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 2002. 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 permit requirements; 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. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 1 Introduction This report presents the results of air quality monitoring conducted throughout Arizona in the 2002 calendar year. Data from more than 100 monitoring sites, many of which have multiple instruments measuring a variety of gaseous, particulate and 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 15, 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 63, summarizes activities from special monitoring projects undertaken in the last few years which have continued into 2003. 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 2002 and results from the Governor’s Brown Cloud Summit. Air quality trends are reported beginning on Page 72. 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 1-hour standard have been recorded, although concentrations have fallen significantly in recent years, and no exceedances have been recorded since 1997. Shorter periods of ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 2 record for visibility in the urban and national parks and wilderness areas make trend assessments less definitive, but trend assessments are shown for the two urban areas. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Networks The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 required EPA to assist states and localities in establishing ambient air quality monitoring networks to characterize human health 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 the 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 the NAAQS and statistically analyzed in various ways. The agency or company ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 3 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 effects 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 within 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 Neighborhood (~0.5 to 4 km) X X X X X X Urban (~4 to 50 km) X X X X X Regional (~10 to 100s of km) X X X X ADEQ's FY '03 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, 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, 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 Pima County Dept. of Environmental Quality Tucson urban area, Pima County 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, Regional SO2, O3, NO2, CO, PM10, PM2.5 ADEQ's FY '03 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 monitoring objectives **See Table 2 for a definition of measurement scales 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 is to track short-term and longterm 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: ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 6 • 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 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 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/. 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 ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 7 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 3-5 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 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. ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 8 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 2 and 2a 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 area and should be placed in the secondmost predominant morning wind direction. 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. ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 9 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 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. ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 10 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. 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 matter parameters, 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. Some filters are subjected to chemical analysis to ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 11 determine the amount of various analytes and integrated with the flow rate and timer information to calculate their concentrations. 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 perform regular checks of the stability, reproducibility, precision and accuracy of the samplers and 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 : C Light scattering by gases (Bsg) C Light absorption by gases (Bag) C Light scattering by particles (Bsp) C 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. ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 12 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 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 compared 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 standards and 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 in the ADEQ network and every third day in the IMPROVE Class I area network. Every day sampling at all monitoring sites would be cost-prohibitive and personnel-intensive using current particulate sampling technologies. ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 13 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 '03 Air Quality Report, Page 14 Monitoring Data Introduction Air quality measurements in Arizona can be divided into the three categories of conventional pollutants, visibility 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 2002 data measurements by conventional pollutant begins on Page 15. 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 91. 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 39. Visibility monitoring information is presented beginning on Page 59. Conventional Pollutants – 2002 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, headache, fatigue and dizziness. Carbon monoxide exposures also contribute to or exacerbate arteriosclerotic heart disease. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 15 In Arizona’s metropolitan areas, about 47 percent of carbon monoxide emissions come from on-road motor vehicles, 50 percent from off-road vehicles or equipment such as construction vehicles and lawn and garden equipment, and three 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 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 1996-2002, 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 2002, 15 monitors were operated in greater Phoenix. A sixth site was added to the Tucson area (Golf Links). Monitors in Apache Junction and Casa Grande were closed during 2002. Table 8 presents the 2002 carbon monoxide data. Table 8: 2002 Carbon Monoxide Data (in ppm) Site or City One-Hour Average Value Eight-Hour Average Value Valid Data Recovery* (percent) Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Central Phoenix 6.0 5.8 4.4 4.1 98 Glendale S 4.1 3.9 3.2 2.7 97 Maryvale S 8.0 6.9 5.0 5.0 98 Mesa S 4.9 4.8 3.5 3.5 96 North Phoenix S 4.5 4.5 3.3 2.7 99 Maricopa County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 16 Table 8: 2002 Carbon Monoxide Data (in ppm) Site or City One-Hour Average Value Eight-Hour Average Value Valid Data Recovery* (percent) Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Phoenix – Grand Avenue S (closed 4/1/02) 7.7 7.5 5.5 5.5 98 Phoenix – Greenwood 7.3 6.8 5.4 5.1 97 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 5.7 5.4 4.2 4.2 99 Phoenix – West Indian School 7.7 7.3 5.5 5.4 93 South Phoenix S 6.5 6.5 3.8 3.7 99 South Scottsdale S 5.5 4.3 3.0 2.8 99 Surprise S 4.2 2.4 1.2 1.1 90 Tempe – Daley Park 4.9 4.7 3.4 3.4 93 West Chandler S 3.5 3.2 2.2 2.2 98 West Phoenix 8.6 7.9 5.5 5.5 92 Tucson – Alvernon 5.7 5.1 2.6 2.5 98 Tucson – Cherry S 3.9 3.8 2.6 2.3 96 Tucson – Children’s Park 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.6 99 Tucson – Craycroft 3.8 3.8 2.0 1.9 98 Tucson – Downtown 6.6 5.1 3.7 2.3 99 Tucson – Golf Links S (opened 9/27/02) 4.9 4.2 3.3 2.6 93 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (closed 5/28/02) 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 99 Casa Grande – Airport (closed 10/11/02) 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 99 Pima County Pinal County * Valid Data Recovery is percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 17 sampling hours. There were 8,760 sampling hours in 2002. 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 January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to December 31, 5088 sampling hours in non-leap years. Exceptions: The Tucson - Cherry monitor operated January 1 - June 18 and September 20 - December 31, 6528 sampling hours. Apache Junction monitor operated January 1 - May 28, 3552 sampling hours. Casa Grande monitor operated January 1 - October 11, 6816 sampling hours. Phoenix-Grand Avenue operated January 1 - April 1, 2184 sampling hours. Tucson-Golf Links operated September 27-December 31, 2304 sampling hours. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddishbrown 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 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 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 18 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 determine 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 2002 at eight urban locations and near four power plants. Table 9 presents the nitrogen dioxide data collected in Arizona in 2002. Table 9: 2002 Nitrogen Dioxide (in ppm) Site or City Annual Average Maximum Value One-Hour Average Valid Data Recovery* (percent) Apache County Springerville -- Coyote Hills 0.001 0.024 93 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 19 Table 9: 2002 Nitrogen Dioxide (in ppm) Site or City Annual Average Maximum Value One-Hour Average Valid Data Recovery* (percent) Maricopa County Cental Phoenix 0.029 0.087 93 Palo Verde S N/A 0.037 98 Phoenix -- Greenwood 0.035 0.108 97 Phoenix -- JLG Supersite S N/A 0.078 99 South Scottsdale 0.024 0.069 96 0.011 0.058 97 Tucson -- Children’s Park 0.017 0.062 98 Tucson -- Craycroft 0.017 0.063 97 Mohave County Bullhead City -- SCE (Closed 12/10/02) 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 2002. 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. N/A - Not enough data to compute annual average S Seasonal Monitors: Palo Verde operates during summer ozone season, April 1 to November 1; 5160 hours Phoenix JLG Supersite operates during winter CO season, October 1 to May 1; 5088 hours possible Note: Tempe – Daley Park and West Phoenix monitors did not operate July-December due to equipment problems. Page – Navajo Generating Station data received too late for publication. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 20 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 Fg/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 2002, 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 2002. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 21 Table 10: 2002 Sulfur Dioxide (in Fg/m3) Maximum Value Annual Average Site or City 3-Hour Average 24-Hour Average Valid Data Recovery* (percent) Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High 0.4 73 68 13 13 93 Globe Highway 48 1215 1049 200 190 99 Hayden – Garfield Avenue 24 641 617 310 167 100 Hayden – Montgomery 42 757 591 272 216 99 Hayden – Old Jail, ADEQ 23 579 466 110 97 74 Hayden – Old Jail, ASARCO 18 388 371 110 85 100 Miami – Jones Ranch 16 628 421 184 93 99 Miami, Ridgeline – ADEQ 17 175 172 78 75 99 Miami, Town Site 13 437 258 64 47 99 Central Phoenix 8 50 42 31 26 94 South Scottsdale 4 29 26 10 10 92 7 170 N/A 54 N/A 91 3 50 26 10 10 99 14 415 261 83 60 99 Apache County Springerville – Coyote Hills Gila County Maricopa County Mohave County Bullhead City – SCE Pima County Tucson – Craycroft, PDEQ Pinal County Hayden – Junction ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 22 Table 10: 2002 Sulfur Dioxide (in Fg/m3) Maximum Value Annual Average Site or City San Manuel (Opened 3/02) 4 3-Hour Average 24-Hour Average Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High 24 24 8 8 Valid Data Recovery* (percent) 78 *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 2002. 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. N/A - Indicates the data were not available for this report. Notes: Page – Navajo Generating Station data received too late for publication. 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 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 23 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 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. 