding is consistent with known facts about particulate  origins
and meteorology in the Phoenix area.  Rainfall, even at the infrequent
intervals experienced in the Phoenix area, plays an important  role in
the suspension potential of fugitive dust sources.   Because fugitive
dust comprises the major portion of sjjspended particulate loadings in
Phoenix   *    , rainfall exerts  an important effect on overall  ambient
particulate concentrations.   The dependence of dust concentration on
                                   6-12

-------
                 TABLE  6-2   CORRELATION MATRIX FOR QUARTERLY
                             METEOROLOGY AND QUARTERLY PARTICULATE
                             CONCENTRATION
CENTRAL PHOENIX
                               TSP
                             Concen-
                             tration
Days
 of
Rain
Total
Rain
               Days of Rain   -.36

               Total Rain     -.20
               Temperature    -.05

               Wind Speed     -.41
 .87

-.47    -.29

-.34    -.51
         .60
NORTH PHOENIX
                               TSP
                             Concen-
                             tration
Days
 of
Rain
Total
Rain
               Days of Rain

               Total Rain

               Temperature

               Hind Speed
-.44
-.24
.03
-.40

.87
-.47
-.34


-.29
-.51
                 .60
                                   6-13

-------
wind speed is not as clearly intuitive.  While it is evident that
diffusion of fugitive dust due to human activity (agricultural
plowing, vehicle traffic on unpaved roads, excavation and construction)
is hastened by higher wind speed, it is also clear that emissions  of
fugitive dust caused by wind action will increase with wind.  The relative
magnitude of wind blown fugitive emissions versus dust emissions
resulting directly from human activity, and the effect of pollutant
dispersion by wind under the atmospheric mixing layer are joint  deter-
minants of the resultant concentrations.  The result of the statistical
analysis reveals that in the Phoenix area, the most severe seasonal  parti -
culate concentrations are apparently caused by fugitive dust arising  from
human activities during periods when wind speeds are minimal.  A cause-
effect relationship such as that shown in Figure 4-8 is suggested.
Emissions from human activity are portrayed as increasing slightly
under the influence of wind speed while wind blown emissions steadily
increase.  The net effect of these separate contributions to ambient
suspended particulate levels is a concentration which diminishes with
increasing wind speed until wind reaches a level at which dust storms
begin to develop.
     Because of local effects, the relative contribution  of wind blown
dust and dust arising from human activities to the ambient total dust
level may change from station to station.  For example, in areas where
limited human activities occur, and where there are substantial  soil
Surfaces susceptible to wind erosion, the ambient particulate loadings
may rise to higher levels at only moderate wind speeds.   Table 6-3
summarizes particulate concentrations at different stations for quarterly
periods in which rainfall was not appreciably different.   It was desirable
to choose periods for which the rainfall was at higher levels, to avoid
the apparent sensitivity of the concentrations to small  changes in rain-
fall, and it was necessary to choose among the quarters  of lower rainfall
amounts.  Despite the strong expected effect of rainfall  the data show
there are certain monitoring sites for which increased wind speed results
in increased levels of total particulates.  These sites  appear to comprise
two of the station categories identified in Section 5.0; they are 1) re-
                                  6-14

-------
 I/I
 c:
 o
 t/1
 3
 O
 4->
 •r—

 ZJ
O
•r-
4->
ro
 C
 Ol
 c
 OJ
                   Suspension  by  Wind -
                                                Suspension by Human Activity
                               Wind Speed
                                        Dust Storm
                       Resultant
                     Concentration
      Contribution
      Human Activi
                                                     Contribution
                                                        from
                                                     Wind Erosion
                                 Wind speed
Figure  6-8.  Effect of Wind  Speed on Ambient Suspended Particulate
             Levels
                                 6-15

-------
       TABLE   6-3.  EFFECT OF WIND SPEED ON TOTAL  PARTICULATE  CONCENTRATIONS
                       FOR VARIOUS HI-VOL  STATIONS  IN PHOENIX  AREA.
Average Year Number
Wind and • of days
Speed Quarter of rain
6.6 1974, 1st Qtr. 9
7.2 1975, 1st Qtr. 9
7.2 1973, 3rd Qtr. 3
8.3 1975, 3rd Qtr. 4
5.8 1973, 4th Qtr. 5
7.3 1975, 4th Qtr. 8
6.3 1974, 4th Qtr. 13
7.3 1975, 4th Qtr. 8
Forecasted
Relative
Ranking of
Concentratlonsl
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Concentration of Total Participates, ug/m3
Central South North Downtown St. Paradise
Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Johns Valley Carefree
187 207 140 143 241 f™\ (™\ f&\
137 139 107 127 216 \l|7/ \g25/ \49/
152 224 193 fi*\ 81
108 164 136 \|96/ 43
238 315 261 f®\ f***\
143 147 168 N£°5/ \^J
156 177 /m\ 144 /94\ /30\
143 147 \i68/ 125 \£°V \5£/
Comments on Rain Effects
Quarterly rainfall 1s equivalent
In each year, not a factor in
variations.
Concentration is quite sensitive
to rainfall in this range.
Concentration is quite sensitive
to rainfall in this range.
Concentration 1s not very
sensitive to rainfall in
this range.
NOTES:   1.  The forecast is based on the assumption that concentration is inversely related to wind
            speed and rainfall.  In the last case considered, rainfall change from 1974  to 1975 is
            significant but expected to exert a small effect on concentration, because of the
            absolute numbers Involved (see Figure 6-4), hence, wind speed is  expected to be the
            determining Influence on concentration change.

        2.  The circled concentrations indicate those values which did not conform to the forecasted
            effect of wind speed.  For these cases an opposite relationship seems indicated:
         '  concentration 1s directly related to wind speed.

-------
mote sites, and 2) rural/residential surrounded by fugitive sources.  The
significance of wind blown dust at these stations is consistent with the
station category descriptions.  Each of the stations is surrounded by
field soils which may be more likely suspended by wind erosion than by
the relatively infrequent human activity there.
6.2  ANALYSIS OF DAILY AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY DATA
     The analysis of seasonal air quality data (Section 6.1)  showed that
ambient concentrations of particulates were significantly related to both
rainfall and wind speed, and that the extent of this dependence appeared
to vary by season (due to variation of other influence factors such as
type and levels of source emissions, and other meteorological  parameters).
The seasonal relationships were also seen to vary somewhat by  monitoring
site location.  This present section will include additional  investigation
into the apparent effects which meteorology exerts on suspended particulate
levels.  The investigation will concern the analysis of the daily air
quality and meteorology data.
     Figure 6-9 illustrates the apparent effect of rainfall drought on total
ambient particulate levels.  No attempt has been made to factor out the
effects of other influence factors in the plot, and it is possible that the
effect of rainfall as indicated by the plot is yet more distinct than shown.
However, the mere summarization of daily measurements and meteorology in
Figure 6-9 demonstrates the apparent significance of rainfall  for suspended
particulates.  For each of the five stations (representing the different
site categorires classified in Section 5.0), particulate levels are seen
to increase dramatically with the first 15 to 20 days of absence of rain.
After  twenty days without rain, the effect of increased drought does not
generally appear to appreciably alter ambient concentrations,  until periods
of 60  to 80 days absence of rain have occurred.  After 60 to 80 days,
suspended particulate levels begin to increase steadily.
   1  The effect of wind was also investigated by simple plotting approaches
including the observations of concentrations associated with various wind
                                   6-17

-------
 CENTRAL    TOO
 PHOENIX

            0
                0    10
                  20    40    60    80
          200
 SOUTH     1QO
 PHOENIX
            0
                 0     10     20     40    60    80
NORTH
PHOENIX
                 0   10
                       40    60
80
ST.
JOHNS
          2or
100


  C
                      10    20    40    60
                                    80
          20<"
CAREFREE  100    1
              "0    10    20    40    60    80

                    Days Since Last Rainfall

 Figure  6-9.  Ambient  Concentration  of Particulates Versus Number of
             Days Since  Last  Rainfall (1973-1975)

                              6-18

-------
speed ranges.  An attempt .was made to sort out measurements recorded on
days for which rain had occurred in the past 10 days, since this effect
would tend to negate probable wind effects.  The information gained by
plotting the measurements was not consistent, and apparently there are
too many other factors obscuring whatever effects the average wind speed
might exert on particulate levels on a daily measurement basis.  These
other factors include variation in wind speed by monitoring site location,
variation in wind direction (affecting transport of particulates in vary-
ing patterns for a given average wind speed), variation of the mixing
height and other meteorological influences.
     Because of the noise level inherent in analysis of the daily air
quality and meteorology data, the information was treated statistically by
assessing the significance of the meteorological factors by stepwise
regression analysis.  Table 6-4 shows the correlation matrix of suspended
particulate levels and meteorological parameters produced by the statisti-
cal analysis.  Among the meteorology parameters concentration is correlated
most strongly to the absence of rainfall in four of the five cases in-
vestigated (the cases were selected to be representative of the Hi-vol
monitoring site categories identified in Section 5.0).  In most of the
cases, rainfall of the past five days correlates to concentration to a
far lesser extent than rainfall absence.  The magnitude of the correlation
coefficients are probably surprisingly good, considering that the number
of significant physical variables actually known to effect ambient total
particulates is substantial.
     The other important meteorological variable which appears to be
significant  (Table,6-4) is wind speed.  The strength of this correlation
varies from  station to station, and also varies in sign.  In the Civic
area at Central Phoenix and South Phoenix, wind appears to have a "clearing"
effect on suspended particulates.  However, in the surburban, rural, and
remote site  categories represented by North Phoenix, St. Johns, and
Carefree, particulate concentrations correlate positively to wind speed,
                                  6-19

-------
               TABLE 6-4.   CORRELATION  MATRIX  FOR 24-HOUR  HI-VOL
                               MEASUREMENTS AND ASSOCIATED  METEOROLOGY.
CENTRAL PHOENIX
RAIN
DAYS SINCE
WIND
TEMP.
CONCN.
PREV.CONCN.
RAIN

1.000
DAYS SINCE

-.263
1.000
 WIND

 .024
-.024
1.000
TEMP.

-.100
 .268
 .308
1.000
CONCN.

-.197
 .435
-.169
-.012
1.000
PREV.CONCN.

-.039
 .395
-.181
-.059
 .483
1.000
SOUTH PHOENIX
RAIN
DAYS SINCE
WIND
TEMP.
CONCN.
PREV.CONCN.
                    RAIN
          DAYS SINCE
1.000     -.?54
          1.000
              WIND

                .059
              -.054
              1.000
              TEMP.

              -.101
               .338
               .257
              1.000
              CONCN.

              -.295
               .639
              -.318
               .191
              1.000
              PREV.CONCN.

              -.067
               .597
              -.190
               .147
               .515
              1.000
NORTH PHOENIX
RAIN
DAYS SINCE
WIND
TEMP.
CONCN.
PREV.CONCN.
RAIN

1.000
DAYS SINCE

-.268
1.000
WIND

 .040
-.051
1.000
TEMP.

-.074
 .278
 .303
1.000
CONCN.

-.166
 .412
 .119
 .179
1.000
PREV.CONCN.

 .020
 .346
-.139
 .057
 .219
1.000
ST. JOHNS
RAIN
DAYS SINCE
WIND
TEMP.
CONCN.
PREV. CONCN.
RAIN

1.000
DAYS SINCE

-.246
1.000
WIND

-.053
 .125
1.000
TEMP.

-.065
 .323
 .366
1.000
CONCN.

-.128
 .124
 .261
 .164
1.000
PREV.CONCN.

 .020
 .099
 .014
 .156
 .007
1.000
CAREFREE
RAIN
DAYS SINCE
WIND
TEMP.
CONCN.
PREV.CONCN.
RAIN

1.000
DAYS SINCE

-.252
1.000
WIND

-.053
 .057
1.000
TEMP.

-.037
 .218
 .376
1.000
CONCN.

-.305
 .388
 .377
 .338
1.000
PREV.CONCN.

 .014
 .434
 .336
 .259
 .364
1.000
NOTES:  1.   RAIN  refers to total rainfall  In  the past five days.
        2.   DAYS  SINCE indicates days since rain (> .01 inch).
        3.   PREV. CONCN. is the concentration of previous measurement (six  days prior).
                                              6-20

-------
and particulate levels are seen to increase when wind speed increases.
This conclusion is generally consistent with that derived from the
seasonal analysis (Section 6.1).  Of all the stations investigated, the
remote site of Carefree exhibited the greatest statistical correlation
with wind speed.  This site is removed from local source influences and
wind may increase particulate levels by  1) suspending soil by the natural
process of wind erosion, and 2) transporting pollution from more active
source areas.   In the rural regions where there are generally substantial
areas of disturbed soil surfaces, the effect of increased wind on local
soil erosion may be substantial.
     In some cases, the variance of concentrations can be partly explained
by formulating another independent variable - the previous concentration.
Incorporating this variable in the analysis would account for the effect
of "carry over" of particulate concentrations from one day to the next.
However, the drawback to inclusion of this variable as a  carryover back-
ground are: 1) the previous concentration is probably largely an expres-
sion of the previous meteorology and thus may effectively only be correlat-
ing the previous meteorology to that of the day of interest, and 2) measure-
ments are performed at 6-day intervals and hence it is doubtful  that
the "previous" measured concentration will reflect background potential for
a concentration measured 6 days later.  Table 6-4 shows that the previous
concentration correlated with concentration relatively consistently
among the test cases examined.  Only concentrations at St. Johns showed
insignificant correlation to previous recorded levels.
     The importance of the different variables (as determined by regres-
sion analysis) in explaining the variation of concentrations is  summarized
in Table 6-5.   Absence of rain and wind speed are either first or second
in importance in four of the five cases tested.  In one case (Central
Phoenix), the regression analysis identified previous concentration as
first in importance.  However, as expected, this variable was not rated
                                                 •)
important in the remaining cases.  The value c>f R  in Table 6-5 shows
that in three of the five test cases, 30% or.better of the concentration
variation could be explained by the meteorological parameters identified
as candidate determinants.  At North Phoenix, only 19% of the variation
                                   6-21

-------
             TABLE  6-5.  REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR 24  HOUR PARTICULATE  AND METEOROLOGY  VARIABLES.

                          EQUATIONS  FOR CONCENTRATION AND EXPLANATION  OF VARIANCE.



CT>
1
ro
ro

CENTRAL PHOENIX
VARIABLE Coef. R2
Rain (last 5 days)
No. Days Concentration 0.585 0.07(1)
Wind Speed
Temperature
Previous Concentration 0.370 0.23(1)
Constant 79.8
R2 0.30
SOUTH PHOENIX NORTH PHOENIX ST. JOHNS
Coef. R2 Coef. R2 Coef. R2
-45.3
1.43
- 9.54
0.167
200.

