Table of Contents
Page

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................. 1
Report Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2
Ambient Air Quality Networks
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Criteria Pollutant Monitoring Networks................................................................................................. 5
Visibility Monitoring Networks in National Parks and Wilderness Areas............................................. 7
Urban Haze Networks ............................................................................................................................ 8
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations Network (PAMS) ...................................................... 9
National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS)......................................................................................... 10
PM 2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) ........................................................................................ 11
Monitoring Methods............................................................................................................................. 11
Annual Ambient Network Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................... 13
Monitoring Data
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Criteria Pollutants - 2008 Data
Carbon Monoxide................................................................................................................................. 16
Nitrogen Dioxide.................................................................................................................................. 18
Sulfur Dioxide ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Ozone.................................................................................................................................................... 22
Particulate Matter Smaller Than 10 Microns (PM 10 ) and smaller than 2.5 Microns (PM 2.5 ) .............. 27
Criteria Pollutants - Compliance
Carbon Monoxide................................................................................................................................. 34
Nitrogen Dioxide.................................................................................................................................. 36
Sulfur Dioxide ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Ozone - One-hour................................................................................................................................. 37
Ozone - Eight-hour............................................................................................................................... 37
Particulate Matter - PM 10 ..................................................................................................................... 41
Particulate Matter - PM 2.5 ..................................................................................................................... 49
Visibility Data
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 52
Class I Areas......................................................................................................................................... 52
Urban Haze........................................................................................................................................... 56
Accomplishments and Special Projects
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 59
Tucson PM 10 Second Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP)..................................................................... 59
Miami PM 10 Planning Area Maintenance Plan and Pending Redesignation ....................................... 60
Five Percent Annual Reasonable Further Progress for Metropolitan Phoenix [Maricopa CountyApache Junction Pinal County] Serious PM 10 Nonattainment Area Plan Revision ...................... 60
Rillito PM 10 Planning Area Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) and Pending Redesignation .............. 62
Yuma PM 10 Maintenance Plan, Pending Redesignation Request, and Exceptional Events
Demonstrations .............................................................................................................................. 62
Nogales 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS Designation........................................................................................... 63
Pinal County 2006 PM 2.5 24-Hour NAAQS Deferred Designation ..................................................... 64
Pinal County 1997 PM 2.5 Annual NAAQS Nonattainment Designation ............................................. 64
Pinal County 1997 PM 10 24-Hour NAAQS Nonattainment Designation ............................................ 64
Maricopa County 1997 Eight-Hour O 3 NAAQS (0.08ppm) Nonattainment Area Plan and
Maintenance Area Plan ................................................................................................................. 64
i

Table of Contents
Page

Ajo PM 10 Clean Data Finding, Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation Request .................................. 64
South Phoenix Health and Particulate Matter Study (SPHPMS) ......................................................... 65
Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study (WASBAQS)...................................................... 66
Regional Haze ...................................................................................................................................... 67
EPA’s Revisions to Eight-Hour O 3 Standard....................................................................................... 67
EPA’s Revisions to Lead (Pb) Standard............................................................................................... 69
Nitrogen Dioxides (NO 2 ) NAAQS 2010 Revision .............................................................................. 70
Trends
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 72
Carbon Monoxide................................................................................................................................. 73
Ozone.................................................................................................................................................... 75
Particulates
PM 10 ..................................................................................................................................................... 80
PM 2.5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 85
Visibility............................................................................................................................................... 87
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 90
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Site Index ....................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix 2 - Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 103
Appendix 3 - Related Web Sites ........................................................................................................ 106
Appendix 4 - Maps ............................................................................................................................. 110

ii

Table of Contents
Page

Tables
Table 1 - Monitoring Networks Operating in Arizona ........................................................................... 4
Table 2 - Monitoring Objectives for Air Quality Monitoring Sites........................................................ 5
Table 3 - Measurement Scales for Air Quality Monitoring Sites........................................................... 6
Table 4 - History of PAMS Monitoring in Metropolitan Phoenix ....................................................... 10
Table 5 - 2008 Carbon Monoxide (in ppm).......................................................................................... 17
Table 6 - 2008 Nitrogen Dioxide (in ppm)........................................................................................... 19
Table 7 - 2008 Sulfur Dioxide (in ppm) ............................................................................................... 21
Table 8 - 2008 Ozone (in ppm) One-Hour Averages ........................................................................... 23
Table 9 - 2008 Ozone (in ppm) Eight-Hour Averages ......................................................................... 25
Table 10 - 2008 PM 10 Data (in µg/m3)................................................................................................. 30
Table 11 - 2008 PM 2.5 Data (in µg/m3) ................................................................................................ 33
Table 12 - 2007 - 2008 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm)....................................... 34
Table 13 - 2007 - 2008 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm)..................................... 35
Table 14 - 2008 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Compliance Values by County....................................... 36
Table 15 - 2008 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Compliance Values............................................................. 37
Table 16 - 2006 to 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm)...................................................... 38
Table 17 - 2006 to 2008 Annual Average PM 10 Compliance (in µg/m3)............................................. 41
Table 18 - 2006 to 2008 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM 10 Compliance (in µg/m3) ......................... 45
Table 19 - 2006 to 2008 Annual Average PM 2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3) ............................................ 49
Table 20 - 2006 to 2008 24-Hour Average PM 2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3) .......................................... 50
Table 21 - Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1)................................................... 53
Table 22 - Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data 1998 to 2008 ......................................................... 56
Table 23 - Sites used in the calculation of Phoenix Metropolitan regional averages........................... 76

iii

Table of Contents
Page

Figures
Figure 1 - South Phoenix monitoring station ......................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 - Top of ADEQ’s JLG Supersite monitoring station.............................................................. 15
Figure 3 - ADEQ’s Vehicle Emissions Laboratory monitoring station ............................................... 15
Figure 4 - Nogales Post Office monitoring station............................................................................... 29
Figure 5 - Yuma Courthouse monitoring station.................................................................................. 29
Figure 6 - Pleasant Valley monitoring station ...................................................................................... 52
Figure 7 - ADEQ’s Phoenix JLG Supersite ......................................................................................... 59
Figure 8 - South Phoenix West Monitoring Site .................................................................................. 65
Figure 9 - Mexico Supersite, Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study .............................. 66
Figure 10 - Average Best & Average Worst Visibility Impairment in the Phoenix Area.................... 72
Figure 11 - Phoenix area eight-hour CO time series: annual 2nd high, expressed as the average,
maximum, and minimum of six long-term sites ............................................................................ 74
Figure 12 - Tucson area eight-hour CO time series: annual 2nd high, expressed as the average,
maximum, and minimum of three long-term sites ......................................................................... 74
Figure 13 - Phoenix area eight-hour O 3 time series: three-year averages of the annual fourth-highest
concentrations, expressed as the average, maximum, and minimum of six long-term sites.......... 76
Figure 14 - Phoenix area eight-hour O 3 time series: three-year averages of the annual fourth-highest
concentrations, expressed as spatial averages for four distinct regions ......................................... 77
Figure 15 - Tucson area eight-hour O 3 time series: three-year averages of the annual fourth-highest
concentrations, expressed as the average, maximum, and minimum of five long-term sites ........ 78
Figure 16 - Rural area eight-hour O 3 time series: three-year averages of the annual fourth-highest
concentrations ................................................................................................................................ 79
Figure 17 - Three-year averages of PM 10 annual averages, expressed as the average, maximum, and
minimum of six long-term sites in the Phoenix metropolitan area ................................................ 81
Figure 18 - Three-year averages of annual average PM 10 at select Phoenix Metro area sites ............. 82
Figure 19 - Three-year averages of annual average PM 10 at three Tucson metropolitan sites............. 83
Figure 20 - Three-year averages of annual average PM 10 at Pinal County at six sites ........................ 84
Figure 21 - Three-year averages of annual average PM 10 at sites in six Arizona cities....................... 85
Figure 22 - Three-year averages of annual average PM 2.5 at six Arizona cities or towns for the period
2001 to 2008 .................................................................................................................................. 86
Figure 23 - Visibility trends for Phoenix and Tucson, for all hours..................................................... 88
Figure 24 - Visibility trends for Phoenix and Tucson, from 5a.m. to 11a.m........................................ 88
Figure 25 - Comparison of light scattering for cleanest 20 percent in three Class I areas with the
longest length of record ........................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 26 - Comparison of light scattering for the mean and dirtiest 20 percent in three Class I areas
with the longest length of record .......................................................................................................... 90

iv

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 a
picture, which is as complete 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. In addition, air
quality data that ADEQ staff and contract operators collect have received internal and
external quality control and quality 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 2008. Their efforts are appreciated as they maneuvered on rooftops and metal
towers to operate monitoring equipment in uncomfortable weather conditions and
reviewed 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 works
daily installing, calibrating, maintaining, conducting quality control checks, collecting,
processing, performing quality assurance tests, and reviewing and reporting data from a
wide variety of ambient air monitoring instruments. These activities are necessary to
provide the highest quality data to Arizona's population and to meet EPA program
requirements. 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. The phone number is (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 2009, Page 1

Report Introduction
This report presents the results of air quality monitoring conducted throughout Arizona
in 2008. 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 and federal
agencies such as the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. Their data are
summarized in this report too. 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, and nitrogen dioxide) 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 for each air monitoring network in Arizona.
Beginning on Page 15, 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 Accomplishments and Special Projects, which begins on Page 59,
summarizes activities from special monitoring projects undertaken in the last few years
for specific purposes. It also includes status reports on the air quality planning areas of
the state, describing any changes in classification that have occurred.
The Air Quality Trends report begins on Page 72. Trends of carbon monoxide, ozone,
particulate matter, and visibility are discussed. EPA changed the NAAQS for particulate
matter (both PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) in December 2007 and for ozone in June 2008. These
changes affect how trends of these pollutants are viewed.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 2

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Networks
This section describes the ambient air quality
monitoring networks currently operating in
Arizona. Monitoring networks for ambient air
quality are established to sample pollution in a
variety of representative settings to assess health
and welfare effects and to assist in determining air
pollution sources. The ambient monitoring
networks cover both urban and rural areas of the
state. These networks are operated by government
agencies and regulated companies. They are
composed of one or more monitoring sites whose
data are compared to the NAAQS for compliance
and statistically analyzed in various ways for
trends. The agency or company operating a
monitoring network also tracks data recovery,
Figure 1 – South Phoenix
monitoring station
quality control, and quality assurance parameters
for the instruments operated at their various sites.
The agency or company may also measure meteorological variables at the monitoring site.
In addition to sampling for criteria pollutants, some of the agencies do special
continuous monitoring for the optical characteristics of the atmosphere and manual
sampling of ozone forming compounds and other hazardous air pollutants. Maricopa,
Pima, and Pinal counties operate networks primarily to monitor urban air pollution. In
contrast, the industrial networks are operated to determine the effects of their emissions
on local air quality. The National Park Service's network tracks conditions in and
around national parks and monuments. The ADEQ network monitors a wide variety of
pollutant and atmospheric characteristics including urban, industrial, rural, transport,
and background surveillance.
The monitoring networks are operated to collect ambient air quality data to ensure that
Arizona citizens are able to know local air quality conditions and to help ADEQ and
local air quality control agencies identify the causes of polluted air. The networks and
their characteristics are shown in Table 1. A list of individual sites and monitoring
parameters, based on the best available information at the time of publication, is
presented in Appendix 1, page 92.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 3

Table 1: Monitoring Networks Operating in Arizona
Geographic Area
Monitored

Monitoring
Objective*

Arizona Department
of Environmental
Quality
Arizona Portland
Cement Company
ASARCO LLC

Statewide

1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6

Rillito

1, 3

Hayden

1, 2, 3

Maricopa County Air
Quality Department

Phoenix urban
area, Maricopa
County
National parks
and
monuments
Miami

1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6

Network Operator

National Park Service

Freeport McMoRan
Copper and Gold Inc.
Phoenix Cement
Company
Pima County
Department of
Environmental
Quality
Pinal County Air
Quality Control
District
Tucson Electric Power
Company

Measurement
Scale(s)**

Criteria
Pollutant(s)
Monitored

Micro, Middle,
Neighborhood,
Urban, Regional
Neighborhood

SO 2 , O 3 ,
NO 2 , CO,
PM 10 , PM 2.5
PM 10
SO 2

3, 4, 5, 6

Middle,
Neighborhood
Micro, Middle,
Neighborhood,
Urban, Regional
Urban, Regional

1, 2, 3

Neighborhood

SO 2 , O 3 ,
NO 2 , CO,
PM 10 , PM 2.5
SO 2 , O 3 ,
NO 2 , PM 10 ,
PM 2.5
SO 2 , PM 10

Clarkdale

1, 3

Neighborhood

PM 10

Tucson urban
area, Pima
County

1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6

Micro, Middle,
Neighborhood,
Urban, Regional

SO 2 , O 3 ,
NO 2 , CO,
PM 10 , PM 2.5

Pinal County,
Phoenix urban
area
Springerville

1, 2, 3, 4,
5

Middle,
Neighborhood,
Urban, Regional
Middle, Regional

O 3 , PM 10 ,
PM 2.5

1, 2, 3

*See Table 2 for a list of monitoring objectives
**See Table 3 for a definition of measurement scales

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 4

SO 2 , NO 2 ,
PM 10

Criteria Pollutant Monitoring Networks
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) 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. For each criteria pollutant,
EPA specifies the monitoring objectives that define the parameters by which health
exposure and public welfare are assessed, and the measurement scale classifications that
describe the influence of atmospheric movement at a given location.
The 1977 federal CAA amendments required each state to implement a visibility
monitoring network to cover specified national parks and wilderness areas. The Phoenix
and Tucson metropolitan areas also have year-round visibility monitoring networks to
assess urban haze.
The networks are designed to satisfy the monitoring objectives and measurement scales
defined in Tables 2 and 3. EPA updates monitoring network requirements as necessary
in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D. On December 17, 2006 requirements based on
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) as well as Combined Statistical Areas (CSA)
were revised. They apply to PM 2.5 , PM 10 , and ozone (O 3 ). In addition, new
requirements for sample frequency were made for PM 2.5 and PM 10 . In 2008, EPA made
revisions to 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 to include the new requirements for the revised
NAAQS for lead (Pb) and O 3 .
Table 2: EPA Monitoring Objectives for Air Quality Monitoring Sites
Number

1
2
3
4
5
6

Definition

Determine highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by
the network
Determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density
Determine the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or
source categories
Determine general background concentration levels
Determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas
and in support of secondary standards
Determine the welfare-related effects in more rural and remote areas (such
as visibility impairment and vegetation damage)

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 5

Table 3: EPA Measurement Scales for Air Quality Monitoring Sites
Measurement Scale
represents concentrations in air
volumes within areas defined
below

Micro (0 to 100 m)
Middle (~100 to 500 m)
Neighborhood (~0.5 to 4 km)
Urban (~4 to 50 km)
Regional (~10 to 100s of km)

Criteria Pollutant
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)

X
X
X

Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO 2 )

X
X
X

Ozone
(O 3 )

Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO 2 )

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

Particulate
Matter
(PM 10 ,
PM 2.5 )

Lead
(Pb)

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

Criteria Pollutants – Monitoring Network and NAAQS Changes
The criteria pollutants are presently defined as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), ozone (O 3 ), suspended particulate matter (PM), and total
particulate lead (Pb). These pollutants are monitored with federal reference (FRM) or
equivalent (FEM) methods that EPA has approved.
In October 2008, EPA established a new primary and secondary NAAQS for Pb. The
standards, primary and secondary, are both 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3);
the previous standard was 1.5 µg/m3. Primarily due to the introduction of non-leaded
gasoline, total particulate Pb levels in Arizona have been very low for years; therefore
Pb in total particulates has not been measured. However, Pb in fine particulates (PM 2.5 )
has been monitored as part of the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) program and Chemical Speciation Network (CSN).
Recently, EPA has added PM 10 metals to the National Air Toxics Trends Sites
(NATTS) program. Pb is one of the metals analyzed in these samples. The new
NAAQS will require Pb monitoring near sources emitting more than one ton of lead
compounds per year and in urban areas with populations greater than 500,000.
In June 2008, EPA lowered the eight-hour O 3 standard from 0.08 parts per million
(ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Recommendations for nonattainment areas were submitted to EPA
by March of 2009. EPA also updated a secondary standard to the O 3 NAAQS which is
identical to the primary standard. The secondary standard is meant to protect plants from
O3 damage. EPA provided monitoring guidance for the new O3 NAAQS in March of 2009;
however, in September 2009, EPA decided to review the 2008 NAAQS and may subsequently
review the monitoring guidance.
In December 2006, EPA made changes to both the PM 10 and PM 2.5 NAAQS. The annual
PM 10 NAAQS was revoked and the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS was reduced from 65 to 35
µg/m3. Nogales was the only designated nonattainment area in Arizona for PM 2.5 based
on the new NAAQS.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 6

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 the
constraints of an area's size, terrain, or logistics for each of the 12 federally-protected
Class I areas in Arizona (see visibility maps in Appendix 4). The objectives of the
visibility monitoring network are to track short-term and long-term trends in Arizona
Class I areas, to assist in identifying any visibility impairment caused by existing major
industrial sources, and to provide monitoring data for new or modifications of industrial
sources. Arizona continues to participate in the IMPROVE program as part of the
overall national visibility monitoring effort. IMPROVE is a cooperative measurement
effort between EPA, federal land management agencies, and state air agencies. The
objectives of IMPROVE are:
 To establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory Class I areas
 To identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing
manmade visibility impairment
 To document long-term trends for assessing progress towards the national
visibility goal
 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 CAA 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 has been conducted near or in the following Class I areas:
 Meadview
 Grand Canyon National Park - Hance Camp
 Grand Canyon National Park - Indian Gardens
 Petrified Forest National Park
 Mt. Baldy Wilderness - Greer Water Treatment Plant
 Sycamore Canyon Wilderness - Camp Raymond
 Hillside (Site was closed in June of 2005)
 Mazatzal/Pine Mountain Wildernesses - Ike's Backbone
 Sierra Ancha Wilderness - Pleasant Valley Ranger Station
 Superstition Wilderness - Tonto National Monument
 Superstition Wilderness - Queen Valley
 Saguaro National Park - West Unit
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 7






Saguaro National Park - East Unit
Chiricahua National Monument - Entrance Station
Galiuro Wilderness - Muleshoe Ranch (Site was closed in June of 2005)
Organ Pipe National Monument

Each IMPROVE site includes PM 2.5 sampling with subsequent analysis for the fine
particle mass and major aerosol species, as well as PM 10 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 with a study during the winter of 19891990 in Phoenix and during the winter of 1992-1993 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-term and long-term trends, assess source contributions to urban haze, and
better evaluate the effectiveness of air pollution control strategies.
The current Phoenix urban haze network includes two transmissometers (located in
Phoenix and Mesa) for measuring light extinction along a fixed path length of about 3
to 5 kilometers (km), four nephelometers for measuring light scattering, and five digital
camera systems to record visual characteristics of the urban area. The current Tucson
urban haze network includes one transmissometer for measuring light extinction along a
fixed path length of about 3 to 5 km, three nephelometers for measuring light scattering,
and one 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 PM 10 and PM 2.5
samplers are used to characterize chemical composition and seasonal variation on an as
needed basis.
The Web site for Phoenix area visibility is http://www.phoenixvis.net/. The Web site for
the Tucson area visibility is http://www.airinfonow.org/.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 8

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations Network (PAMS)
Section 182(c)(1) of the 1990 CAA Amendments required the administrator to
promulgate rules for the enhanced monitoring of O 3 , oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to obtain more comprehensive, and representative
data on O 3 air pollution. Immediately following the promulgation of those rules, the
affected states were to begin actions necessary to adopt and implement a program to
improve ambient monitoring activities and the monitoring of emissions of NO x 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 O 3 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 O 3 NAAQS and the
need for a more comprehensive air quality database for O 3 and its precursors. The 2006
40 CFR 58 revisions reduced the monitoring requirements for the number of sites (only
two sites required for the Phoenix area). The length of the PAMS monitoring season
was changed from April through October to June through August.
The chief objective of the enhanced O 3 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 O 3 NAAQS.
Ambient concentrations of O 3 and O 3 precursors are used to make attainment and
nonattainment determinations, aid in tracking VOC and NO x emission reductions,
better characterize the nature and extent of the O 3 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
midcourse 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 O 3 nonattainment problems. EPA has
defined a number of important monitoring objectives with the following five site
types:
 Type 1 Site: Upwind and Background Characterization
 Type 2 and 2a Sites: Maximum Ozone Precursor Emissions Impact
 Type 3 Site: Maximum Ozone Concentration
 Type 4 Site: Extreme Downwind Monitoring
PAMS data include measurements of O 3 , NO x , a target list of VOCs (including several
carbonyls), and surface and upper air meteorology. PAMS sites measure 56 target
hydrocarbons (HC) on either a daily, hourly, or three-hour basis during the O 3 season.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 9

The Type 2 sites also collect data on three carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, and acetone) during the O 3 monitoring period. Included in the monitored
VOC species are 10 compounds classified as hazardous air pollutants. All stations must
measure O 3 , NO x , and surface meteorological parameters on an hourly basis. Beginning
in 2007, ADEQ was required to operate three PAMS sites: the ADEQ JLG Supersite in
central Phoenix (a Type 2 site); the wind profiler (upper air meteorology) site; and the
Queen Valley site (Type 3). The South Phoenix site was changed to a toxics monitoring
site in 2007. See Table 4 for a history of PAMS data collection in the Phoenix
metropolitan area.
Table 4: History of PAMS Monitoring in Metropolitan Phoenix
Year

VOCs

Carbonyls

2008

JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
South Phoenix
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
South Phoenix
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
South Phoenix
None

JLG Supersite

2007
2006

2005

2004

2003

2002
2001
2000
1999

JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
JLG Supersite
JLG Supersite

JLG Supersite
JLG Supersite
South Phoenix
JLG Supersite
South Phoenix
JLG Supersite
South Phoenix
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
South Phoenix
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
South Phoenix
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
JLG Supersite
JLG Supersite

