# Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement Systems

Volume II

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program

### Page Intentionally Left Blank

### EPA-454/B-08-003 December, 2008



# QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems

Volume II

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Assessment Division RTP, NC 27711QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008



### iv 

## Contents

Section Page Revision Date

Contents iv 

### 1 12/08
Figures vi 

### 1 12/08

Tables vii 1 Acknowledgments viii 

### 1 12/08
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix 

### 1 12/08

0. Introduction

0.1 Intent of the Handbook 0.2 Use of Terms Shall, Must, Should, May

0.3 Use of Footnotes

0.4 Handbook Review and Distribution 1/2

2/2

2/2

2/2 

### 1 12/08

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

1. Program Background 1.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network 1.2 The EPA Quality System Requirements 1.3 The Ambient Air Monitoring Program Quality System 1/10

5/10

7/10 

### 1 12/08

2. Program Organization 2.1 Organization Responsibilities

2.2 Lines of Communication 2.3 Quality Assurance Workgroups 1/7

5/7

7/7 

### 1 12/08

3. Data Qua lity Objectives 3.1 The DQO Process 3.2 Ambient Air Quality DQOs 3.2 Measurement Quality Objectives 4/7

5/7

5/7 

### 1 12/08

4. Personnel Qualification and Training 4.1 Personnel Qualifications 4.2 Training 1/3

2/3 

### 1 12/08

5. Documentation and Records 5.1 Management and Organization

5.2 Site Information 5.3 Environmental Data Operations

5.4 Raw Data 5.5 Data Reporting 5.6 Data Management 5.7 Quality Assurance 2/8

2/8

3/8

7/8

7/8

8/8

8/8 

### 1 12/08

MEASUREMENT ACQUISITION 6. Monitoring Network Design 6.1 Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales 6.2 Monitoring Site Location

6.3 Monitor Placement 6.4 Minimum Network Requirements 6.5 Operating Schedules 4/14

7/14

11/14

11/14

12/14 

### 1 12/08

7. Sampling Methods

7.1 Environmental Control 7.2 Sampling Probes and Manifolds 7.3 Reference/Equivalent and Approved Regional Methods 1/14

4/14

10/14 

### 1 12/8

8. Sample Handling and Custody 8.1 Sample Handling 8.2 Chain of Custody 2/6

4/6 

### 1 12/08

9. Analytical Methods 9.1 Good Laboratory Practices 9.2 Laboratory Activities 2/2

2/2 

### 1 12/08QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008



### v Section Page Revision Date

10. Quality Control 10.1 QC Activity Areas 10.2 Internal vs. External Quality Control 10.3 CFR Related Quality Control Samples 10.4 Use of Computers for Quality Control 3/8

4/8

7/8

8/8 

### 1 12/08

11. Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance

11.1 Instrumentation

11.2 Preventative Maintenance 1/6

4/6 

### 1 12/08

12. Calibration 12.1 Calibration Standards and Reagents 12.2 Multi-point Verifications/Calibrations 12.3 Frequency of Calibration and Analyzer Adjustment 12.4 Adjustment to Analyzers 12.5 Data Reduction using Calibration Information

12.6 Validation of Ambient Data 2/11

7/11

8/11

9/11

10/11

11/11 

### 1 12/08

13 Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables 13.1 Supplies Management 13.2 Standards and Reagents

13.3 Volumetric Glassware 13.4 Sample Containers 13.5 Particulate Sampling Filters 13.6 Field Supplies 1/4

2/4

2/4

3/4

3/4

4/4 

### 1 12/08

14. Data Acquisition and Management 14.1 Data Acquisition 14.2 Data Transfer-Public Reporting 14.3 Data Transfer-Reporting to External Data Bases 14.4 Data Management 2/14

9/14

11/14

13/14 

### 1 12/08

ASSESSMENT/OVERSIGHT

15. Assessment and Corrective Action

15.1 Network Reviews

15.2 Performance Evaluations 15.3 Technical Systems Audits 15.4 Data Quality Assessments 1/14

4/14

8/14

14/14 

### 1 12/08

16. Reports to Management 16.1 Guidelines for Preparation of Reports to Management 2/4 

### 1 12/08

DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY

17

. Data Review, Verification, Validation

17.1 Data Review Methods

17.2 Data Verification Methods

17.3 Data Validation Methods 3/7

3/7

4/7 

### 1 12/08

18. Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives 18.1 Five Steps of the DQA Process 1/9 

### 1 12/08

APPENDICES A. National Monitoring Program Fact Sheets B: Ambient Air Monitoring QA Information and Web Addresses C: Using the Graded Approach for the Development of QMPs and QAPPs D: Measurement Quality Objectives and Validation Templates E: Characteristics of Spatial Scales Related to Each Pollutant F: Sample Manifold Design for Precursor Gas Monitoring G: Example Procedure for Calibrating Data Acquisition System

H: Audit Information I: Example of Reports to Management 11

4

6

25

7

13

3

46

25 

### 1 12/08QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008



### vi 

## Figures

Number Title Section/Page 1.1 Ambient air quality monitoring process 1/1 1.2 Hierarchy of quality system development 1/5 1.3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring QA Program 1/7 2.1 Program organization and lines of communication 2/1 2.2 Relationship of monitored pollutants to site, monitoring organizations and primary quality assurance organizations 2/4

3.1 Effect of positive bias on the annual average estimate resulting in a false rejection error 3/1

3.2 Effect of negative bias on the annu al average estimate resulting in a false

acceptance error 3/1

6.1 Wind rose pattern 6/8 6.2 Sampling schedule based on ratio to the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS 6/13 7.1 Example design for shelter 7/2 7.2 Position of calibration line in sampling manifold 7/5 7.3 Acceptable areas for PM 10 and PM 2.5 micro, middle, neighborhood, and urban samplers except for microscale canyon sites 7/7

7.4 Optical mounting platform 7/8 8.1 Example sample label 8/3 8.2 Example field COC form 8/6 8.3 Example laboratory COC form 8/6 10.1 QC samples for PM 2.5 placed at various stages of measurement process 10/2 10.2 Example control chart 10/8 12.1 Suggested zero/span drift limits 12/8

14.1 DAS data flow 14/4 14.2 Flow of data from gas analyzers to final reporting 14/4 15.1 Definition of independent assessment 15/7

15.2 Pre-Audit activities 15/8

15.3 On-Site audit activities 15/10 15.4 Audit finding form 15/11

15.5 Post-audit activities 15/12 15.6 Audit response form 15/13 18.1 DQA in the context of data life cycle 18/2QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008



### vii 

## Tables

Number Title Section/Page 3-1 Measurement Quality Objectives Developed into a Validation Template 3/7 4-1 Monitoring Functions the Need Some Level of Staffing or Expertise 4/1 4-2 Suggested Sequence of Core QA Related Ambient Air Training Courses ... 4/3 5-1 Types of Information the Should be Retained Through Document Control 5/1 6-1 Relationship Among Monitoring Objectives and Scale of Representativeness 6/5 6-2 Summary of Spatial Scales for SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, and Open Path Sites 6/6 6-3 Relationships of Topography, Air Flow, and Monitoring Site Selection 6/9 6-4 Site Descriptions of PAMS Monitoring Sites 6/10 6-5 Monitoring Station Categories Related to Monitoring Site Placement 6/11 6-6 Completeness Goals for Ambient Monitoring Data 6/14

7-1 Environment Control Parameters 7/3 7-2 Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria 7/6 7-3 Minimum Separation Distance between Road and Sampling Probes... 7/7 7-4 Techniques for Quality Control for Support Services 7/10 7-5 Performance Specifications for Automated Methods 7/12 9-1 Acceptable Analytical Methods 9/1 10-1 QC Samples Used in Various Ambient Air Monitoring Programs 10/5

10-2 PM 2.5 Field and Lab QC Checks 10/6 10-3 Ambient Air Monitoring Measurement Quality Samples 10/7 11-1 Routine Operation Checks 11/5 12-1 Certification Periods for Compressed Gas Calibration Standards... 12/4 12-2 Instrumentation and Devices Requiring Calibration and Certifications 12/6 14-1 AQS Data Reporting Requirements 14/12 14-2 NCore Information Technology Performance Needs 14/13 15-1 National Performance Evaluation Activities Performed by EPA 15/5 15-2 NPAP Acceptance Criteria 15/7 15-3 Suggested Elements of an Audit Plan 15/9 16-1 Types of QA Reports to Management 16/2 16-2 Sources of Information for Preparing Reports to Management 16/2 16-3 Presentation Methods for Use in Reports to Management 16/3 18-1 Summary of Violations of DQO Assumptions 18/5 18-2 Weights for Estimating Three-Year Bias and Precision 18/6 18-3 Summary of Bias and Precision 18/8QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008



### viii 

## Acknowledgments

This QA Hand Book is the product of the combined e fforts of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the EPA Regional Offices, and the State, Tribal and Local monitoring organizations. The development and review of the material found in this document was accomplished through the activities of the QA Strategy Workgroup. The following in dividuals are acknowledged for their contributions.

State, Tribal and Local Organizations

Andy Clifton, Andy Johnson, Anna Kelley, Arun Roychowdhury, Barb Regynski, Ben Davis, Charles Pearson, Ceresa.Stewart, Cindy Wike, Dick Duke r, Dennis Fenlon, Don Gourley, Donovan Rafferty, Edward Huck, Erick Saganic, Glenn Gehring, Hu gh Tom, Jim Conner, Joseph Ugorowski , Jackie Waynick , James Jordan, Jeff Wasson ,Jeremy Hardin, Jason Low, Keith Duncan, Ken Cowen, Kent Curtis, Kevin Watts, Leonard Mari ne, Larry Taylor, Leroy Williams, Merrin Wright, Mary Kay Clark, Melinda Ronca-Battista, Melvin Schuchardt, Mick ey Palmer, Mike Draper, Mike Hamdan, Nydia Burdick, Patti DeLaCruz, Paul Sanborn, Robert Franicevich, Rachael Townsend, Randy Dillard, Rayna Broadway, Richard Heffern, Ritchie Scott , Robert Olson, Ryan Callison, Scott Reynolds, Stephanie McCarthy, Susan Kilmer, Susan Selby, Tyler M uxworthy ,Terry Rowles, Thomas Mcgrath , Sandra Wardwell, Yousaf Hameed

EPA Regions

Region 1 Mary Jane Cuzzupe, Peter Kahn, Chris St.Germane, Karen Way 2 Mustafa Mustafa, Avraham Teitz, Mark Winter 3 Victor Guide, Andrew Hass 4 Greg Noah, Danny France, Jerry Burge, Doug Jager 5 Gordon Jones, Scott Hamilton, Basim Dihu 6 Kuenja Chung, John Lay 7 Thien Bui, James Regehr, Leland Grooms, Michael Davis 8 Michael Copeland, Gordan MacRae, Joe Delwiche 9 Mathew Plate, Catherine Brown, Bob Pallarino, Roseanne Sakamoto 10 Chris Hall, Bill Puckett

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air

Montgomery, AL - Eric Boswell, Jewell Smiley, Steve Taylor Las Vegas, NV - David Musick, Emilio Braganza, Jeff Lantz

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Dennis Mikel, Dennis Crumpler, Mark Shanis, Louise Camalier, Jonathan Miller, Lewis Weinstock, Tim Hanley, Joseph ElkinsQA Handbook Volume II December, 2008



### ix 

## Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAMG Ambient Air Monitoring Group APTI Air Pollution Training Institute ADQ audit of data quality AMTIC Ambient Monitoring Technical Information Center

ANSI American National Standards Institute AQAD Air Quality Assessment Division AQI Air Quality Index AQS Air Quality System ARM approved regional method ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ASQ American Society for Quality AWMA Air and Waste Management Association

CAA Clean Air Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CL confidence limit

CBSA core-based statistical area CMSA combined metropolitan statistical area CMZ community monitoring zone COC chain of custody CPU central processing unit

CSA combined statistical area CSN PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network

CRM certified reference material

CV coefficient of variation DAS data acquisition system

DASC Data Assessment Statistical Calculator

DC direct current DQA data quality assessment DOP digital aerosol photometer DQI data quality indicators DQOs data quality objectives EDO environmental data operation EDERF energy dispersive x-ray flouresence EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEM federal equivalent method

FR flow rate

FRM federal reference method FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy) GC/MS gas chromatography mass spectrometry GIS geographical information systems GLP good laboratory practice GMIS gas manufactures internal standards HAP hazardous air pollutants HC hydrocarbon HPLC high performance liquid chromatography HVAC heating, ventilating and air conditioning ICP inductively coupled plasma IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments IT information technology

LDL lower detectable limit LIMS` laboratory information management systems

MDL method detection limit

MFC mass flow controlQA Handbook Volume II December, 2008



### x Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)

MPA monitoring planning area MQAG Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group MQOs measurement quality objectives MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies

NATTS National Air Toxics Trends Sites NECTA New England city and town area NEIC National Enforcement Investigations Center

NTAA National Tribal Air Association

NTEC National Tribal Environmental Council

NCore National Core Network

NERL National Environmen tal Research Laboratory NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NF National Formulary

NPS National Park Service NPAP National Performance Audit Program NPEP National Performance Evaluation Program NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

NTRM NIST traceable reference material OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget ORD Office of Research and Development

ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air P&A precision and accuracy PAMS Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations PDFID Cryogenic Preconcentration an d Direct Flame I onization Detection PC personal computer PE performance evaluation

PEP PM 2.5 Performance Evaluation Program PBMS performance based measurement system ppb part per billion ppm part per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PQAO primary quality assurance organization PT proficiency test PWD primary wind direction QA quality assurance QA/QC quality assurance/quality control QAARWP quality assurance annual report and work plan QAD EPA Quality Assurance Division QAM quality assurance manager QAO quality assurance officer QAPP quality assurance project plan QMP quality management plan RPO regional planning organization

RSD relative standard deviation

SD standard deviation SIPS State Implementation Plans SLAMS state and local monitoring stations SOP standard operating procedure SPMS special purpose monitoring stations

SRM standard reference material SRP standard reference photometer

STN PM 2.5 Speciation Trends Network (a subset of Chemical Speciation Network)QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008



### xi Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)

TAD technical assistance document TEOM tapered element oscillating microbalance TIP tribal implementation plan TSA technical system audit TSP total suspended particulate TTL transistor-transistor logic

USB universal serial bus USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UTM universal transverse Mercator USP US Pharmacopeial VAC volts of alternating current VOC volatile organic carbonQA Handbook Vol II, Introduction

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 2



# 0. Introduction

0.1 Intent of the Handbook

This document is Volume II of a five-volume qua lity assurance (QA) handbook series dedicated to air pollution measurement systems. Volume II is de dicated to the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program and the data collection activities inherent to that program. This guidance is part of a quality management system designed to ensure that the Ambient Air Qu ality Surveillance Program: (1) provides data of sufficient quality to meet the program’s objec tives and (2) is implemented consistently across the

Nation.

The purpose of the Handbook is twofold. First, the document is intended to assist technical personnel at tribal, state and local monitoring organizations 1 

### develop and implement a quality system for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. A quality system, as defined by The American National StandardSpecifications and Guidelines for Quality Syst ems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs(ANSI/ASQ E4), 2 

### is “a structured and documented management system describing the policies, objectives, princi ples, organizational authority, responsibilities, accountability, and implementation plan of an organizati on for ensuring the quality in its work processes, products, and services. The quality system provid es the framework for planning, implementing, and assessing the work performed by the organization an d for carrying out required quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) activities”. A monitoring organization’s quality system for the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program is described in its qu ality assurance project plan (QAPP). Second, the Handbook provides additional information and guidance on the material covered in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining to the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program.

The Handbook has been written in a style similar to a QA project plan as specified in the document EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations (EPA QA/R5) 3



### . Environmental data operations (EDO) refer to the work performed to obtain, use, or report information pertaining to natural surroundings and conditions. The information in this Handbook can be used as guidance in the development of de tailed monitoring organization QAPPS.

Earlier versions of the Handbook focused on the six cr iteria pollutants monitored at the State and Local Ambient Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and National Ambient Monitoring Stations (NAMS). In 2006,

the term NAMS was discontinued and a new nati onal monitoring concept-the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy- was adopted. Although the focu s will remain on the criteria pollutants, this edition is expanded to cover quality assurance guidance for:

• 

### Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS); http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsmain.html ;

• 

### Open path monitoring ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/longpath.html );

• 

### PM 2.5 

### Chemical Speciation Network ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html );

1 Monitoring organization will be used throughout the handbook to identify any tribal, state or local organization that is implementing an ambient air monitoring program, esp ecially if they are using the data for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

2 http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2fASQ+E4-2004

3 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Introduction

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 2

• 

### National Air Toxics Trends Network (NATTS) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html ; and

• 

### NCore Network ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/index.html )

This Handbook is not intending to supplant the de tailed guidance provided by the programs listed above but to provide general information and pointers, in the form of hyperlinks, where one can go for more detailed information. Extensive use of hyperli nks will be used throughout the document.



## 0.2 Use of the Terms Shall, Must, Should and May

The intent of this handbook is to provide additional guidance on the ambient air monitoring requirements found in the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58. In order to distinguish requirements from guidance, the following terms will be used with consistency.

< shall, must- when the element is a requirement in 

### 40 CFR and the Clean Air Act

< should- when the element is recommended. This term is used when extensive experience in monitoring provides a recommended procedure that would help establish or improve the quality of data or a procedure. The pr ocess that includes the term is not required but identifies something that is considered important to data quality that may have alterative methods that can be implemente d to achieve the same quality results.

< may- when the element is optional or discretionary . The term also indicates that what is suggested may improve data quality, that it is important to consider, but it is not as important as those that have been suggested using the term “should”.



## 0.3 Use of Footnotes

This document will make extensive use of internet li nks that will provide the user with access to more detailed information on a particular subject. Due to th e limitations of Adobe, full URL addresses must be provided in order for the links to work. Rather th an clutter the body of the document with long URL addresses, footnotes will be used to direct the interested reader to the correct link.



## 0.4 Handbook Review and Distribution

The information in this Handbook was revised and/ or developed by many of the organizations responsible for implementing the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program (see Acknowledgments). It has been peer-reviewed and accepted by these organi zations and serves to promote consistency among the organizations collecting and reporting ambient air data.

This Handbook is accessible as a PDF file on the Internet under the AMTIC Homepage:

[ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html ]

Recommendations for modifications or revisions are always welcome. Comments should be sent to the appropriate Regional Office Ambient Air Mon itoring contact or posted on AMTIC forum 4 

### . The Handbook Steering Committee will meet quarterly to di scuss any pertinent issues and proposed changes.

4 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Forums.nsf/Forum%5CAMTICByTopic?OpenView&CollapseViewQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 10



# 1.0 Program Background

1.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network

The purpose of this section is to describe the general concepts for establishing the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network. The majority of this material, as well as additional details,

can be found in the Clean Air Act (CAA) 1 

### , 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58 2 

### , and

their references.

Between the years 1900 and 1970, the emission of six principal pollutants increased significantly. The principal pollutants, also called criteria pollutants are: particulate matter (PM 10 

### and

PM 2.5 

### ), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and lead. In 1970 the CAA was signed

into law. The CAA and its amendments provide the framework for all pertinent organizations to protect air quality.

40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D requires that monitoring networks be designed for three basic monitoring objectives:

• 

### to provide air pollution data to th e general public in a timely manner

• 

### to support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emission strategy development

• 

### to support air pollution research studies

In addition, these monitoring networks can also be developed:

• 

### to activate emergency control procedures that prevent or alleviate air pollution episodes

• 

### to observe pollution trends throughout the region, including non-urban areas

1 http://epa.gov/air/caa/

2 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ cfr/cfr-table-search.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 10



### To meet these basic needs, networks are designed with a variety of types of monitoring sites located to:

• 

### Determine the highest concentration expected to occur in the area covered by the network.

• 

### Measure typical concentrations in areas of high population density.

• 

### Determine the impact of significant s ources or source categories on air quality.

• 

### Determine background co ncentration levels.

• 

### Determine the extent of regional pollutant tr ansport among populated areas; and in support of secondary standards.

• 

### Measure air pollution impacts on visibility, ve getation damage, or welfare-based impacts.

These six objectives will be used during the developmen t of data quality objectives (Section 3). As one reviews the objectives, it becomes apparent that it will be rare that individual sites can be located to meet more than two or three objectives. Therefore, monito ring organizations need to choose the sites that are most representative of its priority objective(s).

Through the process of implementing the CAA, six major categories of monitoring stations or networks that measure the air pollutants have been developed. These networks are described below. In addition, a fact sheet on each network (with the excepti on of SPMs) can be found in Appendix A

.



### State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (S LAMS) including Tribal Monitoring Stations

The SLAMS consist of a network of monitoring stati ons whose size and distribution is largely determined by the monitoring requirements for NAAQS comparis on and the needs of monitoring organizations to meet their respective tribal/state implementation plan (TIP/SIP) requirements. The TIP/SIPs provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcemen t of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in each air quality control region within a tribe/state. The Handbook is largely devoted to guidance related to the SLAMS network. SLAMS ex clude special purpose monitor (SPM) stations and include NCore, PAMS, and all other State or locally op erated stations that have not been designated as

SPM stations.



### Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (SPMs)

An SPM station means a monitor included in a mon itoring organizations network has been designated as a special purpose monitor station in its monitoring network plan and in the Air Quality System (AQS), and which the agency does not count when s howing compliance with the minimum monitoring requirements for the number and siti ng of monitors of various types

. 

### SPMs provide for special studies needed by the monitoring organizations to suppor t TIPs/SIPs and other air program activities. These

monitors are not counted towards the monitoring organization’s minimum requirements established in CFR for monitoring certain pollutants. The SPMs are not permanently established and can be adjusted to accommodate changing needs and priorities. The SPM s are used to supplement the fixed monitoring network as circumstances require and resources permit . If the data from SPMs are used for SIP purposes, they must meet all QA, siting and methodology requirements for SLAMS monitoring. Any SPM data collected by an air monitoring agency using a Fe deral reference method (FRM ), Federal equivalent method (FEM), or approved regional method (ARM) must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58.11, 58.12, and the QA requirements in 40 CFR Part 58, A ppendix A or an approved alternative to Appendix A to this part. Compliance with the probe and monitori ng path siting criteria in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E is optional but encouraged except when the monito ring organization’s data objectives are inconsistent with those requirements. Data collected at an SPM using a FRM, FEM, or ARM meeting the requirements of Appendix A must be submitted to AQ S according to the requirements of 40 CFR PartQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 10



### 58.16. Data collected by other SPMs may be submitted. The monitoring agency must also submit to AQS an indication of whether each SPM reporting data to AQS meets the requirements of Appendices A and E.



### PM 2.5 

### Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) 3



### As part of the effort to monitor particulate matte r, EPA monitors and gathers data on the chemical makeup of these particles. EPA established a chemic al speciation network cons isting of approximately 300 monitoring sites. These sites are placed at vari ous SLAMS across the Nation. Fifty-four of these CSN sites, the Speciation Trends Network (STN), w ill be used to determine, over a period of several years, trends in concentration levels of selected ions, metals, carbon species, and organic compounds in

PM 2.5



### . Further breakdown on the location or placement of th e trends sites requires that approximately 20 of the monitoring sites be placed at existing Phot ochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS). The placement of the remaining trends sites will be coordinated by EPA, the regional offices, and the monitoring organizations. Locations will be primarily in or near larger Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

. The remaining chemical speciation sites will be used to enhance the required trends network and to provide information for de veloping effective TIPs/SIPs.

The STN is a component of the National PM 2.5 

### SLAMS. Although the STN is intended to complement the SLAMS activities, STN data will not be used for attainment or nonattainment decisions. The programmatic objectives of the STN network are:

• 

### annual and seasonal spatial characterization of aerosols;

• 

### air quality trends analysis and track ing the progress of control programs;

• 

### comparing, aggregating and evaluating the chemical speciation data set to the data collected from the IMPROVE network; and

• 

### development of emission control strategies.



### Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) 4



### Section 182(c)(1) of the 1990 CAA required the Admini strator to promulgate rules for the enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), a nd volatile organic compounds (VOC) to obtain more comprehensive and representative data on ozone air po llution. Immediately follow ing the promulgation of such rules, the affected states/tribes were to co mmence such actions as were necessary to adopt and implement a program to improve ambient monitoring activities and the monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOC. Each TIP/SIP for the affected areas must contain measures to implement the ambient monitoring of such air pollutants. The subsequent revisions to 40 CFR 58 required states to establish Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) as part of their SIP monitoring networks in ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme.

The chief objective of the enhanced ozone monitoring re visions is to provide an air quality database that will assist air pollution control agencies in evaluating, tracking the progress of, and, if necessary, refining control strategies for attaining the ozone NAAQS. Ambi ent concentrations of ozone and ozone precursors

will be used to make attainment/nonattainment d ecisions, aid in tracking VOC and NOx emission inventory reductions, better characteriz e the nature and extent of the oz one problem, and to evaluate air quality trends. In addition, data from the PAMS will provide an improved database for evaluating photochemical model performance, especially for future control strategy mid-course corrections as part of

3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html

4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsmain.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 10



### the continuing air quality managemen t process. The data will help to ensure the implementation of the most cost-effective regulatory controls.



### National Air Toxic Trends Stations (NATTS) 5



### There are currently 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or Air Toxics (AT) regulated under the CAA. These pollutants have been associated with a wide variety of adverse health and ecosystem effects. In 1999, EPA finalized the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS). The UATS states that emissions data are needed to quantify the sources of air toxics impacts and aid in the development of control strategies, while ambient monitoring data are needed to understand the be havior of air toxics in the atmosphere after they are emitted. Part of this strategy included the de velopment of the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS). Specifically, it is anticipated th at the NATTS data will be used for:

• 

### tracking trends in ambient levels to evaluate progress toward emission and risk reduction goals;

• 

### directly evaluating public exposure & environm ental impacts in the vicinity of monitors;

• 

### providing quality assured data fo r risk characterization;

• 

### assessing the effectiveness of specific emission reduction activities; and

• 

### evaluating and subsequently improving air toxi cs emission inventories and model performance.

Currently the NATTS program is made up of 22 monitoring sites; 15 representing urban communities and 7 representing rural communities.



### National Core Monitoring Network (NCore) 6



### The NCore multi-pollutant stations are part of an overall strategy to integrate multiple monitoring networks and measurements. Each state (i.e., the fifty states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) is required to operate at least one NCore site. Monitors at NCore multi-pollutant sites will measure particles (PM 2.5 

### , speciated PM 2.5 

### , PM 10-2.5, 

### speciated PM 10-2.5 

### ), O 3 

### , SO 2 

### , CO, nitrogen oxides (NO/NO 2 

### /NO y 

### ), and basic meteorology. In addition a number of NCore sites will be selected to measure lead (Pb).

The objective is to locate sites in broadly representa tive urban (about 55 sites) and rural (about 20 sites) locations throughout the country to help characteri ze regional and urban patterns of air pollution. The NCore network should be fully operational by 2011.

In many cases, monitoring organizations will colloca te these new stations with STN sites measuring speciated PM 2.5 

### components, PAMS sites already measuring O 3 

### precursors, and/or NATTS sites measuring air toxics. By combining these monitoring programs at a single location, EPA and its partners will maximize the multi-pollutant information available. This greatly enhances the foundation for future health studies, NAAQS revisions, validation of air quality models, assessment of emission reduction programs, and studies of ecosystem impacts of air pollution.

5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html

6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/index.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 10



## 1.2 The EPA Quality System Requirements

A quality system is the “blueprint” or framework by which an organization applies sufficient quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) practices to

ensure that the results of its environmental programs meet or exceed expectations. It is based upon the model of planning the work, implementing what is planned, assessing the results against the performance criteria, reporting on data quality and making improvements if necessary. Figure 1.2 provides an illustration of the pertinent regulations and policy that drive the development of a quality system. Some important aspects of this figure are explained below



### .

1.2.1 Policy and Regulations

At the highest level, standards and regulations determine what QA is required for the monitoring program and, therefore, set the stage for program and project specific guidance. The standards and regulations pertinent to the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program include:

• 

### ANSI/ASQ E4 – EPA’s quality system is based on the document: American National StandardQuality Systems for Environmental Data and T echnology Programs-Requirements with Guidance for use (ANSI/ASQ E4-2004) 7



### . This document describes a basic set of mandatory specifications and non-mandatory guidelines by which a quality system for programs involving environmental data collection can be planned, implemented, and assessed.

• 

### Internal Policies - EPA Order 5360.1 8 

### expresses the EPA policy in regards to the quality system development for all EPA organizations and by no n-EPA organizations performing work on behalf of EPA through extramural agreements. The EPA QA Orders adhere to E4 under the authority of the Office of Management and Budget. Section 1.2.5 below provides more specifics on this

Order.

7 http://webstore.ansi.org/default.aspx

8 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/

. Figure 1.2. Hierarchy of quality system developmentQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 10



### NOTE: During development of this document EPA Order 5360.1 was under revision and its new reference may be changed to CIO 2105.0. Th is Handbook will continue to use 5360.1 as the

current reference.

• 

### External Policies - Refers to the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). The references to the external regulations are those that apply to the quality system requirements for external funding. Those most important to the monitoring community are 40 CFR Parts 30, 31 and 35 but are not specific to ambient air monitoring.

• 

### Ambient Air - The consensus standards (E4) and internal and external requirements then funnel to the Headquarters and Regional programs (ye llow circle) where additional QA requirements, specific to a particular monitoring program, ar e included. Ambient air requirements include documents like the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58 which are specific to ambient air monitoring.



### 1.2.2 Organization/Program

This area in Figure 1.2 refers to the monitoring or ganization and is used to describe its overall quality system, usually in the form of a quality management plan (QMP) 9 

### . Many monitoring organizations perform a multitude of data collection activities for diff erent media (e.g., air, water, solid waste) where ambient air monitoring might be only one branch in a large organization. It is the responsibility of each organization to have a QMP that demonstrates an acc eptable quality system. QMPs are approved by the EPA Regions.



### 1.2.3 Project

The term “project” refers to the specific envir onmental data operation (EDO) that occurs at the monitoring organization. An environm ental data operation refers to the wo rk performed to obtain, use, or report information pertaining to environmental pr ocesses and conditions. This handbook provides the majority of the guidance necessary for the monitoring organizations to develop QA project plans specific to its data collection needs. Other guidance has b een developed specific to a part of the measurement system (i.e., calibration techniques) or to specific methods. A listing of this guidance is included in Appendix B. It is anticipated that the majority of these documents will be available on the AMTIC

bulletin board.



### 1.2.4 Quality System Requirements for EPA Funded Programs

EPA’s national quality system requirements can be found in EPA QA Policy 5360.1 10 

### . Any organization using EPA funds for the collection of environmental data are covered under 536 0.1 and must develop, implement, and maintain a quality system that demonstrates conformance to the minimum specifications of ANSI/ASQC E4-1994 and that additionally pr ovides for the following (excerpt from 5360.1):

1. A quality assurance manager (QAM), or person/pe rsons assigned to an equivalent position, who functions independently of direct environmen tal data generation, m odel development, or technology development responsib ility; who reports on quality issues to the senior manager

9 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/r2-final.pdf

10 http://www.epa.gov/irmpo li8/ciopolicy/2105-0.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 10



### having executive leadership authority for the or ganization; and who has sufficient technical and management expertise and authority to conduc t independent oversight of and assure the implementation of the organization’s quality system in the environmental programs of the organization.

2. A Quality Management Plan (QMP), which documents the organization’s quality policy, describes its quality system, identifies the envir onmental programs to which the quality system applies, and which is implemented following approva l by the organization’s executive leadership.

3. Sufficient resources to implement the quality system defined in the approved QMP.

4. Assessments of the effectiveness of the quality system at least annually.

5. Submittal to the Office of Environmental Infor mation (OEI) of the Quality Assurance Annual Report and Work Plan (QAARWP) for the organi zation that summarizes the previous years QA and QC activities and outlines the work proposed fo r the current year (not applicable to air monitoring organizations)

6. Use of a systematic planning approach to devel op acceptance or performance criteria for all work covered by this Order.

7. Approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs ), or equivalent documents defined by the QMP, for all applicable projects and tasks involvi ng environmental data with review and approval having been made by the EPA QAM (or authori zed representative defined in the QMP). QAPPs must be approved prior to any data gathering work or use, except under circumstances requiring immediate action to protect human health and the environment or operations conducted under police powers.

8. Assessment of existing data, when used to suppor t Agency decisions or other secondary purposes, to verify that they are of sufficient quantity and adequate quality for their intended use.

9. Implementation of Agency-wide Quality System requirements in all applicable EPA-funded extramural agreements

10. Implementation of corrective actions based on assessment results.

11. Appropriate training, for all levels of mana gement and staff, to assure that QA and QC responsibilities and requirements are understood at every stage of project implementation.



## 1.3 The Ambient Air Monitoring Program Quality System

Figure 1.3 represents the stages of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring QA Program. OAQPS modified EPA 5360.1 as appropriate in order to provide data of the quality needed to meet the Ambient Air Monitoring Program objectives. The planning, implementation, assessment and reporting tools will be briefly discussed below



### .

1.3.1 Planning

Planning activities include:

Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) - DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the outputs of the DQO Process that: (1) clarify the study objective; (2) define the most appropriateQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 10



### type of data to collect; (3) determine the most appr opriate conditions from which to collect the data; and (4) specify tolerable limits on decision errors which will be used as the basis for establishing the quantity and quality of data needed to support the decision. Section 3 will provide more information on the DQO

Process.

Methods - Reference methods and measurement principles ha ve been written for each criteria pollutant. For monitoring for comparison to the NAAQS, monitoring organizations must use methods that are designated as Federal Reference (FRM) Federal Equivalent (FEM) 11 

### or approved regional monitor (ARM) 12 

### for PM 2.5 

### . ORD NERL implements the FRM/FEM designation program and provides technical

assistance in the PM 2.5 

### ARM process. Approved FRM/FEM methods refer to individual monitoring instruments that either provide a pollutant concentration or provide a sample for further laboratory analysis and must be operated minimally as require d in 40 CFR Part 50. Since these methods cannot be applied to the actual instruments acquired by each mon itoring organization, they should be considered as guidance for detailed standard operating procedures that would be developed by monitoring organizations as part of an acceptable QAPP.

Training - Training is an essential part of any good monitoring program. Training activities are

discussed in Section 4.

Guidance - This QA Handbook as well as many other guidan ce documents have been developed for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. Many of the monitoring networks listed above have developed technical assistance documents and generic QAPPs to help guide pe rsonnel in the important aspects of these programs. A list of these documents is included in Appendix B.



### 1.3.2 Implementation

Implementation activities include:

QMP/QAPP Development - Each state, local, and tribal organization must develop a QMP and QAPP.

• 

### QMP - describes the quality system in terms of the organizational structure, functional responsibilities of management and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those planning, implementing, and assessing activities i nvolving environmental data collection. The QMP is not specific to any particular project, but related to how the monitoring organization implements its quality system.

• 

### QAPP - is a formal document describing, in co mprehensive detail, the necessary QA/QC and other technical activities that must be implemented to ensure that the resu lts of work performed will satisfy the stated performance criteria, which may be in the form of a data quality objective (DQO). The QAPP is specific to a particular m onitoring project. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are part of the QAPP development process and are vital to the qua lity of any monitoring program. The QAPP should be deta iled enough to provide a clear description of every aspect of the project and include information for every member of the project staff, including samplers, lab staff, and data reviewers. The QAPP facilitates communication among clients, data users, project staff, management, and external reviewers.

11 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html

12 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix C Section 2.4QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 9 of 10



### Guidance for the development of both QMPs and QAPPs can be found on the EPA Quality Staff’s

website 13 

### . In addition, EPA has provided flexibility on how EPA organizations implement this policy, allowing for use of a graded approach. Since EPA funds the collection and use of data for a number of monitoring objectives and for organizations with a br oad range of capabilities, flexibility in the QMP and QAPP requirements is necessary. For example, data collection for the purpose of comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) w ill require more stringent requirements, while monitoring programs for special purposes may not require the same level of quality assurance. The level of detail of QMPs and QAPPs, as explained by th e EPA Quality Staff in the EPA Quality Manual, “should be based on a common sense, graded appro ach that establishes the QA and QC requirements commensurate with the importance of the work, av ailable resources, and the unique needs of the organization.” The ambient air program has develope d a graded approach that will help tribes and smaller monitoring organizations develop both a QMP and QAPPs. Appendix C provides information on this approach.

Internal QC Activities - The quality control (QC) system is used to fulfill requirements for quality. It is the overall system of technical activities that measure the attributes and performance of a process, item, or service against defined standards to verify that th ey meet the stated requirements established by the customer. In the case of the Ambient Air Quality Mon itoring Network, QC activities are used to ensure that measurement uncertainty is main tained within established acceptan ce criteria for the attainment of the DQOs.

Federal regulation provides for the implementation of a number of qualitative and quantitative checks to ensure that the data will meet the DQOs. Each of the checks attempt to ev aluate phases of measurement uncertainty. Some of these checks are discussed below and in Section 10.

• 

### Precision and Bias (P & B) Checks - These checks are described in the 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A. These checks can be used to provide an overall assessment of measurement uncertainty.

• 

### Zero/Span Checks - These checks provide an internal quality control check of proper operation of the measurement system.

• 

### Annual Certifications - A certification is the process whic h ensures the traceability and viability of various QC standards. Standard traceability is the process of transferring the accuracy or authority of a primary standard to a field-usable standard. Traceability protocols are available for certifying a working standard by direct comparison to a NIST-SRM 14, 15



### .

• 

### Calibrations - Calibrations should be carried out at th e field monitoring site by allowing the analyzer to sample test atmospheres containing known pollutant concentrations. Calibrations are

discussed in Section 12.



### 1.3.3 Assessments

Assessments, as defined in ANSI/ASQC-E4 and EPA’s document, Guidance on Technical Audits and Related Assessments for Envi ronmental Data Operations (QA/G-7) 16 

### , are evaluation processes used to measure the performance or effectiveness of a system and its elements. It is an all inclusive term used to denote any of the following: audit, performance ev aluation, management systems review, peer review,

13 ( http://www.epa.gov/quality1/ )

14 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-79-056.pdf

15 http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/pubs/600r97121/600r97121.htm

16 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g7-final.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 10 of 10



### inspection, or surveillance. Asse ssments for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, as discussed in Section 15, include:

Technical Systems Audits (TSA) -A TSA is an on-site review and inspection of a State or local agency's ambient air monitoring program to assess its comp liance with established regulations governing the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality data. Both EPA and State organizations perform TSAs. Procedures for this a udit are discussed in general terms in Section 15.

Network Reviews - The network review is used to dete rmine how well a particular air monitoring network is achieving its required air monitoring objectiv e(s) and how it should be modified to continue to meet its objective(s). Network reviews are discussed in Section 15.

Performance Evaluations - Performance evaluations are a type of audit in which the quantitative data generated in a measurement system are obtained in dependently and compared with routinely obtained data to evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, laboratory, or measurement system. The following performance evaluations, discussed in further detail in Section 15, are included in the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program:

• 

### Monitoring Organization Performance Evaluations (Audits) - These performance evaluation audits are used to provide an independent assessment of the measurement operations of each instrument being audited. This is accomplishe d by comparing performance samples or devices

of “known” concentrations or values to the valu es measured by the instruments being audited.

• 

### National Performance Evaluation Program (NPEP) – These performance evaluation audits are implemented at the federal level although some programs may be implemented by the monitoring organizations if certain requirements are met.



### 1.3.4 Reports

All concentration data should be assessed in order to evaluate the attainment of the DQOs or the monitoring objectives. These assessments can be do cumented using the following types of reports:

• 

### Data quality assessment (DQA) is the scientific and statistical evaluation to determine if data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to su pport their intended use (DQOs). QA/QC data can be statistically assessed at various levels of aggregation to determine whether the DQOs have been attained. Data quality assess ments of precision, bias, and accuracy can be aggregated at the following three levels.

o Monitor - monitor/method designation

o PQAO - monitors in a method designation, all monitors

o National - monitors in a method designation, all monitors

• 

### P & B reports are generated annually and evaluate th e precision and bias of data against the acceptance criteria discussed in Section 3.

• 

### QA reports provide an evaluation of QA/QC data fo r a given time period to determine whether the data quality objectives were met. Discussions of QA reports can be foun d in Sections 16 and

18.

• 

### Meetings and Calls at various national meetings and conference calls can be used as assessment tools for improving the network. It is importa nt that information derived from the avenues of communication is appropriately documented.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 7



# 2.0 Program Organization

Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies all have important roles in developing and implementing air monitoring programs. Figure 2.1 identifies the major entities

involved in the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, the organizational structure, and the

lines of communication. The responsibilities of each organization follow.



## 2.1 Organization Responsibilities

2.1.1 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

EPA’s responsibility, under the Clean Air Act (CAA ) as amended in 1990, includes: setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutant s considered harmful to the public health and environment; ensuring that these air quality standards ar e met or attained through national standards and strategies to control air emissions from sources; and ensuring that sources of toxic air pollutants are well

controlled.

OAQPS 1 

### is the organization charged under the authority of the CAA to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources. OAQPS evaluates the need to regulate potential air pollutants and develops national standards; works with state, tribes a nd local agencies to develop plans for meeting these standards; monitors national air quality trends and maintains a data base of information on air pollution and controls; provides technical guidance and training on air pollution control strategies; and monitors compliance with air pollution standards.

Within the OAQPS Air Quality Assessment Divisi on, the Ambient Air Monitoring Group (AAMG) 2 

### is responsible for the oversight of the Ambient Air Qu ality Monitoring Network and its quality assurance program. AAMG, relative to quality assu rance, has the responsibility to:

• 

### develop a satisfactory quality system for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network;

• 

### ensure that the methods and procedures used in making air pollution measurements are adequate to meet the programs objectives and that the resulting data are of appropriate quality;

• 

### manage the National Performance Evaluation Program (NPEP);

1 http://www.epa.gov/air/oarofcs.html

2 http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/organization/aqad/aamg.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 7

• 

### perform data quality assessments of organiza tions making air pollution measurements of importance to the regulatory process;

• 

### ensure that guidance pertaining to the quality assurance aspects of the Ambient Air Program are written and revised as necessary; and

• 

### render technical assistance to the EPA Regi onal Offices and the air pollution monitoring community.

In particular to this Handbook, OAQPS will be responsible for:

• 

### coordinating the Handbook Revision Workgroup resp onsible for continued improvement of the Handbook;

• 

### seeking resolution on Handbook issues;

• 

### incorporating agreed upon revisions into the Handbook; and

• 

### reviewing and revising the Handbook (Vol II) as necessary.

Specific AAMG leads for the various QA activities (e.g., precision and bias, training, etc.) can be found within the QA Section 3 

### of the Ambient Monitoring Technical Information Center (AMTIC).



### 2.1.2 EPA Regional Offices

EPA Regional Offices 4 

### play a critical role in addressing environmental issues related to the monitoring organizations within their jurisdiction and to admi nistering and overseeing regulatory and congressionally mandated programs.

The major quality assurance responsibilities of EPA’s Regional Offices in regards to the Ambient Air Quality Program are the coordina tion of quality assurance matters between the various EPA offices and the monitoring organizations. This role requires that the Regional Offices:

• 

### distribute and explain technical and qualit y assurance information to the monitoring organizations;

• 

### identify quality assurance needs of the monitoring organization to EPA Headquarters that are “national” in scope;

• 

### provide personnel and the infrastructure to implement NPEP programs;

• 

### provide the personnel with knowledge of QA regulati ons and with adequate technical expertise to address ambient air monitoring and QA issues;

• 

### ensure monitoring organization have approved quality management plans (QMPs) and quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) prior to routine monitoring;

• 

### evaluate the capabilities of monitoring organizati ons to measure the criteria air pollutants by implementing network reviews and technical systems audits;

• 

### assess data quality of monitoring orga nizations within its Regions; and

• 

### assist SLT agencies in defining primary quality assurance organizations within their jurisdiction and in assigning sites to a primar y quality assurance organization.

Specific responsibilities as they relates to the Handbook include:

• 

### serving as a liaison to the monitoring organi zations for their particular Region;

3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qacon.html

4 http://www.epa.gov/epahome/locate2.htmQA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 7

• 

### serving on the Handbook Revision Workgroup;

• 

### fielding questions related to the Handbo ok and ambient air monitoring programs;

• 

### reporting issues that would require Handbook Revision Workgroup attention; and

• 

### serving as a reviewer of the Handbook and participating in its revision.



### 2.1.3 Monitoring Organizations

40 CFR Part 58 5 

### defines a monitoring organization as a “state, local or other monitoring organization (such as tribes) responsible for operating a monitoring s ite for which quality assurance regulations apply.”

Federally recognized Indian Tribes are Sovereign Nati ons. However, Section 301(d) of the CAA gives the Administrator the authority to treat an Indian Tribe as a State Agency with some exceptions. Additionally, Section 302 of the CAA states an air pollution control agency can be an agency of an Indian Tribe.

The major responsibility of the monitoring organization 6 

### is the implementation of a satisfactory monitoring program, which would naturally include the implementation of an appropriate quality assurance program. Implementation of an appr opriate quality assurance program includes the development and implementation of a QMP and QAPPs for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. It is the responsibility of monitoring orga nizations to implement quality assurance programs in all phases of the data collection process, including the field, its own laboratories, and in any consulting and contractor laboratories which it may use to obtain data.

Monitoring organizations may be identified for reasons such as:

• 

### distinguishing geographic regi ons (e.g. CA Districts)

• 

### distinguishing different entities or sources of funds (e.g., tribal funds versus state/local funds)

• 

### identifying organizations receivi ng funds directly from EPA

• 

### identifying organizations that have di fferent methods or objectives for monitoring

Therefore, if the monitoring organization accepts federa l funds for monitoring, it will be identified as a monitoring organization that will be required to submit a requisite QMP and QAPPs to cover its monitoring activities. This does not eliminate it from consolidating to a PQAO with other organizations that it shares common factors, as described in the next section.

Specific responsibilities of monitoring organizations as they relates to the Handbook include:

• 

### serving as a representative for the monitoring organization on the Handbook Revision Workgroup;

• 

### assisting in the development of QA guidance for various sections; and

• 

### reporting issues and comments to Regional Contacts or on the AMTIC Bulletin Board.



### 2.1.4 Primary Quality Assu rance Organizations (PQAOs)

A PQAO is a monitoring organization or a group of m onitoring organizations that share a number of common “QA Factors”. Below is an excerpt on PQAOs from 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A:

5 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ cfr/cfr-table-search.html

6 http://www.4cleanair.org/contactUsaLevel.aspQA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 7

3.1.1 Each primary quality assurance organization shall be defined such that measurement uncertainty among all stations in the organization can be expected to be reasonably homogeneous, as a result of common factors. Common factors that should be considered by monitoring organizations in defining primary quality assurance organizations include:

(a) Operation by a common team of field operators according to a common set of procedures; (b) Use of a common QAPP or standard operating procedures; (c) Common calibration facilities and standards; (d) Oversight by a common quality assurance organization; and (e) Support by a common management, laboratory or headquarters.



### PQAO has very important implications to quality assu rance activities. For each pollutant, the number of monitoring sites in a PQAO is used to determine the number and frequency of quality control checks, including the number of collocated monitors and the NPAP/PEP audit frequencies. PQAO is also used to aggregate data for assessments of completeness, prec ision and bias. EPA will base many of its data quality assessments at the PQAO level. The 5 common fact ors listed are the key criteria to be used when an agency decides the sites to be considered for aggregation to a PQAO. There are cases where state, local and tribal monitoring organizations have c onsolidated to one PQAO. The requirement does not

intend that all 5 factors have to be fulfilled but that these factors are considered. However, common procedures and a common QAPP should be strongly considered as key to making decisions to consolidate sites into a PQAO. However, the QAPP(s) of the m onitoring organizations must refer to the PQAO that the monitoring organization is affiliated with. EPA Regions will need to be aware of monitoring organizations consolidating to a P QAO and have documentation on file to this effect. Figure 2.2 shows the relationship of pollutants monitored at unique s ites and how these unique sites are then related to monitoring organizations and primar y quality assurance organizations. In the case of PQAO #1, a tribal monitoring organization and local monitoring orga nization have common factors that allow for

consolidation.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 7



### PQAO is identified at the pollutant (monitor) level so two monitoring organizations may consolidate to a single PQAO for one pollutant due to similar methods and QA procedure, but not consolidate for another pollutant where they may have different quality requirements.



### 2.1.5 EPA Office of Research and Develo pment (ORD) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) 7



### NERL conducts research and development that lead s to improved methods, measurements and models to assess and predict exposures of humans and ecosystems to harmful pollutants and other conditions in air, water, soil, and food. The NERL provides the follo wing activities relative to the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring networks:

• 

### develops, improves, and validates methods and in struments for measuring gaseous, semi-volatile, and non-volatile pollutants in source emissions and in ambient air;

• 

### supports multi-media approaches to assessing hum an exposure to toxic contaminated media through development and evaluation of analytical methods and reference materials, and provides analytical and method support for special mon itoring projects for trace elements and other inorganic and organic constituents and pollutants;

• 

### develops standards and systems needed for assuring and controlling data quality;

• 

### assesses whether candidate sampling methods conform to accepted reference method specifications and are capable of providing data of acceptable quality and completeness for determining compliance with applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards;

• 

### assesses whether emerging methods for monitori ng criteria pollutants are “equivalent” to accepted Federal Reference Methods and are capab le of addressing the Agency’s research and regulatory objectives; and

• 

### provides an independent audit and review f unction on data collected by NERL or other appropriate clients.

NERL will continue to assist in the Handbook by:

• 

### providing overall guidance;

• 

### participating in the Handbook review process;

• 

### developing new methods including the appropriate QA/QC; and

• 

### conducting laboratory and field evaluations of sampl ing and analysis methods to resolve ad hoc

technical issues.



## 2.2 Lines of Communication

In order to maintain a successful Ambient Air Qua lity Monitoring Program, effective communication is

essential. Lines of communication will ensure that deci sions can be made at the most appropriate levels

in a more time-efficient manner. It also means that each organization in this structure must be aware of the regulations governing the Ambient Air Quality M onitoring Program. In most circumstances, the monitoring organizations first line of contact is the EPA Region. Any issues that require a decision, especially in relation to the quality of data, or the qua lity system, should be addressed to the EPA Region. A monitoring organization should, in only rare circ umstances, contact OAQPS with an issue if it has not initially contacted the EPA Region. If this does o ccur, OAQPS normally tries to include the pertinent EPA Region in the conversation, or at a minimum, briefs the EPA Region about the issue(s) discussed.

7 http://www.epa.gov/nerl/QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 7



### This is appropriate as long as decisions are not mad e during these information-seeking communications. If important decisions are made at various locations along the line, it is important that the information is disseminated in all directions in order that improveme nts to the quality system can reach all organizations in the Program. Nationwide communication will be accomplished through AMTIC and the subsequent

revisions to this Handbook.

There are many other routes of communication availabl e in the monitoring comm unity. Three that occur with some frequency and should be used to iden tify important monitoring and QA issues are:

National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) 8



### - represents air pollution control agencies in 53 states and territories and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United States. It formed in the 1970’s to improve their effectiveness as managers of air quality programs. The association serves to encourage the exchange of information among air po llution control officials, to enhance communication and cooperation among federal, state, and local regul atory agencies, and to promote good management of our air resources. Specifically for the Ambient Ai r Monitoring Program, it facilitates a monthly conference call and has organized a Steering Co mmittee, made up of monitoring organization representatives and EPA, that meet twice a year to di scuss issues related to ambient air monitoring.

National Tribal Air Association (NTAA) 9



### - is an autonomous organizati on affiliated with the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). The NTAA’s mission is to advance air quality management policies and programs, consistent with the needs, inte rests, and unique legal status of American Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. This organization has many similarities to NACCA. It also facilitates a monthly conference call with EPA and holds a national annual meeting.

EPA Headquarters and Regional Monitoring and QA Calls - These calls occur monthly and are devoted to relevant monitoring and QA topics where EPA tries to develop consistent approaches to relevant monitoring issues.

Besides the three communication mechanisms descri bed above, there are many others, such as the Regional Planning Organization (RPOs) 10 

### conference calls/meetings, EPA Regional conference calls/meetings that also serve to communicate th e needs and issues of the ambient air monitoring community.

8 http://www.4cleanair.org/about.asp

9 http://www.ntaatribalair.org/

10 http://epa.gov/visibility/regional.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 7



## 2.3 Quality Assurance (QA) Workgroups

Two workgroups have been formed to provide info rmation for improving the Ambient Air Monitoring Program Quality System

• 

### QA Strategy Workgroup

• 

### Handbook Revision Workgroup

2.3.1 QA Strategy Workgroup

Organized and chaired by the QA Team Lead of OAQPS/AQAD, the Workgroup consists of Ambient Air Quality Assurance personnel from OAQPS, EPA Regions , and monitoring organi zations. The Workgroup members were solicited through NACAA in 200 1 in conjunction with OAQPS vision of a new monitoring strategy for the ambient air monitoring community. The goal, established by the Workgroup, was to define the elements of a Quality System . To achieve this goal, the Workgroup scheduled conference calls and meetings. Additionally, the work group meets on an annual basis at the National QA Meeting to discuss issues relevant to quality assuran ce work in the ambient air monitoring field. For information on the workgroup’s activities please refer to : www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qaqcrein.html

.

2.3.2 The Handbook Revision Workgroup

The Handbook Revision Workgroup is made up of re presentatives from the following four entities in order to provide representation at th e Federal, State and local level:

• 

### OAQPS - OAQPS is represented by the coor dinator for the Handbook and other representatives of the Ambient Ai r Quality Monitoring QA Team.

• 

### Regions - A minimum of 1 representative from each EPA Regional Office.

• 

### NERL -A minimum of one representative. NERL represents historical knowledge of the Handbook series as well as the expertise in the reference and equivalent methods program and QA activities.

• 

### Monitoring Organizations - A minimum of 10 representatives of the monitoring organizations.

The mission of the workgroup is the continued clarif ication and addition of quality assurance procedures as related to ambient air monitoring and the netw orks. The workgroup provides experiences and insights in the ambient air monitoring field that will assist O AQPS with the task of the continuous improvement of the quality system. This ensures data integrity and provides valid quality indicators for decision makers

faced with attainment/nonattainment issues as well as providing quality data to health professionals, academia and environmental professionals using the data.

The Handbook Revision Workgroup will be formed ev ery five years for the purpose of reviewing and revising the Handbook or sections as needed. Issues may surface from comments made by monitoring organizations liaisons, AMTIC bulletin board comments, or the development/revision of regulations.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 7 

# 3.0 Data Quality Objectives

Data collected for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program are used to make very specific decisions that can have an economic impact on the area repr esented by the data. Data quality objectives (DQOs)



### are qualitative and quantitative statem ents derived from the DQO Pl anning Process that clarify the purpose of the study, define the most appropriate type of information to collect, determine the most appropriate conditions from which to collect that info rmation, and specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors. Throughout this document, the

term decision maker is used. This term represents

individuals that are the ultimate users of ambient air data and therefore may be responsible for setting the NAAQS (or other objective), developing a quality system, or evaluating the data (e.g., NAAQS comparison). The DQO will be based on the data requirements of the decision

maker who needs to feel confident that the data

used to make environmental decisions are of adequate quality. The data used in these decisions are never error free and always contain some level of uncertainty. Because of these uncertainties or errors, there is a possibility that decision makers may declare an area “nonattainment” when the area is actually in “attainment” (Fig. 3.1 a false rejection of the baseline condition) or “attainment” when actually the area is in “nonattainment” (Fig. 3.2 false acceptance of the baseline condition) 1



### . Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate how false rejection and acceptance errors can affect a NAAQS

decision based on an annual mean concentration

value of 15 and the baseline condition that the area is in attainment. There are serious political, economic and health consequences of making such decision errors. Therefore, decision makers need to understand and set limits on the probabilities of making incorrect decisions with these data.

In order to set probability limits on decision errors, one needs to understand and control uncertainty. Uncertainty is used as a generic term

to describe the sum of all sources of error associated with an EDO and can be illustrated as follows:

2 2 2

m p o 

### S S S + = Equation 3-1

where:

S

o 

### = overall uncertainty

S

p 

### = population uncertainty (spatial and temporal)

S

m 

### = measurement uncertainty (data collection).

1 “Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process,” EPA QA/G-4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, QAD, February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf Figure 3.2 Effect of negative bias on the annual average resulting in a false acceptance error. Figure 3.1 Effect of positive bias on the annual average estimate, resulting in a false rejection error.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 7



### The estimate of overall uncertainty is an important component in the DQO process. Both population and

measurement uncertainties must be understood.

