# UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX



# 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco

, CA 94105·3901 

# DEC 1 1 2013

Mr. Phil Wiker, Engineering Manager

C lark County Department of Air Quality

4 70 I West Russell Road

, Suite 200

Las Vegas, Nevada 89118

Dear Mr. Wiker:

Thank you for your submission of the Clark County Department of Air Quality (DAQ 's) 2013

Annual Network Plan Report in June 2013. We have reviewed the submitted document based o n
the requirements set forth under 40 CFR 58. Based on the information provided in the plan, EPA

ap prove s all portions of the network plan except those specifically identified below.

Please note that we cannot approve portions of the annual network plan for which th e information in the plan is insufficient to judge whether the requirement has been met

, or for

which the information, as described, does not meet the requirements as specified in 40 CFR

58.1 0 and the associated appendices. EPA Region 9 also cannot approve portions of the plan for

which the EPA Administrator ha s not delegated approval authority to the regional offices. Accordingly, the first enclosure 

# (A. Annual Monitoring Network Plan It ems where EPA i s Not Taking Action) provides a listing of s p ecific items of your agency's annual monitoring network plan where EPA is not taking action. The seco nd enclosure 

# (B. Additional It e ms R eq uiring

A ll ention) is a listin g of additional items in the plan that EPA wishes to bring to your agency's

attention.

The third enclosure (C. 

# Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist) is the checklist EPA used to

review your plan for overall items that are required to be included in th e annual network plan along with our assessment of whether the plan submitted by your agency addresses those requirements. The fourth enclosure 

# (D. Region 9 Near-road N0 2 

# Plan Review C h ec klist) is the

checklist EPA u sed to review thos e e l e ments of your annual monitorin g network plan th at deal specifically with ne ar-road N0 2 

# monitoring.

The first two enclosures highlight a s ubs et of th e more extensive l ist of it ems r eviewed in the

third a nd fourth enclos ur es. All comments conveyed via this letter (and enclosures) should be

ad dr essed (t hrou gh corrections within the plan, additional information being included

, or
discus s i on) in next year's annual monitorin g n etwork plan.

P rin u d o n H t r:y cltd PapaIf you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed comments , please feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4534 or Elfego Felix at (415) 947-4141. Enclosures:

Sincerely ,**111_~~**

- Meredith Kurpius,**Man:ge ~**  Air Quality Analysis Office A. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items where EPA is Not Taking Action B. Additional Items Requiring Attention C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist D. Region 9 Near-road N0 2 Plan Review Check list cc: YousafHameed, DAQ Lewis Wallenmeyer, DAQ

# A. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items where EPA is Not Taking Action

We are not acting on the portions of annual network plans where either EPA Region 9 lacks the authority to approve specific items of the plan

, or EPA has determined that a requirement is

either not met or information in the plan is insufficient to judge whether the requirement has

been met.

• Per 40 CFR 58.11 (c)

, NCore is subject to approval of the EPA Administrator

. Therefore,

we are not acting on these items

.

• System modifications (e

. g ., site closures or moves) are subject to approval per 40 CFR 58.14(c). Information provided in the plan was insufficient for EPA to approve the follow
system modifications listed in the plan per the applicable requirement:

- Green Valley site (page 44)

- Additional site closures (page 44)

Therefore

, we are not taking action on these items as part of this year's annual network plan review

.

• P l ans for establishing near

- road N0 2 

# monitoring are required for submittal as part of the
Annual Monitoring Network Plan per 40 CFR 58.10(a)(5)

. Information provi d ed was insufficient for EPA to approve the proposed plan for establishing a near-road N02

monitor in the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV CBSA per the applicable requirements.

Therefore

, we are not acting on this portion of the Annual Monitoring Network P l an

. See

Enclosure D 

# (D

. Region 9 Near-road N0 2 

# Plan Review Checklist) for more information.

• EPA identified items in your agency's annual monitoring network plan where a requirement was not being met or information in the plan was insufficient to judge

whether the requirement was being met based on 40 CFR 58.10 and the associated appendices. Therefore, we are not acting on the following items :

Item Checklist Row Issue

Modifications to SLAMS 4 Insufficient to judge

network

N02 plan for near-road sites 11 Insufficient to judge
submitted by 7/1/2013

Distance from trees 80 Not meeting requirement in multiple

instances

. Dates of last two semi-annual 

# 36 Not meeting requirement
flow rate audits for Pb

monitors

Start dates for SPMs 25,45 Insufficient to judge in multiple instances

Precision/ Accuracy reports 28 Insufficient to judge
submitted to AQS

Annual data certification 29 Insufficient to judgesubmitted Date of last Annual 34 Insufficient to judge Performance Evaluation (gaseous) Distance of site from nearest 73 Insufficient to judge in one instance road Distance from obstructions not 79 Insufficient to judge in one instance

on roof Unrestricted airflow 82 Insufficient to judge in one instance Site type 48 Incorrect in one instance Additional information for each of these items may be found for the row listed in column 2, in the third enclosure (C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist).

# B. Additional Items Requiring Attention

• [Item 6] In 

# future network plans, please include copies of EPA approval l etters for system

modifications that were approved subsequent to approval of the previous year's network
plan

.

• [Items 15, 43] On page 13

, J.D

. Smith lists for PM2

. s: instrument model Thermo 5014i

, method code EQPM-0609-183 and lists "Other" instead ofFRM!FEM. On page 5

, since

this monitor is being treated as FEM for PM 2

. 5 

# collocation purposes, characterization as

"other" (rather than "FEM") implies that this is a typo. This should be corrected in future

network plans.

