## Five-Year Network Assessment Ambient Air Monitoring Program Air Quality Bureau New Mexico Environment Department

June 2010

Prepared by Terry Hertel, Manager, Ambi ent Air Monitoring Program

Air Quality Bureau

1301-B Siler Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507

www.nmenv.state.nm.us



# New Mexico Environment Departmenti Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose of 5-Year Assessment ........................................................................................... 1 2.0 Overview of NMED Air Quality Bureau Air Monitoring Network ................................... 1 2.1 Network Regions ........................................................................................................... . 2 2.2 Network History............................................................................................................ .. 7 2.3 Air Quality Summary ...................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 NAAQS ................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Air Quality Index and Health Issues ....................................................................... 8 2.3.2.1 County-to-County Health Comparisons ............................................................. 8

2.3.2.2 Asthma and Heart Attack Issues ......................................................................... 9 2.3.3 Air Quality and Environmental Justice ................................................................. 10 2.4 Population Summary ..................................................................................................... 11 2.4.1 Metropolitan Sta tistical Areas ............................................................................... 11

2.4.2 Combined Statistical Areas ................................................................................... 11 2.4.3 Micropolitan Sta tistical Areas ............................................................................... 12 2.4.4 Anticipated Growth ............................................................................................... 13 2.5 Meteorological Summary.............................................................................................. 13

2.5.1 Wind Roses ........................................................................................................... 13

2.5.2 Pollution Roses ..................................................................................................... 14 2.5.3 Upwind Transport ................................................................................................. 14 2.5.4 Downwind Transport ............................................................................................ 17 2.5.5 Forecasting ............................................................................................................ 17

2.6 Uses of Network Data ................................................................................................... 17 3.0 Emissions Inventory Summary ......................................................................................... 17 4.0 Monitoring Network Ozone Sites ..................................................................................... 19 4.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 19

4.1.1 San Juan Substation .............................................................................................. 19 4.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 19

4.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 19 4.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 19

4.1.2 Bloomfield ............................................................................................................ 2 0 4.1.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 20

4.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 20 4.1.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 20 4.1.3 Navajo Lake .......................................................................................................... 20 4.1.3.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 20

4.1.3.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 20 4.1.3.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 20 4.2 Santa Fe County ........................................................................................................... . 21 4.2.1 Santa Fe Airport .................................................................................................... 21 4.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 21

4.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 21 4.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 21 4.3 Sandoval County ........................................................................................................... 21ii 4.3.1 Bernalillo............................................................................................................... 21 4.3.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 21

4.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 21 4.3.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 21 4.4 Valencia County............................................................................................................ 22

4.4.1 Los Lunas .............................................................................................................. 22 4.4.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 22

4.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 22 4.4.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 22

4.5 Southeastern New Mexico ............................................................................................ 22

4.5.1 Carlsbad ................................................................................................................ 22 4.5.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 22

4.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 22 4.5.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 23

4.5.2 Hobbs ................................................................................................................... . 23 4.5.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 23

4.5.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 23 4.5.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 23

4.6 Las Cruces ................................................................................................................ ..... 23

4.6.1 Solano .................................................................................................................. . 23 4.6.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 23

4.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 23 4.6.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 24

4.7 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................ ... 24 4.7.1 Chaparral ............................................................................................................... 24 4.7.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 24

4.7.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 24 4.7.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 24

4.7.2 Desert View .......................................................................................................... 24 4.7.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 24

4.7.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 25 4.7.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 25

4.7.3 La Union ............................................................................................................... 25 4.7.3.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 25

4.7.3.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 25 4.7.3.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 25

4.7.4 Santa Teresa .......................................................................................................... 2 5 4.7.4.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 25

4.7.4.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 26 4.7.4.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 26

4.7.5 Sunland Park ......................................................................................................... 26 4.7.5.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 26

4.7.5.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 26 4.7.5.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 26

4.8 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 26 4.8.1 Deming Airport ..................................................................................................... 26iii 4.8.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 26

4.8.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 27 4.8.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 27 4.8.2 Hurley .................................................................................................................. . 27 4.8.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 27

4.8.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 27 4.8.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 27 5.0 Monitoring Network Nitrogen Dioxide Sites ................................................................... 27 5.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 28

5.1.1 San Juan Substation .............................................................................................. 28 5.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 28

5.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 28 5.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 28

5.1.2 Bloomfield ............................................................................................................ 2 8 5.1.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 28

5.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 28 5.1.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 28 5.1.3 Navajo Lake .......................................................................................................... 29 5.1.3.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 29

5.1.3.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 29 5.1.3.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 29

5.2 Southeastern New Mexico ............................................................................................ 29

5.2.1 Carlsbad ................................................................................................................ 29 5.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 29

5.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 29 5.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 29

5.2.2 Hobbs ................................................................................................................... . 30 5.2.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 30

5.2.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 30 5.2.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 30

5.3 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................ ... 30

5.3.1 Desert View .......................................................................................................... 30 5.3.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 30

5.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 30 5.3.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 31

5.3.2 Santa Teresa .......................................................................................................... 3 1 5.3.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 31

5.3.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 31 5.3.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 31

5.4 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 31 5.4.1 Deming Airport ..................................................................................................... 31 5.4.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 31

5.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 31 5.4.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 32 6.0 Monitoring Network Sulfur Dioxide Sites ........................................................................ 32 6.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 32iv 6.1.1 San Juan Substation .............................................................................................. 32 6.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 32

6.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 32 6.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 32

6.1.2 Bloomfield ............................................................................................................ 3 3 6.1.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 33

6.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 33 6.1.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 33

6.1.2.3.2...................................................................................................................... ... 33

6.2 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 33 6.2.1 Hurley .................................................................................................................. . 33 6.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 33

6.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 33 6.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 33 7.0 Monitoring Network Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM 2.5 Sites ............................... 34 7.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 34 7.1.1 Farmington Office ................................................................................................. 34 7.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 34

7.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 34 7.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 34 7.2 Santa Fe County ........................................................................................................... . 34 7.2.1 Runnels Building Roof ......................................................................................... 34 7.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 34

7.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 35 7.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 35

7.3 Southeastern New Mexico ............................................................................................ 35

7.3.1 Hobbs ................................................................................................................... . 35 7.3.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 35

7.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 35 7.3.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 35

7.3.2 Roswell ................................................................................................................. 36 7.3.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 36

7.3.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 36 7.3.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 36

7.4 Las Cruces ................................................................................................................ ..... 36

7.4.1 Las Cruces Office Roof ........................................................................................ 36 7.4.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 36

7.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 36 7.4.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 36

7.5 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................ ... 37 7.5.1 Sunland Park City Yard ........................................................................................ 37 7.5.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 37

7.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 37 7.5.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 37

7.6 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 37 7.6.1 Silver City ............................................................................................................. 37v 7.6.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 37

7.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 37 7.6.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 38 8.0 Monitoring Network Continuous PM 2.5 Sites ................................................................... 38 8.1 Design Requirements .................................................................................................... 38 8.1.1 Spatial Scale .......................................................................................................... 38

8.1.2 Setbacks ................................................................................................................ 38 9.0 Monitoring Network FRM PM 10 Sites .............................................................................. 38 9.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 38 9.1.1 Farmington Office ................................................................................................. 38 9.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 38

9.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 38 9.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 39 9.2 Santa Fe County ........................................................................................................... . 39 9.2.1 Runnels Building .................................................................................................. 39 9.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 39

