Air Quality Report A.R.S. §49-424.10 Acknowledgments Numerous agencies, companies, individuals and organizations have collected the ambient air quality monitoring data presented in this report. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) publishes data from these various sources to provide as complete of a picture as possible of air quality conditions throughout Arizona and gratefully acknowledges the efforts of all involved. Generally, ambient data presented in this report are collected, processed and reported following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies and procedures. Air quality data that ADEQ staff and contract operators collect have also received internal and external quality control and assurance checks, including rigorous data verification that ADEQ has, in part, implemented. Data provided by other sources have been checked by the responsible organization but not by ADEQ. Both private individuals and companies under contract to ADEQ provided invaluable field sampler operation and data processing services in support of monitoring activities during 2001. Their efforts are appreciated as they maneuver on rooftops and metal towers to operate monitoring equipment in uncomfortable weather conditions, or review instrument performance and ambient monitoring data for technical accuracy. Field staff from other public agencies also operate numerous ambient monitoring sites in Arizona, providing spatial resolution and temporal coverage of air quality conditions statewide. ADEQ recognizes the efforts of these other monitoring and reporting agencies, and appreciates the opportunity to publish their data. Several industrial facilities collect and report ambient air quality data to ADEQ, usually to satisfy a permit requirement; their efforts are also acknowledged. Finally, ADEQ staff work daily installing, calibrating, maintaining, conducting quality control checks, collecting, processing, performing quality assurance tests and reporting data from a wide variety of ambient air monitoring instruments. ADEQ management wishes to thank these staff members for their dedication to maintaining and improving the quality of our program. This report was prepared by ADEQ’s Air Quality Assessment Section, which can be contacted at 1110 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 771-4383 or, toll free in Arizona at (800) 234-5677, then enter 771-4383. Our Web site is located at www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/assess/index.html. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 1 Introduction This report presents the results of air quality monitoring conducted throughout Arizona in the 2001 calendar year. Data from more than 100 monitoring sites, many of which have multiple instruments measuring a variety of gaseous, particulateand visibility parameters are reported. The majority of the air quality measurements are for conventional pollutants (such as ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead) for which EPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Visibility-related measurements are an increasing part of air monitoring activities in Arizona. In addition to the ADEQ monitoring network, air quality agencies in Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties also operated networks, as did several industrial facilities. Their data are summarized in this report. The report on ambient air quality monitoring networks, which begins on Page 3, discusses the purpose, measurement methods and the specific scale of geographic resolution of each network of various air monitoring networks in Arizona. Beginning on Page 18, the monitoring data report summarizes the monitoring data and shows the compliance status for criteria pollutants and consists of three sections, measurement of traditional criteria pollutants, compliance status of the criteria pollutants and visibility characterization. The text describes how the measurements are made and how they relate to compliance with the NAAQS. The report on special projects, which begins on Page 67, summarizes activities from special monitoring projects undertaken in 2000 and 2001, which have contined into 2002. Some of the projects presented in this report are the expanding Class I visibility monitoring network for larger national parks and wilderness areas, an ongoing PM10 study centered on the Greenwood monitoring site, a new and expanding effort to characterize ozone precursors, the intensive ozone project held in Phoenix in summer 2001 and results from the Governor’s Brown Cloud Summit. Air quality trends are reported beginning on Page 73. Air quality trends at most of the long-term monitors reveal improved air quality. Concentrations of carbon monoxide, lead and sulfur dioxide have dramatically improved since measurements began in the 1970s, and all monitors for these pollutants have shown compliance with health standards in recent years. Particulate matter (PM10) concentrations have also improved in rural and industrial areas where controls have been implemented, while less dramatic improvements have occurred in Phoenix and Tucson. Ozone concentrations have been fairly steady in Tucson and Yuma but have decreased since 1997 in Phoenix. Phoenix is the only area where violations of the ozone standard have been recorded, although concentrations have fallen significantly in recent years, and no exceedances have been recorded since 1997. Shorter periods of record for visibility in the urban and national parks and wilderness areas make trend assessments less ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 2 definitive, but trend assessments are shown for the two urban areas. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Networks The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 required View a photo of the Muleshoe Ranch EPA to assist states and localities in visibility monitoring site, which is establishing ambient air quality monitoring located at 4,400 feet elevation in the networks to characterize human health Galiuro wilderness area east of Tucson exposure and public welfare effects of conventional pollutants. The 1977 federal Clean Air Act amendments required each state to implement a visibility monitoring network to cover specified national parks and wilderness areas. The Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas also have year-round visibility monitoring networks to assess urban hazes. All of these networks are composed of individual monitoring sites; they are operated to collect ambient air quality data to ensure that Arizona citizens are able to know local air quality conditions and help ADEQ and local air quality control districts identify the causes of polluted air. Conventional Pollutant Monitoring Networks The conventional pollutants are presently defined as sulfur dioxide (SO2), total particulate lead (Pb), suspended particulate matter (PM), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and carbon monoxide (CO). These pollutants are monitored with federal reference or equivalent methods that EPA has certified. EPA defined particulate matter monitoring in 1987 to measure particles less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and again in 1997 to measure both PM10 and, separately, particles less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5). Networks operated to monitor the nature and causes of visibility impairment use some of the same sampling methods and are described in more detail later in this section. Ambient monitoring networks for air quality are established to sample pollution in a variety of representative settings, to assess the health and welfare effects, and to assist in determining air pollution sources. These networks cover both urban and rural areas of the state. Sampling networks are designed to satisfy monitoring objectives and measurement scales defined in Tables 1 and 2. For each conventional pollutant, EPA specifies monitoring objectives that define the parameters by which health exposure and public welfare are assessed and measurement scale classifications that describe the influence of atmospheric movement at a given location. The types and scales of monitoring sites described above are combined into networks, which a number of government agencies and regulated companies operate. These networks are composed of one or more monitoring sites whose data are compared to ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 3 the NAAQS and statistically analyzed in various ways. The agency or company operating a monitoring network also tracks data recovery, quality control and quality assurance parameters for the instruments operated at their various sites. The agency or company also often measures meteorological variables at the monitoring site. Table 1: Monitoring Objectives for Air Quality Monitoring Sites Number Definition 1 Determine highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network 2 Determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density 3 Determine the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source categories 4 Determine general background concentration levels 5 Determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas and in support of secondary standards 6 Determine the welfare-related effect in more rural and remote areas (such as visibility impairment and vegetation effects) Table 2: Measurement Scales for Air Quality Monitoring Sites Conventional Pollutant Measurement Scale represents concentrations in air volumes areas defined below Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Ozone (O3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Lead (Pb) Particulate Matter (PM10, PM2.5) X X Micro (0 to 100 m) X Middle (~100 to 500 m) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Neighborhood (~0.5 to 4 km) Urban (~4 to 50 km) Regional (~10 to 100s of km) ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 4 Some of the agencies do special continuous monitoring for the optical characteristics of the atmosphere and manual sampling of ozone-forming compounds and other hazardous air pollutants. Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties operate networks primarily to monitor urban air pollution. In contrast, the industrial networks are operated to determine the effects of their emissions on local air quality. The National Park Service’s network tracks conditions in and around national parks and monuments. The state network monitors a wide variety of pollutant and atmospheric characteristics, including urban, industrial, rural and background surveillance. The monitoring networks and their characteristics are shown in Table 3. A list of individual sites and monitoring parameters, based on the best available information at the time of publication, is presented in Appendix 1. Table 3: Monitoring Networks Operating in Arizona Network Operator Geographic Area Monitored Monitoring Objective* Measurement Scale(s)** Pollutant(s) Monitored Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality Statewide 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, Regional SO2, Pb, O3, NO2, CO, PM10, PM2.5 Arizona Portland Cement Company Rillito 1, 3 Neighborhood PM10 ASARCO, Inc. Hayden 1, 2, 3 Middle , Neighborhood SO2 Maricopa County Environmental Svcs Dept. Phoenix urban area, Maricopa County 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, Regional SO2, Pb, O3, NO2, CO, PM10 National Park Service National parks and monuments 3, 4, 5, 6 Urban, Regional SO2, O3, NO2, PM10, PM2.5 Phelps Dodge Miami Inc. (PDMI) Miami 1, 2, 3 Neighborhood SO2, PM10, PM2.5 Phoenix Cement Company Clarkdale 1, 3 Neighborhood PM10, PM2.5, Pb Pima County Dept. of Environmental Quality Tucson urban area, Pima County 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, Regional SO2, Pb, O3, NO2, CO, PM10, PM2.5 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 5 Table 3. Monitoring Networks Operating in Arizona Network Operator Geographic Area Monitored Monitoring Objective* Measurement Scale(s)** Pollutant(s) Monitored Pinal County Air Quality Control District Pinal County, Phoenix urban area 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, Regional O3, CO, PM10, PM2.5 Praxair, Inc. Kingman 1, 3 Middle PM10 Salt River Project Page 1, 3 Urban, Regional NO2, O3, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 Southern California Edison Company Bullhead City, Ariz. and Laughlin, Nev. 1, 2, 3, 4 Neighborhood, Urban, Regional SO2, NO2, PM10 Tucson Electric Power Company Tucson and Springerville 1, 2, 3 Middle, Regional SO2, NO2, PM10, PM2.5 *See Table 1 for a list of objectives **See Table 2 for a definition of the scales Eight-hour Ozone Monitoring Network for Phoenix and Surrounding Areas In early 2001, the Arizona Monitoring Technical Workgroup (composed of representatives from ADEQ, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Gila River Indian Community, Maricopa Association of Governments, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Pima Association of Governments, Pima Department of Environmental Quality, Pinal County Air Quality Control District and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community) met to discuss and recommend changes to the current one-hour ozone monitoring in order to create an eight-hour ozone network to represent Phoenix and surrounding areas. The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld EPA’s 1997 promulgation of an eight-hour average ozone NAAQS; this standard is operable in all areas attaining the former onehour average ozone NAAQS in effect since 1980. Areas not currently attaining the one-hour NAAQS must first attain that standard before moving to attain the eighthour NAAQS. Review of the eight-hour ozone data indicates that a number of monitoring sites in and around the metropolitan area exceed the eight-hour NAAQS. Because the monitoring data show that the metropolitan area is in violation of the eight-hour NAAQS, EPA must determine an eight-hour ozone nonattainment area boundary for ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 6 the Phoenix metropolitan area, starting with the consolidated metropolitan statistical area as a default, based on: • The recommendation of Arizona’s governor • The adequacy of the monitoring network • The nature and distribution of ozone-causing air pollution emissions To provide the maximum utility of monitoring data to policymakers in considering the public health and welfare effects of eight-hour average ozone air pollution, and the related nonattainment area boundary, the issue was referred by the Arizona Monitoring Technical Workgroup to ADEQ. The workgroup held several meetings to evaluate the current one-hour ozone network and design a complementary eight-hour ozone network. The network evaluation process involved review and consideration of a variety of parameters, including current and historical ozone monitoring data, meteorology and pollutant transport, ozone site spatial analysis, EPA network requirements and guidance, projected population growth statistics, and the ozone formation process. Additionally, consideration was made for agency resource availability and basic site availability and security considerations. The meetings concluded with a recommendation for an eighthour ozone network for the Phoenix and surrounding areas as described in Table 4. Table 4: Recommended Eight-hour Ozone Network Site Name Parameter Operator New Ozone Monitoring Sites Pleasant Valley ozone, trace level NOx, HC, MET ADEQ Ike’s Backbone ozone, trace level NOx, HC, MET ADEQ Far west site/Gila Bend ozone ADEQ Cave Creek ozone MCESD Roosevelt/Tonto ozone, trace level NOx, HC, MET ADEQ/MCESD Perryville ozone MCESD Magma ozone, trace level NOx, HC, MET PCAQCD Stanfield/Maricopa ozone PCAQCD St Johns ozone, MET GRIC Sacaton ozone, MET GRIC Ft. McDowell ozone FMIC ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 7 Table 4: Recommended Eight-hour Ozone Network Site Name Parameter Operator Salt River #1 ozone SRPMIC Salt River #2 ozone SRPMIC Ozone Monitoring Sites to be Closed/Relocated Mount Ord ozone ADEQ/MCESD Emergency Management ozone MCESD Lake Pleasant ozone – relocate to Cave Creek MCESD Maryvale ozone – contingent upon site at Perryville MCESD Rio Verde or Fountain Hills ozone – contingent upon location of Ft. McDowell site MCESD Visibility Monitoring Networks in National Parks and Wilderness Areas The intent of the Class I visibility monitoring program is to characterize long-term trends as completely as possible using ambient visibility measurements within constraints of an area’s size, terrain or logistics for each of the 12 federally protected Class I areas in Arizona. The long-term strategy of the visibility monitoring network to track short-term and long-term trends in Arizona Class I areas, to assist in identifying any reasonably attributable visibility impairments, and to provide monitoring data if necessary for new or major modifications of categorical major sources. Arizona continues to participate in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Program as part of the overall national visibility monitoring effort. IMPROVE is a cooperative measurement effort between EPA, federal land management agencies and state air agencies. The objectives of IMPROVE are: • To establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory Class I areas • To identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing man-made visibility impairment • To document long-term trends for assessing progress towards the national visibility goal • With the enactment of the regional haze rule, to provide regional haze monitoring representing all visibility-protected federal Class I areas ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 8 Class I areas were designated based on an evaluation required by Congress in the 1977 federal Clean Air Act amendments. The evaluation, which the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service performed, reviewed the wilderness areas of parks and national forests which were designated as wilderness before 1977, were more than 6,000 acres in size and have visual air quality as an important resource for visitors. Of the 156 Class I areas designated across the nation, 12 are located in Arizona. The Arizona Class I visibility network consists of a combination of visibility monitoring sites established by ADEQ and those established by the IMPROVE committee. Monitoring was conducted or is planned at Grand Canyon National Park – Hance, Grand Canyon National Park – Indian Gardens, Petrified Forest National Park, Mt. Baldy Wilderness – Greer Water Treatment Plant, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness – Camp Raymond, Mazatzal Wilderness – Humboldt Mountain, Mazatzal/Pine Mountain Wildernesses – Ike’s Backbone, Sierra Ancha Wilderness – Pleasant Valley Ranger Station, Superstition Wilderness – Tonto National ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 9 Monument, Superstition Wilderness – Queen Valley, Saguaro National Park – West Unit, Saguaro National Park – East Unit, Chiricahua National Monument – Entrance Station, Galiuro Wilderness – Muleshoe Ranch, Hillside, Organ Pipe National Monument and Meadview. Each IMPROVE site includes PM2.5 sampling with subsequent analysis for the fine particle mass and major aerosol species, as well as PM10 sampling and mass analysis. Many of the sites also include optical monitoring with nephelometers or a transmissometer and color photography to document scenic appearance. More information about the IMPROVE procedures, sites and data can be found on the IMPROVE Web site at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ and on the National Park Service Web site at www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/impr/. Urban Haze Networks ADEQ monitors urban haze in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas using a network of instruments to characterize and quantify the extent of urban haze. There are no established federal or state standards for acceptable levels of urban haze. ADEQ began studying the nature and causes of urban hazes by conducting a study in the winter of 1989-90 in Phoenix and the winter of 1992-93 in Tucson. These studies recommended long-term, year-round monitoring of visibility. In 1993, ADEQ began deploying visibility monitoring equipment in Phoenix and Tucson. These visibility monitoring data are needed to provide policymakers and the public with information, track short- and long-term trends, assess source contributions to urban haze and better evaluate the effectiveness of air pollution control strategies. The current Phoenix and Tucson urban haze networks include transmissometers for measuring light extinction along a fixed path length of about 5 kilometers, nephelometers for measuring light scattering, and particulate filters for quantifying and characterizing particulate matter. Data from urban PM10 and PM2.5 samplers are characterized for chemical composition and seasonal variation. Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station Monitoring Section 182(c)(1) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments required the administrator to promulgate rules for the enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to obtain more comprehensive and representative data on ozone air pollution. Immediately following the promulgation of such rules, the affected states were to begin actions necessary to adopt and implement a program to improve ambient monitoring activities and the monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOCs. Each state implementation plan (SIP) for the affected areas must contain commitments to implement the appropriate ambient monitoring network for such air pollutants. The subsequent revisions to 40 CFR 58, 1993, required states to establish photochemical monitoring stations (PAMS) as part of their SIP monitoring ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 10 networks in ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious, severe or extreme. The principal reasons for requiring the collection of additional ambient air pollutant and meteorological data are the nationwide lack of attainment of the ozone NAAQS and the need for a more comprehensive air quality database for ozone and its precursors. The chief objective of the enhanced ozone monitoring requirements is to provide air quality data that will assist air pollution control agencies in evaluating, tracking the progress of and, if necessary, refining control strategies for attaining the ozone NAAQS. Ambient concentrations of ozone and ozone precursors are used to make attainment and nonattainment decisions, aid in tracking VOC and NOx emission reductions, better characterize the nature and extent of the ozone problem, and examine air quality trends. In addition, data from the PAMS network provide an improved database for evaluating photochemical model performance, especially for future control strategy mid-course corrections as part of the continuing air quality management process. The data are particularly useful to states in ensuring the implementation of the most cost-effective regulatory controls. The PAMS network array for an area should be fashioned to supply measurements that will assist states in understanding and solving ozone nonattainment problems. EPA has determined that for larger areas, a network that will satisfy a number of important monitoring objectives should consist of the following five sites. Type 1 Site: Upwind and Background Characterization These sites are established to characterize upwind background and transported ozone and its precursor concentrations entering the area. They will also identify areas that are subjected to overwhelming incoming transport of ozone. Type 1 sites are located in the predominant morning upwind direction from the local area of maximum precursor emissions and at a distance sufficient to obtain urban scale measurements. Typically, these sites will be located near the upwind edge of the photochemical grid model domain. Type 2a and 2b Sites: Maximum Ozone Precursor Emissions Impact These sites are established to monitor the magnitude and type of precursor emissions in the area where maximum precursor emissions representative of the metropolitan statistical area/consolidated metropolitan statistical area (MSA/CMSA) are expected to exist and are suited for the monitoring of urban air toxic pollutants. Type 2 sites are located immediately downwind (using the same morning wind direction as for locating the Type 1 site) of the area of maximum precursor emissions and are typically placed near the downwind boundary of the central business district or primary area of precursor emissions mix to obtain neighborhood scale measurements. A second Type 2 site may be required depending on the size of the areaand should be placed in the secondmost predominant morning wind direction. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 11 Type 3 Site: Maximum Ozone Concentration These sites are intended to monitor maximum ozone concentrations occurring downwind from the area of maximum precursor emissions. Locations for Type 3 sites should be chosen so that urban scale measurements are obtained. Typically, these sites are located 10 to 30 miles from the fringe of the urban area. Type 4 Site: Extreme Downwind Monitoring These sites are established to characterize the extreme downwind transported ozone and its precursor concentrations exiting the area and will identify those areas that are potentially contributing to overwhelming ozone transport into other areas. Type 4 sites are located in the predominant afternoon downwind direction from the local area of maximum precursor emissions at a distance sufficient to obtain urban scale measurements. Typically, these sites will be located near the downwind edge of the photochemical grid model domain. PAMS data include measurements of O3, NOx, a target list of VOCs including several carbonyls, and surface and upper air meteorology. Most PAMS sites measure 56 target hydrocarbons on either an hourly or three-hour basis during the ozone season. The Type 2 sites also collect data on three carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acetone) during the ozone monitoring period. Included in the monitored VOC species are 10 compounds classified as hazardous air pollutants. All stations must measure O3, NOx and surface meteorological parameters on an hourly basis. ADEQ has installed four PAMS monitoring sites to date, the ADEQ Supersite (located near 17th Avenue and Campbell) in Central Phoenix (a Type 2 site); the wind profiler (upper air meteorology) site; the Queen Valley site (Type 3); and the South Phoenix site (Type 2a). A time line describing proposed installation dates of additional sites is provided in Table 5. Table 5: PAMS Installation Time Line Type of Ozone Proposed Installation PAMS Season Type 1 Pending Type 2 1999 Supersite – 17th Avenue and Campbell, Phoenix Type 2a 2001 South Phoenix – Central and Broadway Type 3 2001 Queen Valley Type 4 Pending Palo Verde – Wintersburg Area Roosevelt Lake ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 12 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Review In 1999, ADEQ expanded the scope of the annual ambient air monitoring network reviews beyond the state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) to include all state networks. 40 CFR §58.20(d) requires states to complete and submit to EPA an annual network review. States are required to commit to and explain the air quality surveillance systems in their state implementation plans. The air quality surveillance systems consist of various sites designated as SLAMS, national air monitoring stations (NAMS) and PAMS. To provide a complete review of the air monitoring network, ADEQ chose to include additional stations classified as special purpose monitoring stations (SPM), which includes urban haze monitoring sites, IMPROVE sites, ADEQ visibility stations located in or near mandatory Class I areas, and source-oriented monitoring sites operated independently by the permittee. The annual network review determines conformance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D (Network Design Criteria) and Appendix E (Probe and Path Siting Criteria) for sites classified as SLAMS, NAMS, PAMS and SPM. Class I monitoring sites are subject to specific siting and operational guidance developed by the IMPROVE Steering Committee. Results of the annual network review are used to determine how well the network is achieving its required air monitoring objectives, how well it meets data users’ needs and how it should be modified (through termination of existing stations, relocation of stations, establishment of new stations, monitoring of additional parameters and/or changes to the sampling schedule) to continue to meet its objectives and data needs. The main purpose of the review is to improve the network so that it provides adequate, representative and useful air quality data. In the upcoming year, ADEQ anticipates developing or refining existing network plans for the NAAQS and urban haze ambient monitoring programs that will define specific program goals and objectives. The initial monitoring plans will use recommendations made in the annual network review and will go through a review every two to three years considering factors such as data results and completeness, site representativeness, and data representativeness. The monitoring plan review will also tabulate network review results accumulated over the prior three-year period and will recommend changes to the monitoring plans and instrument or operating requirements. In 2001, ADEQ conducted a Phase II network review for each criteria pollutant in the state-operated network. It was intended to address how well the network achieves the intended objective, how well it meets the data users’ needs and if any modification is needed (i.e. termination, relocation, establishing new sites). The review did not include monitoring networks operated by Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties. The ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 13 review process considered ambient monitoring data, population, geographic location of sites, criteria pollutant emissions and agency resource allocation. Data analysis included a review of historical trends, comparison to the applicable NAAQS standard, seasonal variation, inter-site comparison of sites of similar objective, location or air mass, and other information obtained from historical reviews, analysis or studies. Population analysis included an evaluation of the population represented by a monitorand a review of areas where monitoring may be needed (e.g., in an area with a high population growth rate). Geographic analysis employed population density maps, monitor locations and airshed locations to evaluate adequacy of the network. Also included in the review were practical and resource considerations, such as resources allocated to various networks, inter-network resource analysis to determine if more or less emphasis needs to be placed on a specific pollutant network, how expanding the network for one pollutant in one place may affect the number of samplers in another. Tables 6 and 7 show the results of the Phase II network review. Table 6: Summary of Monitoring Sites to Close Existing Sites to Close Discussion Summary Flagstaff – ADOT (PM10) Closed in 2001 Fort Mohave (PM10) Closed in 2001 Prescott (PM10) Close estimated to occur end 2002 after new site located in Prescott Valley area Nelson (PM10) Closed in 2002 Phoenix – Greenwood (PM10) ADEQ will discontinue dichots in 2002 Clarkdale (PM10) Closed in 2002 Phoenix – Grand Ave (CO) Site closed 2002 Tempe – Urban Haze Monitors (Maintain FRM) Close upon installation of new speciation samplers Estrella Park – Urban Haze Monitors Close upon installation of new speciation samplers ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 14 Table 7: Summary of New Monitoring Locations Additional Monitoring Locations Possible Pollutant(s) to Measure Estimated Active Date Lake Havasu PM10, PM2.5, O3, NOX, MET 2003 Sierra Vista PM10, PM2.5, O3, NOX, MET 2003 Prescott Valley PM10, PM2.5, MET End 2002 Kingman PM10, PM2.5, O3, NOX, MET 2003 Southeast Arizona O3, NOX Pending equipment availability Northeast Arizona O3, NOX Pending Equipment Availability Monitoring Methods The gaseous conventional pollutants (SO2, O3, NO2 and CO), as well as PM10 (TEOMs) and optical characteristics of the atmosphere (total light extinction, light absorption by gases, light scattering by particles and light absorption by particles) – are monitored with continuous analyzers taking approximately one pollutant sample per second. These values are averaged on an hourly basis and recorded to the correct number of significant digits, based on the form of the air quality standards and the detection limits of the instrument. In most cases, the hourly data are summarized into the appropriate multi-hour averages. The agency or company network operators conduct regular checks of the stability, reproducibility, precision and accuracy of these instruments. Precision and accuracy of ambient data are assessed across an entire network using statistical tests that EPA requires. Particulate lead (Pb), PM10 and PM2.5 are usually sampled for 24 hours, from midnight to midnight, most often on every sixth day. Using a timer, ambient air is drawn through an inlet of a specified design at a known flow rate onto a filter that collects all PM less than a diameter specified by the inlet design. The filters are weighed before and after the sample period to determine the difference in mass and then divided by the product of the flow rate with the elapsed time to arrive at a mass per unit volume concentration. In the case of Pb, the filter is then subjected to chemical analysis to determine the amount of Pb particulate and integrated with the flow rate and timer information to calculate the concentration. These data are summarized into the appropriate quarterly or annual averages. These samplers are also certified as federal reference or equivalent methods. The agency or company network operators regular checks of the stability, reproducibility, precision and accuracy of the samplers and ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 15 laboratory procedures. Again, precision and accuracy of ambient data are assessed across an entire network using statistical tests that EPA requires. Visibility monitoring methods are generally divided into the three groups of optical, scene and aerosol (PM). Monitoring of visibility requires qualitative and quantitative information about the causes of haze (e.g., what is in the air, the formation, transport and deposition of pollutants) and the nature of haze (what are the optical effects of those pollutants to the observer). Scene conditions of visual air quality associated with hazes are recorded with a camera. In the past, ADEQ has used a super-VHS video format and 35 mm slides. The video camera was programmed to advance at the rate of one frame every four minutes during daylight hours. When scene information is obtained from 35 mm slides, a picture is taken at the same times each day to establish baseline conditions and track variations in haze. ADEQ is currently going to digital and Web cameras for continued documentation of scene conditions. Quantitative measurement of light extinction (Bext) has four components, : + Light scattering by gases (Bsg) + Light absorption by gases (Bag) + Light scattering by particles (Bsp) + Light absorption by particles (Bap) Mathematically, the relationship is expressed as Bext = Bsg + Bag + Bsp + Bap, where the units are inverse megameters (Mm-1), or the amount of light removed per million meters of distance a viewer looks through. Total optical light extinction (Bext) is measured directly with a device called a transmissometer. The transmissometer generates visible light in the same wavelength (550 nanometers) as the human eye detects and then transmits that light beam over a sight path of several kilometers to a photocell detector. The transmissometer’s design and operation allow its data to be directly correlated with human perception of visibility through the atmosphere. Transmissometer data are also used to check the general accuracy of the sum of the components of light extinction as measured by other continuous monitors. Two transmissometers have been operated in Phoenix and Tucson since 1993. Light scattering by gases (Bsg) is a function of air density and is unrelated to air pollution sources. This parameter is derived and does not require measurement. In contrast, the other three components of light extinction are human-caused and require measurement with continuous monitors. Light absorption by gases (Bag) is determined by continuously measuring nitrogen dioxide (NO2) since it is the only gas normally present in urban or Class I areas that absorbs significant quantities of visible light. Several EPA reference or equivalent ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 16 method NO2 monitors are deployed to verify maintenance of the NAAQS throughout Arizona, including monitoring at Tucson, Phoenix, Queen Valley and Tonto National Monument, while the National Park Service network tracks NO2 at several national parks in Arizona. Light scattering by particles (Bsp) is determined by continuously, directly measuring particle scattering variation in a calibrated ambient sampling chamber called a nephelometer. The nephelometer samples air at ambient temperature and relative humidity conditions. Routine monitoring with this instrument began in both the Class I area and urban haze networks during 1996. Light absorption by particles (Bap) is determined by continuously measuring the quantity of light transmitted through a filter tape or intermittently through a filter from a PM sampler. Data from these analyses are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) of elemental carbon and are converted to the Bap units of Mm-1 using a laboratory-derived light absorption coefficient. Routine data collection using a continuous instrument, the aethalometer, began in December 1996 in Phoenix and February 1998 in Tucson. Bap is also measured intermittently using the PM sample filters collected in both the Class I area and urban haze networks. In monitoring visibility, it is also essential to collect and analyze particulate samples to define and to understand the chemistry of aerosols present before, during and after haze events. The chemical speciation data can be used to determine the contributions of each source category to the observed optical haze data. From these filter data, the chemical components are used to calculate light extinction for the filter sample period and compare with continuous measurements as a check. Finally, the samplers used in the urban haze networks also monitor compliance with PM10 and PM2.5 national air quality standardsand provide information on the categorical source contributions to observed PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. Sampling frequency for PM in the urban networks is generally every sixth day and every third day in the ADEQ and IMPROVE Class I area networks. Every day sampling at all monitoring sites would be cost-prohibitive and personnel-intensive using current particulate sampling technologies. To more fully understand the causes of hazes often associated with certain atmospheric conditions, it is necessary to monitor certain meteorological parameters. For these reasons, each network includes meteorological data such as temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction. Routine measurements of upper air temperature and water vapor are not made in the Phoenix area but information from the twice-daily rawinsonde launches by the National Weather Service at Tucson, Flagstaff, Las Vegas, Nev. and El Paso, Tex. are used to characterize the air masses over Arizona. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 17 Monitoring Data Introduction Air quality measurements in Arizona can be divided into View a photo of ADEQ’s the three categories of conventional pollutants, visibility Phoenix supersite and photochemical monitoring. Each category is discussed below. EPA has set NAAQS for the criteria air pollutants, which are carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and particulate matter 10 microns in size and smaller (PM10). Additional particulate matter monitoring includes the two subsets of PM10 of coarse (2.5 to 10 microns in size) and fine (less than 2.5 microns in size) particulate matter. These pollutants are monitored in Arizona by industry, county air pollution districts, Indian tribes and ADEQ. The 2001 data measurements by conventional pollutant begin on Page 18. The data tables in this section are organized by county; site operator information can be found in the site index tables in Appendix 1, which begins on Page 105. Data recovery information (valid samples as a percent of total scheduled samples) is included in the tables. The number of valid samples is important for determining the representativeness of the average data calculations. Information about the compliance requirements and status for the conventional pollutants begins on Page 42. Visibility monitoring information is presented beginning on Page 64. Conventional Pollutants – 2001 Data Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide – a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas that is produced in the incomplete combustion of fuels – has a variety of adverse health effects that arise from its ability to chemically bind with blood hemoglobin. Carbon monoxide successfully competes with oxygen for binding with hemoglobin and thereby impairs oxygen transport. This impaired transport leads to several central nervous system effects, such as the impairment of time interval discrimination, changes in relative brightness thresholds, increased reaction time, and headache, fatigue and dizziness. Carbon monoxide exposures also contribute to or exacerbate arteriosclerotic heart disease. In Arizona’s metropolitan areas, about 75 percent of carbon monoxide emissions come from on-road motor vehicles, 20 percent from off-road vehicles or equipment such as construction vehicles and lawn and garden equipment, and 5 percent from fuel combustion from commercial and residential heating. This pollutant has low background levels, with highest concentrations next to busy streets, and has elevated neighborhood concentrations in locations that reflect emissions transported from upwind portions of an area. Its concentrations peak from November to January ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 18 because its emissions are highest in cold weather – automotive emissions of carbon monoxide vary inversely with temperature – and because the surface layer of the atmosphere is at its most stable in wintertime. Hourly concentrations tend to be at their maximum during morning rush hour and between 6 p.m. and midnight. Controls have reduced carbon monoxide emissions and the standards have been achieved in the metropolitan Phoenix area in 1996-2001, in stark contrast to the first half of the 1980s, when more than 100 exceedances were recorded each year. Similar improvements have occurred in Tucson, where the last exceedance was recorded in 1984. Equipping vehicles with catalytic converters and electronic ignition systems were the most effective controls, but significant reductions can also be attributed to the vehicle inspection program (beginning in 1976) and oxygenated fuels (beginning in 1989). Carbon monoxide is monitored continuously with non-dispersive infrared instruments that are deployed in urban neighborhoods and near busy roadways or intersections. In 2001, 15 monitors were operated in greater Phoenix, five in Tucson, and one each in Apache Junction and Casa Grande. Table 8 presents the 2001 carbon monoxide data. Table 8: 2001 Carbon Monoxide Data (in ppm) One-Hour Average Value Eight-Hour Average Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Central Phoenix 6.0 5.8 4.8 4.2 98 GlendaleS 4.7 4.7 3.1 2.8 99 MaryvaleS 9.0 7.5 7.6 5.2 98 MesaS 4.6 3.8 2.9 2.6 98 North PhoenixS 5.2 4.7 2.5 2.5 96 Phoenix – Grand AvenueS 10.3 9.6 6.6 6.1 98 Phoenix – Greenwood, MCESD 7.0 6.9 5.2 4.6 98 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 7.0 6.5 5.7 5.2 97 Site or City Valid Data Recovery* (%) Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 19 Table 8: 2001 Carbon Monoxide Data (in ppm) One-Hour Average Value Eight-Hour Average Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Phoenix – West Indian School 8.0 7.7 6.8 6.5 98 South PhoenixS 6.8 6.3 4.5 3.4 99 South ScottsdaleS 4.5 4.4 3.2 3.1 97 SurpriseS 2.6 2.5 1.2 1.1 98 Tempe – MCESD 4.3# 4.2# 3.2# 3.0# 65# West ChandlerS 3.3 3.1 2.2 2.1 97 West Phoenix 8.4 8.2 7.5 6.5 98 Tucson – Alvernon 5.8 5.7 3.0 2.9 99 Tucson – CherryS 3.9 3.6 2.8 2.6 99 Tucson – Children’s Park 2.9 2.9 1.7 1.7 97 Tucson – Craycroft 3.7 3.6 1.9 1.7 97 Tucson – Downtown 5.6 5.1 2.7 2.5 99 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 3.8 3.4 1.1 1.0 78 Casa Grande – Airport 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.7 95 Site or City Valid Data Recovery* (%) Pima County Pinal County *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling hours. There were 8,760 sampling hours in 2001. Valid data recovery should be less than 100 percent due to quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. S Seasonal monitor, operational from Jan. 1 to April 1 and Sept. 1 to Dec. 31; 5,088 sampling hours in nonleap years. Exceptions: • Tucson – Cherry monitor operated Jan. 1-April 15 and Sept. 1-Dec. 31, 5,472 sampling hours. • Surprise monitor operated Jan. 1-April 30 and Sept. 1-Dec. 31; 5,808 sampling hours. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 20 Lead Lead, a heavy metal with pronounced toxic effects, is present in the atmosphere as a constituent of fine particles. Chronic lead poisoning attacks the blood, the brain and nervous system, the kidney, and the reproductive system, with such effects as moderate to severe brain and kidney damage, sterility, and abortions, stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Low-level chronic exposure to lead manifests itself first in the inhibition of the biosynthesis of hemoglobin, resulting in the anemia associated with chronic lead poisoning. Emissions of lead in Arizona come from the smelting of ore, the combustion of fossil fuels and, until the mid-1970s, the use of alkyl lead compounds as anti-knock additives in gasoline. With the phasing out of regular lead gasoline, the automotive emissions of lead to the atmosphere have declined to near zero. Controls to reduce lead emissions have been extremely effective, with a net 94 percent reduction on a national basis from 1978 to 1987. Automotive emissions were reduced 97 percent through the elimination of lead compounds in gasoline, stationary source fuel combustion emissions were reduced 92 percent, and industrial processes and solid waste disposal emissions were reduced substantially as well. Lead is monitored by analyzing PM10 samples collected for 24 hours on every sixth day. Total suspended particulate (TSP) samplers are the reference method but are no longer used to obtain lead data. Lead is primarily a combustion product, so PM10 samples capture ambient lead concentrations adequately. Lead concentrations have been monitored at 16 locations: four are urban (Phoenix, Douglas, Payson and Nogales), three are located near a smelter (Hayden) or cement plant (Clarkdale), and nine are background sites (Petrified Forest National Park, Chiricahua National Monument, Grand Canyon – Hance, Grand Canyon – Indian Gardens, Tonto National Monument, Palo Verde, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Hillside). Quarterly lead averages are not included here but are available on request. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish-brown gas that is formed by the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO), which is a byproduct of combustion of all fuels. At the lowest nitrogen dioxide exposure levels at which adverse health effects have been detected, respiratory damage has been observed: destruction of cilia, alveolar tissue disruption and obstruction of the respiratory bronchioles. Animal studies suggest that nitrogen dioxide may be a causal or aggravating agent in respiratory ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 21 infections. However, community exposure studies to lower ambient levels of nitrogen dioxide have demonstrated no significant links with respiratory symptoms or disease. This pollutant is of greater concern in its reduction of visibility (it causes 5 percent of the visibility reduction in Phoenix) and in its contributory role in the photochemical formation of ozone. Combustion emissions of nitrogen oxides are 95 percent nitric oxide and 5 percent nitrogen dioxide. Because nitric oxide is rapidly oxidized to nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide emissions serve as a surrogate for nitrogen dioxide. In a recent Phoenix emissions inventory, the transportation sector dominated nitric oxide emissions: 58 percent of the emissions came from cars and trucks, 27 percent came from off-road vehicles such as trains and diesel-powered construction vehicles, and 15 percent from other sources, including power plants, biogenic emissions from soil and stationary combustion sources. Nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide concentrations are highest near major roadways. Nitric oxide concentrations decrease rapidly with distance from the roadway, whereas nitrogen dioxide concentrations are more evenly distributed because of their formation through oxidation and their subsequent transport. Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide are highest in the late afternoon and early evening of winter, when rush hour emissions of nitric oxide are converted to nitrogen dioxide under relatively stable atmospheric conditions. Because nitric oxide reacts rapidly with ozone, nocturnal ozone concentrations in cities are often reduced to near-zero levels. This nitric oxide scavenging of ozone does not occur in remote areas. Nocturnal ozone concentrations at background sites are high compared with the urban concentrations. Nitrogen oxides emissions from motor vehicles have been reduced through retardation of spark timing, lowering the compression ratio, exhaust gas recirculation systems and three-way catalysts. The vehicle inspection program, with its NOx test for light-duty gasoline vehicles 1981 and newer (in Phoenix only) and its opacity test for diesel vehicles, has also helped. Reformulated gasolines also decrease nitrogen oxides emissions: Federal Phase II gasoline, by 1.5 percent for vehicular and 0.5 percent for off-road equipment; California Phase 2 gasoline, by 6.4 percent for vehicular and 7.7 percent for off road equipment. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is monitored continuously with chemiluminescence instruments, which also determines nitric oxide (NO) concentrations and NOx (the sum of NO2 and NO) concentrations. These instruments are located in urban neighborhoods where either the emissions are dense or where ozone concentrations tend to be at their maximum. In addition, these monitors are located near major coalfired electrical power plants. Twelve monitors were operated in Arizona in 2000: eight urban sites and four sites near power plants. Table 9 presents the nitrogen dioxide data collected in Arizona in 2001. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 22 Table 9: 2001 Nitrogen Dioxide (in ppm) Maximum Value One-Hour Average 24-Hour Average Valid Data Recovery* (%) 0.001 0.060 0.006 90 0.002 0.041 0.018 98 Cental Phoenix 0.028 0.094 0.060 96 Palo VerdeS# N/A 0.043 0.018 74 Phoenix – Greenwood 0.037 0.118 0.072 96 Phoenix, JLG SupersiteS N/A 0.063 0.049 90 South Scottsdale 0.021 0.077 0.046 94 Tempe – MCESD 0.022 0.099 0.062 85 West Phoenix 0.025 0.078 0.056 97 N/A 0.188 0.026 68 Tucson – Children’s Park 0.015 0.060 .031 93 Tucson – Craycroft 0.017 0.058 .031 99 Annual Average Site or City Apache County Springerville, Coyote Hills Coconino County Page Maricopa County Mohave County Bullhead City, SCE# Pima County *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling hours. There were 8,760 sampling hours in 2001. Valid data recovery should be less than 100 percent due to quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. S Seasonal monitors: • Palo Verde operates during summer ozone season, April 1 to Nov. 1, 5; 160 hours • Phoenix JLG Supersite operates during winter CO season, Oct. 1 to May 1; 5,088 hours possible # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 23 Sulfur Dioxide Exposure to sulfur dioxide, a colorless gas with a pungent, irritating odor at elevated concentrations, alters the mechanical function of the upper airway, including increasing the nasal flow resistance and decreasing the nasal mucus flow rate. Shortterm exposures result in an exaggerated air flow resistance in about 10 percent of the subjects tested and produce acute bronchioconstriction in strenuously exercising asthmatics. In Arizona, the principal source of sulfur dioxide emissions has been the smelting of sulfide copper ore. Most fuels contain trace quantities of sulfur, and their combustion releases both gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate sulfate (SO4--). A recent sulfate inventory for Phoenix shows 32 percent of SO2 emissions come from point sources, 26 percent from area sources, 23 percent from off-road vehicles and equipment, and 19 percent from on-road motor vehicles. Sulfur dioxide is removed from the atmosphere through dry deposition on plants and its conversion to sulfuric acid and eventually to sulfate. Sulfur dioxide has extremely low background levels, with elevated concentrations found downwind of large point sources. Concentrations in urban areas are low and are homogeneously distributed, with annual averages varying from 3 to 11 .g/m3. Major controls were installed in Arizona’s copper smelters in the 1980s, which reduced sulfur dioxide emissions substantially. Vehicular emissions of sulfur dioxide and sulfate have been reduced through lowering the sulfur content in diesel fuel and gasoline. Sulfur dioxide is monitored continuously with pulsed fluorescence instruments, most of which are clustered around copper smelters or coal-fired electric power plants. In 2001, nine reporting monitors were sited near copper smelters, three near power plants and three in urban areas. Table 10 presents the sulfur dioxide data collected in Arizona in 2001. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 24 Table 10: 2001 Sulfur Dioxide (in .g/m3) Maximum Value Site or City Annual Average 3-Hour Average 24-Hour Average Valid Data Recovery* (%) Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High 0.7 120 39 24 13 90 3 15 N/A 8 N/A 98 Globe Highway 43 838 N/A 311 N/A 100 Hayden – Garfield Avenue 29 873 N/A 285 N/A 100 Hayden – Montgomery 45 685 N/A 184 N/A 99 Hayden – Old Jail, ADEQ 24 732 575 157 131 96 Hayden – Old Jail, ASARCO 21 877 N/A 152 N/A 100 Miami – Jones Ranch 19 577 N/A 145 N/A 99 Miami, Ridgeline – ADEQ 18 339 235 105 78 100 Miami, Town Site 14 353 N/A 74 N/A 99 Central Phoenix 5 44 37 24 24 96 South Scottsdale 5 21 18 16 13 93 2 32 N/A 18 N/A 98 Apache County Springerville – Coyote Hills Coconino County Page Gila County Maricopa County Mohave County Bullhead City – SCE ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 25 Table 10: 2001 Sulfur Dioxide (in .g/m3) Maximum Value Site or City 3-Hour Average Annual Average 24-Hour Average Valid Data Recovery* (%) Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High 3 16 13 8 8 99 14 215 N/A 59 N/A 100 Pima County Tucson – Craycroft, PDEQ Pinal County Hayden – Junction *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling hours. There were 8,760 sampling hours in 2001. Valid data recovery should be less than 100 percent due to quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. # Indicates the data were not available for this report. Ozone Ozone – a colorless, slightly odorous gas – is both a natural component of the atmosphere, through its photochemical formation from natural sources of methane, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, and an important air contaminant in urban atmospheres. In the stratosphere, ozone blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation. In the urban atmosphere, its formation from anthropogenic emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides leads to concentrations harmful to people, animals, plants and materials. Ozone causes significant physiological and pathological changes in both animals and humans at concentrations present in many urban environments. Short-term (one to two hours) exposures to concentrations in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million induce changes in lung function, including increased respiratory rates, increased pulmonary resistance, decreased tidal volumes and changes in lung mechanics. Symptomatic responses in exercising adults include throat dryness, chest tightness, substernal pain, cough, wheeze, pain on deep inspiration, shortness of breath and headache. These symptoms also have been observed at lower concentrations for longer exposures. Evidence suggests that ozone exposure makes the respiratory airways more susceptible to other bronchioconstrictive challenges. Animal studies suggest that ozone exposure interferes ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 26 with or inhibits the immune system. Ozone at ambient concentrations injures the stomates, which are the cells that regulate plant respiration, resulting in flecks on the upper leaf surfaces of dichotomous plants and the death of the tips of coniferous needles. Ozone is considered by plant scientists to be the most important of all of the phytotoxic air pollutants, causing over 90 percent of all plant injury from air pollution on a global basis. Ozone is formed photochemically by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in greater Phoenix come from cars and trucks (31 percent), off-road vehicles and equipment such as lawn mowers (27 percent), small stationary sources (20 percent), biogenic emissions from grass, shrubs and trees (17 percent) and point sources (5 percent). Nitrogen oxides (NOx) come from cars and trucks (58 percent), off-road vehicles such as construction equipment and trains (27 percent), electric power plants (7 percent), small stationary sources (4 percent) and biogenic emissions from soil (4 percent). Ozone has relatively high background levels, with the daily maximum in remote areas being about one-half to three-quarters of the daily maximum in the urban areas. In an urban area, the highest ozone concentrations tend to occur on the downwind edge, although high concentrations do occur less frequently in the central city. High ozone concentrations are a summer phenomenon caused when sunlight and evaporative hydrocarbon emissions peak. Ozone concentrations are low to near zero at night, rise rapidly through the morning and peak in the afternoon. Controls to reduce the precursors of ozone – VOC and NOx – have been successfully implemented for years. NOx and exhaust VOC from vehicles have been reduced through engine modifications and three-way catalytic converters. Evaporative hydrocarbons from vehicles have been reduced through better engineered fuel tanks and auxiliary plumbing combined with carbon absorption canisters. Additional reductions of vehicular VOC have come through ADEQ’s vehicle inspection program, which tests all gasoline vehicles for hydrocarbons (Phoenix and Tucson), through vapor-capturing equipment for gasoline tankers, vapor recovery systems at retail gas stations (Phoenix area only) and reformulated gasoline (Phoenix area only). Stationary source hydrocarbons have been reduced through a variety of better control equipment required by stricter regulations. Despite these efforts, the continued growth in Arizona, combined with the high natural background ozone, will make achieving the eight-hour standard difficult. Ultraviolet absorption instruments monitor ozone continuously in urban neighborhoods for population exposure, in areas downwind of urban areas for maximum concentration monitoring and in remote areas for background information. In 2001, 37 reporting ozone monitors were in operation; five for background, 22 for urban neighborhoods and 10 for maximum concentrations downwind of urban areas. Tables 11 and 12 present the ozone data collected in Arizona in 2001. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 27 Table 11: 2001 Ozone Data Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (%) 0.073 0.071 0.071 0.071 88 Page 0.075 0.068 0.066 0.066 98 Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.072 94 Blue Point 0.111 0.104 0.093 0.092 98 Cave CreekS (began August 2001) 0.112# 0.100# 0.096# 0.092# 42# Cental Phoenix 0.091 0.091 0.090 0.090 97 Falcon FieldS 0.111 0.100 0.097 0.095 98 Fountain Hills 0.110 0.106 0.098 0.097 99 GlendaleS 0.116 0.099 0.098 0.098 98 Humboldt Mt.S 0.098 0.096 0.096 0.096 98 Lake PleasantS (closed 6/01/01) 0.085# 0.083# 0.082# 0.080# 50 # MaryvaleS 0.097 0.091 0.089 0.089 98 Mesa 0.093 0.092 0.088 0.084 93 Mount OrdS 0.102# 0.089# 0.088# 0.088# 64# North Phoenix 0.110 0.101 0.098 0.097 98 Palo VerdeS 0.085 0.085 0.083 0.081 85 Phoenix – Emergency ManagementS (closed 6/01/01) 0.073# 0.072# 0.072# 0.072# 28# Site or City Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 28 Table 11: 2001 Ozone Data Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Phoenix – JLG Supersite 0.101 0.095 0.093 0.092 97 Pinnacle Peak 0.107 0.103 0.102 0.100 98 Rio VerdeS 0.102 0.100 0.099 0.096 99 South Phoenix 0.098 0.094 0.092 0.086 96 South Scottsdale 0.102 0.101 0.094 0.092 93 Surprise 0.093# 0.088# 0.087# 0.083# 70# Tempe – Daley Park 0.099 0.099 0.096 0.093 82 West ChandlerS 0.105 0.100 0.096 0.092 96 West Phoenix 0.099 0.094 0.094 0.089 93 Saguaro National Park East 0.083 0.075 0.075 0.075 95 Tucson – Children’s Park 0.084 0.083 0.082 0.078 99 Tucson – Craycroft 0.089 0.084 0.081 0.079 99 Tucson – Downtown 0.083 0.081 0.080 0.079 99 Tucson – Fairgrounds 0.080 0.077 0.077 0.077 97 Tucson – Tangerine 0.078 0.074 0.073 0.073 99 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 0.102 0.096 0.096 0.092 92 Casa Grande – Airport 0.085 0.084 0.084 0.083 98 Queen ValleyS (began 5/08/01) 0.103# 0.103# 0.098# 0.093# 71# Site or City Pima County Pinal County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 29 Table 11: 2001 Ozone Data Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (%) 0.084 0.080 0.080 0.080 81 0.089 0.087 0.086 0.084 85 Yavapai County Hillside Yuma County YumaS *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling hours. There were 8,760 sampling hours in 2001. Valid data recovery should be less than 100 percent due to quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. S Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to Nov. 1; 5,136 sampling hours in non-leap years. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available. Table 12: 2001 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-hour Averages Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High 0.068 0.068 0.067 0.067 0 295 Page – Navajo Generating Station 0.065 0.063 0.061 0.059 0 359 Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp 0.072 0.071 0.071 0.070 0 359 Blue Point 0.085 0.081 0.080 0.080 1 361 Cave CreekS (began August 2001) 0.099# 0.085# 0.083# 0.083# 2# 91# Site or City Daily Sample Exceed. Days Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 30 Table 12: 2001 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Cental Phoenix 0.079 0.077 0.076 0.075 0 356 Falcon FieldS 0.089 0.085 0.081 0.081 2 212 Fountain Hills 0.087 0.086 0.085 0.084 3 363 GlendaleS 0.092 0.085 0.080 0.078 2 212 Humboldt Mt.S 0.087 0.086 0.085 0.085 4 212 Lake PleasantS (closed 6/01/01) 0.076# 0.073# 0.073# 0.073# 0# 108# MaryvaleS 0.083 0.075 0.075 0.073 0 209 Mesa 0.078 0.077 0.077 0.074 0 338 Mount OrdS 0.081 0.079 0.077 0.077 0 136 North Phoenix 0.093 0.087 0.086 0.086 4 363 Palo VerdeS 0.077 0.077 0.075 0.074 0 182 Phoenix – Emergency ManagementS (closed 6/01/01) 0.067# 0.065# 0.064# 0.063# 0 60# Phoenix, JLG Supersite 0.086 0.080 0.080 0.079 1 352 Pinnacle Peak 0.095 0.089 0.087 0.086 4 359 Rio VerdeS 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0 214 South Phoenix 0.086 0.082 0.080 0.076 1 352 South Scottsdale 0.088 0.081 0.079 0.079 1 355 Surprise 0.073 0.073 0.072 0.071 0 256 Tempe – Daley Park 0.088 0.082 0.082 0.079 1 300 West ChandlerS 0.086 0.084 0.083 0.078 1 209 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 31 Daily Sample Exceed. Days Table 12: 2001 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Sample Exceed. Days West Phoenix 0.081 0.079 0.076 0.075 0 344 Saguaro National Park East 0.069 0.068 0.068 0.066 0 348 Tucson – Children’s Park 0.071 0.070 0.069 0.069 0 362 Tucson – Craycroft 0.075 0.073 0.070 0.069 0 363 Tucson – Downtown 0.071 0.069 0.068 0.065 0 363 Tucson – Fairgrounds 0.071 0.069 0.069 0.066 0 357 Tucson – Tangerine 0.069 0.068 0.067 0.067 0 364 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 0.082 0.081 0.079 0.078 0 336 Casa Grande – Airport 0.078 0.075 0.074 0.079 0 358 Queen ValleyS 0.084 0.084 0.082 0.079 0 152 0.078 0.077 0.077 0.077 0 294 0.082 0.076 0.072 0.068 0 181 Pima County Pinal County Yavapai County Hillside Yuma County YumaS * Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling hours. There were 8,760 sampling hours in 2001. Valid data recovery should be less than 100 percent due to quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. S Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to Nov. 1; 5,136 sampling hours in non-leap years. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 32 Particulate Matter Smaller Than 10 Microns (PM10) and Smaller Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) Particulate matter is a collective term describing very small solid or liquid particles that vary considerably in size, geometry, chemical composition and physical properties. Produced by both natural processes (pollen and wind erosion) and human activity (soot, fly ash, and dust from paved and unpaved roads), particulates contribute to visibility reduction, pose a threat to public health and cause economic damage through soil disturbance. Some fine particulates (PM2.5) are formed by the condensation of vapors or by their subsequent growth through coagulation or agglomeration. Others are emitted directly from the sources, either by combustion or from mechanical grinding of soils. Coarse particulates (2.5 to 10 microns) are formed through mechanical processes such as the grinding of matter and the atomization of liquids. Fine particulates can also be classified as primary – produced within and emitted from a source with little subsequent change – or secondary – formed in the atmosphere from gaseous emissions. Secondary particulate nitrates and sulfates, for example, form in the atmosphere from the oxidation of sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide, which are two gases. In contrast, most atmospheric carbon is primary, having been emitted directly from combustion sources, although some of the organic carbon in the aerosol is secondary, having been formed by the complex photochemistry of gaseous volatile organic compounds. The size, shape and chemical composition of particulates determine the health effects that they will have. Particles larger than 10 microns are deposited in the upper respiratory tract. Particles from 2.5 to 10 microns are inhalable and are deposited in the upper parts of the respiratory system. Particles smaller than 2.5 microns are respirable and enter the pulmonary tissues to be deposited there. Particles in the size range of 0.1 to 2.5 microns are most efficiently deposited in the alveoli, where their effective toxicity is greater than larger particles because of the higher relative content of toxic heavy metals, sulfates and nitrates. Epidemiological studies have shown causal relationships between particulates and excess mortality, aggravation of bronchitis, and, in children, small, reversible changes in pulmonary function. Acidic aerosols have been linked to the inability of the upper respiratory tract and pulmonary system to remove harmful particles. The Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project – a multi-disciplinary investigation into human exposure to all environmental risks completed in 1995 – ranked outdoor air quality in general and particulate matter in particular as the highest environmental risk in the state. In this study, annual premature deaths from exposure to PM10 concentrations in Arizona were estimated at 963, which included 667 in ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 33 Maricopa County and 88 in Tucson. Increased percentages of hospital admissions for respiratory disease (1 to 4 percent, depending on the city), of asthma episodes (5 to 14 percent), of lower respiratory symptoms (5 to 15 percent) and of coughs (2 to 6 percent) were attributed to the prevailing annual PM10 concentrations in 1991. Chronically high particulate concentrations in the ambient air continue to pose a serious health threat to many Arizonans. Coarse particulate emissions are mostly geological and are dominated by dusts from three activities: re-entraining dust from paved roads, driving on unpaved roads and earthmoving associated with construction. Soil dust from these sources and others contribute more than 70 percent of the coarse particulates in Phoenix. On days with winds in excess of 15 miles per hour, wind erosion of soil contributes to this loading. With a more diverse chemical composition, fine particulate (PM2.5) emissions are more evenly distributed among a larger number of sources. At the Phoenix JLG Supersite, receptor modeling indicates gasoline and diesel engine exhaust account for more than two-thirds of the PM2.5 emissions. Soil dust contributes another 10.5 percent. In other urban and rural areas, this mixture of sources will vary. Agricultural and mining areas, for example, will be more heavily influenced by emissions from these activities. PM2.5 concentrations tend to be at their highest in the central portions of urban areas, diminishing to background levels at the urban fringe. In contrast, PM10 concentrations are not smoothly spatially distributed because each monitoring site is strongly influenced by the degree of localized emissions of coarse particulates. Background concentrations of PM10 are about 40 percent of the urban maxima (20 µg/m3 for an annual average background versus about 50 µg/m3 for the urban maximum). Background concentrations of PM2.5 are about 5 µg/m3, in contrast to the urban maxima of 12 to 15 µg/m3. Concentrations of both size ranges of particulates tend to be higher in the late fall and winter, when atmospheric dispersion is at a seasonal low. PM10 maximum concentrations can occur in any season, provided nearby sources of coarse particulates are present or when strong and gusty winds suspend soil disturbed by human activities. Hourly concentrations of particulates tend to peak during those hours of the worst dispersion, which is from sunset to mid-morning. Controls to reduce particulates have been in place for decades, beginning with an ordinance that required watering to reduce dust from construction in Pima County in the 1960s. Maricopa County’s umbrella dust abatement rule, Rule 310, has been revised many times through the years and now regulates construction dust, track-out dust from construction sites, and dust from unpaved parking and vacant lots. Efforts to reduce dust resuspended from paved roads have concentrated on eliminating track-out from construction sites, curbing and stabilizing road shoulders, and investigating more efficient street sweepers. Secondary fine particulates have been reduced by vehicular emission controls, which have reduced their precursor gases to fine particulates. Reducing gaseous hydrocarbon emissions has led to a significant reduction in the ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 34 primary carbon emitted in motor vehicle exhaust. In Maricopa County, the Governor’s Agricultural Best Management Practices Committee developed a rule containing best management practices for agricultural activities intended to reduce particulate emissions from tilling and harvesting activities of cropland and non-cropland. In a recent PM10 SIP, the Maricopa Association of Governments committed to implement 77 new measures, including enhanced enforcement of the county dust rules, implementation of agricultural best management practices, diesel engine replacement and retirement programs and requirements for cleaner burning fireplaces. Particulates are monitored by pulling ambient air through a filter, generally for 24 hours every sixth day, weighing the filter before and after, and measuring the volume of air sampled. Prior to 1998, the concentrations were calculated using the information gathered and a standard temperature (25 -Celsius) and pressure (1 atmosphere). For 1998 and 1999, EPA required concentrations to be calculated using local (at the monitor) temperature and pressures. Beginning in 2000, the concentrations reverted to the standard temperature and pressure calculation. The monitoring instruments are fitted with different aerodynamic devices to segregate particle size fractions. Particulates can also be monitored continuously with a tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) instrument. The 2001 PM10 data reported in Table 13 represent 74 monitors throughout Arizona and two in Mexico, which are located in Agua Prieta and Nogales, Sonora. TEOM data are not included in this table. Particulate data from the IMPROVE network were also not included because the complete data set for 2001 had not been processed. Both sets are available from ADEQ’s Air Quality Assessment Section upon request. EPA began a nationwide program to measure PM2.5 using federal reference method monitors made to EPA specifications in anticipation of a new federal standard for fine particulates. In 1999, 2000and 2001, 11 federal reference method samplers were located in Arizona. The fine particulate portion of the PM10 measurement made by dichot monitors has been measured for many years in Arizona and has served as an approximation for the PM2.5 measurement; however is it not exactly equivalent to that measurement. Table 14 lists only the federal reference method measurements for 2001. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 35 Table 13: 2001 PM10 Data (in .g/m3) 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Method Annual Average Springerville – Coalyard Dichot 11.6 35 28 95 Springerville – Coyote Hills Dichot 7.8 27 22 97 Douglas – Red Cross Dichot 29.3# 137# 110# 52# Paul Spur Partisol 19.9 55 45 97 Flagstaff – ADOT (closed 08/05/01) Partisol 14.7# 35# 30# 52## Flagstaff – Middle School Dichot 17.8# 47# 40# 80# Page – Navajo Generating Station Dichot 9.8 27 22 100 Sedona – Post Office Dichot/ Partisol 12.3# 23# 21# 90# Hayden – Old Jail Dichot 30.6 141 58 87 Miami – Golf Course Dichot 23.1 108 65 98 Miami – Ridgeline Dichot 14.4 104 40 97 Payson Partisol 21.7 62 48 89 Dichot 22.5 68 38 97 Hi-Vol 38.0 124 65 98 Site or City Max 2nd Value High Apache County Cochise County Coconino County Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County Central Phoenix ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 36 Table 13: 2001 PM10 Data (in .g/m3) 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Method Annual Average Chandler Hi-Vol 48.0 146 99 100 Estrella Dichot 26.0# 122# 51# 90# Gilbert (closed 12/31/01) Hi-Vol 39.0 121 119 100 Glendale Hi-Vol 33.0 110 63 95 Higley Hi-Vol 50.0 176 93 97 Maryvale Hi-Vol 38.0 123 94 97 Mesa Hi-Vol 30.0 98 55 100 North Phoenix Hi-Vol 30.0 99 55 100 Palo Verde Dichot 22.9# 71# 54# 85# Phoenix – ASU West (closed 8/06/01) Dichot 22.0# 42# 39# 59## Phoenix – Durango Complex Hi-Vol 58.0 189 142 100 Phoenix – Greenwood, ADEQ Dichot 45.8# 135# 116# 61# Phoenix – Greenwood, MCESD Hi-Vol 49.0 145 99 97 Phoenix – JLG Supersite Dichot 30.3 109 58 97 Phoenix – Salt River Hi-Vol 94.0 281 275 98 South Phoenix Hi-Vol 50.0 143 92 98 South Scottsdale Hi-Vol 33.0 110 53 100 Surprise Hi-Vol 27.0 107 52 97 Tempe – Community Center Dichot 31.4 109 55 95 West Chandler Hi-Vol 34.0 134 58 100 West Phoenix Hi-Vol 43.0 142 91 100 Site or City Max 2nd Value High ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 37 Table 13: 2001 PM10 Data (in .g/m3) 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Method Annual Average Bullhead City – ADEQ Dichot 16.9# 39# 35# 74# Bullhead City – SCE** Hi-Vol 23.0# 51# 49# 76# Fort Mohave (closed 10/01/01) Partisol 10.2# 30# 28# 41## Kingman – Praxair NE Hi-Vol 12.6 37 36 95 Kingman – Praxair SW Hi-Vol 12.5 36 24 97 Partisol 15.6# 58# 41# 62# Ajo – ADOT Partisol 13.6 34 31 89 Green Valley Hi-Vol 23.0 78 73 84 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Dichot 10.3 23 21 90 Rillito – ADEQ Partisol/ Dichot 33.6 89 75 100 Rillito – APCC Hi-Vol 26.0 77 64 84 South Tucson – ADEQ Dichot 24.7 113 92 98 South Tucson – PDEQ Hi-Vol 31.0 134 115 96 Tucson – Broadway and Swan Hi-Vol 26.0 120 70 100 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (ADEQ) Dichot 15.7 136 83 82 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (PDEQ) Hi-Vol 16.0 133 85 97 Tucson – Craycroft Dichot 22.8 115 48 95 Site or City Max 2nd Value High Mohave County Navajo County Show Low Pima County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 38 Table 13: 2001 PM10 Data (in .g/m3) 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Method Annual Average Tucson – Orange Grove Hi-Vol 29.0 111 100 96 Tucson – Prince Road Hi-Vol 33.0 125 83 98 Tucson – Santa Clara Hi-Vol 26.0 131 111 95 Tucson – Tangerine Hi-Vol 17.0 81 62 98 Tucson – U of A Central Dichot 25.1 122 49 98 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (North) Hi-Vol 22.7 49 45 90 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (South) Hi-Vol 23.4 94 55 90 Casa Grande – Downtown Hi-Vol 29.2 104 55 90 Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner Hi-Vol 47.2 146 138 90 Coolidge – Maintenance Yard Hi-Vol 32.0 73 70 89 Eloy – City Complex Hi-Vol 35.1 142 71 97 Mammoth – County Complex Hi-Vol 22.6 99 63 95 Pinal Air Park Hi-Vol 26.7 103 73 84 Stanfield Hi-Vol 41.9 134 112 97 Dichot 47.5 213 112 93 Clarkdale –School Dichot 15.5 31 27 87 Clarkdale – NW (#2) Dichot 36.0 141 123 98 Site or City Max 2nd Value High Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office Yavapai County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 39 Table 13: 2001 PM10 Data (in .g/m3) 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Method Annual Average Clarkdale – SE (#1) Dichot 44.0 122 119 98 Hillside (monitor replaced with IMPROVE monitor 5/07/01) Dichot 11.6# 24# 15# 20## Nelson – West (closed 8/11/01) Dichot 14.2# 49# 30# 52## Prescott Partisol 15.9# 32# 26# 67# Dichot 40.6# 150# 77# 33# Agua Prieta – Fire Station Dichot 62.5 146 129 97 Nogales – Fire Station Dichot 66.5 214 165 93 Site or City Max 2nd Value High Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center Mexico Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 .g/m3 when rounded to the nearest 10 .g/m3 and any average value greater than 50 .g/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 .g/m3. *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled samples. There were 61 monitoring days scheduled in 2001 for monitors on the every 6th day schedule. N/A – Not available **Bullhead City – SCE: No samples 8/29 through 10/21 while new monitoring equipment installed. Monitoring schedule changed to every third day beginning 10/22/02. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. ## Indicates the site was closed during the year; incomplete valid data for recovery statistics. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 40 Table 14: 2001 PM2.5 Data (in .g/m3) 24-Hour Avg Data 2nd Recovery* High (in percent) Method Annual Avg FRM 7.1# 24.4# 11.8# 34# FRM 7.1# 21.9# 16.4# 87# FRM 8.8# 27.2# 24.0# 79# Phoenix – Desert West3 FRM 10.9 63.4 45.1 92 Phoenix – JLG Supersite3 FRM 9.2 28.9 28.5 86 Phoenix – JLG Supersite (PM2.5 speciation monitor)2 FRM 12.4 41.7 32.7 91 Tempe – Community Center2 FRM 9.4 27.0 25.0 95 West Phoenix3 FRM 10.9 51.7 49.0 85 Tucson – Children’s Park2 FRM 6.8# 17.5# 15.1# 71# Tucson – Orange Grove2 FRM 7.6 20.9 20.4 80 Apache Junction – Fire Station2 FRM 6.2 14.0 13.5 96 Casa Grande – Downtown1 FRM 7.7 18.1 16.7 98 FRM 10.7 35.2 25.7 95 City or Site Max Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross1 Coconino County Flagstaff – Middle School1 Gila County Payson2 Maricopa County Pima County Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office1 *Valid data recovery is percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled samples 1 Samples collected every sixth day – 61 sample days in 2001 2 Samples collected every thirrd day – 122 sample days in 2001 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 41 3 Samples collected every day – 365 sample days in 2001 # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. Conventional Pollutants – Compliance Carbon Monoxide There are two NAAQS for carbon monoxide: an eight-hour standard (most critical for compliance) and a one-hour standard. The eight-hour standard is 9 ppm and the onehour standard is 35 ppm. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, compliance for both standards is determined by having no more than one exceedance per calendar year. EPA determines attainment of the standard at all sites in the non-attainment (or monitoring) area by evaluating two calendar years of data from each site. The highest of the second-highest values for the two-year period must not exceed the standard of 9 ppm (greater than or equal to 9.5 ppm to adjust for rounding) for the eight-hour standard or 35 ppm (greater than or equal to 35.5 ppm) for the one-hour standard. No exceedances of the one-hour standard were recorded in 2000 or 2001. No exceedances of the eight-hour standard were recorded in 2000 or 2001. The data are presented in Table 15 and Table 16. Table 15. 2000-2001 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) NAAQS for one-hour carbon monoxide: The second-highest value for the two-year period must not exceed 35 ppm 2000-2001 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Compliance Values by County Exceedances Violations Maricopa 0 0 Pima 0 0 Pinal 0 0 Summary: 21 of 21 monitors in compliance Table 15: 2000-2001 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2000 City or Site 2001 Compliance Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Central Phoenix 8.1 8.0 6.0 5.8 8.0 GlendaleS 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 42 Table 15: 2000-2001 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2000 City or Site 2001 Compliance Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High MaryvaleS 9.3 9.1 9.0 7.5 9.1 MesaS 6.0 5.1 4.6 3.8 5.1 North PhoenixS 6.0 5.9 5.2 4.7 5.9 Phoenix – Grand AvenueS 10.5 10.5 10.3 9.6 10.5 Phoenix – Greenwood 8.1 8.1 7.0 6.9 8.1 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 9.1 7.9 7.0 6.5 7.9 Phoenix – West Indian School 11.9 8.9 8.0 7.7 8.9 South PhoenixS 10.0 8.4 6.8 6.3 8.4 South ScottsdaleS 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.4 4.9 Tempe – Daley Park 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.6 West ChandlerS (site moved 1/2 mile in 2000) 5.7 3.8 3.3 3.1 3.8 West Phoenix 10.6 10.4 8.4 8.2 10.4 Tucson – Alvernon 8.9 7.5 5.8 5.7 7.5 Tucson – Cherry 5.3 5.0 3.9 3.6 5.0 Tucson – Children’s Park 3.8 3.5 2.9 2.9 3.5 Tucson – Craycroft 5.4 5.4 3.7 3.6 5.4 Tucson – Downtown 6.7 6.0 5.6 5.1 6.0 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 1.4 1.3 3.8 3.4 3.4 Casa Grande – Airport 2.4 2.2 1.5 1.1 2.2 Pima County Pinal County S Seasonal monitor, operational Jan. 1 to April 1 and Sept. 1 to Dec. 31 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 43 Table 16. 2000-2001 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) NAAQS for eight-hour carbon monoxide: The second-highest value for the two-year period must not exceed 9 ppm 2000-2001 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Compliance Values by County Exceedancese Violations Maricopa 0 0 Pima 0 0 Pinal 0 0 Summary: 21 of 21 monitors in compliance Table 16: 2000-2001 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2000 City or Site 2001 Compliance Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Central Phoenix 5.3 5.0 4.3 4.1 5.0 GlendaleS 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.2 MaryvaleS 7.0 7.0 7.5 5.3 7.0 MesaS 4.3 3.4 2.9 2.7 3.4 North PhoenixS 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.5 3.1 Phoenix – Grand AvenueS 6.0 6.0 6.6 6.1 6.1 Phoenix – Greenwood 5.6 5.6 4.7 4.6 5.6 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 6.9 6.4 5.7 5.2 6.4 Phoenix West Indian School 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.7 South PhoenixS 5.9 4.7 3.4 3.4 4.7 South ScottsdaleS 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 Tempe – Daley Park 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 3.5 West ChandlerS (site moved 1/2 mile in 2000) 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 West Phoenix 7.4 7.2 6.7 6.5 7.2 5.0 4.7 3.0 2.9 4.7 Maricopa County Pima County Tucson – Alvernon ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 44 Table 16: 2000-2001 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2000 City or Site 2001 Compliance Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Tucson – Cherry 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.6 3.3 Tucson – Children’s Park 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9 Tucson – Craycroft 2.7 2.4 1.9 1.7 2.4 Tucson – Downtown 3.8 3.5 2.7 2.5 3.5 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 Casa Grande – Airport 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 Pinal County S Seasonal monitor, operational from Jan. 1 to April 1 and Sept. 1 to Dec. 31 Lead In 2001, the NAAQS for lead, 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (.g/m3) averaged for a calendar quarter, was not exceeded at any Arizona monitor. Table 17: 2001 Lead Quarterly Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Exceedances Violations Apache 0 0 Cochise 0 0 Coconino 0 0 Gila 0 0 Maricopa 0 0 Pima 0 0 Pinal 0 0 Santa Cruz 0 0 Yavapai 0 0 Summary: 16 of 16 monitors in compliance ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 45 Nitrogen Dioxide Table 18: 2001 Nitrogen Dioxide Average The NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide is Exceedances Violations 0.053 parts per million (ppm) for an annual average. The standard is Apache 0 0 attained when the annual Maricopa 0 0 arithmetic mean concentration in a calendar year is less than or equal to Mohave 0 0 0.053 ppm. To demonstrate attainment, the annual mean must Pima 0 0 be based upon hourly data that are Summary: 16 of 16 monitors in compliance at least 75 percent complete. The 2001 nitrogen dioxide annual averages near Arizona power plants ranged from 2 percent to 17 percent of the standard; in the urban areas, 30 percent to 70 percent. All Arizona sites were in compliance with the NAAQS. Refer to Table 9 for the 2001 averages. Sulfur Dioxide There are three NAAQS for sulfur dioxide, two primary (annual average and 24-hour block average) and one secondary (three-hour block average). The annual average standard is 80 .g/m3 (approximately 0.03 ppm) and the maximum 24-hour block average standard is 365 .g/m3 (approximately 0.14 ppm). To demonstrate attainment, neither standard can be exceeded in a calendar year. In addition, the averages must be based upon hourly data that are 75 percent complete. A 24-hour block average is considered valid if at least 75 percent of the hourly averages for the 24-hour period are available. The 24-hour averages are determined from successive non-overlapping 24hour blocks which begin at midnight each day. The secondary three-hour standard is 1300 .g/m3 (approximately 0.50 ppm) and is not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The three-hour averages are determined from successive non-overlapping three-hour blocks starting at midnight each calendar day. In Arizona, the maximum concentration sites – all near copper smelters – comply with these standards; the concentrations being no higher than 66 percent of the three-hour, 78 percent of the 24-hour and 51 percent of the annual average standards. Sites near power plants are close to background levels, with annual averages from less than 1 to 8 .g/m3. See Table 10 on Page 25 for the 2001 averages. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 46 Table 19: 2001 Sulfur Dioxide Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County County Annual Exceedances Three Hour 24-Hour Violations Exceedances Violations Exceedances Violations Apache 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gila 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maricopa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mohave 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pima 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pinal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary: 15 out of 15 monitors in compliance Ozone The NAAQS include a standard for one-hour ozone and a proposed standard for eight-hour ozone. The one-hour standard is 0.12 ppm. Compliance with this standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm (0.124 ppm for rounding ) is equal to or less than one. A daily exceedance is defined as any day having one or more hourly averages equal to or greater than 0.125 ppm. Hourly averages for at least 75 percent of the hours sampled (18-24 hours per day) must be present. The most recent three calendar years of daily averages are used to determine if the annual standard is met. No exceedances of the one hour standard occurred in Arizona in 2001. The last exceedance of the one-hour standard occurred in 1996 in Phoenix. EPA developed the proposed eight-hour ozone standards in response to human exposure studies that showed adverse health effects occur at lower ozone concentrations extending over several hours. The new ozone standard was proposed in 1997, but was subsequently the subject of a lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld EPA’s decision that an eight-hour standard is viable, but remanded the case to EPA to further determine what the final standard should be. Monitoring agencies continue to record monitoring data to gather information on occurrence and ability for future compliance with an eight-hour standard. The proposed eight-hour ozone standard is 0.08 ppm (0.84 for rounding) for a daily maximum eight-hour average. This standard is met when the average of the annual ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 47 fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The most recent three calendar years are used to assess compliance with the standard. Table 20. 