2005 AIR QUALITY ANNUAL REPORT (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 2004. 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) 771-2274 or, toll free in Arizona at (800) 234-5677, then enter 771-2274. Our Web site is located at http://www.azdeq.gov/. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 1 Introduction This report presents the results of air quality monitoring conducted throughout Arizona in the 2004 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 14, 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 65, 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 2005, 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 2005, 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) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Ozone (O3) Sulfur Dioxide (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 2005, 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 2005, 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 - Visibility Monitoring Sites Statewide monitoring data if necessary for new or major modifications of major industrial sources. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, 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 manmade 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: 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 • Meadview ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, 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 2004. 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 2005, 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 defined number of important monitoring objectives with the following five site types. Type 1 Site: Upwind and Background Characterization, Type 2 and 2a Sites: Maximum Ozone Precursor Emissions Impact, Type 3 Site: Maximum Ozone Concentration, Type 4 Site: Extreme Downwind Monitoring. 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 2005, Page 9 Table 4: PAMS Installation Time Line Type of Ozone Proposed Installation PAMS Season Type 2 1999 Supersite B 17th Avenue and Campbell, Phoenix Type 2a 2001 South Phoenix B Central and Broadway Type 3 2001 Queen Valley Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Review In 1999, ADEQ expanded the scope of the annual ambient air monitoring network reviews beyond the state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) to include all state networks. 40 CFR '58.20(d) requires states to complete and submit to EPA an annual network review. States are required to commit to and explain the air quality surveillance systems in their state implementation plans. The air quality surveillance systems consist of various sites designated as SLAMS, national air monitoring stations (NAMS) and PAMS. To provide a complete review of the air monitoring network, ADEQ chose to include additional stations classified as special purpose monitoring stations (SPM), which includes urban haze monitoring sites, IMPROVE sites, ADEQ visibility stations located in or near mandatory Class I areas, and source-oriented monitoring sites operated independently by the permittee. The annual network review determines conformance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D (Network Design Criteria) and Appendix E (Probe and Path Siting Criteria) for sites classified as SLAMS, NAMS, PAMS and SPM. Class I monitoring sites are subject to specific siting and operational guidance developed by the IMPROVE Steering Committee. Results of the annual network review are used to determine how well the network is achieving its required air monitoring objectives, how well it meets data users= needs and how it should be modified (through termination of existing stations, relocation of stations, establishment of new stations, monitoring of additional parameters and/or changes to the sampling schedule) to continue to meet its objectives and data needs. The main purpose of the review is to improve the network so that it provides adequate, representative and useful air quality data. In the upcoming year, ADEQ anticipates developing or refining existing network plans for the NAAQS and urban haze ambient monitoring programs that will define ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 10 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 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 11 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: • Light scattering by gases (Bsg) • Light absorption by gases (Bag) • Light scattering by particles (Bsp) • Light absorption by particles (Bap) Mathematically, the relationship is expressed as Bext = Bsg + Bag + Bsp + Bap, where the units are inverse megameters (Mm-1), or the amount of light removed per million meters of distance a viewer looks through. Total optical light extinction (Bext) is measured directly with a device called a transmissometer. The transmissometer generates visible light in the same wavelength (550 nanometers) as the human eye detects and then transmits that light beam over a sight path of several kilometers to a photocell detector. The transmissometer=s design and operation allow its data to be directly correlated with human perception of visibility through the atmosphere. Transmissometer data are also used to check the general accuracy of the sum of the components of light extinction as measured by other continuous monitors. 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. 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 12 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 2005, Page 13 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) and particulate matter 2.5 microns in size and smaller (PM25). These pollutants are monitored in Arizona by industry, county air pollution districts, the National Park Service, Indian tribes and ADEQ. The 2004 data measurements by criteria pollutant Figure 3 – ADEQ’s Phoenix James L. Guyton Supersite begin below. The data tables in this monitoring station. 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 36. Visibility monitoring information is presented beginning on Page 58. Criteria Pollutants B 2004 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 2005, Page 14 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 PM 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 eight-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 2004, 15 monitors were operated in greater Phoenix; 6 monitors were operated in metropolitan Tucson. Monitors in Apache Junction and Casa Grande were closed during 2002. Table 5 presents the 2004 CO data. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 15 Table 5: 2004 Carbon Monoxide Data (in ppm) (NAAQS 1-hour 35 ppm, Eight-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 Buckeye S (Opened 09/01/2004) Central Phoenix Dysart S Glendale S Greenwood JLG Supersite Maryvale S (Closed 03/31/2004) Mesa S North Phoenix S South Phoenix S South Scottsdale S Tempe S West Chandler S West Indian School West Phoenix 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.4 88 5.0 2.1 6.1 7.6 4.9 4.4 1.8 3.2 7.3 4.9 3.4 1.1 2.4 4.9 4.2 3.3 1.1 2.1 4.3 4.0 98 98 99 99 99 5.7 5.0 3.5 2.9 99 3.0 4.1 6.7 3.4 3.1 2.9 6.9 7.7 2.6 3.7 5.9 3.1 2.6 2.7 6.7 7.5 1.7 2.2 3.5 2.4 1.9 2.1 4.7 5.2 1.7 2.0 3.3 2.4 1.7 2.1 4.6 5.1 98 96 99 95 96 98 96 96 4.0 3.6 4.0 2.2 3.6 5.5 4.0 3.4 3.9 2.2 3.5 4.7 2.1 1.6 2.7 1.4 2.1 3.7 2.0 1.6 2.2 1.4 2.1 2.5 99 99 99 99 99 99 Pima County 22nd St. & Alvernon 22nd St. & Craycroft Cherry & Glenn S Children’s Park Golf Links & Kolb S Tucson Downtown * Valid Data Recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling hours. There were 8,784 sampling hours in 2004. 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. Maricopa County monitors operate during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to December 31; 5112 hours in 2004. Pima County monitors operate during January 1 to May 1 and October 1 to December 31; 5112 hours in 2004. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 16 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. 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 17 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 2004 at eight urban locations and near three power plants. Table 6 presents the NO2 data available in 2004. Table 6: 2004 Nitrogen Dioxide (in ppm) (NAAQS Annual Mean 0.053 ppm) Site or City Annual Average Maximum Value One-Hour Average Valid Data * Recovery (%) 0.0013 0.026 94 N/A 0.045 88 0.0247 0.0314 N/A N/A 0.0194 0.0238 0.077 0.104 0.075 0.039 0.076 0.090 95 97 99 99 92 97 0.0153 0.0159 0.059 0.063 99 99 Apache County Springerville – Coyote Hills Maricopa County Buckeye (Opened 08/01/04) Central Phoenix Greenwood JLG Supersite S Palo Verde S South Scottsdale West Phoenix Pima County 22nd St. & Craycroft Children’s Park * Valid Data Recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling hours. There were 8,784 sampling hours in 2004. 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 Monitors: Palo Verde operates during summer ozone season, April 1 to October 31; 5136 hours Phoenix JLG Supersite operates during winter CO season, January 1 to March 31 and November 1 to December 31; 3648 hours in 2004. N/A – Data not available ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 18 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 11μg/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 2004, 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 2004 from the monitors near copper smelters and in urban areas. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 19 Table 7: 2004 Sulfur Dioxide (in μg/m3) (Primary NAAQS Annual Average 80 μg/m3[0.030 ppm]), 24-hour Average 365 μg/m3[0.14 ppm] Secondary NAAQS 3-hour 1300 μg/m3 [0.5 ppm]) Maximum Value Annual Average Site or City 3-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery* (%) Apache County TEP – Springerville – Coyote Hills 3 10 8 18 13 91 43 931 928 231 229 99 40 793 752 332 318 99 47 1076 911 264 231 98 26 508 506 118 105 99 22 550 524 113 102 99 10 293 220 79 50 97 13 326 289 99 81 99 11 319 307 80 49 99 7 4 31 18 29 18 24 16 21 13 89 94 4 31 26 16 10 99 13 326 304 53 49 98 4 26 26 10 8 99 Gila County ASARCO – Globe Highway ASARCO – Hayden – Garfield AVE ASARCO – Montgomery Ranch Hayden – Old Jail, ADEQ Hayden – Old Jail, ASARCO Miami – Ridgeline PDMI – Miami – Jones Ranch PDMI – Miami – Town Site Maricopa County Central Phoenix South Scottsdale Pima County 22nd St. & Craycroft Pinal County ASARCO - Hayden Junction San Manuel * Valid Data Recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled sampling hours. There were 8,784 sampling hours in 2004. 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 20 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 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 21 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 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 population 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 2004, 35 reporting O3 monitors 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 2004 Arizona O3. Table 8: 2004 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (%) .080 .078 .075 .075 99 .082 .080 .077 .076 99 .097 .092 .088 .085 97 .110 .098 .098 .092 96 .088 .080 .071 .070 40 # .092 .100 .081 .091 .093 .079 .089 .088 .078 .087 .088 .078 99 97 98 Cochise County Chiricahua NM Entrance Station Coconino County Grand Canyon NP Hance Gila County Tonto NM S Maricopa County Blue Point BuckeyeS (Opened 08/01/04) Cave CreekS Central Phoenix Dysart S ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 22 Table 8: 2004 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Falcon Field S Fountain Hills Glendale S Humboldt Mt. S JLG Supersite North Phoenix Palo Verde S Pinnacle Peak Rio VerdeS South Phoenix South Scottsdale Tempe S West Chandler S West Phoenix Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (%) .093 .098 .100 .089 .099 .110 .080 .084 .107 .089 .091 .095 .080 .097 .087 .095 .091 .088 .088 .099 .079 .082 .092 .088 .087 .088 .078 .089 .087 .095 .089 .087 .086 .096 .078 .080 .092 .086 .086 .086 .078 .089 .086 .089 .089 .086 .085 .094 .078 .079 .091 .085 .084 .084 .078 .088 98 98 99 98 99 97 99 95 84 98 95 97 99 98 .088 .083 .077 .077 88 .079 .082 .074 .075 .073 .085 .076 .076 .078 .078 .077 .073 .074 .072 .084 .075 .076 .078 .077 .077 .072 .071 .071 .082 .073 .073 .076 .076 .077 .071 .070 .070 .082 .073 .070 .074 99 99 97 99 99 99 100 99 99 .084 .077 .080 .078 .074 .093 .079 .077 .069 .072 .073 .092 .079 .076 .068 .072 .072 .092 .079 .075 .067 .071 .072 .087 98 98 95 100 99 99 Navajo County Petrified Forest NP Pima County 22nd & Craycroft Children’s Park Coachline Green Valley Rose Elementary Saguaro National Park East Tangerine Tucson Downtown Tucson Fairgrounds 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 2005, Page 23 Table 8: 2004 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Valid Data Recovery* (%) .090 .085 .081 .080 95 .083 .082 .082 .081 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 8,784 sample hours in 2004. 