• [Items 17

, 48] On page 8, the 

# 03 monitor at Boulder City has site type as population

exposure and regional transport, with spatial scale of neighborhood. Please provide

clarification for the appropriateness of neighborhood spatial scale for

**re~onal** 

# transport.

• [Item 25] Information was provided that clarified why data from the Spring Mountain

Youth Camp (SMYC) SPM was not eligible for comparison to the NAAQS. EPA is

aware that DAQ has applied to participate in EPA's Ozone Advance program. In 

# view

that the high elevation SMYC SPM site has recorded elevated 

# 0 3 

# readings

, EPA

recomm e nds that DAQ evaluate in the 2015 Network Assessment, the appropriateness of



# 03 monitoring at high elevations. In 

# the assessment, it is recommended that DAQ

evaluate the potential effects of ozone transport and stratospheric intrusion on high

e l evation areas of Clark County.

• [Item 37] The ANP (pg. 5) proposes: a) replacing monitors using method code RFPS0598-120 with monitors using method code R.FPS-0498-118; b) mov e m ent of the current primary FRM monitor at Sunrise Acres to Jerome Mack for collocation with an FRM of

the same method code; and c) naming of the remaining FRM at Sunrise Acres as the a udit

monitor collocated with the primary PM 2

. 5 

# FEM. EPA notes that these proposed changes

would enable the network configuration to meet collocation requirements.

### C. ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN CHECKLIST

(Updated 11 /2 6 /2 0 13)

Year: 2013 Agency: Clark County Department of Air Quality ( DAQ)

40 CFR 58 .1 O(a) ( 1) requires that each Annual Network Plan { ANP) include information regarding the following types of monitors: SLAMS

monitoring stations including FRM

, FEM, and ARM moni t ors that are part of SLAMS

, NCore stations, STN stations, State speciation stations

, SPM

stations, and/or, in serious

, severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and SPM monitoring stations.

40 CFR 58

. 1 O(a)( 

### I) further directs that, "The plan shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that sit in g and operation of

each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E o f this part

, where applicable." On this basis, review of the ANPs is based on the

requirements listed in 58

. 10 along with those in Appendices A, C, D, and E.

EPA Region 9 will not take action to approve or disapprove any item for which Part 58 grants approval authority to the Administrator rather than the

Regional Administrators, but we will do a check to see if the required information is included and correct. The items requiring approval by the

Administrator are: PAMS, NCore, and Specia ti on (STN/CSN).

Please note that this checklist summarizes many of the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58

, but does not substitute for those requirements, nor do its

contents provide a binding determination of compliance with those requirements. The checklist is subject to revision in the future and we welcome

comments on its contents and structure.

Key: White= meets the requirement.

Yellow= requirement is not met, or information is insufficient to make a determination

. Action requested in next year's plan or outside the ANP

process . (items listed in Enclosure A)

**-·--..** 

### , =item requires attention in order to improve next year's plan (items l i sted in Enclosure B)ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?1IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3Flagifmeetthereq?4incorrect2?I.SubmitplanbyJuly I5158.10(a)(I)YesYesPlanreceived201306102.Statementofpurposeforeachmonitor58.10(a)(1)Yes,pgs6,8,10,Yes12,15,17,21,23,25, 27,29,32,34,3.30-daypubliccommentIinspectionperiod'58.1.0(a)(l),Yes,coverletterYesNocommentsreceived58.10(a)(2)4.ModificationstoSLAMSnetwork-casewhenweare58.10(a)(2)Incomplete,pg44-InsufficienttoInsufficientinformationprovidedtonotapprovingactualsystemmodifications(i.e.,wecan58.10(e)45Judgereview/approvesystemmodificationsidentifiedindoitoutsidetheANPprocess6)Tables13&14,pg.44andnear-roadsiteproposalonpg.45.EPAappreciatesbeinginformedofthechangetoJeromeMack'ssitetypefromhighconcentrationtopopulationexposure,andthedeploymentoftheApexSonicDetectionandRanginginstruments.5.ModificationstoSLAMSnetwork-casewhenweare58.10(a)(2)Incomplete,pg.44InsufficienttoSeeRow4comment.approvingactualsystemmodificationsper58.14(c)58.10(b)(5)judge58.10(e)58.14(c)6.Doesplanincludedocumentation(e.g.,attachedIncomplete,pg.44InsufficienttoCopiesofEPAapprovallettersshouiEtbeindudedapprovalletter)forsystemmodificationsthathavejudgeinfutureANPs.beenapprovedsincelastANPapproval?---7.NCoresiteoperational(byIII120II)58.10(a)(3)Yes,pg18Yes8.Pbsitefor0.5-1.0tpysourcesoperational(by58.10(a)(4)NANA12/2712011)9.N02planforarea-wideandRA40sitessubmittedby58.10(a)(5)YesYesArea-wideandRA40 sitesinplaceand operating.7/1/201210.N02area-wideandRA4Qoperationalby1.11/201358.10(a)(5)YesYes---1Responseoptions:NA(NotApplicable),Yes,No,Incomplete,incorrect.Theresponses"Incomplete"and"Incorrect"assumethatsomeinformationhasbeenprovided.2Tothebestofourknowledge.3Assumingtbeinformationiscorrect4Responseoptions:NA(NotApplicable)-[reason],Yes,No,InsufficienttoJudge.5Theaffectedstateor localagencymustdocumenttheprocessforobtainingpubliccomment andincludeanycommentsreceivedthroughthepublicnotificationprocesswithintheirsubmittedplan.6See58.14(c)2I!

# ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 s ubmitted? 1 

# If 

# information

CFR58 y es, page #s. provided 3



# Flag if meet the req? 4



# incorrecr?

Pg . 

# 13,22

, 30

II. N0

2 

# plan for near-road s ite s s ubmitt ed by 7 I I 

# / 20 13 58.10 (a){5) I ncomplete, pg . 45 I nsufficien t to Se e attached ne a r-road p l an checklist (e nclosu re

judge

D)

.



# 12 . 

# so 2

s i tes op e rational (by 1 / 1 / 2013) 58

. 10 ( a )( 6 ) N A N A

and 58.13( d)

13. AQS s ite identification number for each site 58.10 ( b) (l ) Y es Yes

14. Lo ca tion of each site : stree t address and geographic 58.10 ( b )(2) Yes Yes

coordinates

IS. 

# Sampling and 

# analysis method(s) for each measUred 58.10 (b)(3) 

# Yes - 

# -- 

# Yes On page 13, J.D. Smith 

# lists for PM 25 : 

# Instrument I



# parameter model Thermo 50141, method code EQPM-D609-

183 and lists "Other" Instead of FRM/FEM. On

page 5, since this monitor Is being treated as FEM

I 

# for PM:z.s collocation purposes, characterization as

"other"

(rather than "FEM") Implies that this Is a

typo.

This shou l d be corrected In 

# future network

plans. On page 18, Jerome Mack lists far PM 10 : 

# method

designation EQPM-0308-170 far Instrument Met

One BAM1020

. For PM10 method designation

EQPM-0798-122 applies to Met One BAM1020

.

This

should be corrected In future network plans

.

16

. Any proposals to remo v e or move a monitoring station 5 8. 10 ( b ) (5 ) Yes, pgs. 11, 

# 16, Yes Page 11- An t icipated equipment rep l acemen t

within a period of 18 mon t h s following plan s ubmittal and 44 (PM

2 • 5 

# F EM) at Green Valley- updated monitor

information should be i ncluded in futu r e ANPs

after rep l acemen t occurs .

Page 

# 16

- Anticipated equ i pment r eplaceme n t

(PM 2 • 5 

# FEM) at Jean- upda t ed monitor

info r mat i on should be included in future ANPs

a ft er replacement occurs .

Page 44- i nsu ffi cient info r mation to approve

proposed system modifica ti ons and

' 

# d i scont i nuat i ons li sted o n t h is page .

L__



# 17. Scale of representativeness for each monitor as defmed 58.10(b)(6); 

# Yes Yes 0 3 

# monitor at Boulder Oty has site type as 

# 3

### ANP requirement

Citation

Was
the info

Does

the

Notes within

40 submitted?

1 

### If information CFR58

yes, page

#s. provided

3

I 

### Flag

if

meet

the req?

4 

### incorrecf? in 

### Appendix

D

AppD

population exposure

and regional transport,

with spatial scale

of neighborhood. Clarification

Is needed

for the appropriateness

of neighborhood spatial scale

for regional transport. PMu (FRM),

QA 

### monitor

at Sunrise Acres

Is listed

1 

### as quality assurance

for site type and

i 

### neighborhood

for spatial scale.

QA



### Is not

an appropriate

site type. This should

be corrected

In -



### future ANPs.

-- 

### 18. Identification

of sites suitable

and sites
not suitable

for 58.10 (b)(7)

Yes

Yes comparison

to the ann ual PM

2 .s 

### NAAQS

as described in Part 58.30 19. MSA, CBSA,
CSA

or other area represented

by the 58.10(b)(8)

Yes

Yes monitor 20. Designation

of any

Pb monitors

as either source-

58.10 (b)(9)

Yes

Yes oriented

or non-source-oriented 21. Any source-oriented

Pb site for which

a waiver

has

58.10 (b)(IO)

NA

NA been granted

by EPA
RA 22. Any

Pb monitor

for which

a waiver

has been requested

58

. LO(b)(

11

)

NA

NA or granted

by EPA

RA for use ofPb-PM10

in lieu

of Pb-TSP 23.

Ide nti ficatio

n of required

N0

2 

### monitors

as either near-
58.10 (b)(l2)

Yes,
pg.

3



### Yes road

or area-wide 24. Identification

of any PM

2

. 5 

### FEMs and/or ARMs

not

58

.1 0 (b)(l3)

NA

NA

All PM2.5

FEM instruments

list

a monitoring eligible

to be compared

to the NAAQS

(Note

1: must 58.ll(e)

objective ofNAAQS comparison. include required

data assessment.)

(Note

2: Required SLAMS

must monitor

PM

2 .s 

### with NAAQS-comparable monitor

at the required

samp

le frequency.) 25.
For SPMs listed

as non-regulatory,

note

the start Date 58.20(c)

Yes,

p. 45

- 48 Insufficient

to

Start dates

for 03 

### SPMs Arden Peak, Frenchman ofFRMIFEMIARM

at SPM.

If
> 24 months,

and

judge

for Arden Mountain,

and Laughlin

were

not provided. monitor

is eligible

for comparison

to the NAAQS

per

Peak, Frenchman

In your next year's network

plan, please

clar

i fy 58.11

(e) and 58.30,

the agency
must supply

Mountain

, and whether

the SPMs

at the Arden Peak, Frenchman information

that App

A,

C or

E requirements

were

not

Laughlin

Mountain,

and Laughlin

sites
are FRM

, FEM

or met.

