A I R Q UA L I T Y A N N UA L REPORT 2004 (A.R.S. 49-424.10) 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. Data provided by other sources have been checked by the responsible organization but not by ADEQ. Private individuals and companies under contract to ADEQ provided invaluable field sampler operation and data processing services in support of monitoring activities during 2003. Their efforts are appreciated as they maneuvered 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 operated 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 collected and reported 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 http://www.azdeq.gov/. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 1 Introduction This report presents the results of air quality monitoring conducted throughout Arizona in the 2003 calendar year. Data from more than 100 monitoring sites are included in this report. Many of the sites have multiple instruments measuring a variety of gaseous, particulate and visibility parameters. The majority of the air quality measurements are for criteria pollutants (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 61, summarizes activities from special monitoring projects undertaken in the last few years which have continued into 2004. Some of the projects presented in this report are the expanding Class I visibility monitoring network for larger national parks and wilderness areas, a new and expanding effort to characterize ozone precursors, and an intensive ambient monitoring and risk assessment project beginning in the Yuma area. 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 improved dramatically 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 the neighborhoods of 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 1996. Shorter periods of 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 2 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 criteria 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 Figure 1 – Greer visibility monitoring site, urban hazes. All of these networks are located at 8,255 feet elevation in the Mt. Baldy Wilderness Area. 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 agencies identify the causes of polluted air. Criteria Pollutant Monitoring Networks 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. 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. The criteria pollutants are presently defined as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter (PM), and total particulate lead (Pb). 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). For each criteria 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 3 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 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 Measurement Scale represents concentrations in air volumes within areas defined below Criteria Pollutant Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitroge n Dioxide (NO2) Ozone (O3) Sulfur Dioxid e (SO2) Particulate Matter (PM10, PM2.5) Lead (Pb) 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 X X X X X X X X X Urban (~4 to 50 km) Regional (~10 to 100s of km) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, 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 Geographic Area Monitored Monitoring Objective* 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 Services 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 Network Operator Measurement Scale(s)** ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 5 Pollutant(s) Monitored 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 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 (see Figure 2 and Appendix 4). The objectives of the visibility monitoring network are to track short-term and long-term trends in Arizona Class I areas, to assist in identifying any visibility impairment caused by existing major industrial sources, and to provide Figure 2 - Wilderness Area Visibility Monitoring Sites monitoring data if necessary for new or major modifications of major industrial sources. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 6 Arizona continues to participate in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Program as part of the overall national visibility monitoring effort. IMPROVE is a cooperative measurement effort between EPA, federal land management agencies and state air agencies. The objectives of IMPROVE are: $ To establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory Class I areas; $ To identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing man-made visibility impairment; $ To document long-term trends for assessing progress towards the national visibility goal and $ 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 B Hance Camp, • Grand Canyon National Park B Indian Gardens, • Petrified Forest National Park, • Mt. Baldy Wilderness B Greer Water Treatment Plant, • Sycamore Canyon Wilderness B Camp Raymond, • Mazatzal/Pine Mountain Wildernesses B Ike=s Backbone, • Sierra Ancha Wilderness B Pleasant Valley Ranger Station, • Superstition Wilderness B Tonto National Monument, • Superstition Wilderness B Queen Valley, • Saguaro National Park B West Unit, • Saguaro National Park B East Unit, • Chiricahua National Monument B Entrance Station, • Galiuro Wilderness B Muleshoe Ranch, • Hillside, • Organ Pipe National Monument and • Meadview. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 7 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 transmissometer and color photography to document scenic appearance. More information about the IMPROVE procedures, sites and data can be found on the IMPROVE website at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/. Urban Haze Networks ADEQ monitors the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas with a network of instruments to characterize and quantify the extent of urban haze. There are no established federal or state standards for acceptable levels of urban haze. ADEQ began studying the nature and causes of urban hazes by conducting a study in the winter of 1989-90 in Phoenix and the winter of 1992-93 in Tucson. These studies recommended long-term, year-round monitoring of visibility. In 1993, ADEQ began deploying visibility monitoring equipment in Phoenix and Tucson. These visibility monitoring data are needed to provide policymakers and the public with information, track short- and long-term trends, assess source contributions to urban haze and better evaluate the effectiveness of air pollution control strategies. The current Phoenix urban haze network includes two transmissometers (located in Phoenix and Mesa) for measuring light extinction along a fixed path length of about 3 to 5 kilometers, four nephelometers for measuring light scattering, 5 digital camera systems to record visual characteristics of the urban area, and particulate filters for quantifying and characterizing particulate matter. The current Tucson urban haze network includes one transmissometer for measuring light extinction along a fixed path length of about 3-5 kilometers, 3 nephelometers for measuring light scattering, and a digital camera system operated by Pima County to record visual characteristics of the urban area. Operation of Phoenix and Tucson area urban haze particulate monitors was discontinued at the close of 2003. Data from active PM10 and PM2.5 samplers will be used to characterize chemical composition and seasonal variation on an as needed basis. The website for Phoenix area visibility is http://www.phoenixvis.net/ . The website for the Tucson camera system is http://www.airinfonow.org/. 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 those rules, the affected states were to begin actions necessary to adopt and ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 8 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. 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 9 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. 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 4. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 10 Table 4: PAMS Installation Time Line Type of Ozone Proposed Installation PAMS Season Type 1 Pending Type 2 1999 Supersite B 17th Avenue and Campbell, Phoenix Type 2a 2001 South Phoenix B Central and Broadway Type 3 2001 Queen Valley Type 3 2002 Tonto National Monument Palo Verde B Wintersburg Area Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Review In 1999, ADEQ expanded the scope of the annual ambient air monitoring network reviews beyond the state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) to include all state networks. 40 CFR '58.20(d) requires states to complete and submit to EPA an annual network review. States are required to commit to and explain the air quality surveillance systems in their state implementation plans. The air quality surveillance systems consist of various sites designated as SLAMS, national air monitoring stations (NAMS) and PAMS. To provide a complete review of the air monitoring network, ADEQ chose to include additional stations classified as special purpose monitoring stations (SPM), which includes urban haze monitoring sites, IMPROVE sites, ADEQ visibility stations located in or near mandatory Class I areas, and source-oriented monitoring sites operated independently by the permittee. The annual network review determines conformance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D (Network Design Criteria) and Appendix E (Probe and Path Siting Criteria) for sites classified as SLAMS, NAMS, PAMS and SPM. Class I monitoring sites are subject to specific siting and operational guidance developed by the IMPROVE Steering Committee. Results of the annual network review are used to determine how well the network is achieving its required air monitoring objectives, how well it meets data users= needs and how it should be modified (through termination of existing stations, relocation of stations, establishment of new stations, monitoring of additional parameters and/or changes to the sampling schedule) to continue to meet its objectives and data needs. The main purpose of the review is to improve the network so that it provides adequate, representative and useful air quality data. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 11 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 criteria 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, PM10 and PM2.5, is 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 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 (the optical effects of those pollutants to the observer). Scene conditions of visual air quality associated with ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 12 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 replacing 35 mm slides with 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. Transmissometers have been operated in Phoenix and Tucson since 1993. Light scattering by gases (Bsg) is a function of air density and is unrelated to air pollution sources. This parameter is derived and does not require measurement. In contrast, the other three components of light extinction are human-caused and require measurement with continuous monitors. Light absorption by gases (Bag) is determined by continuously measuring nitrogen dioxide (NO2) since it is the only gas normally present in urban or Class I areas that absorbs significant quantities of visible light. Several EPA reference or equivalent 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 13 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 categories of pollution sources contributing 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. 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, Nevada and El Paso, Texas are used to characterize the air masses over Arizona. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 14 Monitoring Data Introduction Air quality measurements in Arizona can be divided into the three categories of criteria pollutants, visibility and photochemical monitoring. Each category is discussed below. EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants, which are CO, 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, Figure 3 – ADEQ’s Phoenix James L. Guyton Supersite county air pollution districts, Indian monitoring station. tribes and ADEQ. The 2003 data measurements by criteria pollutant begin below. The data tables in this section are organized by county; site operator information can be found in the site index tables in Appendix 1. 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 criteria pollutants begins on Page 35. Visibility monitoring information is presented beginning on Page 55. Criteria Pollutants B 2003 Data Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) B a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas that is produced in the incomplete combustion of fuels B has a variety of adverse health effects that arise from its ability to chemically bind with blood hemoglobin. CO successfully competes with oxygen for binding with hemoglobin and thereby impairs oxygen transport. This impaired transport leads to several central nervous system effects, such as the impairment of time interval discrimination, changes in relative brightness thresholds, increased reaction time, and headache, fatigue and dizziness. CO exposures also contribute to or exacerbate arteriosclerotic heart disease. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 15 In Arizona=s metropolitan areas, about 51 percent of CO emissions come from on-road motor vehicles; 45 percent from off-road vehicles or equipment such as construction, lawn and garden equipment; and the remainder from point and area sources. 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 areas. Its concentrations peak from November to January because its emissions are highest in cold weather B automotive emissions of CO vary inversely with temperature B and because the surface layer of the atmosphere is at its most stable in wintertime. Hourly concentrations tend to be at their maximum during the morning rush hour and between 6 p.m. and midnight. Controls have reduced CO emissions and the standards have been achieved in the metropolitan Phoenix area since 1996, 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 8-hour exceedances were recorded in 1988 at two sites. 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). CO is monitored continuously with non-dispersive infrared instruments that are deployed in urban neighborhoods and near busy roadways or intersections. In 2003, 15 monitors were operated in greater Phoenix. Monitors in Apache Junction and Casa Grande were closed during 2002. Table 5 presents the 2003 CO data. Table 5: 2003 Carbon Monoxide Data (in ppm) (NAAQS 1-hour 35 ppm, 8-hour 9 ppm) Site or City One-Hour Average Value Max 2nd Value High Eight-Hour Average Value Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery * (%) Maricopa County Central Phoenix Dysart S (Opened 7/16/03) Glendale S Maryvale S Mesa S North Phoenix S 5.9 5.4 4.6 3.8 97 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.1 90 5.7 5.8 3.5 4.0 3.5 5.7 3.4 4.0 2.4 4.2 2.5 2.3 2.3 4.1 2.2 2.1 94 89 92 94 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 16 Table 5: 2003 Carbon Monoxide Data (in ppm) (NAAQS 1-hour 35 ppm, 8-hour 9 ppm) Site or City One-Hour Average Value Max 2nd Value High Eight-Hour Average Value Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery * (%) Phoenix – Greenwood 6.8 6.8 5.4 5.1 98 Phoenix – JLG Supersite Phoenix – West Indian School South Phoenix S South Scottsdale S Surprise S (Closed 7/15/03) Tempe – Daley Park West Chandler S West Phoenix 6.7 6.8 5.8 4.1 6.0 6.8 5.5 4.0 4.8 5.4 3.6 2.3 4.2 5.3 3.3 2.2 99 98 92 93 3.6 1.8 1.2 0.8 98 3.8 3.9 7.5 3.7 3.3 7.3 2.9 2.6 6.2 2.4 2.6 5.5 90 94 96 6.0 4.2 2.4 4.4 10.0 3.9 5.8 3.9 2.3 4.3 9.6 3.8 2.7 2.9 1.5 2.1 3.1 2.2 2.6 2.7 1.4 1.9 2.7 2.2 99 95 99 99 98 98 Pima County Tucson – 22nd/Alvernon Tucson – Cherry/Glenn S Tucson – Children’s Park Tucson – 22nd/Craycroft Tucson – Downtown Tucson – Golf Links /Kolb 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 2003. Valid data recovery should be less than 100% 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/Glenn and Tucson - Golf Links/Kolb monitors operated January 1 – March 31 and October 1 - December 31; 4368 sampling hours. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish-brown gas that is formed by the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO), which is a byproduct of combustion of all fuels. At the lowest NO2 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 NO2 may be a causal or aggravating agent in respiratory infections. However, community exposure studies to lower ambient levels of NO2 have demonstrated no significant links with respiratory symptoms or disease. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 17 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 NO2. Because nitric oxide is rapidly oxidized to nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide emissions serve as a surrogate for NO2. In a recent Phoenix emissions inventory, the transportation sector dominated nitric oxide emissions: 58 percent of the emissions came from cars and trucks, 27 percent came from off-road vehicles such as trains and diesel-powered construction vehicles, and 15 percent from other sources, including power plants, biogenic emissions from soil and stationary combustion sources. Nitric oxide and NO2 concentrations are highest near major roadways. Nitric oxide concentrations decrease rapidly with distance from the roadway, whereas NO2 concentrations are more evenly distributed because of their formation through oxidation and their subsequent transport. Concentrations of NO2 are highest in the late afternoon and early evening of winter, when rush hour emissions of nitric oxide are converted to NO2 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 threeway catalysts. The vehicle inspection program, with its NOx test for light-duty gasoline vehicles 1981 and newer (in Phoenix only) 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. 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 coal-fired electrical power plants. Eleven monitors were operated in Arizona in 2003 at eight urban locations and near three power plants. Table 6 presents the NO2 data collected in Arizona’s urban areas in 2003. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 18 Table 6: 2003 Nitrogen Dioxide (in ppm) (NAAQS Annual Mean 0.053 ppm) Site or City Annual Average Maximum Value One-Hour Average Valid Data * Recovery (%) .0293 N/A .0343 N/A N/A N/A N/A .082 .043 .101 .080 .076 .062 .084 80 88 82 94 64 # 26 # 50 # .0171 .0172 .056 .062 98 97 Maricopa County Central Phoenix Palo Verde S Phoenix -- Greenwood Phoenix -- JLG Supersite S South Scottsdale Tempe – Daley Park West Phoenix # Pima County Tucson -- Children’s Park Tucson -- Craycroft * 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 2003. Valid data recovery should be less than 100 percent due to quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. S Seasonal Monitors: Palo Verde operates during summer ozone season, April 1 to October 31; 5136 hours Phoenix JLG Supersite operates during winter season, January 1 to March 31 and November 1 to December 31; 3624 hours N/A – Data not available # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available. Due to problems with the multi-gas calibrators, the South Scottsdale and West Phoenix monitors were shutdown August 1 to November 1, and the Tempe monitor was shut down August 1 – December 31. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 19 Sulfur Dioxide Exposure to sulfur dioxide (SO2), 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. Short-term 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 SO2 emissions has been the smelting of sulfide copper ore. Most fuels contain trace quantities of sulfur, and their combustion releases both gaseous SO2 and particulate sulfate (SO4--). A recent emissions 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. SO2 is removed from the atmosphere through dry deposition on plants and its conversion to sulfuric acid and eventually to sulfate. SO2 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 SO2 emissions substantially. Vehicular emissions of SO2 and sulfate have been reduced through lowering the sulfur content in diesel fuel and gasoline. SO2 is monitored continuously with pulsed fluorescence instruments, most of which are clustered around copper smelters or coal-fired electric power plants. In 2003, ten reporting monitors were sited near copper smelters, two near power plants and three in urban areas. Table 7 presents the SO2 data collected in Arizona in 2003 from the monitors near copper smelters and in urban areas. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 20 Table 7: 2003 Sulfur Dioxide (in µg/m3) (Primary NAAQS Annual Average 80 µg/m3, 24-hour Average365 µg/m3 Secondary NAAQS 3-hour 1300 µg/m3) Maximum Value Annual Average Site or City 3-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Gila County Globe Highway Hayden - Garfield AV Hayden - Montgomery Ranch Hayden - Old Jail, ADEQ Hayden - Old Jail, ASARCO Miami - Jones Ranch PDMI Miami, Ridgeline -ADEQ Miami, Town Site - PDMI 52 25 868 927 800 918 185 266 184 259 98 98 46 791 726 220 206 98 21 532 432 97 89 99 19 728 702 111 97 98 21 578 406 152 150 99 13 13 252 284 241 268 71 86 58 49 97 99 7 4 37 31 34 31 18 13 18 10 97 96 4 34 24 10 10 99 11 4 386 15 351 15 64 10 58 7 98 99 Maricopa County Central Phoenix South Scottsdale Pima County Tucson – Craycroft PDEQ Pinal County Hayden Junction San Manuel * 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 2003. 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. Ozone Ozone (O3) B a colorless, slightly odorous gas B is both a natural component of the atmosphere, through its photochemical formation from natural sources of CO, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, and an important air contaminant in urban atmospheres. In the ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 21 stratosphere, O3 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. O3 causes significant physiological and pathological changes in both animals and humans at concentrations present in many urban environments. Short-term (one to two hours) exposures to concentrations in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million induce changes in lung function, including increased respiratory rates, increased pulmonary resistance, decreased tidal volumes and changes in lung mechanics. Symptomatic responses in exercising adults include throat dryness, chest tightness, substernal pain, cough, wheeze, pain on deep inspiration, shortness of breath and headache. These symptoms also have been observed at lower concentrations for longer exposures. Evidence suggests that O3 exposure makes the respiratory airways more susceptible to other bronchioconstrictive challenges. Animal studies suggest that ozone exposure interferes with or inhibits the immune system. O3 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. O3 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. O3 is formed photochemically by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in greater Phoenix come from cars and trucks (31 percent), off-road vehicles and equipment such as lawn mowers (27 percent), small stationary sources (20 percent), biogenic emissions from grass, shrubs and trees (17 percent) and point sources (5 percent). NOx comes from cars and trucks (58 percent), offroad 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). O3 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 O3 concentrations tend to occur on the downwind edge, although high concentrations do occur less frequently in the central city. High O3 concentrations are a summer phenomenon caused when sunlight and evaporative hydrocarbon emissions peak. Urban O3 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 B VOC and NOx B have been successfully implemented for years. NOx and VOC from vehicular exhaust have been reduced through engine modifications and three-way catalytic converters. Evaporative hydrocarbons from ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 22 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 cleaner burning 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 O3, may make achieving the eight-hour standard difficult. Ultraviolet absorption instruments monitor O3 continuously in urban neighborhoods for population exposure, in areas downwind of urban areas for maximum concentration monitoring and in remote areas for background information. In 2003, 35 reporting O3monitors were in operation; four for background, 21 for urban neighborhoods and 10 for maximum concentrations downwind of urban areas. Tables 8 and 9 present the O3 data collected in Arizona in 2003. Table 8: 2003 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.08 ppm) Site or City Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (%) .080 .078 .077 .077 95 .082 .081 .080 .078 99 .112 .103 .097 .096 89 .122 .102 .102 .116 .098 .097 .101 .097 .093 .100 .097 .092 97 96 97 .090 .089 .087 .085 92 .111 .117 .104 .106 .102 .102 .099 .100 97 98 Gila County Tonto National Monument S Maricopa County Blue Point Cave Creek S Central Phoenix Dysart S (Opened 7/16/03) Falcon Field S Fountain Hills ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 23 Table 8: 2003 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.08 ppm) Site or City Glendale S Humboldt Mt. S Maryvale S North Phoenix Palo Verde S Phoenix - JLG Supersite Pinnacle Peak Rio Verde S South Phoenix South Scottsdale Surprise S (Closed 07/16/03) Tempe - Daley Park S West Chandler S West Phoenix Navajo County Petrified Forest National Park Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High .107 .104 .099 .113 .088 .098 .103 .113 .095 .107 .098 .099 .098 .105 .086 .092 .098 .102 .089 .099 .096 .099 .095 .099 .082 .092 .097 .099 .089 .099 .094 .097 .093 .098 .082 .090 .097 .097 .087 .099 Valid Data Recovery* (%) 97 95 99 97 99 99 96 95 98 97 .088 .078 .075 .074 96 .109 .101 .099 .099 .099 .091 .098 .098 .091 .096 .096 .091 97 98 94 .084 .083 .080 .078 99 .082 .098 .089 .073 .090 .085 .085 .079 .085 .074 .092 .088 .071 .087 .078 .084 .076 .085 .073 .091 .087 .070 .084 .077 .083 .074 .081 .072 .090 .086 .068 .082 .076 .079 .074 .080 99 97 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 .105 .096 .094 .091 99 .090 .101 .093 .083 .110 .089 .096 .092 .080 .110 .086 .090 .085 .080 .107 .083 .086 .085 .079 .107 94 99 99 99 99 Pima County Green Valley 1 Saguaro National Park East Tucson - Children’s Park Tucson - Coachline 1 Tucson – 22nd/Craycroft Tucson - Downtown Tucson - Fairgrounds Tucson - Rose Elementary 1 Tucson - Tangerine Pinal County Apache Junction - Maintenance Yard Casa Grande - Airport Combs S Maricopa S Pinal Air Park S Queen Valley S ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 24 Table 8: 2003 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.08 ppm) Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (%) .074 .074 .073 .071 99 .105 .087 .085 .084 99 Yavapai County Hillside S Yuma County Yuma Game & Fish 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 2003. Valid data recovery should be less than 100% due to quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. S 1 Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to November 1; 5,136 sampling hours in non-leap years. Based on data reported to EPA AQS database beginning 7/01/2003. Table 9: 2003 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages (NAAQS 8-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. Valid Sample Days * .077 .075 .073 .073 0 338 .078 .076 .074 .073 0 358 .093 .088 .086 .084 3 187 .103 .088 .084 .088 .087 .083 .087 .083 .080 .086 .083 .079 4 2 0 356 204 355 .082 .075 .075 .073 0 93 Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp Gila County Tonto National Monument S Maricopa County Blue Point Cave CreekS Central Phoenix Dysart S (Opened 7/16/03) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 25 Table 9: 2003 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages (NAAQS 8-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Falcon Field S Fountain Hills Glendale S Humboldt Mt. S Maryvale S North Phoenix Palo Verde S Phoenix - JLG Supersite Pinnacle Peak Rio VerdeS South Phoenix South Scottsdale Surprise S (Closed 07/15/03) Tempe - Daley Park S West Chandler S West Phoenix Navajo County Petrified Forest National Park Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. .099 .099 .092 .089 .087 .093 .080 .083 .093 .096 .083 .097 .079 .083 .088 .089 .086 .092 .080 .082 .089 .085 .079 .085 .079 .083 .088 .087 .083 .088 .080 .082 .085 .084 .077 .085 .079 .083 .085 .087 .083 .086 .075 .075 .083 .083 .076 .079 1 1 4 5 2 4 0 0 3 2 0 3 Valid Sample Days * 210 363 210 206 214 358 213 362 350 205 362 356 .079 .070 .067 .066 0 101 .086 .082 .081 .083 .079 .081 .080 .079 .080 .080 .078 .077 1 0 0 205 211 342 .077 .075 .074 .074 0 342 .076 .087 .080 .066 .078 .071 .077 .067 .078 .070 .084 .080 .064 .075 .069 .072 .066 .076 .069 .080 .079 .062 .074 .069 .071 .065 .074 .068 .078 .076 .061 .073 .068 .070 .065 .074 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 365 363 184 364 365 363 184 364 .090 .074 .072 .072 1 365 .077 .081 .082 .074 .073 .077 .073 .073 .075 .073 .072 .075 0 0 0 341 211 212 Pima County Green Valley 1 Saguaro National Park East Tucson - Children’s Park Tucson - Coachline 1 Tucson – 22nd/Craycroft Tucson - Downtown Tucson - Fairgrounds Tucson - Rose Elementary 1 Tucson - Tangerine Pinal County Apache Junction Maintenance Yard Casa Grande - Airport Combs S Maricopa S ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 26 Table 9: 2003 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages (NAAQS 8-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Pinal Air Park S Queen Valley S Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. .076 .094 .075 .091 .075 .090 .074 .087 0 4 Valid Sample Days * 211 213 .070 .069 .068 .067 0 213 .091 .080 .079 .078 1 200 Yavapai County Hillside S Yuma County Yuma Game & Fish S * Valid Sample Days is the number of days with valid data recovery of the total number of scheduled sampling days. Scheduled sampling days for non-seasonal monitors in 2003 was 365. A Valid Sample Day has 18 or more hours of valid data recovery. S 1 Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to November 1; 214 sampling days in non-leap years. Based on data reported to EPA AQS database beginning 7/01/2003. 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 B produced within and emitted from a source with little subsequent change B or secondary B formed in the atmosphere from gaseous emissions. Secondary particulate nitrates and sulfates, for example, form in the atmosphere from the oxidation of gaseous SO2 and NO2. In contrast, most atmospheric carbon is primary, having been emitted directly from combustion sources, ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 27 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 their health effects. Particles larger than 10 microns are deposited in the upper respiratory tract. Particles from 2.5 to 10 microns are inhalable and are deposited in the upper parts of the respiratory system. Particles smaller than 2.5 microns are respirable and enter the pulmonary tissues to be deposited there. Particles in the size range of 0.1 to 2.5 microns are most efficiently deposited in the alveoli, where their effective toxicity is greater than larger particles because of the higher relative content of toxic heavy metals, sulfates and nitrates. Epidemiological studies have shown causal relationships between particulates and excess mortality, aggravation of bronchitis, and, in children, small, reversible changes in pulmonary function. Acidic aerosols have been linked to the inability of the upper respiratory tract and pulmonary system to remove harmful particles. The Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project B a multi-disciplinary investigation into human exposure to all environmental risks completed in 1995 B 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 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 28 PM2.5 concentrations tend to be at their highest in the central portions of urban areas, diminishing to background levels at the urban fringe. In contrast, PM10 concentrations are not smoothly spatially distributed because each monitoring site is strongly influenced by the degree of localized emissions of coarse particulates. Background concentrations of PM10 are about 40 percent of the urban maxima (20 µg/m3 for an annual average background versus about 50 µg/m3 for the urban maximum). Background concentrations of PM2.5 are about 5 µg/m3, in contrast to the urban maxima of 12 to 15 µg/m3. Concentrations of both size ranges of particulates tend to be higher in the late fall and winter, when atmospheric dispersion is at a seasonal low. PM10 maximum concentrations can occur in any season, provided nearby sources of coarse particulates are present or when strong and gusty winds suspend soil disturbed by human activities. Hourly concentrations of particulates tend to peak during those hours of the worst dispersion, which is from sunset to mid-morning. Controls to reduce particulates have been in place for decades, beginning with an ordinance that required watering to reduce dust from construction in Pima County in the 1960s. Maricopa County=s umbrella dust abatement rule, Rule 310, has been revised many times through the years and now regulates construction dust, track-out dust from construction sites, and dust from unpaved parking and vacant lots. Efforts to reduce dust resuspended from paved roads have concentrated on eliminating track-out from construction sites, curbing and stabilizing road shoulders, and investigating more efficient street sweepers. Secondary fine particulates have been reduced by vehicular emission controls, which have reduced their precursor gases. Reducing gaseous hydrocarbon emissions, for example, has led to reductions in ambient concentrations of secondary organic carbon. In Maricopa County, the Governor=s Agricultural Best Management Practices Committee developed a rule containing best management practices for agricultural activities to reduce particulate emissions from tilling and harvesting activities of cropland and non-cropland. In a recent PM10 SIP, the Maricopa Association of Governments committed to implement 77 new measures, including enhanced enforcement of the county dust rules, implementation of agricultural best management practices, diesel engine replacement and retirement programs and requirements for cleaner burning fireplaces. Particulates are monitored by pulling ambient air through a filter, generally for 24 hours every sixth day, weighing the filter before and after, and measuring the volume of air sampled. 