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 April 1 to November 1; 5,136 sample hours. # Less than 75% data recovery; does not satisfy EPA summary criteria. Table 9: 2004 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-hour Averages (NAAQS Eight-hour 0.08 ppm) Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. Valid Sample Days * .073 .072 .072 .070 0 360 .077 .076 .074 .072 0 359 .080 .078 .077 .077 0 206 .081 .077 .076 .075 0 352 .068 .067 .064 .058 0 88 # .079 .078 .074 .077 .077 .077 .073 .077 .076 .075 .070 .072 .076 .074 .065 .070 0 0 0 0 214 358 210 211 Cochise County Chiricahua NM Entrance Station Coconino County Grand Canyon NP Hance Gila County Tonto NM S Maricopa County Blue Point Buckeye S (Opened 08/01/04) Cave CreekS Central Phoenix Dysart S Falcon Field S ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 24 Table 9: 2004 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-hour Averages (NAAQS Eight-hour 0.08 ppm) Site or City Fountain Hills Glendale S Humboldt Mt. S JLG Supersite North Phoenix Palo Verde S Pinnacle Peak Rio VerdeS South Phoenix South Scottsdale Tempe S West Chandler S West Phoenix Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. .077 .082 .081 .077 .087 .075 .071 .083 .079 .081 .078 .073 .080 .077 .080 .080 .076 .084 .074 .070 .077 .073 .079 .072 .072 .077 .076 .079 .080 .073 .082 .073 .069 .077 .073 .077 .072 .072 .074 .075 .076 .078 .072 .080 .072 .068 .074 .072 .073 .072 .070 .072 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valid Sample Days * 363 214 212 362 356 213 344 179 362 346 206 213 364 .084 .072 .071 .071 0 317 .073 .071 .069 .071 .067 .075 .072 .070 .071 .072 .071 .068 .070 .065 .074 .069 .070 .071 .071 .069 .068 .067 .064 .073 .069 .064 .066 .069 .068 .068 .066 .064 .073 .068 .063 .064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 366 366 356 365 366 361 366 365 362 .070 .069 0 358 Navajo County Petrified Forest NP Pima County 22nd St. & Craycroft Children’s Park Coachline Green Valley Rose Elementary Saguaro NP East Tangerine Tucson Downtown Tucson Fairgrounds Pinal County Apache Junction Maintenance Yard Casa Grande Airport Combs S Maricopa S Pinal Air Park S Queen Valley S .070 .070 .072 .064 .072 .069 .070 .062 .067 .069 .070 .060 .065 .068 .070 .059 .064 .067 0 0 0 0 360 202 214 213 .077 .076 .074 .073 0 214 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 25 Table 9: 2004 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-hour Averages (NAAQS Eight-hour 0.08 ppm) Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. Valid Sample Days * .082 .080 .078 .077 0 203 .075 .073 .073 .073 0 214 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 sample days for non-seasonal monitors in 2004 was 366. A Valid Sample Day has 18 or more hours of valid data recovery. S Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to November 1; 214 sample days in the season. # Less than 75% data recovery; does not satisfy EPA summary criteria. 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, although some of the organic carbon in the aerosol is secondary, having been formed by the complex photochemistry of gaseous volatile organic compounds. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 26 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. PM2.5 concentrations tend to be at their highest in the central portions of urban areas, ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 27 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 or a beta attenuation mass monitor (BAM) which utilizes a beam sensing through a paper tape. The 2004 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 included for those sites in the Phoenix metropolitan area that were required to change to everyday monitoring from every sixth day. BAM data are included for sites in Pima County. Data from collocated ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 28 monitors are included if available. 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 2004. 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: 2004 PM10 Data (in μg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 50μg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 μg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 μg/m3 after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 μg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 μg/m3. 24-Hour Valid Annual Average Data Site or City Method Average Max 2nd Recovery* (%) Value High Apache County TEP – Springerville – Coalyard TEOM 13.4 128.7 75.0 99 TEP – Springerville – Coyote Hills TEOM 10.2 68.6 34.8 99 Cochise County Douglas Red Cross Dichot/ Partisol 26.3 56 52 97 Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (1) Partisol 14.7 44 37 98 Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (2) Partisol 17.3 41 41 100 Dichot/ Partisol 16.0 42 42 92 11.1 32 20 98 Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School Sedona Post Office Partisol ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 29 Table 10: 2004 PM10 Data (in μg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 50μg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 μg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 μg/m3 after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 μg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 μg/m3. 24-Hour Valid Annual Average Data Site or City Method Average Max 2nd Recovery* (%) Value High Gila County Hayden – Old Jail, ADEQ (1) Dichot/ Partisol 27.5 55 47 95 Hayden – Old Jail, ADEQ (2) # (Closed 6/30/2004) Dichot 25.6 53 38 93 PDMI – Miami – Golf Course Dichot 16.9 40 32 93 Miami – Ridgeline, PDMI Dichot 10.2 26 24 100 Payson Well Site Partisol 18.9 52 49 93 Dichot 17.0 99 34 100 Dichot 42.4 122 108 97 Dichot 41.8 103 63 100 Hi-Vol/ TEOM 39.9 82 81 91 Central Phoenix TEOM 36.6 94 88 93 Central Phoenix Hi-Vol 32.3 81 55 98 Chandler Hi-Vol 39.6 150 80 100 Durango Complex 3 Hi-Vol/ TEOM 51.6 139 122 99 Dysart Hi-Vol 27.3 94 80 100 Glendale Hi-Vol 25.7 69 47 97 Greenwood Hi-Vol 44.3 100 82 100 Higley 3 Hi-Vol/ TEOM 47.9 159 150 98 Graham County Safford Maricopa County Bethune Elementary School (1) Bethune Elementary School (2) # (Opened 10/19/2004) Buckeye # (Opened 8/01/2004) 3 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 30 Table 10: 2004 PM10 Data (in μg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 50μg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 μg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 μg/m3 after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 μg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 μg/m3. 24-Hour Valid Annual Average Data Site or City Method Average Max 2nd Recovery* (%) Value High Maryvale # (Closed 04/01/2004) Hi-Vol 29.1 46 42 100 Mesa Hi-Vol 23.2 49 40 100 North Phoenix Hi-Vol 24.8 46 43 97 Palo Verde Dichot 14.5 42 34 89 South Phoenix Hi-Vol 45.6 132 126 95 South Scottsdale Hi-Vol 26.1 77 41 100 West Chandler Hi-Vol 29.9 70 55 100 West Phoenix Hi-Vol 36.9 100 72 100 West Forty Third 3 Hi-Vol/ TEOM 61.1 145 133 96 Partisol 18.2 48 39 100 Partisol 14.9 41 39 98 Ajo Partisol 19.3 43 42 90 Broadway & Swan Hi-Vol 20.7 35 34 100 Corona De Tucson Hi-Vol 12.4 37 24 98 BAM 13.6 127 96 97 Hi-Vol 26.8 119 100 98 Prince Road Hi-Vol 28.4 67 50 100 Rillito, ADEQ Dichot 32.2 93 92 100 Rillito, APCC Hi-Vol 26.9 130 58 98 Mohave County Bullhead City Navajo County Show Low Pima County Green Valley 2 Orange Grove 1 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 31 Table 10: 2004 PM10 Data (in μg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 50μg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 μg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 μg/m3 after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 μg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 μg/m3. 24-Hour Valid Annual Average Data Site or City Method Average Max 2nd Recovery* (%) Value High Santa Clara Hi-Vol 20.4 41 41 98 South Tucson Hi-Vol 29.2 149 117 96 Tangerine Hi-Vol 14.7 34 26 98 Apache Junction Fire Station Hi-Vol 18.4 35 35 98 Casa Grande Downtown Hi-Vol 24.4 52 47 95 Coolidge Maintenance Yard Hi-Vol 24.5 57 54 97 Eloy City Complex Hi-Vol 27.8 46 46 100 Mammoth County Complex Hi-Vol 11.8 30 21 98 Pinal Air Park Hi-Vol 20.2 39 35 100 Pinal County Housing Complex (1) Hi-Vol 47.1 155 116 98 Pinal County Housing Complex (2) Hi-Vol 35.0 113 109 95 Riverside Maintenance Yard Hi-Vol 15.2 34 32 100 Stanfield Hi-Vol 33.9 80 76 98 Partisol 42.6 140 109 98 Clarkdale – NW (#2) # Dichot 14.7 36 31 79 Clarkdale – SE (#1) Dichot 19.8 41 40 95 Prescott Valley Partisol 12.9 31 27 98 Partisol 35.5 114 102 90 Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma Courthouse (1) # ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 32 Table 10: 2004 PM10 Data (in μg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 50μg/m3, 24-hour Average 150 μg/m3) Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 150 μg/m3 after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 μg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 μg/m3. 24-Hour Valid Annual Average Data Site or City Method Average Max 2nd Recovery* (%) Value High Yuma Courthouse (2) # (Opened 07/2/2004) Partisol 37.5 90 58 87 Agua Prieta Fire Station Dichot 60.5 128 119 92 Sonora Nogales Fire Station Dichot 50.2 114 114 95 Mexico Bold denotes an exceedance, defined as any daily value greater then 155 μg/m3 and any annual average value greater than 50 μg/m3 when rounded to the nearest 1 μg/m3. 1 2 3 Samples collected every day - 366 sample days in 2004. Samples collected every hour - 8784 sample hours in 2004. Samples changed from every 6th day with a Hi-Vol sampler to every hour with a TEOM. (1) Indicates the Primary monitor (used for NAAQS compliance) in a collocated pair of monitors. (2) Indicates the Secondary monitor (used for precision and accuracy) in a collocated pair of monitors. *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled samples. There were 61 monitoring days scheduled in 2004 for monitors on the every 6th day schedule. Rillito - APCC was the only site following the every 3rd day schedule (122 observations in 2004). # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA=s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. Exceedances due to Natural Events and excluded from annual statistics: August 13 August 13 August 13 September 18 209 μg/m3 493 μg/m3 251 μg/m3 288.7 μg/m3 Durango Complex Higley West Forty-Third Buckeye ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 33 Table 11: 2004 PM2.5 Data (in μg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 15μg/m3, 24-hour Average 65 μg/m3) City or Site Method Annual Average 24-Hour Avg Valid Data 2nd Recovery* (%) Max High Cochise County Douglas Red Cross 2 FRM 7.11 22.7 22.5 95 FRM 6.77 22.2 20.7 92 FRM 9.54 27.6 19.3 92 Bethune Elementary School 2 # (Closed 7/01/2004) Speciation ^^ 10.97 25.8 17.3 100 JLG Supersite 3 FRM 9.73 38.0 28.1 97 JLG Supersite 3 Speciation ^^ 9.55 29.8 26.8 96 FRM 7.30 17.1 14.8 91 Speciation ^^ 8.55 19.9 13.2 49 Speciation ^^ 14.80 21.7 20.1 75 West Phoenix 3 (1) FRM 11.60 35.1 32.6 98 West Phoenix 3 (2) FRM 11.01 33.2 31.5 99 Speciation ^^ 9.72 25.0 18.3 90 Children’s Park 3 FRM 5.57 12.2 11.5 98 Children’s Park 2 Speciation ^^ 6.61 13.3 11.9 98 Coachline 4 BAM ++ 6.36 21.1 17.6 98 Geronimo 4 BAM ++ 7.03 25.8 23.2 99 Green Valley 4 BAM ++ 3.50 11.2 9.9 94 Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School 2 Gila County Payson Well Site 2 Maricopa County 3 Tempe Community Center # (Closed 7/26/2004) Vehicle Emissions Laboratory # (Opened 7/02/2004) West Forty Third 2 # (Closed 3/16/2004) 2 West Phoenix # (Opened 3/22/2004) Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 34 Table 11: 2004 PM2.5 Data (in μg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 15μg/m3, 24-hour Average 65 μg/m3) City or Site Method 24-Hour Avg Valid Data Annual 2nd Recovery* Average Max High (%) Orange Grove 1 FRM 5.79 16.5 15.6 95 Rose Elementary 4 BAM ++ 6.32 21.0 20.2 97 Apache Junction Fire Station 3 # FRM 5.51 17.0 12.9 90 Casa Grande Downtown 2 FRM 7.13 16.6 13.7 100 Nogales Post Office 2 (1) FRM 10.83 28.0 25.1 97 Nogales Post Office 2 (2) FRM 10.40 25.9 25.8 95 Pinal County Santa Cruz County *Valid data recovery is the percentage of valid samples collected of the total number of scheduled samples. ++ Non Reference method. ^^ Speciation monitor; not to be used for compliance with the NAAQS. 1 Samples collected every day – 366 sample days in 2004. Samples collected every sixth day B 61 sample days in 2004. 3 Samples collected every third day B 122 sample days in 2004. 4 Samples collected every hour B 8784 sample hours in 2004. 2 (1) Indicates the Primary monitor (used for NAAQS compliance) in a collocated pair of monitors. (2) Indicates the Secondary monitor (used for precision and accuracy) in a collocated pair of monitors. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA=s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 35 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 2003 or 2004. The data are presented in Table 12 and Table 13. 2003-2004 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Compliance Values by County Table 12. 2003-2004 One-hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) NAAQS for one-hour carbon monoxide: 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: 2003-2004 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) City or Site 2003 Max 2nd Value High 2004 Max 2nd Value High Compliance Value Maricopa County Buckeye S (Opened 09/01/2004) N/A N/A 0.9 0.9 N/A Central Phoenix 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.4 5.4 Dysart S N/A N/A 2.1 1.8 N/A Glendale S 5.7 3.5 6.1 3.2 3.5 Greenwood 6.8 6.8 7.6 7.3 7.3 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 36 Table 12: 2003-2004 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) City or Site JLG Supersite 2003 Max 2nd Value High 2004 Max 2nd Value High Compliance Value 6.7 6.0 4.9 4.9 6.0 Maryvale (Closed 03/31/2004) 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.0 5.7 Mesa S 3.5 3.4 3.0 2.6 3.4 North Phoenix S 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.7 4.0 South Phoenix S 5.8 5.5 6.7 5.9 5.9 South Scottsdale S 4.1 4.0 3.4 3.1 4.0 S 3.8 3.7 3.1 2.6 3.7 West Chandler S 3.9 3.3 2.9 2.7 3.3 West Indian School 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.8 West Phoenix 7.5 7.3 7.7 7.5 7.5 22nd St. & Alvernon 6.0 5.8 4.0 4.0 5.8 22nd St. & Craycroft 4.4 4.3 3.6 3.4 4.3 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 Children’s Park 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 Golf Links & Kolb S 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.8 Tucson Downtown 10.0 9.6 5.5 4.7 9.6 S Tempe Pima County Cherry & Glenn S S Seasonal monitor. Maricopa County monitors operate during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to December 31; 5112 hours in 2004. Pima County monitors operate during January 1 to May 1 and October 1 to December 31; 5112 hours in 2004. N/A – Information not available. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 37 Table 13. 2003-2004 Eight-hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) NAAQS for eight-hour carbon monoxide: The highest of the second-highest values in a two-year period must not exceed 9 ppm. NOTE: Pinal County monitors closed in 2002. 