0.02(3)
0.41(1) 0.992 0.17(1)
0.08(2) 5.02 0.02(2) 23.7 0.07
0.02(4)
80.7 -11.4
0.52 0.19 0.07
CAREFREE
Coef. R2
-22.3 0.04(3)
0.276 0.15(1)
3.89 0.13(2)
0.268 0.02(4)
-5.25
0.34
NOTE:


1.  Number 1n parantheses are orders of Importance of Independent variables.
                                                                     P

2.  The level of confidence that an equation coefficient 1s not zero Is 90% when R  > .10.

-------
was explained, and at St. Johns, there is a very low confidence level
that the effect of any of the variables is significant.   This is perhaps
not surprising, since it is known that the Hi-vols at St.  Johns and North
Phoenix are subject to site specific fugitive dust sources and micro
meteorology which may obscure the physical relationship between area-wide
meteorology and concentrations in the general area of the site.
     The regression equations yielded by the regression analysis sum-
marized in Table 6-5 may be used to approximate probable seasonal varia-
tion in concentrations at the various stations.  Figure 6-10 illustrates
the variation of concentration at the South Phoenix monitor as a function
of rainfall absence there.   The various lines drawn among the historical
data on the plot are based on the regression equation

     CONCN = 200 + 1.43 (DAYS SINCE RAIN) - 9.54 (WIND)
                 - 45.3 (RAIN LAST 5 DAYS) + .167 (PREVIOUS CONCN)
and on the seasonal averages of variables for 19,73 to 1975.  The calculated
seasonal variation is consistent with the findings of Section 6.1 and
the plot of Figure 6-7.  Winter meteorology in the fourth quarter appears
to provide conditions conducive to the highest values of particulate
concentrations, while the meteorology of the second quarter tends to the
lowest concentrations.
                                  6-23

-------
ro
                                                                            4™ QUARTER (=1.43 (DAYS SINCE +167)
                                                                                                     1ST & 3RD QUARTER.  C = 1.93 (DAYS SINCE) + 150
                                                                 2ND QUARTER.  C = 1.42 (DAYS SINCE) + 143
          50
                                                                                                         l2   lie"
0   4   8   12   16  ' 20   24   28
                                               36  40  44   48   52   56   60   72   76   80   84

                                               DAYS SINCE LAST RAINFALL ( .01 INCH)
                                                                                               ~92   96   100  104  108  T
                     Figure  6-10.   Effect  of Rainfall  Drought  on Suspended Particulate  Levels at South
                                      Phoenix Station,  Actual  Observations  and  Regression  Predictions.

-------
6.3  ANALYSIS OF PARTICULATE EPISODES
     Table 6-6 presents a summary of meteorology and concentration distri-
bution in the Phoenix area for nine of the most severe particulate episodes
occuring in the 1973-1975 period.  Hi-vol measurements are listed for the
four stations experiencing the highest particulate concentrations.   The
category of the source environment at each station is indicated by number
and is consistent with the station classification derived in Section 3.0.
Meteorological data provided include parameters discussed earlier in
Section 6.1 and 6.2, as well as resultant wind direction and magnitude.
     Table 6-6 shows that most episodes occur in the winter months.  This
is consistent with conclusions of the previous sections that seasonal
particulate levels are generally highest in the winter months.  However,
four of the nine episode cases listed occurred from March to August.  The
meteorology and ambient particulate distribution associated with the
episodes appears to establish two clear patterns.  In the wintertime,
when low wind speeds and low mixing heights limit dispersion of parti-
culate emissions, high ambient concentrations generate consistently at
the city monitoring sites (categories 1 and 2), and often at Paradise
Valley (category 3).  Particulate levels also increase at other stations
throughout the Phoenix region, but generally to a lesser degree.   For
the episodes occurring from March to August, particulate concentrations
are  observed to be highest for the rural and surburban residential
areas (category 3 and 4).  During these episodes strong wind gusts were
measured from the Southeast or West, and resultant and average wind speed
during the day was appreciably greater than normal.  This behavior is
entirely consistent with the findings of the previous sections.
     A very plausible explanation for the two distinct patterns exibited
during the various episodes concerns the emission source origins:
               •  Human activity, which is most densely focused in the
                  city area, is responsible for suspension of substantial
                  fugitive emissions.  These emissions are of higher
                  density than those released at the rural sites, and
                  this is reflected by the higher concentrations produced"
                  durini) the st.ahle atmospheric conditions of winter.
                                 6-25

-------
         TABLE  6-6.   PARTICULATE EPISODES  IN PHOENIX  AREA, 1973-1975
STATION
CATEGORY
1
3
2
4
1
4
2
2
1
3
2
4
4
4
2
1
1
i
3
1
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
5
DATE & STATIONS
November 12, 1973
Downtown Phoenix
Paradise Valley
West Phoenix
Chandler
November 18, 1973
Downtown Phoenix
North Phoenix
West Phoenix
Central Phoenix
January 17, 1974
Downtown Phoenix
Paradise Valley
West Phoenix
Chandler
June 16, 1974
Chandler
Mesa
Central Phoenix
Downtown Phoenix
November 13, 1974
Downtown Phoenix
Paradise Valley
South Phoenix
Central Phoenix
December 19, 1974
Arizona State
Downtown Pheonix
Paradise Valley
Central Phoenix
March 25, 1975
Paradise Valley
Litchfield
St Johns
N Scotts/Paradise
June 17, 1975
N Scotts/Paradise
St Johns
Litchfield
North Phoenix
August 10, 1975
St Johns
North Phoenix
Central Phoenix
Glendale
CONCENTRATION ' MIX*NG
ug/m3 (MEeteHrs)
513 253
439
364
355
458 394
439
389
337
480 108
351
279
261
372 5888
330
322
239
454 352
255
252
234
460 261
353
260
234
842 NA
379
346
295
1083 NA
798
519
248
456 NA
343
287
262
AVERAGE RESULTANT GENERAL
NO. OF DAYS WIND WT.ND DIR. COMMENTS ON
SINCE RAIN SPEED AND MAGNI- TEMP. WEATHER
(MPH) TUDE.
120 6.0 -^f- 5.1 70 haze most of
day. Maximum
wind speed 13
mph .
126 9.8 -f- 3.9 63 Partly cloudy
& thunderstorms
and wind gusts to
36mph beginning
at night.
9 4.3 p-| — 4.1 58 Haze much of day.
Maximum wind speed
13 mph.
75 10.9 — T— 6.1 98 Clear. Wind
gusts from SE at
43 mph.
11 3.7 — *\ — 1.9 64 Cloudy much of
day. Maximum
wind speed 13 mph.
14 5.3 -N— 2.2 54 Clear. Maximum
wind speed 12 mph.
11 12.2 — ^- 4.6 66 Partly cloudy.
Wind gusts from
west at 35 mph.
69 11.4 — T" 4.8 88 Clear. Wind
gusts from West
at 35 mph.
25 12.4 — £- 6.3 96 Partly Cloudy.
Wind gusts from
SE at 47 mph.
NA *  not available
*    Station Category:
1  = Central City/residential commercial surrounded by fugitive  sources.
2  « Central City/residential, no source 1n immediate surroundings.
3  • Rural/residential, surrounded by fugitive sources:.
4  = Surburban/residential, surrounded by fugitive sources.
5  = Rural/residential, no sources immediately nearby.
6  = Remote

                    6-26

-------
               •  Because vast expanses of agricultural  land, unpaved
                  roads, and unimproved (but disturbed)  soil  surfaces
                  surround the rural sites, suspension of dust by soil
                  wind erosion is very likely a dominant factor affecting
                  high particulate levels during gusty winds in the rural
                  areas.  Soil erosion by wind is of less consequence in
                  the more developed areas.
     The importance of local sources in concentrations recorded at the
monitoring sites is also suggested by considering wind direction at the
site.  For example, it can be seen that Chandler, normally one of the
cleaner ambient environments (category 4), exhibits some of the region's
highest particulate concentrations whenever wind originates from the East.
This is consistent with the results of the monitor site  survey, which
revealed appreciable fugitive dust sources to the East of the site.  Mesa
is similarly exposed to easterly sources, as  is represented in the June
16 episode.  Caution should be exercised interpreting the significance
of stations ranked  in  Table 6-6.   Inconsistencies  apparent in  the  station
listing are often due to the fact certain monitors were  not operating
on the day of the episode.  The recording pattern for the various stations
is somewhat erratic, but it should not obscure the conclusions formulated
above.
                                   6-27

-------
                         REFERENCES
 1.   Maricopa  County  Planning  and  Zoning  Department, Comprehensive  Plan  for
     Maricopa  County, Arizona  -  Part  1  History,  Economics  and  Physical
     Features. 1963.

 2.   National. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Local Climatological
     Data  - Annual  Summary with  Comparative  Data  -  Phoenix. Arizona.  1974.

 3.   Survey conducted by the Arizona  Republic  and the Phoenix  Gazette.
     Arizona  Republic and the  Phoenix Gazette,  Inside Phoenix  -  1975.

 4.   Maricopa  County  Planning  Department, A  Report  Upon  Future General Land
     Use for  Maricopa County,  Arizona,  1975.

 5.   Larsen,  Ralph  I.,  A Mathematical Model  for  Relating Air Quality
          Measurements  to Air  Quality Standards,  Environmental
          Protection  Agency, Office of  Air Programs, Publication
          AP-89,  November 1971,  p. 3, 4.

 6.   Knox, Joseph B.  and Lange,  Rolf, "Surface Air  Pollutant Concentration
          Frequency Distributions:   Implications  for Urban Modelling,"
          Journal of  the Air Pollution  Control  Association, Vol.  24,
          Number  1, January  1974,  p.  48-53.  *

 7.   Larsen,  R.I.,  A  Mathematical  Model  for  Relating Air Quality
          Measurements  to Air  Quality Standards,  EPA Publication
          AP-89,  November 1971,  p. 31-32.

 8.   Larsen,  R.I.,  "A New Mathematical  Model  of Air Pollutant  Concentra-
          tion Averaging Time  and  Frequency,"  Journal of the Air
          Pollution Control  Association,  Vol.  19, Number 1, January
          1969, p.  26.

 9.   U.S.  Department  of Commerce,  National  Climatic Center,  "Local
     Climatological Data, Historical  Average Meteorology for  Phoenix
     Area."

10.   PEDCo Environmental  Specialists, Inc.,  "Investigation.of  Fugitive
     Dust  Emissions Impact  in  Designated Air Quality Control  Regions,"
     Final  Report,  Prepared  for  Environmental  Protection Agency, May  1973.

11.   R.H.  Snow, R.G.  Draftz  and  J. Graf, IIT Research  Institute, "Field
     Air Sampling Study -  Phoenix, Arizona," Prepared  for  Environmental
     Protection Agency, April  1976.
                                    7-1

-------
                                APPENDIX A
                           MONITOR SITE REVIEW
A-l.  St. Johns
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure A-la provides an orientation for
structures, objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of •
the Hi-Vol at the St. Johns site.  The Hi-Vol is located on the rooftop
of the St. Johns Indian School  administration building.   The roof is
approximately 15 feet above ground level, and the sampler is mounted
on a conventional stand 1-1/2 feet above the flat tarpaper rooftop (see
Figure A-lb).  The sampler has  adequate vertical clearance with all
nearby objects to the east, north and northwest, but there are potentially
significant vertical barriers to wind movement from the  southeast, south,
and southwest.  The largest building on the school  campus is about 70
feet directly south of the Hi-Vol, and rises at its peak to an elevation
of 20 feet above the Hi-Vol sampler (see Figure A-lc).   A small rooftop
room rises 8 feet above the Hi-Vol sampler only 12  feet  to the southwest
(Figure A-l f).  Air movement from the west is obstructed by a school
building which rises 8 feet above the sampler (Figure A-lg).  A thick
hedge of trees rises 4 feet above the Hi-Vol to the northeast (Figure A-lc
andA-ld).  These obstacles, in addition to the high elevation of the
sampler above ground, are apt to prevent dust levels experienced at ground
level from being measured by the rooftop sampler.

     The most significant local source of particulates consists of
fugitive dust.  The suspension of this dust is related to vehicle activity
and other activities which disturb the ground surface sufficiently to
permit suspension of soil by wind.  Almost all activity  in the immediate
vicinity of the St. Johns School occurs on soil surfaces.  Parking lots
and roadways are unpaved.  Most walkways are unpaved and most yards
(residential and school) consist of dirt fields.  The composition of the
roadways parking lots, and open fields is generally hardpack with a fine
dust powder cover.  Except for tall groups of trees, there is very little
vegetation in the area.  During the day of the survey site visit, a slight
5 to 10 mph breeze from the northwest was blowing loose  paper and occa-
sionally dust, clouds off of vehicle parking lots and open ground and yard

                                     A-l

-------
         LEGEND:
                 Location From Which Photographs Were Taken (e.g., Fig.  -c)
                ;Soil Surface
                 Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
I   -*^X^»g   I
                                (a)
         Figure A-l.    St.  John's  Site
                               A-2

-------

         \
Figure A-l  (Continued).   St.  John's  Site.
                    A-3

-------
areas.  Dust clouds were frequently observed in  the parking lot sourroud-
ing the entrance side (northeast)  of the school  administration building
This parking lot merges with the main school entrances,  and is used
intermittently throughout the day.  The dust clouds arising from the
adjacent parking lot and roadway,  both from vehicle activity and wind
erosion, are apt to affect measurements of the Hi-Vol  monitor significantly,
especially when prevailing winds are northerly.
     Local sources other than fugitive dust probably have minor effect on
the Hi-Vol measurements.  Bus and automobile exhausts are emitted in the
parking lot adjacent and below the monitor.  No  commercial activities are
conducted in the area.  The numerous fireplace vents which exit on the
roof where the Hi-Vol is located have not been used for  several years
(since the school was equipped with gas and electric heating).  A stove
vent exits at the southeast end of the roof, but only limited breakfast
cooking for a few persons is conducted over this vent.
     There have been very few changes in the environment of the Hi-Vol
site which would have significantly affected air quality measurements.
No development has occurred near the monitor site for more than 15 years.
However, a new single level school building is presently being erected
approximately 700 feet east of the site.  The parking area near the
monitor is gravelled annually to reduce dust levels and  to prevent erosion.
No deliberate efforts are implemented (i.e. surface wetting) to diminish
dust levels on a continual basis.
 Representativeness of Monitor
     Based on the review of sources at the site and in the general  area,
the monitor siting is probably generally representative of air quality at
the community of the Gila River Indian Reservation near the school, but
not representative of the general  area.  The small community surrounding
the school is a hotspot for fugitive dust source activity, and the
monitor is centered in this activity.  The rural area outside the small
community is characterized by vast expanses of andisturbed desert  terrain
and less traffic activity.

                                    A-4

-------
     Definitive  representativeness of the monitor site is limited by two
principal factors.  First, the monitor is sheltered by obstructions to
the south, so that particulate levels measured under prevailing
southerly winds  may tend to be slightly lower than levels at most points
within the community.  Second, the elevation of the sampler is inappro-
priate to represent typical ground level exposures.
     The effect of historical changes in the monitor environment (i.e.
source activity, new structures, new or deleted sources)-:
-------
       -LEGEK):
(£3
n>
o

 -$
 oo
 c+
 n>
              Location From Which Photographs Here Taken (e.g., Fig.  -c)
              Soil Surface
              Elevation (e.g.. 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                 \
                            o
                                             Villa Nu«va
                                      0
0
fl.
0
0
•y,
                                                                           flttt » «*1 «rtl
                                                      '   -   (a)

-------
Figure A-2 (Continued).   Litchfield Park Monitor Site,
                        A-7

-------
in 1975.  To the east there is  about 400 feet  of  open  field  (Figure A-2c)
followed by a residential  development constructed in recent  years.   To
the south (Figure A-2d) are large expanses  of  open fields, and to the north
(Figure A-2e) substanticel residential  development has occurred for several
blocks.
     The most conspicuous  local  source of ambient particulates is fugitive
dust.  This dust becomes suspended by vehicle  activity and other activities
which distunb the ground sufficiently to loosen  the soil  permitting
suspension of the soil particles by wind.  To  the west, new  construction
during the sampling period included earth-moving and grading operations,
and resulted in loose soil cover (yet to be planted)  around  the new
buildings (see immediate  foreground of Figure  A-2f).  These  open earth
areas are presently used  as parking areas for  residents as well as
construction laborers still working in the area.  The  open  field (to the
south and east) on which  the fire station is located has been graded and
coarse gravel has been mixed with the surface  layer (see Figure A-2c).
The driveway and parking  space of the mobile van is composed of a similar
surface mix.  The grading operation was conducted preparatory to eventual
residential development expected to occur on this property  in the near
term.  While these earth  activities occurred^ prior to  the monitoring period,
they have resulted in a loose soil cover in the  empty  lot, which is
additionally disturbed by occasional vehicle traffic.   In other open
fields extending to the south, there are numerous unpaved roadways and
frequent traffic.  Subtantial dust clouds were observed behind vehicles
traveling on these roads.  'Also frequent dust  clouds were observed to
result solely from the effect of wind (approximately 10 to  15 mph dtming
the site visit) on the dust cover in these open  fields near  the monitor
site.  It is probable that these local dust clouds significantly affect
measurements at the Litchfield site, especially  during southerly and
easterly winds.
     Local sources other than fugitive dust probably  have negligible
effect on the Hi-Vol  measurements.  Vehicular  exhausts are emitted from
light traffic on Litchfield Road approximately 100 feet from the site.
The fire station is equipped with electric utilities and houses only one
                                   A-8

-------
fire truck.  The truck and station are operated by a single attendant.
     Numerous changes are occurring in the environment surrounding the  site.
These changes would have significant impact on dust levels at the monitor
over the past few years and in future years.  The period of sampling at
the site reflects the status of the environment during only a short term
in 1975.  As development continues according to the general plan, the
site characterization should be modified if additional sampling is to be
conducted there.

