Technical System Audit 

Report

Hawaii Department of Health

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program

January 24 – January 27, 2011

Conducted by

Air Quality Analysis Office Quality Assurance Office 

Air Division Management and Technical 

Services Division

US EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

Final report: June 1, 2011
2

INDEX

PAGE

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS.......................................................................................... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 4

GENERAL PROGRAM..................................................................................................... 9

NETWORK MANAGEMENT......................................................................................... 17

FIELD OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 21

LABORATORY OPERATIONS ..................................................................................... 28

DATA MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................. 33

QUALITY CONTROL (QC) AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)............................. 36

APPENDIX A: Summary of Findings.............................................................................. 42

APPENDIX B: Hawaii Department of Health: Air Surveillance & Analysis Section and 

Clean Air Branch Staff...................................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX C: EPA Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix H, as completed by Hawaii 

Department of Health – Clean Air Branch, and Air Surveillance & Analysis Section .... 47

APPENDIX D: 2011 TSA Schedule.............................................................................. 107
3

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

Air Surveillance & Analysis 

Section............................Air portion of the Environmental Health Analytical

Services Branch, State Laboratories Division

AQS...................................... Air Quality System

CAB............................. Clean Air Branch

CO........................................ Carbon Monoxide

CFR...................................... Code of Federal Regulations

GFAAS...........................Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Sampling

DOH........................... Department of Health, State of Hawaii

EPA...................................... United States Environmental Protection Agency

MDL............................ Method Detection Limit

NAAQS................................ National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NCore.............................National Core monitoring stations

NIST............................ National Institute for Standards and Technology

NOx/NOy............................. Nitrogen Oxides

O3.......................................... Ozone

Pb........................................ Lead

PM........................................ Particulate matter

PM2.5..................................... Particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in aerodynamic 

diameter

PM10...................................... Particulate matter 10 microns or less in aerodynamic 

diameter

ppm................................parts per million

QA........................................ Quality Assurance

QC........................................ Quality Control

QAPP................................... Quality Assurance Project Plan

QMP..............................Quality Management Plan

SPM..................................... Special Purpose Monitor

SOP...................................... Standard Operating Procedure

SLAMS................................ State or Local Air Monitoring Station

SO2....................................... Sulfur Dioxide

TSA...................................... Technical System Audit

TSP................................Total Suspended Particulates

VOCs............................ Volatile Organic Compounds

VOG...............................Volcanic smog/haze
4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is a report of the findings made by EPA Region 9 while 

conducting a Technical Systems Audit (TSA) of the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH)

air monitoring program. A TSA is an on-site review and inspection of a state or local 

ambient air monitoring program to assess its compliance with established regulations 

governing the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality 

measurement data.

The TSA was conducted by EPA Region 9 staff during the week of January 24 –

January 27, 2011. Prior to the site visit, EPA asked DOH to fill out Appendix H of the 

Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II,

December 2008 (QA Handbook). EPA provided Appendix H to DOH in November, and 

DOH Clean Air Branch (CAB) and the Air portion of the Environmental Health 

Analytical Services Branch, State Laboratories Division (Air Surveillance & Analysis 

Section) all submitted documentation in January. This documentation is attached as 

Appendix C. The audit team reviewed the submittal and used it, together with the 

previous TSA‟s findings, to focus on-site discussions. The audit team interviewed 

management and staff on specific aspects of the air monitoring program including 

network design, field operations, laboratory operations, data handling, quality assurance 

and quality control procedures. The audit team also inspected all five of the monitoring 

sites operated by DOH on the island of Oahu and six of the seven DOH stations on the 

Big Island of Hawaii. The site inspections consisted of an interview with the site 

operator when possible, reviewing station and instrument logbooks, and evaluating the 

station siting with respect to EPA requirements for probe siting1. The laboratory 

inspection included a review of the particulate matter program for mass determinations,

metals analysis (including lead (Pb) analysis) for filters, and laboratory analysis programs

for VOCs and carbonyls for air toxics. 

Conducting a TSA is one of the ways that EPA provides oversight to ensure that 

data collected by state and local agencies meet certain minimum data quality objectives. 

Other assessments, such as network reviews and performance evaluations, are also used 

to collect information on the overall quality of ambient air data. These assessments 

enable agencies to identify and correct those program elements which may be adversely 

affecting the quality of ambient air data.

The results of the TSA are summarized here and fully described in this report, 

along with recommended actions to address the findings. 

 

1

40 CFR, Part 58, Appendix E, “Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for Ambient 

Air Quality Monitoring”
5

Program strengths: 

Overall, the DOH has very knowledgeable and dedicated staff. All of the 

participating staff were most cooperative; many went out of their way to 

accommodate the auditors‟ schedules; all were open and forthcoming with 

information about their job responsibilities.

In general, DOH sites on Oahu and the Big Island are well located, well run, and 

well maintained. Some logs and records are models of good record keeping.

Site operators are capable of completing most instrument repairs in-house, and for 

the most part the maintenance shop has sufficient spare parts and instruments 

ready to be sent to the field, thereby minimizing the amount of down-time 

associated with instrument repair.

CAB maintains very detailed station and network files.

DOH has done a good job implementing its through-the-probe and audit program, 

including developing corrective action forms for the audit program.

DOH has changed to a new data system. DOH has done an exemplary job getting 

the system in place at the stations and at the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section, 

is working through any problems that have arisen and identifying areas where the 

system could be improved. The change to the Envista program presented many 

challenges. Site operators and data validators and their management are to be 

commended for successful implementation and ongoing work to improve the 

system in moving to an electronic calibration record keeping system, which will 

allow more timely data validation.

The Laboratory QA program has started to perform peer review of PM2.5 data.

Program Findings:

During the TSA, EPA identified areas where the DOH monitoring program 

should be strengthened. The most significant of these findings include: 

Communication between the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section and the CAB 

should be strengthened and formalized. This was a finding of the 2008 TSA. 

Lack of effective communication is significantly impacting successful 

implementation of the air monitoring program at DOH. Some specific examples 

of significant issues arising from communication gaps that were noted during the 

2011 TSA include:

o Lack of Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Standard Operating 

Procedure (SOP) submittals to EPA due to misunderstanding of roles and 

responsibilities and/or miscommunication

o Questionable data certification procedures

o Delayed response to public and media questions regarding specific data 

o Lack of adequate quality assurance and corrective action procedures

o Delay in addressing findings from the 2008 TSA

The division of quality assurance (QA) responsibilities between CAB and the Air 

Surveillance & Analysis Section should be clarified. While the Air Surveillance 
6

& Analysis Section has a QA manager for laboratory analysis, DOH lacks a QA 

Manager for the field and for the program overall. DOH must find a way to 

address these key QA responsibilities. 

The individual findings are reported in the topic sections of this document and are 

also summarized in Appendix A. In addition to these general findings, EPA also 

identified areas that could be strengthened and those recommendations and suggested 

best practices are described in this report. 

The specific actions to be taken by DOH will be determined through negotiations 

between EPA and DOH and will be documented in a corrective action plan prepared by 

DOH. 

EPA would like to thank all the staff and management of the DOH for their 

support and cooperation during the audit.
7

INTRODUCTION

 The Department of Health for the State of Hawaii (DOH) is the governmental 

agency with delegated authority and responsibility for collecting ambient air quality data 

as directed by the Clean Air Act 1977 and Clean Air Act Amendments 1990. 

From January 24 – January 27, 2011, EPA Region 9 conducted a Technical 

System Audit (TSA) of the ambient monitoring program operated by DOH. The TSA 

covered the following program areas:

Network Management

Network Design and Monitoring Station Siting

Organization, Staffing and Training

Facilities

Field Operations

Routine Operations

Field Quality Control

Preventive Maintenance

Record Keeping

Data Acquisition and Handling

Laboratory Operations

Routine Operation

Lab Quality Control

Preventive Maintenance

Record Keeping

Data Acquisition and Handling

Specific Pollutants:

PM

Air Toxics

Metals, including Pb

Data and Data Management

Data Handling

Software Documentation

Data Validation and Correction

Data Processing

Internal Reporting

External Reporting

Participating DOH managers, supervisors and staff included:

Wilfred Nagamine, Manager, Clean Air Branch

Wanda Chang, Manager, Environmental Health Analytical 

Services Branch, State Laboratories Division

Lisa Young, Supervisor, Monitoring Section, Clean Air Branch 

Henry Yee, Supervisor, Air Surveillance and Analysis Section 

Susan Kihara, Environmental Health Specialist IV 

Jensen Yoshimoto, Environmental Health Specialist IV 
8

Terri Shinsato, Data Processing System Analyst IV 

Michael Ibara, Air Quality Electronics Technician II 

Harold Higashida, Air Quality Electronics Technician I 

Lisa Wallace, Chemist III 

Kimberly Nichols, Chemist III

Jocelyn Licudine, Chemist III

Darren Suzuki, Chemist III

Richard Kiyokane, Quality Assurance Officer

A full list of air staff, both CAB and Air Surveillance & Analysis Section, is 

included as Appendix B.

The EPA regional staff members conducting the TSA were Gwen Yoshimura of 

the Air Division‟s Air Quality Analysis Office and Mathew Plate of the Region 9 Quality 

Assurance Office.

This report is divided into eleven sections. The first section is an executive 

summary that describes the purpose of the TSA and a summary of the most significant 

findings. The following section is an introduction that provides a brief description of the 

DOH air monitoring program, identifies the participating DOH personnel and the EPA 

audit team, and describes the report organization. The third section discusses the general 

findings on the DOH monitoring program as a whole. The remaining five sections 

address specific aspects of the air monitoring program: network management, field 

operations, laboratory operations, data management and quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC). Appendix A is a summary listing of the findings contained in this report. The 

findings and recommendations in this report are listed in priority order. 

Recommendations are provided to give some indication of EPA‟s expectations as to how 

findings can be addressed. If DOH has other approaches or alternatives to address the 

concerns identified, EPA will consider them, provided the corrective action adequately 

addresses the finding. 
9

GENERAL PROGRAM

The state of Hawaii is a 1,523-mile chain of volcanically formed islets and eight 

main islands in the Pacific Ocean more than 2500 miles west of San Francisco. Of the 

eight main islands, the four most populated are: Oahu (Honolulu County) – 905,034

people; Hawaii (Hawaii County) – 175,784 people; Maui (Maui County) – 143,574

people; Kauai (Kauai County) – 63,689 people.

Federal and state laws require that clean air standards, developed to protect public 

health, be met and maintained throughout the country and in all states. In addition to 

federal criteria pollutant air quality standards, the State of Hawaii has set air quality 

standards for carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, lead, PM10, ozone and

hydrogen sulfide. 

In Hawaii, the Department of Health is responsible for air pollution control and 

ambient air quality monitoring. For these programs, the relevant operations are shared by 

the Clean Air Branch (CAB) and the Environmental Health Analytical Services Branch 

(Air Surveillance & Analysis Section) of the State Laboratories Division. CAB conducts 

engineering analysis, inspections, enforcement, and permitting, and, in conjunction with 

the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section, establishes and maintains the ambient air 

monitoring network and conducts special air monitoring studies as necessary. CAB 

compiles, assesses and manages the validated data retrieved from the monitoring stations;

produces data assessments through graphs, charts, maps and reports; handles network 

design and oversight; conducts performance evaluation audits at all monitoring stations 

operated by the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section section; responds to public inquiries;

evaluates trends; calculates design values for designation recommendations; and submits 

exceptional event packages. The Air Surveillance & Analysis Section runs and maintains 

the monitoring stations, collecting measurements of ambient levels of air pollutants 

throughout the state to ensure that the state and federal air quality standards are met. The 

Air Surveillance & Analysis Section is also responsible for analysis and reporting 

ambient monitoring data to EPA‟s Air Quality System (AQS) database; conducting

instrument calibrations; validating the continuous pollutant monitoring data; and 

analyzing PM filters and air toxics samples for metals (including Pb), VOCs, and 

carbonyls. 

Under the Clean Air Act, DOH receives Section 105 grant funds from EPA every 

year to support air quality management activities, including ambient monitoring. 

Operation of this network allows DOH to notify the public whenever air quality reaches 

levels regarded as unhealthful. In 2008, DOH, working with EPA Region 9, EPA Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), and the National Park Service (NPS), 

was able to expand its public reporting capabilities to include:

Near-Realtime reporting of PM2.5 throughout Hawaii via EPA‟s AIRNow 

website

Near-Realtime reporting of SO2 levels on the Big Island (made possible by 

the development of the Air Quality Advisory: a short-term, Air Quality 
10

Index (AQI)-like health effects-based breakpoints specific to SO2). Air 

Quality Forecasting of SO2 levels was also achieved at a later date.

The DOH offices that are the subject of this TSA are the Monitoring Section of 

the CAB in the Environmental Management Division, managed by Wilfred Nagamine,

and the Air Surveillance and Analysis Section of the Environmental Health Analytical 

Services in the State Laboratories Division, under the direction of Wanda Chang. The 

State Laboratories Division and the Environmental Management Division are placed

under the Environmental Health Administration.

The Air Surveillance & Analysis Section operates, collects, validates and reports 

air quality data from stations located on Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. Currently, there is no 

station operating on Kauai but a special purpose monitoring station to monitor cruise ship 

emissions near Nawiliwili Harbor is planned in the near future. Pollutants measured 

include:

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

Ozone (O3)

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

Lead

Air Toxics including:

o Metal Compounds

o Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

o Carbonyl Compounds

Special Monitoring:

o New Year Fireworks
11

o VOG (volcanic haze)

o Agricultural Burns (sugarcane)

o Geothermal (Hydrogen sulfide) 

The Air Surveillance & Analysis Section QA Officer is Richard Kiyokane, the 

Air Surveillance and Analysis Section Supervisor is Henry Yee, the Air Quality 

Electronic Technician Supervisor is Michael Ibara and the information technology

specialist is Terri Shinsato. The Monitoring Section of the CAB is supervised by Lisa 

Young.

Overall, EPA found that Hawaii has an extensive network and that staff 

overseeing the network stations are knowledgeable. Updating DOH‟s QAPPs and SOPs 

will ensure that their good practices, once formalized, will be followed into the future. 

The following findings relate to the General Program:

General Program

Finding A1:

Insufficient communication between the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section and 

the CAB is compromising the quality of Hawaii‟s air monitoring program.

Discussion:

The effect of insufficient communication on the quality of work produced by DOH‟s 

air monitoring program is demonstrated by the following examples: 

Regulatory requirements are not being met: 

o QAPPs have not been completed, due to a lack of communication and to 

lack of agreement as to roles and responsibilities; and

o Data are not being recertified as there is no process in place to document 

when data have been revised. 

Several significant 2008 TSA findings have not been addressed:

o The previous TSA found that communication between the Air 

Surveillance & Analysis Section and CAB should be strengthened and 

formalized. This situation has not improved and may have deteriorated 

further;

o The lack of currently approved QAPPs was a finding of the previous 

TSA. No QAPPs have been submitted to EPA for approval since the last 

TSA;

o The previous TSA also noted that QA roles and responsibilities were not 

clearly assigned to one or the other branch; and

o The previous TSA called for an improved corrective action system by 

both the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section and CAB.

Discussions about resources do not seem to be occurring. As resources 

diminish, it becomes increasingly important that these conversations occur, so 
12

that both groups understand and come to an agreement about what is needed to 

maintain the continued success of the program, what can be accomplished given 

the available staff and funding levels, and where it may be possible to disinvest to 

save resources. Examples of discussions that could result in a better use of 

resources:

o Clear assignment of QA/QC responsibilities, to avoid duplication of effort 

while maintaining appropriate data quality;

o Closer coordination on new site leasing and set-up, to avoid incurring 

costs before the site is set up and operation can begin; and

o Consideration of site-operator resources when conducting monitoring 

network assessments and establishing or shutting down sites.

There are several communication-related issues that may ultimately impact data 

quality:

o Lack of central QA oversight;

o Lack of data oversight and technical audits;

o Minimal evaluation of system-wide QA; and

o Delayed, unilateral resolutions of QA issues.

