2006 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 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 2005. 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 2006, Page 1 Introduction This report presents the results of air quality monitoring conducted throughout Arizona in the 2005 calendar year. Data from more than 100 monitoring sites are included in this report. 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. 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 included from a statewide network of operators. 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. It 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 2005. 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 70. 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. On May 30, 2001, Maricopa County reached attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. Effective June 15, 2004, the Phoenix area was designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. 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 2006, 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 Figure 1 – Greer visibility monitoring site, visibility monitoring networks to assess located at 8,255 feet elevation in the Mt. Baldy urban haze. All of these networks are 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 2006, 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 Criteria Pollutant Measurement Scale represents concentrations in air volumes within areas defined below 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) 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 4 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* Measurement Scale(s)** Pollutant(s) Monitored Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality Statewide 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, Regional SO2, O3, NO2, CO, PM10, PM2.5 Arizona Portland Cement Company Rillito 1, 3 Neighborhood PM10 ASARCO LLC. 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, PM2.5 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 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 Network Operator ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 5 Table 3. Monitoring Networks Operating in Arizona Geographic Area Monitored Monitoring Objective* 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 Network Operator Measurement Scale(s)** Pollutant(s) Monitored *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 longterm trends in Arizona Class I areas, to assist in identifying any visibility impairment caused by Figure 2 - Visibility Monitoring Sites Statewide existing major industrial sources, and to provide monitoring data if necessary for new or major modifications of major industrial sources. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 6 Arizona continues to participate in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Program as part of the overall national visibility monitoring effort. IMPROVE is a cooperative measurement effort between EPA, federal land management agencies and state air agencies. The objectives of IMPROVE are: $ To establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory Class I areas; $ To identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing man-made visibility impairment; $ To document long-term trends for assessing progress towards the national visibility goal and $ With the enactment of the regional haze rule, to provide regional haze monitoring representing all visibility-protected federal Class I areas. Class I areas were designated based on an evaluation required by Congress in the 1977 federal Clean Air Act amendments. The evaluation, which the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service performed, reviewed the wilderness areas of parks and national forests which were designated as wilderness before 1977, were more than 6,000 acres in size and have visual air quality as an important resource for visitors. Of the 156 Class I areas designated across the nation, 12 are located in Arizona. The Arizona Class I visibility network consists of a combination of visibility monitoring sites established by ADEQ and those established by the IMPROVE committee. Monitoring was conducted for the following areas: • 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 (Site was closed in June of 2005) , • Hillside (Site was closed in June of 2005), • Organ Pipe National Monument and • Meadview. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, 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 transmissometers 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 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 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 2006, 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 assessment 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 its 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 installation dates of additional sites is provided in Table 4. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 9 Table 4: PAMS Installation Time Line Type of Ozone Proposed Installation PAMS Season Type 2 1999 Supersite - 17th Avenue and Campbell, Phoenix Type 2a 2001 South Phoenix - 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 state and local air monitoring stations (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 2006, 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), PM10 at those sites with continuous instruments, 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, with the following filter-based method. 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 11 format and 35 mm slides. The video camera was programmed to advance at the rate of one frame every four minutes during daylight hours. When scene information is obtained from 35 mm slides, a picture is taken at the same times each day to establish baseline conditions and track variations in haze. ADEQ is currently replacing 35 mm slides with digital and Web cameras for continued documentation of scene conditions. Quantitative measurement of light extinction (Bext) has four components: • 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 2006, 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 2006, 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 2005 data measurements by criteria pollutant begin below. The data tables in this section are Figure 3 – ADEQ’s Phoenix James L. Guyton Supersite organized by county; site operator monitoring station. 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 - 2005 Data Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) - a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas that is produced in the incomplete combustion of fuels - has a variety of adverse health effects that arise from its ability to chemically bind with blood hemoglobin. 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 2006, 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 - automotive emissions of CO vary inversely with temperature - and because the surface layer of the atmosphere is at its most stable in wintertime. Hourly concentrations tend to be at their maximum during the morning rush hour and between 6 p.m. and midnight. Controls have reduced CO emissions, and the standards have been achieved in the metropolitan Phoenix area since 1996, in stark contrast to the first half of the 1980s, when more than 100 exceedances were recorded each year. Similar improvements have occurred in Tucson, where the last 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 2005, 14 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 2005 CO data. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 15 Table 5: 2005 Carbon Monoxide Data (in ppm) (NAAQS 1-hour 35 ppm, 8-hour 9 ppm) Site or City Maricopa County Buckeye S Central Phoenix Dysart S Glendale S Greenwood JLG Supersite Mesa S North Phoenix S South Phoenix S South Scottsdale S Tempe S West Chandler S West Indian School RD West Phoenix Pima County 22nd St. & Alvernon 22nd St. & Craycroft Cherry & Glenn S Children’s Park Golf Links & Kolb S Tucson Downtown One-Hour Average Value Max 2nd Value High Eight-Hour Average Value Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery* No. of % Obs. 1.1 5.2 1.7 3.2 5.9 5.6 3.4 3.8 5.5 3.2 3.2 3.5 6.8 7.2 1.1 5.1 1.7 3.1 5.4 5.1 3.3 3.5 5.2 3.1 3.0 2.7 6.5 7.0 0.9 4.1 1.3 2.4 4.2 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.8 2.4 2.6 2.4 5.3 5.8 0.9 3.8 1.2 2.3 4.1 3.6 2.4 2.2 3.2 2.4 2.4 2.0 4.8 4.6 4942 8556 5005 4872 8591 8714 4865 5021 4980 4813 5000 4998 8415 8407 97 98 98 96 98 99 96 99 98 95 98 98 96 96 4.1 3.5 3.8 2.0 3.3 3.0 3.6 3.3 3.4 1.8 3.2 2.8 2.2 1.7 2.5 1.1 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.5 2.4 1.1 2.1 1.7 8718 8737 5070 8751 5071 8740 99 99 99 99 99 99 * Valid Data Recovery shows the number of valid samples collected during the year and the percentage of the 8760 sampling hours in the year that were valid. Percentages will always be less than 100% due to mandatory quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. S Seasonal monitor, operational during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to December 31; 5088 sampling hours in non leap years. Exceptions: Pima County seasonal monitors operated January 1 - April 30 and October 1 - December 31; 5088 sampling hours in non leap years. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 16 Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish-brown gas that is formed by the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) -- a byproduct of all combustion. 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 dieselpowered 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 2006, 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 2005. Table 6 presents the NO2 data available in 2005. Table 6: 2005 Nitrogen Dioxide (in ppm) (NAAQS Annual Mean 0.053 ppm) Site or City Annual Average Maximum Value One-Hour Average Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Obs. .0013 .014 8573 98 .0024 .011 3091 96 .0119 .0262 .0315 .0208 .0196 .0235 .053 .095 .131 .077 .079 .100 8307 8490 8467 5096 8424 8191 95 97 97 99 96 94 .0149 .0152 .056 .049 8681 8655 99 99 .0103 .051 6549 99 Apache County Springerville – Coyote Hills La Paz Alamo Lake S (Opened 05/20/05) Maricopa County Buckeye Central Phoenix Greenwood JLG Supersite S South Scottsdale West Phoenix Pima County 22nd St. & Craycroft Children’s Park Yuma County Yuma Game & Fish S * Valid Data Recovery shows the number of valid observations and the percentage of the possible 8760 hourly samples during the year (always be less than 100% due to mandatory quality assurance testing requiring the monitors to be offline for several hours at a time. S Seasonal Monitors: Phoenix JLG Supersite operates during winter CO season, January 1 to April 30 and October 1 to December 31; 5112 hours in 2005. Yuma Game & Fish operated April 1 to the end of 2005; 6600 hours in 2005. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, 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 10 µg/m3, well within the annual standard of 80 µg/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 2005, ten reporting monitors were sited near copper smelters, one near a power plant and four in urban areas. Table 7 presents the SO2 data collected in Arizona in 2005 from the monitors near copper smelters and in urban areas. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 19 Table 7: 2005 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 * No. Obs. % Apache County TEP – Springerville – Coyote Hills 1 21 19 16 11 8480 97 34 873 753 182 152 8616 98 18 691 621 197 152 8667 99 35 596 575 210 175 8635 99 22 806 603 157 113 8703 99 16 744 616 139 82 8649 99 12 252 238 79 76 8686 99 14 395 307 95 87 8738 99 10 273 221 59 54 8752 99 6 55 31 21 18 8589 98 7 21 21 16 16 7235 99 4 18 16 16 16 8380 96 3 26 24 10 8 8682 99 10 5 250 16 239 16 44 8 41 8 8655 8716 99 99 Gila County ASARCO – Globe Hwy. 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 JLG Supersite # (Opened 03/01/2005) South Scottsdale Pima County 22nd St. & Craycroft Pinal County ASARCO - Hayden Jct. San Manuel * Valid Data Recovery shows the number of valid samples collected during the year and the percentage of the 8760 sampling hours in the year that were valid. Percentages will always be less than 100% due to mandatory quality assurance testing of the monitors requiring them to be off-line for several hours at a time. Exceptions: JLG Supersite operated March 1 - December, 7344 sampling hours. Note: Sulfur dioxide conversion factor: ppm x 2620 = µg/m3. # Less than 75% data recovery; does not satisfy EPA criteria. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 20 Ozone Ozone (O3) - a colorless, slightly odorous gas - 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, formed photochemically by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, has elevated concentrations only in the summer. 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), off-road vehicles such as construction equipment and trains (27 percent), electric power plants (7 percent), small stationary sources (4 percent) and biogenic emissions from soil (4 percent). 