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 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 24 neighborhoods for population exposure, in areas downwind of urban areas for maximum concentration monitoring and in remote areas for background information. In 2002, 35 reporting ozone monitors were in operation; four for background, 21 for urban neighborhoods and 10 for maximum concentrations downwind of urban areas. Tables 11 and 12 present the ozone data collected in Arizona in 2002. Table 11: 2002 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (percent) 0.081 0.081 0.078 0.077 86 0.087 0.085 0.084 0.083 93 0.111 0.107 0.102 0.097 72 Blue Point 0.110 0.104 0.102 0.098 98 Cave Creek S 0.102 0.100 0.099 0.096 93 Cental Phoenix 0.123 0.098 0.089 0.089 97 Falcon Field S 0.113 0.111 0.101 0.098 96 Fountain Hills 0.114 0.107 0.105 0.101 98 Glendale S 0.101 0.099 0.097 0.090 97 Humboldt Mt. S 0.124 0.099 0.098 0.096 98 Maryvale S 0.119 0.111 0.108 0.094 97 Mesa (Closed 11/01/02) 0.097 0.091 0.083 0.083 93 North Phoenix 0.111 0.104 0.104 0.100 97 Palo Verde S 0.092 0.090 0.085 0.085 87 Site or City Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp Gila County Tonto National Monument S # Maricopa County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 25 Table 11: 2002 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (percent) Phoenix – JLG Supersite 0.117 0.110 0.094 0.088 99 Pinnacle Peak 0.115 0.102 0.101 0.101 97 Rio Verde S 0.101 0.100 0.099 0.099 98 South Phoenix 0.104 0.104 0.091 0.089 98 Surprise 0.098 0.091 0.086 0.086 93 Tempe – Daley Park 0.100 0.097 0.096 0.096 97 West Chandler S 0.110 0.101 0.097 0.096 97 West Phoenix 0.123 0.116 0.097 0.095 98 0.070 0.062 0.062 0.059 22 Saguaro National Park East 0.091 0.091 0.089 0.087 99 Tucson – Children’s Park 0.090 0.081 0.077 0.077 99 Tucson – Craycroft 0.094 0.086 0.083 0.083 99 Tucson – Downtown 0.085 0.082 0.079 0.077 99 Tucson – Fairgrounds 0.087 0.083 0.083 0.079 99 Tucson – Tangerine 0.093 0.083 0.078 0.078 98 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 0.109 0.097 0.095 0.095 94 Casa Grande – Airport 0.088 0.088 0.083 0.083 99 Combs # (Opened 7/01/02) 0.085 0.080 0.080 0.078 55 Maricopa # (Opened 7/01/02) 0.089 0.086 0.077 0.075 57 Site or City Navajo County Petrified Forest National Park # (Opened 10/01/02) Pima County Pinal County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 26 Pinal Air Park # (Opened 7/01/02) 0.087 0.085 0.079 0.078 58 Queen Valley S 0.112 0.110 0.106 0.099 99 0.097 0.096 0.093 0.092 98 Yavapai County Hillside S *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 2002. 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. Notes: Page – Navajo Generating Station data received too late for publication. Yuma – No data collected in 2002 while monitor was relocated to new site. Table 12: 2002 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. Sample Days 0.077 0.074 0.072 0.069 0 324 0.081 0.081 0.079 0.079 0 356 0.091 0.088 0.088 0.087 5 Blue Point 0.091 0.089 0.088 0.086 5 364 Cave CreekS 0.090 0.089 0.088 0.086 4 196 Site or City Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp Gila County Tonto National Monument S # 149 Maricopa County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 27 Table 12: 2002 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. Sample Days Cental Phoenix 0.088 0.084 0.082 0.076 1 347 Falcon Field S 0.093 0.092 0.086 0.084 3 206 Fountain Hills 0.092 0.092 0.091 0.086 5 359 Glendale S 0.094 0.088 0.083 0.083 2 210 Humboldt Mt. S 0.102 0.091 0.090 0.090 8 212 Maryvale S 0.107 0.095 0.094 0.084 3 210 Mesa (Closed 11/01/02) 0.082 0.073 0.073 0.072 0 287 North Phoenix 0.093 0.089 0.088 0.085 5 357 S 0.085 0.080 0.080 0.078 1 213 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 0.093 0.089 0.083 0.076 2 262 Pinnacle Peak 0.089 0.086 0.085 0.084 3 356 Rio VerdeS 0.089 0.088 0.085 0.085 4 209 South Phoenix 0.090 0.086 0.082 0.081 2 361 South Scottsdale 0.087 0.079 0.079 0.077 1 349 Surprise 0.083 0.080 0.080 0.079 0 193 Tempe – Daley Park 0.086 0.085 0.083 0.080 2 210 West Chandler S 0.094 0.085 0.083 0.083 2 207 Palo Verde ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 28 Table 12: 2002 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. Sample Days West Phoenix 0.102 0.100 0.084 0.084 2 358 0.059 0.059 0.055 0.055 0 92 Saguaro National Park East 0.082 0.082 0.079 0.077 0 363 Tucson – Children’s Park 0.085 0.076 0.073 0.073 1 365 Tucson – Craycroft 0.085 0.080 0.078 0.075 1 363 Tucson – Downtown 0.080 0.073 0.073 0.072 0 365 Tucson – Fairgrounds 0.079 0.078 0.075 0.072 0 364 Tucson – Tangerine 0.090 0.079 0.075 0.075 1 359 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 0.081 0.081 0.080 0.080 0 342 Casa Grande – Airport 0.080 0.080 0.079 0.078 0 363 Combs # (Opened 7/01/02) 0.075 0.074 0.072 0.069 0 117 Maricopa # (Opened 7/01/02) 0.084 0.081 0.073 0.068 0 122 Pinal Air Park # (Opened 7/01/02) 0.080 0.075 0.072 0.070 0 122 Queen Valley S 0.085 0.083 0.083 0.083 1 218 0.092 0.090 0.090 0.089 4 212 Navajo County Petrified Forest National Park # (Opened 10/01/02) Pima County Pinal County Yavapai County Hillside S * Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling days. There were 365 sampling days in 2002. Valid data recovery should be less than 100 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 29 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; 214 days in non-leap years. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available. Notes: Page – Navajo Generating Station data received too late for publication. Yuma – No data collected in 2002 while monitor was relocated to new site. 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 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 30 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 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 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 31 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 midmorning. 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 trackout 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 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. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 32 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 ECelsius) 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 2002 PM10 data reported in Table 13 represent 71 monitors throughout Arizona and two in Mexico, which are located in Agua Prieta and Nogales, Sonora. TEOM data are not included in this table. 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. Eleven 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 2002. Particulate data from the IMPROVE network are not included. Table 13: 2002 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3) Method Annual Average Springerville – Coalyard Dichot Springerville – Coyote Hills Site or City 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Max Value 2nd High 13 97 41 100 Dichot 10 87 30 92 Douglas – Red Cross Dichot 32 127 69 98 Paul Spur Partisol 16 63 38 97 Apache County Cochise County Coconino County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 33 Table 13: 2002 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3) Method Annual Average Flagstaff – Middle School # Dichot Sedona – Post Office # Site or City 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Max Value 2nd High 17 49 27 49 Dichot/ Partisol 15 55 46 87 Hayden – Old Jail # Dichot 34 122 64 80 Miami – Golf Course Dichot 23 55 43 100 Miami – Ridgeline Dichot 13 52 36 100 Payson # Partisol 26 46 46 87 Dichot 26 87 49 95 Central Phoenix Hi-Vol 43 81 76 100 Chandler Hi-Vol 56 128 117 100 Estrella Dichot 31 92 68 85 Glendale Hi-Vol 40 88 85 98 Higley Hi-Vol 63 138 134 95 Maryvale Hi-Vol 45 142 90 92 Mesa Hi-Vol 36 102 86 100 North Phoenix Hi-Vol 37 80 72 98 Palo Verde Dichot 29 100 78 97 Phoenix – Durango Complex Hi-Vol 70 232 158 100 Phoenix – Greenwood Hi-Vol 55 116 102 100 Phoenix – JLG Supersite # Dichot 33 72 52 74 Phoenix – Salt River Hi-Vol 81 249 174 98 Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 34 Table 13: 2002 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3) Method Annual Average Phoenix - West 43rd Avenue # (Opened 4/01/02) Hi-Vol South Phoenix Site or City 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Max Value 2nd High 68 172 135 100 Hi-Vol 60 137 123 100 South Scottsdale Hi-Vol 37 64 62 100 Surprise Hi-Vol 32 81 67 97 Tempe – Community Center Dichot 35 65 60 90 West Chandler Hi-Vol 39 80 77 100 West Phoenix Hi-Vol 53 122 98 100 Bullhead City – ADEQ # Dichot 19 56 50 79 Bullhead City – SCE # (Closed 9/29/02) Hi-Vol N/A 114 88 72 Kingman – Praxair NE # Hi-Vol 14 44 38 79 Kingman – Praxair SW # Hi-Vol 14 45 32 74 Partisol 15 53 50 59 Ajo – ADOT Partisol 19 50 46 95 Green Valley Hi-Vol 20 98 75 99 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument # Dichot 11 27 26 72 Rillito – ADEQ Dichot 37 70 69 100 Rillito – APCC Hi-Vol 31 199 140 95 South Tucson – ADEQ Dichot 29 64 50 95 South Tucson – PDEQ Hi-Vol 39 200 192 99 Mohave County Navajo County Show Low # Pima County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 35 Table 13: 2002 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3) Method Annual Average Tucson – Broadway and Swan Hi-Vol Tucson – Corona de Tucson (ADEQ) # Site or City 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Max Value 2nd High 26 62 54 100 Dichot 15 30 28 89 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (PDEQ) Hi-Vol 15 40 30 97 Tucson – Craycroft Dichot 26 53 44 90 Tucson – Orange Grove, PDEQ Hi-Vol 33 171 125 99 Tucson – Orange Grove, ADEQ Dichot 43 116 92 98 Tucson – Prince Road Hi-Vol 34 83 62 98 Tucson – Santa Clara Hi-Vol 28 86 53 100 Tucson – Tangerine Hi-Vol 19 63 58 98 Tucson – U of A Central Dichot 27 56 47 92 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (North) # Hi-Vol 21 62 47 87 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (South) # Hi-Vol 21 62 49 71 Casa Grande – Downtown # Hi-Vol 30 69 67 87 Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner # (Closed 7/22/02) Hi-Vol 69 311 150 41 Coolidge – Maintenance Yard # Hi-Vol 33 106 80 84 Eloy – City Complex # Hi-Vol 46 146 110 84 Mammoth – County Complex # Hi-Vol 19 53 49 87 Pinal Air Park # Hi-Vol 30 62 58 66 Pinal County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 36 Table 13: 2002 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3) Method Annual Average Pinal County Housing Complex# (Opened 8/01/02) Hi-Vol Stanfield # Site or City 24-Hour Average Data Recovery* (in percent) Max Value 2nd High 57 166 99 36 Hi-Vol 60 352 185 84 Dichot 51 188 116 93 Clarkdale – School # (Closed 4/23/02) Dichot 13 18 17 79 Clarkdale – NW (#2) Dichot 19 127 61 100 Clarkdale – SE (#1) Dichot 28 86 66 100 Prescott # (Closed 6/25/02) Partisol 13 19 18 43 Dichot/P artisol 48 125 115 80 Agua Prieta – Fire Station Dichot 68 182 162 95 Nogales – Fire Station # Dichot 69 198 152 87 Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center/Courthouse Mexico Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 10 Fg/m3 and any average value greater than 50 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 Fg/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 2002 for monitors on the every 6th day schedule. Bullhead City - SCE and Rillito - APCC were the only sites following the every 3rd day schedule (122 observations in 2002) N/A – Not available ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 37 # 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. Notes: Bullhead City - SCE – 3-day sampling schedule Clarkdale - School – Closed 4/14/02 Flagstaff - Middle School closed April - Sept. for site repairs. Page – Navajo Generating Station data received too late for publication. Rillito - APCC – Exceedance occurred on 1 in 3 sample day Yuma - 8/18/02 sample of 170 flagged as exceptional event and excluded from calculations. Table 14: 2002 PM2.5 Data (in Fg/m3) City or Site Method Annual Avg FRM 24-Hour Avg Data Recovery* (in percent) Max 2nd High 7.4 15.0 13.9 90 FRM 7.2 12.0 11.6 31 FRM 10.0 21.4 21.2 75 Phoenix – Desert West 2* # (Closed 5/13/02) FRM 12.0 41.3 35.1 24 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 2* # FRM 11.6 45.9 40.9 49 Phoenix – JLG Supersite (PM2.5 speciation monitor) 2 FRM 12.3 33.6 29.5 92 Tempe – Community Center 2 FRM 10.4 38.5 26.9 98 West Phoenix 2* # FRM 12.6 81.1 55.3 52 FRM 6.6 27.6 23.9 93 Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross 1 # Coconino County Flagstaff – Middle School 1 # Gila County Payson 2 # Maricopa County Pima County Tucson – Children’s Park 2 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 38 Table 14: 2002 PM2.5 Data (in Fg/m3) Method Annual Avg Tucson – Children’s Park (PM2.5 speciation monitor) 1 (Opened 02/19/02) FRM Tucson – Orange Grove 2 City or Site 24-Hour Avg Data Recovery* (in percent) Max 2nd High 7.7 16.1 15.1 89 FRM 6.4 26.2 23.8 99 Apache Junction – Fire Station 2 FRM 6.4 23.5 13.1 N/A Casa Grande – Downtown 1 FRM 8.5 23.6 20.8 N/A FRM 12.2 29.7 25.4 97 Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office 1 *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 2002 2 Samples collected every thirrd day – 122 sample days in 2002 2 * Samples collected every day January-March 2002; Samples collected every third day AprilDecember; 182 sample days in 2002 # 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. Notes: Flagstaff - Middle School closed April - September for site repairs. 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 one-hour 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 nonattainment (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) ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 39 for the one-hour standard. No exceedances of the one-hour standard were recorded in 2001 or 2002. No exceedances of the eight-hour standard were recorded in 2001 or 2002. The data are presented in Table 15 and Table 16. Table 15. 