Effects on Response to the Public

o The process for responding to public inquiries concerning data is not 

obvious; and

o The level of validation that is needed before data are shared with the 

public is not clear.

Recommendation:

CAB and the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section should discuss, come to 

agreement and document roles and responsibilities for each entity and how formal 

communications, such as the corrective action process, data certification, and 

public inquiries, will be handled. Mangers and staff should schedule regular 

meetings together, not only via phone but in person, to discuss projects, issues, 

upcoming activities, etc.

Finding A2:

The EPA requirement for independent quality assurance is not being fully met. 

Discussion:

40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A, Section 2.2 requires that each primary quality 

assurance organization (PQAO) have independent quality assurance. In their 

draft Quality Management Plan (QMP), DOH has identified the CAB as the QA 

lead for ambient air monitoring. The CAB performs some independent QA of the 

program, including: 

Independent performance audits on particulate and gaseous instruments, 

and some meteorological equipment

Limited review of data in the AQS system
13

Development and approval of QAPPs

The Air Surveillance & Analysis Section has an independent QA person who 

reviews laboratory data. However, there is no independent entity that performs:

Oversight of field monitoring

Audits of data quality

Review of systematic QA/QC

Technical audits

Oversight of corrective actions

Recommendation:

DOH needs to ensure that all aspects of independent QA are implemented. It is 

recommended that these elements be consolidated into one independent oversight 

authority who is responsible for data quality and can interact directly with EPA 

regarding data quality issues.

Finding A3:

The performance of EPA Method TO-15 is not meeting minimal data quality 

requirements to characterize the low concentrations of toxics in ambient air. 

Discussion:

The Air Surveillance & Analysis Section is performing EPA Method TO-15 to 

obtain toxics information similar to the National Air Toxics Trends Stations 

(NATTS). Section 7.1.2 of the HDOH Air Toxics QAPP indicates that the data 

are intended to “characterize ambient concentrations and deposition in a 

representative monitoring area.” 

During the TSA, several inadequacies were noted in the implementation of the 

volatile organic compound (VOC) Method TO-15. These include:

The canister cleaning system is outdated and not well understood by the 

analyst;

The laboratory does not certify that the canisters are clean, as required by 

the method;

The analytical system is performing erratically and the analyst is unable to 

correct the problems, but continues to analyze canisters when the system 

“appears” to be more stable;

There is no recent method detection limit study;

Field blanks are not run;

The date of one set of working standards has expired; and

Recent performance evaluation samples were at concentrations that were 

too high to be representative.

EPA attempted to quantify the impacts of these discrepancies by evaluating 

HDOH‟s QAPP and Hawaii‟s AQS data for benzene (as benzene is one of the 
14

critical TO-15 toxics). Table 7-5 in Hawaii‟s QAPP estimates that a generic 

detection limit for the TO-15 compounds should be at least 0.5 parts-per-billion 

by volume (ppbv). Hawaii‟s minimum detectable limit (MDL) in AQS is entered 

as 0.1 ppbv as benzene. From 2008 through 2010, there are no actual benzene 

values reported below 0.25 ppbv benzene. This indicates a loss of monitoring 

system sensitivity since the MDL was established. However, these data also 

indicate that concentrations above the QAPP limit of 0.5 ppbv benzene may not 

be significantly impacted by false negative reporting.

Due to inconsistencies in the data, the lack of blank controls, detection limits, and 

analytical system stability, the VOC concentration data currently being produced 

by the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section may have significant errors, especially 

at low concentrations. This is not consistent with the stated objective of 

characterizing representative concentrations of these pollutants.

Recommendation:

DOH should consider the cost/benefit of maintaining an analytical system for 

VOCs. Should the decision be to continue this monitoring, an evaluation should 

be made as to how much it would cost to bring the Air Surveillance & Analysis 

Section up to a level to meet the requirements versus what it would cost to have 

the analysis done elsewhere. 

Finding A4:

Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) have not been completed or updated 

since the last TSA. 

Discussion:

The Clean Air Act requires that organizations using EPA funding to collect 

environmental data develop a Quality Management Plan (QMP), an overarching 

description of an organization‟s quality system, and a QAPP for each type of 

ambient pollutant being measured (40 CFR 58 Appendix A, section 2.1). The 

QAPP describes all technical and quality aspects of a project and documents the 

results of the QA planning process for environmental data operations, thereby 

providing a project-specific “blueprint” for obtaining the type and quality of 

environmental data needed for a specific decision or use. Further guidance on 

developing QAPPs can be found in the guidance documents “EPA Requirements 

for Quality Assurance Project Plans,” EPA/240/B-01/003, March 2001, and 

“Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans,” EPA/240/R-02/009, December 

2002.

HI DOH agreed in response to EPA‟s previous TSA to submit QAPPs for criteria 

pollutants PM10, O3, NO2, and SO2, as well as updating their PM2.5 QAPP to 

include changes to the regulation and reflect the use of continuous PM2.5
15

monitors. These plans have not been completed and submitted to EPA for review. 

Additionally, QAPPs need to be submitted for the NCore pollutants and for Pb

monitoring under the new Pb National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

Recommendation:

QAPPs should be completed and submitted to EPA. Criteria pollutant QAPPs 

should be prioritized, as further delay could impact the defensibility of EPA‟s 

NAAQS decisions for Hawaii.

Finding A5:

DOH should have more formalized training requirements for new and existing 

staff.

Discussion:

This was noted in the previous TSA and has not been addressed. DOH continues 

to send staff to air monitoring trainings and conferences on an “as needed” basis. 

EPA appreciates DOH‟s efforts to participate when these opportunities arise. 

However, DOH does not have a formalized program to ensure that staff are 

trained on procedures and demonstrate proficiency on tasks directly related to 

their job functions.

The QA Handbook, Section 4 discusses the need for a formalized training 

program. EPA recognizes that funding is limited and it is often difficult to send 

people to trainings or be able to offer trainings on the islands. Developing a 

formalized training program can help agencies identify what trainings are needed, 

what the highest priority issues are, and what resources are available. If it is not 

possible to fulfill the training need immediately, the training plan allows agencies 

to look for future funding or other opportunities.

EPA also encourages agencies to formalize and document on-the-job trainings. 

Trainings could be given by DOH staff to their fellow staff to provide common 

understanding and competency and minimize future problems and questions. Inhouse trainings could include how to use DOH‟s Envista program; how to use the 

public webpage and pull associated data; site-operator training on the electronic 

logs and the new process for electronic calibration sheets; training for site 

operators, data users, and data validators on AQS flags and why they are 

important; new QAPP/SOP training; data validation and analysis; instrument 

operation and maintenance training. 

Recommendation:

DOH should develop a formal training program and tracking system to ensure that 

all staff and managers (CAB and Air Surveillance & Analysis Section) are 
16

familiar with the relevant QAPPs and SOPs related to producing data in the field, 

data management and tracking, quality assurance, laboratory operations, and all 

data systems. Training objectives are to develop proficiency in new staff, and 

give experienced staff the opportunity to keep skills current, to learn about

emerging technologies and capabilities, and to ensure that all staff are familiar 

with the current QAPPs and SOPs.
17

NETWORK MANAGEMENT

The ambient network for state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and 

Special Purpose Monitoring (SPMs) in Hawaii consists of 13 stations that have a variety 

of air pollutant measurement instruments. The following table summarizes the air 

monitoring sites in Hawaii by island, the respective pollutants monitored, and the year 

monitoring began at the site.

SITE NAME

(year established)

POLLUTANT

Pb Toxics CO SO2 NO2 O3 PM10 

cont.

PM2.5 PM2.5 

cont.

H2S NCore

Oahu

Honolulu (1972) X X X X

Kapolei (1991) X X X X X X X

Pearl City (1994) X X X X

Sand Island (1981) X X

West Beach (1991) X X X

Maui

Kihei SPM PM10 

(1999)

X X

Hawaii

Hilo (1995) SPM X X

Kona (2005) SPM X X

Mountain View (2007) 

SPM

X X

Pahala (2007) SPM X X

Ocean View (2010) 

SPM

X X

Puna H (2002) SPM X

Puna E (2005) SPM X X

Source: DOH 2010 Air Monitoring Network Plan

SPM = Special Purpose Monitor. Non-SLAMS.

Most of the population exposure monitoring sites on Oahu have been operating at

the same location for over 10 years. These long-term sites allow the DOH to examine 

trends in air quality and demonstrate that the State continues to meet all the federal air 

quality standards with exception of SO2 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). With 

increasing volcanic venting on the Big Island since 2008, the source-oriented monitors on 

the Big Island began measuring numerous exceedances of both SO2 and PM2.5 standards. 
18

Photo: Halema’uma’u crater release, January 26, 2011

The State of Hawaii‟s 2010 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Five-Year 

Assessment, submitted July 1, 2010, includes Hawaii‟s recommendations based upon 

priorities stated in the assessment, funding and resource sections. Recognizing that the 

State‟s first priority – monitoring volcanic emissions – is resource-intensive, and that an 

additional monitor will be located on the Big Island, the State recommends closing 1)

West Beach, 2) Kihei, and 3) Sand Island. EPA appreciates the work that went into 

making the assessment and will review site closure requests as they are submitted to EPA 

for approval.

The Hawaii network currently meets the requirements for the minimum number 

of monitoring sites designated as SLAMS for O3, Pb, and the new SO2 standard, and 

exceeds the minimum requirements for PM10 and PM2.5. The SLAMS monitoring sites 

are all properly located in terms of monitoring objectives and spatial scales and siting 

criteria. Hawaii will be required to have a near-road NO2 monitor operating by 2013. 

However, until EPA issues the NO2 monitor siting Technical Support Document 

(expected in summer 2011), it is not appropriate for DOH to work to secure any specific 

site for the NO2 monitor. Hawaii also successfully initiated NCore monitoring at Kapolei 

in early 2011.

Photos: Kapolei Site – looking south into site (SLAMS monitors on leftmost trailer, NCore monitors on middle trailer); looking 

north from roof.
19

40 CFR 58.20 requires states to perform an annual review of their ambient 

monitoring networks to ensure that they continue to meet the monitoring objectives of 40 

CFR 58, appendix D. The annual network review is used to determine how well the 

network is achieving its required air monitoring objectives, how well it is meeting data 

users needs, and how it should be modified (e.g., through termination of existing stations, 

relocation of stations, or establishment of new stations) to continue to meet its monitoring 

objectives and data needs. The main purpose of the review is to ensure that it provides 

adequate, representative, and useful air quality data. DOH has submitted a monitoring 

network plan every year after a period of public review. The most recent review (2010)

includes all of the required information about the monitoring stations. The current DOH 

document meets the requirements of describing the monitoring network, compliance with 

Appendix A quality assurance requirements, Appendix D network requirements and the 

intended monitoring objectives of each site.

Overall, EPA found that CAB maintains excellent network and station files. 

Stations are well-maintained and well-run, and site operators were knowledgeable and 

helpful.

Network Management

Finding B1:

While the volcanic activity is the State‟s highest air quality concern, the Big 

Island monitoring network may have some redundancies.

Discussion:

DOH now operates five VOG monitoring stations on the Big Island and plans to 

add a station on the northwest part of the island in Waikaloa. In addition to the 

VOG sites, DOH operates two sites near the geothermal plant (Puna E and Puna 

H). 

The two geothermal sites are very close to one another and appear to be 

redundant. The geothermal facility also operates an extensive monitoring 

network. If DOH is concerned about resources, including site operator time on 

the Big Island, one or both of the Puna sites might be evaluated for possible 

closure.

In general terms, it may be appropriate to evaluate whether every monitor in the 

VOG network is of equal value. It may be possible to discontinue operation of 

one or two of the VOG monitors while maintaining a network sufficient to protect 

public health and monitor for NAAQS compliance.
20

Recommendation:

Given resource constraints, community concerns, and concern for public health 

and NAAQS compliance, an evaluation of the Big Island monitoring network 

should be undertaken to determine whether closing some sites might be 

appropriate.

Finding B2:

As was found with the 2008 TSA, the DOH ambient air monitoring program does 

not have an up-to-date emergency episode plan for the Island of Hawaii.

Discussion:

40 CFR 51.150 states that an area with SO2 ambient concentrations greater 0.04 

parts per million (ppm) annual arithmetic mean, or 0.17 ppm 24-hour maximum, 

must be classified as a “Priority I Region” and must have a contingency plan for 

emergency episodes. Hawaii does not have such a plan. Contingency plan 

requirements are addressed in 40 CFR 51.152 and include providing for public 

announcements, emission control actions and communications procedures,

including procedures for contact with public officials, descriptions and locations 

of major emission sources, information resources for public health, safety, and 

emergency agencies. This should include use of new media as well as print, radio 

and television.

Recommendation:

Develop a contingency plan for the Island of Hawaii. The emergency episode 

contingency plan should be included as part of Hawaii‟s Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan, due in 2013 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, or submitted to EPA 

at an earlier date. 
21

FIELD OPERATIONS

Field operations for ambient monitoring are carried out by Air Surveillance & 

Analysis Section staff. The day-to-day operations at the criteria pollutant monitoring 

stations are performed by Air Surveillance & Analysis Section staff under the supervision 

of Henry Yee and Mike Ibara. 

As part of this TSA, Air Quality Electronics Technicians were interviewed with 

respect to their duties in monitoring station operation. All station operators interviewed 

demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the monitoring equipment for which they were 

responsible. The station operators had copies of current DOH SOPs.

The Field Sites visited on Oahu included Honolulu, Kapolei, Pearl City, San 

Island, and West Beach. Hilo, Mountain View, Ocean View, Pahala, Puna E, and Puna H

Field Sites were visited on the Big Island. Inspection included examination of the inlet 

manifolds, the station and instrument log books, and random data point checks. Each of 

the eleven sites visited were well organized and had clean inlet manifolds. Station 

logbooks and instrument logbooks were up to date and contained relevant information on 

operations and maintenance activities. 

DOH recently changed to the Envista data system. Envista has the ability to 

insert automatic data flags, allows the use of electronic logbooks, and can be 

programmed to send automatic alerts, among many other features. Hawaii DOH has 

been successful in making the change to the Envista system. 

Most sites met 40 CFR 58, Appendix E criteria, with the exception of probes on 

the Big Island (see Finding C1 below).

Field Operations

Finding C1:

Gaseous inlet probe heights at the Big Island sites do not meet the CFR 

requirement for height above the roof.

Discussion:

40 CFR 58, Appendix E section 2 requires inlets to be “at least 1 meter vertically 

or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, 

etc.” Probes measured at Big Island sites were 0.7 – 0.8 meters above the trailer 

roofs.
22

Recommendation:

Sites should be modified so that all gaseous probe inlets meet the 1 meter vertical 

height requirement.

Finding C2:

Maintenance and repairs of monitoring equipment used at the field stations were 

not sufficiently documented. Maintenance sheets used to track instrument repairs 

do not appear to be consistently available or utilized. 

Discussion:

DOH has implemented the use of maintenance sheets in response to a concern 

raised during the previous TSA. These sheets partially address the previous 

concern. However, it is apparent that they are not routinely used, are easy to 

misplace, do not have sufficient space to document complex repairs, and are 

completed inconsistently. DOH should develop a more robust and permanent 

system to document instrument maintenance. This could be accomplished by the 

use of bound logbooks or an electronic system. 

Proper application of maintenance and repair of air monitoring instruments and 

supporting equipment, including subsequent calibrations and verifications, is 

needed to support Federal Reference Method (FRM) and Federal Equivalent 

Method (FEM) designations. None of the field instruments have maintenance 

logbooks. Some field maintenance is documented in station logbooks; however, 

this documentation does not appear to be comprehensive. There is no central 

logbook for documentation of instrument maintenance performed in the Air 

Surveillance & Analysis Section‟s instrument repair shop. In order to establish 

instrument maintenance, repair, performance, and related compliance with FRM 

and FEM designations, detailed maintenance records must be maintained.