Population uncertainties - The most important data quality indicator of any ambient air monitoring network is representativeness 2 

### . This term refers to the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, a paramete r variation at a sampling point, a process condition, or a condition. Population uncertainty, the spatial and temporal components of error, can affect representativeness. These uncertainties can be contro lled through the selection of appropriate boundary conditions (the monitoring area and the sampling time period/frequency of sampling) to which the decision will apply, and the development of a pr oper statistical sampling design (see Section 6). Appendix B of the Quality Staff’s document titled Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA/G5) 3 

### provides a very good dissertation on representativeness. It does not matter how precise or

unbiased the measurement values are if a site is unr epresentative of the population it is presumed to represent. Assuring the collection of a representative air quality sample depends on the following factors:

• 

### selecting a network size that is consistent with the monitoring objectives and locating representative sampling sites;

• 

### identifying the constraints on the sampling sites that are imposed by meteorology, local topography, emission sources, land access and the physical constraints and documenting these;

and

• 

### selecting sampling schedules and frequencies that ar e consistent with the monitoring objectives.

Measurement uncertainties are the errors associated with the EDO, including errors associated with the field, preparation and laboratory measurement phases. At each measurement phase, errors can occur, that in most cases, are additive. The goal of a QA pr ogram is to control measu rement uncertainty to an acceptable level through the use of various quality c ontrol and evaluation techniques. In a resource constrained environment, it is most important to be able to calculate and evaluate the total measurement system uncertainty ( S

m 

### ) and compare this to the DQO. If resour ces are available, it may be possible to evaluate various phases (e.g., field, laboratory) of the measurement system.

Three data quality indicators are most important in determining total measurement uncertainty:

• 

### Precision - a measure of agreement among repeated measurements of the same property under identical, or substantially similar, conditions. Th is is the random component of error. Precision is estimated by various statistical techniques t ypically using some derivation of the standard

deviation.

• 

### Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes error in one direction. Bias will be determined by estimati ng the positive and negative deviation from the true value as a percentage of the true value.

• 

### Detection Limit - The lowest concentration or amount of the target analyte that can be determined to be different from zero by a single measurement at a stated level of probability. Due to the fact the NCore sites will require instruments to quantify at lower concentrations, detection limits are becoming more important. Some of the more recent guidance documents suggest that monitoring organizations develop method detec tion limits (MDLs) for continuous instruments and or analytical methods. Many monitoring orga nizations use the default MDL listed in AQS for a particular method. These default MDLs come from instrument vendor advertisements and/or

2 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/glossary.htm#R

3 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 7



### method manuals. Monitoring organizations should not rely on instrument vendor’s documentation

on detection limits but determine the detection lim its that are being achieved in the field during routine operations. Use of MDL have been listed in the NCore Precursor Gas Technical Assistance Document (TAD) 4



### .

Accuracy is a measure of the overall agreement of a measurement to a known value and includes a combination of random error (precision) and system atic error (bias) components of both sampling and analytical operations. This term has been used th roughout the CFR and in some sections of this document. Whenever possible, it is recommended th at an attempt be made to distinguish measurement uncertainties into precision and bias components. In cases where such a distinction is not possible, the term accuracy can be used.

Other indicators that are considered during the DQO process include completeness and comparability

. Completeness describes the amount of valid data obt ained from a measurement sy stem compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained unde r correct, normal conditions. For example, a PM 2.5 

### monitor that is designated to sample every sixth day would be expected to have an overall sampling frequency of one out of every six days. If, in a thirty day period, the sampler misses one sample, the completeness

would be recorded as four out of fi ve, or 80 percent. Data completeness requirements are included in the reference methods (40 CFR Part 50). Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which one data set or method can be compared to another, consid ering the units of measurement and applicability to standard statistical techniques. Comparability of datasets is critical to ev aluating their measurement uncertainty and usefulness.

Performance Based Measurement System Concept: Consistency vs. Comparability

The NATTS Program proposes to use of the performance based measurement system (PBMS) concept. In simple terms, this means that as long as the quality of data that the program requires (DQOs) are defined, the data quality indicators are identified, and the appropriate measurement quality objectives (MQOs) that quantify that the data quality are met, any sampling/analytical method that meets these data quality requirements should be appropriate to use in the prog ram. The idea behind PBMS is that if the methods meet the data quality acceptance criteria the data are “comparable” and can be used in the program.

Previous discussions in this document allude to the n eed for “nationally consistent data”, “utilization of standard monitoring methods” and “consistency in labor atory methods”. Comparability is a data quality indicator because one can quantify a number of data qua lity indicators (precision, bias, detectability) and determine whether two methods are comparable. Consis tency is not a data quality indicator and requiring that a particular method be used for the sake of c onsistency does not assure that the data collected from different monitoring organizations and analyzed by different laboratories will yield data of similar (comparable) quality. Therefore, the quality system w ill continue to strive for the development of data quality indicators and measurement quality objectives that will allow one to judge data quality and comparability and allow program managers to determine wh ether or not to require the use of a particularmethod (assuming this method meets the data quality needs). However, PBMS puts a premium on upfront planning and a commitment from monitoring or ganizations to adhere to implementing quality control requirements.

The data quality indicator comparability must be evaluated in light of a pollutant that is considered a method-defined parameter . The analytical result of a pollu tant measurement, of a method-defined parameter, has a high dependence on the process used to make the measurement. Most analytical

measurements are determinations of a definitive amount of a specific molecule or mixture of molecules. An example of this would be the concentration of carbon monoxide in ambient air. However, other

4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/guidance.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 7



### measurements are dependent on the pr ocess used to make the measurement. Method-defined parameters include measurements of physical parameters su ch as temperature and solar radiation which are dependent on the collection height and the design of the instrumentation used. Measurements of particulate mass, especially fine particulate, are also method-defined parameters because they are not "true" measures of particulate mass, being dependent on criteria such as: size cut-points which are geometrically defined; level of vol atilization of particulates during sampling; and analytical methods that control the level of moisture associated with particul ates at a concentration that may not represent actual conditions. (This should not be interpreted to mean that using a method-defined measurement of particulate is inferior. A "true" measurement of fine particulate in some environments can include a significant contribution from water, which is not a concern from a public/environmental health perspective). When selecting methods or comp aring data sets for method-defined parameter it is important to consider that there is no “corr ect” measurement only a “defined” method. However as mentioned above in the PBMS discussion, there are ce rtain data quality acceptance limits for “defined” methods that can be used to accept alternative methods.



## 3.1 The DQO Process

The DQO process is used to facilitate the planning of EDOs. It asks the data user to focus their EDO efforts by specifying the use of the data (the decisi on), the decision criteria, and the probability they can accept making an incorrect decision b ased on the data. The DQO process:

• 

### establishes a common language to be shared by decision makers, technical personnel, and

statisticians in their discussion of program objectives and data quality;

• 

### provides a mechanism to pare down a multitude of objectives into major critical questions;

• 

### facilitates the development of clear statements of program objectives and constraints that will optimize data collection plans; and

• 

### provides a logical structure within which an ite rative process of guidance, design, and feedback may be accomplished efficiently.

The DQO process contains the following steps:

• 

### State the problem: Define the problem that necessitates the study; identify the planning team, examine budget, schedule.

• 

### Identify the goal: State how environmental data will be used in meeting objectives and solving the problem, identify study questions, define alternative outcomes.

• 

### Identify information inputs: Identify data and information n eeded to answer study questions.

• 

### Define boundaries: Specify the target population and char acteristics of interest, define spatial and temporal limits, scale of inference.

• 

### Develop the analytical approach: Define the parameter of interest, specify the type of inference, and develop the logic fo r drawing conclusions from findings.

• 

### Specify performance or acceptance criteria:

o Decision making (hypothesis testing): Specify probability limits for false rejection and false acceptance decision errors.

o Estimation approaches: Develop performance criteria for new data being collected or acceptable criteria for existing data being considered for use.

• 

### Develop the plan for obtaining data: Select the resource-effective sampling and analysis plan that meets the performance criteria.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 7



### The DQO Process is fully discussed in the document titled Guidance on Systematic Planning using the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4) , and is available on the EPA’s Quality System for Environmental Data and Technology website 5 

### . For an illustration of how the DQO process was applied to a particular ambient air monitoring problem, refer to the EPA document titled Systematic Planning: A Case Study of Particulate Matter Ambient Air Monitoring 6



### .



## 3.2 Ambient Air Quality DQOs

As indicated above, the first steps in the DQO proces s are to identify the prob lems that need to be resolved and the objectives to be met. As described in Section 2, the ambient air monitoring networks are designed to collect data to meet three basic objectives:

1. provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner;

2. support compliance with air quality standa rds and emission strategy development; and

3. support air pollution research.

These different objectives could potentially require different DQOs, making the development of DQOs complex. However, if one were to establish DQOs based upon the objective requiring the most stringent data quality requirements, one could assume that the other objectives could be met. Therefore, the DQOs have been initially established based upon ensuring that decision makers can make comparisons to the NAAQS within a specified degree of certainty . OAQPS has established formal DQOs for PM 2.5, 

### Ozone, the NCore Precursor Gas Network, the PM 2.5 

### Speciation Trends Network (STN) 7 

### , and the National Air Toxics Trends Network (NATTS) 8 

### . As the NAAQS for the other criteria pollutants come up for review, EPA will develop DQOs for these pollutants.



## 3.3 Measurement Quality Objectives

Once a DQO is established, the quality of the data must be evaluated and controlled to ensure that it is maintained within the established acceptance criteri a. Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) are designed to evaluate and control various phases (e.g., sa mpling, transportation, preparation, analysis) of the measurement process to ensu re that total measurement uncertainty is within the range prescribed by the DQOs. MQOs can be defined in terms of the following data quality indicators: precision, bias, representativeness, detection limit, completeness an d comparability as described in Section 3.0.

MQOs can be established to evaluate overall measu rement uncertainty, as well as for an individual phase of a measurement process. As an example, the precision DQO for PM 2.5 

### is 10% and it is based on 3 years of collocated precision data collected at a PQAO leve l. Since only 15% of the sites are collocated, the data can be used to control the quality from each site and since the results can be effected by field and laboratory processes one cannot pinpoint a specific phase of the measurement system when a precision result is higher than the 10% precision goal. Theref ore individual precision values greater than 10% may be tolerated as long as the overall 3-year DQO is achieved . In contrast, the flow rate audit, which is specific to the appropriate functioning of the PM 2.5 

### sampler, has an MQO of + 4% of the audit standard

and + 5% of the design value. This MQO must be met each time or the instrument is recalibrated. In summary, since uncertainty is usually additive, there is much less tolerance for uncertainty for individual

5 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.html

6 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/casestudy2-final.pdf

7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specguid.html

8 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 7



### phases of a measurement system (e.g., flow rate) sinc e each phase contributes to overall measurement. As monitoring organizations develop measurement spec ific MQOs they should think about being more stringent for individual phases of the measurement process since it will help to keep overall measurement uncertainty within acceptable levels.

For each of these indicators, acceptance criteria can be developed for various phases of the EDO. Various parts of 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 have identified accep tance criteria for some of these indicators. In theory, if these MQOs are met, measuremen t uncertainty should be controlled to the levels required by the DQO. Table 3-1 is an example of an MQO table for ozone. MQO tables for the remaining criteria pollutants can be found in Appendix D. The ozone M QO table has been “re-developed” into what is known as a validation template. In June 1998, a workgroup of QA personnel from the monitoring organizations, EPA Regional Offices, and OAQPS was fo rmed to develop a procedure that could be used by monitoring organizations for consistent use of MQOs and the validation of the criteria pollutants across the US. The workgroup developed three tables of criteria:

Critical Criteria- deemed critical to maintaining the integrit y of a sample (or ambient air concentration value) or group of samples were placed on the first ta ble. Observations that do not meet each and every

criterion on the critical table should be invalidated un less there are compelling reason and justification for not doing so. Basically, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is invalid until proven otherwise.

Operational Criteria Table- important for maintaining and evalua ting the quality of the data collection system. Violation of a criterion or a number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision should consider other quality control information that may or may not indicate the data are acceptable for the parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is suspect unless other quality c ontrol information demonstrates otherwise. The reason for not meeting the criteria should be investigated, mitigated or justified.

Systematic Criteria Table- include those criteria which are important for the correct interpretation of the data but do not usually impact the validity of a sampl e or group of samples. For example, the data quality objectives are included in this table. If the data qua lity objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any of the samples but it may impact the error rate associ ated with the attainment/non-attainment decision.

More information about data validation and the use of the validation templates can be found in Section

17.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 7

Table 3-1 Measurement Quality Objectives for Ozone Developed into a Validation Template
Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria

Critical Criteria

One Point QC Check
Single analyzer 1/ 2 weeks < 7% (percent difference)

Zero/span check 1/ 2 weeks Zero drift # " 3% of full scale Span drift # " 7 % Operational Criteria Shelter Temperature Temperature range Daily

(hourly values) 20 to 30 E C. (Hourly ave)

or per manufacturers specificatio ns if designated to a wider temperature range Temperature Control Daily (hourly values) # " 2 E C SD over 24 hours

Precision (using 1-point QC checks) Calculated annually and as appropriate for design value estimates 90% CL CV < 7%

Bias (using 1-point QC checks) Calculated annually and as appropriate for design value estimates 95% CL < + 7%

Annual Performance

Evaluation Single analyzer Every site 1/year 25 % of sites quarterly Percent difference at each audit level < 15%

PQAO annually 95% of audit percent differences fall within the one point QC check 95% probability intervals at PQAO level of aggregation Federal Audits (NPAP) 1/year at selected sites 20% of sites

audited Mean absolute difference # 10%

State audits 1/year State requirements

Calibration Upon receipt/adjustment/repair and 1/6 months if manual zero/span performed biweekly 1/year if continuous zero/span performed daily All points within " 2 % of full scale of best-fit straight line

Zero Air Concentrations below LDL

Gaseous Standards NIST Traceable (e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)

Zero Air Check 1/year Concentrations below LDL

Ozone Transfer standard Qualification and certification Upon receipt of transfer standard " 4% or " 4 ppb (whichever greater)

Recertification to local primary standard Beginning and end of O3 season or 1/6

months whichever less RSD of six slopes # 3.7% Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5 New slope = + 0.05 of previous Ozone local primary standard

Certification/recertification to

Standard Photometer 1/year single point difference # " 5 % (preferably " 3%) (if recertified via a transfer standard) 1/year Regression slopes = 1.00 " 0.03 and two intercepts are 0 " 3 ppb

Detection Noise NA 0.003 ppm Systematic Criteria Standard Reporting Units All data ppm (final units in AQS) Completeness (seasonal) Daily 75% of hourly averages for the 8-hour period Sample Residence Times < 20 seconds Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling train Pyrex Glass or Teflon

Siting Un-obstructed probe inlet

EPA Standard Reference

Photometer Recertification 1/year Regression slope = 1.00 + 0.01 and intercept < 3 ppbQA Handbook Vol II Section 4.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page: 1 of 3



# 4.0 Personnel Qualific ations and Training

4.1 Personnel Qualifications

Ambient air monitoring personnel may be required to perfo rm a number of functions that are important to the quality of data. Table 4-1 identifies these functions and provides some of the key activities within the functional category. Once the list is completed for a monitoring organization, it can be used in the development of position descriptions fo r recruitment and training programs.

Not all functions are needed for the entire duration of the project. Monitoring organizations may feel that

it can contract some of the functions that are needed. For example, an organization may wish to contract the information technology (IT) function to have the monitoring instruments connected to a data logging system that would transfer data to a local data b ase and eventually to an ex ternal data base like AQS. This part of the process might be considered a “ one-time” event needing a particular expertise whose function might not require a full time person. Howeve r, it is critical that someone within the program

understands this IT function to ensure data collection is operating properly on a day-to-day basis.

Table 4-1 Monitoring Functions that Need Some Level of Staffing or Expertise

Function Activities

Procurement - Purchasing capital equipment and consumables

- Developing contracts and maintenance agreements

- Applying for EPA grants

Technical - Setting up a monitoring site, electricity, communications

- Developing standard operating procedures

- Selecting and installing monitoring equipment

- Calibrating equipment, performing quality control

- Shelter and equipment maintenance

Data Analysis (Statistical) - Understanding population and measurement uncertainty

- Developing sampling designs

- Developing networks to achieve objectives

- Assessing/interpreting data (data quality assessments)

Quality Assurance - Developing quality systems, QMPs/QAPPs

- Developing data quality objectives

- Implementing technical systems a udits, performance evaluations

- Validating data

- QA reporting

Information Technology - Selecting information technology (d ata loggers and local data base)

- Developing analyzer outputs to data loggers and data transfer to local data base

- Transfering data from local data base to external data repositories (AQS, etc.)



### Personnel assigned to ambient air monitoring activities are expected to have the educational, work experience, responsibility, personal attributes and tr aining requirements for their positions. In some cases, certain positions may require certification a nd/or recertification. These requirements should be outlined in the position advertisement and in pe rsonal position descriptions. Records on personnel qualifications and training should be maintained and accessible for review during audit activities (unless

the records are maintained as part of confidential personnel records). These records should be retained as

described in Section 5.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 4.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page:2 of 3



## 4.2 Training

Adequate education and training are integral to an y monitoring program that strives for reliable and comparable data. It is recommended that monitoring organizations maintain some requirements for air personnel qualifications (com bination of education and experience). Training is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of employees and their organization. As part of a quality assurance program, EPA QA/G10, Guidance for Developing a Training Program for Quality System 1 

### suggests the development of operational procedures for training. These procedures should include information on:

 personnel qualifications- ge neral and position specific

 training requirements - by position

 frequency of training

Appropriate training should be available to empl oyees supporting the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, commensurate with their duties. Such tr aining may consist of classroom lectures, workshops, web-based courses, teleconferences, ve ndor provided, and on-the-job training.

Along with suggested training, there are some EPA programs that require mandatory training and/or certifications. These programs include, but are not limited to, the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), Performance Evaluation Program (PEP), In teragency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), and PM 2.5 

### Speciation Trends Network Audit Program. All personnel performing audits in these projects or programs are required to possess mandatory training or a current certification issued by the EPA Office responsible for the monitoring program.

EPA encourages regional planning organizations a nd monitoring organizations to develop training programs that require some level of certification.



### 4.2.1 Suggested Training

Over the years, a number of courses have been de veloped for personnel involved with ambient air monitoring and quality assurance aspects. Formal QA/QC training is offered through the following organizations:

 Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI) http://www.epa.gov/apti/

 Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA) http://www.awma.org/

 American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) http://www.asq.org/

 EPA Quality Assurance Staff http://www.epa.gov/quality1/

 EPA Regional Offices http://www.epa.gov/epahome/locate2.htm

 EPA Ambient Monitoring Technology Informa tion Center (AMTIC) Technology Transfer Network ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/training.html )

In addition, OAQPS uses contractors and academic ins titutions to develop and pr ovide training for data collection activities that support regulatory effort s throughout EPA and monitoring organizations. In addition, instrument and data management manufacture rs provide training on the equipment they sell. Sometimes this can be added to the purchase cost.

1 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g10-final.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 4.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page:3 of 3



### Table 4-2 provides a suggested sequence of core QA- related ambient air monitoring courses for ambient air monitoring staff by job position. The suggest ed course sequences assume little or no experience in QA/QC or air monitoring but some courses may have pre-requisites. Persons having experience in the subject matter described in the courses would select courses according to their appropriate experience

level. Courses not included in the core se quence would be selected according to individual responsibilities, preferences, and available resources.

Table 4-2 Suggested Sequence of Core QA-related Ambient Air Training Courses for Ambient Air Monitoring and QA

Personnel

SourceSequence Course Title (SI = self instructional) Field Lab QCSupv. Data Mgt. Mon Supv. QA QA Mgt.

APTI- SI:422 Air Pollution Control Orientation Course X X X X X X APTI 452 Principles and Practices of Ai r Pollution Control X X X X X

APTI -SI:100 Mathematics Review for Air Pollution Control X X QS- QA1 Orientation to Quality Assurance Management X X X APTI-SI:434 Introduction to Ambient Air Monitoring X X X X X X X APTI -SI:471 General Quality Assurance Considerations for Ambient Air Monitoring X X X X X X X

APTI- SI:409 Basic Air Pollution Meteorology X X X X X APTI SI:473A Beginning Environm ental Statistical Techniques (Revised) X X X X X X X

APTI-470 Quality Assurance for Air Pollution Measurement Systems X X X X

QS-QA2 Data Quality Objectiv es Workshop X X X QS-QA3 Quality Assurance Project Plan X X X X APTI-435 Atmospheric Sampling X X X X X

No Source Basic Electronics X X X

APTI-SI:476B Continuous Emission M onitoring Systems - Operation &
Maintenance of Gas Monitors X X X X

APTI-474 Continuous Emission Monitoring X X X X APTI-SI:433 Network Design and Site Selection for Monitoring PM 2.5 and PM 10 in Ambient Air X X X

APTI-464 Analytical Methods for Air Quality Standards X X X X APTI Chain Of Custody Procedures for Samples and Data X X X X X X X APTI- SI:436 Site Selection for Monitoring SO 2 X X X X OAQPS AQS Training (annual AQS conference) X X X QS- QA4 Data Quality Assessment X X X QS- QA5 Management Systems Review X X X

APTI-SI:473B Introduction to Environm ental Statistics X X X X AWMA QA6 Quality Audits for Impr oved Performance X X ASQC-STAT1 Statistics for Effective Decision Making X X X X XQA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 8



# 5.0 Documentation and Records

Organizations that perform Environmental Data Operations (EDO) and management activities must establish and maintain procedures for the timely prepara tion, review, approval, issuance, use, control,

revision and maintenance of documents and records. Each organization should have a documented records management policy with the following elements addressed:

1. A list of files considered the official reco rds and their media type i.e., paper, electronic 2. Schedule for retention and disposition of records 3. Storage and retrieval system of records 4. Person(s) responsible at each level of storage and retrieval for records 5. Assignment of appropriate levels of security

This information should be included in a monitori ng organization’s Quality Assurance Project Plan. In ambient air monitoring, the majority of the records are data and relate d information. However, these steps could be used for other records management practic es in a monitoring organization. Please refer to

Section 14 for further information and the EPA records website 1



### A document, from a records management perspective, is a

volume that contains information that describes, defines, specifies, reports, certifies, or provides data or results pertaining to environmental programs. As

defined in the Federal Records Act of 1950 and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (now 44 U.S.C. 3101-3107), records are: “...books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the

United States Government

under Federal Law or in

connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions,

1 http://www.epa.gov/records/

Table 5-1 Types of Information that Sho uld be Retained Through Document

Control.

Categories Record/Document Types

Management and Organization State Implementation Plan Reporting agency information Organizational structure of monitoring program Personnel qualificati ons and training Quality management plan Document control plan Support contracts

Site Information Network description

Site characterization file Site maps/pictures

Environmental Data Operations QA Project Plans (QAPPs) Standard operating procedures (SOPs) Field and laboratory notebooks Sample handling/custody records Inspection/maintenance records

Raw Data Any original data (routine and QC)

Data Reporting Air quality index report Annual SLAMS air quality information Data/summary reports Journal articles/pape rs/presentations

Data Management Data algorithms Data management plans/flowcharts

Quality Assurance Control charts and strip charts Data quality assessments QA reports System audits

Network reviewsQA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 8



### procedures, operations, or other activities of the Govern ment or because of the informational value of data in them....”. This section will provide guidance of documentation and records for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program.

Table 5-1 represents the categories and types of reco rds and documents that are applicable for document control. Information on key documents in each category fo llows. It should be noted that the list contains documents that may not be applicable to particular organizations and, ther efore, is not meant to be a list of required documentation. This list should also not be construed as the definitive list of record and document types.



### Electronic Records

Today, more data are generated and retained electr onically in the ambient air monitoring community. The majority of the documentation referred to in this section can be an electronic record. Retention of

electronic records 2 

### is included in the above definition. It is recommended that electronic as well as paper records be stored in a logical order for ease of acces s should it be necessary. This is discussed more indepth in Section 14.



### Statute of Limitations

As stated in 40 CFR Part 31.42, in general, a ll information considered as documentation and records should be retained for 3 years from the date the grantee submits its final expenditure report unless otherwise noted in the funding agreement. However, if any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other action involving the records has been started before th e expiration of the 3-year period, the records must be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues that arise from it, or until the end of the regular 3-year period, whichever is later. For clarification purposes, the retention of samples produced as a result of required monitoring may differ depending on the program and/or purpose collected. For example, CFR requires that PM 2.5 

### filter samples be archived for a minimum of one year. For retention of samples for a specific program please refer to the appropriate reference in CFR for the individual

program.



## 5.1 Management and Organization

How the monitoring organization handles the document ty pes listed in Table 5-1 for this category can be found in a single document, a quality management plan , which is a blueprint for how an organization’s quality management objectives will be attained. The Quality Management Plan documents management practices, including QA and QC activities, used to ensure that the results of technical work are of the type and quality needed for their intended use. The EPA Quality Staff provide requirements for quality management plans 3 

### that monitoring organizations may find helpful.



## 5.2 Site Information

Site information provides vital data about each monito ring site. Historical site information can help determine and evaluate changes in measurement values at the site. This information should be kept to characterize the site through time. The Air Quality Syst em (AQS) Site File is on e record used to capture

and retain site information. Another source where site information is provi ded is the quality assurance

2 http://www.epa.gov/records/tools/erks.htm

3 EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans (QA/R-2) http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 8



### project plan. This should include specific documen tation of site characteristics for each monitoring station. This information will assist in providing objec tive inputs into the evaluation of data gathered at

that site

.

Most ambient air agencies retain th ese records in paper and/or electronic file format. Included in a site information file are maps and pictures of an indi vidual site. Because monitoring organizations are required to file an annual network plan and perform network assessments at a minimum of every five years, (40 CFR Part 58.10), this information should be retained and updated periodically by both the agency responsible for the site and/ or the office responsible for review ing the site information as needed for the network assessment process. Typically, the kinds of information found in a site identification

record should include:

1. Purpose of measurements (e.g., monitoring to dete rmine compliance with air quality standards).

2. Station type.

3. Instrumentation and methods (manufacturer’s m odel number, pollutant measurement technique, etc.).

4. Sampling system.

5. Spatial scale of the station (site category--i.e., urban/industrial, suburban/commercial, etc.; physical location--i.e., address, AQCR, UTM coordinates, etc.).

6. Influential pollutant sources (point and area s ources, proximity, pollutant density, etc.).

7. Topography (hills, valleys, bodies of water, trees; type and size, proximity, orientation, etc., picture of a 360 degree view from the probe of the monitoring site).

8. Atmospheric exposure (unrestricted, interferences, etc.).

9. Site diagram (measurement flowsheet, service lines, equipment configuration, etc.).

10. Site audits.



## 5.3 Environmental Data Operations

A quality assurance program associated with the collec tion of ambient air monitoring data must include an effective procedure for preserving the integrity of the data. Ambient air monitoring results and in certain types of measurements, the sample itself, may be essential elements in proving the validity of the data or the decisions made using the data. Data can not be admitted as evidence unless it can be shown that they are representative of the conditions that existed at the time that the data (or sample) was collected. Therefore, each step in the sampling and analysis procedure must be carefully monitored and documented. There are basically four elements in the evidentiary phase of an overall quality assurance

program:

1. Data collection - includes measurement preparati on and identification of the sample, location, time, and conditions during the measurements in th e form of data sheets, logbooks, strip charts,

and raw data.

2. Sample and/or measurement result handling - incl udes evidence that the sample and data were protected from contamination and tampering during transfer between people and from the sampling site to the evidence locker (i.e., chain of custody) and during analysis, transmittal, and

storage.
3. Analysis - includes evidence that samples and data were properly stored prior to and after analysis interpretation, and reporting.



### 4. Preparation and filing of measurement report - incl udes evidentiary requirements and retention of

records.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 8



### Failure to include any one of these el ements in the collection and analysis of ambient air monitoring data may render the results of the program inadmissi ble as evidence, or may seriously undermine the credibility of any report based on these data.

Environmental data operations include all the opera tions required to successfully measure and report a value within the data quality objectives. Docume ntation for environmenta l data operations would

include:

• 

### QA Project Plans - Documents how environmental data operations are planne d, implemented, and assessed during the life cycle of a program, project, or task (see below).

• 

### Standard operating procedures (SOPs)- Written documents that give detailed instruction on how a monitoring organization will perform daily tasks: field, laboratory and administrative. SOPs are a required element of a QAPP and therefore any EDO must include these (see below).

• 

### Field and laboratory notebooks- Any documentation that may provide additional information about the environmental data operation (e.g., ca libration notebooks, strip charts, temperature records, site notes, maintenance records etc.) (see below).

• 

### Sample handling and/or custody records- Records tracing sample and data handling from the site through analysis, including transportation to facilities, sample storage, and handling between individuals within facilities. (Section 12 provides more information on this activity.)



### Quality Assurance Project Plan

As mentioned in the assistance agreement sections of 40 CFR Parts 30.54 (Non-State and Local Gov.) and 31.45 (State and Local Gov.) qua lity assurance programs must be establis hed. In addition to the grant requirements, 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A 4 

### states that each quality assurance program must be described

in detail in accordance with the EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans 5



### .



### Standard Operating Procedures

In order to perform sampling and analysis operations consistently, standard operating procedures (SOPs) must be written as part of the QAPP. SOPs are writte n documents that detail the method for an operation, analysis, or action with thoroughly prescribed techniques and steps, and are officially approved as the method for performing certain routine or repetitive tasks. Although not every activity in the field/laboratory needs to be documented, the activities that could pote ntially cause measurement uncertainties, or significant variance or bias, should be described in an SOP. In general, approval of SOPs occurs during the approval of the QAPP. Indivi duals with appropriate training and experience with the particular SOPs in the QAPP need to review the SOPs.

SOPs should ensure consistent conf ormance with organizational practices, serve as training aids, provide ready reference and documentation of proper procedures, reduce work e ffort, reduce error occurrences in data, and improve data comparability, credibility, and de fensibility. They should be sufficiently clear and written in a step-by-step format to be readily u nderstood by a person knowle dgeable in the general concept of the procedure.

4 http://www.gpo access.gov/cfr /index.html

5 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 8



### Elements that may be included in SOPs which are explained in the guidance document Guidance for the Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures EPA QA/G-6 6 

### are:

1. Scope and Applicability

2. Summary of Method

3. Definitions

4. Health and Safety Warnings

5. Cautions

6. Interferences

7. Personnel Qualifications

8. Equipment and Supplies

9. Procedure (section may include all or part of these sections):

a. Instrument or Method Calibration

b. Sample Collection

c. Sample Handling and Preservation

d. Sample Preparation and Analysis

e. Troubleshooting

f. Data Acquisition, Calcul ations & Data Reduction

g. Computer Hardware & Software (used to ma nipulate analytical results and report data)

10. Data Management and Records Management Parameters

11. Quality Control/Quality Assurance

Elements that are not needed may be excl uded or listed as “NA” (not applicable).

Personnel implementing SOPs may not be involved in the “larger picture” which includes the use of the data and whether or not DQOs are being achieved. Th erefore, it’s very important that the SOP covers the objectives of the monitoring program and the importan ce of following each step in an SOP in order to achieve quality results.

NOTE: There may be some incentive to rely on vendor developed methods manuals or to reference analytical methods on internet sites (e.g., TO-15 for NATTS VOCs) as a monitoring organization’s SOP without revision. Although the majority of information in these documents may be appropriate, many times the methods provide more than one option for method implementation and is not specific to the organization implementing the method. Therefore, organizations are encouraged to utilize these methods but edit them to make them specific to the organization.

Many of these operational procedures listed above ar e included in the EPA reference and equivalent methods, and EPA guidance documents. However, it is the organization’s responsibility to develop its own unique written operational procedures applicab le to air quality measurements made by the organization.

SOPs should be written by individuals performing the procedures that are being standardized. SOPs for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program environm ental data operations must be included in QAPPs, either by reference or by inclusion of the actual method. If a method is referenced, it should be stated that the method is followed exactly or an addendum that e xplains changes to the method should be included in the QAPP (see NOTE above). If a modified method w ill be used for an extended period of time, the

6 http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/qa/qadevtools/mo d4references/secondaryguidance/g6-final.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 8



### method should be revised to include the changes to a ppropriate sections. In ge neral, approval of SOPs occurs during the approval of the QAPP. Individuals with appropriate training and experience with the particular SOPs in the QAPP need to review the SOPs.

SOPs should have some level of documented approval by the monitoring organization and be reviewed/approved at some frequency. There should be some level of document control on SOPs so that personnel can quickly determine whether or not they are using the most current method. The document control information on the pages of this Handbook provi de a good example. It is suggested that the monitoring organization create a “master” list of th e current SOPs it uses and include some document

control information to allow users to identify the appropriate SOPs.

Field and Laboratory Notebooks--

Recording of some field and laboratory data is necessary for ambient air monitoring. Section 11 provides

some details of activities that can be recorded in these notebooks. A standardized format should be

utilized to ensure that all necessar y information is obtained. The format should be designed to clearly identify the parameters during the measurements, the da te and time, location of the measurement station, and operating personnel. This inform ation may determine the credibility of the data and should not be erased or altered. Recording of the data should be le gible. If a manual record is kept, any error should be crossed out with a single line, and the correct value recorded above the crossed-out entry.

Electronic recording and storage of data is widely used. Electronic recording of the data allows for flagging and retention of additional information that is pertinent to day to day operations that could otherwise be lost with conventional systems. Th e same information as listed in the above paragraph should be recorded during routine quality checks. Some monitoring organizations like to electronically produce strip charts of data and/or supporting informat ion. This data can be used to enhance and support the validity of the data.

It is recommended a log book be kept for each inst rument in a monitoring organization’s network. The information contained in this log s hould consist of the above information as well as any calibration, audit, and maintenance work performed on the instrument. Th is log should follow the instrument from site to site as the instrument may be moved. The date of any movement of the instrument should also be recorded in the log. This log can either be an electronic record or a hardbound book.

Additionally, a site log can be kept documenting maintenance of a specific monitoring site and the auxiliary monitoring equipment located there. Information that could be recorded includes maintenance to station HVAC system, air conditioner cleaning, maintena nce to external sample intake pumps, permeation tube changes, sample line replacement or cleaning, and replacement of any equipment associated with the shelter or monitoring system. This log can also be either electronic or a hard bound book. Keeping this log can alert a field technician to upcoming maintenance as well as serve as a tool in determining data quality as necessary.

Do not discard original field records; copies of th em are not normally admissible as evidence. For neatness, the field data may be transcribed or copied for incorporation in a fina l report, but the originals should be kept on file. Since these records may be su bpoenaed, it is important that all field notes be legible.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 8



## 5.4 Raw Data

Raw data includes any original factual informati on from a measurement activity or study recorded in laboratory work sheets, records, memoranda, notes, com puter (electronic) files or exact copies thereof and that are necessary for the reconstruction and evaluation of the report of the activit y or study. Raw data may include photographs, microfilm or microfiche copi es, computer printouts, magnetic media, including dictated observations, and recorded data from automat ed instruments. For automated information systems, raw data is considered the original observa tions recorded by the information system that are needed to verify, calculate, or derive data that ar e or may be reported. Organizations should critically review the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program a nd create a list of what the organization considers raw data and provide a means to store this info rmation in a manner that is readily accessible.



## 5.5 Data Reporting

In addition to samples and field records, the report of the analysis itself may serve as material evidence. Just as the procedures and data leading up to the final re port are subject to the rules of evidence, so is the report. Written documents are generally consid ered as hearsay and are not admissible as evidence without a proper foundation. A proper foundation co nsists of introducing t estimony from all persons having anything to do with the major portions of the measurement and anal ysis. Thus, the field operator, all persons having custody of the samples and data , and the analyst would be required to lay the

foundation for the introduction of the measurement as evidence. This evidence can and should be

recorded in the form of initials and notes written in indelible ink at the time of data collection on paper that is kept on file. The proper f oundation is laid and available in case the data are questioned. Examples of this include strip charts dated and initialed by ope rator when visiting the site for routine quality checks and initials on routine paperwork and in logbooks when events are recorded. Electronic records should also allow for a recording of initials or be traceable to the operator performing the work.

To ensure compliance with legal rules, all measur ement reports should be filed in a safe place by a custodian having this responsibility. Although the fi eld notes and calculations are not generally included in the summary report, these materials may be required at a future date to bolster the acceptability and credibility of the report as evidence in an enforcement proceeding. Ther efore, the full report including all original notes and calculation sheets should be kept in the file. Signed receipts for all samples, strip charts, or other data, should also be filed.

The original of a document is the best evidence; a copy is not normally admissible as evidence. Microfilm, snap-out carbon copies, and similar c ontemporary business methods of producing copies are acceptable in many jurisdictions if the unavailability of the original is adequately explained and if the copy was made in the ordinary course of business.

In summary, although all original calculations and me asurement data need not be included in the final report, they should be kept in the agency’s files. It is a good rule to file all reports together in a secure place. Keeping these documents under lock and key will en sure that the author can testify at future court hearings that the report has not been altered.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 8



## 5.6 Data Management

Much of the data collected for the Ambient Air Qua lity Monitoring Program will be collected through the use of automated systems. These systems must be eff ectively managed and documented by using a set of guidelines and principles by which adherence will ensure data integrity. Discussions of data management activities and the requirements for documentation can be found in Section 14.



## 5.7 Quality Assurance

Quality assurance information is necessa ry to document the quality of da ta. A monitoring organization’s plan for all quality assurance activiti es must be documented in its QAPP



### . This information should be

retained in a manner that it can be associated with the routine data that it represents. QA information

includes:

• 

### Control charts - Use of control charts is explained in Section 12.

• 

### Data quality assessments (DQAs) - These assessments are a statistical and scientific evaluation of the data set to determine the validity and performance of the data collection design and to determine the adequacy of the data set for its intended use. More discussion on DQAs can be

found in Section 18.

• 

### QA Reports - Reports pertaining to the quality of data are discussed in Sections 3 and 16.

• 

### Evaluation/Audits - Assessments of various phases of the environmental data operation are

discussed in Section 15.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 14



# 6.0 Monitoring Network Design

The selection of a specific monitoring site includes four major activities:

1. Developing and understanding the monitoring objective and appropriate data quality objectives.

2. Identifying the spatial scale mo st appropriate for the monitoring objective of the site.

3. Identifying the general locations wher e the monitoring site should be placed.

4. Identifying specific monitoring sites.

This section describes the general concepts for est ablishing the SLAMS, NCore, STN, PAMS, and open path monitoring. Additional details can be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D 1 

### and the guidance

information for the various monitor networks that can be found on AMTIC 2



### .

As described in Section 1, air quality samples are ge nerally collected for one or more of the following

purposes:

• 

### To provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner.

• 

### To judge compliance with and/or progress made towards meeting ambient air quality standards.

• 

### To activate emergency control procedures that prevent or alleviate air pollution episodes.

• 

### To observe pollution trends throughout the region, including non-urban areas.

• 

### To provide a data base for research evaluation of effects: urban, land- use, and transportation planning; development and evaluation of abatemen t strategies; and development and validation of

diffusion models.

Network information related to these 5 purposes is discussed below.



### “Real-Time” Air Quality Public Reporting

The U.S. EPA, NOAA, NPS, tribal, state, and local agencies developed the AIRNow 3 

### Web site to provide the public with easy access to national air quality information. The Web site offers daily Air Quality Index (AQI):

Conditions- Nationwide and regional real-time ozone and PM 2.5 

### air quality maps covering 46 US States and parts of Canada. These maps are updated daily every hour. A click of a mouse brings up the U.S. map and a second click can bring up the AQI details of a region, state or local area within a

state.

Forecasts - Nationwide daily air quality forecasts provi ded by monitoring organizations for over 300 major cities and areas in the U.S.

Federal requirements state that Metropolitan Statistic al Areas (MSAs) with a population of more than 350,000 are required to report the AQI daily to the general public. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines MSAs according to the 2000 census. However, many other tribal, state and local monitoring organizations participate in AIRNow.

There are no specific network requirements or guidelines for reporting to AIRNow. Sites used for

1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/40cfr53.html

2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

3 http://airnow.gov/QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 14



### reporting to AIRNow are sites that have been set up for the other monitoring objectives discussed above. The air quality data used in these maps and to gene rate forecasts are collected using either federal reference or equivalent monitoring techniques or t echniques approved by the monitoring organizations. Since the information needed to make maps must be as "real-time" as possible, the data are displayed as soon as practical after the end of each hour. Although some preliminary data quality assessments are performed, the data as such are not fully verified and validated through the quality assurance procedures monitoring organizations use to officially submit a nd certify data on the EPA AQS. Therefore, data are used on the AIRNow Web site only for the purpose of reporting the AQI. Information on the AIRNow web site is not used to formulate or support regul ation, guidance or any other Agency decision or position.



### Compliance Monitoring

The information required for selecting the number of samplers 4 

### and the sampler locations include isopleth maps, population density maps, and source locati ons. The following are suggested guidelines:

• 

### the priority area is the zone of highest pollution concentration within the region; one or more stations should be located in this area;

• 

### close attention should be given to densely populat ed areas within the region, especially when they are in the vicinity of heavy pollution;

• 

### the quality of air entering the region is to be assessed by stations situated on the periphery of the region; meteorological factors (e.g., frequencies of wind directions) are of primary importance in locating these stations;

• 

### sampling should be undertaken in areas of projected growth to determine the effects of future development on the environment;

• 

### a major objective of compliance monitoring is th e evaluation of progress made in attaining the desired air quality; for this purpose, sampling stations should be strategically situated to facilitate evaluation of the implemented control strategies; and

• 

### some information of air quality should be ava ilable to represent all portions of the region of

concern.

Some stations will be capable of fulfilling more than one of the functions indicated. For example, a station located in a densely populated area can i ndicate population exposures and can also document the changes in pollutant concentrations resulting from mitigation strategies used in the area.



### Emergency Episode Monitoring

For episode avoidance purposes, data are needed qui ckly--in no less than a few hours after the pollutant contacts the sensor. While it is possible to obtain data rapidly by on-site manual data reduction and telephone reporting, there is a trend towards using au tomated monitoring networks. The severity of the problem, the size of the receptor area, and the ava ilability of resources all in fluence both the scope and sophistication of the monitoring system.

It is necessary to use continuous ai r samplers because of the short dura tions of episodes and the control

actions taken must be based on real-time measurements that are correlated with the decision criteria. Based on episode alert criteria and mechanisms now in use, 1-h averaging times are adequate for

4 A “sampler” in this context refers to both continuous instruments that provide an ambient air concentration without additional preparation or analytical techniques as well as instruments that provide a sample needing additional analysis.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 14



### surveillance of episode conditions. Shorter aver aging times provide information on data collecting excursions, but they increase the need for automation because of the bulk of data obtained. Longer averaging times (>6 hours) are not desirable because of the delay in response that these impose. After an alert is announced, data are needed quickly so that requests for information on the event can be provided.

Collection and analysis must be accomplished rapidly if the data are to be useful immediately. Collection instruments must be fully operable at the onset of an ep isode. For the instrument to be maintained in peak operating condition, either personnel must be stati oned at the sites during an episode or automated equipment must be operated that can provide auto matic data transmission to a central location.

Monitoring sites should be located in areas where human health and welfar e are most threatened:

• 

### in densely populated areas;

• 

### near large stationary source of pollution;

• 

### near hospitals;

• 

### near high density traffic areas; and

• 

### near homes for the aged.

A network of sites is useful in determining the range of pollutant concentrations within the area, but the most desirable monitoring sites are not necessarily the most convenient. Public buildings such as schools, firehouses, police stations, hospitals, and water or se wage plants should be considered for reasons of access, security and existing communications.



### Trends Monitoring

Trends monitoring is characterized by locating a minimal number of monitoring sites across as large an area as possible while still meeting the monitoring objec tives. The program objective is to determine the extent and nature of the air pollution and to determ ine the variations in the measured levels of the atmospheric contaminants in respect to the ge ographical, socio-economic, climatological and other factors. The data are useful in planning epidemio logical investigations and in providing the background against which more intensive regional and communi ty studies of air pollution can be conducted.

Urban sampling stations are usually located in the mo st densely populated areas of the region. In most regions, there are several urban sites. Non-urban stations encompass various topographical categories such as farmland, desert, forest, mountain and coast. Non-urban stations are not selected specifically to be “clean air” control sites for urban areas, but they do provide a relative comparison between some urban and nearby non-urban areas.

In interpreting trends data, limitations imposed by the network design must be considered. Even though precautions are taken to ensure that each sampling s ite is as representative as possible of the designated area, it is impossible to be certain that measurements obtained at a specific site are not unduly influenced by local factors. Such factors can include topogr aphy, structures, sources of pollution in the immediate vicinity of the site, and other variables; the eff ects which cannot always be accurately anticipated, but nevertheless, should be considered in network desi gn. Comparisons among pollution levels for various areas are valid only if the sites are representative of the conditions for which the study is designed.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 14



### Research Monitoring

Air monitoring networks related to health eff ects are composed of integrating samplers both for determining pollutant concentrations for < 24 hours and for developing long term (> 24 hour) ambient air quality standards. The research requires that monitori ng points be located so that the resulting data will represent the population group under evaluation. Therefore, the monitoring stations are established in the

centers of small well-defined residential areas within a community. Data correlations are made between observed health effects and observed air quality exposures.

Requirements for aerometric monitoring in support of health studies are as follows:

• 

### the station must be located in or near the population under study;

• 

### pollutant sampling averaging times must be sufficien tly short to allow for use in acute health

effect studies that form the scientific basis for short-term standards;

• 

### sampling frequency, usually daily, should be sufficient to characterize air quality as a function of time; and

• 

### the monitoring system should be flexible and responsive to emergency conditions with data

available on short notice.



## 6.1 Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales

With the end use of the air quality samples as a prime consideration, the national ambient air monitoring networks are designed to determine one of si x basic monitoring objectives listed below:

1. Determine the highest concentration expected to occur in the area covered by the network.

2. Measure typical concentrations in areas of high population density.

3. Determine the impact of significant s ources or source categories on air quality.

4. Determine background co ncentration levels.

5. Determine the extent of regional pollutant tr ansport among populated areas; and in support of secondary standards.

6. Measure air pollution impacts on visibility, ve getation damage, or welfare-based impacts.

These six objectives indicate the nature of the samples that the monitori ng network will collect that must be representative of the spatial area being studied. In the case of PAMS, the design criteria are site specific and, therefore, there are specific monitori ng objectives associated with each location for which PAMS stations are required (see Table 6-4).

Sampling equipment requirements are generally divided in to three categories, consistent with the desired averaging times:

1. Continuous - Pollutant concentrations determined with automated methods, and recorded or displayed continuously.

2. Integrated - Pollutant concentrations determined with manual or automated methods from integrated hourly or daily samples on a fixed schedule (i.e., manual PM 2.5 

### ).

3. Static- Pollutant estimates or effects determined from long-term (weekly or monthly) exposure to qualitative measurement devices or materials (i.e., passive monitoring 5 

### )

5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/passive.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 14



### Air monitoring sites that use automated equipment to continually sample and analyze pollutant levels may be classified as primary. Primary monitoring stati ons are generally located in areas where pollutant concentrations are expected to be among the highest and in areas with the highest population densities; thus, they are often used in health effects research networks. These stations are also designed as part of the air pollution episode warning system and used to report data to the public through AIRNow 6 

### and the air quality index (AQI).

The goal in siting stations is to correctly match th e spatial scale represented by the sample of monitored air with the spatial scale most appropriate for the mo nitoring objective of the station. This achieves the goal of data quality indicator re presentativeness discussed in Section 3. The representative measurement scales of greatest interest are shown below:

Micro Concentrations in air volumes associated with area dimensions ranging from several meters up to about 100 meters.

Middle Concentrations typical of areas up to several city blocks in size with dimensions ranging from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. Neighborhood Concentrations within some extended ar ea of the city that has relatively uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers range.

Urban Overall, citywide conditions with dimensions on the order of 4 to

50 kilometers. This scale would usuall y require more than one site for

definition. Regional Usually a rural area of reasonably hom ogeneous geography and extends from

tens to hundreds of kilometers.

National/Global Concentrations characterizing th e nation and the globe as a whole.

Table 6-1 illustrates the relationships among the f our basic monitoring objectives and the scales of representativeness that are generally most appr opriate for that objective. Appendix E provides more detailed spatial characteristics for each pollutant while Table 6-2 provides a summary for the various monitoring programs.

Table 6-1 Relationship Among Monitoring Objectives and Scales of Representativeness

Monitoring Objective Appropriate Siting Scale Highest Concentration Population Source impact General/background & Regional Transport

Welfare-related Micro, middle, neighborhood, sometimes urban Neighborhood, urban Micro, middle, neighborhood Urban/regional Urban/regional



### There is the potential for using open path monitoring for microscale spatial scales. For microscale areas, however, siting of open path analyzers must reflect proper regard for the specific monitoring objectives. Specifically, the path-averaging nature of open path analyzers could result in underestimations of high pollutant concentrations at specific points within the measurement path for other ambient air monitoring situations. In open path monitori ng, monitoring path lengths must be commensurate with the intended scale of representativeness and located carefully with respect to local sources or potential obstructions. For short-term/high-concentration or source-oriented monitoring, the monitoring path may need to be further restricted in length and be oriented perpe ndicular to the wind direction(s) determined by air quality modeling leading to the highest concentration, if possible. Alternatively, multiple paths may be used advantageously to obtain both wider area coverage and peak concentration sensitivity.

6 http://airnow.gov/QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 14

Table 6-2 Summary of Spatial Scales for SLAM S, NCore, PAMS, and Open Path (OP) Sites

Spatial Scale SLAMS Sites 1 PM 10-2.5 NCore STN NATTs PAMS OP

SO 2 CO O 3 NO 2 Pb PM 10 PM 2.5 Micro * * * * * *

Middle * * * * * * * * Neighborhood * * * * * * * * * * * *

Urban * * * * * * * * * Regional * * * * * *

1 SLAMS Site scales based on curre nt listing in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and do not include NCore spatial scale objective.



### 6.1.1 Monitoring Boundaries

The NAAQS refer to several boundaries that are defi ned below. These definitions are derived from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Core-based Statistical Area (CBSA) – is 

### defined by the OMB as a statistical geographic entity consisting of the county or counties associated with at least one urbanized area/urban cluster of at least 10,000 population, plus adjacent counties having a hi gh degree of social and economic integration.

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) - a category of CBSA with populations greater than 50,000 7



### . Micropolitan Statistical Area - are a category of CBSA with populations between 10,000 and 50,000

Combined Statistical Area (CSA) - is defined by the OMB as a geographical area consisting of two or more adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) with employment interchange of at least 15 percent. Combination is automatic if the employment interchange is 25 percent and determined by local opinion if more than 15 but less than 25 percent 8



### .

New England city and town areas (NECTAs) - are analogous to CBSAs and are similarly classified as either metropolitan NECTAs (corresponding to MS As) or micropolitan NECTAs (corresponding to micropolitan statistical areas). The principal differe nce between a CBSA and a NECTA is that NECTAs use New England towns as building blocks instead of counties. In the New England region, towns are a much more important level of government than coun ties. Because of this, NECTAs are usually a much closer approximation to metropolitan areas in New England than MSAs

Monitoring Planning Area (MPA) - means a contiguous geographic area with established, well defined boundaries, such as a CBSA, county or State, having a common area that is used for planning monitoring

locations for PM 2.5 

### . An MPA may cross State boundaries, such as the Philadelphia PA–NJ MSA, and be further subdivided into community monitoring zones. MPAs are generally oriented toward CBSAs or CSAs with populations greater than 200,000, but for convenience, those portions of a State that are not associated with CBSAs can be considered as a single MPA.

Community Monitoring Zone (CMZ)

– means an optional averaging area with established, well defined boundaries, such as county or census block, within an MPA that has relatively uniform concentrations of

annual PM 2.5 

### as defined by 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N. Two or more community oriented SLAMS monitors within a CMZ that meet certain requir ements as set forth in Appendix N may be averaged (spatial averaging) for making comparisons to the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

7 

### http://www.census.gov/population/ estimates/metro-city/List1.txt

8 

### http://www.census.gov/population/ estimates/metro-city/List6.txtQA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 14



## 6.2 Monitoring Site Location

Four criteria should be considered, either singly or in combination when locating sites, depending on the sampling objective. Orient the monito ring sites to measure the following:

1. Impacts of known pollutant emission categories on air quality.

2. Population density relative to receptor- dose levels, both short and long term.

3. Impacts of known pollutant emission sources (area and point) on air quality.

4. Representative area-wide air quality.

To select locations according to these criteria, it is necessary to have detailed information on the location of emission sources, geographical variability of ambient pollutant concentrations, meteorological conditions and population density. Therefore, selection of the number, locations and types of sampling stations is a complex process. The variability of sources and their intensities of emissions, terrains, meteorological conditions and demographic features requi re that each network be developed individually. Thus, selection of the network will be based upon the b est available evidence and on the experience of the

decision team.

The sampling site selection process involves considerations of the following factors:

Economics - The amount of resources required for the entire data collection activity, including operators, instrumentation, installation, safety equipment, mainten ance, data retrieval/data transfer, data analysis, quality assurance and da ta interpretation.

Security - Experience has shown that in some cases, a particular site may not be appropriate for the establishment of an ambient monitoring station simply due to problems with the security of the equipment in a certain area. If the problems cannot be remedi ed via the use of standard security measures such as lighting, fences, etc., then attempts should be made to locate the site as near to the identified sector as possible while maintaining adequate security.

Logistics - Logistics is the process of dealing with th e procurement, maintenance and transportation of material and personnel for a monitoring operation. Th is process requires the full knowledge of all aspects of the data collection operation including:

Planning Staffing Reconnaissance Procurement of goods and services Training Communications Scheduling Inventory Safety

Atmospheric considerations - Atmospheric considerations may include the spatial and temporal variability of the pollutants and its transport to the mon itoring site. Effects of buildings, terrain, and heat sources or sinks on the air trajectories can produce local anomalies of excessive pollutant concentrations. Meteorology must be considered in determining not only the geographical location of a monitoring site but also such factors as height, direction, a nd extension of sampling probes. The following meteorological factors can greatly infl uence the dispersal of pollutants:QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 14



### Wind speed affects the travel time from the pollutant source to the receptor and the dilution of polluted air in the downwind direction. The c oncentrations of air pollutants are inversely proportional to the wind speed.

Wind direction influences the general movements of pollutants in the atmosphere

. Review of available data can indicate mean wind direction in the vicinity of the major sources of emissions

.

Wind variability refers to the random motions in both hor izontal and vertical velocity components

of the wind. These random motions can be consid ered atmospheric turbulence, which is either mechanical (caused by structures and changes in terrain) or thermal (caused by heating and cooling of land masses or bodies of water). If the scale of turbulent motion is larger than the size of the pollutant plume, the turbulence will move the entire plume and cause looping and fanning; if smaller, it will cause the plume to diffuse and spread out.

If the meteorological phenomena impact with some regular ity, data may need to be interpreted in light of these atmospheric conditions. Other meteorological c onditions to consider are atmospheric stability and lapse rate (the decrease of an atmospheric variable with height).

A useful way of displaying wind data is a wind rose diagram constructed to show the distribution of wind speeds and directions. The wind rose diagram shown in Figure 6.1 represents conditions as they converge on the center from each direction of the compass. More detailed guidance for meteorological considerations is available 9



### . Relevant weather information, such as stability-wind roses, is usually available from local National Weather Service stations. For PAMS monitoring, in many areas there are three types of high ozone days: overwhelming transport, weak transport (or mixed transport and stagnation) and stagnation. The wind rose concept to site monitors is only applicable to the transport types, but not applicable to the stagnation type. In general, transport types

dominate north of 40 o 

### N, stagnation types dominate the Ohio River Valley and northern Gulf Coast, and a mixture of the two is observed in the rest of the eastern United States. In areas where stagnation dominates the high ozone days, a well-defined primary wind direction (PWD) may not be available. If no well-defined PWD can be resolved, the major axes of the emissions sources should be used as substitutes for the PWDs and the PAMS monitors should be located along these axes.

Meteorological conditions, particularly those that can a ffect light transmission, should also be considered in selecting the location for open path analyzers (e.g., the influence of relative humidity on the creation of fog, the percentage of heavy snow, and the possible fo rmation of haze, etc.). The percent fog, percent snow fall, percent haze, and hourly visibility (from nearest airport) may impact data completeness. Although sites with high relative humidity may have data capture rates around 90 percent, sites with relative humidity greater than 80 percent more than 20 percent of the time should be carefully assessed

9 QA Handbook for Meteorological Measurements Volume IV http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/met.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 9 of 14



### for data completeness, or avoided. Similarly, severe fog, snow fall, or haze that affects visibility can affect data completeness and should be kept to less than 20 percent of the time. The time of day or season

when such conditions occur should al so be determined to ensure that representative data from various time periods and seasons are collected. No more than 20 percent of data in any time period should be lost as a result of the aforementioned meteorological conditi ons. Sometimes, high data capture at locations with frequent fog or other obscurant conditions can be enhanced by using a shorter path length of 50 to 100 meters. However, this can be done only for microscale sites. Meteorological data

considerations therefore should include the followi ng measurements: (1) hourly precipitation amounts for climatological comparisons, (2) hourly relative humid ity, (3) percent haze, and (4) airport visibility.