1999 to 2001 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Proposed NAAQS: The threeyear average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm 1999 to 2001 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Eight-Hour Exceedances Sites in Violation 1999 2000 2001 Cochise 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 Maricopa 62 57 27 6 Pima 3 6 0 0 Pinal 2 6 0 0 Yavapai 3 1 0 0 Yuma 1 0 0 0 Summary: 27 of 33 monitors in compliance for 1999 to 2001 Table 20: 1999 to 2001 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) 1999 2000 2001 ThreeYear Average 0.072 0.071 0.067 0.070 Page 0.065 0.063 0.059 0.062 Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp 0.077 0.071 0.070 0.073 Blue Point 0.088 0.088 0.080 0.085 Central Phoenix 0.078 0.077 0.075 0.077 Falcon FieldS 0.082 0.075 0.081 0.079 Fountain Hills 0.086 0.085 0.084 0.085 GlendaleS 0.083 0.081 0.078 0.080 City or Site Fourth-Highest Value Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 48 Table 20: 1999 to 2001 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) 1999 2000 2001 ThreeYear Average Humboldt Mt.S 0.088 0.083 0.085 0.085 Lake PleasantS (closed 6/01/01) 0.081 0.083 0.073# 0.079 MaryvaleS 0.080 0.081 0.074 0.078 Mesa 0.084 0.076 0.074 0.078 Mt. OrdS 0.088 0.090 0.077 0.085 North Phoenix 0.084 0.087 0.086 0.085 Palo Verde 0.080 0.080 0.074 0.078 Phoenix – Emergency ManagementS (closed 6/01/01) 0.087 0.070 0.063# 0.073 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 0.061 0.077# 0.079 0.072 Pinnacle Peak 0.085 0.086 0.086 0.085 Rio VerdeS 0.085 0.086 0.083 0.084 South Phoenix 0.075 0.084 0.077 0.078 South Scottsdale 0.072 0.080 0.079 0.077 West Chandler (site moved 1/2 mile in 2000)S 0.069 0.078 0.078 0.075 West Phoenix 0.091 0.081 0.075 0.082 Saguaro National Park East 0.071 0.074 0.066 0.073 Tucson – Children’s Park 0.072 0.077 0.069 0.072 Tucson – Craycroft 0.071 0.075 0.069 0.071 Tucson – Downtown 0.064 0.067 0.065 0.065 Tucson – Fairgrounds 0.068 0.074 0.066 0.069 Tucson – Tangerine 0.073 0.073 0.067 0.071 City or Site Fourth-Highest Value Pima County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 49 Table 20: 1999 to 2001 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) 1999 2000 2001 ThreeYear Average Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 0.080 0.082 0.078 0.080 Casa Grande – Airport 0.078 0.085 0.079 0.080 0.084 0.083 0.077 0.081 0.079 0.061 0.068 0.069 City or Site Fourth-Highest Value Pinal County Yavapai County Hillside Yuma County YumaS Bold values indicate monitors in violation of the standard. S Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to Nov. 1. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available. Particulate Matter – PM10 With the delay in adopting the proposed PM10 and PM2.5 standards, 2001 compliance will be assessed using the rules in place prior to the 1997 proposal. Therefore, the NAAQS for particulate matter 10 microns and less in diameter (PM10) are 50 .g/m3 for the annual arithmetic mean concentration and 150 .g/m3 for the 24-hour average concentration. The annual standard is met when the three-year average of the annual means is less than or equal to 50.g/m3. The annual average is determined by calculating quarterly (three month) averages of the samples collected during that quarter; a minimum of 75 percent of the samples must be present to produce a valid annual average. The four quarterly averages are used to produce the annual average. This value is rounded to the nearest 1 .g/m3 for comparison to the standard. Compliance with the 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the expected exceedance rate of occurrence of samples greater than or equal to 150 .g/m3 is one or less per year measured over three years. A sample value is rounded to the nearest 10 .g/m3 for comparison with the standard to determine if it is an exceedance (i.e., a sample value of 154 .g/m3 is not an exceedance; a sample value of 155 .g/m3 is an exceedance). Since the majority of monitoring sites collect samples on a less than every ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 50 day schedule, the expected exceedance rate must be calculated by quarter following EPA guidelines. The same requirements of 75 percent completeness and three consecutive years of data apply. Tables 21 and 22 present the 1999 to 2001 data. Table 21. 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) NAAQS: The three-year average of annual averages is less than or equal to 50 .g/m3. Annual averages are rounded to nearest 1 .g/m3 for comparison to the standard. 1999 to 2001 PM10 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Sites above Standard Sites in Violation 1999 2000 2001 Apache 0 0 0 0 Cochise 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 Gila 0 0 0 0 Maricopa 3 7 2 3 Mohave 0 0 0 0 Navajo 0 0 0 0 Pima 0 0 0 0 Pinal 1 1 0 1 Santa Cruz 1 0 0 0 Yavapai 0 0 0 0 Yuma 0 0 0 0 Summary: 71 of 75 monitors in compliance for 1999 to 2001 Table 21: 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Three-Year Average Springerville – Coalyard 11.3 11.6 11.6 12 Springerville – Coyote Hills 8.1 9.6# 7.8 9 Douglas – Red Cross 35.2# 37.9 29.3# 34 Paul Spur 29.3 22.9 19.9 24 Flagstaff – ADOT 18.0# 15.3 14.7# 16 Flagstaff – Middle School 14.0 15.5 17.8# 16 City or Site Apache County Cochise County Coconino County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 51 Table 21: 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Three-Year Average Page – Navajo Generating Station 7.4 10.8 9.8 9 Sedona N/A 10.8 12.3# N/A Hayden – Old Jail 35.3 33.6# 30.6 33 Miami – Golf Course 22.0 27.0 23.1 24 Miami – Ridgeline 13.0 16.1 14.4 15 Payson 20.7 24.6 21.7 22 N/A 26.9# 22.5 N/A Central Phoenix 43.6# 46.3 38.0 43 Chandler 59.6 56.8 48.0 55 Estrella 34.4 32.2# 26.0# 31 Gilbert 45.4 49.1 39.0 45 Glendale 36.3 40.8 33.0 36 Higley 61.2 57.9# 50.0 56 Maryvale 44.7 47.7 38.0 44 Mesa 35.3 37.0 30.0 34 North Phoenix 34.5 37.1 30.0 34 Palo Verde 21.7 20.6 22.9# 22 Phoenix – ASU West (closed 8/06/01) 30.7 32.1 22.0# 28 Phoenix – Durango Complex 68.0# 70.0 58.0 65 City or Site Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 52 Table 21: 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Three-Year Average Phoenix – Greenwood (ADEQ) 53.1 52.8# 45.8# 51 Phoenix – Greenwood (MCESD) 55.8 61.1 49.0 55 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 35.1 36.3 30.3 34 101.0 101.0 94.0 99 South Phoenix N/A 61.3 50.0 N/A South Scottsdale 40.1 40.2 33.0 38 Tempe – Community Center 36.0 38.3 31.4 35 West Chandler (Site moved ½ mile in 2000) 48.2 44.0 34.0 42 West Phoenix 51.3 52.5 43.0 49 Bullhead City – ADEQ 12.9 15.3 16.9# 15 Bullhead City – SCE 29.5 29.0 23.0# 27 Fort Mohave (closed 10/01/01) 12.3# 14.3 10.2# 12 Kingman – Praxair NE 15.4 15.0# 12.6 14 Kingman – Praxair SW 15.6 13.4 12.5 14 16.2# 14.9 15.6# 16 Ajo 21.7 18.5 13.6 18 Green Valley 17.9 16.7 23.0 19 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 10.0# 12.2 10.3 11 City or Site Phoenix – Salt River Mohave County Navajo County Show Low Pima County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 53 Table 21: 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Three-Year Average Rillito – ADEQ 35.8# 42.1# 33.6 37 Rillito – APCC 30.7 30.8 26.0 29 South Tucson – ADEQ N/A 28.0 24.7 N/A South Tucson – PDEQ 48.4 38.4 31.0 39 Tucson – Broadway and Swan 31.6 30.0 26.0 29 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (ADEQ) N/A 15.2 15.7 N/A Tucson – Corona de Tucson (PDEQ) 18.4 17.9 16.0 17 Tucson – Craycroft 26.0 24.1 22.8 24 Tucson – Orange Grove 45.8 38.8 29.0 38 Tucson – Prince Road 43.7 37.7 33.0 38 Tucson – Santa Clara 34.0 31.0 26.0 30 Tucson – Tangerine 18.4 18.4 17.0 18 Tucson – U of A Central 26.0 26.2 25.1 26 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (North) 25.8 27.4 22.7 25 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (South) 27.5 28.4 23.4 26 Casa Grande – Downtown 35.3 34.7 29.2 33 Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner 71.0 67.5 47.2 62 Coolidge – Maintenance Yard 39.6 37.4 32.0 36 Eloy 45.9 41.7 35.1 41 Mammoth 22.5 22.0 22.6 22 City or Site Pinal County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 54 Table 21: 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Three-Year Average Pinal Air Park 30.3 30.9 26.7 29 Stanfield 56.6 45.7 41.9 48 52.5# 47.6 47.5 49 Clarkdale – School 15.3 15.8 15.5 16 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 22.6 22.9 36.0 27 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 28.1 29.6 44.0 34 Hillside 7.5# 9.9# 11.6# 10 Nelson – West (closed 8/11/01) 12.4 13.6# 14.2# 13 Prescott N/A 11.8 15.9# N/A 35.2# 42.2# 40.6# 39 Agua Prieta – Fire Station 63.0 81.3 62.5 69 Nogales – Fire Station 59.8 76.9 66.5 68 City or Site Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center Mexico Bold denotes value above the standard. N/A – Not available # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 55 1999 to 2001 PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Compliance Values, By County Table 22. 1999 to 2001 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) Sites with Exceedances 1999 2000 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma NAAQS: Expected occurrence of exceedances (samples equal to or greater than 150 ug/m3) is one or less over three consecutive years. Sample values are rounded to the nearest 10 .g/m3 to determine exceedance; values less than or equal to 154 .g/m3 are not exceedances; values greater than or equal to 155 .g/m3 are exceedances. Sites in Violation 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Summary: 60 of 69 monitors in compliance for 1999 to 2001 Table 22: 1999 to 2001 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 City or Site 2000 2001 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Springerville – Coalyard 49 0 31 0 35 0 < 1.0 Springerville – Coyote Hills 25 0 20# 0 27 0 < 1.0 Douglas – Red Cross 83# 0 104 0 137# 0 < 1.0 Paul Spur 78 0 58 0 55 0 < 1.0 Flagstaff – ADOT (closed 08/05/01) 62# 0 38 0 35# 0 < 1.0 Flagstaff – Middle School 35 0 39 0 47# 0 < 1.0 Page – Navajo Generating Station 20 0 26 0 27 0 < 1.0 Apache County Cochise County Coconino County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 56 Table 22: 1999 to 2001 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 17 0 24 0 23# 0 < 1.0 Hayden – Old Jail 84 0 86# 0 141 0 < 1.0 Miami – Golf Course 43 0 59 0 108 0 < 1.0 Miami – Ridgeline 34 0 62 0 104 0 < 1.0 Payson 47# 0 88 0 62 0 < 1.0 125# 0 94# 0 68 0 < 1.0 Central Phoenix 85# 0 135 0 124 0 < 1.0 Chandler 110 0 202 6.6 146 0 2.2 Estrella 80 0 82# 0 122# 0 < 1.0 Gilbert 90 0 128 0 121 0 < 1.0 Glendale 77 0 122 0 110 0 < 1.0 Higley (MCESD) N/A N/A 327# 8.3# 176 6.0 N/A Maryvale 104 0 173 6.1 123 0 2.0 Mesa 80 0 126 0 98 0 < 1.0 North Phoenix 70 0 114 0 99 0 < 1.0 Palo Verde 83 0 75 0 71# 0 < 1.0 Phoenix – ASU West 55 0 101 0 N/A N/A N/A Phoenix – Durango Complex 148 0 300 11.8 189 6.0 5.9 Phoenix – Greenwood (MCESD) 117 0 164 11.8 145 0 3.9 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 78 0 84 0 109 0 < 1.0 City or Site Sedona Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 57 Table 22: 1999 to 2001 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Phoenix – Salt River 256 51.0 244 42.7 281 49.0 47.5 South Phoenix 126# 0 175 6.1 143 0 2.0 South Scottsdale 87 0 100 0 110 0 < 1.0 Tempe – Community Center 82 0 95 0 109 0 < 1.0 West Chandler 151 0 135 0 134 0 < 1.0 West Phoenix 111 0 151 0 142 0 < 1.0 Bullhead City – SCE 122 0 79 0 51# 0 < 1.0 Bullhead City – ADEQ 26 0 42 0 39# 0 < 1.0 Fort Mohave (closed 10/01/01) 30# 0 119 0 30# 0 < 1.0 Kingman – Praxair NE 44 0 55# 0 37 0 < 1.0 Kingman – Praxair SW 46 0 53# 0 36 0 < 1.0 38# 0 35# 0 58# 0 < 1.0 Ajo – ADOT 41 0 47 0 34 0 < 1.0 Green Valley 38 0 63 0 78 0 < 1.0 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 18# 0 29 0 23 0 < 1.0 Rillito – ADEQ 98# 0 129# 0 89 0 < 1.0 Rillito – APCC 123 0 77 0 77 0 < 1.0 South Tucson – PDEQ 214 2## 142 0 134 0 < 1.0 Tucson – Broadway/Swan 89 0 119 0 120 0 < 1.0 City or Site Mohave County Navajo County Show Low Pima County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 58 Table 22: 1999 to 2001 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Tucson – Corona de Tucson (PDEQ) 51 0 88 0 133 0 < 1.0 Tucson – Craycroft 55 0 117 0 115 0 < 1.0 Tucson – Orange Grove (PDEQ) 235 4## 141 0 111 0 < 1.0 Tucson – Prince Road 118 0 89 0 125 0 < 1.0 Tucson – Santa Clara 97 0 97 0 131 0 < 1.0 Tucson – Tangerine 41 0 71 0 81 0 < 1.0 Tucson – U of A Central 54 0 75 0 122 0 < 1.0 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (North) 64 0 111 0 49 0 < 1.0 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (South) 64 0 107 0 94 0 < 1.0 Casa Grande – Downtown 64 0 83 0 104 0 < 1.0 Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner 368 18.3 321 11.8 146 12 10.0 Coolidge – Maintenance Yard 83 0 77 0 73 0 < 1.0 Eloy – City Complex 142 0 102 0 142 0 < 1.0 Mammoth – County Complex 50 0 64 0 99 0 < 1.0 Pinal Air Park 60 0 74 0 103 0 < 1.0 Stanfield 106 0 149 0 134 0 < 1.0 169# 12.2 130 0 213 6.0 6.1 City or Site Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 59 Table 22: 1999 to 2001 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in .g/m3) 1999 2000 2001 Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Clarkdale – School 30 0 37 0 31 0 < 1.0 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 48 0 55 0 141 0 < 1.0 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 53 0 74 0 122 0 < 1.0 Hillside 22# 0 30# 0 24# 0 < 1.0 Nelson – West (closed 8/11/01) 32 0 32# 0 49# 0 < 1.0 N/A N/A 25 0 32# 0 N/A 102 0 132# 0 150# 0 < 1.0 City or Site Yavapai County Prescott Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center N/A – Not available # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. ## Exceedances at the Orange Grove and South Tucson sites in Pima County in 1999 are flagged as due to natural events and are excluded from the compliance calculation. Particulate Matter – PM2.5 The proposed NAAQS for particulate matter 2.5 microns and smaller in diameter (PM2.5) are under review due to litigation at the federal level. These standards will still be used to assess the compliance of the monitors operating in Arizona during 2001. The proposed standards are 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (.g/m3) for the annual arithmetic mean concentration and 65 .g/m3 for the 24-hour average concentrations. The annual PM2.5 standard is met when the three-year average of annual means is less than or equal to 15.0 .g/m3. This three-year average is determined by calculating the quarterly averages for each year (with 75 percent data recovery in each quarter) to determine the calendar year average and then averaging the three years together. The 24-hour standard is met when the three-year average of the 98th percentile values is less than or equal to 65 .g/m3. There must also be 75 percent data completeness for each year. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 60 Please note that the data in the Table 17 are from federal reference monitors since there are now three years of available data for these monitors. In prior years, the Dichot fine measurement was used as an approximate equivalent for PM2.5, but the federal reference monitors provide a more accurate measurement of this pollutant. 1999 to 2001 PM2.5 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Table 23. 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in .g/m3) Proposed NAAQS: The threeyear average of annual means is less than or equal to15 µg/m3 Cochise Coconino Gila Maricopa Pima Santa Cruz Sites with Exceedances 1999 2000 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites in Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary: 11 of 11 federal reference monitors Table 23: 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in .g/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 1999 2000 2001 ThreeYear Avg 9.0# 8.9 7.2# 8.4# 8.4# 6.9 7.1# 7.5# 9.8 10.1# 8.9# 9.6# Phoenix – Desert West 11.4 12.1 10.9 11.5 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 12.2 11.5# 9.2 11.0# Tempe – Community Center 10.8 10.3 9.4 10.2 Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff – Middle School Gila County Payson Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 61 Table 23: 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in .g/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 1999 2000 2001 ThreeYear Avg Table 23: 1999 to 2001 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in .g/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 1999 2000 2001 ThreeYear Avg Tucson – Children’s Park 8.8 6.8# 6.8# 7.5# Tucson – Orange Grove 9.7# 7.8# 7.6# 8.4# Apache Junction – Fire Station 7.4 7.3 6.3 7.0 Casa Grande – Downtown 9.5 8.5 7.7 8.6 12.5 12.8# 10.7 12.0# Pima County Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office N/A – Not available # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. Table 24. 1999 to 2001 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in .g/m3) Proposed NAAQS: The threeyear average of the 98th percentile values is less than or equal to 65 .g/m3. Note: The three-year average is rounded to the nearest 1 .g/m3 for comparison to the standard. 1999 to 2001 PM2.5 24-Hour Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Sites with Exceedances Sites in Violation 1999 2000 2001 Cochise 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 Gila 0 0 0 0 Maricopa 0 0 0 0 Pima 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz 0 0 0 0 Summary: 11 of 11 federal reference monitors in compliance for 1999 to 2001 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 62 Table 24. 1999 to 2001 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in .g/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 98th Percentile Observations Three-Year Average 1999 2000 2001 23.0# 38.5 24.4# 29# 24.9# 24.5 16.4# 22# 25.5 27.3# 24.0# 26# Phoenix – Desert West 34.1 34.1 35.3 35 Phoenix – JLG Supers ite 30.1 32.1# 25.0 29# Tempe – Community Center 24.0 20.2 22.7 22 Tucson – Children’s Park 19.8 11.1# 15.1# 15# Tucson – Orange Grove 23.7# 12.8# 20.4# 19# Apache Junction – Fire Station 15.5 18.0 13.1 16 Casa Grande – Downtown 18.1 18.9 16.7 18 39.1 34.4# 25.7 33# Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff – Middle School Gila County Payson Maricopa County Pima County Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office N/A – Not available # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. Visibility Data Visibility monitoring is of three types: aerosol, optical and scene. Aerosol measurements include the physical properties of the ambient atmospheric particles ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 63 (chemical composition, size, shape, concentration, temporal and spatial distribution and other physical properties) through which a scene is viewed. The chemical species that comprise a particulate sample have different extinction efficiencies. Extinction efficiency is the extent to which an individual or a specific particle will either scatter or absorb light, thus blocking the light’s path to one’s eye. The overall impact of particles can be estimated by summing the effect of all the component species. This method is the primary approach used in the draft national regional haze rule for estimating present visibility and charting trends for future plan reviews. ADEQ operates several types of monitors designed to characterize different optical phenomena. Visibility data from these monitors can be expressed by several different measurement units: deciview, inverse megametersand visual range. Inverse megameters is a representation of the ratio between how much light is not received by a sensor compared to the amount of light that leaves a source. Higher numbers mean worse visibility. Class I Areas In anticipation of the federal regional haze rule, ADEQ, in 1997, undertook development of a visibility monitoring program directed at Class I areas in partnership with Arizona’s federal land managers. The aim is to collect data at all of Arizona’s Class I areas. Based on the regional haze rule, five years of data will be needed to determine baseline and projected visibility conditions. Since the IMPROVE program consists only of aerosol sampling, ADEQ will jointly operate sites by installing nephelometers that measure light scattering. Since IMPROVE aerosol samplers will only operate every three days and represent 24 hour averages, taking continuous measurements provides insight into variation in visibility impairment with time, along with advancing the understanding of the relationship between particles and light scattering. Table 25 summarizes the nephelometer data from locations in or near Arizona Class I areas from 1998 to 2001. The data are summarized into three categories for all hours (24 hours a day): the average visibility of the dirtiest 20 percent of the sampled hours, the mean visibility of all hoursand the average visibility of the cleanest 20 percent of the sampled hours. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 64 Table 25: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) Site Year Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours Humboldt Mountain Mazatzal Wilderness and Pine Mountain Wilderness 1998 24 9 0 1999 25 12 3 2000 28 13 3 2001 21 9 1 Mount Ord Mazatzal Wilderness (site closed in 2000) 1998 28 12 2 1999 22 11 3 McFadden Peak Sierra Ancha Wilderness (site closed in 2000) 1998 24 10 1 1999 18 7 0 Muleshoe Ranch Chiracahua National Monument Wilderness, Galiuro Wilderness, Chiricahua Forest Service Wilderness 1998 24 11 4 1999 20 11 3 2000 22 11 3 2001 24 12 4 Rucker Canyon Chiricahua Wilderness (site closed in 2001) 1998 30 12 3 1999 20 10 4 2000 18 8 1 Pleasant Valley Ranger Station Sierra Ancha Wilderness 2001 28 14 5 Camp Raymond Sycamore Canyon Wilderness 1998 N/A N/A N/A 1999 28 13 4 2000 28 13 3 2001 28 13 3 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 65 Table 25: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) Site Year Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours Tucson Mountain Saguaro National Park (Includes both the West facilities support building and the National Park Service well site) 1998 30 12 2 1999 24 13 6 2000 23 12 5 2001 22 11 3 N/A – Not available Urban Haze In addition to the 24-hour PM10 samples collected for regulatory purposes that can also be used in the assessment of urban haze (shown earlier), ADEQ has collected sixhour samples of PM10 and PM2.5. The six-hour samples were for the morning hours (5 a.m. to 11 a.m.) And were collected in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. This program ended in July 2001 for all six-hour sampling sites. Along with the particulate matter sampling, ADEQ also operated transmissometers and nephelometers in Phoenix and Tucson. Data from these instruments from 1998 to 2001 are presented in Tables 26. The data are separated into categories for all hours and for 6-hours. Each category is further summarized into the average visibility for the dirtiest 20 percent of the sampled hours, the mean visibility of all hoursand the cleanest 20 percent of the sampled hours. Table 26. Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2001 (in Mm-1) Mm-1 24 Hour Samples Mm-1 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Site Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Phoenix Transmissometer 1998 133 78 45 136 84 50 1999 127 72 38 128 77 42 2000 131 74 38 134 80 42 2001 118 69 36 118 73 42 1998 91 35 10 77 34 13 1999 87 36 11 74 36 14 Phoenix Nephelometer ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 66 Table 26. Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2001 (in Mm-1) Mm-1 24 Hour Samples Site Tucson Transmissometer Tucson Nephelometer (U of A Central) Mm-1 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 2000 93 39 12 80 39 15 2001 73 32 12 66 33 15 1998 102 57 28 119 69 34 1999 90 57 35 107 65 38 2000 98 56 27 114 66 31 2001 96 55 26 109 66 33 1998 45 21 4 47 23 7 1999 43 23 10 41 24 11 2000 40 20 8 40 22 9 2001 42 23 10 44 25 13 N/A – Not available Special Projects Introduction View a photo of the Doppler In addition to ADEQ’s statewide regulatory ambient Radar Wind Profiler used in air monitoring program, the Air Quality Division the Phoenix Ozone Study undertook several special projects during 2001 and the early part of 2002. Two of these projects (Douglas/Agua Prieta and the Air Toxics Monitoring Program) addressed the need for more in-depth knowledge of the emissions from specific areas. One of the studies, the Phoenix Ozone Study, was a collaborative effort with national researchers to advance the understanding of how nocturnal accumulations of ozone precursors in an urban core contribute to ozone formation later in the day. Also included is a progress report on the recommendation from the Governor’s Brown Cloud Summit to develop a visibility index and cap and trade programs for the Phoenix metropolitan area. The final two summaries discuss short-term air monitoring performed for recent emergency events. All of these studies go beyond just collecting monitoring data to determine population exposure and visibility degradation. Instead, these studies seek to better understand air pollutant science, provide data for numerical models for dispersions and ultimately better understand the relationship between emissions and air pollutant ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 67 concentrations. The knowledge gained from these studies can then be used by decision-makers to choose the most effective control strategies that will continue to improve the state’s air quality. Douglas/Agua Prieta A comprehensive emissions inventory for the Douglas, Ariz., and Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico area was completed in June 2002. Pollutant information contained in the emissions inventory includes volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur, hazardous air pollutants and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). ADEQ staff used a new approach that couples geographic information system software with satellite imaging software for analysis of highresolution digital satellite images to identify and quantify land uses contributing to air pollution. Arizona State University staff are using this emissions inventory as one of the inputs into the dispersion model for the air quality of the Douglas/Agua Prieta area. Two previous ADEQ studies provided the meteorological and air quality monitoring data inputs. This modeling will simulate pollutant concentrations in the Douglas/Agua Prieta area. The goal is to understand the risks posed to human health from air pollutants and to evaluate the benefits of proposed control measures that reduce the emissions of air pollutants. The Douglas/Agua Prieta study was the second extensive border study that ADEQ conducted; the first was a study of Nogales, Ariz. and Nogales, Sonora, conducted from 1994 to 1999. A third border study, which will focus on Yuma, Ariz. and San Luis, Sonora, Mexico is planned to begin in 2003. Phoenix Ozone Study An interdisciplinary team of atmospheric scientists from a variety of government and academic institutions conducted an intensive field experiment in Phoenix in June 2001 to determine features of the urban ozone formation phenomenon. The team was assisted by ADEQ’s Air Assessment Section personnel, who provided logistical support, laborand instruments. This team performed extensive meteorological and air pollutant measurements including use of an instrumented aircraft, instrumentation sites at the top of and halfway up the Bank One building in downtown Phoenixand at a site in the far west valley near Cotton Lane and Greenway Road. In contrast to the U.S. Department of Energy’s ozone study of 1998, which examined the transport, chemical reactivity and age of the Phoenix urban plume, the objective of the 2001 experiment was to understand the vertical distribution of ozone precursors during nighttime hours and during the evolution of the convective boundary layer in the morning. To this end, an Arizona State University team determined vertical meteorological and ozone profiles with a tethered balloon in central Phoenix and has submitted their theoretical interpretations of these data to a peer-reviewed journal. With a more complete understanding of the vertical scale of ozone formation, the ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 68 investigators will be able to formulate more accurate photochemical models to explicitly identify the nocturnal and morning photochemistry of urban ozone formation. Air Toxics Monitoring Program Implementation In conjunction with the PAMS program, ADEQ began monitoring for air toxics at three sites in the Phoenix area in 2001. Air Toxics monitoring includes volatile organic compound (VOC) canister sampling and carbonyl cartridge sampling over 24hour time frames (midnight to midnight); PAMS monitoring consists of the same type of samples, but over 3-hour time frames. The 24-hour VOC canisters are analyzed at the EPA contract laboratory for both air toxics compounds and PAMS compounds during the PAMS season (May through October), and for air toxics compounds the remainder of the year. Currently there are three PAMS and air toxics monitoring sites: JLG Supersite in Phoenix; Queen Valley near the edge of Tonto National Forest and north of the junction of highways 60 and 79; and South Phoenix which is a Maricopa County Environmental Services Department site near Central Avenue and Broadway Road. The Governor’s Brown Cloud Summit On March 15, 2000, Governor Jane Dee Hull signed Executive Order 2000-3, establishing the Brown Cloud Summit with the following objectives: • To identify ways to reduce the brown cloud, recognizing that they may also help the Valley’s other air quality problems • Keep in mind ongoing work by other groups to improve visibility at national parks and wilderness areas throughout the west • Seek comments from citizens throughout its work • Develop proposals on how to put the pollution reduction measures into place and track their effect on visibility Measurements taken in 1994 through 1998 show that the brown cloud is getting worse. The dirtiest days, which occur in fall and winter, have become 10 percent worse. The cleanest days, typically during spring and summer, have become 64 percent worse. Causes of the Brown Cloud Air quality monitoring indicates that the brown cloud is the result of pollution created in the metropolitan area. The brown cloud in Phoenix is five times worse than in places in Arizona with clean air, like Organ Pipe National Monument or Grand Canyon National Park. Its primary causes are not dust blowing in from the desert pollution traveling here from Los Angeles, but daily activities, such as driving cars and trucks, using lawnmowers and leaf blowers, and burning fireplaces. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 69 Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud. Each particle, about the size of a single grain of flour, can float in the atmosphere for days, behaving much like a gas. More than half the PM2.5 is caused by the burning of gasoline and diesel fuel in vehicles and in off-road mobile sources, such as construction equipment like loaders and bulldozers, locomotives, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and other devices that emit air pollution as they move. PM2.5 particles containing carbon, like soot from tail pipes, are particularly effective in reducing visibility because they scatter and absorb light. Weather conditions, such as temperature, wind speed and humidity make the brown cloud look different on different days. Nightly temperature inversions, which are stronger in the valley during winter, play the biggest role. Every evening after sunset, the surface of the land cools off more rapidly than does the air above. As a result, fine particles and gases from combustion produced that day are trapped under the inversion. At the same time, a mass of cooler air slides down from the mountains, pushing the pollution across the valley from east to west. That’s why if you look to the west from the top of Squaw Peak right after sunrise on a relatively calm, dirty day you will see a dense, relatively thin layer of brown haze. If you stay there for several hours, you will see the thickness of the haze layer as the inversion lifts and temperatures rise. Around midmorning, the direction of the air flow in the Valley reverses, as the relatively warmer air makes its way from west to east, moving up toward the mountains. If you stayed on Squaw Peak into the afternoon, you would see that the brown cloud had diminished in the west compared with the east. The Summit’s Three-pronged Approach The Summit’s recommendations to Governor Hull revolve around three themes: • Citizen-set goals to improve the brown cloud, improve the understanding of the nature of the haze throughout the valley, and improve monitoring to assess progress • Long-term, market-driven strategies to help reach the visibility goal and provide health benefits • Short-term, voluntary and mandatory measures to reduce emissions and improve public health Executive Order 2000-3 also directed the summit “to establish options for a visibility standard or other method to track progress in improving visibility in the Phoenix area.” The summit looked at an experience in Denver, Colo., which adopted a visibility standard in 1990. The summit chose a visibility target called “blue sky days” to track progress until a public survey can establish a daily index value. A blue sky day would be achieved for any day with at least six daylight hours when visibility is greater than 25 miles. The goals of 250, 260 and 275 blue sky days were recommended for 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively. A survey was conducted in 2002 to ask citizens and visitors what level of haze is acceptable to ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 70 them. By December 2003 The survey results will be used to establish a visibility index. The actual level of haze would be reported daily and measured against the index. The summit recommended continuing and expanding the existing visibility monitoring network to track trends. The summit also recommended appropriation of adequate funding to support these activities. The summit’s final report was submitted to Governor Hull on Jan. 16, 2001. Additional information is available at www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/ browncloud/index.html. Implementation of the Summit’s Recommendations Many of the summit’s recommendations were included in House Bill 2538 and later adopted in A.R.S. 49-558. In order to implement the recommendations of the summit, ADEQ formed two committees, the Visibility Index Oversight Committee and the Cap and Trade Oversight Committee. The Visibility Index Oversight Committee was asked to provide advise to ADEQ in the following ways; review the consultant’s proposal for conducting the visibility survey, meet with the selected contractor after the actual survey is complete to discuss likely success and whether additional surveying may be required, review the draft analysis report from the contractor, release it for public comment, and hopefully provide consensus support for the final version, present the index to the public jointly with ADEQ at a media event, provide the visibility index to the Cap and Trade Oversight Committee for their consideration as one method to track progress in improving visibility. The statute requires that on or before Dec. 31, 2003, ADEQ establish a daily visibility index to be used in evaluating and reporting current visibility conditions and progress toward visibility improvement goals in Area A. The visibility index must be based on the results of the public survey of a representative cross-section of residents in Area A and must address what visual air qualities and acceptable visual range should be expected to occur. Until the visibility index is established, ADEQ will use the number of blue sky days that occur during the year as an interim method for evaluating and reporting current visibility conditions and progress toward visibility improvement goals in Area A. The target number of blue sky days is 250 in 2001, 260 in 2002 and 275 in 2003. In order to implement the program ADEQ must expand the Phoenix area urban haze monitoring network. When the expansion is complete the network will include two transmissometers, five nephelometers and five digital cameras, all with near real-time posting to a newly designed Web site. The network will be deployed to represent the West Valley, Central Phoenix and East Valley as well as views of familiar landmarks such as the White Tank Mountains, Estrella Mountains, Camelback Mountain, Superstition Mountains and the downtown ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 71 Phoenix area. The Cap and Trade Oversight Committee will be asked to provide advice to ADEQ in the following ways: 1) review the consultants’ proposals and work products, receive the recommendation of the Visibility Index Oversight Committee and consider whether the Program should be based on the visibility index or emissions reductions, 2) based on the information produced by the consultants, determine the appropriate program elements. These may include air pollutants affected, source categories appropriate for inclusion in trading, allocation methods, the relationship between emissions reductions and improvements in visibility, reporting and record-keeping with relation to regulatory requirements, compliance and enforcement methods, the role of banking, and numerous other issues, 3) determine the feasibility of a Cap and Trade program, 4) present any recommended Program to the public jointly with ADEQ, 5) considering input from the public, present final Program recommendations, including any necessary legislation or ADEQ rule-making. Hazardous Air Response Team The ADEQ Hazardous Air Response Team (HART) responds to air quality emergencies such as heavy smoke from fires or toxic releases that threaten air quality. HART’s objectives include air quality monitoring for public exposure of air pollutants and to provide meteorological support regarding dispersion. Since it started in 1992, the Team has responded to more than 80 incidents. During the calender year of 2001, HART responded to four incidents; a gasoline tanker rollover in the Phoenix area, a mulch fire in north Phoenix, a wood chip fire in Queen Creek and large refuse fire across the border from Naco, Ariz. During the first six months of 2002, the team responded to two industrial fires in the Phoenix metropolitan area and four forest fires; the Indian Fire in Prescott, the Bullock Fire in San Manuel, the Walker Fire in Nogales and the Rodeo-Chediski fire near Show Low. Rodeo-Chediski Fire The Rodeo-Chediski fires in east-central Arizona began on June 18 and June 20, 2002, respectively, merged on June 23. These two fires eventually burnt nearly 500,000 acres of prime forest land, destroyed nearly 500 homesand caused the evacuation of about 15,000 residents of the Mogollon Rim. By July 2 the fire was essentially contained and the residents allowed back into Show Low, Heber, Overgaard, Forest Lakes and other communities. Below-average rainfall for the last three years, coupled with brisk westerly and southwesterly winds for several of the fire days, produced an extremely hot and fast-moving fire. The smoke produced by the fire formed an immense plume, towering to 30,000 feet, which after transport to the north and east, fumigated down to ground level in Winslow, Holbrook, Snowflake. The HART took measurements of this smoke in these communities from June 20-27. Staff from the U. S. Forest Service and ADEQ then set up semi-permanent monitors in several communities and took measurements until July 10, 2002. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 72 In summary, smoke from the Rodeo-Chediski fire in east-central Arizona constituted a public health emergency from June 20 through June 30, 2002 in several different communities including Show Low, Snowflake, Heber and Holbrook. Air monitoring for particulates was done at many different towns and at one fire camp during the smokiest days of the fire. Readings were compared to the EPA’s air quality index for PM2.5, used for general assessment of health risks, and the ADEQ Quality Rule R-182-220 used to define “air pollution emergency episodes.” Both one-hour and four-hour averages of airborne particles either10 microns and smaller (PM10) or 2.5 microns and smaller (PM2.5) exceeded the “hazardous” (EPA) and “emergency” (ADEQ) guidelines on nine different occasions in Heber, Holbrookand Snowflake. On many other occasions the PM10 concentrations exceeded the “very unhealthy” (EPA) and “alert” (ADEQ) guidelines. Populations exposed to these elevated concentrations of smoke, both residents and evacuees, numbered about 30,000, all of which were breathing particulate-laden air for at least several hours to a few days from June 20 through about June 30. Trends Introduction View a photo of the 1999 average Whether air quality meets the standards is an best and average worst visibility important question, but one posed more often is impairment in the Phoenix area whether the air quality is improving or deteriorating. In Arizona, because of the phasing out of leaded gasoline in the mid-1970s and the installation of effective controls on copper smelters in the 1980s, the concentrations of both lead and sulfur dioxide decreased rapidly. Although improvements have also been made in the concentrations of carbon monoxide, ozone and particulates, the last two still exceed air quality standards at some sites: the eight-hour ozone standard at two sites in greater Phoenix, and the 24-hour and annual PM10 standards at a few urban and rural sites. Visibility – the aspect of the urban atmosphere that is most obvious to the population – is measured continuously in Tucson and Phoenix. This discussion examines the trends in these three common air pollutants and urban visibility trends in Arizona. Carbon Monoxide Since the mid to late 1970s, carbon monoxide concentrations have declined by as much as two-thirds. In Tucson, the maximum annual eight-hour concentration of carbon monoxide at 22nd Street and Alvernon declined from 12 to 4 parts per million ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 73 8-hr CO (ppm) CO (ppm) (ppm). In Phoenix at 18th 25 Street and Roosevelt (Central Phoenix), the decline was from 20 23.0 to 7.1 ppm (Figures 2and 3). The number of exceedances 15 of the eight-hour standard – 9 ppm – in Phoenix decreased from 75 to 0 at Central 10 standard Phoenix. The entire Phoenix network of carbon monoxide 5 monitors recorded over 100 exceedances each year from 0 1981 through 1986, with an 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 average of 134 per year. No exceedances were recorded by this network in 1997 and 1998, a single exceedance was Figure 2: Maximum eight-hour carbon monoxide recorded. in 1999, and none in concentrations at Central Phoenix: 1975-2001 2000 to 2001. Most of this improvement can be attributed to 14 Federal new-vehicle emission 12 standards, augmented by emission 10 standard reductions from the vehicle 8 inspection and maintenance 6 program, which began in 1976, and the use of oxygenated fuels in the 4 winter, beginning in 1989. 2 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 3: Eight-hour carbon monoxide maxima at 22nd Street and Alvernon Way in Tucson Ozone One-Hour Ozone Concentrations Maximum one-hour average ozone concentrations have remained steady in Tucson and Yuma, but have declined in Phoenix since 1980 (Figure 4). Yuma and Tucson have met the one -hour standard of 0.124 ppm consistently since monitoring began. In the Phoenix airshed, the standard was exceeded regularly through the mid 1990s, with sharp decreases since. The Phoenix decrease in ozone concentrations has been nowhere near as pronounced as its declining carbon monoxide trend, but the net ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 74 result has been similar: no exceedances of the ozone standard have been recorded since 1996. Because of its relatively high background level and its photochemical formation from hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, changes in emissions would not be expected to translate into proportional changes in concentrations. 