• Report Highlights
• Program Fact Sheet
• Full Report
• Agency Response
• View other Department of Environmental Quality Reports

SUMMARY

The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division pursuant to a November 20, 2002, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 41-2951 et seq and is the third in a series of four reports, which also included audits of the Water Quality and Waste Programs Divisions. The final report will be an analysis of the 12 statutory Sunset factors.

The Division's mission is to protect Arizona's environment and citizens by controlling sources of air pollution. The Division conducts numerous activities to carry out these responsibilities. For example, it issues permits to facilities and conducts periodic inspections of the facilities' equipment and records to ensure proper operation. Division staff also monitor air quality throughout the State through a network of specialized equipment. The Division also administers the vehicle emissions inspection program in Maricopa and Pima Counties.¹ This audit focused primarily on two aspects of the Division's work in carrying out its mission: the Division's effectiveness in improving the State's overall air quality, and the extent to which regulated facilities comply with rules and laws regarding air pollution.

Division efforts positively impacting Arizona's air quality
(see pages 7 through 13)

One of the Division's primary functions is to monitor air quality around the State to determine compliance with national air quality standards set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If an area within the State exceeds these standards, the EPA designates that area as "nonattainment." These nonattainment areas pose potential health risks to citizens because of the elevated air pollution, and the general public and private industry can also be affected economically in these areas.

Several significant challenges make improving Arizona's air quality more difficult than it would be in some other states. Arizona's large, rapidly growing population is accompanied by increases in vehicle traffic and construction, which contribute to air pollution. Arizona's warm temperatures, limited rainfall, and arid topography also contribute to elevated air pollution levels. Further, the State's leading role in the nation's copper industry has resulted in several nonattainment areas for sulfur dioxide, one of the pollutants the EPA regulates.

Despite these challenges, the Division has made strides over the past few years in reducing the State's air pollution. The EPA has redesignated 5 of Arizona's 20 nonattainment areas as being in attainment with national air quality standards, and 10 more are in the process of being redesignated or are eligible for this process. Several division initiatives have contributed to these redesignations, including a vehicle emissions inspection program designed to reduce levels of carbon monoxide and ozone, a program for cleaner burning gasoline in heavily populated areas, and pollution forecasts designed to help reduce travel on days with high air pollution potential. In its 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, the EPA regional office noted that Arizona has made substantial progress toward cleaner air over the past several years.

Division generally addresses violations by major source facilities within specified time frames
(see pages 15 through 20)

Division records indicate that key facilities are generally complying with air pollution standards, and when they do not, the Division generally takes timely enforcement action that soon corrects the problem. Among the more than 700 sources of pollution that the Division currently regulates, 52 facilities have the potential to emit 100 tons or more a year of pollutants such as carbon monoxide. These facilities, called "major source facilities," include power plants, smelters, and cement plants. Compliance work conducted by the Division found that in calendar years 2002 and 2003, two-thirds of the facilities were sufficiently in compliance and no enforcement actions were necessary. Further, when enforcement actions were issued, they were generally for relatively minor issues, such as excessive dust.

When facilities are not complying, they generally are promptly informed and brought into compliance. Department policy requires an internal review of the enforcement action before it is approved by management. Of the 25 notices sent in calendar years 2002 and 2003, 18 were sent within the time frames specified in policy, and only 2 exceeded the time frames by more than 30 days. Developing specific time frames for each step of the enforcement action review and approval process and creating weekly reports on the status of pending cases would help the Division better adhere to its policy for issuing enforcement actions. Once the notices were sent, most facilities came into compliance within specified time frames. For the 25 notices, 16 were resolved within the specific deadline (generally 30 days) and 2 more were resolved within another 30 days. Division officials indicated that in the remaining instances where facilities exceeded their time frames before coming into compliance, they made sufficient effort so that more stringent regulatory efforts did not need to be taken.

¹ Small portions of northern Pinal County and southern Yavapai County are also included in the Maricopa County emissions testing requirements.