Topography - Both the transport and the diffusion of air pollutants are complicated by topographical features. Minor topographical features may exert s mall influences; major features, such as deep river valleys or mountain ranges, may affect large areas. Be fore final site selection, review the topography of the area to ensure that the purpose of monitoring at that site will not be adversely affected. Table 6-3 summarizes important topographical features, their effects on air flow, and some examples of influences on monitoring site selection. Land use and topograp hical characterization of specific areas can be determined from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps as well as from land use maps.

Table 6-3 Relationships of Topography, Air Flow, and Monitoring Site Selection
Topographical

feature Influence on air flow Influence on monitoring site selection

Slope/Valley Downward air currents at night and on cold days; up slope winds on clear days when valley heating occurs . Slope winds and valley channeled winds; tendency toward down-slope and down-valley winds; tendency toward inversions Slopes and valleys as speci al sites for air monitors because pollutants generally are well dispersed;

concentration levels not representative of other geographic areas; possible placement of monitor to determine concentration levels in a population or industrial center in valley

Water Sea or lake breezes inland or parallel to shoreline during the day or in cold weather; land breezes at night. Monitors on shorelines generally for background readings or for obtaining pollution data on water traffic

Hill Sharp ridges causing turbulence; air flow around obstructions during stable conditions, but over obstructions during

unstable conditions Depends on source orientation; upwind source emissions generally mixed down the slope, and siting at foot of hill not generally advantageous; downwind source emissions generally down washed near the source; monitoring close to a source generally desirable if population centers adjacent or if monitoring protects workers

Natural or manmade

obstruction Eddy effects Placement near obstructions not generally representative in readings



### Pollutant Considerations - A sampling site or an array of sites for one pollutant may be appropriate for another pollutant species because of the configuration of sources, the local meteorology, or the terrain. Pollutants undergo changes in their compositions betw een their emission and their detection; therefore, the impact of that change on the measuring syst em should be considered. Atmospheric chemical reactions such as the production of O 3 

### in the presence of NO

x 

### and hydrocarbons (HCs) and the time delay

between the emission of NO

x 

### and HCs and the detection peak of O 3 

### values may require either a sampling network for the precursors of O 3 

### and/or a different network for the actual O 3 

### measurement.

The success of the PAMS monitoring program is predi cated on the fact that no site is unduly influenced by any one stationary emissions source or small gr oup of emissions sources. Any significant influences would cause the ambient levels measured by that partic ular site to mimic the emissions rates of this source or sources rather than following the changes in nonattainment area-wide emissions as intended by the Rule. For purposes of this screening procedure, if more than 10% of the typical “lower end”QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 10 of 14



### concentration measured in an urban area is due to a nearby source of precursor emissions, then the PAMS site should be relocated or a more refined analysis conducted than is presente d here. Detailed procedures

can be found in the PAMS Implementation Manual 10



### .

None of the factors mentioned above stand alone. Each is dependent in part on the others. However, the objective of the sampling program must be clearly de fined before the selection process can be initiated, and the initial definition of priorities may have to be reevaluated after consideration of the remaining

factors before the final site selection

. While the interactions of the factors are complex, the site selection problems can be resolved. Experience in the operatio n of air quality measurement systems; estimates of air quality, field and theoretical studies of air diffusi on; and considerations of atmospheric chemistry and air pollution effects make up the required expertise needed to select the optimum sampling site for obtaining data representative of the monitoring objectives.



### 6.2.1 PAMS Site Descriptions

The PAMS network array for an area should be fashi oned to supply measurements that will assist States in understanding and solvi ng ozone nonattainment problems. Table 6-4 describes the five site types identified in the PAMS network. In 2007, EPA dete rmined that the number of required PAMS sites could be reduced. Only one Type 2 site is required per area regardless of population; Type 4 sites would not be required; and only one Type 1 or one Ty pe 3 site would be required per area.

Table 6-4 Site Descriptions of PAMS Monitoring Sites
Type # Meas. Scale Description

1 Urban Upwind and background characterization to identify those areas which are subjected to overwhelming incoming transport of ozone. The #1 Sites are located in the predominant morning upwind direction from the local area of maximum prec ursor emissions and at a distance sufficient to obtain urban scale measurements. Typi cally, these sites will be located near the upwind edge of the photochemical grid model domain.

2 Neighborhood Maximum ozone precursor emissions impacts located immediately downwind (using the same morning wind direction as for locating Site #1) of the area of maximum precursor emissions and are typically placed near the downwind boundary of th e central business district (CBD) or primary area of precursor emissions mix to obtai n neighborhood scale measurements.

2a Neighborhood Maximum ozone precursor emissions impacts -second-most predominant morning wind

direction

3 Urban Maximum ozone concentrations occurring downwind from the area of maximum precursor

emissions. Locations for #3 Sites sh ould be chosen so that urban s cale measurements are obtained. Typically, these sites are located 10 to 30 miles from the fringe of the urban area

4 Urban Extreme downwind monitoring of transported ozone and its precursor concentrations exiting the area and will identify those areas which are potentia lly contributing to overwhelming ozone transport

into other areas. The #4 Sites are located in th e predominant afternoon downwind direction from the local area of maximum precursor emissions at a distance sufficient to obtain urban scale measurements. Typically, these sites will be lo cated near the downwind edge of the photochemical grid model domain.



### There are three fundamental criteri a to consider when locating a fi nal PAMS site: sector analysis, distance, and proximate sources. These three criteria are considered carefully by EPA when approving or disapproving a candidate site for PAMS.

10 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pams.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 11 of 14



## 6.3 Monitor Placement

Final placement of the monitor at a selected site de pends on physical obstructions and activities in the immediate area, accessibility/availab ility of utilities and other support facilities in correlation with the defined purpose of the specific monitor and its design. Because obstructions such as trees and fences can significantly alter the air flow, monitors should be pl aced away from obstructions. It is important for air flow around the monitor to be representative of the gene ral air flow in the area to prevent sampling bias. Detailed information on urban physiography (e.g., bu ildings, street dimensions) can be determined through visual observations, aerial photography and su rveys. Such information can be important in determining the exact locations of pollutant sources in and around the prospective monitoring site areas.

Network designers should avoid sampl ing locations that are unduly influenced by down wash or ground dust (e.g., a rooftop air inlet near a stack or a ground-l evel inlet near an unpaved road); in these cases, the sample intake should either be elevated above th e level of the maximum ground turbulence effect or placed at a reasonable distance from the source of ground dust.

Depending on the defined monitoring objective, th e monitors are placed according to exposure to pollution. Due to the various physical and meteor ological constraints discussed above, tradeoffs will be made to locate a site in order to optimize representa tiveness of sample collection. The consideration should include categorization of sites relative to thei r local placements. Suggested categories relating to sample site placement for measuring a corresponding pollution impact are identified in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5 M onitoring Station Categories Rel ating to Sample Site Placement

Station Category Characterization

A (ground level) Heavy pollutant concentrations, high potential for po llutant buildup. A site 3 to 5 m (10-16 ft) from major traffic artery and that has local terrain features restricting ventilation. A sampler probe that is 3 to 6 m (10-20 ft) above ground.

B (ground level) Heavy pollutant concentrations, minimal poten tial for a pollutant buildup. A site 3 to 15 m (15-50 ft) from a major traffic artery, with good natura l ventilation. A sample r probe that is 3 to 6 m (10-20 ft) above ground.

C (ground level) Moderate pollutant concentrations. A site 15 to 60 m (5-200 ft) from a major traffic artery. A sampler probe that is 3 to 6 m (10-20 ft ) above ground.

D (ground level) Low pollutant concentrations. A site 60 > m (> 200 ft) for a traffic artery. A sampler probe that is 3 to 6 m (10-20 ft) above ground.

E (air mass) Sampler probe that is between 6 and 45 m (20-150 ft) above ground. Two subclasses: (1) good exposure from all sides (e.g., on top of building) or (2) directionally bi ased exposure (probe extended from window).

F (source-oriented) A sampler that is adjacent to a point source. Monitoring that yields data directly relatable to the

emission source.



## 6.4 Minimum Network Requirements

In 2007, the minimum network site requirements for the criteria pollutants CO, NO 2 

### and SO 2 

### were removed. Where SLAMS monitoring for these three crite ria pollutants are ongoing, at least one site must

be a maximum concentration sites for that area under investigation. Rather than place tables for minimum monitoring site requirements in the Handbook (since th ey have a tendency to change), the reader is directed to 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D 11 

### of the most current regulation to find the appropriate minimum monitoring network requirements.

11 http://www.gpo access.gov/cfr /index.html or http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/40cfr53.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 12 of 14



## 6.5 Operating Schedules

NOTE: The reader should check the most cu rrent version of 40 CFR Part 58 to ensure the schedules below have not changed

.

For continuous analyzers , consecutive hourly averages must be collected except during:

1. 

### periods of routine maintenance;

2. 

### periods of instrument calibration; or

3. 

### periods or monitoring seasons exempted by the Regional Administrator.

For Pb manual methods, at least one 24-hour sample must be collected every 6 days except during periods or seasons exempted by the Regional Administrator.

For PAMS VOC samplers, samples must be collected as specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D Section 5. Area specific PAMS operating schedules must be included as part of the PAMS network description and must be approved by the Regional Administrator.

For manual PM 2.5 

### samplers :

1. Manual PM 2.5 

### samplers at SLAMS stations other than NCore stations must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule at sites without a collocated continuously operating PM 2.5 

### monitor. For

SLAMS PM 2.5 

### sites with both manual and continuous PM 2.5 

### monitors operating, the monitoring agency may request approval for a reduction to 1-in-6 day PM 2.5 

### sampling at SLAMS stations or for seasonal sampling from the EPA Regional Administrator. The EPA Regional Administrator may grant sampling frequency reductions after consid eration of factors, including but not limited

to the historical PM 2.5 

### data quality assessments, the location of current PM 2.5 

### design value sites, and their regulatory data needs. Sites that have design values that are within plus or minus 10 percent of the NAAQS; and sites where the 24-h our values exceed the NAAQS for a period of 3 years are required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency. Sites that have a design value within plus or minus 5 percent of the daily PM 2.5 

### NAAQS must have an FRM or FEM operate on a daily schedule. The nationa l sampling schedule can be found on AMTIC 12



### . 2. Manual PM 2.5 

### samplers at NCore stations and required regional background and regional transport sites must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency.

3. Manual PM 2.5 

### speciation samplers at STN stations must operate on a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency.

For PM 10 

### samplers , a 24-hour sample must be taken from midnight to midnight (local time) to ensure national consistency. The minimum monitoring schedul e for the site in the area of expected maximum

concentration shall be based on the relative level of that monitoring site concentration with respect to the 24-hour standard as illustrated in Figure 6.2. If the operating agency demonstrates by monitoring data that during certain periods of the year conditions preclude violation of the PM 10 

### 24-hour standard, the increased sampling frequency for those periods or seasons may be exempted by the Regional Administrator and permitted to revert back to once in six days. The minimum sampling schedule for all other sites in the area remains once every six days.

12 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/calendar.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 13 of 14



### F igure 6.2 Sampling schedule based on ratio to the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS



### For manual PM 10–2.5 

### samplers:

1. Manual PM 10–2.5 

### samplers at NCore stations must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule at

sites without a collocated continuous ly operating federal equivalent PM 10–2.5 

### method that has been designated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53.

2. Manual PM 10–2.5 

### speciation samplers at NCore stations must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency.

For NATTS Monitoring, samplers must operate year round and follow the national 1-in-6 day sampling

schedule.

6.5.1 Operating Schedule Completeness

Data required for comparison to the NAAQS have specific completeness requirements. These completeness requirements generally start from comple teness at hourly and 24-hour concentration values. However, the data used for NAAQS determinations in clude 3-hour, 8-hour, quar terly, annual and multiple year levels of data aggregation. Generally, depending on the calculation of the design value, EPA requires data to be 75% complete. All continuous measure ments come down to what is considered a valid hour and currently all 24-hour estimates based on samp ling (manual PM, Pb, TSP) are based on a 24-hour sampling period. Table 6-6 provides the complete ness goals for the various ambient air program monitoring programs.

The data cells highlighted in Table 6-6 refer to the standards that apply to the specific pollutant. Even though a highlighted cell lists the completeness requi rement, CFR provides additional detail, in some cases, on how a design value might be calculated with l ess data than the stated requirement. Therefore, the information provided in Table 6-6 should be cons idered the initial completeness goal which should be attempted to be achieved. Complete ness goals that are not highlighted , although not covered in CFR, are very important to the achievement of the CFR comp leteness goals. So, for example, even though there is only an 8-hour ozone standard, it’s important to have complete 1-hour values in order to compare to the

8-hour standard.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 14 of 14

Table 6-6 Completeness Goals fo r Ambient Air Monitoring Data 

### Completeness Goals and Associated Standards (highlighted)

Pollutants 1-hour 3-h our 8-hour 24-hour Quarterly Annual

CO 45, 1 min. values 75% of hourly values 75% of hourly

values 75% of hourly values per quarter

O 3 45, 1 min. values 75% of hourly values

SO 2 45, 1 min. values All 3 hours

75% complete 75% of hourly

values 75% of hourly values per quarter

NO 2 45, 1 min. values 75% of hourly values per quarter

PM 10 Cont 45, 1 min. values 23 hours**

PM 2.5 Cont. 45, 1 min. values 23 hours

PM 10 Manual 23 Hours**

PM 2.5 Manual 23 hours 75% of samples

Pb 23 Hours 75% of samples**

PAMS 23 Hours

NATTS 23 Hours

STN 23 Hours

** not defined in CFR



### For continuous instruments, it is suggested that 45, 1-minute values be considered a valid hour. Therefore, it is expected that 1-minute concentration values woul d be archived for a period of time (see statute of limitations in Section 5). Since various QC checks ta ke time to complete, (zero/span/1-point QC) it is suggested that they be implemented in a manner that spans two hours (e.g., at 11:45 PM to 12:15 AM) in order to avoid losing an hour’s worth of data.

6.5.2 Monitoring Seasons

Most of the monitoring networks operate year round with the exception of PAMS and ozone monitoring.

PAMS - 40 CFR 58, Appendix D 10 

### stipulates that PAMS precursor monitoring must be conducted annually throughout the months of June, July and August (as a minimum) when peak O 3 

### values are expected in each area. Alternate precursor monitoring periods may be submitted for approval to the Administrator as a part of the annual monitoring network plan.

Ozone - Since O 3 

### levels decrease significantly in the cold er parts of the year in many areas, O 3 

### is required to be monitored at SLAMS monitoring sites only du ring the ‘‘ozone season’’ as designated in the AQS files on a State-by-State basis and described in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D 13 

### . Deviations from the O 3 

### monitoring season must be approved by the EPA Regi onal Administrator, documented within the annual monitoring network plan, and updated in AQS.

13 http://www.gpo access.gov/cfr /index.htmlQA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 14



# 7.0 Sampling Methods

To establish the basic validity of ambient air monitoring data, it must be shown that:

• 

### the proposed sampling method complies with the appropriate monitoring regulations;

• 

### the equipment is accurately sited;

• 

### the equipment was accurately calibrated usi ng correct and established calibration methods; and

• 

### the organization implementing the data coll ection operation are qualified and competent.

For example, if the only reasonable monitoring site has a less than ideal location, the data collection organization must decide whether a representative sample can be obtained at the site. This determination should be recorded and included in the program's QA PP. Although after-the-fact site analysis may suffice in some instances, good quality assurance techniqu es dictate that this analysis be made prior to expending the resources requi red to collect the data.

The purpose of this section is to describe the attri butes of the sampling system that will ensure the collection of data of a quality acceptable for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program.



## 7.1 Environmental Control

7.1.1 Monitoring Station Design

State and local agencies should design their monitoring st ations with the station operator in mind. Careful thought to safety, ease of access to instruments and optimal work space should be given every consideration. If the station operator has these issues addressed, then he/she will be able to perform their duties more efficiently and diligently. Having the instruments in an area that is difficult to work in creates frustration and prolongs downtime. The goal is to opti mize data collection and quality. This must start with designing the shelter and laborator y around staff needs and requirements.

Monitoring stations may be located in urban areas wh ere space and land are at a premium, especially in large cities that are monitoring for NO

x 

### and CO. In many cases, the monitoring station is located in a building or school that is gracious enough to allow an ag ency to locate its equipment. Sometimes, a storage or janitorial closet is all that is available. Howe ver, this can pose serious problems. If the equipment is located in a closet, then it is difficu lt for the agency to cont rol the effects of temperature, humidity, light,

vibration and chemicals on the instruments. In addition , security can also be an issue if people other than agency staff have access to the equipment. Monito ring organizations should gi ve serious thought to locating air monitoring equipment in stand-alone shelte rs with limited access, or modify existing rooms to the recommended station design if funds and staff time are available.

In general, air monitoring stations should be d esigned for functionality and ease of access for operation, maintenance and repair. In addition, the shelter should be rugged enough to withstand local weather condition extremes. In the past, small utility trailers were the norm in monitoring shelters. However, in some areas, this will not suffice. Recently, steel and aluminum storage containers are gaining wide acceptance as monitoring shelters. It is recommended th at monitoring stations be housed in shelters that are fairly secure from intrusion or vandalism. All si tes should be located in fenced or secure areas with access only through locked gates or secure pathways. Th e shelter’s design dictates that they be insulated (R-19 minimum) to prevent temperature extremes within the shelter. All structures should be secured to their foundations and protected from damage during natu ral disasters. All monitoring shelters should beQA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 14



### designed to control excessive vibrations and external light falling on the instruments, and provide 110/220 VAC voltage throughout the year. When designing a m onitoring shelter, make sure that enough electrical circuits are secured for the current load of equipmen t plus other instruments that may be added later or audit equipment (e.g., NPAP/PEP). Every attempt should be made to reduce the environmental footprint of shelters to make them as energy efficient as possibl e. Some possibilities include venting of excess heat of monitoring instruments to the outside in summer m onths, use of energy efficient fixtures and HVAC systems, and ensuring that the amount of space devoted to the monitors is not excessive (remembering that space is needed at times for additional QA equipment) . Figure 7.1 represents one shelter design that has proven adequate.

The first feature of the shelter is that there are two r ooms separated by a door. The reasons for this are twofold. The entry and access should be into the computer/d ata review area. This allows access to the site without having to open the room that houses the equipmen t. It also isolates the equipment from cold/hot air

that can come into the shelter when someone enters. Also, the Data Acquisition System (DAS)/data review area is isolated from the noise and vibration of the eq uipment. This area can be a place where the operator can print data, and prepare samples for the laboratory. This also gives the opera tor an area where cursory data review can take place. If something is observe d during this initial review then possible problems can be corrected or investigated at th at time. The DAS can be linked through cables that travel through conduit into the equipment area. The condu it is attached to the ceiling or walls and then dropped down to the

instrument rack.

The air conditioning/heating unit

should be mounted to heat and cool the equipment room. When specifying the unit, make sure it will

cool the room on the warmest and heat on the coldest days of the year. Also, make sure the electrical circuits are able to carry the load. If necessary, keep the door closed between the computer and equipment room to lessen the load on the heating or cooling equipment.

All air quality instrumentation should

be located in an instrument rack or equivalent. The instruments and their support equipment are placed on sliding trays or rails. By placing the racks away from the wall, the rear of the instruments are accessible. The trays or rails allow the site operators access to the instruments without removing th em from the racks. Most instrument vendors offer sliding rails as an optional purchase.



### 7.1.2 Sampling Environment

A proper sampling environment demands control of all physical parameters external to the samples that might affect sample stability, chemical reactions within the sampler, or the function of sampler components. The important parameters to be controlled are summarized in Table 7-1.

Figure 7.1 Example Design for ShelterQA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 14

Table 7-1 Environment Control Parameters

Parameter Source of specification Method of Control

Instrument vibration Manufacturer’s sp ecifications Design of instrument housings, benches, etc., per

manufacturer’s specifications.

Light Method description or manufacturer’s specifications Shield chemicals or instruments that can be affected by natural or artificial light

Electrical voltage Method description or manufacturer’s specifications Constant voltage transformers or regulators; separate power lines; isolated high current drain equipment such as hi-vols, heating baths, pu mps from regulated circuits

Temperature Method description or manufacturer’s specifications Regulated air conditioning system 24-hour temperature recorder; use electric heating and cooling only

Humidity Method description or manufacturer’s specifications Regulated air conditioning system; 24-hour temperature recorder



### With respect to environmental temperature for designated analyzers, most such analyzers have been tested and qualified over a temperature range of 20 o 

### C to 30 o 

### C; few are qualified over a wider range. This temperature range specifies both the range of acceptable operating temperatures and the range of temperature change which the analyzer can accommodate without excessive drift. The latter, the range of temperature change that may occur between zero and sp an adjustments, is the most important. When one is outfitting a shelter with monitoring equipment, it is important to recognize and accommodate the

instrument with the most sens itive temperature requirement.

To accommodate energy conservation regulations or guidelines specifying lower thermostat settings, designated analyzers located in facilities subject to these restrictions may be operated at temperatures

down to 18 o 

### C, provided the analyzer temperature does not fluctuate by more than 10 o 

### C between zero and span adjustments. Operators should be alert to s ituations where environmental temperatures might fall

below 18 o 

### C, such as during night hours or weekends. Temperatures below 18 o 

### C may necessitate additional temperature control equipment or rejection of the area as a sampling site.

Shelter temperatures above 30 o 

### C also occur, due to temperature control equipment that is malfunctioning, lack of adequate power capacity, or shelters of inadequate design for the environmental conditions.

Occasional fluctuations above 30 o 

### C may require additional assurances th at data quality is maintained. Sites that continually have problems maintaining adequate temperatures may necessitate additional temperature control equipment or rejection of the area as a sampling site. If this is not an option, a waiver to operate beyond the required temperature range s hould be sought with the EPA Regional Office, if it

can be shown that the site can meet established data quality requirements.

In order to detect and correct temperature fluctuations, a 24-hour temperature recorder at the analyzer site is suggested. These recorders can be connected to data loggers a nd should be considered official documentation that should be filed (see Section 5). Many vendors offer these type of devices. Usually they are thermocouple/thermistor devices of simple design and are generally very sturdy. Reasons for using electronic shelter temperature devices are two -fold: 1) through remote interrogation of the DAS, the agency can tell if values collected by air qualit y instruments are valid, and 2) that the shelter temperature is within a safe operating range if the air conditioning/heating system fails.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 14



## 7.2 Sampling Probes And Manifolds

7.2.1 Design of Probes and Manifolds for Automated Methods

Some important variables affecting the sampling mani fold design are the diameter, length, flow rate, pressure drop, and materials of construction. With the development of NCore precursor gas monitoring, various types of probe/manifold designs were re viewed. This information can be found in the Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for Precursor Gas Meas urements in the NCore Mu lti-pollutant Monitoring

Network 1 

### and is also included in Appendix F of this Handbook.

1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/ monitorstrat/precursor/tadversion4.pdf 

### Of the probe and manifold material looked at over the years, only Pyrex ® 

### glass and Teflon ® 

### have been found to be acceptable for use as intake sampli ng lines for all the reactive gaseous pollutants. Furthermore, the EPA has specified borosilicate glass or FEP Teflon ® 

### as the only acceptable probe materials for delivering test atmospheres in the determination of referen ce or equivalent methods. Therefore, borosilicate glass (which includes Pyrex ® 

### ), FEP Teflon ® 

### or their equivalent must be the only material in the sampling train (from inlet probe to the back of the analyzer) that can be in contact with the ambient air sample for existing and new SLAMS.

For volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon ® 

### is unacceptable as the probe material because of VOC adsorption an d desorption reactions on the FEP Teflon ® 

### . Borosilicate glass, stainless steel, or its equivalent, are the acceptable probe materials for VOC and carbonyl sampling. Care must be taken to ensure that the sample r esidence time is kept to 20 seconds or less.

Residence Time Determination

No matter how nonreactive the sampling probe material ma y be, after a period of use, reactive particulate matter is deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the ti me it takes the gas to transfer from the probe inlet to the sampling device is also critical. Ozone, in the presence of nitrogen oxide (NO), will show significant losses even in the most inert probe ma terial when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds. Other studies indicate that a 10-second or less residence time is easily achievable.

Residence time is defined as the amount of time that it ta kes for a sample of air to travel from the opening

of the cane to the inlet of the instrument and is required to be less than 20 seconds for reactive gas monitors. The residence time of pollutants within the sampling manifold is also critical. It is

recommended that the residence time within the manifo ld and sample lines to the instruments be less than 10 seconds (of the total allowable 20 seconds). If the volume of the manifold does not allow this to occur, then a blower motor or other device (vacuum pump) can be used to decrease th e residence time. The residence time for a manifold system is determined in the following way. First the volume of the cane, manifold and sample lines must be dete rmined using the following equation:

Total Volume = Cv +Mv + Lv

Where: Cv = Volume of the sample cane and extensions, cm 3


### Mv = Volume of the sample manifold and trap, cm 3QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 14



### Lv = Volume of the instrument lines, cm 3



### Each of the components of the sampling system must be measured individually. To measure the volume of the components, use the following calculation:

V = pi * (d/2) 2 

### * L

Where: V = volume of the component, cm 3


### pi = 3.14159 L = Length of the component, cm d = inside diameter, cm

Once the total volume is determined, divide the volume by the flow rate of all instruments. This will give

the residence time.

It has been demonstrated that there ar e no significant losses of reactive gas (O 3 

### ) concentrations in conventional 13 mm inside diameter sampling lines of gl ass or Teflon if the sample residence time is 10 seconds or less. This is true even in sample lines up to 38 m in length, which collect substantial amounts

of visible contamination due to ambient aerosols. However, when the sample residence time exceeds 20 seconds, loss is detectable, and at 60 seconds the loss is nearly complete.

Placement of tubing on the Manifold : If the manifold that is employed at the station has multiple ports then placement

of the instrument lines can be crucial. If a manifold similar to Figure 7.2 is used, it is suggested that instruments requiring lower flows be placed towards the bottom of the manifold. The general rule of thumb states that the calibration line (if used) placement should be in a location so that the calibration gases flow past the instruments before the gas is evacuated out of the manifold. Figure 7.2 illustrates two potential introduction ports for the calibration gas. The port at the elbow of the sampling cane provides more information about the cleanliness of the sampling

system.



### 7.2.2 Placement of Probes and Manifolds

Probes and manifolds must be placed to avoid introducing

bias to the sample. Important considerations are probe height above the ground, probe length (for horizontal probes), and physical influences near the probe. Figure 7.2 Positions of calibration line in sampling manifold Pump

Analyzer Calibrator

Gas Excess Cal. Gas

Analyzer AnalyzerQA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 14



### Some general guidelines for probe and manifold placement are:

• 

### probes should not be placed next to air outlets such as exhaust fan openings

• 

### horizontal probes must extend beyond building overhangs

• 

### probes should not be near physical obstructions such as chimneys which can affect the air flow in the vicinity of the probe

• 

### height of the probe above the ground depends on the pollutant being measured

Table 7-2 summarizes the probe and monitoring pa th siting criteria while Table 7-3 summarizes the spacing of probes from roadways. This informati on can be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E 2 

### . For

PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### , Figure 7.3 provides the acceptable areas for micro, middle, neighborhood and urban samplers, with the exception of microscale street canyon sites.

Table 7-2 Summary of Probe and Mo nitoring Path Siting Criteria
Pollutant Scale (maximum monitoring path length, meters) Height from ground to probe,

inlet or 80% of monitoring path 1

(meters) Horizontal and

vertical distance from supporting

structures 2 to probe, inlet or 90% of monitoring path 1 (meters) Distance from trees to probe,

inlet or 90% of monitoring path 1 (meters) Distance from roadways to probe, inlet or monitoring path 1 (meters)

SO 2 3,4,5,6 Middle (300 m) Neighborhood Urban, and Regional (1 km). 2–15 > 1 > 10 N/A

CO 4,5,7 Micro, Middle (300 m), Neighborhood (1 km). 3 + 1 ⁄ 2: 2–15 > 1 > 10 2–10; see Table 7–3 of

this section for middle and neighborhood scales.

NO 2 , O 3 3,4,5 Middle (300 m) Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional (1 km). 2–15 > 1 > 10 See Table 7-3 of this

section for all scales.

Ozone

precursors (for

PAMS ) 3,4,5. Neighborhood and Urban (1 km) 2–15 > 1 > 10

PM,Pb

3,4,5,6,8 Micro: Middle, Neighborhood, Urban and Regional. 2–7 (micro); 2–7 (middle PM10-2.5); 2–15 (all other scales). > 2 (all scales,

horizontal distance only). > 10 (all scales). 2–10 (micro); see Figure

7.3 of this section for all

other scales N/A—Not applicable.

1 Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring and all applicable sc ales for monitoring SO 2 ,O 3 , O 3 precursors, and NO 2

. 2 When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof

. 3 Should be >20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline when the tree(s) act as an obstructi on.

4 Distance from sampler, probe, or 90% of monitoring path to obstacl e, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes above the sampler, probe, or monitoring path . Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as middle scale (see text).

5 Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around the probe or samp ler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building.

6 The probe, sampler, or monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is dependent on the height of the minor source’ s emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the qualit y of the fuel (sulfur,
ash, or lead content)

. This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.

7 For microscale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock locati on.

8 Collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates

2 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ cfr/cfr-table-search.htmlQA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 14

Table 7-3 Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Sampling Probes or Monitoring Paths at Neighborhood and Urban Scales for O 3 , Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO 2 , NO

x , NO y ) and CO

Roadway ave. daily traffic vehicles per day O 3 and Oxides of N Neighborhood

& Urban 1 O 3 and Oxides of N Neighborhood.

& Urban 1& 2 CO Neighborhood

< 1,000 10 10

10,000 10 20

< 10,000 10

15,000 20 30 25

20,000 30 40 45

30,000 80

40,000 50 60 115

50,000 135

> 60,000 150

70,000 100 100

> 110,000 250 250

1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The dist ance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated

from the table values based on the actual traffic count.

2 Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement ha s not already been approved as of December 18, 2006.

Figure 7.3 Acceptable areas for PM 10 and PM 2.5 micro, middle, neighborh ood, and urban samplers except for microscale street canyon sites 

## 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100

Distance of PM10 and PM2.5 Samplers from Nearest Traffic Lane, (meters) A D T o f A f f e c t i n g R o a d s x 1 0

N o

C a t e g o r y

( a ) S i t e s U n a c c e p t a b l e a t a l l t r a f f i c l e v e l s

P r e f e r r e d a r e a f o r c a t e g o r y ( a ) s i t e m i c r o s c a l e i f

m o n i t o r i s 2 - 7 m e t e r s h i g h , m i d d l e s c a l e o t h e r w i s e Middle Scale Suitable for Category (a) site but not preferred

Neighborhood Scale Suitable for category (b) Site

Urban Scale 3QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 14



### Open Path Monitoring

To ensure that open path monitoring data are re presentative of the intended monitoring objective(s), specific path siting criteria are needed. 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E, contains specific location criteria applicable to monitoring paths after the general st ation siting has been selected based on the monitoring objectives, spatial scales of representativeness, and other considerations presented in Appendix D. The new open path siting requirements la rgely parallel the existing requirements for point analyzers, with the revised provisions applicable to either a "probe" (fo r point analyzers), a "monitoring path" (for open path analyzers), or both, as appropriate. Criteria for the m onitoring path of an open path analyzer are given for horizontal and vertical placement, spacing fro m minor sources, spacing from obstructions, spacing from trees, and spacing from roadways. These criteria are summarized in Table 7-2.

Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Path : To control the sum effect on a path measurement from all the possible interferences which exist aroun d the path, the cumulative length or portion of a monitoring path that is affected by obstructions, trees, or roadways must not exceed 10 percent of the total monitoring path length. This limit for cumulative in terferences on the monitoring path controls the total amount of interference from minor sources, obstructions , roadways, and other factors that might unduly influence the open path monitoring data.

Monitoring Path Length: For NO 2 

### , O 3 

### and SO 2 

### , the monitoring path length must not exceed 1 kilometer for analyzers in neighborhood, urban, or regional scales, or 300 meters for middle scale monitoring sites. These path limitations are necessary in order to produce a path concentration representative of the measurement scale and to limit the averaging of peak concentration values. In addition, the selected path length should be long enough to encompass plume meander and expected plume width during periods when high concentrations are expected. In areas subject to frequent periods of rain, snow, fog, or dust, a shorte ned monitoring path length should be considered to minimize the loss of monitoring data due to these temporary optical obstructions. Mounting of Components and Optical Path Alignment : Since movements or instability can misalign the optical path, causing a loss of light and less accurate measurements or poor readings, highly stable optical platforms are critical. Steel buildings and wooden platforms should be avoided as they tend to move more than brick buildings when wind and temperature conditions vary. Metal roofing will, for example, expand when heated by th e sun in the summer. A concrete pillar with a wide base, placed upon a stable base material, has

been found to work well in field studies. A sketch of an optical platform is included in Figure 7.4.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 9 of 14



### 7.2.3 Probe and Manifold Maintenance

After an adequately designed sampling probe and/ or manifold has been selected and installed, the following steps will help in mainta ining constant sampling conditions:

1. Conduct a leak test. For the conventiona l manifold, seal all ports and pump down to approximately 1.25 cm water gauge vacuum, as indicated by a vacuum gauge or manometer connected to one port. Isolate the system. The vacuum measurement should show no change at the end of a 15-min period. 2. Establish cleaning techniques and a schedule. A large diameter manifold may be cleaned by pulling a cloth on a string throug h it. Otherwise the manifold must be disassembled periodically and cleaned with distilled water. Soap, alcohol, or other products that may contain hydrocarbons should be avoided when cleaning the sampling trai n. These products may leave a residue that may affect volatile organic measurements. Visibl e dirt should not be allowed to accumulate. 3. Plug the ports on the manifold when sampling lines are detached.

4. Maintain a flow rate in the manifold that is e ither 3 to 5 times the total sampling requirements or at a rate equal the total sampling requirement plus 140 L/min. Either rate will help to reduce the sample residence time in the manifold and ensure adequate gas flow to the monitoring

instruments.

5. Maintain the vacuum in the manifold <0.64 cm water gauge. Keeping the vacuum low will help to prevent the development of leaks.



### 7.2.4 Support Services

Most of the support services necessar y for the successful operation of ambient air monitoring networks can be provided by the laboratory. The major suppor t services are the generation of reagent water and the preparation of standard atmospheres for calibration of equipment. Table 7-4 summarizes guidelines for quality control of these two support services.

In addition to the information presented above, the fo llowing should be considered when designing a sampling manifold:

• 

### suspending strips of paper in front of the blower 's exhaust to permit a visual check of blower operation;

• 

### positioning air conditioner vents away from the man ifold to reduce condensation of water vapor in the manifold ;

• 

### positioning sample ports of the manifold toward the ceiling to reduce the potential for accumulation of moisture in analyzer sampling lin es, and using borosilicate glass, stainless steel, or their equivalent for VOC sampling manifolds at PAMS sites is to avoid adsorption and desorption reactions of VOC's on FEP Teflon;

• 

### if moisture in the sample train poses a pr oblem (moisture can absorb gases, namely NO

x 

### and

SO 2 

### ), wrap the manifold and instrument lines with “h eat wrap”, a product that has heating coils within a cloth covering that allows the manifold to be maintained at a constant temperature that does not increase the sampled air temperature by more than 3-5 degrees C above ambient

temperature;

• 

### ensuring the manifold has a moisture trap and that it is emptied often; and

• 

### using water resistant particulate filte rs in-line with the instrument.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 10 of 14

Table 7-4 Techniques for Quality Control of Support Services

Support Parameters affecting quality Control techniques

Laboratory and calibration gases Purity specifications vary among manufacturers

Variation among lots

Atmospheric interferences

Composition Develop purchasing guides

Overlap use of old and new cylinders

Adopt filtering and drying procedures

Ensure traceability to primary standard

Reagents and

water Commercial source variation

Purity requirements

Atmospheric interferences

Generation and storage equipment Develop purchasing guides. Batch test for conductivity

Redistillation, heating, deionization with ion exchange columns

Filtration of exchange air

Maintenance schedules from manufacturers



## 7.3 Reference/Equivalent Method s and Approved Regional Methods

For monitoring in a SLAMS network, either reference or equivalent methods are usually required. This requirement, and any exceptions, are specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix C 3 

### . In addition, reference or equivalent methods may be required for other monito ring applications, such as those associated with prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). Requiri ng the use of reference or equivalent methods helps to assure the reliability of air quality measuremen ts including: ease of specification, guarantee of minimum performance, better instruction manuals, fl exibility of application, comparability with other data and increased credibility of measurements. However, designation as a reference or equivalent method provides no guarantee that a particular analyzer will always operate properly. 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A requires the monitoring organization to est ablish an internal QC program. Specific guidance for a minimum QC program is described in Section 10 of this Handbook.

The definitions and specifications of reference and eq uivalent methods are given in 40 CFR Part 53. For most monitoring applications, the distinction between reference and equivalent methods is unimportant and either may be used interchangeably.

Reference and equivalent methods may be eith er manual or automated (analyzers). For SO 2 

### , particulates, and Pb, the reference method for each is a unique manua l method that is completely specified in 40 CFR
Part 50 (Appendices A, and G respectivel y); all other approved methods for SO 2 

### and Pb qualify as equivalent methods. For CO, NO 2 

### , and O 3 

### , Part 50 provides only a measurement principle and calibration procedure applicable to reference methods for these po llutants. Automated methods (analyzers) for these pollutants may be designated as either reference met hods or equivalent methods , depending on whether the methods utilize the same measurement principle and ca libration procedure specified in Part 50. Because any analyzer that meets the requirements of the specified measurement principle and calibration procedure may be designated as a reference method, there are numerous reference methods for CO, NO 2 

### , and O 3 

### . Further information on this subject is in the preamble to 40 CFR Part 53.

3 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ cfr/cfr-table-search.html All references to CFR in following section can be found

at this site.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 11 of 14



### Except for the unique reference methods for SO 2 

### , particulates, and Pb specified in 40 CFR Part 50, all reference and equivalent methods must be officially designated as such by EPA under the provisions of 40 CFR Part 53. Notice of each designated method is published in the Federal Register at the time of designation. A current list of all designated refe rence and equivalent methods is maintained and updated by EPA whenever a new method is designated. This list can be found on AMTIC 4



### . Moreover, any analyzer offered for sale as a reference or equivale nt method after April 16, 1976 must bear a label or sticker indicating that the analyzer has been d esignated as a reference or equivalent method by EPA.

Sellers of designated automated methods must co mply with the conditions summarized below:

4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html 

### 1. A copy of the approved operation or instruction manual must accompany the analyzer when it is delivered to the purchaser. 2. The analyzer must not generate any unreasonabl e hazard to operators or to the environment. 3. The analyzer must function within the limits of the performance specifications in Table 7-5 for at least 1 year after delivery when maintained and operated in accordance with the operation

manual. 4. Any analyzer offered or sale as a reference or equivalent method must bear a label or sticker indicating that it has been designated as a refe rence or equivalent method in accordance with 40

CFR Part 53. 5. If such an analyzer has one or more selectable ranges, the label or sticker must be placed in close proximity to the range selector and must indicat e which range or ranges have been designated as reference or equivalent methods. 6. An applicant who offers analyzers for sale as reference or equivalent methods is required to maintain a list of purchasers of such analyzers and to notify them within 30 days if a reference or equivalent method designation applicable to the an alyzers has been canceled or if adjustment of the analyzers is necessary under 40 CFR Part 53.11(b) to avoid a cancellation.

Accordingly, in selecting a designated method for a pa rticular monitoring application, consideration should be given to such aspects as:

• 

### the suitability of the measurement principle;

• 

### the suitability for the weather and/or geographic conditions at the site;

• 

### analyzer sensitivity and available ope rating ranges suitable for the site;

• 

### susceptibility to interferen ces that may be present at the monitoring site;

• 

### requirements for support gases or other equipment;

• 

### reliability;

• 

### maintenance requirements;

• 

### initial as well as operating costs;

• 

### features such as internal or fully automatic zer o and span checking or adjustment capability, etc.;

• 

### compatibility to your current and future netw ork, i.e. software and connections (RS 232, Ethernet); and

• 

### manual or automated methods.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 12 of 14



### It is important that the purchase order for a new reference or equivalent analyzer specify the designation by the EPA.

The required performance specifications, terms of th e warranty, time limits for delivery and acceptance testing, and what happens in the event that the anal yzer falls short of perfor mance requirements should be documented. Aside from occasional malfunctions, cons istent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions should be reported to EPA. In sel ecting designated methods, remember that designation of a method indicates only that it meets certain minimum standards. Competitive differences still exist among designated analyzers. Some analyzers or methods may have performan ce, operational, economic or other advantages over others. A careful selec tion process based on the individual air monitoring application and circumstances is very important.

Some of the performance tests and other criteria used to qualify a method for designation as a reference or equivalent method are intended only as pass/fail t ests to determine compliance with the minimum standards. Test data may not allow quan titative comparison of one method with another.

Table 7-5 Performance Specifications for Automated Methods

Performance Parameter Units SO 2 O 3 CO NO 2 Def and Test procedure-CFR Sec 1) Range ppm 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-50 0-0.5 53.23(a) 2) Noise ppm 0.005 0.005 0.50 0.005 53.23(b) 3) Lower detectable limit ppm 0.01 0.01 1.0 0.01 53.23(c)

4) Interference equivalent

Each Interferant

Total Interferant ppm + 0.02

0.06 + 0.02

0.06 + 1.0

1.5 + 0.02

0.04 53.23(d)

5) Zero drift, 14 and 24 hour ppm + .02 + .02 + 1.0 + .02 53.23(e)

6) Span drift, 24 hour 20% of upper range limit 80% of upper range limit percent

+ 20.0

+ 5.0 + 20.0

+ 5.0 + 10.0

+ 2.5 + 20.0

+ 5.0 53.23(e)

7) Lag time minutes 20 20 10 20 53.23(e) 8) Rise Time minutes 15 15 5 15 53.23(e) 9) Fall Time minutes 15 15 5 15 53.23(e)

10) Precision 20% of upper range limit 80% of upper range limit ppm 0.01

0.015 0.01

0.01 0.5

0.5 0.02

0.03 53.23(e)



### FRM/FEM Designated Operating Ranges and the Affect of Span Checks

Although all FRM/FEMs are required to meet the rang e specified in Table 7-5, many instruments are designated for ranges narrower and or broader than the requirement. During the equipment purchase/selection phase, monitoring organizations should select an instrument with ranges most appropriate to the concentration at the site which the instrument will be established and then use the range that is most appropriate for the monitoring situation. Earlier versions of this Handbook suggested that the concentration of the span checks be 70 – 90% of the analyzers measurement range. Using this guidance and the designated ranges of some of the FRM/FEM method being used, a span check might be selected

at a concentration that is never found in the ambient ai r at the site for which the monitoring is operating. The span check concentration should be selected that is more beneficial to the quality control of the routine data at the site and EPA suggests: 1) the selection of an appropriate measurement range and 2) selecting a span that at a minimum is above 120% of the highest NAAQS (for si tes used for designation purposes) and above the 99% of the routine data over a 3 year period. The multi-point verification/calibrations that are performed at a minimum annually can be used to challenge the instrument and confirm linearity and calibration slope of the selected operating range.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 13 of 14



### PM 2.5 

### Reference and Equivalent Methods

All formal sampler design and performance requirements and the operational requirements applicable to

reference methods for PM 2.5 

### are specified in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L. These requirements are quite specific and include explicit design specifications for th e type of sampler, the type of filter, the sample flow rate, and the construction of the sample collect ing components. However, various designs for the flow-rate control system, the filter holder, the opera tor interface controls, and the exterior housing are possible. Hence, various reference method samplers from different manufacturers may vary considerably in appearance and operation. Also, a reference met hod may have a single filter capability (single) or a multiple filter capability (sequential) , provided no deviations are necessar y in the design and construction of the sample collection components specifie d in the reference method regulation. A PM 2.5 

### method is not

a reference method until it has been demonstrated to meet all the reference method regulatory requirements and has been officially designated by EPA as a reference method for PM 2.5



### .

Equivalent methods for PM 2.5 

### have a wider latitude in their design, configuration, and operating principle

than reference methods. These methods are not re quired to be based on filter collection of PM 2.5 

### ; therefore, continuous or semi-continuous analyzers and new types of PM 2.5 

### measurement technologies are not precluded as possible equivalent methods. Equivalent methods are not necessarily required to meet all the requirements specified for reference methods, but they must demonstrate both comparability to
reference method measurements and similar PM 2.5 

### measurement precision

.

The requirements that some (but not all) candidate methods must meet to be designated by EPA as equivalent methods are specified in 40 CFR Part 53. To minimize the difficulty of meeting equivalent method designation requirements, three classes of equi valent methods have been established in the 40 CFR Part 53 regulations, based on a candidate method’ s extent of deviation from the reference method requirements. All three classes of equivalent methods are acceptable for SLAMS or SLAMS-related

PM 2.5 

### monitoring. But not all types of equivalent methods may be equally suited to various PM 2.5 

### monitoring requirements or applications.

Class I equivalent methods are very similar to refere nce methods, with only minor deviations, and must meet nearly all of the reference method specifications and requirements. The requirements for designation as Class I equivalent methods are only slightly more extensive than the designation requirements for reference methods. Also, because of their substantial similarity to reference methods, Class I equivalent methods operate very much the same as reference methods.

Class II equivalent methods are filter-collection-based methods that differ more substantially from the reference method requirements. The requireme nts for designation as Class II methods may be considerably more extensive than for reference or Class I equivalent methods, depending on the specific nature of the variance from the reference method requirements.

Class III equivalent methods cover any PM 2.5 

### methods that cannot qualify as reference or Class I or II equivalent methods because of more profound differe nces from the reference method requirements. This class encompasses PM 2.5 

### methods such as continuous or semi-continuous PM 2.5 

### analyzers and potential

new PM 2.5 

### measurement technologies. The requirements for designation as Class III methods are the most extensive, and, because of the wide variety of PM 2.5 

### measurement principles that could be employed for candidate Class III equivalent methods, the designatio n requirements are not explicitly provided in 40

CFR Part 53.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 14 of 14



### Approved Regional Methods (ARM)

There are some continuous PM 2.5 

### methods that currently may not be able to meet the national FRM and FEM designation criteria. However, these methods may operate at acceptable levels of data quality in certain regions of the country or under certain cond itions. The EPA has expanded the use of alternative

PM 2.5 

### measurement methods through ARMs. A method for PM 2.5 

### that has not been designated as an FRM or FEM as defined in 40 CFR Part 50.1 may be approved as an ARM. If a monitoring organization feels that a particular method may be suitable for use in its network, it can apply for the method to be designated as an ARM. The following provides a summary of the ARM requirements.

PM 2.5 

### ARM Criteria Summary

1. Must meet Class III Equivalency Criteria

o Precision

o Correlation

o Additive and multiplicative bias

2. Tested at site(s) where it will be used

o 1 site in each MSA/CMSA up to the first 2 highest pop MSA/CMSA

o 1 site in rural area or Micropolitan Statistical Area

o Total of 3 If the ARM has been approved by another agency then:

o 1 site in MSA/CMSA and 1 site in rural area or Micropolitan Statistical Area

o Total of 2

3. 1 year of testing all seasons covered

o 90 valid sample pairs per site with at least 20 valid sample pairs per season.

o Values < 3 ug/m 3 may be excluded in bias estimates but this does not affect completeness criteria.

4. Collocation to establish precision not required

o peer reviewed published literature or data in AQS that can be presented is enough

5. ARM must be operated on an hourly sampling frequency providing for aggregation into 24-hour average

measurements.

6. Must use approved inlet and separation devices (Part 50 Appendix L or FEM Part 53)

o Exception –methods that by their inherent measurement principle may not need an inlet or separation device.

7. Must be capable of providing for flow audits

o Exception –that by their inherent measurement principle measured flow is not required.

8. Monitoring agency must develop and implement appropriate procedures for assessing and reporting precision and bias.

Routine Monitoring Implementation

9. Collocation of ARM and FRM/FEM at 30% of SLAMS network or at least 1/network

o At 1 in 6 day sampling frequency

o Located at design value site among the largest MSA/CMSA

o Collocated FRM/FEM can be substituted for ARM if ARM is invalidated

10. Collocation ARM with ARM

o 7.5% of sites or at least 1 site

11. Bias assessment (PEP)

o Same frequency as Appendix A

ARM Approval

1. New ARM- EPA NERL, RTP, NC

2. ARM that has been approved by another agency- EPA Regional AdministratorQA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 6



# 8.0 Sample Handling and Custody

A critical activity within any data collection phase i nvolving physical samples is the handling of sample media prior to sampling, handling/tr ansporting sample media to the field, handling samples from the field at the time of collection, storage of samples (at fiel d or other locations), transport of samples from the field site, and the analysis of the samples. Docu mentation ensuring that pr oper handling has occurred throughout these activities is part of the custody r ecord, which provides a mech anism for tracking samples through sample collection, processing and analysis. Cu stody records document the “chain of custody”; the date and person responsible for the various sample handling steps associ ated with each sample. Custody records also provide a reviewable trail for quality assurance purposes and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Prior to the start of an EDO, the various types of samples should be identified and the following questions

asked:

• 

### Does the sample need to be analy zed within a specified time period?

• 

### What modes of sample transport are necessary and how secure should they be?

• 

### What happens if a sample is collected on Friday? Is the sample shipped or stored at the field office and what are the procedures?

• 

### Can the sample’s integrity be affected by outside influences (e.g. temperature, pressure, humidity, jostling/dropping during shipment, other influences) and do these need to be monitored (e.g., max/min thermometers, pressure sensors)?

• 

### How critical is it that sample integrity be known (e.g., is evidence tape necessary)?

• 

### How can it be documented that sample integrity was maintained from the collection to reporting?

• 

### What are the procedures when sample integrity is compromised (e.g., flag, don’t analyze)?

These are some of the questions that should be answered and documented in the monitoring organization’s QAPP and SOPs.

This section specifically addresses the handling and cu stody of physical environmental samples (e.g., exposed filters for particulate matter (PM) determin ations and canisters containing whole air samples) that are collected at a field location and transported to a laboratory for analysis. For specific details of sample handling and custody (i.e., PAMS, NATTS, STN etc) monitoring organization should consult the appropriate technical assistance documents located in the National Programs summaries in Appendix A.

In addition to physical samples, some types of field da ta collected in hard copy (e.g., strip charts, sampler flow data, etc.) or electronic (e.g., data downloaded from a data logger with limited storage space) format are irreplaceable and represent primary information about physical samples or on-site measurements that are needed to report a final result. When such hard copy or electronic data are transported and/or change custody, it is advised that the same chain of cust ody practices described in this section for physical samples be employed to ensure that irreplaceable da ta can be tracked and are not altered or tampered

with.

For additional information, an EPA on-line self-instructional course, “ Chain-of-Custody Procedures for Samples and Data 1 

### ” is available for review. The National Enforcement Investigation Center 2 

### (NEIC) also offers a course relevant to chain of custody issues.

1 http://www.epa.gov/apti/coc/

2 http://www.epa.gov/compliance/abou t/offices/division/neic.htmlQA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 6



### Laboratory Informatio n Management Systems

A laboratory information management system or LIMS, is a computer system used in the laboratory for the management and tracking of samples, instruments, standards and other laboratory functions such as data reductions, data transfer and reporti ng. The goal is to create an EDO where:

• 

### Instruments used are integrated in the lab network; receive instructions and worklists from the LIMS and return finished results including raw da ta back to a central re pository where the LIMS can update relevant information to external systems (i.e., AIRNow or AQS).

• 

### Lab personnel will perform calcu lations, documentation and re view results using online information from connected instruments, reference databases and other resources using electronic

lab notebooks connected to the LIMS.

• 

### Management can supervise the lab process, re act to bottlenecks in workflow and ensure regulatory demands are met.

• 

### External participants can review results and print out analysis certificates and other documentation (QA Reports, quality cont rol charts, outlier reports etc.).

For monitoring programs that are fairly stable, such as criteria pollutant monitoring, development of a LIMS system may be very cost effective and should be considered. There is an upfront cost in the development of these systems but monitoring organi zations that have devoted resources to their development have seen pay offs in improved da ta quality, sample tracking and data reporting.



## 8.1 Sample Handling

In the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, di screte samples from manual methods associated with SLAMS, PAMS, NATTS, and other networks, are physical ly handled prior to analysis. One must pay particular attention to the handling of filters for pa rticulate matter and lead since it has been suggested that the process of filter handling may be the largest source of measurement error (especially low-volume methods). Due to the manner in which concentrati ons are determined, it is critical that samples are handled as specified in SOPs. The various phases of sample handling that should be documented in a QAPP and SOP include:

• 

### Sample preparation, labe ling and identification;

• 

### sample collection;

• 

### transportation;

• 

### sample analysis; and

• 

### storage and archival



### 8.1.1 Sample Preparation, Labeling and Identification

Sample containers or filters are cl eaned and prepared (pre-weighing of f ilters) before being used to collect samples. SOPs should indicate the proper care and ha ndling of the containers/filters to ensure their integrity. Proper lab documentation that tracks the di sposition of containers/filters through preparation is just as important as the documentation after sampling. Ca re must be taken to properly mark all samples to ensure positive, unambiguous identifi cation throughout the sample coll ection, handling, and analysis procedures. Figure 8.1 shows a standardized identifi cation sticker that may be used to label physical samples. Additional information may be added as required, depending on the particular monitoringQA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 6



### program. The rules of evidence used in legal proceedings require that procedures for identification of samples used in analyses form the basis for future evidence. An ad mission by the laboratory analyst that he/she cannot be positive whether he/she analyzed sa mple No. 6 or sample No. 9, for example, could destroy the validity of the entire test report. Any information that can be used to assess sample integrity, such as the pressure of canisters or liquid level, shoul d be recorded at the time of sample collection. Liquid levels for samples in non-gra duated containers can be marked on the side of the container with a grease pencil or permanent marker.

Positive identification also must be provided for any filters used in the program. If ink is used for marking, it must be indelible and unaffected by the gases and temperatures to which it will be subjected. Other methods of identification can be used (e.g ., bar coding), if they provide a positive means of identification and do not impair the capacity of the filter to function.

(Name of Sampling Organization)

Sample ID No: _________________________ Storage Conditions: _________________________

Sample Type:___________________________ Site Name:_________________________________

Date/Time Collected: _____________________ Site Ad dress:_______________________________

Sampler:_______________________________

Figure 8.1 Example Sample Label.



### 8.1.2 Sample Collection

To reduce the possibility of invalidating the results, a ll collected samples must be carefully removed from the monitoring device, placed in labeled, nonreactive containers, and sealed. Use of tamper-evident custody seals are suggested and may be required in certa in cases. The sample label must adhere firmly to the container to ensure that it cannot be accidentally removed. Custody seals on sample containers serve two purposes: to prevent accidental opening of the sample container and to provide visual evidence should the container be opened or tampered with. The best type of custody seal depends on the sample container; often, a piece of tape placed across the seal and signed by the operating technician is sufficient; for other containers, wire locks or tie wraps may be th e best choice. In some cases, the opening of sample containers by unauthorized personnel, such as Transpor tation Security Administration officers, cannot be avoided. The proper use of custody seals minimizes the loss of samples and provides direct evidence whether sample containers have been opened and possibly compromised. Samples whose integrity is questioned should be qualified (flagged).



### 8.1.3 Sample Transportation

Samples should be delivered to the laboratory for analysis as soon as possible following sample

collection. It is recommended that this be done on the same day that the sample is taken from the monitor. If this is impractical, all the samples s hould be placed in transport containers (e.g., carrying case, cooler, shipping box, etc.) for protection from breakage, contamination, and loss and in an appropriate controlled-temperature device (i.e., refri gerator or freezer) if the samples have specific temperature requirements. Each transport container should have a unique identification, such as sampling location, date, and transport contai ner number (e.g., number 2 of 5) to avoid interchange and aid in tracking the complete shipment. The number of the tr ansport containers should be subsequently recordedQA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 6



### on the chain of custody (COC) form (described in Section 8.2) along with the sample identification numbers of the samples included within each transport cont ainer. It is advised that the container be sealed using an appropriate tamper-evident method, su ch as with custody tape or a wire lock.

In transporting samples, it is important that precautions be taken to eliminate the possibility of tampering, accidental destruction, and/or physical and chemical action on the sample. The integrity of samples can be affected by temperature extremes, air pressure (air transportation), and the physical handling of samples (packing, jostling, etc.). These practical considerations must be dealt with on a site-by-site basis and should be documented in the organi zation’s QAPP and site specific SOPs.

The person who has custody of the samples must be able to testify that no tampering occurred. Security must be continuous. If the samples are put in a vehicle, lock the vehicle. After delivery to the laboratory, the samples must be kept in a secured place with restricted access.



### 8.1.4 Sample Analysis

SOPs, if properly developed, have detailed information on the handling of samples at the analysis phase. Similar to the preparation step, if the sample undergo es a number of steps (preparation, equilibration, extraction, dilution, analysis, etc.), and these steps are performed by different in dividuals, there should be a mechanism in place to track the samp le through the steps to ensure SO Ps are followed and the integrity of the sample was maintained. Laboratories make extensive use of laboratory notebooks at the various steps (stations) of the analytical process to record the sample handling process and maintain sample integrity.