9.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 39 9.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 39 9.3 Sandoval County ........................................................................................................... 39 9.3.1 Bernalillo City Hall ............................................................................................... 39 9.3.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 39

9.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 40 9.3.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 40

9.4 Southeastern New Mexico ............................................................................................ 40

9.4.1 Roswell ................................................................................................................. 40 9.4.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 40

9.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 40 9.4.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 40

9.4.2 Hobbs ................................................................................................................... . 41 9.4.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 41

9.4.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 41 9.4.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 41

9.5 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................ ... 41 9.5.1 Anthony................................................................................................................. 41 9.5.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 41

9.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 41 9.5.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 41

9.5.2 Sunland Park ......................................................................................................... 42 9.5.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 42

9.5.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 42 9.5.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 42

9.6 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 42 9.6.1 Deming .................................................................................................................. 42 9.6.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 42

9.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 42 9.6.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 42vi 9.6.2 Hurley .................................................................................................................. . 43 9.6.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 43

9.6.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 43 9.6.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 43 9.6.3 Silver City ............................................................................................................. 43 9.6.3.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 43

9.6.3.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 43 9.6.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 44 9.7 Taos County ............................................................................................................... ... 44

9.7.1 Taos Fire Station ................................................................................................... 44 9.7.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 44

9.7.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 44 9.7.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 44 10.0 Monitoring Network Continuous PM 10 Sites .................................................................... 44

10.1 Las Cruces ............................................................................................................... ...... 44

10.1.1 Holman Road ........................................................................................................ 44 10.1.1.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 45

10.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 45 10.1.1.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 45

10.1.2 West Mesa ............................................................................................................. 45 10.1.2.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 45

10.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 45 10.1.2.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 45

10.2 Paso del Norte ........................................................................................................... .... 46 10.2.1 Chaparral .............................................................................................................. . 46 10.2.1.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 46

10.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 46 10.2.1.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 46

10.2.2 Desert View .......................................................................................................... 4 6 10.2.2.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 46

10.2.2.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 46 10.2.2.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 46

10.2.3 Sunland Park ......................................................................................................... 4 7 10.2.3.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 47

10.2.3.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 47 10.2.3.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 47 10.2.4 Anthony................................................................................................................. 47 10.2.4.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 47

10.2.4.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 47 10.2.4.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 47

10.3 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 48 10.3.1 Deming ................................................................................................................. . 48 10.3.1.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 48

10.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 48 10.3.1.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 48 11.0 Monitoring Network Quality Assurance Checks .............................................................. 48vii 12.0 Monitoring Network’s New Monitoring Requirements ................................................... 48 12.1 Lead (Pb) ................................................................................................................ ....... 48 12.2 Nitrogen Dioxide ......................................................................................................... . 49

12.3 Sulfur Dioxide ........................................................................................................... .... 49

12.4 Ozone .................................................................................................................... ........ 49 13.0 Technology ............................................................................................................... ........ 50

13.1 Monitors ................................................................................................................. ....... 50

13.1.1 Ozone .................................................................................................................. .. 50 13.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide .................................................................................................. 50

13.1.3 Sulfur Dioxide ....................................................................................................... 5 0

13.1.4 PM 2.5 Continuous .................................................................................................. 50

13.1.5 PM 2.5 Non-Continuous .......................................................................................... 50

13.1.5 PM 10 Continuous ................................................................................................... 50

13.1.5 PM 10 Non-Continuous .......................................................................................... 50

13.2 Field Calibrators......................................................................................................... ... 51

13.3 Field Zero Air Sources .................................................................................................. 51

13.4 Ozone Transfer Standards ............................................................................................. 51

13.5 Airflow Transfer Standards ........................................................................................... 51

13.6 Gas Mixers ............................................................................................................... ..... 51 13.7 Analog Data Loggers .................................................................................................... 5 1 t HYPERLINK \l "_Toc265677688" 13.8Data Acquisition 13.9 Gas Cylinder Standards ................................................................................................. 5 2 13.10 Meteorological Equipment........................................................................................ 52 13.11 Sampling Manifolds .................................................................................................. 52 14.0 Cross-cutting Networ k Considerations ............................................................................. 52 14.1 Other Monitoring Program Participation ...................................................................... 52 14.1.1 National Atmospheric Deposition Progr am, National Trends Network ............... 52 14.1.2 National Atmospheric Deposition Progr am, Mercury Deposition Network ........ 52

14.1.3 EPA RadNet .......................................................................................................... 52

17.0 References ............................................................................................................... .......... 54

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of New Mexi co Monitoring Regions.......................................................................2 Figure 2. Map of San Juan County Monitoring Sites......................................................................3 Figure 3. Map of Taos County Monitoring Sites.............................................................................3 Figure 4. Map of Santa Fe County Monitoring Sites.......................................................................4 Figure 5. Map of Sandoval C ounty Monitoring Sites......................................................................4 Figure 6. Map of Valencia county Monitoring Sites.......................................................................5 Figure 7. Map of Southeastern New Mexico Monitoring Sites.......................................................5 Figure 8. Map of Las Cruces Monitoring Sites................................................................................6 Figure 9. Map of Paso del Norte Monitoring Sites..........................................................................6 Figure 10. Map of Southwestern Ne w Mexico Monitoring Sites....................................................7 Figure 11. NOAA HYSPLIT Trajectories for the Four Corners Area ..........................................15 Figure 12. NOAA HYSPLIT Trajectories for Southwestern New Mexico ...................................16viii Figure 13. State-wide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008 ..........................................................18 Figure 14. Nitrogen Dioxide Emi ssions Trend 2004 through 2008 ...............................................18 Figure 15. Sulfur Dioxide Emi ssions Trend 2004 through 2008 ...................................................19

Appendices

Available online at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/library.htm

Appendix 1. Network Elements File and Maps Appendix 2. Site History Appendix 3. Air Now Healthy Days County Comparisons Appendix 4. Air Now Healt hy Days County Histories Appendix 5. New Mexico MSA and CSA Data Appendix 6. New Mexico Micropolitan Areas Appendix 7. Wind Roses for Carlsbad, Navajo Lake, and Sunland Park Appendix 8. Wind Roses for Other New Mexico Sites Appendix 9. Pollution Roses Appendix 10. Transport Files Appendix 11. Emissions Inventory Files and Graphs Appendix 12. Ozone Design Valu es and Pollution Trends Appendix 13. Nitrogen Dioxide Design Values and Pollution Trends Appendix 14. Sulfur Dioxide Design Values and Pollution Trends Appendix 15. FRM PM 2.5 Design Values and Pollution Trends Appendix 16. FRM PM 10 Design Values and Pollution Trends Appendix 17. TEOM PM 10 Design Values and Pollution Trends Appendix 18. Annual QA Reports1 1.0 Purpose of 5-Year Assessment

The purpose of the 5-year assessment as per 40 CF R 58.10 is to “determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the monitoring objec tives defined in appendix D to this part, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no longer n eeded and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are appropriate fo r incorporation into the ambi ent air monitoring network. The network assessment must consider the ability of existing and proposed sites to support air quality characterization for areas with relatively high populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children with asthma), and, for any sites that ar e being proposed for discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the agency itself, such as nearby States and Tribes or health effects studies. For PM2.5, the assessment also must identify n eeded changes to population-oriented sites.”