Recommendation:

Improve the system to document instrument maintenance. Document 

maintenance for all field instruments in logbooks or other traceable and defensible 

systems to demonstrate instrument maintenance and repairs and track when and 

where they are deployed.

Finding C3:

The documentation of PM2.5 filter data from the site operators and feedback from 

the analytical and validation process need to be improved.
23

Discussion:

EPA noted PM2.5 filter-based data that was flagged in AQS, where the field 

operator had not noted problems on the filter custody form. Upon further 

investigation it was determined that the instrument had automatically inserted a 

standard out-of-specification flag in the sampler‟s electronic record. The PM2.5

analyst explained that the electronic records are not routinely reviewed by the 

station operators when data is downloaded in the field. Electronic data flags are 

subsequently noted by the analyst, but not communicated to the station operators. 

This is problematic, because:

information on the custody forms should indicate if there were any field 

problems in the case that the electronic files are lost or corrupted;

operators should be aware of instrument problems that may indicate that a 

sampler needs repair or maintenance (i.e., samplers may have intermittent 

flags if the instrument fan is non-operational or the fan filter is dirty); and

flags could be erroneous and not need to be retained in the validation 

process or they could indicate a more serious problem which would 

require data to be invalidated. The station operators are in the best 

position to make that determination.

Recommendation:

Improve documentation and communication between the field operators, 

laboratory analysts, and the data validators.

Finding C4:

DOH is lacking a corrective action process for field operations.

Discussion:

A formal tracking process should be in place for addressing suspect or missing 

data, instrument problems, or other problems seen in the field. Currently, it 

appears that site operators and data validators informally make corrections as 

issues arise, without bring the issue to the attention of others or documenting the 

issue and correction. A corrective action process allows for clear tracking of 

problems, faster identification of systematic issues, ensures that all those affected 

by the issue are notified, and that the corrective action is followed through to the 

appropriate conclusion. 

Recommendation:

DOH should establish a corrective action process and ensure that all staff are 

trained on the use and importance of the system. 
24

Finding C5:

Neither the field operations nor the CAB auditor document the quality of zero air 

used in the program. This was a finding in the 2008 TSA.

Discussion:

Zero air scrubbers are used in place of certified zero air for instrument 

calibrations. This is a common, acceptable practice. Because zero air is used to 

generate the zero point and it is mixed as part of the calibration, it must be treated 

as a standard. As such, zero air scrubber maintenance and verification must be 

documented.

Recommendation:

Document the performance verification of zero air scrubbers.

Finding C6:

Not all Big Island sites are recording the results of high range SO2 precision and 

zero/span calibrations.

Discussion:

It appears that high range SO2 precision and zero/span calibrations are being 

conducted at all Big Island VOG sites. Site operators record the normal (lower) 

range results on the calibration sheets. Not all site operators are recording the 

high range results. 

Photo: Example of a Zero/Span Log Sheet with high range results.

These results are important, as the Big Island sites often experience higher levels 

of SO2 and the high range checks allow for greater confidence in those higherrange data.
25

Recommendation:

Ensure that all Big Island site operators record the results of high range SO2

precision and zero/span calibrations.

Finding C7:

There is a tree at the Hilo site that presents a significant siting issue and an 

obstruction.

Discussion:

Photos: Hilo site.

The 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E, section 5 states “Trees can provide surfaces for 

SO2, O3, NO2 adsorption or reactions, and surfaces for particle deposition . . . To 

reduce this possible interference/obstruction, the probe, inlet, or at least 90 

percent of the monitoring path must be at least 10 meters from the drip line of 

trees.” The tree at the Hilo site is 5 meters from the SO2 probe inlet, over 10 

meters tall, and obstructs approximately 60 degrees of the monitoring path. While 

the tree is not in the most predominant wind direction, it is in the direction the 

wind comes from when Hilo is impacted by VOG. As such, the tree is an 

obstruction and does not meet the criteria for trees cited above.

While not as critical, it should also be noted that there is a palm tree at the Ocean 

View site that is approximately 6 meters from the probes. Removal of dead fronds 

would improve siting. 
26

Recommendation:

Evaluate if the tree interfering with the Hilo siting can be trimmed or if the trailer 

can be moved and/or re-aligned to improve siting.

Finding C8: (Best Practices Recommendation)

Filter tape from continuous instruments is not archived.

Discussion:

While there is no requirement to archive filter tape from continuous instruments, 

there are reasons for doing so. In cases where data are invalidated due to a hole in 

the filter, debris contamination on the filter, or other such issues, EPA strongly 

recommends that the filter tape from that time period be labeled and kept for three 

or more years. HDOH may also receive requests for the filters, from the public or 

internally. 

Recommendation:

Develop a system for archiving filter tape that includes either keeping the entire 

tape, or, at a minimum, archiving the portion of the tape associated with 

invalidated data.

Finding C9: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The Mountain View site experiences periodic temperature drift due to loss of 

power.

Discussion:

The Mountain View site periodically loses power. Most systems are on back-up 

power and are not affected. The air conditioning unit is not, however, and it turns 

off and does not turn back on until it is manually reset. This increases the 

possibility that the temperature at the site may go out of the acceptable range, 

resulting in voided data.

Recommendation:

Devise a plan to prevent loss of data at Mountain View due to the temperature 

going out of the acceptable range following a loss of power.
27

Finding C10: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The sample residence times are not calculated and posted at each monitoring site.

Discussion:

Overall, DOH has done an excellent job of posting residence times at the various 

stations. Residence times for most sites are calculated and there are several 

different configurations included if applicable. However, there were a few sites 

that did not have residence times posted.

Recommendation:

Ensure that all stations have residence times calculated and posted.
28

LABORATORY OPERATIONS

Analytical laboratories provide support for measurement methods that are either too 

complex or too sensitive to be performed in the field environment. In order to provide 

these services, laboratories employ advanced instrumentation and staff with highly 

specialized training. 

For ambient air samples to provide useful information or evidence, laboratory 

analyses must meet the following basic requirements:

The laboratory must maintain a suitable facility for sample receipt, storage, 

analysis, and reduction and storage of data.

The laboratory must have sufficient and appropriate equipment that must be 

calibrated and maintained frequently. 

The laboratory must have an adequate number of qualified staff. 

Analytical procedures must be in accordance with official guidance, EPA 

methods and accepted practice.

Complete and accurate records must be kept. 

The DOH has a clean, modern laboratory facility located in Pearl City. This 

laboratory supports many chemical analyses for air, water and biological samples. 

The Air Surveillance & Analysis Section routinely analyzes for:

Mass of PM2.5 filters

Mass or total suspended particulates (TSP) filters

VOCs for air toxics (TO-15)

Carbonyls for air toxics (TO-11A)

TSP metals by graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) (IO-3.2)

There are a number of additional activities the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section

undertakes to support the collection and analysis of air pollutants. These include 

canister cleaning and preparation, data validation, and sample storage.

General Laboratory

Finding D1:

The use of the PM2.5 weigh-room is so low as to be inefficient and potentially 

error prone.
29

Discussion:

DOH has successfully transitioned to continuous monitoring for PM2.5. As such, 

the sampling frequency has been reduced to collocated sampling at one 

monitoring site three days per-week. At this monitoring frequency, the weighroom is only in use several days a month. At the current sampling frequency,

Hawaii‟s cost per sample is extremely high due to the fixed cost of maintaining 

the filter weighing facility and associated documentation. As this analysis 

becomes less routine, the potential for quality control errors is also increased. 

EPA also noted that the PM2.5 analyst is validating the data she collects. To 

correct this lack of independent QA, another validator would need to be trained. 

Recommendation:

Consider sending PM2.5 filters to a commercial laboratory or to another air 

monitoring agency to save on analytical cost and to potentially improve data 

quality.

Finding D2:

Contamination from a performance evaluation sample may have caused erroneous 

data to be reported to AQS.

Discussion:

The primary and collocated Pb sample results for August 12, 2010 at the Pearl 

City monitoring location were significantly different, as reported to AQS. An 

investigation of these data found that on the day these samples were analyzed the 

GFAA sampling system experienced significant carry-over contamination from a 

performance evaluation sample that had been submitted at too high a 

concentration. One other sample in the analytical batch was re-run confirming the 

interference. The potentially erroneous results of August 12 were quickly 

identified as problematic in AQS by EPA, and should have been noticed during 

the peer review, data validation, or overall data check by the QA manager prior to 

submission to AQS. 

Recommendation:

1. Metals data from the time of the performance evaluation sample should be 

investigated by the QA officer and any suspect data should be flagged or 

removed from AQS.

2. Performance evaluation samples should be ordered to be made up at a 

concentration similar to ambient samples.

3. The laboratory QA oversight system should be improved.
30

Finding D3:

The sampling system for collection of carbonyl samples is not routinely certified.

Discussion:

The Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone 

Precursors, September 1998, Section 2.5.1.7, specifies which procedure should

be followed to certify sampling systems. It is recommended that certification take 

place one to three times per year for each sampler. DOH does not currently have 

a schedule for certifying these systems. 

Recommendation:

DOH should develop a procedure, schedule, and criteria for certification of 

carbonyl sampling equipment.

Finding D4:

DOH should develop an approved method for laboratory analysis of Pb filters for 

the NAAQS program.

Discussion:

DOH has a well established procedure for analyzing metals from TSP filters. 

While this method is acceptable, it does not meet the equivalency requirements 

for NAAQS decisions. Currently the laboratory cuts squares out of each TSP 

filter, digests them with nitric acid in a 60 °C ultrasonic bath, and analyzes the 

extracts by GFAA. DOH could modify this procedure slightly and apply to EPA 

for a federal equivalent method (FEM) for Pb. The FEM application process 

would also help the laboratory to develop and understand their analytical 

techniques more thoroughly.

EPA noted several areas that could be improved if the existing method were to be 

used as an FEM for comparison to the NAAQS standard.

The laboratory should follow 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix G and cut TSP 

filters into strips instead of squares.

The digestion temperature should be raised 

to 80 °C to be consistent with other 

approved Pb FEMs.

Also note that total mass of the TSP filters is not 

required for comparison to the Pb NAAQS. 
31

Recommendation:

DOH should develop and apply for a Pb FEM using the existing method, use a

procedure that follows an existing FRM or FEM, or plan to send lead filters to an 

external laboratory for NAAQS comparison.

Finding D5:

Field blanks are not implemented for metals.

Discussion:

All aspects of the sampling and analysis program should have blank controls. 

DOH runs laboratory blanks for metals but does not run field blanks. This does 

not control for contamination introduced during field handling procedures. 

Recommendation:

Initiate routine field blanks for the metals program.

Finding D6: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The vendor does not provide an expiration date with the carbonyl sampling 

media.

Discussion:

All sampling media should include an expiration date to ensure that they are not 

used for sampling outside of their “lifetime.” Method TO-11A specifies a 90-day 

certification period for sampling media prepared by analytical laboratories. It is 

conceivable that the vendor may have tested the media for a longer period and can 

justify recommending a period longer than 90 days. This information should be 

included in the SOP and the documentation kept with the certification.

Recommendation:

Set an expiration period for carbonyl sampling media based on the vendor‟s 

holding time data or the 90-day recommendation of TO-11A.

Finding D7: (Best Practices Recommendation)

Staff at the PM2.5 laboratory indicated that they have many more new filters than 

they can use.
32

Discussion:

EPA incurs significant program cost purchasing and shipping filters to monitoring 

agencies. The shelf life of filters for use in the PM2.5 NAAQS monitoring 

program is 3 years. It is possible that the remaining, unexpired, filters could be 

used by other agencies in the network.

Recommendation:

DOH should cut back on any future filter shipments from EPA and consider 

sending filters to another agency if they will not be used by Hawaii before their 

expiration date.
33

DATA MANAGEMENT

DOH has a draft QAPP in place for handling data from the time of acquisition to 

the time that they are submitted to EPA. It has been revised to reflect Envista, DOH‟s 

new data management system. The Air Surveillance & Analysis Section is primarily 

responsible for managing ambient monitoring data and reporting to EPA‟s AQS database.

Air quality data measured by the continuous analyzers at the field stations used to 

be stored in EMC data loggers and station computers. With the Envista system, each 

station is connected to the central computer at the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section on 

Oahu. Raw data and electronic logsheets maintained in Envista are immediately 

available to the data validators. The electronic Monarch chart recorders located at each 

station provide a supplemental record for the data validation process and act as a back-up 

data logging function. The first review is performed by the station operators. The data 

validators review the data next, and the Information Technology Specialist does a last 

review and submits them to AQS.

The State‟s Laboratory-generated data include air toxics (VOCs, carbonyls, and 

metals, including Pb) measurements and data from the one remaining PM2.5 filter-based 

instrument. Laboratory-generated data are validated and submitted separately to AQS.

DOH submits all required data to the AQS database, including concentrations for 

all criteria pollutants, supporting precision and accuracy information, and data from the 

network. Data submitted to AQS are annually certified by the DOH.

Data Tracking

Finding E1:

Several incorrect flags were entered into AQS.

Discussion:

EPA selected a number of data points to track from the station where they were 

generated through the data validation process. In a number of cases, the flags 

were found to be errors. 

Some problems were related to automatic flags inserted by Envista. When 

Envista was first brought online, it was automatically inserting flags incorrectly. 

In some instances, flags were incorrectly translated from the data validator‟s

record into the file that is sent to be uploaded into AQS. In other instances, a flag 

had been entered by the data validator, but it was not possible or was very 

difficult to verify why the flag was inserted. 
34

DOH does not have anyone performing QA/QC on the data validation process. 

Some of the errors might have been found if the data validators had more time to 

review the data prior to sending them to AQS, or if there were a QA manager 

whose task it was to review the final product.

Recommendation:

1. Ensure that any flags Envista is automatically entering are correct. 

2. Allow data validators more time to review data before sending them to AQS. 

3. Review the data validation process to determine if there is a way to minimize data 

entry from the site operators to the data validators to the data file that is sent to 

AQS. 

4. Identify a person whose task it is to perform QA/QC oversight of the data 

validation process.

Finding E2:

The first-level of data validation by site operators is inconsistently executed. 

Discussion:

Site operators do not appear to be familiar with AQS flags or the process data go 

through after leaving the site. However, as they are the ones most familiar with 

the sites, the instruments, and the day-to-day conditions, they should act as firstlevel data validators, reviewing the data for any outliers, flagging data, or calling

something to the data validator‟s attention. 

Currently, some activities, such as auto calibrations or zero/span checks, are 

automatically flagged by Envista and noted in the station logbook. In order to 

find other field-associated issues that should result in AQS flags, the data 

validators must review each station log, as well as the monthly check-sheets, 

precision/accuracy and zero calibration sheets. Given the capabilities of the new 

Envista system, EPA encourages DOH to identify a way to allow data-flagging by 

the site operators. This would minimize the amount of information (electronic or 

hard-copy) the data validators must review to identify issues and would provide 

more consistent QA/QC.

Recommendation:

Review Envista capabilities, in particular how the data validation QAPP addresses 

data review and flagging by site operators, and revise the QAPP as appropriate to 

ensure first-level data review and data-flagging at the site operator level.
35

Finding E3:

Data validation is only performed at the end of the quarter, limiting the time for 

review.

Discussion:

The data validators try to complete their review of a quarter‟s worth of data by the 

end of the quarter following the quarter the data were collected. They review the

raw data, station logbooks, checksheets, and precision/accuracy and zero/span 

calibration logs. Thanks to the new Envista system, the raw data and station 

logbooks are immediately available. The checksheets, precision/accuracy and 

zero/span calibration logs, however, are primarily still available only in hardcopy. Site operators are supposed to bring the hard copies to the lab every month, 

scan them, and give the hard copy and electronic copy to the data validators, but 

in practice this occurs at the very end of the quarter. As a result, the data 

validators have a limited time to perform their review.