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 2003 PM10 data reported in Table 10 represent 64 monitors throughout Arizona and two in Mexico, located in Agua Prieta and Nogales, Sonora. TEOM data are not included in this ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 29 table. The data are reported in standard conditions (adjusted to 25oC and 1 atmosphere pressure) as required by EPA. EPA began a nationwide program to measure PM2.5 using federal reference method monitors 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 it is not exactly equivalent to that measurement. Table 11 lists only the federal reference method measurements for 2003. The data are reported in ambient conditions (local temperature and pressure) as required by EPA. Particulate data from the IMPROVE network are not included. Table 10: 2003 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3, Standard Conditions) (NAAQS Annual Average 50Fg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 Fg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 10 Fg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 Fg/m3. Site or City Annual Method Average 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross Dichot 30 79 71 100 Paul Spur Partisol 19 207 45 95 Flagstaff – Middle School # Dichot 20 60 51 89 Sedona – Post Office # Partisol 27 69 44 70 Hayden – Old Jail Dichot 36 91 84 93 Miami – Golf Course Dichot 21 53 49 98 Miami – Ridgeline Dichot 15 59 39 98 Payson Partisol 24 99 64 90 Dichot 23 76 65 98 Dichot 47 145 115 90 Coconino County Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County Bethune Elementary School ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 30 Table 10: 2003 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3, Standard Conditions) (NAAQS Annual Average 50Fg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 Fg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 10 Fg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 Fg/m3. Site or City Annual Method Average 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Central Phoenix Hi-Vol 40 114 87 97 Chandler Hi-Vol 50 240 126 98 Dysart # (Opened 7/16/03) Hi-Vol 36 133 86 100 Estrella Dichot 29 92 90 100 Glendale Hi-Vol 36 151 129 100 Higley Hi-Vol 62 225 151 95 Maryvale Hi-Vol 42 151 137 100 Mesa Hi-Vol 34 176 112 100 North Phoenix Hi-Vol 34 155 132 97 Palo Verde Dichot 26 158 108 97 Phoenix – Durango Complex Hi-Vol 62 195 128 100 Phoenix – Greenwood Hi-Vol 51 166 126 98 Phoenix – JLG Supersite # Dichot 37 169 131 90 Phoenix - West 43rd Avenue Hi-Vol 62 157 154 98 South Phoenix Hi-Vol 52 164 135 98 South Scottsdale Hi-Vol 36 172 124 100 Surprise # (Closed 7/15/03) Hi-Vol 20 42 32 88 Tempe Dichot 36 158 119 97 West Chandler Hi-Vol 42 206 197 97 West Phoenix Hi-Vol 46 158 136 98 Dichot/ Partisol 20 121 45 95 Mohave County Bullhead City – ADEQ ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 31 Table 10: 2003 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3, Standard Conditions) (NAAQS Annual Average 50Fg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 Fg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 10 Fg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 Fg/m3. Site or City Annual Method Average 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Navajo County Show Low Partisol 18 58 51 95 Partisol 23 139 129 89 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument # Dichot (Closed 2/12/03) 11 33 11 100 Rillito - ADEQ Dichot 40 118 76 97 Rillito - APCC Hi-Vol 34 256 105 99 South Tucson - ADEQ Dichot 30 119 59 100 South Tucson - PDEQ Hi-Vol 34 150 128 99 Tucson - Broadway/Swan Hi-Vol 27 122 66 100 Tucson - Corona de Tucson - ADEQ Dichot 18 98 47 100 Tucson - Corona de Tucson - PDEQ Hi-Vol 17 104 47 98 Tucson - Craycroft Dichot 27 66 55 90 Tucson - Orange Grove - ADEQ Dichot 30 126 53 100 Tucson - Orange Grove, PDEQ Hi-Vol 29 120 97 98 Tucson - Prince Road Hi-Vol 31 126 56 98 Tucson - Santa Clara Hi-Vol 27 146 63 97 Tucson - Tangerine Hi-Vol 19 125 50 98 Tucson - U of A Central Dichot 32 130 59 Hi-Vol 20 95 82 Pima County Ajo 98 Pinal County Apache Junction Maintenance Yard (North) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 32 93 Table 10: 2003 PM10 Data (in Fg/m3, Standard Conditions) (NAAQS Annual Average 50Fg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 Fg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 10 Fg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 Fg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 Fg/m3. Site or City Annual Method Average 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Apache Junction Maintenance Yard (South) # Hi-Vol 20 91 35 93 Apache Junction Fire Station # Hi-Vol 27 103 46 100 Casa Grande Downtown Hi-Vol 32 99 85 100 Coolidge Maintenance Yard Hi-Vol 35 106 95 93 Eloy City Complex Hi-Vol 42 154 114 93 Mammoth – County Complex Hi-Vol 16 89 69 98 Pinal Air Park Hi-Vol 29 108 105 100 Pinal County Housing Complex Hi-Vol 61 289 171 97 Riverside Maintenance Yard Hi-Vol 24 101 90 100 Stanfield # Hi-Vol 46 171 123 89 Dichot/ Partisol 38 184 162 100 Clarkdale – NW (#2) Dichot 19 68 62 83 Clarkdale – SE (1) Dichot 23 59 50 94 Prescott Valley # Partisol 14 68 52 86 Dichot/ Partisol 38 127 93 95 Agua Prieta – Fire Station Dichot 60 172 122 98 Nogales – Fire Station # Dichot 65 183 144 82 Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma – Courthouse Mexico See next page for footnotes. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 33 *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled samples. There were 61 monitoring days scheduled in 2003 for monitors on the every 6th day schedule. Rillito - APCC was the only site following the every 3rd day schedule (122 observations in 2003). # 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. Note: Rillito – APCC follows a 1-in-3 day sample schedule Table 11: 2003 PM2.5 Data (in Fg/m3, Local Conditions) (NAAQS Annual Average 15Fg/m3, 24-hour Average 65 Fg/m3) City or Site Method Annual Average 24-Hour Avg 2nd Max High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Cochise County Douglas - Red Cross 2 # FRM 6.4 13.3 11.7 89 FRM 5.7 16.9 12.5 72 Payson 2 FRM 9.1 25.8 21.6 95 Payson 3 # FRM 9.0 25.1 24.9 78 Bethune Elementary School 2 # (Opened 3/22/03, STN) FRM 12.5 25.0 24.3 85 Phoenix - JLG Supersite 3 # FRM 11.3 31.5 27.3 94 FRM 11.4 33.9 33.0 92 FRM 12.3 30.0 30.0 96 Tempe - Community Center 3 FRM 9.6 48.4 29.7 97 West Phoenix 3 FRM 10.7 29.1 26.3 96 FRM 6.5 18.8 18.3 91 FRM 7.6 24.7 18.4 97 FRM 6.5 18.0 18.0 96 Coconino County Flagstaff - Middle School 2 # Gila County Maricopa County Phoenix – JLG Supersite (STN ) Phoenix - West 43rd 2 (Opened 3/22/03, STN) 3 Pima County Tucson - Children’s Park 3 Tucson - Children’s Park (STN ) Tucson - Orange Grove 1 2 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 34 Table 11: 2003 PM2.5 Data (in Fg/m3, Local Conditions) (NAAQS Annual Average 15Fg/m3, 24-hour Average 65 Fg/m3) City or Site Method Annual Average 24-Hour Avg 2nd Max High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Pinal County Apache Junction - Fire Station 3 # FRM 6.3 38.0 25.7 89 Casa Grande - Downtown 2 FRM 8.4 32.2 26.7 89 Nogales - Post Office 2 FRM 11.3 37.0 35.0 93 Nogales - Post Office 2 FRM 10.6 35.5 33.5 95 Santa Cruz County *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled samples. 1 Samples collected every day – 365 sample days in 2003. 2 Samples collected every sixth day B 61 sample days in 2003. 3 Samples collected every third day B 121 sample days in 2003. # 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. STN – Speciation Trends Network, not to be used for NAAQS compliance. Criteria Pollutants B Compliance Carbon Monoxide There are two NAAQS for CO: 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 non-attainment (or monitoring) area by evaluating two calendar years of data from each site. The highest of the second-highest values in a two-year period must not exceed the standard of 9 ppm (greater than or equal to 9.5 ppm to adjust for rounding) for the eight-hour standard or 35 ppm (greater than or equal to 35.5 ppm) for the one-hour standard. No exceedances of the one-hour or eight-hour standards were recorded in 2002 or 2003. The data are presented in Table 12 and Table 13. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 35 Table 12: 2002-2003 Eight-Hour CO Compliance (in ppm) 2002-2003 One-Hour CO NAAQS Compliance Values by County NAAQS for one-hour CO: The highest of the second-highest values in a two-year period must not exceed 35 ppm. NOTE: Pinal County monitors closed in 2002. County Exceedances Violations Maricopa 0 0 Pima 0 0 Summary: 20 of 20 monitors in compliance Table 12: 2002-2003 One-Hour CO Compliance (in ppm) 2002 2003 City or Site Max 2nd Max 2nd Value High Value High Compliance Value Maricopa County Central Phoenix 6.0 5.8 5.9 5.4 5.8 Glendale S 4.1 3.9 5.7 3.5 3.9 Maryvale S 8.0 6.9 5.8 5.7 6.9 Mesa S 4.9 4.8 3.5 3.4 4.8 North Phoenix S 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 Phoenix - Greenwood 7.3 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 Phoenix - JLG Supersite 5.7 5.4 6.7 6.0 6.0 Phoenix - West Indian School 7.7 7.3 6.8 6.8 7.3 South Phoenix S 6.5 6.5 5.8 5.5 6.5 South Scottsdale S 5.5 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.3 Surprise S (Closed 7/15/2003) Tempe – Daley Park S 4.2 2.4 3.6 1.8 2.4 4.9 4.7 3.8 3.7 4.7 3.5 3.2 3.9 3.3 3.3 West Phoenix 8.6 7.9 7.5 7.3 7.9 Pima County Tucson - 22nd/Alvernon 5.7 5.1 6.0 5.8 5.8 3.9 3.8 4.2 3.9 3.9 West Chandler S Tucson - Cherry/Glenn S ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 36 Table 12: 2002-2003 One-Hour CO Compliance (in ppm) 2002 2003 City or Site Max 2nd Max 2nd Value High Value High S Compliance Value Tucson - Children’s Park 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.5 Tucson - 22nd/Craycroft 3.8 3.8 4.4 4.3 4.3 Tucson - Downtown 6.6 5.1 10.0 9.6 9.6 Tucson - Golf Links/Kolb S (Opened 9/27/2002) 4.9 4.2 3.9 3.8 4.2 Seasonal monitor, operational Jan. 1 to April 1 and Sept. 1 to Dec. 31 Table 13. 2002-2003 Eight-Hour CO Compliance (in ppm) NAAQS for eight-hour CO: The highest of the second-highest values in a two-year period must not exceed 9 ppm. NOTE: Pinal County monitors closed in 2002. 2002-2003 Eight-Hour CO NAAQS Compliance Values by County County Exceedances Violations Maricopa 0 0 Pima 0 0 Summary: 20 of 20 monitors in compliance Table 13: 2002-2003 Eight-Hour CO Compliance (in ppm) City or Site 2002 Max 2nd Value High 2003 Max 2nd Value High Compliance Value Maricopa County Central Phoenix 4.4 4.1 4.6 3.8 4.1 Glendale S 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.7 Maryvale S 5.0 5.0 4.2 4.1 5.0 Mesa S 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.2 3.5 North Phoenix S 3.3 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.7 Phoenix - Greenwood 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.1 Phoenix - JLG Supersite 4.2 4.2 4.8 4.2 4.2 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 37 Table 13: 2002-2003 Eight-Hour CO Compliance (in ppm) City or Site 2002 Max 2nd Value High 2003 Max 2nd Value High Compliance Value Phoenix - West Indian School 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.4 South Phoenix S 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.7 South Scottsdale S 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.8 Surprise S (Closed 7/15/2003) Tempe - Daley Park S 1.2 1.1 1.2 .8 1.1 3.4 3.4 2.9 2.4 3.4 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 5.5 5.5 6.2 5.5 5.5 Tucson - 22nd/Alvernon 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.6 Tucson - Cherry/Glenn S 2.6 2.3 2.9 2.7 2.7 Tucson - Children’s Park 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 Tucson - 22nd/Craycroft 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.9 Tucson - Downtown 3.7 2.3 3.1 2.7 2.7 Tucson - Golf Links/Kolb S (Opened 9/27/2002) 3.3 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.6 West Chandler S West Phoenix Pima County S Seasonal monitor, operational from Jan. 1 to April 1 and Sept. 1 to Dec. 31 Nitrogen Dioxide The NAAQS for NO2 is 0.053 parts per million (ppm) for an annual average. The Table 14: 2002 Nitrogen Dioxide Average standard is attained when the annual NAAQS Compliance Values arithmetic mean concentration in a calendar County Exceedances Violations year is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm. To demonstrate attainment, the annual mean Maricopa 0 0 must be based upon hourly data that are at Pima 0 0 least 75 percent complete. NO2 annual Summary: 9 of 9 monitors in compliance averages near Arizona power plants range from 2 percent to 17 percent of the standard; in the urban areas, from 30 percent to 70 percent. All Arizona sites were in compliance with the NAAQS. Refer to Table 6 for the 2003 averages. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 38 Sulfur Dioxide There are three NAAQS for SO2, 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 B all near copper smelters B comply with these standards; the concentrations being no higher than 67 percent of the three-hour, 73 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 7 for the 2003 averages. Table 15: 2003 Sulfur Dioxide Average NAAQS Compliance Values Annual County Three Hour 24-Hour Exceedances Violations Exceedances Violations Exceedances Violations Gila 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maricopa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pima 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pinal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary: 13 out of 13 monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 39 Ozone The NAAQS include standards for one-hour O3 and eight-hour O3. The one-hour standard is 0.12 ppm. Compliance with this standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm (0.124 ppm for rounding) is equal to or less than one. A daily exceedance is defined as any day having one or more hourly averages equal to or greater than 0.125 ppm. Hourly averages for at least 75 percent of the hours sampled (18-24 hours per day) must be present. The most recent three calendar years of daily averages are used to determine if the annual standard is met. No exceedances of the one hour standard occurred in Arizona in 2003. Therefore, no compliance table for 1-hour data is included here. As there have been no violations of the 1-hour O3 standard since 1996, on May 15, 2001, EPA found that Maricopa County had reached attainment for the 1-hour O3 standard. A maintenance plan and redesignation request developed by Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), demonstrating how the area will maintain compliance with the 1-hour standard, was submitted to EPA on April 21, 2004. On April 15, 2004, the Phoenix area was designated nonattainment for the new, more stringent, 8-hour ozone standard. The 1-hour standard will be revoked one year following the effective date of the 8-hour designation or June 15, 2005. However, certain of the control measures developed and implemented for the 1-hour standard are required to remain in place to ensure continued progress toward attainment of the new 8-hour standard. EPA developed the eight-hour O3 standards in response to human exposure studies that showed adverse health effects occur at lower ozone concentrations extending over several hours. After its proposal in 1997 and after a protracted legal battle, the eight-hour standard was officially promulgated in 2003 and nonattainment area boundaries established. The eight-hour ozone standard is 0.08 ppm (0.084 for rounding) for a daily maximum eight-hour average. This standard is met when the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average O3 concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The data in Table 16 are for those sites in operation in 2001 – 2003. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 40 2001 to 2003 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Table 16: 2001 to 2003 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. County Cochise Coconino Eight-Hour Exceedances 2001 2002 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gila N/A 27 55 32 3 N/A Navajo N/A 0 0 N/A Pima Pinal Yavapai Yuma 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 N/A 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 Maricopa 5 Sites in Violation 0 0 2 N/A Summary: 29 of 30 monitors in compliance Table 16: 2001 to 2003 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Fourth-Highest Value City or Site ThreeYear Average 2001 2002 2003 0.067 0.074 0.073 0.071 0.070 0.079 0.073 0.074 N/A 0.087 0.084 N/A Blue Point 0.080 0.086 0.086 0.084 Cave Creek 0.083 # 0.086 0.083 0.084 Central Phoenix 0.075 0.076 0.079 0.076 Falcon Field S 0.081 0.084 0.079 0.081 Fountain Hills 0.083 0.086 0.083 0.084 Glendale S 0.078 0.083 0.085 0.082 Cochise County Chiricahua National Monument Coconino County Grand Canyon National Park – Hance Camp Gila County Tonto National Monument Maricopa County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 41 Table 16: 2001 to 2003 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Fourth-Highest Value 2001 2002 2003 Humboldt Mt. S 0.085 0.090 0.087 ThreeYear Average 0.087 Maryvale S 0.074 0.084 0.083 0.080 Mesa (Closed 11/01/02) North Phoenix 0.074 0.072 N/A N/A 0.086 0.085 0.086 0.085 S 0.074 0.078 0.075 0.075 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 0.079 0.076 0.075 0.076 Pinnacle Peak 0.085 0.084 0.083 0.084 0.083 0.085 0.083 0.083 South Phoenix 0.076 0.081 0.076 0.077 South Scottsdale 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.071 0.079 0.066 # 0.072 0.079 0.080 0.080 0.079 West Chandler S 0.078 0.083 0.078 0.079 West Phoenix 0.075 0.084 0.077 0.078 N/A 0.055 # 0.074 N/A Saguaro National Park East 0.067 0.077 0.078 0.074 Tucson - Children’s Park 0.069 0.073 0.076 0.072 Tucson - 22nd/Craycroft 0.069 0.075 0.073 0.072 Tucson - Downtown 0.065 0.072 0.068 0.068 Tucson - Fairgrounds 0.066 0.072 0.070 0.069 Tucson - Tangerine 0.067 0.075 0.074 0.072 0.078 0.079 0.072 0.076 City or Site Palo Verde Rio Verde S Surprise S (Closed 7/15/2003) Tempe S Navajo County Petrified Forest National Park Pima County Pinal County Apache Junction - Maintenance Yard ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 42 Table 16: 2001 to 2003 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Fourth-Highest Value 2001 2002 2003 Casa Grande - Airport 0.074 0.077 0.073 ThreeYear Average 0.074 Combs S N/A 0.068 0.072 N/A Maricopa S N/A 0.068 0.075 N/A Pinal Air Park S N/A 0.070 0.074 N/A Queen Valley S 0.079 0.083 0.087 0.083 0.076 0.089 0.067 0.077 0.068 N/A 0.078 N/A City or Site Yavapai County Hillside S Yuma County Yuma Game & Fish 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: Yuma B 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 43 Particulate Matter B PM10 With the delay in adopting the proposed PM10 and PM2.5 standards, 2003 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 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 do not collect daily samples, 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 17 and 18 present the 2001 to 2003 data. Table 17: 2001 to 2003 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3, Standard Conditions) 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. 2001 to 2003 PM10 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County County Sites above Standard Sites in Violation 2001 2002 2003 Cochise 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 Gila 0 0 0 0 Maricopa 2 7 5 5 Mohave 0 0 0 0 Navajo 0 0 0 0 Pima 0 0 0 0 Pinal 0 2 0 0 Santa Cruz 0 0 0 0 Yavapai 0 0 0 0 Yuma 0 0 0 0 Summary: 51 of 56 monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 44 Table 17: 2001 to 2003 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) Bold denotes value above the standard. 2001 2002 2003 Three-Year Average Douglas – Red Cross 29# 32 30 30 Paul Spur 20 16 19 18 Flagstaff – Middle School 18# 17# 20# 18 Sedona 12# 15# 27# 18 Hayden – Old Jail 31# 34# 36 34 Miami – Golf Course 23 23 21 22 Miami – Ridgeline 14 13 15 14 Payson 22 26# 24 24 23 26 23 24 Central Phoenix 38 43 40 40 Chandler 48 56 50 51 Estrella 26# 31 29 29 Gilbert (Closed 6/1/2002) Glendale 39 40 N/A N/A 33 30 36 33 Higley 50 63 62 58 Maryvale 38 45 42 42 Mesa 30 36 34 33 North Phoenix 30 37 34 34 Palo Verde 23# 29 26 26 Phoenix – Durango Complex 59 70 62 64 City or Site Cochise County Coconino County Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 45 Table 17: 2001 to 2003 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) Bold denotes value above the standard. 2001 2002 2003 Phoenix – Greenwood 49 55 51 Three-Year Average 52 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 30 35# 37# 34 Phoenix – Salt River (Closed 12/31/2002) Phoenix – West Forty Third 94 81 N/A N/A N/A 68# 62 N/A South Phoenix 50 60 52 54 South Scottsdale 33 37 36 35 Surprise (Closed 7/15/2003) Tempe – Community Center 27 32 20# 26 31 35 36 34 West Chandler 34 39 42 38 West Phoenix 43 53 46 47 Bullhead City – ADEQ 17# 19# 20 19 Kingman – Praxair NE 13 14# N/A N/A Kingman – Praxair SW 12 14# N/A N/A 16# 16# 18 17 Ajo 14 19 23 19 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (Closed 2/12/2003) Rillito – ADEQ 10# 11# 11# 11 34 37 40 37 Rillito – APCC 26 31 34 30 South Tucson – ADEQ 25 29 30 28 South Tucson – PDEQ 31 39 34 35 Tucson – Broadway/Swan 26 26 27 26 City or Site Mohave County Navajo County Show Low Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 46 Table 17: 2001 to 2003 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) Bold denotes value above the standard. 2001 2002 2003 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (ADEQ) Tucson – Corona de Tucson (PDEQ) Tucson – 22nd/Craycroft 16 15# 18 Three-Year Average 16 16 15 17 16 23 26 27 25 Tucson – Orange Grove (PDEQ) 29 33 30 31 Tucson – Prince Road 33 34 31 33 Tucson – Santa Clara 26 28 27 27 Tucson – Tangerine 17 19 19 18 Tucson – U of A Central 25 27 32 28 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (North) Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (South) Casa Grande – Downtown 23 21# 20 21 23 21# 20 21 29 30# 32 30 Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner (Closed 7/22/02) Coolidge – Maintenance Yard 47 63# N/A N/A 32 33# 35 33 Eloy 35 47# 42 41 Mammoth 23 19# 16 19 Pinal Air Park 27 30# 29 29 N/A 57# 61 N/A 42 60# 46 49 48 51 38 46 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 36 19 19 25 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 44 28 23 32 City or Site Pinal County Pinal County Housing Complex Stanfield Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office Yavapai County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 47 Table 17: 2001 to 2003 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) Bold denotes value above the standard. 2001 2002 2003 16# 13# N/A Three-Year Average N/A Yuma – Juvenile Center/Courthouse Mexico 41# 48# 38 42 Agua Prieta – Fire Station 62 68 60 64 Nogales – Fire Station 67 69# 65 67 City or Site Prescott (Closed 6/25/02) Yuma County N/A – Not available Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. Table 18: 2001 to 2003 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3, Standard Conditions) 2001 to 2003 PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Compliance Values, By County Sites with Exceedances Sites in Violation 2001 2002 2003 Cochise Coconino Gila Maricopa Mohave Navajo Sample values are rounded to the nearest Pima 10 Fg/m3 to determine exceedance; values Pinal less than or equal to 154 Fg/m3 are not Santa Cruz exceedances; values greater than or equal Yavapai to 155 Fg/m3 are exceedances. Yuma NAAQS: Expected occurrence of exceedances (samples equal to or greater than 150 ug/m3) is one or less over three consecutive years. NOTE: Final EPA Compliance figures for sites with averages marked with ‘#’ may differ from values published here. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 14 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 Summary: 39 of 56 monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 48 1 0 0 13 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Table 18: 2001 to 2003 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) Bold denotes value above the standard. 2001 2002 2003 Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 137# 0 127 0 79 0 <1.0# 55 0 63 0 207 6.4 2.1 Flagstaff – Middle School 47# 0 49# 0 60# 0 <1.0# Sedona 23# 0 55# 0 69# 0 <1.0# Hayden – Old Jail 141 0 122# 0 91 0 <1.0# Miami – Golf Course 108 0 55 0 53 0 <1.0 Miami – Ridgeline 104 0 52 0 59 0 <1.0 Payson 62 0 46# 0 99 0 <1.0# 68 0 87 0 76 0 <1.0# Central Phoenix 124 0 81 0 114 0 <1.0 Chandler 146 0 128 0 240 6.0 2.0 Estrella 122# 0 92 0 92 0 <1.0# Glendale 110 0 88 0 151 0 <1.0 Higley 176 6.0 138 0 225 6.0 12.0# Maryvale 123 0 142 0 151 0 <1.0 Mesa 98 0 102 0 176 6.0 2.0 North Phoenix 99 0 80 0 155 6.0 2.0 Palo Verde 71# 0 100 0 158 6.4 2.1# City or Site Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross Paul Spur Coconino County Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 49 Table 18: 2001 to 2003 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) Bold denotes value above the standard. 2001 2002 2003 Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Phoenix – Durango Complex 189 6.0 232 12.0 195 6.0 8.0 Phoenix – Greenwood 145 0 116 0 166 6.0 2.0 Phoenix – JLG Supersite 109 0 72 # 0 169 # 6.0 2.0 # Phoenix – Salt River 281 49.0 249 12.4 N/A N/A N/A Phoenix – West Forty Third N/A N/A 172# 6.0 157 6.0 N/A South Phoenix 143 0 137 0 164 6.0 2.0 South Scottsdale 110 0 64 0 172 6.0 2.0 107 0 81 0 42 # 0 <1.0# Tempe – Community Center 109 0 65 0 158 6.0 2.0 West Chandler 134 0 80 0 206 13.7 4.6 West Phoenix 142 0 122 0 158 6.4 2.1 Bullhead City – ADEQ 39# 0 56# 0 121 0 <1.0# Kingman – Praxair NE 37 0 44# 0 N/A N/A N/A Kingman – Praxair SW 36 0 45# 0 N/A N/A N/A 58# 0 53# 0 58 0 <1.0# Ajo – ADOT 34 0 50 0 139 0 <1.0 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 23 0 27# 0 33# 0 <1.0# City or Site Surprise (Closed 7/15/2003) Mohave County Navajo County Show Low Pima County (Closed 2/12/2003) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 50 Table 18: 2001 to 2003 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) Bold denotes value above the standard. 2001 2002 2003 Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Rillito – ADEQ 89 0 70 0 118 0 <1.0# Rillito – APCC 77 0 199 3.1 256 3.1 2.1 South Tucson - ADEQ 113 0 64 0 119 0 <1.0 South Tucson – PDEQ 134 0 200 2.0 150 0 <1.0 Tucson – Broadway/Swan 120 0 62 0 122 0 <1.0 Tucson – Corona de Tucson (ADEQ) 134 0 30# 0 98 0 <1.0# Tucson – Corona de Tucson (PDEQ) 133 0 40 0 104 0 <1.0 Tucson – 22nd/Craycroft 115 0 53 0 66 0 <1.0 Tucson – Orange Grove (PDEQ) 111 0 171 1.0 120 0 <1.0 Tucson – Prince Road 125 0 83 0 126 0 <1.0 Tucson – Santa Clara 131 0 86 0 146 0 <1.0 Tucson – Tangerine 81 0 63 0 125 0 <1.0 Tucson – U of A Central 122 0 56 0 130 0 <1.0 Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (North) 49 0 62# 0 95 0 <1.0# Apache Junction – Maintenance Yard (South) 94 0 62# 0 91 0 <1.0# Casa Grande – Downtown 104 0 69 # 0 99 0 <1.0# Casa Grande – Eleven Mile Corner (Closed 7/22/02) 146 0 150# 0 N/A N/A N/A 73 0 106 # 0 106 0 <1.0 # City or Site (1-in-3 day schedule) Pinal County Coolidge – Maintenance Yard ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 51 Table 18: 2001 to 2003 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in Fg/m3) Bold denotes value above the standard. 2001 2002 2003 Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance Eloy – City Complex 142 0 146# 0 154 0 <1.0# Mammoth – County Complex 99 0 53# 0 89 0 <1.0# Pinal Air Park 103 0 62# 0 108 0 <1.0# Pinal County Housing Complex (Opened 8/1/2002) N/A N/A 166 # N/A 289 12.0 N/A Stanfield 134 0 352# 12.9 171 6.4 6.4# 213 6.9 188 6.0 184 12.3 8.4 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 141 0 127 0 68 0 <1.0 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 122 0 86 0 59 0 <1.0 Prescott (Closed 6/25/02) 32# 0 19# 0 N/A N/A N/A 150 # 1 125 0 127 0 <1.0# City or Site Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center/Courthouse Bold denotes value above the standard. N/A – Not available # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. 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 (µg/m3) for the annual arithmetic mean concentration and 65 µg/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 2003. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 52 The annual PM2.5 standard is met when the three-year average of annual means is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/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 µg/m3. There must also be 75 percent data completeness for each year. Please note that the data in the Table 19 are from federal reference 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. Data are collected and reported in local conditions. Table 19: 2001 to 2003 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3, local conditions) 2001 to 2003 PM2.5 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Cochise NAAQS: The three-year average of Coconino annual means is less than or equal Gila to15 µg/m3 Maricopa Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Sites with Exceedances 2001 2002 2003 0 0 0 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 0 Summary: 11 of 11 federal reference monitors in compliance Table 19: 2001 to 2003 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 2001 2002 2003 ThreeYear Avg 7.2# 7.4# 6.4# 7.0# 7.1# 7.2# 5.7# 6.7# Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff – Middle School Gila County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 53 Table 19: 2001 to 2003 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 2001 2002 2003 ThreeYear Avg 8.9# 10.0# 9.0# 9.3# Phoenix – JLG Supersite 9.2 11.6# 11.3 10.7# Tempe – Community Center 9.4 10.4 9.6 9.8 10.9# 12.6# 10.7 11.4# Tucson – Children’s Park 6.8# 6.6 6.5 6.6# Tucson – Orange Grove 7.6# 6.4 6.5 6.8# Apache Junction – Fire Station 6.3 6.4 6.3 # 6.3 Casa Grande – Downtown 7.7 8.5 8.4 8.2 10.7 12.2 11.3 11.4 Payson Maricopa County West Phoenix Pima County 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. # 2001 to 2003 PM2.5 24-Hour Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Table 20: 2001 to 2003 24Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3, local conditions) Cochise NAAQS: The three-year average of Coconino the 98th percentile values is less Gila than or equal to 65 µg/m3. Maricopa Pima Sites with Exceedances 2001 2001 2003 0 0 0 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 0 Note: The three-year average is Pinal rounded to the nearest 1 µg/m3 for Santa Cruz comparison to the standard. Summary: 11 of 11 federal reference monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 54 Table 20: 2001 to 2003 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 98th Percentile Samples 2001 2002 2003 Three-Year Average 24.4# 13.9# 11.7# 16.7# 16.4# 12.0 16.9# 15.1# 24.0 21.2 24.9# 23.4# Phoenix – JLG Supersite 25.0 31.9 24.2 27.0 Tempe – Community Center 22.7 21.6 25.0 23.1 West Phoenix 30.4# 36.2# 25.9 30.8 Tucson – Children’s Park 15.1# 20.2 13.2 16.2 Tucson – Orange Grove 20.4# 21.5 15.9 19.3 Apache Junction – Fire Station 13.1 13.1 21.1 # 15.8 Casa Grande – Downtown 16.7 20.8 26.7 21.4 25.7 25.4 35.0 28.7 Cochise County Douglas – Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff – Middle School Gila County Payson Maricopa County Pima County Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office # 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 55 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. Optical methods measure either light scattering or light extinction continuously. Scene measurements are photograph-based with subsequent analysis. 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 megameters, and 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 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 21 summarizes the nephelometer data from locations in or near Arizona Class I areas from 1998 to 2003. 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 Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 56 Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) Site and Year Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours Greer Water Treatment Plant Mt. Baldy Wilderness 2002 26 10 2 2003 26 10 1.3 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 2003 36 16 3 Ike’s Backbone Mazatzal/Pine Mountain Wildernesses 2002 24 10 2 2003 30 12 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 1998 24 11 4 1999 20 11 3 2000 22 11 3 2001 24 12 4 2002 25 12 4 2003 25 11 3 Wilderness Area Muleshoe Ranch Chiracahua National Monument Wilderness, Galiuro Wilderness, Chiricahua Forest Service Wilderness ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 57 Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) Site and Wilderness Area Rucker Canyon Chiricahua Wilderness (site closed in 2001) Pleasant Valley Ranger Station Sierra Ancha Wilderness Camp Raymond Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Tucson Mountain Saguaro National Park (Includes both the West facilities support building and the National Park Service well site) Year Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours 1998 30 12 3 1999 20 10 4 2000 18 8 1 2001 28 14 5 2002 27 13 3 2003 33 15 4 1998 N/A N/A N/A 1999 28 13 4 2000 28 13 3 2001 28 13 3 2002 30 13 3 2003 32 14 3 1998 30 12 2 1999 24 13 6 2000 23 12 5 2001 22 11 3 2002 31 16 6 2003 35 17 6 N/A – Not available Urban Haze In addition to the 24-hour PM10 samples collected for regulatory purposes, ADEQ has also 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 through ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 58 2003 are presented in Table 22. 