Representativeness of Monitor

     Based on the review of sources at the site and in the general area,
it appears that air quality measured at the monitor site is representative
of both site specific and area-wide levels of suspended particulates.  The
monitor is subject to wind blown dust from the adjacent open field and  from
more distant open fields and unpaved roads to the south.  However, open
fields are typical of this area, being spaced intermittently among blocks
of new residential development.  The monitor is placed at the boundary
between residential dwellings and undeveloped property.  Except for slight
over-representation of either open field dust or residential development
resulting from certain prevailing wind directions air quality at the
monitor site is presently generally representative of the area.  During
the period of sampling (Feb to June, 1975)it is possible that construction
activities (i.e. earth moving operations) west of the station resulted  in
significant dust levels causing high readings at the monitor on certain
occasions.  This possibility should be considered in addressing inconsis-
tencies in particulate levels measured at the Litchfield station relative
to regular trends demonstrated by other stations in the monitoring network.
In the future, projected development occurring near the Litchfield Site
(by 1980 and 1985) should incur significant impact on dust levels there.
Air quality at the site would probably be-non-representative of the
general area during the intensive development periods on property
immediately adjacent to the site.  However, in the far term as the community
and air quality of Litchfield becomes more homogenlous after development,
it is evident that air quality at the monitor site will ultimately evolve
                                   A-9

-------
to be more definitively representative of the general  area.

A.3    Sun City

Site specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure A-3a shows the orientation of
structures, oiijjects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of
the Hi-Vol at the Sun City Site.  The Hi-Vol is located on the rooftop of
the Boswell Memorial Hospital utility building at the northwest corner of
the hospital complex.  The rooftop surface on which the monitor is located
measures approximately 180 by 60 feet, and is surrounded by paved parking
areas which extend several hundred feet to the southeast and northeast
and about 50 feet to the northwest and southwest (See Figure A-3a). Tfhe
roof of the utility building is approximately 25 feet above ground level,
and the Hi-Vol  is mounted on a conventional  stand about 1  1/2 feet above
the flat tarpaper rooftop (Figure A-3b).  The monitor has  adequate vertical
clearance with all nearby objects in every direction,  although the main
hospital building may cause some obstruction of air movement from the east.
The hospital rises approximately 80 feet above the monitor site (Figure
A-3c).
     The area immediately surrounding the monitor consists of a mix of
parking lots, commercial buildings, and undeveloped open fields.  The
region slightly beyond is comprised primarily of residential dwellings.
     In general, the most significant local  source of ambient particulates
may be fugitive dust.  This dust would result from suspension of soil
particles by wind in open fields adjacent to the monitor.   Vehicle traffic
on these fields is infrequent, and major portions of the field area were
characterized by a firm crust surface.  Portions of these  vacant areas ••.-
were also populated by a sparce grass growth.  This growth is cleared from
the fields annually by earth-scraping equipment.  The fields are watered
down during this operation to minimize dust levels.  While much of the
surface of the fields appeared undisturbed, substantial portions of the
vacant fields were observed to consist of loose soil dust  resulting
apparently from occasional vehicle activity.  On the day of the site visit,

                                   A-10

-------
LEGEND:
         Location From Which Photograohs Were Taken (e.g.,  Fig.  -c)
       •'' Soil  Surface
         Elevation (e.g.,  12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                    .
                                t*   y

                                                                                  Bocwcll Memorial Hoapital
c=.
[ 	 1 1 	 1
s*
©
tan*
©*
^
parking
	 hocpitol mot»vioninc
-------
Figure A-3 (Continued).  Sun City Site,
                    A-12

-------
 a 15 to 20 mph wind from the south was observed to be generating occasional
 dust clouds in the vacant lots.

     Dust entrained by motor vehicles traveling ever paved roads and
parking lots near the monitor may also be a significant local source of
TSP.  Dust loadings on nearby streets are probably relatively high due to
the vast areas of exposed earth adjacent to these streets.

      Local  sources other than  fugitive dust  probably  exert only minor in-
 fluence on  suspended particulate levels  at the monitor site.   Several  vent
 outlets emerge from the  rooftop  (see Figure  A-3d and  A-3e).   Many of the
 smaller outlets serve simply as  ventilation  outlets for air  in the utility
 rooms  below.   Discussions with the  hospital  maintenance manager indicated there
 are only rare instances  when activities  inside the building  (i.e.  acciden-
 tal  fire,  sawdust spillage)  might produce  substantial  particulate
 concentrations, and these occurrences would be  short-lived.   The larger
 vents  emerging from the  roof emit exhausts from large engines and boilers
 in the utility building.  All  the engines  and  boilers burn  natural  gas
 and therefore emit a clear exhaust of minimal  particul.ate concentration.
 The monitor is located about 40  feet south of  the nearest engine exhaust
 vent and approximately 45 feet from the  nearest steam vent.   The most
 significant conventional emission source affecting the Hi-Vol  measurements
 may consist of motor vehicle exhaust on  streets and parking  lots immedia-
 tely surrounding the utility building.
      During the period which the:-monitor has been sampling  at the Sun City
 Site (since July 1974),  there  have been  relatively few changes in the
 immediate environment.  The  open field southwest and  northwest of the
 monitor are cleared of brush annually, resulting in periodic disturbance
 of the soil  and vunerability to  natural  suspension of soil
 particles  by wind.   Future plans for the open  fields  adjacent to the
 hospital  and beyond include  additional  commercial  development.   Significant
 local  fugitive sources immediately adjacent  to the monitor will  ultimately
 vanish by  1985.

 Representativeness  of Monitor
      Based  on the review of  sources at the site and in the general  area,

                                    A-13

-------
 air quality measured at the monitor site is apparently representative
 of both site specific and area wide levels of suspended particulates.
 There are no significant point sources in the area, and area and fugitive
 dust sources appear to be rather evenly distributed, both at the site and
 in the general area.
      The elevation of the monitor is  inappropriate  to  represent  typical
 ground level  exposures.   This limitation  should  be  considered in the
 subsequent adjusting of  air quality data  such  that  it  is  representatives
 of ground level  values.
      In the future, projected development occurring near  the Sun City
 site may have significant impact on dust  levels  there.  Air quality at
 the site of the monitor  will be somewhat  non-representative of the  general
 area during the development period on the open fields  adjacent the  site.
 In the far term, development on these open fields  should  reduce  fugitive
 dust levels at the monitor, but because overall  development is expected
 throughout the general  area, air quality  at the  monitor will remain
 representative of that in the general area.
 A.4'   Glendale
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure A-4a  shows the  orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate  vicinity of the H1-Vol on  the
rooftop of the Glendale Community College  student union building  on  the south
side of the campus.  The  roof is about 20  feet  above ground level, and the
H1-Vol is mounted on a conventional stand  and a wood pedestal about  1-1/2
feet above the flat tarpaper roof surface  (Figure A-4b).   The monitor has
adequate clearance  with  nearby objects in every  direction.
     The area immediately surrounding  the  monitor site  consists of a mix of
paved parking lots, one level school building,  and  grassed campus yards.
To the south and west of  the monitor is a  paved maintenance yard, used for
storage of maintenance vehicles and equipment.  Beyond  this maintenance
yard to the south is the  main parking  lot  (Figure A-4d ),  which extends
about 600 feet to Olive Street.  Beyond the maintenance yard to the  west
is the college swim pool  and associated structures.   North and East  of the
monitor are grassed areas and other school  buildings.

                                    A-14

-------
                                       A/
                                   US --6
tn
              C

              n>

              f*

              Ji»
Q.
O>

O)

CO
_J.
<-!•
n>
t
                                      grmed ar*a
                                                                 *

                                                                 6
                                                                                C9 Q
                                                       £>

                                                      2
                                                                                   ^>   V
                                  locker roomt
                                                                                                          LEGEND:
                                                                                                     Location From Which Photographs Were Taken  (e.g., Fig.  -c)

                                                                                                   | So1 1 Surface

                                                                                                     Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                                           «&   0   O    ->
/
/ ,
f
1
1
/
/\zy
/
/
/
/
/•
/
j
/
f
/
7
k.
^ ^
                                                                                                                                                   Administration
                                                                                                                                                    0
                                                                                                        Olive Ava.
                                                                                              (a)

-------
Figure A-4 (Continued).  Glendale Site,
                   A-16

-------
     There are no major conspicuous sources of particulate emissions  in  the
immediate vicinity of the monitor.   The monitor is  located several  feet
from any roof vents, and these exhaust only the ambient air inside  the rooms
of the student union building.  Fugitive dust sources are not apparent as  __
all areas nearby are paved or grassed.  Activities in the maintenance yard
below are characterized mainly by equipment storage and parts supplies
operations.  The most significant source of ambient particulates near the
monitor are motor vehicles in the campus parking lot and on adjacent road-
ways.  This source may significantly impact air quality at the monitor when
the prevailing air movement is from the south and school is in session.
     During the period which the monitor has been sampling at the Glendale
site (since July 1974), there have been no  changes  in  the  adjacent  environment
which would have significantly affected air quality measurements at the
sensor.
Representativeness of Monitor
     Generally, the air quality at the monitor may be considered representa-
tive of the general area.  However, because the monitor is located in a
residential portion of an area comprised of both agricultural and residential
land use, air quality at the site may tend to be somewhat unrepresentative
of the effect of fugitive dust emissions from open agriculture fields.   Still,
some of these agricultural lands are located relatively nearby (see Figure
A-4a), and fugitive dust arising from the soil surfaces would be represented
at the monitor during southwesterly air movement.
     Two principal factors may distract the general representativeness of
the monitor air quality readings.  First, emissions from a power plant
located approximately 1/2 mile southwest of the monitor may cause significant
increases in the readings of suspended particulates when southeasterly winds
are prevalent.  Second, the elevation of the sampler is inappropriate to
represent typical ground level exposures.
A-5    West Phoenix
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure A-5a  shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the H1-Vol at
the West Phoenix site.  The H1-Vol is located on a concrete slab (see Figure
 A-5b) in the center of the Grand Canyon College campus, between the printing

                                     A-17

-------
                                                               coltoga campui (1 l«v»l bld'i S. granad ground!)
                                                                                                             LEGEND:
                                                                                                                       Location From Which  Photographs  Were Taken (e.g., Fig.  -c)

                                                                                                                            Surface

                                                                                                                       Elevation  (e.g.,  12  Feet  Above Ground Level)
                                                                                   driv«w«y ft perking
..J
00
                   I
                   in
                   (D
                   to
                   r-t-
                   O
                   fD
                   3

                   X

                   oo

                   r-h
                   fD
                                  commercial
                                  •hopping
                                  can tar






•tudant
publications

•%
              Kachina
              HaN
                                                chamlnrv
                                                bW.
                                                                                           D  concratt
                                                                                               pad

                                                                                                   AdmlnlamBlan A»fc
                                                                                            200 yda. M CanMltMek
                                                                                                                                           {
                                                                                                                                        Ly  L  ^
\
\

I
\


{
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\

                                                                                                                                                                           /
                                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                  (a)

-------
                                 •
Figure A-5 (Continued).  West Phoenix Site,
                   A-19

-------
and publications buildings.   The Hl'-Vol is elevated by a standard mount
approximately 5 feet above the concrete platform.   The site is also used to
station other atmospheric sampling devices, including other H1-Vols
present (for a short term experiment by EPA)  at the time the survey: was
conducted.  The monitor appears to have adequate clearance with all nearby
verticial  objects.  Although the buildings on either side of the site may
provide some restriction to air movement, this would not be important
since there are no sources immediately in the vicinity to be affected.
Overall particulate levels would be well mixed i-n the vicinity of the
monitor.
     The area immediately surrounding the monitor site consists of a mix-
ture of small one level school buildings, paved parking lots, and grassed
campus yards.  Twenty feet to the south of the monitor is the school
print and locksmith building (Figure A-5c:).   To the east, west, and north
of the site are grassed campus yards, and beyond that are modest one level
school buildings.  Parking areas are located around the perimeter of the
small campus, and are characterized by single rows of parking spaces along
the shoulder of the vehicle access ways.
     There are no significant sources of particulate emissions immediately
adjacent to the monitor.  Operations in the nearby school buildings involve
classroom instruction.  The use of printing equipment and other materials
in the classrooms does not result in emissions of particulates.  Fugitive
dust sources are not apparent as all areas adjacent to the monitor are
paved or grassed.  The effect of periodic campus yard maintenance
                                                           a
(i.e., cutting of grass) on Hi-Vol measurements is unclear.  However,
microscopy and composition analysis of the filters indicate the organic
                                                               3
component of the filter deposits rarely exceed more than 5 mg/m .  Motor
vehicle traffic on the college access ways is limited and would have in-
significant effect on air quality at the monitor.
     During the past three years of sampling at the West Phoenix site, there
have been no significant developments on the school campus which would have
influenced air quality at the monitor.
                                     A-20

-------
Representativeness of Monitor
     Based on the review of sources at the site and in the general area, it
appears that air quality measured at the monitor site is representative of
both site specific and area - wide levels of suspended particulates.  There
are no major point sources in the general area, and area and fugitive dust
sources are rather evenly distributed.  This distribution is represented
at the specific site, where although there are no fugitive sources on the
campus, the campus is relatively small such that open fields adjacent to
the campus (sources of fugitive dust) are a potential influence on air
quality at the monitor.
     The effect of historical changes in the monitor environment (i.e.,
source activity, new structures, deleted sources) and on the representa-
tiveness of the air quality measurements may be considered negligible.
Future development on nearby vacant lots could incur significant impact
on dust levels measured at the monitor.  Air quality at the site would
probably be non-representative of the area during the intensive develop-
ment periods on'property immediately adjacent to the site.  However, in
the far term, as the community and air quality of West Phoenix becomes
more homogenious after development, it is evident that air quality at the
monitor site will ultimately evolve to be more definitively representative of
the general area.
A-6    North Phoenix
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure  A-6a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the Hi-Vol at
the North Phoenix site.  The Hi-Vol is located within the confine of a
water pump substation.  It is mounted on a conventional stand approximately
5 feet above the gravel/soil surface of the enclosure (Figure  A-6b).
Horizontal air movement to the monitor is slightly obstructed by a 10
foot hedge of Oleander bushes which circles the substation perimeter.
     The area immediately surrounding the monitor typifies the general area.
There is a mix of residential dwellings, commercial buildings, unpaved
parking lots, and paved and unpaved roadways.  To the south of the utility
                                    A-21

-------
LEGEND:
        Location From Which Photographs Were Taken (e.g., Fig.  -c)
        Soil Surface
        Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                                                                   shops -

                                                                                commercial bids.
           Figure A-6.    North  Phoenix Site.
                                A-22