Staff are working to develop an electronic system for the checksheets, 

precision/accuracy and zero/span calibration logs. Station operators will be able 

to track information on excel spreadsheets. When the spreadsheets are complete, 

the station operators will save them as pdf files to a centrally-available network 

drive. Once this system is set up, the data validators will be able to view the 

spreadsheets as soon as they have been saved, and this will eliminate the need for 

station operators to scan hard copies at another location.

Recommendation:

DOH staff should continue to work with the site operators to ensure that 

checksheets, precision/accuracy and zero/span calibration logs are available to the 

data validators on a more frequent (at a minimum, on a monthly) basis.
36

QUALITY CONTROL (QC) AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)

The Code of Federal Regulations Volume 40, Part 58, Appendix A, establishes 

minimal requirements for quality assurance for Primary Quality Assurance Organizations 

(PQAOs) such as DOH. These requirements include quality planning, independent 

quality management, and submission to performance and technical audits by EPA. EPA 

views the application of quality management systems as integral to monitoring programs. 

Insufficient quality management and control has been cited as rationale to support legal 

challenges to NAAQS redesignation decisions. 

As compared to EPA‟s minimal requirements, DOH has a defined quality 

management system. DOH has an approved quality management planning document and

has identified independent quality assurance functions. However, implementation of the 

overall QA system as defined has been problematic for DOH in general and the ambient 

air monitoring program specifically. With the exception of CAB performance audits and 

EPA TSA corrective actions, QA issues are elevated through the regular 

technical/supervisory methods instead of through systems specifically designed to 

improve QA/QC. This can result in the QA/QC aspect of an issue not being addressed.

EPA regulation requires independent performance audits of gaseous pollutants 

and flow audits of PM2.5, PM10 and TSP (Pb) monitors. For gaseous pollutants, the 

current regulation requires that 25% of each pollutant monitoring network be audited per 

calendar quarter so that each instrument is audited once per year. Semi-annual flow 

audits of each PM2.5, PM10, and TSP sampler are also required (40 CFR, Part 58, 

Appendix A, Sections 3.2.4 and 3.3.3). This is in addition to the required monthly audit

(or quarterly for high volume samplers) (40 CFR, Part 58, Appendix A, Sections 3.2.3 

and 3.3.2.) These requirements are met by a combination of independent CAB and Air 

Surveillance & Analysis Section field operator audits.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Finding F1:

The DOH Quality Management Plan (QMP), conditionally approved by EPA 

Region 9 in 2005, has not been implemented.

Discussion:

The DOH QMP requires that the DOH environmental monitoring QA program be 

lead by a central QA Manager. There have been no significant interactions 

between the ambient air monitoring program and the DOH central QA program in 

the past several years. This situation does not meet the requirement in 40 CFR 

Part 58, Appendix A, Section 2 that all ambient air monitoring programs should 

have an operational Quality System. 
37

Recommendation:

DOH must implement the QMP in existence or the ambient air monitoring 

program must develop a separate quality system. 

Finding F2:

DOH‟s corrective action system is not comprehensive.

Discussion:

EPA quality management standards (EPA QA/R-2, Quality Improvement Section) 

require that management and staff ensure that conditions impacting quality are

prevented or identified promptly, that they are fully defined and corrected, and 

that measures are taken to prevent them from recurring. The entire process should 

be documented as corrective actions and tracked to successful closure. The CAB 

has a formal process specifically for corrective actions of field performance 

evaluations, however, the resolution of the actions are not always clear to all 

parties involved and are not approved by a QA manager. There is no formal 

corrective action process for field operations. Air monitoring agencies should 

have corrective action systems for all aspects (field, laboratory, data review, et 

cetera) of their air monitoring programs. These systems should allow for 

corrective actions to be initiated by staff as well as auditors and data reviewers. 

Recommendation:

The DOH air monitoring program should include a formal and comprehensive

corrective action process for all aspects of the air monitoring program.

Finding F3:

The CAB does not have current SOPs for the performance audit program.

Discussion:

All monitoring activities should be covered by an SOP that represents current 

procedures.

Recommendation:

CAB should develop SOPs for their audit program.

Finding F4:

The criteria used for gaseous audits do not consider the current data quality 

objectives (DQOs). 
38

Discussion:

DOH uses audit criteria of 10% for O3 audits and 15% for all other gaseous 

pollutants. The national DQOs of gaseous pollutants, as specified in 40 CFR Part 

58, Appendix A, Section 2.3, are 7% for O3 and 10% for all others. DOH needs 

to tighten or modify the audit criteria so that some corrective actions are taken 

when results are near the DQO limits. Note that criteria for audit points that fall 

well below the NAAQS concentrations could be greater than the DQO levels. 

Please see EPA‟s Technical Guidance on Assessment Statistics for Annual 

Performance Evaluations

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/datamang/20110217lowlevelst

atmemo.pdf).

Recommendation:

DOH should incorporate the DQOs into the audit criteria. At a minimum the 7% 

and 10% DQOs should be used as warning limits.

Finding F5:

DOH needs to develop a strategy for evaluating the PM2.5 FEM data and 

FEM/FRM collocations.

Discussion:

The DOH has converted to PM2.5 FEM monitoring throughout their network. As 

other agencies have noted that PM2.5 FEMs may have a bias when compared to 

the FRMs, EPA is investigating this further. As noted in the previous TSA, DOH 

should be doing formal FEM/FRM data comparisons and evaluations.

Recommendation:

DOH should evaluate and understand the data produced by the PM2.5 FEM

monitors. 

Finding F6:

The audit forms used by the CAB when conducting performance audits are not 

routinely peer reviewed. 

Discussion:

Peer review of technical evaluations should be done to ensure accuracy of the 

information reported and to verify that the audits have been properly documented. 
39

Recommendation:

The CAB should implement a system to conduct and document peer reviews of 

performance audits.

Finding F7: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The CAB does not perform statistical evaluations of the annual gaseous audit 

results.

Discussion:

The CAB has criteria for acceptance of individual performance audits and 

requests corrective action when these specifications are not met. AQS also 

summarizes audit results across all the DOH stations with the required statistical 

test specified in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A. However, the summaries of quality 

control audits produced by AQS combine audits by the field operators with audits 

performed by the CAB. Because the CAB audits represent independent 

equipment as well as an independent auditor, these results should be statistically 

evaluated independently, as well being evaluated to determine overall network 

performance and trends.

Recommendation:

Some of the simple statistical tests specified in EPA regulation should be 

performed on the annual CAB audit data to evaluate overall network performance.

Finding F8: (Best Practices Recommendation)

DOH has not developed methods to conduct and evaluate audits from the gaseous 

trace level monitors at the NCore site. 

Discussion:

The field operations staff and the CAB auditor are working together to develop an 

audit process for the trace level gaseous instrument. Audits should be performed 

in 2011 to validate performance of the NCore site.

Recommendation:

DOH should continue to develop and implement methods for trace level audits.
40

Finding F9: (Best Practices Recommendation)

DOH is not equipped to perform audits of relative humidity or solar radiation at 

the NCore site.

Discussion:

Data on relative humidity and solar radiation are being collected at the NCore site. 

In order to verify that these methods are working properly, they should be 

periodically audited with independent standards.

Recommendation:

DOH should develop methods to audit the relative humidity and solar radiation 

sensors independently.

Finding F10: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The CAB auditor is not currently auditing the high calibration range for SO2.

Discussion:

The auditor indicated that audits of the high SO2 calibration range are not 

currently being conducted. Because readings in this calibration range are used to 

inform the public of potential health impacts, they should be independently 

verified on a regular basis.

Recommendation:

The CAB should perform audits of both SO2 calibration ranges for the Big Island

stations.

Finding F11: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The amount of excess flow provided during the gaseous audits is not significantly 

above the total system flow and is not verified by the auditor.

Discussion:

The amount of flow used during gaseous audits is set to match the flow of the 

gaseous calibration checks. This flow rated is based on the calculated flow of the 

sampling system plus a slight excess. Because audits are meant to be independent 

of the existing system and control for all problems, including inconsistent and/or 

miscalculated flow rates, the amount of audit gas delivered should be based on 

verification of excess flow. This means that the audit system should deliver 

excess flow that is properly vented, so as not to pressurize the station‟s sampling 
41

system. Excess flow should be verified at the audit system‟s vent line and/or at 

the sampling station inlet (depending on station configuration).

Recommendation:

Provide and verify excess flow when conducting gaseous audits.
42

APPENDIX A: Summary of Findings

A. Major Findings

GENERAL PROGRAM

Finding A1:

Insufficient communication between the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section and 

the CAB is compromising the quality of Hawaii‟s air monitoring program.

Finding A2:

The EPA requirement for independent quality assurance is not being fully met. 

Finding A3:

The performance of EPA Method TO-15 is not meeting minimal data quality 

requirements to characterize the low concentrations of toxics in ambient air. 

Finding A4:

Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) have not been completed or updated 

since the last TSA. 

Finding A5:

DOH should have more formalized training requirements for new and existing 

staff.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT

Finding B1:

While the volcanic activity on the Big Island is the state‟s highest air quality 

concern, the Big Island monitoring network may have some redundancies.

Finding B2:

As was found with the 2008 TSA, the DOH ambient air monitoring program does 

not have an up-to-date emergency episode plan for the Island of Hawaii.

FIELD OPERATIONS

Finding C1:

Gaseous inlet probe heights at the Big Island sites do not meet the CFR 

requirement for height above the roof.

Finding C2:

Maintenance and repairs of monitoring equipment used at the field stations were 

not sufficiently documented. Maintenance sheets used to track instrument repairs 

do not appear to be consistently available or utilized.
43

Finding C3:

The documentation of PM2.5 filter data from the site operators and feedback from 

the analytical and validation process need to be improved.

Finding C4:

DOH is lacking a corrective action process for field operations.

Finding C5:

Neither the field operations nor the CAB auditor document the quality of zero air 

used in the program. This was a finding in the 2008 TSA.

Finding C6:

Not all Big Island sites are recording the results of high range SO2 precision and 

zero/span calibrations.

Finding C7:

There is a tree at the Hilo site that presents a significant siting issue and an 

obstruction.

LABORATORY OPERATIONS

Finding D1:

The use of the PM2.5 weigh-room is so low as to be inefficient and potentially 

error prone.

Finding D2:

Contamination from a performance evaluation sample may have caused erroneous 

data to be reported to AQS.

Finding D3:

The sampling system for collection of carbonyl samples is not routinely certified.

Finding D4:

DOH should develop an approved method for laboratory analysis of Pb filters for 

the NAAQS program.

Finding D5:

Field blanks are not implemented for metals.

DATA AND DATA MANAGEMENT

Finding E1:

Several incorrect flags were entered into AQS.
44

Finding E2:

The first-level of data validation by site operators is inconsistently executed. 

Finding E3:

Data validation is only performed at the end of the quarter, limiting the time for 

review.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

Finding F1:

The DOH Quality Management Plan (QMP), conditionally approved by EPA 

Region 9 in 2005, has not been implemented.

Finding F2:

DOH‟s corrective action system is not comprehensive.

Finding F3:

The CAB does not have current SOPs for the performance audit program.

Finding F4:

The criteria used for gaseous audits do not consider the current data quality 

objectives (DQOs). 

Finding F5:

DOH needs to develop a strategy for evaluating the PM2.5 FEM data and 

FEM/FRM collocations.

Finding F6:

The audit forms used by the CAB when conducting performance audits are not 

routinely peer reviewed. 

B. Minor Findings

FIELD OPERATIONS

Finding C8: (Best Practices Recommendation) 

Filter tape from continuous instruments is not archived.

Finding C9: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The Mountain View site experiences periodic temperature drift due to loss of 

power.
45

Finding C10: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The sample residence times are not calculated and posted at each monitoring site.

LABORATORY OPERATIONS

Finding D6: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The vendor does not provide an expiration date with the carbonyl sampling 

media.

Finding D7: (Best Practices Recommendation)

Staff at the PM2.5 laboratory indicated that they have many more new filters than 

they can use.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

Finding F7: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The CAB does not perform statistical evaluations of the annual gaseous audit 

results.

Finding F8: (Best Practices Recommendation)

DOH has not yet developed methods to conduct and evaluate audits from the 

gaseous trace level monitors at the NCore site. 

Finding F9: (Best Practices Recommendation)

DOH is not equipped to perform audits of relative humidity or solar radiation at 

the NCore site.

Finding F10: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The CAB auditor is not currently auditing the high calibration range for SO2.

Finding F11: (Best Practices Recommendation)

The amount of excess flow provided during the gaseous audits is not significantly 

above the total system flow and is not verified by the auditor.
APPENDIX B: Hawaii Department of Health: Air Surveillance & Analysis Section and Clean Air Branch Staff

Air Surveillance & Analysis Section

Name Title Phone Fax Email

Castillo, Jeffrey AQET I 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 jeffrey.castillo@doh.hawaii.gov

Figueiroa, Carrie Clerk-Steno II 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 carrie.figueiroa@doh.hawaii.gov

Furukawa, Eric AQET I 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 eric.furukawa@doh.hawaii.gov

Higashida, Harold AQET I 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 harold.higashida@doh.hawaii.gov

Ibara, Michael AQET II 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 michael.ibara@doh.hawaii.gov

Licudine, Jocelyn Chemist III 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 jocelyn.licudine@doh.hawaii.gov

Lizama, Corey AQET I 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 corey.lizama@doh.hawaii.gov

Nichols, Kimberly Chemist III 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 kimberly.nichols@doh.hawaii.gov

Shinsato, Terri ITS IV 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 terri.shinsato@doh.hawaii.gov

Suzuki, Darren Chemist III 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 darren.suzuki@doh.hawaii.gov

Tamashiro, Mark AQET I 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 mark.tamashiro@doh.hawaii.gov

Wallace, Lisa Chemist III 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 lisa.wallace@doh.hawaii.gov

Yee, Henry

Chemist V -

Supervisor 808-453-6620 808-453-6640 henry.yee@doh.hawaii.gov

Environmental Health Analytical Services Branch

Chang, Wanda Manager 808-453-6683 808-453-6685 wanda.chang@doh.hawaii.gov

Kiyokane, Richard QA Officer 808-453-6679 808-453-6685 richard.kiyokane@doh.hawaii.gov

Clean Air Branch

Name Title Section Phone Email

Wilfred K. Nagamine Manager (808) 586-4200 wilfred.nagamine@doh.hawaii.gov

Susan Kihara EHS IV Monitoring Section (808) 586-4200 susan.kihara@doh.hawaii.gov

Jensen Yoshimoto EHS IV Monitoring Section (808) 586-4200 jensen.yoshimoto@doh.hawaii.gov

Crystal Peltier EHS IV Monitoring Section (808) 586-4200 crystal.peltier@doh.hawaii.gov

Gary Wu EHS IV Monitoring Section (808) 586-4200 gary.wu@doh.hawaii.gov

Lisa Young EHS V - Supervisor Monitoring Section (808) 586-4200 lisa.young@doh.hawaii.gov

AQET = Air Quality Electronic Technician

ITS = Information Technology Specialist

EHS = Environmental Health Specialist
47

APPENDIX C: EPA Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix H, as filled out by Hawaii 

Department of Health – Clean Air Branch, and Air Surveillance & Analysis Section
48

Appendix H –

As filled out by Hawaii Department of Health, Clean Air Branch

January 7, 2011

United States Environmental Protection Agency

National Ambient Air Monitoring Technical System Audit Form
49

1) General / Quality Management

 State/ Local / Tribal Agency Audited: Hawaii State Department of Health, Clean Air Branch 

 Address: 919 Ala Moana Blvd.

 City, State, and Zip Code: Honolulu, HI 96814

 Date of Technical System Audit: January 24-27, 2011

 Auditor / Agency: U.S. EPA Region 9 

a) Program Organization

1) Key Individuals

1.1) Agency Director: Wilfred Nagamine, Manager, Clean Air Branch (CAB)

1.2) Ambient Air Monitoring (AAM) Network Manager: Lisa Young, Supervisor, Monitoring 

Section (CAB)

1.3) Quality Assurance Manager:

1.4) QA Auditors: Jensen Yoshimoto, Environmental Health Specialist, Monitoring Section 

(CAB)

1.5) Field Operations Supervisor / Lead:

1.6) Laboratory Supervisor:

1.7) QA Laboratory Manager:

1.8) Data Management Supervisor / Lead:

Attach an Organizational Chart : Will be provided during the audit.