2001-2002 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 2001-2002 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Compliance Values by County County Maricopa Pima Pinal Exceedances 0 0 0 Violations 0 0 0 Summary: 21 of 21 monitors in compliance Table 15: 2001-2002 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2001 City or Site 2002 Compliance Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Central Phoenix 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.8 5.8 Glendale S 4.7 4.7 4.1 3.9 4.7 Maryvale S 9.0 7.5 8.0 6.9 7.5 Mesa S 4.6 3.8 4.9 4.8 4.8 North Phoenix S 5.2 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.7 Phoenix – Grand Avenue S (Closed 4/1/02) 10.3 9.6 7.7 7.5 9.6 Phoenix – Greenwood 7.0 6.9 7.3 6.8 6.9 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 7.0 6.5 5.7 5.4 6.5 Phoenix – West Indian School 8.0 7.7 7.7 7.3 7.7 South Phoenix S 6.8 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.5 South Scottsdale S 4.5 4.4 5.5 4.3 4.4 2.6 2.5 4.2 2.4 2.5 4.3 4.2 4.9 4.7 4.7 Maricopa County Surprise S Tempe – Daley Park ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 40 Table 15: 2001-2002 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2001 City or Site 2002 Compliance Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High West Chandler S 3.3 3.1 3.5 3.2 3.2 West Phoenix 8.4 8.2 8.6 7.9 8.2 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.1 5.7 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.8 Tucson – Children’s Park 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.9 Tucson – Craycroft 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 Tucson – Downtown 5.6 5.1 6.6 5.1 5.1 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 3.7 3.5 1.3 1.2 3.5 Casa Grande – Airport 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 Pima County Tucson – Alvernon Tucson – Cherry S Pinal County S Seasonal monitor, operational Jan. 1 to April 1 and Sept. 1 to Dec. 31 Table 16. 2001-2002 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 2001-2002 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Compliance Values by County County Maricopa Pima Pinal Exceedances 0 0 0 Violations 0 0 0 Summary: 21 of 21 monitors in compliance Table 16: 2001-2002 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2001 City or Site 2002 Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.1 Compliance Value Maricopa County Central Phoenix ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 41 4.1 Table 16: 2001-2002 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2001 City or Site 2002 Compliance Value Max Value 2nd High Max Value 2nd High Glendale S 3.1 2.8 3.2 2.7 2.8 Maryvale S 7.5 5.3 5.0 5.0 5.3 Mesa S 2.9 2.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 North Phoenix S 2.5 2.5 3.3 2.7 2.7 Phoenix – Grand Avenue S (Closed 4/1/02) 6.6 6.1 5.5 5.5 6.1 Phoenix – Greenwood 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.1 5.1 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 5.7 5.2 4.2 4.2 5.2 Phoenix West Indian School 6.6 6.4 5.5 5.4 6.4 South Phoenix S 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.7 3.7 South Scottsdale S 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 Tempe – Daley Park 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 West Chandler S 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 West Phoenix 6.7 6.5 5.5 5.5 6.5 Tucson – Alvernon 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.9 Tucson – Cherry S 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.6 Tucson – Children’s Park 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 Tucson – Craycroft 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.9 Tucson – Downtown 2.7 2.5 3.7 2.3 2.5 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 Casa Grande – Airport 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Surprise S Pima County Pinal County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 42 S Seasonal monitor, operational from Jan. 1 to April 1 and Sept. 1 to Dec. 31 Nitrogen Dioxide Table 18: 2002 Nitrogen Dioxide Average The NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide is Exceedances Violations County 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: 12 of 12 monitors in compliance at least 75 percent complete. The 2002 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 2002 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 Fg/m3 (approximately 0.03 ppm) and the maximum 24-hour block average standard is 365 Fg/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 24-hour blocks which begin at midnight each day. The secondary three-hour standard is 1300 Fg/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 Fg/m3. See Table 10 on Page 25 for the 2002 averages. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 43 Table 19: 2002 Sulfur Dioxide Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County County Annual Three Hour 24-Hour Exceedances 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: 16 out of 16 monitors in compliance Ozone The NAAQS include a standard for one-hour ozone and a 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 1-hour standard occurred in Arizona in 2002. The last exceedance of the one-hour standard occurred in 1996 in Phoenix. EPA developed the 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 how to implement the eight-hour standard. Monitoring agencies continue to record monitoring data to gather information on occurrence and ability for future compliance with an eight-hour standard. The eight-hour ozone standard is 0.08 ppm (0.84 for rounding) for a daily maximum ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 44 eight-hour average. This standard is met when the average of the annual fourthhighest 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. The data in Table 20 are for those sites in operation during 2000, 2001 and 2002. Table 20: 2000 to 2002 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) NAAQS: The three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum eighthour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm 2000 to 2002 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS Compliance Values, By County County Eight-Hour Exceedances Sites in Violation 2000 2001 2002 Cochise 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 Gila N/A N/A 5 N/A Maricopa 57 27 55 3 Navajo N/A N/A 0 N/A Pima 6 0 3 0 Pinal 6 0 1 0 Yavapai 1 0 4 0 Yuma 0 0 N/A 0 Summary: 27 of 30 monitors in compliance for 2000 to 2002 Table 20: 2000 to 2002 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) 2000 2001 2002 ThreeYear Average 0.071 0.067 0.069 0.069 0.071 0.070 0.079 0.073 Blue Point 0.087 0.080 0.086 0.084 Central Phoenix 0.076 0.075 0.076 0.075 Falcon Field S 0.075 0.081 0.084 0.080 Fountain Hills 0.085 0.083 0.086 0.084 City or Site Fourth-Highest Value Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp Maricopa County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 45 Table 20: 2000 to 2002 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) 2000 2001 2002 ThreeYear Average Glendale S 0.081 0.078 0.083 0.080 Humboldt Mt. S 0.082 0.085 0.090 0.085 Maryvale S 0.080 0.073 0.084 0.079 Mesa (Closed 11/01/02) 0.075 0.074 0.072 0.073 North Phoenix 0.086 0.086 0.085 0.085 S 0.080 0.074 0.078 0.077 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 0.076# 0.079 0.076 0.077 Pinnacle Peak 0.086 0.085 0.084 0.085 0.086 0.083 0.085 0.084 South Phoenix 0.083 0.076 0.081 0.080 South Scottsdale 0.080 0.079 0.077 0.078 West Chandler S 0.077 0.078 0.083 0.079 West Phoenix 0.081 0.075 0.084 0.080 Saguaro National Park East 0.074 0.066 0.077 0.072 Tucson – Children’s Park 0.077 0.069 0.073 0.073 Tucson – Craycroft 0.075 0.069 0.075 0.073 Tucson – Downtown 0.067 0.065 0.072 0.068 Tucson – Fairgrounds 0.074 0.066 0.072 0.070 Tucson – Tangerine 0.073 0.067 0.075 0.071 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard 0.082 0.077 0.080 0.080 Casa Grande – Airport 0.085 0.074 0.078 0.079 City or Site Palo Verde Rio Verde S Fourth-Highest Value Pima County Pinal County Yavapai County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 46 Table 20: 2000 to 2002 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) City or Site Hillside S 2000 2001 2002 ThreeYear Average 0.083 0.076 0.089 0.082 Fourth-Highest Value 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. N/A - Data not available Notes: Page – Navajo Generating Station data received too late for publication. Yuma – No data collected in 2002 while monitor was relocated to new site. Data follow EPA truncation and averaging rules. Data published in previous annual reports may be slightly different. Particulate Matter – PM10 With the delay in adopting the proposed PM10 and PM2.5 standards, 2002 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 Fg/m3 for the annual arithmetic mean concentration and 150 Fg/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 50Fg/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 Fg/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 Fg/m3 is one or less per year measured over three years. A sample value is rounded to the nearest 10 Fg/m3 for comparison with the standard to determine if it is an exceedance (i.e., a sample value of 154 Fg/m3 is not an exceedance; a sample value of 155 Fg/m3 is an exceedance). Since the majority of monitoring sites collect samples on a less than every 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 2000 to 2002 data. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 47 Table 21: 2000 to 2002 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) NAAQS: The three-year average of annual averages is less than or equal to 50 Fg/m3. Annual averages are rounded to nearest 1 Fg/m3 for comparison to the standard. NOTE: Final EPA Compliance figures for sites with averages marked with ‘#’ may differ from values published here. 2000 to 2002 PM10 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Sites above Standard 2000 2001 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites in Violation 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Summary: 60 of 67 monitors in compliance for 2000 to 2002 Table 21: 2000 to 2002 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) 2000 2001 2002 Three-Year Average Springerville – Coalyard 12 12 13 12 Springerville – Coyote Hills 10# 8 10 9 Douglas – Red Cross 38 29# 32 33 Paul Spur 23 20 16 20 Flagstaff – Middle School 16 18# 17# 17 Sedona 12# 12# 15# 13 Hayden – Old Jail 34# 31# 34# 33 Miami – Golf Course 27 23 23 24 City or Site Apache County Cochise County Coconino County Gila County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 48 Table 21: 2000 to 2002 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) 2000 2001 2002 Three-Year Average Miami – Ridgeline 16 14 13 14 Payson 25 22 26# 24 28# 23 26 26 Central Phoenix 46 38 43 42 Chandler 57 48 56 54 Estrella 32# 26# 31 30 Gilbert 49 39 40 43 Glendale 41 33 30 35 Higley 58# 50 63 57 Maryvale 48 38 45 44 Mesa 37 30 36 34 North Phoenix 37 30 37 35 Palo Verde 21 23# 29 24 Phoenix – Durango Complex 70 59 70 66 Phoenix – Greenwood 61 49 55 55 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 37 30 35# 33 101# 94 81 92 South Phoenix 61 50 60 57 South Scottsdale 40 33 37 37 Tempe – Community Center 38 31 35 35 West Chandler 45# 34 39 39 West Phoenix 53 42 53 49 City or Site Graham County Safford Maricopa County Phoenix – Salt River Mohave County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 49 Table 21: 2000 to 2002 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) 2000 2001 2002 Three-Year Average Bullhead City – ADEQ 15 17# 19# 17 Kingman – Praxair NE 15# 13 14# 14 Kingman – Praxair SW 13 12 14# 13 15# 16# 15# 15 Ajo 19 14 19 17 Green Valley 17 23 20 20 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 12 10 11 # 11 Rillito – ADEQ 42# 34 37 38 Rillito – APCC 31 26 31 29 South Tucson – ADEQ 28 25 29 27 South Tucson – PDEQ 38 31 39 36 Tucson – Broadway and Swan 30 26 26 27 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (ADEQ) 15 16 15 # 15 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (PDEQ) 18 16 15 16 Tucson – Craycroft 24 23 26 24 Tucson – Orange Grove 39 29 33 34 Tucson – Prince Road 38 33 34 35 Tucson – Santa Clara 31 26 28 28 Tucson – Tangerine 18 17 19 18 Tucson – U of A Central 26 25 27 26 City or Site Navajo County Show Low Pima County Pinal County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 50 Table 21: 2000 to 2002 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) 2000 2001 2002 Three-Year Average Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (North) 27 23 21 # 24 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (South) 28 23 21 # 24 Casa Grande – Downtown 35 29 30# 31 Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner (Closed 7/22/02) 68 47 69 # 61 Coolidge – Maintenance Yard 37 32 33# 34 Eloy 42 35 46# 41 Mammoth 22 23 19 # 21 Pinal Air Park 31 27 30# 29 Stanfield 46 42 60# 49 48 48 51 49 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 23 36 19 26 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 30 44 28 34 Prescott (Closed 6/25/02) 12 16# 13# 14 42# 41# 48# 44 Agua Prieta – Fire Station 81 63 68 71 Nogales – Fire Station 77 67 69 # 70 City or Site Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center/Courthouse Mexico Bold denotes value above the standard. # 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 03 Air Quality Report, Page 51 2000 to 2002 PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Compliance Values, By County Table 22: 2000 to 2002 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) 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 Fg/m3 to determine exceedance; values less than or equal to 154 Fg/m3 are not exceedances; values