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 hours and the cleanest 20 percent of the sampled hours. Table 22: Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2002 (in Mm-1) 24 Hour Samples Site Phoenix Transmissometer Phoenix Nephelometer Tucson Transmissometer 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 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 2003 131 72 36 135 78 42 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 2003 79 34 11 73 35 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 2003 88 52 26 107 62 30 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 59 Table 22: Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2002 (in Mm-1) 24 Hour Samples Site Tucson Nephelometer (U of A Central) Tucson Nephelometer (Craycroft) 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 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 2003 43 23 9 45 25 11 2001 38 19 8 N/A N/A N/A 2002 37 18 7 N/A N/A N/A 2003 52 25 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A – Not available ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 60 Special Projects Introduction In addition to ADEQ’s statewide regulatory ambient air monitoring program, the Air Quality Division undertook several special projects during 2003 and the first half of 2004. All of these studies go beyond data collection and seek to provide a better understanding of air pollutant science in Arizona and the Southwest. Data are employed in advanced computer models that Figure 4 - Yuma West Monitoring Station, Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study help to explain and predict the relationship between emissions and air pollutant concentrations under a variety of conditions. Control strategies are modeled to predict the most effective methods to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in Arizona. Issues related to the international border, identification of potential air pollution hotspots, improved visibility and reduction of regional haze, and appropriate responses to smoke and other air pollution hazards to protect public health fall under special projects. The knowledge gained from these studies can then be used by decision-makers to choose the most effective control strategies that will continue to improve the state’s air quality. 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Boundaries After the U.S. EPA proposed a new 8-hour average standard for O3 in 1997, court challenges ensued. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the 8-hour average O3 standard. EPA was required to complete designations and classifications of nonattainment areas and to promulgate the nonattainment area boundaries by April 15, 2004. Governors were required to submit recommended boundaries to EPA by July 15, 2003. EPA’s presumptive nonattainment boundary area was the entire Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Metropolitan Statistical Area, including both Maricopa and Pinal Counties. The boundary recommended by ADEQ Director Owens for submittal to EPA by the Governor was larger than the 1-hour nonattainment area and wholly contained within Maricopa County. After ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 61 negotiations and further consideration of the eleven factors for boundary determinations, on April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Phoenix-MesaScottsdale area as a nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone and promulgated a boundary description that included only the Apache Junction portion of Pinal County and an expanded portion Maricopa County as nonattainment for the 8hour ozone standard. The following map (Figure 5) displays both the 1-hour and 8-hour nonattainment boundaries. Figure 5 On the same date, EPA classified the nonattainment area as “Basic” under Subpart 1 of Part D, Title I of the Clean Air Act. This classification became effective June 15, 2004. A State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain this standard must be submitted to EPA by June 15, 2007 and must demonstrate attainment by June 15, 2009. EPA has announced its intent to revoke the 1hour ozone standard nationwide effective June 15, 2005. Control strategies necessary to attain the 1-hour standard must remain in effect. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 62 On April 30, 2004, EPA promulgated Phase I of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard Implementation Strategy, effective June 15, 2004. Phase II of the 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Strategy is expected by early 2005. Phase II will address transportation conformity. Litigants have challenged EPA’s authority to classify nonattainment areas under Subpart 1. Depending on the outcome of the litigation, further technical analysis may be necessary. The outcome of this litigation may not have much impact on how the State addresses the 8-hour O3 pollution problem. 8-Hour Ozone Forecasting Program Although still designated as a 1-hour O3 nonattainment area, Maricopa County must also comply with the recently upheld 8-hour O3 standard. This standard has been identified by the EPA as a better measure of exposure to ground-level O3. Since exposure is averaged over an eight hour period, the standard is lower than the one hour standard B 0.08 parts per million versus 0.12 parts per million. During 2002, ADEQ air quality forecasters developed a Apractice@ forecasting regimen implemented during the O3 season of April 1 through September 30. O3 forecasting experience was gained and subsequently applied to improve the methods used from 2003 and through the present. Although not disseminated, a formal forecast page was also developed that indicated the previous day’s maximum O3 concentrations as well as those expected the next 72 hours. During the 2003 O3 season, this page was posted on the internet for public access along with an inter-active map showing the locations of each O3 monitor. An O3 forecast voice recording system is also installed so that citizens without computer access can obtain air quality information reachable at 602771-2367 and toll free at 1-800-234-5677, extension 771-2367. Additionally, a method to make available daily maximum 8-hour O3 concentrations on the ADEQ web site for the entire monitoring network is underway. Salt River PM10 Study In 1997, the EPA approved an attainment demonstration as part of the metropolitan Phoenix serious area PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) that showed the 24-hour PM10 standard would not be violated at the Salt River site after 1998. Subsequent data from the Salt River monitoring site showed violations of the 24-hour standard in 1999, 2000, and 2001. In a Federal Register notice published July 2, 2002, EPA found that the SIP was substantially inadequate to provide for attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard, and EPA required the State to add control measures for the Serious PM10 nonattainment area. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 63 The Salt River Area covers approximately 32 square miles (1 percent of the Phoenix metropolitan area) located along the Salt River in southwest Phoenix. To demonstrate attainment, the State developed a relationship between the emissions and ambient air concentrations through the construction of an emissions inventory and the use of this inventory in an air quality model. Second, the State developed and evaluated potential control strategies called Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) for all significant sources of PM10 contributing to the Salt River Area monitor exceedances. These sources include sand and gravel mining, materials processing, brick manufacturers, earthmoving and motor vehicle traffic on unpaved roads and vacant lands, and trespass on vacant lands that disturbs soils. ADEQ and the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department developed a base case emissions inventory and source category emissions estimates, characterized the air quality and meteorology of the area, statistically analyzed the data, and employed modeling to simulate ambient conditions and to show the air quality benefits of the strategies adopted to achieve the NAAQS. A revised SIP was submitted to EPA in February 2004. Supplements will be submitted through February 2005. Selected control measures targeted three categories of pollution sources: primary and secondary paved roads; unpaved roads and unpaved shoulders; and windblown dust from disturbed land (including areas in the river bottom) and vacant lots. Enhancements to Maricopa County Rule 310 concerning earthmoving operations were adopted by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on April 7, 2004. These enhancements include opacity restrictions; requirements to use water, gravel or dust suppressants and wind barriers to control windblown dust emissions from disturbed areas; and restricting vehicle access. Maricopa County is also improving enforcement by increasing the number of its inspectors for construction sites and vacant lands. The City of Phoenix cleared trash from the banks of the Salt River, stabilized the banks with several inches of mulch, restricted access with concrete barriers, and increased enforcement against trespassing. Municipalities and the Arizona Department of Transportation continue to pave, curb and gutter unpaved parking lots, roads and shoulders. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds have been earmarked to purchase an additional 32 PM10 efficient street-sweepers. Municipalities have adopted Resolutions committing to more frequent street-sweeping on “high dust” roadways identified through protocols. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 64 In addition, more attention will be paid to agricultural land and implementation of the ADEQ Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) general permits. The Arizona Department of Agriculture provides compliance assistance to ensure use of Agricultural BMPs. Commercial farmers must implement at least one BMP for cropland, non-cropland, and tillage and harvest activities. Yuma PM10 Nonattainment Area Redesignation Project Yuma was designated nonattainment for PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or smaller) in 1990. ADEQ developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Yuma in 1991 that demonstrated the area could meet the federal NAAQS by December 1994. After several consecutive years of clean monitoring data, a stakeholder process to prepare an attainment demonstration and maintenance plan was convened in July 2001. ADEQ met with local stakeholders to review the control measures already in place and hired a contractor to assist in developing an emissions inventory for the 1999 base year and future years emissions estimates. After air quality modeling for 1999 was completed successfully, ADEQ staff learned that incomplete monitoring data for 2001 would necessitate using the 2002-2004 monitoring data for the attainment demonstration, with a SIP submittal in early 2005. On Aug. 18, 2002, however, an unusually large and intense thunderstorm with blowing dust over east-central Sonora moved northwesterly through Yuma. For this day there were three hours with wind speeds above the dust re-suspension threshold of 15 mph. The Yuma PM10 monitor registered 170 Fg/m3, exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 150 Fg/m3. Data from nearby meteorological sites were tested to determine whether the exceedance date in question is considered meteorologically exceptional. These tests are described in an ADEQ document, “Technical Criteria Document for Determination of Natural Exceptional Events for Particulate Matter Equal to or Less than Ten Microns in Aerodynamic Diameter (PM10)”, May 31, 2000. The Aug. 18, 2002, date passed the criteria for a natural exceptional event, and qualifies for treatment through a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP). ADEQ submitted a NEAP to EPA on Feb. 19, 2004. ADEQ continues to work with the stakeholder group to the attainment demonstration and SIP to EPA by February 2005. All Best Available Control Measures must be adopted and implemented by Aug. 16, 2005 and implemented by a certain date. Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for all significant sources of PM10 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 65 contributing to the PM10 concentrations in Yuma County include enforcement to prevent traffic and trespass on unpaved Irrigation District canal roads, and measures applicable to windblown dust from agricultural practices, disturbed land, uncovered trucks hauling particulate matter, and vacant lots. A public outreach campaign is also under development involving bilingual brochures, a public service announcement, and videos to explain dust control plans for construction site contractors and agricultural practices. Yuma Wind Forecast The Yuma area is nonattainment for particulate matter and recently developed a NEAP to address activities that generate dust during high wind events. In an effort to alert citizens to the high wind events and minimize activities that could generate dust, ADEQ began issuing three-day wind forecasts for Yuma and the vicinity at the request of the public. The forecasts are made and posted to the ADEQ website Sunday-Friday between 9-10 a.m. (http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air /ozone/yumawind.pdf). Figure 6 – Map of Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study monitoring locations. 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 health impacts 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, have identified six phases to the study: identifying study requirements and collecting meteorological data; siting study for pollutant monitor locations; monitor deployment; data collection; air quality modeling and health risk assessment. The Air Quality Division will carry out a thorough public outreach program during the study. The first phase is well underway. A total of eight meteorological stations have been installed to acquire data on wind, temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, atmospheric pressure, and lapse ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 66 rate. Three stations are in Mexico and five in Arizona. The information acquired during this phase will be used with emissions inventory data and exposure potential to determine where air quality monitors should be sited in the next phase of the study. Monitor deployment and data collection are scheduled to begin in early 2005 and should operate for about a year to provide enough information for the modeling and risk assessment phases of the project. Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program Congress listed 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs, also referred to as air toxics) in 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 are entered into the EPA’s Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) and National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) databases. Air Toxics monitoring includes volatile organic compound (VOC) canister sampling and carbonyl cartridge sampling over 24-hour time frames (midnight to midnight); Photochemical Ambient Monitoring Stations (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. In 2003, 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 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. Funding is provided through EPA Region 9 and EPA’s Office of Air Quality, Planning and standards (OAQPS). The purpose of this initial small scale study is to determine which HAPs are of most concern ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 67 in the metropolitan Phoenix area with a specific focus on 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. Monitoring locations include: the South Phoenix site, the West 43rd Avenue site, and the 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 by a coalition of tribes and local and regional agencies. Carried out through the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) in Flagstaff, this coalition consists of staff from the following agencies and tribes: 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 a HAPs project that would cover the entire Phoenix area, including its three principal Indian reservations; consist of work in air modeling and risk assessment, as well as emissions and air monitoring; and could be completed in four years. Beginning in 2005, with the aide of a $500,000 grant from the U.S. EPA, the JATAP group will collect ambient HAPs data for one year at six sites in metropolitan Phoenix and its three Indian reservations. Phoenix Area Visibility Index In April 2002, ADEQ established the Visibility Index Oversight Committee (VIOC) in response to legislation (House Bill 2538, First Regular Session 2001)Ato establish options for a visibility standard or other method to track progress in improving visibility in the Phoenix area.