“The network assessment should in clude (1) re-evalua tion of the objectives and budget for air monitoring, (2) evaluation of a ne twork’s effectiveness and effici ency relative to its objectives and costs, and (3) development of recomme ndations for network reconfigurations and improvements.” 1

The rationale for an assessment is that ambient air monitoring objectives have shifted over time because air quality has change d, populations and their behavi ors have changed, and new air quality objectives have been established.

2.0 Overview of NMED Air Quality Bureau Air Monitoring Network

The mission of the New Mexico Environment De partment’s (NMED) Air Quality Bureau (AQB) is to protect the inhabitants and natural beauty of New Mexico by preventing the deterioration of air quality. This includes strategi c planning to ensure that all ai r quality standards are met and maintained, issuing air quality Construction an d Operating Permits, and enforcing air quality regulations and permit conditions.

The Air Quality Bureau has authority over air quality in all New Mexi co except Bernalillo County, which includes Albuque rque, and Tribal Lands.

The NMED/AQB network is a State and Local Ai r Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) network. The purpose of the network is to support the Nationa l Ambient Air Quality St andards (NAAQS). It is designed to:

 determine highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network

 determine representative concentratio ns in areas of high population density

 determine the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source categories

 determine general background concentration levels.2 2.1 Network Regions

The NMED/AQB air monitoring network is compri sed of nine regions. These regions are:

 San Juan County

 Taos County

 Santa Fe County

 Sandoval County

 Valencia County

 Southeastern New Mexico

 Las Cruces

 Paso del Norte

 Southwestern New Mexico.

Each region has one or more m onitoring sites with continuous a nd/or non-continuous monitors. Depending on the site, parameters monitored are ozone, sulfur dioxid e, nitrogen dioxide, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 . The continuous monitoring sites also mon itor meteorological da ta. Pertinent site

information can be found in the “Network Elements ” file in Appendix 1. Maps of these areas and their respective sites are found in Appendix 1. The public can re trieve hourly data from the continuous sites at the following link: http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us

.

Figure 1 Map of New Mexico Monitoring Regions3 Figure 2 Map of San Juan County Monitoring Sites

Figure 3 Map of Taos County Monitoring Sites4 Figure 4 Map of Santa Fe County Monitoring Sites

Figure 5 Map of Sandoval County Monitoring Sites5 Figure 6 Map of Valencia County Monitoring Sites

Figure 7 Map of Southeastern New Mexico Monitoring Sites6 Figure 8 Map of Las Cruces Monitoring Sites

Figure 9 Map of Paso del Norte Monitoring Sites7 Figure 10 Map of Southwestern New Mexico Monitoring Sites

2.2 Network History

Some of the active sites in the network have been operational since 1974. Most of the sites that have been in operation the longest are PM sites. Exceptions are:

 Sulfur dioxide monitoring at Substation, which commenced in 1974 to determine the impact of the power plants in the area.

 Ozone monitoring at La Union, which commenced in 1979.

 Sulfur dioxide monitoring at Hurley, which commenced in 1997 to determine the impact of local copper smelter.

The history of the network’s ac tive sites is found in Appendix 2.

2.3 Air Quality Summary

2.3.1 NAAQS

The major NAAQS concerns for the network have been ozone and PM 10

.

Sunland Park was officially designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in a Federal Register announcement published June 12, 1995. The nonattainment area included the communities of Sunland Park, Santa Teresa, and La Union. Exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurred at both the Sunland Park City Yards and La Union monitoring sites.8 Due to the revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS for oz one in 2005, EPA required that all areas that were currently nonattainment fo r the 1-hour NAAQS, but in at tainment for the new 8-hour NAAQS for ozone, conduct an analysis to re -designate those nona ttainment areas to attainment/maintenance status. An attainment plan was submitted to EPA for the Sunland Park area in June 2007. NMED is still waiting fo r EPA approval of the attainment plan.

All other counties in New Mexico under NMED juri sdiction have been in attainment for ozone.

Anthony was designated “non-attainment” for PM 10 in 1991 due to high-wind exceedances, and

it is still in “non-attainment” due to low-wind exceedances in 2004. None of the other counties

in southern New Mexico are considered to be in “non-attainment”; however, the New Mexico Air Quality Bureau has recorded exceedances of PM 10 in Doña Ana and Luna County. In response to these recorded exceedances of the standard for PM 10 , Natural Events Action Plans (NEAP) for Doña Ana and Luna County have been prepared and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Although the sulfur dioxide NAAQS ha s not been a concern, Hurley’s sulfur dioxide monitor has

been “under maintenance” since 2003.

2.3.2 Air Quality Index and Health Issues

2.3.2.1 County-to-County Health Comparisons

The health of citizens in New Me xico is affected by the qual ity of the air, which can be interpreted using the Air Quality Index (AQI). Although Las Cruces is the only MSA in New Mexico under NMED jurisdiction that is listed in the U.S. EPA’s AirNow AQI website, there are county-to-county comparisons liste d on the site that can be used by the general public. These comparisons are used to show which criteria pollutants affect certain sub-groups of the population. The sub-groups and pol lutants affecting them are:

 Groups with asthma or lung disease: Ozone, PM, and Sulfur Dioxide

 Groups with heart disease: PM and Carbon Monoxide

 Children: Ozone and PM

 Older Adults: Ozone and PM

 Groups engaging in Outdoor Activiti es: Ozone and Sulfur Dioxide

The county-to-county comparisons fo r 2009 are shown in Appendix 3 for:

 Chaves County

 Dona Ana County

 Eddy County

 Grant County

 Lea County

 Luna County

 San Juan County

 Sandoval County

 Santa Fe County9 A 2000 to 2009 history for each county and its respective sub-groups is shown in Appendix 4.

2.3.2.2 Asthma and Heart Attack Issues

While New Mexico’s overall asthma rate is sim ilar to the national rate, there are significant regional, racial/ethnic, gender, and age group vari ations within the state, including a profound regional disparity.

Although the New Mexico 2004-2006 ag e-adjusted first-lis ted asthma hospitalization rate was 10.2 per 10,000 standard population, the asthma hospitalization ra te (21.0) in the southeast region of New Mexico was more than double the state rate. All other geographic regions had rates ranging from 7.7 to 9.2.

Among youth under age 15, Lea County had an asth ma hospitalization rate (118.2) which was more than five times higher than the state rate (21.7). 2 for this age group.

In addition to the monitored presence of asthma antagonists (ozone and PM) in southeastern New Mexico, there is a presence of hydrogen sulfide, which also seem s to affect certain population sub-groups.

The executive summary of a World Health Organizat ion report states: “Since the respiratory tract is the major target organ of hydrogen sulfide toxicity, humans with asthma, the elderly, and young children with compromised respiratory function represent se nsitive subpopulations.” 3

New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) has expressed concerns about the possible influence of hydrogen sulfide on asthma statisti cs. Although there is no NAAQS for hydrogen sulfide, the NMED/AQB standard for areas outside of municipalities in the Permian Basin is 0.100 ppm as a 1⁄2-hour average. Fo r municipalities, the standard is 0.030 ppm. Because there are no NAAQS for hydrogen sulfide, NMED / AQB does not conduct any monitoring for H 2 S at

this time.