2003-2004 Eight-hour Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Compliance Values by County County Exceedances Violations Maricopa 0 0 Pima 0 0 Summary: 20 of 20 monitors in compliance Table 13: 2003-2004 Eight-hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) City or Site 2003 Max 2nd Value High 2004 Max 2nd Value High Compliance Value Maricopa County Buckeye S (Opened 09/01/2004) N/A N/A 0.5 0.4 N/A Central Phoenix 4.6 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.8 Dysart S N/A N/A 1.1 1.1 N/A Glendale S 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.3 Greenwood 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.3 JLG Supersite 4.8 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 Maryvale (Closed 03/31/2004) 4.2 4.1 3.5 2.9 4.1 Mesa S 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.7 2.2 North Phoenix S 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.1 South Phoenix S 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3 South Scottsdale S 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 Tempe S 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.7 2.4 West Chandler S 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.6 West Indian School 5.4 5.3 4.7 4.6 5.3 West Phoenix 6.2 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.5 2.7 2.6 2.1 2.0 2.6 S Pima County 22nd St. & Alvernon ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 38 Table 13: 2003-2004 Eight-hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) City or Site S 2003 Max 2nd Value High 2004 Max 2nd Value High Compliance Value 22nd St. & Craycroft 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.9 Cherry & Glenn S 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.7 Children’s Park 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Golf Links & Kolb S 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 Tucson Downtown 3.1 2.7 3.7 2.5 2.7 Seasonal monitor. Maricopa County monitors operate during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to December 31; 5112 hours in 2004. Pima County monitors operate during January 1 to May 1 and October 1 to December 31; 5112 hours in 2004. N/A – Information not available. Nitrogen Dioxide The NAAQS for NO2 is 0.053 parts per million (ppm) for an annual average. The Table 18: 2004 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 Apache 0 0 must be based upon hourly data that are at Maricopa 0 0 least 75 percent complete. NO2 annual Pima 0 0 averages near Arizona power plants range from 2 percent to 17 percent of the Summary: 14 of 14 monitors in compliance 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 2004 averages. 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 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3) and cannot be exceeded in a calendar year. The 24-hour block average standard is 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3), not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 39 24-hour blocks which begin at midnight each day. To demonstrate attainment, the second highest 24-hour block average must be based on hourly data that are at least 75 percent complete in each calendar quarter. A 24-hour block average is considered valid if 18 or more valid hourly averages are available. The sum of the valid averages is divided by the number of valid hours to determine the 24-hour average. The secondary three-hour standard is 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3), not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The three-hour averages are determined from successive nonoverlapping three-hour blocks starting at midnight each calendar day. To demonstrate attainment, the second highest three-hour average must be based upon hourly data that are at least 75 percent complete in each calendar quarter. All three hours of the block must be available to calculate a valid average. However, if only one or two hourly averages are available and the three-hour average would exceed the level of the standard when zeroes are substituted for the missing hours, the block would be considered valid. In Arizona in 2004, the maximum concentration sites B all near copper smelters B comply with these standards; the concentrations ranging from 23 to 83 percent of the three-hour, 22 to 91 percent of the 24-hour and 59 percent of the annual average standards. Sites near power plants are close to background levels, with annual averages from less than 1 to 8 μg/m3. See Table 7 for the 2004 averages. Table 15: 2004 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: 14 out of 14 monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 40 Ozone -- One-hour The NAAQS one-hour standard for ozone 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. An exceedance day 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 2004. Therefore, no compliance table for one-hour data is included here. As there have been no violations of the one-hour O3 standard since 1996, on May 15, 2001, EPA found that Maricopa County had reached attainment for the one-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 onehour standard, was submitted to EPA on April 21, 2004. Ozone -- Eight-hour On April 15, 2004, the Phoenix area was designated nonattainment for the new, more stringent, eight-hour ozone standard. The one-hour standard will be revoked one year following the effective date of the eight-hour designation or June 15, 2005. However, certain of the control measures developed and implemented for the one-hour standard are required to remain in place to ensure continued progress toward attainment of the new eight-hour standard. EPA developed the eight-hour O3 standard 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 2002 – 2004. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 41 2002 to 2004 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Table 16: 2002 to 2004 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 Eight-Hour Exceedances * Sites in Violation 2002 2003 2004 Cochise 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Gila Maricopa 55 32 1 1 0 0 0 0 Navajo Pima 3 1 0 0 Pinal 1 5 0 0 Yavapai 4 0 0 0 Yuma N/A 1 0 0 Summary: 39 of 40 monitors in compliance for 2002 to 2004 Table 16: 2002 to 2004 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Bold denotes exceedances and sites in violation. City or Site Fourth-Highest Value 2002 2003 2004 ThreeYear Average Cochise County Chiricahua NM Entrance Station 0.074 0.073 0.070 0.072 0.079 0.073 0.072 0.074 0.087 0.084 0.077 0.082 0.086 0.086 0.075 0.082 Coconino County Grand Canyon NP – Hance Gila County Tonto NM S Maricopa County Blue Point Buckeye S (Opened 08/01/04) Cave Creek S N/A N/A 0.058 # N/A 0.086 0.083 0.076 0.081 Central Phoenix 0.076 0.079 0.074 0.076 Dysart S N/A 0.073 0.065 N/A ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 42 Table 16: 2002 to 2004 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Bold denotes exceedances and sites in violation. City or Site Fourth-Highest Value 2002 2003 2004 ThreeYear Average Falcon Field S 0.084 0.079 0.070 0.077 Fountain Hills 0.086 0.083 0.075 0.081 Glendale S 0.083 0.085 0.076 0.081 Humboldt Mt. S 0.090 0.087 0.078 0.085 JLG Supersite 0.076 0.075 0.072 0.074 North Phoenix 0.085 0.086 0.080 0.083 0.078 0.075 0.072 0.075 0.084 0.083 0.068 0.078 0.085 0.083 0.074 0.080 South Phoenix 0.081 0.076 0.072 0.076 South Scottsdale 0.079 0.079 0.073 0.077 Tempe S 0.080 0.080 0.072 0.077 West Chandler S 0.083 0.078 0.070 0.077 West Phoenix 0.084 0.077 0.072 0.077 0.055 # 0.074 0.071 N/A 22nd St. & Craycroft 0.075 0.073 0.069 0.072 Children’s Park 0.073 0.076 0.068 0.072 Coachline N/A 0.061 # 0.068 N/A Green Valley N/A 0.068 # 0.066 N/A Rose Elementary N/A 0.065 # 0.064 N/A Saguaro NP East 0.077 0.078 0.073 0.076 Tangerine 0.075 0.074 0.068 0.072 Tucson Downtown 0.072 0.068 0.063 0.067 S Palo Verde Pinnacle Peak Rio Verde S Navajo County Petrified Forest NP Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 43 Table 16: 2002 to 2004 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Bold denotes exceedances and sites in violation. City or Site Tucson Fairgrounds Fourth-Highest Value 2002 2003 2004 ThreeYear Average 0.072 0.070 0.064 0.068 Apache Junction - Maintenance Yard 0.079 0.072 0.069 0.073 Casa Grande - Airport 0.077 0.073 0.070 0.073 Combs S 0.068 0.072 0.059 0.066 Maricopa S 0.068 0.075 0.064 0.069 Pinal Air Park S 0.070 0.074 0.067 0.070 Queen Valley 0.083 0.087 0.073 0.081 0.089 0.067 0.077 0.077 N/A 0.078 0.073 N/A Pinal County Yavapai County Hillside S Yuma County Yuma Game & Fish 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 – 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 2005, Page 44 Particulate Matter B PM10 With the delay in adopting the proposed PM10 and PM2.5 standards, 2004 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 μg/m3 for the annual arithmetic mean concentration and 150 μg/m3 for the 24-hour average concentration. The annual standard is attained when the expected annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50μ g/m3. Annual arithmetic means are determined by calculating quarterly (three month) averages of the samples collected during that quarter; a minimum of 75 percent of the samples must be valid to produce the annual mean. The expected annual arithmetic mean is determined by averaging the annual arithmetic mean concentrations for the past three calendar years. This mean is rounded to the nearest 1 μg/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 μg/m3 for comparison with the standard to determine if it is an exceedance (i.e., a sample value of 154 μg/m3 is not an exceedance; a sample value of 155 μg/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 2002 to 2004 expected annual arithmetic means and the expected exceedance rate PM10 data. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 45 Table 17: 2002 to 2004 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3, Standard Conditions) NAAQS: The expected annual arithmetic mean (average of three most recent annual means) is less than or equal to 50 μg/m3. The expected annual arithmetic mean is rounded to nearest 1 μg/m3 for comparison to the standard. 2002 to 2004 PM10 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County County Sites in Sites above Standard Violation 2002 2003 2004 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Summary: 55 of 59 monitors in compliance 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 17: 2002 to 2004 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) Expected City or Site 2002 2003 2004 Annual Mean Apache County TEP – Springerville – Coalyard 13.7 16.2 13.4 14 TEP – Springerville – Coyote Hills 10.9 11.9 10.2 11 Douglas – Red Cross 32.1 30.3 26.3 30 Paul Spur 16.3 19.3 14.7 17 Flagstaff – Middle School 16.6 # 19.8 # 16.0 17 Sedona 15.2 # 26.5 # 11.1 18 Cochise County Coconino County Gila County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 46 Table 17: 2002 to 2004 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) Expected City or Site 2002 2003 2004 Annual Mean Hayden – Old Jail 34.2 # 36.0 27.5 33 Miami – Golf Course 23.0 21.0 16.9 20 Miami – Ridgeline 13.0 15.0 10.2 13 25.5 # 24.3 18.9 22.9 26.1 23.4 17.0 22 Bethune Elementary School (Opened 1/3/2003) N/A 47.2 42.4 N/A Buckeye (Opened 10/19/2004) Central Phoenix – every 6th day monitor Central Phoenix – continuous monitor Chandler N/A N/A 39.9 # N/A 43.1 39.8 32.3 38 42.0 43.0 36.6 41 56.0 49.8 39.6 48 Durango Complex 69.9 62.3 51.6 61 Dysart (Opened 7/16/2003) Glendale N/A 36.3 # 27.3 N/A 39.7 35.6 25.7 34 Greenwood 54.6 51.0 44.3 50 Higley 62.5 61.6 47.9 57 33.4 # 36.6 # N/A N/A 45.1 42.0 # N/A N/A 36.2 33.6 23.2 31 North Phoenix 36.9 33.9 24.8 32 Palo Verde 28.8 26.4 14.5 23 Payson Graham County Safford Maricopa County JLG Supersite (Closed 12/31/2003 – part of urban haze program) Maryvale (Closed 04/01/2004) Mesa ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 47 Table 17: 2002 to 2004 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) Expected City or Site 2002 2003 2004 Annual Mean Salt River (Closed 12/31/2002) South Phoenix 80.5 N/A N/A N/A 59.5 52.0 45.6 52 South Scottsdale 36.7 36.1 26.1 33 West Chandler 38.5 42.4 29.9 37 68.3 # 62.3 61.1 64 53.4 46.4 36.9 46 19.2 # 20.1 18.2 19 15.8 # 18.2 14.9 16 Ajo 18.7 22.7 19.3 20 Broadway & Swan 26.2 26.6 20.7 25 Corona de Tucson 15.3 16.8 12.4 15 Green Valley 19.4 18.7 13.6 17 Orange Grove 32.8 29.8 26.8 30 Prince Road 34.0 31.4 28.4 31 Rillito, ADEQ 37.1 39.5 32.2 36 Rillito, APCC 31.2 33.6 26.9 31 Santa Clara 27.6 26.7 20.4 25 South Tucson 38.5 34.1 29.2 34 Tangerine 18.8 19.3 14.7 18 21.3 # 20.3 N/A N/A N/A 26.7 # 18.4 N/A West Forty Third West Phoenix Mohave County Bullhead City – ADEQ Navajo County Show Low Pima County Pinal County Apache Junction Maintenance Yard (Closed 12/31/2003) Apache Junction Fire Station (Opened 7/1/2003) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 48 Table 17: 2002 to 2004 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) Expected City or Site 2002 2003 2004 Annual Mean Casa Grande Downtown 30.4 # 31.5 24.4 29 Coolidge Maintenance Yard 32.8 # 35.3 24.5 31 Eloy 46.5 # 41.5 27.8 39 Mammoth 18.8 # 16.4 11.8 16 Pinal Air Park 30.2 # 28.6 20.2 26 Pinal County Housing Complex (Opened 8/1/2002) Riverside Maintenance Yard (Opened 3/2003) Stanfield 56.6 # 61.0 47.1 55 N/A 23.9 15.2 N/A 59.7 # 46.1 # 33.9 47 51.3 37.5 42.6 43.8 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 19.0 19.4 14.7 18 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 28.0 23.8 19.8 24 Prescott Valley (Opened 3/12/2003) N/A 13.9 # 12.9 N/A 47.9 # 38.1 35.5 # 41 Agua Prieta – Fire Station 68.4 60.3 60.5 63 Nogales – Fire Station 68.8 65.0 # 50.2 61 Santa Cruz County Nogales Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center/Courthouse Mexico Bold denotes value above the standard. N/A – Not available # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. Notes: For collocated sites, data from the Primary monitor (POC 1) are used for the Annual Average calculations. However, if valid data recovery is between 50% and 75%, data from the Secondary (POC2) monitor can be used. If no Secondary data are available, data substitution can be made following the EPA document, ‘Guideline on Exceptions to Data Requirements for Determining Attainment of Particulate Matter Standards.’ ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 49 2002 to 2004 PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Compliance Values, By County Sites with Exceedances Sites in Violation 2002 2003 2004 Table 18: 2002 to 2004 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3, Standard Conditions) Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Sample values are rounded to the nearest Maricopa 10 μg/m3 to determine exceedance; values Mohave less than or equal to 154 μg/m3 are not exceedances; values greater than or equal to Navajo 155 μg/m3 are exceedances. Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 NAAQS: Expected occurrence of exceedances (samples equal to or greater than 150 μg/m3) is one or less over three consecutive years. 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 Summary: 42 of 59 monitors in compliance Table 18: 2002 to 2004 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) 2002 2003 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 185.0 1 128.7 0 <1 0 76.8 0 68.6 0 <1 127 0 79 0 56 0 <1 63 0 207 6.4 44 0 2.1 49 # 0 60 # 0 42 0 <1 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg 97.1 0 86.6 Douglas Red Cross Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant City or Site 2004 Max 24-Hr Avg Apache County TEP – Springerville – Coalyard TEP – Springerville – Coyote Hills Cochise County Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 50 Table 18: 2002 to 2004 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) 2002 2003 2004 Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 55 # 0 69 # 0 32 0 <1 122 # 0 91 0 55 0 <1 PDMI - Miami – Golf Course 55 0 53 0 40 0 <1 PDMI - Miami – Ridgeline 52 0 59 0 26 0 <1 46 # 0 99 0 52 0 <1 87 0 76 0 99 0 <1 Bethune Elementary School (Opened 1/3/2003) N/A N/A 145 0 122 0 N/A Buckeye E N/A N/A N/A N/A 82 # 0 N/A 81 0 114 0 81 0 <1 96 0 183 3.1 94 0 1.0 Chandler 128 0 240 6.0 150 0 2.0 Durango Complex E 232 12.0 195 6.0 139 0 6.0 Dysart N/A N/A 133 # 0 94 0 N/A Glendale 88 0 151 0 69 0 <1 Greenwood 116 0 166 6.0 100 0 2.0 Higley 138 0 225 6.0 159 1 2.3 City or Site Sedona Post Office Gila County Hayden – Old Jail Payson Well Site Graham County Safford Maricopa County (Opened 10/19/2004) Central Phoenix – every 6th day monitor Central Phoenix – continuous monitor E (Opened 7/16/2003) E ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 51 Table 18: 2002 to 2004 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) 2002 2003 2004 Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance (Closed 12/31/2003 – part of urban haze program) 72 # 0 169 # 6.0 N/A N/A N/A Maryvale 142 0 151 0 46 # 0 <1 Mesa 102 0 176 6.0 49 0 2.0 North Phoenix 80 0 155 6.0 46 0 2.0 Palo Verde 100 0 158 6.4 42 0 2.1 249 12.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South Phoenix 137 0 164 6.0 132 0 2.0 South Scottsdale 64 0 172 6.0 77 0 2.0 West Chandler E 80 0 206 13.7 70 0 4.6 172 # 6.0 157 6.0 145 0 4.0 122 0 158 6.4 100 0 2.1 56 # 0 121 0 48 0 <1 53 # 0 58 0 41 0 <1 Ajo – ADOT 50 0 139 0 43 0 <1 Broadway & Swan 62 0 122 0 35 0 <1 Corona De Tucson 40 0 104 0 37 0 <1 Green Valley 97 0 127 0 127 0 <1 City or Site JLG Supersite (Closed 4/1/2004) Salt River (Closed 12/31/2002) West Forty Third E West Phoenix Mohave County Bullhead City – ADEQ Navajo County Show Low Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 52 Table 18: 2002 to 2004 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) 2002 2003 2004 Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 171 1.0 152 0 119 0 <1 Prince Road 83 0 126 0 67 0 <1 Rillito , ADEQ 70 0 118 0 93 0 <1 Rillito , APCC 199 3.1 256 3.1 130 0 2.1 86 0 146 0 41 0 <1 200 2.0 150 0 149 0 <1 63 0 125 0 34 0 <1 62 # 0 95 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 103 0 35 0 N/A Casa Grande Downtown 69 # 0 99 0 52 0 <1 Coolidge Maintenance Yard 106 # 0 106 0 57 0 <1 Eloy City Complex 146 # 0 154 0 46 0 <1 Mammoth County Complex 53 # 0 89 0 30 0 <1 Pinal Air Park 62 # 0 108 0 39 0 <1 166 # 11.5 289 12.0 155 6 9.8 N/A N/A 101 0 34 0 N/A City or Site Orange Grove E (1-in-3 day schedule) Santa Clara South Tucson Tangerine Pinal County Apache Junction Maintenance Yard (Closed 12/31/2003) Apache Junction Fire Station (Opened 7/1/2003) Pinal County Housing Complex (Opened 8/1/2002) Riverside Maintenance Yard (Opened 3/2003) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 53 Table 18: 2002 to 2004 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in μg/m3) 2002 2003 2004 Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 352 # 12.9 171 # 6.4 80 0 6.4 188 6.0 184 12.3 140 0 6.1 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 127 0 68 0 36 0 0 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 86 0 59 0 41 0 0 Prescott Valley (Opened 3/12/2003) N/A N/A 68 # 0 31 0 N/A 125 # 0 127 0 114 # 0 0 City or Site Stanfield 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. # E Indicates every day monitoring. Phoenix area sites which began every day monitoring in 2004 include: Buckeye, Durango Complex, Higley, and West Forty Third. 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 2004. 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 54 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. In February of 2004, Arizona requested that all parts of the State (except for Indian Country) be designated attainment/unclassifiable for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Table 19: 2002 to 2004 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in μg/m3, local conditions) NAAQS: The three-year average of annual means is less than or equal to 15 μg/m3 2002 to 2004 PM2.5 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Sites in Sites with Exceedances Violation 2002 2003 2004 Cochise 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 0 Gila 0 0 0 Maricopa 0 0 0 0 Pima 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz 0 0 0 0 Summary: 11 of 11 federal reference monitors in compliance Table 19: 2002 to 2004 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in μg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 2002 2003 2004 ThreeYear Average 7.35 # 6.47 # 7.11 7.0 7.18 # 5.69 # 6.77 6.5 10.04 # 9.01 # 9.54 9.5 Cochise County Douglas Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School Gila County Payson Well Site Maricopa County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 55 Table 19: 2002 to 2004 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in μg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 2002 2003 2004 ThreeYear Average 11.63 # 11.27 9.73 10.9 10.36 9.63 7.30 # 9.1 12.57 # 10.68 11.60 11.6 Children’s Park 6.62 6.54 5.57 6.2 Orange Grove 6.36 6.45 5.79 6.2 Apache Junction Fire Station 6.39 6.30 # 5.51 # 6.1 Casa Grande Downtown 8.46 8.42 7.13 8.0 12.18 11.30 10.83 11.4 JLG Supersite Tempe Community Center (Closed 7/26/2004) 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. Table 20: 2002 to 2004 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in μg/m3, local conditions) NAAQS: The three-year average of the 98th percentile values is less than or equal to 65 µg/m3. 2002 to 2004 PM2.5 24-Hour Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Cochise Coconino Gila Note: The three-year average is rounded Maricopa to the nearest 1 µg/m3 for comparison to Pima the standard. Santa Cruz Sites with Exceedances 2002 2003 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites in Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary: 11 of 11 federal reference monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 56 Table 20. 2002 to 2004 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in μg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 98th Percentile Samples ** ThreeYear Average 2002 2003 2004 13.9 # 11.7# 22.5 16 12.0 # 16.9 # 20.7 17 21.2 # 24.9 # 19.3 22 JLG Supersite 31.9 24.2 27.6 28 Tempe Community Center 21.6 25.0 14.8 # 20 36.2 # 25.9 29.9 31 Children’s Park 20.2 13.2 10.3 15 Orange Grove 21.5 15.9 13.3 17 Apache Junction Fire Station 13.1 21.1 10.3 15 Casa Grande Downtown 20.8 26.7 13.7 20 25.4 35.0 25.1 29 Cochise County Douglas Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School Gila County Payson Maricopa County West Phoenix Pima County Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office ** The 98th percentile value will be the second highest value for sites on an every 6th day sample schedule. The 98th percentile value will be the 3rd highest value for sites on an every 3rd day sample schedule. # Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA’s summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 57 Visibility Data Visibility monitoring is of three types: aerosol, optical and scene. Aerosol measurements include the physical properties of the ambient atmospheric particles (chemical composition, size, shape, concentration, temporal and spatial distribution and other physical properties) through which a scene is viewed. The chemical species that comprise a particulate sample have different extinction efficiencies. Extinction efficiency is the extent to which an individual or a specific particle will either scatter or absorb light, thus blocking the light’s path to one’s eye. The overall impact of particles can be estimated by summing the effect of all the component species. This method is the primary approach used in the draft national regional haze rule for estimating present visibility and charting trends for future plan reviews. 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 2004. 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 2005, Page 58 Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) Site and Wilderness Area Greer Water Treatment Plant Mt. Baldy Wilderness Humboldt Mountain Mazatzal Wilderness and Pine Mountain Wilderness (Site closed in 2004) Ike’s Backbone Mazatzal/Pine Mountain Wildernesses Mount Ord Mazatzal Wilderness (site closed in 2000) McFadden Peak Sierra Ancha Wilderness (site closed in 2000) Muleshoe Ranch Chiracahua National Monument Wilderness, Galiuro Wilderness, Chiricahua Forest Service Wilderness Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours 2002 26 10 2 2003 26 10 1.3 2004 17 8 1 1998 24 9 0 1999 25 12 3 2000 28 13 3 2001 21 9 1 2002 24 8 0 2003 36 16 3 2002 24 10 2 2003 30 12 2 2004 24 11 3 1998 28 12 2 1999 22 11 3 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 Year ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 59 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) Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours 2004 20 8 1 1998 30 12 3 1999 20 10 4 2000 18 8 1 2001 28 14 5 2002 27 13 3 2003 33 15 4 2004 20 10 3 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 2004 25 12 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 2004 32 16 5 Year ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 60 Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) Site and Wilderness Area Year Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours Chiricahua National Monument 2004 18 9 3 Organ Pipe National Monument 2004 21 10 3 Petrified Forest National Park 2004 20 9 3 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. The program ended for all other urban haze monitors in 2004. Along with the particulate matter sampling, ADEQ also operated transmissometers and nephelometers in Phoenix and Tucson. Data from these instruments through 2004 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 61 Table 22. Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2004 (in Mm-1) 24 Hour Samples Site Mesa Transmissometer Phoenix Transmissometer Phoenix Nephelometer (Supersite) Phoenix Nephelometer 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 2004 106 60 24 110 65 29 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 2004 121 69 35 126 75 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 2004 72 30 9 61 30 11 2004 46 22 7 52 27 9 (Dysart) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 62 Table 22. Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2004 (in Mm-1) 24 Hour Samples Site Phoenix Nephelometer 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 2004 54 24 7 68 32 10 2004 69 29 9 64 31 12 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 2004 97 58 27 113 67 32 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 2004 38 20 8 42 22 10 (Estrella Mountain) Phoenix Nephelometer (Vehicle Emissions) Tucson Transmissometer Tucson Nephelometer (U of A Central) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 63 Table 22. Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2004 (in Mm-1) 24 Hour Samples Site Tucson Nephelometer (Craycroft) Tucson Nephelometer 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 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 2004 42 21 8 43 22 9 2004 41 20 8 43 23 10 (Children’s Park) N/A – Not available ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 64 Special Projects Introduction In addition to ADEQ’s statewide regulatory ambient air monitoring program, the Air Quality Division undertook several special projects during 2004 and the first half of 2005. 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 help to explain and predict the relationship between emissions and air Figure 4 - Yuma West Monitoring Station, Western pollutant concentrations under a variety of Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study 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. 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. The Salt River Area covers approximately 32 square miles (1% 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 65 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. Revised SIPs were submitted to EPA in February, June, and October of 2004. 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. 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 August 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 ug/m3, exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 150 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 66 ug/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 August 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 February 19, 2004. ADEQ continues to work with the stakeholder group to submit the attainment demonstration and SIP to EPA by late 2005. All Best Available Control Measures must be adopted and implemented by August 18, 2005 and implemented by a certain date. Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for all significant sources of PM10 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. Additional analyses have been prepared by the Air Quality Division to quantify the emission reductions from the implementation of Agricultural Best Management Practices, which began in Yuma August 1, 2005. This work has been accomplished with the help of Yuma farmers, conservation agents, and Arizona Department of Agriculture personnel. 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. 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 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 67 Monitor deployment and data collection are scheduled to begin in autumn 2005 at two “supersites” –sites with a full complement of gaseous and particulate monitors – one in San Luis, Rio Colorado, Sonora, and one in the northeastern part of Yuma. In September – October 2004 ADEQ staff conducted an intensive air monitoring study of PM10 at three sites near unpaved roads in San Luis, Rio Colorado. This study was performed, in part, to provide information to Mexican officials that would help them obtain funds Figure 6 – Map of Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air to pave the dirt roads. Results of Quality Study monitoring locations. this month-long study with continuous monitors were maximum four-hour and 24-hour PM10 concentrations of 1078 and 190 ug/m3, respectively, with 45% of the averages exceeding the respective guidelines (150 ug/m3 for each averaging period). Impacts of Cement Plants on the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness One of 12 Class I Wilderness Areas in Arizona – all designated by the Clean Air Act for special protection of their pristine air quality – Sycamore Canyon begins high on the Mogollon Rim 20 miles southwest of Flagstaff and develops into a picturesque, steepwalled canyon that meets the Verde River upstream of Clarkdale. Six miles south of the canyon’s mouth is the Phoenix Cement Plant, one of the state’s two large Portland cement plants . About 20 miles west of the canyon is the site of a proposed cement plant. As part of the permit application for the proposed plant, visibility and deposition modeling were performed to assess the impacts of its emissions on Sycamore Canyon. To give the Federal Land Managers a more complete picture, ADEQ staff and a contractor began air quality modeling of the combined (and separate) effects of the two plants on the canyon. This work, which will continue into autumn 2005, is intended to provide the regulatory agencies with a comprehensive assessment of the present visibility degradation in the canyon from Phoenix Cement, as well as the combined degradation from the two plants. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 68 Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project (JATAP) The second phase of the Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project (JATAP) began in January 2005 and will take place until the end of the year. Funding is provided through EPA Region 9 and EPA’s Office of Air Quality, Planning and standards (OAQPS). Carried out through the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) in Flagstaff, the JATAP 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). Following a pilot-scale monitoring study to determine which Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) are of most concern in South Phoenix and the Gila River Indian Community in 2003 -2004, this larger air toxics monitoring effort has nine sites: one each in the Gila River, Salt River, and Fort McDowell Indian Communities and five in central and westcentral Phoenix . These air toxics concentrations will provide enough information for a preliminary risk assessment and, if funding can be obtained, for a full-scale risk assessment based on an emissions inventory, air quality modeling, and risk assessment modeling. This full-scale assessment is planned for 2006 – 2009. Dioxins and Furans in Rillito Concerns of Rillito citizens about emissions of dioxins and furans from the Arizona Portland Cement Plant (APCC) and stack testing at APCC led to an ambient air monitoring program conducted in 2004 -2005. ADEQ staff operated the air monitors and the Kansas City laboratory of the U.S. EPA performed the chemical analyses. Ambient concentrations of dioxins and furans proved to be within health-based guidelines. These concentrations were somewhat higher than those measured at background sites in Arizona but considerably lower than at urban sites throughout the country. The distribution of the 17 toxic dioxins and furans in the ambient air of Rillito closely resembled the mobile source profile but was quite different from the APCC profile. The dioxin and furan concentrations measured during the one-year study suggested that mobile source emissions had a much greater impact at Rillito than the cement plant emissions. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, 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 to be submitted to EPA by the December 17, 2007, 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 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 2005, 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 109 incidents. During the calendar year of 2004, HART responded to seven 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), and monitoring of an open burn of propellants at an industrial manufacturing facility in North Phoenix. Through August 2005, HART responded to four incidents which were all wildfires: the Bart Fire near Carefree, the Cave Creek Complex Fire that started north of Carefree, the Florida Fire southeast of Tucson, and the Edge Fire near Lake Roosevelt. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 71 Trends Introduction Whether air quality meets the standards is a central question – explored at length in the second chapter of this report, 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 Average Best & Average Worst Visibility Impairment in the Phoenix Area standards at some sites: the eight-hour O3 standard at one site in greater Phoenix, and the 24-hour and annual PM10 standards at some urban and rural sites. Visibility B the aspect of the atmosphere most obvious to the population B has been measured continuously in urban and pristine parts of state long enough to establish trends. The following discussions examine the trends in these three common air pollutants and visibility in Arizona. Carbon Monoxide Since the mid to late 1970s, CO concentrations have declined dramatically. In Tucson, the maximum annual eight-hour concentration at 22nd Street and Alvernon declined from 12.0 in 1978 to 2.1 parts per million (ppm) in 2004 – a decrease of 83% (Figure 8). In Phoenix at 18th Street and Roosevelt (Central Phoenix), the decline was from 23.0 to 3.4 ppm – a decrease of 81% (Figure 9). The number of exceedances of the eight-hour standard 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. The last recorded exceedance was in 1999. 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 2005, Page 72 14 12 8-Hr CO (ppm) 10 Standard = 9.5 8 6 4 2 0 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Figure 8: Eight-hour carbon monoxide maxima at 22nd Street and Alvernon Way in Tucson 25 8-Hr CO(ppm) 20 15 Standard = 9.5 10 5 0 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 9: Eight-hour carbon monoxide maxima at 18th Street and Roosevelt in Central Phoenix ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 73 Ozone One-Hour Ozone Concentrations Maximum one-hour O3 concentrations have remained steady in Yuma, but have declined in Phoenix and Tucson since 1980 (Figure 10). These decreases have been 34% and 24%, for Phoenix and Tucson, respectively. Yuma and Tucson have met the one -hour standard 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 after 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 nitrogen oxides, changes in emissions would not be expected to produce proportional changes in concentration. 0.200 1-Hour Ozone (ppm) 0.160 Standard = 0.124 0.120 PHOENIX TUCSON YUMA 0.080 0.040 20 04 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 10: Maximum one-hour ozone concentrations in three cities Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations The eight-hour O3 standard, proposed by EPA in 1997 and officially promulgated in 2003, is expressed as the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest concentration, not to exceed 0.08 parts per million. Because of instrument precision and rounding, this standard translates into a numerical value of 0.085 ppm: any value 0.085 ppm and above is an exceedance. 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 and ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 74 Yuma do not. Long-term trends of the fourth-highest ozone concentrations in Tucson fluctuate between 0.06 and 0.08 ppm, but, overall, are steady (Figure 11). 0.1 Standard = 0.085 for a three-year average Downtown Pom/Ch Pk Craycroft Saguaro Mo. 0.06 0.04 0.02 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 0 Figure 11: Annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations in Tucson A similar pattern in eight-hour ozone trends also characterizes Yuma, where, although the values are slightly higher than Tucson’s, the constant trend line is apparent (Figure 12). 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 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 04 8-Hour Ozone (ppm) 8-Hour Ozone (ppm) 0.08 Figure 12: Annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations in Yuma ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 75 In contrast to the within-standard concentrations in Tucson and Yuma, 24 of the 28 sites in greater Phoenix have recorded annual fourth-highest O3 values in excess of 0.084 ppm in 1995 to 2004. In metropolitan Phoenix, these elevated eight-hour O3 concentrations occurred at fewer monitoring sites and at lower values in 2004 than in 1995, with most of the improvement taking place since the 2000 – 2002 period. For instance, of the 20 sites operational both in 1995 or 1996 and 2004, 14 recorded fourth-highest values greater than 0.084 ppm in 1995, but none in 2004. The values have decreased through time as well, with typical fourth-highest concentrations decreasing from 1995-96 to 2004: Blue Point Bridge, 0.083 to 0.075; Phoenix Supersite, 0.087 to 0.072; and North Phoenix, 0.095 to 0.080 ppm. 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 ten years ago. Ozone concentrations in 2004 were unusually low compared with previous years, with the highest four-highest concentration of 0.080 ppm at North Phoenix. 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 continues to exceed 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 2004: the first being 1995 to 1997 and the last 2002 to 2004. In the first two three-year periods (Table 23), 12 and 13 monitoring sites, respectively, had average fourth-highest values equal to or exceeding 0.085 ppm. In the last two periods, the numbers of such sites had decreased to three and one, respectively. The magnitude of these three-year averages has decreased substantially, as well. The highest average for the period ending in 1997 was 0.0963 ppm; the highest average in 2004 was 12 percent lower, at the standard of 0.085 ppm. These trends are consistent with the decreasing one-hour maximum ozone trends; however, most of the decrease in eight-hour ozone concentrations occurred since 2000, a few years later than the decrease in the one-hour concentrations. The unusually low concentrations in 2004, however, suggest that the eight-hour standard may be achieved in two to three years. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 76 Table 23. Three-Year Averages of the Annual Fourth-Highest Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Phoenix and Environs (Units are in parts per million (ppm). Bold values in yellow cells equal or exceed the operational standard of 0.085 ppm) Site 19951997 19961998 19971999 19982000 19992001 20002002 20012003 20022004 Emergency Mgmt 0.0963 0.0873 0.0847 0.0823 0.0763 Closed Closed Closed North Phoenix 0.0937 0.0923 0.0880 0.0863 0.0853 0.0857 0.0856 0.0837 Salt River Pima 0.0930 0.0907 0.0843 Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Phoenix 0.0927 0.0853 0.0737 0.0727 0.0723 0.0770 0.0766 0.0743 Blue Point 0.0903 0.0893 0.0860 0.0887 0.0853 0.0843 0.0840 0.0823 Apache Junction 0.0900 0.0860 0.0817 0.0813 0.0797 0.0797 0.0763 0.0737 Mesa 0.0897 0.0853 0.0810 0.0793 0.0773 0.0737 Closed Closed Pinnacle Peak 0.0890 0.0867 0.0810 0.0817 0.0820 0.0850 0.0840 0.0783 Fountain Hills 0.0890 0.0850 0.0823 0.0817 0.0810 0.0847 0.0840 0.0813 Falcon Field 0.0890 0.0850 0.0823 0.0817 0.0810 0.0800 0.0813 0.0777 Mount Ord 0.0880 0.0907 0.0873 0.0887 0.0847 Closed Closed Closed South Scottsdale 0.0843 0.0807 0.0753 0.0760 0.0760 0.0787 0.0783 0.0763 West Phoenix 0.0843 0.0847 0.0853 0.0860 0.0823 0.0800 0.0786 0.0777 Maryvale 0.0840 0.0837 0.0813 0.0830 0.0783 0.0790 0.0800 0.0835 Humboldt Mt. 0.0837 0.0880 0.0860 0.0863 0.0847 0.0850 0.0873 0.0850 0.0870 0.0855 0.0827 Tonto Monument Queen Valley 0.0790 0.0810 0.0830 0.0810 Cave Creek 0.0830 0.0845 0.0840 0.0817 Hillside 0.0805 0.0855 0.0810 0.0833 0.0810 0.0827 0.0773 0.0777 Rio Verde 0.0850 0.0840 0.0833 0.0837 0.0850 0.0847 0.0837 0.0840 West Chandler 0.0770 0.0820 0.0733 0.0733 0.0747 0.0793 0.0797 0.0770 Maximum 0.0963 0.0923 0.0880 0.0887 0.0853 0.0857 0.0873 0.0850 12 13 5 5 3 4 3 1 n > 0.085 ppm ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 77 Illustrated in Figure 12 are the three-year averages from nine monitoring sites in Table 23 that have a long-term period of operation and have recorded one or more averages above the standard. Although there is considerable site-to-site variability, the overall impression is a distinctly downward trend, perhaps best exemplified by Apache Junction. Humboldt Mountain goes against this tend. The anomalously low 2004 ozone concentrations result in seven of nine sites having lower averages in 2002 – 2004 than in the previous period. 