-------

Figure A-6 (Continued).   North  Phoenix Site
                    A-23

-------
enclosure is a private residence.  The east is bordered by a gravel/dirt
alleyway (Figure 3-lld) serving as access to unpaved parking lots for
adjacent commercial buildings.  The north and west utility boundaries
are joined by asphalt roadways, and beyond that, private residences.
     The most conspicous local source of ambient particulates is fugitive
dust.  This dust becomes suspended by vehicle activity and by wind action.
Dust clouds raised by traffic on the unpaved alleyway east of the site
have caused complaints by adjacent residents.  One resident claims that
clothesline wash is soiled by dust generated off the alleyway and un-
paved parking lots.  Fallout dust from these activities was apparent on
nearby surfaces (i.e., leaves of the hedge surrounding the substation).
Another source of suspended particulates is entrained dust arising from
dust loadings on nearby paved streets.  A less significant source of par-
ticulates at the site is motor vehicle exhaust resulting from commercial
activity east of the site.  No significant point sources were identified
within this shopping center.
     Discussions with local  residents revealed that no major changes have
occurred to the« environment adjacent the site in the past few years.  Com- ;-
mercial activity nearby has  not altered appreciably, and residential develop-
ment occurred several years  before the sampling period of interest.
Initiative for paving of the alleyway has been discouraged because of
associated financial assessments which must be borne by adjacent home-
owners .
Representativeness of the Monitor
     Air quality measured at the monitor appears to be representative of
site specific levels of air  quality, but not representative of the general
area.  The monitor is subject to dust loadings created by vehicle activity
on the alleyway immediately adjacent to the site.   While unpaved alleyways
are typical of the general area and undoubtedly contribute significantly
to overall particulate levels throughout the area, the contribution diminishes
rapidly with distance from the source.  Locations in close proximity to the
dust source will experience  substantial deposits  of settleable participates
from the fallout.   It is clear, therefore, that a monitor placed only 30
feet from the alleyway is representative only of  the site specific levels
of suspended particulates.  The definitiveness of this representation is

                                    A-24

-------
limited.  For one thing, the monitor is sheltered by vegetation, and the
effect of this obstruction varies for different meteorology.  Also, the
source generation rate is unknown.  Alleyway counts and parking lot usage
data are necessary to attain a more definite characterization of the monitor
representativeness, and to assess the potential utility of air quality data
obtained there.
A.7    Paradise Valley
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure  A-7a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the Hi-Vol at the
Paradise Valley site.  The Hi-Vol is located inside a fenced enclosure on an
open field at the intersection of 36th Street and Sweetwater (Figure  A-7b).
The monitor is mounted on a conventional stand five feet above ground, and
has unobstructed clearance in all directions.
     The area immediately surrounding the monitor site typifies the general
area.  There is a predominance of open fields separated by new housing
developments.  To the north of the monitor is an open field of soft soil
and creosote scrub.  About 400 feet from the monitor in this field are various
makeshift enclosures and stables for horses.  The area immediately west and
south of the monitor consists of an open field of soft soil (Figure  A-7e )•
A flood channel runs through this field under a bridge on Sweetwater Road.
The open field terminates several hundred yards beyond the channel at
a new residential community.  To the east accross 36th Street are several
blocks of residential dwellings (Figure :A-7e).  To the southeast, across
the intersection from the monitor, is a large open field which has been
graded and excavated in preparation of future development to occur there
(Figure  A-7f ).  The field is covered in many places by creosote scrub, but
is baren and bears a soft dust surface in the remaining portions.
     The only significant local source of particulates is fugitive dust.	
The suspension of this dust is related to vehicle activity (on unpaved and
paved roads) and activities which disturb the soil surfaces sufficiently to
permit suspension of soil by wind.  The open fields of the area are covered
by a soft soil dust which is easily suspended by winds.  Thick layers of dust
were observed on the adjacent homes and automobiles.  Residents confirmed
that dust is a constant nuisance in the area.
                                    A-25

-------
-s
ro
-5
Ol
Q.
_^.
I/I
ro
ro
fD
                   -~1^ ^  t     '   "\^  ,

                        t      I

                                                                                                    LEGEND:
                                                                                                              Location  From Which Photographs Were Taken (e.g., F1g.  -c)

                                                                                                             sSoll  Surface
                                                                                                              Elevation (e.g.,  12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                                                                                         \
                                                                                                                                          w - -
                                                                                     (a)

-------
                                               \.*.f~ •• .« •••
Figure A-7  (Continued).  Paradise  Valley Site,




                      A-27

-------
     Local dust sources are also created by construction and excavation
activities in the area.  Numerous earth shaping activities have occurred in
the previous two years in the area.  This activity was associated with a new
residential development  southwest of the monitor and the construction of
the flood channel bridge  (late 1974) approximately 200 feet west of the
monitor.  The bridge construction required the routing of traffic onto a
temporary detour through the open field.  Residents reported observing
dust clouds frequently during this construction activity.
     The general plan for the area involves continued residential develop-
ment for the next several years.  This development will have significant
impact on dust levels at the monitor.  The site characterization should be
reviewed periodically to assess the changes in local source influences.
Representativeness of Monitor
     It appears that air quality measured at the monitor is representative
of both site specific and area-wide levels of suspended particulates.  The
general area is dominated by open fields and unpaved roads.  The monitor
location is directly representative of exposures experienced around these
open fields.  It is possible that nearby construction activities and re-
sulting disturbance of soil surfaces in open fields have been unduly re-
presented at the monitor site in the past two years, however, such
activity is typical in the general area because of the substantial develop-
ment currently underway.
     The manner in which future development occurs may affect changes in
the monitor representativeness.  For example, intensive development im-
mediately around the monitor could render the monitor as representative
of only the site specific air quality.  During construction, dust producing
operations may raise levels to extreme levels at the monitor, while after
development has been completed, dust levels might be reduced below previous
values.  Unless development takes place with this same intensity through-
out the general area it is clear that air quality at the monitor site
would no longer be representative of the general area.  Because of the
substantial level of residential growth forecast for the area around the
Paradise Valley Hi-Vol site, the representativeness of the monitor should
be periodically reevaluated.

                                    A-28

-------
A.8    North Scottsdale/Paradise Valley
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure  A-8a. shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the Hi-Vol at the
North Scottsdale site.  The Hi-Vol is located within a fenced storage yard
behind the Scottsdale fire station.  The monitor is mounted on a conventional
stand five feet above the gravelled floor of the enclosure (Figure  A-8b).
The monitor has adequate vertical clearance with objects in all directions.
     The environment immediately surrounding the~monitor is ••typical- of the
general area.  Except for the fire station and its landscaped yard, the
vicinity around the site is comprised of vast open fields.  To the north,
east, and south (Figure A-8c, A-8d, and A-8e), the fields are relatively
hard packed with a soft soil cover.  These fields are scraped clear of brush_
annually.  Beyond the open  field to  the west  is the Scottsdale Municipal
Airport.  To the west are several miles of desert fields, covered with various
types of desert vegetation (Figure  A-8f).  There are numerous unpaved
back roads in this area.  Excavation and construction are being conducted
along many of these backroads.
     The most significant local source of particulates is fugitive dust.
Thick layers of dust were observed on nearby buildings and motor vehicles.
The suspension of this dust is caused by vehicle activity and activities
which disturb the soil surfaces sufficiently to permit suspension of the
soil particles by wind.  The fields to the north, east, and south of the
monitor receives occasional motor vehicle traffic, and the soil surface is
affected appreciably by the annual brush clearing operation.  The fields
west of the station receive frequent off-road motorcycle traffic, as
evident by the numerous tire tracks which were observed. Also, dust
emissions are generated by  vehicle traffic on the unpaved roads more
distant to the west.
     A local conventional source (other than dust) of minor significance to
air quality at the monitor consists of the fire trucks parked adjacent to
the monitor (Figure  A-8e).  The trucks are run for five minutes each day
in their parked positions.  Lead concentrations from the Hi-Vol filters
confirm the  negligible  effect on this  service operation.  Aircraft

                                   A-29

-------
CO
o
                IQ
                 o>
                 oo
                 o
                 -5
r>
o
d-
r+
oo
Q.
a)

o>
                 CD

                 o>
                 CL
                 —i.
                 00
                 CD
                 o>





                 co


                 (D
                                                                           LEGEND:

                                                                              ^V  Location  From Which  Photographs Were Taken (e.g., Fig.  -c)

                                                                           ^ISSifll So11 Surface

                                                                               @  Elevation  (e.g.,  12  Feet Above Ground Level)
                                      '-. J
                                      -

-------



Figure A-8 (Continued).  North Scottsdale/Paradise Valley Site
                         A-31

-------
activity at the airport consists of small  private craft,  and is  not a
potentially significant influence on monitor measurements at the fire
station site.
     Discussion with the station attendants revealed no major changes  in
the surrounding environment the past few years, except for 1) the annual
brush clearing operation on the adjacent vacant field, and 2) increased
construction and excavation activity to the west (in a direction toward
the Paradise Valley monitor site,  except for continued development activity
expected in the west, no significant changes are planned  for the surround-
ing environment in the near term.
Representativeness of Monitor
     Air quality measured at the monitor appears to be representative  of
both site specific and area-wide levels of suspended particulates.  The
general area is dominated by open desert fields and numerous unpaved roads.
The monitor location is directly representative of exposures experienced
around these open fields.  This situation has existed throughout the term
of the monitor sampling history, and is not expected to change significantly
in the near term.
A-9    Carefree
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure A-9a  shows the orientation of land-
marks in the immediate vicinity of the Hi-Vol at the Carefree monitor
site.  The Hi-Vol is located in the open desert about 250 yards from the
Carefree Airport runway.  The monitor is mounted on a conventional stand
five feet above the ground (Figure  A-9b).  The monitor has vertical
clearance with nearby objects in all directions.
     The environment immediately surrounding the monitor is typical of
the general area.  Except for an occasional residence and the sparcely populated
community of Carefree a few miles from the site, the region is characterized
by vast expanses of open desert.  The composition of soil surrounding the
site was observed to be distinct from that at lower elevations in Phoenix.
The loose coarse gravel and  coarse sand underneath appear to be relatively
stable, including the portions which have been subjected to vehicle traffic
near the monitor and airport runway.  Dust clouds raised by the vehicle
                                    A-32

-------
        LEGEND:
\
                 Location From Which Photographs  Were Taken (e.g., Fig.  -c)
           H!t|So1l Surface
            @  Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                 Airport Runway

                                                 C«vaCr««k Ro*d
                                    (a)
                      Figure  A-9.   Carefree  Site.
                                   A-33

-------


Figure A-9 (Continued).  Carefree Site.
                    A-34

-------
used for the site visit were observed to be almost non-existent.   Soil
stabilization is also aided by a ground cover of various desert growth,
including creosote and numerous types of cactus (Figure  3-9e).
     The most significant local source of suspended particulates  is un-
doubtedly fugitive dust.   There are few man-made sources within miles of
the site.  Off-road travel is prohibited in the general area, and most
accessways in this affluent area (including private dirveways) are
paved.   Aircraft activity is limited, and consists of small  private air-
craft.
     The status of the environment near the monitor site has remained
relatively unchanged for the past few years.   Except for intermittent
residential development consisting mainly of custom single residence homes, only
minor changes are expected to occur in the environment at the monitor
site, both in the near and far term.
Representativeness of Monitor
     Air quality measurement at the monitor site appears to be representative
ov both site specific and area-wide levels of suspended particulates.   The
gneeral area is characterized by continuous open desert.  The gently rol-
ling desert terrain is covered by typical upper desert growth, and the
soil surface is stable and resistant to suspension by wind.   The  specific
monitor location is directly representative of this area-wide characteriza-
tion, and of air quality exposures experienced in this open desert region.
3.2.1   Scottsdale
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure A-lOa shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the Hi-Vol  at the
Scottsdale monitor site.   The Hi-Vol is located on the rooftop of the
Miller Road Fire Station, about 15 feet above ground level.   The  monitor is
mounted on a conventional stand about 1-1/2 feet above the flat tarpaper
roof.  The monitor has adequate vertical clearance with all  objects in
every direction.
                                    A-35

-------
>
            LEGEND:
                    Location From Which Photographs Were Taken (e.g.,  Fig.  -c)
                    Soll Surface
                    Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                    mfcMMM
                                                            (grMMd
                                                            V«rdt>
           ///////////////////////
                           (otfpvklng
                                                                               /v
                                                                              i
                                                                            w -4-^
                                   (a)
    Figure A-10.   Scottsdale  Site (August  1974 to  Present)
                                  A- 36

-------
Figure A-10 (Continued).   Scottsdale Site (August 1974 to  Present)
                                 A-37

-------
     The environment immediately surrounding the  monitor consists  of
paved parking lots and streets,  and an established residential  community.
To the south of the monitor ire  two consecutive parking lots.   One of
these parking areas is for fire  station use while the larger lot (Figure
A-lOc) is for the Coronado Gulf  Couse south of the station.   The station
is bordered on the east by residential dwellings.  To the north and west
are the four lane streets of Thomas Road and Miller Road followed by
blocks of residential  dwellings.
     The most significant local  source of suspended particulates at the
present is probably entrained dust and exhaust arising from motor vehicle
activity.  The adjacent intersection experiences substantial traffic volume
throughout the day, and the Coronado golf course parking lot experiences
frequent use, particularly on week ends.   A minor local  emission source
includes the fire station trucks.   The truck pumps are tested periodically
in a pit on the driveway about 70 feet from the monitor.  During this
operation the truck engines are run at full load for approximately ten
minutes.  Another minor source includes the station locker room and bath-
room vents which exit on the roof a few feet away from the monitor.
     Except  for entrained dust off  the heavily-travel led paved  roads
nearby,  there are  presently no conspicuous sources of fugitive  dust  in  the
immediate surroundings.  Residential development in the  adjacent neighborhood
includes grassed yards, vegetation, and paved sidewalks  and alleys.  How-
ever, discussion with the station  attendants revealed that the driveway
on the east side of the station,  and the  southside parking lot, were unpaved
before August of 1975.  Previously dust clouds were observed as vehicles
traveled on the unpaved dirveway and parking area.  During the period of
sampling prior to August of 1975,  it is probable that this dust source
may have contributed significantly to levels measured at the Hi-Vol.
     Prior to August of 1974 the Scottsdale Hi-Vol monitor was located for
a year at the Salt River project substation approximately one mile west of
the present site.   The Hi-Vol  was  placed  in the northeast corner of an
enclosure used to house emergency  flood runoff control equipment.  Figure
A-ll shows that the monitor at this site  was surrounded  by open fields.
Vehicle traffic and soil dumps on  the vacant land immediately east of the
site resulted in deposits of fine  soil dust over the surrounding area.
Vehicle traffic on the paved road  adjacent to the monitor suspends the
                                    A-38

-------
                                                               f> »


Figure A-ll  (Continued).  Scottsdale Site (October 1973 to August 1974)
                                    A-39

-------
soil on the shoulder of the road resulting in observable dust clouds.   In
addition, service vehicle traffic on the unpaved Salt River Canal  road-
way above the monitor causes substantial dust suspension.   During  the
period of sampling at this location, this roadway was used several times
a day for service operations.   The predominance of dust sources in the
area of the monitor is illustrated dramatically by th4ck layers of dust
which are observed on all nearby surfaces.  Company vehicles at the Salt
River project are washed weekly to remove this dust.
     Because the area surrounding the present monitor site at the  fire
station is fully developed, few future changes are likely to occur which
would significantly impact air quality at the monitor.
Representativeness of Monitor
     Air quality presently measured at the monitor site appears to be
representative of both site specific and area-wide levels of suspended
particulates.  The general area is primarily residential,  and the  monitor
is surrounded by residential dwellings.  Traffic activity may be slightly
non-representative of the general area, and could have some effect
in distorting the area-wide representativeness of the monitor.  Representa-
tiveness of the site should remain fairly unchanged in future years owing
to the established and comprehensive status of current developments there.
     The potentially significant dust source (the unpaved driveway and
parking area) at the station prior to August 1975 may have resulted in site
specific dust levels unrepresentative of the general  area.  However, traffic
from attendant's private vehicles at the fire station is limited and in-
frequent, and probably would have exerted only minor influence on  air quality
measured by the monitor.
     Air quality measured at the Salt River project site from October 1973
to August 1974 is clearly site specific as the monitor was oriented in the
center of a hotspot of fugitive dust emissions, while the.general  area beyond
this hotspot is primarily  of residential composition.
A. 11    South Phoenix
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure A-12a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the HI-Vol  at the