The NMDOH’s Epidemiology Bureau analyzed hospita lizations for heart attack in the state. After incorporating hosp italizations among residents who were seen in Texas (data from Texas Department of State Health Services), the hi ghest rates were among counties in the southeast portion of New Mexico. For exam ple, the state age-ad justed rate in 2006 wa s 15 heart attack hospitalizations per 10,000 population. In compar ison, the rate for Eddy County in the same year was 24.6 heart attack hospitalizations per 10,000. Similarly, Lea County had a rate of 23 per 10,000. Increasingly, investigators both in the United States and abroad have shown significant relationships between air pollutants and increased risk for heart attack and other forms of coronary heart disease.

Models have demonstrated increases in heart attack hospitalization rates in relation to fine particles (PM 2.5 ), particularly in sensitive sub-populations such as the elderly, patients with preexisting heart disease, survivor s of heart attack, or those w ith chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).10 An increase of 10 ug PM 2.5 /m3 was associated with a 4.5% elev ation in risk of unstable angina (chest pain) and heart attack.

Mortality statistics have been linked for a 16-y ear period to chronic e xposure to multiple air pollutants in 500,000 adults who resided across all 50 states.

2.3.3 Air Quality and Environmental Justice

The EPA defines environmental justice as:

“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, educatio n, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmen tal laws, regulations, and policies. Fair Treatment means that no group of people, including ra cial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the ne gative environmental cons equences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commer cial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal environmental programs and policies. Mean ingful Involvement means that: (1) potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to pa rticipate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environm ent and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.” 4

In addressing the “fair treatment” aspect, NMED /AQB received a grant from the EPA to conduct a six-month study to investig ate the causes of low-wind PM 10 exceedances in the northern end of the Paso del Norte air shed surrounding Sunland Park, New Mexico, includi ng adjacent areas of Colonia Anapra, Mexico.

This area of perhaps greater than 10,000 populati on has very little infrastructure and very few paved roads. As a result, particulate matte r probably consisting of smoke from burning for cooking and heating and vehicle- generated dust is persistent.

As stated before, PM has an im pact on populations with asthma and heart disease, children, and

older adults.

NMED/AQB established a partnership with the Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Mexico's environmental ministry, and Ciudad Juarez Direccion de Normatividad Ambiental (DNA), the local regulato ry agency, to design, imp lement and operate a temporary particulate monitoring ne twork in the Colonia of Anapra , Mexico. After the study, six of the particulate monitors obtained with the grant f unds were given to DNA.

A report of the study was prepared by Desert Res earch Institute for NMED /AQB. Copies of the report may be obtained from Te rry Hertel at the New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1301 Siler Road, Building B, Santa Fe, NM 87507, email11 terry.hertel@state.nm.us, phone (505) 476-4316. The reports are posted at www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/library.htm.

2.4 Population Summary

This section addresses the breakdo wn of overall and Core-Based Statistical Areas in the state of

New Mexico.

There are two Combined Statisti cal Areas (CSAs), four Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), and 15 Micropolitan Statistical Areas ( μ SAs) in the State of New Mexico. 5

2.4.1 Metropolitan Statistical Areas

The four MSAs in New Mexico are Albuquerque , Farmington, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe. The

MSAs are defined as follows:

Albuquerque MSA Bernalillo County Sandoval County Torrance County Valencia County Farmington MSA San Juan County

Las Cruces MSA Doña Ana County

Santa Fe MSA Santa Fe County

The Albuquerque MSA has seen a population in crease of 17.58% from 2000 to 2009. In the Albuquerque MSA, NMED/AQB only has monitors in Sandoval and Valencia counties. The City of Albuquerque’s air monitoring program covers the rest of this MSA. The Farmington MSA has seen a populati on increase of 9.08% from 2000 to 2009. The Las Cruces MSA has seen a population increase of 18.17% from 2000 to 2009. The Santa Fe MSA has seen a population

increase of 14.11% from 2000 to 2009. The U. S. Census Bureau 2000-2009 population change data of these MSAs is shown in Appendix 5.

2.4.2 Combined Statistical Areas

The two CSAs in New Mexico are Clovis-Por tales and Santa Fe-Espanola. The CSAs are

defined as follows:

Clovis-Portales CSA Clovis Micropolitan Statistical Area Curry County12 Portales Micropolitan Statistical Area Roosevelt County

Santa Fe-Espanola CSA Santa Fe Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Fe County Espanola Micropolitan Statistical Area Rio Arriba County

The Clovis-Portales CSA has seen a populat ion increase of 0.26% from 2000 to 2009. The NMED/AQB does not operate any monitors in this CSA. The Santa Fe-Espanola CSA has seen a population increase of 10.40% from 2000 to 2009. The NMED/AQB does not operate any monitors in Rio Arriba County. The U. S. Ce nsus Bureau 2000-2009 population change data of these CSAs is also shown in Appendix 5.

2.4.3 Micropolitan Statistical Areas

The fifteen μ SAs in New Mexico are defined as follows:

Alamogordo μ SA *** Otero County

Carlsbad-Artesia μ SA Eddy County

Clovis μ SA *** Curry County

Deming μ SA Luna County

Espanola μ SA *** Rio Arriba County

Gallup μ SA *** McKinley County

Grants μ SA *** Cibola County

Hobbs μ SA Lea County

Las Vegas μ SA *** San Miguel County13 Los Alamos μ SA *** Los Alamos County

Portales μ SA *** Roosevelt County

Roswell μ SA Chaves County

Ruidoso μ SA *** Lincoln County

Silver City μ SA Grant County

Taos μ SA Taos County

*** The NMED/AQB does not operate any monitors in these μ SAs.

The U. S. Census Bureau 2000-2009 population change data of these μ SAs is shown in Appendix 6.

2.4.4 Anticipated Growth

The growth of these 2 Combined Statistical Ar eas (CSAs), 4 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), and 15 Micropolitan Statistical Areas ( μ SAs) is anticipated to maintain a similar trend over the next several years.

2.5 Meteorological Summary

2.5.1 Wind Roses

Wind roses were generated for monitoring site s in counties where th e NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen dioxide may pote ntially be an issue.

As a general rule, wind patterns (annual and seas onal) have remained similar for the sites over the three-year period of 2006 through 2008. Three site s were chosen to illustrate this fact. The

sites are:

 Sunland Park in Dona Ana County

 Navajo Lake in San Juan County

 Carlsbad in SE New Mexico

Plots of these wind patterns are shown in Appendix 7. Wind roses for the remaining sites in New Mexico are shown in Appendix 8.14 2.5.2 Pollution Roses

Pollution roses were generated for monitoring s ites in counties where the NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen dioxide may potentially be an issue. Pollution roses for thes e sites are shown in Appendix 9. The ozone and NO
x pollution roses for the Substation site seem to show an influence from the power plant that is loca ted immediately to the east of the site.

2.5.3 Upwind Transport

Transport of pollutants is becoming more of an issue. In many cases, it is evident that ozone transport from outside of the network takes place. Figure 1 shows this influence for the San Juan County ozone sites. The NOAA HYSPLIT model shows transport coming from south eastern

Arizona for the hours between 9 PM MDT 10/04/ 09 and 1 AM MDT 10/05/09. Figure 2 shows transport from Mexico affecting the Deming and Hurley sites on 01/22/10. Other transport examples are shown in Appendix 10.15 Bloomfield 10PM 10/04/09

Navajo Lake 1AM 10/05/09

Substation 9PM 10/04/09

Figure 11 NOAA HYSPLIT Trajector ies for Four Corners Area16 Deming Midnight MST 01/22/10

Hurley Midnight MST 01/22/10

Figure 12 NOAA HYSPLIT Back Trajecto ries for Southwestern New Mexico17 2.5.4 Downwind Transport

Just as the NMED/AQB network is affected by upwind transport from areas outside of the network, certain areas in the ne twork can have downwind impacts on other networks and states. Emissions from the power plants in San Juan Count y can impact the adjoining states in the Four

Corners area. Emissions from vehicle traf fic and particulate emissions from housing developments in Sandoval County can impact the city of Albuque rque and Bernalillo County. Particulates generated by the burning of pecan tree cuttings in Dona Ana County can impact the

Paso del Norte area in Texas and Mexico.