### 8.1.5 Storage and Archival

Samples must be properly handled to ensure that ther e is no contamination and that the sample analyzed is actually the sample taken under th e conditions reported. For this reason, whenever samples are not under the direct control of the sample custodian, they should be kept in a secured location. This may be a locked vehicle, locked refrigerato r, or locked laboratory with limited access. It is highly recommended that all samples be secured until discarded. These security measures should be documented by a written record signed by the handlers of the sample on the COC form or in a laboratory notebook, indicating the storage location and conditions. Any samples not d estroyed during the analysis process (e.g., exposed filters for PM) should be archived as directed by the method requirements or applicable QAPP. 40 CFR Part 58.16 requires PM 10 

### , PM 10-2.5 

### and PM 2.5 

### filters from SLAMS manual lo-volume samplers be archived for 1 year from collection. However, it is sugg ested that they be archived the first year in cold conditions (e.g., at 4 ° C) and at room temperature for 2 additional years. It is also suggested that nondestructive lead analysis and STN samples follow this guidance.



## 8.2 Chain of Custody (COC)

In order to use the results of a sampling program as evidence, a written record must be available listing the location of the samples at all times. This is also an important component of good laboratory practices 3 

### . The COC record is necessary to make a prima facie showing of the integrity of the samples. Without it, one cannot be sure that the samples and sampling data analyzed we re the same as the samples and data reported to have been ta ken at a particular time. Procedures may vary, but an actual COC record sheet with the names and signatures of the relinqui shers/receivers works well for tracking physical

3 http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/bimo/glp/default.htmQA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 6



### samples. The samples should be handled only by pe rsons associated in some way with the monitoring program. A good general rule to follow is “the fe wer hands the better,” even though a properly sealed sample may pass through a number of ha nds without affecting its integrity.

Each person handling the samples must be able to state from whom and when the item was received and

to whom and when it was delivered. A COC form sh ould be used to track the handling of the samples through various stages of storage, processing, and anal ysis at the laboratory. It is recommended practice to have each person who relinquishes or receives sa mples sign the COC form for the samples. An example of a form that may be used to establish th e COC for samples generated in the field is shown in Figure 8.2. This form should accompany the samples at all times from the field to the laboratory. All persons who handle the samples should sign the form. Figure 8.3 is an example of a laboratory COC

form. COC forms should be retained and archived as described in Section 5 (Documents and Records).

When using professional services to transport physi cal samples, only reliable services that provide a tracking number should be used. Information describi ng the enclosed samples should be placed on the bill of lading. A copy of the shipping receipt and tr acking number should be kept as a record. The package should be addressed to the specific person authorized to receive the package, although it is recognized that staff not typically part of the COC may recei ve the samples and deliver them to the authorized addressee. A procedure must be in place to ensure that samples are delivered to the appropriate person without being opened or damaged. In this circumstance , the sample is considered still in transport until received by the authorized addressee. It may be necessary to ship and/or receive samples outside of normal business hours. A procedure should be develope d in advance that considers staff availability, secure storage locations, and appropriate storag e conditions (e.g., temperature-controlled).

8.2.1 Sample Inspection and Acceptance

Once the samples arrive at their destination and at every custody change, the samples should first be checked to ensure that their integrity is intact. Th e contents of the shipment should be checked against the COC form to ensure that all samples listed were included in the shipment. The levels of liquid samples should be compared to original levels (if marked on the container or recorded), to identify whether major leaks have occurred. When using p assivated stainless steel canisters, the canister pressure, upon receipt, should be recorded and compared to the final sample collection pressure to indicate canister leakage and sample loss. It is recommended that th is comparison be made using a certified gauge that is calibrated annually. Any samples whose integrity or identity are questionable should be brought to the attention of the relinquisher and flagged. All fl ags should be “carried” along with the samples until the validity of the samples can be proven. This information can be included in the remark section of the COC

form.QA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 6



### Chain of Custody Record

Project No.

Organization
Shipping

Container No. Project Title

Contact

Field Samplers: print signature Address

Date Time Site/Location Sample Type Sample ID Remarks

Relinquished by ( print and signature ): Received by ( print and signature ): Comments

Figure 8.2 Example Field COC Form.



### Chain of Custody Record

Project No. Project Title Organization

Laboratory/Plant:



# ________________________
_________________________

Sample Number Number of

Container Sample Description

Person responsible for samples Time: Date: Sample Number Relinquished By: Received By: Time: Date: Reason for change in custody

Figure 8.3 Example Laboratory COC Form.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 9.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 2



# 9.0 Analytical Methods

The choice of methods used for any EDO should be influenced by the DQO. From the DQO and an understanding of the potential population uncertainty , one can then determine what measurement uncertainty is tolerable and select the method most a ppropriate in meeting that tolerance. Methods are usually selected based upon their perfo rmance characteristics (precision, bias, limits of detection), ease of use, and their reliability in fi eld and laboratory conditions.

Since both field and analytical procedures have been developed for the criteria pollutants in the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, and in the various technical assistance documents for the other national ambient air programs, this section will discuss the genera l concepts of standard operating procedures and good laboratory practices as they relate to the re ference and equivalent methods. A more detailed

discussion on the attributes of SOPs can be found in Section 5. Information on reference and equivalent

methods can be found on the AMTIC website 1 

### as well as the current list of designated Federal Reference and Equivalent Methods 2



### .

Many ambient air methods utilize continuous inst ruments and therefore do not involve laboratory analysis. However particulate matter methods invo lve both continuous and manual methods and some of the other major monitoring programs involve sampling which requires the use of laboratory analysis. Table 9-1 provides a summary of the pollutants measured and the analytical methods for these programs.

Table 9-1 Acceptable Analytical Methods

Network Pollutant Acceptable Method Reference

SLAMS PM 10 – Hi-Vol Gravimeteric 40 CFR Part 50 App B

SLAMS PM 10 - dichot Gravimeteric 40 CFR Part 50 App J

SLAMS PM 2.5 Gravimeteric 40 CFR Part 50 App L

SLAMS PM 10-2.5 Gravimeteric- difference SLAMS Pb Atomic Absorption Spect rometry 40 CFR Part 50 App G PAMS VOCs Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) TO-15 PAMS Carbonyl compounds High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) TO11-A

PAMS Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOC) Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization Detection (PDFID) TO-12

NATTS Metals Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) IO 3.5 NATTS Aldehydes High Pressure Liquid Chromatography TO11-A NATTS VOCs Gas Chromatography TO-15

STN PM 2.5 Gravimeteric 40 CFR Part 50 App L STN Elements Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) STN QAPP and SOPs STN Anions STN QAPP and SOPs STN Cations STN QAPP and SOPs STN Organic, Elemental, Carbonate, Total

Carbon Thermal Optical Carbon Anal yzer STN QAPP and SOPs

STN Semi-volatile Organic Compounds Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometr y (GC/MS) STN QAPP and SOPs



### The SLAMS network provides more rigorous quality control requirements for the analytical methods. These methods are found in 40 CFR Part 50, as described in the references. In addition, the method

identified for Pb is the reference method. There are a number of equivalent analytical methods that are

1 http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/pmfrm.html

2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 9.0

Revision No:1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 2



### available for the Pb. Some of the NATTS methods are derived from the Toxics Organic Method Compendium 3 

### . Others, like the STN Network 4 

### may be developed specifically for the program, based on the national laboratory currently performing the an alysis. The PAMS, NATTS and STN networks follow the performance based measurement process paradigm. These Networks’ QA project plans or technical assistance documents suggest a method, but also allow some flexibility to use other methods that meet the network’s measurement quality objectives. Various, inde pendent proficiency test samples and technical systems audits are performed to ensu re that the data quality within these networks remains acceptable.



## 9.1 Good Laboratory Practices

Good laboratory practices (GLPs) 5 

### refer to general practices that rela te to many, if not all, of the measurements made in a laboratory. They are usuall y independent of the SOP and cover subjects such as maintenance of facilities, records, sample managemen t and handling, reagent control, and cleaning of laboratory glassware. In many cases, the activities mentioned above may not be formally documented because they are considered common knowledge. Howeve r, for consistency in laboratory technique, these

activities should have some form of documentation.



## 9.2 Laboratory Activities

For ambient air samples to provide useful informa tion or evidence, laboratory analyses must meet the following four basic requirements:

1. Equipment must be frequently and properly calibrated and maintained (Section 12).

2. Personnel must be qualified to ma ke the analysis (Section 4).

3. Analytical procedures must be in accordance with accepted practice (Section 9.1 above).

4. Complete and accurate records must be kept (Section 5).

As indicated, these subjects are discussed in other sec tions of this document. For the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, laborat ory activities are mainly focused on the pollutants associated with manual measurements for lead, particulate matter (PM and STN), NATTS 6 

### and PAMS 7 

### (VOCs). However, many laboratories also prepare reference ma terial, test or certify instruments, and perform other activities necessary to collect and re port measurement data. Each laborat ory should define these critical

activities and ensure there are consiste nt methods for their implementation.

3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html

4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specsop.html

5 http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/glp.html

6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/NATTS_TAD_SECT_4.pdf

7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pams/newtad.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 10

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 8



# 10.0 Quality Control

As described in Section 3, any data collection process that provides an

estimate of a concentration contains uncertainties related to spatial/temporal variability (population) and the measurement process. DQOs define the data quality needed to make a correct decision an acceptable percentage of the time. Data quality is defined through quantification of the following data quality indicators.

Representativeness - the degree in which data accurately and precise ly represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variation at a sampling point, a process condition, or an environmental condition.

Precision - a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property usually under prescribed similar conditions. This is the random component of error. Precision is estimated by various statistical techniques using some derivation of the standard deviation.

Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurem ent process which causes error in one direction. Bias will be determined by estimating the positive and negative deviation from the true value as a percentage of the true

value.

Detectability - The determination of the low range critical value of a characteristic that a method specific procedure can reliably discern.

Completeness - a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the amount that was expected to be obtai ned under correct, normal conditions. Data completeness requirements are included in the reference methods (40 CFR Pt. 50).

Comparability - a measure of confidence with which one data set can be compared to another.



### Measurement quality objectives (MQOs) identify the quality control samples and the acceptance criteria for those samples that will allow one to quantify the data quality indicators.

Data quality assessments (DQAs) are the statistical assessments that determine if the DQOs are met and to provide descriptions of data uncertainty. If the DQOs are not met, the DQAs are used to determine whether modifications to the DQOs are necessary or “tighter” quality control is required.

Within any phase or step of the data collec tion process, errors can occur. For example:

• 

### samples and filters can be mislabeled;

• 

### data can be transcribed or reported incorrec tly or information management systems can be programmed incorrectly;

• 

### calibration or check standards can be contaminat ed or certified incorrectly resulting in faulty calibrations; Uncertainty = Population + Measurement

2.Precision
3.Bias 4. Completeness 5. Comparability 6. Detectability

MQOs Preparation

Field Laboratory

DQO

DQ 

# }

1. Re p resentativeness Data Quality IndicatorsQA Handbook Vol II, Section 10

Revision No:1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 8

• 

### instruments can be set up improperly or over time fail to operate within specifications; and

• 

### procedures may not be followed.

Quality Control (QC) is the overall system of te chnical activities that measures the attributes and performance of a process, item, or service against define d standards to verify that they meet the stated requirements established by the customer 1 

### . Quality control includes establishing specifications or acceptance criteria for each quality characteristic of the monitoring/analytical process, assessing procedures used in the monitoring/analytical pro cess to determine conformance to these specifications, and taking any necessary corrective actions to bring them into conformance. The EPA’s QAPP guidance document QA/G5 2 

### suggests that “QC activities are those tec hnical activities routinely performed, not to eliminate or minimize errors, but to measure thei r effect”. Although there is agreement that the measurement or assessment of a QC check or procedure does not itself eliminate errors, the QC data can and should be used to take appropria te corrective actions which can mini mize error or control data to an acceptable level of quality in the future. So, QC is both proactive and co rrective. It establishes techniques to determine if field and lab procedures are producing acceptable data and identifies actions to correct unacceptable performance.

The goal of quality control is to provide a reasonabl e level of checking at various stages of the data collection process to ensure that data quality is mainta ined and if it is found that the quality has not been maintained, that it is discovered with a minimal loss of data (invalidation). Figure 10.1 provides an example of some of the QC samples used in the PM 2.5 

### data collection process. The figure also identifies what sources of error are associated with the QC samp le. So, in developing a quality control strategy, one must weigh the costs associated with quality c ontrol against the risks of data loss.

With the objective to minimize data loss, quality control data is

most beneficial when it is

assessed as soon as it is collected. Therefore, information management systems can play a very important role in reviewing QC data and flagging or identifying spurious data for further

review. These information management procedures can help the

technical staff review these QC checks coming

from a number of monitoring sites in a consistent and time efficient manner. There are many graphical techniques (e.g., control charts and outlier checks) that can be employ ed to quickly identify suspect data. More details of information management systems are di scussed later in this section.

1 American Nation Standard ANSI/ASQ E4-2000 http://www.asq.org/

2 http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html Field

Blank Laborator y Pre- Field Weighing

Field Sampling

Laborator y Post-Field Weighing Lab
Blank QC
Checks

Field
Blank

Field
Blank Routine Sample Collocated Sample

Routine Sample Collocated Sample Routine Sample Collocated Sample

QC
Checks PEP

PEP PEP

Lab

Blank QC
Checks

Meas. System
Contamination Instrument precision/bias Meas. System
Precision Meas. System
Bias Lab
Contamination Weighing lab
Precision/Bias

Figure 10.1 QC samples for PM 2.5 placed at various stages of measurement processQA Handbook Vol II, Section 10

Revision No:1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 8



### It is the responsibility of the monitoring organization, through the development of its QAPP, policies and procedures, to develop and document the:

• 

### QC techniques;

• 

### frequency of the QC checks and the point in the measurement process that the check is introduced;

• 

### traceability of QC standards;

• 

### matrix of the check sample;

• 

### appropriate test concentrations;

• 

### actions to be taken in the event that a QC check identifies a failed or changed measurement

system;

• 

### formulae for estimating data quality indicators;

• 

### QC results, including control charts; and

• 

### the means by which the QC data will be used to determine that the mea surement performance is acceptable.



## 10.1 QC Activity Areas

For air monitoring projects the following three areas must have established QC activities, procedures and

criteria:

1. Data Collection.

2. Data management and the verification and validation process.

3. Reference materials.

Data collection includes any process involved in acquiring a c oncentration or value, including but not limited to: sample preparation, field sampling, sampl e transportation, field analytical (continuous) methods, and laboratory preparation/analytical processes. Depending on the importance of the data and resources available, monitoring programs can implement QC samples, as illustrated in Figure 10.1, to identify the errors occurring at various phases of monitoring process. Many of the QC samples can identify errors from more than one phase. Table 10-1 provides a list of the majority of the QC samples utilized in the ambient air program and include both their primary and secondary uses in error identification. Many of these checks are required in CFR; others are strongly suggested in the method guidance. The MQO/validation templates provide d in Appendix D provide the minimum requirements for the frequency that these checks be implemente d but many monitoring organization choose more frequent checking in order to reduce the risk of data invalidation. A good example of this is the zero/span and one-point precision checks for the gaseous criteria pollutants. Although CFR requires the check to be performed once every two weeks, due to the a dvent of more sophisticated automated monitoring systems, many monitoring organization perform these checks every 24-hours (11:45 PM – 12:15 AM). In addition, once the QC checks are developed for a par ticular monitoring method, it is important to identify the acceptance criteria and what corrective action will be taken once a QC check fails. The MQO/Validation template in Appendix D can be used to list the QC samples wi th a column added to include corrective action. Table 10-2 provides an example of a QC Sample Table for PM 2.5 

### . Although the validation templates provide guid ance for when data should be invalidated, it is up to the monitoring organization to provide the specific corrective actions fo r the failure of a specific QC check and therefore, Table 10-2 does not identify specific corrective actions.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10

Revision No:1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 8



### Data management quality control is discussed in more detail in Section 14 and the verification/validation process in Section 17. Howe ver, both processes require some frequency of checks to ensure that they are performed consistently and without error. This is especially true for data management since errors in programming can cause cons istent errors for long periods of time if not

checked.

Reference materials are the standards by which many of the QC checks are performed. Reference material can be gaseous standards as well as devices (e.g ., flow rate standards). If these standards are not checked and verified as to their certified values, th en the quality of data becomes suspect. Reference materials need to be certified and recertified at accepta ble frequencies in order to maintain the integrity of the reference material. It is suggested that standa rds be certified annually. More discussion on standards is

included in Section 12.



## 10.2 Internal vs. External Quality Control

Quality control can be separated into 2 major categor ies: internal QC and external QC. Most of the quality control activities take place internally, mean ing the monitoring organization responsible for collecting the data also develops and implements the quality control activities, evaluates the data, and takes corrective action when necessary. The internal activities can be u sed to take immediate action if data appear to be out of acceptance. External qua lity control samples are usually of two types: “doubleblind” meaning the QC sample is not known (looks li ke a routine sample) and therefore its concentration in unknown, or “single-blind” meaning they are known to be a QC sample but its concentration is unknown. These samples are also called performance ev aluation or proficiency test samples and are explained in Section 15. Because these checks are performed by external organizations, the results are not always immediately available and therefore have a diminished capacity to control data quality in “real-time.” However they are useful as an objective test of the internal QC procedures and may identify errors (i.e., biased or contaminated standards) that mi ght go unnoticed in an internal QC system. Both types of quality control are important in a well im plemented quality system. Other elements of an organization’s QAPP that may contain related samp ling and analytical QC requirements include:

• 

### Sampling Design which identifies the planned field QC samples as well as procedures for QC sample preparation and handling;

• 

### Sampling Methods Requirements which includes requirements for determining if the collected samples accurately represent the population of interest;

• 

### Sample Handling and Custody Requirements which discusses any QC devices employed to ensure samples are not tampered with (e.g., cu stody seals) or subjected to other unacceptable conditions during transport;

• 

### Analytical Methods Requirements which includes information on the subsampling methods and information on the preparation of QC sam ples (e.g., blanks and replicates); and

• 

### Instrument Calibration and Frequency which defines prescribed criteria for triggering recalibration (e.g., failed calibration checks).QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10

Revision No: Final Draft

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 8Table 10-1 QC Samples Used in Various Ambient Air Monitoring ProgramsSources of Measurement ErrorSample Collection SampleTransportField (continuous)/ Laboratory Analytical MethodData QualityIndicatorQC Check andQC SampleSamplingEquipmentConditionsDuringSamplingPreservationTechniqueSamplingMatrixShipmentProcessSampleStorageSamplePreparationReagentsSamplePreparationAnalytical MethodsReagents/StandardsAnalyticalEquipmentPurposeTo evaluate or determine the sourceof measurement error arising from:Lot BlankFilters that have not equilibratedExposure Lot BlanksA batch of filters that have not equilibratedLaboratory BlanksAmbient contamination arising withinlaboratory or balance not operatingTrip BlanksContamination from shipping and/or labField BlanksAmbient contamination from field activitiessampling equipment, shipping and/or labReagent BlankContamination introduced by reagents used insample preparation/preservation.Accuracy/BiasPositive ornegative biasprimarily due tocontamination.(could also bedue to operatorerror)Equipment Blank(Rinsate Blank)Carryover contamination resulting fromsuccessive use of sampling equipment.Matrix SpikePreparation/analytical bias for specificcompounds in sample matricesSurrogate SpikePreparation/analytical bias for specific samplematricesAccuracy/BiasDue to samplematrix or samplepreparation/AnalyticalmethodologyLab Control SamplesLabs ability to accurately identify andquantitate target compoundsCooler Temp CheckHigh temperatures causing volitilizationaffecting mass concentrationAccuracy/Biasdue to inadequatetemp. controlTemp VerificationsSampler, sample storage, or laboratory prepfacilityproblemsBalance CheckAnalytical balance precision and stabilityFlow Rate Verifications/AuditsEquipment not operating within specifiedparametersHumidityVerificationsLaboratories inability to have an adequatemeasurement environmentPressure VerificationsSampler malfunctionLeak ChecksSampler malfunctionTimer VerificationsSampler malfunctionAccuracy/BiasPrimarily due toequipmentmalfunction or notproperlycalibrated and/oroperator errorZero/SpanAnalyzer out of calibration or bad standardsPrecision/ BiasOne-Point QC CheckAnalyzer out of calibration or bad standardsCollocated SamplesCumulative effects of both field & lab precisionto measure overall precisionField DuplicatesCumulative effects of both field & lab precisionto measure overall precisionPrecisionSample /AnalyticalReplicateFilters not equilibrating, incorrect weighingprocedure or balance problemsStandard CertificationsContaminated Reagents/StandardsCalibrationsSampling analytical equipment bias or driftRound RobinsOverall sampling/analysis processAccuracy/BiasProficiency TestsOverall sampling/analysis processBiasPEPOverall sampling/analysis processNPAPOverall sampling/analysis processSensitivityMDL StudiesQA Handbook Vol II, Section 10

Revision No: Final Draft

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 8

Table 10-2 PM 2.5 Field and Lab QC Checks

Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action

Field QC Checks

Calibration Standards

Flow Rate Transfer Std.

Field Thermometer

Field Barometer 1/yr 1/yr

1/yr + 2% of NIST-traceable Std.

+ 0.1 o C resolution

+ 0.5 o C accuracy

+ 1 mm Hg resolution

+ 5 mm Hg accuracy

Calibration/Verification Flow Rate (FR) Calibration FR multi-point verification One point FR verification

External Leak Check

Internal Leak Check Temperature Calibration Temp multi-point verification One- point temp Verification

Pressure Calibration

Pressure Verification

Clock/timer Verification If multi-point failure 1/yr

1/4 weeks every 5 sampling events every 5 sampling events

If multi-point failure on installation, then 1/yr

1/4 weeks on installation, then 1/yr

1/4 weeks

1/ 4 weeks + 2% of transfer standard

+ 2% of transfer standard

+ 4% of transfer standard

80 mL/min

80 mL/min

+ 2% of standard

+ 2 E C of standard

+ 4 E C of standard

" 10 mm Hg

" 10 mm Hg

1 min/mo

Blanks

Field Blanks See 2.12 reference + 30 F g

Precision Checks Collocated samples every 6 days CV < 10%

Audits ( external assessments )

FRM PEP

Flow rate audit

External Leak Check

Internal Leak Check Temperature Audit

Pressure Audit 5 or 8 sites/year

1/6mo

1/6mo

1/6mo

1/6mo

1/6mo + 10%

+ 4% of audit standard

< 80 mL/min

< 80 mL/min

+ 2 E C

" 10 mm Hg

Laboratory QC Checks

Blanks

Lot Blanks

Lab Blanks 3-lot 3 per batch + 15 F g difference

+ 15 F g difference

Calibration/Verification

Balance Calibration Lab Temp. Calibration Lab Humidity Calibration 1/yr

3 mo

3 mo Manufacturers spec.

+ 2 E C

" 2%

Bias

Balance Audit

Balance Check 1/year

beginning, every 10th samples, end + 15 F g for unexposed filters

< + 3 F g

Calibration standards Working Mass Stds. Primary Mass Stds. 3-6 mo. 1/yr 25 F g 25 F g

Precision Duplicate filter weighings 1 per weighing session + 15 F g differenceQA Handbook Vol II, Section 10

Revision No: Final Draft

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 8



## 10.3 CFR Related Quality Control Samples

40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A identifies a number of qua lity control samples that must be implemented for the SLAMS (and NCore) SPM and PSD networks. By 2009, any special purpose monitors that use FRMs or FEMs will be required to follow these requirements unless granted a waiver by the Regional Administrator. Table 10-3 provides a summary of th e QC checks for the criteria pollutants and the CFR reference where an explanation of each check is described. The reader should distinguish the requirements that are related to automated a nd manual methods since there are some differences.

Table 10-3 Ambient Air Monitoring Measurement Quality Samples
Method CFR Reference Coverage (annual) Minimum frequency MQOs*

Automated Methods One-Point QC:

for SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , CO Section 3.2.1 Each analyzer Once per 2 weeks O 3 Precision 7%, Bias + 7%.

SO 2 , NO 2 , CO Precision 10% , Bias + 10% Annual performance

evaluation

for SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , CO Section 3.2.2 Each analyzer Once per year < 15 % for each audit

concentration

Flow rate verification

PM 10 ,PM 2.5 , PM 10-2.5 , TSP Section 3.2.3 Each sampler Once every month

< 4% of standard and 5% of design value

Semi-annual flow rate

audit

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , PM 10-2.5, TSP Section 3.2.4 Each sampler Once every 6 months

< 4% of standard and 5% of design value

Collocated sampling

PM 2.5 , PM 10-2.5, TSP Section 3.2.5 15% within PQAO Every twelve days PM 2.5 , - 10% precision

PM 10-2.5- - 15% precision TSP – 10% precision

PM Performance evaluation program

PM 2.5 ,PM 10-2.5 Section 3.2.7 1. 5 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with < 5 sites 2. 8 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with > 5 sites 3. All samplers in 6 years over all 4 quarters

PM 2.5 , - + 10% bias

PM 10-2.5- - + 15% bias

Manual Methods Collocated sampling

PM 10 , TSP, PM 10-2.5, PM 2.5 3.3.1 and 3.3.5 15% within PQAO Every 12 days PSD every 6 days PM 10 , TSP, PM 2.5 , - 10% precision

PM 10-2.5- - 15% precision

Flow rate verification

PM 10 (low Vol),PM 10-2.5 , PM 2.5, , TSP 3.3.2 Each sampler Once every month

< 4% of standard and 5% of design value

Flow rate verification

PM 10 (High-Vol), TSP 3.3.2 Each sampler Once every quarter < 10% of standard and design

value

Semi-annual flow rate

audit

PM 10 (low Vol), PM 10-2.5 , PM 2.5 , TSP 3.3.3 Each sampler, all locations Once every 6 months < 4% of standard and 5% of design value

Semi-annual flow rate

audit

PM 10 (High-Vol), TSP 3.3.3 Each sampler, all locations Once every 6 months < 10% of standard and design

value

Manual Methods

Lead 3.3.4 1. Each sampler 2. Analytical (lead strips) 1. Include with TSP 2. Each quarter 1. Same as for TSP.

2. - + 10% bias

Performance evaluation

program
PM 2.5, PM 10-2.5 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 1. 5 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with < 5 sites 2. 8 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with > 5 sites 3. All samplers in 6 years Over all 4 quarters

PM 2.5 , + 10% bias

PM 10-2.5-, + 15% bias

* Some of the MQOs are found in CFR and others in Appendix D of this guidance document.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10

Revision No: Final Draft

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 8



## 10.4 Use of Computers for Quality Control

With the wide range of economical computers now av ailable, and the advancements in data acquisition system (DAS) technologies, consideration should be given to a computer system that can process and output the information in a timely fashion. Such a computer system should be able to:

• 

### compute calibration equations

• 

### compute measures of linearity of calibrations (e.g., standard error or correlation coefficient)

• 

### plot calibration curves

• 

### compute zero/span drift results

• 

### plot zero/span drift data

• 

### compute precision and bias

results

• 

### compute control chart limits

• 

### plot control charts 3

• 

### automatically flag out-of-control

results

• 

### maintain and retrieve calibration and performance records

3 http://www.sixsigmaspc.com/ 

### Some of these checks (e.g., calibrations ) only need to be reviewed as n eeded or when the actual check is performed. Other checks, like zero/span/one poin t QC checks or programmed routine data range or outlier checks that may occur every day are much more easily performed automatically by properly programmed computer systems. Earlier versions of this Handbook provided examples of quality control charts for zero and span drifts but with the advanced data acquisition system technologies available, the development of these charts is fairly straight forward.

Many vendors offering newer generatio n data loggers and ambient air information management systems provide programming of some of the QC checking capabilities listed above. EPA has also provided guidance and a Data Assessment Statistical Calculator (DASC) tool for the precision and bias calculations of the quality control checks required in CFR Part 58, Appendix A. In addition, the AMP 255 Report in AQS also provides these statistics for many of the QC samples described in Table 10-3 but use of these reports requires data reporting to AQS which does not usually occur in time frames needed for quality

control.

Figure 10.2 Example Control Chart (courtesy of Six Sigma SPC see footnote)QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 6



# 11.0 Instrument Equipment Test ing, Inspection and Maintenance

Implementing an ambient air monitoring network, with the various types of equipment needed, is no easy task. Through appropriate testing, inspection and maintenance programs, monitoring organizations can be assured that equipment is capable of operati ng at acceptable performance levels. Every piece of equipment has an expected life span, and its use should be discontinued if its performance quality ceases to meet appropriate standards. For amortization purposes, EPA estimates a 7 year lifespan for most monitoring instruments and a somewhat longer lif espan for more permanent types of equipment (instrument racks, monitoring shelters etc.). This means that funds for replacing capital equipment are provided in resource allocations a nd monitoring organizations should make the best use of equipment replacement resources. Monitoring organizations may be able to prolong the life of equipment but in doing so they may run the risk of additional dow ntime, more upkeep and a greater chance of data invalidation, while losing out on newer technologies, better sensitivity/stability and the opportunities for better information management technologies.

Due to the many types of equipment that can be used in an ambient air monitoring program, this section provides general guidance on testing, inspection, and maintenance procedures for broad categories of equipment only. In most cases, equipment ma nufacturers include inspection and maintenance information in the operating manuals. The role of monitoring organizations, in developing a quality system, is to address the scheduling and documentation of routine testing, inspection, and maintenance.

Detailed maintenance documents should be available fo r each monitoring site. Elements incorporated into testing, inspection and maintenance documents include:

• 

### equipment lists - by organization and station;

• 

### spare equipment/parts lists - by equipment, including suppliers;

• 

### inspection/maintenance frequency - by equipment;

• 

### testing frequency and source of the test concentrations or equipment;

• 

### equipment replacement schedules;

• 

### sources of repair - by equipment;

• 

### service agreements that are in place; and

• 

### monthly check sheets and entry forms for docum enting testing, inspections and maintenance performed.



## 11.1 Instrumentation

11.1.1 Analyzers and Samplers

Aside from the specific exceptions d escribed in Appendix C of Part 58 1 

### , monitoring methods used for SLAMS monitoring must be a reference or equivale nt method, designated as such by 40 CFR Part 53 2



### . Reference or equivalent methods also must be used at NCore monitoring sites intended for comparison with any NAAQS. Among reference and equivalent met hods, a variety of analyzer designs and features are available. For certain pollutants, analyzers empl oying different measurement principles are available. Some analyzer models only meet the minimum perfor mance specifications (see Table 7-5), while others provide a higher level of performance. Section 7 prov ides information on what aspects to consider when selecting a particular monitoring instrument/analyzer . Upon receiving the new analyzer, the user should

1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 58, Appendix C, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.

2 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 53, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 6



### carefully read the instructions or operating manua l provided by the manufacturer. Information or instructions concerning the following should be found in the manufacturer’s manual:

• 

### unpacking and verifying that all component parts were delivered;

• 

### checking for damage during shipment;

• 

### checking for loose fittings and electrical connections;

• 

### assembling the analyzer;

• 

### installing the analyzer;

• 

### calibrating the analyzer;

• 

### operating the analyzer;

• 

### electrical and plumbing diagrams;

• 

### preventive maintenance schedule and procedures;

• 

### troubleshooting; and

• 

### a list of expendable parts.

Many vendors have specific time periods when the ini tial checks for damage in tr ansit need to be made. The monitor should be assembled and set up according to the instructions in the manufacturer’s manual. It may be important to do this initial set-up and t esting at the main office or laboratory facility (see Section 11.1.3) before taking the equipment to the s ite. Following analyzer set-up, an initial verification of performance characteristics such as power flow, noise, and response time and a muti-point verification should be performed to determine if the analyzer is operating properly. These guidelines assume that the instrument was previously calibrate d. If the instrument was disassembled after calibration, or no calibration of the instrument had previously been performed, the monitor must have a multi-point verification/calibration to ensure it is within acceptabl e calibration requirements prior to use. Short-term span, zero drift and precision should be checked during the initial calibration or measured using abbreviated forms of the test procedures provided in 40 CFR Part 53 3 

### . Acceptance of the analyzer should be based on results from these performance tests. Once accepted, reference and equivalent analyzers are guaranteed by the manufacturer to operate within the required performance specifications for one year 4



### , unless major repairs are performed or parts are replace d. In such instances, the analyzers must be

recalibrated before use.



### 11.1.2 Support Instrumentation

Experiences of monitoring organization staff; pr eventive maintenance require ments, ease of maintenance and general reliability play crucial roles in the sel ection of support equipment. The following examples depict general categories of support equipment and t ypical features to look for when selecting this equipment. This list is meant to guide agencies in the selection of equipment and does not represent required specifications.

• Calibration Standards: Calibration standards fall into several categories:



## - mass flow controlled (MFC) devices;



## - standards that meet the 1997 Traceability Protocol for Gaseous Calibration Standards 5 

### ;



## - permeation devices;



## - photometers;

3 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 53, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.

4 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 53, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.

5 EPA 600/R-97/121: Traceability Protocol for Ga seous Calibration Standa rds, September 1997QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 6



## - flow measurement devices;



## - water pressure measurement devices;



## - barometric pressure measurement devices; and



## - temperature measurement devices.

It is recommended that the devices be 110 VAC, be compatible with data acquisition systems for automated calibrations, and have digital compatib ility or true transistor-transistor logic (TTL). The most common standards are MFC devices and permeation devices. Both use dilution air to obtain the needed output pollutant concentration.

• Data Acquisition Systems (DAS): DAS should have at least 32-bit logic for improved performance (DAS with at least 16-bit logic can still be used); have modem and internet capabilities; allow remote access and control; allow for digita l input; and be able to initiate automated calibrations and polling. It is also recommended that DAS have software compatible with AQS and AQI reporting and editing. Both da ta loggers and analog chart recorders may be used for recording data; however, the storage, communicability, and flexibility of DAS coupled with data loggers makes the DAS systems the pref erred option. More information on DAS is

found in Section 14.

• Instrument Racks: Instrument racks should be constructed of steel and be able to accept sliding trays or rails. Open racks help to keep instru ment temperatures down and allow air to circulate freely.

• Instrument Benches: Instrument benches should be of su fficient space to allow adequate room for multiple instruments with room to work and be capable of supporting a fair amount of weight (> 100 lbs). Slate or other hard, water-proof materials (e.g., steel) are recommended.

• Zero Air Systems: Zero air systems should be able to deliver 10 liters/min of air that is free of ozone, NO, NO 2 

### , and SO 2 

### to 0.001 ppm and CO and non-methane hydrocarbons to 0.1 ppm. There are many commercially available systems; however, simple designs can be obtained by using a series of canisters.



### 11.1.3 Laboratory Support

While it is not required, monitori ng organizations should employ full laboratory facilities. These facilities should be equipped to test, repair, troubleshoot, a nd calibrate all analyzers and support equipment necessary to operate the ambient air monitoring netw ork. In cases where individual laboratories are not feasible, a monitoring organization may be able to find a central laboratory where these activities can be performed.

It is recommended that the laboratory be designed to accommodate the air quality laboratory/shop and

PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### filter rooms, as well as enforcement instrumentation support activities. The air quality portion consists of several benches flanked by instru ment racks. One bench and rack are dedicated to ozone traceability. The other instrument racks are de signated for calibration and repair. A room should be set aside to house spare parts and extra analyzers.

A manifold/sample cane should be mounted behind the bench. If possible, a sample cane that passes through the roof to allow analyzers that are being t ested to sample outside air should be mounted to theQA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 6



### bench. This also allows any excess calibration gas to be exhausted to the atmosphere. It is recommended that the pump room be external to the building to eliminate noise.

Each bench area should have an instrument rack attach ed to the bench. The instrument rack should be equipped with sliding trays or rails that allow easy in stallation of instruments. If instrumentation needs to be repaired and then calibrated, this can be performed on the bench top or within the rack. Analyzers then can be allowed to warm up and be calibrated by a calib ration unit. Instruments that are to be tested are connected to the sample manifold and allowed to sa mple air in the same manner as if the analyzer were being operated within a monitoring station. The an alyzer is connected to an acquisition system (e.g., DAS, data logger, chart recorder, etc.) and allowed to operate. Any intermittent problems that occur can be observed on the data logger/chart recorder. The analyzer can be allowed to operate over several days to see if anomalies or problems reoccur; if they do, th ere is a record of them. If the instrument rack has a DAS and calibrator, nightly auto calibrations can be performed to see how the analyzer reacts to known gas concentrations. In addition, the ozone recertifi cation bench and rack should be attached to a work bench. The rack should house the local ozone primary standard and the ozone transfer standards that are being checked for recertification. Zero air is plumbe d into this rack for the calibration and testing of ozone analyzers and transfer standards.



## 11.2 Preventive Maintenance

Every monitoring organization should develop a preventive maintenance program. Preventive maintenance is what its name implies; maintaining th e equipment within a network to prevent downtime and costly repairs and data loss. Preventive mainten ance is an ongoing element of quality control and is typically enveloped into the daily routine. In add ition to the daily routine, scheduled activities must be performed monthly, quarterly , semi-annually and annually.

Preventive maintenance is the responsibility of the station operators and the supervisory staff. It is important that the supervisor review the preventive maintenance work and continua lly check the schedule. The supervisor is responsible for making sure th at preventive maintenance is being accomplished in a timely manner. Preventive maintenance is not a st atic process; procedures must be updated for many reasons, including, but not limited to, new models or types of instruments and new or updated methods. The preventive maintenance schedule is changed whenev er an activity is completed or performed at an alternate time. For instance, if a multipoint calibra tion is performed in February instead of on the scheduled date in March, then the subsequent six-month calibration date moves from September to August. On a regular basis, the supervisor shoul d review the preventive maintenance schedule with the station operators. Following all repairs, the instrume nts must be verified (multi-point) or calibrated.

Lists can facilitate the organization and tracking of tasks and improve the efficiency of preventive maintenance operations. A checklist of regular maint enance activities (e.g., periodic zero-span checks, daily routine checks, data dump/collection, calibra tions, etc.) is recommended. A spare parts list, including relevant catalog numbers, is also recommended, as it facilitates the ordering of replacement parts. Such a list should be readily accessible and should include the types and quantities of spare parts already on-hand.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 6



### 11.2.1 Station Maintenance

Station maintenance is an element of preventive ma intenance that does not occur on a routine basis; rather, these tasks usually occur on an “as needed” basis. Station maintenance items are checked monthly or whenever an agency knows th at the maintenance needs to be performed. Examples of station

maintenance items include:

• 

### floor cleaning;

• 

### shelter inspection;

• 

### air conditioner repair;

• 

### AC filter replacement;

• 

### weed abatement and grass cutting;

• 

### roof repair;

• 

### general cleaning;

• 

### inlet and manifold cleaning;

• 

### manifold exhaust blower lube;

• 

### desiccant replacement; and

• 

### ladder, safety rails, safety inspection, if applicable.

Simple documentation of these activities, whether in station logs or electronic logs, helps provide evidence of continuous attention to data quality.



### 11.2.2 Routine Operations

Routine operations are the checks that occur at specified periods of time during a monitoring station visit. These duties must be performed and documented in or der to operate a monitoring network at optimal levels. Examples of typical routine op erations are detailed in Table 11-1.

Table 11-1 Routine Operation Checks

Item Each Visit Weekly/Monthly Minimum

Review Data X Mark charts, where applicable X

Check/Oil Exhaust Blower X

Check Exterior X Check/Change Desiccant X

Manifold Leak Test X Inspect tubing X Replace Tubing Annually 1

Inspect manifold and cane X Clean manifold and cane Every 6 months or as needed Check HVAC systems X

Check electrical connections X Field site supply inventory X

1 If tubing is used externally as an inlet devices it may need to be replaced every 6 months or more frequently depending upon si te specific issues



### .

In addition to these items, the exterior of the build ing, sample cane, meteorological instruments and tower, entry door, electrical cables, and any othe r items deemed necessary to ch eck, should be inspected for wear, corrosion, and weathering. Costly repairs can be avoided in this manner.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 6



### 11.2.3 Instrument and Site Logs

Each instrument and piece of support equipment (with the exception of the instrument racks and benches) should have an Instrumentation Repair Log (either paper or electronic). The log should contain the repair and calibration history of that particular instru ment. Whenever multipoint calibration, instrument maintenance, repair, or relocation occurs, detailed not es are written in the instrumentation log. The log contains the most recent multipoint calibration repor t, a preventive maintenance sheet, and the acceptance testing information or reference to the location of th is information. If an instrument is malfunctioning and

a decision is made to relocate that instrument, the log travels with that device. The log can be reviewed by staff for possible clues to the reasons behind the inst rument malfunction. In addition, if the instrument is shipped to the manufacturer for repairs, it is recommended that a copy of the log be sent with the instrument. This helps non-agency repair personne l with troubleshooting instrument problems. Improper recording of instrument maintenance can complicate future repair and maintenance procedures. The instrument log should be detailed e nough to determine easily and definitively which instrument was at which sites over any given time period. If a problem is found with a specific instrument, the monitoring staff should be able to track the problem to the date it initially surfaced and invalidate data even if the instrument was used at multiple sites.

The site log is a chronology of the events that occur at the monitoring station. The log is an important part of station maintenance because it contains the narrative of past problems and solutions to those problems. Site log notes should be written in the form of a narrative, rather than shorthand notes or bulleted lists. Examples of items that should be recorded in the site log are:

• 

### the date, time, and initials of the pers on(s) who have arrived at the site;

• 

### brief description of the weather (e.g., clear, breezy, sunny, raining);

• 

### brief description of exterior of the site. Any chan ges that might affect the data should be recorded – for instance, if someone is parking a truck or tractor near the site, this may explain high NO

x 

### values;

• 

### any unusual noises, vibrations, or anything out of the ordinary;

• 

### records of any station maintenance or routine operations performed;

• 

### description of the work accomplished at the site (e .g., calibrated instruments, repaired analyzer);

and

• 

### detailed information about the instruments that may be needed for repairs or troubleshooting.

It is not required that the instrument and site logs be completely independent of each other. However, there is an advantage to having separate instrument logs. If instruments go in for repair, they may eventually be sent to another site. Having a separate instrument log allows the log to “travel” with the instrument. Keeping electronic instrument and station maintenance logs at stations and at centralized facilities (see LIMS discussion Section 8) also has record keeping advantages, but there needs to be a way

that these records can be considered official and not be tampered with or falsified. Newer electronic signature technologies are helping ensure that electro nic records can be considered official. It is important, however, that all of the required informa tion for each instrument and site be properly recorded using a method that is comprehensive and easily understood. Many monitoring organizations have developed standard station maintenance forms that c ontain all the items to be checked and the frequency of those checks. It then becomes a very simple proc edure to use this form to check off and initial the activities that were performed.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 11



# 12.0 Calibrations

Calibration is defined as:

the comparison of a measurement standard, instrume nt, or item with a standard or instrument of higher accuracy to detect and quantify ina ccuracies and to report or eliminate those inaccuracies by adjustment 1



### .

Prior to the implementation of any ambient air mon itoring activities, the sampling and analysis equipment

must be checked to assure it is within calibration to lerances, and if it fails these tolerances, must be appropriately calibrated. This f unction is most routinely carried out at the field monitoring location.

1 American National Standard Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs ANSI /ASQ E4 http://www.asq.org/ 

### Calibration of an analyzer or instrument establish es the quantitative relationship between an actual value of a standard, be it a pollutant concentration, a temperature, or a mass value (in ppm, o 

### C or F g, etc.) and the analyzer's response (chart recorder reading, outpu t volts, digital output, etc.). This relationship is used to convert subsequent analyzer response values to corresponding concentrations. Once an instrument’s calibration relationship is established it is checked/verified at reasonable frequencies to verify that it remains in calibration.

Verification Versus Calibration

Since the term calibration is associat ed with an adjustment in either the instrument or software, these adjustments should be minimized as much as possible. Sometimes performing frequent adjustments to provide the “most accurate data possible” can be self-defeating and be the cause of additional measurement uncertainty. Therefor e, quality control procedures that include verification checks and multi-point calibration verifications are considered “c hecks without correction” and are used to ensure

the instruments are within the ca libration tolerances. Usually these to lerances have been developed so that as long as the instrument is within these toleranc es, adjustments do not need to be made. However, verifications should be implemente d at reasonable frequencies to a void invalidating significant amounts

of data.

NOTE: When the term “calibration” is used in the remainder of this section, it is assumed that multi-point verification is initially perfo rmed and the operator has concluded that calibration (adjustment) is necessary.

NOTE: EPA does not recommend post-processing of data to “correct” for data failing one point or multi-point verifications.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 11



### Each analyzer should be calibrated as directed by th e analyzer's operation or instruction manual and in accordance with the general guidance provide d here. For reference methods for CO, NO 2 

### , SO 2 

### and O 3 

### , detailed calibration procedures may also be found in the appropriate reference method Appendix in 40

CFR Part 50 2 

### and the method guidance and technical assistan ce documents listed in the fact sheets in Appendix A.

Calibrations should be carried out at the field monito ring site by allowing the analyzer to sample test atmospheres containing known polluta nt concentrations. The analyzer to be calibrated should be in operation for at least several hours (preferably overni ght) prior to the calibration so that it is fully warmed up and its operation has stabilized. During the calibration, the analyzer should be operating in its normal sampling mode, and it should sample th e test atmosphere through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other components used during normal ambient sampling and through as much of the ambient air inlet system as is practicable. All operational adjustments to the analyzer should be completed prior to the calibration (see section 12.7). Some analyzers can be operated on more than one range. For sites requiring the use of FRM or FEMs ( NAAQS sites), the appropriate ranges are identified

in the Designated Reference and Equivalent Method List found on AMTIC 3 

### . Analyzers that will be used on more than one range or that have auto-rangi ng capability should be calibrated separately on each applicable range.

2 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ cfr/cfr-table-search.html

3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html 

### Calibration documentation should be maintained with each analyzer and also in a central backup file. Documentation should be readily available for re view and should include ca libration data, calibration equation(s) (and curve, if prepared), analyzer id entification, calibration date, analyzer location, calibration standards used and their traceability, iden tification of calibration equipment used, and the person conducting the calibration.



## 12.1 Calibration Standards and Reagents

Calibration standards are:

• 

### Reagents of high grade

• 

### Gaseous standards of known concentrations that are certified as EPA protocol gasses

• 

### Instruments and or standards of high sensitivity and repeatability.



### 12.1.1 Reagents

In some cases, reagents are pr epared prior to sampling. Some of th ese reagents will be used to calibrate the equipment, while others will become an integral pa rt of the sample itself. In any case, their integrity must be carefully maintained from preparation throu gh analysis. If there are any doubts about the method by which the reagents for a particular test were prepared or about the competence of the laboratory technician preparing them, the credibility of the ambient air samples and the test results will be

diminished. It is essential that a careful record be kept listing the dates the reagents were prepared, by whom, and their locations at all times from preparation until actual use. Prior to the test, one individual should be given the responsibility of monitoring the ha ndling and the use of the reagents. Each use of the reagents should be recorded in a field or lab notebook.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 11



### Chemical reagents, solvents, and gases are available in various grades. Reagents can be categorized into the following six grades 4 

### :

1. Primary standard - Each lot is analyzed, and the percentage of purity is certified.

2. Analyzed reagents - Can fall into 2 classes: (a) each lot is analyzed and the percentages of impurities are reported; and (b) conformity with sp ecified tolerances is claimed, or the maximum percentages of impurities are listed.

3. USP and NF Grade - These are chemical reference standards where identity and strength analysis are ensured.

4. “ Pure,” “c.p.,” “chemically pure,” “highest purity” - These are qualitative statements for chemicals without numerical meaning.

5. “Pure,” “purified,” “practical grades” - These are usually intended as starting substances for laboratory syntheses.

6. Technical or commercial grades - These are chemicals of widely varying purity.

The reference and equivalent met hods define the grades and purities n eeded for the reagents and gases required in the Ambient Air Qu ality Monitoring Program.

All reagent containers should be pr operly labeled either with the original label or, at a minimum, the reagent, date prepared, expiration date, strength, prep arer, and storage conditions. Leftover reagents used during preparation or analysis should never be returned to bottles.



### 12.1.2 Gaseous Standards

In general, ambient monitoring instruments should be calibrated by allowing the instrument to sample and analyze test atmospheres of known concentrations of th e appropriate pollutant in air. The following is an excerpt from 50 CFR Part 58, Appendix A Section 2.6.1:

“Gaseous pollutant concentration standards (p ermeation devices or cylinders of compressed gas) used to obtain test concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) must be traceable to either a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Traceable Re ference Material (NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas Manufacturer’s Internal Standard (GMIS), certified in accordance with one of the procedures given in reference 4 of this appendi x. Vendors advertising certification with the procedures provided in reference 4 of this appendix and distributing gasses as ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ must participate in the EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or not use ‘‘EPA’’ in any form of advertising.”

"Traceable" is defined in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 as mean ing that a local standard has been compared and certified, either directly or via not more than one in termediate standard, to a primary standard such as a

National Institute of Standards and Technology Standard Referen ce Material (NIST SRM) or a USEPA/NIST-approved Certified Refe rence Material (CRM)”. Norma lly, the working standard should be certified directly to the SRM or CRM, with an inte rmediate standard used only when necessary. Direct use of a CRM as a working standard is acceptable, bu t direct use of an NIST SRM as a working standard is discouraged because of the limited supply and expe nse of SRM's. At a minimum, the certification

4 Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories , 3rd Edition. By Frederick M. Garfield, Eugene Klesta, and Jerry Hirsch. AOAC International (2000). http://www.aoac.org/QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 11



### procedure for a working standard should:

• 

### establish the concentration of the working st andard relative to the primary standard;

• 

### certify that the primary standard (and hence the wo rking standard) is traceable to a NIST primary standard;

• 

### include a test of the stability of the working standard over several days; and

• 

### specify a recertification interval for the working standard.

Table 12-1 suggests the requirements for the certificati on period for verification and calibration standards used in the ambient air program.

Certification of the working standard may be established by either the supplier or the user of the standard. As describe in CFR, gas supplier advertising “EPA Pr otocol Gas” will be required to participate in the EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program. Inform ation on this program, including the gas supplier participating in the program, can be found on AMTIC 5 

### . EPA has developed procedures for the establishment of protocol gasses in the document: EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards 6



### .

Test concentrations of ozone must be traceable to a primary standard (see discussion of primary standards below) UV photometer as described in 40 CFR Pa rt 50, Appendix D and the guidance document: Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring Analyzers for Ozone 7

.



### Test concentrations at zero concentration are consid ered valid standards. Although zero standards are not required to be traceable to a primary standard, care shoul d be exercised to ensure that zero standards are adequately free of all substances likely to cause a detectable response from the analyzer and at a minimum, below the lower detectable limit of th e criteria pollutants being measured. Periodically, several different and independent sources of zero standa rds should be compared. The one that yields the lowest response can usually (but not always) be assu med to be the “best zero standard.” If several independent zero standards produce exactly the same response, it is likely that all the standards are adequate.

Table 12-1 Certification Periods for Compressed Gas Calibration Standa rds in Aluminum Cylinders That Are Certified Under the EPA Protocol Gas Program

Certified components Balance gas Applicable
concentration range Certification period
(months)

Ambient nonmethane organics (15 components) N itrogen 5 ppb 24

Ambient toxic organics (19 components) N itrogen 5 ppb 24

Aromatic organic gases N itrogen >0.25 ppm 36

Carbon dioxide N itrogen or ai r a >300 ppm 36

Carbon monoxide N itrogen or ai r >8 ppm 36

Hydrogen sulfide N itrogen >4 ppm 12

5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/news.html

7 EPA-600/4-79-056. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. September 1979. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-79-056.pdfQA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 11

Certified components Balance gas Applicable concentration range Certification period
(months)

Methane N itrogen or ai r >1 ppm 36

N itric oxide Oxygen-free nitrogen b >4 ppm 24

N itrous oxide Air >300 ppb 36 Oxides of nitrogen (i.e., sum of nitrogen dioxide and nitric acid) Air >80 ppm 24

Oxygen N itrogen >0.8% 36

Propane N itrogen or ai r >1 ppm 36

Sulfur dioxide N itrogen or ai r 40 to 499 ppm 24

Sulfur dioxide N itrogen or ai r >500 ppm 36

Multicomponent mixtures —

— See text c

Mixtures with lower concentrations —

— See text

a When used as a balance gas, "air" is defined as a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen where the minimum concentration of oxygen is 10 percent and the concentration of nit rogen is greater than 60 percent.

b Oxygen-free nitrogen contains >0.5 ppm of oxygen.

c Text refers to Section 2 of EPA Protocol Gas Guidance Document



### Certification periods decrease for concentrations belo w the applicable concentration ranges provide in Table 12-1. For example the certification period for SO 2 

### standards between 13-40 ppm is 6 months. Also, tank size may affect stability in low level sta ndards. Some gas manufacturers claim that standards supplied in smaller tanks are stable for longer periods of time then the same concentration in larger tanks. Although this claim has not been verified if true it may be helpful in making purchasing decisions.



### Primary Reference Standards

A primary reference standard can be defined as a hom ogenous material with specific properties, such as identity, unity, and potency that has been me asured and certified by a qualified and recognized organization 8 

### , such as the NIST SRMs. NIST also describes a Primary Reference Standard as a standard that is designated or widely acknowledged as havi ng the highest metrological qualities and whose value is accepted without reference to other standards of the same quantity. For example, the NIST-F1 Atomic

Clock 9 

### , is recognized as a primary standard for time and frequency. A true primary standard like NIST-F1 establishes maximum levels for the frequency shifts caused by environmental factors. By summing or combining the effects of these frequency shifts, it is possible to estimate the uncertainty of a primary standard without comparing it to other standards. NIST maintains a catalog of SRMs that can be accessed through the Internet 10 

### . Primary reference standards are usually quite expensive and are often used to calibrate, develop, or assay working or secondary stan dards. In order to establish and maintain NIST traceability the policies posted at the NIST Website 11 

### should be observed.

8 Garfield, Frederick M. , “Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories” Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington VA, 1984

9 http://tf.nist.gov/timefre q/cesium/fountain.htm

10 http://www.nist.gov

11 

### http://ts.nist.gov/traceability/QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 11



### It is important that primary reference standards ar e maintained, stored, and handled in a manner that maintains their integrity. These samples should be kept under secure conditions and records should be maintained that document chain of custody information.



### 12.1.3 Instruments

The accuracy of various measurement devices in sampli ng and continuous instrumen ts is very important to data quality. For example, in order to produ ce the correct flow rate to establish an accurate PM 2.5 

### cut point, the temperature and barometric pressure sensors, as well as the flow rate device, must be producing accurate measurements. Table 12-2 provides some of th e more prevalent instruments that need to be calibrated at a minimum annually or when shown th rough various verification checks to be out of acceptable tolerances. In addition, the audit standa rds used to implement the checks and calibrations should be certified annually in order to establish their accuracy and traceability to higher standards (NIST).

Table 12-2 Instruments and Devices Requi ring Calibration and Certifications.

Criteria Acceptable Range 40 CFR

Reference

Verification/Calibration of devices in sampler/analyzer/laboratory ag ainst an authoritative standard

Barometric Pressure " 10 mm Hg Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3

Temperature " 2 E C of standard Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3

Flow Rate " 2% of transfer standard Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2

Design Flow Rate Adjustment " 2% of design flow rate Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6

Clock/timer Verification 1 min/ mo Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4

Mirobalance Calibration Readability 1 F g
Repeatability 1 F g Part 50, App.L, Sec 8.1

Verification/Calibration of devi ces in shelter or lab agai nst an authoritative standard

Lab Temperature " 2 E C not described

Lab Humidity " 2% not described

Mirobalance Calibration Readability 1 F g
Repeatability 1 F g Part 50, App.L, Sec 8.1

Verification/calibration standards requiring certification annually

Standard Reference Photometer (SRP) " 4% or " 4 ppb (whichever greater)

RSD of six slopes # 3.7% not described

SRP recertification to local primary standard Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5
New slope = + 0.05% of previous not described

Flow rate " 2% of NIST –Traceable Standard Part 50, App L Sec 9.2

Pressure " 1 mm Hg resolution, " 1 mm Hg

accuracy not described

Temperature " 0.1 E C of standard resolution, " 0.5 E C 1 mm Hg accuracy not described

Gravimetric Standards 0.025 mg not describedQA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 11



## 12.2 Multi-point Verifications/Calibrations

Multi-point calibrations consist of a zero and 4 upscale points, the highest being a concentration between 80 percent and 90 percent of the full scale range of the analyzer under ca libration. Multi-point calibrations are used to establish or verify the linear ity of analyzers upon initial installation, after major repairs and at specified frequencies. Most modern an alyzers have a linear or very nearly linear response with concentration. If a non-linear analyzer is be ing calibrated, additional ca libration points should be included to adequately define the calibration relationship, which shoul d be a smooth curve. Calibration points should be plotted or evaluated statistically as they are obtained so that any deviant points can be investigated or repeated immediately.