Flow Chart:
50

Key position staffing. Number of personnel available to each of the following program areas:

Program Area

Number of 

People 

Primary

Number of 

People 

Backup 

Vacancies Program Area

Number 

of People 

Primary

Number 

of People 

Backup

Vacancies

Network 

Design and 

Siting

1 1 0 Data and Data 

Management

1 0 0

QC activities

Equipment 

repair and 

maintenance

QA activities

1 1 0 Financial 

Management

List available personnel by name and percentage of time spent on each task category

Name Network 

Design 

and siting

QC 

activities

QA

activities

Equipment repair

and maintenance

Data and

Data Management

Financial

Management

Crystal Peltier 10%

Gary Wu 10%

Jensen 

Yoshimoto

5% 20% 10% 10% 10%

Susan Kihara 25% 10% 25%

Lisa Young 10% 10% 10% 10%

Comment on the need for additional personnel, if applicable

List personnel who have authority or are responsible for:

Activity Name Title

QA Training Field/Lab

Grant Management Lisa Young Supervisor, Monitoring Section 

(CAB)

Purchases greater than $500 Lisa Young/ Jensen Yoshimoto

Equipment and Service Contract 

Management

Jensen Yoshimoto/ Gary Wu

Staff appointment
c) Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Control

1. Status of Quality Assurance Program

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency perform QA activities with 

internal personnel? If no go to Section d.

X

Does the agency maintain a separate 

laboratory to support quality assurance 

activities?

X

Has the agency documented and 

implemented specific audit procedures 

separate from monitoring procedures?

X

Are there two levels of management 

separation between QA and QC operations? 

Please explain:

X

See attached Organizational Chart 

Does the agency have identifiable auditing 

equipment and standards (specifically 

intended for sole use) for audits?

X

 

 2. Internal Performance Audits

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have separate facilities to 

support audits and calibrations? 

X

If the agency has in place contracts or similar agreements either with another agency or contractor to perform 

audits or calibrations, please name the organization and briefly describe the type of agreement. 

Clean Air Branch conducts performance audits of all DOH monitoring stations annually.

If the agency does not have a performance audit SOP (included as an attachment), please describe performance 

audit procedure for each type of pollutant.

See attachment 1

Does the agency maintain independence of audit 

standards and personnel?

X Clean Air Branch personnel conduct audits 

with independent equipment.

Please provide information on certification of audit standards currently being used. Include information on 

vendor and internal or external certification of standards.

See attachment 2

Does the agency have a certified source of zero 

air for performance audits?

X Currently using Environics 7000 zero air 

generator

Does the agency have procedures for auditing 

and/or validating performance of 

Meteorological monitoring?

X

Please provide a list of the agency‟s audit equipment and age of audit equipment.

See attachment 3
52

Is audit equipment ever used to support routine 

calibration and QC checks required for 

monitoring network operations? 

X

If yes, please describe.

Are standard operating procedures (SOPs) for 

air monitoring available to all field personnel?

X

Has the agency established and has it 

documented criteria to define agency-acceptable 

audit results?

X

 

Please complete the table below with the pollutant, monitor and acceptance criteria.

Pollutant How is performance tracked (e.g., control 

charts) Audit Result Acceptance 

Criteria

CO Percent dif. of each audit level 

< 15%

O3

Percent dif. of each audit level 

< 15%

NO2

Percent dif. of each audit level 

< 15%

SO2

Percent dif. of each audit level 

< 15%

Continuous PM10

Flow + 4% of audit standard, 

Temp + 2°C, Pres + 10 mm Hg

PM2.5

Flow + 4% of audit standard, 

Temp + 2°C, Pres + 10 mm Hg

Pb-TSP* + 10% of design value

VOCs

Carbonyls

PM2.5 speciation Flow < 10% of audit standard, Temp + 2°C, Pres + 10 mm Hg

PM10-2.5 speciation

PM10-2.5 FRM Mass

Continuous PM2.5 Flow + 4% of audit standard, Temp + 2°C, Pres + 10 mm Hg

Trace Levels (CO)

Trace Levels (SO2)

Trace Levels (NO)

Trace Levels (NOy)

Surface 

Meteorology

Wind Dir. + 5 Deg , Wind 

speed +5%, Temp + 1°C

Others

*If Pb- PM10 data are being collected, please enter this information under “Others.”

 
53

Question Yes No Comment

Were these audit criteria based on, or derived from, the 

guidance found in Volume II of the QA Handbook for 

Air Pollution Measurement System, Section 2.0.12? 

X

If no, please explain.

If yes, please explain any changes or 

assumptions made in the derivation.

What corrective action may be taken if criteria are exceeded? If possible, indicate two examples of corrective 

actions, taken within the period since the previous systems audit which are based directly on the criteria discussed 

above.

Corrective Action # 1 

Continuous PM2.5 failed flow audit. Pinholes discovered in tape, technician cleaned BAM nozzle, cross 

hair plate, capstan, and pinch roller. 

Corrective Action #2 
54

d) Planning Documents including QMP, QAPP, &SOP

f) Training

QMP questions Yes No

Does the agency have an EPA-approved 

quality management plan? X Yes for Environmental Management Division

Not for the Clean Air Branch

If yes, have changes to the plan been 

approved by the EPA? X Not for the Clean Air Branch

Has the QMP been approved by EPA 

within the last five years? X

Please provide: Date of Original Approval 4/2002 Date of Last Revision: 4/2003 Date of Latest 

Approval: 

QAPP questions Yes No Comment

Does the agency have an EPA-approved 

quality assurance project plan?

X PM2.5, PM Speciation and Air Toxics

Not for Criteria gasses and PM10

If yes, have changes to the plan been 

approved by the EPA?

X Need to update PM2.5, PM Speciation and URG

Has the QAPP been reviewed by EPA 

annually?

X

Please provide: Date of Original Approval PM2.5 12/9/1998 Date of Last Revision 2/2008 Date of Latest Approval

Does the agency have any revisions to your 

QA project plan still pending?

X

How does the agency verify the QA project 

plan is fully implemented?

How are the updates distributed?

What personnel regularly receive updates?

SOP questions

Has the agency prepared and implemented 

standard operating procedures (SOPs) for 

all facets of agency operation?

Do the SOPs adequately address 

ANSI/ASQC E-4 quality system required 

by 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?

Are copies of the SOP or pertinent sections 

available to agency personnel?

How does the agency verify that the SOPs 

are implemented as provided?

How are the updates distributed?
55

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have a training program and training plan? X No formal training plan

Where is it documented? In our personnel file,

Does it make use of seminars, courses, EPA sponsored 

college level courses?

X

Are personnel cross-trained for other ambient air monitoring 

duties?

X Within the CAB

Are training funds specifically designated in the annual 

budget?

Not sure but have used WESTAR

Does the training plan include: Yes No Comment

Training requirements by position 

Frequency of training

Training for contract personnel

A list of core QA related courses

Indicate below the three most recent training events and identify the personnel participating in them.

Event Dates Participant(s)

URG and PM Speciation Training April 13-15, 2009 Monitoring Section

Note: We were not able to get documentation (certificates for the training above). I 

requested numerous times with no reply.

CAB has also requested training from the Air Surveillance & Analysis Section for the 

new data acquisition system and website.
56

Appendix HAs filled out by Hawaii Department of Health, Air Surveillance & Analysis Section

January 10, 2011

United States Environmental Protection Agency

National Ambient Air Monitoring Technical System Audit 

Form
57
58

Page intentionally left blank
59

Table of Contents

1) General / Quality Management

a) Program Organization

b) Facilities

c) Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Control

d) Planning Documents (including QMP, QAPPs, & SOPs)

e) General Documentation Policies

f) Training

g) Corrective Action

h) Quality Improvement

i) External Performance Audits

2) Network Management / Field Operations

a) Network Design

b) Changes to the Network since the last audit

c) Proposed changes to the Network

d) Field Support

i) SOPs

ii) Instrument Acceptance

iii) Calibration

iv) Repair

v) Site and Monitor Information Form

3) Laboratory Operations

a) Routine Operations

b) Quality Control

c) Laboratory Preventive Maintenance

d) Laboratory Record Keeping

e) Laboratory Data Acquisition and Handling

f) Specific Pollutants: PM10,PM 2.5 and Lead 

4) Data and Data Management

a) Data Handling

b.) Software Documentation 

c) Data Validation and Correction

d) Data Processing

e) Internal Reporting

f) External Reporting
60

1) General / Quality Management

 State/ Local / Tribal Agency Audited: State of Hawaii, Department of Health, State 

Laboratories Division, Environmental Health Analytical Services Branch, Air Surveillance 

& Analysis Section

 Address: 2725 Waimano Home Road

 City, State, and Zip Code: Pearl City, Hawaii 96782

 Date of Technical System Audit:

 Auditor / Agency: 

a) Program Organization

1) Key Individuals

1.1) Agency Director: Dr. Chris Whelen

1.2) Ambient Air Monitoring (AAM) Network Manager: 

1.3) Quality Assurance Manager: 

1.4) QA Auditors: Richard Kiyokane

1.5) Field Operations Supervisor / Lead: Michael Ibara

1.6) Laboratory Supervisor: Henry Yee

1.7) QA Laboratory Manager: Wanda Chang

1.8) Data Management Supervisor / Lead: Terri Shinsato

DOH = Department of Health, State of Hawaii; EHA = Environmental Health Administration; SLD = State 

Laboratories Division; EHASB = Environmental Health Analytical Services Branch; ASAS = Air Surveillance & 

Analysis Section. EMD = Environmental Management Division; CAB = Clean Air Branch; AQET=Air Quality 

Electronic Technician; DOA=Department of Agriculture; DVP=Data Validation Person; ITS=Information 

Technology Specialist;

Attach an Organizational Chart: See attached diagram, SLD Organization Chart
61

Flow Chart:

Key position staffing. Number of personnel available to each of the following program areas:

Program Area

Number of 

People 

Primary

Number of 

People 

Backup 

Vacancies Program Area

Number 

of People 

Primary

Number 

of People 

Backup

Vacancies

Network 

Design and 

Siting

0 0 Data and Data 

Management

1 0

QC activities

6 0 Equipment 

repair and 

maintenance

6 1

QA activities

5

2*

1 Financial 

Management

1 1

*Data audits by DVP

List available personnel by name and percentage of time spent on each task category

Name Network 

Design 

and siting

QC 

activities

QA

activities

Equipment repair

and maintenance

Data and

Data Management

Financial

Management

Wanda Chang 5 95

Henry Yee 5 15 75

Michael Ibara 5 85 10

Terri Shinsato 100

Richard 

Kiyokane

100

Kimberly Nichols 30 60 10

Lisa Wallace 1 50 35 5 9

Comment on the need for additional personnel, if applicable

Needs another full time field technician on the Big Island – Currently seven monitoring stations and one more in the 

near future. Goal: Faster response time should reduce instrument downtime. 

List personnel who have authority or are responsible for:

Activity Name Title

QA Training Field/Lab Michael Ibara/Richard Kiyokane AQET Supervisor/QA Officer

Grant Management Wanda Chang Branch Chief, EHASB

Purchases greater than $500 Wanda Chang Branch Chief, EHASB

Equipment and Service Contract 

Management

Henry Yee ASAS Supervisor

Staff appointment Wanda Chang Branch Chief, EHASB
62

b) Facilities

Identify the principal facilities where the agency conducts work that is related to air monitoring. Do not include 

monitoring stations but do include facilities where work is performed by contractors or other organizations. 

Facility AAM Function Offices responsible for 

ensuring adequacy

Location Adequate Y/N

(To be completed by 

auditor)

Instrument repair ASAS SLD, Room # 

3116

Certification of Standards e.g. 

gases, flow transfers, MFC ASAS

Vendor 

certification’s 

facilities

PM filter weighing ASAS SLD, Room 

#3104

Data verification and processing

ASAS

SLD, Room 

#3105; Hilo 

District Office

General office space ASAS SLD, Hilo District 

Health Office

Storage space, short and long 

term ASAS SLD, Hilo District 

Health Office

Air Toxics (Carbonyls, VOC s, 

Metals): ASAS

SLD, Rooms 

#3207, 3203, 

3206.

Indicate any facilities that should be upgraded. Identify by function and any suggested improvements or 

recommendations 

Monitoring stations – Puna E & H

Are facilities adequate concerning safety? Yes / No Please explain if answer is no any suggested 

improvements or recommendations

No, most monitoring stations need hand railings on roof for technicians servicing roof monitors, met sensors and 

probes.

Are there any significant changes which are likely to be implemented to agency facilities within the next one to two 

years? Comment on agency‟s needs for additional physical space (laboratory, office, storage, etc.).

Facility Function Proposed Change - Date

None
63

c) Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Control

1. Status of Quality Assurance Program

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency perform QA activities with 

internal personnel? If no go to Section d.

X Field & data audits

Does the agency maintain a separate 

laboratory to support quality assurance 

activities?

X

Has the agency documented and 

implemented specific audit procedures 

separate from monitoring procedures?

X Data audit SOP

Are there two levels of management 

separation between QA and QC operations? 

Please explain:

X X Yes-SLD-QA responsible for lab analysis; No-field

audits performed by AQET. Yes-data validation. See 

attached organization chart, SLD Organization Chart 

 

 

Does the agency have identifiable auditing 

equipment and standards (specifically 

intended for sole use) for audits?

X

 

 2. Internal Performance Audits

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have separate facilities to 

support audits and calibrations? 

X

If the agency has in place contracts or similar agreements either with another agency or contractor to perform 

audits or calibrations, please name the organization and briefly describe the type of agreement. 

CAB conducts performance audits of criteria pollutants & meteorological sensors.

If the agency does not have a performance audit SOP (included as an attachment), please describe performance 

audit procedure for each type of pollutant.

Does the agency maintain independence of audit 

standards and personnel?

X X ASAS: No independent personnel; yes for 

independent audit standards.

Please provide information on certification of audit standards currently being used. Include information on 

vendor and internal or external certification of standards.

See attached, Audit equipment Cert.

Does the agency have a certified source of zero

air for performance audits?

X

Does the agency have procedures for auditing 

and/or validating performance of 

Meteorological monitoring?

X

Please provide a list of the agency‟s audit equipment and age of audit equipment.

See attached, Audit equipment Cert.
64

Is audit equipment ever used to support routine 

calibration and QC checks required for 

monitoring network operations? 

X

If yes, please describe.

Are standard operating procedures (SOPs) for 

air monitoring available to all field personnel?

X

Has the agency established and has it 

documented criteria to define agency-acceptable 

audit results?

X

 

Please complete the table below with the pollutant, monitor and acceptance criteria.

Pollutant How is performance tracked (e.g., control 

charts) Audit Result Acceptance 

Criteria

CO Zero/span log & QC sheet Zero: ± 1.0 ppm; Span ± 2.0 

ppm

O3

Zero/span log & QC sheet Zero: ± 10 ppb; Span: ± 20 

ppb

NO2

Zero/span log & QC sheet Zero: ± 10 ppb; Span: ± 20 

ppb

SO2 , 500 ppb F.S. Zero/span log & QC sheet Zero: ± 10 ppb; Span: ± 20 

ppb

SO2 , 1000 ppb F.S. Zero/span log & QC sheet Zero: ± 10 ppb; Span: ± 30 

ppb

Continuous PM10 

QC sheet ± 4% of 16.67 LPM

PM2.5

Sampler Daily Use Maintenance Form ± 4% of 16.67 LPM

Pb-TSP* Sample Flow Check Data Sheet ± 10% of 1.13 m3/min

VOCs Flow rate control ±10% of 50 cc/min

Carbonyls Flow rate control ±10% of 100 cc/min

PM2.5 speciation Flow rate control ±10% of 6.7 LPM - SASS

±10% of 22 LPM - URG 3000N

PM10-2.5 speciation

PM10-2.5 FRM Mass Flow rate control ±4% of 16.67 LPM

Continuous PM2.5

Flow rate control ±4% of 16.67 LPM

Trace Levels (CO) Zero/span log & QC sheet Zero: ± 40ppb;

Span: 4500 ppb ± 10%

Trace Levels (SO2)

Zero/span log & QC sheet Zero: ± 0.100ppb;

Span 90 ppb ± 10%

Trace Levels (NO) Zero/span log & QC sheet ?