2.5.5 Forecasting

NMED/AQB does not have any assigned forecaster s, so upper air and stagnation data are not

used.

2.6 Uses of Network Data

Data collected by the NMED/AQB network has va rious end uses. Data is submitted to AQS,

which in turn determines whet her or not network site monito rs are in compliance with the NAAQS. AIRNow uses PM and ozone data to ge nerate Air Quality Index forecasts. The Four Corners Air Quality Group reviews air quality da ta to learn about current conditions which assists in reviewing progress on mitigation of air quality impacts. The New Mexico Department

of Health uses data to co nduct health outco me modeling.

3.0 Emissions Inventory Summary

NMED/AQB conducts point source emissions inve ntories for counties in New Mexico, including the following pollutants:

 Nitrogen Dioxide

 Sulfur Dioxide

 PM 10

 PM 2.5

The inventories evaluated are for the years 2004, 2006, and 2008. Figur e 3 shows the state-wide emissions trend for the three years. Over the past five years, nitrogen diox ide and sulfur dioxide emissions have decreased. As a result, backgr ound concentrations have also decreased. PM 10 emissions have remained fairly stable. PM 2.5 emissions for 2006 and 2008 were higher than those of 2004 because in 2004 the point sour ces had not calculated and reported PM 2.5 properly.18 Figure 13 State-wide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show emi ssions data for counties with the most significant nitrogen

dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions. Invent ory files and graphs are found in Appendix 11.

Figure 14 Nitrogen Dioxide Em issions Trend 2004 through 200819 Figure 15 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008

4.0 Monitoring Network Ozone Sites

NMED/AQB operates sixteen ozone monitors in eight regions. With the exception of Desert View, the 2006 to 2008 design values for all sites were below the NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.

4.1 San Juan County

4.1.1 San Juan Substation

4.1.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Substation was 0.071 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data is shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Substation ha s been at or below the NAAQS since 2001. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.1.3 Design Requirements

4.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.20 4.1.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.1.2 Bloomfield

4.1.2.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Bloomfield was 0.065 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Bloomfield has been at or below the NAAQS since 2003. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.2.3 Design Requirements

4.1.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.1.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.1.3 Navajo Lake

4.1.3.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Navajo Lake was 0.075 ppm, whic h was right at the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.3.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Navajo Lake has been at or below the NAAQS since 2008. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.3.3 Design Requirements

4.1.3.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.21 4.1.3.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.2 Santa Fe County

4.2.1 Santa Fe Airport

4.2.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design valu e for Santa Fe Airport was 0.064 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Santa Fe Airp ort has been at or below the NAAQS since 2007. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.2.1.3 Design Requirements

4.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.2.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.3 Sandoval County

4.3.1 Bernalillo

4.3.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Bernalillo was 0.061 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Bernalillo has b een at or below the NAAQS since 1990. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.3.1.3 Design Requirements

4.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale22 The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.3.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.4 Valencia County

4.4.1 Los Lunas

4.4.1.1 Design Values

There is no 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Lo s Lunas because the site was started in 2009.

4.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends

There is no pollution trend data for Los L unas because the site was started in 2009.

4.4.1.3 Design Requirements

4.4.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.4.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.5 Southeastern New Mexico

4.5.1 Carlsbad

4.5.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Carl sbad was 0.069 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Carlsbad has been at or below the NAAQS since 1997. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.23 4.5.1.3 Design Requirements

4.5.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.5.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.5.2 Hobbs

4.5.2.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Hobbs was 0.068 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.5.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Hobbs has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.5.2.3 Design Requirements

4.5.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.5.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.6 Las Cruces

4.6.1 Solano

4.6.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Sola no was 0.065 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends24 The pollutant trend for ozone at Solano has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.6.1.3 Design Requirements

4.6.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.6.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.7 Paso del Norte

4.7.1 Chaparral

4.7.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Chaparral was 0.069 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Chaparral has been at or below the NAAQS since 1991. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.1.3 Design Requirements

4.7.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.7.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.7.2 Desert View

4.7.2.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Desert View was 0.076 ppm, which was above the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.25 4.7.2.2 Pollutant Trends

With the exception of 2004, the pollutant trend for oz one at Desert View has been at or above the NAAQS since 1996. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.2.3 Design Requirements

4.7.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.7.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.7.3 La Union

4.7.3.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for La Union was 0.070 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.3.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at La Union has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.3.3 Design Requirements

4.7.3.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.7.3.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.7.4 Santa Teresa

4.7.4.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Santa Teresa was 0.072 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.26 4.7.4.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Santa Teresa has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.4.3 Design Requirements

4.7.4.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.7.4.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.7.5 Sunland Park

4.7.5.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Sunl and Park was 0.069 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.5.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Sunland Park has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.5.3 Design Requirements

4.7.5.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.7.5.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.8 Southwestern New Mexico

4.8.1 Deming Airport

4.8.1.1 Design Values27 The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Deming Airport was 0.058 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associat ed data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.8.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Deming Airpor t has been at or below the NAAQS since 2006. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.8.1.3 Design Requirements

4.8.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.8.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

4.8.2 Hurley

4.8.2.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Hurl ey was 0.064 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12.

4.8.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for ozone at Hurley ha s been at or below the NAAQS since 2005. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.8.2.3 Design Requirements

4.8.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

4.8.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

5.0 Monitoring Network Nitrogen Dioxide Sites28 NMED/AQB operates eight nitrogen dioxide mon itors in four regions. The 2007 to 2008 design

values for all sites were below the “highest annual average 1-hour concentration during the most recent two years” NAAQS of 0.053 ppm.

5.1 San Juan County

5.1.1 San Juan Substation

5.1.1.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Substation was 0.0104 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and asso ciated data are shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Su bstation has been well below the NAAQS since 1997. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.1.3 Design Requirements

5.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

5.1.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

5.1.2 Bloomfield

5.1.2.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Bloomfield was 0.0159 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and as sociated data are shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Bl oomfield has been well below the NAAQS since 1997. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.2.3 Design Requirements

5.1.2.3.1 Spatial Scale29 The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

5.1.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

5.1.3 Navajo Lake

5.1.3.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Navajo Lake was 0.0103 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and as sociated data are shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.3.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Na vajo Lake has been well below the NAAQS since 2006. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.3.3 Design Requirements

5.1.3.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

5.1.3.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

5.2 Southeastern New Mexico

5.2.1 Carlsbad

5.2.1.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Carlsbad was 0.0031 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and asso ciated data are shown in Appendix 13.

5.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Carlsbad has been well below the NAAQS since 1998. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.2.1.3 Design Requirements30 5.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

5.2.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

5.2.2 Hobbs

5.2.2.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design va lue high for Hobbs was 0.0065 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and asso ciated data are shown in Appendix 13.