greater than or equal to 155 Fg/m3 are exceedances. NOTE: Final EPA Compliance figures for sites with averages marked with ‘#’ may differ from values published here. Sites with Exceedances 2000 2001 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Sites in Violation 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 Summary: 54 of 64 monitors in compliance for 2000 to 2002 Table 22: 2000 to 2002 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) 2000 City or Site 2001 2002 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 31 0 35 0 97 0 <1.0 20 # 0 27 0 87 0 <1.0 # Douglas – Red Cross 104 0 137 # 0 127 0 <1.0 # Paul Spur 58 0 55 0 63 0 <1.0 Flagstaff – Middle School 39 0 47 # 0 49 # 0 <1.0 # Sedona 24 0 23 # 0 55 # 0 <1.0 # Apache County Springerville – Coalyard Springerville – Coyote Hills Cochise County Coconino County Gila County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 52 Table 22: 2000 to 2002 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) 2000 City or Site 2001 2002 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 86 # 0 141 0 122 # 0 <1.0 # Miami – Golf Course 59 0 108 0 55 0 <1.0 Miami – Ridgeline 62 0 104 0 52 0 <1.0 Payson 88 0 62 0 46 # 0 <1.0 # 94 # 0 68 0 87 0 <1.0 # Central Phoenix 135 0 124 0 81 0 <1.0 Chandler 202 6.6 146 0 128 0 2.2 Estrella 82 # 0 122 # 0 92 0 <1.0 # Glendale 122 0 110 0 88 0 <1.0 327 # 8.3# 176 6.0 138 0 4.8 # Maryvale 173 6.1 123 0 142 0 2.0 Mesa 126 0 98 0 102 0 <1.0 North Phoenix 114 0 99 0 80 0 <1.0 Palo Verde 75 0 71 # 0 100 0 <1.0 # Phoenix – Durango Complex 300 11.8 189 6.0 232 12.0 9.9 Phoenix – Greenwood 164 11.8 145 0 116 0 3.9 84 0 109 0 72 # 0 <1.0 # Phoenix – Salt River 244 42.7 281 49.0 249 12.4 34.7 South Phoenix 175 6.1 143 0 137 0 2.0 South Scottsdale 100 0 110 0 64 0 <1.0 Tempe – Community Center 95 0 109 0 65 0 <1.0 Hayden – Old Jail Graham County Safford Maricopa County Higley Phoenix – JLG Supersite ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 53 Table 22: 2000 to 2002 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m ) 2000 City or Site 2001 2002 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. West Chandler 135 0 134 0 80 0 <1.0 West Phoenix 151 0 142 0 122 0 <1.0 Bullhead City – ADEQ 42 0 39 # 0 56 # 0 <1.0 # Bullhead City – SCE (Closed 9/29/02) 79 0 51 # 0 114 # 0 N/A Kingman – Praxair NE 55 # 0 37 0 44 # 0 <1.0 # Kingman – Praxair SW 53 # 0 36 0 45 # 0 <1.0 # 35 # 0 58 # 0 53 # 0 <1.0 # Ajo – ADOT 47 0 34 0 50 0 <1.0 Green Valley 63 0 78 0 98 0 <1.0 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 29 0 23 0 27 # 0 <1.0 # Rillito – ADEQ 129 # 0 89 0 70 0 <1.0 # Rillito – APCC 77 0 77 0 199 3.1 1.0 South Tucson – PDEQ 142 0 134 0 200 2 <1.0 Tucson – Broadway/Swan 119 0 120 0 62 0 <1.0 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (PDEQ) 88 0 133 0 40 0 <1.0 Tucson – Craycroft 117 0 115 0 53 0 <1.0 Tucson – Orange Grove (PDEQ) 141 0 111 0 171 1 <1.0 Tucson – Prince Road 89 0 125 0 83 0 <1.0 Tucson – Santa Clara 97 0 131 0 86 0 <1.0 Tucson – Tangerine 71 0 81 0 63 0 <1.0 Tucson – U of A Central 75 0 122 0 56 0 <1.0 Mohave County Navajo County Show Low Pima County Pinal County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 54 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (North) 111 0 49 0 62 # 0 <1.0 # Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (South) 107 0 94 0 62 # 0 <1.0 # Casa Grande – Downtown 83 0 104 0 69 # 0 <1.0 # Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner (Closed 7/22/02) 321 12.1 146 0 311 # 6.5 6.2# Coolidge – Maintenance Yard 77 0 73 0 106 # 0 <1.0 # Eloy – City Complex 102 0 142 0 146 # 0 <1.0 # Mammoth – County Complex 64 0 99 0 53 # 0 <1.0 # Pinal Air Park 74 0 103 0 62 # 0 <1.0 # Stanfield 149 0 134 0 352 # 13.0 4.3 # 130 0 213 6.0 188 6.0 4.0 Clarkdale – School (Closed 4/23/02) 37 0 31 0 18 # 0 <1.0 # Clarkdale – NW (#2) 55 0 141 0 127 0 <1.0 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 74 0 122 0 86 0 <1.0 Prescott (Closed 6/25/02) 25 0 32 # 0 19 # 0 <1.0 # 132 # 0 150 # 1 125 0 <1.0 # Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center/Courthouse 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. Values in bold indicate exceedances or violations of the 24-hour standard. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 55 Particulate Matter – PM2.5 The NAAQS for particulate matter 2.5 microns and smaller in diameter (PM2.5) are 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (Fg/m3) for the annual arithmetic mean concentration and 65 Fg/m3 for the 24-hour average concentrations. Appendix N to Part 50 of the 40 CFR will be used to assess the compliance of the monitors operating in Arizona during 2002. The annual PM2.5 standard is met when the three-year average of annual means is less than or equal to 15.0 Fg/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 Fg/m3. There must also be 75 percent data completeness for each year. 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. 2000 to 2002 PM2.5 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Table 23: 2000 to 2002 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in Fg/m3) NAAQS: The three-year average of annual means is less than or equal to15 µg/m3 Cochise Coconino Gila Maricopa Pima Santa Cruz Sites with Exceedances 2000 2001 2002 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: 10 of 10 federal reference monitors in compliance Table 23: 2000 to 2002 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in Fg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 2000 2001 2002 Three-Year Avg 8.9 7.2# 7.4 # 7.8 # Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross Coconino County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 56 Flagstaff – Middle School 6.9 7.1# 7.2 # 7.1 # 10.1# 8.9# 10.0 # 9.7 # 11.5# 9.2 11.6 # 10.8 # 10.3 9.4 10.4 10.0 6.8 # 6.8# 6.6 6.7 # Gila County Payson Maricopa County Phoenix – JLG Supersite Tempe – Community Center Pima County Tucson – Children’s Park Table 23: 2000 to 2002 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in Fg/m3) 2000 2001 2002 Three-Year Avg 7.8 # 7.6# 6.4 7.3 # Apache Junction – Fire Station 7.3 6.3 6.4 6.7 Casa Grande – Downtown 8.5 7.7 8.5 8.2 12.8 # 10.7 12.2 11.9 # City or Site Federal Reference Monitors Tucson – Orange Grove Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office 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 03 Air Quality Report, Page 57 2000 to 2002 PM2.5 24-Hour Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Table 24: 2000 to 2002 24Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in Fg/m3) NAAQS: The three-year average of the 98th percentile values is less than or equal to 65 Fg/m3. Note: The three-year average is rounded to the nearest 1 Fg/m3 for comparison to the standard. Sites with Exceedances 2000 2001 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cochise Coconino Gila Maricopa Pima Santa Cruz Sites in Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary: 10 of 10 federal reference monitors in compliance Table 24. 2000 to 2002 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in Fg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 98th Percentile Observations 2000 2001 2002 Three-Year Average 38.5 24.4# 13.9 25.6 24.5 16.4# 12.0 17.6 27.3# 24.0# 21.2 24.2 32.1# 25.0 31.9 29.7# 20.2 22.7 21.6 21.5 Tucson – Children’s Park 11.1# 15.1# 20.2 15.5# Tucson – Orange Grove 12.8# 20.4# 21.5 18.2# Apache Junction – Fire Station 18.0 13.1 13.1 14.7 Casa Grande – Downtown 18.9 16.7 20.8 18.8 Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff – Middle School Gila County Payson Maricopa County Phoenix – JLG Supersite Tempe – Community Center Pima County Pinal County Santa Cruz County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 58 Table 24. 2000 to 2002 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in Fg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors Nogales – Post Office 98th Percentile Observations 2000 2001 2002 Three-Year Average 34.4# 25.7 25.4 28.5# # 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 (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 2002. 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 hours and the average visibility of the cleanest 20 percent of the sampled hours. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 59 Table 25: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24-hour Averages) Site Year Mean of the 20 percent Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20 percent Sampled Hours Greer Water Treatment Plant Mt. Baldy Wilderness 2002 26 10 2 Humboldt Mountain Mazatzal Wilderness and Pine Mountain Wilderness 1998 24 9 0 1999 25 12 3 2000 28 13 3 2001 21 9 1 2002 24 8 0 Ike’s Backbone Mazatzal/Pine Mountain Wildernesses 2002 24 10 2 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 2002 25 12 4 1998 30 12 3 1999 20 10 4 2000 18 8 1 2001 28 14 5 2002 27 13 3 Rucker Canyon Chiricahua Wilderness (site closed in 2001) Pleasant Valley Ranger Station Sierra Ancha Wilderness ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 60 Table 25: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24-hour Averages) Site Camp Raymond Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Tucson Mountain Saguaro National Park (Includes both the West facilities support building and the National Park Service well site) Mean of the 20 percent Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20 percent Sampled Hours 1998 N/A N/A N/A 1999 28 13 4 2000 28 13 3 2001 28 13 3 2002 30 13 3 1998 30 12 2 1999 24 13 6 2000 23 12 5 2001 22 11 3 2002 31 16 6 Year 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 six-hour 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 2002 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. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 61 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 percent Mean Cleanest 20 percent Dirtiest 20 percent Mean Cleanest 20 percent 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 2002 124 75 42 125 79 46 1998 91 35 10 77 34 13 1999 87 36 11 74 36 14 2000 93 39 12 80 39 15 2001 73 32 12 66 33 15 2002 72 33 12 62 33 14 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 2002 87 49 24 109 61 29 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 2002 38 20 7 42 22 9 2001 38 19 8 N/A N/A N/A 2002 37 18 7 N/A N/A N/A Phoenix Nephelometer Tucson Transmissometer Tucson Nephelometer (U of A Central) Tucson Nephelometer (Craycroft) N/A – Not available ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 62 Special Projects Introduction In addition to ADEQ’s statewide regulatory ambient air monitoring program, the Air Quality Division undertook several special projects during 2002 and the early part of 2003. 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 and ultimately better understand the relationship between emissions and air pollutant concentrations. The knowledge Figure 2 - Yuma West Monitoring Station, Western gained from these studies can then be Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study used by decision-makers to choose the most effective control strategies that will continue to improve the state’s air quality. 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Boundaries After EPA proposed a new 8-hour standard for ozone in 1997, court challenges ensued that eventually resulted in a mandate to the agency to complete the designations of the nonattainment area boundaries by April 15, 2004. States were required to submit their recommended boundaries by July 15, 2003. In December 2002, Air Quality Division staff and contractors began working on the technical analyses to determine the new boundaries. Beginning in February 2003, a series of public meetings was held on the subject. The technical work included statistical analyses by Division staff, air quality modeling of two 8-hour ozone design dates by Arizona State University (ASU) staff, and mapping of socio-economic data by ASU staff. A contractor, Air Pollution Evaluations & Solutions, provided services to synthesize this information and map the proposed boundaries. The final boundary recommended by ADEQ Director Owens for submittal to EPA by the Governor is slightly larger than the one-hour nonattainment area and is wholly contained within Maricopa County. 