Most analyzers have zero and span adjustment contro ls, which should be adjusted based on the zero and highest test concentrations, respectively, to prov ide the desired scale range within the analyzer's specifications (see section 12.5). For analyzers in ro utine operation, unadjusted (''as is") analyzer zero and span response readings should be obtained pr ior to making any zero or span adjustments.

NO/NO 2 

### /NO

x 

### analyzers may not have individual zero and sp an controls for each channel; the analyzer's operation/instruction manual should be consulted for the proper zero and span adjustment procedure. Zero and span controls often interact with each other, so the adjustments may have to be repeated several times to obtain the desired final adjustments.

After the zero and span adjustments have been comple ted and the analyzer has been allowed to stabilize on the new zero and span settings, all calibration test concentrations should be introduced into the analyzer for the final calibration. The final, post-ad justed analyzer response readings should be obtained from the same device (chart recorder, data acquisition system, etc.) that will be used for subsequent ambient measurements. The analyzer readings are plot ted against the respective test concentrations, and the best linear (or nonlinear if appr opriate) curve to fit the points is determined. Ideally, least squares regression analysis (with an appropriate transformatio n of the data for non-linear analyzers) should be used to determine the slope and inte rcept for the best fit calibration line of the form, y = mx + a, where y represents the analyzer response, x represents the pollu tant concentration, m is the slope, and a is the xaxis intercept of the best fit calibration line. When this calibration relationship is subsequently used to compute concentration measurements (x) from analyzer response readings (y), the formula is transposed to the form, x = (y - a)/m.

For the gaseous pollutants, the verification/calibration is considered acceptable if all calibration points fall within 2% of the full scale, best fit straight line. For manual samplers, devices (flow rate, temperature, pressure) are checked at different settings. Accep tance criteria for these devices can be found in the MQO Tables in Appendix D.

As a quality control check on calibrations, the standard error or correlation coefficient can be calculated along with the regression calculations. A control char t of the standard error or correlation coefficient could then be maintained to monitor the degree of scatter in the calibration points and, if desired, limits of acceptability can be established.QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 11



## 12.3 Frequency of Calibration and Analyzer Adjustment

An analyzer should be calibrated (or recalibrated):

• 

### upon initial installation,

• 

### following physical relocation,

• 

### after any repairs or service that might affect its calibration,

• 

### following an interruption in operation of more than a few days,

• 

### upon any indication of analyzer malfunction or change in calibration, and

• 

### at some routine interval (see below).

When calibration relationships are applied to analyzer responses to determine actual concentrations, it is suggested that the analyzer be recalibrated periodically to maintain close agreement. The frequency of this routine periodic recalibration is a matter of judgment and is a tradeoff among several considerations, including: the inherent stability of the analyzer under the prevailing conditions of temperature, pressure, line voltage, etc., at the monitoring site; the cost and inconvenience of carrying out the calibrations; the quality of the ambient measurements needed; the number of ambient measurements lost during the calibrations; and the risk of collecting invalid data because of a malfunction or response problem with the analyzer that wouldn't be discovered until a

calibration is carried out.

When a new monitoring instrument is first installed, zero/span and one point QC checks should be very frequent, perhaps daily or 3 times per week,

because little or no information is available on the drift performance of the analyzer. With the advancement in data acqui sition system technology, many monitoring organizations are running these QC checks daily. However, the QC checks are required to be implemented every two weeks.

Information on another unit of the same model analyzer may be useful; however, individual units of the same model may perform quite differently. After enough information on the drift performance of th e analyzer has been accumulated, the calibration frequency can be adjusted to provide a suitable co mpromise among the various considerations mentioned

above.

To facilitate the process of determining calibration frequency, it is strongly recommended that control charts be used to monitor the zero/span and one-poi nt QC drift performance of each analyzer. Control charts can be constructed in different ways, but the important points are to visually represent and statistically monitor drift, and to be alerted if the drift becomes excessive so that corrective action can be Invalidate data, adjust
and recalibrate analyzer Zero

Drift Span

Drift

+15% + 10 to 15 ppb
(1 to 1.5 ppm CO)

Adjust and recalibrate analyzer

+3 std dev

+1 std dev

0

-1 std dev

-3 std dev

Invalidate data, adjust
and recalibrate analyzer Adjustment
optional Analyzer adjustment

not recommended Adjustment
optional

-10 to -15 ppb
(-1 to -1.5 ppm CO) -15% adjust and recalibrate analyzer Normal analyzer

range

Figure 12.1 Suggested zero/span drift limitsQA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 9 of 11



### taken. Such control charts make important use of the unadjusted zero and span response readings.

NOTE: Many newer technology analyzers have an “auto-zeroing” function incorporated in the instrument that can be implemented at user defined frequencies. Use of internal auto-zero functions typically does not need any post-processing of the data. EPA finds auto or manual zero adjustment acceptable, but does not recommend making automatic or manual ad justments (corrections) to the span until drift is unacceptable and warrants a calibration.

In continuous monitoring, the total cumulative drift, average of the absolute values of the individual drifts, and the standard deviation of the individual drifts should be calculated on a running basis over the last 100 or so days. Figure 12.1 summarizes some of th e ranges and control chart limits that can be used

to decide when calibration is warranted.



## 12.4 Adjustments to Analyzers

Ideally, all ambient measurements obtained from an analyzer should be calculated on the basis of the most current multipoint calibration or on the basis of both the previous and subsequent calibrations (see Section 12.5). Some acceptable leve l of drift (i.e., deviation from an original or nominal response curve) can be allowed before physical adjustments (a ca libration) must be made because the calibration curve used to calculate the ambient measurements is kept in close agreement with the actual analyzer response. The chief limitations are the amount of change in the effective scale range of the analyzer that can be tolerated and possible loss of linearity in the anal yzer's response due to excessive deviation from the design range. Cumulative drifts of up to 15 percent of full scale from the original or nominal zero and span values may not be unreasonable, subj ect to the limitations mentioned above.

Due to the advancement in monitoring technologies, ambient air monitors are much more stable and adjustments not as necessary. Earlier versions of this Handbook included sections for zero/span calibrations as well as physical zero/span adjustments. Precise adjustment of the zero and span controls may not be possible because of: (1) limited resolution of the controls, (2) interaction between the zero and span controls, and (3) possible delayed reaction to adjustment or a substantial stabilization period after adjustments are made. Precise adjustments may not be necessary because calibration of the analyzer following zero and span adjustments will define the precise response characteristic (calibration curve). EPA feels that frequent adjustments of instruments s hould not be necessary and may in fact lead to more data quality uncertainty

. EPA does not recommend span adjustments be made between multi-point calibrations but zero adjustments are appropriate.

EPA is no longer including guidance suggesting th at the calibration equation be updated after each zero/span check and suggests the ambient readings be calculated from the most recent multipoint

calibration curve or from a fixed nominal or "universal " calibration curve (Section 12.5). In this case, the zero and span checks serve only to measure or monito r the deviation (drift error) between the actual analyzer response curve and the calibration curve used to calculate the ambient measurements.



### Automatic Self-Adjusting Analyzers

Some air monitoring analyzers are capable of pe riodically carrying out automatic zero and span calibrations and making their own zero and span self ad justments to predetermined readings. Automatic zero adjustments are considered reasonable, but EPA discourages the use of au tomatic span adjustments.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 10 of 11



### If the automatic zero standards pass through the sample inlet and sample conditioning system and both the adjusted and unadjusted zero response readings can be obtained from the data recording device, then the zero adjustment can be implemented.



## 12.5 Data Reduction Using Calibration Information

As noted previously, an analyzer's response calibra tion curve relates the analyzer response to actual concentration units of measure, and the response of most analyzers tends to change (drift) unpredictably with passing time. These two conditions must be addressed in the mechanism that is used to process the raw analyzer readings into final con centration measurements. Three practical methods are described below. They are listed in order of preference,

1) "Universal" Calibration --A fixed, "universal" calibration is est ablished for the analyzer and used to calculate all ambient readings. All verifications a nd checks are used to measure the deviation of the current analyzer response from the universal calibratio n. Whenever this deviation exceeds the established zero and span adjustment limits, th e analyzer is recalibrated.

2) Major Calibration Update --In this method, the calibration slope and intercept used to calculate ambient measurements are updated only for "major " calibration (i.e., semi-annual or annual multi-point verification/calibrations). All ambient measuremen ts are calculated from the most recent major calibration. Between major calibrations, periodic zer o and span calibrations are used to measure the difference between the most recent major calibration a nd the current instrument response. Physical or automated adjustments of the zero may be appropria te however span adjust ment to restore a match between the current analyzer response and the most recent major calibration is not suggested. Whenever this deviation exceeds the established zero and span adjustment limits, the analyzer is recalibrated.

3) Step-Change Update -- the adjusted slope and intercept of the most recent calibration are used to calculate all subsequent ambient readings until update d by another calibration (i.e ., no interpolation). No unadjusted zero or span readings are used, and ambi ent measurements can be calculated in real time if

desired.

A significant problem with this method is acquiring th e requisite calibration data and making sure they are merged correctly with the ambient data to facilita te the required calculations. Some automated data acquisition systems support this application by maki ng special provisions to acquire and process periodic zero and span data. One way to ensure that the zer o/span data are correctly merged with the ambient readings is to code the zero and span values directly into the data set at the location corresponding to the time of calibration, replacing the normal hourly reading that is lost anyway beca use of the calibration. These data can be marked (such as with a negative sign) to differentiate them fro m ambient data and later deleted from the final report printout. When zero a nd span data are acquired automatically by a data acquisition system for direct computer processing, th e system must be sufficiently sophisticated to:

• 

### ensure that zero or span data is never inadvertently reported as ambient measurements

• 

### ignore transient data during the stabilization period before the analyzer has reached a stable zero or span response (this period may vary cons iderably from one analyzer to another)QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 11 of 11

• 

### average the stable zero and span readings over so me appropriate time period so that the zero or span reading obtained accurately represents th e analyzers true zero or span response

• 

### ignore ambient readings for an appropriate period of time immediately following a zero or span reading until the analyzer response has restab ilized to the ambient-level concentration



## 12.6 Validation of Ambient Data Based on Calibration Information

When zero or span drift validation limits (see Figur e 12.1) are exceeded, ambient measurements should be invalidated back to the most recent accepta ble zero/span/one-point QC check where such measurements are known to be valid. Also, data following an analyzer malfunction or period of nonoperation should be regarded as invalid until the ne xt subsequent calibration unless unadjusted zero and span readings at that calibration can support its validity.

Documentation

All data and calculations involved in these calibrati on activities should be recorded in the instrument log

book described in Section 11.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 4



# 13.0 Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables

Both field operations and laboratory operations need s upplies and consumables. The focus of this section is the management of laboratory and field sampling supplies and consumables. For information on the actual field/lab supplies and consumables needed fo r any specific method, see the reference method in 40

CFR Part 50 1 

### , the general guidance methods and technical assistance documents on AMTIC 2 

### and the manufacturer’s operations manuals. From this information, monitoring organizations, as part of the QAPP requirements, will develop specific SOPs for its monitoring and analytical methods. One section of the SOPs requires a listing of the acceptable supplies and consumables for the method.

Pollutant parameters are measured using electronic (e .g., continuous emission monitors, FTIRs, etc...), wet chemical techniques, or physical methods. Chemi cal analysis always involves the use of consumable supplies that must be replaced on a schedule consiste nt with their stability and with the rate at which samples are taken. Currently used physical methods require adequate supplies of chemicals for operation for three months so that the supplier can comply w ith the delivery schedules. In some cases, analytical reagents for specific air contaminants deteriorate ra pidly and need protective storage. The following information may be helpful when considering th e use of these consumable items. Much of the information presented below is derived from the document Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical

Laboratories 3



### .



## 13.1 Supplies Management

Control of supplies and consumables is important to the success of the quality assurance program. It is important that specifications for each item are prepared and adhered to during the procurement process. When specifications are prepared, the following points should be considered: identity, purity, potency, source, tests to be conducted for quality and purity, need for further purification, storage and handling procedures, and replacement dates. As part of supplies management, the following actions are

recommended:

• 

### establish criteria and specifications for th e important supplies and consumables.

• 

### check and test the supplies and consumables agai nst specifications, before placing them in use.

• 

### design and maintain a supplies management program to ensure the quality of reagents used in day-to-day operations, paying particular atten tion to primary reference standards, working standards, and standard solutions.

• 

### decide on the kinds of purified water that are necessary, and develop suitable tests and testing intervals to ensure the quality of water used in analytical work and for cleaning glassware.

• 

### purchase only Class A volumetric glassware and perfo rm calibrations and recalibrations that are necessary to achieve reliable results.

• 

### establish procedures for cleaning and storing glasswar e/sample containers with due consideration for the need for special treatment of glasswar e/sample containers used in trace analysis.

• 

### establish a useful life for glassware/sample containers and track this.

• 

### discard chipped and etched glassware or damaged containers.

1 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ cfr/cfr-table-search.html

2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

3 Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories , 3rd Edition. By Frederick M. Garfield, Eugene Klesta, and Jerry Hirsch. AOAC International (2000). http://www.aoac.org/QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 4



## 13.2 Standards and Reagents

Discussions on gaseous standards and reagents are discu ssed in Section 12. What is most important is that the standards and reagents used are of appropr iate purity and certified within the acceptable limits of the program for which they are used. Table 12-1 pr ovides certification frequenci es for gaseous standards, but within these timeframes, and as new cylinders are purchased, monitoring organizations need to develop a standard checking scheme to establish ongoi ng acceptance of standards. For example a new SRM should be purchased months prior to the expiration (or need for recertification) or complete use of

an older standard in order to develop a overlapping cylinder acceptance process so there is some establishment of traceability and consistency in monitoring. For example, if a new SRM is put into use in a monitoring organization and all monitoring instruments traced to the cylinder start failing calibration, it may mean that either the new or older cylinder was not properly certified or has integrity problems. By checking both cylinders prior to new cylinder use, this issue can be avoided.



### 13.2.1 Standard Solutions

Most laboratories maintain a stock of standard solu tions. The following information on these solutions should be kept in a log book:

 identity of solution

 strength

 method of preparation (reference to SOP)

 standardization calculations

 recheck of solution for initial strength

 date made/expiration date

 initials of the analyst

 storage

As mentioned above, all standard solutions should contain appropriate labeling as to contents and expiration dates.



### 13.2.2 Purified Water

Water is one of the most critical but most often fo rgotten reagent. The water purification process should be documented from the quality of the starting raw wa ter to the systems used to purify the water, including how the water is delivered, the containers in which it is stored, and the tests and the frequency used to ensure the quality of the water.



## 13.3 Volumetric Glassware

Use of the appropriate glassware is important si nce many preparations and analyses require the development of reagents, standards, dilutions, and co ntrolled delivery systems. It is suggested that

“Class A” glassware be used in all operations requiring precise volumes. SOPs requiring volumetric glassware should specify the size/type required for each specific operation.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 4



## 13.4 Sample Containers

Samples may be contaminated by using containers th at have not be properly cleaned and prepared (e.g., VOC canisters, particulate filter cassettes/cont ainers) or purchased from vendors without proper inspection prior to use. In addition, all sample contai ners have a “useful” life. Some containers, such as the low volume PM sample filter cassettes can be damaged over time and cause leaks in the sampling system. It is important to track the inventory of sampling containers from:

• 

### date of purchase;

• 

### first use;

• 

### frequency of use (estimate);

• 

### time of retirement.

An inventory of this type can help ensure new cont ainers are purchased prior to old ones expiring and/or causing sample integrity problems. Use of appropriate sa mple containers is important since the matter of the container could potentially affect the collected sa mple. Always refer to the specific method to see if a particular type of container (e.g ., high density polyethylen e [HDPE] bottles, amber glass) is required for the storage of the sample.



## 13.5 Particulate Sampling Filters

Filters are used for the manual met hods for criteria pollutants (e.g., PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , PM 10-2.5 

### , total PM, Pb, etc...). No commercially available filter is ideal in all respects. The sampling program should determine the relative importance of certain filter evaluation cr iteria (e.g., physical and chemical characteristics, ease of handling, cost). The reference methods provi de detailed acceptance criteria for filters. Some of the basic criteria that must be met regardless of the filter type follows:

• 

### Visual inspection - for pinholes, tears, creases, or other flaws that may affect the collection efficiency of the filter, which may be consistent through a batch. This visual inspection would also be made prior to filter installation and du ring laboratory pre- and post-weighings to assure the integrity of the filter is maintained and, ther efore, the ambient air sample obtained with each filter adequately represents the sampled pollutant conditions.

• 

### Collection efficiency - greater than 99% as measured by DOP test (ASTM 2988) with 0.3 micrometer particles at the sampler’s operating face velocity.

• 

### Integrity - (pollutant specific) measured as the concentration equivalent corresponding to the difference between the initial and final weights of the filter when weighed and handled under simulated sampling conditions (equilibration, initia l weighing, placement on inoperative sampler, removal from a sampler, re-equilibration, and final weighing).

• 

### Alkalinity - less than 0.005 milliequivalent/gram of filter following at least two months of storage at ambient temperature and relative humidity.

Note : Some filters may not be suitable for use with all samplers. Due to filter handling characteristics or rapid increases in flow resistance due to episodic lo ading, some filters, although they meet the above criteria, may not be compatible with the model of samp ler chosen. It would be prudent to evaluate more than one filter type before purchasing large quantities for network use. In some cases, EPA Headquarters may have national contracts for acceptable filters th at will be supplied to monitoring organizations.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 4



## 13.6 Field Supplies

Field instrumentation, which includes samplers and an alyzers, require supplies for the actual collection process as well as quality control activities and cruc ial operational maintenance. These supplies can include, but are not limited to:

 Gas standards/Permeation standards

 HVAC units

 Maintenance equipment (tools, ladders)

 Safety supplies (first aid kit)

 Information technology supplies (PC, printers, paper, ink, diskettes)

 Sample line filters

 Charcoal

 Desiccant

 Gaskets and O-rings

 Sample lines and manifolds

 Disposable gloves

 Water/distilled water

 Pumps and motors

 Chart paper and ink

 Impaction oil

 TEOM FDMS filter

The site logbook discussed in Section 11 should in clude a list and inventory of these critical field supplies. As part of routine maintenance activates, this inventory can be reviewed to determine if any supplies are in need of restocking.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14

Revision: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 14



# 14.0 Data Acquisition and Information Management

Success of the Ambient Air Quality Program objectives relies on data and its correct interpretation. It is critical that data be available to

users and that these data are:

• 

### reliable;

• 

### of known quality;

• 

### easily accessible to a variety of users; and

• 

### aggregated in a manner consistent with its prime use

In order to accomplish this activity, information must be collected and managed in a manner that protects and ensures its integrity.

Most of the data collected from the Ambient Air Mon itoring Program will be collected through automated systems at various facilities. These systems must be e ffectively managed by using a set of guidelines and principles by which adherence will ensure data integrity. The EPA has a document entitled Good Automated Laboratory Practices (GALP) 1 

### . The GALP defines six data management principles:

1. DATA: The system must provide a method of assuring the integrity of all entered data. Communication, transfer, manipulation, and the storage/recall process all offer potential for data corruption. The demonstration of control necessitates the collection of evidence to prove that the system provides reasonable protection against data corruption.

2. FORMULAE: The formulas and decision algorithm s employed by the system must be accurate and appropriate. Users cannot assume that the test or de cision criteria are correct; those formulas must be inspected and verified.

3. AUDIT: An audit trail that tracks data entry and m odification to the responsible individual is a critical element in the control process. The trail generally u tilizes a password system or equivalent to identify the person or persons entering a data point, and gen erates a protected file logging all unusual events.

4. CHANGE: A consistent and appr opriate change control procedure capable of tracking the system operation and application software is a critical elem ent in the control process. All software changes should follow carefully planned procedures, includi ng a pre-install test protocol and appropriate documentation update.

5. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs): C ontrol of even the most carefully designed and implemented systems will be thwarted if appropriate pr ocedures are not followed. The principles implies the development of clear directions and Standard Operati ng Procedures (SOPs); the training of all users; and the availability of appropria te user support documentation.

6. DISASTER: Consistent control of a system requi res the development of alternative plans for system failure, disaster recovery, and unauthor ized access. The control principle must extend to planning for reasonable unusual events and system stresses.

1 http://www.epa.gov/irmpo li8/ciopolicy/2185.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 2 of 14



### The principles listed above apply to both the lo cal and central information management systems



### . The ambient pollutant data generated by gas analyzer s or manual samplers must be captured, organized, and verified in order to be useful. The process of capturing the data is known as data acquisition. The organization of the data is known as data managemen t. This section provides guidance in these areas, including identification of advanced equip ment and procedures that are recommended for implementation. The recommended procedures rely on digital communication by the data acquisition system to collect a wider variety of information from the analyzers, to control instrument calibrations, and to allow for more routine, automated, and thor ough data quality efforts. The section will discuss:

1. Data acquisition- collecting the raw data from the monitor/sampler, storing it for an appropriate interval, aggregating or reducing the data, and transf erring this data to final storage in a local data base (monitoring organizations database)

2. Data transfer - preparing and moving data to external data bases such as AIRNow or the Air Quality System (AQS).

3. Data management - ensuring the integrity of the data collection systems

In response to guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658), EPA developed the document titled Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Di sseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency 2



### . The Guideline contains EPA’s policy and procedural guidance for ensuring and maximizing the quality of

information it disseminates. The Guideline also incorporates the following performance goals:

• 

### Disseminated information should adhere to a basi c standard of quality, including objectivity, utility, and integrity.

• 

### The principles of information quality should be integrated into each step of EPA’s development of information, including creation, coll ection, maintenance, and dissemination.

• 

### Administrative mechanisms for correction should be flexible, appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the disseminated information, and incorporated into EPA’s information resources management and administrative practices.

EPA suggests monitoring organizations review this document since it is relevant to the ambient air information it generates and can help to ensure th at data can withstand challenges to its quality.



## 14.1 Data Acquisition

Data acquisition technology is adva ncing and ever changing. Computer systems are now available in most air quality instruments. This has changed data acquisition in a profound way; most data is available in an instantaneous digital format from the instrument . This can be a powerful tool to quickly recognize and mitigate data quality problems. These digital system s should increase data captu re and reporting. On the other hand, this increase in instantaneous data can be overwhelming if the m onitoring organization is not prepared. The timely reporting of high quality, highly time-resolved ambient monitoring data will require a coordinated effort to en sure data management systems are meeting desired performance needs. These data management systems will need to provide validated data, to th e extent possible, in near real time to multiple clients within minutes from the end of a sample period. Data management systems used

2 http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines /documents/EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 3 of 14



### in ambient air monitoring will need to provide effi cient processing and validatio n of data, and provide appropriate communication of that data in a format ap propriate and available for multiple users. As an example, improved data management systems from all NCore continuous monitors can provide near realtime, high quality, hourly data during episodes. Th is will allow technical and policy staff to better understand the exposure and inte ractions of air pollutants in the atmosphere of most interest. This section provides information on Data Acquisition Systems (DAS), a term used for systems that collect, store, summarize, report, print, calculate or transfer data. The transfer is usually from an analog or digital format to a digital medium. This section will also discuss limitations of data collected with DAS.



### 14.1.1 Automated Data Acquisition Requirements

DAS have been available to air quality professionals since the early 1980s. The first systems were single and multi-channel systems that collected data on magnetic media. This media was usually hand transferred to a central location or laboratory for dow nloading to a central computer. With the advent of digital data transfer from the stations to a central loca tion, the need to hand transfer data has diminished. However, errors in data reporting can occur with di gital data. For DAS, there are two sources of error between the instrument (sensor) and th e recording device: 1) the output signal from the sensor, and 2) the errors in recording by the data logger. For DAS that collect dig ital meta and reported data, these are not issues. Digital transfer of data does not suffer from the same problems as digital to analog transfer. When one digital device sends digital signals, the data is sent in data package streams that are coded then decoded at the receiving end. This digital tran sfer does not suffer from signal degradation. Most automated data acquisition systems support the acquisiti on of QC data like zero, one point QC and span data. One way to ensure that the QC data are correct ly merged with the ambient readings is to code the QC values directly into the data set at the locati on corresponding to the time of the checks, replacing the normal hourly reading that is lost anyway because of the check. These data can be marked or flagged to

differentiate it from ambient data a nd later deleted from the final routin e data report printout. When QC data is acquired automatically by a data acquisition system for direct computer processing, the system must be sufficiently sophisticated to:

• 

### ensure that the QC data is never ina dvertently reported as ambient measurements,

• 

### ignore transient data during the stabilization period before the analyzer h as reached a stable QC response (this period may vary considerably from one analyzer to another),

• 

### average the stable QC readings over some appropria te time period so that the readings obtained accurately represents the analyzer’s QC response,

• 

### ignore ambient readings for an appropriate peri od of time immediately following a QC reading until the analyzer response h as restabilized to the ambien t-level concentration.



### 14.1.2 Instrument to Data logger

Figure 14.1 shows the basic transfer of data from the instrument to the final product; a hard copy report, or data transfer to a central computer. Most continu ous monitors have the ability to output data in at least

two ways : analog output and an RS232 digital port. Some instrumentation may now be including USB, Ethernet and firewire capability. The instrument has a voltage potential that generally is a DC voltage. This voltage varies directly with the concentration coll ected. Most instruments’ output is a DC voltage in the 0-1 or 0-5 volts range. The following provide a brief summary of the analog (A) or digital (D) stepsQA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 4 of 14

• 

### (A) the voltage is measured by the multiplexer which allows voltages fro m many instruments to

be read at the same time

.

• 

### (A) the multiplexer sends a signal to the a/d converter which changes the analog voltage to a low amperage digital signal.

• 

### (A) the a/d converter send signals to the central processing unit (cpu) that directs the digital electronic signals to a display or to the random access memory (ram) which stores the short-term data until the end of a pre-defined time period.

• 

### (A/D) the cpu then shunts the data from the ram to the storage medium which can be magnetic tape, computer hard-drive or computer diskette.

• 

### (A/D) the computer storage medium can be accessed remotely or at the monitoring location

.

The data transfer may occur via modem to a central computer stor age area or printed out as hard copy. In some instances, the data may be transferred from one storage medium (i.e. hard drive to a diskette, tape, or CD) to another storage medium. The use of a da ta logging device to automate data handling from a continuous sensor is not a strict guarantee against r ecording errors. Internal validity checks are necessary to avoid serious data recording errors.

Analog Versus Digital DAS -

Most analyzers built within the last 15 years have the capability (RS232 ports) to transfer digital signals, yet many monitoring organizations currently perform data acquisition of automated monitors by recording an analog output from each gas analyzer using an electronic data logger. As explained above, the analog readings are

converted and stored in digital memory in the data logger for subsequent automatic retrieval by a remote data management system. This approach can reliably capture the monitoring data, but does not allow complete control of monitoring operations, and th e recorded analog signals are subject to noise that

limits the detection of low concentrations. Furtherm ore, with the analog data acquisition approach, the data review process is typically labor-intensive and not highly automated. For these reasons, EPA Station Desktop System CO

PM

(continuous or FRM) SO 2

NOy

Calibrator Zero Air SupplyRS-232 Multi-drop(within manufacturer)

METRS 232 connectionsDigital I/O Dial-up/DSL

Cable

Satellite Wireless

Status Relay control Measurements Diagnostics

Data pushed or pulled from multiple stations

Database

Server P u b l i c r

e p o r t i n g



### AQS S / L / T v

a l i d a t i o n (optional) Manifold/external valves

Figure 14.2 Flow of data from gas analyzers to final reporting

Ambient

Instrument

Storage

Medium RAM Memory CPU analog/digital

converter Multiplexer

On site printer Data logger Analog Signal

D i g i

t a l S i g n

a l

Modem Local

central computer

On-site computer Hard copy report Ambient

Instrument

Storage

Medium RAM Memory CPU analog/digital

converter Multiplexer

On site printer Data logger Analog Signal

D i g i

t a l S i g n

a l

Modem Local

central computer

On-site computer Hard copy report

Figure 14.1 DAS data flow Ambient

Instrument

Storage

Medium RAM Memory CPU analog/digital

converter Multiplexer

On site printer Data logger Analog Signal

D i g i

t a l S i g n

a l

Modem Local

central computer

On-site computer Hard copy report Ambient

Instrument

Storage

Medium RAM Memory CPU analog/digital

converter Multiplexer

On site printer Data logger Analog Signal

D i g i

t a l S i g n

a l

Modem Local

central computer

On-site computer Hard copy report

Figure 14.1 DAS data flowQA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 5 of 14



### encourages the adoption of digital data acquisition methods. In that regard, the common analog data acquisition approach often does not fully utilize the capab ilities of the electronic data logger. Many data loggers have the capability to acquire data in digital form and to control some aspects of calibrations and analyzer operation, but these capabilities are not utili zed in typical analog data acquisition approaches.

Digital data acquisition reduces noise in the reco rding of gas monitoring data, thereby improving sensitivity. It also records and controls the inst rument settings, internal diagnostics, and programmed activities of monitoring and calibration equipment. Su ch data acquisition systems also typically provide automated data quality assessment as part of the data acquisition process.

It may be cost-effective for monitoring organizations to adopt digital data acquisition and calibration control simply by more fully exploiting the capabiliti es of their existing electronic data loggers. For example, many gas analyzers are capable of being ca librated under remote control. The opportunity to reduce travel and personnel costs through automated calibrations is a strong motivator for monitoring organizations to make greater use of the capabiliti es of their existing data acquisition systems. The NCore multi-pollutant sites are taking advantage of the newer DAS technologies. Details of these systems can be found in the technical assistance document for this program 3



### .

Figure 14.2 illustrates the recommended digital data acquisition approach for the NCore sites. It presents the data flow from the gas monitors, through a local digital data acquisition syst em, to final reporting of the data in various public databases. This schematic shows several of the key capabilities of the recommended approach. A basic capability is the acqui sition of digital data from multiple analyzers and other devices, thereby reducing noise and minimizing th e effort needed in data processing. Another capability is two-way communication, so that the data acquisition system can interrogate and/or control the local analyzers, calibration systems, and even sa mple inlet systems, as well as receive data from the analyzers. Data transfer to a central location is also illustrated, with several possible means of that transfer shown. Monitoring organizations are urged to take advantage of the latest technology in this part of the data acquisition process, as even technologies such as satellite data communication are now well established, commercially available, and inexpens ive to implement for monitoring operations.

Depending on the monitoring objective, it may be im portant that data are reported in formats of immediate use in public data bases such as AQS 4 

### , and the multi-monitoring organization AIRNow 5 

### sites. An advantage of DAS software is the ability to facilitate the assembly, formatting and reporting of monitoring data to these databases.

Digital data acquisition systems such as those in Fi gure 14.2 offer a great advantage over analog systems in the tracking of calibration data, because of the ability to control and record the internal readings of gas analyzers and calibration systems. That is, a dig ital data acquisition system not only can record the analyzer’s output readings, but can schedule and di rect the performance of analyzer calibrations, and record calibrator settings and status. Thus, flagging of calibration data to distinguish them from ambient monitoring data is conducted automatically during da ta acquisition with no additional effort or postanalysis. These capabilities greatly reduce the time an d effort needed to organize and quantify calibration

results.

3 Version 4 of the Technical Assistance Document for Pr ecursor Gas Measurements in the NCore Multi-pollutant Monitoring Network. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html

4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/

5 http://airnow.gov/QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 6 of 14



### 14.1.3 DAS Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Quality assurance aspects of the DAS deal with whether the system is being operated within defined guidelines. Usually, this means that each value that is collected on the DAS is the same value that is generated from the analyzer and reported to the Air Quality System (AQS) data base. This usually is accomplished by calibrations, data tra il audits and performance audits.

Calibration- In the case where analog signals from monitoring equipment are record ed by the DAS, the

calibration of a DAS is similar to th e approach used for calibration of a strip chart recorder. To calibrate the DAS, known voltages are supplied to each of th e input channels and the corresponding measured response of the DAS is recorded. Specific calibra tion procedures in the DAS owner’s manual should be followed when performing such DAS calibrations. For DAS that receive digital data from the instruments, a full scale check (the instrument is in a mode and the output is at the full scale of the instrument) should be performed to see if the data re ceived digitally is the same as the display of the instrument. The DAS should be calibrated at least once per year. Appendix G provides a simple approach

for calibration of the DAS.

In addition, gas analyzers typically have an option to set output voltages to full scale or to ramp the analog output voltages supplied by the analyzer over the full output range. Such a function can be used to check the analog recordin g process from the analyzer through the DAS.

Data Trail Audit - The data trail audit consists of following a value or values collected by the DAS to the central data collection site and then eventually to AQS. A person other than the normal station operator should perform this duty. The following procedure should be followed:

• 

### A data point should be collected from the DAS (usu ally an hourly value or another aggregated value reported to AQS) and be checked on the DAS storage medium against th e hard copy report. Also if strip chart recorders are used, a random number of hourly values should be compared to the data collected by the DAS. This audit shoul d be completed on a regul ar defined frequency and for every pollutant reported.

• 

### From the central computer, the auditor checks to see if this hourly value is the same.

The above actions should be complete d well in advance of data submittal to AQS. If the data has been submitted to AQS, then the AQS data base should be checked and modified as necessary per the appropriate AQS procedures.

Whether a monitoring organization is transferring th e data from an instrument via an on-site DAS or transferring the data digitally, the data trail a udit should be performed on a routine basis.

Performance Audit - The performance audit consists of challe nging the instrument and DAS to a known audit source gas and observing the final response. The response should correspond to the value of the audit source gas. Section 15 discusses these performance audits.

Initialization Errors

All data acquisition systems must be initialized. The initialization consists of an operator “setting up” the parameters so that the voltages pr oduced by the instruments can be r ead, scaled correctly and reported in

the correct units. Errors in initializations can creat e problems when the data is collected and reported. Read the analyzer manufacturer’s lite rature before parameters are coll ected. If the manufacturer does notQA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 7 of 14



### state how these parameters are collect ed, request this information. The following should be performed when setting up the initializations:

• 

### Check the full scale outputs of each parameter.

• 

### Calibrations should be followed after each in itialization (each channel of a DAS should be calibrated independent ly). Appendix G provides an example of a DAS calibration technique.

• 

### Review the instantaneous data stream, if possibl e, to see if the DAS is collecting the data correctly.

• 

### Save the initializations to a storage medium; if the DAS does not have this capability, print out the initialization and store it at the central computer location and at the monitoring location.

• 

### Check to see if the flagging routines are perfor med correctly; data that are collected during

calibrations and down time s hould be flagged correctly.

• 

### Check the DAS for excessive noise (v ariability in signal). Noisy data that are outside of the normal background are a concern. Noisy data can be caused by improperly connected leads to the multiplexer, noisy AC power, or a bad multiple xer. Refer to the owner’s manual for help on noisy data.

• 

### Check to see that the average ti mes are correct. Some DAS consider 45 minutes to be a valid hour, while others consider 48 minutes. Agency guidelines should be referred to before setting up averaging times.



### 14.1.4 Data Logger to Database

Once data are on the data logger at the ambient air mon itoring station, they need to be sent to servers where they can be summarized and disseminated to data users. In most cases this will occur by using a server at the office of the monitoring organization. The conventional way to get data from the monitoring stations has been to poll each of the stations indi vidually. With more widespread availability of the internet, pushing data from monitoring sites on a regular basis will be especially effective in mapping and public reporting of data. Note, in some cases it is possi ble to report data directly from a monitor to a database without the use of a station data logger. This solution is acceptable so long as the monitor is capable of data storage for peri ods when telemetry is off-line.

Data transfer is usually accomplished in three ways: hard copy printout, downloading data from internal storage medium to external storage medi um, or digital transfer via the telephone lines, internet, satellite or

other advanced means of communication. Due to the d esire for real time data for the Air Quality Index (AQI) and other related needs, monitoring organizations should plan to upgrade to digital data acquisition and communication systems.

Hard copy report - Most DAS have the ability to create a hard copy report. Usually, this report is in tabular format showing 1 minute, 5 minute or hourly averages. Monitoring organization are encouraged to keep hard copy prin touts for several reasons :

• 

### they can be reviewed by the station operators prior to and/or during site visits to ascertain the quality of the data;

• 

### they can be compared against the historical data stored on the DAS at the site for validation;

• 

### notes can be made on the hard copy reports for later review by data review staff; and

• 

### they create a “back-up” to th e electronically based data.

NOTE : It is strongly recommended that monitoring organizations create an electronic back-up

of their data on a defined schedule. The fre quency of the back-ups and any other associatedQA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 8 of 14



### information should be reflected in their Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).

External Storage - This term refers to storing and transfe rring the data on diskettes or CD. Many new generation DAS are computer platforms. The newer generation computers generally have the ability to download data to CD or zip drive. If remote access vi a telephone is not an option, then data can be hand transferred to a central office for downloading and data review.

Digital Transfer - All new generation DAS allow access to the computer via the telephone and modem. These systems allow fast and effective ways to do wnload data to a central location. The EPA recommends using these systems for the following reasons:

• 

### in case of malfunction of an ambient instrument, th e appropriate staff at the central location can begin to diagnose problems and decide a course of action;

• 

### down loading the data allows the station operators , data processing team, and/or data validators to get a head start on reviewing the data; and

• 

### when pollution levels are high or forecasted to be high, digital transf er allows the pollution forecaster the ability to remotely check trends and ensure proper operation of instruments prior to and during an event.



### 14.1.5 DAS Data Review

The data review is an ongoing process that is perfo rmed by the station operators (SO) and the data processing team (DP). At a minimum a cursory review is performed daily, preferably in the morning to provide a status of the data and instrument perform ance at monitoring sites. Detailed analysis can be extremely difficult for the data processing team when reviewing the raw data without the notations, notes and calibration information that the station operator s provide for the group. The typical review process for the station operator and data reviewer(s) include:

• 

### (SO) Review of zero, span, one point QC verifi cation information, the hourly data, and any flags that could effect data and record any informa tion on the daily summaries that might be vital to proper review of the data.

• 

### (SO) Transfer strip charts both analog and di gital information, daily summaries, monthly maintenance sheets, graphic displays of meta data and site log notes to the central location for a secondary and more thorough review.

• 

### (SO) At the central location, review the data, ma rking any notations of i nvalidations and provide electronic strip charts, meta data charts, daily summaries, site notes, and monthly maintenance sheets for ready access by the data processing staff.

• 

### (DP) Review zero, span and one point QC veri fications, station notes, and monthly maintenance sheets for the month; check a percentage of all zero, span and one point verifications. Compare a defined number of hand reduced and/or strip chart readings to electronic data points generated by the DAS. If significant differences are observed, determine what corrective action steps are required.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 9 of 14



### Outliers

Outliers are “measurements th at are extremely large or small relative to the rest of the data and are suspected of misrepresenting the population from which they were collected” (EPAQA/G9R) 6 

### . When reviewing data, some potential outliers will be obvious such as, spikes in concentrations, data remaining the same for hours, or a sudden drop in concentrati on but still in the normal ra nge of observed data. Many of these outlier checks can be automated and provide efficient real-time checks of data. Outliers do not necessarily indicate the data is invalid; they serve to alert the station operator and/or data reviewers there may be a problem. In fact, the rule of thumb for outli ers should be that the data be considered valid until there is an explanation for why the data should be invalidated. At some point it may be necessary to exclude outliers from instantaneous reporting to th e AIRNow network and/or AQI reporting until further investigation has occurred. EPA Guidance Documents 7 

### Guidance on Environmental Data Verification

and Validation (EPA QA/G8) and Guidance for Data Quality A ssessment – a Reviewers Guide (EPA QA/G9R) provide insight on outlier and data reviews in general.

6 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf

7 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.html 

## 14.2 Data Transfer – Public Reporting

The area of public reporting for air monitoring data may pr ovide the largest number of users of data. This area has been growing rapidly in the last few years as a result of the increased availability of air quality reporting, especially for ozone and PM 2.5 

### . For public reporting of the AQI, the AIRNow web site will remain the EPA’s primary medium for distribution of air monitoring data. The additional continuous monitoring parameters collected from NCore will also be reported to AIRNow. These parameters are expected to be made publicly available for shari ng throughout technical user communities. However, they are not expected to be widely dist ributed through AIRNow as products for public consumption.

This section will discuss the transfer of data fro m the monitoring organization to two major data repositories: 1) AIRNow for near real-time reporti ng of monitoring data, and 2) AQS for long term storage of validated data.



### 14.2.1 Real-time Data Reporting for AIRNow and NCore

One of the most important emerging uses of ambient monitoring data has been public reporting of the Air Quality Index (AQI). This effort has expanded on EPA’s AIRNow web site from regionally-based near real-time ozone mapping products color coded to the AQI, to a national multi-pollutant mapping, forecasting, and data handling system of real-time data. Since ozone and PM 2.5 

### drive the highest reporting of the AQI in most areas, these two pollu tants are the only two parameters currently publicly reported from AIRNow. While other pollutants such as CO, SO 2 

### , NO 2 

### , and PM 10 

### may not drive the AQI, they are still important for forecasters and other data users to understand for model evaluation and tracking of air pollution episodes. Therefore, the NAAMS seeks the following goals:

• 

### Share all continuous O 3 

### , PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### data, where available, across the nation;

• 

### For NCore sites, share all gaseous CO, SO 2 

### , NO and NOy data and base meteorological

measurements across the nation.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 10 of 14



### This program allows for short term non-validated data to be collected by a centrally located computer that displays the data in near real time data formats su ch as tables and contour maps. In addition, EPA, in conjunction with the monitoring orga nizations, developed the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy (NAAMS) which includes the development of the NCore network. This section will discuss the needs of real time data acquisition for the deployment of AIRNow and the NAAMS

.



### Reporting Intervals

Currently, hourly averages are the reporting interval for continuous particulate and gaseous data. These are the reporting intervals for both AQS (AQS supports a variety of reporting intervals) and to AIR N ow for AQI purposes

. These reporting intervals will meet most of the multiple objectives of NCore for supporting health effects studies, AQI reporting, tr ends, NAAQS attainment decisions, and accountability of control strategies. However, with these objectiv es also comes the desire for data at finer time resolutions: 5 minute averages for gaseous pollutants and sub-hourly averages for certain particulate matter monitors. Examples of this need for finer tim e resolution of data include, but are not limited to: tracking air pollution episodes, providing data for exposure studies, model evaluation, and evaluating shorter averaging periods for potential changes to th e NAAQS. Monitoring organizations generally have the hardware and software necessary to log and report this data. The challenge to obtaining and reporting the data is the current communication packages used , such as conventional telephone modem polling. One widely available solution to this would be the use of internet connectivity, allowing data at individual monitoring sites to be pushed to a central server rath er than being polled. Monitoring organizations should begin to investigate the possibilities of using this media.

With this generation of data having a shorter averag ing interval, the challenge becomes validation of all the data. The historical perception has been that each criteria pollutant measuremen t needs to be verified and validated manually. With the amount of data ge nerated, this would be a time-consuming task. To provide a nationally consistent approach for the reporti ng interval of data, the NCore networks will take a tiered approach to data reporting. At the top tier, h ourly data intervals will remain the standard for data reporting. Long term, the NCore networks will be ca pable of providing at least 5 minute intervals for those methods that have acceptable data quality at those averaging periods. For QA/QC purposes such as zero/span and one-point QC, monitoring organizations should be capable of assessing data on at least a 1-

minute interval.

With instantaneous data going to external websites, monitoring organizations operating their own websites containing the same local and/or regional data should add a statement about the quality of data being displayed at the site. This cautionary statemen t will notify the public that posted data has not been fully quality assured and discrepancies may occur. For an example, the AIRNow Website makes the

statement

“Although some preliminary data quality assessmen ts are performed, the data as such are not fully verified and validated through th e quality assurance procedures monitoring organizations use to officially submit an d certify data on the EPA AQS(Air Quality System). Therefore, data are used on the AIRNow Web site only for the purpose of reporting the AQI. Information on the AIRNow web site is not used to formulate or support regulation, guidance or any ot her Agency decision or position.”QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 11 of 14



### 14.2.2 Reporting Frequency and Lag Time for Reporting Data

Continuous monitoring data that are being shared in near real-time from NCore monitoring stations are to be reported each hour. Data should be reported as s oon as practical after the end of each hour. For the near term, the goal is to report data within twenty minutes past the end of each hour. This will provide enough time for data processing and additional validat ion at the Data Management Center (DMC); generation of reports and maps; distribution of those pr oducts to a variety of stakeholders and web sites; and still allow enough time for staff review before the end of the hour. This is an important goal to support reporting of air pollution episodes on news med ia programs by the top of the hour. The long term goal is to report all data within five minutes after th e end of an hour. This will further enhance NCore’s ability to deliver timely data within a reasonable time period that takes advantage of existing commercially available technology.



## 14.3 Data Transfer-Reporting to External Data Bases

Today, the need for the ambient air monitoring data reaches outside the monitoring community. In addition to the traditional needs of the data, de termination of NAAQS compliance and the daily AQI report, a health researcher or modeler may want a ve ry detailed accounting of the available data in the shortest time intervals possible. Atmospheric scientists typically desire data in a relatively unprocessed yet comprehensive form with adequate descriptions (meta data) to allow for further processing for comparability to other data sets. These needs incr ease the demands for the data and require multiple reports of the information.



### 14.3.1 AQS Reporting

All ambient air monitoring data will eventually be tr ansferred and stored in AQS. The current system, implemented in early 2002, has much more functionality than the previous main-frame system. As stated

in 40 CFR Part 58.16 8 

### , the monitoring organization shall report a ll ambient air monitoring and associated quality assurance data and information specified by th e AQS Users Guide into the AQS format. The data is to be submitted electronically and on a specifi ed quarterly basis. Since changes in reporting requirement occur, monitoring organization should review CFR for the specifics of this requirement.

The AQS manuals are located at the AQS Website 9



### . This site contains the old AIRS/AQS manuals as well as the new AQS Manuals. The AQS Data C oding Manual replaces the previous Volume II and provides coding instructions, edits performed, and sy stem error messages. The AQS User Guide replaces the former Volume III and describes the procedures fo r data entry. Both manuals will be updated as

needed and the new versions will be available at the web site. Table 14-1 provides the units and the number of decimal places that, at a minimum, are required for reporting to AQS for the criteria pollutants. These decimal places are used for comparison to the NAAQS and are displayed in AQS summary reports. However, monitoring organizations can report data up to 5 values to the right of the decimal (beyond five AQS will truncate). Within the five values to the right of the decimal place, AQS will round to the minimum displayed in Table 14-1. Reported values will remain in raw data files.

8 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ cfr/cfr-table-search.html

9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 12 of 14

Table 14-1 AQS Data Reporting Requirements Pollutant Decimal Places Example Units

PM 2.5 1 10.2 μ g/m 3

PM 10 1 26.2 μ g/m 3

PM 10-2.5 1 10.2 μ g/m 3

Lead 1 1.5 μ g/m 3

SO 2 2 0.03 ppm

NO 2 3 0.053 ppm CO 1 2.0 ppm

O 3 3 0.108 ppm PAMS (VOCs) 2 6.23 ppb-carbon



### 14.3.2 Standard Format for Reporting to AQS

AQS allows flexibility in reporting formats. The for mats previously used by AQS can be used for raw data (hourly, daily, or composite) and for reporting precision and bias data. The system also has new report formats for this data as well as formats for re gistering new sites and monitors. These new formats are defined in the AQS Data Coding Manual. Work is also in progress to define an Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema for AQS to allow for that reporting format as well. Use of XML as a data

format is consistent with EPA and Federal guidelines towards bette r data integration and sharing

.



### 14.3.3 Annual Certification of Data

The annual data certification is also stored in AQS. The monitoring organization is required to certify the data (by formal letter) for a calendar year (Jan 1-Dec 31) by July 1 through the year 2009. Beginning in 2010 the annual data certification letter is due by May 1. See 40 CFR Part 58.15 for details. This certification requires the monitoring organization to re view the air quality data and precision/bias data for completeness and validity and to submit a certificatio n letter to the Regional Office. The certification letter and accompanying reports are reviewed and if th e results of the review are consistent with the criteria for certification, the certification flag is set in the AQS database. After certification is complete, any updates to the data will cause the critical review process to identify that the certified data has been changed and the certification flag will be dropped.



### 14.3.4 Summary of Desired Performa nce for Information Transfer Systems

To define the needed performance cr iteria of a state-of-the art information technology system, a table of needs has been developed. This table provides pe rformance needs for an optimal information technology system, but is not intended to address what the indi vidual components should look like. For instance, once low level validated data for a specific time pe riod are ready to leave the monitoring station, a number of telemetry systems may actually accomplish moving those data. By identifying the needed performance criteria of moving data, rather than the act ual system to move it, monitoring organizations may be free to identify the most optimal system for their network. Table 14-2 summarizes the performance elements of the data management systems used to log, transfer, validate, and report data from NCore ambient air monitoring stations



### .QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 13 of 14

Table 14-2 NCore (Level 2 and 3) In formation Technology Performance Needs

Performance Element Performance Criteria Notes Sample Periods 5 minutes (long term goal), and 1 hour data (current standard) 5 minutes and 1 hour data to support exposure, mapping and modeling. 1 hour data for Air Quality Index reporting and NAAQS. Sample period may need to be higher for certain pollutant measurement systems depending on method sample period and measurement precision when averaging small time periods. Data Delivery Near Term goal - Within 20 minutes nationally

each hour Long term goal - Within 5 minutes nationally

each hour As monitoring organizations migrate to new telemetry systems the goal will be to report data within 5 minutes. This should be easily obtained with broadband pushing of da ta to a central server.

Low Level Validation - Last automated zero and QC check acceptable - Range check acceptable - Shelter parameters acceptable -Instrument parameters acceptable Other validation should be applied as available:

- site to site checks - rate of change -lack of change. Data Availability - all QC data, operator notes, calibrations, and pollutant data within network - Low level validated pollu tant data externally Create log of all monitoring related activities internally. Allow only va lidated data to leave monitoring organization network. Types of monitoring data to disseminate-externally -continuous and semi-continuous pollutant data -accompanying meteorological data Associated manual method supporting data (for instance FRM ambient Temperature) should be collected but not reported externally.

Additional data for internal tracking Status of ancillary equipment such as shelter temperature, power surges, zero air system, calibration system

Relevant site information Latitude, longitude, altitude, land use category, scale of representativeness, pictures and map of

area Other site information may be necessary.

Remote calibration Ability to initiate automated calibrations on regular schedule or as needed Reviewing calibration - allow for 1 minute data as part of electronic calibration log

Initialization of manual collection

method Need to be able to remote ly initiate these or have them set at an action level from a specific

monitor Reporting Format Short Term - Maintain “Obs” file format and pipe delimited formats for AIRNow and AQS reporting, respectively

Near Term -XML Need to coordinate development of XML schema with multiple stakeholders. XML is an open format that will be able to be read by most applications.



## 14.4 Data Management

Managing the data collected is just as important as correctly collecting the data. The amount of data collected will continue to grow based on the needs of the data users. Previous sections have confirmed this statement providing a glimpse of the potential da ta users and the uses. Generally, data is to be retained for a period of 3 years from the date th e grantee submits its final expenditure report unless otherwise noted in the funding agreement. Refer to 40 CFR Part 31.42. With electronic records and electronic media, this information can be stored and managed with less use of space than with the conventional paper records. However, even with toda y’s technology there will be some paper records and those need to be managed in an orderly manner. The manner in whic h a monitoring organization manages its data is documented in its QMP and QAPP.

All information collected in any ambient air monito ring program should be organized in a logical and systematic manner. There is no one best way to organize a system. How a monitoring organizationQA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0

Revision: 1

Date:12/08 Page 14 of 14



### organizes its information is required to be discussed in its QMP (QA/R-2) 10 

### and QAPP (QA/R-5) 11



### . Monitoring organizations should cons ult EPA’s records management webpage 12 

### for other useful information when beginning to plan or revise how its data records are stored.

This information should be reviewed not only by those in a monitoring organization responsible for overall data management but also by the monitoring organization’s Systems or Network Administrator. The latter person(s) can provide helpful informati on in designing the overall data management system according to today’s industry standards. Remember, th e data has to be of known quality, reliable and defensible. In order for monitoring organizations to continue to meet those objectives, many sources of

information need to be reviewed.

Section 5 presented guidance on documentation and record s. This information can be helpful in managing ambient air monitoring data. In addition, the EP A Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has a

website 13 

### that provides information management polici es and guidance. As an example the document Good Automated Laboratory Practices, described earlier in this document, is posted on the OEI website and can be very useful in devel oping information management systems.

10 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/r2-final.pdf

11 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf

12 http://www.epa.gov/records/

13 http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies.htmQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 14



# 15.0 Assessment and Corrective Action

An assessment is an evaluation process used to meas ure the performance or effectiveness of a system and

its elements. It is an all-inclusive term used to denote any of the following: audit, performance evaluation, management systems review, peer review, inspection and surveillance. For the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, the following assessments will be discussed: network reviews, performance evaluations, technical systems aud its and data quality assessments.



## 15.1 Network Reviews

Beginning July 2007, the State, or where applicab le, local monitoring organizations shall adopt and submit to the Regional Administrator an annual mon itoring network plan which shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of an air quality surveilla nce system that consists of a network of SLAMS monitoring stations including FRM, FEM, and ARM m onitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore stations, STN stations, State speciation stations, SPM sta tions, and/or, in serious, severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and SPM stations. The plan shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting and opera tion of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E of Part 58, where appli cable. The annual monitoring network plan must be made available for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to submission to EPA. The AMTIC Website has a page 1 

### devoted to the progress and adherence to th is requirement. This page contains links to State and local ambient air monitoring plans.

In addition to an annual network plan, starting in 2010 , the State, or where app licable local, monitoring organization shall perform and submit to the EPA Re gional Administrator an assessment of the air quality surveillance system every 5 years to determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the monitoring objectives defined in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, wh ether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated, a nd whether new technologies are appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring networ k. The network assessment must consider the ability of existing and proposed sites to support air qua lity characterization for areas with relatively high populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children with asthma), and, for any sites that are being proposed for discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the monitoring organization itself, such as nearby States and Tribes or health effects studies. For PM 2.5 

### , the assessment also mu st identify needed changes to population-oriented sites. The State, or where applicable, local monitoring organization must submit a copy of this 5-year assessment, along with a revised annual network plan, to the Regional

Administrator.

Conformance with network requirements of the Ambient Air Monitoring Network set forth in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendices D and E are determined through annual network reviews of the ambient air quality monitoring system. The annual review of the netw ork is used to determine how well the network is achieving its required monitoring objectives and how it should be modified to continue to meet its objectives. Most network reviews are accomplished by the EPA Regional Office, however, the following information can be useful to State and local organiza tions to prepare for reviews or assess their networks.

In order to maintain consistency in implementing and collecting information from a network review, EPA has developed SLAMS/PAMS Network Review Guidan ce. The information presented in this section provides some excerpts from this guidance document.

1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 14



### 15.1.1 Network Selection

Due to the resource-intensive nature of network re views, it may be necessary to prioritize monitoring organizations and/or pollutants to be reviewed. Th e following criteria may be used to select networks:

• 

### date of last review;

• 

### areas where attainment/nonattainment designations are taking place or are likely to take place;

• 

### results of special studies, saturation sampling, point source oriented ambient monitoring, etc.; and

• 

### monitoring organizations which have proposed network modifications since the last network

review.

In addition, pollutant-specific priorities may be c onsidered (e.g., newly designated ozone nonattainment
areas, PM 10 

### "problem areas", etc.). Once the monitoring organizations have been selected for review, significant data and information pertaining to the review should be compiled and evaluated. Such information might include the following:

• 

### network files for the selected monitoring organiza tion (including updated site information and site photographs);

• 

### AQS reports (AMP220, 225, 255, 380, 390, 450);

• 

### air quality summaries for the past five y ears for the monitors in the network;

• 

### emissions trends reports for major metropolitan areas;

• 

### emission information, such as emission density ma ps for the region in which the monitor is located and emission maps showing the major sources of emissions; and

• 

### National Weather Service summaries for monitoring network area.

Upon receiving the information, it should be checked to ensure it was the latest revision and for consistency. Discrepancies s hould be noted on the checklist (Appendix H) and resolved with the monitoring organization during the review. Files and/or photographs that need to be updated should also

be identified.



### 15.1.2 Conformance to 40 CFR Part 58 A ppendix D- Network Design Requirements

With regard to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D requir ements, the network reviewer must determine the adequacy of the network in terms of number and loca tion of monitors: specifically, (1) is the monitoring organization meeting the number of mon itors required by the design criteria requirements; and (2) are the monitors properly located, based on the monitoring ob jectives and spatial scales of representativeness?