Trace Levels (NOy) Zero/span log & QC sheet 180 ppb ± 10%

Surface 

Meteorology

?
65

Others

*If Pb- PM10 data are being collected, please enter this information under “Others.”

 

Question Yes No Comment

Were these audit criteria based on, or derived from, the 

guidance found in Volume II of the QA Handbook for 

Air Pollution Measurement System, Section 2.0.12? 

X

If no, please explain.

If yes, please explain any changes or 

assumptions made in the derivation.

What corrective action may be taken if criteria are exceeded? If possible, indicate two examples of corrective 

actions, taken within the period since the previous systems audit which are based directly on the criteria discussed 

above.

Corrective Action # 1 

Repair and calibrate analyzer

Corrective Action #2

Troubleshoot and repair calibration equipment
66

d) Planning Documents including QMP, QAPP, &SOP

QMP questions Yes No

Does the agency have an EPA-approved 

quality management plan?

If yes, have changes to the plan been 

approved by the EPA?

Has the QMP been approved by EPA 

within the last five years?

Please provide: Date of Original Approval Date of Last Revision: Date of Latest Approval: 

QAPP questions Yes No Comment

Does the agency have an EPA-approved 

quality assurance project plan?

If yes, have changes to the plan been 

approved by the EPA?

Has the QAPP been reviewed by EPA 

annually?

Please provide: Date of Original Approval Date of Last Revision Date of Latest 

Approval

Does the agency have any revisions to your 

QA project plan still pending?

How does the agency verify the QA project 

plan is fully implemented?

How are the updates distributed?

What personnel regularly receive updates?

SOP questions

Has the agency prepared and implemented 

standard operating procedures (SOPs) for 

all facets of agency operation?

X NCore and new data acquisition system

Do the SOPs adequately address 

ANSI/ASQC E-4 quality system required 

by 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?

Are copies of the SOP or pertinent sections 

available to agency personnel? X

How does the agency verify that the SOPs 

are implemented as provided?

DVP staff

How are the updates distributed? Updated and approved SOPs posted on SharePoint
67

e) General Documentation Policies

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have a documented records management 

plan? 

X

Does the agency have a list of files considered official records 

and their media type I.E. paper, electronic?

X

Does the agency have a schedule for retention and disposition 

of records?

X

Are records for at least three years? X

Who is responsible for the storage and retrieval of records? ITS IV 

What security measures are utilized to protect records? Electronic FOBs required for entry into lab; 

mechanical door locks for individual rooms. 

Documents are backed up and password 

protected.

Where/when does the agency rely on electronic files as 

primary records?

Once the continuous data is retrieved from the 

datalogger, the database is the primary record. 

ASAS relies on electronic files as primary records for 

continuous data and diagnostics including site logs 

but excluding particulates. In addition, most 

manual method instrument diagnostics are primary

electronic files.

What is the system for the storage, retrieval and backup of 

these files? Computer server for DR DAS Envista ARM database 

is backed up.
68

f) Training

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have a training program and training plan? X

Where is it documented?

Does it make use of seminars, courses, EPA sponsored 

college level courses?

X EPA sponsored seminar

Are personnel cross-trained for other ambient air monitoring 

duties?

X In progress 

Are training funds specifically designated in the annual 

budget?

X

Does the training plan include: Yes No Comment

Training requirements by position X

Frequency of training X

Training for contract personnel X

A list of core QA related courses X

Indicate below the three most recent training events and identify the personnel participating in them.

Event Dates Participant(s)

NCore Seminar at Sacramento, CA August 2008 Michael Ibara and Harold Higashida.

Safety Training (on-line) December 2010 All ASAS staff.
69

Oversight of Contractors and Suppliers

Question Contractors Yes No Comment

Who is responsible for oversight of contract personnel?

What steps are taken to ensure contract personnel meet 

training and experience criteria?

How often are contracts reviewed and /or renewed?

Question Suppliers

Have criteria and specification been established for 

consumable supplies and for equipment?

X Per manufacturers’ recommendations

What supplies and equipment have established 

specifications?

All equipment and supplies 

Is equipment from suppliers open for bid? X Per purchasing rules

g) Corrective Action

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have a comprehensive corrective 

action program in place and operational? X

Have the procedures been documented? X

As a part of the QA project plan? X

As a separate standard operating procedure? X

Does the agency have established and documented 

corrective limits for QA and QC activities?

X

Are procedures implemented for corrective actions 

based on results of the following which fall outside 

the established limits:

 Performance evaluations X

 Precision goals X

 Bias goals X

 NPAP audits X
70

 PEP audits (PM and Pb) X

 Validation of one point QC check goals X

 Completeness goals X

 Data audits X

 Calibrations and zero span checks X

 Technical Systems Audit X

Have the procedures been documented? X

How is responsibility for implementing corrective actions assigned? Briefly discuss. 

QA Officers notify ASAS supervisor with a written audit report of findings. Signed corrective action form is 

completed and returned to QA Officers.

How does the agency follow up on implemented corrective actions?

Field: contact site operator

Lab: subsequent QC checks

Briefly describe recent examples of the ways in which the above corrective action system was employed to remove 

problems.

Level 1 span check failed, site operator notified, site operator trouble-shooted, repaired, & calibrated analyzer. 

Operator monitored subsequent data & QC checks.

h) Quality Improvement

Question Yes No Comment

What actions were taken to improve the quality system 

since the last TSA? Installed new data logging systems at all sites. Initiated 

file server storage for electronic documents.

Since the last TSA do your control charts indicate that the 

overall data quality for each pollutant steady or 

X
71

improving?

For areas where data quality appears to be declining has a 

cause been determined? 

X

Have all deficiencies indicted on the previous TSA been 

corrected? X

 If not explain. 

Need a Quality Management Plan.

Are there pending plans for quality improvement such as 

purchase of new or improved equipment, standards, or 

instruments?

X If funds are available.
72

i) External Performance Audits

Question Yes No Comment

Does your agency participate in NPAP, PM2.5 PEP, Pb PEP 

and other performance audits performed by an external party 

and/or using external standards.

X

If the agency does not participate, please explain why not:

Are NPAP audits performed by QA staff, site operators, 

calibration staff, and/or another group?

X

National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) and Additional Audits

Does the agency participate in the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) as 

required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A? If so, identify the individual with primary 

responsibility for the required participation in the National Performance Audit Program.

 Name: Program function: 

 

Please complete the table below:

 Parameter Audited Date of Last NPAP Audit

CO 2010

O3

2010

SO2

2010

NO2

2010

PM10

2010 

PM2.5

2010

Pb 2008

VOCs 2008

Carbonyls 2008
73

2) Network Management/Field Operations

State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited:

Address:

City, State, and Zip Code:

Auditor / Agency:

Key Individuals

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Manager:

Quality Assurance Manager:

Field Operations Supervisor/Lead:

Field Operations Staff involved in the TSA:
74

1NCore - National Core monitoring stations; SLAMS - state and local air monitoring stations; SPM -

special purpose monitors; PAMS - photochemical assessment monitoring stations

* monitoring will begin 1/1/11 ** NCore Pb monitoring pending EPA guidance 

+ Kapolei station also SLAMS

Indicate by Site ID # any non-conformance with the requirements of 40 CFR 58, Appendices D and E, along with any waivers granted 

by the Regional Office (provide waiver documentation)

Monitor Site ID Reason for Non-Conformance

SO2 150012010 Probe height < 2 meters above ground for primary purpose of monitoring 

for H2S

O3

CO

NO2

PM10

PM2.5

Pb

a) Network Design

Complete the table below for each of the pollutants monitored as part of your air monitoring network. (Record applicable count by 

category.) Also indicate seasonal monitoring with an S for a Parameter/Category as appropriate. Provide the most recent annual 

monitoring network plan, including date of approval and AQS quicklook or if not available, network description and other similar 

summary of site data, including SLAMS, Other and Toxics 

Category SO2 NO2 CO O3PM10 PM2.5 Pb Other 

(type)

Other 

(type)

NCore1

1 1 1 1* 1 1 1** PM2.5 spec. PM10-2.5

SLAMS 3

+

2

+

2

+

1 4

+

5

+

SPM 6 5 1 1 AT

PAMS

Total 10 3 3 2 5 11 2**

Question Yes No Comment

What is the date of the most current Monitoring Network Plan? July 1, 2010

I. Is it available for public inspection 

II. Does it include the information required for each site?

AQS Site ID # 

Street address and geographic coordinates 

Sampling and Analysis Method(s) 

Operating Schedule 

Monitoring Objective and Scale of Representativeness 

Site suitable/not suitable for comparison to annual PM2.5

NAAQS?



MSA, CBSA or CSA indicated as required? 
75

b) Changes to the Network since the last audit

W What is the date of the most recent network assessment? (Provide copy) July 1, 2010

Ar Are all SLAMS parameters included? Yes.

 Others? Air Toxics, H2S

 Please provide information on any site changes since the last audit

Pollutant Site ID Site Address Site 

Added/Deleted/R

elocated

Reason (Assessment, lost lease, etc.

Provide documentation of reason for each site change.)

SO2 150031006 92-670 Farrington 

Hwy. Kapolei

Deleted Low value site; site slated for future development

PM2.5

co-located

150031001 1250 Punchbowl St., 

Honolulu

Deleted Extra co-located site discontinued to maximize resources. FRM 

moved to Pearl City co-located site

PM2.5

Speciation

150032004 860 4th St.

Pearl City

Relocated Moved to the NCore station in Kapolei

PM10 150090006 Hale Piilani Park,

Kihei, Maui

Deleted SPM monitor closed to conserve resources

SO2, PM2.5 150012020 92-6091 Orchid 

Mauka Cir., Ocean 

View, Hawaii

Added For downwind monitoring of volcanic emissions

SO2, PM2.5 150012017 170860 Volcano Rd., 

Mt. View, Hawaii

Relocated Site shut-down on 10/27/10 and being relocated to Mt. View 

Elementary School

Question Yes No Comment

Are hard copy site information files retained by the agency for all 

air monitoring stations within the network? 

Does each station have the required information including:

AQS Site ID Number? 

Photographs/slides to the four cardinal compass points? 

Startup and shutdown dates? 

Documentation of instrumentation? 

Who has custody of the current network documents Name: Susan Kihara

Title: Environmental Health Specialist

Does the current level of monitoring effort, station placement, 

instrumentation, etc., meet requirements imposed by current grant 

conditions?



How often is the network siting reviewed? Frequency: Annually

Date of last review: February 2010

Are there any issues 

Do any sites vary from the required frequency in 40 CFR 58.12? 

Does the number of collocated monitoring stations meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 58 Appendix A? 


76

d) Field Support

Question Yes No Comment

On average, how often are most of your stations visited by a field 

operator?

1_ per _week_

Is this visit frequency consistent for all reporting organizations within 

your agency?

X Remote sites are visited less 

frequently

On average, how many stations does a single operator have responsibility 

for? 2

How many of the stations of your SLAMS/NCORE network are equipped 

with sampling manifolds? 6

Do the sample inlets and manifolds meet the requirements for through the 

probe audits?

X

I. Briefly describe most common manifold type CARB octopus type 

II. Are Manifolds cleaned periodically X

How often? Inspected on site visits; 

cleaned as needed

III. If the manifold is cleaned, what is used to perform cleaning water , brush & rinse

IV. Are manifold(s) equipped with a blower X

V. Is there sufficient air flow through the manifold at all times? X Approximate air flow:3 – 5 LPM

VI. How is the air flow through the manifold monitored? Rotameter and magnehelic gauge

VII. Is there a conditioning period for the manifold after cleaning? X Length of time:

VIII. What is the residence time? On average, less than 20 seconds.

Sampling lines: 1) What material is used for instrument sampling lines? Teflon.

c) Proposed changes to the Network

W Are future network changes proposed? Yes.

Please provide information on proposed site changes, including documentation of the need for the change and any required

approvals

Pollutant Site ID Site Address Site to be 

Added/Deleted/

Relocated

Reason (Assessment, lost lease, etc.

Provide documentation of reason for each site 

change.)

PM10, SO2, NO2 150030011 Ko‟Olina Golf 

Course

Delete Low value site, resources needed in areas identified by 

the state as high priority monitoring. Data and 

documentation to be presented to EPA Region 9 for 

approval prior to discontinuance.

PM2.5, SO2, NO2, CO TBD 2342 Hulemalu Rd., 

Niumalu Kauai

Add SPM to monitor cruise ship emissions

PM2.5, SO2 TBD Waikaloa, Hawaii Add SPM to monitor volcanic emissions on the northwest side 

of Hawaii island

PM2.5 co-located 150032004 860 4th St., Pearl City, 

HI

Relocate Co-located monitors to be relocated to Kapolei 

(150030010). EPA Regional approval received.
77

 2) How often are lines changed?

As needed.

Do you utilize uninterruptable power supplies or backup power sources at 

your sites?

X

What instruments or devices are protected? X Gas monitors, data loggers, 

calibrators and modems.

i). SOPs

Question Yes No Comment

Is the documentation of monitoring SOPs complete? X

Are any new monitoring SOPs needed? X NCore

Are such procedures available to all field operations personnel? X

Are SOPs that detail operations during episode monitoring 

prepared and available to field personnel?

X

Are SOPs based on the framework contained in Guidance for 

Preparing Sta200ndard Operating Procedures EPA QA/G-6? X

Please complete the following table: 

Pollutant Monitored Date of Last SOP Review Date of Last SOP Revision

SO2

2008 2008

NO2

2008 2008

CO 2008 2008

O3 2008 2008

PM10

2008 2008

PM2.5 FRM mass 2008 2008

Pb–TSP* 2008 2008

PM2.5 speciation 2008 2008

PM10-2.5 FRM mass

PM10-2.5 speciation 2008 2008

Continuous PM2.5 mass 2008 2008

Trace levels (CO)
78

Trace levels (SO2)

Trace levels (NO)

Trace levels (NOy)

Total reactive nitrogen

Surface Meteorology

Wind speed and direction, temperature, RH, 

precipitation and solar radiation 

Others

*If Pb- PM10 data are being collected, please enter this information under “Others.”

ii). Instrument Acceptance

Has your agency obtained necessary waiver provisions to operate equipment which does not meet the 

effective reference and equivalency requirements? List 

all waivers.

Please list instruments in your inventory

Pollutant Number Make and Models Reference or Equivalent number 

SO2

10 Thermo Environmental Instruments 

43C, 43i

EQSA-0486-060

NO2

2 Thermo Environmental Instruments 

42C

RFNA-1289-074

CO

2 Thermo Environmental Instruments 

48C

RFCA-0981-054

O3

1 Thermo Environmental Instruments 

49C

EQOA-0880-047

1 American Ecotech Serinus 10

PM10

4 Met One Instruments BAM 1020 EQPM-0798-122

PM2.5

2 Graseby Andersen Model RAAS2.5-

300 PM2.5 Sequential Ambient Air 

Sampler

RFPS-0598-120

1 BGI Inc. Models PQ200 RFPS-0498-116

Pb-TSP*

2 Graseby Andersen/GMW Model 

1200 High-Volume Air Sampler;

Manual Reference Method: 40 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix B

RFPS-1287-063 or RFPS-1287-064

Multi gas calibrator

13 Thermo Environmental Instruments 

Model 146

Environics 6100

PM2.5 speciation

1 Met One SASS MetOne SASS Method 118

1 URG 3000N URG 3000 Method 838

PM10-2.5 speciation

0

PM10-2.5 FRM mass

1 Met One Instruments BAM-1020 

PM10-2.5 Measurement System

EQPM-0709-185

Continuous PM2.5 mass

10 Met One Instruments BAM 1020Met 

One BAM-1020 Monitor – PM2.5 

FEM Configuration

EQPM-0308-170

Trace levels (CO)

1 Teledyne API 300EU RFCA-1093-093
79

Trace levels (SO2)

1 Teledyne API 100EU EQSA-0495-100

Trace levels (NO)

1 American Ecotech 9843

Trace levels (NOy)

1 American Ecotech 9843

Surface Meteorology

14 RM Young WD/WS 05103VP

Others

*If Pb- PM10 data are being collected, please enter this information under “Others.”