0.0950 Standard = 0.085 8-hr ozone (ppm) 0.0900 0.0850 0.0800 0.0750 0.0700 1995-97 1996-98 1997-99 1998-00 1999-01 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 Blue Point North Phoenix West Phoenix Fountain Hills Pinnacle Peak Apache Junction Humboldt Mt. Rio Verde Hillside Figure 12: Phoenix area eight-hour ozone trends: three-year averages of the annual fourthhighest concentrations ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 78 Considering these sites together (Figure 14), the pattern of the maximum value fluctuates at or just above the standard for all of the periods except the first, with a range from 0.085 to 0.088 ppm. The average of these sites, after a steady trend for the first half of the record, moves decidedly down in the latter half. These sites seem capable of producing maximum values at or slightly above the standard throughout the period of record; but their average is displaying a robust decline since 2000 - 2002. 8-hr ozone (ppm) 0.095 0.090 Average Maximum 0.085 Standard = 0. 085 0.080 1 7 -9 5 99 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 98 19 00 99 19 01 00 20 02 4 3 -0 -0 2 1 0 0 20 20 Figure 14: Phoenix area eight-hour ozone trends: three-year averages of the annual fourthhighest concentrations, expressed as the average and maximum of nine long-term sites If the trend in the latter half of the period continues, attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard may not be far away. Particulates PM10 PM10 concentrations have decreased considerably throughout the state in both urban and rural settings. Nonetheless, this pollutant, more than any other, continues to exceed its standards. For example, annual PM10 concentrations in South Phoenix averaged 68.7 μg/m3 from 1985 through 1987, but only 52.7 μg/m3 in 2002-2004, a ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 79 decrease of 23 percent but still over the standard. Similar percentage decreases occurred since the 1980s at Central Phoenix and West Phoenix (Figures 13a & b). These figures, which show the three-year moving averages, have two points in common: first, one or more sites show dramatic improvement in the earliest part of the record; and, second, all sites show improvement in the latter part. In Figure 13a the exceptional site is Chandler, which begins and ends at the same concentration but which peaks midway through the period of record. Figure 13b shows that South Phoenix increased steadily from the period ending in 1997 through the one ending in 2002, while West Phoenix had only a modest increase during this interval. 70 60 ug/m3 50 Central Phoenix Chandler Glendale North Phoenix 40 30 20 10 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 0 Figure 13a: Three-Year Moving Averages of Annual Average PM10 at four metropolitan Phoenix sites with moderate PM10 levels (each data point is the average of the three years ending in that year (e.g.. “2004” is the average of 2002, 2003, and 2004). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 80 70 60 ug/m3 50 South Phoenix West Phoenix Greenwood Durango 40 30 20 10 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 0 Figure 13b: Three-Year Moving Averages of PM10 at four metropolitan Phoenix sites with higher PM10 concentrations Despite these improvements, 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 116 monitor years, 27 (23%) 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 and Durango, near the industrial Salt River area, are influenced by emissions from the industrial 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. Two miles southeast of West Phoenix, Greenwood combines the high regional concentrations with its close proximity to a major arterial street and freeway. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 81 Table 24: Annual PM10 Concentrations in Metropolitan Phoenix (in μg/m3) Central Phoenix Chandler Glendale North Phoenix South Phoenix West Phoenix Mesa South Scottsdale 1992 42 56 34 35 48 47 29 34 1993 43 58 35 34 44 44 35 34 1994 43 50 33 35 44 43 36 38 1995 44 56 33 36 46 44 35 36 1996 41 62 34 37 47 45 33 35 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 69 2000 46 57 41 37 61 53 37 40 61 70 2001 38 48 33 30 50 43 30 33 49 59 2002 43 56 40 37 60 53 36 37 55 70 2003 40 50 36 34 52 46 34 36 51 62 2004 37 40 26 25 46 37 23 26 44 52 Bold values in yellow cells exceed the annual standard of 50 ug/m3. *Does not satisfy EPA summary criteria of 75% data recovery. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 82 Greenwood Durango 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 exceeded the standard in each of the 17 monitoring years. 140 120 100 ug/m3 Standard = 50 Salt Durango W. 43rd 80 60 40 20 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 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 fairly steady, even trends of PM10, but the four long-term urban sites all show substantial decreases since the mid 1980s. Orange Grove averaged 43.3 μg/m3 in 198587, but has since decreased 32 percent to a concentration of 29.7 μg/m3. South Tucson, Prince Road and Broadway/Swan showed smaller, but substantial, decreases (Figure 15), with similar patterns of an early decrease, followed by a period of gradual increases, and ending with decreasing trends in the last five years. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 83 60 Standard = 50 50 PM10 (ug/m3) 40 South Tucson Prince Road Corona de Tucson Green Valley Orange Grove Broadway/Swan 30 20 10 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 0 Figure 15: Three-year moving averages of annual average PM10 at six metropolitan Tucson sites These PM10 reductions in the urban settings can be attributed to a reduction of coarse particulate emissions from paving roads, alleys and road shoulders, and better controls of dust emissions from construction sites. Throughout the rest of 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. For most of the sites, nearly all of the improvement took place from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s. The percentage improvement during this ten-year period varied from 37 to 62%, depending on the site -- a remarkable decrease. After this point, two sites continued to decrease (Paul Spur and Payson); three sites have increased (Nogales, Yuma, and Rillito); and two sites have remained about the same (Douglas and Hayden). At the beginning of the period, six of the seven sites were above the standard; all have been within the standard since the mid 1990s. In each of these localities, road paving, better industrial dust controls, and (in Payson only) cleaner fireplaces and woodstoves can be given credit for the improvement. All of these PM10 emission reductions were accomplished through State Implementation Plan activities led by the Air Quality Division. Figure 16 presents these trends as three-year moving averages. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 84 100 90 80 PM10 (ug/m3) 70 Douglas Hayden Nogales Paul Spur Payson Rillito Yuma 60 Standard = 50 50 40 30 20 10 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 0 Figure 16: Three-year moving averages of the annual average PM10 concentrations at the higher concentration sites in Arizona PM10 concentrations at 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). 50 45 40 PM10 (ug/m3) 35 Ajo Apache Junction Bullhead City Casa Grande Organ Pipe Safford 30 25 20 15 10 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 0 1987 5 Figure 17: Three-year moving averages of annual average PM10 concentrations at lower concentration sites at lower elevations ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 85 Low-concentration sites at higher elevations – all within the 50 ug/m3 annual standard for their periods of record, have also noticeably declined since the mid 1980s. Clarkdale decreased 24 percent; Flagstaff, 50 percent; Prescott, 15 percent; and Show Low, 35 percent. (The site in Prescott was moved to Prescott Valley in 2002.) Part of these decreases can be attributed to cleaner-burning wood stoves and fireplaces (Figure 18). What is encouraging in these various sites – both rural and urban – is that not a single one shows a steady, long-term, upward trend, whether urban, industrial, agricultural or rural. 40 35 PM10 (ug/m3) 30 25 Clarkdale Flagstaff Prescott Show Low 20 15 10 5 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 0 Figure 18: Three-year moving averages of annual average PM10 concentrations at low concentration sites at higher elevations 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 the late 1990s, when monitoring with PM2.5 reference instruments began. The dichotomous 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 rural cities and towns, in 1994 in Tucson, and the following year in Phoenix. Nogales, Douglas, and Flagstaff have shown flat trends, while Payson=s is significantly down by 47 percent. Yuma, on the other hand, shows increased concentrations from 1991 - 1993 to 2000 – 2002 of 48 percent. Exceedances of the annual PM2.5 standard ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 86 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 decrease from 1995 through 1998 but increase slightly thereafter through 2004. Inconsistent with this latter trend, Apache Junction concentrations have decreased steadily since 1999. Monitoring began at a new site in southwest Phoenix in 2004, at 43rd Avenue and Broadway. Its concentration in the first year of monitoring was just within the standard (14.8 vs. 15.0 ug/m3). In metropolitan Tucson, the two sites with the longest records show that Orange Grove has decreased significantly since monitoring began 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 Douglas 1991 7.6 N/A 17.9 12.3 8.5 1992 5.7 N/A 17.2 12.6 7.9 1993 6.1 5.4 13.0 9.7 7.9 1994 8.3 4.9 15.8 10.4 8.1 1995 7.2 5.8 15.7 14.3 7.7 1996 8.7 11.2 14.4 13.3 8.3 1997 6.0 5.0 12.2 11.3 6.0 1998 8.3 4.7 10.9 12.5 6.8 1999 7.9 8.4 * 9.8 * 12.5 * 7.9* 2000 8.7 6.9 * 10.0 * 12.8 * 7.1* 2001 10.0 7.1 * 8.8 * 10.7 * 7.2* 2002 N/A 7.1 * 10.0 * 12.1 * 7.4* 2003 N/A 5.6 * 8.9 * 11.3 * 6.4* 2004 N/A 6.8* 9.5* 10.8* 7.1* ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 87 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 * 2004 N/A N/A 9.7* N/A N/A 11.6* 5.5* ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 88 Table 25c. Annual PMfine and PM2.5 Concentrations in the Tucson Metropolitan Area(in μg/m3) Orange Grove 22/Craycroft 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* 2004 5.8* N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.6* Bold values in yellow 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 2005, Page 89 18 Standard = 15 15 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 12 Yuma Flagstaff Payson Nogales Douglas 9 6 3 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 0 Figure 19: Statewide three-year moving averages of annual averages of PM2.5 16 Standard = 15 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 12 Apache J. Higley Tempe Supersite West PHX Estrella W. 43rd 8 4 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 20: Metropolitan Phoenix annual averages of PM2.5 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 90 16 Standard = 15 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 12 Orange Grove 22nd/Craycroft Tangerine Fairgrounds Central Childrens Park 8 4 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 21: Metropolitan Tucson annual averages of PM2.5 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 light is reduced by its interaction with 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. The units of measurement are inverse megameters (Mm-1): the higher the light extinction value in Mm-1, the more visibility is reduced. Table 26 and Figures 22 and 23 present these data. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 91 Table 26a: Light Extinction in Phoenix (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 2004 121 69 35 126 75 42 N/A - Data not available ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 92 Table 26b: Light Extinction in Tucson (in Mm-1) Tucson All Hours Year Dirtiest 20% 1993 5-11 a.m. Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 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 2004 97 58 27 113 67 32 Distinct trends from these tabular data are somewhat difficult to discern, partly because of the year-to-year variability and partly because the long-term changes for most categories are rather small. Rather than plotting all of 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% category for 1994. The fourth quarter of that year, when many of the dirtiest 20% 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 2005, Page 93 140 120 Mm-1 100 80 Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 60 40 20 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 22: Light extinction trends for Phoenix, shown as three-year moving averages, for all hours Considering Phoenix first, the steady improvement through 2002 in the 20% dirtiest category is evident. The most recent period in this category is 10% lower than the first period. For both the mean and 20% cleanest days, however, the steadily downward trend of the dirtiest 20% category is replaced by a more complicated trend – one in which the first two periods increase through 1998, but the subsequent periods gradually decrease and eventually level out. The change from the most recent to the first period for these two categories is near zero: a 1% 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%), but the mean and 20% 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 for all three statistics: the dirtiest, the mean, and the cleanest (Figure 23). The improvement in the 20% dirtiest days has been the same as Phoenix – 10% -- but considerably greater improvements have been realized in the other two categories: 12% for the mean and 27% for the cleanest 20%. All trends in both cities level off in the last years, suggesting that urban visibility has stabilized. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 94 120 100 Mm-1 80 Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 60 40 20 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 23: Light extinction trends for Tucson, shown as three-year moving averages, for all hours Since it’s impossible for an observer to distinguish between the various grades of the cleanest 20%, perhaps the overall Phoenix-Tucson trends appear the same to their respective residents. That is, over this eleven-year period, there has been a 10% decrease in the light extinction values for the dirtiest days in both cities. Residents of each metropolitan area, then, have observed improved visibility for these haziest of days. While the worst of the brown clouds are still quite evident, especially on winter mornings, their frequency and severity over both cities have diminished. An interesting intercity trend (Figure 24) appears in the cleanest 20% 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 had increased light extinction for the first half of the period, followed by a gradual decrease and leveling off to the the light extinction value of the initial threeyear period (1994 – 1996). The result is that in 2002 – 2004, Tucson=s cleanest days were 35% cleaner than in Phoenix (26 Mm-1 vs 38 Mm-1 ). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 95 50 45 40 35 Mm-1 30 Phoenix Tucson 25 20 15 10 5 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 24: Light extinction trends for all hours for Tucson and Phoenix: three-year moving averages for the cleanest 20% days Seasonal patterns also vary between the two cites, with the mean and dirtiest 20 percent of all hourly light extinction values in Phoenix showing more pronounced winter and fall maxima than the Tucson counterparts (Figure 25). Both cities show little 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. The poorer visibility in Phoenix comes as no surprise to those Arizonans familiar with both airsheds. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 96 200 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% cleanest and 20% dirtiest days in Tucson and Phoenix In the following, final, discussion of visibility, light scattering is compared between the urban and rural areas of the state (Figure 26). In each statistical category rural light scattering is considerably lower than the urban. On the dirtiest 20% days, light scattering values in Phoenix are 3.5 times higher than in the rural areas, while values in Tucson are nearly twice as high. Values for the mean and 20% cleanest days show similar results. An interesting comparison between urban and rural areas is that the light scattering values on the worst 20% days in the rural areas are roughly equal to the mean of the urban areas. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 97 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% cleanest, mean, and 20% dirtiest days for urban and rural areas. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 98 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 have met the standard since 1997, the first years since monitoring began. Phoenix one-hour ozone concentrations in the 1980s and early 1990s ranged as high as 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, 12 monitoring sites in greater Phoenix exceeded the eight-hour O3 standard; in 2002 - 2004 only one site exceeded the standard. Elevated concentrations of PM10 have been reduced substantially since the mid-1980s, with decreases of 20 to 70 percent in the urban areas and in most rural cities and towns. In Payson and at some industrial sites, PM10 concentrations have been reduced by as much as two-thirds. By 2004, 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; for example, at the centrally located Phoenix Supersite, the decrease has been 21 percent; at 22nd and Craycroft, in east-central Tucson, the decrease has been 24 percent. Fine particulate trends in rural Arizona, however, have not shown consistency from site to site: Nogales has been steady; Yuma and Flagstaff have increased (by 48 and 26%, respectively); and Douglas and Payson have decreased (by 14 and 48%, respectively). 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 all of the time, with the exceptions being the eight-hour O3 standard on occasional summer days in Phoenix and the PM10 standards on both an episodic and annual basis at those sites affected by localized dense emissions. This improved air quality -- resulting from emission control programs at the federal, state and local levels -- has benefited the respiratory health of the citizenry and can be considered a consequence of the public support for a cleaner environment. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 99 Appendix 1 – Site Index Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Apache County Greer Water Treatment Plant (Mt Baldy) 34° 04' 109° 26' ADEQ, USFS Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 8255 TEP - Springerville B Coalyard 34° 19' 109° 09' TEP PM10 SPM Unknown Source Impact 6900 TEP - Springerville B Coyote Hills 34° 10' 109° 13' TEP NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Unknown Source Impact 6600 Chiricahua NM Entrance Station (3.5 miles west of monument headquarters) 32° 00' 109° 23' NPS CASTNET, Bscat, IMPROVE, MET, O3 Class I Regional Visibility 5130 Douglas Red Cross (1445E 15th St.) 31° 20' 109° 30' ADEQ IMPROVE, PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS (PM10, PM2.5 ), Class I Neighborhood Population 4100 Muleshoe Ranch (Galiuro Wilderness) 32° 21' 110° 14' ADEQ Bscat, MET Class I Regional Visibility 4400 Naco Border Station (218 1st St.) 31° 20' 109° 57' ADEQ Bscat SPM Neighborhood Population 4623 Cochise County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 100 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) 31° 22' 109° 49' ADEQ PM10, MET SLAMS (PM10) Middle Source Impact 4192 Flagstaff Middle School (755 N. Bonito) 35° 12' 111° 38' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 6906 Grand Canyon NP Hance (South Rim, 2.5 miles west of village) 35° 58' 111° 59' NPS O3, MET, Bscat, IMPROVE, CASTNET Class I Regional Visibility 7438 Grand Canyon NP Indian Garden (4.5 miles from Bright Angel trailhead) 36° 05' 112° 08' NPS IMPROVE, Bscat, Class I Regional Visibility 3832 SRP - Page - Navajo Generating Station (3 miles east of Page) 36° 55' 111° 24' SRP O3, NO2, PM10, SO2 SPM Urban Source Impact 3648 Sedona Post Office (190 W. Highway 89A) 34° 52' 111° 45' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 4220 Sycamore Canyon (Camp Raymond) 35° 08' 111° 58' ADEQ, NPS Bscat, IMPROVE, MET Class I Regional Visibility 6693 Coconino County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 101 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Gila County ASARCO - Globe Highway 33° 01' 110° 45' ASARCO SO2 SPM Regional Source Impact 1950 ASARCO - Hayden Garfield AVE 33° 00' 110° 47' ASARCO SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 2090 ASARCO Montgomery Ranch 33° 00' 110° 47' ASARCO SO2 SPM Regional Source Impact 2325 Hayden - Old Jail (Canyon Drive) 33° 00' 110° 47' ADEQ, ASARCO PM10, SO2 SLAMS (ADEQ SO2 and PM10) SPM (ASARCO SO2) Neighborhood Source Impact 2050 PDMI - Miami B Golf Course 33° 24' 110° 49' PDMI PM10 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 3320 PDMI - Miami B Jones Ranch (Cherry Flats Rd.) 33° 23' 110° 51' PDMI SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 4094 PDMI - Miami B Town Site (Sullivan St.) 33° 23' 110° 52' PDMI SO2 SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 3390 Miami B Ridgeline (4030 Linden St.) 33° 23' 110° 52' ADEQ, PDMI PM10, SO2 SLAMS (ADEQ SO2) SPM (PDMI PM10) Neighborhood Source Impact 3560 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 102 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Payson Well Site (204 W. Aero Dr.) 34° 14' 111° 20' ADEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 4910 Pleasant Valley B Ranger Station (Sierra Ancha USFS Wilderness) 34° 05' 110° 56' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE, Bscat, MET Class I Regional Visibility 5133 Tonto NM (Tonto Natl Forest) 33° 39' 111° 07' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE, NOTL, O3 Class I Regional Visibility 2579 32° 49' 109° 43' ADEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2950 ADEQ Building (1110 W Washington) 33° 26' 112° 05' ADEQ Visibility (camera) SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1079 Banner Mesa Medical Center (525 W Brown AVE) 33° 26' 111° 50' ADEQ Visibility (camera & Bext) SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1485 Bethune Elementary School (1310 S. 15th Ave.) 33° 26' 112° 05' ADEQ PM10, Speciated PM2.5 SPM, STN Neighborhood Population 324 Graham County Safford (523 Tenth Ave.) Maricopa County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 103 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) SLAMS (MET) NAMS (O3) Urban Maximum Concentration 1575 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 837 MET, O3 SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 1916 MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2) Neighborhood Population 1116 111E 49' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS (MET) NAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1171 33E 25' 112E 07' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 1575 Dysart 16825 N Dysart 33E 38' 112E 20' MCESD ADEQ CO, O3, ADEQ(Bscat) SPM, Bscat (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 870 Estrella (15099 W. Casey Abbott Dr., Goodyear) 33E 23' 112E 22' ADEQ Bscat SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 1000 Blue Point (Usery Pass and Bush Highway) 33° 33' 111E 36' MCESD 33E 22' 112E 37' MCESD Cave Creek (37109 N. Lava Lane) 33E 49' 112E 01' MCESD Central Phoenix (1845 E. Roosevelt) 33E 27' 112E 02' Chandler (1475 E. Pecos Rd.) 33E 17' Durango Complex (2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd.) Buckeye (SR 85 & Buckeye RD) MET, O3 CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 104 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Estrella Community College (3000 N Dysart RD) 33E 29' 112E 21' ADEQ Visibility (camera) SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 997 Falcon Field (4530 E. McKellips) 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 Greenwood (I-10 and 27th Avenue) 33E 28' 112E 07' MCESD CO, MET, NO2, PM10 SLAMS Microscale Maximum Concentration 1110 Higley (15500 S. Higley Rd.) 33E 18' 111E 43' MCESD MET, PM10 SLAMS (MET) SPM (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1250 Humboldt Mountain (Pine Mountain Wilderness) 33E 58' 111E 47' MCESD O3 SLAMS Regional Background/ Transport 5230 JLG Supersite (4530 N. 17 Ave.) 33E 30' 112E 05' ADEQ Bscat, CO, NO2, Met, O3, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, Speciated PM2.5 SPM (Urban Haze) SLAMS (CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5) PAMS (Type 2) STN Neighborhood Population 1115 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 105 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Maryvale (6180 W. Encanto) Closed 03/31/2004 33E 28' 112E 20' MCESD CO, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1050 Mesa (370 S. Brooks) 33E 24' 111E 51' MCESD CO, MET, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1221 Mesa City Building (Lewis & Main) 33E 24' 111E 49' ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1115 North Mountain Summit (North Mountain) 33E 35' 112E 05' ADEQ Visibility (camera) SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1640 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 O3, PM10 SLAMS Regional Background 870 Phoenix Transmissometer Receiver (3600 N 2nd AVE) 33E 29' 112E 04' ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 1115 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 106 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Phoenix Transmissometer Transmitter (2000 W Bethany RD) 33E 29' 112E 04' ADEQ Bext SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 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 Tempe (1525 S College AVE) 33E 35' 111E 55' MCESD CO, MET, NO2, O3 SPM Neighborhood Population 1181 Tempe Community Center (3340 S. Rural Rd.) Closed 07/26/2004 33E 23' 111E 55' ADEQ PM2.5 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1110 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 107 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Vehicle Emissions Laboratory (600 N 40th ST) 33E 27' 112E 00' ADEQ MET, Bscat SPM Urban Haze (Bscat) Urban Meteorology 1050 West Chandler (163 S. Price) 33E 18' 111E 53' MCESD CO, MET, O3, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1120 West Forty Third (3940 W Broadway) 33E24' 112E 08' MCESD MET, PM10, Speciated PM2.5 SPM (PM10), STN Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 1030 33E30' 112E 08' MCESD CO, MET NAMS (CO) SLAMS (MET) Micro Maximum Concentration/ Source Impact 1115 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 West Indian School (3315 W. Indian School Rd.) West Phoenix (3847 W. Earll) Mohave County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 108 3000 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Kingman B Praxair SW #2 (I-40 and Griffith Road) Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) 35" 01' 114E 09' Praxair PM10 SPM Middle Source Impact 3000 Petrified Forest NP (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 32E 12' 110E 54' PDEQ CO NAMS Micro Maximum Concentration 2516 32E 12' 110E 52' ADEQ, PDEQ Bscat, CO, O3, NO2, SO2, SPM (ADEQ Urban Haze Bscat) SLAMS (PDEQ CO, O3, NO2, SO2) Neighborhood Population 2582 Ajo (Well Road) 32E 25' 112E 50' ADEQ PM10, MET SLAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 1800 Broadway & Swan (4625 E. Broadway) 32E 13' 110E 53' PDEQ PM10 NAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 2532 Navajo County Pima County 22nd St. & Alvernon (3895 E. 22nd) 22nd St. & Craycroft (1237 S. Beverly) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 109 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Cherry & Glenn (2745 N. Cherry) 32E 15' 110E 56' PDEQ CO SPM Neighborhood Population 2400 Children=s Park (400 W. River Rd.) 32E 17' 110E 58' ADEQ, PDEQ Bscat, CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, Speciated PM2.5 SPM ( PM2.5 & ADEQ Urban Haze Bscat) SLAMS ( NO2, O3) NAMS (CO), STN Urban, Neighborhood Population 2286 Coachline (9597 N Coachline Blvd) Corona De Tucson (22000 S. Houghton Rd.) 32E 22' 111E 07' PDEQ O3, PM2.5 SPM Neighborhood Population 2227 32E 00' 110E 47' PDEQ PM10 SLAMS (PDEQ) Regional Background 3078 Geronimo (2498 N. Geronimo) 32E 15' 110E 57' PDEQ PM10 SPM (For AQI Purposes Only) Neighborhood Population 2580 Golf Links & Kolb (2601 S. Kolb Rd) 32E 11' 110E 50' PDEQ CO SPM Neighborhood Population 2660 Green Valley (601 N. La Canada Dr.) 31E 52' 110E 59' PDEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population Explosure 2903 Orange Grove (3401 W. Orange Grove Road) 32E 