National Air Toxics Trend Sites (NATTS)
The NATTS network was designed to document the concentration of certain air toxics
on a national scale. ADEQ accepted federal funding in 2003 for participation in this
program, measuring metals, VOCs, and carbonyls every sixth day year round. Data
from EPA’s national monitoring activities establishes an estimate of national average
concentrations for these air toxics compounds, allows EPA to evaluate the need for new
NAAQS, and establishes associated limits. Data from sites in this network will be used
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 10

to identify long-term changes or trends in ambient air concentrations. By using this
information, EPA, states, and local agencies can estimate changes in the risks of human
exposure. These changes can then be used to anticipate changes in environmental policy
and to establish a regulatory stance. As part of the overall National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) process, ambient air quality data are important to help assess the
national toxics inventory and long-term hazardous air pollutant (HAP) trends. ADEQ’s
NATTS monitoring is conducted at the ADEQ JLG Supersite.
PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN)
The Speciation Trends Network (STN) was established to meet the regulatory
requirements for monitoring PM2.5 to determine the chemical composition of these
particles. The STN is part of the larger CSN that includes IMPROVE sites. The network
was established in 2000 with approximately 54 STN sites across the nation, as well as
additional State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) speciation sites. The
purpose of the network is to determine, over a period of several years, trends in
concentration levels of selected ions, metals, carbon species, and organic compounds in
PM2.5. Locations are primarily in or near a larger MSA. ADEQ operates one STN
speciation sampler at the JLG Supersite. Two IMPROVE samplers are also operated at
the ADEQ JLG Supersite for the purpose of providing precision information for the
IMPROVE network and to make comparisons between the speciation results from both
programs. Pima Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) operates one STN
speciation sampler at the Children's Park site.
Monitoring Methods
To ensure comparability of pollutants across the nation, EPA requires agencies to have
a Quality Management Plan (QMP), which describes the procedures to be followed for
all environmental monitoring projects. Each monitoring network or program must have
a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that contains the details of how the samplers
are to be operated, maintained, and checked for precision and bias. Each monitoring
network or program must also be independently audited per the EPA required
frequencies and EPA itself must conduct Technical System Audits (TSA) periodically
to ensure all parts of the quality system are in-place.
Criteria Pollutant Monitors - Ambient air is sampled continuously for the gaseous
criteria pollutants (SO2, O3, NO2, and CO). Analyzers for each pollutant produce hourly
averages of the pollutant in ppm that are retrieved by a data collection system and
stored in a database. Measurements of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) can also be
made continuously (hourly) and are retrieved and stored in the same manner. Particulate
matter (PM10, PM2.5, and Pb) are also collected by non-continuous monitors which use
filters. The samplers collect a 24-hour sample, drawing ambient air through an inlet at a
known flow rate onto a filter. The filters are weighed before and after the sample period
to determine the difference in mass. The concentration is calculated by dividing the
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 11

mass weight by the product of the flow rate and the minutes of sampling time. To
determine Pb and other chemicals in the particulate matter, the filter is subjected to
chemical analysis. These individual samples are summarized into monthly, quarterly,
and annual averages.
PAMS and Toxics Monitors – Monitoring methods for the identification of chemical
compounds in air consist of two parts: (1) collection of the air sample and (2) a specific
laboratory analysis to identify the chemicals of interest. Samplers draw air across
cartridges or through special filter packs or fill canisters. Laboratories extract the
samples from these media and process the air sample using gas chromatography and
mass spectrometry.
Visibility Monitors - 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). Visibility monitoring methods are generally divided into
three groups: optical, scene, and aerosol. Scene conditions of visual air quality
associated with haze are recorded with a camera. To document scene conditions in the
Phoenix area, ADEQ is currently utilizing five digital camera systems reporting to the
public via a Web site where camera views are given an index number to describe the
visibility.
Optical and aerosol methods provide quantitative measurements of light extinction by
measuring one or more of the four components of light extinction (Bext):
• 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.
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.
Bag is determined by continuously measuring NO2 since it is the only gas normally
present in urban or Class I areas that absorbs significant quantities of visible light.
Several EPA FRM or FEM NO2 monitors are deployed to verify maintenance of the
NAAQS throughout Arizona, including monitoring in Phoenix and Tucson. The
National Park Service network monitors NO2 at several parks in Arizona.
Bsp is determined by continuously measuring particle scattering variation directly using
a calibrated ambient sampling chamber called a nephelometer. The nephelometer
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 12

samples air at ambient temperature and relative humidity conditions. Routine
monitoring with this instrument began in both the Arizona Class I areas and urban haze
networks during 1996.
Bap is determined by continuously measuring the quantity of light transmitted through a
filter tape utilizing an aethalometer. Aethalometer data collection began in December
1996 in Phoenix and February 1998 in Tucson. Bap is also measured every three days
using the PM sample filters collected in the Class I area networks.
Total optical Bext can be 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.
Optical measurements of visibility using transmissometers have been made
continuously since 1993 in Tucson and since 1994 in Phoenix.
Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan
40 CFR Part 51 requires states to create, submit, and adopt SIPs to address the various
issues and responsibilities involved with creating and implementing air quality
programs. Part of the SIP must discuss the existence or establishment of air quality
surveillance systems. 40 CFR 58 discusses the requirements for such systems. Air
quality surveillance systems consist of networks of monitors at carefully chosen
physical locations referred to as sites or stations. Some of the networks, sites, and
monitors are: State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
• (SLAMS)
• National Core multipollutant monitoring stations (NCore)
• Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)
• Speciation Trends Network (STN)
• National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS)
• Special Purpose Monitors (SPM)
• Urban Haze monitoring sites
• Interagency Monitoring of PROtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
• ADEQ visibility stations located in or near mandatory Class I areas (national parks,
wilderness areas). Class I monitoring sites are subject to specific siting and
operational guidance developed by the IMPROVE Steering Committee
• AIRNow information sites
• Source-oriented monitoring sites operated independently by permittees (Industry)
• Meteorological sites

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 13

The Annual Monitoring Network Plan identifies the purpose(s) of each monitor and
provides evidence that both the siting and the operation of each monitor meet the
requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 appendices A, C, D, and E as follows:
 Appendix A - Quality Assurance Requirements for SLAMS, SPMs, and Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Monitoring
 Appendix C - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Methodology
 Appendix D - Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
 Appendix E - Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring
In December 2006, EPA expanded the requirements in the revisions to 40 CFR 58.10(a)
for the annual network review. Each government agency operating a monitoring
network is required to submit to EPA a detailed network plan by July 1 of each year.
The plan must be available to the public for a 30-day comment period prior to submittal
to EPA. This plan describes how the monitoring network meets EPA requirements in 40
CFR Part 58. The plan includes detailed descriptions of sites and monitors to determine
if siting requirements are met. The plan must also ensure that the revised minimum
monitoring requirements for the network are met and must describe any proposed
changes to the network to be made during the next 18 months. Network plans are posted
on each agency's website for public comment. ADEQ's Network Monitoring Plans can
be found at http://www.azdeq.gov/function/forms/reports.html.
Beginning in 2010, in addition to the annual network monitoring plan, each agency
must submit an assessment of their air quality network to EPA every five years. This
assessment should determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the required
monitoring objectives, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no
longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are appropriate for
incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network. The network assessment must
consider the ability of existing and proposed sites to support air quality characterization
or areas with relatively high populations of susceptible individuals, and, for any sites
proposed for discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the agency itself. For
PM 2.5 , the assessment must also identify needed changes to population-oriented sites.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 14

Monitoring Data
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants monitored across the U.S.: carbon
monoxide (CO), ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate
matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 10 microns (PM 10 ), and particulate matter with
aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ). These pollutants are monitored in Arizona
by industry, county air pollution control agencies (Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima), the
National Park Service, Forest Service, tribes (not reported in this document), and Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
The Monitoring Data section contains information and data on the criteria pollutants and
the visibility networks. The 2008 data measurements are in the data tables and are
organized by county. Site operator information can be found in the site index tables in
Appendix 1. Data recovery information (valid samples as a percent of total scheduled
samples) are included in the tables. The number and the percentage of valid samples are
important for determining the representativeness of the average data calculations.
Information about the compliance requirements and status for the criteria pollutants
begins on Page 34. Visibility monitoring information for Class I areas and urban haze
begins on Page 52.
Figure 2 – Top of ADEQ’s JLG
Supersite monitoring station.

Figure 3 – ADEQ’s Vehicle Emissions Laboratory monitoring
station.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 15

Criteria Pollutants - 2008 Data
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 to 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,
headache, fatigue, and dizziness. Chronic CO exposures also contribute to or exacerbate
arteriosclerotic heart disease.
In Arizona’s metropolitan areas, about half of CO emissions
come from on-road motor vehicles; a little less than half from
off-road vehicles, construction equipment, and lawn and garden
equipment; with the remainder from point and area sources. This
pollutant has low background levels, with the highest
concentrations next to busy streets, and elevated neighborhood
concentrations in locations with significant amounts of emissions
transported from upwind areas. Concentrations peak from
November to January because emissions are highest in cold
weather - automotive emissions of CO vary inversely with
temperature - and because the surface layer of the atmosphere is 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.
Equipping vehicles with catalytic converters and electronic ignition systems was the
most effective control, but significant reductions can also be attributed to the vehicle
emissions inspection program (beginning in 1976) and oxygenated fuels (beginning in
1989).
CO is monitored continuously with nondispersive infrared instruments that are deployed
in urban neighborhoods and near busy roadways or intersections. In 2008, 14 monitors
were operated in greater Phoenix and six monitors were operated in metropolitan
Tucson. Table 5 presents the 2008 CO data in parts per million (ppm).

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 16

Table 5: 2008 Carbon Monoxide (in ppm)
(NAAQS one-hour 35 ppm, eight-hour 9 ppm)

Site Name
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
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
Max
2nd
Value
High

Eight-Hour
Average
Max
2nd
Value
High

Valid Data
Recovery*
No. of
%
Obs.

0.7
3.6
1.5
2.1
3.0
3.1
1.7
2.1
3.7
2.0
2.4
1.8
3.9
4.7

0.7
3.5
1.4
2.0
3.0
3.1
1.7
2.0
3.2
2.0
2.3
1.7
3.6
4.5

0.5
2.6
1.0
1.6
2.7
2.5
1.4
1.3
2.2
1.5
1.8
1.4
2.8
3.1

0.5
2.2
1.0
1.5
2.4
2.4
1.3
1.3
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.8
3.0

4584
8397
5049
5060
8654
8688
5012
5038
5057
4933
5027
5043
8307
8575

90
96
99
99
99
99
98
99
99
96
98
99
95
98

2.9
2.6
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.2

2.5
2.1
2.5
1.3
1.8
1.8

1.4
1.1
1.9
1.0
1.3
1.3

1.3
1.1
1.5
0.9
1.2
1.0

8696
8736
4369
8157
4315
8720

99
99
85
93
84
99

* Valid Data Recovery shows the number of valid observations and the percentage of the possible 8760 hourly
samples during a non leap year and 8784 hourly samples during a leap year (always less than 100 percent due to
mandatory quality assurance testing requiring the monitors to be offline for several hours at a time).
S

Seasonal monitor. Maricopa County operational during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to December 31;
5088 sampling hours in non leap years and 5112 sampling hours in leap years. Pima County seasonal monitors
operated January 1 to April 30 and October 1 to December 31; 5088 sampling hours in non leap years and 5112
sampling hours in leap years.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 17

Nitrogen Dioxide
NO 2 is a reddish-brown gas that is formed by the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) - a
byproduct of all combustion. Adverse health effects associated with NO 2 include risk of
respiratory illness in children and vary depending on the level of NO 2 and exposure
time. Short exposure to low levels may result in changes to airway responsiveness and
decreased lung function in individuals with pre-existing conditions. Irreversible changes
may occur to lungs due to long-term exposure to higher levels. This pollutant is of
greater concern in its reduction of visibility (it causes five percent of the visibility
reduction in Phoenix) and its contributory role in the photochemical formation of ground
level O 3 and acid rain.
Combustion emissions of NO are 95 percent NO and five percent
NO 2 . Since NO is rapidly oxidized to NO 2 , NO emissions serve
as a surrogate for NO 2 . In a recent Phoenix emissions inventory,
the transportation sector dominated NO emissions with 58
percent of the emissions from cars and trucks, 27 percent came
from off-road vehicles such as trains and diesel powered
construction vehicles, and 15 percent from other sources,
including power plants, biogenic emissions from soil, and
stationary combustion sources. NO and NO 2 concentrations are
highest near major roadways. NO concentrations decrease rapidly with distance from the
roadway, whereas NO 2 concentrations are more evenly distributed because of their
formation through oxidation and their subsequent transport. Concentrations of NO 2 are
highest in the late afternoon and early evening of winter, when rush hour emissions of
NO are converted to NO 2 under relatively stable atmospheric conditions. Because NO
reacts rapidly with O 3 , nocturnal O 3 concentrations in cities are often reduced to near
zero levels, while concentrations at background sites remain higher.
NO emissions have been reduced overtime using several different techniques. NO
emissions from motor vehicles have been reduced through retardation of spark timing,
lowering the compression ratio, exhaust gas recirculation systems, and three-way
catalysts. Also, the vehicle inspection program’s NO x test for light-duty gasoline
vehicles age 1981 and newer (in Phoenix only) has helped reduce emissions.
Reformulated gasolines also decrease NO 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.
NO 2 is monitored continuously with chemiluminescence instruments, which also
determine NO concentrations and NO x (the sum of NO 2 and NO) concentrations. These
instruments are located in urban neighborhoods where either the emissions are dense or
where O 3 concentrations tend to be at their maximum. In addition, these monitors are
located near major coal-fired electrical power plants. Nine monitors were operated in
Arizona in 2008. Table 6 presents the NO 2 data available in 2008.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 18

Table 6: 2008 Nitrogen Dioxide (in ppm)
(NAAQS Annual Mean 0.053 ppm)

Site Name
Apache County
TEP - Springerville - Coyote
Hills
Maricopa County
Buckeye
Central Phoenix
Greenwood
JLG Supersite
South Scottsdale
West Phoenix
Pima County
22nd St. & Craycroft
Children’s Park

Annual
Average

Max Value
One-Hour
Average

Valid Data
Recovery *
No. of
%
Obs.

0.0008

0.025

8696

99

0.0094
0.0215
0.0260
0.0201
0.0146
0.0186

0.059
0.076
0.138
0.073
0.063
0.065

8253
8443
8332
8217
8323
7978

94
96
95
94
95
91

0.0134
0.0111

0.054
0.049

8633
8129

98
93

* Valid Data Recovery shows the number of valid observations and the percentage of the
possible 8760 hourly samples during a non leap year and 8784 hourly samples during a leap year
(always less than 100 percent due to mandatory quality assurance testing requiring the monitors
to be offline for several hours at a time).

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 19

Sulfur Dioxide
Exposure to SO 2 , 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 constriction of airways in strenuously exercising asthmatics.
In Arizona, the principal source of SO 2 emissions has been the
smelting of sulfide copper ore. Most fuels contain trace quantities
of sulfur and their combustion releases both gaseous SO 2 and
particulate sulfate. A recent emissions inventory for Phoenix
shows 32 percent of SO 2 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. SO 2 is
removed from the atmosphere through dry deposition on plants
and is converted to sulfuric acid and eventually to sulfate. SO 2
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 0.0003
ppm to 0.0179 ppm, well within the annual standard of 0.03 ppm.
Major controls were installed in Arizona's copper smelters in the 1980s, which reduced
SO 2 emissions substantially. Vehicular emissions of SO 2 and sulfate have been reduced
through lowering the sulfur content in diesel fuel and gasoline.
SO 2 is monitored continuously with pulsed fluorescence instruments, most of which are
clustered around copper smelters or coal-fired electric power plants. In 2008, nine
reporting monitors were sited near copper smelters, one near a power plant, and four in
urban areas. Table 7 presents the SO 2 data collected in Arizona in 2008.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 20

Table 7: 2008 Sulfur Dioxide (in ppm)
(Primary NAAQS Annual Average 0.030 ppm [80 µg/m3], 24-hour Average 0.14 ppm [365 µg/m3],
Secondary NAAQS three-hour 0.5 ppm [1300 µg/m3])

Three-Hour
Average
Max
2nd
Value High

24-Hour
Average
Max
2nd
Value
High

Valid Data
Recovery *
No. of
%
Obs.

0.0003

0.016

0.013

0.005

0.004

8565

98

0.0176

0.380

0.294

0.079

0.076

8784

100

0.0134

0.317

0.274

0.135

0.108

8784

100

0.0179

0.404

0.262

0.088

0.086

8783

99

0.0060
0.0040
0.0112
0.0088
0.0045

0.149
0.105
0.184
0.191
0.089

0.145
0.090
0.169
0.147
0.082

0.054
0.024
0.049
0.040
0.032

0.046
0.021
0.048
0.037
0.026

8717
8744
7904
8784
8575

99
99
90
100
98

0.0017
0.0025
0.0013

0.007
0.008
0.006

0.006
0.008
0.005

0.004
0.005
0.005

0.004
0.004
0.004

8467
8370
8496

98
95
97

0.0012

0.014

0.007

0.004

0.003

8715

99

0.0088

0.117

0.102

0.027

0.022

8783

99

Annual
Average

Site Name
Apache County
TEP - Springerville - Coyote
Hills
Gila County
ASARCO - Globe Hwy.
ASARCO - Hayden Garfield Ave.
ASARCO - Montgomery
Ranch
FMMI - Miami - Jones Ranch
FMMI - Miami - Townsite
Hayden Old Jail, ADEQ
Hayden Old Jail, ASARCO
Miami Ridgeline, ADEQ
Maricopa County
Central Phoenix
JLG Supersite
South Scottsdale
Pima County
22nd St. & Craycroft
Pinal County
ASARCO - Hayden Junction

* Valid Data Recovery shows the number of valid observations and the percentage of the possible 8760 hourly
samples during a non leap year and 8784 hourly samples during a leap year (always less than 100 percent due to
mandatory quality assurance testing requiring the monitors to be offline for several hours at a time).

Note: Sulfur dioxide conversion factor: ppm = (µg/m3) / 2620.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 21

Ozone
O 3 - a colorless, slightly odorous gas - is both a natural component of the atmosphere,
through its photochemical formation from natural sources of CO, hydrocarbons (HC),
and NO, and an important air contaminant in urban atmospheres. In the stratosphere, O 3
blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation. In the urban atmosphere, its formation from
anthropogenic emissions of HC and NO leads to concentrations harmful to people,
animals, plants, and materials. O 3 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 ppm to 0.4 ppm 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 O 3 exposure makes the respiratory airways
more susceptible to other bronchoconstrictive challenges. Animal studies suggest that
O 3 exposure interferes with or inhibits the immune system. O 3 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. O 3 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.
O 3 is formed photochemically by the reaction of volatile organic
carbon (VOC) and NO. High O 3 concentrations are a summer
phenomenon caused when sunlight, biogenic emissions, and
evaporative HC emissions peak. 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).
NO x 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). O 3 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 O 3 concentrations tend to occur on the downwind
edge, although high concentrations do occur less frequently in the central city. Urban O 3
concentrations are low to near zero at night, rise rapidly through the morning and peak
in the afternoon.
Controls to reduce the precursors of O 3 , VOC, and NO x have been successfully
implemented for years. NO x and VOC from vehicular exhaust have been reduced
through engine modifications and three-way catalytic converters. Evaporative HC from
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 22

vehicles have been reduced through better engineered fuel tanks and auxiliary plumbing
combined with carbon absorption canisters. Additional reductions of vehicular VOC
have come through ADEQ's vehicle emissions inspection program, which tests all
gasoline fueled vehicles for HC (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 HC 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 O 3 , may make achieving the eight-hour standard
difficult.
Ultraviolet absorption instruments monitor O 3 continuously in urban neighborhoods for
population exposure, areas downwind of urban areas for maximum concentration, and
remote areas for background. In 2008, 42 reporting O 3 monitors were in operation.
Tables 8 and 9 present the 2008 Arizona O 3 data.
Table 8: 2008 Ozone (in ppm) One-Hour Averages
(NAAQS one-hour 0.12 ppm)

Max
Value

Site Name

Cochise County
Chiricahua Entrance Station
Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School S
Grand Canyon NP - The Abyss
Gila County
Tonto NM S
La Paz
Alamo Lake S
Maricopa County
Blue Point
Buckeye S
Cave Creek S
Central Phoenix
Dysart S
Falcon Field S
Fountain Hills
Glendale S
Humboldt Mountain S
JLG Supersite
North Phoenix
Pinnacle Peak
Rio Verde S

2nd
High

3rd
High

4th
High

Valid Data
Recovery*
No. of
Days

%

0.079

0.077

0.075

0.073

362

99

0.084
0.078

0.084
0.076

0.082
0.074

0.081
0.074

183
356

86
97

0.097

0.096

0.095

0.094

213

99

0.087

0.082

0.081

0.081

178

83

0.089
0.078
0.091
0.091
0.080
0.093
0.096
0.095
0.086
0.098
0.103
0.094
0.104

0.088
0.076
0.090
0.089
0.075
0.091
0.095
0.092
0.086
0.098
0.093
0.091
0.098

0.088
0.076
0.089
0.087
0.074
0.088
0.094
0.091
0.083
0.092
0.092
0.089
0.094

0.087
0.076
0.087
0.085
0.072
0.087
0.094
0.086
0.083
0.089
0.092
0.087
0.094

356
214
214
359
214
212
366
214
214
360
351
366
198

97
100
100
98
100
99
100
100
100
98
96
100
93

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 23

Table 8: 2008 Ozone (in ppm) One-Hour Averages
(NAAQS one-hour 0.12 ppm)

Max
Value

Site Name

South Phoenix
South Scottsdale
Tempe S
West Chandler S
West Phoenix
Navajo County
Petrified Forest NP South
Pima County
22nd & Craycroft
Children’s Park
Coachline
Green Valley
Rose Elementary
Saguaro NP East
Tangerine
Tucson Downtown
Tucson Fairgrounds
Pinal County
Apache Junction Maintenance Yard
Casa Grande Airport
Combs School S ##
Maricopa County Complex S
Pinal Air Park S
Queen Valley S
Yavapai County
Prescott College AQD S
Yuma County
Yuma Game & Fish S
Yuma Supersite S

2nd
High

3rd
High

4th
High

Valid Data
Recovery*

0.094
0.098
0.096
0.099
0.101

0.091
0.094
0.095
0.098
0.099

0.089
0.093
0.088
0.094
0.091

0.087
0.091
0.088
0.091
0.091

No. of
Days
363
358
210
211
361

0.082

0.081

0.080

0.079

354

97

0.085
0.084
0.080
0.069
0.077
0.090
0.082
0.078
0.084

0.078
0.083
0.078
0.069
0.075
0.087
0.080
0.074
0.082

0.078
0.080
0.077
0.068
0.075
0.085
0.077
0.074
0.081

0.075
0.079
0.076
0.068
0.072
0.082
0.077
0.074
0.078

366
348
366
366
366
366
365
366
361

100
99
100
100
100
100
99
100
99

0.098
0.082
0.093
0.085
0.077
0.099

0.094
0.080
0.092
0.078
0.077
0.095

0.092
0.080
0.086
0.076
0.075
0.093

0.091
0.079
0.085
0.075
0.074
0.091

364
361
214
213
211
212

99
99
100
99
99
99

0.078

0.077

0.077

0.077

76

36

0.097
0.098

0.093
0.093

0.091
0.092

0.085
0.089

200
177

93
100

%
99
98
98
99
99

* 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 is 365 in a non-leap year and 366 in a
leap year.
S

Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to November 1; 214 scheduled sampling days in the
season.
## Site also known as Queen Creek

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 24

Table 9: 2008 Ozone (in ppm) Eight-Hour Averages
(NAAQS eight-hour 0.075 ppm effective April, 2008)
Bold denotes the 4th highest value exceeds the eight-hour 0.075 ppm NAAQS.

Site Name
Cochise County
Chiricahua Entrance Station
Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School S
Grand Canyon NP - The Abyss
Gila County
Tonto NM S
La Paz
Alamo Lake S
Maricopa County
Blue Point
Buckeye S
Cave Creek S
Central Phoenix
Dysart S
Falcon Field S
Fountain Hills
Glendale S
Humboldt Mountain 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 South
Pima County
22nd & Craycroft
Children’s Park
Coachline
Green Valley
Rose Elementary
Saguaro NP East
Tangerine
Tucson Downtown
Tucson Fairgrounds

Max
Value

2nd
High

3rd
High

4th
High

No. of
Daily
Exceedances

0.073

0.069

0.069

0.068

0

362

99

0.079
0.073

0.077
0.071

0.076
0.071

0.074
0.071

3
0

183
354

86
97

0.084

0.082

0.081

0.078

11

213

99

0.083

0.078

0.077

0.076

4

178

83

0.076
0.071
0.080
0.078
0.074
0.079
0.080
0.079
0.080
0.079
0.083
0.080
0.081
0.079
0.079
0.082
0.079
0.081

0.075
0.071
0.080
0.075
0.067
0.077
0.080
0.077
0.078
0.079
0.081
0.076
0.081
0.077
0.078
0.082
0.079
0.081

0.075
0.070
0.080
0.072
0.066
0.077
0.080
0.077
0.078
0.079
0.081
0.073
0.079
0.076
0.077
0.078
0.077
0.080

0.074
0.068
0.078
0.072
0.066
0.075
0.079
0.074
0.077
0.078
0.080
0.073
0.079
0.076
0.076
0.078
0.077
0.078

1
0
8
1
0
3
7
3
6
7
9
2
7
4
6
6
5
4

356
213
214
355
213
210
366
214
214
360
349
364
196
363
354
208
210
361

97
99
100
97
99
98
100
100
100
98
95
99
92
99
97
97
98
99

0.075

0.074

0.073

0.072

0

324

89

0.075
0.074
0.073
0.066
0.071
0.080
0.073
0.067
0.076

0.068
0.073
0.070
0.064
0.070
0.074
0.072
0.066
0.072

0.068
0.071
0.070
0.064
0.066
0.074
0.071
0.066
0.072

0.066
0.069
0.068
0.064
0.065
0.074
0.071
0.065
0.072

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

366
348
366
366
366
366
365
366
357

100
99
100
100
100
100
99
100
98

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 25

Valid Data
Recovery *
No. of
%
Days

Table 9: 2008 Ozone (in ppm) Eight-Hour Averages
(NAAQS eight-hour 0.075 ppm effective April, 2008)
Bold denotes the 4th highest value exceeds the eight-hour 0.075 ppm NAAQS.