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, biogenic emissions, 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 2006, Page 21 Controls to reduce the precursors of ozone - VOC and NOx - 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 2005, 35 reporting O3 monitors were in operation; five for background, 25 for urban neighborhoods and 10 for maximum concentrations downwind of urban areas. Tables 8 and 9 present the 2005 Arizona O3. Table 8: 2005 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High .077 .076 .076 .093 .089 .113 Valid Data Recovery* No. Of Days % .074 348 95 .086 .083 360 99 .109 .108 .101 213 99 .081 .080 .077 .075 130 61 .107 .085 .105 .080 .098 .076 .093 .075 365 214 100 100 Cochise County Chiricahua NM Entrance Coconino County Grand Canyon NP Hance Gila County Tonto NM S La Paz Alamo Lake S # (Opened 05/20/05) Maricopa County Blue Point Buckeye S ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 22 Table 8: 2005 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Cave CreekS Central Phoenix Dysart S Falcon Field S Fountain Hills Glendale S Humboldt Mt. S JLG Supersite North Phoenix Pinnacle Peak Rio Verde S South Phoenix South Scottsdale Tempe S West Chandler S West Phoenix Navajo County Petrified Forest NP Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High .108 .099 .082 .104 .129 .096 .104 .095 .110 .104 .117 .108 .117 .111 .096 .094 .093 .092 .081 .095 .115 .093 .099 .094 .109 .100 .114 .096 .100 .104 .091 .086 .092 .092 .080 .093 .106 .090 .096 .093 .108 .094 .110 .094 .099 .099 .088 .081 .101 .094 .093 .086 .075 .081 .075 .101 .080 .084 .085 Valid Data Recovery* No. Of Days % .092 .090 .078 .091 .106 .088 .094 .093 .102 .094 .109 .092 .094 .097 .086 .081 213 360 214 206 360 214 204 365 363 359 213 362 359 214 214 344 99 99 100 96 99 100 95 100 99 98 99 99 98 100 100 96 .080 .076 335 92 .089 .085 .073 .079 .074 .091 .079 .083 .085 .089 .084 .073 .079 .074 .090 .079 .079 .083 .084 .083 .073 .074 .073 .089 .077 .078 .083 364 365 365 361 365 365 365 365 353 99 100 100 99 100 100 100 100 97 .097 .089 .085 .083 358 98 .089 .088 .081 .080 358 98 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 23 Table 8: 2005 Ozone Data (in ppm), One-Hour Averages (NAAQS 1-hour 0.12 ppm) Site or City Queen Creek S ## Maricopa S Pinal Air Park S Queen Valley S Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High .093 .079 .088 .117 .091 .078 .085 .113 .088 .075 .084 .110 .078 .078 .090 .089 Valid Data Recovery* No. Of Days % .087 .069 .084 .105 213 211 207 214 99 99 97 100 .078 .078 58 27 .085 .085 214 100 Yavapai County Hillside S # (Closed 06/04/2005) Yuma County Yuma Game & Fish S * Valid Data Recovery shows the number of days with at least 75 percent (18 or more hours) of valid data recovery. It also shows the percentage of the total number of scheduled sampling days that meet that criterion. Scheduled sampling days for non-seasonal monitors in 2005 was 365. S Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to November 1; 214 scheduled sampling days in the season. # Less than 75% data recovery; does not satisfy EPA summary criteria. ## Formerly “Combs” ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 24 Table 9: 2005 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages (NAAQS 8-hour 0.08 ppm) Site or City Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Days Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. .073 .073 .072 .072 0 346 95 .089 .083 .080 .079 1 355 97 .098 .097 .084 .084 2 213 99 .076 .075 .072 .071 0 127 59 .089 .067 .084 .081 .073 .081 .096 .078 .088 .079 .089 .085 .093 .081 .089 .086 .082 .072 .088 .066 .083 .080 .069 .078 .091 .077 .088 .077 .088 .083 .088 .081 .084 .078 .076 .071 .083 .066 .083 .078 .067 .078 .088 .076 .087 .076 .085 .083 .087 .076 .079 .077 .075 .069 .081 .065 .082 .075 .066 .076 .088 .076 .087 .076 .084 .083 .087 .076 .077 .076 .075 .068 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 3 1 6 0 1 1 0 0 364 214 213 357 213 201 360 213 201 365 362 357 212 359 353 214 213 338 99 100 99 98 99 94 99 99 94 100 99 99 99 98 97 100 99 93 .082 .081 .072 .070 0 308 84 Cochise County Chiricahua NM Entrance Coconino County Grand Canyon NP Hance Gila County Tonto NM S La Paz Alamo Lake S # (Opened 05/20/05) Maricopa County Blue Point Buckeye S Cave CreekS Central Phoenix Dysart S Falcon Field S Fountain Hills Glendale S Humboldt Mt. S JLG Supersite North Phoenix Pinnacle Peak Rio VerdeS South Phoenix South Scottsdale Tempe S West Chandler S West Phoenix Navajo County Petrified Forest NP ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 25 Table 9: 2005 Ozone Data (in ppm), Eight-Hour Averages (NAAQS 8-hour 0.08 ppm) Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Days Site or City Max Value 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Daily Exceed. Pima County 22nd & Craycroft Children’s Park Coachline Green Valley Rose Elementary Saguaro NP East Tangerine Tucson Downtown Tucson Fairgrounds .083 .079 .070 .075 .069 .087 .077 .077 .077 .079 .076 .067 .074 .068 .082 .073 .071 .074 .075 .075 .067 .073 .068 .080 .073 .070 .073 .074 .075 .066 .068 .067 .079 .073 .070 .073 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 364 365 364 358 365 365 365 365 350 99 100 99 98 100 100 100 100 96 .070 .068 0 356 97 Pinal County Apache Junction Maintenance Yard Casa Grande Airport Queen Creek S ## Maricopa S Pinal Air Park S Queen Valley S Yavapai County Hillside S # (Closed 6/04/2005) .076 .073 .081 .080 .069 .079 .096 .074 .076 .069 .079 .095 .073 .069 .067 .077 .085 .072 .067 .061 .077 .084 0 0 0 0 3 356 212 208 207 214 97 99 97 97 100 .076 .076 .076 .074 0 58 27 .082 .079 .078 .078 0 214 100 Yuma County Yuma Game & Fish S * Valid Data Recovery shows the number of days with at least 75 percent (18 or more hours) of valid data recovery. It also shows the percentage of the total number of scheduled sampling days that meet that criterion. Scheduled sampling days for non-seasonal monitors in 2005 was 365. S Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to November 1; 214 scheduled sampling days in the season. # Less than 75% data recovery; does not satisfy EPA summary criteria. ## Formerly “Combs” ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 26 Particulate Matter Smaller Than 10 Microns (PM10) and Smaller Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) Particulate matter is a collective term describing very small solid or liquid particles that vary considerably in size, geometry, chemical composition and physical properties. Produced by both natural processes (pollen and wind erosion) and human activity (soot, fly ash, and dust from paved and unpaved roads), particulates contribute to visibility reduction, pose a threat to public health and cause economic damage through soil disturbance. Some fine particulates (PM2.5) are formed by the condensation of vapors or by their subsequent growth through coagulation or agglomeration. Others are emitted directly from the sources, either by combustion or from mechanical grinding of soils. Coarse particulates (2.5 to 10 microns) are formed through mechanical processes such as the grinding of matter and the atomization of liquids. Fine particulates can also be classified as primary - produced within and emitted from a source with little subsequent change - or secondary - formed in the atmosphere from gaseous emissions. Secondary particulate nitrates and sulfates, for example, form in the atmosphere from the oxidation of 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. 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 - a multi-disciplinary investigation into human exposure to all environmental risks completed in 1995 - ranked outdoor air quality in general and particulate matter in particular as the highest environmental risk in the state. In this study, annual premature deaths from exposure to PM10 concentrations in Arizona were estimated at 963, which included 667 in Maricopa County and 88 in Tucson. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 27 Increased percentages of hospital admissions for respiratory disease (1 to 4 percent, depending on the city), of asthma episodes (5 to 14 percent), of lower respiratory symptoms (5 to 15 percent) and of coughs (2 to 6 percent) were attributed to the prevailing annual PM10 concentrations in 1991. Chronically high particulate concentrations in the ambient air continue to pose a serious health threat to many Arizonans. Coarse particulate emissions are mostly geological and are dominated by dusts from three activities: re-entraining dust from paved roads, driving on unpaved roads and earthmoving associated with construction. Soil dust from these sources and others contribute more than 70 percent of the coarse particulates in Phoenix. On days with winds in excess of 15 miles per hour, wind erosion of soil contributes to this loading. With a more diverse chemical composition, fine particulate (PM2.5) emissions are more evenly distributed among a larger number of sources. At the Phoenix JLG Supersite, receptor modeling indicates gasoline and diesel engine exhaust account for more than two-thirds of the PM2.5 emissions. Soil dust contributes another 10.5 percent. In other urban and rural areas, this mixture of sources will vary. Agricultural and mining areas, for example, will be more heavily influenced by emissions from these activities. PM2.5 concentrations tend to be at their highest in the central portions of urban areas, diminishing to background levels at the urban fringe. In contrast, PM10 concentrations are not spatially distributed smoothly 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 28 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 2005 PM10 data reported in Table 10 represent 59 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 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 2005. The data are reported in ambient conditions (local temperature and pressure) as required by EPA. Particulate data from the IMPROVE network are not included. In 2006, the EPA changed the PM2.5 NAAQS for 24hours from 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/ m3, with the effective date of December 16, 2006. The EPA also eliminated the annual standard for PM10 but retained the 24-hour standard of 150 ug/m3. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 29 Table 10: 2005 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. Site or City Method Annual Average 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Obs. Apache County TEP – Springerville – Coalyard TEOM 15 213 198 355 99 TEP – Springerville – Coyote Hills TEOM 10 33 29 356 99 Partisol 35 86 82 58 95 Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (1)# Partisol 28 76 68 53 87 Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (2) Partisol 28 91 72 56 92 Flagstaff Middle School # Partisol 17 38 35 49 80 Sedona Post Office # Partisol 12 34 25 54 89 Hayden – Old Jail, ADEQ # Partisol 30 124 63 56 92 PDMI – Miami – Golf Course Dichot 21 40 39 56 92 Miami – Ridgeline, PDMI Dichot 12 23 23 60 98 Payson Well Site # Partisol 22 81 47 49 80 Dichot 21 50 46 53 87 Bethune Elementary School (1) Bethune Elementary School (2) (Closed 06/27/2005) # Buckeye Dichot 59 198 136 57 93 Dichot 44 91 86 25 41 TEOM 53 169 158 360 99 Central Phoenix TEOM 37 116 104 361 99 Central Phoenix Hi-Vol 39 125 76 58 95 Cochise County Douglas Red Cross Coconino County Gila County Graham County Safford # Maricopa County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 30 Table 10: 2005 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. Site or City Method Annual Average 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Obs. Chandler Hi-Vol 49 130 115 60 98 Durango Complex TEOM 66 206 200 361 99 Dysart Hi-Vol 29 76 68 61 100 Glendale Hi-Vol 29 84 56 61 100 Greenwood Hi-Vol 52 173 95 60 98 Higley JLG Supersite (Opened 01/01/2005) Mesa TEOM 51 142 121 360 99 Partisol 32 138 100 58 95 Hi-Vol 30 86 55 60 98 North Phoenix Hi-Vol 30 81 72 61 100 South Phoenix Hi-Vol 55 147 107 61 100 South Scottsdale Hi-Vol 34 121 96 61 100 West Chandler Hi-Vol 34 94 68 60 98 West Forty Third TEOM 74 233 200 362 99 West Phoenix Hi-Vol 45 155 103 60 98 Partisol 19 48 48 56 92 Partisol 14 37 25 54 89 Ajo Partisol 23 45 43 53 87 Broadway & Swan Hi-Vol 24 46 44 60 98 Corona De Tucson Hi-Vol 15 33 31 59 97 BAM 17 54 51 358 98 Mohave County Bullhead City # Navajo County Show Low # Pima County Green Valley 2 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 31 Table 10: 2005 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. Site or City Orange Grove 1 Method Annual Average 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Obs. Hi-Vol 29 98 74 364 100 Prince Road # Hi-Vol 37 88 88 52 85 Rillito, ADEQ Partisol 39 84 78 59 97 Rillito, APCC Hi-Vol 27 57 50 59 98 Santa Clara Hi-Vol 27 82 55 59 97 Hi-Vol 30 73 73 363 99 Hi-Vol 19 37 35 57 93 Apache Junction Fire Station Hi-Vol 20 47 38 59 97 Casa Grande Downtown Hi-Vol 31 79 72 58 95 Coolidge Maintenance Yard Hi-Vol 36 81 73 56 92 Eloy City Complex Hi-Vol 33 73 72 59 97 Mammoth County Complex Hi-Vol 14 33 28 61 100 Pinal Air Park Hi-Vol 22 122 44 61 100 Pinal County Housing Complex (1)# Hi-Vol 57 158 114 44 72 Pinal County Housing Complex (2) Hi-Vol 59 179 172 61 100 Riverside Maintenance Yard Hi-Vol 18 35 34 58 95 Stanfield Hi-Vol 52 173 143 59 97 Partisol 57 280 205 59 97 Clarkdale – NW (2) Dichot 15 32 31 58 95 Clarkdale – SE (1) Dichot 22 43 42 58 95 South Tucson 1 Tangerine Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales Post Office Yavapai County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 32 Table 10: 2005 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. Site or City Prescott Valley # Method Annual Average 24-Hour Average Max 2nd Value High Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Obs. Partisol 15 53 31 52 85 Yuma Courthouse (1) Partisol 35 94 86 57 93 Yuma Courthouse (2) # Partisol 33 99 80 56 92 Agua Prieta Fire Station Dichot 68 172 154 60 98 Sonora Nogales Fire Station Dichot 63 240 194 60 98 Yuma County Mexico 1 2 3 Samples collected every day - 365 sample days in 2005. Samples collected every hour - 8760 sample hours in 2005. 