19' 111E 02' PDEQ PM10, PM2.5 SLAMS (PDEQ PM10, PM2.5) Neighborhood Maximum Concentration/ Population 2175 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 110 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Organ Pipe Cactus NM (1 mile SSW of visitor center) 31E 58' 112E 48' ADEQ PM10, IMPROVE, Bscat SLAMS (PM10) Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 1847 Prince Road (1016 W. Prince Rd.) 32E 16' 110E 59' PDEQ PM10 NAMS Micro Source Impact 2315 Rillito (8820 W. Water) Rose Elementary (710 W. Michigan St.) 32E 25' 111E 10' ADEQ, APCC PM10 SLAMS (ADEQ) SPM (APCC) Neighborhood Source Impact 2055 32E 10' 110E 58' PDEQ PM10 SPM Urban Population 2550 Saguaro NP East (3905 S. Old Spanish Trail) 32E 11' 110E 44' PDEQ, NPS O3, IMPROVE SPM, Class I Urban Visibility 3081 Saguaro NP West 32E 14' 111E 10' ADEQ, NPS Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Class I Regional Visibility 2473 Santa Clara (6910 S. Santa Clara Ave.) 32E 07' 110E 58' PDEQ PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2540 South Tucson (1601 S. 6th Ave.) 32E 12' 110E 58' PDEQ PM10 SLAMS (PDEQ) Neighborhood Population 2440 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 111 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Tangerine (12101 N. Camino De Oeste) 32E 25' 110E 04' PDEQ O3, PM10 SLAMS Urban Population 2638 Tucson Downtown (190 W. Pennington) 32E 13' 110E 58' PDEQ CO, O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 2365 Tucson Fairgrounds (11330 S. Houghton) 32E 03' 110E46' PDEQ O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 3078 Tucson Transmissometer Transmitter (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 SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 2580 Pinal County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 112 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Apache Junction Fire Station (3955 E. Superstition Blvd. TE) 33E 25' 111E 30' PCAQCD PM2.5, PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1750 Apache Junction Maintenance Yard (305 E. Superstition) 33E 25' 111E 52' PCAQCD O3, MET SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1750 ASARCO - Hayden Junction (Hwy 177) 33E 00' 110E 50' ASARCO SO2 SPM Unknown Source Impact 2080 Casa Grande Airport (660 W. Aero Dr.) 32E 54' 111E 46 PCAQCD O3, MET SLAMS Neighborhood Population/ Transport 1410 Casa Grande Downtown (401 Marshall Rd.) 32E 52' 111E 45' PCAQCD PM10, PM2.5 Neighborhood Population 1378 Combs (301 E. Combs Rd. ) 33E 13' 111E 33' PCAQCD O3 SPM Neighborhood Population 1178 Coolidge Maintenance Yard (212 E. Broadway) 32E 58' 111E 30' PCAQCD PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1444 Cowtown Road (37580 W. Maricopa) 33E 00' 111E 59' PCAQCD MET, PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 1214 SLAMS ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 113 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) Eloy City Complex (620 N. Main St.) 32E 45' 111E 33' PCAQCD PM10 SLAMS Neighborhood Population 1562 Mammoth 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/Exposure 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' PCAQCD, ADEQ Bscat, IMPROVE, VOC, NOTL, O3 SPM (NOTL, O3) PAMS (VOC),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 2005, Page 114 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Stanfield (36697 W. Papago Dr.) Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) 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, IMPROVE SPM, Class I Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 4918 Ike=s Backbone (Pine Mountain Wilderness) 34E 20' 111E 40' ADEQ, USFS IMPROVE, Bscat 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 Santa Cruz Nogales Post Office (300 N. Morley Ave.) Yavapai County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 115 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) 34E 32' 112E 28' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 5210 34E 35' 112E 19' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 5100 Dome Valley (5110 S. Avenue 18 E) Opened 5/13/2004 32E 29' 114E 46' ADEQ MET SPM N/A Special Study 180 San Luis (767 N. 1st Ave.) Opened 5/13/2004 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 4/14/2004 32E 40' 114E 28' ADEQ O3 SLAMS Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 200 Yuma Mesa (2186 W. County 15th St.) Opened 5/13/2004 32E 36' 114E 38' ADEQ MET SPM N/A Special Study 190 Prescott (221 S. Cortez) Closed 3/01/2004 Prescott Valley (7601 E. Civic Circle) Opened 3/12/2003 Yuma County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 116 Site Index B Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2004 City/Site and Address Yuma Valley (11486 S. Farm Rd.) Opened 5/13/03 Lat. Long. Operator Parameters Measured Classification Scale Objective Elev. (feet) 32E 37' 114E 45' ADEQ MET SPM N/A Special Study 90 Agua Prieta Fire Station (Calle 6 & AVE 15) 31E19' 109E33' ADEQ PM10, MET SPM Neighborhood Population 3937 Baja 32E34' 115E0' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Population 45 Cortez 32E22' 114E52' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Population 69 Sonora Nogales Fire Station (Northwest corner of Lopaz and Mantels) 31E20' 110E57' ADEQ PM10 SPM Neighborhood Population 3945 Sonora 32E25' 114E47' ADEQ MET SPM Neighborhood Population 109 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 2005, Page 117 Appendix 2 – Acronyms and Abbreviations ADEQ ADOT AgBMP APCC APS Area A ASARCO ASU Babs Bag Bap Bext Bscat Bsg Bsp BACM BHP CAAA CASTNET CFR Class I CMSA CO CTOC Delta T EPA FMIC FRM GRIC HAPs HART HC IMPROVE ITEP km m MAG MCAQD MET mm Mm-1 MSA Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Transportation Agricultural Best Management Practices Arizona Portland Cement Co. Arizona Public Service Designated Phoenix metropolitan area ASARCO, Inc. Arizona State University Light absorption Light absorption by gasses Light absorption by particles Light extinction Light scattering Light scattering by gasses Light scattering by particles Best Available Control Measures BHP Copper, Inc. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments Clean Air Status and Trends Network Code of Federal Regulations Federally designated park or wilderness area with mandated visibility protection Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area Carbon monoxide Cap and Trade Oversight Committee Difference between two levels of temperature measurements U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ft. McDowell Indian Community Federal Reference Method Gila River Indian Community Hazardous Air Pollutants Hazardous Air Response Team Hydrocarbon Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals Kilometers Meters Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa County Air Quality Division Meteorological measurements (wind, temperature, relative humidity) Millimeter Inverse megameter Metropolitan Statistical Area ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 118 μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter MSM NAAQS NAMS NEAP NM NO NO2 NOX NPS O3 PAMS Pb PCC PDEQ PDMI PCAQCD PM PM2.5 PM10 ppb ppm Pressure RH SCE SIP SLAMS SO2 SO4-SPM SRP SRPMIC STN TEOM TEP TSP U of A USFS VOC VIOC Wind WMAT Most Stringent Measures National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Air Monitoring Station Natural Event Action Plan National Monument Nitric Oxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sum of NO and NO2 National Park Service Ozone Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station Lead Phoenix Cement Company Pima County Department of Environmental Quality Phelps Dodge Miami Inc. Pinal County Air Quality Control District Particulate Matter Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns Particulate Matter < 10 microns parts per billion parts per million Barometric air pressure Relative Humidity Southern California Edison State Implementation Plan State and Local Air Monitoring Station Sulfur Dioxide Sulfate Special Purpose Monitor Salt River Project Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Speciation Trends Network Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance Tucson Electric Power Total Suspended Particulates University of Arizona U.S. Forest Service Volatile Organic Compounds Visibility Index Oversight Committee Wind speed and direction White Mountain Apache Tribe ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 119 Appendix 3 – Related Web Sites Air Explorer (http://www.epa.gov/airexplorer/) Air Explorer is a collection of user friendly visualization tools for air quality analysts. It is linked directly to the EPA’s Air Quality Subsystem database. AirWeb: Protecting Air Quality (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/) Learn about how the National Park Service Air Resources Division and the Fish and Wildlife Service Air Quality Branch strive to preserve, protect, enhance and understand the air quality and other resources of our national parks and refuges. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (www.azdeq.gov) ADEQ’s Web site contains information on air quality, news releases, public meetings and many other services that can provided that help to protect a safe and healthy environment. Earth 911: Making Every Day Earth Day! (www.earth911.org) That’s their mission “to make every day an earth day!” so you can act on today’s environmental issues, in order to preserve and maintain for today and tomorrow. Earth’s Biggest Environment Search Engine (www.webdirectory.com) This Web site is a directory to numerous environmental subjects, from air to wildlife. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov) On EPA’s Web site, you can find information about the federal government’s role in environmental protection. EPA – Air and Radiation (www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps) You’ll breathe easier when you see EPA’s air quality planning and standards Web site. They have from what’s new in air to the latest projects, programs and contracts. EPA’s – AIRNow (www.epa.gov/airnow/) Easy access to local air quality forecasts, real-time data, air quality index (AQI), animated color contours of measured AQI values for geographic areas and more. EPA’s Air Quality Database (www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html) EPA’s air quality database contains extensive air data. On this site, you can find the sources that contribute to emissions, the equipment and facilities that monitor the air, maps on any air-related information, and contact information for experts on specific issues regarding air and environment. EPA – Region 9 (http://www.epa.gov/region09/) Learn about EPA activities in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada and the Pacific Islands at the Region 9 website. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report, Page 120 FirstGov (www.firstgov.gov) Through this Web site, you can find more than 1,000 federal and state environmental agencies with details about the environment and how you can be a political environmental advocate. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Project (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/) On this site, you can take a look at photos of what haze (pollution) can do to the beautiful views of our nation. You can also take a look at what is being done and how you can get involved to improve the views of our nation. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (www.itcaonline.com) The site lists the member tribes and includes information about environmental monitoring programs. Maricopa County Air Quality Information (www.maricopa.gov/envsvc/airqual.asp) Maricopa County’s Environmental Services’ Web site has specific descriptions plus current and historical data on the county’s air monitors. National Tribal Environmental Council (www.ntec.org) NTEC is a tribal government membership organization with 160 member tribes that work to protect and preserve the reservation environment. National Weather Service (www.nws.noaa.gov) Dive into the latest occurrences and studies of your weather and atmosphere. There are links to local weather service agencies in each state. Visibility Web Cameras (http://www.phoenixvis.net) This page provides an overview of all Phoenix Visibility Web Cameras. Digital images from Web-based cameras are updated every 15 minutes. Pima County Air Quality Information (www.deq.co.pima.az.us) The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality’s Web site has information about air, water and waste programs, and the latest news and regulations that affect Pima County. Pinal County Air Quality Information (http://co.pinal.az.us/airqual/monitoring.asp) Current air quality information from the Pinal County Air Quality Control District. Pollen Information (www.pollen.com) Does it feel like something is in the air? Visit pollen.com to find out about what kinds of allergens are in your air and when they are there. The United States National Park Service (www.nps.gov) Information about our national parks. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report, Page 121 Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/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 (www.weathersmith.com) This site contains weather forecasts and air quality information for Phoenix and Tucson. Western States Air Resources Council (www.westar.org) WESTAR is composed of 15 western states that have come together to discuss and exchange information on western regional air quality issues. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report, Page 122 Appendix 4 – Maps This section contains maps displaying monitor locations and location information. Ambient Air Monitors 2004 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 2004 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 2005, Page 123 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 124 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 125 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 126 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 127 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 128 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 129 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 130 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2005, Page 131