                                   A-40

-------
LEGEND:
   ^Y   Location From Which Photoaraphs Were Taken  (e.o., Fit:.   -<.)
        Soil  Surface
    @  Elevation (e.g.,  12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                                                   flu*
                                                                   Ibnaha
                                                                   •ollo^..]
                                                                i
         Figure  A-12.   South  Phoenix  Site.
                           A-41

-------

Figure A-12 (Continued).   South Phoenix Site,
                          A-42

-------
South Phoenix site.   The Hi-Vol  is located on the rooftop of the county
public administration building,  approximately 36 feet above ground level.
The monitor is mounted on the roof peak on a conventional stand, about
1-1/2 feet above the tarpaper roof surface (Figure A-12c).   The admin-
istration building is the highest structure in the vicinity.
     The environment immediately surrounding the county building consists
of a mix of commercial and residential  buildings, parking lots, and major
traffic links.  The  east side of the building is bordered by Central
Avenue, a four lane  arterial-(plus curbs-ide parking space)  with appreci-
able traffic activity.  Beyond Central  Avenue to the east are various
shops and vacant lots, followed  further beyond by several blocks of resi-
dential dwellings (Figure A-12d).  South of the monitor is  the county
parking lot, and further beyond, a furniture salvage store  and horse
stables.  To the west is another county building, followed  further beyond
by an additional county parking  area, and then by horse stables and several
blocks of residential dwellings.. Immediately north of the  monitor site is
a "self-help" rehabilitation facility,  a warehouse, and a two lane narrow
roadway.  Further beyond are several blocks of residential  dwellings, and
various shops and commercial buildings  bordering Central  Avenue.
     The most significant local  source  of suspended particulates is
apparently fugitive  dust.  Heavy dust layers were observed  on surfaces of
buildings, sidewalks, streets, and motor vehicles throughout the area.
Dust is suspended by traffic activity on numerous dirt, gravel and dirt,
and asphalt and dirt roads in the immediate residential vicinity.
Dust also, originates from other activities occurring on'numerous
unpaved or nonvegetated soil areas.  Many residential yards consist of
undeveloped areas with fine soil dust cover.  Horses walking in their
enclosure nearby were observed to produce puffs of dust clouds in their
footsteps.  Vacant lots in the area are subject to pedestrian traffic
and are characterized by loose soil surfaces.  The dust is  easily suspended
by wind, and is deposited throughout the neighborhood.  Air movement from
vehicles traveling on Central Avenue (which is paved) was observed to
produce sliding films of dust on the adjacent sidewalk.
                                    A-43

-------
     Other than fugitive dust sources, the next most significant local
origin of suspended particulates at the monitor site is probably motor
vehicles.  Heavy traffic volume on Central Avenue and frequent activity
in the county parking lots (approximately 160 vehicle occupancy) result in
substantial exhaust emissions which may impact monitor measurements
significantly.  The larger vents on the county building rooftop emit ex-
haust air from a refrigeration cooling system driven by electric power.
Emissions are negligible from this unit.  Other smaller vents exhaust
the ambient  air in the building.  Insignificant quantities of particulates
(i.e., cigarette smoke) emit from the vents.   Flue gases from the boiler
emit through a large stack (Figure A-12e) about 30 feet from the monitor.
Particulate emissions in these flue gases are negligible owing to the
use of natural gas in the boiler operation.
     The status of the environment near the monitor has remained relatively
unchanged for the past few years.  The community is generally economically
depressed and unable to support new growth or even minimal upkeep and
maintenance.  Present improvement plans indicate this environment will
experience no significant changes in the near term.
Representativeness of Monitor
     Air quality measured at the monitor site appears to be representative
of both site specific and area-wide levels of suspended particulates.
The general area is characterized by a mix of commercial buildings and
residential dwellings.  There are numerous fugitive dust sources in the
general area, including the resuspendable deposits of this dust observed
throughout the community.  This characterization is entirely representative
of the site specific description.  Two principal factors may distort the
general representativeness of the air quality measured at the site.  First,
it is possible that air quality at the monitor site is representative of
motor vehicle emissions  (exhaust and  entrained  dust)  in  a  site  specific
manner  since  traffic  at  the  site is  appreciably greater  than  at most
exposure points  throughout  the  general  area.   However,  the  effect  of
emissions  from greater traffic  activity  near the monitor is probably minor
in  comparison to  the  area-wide  levels  of fugitive  dust experienced  there.
Second,  the  elevation  of the monitor  is  inappropriate  to  represent  typical
ground  level  exposures.

                                    A-44

-------
3.2.12  Guadalupe
     The plot description of Figure A-13a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the Hi-Vol at
the Guadalupe monitor site.   The Hi-Vol is located on a vacant lot in a
residential block in Guadalupe (Figure A-13b).  The monitor is mounted on
a conventional stand five feet above ground level, and has unobstructed
vertical clearance in all directions.  The site Hi-Vol monitor is protected
by a fenced enclosure, and there is evidence of only very minimal soil
disturbance within the confine.
     The environment immediately 5.'''rounding the monitor is entirely
residential.  To the north and sout.'i are several blocks of residential
dwellings.  Beyond the two neighboring dwellings to the west is an open
field used as a park and playground area (Figure A-13d).  At the end of
the block to the east, commercial highways flank each side  of  56th
Street (the main road through Guadalupe).
     The only apparent significant local souce of suspended particulates
consists of fugitive dust.  The suspension of this dust is related to
vehicle activity and activities which disturb the ground surface sufficiently
to permit suspension of the soil particles by wind.  A substantial portion
of the activity in the immediate vicinity of the monitor occurs on soil
surfaces.  The  area  is generally economically depressed, and  residence
yards are unkept.  Most residence yards are bare ground without
vegetation.  Driveways are unpaved, and loose soil dust overflows onto the
paved roads (Figure A-13c).   The soil on the dirt playground 300 feet west
of the site is periodically disturbed by group recreational activities.
The neighboring yard adjacent to the monitor has been trampled to a fine
power dust by the action of a horse confined to limited quarters.  These
factors all contribute to the suspension of dust at the monitor site.
     Local sources other than fugitive dust probably exert negligible
effects on air quality at the monitor.  Emissions from home wood stoves may
contribute to particulate levels in the winter season, however, these
stoves are used in only a few homes near the site.  Commercial  activities
on 56th Street are generally limited to operations of shops, and many of
these are vacated and boarded up.
                                    A-45

-------
LEGEND:
        Location From Which Photographs Were Taken (e.g.,  Fig.  -c)
        Soil Surface
        Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                           &.
                                       *****
                                       ****»
                          n
D
                         (a)
      Figure  A-13.   Guadalupe  Site.
                      A-46

-------
              »,.-.
                       -
Figure A-13 (Continued).  Guadalupe  Site
                  A-47

-------
     The status of the environment near the monitor has remained relatively
unchanged for the past few years.   The economic depression characteristic
of this community prevents improvements and general upkeep.   Present plans
for the neighborhood do not include significant developments in the near
term.
Representativeness of Monitors
     Based on the review of apparent sources in the vicinity of the monitor
site it appears that air quality at the site is representative of both site
specific and area-wide levels of suspended particulates.   The general
area surrounding the site is a hotspot for fugitive dust  source activity,
and the monitor is centered in this activity.   There are  no  conspicuous
sources immediately neighboring the monitor which  would be causing air
quality there to depart from typical area-wide exposure levels.
A.13    Chandler
Site Specification Environment

     The plot description of Figure A-14a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the Hi-Vol  at
the Chandler monitor site.  The Hi-Vol is located on the rooftop of the
Chandler City Police Department building, about 21 feet above ground level.
The monitor is mounted in a conventional housing about 1-1/2 feet above the
flat tarpaper roof, and has unobstructed vertical  clearance in all directions.
     The environment immediately surrounding the monitor is  comprised of
parking lots, city buildings, and vacant fields.  Immediately south of
the police building is a parking area.  Bordering this parking area is
Commonwealth Street and further beyond are residential units (Figure A-14d).
To the immediate east there is a limited parking area bordered beyond by
Delaware Street.   Across Delaware Street are several acres of open field,
and numerous apartments (Figure A-14e) and agricultural fields.  Grassed
areas and other municipal buildings characterize the landscape immediately
west and north of the policy building.
     The most conspicuous local source of suspended particulates at the
monitor site is fugitive dust.  Open fields covered with soft soil dust
were observed directly east and south of the monitor site.  These fields
are subject to frequent vehicle traffic, as is evident from the tire tracks
shown in Figure A-14e.  The dust cover on these fields is easily suspended
                                    A-48

-------





\^N




LEGEND:
^Y Location From Which Photographs Were Taken (c.n.
.; »':W;:: ;: Soil Surface
@ Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
\ \ V- 4
\ V«\
\ parking v

X.
\ \ \
A \ >
, \ \ v
\\Y\V-








^
city hill



gr*M
mrtm
















<"lv'vvoo*ta< fu'nftca
Ch.nc«. 0 :-H^V1
^Jo /
,-,. ..n,.'--0
*^*" ^K o
?.°i'«' W V
- n^
?simJ-fln
© 0 (31
Ax^x-xx-xx

$
^,« vhr-^o!
\

^p:4.'

Lc> QO C^\
WBlklMIV V >^








r\

'•? .

a
7V

i «
•|\

"





'
                                                    w
'ihoppfng
 c«nt»r
                  Figure  A-14.   Chandler  Site.
                                A-49

-------
it '*'


         Figure A-14 (Continued).  Chandler Site
                               A-50

-------
by air movement.   The agricultural fields,located further east, are a
seasonal source of fugitive dust.  During the day of the site survey,
these fields were being tilled.  Dust clouds were constantly observable
behind the tractor plow.  Signs of deposition of fugitive dust sources
were apparent on the rooftop of the police building, and in the dust
soaked walls of the course white stucco exterior of the municipal buildings.
     Local sources other than fugitive dust probably exert negligible
effects on air quality at the monitor.  Numerous vents on the rooftop of
the police building exhaust ventilation and boiler flue gases.  The
boilers are fired with natural gas and emit negligible quantities of
particulates.  Gases exiting the ventilation vents consist of ambient
air inside the building and contain only minor emissions of particulates
(i.e., cigarette smoke).  None of the vents are closer than 15 feet from
the monitor (see Figure A-14c).
     Substantial development activities have been occurring in the
immediate area during the period of air sampling (3 years).  Most of
this activity concerns landscaping operations conducted on the municipal
grounds.  These activities were probably responsible for significant
dust emissions.  Additional fugitive dust sources and dust emissions
may result from future landscaping anticipated along the railroad tracks.
A grassed park area is eventually planned, which in the far term, would
contribute to reductions in dust sources near the monitor site.
Representativeness of Monitor
     Based on the review of apparent sources in the vicinity of the monitor
site, it appears that air quality at the site may be representative of site
specific and area-wide levels of suspended particulates.  The area east of
the monitor site is an expansive potential fugitive dust source, and air
quality at the monitor is subject to emissions from these sources, particularly
during southeasterly winds (a common occurrence).  However, the general area
around the monitor is characterized by a mixture of residential, commercial,
and agricultural property.  The mix at the monitor site reflects the overall
area-wide description, and may, under most meteorological conditions, exhibit
air quality representative of the area wide pattern.  As development continues
to take place in Chandler, and the community becomes more homogenious with
fewer fugitive dust sources, it is clear that representativeness of the present
monitor site will become more definitive.
                                   A-51

-------
A.14    Mesa
Site Specific Environment
     The plot description of Figure A-15a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the immediate vicinity of the Hi-vol  at the
Mesa monitor site.  The Hi-vol is located within an enclosure containing a
maintenance shack and a water tower (Figure A-15b)  at the southwest corner of
Center Street and 3rd Place.  The monitor is mounted on a conventional stand
approximately 2 feet above the soil ground surface  in the enclosure.  The
monitor has adequate verticle clearance with objects to the north, east,
and west, but is somewhat sheltered by the maintenance shack from prevailing
southerly breezes.
     The environment immediately surrounding the monitor is a mixture of
residential dwellings, commercial operations, parking lots, and a public
park.  To the north accross 3rd Place is an unpaved parking lot and a
recycle collection center.  South of the monitor is a small house and
Rendezvous Park.  East of the site, beyond the water tower, there is a
park picnic area and a park service and maintenance area.  West, accross
Center Street, are various shops and residential dwellings.
     The most significant apparent local source of  suspended particulates
is fugitive dust.  Soil dust is suspended from vehicle activity in the unpaved
parking lot accross the street and on the unpaved service vehicle driveway
east of the monitor.  Vehicles are also parked on the dirt parkway adjacent
to the monitor, and on occasion, inside the water tower enclosure.  The
vehicle activity raises dust clouds sufficiently to  permit suspension of
soil particles by air movement.
     Discussions with city employees working at the park revealed that
vehicle activity in the park service area near the  monitor is sporadic,
and depends on various construction and maintenance requirements at the
park.  The maintenance shack inside the water tower enclosure is used
periodically for various assorted tasks, particularly wood-work activity.
The.re are no immediate plans which would alter the  current landscape and
activities influencing local source emissions.
                                    A-52

-------
LEGEND:
        Location From Which Photographs  Were Taken (e.q., Fia.  -C,
        Soil  Surface
        Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                        • -- —  ~ .yHpm.n
                                              .
                                         i
                 L  .*Arl
                                   '
                             (a)



              Figure  A-15.   Mesa Site,
                             A-53

-------
Representativeness of the Monitor
     Air quality measured at the monitor appears to be representative in
a site specific manner, but not representative of the general area.  The
general area is characterized by residential development, including grassed
residential yards, paved roads and driveways, and few sources of fugitive
dust.  By contrast the monitor is exposed to dust loadings created by
vehicle activity on soil surfaces of the adjacent parkway, the parking
lot accross the street, and the park service area nearby.  In addition,
the Hi-vol is positioned over a soil surface which is subject to sub-
stantial human traffic and vehicle parking.  This ground source was
observed to be composed of a fine soil dust cover which was susceptible
to suspension by air movement.  The significance of the various sources
surrounding the monitor is unclear.  Additional analysis of the local
sources would be necessary to assess  the potential utility of the  air quality
data obtained there.

A. 15  Arizona State

     The plot description of Figure A-16a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the vicinity of the Hi-vol  at the Arizona
State Monitor site.  The Hi-vol  is  located on the roof of the State Health
Laboratory, about 15 feet above ground level.  The monitor is mounted in a
conventional  housing about 1  1/2 feet above the flat tarpaper roof, and has
unobstructed vertical clearance in  all directions.

     The area immediately surrounding the monitor site is characterized by
a mix of parking lots, access streets, grassed yards and state buildings,
and nearby residences.  To the North of the monitor site (Figure A-16f)  i.s
the employee parking lot, and beyond the lot (across Monroe St.) is a
cleared area of exposed soil  bordering the adjacent residential  community.
The site is surrounded in the remaining directions by multi-level  State
buildings and the associated  grounds and employee parking lots.

     Significant fugitive dust sources apparent in the immediate area con-
sist of entrained dust from vehicle activity, and dust emissions from con-
struction activities South of the monitor site (and from other locations
where new construction has been prevalent in the Capitol  area in recent
                                   A-54

-------
                  tO
 I
tn
en
t-4
o
                                                                  LEGEND:
                                                                            Location From Which Photographs  Were  Taken (e.g., F1n.  -c)

                                                                                 Surface

                                                                            Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                                            Monro« St.
                         &
                                                                        &   I
                                                                                        parking


                                                                                        /'  /  //
•tatc

offlca

budding
                                                                                                                                                          y/t
                                                         Wa»hington Si
                                                   C?
                                                                                                   (a)!
                                                                                                                                                                /:  / / / /yy ,.ly.'./
                                                                                                                                                                    parking
                                                                                                                                                          _y

-------


Figure A-16 (Continued).  Arizona State Site
                     A-56

-------
months).  Two sources other than fugitive dust may exert significant in-
fluence on TSP levels measured at the monitor.  These sources are motor
vehicle exhaust from heavy traffic activity in the area, and particulate
emissions from the nearby feed grain factory Northwest of the monitor site.
The numerous roof vents atop the health laboratory emit negligible amounts
of particulate matter.   The boiler is gas fired and the hooded fumes
from the chemical  lab are primarily gaseous emissions.