Site Name
Pinal County
Apache Junction Maintenance
Yard
Casa Grande Airport
Combs School S ##
Maricopa County Complex S
Pinal Air Park S
Queen Valley S
Yuma County
Prescott College AQD S
Yuma County
Yuma Game & Fish S
Yuma Supersite S

Max
Value

2nd
High

3rd
High

4th
High

No. of
Daily
Exceedances

Valid Data
Recovery *
No. of
%
Days

0.082

0.081

0.081

0.079

7

364

99

0.077
0.074
0.073
0.071
0.085

0.077
0.072
0.070
0.071
0.082

0.074
0.071
0.070
0.071
0.082

0.073
0.071
0.069
0.070
0.080

2
0
0
0
9

361
214
213
209
212

99
100
99
98
99

0.071

0.071

0.071

0.069

0

31

14

0.084
0.084

0.083
0.083

0.081
0.079

0.076
0.077

6
6

180
173

84
98

* 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 is 365 in a non-leap year and 366 in a leap year.
S

Seasonal monitor, operational during April 1 to November 1; 214 scheduled sampling days in the season.

## Site also known as Queen Creek

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, 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
natural processes (pollen and wind erosion) and by 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. Coarse particulates (2.5 to 10 microns) are formed
through mechanical processes such as the grinding of matter and
the atomization of liquids. 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. 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. For example, secondary particulate
nitrates and sulfates 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 VOCs.
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 inhaled and deposited in the upper parts of the
respiratory system. Particles smaller than 2.5 microns are
respired and enter the pulmonary tissues where the particles are
deposited. 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 small reversible changes in pulmonary
function in children. Acidic aerosols have been linked to the inability of the upper
respiratory tract and pulmonary system to remove harmful particles.
Coarse particulate emissions are mostly geological and are dominated by dust from three
activities: the constant grinding (re-entraining) of dust from paved roads, driving on
unpaved roads, and earth moving associated with construction. Soil dust from these
sources and others contribute more than 70 percent of the coarse particulates in Phoenix.
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.
On days with winds in excess of 15 miles per hour, wind erosion of soil contributes to
this loading.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 27

With a more diverse chemical composition, fine particulate (PM2.5) emissions are more
evenly distributed among a larger number of sources. At the ADEQ JLG Supersite,
receptor modeling indicates gasoline and diesel engine exhaust account for more than 66
percent of the PM2.5 emissions. Soil dust contributes another 10.5 percent.
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 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) for an annual
average background versus about 50 μg/m3 for the urban maximum). Background
concentrations of PM2.5 are about 5 μg/m3, in contrast to the urban maxima of 12 to 15 μg/m3.
Concentrations of both size ranges of particulates tend to be higher in the late fall and winter,
when atmospheric dispersion is at a seasonal low. PM10 maximum concentrations can occur
in any season, provided nearby sources of coarse particulates are present or when strong and
gusty winds suspend soil disturbed by human activities. Hourly concentrations of particulates
tend to peak during those hours of the worst dispersion, which is from sunset to midmorning.
Controls to reduce particulates have been in place for decades, beginning in the 1960s
with a Pima County ordinance that required watering to reduce dust from construction.
Maricopa County's umbrella dust abatement rule, Rule 310, has been revised many times
through the years and now regulates construction dust, trackout dust from construction
sites, and dust from unpaved parking and vacant lots. Efforts to reduce dust resuspended
from paved roads have concentrated on eliminating trackout from construction sites,
curbing and stabilizing road shoulders, and investigating more efficient street sweepers.
Secondary fine particulates have been reduced by vehicle emission controls, which
reduce precursor gases. For example, reducing gaseous HC emissions has led to
reductions in ambient concentrations of secondary organic carbon. In Maricopa County,
the Governor's Agricultural Best Management Practices Committee developed a rule
containing best management practices for agricultural activities (AgBMP) to reduce
particulate emissions from tilling and harvesting activities of cropland and non-cropland.
In a recent PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP), the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) committed to implement 77 new measures including enhanced
enforcement of the county’s dust rules, implementation of AgBMP, 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 exposure, and measuring the volume
of air sampled. The monitoring instruments are fitted with different aerodynamic devices
to segregate particle size fractions. Particulates also can 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.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 28

The 2008 PM10 data reported in Table 10 represent 69 monitors throughout Arizona and
two in Mexico, located in Agua Prieta and Nogales, Sonora. Data from collocated
monitors are included for precision purposes as a quality control measure. The data are
reported in standard conditions (adjusted to 25o C and 1 atmosphere pressure) as
required by EPA.
EPA began a nationwide program to measure PM2.5 using federal reference method
(FRM) monitors in anticipation of a new federal standard for fine particulates in 1999.
Sixteen FRM 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. The data are reported in ambient conditions
(local temperature and pressure) as required by EPA. Particulate data from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program are not
included. Effective December 16, 2006 the EPA changed the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/ m3. The EPA also eliminated the annual standard for PM10, but
retained the 24-hour standard of 150 μg/m3.
Figure 4 – Nogales Post
Office monitoring
station.

Figure 5 – Yuma
Courthouse monitoring
station.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 29

Table 10: 2008 PM 10 Data (in µg/m3)

(NAAQS 24-hour Average 150 µg/m3)
Bold denotes an exceedances, defined as any daily value greater than 150 µg/m3 after rounding to the
nearest 10 µg/m3.**

Site Name

Method

Apache County
TEP - Springerville - Coal Yard 1
TEP - Springerville - Coyote Hills 1
Cochise County
Douglas Red Cross 4
Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (1) 4
Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (2) 4 #
Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School 4
Gila County
FMMI - Miami - Golf Course (1) 4 #
FMMI - Miami - Golf Course (2) 4 #
Hayden Old Jail, ADEQ 4
Miami Ridgeline, FMMI 4
Payson Well Site 4
Maricopa County
Bethune Elementary School 4
Buckeye 1
Central Phoenix 1
Coyote Lakes 1
Durango Complex 1
Dysart 4
Glendale 4
Greenwood 1
Higley 1
JLG Supersite 4
JLG Supersite 1
Mesa 4
North Phoenix 4
South Phoenix 4
South Scottsdale 4
West Chandler 4
West Forty Third 1
West Phoenix 1
Mohave County
Bullhead City 4
Pima County
Ajo 4
Broadway & Swan 4

Annual
Average

24-Hour
Average
Max
2nd
Value High

Valid Data
Recovery *
No. of
%
Days

TEOM
TEOM

23.6
11.4

337
52

277
44

8696
8784

99
100

Partisol
Partisol
Partisol

35.7
35.6
40.7

97
160
254

92
70
156

59
58
52

97
95
85

Partisol

17.8

45

43

60

98

Dichot
Dichot
Partisol
Dichot
Partisol

18.0
18.5
33.4
13.3
21.8

46
43
70
42
43

38
33
68
29
39

42
50
58
57
59

69
82
95
93
97

Partisol
TEOM
TEOM
TEOM
TEOM
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol
TEOM
TEOM
Partisol
TEOM
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol
TEOM
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol
TEOM
TEOM

44.2
43.2
35.3
35.4
48.2
25.1
26.5
42.6
40.2
30.4
28.5
22.4
25.1
45.2
25.1
22.9
56.9
37.8

111
223
133
186
247
75
80
133
133
102
101
71
88
230
92
67
278
113

110
203
116
167
169
66
49
123
118
65
79
50
49
161
51
49
250
106

59
365
358
364
362
61
60
366
360
56
361
59
59
366
60
58
365
366

97
100
98
99
99
100
98
100
98
92
99
97
97
100
98
95
100
100

Partisol

20.6

46

44

59

97

Partisol
Partisol

26.7
24.6

56
66

50
42

59
56

97
92

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 30

Table 10: 2008 PM 10 Data (in µg/m3)

(NAAQS 24-hour Average 150 µg/m3)
Bold denotes an exceedances, defined as any daily value greater than 150 µg/m3 after rounding to the
nearest 10 µg/m3.**

Site Name

Method

Corona De Tucson 4
Geronimo 1
Green Valley 1
Green Valley Fire Administration 1 #
Orange Grove 2
Prince Road 4
Rillito, ADEQ 4
Rillito, APCC 3
Santa Clara 4
South Tucson 2
Tangerine 4
Pinal County
Apache Junction Fire Station 4
Casa Grande Downtown 4
Casa Grande Downtown 1
Combs School 1
Coolidge Maintenance Yard 4
Cowtown 4
Cowtown 1
Eloy County Complex 4
Mammoth County Complex 4
Maricopa County Complex1
Pinal Air Park 4
Pinal County Housing Complex (1) 4
Pinal County Housing Complex (2) 4
Pinal County Housing Complex 1
Riverside Maintenance Yard 1
Stanfield County Complex 4
Stanfield County Complex 1
Santa Cruz County
Nogales Post Office 4
Nogales Post Office 1
Yavapai County
PCC Clarkdale - NW 4
PCC Clarkdale - SE 4
Prescott Valley 4
Yuma County
Yuma Courthouse (1) 4
Yuma Courthouse (2) 4

Annual
Average

24-Hour
Average
Max
2nd
Value High
89
67
137
112
115
97
149
66
132
88
83
68
104
77
119
66
81
173
146
121
54
50

Valid Data
Recovery *
No. of
%
Days
46
98
364
99
366
100
272
90
365
100
61
100
60
98
108
89
61
100
364
99
60
98

Partisol
TEOM
BAM
BAM
Partisol
Partisol
Partisol
Hi-Vol
Partisol
Partisol
Partisol

19.2
31.4
20.5
15.5
28.2
33.1
40.8
27.4
29.5
30.7
19.2

Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol
TEOM
TEOM
Hi-Vol
RAAS
TEOM
Partisol
Hi-Vol
TEOM
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol
TEOM
Hi-Vol
RAAS
TEOM

19.6
29.9
45.0
56.4
33.5
145.3
160.5
36.3
14.6
58.6
25.8
43.1
47.5
63.3
20.9
61.0
67.8

57
74
203
270
91
465
609
109
35
520
55
141
245
285
52
201
375

42
71
183
195
63
373
539
64
32
317
53
124
117
274
44
185
364

59
59
364
366
60
60
357
55
59
359
61
59
61
356
58
61
363

97
97
99
100
98
98
98
90
97
98
100
97
100
97
95
100
99

Partisol
BAM

54.7
62.4

155
234

150
217

58
355

95
97

Dichot
Dichot
Partisol

15.3
19.2
17.9

37.3
54.6
42

36.1
50.2
38

60
61
47

99
100
77

Partisol
Partisol

38.5
38.6

90
92

88
82

58
61

95
100

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 31

Table 10: 2008 PM 10 Data (in µg/m3)

(NAAQS 24-hour Average 150 µg/m3)
Bold denotes an exceedances, defined as any daily value greater than 150 µg/m3 after rounding to the
nearest 10 µg/m3.**

Site Name

Method

Yuma Courthouse 1
Mexico
Agua Prieta Fire Station 4
Sonora Nogales Fire Station 4

Annual
Average

TEOM

44.2

Dichot
Dichot

49.4
58.3

24-Hour
Average
Max
2nd
Value High
386
252
91
127

88
126

Valid Data
Recovery *
No. of
%
Days
340
93
58
60

95
98

*Valid data recovery shows the number of valid observations and the percentage of scheduled samples
that were valid. For continuous monitors (TEOM and BAM), the number of valid days is used for data
recovery.
1

Samples collected every hour - 8760 sample hours (365 days) in non leap years and 8784 sample hours
(366 days) in leap years.
2
Samples collected every day - 365 sample days in non leap years and 366 sample days in leap years.
3
Samples collected every third day - 122 sample days in non leap years
4
Samples collected every sixth day - 61 sample days in non leap years
#
Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA's summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data
recovery available.

(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.
** The NAAQS requirement for the annual average value to be less than 50 µg/m3 was removed as of
December 17, 2006.
Note: Exceedances due to Exceptional Events that have been concurred on by the EPA are excluded from
the annual statistics.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 32

Table 11: 2008 PM 2.5 Data (in µg/m3)

(NAAQS Annual Average 15µg/m3, 24-hour Average 35 µg/m3)

Site Name

Method

Cochise County
Douglas Red Cross 4
Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School 4 #
Maricopa County
JLG Supersite 3
Mesa 3
South Phoenix 3
West Phoenix (1) 3
West Phoenix (2) 3
Pima County
Children’s Park 3
Orange Grove 2
Pinal County
Apache Junction Fire Station 3
Casa Grande Downtown 3
Cowtown 4
Santa Cruz County
Nogales Post Office (1) 4
Nogales Post Office (2) 4
Yavapai County
Prescott Valley 4
Yuma County
Yuma Courthouse

Annual
Average

24-Hour
Average
Max
2nd
Value High

Valid Data
Recovery *
No. of
%
Days

FRM

6.98

13.8

13.6

54

89

FRM

5.92

13.5

10.3

59

97

FRM
FRM
FRM
FRM
FRM

8.88
8.45
10.93
10.62
9.93

28.2
24.0
24.4
29.1
26.6

19.4
16.4
23.5
26.0
20.4

115
115
116
120
29

94
94
95
98
24

FRM
FRM

5.38
5.72

15.3
18.3

12.4
11.8

118
116

97
95

FRM
FRM
FRM

7.52
10.61
19.63

23.3
23.5
41.7

19.5
23.4
40.7

112
122
57

92
100
93

FRM
FRM

13.08
13.31

46.7
46.9

35.8
36.8

60
59

98
97

FRM

5.91

12.6

12.4

58

95

FRM

9.93

23.0

21.1

60

98

*Valid data recovery shows the number of valid observations and the percentage of scheduled samples that
were valid.
2
3
4

Samples collected every day - 365 sample days in non leap years and 366 sample days in leap years.
Samples collected every third day - 122 sample days in non leap years.
Samples collected every sixth day - 61 sample days in non leap years.

(1) Indicates the Primary monitor (used for NAAQS compliance) in a collocated pair of monitors.
(2) Indicates the Secondary monitor (used for precision and accuracy) in a collocated pair of monitors.
#

Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA's summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data
recovery available.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 33

Criteria Pollutants – Compliance
Carbon Monoxide
There are two NAAQS for CO: a one-hour standard and an eight-hour standard (most
critical for compliance). The one-hour standard is 35 ppm and the eight-hour standard is
9 ppm. According to 40 CFR part 50, compliance for both standards is determined by
having no more than one exceedance per calendar year. EPA determines attainment of
the standard at all sites in the nonattainment (or monitoring) area by evaluating two
calendar years of data from each site. The highest of the second-highest value in a twoyear period must not exceed the standard of 35 ppm (greater than or equal to 35.5 ppm)
for the one-hour standard or 9 ppm (greater than or equal to 9.5 ppm) for the eight-hour
standard.
No exceedances of the one-hour or eight-hour standards were recorded in 2007 or 2008.
The data are presented in Table 12 and Table 13.
Table 12: 2007-2008
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.

2007-2008 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide
NAAQS Compliance Values by County
County

Exceedances

Violations

0

0

Maricopa

Pima
0
0
Summary: 20 of 20 monitors in compliance

Table 12: 2007-2008 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm)
Site Name
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
West Phoenix
Pima County
22nd St. & Alvernon
22nd St. & Craycroft

2007
Max
2nd
Value High

2008
Max
2nd
Value High

Compliance
Value

3.9
4.1
1.8
4.3
4.6
4.6
3.9
3.4
4.9
2.7
3.2
2.7
6.2
6.0

1.6
4.0
1.7
3.3
4.6
4.3
2.5
3.0
4.3
2.6
2.8
2.4
5.7
6.0

0.7
3.6
1.5
2.1
3.0
3.1
1.7
2.1
3.7
2.0
2.4
1.8
3.9
4.7

0.7
3.5
1.4
2.0
3.0
3.1
1.7
2.0
3.2
2.0
2.3
1.7
3.6
4.5

1.6
4.0
1.7
3.3
4.6
4.3
2.5
3.0
4.3
2.6
2.8
2.4
5.7
6.0

3.7
2.6

3.1
2.5

2.9
2.6

2.5
2.1

3.1
2.6

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 34

Table 12: 2007-2008 One-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm)
Site Name
Cherry & Glenn S
Children’s Park
Golf Links & Kolb S
Tucson Downtown

2007
Max
2nd
Value High
2.8
2.7
1.9
1.8
2.5
2.1
3.4
2.7

2008
Max
2nd
Value High
2.5
2.5
1.5
1.3
2.0
1.8
2.2
1.8

Compliance
Value
2.7
1.8
2.1
2.7

S

Seasonal monitor. Maricopa County monitors operate during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to
December 31. Pima County monitors operate during January 1 to May 1 and October 1 to December 31.

2007-2008 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide
NAAQS Compliance Values by County

Table 13: 2007-2008
Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide
Compliance (in ppm)

County

Exceedances

Violations

0

0

Maricopa

NAAQS for eight-hour carbon monoxide: The
highest of the second-highest values in a twoyear period must not exceed 9 ppm.

Pima
0
0
Summary: 20 of 20 monitors in compliance

Table 13: 2007-2008 Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Compliance (in ppm)
Site Name
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
West Phoenix
Pima County
22nd St. & Alvernon
22nd St. & Craycroft
Cherry & Glenn S
Children’s Park
Golf Links & Kolb S
Tucson Downtown

2007
Max
2nd
Value
High

2008
Max
2nd
Value
High

Compliance
Value

1.0
2.9
1.3
1.8
4.0
3.1
2.0
1.7
3.1
1.6
1.9
1.6
5.0
4.6

0.8
2.9
1.3
1.6
3.0
2.9
2.0
1.6
2.3
1.6
1.9
1.5
3.9
4.1

0.5
2.6
1.0
1.6
2.7
2.5
1.4
1.3
2.2
1.5
1.8
1.4
2.8
3.1

0.5
2.2
1.0
1.5
2.4
2.4
1.3
1.3
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.8
3.0

0.8
2.9
1.3
1.6
3.0
2.9
2.0
1.6
2.3
1.6
1.9
1.5
3.9
4.1

2.1
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.3
1.9

1.9
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.4

1.4
1.1
1.9
1.0
1.3
1.3

1.3
1.1
1.5
0.9
1.2
1.0

1.9
1.2
1.9
1.0
1.3
1.4

S

Seasonal monitor. Maricopa County monitors operate during January 1 to April 1 and September 1 to
December 31. Pima County monitors operate during January 1 to May 1 and October 1 to December 31.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 35

Nitrogen Dioxide
The NAAQS for NO2 is 0.053 ppm for
Table 14: 2008 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS
an annual average. The standard is
Compliance Values by County
attained when the annual arithmetic
Annual Average
mean concentration in a calendar year
County
Exceedances
Violations
is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm. To
Maricopa
0
0
demonstrate attainment, the annual
Pima
0
0
mean must be based upon hourly data
Yuma
0
0
that are at least 75 percent complete.
Summary:9 of 9 monitors in compliance
NO2 annual averages near an Arizona
power plant are 2 percent of the standard and in the urban areas, from 18 percent to 49
percent. All Arizona sites were in compliance with the NAAQS. Refer to Table 6 for the
2008 averages.
Sulfur Dioxide
There are three NAAQS for SO2, two primary (annual and 24-hour block averages) and
one secondary (three-hour block average). The annual average standard is 0.030 ppm (80
µg/m3), not to 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. The 24hour average is calculated from midnight to midnight (calendar day); 18 or more valid
hours must be present for each calendar day. The maximum and second-highest 24-hour
average is used to determine compliance with the standard. The annual average and 24hour averages must be based on valid hourly data that are at least 75 percent complete in
each calendar quarter.
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,
non-overlapping 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 2008, the maximum concentration sites - all near copper smelters - comply
with these standards; the concentrations ranging from 1 to 76 percent of the three-hour,
three to 96 percent of the 24-hour and one to 60 percent of the annual average standards.
The site near a power plant is close to background levels, with annual averages near
0.0003 ppm. See Table 7 for the 2008 averages.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 36

Table 15: 2008 Sulfur Dioxide Average NAAQS Compliance Values by County
County
Gila
Maricopa
Pima
Pinal

Annual Average
Three-Hour Average
24-Hour Average
Exceedances Violations Exceedances Violations Exceedances Violations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Summary:14 out of 14 monitors in compliance

Ozone - One-hour
The NAAQS one-hour standard for O3 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. There were no
exceedances of the one-hour standard in Arizona in 2008.
Since 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 MAG,
demonstrating how the area will maintain compliance with the one-hour 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 O3 standard. Even though the one-hour standard was revoked on
June 15, 2005, certain control measures developed and implemented for the one-hour
standard 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 O3 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 O3 standard was 0.08 ppm (0.084 ppm for rounding) for a
daily maximum eight-hour average. Then in 2008 the eight-hour standard was reviewed
and changed to 0.075 ppm, effective June 2008. The eight-hour 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 (0.075 ppm as of June 2008). The data in
Table 16 are for those sites in operation in 2006 to 2008 and have been evaluated based
on the 0.075 ppm standard.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 37

2006 to 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone 1997 NAAQS of 0.080 ppm
Compliance Values by County
County
Eight-Hour Exceedances *
Sites in
Violation
2006
2007
2008
NAAQS: The three-year average Cochise
0
0
0
0
of the annual fourth-highest daily Coconino
0
0
0
0
maximum eight-hour average
Gila
2
0
0
0
ozone concentration is less than
La Paz
0
0
0
0
or equal to 0.08 ppm effective in
Maricopa
17
1
0
0
1997.
Navajo
1
0
0
0
Pima
0
0
0
0
Pinal
5
0
1
0
Yavapai
--0
-Yuma
0
1
0
0
Summary:42 of 42 monitors in compliance for 2006 to 2008

Table 16: 2006 to 2008
Eight-Hour Ozone
Compliance (in ppm)

* Includes all eight-hour exceedances.

2006 to 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone 2008 NAAQS of 0.075 ppm
Compliance Values by County
County
Eight-Hour Exceedances *
Sites in
Violation
2006
2007
2008
NAAQS: The three-year average Cochise
1
0
0
0
of the annual fourth-highest daily Coconino
1
0
3
0
maximum eight-hour average
Gila
17
6
11
1
ozone concentration is less than
La Paz
1
2
4
0
or equal to 0.075 ppm effective in
Maricopa
169
53
79
11
2008.
Navajo
1
0
0
0
Pima
13
0
2
0
Pinal
26
10
18
2
Yavapai
--0
-Yuma
1
3
12
0
Summary:26 of 42 monitors in compliance for 2006 to 2008

Table 16: 2006 to 2008
Eight-Hour Ozone
Compliance (in ppm)

* Includes all eight-hour exceedances.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 38

Table 16: 2006 to 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm)
Bold denotes exceedances and sites in violation of the 2008 NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.
Bold with grey background denotes exceedances of the 1997 NAAQS of 0.08 ppm.