### Number of Monitors

For SLAMS, the minimum number of monitors required is specified in the regulations for ozone, PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , and PAMS. The other criteria pollutants do not have minimum requirements and is determined by the Regional Office and the monitoring organizati ons on a case-by-case basis to meet the monitoring objectives specified in Appendix D. Adequacy of the network may be determined by using a variety of tools, including the following:

• 

### maps of historical monitoring data;

• 

### maps of emission densities;

• 

### dispersion modeling;

• 

### special studies/saturation sampling;

• 

### best professional judgment;

• 

### SIP requirements; and

• 

### revised monitoring strategies (e.g., lead strategy, reengineering air monitoring network).QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 14



### Location of Monitors

For the ozone, PM 10 

### , and PM 2.5 

### SLAMS sites, Appendix D does provide general locations of sites in regards to NAAQS related concentrations. For other cr iteria pollutants the location of monitors is not specified in the regulations, but is determined by the Regional Office and State monitoring organizations on a case-by-case basis to meet the monitoring objectives specified in Appendix D. Adequacy of the location of monitors can only be determined on the b asis of stated objectives. Maps, graphical overlays, and GIS-based information can be extremely helpful in visualizing or assessing the adequacy of monitor locations. Plots of potential emissions and/or histor ical monitoring data versus monitor locations are especially useful.

For PAMS, there is considerable flexibility when locating each PAMS within a nonattainment area or transport region. The three fundamental criteria which need to be considered when locating a final PAMS site are: (1) sector analysis - the site needs to be located in the appropriate downwind (or upwind) sector (approximately 45 o 

### ) using appropriate wind directions; (2) distance - the sites should be located at distances appropriate to obtain a representative samp le of the areas precursor emissions and represent the appropriate monitoring scale; and (3) proximate sources.



### 15.1.3 Conformance to 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E - Probe Siting Requirements

Applicable siting criteria for SLAMS, and PAMS are specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E. The onsite visit itself consists of the physical measuremen ts and observations needed to determine compliance with the Appendix E requirements, such as height ab ove ground level, distance from trees, paved or vegetative ground cover, etc. Prior to the site vis it, the reviewer should obtain and review the following:

• 

### most recent hard copy of site d escription (including any photographs)

• 

### data on the seasons with the greatest potential for high concentrations for specified pollutants

• 

### predominant wind direction by season

The checklist provided in Appendix H of this Handb ook is also intended to assist the reviewer in determining conformance with Appendi x E. In addition to the items on the checklist, the reviewer should also do the following:

• 

### ensure that the manifold and inlet probes are clean

• 

### estimate probe and manifold inside diameters and lengths

• 

### inspect the shelter for weathe r leaks, safety, and security

• 

### check equipment for missing parts, frayed cords, etc.

• 

### check that monitor exhausts are not likel y to be introduced back to the inlet

• 

### record findings in field notebook and/or checklist

• 

### take photographs/videotape in the 8 directions

• 

### document site conditions, with additional photographs/videotapeQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 14



### 15.1.4 Checklists and Other Discussion Topics

Checklists are provided in Appendix H to assist ne twork reviewers (SLAMS and PAMS) in conducting

the review. In addition to the items included in the checklists, other subjects for possible discussion as part of the network review and overall ad equacy of the monitoring program include:

• 

### installation of new monitors;

• 

### relocation of existing monitors;

• 

### siting criteria problems and suggested solutions;

• 

### problems with data submitta ls and data completeness;

• 

### maintenance and replacement of existin g monitors and related equipment;

• 

### quality assurance problems;

• 

### air quality studies and special monitoring programs; and

• 

### other issues (proposed regulations/funding).



### 15.1.5 Summary of Findings

Upon completion of the network review, a written network evaluation should be prepared. The evaluation should include any deficiencies identified in the review, corrective actions needed to address the deficiencies, and a schedule for implemen ting the corrective actions. The kinds of discrepancies/deficiencies to be identified in the ev aluation include discrepancies between the monitoring organization network description and the AQS networ k description; and deficiencies in the number, location, and/or type of monitors.



## 15.2 Performance Evaluations

Performance evaluations (PEs) are a type of audit in which the quantitative data generated in a measurement system are obtained independently and compared with routinely obtained data to evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, or a laboratory 2 

### . The National Performance Evaluation Programs:

• 

### Allow one to determine data comparability and usability across sites, monitoring networks (Tribes, States, and geographic regions), instruments and laboratories.

• 

### Provide a level of confidence that monitoring systems are operating within an acceptable le vel of data quality so data users can make decisions with acceptable levels of certainty.

• 

### Help verify the precision and bias estimates performed by monitoring organizations.

• 

### Identify where improvements (technology/training) are

needed.

• 

### Assure the public of non-biased assessments of data quality.

2 American National Standard-Quality Systems for Envi ronmental Data and Technology Programs-Requirements with Guidance for Use (ANSI/ASQC E4-2004) PEP Audit NPAP throu g h the p robe auditQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 14

• 

### Provide a quantitative mechanism to defend the quality of data.

• 

### Provide information to monitoring organizations on how they compare with the rest of the nation, in relation to the acceptance limits and to assist in corrective actions and/or data improvements.

Some type of national PE program is implemented for all of the ambient air monitoring activities. Table 15-1 provides more information on these activities. It is important that these performance evaluations be independent in order to ensure they are non-biased an d objective. With the p assage of the Data Quality

Act 3 

### , there is potential for EPA to receive challe nges to the quality of the ambient air data. Independent audits help provide anot her piece of objective evidence on the quality of a monitoring organizations data and can help EPA defend the quality of the data.

Table 15-1 National Performance Evalu ation Activities Performed by EPA Program/ Lead Agency Explanation

NPAP

OAQPS National Performance Audit Program provide s audit standards for the gaseous polluta nts either as devices that the site operator connects to the back of the instrument or through the probe in which case the audits are conducted by presenting audit gases through the probe inlet of ambient air m onitoring stations. Flow audit devices and lead strips are also provided through NPAP. NPAP audits are required at 20% of a primary quality assurance organizations sites each year with a goal of auditi ng all sites in 5-7 years.

PM 2.5 PM 10-2.5 PEP

OAQPS Performance Evaluation Program. The strategy is to collocate a portable FRM PM 2.5 or PM 10-2.5 air sampling audit instrument with an established primary sampler at a rou tine air monitoring site, operate both samplers in the same manner, and then compare the results. Each year five PEP audits are required for primary quality assurance organizations (PQAOs) with less than or equal to 5 monitoring sites or eight audits are required for PQAOs with greater than five sites. These audits are not required for PM 10 NATTS PT

OAQPS A National Air Toxics Trend Sites (NATTS) proficiency test (PT) is a type of assessme nt in which a sample, the composition of which is unknown to the analyst, is provi ded to test whether the analyst/laboratory can produce analytical results within the specifi ed acceptance criteria. PTs for volatile organic carbons (VOCs), carbonyls and metals are performed quarterly for the ~22 NATTS laboratories

SRP

ORIA-LV The Standard Reference Photometer (SRP) Program provi des a mechanism to establish traceability among the ozone standards used by monitoring organizations with the Nationa l Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Every year NIST certifies an EPA SRP. Upon certification, this SRP is shipped to the EPA Regions who use this SRP to certify the SRP that remains stationary in the Regi onal Lab. These stationary SRPs are th en used to certify the ozone transfer standards that are used by the State, Local and Tribal mon itoring organizations who bring their transfer standards to the Regional SRP for certification. PAMS Cylinder

Certs

ORIA LV EPA developed a system to certify the standards used by the monitoring organizations to calibrate their PAMS analytical systems. The standards are sent to the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA-LV) who perform an independent analysis/certification of the cylinders. This anal ysis is compared to the vendor concentrations to determine if they are within the contract ually required acceptance tolerance.

STN/IMPROVE

Round Robins PTs

and Audits

ORIA-AL PM 2.5 Speciation Trends Network (STN) a nd IMPROVE Round Robins are a type of performance evaluation where the audit samples are developed in ambient ai r; therefore, the true concentration is unknown. The Office of Indoor Air and Radiation (ORIA) in Montgomery, AL) implement these audits for the STN/IMPROVE programs and for the PEP weighing laboratories. The audit is pe rformed by collecting samples over multiple days and from multiple samplers. These representative samples are then ch aracterized by the ORIA lab and sent to the routine sample laboratories for analysis. Since the true concentrations are unknown, the re ported concentrations are revi ewed to determine general agreement among the laboratories. In addition ORIA impl ements technical systems audits of IMPROVE and STN

laboratories

Protocol Gas

OAQPS EPA Protocol Gases are used in quality control activities (i.e ., calibrations, audits etc.) to ensure the quality of data derived from ambient air monitors used by every State in the country. EPA developed the Protocol Gas Program to allow standards sold by specialty gas producers to be considered traceable to NIST standards. This program was discontinued in 1998. In 2002, there was interest by the ga s vendors and EPA to reestablish this program. The program is presently (as of 2008) undergoing re-structuring.



### Although Table 15-1 lists seven performance evaluati on programs operating at the federal level, the NPAP and PEP Programs will be discussed in more detail. Additional information on both programs can

be found on the AMTIC Website 4 

### . The October 17, 2006 monitoring rule identified the monitoring organizations as responsible for ensuri ng the implementation of these audits 5 

### . Monitoring organizations

3 see www.eenews.net/Greenwire/Backissues/081604/08160403.htm

4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepqa.html

5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/40cfr53.html



### - Final - Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations



### .QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 14



### can either implement the program itself or continue to participate in the federally implemented program. This choice is provided to the monitoring organiza tion on an annual basis through a memo from OAQPS through the EPA Regions. In order for monitoring or ganization to self-implement the program they must meet criteria related to the adequacy of the audit ( number of audits and how it is accomplished) as well as meet independence requirements (see Figure 15.1).



### 15.2.1 National Performance Audit Program 6



### Monitoring organizations operating SLAMS/PAMS/PSD are required to participate in the National Performance Evaluation Programs by pr oviding adequate and independent audits for its monitors as per Section 2.4 of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix. One way of providing the audits is to participate in the NPAP program either through self-implemen tation or federal implementation.

The NPAP is a cooperative effort among OAQPS, the 10 EPA Regional Offices, and the monitoring organizations that operate the SLAMS/PAMS/PSD air po llution monitors. The NPAP’s goal is to provide

audit materials and devices that will enable EPA to assess the proficiency of monitoring organizations that are operating monitors in the SLAMS/PAMS/PSD networks. To accomplish this, the NPAP has established acceptable limits or performance criteria, based on the data quality needs of the networks, for

each of the audit materials and devices used in the NPAP.

All audit devices and materials used in the NPAP are ce rtified as to their true value, and that certification

is traceable to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard material or device wherever possible. The audit materials used in the NPAP are as representative and comparable as possible to the calibration materials and actual air samples used and/or collected in the SLAMS/PAMS/PSD networks. The audit material/gas cy linder ranges used in the NPAP are specified in the Federal Register.

Initially the NPAP system was a mailable system wher e standards and gasses were mailed to monitoring organizations for implementation. In 2003, OAQPS st arted instituting a through the probe audit system where mobile laboratories are sent to monitoring s ites and audit gasses are delivered through the inlet probe of the analyzers. The goal of the NPAP audit is:

• 

### Performing audits at 20 percent of monitori ng sites per year, and 100% in 5-7 years.

• 

### Data submission to AQS.

• 

### Development of a delivery system that will a llow for the audit concentration gasses to be introduced to the probe inlet where logistically feasible.

• 

### Use of audit gases that are NIST certified and validated at least once a year for CO, SO 2 

### , and

NO 2



### .

• 

### Validation/certification with the EPA NPAP program through collocated auditing, at an acceptable number of sites each year. The comparison tests would have to be no greater than 5
percent different from the EPA NPAP results.

• 

### Incorporation of NPAP in the monitoring organi zation’s quality assurance project plan (if self implementing).

Table 15-2 lists the acceptance limits of the NPAP audits.

6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npapgen.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 14

Table 15-2 NPAP Acceptance Criteria

Audit EPA determined limits High volume/PM 10 (SSI) Dichot (PM 10 ) Pb (analytical)

SO 2 , NO 2 , and CO

O 3 PAMS Volatile Organic Compounds Carbonyls % difference < 15% for 1 or more flows

% difference

 < 15% for 1 or more flows

% difference

 < 15% for 1 or more levels

Mean absolute % difference < 15%

Mean absolute % difference < 10%

Compound Specific Compound and level specific



### 15.2.2 PM 2.5 

### and PM 10-2.5 

### Performance Evaluation Program (PEP)

The Performance Evaluation Program 7 

### is a quality assurance activity wh ich will be used to evaluate measurement system bias of the PM 2.5 

### and the PM 10-2.5 

### monitoring networks. The pertinent regulations for this performance audit are found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A. The strategy is to collocate a portable PEP instrument with an established routine air monitoring site, operate both monitors in exactly the same manner and then compare the results of this instrument against the routine sampler at the site. For primary quality assurance organizations with less th an or equal to five monitoring sites, five valid performance evaluation audits must be collected and reported each year. For primary quality assurance organizations with greater than five monitoring sit es, eight valid performance evaluation audits must be collected and reported each year. A valid performan ce evaluation audit means that both the primary

monitor and PEP audit

concentrations are valid and above 3 μg/m 3 

### . Additionally, each year, every designated

FRM or FEM within a primary quality assurance organization must: (1) have each method designation evaluated each year; and, (2)

have all FRM or FEM samplers subject to a PEP audit at least once every six years; which equates to approximately 15 percent of the monitoring sites audited each year.

7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmpep.html 

### Since performance evaluations are independent assessments, Figure 15.1 was developed to define independence for the FRM performance evaluation to allow monitoring organizations to implement this activity. Organization

3rd Level
Supervision

Organization

2nd Level
Supervision

Organization

1st Level
Supervision

Organization

Personnel QA Lab Analysis Organization

1st Level
Supervision

Organization

Personnel QA Field Sampling Organization

2nd Level
Supervision

Organization

1st Level
Supervision

Organization

Personnel
Routine Lab Analysis Organization

1st Level
Supervision

Organization

Personnel Routine Field Sampling Independent assessment - an assessment performed by a qualified individual, group, or organization that is not part of the organi zation directly performing and accountable for the work being assessed. This auditing orga nization must not be involved with the generation of the routine ambient air monitori ng data. An organization can conduct the

PEP if it can meet the above definition an d has a management structure that, at a minimum, will allow for the separation of its routine sampling personnel from its auditing personnel by two levels of management, as illustrated in the figure below. In addition, the pre and post wei ghing of audit filters must be performed by separate laboratory facility using separate laborator y equipment. Field and laboratory personnel would be required to meet the FRM Performan ce Audit field and laboratory training and

certification requirements. The State and local organizations are also asked to consider participating in the centralized field an d laboratory standards certification process.

Figure 15.1 Definition of independent assessmentQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 14



### Since the regulations define the performance ev aluations as an NPAP like activity, EPA has made arrangements to implement this audit. Monitoring organizations can determine, on a yearly basis, to utilize federal implementation by directing their appr opriate percentage of grant resources back to the OAQPS or implement the audit themselves. The fo llowing activities will be established for federal PEP implementation:

• 

### field personnel assigned to each EPA Region, the hours based upon the number of required audits in the Region; and

• 

### one national laboratory in Region 4 will serve as a national weighing lab and will include data submittal to AQS.

All documentation including the PEP Implementation Plan, QAPP, Field and Laboratory SOPs, and reports can be found on the AMTIC Bulletin Board at the PEP Website 8



### .



### 15.2.3 State and Local Organization

Performance Audits

Any of the performance evaluation activities mentioned in this section can be performed internally by the monitoring organizations. Ifthe monitoring organization intends to selfimplement NPAP or PEP then they will be required to meet the adequacy and independence criteria mentioned in earlier sections. Since a monitoring organization may want more audits then can be supplied by the NPAP and PEP, it may decide to “augmen t” the federally implemented programs with additional performance audits. These audits can be tailored to the needs of the monitoring organization and do not necessarily need to follow NPAP and PEP adequacy and independence requirements. Some information on the procedures for this audit can be found in Appendix H.



## 15.3 Technical Systems Audits

A systems audit is an on-site review and inspection of a monitoring organization’s ambient air monitoring program to assess its compliance with established regulations governing the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality data. A systems a udit of each monitoring organization within an EPA Region is performed every three years by a member of the Regional Quality Assurance (QA) staff.

8 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmpep.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 9 of 14



### Detailed discussions of the audits performed by th e EPA and the State and local organizations are found in Appendix H; the information presented in th is section provides general guidance for conducting technical systems audits. A systems audit should consist of three separate phases:

• 

### Pre-audit activities.

• 

### On-site audit activities.

• 

### Post-audit activities.

Summary activity flow diagrams have been included as Figures 15.2, 15.3 and 15.5, respectively. The reader may find it useful to refer to th ese diagrams while reading this guidance.



### 15.3.1 Pre-Audit Activities

At the beginning of each fiscal year, the audit lead or a designated member of the audit team should establish a tentative schedule for on-site systems aud its of the monitoring organizations within their Region. It is suggested that the audit lead deve lop an audit plan. This plan should address the elements listed in Table 15-3. The audit plan is not a major undertaking and in most cases will be a one page table or report. Howe ver, the document represents thought ful and conscious planning for an efficient and successful audit. The audit plan shou ld be made available to the organization audited, with adequate lead time to ensure that appropr iate personnel and documents are available for the audit. Three months prior to the audit, the aud it lead should contact the quality assurance officer (QAO) of the organization to be audited to coordinate specific da tes and schedules for the on-site audit visit. During this initial contact, the audit lead should arrange a tentative schedule for meetings with key personnel as well as for inspection of selected ambient air quality monitoring and measurement operations. At the same time, a schedule should be set for the exit interview used to debrief the monitoring organization director or his/ her designee, on the systems audit outcome. As part of this scheduling, the a udit lead should indicate any speci al requirements such as access to specific areas or activities. The audit lead shoul d inform the monitoring organization QAO that the QAO will receive a questionnaire, which is to be reviewed and completed.

Table 15-3 Suggested Elemen ts of an Audit Plan

Audit Title - Official title of audit that will be used on checksheets and reports Audit #- Year and number of audit can be combined; 08-1, 08-2 Date of audit Scope - Establishes the boundary of the audit and id entifies the groups and activities to be evaluated. The scope can vary from general overview, to tal system, to part of system, which will determine the length of the audit. Purpose - What the audit should achieve Standards - Standards are criteria against which performa nce is evaluated. These standards must be clear and concise and should be used consistently when auditing similar facilities or procedures. The use of audit checklists is suggested to assure that the full scope of an audit is covered. An example checklist for the Regional TSA is found in Appendix H.

Audit team - Team lead and members. Auditees - People who should be available for the audit from the audited organization. This should include the program manager(s), principal investigator(s), monitoring leads, organizations QA representative(s), and other management and technicians as necessary. Documents - Documents that should be available in order for the audit to proceed efficiently. Too often documents are asked for during an audit, when auditors do not have the time to wait for these documents to be found. Documents could include QMPs, QAPPs, SOPs, GLPs, control charts, raw data, QA/QC data, previous audit reports etc. Timeline - A timeline of when organizations (auditors/auditees) will be notified of the audit in order for efficient scheduling and full pa rticipation of all parties.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 10 of 14



### The audit lead should emphasize that the completed ques tionnaire is to be returned within one (1) month (or time frame deemed appropriate) of receipt. The in formation within the questionnaire is considered a minimum, and both the Region and the monitoring orga nization under audit should feel free to include additional information. Once the completed questionn aire has been received, it should be reviewed and compared with the pertinent criteria and regulations. The AQS precision, bias and completeness data as well as any other information on data quality can augment the documentation received from the reporting organization under audit. This pre liminary evaluation will be instrumental in selecting the sites to be

evaluated and in the decision on the extent of the mon itoring site data audit. The audit team should then prepare a checklist detailing specific points for di scussion with monitoring organization personnel.

The audit team should be made of several members to offer a wide variety of ba ckgrounds and expertise. This team may then divide into groups once on-site, so that both audit coverage and time utilization can be optimized. A possible division may be that one group assesses the support laboratory and headquarters operations while another evaluates sites, and subseq uently assesses audit and calibration information. The audit lead should confirm the proposed audit sch edule with the audited organization immediately prior to traveling to the site.



### 15.3.2. On-Site Activities

The audit team should meet initially with the audited monitoring organization’s director or his/her designee to discuss the scope, duration, and activities involved with the audit. This should be followed by a meeting with key personnel identified from the completed questionnaire, or indicated by the monitoring organization QAO. Key personnel to be interviewed during

the audit are those individuals with responsibilities for: planning, field operations, laboratory operations, QA/QC, data management and reporting. At the conclusion of these introductory meetings, the audit team may begin work as two or more independent groups, as illustrated in Figure 15.3. To increase uniformity of site inspections, it is suggested that a site checklist be developed and used. The format for Regional TSAs can be found in Appendix H.

The importance of the audit of data quality (ADQ) cannot be overstated. Thus, sufficient time and effort should be devoted to this activity so that the audit team has a clear understanding and complete documentation ofQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 11 of 14



### data flow. Its importance stems from the need to have documentation on the quality of ambient air monitoring data for all the criteria pollutants fo r which the monitoring organization has monitoring requirements. The ADQ will serve as an effec tive framework for organizing the extensive

amount of information gathered during the audit of laboratory, field monitoring and support functions within the monitoring organization.

The entire audit team should prepare a brief writte n summary of findings, organized into the following areas: planning, field operations, laboratory ope rations, quality assurance/quality control, data management, and reporting. Problems with specific areas should be discussed and an attempt made to rank them in order of their potential impact on data qu ality. For the more serious problems, audit findings should be drafted (Fig. 15.4).

The audit finding form has been designed such that one is filled out for each major deficiency that requires formal corrective action. They inform the monitoring organization being audited about a serious finding that may compromise the quality of the data and therefore require specific corrective actions. They are initiated by the audit team, and discussed at the debriefing. During the debriefing discussion, evidence may be presented that reduces the significan ce of the finding; in which case the finding may be 

### Audit Finding

Audit Title : Audit # : Finding # :

Finding:

Discussion:

QA Lead Signature: Date:

Audited Agencies Signature: Date:

Figure 15.4 Audit finding formQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 12 of 14



### removed. If the audited monitoring organization is in agreement with the finding, the form is signed by the monitoring organization's director or his/her d esignee during the exit interview. If a disagreement occurs, the QA Team should record the opinions of th e monitoring organization audited and set a time at some later date to address the finding at issue.

The audit is now completed by having the a udit team members meet once again with key personnel, the QAO and finally with the monitoring organization's dir ector to present their findings. This is also the opportunity for the monitoring organization to present their disagreements.

The audit team should simply state the audit results, including an indication of the potential data quality impact. During these meetings, the audit team shoul d also discuss the systems audit reporting schedule and notify monitoring organization personnel that th ey will be given a chance to comment in writing, within a certain time period, on the prepared aud it report in advance of any formal distribution.



### 15.3.3 Post-Audit Activities

The major post-audit activity is the preparation of the systems audit report. The report will include:

• 

### audit title, number and any other identifying information;

• 

### audit team leaders, audit team participants and audited participants;

• 

### background information about the project, purpose of the audit, dates of the audit, particular measurement phase or parameters that were audited, and a brief description of the audit process;

• 

### summary and conclusions of the audit and corrective action requirements; and

• 

### attachments or appendices that include all audit evaluations and audit finding forms.

To prepare the report, the audit team should meet and compare observations with collected documents and results of interviews and discussions with key personnel. Expected QA project plan implementation is compared with observed accomplishments and deficiencies and the audit findings are reviewed in detail. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of the audit, the audit report should be prepared and submitted.

The technical systems audit report is submitted to the audited monitoring organization. It is suggested that

a cover letter be used to reiterate the fact that th e audit report is being prov ided for review and written comment. The letter should also indicate that, shoul d no written comments be received by the audit lead within thirty (30) calendar days from the report da te, it will be assumed acceptable to the monitoring organization in its current form, and will be formally distributed without further changes.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 13 of 14



### If the monitoring organization has written comments or questions concerning the audit report,

the audit team should review and incorporate them as appropriate, and subsequently prepare and resubmit a report in final form within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written comments. Copies of this report should be sent to the monitoring organization director or his/her designee

for internal distribution.

The transmittal letter for the amended report should

indicate official distribution and again draw attention to the agreed-upon schedule

for corrective action implementation.



### 15.3.4 Follow-up and Corrective Action Requirements

As part of corrective action and follow-up, an audit fi nding response form (Fig 15.6) is generated by the audited organization for each finding form submitted by the audit team. The audit finding response form is signed by the audited organizati on’s director and sent to the organi zation responsible for oversight who reviews and accepts the corrective action. The audit response form should be completed by the audited organization within 30 days of acceptance of the audit report. 

### Audit Finding Response Form

Audit Title: Audit #: Finding #:

Finding:

Cause of the problem:

Actions taken or planned for correction:

Responsibilities and timetable for the above actions:

Prepared by: Date:

Reviewed by: Date:

Remarks:

Is this audit finding closed? When?

File with official audit records. Send copy to auditee

Figure 15.6 Audit response formQA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 14 of 14



## 15.4 Data Quality Assessments

A data quality assessment (DQA) is the statistical anal ysis of environmental data, to determine whether the quality of data is adequate to support the decisions which are based on the DQOs. Data are appropriate if the level of uncertainty in a decision, based on the data, is acceptable. The DQA process is

described in detail in the guidance document: Data Quality Assessment : A Reviewers Guide (EPA QA/G9R) 9 

### , in Section 18 and is summarized below.

9 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf 

### 1) Review the data quality objectives (DQOs) and sa mpling design of the program: review the DQO and develop one, if it has not already been done. Define statistical hypothesis, tolerance limits,

and/or confidence intervals.

2) Conduct preliminary data review. Review QA da ta and other available QA reports, calculate summary statistics, plots and graphs. Look fo r patterns, relationships, or anomalies.

3) Select the statistical test: select the best test for analysis based on the preliminary review, and identify underlying assumptions about the data for that test.

4) Verify test assumptions: decide whether the underlying assumptions made by the selected test hold true for the data and the consequences.

5) Perform the statistical test: perform test and do cument inferences. Evaluate the performance for

future use.

A companion document to EPA QA/G-R, EPA QA/G-9S document provides many appropriate statistical tests. QAD is also developing statistical software to complement the document. Both can be found on the QAD Homepage (http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa).

OAQPS plans on performing data quality assessments fo r the pollutants of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network at a yearly frequency for da ta reports and at a 3-year frequency for more interpretative reports. Reporting organizations and State and local monitoring organizations are encouraged to implement data qualit y assessments at their levels. Attaining the DQOs at a local level will ensure that the DQOs will be met when data is aggregated at higher levels.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 4



# 16.0 Reports to Management

This section provides guidance and suggestions to air monitoring organizations on how to report the quality of the aerometric data, and how to conve y personnel information and requests for assistance concerning quality control and qua lity assurance problems. The guidan ce offered here is primarily intended for PQAOs that provide data to one or more of these national networks:

 SLAMS (State and Local Air Monitoring Stations)

 PAMS (Photochemical Air Monitoring Stations)

 PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration stations)

 NCore (National Core Monitoring Network)

 Chemical Speciation Network

 NATTS (National Air Toxic Trend Stations)

This guidance may also be useful in preparing re ports that summarize data quality of other pollutant measurements such as those made at Special Purpo se Monitoring Stations (SPMS) and state-specific

programs.

Several kinds of reports can be prepared. The size and frequency of the reports will depend on the information requested or to be conveyed. A brief, corrective action form or letter-style report might ask for attention to an urgent problem. On the other hand, an annual quality assurance report to management would be a much larger report containing sections such as:

 executive summary

 network background and present status

 quality objectives for measurement data

 quality assurance procedures

 results of quality assurance activities, and

 recommendations for further quality assurance work, with suggestions for improving performance and fixing equipment problems, personnel training, infrastructure needs, etc.

A report to management should not solely consist of tabulations of analyzer-by-analyzer precision and bias check results for criteria pollutant s. This information is required to be submitted with the data each quarter and is thus already available to manage ment through AQS. Instead, the annual quality assurance report to management should summarize and discuss the results of such ch ecks. These summaries from individual PQAOs can be incorporated into additional re ports issued by the state, local, tribal and/or the EPA Regional Office.

This section also provides general information for the preparation of reports to management and includes:

 the types of reports that might be prepared, the general content of each type of report, and a suggested frequency for their preparation

 sources of information that can be tapped to retrieve information for the reports, and

 techniques and methods for concise and e ffective presentation of information.

Appendix I presents examples of two types of reports to management; the annual quality assurance report to management and a corrective action request.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 4



## 16.1 Guidelines for Preparatio n of Reports to Management

16.1.1 Types of QA Reports to Management

Listed in Table 16-1 are examples of typical QA reports to management. An individual reporting organization may have others to add to the list or ma y create reports that are combinations of those listed

below.

Table 16-1 Types of QA Reports to Management

Suggested Reporting Frequency

Type of QA Report

to Management Contents As required Week Month Quarter Year

Corrective action

request Description of problem; recommended action required; feedback on resolution of problem. x

Control chart with

summary Repetitive field or lab activity; control limits versus time. Prepare monthly or

whenever new check or calibration samples are used. x x x x

National Performance Evaluation Program

results Summary of PEP,NPAP, NATTS PT

and CSN audit results. x x

State and local organization performance audits Summary of audit results; recommendations for action, as needed. x x

Technical systems

audits Summary of system audit results; recommendations for action, as needed. x x

Quality assurance

report to management Executive summary. Precision, bias, and system and performance audit results. x x

Network reviews (by EPA Regional Office) Review results and suggestions for actions, as needed. x x



### 16.1.2 Sources of Information

Information for inclusion in the various reports to management may come from a variety of sources, including: records of precision and bias checks (A MP255 reports), results of systems and performance audits, laboratory and field instrument maintenance l ogbooks, NPAP audits, etc. Table 16-2 lists useful sources and the type of information expected to be found.

Table 16-2 Sources of Information for Preparing Reports to Management

Information Source Expected Information and Usefulness

State implementation plan Types of monitors, locations, and sampling schedule.

Quality assurance program and project plans Data quality indicators and goals for precision, bias, completeness, timeliness.

Quality objectives for meas urement data document Quality objectives for measurement data. Audit procedures and frequency.

Laboratory and field instrument maintenance logbooks Record of maintenance activit y, synopsis of failures, recommendations for equipment overhaul or replacement.

Laboratory weighing room records of temperature, humidity A record of whether or not environmental control in the weighing room is adequate to meet goals.

Audit results (NPAP, local, etc.) Results of audit tests on ambient air pollutant measurement

devices. Quality control data on loca l information management systems or AQS Results are generally considered valid and can be used to determine achievement of data quality objectives.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 4



### 16.1.3 Methods of P resenting Information

Reports to management are most effective when the information is given in a succinct, well-summarized fashion. Methods useful for distilling and presenting in formation in ways that are easy to comprehend are listed in Table 16-3. A 2008 Guidance Document, d esigned to assist Tribes in developing monitoring programs contains an expanded section (Section 7) that discusses many of the statistical techniques

described in Table 16-3 1 

### . Several of these methods are available on-line in AQS; others are available in commercially available statistical and spreadsheet computer programs.

Table 16-3 Presentation Methods for Use in Reports to Management

Presentation Method Typical Use Examples Written text Description of results and responses to problems Appendix I

Control chart Shows whether a repetitive process stays within QC limits. Figure 10.2 of this Handbook

Black box report Shows if project goals were met. Executive Summary of Appendix I Bar charts Shows relationships between numerical

values. Included in most graphic and spreadsheet programs
X Y (scatter) charts Shows relationships between two

variables. Included in most graphic and spreadsheet programs Probability limit charts and box and whisker plots Show a numerical value with its associated precision range. Figure 1 of Appendix I



### 16.1.4 Annual Quality Assurance Report

The annual quality assurance report (an example is provi ded in Appendix I) should consist of a number of sections that describe the quality objectives for measure ment data and how those objectives have been met. A suggested organization might include:

Executive Summary of Report to Management - The executive summary should be a short section (no more than two pages) that summarizes the a nnual quality assurance report to management. It should contain a checklist graphic that lets the reader know how the reporting organization has met its goals for the report period. In addition, a s hort discussion of future needs and plans should be

included.

Introduction - This section describes the quality objectiv es for measurement data and serves as an overview of the reporting organization’s structure and functions. It also briefly describes the procedures used by the reporting organizati on to assess the quality of field and laboratory

measurements.

Quality Information for each Ambien t Air Pollutant Monitoring Program - These sections are organized by ambient air pollutant category (e.g., gaseous criteria pollutants, air toxics). Each section includes the following topics:

 program overview and update

 quality objectives for measurement data

 data quality assessment

1 Technical Guidance for the Developm ent of Tribal Monitoring Programs http://www.epa.gov /ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/tec hguidancetribalattch.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 4 

### 16.1.5 Corrective Action Request

A corrective action request should be made when ever anyone in the reporting organization notes a problem that demands either immediate or long-ter m action to correct a safety defect, an operational problem, or a failure to comply with procedures. A typical corrective action request form, with example information entered, is shown in Appendix I. A sep arate form should be used for each problem identified.

The corrective action report form is designed as a closed -loop system. First it identifies the originator; the person who reports and identifies the problem, states th e problem and may suggest a solution. The form then directs the request to a specific person or person s (i.e., the recipient), who would be best qualified to “fix” the problem. Finally, the form closes the loop by requiring that the recipient state how the problem

was resolved and the effectiveness of the solution. The form is signe d and a copy is returned to the originator and other copies are sent to the supe rvisor and the applicable files for the record.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 7



# 17.0 Data Review, Veri fication and Validation

Data review, verification and valida tion are techniques used to accept, reject or qualify data in an objective and consistent manner. Verification can be defined as confirmation, through provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled 1 

### . Validation can be defined as confirmation through provision of objective eviden ce that the particular requirements for a specific

intended use are fulfilled. It is important to describe the criteria for deciding the degree to which each data item has met its quality specifications as describ ed in an organization’s QAPP. This section will describe the techniques used to make these assessments.

In general, these assessment activ ities are performed by persons implementing the environmental data operations as well as by personnel “independent” of the operation, such as the organization’s QA personnel and at some specified frequency. The pr ocedures, personnel and frequency of the assessments should be included in an organization’s QAPP. Thes e activities should occur prior to submitting data to AQS and prior to final data quality assessments that will be discussed in Section 18.

Each of the following areas of discussion should be considered during the data review/verification/validation processes. Some of th e discussion applies to situations in which a sample is separated from its native environment and transporte d to a laboratory for analys is and data generation; others are applicable to automat ed instruments. The following information is an excerpt from EPA G-5 2 

### :

Sampling Design - How closely a measurement represents the actual environment at a given time and location is a complex issue that is considered duri ng development of the sampling design. Each sample should be checked for conformity to the specifications , including type and location (spatial and temporal). By noting the deviations in sufficien t detail, subsequent data users will be able to determine the data’s usability under scenarios different from t hose included in project planning.

Sample Collection Procedures - Details of how a sample is separated from its native time/space location are important for properly interpreting the measure ment results. Sampling methods and field SOPs provide these details, which include sampling and ancillary equipment a nd procedures (including equipment decontamination). Acceptable departures (for example, alternate equipment) from the QAPP, and the action to be taken if the requirements cannot be satisfied, should be specified for each critical aspect. Validation activities should note potentiall y unacceptable departures from the QAPP. Comments

from field surveillance on deviations from wr itten sampling plans also should be noted.

Sample Handling- Details of how a sample is physically tr eated and handled during relocation from its original site to the actual measurement site are ex tremely important. Correct interpretation of the subsequent measurement results requires that devia tions from the sample handling section of the QAPP

and the actions taken to minimize or control the ch anges, be detailed. Data collection activities should indicate events that occur during sample handling that may affect the integrity of the samples. At a minimum, investigators should evaluate the sample containers and the preservation methods used and ensure that they are appropriate to the nature of the sample and the type of data generated from the sample. Checks on the identity of the sample (e.g., proper labeling and chain of custody records) as well as proper physical/chemical storage conditions (e.g., chain of custody and storage records) should be made to ensure that the sample c ontinues to be representative of its native environment as it moves through the analytical process.

1 ISO-9000 http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000.htm

2 EPA Guidance to Quality Assurance Project Plans http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g5-final.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 7



### Analytical Procedures- Each sample should be verified to ensu re that the procedures used to generate the data were implemented as specified. Accepta nce criteria should be developed for important components of the procedures, along with suitable co des for characterizing each sample's deviation from the procedure. Data validation activities should dete rmine how seriously a sample deviated beyond the acceptable limit so that the potential effects of the deviation can be evaluated during DQA.

Quality Control - The quality control section of the QAPP speci fies the QC checks that are to be performed during sample collection, handling and anal ysis. These include analyses of check standards, blanks and replicates, which provide indications of the quality of data being produced by specified components of the measurement process. For each sp ecified QC check, the procedure, acceptance criteria, and corrective action (and changes) should be specified. Data validation should document the corrective actions that were taken, which samples were affected, and the potential effect of the actions on the validity of the data.

Calibration - Calibration of instruments and equipment and the information that should be presented to

ensure that the calibrations:

• 

### were performed within an acceptable time prior to generation of measurement data

• 

### were performed in the proper sequence

• 

### included the proper number of calibration points

• 

### were performed using standards that “brack eted” the range of reported measurement results otherwise, results falling outside the calib ration range should be flagged as such

• 

### had acceptable linearity checks and other checks to ensure that the measurement system was stable when the calibration was performed

When calibration problems are identified, any data produced between the suspect calibration event and any subsequent recalibration should be flagged to alert data users.

Data Reduction and Processing - Checks on data integrity evaluate the accuracy of “raw” data and include the comparison of important events and the dupli cate keying of data to identify data entry errors.

Data reduction may be an irreversible process that i nvolves a loss of detail in the data and may involve averaging across time (for example, 5-minute, ho urly or daily averages) or space (for example, compositing results from samples thought to be physically equivalent) such as the Pb sample aggregation

or PM 2.5 

### spatial averaging techniques. Since this su mmarizing process produces few values to represent a group of many data points, its validity should be well- documented in the QAPP. Potential data anomalies can be investigated by simple statistical analyses.

The information generation step invol ves the synthesis of the results of previous operations and the

construction of tables and charts suitable for use in reports. How information generation is checked, the requirements for the outcome, and how deviations from the requirements will be treated, should be

addressed.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 7



## 17.1 Data Review Methods

The flow of data from the field environmental data operations to the storage in the database requires several distinct and separate steps:

• 

### initial selection of hardware and software for the acquisition, storage, retrieval and transmittal of

data

• 

### organization and the control of the data flow fro m the field sites and the analytical laboratory

• 

### input and validation of the data

• 

### manipulation, analysis and archival of the data

• 

### submittal of the data into the EPA’s AQS database.

Both manual and computer-oriented systems require indi vidual reviews of all data tabulations. As an individual scans tabulations, there is no way to determine that all values are valid. The purpose of manual inspection is to spot unusually high (or low) values ( outliers) that might indicate a gross error in the data collection system. In order to recognize that the repor ted concentration of a given pollutant is extreme, the individual must have basic knowledge of the major pollutants and of air quality conditions prevalent at the reporting station. Data values considered ques tionable should be flagged for verification. This scanning for high/low values is sensitive to spurious ex treme values but not to intermediate values that could also be grossly in error.

Manual review of data tabulations also allows detection of uncorrected drift in the zero baseline of a continuous sensor. Zero drift may be indicated wh en the daily minimum concentration tends to increase or decrease from the norm over a period of several days. For example, at most sampling stations, the early morning (3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.) concentr ations of carbon monoxide tend to reach a minimum (e.g., 2 to 4 ppm). If the minimum concentration differs significantly from this, a zero drift may be suspected. Zero drift could be confirmed by review of the original strip chart.

In an automated data processing system, procedures for data validation can easily be incorporated into the basic software. The computer can be programmed to scan data values for extreme values, outliers or ranges. These checks can be further refined to account for time of day, time of week, and other cyclic conditions. Questionable data values are then flagged on the data tabulation to indicate a possible error. Other types of data review can consist of preliminar y evaluations of a set of data, calculating some basic statistical quantiles and examining the data using graphical representations.



## 17.2 Data Verification Methods

Verification can be defined as confirmation, through provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled 3 

### . The verification requirements for each data operation are included in the organizations’ QAPP and in SOPs and should include not only the verification of sampling and analysis processes but also operations like data en try, calculations and data reporting. The data verification process involves the inspection, analysis, and acceptance of the field data or samples. These inspections can take the form of technical systems aud its (internal or external) or frequent inspections by

3 Guidance on Environmental Data Verifi cation and Data Validation (QA/G-8) http://www.epa.gov/qu ality1/qa_docs.html throgh proviosion of objective evidenceQA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 7



### field operators and lab technicians. Questions that might be asked during the verification process include:

• 

### Were the environmental data operations performed according to the SOPs governing those operations?

• 

### Were the environmental data operations performed on the correct time and date originally specified? Many environmental operations must be performed within a specific time frame; for example, the NAAQS samples for particulates are collected once every six days from midnight to midnight. The monitor timing mechanisms must have operated correctly for the sample to be collected within the time frame specified.

• 

### Did the sampler or monitor perform correctly? Individual checks such as leak checks, flow checks, meteorological influences, and all ot her assessments, audits, and performance checks must have been acceptably performed and documented.

• 

### Did the environmental sample pass an initial visual inspection? Many environmental samples can be flagged (qualified) during th e initial visual inspection.

• 

### Have manual calculations, manual da ta entry, or human adjustments to software settings been

checked? Automated calculations should be verifi ed and accepted prior to use, but at some frequencies these calculations should be reviewed to ensure that they have not changed.

• 

### Were the environmental data ope rations performed to meet data quality objectives designed for those specific data operations and were the opera tions performed as specified? The objectives for environmental data operations must be clear a nd understood by all those involved with the data

collection.



## 17.3 Data Validation Methods

Data validation is a routine process designed to ensu re that reported values meet the quality goals of the environmental data operations. Da ta validation is further defined as examination and provision of objective evidence that the partic ular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled. A progressive, systematic approach to data validation must be used to ensure and assess the quality of data.

The purpose of data validation is to detect and then verify any data values that may not represent actual air quality conditions at the sampling station. Eff ective data validation procedures usually are handled completely independently from the pr ocedures of initial data collection.

Because the computer can perform computations and make comparisons extremely rapidly, it can also make some determination concerning the validity of data values that are not necessarily high or low. Data validation procedures should be reco mmended as standard operating procedures. For example, one can evaluate the difference between successive data values, since one would not normally expect very rapid changes in concentrations of a pollutant during a 5-min or 1-h reporting period. When the difference between two successive values exceeds a predetermined value, the tabulation can be flagged, with an appropriate symbol.

Quality control data can support da ta validation procedures (see sec tion 17.3.3). If data assessment results clearly indicate a serious response problem with the analyzer, the agency should review all pertinent quality control information to determin e whether any ambient data, as well as any associated assessment data, should be invalidated. Therefore if ambi ent data are determined to be invalid, then the associated precision, bias and accuracy readings should also be invalidated. A ny data quality calculationsQA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 7



### using the invalidated readings should be redone. Also, the precision, bias or accuracy checks should be rescheduled, preferably in the same calendar quarter. The basis or justification for all data invalidations should be permanently documented.

Certain criteria, based upon CFR and field operator an d laboratory technician judgment, may be used to invalidate a sample or measurement. These criteria should be explicitly identified in the organization’s QAPP. Many organizations use flags or result qualif iers to identify potential problems with data or a sample. A flag is an indicator of the fact and th e reason that a data value (a) did not produce a numeric result, (b) produced a numeric result but it is qualified in some respect relating to the type or validity of the result, or (c) produced a numeric result but for admi nistrative reasons is not to be reported outside the organization. Flags can be used both in the field and in the laboratory to signify data that may be suspect due to contamination, special events or failure of QC limits. Flags can be used to determine if individual samples (data), or samples from a pa rticular instrument, will be inva lidated. In all cases, the sample (data) should be thoroughly reviewed by th e organization prior to any invalidation.

Flags may be used alone or in combination to invalid ate samples. Since the possible flag combinations can be overwhelming and can not always be anticip ated, an organization needs to review these flag combinations and determine if single values or valu es from a site for a particular time period will be invalidated. The organization should keep a record of the combination of flags that resulted in invalidating a sample or set of samples. These co mbinations should be repor ted to the EPA Region and can be used to ensure that the organization evalua tes and invalidates data in a consistent manner.

Procedures for screening data for possible errors or anomalies should also be implemented. The data quality assessment document series (EPA QA/G-9R 4 

### , EPA QA/G-9s 5 

### ) provide several statistical screening procedures for ambient air quality data that s hould be applied to identify gross data anomalies.

NOTE: it is strongly suggested that flags, specifically th e appropriate null data code flags, be used in place of any routine values that are invalidated. This provides some indication to data users and data quality assessors to the reasons why data that was expected to be collected was missing.



### 17.3.1 Automated Methods

When zero, span or one-point QC checks exceed acceptance limits, ambient measurements should be invalidated back to the most recent point in time where such measurements are known to be valid. Usually this point is the previous check, unless some other point in time can be identified and related to the probable cause of the excessive drift or exceedance (such as a power failure or malfunction). Also, data following an analyzer malfunction or period of non-operation should be regarded as invalid until the next subsequent (level 1) acceptable check or calib ration. Based on the sophistication of DAS (see Section 14) monitoring organization may have ot her automated programs for data validation. These programs should be described in the monitoring or ganization’s approved QAPP pr ior to implementation. Even though the automated technique may be consider ed acceptable, the raw invalidated data should be

archived for statute of limitations discussed in Section 5.

4 Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf

5 Data Quality Assessment: Statis tical Methods for Practitioners http://www.epa.gov/quality1/ qs-docs/g9s-final.pdfQA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 7



### 17.3.2 Manual Methods

For manual methods, the first level of data validation should be to accept or reject monitoring data based upon results from operational checks selected to monito r the critical parameters in all three major and distinct phases of manual methods--sampling, analysis , and data reduction. In addition to using operational checks for data validation, the user mu st observe all limitations, acceptance limits, and warnings described in the reference and equivalent methods per se that may invalidate data. It is further recommended that results from performance audits/eva luations required in 40 CFR 58, Appendix A not

be used as the sole criteria for data invalidation b ecause these checks (performance audits) are intended to assess the quality of the data.



### 17.3.3 Validation Templates

In June 1998, a workgroup was formed to develop a procedure that could be used by monitoring organizations that would provide for a consistent validation of PM 2.5 

### mass concentrations across the US. The Workgroup developed three tables of criteria wher e each table has a different degree of implication about the quality of the data. The criteria include d on the tables are from 40 CFR Part 50, Appendices L and N, 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A, Method 2.12, and a few criteria that are neither in CFR nor Method

2.12.

One of the tables has the criteria that must be met to ensure the quality of the data. An example criterion is that the average flow rate for the sampling period must be maintaine d to within 5% of 16.67 liters per

minute. The second table has the cr iteria that indicate that there might be a problem with the quality of the data and further investigation is warranted befo re making a determination about the validity of the sample or samples. An example crite rion is that the field filter blanks should not change weight by more

than 30 : g between weighings. The third table has criteria that indicate a potentially systematic problem

with the environmental data collec tion activity. Such systematic problems may impact the ability to make decisions with the data. An example criterion is that at least 75% of the scheduled samples for each quarter should be successfully collected and validated.

To determine the appropriate table for each crite rion, the members of the workgroup considered how significantly the criteria impact the resulting PM 2.5 

### mass. This was based on experience from workgroup members, experience from non-workgroup members, and feasibility of implementing the criterion.

Criteria that were deemed critical to maintaining th e integrity of a sample or group of samples were placed on the first table. Observations that do not meet each and every criterion on the Critical Criteria

Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and justification for not doing so. Basically, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is invalid until proven otherwise. The cause of not operating in the acceptable range for each of the violated criteria must be investigated and minimized to reduce the likelihood that additional samples will be invalidated.

Criteria that are important for maintaining and evalua ting the quality of the data collection system are included on the second table, the Operational Criteria Table . Violation of a criterion or a number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision s hould consider other quality control information that may or may not indicate the data are acceptable for the parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is suspect unless other qualityQA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 7



### control information demonstrates otherwise. The reason for not meeting the criteria MUST be investigated, mitigated or justified.

Finally, those criteria which are important for the co rrect interpretation of the data but do not usually impact the validity of a sample or group of samples are included on the third table, the Systematic

Criteria Table . For example, the data quality objectives are included in this table. If the data quality objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any of the samples but it may impact the error rate

associated with the attain ment/non-attainment decision.

Based on the success and use of the PM 2.5 

### validation template, the Workgroup embarked on the development of similar templates for the remaining criteria pollutants. Appendix D provides templates for each criteria pollutant. The validation templates are based on the current state of knowledge at the time of development of the Handbook. The template will evolve as new information is discovered about the impact of the various criterion on the error in the resulting concentration estimate. Interactions of the criteria, whether synergistic or antagonistic, should also be incorporated wh en the impact of these interactions becomes quantified. Due to the potential misuse of invalid data, data that are invalidated will not be uploaded to AQS but should be retained on the monitoring organizations local database. This data

will be invaluable to the evolu tion of the validation template.

NOTE: Strict adherence to the validation templates is not required. They are meant to be a guide based upon the knowledge of the Workgroup who deve loped them and may be a starting point for monitoring organization specific validation requirement.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 9



# 18.0 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives

Section 3 described the data quality objective (DQO) process, which is an important planning tool to determine the objectives of an environmental data operation, to understand and agree upon the allowable uncertainty in the data and, with that, to optimize the sampling design. This information, along with sampling and analytical methods and appropriate QA/ QC, should be documented in an organization’s QAPP. The QAPP is then implemented by the monito ring organizations under the premise that if it is followed, the DQOs should be met. Reconciliation with the DQO involves reviewing both routine and QA/QC data to determine whether the DQOs have been attained and that the data are adequate for their intended use. This process of evaluating the data against the DQOs has been termed data quality assessment (DQA).

The DQA process has been developed for cases where fo rmal DQOs have been established. However, these procedures can also be used for data that do not formally have DQOs. Guidance on the DQA process can be found in the documents titled Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide (EPA QA/G9R) 1 

### and its companion document Data Quality Assessment: Statistical Tools for Practitioners (EPA QA/G-9S ) 2 

### . This document focuses on evaluating data fo r fitness in decision-making and also provides many graphical and statistical tools.

As stated in EPA QA/G-9R “ Data quality, as a concept, is meaningful only when it relates to the intended use of the data ”. By using the DQA Process, one can answer four fundamental questions:

1. Can the decision (or estimate) be made with the d esired level of certainty, given the quality of the

data set?

2. How well did the sampling design perform?

3. If the same sampling design strategy is used again for a similar study, would the data be expected to support the same intended use with the desired level of uncertainty?

4. Is it likely that sufficient samples were taken to enable the reviewer to see an effect if it was really present?

DQA is a key part of the assessment phase of the data life cycle (Figure 18.1), which is very similar to the ambient air QA life cycle described in Section 1. As the part of the assessment phase that follows data validation and verification, DQA determines how well th e validated data can support their intended use.



## 18.1 Five Steps of the DQA Process

As described in EPA QA/G-9R 1 

### and EPA QA/G-9S 2 

### , the DQA process is comprised of five steps. The steps are detailed below. Since DQOs are available for the PM 2.5 

### program, they will be used as an example for the type of information that might be considered in each step. The PM 2.5 

### information is

italicized and comes from a model PM 2.5 

### QAPP 3 

### for a fictitious repor ting organization called Palookaville. The model QAPP was developed to he lp monitoring organizations develop QAPPs based upon the new R-5 QAPP requirements.

1 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf

2 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9s-final.pdf

3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmqainf.htmlQA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 9

Figure 18.1 DQA in the cont ext of data life cycle.



### Step 1. Review DQOs and Sampling Design. Review the DQO outputs to assure that they are still applicable. If DQOs have not been developed, sp ecify DQOs before evaluating the data (e.g., for environmental decisions, define the statistical hypoth esis and specify tolerable limits on decision errors; for estimation problems, define an acceptable conf idence probability interval width). Review the sampling design and data collection documentati on for consistency with the DQOs observing any potential discrepancies.

The PM 2.5 

### DQOs define the primary objective of the PM 2.5 

### ambient air monitoring network (PM 2.5 

### NAAQS comparison), translate the objective into a statis tical hypothesis (3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 

### concentrations less than or equal to 15 μg/m 3 

### and 3-year average of annual 98th percentiles of the PM 2.5 

### concentrations less than or equal to 35 μg/m 3 

### ), and identify limits on the decision errors (incorrectly conclude area in non-attainment when it truly is in attainment no more than 5% of the time, and incorrectly conclude area in attainment when it trul y is in non-attainment no more than 5% of the time).

The CFR contains the details for the sampling design , including the rationale for the design, the design assumptions, and the sampling locations and frequency. If any deviations from the sampling design have occurred, these will be indicated and their potential e ffect carefully considered throughout the entire DQA.

Step 2. Conduct Preliminary Data Review. Review QA reports, calculate basic statistics, and generate graphs of data. Use this information to understa nd the structure of the data and identify patterns, relationships, or potential anomalies.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 9



### A preliminary data review will be performed to uncov er potential limitations of using the data, to reveal outliers, and generally to explore the ba sic structure of the data. The fi rst step is to review the quality assurance reports. The second step is to calcul ate basic summary statistics, generate graphical presentations of the data, and review these summary statistics and graphs.

Review Quality Assurance Reports . Palookaville will review all relevant quality assurance reports that describe the data collection and reporting process. Par ticular attention will be directed to looking for anomalies in recorded data, missing values, and any deviations from standard operating procedures. This is a qualitative review. However, any concerns w ill be further investigated in the next two steps.

Calculation of Summary Statistics and Generation of Graphical Presentations . Palookaville will generate prominent summary sta tistics for each of its primary and QA samplers. These summary statistics will be calculated at the quarterly, annual, and three-year levels and will include only valid samples. The summary statistics are:

Number of samples, mean concentration, median conc entration, standard deviation, coefficient of
variation, maximum concentration, minimum concentration, interquartile range, skewness and

kurtosis.

These statistics will also be calculat ed for the percent differen ces at the collocated sites. The results will
be summarized in a table. Particular attention will be given to the impact on the statistics caused by the observations noted in the quality assurance review. For example , Palookaville may evaluate the influence of a potential outlier by evaluating the change in the summary statistics resulting from exclusion of the outlier.

Palookaville will generate graphics to present the results from the summary statistics and show the spatial continuity over the sample areas. Maps will be created for the annual and three-year means, maxima, and interquartile ranges for a total of 6 ma ps. The maps will help uncover potential outliers and will help in the network design review. Additionally, basic histograms will be generated for each of the primary and QA samplers and for the percent difference at the collocated sites. The histograms will be useful in identifying anomalies and evaluating th e normality assumption in the measurement errors.

Step 3. Select the Statistical Test. Select the most appropriate procedure for summarizing and analyzing the data, based upon the reviews of the pe rformance and acceptance crite ria associated with the DQOs, the sampling design, and the preliminary data review. Identify the key underlying assumptions that must hold for the statistical procedures to be valid.

The primary objective for the PM 2.5 

### mass monitoring is determining compliance with the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. As a result, the null and alternative hypotheses are:

3 3 3 3

0



### / 35 / 15 : / 35 / 15 :

m g Y or m g X H m g Y and m g X H

A 

### μ μ μ μ

> > ≤ ≤

where X is the three-year average PM 2.5 

### concentration and Y is the th ree-year average of the annual 98th percentiles of the PM 2.5 

### concentrations recorded for an individual monitor. The exact calculations for X and Y are specified in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N. The null hypothesis is rejected; that is, it is concluded that the area is not in compliance with the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS when the observed three-year average of the annual arithmetic me an concentration exceeds 15.05 μg/m 3 

### or when the observedQA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 9



### three-year average of the annual 98th percentiles exceeds 35.5 μg/m 3 

### . If the bias of the sampler is ± 10% and the precision is within 10%, then the error rates (T ype I and Type II) associated with this statistical test are less than or equal to 5%. The definitions of bias and precision will be outlined in the following

step.

Step 4. Verify Assumptions of Statistical Test. Evaluate whether the underlying assumptions hold, or whether departures are acceptable, given the actua l data and other information about the study.

The assumptions behind the statistical test include those associated with the development of the DQOs in addition to the bias and precision assumptions. The me thod of verification will be addressed in this step. Note that when less than three years of data are avail able, this verification will be based on as much data

as are available.

The DQO is based on the annual arithmetic mean NAAQS

. For each primary sampler, Palookaville will determine which, if either, of the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS concentration is viol ated. In the DQO development,

it was assumed that the annual standard is more rest rictive than the 24-hour standard. If there are any samplers that violate ONLY the 24-hour NAAQS, then this assumption is not correct. The seriousness of violating this assumption is not clear. Concept ually, the DQOs can be developed based on the 24-hour NAAQS and the more restrictive bias and precision lim its selected. However, Palookaville will assume

the annual standard is more restric tive, until proven otherwise.

Normal distribution for measurement error. Assuming that measurement errors are normally distributed is common in environmental monitoring. Palookaville has not investigated the sensitivity of the statistical test to violate this assumption; alt hough, small departures from normality generally do not create serious problems. Instead, Palookaville will evaluate the reasonableness of the normality assumption by reviewing a normal probability plot, and calculating the Shapiro-Wilk W Test statistic (if sample size less than 50) or calculating the Kolmogorov -Smirnoff Test statistic (if sample size greater than 50). All three techniques are provided by standard statistical packages. If the plot or statistics indicate possible violations of normality, Palookaville may need to determine the sensitivity of the DQOs to departures in normality.