@ The Visibility Index Oversight Committee assisted 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 completed the field survey in August of 2002. Based upon the survey results ADEQ and the Committee formed a recommended Visibility Index in March of 2003. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 68 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) 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 ADEQ expanded the Phoenix area urban haze monitoring network. This was completed during the Fall of 2003 and included the addition of one transmissometer (a total of two for the metropolitan area), four nephelometers and five digital cameras, all with near realtime posting to a newly designed web site. The network was 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 made available to the public a website designed to present the index and near-real time data and imagery in December 2003. The website is available at www.Phoenixvis.net. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 69 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 known as mandatory Federal Class I areas. The Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to EPA in December 2003, focused on four of the 12 national parks and wilderness areas in Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, and Mount Baldy Wilderness. The remaining eight Class I areas will be addressed in a SIP or series of SIPs to be submitted to EPA prior to the January 31, 2008, deadline. The 2003 Regional Haze SIP relied on a demonstration of how the state is implementing the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to satisfy reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. All SIPs from this point on will need to assess the current conditions at a Class I area and then determine what strategies would be necessary should the area be found to have impaired visibility. Areas with good visibility will need to determine strategies to assure those areas maintain good air quality. Western states developing SIPs under sections 309(g) and 308 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule will have assistance with the assessment and strategies portion of the SIP from the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP at www.wrapair.org). The Air Quality Division (AQD) will have an expanded role regarding regional haze. Extensive fire regulations and policy were developed for the 2003 Regional Haze SIP and the Enhanced Smoke Management Plan will continue to be an important part of regional haze. AQD will perform emissions tracking and modeling necessary to determine specific conditions at Arizona Class I areas beyond what WRAP will provide. Arizona will also implement SO2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program, which is a voluntary program for stationary sources emitting 100 tons or more per year of sulfur dioxide that will be integrated into existing permits, and emissions will be tracked annually. The annual emissions for the stationary sources will be reported to WRAP, and every five years, beginning with 2004, emissions will be compiled into a regional Milestone Report. Should a milestone, representing markers on a decreasing regional emissions cap, be exceeded, the backstop trading program would be activated. The possibility of developing a trading program for NOx and PM (particulate matter) will also be researched by WRAP and ADEQ. Additional information on regional haze can be found at http://www.wrapair.org/309/index.html. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 70 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 that appropriate actions can be taken to protect the public. The Team has a fully equipped van with a variety of grab-sampling 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 104 incidents. During the calendar year of 2003, HART responded to seven incidents: one chlorine leak, one industrial fire, one garbage dump fire, three forest fires (Cherry Fire outside of Cherry, Aspen Fire outside of San Manuel, and Kinishba Fire outside of Whiteriver), in addition to monitoring in Kingman, Lake Havasu, Yuma, and Quartzsite related to the major wildland fires in California in October and November 2003. Through October 2004, HART responded to six incidents: the transformer substation fire in Surprise, a garbage dump fire, a hay fire, and three wildfires (Three Forks Fire outside Three Forks, Willow Fire outside Payson, and Nuttall Fire outside Safford). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, 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 SO2 decreased rapidly. Although improvements have also been made in the concentrations of CO, O3 and particulates, the last two still exceed air quality standards at some sites: the eighthour O3 standard at three sites in greater Phoenix, and the 24- Figure 7 - 1999 Average Best & Average Worst Visibility Impairment in the Phoenix Area hour and annual PM10 standards at a few urban and rural sites. Visibility B the aspect of the urban atmosphere that is most obvious to the population B 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, CO concentrations have declined by as much as two-thirds. In Tucson, the maximum annual eight-hour concentration of CO at 22nd Street and Alvernon declined from 12 in 1978 to 2.7 parts per million (ppm) in 2003 (Figure 8). In Phoenix at 18th Street and Roosevelt (Central Phoenix), the decline was from 23.0 to 4.6 ppm (Figure 9). The number of exceedances of the eight-hour standard B 9.5 ppm B in Phoenix decreased from 75 to 0 at Central Phoenix. The entire Phoenix network of CO 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 1997-2003. 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 72 14 12 Standard = 9.5 ppm 8-hr CO (ppm) 10 8 6 4 2 20 02 20 00 19 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 19 90 19 88 19 86 19 84 19 82 19 80 19 78 0 Figure 8: Eight-hour carbon monoxide maxima at 22nd Street and Alvernon Way in Tucson 25 15 Standard = 9.5 ppm 10 5 Figure 9: Maximum eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations at Central Phoenix: 1975-2003 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 73 1 9 3 20 0 20 0 19 9 7 19 9 5 19 9 3 19 9 9 7 5 3 1 19 9 19 8 19 8 19 8 19 8 1 19 8 9 19 7 7 19 7 5 0 19 7 8-hr CO (ppm) 20 Ozone One-Hour Ozone Concentrations Maximum one-hour average O3 concentrations have remained steady in Tucson and Yuma, but have declined in Phoenix since 1980 (Figure 10). 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 a gradual decrease to 1996, after which the concentrations have remained steady and just below the standard. The Phoenix decrease in O3 concentrations has been nowhere near as pronounced as its declining CO trend, but the net result has been similar: no exceedances of the O3 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 O3 and its photochemical formation from hydrocarbons and NOx, changes in emissions would not be expected to translate into proportional changes in concentration. 0.18 Standard = 0.124 ppm 1-hr ozone (ppm) 0.15 0.12 PHOENIX TUCSON 0.09 YUMA 0.06 0.03 20 02 20 00 19 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 19 90 19 88 19 86 19 84 19 82 19 80 0 Figure 10: Maximum one-hour ozone concentrations in three cities Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations A new eight-hour O3 standard, proposed by EPA in 1997 and officially implemented in 2004, is expressed as the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest concentration, not to exceed 0.08 parts per million. The eight-hour standard has been exceeded in many areas across the United States where the one-hour standard is met; Phoenix falls into this category but Tucson does 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 11). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 74 0.100 8-hr ozone (ppm) 0.080 Downtown 0.060 Pom/C.Park Standard = .085 ppm Craycroft 0.040 Saguaro Mo. 0.020 20 02 20 00 19 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 19 90 19 88 19 86 19 84 19 82 19 80 0.000 Figure 11: Annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations in Tucson In contrast to the within-standard concentrations in Tucson, 24 of the 28 sites in greater Phoenix have recorded annual fourth-highest O3 values in excess of 0.084 ppm in 1995 to 2003. The standard of 0.084 ppm is the de facto, or operational standard, in contrast to the statutory standard of 0.08 ppm. This operational standard takes into account the precision of the instrumental method and the rounding off to the nearest 0.01 ppm. In metropolitan Phoenix, these elevated eight-hour O3 concentrations have occurred at fewer monitoring sites and at lower values in 2003 than in 1995, although the 1997 - 2002 trend is virtually even. For instance, of the 20 sites operational both in 1995 or 1996 and 2003, 14 recorded fourth-highest values greater than 0.084 ppm in 1995, but only three in 2003. The values have decreased through time as well, with typical fourth-highest concentrations decreasing from 1995-96 to 2003: 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. Nearly all of this improvement took place between 1995 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 O3 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 seven years ago than in 2003. However, in 2003, six 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 B the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentration B metropolitan Phoenix has ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 75 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 2003: the first being 1995 to 1997 and the last 2001 to 2003. In the first two threeyear periods (Table 23), 11 and 12 monitoring sites, respectively, had average fourthhighest 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 2003 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 eight-hour ozone concentrations occurred in the mid 1990s. Since 1997, the trends at most sites have leveled off, suggesting that the eight-hour standard will be difficult to achieve in two to three years. Table 23: 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 in yellow cells equal or exceed the operational standard of 85.0 ppb) Site 20012003 19951997 19961998 19971999 19982000 19992001 20002002 Emergency Mgmt 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 76.6 Blue Point 90.3 89.3 86.0 88.7 85.3 84.3 84.0 Apache Junction 90.0 86.0 81.7 81.3 79.7 79.7 76.3 Mesa 89.7 85.3 81.0 79.3 77.3 73.7 Closed Pinnacle Peak 89.0 86.7 81.0 81.7 82.0 85.0 84.0 Fountain Hills 89.0 85.0 82.3 81.7 81.0 84.7 84.0 Falcon Field 89.0 85.0 82.3 81.7 81.0 80.0 81.3 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 78.3 West Phoenix 84.3 84.7 85.3 86.0 82.3 80.0 78.6 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 76 Closed 85.6 Closed Closed Table 23: 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 in yellow cells equal or exceed the operational standard of 85.0 ppb) Site 20012003 19951997 19961998 19971999 19982000 19992001 20002002 Maryvale 84.0 83.7 81.3 83.0 78.3 79.0 80.0 Humboldt Mountain 83.7 88.0 86.0 86.3 84.7 85.0 87.3 Maximum 96.3 92.3 88.0 88.7 85.3 85.7 87.3 11 12 5 5 2 3 n > 85.0 ppb 2 Illustrated in Figure 12 are the three-year average data from those monitoring sites in Table 23 that have recorded one or more averages above the standard of 84 ppb. This figure clearly shows that virtually all of the downward trends that occurred between 1995 and 2003 took place in the first two thirds of this period. Since 1999 – 2001, the overall trend at these sites has been even, with an equal mix of steady, upward, and downward trends. 95 8-hr ozone (ppb) 90 85 Standard = 84 ppb 80 75 70 1995-1997 1996-1998 North Phoenix Fountain Hills 1997-1999 1998-2000 1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 Blue Point Apache Junction Pinnacle Peak Falcon Field West Phoenix Humboldt Figure 12: Phoenix area eight-hour ozone trends: three-year averages of the annual fourth high concentrations ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 77 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 its annual standard. For example, annual PM10 concentrations in South Phoenix averaged 68.7 µg/m3 from 1985 through 1987, but only 54.0 µg/m3 in 20012003, a decrease of 21 percent but still over the standard. Similar percentage decreases occurred from the 1980s at Central Phoenix and West Phoenix (Figures 13a and b). 70 65 Annual Average PM10 (ug/m3) 60 55 Central Phoenix 50 45 Standard = 50 Chandler Glendale 40 North Phoenix 35 30 25 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 Figure 13a: Annual Average PM10 trends at four metropolitan Phoenix sites with moderate PM10 levels. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 78 Annual Average PM10 (ug/m3) 80 70 60 South Phoenix West Phoenix 50 Greenw ood Standard = 50 Durango 40 30 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 Figure 13b: PM10 trends at four metropolitan Phoenix sites with higher PM10 levels Despite these improvements in the PM10 particulates concentrations, unlike the case for CO and O3, PM10 standards continue to be violated. Annual concentrations for the last 10 years, presented in Table 24, 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 43 monitor years, 20 (47 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 79 Table 24: Annual PM10 Concentrations for 12 Years in Metropolitan Phoenix (in µg/m3) Central Phoenix Chandler Glendale North Phoenix South Phoenix West Phoenix Mesa South Scottsdale Greenwood 1992 42 56 34 35 48 47 29 34 N/A 1993 43 58 35 34 44 44 35 34 N/A 1994 43 50 33 35 44 43 36 38 N/A 1995 44 56 33 36 46 44 35 36 N/A 1996 41 62 34 37 47 45 33 35 N/A 1997 44 61 38 38 55 51 43 41 61 1998 38* 45 29 29 31* 39 29 34 50 1999 44 60 36 35 49 51 35 40 56 2000 46 57 41 37 61 53 37 40 61 2001 38 48 33 30 50 43 30 33 49 2002 43 56 40 37 60 53 36 37 55 2003 40 50 36 34 52 46 34 36 51 Bold values in yellow cells exceed the annual standard of 50 Fg/m3. *Does not satisfy EPA summary criteria of 75 percent data recovery. N/A B Data not available ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 80 The highest PM10 concentrations in metropolitan Phoenix are in Southwest Phoenix, along the Salt River from about 7th Street to 59th Avenue. Although most of the area is industrial, there are many residential areas. The PM10 record in this area since 1994 is shown in Figure 14. The West 43rd Avenue site is the replacement for the Salt River site. Concentrations have been twice the standard in four of the nine monitoring years. 120 Standard = 50 ppm 100 80 Salt R West 43rd 60 40 20 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 14. Annual PM10 concentrations in the Salt River area 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 43.3 µg/m3 in 1985-87, but steadily decreased in the next 10 years and then leveled out to a concentration in 2001-2003 of 30.3 µg/m3 B a decrease of 30 percent. South Tucson, Prince Road and Broadway/Swan showed smaller, but substantial, decreases (Figure 15) and similar patterns of an early decrease followed by a steady trend. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 81 80 Annual Average PM10 (ug/m3) Standard = 50 ppm 60 South Tucson Prince Road Corona de Tucson Green Valley Orange Grove Broadway/Swan 40 20 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 15: Annual Average PM10 trends at six metropolitan Tucson sites 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, road paving and better industrial dust controls can be given credit for most of the improvement (Figure 16). Annual Average PM10 (ug/m3) 140 120 Douglas 100 Standard = 50 ppm Hayden Nogales 80 Paul Spur 60 Payson Rillito 40 Yuma 20 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 0 Figure 16: Annual Average PM10 concentrations at the higher concentration sites in Arizona ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 82 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 17). Annual Average PM10 (ug/m3) 80 Standard = 50 ppm Ajo 60 Apache Junction Bullhead City 40 Casa Grande Organ Pipe 20 Safford 0 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 Figure 17: Annual Average PM10 concentrations at lower concentration sites at lower elevations Annual Average PM10 (ug/m3 ) With the exception of Montezuma=s Castle, a background site that has leveled off, all of the higher-elevation, low-concentration sites showed decreasing trends for PM10. Clarkdale decreased 38 percent; Flagstaff, 69 percent; Joseph City, 45 percent; Nelson, 45 percent; and Show Low, 56 percent. Part of these decreases may be attributed to cleaner-burning wood stoves and fireplaces (Figure 18). What is encouraging in these various sites is that not a single one shows an upward trend, whether urban, industrial, agricultural or rural. 60 40 Standard = 50 ppm Flagstaff Prescott Show Low Clarkdale 20 0 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 19 01 20 03 20 Figure 18: Annual Average PM10 concentrations at low concentration sites at higher elevations ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 83 PM2.5 As was discussed earlier, 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 Afine particulates@ or APMfine@, and not APM2.5.