Fourth-Highest Value
Site Name
Cochise County
Chiricahua Entrance Station
Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School S (opened 03/13/2008)
Grand Canyon NP - The Abyss
Gila County
Tonto NM S
La Paz County
Alamo Lake S
Maricopa County
Blue Point
Buckeye S
Cave Creek S
Central Phoenix
Dysart S
Falcon Field S
Fountain Hills
Glendale S
Humboldt Mountain 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 South
Pima County
22nd St. & Craycroft
Children’s Park
Coachline
Green Valley
Rose Elementary
Saguaro NP East
Tangerine
Tucson Downtown
Tucson Fairgrounds

ThreeYear
Average

2006

2007

2008

0.074

0.067

0.068

0.070

N/A
0.070

N/A
0.069

0.074
0.071

N/A
0.070

0.081

0.076

0.078

0.078

0.073

0.072

0.076

0.074

0.062
0.067
0.080
0.080
0.072
0.079
0.084
0.078
0.079
0.076
0.085
0.076
0.083
0.069
0.080
0.079
0.081
0.082

0.058
0.064
0.077
0.070
0.065
0.073
0.074
0.071
0.078
0.076
0.078
0.075
0.079
0.072
0.077
0.076
0.072
0.074

0.074
0.068
0.078
0.072
0.066
0.075
0.079
0.074
0.077
0.078
0.080
0.073
0.079
0.076
0.076
0.078
0.077
0.078

0.065
0.066
0.078
0.074
0.068
0.076
0.079
0.074
0.078
0.077
0.081
0.075
0.080
0.072
0.078
0.078
0.077
0.078

0.071

0.069

0.072

0.071

0.069
0.072
0.071
0.070
0.067
0.076
0.076
0.073
0.068

0.068
0.071
0.064
0.065
0.069
0.073
0.069
0.067
0.071

0.066
0.069
0.068
0.064
0.065
0.074
0.071
0.065
0.072

0.068
0.071
0.068
0.066
0.067
0.074
0.072
0.068
0.070

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 39

Table 16: 2006 to 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Compliance (in ppm)
Bold denotes exceedances and sites in violation of the 2008 NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.
Bold with grey background denotes exceedances of the 1997 NAAQS of 0.08 ppm.

Fourth-Highest Value
Site Name
Pinal County
Apache Junction Maintenance Yard
Casa Grande Airport
Combs School S ##
Maricopa County Complex S
Pinal Air Park S
Queen Valley S
Yavapai County
Prescott College AQD S (opened 3/25/2008) - ADEQ
Yuma County
Yuma Game & Fish S
Yuma Supersite S (opened 05/06/2008)
S

ThreeYear
Average

2006

2007

2008

0.084
0.073
0.071
0.068
0.070
0.079

0.077
0.070
0.057
0.059
0.066
0.076

0.079
0.073
0.071
0.069
0.070
0.080

0.080
0.072
0.066
0.065
0.069
0.078

N/A

N/A

0.069

N/A

0.073
N/A

0.074
N/A

0.076
0.077

0.074
N/A

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.
## Site also known as Queen Creek
N/A - Data are not available
Notes:
Data follow EPA truncation and averaging rules. Data published in previous annual reports may be
slightly different.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 40

Particulate Matter - PM 10
The NAAQS for particulate matter 10 microns and smaller in diameter (PM 10 ) were
changed December 17, 2006. The annual NAAQS was eliminated; the 24-hour NAAQS
of 150 µg/m3 was retained. The annual NAAQS statistics are included for historical
purposes.
The annual standard is attained when, for a three-year period, the expected annual
arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50 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. This mean is rounded to the nearest 1 µg/m3 for comparison to the
standard.
Compliance with the 24-hour PM 10 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 because it rounds to 150 µg/m3;
a sample value of 155 µg/m3 is an exceedance because it rounds to 160 µg/m3). 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 2006 to 2008 expected exceedance rates for the PM 10
annual arithmetic means and maximum 24-hour average values.
Table 17: 2006 to 2008 Annual
Average PM 10 Compliance (in
µg/m3, Standard Conditions)
NAAQS: The expected annual arithmetic
mean (average of three most recent
annual means) is less than or equal to 50
µg/m3.
The expected annual arithmetic mean is
rounded to the nearest 1 µg/m3 for
comparison to the standard.
Note: The Annual Average statistics are
for historical purposes only.

2006 to 2008 PM 10 Annual Average NAAQS
Compliance Values, By County
Sites with Exceedances
Sites in
County
Violation
2006
2007
2008
Apache
0
0
0
0
Cochise
0
0
0
0
Coconino
0
0
0
0
Gila
0
0
0
0
Graham
0
0
0
0
Maricopa
7
6
0
4
Mohave
0
0
0
0
Navajo
0
0
0
0
Pima
0
0
0
0
Pinal
4
6
5
4
Santa Cruz
1
1
1
1
Yavapai
0
0
0
0
Yuma
0
1
0
0
Summary: 44 of 64 monitors in compliance

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 41

Table 17: 2006 to 2008 Annual Average PM 10 Compliance (in µg/m3)
Bold denotes value above the standard.

Site Name
Apache County
TEP - Springerville - Coal Yard
TEP - Springerville - Coyote Hills
Cochise County
Douglas Red Cross
Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant
Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School
Sedona Post Office
(closed 12/31/2007)
Gila County
FMMI - Miami - Golf Course
Hayden Old Jail, ADEQ
Miami Ridgeline, FMMI
Payson Well Site
Graham County
Safford (closed 12/31/2007)
Maricopa County
Bethune Elementary School
Buckeye E
Central Phoenix E
Coyote Lakes (opened 4/2/2007)
Durango Complex E
Dysart
Glendale
Greenwood E
Higley E
JLG Supersite
JLG Supersite E
Mesa
North Phoenix
South Phoenix E - continuous monitor
beginning 7/1/2007
South Scottsdale
West Chandler E
West Forty Third E
West Phoenix - continuous monitor
beginning 1/1/2006
Mohave County
Bullhead City
Navajo County
Show Low (closed 12/31/2007)

2006

2007

2008

Expected
Annual
Mean

19.0
11.2

26.9
11.7

23.6
11.4

23
11

30.9
27.3

28.2
28.8

35.7
35.6

32
31

18.0

21.2

17.8

19

13.3

13.7

N/A

N/A

20.4
33.4
14.2
23.7

23.0#
34.4
11.9
23.0

18.0#
33.4
13.3
21.8

N/A
34
13
23

22.6

22.3

N/A

N/A

61.7
53.0
42.0
N/A
69.0
32.3
36.3#
51.7
60.4
35.4
36.8
30.5
34.4

53.1
52.5
42.4
47.8#
59.5
35.9
34.1
50.0
53.0
34.1
36.2
32.3
33.5

44.2
43.2
35.3
35.4
48.2
25.1
26.5
42.6
40.2
30.4
28.5
22.4
25.1

53
50
40
N/A
59
31
N/A
48
51
33
34
28
31

55.0

55.6

45.2

52

32.9
33.3
79.8

30.6
36.4
71.8

25.1
22.9
56.9

30
31
70

49.8

47.0

37.8

45

19.3

20.3

20.6

20

15.5

16.0

N/A

N/A

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 42

Table 17: 2006 to 2008 Annual Average PM 10 Compliance (in µg/m3)
Bold denotes value above the standard.

Site Name
Pima County
Ajo
Broadway & Swan
Corona de Tucson
Geronimo (opened 7/1/2007)
Green Valley E
Green Valley Fire Administration E
(opened 7/1/2007)
Orange Grove E
Prince Road
Rillito, ADEQ
Rillito, APCC
(1-in-3 day schedule)
Santa Clara
South Tucson
Tangerine
Pinal County
Apache Junction Fire Station
Casa Grande Downtown
Casa Grande Downtown E
(opened March 2007)
Combs School E (opened 3/20/2007)
Coolidge Maintenance Yard
Cowtown (opened August 2005)
Cowtown E
Eloy County Complex
Mammoth County Complex
Maricopa County Complex E
Pinal Air Park
Pinal County Housing Complex
Pinal County Housing Complex E
Riverside Maintenance Yard E
Stanfield County Complex
Stanfield County Complex E (opened
February 2006)
Santa Cruz County
Nogales Post Office
Nogales Post Office E
Yavapai County
PCC Clarkdale - NW
PCC Clarkdale - SE
Prescott Valley

2006

2007

2008

Expected
Annual
Mean

25.3
26.8
22.6
N/A
16.8

32.0#
26.2
17.1
32.8#
20.4

26.7
24.6
19.2
31.4
20.5

N/A
26
20
N/A
19

N/A

14.8#

15.5#

N/A

31.8
35.2
39.7

29.2
31.7
40.7

28.2
33.1
40.8

30
33
40

28.5

26.2

27.4

27

35.5
34.3
22.9

28.4
31.4
22.0

29.5
30.7
19.2

31
32
21

23.6
35.9

18.1
35.3

19.6
29.9

20
34

N/A

55.2#

45.0

N/A

N/A
44.0
220.1
230.4
38.8
14.8
78.6
29.5
64.3
87.1
23.3
81.4

89.9#
35.5
167.5
181.3
42.3
12.7
73.7
29.5
56.0
83.7
23.6
90.9

56.4
33.5
145.3
160.5
36.3
14.6
58.6
25.8
43.1
63.3
20.9
61.0

N/A
38
178
191
39
14
70
28
54
78
23
78

82.6#

84.3

67.8

N/A

64.0
82.3

52.1
65.0

54.7
62.4

57
70

15.3
19.7
18.9#

14.0
18.5
21.5

15.3
19.2
17.9#

15
19
N/A

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 43

Table 17: 2006 to 2008 Annual Average PM 10 Compliance (in µg/m3)
Bold denotes value above the standard.

Site Name
Yuma County
Yuma Courthouse
Yuma Courthouse E
Mexico
Agua Prieta Fire Station
Sonora Nogales Fire Station

2006

2007

2008

Expected
Annual
Mean

40.1
46.9

45.7
51.9

38.5
44.2

41
48

52.7
75.9

46.8
62.7

49.4
58.3

50
66

# 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/continuous monitoring.

N/A - Data are not available
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 percent and 75 percent, data from the
Secondary (POC 2) 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.’
Exceedances due to Exceptional Events that have been concurred on by the EPA are excluded from the
annual statistics.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 44

2006 to 2008 PM 10 Maximum 24-Hour
Compliance Values, By County
Sites with Exceedances
Sites in
County
Violation
2006
2007
2008
NAAQS: Expected occurrence of
Apache
1
1
1
1
exceedances (samples equal to or greater
Cochise
0
0
1
1
than 150 µg/m3) is one or less over three
Coconino
0
0
0
0
consecutive years.
Gila
0
0
0
0
Graham
0
0
0
0
Sample values are rounded to the nearest 10
Maricopa
5
8
5
5
µg/m3 to determine exceedance; values less
3
Mohave
0
0
0
0
than or equal to 154 µg/m are not
0
0
0
0
exceedances; values greater than or equal to Navajo
Pima
0
1
1
2
155 µg/m3 are exceedances.
Pinal
4
6
6
4
Santa Cruz
1
1
1
1
Yavapai
0
0
0
0
Yuma
1
1
1
1
Summary: 36 of 64 monitors in compliance

Table 18: 2006 to 2008 Maximum 24Hour Average PM 10 Compliance (in
µg/m3, Standard Conditions)

Table 18: 2006 to 2008 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM 10 Compliance (in µg/m3)
Bold denotes value above the standard.

2006
Max
24-Hr Exp.
Avg
Exc.

Site Name
Apache County
TEP - Springerville - Coal Yard
TEP - Springerville - Coyote
Hills
Cochise County
Douglas Red Cross
Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant
Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School
Sedona Post Office
(closed 12/31/2007)
Gila County
FMMI - Miami - Golf Course
Hayden Old Jail, ADEQ
Miami Ridgeline, FMMI
Payson Well Site
Graham County
Safford (closed 12/31/2007)
Maricopa County
Bethune Elementary School
Buckeye E

2007
Max
24-Hr Exp.
Avg
Exc.

2008
Max
24-Hr
Exp.
Avg
Exc.

Three-Year
Avg Exp.
Rate of
Exc.

298

3.0

914

5.0

337

7.0

5

56

0

49

0

52

0

0

87
76

0
0

94
87

0
0

97
160

0
6.5

0
2.2

37

0

56

0

45

0

0

36

0

33

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

90
102
106
66

0
0
0
0

64#
72
51
62

0
0
0
0

46#
70
42
43

0
0
0
0

N/A
0
0
0

50

0

62

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

140
272

0
3.0

136
195

0
2.0

111
223

0
4.0

0
3.0

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 45

Table 18: 2006 to 2008 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM 10 Compliance (in µg/m3)
Bold denotes value above the standard.

Site Name
Central Phoenix E
Coyote Lakes
(opened 4/2/2007)
Durango Complex E
Dysart
Glendale
Greenwood E
Higley E
JLG Supersite
JLG Supersite E
Mesa
North Phoenix
South Phoenix E - continuous
monitor beginning 7/1/2007
South Scottsdale
West Chandler E
West Forty Third E
West Phoenix E
Mohave County
Bullhead City
Navajo County
Show Low (closed 12/31/2007)
Pima County
Ajo
Broadway & Swan
Corona De Tucson
Geronimo (opened 7/1/2007)
Green Valley
Green Valley Fire
Administration E
(opened 7/1/2007)
Orange Grove E
Prince Road
Rillito, ADEQ
Rillito, APCC
(1-in-3 day schedule)
Santa Clara
South Tucson
Tangerine
Pinal County
Apache Junction Fire Station

2006
Max
24-Hr Exp.
Avg
Exc.
134
0

2007
Max
24-Hr Exp.
Avg
Exc.
267
1.0

2008
Max
24-Hr
Exp.
Avg
Exc.
133
0

Three-Year
Avg Exp.
Rate of
Exc.
0.3

N/A

N/A

313#

2.0

186

2.0

N/A

240
67
60#
166
170
91
148
75
79

9.0
0
0
1.0
2.1
0
0
0
0

155
111
92
124
230
85
521
110
78

1.0
0
0
0
5.1
0
1.0
0
0

247
75
80
133
133
102
101
71
88

2.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4.0
0
N/A
0.3
2.4
0
0.3
0
0

132

0

171

7.5

230

2.0

3.2

76
77
260
147

0
0
18.7
0

73
104
227
124

0
0
6.0
0

92
67
278
113

0
0
5.0
0

0
0
9.9
0

72

0

52

0

46

0

0

58

0

75

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

54
60
144
N/A
81

0
0
0
N/A
0

124#
80
50
104#
123

0
0
0
0
0

56
66
89
137
115

0
0
0
0
0

N/A
0
0
N/A
0

N/A

N/A

57#

0

149#

0

N/A

101
72
122

0
0
0

95
99
208

0
0
11.0

132
83
104

0
0
0

0
0
3.7

86

0

65

0

119

0

0

104
109
104

0
0
0

92
97
88

0
0
0

173
146
54

6.1
0
0

2.0
0
0

73

0

48

0

57

0

0

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 46

Table 18: 2006 to 2008 Maximum 24-Hour Average PM 10 Compliance (in µg/m3)
Bold denotes value above the standard.

Site Name
Casa Grande Downtown
Casa Grande Downtown E
(opened March 2007)
Combs School
(opened 3/20/2007)
Coolidge Maintenance Yard
Cowtown
(opened August 2005)
Cowtown E
Eloy County Complex
Mammoth County Complex
Maricopa County Complex E
Pinal Air Park
Pinal County Housing Complex
Pinal County Housing Complex
E

Riverside Maintenance Yard
Stanfield County Complex
Stanfield County Complex E
(opened February 2006)
Santa Cruz County
Nogales Post Office
Nogales Post Office E
Yavapai County
PCC Clarkdale - NW
PCC Clarkdale - SE
Prescott Valley
Yuma County
Yuma Courthouse
Yuma Courthouse E
Mexico
Agua Prieta Fire Station
Sonora Nogales Fire Station

2006
Max
24-Hr Exp.
Avg
Exc.
81
0

2007
Max
24-Hr Exp.
Avg
Exc.
112
0

2008
Max
24-Hr
Exp.
Avg
Exc.
74
0

Three-Year
Avg Exp.
Rate of
Exc.
0

N/A

N/A

983#

7.0

203

3.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

970#

44.6

270

4.0

N/A

106

0

82

0

91

0

0

606

278.2

759

166.2

465

145.5

196.6

1079
99
31
429
77
153

243.1
0
0
19
0
0

1014
136
40
724
113
224

190.4
0
0
20.1
0
6.5

609
109
35
520
55
141

175.3
0
0
6.2
0
0

202.9
0
0
15.1
0
2.2

763

31

2253

19.5

285

10.3

20.3

83
182

0
13.1

65
374

0
39.6

52
201

0
11.8

0
21.5

727#

21

1062

25.2

375

14.2

N/A

240
271

20.4
47.9

191
233

6.1
14.0

155
234

6.6
13.2

11
25

27
38
56#

0
0
0

50
52
63

0
0
0

37.3
54.6
42#

0
0
0

0
0
N/A

151
198

0
5.1

147
349

0
13.0

90
386

0
4.6

0
7.6

159
195

11.7
14.1

104
170

0
12.3

91
127

0
0

3.9
8.8

# 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/continuous monitoring.

N/A - Data are not available
Note: Exceedances due to Exceptional Events that have been concurred on by the EPA are excluded from
the annual statistics.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 47

Particulate Matter – PM 2.5
The NAAQS for particulate matter 2.5 microns and smaller in diameter (PM 2.5 ) are 15.0
µg/m3 for the annual arithmetic mean concentration and 35 µg/m3 for 24-hour average
concentrations, which changed from 65 µg/m3 on December 17, 2006. Appendix N Part
50 of the 40 CFR was used to assess the compliance of the monitors operating in
Arizona during 2008.
The annual PM 2.5 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 yearly 98th percentile value
is less than or equal to 35 µg/m3. There must also be 75 percent data completeness for each
year.
Please note that the data in Table 19 are from FRMs. In prior years, the dichot fine
measurement was used as an approximate equivalent for PM 2.5 , but the FRMs provide a
more accurate measurement of this pollutant. Data are collected and reported in local
conditions.
In February of 2004, Arizona requested that all parts of the State (except for tribal areas)
be designated attainment/unclassifiable for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. A new request was
submitted in December 2007 and approved in August 2008, designating nonattainment
for Nogales – same area as PM 10 nonattainment.
2006 to 2008 PM 2.5 Annual Average NAAQS
Compliance Values, By County
Sites in
Sites with Exceedances
County
Violation
2006
2007
2008
NAAQS: The three-year average of
Cochise
0
0
0
0
annual means is less than or equal to Coconino
0
0
0
0
15 µg/m3
Gila
0
0
0
0
Maricopa
0
0
0
0
Pima
0
0
0
0
Pinal
1
1
1
1
Santa Cruz
1
0
0
0
Summary: 10 of 14 federal reference monitors in compliance

Table 19: 2006 to 2008 Annual
Average PM 2.5 Compliance (in
µg/m3, local conditions)

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 48

Table 19: 2006 to 2008 Annual Average PM 2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3)
Federal Reference Monitors
Bold denotes a value above the standard.

Site Name
Cochise County
Douglas Red Cross
Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School
Gila County
Payson Well Site (closed 12/31/2007)
Maricopa County
JLG Supersite
Mesa
South Phoenix
West Phoenix
Pima County
Children’s Park
Orange Grove
Pinal County
Apache Junction Fire Station
Casa Grande Downtown
Cowtown
Santa Cruz County
Nogales Post Office
Yavapai County
Prescott Valley (opened 1/1/2008)
Yuma County
Yuma Courthouse (opened 1/1/2008)

2006

2007

2008

ThreeYear
Average

6.78

7.69

6.98

7.15

6.61

8.00

5.92#

N/A

9.04

9.38

N/A

N/A

10.22
9.66
12.69
13.52

9.48
9.72
12.27
10.89

8.88
8.45
10.93
10.62

9.53
9.28
11.96
11.68

5.79
5.80

5.71
5.84

5.38
5.72

5.63
5.79

5.31
7.55
22.70

6.96
10.25
22.50

7.52
10.61
19.63

6.60
9.47
21.61

15.59

12.30

13.08

13.66

N/A

N/A

5.91

N/A

N/A

N/A

9.93

N/A

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.
#

2006 to 2008 PM 2.5 24-Hour Average NAAQS
Compliance Values, By County
Sites in
Sites with Exceedances
County
Violation
2006
2007
2008
Cochise
0
0
0
0
NAAQS: The three-year average of
Coconino
0
0
0
0
the 98th percentile values is less than Gila
0
0
0
0
or equal to 35 µg/m3.
Maricopa
0
0
0
0
Pima
0
0
0
0
Note: The three-year average is
Pinal
1
1
1
1
rounded to the nearest 1 µg/m3 for
Santa
Cruz
1
0
1
1
comparison to the standard.
Summary: 10 of 14 federal reference monitors in compliance

Table 20: 2006 to 2008 24Hour Average PM 2.5
Compliance (in µg/m3, local
conditions)

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 49

Table 20. 2006 to 2008 24-Hour Average PM 2.5 Compliance (in µg/m3)
Federal Reference Monitors only
Bold denotes a vale above the standard.