5.2.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Hobbs has been well below the NAAQS since 2005. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.2.2.3 Design Requirements

5.2.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

5.2.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

5.3 Paso del Norte

5.3.1 Desert View

5.3.1.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Desert View was 0.0094 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and as sociated data are shown in Appendix 13.

5.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at De sert View has been well below the NAAQS since 1996. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.31 5.3.1.3 Design Requirements

5.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

5.3.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

5.3.2 Santa Teresa

5.3.2.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Santa Teresa was 0.0046 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and as sociated data are shown in Appendix 13.

5.3.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Sa nta Teresa has been we ll below the NAAQS since 1999. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.3.2.3 Design Requirements

5.3.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

5.3.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

5.4 Southwestern New Mexico

5.4.1 Deming Airport

5.4.1.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design valu e high for Deming Airport was 0.0054 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13.

5.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends32 The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Deming Airport has been well below the NAAQS since 2007. The pollutant trend pl ot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.4.1.3 Design Requirements

5.4.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

5.4.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

6.0 Monitoring Network Sulfur Dioxide Sites

NMED/AQB operates three sulfur dioxide monitors in two regions. The 2007 to 2008 annual design values for all sites were below th e annual NAAQS of 0.03 ppm and the 24-hour design values were below the 24-hour NAAQS of 0.14 ppm.

6.1 San Juan County

6.1.1 San Juan Substation

6.1.1.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide annual design va lue high for Substation was 0.002 ppm, which was below the annual NAAQS. The 2007 to 2008 su lfur dioxide 24-hour design value high for Substation was 0.0084 ppm, which was below th e 24-hour NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 14.

6.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for sulfur dioxide at S ubstation has been well be low the NAAQS since 1990. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 14.

6.1.1.3 Design Requirements

6.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

6.1.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.33 6.1.2 Bloomfield

6.1.2.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide annual design value high for Bloomfield was 0.001 ppm, which was below the annual NAAQS. The 2007 to 2008 su lfur dioxide 24-hour design value high for Substation was 0.0017 ppm, which was below th e 24-hour NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 14.

6.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for sulfur dioxide at Bl oomfield has been well below the NAAQS since 1996. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 14.

6.1.2.3 Design Requirements

6.1.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

6.1.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

6.2 Southwestern New Mexico

6.2.1 Hurley

6.2.1.1 Design Values

The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide annual design va lue high for Hurley was 0.001 ppm, which was below the annual NAAQS. The 2007 to 2008 su lfur dioxide 24-hour design value high for Substation was 0.0013 ppm, which was below th e 24-hour NAAQS. The design value and associated data is shown in Appendix 14.

6.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for sulfur dioxide at Hurley has been well below the NAAQS since 1998. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 14.

6.2.1.3 Design Requirements

6.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale34 The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

6.2.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

7.0 Monitoring Network Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM 2.5 Sites

NMED/AQB operates se ven Partisol FRM PM 2.5 monitors in six regions. The 2006 to 2008 design values for all sites were below th e NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter.

7.1 San Juan County

7.1.1 Farmington Office

7.1.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM 2.5 for the Farmington Office was 6.0 micrograms per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQ S. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 15.

7.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 2.5 for the Farmington Office has been well below the NAAQS since 2000. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.1.1.3 Design Requirements

7.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

7.1.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

7.2 Santa Fe County

7.2.1 Runnels Building Roof

7.2.1.1 Design Values35 The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM 2.5 for the Runnels Building was 4.8 micrograms per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQ S. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 15.

7.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 2.5 for the Runnels Building has been well below the NAAQS since 2000. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.2.1.3 Design Requirements

7.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

7.2.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

7.3 Southeastern New Mexico

7.3.1 Hobbs

7.3.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM 2.5 for Hobbs was 6.7 micrograms per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 15.

7.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 2.5 for Hobbs has been well below the NAAQS since 2005. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.3.1.3 Design Requirements

7.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

7.3.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.36 7.3.2 Roswell

7.3.2.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM 2.5 for Roswell was 6.4 micrograms per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The de sign value and associated data are shown in Appendix 15.

7.3.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 2.5 for Roswell has been well below the NAAQS since 2000. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.3.2.3 Design Requirements

7.3.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

7.3.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

7.4 Las Cruces

7.4.1 Las Cruces Office Roof

7.4.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM 2.5 for the Las Cruces Office was 6.3 micrograms per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQ S. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 15.

7.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 2.5 for the Las Cruces Office has been well below the NAAQS since 2001. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.4.1.3 Design Requirements

7.4.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.37 7.4.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

7.5 Paso del Norte

7.5.1 Sunland Park City Yard

7.5.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM 2.5 for Sunland Park was 10.5 micrograms per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 15.

7.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 2.5 for Sunland Park has been we ll below the NAAQS since 2000. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.5.1.3 Design Requirements

7.5.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

7.5.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

7.6 Southwestern New Mexico

7.6.1 Silver City

7.6.1.1 Design Values

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM 2.5 for Silver City was 5.4 micrograms per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The de sign value and associated data are shown in Appendix 15.

7.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 2.5 for Silver City has been well below the NAAQS since 2000. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.38 7.6.1.3 Design Requirements

7.6.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

7.6.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

8.0 Monitoring Network Continuous PM 2.5 Sites

NMED/AQB operates eleven continuous TEOM PM 2.5 monitors in six regions. No EPA design value data or pollution tr end data are available.

8.1 Design Requirements

8.1.1 Spatial Scale

All site locations are suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

8.1.2 Setbacks

The setbacks of these sites meet the re quirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.0 Monitoring Network FRM PM 10 Sites

NMED/AQB operates eleven Wedding FRM PM 10 monitors in seven regi ons. Two sites are colocated in Farmington.

9.1 San Juan County

9.1.1 Farmington Office

9.1.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for the Farmington Office met the NAAQS. Th e design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 16.

9.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends39 The pollutant trend for PM 10 for the Farmington Office has been well below the NAAQS since 1990. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.1.1.3 Design Requirements

9.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.1.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.2 Santa Fe County

9.2.1 Runnels Building

9.2.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for the Runnels Building met the NAAQS. The de sign value and associated data is shown in Appendix 16.

9.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for the Runnels Building has been well below the NAAQS since 1990. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.2.1.3 Design Requirements

9.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.2.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.3 Sandoval County

9.3.1 Bernalillo City Hall

9.3.1.1 Design Values40 Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for the Bernalillo City Hall met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data is shown in Appendix 16.

9.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for the Bernalillo City Hall has been well below the NAAQS since 1990. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.3.1.3 Design Requirements

9.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.3.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.4 Southeastern New Mexico

9.4.1 Roswell

9.4.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for the Roswell City Office met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 16.

9.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for the Roswell City Office has been well below the NAAQS since 1999. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.4.1.3 Design Requirements

9.4.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.4.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.41 9.4.2 Hobbs

9.4.2.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Hobbs met the NAAQS. The design value a nd associated data are shown in Appendix

16.

9.4.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for Hobbs has been well below the NAAQS since 1999. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.4.2.3 Design Requirements

9.4.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.4.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.5 Paso del Norte

9.5.1 Anthony

9.5.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Anthony did not meet the NAAQS. The desi gn value and associated data is shown in Appendix 16.

9.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM 10 for Anthony exceeded the NAAQS in 2003 and 2006. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.5.1.3 Design Requirements

9.5.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.42 9.5.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.5.2 Sunland Park

9.5.2.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Sunland Park did not meet the NAAQS. The design valu e and associated data are shown in Appendix 16.