8-Hour Ozone Forecasting Program Although still designated as a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, Maricopa County must also comply with the recently upheld 8-hour ozone standard, due to go into effect in 2004. This standard has been identified by the EPA as a better measure of exposure to ground-level ozone. Since exposure is averaged over an eight hour period, the standard is lower than the 1-hour standard – 0.08 parts per million versus 0.12 parts per million. During 2002, ADEQ air quality ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 63 forecasters developed a “practice” forecasting regimen and then implemented it during the ozone season of April 1 through September 30. Ozone forecasting experience was gained and subsequently applied to improve the methods currently used in 2003. Although not disseminated, a formal forecast page was also developed which indicated the previous day’s maximum ozone concentrations as well as those expected the next 72 hours. During the 2003 ozone season, this page is being posted on the internet for public access along with an interactive map showing the locations of each ozone monitor. An ozone-forecast voice recording system is also installed so that citizens without computer access can obtain air quality information (602-771-2367). Additionally, a method to make available daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations on the ADEQ web site, for the entire monitoring network, is underway. Salt River Study In 1997, the EPA approved an attainment demonstration as part of the metropolitan Phoenix serious area PM10 SIP that showed the 24-hour PM10 standard would not be violated at the Salt River site after 1998. However, ambient data from the Salt River monitoring site showed continuing violations of the 24-hour standard during 1999, 2000, and 2001. Based on these data, EPA found that the SIP was substantially inadequate to provide for attainment of the 24hour standard, and required the State to revise it. The Salt River Industrial Area is approximately 32 square miles (one percent of the Phoenix metropolitan area) located along the Salt River in southwest Phoenix. Its 24-hour violations are considered most likely due in part to the industrial activities such as sand and gravel mining and materials processing that take place there. In the PM10 attainment demonstration, the state must first develop a relationship between the emissions and concentrations. This is done through the construction of an emissions inventory and the use of this inventory in an air quality model. Second, the State must develop and evaluate potential control strategies that, if enacted, would ensure maintenance of the standard. In early 2002, ADEQ and Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services began a study of this area to: develop a base case emissions inventory, develop source category emissions estimates, characterize the air quality and meteorology of the area, statistically analyze the data, and employ modeling to simulate ambient conditions and to show the air quality benefits of the strategies adopted to achieve the NAAQS. The revised SIP will be submitted to EPA before February 2004. Douglas/Agua Prieta A comprehensive emissions inventory for the Douglas, Arizona and Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico area was completed in June 2002. Pollutant information contained in the emissions inventory includes VOCs, 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. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 64 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. Yuma PM10 Nonattainment Area Redesignation Project Yuma was designated nonattainment for PM10 in 1990. ADEQ developed a SIP for Yuma in 1991 that demonstrated the area could meet the federal NAAQS by December 1994. There were several consecutive years of clean monitoring data when a stakeholder process to prepare a maintenance plan was begun in July 2001. ADEQ meet with local stakeholders to review the control measures already in place and hired a contractor to assist in developing emissions inventory for the 1999 base year and the future years emissions estimates. Modeling for particulate matter emission was performed based on contributing sources identified by the contractor working with locally based agencies. After modeling of 1999 was completed successfully, ADEQ staff learned that an incomplete monitoring record in 2001 would necessitate that the three most recent years of clean data for the SIP would have to be 20022004, with a SIP submittal in early 2005. On August 18, 2002, however, there was an unusually large and intense thunderstorm with blowing dust over east-central Sonora that moved northwesterly through Yuma. For this day there were three hours with wind speeds above the dust resuspension threshold of 15 mph. The Yuma PM10 monitor registered 170 ug/m3, over the NAAQS limit of 150 ug/m3. In order to use 2002 data for the SIP submittal, ADEQ worked with EPA to flag this value as an exceptional event and is currently preparing a Natural Events Action Plan for Yuma to be submitted to EPA by March 2004. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 65 Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study The purpose of this study is to determine the sources and movement of air pollutants as well as assess their effects on residents of far southwestern Arizona and adjacent regions of Mexico. In order to accomplish this, ADEQ, in partnership with local, state, federal, and tribal governments, will undertake four main tasks which are: ambient monitoring, emission inventory development, air quality modeling, and health assessment. The Division will carry out a thorough public Figure 3 - Map of Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air outreach program that will provide Quality Study monitoring locations. information and exchange of all four phases of the study. As of this writing, the ambient monitoring task, also termed the pilot study phase, is well underway. A total of five meteorological stations have been installed in the Yuma area to measure and gather data on wind, temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, atmospheric pressure, and lapse rate. Sites for three more stations have been identified in Mexico – two in Sonora and one in Baja. The information acquired during this phase will be used to determine where air quality monitoring should be conducted during the comprehensive phase, scheduled to begin in early 2005. Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program There are currently 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or air toxics, regulated by the Clean Air Act that have been associated with a wide variety of adverse health effects. Of these, the EPA has determined that 33 HAPs constitute the greatest threat to public health in urban areas. HAPs are emitted by a wide variety of anthropogenic sources such as automobiles, commercial and retail entities and large industrial sources. ADEQ conducts monitoring for HAPs as part of the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program. The data is entered into the EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) and National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) databases. Air Toxics monitoring includes 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. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 66 In 2002, the PAMS and air toxics monitoring sites were: 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. Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project (JATAP) The first phase of the Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project (JATAP) began in February 2003 and is ongoing. Participants include the Gila River Indian Community and ADEQ, and the funding is by EPA-Region 9 and OAQPS. The purpose of this initial small scale study is to determine which pollutants are of most concern in the metropolitan Phoenix area with a specific interest in South Phoenix and the Gila River Indian Community. The basic goals of the monitoring work are data collection (including emissions inventory, VOC sampling, and particulate speciation results), validation and analysis. Sites include: South Phoenix site, West 43rd Avenue site, and St. Johns site on the Gila River Indian Community. This project is a prelude to a much larger, more comprehensive tribal/state/federal/local air toxics project that has been in the planning stages for two years. As of mid 2003, a study plan has been completed, and efforts have been made to publicize the study and to obtain funds. Carried out through the Institute of Tribal Environmental Professions in Flagstaff, this coalition consists of staff from these agencies: EPA - Region 9 EPA - Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Salt River Pima - Maricopa Indian Community Ft. McDowell Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) The larger goal of JATAP is to carry out an air toxics project that would cover the entire Phoenix area, including its three principal Indian reservations; that would consist of work in air modeling and risk assessment, as well as emissions and air monitoring; and that would take four years to complete . Visibility Index Oversight Committee The Visibility Index Oversight Committee (VIOC) was established in April 2002, in response to legislation (House Bill 2538, First Regular Session 2001)“to establish options for a visibility standard or other method to track progress in improving visibility in the Phoenix area.” The Visibility Index Oversight Committee was established to assist ADEQ in developing the index. In early 2002, ADEQ awarded a contract to BBC Research and Consulting to develop and conduct a public survey. BBC began the field survey in July of 2002. The BBC study team ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 67 administered 27 sessions, to 385 participants, at six locations in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Participants were recruited to be demographically representative of four regions of Area A, and three sessions were conducted in Spanish. Participants attended group sessions (of no more than 20 participants), viewed 21 different images that showed varying visibility levels, and completed a written questionnaire commenting on the slides. There were three primary parts to the survey instrument: 1. Rating the level of visual air quality on a 7-point scale of very poor to excellent; 2. Indicating if the visual air quality was acceptable; 3. Indicating the numbers of days per year of a given level that would be acceptable. BBC presented the survey results and its statistical analysis to the VIOC in December 2002. Then the committee worked with an ADEQ contractor, Air Pollution Evaluations and Solutions, to develop possible index approaches. The components discussed options for designation of hours, methodology, averaging methods, index types and category thresholds. During meetings in January and February of 2003, the Committee addressed components described above and formed a consensus on each item. The Committee recommendations are listed below. Committee Recommendation Recommended Visibility Index for Area A 1. Index Categories Category Deciview Range Excellent 14 or less Good 15 to 20 Fair 21 to 24 Poor 25 to 28 Very Poor 29 or greater 2. Averaging 4-Hour Rolling Average 3. Statistic for Reporting Period Highest Daily Average Deciview Value, as measured during daylight hours (adjusted monthly) ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 68 4. Environmental Goal Show continued progress through 2018 Move days in the poor/very poor categories up to the fair category Move days in the fair category up to the good/excellent categories Progress assessment to be conducted every 5 years through 2018 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 Phoenix area. ADEQ began install the new network in late 2002 and expects to complete work by mid-2003. Cap and Trade Oversight Committee The Cap and Trade Oversight Committee (CTOC) was established in April 2002 in response to legislation (House Bill 2538, First Regular Session 2001). The stakeholder based committee included representatives from the major affected source categories, as well as business, governmental, and environmental representatives. The Committee was tasked with assisting ADEQ in determining if a cap and trade program would be feasible to improve visibility in the greater Phoenix area. The Summit examined a Voluntary Emissions Trading Program for sources, with periodic welldefined emission reduction goals to start in the 2004 to 2006 time frame. If visibility improvements or reductions in air pollution were not met , a backstop program could automatically begin, setting a cap on emissions of pollutants that make up the brown cloud (PM, NOX, SO2). Business and industries that could most cost-effectively reduce emissions would get credits for reducing emissions more than they needed to, which they could sell to other businesses and industries that did not have opportunities for making cost effective emissions reductions. Such trading in credits would help reduce the cost of meeting pollution reduction goals. This program would encourage voluntary reductions of emissions for both permitted and unpermitted source categories, including stationary and area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources. Between May 2002 and June 2003, the Committee studied various aspects of visibility and potential ways to reduce emissions that obscure the Phoenix area views. They studied the pollutants that have the biggest impact on visibility, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM); how the pollutants cause impairment; and what types of sources ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 69 emit the pollutants. The Committee also reviewed what control strategies are in place and will be in future years for the identified source categories. Finally, the Committee held several educational sessions to learn how trading programs work and to hear about the successes and challenges of such programs in other parts of the country and world. Through a cooperative effort with Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, ADEQ, Maricopa Association of Governments, and Environ Corporation, a comprehensive 2002 Maricopa County emissions inventory of PM2.5, SO2, and NOx was developed for use in the Committee’s deliberations. These emissions inventories will also have utility for other air quality plans