Site Name
Cochise County
2
Douglas Red Cross
Coconino County
2
Flagstaff Middle School
Gila County
2
Payson Well Site (closed 12/31/2007)
Maricopa County
3
JLG Supersite
3
Mesa (opened 4/28/2005)
3
South Phoenix
3
West Phoenix
Pima County
3
Children’s Park
1
Orange Grove
Pinal County
3
Apache Junction Fire Station
2
Casa Grande Downtown
Cowtown 2
Santa Cruz County
2
Nogales Post Office
Yavapai County
Prescott Valley (opened 1/1/2008)
Yuma County
Yuma Courthouse (opened 1/1/2008)
**

98th Percentile
Samples **
2006
2007
2008

ThreeYear
Average

14.0

32.2

13.6

20

13.7

30.2

10.3

18

23.4

21.9

N/A

N/A

24.6
20.1
28.8
28.8

23.5
18.3
29.2
27.2

17.8
14.5
22.7
24.3

22
18
27
27

12.1
11.2

12.0
13.6

11.7
11.7

12
12

9.3
15.4
48.9

14.6
22.4
53.9

15.4
22.0
40.7

13
20
48

56.2

28.2

35.8

40

N/A

N/A

12.4

N/A

N/A

N/A

21.1

N/A

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.
1
Samples collected every day - 365 sample days in non leap years
2
Samples collected every sixth day - 61 sample days in non leap years.
3
Samples collected every third day - 122 sample days in non leap years.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 50

Visibility Data
Visibility monitoring is conducted using the following
methods: 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 tabulating 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
Figure 6 – Pleasant Valley monitoring
light extinction continuously. Scene measurements are station.
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. An inverse
megameter (Mm-1) (units used by ADEQ) 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
ADEQ began a visibility monitoring program in 1997, in anticipation of the
implementation of a federal regional haze rule. The program is directed at Class I areas
in partnership with Arizona's federal land managers. Arizona's Class I areas are
participating in the IMPROVE program, which consists of aerosol sampling only. The
aerosol samplers collect 24-hour samples every third day and are analyzed to determine
the content of the particulates collected. ADEQ added nephelometers for measuring light
scattering at some of the sites. The nephelometers are continuous monitors, providing
readings every five minutes which are averaged into hourly and 24-hour values. The
continuous measurements provide insight into variation in visibility impairment with
time as well as 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 2008. The data are summarized into three categories for all hours
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 51

(24 hours a day): the mean 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 Camp Raymond,
Ike’s Backbone, and Petrified Forest National Park in 2007, Tucson Mountain in 2002
to 2006, and Pleasant Valley in 2003.
Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1)

Site and Wilderness
Area
Camp Raymond
Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness

Chiricahua National
Monument

Greer Water Treatment
Plant
Mt. Baldy Wilderness

Hance Camp
Grand Canyon NP

Year

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Mm-1 (24-hour Averages)
Mean of the
Mean of the
Mean of all
Dirtiest 20%
Cleanest 20%
Sampled
Sampled
Sampled
Hours
Hours
Hours
28
13
4
28
13
3
28
13
3
30
13
3
32
14
3
25
12
3
33
14
3
32
14
4
50
19
3
34
15
3
18
9
3
21
10
2
18
7
0
31
13
3
20
8
1
26
10
2
26
10
1
17
8
1
23
9
1
21
9
2
29
12
2
22
9
1
23
10
2
21
9
2
20
8
1
22
9
1
20
9
2
26
11
2
19
9
2
25
10
1
21
9
2
24
11
2
21
9
1

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 52

Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1)

Site and Wilderness
Area
Humboldt Mountain *
Mazatzal Wilderness and
Pine Mountain
Wilderness

Ike’s Backbone
Mazatzal/Pine Mountain
Wildernesses

Indian Gardens
Grand Canyon NP

Mount Ord *
Mazatzal Wilderness
McFadden Peak *
Sierra Ancha Wilderness
Muleshoe Ranch *
Chiricahua National
Monument Wilderness,
Galiuro Wilderness,
Chiricahua Forest
Service Wilderness

Organ Pipe National
Monument

Petrified Forest National
Park South

Pleasant Valley Ranger
Station

Year

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2005
2006
2007
2008
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001
2002

Mm-1 (24-hour Averages)
Mean of the
Mean of the
Mean of all
Dirtiest 20%
Cleanest 20%
Sampled
Sampled
Sampled
Hours
Hours
Hours
24
9
0
25
12
3
28
13
3
21
9
1
24
8
0
36
16
3
24
10
2
30
12
2
24
11
3
26
12
4
23
12
4
31
15
4
26
13
4
26
10
2
21
9
3
27
11
2
21
7
1
28
12
2
22
11
3
24
10
1
18
7
0
24
11
4
20
11
3
22
11
3
24
12
4
25
12
4
25
11
3
20
8
1
21
10
4
21
10
3
23
12
4
21
9
1
27
13
4
29
15
5
20
9
3
24
11
3
23
9
1
39
17
4
17
8
1
28
14
5
27
13
3

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 53

Table 21: Visibility in Class I Areas (Nephelometer Data in Mm-1)

Site and Wilderness
Area
Sierra Ancha Wilderness

Rucker Canyon *
Chiricahua Wilderness
Tucson Mountain
Saguaro National Park
(Includes both the West
facilities support building
and the National Park
Service well site)

Year

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1998
1999
2000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Mm-1 (24-hour Averages)
Mean of the
Mean of the
Mean of all
Dirtiest 20%
Cleanest 20%
Sampled
Sampled
Sampled
Hours
Hours
Hours
33
15
4
20
10
3
28
13
4
25
11
2
24
10
1
23
11
2
30
12
3
20
10
4
18
8
1
30
12
2
24
13
6
23
12
5
22
11
3
31
16
6
35
17
6
32
16
5
31
16
5
27
15
6
29
14
5
31
15
5

* Site Closed:
Humboldt Mountain closed in 2004; McFadden Peak closed in 2000; Mount Ord closed in 2000;
Muleshoe Ranch closed in 2006; Rucker Canyon closed in 2001

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 54

Urban Haze
Besides the Class I areas, ADEQ also operates transmissometers and nephelometers in
Phoenix and Tucson. Data from these instruments through 2008 are presented in Table
22. The data are separated into categories for all hours and for six-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 average visibility for
the 20 percent of the sampled hours. As visual range in miles may be a more familiar
unit, the values in Mm-1 in Table 22 can be converted to miles by the expression
(2431/b ext =Miles).
A few conversions are given here:
b ext (Mm-1)
136
100
50
2

Miles

Comment

18
24
48
1216

Highest in the Table

Lowest in the Table

Table 22: Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data (in Mm-1)
24-Hour Samples

5 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Site Name

Year

Mesa
Transmissometer

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Mean of
the
Dirtiest
20%
Sampled
Hours
106
121
115
118
105

60
72
70
79
62

Mean of
the
Cleanest
20%
Sampled
Hours
24
35
37
46
28

Mean of
the
Dirtiest
20%
Sampled
Hours
110
123
117
124
109

Phoenix
Transmissometer

1994
1995
1996
1997

N/A
141
134
131

64
77
78
81

29
38
43
48

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

133
127
131
118
124
131
121
126
125
121
114

78
72
74
69
75
72
69
72
69
78
65

45
38
38
36
42
36
35
36
32
47
31

Mean of
all
Sampled
Hours

65
78
75
86
67

Mean of
the
Cleanest
20%
Sampled
Hours
29
44
42
53
35

N/A
137
130
136

70
80
80
87

33
43
45
53

136
128
134
118
125
135
126
128
126
127
116

84
77
80
73
79
78
75
78
76
84
70

50
42
42
42
46
42
42
43
40
53
38

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 55

Mean of
all
Sampled
Hours

Table 22: Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data (in Mm-1)
24-Hour Samples

5 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Site Name

Year

Phoenix
Nephelometer
(Supersite)

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Mean of
the
Dirtiest
20%
Sampled
Hours
91
87
93
73
72
79
72
80
88
75
71
46
41
44
37
41
54
76
50
48
49
69
76
56
55
52
26
32
25
28
39

1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

101
95
104
99
93

60
59
62
62
60

34
36
35
37
36

1998
1999

102
90

57
57

28
35

Phoenix
Nephelometer
(Dysart)

Phoenix
Nephelometer
(Estrella
Mountain)
Phoenix
Nephelometer
(Vehicle
Emissions)
Queen Valley
Nephelometer

Tucson
Transmissometer

35
36
39
32
33
34
30
33
39
33
31
22
20
21
18
19
24
35
23
21
22
29
35
26
26
24
11
15
12
15
17

Mean of
the
Cleanest
20%
Sampled
Hours
10
11
12
12
12
11
9
9
12
11
10
7
8
6
5
5
7
12
7
5
6
9
12
8
9
8
2
5
3
5
4

Mean of
the
Dirtiest
20%
Sampled
Hours
77
74
80
66
62
73
61
73
80
70
64
52
41
49
37
43
68
77
64
58
57
64
73
53
53
49
25
31
22
27
38

Mean of
all
Sampled
Hours

34
36
39
33
33
35
30
33
40
33
31
27
23
25
20
21
32
39
31
27
28
31
37
27
27
25
10
15
11
14
17

Mean of
the
Cleanest
20%
Sampled
Hours
13
14
15
15
14
14
11
11
14
13
12
9
10
9
7
6
10
14
10
7
8
12
15
11
11
10
2
5
3
5
4

139
109
116
113
108

74
68
69
71
68

37
41
38
40
38

119
107

69
65

34
38

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 56

Mean of
all
Sampled
Hours

Table 22: Phoenix and Tucson Urban Haze Data (in Mm-1)
24-Hour Samples

Site Name

Tucson
Nephelometer
(U of A Central)

Tucson
Nephelometer
(Craycroft)

Tucson
Nephelometer
(Children’s
Park)

Year

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Mean of
the
Dirtiest
20%
Sampled
Hours
98
96
87
88
97
101
83
92
90
45
43
40
42
38
43
38
45
39
42
41
38
37
52
42
35
41
39
36
41
35
38
48
43

Mean of
all
Sampled
Hours
56
55
49
52
58
61
47
51
50
21
23
20
23
20
23
20
24
19
22
21
19
18
25
21
19
22
19
19
20
19
20
24
21

Mean of
the
Cleanest
20%
Sampled
Hours
27
26
24
26
27
31
22
22
24
4
10
8
10
7
9
8
10
5
8
8
8
7
7
8
7
9
6
7
8
7
8
9
7

5 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Mean of
the
Dirtiest
20%
Sampled
Hours
114
109
109
107
113
125
100
103
97
47
41
40
44
42
45
42
47
40
43
44
N/A
N/A
N/A
43
44
40
39
38
43
35
40
48
46

N/A - Data are not available

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 57

Mean of
all
Sampled
Hours
66
66
61
62
67
76
56
60
58
23
24
22
25
22
25
22
27
21
24
23
N/A
N/A
N/A
22
25
23
21
20
23
20
23
28
24

Mean of
the
Cleanest
20%
Sampled
Hours
31
33
29
30
32
39
28
28
29
7
11
9
13
9
11
10
12
7
11
9
N/A
N/A
N/A
9
11
11
8
8
10
8
11
13
10

Accomplishments and Special Projects
Introduction
This section summarizes some of Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s
(ADEQ) accomplishments and special projects during 2008 and 2009.
ADEQ is responsible for preparing and submitting documents to Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) which identify nonattainment areas, describe activities that
will help the areas reach attainment, and document attainment status (see Nonattainment
and Attainment Areas map in Appendix 4). The ADEQ Air Quality Division Planning
Section is responsible for these activities, and some of their accomplishments during
this period are described in this section.
In addition to ADEQ’s statewide regulatory
ambient air monitoring program, the ADEQ
Air Quality Division Assessment Section
conducts special monitoring projects 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
Figure 7 – ADEQ's Phoenix JLG Supersite
and maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Arizona. Issues related to the international border,
identification of potential air pollution hotspots, improved visibility and reduction of
regional haze, and appropriate responses to smoke and other air pollution hazards to
protect public health fall under special projects. The knowledge gained from these
studies can then be used by decision makers to choose the most effective control
strategies that will continue to improve Arizona’s air quality.
Tucson PM 10 Second Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP)
Clean Air Act Section (CAA) 175A requires two 10-year Limited Maintenance Plans
(LMP) after a NAAQS is achieved. The second plan is due at the end of the eighth year
of the initial maintenance period. Pima Association of Governments (PAG) developed
its second 10-year LMP for ADEQ adoption. It was submitted to EPA on July 10, 2008,
and a supplement was submitted to EPA on June 22, 2009. The EPA Region 9 Acting
Administrator signed a Notice of Proposed rulemaking to approve the LMP on October
14, 2009. A 30-day comment period will open in November 2009.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 59

Miami PM 10 Planning Area Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) and Pending
Redesignation
In 1987, EPA designated the combined Hayden/Miami area as a single Group I PM 10
nonattainment area. Effective May 29, 2007, EPA finalized a boundary redesignation to
divide the single Hayden/Miami PM 10 nonattainment area into two separate PM 10
nonattainment areas roughly along the ridgeline of the Pinal Mountains [March 28,
2007; 72 FR 14422].
No violations had been monitored in the Miami PM 10 nonattainment area since
monitoring began there in 1987. ADEQ discontinued its last Miami PM 10 monitoring
site (known as Nolan Ranch, Miami South, or Jones Ranch) in 1994. Since 1991, two
monitors have continued operating in this area, both operated by Freeport McMoRan
Copper and Gold, Inc. (FMMI) (formerly Phelps Dodge Corporation). Monitoring data
collected at these monitors has been certified by ADEQ as meeting EPA’s quality
assurance requirements and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) from 2003
to present. FMMI also made a written commitment to submit its Miami monitoring data
to ADEQ on a quarterly basis in the future. EPA finalized its Clean Data Finding for
this area in the same Federal Register notice as the boundary redesignation. This finding
means that reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements, an attainment
demonstration, and nonattainment area contingency measures are not required.
The ADEQ Air Quality Division developed a 10-year LMP and submitted it to EPA
with a Redesignation Request in June 2008. Meanwhile, an exceedance related to an
exceptional event was identified, flagged, and documented. EPA’s concurrence with the
exceptional event and approval of redesignation are pending.
Five Percent Annual Reasonable Further Progress for Metropolitan Phoenix
[Maricopa County-Apache Junction, Pinal County] Serious PM 10 Nonattainment
Area Plan Revision
On August 21, 2007, EPA published in the Federal Register [72 FR 43537] a Final Rule
effective September 20, 2007, approving a number of Maricopa County rules and
measures as Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent Measures
(MSM). Although the control measures address exceedances that occurred in the 32square-mile Salt River sub-area of the Maricopa Serious PM 10 Nonattainment Area,
they apply to the entire Nonattainment Area. EPA did not approve the submitted
attainment demonstration, however, because of continued PM 10 exceedances.
In response to EPA’s Finding of Failure to Attain the PM 10 standard by December 31,
2006, for Metropolitan Phoenix, including Township 1 North, Range 8 East (including
Apache Junction) in Pinal County [June 6, 2007; 72 FR 31183], ADEQ submitted a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision to EPA in December 2007. Supplemental
information was submitted on June 4, 2008; January 21, 2009; and June 12, 2009.
Maricopa County is historically the second serious PM 10 nonattainment area in the
nation subject to the five percent annual RFP requirement until attainment is achieved.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 60

San Joaquin Valley was the first and has since been redesignated to attainment status by
EPA; Owens Valley, California, is the third. San Joaquin Valley’s exceedances occur
during high wind events and Owens Valley exceedances have resulted from the draining
of Owens Lake. In contrast, Maricopa County PM 10 exceedances occur primarily during
stagnant wintertime morning conditions.
CAA Section 189(d) required submittal of a SIP revision to EPA by December 31,
2007, demonstrating attainment by a minimum of five percent annual reductions of the
emission inventory in PM 10 or PM 10 precursor emissions until attainment is achieved.
Control strategies and reporting requirements were developed by stakeholders through
the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) committee process and the 2007
Arizona legislative session culminating in adoption of Senate Bill 1552 (Laws 2007,
Chapter 292). Stakeholders included Pinal County, as one of its townships is in the
planning area. ADEQ worked with MAG and Maricopa County Air Quality Department
(MCAQD) to finalize the base case emissions inventory with improved Windblown
Dust and Agricultural source category emissions estimates. ADEQ also worked with
EPA, MCAQD, MAG, and Sierra Research to refine the attainment modeling
demonstration to simulate ambient conditions and to show the air quality benefits of the
strategies adopted to achieve the NAAQS. The submitted SIP revision demonstrates
attainment for the years 2008 to 2010.
Selected control measures target many categories of pollution sources: agriculture;
commercial and residential construction; road construction; sand and gravel mining;
leaf blowing; off-road vehicles; open burning, including hospitality industry chimineas;
primary and secondary paved roads; unpaved parking lots; ingress and egress areas at
residential and commercial buildings meeting size thresholds; unpaved public roads and
shoulders; and windblown dust from disturbed land (including areas in the river bottom)
and vacant lots.
Other important control strategies include: public education; basic training of water
truck and water pull drivers, as well as superintendents of sites meeting size thresholds;
comprehensive training of Dust Control Coordinators at sites meeting other size
thresholds; and expanded distribution of High Pollution Advisories (HPA) are other
important control strategies. ADEQ developed the following outreach materials and has
posted them on the ADEQ web site: Fact Sheet about the New Off-Highway Vehicle
Law, Map of Off-Highway Vehicle Areas with Restrictions, Training for Leaf Blower
Operators, Pointers for Operating a Leaf Blower in English and Spanish, and Leaf
Blower Frequently Asked Questions.
Tracking implementation of the control measures on standardized forms developed by
MAG is the continuing responsibility of ADEQ and the other stakeholders to ensure
attainment by the end of 2010. Implementation Reports for calendar year 2008
implementation were submitted to MAG by ADEQ, Maricopa County, and each
municipality that made SIP commitments. Reports for calendar year 2009 will be
submitted to MAG in 2010. Reports on control measure implementation and
enforcement activities were submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 61

jurisdictions pursuant to requirements in SB1552 on June 1 and December 1 in 2008
and 2009.
ADEQ continues to work with Maricopa and Pinal Counties to identify and document
Exceptional Events for exemption from determinations of attainment status, pursuant to
EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule and ADEQ’s policies. EPA has not acted on
documentation submitted for 2008, delaying EPA action on the five percent plan.
Rillito PM 10 Planning Area Limited Maintenance Plan and Pending Redesignation
The Rillito Group I Area was designated and classified as a moderate PM 10
nonattainment area upon enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments, effective November
15, 1990. ADEQ submitted a moderate area PM 10 plan for the Rillito area on November
14, 1991, which EPA found to be incomplete. On April 22, 1994, ADEQ submitted a
revised PM 10 plan for Rillito. Also EPA found the revised plan to be incomplete and did
not take any further action on it. Effective October 10, 2006, EPA published a Clean
Data Finding for the 1992 to 1994 data period and subsequent years [August 8, 2006; 71
FR 44920]. ADEQ developed a 10-year LMP and Redesignation Request and submitted
it to EPA in June 2008, after a stakeholder meeting in the planning area. To qualify for
the LMP option, an area should be attaining the NAAQS and the average PM 10 design
value (DV) for the area, based upon the most recent five years of air quality data at
monitors in the area, should be less than 98 μg/m3 for the 24-hour PM 10 standard. If the
area cannot meet this test, EPA offers another option to qualify for an LMP. To meet
this qualification, the average DV of the site must be less than the area’s site specific
Critical Design Value (CDV). When that calculation was performed, this area’s average
DV (119 μg/m3) was less than the CDV (142 μg/m3), indicating that this area has a very
low probability of exceeding the NAAQS in the future and qualified for the LMP
option. Meanwhile an exceedance related to an exceptional event was identified,
flagged, and documented. EPA’s concurrence with the exceptional event and approval
of redesignation are pending. Upon approval, ADEQ must annually demonstrate
continued eligibility for the LMP option for this planning area.
Yuma PM 10 Maintenance Plan, Pending Redesignation Request, and Exceptional
Events Demonstrations
Yuma was designated nonattainment for PM 10 in 1990. ADEQ developed a 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, ADEQ convened
stakeholders to prepare an attainment demonstration and maintenance plan. EPA made a
Clean Data Finding for 1998 to 2001 and subsequent years for Yuma on March 14,
2006 [71 FR 13021] that became effective May 16, 2006. As a result ADEQ was not
required to meet RFP requirements, produce an attainment demonstration, or implement
nonattainment contingency measures. ADEQ continued to work with the stakeholder
group and submitted the Redesignation Request and 10-year Maintenance Plan to EPA
on August 16, 2006. BACM for all significant sources of PM 10 contributing to the PM 10
concentrations in Yuma County included: enforcement to prevent traffic and trespass on
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 62

unpaved Irrigation District canal roads, Agricultural Best Management Practices
(AgBMP) for windblown dust, control measures for other disturbed land and vacant
lots, and requirements for uncovered trucks hauling particulate matter. In addition,
public education and outreach campaign was developed involving bilingual brochures, a
public service announcement, and a video for the general public. Dust Control Action
Forecasts are provided three days in advance by ADEQ to sources including:
construction contractors, public works, and agricultural sources, notified by the Arizona
Department of Agriculture (ADOA), to enable them to reschedule activities that would
disturb soils or to add control measures.
Additional analyses were prepared by ADEQ to quantify the emission reductions from
the implementation of AgBMP, which began in Yuma on August 1, 2005. This work
was accomplished with the help of Yuma farmers, conservation agents, and ADOA
personnel. In 2007, ADEQ adopted the Yuma AgBMP rule as a supplemental
contingency measure in the Maintenance Plan to meet the requirements of CAA Section
175A(d).
EPA promulgated an Exceptional Events Rule to replace its Exceptional Events Policy
and its Natural Events Policy. In 2007, EPA noted that 12 exceedances of the 24-hour
PM 10 standard had occurred at the BAM SPM in Yuma. Since the SPM had been in
operation since November 2004, more than 24 months, EPA could consider its ambient
monitoring data in its determinations of attainment of the NAAQS pursuant to EPA’s
latest monitoring rules [October 17, 2006. 71 FR 61302 revising Title 40 CFR §
58.20(c)]. ADEQ evaluated each of these 12 exceedances for data flagging pursuant to
EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule. ADEQ determined that all 12 events qualify for
exception, scheduled a Natural Events Stakeholder meeting in Yuma on November 13,
2007, a 30-day public comment period beginning August 11, 2008, and submitted the
documentation to EPA in September 2008. Upon concurrence, EPA would be able to
complete the redesignation process; however, the 2008 demonstrations are currently
part of a review backlog and EPA may require an update to the emissions inventory
along with other technical revisions before acting on the submitted plan.
Nogales 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS Designation
The Governor submitted PM 2.5 designation and boundary recommendations based on
2005-2007 monitoring data. The EPA Administrator signed the Notice of Final
Rulemaking on October 8, 2009, for publication in the Federal Register. The clock will
start ticking for development and submittal of a nonattainment area plan on the date of
publication.
Pinal County 2006 PM 2.5 24-Hour NAAQS Deferred Designation
EPA’s Region 9 Acting Director sent a letter to Governor Brewer dated October 14,
2009, explaining that because 2006-2008 monitoring data show the Cowtown Road site
monitor appears to violate the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, the Governor and EPA need to
review the initial recommendations for nonattainment areas. Analysis of nine factors
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 63

would be completed to inform the recommendation. Designation of this area is deferred
so that EPA can collect and evaluate additional information, including relevant
technical data for the ring of counties immediately surrounding Pinal County.
Pinal County 1997 PM 2.5 Annual NAAQS Nonattainment Designation
EPA’s Region 9 Acting Director sent a letter to Governor Brewer dated October 14,
2009, explaining that 2006-2008 monitoring data show that Pinal County is violating
the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA requested the Governor’s recommendations for
redesignation and planning area boundaries, including any nearby areas that may be
contributing to violations in Pinal County, by February 14, 2010. Analysis of nine
factors will be completed to inform the recommendation.
Pinal County 1997 PM 10 24-Hour NAAQS Nonattainment Designation
EPA’s Region 9 Acting Director sent a letter to Governor Brewer dated October 14,
2009, explaining that 2006-2008 monitoring data show that Pinal County is violating
the 1997 PM 10 NAAQS. EPA requested the Governor’s recommendations for
redesignation and planning area boundaries, including any nearby areas that may be
contributing to violations in Pinal County by February 14, 2010. Analysis of nine
factors will be completed to inform the recommendation.
Maricopa County 1997 Eight-Hour O 3 NAAQS (0.08ppm) Nonattainment Area Plan
and Maintenance Area Plan
MAG developed a plan that included Township 1 North, Range 8 East (including
Apache Junction) in Pinal County and submitted it to ADEQ on June 12, 2007. ADEQ
adopted and submitted it to EPA on June 14, 2007, with the understanding that it may
have to be supplemented after EPA responds to a court remand of its Phase I
Implementation Rule (South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. v. U.S. EPA,
No. 04-1200, issued December 22, 2006). Quality assured monitoring data for 2005 to
2007 recorded no violations, demonstrating attainment of the ozone (O 3 ) NAAQS.
MAG developed a Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request through its committee
process for adoption by ADEQ and submittal to EPA on March 24, 2009. EPA approval
is pending.
Ajo PM 10 Clean Data Finding, Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation Request
EPA made a Clean Data Finding for 2002 to 2004 for Ajo on February 8, 2006 [71 FR
6352] that became effective April 10, 2006. This finding eliminates otherwise
applicable requirements for a RFP, an attainment demonstration, and nonattainment
contingency measures. ADEQ has completed an emissions inventory and rollback
modeling demonstration of continued attainment for the next 12 years. ADEQ will
complete development of the Maintenance Plan for submittal to EPA with a
Redesignation Request in 2009. Currently, the percentage contributions of emissions
from mobile sources are being confirmed. If the percentage contribution of mobile
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 64

source emissions are high enough to warrant transportation conformity analysis, PAG
would be called in to assist in developing a mobile sources budget before the plan can
be released for public comment some time in 2010.
South Phoenix Health and Particulate Matter Study (SPHPMS)
The South Phoenix Health and Particulate Matter
Study (SPHPMS)was a short-term special project to
assess the impacts of particulate matter in the air
and soil in the South Phoenix area. The area has
mixed industrial and residential land use and has
been the subject of some controversy relating to
public health and to possible elevated levels of air
pollution. Several entities were involved in the
study: ADEQ Air Quality Division Air Assessment
Section, Arizona State University (ASU), Maricopa
County Health Department (MCHD), and the City
of Phoenix’s lead abatement group. Air quality
measurements and soil samples were collected
during a three month period (December 2008
through February 2009). The information gained
from these measurements and samples help to
answer the following questions:
Figure 8 – South Phoenix West
1. What contributions do transportation and
Monitoring Site
stationary sources make to local emission
levels of particulate matter, including those with toxic components?
2. What are the local concentrations of lead (Pb) and other toxic metals that
threaten childhood health?
3. What are the local concentrations of elemental carbon and organic carbon
(primarily soot from diesel vehicles)?
The area of the study comprises about two square miles and a population of about
9,000. The area is bounded by Roeser Road on the south, 32nd Street and I-10 on the
east, the Salt River on the north, and 16th Street on the west. Elevated Pb levels in the
blood of children in this area and increased Pb poisoning have been found. 1 Dust and
soil are significant outdoor contributors to Pb exposure. In addition, asthma rates in
children within this area are among the highest in metropolitan Phoenix. 2 The fine
particles in diesel exhaust are one of the principle asthma triggers in our air. In addition
to air and soil sampling, health screenings of children and adults will be conducted with
appropriate referrals and treatment. All the issues associated with outreach and
diagnosis, referral, and treatment of patients will be handled by other agencies and
partners on this project.
1
2