     Various construction activities have been occurring in the capitol
area over the past few years.   New buildings have been erected, numerous
parking lots have been paved,  and extensive landscaping has been conducted
throughout the area.   These activities were probably responsible for sig-
nificant dust emissions.   Additional  development of the Capitol Area may
contribute to high levels of TSP at the monitor in the future, however,
in the far term, such developments will contribute to significant reductions
in dust sources near the  monitor site.

Representativeness of Monitor
     Based on the review  of apparent sources in the vicinity of the monitor
site, air quality at the  site  is probably fairly representative of site
specific and area-wide levels  of suspended particulates.  The general local
area consists primarily of state buildings, commercial businesses, and
private residences;  and the mix of property at the site also reflects
this description.   Heavy  traffic activity is typical of the general area
as.well as the vicinity immediately surrounding the site.   Construction
activity is typical  throughout the area.  As development continues in the
area, eliminating various fugitive dust sources (including the construction
activities themselves), TSP levels will become more homogeneous and air
quality measured at the monitor site more representative of the general
local area.

A.16  Central Phoenix
     The plot description of Figure A-17a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources  in the vicinity of the Hi-vol  at the Central
Phoenix site.  The Hi-vol is located on the rooftop of the Maricopa County
Health Services building  about 22 feet above ground level.   The monitor is

                                   A-57

-------
cn
00
             to
              c

              n>

              33 .
              O

              3

              X

              GO



              CD
                                                          LEGEND:
L_.J
                                                                    Location From Which Photographs Were Taken (e.g., F1g.  -c)

                                                                   >:So1l Surface

                                                                    Elevation (e.g., 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                                                        Roo*»v«lt St. (2 l*n*> & unpavad itiouldar)
                                                                                 county
                                                                                 health
                                                                                                      ,-.


                                                                                                   ^r
                                                                                                        buratu of
                                                                                                       air pollution
                                                                                                       control-    <
                                                                                                       parMnp
                                                                                                                                              A/
                                                                                                                                             1
                                                                                            (a)

-------
Figure A-17 (Continued).  Central  Phoenix Site,
                      A-59

-------
mounted in a conventional  housing (Figure A-17b)  about 1  1/2 feet above
the flat tarpaper roof, and has relatively unobstructed vertical  clearance
in all directions.

     The area in the vicinity of the monitor site is generally residential.
A few commercial enterprises are scattered along  the major road frontages,
and there are numerous apartment dwellings in the area.  North of the site
is the Health Services employee parking lot, Roosevelt Street, and sub-
stantial areas of cleared  earth (see Figure A-17d).   East of the site is
Edison Park, a grassed and landscaped recreational  area.   To the South are
two-level apartment complexes and a paved parking lot.   East of the site
are several blocks  of residential housing.

     The most significant apparent sources of suspended particulate matter
in the local area consist of entrained dust from  motor vehicle activity,
and suspension of dust from disturbance of cleared  vacant lands in the area.
Roosevelt Street, which experiences significant volumes of traffic, is
unpaved at the shoulders and susceptible to accumulation of substantial
dust loadings.  Other streets in the area are also  uncurbed, as are many
driveways and parking areas.

     Except for motor vehicle exhaust, local sources other than fugitive
dust probably exert negligible effects on TSP levels at the monitor.
Numerous vents on the rooftop of the County building exhaust ventilation
and boiler flue gases.  The boilers are fired with  natural  gas and emit
negligible quantities of particulates, while gases  emitting from ventilation
vents contain only  minor levels of particulates.

     Construction activities are potentially feasible in this area over
the long term.  Substantial vacant property is available for development,
and construction on these  properties over the next  several  years  would
exert significant effects  on dust levels measured at the Hi-vol.   Improve-
ments which would occur to nearby streets and vacant areas  would  ultimately
be expected to result in significant reductions in  TSP levels at the site.

Representativeness  of Monitor
     Because the sources immediately surrounding  the site are typical  of
those in the general local area, TSP levels measured at the monitor are
                                   A-60

-------
considered to be representative of the general  area.   The site experiences
exhaust emissions from numerous parking lots in the area, but these emissions
are probably minor relative to the fugitive dust sources which are typical
throughout the area.   Development in the area,  and particularly near the
site, could affect the representativeness of air quality measured there,
but there are no immediate plans for construction in the nearby areas.

A. 17  Downtown Phoenix
     The plot description of Figure A-18a shows the orientation of structures,
objects, and emission sources in the vicinity of the Hi-Vol  at the Downtown
Phoenix Site.  The Hi-Vol is located on the rooftop of a private corporation
(Figure A-18d) about 22 feet above ground level.  The monitor is mounted
in a conventional housing about 1 1/2 feet above the flat tarpaper roof,
and has unobstructed clearance in all directions.

     The area immediately surrounding the site is commercial.  Directly
South of the site is the corporation parking lot (Figure A-18b), and
further beyond is Lincoln Road (4 lanes plus curb parking)  and an electric
power substation.  To the east of the site is 3rd Avenue and a portion  of
the power substation (Figure A-18e).  West of the monitor are additional
parking areas and a warehouse.  North of the monitor are substantial un-
paved areas subject to frequent vehicle traffic.  Trucks move over fine
powder-dirt surfaces on the premises of the Kunkle Trucking  Company grounds,
generating visible dust clouds throughout the day.   Other traffic is
responsible for emissions of dust off an unpaved accessway  running West of
the site adjacent to the railroad tracks.  Grounds north of  the Trucking
Company around the train station (Figure A-18f) are exposed  earth, and  are
subject to occasional foot and motor vehicle traffic.

     The most significant apparent sources of suspended particulate matter
in the .local  area are probably related to truck traffic on  unpaved truck
parking areas at the nearby Kunkle Trucking Company.   Other  significant
sources would consist of the unpaved access road adjacent to the railroad,
and entrained dust from heavy street surface loadings in the nearby area.

     Local  sources other than fugitive dust probably exert only minor
influence on TSP levels measured at the monitor.  Numerous vents on the

                                   A-61

-------
3>


ro
 i

CO
o
3

-a
3-
o
fD
3

X

oo
_<*
r*
ns
                                                                                                  LEGEND:
                                                                                                            Location  From Which Photographs Here Taken (e.g..  Fig.  -c)

                                                                                                            Soil  Surface

                                                                                                            Elevation (e.g.. 12 Feet Above Ground Level)
                                       \\\ \\ v v  \ \ \ \ \  X\\ \. >v\\\\  v\ \  \ \ \ \ \ '
                                        V\\X\tXJ>>^-  >   X^Xyt\X\\.»N-V^\X\X
                                                                                                                            V* \ \  xv
                                                                                      1
                                             warehouse
                                                                                                             r	
                                                                                              r f f~f~ f~/~
                                                                                                                    s /
                                                                 Lincoln Rd.
\ \
__l __
1 1 1
i r i p. ' i i
.: 1 U .,_ , _
4 -t- (--(-•-• 1-1
' i I , - , . " T M ' ' ^- -
' 1 i , 1 . j , ! ! '
-1 , , L , | ( , ,.| • /.. i 4- ' .--










-^1 — M f— '

T'l , i
r-H 	 -{ 	 1 	 j—
. . 1 . .



                                                                               (a)   ,

-------
Figure A-18 (Continued).   Downtown  Phoenix  Site,
                       A-63

-------
rooftop of the building exhaust ventilation and boiler flue  gases.   However,
the boilers are fired with natural  gas and emit negligible amounts  of
particulate matter.   The most significant conventional source affecting
TSP levels is motor vehicle exhaust from traffic activity in the parking
lots and nearby streets.

     No immediate improvements are  planned in the vicinity of the monitor
site.   Eventual road improvements and paving of truck parking lots  are
imminent over the long term, and would significantly affect  dust levels
measured at the Hi-Vol, particularly during Northerly breezes.

Representativeness of Monitor
     Substantial fugitive dust sources immediately north of  the Hi-Vol
site tend to limit the representativeness of air quality measured there
to site specific values.  While the general area contains numerous  fugitive
dust sources comparable to those directly adjacent to the monitor site,
the close proximity of the sources  to the Downtown Hi-Vol site probably
causes TSP levels there to be significantly higher than typical, or
representative levels in the general area.  TSP levels at the site  are
probably especially site specific during Northerly breezes,  but dust
carryout and local deposition from  the nearby fugitive sources may  contribute
to site specific impact around the  monitor for other prevailing wind
directions as well.   Improvements in nearby roadways and parking lots
would probably alter the representativeness of TSP levels at the monitor,
however such changes are not planned in the near term.
                                   A-64

-------
                APPENDIX B



HISTOGRAMS OF HI-VOL FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

-------
 to
 c.c
44.0
4».o
4».o
46.0
43.0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41.0
40.0
11.0
II. 0
ir.o
16.0
31.0
14.0
JI.O
12.0
11.9
1C.O
21.0
21.0
21. C
26.0
21.0
24. C
21.0
22.0
21.3
20.0
14.0
II. 0
17.0
16.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
II. 0
1C.}
4.0
i.O
1.0
4.0
J.O
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2>.U 73.0 121.0 I7>.0 225.0 275.0 323.0 175.0 42>.0 473.0 32>.0 57*. 0 623.0 673.0 72».0 775.0 023.0
•
• i

B
^
»
s
^
(
f
•
B
^
t
t
»

B
B
t
»
B
a
^
^
•
a
^ ;


•
,
•


*
• — — — '
. Ill
111
111
• III
111
. Ill 	
. Ill 	 III
— iimim
• 	 HI 111 11 Illl
. 111111111111111
111111111111111
.-f- IlllHUllllUl 	 	 	
.IU— -lUlllUmmim 111 111

50. 0
49.0
4S.o
«r.o
46.0
«>.o
««.o
«1.0
»2. a
41.0
»J.O
1*.0
18.0
ir.o
16.0
15.0
)4.0
31.0
12.0
JI.O
10.0
24.0
2«.a
ir.o
26.0
2).j
2«.0
11. J
22.0
21.0
20.0
14.0
IS.O
ir.o
10.0
15.0
l».0
11.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
1.0
7.0
4.
».
4.
1.
2.
1.
           .0  M.O 1*1.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 J5O.O 400.0 4JO.O >OO.O 5»O.O 404.0 450.» 790.0 7SO.O 100.0 «50.»
            2».0  »».0 I2».0 17J.O 221.0 213.0 >2».0 371.0 42».t_4/>.0 M3.0 1T1.0 42J.O 4H.O 121.0 773.0 *2>.0
                                      OlSnilUTlCN Or 14-HOU* SUSPeOOlO CM7ICIXATC
                            CWT«»l  fHOENU  SI7E   IUG/H3I   JtNUIKT 1473 TMHOUCH D£Ct«8£«  197$

                                                                                                         <    194.000000
           *.O  M.O 100.0 1SO.O 210.0 2!0.0 300.0 310.0 400.0 450.0 300.0 550.0 403.0 430.0 700.0 750.0 800.0  (30.0
             23.0  73.0 123.0 113.0  223.0  273.0 123.0 173.0 423.0 473.0 323.0 373.a 623.0 673.3 723.0 773.1 823.0












/*!
w
3
r~~
n
>

«t-
o

L.
(V

c
3





















S«.0 6
4*. 3 .
41.0 .
47.0 .
44.) .
43.0 •
44.0 .
43.0 .
42.) .
41.) .
40.0 •
19.0 •
18.) .
11.0 .
16. 0 .
13.0 •
16.) .
11.) .
12.0 .
11.0 .
10.1 »
24.) .
28.) .
27.0 .
24.) .
23.) •
24.0 .
21.0 .
22.) .
21.0 .
20.) »
19.0 .
14.0 .
17.1 .
16.0 .
13.0 •
14.) .
11.) .
12.) .
II. 0 .
to. a •
«. i .
1.0 .
7.0 .
4.1 .
5 i •

1.0 .
2 0
1.1 .-—



















_
III
111
111
111
	 Ill
III 111 I
III 	 111 	 .
minium —
minimum
minimum
uiumiiiiui
minuuum
minimum
mumuuiii
minimum
minimum
mini m urn
minimum
minimum
minimum
linn u uiiui
IIIIIIIUUUII
, imimuiuu .
— minimum — - •
mini n imnmiu —
lllll llll II II lllllltlll | — — " — "
liimim immiii iimiiui
— iiimiii mmuuiimiimi .
IlllllUllllltllUUItllUlllllll--— - — -•
mi limm m i m ui i mil u mm ill — - —
3).)
44.0
41.0
47.)
46.0
43.0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41.0
4).0
34.)
31.0
37.0
16.)
13.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
24.0
28.)
27.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
21.)
22.0
21.0
21.0
14.0
la.)
17.0
16.)
13.)
14.0
11.0
12.)
II. 0
13.0
9.0
.0

.0
.3
.0
• J
.0
          -J.O  30.0  HI..I  li.l.J ili.l iSJ.J  JJO.J 150.)  400.U 4VJ.'j" 303.0 33).0  400.9 630.0 700.0 130.) 3)0.) 83).
             23.0  li.O  US.)  1/5.0  225.0  275.0 123.0 1J5.0 425.0  \J5.0  3*3.0 373.0 623.0  673.0  723.) 773.0 823.0
                                                                         B-l

-------










(Jl

CP
3
•^*
(v
>

«4-
o

s-
01
i
§
























MAX • 2
'0.0 90.0 104. O 150.0 2JO.O 250.0 100.0 9>0.0 400.0 450. O 540.0 590.4 40O.O 490.0 /OO.O 75O.O 900.0 >50
29.0 79.0 U5.0 179.0 225.0 275.0 325.0 375.0 425.0 475.0 525.11 975.0 429.0 479.0 725.0 775.0 925.0
10.0
41.0
41.0
47.0
44. C
45.0
44.0
41.0
47.0
41.0
40.0
11.0
19.0
17.0
16 .0
19.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
13. C
21.0
29.3
27. C
24.0
29.0
24. a
21.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
11.)
U.O
17. C
14.0
11.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
.0
.0
.c
.0
.J
.0
.0
.0
.c


































...
Ill
III
— II 1111111
minium
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 —
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiui—
iimmiiiimiu
iiiiiiiuumiiu
	 nun illinium
iiiiimmunimum-














































.....
— in mum m 11 mm mum
I.OJJ004
0
90.0
9.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
41.0
4j. a
19.0
39.0
37.0
34.0
39.0
34.0
33.0
32.0
31.0
10.0
29.0
29.0
27.0
26.0
2J.O
2..0
21.4
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
19.0
17.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
11*0
14.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.a
.0
-1.0  5J.O IM.t  ItO.O 200.0 250.0 100.0 150.0 404.0 450.0 50O.8 >50.0 400.0 410.0 700.0 l>0.0 (00.0  950.*
   2>.0  r>.0 125.0  IM.O 225.0 2r>.0 125.0 175.0 4^5.0^75.0 525.0 5T5.0 425.0 475.0 125.0 MJ.O «25.O
                                               w/n
                   FIEQUtKCT DISIRIIUIIOH OF I4-HOUI SUSPENDED PAHIICUIATE
                   MIZOKA  STATE SITE   (UG/M3)   JUKE 1974 THROUGH  DECCMBEI  1974
                                                                                              MM  •   519.000000
-0.0  93.0  104.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 100.0 15JO.O 550.d 400.0 450.0  100.0 750.0 100.0  150.0
    25.0   75.0 U9.0 175.0  225.0 275.0 125.0 375.0 42>.0 475.0 »2>. 13.0
21.0
b_ 29.0
o *'•'
16.0
J. 29.0