and projects. In June 2003, the Committee determined that a cap and trade program for visibility is not feasible for the Phoenix area. Additional information is available at http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/cap.html Regional Haze Regional haze is caused by the emissions of air pollutants from a wide variety of sources located over a large geographic area. The haze obscures scenic vistas, which degrades our parks and wilderness areas and interferes with people’s enjoyment and recreation in those areas. In 1977, the Federal Clean Air Act set a goal to remedy any existing visibility impairment, and prevent any future impairment, from manmade pollution at 158 national parks and wilderness areas across the United States. Arizona has 12 national parks and wilderness areas. The Regional Haze SIP currently under development is focusing on four of these 12 national parks and wilderness areas: Grand Canyon National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, and Mount Baldy Wilderness. The remaining 8 Class I areas will be addressed in a second SIP to be submitted in 2004 under Section 309(g) of the Regional Haze Rule. In this first SIP, demonstration of how the state met the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission is sufficient to meet reasonable progress until a required SIP revision in 2008. The Regional Haze SIP has been the focus of the Planning and Assessment sections at ADEQ since the approval by a large and varied stakeholder group in November of 2000 for the development of a SIP under Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule. The SIP, to be submitted by December 31, 2003, requires a large degree of communication and cooperation by all western states pursuing a SIP under Section 309. Source specific work groups were formed in spring of 2001 to assist ADEQ with the SIP (Station Sources, Fire Emissions, Mobile Sources, Dust Management and Pollution Prevention). Two technical work groups (Emissions Inventory and Technical Assessment) were formed to assist in the review of emissions and modeling data submitted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). Numerous staff from the Planning and Assessment sections of ADEQ’s Air Quality Division took part as work group members, staff assistants, or work group chairmen in all of these groups. Unique to the Regional Haze SIP are programs to track fire emissions and a “backstop” emissions ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 70 trading program for stationary sources emitting sulfur dioxide. Existing fire rules for Arizona, R18-2-602, Unlawful Open Burning, and Article 15, Forest and Range Management Burns, are being revised to reflect the new requirements to track the emissions from fire that can contribute to visibility impairment in and near national parks and wilderness areas. The voluntary program for stationary sources establishes a cap on regional sulfur dioxide emissions to assure that they will continue to decrease. If emissions exceed the cap, a trading program will come into play that will require sources reduce emissions below the cap. Additional information on regional haze can be found at http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/plan/haze.html Hazardous Air Response Team Part of the ADEQ multimedia response team, the Hazardous Air Response Team (HART) is called to emergencies by the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) for those incidents that threaten air quality. HART’s objectives are to monitor air quality for public exposure of air pollutants and to provide meteorological support regarding dispersion. This information is provided to the Arizona Department of Health Services or the County Health Department so appropriate actions can be taken to protect the public. The Team has a fully equipped van with a variety of grabsampling and continuous sampling air monitoring equipment. It is staffed by five volunteer members of the Air Quality Division. Since it started in 1992, the Team has responded to 95 incidents. During the calender year of 2002, HART responded to nine incidents: one dump fire, two industrial fires, one mulch fire, and five forest fires (Indian Fire in Prescott, Bullock Fire in San Manuel, Walker Fire in Nogales, Rodeo-Chediski Fire west of Showlow, and the Trick Fire in Sycamore Canyon). During the first seven months of 2003, HART responded to one industrial fire and three forest fires (the Cherry Fire outside Prescott, the Aspen Fire in the Catalina Mountains outside of Tucson, and the Kinishba Fire outside of Whiteriver). ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 71 Trends Introduction Whether air quality meets the standards is an important question, but one posed more often is whether it 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 three 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 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 in 1978 to 2.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2002. 14 8-hr CO (ppm) 12 10 standard 8 6 4 2 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 2: Eight-hour carbon monoxide maxima at 22nd Street and Alvernon Way in Tucson ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 72 In Phoenix at 18th Street and Roosevelt (Central Phoenix), the decline was from 23.0 to 7.1 ppm (Figures 2and 3). The number of exceedances of the eight-hour standard – 9 ppm – in Phoenix decreased from 75 to 0 at Central Phoenix. The entire Phoenix network of carbon monoxide monitors recorded over 100 exceedances each year from 1981 through 1986, with an average of 134 per year. Only one exceedance was recorded by this network in 1997-2002. Most of this improvement can be attributed to Federal new-vehicle emission standards, augmented by emission reductions from the vehicle inspection and maintenance program, which began in 1976, and the use of oxygenated fuels in the winter, beginning in 1989. 25 CO (ppm) 20 15 10 standard 5 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 3: Maximum eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations at Central Phoenix: 1975-2002 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 result has been similar: no exceedances of the ozone standard have been recorded since 1996. The one-hour standard was officially declared attained on May 16, 2001. Because of the relatively high background level of ozone and its photochemical formation from hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, changes in emissions would not be expected to translate into proportional changes in concentration. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 73 0.18 ozone (ppm) 0.15 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 and to be officially implemented in 2004, is expressed as the three-year average of the annual fourthhighest concentration, not to exceed 0.08 parts per million. 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 fourth-highest ozone concentrations in Tucson fluctuate between 0.06 and 0.08 ppm, but, overall, are steady (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 2002. The standard of 0.084 ppm is the de facto, or operational 0.12 ozone (ppm) 0.1 standard-3-yr avg 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Downtown Pom/C.Park Craycroft Saguaro Mon. 2005 Figure 5: Annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations in Tucson ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 74 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 2002 than in 1995, although the 1997 - 2002 trend is virtually even. For instance, of the 20 sites operational both in 1995 or 1996 and 2002, 14 recorded fourth-highest values greater than 0.084 ppm in 1995, but only three in 2002. The values have decreased through time as well, with typical fourth-highest concentrations decreasing from 1995-96 to 2002: 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. It should be pointed out that nearly all of this improvement took place between 1995-96 and 1997, with the trends in the number of exceeding sites, the number of exceedances, and the numerical values of the concentrations being flat since 1997. 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 2002. However, in 2002, 6 sites in the network recorded fourth-highest values greater than 0.084, with the highest value of 0.090 recorded at Humboldt Mt. 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 2002: the first being 1995 to 1997 and the last 2000 to 2002. 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 three, 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 2002 was 11 percent lower, just above the standard at 85.7 ppb. These trends are consistent with the decreasing one-hour maximum ozone trends; however, most of the decrease in eighthour ozone concentrations occurred in the mid 1990s. Since 1997, the trends at most sites have been steady, suggesting that the eight-hour standard will be difficult to achieve in two to three years. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 75 Table 27. Three-Year Averages of the Annual Fourth-Highest Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Phoenix and Environs (Units are in parts per billion (ppb)and Bold values equal or exceed the operational standard of 85.0 ppb) 19951997 19961998 19971999 19982000 19992001 20002002 Emergency Management 96.3 87.3 84.7 82.3 76.3 Closed North Phoenix 93.7 92.3 88.0 86.3 85.3 85.7 Salt River Pima 93.0 90.7 84.3 Closed Closed Closed Phoenix Supersite 92.7 85.3 73.7 72.7 72.3 77.0 Blue Point 90.3 89.3 86.0 88.7 85.3 84.3 Apache Junction 90.0 86.0 81.7 81.3 79.7 79.7 Mesa 89.7 85.3 81.0 79.3 77.3 73.7 Pinnacle Peak 89.0 86.7 81.0 81.7 82.0 85.0 Fountain Hills 89.0 85.0 82.3 81.7 81.0 84.7 Falcon Field 89.0 85.0 82.3 81.7 81.0 80.0 Mount Ord 88.0 90.7 87.3 88.7 84.7 Closed South Scottsdale 84.3 80.7 75.3 76.0 76.0 78.7 West Phoenix 84.3 84.7 85.3 86.0 82.3 80.0 Maryvale 84.0 83.7 81.3 83.0 78.3 79.0 Humboldt Mountain 83.7 88.0 86.0 86.3 84.7 85.0 Maximum 96.3 92.3 88.0 88.7 85.3 85.7 11 12 5 5 2 3 n > 85.0 ppb 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 68.7 µg/m3 from 1985 through 1987, but only 57.1 µg/m3 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 76 in 2000-2002, a decrease of 17 percent. Similar percentage decreases occurred from the 1980s at Central Phoenix and West Phoenix (Figures 6 and 7). PM10 (ug/m3) 80 70 60 50 standard 40 30 20 1985 1990 1995 2000 Central Phoenix Chandler Glendale North Phoenix 2005 Figure 6: PM10 trends at four metropolitan Phoenix sites PM10 (ug/m3) 70 60 50 standard 40 30 20 1985 1990 2000 1995 West Phoenix Mesa South Scottsdale Greenwood Figure 7: PM10 trends at four additional metropolitan Phoenix sites ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 77 2005 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. Of these four sites, in 39 monitor years, 19 (49 percent) have exceeded the annual standard. 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 2002 Central Phoenix 42 43 43 44 41 44 38* 44 46 38 43 Chandler 56 58 50 53 62 61 45 60 57 48 56 Glendale 34 35 33 33 34 38 29 36 41 33 40 North Phoenix 35 34 35 36 37 38 29 35 37 30 37 South Phoenix 48 44 44 46 47 55 31* 49 61 50 60 West Phoenix 47 44 43 44 45 51 39 51 53 43 53 Mesa 29 35 36 35 33 43 29 35 37 30 36 South Scottsdale 34 34 38 36 35 41 34 40 40 33 37 Greenwood N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 61 50 56 61 49 55 Bold values exceed the annual standard of 50 ug/m3. *Does not satisfy EPA summary criteria of 75 percent data recovery. N/A – Data not available 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 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 78 steadily decreased in the next 15 years to an average concentration in 2000-2002 of 33,6 µg/m3 – a decrease of 25 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 from paving roads, alleys and road shoulders, and better controls of construction dust emissions. 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, PM10 (ug/m3) 60 standard 50 40 30 20 10 1990 1985 1995 2000 2005 South Tucson Prince Road Corona de Tucso Green Valley Orange Grove Broadway/Swan Figure 8: PM10 trends at six metropolitan Tucson sites road paving and better industrial dust controls can be given credit for most of the improvement (Figure 9). ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 79 140 PM10 (ug/m3) 120 100 80 60 40 20 standard 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2003 2001 Douglas Hayden Naco Nogales Paul Spur Payson Rillito Yuma 2005 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 2003 2005 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 PM10. Clarkdale decreased 38 percent; Flagstaff, 69 percent; Joseph City, 45 percent; ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 80 Annual PM10 (ug/m3) 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 2001 Clarkdale Flagstaff Joseph City Montezuma Castle Nelson Prescott 2003 2005 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” or “PMfine”, 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, Yuma and 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, Nogales and 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 03 Air Quality Report, Page 81 Table 29. Annual PMfine (through 1999) and 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 16.0 # 2000 8.7 4.8 10.0 12.8 2001 N/A 7.1* 8.9* 10.7* 2002 N/A 7.2 10.0 12.2 Phoenix Higley Tempe Supersite ASU West Estrella West PHX 1995 15.4 10.0 12.6 11.1 11.7 N/A 1996 11.1 10.0 13.4 10.5 11.1 N/A 1997 10.4 9.8 12.1 9.1 7.9 N/A 1998 9.4 9.4 10.9 8.3 7.1 N/A 1999 11.1 10.1 10.8 9.1 8.9 N/A 2000 10.0 10.0 10.4 8.5 7.7 N/A 2001 N/A 9.4* 9.2* N/A 7.4 10.9 2002 N/A 10.4 12.3 N/A 7.0 12.2 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 82 Tucson Orange 22 Cray Tangerine Fairgrounds Central Children’s Park 1994 9.4 7.9 5.3 5.8 8.9 N/A 1995 8.9 8.6 5.3 5.1 8.9 N/A 1996 8.2 6.4 4.9 4.7 7.7 N/A 1997 8.7 7.3 5.1 5.5 8.4 N/A 1998 7.3 6.3 5.0 5.0 7.5 N/A 1999 9.6 7.5 N/A N/A 7.2 8.7 2000 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 7.8 6.5 2001 7.6* N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.8* 2002 6.4* N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.6* Bold values exceed the annual standard of 15 µg/m3. N/A – Not available. * Data are from federal reference monitors, not dichot monitors. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria. 18 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 16 Yuma 14 Flagstaff 12 10 Payson 8 Nogales 6 4 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 12: Statewide PM2.5 trends ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 83 Figure 14. Statewide Annual PM2.5 Concentrations 12 Higley 10 Estrella ug/m3 8 Supersite 6 ASU West 4 Tempe 2 0 West PHX 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 13: Metropolitan Phoenix PM2.5 trends ug/m3 10 9 Orange Grove 8 22 Craycroft 7 Tangerine 6 Fairgrounds 5 Central 4 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Children's Park Figure 14: Metropolitan Tucson PMfine and PM2.5 trends ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 84 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. Table 30: Light Extinction in Phoenix and Tucson (in Mm-1) Phoenix All Hours Year 5-11 a.m. Dirtiest 20 percent Mean 1994 N/A 64 29 1995 141 77 1996 134 1997 Mean Cleanest 20 percent N/A 70 33 38 137 80 43 78 43 130 80 45 131 81 48 136 87 53 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 2002 124 75 42 125 79 46 Cleanest Dirtiest 20 percent 20 percent N/A - Data not available ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 85 Table 30 (continued): Light Extinction in Phoenix and Tucson (in Mm-1) Tucson All Hours 5-11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20 percent Mean 1993 101 60 34 1994 95 59 1995 104 1996 Mean Cleanest 20 percent 139 74 37 36 109 68 41 62 35 116 69 38 99 62 37 113 71 40 1997 93 60 36 108 68 38 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 2002 87 49 24 109 61 29 Cleanest Dirtiest 20 percent 20 percent The Tucson record shows improving trends in all six categories with the cleanest 20 percent categories having the greatest improvement overall (Figure 16). The Phoenix record shows a small (eight percent) visibility improvement in the 20 percent dirtiest category, but little change in the mean and 20 percent cleanest categories (see Figures 15). Tucson light extinction for the 20 percent cleanest and mean categories in the most recent five years is lower than the first five years. Phoenix light extinction values no longer include the dirtiest 20 percent category for 1994. The fourth quarter of that year, when many of the dirtiest 20 percent days would occur, was found to have too scant data recovery. In Figure 15, the Phoenix light extinction values have been plotted as the three-year averages. The first year shown, 1996, is the average of 1994, 1995 and 1996. The steady improvement in the 20 percent dirtiest category is evident. For both the mean and 20 percent cleanest days, the values are essentially the same for 1995-97 and 1999-2002, with slightly higher values in the late 1990s. Visibility in Tucson has definitely improved between 1993 and 2002 throughout the entire range of values; in Phoenix, the improvement appears to be limited to the dirtiest 20 percent category. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 86 140 120 100 Mm-1 dirtiest 20% 80 mean 60 cleanest 20% 40 20 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 15: Three-year averages of Phoenix light extinction – all hours ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 87 60 Mm-1 40 Tucson Phoenix 20 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Figure 16: Light extinction for the cleanest 20 percent of all hours for Tucson and Phoenix An interesting intercity trend (Figure 16) appears in the cleanest 20 percent category, 140 120 100 Mm-1 dirtiest 20% 80 mean 60 cleanest 20% 40 20 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Figure 17: Tucson light extinction trends for all hours – annual averages ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 88 where, in the first years of monitoring, Tucson and Phoenix had roughly equal values. As the 1990s progressed, however, Tucson’s cleanest days grew decidedly cleaner, while Phoenix’s cleanest days improved over the 1996-98 maxima, but by not nearly as much. The result is that in 2002, Tucson’s cleanest days were 43 percent cleaner than in Phoenix (24 Mm-1 vs 42 Mm-1). 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 18). 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 summer and 49 percent higher in fall. These measurements of the poorer visibility in Phoenix will come as no surprise to those Arizonans familiar with both airsheds. 200 Mm-1 150 100 50 0 winter spring summer fall Tucson winter spring summer fall Phoenix Figure 18: Seasonal variation in light extinction of the 20 percent cleanest and 20 percent dirtiest days in Tucson and Phoenix ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 89 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 1997-2001, the first years since monitoring began. Phoenix one-hour 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 (0.08 ppm). 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 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 eastcentral 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, 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 eight-hour 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 03 Air Quality Report, Page 90 Appendix 1 – Site Index Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Greer – Water Treatment Plant (Mt Baldy) 34E 04' 109E 26' ADEQ, USFS Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 8255 Springerville – Coalyard 34E 19' 109E 09' TEP PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 6900 Springerville – Coyote Hills 34E 10' 109E 13' TEP NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Unknown Source Impact 6600 Bisbee Airport (2 miles north of Bisbee junction) 31E 22' 109E 53' ADEQ MET SPM Urban Population 4780 Chiricahua National Monument (3.5 miles west of monument headquarters) 32E 00' 109E 23' NPS CASTNET, IMPROVE, MET, O3 Class I Regional Visibility 5130 Douglas – Cemetery (1505 5th St.) 31E 20' 109E 33' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Population 4100 Douglas – Red Cross (1445-1449 15th St.) 31E 20' 109E 30' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 4100 Muleshoe Ranch – Muleshoe Ranch Preserve (Galiuro Wilderness) 32E 21' 110E 14' ADEQ Bscat, IMPROVE, MET Class I Regional Visibility 4400 Apache County Cochise County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 91 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Naco – Border Patrol Crossing (2188 1st Street) 31E 20' 109E 57' ADEQ Bscat SPM Neighborhood Population 4623 Paul Spur – Naco Road (East of Chemical Lime Plant) 31E 22' 109E 49' ADEQ PM10, MET SLAMS (PM10) Middle Source Impact 4192 Flagstaff – Middle School (755 N. Bonito) 35E 12' 111E 38' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 6906 Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp (South Rim, 2.5 miles west of village) 35E 58' 111E 59' NPS O3, MET, IMPROVE, CASTNET Class I Regional Visibility 7438 Grand Canyon National Park – Indian Gardens (4.5 miles from Bright Angel trailhead) 36E 05' 112E 08' NPS IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 3832 Page – Navajo Generating Station (3 miles east of Page) 36E 55' 111E 24' SRP O3, NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Urban Source Impact 3648 Sedona – Post Office (190 W. Highway 89A) 34E 52' 111E 45' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 4220 Sycamore Canyon (Camp Raymond) 35E 08' 111E 58' ADEQ, NPS Bscat, IMPROVE, MET Class I Regional Visibility 6693 Coconino County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 92 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Globe Highway 33E 01' 110E 45' ASARCO SO2 SPM Hayden – Garfield Avenue 33E 00' 110E 47' ASARCO SO2 Hayden – Montgomery Ranch (NE, NE, Sec 4, T 5S, R 15E) 33E 00' 110E 47' ASARCO Hayden – Old Jail (Canyon Drive) 33E 00' 110E 47' Miami – Golf Course 33E 24' Miami – Jones Ranch (Cherry Flats Road) Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Regional Source Impact 1950 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 2090 SO2 SPM Regional Source Impact 2325 ADEQ, ASARCO PM10, SO2 SLAMS (ADEQ SO2 and PM10) SPM (ASARCO SO2) Neighborhood Source Impact 2050 110E 49' PDMI PM10 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 3320 33E 23' 110E 51' PDMI SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 4094 Miami – Ridgeline (4030 Linden St.) 33E 23' 110E 52' ADEQ, PDMI PM10, SO2 SLAMS (ADEQ SO2) SPM (PDMI PM10) Neighborhood Source Impact 3560 Miami – Town Site (Sullivan Street) 33E 23' 110E 52' PDMI SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 3390 Gila County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 93 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Payson (204 W. Aero Dr.) 34E 14' 111E 20' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 4910 Pleasant Valley – Ranger Station (Sierra Ancha USFS Wilderness) 34E 05' 110E 56' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE, Bscat, MET Class I Regional Visibility 5133 Tonto National Monument – Maintenance Station (Tonto NF) 33E 39' 111E 07' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 2579 32E 49 109E 43' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2950 Blue Point (Usery Pass and Bush Highway) 33E 33' 111E 36' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (O3) Urban Maximum Concentration 1575 Cave Creek (37109 N. Lava Lane) 33E 49' 112E 01' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 1916 Central Phoenix (1845 E. Roosevelt) 33E 27' 112E 02' MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2) Neighborhood Population 1116 Chandler (1475 E. Pecos Road) 33E 17' 111E 49' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1171 Graham County Safford (523 Tenth Ave.) Maricopa County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 94 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Estrella (15099 W. Casey Abbott Dr., Goodyear) 33E 23' 112E 22' ADEQ PM10 SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 1000 Falcon Field (4530 E. McKellips, Mesa) 33E 27' 112E 04' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS Urban Population 1017 Fountain Hills (16426 E. Palisades) 33E 37' 111E 43' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (O3) Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 1444 Glendale (6000 W. Olive) 33E 33' 112E 12' MCESD CO, MET, O3, PM10 SLAMS (CO, MET, O3), NAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1171 Higley (15500 S. Higley Road) 33E 18' 111E 43' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS (MET) SPM (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1250 Humboldt Mountain (Pine Mountain wilderness) 33E 58' 111E 47' ADEQ, MCESD Bscat, IMPROVE, MET, O3 Class I, SLAMS(O3 MCESD Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 5230 Maryvale (6180 W. Encanto) 33E 28' 112E 20' MCESD CO, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1050 Mesa (370 S. Brooks) 33E 24' 111E 51' MCESD CO, MET, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1221 North Phoenix (601 E. Butler) 33E 33' 112E 04' MCESD CO, MET,O3, PM10, SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1243 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 95 Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Palo Verde (36248 W. Elliot Road) 33E 20' 112E 50' ADEQ NO2, O3, Pb, PM10 Phoenix – Desert West Rec Center (6501 W. Virginia Ave.) 33E 28' 112E 12' ADEQ Phoenix – Durango Complex (2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd.) 33E 25' 112E 07' Phoenix – Grand Avenue (Grand Ave/27th Ave/Thomas Road)*Closed 4/01/02 33E 28' Phoenix – Greenwood (I-10 and 27th Avenue) Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) SLAMS Regional Background 870 PM2.5 SPM Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 1110 MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 1575 112E 07' ADEQ CO SLAMS Microscale Maximum Concentration 1110 33E 28' 112E 07' ADEQ, MCESD CO, MET, NO2, PM10 SPM (ADEQ PM10) SLAMS (MCESD CO, MET,NO2, PM10) Microscale Maximum Concentration 1110 Phoenix – JLG Supersite (4530 N. 17 Ave.) 33E 30' 112E 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) 33E 35' 112E 05' ADEQ Visibility SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1640 Phoenix – Salt River (3045 S. 22nd Ave.) 33E 21' 112E 06' ADEQ, MCESD PM10 SPM Middle Maximum Concentration 984 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 96 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Phoenix – Transmissometer (Phoenix Baptist Hospital) 33E 29' 112E 04' ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Phoenix – Transmissometer Receiver (Quality Hotel) 33E 29' 112E 04' ADEQ Bext Phoenix – Vehicle Emissions Laboratory (600 N. 40th St.) 33E 27' 112E 00' ADEQ Phoenix - West 43rd (3940 W Broadway 33E24' 112E 08' Phoenix – West Indian School (3315 W. Indian School Road) 33E30' Pinnacle Peak (25000 N. Windy Walk) Objective Elv. (feet) Urban Urban Haze 1115 SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1115 MET SPM Urban Meteorology 1050 MCESD MET, PM10 SPM Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 1030 112E 08' MCESD CO, MET NAMS (CO) SLAMS (MET) Micro Maximum Concentration/ Source Impact 1115 33E 42' 111E 51' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 2625 Rio Verde (25608 N. Forest Road) 33E 43' 111E 40' MCESD O3 SLAMS Urban South Phoenix (33 W. Tamarisk) 33E 24' 112E 04' MCESD CO, MET, O3, PM10 NAMS (PM10) SLAMS (CO, MET, O3) Neighborhood Population 1083 South Scottsdale (2857 N. Miller) 33E 28' 111E 55' MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2 SLAMS (CO, MET) NAMS (NO2, O3, PM10, SO2) Urban\ Neighborhood Population 1227 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 97 Scale 1640 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Surprise (18600 N. Reems) 33E 39' 112E 33' MCESD CO, O3, PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 1312 Tempe – Daley Park (College Avenue) 33E 35' 111E 55' MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3 SPM Neighborhood Population 1181 Tempe – Community Center (3340 S. Rural Road) 33E 23' 111E 55' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS/ Urban Haze Neighborhood Population 1110 West Chandler (163 S. Price) 33E 18' 111E 53' MCESD CO, MET, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1120 West Phoenix (3847 W. Earll) 33E 29' 112E 08' ADEQ, MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5 SPM (ADEQ PM2.5) SLAMS (MET, NO2, O3) NAMS (CO, PM10) Neighborhood Population 1096 Bullhead City – ADEQ (990 Hwy 95) 35E 09' 114E 33' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 560 Bullhead City – SCE (1285 Alonas Way) 35E 07' 114E 35' SCE NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Neighborhood Population 560 Kingman – Praxair NE #1 (I-40 and Griffith Road) 35" 01' 114E 08' Praxair PM10 SPM Middle Source Impact Mohave County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 98 3000 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Kingman – Praxair SW #2 (I-40 and Griffith Road) Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) 35" 01' 114E 09' Praxair PM10 SPM Middle Source Impact 3000 Petrified Forest National Park (1 mile north of park headquarters) 35E 05' 109E 46' NPS Bscat, IMPROVE MET,O3 Class I Regional Visibility 5778 Show Low (Deuce of Clubs Avenue) 34E 15' 110E 02' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1924 Ajo – ADOT (Well Road) 32E 25' 112E 50' ADEQ PM10, MET SLAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1800 Green Valley (601 N. La Canada Dr.) 31E 52' 110E 59' PDEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population Explosure 2903 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (1 mile SSW of visitor center) 31E 58' 112E 48' ADEQ PM10, IMPROVE SLAMS (PM10) Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 1847 Rillito (8820 W. Water) 32E 25' 111E 10' ADEQ, APCC PM10 SLAMS (ADEQ) SPM (APCC) Neighborhood Source Impact 2055 Saguaro Nation Park – East (Old Spanish Trail) 32E 11' 110E 44' PDEQ O3, IMPROVE SPM, Class I Urban Visibility 3081 Navajo County Pima County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 99 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Saguaro National Park – West 32E 14' 111E 10' ADEQ Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 2473 South Tucson (1810 S. 6 Ave.) 32E 12' 110E 58' ADEQ, PDEQ PM10 SPM (ADEQ Urban Haze) SLAMS (PDEQ) Neighborhood Population 2440 Tucson – Alvernon (22nd and Alvernon) 32E 12' 110E 54' PDEQ CO NAMS Micro Maximum Concentration 2516 Tucson – Broadway and Swan (4625 E. Broadway) 32E 13' 110E 53' PDEQ PM10 NAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 2532 Tucson – Cherry (2745 N. Cherry) 32E 15' 110E 56' PDEQ CO SPM Neighborhood Population 2400 Tucson – Children’s Park (400 W. River Road) 32E 17' 110E 58' PDEQ CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5 SPM ( PM2.5) SLAMS ( NO2, O3) NAMS (CO) Urban Haze, Neighborhood Population 2286 Tucson – Corona De Tucson (22000 S. Houghton Road) 32E 00' 110E 47' ADEQ, PDEQ PM10 SPM (ADEQ Urban Haze) SLAMS (PDEQ) Regional Background 3078 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 100 Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Tucson – Craycroft (22nd Avenue and Craycroft) 32E 12' 110E 52' ADEQ, PDEQ Bscat, CO, O3, NO2, SO2, PM10 SPM (ADEQ PM10 Urban Haze) SLAMS (PDEQ Bscat, CO, O3, NO2, SO2) Neighborhood Population 2582 Tucson – Downtown (190 W. Pennington) 32E 13' 110E 58' PDEQ CO, O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2365 Tucson – Fairgrounds (11330 S. Houghton) 32E 03' 110E46' PDEQ O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 3078 Tucson – Geronimo (2498 N. Geronimo) 32E 15' 110E 57' PDEQ PM10 SPM (AQI Purposed Only) Neighborhood Population 2580 Tucson – Golf Links (2601 S. Kolb Rd) 32E 11' 110E 50' PDEQ CO SPM Neighborhood Population 2660 Tucson – Orange Grove (3401 W. Orange Grove Road) 32E 19' 111E 02' ADEQ, PDEQ PM10, PM2.5 SPM (ADEQ PM10, Urban Haze) SLAMS (PDEQ PM10, PM2.5) Neighborhood Maximum Concentration/ Population 2175 Tucson – Prince Road (1016 W. Prince Road) 32E 16' 110E 59' PDEQ PM10 NAMS Micro Source Impact 2315 Tucson – Santa Clara (6910 S. Santa Clara Ave.) 32E 07' 110E 58' PDEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2540 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 101 Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Tucson – Tangerine (12101 N. Camino De Oeste) 32E 25' 110E 04' PDEQ O3, PM10 SLAMS Urban Population 2638 Tucson – Tumamoc Hill (North face of Tumamoc Hill) 32E 13' 111E 12 ADEQ Visibility SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 2825 Tucson Transmissometer – U of A Clinical Sci. Bldg (1501 N. Campbell) 32E 14' 110E 57' PDEQ, ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 2551 Tucson Transmissometer Receiver (150 W. Congress) 32E 13' 110E 58' PDEQ, ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 2551 Tucson – U of A Central (1100 N. Fremont Ave.) 32E 13' 110E 57' ADEQ Bscat, Babs, PM10 SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 2580 Apache Junction – Fire Station (3955 E. Superstition Blvd. TE) 33E 25' 111E 30' PCAQCD PM2.5 Proposed SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1750 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (305 E. Superstition) 33E 25' 111E 52' PCAQCD CO, O3, PM10, MET Proposed SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1750 Casa Grande – Airport (660 W. Aero Dr.) 32E 54' 111E 46 PCAQCD CO ,O3, MET Proposed SLAMS Neighborhood Population/ Transport 1410 Casa Grande – Downtown (401 Marshall Road) 32E 52' 111E 45' PCAQCD PM10, PM2.5 Proposed SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1378 Pinal County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 102 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner (Monitor Relocated to Pinal County Housing Complex 07-0102)) Parameters Measured 32E 52' 111E 34 PCAQCD MET, PM10 Coolidge – Maintenance Yard (212 E. Broadway) 32E 58' 111E 30' PCAQCD Combs – Queen Creek (301 E. Combs Road Start Date 07-01-02) 33E 13' 111E 33' Cowtown (37580 W. Maricopa) 33E 00' Eloy – City Complex (620 N. Main Street) Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) SPM Microscale Source Impact 1410 PM10 Proposed SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1444 PCAQCD O3 SPM Neighborhood Population 1178 111E 59' PCAQCD MET SPM Neighborhood Population 1214 32E 45' 111E 33' PCAQCD PM10 Proposed SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1562 Hayden Junction (Hwy 177) 33E 00' 110E 50' ASARCO SO2 SPM Unknown Source Impact 2080 Mammoth – County Complex (118 S. Catalina) 32E 43' 110E 39' PCAQCD PM10 Proposed SLAMS Neighborhood Population/ Background 2920 Maricopa (44625 W. Garvey Road) 33E 03' 110E 39' PCAQCD O3 SPM Neighborhood Population/Exp osure 1178 Pinal Air Park (Water Well # 2, Marana) 32E 31' 111E 20' PCAQCD PM10 Proposed SLAMS Regional Background/ Transport 1870 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 103 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Pinal County Housing Complex (970 N Eleven Mile Corner Road) 32E 54' 111E 34' PCAQCD MET, PM10 Queen Valley (10 S. Queen Anne Dr.) 32E 17' 111E 17' ADEQ San Manuel (1st & Douglas Ave.) 32E 36' 110E 38' Stanfield (36697 W. Papago Dr.) 32E 53' Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) SPM Microscale Source Impact 1440 IMPROVE, O3 Class I Regional Visibility 2080 ADEQ SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 1089 111E 57 PCAQCD PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 1296 31E 20' 110E 56' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5, MET SLAMS Neighborhood Population 3858 Clarkdale – School (1615 Main St., closed 4/23/02) 34E 46' 112E 03' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 3500 Clarkdale – NW (#2) (northwest of cement plant) 34E 45' 112E 05' PCC PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 3500 Clarkdale – SE (#1) (southeast of CTI flyash silo) 34E 45' 112E 05' PCC PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 3500 Hillside (Sheriff’s Repeater Station) 34E 25' 112E 57' ADEQ O3, , PM10 IMPROVE SPM, ClassI Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 4918 Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office (300 N. Morley Ave.) Yavapai County ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 104 Site Index – Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2002 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elv. (feet) Ike’s Backbone (Pine Mountain Wilderness) 34E 20' 111E 40' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 5232 Nelson – East (1/2 mile east of Flintkote lime plant) 35E 31' 113E17' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 5472 Prescott (221 S. Cortez) 34E 32' 112E 28' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 5210 Yuma – AZ Western College Closed 11/01/02 To Be Relocated 32E 40' 114E 38' ADEQ O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 210 Yuma – Courthouse (2440 W. 28th Street) 32E 40' 114E 39' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 210 Yuma – Juvenile Center (2795 Ave. B, Relocated to Yuma – Courthouse 7/30/02) 32E 40' 114E 39' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 210 Agua Prieta – Fire Station (Calle 6 and Avenue 15) 31E19' 109E33' ADEQ CO, PM10, PM2.5 SPM Neighborhood Population 3937 Nogales – Fire Station (Northwest corner of Lopaz and Mantels) 31E20' 110E57' 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 03 Air Quality Report, Page 105 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 MAG 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 Assocation of Governments ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 106 MCESD 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 Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Meteorological measurements (wind, temperature, relative humidity) Millimeter Inverse megameter Metropolitan 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 ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 107 TSP U of A USFS VOC VIOC Wind WMAT Total Suspended Particulate University of Arizona U.S. Forest Service Volatile Organic Compounds Visibility Index Oversight Committee Wind speed and direction White Mountain Apache Tribe ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 108 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 – AIRNow (www.epa.gov/airnow/) Easy access to local air quality forecasts, real-time data, air quality index (AQI), animated color contours of measured AQI values for geographic areas and more. 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 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) ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 109 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. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (www.itcaonline.com) The site lists the member tribes and includes information about environmental monitoring programs. 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. Visibility Web Cameras (http://www.phoenixvis.net) This page provides an overview of ALL Phoenix Visibility Web Cameras. Digital images from Web-based cameras are updated every 15 minutes. 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. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 110 Weather and Air Quality in the Southwest (www.weathersmith.com) This site contains weather forecasts and air quality information for Phoenix and 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. ADEQ's FY 03 Air Quality Report, Page 111 Appendix 4 – Maps A map of the Class I visibility areas is available on Page 6. 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 14. 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 '03 Air Quality Report, Page 112 ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 113 ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 114 ADEQ's FY '03 Air Quality Report, Page 115