Please comment briefly and prioritize your currently identified instrument needs. 

Question Yes No Comment

Are criteria established for field QC equipment? X

Are criteria established for field QC gas standards? X

iii) Calibration

Please indicate the frequency of multi point calibrations.

Pollutant Frequency Name of Calibration Method

SO2, O3, CO, NO2, H2S Monthly or as needed Gas dilution

Continuous PM 2.5 6 Months or as needed Reference flow device

Continuous PM 10 6 Months or as needed Reference flow device

Question Yes No Comment

Are field calibration procedures included in the document/SOPs? X Location (site, lab etc.): site and lab

Are calibrations performed in keeping with the guidance in 

section Vol II of the QA Handbook for Air Pollution 

 Measurement Systems?

X

If no, why not?

Are calibration procedures consistent with the operational 

requirements of Appendices to 40 CFR 50 or to analyzer 

operation/instruction manuals?

X

If no, why not?

Have changes been made to calibration methods based on 

manufacturer‟s suggestions for a particular instrument?

X

Do standard materials used for calibrations meet the requirements 

of appendices to 40 CFR 50 (EPA reference methods) and 

X

Comment on deviations
80

Appendix A to 40 CFR 58 (traceability of materials to NISTSRMs or CRMs)?

Are all flow-measurement devices checked and certified? X

Additional comments:

Please list the authoritative standards used for each type of flow measurement, indicate the certification frequency of standards 

to maintain field material/device credibility. 

Flow Device Primary Standard Frequency of Certification

HiVol orifice Vendor certified annual

Streamline 

TetraCal Vendor certified annual

BIOS

DeltaCal Vendor certified annual

Gilibrators Vendor certified annual

Where do field operations personnel obtain gaseous standards? Scott Marrin Gases; Airgas

Are those standards certified by:

The agency laboratory? x

EPA/NERL standards laboratory? x

A laboratory separate from this agency‟s but part of the 

same reporting organization?

x

The vendor? x

Other (describe).

How are the gas standards verified after receipt? 

How are flow measurement devices certified? Vendor certified.

Please provide copies of certifications of all standards currently in 

use from your master and/or satellite standard certification 

logbooks (i.e., chemical standards, ozone standards, flow 

standards, and zero air standards). 

What equipment is used to perform calibrations (e.g., dilution 

devices) and how is the performance of this equipment verified? 

Dilution calibrator. Flow checked with certified 

Gilabrator.

Does the documentation include expiration date of certification? Y

Reference to primary standard used? Y Vendor provided

What traceability is used? NIST

Please attach an example of recent documentation of

traceability

Is calibration equipment maintained at each station? x Gas calibrators are maintained at 
81

site.

How is the functional integrity of this equipment documented? Site log book and gas dilution calibrator calibration

form.

Who has responsibility for maintaining field calibration standards? AQET Supervisor.

Please list the authoritative standards and frequency of each type of dilution, permeation and ozone calibrator and indicate the 

certification frequency... 

Calibrator Primary Standard Frequency of 

Certification

Permeation calibrator flow controller

Permeation calibrator temperature

Dilution calibrator air and gas flow controllers Gilabrator annual

Field/working standard photometer Thermo Environmental Instruments 49C annual

Ozone generator Thermo Environmental Instruments 49C annual

o) Please identify station standards for gaseous pollutants at representative air monitoring stations (attach additional sheets as 

appropriate): see attachment

Parameter Station(s) Identification of Standard(s) Recertification Date(s)

CO Kinau Hale (DH) and Kapolei 

(KA) See attachment

NO2

KA and West Beach (WB) See attachment

SO2

DH, KA, WB, KN, OV, PA, MV, 

HL, PE See attachment

O3

Sand Island (SI) See attachment

iv) Repair

a) Who is responsible for performing preventive maintenance? Site operator (AQET)

b) Is special training provided them for performing preventive maintenance? No. Briefly comment on background or 

courses.

c) Is this training routinely reinforced? Yes No X 

 If no, why not? 

d) What is your preventive maintenance schedule for each type of field instrumentation? See SOP.
82

e) If preventive maintenance is MINOR, it is performed at (check one or more): field station X , headquarters facilities , equipment is sent to manufacturer 

f) If preventive maintenance is MAJOR, it is performed at (check one or more): field station X , headquarters facilities , equipment is sent to manufacturer 

g) Does the agency have service contracts or agreements in place with instrument manufacturers? Indicate below or 

attach additional pages to show which instrumentation is covered? No, excluding DR DAS Inc. (data loggers and 

central data base server)

h) Comment briefly on the adequacy and availability of the supply of spare parts, tools and manuals available to the 

field operator to perform any necessary maintenance activities. Do you feel that this is adequate to prevent any 

significant data loss?

No, spare parts adequacy limited due to fiscal restrictions. Availability limited for aging equipment. For 

example: Encoders for Andersen PM 2.5 RAAS-300 Sequential FRM Sampler in short supply. Tools and 

manuals are adequate.

i) Is the agency currently experiencing any recurring problem with equipment or manufacturer(s)? If so, please identify 

the equipment or manufacturer, and comment on steps taken to remedy the problem.

j) Have you lost any data due to repairs in the last 2 years? 

More than 24 hours? Yes

More than 48 hours? Yes

More than a week? Yes

k) Explain any situations where instrument down time was due to lack of preventive maintenance of unavailability of 

parts.

Budget restrictions and more purchasing scrutiny have made it increasing difficult to obtain spare parts.

RECORD KEEPING

Question Yes No Comment

What type of station logbooks are maintained at each 

monitoring station? (maintenance logs, calibration logs, 

personal logs, etc.)

Monthly QC checklist; station log book

What information is included in the station logbooks? Date, time, AQET name, Site name, equipment 

serviced.

Who reviews and verifies the logbooks for adequacy of station 

performance? 

AQET Supervisor.

How is control of logbook maintained? AQET have sole custody.

Where is the completed logbook archived? 

At station.
83

What other records are used?

 Zero span record? X

 Gas usage log? X

 Maintenance log? X

 Log of precision checks? X

 Control charts? X

 A record of audits? X

Please describe the use and storage of these documents. Logs are periodically reviewed by AQET Supervisor and QA 

staff. Log books and other documents are stored at site.

Are calibration records or at least calibration constants available 

to field operators? 

X

Please attach an example field calibration record sheet to this questionnaire. 

See attached, Sample SO2 Gas Analyzer Calibration Form
84

V) Site/Monitor Information Form

PQAO_______________________________________________________ 

AQS Site Name _______________________________________________

AQS Site Number _____________________________________________

Agency Site Name/No. _________________________________________

(if different than AQS Site Name/Number)

Site Address__________________________________________________

City & County ________________________________________________

Site Coordinates_______________________________________________

(specify lat/long or UTM)

Site Elevation (m) _______________________________________

Criteria Pollutants Monitored_____________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Other Parameters ______________________________________________

Nearest Meteorological Site______________________________________

(„on site‟ is met tower present at this site)

Photographs to and from each cardinal direction attached?______________

(Yes or No)

Name(s) of Report Preparer(s)____________________________________

Name(s) of Auditors ____________________________________________

Date ________________________________________________________
85

Phone Number _________________________________________
86

Site Map

Draw map of site and surrounding terrain and features, up to 100 meters.

Map notes
87

Monitor Information

Pollutants

Manufacturer

Model

Serial number

Scale of representation

Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban

Objective (Population, Max concentration, 

Background, Transport)

Height of probe above ground(m)

Distance from obstruction (m)

Type of obstruction (Wall, Tree, etc)

Distance from roadway (m)

Unrestricted airflow (Yes, No)

Designation (NCore, SLAMS, etc)

Siting Criteria Met (Yes, No)

Manufacturer

Model

Serial number

Scale of representation

Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban

Averaging time 1-, 8-, 24-hour

Objective (Population, Max concentration, 

Background, Transport)

Height of probe above ground(m)

Distance from obstruction (m)

Type of obstruction (Wall, Tree, etc)

Distance from roadway (m)

Unrestricted airflow (Yes, No)

Designation (NCore, SLAMS, etc)

Siting Criteria Met (Yes, No)

Insert additional copies of table as needed
88

Area Information

Street Name

Traffic Count 

(Vehicles/day)

Direction

Predominant Land Use (Industry, Residential, Commercial 

or Agriculture)

North

East

South

West

Direction Obstructions Height (m) Distance (m)

North

East

South

West

Note: This table is for large obstructions that affect the entire site, such as large clusters 

of trees or entire buildings. Individual obstructions, such as walls, single trees, other 

monitors, etc, should be entered in the Monitor Information table.

Direction

Topographic Features

(hills, valleys, rivers, etc.)

General Terrain

(flat, rolling, rough)

North

East

South

West
89

Comments

3) LABORATORY OPERATIONS

State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited:

City, State, and Zip Code:

Date of Technical System Audit:

Auditor / Agency:

Key Individuals

Laboratory Manager:

Laboratory Supervisor:

Quality Assurance Manager:

Laboratory Staff involved in the TSA:
90
91

a) Routine Operations

What analytical methods are employed in support of your air monitoring network? 

 

Analysis Name or Description of 

Method

 PM10 N/A N/A

 PM2.5 Mass SOP: PM 2.5 FRM Method 

 Pb Flameless AA SOP: ASAS Method

 

 Others (list by pollutant)

Air Toxics VOCs GM/MS EPA Method TO-14A

Air Toxics Carbonyls HPLC/UV EPA Method TO-11A

Please describe areas where there have been difficulties meeting the regulatory 

requirements for any of the above analytical methods. 

In the table below, please identify the current versions of written methods, supplements, and 

guidelines that are used in your agency. 

Analysis Documentation of Method

PM10

N/A 

PM2.5

QA Handbook Vol II, Appendix D Revision No 1 12/08 page 11-13 and 40 CFR Part 58,

Appendix L 

Pb-TSP ASAS SOP: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP) FOR THE DETERMINATION OF METALS 

IN AMBIENT PARTICULATE MATTER BY GRAPHITE FURNACE ATOMIC

ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY (GFAAS) Version 3

Pb- PM10

N/A

Others (list by 

pollutant)

 

Question Yes No Comment

Were procedures for the methods listed above included in 

the agency‟s QA Project Plan or SOPs? Were these 

reviewed by EPA? Also, are SOP‟s easily/readily 

accessible for use and reference?

X

EPA’s 2008 TSA

Does you lab have sufficient instrumentation to conduct 

analyses? 

X

d) Please describe needs for laboratory instrumentation. 
92
93

b) Laboratory Quality Control

Please identify laboratory standards used in support of the air monitoring program, including standards 

which may be kept in an analytical laboratory and standards which may be kept in a field support area or 

quality assurance laboratory that is dedicated to the air monitoring program (attach additional sheets if 

appropriate): 

Parameter Location of 

Standards

Laboratory 

Standard

Recertification 

Date

Primary Standard*

CO

NO2

SO2

O3

Weights SLD Room3207;

SLD Room#3104

Weight Set 

#MS402

PM 2.5 weight set 

Red Dot

TSP - 10/20/2011

(PM 2.5)-

11/12/2011

DOA NIST Weight Set D 

& Primary

Temperature SLD Room #3104; RMY 41372VC 12/17/2011 RMY NIST thermometer

Moisture SLD Room #3104; RMY 41372VC 12/17/2011 RMY NIST thermometer

Barometric Pressure SLD Room #3116 Delta Cal 000678 11/19/2011 Princo Model 453 Cer # 

P-7485

Flow SLD Room #3116 Delta Cal 000678 11/19/2011 Critical Venturi Flow 

Meter (NIST)

Other Flow Standard

Lead SLD Room #3221 Inorganic Ventures 

1000 ppm Stock 

Solution

200 ppm Stock Solution 

of Mixed Metals with 

Pb. WW-IPC-1 from 

Inorganic Ventures

Other

*Standards to which the laboratory standards can be traced. 

Question Yes No Comment

Are all chemicals and solutions clearly marked with an 

indication of shelf life? 

X

Are chemicals removed and properly disposed of when shelf 

life expires?

X

Are only ACS grade chemicals used by the laboratory? X Technical grades used for cooling or 

washing.
94

e) Comment on the traceability of chemicals used in the preparation of calibration standards

Question Yes No Comment

Does the laboratory purchase standard solutions such 

as those for use with lead or other metals analysis? X

Are all calibration procedures documented?

X 

 

If answer “yes” to (f), please describe the following: 

(1) Title of the document: Calibration data GFAAS of Metals

(2) Revision number: 3

(3) Where the document is: GFAAS instrument room

Are at least one duplicate, one blank, and one 

standard or spike included with a given analytical 

batch?

X

Briefly describe the laboratory‟s use of data derived from blank analyses.

Pb blank analyses data are used to correct ambient air data if equal or above the analyte’s MDL.

Are criteria established to determine whether a 

blank data are acceptable?

X

How frequently and at what concentration ranges does the lab perform duplicate analysis? What constitutes an acceptable agreement? Please comment in the space below.

PM 2.5 – every ten samples for all ranges must be within 15 ug difference;

Pb – Duplicate analysis is done once for every month samples. Concentration range from 5-50ug/L. The relative 

percent deviation should be within 10%.

Please describe how the lab use data obtained from spiked samples, including the acceptance criteria (e.g., 

acceptable percent recovery). 

TSP – Pb: Recovery from spiked samples indicates extraction efficiency of analytical method. Errors resulting in 

sample loss (spiking of analytes, leak etc.) could result in lower recovery while sample contamination may exceed 

recovery limit. Possible source of error in analytical steps are investigated if criteria are not met. However for low 

spike levels (5ppb Pb) recovery reported without further action.
95

Question Yes No Comment

Does the laboratory routinely include samples of 

reference material within an analytical batch?

x

If yes, indicate frequency, level, and material used. 

PM25: Every 10 weightings lab standards are referenced.

Pb: Done every batch of extraction at 5ppb and 20ppb levels.

Are mid-range standards included in analytical 

batches?

x Not PM2.5

Please describe the frequency, level and compound used in the space provided below.

Pb: Every 10 samples a 20ppb mid-level standard is run.

Are criteria for real time quality control 

established that are based on the results obtained 

for the mid-range standards discussed above?

x

If yes, briefly discuss them below or indicate the document in which they can be found.

Perkin Elmer software auto calibrates on mid-level standard.

Are appropriate acceptance criteria for each type 

of analysis documented?

x It is attached in the reports of Pb.

c) Laboratory Preventive Maintenance

Question Yes No Comment

For laboratory equipment, who has the responsibility for performing preventive maintenance? 

Chemist.

Is most maintenance performed in the lab? X

Is a maintenance log maintained for each major laboratory 

instrument?

X

Are service contracts in place for major analytical instruments?

X Except for analytical balances

d) Laboratory Record Keeping
96

Question Yes No Comment

Are all samples that are received by the laboratory 

logged in? X

Discuss sample routing and special needs for analysis (or attach a copy of the latest SOP which covers this). Attach a flow chart 

if possible. See SOPs and flow charts.

Are log books kept for all analytical laboratory 

instruments? X

Are there log books or other records that indicate 

the checks made on materials and instruments such 

as weights, humidity indicators, balances, and 

thermometers?