ARM

, along with start date

s

. Note that

if

it
is an FRM, FEM

or ARM,

and

i t operates greater

than

24

, 

### 4ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?1IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3Flagifmeetthereq?4incorrect2?months,thedataareconsideredregulatory.InformationwasprovidedthatclarifiedwhydatafromtheSpringMountainYouthCamp{SMYC)SPMwasnoteligibleforcomparisontotheNAAQS.EPAisawarethatDAQhasappliedtoparticipateinEPA'sOzoneAdvanceprogram.InviewthatthehighelevationSMYCSPMsitehasrecordedelevated03readings,EPArecommendsthatDAQevaluateinthe2015NetworkIAssessment,theappropriatenessof03monitoringIathighelevations.Intheassessment,itisrecommendedthatDAQevaluatethepotentialIeffectsofozonetransportandstratosphericintrusiononhighelevationareasofClarkCounty.26.Documenthowstatesandlocalagenciesprovidefor58.10(c)YesYesthereviewofchangestoaPM2_5monitoringnetworkthatimoactthelocationofaviolatingPM2_5monitor.27.Doestheplanincludearequestforapprovalforand58.11(a)(2)YesYesNoalternativetoappendixArequirementsforSPMsoperatingaFRMIFEMIARMwhichalsomeetsappendixE?28.Precision/AccuracyreportssubmittedtoAQS58.16(a);IncompleteInsufficienttoEPAisawareofDAQ'ssubmittalofthisAppA,1.3judgerequirementintoAQSfor2012.Pleaseincludeaand5.1.1statementinfutureplansthatclarifieswhetherreportshavebeensubmittedtoAQS.Pleasereferencethedate(oranticipateddate)ofsubmittal.29.Annualdatacertificationsubmitted58.15IncompleteInsufficienttoEPAisawareofDAQ'ssubmittalofthisApp.A1.3judgerequirementintoAQSfor2012.Pleaseincludeastatementinfutureplansthatclarifieswhethertheannualdatacertificationhasbeensubmitted.Pleasereferencethedate(oranticipateddate)ofsubmittal.30.FrequencyofflowrateverificationformanualPMAppA3.3.2YesYessamplersauditPgs16, 19,305ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?1IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3Flagifmeetthereq?4incorrect2?31.FrequencyofflowrateverificationforautomatedPMAppA 3.2.3YesYesanalyzersauditPgs8,11,13,16,19,22,26, 28,30,32.Frequencyofone-pointflowrateverificationforPbAppA3.3.4.1YesYessamplersaudit33.Frequencyofone-pointQCcheck(gaseous)App.A3.2.1YesYes34.DateoflastAnnualPerformanceEvaluation(gaseous)App.A3.2.2YesInsufficienttoSunriseAcres-missingevaIforNOxjudge35.Datesoflasttwosemi-annualflowrateauditsforPMAppA,3.2.4YesYesmonitorsand3.3.336.Datesoflasttwosemi-annualflowrateauditsforPbAppA3.3.4.1YesNoSemi-annualflowauditforPbmonitoratJeromemonitorsMackwerethreemonthsapartratherthansixmonths.Semi-annualflowauditsshouldbeconducted5-7monthsapart.37.PMucollocationAppA3.2.5YesYesTheANP(pg.5)pro.poses:a)replacingmonitorsusingmethodcodeRFP5-0598-120withmonitorsusingmethodcodeRFP5-0498-118;b)movementofthecurrentprimaryFRMmonitoratSunriseAcrestoJeromeMackforcollocationwithanFRMofthesamemethodcode:andc)namingoftheremainingFRMatSunriseAcresastheauditmonitorcollocatedwiththeprimaryPM2.5FEM.EPAnotesthattheseproposedchangeswouldenablethenetworkconfigurationtomeetcollocationrequirements.38.DesignationofaprimarymonitorifthereismorethanNeedtoYes,pg.5Yesonemonitorforapollutantatasite.determinecollocation39.Distancebetweencollocatedmonitors(Note:waiverApp.AYesYesJ.D.SmithonlyhasonePM2.smonitor(FEM},yetarequestorthedateofpreviouswaiverapprovalmust3.2.5.6anddistanceof2.6islistedforthedistancebetweenbeincludedifthedistancedeviatesfromrequirement.)3.2.6.3collocatedmonitors.Thisshouldbecorrectedinnextyear'sANP.40.ManualPM10methodcollocationmet? (note:AppA3.3.1NANAcontinuousPM10doesnothavethisrequirement)41.PbcollocationAppA3.3.4.3NANA42.PM10•25collocation(note:onlyappliestoFresnoandAppA3.3.6NANA6

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1 

### If information

CFR58 yes, page #s. provided 3



### Flag if meet the req? 4



### incorrect 2 

### ?

P h o enix NCore sites)

43. Instrument/monitoring method 

### code for each monitor: App C 2.4.1.2 Yes Insufficient 

### to J

. D. Smith 

### lists for PM 25 Thermo 50141,EQPM

### is

it 

### reported properly? 

### Is it reported correctly (i.e., judge for J

. D. 0609 - 183 and 

### lists instrument as "Other'' instead

appropriate

method code for regulatory monitors)? Smith PM2.5 of FRM/FEM. Unclear 

### why monitor is not 

### listed as

Thermo

5014i

. FEM (same instrument used at Sunrise Acres). On

page 5, it is being treated as FEM for PM 25

collocation purposes. This should be corrected In

future ANPs. Jerome Mack- PM 10 - for Metone BAM 1020

shows method designation as EQPM-o308-170.

The designation for PM 111 is EQPM-o798-122 for a

Met

One BAM1020. This should be corrected In

future ANPs.

44 . For agenci es that share monitoring responsibilities in App D 2(e) NA NA

an MSA/CSA: does each affected State or local agency

meet

full monitoring requirements or is

an agreement between the affected agencies and the

EPA Regional Administmtor in place?

