UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

# ma1m9 Ted Schade Air Pollution Control Officer Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 157 Short Street Bishop, California 93514 Dear Mr. Schade: Thank you for submitting the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District's 2009 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. We have reviewed the submitted document and have found that it meets the minimum requirements set forth under 40 CFRPart 58.10. The comments enclosed with this letter identify several areas inthe Plan where additional information is requested in order to complete the document and fully satisfy the requirements of40 CFR Part 58.10. Ratherthan attempt to resolve these data gaps inthis document, we request that GBUAPCD address the enclosed comments in next year's annual network plan which is due on July 1,201 0. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free to c,ontactme at (415) 947-4226 or Michael Flagg at (41 5) 972-3372.

-, ~iic"eG~~,

a /

/ 

### __- ---

, ' 

### - Actingpanager Air Quality Analysis Office

cc: Christopher Lanane Michael Flagg

Pn'nred on Recycled PaperEPA Comments on the 

### 2009Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan
40 CFR 58.10(a)(l) states that monitors must meet Appendix A, C, D, and 

### E. The following information from these appendices should be included in the plan. Appendix A: Frequency of flowrate verification for manual PM samplers audit (App A, 3.3.2) Frequency of flowrate verification for automated PM analyzers audit (App A, 3.2.3) Last two semi-annual flowrate audits for PM monitors (App A, 3.2.4 and 3.3.3) PEP audit dates Appendix D: To ensurenetwork meets minimum monitoring requirements, the MSA population, and design value should be included foreach pollutant. Appendix E: For each site: o Distance from nearest road o Traffic count ofnearest road o Surrounding groundcover (e.g.paved, vegetated, etc.) For each rnonitor: o Probe height o Distance from structure o Distance from obstructions onroof o Distance from obstruction not on roof o Distance from trees o Distance to furnace or flue o Distance between collocated monitors o Unrestricted airflow in degrees 40 CFR 58.10 (b) Location ofeach site: street address and geographic coordinates Identification of sites suitable and sitesnot suitable for comparison to the annual PM2.5NAAQS as described in 40 CFR 58.30 The "Detailed SiteInformation" table shownbelow is an example of how site information can be organized to ensure that each site and monitor meet the necessary regulatory requirements.

## Detailed Site Information

Location 

## Address

County Dist. to road Traffic count 

## I Area meters # Groundcover Representative

supporting structure Distance from meters meters obstructions on 

# ~ Paved, vegetated, etc. List MSA orCSA (indicate which)

roof Distance from obstructions not on roof Distance from meters meters

meters trees Distanceto furnace or incinerator flue Distance between collocated monitors Unrestricted meters

airflow Probe material Residence time Will there be changes within the next 18months? Is it suitable for comparison against the annual PM2.5? Frequency of flow NIA NIA degrees meters meters degrees ~g., Teflon X seconds YM
N/A
NIA NIA NlA YM
Yes for all current sites in Region 9. weekly, bi-weekly,monthly, quarterly (high vol) weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly (high vol)? NIA
NIA

dates rate verification for manual PM samplers audit Frequency of flow rate verification for automated PM analyzers audit Frequency ofonepoint QC check (gaseous) Last Annual Performance Evaluation (gaseous) Last two semiannual flow rate audits for PM monitors NIA
daily, weekly,biweekly? date

NIA