X

Identify type of record, acceptable/non-acceptable Logbook, electronic spreadsheet, 

Are log books maintained to track the preparation 

of filters for the field?

X

Are they current? X

Do they indicate proper use of conditioning? X

Weighings? X

Stamping and numbering? X

By manufacturer

Are log books kept which track filters returning 

from the field for analysis?

X

PM25 Electronic and Pb paper

How are data records from the laboratory archived?

 Where? SLD Rooms 3105,104 and hard copies in sample room

 Who has the responsibility? Chemist

 Title: Chemist

 How long are records kept? Years 10 

Does a chain-of-custody procedure exist for 

laboratory samples? x

If yes, indicate date, title and revision number where it can be found

PM25: Standard Operating Procedures for PM25 FRM

Pb: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP) FOR THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN AMBIENT PARTICULATE 

MATTER BY GRAPHITE FURNACE ATOMIC

ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY (GFAAS) Version 3
97

e) Laboratory Data Acquisition and Handling

Question Yes No Comment

Identify those laboratory instruments which make use of computer interfaces directly to record data. Which ones use strip charts? 

Integrators?

PM25: Mettler UMX and RMY translator RH and T through HyperTerminal to Windows XP and GLIMS Software

PM25 FRM and speciation COC Andersen DataLink cartridges through RS232 to DataLink program

RH and T of freezers and balance room to circular strip charts.

TSP-Pb analysis: Perkin-Elmer 4100 ZL Graphite Furnace AAS connected via computer interface; Weigh balances

are connected via computer interface; TSP filters: Mettler AJ-100.

Are QC data readily available to the analyst during 

a given analytical run? x

What is the laboratory‟s capability with regard to data recovery? In case of problems, can they recapture data or are they 

dependent on computer operations? Discuss briefly.

Logged in main instruments but in different format.

Has a user‟s manual been prepared for the 

automated data acquisition instrumentation? X

Please provide below a data flow diagram which establishes, by a short summary flow chart: transcriptions, validations, and 

reporting format changes the data goes through before being released by the laboratory. 
98

f) Specific Pollutants: PM10, PM2.5 and Lead

Question Yes No Comment

PM10 and PM2.5

Does the agency use filters supplied by EPA? X

Do filters meet the specifications in 40 CFR 50? X

Are filters visually inspected via strong light from a 

view box for pinholes and other imperfections? 

X

Where does the laboratory keep records of the serial numbers of filters? 

Are unexposed filters equilibrated in controlled 

conditioning environment which meets or exceeds 

the requirements of 40 CFR 50?

X

Are the temperature and relative humidity of the 

conditioning environment monitored?

X

Are the temperature and humidity monitors 

calibrated?

X

Are balances checked with Class S or Class M 

weights each day when they are used? 

X

Is the balance check information placed in QC log 

book?

X Electronically in MS Excel and GLIMS (PM 2.5)

To what sensitivity are filter weights recorded? 

Are filter serial numbers and tare weights recorded 

in a bound notebook?

X PM2.5: Electronically stored; TSP: 3-ring binder

Are filters packaged for protection while 

transporting to and from the monitoring stations?

X

How often are filter samples collected? (Indicate the average elapsed time in hours between end of sampling and laboratory 

receipt.) 48 hours.

In what medium are field measurements recorded (e.g., in a log book, on a filter folder, or on standard forms)?

PM25 Datalink cartridge , on instruments and Sample Run Data Sheet

TSP Pb Field Data Sheet

Are exposed filters reconditioned for at least 24 hrs 

in the same conditioning environment as for 

unexposed filters?

X

Briefly describe how exposed filters are prepared for conditioning. 

Exposed PM 2.5 filters placed in petri dish in a temperature and humidity controlled room (SLD Room #3104 ).

Exposed TSP filters are placed in a filter holder and placed in a temperature and humidity controlled chamber (SLD 

Room #3217).

Briefly describe how exposed filters are stored after being weighed. 
99

PM25 Stored in Freezer

TSP Pb stored at room temperature in plastic.

Are blank filters reweighed? x

Are chemical analyses performed on filters? X TSP-Pb

LEAD

Are lead filters PM-10 (PTFE filters) or TSP (glass 

fiber filters)?

X TSP-Glass fiber

What analysis method is being used? Does it 

precisely follow an FRM / FEM? For Pb-TSP, 

what is the extraction procedure being used? 

X No, DH SOP, Rev 3(2009 Jan 1) Based on EPA 

Compendium Method IO-3.2 and CARB SOP MLD 

005, Rev 5.2

Sonication with dilute nitric acid.

Are all batches of filters tested for background lead 

content?

X

At a rate of 20 to 30 random filters per batch of 500 

or greater? 

x

Indicate rate. 1 per 6

How is/are the instrument(s) calibrated? X Vendor Pb certified standards

How often is/are the instrument(s) calibrated? X Every analysis.

If applicable: Is Class A borosilicate glassware 

used throughout the analysis? 

X No glassware is used in the analysis except for 

acid dispensing.

If applicable: Is all glassware cleaned with 

detergent, soaked and rinsed three times with 

distilled or deionized water?

X

Labwares used are polyethylene disposable 

plasticware except magnetic filter funnels, acid 

washed, cleaned with chromium free detergent 

and rinsed with MilliQ and processed water.

If applicable: If extracted samples are stored, are 

linear polyethylene bottles used? 

X

If applicable: What reagents are used? Reagent grade nitric acid,
100

4) DATA AND DATA MANAGEMENT

State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited:

City, State, and Zip Code:

Date of Technical System Audit:

Auditor / Agency:

Key Individuals

Data Manager:

Data Supervisor:

Quality Assurance Manager:
101

a) Data Handling

Question Yes No Comment

Is there a procedure, description, or a chart which shows a 

complete data sequence from point of acquisition to point of 

submission of data to EPA?

X

Please provide below a data flow diagram indicating both the data flow within the reporting organization. 

Air Toxics (VOC, Metals, Carbonyl)- See attached, Air Toxics Program Flow Chart

Data validation flow chart in SOP

PM2.5 flow chart in SOP

Electronic data system SOP

Are procedures for data handling (e.g., data reduction, review, 

etc.) documented?

X DV SOP

In what media (e.g., diskette, data cartridge, or telemetry) and formats do data arrive at the data processing location? Please list 

below. 

Category of Data (by Pollutant) Data Media and Formats

TSP-Pb and mass, Air Toxics Chain of custody form (paper);plain text format

PM 2.5 mass and field environmental conditions Data cartridge and Chain of custody form (paper); 

plain text format

Criteria Pollutants (gases: CO, SO2, O3, NO2, PM25, PM10, 

PM25frmfinal)

Telemetry, email and diskettes. Vendor proprietary 

format

How often are data received at the processing location from the field sites and laboratory? 

Continuously polled every 3-10 minutes; every 3 days for manual samples

Is there documentation accompanying the data regarding any 

media changes, transcriptions, or flags which have been placed 

into the data before data are released to agency internal data 

processing?

X

 

 

Describe the type of documentation: Status flags on continuous monitors are assigned at site level using predefined 

criteria and tracked with software. 

How data are actually entered to the computer system (e.g., computerized transcription (copy from disk or data transfer device), 

manual entry, digitization of strip charts, or other)?

Telemetry, copied from data cartridges to computer, manual entries, and digitization of some strip charts.

For manual data, is a double-key entry system used? X Mostly cut and paste

b) Software Documentation

Question Yes No Comment

Does your agency use any AQS Manual? X
102

Does your agency use any Air Now Manual? X

If yes, list the title of manual used including the , version number and date published

X

What are the origins of the software used to prepare air monitoring data for release into the AQS and AirNow database? Please 

list the documentation for the software currently in use for data processing, including the names of the software packages, 

vendor or author, revision numbers, and the revision dates of the software.

DR DAS, Ltd. Envista ARM and Envidas Ultimate.

What is the recovery capability in the event of a significant computer problem (i.e., how much time and data would be lost)?

48 hours upon discovery of problem, excluding weekends, holidays, and furlough days.

Has your agency tested the data processing software to ensure its 

performance of the intended function is consistent with the QA 

Handbook, Volume II, and Section 14.0?

Does your agency document software tests?

X X Central DAS (Envista ARM) – Yes

Field –No

If yes, provide the documentation 

c) Data Validation and Correction

Question Yes No Comment

Have your agency established and document the validation 

criteria? X

If yes, indicate document where such 

criteria can be found (title, revision date).

DV SOP

Does documentation exist on the identification and applicability 

of flags (i.e., identification of suspect values) within the data as 

recorded with the data in the computer files?

X

Does your agency document the data validation criteria 

including limits for values such as flow rates, calibration 

results, or range tests for ambient measurements? 

X

(i) If yes, please describe what action the data validator will take if he/she finds data with limits exceeded 

(e.g., flags, modifies, or delete, etc.). Data flagged; AQET Supervisor notified. Change submission 

submitted to ITS.

(ii) The DVP will use the most recent EPA Null and Qualifier codes available to label data on an hourly basis

 (iii) If yes, give examples to illustrate actions taken when limits were exceeded. 

Include one submission form. If there is a particulate ambient air quality standard exceedance due to fireworks a 

“RH” qualifier code is assigned for the hour as valid. If there is a failed calibration and it is determined to be and 

error of the analyzer impacting ambient data the DVP assigns a null code to the hourly average to void data.
103

Please describe how changes made to data that were submitted to AQS and AirNow are documented.

Requests for change to the Envista database are submitted to ITS. The Envista ARM keeps track of changes to the 

data, i.e. there are two databases raw and edited. At any time one can view the raw data.

Who has signature authority for approving corrections?

Name Henry Yee Program function _Supervisor_______________________ 

What criteria are used to determine a data point be deleted? Discuss briefly.

DVSOP and AQET SOPs are established on CFR and instrument manuals to determine guidelines for acceptability.

EPA QA Handbook Volume II; CFR; Instrument manufacturer’s manual and recommendations.

What criteria are used to determine if data need to be reprocessed? Discuss.

EPA QA Handbook Volume II; CFR; Instrument manufacturer’s manual and recommendations.

Are corrected data resubmitted to the issuing group for 

cross-checking prior to release? x

d) Data Processing

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency generate data summary reports? x

Reports are available on Envista Web 

Edition.

Please list at least three reports routinely generated, including the information requested below. 

Report Title Distribution Period Covered

AMP120 ASAS Supervisor quarterly

Emergency Data Validation Through ASAS supervisor to CAB Weekly and as 

requested

Performance Improvement Report ASAS Supervisor

monthly

Question Yes No Comment

How often are data submitted to AQS and AirNow? Data is submitted to AQS quarterly. Data is sent to AIRNow every 

15 minutes and hourly.

Briefly comment on difficulties the agency may have encountered in coding and submitting data following the guidance of the 

AQS guidelines? The limitations of the Envista ARM software prevents data qualifiers from being stored and 

submitted to AQS.

Does the agency routinely request a hard copy printout on 

submitted data from AQS? X

Only to verify that the data has been 

submitted.
104

Are records kept for at least 3 years by the agency in an orderly, 

accessible form? X

If yes, does this include raw data X , calculation X , QC data X , and reports X ? If no, please comment: 

Has your agency submitted data along with the appropriate 

calibration equations used to the processing center? X

Are concentrations of pollutants other than PM2.5 corrected to 

EPA standard temperature and pressure conditions (i.e., 

298°K, 760 mm Hg) before input to AQS, and concentrations of 

PM2.5 and Pb reported to AQS under actual (volumetric) 

conditions?

X TSP-Pb needs to be changed to 

actual conditions (from 2009)

Are audits on data reduction procedure performed on a routine 

basis?

X

 

 If yes, at what frequency? DV SOP revised, two years.

Are data precision and accuracy checked each time they are 

calculated, recorded, or transcribed to ensure that incorrect 

values are not submitted to EPA?

X

e) Internal Reporting

What internal reports are prepared and submitted as a result of the audits required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?

Report Title Frequency

Data Quality Indicator Report Quarterly

What internal reports are prepared and submitted as a result of precision checks also required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?

Report Title Frequency

Data Quality Indicator Report Quarterly

Question Yes No Comment

Do either the audit or precision check reports 

indicated include a discussion of corrective actions X
105

initiated based on audit or precision check results?

Who has the responsibility for the calculation and preparation of data summaries? To whom are such summaries delivered?

Name Title Type of Report Recipient

f) External Reporting

For the current calendar year or portion thereof which ended at least 90 calendar days prior to the receipt of this questionnaire, 

please provide the following percentages for required data submitted on time.

 Percent Submitted on Time* Period Covered: 

Monitoring Qtr. SO2 CO O3 NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Pb

1 (Jan 1 - March 31) 90 100 100 100 100 90 100

2 (Apr 1 - June 30) 90 100 100 100 100 90 100

3 (July 1 - Sept. 30) 90 50 100 50 75 90 100

4 (Oct.1 - Dec. 31)

*"On time" = within 90 calendar days after the end of the quarter in which the data were collected.

For the same period, what fraction of the stations (by pollutant) reported less than 75% of the data (adjusted for seasonal monitoring and site start-ups and terminations)?

 Percent of Stations <75% Data Recovery Period Covered: 

Monitoring Qtr. SO2 CO O3 NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Pb

1 (Jan 1 - March 31)

2 (Apr 1 - June 30)

3 (July 1 - Sept. 30)

4 (Oct.1 - Dec. 31)

Identify the individual within the agency with the responsibility for reviewing and releasing the data. 
106

Name Program function 

 

Question Yes No Comment

Does your agency report the Air Quality Index?

X ASAS posts AQI directly

Has your agency submitted its annual data certification (as 

required in 40 CFR 58.15)? 

If yes, did your agency‟s annual report include the 

following:

 Annual precision and accuracy information described in

 Section 5.2 of Appendix A?

 Location, date, pollution source and duration of all 

 episodes reaching the significant harm levels?

Is Data Certification signed by a senior officer of your

agency?
APPENDIX D: 2011 TSA Schedule
108

Hawaii DOH TSA Schedule, 1/24/11 – 1/28/11

Schedule

Monday 1/24 

9:00 Intro briefing CAB Office

9:30-12:00 General / QA Management, 

Network Design - Program & CAB CAB Office

Potential NO2 near roadway site

1:00-2:00 General / QA Management Lab

- Lab & Field

2:00-3:00 Field operations overview Lab

Tuesday 1/25

8:00-12:00 CAB audit program + Matt (Gwen) & CAB. Kapolei.

Field audit

11:00 – 2:00 Other Oahu Site Reviews Gwen

2:00-4:00 Data Management/ Gwen at Lab

Validation/Reporting/

Tracking 

1:00-2:30 Instrument Repair/ Matt at Lab

Maintenance

2:30-4:00 PM lab review Matt

6:20pm Flight to Hilo

Wednesday 1/26

6:44 a.m. – Jensen arrives in Hilo, Ed to pick me at airport. Pick up Kona State vehicle at 

DOH Hilo office.

7:05 – Leave DOH Hilo office 

7:15 – pick up Gwen & Matt @ hotel, leave for Volcano

8:00 – 8:50 meet with NPS (Cindy)

9:00 – 10:00 meet with USGS (Jeff & Tamar) 

11:00 – arrive @ DOH Ocean View 

1:00 – arrive @ DOH Pahala 

2:30 – arrive @ DOH Mountain View 

3:45 – arrive @ DOH Puna E 
109

4:30 – arrive @ DOH Puna H

5:30 – arrive @ DOH Hilo 

6:30 – arrive @ Airport, leave Kona vehicle in parking lot

7:40 – flight departs for Honolulu 

Thursday 1/27

8:00-10:00 Follow-ups Gwen Lab

8:00-10:00 Toxics Lab Review Matt Lab

10:00-11:00 Quality System Lab/CAB at Lab

11:00-12:00 Pb Lab Review Lab

1:30-2:00 Audit de-brief Lab

2:30-4:00 Post Meeting CAB Office