45. Start date for eac h monitor Required to Yes I nsuff i cient to Start dates for 03 SPMs Arden Peak, F re nchman

d e termin e if j udge for Arden Mounta i n , and Laughlin were not prov i ded

.

other

req . Peak, Frenchman

(e.g. , min # Mountain, and

an

d colloc)

are met Laughlin

46. Instrument monitor type for each monitor Required to Yes Yes

determine i f other req . (e.g.,

min#

and colloc)

are met

47. Monitoring objective for each instrument App D 1.1 Yes Yes

58.10 (b )(6)

48 . S i te type for each instrument App D 1.1. 1 Yes I ncorrect in one 0 3 monitor at Boulder Ci t y has site t ype as

i nstance population ex po s ure and re g ional transport, with

spatial scale of neighbor hood. Clarification is

needed for the appropriateness of neighborhood - 

### 7

### ANP requirement

Citation

Was
the info

Does

the

Notes within

40 submitted?

1 

### If information 

### CFR58

yes, page

#s. provided

3 

### Flag

if

meet
the req?

4 

### incorrect

2 

### ?

spatial
scale

fo

r regional

t r ansport. PM

2

. 5 

### (FRM),

QA 

### monitor

at Sunrise Acres

is listed as quality assurance

for site type
and ne

i ghbo

r hood

for spatial scale.

QA



### is not

an appro

pr iate site type.
This should

be corrected

in future ANPs. 49

. Instrument parameter

code

for each instrume

n

t Required

to

Yes

Yes detennine

if other

req

. ( e.g

. , min

# and colloc) are met 50.

In

s trument

p a rameter occurrence

code

fo

r each

Required

to

Yes

Yes instrument

detennine

i f other

req

. (e

. g

. , min

# a n d colloc) are met 51. Sampling

s eason

for ozone (note

: date

of waiver 58.10(b)(4)

Yes

Yes

Apex
and Mesquite

0

3 

### sites

are listed

asEPAapproval

mu

s t be inc

l uded

if the sampling
season

App

D

, 4.1

( i)

approved seasonal

0

3 

### monitoring

sites

. In

n ext deviates

from requirement

)

year's ANP,

the

d ate

of EPA's approval

for seaso

n al monitoring

shou

l d be listed

and the approva

l let

t er attached. 52

. Samplin

g schedule

for PM

2

. 5

- 

### applies

t o year-round

58.10

( b

) (4

)

Yes

Yes and sea

so nal sampling schedules

( note

: date

of waiver

58.12

( d) approval

mu

s t be included

if the sampling

s ea

s on

App

D 4.
7 deviates

from requirement

)

EPA flowchart 53

. Sampling

s ch

e dul

e for PM

10



### 58

. JO(b

)( 4
)

Yes

Yes 58

. 1 2

( e ) App D 4

. 6 54.

S a mplin

g s ch

e dule

f or Pb

5 8. 10

( b )( 4
)

Yes

Yes 5 8. 12(b

) App 04

.5 5 5

. Samp

l ing

sc hedule

for PM

1 0

- 2.s



### 5 8.

1 0(b

)( 4
)

Yes

Yes 58

. 1 2 (f) -



### 8ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?1IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3Flagifmeetthereq?"'incorrect2?AppD4.856.Minimum#ofmonitorsfor03[Note:shouldbeAppD,4.l{a)YesYessupportedbyMSAID,MSApopulation,DV,#andPg.2monitors,and#requiredmonitors](seefootnote/TableD-257.Identificationofmax.cone.03monitor(s)AppD4.I(b)Yes,pg.2Yes.58.Minimummonitoringrequirementsmetfornear-roadAppD4.3.2N02(2014startdate)59.Minimummonitoringrequirementsmetforarea-wideAppD 4.3.3Yes,pg.3YesN0260.MinimummonitoringrequirementsmetforRA-40AppD4.3.4Yes,pg.3YesN0261.MinimummonitoringrequirementsmetforS02[Note:AppD4.4Yes, pg.3YesOnlymonitorsconsideredtoberequiredSLAMsareeligibletobecountedtowardsmeetingminimummonitoringrequirements.]·62.MinimummonitoringrequirementsmetforPb[Note:App04.5YesYesOnlymonitorsconsideredtoberequiredSLAMsare58.13(a)eligibletobecountedtowardsmeetingminimummonitoringrequirements.]63.Minimum#ofmonitorsforPM2.5[Note1:shouldbeAppD,Yes,pg.2YessupportedbyMSAID,MSApopulation,DV,#4.7.l(a)andmonitors,and#requiredmonitors][Note2:OnlyTableD-5monitorsconsideredtoberequiredSLAMsareeligibletobecountedtowardsmeetingminimummonitoringrequirements.]64.OptionalPM2.sNetworkClarifications:ProvidealistNeedtoassessNANAofrequiredsitesifitdoesnotincludeallSLAMS.several[Note:defaultwillassumeallSLAMSareconsideredrequirementsrequiredsites.l65.RequiredPM25sitesrepresentarea-wideairqualityAppDYesYes4.7.l(b)66.ForPM2.5,isatleastonesiteatneighborhoodorlargerAppDYesYesscaleinanareaofexpectedmaximumconcentration4.7.I(b)(l)67.IfadditionalSLAMSPM2.5required,isthereasiteinAppDYesYes7OnlymonitorsconsideredtoberequiredSLAMsareeligibletobecountedtowardsmeetingminimummonitoringrequirements.Lnaddition,ozonemonitorsthatdonotmeettrafficcount/distancerequirementstobeneighborhoodscale(40CFR58AppendixE,TableE-1)cannotbecountedtowardsminimummonitoringrequirements.9

### ANP requirement

Citation

Was

the info

Does

the

Notes within

40 submitted?