@ 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 some urban sites are apparent. Nogales, Yuma and Flagstaff have shown overall level (or flat) 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. Fine particulate trends in metropolitan Phoenix appear to decrease through 2000 and increase slightly through 2003. In metropolitan Tucson, the only two sites with a continuous record show that Orange Grove has decreased significantly since 1999 and that the Central site has increased since 2001. These data are presented in Table 25 and Figures 19, 20, and 21. Table 25a: Annual PMfine 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 84 Table 25a: Annual PMfine and PM2.5 Concentrations Throughout Arizona (in µg/m3) Statewide 1999 7.9 8.4 * 9.8 * 12.5 * 2000 8.7 6.9 * 10.0 * 12.8 * 2001 N/A 7.1 * 8.8 * 10.7 * 2002 N/A 7.1 * 10.0 * 12.1 * 2003 N/A 5.6 * 8.9 * 11.3 * Table 25b: Annual PMfine and PM2.5 Concentrations in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area(in µg/m3) Apache Higley Tempe Supersite ASU Estrella West Junction West PHX 1995 15.4 10.0 12.6 11.1 11.7 N/A N/A 1996 11.1 10.0 13.4 10.5 11.1 N/A N/A 1997 10.4 9.8 12.1 9.1 7.9 N/A N/A 1998 9.4 9.4 10.9 8.3 7.1 N/A N/A 1999 11.1 10.7 * 12.2 * 9.1 8.9 N/A 7.4 * 2000 10.0 10.3 * 11.4 * 8.5 7.7 13.8 * 7.2 * 2001 N/A 9.3 * 9.2 * N/A 7.4 10.8 * 6.2 * 2002 N/A 10.3 * 11.6 * N/A 6.7 12.5* 6.3 * 2003 N/A 9.6 * 11.2 * N/A 7.3 10.6 * 6.3 * ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 85 Table 25c: Annual PMfine and PM2.5 Concentrations in the Tucson Metropolitan Area(in µg/m3) 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 7.7 * N/A N/A N/A 7.8 6.8 * 2001 7.6 * 6.0 N/A N/A 7.6 6.8* 2002 6.3* 8.6 N/A N/A 8.3 6.6* 2003 6.4* 7.5 N/A N/A 9.7 6.5* Bold values exceed the annual standard of 15 µg/m3. N/A B Not available. * Data are from federal reference monitors, not dichot monitors. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 86 20 Annual Average PM2.5 (ug/m3) 18 Standard = 15 ppm 16 14 Yuma 12 Flagstaff 10 Payson 8 Nogales 6 4 2 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 19 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 93 19 92 19 91 0 Figure 19: Statewide Annual Average PM2.5 trends 18 Standard = 15 ppm Annual Average PM2.5 (ug/m3) 16 14 12 Higley 10 Tempe Supersite 8 ASU West 6 Estrella 4 2 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 20: Metropolitan Phoenix Annual Average PM2.5 trends ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 87 20 Annual Average PM2.5 (ug/m3) Standard = 15 ppm 16 Orange Grove 22nd/Craycroft 12 Tangerine Fairgrnds 8 Central Childrens Park 4 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 21: Metropolitan Tucson Annual Average PMfine and PM2.5 trends Visibility Optical measurements of visibility have been made continuously since 1993 in Tucson and since 1994 in Phoenix. Light extinction B the degree to which sunlight is reduced by its interaction with fine particles and gases in the atmosphere B 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 B for both the entire day and the 5 to 11 a.m. period. Table 26 and Figures 22 and 23 present these data. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 88 Table 26a: Light Extinction in Phoenix and Tucson (in Mm-1) Phoenix All Hours Year 5-11 a.m. Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 1994 N/A 64 29 N/A 70 33 1995 141 77 38 137 80 43 1996 134 78 43 130 80 45 1997 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 2003 131 72 36 135 78 42 N/A - Data not available ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 89 Table 26b: Light Extinction in Phoenix and Tucson (in Mm-1) Tucson All Hours 5-11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 1993 101 60 34 139 74 37 1994 95 59 36 109 68 41 1995 104 62 35 116 69 38 1996 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 2003 88 52 26 107 62 30 Distinct trends from these tabular data are somewhat difficult to discern, in part because of the year-to-year variability. Rather than plotting these data, this report is limited to the “all hours” categories, since both the “5-11 a.m.” and “all hours” trends are virtually identical. Note that 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 Figures 22 and 23 these light extinction data have been plotted as three-year moving averages. The first year shown, 1996, is the average of 1994, 1995, and 1996, and so on. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 90 Light Extinction (Mm-1) 160 120 Dirtiest 20% Mean 80 Cleanest 20% 40 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 19 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 0 Figure 22: Light extinction trends for Phoenix, shown as three-year moving averages, for all hours Considering Phoenix first, the steady improvement in the 20 percent dirtiest category is evident. The most recent period in this category is 10 percent lower than the first period. For both the mean and 20 percent cleanest days, however, the steadily downward trend of the dirtiest 20 percent category is replaced by a more complicated trend – one in which the first two periods increase, through the period ending in 1998, but the subsequent periods gradually decrease. The net percentage change from the most recent to the first period for these two categories is close to zero: a 1 percent decrease for the mean and a 4% increase for the cleanest. What’s happened in this ten-year period is that the worst visibility days have gotten somewhat better (10 percent), but the mean and 20 percent cleanest days have about the same degree of visibility degradation at the end as at the beginning, albeit with a slight rise in the early years. Unlike Phoenix, visibility in Tucson has improved between 1993 and 2003 for all three statistics: the dirtiest, the mean, and the cleanest (Figure 23). The improvement in the 20 percent dirtiest days has been the same as Phoenix – 10 percent -- but considerably greater improvements have been realized in the other two categories: 16 percent for the mean and 28 percent for the cleanest 20 percent. Since it is difficult for an observer to distinguish between the various grades of the cleanest 20 percent, perhaps the overall Phoenix-Tucson trends look the same. That is, over this ten-year period, there has been a 10 percent decrease in the light extinction values for the dirtiest days in both cities. Residents of each metropolitan area, then, have observed a steady, gradual improvement in visual air quality for these haziest of days. While the worst of the brown clouds are still quite evident, especially on winter mornings, their severity over both cities has diminished. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 91 80 Dirtiest 20% Mean 40 Cleanest 20% 0 19 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 9 19 8 9 20 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 03 Light Extinction (Mm-1) 120 Figure 23: Light extinction trends for Tucson, shown as three-year moving averages, for all hours An interesting intercity trend (Figure 24) appears in the cleanest 20 percent category, where, in the first years of monitoring, Tucson and Phoenix had 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 2001 - 2003. Tucson=s cleanest days were 35 percent cleaner than in Phoenix (25 Mm-1 vs 38 Mm-1 ). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 92 Light Extinction (Mm-1) 60 50 40 Phoenix Tucson 30 20 10 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 19 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 93 0 Figure 24: Light extinction trends for all hours for Tucson and Phoenix: three-year moving averages for the cleanest 20 percent days Seasonal patterns also vary between the two cities, 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 25). 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 93 200 Light Extinction (Mm-1) 20% Dirtiest 150 Tucson 100 Phoenix 20% Cleanest 50 fa ll m er su m sp rin g te r wi n fa ll m er su m sp rin g wi n te r 0 Figure 25: Seasonal variation in light extinction of the 20 percent cleanest and 20 percent dirtiest days in Tucson and Phoenix In the following, final, discussion of visibility, the light scattering as measured by the nephelometer is compared between the urban and rural areas of the state (Figure 26). The variation of light scattering between rural and urban locations is very apparent in each category. On the dirtiest 20 percent days, light scattering values in the Phoenix area are approximately 3.5 times greater than in the rural areas, while values in the Tucson area are nearly 2 times greater. Values for the mean and 20 percent cleanest days show similar results. An interesting comparison between urban and rural areas is the light scattering values on the worst 20 percent days in the rural areas are approximately equal to the median of the urban areas. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 94 90 80 Light Extinction (Mm-1) 70 60 dirtiest 20% 50 mean cleanest 20% 40 30 20 10 0 Humboldt Muleshoe Saguaro West Tucson Phoenix Figure 26: Comparison of light scattering on the 20 percent cleanest, mean, and 20 percent dirtiest days for urban and rural areas. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 95 Conclusions Since monitoring of air pollutants began in the late 1960s in Arizona, considerable progress has been made in reducing concentrations of lead, SO2, and CO. Lead has been reduced to near background levels; SO2 concentrations near copper smelters, which chronically exceeded the standards until the mid-1980s, are now well within these standards; and CO 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 O3 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 O3 standard; in 1999-2001 only two sites exceeded the standard (0.08 ppm). Elevated concentrations of PM10 have been reduced substantially since the mid1980s, 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 B a once common occurrence at many sites only ten years ago B 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 een 21 percent; at 22nd and Craycroft, in east-central Tucson, the decrease has been 24 percent. The Phoenix decreases are inconsistent with the increasing trends in light extinction, caused primarily by small particles. In spite of the continued growth in Arizona, 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 O3 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 Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 96 Appendix 1 B Site Index Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Greer B Water Treatment Plant (Mt Baldy) 34E 04' 109E 26' ADEQ, USFS Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 8255 Springerville B Coalyard 34E 19' 109E 09' TEP PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 6900 Springerville B 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 B Cemetery (1505 5th St.) 31E 20' 109E 33' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Population 4100 Douglas B Red Cross (1445-1449 15th St.) 31E 20' 109E 30' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 Neighborhood Population 4100 Apache County Cochise County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 97 SLAMS Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) 32E 21' 110E 14' ADEQ Bscat, IMPROVE, MET Naco B Border Patrol Crossing (2188 1st St.) 31E 20' 109E 57' ADEQ Bscat SPM Neighborhood Population 4623 Paul Spur B Naco Road (East of Chemical Lime Plant) 31E 22' 109E 49' ADEQ PM10, MET SLAMS (PM10) Middle Source Impact 4192 Flagstaff B Middle School (755 N. Bonito) 35E 12' 111E 38' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 6906 Grand Canyon National Park B 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 B Indian Gardens (4.5 miles from Bright Angel trailhead) 36E 05' 112E 08' NPS IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 3832 Page B Navajo Generating Station (3 miles east of Page) 36E 55' 111E 24' SRP O3, NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Urban Source Impact 3648 Sedona B Post Office (190 W. Highway 89A) 34E 52' 111E 45' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 4220 Muleshoe Ranch B Muleshoe Ranch Preserve (Galiuro Wilderness) Class I Regional Visibility 4400 Coconino County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 98 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. 35E 08' 111E 58' ADEQ, NPS Bscat, IMPROVE, MET Class I Regional Visibility 6693 Globe Highway 33E 01' 110E 45' ASARCO SO2 SPM Regional Source Impact 1950 Hayden B Garfield Avenue 33E 00' 110E 47' ASARCO SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 2090 Hayden B Montgomery Ranch (NE, NE, Sec 4, T 5S, R 15E) 33E 00' 110E 47' ASARCO SO2 SPM Regional Source Impact 2325 Hayden B Old Jail (Canyon Drive) 33E 00' 110E 47' ADEQ, ASARCO PM10, SO2 SLAMS (ADEQ SO2 and PM10) SPM (ASARCO SO2) Neighborhood Source Impact 2050 Miami B Golf Course 33E 24' 110E 49' PDMI PM10 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 3320 Miami B Jones Ranch (Cherry Flats Rd.) 33E 23' 110E 51' PDMI SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 4094 Sycamore Canyon (Camp Raymond) Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Gila County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 99 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Miami B Ridgeline (4030 Linden St.) 33E 23' 110E 52' ADEQ, PDMI PM10, SO2 Miami B Town Site (Sullivan St.) 33E 23' 110E 52' PDMI Payson (204 W. Aero Dr.) 34E 14' 111E 20' Pleasant Valley B Ranger Station (Sierra Ancha USFS Wilderness) 34E 05' Tonto National Monument B Maintenance Station (Tonto National Forest) Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) SLAMS (ADEQ SO2) SPM (PDMI PM10) Neighborhood Source Impact 3560 SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 3390 ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 4910 110E 56' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE, Bscat, MET Class I Regional Visibility 5133 33E 39' 111E 07' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE, O3 Class I Regional Visibility 2579 32E 49 109E 43' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2950 33E 26 112E 05' ADEQ PM10, Speciated PM2.5 SPM, STN Neighborhood Population 324 Graham County Safford (523 Tenth Ave.) Maricopa County Bethune Elementary School (1310 S. 15th Ave.) Opened 01/03/2003 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 100 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Objective Elev. (feet) 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 Rd.) 33E 17' 111E 49' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1171 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 101 Parameters Measured Classification Scale Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Higley (15500 S. Higley Rd.) 33E 18' 111E 43' MCESD Humboldt Mountain (Pine Mountain wilderness) 33E 58' 111E 47' Maryvale (6180 W. Encanto) 33E 28' Mesa (370 S. Brooks) Classification Scale MET, PM10 SLAMS (MET) SPM (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1250 MCESD O3 SLAMS Regional Background/ Transport 5230 112E 20' MCESD CO, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1050 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 Palo Verde (36248 W. Elliot Rd.) 33E 20' 112E 50' ADEQ NO2, O3, Pb, PM10 SLAMS Regional Background 870 Phoenix B Durango Complex (2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd.) 33E 25' 112E 07' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 1575 Phoenix B Greenwood (I-10 and 27th Avenue) 33E 28' 112E 07' MCESD CO, MET, NO2, PM10 SLAMS Microscale Maximum Concentration 1110 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 102 Parameters Measured Objective Elev. (feet) Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Phoenix B JLG Supersite (4530 N. 17 Ave.) 33E 30' 112E 05' ADEQ Bscat, CO, NO2, Met, O3, PM10, PM2.5, Speciated PM2.5 SPM (Urban Haze) SLAMS (CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5) PAMS (Type 2) STN Neighborhood Population 1115 Phoenix B North Mountain Summit (North Mountain) 33E 35' 112E 05' ADEQ Visibility SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1640 Phoenix B Salt River (3045 S. 22nd Ave.) 33E 21' 112E 06' ADEQ, MCESD PM10 SPM Middle Maximum Concentration 984 Phoenix B Transmissometer (Phoenix Baptist Hospital) 33E 29' 112E 04' ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1115 Phoenix B Transmissometer Receiver (Sunshine Hotel) 33E 29' 112E 04' ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1115 Phoenix B Vehicle Emissions Laboratory (600 N. 40th St.) 33E 27' 112E 00' ADEQ MET, Bscat, Speciated PM2.5 SPM (Urban Haze), STN Urban Meteorology 1050 Phoenix - West Forty Third (3940 W Broadway) 33E24' 112E 08' MCESD MET, PM10, Speciated PM2.5 SPM (PM10), STN Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 1030 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 103 Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Phoenix B West Indian School (3315 W. Indian School