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 shows the number of valid observations during 2005 and the percentage of scheduled samples that were valid. There were 61 monitoring days scheduled in 2005 for monitors on the every 6th day schedule. Rillito - APCC was the only site following the every 3rd day schedule (122 observations in 2005). # 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 are excluded from annual statistics. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 33 Table 11: 2005 PM2.5 Data (in µg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 15µg/m3, 24-hour Average 65 µg/m3) City or Site Method 24-Hour Avg Annual Average Max 2nd High Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Obs. Cochise County Douglas Red Cross 2 FRM 7.3 17.2 16.0 60 99 FRM 6.0 18.9 12.7 55 90 FRM 8.3 32.2 22.9 55 90 JLG Supersite 3 FRM 9.7 32.7 30.3 121 100 Mesa (Opened 04/28/05) South Phoenix (Opened 01/01/2005) West Phoenix 3 (1) FRM 8.9 17.8 17.5 81 98 FRM 12.8 56.7 40.3 118 97 FRM 12.9 49.2 44.4 119 98 West Phoenix 3 (2) FRM 11.8 49.9 48.3 118 97 Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School 2 Gila County Payson Well Site 2 # Maricopa County Pima County Children’s Park 3 5.9 13.2 11.4 115 94 ++ 7.5 22.2 21.4 8672 99 Geronimo 4 BAM ++ 8.9 28.3 26.6 8585 98 Green Valley 4 BAM ++ 3.7 16.4 13.7 8585 98 FRM 6.3 16.1 13.7 326 89 6.7 19.0 17.5 8585 99 Coachline FRM 4 BAM Orange Grove 1 Rose Elementary 4 BAM ++ Pinal County Apache Junction Fire Station 3 FRM 5.5 12.7 10.9 111 91 Casa Grande Downtown 2 FRM 7.3 19.3 16.9 53 87 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 34 Table 11: 2005 PM2.5 Data (in µg/m3) (NAAQS Annual Average 15µg/m3, 24-hour Average 65 µg/m3) City or Site Method 24-Hour Avg Annual Average Max 2nd High Valid Data Recovery * No. of % Obs. Santa Cruz County Nogales Post Office 2 (1) FRM 13.1 49.7 33.0 60 98 Nogales Post Office 2 (2) FRM 12.9 44.6 32.8 60 98 *Valid data recovery shows the number of valid observations during 2005 and the percentage of scheduled samples that were valid. ++ Non Reference method. 1 Samples collected every day – 365 sample days in 2005. Samples collected every sixth day - 61 sample days in 2005. 3 Samples collected every third day - 122 sample days in 2005. 4 Samples collected every hour - 8760 sample hours in 2005. 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 35 Criteria Pollutants - 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 2004 or 2005. The data are presented in Table 12 and Table 13. 2004-2005 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Compliance Values by County Table 12: 2004-2005 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) NAAQS for one-hour carbon monoxide: The highest of the second-highest values in a twoyear 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: 2004-2005 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2004 2005 Compliance Max 2nd Max 2nd City or Site Value High Value High Value Buckeye S 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 Central Phoenix 5.0 4.4 5.2 5.1 5.1 Dysart S 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 6.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 7.6 7.3 5.9 5.4 7.3 Maricopa County Glendale S Greenwood ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 36 Table 12: 2004-2005 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2004 2005 Compliance Max 2nd Max 2nd City or Site Value High Value High Value JLG Supersite 4.9 4.9 5.6 5.1 5.1 S 3.0 2.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 S 4.1 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.7 South Phoenix S 6.7 5.9 5.5 5.2 5.9 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.6 3.2 3.0 3.0 West Chandler S 2.9 2.7 3.5 2.7 2.7 West Indian School 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.7 West Phoenix Pima County 7.7 7.5 7.2 7.0 7.5 22nd St. & Alvernon 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.6 4.0 22nd St. & Craycroft 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.9 Children’s Park 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.2 Golf Links & Kolb S 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.5 Downtown 5.5 4.7 3.0 2.8 4.7 Mesa North Phoenix South Scottsdale Tempe S Cherry & Glenn S S S Seasonal monitor. Maricopa County monitors operate during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to December 31; 5088 hours in 2005. Pima County monitors operate during January 1 to May 1 and October 1 to December 31; 5118 hours in 2005. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 37 Table 13. 2004-2005 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. 2004-2005 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: 2004-2005 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2004 2005 Compliance Max 2nd Max 2nd City or Site Value High Value High Value Buckeye S 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 Central Phoenix 3.4 3.3 4.1 3.8 3.8 Dysart S 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 Glendale S 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.3 Greenwood 4.9 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3 JLG Supersite 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.6 4.0 Mesa S 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 North Phoenix S 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.2 South Phoenix S 3.5 3.3 3.8 3.2 3.3 South Scottsdale S 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Tempe S 1.9 1.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 West Chandler S 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.1 West Indian School 4.7 4.6 5.3 4.8 4.8 West Phoenix 5.2 5.1 5.8 4.6 5.1 22nd St. & Alvernon 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.1 22nd St. & Craycroft 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.6 Cherry & Glenn S 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.4 Maricopa County Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 38 Table 13: 2004-2005 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm) 2004 2005 Compliance Max 2nd Max 2nd City or Site S Value High Value High Value Children’s Park 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.4 Golf Links & Kolb S 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 Tucson Downtown 3.7 2.5 1.9 1.7 2.5 Seasonal monitor. Maricopa County monitors operate during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to December 31; 5088 hours in 2005. Pima County monitors operate during January 1 to May 1 and October 1 to December 31; 5112 hours in 2005. Nitrogen Dioxide Table 14: 2005 Nitrogen Dioxide Average The NAAQS for NO2 is 0.053 parts per NAAQS Compliance Values million (ppm) for an annual average. The standard is attained when the annual County Exceedances Violations arithmetic mean concentration in a calendar La Paz 0 0 year is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm. To demonstrate attainment, the annual mean Maricopa 0 0 must be based upon hourly data that are at Pima 0 0 least 75 percent complete. NO2 annual Pinal 0 0 averages near Arizona power plants range from 2 percent to 17 percent of the Summary: 11 of 11 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 2005 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 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 39 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 2005, the maximum concentration sites - all near copper smelters - comply with these standards; the concentrations ranging from 1 to 67 percent of the three-hour, 2 to 58 percent of the 24-hour and 42 percent of the annual average standards. Sites near power plants are close to background levels, with annual averages near 1 µg/m3. See Table 7 for the 2005 averages. Table 15: 2005 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:15 out of 15 monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 40 Ozone -- One-hour The NAAQS one-hour standard for ozone is 0.12 ppm. Compliance with this standard is attained when, for a three-year period, 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. Only one exceedance of the one hour standard occurred in Arizona in 2005, a 0.129 ppm reading at Fountain Hills, in metropolitan Phoenix. 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 2003 – 2005. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 41 2002 to 2005 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Table 16: 2003 to 2005 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) County NAAQS: The three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. Eight-Hour Exceedances * Sites in Violation 2003 2004 2005 Cochise 0 0 0 0 Coconino 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Gila Maricopa 32 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Navajo Pima 1 0 0 0 Pinal 5 0 0 0 Yavapai 0 0 0 0 Yuma 1 0 0 0 Summary: 41 of 41 monitors in compliance for 2003 to 2005 * Includes all eight-hour exceedances above fourth highest value. Table 16: 2003 to 2005 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Bold denotes exceedances and sites in violation. City or Site Fourth-Highest Value 2003 2004 2005 ThreeYear Average Cochise County Chiricahua NM Entrance Station 0.073 0.070 .072 0.072 0.073 0.072 .079 0.075 0.084 0.077 .084 0.082 N/A N/A .075 N/A 0.086 0.075 .081 0.081 Coconino County Grand Canyon NP – Hance Gila County Tonto NM S La Paz County Alamo Lake (Opened 05/20/05) Maricopa County Blue Point ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 42 Table 16: 2003 to 2005 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Bold denotes exceedances and sites in violation. City or Site Fourth-Highest Value 2003 2004 2005 ThreeYear Average Buckeye S (Opened 08/01/04) Cave Creek S N/A 0.058 # .065 N/A 0.083 0.076 .082 0.080 Central Phoenix 0.079 0.074 .075 0.076 0.073 0.065 .066 0.068 0.079 0.070 .076 0.075 0.083 0.075 .088 0.082 0.085 0.076 .076 0.079 0.087 0.078 .087 0.084 JLG Supersite 0.075 0.072 .076 0.074 North Phoenix 0.086 0.080 .084 0.083 0.075 0.072 N/A N/A 0.083 0.068 .083 0.082 0.083 0.074 .087 0.081 South Phoenix 0.076 0.072 .076 0.075 South Scottsdale 0.079 0.073 .077 0.076 0.080 0.072 .076 0.076 0.078 0.070 .075 0.074 0.077 0.072 .068 0.072 0.074 0.071 .070 .072 22nd St. & Craycroft 0.073 0.069 .074 0.072 Children’s Park 0.076 0.068 .075 0.073 Coachline 0.061 # 0.068 .066 N/A Green Valley 0.068 # 0.066 .068 N/A Dysart S Falcon Field S Fountain Hills Glendale S S Humboldt Mt. S Palo Verde (Closed 10/31/2004) Pinnacle Peak Rio Verde Tempe S S West Chandler S West Phoenix Navajo County Petrified Forest NP Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 43 Table 16: 2003 to 2005 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm) Bold denotes exceedances and sites in violation. Rose Elementary 0.065 # 0.064 .067 ThreeYear Average N/A Saguaro NP East 0.078 0.073 .079 0.077 Tangerine 0.074 0.068 .073 0.072 Tucson Downtown 0.068 0.063 .070 0.067 Tucson Fairgrounds 0.070 0.064 .073 0.069 Apache Junction - Maintenance Yard 0.072 0.069 .068 0.069 Casa Grande - Airport 0.073 0.070 .072 0.072 0.072 0.059 .067 0.066 0.075 0.064 .061 0.066 0.074 0.067 .077 0.073 0.087 0.073 .084 0.081 0.067 0.077 .074 0.073 0.078 0.073 .078 0.076 City or Site Fourth-Highest Value 2003 2004 2005 Pinal County Queen Creek Maricopa S ## S Pinal Air Park S Queen Valley 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. ## Formerly “Combs” N/A - Data not available Notes: Data follow EPA truncation and averaging rules. Data published in previous annual reports may be slightly different. # Particulate Matter - PM10 The NAAQS for particulate matter 10 microns and smaller in diameter (PM10) are 50 µg/m3 for the annual arithmetic mean concentration and 150 µg/m3 for the 24-hour average concentration. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 44 The annual standard is attained when, for a three-year period, the expected annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50µg/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. 