1 

### If information CFR58

yes, page

#s. provided

3 

### Flag

if

meet

the req?"' incorrect

2 

### ? an area

o f poor

air quality

4.7.1(b)(3) 68

. M

i nimum

m

o nitoring requirements

for continuous

App

D 4.

7 .2

Yes

Yes PM

2.s 69. Requirement

s for PM

2

. 5 background

and transport

sites

App

D 4.7.3

NA

NA

State-w

i de requ

i rement. 70. Are PM

2 .s Chemical Speciation requirements

met
for

App 04.7.4

Yes,pg

. 18

Yes official

STN

s ites? 7 1. Minimum

# of m onito

rs for PM

1 0

App

D, 4.6
(a)

Yes

, pg.

3

Yes

Bou

l der City shows

max concentration

of 314

. Per and Table

D-4

App.

D, table

D

- 4, #of required monitors

is 6-10 (high concentration).

Page

3 of ANP shows#

of requ ired monitors

is 4-8. There

are

8 SLAMS

PM

10 monitors

, and

1 NCore

PM

1 0 monitor.

Thus
the requ

i rement

is satisfied

. This should

be corrected in future ANPs. 

### 72. Minimum monitor

i ng requirements

met
for PM

10

• 2 .s

App

D 4.8

Yes, pg.18

Yes mass 73

. Dis

t ance

of

s ite from nearest

road

App E6

Yes

Insufficient

to

The Mesquite

site

is

l iste

d as 7.7

m from roadway judge

for Ozone

at with AAD.T

< 1000.
This does
not meet
the Mesquite

minimum requirement

of 10m

for ozone monitoring

at the neighborhood

sca

l e. Please clarify

this situation

in next year's
plan

. Options

for clarifying

the situation

may includ

e

r evis iting
the spatial
scale

or seeking

of

a waiver

per
40 CFR

58

, Appendix

E, Sec tio

n 10. 74. Traffic count

of nearest

road

AppE

Yes

Yes 75. Groundcover

App

E 3(a)

Yes

Yes 76. Probe heigh

t

App E2

Yes

Yes 

### 77. Distance

from support

in
g structure

App
E2

Yes

Yes 7 8.

D is tance from obstructions

on roof

App

E 4(b

)

Yes

Yes

Apex
and Bou

l der City

li st "n one

"

. Other moni tors list NA

. In future

A N Ps

, if there

are

no roof obstructions

, NA should

be listed. 79. Distance

from obst

ru ct

i o n
s not

o n roof

App

E 4(a)

Yes

In sufficient

to Winterwood

lists

a distance

of 2.5m

for

0

3 and judge

for

CO,

no obstruction

h eight given

.

I n sufficient Winterwood

. information

to

d ete rmin

e if distance

is at

l east twice

the heigh

t that the obstacle protrudes above

t he probe,

inlet

or m onitoring

pat

h

.



### 10

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1 

### If information

CFR58 yes, page #s. provided 3



### Flag if meet the req?"

incorrect 2 

### ? Apex and Boulder City list "none". Other monitors

list NA. In future ANPs, if there are no

obstructions, NA should be listed.

In future ANPs, where a distance from

obstruction is provided, the obstruction height

should be given as well.

80. Distance from trees App E5 Yes No Joe Neal shows distances of 5.7m (0 1 and N0 2 )

and 8

. 2m (PM 1 ol·

Green Valley shows distances of 6

. 5m (PM 10 ) and

4 . 0m (PM 2s l ·

Joe Neal and Green Valley were flagged in the

2012 ANP review as having siting distance< 10m,

with a request to correct the siting deficiency

. Joe

Neal site is the design value site for 0 3 •

Since trees can scavenge pollutants, it is

particularly important that an assessment be

made of the impact of proximity to trees on the

data from these sites, and action taken to correct

the deficiencies.

8 1. D istance to furnace or incinerator flue App E 3(b) Yes Yes

82. Unrestricted a irflow App E, 4(a) Incomplete Insufficient to Jerome Mack does not list a va l ue for any of the

and 4(b) Judge at Jerome pollutants monitored

. This should be corrected in

Mack next year's ANP.

83. Probe material ( if applicable) AppE9 Yes Yes

84. R eside n ce tim e ( if applicable) App E9 Yes Yes -- 

### IIPublicCommentsonAnnualNetworkPlanWerecommentssubmittedtotheS/LITagencyduringthepubliccommentperiod?Noffno,skiptheremainjngquestions.Ifyes:•Wereanyofthecommentssubstantive?oIfyes,whichones?oExplainbasisfordeterminationifanycommentswereconsiderednotsubstantive:•Didtheagencyrespondtothesubstantivecomments?oIfyes,wastheresponseadequate?•DothesubstantivecommentsrequireseparateEPAresponse(i.e.,agencyresponsewasn'tadequate)?•Arethesectionsoftheannualnetworkplanthatreceivedsubstantivecommentsapprovableafterconsiderationofcomments?oIfyes,providerationale:12D.Region9Near-roadN02PlanreviewchecklistChecklistVersiondate:November26,2013Agency:ClarkCountyDepartmentofAirQuality(DAQ)CBSA:LasVegas-ParadiseThischecklistisintendedtoclarifythoseelementsthatEPAwillbelookingforduringthereviewofproposednear-roadN02monitoringsites.Pleasenotethatthischecklistsummarizesnear-roadN02siterequirementsof40CFRPart58,butdoesnotsubstituteforthoserequirements,nordoitscontentsprovideabindingdeterminationofcompliancewiththoserequirements.Thechecklistissubjecttorevisioninthefutureandwewelcomecommentsonitscontentsandstructure.Key:White=meetstherequirement.Yellow=Requirementisnotmet,orinformationisinsufficienttomakeadetermination.Actionrequestedinnextyear'splanoroutsidetheANPprocess.reenl=itemrequiresattentioninordertoimprovenextyear'splan.' 