Rd.) 33E30' 112E 08' MCESD CO, MET NAMS (CO) SLAMS (MET) Micro Maximum Concentration/ Source Impact 1115 Pinnacle Peak (25000 N. Windy Walk) 33E 42' 111E 51' MCESD MET, O3 SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 2625 Rio Verde (25608 N. Forest Rd.) 33E 43' 111E 40' MCESD O3 SLAMS Urban High Downwind Concentration 1640 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 Surprise (18600 N. Reems) 33E 39' 112E 33' MCESD CO, O3, PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 1312 Tempe B Daley Park (College Avenue) 33E 35' 111E 55' MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3 SPM Neighborhood Population 1181 Tempe B Community Center (3340 S. Rural Rd.) 33E 23' 111E 55' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 1110 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 104 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) 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, Speciated PM2.5 SPM (ADEQ PM2.5) SLAMS (MET, NO2, O3) NAMS (CO, PM10), STN Neighborhood Population 1096 Bullhead City (990 Hwy 95) 35E 09' 114E 33' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 560 Kingman B Praxair NE #1 (I-40 and Griffith Road) 35" 01' 114E 08' Praxair PM10 SPM Middle Source Impact 3000 Kingman B Praxair SW #2 (I-40 and Griffith Road) 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 Mohave County Navajo County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 105 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Ajo B ADOT (Well Road) 32E 25' 112E 50' ADEQ Green Valley (601 N. La Canada Dr.) 31E 52' 110E 59' Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (1 mile SSW of visitor center) 31E 58' Rillito (8820 W. Water) Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) PM10, MET SLAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1800 PDEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population Explosure 2903 112E 48' ADEQ PM10, IMPROVE SLAMS (PM10) Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 1847 32E 25' 111E 10' ADEQ, APCC PM10 SLAMS (ADEQ) SPM (APCC) Neighborhood Source Impact 2055 Saguaro National Park B East (3905 S. Old Spanish Trail) 32E 11' 110E 44' PDEQ O3, IMPROVE SPM, Class I Urban Visibility 3081 Saguaro National Park B West 32E 14' 111E 10' ADEQ Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 2473 South Tucson (1601 S. 6th Ave.) 32E 12' 110E 58' ADEQ, PDEQ PM10 SPM (ADEQ Urban Haze) SLAMS (PDEQ) Neighborhood Population 2440 Tucson B 22nd & Alvernon (3895 E. 22nd) 32E 12' 110E 54' PDEQ CO NAMS Micro Maximum Concentration 2516 Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 106 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Objective Elev. (feet) Tucson B Broadway & Swan (4625 E. Broadway) 32E 13' 110E 53' PDEQ PM10 NAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 2532 Tucson B Cherry & Glenn (2745 N. Cherry) 32E 15' 110E 56' PDEQ CO SPM Neighborhood Population 2400 Tucson B Children=s Park (400 W. River Rd.) 32E 17' 110E 58' PDEQ CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, Speciated PM2.5 SPM ( PM2.5) SLAMS ( NO2, O3) NAMS (CO), STN Urban, Neighborhood Population 2286 Tucson – Coachline (9597 N Coachline Blvd) 32E 22' 111E 07' PDEQ O3, PM2.5 SPM Neighborhood Population Tucson B Corona De Tucson (22000 S. Houghton Rd.) 32E 00' 110E 47' ADEQ, PDEQ PM10 SPM (ADEQ Urban Haze) SLAMS (PDEQ) Regional Background 3078 Tucson B 22nd & Craycroft (1237 S. Beverly) 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 B Downtown (190 W. Pennington) 32E 13' 110E 58' PDEQ CO, O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2365 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 107 Parameters Measured Classification Scale 2227 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Tucson B Fairgrounds (11330 S. Houghton) 32E 03' 110E46' PDEQ O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 3078 Tucson B Geronimo (2498 N. Geronimo) 32E 15' 110E 57' PDEQ PM10 SPM (For AQI Purposes Only) Neighborhood Population 2580 Tucson B Golf Links & Kolb (2601 S. Kolb Rd) 32E 11' 110E 50' PDEQ CO SPM Neighborhood Population 2660 Tucson B 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 B Prince Road (1016 W. Prince Rd.) 32E 16' 110E 59' PDEQ PM10 NAMS Micro Source Impact 2315 Tucson – Rose Elementary (710 W. Michigan St.) 32E 10' 110E 58' PDEQ PM10 SPM Urban Population 2550 Tucson B Santa Clara (6910 S. Santa Clara Ave.) 32E 07' 110E 58' PDEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2540 Tucson B Tangerine (12101 N. Camino De Oeste) 32E 25' 110E 04' PDEQ O3, PM10 SLAMS Urban Population 2638 Tucson B Tumamoc Hill (North face of Tumamoc Hill) 32E 13' 111E 12 ADEQ Visibility SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 2825 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 108 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Tucson Transmissometer B 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 B U of A Central (1100 N. Fremont Ave.) 32E 13' 110E 57' ADEQ Bscat, PM10 SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 2580 Apache Junction B Fire Station (3955 E. Superstition Blvd. TE) 33E 25' 111E 30' PCAQCD PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1750 Apache Junction B Maintenance Yard (305 E. Superstition) 33E 25' 111E 52' PCAQCD CO, O3, PM10, MET SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1750 Casa Grande B Airport (660 W. Aero Dr.) 32E 54' 111E 46 PCAQCD CO ,O3, MET SLAMS Neighborhood Population/ Transport 1410 Casa Grande B Downtown (401 Marshall Rd.) 32E 52' 111E 45' PCAQCD PM10, PM2.5 Neighborhood Population 1378 Coolidge B Maintenance Yard (212 E. Broadway) 32E 58' 111E 30' PCAQCD PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1444 Combs B Queen Creek (301 E. Combs Rd. ) 33E 13' 111E 33' PCAQCD O3 SPM Neighborhood Population 1178 Pinal County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 109 SLAMS Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Cowtown Road (37580 W. Maricopa) 33E 00' 111E 59' PCAQCD MET, PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 1214 Eloy B City Complex (620 N. Main St.) 32E 45' 111E 33' PCAQCD PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1562 Hayden Junction (Hwy 177) 33E 00' 110E 50' ASARCO SO2 SPM Unknown Source Impact 2080 Mammoth B County Complex (118 S. Catalina) 32E 43' 110E 39' PCAQCD PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population/ Background 2920 Maricopa (44625 W. Garvey Rd.) 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 SLAMS Regional Background/ Transport 1870 Pinal County Housing Complex (970 N Eleven Mile Corner Rd.) 32E 54' 111E 34' PCAQCD MET, PM10 SPM Microscale Source Impact 1440 Queen Valley (10 S. Queen Anne Dr.) 32E 17' 111E 17' ADEQ IMPROVE, O3 Class I Regional Visibility 2080 Riverside Maintenance Yard (56964 E. Florence) 33E 06' 110E 58' PCAQCD PM10 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 540 San Manuel (1st & Douglas Ave.) 32E 36' 110E 38' ADEQ SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 1089 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 110 Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Long. Operator 32E 53' 111E 57 PCAQCD PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 1296 31E 20' 110E 56' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5, MET SLAMS Neighborhood Population 3858 Clarkdale B NW (#2) (northwest of cement plant) 34E 45' 112E 05' PCC PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 3500 Clarkdale B 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, Class I Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 4918 Ike=s Backbone (Pine Mountain Wilderness) 34E 20' 111E 40' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 5232 Nelson B East (1/2 mile east of Flintkote lime plant) 35E 31' 113E17' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 5472 Prescott (221 S. Cortez) Closed 3/01/2003 34E 32' 112E 28' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 5210 Stanfield (36697 W. Papago Dr.) Lat. Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Santa Cruz Nogales B Post Office (300 N. Morley Ave.) Yavapai County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 111 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. 34E 35' 112E 19' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population Dome Valley (5110 S. Avenue 18 E) Opened 5/13/2003 32E 29' 114E 46' ADEQ MET SPM N/A Special Study 180 San Luis (767 N. 1st Ave.) Opened 5/13/2003 32E 29' 114E 46' ADEQ MET SPM N/A Special Study 115 Yuma B Courthouse (2440 W. 28th St.) 32E 40' 114E 39' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 210 Yuma Game & Fish (9140 E. 28th St.) Opened 4/14/2003 32E 40' 114E 28' ADEQ O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 200 Yuma Mesa (2186 W. County 15th St.) Opened 5/13/2003) 32E 36' 114E 38' ADEQ MET SPM N/A Special Study 190 Yuma Valley (11486 S. Farm Rd.) Opened 5/13/03) 32E 37' 114E 45' ADEQ MET SPM N/A Special Study 90 Prescott Valley (7601 E. Civic Circle) Opened 3/12/2003 Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) 5100 Yuma County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 112 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2003 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Agua Prieta B Fire Station (Calle 6 and Avenue 15) 31E19' 109E33' ADEQ CO, PM10, PM2.5 SPM Neighborhood Population 3937 Nogales B Fire Station (Northwest corner of Lopaz and Mantels) 31E20' 110E57' ADEQ PM10, MET SPM Neighborhood Population 3945 Mexico Sites shown in the site index table are based on the best information available at the date of publication. N/A – Not available ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 113 Appendix 2 – Acronyms and Abbreviations ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation AgBMP Agricultural Best Management Practices APCC Arizona Portland Cement Co. APS Arizona Public Service Area A Designated Phoenix metropolitan area ASARCO ASARCO, Inc. ASU Arizona State University Babs Light absorption Bag Light absorption by gasses Bap Light absorption by particles Bext Light extinction Bscat Light scattering Bsg Light scattering by gasses Bsp Light scattering by particles BACM Best Available Control Measures BHP BHP Copper, Inc. CAAA 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments CASTNET Clean Air Status and Trends Network CFR Code of Federal Regulations Class I Federally designated park or wilderness area with mandated visibility protection CMSA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area CO Carbon monoxide CTOC Cap and Trade Oversight Committee Delta T Difference between two levels of temperature measurements EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FMIC Ft. McDowell Indian Community FRM Federal Reference Method GRIC Gila River Indian Community HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HART Hazardous Air Response Team HC Hydrocarbon IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments ITEP Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals km Kilometers m Meters MAG Maricopa Association of Governments MCESD Maricopa County Environmental Services Department MET Meteorological measurements (wind, temperature, relative humidity) mm Millimeter Mm-1 Inverse megameter ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 114 MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Fg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter MSM Most Stringent Measures NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAMS National Air Monitoring Station NEAP Natural Event Action Plan NM National Monument NO Nitric Oxide NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOX Sum of NO and NO2 NPS National Park Service O3 Ozone PAMS Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station Pb Lead PCC Phoenix Cement Company PDEQ Pima County Department of Environmental Quality PDMI Phelps Dodge Miami Inc. PCAQCD Pinal County Air Quality Control District PM Particulate Matter PM2.5 Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns PM10 Particulate Matter < 10 microns ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million Pressure Barometric air pressure RH Relative Humidity SCE Southern California Edison SIP State Implementation Plan SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Station SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SO4-- Sulfate SPM Special Purpose Monitor SRP Salt River Project SRPMIC Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community STN Speciation Trends Network TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance TEP Tucson Electric Power TSP Total Suspended Particulates U of A University of Arizona USFS U.S. Forest Service VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VIOC Visibility Index Oversight Committee Wind Wind speed and direction WMAT White Mountain Apache Tribe ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 115 Appendix 3 – Related Web Sites AirWeb: Protecting Air Quality 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 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! 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 This Web site is a directory to numerous environmental subjects, from air to wildlife. Environmental Protection Agency On EPA’s Web site, you can find information about the federal government’s role in environmental protection. EPA – Air and Radiation 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 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 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 airrelated information, and contact information for experts on specific issues regarding air and environment. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 116 EPA – Region 9 Learn about EPA activities in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada and the Pacific Islands at the Region 9 website. FirstGov 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 Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Project 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. The site lists the member tribes and includes information about environmental monitoring programs. Maricopa County Air Quality Information 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 NTEC is a tribal government membership organization with 160 member tribes that work to protect and preserve the reservation environment. National Weather Service 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 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 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 Current air quality information from the Pinal County Air Quality Control District. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 117 Pollen Information 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 Information about our national parks. Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) The Visibility Information Exchange Web System is an online exchange of visibility data, research, and ideas designed to support the Regional Haze Rule enacted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce regional haze in national parks and wilderness areas. In addition to this primary goal, VIEWS supports global efforts to better understand the effects of air pollution on visibility and to improve air quality in general. Weather and Air Quality in the Southwest This site contains weather forecasts and air quality information for Phoenix and Tucson. Western States Air Resources Council WESTAR is composed of 15 western states that have come together to discuss and exchange information on western regional air quality issues. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 118 Appendix 4 B Maps This section contains maps displaying monitor locations and location information. Ambient Air Monitors 2003 This map shows the location of monitors operated by ADEQ, county agencies, private industry and federal agencies. Air Quality Monitor Networks B 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. Ozone Network Statewide This map displays the location of ozone monitors operated by ADEQ, private industry, county agencies, and the National Park Service. Particulate Network Statewide The location of particulate monitors is shown on this map. SO2 Network Statewide This map shows the location of the SO2 monitors operating in 2003 and includes the maintenance and nonattainment areas. Visibility Network Statewide Urban and regional haze visibility monitoring sites are shown on this map. Nephelometers, Transmissometers, Cameras This map shows the location of each of these types of monitors that ADEQ operates for the study of urban and regional visibility. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 119 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 120 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 121 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 122 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 123 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 124 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 125 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 126 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2004, Page 127