Arizona’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Targeted Screening Plan, ADHS, March 20, 2007
Arizona Comprehensive Asthma Control Plan , ADHS, Nov. 8, 2005

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 65

The study area is located adjacent to freeways, major arterials, the airport, and
numerous industrial operations which produce particulate emissions, including a high
density of diesel exhaust. The area is subject to fugitive dust from industrial sources,
paved roads, unpaved parking lots and alleys, and vacant lots. In addition, the area is
adjacent to the Salt River, a predominately dry river, and lies at a lower elevation than
the rest of the urban area. Particulate emissions occurring to the east, northeast, and
southeast are transported by wind into this south-central area during the night, early
morning, and mid-morning hours.
Furthermore, the study area was subject to two major industrial fires: the Quality
Printed Circuits and the Central Garden and Supply fires (1992 and 2000, respectively).
These fires produced toxic smoke and residual particulates that may remain in the
topmost layer of the soil. These particulates may be associated with childhood
respiratory ailments and an increase in frequency and severity of skin rashes, headaches,
and blurred vision reported throughout this population.
Results of the study will be peer reviewed and released late in 2009 or early 2010.
Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study (WASBAQS)
The purpose of this special study was to
determine the sources and movement of air
pollutants, as well as to 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,
identified six phases to the study:
Figure 9 – Mexico Supersite, Western
identifying study requirements and
Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study
collecting meteorological data; siting study
for pollutant monitor locations; monitor deployment; data collection; air quality
modeling; and health risk assessment. The monitoring data collection phase of the
project was completed in April 2007. Meteorological data from seven sites and air
quality data from three sites were collected. Data quality assurance procedures on all of
the meteorological, gases, particulate matter, and four types of chemical data were
completed in December 2008. An emissions inventory has been compiled and will be
used in the air quality modeling and health risk assessment phases of the study.
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 CAA set a goal to remedy any existing
visibility impairment and prevent any future impairment from man-made pollution at
158 national parks and wilderness areas known as mandatory Federal Class I areas. The
Regional Haze SIP submitted to EPA in December 2003, focused on four of the 12
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 66

national parks and wilderness areas in Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park, Petrified
Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, and Mount Baldy Wilderness. 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. Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) determinations as well as other possible controls under
consideration as long-term strategies for large stationary sources are still under analysis
throughout the country. Therefore, the remaining eight Class I areas will be addressed
in a SIP to be submitted to EPA by late 2009 or early 2010. Revisions to the Sulfur
Dioxide (SO 2 ) Backstop Market Trading Program for stationary sources along with
other updates to the 2003 SIP will be sent to EPA by the end of December 2009 or early
January 2010. Western states developing SIPs under sections 309(g) and 308 of the
Federal Regional Haze Rule will have assistance with the assessment and strategies
portions of the SIP from the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP).
ADEQ has an expanded role regarding regional haze. Extensive fire regulations and
policy were developed for the 2003 Regional Haze SIP and the now-certified Enhanced
Smoke Management Plan will continue to be an important part of regional haze. ADEQ
could be called on to perform emissions tracking and modeling necessary to determine
specific conditions “in and near” Arizona Class I areas beyond what WRAP will
provide. Through annually tracked emissions and permit requirements Arizona will
continue to implement the SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program - a voluntary
program for stationary sources emitting 100 tons or more per year of SO 2 . Beginning in
2004 the annual SO 2 emissions for the stationary sources are reported to WRAP.
Emissions are compiled into a regional Milestone Report for the participating western
states and sent to EPA annually. Should a milestone, representing markers on a
decreasing regional emissions cap be exceeded, the backstop trading program would be
activated. Currently strategies for tracing NO x emissions are more conventional than
trading. Additional information on regional haze can be found at
http://www.wrapair.org/SIPStatus/309/
EPA’s Revisions to Eight-Hour O 3 Standard
NAAQS are reviewed periodically to incorporate current scientific knowledge and to
provide a review process for public and scientific input. The last review of the O 3
standards was completed on July 18, 1997, at which time the eight-hour standard was set at
the level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The average of the most recent three-year fourthhighest measurements was compared to 0.084 ppm to determine compliance with the
standard. The secondary standard was set identical to the primary standard.
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the eight-hour primary standard (for protection of
public health) to 0.075 ppm. The secondary standard (for protection of public welfare)
was made identical to the revised primary standard, 0.075 ppm, instead of the proposed
new secondary standard (based on the W-126 O 3 exposure index). EPA selected the
levels for the final standards after completing an extensive review of thousands of
scientific studies on the impact of ground level O 3 on public health and the
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 67

environment. This newly available evidence identifies important new health endpoints
associated with O 3 exposure, including mortality, increased asthma medication use,
school absenteeism, and cardiac-related effects. Furthermore, studies of asthmatics
indicate that they experience larger and more serious responses to O 3 that last longer
than responses for healthy individuals. In addition, new scientific evidence since the last
review of the O 3 NAAQS continues to show that repeated exposure to O 3 damages
sensitive vegetation and trees, including those in forests and parks, leading to reduced
growth and productivity, increased susceptibility to disease and pests, and damaged
foliage.
States made recommendations to EPA by March 12, 2009, for areas to be designated
attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable. ADEQ recommended an expanded
Metropolitan Phoenix nonattainment area that added areas in Maricopa County to the
west and southwest of the boundaries that now include power plants and extended the
Pinal County portion to include an additional violating monitor. EPA is expected to
issue final designations of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable areas no later
than March 12, 2010, unless there is insufficient information to make these designation
decisions. In that case, EPA will to issue designations no later than March 12, 2011.
The Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) had recommended a range
of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm for the new primary standard and the W-126 secondary standard
to Administrator Steven Johnson. New EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced a
decision to reconsider the O 3 NAAQS rulemaking record, committing to a schedule of
signing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in December 2009 and a Notice of
Final Rulemaking (NFRM) in August 2010. EPA committed to a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for the related Implementation Strategy in early 2010 and a Notice of Final
Rulemaking for the strategy by the end of 2010. If the secondary NAAQS is the W-126
standard, it would offer further protection to ponderosa pine trees that are sensitive to
O 3 . States must submit a SIP outlining how they will reduce pollution to meet the
standards by a date that EPA will establish in its promulgated designations. That date
will be no later than three years after EPA’s final designations.
The Governor will be required to submit revised designation and boundary
recommendations, and if the revised NAAQS is more stringent than 0.075 ppm,
additional monitors in additional planning areas may be in violation. Designations are
expected to be promulgated in August 2011, and the nonattainment area plans would be
due no later than December 2013. Related SIP revisions demonstrating that ADEQ has
the “infrastructure” to carry out its responsibilities under the new NAAQS would be due
in August 2013. States are required to meet the standards by deadlines that may vary
based on the severity of the problem in the area; moderate areas would be required to
attain the NAAQS by August 2017. EPA will issue a separate rule to address
monitoring requirements necessary to implement the new standards. EPA proposed an
O 3 monitoring network rule on July 16, 2009 [74 FR 34525] and plans to issue a final
rule before the commencement of the 2011 O 3 monitoring season. ADEQ submitted
comments on the NPRM through WESTAR.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 68

EPA’s Revisions to Lead (Pb) Standard
On October 15, 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the NAAQS for Pb. The revised
standards are 10 percent of the previous standards and will improve health protection
for at-risk groups, especially children. EPA has revised the level of the primary (healthbased) standard from 1.5 μg/m3, to 0.15 μg/m3, measured as total suspended particles
(TSP). EPA has revised the secondary (welfare-based) standard to be identical in all
respects to the primary standard.
Scientific evidence about Pb and health has expanded dramatically since EPA issued the
initial standard of 1.5 μg/m3 in 1978. More than 6,000 new studies on Pb health effects,
environmental effects, and Pb in the air have been published since 1990. Evidence from
health studies shows that adverse effects occur at much lower levels of Pb in blood than
previously believed. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of Pb. Exposures
to low levels of Pb early in life have been linked to effects on IQ, learning, memory,
and behavior. There is no known safe level of Pb in the body.
EPA has revised the averaging time and form of the Pb NAAQS. These are the air
quality statistics that are compared to the level of the standards to determine whether an
area meets or violates the standards. EPA changed the calculation method for the
averaging time to use to a “rolling” three-month period with a maximum (not-to-beexceeded) form, evaluated over a three-year period. This replaces the current approach
of using calendar quarters. A rolling three-month average considers each of the 12
three-month periods associated with a given year, not just the four calendar quarters
within that year.
EPA is redesigning the Pb monitoring network to assess compliance with the revised Pb
standards. EPA will require state and local monitoring agencies to conduct monitoring
taking into account Pb sources that are expected to, or have been shown to, exceed the
standards such as general aviation airports. At a minimum, monitors must be placed in
areas with sources of Pb emissions greater than or equal to one ton or more per year, to
measure the maximum concentration. New EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has
announced a decision to reconsider the threshold for source monitoring, which had been
proposed at 0.5 ton or more per year.
EPA also will require a monitor to be operated in each of the 101 urban areas with
populations greater than 500,000 to gather information on the general population’s
exposure to Pb in air and ensure protection against sources of airborne dust containing
Pb. EPA estimates that 236 new or relocated monitoring sites will be necessary nationwide to satisfy these monitoring requirements. Approximately half of all newly required
monitors are to be operational by January 1, 2010, with the other half of the monitors
operational by January 1, 2011. Currently, no monitors in Arizona are designated for Pb
data collection. The new NAAQS requires the use of high volume TSP monitors near
sources, and low volume PM 10 monitors in urban areas with populations greater than
500,000. TSP samplers capture particles with diameters greater than 10 microns and up
to 40-50 microns. Unlike other Federal Reference Method (FRM) samplers, EPA has
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 69

not issued specific approvals for individual manufacturer versions of TSP samplers.
Agencies must conduct their own assessments of TSP monitors to determine if the
requirements described in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are met. The new
NAAQS also specifies an analysis method for the TSP filters that has allowed method
detection limit. Agencies will need to determine if the laboratories they will use can
meet this limit and may also need to submit an application for approval of the analysis
method to EPA.
Governors are required to make recommendations for areas, including boundary
recommendations, to be designated attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable by
October 15, 2009. Arizona’s recommendation is that the entire state be designated
unclassifiable, with the exception of a Hayden Pb nonattainment area coincidental with
the Hayden SO 2 nonattainment area boundary. If tribes choose to submit
recommendations, they must also provide them to EPA by October 15, 2009. Final
designations of all attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable areas will be effective
no later than November 2010 for areas with existing monitoring networks and
November 2011 for areas that require new monitors. EPA intends to complete initial
designations as soon as possible, however, where data are sufficient from existing
monitoring network. Pb “infrastructure” SIPs would be due in October 2011. States are
required to submit a SIP outlining how they will reduce pollution to meet the standards
no later than June 2012 or 2013, depending on the designation date. States are required
to meet the standards no later than January 2015 or 2016, again depending on the
designation date.
Nitrogen Dioxides (NO 2 ) NAAQS 2010 Revision
The current standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) is an annual average of 0.053 ppm. On
July 15, 2009 [74 FR 34404] EPA proposed retaining the current annual standard and
supplementing it with a new short-term NO 2 standard based on the three-year average
of the 99th percentile (or 4th highest) of one-hour daily maximum concentrations.
CASAC concurs that the current standard does not protect against short-term exposure.
CASAC firmly recommends that the upper end of the range not exceed 0.1 ppm. The
level of the standard is proposed to be set within the range of 0.08 ppm to 0.1 ppm, but
EPA solicited comments on a range from 0.065 ppm to 0.15 ppm. EPA has also
proposed to establish a new near-roadway NO 2 monitoring network that would include
monitors within 50 meters of major roadways. EPA has also proposed an alternative
maximum area-wide NO 2 exposure concentration, to be measured away from roadways,
in a range of 0.05 ppm to 0.075 ppm. A Consent Decree requires signature of a Notice
of Final Rulemaking by January 22, 2010.
Important new epidemiologic studies have been considered that support a causal
relationship between short-term NO 2 exposure and adverse effects on the respiratory
system. About 400 NO 2 monitors report data to EPA’s AQS. Since no NO 2
nonattainment areas existed in 2006 based on the existing NO 2 NAAQS, in its
Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule revisions in 2006 [71 FR 61236] EPA removed
specific minimum monitoring requirements of two monitoring sites per area with a
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 70

population of one million or more. Many studies show that indoor, personal and outdoor
exposure to NO 2 is strongly associated with proximity to traffic or to traffic density.
EPA plans to site monitors to measure peak roadway associated emissions. This
exposure occurs while driving and to nearby residents. EPA has proposed allowing only
FRM or Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors capable of providing hourly
averaged concentration data. EPA has proposed a two-tier monitoring network:
neighborhood concentrations scale and peak concentrations scale (near roadway). New
monitors would be physically established between July 1, 2011 and January 1, 2013.
Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) population thresholds and annual average daily
traffic (AADT) is important for siting near-roadway monitors. Two near-roadway
monitors are proposed for CBSAs with a population at or greater than 2.5 million, such
as metropolitan Phoenix, or with one or more road segments with AADT at or greater
than 250,000. One near-roadway NO 2 monitor would be required in CBSAs with a
population at or greater than 350,000. Neighborhood NO 2 monitors would be required
for CBSAs with populations at or greater than one million.
ADEQ has begun reviewing information to determine the number of additional
monitors that would be required and possible sites. The cost of each monitor is
estimated at $107,900 and does not include data collection, maintenance costs, and site
costs. Near roadway monitors present safety issues. The Governor would be required to
submit recommended designations and boundaries in January 2011. An “infrastructure”
SIP Revision would be due in January 2013, and a nonattainment area SIP would be due
in August 2015. One option for near-roadway emissions would be a revised federal fuel
standard.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 71

Trends
Introduction
This section examines the degree to which
air quality in Arizona’s cities and counties
has been improving or deteriorating during
the years that data have been collected,
quality assured, and recorded. Compliance
with EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) is a separate, though
related, issue which was explored at length
in a separate section of this report.
Figure 10 – Average Best & Average Worst

Visibility Impairment in the Phoenix Area
The trends section is composed of
information regarding carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O 3 ), particulates (PM 10 and
PM 2.5 ), and visibility. Other criteria pollutants including nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur
dioxide (SO 2 ), and lead (Pb), are not included in the trends sections due to low
concentrations. NO 2 and SO 2 are discussed in the data and compliance section of this
report. Pb has been reduced to near background levels and is no longer of greatest
concern for the trends section.

When examining trends in various pollutants throughout the state of Arizona, it is not
only important to consider monitoring sites that contain a long monitoring record, but
also those sites that contain a relatively complete dataset throughout their monitoring
history. Combining the records of multiple sites within one geographic location could
produce spurious trends over time. Only trends based on the same group of sites will
prevent monitoring network changes from influencing the results. For the purpose of
this section, certain criteria were used to determine whether a site is considered a
‘trend’ site. Generally speaking, a site was deemed a ‘trend’ site if the site contained a
long history of monitoring data and those data contained high data completeness
throughout the monitoring period. Because of the differences in the monitoring history
of the various criteria pollutants, exact ‘trend’ site criteria may differ based on the
pollutant being examined. These pollutant specific criteria used to assess trends are
described in further detail in each pollutant’s respective section.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 72

Carbon Monoxide
Monitoring of CO throughout the state of Arizona contains the longest history of all the
criteria pollutants. Most of this long-term monitoring was located in the highly
urbanized areas of Phoenix and Tucson and several of these CO sites contain
monitoring records dating back to the 1970s. Some of these monitoring sites are still in
place today, which has resulted in a long record of CO data. For the examination of CO
trends throughout Arizona, the period of record will include the years 1980 through
2008. Only monitoring sites that have met EPA’s data completeness criteria for each
year during this period of record were used to assess trends in CO. In the Phoenix
metropolitan area, these sites include Central Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, North Phoenix,
South Phoenix, and West Indian School. In the Tucson metro area, these sites include
Tucson Downtown, 22nd & Craycroft, and 22nd & Alvernon.
Among the criteria pollutants, improvements in CO concentrations have been the most
dramatic. Figures 11 and 12 show a rather impressive decreasing trend in both Tucson
and Phoenix. These trends are most prominent in the maximum value, an indication
that localized areas with the worst CO problems (West Indian School in Phoenix and
22nd & Alvernon in Tucson) have rightfully received the greatest attention. Meanwhile,
average CO concentrations in both Phoenix and Tucson have decreased by
approximately 85 percent over the 29-year period. Most of the improvements in both
cities can be attributed to federal new-vehicle emission standards, augmented by
emission reductions from the vehicle inspection and maintenance program, which
began in 1976; the use of oxygenated fuels in the winter, beginning in 1989; and
cleaner burning gasoline, beginning in 1997. CO concentrations are so low now that
both Phoenix and Tucson will soon start trace-level monitoring of CO as part of EPA’s
National Core (NCore) Multi-pollutant Monitoring Station program.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 73

Figure 11 – Phoenix area eight-hour CO time series: annual 2nd high, expressed as the
average, maximum, and minimum of six long-term sites

Figure 12 – Tucson area eight-hour CO time series: annual 2nd high, expressed as the
average, maximum, and minimum of three long-term sites
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 74

Ozone
While O 3 monitoring throughout the state occurred at as many as 10 sites in the late
1970s, the number of sites with complete datasets at that time was as little as one
(1975) and two (1977 and 1979). It was not until around 1990 that the number of sites
meeting EPA’s data completeness criteria approached 20 in the state of Arizona. For
the examination of O 3 trends throughout Arizona, the period of record will include the
years 1990 through 2008. Only those sites that met EPA’s 75 percent quarterly data
completeness criteria for the majority of this period were used as ‘trend’ sites. The
statistic used to assess O 3 trends was the three-year average of the annual 4th high. In
order to reduce the number of gaps in the time series, a three-year average was deemed
valid if two valid annual 4th high values existed in the three-year time period. Using this
method reduces the number of gaps in the time series as one missing annual 4th high
value would otherwise result in the absence of three consecutive three-year averages.
PhoenixSix sites met the ‘trend’ site criteria for the Phoenix metropolitan area. These sites
include Central Phoenix, Glendale, North Phoenix, Pinnacle Peak, South Scottsdale,
and West Phoenix. Figure 13 illustrates the temporal variability of these long-term sites
over the 1990 to 2008 period in the form of three-year averages of the annual 4th high.
Along with the average of these six sites, the minimum and maximum values (of the
three-year average of the annual 4th high) for each three-year period were also included
to show any spatial variability that may exist across the Phoenix metro region. In
general, the trend can be described as decreasing over the 1990 to 2008 period, with the
majority of that decrease occurring from the mid to late 1990s to present. This trend is
most prominent in the maximum value and the average, with the minimum value
showing very little change over the 19-year period. When a best-fit linear trend is
applied to the time series, the maximum value has decreased 0.005 parts per million
(ppm) over the 19-year period; the average has decreased 0.003 ppm over the 19-year
period, and the minimum value has virtually no change.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 75

Figure 13 – Phoenix area eight-hour O 3 time series: three-year averages of the annual
fourth-highest concentrations, expressed as the average, maximum, and minimum of six
long-term sites

A shorter time period was examined to determine a more detailed depiction of the
spatial variability within the Phoenix metropolitan area. Figure 14 shows regionally
averaged O 3 concentrations for the period 2001 to 2008. This shorter time period
allowed for the use of a greater number of O 3 monitors in calculating Phoenix
metropolitan regional averages. The sites used for each region are included in Table 23.
Table 23: Sites used in the calculation of Phoenix Metropolitan regional averages
Northeast
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
Cave Creek
Glendale
Falcon Field
Central Phoenix
Fountain Hills
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
South Phoenix
Pinnacle Peak
North Phoenix
Tempe
Rio Verde
West Phoenix
West Chandler
South Scottsdale
Figure 14 shows two important factors; (1) the recent decrease in O 3 concentrations has
been generally consistent across all regions of the Phoenix metropolitan area and (2) an
O 3 gradient is oriented on a southwest to northeast line across the area, with the
northeast region having the highest O 3 concentrations. This pattern can most
undoubtedly be explained by the diurnal wind pattern across the Phoenix metropolitan
area as west/southwesterly, upslope flow during the afternoon transports O 3 and
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 76

potential precursors to the northeast. In relation to the O 3 NAAQS, it can be seen that
the southwest region has recently fallen below the standard of 0.075 ppm; however, the
other three regions remain above the standard.

Figure 14 – Phoenix area eight-hour O 3 time series: three-year averages of the annual
fourth-highest concentrations, expressed as spatial averages for four distinct regions

TucsonFive sites met the ‘trend’ site criteria for the Tucson metropolitan area. These sites
include 22nd & Craycroft, Saguaro NP East, Tangerine, Tucson Downtown, and Tucson
Fairgrounds. Figure 15 illustrates the temporal variability of these long-term sites over
the 1990 to 2008 period in the form of three-year averages of the annual 4th high. Along
with the average of these six sites, the minimum and maximum values (of the threeyear average of the annual 4th high) for each three-year period were also included. In
general, the trend can be described as decreasing over the 1990 to 2008 period, though
the time series does contain some year to year variability. Trends are most prominent in
the maximum value and the average, with the minimum value showing very little
change over the 19-year period. When a best-fit linear trend is applied to the time
series, the average and maximum value have both decreased 0.03 ppm over the 19-year
period, while the minimum value has virtually no change.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 77

Figure 15 – Tucson area eight-hour O 3 time series: three-year averages of the annual
fourth-highest concentrations, expressed as the average, maximum, and minimum of five
long-term sites

Rural SitesOutside of the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas, there were only two other O 3
sites that met the criteria for a ‘trend’ site. These two sites include: The Abyss at Grand
Canyon National Park and the Entrance Station at Chiricahua National Monument. O 3
is of particular concern in rural areas due to its ability to degrade visibility and its
harmful affects on vegetation. The secondary standard for O 3 , which is identical in
magnitude to that of the primary standard, is designed to protect visibility and
vegetation as well as other items of public welfare. Figure 16 shows the temporal
variability of these rural long-term sites over the 1990 to 2008 period in the form of
three-year averages of the annual 4th high. In general, the trend can be described as
slightly increasing over the 1990 to 2008 period. When a best-fit linear trend is applied
to the time series, O 3 concentrations at Chiricahua Entrance Station have increased 3
ppb over the 19-year period, while The Abyss at Grand Canyon National Park has seen
a 2 ppb increase over the 19-year period.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 78

Figure 16 – Rural area eight-hour O 3 time series: three-year averages of the annual
fourth-highest concentrations

With meteorology having a significant influence on O 3 concentrations in both urban
and rural environments, in comparison with other gaseous pollutants, it becomes
difficult to determine whether the temporal variability in O 3 concentrations are an
artifact of these meteorological conditions or simply results of control measures that
have been put in-place. It is likely that the variability can be related to both, but the
degree to which each affects O 3 is unknown for the 1990 to 2008 period. Generally
speaking, trends in O 3 throughout Arizona have been less significant than those seen in
CO. In contrast to CO, changes in emissions of O 3 precursors would not be expected to
produce proportional changes in O 3 concentrations due to the relatively high
background level of O 3 and its photochemical formation from hydrocarbons (HC) and
nitrogen oxides (NO).