### COMPLETENESS

CHECK:



### Based

on 40 CFR

58 ---

**~** --

-

-

-

-

- - 

### Network

Plan requirements

(40 CFR 58.10)- No. Near-road

N02 plan requirement

Citation

Info Requirement

Notes submitted?

1 

### met?

2 

### If yes, page #s. 

### I

A plan (sub

m itted

by July

1, 2013)

for 40CFR

In complete

, Insuf ficient

to Plan submitte

d to EPA

on June

4, 2013. estab

li shing near-road

N02 monitoring

58.1 O(a)(5)

p.3

& 

### 45
judge site(s)

EPA cannot approve

the City Center proposed interim location
given
that
the information provided

does
not demonstrate

that the site meets

the minimum

siting requirements.

DAQ will need

to resubmit

a plan that proposes

a final candidate

s
i te location

and includes missing information highlighted

in this checklist.

Fina

l proposal

s h ould

go through

a min imum

30 day public inspection

period prior

to submittal

to EPA. 2 Evidence

of public

co mm ent
on proposed

40CFR Incomplete, Insufficient

to See

it em

1

. site(s),

no changes subseq
uent

to proposal

, 58.1 O(a)(2)

cover letter judge and

s ubmitt

a

l of any received comments 3 Anticipated operation

start date

40CFR

Incomp

l ete

, Insufficient

to DAQ acknowledges

that near-road

N0

2 

### 58

. 1 O(a)(5)

p.3

judge
monitoring

must commence

in 2014. Pleas

e clarify

a more precise

antic

ip ated operation start date. 4
AQS
site identification

number

40CFR

No Insufficient

to Please include

this information

in the
fin

a

l 58.IO(b)(l)

judge

submittal

if available. 5 Location
(street address

& 

### geographical

40CFR Incomplete

, Insufficient

to Please present

a street address

and coordinates)

58.10(b)(

2
) p.45

judge geographical

coordin

a tes for fin

a

l site selection. ---

- 1 Response options:

N/A (Not Applicable),

Yes,
No, Incomplete,

I ncorrect

. The responses

" Incomplete

" and

" Incorrect

"
a ss ume

t hat some information

has been provided

. 2 Response options:

N/A (Not Applicable)-
[reason),

Yes

, No

, Insufficient

to Judge

. Assumes information

s ubm

i t

t ed

is correct.

2

### 6 Sampling and analysis method (method 40CFR No Insufficient to Please include this information in the final

code) 58.1 O(b)(3) judge submittal.



### 7 Operation Schedule (Season & sampling 40CFR No Insufficient to Please include this information in the final

frequency) 58.10(b)(4) judge submittal.

8 Any proposal to remove or move the 40CFR No Insufficient to Please include this information in the final

monitor within a period of 18 months 58.1 O(b) ( 5) judge submittal.

following plan submittal

9 Monitoring objective & spatial sca le of 40CFR No Insufficient to Please include this information in the final

representativeness 58.1 O(b )(6) judge submittal.

IO CBSA represented by the monitor 40CFR Yes, p.3 Yes

58 . 1 O(b )(8)



### Network Design requirements (40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.3.2

11 CBSA population & year 40 CFR 58, Yes, p

. 3 Yes

App . D 4.3.2(a)

12 Maximum AADT counts & year for the 40 CFR 58, Incorrect, Insufficient to Max AADT count of 6

, 130 reported, however

CBSA(s) App.D p.3 judge this estimate is significantly lower than EPA

4 .3. 2(a) obtained est im ates that show max counts for

201 I closer to 260,000. Please revisit and

provide most up to date max AADT count for

top segment in CBSA with reference year &

source .

13

Correct# of required near - road N02 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.3 Yes EPA estimates that DAQ will have a 2" 11 

### nearmonitors for the CBSA(s) App.D road N0 2 

### monitoring site required for

4 . 3

. 2(a) installation by January 1, 20 I 5, Most up to

date population & AADT estimates will help

make the final determination

.

14

Were all road segments within the CBSA 40 CFR 58

, No Insufficient to Please include this information in the final

ranked by AADT ? App

. D judge submittaL

4.3.2(a)(l)

15 Discussion of how fleet mix is considered 40 CFR 58

, No Insufficient to Please include this information in the final

App.D judge submittal.