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 2003 to 2005 expected exceedance rates for the PM10 annual arithmetic means and maximum 24-hour average values Table 17: 2003 to 2005 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3, Standard Conditions) 2003 to 2005 PM10 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County County Sites in Sites above Standard Violation 2003 2004 2005 NAAQS: The expected annual arithmetic mean (average of three most recent annual means) is less than or equal to 50 µg/m3. Apache The expected annual arithmetic mean is rounded to the nearest 1 µg/m3 for comparison to the standard. Graham Cochise Coconino Gila 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 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Summary: 54 of 59 monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 45 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Table 17: 2003 to 2005 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) 2003 2004 2005 Expected Annual Mean 16.2 13.4 15.4 15 11.9 10.2 10.3 11 Douglas – Red Cross 30.3 26.3 34.4 30 Paul Spur 19.3 14.7 27.6 # N/A Flagstaff – Middle School 19.8 # 16.0 17.0 # N/A Sedona 26.5 # 11.1 12.2 # N/A Hayden – Old Jail 36.0 27.5 29.9 # N/A Miami – Golf Course 21.0 16.9 21.0 20 Miami – Ridgeline 15.0 10.2 12.4 13 Payson 24.3 18.9 22.1# N/A 23.4 17.0 20.8# N/A Bethune Elementary School 47.2 42.4 58.6 49 Buckeye (Opened 10/19/2004) Central Phoenix – every 6th day monitor Central Phoenix – continuous monitor Chandler N/A 39.9 # 52.7 N/A 39.8 32.3 38.5 37 43.0 36.6 37.1 39 49.8 39.6 49.4 46 62.3 51.6 66.4 60 City or Site Apache County TEP – Springerville – Coalyard TEP – Springerville – Coyote Hills Cochise County Coconino County Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County Durango Complex ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 46 Table 17: 2003 to 2005 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) 2003 2004 2005 Expected Annual Mean 36.3 # 27.3 29.0 N/A 35.6 25.7 29.0 30 Greenwood 51.0 44.3 52.3 49 Higley JLG Supersite (Closed 12/31/2003 – part of urban haze program; Reopened 1/1/2005) Mesa 61.6 47.9 51.4 54 36.6 # N/A 32.3 N/A 33.6 23.2 30.0 29 North Phoenix Palo Verde (Closed 12/31/2004) South Phoenix 33.9 24.8 29.6 29 26.4 14.5 N/A N/A 52.0 45.6 54.7 51 South Scottsdale 36.1 26.1 34.0 32 West Chandler 42.4 29.9 34.2 36 West Forty Third 62.3 61.1 73.9 66 West Phoenix 46.4 36.9 44.5 43 20.1 18.2 18.6 # N/A 18.2 14.9 13.7 # N/A Ajo 22.7 19.3 22.7 22 Broadway & Swan 26.6 20.7 23.7 24 Corona de Tucson 16.8 12.4 15.4 15 Green Valley 18.7 13.6 17.4 17 Orange Grove 29.8 26.8 29.2 29 Prince Road 31.4 28.4 37.0 # 30 City or Site Dysart (Opened 7/16/2003) Glendale Mohave County Bullhead City – ADEQ Navajo County Show Low Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 47 Table 17: 2003 to 2005 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) 2003 2004 2005 Rillito, ADEQ 39.5 32.2 39.1 Expected Annual Mean 37 Rillito, APCC 33.6 26.9 26.8 29 Santa Clara 26.7 20.4 26.5 25 South Tucson 34.1 29.2 30.2 31 Tangerine 19.3 14.7 19.1 18 Pinal County Apache Junction Fire Station (Opened 7/1/2003) Casa Grande Downtown 26.7 # 18.4 19.9 N/A 31.5 24.4 30.9 29 Coolidge Maintenance Yard 35.3 24.5 36.0 32 Eloy 41.5 27.8 33.4 34 Mammoth 16.4 11.8 13.6 14 Pinal Air Park Pinal County Housing Complex 28.6 20.2 22.3 24 61.0 47.1 56.7 # N/A Riverside Maintenance Yard (Opened 3/2003) 23.9 # 15.2 18.1 N/A Stanfield 46.1 # 33.9 52.2 N/A 37.5 42.6 56.9 46 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 19.4 14.7 14.7 16.3 Clarkdale – SE (#1) Prescott Valley (Opened 3/12/2003) 23.8 19.8 21.8 21.8 13.9 # 12.9 14.8 # N/A 38.1 35.5 # 34.9 N/A City or Site Santa Cruz County Nogales Post Office Yavapai County Yuma County Yuma – Juvenile Center/Courthouse ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 48 Table 17: 2003 to 2005 Annual Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) City or Site 2003 2004 2005 Expected Annual Mean 60.3 60.5 68.1 63 65.0 # 50.2 62.9 N/A Mexico Agua Prieta – Fire Station Nogales – Fire Station 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 2006, Page 49 2003 to 2005 PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Compliance Values, By County Sites with Exceedances Sites in Violation 2003 2004 2005 NAAQS: Expected occurrence of Apache 0 0 0 0 exceedances (samples equal to or greater Cochise 1 0 0 1 than 150 ug/m3) is one or less over three consecutive years. Coconino 0 0 0 0 Gila 0 0 0 0 Sample values are rounded to the nearest 10 0 0 0 0 µg/m3 to determine exceedance; values less Graham 3 Maricopa 14 1 6 12 than or equal to 154 µg/m are not exceedances; values greater than or equal to Mohave 0 0 0 0 155 µg/m3 are exceedances. Navajo 0 0 0 0 Pima 1 0 0 0 Pinal 2 2 2 2 Santa Cruz 1 0 1 1 Yavapai 0 0 0 0 Yuma 0 0 0 0 Table 18: 2003 to 2005 Maximum 24Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3, Standard Conditions) Summary: 42 of 58 monitors in compliance Table 18: 2003 to 2005 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) 2003 2004 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 128.7 0 197.6 1 <1 0 68.6 0 28.9 0 <1 79 0 56 0 86 0 <1 207 6.4 44 0 76 0 2.1 60 # 0 42 0 38 0 <1 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg 185.0 1 76.8 Douglas Red Cross Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant City or Site 2005 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 2006, Page 50 Table 18: 2003 to 2005 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) 2003 2004 2005 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 32 0 34 0 <1 0 55 0 124 0 <1 53 0 40 0 40 0 <1 PDMI - Miami – Ridgeline 59 0 26 0 23 0 <1 Payson Well Site 99 0 52 0 81 0 <1 76 0 99 0 50 0 <1 Bethune Elementary School (Opened 1/3/2003) 145 0 122 0 198 6.4 2.1 Buckeye E N/A N/A 82 # 0 169 2 N/A 114 0 81 0 125 0 <1 183 3.1 94 0 116 0 1.0 Chandler 240 6.0 150 0 130 0 2.0 Durango Complex E 195 6.0 139 0 206 13.0 6.3 133 # 0 94 0 76 0 <1 Glendale 151 0 69 0 84 0 <1 Greenwood 166 6.0 100 0 173 6 4.0 225 6.0 159 1 142 0 2.3 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg 69 # 0 Hayden – Old Jail 91 PDMI - Miami – Golf Course City or Site Sedona Post Office Max 24-Hr Avg Gila County Graham County Safford Maricopa County (Opened 10/19/2004) Central Phoenix – every 6th day monitor Central Phoenix – continuous monitor E Dysart (Opened 7/16/2003) Higley E ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 51 Table 18: 2003 to 2005 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) 2003 2004 2005 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 46 # 0 N/A 0 N/A 176 6.0 49 0 86 0 2.0 North Phoenix 155 6.0 46 0 81 0 2.0 Palo Verde (Closed 01/05/2005) 158 6.4 42 0 N/A 0 N/A South Phoenix 164 6.0 132 0 147 0 2.0 South Scottsdale 172 6.0 77 0 121 0 2.0 West Chandler E 206 13.7 70 0 94 0 4.6 West Forty Third E 157 6.0 145 0 233 13.0 6.3 West Phoenix 158 6.4 100 0 155 6.0 4.1 121 0 48 0 48 0 <1 58 0 41 0 37 0 <1 Ajo – ADOT 139 0 43 0 45 0 <1 Broadway & Swan 122 0 35 0 46 0 <1 Corona De Tucson 104 0 37 0 33 0 <1 Green Valley 127 0 127 0 54 0 <1 152 0 119 0 98 0 <1 Prince Road 126 0 67 0 88 0 <1 Rillito , ADEQ 118 0 93 0 84 0 <1 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg 169 # 6.0 Maryvale (Closed 4/1/2004) 151 Mesa City or Site JLG Supersite (Closed 12/31/2003 – part of urban haze program) Max 24-Hr Avg Mohave County Bullhead City – ADEQ Navajo County Show Low Pima County Orange Grove E ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 52 Table 18: 2003 to 2005 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) 2003 2004 2005 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 130 0 83.7 0 1 0 41 0 82 0 <1 150 0 149 0 73 0 <1 Tangerine 125 0 34 0 37 0 <1 Pinal County Apache Junction Maintenance Yard (Closed 12/31/2003) Apache Junction Fire Station (Opened 7/1/2003) 95 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 103 0 35 0 47 0 N/A Casa Grande Downtown 99 0 52 0 79 0 <1 Coolidge Maintenance Yard 106 0 57 0 81 0 <1 Eloy City Complex 154 0 46 0 73 0 <1 Mammoth County Complex 89 0 30 0 33 0 <1 Pinal Air Park 108 0 39 0 122 0 <1 Pinal County Housing Complex 289 12.0 155 6 179 12.0 10.0 Riverside Maintenance Yard (Opened 3/2003) 101 # 0 34 0 35 0 N/A Stanfield 171 # 6.4 80 0 173 6 4.1 184 12.3 140 0 280 12 8.1 Clarkdale – NW (#2) 68 0 36 0 31.5 0 0 Clarkdale – SE (#1) 59 0 41 0 43.1 0 0 City or Site Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Rillito , APCC (1-in-3 day schedule) 256 3.1 Santa Clara 146 South Tucson Santa Cruz County Nogales Post Office Yavapai County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 53 Table 18: 2003 to 2005 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM10 Compliance (in µg/m3) 2003 City or Site Prescott Valley (Opened 3/12/2003) Max 24-Hr Avg 2004 2005 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg Exp. Exc. 3-Year Avg Expected Rate of Exceedance 31 0 53 0 N/A 114 # 0 94 0 0 Exp. Exc. Max 24-Hr Avg 68 # 0 127 0 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 2005. The annual PM2.5 standard is met when the three-year average of annual means is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3. This three-year average is determined by calculating the quarterly averages for each year (with 75 percent data recovery in each quarter) to determine the calendar year average and then averaging the three years together. The 24-hour standard is met when the three-year average of the 98th percentile values is less than or equal to 65 µg/m3. There must also be 75 percent data completeness for each year. Please note that the data in 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 54 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: 2003 to 2005 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3, local conditions) 2003 to 2005 PM2.5 Annual Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Sites in Sites with Exceedances Violation 2003 2004 2005 NAAQS: The three-year average of Cochise 0 0 0 0 annual means is less than or equal to 3 Coconino 0 0 0 0 15 µg/m 0 Gila 0 0 0 Maricopa 0 0 0 0 Pima 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz 0 0 0 0 Summary: 10 of 10 federal reference monitors in compliance Table 19: 2003 to 2005 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 2003 2004 2005 ThreeYear Average 6.47 # 7.11 7.33 N/A 5.69 # 6.77 6.01 N/A 9.01 # 9.54 8.38 # N/A JLG Supersite 11.27 9.73 9.72 10.2 Tempe Community Center (Closed 7/26/2004) 9.63 7.30 # N/A N/A West Phoenix 10.68 11.60 11.87 11.4 Children’s Park 6.54 5.57 5.91 6.0 Orange Grove 6.45 5.79 6.32 6.2 Cochise County Douglas Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School Gila County Payson Well Site Maricopa County Pima County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 55 Table 19: 2003 to 2005 Annual Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3) City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 2003 2004 2005 ThreeYear Average 6.30 # 5.51 # 5.52 5.8 8.42 7.13 7.33 7.62 11.30 10.83 13.1 11.4 Pinal County Apache Junction Fire Station Casa Grande Downtown 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. 2003 to 2005 PM2.5 24-Hour Average NAAQS Compliance Values, By County Table 20: 2003 to 2005 24Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3, local conditions) Cochise NAAQS: The three-year average of the 98th percentile values is less than Coconino or equal to 65 µg/m3. Gila Note: The three-year average is rounded to the nearest 1 µg/m3 for comparison to the standard. Maricopa Pima Santa Cruz Sites with Exceedances 2003 2004 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites in Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary: 10 of 10 federal reference monitors in compliance ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 56 Table 20. 2003 to 2005 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3) 98th Percentile City or Site Federal Reference Monitors Samples ** ThreeYear Average 2003 2004 2005 11.7# 22.5 16.0 16.7 16.9 # 20.7 12.7 16.8 24.9 # 19.3 22.9 # 22.4 JLG Supersite 24.2 27.6 28.2 24.1 Tempe Community Center (Closed 7/26/2004) 25.0 14.8 # N/A N/A West Phoenix 25.9 29.9 40.5 32.1 Children’s Park 13.2 10.3 10.7 11.4 Orange Grove 15.9 13.3 13.7 14.3 Apache Junction Fire Station 21.1 10.3 10.6 14.0 Casa Grande Downtown 26.7 13.7 16.9 19.1 35.0 25.1 33.0 31.0 Cochise County Douglas Red Cross Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School Gila County Payson Maricopa County Pima County Pinal County Santa Cruz County Nogales – Post Office ** 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 2006, 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 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 of aerosol sampling only, ADEQ included nephelometers for measuring light scattering at its jointly operated sites. 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 2005. 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. As natural background levels are 15 Mm-1, this table shows that on average most sites are within background, with the exceptions being Tucson Mountain in 2002 – 2005, and Pleasant Valley in 2003. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 58 Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) 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 2004 17 8 1 2005 23 9 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 2005 26 12 4 1998 28 12 2 1999 22 11 3 McFadden Peak Sierra Ancha Wilderness (site closed in 2000) 1998 24 10 1 1999 18 7 0 Muleshoe Ranch Chiracahua National Monument Wilderness, Galiuro Wilderness, Chiricahua Forest 1998 24 11 4 1999 20 11 3 2000 22 11 3 2001 24 12 4 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) Year ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 59 Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) Site and Wilderness Area Service Wilderness 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 Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours 2002 25 12 4 2003 25 11 3 2004 20 8 1 2005 21 10 4 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 2005 28 13 4 1998 N/A N/A N/A 1999 28 13 4 2000 28 13 3 2001 28 13 3 2002 30 13 3 2003 32 14 3 2004 25 12 3 2005 33 14 3 1998 30 12 2 1999 24 13 6 Year ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 60 Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1) Mm-1 (24 hour Averages) Site and Wilderness Area (Includes both the West facilities support building and the National Park Service well site) Chiricahua National Monument Organ Pipe National Monument Petrified Forest National Park Mean of the 20% Dirtiest Sampled Hours Mean of all Sampled Hours Mean of the Cleanest 20% Sampled Hours 2000 23 12 5 2001 22 11 3 2002 31 16 6 2003 35 17 6 2004 32 16 5 2005 31 16 5 2004 18 9 3 2005 21 10 2 2004 21 10 3 2005 23 12 4 2004 20 9 3 2005 24 11 3 Year N/A – Not available Urban Haze Besides the Class I areas, ADEQ also operates transmissometers and nephelometers in Phoenix and Tucson. Data from these instruments through 2005 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. As visual range in miles may be a more familiar unit, the values in inverse megameters (Mm-1) in Table 22 can be converted to visual range in miles by the expression (2431/bext). A few conversions are given here: Miles Comment Mm-1 133 100 50 7 18 24 48 347 Highest in Table 22 Lowest in the Table ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 61 Table 22. Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2005 (in Mm-1) 24 Hour Samples Site 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Mesa 2004 106 60 24 110 65 29 Transmissometer 2005 121 72 35 123 78 44 Phoenix Transmissometer 1998 133 78 45 136 84 50 1999 127 72 38 128 77 42 2000 131 74 38 134 80 42 2001 118 69 36 118 73 42 2002 124 75 42 125 79 46 2003 131 72 36 135 78 42 2004 121 69 35 126 75 42 2005 126 72 36 128 78 43 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 2005 80 33 9 73 33 11 Phoenix Nephelometer (Supersite) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 62 Table 22. Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2005 (in Mm-1) 24 Hour Samples Site 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Phoenix Nephelometer 2004 46 22 7 52 27 9 (Dysart) 2005 41 20 8 41 23 10 Phoenix Nephelometer (Estrella Mountain) 2004 54 24 7 68 32 10 2005 76 35 12 77 39 14 Phoenix Nephelometer (Vehicle Emissions) 2004 69 29 9 64 31 12 2005 76 35 12 73 37 15 Tucson Transmissometer 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 2005 101 61 31 125 76 39 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 Tucson Nephelometer (U of A Central) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 63 Table 22. Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2005 (in Mm-1) 24 Hour Samples Site Tucson Nephelometer (Craycroft) Tucson Nephelometer (Children’s Park) 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. Year Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 2003 43 23 9 45 25 11 2004 38 20 8 42 22 10 2005 45 24 10 47 27 12 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 2005 35 19 7 44 25 11 2004 41 20 8 43 23 10 2005 35 19 7 35 20 8 N/A – Not available ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 64 Special Projects Introduction In addition to ADEQ’s statewide regulatory ambient air monitoring program, the Air Quality Division continued several special projects during 2005 and the first half of 2006. 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 pollutant concentrations under a variety of conditions. Control strategies are modeled to predict the most effective methods to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Figure 4 - Yuma West Monitoring Station, Western Quality Standards in Arizona. Issues related to Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study 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. 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 65 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 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, and a PM10 Maintenance Plan on August 18, 2006. All Best Available Control Measures (BACM) have been adopted and implemented by August 2005. 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 being conducted that includes 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 2006, Page 66 Continuous and filter-based monitors were deployed in March 2006 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. The filter-based particulates samplers and the integrated gaseous pollutant samplers have been run on a one in six day schedule. This monitoring is slated to continue into 2007. 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 to pave Figure 6 – Map of Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality the dirt roads. Results of this month- Study monitoring locations. 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, steep-walled canyon that meets the Verde River upstream of Clarkdale. Six miles south of the canyon’s mouth is 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 finished in autumn 2005, provided the regulatory agencies with a comprehensive assessment of the present visibility degradation in the canyon from the existing plant, as well as the combined degradation from the two plants. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 67 Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project (JATAP) The second phase of the Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project (JATAP) began in January 2005 with a full-year air toxics monitoring program in greater Phoenix. Funding was 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 had nine sites: one each in the Gila River, Salt River, and Fort McDowell Indian Communities and five in central and west-central Phoenix . These air toxics concentrations will provide enough information for a preliminary risk assessment, to be conducted in late 2006, 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 2007 – 2009. 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 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 68 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) has 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. Hazardous Air Emergency Response Part of the ADEQ multimedia response team, the Hazardous Air Emergency Response (HAER), formerly known as the Hazardous Air Response Team, is called to emergencies by the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) for those incidents that threaten air quality. HAER’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 grabsampling and continuous sampling air monitoring equipment, field deployable meteorological monitoring equipment including a mini-SODAR to measure winds up to 1,000 feet above the ground, a portable gas chromatograph / mass spectrometer, remotely telemetered video surveillance systems, and many portable particulate monitors for monitoring emissions from fires and other particulates sources. It is staffed by two volunteer members of the Air Quality Division. Since it started in 1992, HAER (and formerly HART) has responded to 124 incidents. During calendar year 2005, HART responded to five incidents: four wildfires and one dump fire. The wildfires were “BART” near Carefree, “Cave Creek Complex Fire”, “Florida” near Tucson, and the “Edge Complex” near Pumpkin Center. The dump fire was at Naco. Through August 2006, HART responded to six incidents: three wildfires (“February” near Payson, “Brins” near Sedona, and “Warm” near Fredonia); the Goodrich UPCO Process Fire, the American Recycling Fire, and the Ecology Recycling Fire. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 69 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 Figure 7 - Average Best & Average Worst Visibility 1980s, the concentrations of both Impairment in the Phoenix Area lead and SO2 decreased rapidly. Although improvements have also been made in the concentrations of CO, O3 and particulates, O3 concentrations in the greater Phoenix area are virtually equal to the standard and PM10 concentrations exceed the standards in Nogales, Phoenix, Buckeye, and Casa Grande. Visibility -- the aspect of the atmosphere most obvious to the population -- has been measured continuously in urban and pristine parts of the 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 2.2 parts per million (ppm) in 2005 – a decrease of 82% (Figure 8). In Phoenix at 18th Street and Roosevelt (Central Phoenix), the decline was from 23.0 ppm in 1975 to 4.1 ppm in 2005 – a decrease of 82% (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 2006, Page 70 14 12 8-hr CO Maxima (ppm) Standard = 9 10 8 6 4 2 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 0 Figure 8 - Eight-hour carbon monoxide maxima at 22nd Street and Alvernon Way in Tucson 25 8-Hr CO (ppm) 20 15 Standard = 9 10 5 0 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 9 - Eight-hour carbon monoxide maxima at 18th Street and Roosevelt in Central Phoenix ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 71 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 32% and 23%, for Phoenix and Tucson, respectively. The Phoenix decrease in O3 concentrations since 1980 has been nowhere near as pronounced as its declining CO trend, but the net result has been similar: only one exceedance of the O3 standard has been recorded after 1996. The onehour standard was officially declared attained on May 16, 2001. Changes in emissions would not be expected to produce proportional changes in concentration because of the relatively high background level of O3 and its photochemical formation from hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. 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 remained steady and just below the standard until 2005. In 2005, the network maximum one-hour O3 concentration increased in the in the Phoenix area to the exceedance level (but did not constitute a violation, see Chapter 2, 1-hr O3 standard) at one site in the Phoenix area. 0.200 1-Hour Ozone (ppm) 0.160 Standard = 0.124 0.120 PHOENIX TUCSON YUMA 0.080 0.040 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 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. However, due to 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. Long-term trends of the fourth-highest ozone concentrations in Tucson fluctuate between 0.060 and 0.080 ppm, but, overall, are steady (Figure 11). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 72 A similar pattern in eight-hour ozone trends also characterizes Yuma, where, although the values are slightly higher than Tucson’s, the nearly constant trend is apparent (Figure 12). 0.1 Standard = 0.085 8-Hour Ozone (ppm) 0.08 Downtown Pom/Ch Pk Craycroft Saguaro Mo. 0.06 0.04 0.02 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 0 Figure 11 - Annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations in Tucson Standard = 0.085 0.09 0.08 8-Hour Ozone (ppm) 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 05 04 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 20 99 20 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 19 94 19 93 19 92 19 91 19 90 19 89 19 88 87 19 19 19 86 0 Figure 12 - Annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations in Yuma In contrast to the within-standard concentrations in Tucson and Yuma, 20 of the 33 sites in greater Phoenix recorded annual fourth-highest O3 values in excess of 0.084 ppm from 1996 to 2005. In metropolitan Phoenix, there were three sites with an ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 73 annual fourth-highest eight-hour O3 concentration in excess of 0.084 ppm in 2005. On the bright side, elevated values of the annual fourth-highest eight-hour O3 concentration occurred at fewer monitoring sites and at lower values in 2005 than in 1996, with most of the improvement taking place since the 2000 to 2002 period. For instance, of the nine sites operational both in 1996 and 2005, six recorded fourthhighest values greater than 0.084 ppm in 1996, but there were none in 2005. The values have decreased through time as well, with typical fourth-highest concentrations decreasing from 1996 to 2005: Phoenix Supersite, 0.087 ppm to 0.076 ppm; South Phoenix, 0.084 ppm to 0.076 ppm; South Scottsdale, 0.089 ppm to 0.077 ppm, and North Phoenix, 0.092ppm to 0.084 ppm. Looking at the specific statistical form of the standard -- the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentration -- metropolitan Phoenix did not exceed the standard in the three year period from 2003 to 2005, and, as with the annual fourth-highest values, the extent and severity have been decreasing with time. ADEQ reviewed the three-year periods ending with 1998 through 2005: the first being 1996 to 1998 and the last being 2003 to 2005. In the first two three-year periods 1996 to1998, and 1997 to1999 (Table 23); 13 and five 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 one and zero, respectively. The magnitude of these three-year averages has decreased substantially, as well. The highest average for the period ending in 1998 was 0.0923 ppm; the highest average in 2005 was nine percent lower at 0.084 ppm. These trends are consistent with the decreasing one-hour maximum ozone trends; however, most of the decrease in eighthour ozone concentrations occurred since 2000, five years later than the decrease in the one-hour concentrations. This suggests that, assuming favorable meteorological conditions, the eight-hour standard may be achieved in two to three years. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 74 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 19961998 19971999 19982000 19992001 20002002 20012003 20022004 20032005 Emergency Mgmt 0.0873 0.0847 0.0823 0.0763 Closed Closed Closed Closed North Phoenix 0.0923 0.0880 0.0863 0.0853 0.0857 0.0856 0.0837 0.0830 Salt River Pima 0.0907 0.0843 Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Phoenix Supersite 0.0853 0.0737 0.0727 0.0723 0.0770 0.0766 0.0743 0.0740 Blue Point 0.0893 0.0860 0.0887 0.0853 0.0843 0.0840 0.0823 0.0800 Apache Junction 0.0860 0.0817 0.0813 0.0797 0.0797 0.0763 0.0737 0.0690 Mesa 0.0853 0.0810 0.0793 0.0773 0.0737 Closed Closed Closed Pinnacle Peak 0.0867 0.0810 0.0817 0.0820 0.0850 0.0840 0.0783 0.0780 Fountain Hills 0.0850 0.0823 0.0817 0.0810 0.0847 0.0840 0.0813 0.0820 Falcon Field 0.0850 0.0823 0.0817 0.0810 0.0800 0.0813 0.0777 0.0750 Mount Ord 0.0907 0.0873 0.0887 0.0847 Closed Closed Closed Closed South Scottsdale 0.0807 0.0753 0.0760 0.0760 0.0787 0.0783 0.0763 0.0760 West Phoenix 0.0847 0.0853 0.0860 0.0823 0.0800 0.0786 0.0777 0.0720 Maryvale 0.0837 0.0813 0.0830 0.0783 0.0790 0.0800 0.0835 0.0830 Humboldt Mt. 0.0880 0.0860 0.0863 0.0847 0.0850 0.0873 0.0850 0.0840 0.0870 0.0855 0.0827 0.0810 Tonto Monument Queen Valley 0.0790 0.0810 0.0830 0.0810 0.0810 Cave Creek 0.0830 0.0845 0.0840 0.0817 0.0800 Hillside 0.0855 0.0810 0.0833 0.0810 0.0827 0.0773 0.0777 0.0720 Rio Verde 0.0840 0.0833 0.0837 0.0850 0.0847 0.0837 0.0840 0.0810 West Chandler 0.0820 0.0733 0.0733 0.0747 0.0793 0.0797 0.0770 0.0740 Maximum 0.0923 0.0880 0.0887 0.0853 0.0857 0.0873 0.0850 0.0840 13 5 5 3 4 3 1 0 n > 0.085 ppm ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 75 Illustrated in Figure 13 are the three-year averages from nine monitoring sites, which are listed 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, but has a downward trend since 2001 to 2003. Metro PHX 8-Hr Ozone Trends: Nine Sites with at Least One Value Above the Standard 0.0950 Standard = 0.085 8-hr ozone (ppm) 0.0900 0.0850 0.0800 0.0750 0.0700 0.0650 1996-98 1997-99 1998-00 1999-01 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 Blue Point North Phoenix West Phoenix Fountain Hills Pinnacle Peak Apache Junction Humboldt Mt. Rio Verde Hillside closed 6/4/2005 Figure 13 - Phoenix area eight-hour ozone trends: three-year averages of the annual fourth-highest concentrations Reviewing these sites together (Figure 14), 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 to 2002. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 76 Figure 14 - Phoenix area eight-hour ozone trends: three-year averages of the annual fourth-highest concentrations, expressed as the average and maximum of nine long-term sites 3-yr Avg. of 8-hr Avg. O3 (ppm) 0.095 Standard = 0. 085 0.090 Average Maximum 0.085 0.080 0.075 1 98 69 9 1 99 79 9 98 19 0 -0 99 19 1 -0 04 02 03 05 20130 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 If the trend in the latter half of the period continues, attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard may not be far away. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 77 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 to 1987, but only 51.0 μg/m3 in 2003 to 2005, a decrease of 26 percent, but still over the standard. Similar percentage decreases occurred since the 1980s at Central Phoenix and West Phoenix (Figures 15a & b). Figures 15a & b, which show the three-year moving averages, have two distinct similarities: first, one or more sites shows dramatic improvement in the earliest part of the record; and, second, all sites show improvement in the latter part. In Figure 15a the exceptional site is Chandler which peaks midway through the period of record, but has the same downward trend at the end of the record. Figure 15b 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. standard = 50 µg/m3 3 3-yr Moving Avg. of Annual PM10 (ug/m ) 70 60 50 Central Phoenix Chandler Glendale North Phoenix 40 30 20 10 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 0 Figure 15a - 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. “2005” is the average of 2003, 2004, and 2005). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 78 70 3-yr Moving Avg of Annual PM10 (μg/m3) Standard = 50 60 50 South Phoenix West Phoenix Greenwood Durango Central Phoenix 40 30 20 10 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 0 Figure 15b - Three-Year Moving Averages of PM10 at four metropolitan Phoenix sites with higher PM10 concentrations Despite these improvements, unlike the trends for CO and O3, PM10 standards continue to be violated. Annual concentrations for the last 14 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 there have been 17 exceedances of the annual standard over the last 9 years (1997 to 2005). 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 2006, Page 79 Table 24: Annual PM10 Concentrations in Metropolitan Phoenix (μg/m3) Year 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 2005 39 49 29 30 55 45 30 34 52 66 Bold values in yellow cells exceed the annual standard of 50 µg/m3. * Does not satisfy EPA summary criteria of 75% data recovery. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 80 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 16. The West 43rd Avenue site is the replacement for the Salt River site. Concentrations have exceeded the standard every year of monitoring in this area. Annual Average PM10 Concentration (μg/m3) 140 120 100 Standard = 50 Salt Durango W. 43rd 80 60 40 20 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 16 - 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 trends of PM10, but the four long-term urban sites all show substantial decreases since the mid 1980s. Orange Grove had a three year average of 43.3 μg/m3 in 1985 to 1987, but has since decreased 35 percent to a concentration of 28.3 μg/m3. South Tucson, Prince Road and Broadway/Swan showed smaller, but substantial, decreases (Figure 17), 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 2006, Page 81 3-yr Moving Avg. of Annual PM10 (μg/m3) 60 Standard = 50 50 40 South Tucson Prince Road Corona de Tucson Green Valley Orange Grove Broadway/Swan 30 20 10 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 0 Figure 17 - 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. Figure 18 presents these trends as three-year moving averages. Consider the trends over the last 20 years for a group of high concentration sites outside of the Phoenix area: Payson and Paul Spur have been reduced by more than 70 percent, Douglas concentrations have been reduced by nearly half, Rillito has decreased 40 percent and Yuma has decreased 26 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 24 to 65%, depending on the site, a remarkable decrease. After this point, two sites continued to decrease (Paul Spur and Payson); three sites (Nogales, Yuma, and Rillito) increased until the early part of 2000’s; and two sites have remained about the same (Douglas and Hayden). Between 2001 and 2005 Nogales and Yuma have had a deceasing trend, and Rillito has leveled out. 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 82 3 3-yr Moving Avg. of Annual PM10 (μg/m ) 100 90 80 70 Douglas Hayden Nogales Paul Spur Payson Rillito Yuma Standard = 50 60 50 40 30 20 10 2005 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 the annual average PM10 concentrations at sites with higher concentrations from different location in the state PM10 concentrations at sites with lower concentrations have also decreased with Ajo concentrations reduced by 44 percent, Bullhead City by 56 percent, and Safford by 50 percent. Other sites with lower concentrations at lower elevations were steady or slightly decreasing (Figure 19). 3-yr Moving Avg. of Annual PM10 (μg/m3) 50 45 40 35 Ajo Apache Junction Bullhead City Casa Grande Organ Pipe Safford 30 25 20 15 10 5 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0 Figure 19 - Three-year moving averages of annual average PM10 concentrations at lower concentration sites at lower elevations ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 83 Low-concentration sites at higher elevations – all within the 50 µg/m3 annual standard for their periods of record, have also noticeably declined since the mid 1980s. Clarkdale decreased 20 percent; Flagstaff, 50 percent; Prescott, 17 percent; and Show Low, 38 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 20). What is encouraging when examining these various sites is that not a single one, whether urban, industrial, agricultural or rural, shows a consistent long-term, upward trend. 3 3-yr Moving Avg of Annual PM10 (μg/m ) 40 35 30 25 Clarkdale Flagstaff Prescott Show Low 20 15 10 5 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 0 Figure 20 - Three-year moving averages of annual average PM10 concentrations at sites with low concentration 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 “fine particulates” or “PMfine”, and not “PM2.5.” In Arizona, the earliest measurements began in 1991 in the rural cities and towns, 1994 in Tucson, and the following year in Phoenix; these data are presented in Tables 25a, b, and c, and Figures 21, 22, and 23. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 84 Figure 21 shows the three-year moving averages of five sites located at various locations in the state. Douglas and Flagstaff have shown flat trends, while Payson’s trend is significantly down by 54 percent. Nogales shows an increase in PM2.5 concentration form 2004 to 2005, but is still within the standard. Exceedances of the annual PM2.5 standard occurred for four years in Payson and for one year in Higley (Figure 22). 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 2005, as seen in Figure 22. Inconsistent with this latter trend, Apache Junction concentrations have decreased steadily since 1999. In metropolitan Tucson (Figure 23), records show that the PM2.5 concentrations at Orange Grove and Children’s Park have decreased significantly since monitoring began and that the Central site increased from 2001 to 2004. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 85 Table 25a. Annual PMfine and PM2.5 Concentrations Throughout Arizona (in μg/m3) Statewide Year 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* 2005 N/A 6.0* 8.3* 13.1* 7.3* Bold values in yellow exceed the annual standard of 15 μg/m3. N/A B Data are not available. * Data are from federal reference monitors, not dichot monitors. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 86 Table 25b. Annual PMfine and PM2.5 Concentrations in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area (μg/m3) Year Higley Tempe Supersite ASU West Estrella West PHX Apache Junction 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* 2005 N/A N/A 9.7* N/A N/A 12.9* 5.5* Bold values in yellow exceed the annual standard of 15 μg/m3. N/A B Data are not available. * Data are from federal reference monitors, not dichot monitors. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 87 Table 25c. Annual PMfine and PM2.5 Concentrations in the Tucson Metropolitan Area (μg/m3) Year 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* 2005 6.3* N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.9* Bold values in yellow exceed the annual standard of 15 μg/m3. N/A B Data are not available. * Data are from federal reference monitors, not dichot monitors. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 88 3-yr Moving Avg of Annual PM2.5 (μg/m3) 20 Standard = 15 16 Yuma Flagstaff Payson Nogales Douglas 12 8 4 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 0 Figure 21 - Statewide three-year moving averages of annual averages of PM2.5 16 Annual Average PM2.5 (μg/m3) Standard = 15 12 Apache J. Higley Tempe Supersite West PHX Estrella W. 43rd 8 4 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 22 – Metropolitan Phoenix annual averages of PM2.5 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 89 16 Annual Average PM2.5 (μg/m3) Standard = 15 12 Orange Grove 22nd/Craycroft Tangerine Fairgrounds Central Childrens Park 8 4 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 0 Figure 23 – 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, the degree to which light is reduced by its interaction with particles and gases in the atmosphere, is measured continuously with transmissometers. These measurements have been divided into six categories: the mean of the dirtiest 20 percent of all hours, the mean of all hours and the mean of the cleanest 20 percent of all hours, for both the entire day and the 5 to 11 a.m. period. The units of measurement are inverse megameters (Mm-1): the higher the light extinction value in Mm-1, the more visibility is reduced. Tables 26a and b, and Figures 24 and 25 present these data. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 90 Table 26a: Annual Average Light Extinction in Phoenix (Mm-1) All Hours Year Dirtiest 20% 1994 5-11 a.m. Mean Cleanest 20% Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 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 2005 126 72 36 128 78 43 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 91 Table 26b: Annual Average Light Extinction in Tucson (Mm-1) 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 2005 101 61 31 125 76 39 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. In Figures 24 and 25 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 2006, Page 92 3-yr Moving Avg of Annual Light Extc. (Mm-1) 140 120 100 80 Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 60 40 20 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 24 – 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 (2003 to 2005) in this category is 7% lower than the first full three-year 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 three-year periods increase through 1998, but the subsequent periods gradually decrease and eventually level out by 2001. What’s happened in this twelve-year period (1994 to 1996 compared to 2003 to 2005) is that visibility has gotten somewhat better with a 7% decrease for the dirtiest 20%, and a 3% decrease for both the mean and cleanest 20%. There is, however, a slight rise in the early years for the mean and 20% cleanest and another very gradual increase over the last three periods for the dirtiest 20% (as seen in the figure above and in Table 26a). Unlike Phoenix, visibility in Tucson has improved over the 13-year period when considering the three-year averages for all three statistics: the dirtiest, the mean, and the cleanest (Figure 25). The improvement in the 20% dirtiest days was 5%, which is 2% less than the improvement in Phoenix, but considerably greater improvement has been realized in the 20% cleanest category with a 20% decrease. Somewhat disturbing, however, is the upward trend in the annual statistics from 2002 through 2005 (evident in Table 26b and in the upward trending curves for the last two periods). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 93 -1 3-yr Moving Avg of Annual Light Extc. (Mm ) 120 100 80 Dirtiest 20% Mean Cleanest 20% 60 40 20 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 25 – 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 12 or 13 year period, there has been a 7% decrease in the light extinction values for the dirtiest days in Phoenix and 5% in Tucson. 