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 79

Particulates
PM 10
The criteria used in designating ‘trend’ sites for PM 10 differed from that of the gaseous
pollutants of O 3 and CO due to differences in collection methods. Using EPA’s 75
percent quarterly data completeness criteria for PM 10 monitors would have resulted in a
very small and incomplete dataset for trend assessment. This is due to the fact that
PM 10 monitoring occurs on a fairly infrequent basis (in comparison with the gaseous
pollutants), with 24-hour filter based measurements taken once every 6th day. The
reduced number of samples collected each quarter allows for a greater likelihood of any
one quarter failing the 75 percent completeness test. For this reason, a less stringent 80
percent annual completeness criterion was used. The majority of PM 10 monitors in
Arizona did not begin to meet this criterion until the late 1980s and early 1990s. As a
result, the period of record for assessing PM 10 trends in Arizona will be 1990 through
2008. The three-year average of the annual average was the statistic used to assess
trends. While the annual PM 10 NAAQS was revoked in 2006, annual averages are a
useful statistic for trend analysis due to its limited variability from year to year. In order
to reduce the number of gaps in the time series, a three-year average was deemed valid
if two valid annual averages existed in the three-year time period. Using this method
reduces the number of gaps in the time series as one missing annual average would
otherwise result in the absence of three consecutive three-year averages.
PhoenixSix sites met the ‘trend’ site criteria for the Phoenix metropolitan area. These sites
include Central Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, North Phoenix, South Scottsdale, and West
Phoenix. Figure 17 illustrates the temporal variability of these long-term sites over the
1990 to 2008 period in the form of three-year averages of the annual average. Along
with the average of these six sites, the minimum and maximum values (of the threeyear annual average) for each three-year period were also included to show any spatial
variability that may exist across the Phoenix metro region. In general, the trend can be
described as decreasing over the 1990 to 2008 period although the time series of the
maximum value shows very little trend, or slightly increasing. When a best-fit linear
trend is applied to the time series, the average and minimum value have decreased
approximately 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) over the 19-year period, while the
maximum value has increased 1 μg/m3 over the 19-year period. This pattern could be
an indication that while PM 10 concentrations are improving across most areas of the
Phoenix metropolitan area, there are localized areas that are not.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 80

Figure 17 – Three-year averages of PM 10 annual averages, expressed as the average,
maximum, and minimum of six long-term sites in the Phoenix metropolitan area

To get an idea of the spatial variability of PM 10 across Phoenix, Figure 18 was included
to show the relative differences in the magnitude of PM 10 annual averages at four sites.
While the length of record varies for each site, the last eight years of data indicate that
the sites generally correlate with one another, but contain noticeable differences in
magnitude. The higher annual averages at South Phoenix and West Phoenix are likely a
representation of the PM 10 problems in the Salt River area. Unfortunately, shorter
monitoring records at sites such as Durango Complex, South Phoenix, and West 43rd
Avenue have not allowed for an accurate depiction of PM 10 trends in this Salt River
area.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 81

Figure 18 – Three-year averages of annual average PM 10 at select Phoenix Metro area sites

TucsonThree sites met the ‘trend’ site criteria for the Tucson metropolitan area. These sites
include Broadway & Swan, Corona de Tucson, and Prince Road. Figure 19 illustrates
the temporal variability of these long-term sites over the 1990 to 2008 period in the
form of three-year averages of the annual average. Along with the average of these six
sites, the minimum and maximum values (of the three-year annual average) for each
three-year period were also included. In general, the trend can be described as
increasing over the 1990 to 2008 period. When a best-fit linear trend is applied to the
time series, the average, maximum, and minimum values have increased 3.3 μg/m3, 5.1
μg/m3, and 6.1 μg/m3 respectively, over the 19-year period. While the time series show
a slight increasing trend across all long-term sites in Tucson, the annual averages are
still well below the old annual PM 10 NAAQS of 50 μg/m3.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 82

Figure 19 – Three-year averages of annual average PM 10 at three Tucson metropolitan
sites

Pinal CountyPM 10 monitoring throughout Pinal County has increased substantially within that last
four to five years. Unfortunately, the lack of long-term monitoring makes it difficult to
assess the trends of PM 10 in Pinal County. Despite a relatively short record of PM 10
data within Pinal County, data from six sites were assessed for temporal variability for
the time period 1998 to 2008. These sites include Casa Grande Downtown, Coolidge
Maintenance Yard, Eloy County Complex, Mammoth County Complex, Pinal Air Park,
and Stanfield County Complex. Figure 20 shows this variability in the form of threeyear averages of the annual average. Along with the average of these six sites, the
minimum and maximum values (of the three-year annual average) for each three-year
period were also included to show any spatial variability that may exist across the
county. In general, most long-term sites show little to no change over the shorter time
period, as indicated by the ‘average’ plot in Figure 20. Most annual averages within the
last few years are similar to those measured in the late 1990s. Meanwhile, the minimum
value (Mammoth County Complex) has decreased while the maximum value (Stanfield
County Complex) has significantly increased. More recent PM 10 monitoring in Pinal
County has indicated that there may be additional areas where PM 10 concentrations are
comparable to those measured at Stanfield County Complex during the last three to five
years. For these most recent data, see the ‘Monitoring Data’ section of this Annual
Report.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 83

Figure 20 – Three-year averages of annual average PM 10 at Pinal County at six sites

Other Sites in ArizonaThroughout the rest of the state, Figure 21 presents three-year moving averages of the
annual average at select sites for the period 1990 to 2008. Ajo, Hayden Old Jail,
Nogales Post Office, Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant, Payson Well Site, and Rillito
were selected as ‘trend’ sites due to their long period of record and high data
completeness results throughout their record. Despite a slightly shorter period of record
with complete data, PM 10 data from Ajo was also included as its temporal variability
provides some useful information. The same 80 percent annual data completeness
criterion mentioned above was used to determine a complete record. Nogales Post
Office contains the highest long-term annual average, and while there is considerable
year-to-year variability, a general increasing trend is apparent. PM 10 concentrations in
Nogales, AZ have proven to be difficult to control due to sources on the Mexican side
of the border. When a best-fit linear trend is applied to the time series, PM 10
concentrations at Nogales Post Office have increased 7.4 μg/m3 over the 19-year
period. Other locations showing slight increasing trends include Ajo with a 3.4 μg/m3
increase over the 16-year period and Rillito with a 6.2 μg/m3 increase over the 19-year
period. While the time series at Ajo and Rillito show slight increasing trends, the
annual averages are still well below the old annual PM 10 NAAQS of 50 μg/m3.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 84

Figure 21 – Three-year averages of annual average PM 10 at sites in six Arizona cities

The PM 10 time series at Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant is similar to that of Nogales
Post Office in that it contains significant variability from year to year, but the trend is
opposite in sign. When a best-fit linear trend is applied to the time series, PM 10
concentrations at Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant have decreased 23.6 μg/m3 over the
19-year period. The Payson Well Site also shows a decreasing trend in PM 10 , though
this trend is fairly uniform and linear, equating to an 8.1 μg/m3 decrease over the 19year period. Lastly, the time series of annual averages at Hayden Old Jail has remained
fairly constant throughout the time period with virtually no discernable trend.
PM 2.5
While the initial focus for measuring particulates in ambient air began with
measurements of total suspended particulate (TSP) and PM 10 , measurements of
particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter have become increasingly important during
the last decade. For the purpose of assessing the temporal variability in PM 2.5 , only
data from federal reference method (FRM) instruments were used. These FRM
instruments were not widely used until the late 1990s when the PM 2.5 NAAQS was
finalized. As a result, there is not a long monitoring history of PM 2.5 with FRM
instruments. In an attempt to cover as broad a geographic area as possible, the time
period used to asses the temporal variability of PM 2.5 in Arizona was 2001 to 2008.
Additionally, the same 80 percent annual data completeness criterion used for PM 10
was used in determining a complete dataset for PM 2.5 monitors.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 85

With such a short record of PM 2.5 data throughout the state of Arizona, assessing trends
in PM 2.5 becomes a difficult process. However, the temporal variability can be assessed
during the brief period of record for some ‘long-term’ PM 2.5 sites. Additionally, their
relative magnitude can be compared from one site to another. Figure 22 shows this
temporal variability, in the form of three-year averages of the annual average, in six
cities or towns around Arizona. For the larger metropolitan areas, the West Phoenix
monitor was used to represent Phoenix and the Orange Grove monitor was used to
represent Tucson. In general, annual PM 2.5 concentrations have not changed much over
the eight-year period. Exceptions may include Casa Grande and Nogales which have
both seen slight increases over the last three to six years. PM 2.5 concentrations at
Tucson and Douglas have remained fairly constant over the eight year period, with
minimal year-to-year variability. While all locations are below the annual PM 2.5
NAAQS of 15 μg/m3, Figure 22 shows two distinct tiers of PM 2.5 concentrations. PM 2.5
annual averages at Nogales and Phoenix are nearly twice that of other Arizona locals.
PM 2.5 will continue to be a pollutant of concern, and only until adequate amounts of
data are collected can trends be assessed with any confidence.

Figure 22 – Three-year averages of annual average PM 2.5 at six Arizona cities or towns for
the period 2001 to 2008

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 86

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. The units of measurement are inverse megameters (Mm-1): the higher
the light extinction value in Mm-1, the more visibility is reduced. In Figures 23 and 24,
these light extinction data have been plotted as three-year averages and converted to the
more practical units of Visual Range in miles.
In Phoenix, when taking into consideration all hours of the day, transmissometer data
indicate a slight trend toward clearer air for the mean and dirtiest 20 percent categories
with increases in visibility of approximately 4 miles and 2 miles, respectively (Figure 23).
The cleanest 20 percent had the greatest change, with visibility increasing by
approximately 13 miles over the 14-year period. The trends in morning hour visibility are
very similar to visibility trends when all hours are taken into consideration. The mean and
20 percent dirtiest categories indicate a slight increasing trend in visibility of 2.5 miles
and 1.5 miles, respectively. Meanwhile, the cleanest 20 percent category once again
shows the greatest improvement, with visibility increasing approximately 6 miles over the
14-year period (Figure24).
Visibility in Tucson has improved over the length of record for both morning hours and
all hours of the day. When taking into consideration all hours of the day, the dirtiest 20
percent saw an increase in visibility of 3 miles; the mean visibility increased by 8
miles; and the cleanest 20 percent increased by nearly 40 miles over the 16-year period
(Figure 23). When only accounting for visibility during the morning hours, the dirtiest
20 percent saw an increase in visibility of 2 miles, the mean visibility increased 5 miles,
and the cleanest 20 percent has increased 22 miles over the 16-year period (Figure 24).
Both Phoenix and Tucson are trending toward cleaner air over the 14-year and 16-year
records. While both urban areas are showing improvements in visibility with time,
Tucson has a greater trend toward cleaner air. For both Phoenix and Tucson, the
visibility data indicate that the trend in morning hour visibility accounts for
approximately half the trend in overall visibility; an indication that visibility during other
parts of the day may be improving at a greater rate than during the morning hours.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 87

Figure 23 – Visibility trends for Phoenix and Tucson, for all hours

Figure 24 – Visibility trends for Phoenix and Tucson, from 5a.m. to 11a.m.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 88

In some rural areas of the state, visibility is measured by nephelometers. Nephelometers
differ from transmissometers in that the light extinction derived from nephelometers
only accounts for extinction through light scattering, as opposed to transmissometers
which take into account both light scattering and absorption by particles. Figures 25
and 26 show a visibility time series of three Class I areas with the longest length of
record. Each site contains three categories of visibility data; dirtiest 20 percent, mean,
and cleanest 20 percent. The Class I areas have extremely clean air for the cleanest 20
percent with the visibility range in miles being far greater than even the cleanest 3-year
averages for urban areas. This concept is even true amongst the three Class I areas, as
the areas away from urban environments, Camp Raymond and Hance Camp, have
greater visibility in the cleanest 20 percent than Tucson Mountain (Figure 25).
For the mean and the dirtiest 20 percent categories, there is a consistent trend for all
three Class I areas, which is a decrease in visibility over the 11-year period of record
(Figure 26). Mean visibility has decreased by 19 percent at Camp Raymond, 13 percent
at Hance Camp, and 20 percent at Tucson Mountain. The dirtiest 20 percent categories
have visibility reductions of 28 percent at Camp Raymond, 11 percent at Hance Camp,
and 21 percent at Tucson Mountain. While the cleanest 20 percent categories have
greater year-to-year variability, there is an indication from the data that these Class I
areas are experiencing a decrease in visibility on average and on the dirtiest days.

Figure 25 – Comparison of light scattering for cleanest 20 percent in three Class I areas
with the longest length of record.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 89

Figure 26 – Comparison of light scattering for the mean and dirtiest 20 percent in three
Class I areas with the longest length of record.

Conclusion
Since monitoring of air pollutants began in the late 1960s in Arizona, considerable
progress has been made in reducing airborne pollutants throughout the state. The most
drastic change has occurred in CO concentrations in the highly urbanized areas of
Tucson and Phoenix. CO concentrations, which regularly exceeded standards in
neighborhoods and near busy intersections in Phoenix (and to a lesser extent in
Tucson), are now well below the eight-hour CO NAAQS of 9 ppm. O 3 concentrations
have shown slight decreasing trends in the metropolitan areas of Tucson and Phoenix,
though a very slight increasing trend has been observed in some rural areas. In
comparison with CO, O 3 concentrations may prove to be more difficult to curb due to
its relatively high background levels. Trends in PM 10 are quite variable and location
dependent. Long-term trend sites in Phoenix show a slight decrease in PM 10
concentrations for most areas, though there may be localized areas that are not
improving. The Tucson metropolitan area on the other hand has seen a general increase
in PM 10 concentrations; however, the magnitude of these concentrations are
significantly less than those in Phoenix. Monitoring of PM 2.5 is a fairly new program
that began in the late 1990s. While there is not yet enough data to confidently assess
trends in PM 2.5 , the temporal variability of these fine particles appear to be relatively
constant at their respected locations with Phoenix and Nogales, AZ having the greatest
magnitudes. Lastly, measurements of visibility within the urban environments of
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 90

Phoenix and Tucson have shown considerable improvement over the last 2 decades.
Meanwhile, visibility in certain Class I areas appear to be degrading with time. While
certain locations have seen some deterioration in air quality with time, most locals have
seen improvements. These improvements have resulted from the development of State
Implementation Plans (SIP) through joint efforts between state and local air quality
agencies in Arizona.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 91

Appendix 1 – Site Index
Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

Apache County
Greer Water Treatment Plant
(SR 260 & SR 373)
Petrified Forest NP
(I-40 & Petrified Forest Rd.)
Springerville
(323 S. Mountain Ave.)
TEP - Springerville - Coal
Yard
(Lower Coyote Rd.)
TEP - Springerville - Coyote
Hills
(Lower Coyote Rd.)

34.058
-109.440

2,503

Bscat, MET,
IMPROVE

ADEQ,
USFS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16323

None

35.077
-109.769

1,766

IMPROVE

NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16473

04-001-0012

34.128
-109.289

2,125

PM 10

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

135133

None

34.329
-109.156

2,125

PM 10 , MET

TEP

SPM

Regional

Source Impact

16637

None

34.175
-109.231

2,285

NO 2 , SO 2 , PM 10 ,
MET

TEP

SPM

Regional

Source Impact

16638

None

32.009
-109.389

1,570

ADEQ,
EPA, NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16679

04-003-8001

31.349
-109.539

1,231

ADEQ

Urban Haze,
SLAMS

Neighborhood/
Regional

Population/
Visibility

16503

04-003-1005

31.365
-109.730

1,278

PM 10

ADEQ

SLAMS

Middle

Source Impact

16391

04-003-0011

31.354
-109.737

1,287

MET

ADEQ

SPM

Middle

Source Impact

16392

None

Cochise County
Chiricahua Entrance Station
(13063 E. Bonita Canyon Rd.)
Douglas Red Cross
(1445 E. 15th St.)
Paul Spur Chemical Lime
Plant
(SR 80 & Paul Spur Rd.)
Paul Spur Chemical Lime
Plant South
(S. of Stoneridge Rd.)

O 3 , Bscat, MET,
CASTNET, NADP,
IMPROVE
PM 10 , PM 2.5 ,
IMPROVE

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 92

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

Coconino County
Flagstaff Middle School
(755 N. Bonito St.)
Grand Canyon NP - Hance
Camp
(South Rim, 2.5 miles W. of
Village)
Grand Canyon NP - Hopi
Point Fire Tower
(South Rim, N. of Village)
Grand Canyon NP - In
Canyon - Yavapai Museum
(South Rim)
Grand Canyon NP - Indian
Gardens
(South Rim, 4.5 miles from
Bright Angel Trailhead)
Grand Canyon NP - The
Abyss
(South Rim, NW of Village)
Ike's Backbone
(Fossil Creek Rd. & Childs
Rd.)
Sedona Post Office
(190 W. Hwy. 89A)
Sycamore Canyon
(Camp Kimball Rd.)

35.206
-111.652

2,120

O 3 , PM 10 , PM 2.5

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16707

04-005-1008

35.973
-111.984

2,235

SO 2 , Bscat, MET,
IMPROVE

NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16682

None

36.071
-112.155

2,152

NADP

NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

134455

None

36.060
-112.117

2,177

SO 2 , Visibility
(camera)

NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

134456

None

36.078
-112.126

1,164

Bscat, MET,
IMPROVE

NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16683

None

36.059
-112.182

2,073

O 3 , MET, CASTNET

NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

134458

04-005-8001

34.340
-111.682

1,303

Bscat, MET,
IMPROVE

ADEQ,
USFS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16421

None

34.866
-111.765

1,279

PM 10

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16512

04-005-1010

35.140
-111.969

2,046

Bscat, MET, NADP,
IMPROVE

ADEQ,
USFS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16476

None

33.002
-110.765

602

SO 2

ASARCO

SPM

Neighborhood

Source Impact

16593

None

Gila County
ASARCO - Globe Hwy.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 93

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured
ASARCO - Hayden - Garfield
33.002
620
SO 2
-110.784
Ave.
ASARCO - Montgomery
33.012
709
SO 2
-110.798
Ranch
FMMI - Miami - Golf Course
FMMI - Miami - Jones Ranch
(Cherry Flats Rd.)
FMMI - Miami - Townsite
(Sullivan St.)
Hayden Old Jail
(Canyon Dr. & Kennecott
Ave.)
Miami Ridgeline
(4030 Linden St.)
Payson Well Site
(204 W. Aero Dr.)
Pleasant Valley Ranger
Station
(SR 288 & Old Cherry Rd.)
Tonto NM
(S. of SR 188)

33.419
-110.829
33.385
-110.867

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

ASARCO

SPM

Neighborhood

Source Impact

16590

None

ASARCO

SPM

Neighborhood

Source Impact

16591

None

1,000

PM 10

FMMI

SPM

Neighborhood

Source Impact

16629

04-007-8000

1,242

SO 2

FMMI

SPM

Regional

Source Impact

16631

None

33.397
-110.874

1,035

SO 2

FMMI

SPM

Regional

Source Impact

16632

None

33.006
-110.786

625

SO 2 , PM 10

ADEQ,
ASARCO

SLAMS, SPM

Neighborhood

Source Impact

16326

04-007-1001

33.399
-110.858

1,085

SO 2 , PM 10

ADEQ,
FMMI

SLAMS, SPM

Neighborhood/
Regional

Source Impact

16382

04-007-0009

34.229
-111.329

1,501

PM 10 , MET

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16317

04-007-0008

34.090
-110.941

1,587

Bscat, MET,
IMPROVE

ADEQ,
USFS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16446

None

33.635
-111.109

786

O 3 , IMPROVE

ADEQ, NPS

SLAMS

Regional

Transport/
Visibility

16447

04-007-0010

33.074
-109.865

1,173

NADP

BLM

SPM

Regional

Population

134496

None

34.243
-113.558

403

O3

ADEQ

SLAMS

Regional

Transport

34961

04-012-8000

Graham County
Oliver Knoll
(NW of Safford)
La Paz County
Alamo Lake
(Alamo Lake State Park)

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 94

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

Maricopa County
ADEQ Building
(1110 W. Washington St.)
Banner Mesa Medical Center
(525 W. Brown Rd.)
Bethune Elementary School
(1310 S. 15th Ave.)
Blue Point
(Usery Pass Rd. & Bush
Hwy.)
Buckeye
(26449 W. 100th Dr.)
Cave Creek
(37109 N. Lava Ln.)
Central Phoenix
(1645 E. Roosevelt St.)
Coyote Lakes
(20010 N. Coyote Lakes
Pkwy.)
Durango Complex
(2702 RC Esterbrook Blvd.)
Dysart
(16825 N. Dysart Rd.)
Estrella
(15099 W. Casey Abbott Rd.)
Estrella Community College
(3000 N. Dysart Rd.)
Falcon Field
(4530 E. McKellips Rd.)

33.448
-112.087

329

Visibility (camera)

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Visibility

21737

None

33.433
-111.842

454

Visibility (camera),
Bext

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Urban Haze/
Visibility

19489

None

33.434
-112.093

325

PM 10

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

17786

04-013-8006

33.545
-111.609

480

O 3 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Urban

Maximum
Concentration

16417

04-013-9702

33.370
-112.620

256

CO, NO 2 , O 3 , PM 10 ,
MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood/
Urban

Population/
Source Impact

21525

04-013-4011

33.821
-112.017

584

O 3 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Urban

16368

04-013-4008

33.457
-112.046

340

CO, NO 2 , O 3 , SO 2 ,
PM 10 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

16329

04-013-3002

33.666
-112.310

363

PM 10 , MET

MCAQD

SPM

Middle

Source Impact

127530

04-013-4014

33.426
-112.118

480

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Middle

Maximum
Concentration

16375

04-013-9812

33.637
-112.339

357

CO, O 3 , PM 10 , Bscat,
Met

ADEQ,
MCAQD

SLAMS, Urban
Haze

Neighborhood

Population

19550

04-013-4010

33.383
-112.372

277

Bscat, MET

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Neighborhood

Population

16506

04-013-8005

33.483
-112.350

305

Visibility (camera)

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Visibility

21736

None

33.452
-111.733

310

O 3 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16381

04-013-1010

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 95

Maximum
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration/
Population

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured
Fountain Hills
33.611
440
O 3 , MET
-111.725
(16426 E. Palisades Blvd.)
Glendale
33.569
357
CO, O 3 , PM 10 , MET
-112.191
(6000 W. Olive Ave.)
Greenwood
33.460
338
CO, NO 2 , PM 10 , MET
-112.117
(1128 N. 27th Ave.)
Higley
33.310
396
PM 10 , MET
-111.722
(15400 S. Higley Rd.)
Humboldt Mountain
33.982
1,594
O 3 , MET
-111.798
(Pine Mountain Wilderness)
CO, Trace CO, NO x ,
NO y , O 3 , SO 2 , Trace
SO 2 , VOC,
Carbonyls,
Hexavalent
Chromium, SVOC,
PM 10 , Metals PM 10 ,
PM 2.5 , Speciated
PM 2.5 , Bscat, MET,
IMPROVE
CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 ,
MET

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Maximum
Concentration

16376

04-013-9704

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16378

04-013-2001

MCAQD

SLAMS

Middle

Population

16372

04-013-3010

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16505

04-013-4006

MCAQD

SLAMS

Regional

Maximum
Concentration

16416

04-013-9508

ADEQ

CSN, NATTS,
NCore, PAMS,
SLAMS, Urban
Haze

Neighborhood

Population

16328

04-013-9997

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16380

04-013-1003

JLG Supersite
(4530 N. 17th Ave.)