_Q *'•»
E22 .0
_ 21.0
^ 2C.O
*- 11.0
19.0
17.0
14.0
19.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
II. 0
10.0
1.0
9.0
7.0
4.0
9.0
4.0
1.0
t m9
i.e























'


















—
in
in
m
in
— in
— iiiiiiiiiiuuiiii 	 — — —
90.0
49.0
49.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41.0
40.0
39.0
19.0
37.0
36.0
33.0
34.0
31.0
12.4
11.0
30.0
29.0
2>.0
27.0
26.0
2>.0
2..0
21.4
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
19.0
17.0
16.0
19.0
14. O
U.O
12.0
II. 0
14.0
1.0
9.0
7.0
4.0
9.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
-i.9  5J.O IJ./.0 UO.O 200.0 250.0 100.0 350.0 4*1.0 454.0 59O.U  »«.0 440.<1
   2».»  7».0 125.0 179.0 229.0 279.0 125.0 475.0 449.0.47*.a  M».« 379.0 425.0 479.* 725.4 715.4 923.0
                                                     •v
                                                             B-2

-------
                 MCOUENCY OHTH6UUOH Of 24-MOU« SUirENUCO MlflCULtft
                 UfNMtr SITf  IUC/HII   JW.T 1974 7H»UUWI OKfltlH  1475

                                                                                             MtR  •   262.JCOGOO
-0.«  10.0 100.0  110.0  200.0 210.0 100.0 110.0 400.0 410.0 100.0 110.0 600.0 610.0  700.0 710.0 (00.ii I5J.O
   11.j  71.0 111.0  171.0 141.0 211.0 141.0 371.0 441.0 471.0 141.O 171.0 621.0 671.0  721.0  771.0 129.0
10.
44.
4*1
4«I
41.
44. e
4i. e
»2.C
11.0

S1.C
._ JS'O
3 ,I:S
3 11.9

"•8 Ulc
> 12.0
11.1
H- 1C.O
O 2S.C
24,9
L. 21. C
OJ 16.0
_Q !*•'
C 14. C
E 11.0
^ 12.C
*• 11. C
2-1.0
14.0
14.1
17. C
U.O
If .0
I4.C
11.0
12. C
II. C
IC.C
4.0
9.0
7.0
6.C
1.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0


•















'











_.
Ill
— Ill
mm
mm
mm—
miiiiii
— mmiii
iiiimimi
illinium
1I1I11UIU1
— iiuuuim
iiiimiiiiini
iiimiiiiiim
iiiuuuuim — - —
mi uiiuumiuiii — —
IJ.O
49.0
47.0
46.0
41.0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41.3
40.4
J4.0
lt.lt
17.0
J6.0
11. U
14.0
11. 0
14.0
11.0
JJ.J
.9.0
4S.O
47.0
46.0
21.0
44.0
43.0
44.0
41.0
20.0
19.0
U.O
17.0
16.0
11. 0
14.0
11.0
14.0
II. 0
10.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-4.1  W.I iOO.O 150.0 200.0 210.0 JOO.O 110.0 400.0 410.0 100.0 tlO.O 400.0 610.11 IUO.O 710.0 100.0 (10.0
   11.i)  71.0 121.il 171.0 221.0 271.0  121.0 173.0 VA.O 47J.O 141.0 111.0 411.0 471.0 721.0 171.0  (21.0
                                            yg/nr
                            eimiiuf ION or 24-HOu*  unftmxo
                  MSr moun siif    iuc/iu>     JAMMM i«n IMIOUCM KM 1474
0*>0  SO.O IOO.O 150.0 200*0 290.0 SOO.O 150.0 400. U **U
  29*0  V9.0 12ft. 0  179.0  229.0 275.0 J2S.O 379*0 *«"S.O
                                                        O SOU*0 9*0.0 *(IO.O *SO*U 70U.O fftO.O MUO.O «tO.O
                                                        7k.O 929.0 579. 0 *J5.0 *7>.0 725.0 775.0
44. «
40.0
41.0
46.0
43.0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41.0
43.0
14.0
19.0
17.0
14.C
to >»•<>
4) 14.0
—j 11.0
f»^ 12.0
2 ij'J
^ 29.0
„ 2>.0
« 1».0
O 24.0
21.0
•" 24.0
W 21.0
A 22.0
E ti.o
• ri 20.0
Z 19.0
II. 0
17.0
14.0
II. 0
14.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
IJ.O
9.0
(.0
7.0
6.0
1.0
4.0
J.O
2.0
"»
	 	


















'











.






Ill
III
— m
— mm
m mm
m mm
—m — mm —
iiimiimuu — m —
m — iiiu mini mi 11111111111111—
— — iiiiiimiuimiii mmniuiiiiimi— —
1.0 40. 0 IOJ.O l>0.0 2JJ.J < >w.O 3JU.O llu.O 4tM.t) 4»4.0 100.0 1»0.0 600.0 61J.O IOO.O 110.0 600.0 110.
_21;0 	 71.0 121.0 IM.O 22>.0 211.0 )4>.0 lIl.O 4O.U 47>.d 121.11 171.0 621.0 47>.0 741. J 771.0 121.0
49.0
46.0
47.0
46.0
41.0
44.0
43.0
42.0
41.0
4.1.0
31.0
11.0
17.0
36. O
31.0
14.0
33.0
32.0
11. U
1^.0
49.0
21.0
27.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
2J.O
22. U
21.0
2J.O
IV.O
19.0
17.0
16.0
11.0
14.0
11.0
14.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
t.o
7.0
6.0
1. J
4.0
3.J
2.0
1.0
0

                                                        B-3

-------
                  Mtautict oisnituTiON or it-noun io»(M>to r»HU>t*T(
                  •MTN KOfHl* 1ITI  IUGSN1I  JiNUtlV l»73 TM40UCM OfCfMC*. SITS













«rt
O)
3
^™
to
3*

^_
o

y_
O)

p-
£






















-«.» la.* loo. a na.o MO
14. 1 71.0 129.0 IT5.0
10.0
4«.0
47.3
4 .0
4 .0
4 .0
4 .3
4 .1
4 .3
4 .3
14. 1
31.3
37.3
36.0
15.3
14.)
31.0
32.0
11.3
19.3
21.0
21.0
17.3
It.}
25.3
24.3
li.l
17.0
11.0
13.0
14.
U.
IT.
14.
11.
14.
13.3
12.0
11.3
11.1
4.0
• •3
7.)
.3
.3
.0
.0
.1















...
Ill
111
111
111
111
iii-
iuiu
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm— ,
Illl 11 111 	
illinium
minium
mm mm —
minimum
imtimimu
immm mi
, mm mi mi
— 11 mm i u
mmm m 11
lUiminu 11
urn mm n
inn mm u
urn m u ;i
urn uni
---mil mi: .
mum in u i.
•tut « «r*.oooo33
.0 253.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 100.0 550.0 600. J 4V). 3 i'JO.ii fi.t. 3 rt.l". } 351.3
225.0 21*. 0 125.0 J79.0 425. u 475.0 525.0 5/5.0 625.0 475.0 725, rt ! i * .it or^.O








































--- n
111 . '
111 	
mill
.11111 j
: • U 1 1 	
mm m
mum um mum — ' m —

10.0
48..)
47.0
46 .U
49.0
4 .0
4 .3
4 .0
4 .0
4 .0
34.0
11.0
37.)
36. 0
15.3
34. J
31.0
32.)
31.0
11.0
29.3
li.Q
2T.O
26.0
25.0
24.)
21.0
22.0
11.)
20.0
14.)
18.0
IT.O
16.)
15.0
14.0
11.)
12.3
11.0
10.0
.a
.3
.3
.a
.0
.0
.0
.0

-0.0  50.3 1JJ.C 15J.3
   25.3  7i.3 l*->.3 173.J
             O.C 3CO.O 150.0 400.0 453.3 530.0 153.0 603.0 650.0 7)3.3 753.3 800.0
                    315.0 HI.3 4U.O 471.0 121.0 175.0 425.0 4T1.3 125.0

                                .3
riEoucno aisiMtiiTioii of 24-t.oun
»0.tCOmo«.l/>A«»OISS SUE  lUC/Kli
                                                             F»«IICW.»TI
                                                       AMU MT4  fHHauCH  OCCCMi*  If75
                                                                                              H*I •  1083.00*
-ll.J  50.0 103. 0 110.0 100.0 250.0 100.0  350.0  400.0  450.0  500.0  553.0  600.0 410.0 700.0  750.0 (00.0  S53.U
   25.0  15.0 121.0 1T5.0 215.0 2M.O 325.0  >7>.0  415.0 475.0  51S.O  575.0  625.0  675.0  725.0  771.0 (25.0

















1/1

is
~^
*""T
•2
^
^
%-~
o

i»
0.0 «.;J.O ijj
25.3 19.0 119.3 175.0 225.0 175.0 111.0 171.0 411.0 411.0 *t'-.0 575.0 411.0 471.0 711.0 Til.) «15.0
10.0
44.0
4t.O
47.0
44.0
45.0
44.0
43.0
41.0
41.0
4J.3
34.0
U.O
37.3
16.0
35.0
14.0
13.0
32.0
11.0
13.0
24.3
K.O
17.0
26.0
25.0
K.)
21.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
14.0
K.O
17.0
14.3
11.0
14.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
4.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Q

       fu obiirnd vi I u* li not plotud.
                                                       B-4

-------
                 rnaumcT IIIUIMIIKM or M-HOVM WIMWIB >micu.tti
                 icomoM.1 tin  mo/mi   tuc4.tr it 14 THKOMH etciMU an
                                                                                         ••I •   tll.MMM
-».»  ia.a 100.0 iio.o 200.0 :io.c  KJO.O 110.0 400.0 410.0 soo.o iio.a too.o tio.a TOO.O ?M.o loo.a iu  a"
   Il.O  11.0 U1.0 171.0 221.0 2»1.J lil.o JJl.a 421.0 411.0 121.0  1/1.0 tli.O 414.0 721*0 7M.O121.0












VI
tt)

•3
>
tj_
O

i.
tt)
J^
e
z
















4«.0 .
41.0 .
47.0 .
44.0 •

44.0 •
41.0 •

42. a •
41. 1 .
43. J <
ji'.a 1
u. j .
16.) .
11. 3 •
It. 3 .
Jl.O .

12 .0 •
11. J .
10.3 •
24.3 .
2H. j ^
27.0 •
26. J •
21.3 •
24. J .
21.0 .
22.0 .
21.0 .
29. 1 »
ilia T.
17. J .
16. J .
11.1 •
14.0 .
11.0 .
Ilia I
10.1 •
*.o .
1.0 .
7.1 .
t.o .
l.J •
4.J .™
l.ll .III
2.0 .111






















•_
111
111
111
III
111
111
111
111
111
111 ' ' i
111
	 Ill-—
111111111
— -Illllllll
Illllllllllllll
1111111111:1111
Illllllllllllll
Illllllllllllll •
Illllllllllllll 	
Illllllllllllllllllll .
l.i) .III— -lllllllllllllllllllll— -—
-0.3 10
21.0
4t!a
41.0
47.1
4*. a
41. a
44. a
41.0
42.1
41.0
n'.3
11.0
17.0
14.0
11.0
14.3
11.0
12. a
11.0
13.0
29.0
21.0
21.0
26.0
21.0
24.0
21.0
22.0
21.0
2o. a
It. a
n. a
17.0
it. a
i 2
Il.O
12.0
11.0
13.0
9.0
V a

t.o
1 0

4.0
1.1
2.0
1.0
'islo';;?iljJ;7i*!i''jj»lJ0;i»J?0!jtM0i!«*so'S.*w>o io°-° »»••• »oo.o tio.o 700.0 ?io.o 100.0 «».o
IS. J IJa.J llj.a 221.0 2/1.0 141.4 171.0 42fjO 4)1. U 121.0 171.0 421.0 471.0 721.0 771.0 121.0
                   MtaufNCV OIITMIUTIO* Of 4V4IOUIJ \UtHHOlO MMICIAtTl
                   HIM SITI  (ue/Kil    feanuAU 1*74 IMOUM atumi* i«t*



    i.a  10.0 loa.o iso.o 200.0 210.0 100.0 iio.o 400.0 4io.o 130.0 uo.o 400.0 »«••'!"•;« l*0;«t»0;?.t»0'°
           71.0 121.0 171.0 241.0 271.0 141.0 J71.0 44».0 471.0 141.0 171.0 421.0 .71.0 1*1.0 771.0 121.0














Iff
0)
3
•*""
IO
>

O

.n

z















M.C

41.0
41. C
44. C
41 .C
44. C
4!.0
42. C
4I.C
4C.O
)4.C
.."•
1T.C
11. C
15.C
14.0
1 j.C
12. C
sc'.c
29.0
29.0
27. C
24.0
21. C
24. C
21.0
22. C
2I.C
21.0
HaC
11. C
u.e
U.C
11. C
14.0
U.C
12. C
it.:
ic.e
1.C
i.e
7.t
4.0
1.3
4.C
1.0
t.o
1.0























III
111
111 . .
Ill— -
111111
•—Illlll
Illllllll
Illllllll ..
Illllllll —
minium
minium
minium
illinium
mimum
minium •
iimiiiim —
iimiiiiiimi
— iiiiiiiiiium
iiniiiniiiiiim /
iiiiiiiiiiiinim —
iniiiiimiiiimm
• iiiiimiiiiiiiiimi-— i '
—•iiiimiMiiiiiiimiiii — — —
. 49.0
. 41.0
. 47.0
* 44.a
* 41. e
. 44.0

'. 4i!o
. 41.0
• 40.0
• Jf.M
. Jl.O
. Jl.O
. J6.0
• Jl.O
. J4.0
. iJ.O
. J2.0
. Jl.O
• JO.O
• 2S. 0
'. 4l'.0
. 4t.O

. 44.0
. 21.0
. *4.0
» 4o'.0
. 19.0
. 11.0
. 17.0
• 14.0
• Il.O
• 14.0
. IJ.O
. li.O
. ll.d
• 10.0
. 9. 0
. t.o
* 7.0
• t.o
• 1.0
. 4.0
• 1.0
• 4.0
* 1.0
   M.O  101.0 11C. 1 .00.0 410.0 100.0 110.0 4*1.0

21.1  71.0 Ub.J 175.0  441.0 271.0 141.0 Jll.0 '  '
                                             yg/m

                                                           SOU.U S»Q.O 400.0 *»3.0 10O.O ?»O.C 100.0 *M.