Decision error can occur when the estimated 3-year average differs from the actual (true) 3-year average. This is not really an assumption as much as a statement that the data collected by an ambient air monitor is stochastic, meaning that there are errors in the measurement process, as mentioned in the previous assumption.

The limits on precision and bias are based on the sma llest number of required sample values in a 3-year period. In the development of the DQOs, the smallest number of required samples was used. The reason for this was to ensure that the confidence was sufficient in the minimal case; if more samples are collected, then the confidence in th e resulting decision will be even high er. For each of the samplers, Palookaville will determine how many samples were coll ected in each quarter. If this number meets or exceeds 12, then the data completen ess requirements for the DQO are met.

The decision error limits were set at 5%. If the oth er assumptions are met, th en the decision error limits are less than or equal to 5%.

Measurement imprecision was established at 10% coeffic ient of variation (CV). For each sampler, Palookaville will review the coefficient of variation calc ulated in Step 2. If any exceed 10%, Palookaville may need to determine the sens itivity of the DQOs to larger levels of measurement imprecision.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 9



### Table 18-1 will be completed duri ng each DQA. The table summarizes which, if any, assumptions have been violated. A check will be placed in each of th e row/column combinations that apply. Ideally, there will be no checks. However, if th ere are checks in the table, the imp lication is that the decision error rates are unknown, even if the bias and precision limits are achieved. As mentioned above, if any of the DQO assumptions are violated, then Pal ookaville will need to reevaluate its DQOs.

Achievement of bias and precision limits. Lastly, Palookaville will ch eck the assumption that at the 3-year level of aggregation, the sampler bias is within + 10% and precision is < 10%. The data from the collocated samplers will be used to calculate quar terly, annual, and 3-year bias and precision estimates even though it is only the 3-year estimates that are critical for the statistical test.

Since all the initial samplers being de ployed by Palookaville will be FRM s, the samplers at each of the collocated sites will be identical method designations. As such, it is difficult to determine which of the collocated samplers is closer to the true PM 2.5 

### concentration. Palookaville will calculate an estimate of precision. A bias measure will also be calculated, but it can only describe th e relative difference of one sampler to the other, not definitively indicate which sa mpler is closer to the “tru e” value. The following paragraphs contain the algorithms for calculatin g precision and bias. These are similar, but differ slightly, from the equations in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A.

Table 18-1 Summary of Violations of DQO Assumptions

Site Violate 24-Hour

Standard ONLY? Measurement Errors

Non-Normal? Data Complete? ( $ 12 samples per quarter) Measurement CV

> 10%?
Primary Samplers

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

QA Samplers

A1

B1



### Before describing the algorithm, some ground wo rk is necessary. When less than three years of collocated data are available, then the three-year bias and precision estimates must be predicted. Palookaville’s strategy for accomplishing this will be to use all available quarters of data as the basis for projecting where the bias and precision estimates will be at the end of the three-yea r monitoring period. Three-year point estimates will be computed by weig hting the quarterly components, using the most applicable of the following assumptions:

1. Most recent quarter’s precision and bias are mo st representative of what the future quarters will

be.

2. All previous quarters precision and bias are equa lly representative of what the future quarter’s

will be.

3. Something unusual happened in the most recent quar ter, so the most rep resentative quarters are all the previous ones, minus the most recent.QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 9



### Each of these scenarios results in weights that will be used in the following algorithms. The weights are shown in Table 18-2 where the variable Q represents the number of quarters for which observed bias and precision estimates are available. Note that when Q=12, that is, when there are bias and precision values for all of the quarters in the three-year period, then all of the following scenarios result in the same weighting scheme.

Table 18-2 Weights for Estimati ng Three-Year Bias and Precision

Scenario Assumption Weights

1 Latest quarter most representative w q = 12 -(Q- 1 ) for latest quarter,

w q = 1 otherwise

2 All quarters equall y representative w q = 12 /Q for each quarter

3 Latest quarter unrepresentative w q = 1 for latest quarter,

w q = 11/( Q -1) otherwise



### In addition to point estimates, Palookaville will devel op confidence intervals for the bias and precision estimates. This will be accomplished using a re- sampling technique. The protocol for creating the confidence intervals are outlined in Box 18.1.

The algorithms for determining whether the bias and precision DQOs have been achieved for each sampler follow: 

### Box 18.1 Method for Estimating Confiden ce in Achieving Bias and Precision DQOs

Let Z be the statistic of interest (bias or precision). For a given weighting scenario, the re-sampling will be implemented as follows:

1. Determine M, the number of collocated pairs per quarter for the remaining 12-Q quarters (default is M=15 or can use M=average number observed for the previous Q quarters. 2. Randomly select with replacement M collocated pairs per quarter for each of the future 12-Q quarters in a manner consistent with the given weighting scenario. Scenario 1: Select pairs from latest quarter only. Scenario 2: Select pairs from any quarter. Scenario 3: Select pairs from any quarter except the latest one. Result from this step is “complete” collocated data for a three-year period, from which bias and precision

estimates can be determined. 3. Based on the “filled-out” three-year period from st ep 2, calculate three-year bias and precision estimate, using Equation 1 where w q = 1 for each quarter. 4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 numerous times, such as 1000 times. 5. Determine P, the fraction of the 1000 simulations for which the three-year bias and precision criteria are met. P is interpreted as the probability that the sa mpler is generating observations consistent with the

three- y ear bias and p recision D Q Os



### .QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 9



### Bias Algorithm

1. For each measurement pair, es timate the percent relative bias, d i



### .



# ( ) 100 2 / × + −

=

i i i

i

i 

### X Y X

Y d %

where X i 

### represents the concentration reco rded by the primary sampler and Y i 

### represents the concentration recorded by the collocated sampler.

2. Summarize the percent relative bias to the quarterly level, D j,q 

### , according to



# ∑

= 

### = q j n

i i

q j q j 

### d

n D ,

1

, , 

### 1

where n j,q 

### is the number of collocated pairs in quarter q for site j.

3. Summarize the quarterly bias estimates to the three-year level using



# ∑ ∑

=

=



### =

q q

n

q q n

q q j q

j



### w D w

D

1 1 ,



### ˆ Equation 18-1

where n q 

### is the number of quarters with actual collocated data and w q 

### is the weight for quarter q as specified by the scenario in Table 18-2.

4. Examine D j,q 

### to determine whether one sampler is c onsistently measuring above or below the other. To formally test this, a non-parametric test will be used (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test), which is described in EPA QA/G-9S 2 

### . If the null hypothesis is rejec ted, then one of the samplers is consistently measuring above or below the other. This information may be helpful in directing the investigation into the cause of the bias.

Precision Algorithm

1. For each measurement pair, calcul ate the coefficient of variation, cv i 

### ,



### 2 i

i 

### d

v c 

### =QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 9



### 2. Summarize the coefficient of va riation to the quarterly level, CV j,q 

### , according to

q j n

i i

q j 

### n CV

CV j

, 1 2

, 

# ∑

= 

### =

where n j,q 

### is the number of collocated pairs in quarter q for site j.

3. Summarize the quarterly precision estim ates to the three-year level using



# ( )

∑ ∑

=

=



### =

q q

n

q q n

q q j q

j



### w CV w

CV

1 1 2

, ^ 

### Equation 18-2

where n q 

### is the number of quarters with actual collocated data and w q 

### is the weight for quarter q as specified by the scenario in Tabl e 24-2 (reference to Model QAPP).

4. If the null hypothesis in the Wilcoxon Signed R ank Test was not rejected, then the coefficient of variation can be interpreted as a measure of p recision. If the null hypothesis in the Wilcoxon Ssigned Rank Test was rejected, the coefficient of variation has both a component representing precision and a component representing the (squared) bias.

Confidence in Bias and Precision Estimates

1. Follow the method described in Box 18.1 to estimate the probability that the sampler is generating observations consistent with th e three-year bias and precision DQOs. The re-sampling must be done for each collocated site.

Summary of Bias and Precision Estimation

The results from the calculations and re-sampling will be summarized in Table 18-3. There will be one line for each site operatin g a collocated sampler.

Table 18-3 Summary of Bias and Precision

Collocated Three-year Bias Estimate (Equation. 1) Three-year Precision Estimate (Equation. 2) Null Hypothesis of Wilcoxon Test Rejected? P (Box 18-1)

A1

B1QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 9 of 9



### Step 5. Draw Conclusions from the Data. Perform the calculations required for the statistical test and

document the inferences drawn as a result of these calculati ons. If the design is to be used again, evaluate the performance of the sampling design.

Before determining whether the monitored data indicate compliance with the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, Palookaville must first determine if any of the assumptions upon whic h the statistical test is based are violated. This can be easily checked in Step 5 because of all th e work done in Step 4. In particular, as long as

 in Table 18-1, there are no checks, and

 in Table 18-3,

R the three year bias estimate is in the interval [-10%,10%], and

R the three year precision estimate is less than or equal to 10%

then the assumptions underlying the test appear to be valid. As a result, if the observ ed three-year average PM 2.5 

### concentration is less than 15 μg/m 3 

### and the observed three-year average 98th percentile is less than 35 μg/m 3 

### , the conclusion is that the area seem s to be in compliance with the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, with an error rate of 5%.

If any of the assumptions have been violated, then the level of confid ence associated with the test is suspect and will have to be further investigated.

DQA without DQOs

Even though DQOs, based upon the EPA G-4 guidan ce, have not been developed for all criteria pollutants, a process very similar to this approach was originally used 4 

### . In addition, monitoring organizations collect enough types of QA/QC data to est imate the quality of their data and should be able to express the confidence in that information.

4 Curran, Thomas C. et.al., “Establishi ng Data Quality Acceptance Criteria fo r Air Pollution Data” Transactions of the 35 Annual Conference of the American Society for Quality Control (May 27-29,1981)QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 1 of 11



# Appendix A

National Air Quality Monitoring Program Fact Sheets

The following information provides a fact sh eet on a number of national ambient air monitoring networks including:

• 

### State or Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Network

• 

### National Core (NCore) Network

• 

### Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)

• 

### PM 2.5 

### Chemical Speciation Network (CSN)

• 

### National Toxics Trends Network (NATTS)

• 

### Interagency Monitoring of Protecte d Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

• 

### Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)

• 

### National Atmospheric De position Network (NADP)

• 

### National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)

Only the SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, CSN an d NATTS pertain to the information

covered in the Handbook. The other networ ks described are for the benefit of the

reader.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 2 of 11



### Page intentionally left blankQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 3 of 11



## State or Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Network

Background

The SLAMS make up the ambient air quality monitoring sites that are operated by State or local agencies for the primary purpose of comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), but may serve other purposes such as:

• provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner;

• support compliance with air quality standards and emissions strategy development; and

• support air pollution research studies.

The SLAMS network includes stations classified as NCore, PAMS, and Speciation, and formerly categorized as NAMS, and does not in clude Special Purpose Monitors (SPM) and other monitors used for non-regulatory or industrial monitoring purposes.

In order to support the objectives, the monitoring networ ks are designed with a variety of monitoring sites that generally fall into the following categories which are used to determine:

1. the highest concentrations expected to occu r in the area covered by the network;

2. typical concentrations in areas of high population density;

3. the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source categories;

4. the general background concentration levels;

5. the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas, and in support of secondary standards; and

6. air pollution impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or other welfare- based impacts.

The monitoring aspects of the SLAMS program are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 50, 53 and 58

.

SLAMS must use approved Federal reference method (FRM ), Federal equivalent method (FEM), or Approved Regional Method (ARM) monitors for ambient po llutant levels being compared to the NAAQS.

Reference Category References Comments Program References 40 CFR Part 50, 53 and 58 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

Pollutants Measured O 3 , CO, SO 2 , NO 2 PM 2.5 , PM 10 , Pb

Methods References 40 CFR Part 50 and 58 Appendix C http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a mtic/criteria.html Must be FRM, FEM, or ARM for NAAQS comparisons. Website lists designated methods Network Design References 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D, E Siting Criteria 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E Quality System References 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/quality.html http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/met.html Website for QA Handbook Vol II Eebsite for QA Handbook Vol IV Data Management

References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/ Air Quality SystemQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 4 of 11



## National Core (NCore) Network

Background

The NCore multi-pollutant stations are part of an overa ll strategy to integrate multiple monitoring networks and measurements. As required by the revised monitoring regulations promulgated in 2006, monitors at NCore multi-pollutant sites will measure particles (PM 2.5 , speciated PM 2.5 , PM 10-2.5, speciated PM 10-2.5 ), O 3 , SO 2 , CO, nitrogen oxides (NO/NO 2 /NO y ), and basic meteorology. Monitors for all the gases except for O 3 will be more sensitive than standard FRM/FEM monitors , so they could accurately report concentrations that are well below the respective NAAQS but that can be important in the formation of O 3 and PM.

The objective is to locate sites in broadly representativ e urban (about 55 sites) and rural (about 20 sites) locations throughout the country to help characterize regional and urban patterns of air pollution. The NCore network must be fully operational by 2011. Many stations will be operational before that deadline.

In many cases, states will collocate these new stations with STN sites measuring speciated PM 2.5 components, PAMS sites already measuring O 3 precursors, and/or NATTS sites measuring air toxics. Bycombining these monitoring programs at a single location, EPA and its partners will maximize the multipollutant information available. This greatly enhan ces the foundation for future health studies, NAAQS revisions, validation of air quality models, assessm ent of emission reduction programs, and studies of ecosystem impacts of air pollution.

Reference Category References Comments Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/monitor.html

Pollutants Measured SO 2 , CO, NO and NO y , and O 3 , PM 2.5 , PM 10-2.5 , basic meteorological parameters

Methods References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a mtic/precursop.html http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a mtic/pretecdoc.html

Network Design References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/am tic/monstratdoc.html

Siting Criteria http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a mtic/pretecdoc.html

Quality System References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qaqcrein.html

Data Management

References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a mtic/pretecdoc.htmlQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 5 of 11



## Photochemical Assessment Moni toring Stations (PAMS)

Background

Section 182(c)(1) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amen dments (CAAA) require the Administrator to promulgate rules for the enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) to obtain more comprehensive and representative data on ozone air pollution. Immediately following the promulgation of such rules, the affected states were to commence such actions as were necessary to adopt and implement a program to improve am bient monitoring activities and the monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOC. Each Stat e Implementation Plan (SIP) for the affected areas must contain measures to implement the ambient monitoring of such air pollutants. The subsequent revisions to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 58 (40 CFR 58) required states to establish Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) as part of their SIP monitoring networks in ozone

nonattainment areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme.

The chief objective of the enhanced ozone monitoring revisions is to provide an air quality database that will assist air pollution control agencies in evaluating, tracking the progress of, and, if necessary, refining control strategies for attaining the ozone NAAQS. Am bient concentrations of ozone and ozone precursors will be used to make attainment/nonattainment decisions, aid in tracking VOC and NOx emission inventory reductions, better characterize the nature and extent of the ozone problem, and prepare air quality trends. In addition, data from the PAMS will provide an improved database for evaluating photochemical model performance, especially for future control strategy mid-course corrections as part of the continuing air quality management process. The data will be particular ly useful to states in ensuring the implementation

of the most cost-effec tive regulatory controls.

Reference Category References Comments Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsrein.html http://www.epa.gov/air/ oaqps/pams/docs.html

Pollutants Measured Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides, VOCs, surface meteorological

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/pa ms/general.html#parameters

Methods References

Network Design

References http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/pams/network.html

Siting Criteria http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/ pams/general.html#siting

Quality System

References Data Management

ReferencesQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 6 of 11



## PM 2.5 

## Chemical Speciation Network

Background

As part of the effort to monitor particulate matter, EPA monitors and gathers data on the chemical makeup of these particles. EPA established a chemical speciation network consisting of approximately 300 monitoring sites. These sites ar e placed at various NAMS and SLAMS ac ross the Nation. Fifty-four of these chemical speciation sites, the Speciation Trends Network (STN), will be used to determine, over a period of several years, trends in concentration levels of selected ions, metals, carbon species, and organic compounds in PM 2.5

. Further breakdown on the lo cation or placement of the trends sites requires that approximately 20 of the monitoring sites be placed at existing Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS). The placem ent of the remaining trends sites will be coordinated by EPA, the Regional offices, and the monitoring agencies. Locations will be primarily in or near larger Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

. The remaining chemical speciation sites will be used to enhance the required trends network and to provide information for developing effective State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

The STN is a component of the National PM 2.5 Monitoring Network. Although the STN is intended to complement the activities of the much larger gravimetric PM 2.5 measurements network component (whose goal is to establish if NAAQS are being attained), STN data will not be used for attainment or nonattainment decisions. The programmatic objectives of the STN network are:

• annual and seasonal spatial characterization of aerosols;

• air quality trends analysis and tracking the progress of control programs;

• compare the chemical speciation data set to the da ta collected from the IMPROVE network; and

• development of emission control strategies.

Stakeholders in the STN will be those at EPA seeking to determine concentration trends of PM 2.5 chemical species over a period of 3 or more years and decision-makers at tribal, state and local levels who will use the data as input to models and for development of emission control strategies and determination of their long-term effectiveness. Other users will be public health officials and epidemiological researchers. However, expectations for data sets from the STN must be put in context.

Reference Category References Comments Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a mtic/speciepg.html

Pollutants Measured ions, metals, carbon species, and organic compounds

Methods References

Network Design References

Siting Criteria

Quality System References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specqual.html

Data Management

References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specdat.htmlQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 7 of 11



## National Toxics Trends Network (NATTS)

Background

There are currently 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or Air Toxics (AT), regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that have been associated w ith a wide variety of adverse health effects, including cancer, neurological, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as eco-system effects. In 1999. EPA finalized the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (U ATS). The UATS states that emissions data are needed to quantify the sources of ai r toxics impacts and aid in the development of control strategies, while ambient monitoring data are needed to understand the behavior of air toxics in the atmosphere after they are emitted. Part of this strategy included the deve lopment of the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS). Specifically, it is anticipated that the NATTS data will be used for:

• tracking trends in ambient levels to facilitate tr acking progress toward emission and risk reduction goals, which is the major objective of this program;

• directly evaluating public exposure & environmental impacts in the vicinity of monitors;

• providing quality assured data AT for risk characterization;

• assessing the effectiveness of specific emission reduction activities; and

• evaluating and subsequently improving air toxics emission inventories and model performance.

Currently the NATTS program is made up of 22 monitoring sites; 15 representing urban communities and 7 representing rural communities.

Reference Category References Comments Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn /amtic/natts.html

Pollutants Measured 33 HAPS which include metals, VOCs and carbonyls

Methods References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html

Network Design

References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html

, Reference : National Air

Toxics Trends Stations – Quality Management Plan –

final 09/09/05

Siting Criteria http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/ pams/general.html#siting Reference : 40 CFR part 58 Appendix E, PAMS Probe and Path Siting Criteria

Quality System

References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html

Data Management

References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/toxdat.htmlQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 8 of 11



## Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

Background

The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a steering committ ee composed of representatives from federal and regional-state organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the creation of Federal and State Implementation Plans fo r the protection of visibility in Class I areas ( 156 national parks and wilderness areas ) as stipulated in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act

. The objectives of IMPROVE are:

1. to establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory class I areas;

2. to identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing man-made visibility impairment;

3. to document long-term trends for assessing progress towards the national visibility goal;

4. and with the enactment of the Regional Haze Rule , to provided regional haze monitoring representing all visibility-protected federal class I areas where practical.

IMPROVE has also been a key participant in visib ility-related research, including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and source

attribution field studies. In addition to 110 IM PROVE sites at visibility-p rotected areas, IMPROVE Protocol sites are operated identically at locations to serve the needs of state, tribes and federal agencies.

Reference Category References Comments

Program

References http://vista.cira.co lostate.edu/improve/ http://vista.cira.colostate. edu/improve/Overview/IMPROVEP rogram_files/frame.htm

Pollutants

Measured PM 10 & PM 2.5 mass concentration, and PM 2.5 elements heavier than sodium, anions, organic and elemental carbon concentrations. Optical & met. parameters at select sites All sites have aerosol speciation monitoring by one day in three 24-hour duration sampling

Methods

References http://vista.cira.colostate.ed u/improve/Publications/IMPROV
E_SOPs.htm Network Design

References http://vista.cira.colostate.ed u/improve/Publications/IMPROV E_SOPs.htm Siting Criteria http://vista.cira.colostate.ed u/improve/Publications/IMPROV E_SOPs.htm Quality System

References http://vista.cira.colostate. edu/improve/Data/QA_QC/qa_qc_B

ranch.htm

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/visinfo.html

Data Management

References http://vista.cira.colostat e.edu/improve/Data/data.htmQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 9 of 11



## Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)

Background

EPA, in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), established CASTNET with the goal of assessing the impact and ef fectiveness of Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) through a larg e-scale monitoring network. CAST NET was designed to compile a sound scientific data base through routine environmental monitoring for the evaluation of air-quality management and control strategies. The network provides estimates of dry deposition using an inferential modeling method that relies on atmospheric concentrations, meteorological variables and other input as recorded at each site. The data record extends back to 1987, when routine field measurements first began under National Dry Deposition Network (NDDN). CASTNET currently consists of over 80 sites across the eastern and western United States and is cooperatively ope rated and funded with the National Park Service. CASTNET complements the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) which provides information on precipitation chemistry and wet deposition values.

The main objective of the network is to:

1) track the effectiveness of national and re gional scale emission control programs; 2) report high quality, publicly available data on the temporal and geographic patterns of air quality and atmospheric deposition trends; and 3) provide the necessary information for understanding the environmental effects in sensitive terrestrial and aquatic receptor areas associat ed with atmospheric loadings of pollutants.

Reference Category References Comments

Program

References http://www.epa.gov/castnet/

Pollutants

Measured -- weekly average atmospheric concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, sulfur dioxide, nitric acid and base ca tions --hourly concentrations of ambient ozone levels --hourly averages of meteorological variables required for calculating dry deposition rates

Methods

References CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan http://www.epa.gov/cas tnet/library.html Network Design

References CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan http://www.epa.gov/cas tnet/library.html Siting Criteria CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan http://www.epa.gov/cas tnet/library.html Quality System

References CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan http://www.epa.gov/cas tnet/library.html

Data Management

References http://www.epa.gov/cas tnet/library.html http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/i ndex.cfm?fuseaction=aciddeposition.wizardQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 10 of 11



## National Atmospheric Deposition Network (NADP)

Background

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) provides quality-assured data and information in support of research on the exposure of managed an d natural ecosystems and cultural resources to acidic compounds, nutrients, base cations, and mercury in precipitation. NADP data serve science and education and support informed decisions on air quality issues related to precipitation chemistry.

The NADP operates three precipitation chemistry ne tworks: the 250-station National Trends Network (NTN), 7-station Atmospheric Integrated Resear ch Monitoring Network (AIRMoN), and 100-station Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). The NTN provides the only long-term nationwide record of the wet deposition of acids, nutrients, and base cations. NTN stations collect one-week precipitation samples in 48 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is lands, and Quebec Province, Canada. Complementing the NTN is the 7- station AIRMoN. The daily precipitation samples collected at AIRMoN stations support continued research of atmospheric transport and removal of air pollutants and the development of computer simulations of these processes. The 100-station MDN offers the on ly regional measurements of mercury in North American precipitation. MDN data are used to quantif y mercury deposition to water bodies that have fish and wildlife consumption advisories due to this toxi c chemical. Presently, 48 states and 10 Canadian provinces list advisories warning people to limit fish consumption due to high mercury levels. Advisories also were issued for Atlantic Coastal waters from Maine to Rhode Island and North Carolina to Florida, for the entire U.S. Gulf Coast, and for Hawaii.

In addition to these long-term monitoring networks, the NADP is responsive to emerging issues requiring new or expanded measurements. Its measurement system is efficient, its data meet pre-defined data quality objectives, and its reports and products are designed to meet user needs.

Reference Category References Comments Program References NADP http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/

AIRMoN http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/airmon/

MDN http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/

Pollutants Measured sulfate, nitrate, chloride, ammonium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, pH, mercury

Methods References http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ lib/manuals/opman.pdf http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ lib/manuals/mdnopman.pdf

Network Design

References http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ lib/manuals/siteinst.pdf

Siting Criteria http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/manuals/siteinst.pdf

Quality System

References http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/ http://nadp.sws.uiuc.e du/lib/qaplans/NADP-QMPDec2003.pdf http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/li b/qaplans/qapCal2006.pdf

Data Management

References http://nadp.sws.uiuc.e du/airmon/getamdata.aspQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 11 of 11



## National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)

Background

NATA is a national-scale assessment of 33 air pollutants (a subset of 32 air toxics on the Clean Air Act's list of 188, plus diesel particulate matter ). The assessment considers the year 1996 (an update to 1999 is in preparation), including:

• compilation of a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources;

• estimates of ambient concentrations across the contiguous United States;

• estimates of population exposures; and

• characterizations of potential public health risks including both cancer and non-cancer effects.

NATA identifies those air toxics which are of greatest potentia l concern, in terms of contribution to population risk.

This information is relevant and useful in assessing risk for tribal programs.

Reference Category References Comments Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/index.html

Pollutants Measured http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html 33 air pollutants (see link)

Methods References Network Design References Siting Criteria Quality System References Data Management

ReferencesQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix B

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 1 of 4



# Appendix B

Ambient Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Information and

Web Addresses

The following information provides key gu idance documents and reports that can

be found on various sites within the Am bient Monitoring Technical Information Center (AMTIC) Website. The following identifiers are used to describe national ambient air monitoring programs

SLAMS- State or Local Air Monitoring Stations Network

NCore- National Core Network PAMS - Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations

CSN PM 2.5 

### Chemical Speciation Network

NATTS- National Toxics Trends Network

SLAMS-NPAP- National Pe rformance Audit Program SLAM-PEP- National PM2.5 Performance Evaluation ProgramQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix B

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 2 of 4



### Page intentionally left blankAmbient Air Quality Assurance InformationIdentifier TitleEPA Number Pub Date Year URLCSN Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Speciation Guidance Document1999http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/specfinl.pdfNATTS NATTS Technical Assistance Document (TAD)2007http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.htmlNCore NCore Technical Assistance Document (TAD)2005http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/monitorstrat/precursor/tadversion4.pdfNCore QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems VolumeIV Meteorlogical Measurment SystemsEPA-454/B-08-002 2008http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/met.htmlPAMS Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for Sampling andAnalysis of Ozone Precursors;EPA/600-R-98/161 1998http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pams/newtad.pdfSLAMS QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume IIEPA-454/R-98-004 1998http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/redbook.pdfSLAMS Guideline on the Meaning and the Use of Precision and BiasData Required by 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix AEPA-545/B-07-001 2007http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/P&B%20Guidance%2010.10.07%20vers1.1.pdfSLAMS Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Air MonitoringAnalyzers for OzoneEPA-600/4-79-056 1979http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-79-056.pdfSLAMS Techical Assitance Document for the Calibration of OzoneMonitorsEPA-600/4-79-057 1979http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-79-057.pdfSLAMS PM2.5 PM2.5Quality Assurance Program Overview1997http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/pm25qa.pdfCSN PM 2.5 Speciation Lab Audit Reports and AssessmentsVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmspec.htmlNATTS National Air Toxics Trends Stations Quality Assurance AnnualReports and Proficiency ReportsVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.htmlSLAMS 2007 Quality Management Plan and Quality Assurance ProjectPlan Tracking Matrix as of June 25, 20072007http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/Region%20Matrix%206.25.07.pdfSLAMS Annual Precision, Bias and Completeness Reports for CriteriaPollutantsVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/parslist.htmlSLAMS-PM2.5 3-Year and Annual QA ReportsVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/anlqa.htmlSLAMS-PEP Laboratory Comparison Study of Gravimetric LaboratoriesPerforming PM2.5Filter Weighing for the PM2.5PerformanceEvaluation Program and Tribal Air Monitoring SupportVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmpep.htmlMethodsCSN Speciation Field Guidance DocumentsVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specguid.htmlNATTS Air Toxics Methods- Various Methods2007http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.htmlNCore Calibration of Meterological Measurement -Videos2008http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/met.htmlSLAMS QA Handbook Vol II (DRAFT Procedure for the "Determinationof Ozone By Ultraviolet Analysis")1998http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/ozone4.pdfSLAMS Sec. 2.10 of QA Handbook - Draft - PM10- Dichot revised tolocal standard and pressureEPA-600/4-77-027a 1997http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/2-10meth.pdfSLAMS Sec. 2.11 of QA Handbook - Draft - PM10 Hi Vol revised to localstandard and pressure1997http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/2-11meth.pdfSLAMS Section 2.3 -- DRAFT - Reference Method for the Determinationof Nitrogen Dioxide in the Atmosphere (Chemiluminescence)2002http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/no2.pdfSLAMS-NPAP DRAFT SOP for Through-the-Probe Performance Evaluations ofAmbient Air Quality Monitoring of Criteria Air Pollutants2007http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/npapsop/npapttpsop.pdfGUIDANCE DOCUMENTSQA REPORTS3Ambient Air Quality Assurance InformationIdentifier TitleEPA Number Pub Date Year URLSLAMS-NPAP Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Audit Support Program -NPAP and NATTS2006http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/NPAPQAPPrvsn071007onforTTP.pdfSLAMS-PEP Method Compendium "Field Standard Operating Procedures forthe PM2.5Performance Evaluation Program"2006http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/pepfield.pdfSLAMS-PEP Method Compendium "PM2.5Mass Weighing LaboratoryStandard Operating Procedures for the Performance EvaluationProgram1998http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/peplsop.pdfSLAMS-PM2.5 2.12 "Monitoring PM2.5in Ambient Air Using DesignatedReference or Class I Equivalent Methods" 1998http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/m212covd.pdfCSN Speciation Laboratory Standard Operating ProceduresVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specsop.htmlCSN Quality Management Plan for the PM2.5Speciation TrendsNetworkEPA-454/R-01-009 2001http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/finlqmp.pdfCSN "Speciation Trends Network Quality Assurance Project Plan"EPA-454/R-01-001 2001http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/1025sqap.pdfNATTS Model Quality Assurance Project Plan for the National Air ToxicsTrends Stations - updated version 1.12007http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/NATTS_Model_QAPP.pdfNATTS Model QAPP for Local-Scale Monitoring Projects"EPA-454/R-01-007 2006http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/pilotqapp.pdfNATTS National Air Toxics Trends Stations - Quality Management PlanFinal2005http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/nattsqmp.pdfPAMS PAMS Implementation ManualEPA-454/B-93-051 1994http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pams/b93-051a.pdfSLAMS Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Audit Support Program -NPAP and NATTS2008http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/NPAPQAPPrvsn071007onforTTP.pdfSLAMS PM2.5 PM2.5Model QA Project Plan (QAPP)"EPA-454/R-98-005 1998http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/totdoc.pdfSLAMS PM2.5 PM2.5 FRM Network Federal Performance Evaluation ProgramQuality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)2007http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/pepqapp_DRAFT_12-2007_cmt_vrsn.pdfSLAMS PM2.5 PM2.5Performance Evaluation Program Implementaion Plan1998http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/pep-ip.pdfCSN Current List of CSN Sites as of 07-11-20072007http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specgen.htmlCSN Modification of Carbon Procedures in the Speciation Network;Overview and Frequently Asked Questions2006http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/faqcarbon.pdfSLAMS QA National Meeting PresentationsVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qamsmtg.htmlSLAMS QA NewslettersVarious Yearshttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qanews.htmlIMPLEMENTATION PLANS and QAPPsWHITE PAPERS/IMPORTANT MEMOS4QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 1 of 7



# Appendix C

Using the Graded Approach for the Development of QMPs and QAPPs in Ambient Air Quality Monitoring ProgramsQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 2 of 7



### This page intentionally left blankQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 3 of 7



### Using the Graded Approach for the Developm ent of QMPs and QAPPs in Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programs

EPA policy requires that all organizations f unded by EPA for environmental data operations (EDOs) develop quality management plans (Q MPs) and quality assurance project plans (QAPPs). In addition, EPA has provided flexibil ity to EPA organizations on how they implement this policy, allowing for use of a graded approa ch. The following proposal explains the graded approach for data collection ac tivities related to ambient air monitoring. OAQPS proposes a graded approach for the development of QAPPs and QMPs.

The Graded Approach

The QMP describes the quality system in terms of the organizational structure, functional responsibilities of management and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those planning, implementing, and a ssessing activities involving EDOs . Each program should provide appropriate documentation of their quality system . Here are a few ways that this could be

handled.

Concept - Small organizations may have limited ability to develop and implement a quality system. EPA should provide options for those who are capable of making progress towards developing a quality system. If it is clear that the EDO goals are underst ood and that progress in quality system development is being made, a non-optimal quality system structure, for the interim, is acceptable. The concept is to work with the small organization to view the QMP as a long-term strategic plan with an open ended appr oach to quality system development that will involve continuous improvement. The graded approach to QMP development is described below and is based on the size of the organization and experience in working with EPA and the associated QA requirements.

1. Small organization that just received its fi rst EPA grant or using a grant for a discrete, small, project-level EDO. Such organizati ons could incorporate a description of its quality system into its QAPP. 2. Small organization implementing EDOs w ith EPA at more frequent intervals or implementing long-term monitoring programs w ith EPA funds. If such an organization demonstrates capability of developing and implementing a stand-alone quality system, it is suggested that an appropria te separate QMP be written. 3. Medium or large organization. Develop QM P to describe its quality system and QAPPs for specific EDOs. Approval of the recipient's QMP by the EPA Project Officer and the EPA Quality Assurance Manager may allow delegation of the authority to review and approve Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) to the grant recipient based on acceptable procedures documented in the QMP.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 4 of 7



### Quality Assurance Project Plans

The QAPP is a formal document describing, in comprehensive detail, the necessary QA/QC and other technical activities that must be implemente d to ensure that the re sults of work performed will satisfy the stated performance criteria, which may be in the form of a data quality objective (DQO). The quality assurance policy of the EPA requires every EDO to have written and approved quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) prior to the start of the EDO. It is the responsibility of the EPA Project Officer (perso n responsible for the technical work on the project) to adhere to th is policy. If the Project Officer gi ves permission to proceed without an approved QAPP, he/she assumes all responsibility. If a grantee’s QMP is approved by EPA and provides for delegation of QAPP ap proval to the grantee, the gran tee is responsible to ensuring approval of the QAPP prior to the start of the EDO.

The Ambient Air Monitoring Program recommends a four-tiered project category approach to the Ambient Air QA Program in order to effec tively focus QA. Categor y I involves the most stringent QA approach, utilizing all QAPP elements as described in EPA R5 a 

### (see Table 2), whereas category IV is the least stringent, utilizing fewer elemen ts. In addition, the amount of detail or specificity required for each element will be less as one moves from category I to IV. Table 1 provides information that helps to de fine the categories of QAPPs based upon the data collection objective. Each type of ambient ai r monitoring program EDO will be associated with one of these categories. The comment area of the table will identify whether QMPs and QAPPs can be combined and the type of data quality objectives (DQOs) required (see below). Table 2 identifies which of the 24 QAPP elements are required for each category of QAPP. Based upon a specific project, the QAPP approving authority may add/delete elements for a particular category as it relates to the project but in general, this table will be applicable based on the category of QAPP.

Flexibility on the systematic pla nning process and DQO development

Table 1 describes 4 QAPP/QMP categories which require some type of statement about the program or project objectives. Three of the cat egories use the term data quality objectives (DQOs), but there should be flexibility with the systematic planning process on how these DQOs are developed based on the particular category. For example, a category 1 project would have formal DQOs. Examples of cate gory I projects, such as the Stat e and Local Monitoring Stations (SLAMS), have DQOs developed by OAQPS. Category II QAPPS may have formal DQOs developed if there are national implications to th e data (i.e., Speciation Trends Network) or less formal DQOs if developed by organizations implem enting important projects that are more local in scope. Categories 3 and 4 woul d require less formal DQOs to a point that only project goals (category 4) may be necessary.

a EPA Requirements for QA Project Plans (QA/R-5) http://www.epa.gov/qu ality/qa_docs.htmlQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 5 of 7



### Standard Operating Procedures- (SOP)

SOPs are an integral part of the QAPP devel opment and approval process and usually address key information required by the QAPP elements. Th erefore, SOPs can be referenced in QAPP elements as long as the SOPs are availabl e for review or are part of the QAPP.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 6 of 7QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 7 of 7

Table 2 QAPP Elements

QAPP Element Category Applicability

A1 Title and Approval Sheet

A2 Table of Contents

A3 Distribution List A4 Project/Task Organization A5 Problem Definition/Background A6 Project/Task Description A7 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data A8 Special Training Requirements/Certification

A9 Documentation and Records

B1 Sample Process (Network) Design B2 Sampling Methods Requirements B3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements B4 Analytical Me thods Requirements B5 Quality Control Requirements B6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection & Maintenance B7 Instrument Calibration and Frequency B8 Inspection/Acceptance Requir ements for Supplies and Con. B9 Data Acquisition Requirement s for Non-direct Measurements B10 Data Management

C1 Assessments and Response Actions C2 Reports to Management

D1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements

D2 Validation and Verification Methods D3 Reconciliation and User Requirements I, II, III, IV
I, II, III
I,
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III, IV
I, II, III, IV

I
I, II, III

I, II, III, IV
I, II, III,
I, II, III
I, II, III, IV
I, II, III, IV
I, II, III
I, II, III
I,
I, II, III
I, II

I, II,
I, II,

I, II, III
I, II
I, II,QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 1 of 30



# Appendix D

Measurement Quality Objectives and Validation Templates

In June 1998, a workgroup was formed to develo p a procedure that could be used by State and locals that would provide for a consistent validation of PM 2.5 

### mass concentrations across the US. The workgroup included personnel from the mon itoring organizations, EP A Regional Offices, and OAQPS who are involved with assuring the quality of PM 2.5 

### mass and was headed by a State and local representative. The workgroup developed three tables of criteria where each table has a different degree of implication about the quality of the data. The criteria included on the tables are from 40 CFR Part 50 Appendices L and N, 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A, Method 2.12, and a few criteria that are neither in CFR nor Method 2.12. Upon completion and use of the table, it was decided that a “validation template” should be developed for all the criteria pollutants.

One of the tables has the criteria that must be met to ensure the quality of the data. An example criterion is that the average flow rate for the sampling period must be maintained to within 5% of 16.67 liters per minute. The second table ha s the criteria that indicate that there might be a problem with the quality of the data and furt her investigation is warranted before making a determination about the validity of the sample or samples. An example criterion is that the field filter blanks should not change weight by more than 30 : g between weighings. The third table has criteria that indicate a potentially systematic problem with the enviro nmental data collection activity. Such systematic problems may impact the ability to make decisions with the data. An example criterion is that at least 75% of th e scheduled samples for each quarter should be successfully collected and validated.

To determine the appropriate table for each crit erion, the members of the workgroup considered how significantly the criterion impact the result ing concentration. This was based on experience from workgroup members, experience from non-workgroup members, and feasibility of implementing the criterion.

Criteria that were deemed critic al to maintaining the integrity of a sample or group of samples were placed on the first table. Observations that do not meet each and every criterion on the

Critical Criteria Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and justification for not doing so. Basically, the samp le or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is invalid until prove n otherwise. The cause of not operating in the acceptable range for each of the violated criteria must be investigated and minimized to reduce the likelihood that additional samples will be invalidated.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 2 of 30



### Criteria that are important for maintaining and evaluating the quality of the data collection system are included on the second table, the Operational Evaluations Table . Violation of a

criterion or a number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision should consider other quality control information that may or may not indicate the data are acceptable for the parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is suspect unless ot her quality control information demonstrates otherwise. The reason for not meeting the criteria MUST be investigated, mitigated or justified.

Finally, those criteria which are important for th e correct interpretation of the data but do not usually impact the validity of a sample or group of samples are included on the third table, the Systematic Issues Table . For example, the data quality objectiv es are included in this table. If the data quality objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any of the samples but it may impact the error rate associated with the attainment/non-attainment decision.

Following are the tables. For each criterion, the ta bles include (1) the operational range that is acceptable, (2) the frequency with which complia nce is to be evaluated, (3) the number of samples that are impacted if viol ation of a criterion occu rs (possible values in clude single filters, a batch of filters, or a group of filters from a specific instrument);.(4) sections of 40 CFR and (5)

Method 2.12 that describe the criterion. The ta ble also indicates whethe r samples violating the criterion must be flagged before entering them into AQS.

This validation template has been developed based on the current state of knowledge. The template should evolve as new information is discovered about the impact of the various

criterion on the error in the re sulting mass estimate. Interact ions of the criteria, whether synergistic or antagonistic, should also be incorp orated when the impact of these interactions becomes quantified. Due to the potential misuse of invalid data, data that are invalidated will not be uploaded to AQS but should be retained on the monitoring organizations local database. This

data will be invaluable to the e volution of the validation template.

PM 10 

### Note of Caution

The validation templates for PM 10 

### get complicated because PM 10 

### is required to be reported at standard temperature and pressure (STP) for comparison to the NAAQS (and follow 40 CFR Part 50 App J) and at local conditions if using it to monitor for PM 10-2.5 

### (and follow 40 CFR Part 50 App O) in addition PM 10 

### is measured with filter based sampling techniques as well as with automated methods. The validation templates developed for PM 10 

### try to accommodate these differences but monitoring organizations are cau tioned to review the operations manual for the monitors/samplers they use and augment the validat ion template with QC information specific to