4.3 . 2(a)(1)

16 Discussion of how roadway design is 40 CFR 58

, No Insufficient to Please include this information in the final -

-



### 3consideredApp.Djudgesubmittal.4.3.2(a)(l)17Discussionofhowcongestionis40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalconsideredApp.Djudgesubmittal.4.3.2(a)(l)18Discussionofhowterrainisconsidered40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalApp.Djudgesubmittal.4.3.2(a)(l)19Discussionofhowmeteorologyis40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalconsideredApp.Djudgesubmittal.4.3.2(a)(l)20Afterabovefactorsconsidered,ifmultiple40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalcandidatesiteswheremaxconcentrationsApp.Djudgesubmittal.e.xpected:Discussionofhowpopulation4.3.2(a)(l)exposureisconsidered?21Wherethesiteproposedistherinthe40CFRS8,N/AN/A-WillneedtoincludeinfonnationforthisCBSA:DiscussionofdifferingfactorsApp.Dapprovalforfactorforanticipated:tidproposedsiteplan.comparedtofM'Stsite(i.e.fleetmix;4.3.2(a)(l)1stsiteisstillcongestion;terrain;geographicareawithinpending.CBSA;ordifferentroute,interstate,orfreewaydesignation).Sitingcriteriarequirements(40CFR·ss,AppendixE)-22Distancefromtargetroadsegmentasnear40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalaspracticable(TADrecommendationisApp.Ejudgesubmittal.within20meters)&nomorethan506.4(a)meters?23Verticalinletplacementbetween2-740CFR58,.NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalmeters?App.E2judgesubmittal.24Probedistancefromsupportingstructures40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalisatleast1meterawayverticallyorApp.E 2judgesubmittal.horizontally?25Isairflowunobstructedbetweentheprobe40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalandtheoutsidenearestedgeofthetargetedApp.E4(d)judgesubmittal.roadsegment?4

### SUPPORTING/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Based on 

### N dNO

.!. **····~··** 

# .. o 

### TAD and



### Check (Yes, No, Comments Insufficient)

If 

### yesJ page #s.

If top FE-AADT segment not selected, is adequate justification Insufficient to Information about ranking/selection

provided for higher ranks not selected? j u dge process was not provided. I I



### If similar top FE-AADT candidate sites available, was most Insufficie n t to Information a bout ranking/selection ]

congested segment selected? judge p rocess was not provided. See item

17 above.

Is candidate site selected downwind of target ro ad segment? Insufficient to No information provided. See item

judge 19 above.

Are wind roses included to show predominant wind patterns? No None provided

Are physical attributes (roadway design, roadside structures, or Insufficient to No information provided. See items

terrain) desirable according to Table 4-2 of the Near-road N0 

### 2 TAD judge 16-19 above.

(see below)?



### If physical attributes (roadway design, roadside structures

, or terra in ) Insufficient to No information provided. See items

NOT desirable according to Table 4-2 of the Near -road N0 

### 2 TAD, judge 16-19 above.

are they TYPICAL for the area?

Was population exposure correctly considered as an additional factor In s ufficient to No information provided. See item

AFTER consideration of primary factors (FE-AADT

, congestion, judge 20 above.

roadway design, terrain, meteorology) and IF multiple max

concentration candidate sites identified?

Will this be a multi-pollutan t site? If so, list additional parameters Yes, p.45 DAQ states their plan to install a

planned in Comments. CO monitor at the site b y January

1, 2017 as well as a required 

### PM2 .s

monitor by the same time frame.

Please indicate whether any other

parameters are planned for installation at the near-road site in

the near future. EPA encourages the

practice of multi-poll u tantnearroad site installations.

Does agency ensure candidate selection is NOT in a "unique " I nsu fficient to No information provided.

loca tion? (See Near-road N0 2 

### TAD section 13.2 included below) judge 5RoadwayFeasibilityofAt-gradeorDeepcut-Fieldreconnaissance;designormonitornearlyat-gradesections/significantsatelliteconfigurationplacements;withimmediatelybelowgrade;imageryaffectspollutantsurroundingsignificantlyabovetransportandterrain.grade(fillordispersion.bridge);abovebrid--.RoadsideIFeasibilityofpresentotherPresenceofsoundFieldreconnaissance;Structuresmonitorthanlow(<2mwalls,mature(highsatelliteplacement;inandthick)imageryaffectspollutantheight)vegetation,transportandvegetationorobstructivedispersion.safetyfeaturesbuildings.suchasguardrails.TerrainIAffectspollutantFlatorgentleAlongmountainFieldreconnaissance;dispersion,localterrain,withinaridgesorpeaks,digitalatmosphericvalley,oralongahillsides,orotherelevationmodelsandstability.roadgrade.naturallyvegetationwindsweptareas.files;satelliteima_MeteorologyIAffectspollutantRelativeStronglyLocaldata;NationaltransportanddownwindpredominantOceanicanddispersion.locations;windsupwindpositions.AtmosphericfromroadtoAdministration'smonitor.(NOAA's)NationalWeatherService(NWS};EPA'sAirQualityn(AQS).I613.2 Unique Locations and Background Source Influences

ln t he evaluation process , state and local ai r agencies m ay encounter situat io ns w her e certain

road segments of interest ha ve characteristics that make the l oca ti on a unique near-road l ocatio n

tha t has elevated pollutant concentrations. In such cases, the pollutant concentrations are not

represent ative of other near-road locations across t he CBSA . The unique characteristics of t he se

lo cations could be due to the close proximity of a subst a n tia l stationary source , non-ro ad mobile

sources, or roadway design features (s uch as tunnel entrances and exits or toll plazas ) . In

situations where a state or loc a l air agency has a choice between road segments that otherwise

have similar potential for peak N02 concentrations, the air agencies should place a higher weight

on sites that are mo st influenced by typical roadway activity rather than those that are heavily

influenced by unique sources or features. This approach in c re ases the prob ability t hat the chosen

site can represent a larger population exposure within and across CBSAs.

The EPA recognizes that state and loc a l air agencies will likely have a good understand ing of

wh ether candidate near-road N02 monitoring sites have unique characteristics that do or do no t

represent the CBSA that those sites are within. The EPA encourages state and loc a l air agencies

to use their local knowledge in site selection and to engage the EPA Regiona l staff for assistance

in evaluating such a situation as necessary . 7