9.5.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM 10 for Sunland Park exceeded the NAAQS in 2003. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.5.2.3 Design Requirements

9.5.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.5.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.6 Southwestern New Mexico

9.6.1 Deming

9.6.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Deming met the NAAQS. The design value a nd associated data are shown in Appendix

16.

9.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM 10 for Deming exceeded the NAAQS in 2003. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.6.1.3 Design Requirements

9.6.1.3.1 Spatial Scale43 The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.6.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.6.2 Hurley

9.6.2.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Hurley met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix

16.

9.6.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM 10 for Hurley has been we ll below the NAAQS. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.6.2.3 Design Requirements

9.6.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.6.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.6.3 Silver City

9.6.3.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Silver City met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 16.

9.6.3.2 Pollutant Trends

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM 10 for Silver City has been well below the NAAQS. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.44 9.6.2.3 Design Requirements

9.6.3.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.6.3.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

9.7 Taos County

9.7.1 Taos Fire Station

9.7.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for the Taos Fire Station met the NAAQS. Th e design value and associ ated data are shown in Appendix 16.

9.7.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM 10 for the Taos Fire Station was well below the NAAQS. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.7.1.3 Design Requirements

9.7.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

9.7.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

10.0 Monitoring Network Continuous PM 10 Sites

NMED/AQB operates seven continuous TEOM PM 10 monitors in three regions.

10.1 Las Cruces

10.1.1 Holman Road45 10.1.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Holman Road did not meet the NAAQS.

The design value and associated data is shown in Appendix 17.

10.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for Holman Road has been above the NAAQS since 1996, with the exception of 2005. The pollutant tren d plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.1.1.3 Design Requirements

10.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

10.1.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

10.1.2 West Mesa

10.1.2.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for West Mesa did not meet the NAAQS. The de sign value and associ ated data are shown in Appendix 17.

10.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for West Mesa exceeded the NAAQS in 2004 and 2008. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.1.2.3 Design Requirements

10.1.2.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

10.1.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.46 10.2 Paso del Norte

10.2.1 Chaparral

10.2.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Chaparral did not meet the NAAQS. The de sign value and associated data are shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for Chaparral has been above the NAAQS since 2005. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.1.3 Design Requirements

10.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

10.2.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

10.2.2 Desert View

10.2.2.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Desert View did not meet the NAAQS.

The design value and associated data is shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.2.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for Desert View exceeded the NAAQS in 2008. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.2.3 Design Requirements

10.2.2.3.1 Spatial Scale47 The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

10.2.2.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

10.2.3 Sunland Park

10.2.3.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Sunland Park did not meet the NAAQS. The design valu e and associated data are shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.3.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for Sunland Park exceeded the NAAQS in 1990 and 2003. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.3.3 Design Requirements

10.2.3.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

10.2.3.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

10.2.4 Anthony

10.2.4.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Anthony did not meet the NAAQS. The desi gn value and associated data are shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.4.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for Anthony exceeded the NAAQS in 2003 and 2006. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.4.3 Design Requirements48 10.2.4.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

10.2.4.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

10.3 Southwestern New Mexico

10.3.1 Deming

10.3.1.1 Design Values

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for

PM 10 for Deming did not meet the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 17.

10.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends

The pollutant trend for PM 10 for Deming exceeded the NAAQS in 2008. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.3.1.3 Design Requirements

10.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale

The site location is suitable to measure the appr opriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1.

10.3.1.3.2 Setbacks

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

11.0 Monitoring Network Quality Assurance Checks

All required quality assurance checks for the network are conduc ted routinely at the required schedules. The annual “255” reports for 2007, 2008, and 2009 can be found in Appendix 18.

12.0 Monitoring Network’s New Monitoring Requirements

12.1 Lead (Pb)

Two criteria have been set up for Pb monitoring:49  Source-oriented – for sources over 0.5 tons per year.

 “Non-source”-oriented in every urban area with a population of 500,000 or more.

Based on these criteria, no Pb m onitors are required in region s under NMED/AQB jurisdiction.

12.2 Nitrogen Dioxide

Two criteria have been set up for NO 2 monitoring:

 Near-road NO 2 monitoring; 1 micro-scale site would be required in CBSAs >= 350,000 at a location of expected highest hourly NO 2 concentrations sited near a major road with high AADT (Annual Average Da ily Traffic) counts.

 Community-wide; required in CBSAs >= 1 milli on at a location of expected highest NO2 concentrations representing neighborhood or larger (urban ) spatial scale.

Based on these criteria, no new NO 2 monitors are required in regions under NMED/AQB jurisdiction.

12.3 Sulfur Dioxide

Two criteria have been set up for SO 2 monitoring:

 Based on population per Core Based Sta tistical Area (CBSA) and amount of

SO 2 emissions within that CBSA (Popul ation Weighed Emissions Index)

 Based on individual state c ontribution to national SO 2 inventory (2005 NEI)

Based on the PWEI criteria, NMED/AQB doe s not need to deploy any new monitors.

Based on the 2005 NEI criteria, NMED/AQB would need one monitor. This requirement is already being met by the presen ce of the Substation site.

12.4 Ozone

Three criteria have been se t up for ozone monitoring:

 One monitor in a Micropolitan Statistical Area (10,000-<50,000).

Three sites already meet this cr iteria; Hobbs, Deming, and Carlsbad.

 One monitor in an area of high ozone concentr ation outside of curre ntly monitored MSAs and Micropolitan areas.

NMED/AQB is working with the US Forest Service to commission a site at the Coyote Ranger Station on the Santa Fe National Forest.50  1 monitor in an area set aside to conserve scenic value and the natural vegetation and

wildlife within such area.

The existing Navajo Lake site (close to Navajo Lake State Park) fulfills this requirement.

13.0 Technology

13.1 Monitors

13.1.1 Ozone

NMED/AQB operates Thermo Scien tific 49C and 49i monitors. Pl ans are in place to replace all

49C models with the newer 49i models.

13.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NMED/AQB operates Thermo Scientific 42C and 42i NO 2 monitors. Plans are in place to replace all 42C models with the newer 42i models.

13.1.3 Sulfur Dioxide

NMED/AQB operates two Thermo Scientific 43C and one 43A SO 2 monitors. Plans are in place to replace these models with the newer 43i models.

13.1.4 PM 2.5 Continuous

NMED/AQB utilizes R&P 1440 AB and AT TEOM models for PM 2.5 sampling. As resources become available, newer models will be purchased.

13.1.5 PM 2.5 Non-Continuous

NMED/AQB utilizes R&P 2025A Partisol models for PM 2.5 sampling. As resources become available, newer models will be purchased.

13.1.5 PM 10 Continuous

NMED/AQB utilizes R&P 1440 AB and AT TEOM models for PM 10 sampling. As resources become available, newer models will be purchased.

13.1.5 PM 10 Non-Continuous

NMED/AQB utilizes the Wedding PM 10 samplers. Impending changes in PM NAAQS will require the purchase of new PM 10 monitors.51 13.2 Field Calibrators

All NMED/AQB ozone, NO 2 , and SO 2 sites have Sabio model 4010 gas dilution calibrators, which are capable of gas dilution, ozone, and Gas Phase Titration calibrati on. These calibrators are prompted by the data acquisition software at each site to automatically perform 2-point calibrations on Thursdays and 3- point calibrations on Sundays.