                                                        *IS.il S^5.d J7J.O 42S.O •Ift.O I4».tf 1T«*0 12S.O
                                                          B-5

-------
                          oismiuf UN or 24-*om wipenoco
                MMtTOM MUNII lift  IIM/NII   JUM 14)1 TltfOUCN f-IMUttV l»M



 .»  10.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 190.0 100.0 190.0 400.0 410.0 SOO.O 950.0 400.0 450.0  TOO.O 75O.O 100.0 150.0
  It.a  li.O 125.1)  175.0 225.0 2)1.0 125.0 175.0  425.0 415.0 >25.0 515.0 t25.0 475.0  125.0 775.0 125.0
50.4 •
4».
41.
47.
44.
45.
44.
4).
42.
41. 1
411.0
19. J
!».»
11.0
VI !».,)
OJ 15.0
3 14.0
f— Ji.J
IB 12.0
> Jl.O
IJ. J
If- 21. J
O 2t.l>
21.0
J_ 24.1)
u—
— -lllllllUlllllIllllllllI ~i- 	 	
linn iHiiuiiuiiiiiiuii— ill in — in —
1111 lUIIIIHlUlIU 11 11 lllllllll 	 111 	 11 Illlt 11 	
50.0
4».0
40.0
47.0
44.0
45.0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41.0
41.0
K.3
lt.0
17.0
14.0
35.0
14.0
11.0
32.0
11.0
10.0
29.0
21.0
27.0
24.0
25.0
24.0
21.0
22.0
21.0
2J.9
19.0
K.O
17.0
14.0
15.0
14.0
11.0
12. J
u. a
u.o
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-0.0 5.1.0 IOJ.J HJ.J /JJ.J .JJ.L JOJ.il HO.O 400.0 440.0 500.0 55J.O 600.0 450.0 700.0 150.0 tOO.O 150.0
25. C 15.0 125. J I/J.U 2i5. 0 .7>.0 J25.0 11>.C 4i5J 415.0 >2>.0 575.0 425.0 471.0 125.0 775.0 425.0
                                            pg/m
rutuenar
IT. JOMU'f lift
   of 24-iwu*
UG/mi     J
                                                           »uncut.*7i
                                                        l«75  IMuUCH OCCtDWI l»75
                                                                                           MM .   Ull. 00-
-a.a  50.0  loo. a no.o 200.0 250.0 209.0  no.o 400.0 450.0 >oa.o »>o.o 400.0 410.0 700.0 710.0 100.0 no.o
   25.0   75.0 US. 0 175. 0 225.0 275.0 125.0 175.0 425.0 475.0  125.0 575.0 425.0 475.0 72>.i)  775.0 125.0
















VI
01
15

o
f.
V
Jl


z


















40.0 » ,0.0
44.0
4t.O
47.0
44.0
45.0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41.0
40.0
14.0
11.0
17.0

11.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
U.O
24.0
21.0
21.0
2t.O
29.0
2>.0
21.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
14.0
11.0
11.0
U.O
IS.O
14.0
11.0
12.0.
U.O
u.o
4.0
1.0
7.C
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0




























^•*
III
III
III
111
111
111
	 Ill 	
	 lllllllll
—uumum
liiiiimiiiiu
I1U111I1I1 .111 	 —
. — iitiiiiiuiiiiim — in —
.0 •*— iiiiiiiiiuiii uiiiii — linn- in — _
44.0
44.0
47.0
44.0
41.0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41. J
40.0
17. (J
11.0
17.0
31.0
15.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
JJ.U
24. J
29.0
27. J
24.0
21.0
24.0
21.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
14.0
19.0
17.0
14.0
15.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
u.o
10.0
4.0

7. O
4.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
-J.4 >0.0 ljo.0 1/..J 200.0 2SO.O 100.0 150.0 4JJ.O «>d.o 90J.O 990.0 400.0 450.0 700.0 /10.0 IJJ.O (10 11
2i.O 71.0 I.J.J D>.0 229.0 271.0 121.0 J79.SI 4
-------
                                                                                             »*»  *   224.0900OO
  .*  M.<  loo.o 1*0.0 200. o 150.0 100.0 tta.a »oo.u 450.0 500.0 >>o.o 400.0 410.0  100.0 750.0 too.o 150.0
   1».0   TJ.O US.O 115.0 225.0 271.0 125.0 175.0 423.1) 475.0 WS.O 575.0 625.0 67>.0 725.0  775.0 125.0
. 50. • •
44.0 .
41. .
47. .
46. .
45. •
44. .
41. .
42.0 .
41.0 .
40.0 •
..,14.0 .
*t I'-O .
SJir.o .
•3 1ft .0 *
r-ji.c »

>3).0 .
12.0 .
»*- 11. C .
O>o.c •
24.0 .
J.J4.0 .
4)21.0 .
f!6.0 •
25.0 •
2i.O .
-rti.a .
xli.e .
11.0 .
20.0 •
14.0 .
11.0 .
11.0 .
14.0 .
15.0 •
14.0 .
11.0 .
12.0 .
U.O .
10.0 •
.0 .
.0 .
.0 .
.0 .
.0 •
.0 .
.0 .
.0 .
.0 .
-a.

50.0


























ill
ill —
mill
nun
linn
mm
mm
mm
mm —
mmiii
UlllllU
UllllIU
	 UlllllU
mm u m
mum m
ilium m —
mum mm
mum nun
uuiiii mm —
mm u u m mi —
iiiuiiuuiuimm —
imiuuuimmiiim
49.0

47^0
46.0
45.0
44.0
41. U
42.0
41.0
40.0
19.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
15. J
14.0
11.0
12.0
31. U
1J.J
29.0
2>.0
27.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
2..0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
19.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
U.O
11. 1)
12.0
11.0
10.0
4.0
t.O
7.0
4.0
5.9
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
(I jj.u UJ.J l-jj.o 239.0 250.0 109.0 J50.0 4UU.J 4JO.O JOO.O »0.0 400.0 650. (I 7UJ.U 7JO.O IOg.0 I5U.O
25. J (j.o lo.O |I5.0 224.0 215.0 >25. a 175.0 425.0 475.0 525.11 575.0 625.0 475.0 725.0 774. o I7s.n
          ouniturioH or
»M*OISI SITI  IUC/M1I
                                                            ri>7icui«ri
                                                19JJ  THAUUCH N**CH 1975
                                                                                             HAI  •   >42.0COOOO
-0.0  50. « 100.0 110. 0 200.0 250.0 300.0 150.0 400.0  4>O.U 5JO.U 550.0 600.0 650.0 700.0 750.0 (00.0 150.0
   25. J  Tl.O 125.0  175.0 225.0 275.0 325.0 J75.0 42>.J  474. J Jii.O 575.0 625.0 «,71.o 7^5.0 775.0 425.0
5C.O »
44. C .
tt. e .
47.0 .
44. e .
44.0 4
44. C .
4>.C .
42. C .
41. C .
4J.C 1
1-i.C .
If .C .
1».C ..
it.e .
14. C •
m 14.9 .
OJ "•c •
2; 12. c .
3 11. C .
1w 1C-C *
5 2*.0 .
> *«.c .
17.0 .
H- n.e .
O 2!.C .
14. C .
t. 2).0 .
0) I'.c .
X) H.c .
g 20. r .
3 !«'c *

u.'c ;
it.e .
15. e • .,
14.0 . 	
11.0 . Ill . ,'•
ti.e . . m 	 	
11.3 . — mmiii
13.9 • m mmm
9.1 . m mmm
«.o . m mmm 	
'.c . m — mmm mm
i.o . minimum — mm
i.c » mumimuimmm
4.0 . mmuuiii iimiimi
• 10.
*'.












































• '
i.c . ' — umi 1 1 1 1 miiuimi mum — ,
i.) .--• —mi u u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u u 1 1 1 u i u I mil 	 «— -
•3.0 10.0 uj.j r.c.j .'jj.c r.'i.v jjj
24.J 75.4 US.J I/*>.1 4^5.0 ^73.0
4fl.
47.
44.
45.
44.
4J.
42.
41.
40. 41
14.0
it. a
17.0
J6.0
li.O
14.0
JJ.O
J2.0
Jl.O
13.0
<9.0
U.O
27.0
26.0
0.0
<4.0
tfJ.O
42. U
21.0
20.0
U.O
II. 0
17.0
U.O
11.0
14.0
Ij. 0
12.0
11.0
10.0
4.0
t.O
I.O
4.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
.C J5...J 400.0 440. J iOO.ii »0.0 400.0 45|I.I> IOO.O 150.0 100.0 150.0
125.0 Hi. a «A5.d 4?>.0 ><>.» 575.0 425. 0 475. u T«>.0 175.0 (25.0
                                          yg/r
                                                         B-7

-------
                         Mtaucici
                         CMinfl SITI
                                        IUC/MII
                                           o»  24-*iou« tiurtNOto mmcuntf
                                                               OCCCMI* it>f
§
                                                                                                   Mil •   177.0COOOO
          1.0  90.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 100.0 150.0 4OO.O 450.0 500.0 550.0 400.0 650.0 700.0 750.0 600.0 050.0
           21.i  75.0 125.0 175.0 225.0 275.0 1.4.0 .,75.0 445.0 474.J 145.0 575.0 425.0 475.0 74k.0  775.0 425.0
   ite.t •

    46.0 .
    44.C .
    41.e .
    4C.C »
    49.C
    96.C
    M.C
    II.t
    >c.:
    71.3
    74.C
    74.C
    ll.C
    te.c
    41.0
    64.C
    44.C
    41.0
If.C
tt.C
51.C
52.C
5C.C
4«.C
46.C
«4.0
42.C
4C.C
I'.O
It.C
14.C
12.0
K.C
11.0
21.0
2«.C
11.0
1C.C
i-.a
16.0
II.0
12.0
U.O
 l.C
 6.C
 4.0
 2.C
    111
•   III
    111
    111
    III
.   Ill
•   111
    111
    111
    111
    111
•   III
    111
    111
    111
    III   •
»   III—
    mill
.---uiiu
.iiiiiuii
.iiiiuiu
• iiiuiiii
.IIIIUIU
.IIIIIUII
.IIIUIIII
.iiiiiuii
• muni.™
.uiuuiiiii
.111111 UIIU—  .
.IIIUUUIIUII—
.uiiuiuuiuiui
                                                                                                          100.0
                                                                                                           96.0
                                                                                                           94.0
                                                                                                           94.0
                                                                                                           42.0
                                                                                                           90.0
                                                                                                           44.0
                                                                                                           • 4.0
                                                                                                           44.0
                                                                                                           14.0
                                                                                                           40.0
                                                                                                           76.0
                                                                                                           74.0
                                                                                                           74.0
                                                                                                           72.U
                                                                                                           ro.o
                                                                                                           411.0
                                                                                                           44.U
                                                                                                           44.0
59.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
46.0
   0
   0
 2.0
 J.O
 3.0


 4.0
 2.0
10.0
44.0
26.0
44.0
22.0

14.0
14.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
 d.J
 4.0
 4.0
 2.0
         -J.J   io.J UJ.O 150.0 200.0 290.0 100.0 150.0 400.0 4>0.0 50X.O 550.0 40U.O 650.0  7110.0 7*0.C 400.0 450.
            21.J   li.O 145.4 174.0  445.0 275.0 125.0 175.0  44J.O 475.0 *45.•) 575.0 445.0 475.K 745.0 775.0 (25.0
                                     •isnuuriM Of U-MKM tutn»on>
                           CIUNOLU  (ITf  lltt/UI    JUNi 1971  TMCOUCH N4HCH 1971
                                                                                                     141 •   172*000004
         -0.0  U.fl 100.0 190.0 200.0  250.C 100.0 JSO.O 400.0 450.0 500.0 550.0 400.0 490.0  700.0 750.0 100.0 95O.O
            25.0  15.0 125.0 175.0  225.0 275.0 125.0 175.0 425.0 475.0 525.0 575.0 425.0 47S.O 725.0 775.0 125.0











in
O)
3

15
>

O

I
•Z.





















50.0
44.0
44.0
47.0
44.0
4».0
44.0
41.1
42.0
41.0
40.0
14.0
16. J
17.0
14.0
15.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
11 .0
11. 1
29.0
24.0
27.0
24.0
25.0
24.0
21.0
22.0
11.0
10.0
19.0
14.0
17.0
14.0
14.0
11.0
1-2.0
II. 1
1 .0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
1.0
-
9O.a


















* •
III
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
III
111
111
111
. Ill .
-•—HI-— i
111 mill

Illllllll-— •
illinium
— -mummi i
iiiiiimuiiu—
iimmuuuiiii ,
i — imiumuiiiiii •:
— Illllllll 11 Illlllllll —
iiiiiuiu ii 1 1 minim— in ,
iimiummmiuuiiiiiiii —
11111111111111 UN llllllllllU 111
49*0
48. O
*vr.o
44.0
4ft. 0
44.0
41.0
42.0
41.3
44.0
19.0
)6.0
17.0
}ft . J
ii.o
14.0
li.O
12.0
11.0
u.o
24. J
ii.A
21.0
26.0
ift.O
24.0
21.0
22.0
21 .0
2J*t)
|9.Q
19*0

IF.}
14 0
i*!*
14.0
11.0
12.0
U.O
13 **)
9.0
l<0
?• J

* ft
*•"*
4*0
1>O
2*0
1.0
0 9J.O 1JJ.J 13J.J 4JJ.J 25J.C 100. 0 150.0 400*0 490.0 930.0 550.0 400.0 4SO.O 700. O 750.0 400 a 61fl Q
11.0 M.O 121.0 H>.fl 22>.0 215.0 Jll.O 175^425.0 415.0 52..0 575*0 425.0 4?»*0 715." 775*0 .25!"
                                                               B-8

-------
                      MICUINCt OIU« HU1IOH Or <«-HOUI lUSMNOfO
                      (UtOKUM IMC   IUC/»II   JAI  M     tHUUUOH OtCiNOtft Itfl

                                                       '      '                                   »i •   tit.ccaaoo
     -J.o  M.« lea.o ifo.o iio.o iso.a >oo.a 1:0.0 400.0 «ia.e 100.0 »o.o tan.o t5a.o  700.0 no.o 100.0 »a.o
        ll.o  7i.o iii.o 175.0 ii5.o m.e 145.0 »»>.» «<>.* »i».«i >«*.« 515.0 t<».o 475.0  7*4.0 774.0 045.0










I/I
a.c 100.0  »  o.o loo.a uo.o 100.0 uo.o 400.0 «>o.o 500.0 jfo.o too.a tia.a loo.o 1*0.0 too.a tsa.t
        n.i  »».e ii»..i iTf.o 111.0 JT5.0 iii.o  »7».o *»0.0 400.0 413.a t«.0 IU.4 400.0 tSO.O JOO.O 7SO.O tOO.O MO.O
       15.0  TS.O IU.O I7S.O  IJ5.0 171.0 115.0 17>.0 42>.a 4li.« ili.u 5T>.0 Ut.O 47J.O 71>.0 T71.0 025.0
M.f *
44.0 .
41.0 .
4T.O .
4t.O .
4».e »
44.0 .
41.0 .
41.0 .
41.0 .
40.0 •
14.0 .
11.0 .
17.0 .
lt.0 .
•1.0 »
14.0 .
11.0 .
u.o .
11.0 .
10.0 »
14.0 .
11.0 .
li.e .
lt.0 .
1S.O »
14.0 .
11.0 .
11.0 .
11.0 .
10.0 »
14.0 .
II.0 .
17.0 .
lt.0 .
K.O •
it.a .
u.o .
u o .
   0 •
                               •III
fO.O
44.
40.
47.
4t.
4».
44.
4).
• 1.
41.
43.
14.
II.
17.
It.
It.
14.
11.
11.
II.
10.
14.
10.
17.
It.
1*.
14.
11.
11.
11.
10
14
10
l>
It,
II,
14.
II.
11.
II.
U.O
 4.0
 0.0
 7.0
 t.a
 5.0
 4.G
 l.a
 l.a
 l.a
    -J.O  M.a  IM.O l»0.0 190.0 ISO.O 100.0 150.0 4M.J 4iJ.O 5M." »>0.0 tJi.d «>J.U  70il.ll  IlO.O 30.i)
       15.0   7>.0 11>.0 175.0 115.0 tll.O llf.O 171.0 41S.O 47t.O ><».0 JU.O Mt.O »7».it  J1>.J  Tl>.g tu.o
                                                            B-9

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 450/3-77-021a
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
An Implementation Plan for Suspended Partic
in the Phoenix Area, Volume I, Air Quality
7. AUTHOR(S)
George Richard, Ron Tan
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRW
Environmental Engineering Division
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
ulat.p Mat.t.pr November 1977
Anal VSi S 6' PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-3152
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
s 200/04
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES MQ}um I$ A1r Quality Analysis - EPA 450/3-77-021a ; Volume II,
Emission Inventory - EPA 450/3-77-021 b; Volume III, Model Simulation of Total
Suspended Particulate Matter Levels - EPA 450/3-77-021c; Volume TV, r.nntmi strategy
is. ABSTRACT Formulation - EPA 450/3-77-021d.
This document is one volume of a four-volume report presenting an implementation
plan for control of suspended particulate matter in the Phoenix area.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Particulate Matter
Total Suspended Particulate
Fugitive Dust
Air Quality Measurements
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group

19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. PF PAGES
llnrlac;<;ifipH 183
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

-------