33.503
-112.095

354

Mesa
(310 S. Brooks Cir.)
Mesa City Building
(55 N. Center St.)
North Mountain Summit
(North Mountain)
North Phoenix
(601 E. Butler Dr.)
Phoenix Transmissometer
Receiver
(3600 N. 2nd Ave.)
Phoenix Transmissometer
Transmitter
(2000 W. Bethany Home Rd.)

33.410
-111.865

372

33.415
-111.830

400

Bext, MET

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Urban Haze

19686

None

33.585
-112.072

625

Visibility (camera)

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Visibility

16480

None

33.560
-112.066

379

CO, O 3 , PM 10 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16390

04-013-1004

33.490
-112.076

337

Bext, MET

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Urban Haze

16829

None

33.525
-112.101

340

Bext

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Urban Haze

16330

None

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 96

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured
Pinnacle Peak
33.712
800
O3
-111.852
(25000 N. Windy Walk Dr.)

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

MCAQD

SLAMS

Urban

Maximum
Concentration

16406

04-013-2005

Rio Verde
(25608 N. Forest Rd.)

33.718
-111.671

500

O3

MCAQD

SLAMS

Urban

Maximum
Concentration

16396

04-013-9706

Salt River Pima DOAS
(8805 E. McKellips Rd.)

33.444
-111.891

365

Toxics

ADEQ

SPM

Middle

Transport

128640

None

South Phoenix
(33 W. Tamarisk St.)

33.403
-112.075

330

CO, O 3 , Toxics ,
PM 10 , PM 2.5 , MET

ADEQ,
MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16377

04-013-4003

South Scottsdale
(2857 N. Miller Rd.)

33.479
-111.917

374

CO, NO 2 , O 3 , SO 2 ,
PM 10 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood/
Urban

Population

16398

04-013-3003

Tempe
(1525 S. College Ave.)
Vehicle Emissions Laboratory
(600 N. 40th St.)
West Chandler
(275 S. Ellis Rd.)
West Forty Third
(3940 W. Broadway Rd.)
West Indian School
(3315 W. Indian School Rd.)
West Phoenix
(3847 W. Earll Dr.)

33.412
-111.934

360

CO, O 3 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16405

04-013-4005

33.455
-111.996

356

Bscat, MET

ADEQ

PAMS, SLAMS,
SPM

Neighborhood

Population/
Visibility

16363

04-013-9998

33.298
-111.884

360

CO, O 3 , PM 10 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Middle/
Neighborhood

Population

16478

04-013-4004

33.406
-112.144

314

PM 10 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Middle

Maximum
Concentration

16659

04-013-4009

33.494
-112.130

340

CO

MCAQD

SLAMS

Middle/
Neighborhood

Population

16393

04-013-0016

33.483
-112.142

334

CO, NO 2 , O 3 , PM 10 ,
PM 2.5 , MET

MCAQD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Maximum
Concentration/
Population

16477

04-013-0019

35.153
-114.566

156

PM 10

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16365

04-015-1003

36.019
-114.068

902

IMPROVE

ADEQ

Class I

Regional

Background

21298

None

Mohave County
Bullhead City
(990 Hwy. 95)
Meadview
(Pierce Ferry Rd.)

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 97

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

Navajo County
Petrified Forest NP South
(Old SW Entrance on Old
Route 180)
Show Low
(561 E. Deuce of Clubs)

34.822
-109.891

1,723

O 3 , Bsact, MET,
CASTNET

ADEQ, NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

134093

04-017-0119

34.252
-110.036

1,924

PM 10

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16603

04-017-0007

22nd St. & Alvernon
(3895 E. 22nd St.)
22nd St. & Craycroft
(1237 S. Beverly Ave.)
Ajo
(1131 N. Well Rd.)
Broadway & Swan
(4625 E. Broadway Blvd.)
Cherry & Glenn
(2745 N. Cherry Ave.)

32.207
-110.910

767

CO

PDEQ

SLAMS

Microscale

Maximum
Concentration

16676

04-019-1014

32.204
-110.878

787

CO, O 3 , NO 2 , SO 2 ,
Bscat, MET

ADEQ,
PDEQ

SLAMS, Urban
Haze

Neighborhood/
Urban

Population/
Visibility

16410

04-019-1011

32.382
-112.857

515

PM 10 , MET

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16316

04-019-0001

32.222
-110.893

772

PM 10

PDEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Source Impact

16550

04-019-1023

32.256
-110.948

732

CO

PDEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16675

04-019-1021

Children’s Park
(400 W. River Rd.)

32.295
-110.982

697

CO, NO 2 , O 3 , PM 2.5 ,
Speciated PM 2.5 ,
Bscat, MET

ADEQ,
PDEQ

NCore, SLAMS,
SPM, Urban Haze

Neighborhood/
Urban

Maximum
Concentration/
Population/
Visibility

16551

04-019-1028

Coachline
(9597 N. Coachline Blvd.)
Corona De Tucson
(22001 S. Houghton Rd.)
Geronimo
(2498 N. Geronimo Ave.)
Golf Links & Kolb
(2601 S. Kolb Rd.)
Green Valley
(601 N. La Canada Dr.)

32.380
-111.127

679

O 3 , PM 2.5

PDEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

21580

04-019-1034

32.004
-110.792

938

PM 10

PDEQ

SLAMS

Regional

Background

16677

04-019-0008

32.251
-110.965

747

PM 10 , PM 2.5

PDEQ

SPM (For AQI
Purposes Only)

Neighborhood

Population

16678

04-019-1113

32.191
-110.840

811

CO

PDEQ

SPM

Micorscale

Maximum
Concentration

19531

04-019-1031

31.879
-110.996

887

O 3 , PM 10 , PM 2.5

PDEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16685

04-019-1030

Pima County

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 98

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured
Green Valley Fire
31.827
917
PM 10 , PM 2.5 , MET
Administration
-111.011
(1285 W. Camino Encanto)
Orange Grove
32.322
681
PM 10 , PM 2.5
(3401 W. Orange Grove Rd.)
-111.037
Organ Pipe Cactus NM
(1 mile SSW of visitor center)
Prince Road
(1016 W. Prince Rd.)
Rillito
(8840 W. Robinson St.)
Rose Elementary
(710 W. Michigan St.)
Saguaro NP East
(3905 S. Old Spanish Trail)
Saguaro NP West
(N. Sandario Rd. & W. Mile
Wide Rd.)
Santa Clara
(6910 S. Santa Clara Ave.)
South Tucson
(1601 S. 6th Ave.)
Tangerine
(12101 N. Camino de Oeste)
Tucson Downtown
(190 W. Pennington St.)
Tucson Fairgrounds
(11330 S. Houghton Rd.)

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

ADEQ

SPM

Middle

Source Impact

128562

04-019-8031

PDEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Maximum
Concentration/
Population

16510

04-019-0011

31.950
-112.801

505

Bscat, MET, NADP,
IMPROVE

ADEQ, NPS

Class I

Regional

Background

16681

04-019-0005

32.272
-110.989

706

PM 10

PDEQ

SLAMS

Microscale

Source Impact

16597

04-019-1009

32.414
-111.154

626

PM 10 , MET

ADEQ,
APCC

SLAMS, SPM

Neighborhood

Source Impact

16499

04-019-0020

32.172
-110.980

728

O 3 , PM 2.5

PDEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16670

04-019-1032

32.174
-110.736

938

O 3 , MET, IMPROVE

NPS, PDEQ

Class I, SPM

Neighborhood/
Regional

Maximum
Concentration/
Visibility

16474

04-019-0021

32.248
-111.217

718

Bscat, MET,
IMPROVE

ADEQ, NPS

Class I

Regional

Visibility

16475

None

32.125
-110.982

774

PM 10

PDEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16569

04-019-1026

32.201
-110.967

738

PM 10

PDEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

16635

04-019-1001

32.425
-111.063

804

O 3 , PM 10

PDEQ

SPM

Urban

Background/
Maximum
Concentration

16669

04-019-1018

32.222
-110.974

721

CO, O 3

PDEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16671

04-019-0002

32.047
-110.774

938

O3

PDEQ

SPM

Urban

Background

16672

04-019-1020

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 99

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured
Tucson Transmissometer
32.221
722
Bext, MET
Receiver
-110.973
(150 W. Congress St.)
Tucson Transmissometer
32.240
786
Bext
Transmitter
-110.945
(1501 N. Campbell Ave.)
Tucson - U of A Central
32.240
745
Bscat, MET
-110.955
(1100 N. Fremont Ave.)

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

ADEQ,
PDEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Urban Haze

16826

None

ADEQ,
PDEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Urban Haze

16655

None

ADEQ

Urban Haze

Urban

Visibility

16662

04-019-1027

Pinal County
Apache Junction Fire Station
(3955 E. Superstition
Blvd. TE)
Apache Junction Maintenance
Yard
(305 E. Superstition Blvd.)
ASARCO - Hayden Junction
(Hwy. 177)
Casa Grande Airport
(660 W. Aero Dr.)
Casa Grande Downtown
(401 Marshall St.)
Combs School
(301 E. Combs Rd.)
Coolidge Maintenance Yard
(212 E. Broadway Ave.)
Cowtown Road
(37580 W. Maricopa-Casa
Grande Hwy.)
Eloy County Complex
(801 N. Main St.)

33.420
-111.503

533

PM 10 , PM 2.5

PCAQCD

SLAMS, SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16358

04-021-3002

33.421
-111.543

533

O 3 , MET

PCAQCD

SLAMS

Neighborhood/
Urban

Population/
Transport

16589

04-021-3001

33.011
-110.811

582

SO 2

ASARCO

SPM

Neighborhood

Source Impact

16592

None

32.954
-111.762

430

O 3 , MET

PCAQCD

SLAMS

Neighborhood/
Regional

Population/
Transport

16367

04-021-3003

32.878
-111.752

420

PM 10 , PM 2.5

PCAQCD

SLAMS, SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16588

04-021-0001

33.219
-111.560

359

O 3 , PM 10

PCAQCD

SPM

Neighborhood/
Regional

Population/
Transport

16657

04-021-3009

32.978
-111.514

445

PM 10

PCAQCD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

7446

04-021-3004

33.010
-111.972

370

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , MET

PCAQCD

SPM

Microscale

Population/
Source Impact

19347

04-021-3013

32.757
-111.554

472

PM 10

PCAQCD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

134673

04-021-3014

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 100

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured
Mammoth County Complex
32.719
890
PM 10
-110.642
(118 S. Catalina Ave.)
Maricopa County Complex
33.059
359
O 3 , PM 10
-112.047
(44625 W. Garvey Rd.)
Pinal Air Park
32.508
581
O 3 , PM 10
(Water Well # 2, Pinal Air
-111.308
Park Rd.)
Pinal County Housing
Complex
32.891
440
PM 10 , MET
-111.570
(970 N. Eleven Mile Corner
Rd.)
Queen Valley
(10 S. Queen Anne Dr.)
Riverside Maintenance Yard
(56964 E. Florence Kelvin
Hwy.)
Stanfield County Complex
(36697 W. Papago Dr.)

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

PCAQCD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Background/
Population

16600

04-021-3006

PCAQCD

SPM

Neighborhood/
Regional

Population/
Transport

16656

04-021-3010

PCAQCD

SLAMS, SPM

Regional

Background/
Transport

16552

04-021-3007

PCAQCD

SLAMS, SPM

Neighborhood

Population

18079

04-021-3011

ADEQ,
PCAQCD

Class I, PAMS,
SLAMS, SPM

Urban

Maximum
Concentration/
Transport/
Visibility

16394

04-021-8001

33.293
-111.285

668

NO y , O 3 , VOC,
Bscat, MET,
IMPROVE

33.105
-110.974

540

PM 10

PCAQCD

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Source Impact

21429

04-021-3012

32.881
-111.961

395

PM 10

PCAQCD

SLAMS, SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16636

04-021-3008

31.337
-110.936

1,176

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , MET

ADEQ

SLAMS, SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16511

04-023-0004

34.737
-112.021

1,010

PM 10

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

134096

None

34.786
-112.090

1,234

PM 10 , MET

PCC

SPM

Regional

Source Impact

16626

None

Santa Cruz
Nogales Post Office
(300 N. Morley Ave.)
Yavapai County
Cottonwood
(199 S. 6th St.)
Phoenix Cement Clarkdale NW (#2)
(NW of cement plant)

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 101

Site Index – Current Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Arizona
Lat.
Parameters
Elev.
Site Name and Address
(meters)
Long.
Measured
Phoenix Cement Clarkdale 34.772
1,141
PM 10 , MET
SE (#1)
-112.073
(SE of CTI fly ash silo)
Prescott College AQD
34.546
1,591
O 3 , PM 10
-112.476
(330 Grove Ave.)
Prescott Valley
34.595
1,556
PM 10 , PM 2.5
-112.331
(7601 E. Civic Cir.)

Owner

Monitor Type

Measurement
Scale

Monitoring
Objective

AAAD ID
Number

AQS ID
Number

PCC

SPM

Regional

Source Impact

16628

None

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

133011

04-025-8033

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

18392

04-025-2002

Yuma County
Yuma Agriculture Center
Farm
(6425 W. 8th St.)
Yuma Courthouse
(2440 W. 28th St.)
Yuma Game & Fish
(9140 E. 28th St.)
Yuma Mesa
(2186 W. County 15th St.)
Yuma Supersite
(2323 S. Arizona Ave.)

32.713
-114.708

28

MET

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

128530

None

32.677
-114.648

40

PM 10 , PM 2.5

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

17027

04-027-0004

32.677
-114.475

60

O3

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

18690

04-027-0006

32.611
-114.633

62

MET

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

19040

None

32.690
-114.614

60

O3

ADEQ

SLAMS

Neighborhood

Population

113219

04-027-8011

31.328
-109.547

1,200

PM 10 , MET

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16361

80-026-1000

31.325
-110.944

1,202

PM 10

ADEQ

SPM

Neighborhood

Population

16399

80-026-0005

Mexico
Agua Prieta Fire Station
(Calle 6 & Ave. 15)
Sonora Nogales Fire Station
(Diaz & Ave. Adolfo Lopez
Mateos)

Information in the site index table is based on the best information available at the date of publication.
For specific site or monitor information please see ADEQ Air Monitoring Network Plan: For the Year 2009, Maricopa County AQD 2008 Air Monitoring Network
Review, Pima County DEQ 2008 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment & Plan, and Pinal County Air Quality Control District 2009 Ambient Monitor Network
Plan and 2008 Data Summary.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 102

Appendix 2 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
AADT
ADEQ
ADOA
AgBMP
APCC
AQS
ASARCO
ASU
B abs
BACM
B ag
BAM
B ap
BART
B ext
B scat
B sg
B sp
CAA
CASAC
CASTNET
CBSA
CDV
CFR
Class I
CO
CSA
CSN
Delta T
DV
EPA
FEM
FMMI
FRM
HAP
HC
HPA

Annual Average Daily Traffic
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Best Management Practices
Arizona Portland Cement Company
Air Quality System
ASARCO LLC – U.S. operating subsidiary of Group Mexico
Arizona State University
Light absorption
Best Available Control Measures
Light absorption by gasses
Beta Attenuation Mass Monitor
Light absorption by particles
Best Available Retrofit Technology
Light extinction
Light scattering
Light scattering by gasses
Light scattering by particles
1990 Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee
Clean Air Status and Trends Network
Core Based Statistical Area
Critical Design Value
Code of Federal Regulations
Federally designated park or wilderness area with mandated visibility
protection
Carbon monoxide
Combined Statistical Area
Chemical Speciation Network
Difference between two levels of temperature measurements
Design Value
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Equivalent Method
Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc. – Miami
Federal Reference Method
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Hydrocarbon
High Pollution Advisory
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 103

IMPROVE
km
LMP
m
MAG
MCAQD
MCHD
MET
Mm-1
MSA
MSM
NAAQS
NADP
NATA
NATTS
NCore
NFRM
NM
NO
NO 2
NO X
NPRM
NPS
O3
PAG
PAMS
Pb
PCAQCD
PCC
PDEQ
PM
PM 10
PM 2.5
PM coarse
PM fine
ppm
Pressure
PSD
QAPP
QMP

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
Kilometer
Limited Maintenance Plan
Meter
Maricopa Association of Governments
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Maricopa County Health Department
Meteorological measurements (wind, temperature, relative humidity)
Inverse megameter
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Most Stringent Measures
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Atmospheric Deposition Program
National Air Toxics Assessment
National Air Toxics Trends Site
National Core multi-pollutant monitoring stations
Notice of Final Rulemaking
National Monument
Nitric Oxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sum of NO and NO 2
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
National Park Service
Ozone
Pima Association of Governments
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station
Lead
Pinal County Air Quality Control District
Phoenix Cement Company
Pima County Department of Environmental Quality
Particulate Matter
Particulate Matter < 10 microns
Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns
Particulate Matter between 2.5 and 10 microns
Particulate Matter in the region of 2.5 microns
Parts per million
Barometric air pressure
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Management Plan
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 104

RASS
RFP
RH
SIP
SLAMS
SO 2
SPHPMS
SPM
STN
TEOM
TEP
TSA
TSP
U of A
USFS
VOC
WASBAQS
WESTAR
Wind
WRAP
µg/m3

Reference Ambient Air Sampler
Reasonable Further Progress
Relative Humidity
State Implementation Plan
State and Local Air Monitoring Station
Sulfur Dioxide
South Phoenix Health and Particulate Matter Study
Special Purpose Monitor
Speciation Trends Network
Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance
Tucson Electric Power Company
Technical System Audit
Total Suspended Particulates
University of Arizona
U.S. Forest Service
Volatile Organic Compounds
Western Arizona/Sonora Border Air Quality Study
Western States Air Resources Council
Wind speed and direction
Western Regional Air Partnership
Micrograms per cubic meter

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 105

Appendix 3 – Related Web sites
Air Explorer (www.epa.gov/airexplorer/)
Air Explorer is a collection of user-friendly visualization tools for air quality analysts. It
is linked directly to the EPA’s Air Quality System database.
Air Info Now (www.airinfonow.com/)
This site provides information about air quality in the Tucson area, including real time
pollutant readings from select monitoring sites and visibility camera images.
AirWeb: Protecting Air Quality (www.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.
American Lung Association (www.stateoftheair.org/)
This Web site provides information about air quality for the U.S. by state and county.
There is summary information as well as a detailed report on the condition of air
quality.
Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADOA) (www.azda.gov/ACT/AirQuality.htm)
ADOA information on best management practices for agriculture in regards to PM10
pollution.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) (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 (EPA) (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 will 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.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 106

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 of air-related information, and contact information for experts on specific issues
regarding air and environment.
EPA – Region 9 (www.epa.gov/region09/)
Learn about EPA activities in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Pacific
Islands at the Region 9 Web site.
The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Project (IMPROVE)
(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 their environmental
monitoring programs.
Interagency Real Time Smoke Monitoring (www.satguard.com/usfs/default.asp)
This Web site provides real-time smoke concentration data (along with some other
meteorological information) from portable smoke monitors around the United States.
Historical data from past monitoring efforts are also available.
Maricopa County Air Quality Information (www.maricopa.gov/aq/)
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department's Web site has contains information
about the County's air quality program, including current and historical data from the air
quality monitoring network.
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) (nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/)
NADP is a nationwide network of monitoring sites collecting data on the chemistry of
precipitation for geographical and temporal long-term trends.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Air Quality
(www.noaawatch.gov/themes/air_quality.php)
This Web site is general information from NOAA about air quality in the U.S. and the
government’s role in controlling air pollution.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 107

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Research - Weather and
Air Quality (www.oar.noaa.gov/weather/)
NOAA provides information on research on all types of weather (hurricanes, tornadoes,
thunderstorms, hazardous weather, etc.), weather related topics, and air quality.
National Park Service (NPS) (www.nature.nps.gov/air)
Information about the air quality and visibility programs run by NPS can be found on
this Web site.
National Tribal Environmental Council (NETC) (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 (NWS) (www.nws.noaa.gov)
This Web site contains information about the NWS. There are links to the local NWS
Offices' web pages in each state, which contain current and historical forecast and
climatological data, along with much more information. The Phoenix office displays
ADEQ's and Pinal County's High Pollution Advisories and Health Watches.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/air.html)
U.S. Department of Agriculture gives information regarding air quality and links to
helpful resources and information.
Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) (www.deq.co.pima.az.us)
The PCDEQ’s Web site has information about air, water, and waste programs in Pima
County.
Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD)
(pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/AirQuality/Pages/Home.aspx)
Current air quality information from the PCAQCD monitoring network can be found on
this Web site.
Pollen Information (www.pollen.com)
This Web site gives the current pollen status by zip code nation wide.
Smog Blog (alg.umbc.edu/usaq/)
Staff at the University of Maryland, Baltimore write daily about U.S. Air Quality with
archives going back to September 23, 2003. Links to other information and sites are
also located on this site.
Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) (vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/)
The VIEWS is an online exchange of visibility data, research, and ideas designed to
support the Regional Haze Rule enacted by the EPA to reduce regional haze in national
parks and wilderness areas.
ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 108

Visibility Web Cameras (www.phoenixvis.net)
This page displays the views of Phoenix from ADEQ's network or cameras. Digital
images from Web-based cameras are updated every 15 minutes. Links to other Arizona
webcams are listed at this site too.
Weather Underground (www.wunderground.com/US/Region/US/AirQuality.html)
This Web site includes weather forecasts, air quality information, and weather history
for cities and countries world wide.
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) (www.wrapair.org)
WRAP is comprised of western states, tribes, and federal agencies with a focus on
visibility in parks and wilderness areas in the western U.S.
Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) (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 2009, Page 109

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 PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 ,
CO, and O 3 .
O 3 Network
This map shows the location of O 3 monitors owned by ADEQ, private industry, county
agencies, and the National Park Service.
PM 10 Network
The location of PM 10 particulate monitors owned by ADEQ, private industry, and
county agencies are shown on this map.
PM 2.5 Network
The location of PM 2.5 particulate monitors owned by ADEQ and county agencies are
shown on this map.
SO 2 Network
This map shows the location of the SO 2 monitors owned by ADEQ, private industry,
county agencies, and National Park Service.
Visibility Network
This map shows the location of nephelometers, transmissometers, and cameras owned
by ADEQ, county agencies, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service.

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 110

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 111

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 112

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 113

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 114

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 115

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 116

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 117

ADEQ Air Quality Annual Report 2009, Page 118

printed on recycled paper

EQR 09-08