13.3 Field Zero Air Sources

Each NMED/AQB ozone, NO 2 , and SO 2 site utilizes a Sabio model 1001 zero air source that operates in conjunction with the Sabio calibrator.

13.4 Ozone Transfer Standards

Operators and auditors in the network use dated Dasibi model 1008 and 1003 ozone transfer standards. Plans are underway to replace thes e old units with new transfer standards.

13.5 Airflow Transfer Standards

Operators and auditors in the network use BIOS ai rflow standards. Models include the DC2 base with high and low flow cells, the DC Lite and the BIOS Defender.

13.6 Gas Mixers

Operators and auditors in the network use fi ve dated CSI model 1700 and one dated Thermo Scientific model 146 gas mixers. As resources become available, newer models will be purchased.

13.7 Analog Data Loggers

All of the sites that have mete orological (Met) capability have dated Campbell Scientific analog data loggers to retrieve Met data. As resources become available, newer models will be purchased.

13.8 Data Acquisition

All of the continuous monitoring sites have DR Das data acqui sition systems. This system retrieves data from the ozone, nitrogen dioxi de, sulfur dioxide, and TEOM PM monitors via RS232 serial connections. Analog Met data is retr ieved and converted to digital form. The data from each site is polled hourly by a server in the Quality Assurance (QA) lab. This data can be accessed on the Bureau’s air monitoring website at: http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us

.

In addition to data collection, another system a llows personnel to remotely perform diagnostics on the site gaseous monitors via “iPort” Thermo Scientific software. RP Comm software by Thermo allows remote diagnostics on the TEOM monitors.52 13.9 Gas Cylinder Standards

Nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide EPA protocol standards are used at the respective sites for the bi-weekly auto-calibrations. QA auditors us e their own protocol standards for scheduled audits and precision checks. No trace-level or MDL standards are required in the network, therefore they are not used.

13.10 Meteorological Equipment

Anemometers and temperature probes are pu rchased from RM Young. Solar sensors are purchased from LiCor. Met audits are perfor med bi-annually to calibrate all sensors and to replace worn equipment and bearings.

13.11 Sampling Manifolds

All manifolds, both glass and Teflon, meet the “<20 second” criteria. All probes and inlets are at acceptable heights.

14.0 Cross-cutting Network Considerations

14.1 Other Monitoring Program Participation

14.1.1 National Atmospheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network

NMED/AQB funds one National Trends Network (NTN) sampling site at Capulin, New Mexico. The site is maintained by the National Park Serv ice. NMED/AQB funds and maintains a second

NTN site in the Gila Wilderness.

14.1.2 National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Mercury Deposition Network

NMED/AQB funds and maintains a Mercury De position Network (MDN) site at the Navajo Lake air monitoring site. The site is a wet-deposition site.

In addition to maintaining the MDN site, NMED/ AQB is participating in a passive reactive gaseous mercury sampling program. Sampling is being conducted at Navajo Lake, Substation, and the Farmington airport.

14.1.3 EPA RadNet

NMED/AQB maintains two RadNet si tes; one at the Carlsbad air monitoring site, and one at the Navajo Lake air monitoring site.53 15.0 Conclusions

Does the NMED network of SLAMS meet the six minimum objectives put forth in 40 CFR

Part 58? Yes.

1. The monitoring locations are appropriately si ted to determine highest concentrations expected to occur. See the Network Elements spreadsheet (Appendix 1),

2. The existing network includes monitors in th e areas of high populati on density: Santa, Fe Dona Ana County, and Sandoval County.

3. The monitors in the network are sited to de termine the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources and source categories, in particular, those in San Juan County, a region of concentrated energy development and generation.

4. The network includes sites that adequately measure genera l background concentrations, including sites in San Juan County, Artesia and Carlsbad.

5. The current network is capturi ng data that enables NMED to determine the extent of regional pollutant tran sport among populated areas. The Na vajo Lake site serves this purpose for transport between San Juan Count New Mexico and Southwestern Colorado.

6. Data gathered from the current network of monitoring sites can be used to determine welfare-related impacts in rural and remote areas. Data from the network is being used by citizen groups in both the Four Corners region and the Border Region of New

Mexico/US and Mexico.

Are new sites needed? - One new site is required to meet the federal rules for rural monitoring and that is the new proposed ozone site at the US Forest Service’s Coyote Ranger Station in Rio Arriba County. NMED is in the process of relo cating the Rio Rancho site in Sandoval County to a location that meets federal siting criteria. No other new monitoring s ites are required by the new EPA rules. Above and beyond meeting mini mum requirements, to increase its knowledge and understanding, NMED would like to add additional sites, both temporary and long-term, as recommended in the following section of this assessment.

Can any sites be terminated? No. All of the data is being used at this time. NMED plans to keep all of it activ e sites operational.

Are new technologies appropriate fo r incorporation into the network? NMED’s monitoring sites use aging equipment. The e ffort required to repair and adju st this equipment in order to maintain compliance with federal requirements for continuous data capture is steadily increasing.

The assessment has resulted in th e following additional conclusions:

 With the exception of Sunland Park’s nonattain ment status for ozone, all network ozone monitors meet the NAAQS. All work monitors m eet the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide. With the exception of Anthony’s nonatt ainment designation for PM10, all network monitors meet the NAAQS. All network monitors meet th e NAAQS for PM2.5. All network monitors meet the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide.54  Network design requirements comply with Ap pendix E of 40 CFR 58 in terms of setbacks and spatial scale.

 Some counties in southeastern New Mexico show higher incident rates for asthma and heart

attacks than other count ies in the state. Mon itoring for PM2.5 and H 2 S in that region could help the NMDOH in its analys is of this situation.

 Ozone transport is becoming more of an issue in the Four Corners Region and the US

Mexico border.

 Point-source emissions have declined overall since 2006.

16.0 Recommendations

To improve its understanding of air quality issu es in New Mexico, the NMED recommends the following projects, with the unders tanding that all of th em will require additional resources to implement. The NMED has collabo rated with other agencies on ai r monitoring and data analysis projects, including the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Bur eau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. It will continue to seek partners for these projects.

 Conduct a one-year study of the impact of hyd rogen sulfide on air qual ity in southeastern

New Mexico.

 Conduct further research and an alysis of the Paso del Nort e air shed regarding ozone.

 Increase monitoring of PM in the Las Cruces area and the northern and southern areas of the Mesilla Valley, (Don Ana Cuonty) where open burn ing is part of agricultural practices.

 Expand ozone monitoring in northwestern New Me xico, where historically there have been

elevated levels of ozone.

 Increase PM 2.5 monitoring to assess the impact of agricultural development, particularly confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in eastern New Mexico.

 Update the equipment of the permanent monitoring stations and the equipment used by the Quality Assurance auditors.

17.0 References

1. Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment Guidance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC EPA-454/D-07- 001, February 2007, Raffuse et al.

2. Brad Whorton, Ph.D. NMDOH. The Burden of Asthma in New Mexico April 2009. Page 7.55 3. World Health Organization. Concise Intern ational Chemical Assessment Document 53. Hydrogen Sulfide: Human Health Aspects. Dr C.-H. Selene J. Chou.

4. EPA’s Environmental Justice Link: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/en vironmentaljustice/index.html

5. "Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Populati on for Counties of New Mexico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009" (CSV). 2009 Population Es timates. United States Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010-03-23. http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/COEST2009-01-35.csv . Retrieved 2010-03-28.