0.18 0.15 ozone (ppm) standard 0.12 PHOENIX 0.09 TUCSON 0.06 YUMA 0.03 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 4: Maximum one-hour ozone concentrations in three cities Eight-hour Ozone Concentrations A new eight-hour ozone standard, proposed by EPA in 1997, is expressed as the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest concentration, not to exceed 0.08 parts per million. This proposed standard was the subject of a lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld EPA’s decision that an eight-hour standard is viable but remanded the case to EPA to implement the final standard, although not questioning what its numerical value should be. Analysis of ambient ozone concentrations nationwide showed that the proposed eight-hour standard is likely to be exceeded in many areas across the United States where the one-hour standard is met. Phoenix falls into this category; Tucson and Yuma do not. Long-term trends of the fourthhighest ozone concentrations in Tucson fluctuate between 0.06 and 0.08 ppm, but, overall, are steady, with the exception of Saguaro National Monument East, which shows a slight increase (Figure 5). In contrast to the within-standard concentrations in Tucson, 24 of the 28 sites in greater Phoenix have recorded annual fourth-highest ozone values in excess of 0.084 ppm in 1995 to 2001. The standard of 0.084 ppm is the de facto, or operational standard, in contrast to the statutory standard of 0.08 ppm. This operational standard takes into account the precision of the instrumental method and the rounding off to the nearest 0.01 ppm. In metropolitan Phoenix, these elevated eight-hour ozone concentrations have occurred at fewer monitoring sites and at lower values in 2001 than in 1995. For instance, of the 20 sites operational both in 1995 or 1996 and 2000 or 2001, 14 recorded fourth-highest values greater than 0.084 ppm in 1995, but only five in 2000 and three in 2001. The values have decreased as well, with typical fourthADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 75 highest concentrations decreasing from 1995-96 to 2000-01: Blue Point Bridge, 0.098 to 0.088; Mesa, 0.092 to 0.076; Phoenix Supersite, 0.102 to 0.079; and North Phoenix, 0.095 to 0.087 ppm. Elevated concentrations of ozone averaged for eight hours, then, when looking at the annual fourth-highest values, have exceeded the 0.084 ppm guideline in metropolitan Phoenix, although the extent and severity of these high concentrations were much greater six years ago than in 2001. Looking at the specific statistical form of the standard – the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentration – metropolitan Phoenix has exceeded the standard, but, as with the annual fourth-highest values, the extent and severity are decreasing with time. Consider the three-year periods ending with 1997 through 2001: the first being 1995 to 1997 and the last 1999 to 2001. In the first two three-year periods (Table 27), 11 and 12 monitoring sites, respectively, had average fourth-highest values exceeding 0.084 ppm (or 84 ppb). In the last two periods, the numbers of such sites had decreased to five and two, respectively. The magnitude of these three-year averages has decreased substantially, as well. The highest average for the period ending in 1997 was 96.3 ppb; the highest average in 2001 was 11 percent lower, just above the standard at 85.3 ppb. These trends, consistent with the decreasing one-hour maximum ozone trends and with the annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone trends, would suggest that the eight-hour standard will be attained in two to three years. 0.12 ozone (ppm) 0.1 standard-3-yr avg 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 Downtown Pom/CP Craycroft Figure 5: Annual four-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations in Tucson ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 76 Saguaro Mo. Table 27: Three-Year Averages of the Annual Four Highest Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Phoenix and Environs (Units are in parts per billion (ppb); bold values exceed the operational standard of 84 ppb) 19951997 19961998 19971999 19982000 19992001 Emergency Management 96.3* 87.3 84.7 82.3 76.3 North Phoenix 93.7* 92.3 88.0 86.3 85.3 Salt River Pima 93.0* 90.7 84.3 Closed Closed Phoenix Supersite 92.7* 85.3 73.7 72.7 72.3 Blue Point 90.3* 89.3 86.0 88.7 85.3 Apache Junction 90.0* 86.0 81.7 81.3 79.7 Mesa 89.7 85.3 81.0 79.3 77.3 Pinnacle Peak 89.0 86.7 81.0 81.7 82.0 Fountain Hills 89.0 85.0 82.3 81.7 81.0 Falcon Field 89.0 85.0 82.3 81.7 81.0 Mount Ord 88.0 90.7 87.3 88.7 84.7 South Scottsdale 84.3 80.7 75.3 76.0 76.0 West Phoenix 84.3 84.7 85.3 86.0 82.3 Maryvale 84.0 83.7 81.3 83.0 78.3 Humboldt Mountain 83.7 88.0 86.0 86.3 84.7 Maximum 96.3 92.3 88.0 88.7 85.3 n > 84 ppb 11 12 5 5 2 Particulates PM10 The concentrations of PM10 have decreased considerably throughout the state in both urban and rural settings. Nonetheless, this pollutant, more than any other, continues to exceed the annual standard of 50 µg/m3. For example, annual PM10 concentrations in South Phoenix averaged 63 µg/m3 from 1985 through 1989, but only 49 µg/m3 in 1995-97, a decrease of 22 percent. Similar percentage decreases occurred from the 1980s at Central Phoenix and West Phoenix (Figures 6 and 7). ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 77 PM10 (ug/m3) 80 70 60 50 40 standard 30 20 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 Central Phoenix Chandler Glendale North Phoenix 1999 2001 1999 2001 Figure 6: PM10 trends at four metropolitan Phoenix sites PM10 (ug/m3) 70 60 50 40 standard 30 20 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 West Phoenix Mesa South Scottsdale Greenwood Figure 7: PM10 trends at four additional metropolitan Phoenix sites ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 78 Despite these improvements in the PM10 particulates concentrations, unlike the case for carbon monoxide and ozone, the annual standard for PM10 continues to be violated. Annual concentrations for the last 10 years, presented in Table 28, demonstrate that some sites in metropolitan Phoenix have been above the standard for one or more years: Chandler, South Phoenix, West Phoenix and Greenwood. Each of these sites presents a different mix of localized emission sources. Chandler’s emissions have gone from agricultural to earthmoving for residential and road construction. South Phoenix, near the industrial Salt River area, may be subject to emissions from the industrial and area sources there. Without any nearby industrial or earthmoving activity, West Phoenix PM10 concentrations would appear to be the result of the transport of metropolitan wide emissions into this part of town through prevailing winds. Two miles southwest of West Phoenix, Greenwood combines the high regional concentrations with its close proximity to a major arterial street and major freeway. Table 28: Annual PM10 Concentrations for 10 Years in Metropolitan Phoenix (in µg/m3) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Central Phoenix 42 43 43 44 41 44 38* 44 46 38 Chandler 56 58 50 53 62 61 45 60 57 48 Glendale 34 35 33 33 34 38 29 36 41 33 North Phoenix 35 34 35 36 37 38 29 35 37 30 South Phoenix 48 44 44 46 47 55 31* 49 61 50 West Phoenix 47 44 43 44 45 51 39 51 53 43 Mesa 29 35 36 35 33 43 29 35 37 30 South Scottsdale 34 34 38 36 35 41 34 40 40 33 Greenwood N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 61 50 56 61 49 Bold values exceed the annual standard of 50 ug/m3 *Does not satisfy EPA summary criteria N/A – Data not available ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 79 In Tucson, the background site of Corona de Tucson and the rural site of Green Valley have had steady, even trends of PM10, but the four long-term urban sites all show substantial decreases. Orange Grove averaged 45.5 µg/m3 in 1985-86, but steadily decreased in the next 15 years to an average concentration in 1997-98 of 27.5 µg/m3 – a decrease of 40 percent. South Tucson, Prince Road and Broadway/Swan showed smaller, but substantial, decreases (Figure 8). Similar to the Phoenix monitoring sites, the 1999 concentrations in Tucson increased substantially over their 1998 levels, again due to the drier weather. These PM10 reductions in the urban settings can probably be attributed to a reduction of coarse particulate emissions caused by paving roads, alleys and road shoulders, and better controls of construction dust emissions. 60 standard PM10 (ug/m3) 50 40 30 20 10 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 South Tucson Prince Road Corona de Tucson Green Valley Orange Grove Broadway/Swan Figure 8: PM10 trends at six metropolitan Tucson sites Throughout the state, PM10 concentrations have declined since 1985 at many sites. Consider a group of high concentration sites: Douglas, Hayden and Nogales concentrations have been cut in half, Payson and Paul Spur have been reduced threefold, and Rillito and Yuma have decreased 40 percent. In each of these localities, road paving and better industrial dust controls can be given credit for most of the improvement (Figure 9). ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 80 140 PM10 (ug/m3) 120 100 80 60 40 standard 20 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Douglas Hayden Naco Nogales Paul Spur Payson Rillito Yuma 2001 Figure 9: Annual PM10 concentrations at the higher concentration sites in Arizona Annual PM10 (ug/m3) PM10 concentrations at the sites with lower concentrations have decreased, as well, with Ajo concentrations reduced by 50 percent, Bullhead City by 66 percent and Safford by 15 percent. Other lower concentration sites in the lower elevations were steady or slightly decreasing (Figure 10). 60 standard 50 40 30 20 10 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Ajo Apache Junction Bullhead City Casa Grande Organ Pipe Safford Figure 10: Annual PM10 concentrations at lower concentration sites at lower elevations With the exception of Montezuma’s Castle, a background site that has had an even trend, all of the higher-elevation, low-concentration sites showed decreasing trends for ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 81 Annual PM10 (ug/m3) PM10. Clarkdale decreased 38 percent; Flagstaff, 69 percent; Joseph City, 45 percent; Nelson, 45 percent; and Show Low, 56 percent. Part of these decreases may be attributed to cleaner-burning wood stoves and fireplaces (Figure 11). What is encouraging in these various sites is that not a single one shows an upward trend, whether urban, industrial, agricultural or rural. 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Clarkdale Flagstaff Joseph City Montezuma Castle Nelson Prescott 2001 Show Low Figure 11: Annual PM10 concentrations at low concentration sites at higher elevations PM2.5 PM2.5 has not been monitored as long as PM10. Measurements of this fine particle fraction were taken with dichotomous samplers at all sites until 2000. These samplers give an approximate cutpoint between fine and coarse particles somewhere in the range of 2.5 to 3.0 microns. Consequently, measurements taken with these samplers should be termed “fine particulates” and not “PM2.5.” In Arizona, the earliest measurements began in 1991 in the smaller cities and towns, in 1994 in Tucson, and in 1995 in Phoenix. In any case, slight downward trends at the urban sites are apparent. Nogales, Yumaand Flagstaff have shown consistent trends, while Payson’s is significantly down by 39 percent. Exceedances of the annual PM2.5 standard occurred for four years in Payson and for one year in Higley. Payson, Nogalesand the central area of Phoenix have the highest concentrations of fine particulates. Flagstaff and the urban fringe of Tucson (the Tangerine and Fairgrounds sites) have the lowest concentrations. These data are presented in Table 29 and Figures 12, 13 and 14. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 82 Table 29: Annual PM2.5 Concentrations Throughout Arizona (in µg/m3) Statewide Yuma Flagstaff Payson Nogales 1991 7.6 N/A 17.9 12.3 1992 5.7 N/A 17.2 12.6 1993 6.1 5.4 13.0 9.7 1994 8.3 4.9 15.8 10.4 1995 7.2 5.8 15.7 14.3 1996 8.7 11.2 14.4 13.3 1997 6.0 5.0 12.2 11.3 1998 8.3 4.7 10.9 12.5 1999 7.9 4.9 9.8 16.0a 2000 8.7 4.8 10.0 12.8 2001 N/A 7.1* 8.9* 10.7* Phoenix Higley Tempe Supersite ASU West Estrella 1995 15.4 10.0 12.6 11.1 11.7 1996 11.1 10.0 13.4 10.5 11.1 1997 10.4 9.8 12.1 9.1 7.9 1998 9.4 9.4 10.9 8.3 7.1 1999 11.1 10.1 10.8 9.1 8.9 2000 10.0 10.0 10.4 8.5 7.7 2001 N/A 9.4* 9.2* N/A N/A ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 83 Tucson Orange 22 Cray Tangerine Fairgrounds Central 1994 9.4 7.9 5.3 5.8 8.9 1995 8.9 8.6 5.3 5.1 8.9 1996 8.2 6.4 4.9 4.7 7.7 1997 8.7 7.3 5.1 5.5 8.4 1998 7.3 6.3 5.0 5.0 7.5 1999 9.6 7.5 N/A N/A 7.2 2000 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 7.8 2001 7.6* N/A N/A N/A N/A Bold values exceed the standard of 15 µg/m3 N/A – Not available * Data are from federal reference monitors, not dichot monitors. 18 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 16 Yuma 14 12 Flagstaff 10 Payson 8 Nogales 6 4 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Figure 12: Statewide PM2.5 trends ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 84 2001 16 Higley PM2.5 (ug/m3) 14 Tempe 12 Super 10 ASU West 8 Estrella 6 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 13: Metropolitan Phoenix PM2.5 trends 10 Orange PM2.5 (ug/m3) 9 8 22 Cray 7 Tangerine 6 Fairgrnds 5 Central 4 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 14: Metropolitan Tucson PM2.5 trends Visibility Optical measurements of visibility have been made continuously since 1993 in Tucson and since 1994 in Phoenix. Light extinction – the degree to which sunlight is reduced by its interaction with fine particles and gases in the atmosphere – is measured continuously with transmissometers. These measurements have been divided into six categories: the mean of the dirtiest 20 percent of all hours, the mean of all hours and the mean of the cleanest 20 percent of all hours – for both the entire day and the 5 to 11 a.m. period. Table 30 and Figures 15 and 16 present these data. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 85 Table 30: Light Extinction in Phoenix and Tucson (in Mm-1) Phoenix Year All Hours 5-11 a.m. Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 1994 123 63 28 129 70 33 1995 138 75 38 134 78 42 1996 133 78 44 129 80 45 1997 137 83 50 136 87 54 1998 135 79 46 138 85 51 1999 125 71 38 124 75 42 2000 131 73 38 135 80 42 2001 118 69 36 118 73 41 % Dif ‘94-‘01 -4.07 +9.52 +28.57 -8.53 +4.29 +24.24 Annual % -0.51 +1.19 +3.57 -1.07 +0.54 +3.03 Tucson All Hours 5-11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 1993 108 64 35 129 74 39 1994 92 58 35 110 68 40 1995 102 61 35 116 68 38 1996 104 65 39 116 73 43 1997 91 59 36 105 66 38 1998 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1999 97 60 36 111 67 39 2000 101 57 27 115 66 31 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 86 2001 96 55 26 109 66 33 % Dif ‘93-‘01 -11.1 -14.06 -25.71 -15.50 -10.81 -15.38 Annual % -1.23 -1.56 -2.86 -1.72 -1.20 -1.71 The percentage difference between either 1993 or 1994 and 2001 is divided by the number of years to give the average annual percentage change. 140 Bext(Mm-1) 120 100 80 60 40 20 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 dirtiest 20%-all mean-all cleanest 20%-all dirtiest 20%-5-11 mean-5-11 cleanest 20%-5-11 Figure 15: Light extinction trends in Phoenix ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 87 140 Bext(Mm-1) 120 100 80 60 40 20 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 dirtiest 20%-all mean-all cleanest 20%-all dirtiest 20%-5-11 mean-5-11 cleanest 20%-5-11 Figure 16: Light extinction trends in Tucson Tucson visibility shows improving trends in all six categories, although these trends are not strong, have not been constant through the yearsand are somewhat obscured by considerable year-to-year variability. For example, the net decrease from 1993 to 2001 in the light extinction of the 20 percent cleanest days is 26 percent, but it has all come about in the last three years. Phoenix has stronger trends, but in the opposite direction: four of six categories of light extinction have increased from 1994 to 2001 with an apparent peak in 1997. Because the light extinction of the cleanest 20 percent of the hours has increased about five times faster than the dirtiest 20 percent, the increasing mean values have resulted because of a migration from the cleanest 20 percent to the mean. This increase can be attributed to increases in nitrogen oxides and carbonaceous fine particulate emissions from motor vehicles; metropolitan Phoenix vehicle miles traveled increases about 3 percent a year and has now reached 68 million miles on an average weekday. Seasonal patterns also vary between the two cites, with the mean and dirtiest 20 percent of all hourly light extinction values in Phoenix showing more pronounced winter and fall maxima than the Tucson counterparts (Figure 17). Both cities show almost no seasonal variation in the cleanest 20 percent of all hours. The seasonal light extinction values in Phoenix are considerably higher than Tucson’s: for the dirtiest 20 percent of all hours, 52 percent higher in winter, 19 percent higher in spring, 13 percent higher in summerand 49 percent higher in fall. These measurements of the ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 88 180 Bext (Mm-1) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 winter spring summer fall Tucson-cleanest 20% Tucson-mean Tucson-dirtiest 20% Phoenix-cleanest 20% Phoenix-mean Phoenix-dirtiest 20% Figure 17: Seasonal patterns of hourly light extinction in Tucson and Phoenix: 1993 to 1998 poorer visibility in Phoenix will come as no surprise to those Arizonans familiar with both airsheds. Conclusions Since monitoring of air pollutants began in the late 1960s in Arizona, considerable progress has been made in reducing concentrations of lead, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Lead has been reduced to near background levels; sulfur dioxide concentrations near copper smelters, which chronically exceeded the standards until the mid-1980s, are now well within these standards; and carbon monoxide concentrations, which regularly exceeded standards in neighborhoods and near busy intersections in Phoenix (and to a far lesser extent in Tucson), now meet the standards. One-hour ozone concentrations in Phoenix met the standard in 19972001, the first years since monitoring began. Phoenix ozone concentrations in the 1980s and early 1990s ranged as high as 0.15 to 0.18 parts per million (the standard is 0.12 ppm), in contrast to the highest, most recent reading of 0.14 ppm in 1996. In 1995-1997, 11 monitoring sites in greater Phoenix exceeded the new eight-hour ozone standard; in 1999-2001 only two sites exceeded the standard. Elevated concentrations of PM10 have been reduced substantially since the mid-1980s, with decreases of 20 to 70 percent in the urban areas and in most smaller cities and towns. In Payson and at some industrial sites, PM10 concentrations have been reduced by as much as two-thirds. By 2001, monitored violations of the PM10 standard – a once common occurrence at many sites only ten years ago – were limited to a few ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 89 sites. Fine particulates concentrations (PM2.5) have decreased in Phoenix and Tucson since the mid 1990s, respectively; for example, at the centrally located Phoenix Supersite, the decrease has been 21 percent; at 22nd and Craycroft, in east-central Tucson, the decrease has been 24 percent. The Phoenix decreases are inconsistent with the increasing trends in light extinction, caused primarily by small particles. In spite of the continued growth in Arizona, with the exception of Phoenix visibility in the last five years, not a single air pollutant at any site shows a consistent upward trend. Most standards are met most of the time, with the exceptions being the eighthour ozone standard during Phoenix summers and the PM10 standards on both an episodic and annual basis at those sites affected by localized dense emissions. These improving air quality trends, resulting from control programs at the federal, state and local levels, have improved the respiratory health of the citizenry and can be considered a testament to the public support for a cleaner environment. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 90 Appendix 1 – Site Index Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Greer – Water Treatment Plant (Mt Baldy) 34- 04' 109- 26' ADEQ, USFS Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 8255 Petrified Forest National Park (1 mile north of park headquarters) 35- 05' 109- 46' NPS Bscat, MET, IMPROVE, Pb Class I Regional Visibility 5778 Springerville – Coalyard 34- 19' 109- 09' TEP PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 6900 Springerville – Coyote Hills 34- 10' 109- 13' TEP NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Unknown Source Impact 6600 Bisbee Airport (2 miles north of Bisbee junction) 31- 22' 109- 53' ADEQ MET SPM Urban Population 4780 Chiricahua National Monument (3.5 miles west of monument headquarters) 32- 00' 109- 23' NPS CASTNET, IMPROVE, MET, O3, Pb Class I Regional Visibility 5130 Douglas – Cemetery (1505 5th St.) 31- 20' 109- 33' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Population 4100 Douglas – Red Cross (1445-1449 15th St.) 31- 20' 109- 30' ADEQ Pb, PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 4100 Apache County Cochise County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 91 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Muleshoe Ranch – Muleshoe Ranch Preserve (Galiuro Wilderness) 32- 21' 110- 14' ADEQ Bscat, IMPROVE, MET Class I Regional Visibility 4400 Naco – Border Patrol Crossing (2188 1st St.) 31- 20' 109- 57' ADEQ Bscat SPM Neighborhood Population 4623 Paul Spur – Naco Road (East of Chemical Lime Plant) 31- 22' 109- 49' ADEQ PM10, MET SLAMS (PM10) Middle Source Impact 4192 Flagstaff – ADOT (5701 E. Railroad Ave.), closed 8/05/01 35- 12' 111- 37' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 7000 Flagstaff – Middle School (755 N. Bonito) 35- 12' 111- 38' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 6906 Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp (South Rim, 2.5 miles west of village) 35- 58' 111- 59' NPS O3, Pb, MET, IMPROVE, CASTNET Class I Regional Visibility 7438 Grand Canyon National Park – Indian Gardens (4.5 miles from Bright Angel trailhead) 36- 05' 112- 08' NPS IMPROVE, Pb Class I Regional Visibility 3832 Page – Navajo Generating Station (3 miles east of Page) 36- 55' 111- 24' SRP O3, NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Urban Source Impact 3648 Coconino County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 92 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Sedona – Post Office (190 W. Highway 89A) 34- 52' 111- 45' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 4220 Sycamore Canyon (Camp Raymond) 35- 08' 111- 58' ADEQ, NPS Bscat, IMPROVE, MET Class I Regional Visibility 6693 Globe Highway (Winkelman) 110-4 5' 32- 59' ASARCO SO2 SPM Regional Source Impact 1950 Hayden – Garfield Avenue 33- 00' 110- 47' ASARCO SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 2090 Hayden – Montgomery Ranch (NE, NE, Sec 4, T 5S, R 15E) 33- 00' 110- 47' ASARCO SO2 SPM Regional Source Impact 2325 Hayden – Old Jail (Canyon Drive) 33- 00' 110- 47' ADEQ, ASARCO Pb, PM10, SO2 SLAMS (ADEQ SO2 and PM10) SPM (ASARCO SO2) Neighborhood Source Impact 2050 Ike’s Backbone (Pine Mountain Wilderness) 34- 20' 111- 40' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 5232 Miami – Golf Course 33- 24' 110- 49' PDMI PM10 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 3320 Gila County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 93 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Miami – Jones Ranch (Cherry Flats Road) 33- 23' 110- 51' PDMI SO2 Miami – Ridgeline (4030 Linden St.) 33- 23' 110- 52' ADEQ, PDMI Miami – Town Site (Sullivan Street) 33- 23' 110- 52' Payson (204 W. Aero Dr.) 34- 14' Pleasant Valley – Ranger Station (Sierra Ancha USFS Wilderness) Tonto National Monument – Maintenance Station (Tonto NF) Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 4094 PM10, SO2 SLAMS (ADEQ SO2) SPM (PDMI PM10) Neighborhood Source Impact 3560 PDMI SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 3390 111- 20' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5, Pb SLAMS Neighborhood Population 4910 34- 05' 110- 56' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE, Bscat, MET Class I Regional Visibility 5133 33- 39' 111- 07' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE, Pb Class I Regional Visibility 2579 32- 49 109- 43' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2950 Graham County Safford (523 Tenth Ave.) ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 94 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Blue Point (Usery Pass and Bush Highway) 33- 33' 111- 36' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (O3) Cave Creek (37109 N. Lava Lane) 33- 49' 112- 01' MCESD MET, O3 Central Phoenix (1845 E. Roosevelt) 33- 27' 112- 02' MCESD Chandler (1475 E. Pecos Road) 33- 17' 111- 49' Estrella (15099 W. Casey Abbott Dr., Goodyear) 33- 23' Falcon Field (4530 E. McKellips, Mesa) Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Urban Maximum Concentration 1575 SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 1916 CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2) Neighborhood Population 1116 MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1171 112- 22' ADEQ PM10 SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 1000 33- 27' 112- 04' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS Urban Population 1017 Fountain Hills (16426 E. Palisades) 33- 37' 111- 43' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (O3) Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 1444 Gilbert (535 N. Lindsay Road), closed 12/31/01 33- 22' 111- 46' MCESD PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1214 Maricopa County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 95 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Glendale (6000 W. Olive) 33- 33' 112- 12' MCESD CO, MET, O3, PM10 SLAMS (CO, MET, O3), NAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1171 Higley (15500 S. Higley Road) 33- 18' 111- 43' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS (MET)SPM (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1250 Humboldt Mountain (Pine Mountain wilderness) 33- 58' 111- 47' ADEQ, MCESD Bscat, IMPROVE, MET, O3 Class I, SLAMS(O3 MCESD Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 5230 Lake Pleasant (41402 N. 87th Ave.), closed 6/01/01 33- 51' 112- 19' MCESD O3 SLAMS Regional Population 1919 Maryvale (6180 W. Encanto) 33- 28' 112- 20' MCESD CO, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1050 Mesa (370 S. Brooks) 33- 24' 111- 51' MCESD CO, MET, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1221 Mount Ord (Mazatzal Mountains) Closed 10/30/01 33- 55' 111- 25' ADEQ MET, O3 SLAMS (O3) Regional Background/ Transport 7130 North Phoenix (601 E. Butler) 33- 33' 112- 04' MCESD CO, MET,O3, PM10, SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1243 Palo Verde (36248 W. Elliot Road) 33- 20' 112- 50' ADEQ NO2, O3, Pb, PM10 SLAMS Regional Background 870 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 96 Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Phoenix – ASU West (4701 W. Thunderbird Road), closed 8/01/01 33- 37' 112- 09' ADEQ PM10 SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 1179 Phoenix – Bank One (201 N. Central), closed 1/01/02 33- 15' 112- 02' ADEQ MET SPM Regional Upper Air Temperature 499 Phoenix – Desert West Rec Center (6501 W. Virginia Ave.), closed 5/13/02 33- 28' 112- 12' ADEQ PM2.5 SPM Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 1110 Phoenix – Durango Complex (2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd.) 33- 25' 112- 07' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 1575 Phoenix – Emergency Management (2035 N. 52nd St.), closed 6/01/01 33- 26' 111- 57' MCESD O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1312 Phoenix – Grand Avenue (Grand Ave/27th Ave/Thomas Road) 33- 28' 112- 07' ADEQ CO SLAMS Microscale Maximum Concentration 1110 Phoenix – Greenwood (I-10 and 27th Avenue) 33- 28' 112- 07' ADEQ, MCESD CO, MET, NO2, PM10 SPM (ADEQ PM10) SLAMS (MCESD CO, MET,NO2, PM10) Microscale Maximum Concentration 1110 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 97 Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Phoenix – JLG Supersite (4530 N. 17 Ave.) 33- 30' 112- 05' ADEQ CO, NO2, Met, O3, PM10, PM2.5 SPM (Urban Haze) SLAMS (CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5) PAMS (Type 2) Neighborhood Population 1115 Phoenix – North Mountain Summit (North Mountain) 33- 35' 112- 05' ADEQ Visibility SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1640 Phoenix – Salt River (3045 S. 22nd Ave.) 33- 21' 112- 06' ADEQ, MCESD PM10 SPM Middle Maximum Concentration 984 Phoenix – Transmissometer (Phoenix Baptist Hospital) 33- 29' 112- 04' ADEQ Bext SPM/ Urban Haze Urban Urban Haze 1115 Phoenix – Transmissometer Receiver (Quality Hotel) 33- 29' 112- 04' ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1115 Phoenix – Vehicle Emissions Laboratory (600 N. 40th St.) 33- 27' 112- 00' ADEQ MET SPM Urban Meteorology 1050 Phoenix – West Indian School (3315 W. Indian School Road) 33-30' 112- 08' MCESD CO, MET NAMS (CO) SLAMS (MET) Micro Maximum Concentration/ Source Impact 1115 Pinnacle Peak (25000 N. Windy Walk) 33- 42' 111- 51' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 2625 Rio Verde (25608 N. Forest Road) 33- 43' 111- 40' MCESD O3 SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 1640 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 98 Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator South Phoenix (33 W. Tamarisk) 33- 24' 112- 04' MCESD South Scottsdale (2857 N. Miller) 33- 28' 111- 55' Surprise (18600 N. Reems) 33- 39' Tempe – Daley Park (College Avenue) Parameters Measured Classification Scale CO, MET, O3, PM10 NAMS (PM10) SLAMS (CO, MET, O3) Neighborhood Population 1083 MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2 SLAMS (CO, MET) NAMS (NO2, O3, PM10, SO2) Urban\ Neighborhood Population 1227 112- 33' MCESD CO, O3, PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 1312 33- 35' 111- 55' MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3 SPM Neighborhood Population 1181 Tempe – Community Center (3340 S. Rural Road) 33- 23' 111- 55' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS/ Urban Haze Neighborhood Population 1110 West Chandler (163 S. Price) 33- 18' 111- 53' MCESD CO, MET, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1120 West Phoenix (3847 W. Earll) 33- 29' 112- 08' ADEQ, MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5 SPM (ADEQ PM2.5) SLAMS (MET, NO2, O3) NAMS (CO, PM10) Neighborhood Population 1096 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 99 Objective Elv. (feet) Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Bullhead City – ADEQ (990 Hwy 95) 35- 09' 114- 33' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 560 Bullhead City – SCE (1285 Alonas Way) 35- 07' 114- 35' SCE NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Neighborhood Population 560 Fort Mohave (2230 Joy Ln), closed 10/01/01 34" 59' 114- 34' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 600 Kingman – Praxair NE (I-40 and Griffith Road) 35" 01' 114- 08' Praxair PM10 SPM Middle Source Impact 3000 Kingman – Praxair SW (I-40 and Griffith Road) 35" 01' 114- 09' Praxair PM10 SPM Middle Source Impact 3000 34- 15' 110- 02' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1924 Ajo – ADOT (Well Road) 32- 25' 112- 50' ADEQ PM10, MET SLAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1800 Green Valley (601 N. La Canada Dr.), address change 2/13/2001 31- 52' 110- 59' PDEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population Explosure 2903 Mohave County Navajo County Show Low (Deuce of Clubs Avenue) Pima County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 100 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (1 mile SSW of visitor center) 31- 58' 112- 48' ADEQ Pb, PM10, IMPROVE Rillito (8820 W. Water) 32- 25' 111- 10' ADEQ, APCC Saguaro Nation Park – East (Old Spanish Trail) 32- 11' 110- 44' South Tucson (1810 S. 6 Ave.) 32- 12' Tucson – Alvernon (22nd and Alvernon) Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) SLAMS (PM10) Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 1847 PM10 SLAMS (ADEQ) SPM (APCC) Neighborhood Source Impact 2055 PDEQ O3, IMPROVE SPM, Class I Urban Visibility 3081 110- 58' ADEQ, PDEQ PM10 SLAMS, Urban Haze Neighborhood Population 2440 32- 12' 110- 54' PDEQ CO NAMS Micro Maximum Concentration 2516 Tucson – Broadway and Swan (4625 E. Broadway) 32- 13' 110- 53' PDEQ PM10 NAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 2532 Tucson – Cherry (2745 N. Cherry) 32- 15' 110- 56' PDEQ CO SPM Neighborhood Population 2400 Tucson – Children’s Park (400 W. River Road) 32- 17' 110- 58' ADEQ, PDEQ CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5 SPM (ADEQ PM2.5) SLAMS (PDEQ NO2, O3) NAMS (CO) Urban Haze, Neighborhood Population 2286 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 101 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Tucson – Corona De Tucson (22000 S. Houghton Road) 32- 00' 110- 47' ADEQ, PDEQ Tucson – Craycroft (22nd Avenue and Craycroft) 32- 12' 110- 52' Tucson – Downtown (190 W. Pennington) 32- 13' Tucson – Fairgrounds (11330 S. Houghton) Parameters Measured Classification Scale PM10 SPM (ADEQ) SLAMS (PDEQ) Regional Background 3078 ADEQ Bscat, CO, O3, NO2, SO2, PM10 SPM (ADEQ PM10 Urban Haze) SLAMS (PDEQ Bscat, CO, O3, NO2, SO2 Neighborhood Population 2582 110- 58' PDEQ CO, O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2365 32- 03' 110-46' PDEQ O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 3078 Tucson – Geronimo (2498 N. Geronimo) 32- 15' 110- 57' PDEQ PM10 SPM (AQI Purposed Only) Neighborhood Population 2580 Tucson – Mountain (Saguaro National Park, west) 32- 14' 111- 10' ADEQ Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 2473 Tucson – Orange Grove (3401 W. Orange Grove Road) 32- 19' 111- 02' ADEQ, PDEQ PM10, PM2.5 SPM (ADEQ PM10, PM2.5, Urban Haze) SLAMS (PDEQ PM10, PM2.5) Neighborhood Maximum Concentration/ Population 2175 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 102 Objective Elv. (feet) Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Tucson – Prince Road (1016 W. Prince Road) 32- 16' 110- 59' PDEQ PM10 NAMS Tucson – Santa Clara (6910 S. Santa Clara Ave.) 32- 07' 110- 58' PDEQ PM10 Tucson – Tangerine (12101 N. Camino De Oeste) 32- 25' 110- 04' PDEQ Tucson – Tumamoc Hill (north face of Tumamoc Hill) 32- 13' 111- 12 Tucson Transmissometer – U of A Clinical Sci. 32- 14' Tucson Transmissometer Receiver (150 W. Congress) Tucson – U of A Central (1100 N. Fremont Ave.) Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Micro Source Impact 2315 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2540 O3, PM10 SLAMS Urban Population 2638 ADEQ Visibility SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 2825 110- 57' PDEQ, ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 2551 32- 13' 110- 58' PDEQ, ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 2551 32- 13' 110- 57' ADEQ Bscat, Babs, PM10 SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 2580 Apache Junction – Fire Station (3955 E. Superstition Blvd. TE) 33- 25' 111- 30' PCAQCD PM2.5 Proposed (SLAMS) Neighborhood Population 1750 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (305 E. Superstition) 33- 25' 111- 52' PCAQCD CO, O3, PM10, MET Proposed (SLAMS) Neighborhood Population 1750 Pinal County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 103 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Casa Grande – Airport (660 W. Aero Dr.) 32- 54' 111- 46 PCAQCD CO ,O3, MET Proposed (SLAMS) Neighborhood Population/ Transport 1410 Casa Grande – Downtown (401 Marshall Road) 32- 52' 111- 45' PCAQCD PM10, PM2.5 Proposed (SLAMS) Neighborhood Population 1378 Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner (Fairgrounds, 512 E. Eleven Mile Corner Road) 32- 52' 111- 34 PCAQCD MET, PM10 SPM Microscale Source Impact 1410 Coolidge – Maintenance Yard (212 E. Broadway) 32- 58' 111- 30' PCAQCD PM10 Proposed (SLAMS) Neighborhood Population 1444 Eloy – City Complex (620 N. Main Street) 32- 45' 111- 33' PCAQCD PM10 Proposed (SLAMS) Neighborhood Population 1562 Hayden Junction (Hwy 177) 33- 00' 110- 50' ASARCO SO2 SPM Unknown Source Impact 2080 Mammoth – County Complex (118 S. Catalina) 32- 43' 110- 39' PCAQCD PM10 Proposed (SLAMS) Neighborhood Population/ Background 2920 Pinal Air Park (Water Well # 2, Marana) 32- 31' 111- 20' PCAQCD PM10 Proposed (SLAMS) Regional Background/ Transport 1870 Queen Valley (10 S. Queen Anne Dr.) 32- 17' 111- 17' ADEQ IMPROVE, O3 Class I Regional Visibility 2080 Stanfield (36697 W. Papago Dr.) 32- 53' 111- 57 PCAQCD PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 1296 ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 104 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) 31- 20' 110- 56' ADEQ Pb, PM10, PM2.5, MET SLAMS Neighborhood Population 3858 Clarkdale – School (1615 Main St.), closed 4/23/02 34- 46' 112- 03' ADEQ Pb, PM10 SLAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 3500 Clarkdale – NW (#2) (northwest of cement plant) 34- 45' 112- 05' PCC Pb, PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 3500 Clarkdale – SE (#1) (southeast of CTI flyash silo) 34- 45' 112- 05' PCC Pb, PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 3500 Hillside (Sheriff’s Repeater Station) 34- 25' 112- 57' ADEQ O3, Pb, PM10 IMPROVE SPM, ClassI Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 4918 Nelson – East (1/2 mile east of Flintkote lime plant) 35- 31' 113-17' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 5472 Nelson – West (3/4 mile west of Flintkote Lime Plant), closed 8/11/01 35- 30' 113-19' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Source Impact 5100 Prescott (221 S. Cortez) 34- 32' 112- 28' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 5210 Santa Cruz Nogales – Post Office (300 N. Morley Ave.) Yavapai County ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 105 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2001 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Yuma – AZ Western College, closed 11/01/02 32- 40' 114- 38' ADEQ O3 Yuma – Juvenile Center (2795 Ave. B), closed 7/28/02 32- 40' 114- 39' ADEQ Agua Prieta – Fire Station (Calle 6 and Avenue 15) 31-19' 109-33' Nogales – Fire Station (northwest corner of Lopaz and Mantels) 31-20' 110-57' Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) SLAMS Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 210 PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 210 ADEQ CO, PM10, PM2.5 SPM Neighborhood Population 3937 ADEQ PM10, MET SPM Neighborhood Population 3945 Yuma County Mexico Sites shown in the site index table are based on the best information available at the date of publication. ADEQ's FY '02 Air Quality Report, Page 106 Appendix 2 – Acronyms and Abbreviations ADEQ ADOT APCC APS Area A ASARCO ASU Babs Bag Bap Bext Bscat Bsg Bsp BHP CAAA CASTNET CFR Class I CMSA CO CTOC Delta T EPA FMIC FRM GRIC HAPs HART HC IMPROVE km m MCESD Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Portland Cement Co. Arizona Public Service Designated Phoenix metropolitan area ASARCO, Inc. Arizona State University Light absorption Light absorption by gasses Light absorption by particles Light extinction Light scattering Light scattering by basses Light scattering by particles BHP Copper, Inc. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments Clean Air Status and Trends Network Code of Federal Regulations Federally designated park or wilderness area with mandated visibility protection Consolidated metropolitan statistical area Carbon monoxide Cap and Trade Oversight Committee Difference between two levels of temperature measurements U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ft. McDowell Indian Community Federal reference method Gila River Indian Community Hazardous air pollutants Hazardous Air Response Team Hydrocarbon Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Kilometers Meters Maricopa County Environmental Services Department ADEQ's FY 2002 Air Quality Reports, Page 107 MET mm Mm-1 MSA µg/m3 NAAQS NAMS NM NO NO2 NOX NPS O3 PAMS Pb PCC PDEQ PDMI PCAQCD PM PM2.5 PM10 ppb ppm Pressure RH SCE SIP SLAMS SO2 SO4-SPM SRP SRPMIC TEOM TEP TSP Meteorological measurements (wind, temperature, relative humidity) Millimeter Inverse megameter Metropolitation statistical area Microgram per cubic meter National Ambient air quality standards National air monitoring station National monument Nitric oxide Nitrogen dioxide Sum of NO and NO2 National Park Service Ozone Photochemical assessment monitoring station Lead Phoenix Cement Company Pima County Department of Environmental Quality Phelps Dodge Miami Inc. Pinal County Air Quality Control Division Particulate matter Particulate matter < 2.5 microns Particulate matter < 10 microns Parts per billion Parts per million Barometric air pressure Relative humidity Southern California Edison State implementation plan State and local air monitoring station Sulfur dioxide Sulfate Special purpose monitor Salt River Project Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Tapered element oscillating microbalance Tucson Electric Power Total suspended particulate ADEQ's FY 2002 Air Quality Reports, Page 108 U of A USFS VOC VIOC Wind WMAT University of Arizona U.S. Forest Service Volatile organic compounds Visibility Index Oversight Committee Wind speed and direction White Mountain Apache Tribe Appendix 3 – Related Web Sites AirWeb: Protecting Air Quality (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/) Learn about how the National Park Service Air Resources Division and the Fish and Wildlife Service Air Quality Branch strive to preserve, protect, enhance and understand the air quality and other resources of our national parks and refuges. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (www.adeq.state.az.us) ADEQ’s Web site contains information on air quality, news releases, public meetings and many other services that can provided that help to protect a safe and healthy environment. Earth 911: Making Every Day Earth Day! (www.earth911.org) That’s their mission “to make every day an earth day!” so you can act on today’s environmental issues, in order to preserve and maintain for today and tomorrow. Earth’s Biggest Environment Search Engine (www.webdirectory.com) This Web site is a directory to numerous environmental subjects, from air to wildlife. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov) On EPA’s Web site, you can find information about the federal government’s role in environmental protection. EPA – Air and Radiation (www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps) You’ll breathe easier when you see EPA’s air quality planning and standards Web site. They have from what’s new in air to the latest projects, programs and contracts. EPA’s Air Quality Database (www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html) EPA’s air quality database contains extensive air data. On this site, you can find the sources that contribute to emissions, the equipment and facilities that monitor the air, maps on any air-related information, and contact information for experts on specific issues regarding air and environment. FirstGov (www.firstgov.gov) Through this Web site, you can find more than 1,000 federal and state environmental ADEQ's FY 2002 Air Quality Reports, Page 109 agencies with details about the environment and how you can be a political environmental advocate. The Governor’s Brown Cloud Summit (www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/browncloud/index.html) The Brown Cloud Summit was established to better understand and control the Valley’s pollution situation; see how you can get involved for a cleaner today and tomorrow. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Project (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/) On this site, you can take a look at photos of what haze (pollution) can do to the beautiful views of our nation. You can also take a look at what is being done and how you can get involved to improve the views of our nation. Maricopa County Air Quality Information (www.maricopa.gov/envsvc/airqual.asp) Maricopa County’s Environmental Services’ Web site has specific descriptions plus current and historical data on the county’s air monitors. National Tribal Environmental Council (www.ntec.org) NTEC is a tribal government membership organization with 160 member tribes that work to protect and preserve the reservation environment. National Weather Service (www.nws.noaa.gov) Dive into the latest occurrences and studies of your weather and atmosphere. There are links to local weather service agencies in each state. Pima County Air Quality Information (www.deq.co.pima.az.us) The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality’s Web site has information about air, water and waste programs, and the latest news and regulations that affect Pima County. Pinal County Air Quality Information (http://co.pinal.az.us/airqual/monitoring.asp) Current air quality information from the Pinal County Air Quality Control District. Pollen Information (www.pollen.com) Does it feel like something is in the air? Visit pollen.com to find out about what kinds of allergens are in your air and when they are there. The United States National Park Service (www.nps.gov) Information about our national parks. Weather and Air Quality in the Southwest (www.weathersmith.com) This site contains weather forecasts and air quality information for Phoenix and ADEQ's FY 2002 Air Quality Reports, Page 110 Tucson. Western States Air Resources Council (www.westar.org) WESTAR is composed of 15 western states that have come together to discuss and exchange information on western regional air quality issues. Appendix 4 – Maps A map of the Class I visibility areas is available on Page 9. Maps showing the locations of monitors statewide for each criteria pollutant have been included with the criteria pollutant data tables throughout the section on monitoring data, which begins on Page 18. Additional maps included in this section are listed below. Ambient Air Monitoring Locations by Monitor Operator Arizona’s Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Networks are in place throughout Arizona. This map shows the location of monitors operated by ADEQ, county agencies, private industry and federal agencies. Air Quality Monitor Networks – Phoenix and Tucson Metropolitan Areas These maps identify the locations of monitors of criteria pollutants in Arizona’s two largest metropolitan areas. Air Quality Division Nonattainment Areas This map identifies the areas in Arizona that are nonattainment for PM10, SO2, CO and O3. ADEQ's FY 2002 Air Quality Reports, Page 111