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 slightly. An interesting intercity trend (Figure 26) 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 in the later part of the record. The result is that in 2003 – 2005, Tucson’s cleanest days were 21% cleaner than in Phoenix (28 Mm-1 vs. 36 Mm-1). ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 94 -1 3-yr Moving Avg of Annual Light Extc. (Mm ) 50 45 40 35 30 Phoenix Tucson 25 20 15 10 5 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 26 – Light extinction trends for all hours for Phoenix and Tucson, shown as three-year moving averages, for all hours and 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 27). 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 2006, Page 95 200 20% Light Extinction (Mm-1) 150 Tucso 100 Phoeni 20% 50 0 winte sprin summe fall winte sprin summe fall Figure 27 – 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 28). 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. 90 80 Light Scattering (Mm-1) 70 60 dirtiest 20% mean cleanest 20% 50 40 30 20 10 0 Humboldt Muleshoe Saguaro West Tucson Phoenix Figure 28 – Comparison of light scattering on the 20% cleanest, mean, and 20% dirtiest days for urban and rural areas. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 96 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 2003 - 2005 no sites exceeded the standard. Elevated concentrations of PM10 have been reduced substantially since the mid-1980s, with decreases of 20 to 70 percent in the urban areas and in most rural cities and towns. In Payson and at some industrial sites, PM10 concentrations have been reduced by as much as two-thirds. By 2005, monitored violations of the PM10 standard -- a once common occurrence at many sites only ten years ago -- were limited to a few sites in southwest Phoenix, Pinal County, and in Nogales. The severity of the PM10 problems in these areas, exemplified by the 32 expected exceedances of the 24-hour standard in southwest Phoenix in 2005, point out the need for further controls on emissions. 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 2006, Page 97 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 98 Appendix 1 – Site Index Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 City/Site and Address AQS ID Number Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number ADEQ, USFS Class I Regional Visibility 16323 N/A Bscat, MET, IMPROVE, 03 NPS Class I Regional Visibility 16473 04-017-0119 6898 PM10 TEP SPM Unknown Source Impact 16637 N/A 6599 NO2, PM10, SO2 TEP SPM Unknown Source Impact 16638 N/A NPS Class I Regional Visibility 16679 04-003-8001 ADEQ SLAMS (PM10, PM2.5), Class I Neighborhood Population 16503 04-003-1005 Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Greer Water Treatment Plant (Mt Baldy) 34.06 -109.44 8252 Bscat, MET, IMPROVE Petrified Forest NP 34.82 -109.89 5796 TEP – Springerville Coalyard 34.33 -109.15 TEP – Springerville Coyote Hills 34.17 -109.23 Apache County Cochise County Chiricahua NM Entrance Station (3.5 miles west of monument headquarters) 32.01 -109.39 5130 CASTNET, Bscat, IMPROVE, MET, O3 Douglas Red Cross (1445E 15th St.) 31.35 -109.54 4100 IMPROVE, PM10, PM2.5 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 99 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AQS ID Number Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number Bscat, MET ADEQ Class I Regional Visibility 16412 4100 Bscat ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 16392 4192 PM10, MET ADEQ SLAMS (PM10) Middle Source Impact 16391 04-003-0011 ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16707 04-005-1008 Class I Regional Visibility 16682 N/A City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Muleshoe Ranch (Galiuro Wilderness) Closed June 2005 32.33 -110.24 4398 Naco Border Station (218 1st St.) 31.35 -109.74 Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant 31.37 -109.73 Parameters Measured N/A N/A Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School (755 N. Bonito) Grand Canyon NP Hance (South Rim, 2.5 miles west of village) 35.21 -111.65 6904 PM10, PM2.5 35.97 -111.98 7436 O3, MET, Bscat, IMPROVE, CASTNET NPS ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 100 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number IMPROVE, Bscat, NPS Class I Regional Visibility 16683 5232 IMPROVE, Bscat ADEQ, USFS -111.39 3647 O3, NO2, PM10, SO2 34.87 -111.77 4195 35.14 -111.97 33.00 -110.77 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Grand Canyon NP Indian Garden (4.5 miles from Bright Angel trailhead) 36.08 -112.13 3795 Ike's Backbone (Pine Mountain Wilderness) 34E 20' 111E 40' SRP – Page – Navajo Generating Station (3 miles east of Page) 36.91 Sedona Post Office (190 W. Highway 89A) Sycamore Canyon Camp Raymond Parameters Measured Class I Regional Visibility 16421 AQS ID Number N/A N/A SRP SPM Urban Source Impact 16634 N/A PM10 ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 16512 04-005-1010 6691 Bscat, IMPROVE, MET ADEQ, NPS Class I Regional Visibility 16476 N/A 1948 SO2 ASARCO SPM Regional Source Impact 16593 N/A Gila County ASARCO Globe Highway ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 101 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 City/Site and Address AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 33.00 -110.78 2089 SO2 ASARCO SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 16590 N/A 33.01 -110.80 2326 SO2 ASARCO SPM Regional Source Impact 16591 N/A SLAMS (ADEQ SO2 and PM10) SPM (ASARCO SO2) Neighborhood Source Impact 16326 04-007-1001 Lat. ASARCO Hayden Garfield AVE ASARCO Montgomery Ranch Hayden - Old Jail (Canyon Drive) 33.01 -110.79 2050 PM10, SO2 ADEQ, ASARCO PDMI - Miami Golf Course 33.41 -110.83 3319 PM10 PDMI SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 16629 04-007-8000 PDMI - Miami Jones Ranch (Cherry Flats Rd.) 33.39 -110.87 4093 SO2 PDMI SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 16631 N/A PDMI - Miami Town Site (Sullivan St.) 33.40 -110.87 3388 SO2 PDMI SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 16632 N/A Miami Ridgeline (4030 Linden St.) 33.40 -110.86 3559 PM10, SO2 ADEQ, PDMI SLAMS (ADEQ SO2) SPM (PDMI PM10) Neighborhood Source Impact 16382 04-007-0009 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 102 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 34.23 -111.33 4910 PM10, PM2.5 ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16317 04-007-0008 Pleasant Valley Ranger Station (Sierra Ancha USFS Wilderness) 34.09 110.94 5133 IMPROVE, Bscat, MET ADEQ, USFS Class I Regional Visibility 16446 N/A Tonto NM (Tonto Natl Forest) 33.65 -111.11 2460 IMPROVE, NOTL, O3 ADEQ, USFS Class I Regional Visibility 16447 04-007-0010 32.83 -109.72 2949 PM10 ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16508 04-009-0001 34.24 -113.56 1282 NOTL, O3 ADEQ SLAMS Regional Background 34961 04-012-8000 1082 Visibility (camera) ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 21737 N/A City/Site and Address Lat. Payson Well Site (204 W. Aero Dr.) Graham County Safford (523 Tenth Ave.) La Paz County Alamo Lake Maricopa County ADEQ Building (1110 W Washington) 33.45 -112.09 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 103 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 33.43 -111.84 1489 Visibility (camera & Bext) ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 19489 N/A Bethune Elementary School (1310 S. 15th Ave.) 33.44 -112.09 1063 PM10, Speciated PM2.5 ADEQ SPM, STN Neighborhood Population 17786 04-013-8006 Blue Point (Usery Pass and Bush Highway) 33.55 -111.61 1574 MET, O3 MCESD SLAMS (MET) NAMS (O3) Urban Maximum Concentration 16417 04-013-9702 Buckeye (SR 85 & Buckeye RD) 33.37 -112.62 840 CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10 MCESD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 21525 04-013-4011 Cave Creek (37109 N. Lava Lane) 33.83 -112.02 1916 MET, O3 MCESD SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 16368 04-013-4008 MCESD SLAMS (MET) NAMS (CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2) Neighborhood Population 16329 04-013-3002 City/Site and Address Lat. Banner Mesa Medical Center (525 W Brown AVE) Central Phoenix (1845 E. Roosevelt) 33.46 -112.04 1115 CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 104 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 City/Site and Address Chandler 1475 E Pecos Rd Closed 12/31/05 Repl. by Higley Durango Complex 2702 AC Esterbrook Blvd. Dysart 16825 N Dysart Estrella 15099 W. Casey Abbott Dr., Goodyear Estrella Community College 3000 N Dysart Rd. Falcon Field (4530 E. McKellips) AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 33E 17' 111E 49' 1171 MET, PM10 MCESD SLAMS (MET) NAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 16369 04-013-0021 33.43 -112.12 1574 MET, PM10, PM2.5 MCESD SLAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 16375 04-013-9812 33.64 -112.34 1099 CO, O3, ADEQ(Bscat) MCESD ADEQ SPM, Bscat (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 19550 04-013-4010 33.38 -112.37 1000 Bscat ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 16506 04-013-8005 33.48 -112.35 1000 Visibility (camera) ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 21736 N/A 33.45 -111.73 1017 MET, O3 MCESD SLAMS Urban Population 16381 04-013-1010 Lat. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 105 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 33.61 -111.72 1443 MET, O3 MCESD SLAMS (MET) NAMS (O3) Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 16376 04-013-9704 Glendale (6000 W. Olive) 33.57 -112.19 1171 CO, MET, O3, PM10 MCESD SLAMS (CO, MET, O3), NAMS (PM10) Neighborhood Population 16378 04-013-2001 Greenwood (I-10 and 27th Avenue) 33.46 -112.12 1109 CO, MET, NO2, PM10 MCESD SLAMS Microscal e Maximum Concentration 16372 04-013-3010 Higley (15500 S. Higley Rd.) 33.31 -111.72 1250 MET, PM10 MCESD SLAMS (MET) SPM (PM10) Neighborhood Population 16505 04-013-4006 Humboldt Mountain (Pine Mountain Wilderness) 33.98 -111.80 5228 O3 MCESD SLAMS Regional Background/ Transport 16416 04-013-9508 ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) SLAMS (CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5) PAMS (Type 2) STN Neighborhood Population 16328 04-013-9997 MCESD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16379 04-013-3006 City/Site and Address Lat. Fountain Hills (16426 E. Palisades) JLG Supersite (4530 N. 17 Ave.) Maryvale 6180 W Encanto Closed 03/31/05 33.50 -112.10 1135 Bscat, CO, NO2, Met, O3, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, Speciated PM2.5 33E 28' 112E 20' 1050 CO, O3, PM10 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 106 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 33.41 -111.86 1220 CO, MET, PM10, PM2.5, MCESD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16380 04-013-1003 Mesa City Building (Lewis & Main) 33.42 -111.83 1378 Bext ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 19686 N/A North Mountain Summit (North Mountain) 33.59 -112.07 1640 Visibility (camera) ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 16480 N/A North Phoenix (601 E. Butler) 33.56 -112.07 1243 CO, MET,O3, PM10, MCESD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16390 04-013-1004 Phoenix Transmissomete r Receiver (3600 N 2nd AVE) 33.49 -112.08 0 Bext ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 16829 N/A Phoenix Transmissomete r Transmitter (2000 W Bethany RD) 33.53 -112.10 1115 Bext ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 16330 N/A Pinnacle Peak (25000 N. Windy Walk) 33.71 -111.85 2624 MET, O3 MCESD SLAMS Urban Maximum Concentration 16406 04-013-2005 City/Site and Address Lat. Mesa (370 S. Brooks) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 107 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 33.72 -111.67 1640 O3 MCESD SLAMS Urban High Downwind Concentration 16396 04-013-9706 33.4 -112.07 1082 CO, MET, O3, PM10 MCESD NAMS (PM10) SLAMS (CO, MET, O3) Neighborhood Population 16377 04-013-4003 Urban/ Neighborhood Population 16398 04-013-3003 City/Site and Address Lat. Rio Verde (25608 N. Forest Rd.) South Phoenix (33 W. Tamarisk) South Scottsdale (2857 N. Miller) 33.48 -111.92 1227 CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2 MCESD SLAMS (CO, MET) NAMS (NO2, O3, PM10, SO2) Tempe (1525 S College AVE) 33.41 -111.94 1181 CO, MET, NO2, O3 MCESD SPM Neighborhood Population 16405 04-013-4005 33E 23' 111E 55' 1110 PM2.5 ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16509 04-013-9990 33.46 -1112.0 ADEQ SPM Urban Haze (Bscat) Urban Meteorology 16363 04-013-9998 Tempe Community Center (3340 S. Rural Rd.) Closed 07/26/2005 Vehicle Emissions Laboratory (600 N 40th ST) 1050 MET, Bscat ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 108 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 Long. Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 33.3 -111.88 1181 CO, MET, O3, PM10 MCESD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16478 04-013-4004 33.41 -112.14 1030 MET, PM10, Speciated PM2.5 MCESD SPM (PM10), STN Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 16659 04-013-4009 33.49 -112.13 1115 CO, MET MCESD NAMS (CO) SLAMS (MET) Micro Maximum Concentration/ Source Impact 16393 04-013-0016 ADEQ, MCESD SPM (ADEQ PM2.5) SLAMS (MET, NO2, O3) NAMS (CO, PM10), STN Neighborhood Population 16477 04-013-0019 ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16365 04-015-1003 Visibility 21298 N/A Source Impact 16554 N/A Lat. West Chandler (163 S. Price) West Forty Third (3940 W Broadway) West Indian School (3315 W. Indian School Rd.) West Phoenix (3847 W. Earll) AQS ID Number Elev. (feet) City/Site and Address 33.48 -112.14 1096 CO, MET, NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, Speciated PM2.5 35.15 -114.57 561 PM10 35.98 -114.07 2959 Bscat, MET, IMPROVE 35.03 -114.03 2401 PM10 Mohave County Bullhead City (990 Hwy 95) Meadview Kingman Praxair NE #1 (I-40 and Griffith Road) USFS Praxair Class I SPM Regional Middle ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 109 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Kingman Praxair SW #2 (I-40 and Griffith Road) 35.03 `114.14 2358 PM10 Praxair Petrified Forest NP (1 mile north of park headquarters) 35E 05' 109E 46' 5778 Bscat, IMPROVE, MET, O3 Show Low (561 E Deuce of Clubs) 34.25 -110.04 6311 32.21 -110.91 2516 Parameters Measured Operator Classification AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number Scale Objective SPM Middle Source Impact 16555 N/A NPS Class I Regional Visibility 16473 04-017-0119 PM10 ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16603 04-017-0007 CO PDEQ NAMS Micro Maximum Concentration 16676 04-019-1014 Neighborhood Population 16410 04-019-1011 Neighborhood Population 16316 04-019-0001 Navajo County Pima County 22nd St. & Alvernon (3895 E. 22nd) 22nd St. & Craycroft (1237 S. Beverly) 32.2 -110.88 2581 Bscat, CO, O3, NO2, SO2, ADEQ, PDEQ SPM (ADEQ Urban Haze Bscat) SLAMS (PDEQ CO, O3, NO2, SO2) Ajo (Well Road) 32.38 -112.86 1801 PM10, MET ADEQ SLAMS (PM10) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 110 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Broadway & Swan (4625 E. Broadway) 32.22 -110.89 2516 PM10 PDEQ Cherry & Glenn (2745 N. Cherry) 32.26 -110.95 2401 CO PDEQ Children=s Park (400 W. River Rd.) Coachline (9597 N Coachline Blvd) Corona De Tucson (22000 S. Houghton Rd.) Geronimo (2498 N. Geronimo) Parameters Measured Operator Classification AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number Scale Objective NAMS Middle Maximum Concentration 16550 04-019-1023 SPM Neighborhood Population 16675 04-019-1021 2286 Bscat, CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, Speciated PM2.5 ADEQ, PDEQ SPM ( PM2.5 & ADEQ Urban Haze Bscat) SLAMS ( NO2, O3) NAMS (CO), STN -111.13 2227 O3, PM2.5 PDEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 21580 04-019-1034 32.0 -110.79 3077 PM10 PDEQ SLAMS (PDEQ) Regional Background 16677 04-019-0008 32.25 -110.97 2578 PM10 PDEQ SPM (For AQI Purposes Only) Neighborhood Population 16678 N/A 32.3 -110.98 32.38 Urban, Neighborhood Population 16551 04-019-1028 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 111 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 32.19 -110.84 2660 CO PDEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 19531 04-019-1031 Green Valley (601 N. La Canada Dr.) 31.88 -110.99 2903 O3, PM2.5PM10 PDEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population Explosure 16685 04-019-1030 Orange Grove (3401 W. Orange Grove Road) 32.32 -111.04 2175 PM10, PM2.5 PDEQ SLAMS (PDEQ PM10, PM2.5) Neighborhood Maximum Concentration/ Population 16510 04-019-0011 Organ Pipe Cactus NM (1 mile SSW of visitor center) 31.95 -112.80 1847 PM10, IMPROVE, Bscat ADEQ SLAMS (PM10) Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 16681 04-019-0005 Prince Road (1016 W. Prince Rd.) 32.27 -110.99 2316 PM10 PDEQ NAMS Micro Source Impact 16597 04-019-1009 32.42 -111.15 2053 PM10 ADEQ, APCC SLAMS (ADEQ) SPM (APCC) Neighborhood Source Impact 16499 04-019-0020 32.17 -110.98 2299 O3, PM10 PDEQ SPM Urban Population 16670 04-019-1032 City/Site and Address Lat. Golf Links & Kolb (2601 S. Kolb Rd) Rillito (8820 W. Water) Rose Elementary (710 W. Michigan St.) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 112 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AQS ID Number Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number 32.17 -110.69 3080 O3, IMPROVE PDEQ, NPS SPM, Class I Urban Visibility 16474 04-019-0021 Saguaro NP West 32.25 -110.19 2621 Bscat, MET, IMPROVE ADEQ, NPS Class I Regional Visibility 16475 N/A Santa Clara (6910 S. Santa Clara Ave.) 32.13 -110.98 2539 PM10 PDEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16569 04-019-1026 32.2 -110.97 2440 PM10 PDEQ SLAMS (PDEQ) Neighborhood Population 16635 04-019-1001 32.43 -111.07 2637 O3, PM10 PDEQ SLAMS Urban Population 16669 04-019-1018 Tucson Downtown (190 W. Pennington) 32.22 -110.98 2365 CO, O3 PDEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16671 04-019-0002 Tucson Fairgrounds (11330 S. Houghton) 32.04 -110.77 3077 O3 PDEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16672 04-019-1020 City/Site and Address Lat. Saguaro NP East (3905 S. Old Spanish Trail) South Tucson (1601 S. 6th Ave.) Tangerine (12101 N. Camino De Oeste) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 113 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Tucson Transmissomete r Transmitter (U of A Clinical Sci. Bldg 1501 N. Campbell) 32.24 -110.95 2578 Bext PDEQ, ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 16655 N/A Tucson Transmissomete r Receiver (150 W. Congress) 32.22 -110.97 0 Bext PDEQ, ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Urban Urban Haze 16826 N/A 32.24 -110.95 2578 Bscat ADEQ SPM (Urban Haze) Neighborhood Population 16662 04-019-1027 33.42 -111.50 1748 PM2.5, PM10 PCAQCD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16358 04-021-3002 33.42 -111.54 1750 O3, MET PCAQCD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16589 04-021-3001 Tucson - U of A Central (1100 N. Fremont Ave.) Pinal County Apache Junction Fire Station (3955 E. Superstition Blvd. TE) Apache Junction Maintenance Yard (305 E. Superstition) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 114 Objective Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) ASARCO Hayden Junction (Hwy 177) 33.01 -110.81 1925 SO2 ASARCO SPM Unknown Source Impact 16592 N/A Casa Grande Airport 660 W. Aero Dr. 32.95 -111.76 1410 O3, MET PCAQCD SLAMS Neighborhood Population/ Transport 16367 04-021-3003 Casa Grande Downtown (401 Marshall Rd.) 32.88 -111.75 1378 PM10, PM2.5 PCAQCD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16588 04-021-0001 Combs (301 E. Combs Rd. ) 33.22 -111.56 1178 O3 PCAQCD SPM Neighborhood Population 16657 04-021-3009 Coolidge Maintenance Yard (212 E. Broadway) 32.98 -111.51 1460 PM10 PCAQCD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 7446 04-021-3004 Cowtown Road (37580 W. Maricopa) 33.01 -111.99 1214 MET, PM10 PCAQCD SPM Neighborhood Population 19347 N/A Eloy City Complex (620 N. Main St.) 32.76 -111.55 1548 PM10 PCAQCD SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16594 04-021-3005 Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 115 Objective Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Mammoth County Complex (118 S. Catalina) 32.72 -110.64 2919 PM10 PCAQCD SLAMS Neighborhood Population/ Background 16600 04-021-3006 Maricopa (44625 W. Garvey Rd.) 33.05 -112.05 1178 O3 PCAQCD SPM Neighborhood Population/Expos ure 16656 04-021-3010 Pinal Air Park (Water Well # 2, Marana) 32.51 -111.31 1906 PM10 PCAQCD SLAMS Regional Background/ Transport 16552 04-021-3007 Pinal County Housing Complex (970 N Eleven Mile Corner Rd.) 32.89 -111.57 1443 MET, PM10 PCAQCD SPM Microscale Source Impact 18079 04-021-3011 Queen Valley (10 S. Queen Anne Dr.) 32.29 -111.29 2080 Bscat, IMPROVE, VOC, NOTL, O3 PCAQCD, ADEQ SPM (NOTL, O3) PAMS (VOC),Class I Regional Visibility 16394 04-021-8001 Riverside Maintenance Yard (56964 E. Florence) 33.11 -110.97 1771 PM10 PCAQCD SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 21429 04-021-3012 Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 116 Objective Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number San Manuel (1st & Douglas Ave.) 32.6 -110.63 1089 SO2 ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Source Impact 16397 04-021-2001 Stanfield (36697 W. Papago Dr.) 32.88 -111.96 1296 PM10 PCAQCD SPM Neighborhood Population 16636 04-021-3008 31.34 -110.94 3857 PM10, PM2.5, MET ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 16511 04-023-0004 Clarkdale - NW (#2) (northwest of cement plant) 34.78 -112.09 4198 PM10 PCC SPM Unknown Source Impact 16626 N/A Clarkdale - SE (#1) (southeast of CTI flyash silo) 34.77 -112.07 3598 PM10 PCC SPM Unknown Source Impact 16628 N/A Hillside (Sheriff's Repeater Station) Closed June 2005 34E 25' 112E 57' 4918 O3, IMPROVE ADEQ SPM, Class I Regional Background/ Transport, Visibility 16315 04-025-0005 Santa Cruz Nogales Post Office (300 N. Morley Ave.) Yavapai County ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 117 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 City/Site and Address Prescott (221 S. Cortez) Closed 3/01/2005 Prescott Valley (7601 E. Civic Circle) Opened 3/12/2003 Yuma County Dome Valley (5110 S. Avenue 18 E) Opened 5/13/2005 San Luis (767 N. 1st Ave.) Opened 5/13/2005 Yuma Courthouse (2440 W. 28th St.) Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number 34E 32' 112E 28' 5210 PM10 ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 16528 04-025-2001 34.59 -112.33 5104 PM10 ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 18392 04-025-2002 32.75 -114.33 180 MET ADEQ SPM N/A Special Study 19483 N/A 32.49 -114.78 112 MET ADEQ SPM N/A Special Study 18250 N/A 32.68 -114.65 98 PM10 ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Population 17027 04-027-0004 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 118 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number City/Site and Address Lat. Long. Yuma Game & Fish (9140 E. 28th St.) Opened 4/14/2005 32.68 -114.48 197 O3 ADEQ SLAMS Neighborhood Maximum Concentration 18690 04-027-0006 32.61 -114.63 190 MET ADEQ SPM N/A Special Study 19040 N/A 32.69 -114.61 167 MET, CO, SO2, PM10, VOCs ADEQ SPM N/A Special Study 113219 N/A 32.62 -114.77 89 MET ADEQ SPM N/A Special Study 19041 N/A 32.74 -114.70 118 MET ADEQ SPM N/A Special Study 18247 N/A 31.33 -109.55 3936 PM10, MET ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 16361 80-026-1000 Yuma Mesa (2186 W. County 15th St.) Opened 5/13/2005 Yuma Supersite (2323 S Arizona Ave) Yuma Valley (11486 S. Farm Rd.) Opened 5/13/03 Yuma West Elev. (feet) Parameters Measured Operator Classification Scale Objective Mexico Agua Prieta Fire Station (Calle 6 & AVE 15) ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 119 Site Index - Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona in 2006 City/Site and Address Parameters Measured AAAD ID Number AQS ID Number Lat. Long. Elev. (feet) Baja 32.57 -115.00 45 MET ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 22242 N/A Cortez 32.38 -114.87 69 MET ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 22240 N/A Mexico Supersite 32.47 -114.77 125 MET, CO, PM10 ADEQ SPM N/A Special Study 113221 N/A Sonora Nogales Fire Station (Northwest corner of Lopaz and Mantels) 31.33 -110.94 3943 PM10 ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 16399 80-026-0005 Sonora 32.42 -114.80 109 MET ADEQ SPM Neighborhood Population 22243 N/A Operator Classification Scale 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 2006, Page 120 Objective 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 LLC - U.S. operating subsidiary of Grupo Mexico 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 2006, Page 121 :g/m3 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 Micrograms per cubic meter 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 2006, Page 122 Appendix 3 – Related Web Sites Air Explorer (http://www.epa.gov/airexplorer/) Air Explorer is a collection of userfriendly 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/air/) 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 (airnow.gov/) 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 air-related information, and contact information for experts on specific issues regarding air and environment. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 123 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. 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. 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. ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 124 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. 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 2006, Page 125 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 126 Appendix 4 – Maps This section contains maps displaying monitor locations and location information. Ambient Air Monitors This map shows the location of monitors operated by ADEQ, county agencies, private industry and federal agencies. Criteria Pollutant Monitoring (Phoenix and Tucson Metropolitan Areas) These maps identify the locations of monitors of criteria pollutants in Arizona’s two largest metropolitan areas. Nonattainment and Attainment Areas This map identifies the areas in Arizona that are nonattainment for PM10, SO2, CO and O3. Ozone Network This map shows the location of ozone monitors operated by ADEQ, private industry, county agencies, and the National Park Service. PM10 Network The location of PM10 particulate monitors is shown on this map. SO2 Network This map shows the location of the SO2 monitors and includes the maintenance and nonattainment areas. Visibility Network 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 2006, Page 127 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 128 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 129 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 130 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 131 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 132 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 133 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 134 ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2006, Page 135