their method.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 3 of 30Ozone Validation TemplateRequirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Information /ActionCRITICAL CRITERIA-OzoneOne Point QC CheckSingle analyzer1/ 2 weeks<+7% (percent difference)0.01 - 0.10 ppmRelative to routine concentrations40 CFR Part 58 App A Sec 3.2Zero/span check1/ 2 weeksZero drift#"2% of full scaleSpan drift#"7 %OPERATIONAL CRITERIA - OzoneShelter TemperatureTemperature rangeDaily(hourly values)20 to 30EC. (Hourly ave)orper manufacturers specifications if designatedto a wider temperature rangeGenerally the 20-30EC range will apply but themost restrictive operable range of the instruments inthe shelter may also be used as guidanceTemperature ControlDaily (hourly values)#"2EC SD over 24 hoursTemperature Device Check2/year"2EC of standardPrecision(using 1-point QCchecks)Calculated annually and asappropriate for design value estimates90% CL CV <7%90% Confidence Limit of coefficient of variation. 40CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.2Bias (using 1-point QC checks)Calculated annually and asappropriate for design value estimates95% CL <+7%95% Confidence Limit of absolute bias estimate. 40CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.3Annual PerformanceEvaluationSingle analyzerEvery site 1/year 25 % of sitesquarterlyPercent difference of each audit level <15%3 consecutive audit concentration not including zero.40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 3.2.2Primary QA Organization(PQAO)annually95% of audit percent differences fall within theone point QC check 95% probability intervalsat PQAO level of aggregation40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.4Federal Audits (NPAP)1/year at selected sites 20% of sitesauditedMean absolute difference#10%40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.4State audits1/yearState requirementsVerification/CalibrationUpon receipt/adjustment/repair/installation/moving1/6 months if manual zero/spanperformed biweekly1/year if continuous zero/spanperformed dailyAll points within"2 % of full scale of best-fitstraight lineLinearity error <5%Multi-point calibration (0 and 4 upscale points) 40CFR Part 50 App D sec 5.2.3Zero AirConcentrations below LDLGaseous StandardsNIST Traceable(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.6.1Zero Air Check1/yearConcentrations below LDLQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 4 of 30Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Information /ActionOzone Local primary standardCertification/recertification toStandard ReferencePhotometer1/yearsingle point difference#"3%Primary Standards usually transported to EPARegions SRP for comparison(if recertified via a transferstandard)1/yearRegression slopes = 1.00"0.03 and twointercepts are 0"3 ppbOzone Transfer standardQualificationUpon receipt of transfer standard"4% or"4 ppb (whichever greater)Transfer Standard Doc EPA 600/4-79-056 Section6.4CertificationAfter qualification and uponreceipt/adjustment/repairRSD of six slopes#3.7%Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5Transfer Standard Doc EPA 600/4-79-056 Section6.6Recertification to local primarystandardBeginning and end of O3 season or1/6 months whichever lessNew slope = +0.05 of previous andRSD of six slopes#3.7%Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.51 recertification test that then gets added to mostrecent 5 tests. If does not meet acceptabilitycertification failsLower detectable level1/year0.003 ppmSYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- OzoneRequirementFrequencyAcceptance CriteriaInformation /ActionStandard Reporting UnitsAll datappm (final units in AQS)Completeness(seasonal)Daily75% of hourly averages for the 8-hour period8-Hour AverageSample Residence Times< 20 secondsSample Probe, Inlet, SamplingtrainBorosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex®) or Teflon®40 CFR Part 58 App ESitingUn-obstructed probe inlet40 CFR Part 58 App EEPA Standard OzoneReference Photometer (SRP)Recertification1/yearRegression slope = 1.00 +0.01and intercept < 3 ppbThis is usually at a Regional Office and is comparedagainst the traveling SRPQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 5 of 30COValidation TemplateRequirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Information /ActionCRITICAL CRITERIA-COOne Point QC CheckSingle analyzer1/ 2 weeks<+10% (percent difference)1 - 10 ppmRelative to routine concentrations40 CFR Part 58 App A Sec 3.2Zero/span check1/ 2 weeksZero drift#"2% of full scaleSpan drift#"10 %OPERATIONAL CRITERIA-COShelter TemperatureTemperature rangeDaily(hourly values)20 to 30EC. (Hourly ave)orper manufacturers specifications if designated toa wider temperature rangeGenerally the 20-30EC range will apply but themost restrictive operablerange of the instrumentsin the shelter may also be used as guidanceTemperature ControlDaily (hourly values)#"2EC SD over 24 hoursTemperature Device Check2/year"2EC of standardPrecision(using 1-point QCchecks)Calculated annually and asappropriate for design value estimates90% CL CV <10%90% Confidence Limit of coefficient of variation.40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.2Bias (using 1-point QC checks)Calculated annually and asappropriate for design value estimates95% CL <+10%95% Confidence Limit of absolute bias estimate 40CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.3Annual PerformanceEvaluationSingle analyzerEvery site 1/year 25 % of sitesquarterlyPercent difference of each audit level <15%3 consecutive audit concentration not includingzero. 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 3.2.2Primary QA Organization(PQAO)annually95% of audit percent differences fall within theone point QC check 95% probability intervals atPQAO level of aggregation40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.4Federal Audits (NPAP)1/year at selected sites 20% of sitesauditedMean absolute difference#15%40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.4State audits1/yearState requirementsVerification/CalibrationUpon receipt/adjustment/repair/installation/moving1/6 months if manual zero/spanperformed biweekly1/year if continuous zero/spanperformed dailyAll points within"2 % of full scale of best-fitstraight lineMulti-point calibration(0 and 4 upscale points)Gaseous StandardsNIST Traceable(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)Vendor must participate in EPA Protocol GasVerification Program 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec2.6.1Zero Air/Zero Air Check1/yearConcentrations below LDLQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 6 of 30Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Information /ActionGas Dilution Systems1/3 monthsAccuracy"2 %DetectionNoiseNA0.50 ppm40 CFR Part 53.20Lower detectable level1/year1.0 ppm40 CFR Part 53.20SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA-COStandard Reporting UnitsAll datappm (final units in AQS)Completeness(seasonal)Hourly75% of hourly averages for the 8-hour period8-Hour averageSample Residence Times< 20 secondsSample Probe, Inlet, SamplingtrainBorosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex®) or Teflon®40 CFR Part 58 App ESitingUn-obstructed probe inlet40 CFR Part 58 App EQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 7 of 30NO2Validation TemplateRequirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Information /ActionCRITICAL CRITERIA- NO2One Point QC CheckSingle analyzer1/ 2 weeks<+10% (percent difference)0.01 - 0.10 ppmRelative to routine concentrations40 CFR Part 58 App A Sec 3.2Zero/span check1/ 2 weeksZero drift#"3% of full scaleSpan drift#"10 %OPERATIONAL CRITERIA- NO2Shelter TemperatureTemperature rangeDaily(hourly values)20 to 30EC. (Hourly ave)orper manufacturers specifications if designatedto a wider temperature rangeGenerally the 20-30EC range will apply but themost restrictive operablerange of the instrumentsin the shelter may also be used as guidanceTemperature ControlDaily (hourly values)#"2EC SD over 24 hoursTemperature Device Check2/year"2EC of standardPrecision (using 1-point QCchecks)Calculated annually and as appropriatefor design value estimates90% CL CV <10%90% Confidence Limit of coefficient of variation.40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.2Bias (using 1-point QC checks)Calculated annually and as appropriatefor design value estimates95% CL <+10%95% Confidence Limit of absolute bias estimate.40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.3Annual PerformanceEvaluationSingle analyzerEvery site 1/year 25 % of sites quarterlyPercent difference of each audit level <15%3 consecutive audit concentration not includingzero. 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 3.2.2Primary QA Organization(PQAO)annually95% of audit percent differences fall within theone point QC check 95% probability intervalsat PQAO level of aggregation40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.4Federal Audits (NPAP)1/year at selected sites 20% of sitesauditedMean absolute difference#15%40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.4State audits1/yearState requirementsVerification/CalibrationUpon receipt/adjustment/repair/installation/moving1/6 months if manual zero/spanperformed biweekly1/year if continuouszero/span performeddailyIntrument residence time <2 minDynam. parameter >2.75 ppm-minAll points within"2 % of full scale of best-fitstraight lineMulti-point calibration (0 and 4 upscale points) 40CFR Part 50 App FConverter EfficiencyDuring multi-point calibrations, span andaudit1/ 2 weeks96%Gaseous StandardsNIST TraceableVendor must participate in EPA Protocol GasQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 8 of 30Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Information /Action(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)Verification Program 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec2.6.1Zero Air/ Zero Air Check1/yearConcentrations below LDLGas Dilution Systems1/3 monthsAccuracy"2 %DetectionNoiseNA0.005 ppm40 CFR Part 53.20Lower detectable level1/year0.01 ppm40 CFR Part 53.20SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- NO2Standard Reporting UnitsAll datappm (final units in AQS)Completeness(seasonal)Quarterly75%Annual standard (hourly data)Sample Residence Times< 20 secondsSample Probe, Inlet, SamplingtrainBorosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex®) or Teflon®40 CFR Part 58 App ESitingUn-obstructed probe inlet40 CFR Part 58 App EQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 9 of 30SO2Validation TemplateRequirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Information /ActionCRITICAL CRITERIA- SO2One Point QC CheckSingle analyzer1/ 2 weeks<+10% (percent difference)0.01- 0.10 ppmRelative to routine concentrations40 CFR Part 58 App A Sec 3.2Zero/span check1/ 2 weeksZero drift#"3% of full scaleSpan drift#"10 %OPERATIONAL CRITERIA- SO2Shelter TemperatureTemperature rangeDaily(hourly values)20 to 30EC. (Hourly ave)orper manufacturers specifications if designatedto a wider temperature rangeGenerally the 20-30EC range will apply but themost restrictive operable range of the instruments inthe shelter may also be used as guidanceTemperature ControlDaily (hourly values)#"2EC SD over 24 hoursTemperature Device Check2/year"2EC of standardPrecision (using 1-point QCchecks)Calculated annually and as appropriatefor design value estimates90% CL CV <10%90% Confidence Limit of coefficient of variation 40CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.2Bias (using 1-point QC checks)Calculated annually and as appropriatefor design value estimates95% CL <+10%95% Confidence Limit of absolute bias estimate 40CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.3Annual PerformanceEvaluationSingle analyzerEvery site 1/year 25 % of sites quarterlyPercent difference of each audit level <15%3 consecutive audit concentrations not includingzero 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 3.2.2Primary QA Organization(PQAO)annually95% of audit percent differences fall within theone point QC check 95% probability intervalsat PQAO level of aggregation40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.4Federal Audits (NPAP)1/year at selected sites 20% of sitesauditedMean absolute difference#15%40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.4State audits1/yearState requirementsVerification/CalibrationUpon receipt/adjustment/repair/installation/moving1/6 months if manual zero/spanperformed biweekly1/year if continuous zero/spanperformed dailyAll points within"2 % of full scale of best-fitstraight lineMulti-point calibration(0 and 4 upscale points)Zero AirConcentrations below LDLGaseous StandardsNIST Traceable(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)Vendor must participate in EPA Protocol GasVerification Program 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec2.6.1QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 10 of 30Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Information /ActionZero Air/ Zero Air Check1/yearConcentrations below LDLGas Dilution Systems1/3 monthsAccuracy"2 %DetectionNoiseNA0.005 ppm40 CFR Part 53.20Lower detectable level1/year0.01 ppm40 CFR Part 53.20SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- SO2Standard Reporting UnitsAll datappm (final units in AQS)Completeness(seasonal)Quarterly75%Annual standard24 hours75%24-hour standard3 hours75%3-hour standardSample Residence Times< 20 secondsSample Probe, Inlet, SamplingtrainBorosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex®) or Teflon®40 CFR Part 58 App ESitingUn-obstructed probe inlet40 CFR Part 58 App EQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 11 of 30PM2.5Filter BasedLocal ConditionsValidation TemplateCriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method2.12)CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM2.5Filter Based Local ConditionsFilter Holding TimesSample Recoveryall filters#7 days 9 hours from sample end datePart 50 App L Sec 10.10Post-sampling Weighingall filters#10 days from sample end date ifshipped at ambient temp, or#30 days if shippedbelow ave ambient (or 4EC or below forave sampling temps < 4EC ) from sample end datePart 50 App L Sec 8..3.6Sampling Period (includingmultiple power failures)all filters1380-1500 minutes, orvalue if < 1380 and exceedance of NAAQS1/midnight to midnightPart 50 App L Sec 3.3Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.15Sampling InstrumentAverage Flow Rateevery 24 hours of opaverage within 5% of 16.67 liters/minutePart 50 App L Sec 7.4Variability in Flow Rateevery 24 hours of opCV#2%Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.3.2FilterVisual Defect Check (unexposed)all filterssee referencePart 50, App.L Sec 10.2Filter Conditioning EnvironmentEquilibrationall filters24 hours minimumPart 50, App.L Sec 8.2Temp. Rangeall filters24-hr mean 20-23ECPart 50, App.L Sec 8.2Temp.Controlall filters"2EC SD*over 24 hrPart 50, App.L Sec 8.2Humidity Rangeall filters24-hr mean 30% - 40% RH or#5% sampling RH but > 20%RHPart 50, App.L Sec 8.2Humidity Controlall filters"5% SD*over 24 hr.Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2Pre/post Sampling RHall filtersdifference in 24-hr means#"5% RHPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3.3Balanceall filterslocated in filter conditioning environmentPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3.2Verification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification1/4 weeks"4% of transfer standardPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.5Part 58, Appendix ASec 3.2.3 & 3.3.2OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM2.5Filter Based Local ConditionsFilter ChecksLot Blanks9 filters per lotless than 15Fg change between weighingsMethod 2.12 Sec. 7.7Exposure Lot Blanks3 filters per lotless than 15Fg change between weighingsMethod 2.12 Sec. 7.7Filter Integrity (exposed)each filterno visual defectsMethod 2.12 Sec. 8.2Filter Holding TimesPre-samplingall filters< 30 days before samplingPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3Lab QC ChecksField Filter Blank10% or 1 per weighing session"30Fg change between weighingsPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3Lab Filter Blank10% or 1 per weighing session"15Fg change between weighingsPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3Balance Checkbeginning, 10th sample, end#3FgMethod Sec. 7.9Duplicate Filter Weighing1 per weighing session"15Fg change between weighingsMethod Sec 7.11Sampling InstrumentQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 12 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method2.12)Individual Flow Ratesevery 24 hours of opno flow rate excursions >"5% for > 5 min.1/Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.3.1Filter Temp Sensorevery 24 hours of opno excursions of > 5EC lasting longer than 30 min1/Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4Verification/CalibrationRoutine VerificationsExternal Leak Checkevery 5 sampling events< 80 mL/minPart 50, App.L, Sec 7.4Internal Leak Checkevery 5 sampling events< 80 mL/minPart 50, App.L, Sec 7.4One-point Temp Verification1/4 weeks"2ECPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Pressure Verification1/4 weeks"10 mm HgPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Lab Temperature1/6 months"2ECMethod Sec 3.3Lab Humidity1/6 months"2%Method Sec 3.3Annual Multi-point Verifications/CalibrationsTemperature multi-pointVerification/Calibration1/yr"2ECPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Pressure Verification/Calibrationon installation, then 1/yr"10 mm HgPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/Calibration1/yr"2% of transfer standardPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.2Design Flow Rate Adjustmentat one-point or multi-point"2% of design flow ratePart 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6Other Monitor Calibrationsper manufacturers’ op manualper manufacturers’ operating manualMirobalance Calibration1/yrManufacturer’s specificationPart 50, App.L, Sec 8.1PrecisionCollocated Samplesevery 12 days for 15% of sitesCV <10% of samples > 3Fg/m3Part 58 App A Sec 3.2.5AccuracyTemperature Audit2/yr"2ECMethod Sec. 10.2Pressure Audit2/yr"10 mm HgMethod Sec. 10.2Balance Audit1/yr"0.050 mg or manufacturersspecs, whichever is tighterMethod Sec. 10.2Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit2/yr"4% of audit standard"5% of design flow ratePart 58, App A, Sec 3.3.3Calibration & Check Standards -Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyMethod Sec 4.2 & 6.4Field Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyMethod Sec 4.2 & 6.5Working Mass Stds. (compare toprimary standards)1/3 mo.0.025 mgMethod Sec 4.3 and 7.3Monitor MaintenanceImpactor (WINs)Very Sharp Cut Cycloneevery 5 sampling eventsEvery 30 dayscleaned/changedMethod Sec 9.2Inlet/downtube Cleaningevery 15 sampling eventscleanedMethod Sec 9.3Filter Chamber Cleaning1/4 weekscleanedMethod Sec 9.3QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 13 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method2.12)Leak Check@seeVerification/CalibrationCirculating Fan Filter Cleaning1/4 weekscleaned/changedMethod Sec 9.3Manufacturer-RecommendedMaintenanceper manufacturers’ SOPper manufacturers’ SOPSYSTEMATIC CRITERIA -PM2.5Filter Based Local ConditionsData Completenessquarterly>75%Part 50, App. N, Sec. 4.1 (b) 4.2 (a)Reporting Unitsall filtersFg/m3at ambient temp/pressure (PM2.5)Part 50.3Rounding ConventionAnnual 3-yr averagequarterlynearest 0.1Fg/m3(>0.05 round up)Part 50, App. N Sec 2.324-hour, 3-year averagequarterlynearest 1Fg/m3(>0.5 round up)Part 50, App. N Sec 2.3Detection LimitLower DLall filters#2Fg/m3Part 50, App.L Sec 3.1Upper Conc. Limitall filters$200Fg/m3Part 50, App.L Sec 3.2Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications – All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, App.L Sec 9.1 & 9.2Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyMethod Sec 4.2.2Field Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyMethod Sec 4.2.2Primary Mass Stds. (compare toNIST-traceable standards)1/yr0.025 mgMethod Sec 4.3.7MicrobalanceReadabilityat purchase1FgPart 50, App.L Sec 8.1Repeatability1/yr1FgCalibration & Check StandardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, APP L, Sec 9.1 & 9.2Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification1/4 weeks1 min/moPart 50, App.L, Sec 7.4PrecisionSingle analyzer1/3 mo.Coefficient of variation (CV) <10%Single analyzer1/ yrCV <10%Primary Quality Assurance Org.Annual and 3 year estimates90% CL of CV <10%Part 58, App A, Sec 4.3.1BiasPerformance Evaluation Program(PEP)5 audits for PQAOs with <5sites8 audits for PQAOs with > 5sites"10%Part 58, App A, Sec 3.2.7, 4.3.21/ value must be flagged * SD= standard deviation CV= coefficient of variation@=Scheduled to occur immediately after impactor cleaned/changed.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 14 of 30NOTE:There may be a number of continuous monitors that may be designated as an FEM or an ARM. These monitors may havedifferent measurement or sampling attributesthat cannot be identified in this validation template. Monitoring organizations shouldreview specific instrument operating manualsto augment this validation template as necessary. In general, 40 CFR Part 58 App Aand 40 CFR part 50 App L requirements apply to Continuous PM2.5Continuous PM2.5Local ConditionsValidation TemplateCriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.12)CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM2.5Continuous, Local ConditionsSampling Period24 hour estimateevery sample period1380-1500 minutes, orvalue if < 1380 and exceedance of NAAQS1/midnight to midnightPart 50 App L Sec 3.3Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.15Hour estimateEvery hourInstrument dependentSee operators manualSampling InstrumentAverage Flow Rateevery 24 hours of opaverage within 5% of 16.67 liters/minutePart 50 App L Sec 7.4Variability in Flow Rateevery 24 hours of opCV#2%Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.3.2Verification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification1/4 weeks"4% of transfer standardPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.5Part 58, Appendix ASec 3.2.3 & 3.3.2Reference Membrane Verification(BAM)Hourly"4% of ABS ValueOPERATIONAL CRITERIA- PM2.5Continuous, Local ConditionsVerification/CalibrationLeak Checkevery 30 daysInstrument dependentPart 50, App.L, Sec 7.4Temperature Calibrationif multi-point failure"2ECPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Temp M-point Verificationon installation, then 1/yr"2ECPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3One-point Temp Check1/4 weeks"2ECPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Pressure Calibrationon installation, then 1/yr"10 mm HgPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Pressure Verification1/4 weeks"10 mm HgPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Other Monitor Calibrationsper manufacturers’ op manualper manufacturers’ operating manualFlow Rate (FR) Calibrationif multi-point verificationfailure"2%Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2FR Multi-point Verification1/yr"2%Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2Design Flow Rate Adjustmentat one-point or multi-point"2% of design flow ratePart 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6PrecisionCollocated Samplesevery 12 days for 15% of sitesCV <10% of samples > 3Fg/m3Part 58 App A Sec 3.2.5QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 15 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.12)AccuracyTemperature Audit2/yr"2ECMethod 2.12 Sec. 10.2Pressure Audit2/yr"10 mm HgMethod 2.12 Sec. 10.2Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit2/yr"4% of audit standard"5% of design flow rateMethod 2.12 Sec. 10.2Calibration & Check Standards(working standards)Part 58, App A, Sec 3.3.3Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyMethod 2.12 Sec 4.2 & 6.4Field Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyMethod 2.12 Sec 4.2 & 6.5Shelter TemperatureTemperature rangeDaily(hourly values)20 to 30EC. (Hourly ave)orper manufacturers specificationsif designated to a widertemperature rangeGenerally the 20-30EC range will apply butthe most restrictive operable range of theinstruments in the shelter may also be used asguidanceTemperature ControlDaily (hourly values)#"2EC SD over 24 hoursTemperature Device Check2/year"2ECMonitor MaintenanceVirtual ImpactorVery Sharp Cut CycloneEvery 30 dayscleaned/changedMethod 2.12 Sec 9.2Inlet CleaningEvery 30 dayscleanedMethod 2.12 Sec 9.3Filter Chamber Cleaning1/4 weekscleanedMethod 2.12 Sec 9.3Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning1/4 weekscleaned/changedMethod 2.12 Sec 9.3Manufacturer-RecommendedMaintenanceper manufacturers’ SOPper manufacturers’ SOPSYSTEMATICCRITERIA-PM2.5Continuous, Local ConditionsData Completenessquarterly>75%Part 50, App. N, Sec. 4.1 (b) 4.2 (a)Reporting UnitsFg/m3at ambient temp/pressure (PM2.5)Part 50.3Rounding ConventionAnnual 3-yr averagequarterlynearest 0.1Fg/m3(>0.05 round up)Part 50, App. N Sec 2.324-hour, 3-year averagequarterlynearest 1Fg/m3(>0.5 round up)Part 50, App. N Sec 2.3Detection LimitLower DLall filters#2Fg/m3Part 50, App.L Sec 3.1Upper Conc. Limitall filters$200Fg/m3Part 50, App.L Sec 3.2Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications - Allstandards should have multi-pointcertifications against NIST Traceable standardsQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 16 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.12)Flow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, App.L Sec 9.1 & 9.2Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyMethod 2.12 Sec 4.2.2Field Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyMethod 2.12 Sec 4.2.2Calibration & Check StandardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, APP L, Sec 9.1 & 9.2Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification1/4 weeks1 min/mo**Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4PrecisionSingle analyzer1/3 mo.Coefficient of variation (CV) <10%Single analyzer1/ yrCV <10%Primary Quality Assurance Org.Annual and 3 year estimates90% CL of CV <10%Part 58, App A, Sec 4.3.1BiasPerformance Evaluation Program(PEP)5 audits for PQAOs with <5sites8 audits for PQAOs with > 5sites"10%Part 58, App A, Sec 3.2.7, 4.3.21/ value must be flagged due to current implementation of BAM( sampling 42 minute/hour) only1008 minutes of sampling in 24 hour period*= not defined in CFRSD= standard deviationCV= coefficient of variation@=Scheduled to occur immediately after impactor cleaned/changed.** = need to ensure data system stamps appropriate time period with reported sample valueQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 17 of 30NOTE:The following validation template was constructed for use of PM10atlocal conditionswhere PM10is used in the calculation ofthe PM10-2.5measurement or for objectivesother than comparison to the PM10NAAQS. Although the PM10-2.5method is found in 40CFR Part 50 Appendix O, Appendix O references Appendix L (the PM2.5Method) for the QC requirements listed below.Monitoring organizations using PM10data for a NAAQS comparison purposes should refer to the PM10validation template forSTP(standardtemperature and pressure correction).PM10Filter BasedLocal ConditionsValidation TemplateCriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.12)CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10Filter Based Local ConditionsFilter Holding TimesSample Recoveryall filters#7 days 9 hours from sample end datePart 50 App L Sec 10.10Post-sampling Weighingall filters#10 days from sample end date if shipped at ambienttemp, or#30 days if shippedbelow ave ambient (or 4EC orbelow for ave sampling temps < 4EC ) from sample enddatePart 50 App L Sec 8..3.6Sampling Period (includingmultiple power failures)all filters1380-1500 minutes, orvalue if < 1380 and exceedance of NAAQS1/midnight to midnightPart 50 App L Sec 3.3Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.15Sampling InstrumentAverage Flow Rateevery 24 hours of opaverage within 5% of 16.67 liters/minutePart 50 App L Sec 7.4Variability in Flow Rateevery 24 hours of opCV#2%Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.3.2FilterVisual Defect Check (unexposed)all filterssee referencePart 50, App.L Sec 10.2Filter Conditioning EnvironmentEquilibrationall filters24 hours minimumPart 50, App.L Sec 8.2Temp. Rangeall filters24-hr mean 20-23ECPart 50, App.L Sec 8.2Temp.Controlall filters"2EC SD*over 24 hrPart 50, App.L Sec 8.2Humidity Rangeall filters24-hr mean 30% - 40% RH or#5% sampling RH but > 20%RHPart 50, App.L Sec 8.2Humidity Controlall filters"5% SD*over 24 hr.Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2Pre/post Sampling RHall filtersdifference in 24-hr means#"5% RHPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3.3Balanceall filterslocated in filter conditioning environmentPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3.2Verification/CalibrationQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 18 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.12)One-point Flow Rate Verification1/4 weeks"4% of transfer standardPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.5Part 58, Appendix ASec 3.2.3 & 3.3.2OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10Filter Based Local ConditionsFilter ChecksLot Blanks9 filters per lotless than 15Fg change between weighingsMethod 2.12 Sec. 7.7Exposure Lot Blanks3 filters per lotless than 15Fg change between weighingsMethod 2.12 Sec. 7.7Filter Integrity (exposed)each filterno visual defectsMethod 2.12 Sec. 8.2Filter Holding TimesPre-samplingall filters< 30 days before samplingPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3Lab QC ChecksField Filter Blank10% or 1 per weighing session"30Fg change between weighingsPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3Lab Filter Blank10% or 1 per weighing session"15Fg change between weighingsPart 50, App.L Sec 8.3Balance Checkbeginning, 10th sample, end#3FgMethod Sec. 7.9Duplicate Filter Weighing1 per weighing session"15Fg change between weighingsMethod Sec 7.11Sampling InstrumentIndividual Flow Ratesevery 24 hours of opno flow rate excursions >"5% for > 5 min.1/Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.3.1Filter Temp Sensorevery 24 hours of opno excursions of > 5EC lasting longer than 30 min1/Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4Verification/CalibrationRoutine VerificationsExternal Leak Checkevery 5 sampling events< 80 mL/minPart 50, App.L, Sec 7.4Internal Leak Checkevery 5 sampling events< 80 mL/minPart 50, App.L, Sec 7.4One-point Temp Verification1/4 weeks"2ECPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Pressure Verification1/4 weeks"10 mm HgPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Lab Temperature1/6 months"2ECMethod Sec 3.3Lab Humidity1/6 months"2%Method Sec 3.3Annual Multi-point Verifications/CalibrationsTemperature multi-pointVerification/Calibration1/yr"2ECPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Pressure Verification/Calibrationon installation, then 1/yr"10 mm HgPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.3Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/Calibration1/yr"2% of transfer standardPart 50, App.L, Sec 9.2QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 19 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.12)Design Flow Rate Adjustmentat one-point or multi-point"2% of design flow ratePart 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6Other Monitor Calibrationsper manufacturers’ op manualper manufacturers’ operating manualMirobalance Calibration1/yrManufacturer’s specificationPart 50, App.L, Sec 8.1PrecisionCollocated Samplesevery 12 days for 15% of sitesCV <10% of samples > 3Fg/m3Part 58 App A Sec 3.2.5AccuracyTemperature Audit2/yr"2ECMethod Sec. 10.2Pressure Audit2/yr"10 mm HgMethod Sec. 10.2Balance Audit1/yr"0.050 mg or manufacturersspecs, whichever is tighterMethod Sec. 10.2Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit2/yr"4% of audit standard"5% of design flow ratePart 58, App A, Sec 3.3.3Calibration & Check Standards(working standards)Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyMethod Sec 4.2 & 6.4Field Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyMethod Sec 4.2 & 6.5Working Mass Stds. (compare toprimary standards)1/3 mo.0.025 mgMethod Sec 4.3 and 7.3Monitor MaintenanceInlet/downtube Cleaningevery 15 sampling eventscleanedMethod Sec 9.3Filter Chamber Cleaning1/4 weekscleanedMethod Sec 9.3Leak Check@seeVerification/CalibrationCirculating Fan Filter Cleaning1/4 weekscleaned/changedMethod Sec 9.3Manufacturer-RecommendedMaintenanceper manufacturers’ SOPper manufacturers’ SOPSYSTEMATIC CRITERIA -PM10Filter Based Local ConditionsData Completenessquarterly>75%Part 50, App. N, Sec. 2.1Reporting Unitsall filtersFg/m3at ambient temp/pressure (PM2.5)Part 50.3Rounding ConventionAnnual 3-yr averagequarterlynearest 0.1Fg/m3(>0.05 round up)Part 50, App. N Sec 2.324-hour, 3-year averagequarterlynearest 1Fg/m3(>0.5 round up)Part 50, App. N Sec 2.3Detection LimitLower DLall filters#2Fg/m3Part 50, App.L Sec 3.1QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 20 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.12)Upper Conc. Limitall filters$200Fg/m3Part 50, App.L Sec 3.2Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications- Allstandards should have multi-pointcertifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, App.L Sec 9.1 & 9.2Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyMethod Sec 4.2.2Field Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyMethod Sec 4.2.2Primary Mass Stds. (compare toNIST-traceable standards)1/yr0.025 mgMethod Sec 4.3.7MicrobalanceReadabilityat purchase1FgPart 50, App.L Sec 8.1Repeatability1/yr1FgCalibration & Check StandardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, APP L, Sec 9.1 & 9.2Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification1/4 weeks1 min/moPart 50, App.L, Sec 7.4PrecisionSingle analyzer1/3 mo.Coefficient of variation (CV) <10%Single analyzer1/ yrCV <10%Primary Quality Assurance Org.Annual and 3 year estimates90% CL of CV <10%Part 58, App A, Sec 4.3.1BiasPerformance Evaluation Program(PEP)5 audits for PQAOs with <5sites8 audits for PQAOs with > 5sites"10%Part 58, App A, Sec 3.2.7, 4.3.21/ value must be flaggedSD= standard deviationCV= coefficient of variation@=Scheduled to occur immediately after impactor cleaned/changed.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 21 of 30PM10Filter Based DichotSTPConditions Validation TemplateCriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.10)CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10Filter Based DichotFilter Holding TimesSample Recoveryall filtersASAPPart 50 App J sec 9.16Sampling Periodall filters1440 minutes +60 minutesmidnight to midnightPart 50 App J sec 7.1.5Sampling InstrumentAverage Flow Rateevery 24 hours of opaverage 16.67 liters/minuteMethod 2.10 sec 2.1FilterVisual Defect Check (unexposed)all filterssee referenceMethod 2.10 sec 4.2Collection efficiencyall filters99 %Part 50, App J sec 7.2.2Integrityall filters"5:g/m3Part 50, App J sec 7.2.3Alkalinityall filters< 25.0 microequivalents/gramPart 50, App J sec 7.2.4Filter Conditioning EnvironmentEquilibrationall filters24 hours minimumPart 50, App.J sec 9.3Temp. Rangeall filters15-30ECPart 50, App.J sec 7.4.1Temp.Controlall filters"3EC SD*over 24 hrPart 50, App.J sec 7.4.2Humidity Rangeall filters20% - 45% RHPart 50, App.J sec 7.4.3Humidity Controlall filters"5% SD*over 24 hrPart 50, App.J sec 7.4.4Pre/post Sampling RHall filtersdifference in 24-hr means#"5% RHPart 50, App.L sec 8.3.3Balanceall filterslocated in filter conditioning environmentPart 50, App.L sec 8.3.2Verification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification1/4 weeks"7% of transfer standard and 10% from designMethod 2.10 sec Table 3-1OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10Filter Based DichotLab QC ChecksBalance Checkbeginning, 10th sample, end#4Fg of true zero#2Fg of 10 mg check weightMethod 2 .10 sec 4.5“Standard” filter QC check10%"20Fg change from original valueMethod 2.10 sec 4.5From standard non-routine filter“Routine” duplicate weighing5-7 per weighing session"20Fg change from original valueMethod 2.10 sec 4.5From routine filter setVerification/CalibrationSystem Leak CheckDuring precalibration checkVacuum of 10 to 15 in. withdecline to 0 >60 secondsMethod 2.10 sec 2.2.1FR Multi-pointVerification/Calibration1/yr"2%Part 50, App.L, sec 9.2Field Temp M-point Verificationon installation, then 1/yr"2ECLab Temperature1/6 months"2ECrecommendationLab Humidity1/6 months"2%recommendationMicrobalance Calibration1/yrManufacturer’s specificationPrecisionQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 22 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.10)Collocated Samplesevery 12 days for 15% of sitesCV <10% of samples > 3Fg/m3Part 58 App A sec 3.2.5AuditsFilter Weighing1/yr"20Fg change from original valueMethod 2.10 Table 7-1Balance Audit1/yrObserve weighing techniqueand check balance withASTM Class 1 standardMethod 2.10 Table 7-1 section 7.2.2Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit2/yr"4% of audit standard"5% of design flow ratePart 58, App A, sec 3.3.3Monitor MaintenanceImpactor1/3 mocleaned/changedMethod 2.10 sec 6.1.2Inlet/downtube Cleaning1/3 mocleanedMethod 2.10 sec 6.1.2Vacuum pump1/yrReplace diaphragm and flapper valvesMethod 2.10 sec 6.1.3Manufacturer-RecommendedMaintenanceper manufacturers’ SOPper manufacturers’ SOPSYSTEMATIC CRITERIA -PM10Filter Based DichotData Completenessquarterly>75%Part 50 App. K, sec. 2.3Reporting Unitsall filtersFg/m3at standard temperature and pressure (STP)Part 50 App KRounding Convention24-hour, 3-year averagequarterlynearest 10Fg/m3(>5 round up)Part 50 App K sec 1Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertifications - All standards should havemulti-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, App.J sec 7.3Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyField Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyPrimary Mass Stds. (compare toNIST-traceable standards)1/yrNIST traceable(e.g., ANSI/ASTM Class 1, 1.1 or 2)Method 2.10 sec 9MicrobalanceReadabilityat purchase1FgMethod 2.10 sec 4.4Repeatability1/yr1FgMethod 2.10 sec 4.4Calibration & Check StandardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Method 2.10 sec 9Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification4/year5 min/morecommendationPrecisionSingle analyzer1/3 mo.Coefficient of variation (CV) <10%recommendationSingle analyzer1/ yrCV <10%recommendationPrimary Quality Assurance Org.Annual and 3 year estimates90% CL of CV <10%Part 58, App A, sec 4.3.1SD= standard deviation CV= coefficient of variationQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 23 of 30PM10Filter Based High Volume (HV)STPConditions Validation TemplateCriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.11)CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10Filter Based Hi-VolFilter Holding TimesSample Recoveryall filtersASAPPart 50 App J sec 9.16Sampling Periodall filters1440 minutes +60 minutesmidnight to midnightPart 50 App J sec 7.1.5Sampling InstrumentAverage Flow Rateevery 24 hours of op~1.13 m3/min (varies with instrument)Method 2.11FilterVisual Defect Check (unexposed)all filterssee referenceMethod 2.10 sec 4.2Collection efficiencyall filters99 %Part 50, App J sec 7.2.2Integrityall filters"5:g/m3Part 50, App J sec 7.2.3Alkalinityall filters< 25.0 microequivalents/gramPart 50, App J sec 7.2.4Filter Conditioning EnvironmentEquilibrationall filters24 hours minimumPart 50, App.J sec 9.3Temp. Rangeall filters15-30ECPart 50, App.J sec 7.4.1Temp.Controlall filters"3EC SD*over 24 hrPart 50, App.J sec 7.4.2Humidity Rangeall filters20% - 45% RHPart 50, App.J sec 7.4.3Humidity Controlall filters"5% SD*over 24 hrPart 50, App.J sec 7.4.4Pre/post Sampling RHall filtersdifference in 24-hr means#"5% RHrecommendationBalanceall filterslocated in filter conditioning environmentrecommendationVerification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification1/3 mo"7% of transfer standard and 10% from designMethod 2.10 sec Table 3-1OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10Filter Based Hi-VolLab QC ChecksBalance Checkbeginning, 10th sample, end+0.5 mg of true zero and +0.5 mg 1-5 g check weightMethod 2 .11 sec 4.5“Routine” duplicate weighing5-7 per weighing session"2.8 mg change from original valueMethod 2.11 sec 4.5.3From routine filter setVerification/CalibrationSystem Leak CheckDuring precalibration checkAuditory inspection with faceplate blockedMethod 2.11 sec 2.3.2FR Multi-pointVerification/Calibration1/yr3 of 4 cal points within +10% of designMethod 2.11 sec 2.3.2QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 24 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.11)Field Temp M-point Verificationon installation, then 1/yr"2ECLab Temperature1/6 months"2ECrecommendationLab Humidity1/6 months"2%recommendationMicrobalance Calibration1/yrManufacturer’s specificationPrecisionCollocated Samplesevery 12 days for 15% of sitesCV <10% of samples > 15Fg/m3Part 58 App A sec 3.2.5AuditsFilter Weighing1/yr"5 mg change from original valueMethod 2.11 Table 7-1Balance Audit1/yrObserve weighing technique and check balance with ASTMClass 1 standardMethod 2.10 Table 7-1Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit2/yr"10% of audit standard and design valuePart 58, App A, sec 3.3.3Monitor MaintenanceInlet/downtube Cleaning1/3 mocleanedMethod 2.11 sec 6Motor/housing gaskets1/3 moInspected replacedMethod 2.11 sec 6Blower motor brushes600-1000 hoursReplaceMethod 2.11 sec 6Manufacturer-RecommendedMaintenanceper manufacturers’ SOPper manufacturers’ SOPSYSTEMATIC CRITERIA -PM10Filter Based Hi-VolData Completenessquarterly>75%Part 50 App. K, sec. 2.3Reporting Unitsall filtersFg/m3at standard temperature and pressure (STP)Part 50 App KRounding Convention24-hour, 3-year averagequarterlynearest 10Fg/m3(>5 round up)Part 50 App K sec 1Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertifications - All standards should havemulti-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, App.J sec 7.3Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyField Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyPrimary Mass Stds. (compare toNIST-traceable standards)1/yrNIST traceable(e.g., ANSI/ASTM Class 1, 1.1 or 2)Method 2.11 sec 9MicrobalanceReadabilityat purchase0.1 mgMethod 2.11 sec 4.4Repeatability1/yr0.5 mg (HV)Method 2.11 sec 4.4Calibration & Check StandardsQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 25 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.11)Flow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Method 2.10 sec 9Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification4/year5 min/morecommendationPrecisionSingle analyzer1/3 mo.Coefficient of variation (CV) <10%recommendationSingle analyzer1/ yrCV <10%recommendationPrimary Quality Assurance Org.Annual and 3 year estimates90% CL of CV <10%Part 58, App A, sec 4.3.1SD= standard deviationCV= coefficient of variationQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 26 of 30Continuous PM10STP ConditionsValidation TemplateNOTE:There are a number of continuous PM10 monitors that aredesignated as FEM. Thesemonitors may have differentmeasurement or sampling attributes that cannot be identified in this validation template. Monitoring organizations should reviewspecific instrument operating manuals to augment this validationtemplate as necessary. In general, 40 CFR Part 58 App A and 40CFR part 50 App J requirements apply to Continuous PM10. Since a guidance documentwas never developed for continuous PM10,many of the requirements reflect a combination of manual and continuous PM2.5 requirements and are therefore consideredrecommendations.CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.11)CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10ContinuousSampling Periodall filters1440 minutes +60 minutesmidnight to midnightPart 50 App J sec 7.1.5Sampling InstrumentAverage Flow Rateevery 24 hours of opAverage within +5% of designrecommendationVerification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification1/mo"7% of transfer standard and 10% from designPart 58, App A, sec 3.2.3OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10ContinuousVerification/CalibrationSystem Leak CheckDuring precalibration checkAuditory inspection with faceplate blockedMethod 2.11 sec 2.3.2FR Multi-pointVerification/Calibration1/yr3 of 4 cal points within +10% of designMethod 2.11 sec 2.3.2AuditsSemi Annual Flow Rate Audit1/6 mo"10% of audit standard and design valuePart 58, App A, sec 3.2.4Monitor MaintenanceInlet/downtube Cleaning1/3 mocleanedMethod 2.11 sec 6Motor/housing gaskets1/3 moInspected replacedMethod 2.11 sec 6Blower motor brushes600-1000 hoursReplaceMethod 2.11 sec 6Manufacturer-RecommendedMaintenanceper manufacturers’ SOPper manufacturers’ SOPSYSTEMATIC CRITERIA -PM10ContinuousData Completenessquarterly>75%Part 50 App. K, sec. 2.3Reporting Unitsall filtersFg/m3at standard temperature and pressure (STP)Part 50 App KRounding ConventionQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 27 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.11)24-hour, 3-year averagequarterlynearest 10Fg/m3(>5 round up)Part 50 App K sec 1Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertifications - All standards should havemulti-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Part 50, App.J sec 7.3Field Thermometer1/yr"0.1EC resolution,"0.5EC accuracyrecommendationField Barometer1/yr"1 mm Hg resolution,"5 mm Hg accuracyrecommendationCalibration & Check StandardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yr"2% of NIST-traceable Std.Method 2.10 sec 9Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification4/year5 min/morecommendationQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 28 of 30Pb High Volume (TSP) Validation TemplateNote:in 2008, the NAAQS was lowered for Pb and new monitoring rules were promulgated which allowed for the use of federal equivalentanalytical methods and the use of PM10sampling in certain circumstances. The following information is guidance based on the current FRMwhich is sampling by TSP and analysis by atomic absorption. Information is this table is derived from the TSP sampling method in 40 CFRPart 50 App B, and QA Handbook Method 2.2 (1977). The analytical requirements/guidanceis derived from 40CFR Part 50, App GandQA Handbook Method 2.8 (1981). Monitoring for Pb based on the new NAAQS requirements will begin in calendar year 2010.In 2009,new guidance related to analytical FEM (ICP-MS, XRF, etc.) will bedeveloped and included as additional guidance for Pb. Revisedand/or additional Pb validationtemplates will be included in this section and posted on AMTIC.CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.2 or2.8CRITICAL CRITERIA- Pb in TSPFilter Holding TimesSample Recoveryall filtersASAPPart 50 App BSampling Periodall filters1440 minutes +60 minutesmidnight to midnightPart 50 App B sec 8.15Sampling InstrumentAverage Flow Rateevery 24 hours of op1.1-1.70 m3/min (varies with instrument)Part 50 App B sec 8.8FilterPart 50 App B sec 7.1Visual Defect Check (unexposed)all filterssee referencePart 50 App B sec 8.2Collection Efficiencyall filters99 %Part 50 App B sec 7.1.4Pressure Drop Rangeall filters42-54 mm HgPart 50 App B sec 7.1.5pHall filters6-10Part 50, App B sec 7.1.6Pb Contentall filters pre-sampling batchcheck<75:g/filterPart 50, App G sec 6.1.1Method 2.8 sec 6.2.1Verification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification1/3 mo+7% from design transfer standard +10% from designPart 58 App A Method 2.2 sec 2.6Calibration Reproducibility ChecksBeginning, every 10 samplesand end+5% of value predicted by calibration curvePart 50, App G Sec 9.3Reagent BlankEvery analytical batch< LDLrecomendationDaily CalibrationDailyuntil good agreement is obtained among replicatesMethod 2.8 sec 2.8.5OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE Pb in TSPVerification/CalibrationSystem Leak CheckDuring precalibration checkAuditory inspection with faceplate blockedMethod 2.2 sec 2.0QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 29 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.2 or2.8FR Multi-pointVerification/CalibrationAfter receipt, after motormaintenance or failure of 1-point check and1/yr5 points over range of 1.1 to 1.7 m3/minwithin +5% limits of linearityMethod 2.2 sec 2.6PrecisionCollocated Samples15% of each method code inPQAOFrequency - every 12 daysCV <20% of samples > 0.02Fg/m3(cutoff value)Part 58 App A sec 3.2.5AuditsSemi Annual Flow Rate Audit2/yr"10% of audit standard and design valuePart 58, App A, sec 3.3.3Lead Strip Analysis6 strips/quarter3/conc.10% (percent difference)Part 58, App A, sec 3.3.3BlanksField Filter Blank1/quarter< LDLrecommendationMonitor MaintenanceInlet cleaning1/3 mocleanedrecommendationMotor/housing gaskets~400 hoursInspected replacedMethod 2.2 sec 7Blower motor brushes400-500ReplaceMethod 2.2 sec 7Manufacturer-RecommendedMaintenanceper manufacturers’ SOPper manufacturers’ SOPNASYSTEMATIC CRITERIA -Pb Filter Based Hi-VolData Completenessquarterlythree -month mean (i.e., the3-month data capture rate)>75%Part 50 App. R, sec. 4Reporting Unitsall filtersFg/m3at local temperature and pressure.Part 50 App RRounding Convention3-month arithmetic meanquarterlyReport data to 3 decimal places (data after 3 are truncated.Part 50 App RLower Detectable LimitAtomic Absorption0.07:g/m3Part 50 App G sec 2.3Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertifications - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std.1/yrResolution 0.02 m3/min"2% reproducibilityPart 50, App.B sec 7.8Field Thermometer1/yr2EC resolutionPart 50, App.B sec 7.5Field Barometer1/yr"5 mm Hg resolutionPart 50, App.B sec 7.6Analytical StandardsQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix DRevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 30 of 30CriteriaFrequencyAcceptable RangeInformation (CFR or Method 2.2 or2.8Reagents (HNO3and HCL)ACS reagent gradePart 50 App G sec.6.2Pb nitrate Pb (NO3)2ACS reagent grade (99.0% purityPart 50 App G sec.6.2Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification4/year5 min/morecommendationPrecisionSingle analyzer1/3 mo.Coefficient of variation (CV) <20%recommendationSingle analyzer1/ yrCV <20%recommendationPrimary Quality Assurance Org.Annual and 3 year estimates90% CL of CV <20%Part 58, App A, sec 4.3.1BiasPerformance Evaluation Program(PEP)5 audits for PQAOs with <5sites8 audits for PQAOs with > 5sites95% CL Absolute bias"15%Part 58, App A, Sec 2.3.1SD= standard deviationCV= coefficient of variationQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 1 of 8



# Appendix E Characteristics of Spatial Scal es Related to Each Pollutant

The following tables provide information in order to match the spatial scale represented by the monitor with the monitoring objectives.

NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 2 of 7



### Page intentionally left blankQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix ERevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 3 of 8PollutantSpatial ScaleCharacteristicsNOTE: This information can also be found in 40CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is apossibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.NCore UrbanRuralGenerally located at urban or neighborhood scale to provide representative concentrations of exposure expected throughout the metropolitan area;however, a middle-scale site may be acceptable in cases where the site can represent many such locations throughout a metropolitan area.Rural NCore stations are to be located to the maximum extent practicable at a regional or larger scale away from any large local emission source, sothat they represent ambient concentrations over an extensive area.PM10MicroMiddleNeighborhoodThis scale would typify areas such as downtown street canyons, traffic corridors, and fence line stationary source monitoring locations where thegeneral public could beexposed to maximum PM10 concentrations. Microscaleparticulate matter sites should be located near inhabited buildings orlocations where the general public can be expected to be exposed to the concentration measured. Emissions from stationary sources such as primary andsecondary smelters, power plants, and other large industrial processes may, under certain plume conditions, likewise result inhigh ground levelconcentrations at the microscale. In the latter case, the microscale would represent an area impacted by the plume with dimensions extending up toapproximately 100 meters. Data collected at microscale sites provide information for evaluating and developing hot spot controlmeasures.Much of the short-term public exposure to coarse fraction particles (PM10) is on thisscale and on the neighborhood scale. People moving throughdowntown areas or living near major roadwaysor stationary sources, may encounter particulate pollution that would be adequately characterized bymeasurements of this spatial scale. Middle scale PM10 measurements can be appropriate for the evaluation of possible short-termexposure publichealth effects. In many situations, monitoring sites that arerepresentative of micro-scale ormiddle-scale impacts are not unique and are representativeof many similar situations. This can occuralong traffic corridors or other locationsin a residential district. In this case,one location is representative ofa neighborhood of small scale sites and is appropriate for evaluation of long-term or chronic effects. Thisscale also includesthe characteristicconcentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meters such asthe parking lot and feeder streets associated with shopping centers,stadia, and office buildings. In the case ofPM10, unpaved or seldomly swept parking lots associated with these sources couldbe an important source.Measurements in this category represent conditions throughout some reasonablyhomogeneous urban subregion with dimensions of afew kilometersand of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentrations, as wellas the land use and landsurface characteristics. In some cases,a location carefully chosen to provide neighborhood scale data would represent not onlythe immediateneighborhood but also neighborhoods of the same type in otherparts of the city. Neighborhood scale PM10 sites provide information about trends andcompliance with standards because they often represent conditions in areas where people commonly live and work for extended periods. Neighborhoodscale data could provide valuable information for developing, testing, and revising models that describe the largerscale concentration patterns,especially those models relying on spatially smoothed emission fieldsfor inputs. The neighborhood scale measurements could also be used forneighborhood comparisons within or between cities.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix ERevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 4 of 8PollutantSpatial ScaleCharacteristicsNOTE: This information can also be found in 40CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is apossibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.SO2Micro/MiddleNeighborhoodSome data uses associated with microscale and middle scale measurements for SO2 include assessing the effects of control strategies toreduce concentrations (especially for the 3-hour and 24-houraveraging times) and monitoring air pollution episodes.This scale applies where there is a need tocollect air quality data as part of anongoing SO2 stationary source impact investigation. Typical locationsmight include suburban areas adjacent to SO2 stationary sourcesfor example, or for determining background concentrations as part of these studies ofpopulation responses to exposure to SO2.CO MicroMiddleThis scale applies when air quality measurements are to be used to represent distributions within street canyons, over sidewalks, and near majorroadways. In the case with carbon monoxide,microscale measurements in onelocation can often be considered as representative of other similarlocations in a city.Middle scale measurements are intended to represent areas with dimensions from 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer.In certain cases, middle scalemeasurements may apply to areas that have a total length ofseveral kilometers, such as ‘‘line’’ emission source areas. This type of emission sourcesareas would include air quality along a commercially developed street orshopping plaza, freeway corridors, parking lots and feeder streetsO3NeighborhoodUrbanRegionalMeasurements in this category represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban subregion, with dimensions of afew kilometers.Homogeneity refers to pollutantconcentrations. Neighborhood scale data will provide valuable information for developing, testing, and revisingconcepts and models that describe urban/regional concentration patterns. These data will be useful to the understanding and definition of processes thattake periods of hours to occur and hence involve considerablemixing and transport. Under stagnation conditions, a site locatedin the neighborhoodscale may also experience peak concentration levels within a metropolitan area.Measurement in this scale will be used toestimate concentrations over large portionsof an urban area with dimensions of several kilometers to 50 ormore kilometers. Such measurements will beused for determining trends, and designing area-wide control strategies. The urban scale sites would alsobe used to measure high concentrations downwind of the area having the highest precursor emissions.This scale of measurement will be used totypify concentrations over large portions of a metropolitan area and even larger areas with dimensions of asmuch as hundreds of kilometers. Such measurements will be useful for assessing the O3that is transported to and from a metropolitan area, as well asbackground concentrations. In some situations, particularly whenconsidering very large metropolitan areas with complex sourcemixtures, regionalscale sites can be the maximum concentration location.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix ERevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 5 of 8PollutantSpatial ScaleCharacteristicsNOTE: This information can also be found in 40CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is apossibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.NO2MiddleNeighborhoodUrbanDimensions from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. Thesemeasurements wouldcharacterize the public exposure to NO2in populated areas.Same as for O3Same as for O3QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix ERevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 6 of 8PollutantSpatial ScaleCharacteristicsNOTE: This information can also be found in 40CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is apossibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.PM2.5 MicroscaleMiddleNeighborhoodUrbanRegionalAreas such as downtown street canyons and traffic corridors where the general public would be exposed to maximum concentrationsfrom mobilesources. In some circumstances, the microscale is appropriate for particulate sites; community-oriented SLAMS sites measured atthe microscale levelshould, however, be limited to urban sitesthat are representative of long-term humanexposure and of many such microenvironments in the area. Ingeneral, microscale particulate matter sites should be located near inhabited buildings or locations where the general public can be expected to beexposed to the concentration measured. Emissions from stationary sources such asprimary and secondarysmelters, power plants,and other largeindustrial processes may, under certain plume conditions, likewiseresult in high ground level concentrations at the microscale. In the latter case, themicroscale would represent an areaimpacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to approximately 100 meters. Data collected at microscalesites provide information for evaluating and developing hot spotcontrol measures.People moving through downtown areas,or living near major roadways, encounter particle concentrations that would be adequatelycharacterized bythis spatial scale. Thus, measurements of this type would be appropriate forthe evaluation of possible short-term exposure public health effects ofparticulate matter pollution. In many situations, monitoring sites that are representative of microscale or middle-scale impacts are not unique and arerepresentative of many similar situations. This can occur alongtraffic corridors or other locations in a residential district.In this case, one location isrepresentative of a number of small scale sites and is appropriate for evaluation of long-termor chronic effects. This scale also includes thecharacteristic concentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meterssuch as the parking lot and feeder streets associated withshopping centers, stadia, and office buildings.Measurements in this category would represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions of a fewkilometers and of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentrations, as well as the landuse and land surface characteristics. Muchof the PM2.5 exposures are expected to beassociated with thisscale of measurement.In some cases, alocation carefully chosen to provide neighborhood scale data would represent theimmediate neighborhood as well as neighborhoods of the same type inother parts of the city. PM2.5 sites of this kind provide good information about trends and compliance with standards because they often representconditions in areas where people commonly live and work for periods comparable to those specified in the NAAQS. In general, most PM2.5monitoring in urban areasshould have this scale.This class of measurement would be used to characterize the particulate matter concentration over an entire metropolitan or rural area ranging insize from 4 to 50 kilometers. Such measurements would be useful for assessing trendsin area-wide air quality, and hence, the effectiveness of largescale air pollution control strategies. Community-oriented PM2.5 sites may have this scale.These measurements would characterize conditions over areas with dimensions of asmuch as hundreds of kilometers. As noted earlier, usingrepresentative conditions for an area implies some degree of homogeneity in that area. For this reason, regional scale measurements would be mostapplicable to sparsely populated areas. Datacharacteristics of this scale would provide informationabout larger scale processes of particulate matter.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix ERevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 7 of 8PollutantSpatial ScaleCharacteristicsNOTE: This information can also be found in 40CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is apossibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.Pb MicroMiddleNeighborhoodThis scale would typify areas in close proximity to lead point sources. Emissions from point sources such as primary and secondary lead smelters, andprimary copper smelters may under fumigation conditions likewise result in high groundlevel concentrations at the microscale.In the latter case, themicroscale would represent an areaimpacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to approximately 100 meters. Data collected at microscalesites provide information for evaluating and developing ‘‘hot-spot’’ control measures.This scale generally represents Pb air quality levels in areas up to several city blocksin size with dimensions on the order of approximately 100 metersto 500 meters. The middle scale may for example, include schools and playgrounds in center city areas which are close to majorPb point sources. Pbmonitors in such areas are desirable becauseof the higher sensitivity of children toexposures of elevated Pb concentrations (reference 3 of thisappendix). Emissions from point sources frequently impact on areas at which single sites may be located to measure concentrations representing middlespatial scales.The neighborhood scale would characterize air quality conditionsthroughout some relatively uniform land use areas with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0kilometer range. Sites of thisscale would provide monitoringdata in areas representing conditions where children live and play. Monitoring in suchareas is important sincethis segment of the population is more susceptible to the effects ofPb. Where a neighborhood site islocated away fromimmediate Pb sources, the site may be very useful in representing typical air quality values for a larger residential area, andtherefore suitable forpopulation exposure and trends analyses.PAMs NeighborhoodUrbanWould define conditions within some extended areas of the city that have a relatively uniform land use and range from 0.5 to 4km. Measurements on aneighborhood scale represent conditions throughout a homogeneous urbansubregion. Precursor concentrations, on this scale of afew kilometers, willbecome well mixed and can be used to assess exposure impactsand track emissions. Neighborhooddata will provide information on pollutants relativeto residential and local businessdistricts. VOC sampling at Site #2 is characteristic of a neighborhoodscale. Measurementsof these reactants areideally located just downwind of the edge of the urban coreemission areas. Further definition of neighborhood and urban scales is provided inAppendix D of 40 CFR 58 and Reference 9.Would represent concentration distributions over a metropolitan area. Monitoring on this scale relates toprecursor emission distributions and controlstrategy plans for an MSA/CMSA. PAMS Sites #1, #3, and #4 are characteristic of the urban scale.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix ERevision No. 1Date:12/08Page 8 of 8PollutantSpatial ScaleCharacteristicsNOTE: This information can also be found in 40CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is apossibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.PM10-2.5MicroMiddleNeighborhoodThe only required monitors for PM10-2.5are those required at NCore Stations. Although microscale monitoring may beappropriate in somecircumstances, middle and neighborhood scale measurementsare the most important station classifications for PM10-2.5This scale would typify relatively small areas immediately adjacent to: Industrial sources; locations experiencing ongoing construction, redevelopment,and soil disturbance; and heavily traveled roadways. Data collected at microscale stations would characterize exposure over areas of limited spatialextent and population exposure, and may provide information useful for evaluating and developing source oriented control measures.People living or working near major roadways or industrial districts encounter particle concentrations that would be adequatelycharacterized by thisspatial scale. Thus, measurements of thistype would be appropriate for the evaluationof public health effects of coarse particle exposure. Monitorslocated in populated areas that are nearlyadjacent to large industrial point sourcesof coarse particles provide suitable locations for assessing maximumpopulation exposure levels and identifying areas of potentially poor air quality. Similarly, monitors located in populated areas that border densenetworks of heavily-traveled traffic areappropriate for assessing the impacts of resuspended road dust. This scale also includes the characteristicconcentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meters such as schoolgrounds and parks that are nearly adjacent to major roadwaysand industrial point sources, locations exhibiting mixed residential and commercial development, and downtown areas featuring office buildings,shopping centers, and stadiums.Measurements in this category would represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions of a fewkilometers and of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentrations, as well as the landuse and land surface characteristics. Thiscategory includes suburban neighborhoods dominated by residences that are somewhat distant from majorroadways and industrial districts but still impacted by urban sources, and areas of diverse land use where residences are interspersed with commercialand industrial neighborhoods. In some cases,a location carefully chosen to provideneighborhood scale data would represent theimmediateneighborhood as well as neighborhoods of the same type in other parts of the city. Thecomparison of data from middle scale andneighborhood scalesites would provide valuable information for determining thevariation of PM10–2.5 levels across urban areas and assessing thespatial extent ofelevated concentrations caused by majorindustrial point sources andheavily traveled roadways.Neighborhood scale sites wouldprovide concentrationdata that are relevant to informing a large segment of the population of their exposure levels on a given day.PM2.5SpeciationNA Each State shall continue to conduct chemical speciation monitoring and analyses at sites designated to be part of the PM2.5 Speciation TrendsNetwork (STN). The selection and modification of theseSTN sites must be approvedby the Administrator.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 13



# Appendix F

Sample Manifold Design fo r Precursor Gas Monitoring

The following information is extracted from the document titled: Version 4 of the Technical Assistance Document for Precursor Gas Measurements in the NCore Mu lti-pollutant Monitoring Network


### which can be found on the AMTIC website at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.htmlQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 13



### Page intentionally left blankQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 13 

# Sample Manifold Design for Precursor Gas Monitoring

Many important variables affect sampling manifold design for ambient precursor gas monitoring: residence time of sample gases, materials of construction, diameter, length, flow rate, and pressure drop. Considerations for thes e parameters are discussed below.

Residence Time Determination: The residence time of air pollutants within the sampling system (defined as extending from the entrance of the sa mple inlet above the inst rument shelter to the bulkhead of the precursor gas analyzer) is criti cal. Residence time is defined as the amount of time that it takes for a sample of air to trav el through the sampling system. This issue is

discussed in detail for NO y 

### monitoring in Section 4.2, and recommendations in Section 4 for the arrangement of the molybdenum converter and in let system should be followed. However, residence time is also an issue for other precurs or gases, and should be considered in designing sample manifolds for those species. For example, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40 Part 58, Appendix E.9 states, “Ozone in the pres ence of NO will show significant losses even in the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds. Other studies indicate that 10-second or less residence time is easily achievable.” 1 

### Although 20-second residence time is the maximum allowed as specified in 40 CF R 58, Appendix E, it is recommended that the residence time within the sampling system be less than 10 seconds. If the volume of the sampling system does not allow this to occur, th en a blower motor or other device (such as a vacuum pump) can be used to increase flow rate and decrease the residence time. The residence time for a sample manifold system is determined in the following way. First the total volume of the cane (inlet), manifold, and sample lines must be determined using the following equation:

Total Volume = Cv + Mv + Lv Equation 1

Where:

Cv = Volume of the sample cane or inlet and extensions Mv = Volume of the sample manifold and moisture trap

Lv = Volume of the instrument lines from the manifold to the instrument bulkhead

The volume of each component of the sampling sy stem must be measured individually. To measure the volume of the components (assumin g they are cylindrical in shape), use the following equation:

V = π * (d/2) 2 

### * L Equation 2

Where: V = volume of the component, cm 3



### π = 3.14 L = Length of the component, cm d = inside diameter of the component, cmQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 13



### Once the total volume is determined, divide the total volume by the total sample flow rate of all

instruments to calculate the residence time in the inlet. If the residence time is greater than 20 seconds, attach a blower or vacuum pump to incr ease the flow rate and decrease the residence

time.

Laminar Flow Manifolds : In the past, vertical laminar flow manifolds were a popular design. By the proper selection of a larg e diameter vertical inlet probe and by maintaining a laminar flow throughout, it was assumed that the sample air w ould not react with the walls of the probe. Numerous materials such as glass, plastic, galv anized steel, and stainless steel were used for constructing the probe. Removable sample lines constructed of FEP or PTFE were placed to protrude into the manifold to provide each instru ment with sample air. A laminar flow manifold could have a flow rate as high as 150 L/min, in order to minimize any losses, and large diameter tubing was used to minimize pressure drops. Ho wever, experience has shown that vertical

laminar flow manifolds have demonstrated many disadvantages which are listed below:

• Since the flow rates are so high, it is diffi cult to supply enough audit gas to provide an adequate independent assessment fo r the entire sampling system;

• Long laminar flow manifolds may be diffi cult to clean due to size and length;

• Temperature differentials may exist that could cha nge the characteristics of the gases, e.g., if a laminar manifold’s inlet is on top of a bu ilding, the temperature at the bottom of the building may be much lower, thereby droppi ng the dew point and condensing water.

• Construction of the manifold is fr equently of an unapproved material.

For these technical reasons, EPA strongly discourages the use of laminar flow manifolds in the national air monitoring network. It is recommended that agencies that utilize laminar manifolds migrate to conventional manifold de signs that are described below.

Sampling Lines as Inlet and Manifold : Often air monitoring agencies will place individual sample lines outside of their shelter for each in strument. If the sample lines are manufactured out of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or Fluoroethylpropylene (FEP) Teflon®, this is acceptable to the EPA. The advantages to usi ng single sample lines are: no breakage and ease of external auditing. In add ition, rather than cleaning glass manifolds, some agencies just replace the sampling lines. However, please note the following caveats:

1. PTFE and FEP lines can deteriorate when expos ed to atmospheric conditions, particularly

ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Therefor e, it is recommended that sample lines be inspected and replaced regularly.

2. Small insects and particles can accumulate inside of the tubing. It has been reported that small spiders build their webs inside of tubi ng. This can cause blockage and affect the response of the instruments. In addition, particle s can collect inside the tubing, especially at the entrance, thus affecting precursor gas concentrations. Check the sampling lines and replace or clean the tubi ng on a regular basis.

3. Since there is no central manifold, these confi gurations sometimes have a “three-way” tee, i.e., one flow path for supplying calibration mixtures and the other for the sampling of ambient air. If the three-way tee is not placed near the outermost limit of the sample inletQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 13



### tubing, then the entire sampling system is not challenged by the provision of calibration gas. It is strongly recommended that at least on a periodic basis calibra tion gas be supplied so that it floods the entire sample line. This is best done by placing the three-way tee just below the sample inlet, so that calibration gas supplied there is dr awn through the entire sampling line.

4. The calibration gas must be delivered to the analyzers at near ambient pressure. Some instruments are very sensitive to pressure change s. If the calibration gas flow is excessive, the analyzer may sample the gas under pressu re. If a pressure effect on calibration gas response is suspected, it is recommended that th e gas be introduced at more than one place in the sampling line (by placement of the tee, as described in item #3 above). If the response to the calibration gas is the same regardless of delivery point, then there is likely no pressure

effect.

Conventional Manifold Design - A number of “conventional” manifold systems exist today. However, one manifold feature must be consiste nt: the probe and manifold must be constructed of borosilicate glass or Teflon® (PFA or PTFE). These are the only materials proven to be inert to gases. EPA will accept manifolds or inlets that are made from other materials, such as steel or aluminum, that are lined or coat ed with borosilicate glass or th e Teflon® materials named above. However, all of the linings, joints and connectors that could possibly come into contact with the sample gases must be of glass or Teflon®. It is recommended that probes and manifolds be constructed in modular sections to enable frequent cleaning. It has been demonstrated that there are no significant losses of reactiv e gas concentrations in conventional 13 mm inside diameter (ID) sampling lines of glass or Teflon® if the sample residence time is 10 seconds or less. This is true even in sample lines up to 38 m in length. However, when the sample residence time exceeds 20 seconds, loss is detectable, and at 60 seconds the loss can be nearly complete. Therefore, EPA requires that residence times mu st be 20 seconds or less (except for NOy). Please note that for particulate matter (PM) m onitoring instruments, such as nephelometers, Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) instruments, or Beta Gauges, the ambient precursor gas manifold is not recommended. Particle monitoring instruments should have separate intake probes that are as short and as straight as pos sible to avoid particulate losses due to impaction on the walls of the probe.

T-Type Design : The most popular gas sampling system in use today consists of a vertical "candy cane" protruding through th e roof of the shelter with a horizontal sampling manifold connected by a tee fitting to the vertical sec tion (Figure 1). This type of manifold is commercially available. At the bottom of the t ee is a bottle for collecting particles and moisture that cannot make the bend; this is known as the “drop out” or moisture trap bottle. Please note

that a small blower at the exhaus t end of the system (optional) is used to provide flow through the sampling system. There are several issues that must be mitigated with this design:

• The probe and manifold may have a volume such that the total draw of the precursor gas analyzers cannot keep the residence time less than 20 seconds (except NOy), thereby requiring a blower motor. However, a blower motor may prevent calibration and audit gases from being supplied in sufficient quant ity, because of the high flow rate in the manifold. To remedy this, the blower motor must be turned off for calibration.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 13



### However, this may affect the response of th e instruments since they are usually operated

with the blower on.

• Horizontal manifolds have been known to colle ct water, especially in humid climates. Standing water in the manifold can be pulled into the instrument lines. Since most monitoring shelters are maintained at 20-30 o 

### C, condensation can occur when warm

humid outside air enters the manifold and is cooled. Station operators must be aware of this issue and mitigate this situ ation if it occurs. Tilting the horizontal manifold slightly and possibly heating the manifold have been used to mitigate the condensation problem. Water traps should be emptied when ever there is standing water.

Sample Cane

Blower Motor Teflon Connectors - Bushing

Modular Manifold

Moisture Trap roof line

Screw Type Opening

"T" adaptor



### Figure 1. Conventional T-Type Glass Manifold System

California Air Resources Board “Octopus” Style : Another type of manifold that is being widely used is known as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) style or “Octopus” manifold, illustrated in Figure 2. This manifold has a reduced profile, i.e., there is less volume in the cane and manifold; therefore, there is less need for a blower motor. If the combined flow rates of the gas analy zers are high enough, then an additi onal blower is not required.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 13



### roof line

Screw Type Opening



### Moisture Trap Sample Cane

Teflon Connectors - Bushing 

### 8-port "Octopus"

Manifold



### Figure 2. CARB or “Octopus” Style ManifoldQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 13



### Placement of Tubing on the Manifold : If the manifold employed at the station has multiple ports (as in Figure 2) then the pos ition of the instrument lines rela tive to the calibration input line can be crucial. If a CARB “Octopus” or similar manifold is used, it is suggested that sample connections for analyzers requiring lower flows be placed towards the bottom of the manifold. Also, the general rule of thumb states that the ca libration gas delivery line (if used) should be in

a location so that the ca libration gas flows past the analyzer inlet points before the gas is evacuated out of the manifold. Figure 3 illustrates two potential locations for introduction of the calibration gas. One is located at the ports on the “Octopus” manifold, and the other is upstream near the air inlet point, using an audit or probe inlet stub. This stub is a tee fitting placed so that “Through-the-Probe” audit line or sampling system tests and ca librations can be conducted.

roof line Sample Cane Audit and probe
inlet stub



## Instrument
inlet lines Calibration
outlet line

Instrument
inlet lines

Figure 3. Placement of Lines on the ManifoldQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 9 of 13

3

14 2

8 1

4

15 13 12 12 9

11 7 6

16 5 Measurements and Features

1. Knurled Connector 2. O-ring 3. Threaded opening 4. Top extension - 56 mm 5. Overall Length - 304 mm

6. Outside diameter - 24 mm 7. Top and bottom shoulder - 50 mm 8. Length of inlet tube - 30 mm

9. Distancebetween inlet tubes - 16 mm 10. Length of internal tube - 145 mm

11. Width of inlet tube OD - 6 mm

12. Distance from inner tube to wall - 18 mm

13. Inside width of outer tube 60 mm 14. Down tube length 76 mm

15. Width Down tube OD - 24 mm

16 Overall Width ~ 124 mm 10

7



### Figure 4. Specifications for an ‘Octopus” Style ManifoldQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 10 of 13



### Figure 4 illustrates the specifi cations of an Octopus style manifold. Please note that EPAOAQPS has used this style of manifold in its pr ecursor gas analyzer tes ting program. This type of manifold is commercially available.

Vertical Manifold Design: Figure 5 shows a schematic of the vertical manifold design. Commercially available vertical manifolds have been on the market for some time. The issues with this type of manifold are the same with other c onventional manifolds, i.e., when sample air moves from a warm humid atmosphere into an ai r-conditioned shelter, condensation of moisture

can occur on the walls of the manifold. Commer cially available vertical manifolds have the option for heated insulation to mitigate this prob lem. Whether the manifold tubing is made of glass or Teflon®, the heated insu lation prevents viewing of the t ubing, so the interior must be inspected often. The same issues apply to this manifold style as with horizontal or “Octopus” style manifolds: additional blower motors should not be used if the residence time is less than 20 seconds, and the calibration gas inlet should be pl aced upstream so that the calibration gas flows past the analyzer inlets before it exits the manifold.

roof line Support Pipe

Glass Manifold

Sample Ports

Blower Motor Insulation

Heater Power Cord

Manifold Support Exhaust Hose



## Floor "T" Connector



### Figure 5. Example of Vertical Design ManifoldQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 11 of 13



### Manifold/Instrument Line Interface : A sampling system is an integral part of a monitoring station, however, it is only one part of the whole monitoring process. With the continuing integration of advanced electronics into monitori ng stations, manifold design must be taken into consideration. Data Acquisition Systems (DASs) are able not only to collect serial and analog data from the analyzers, but also to contro l Mass Flow Calibration (MFC) equipment and solid state solenoid switches, communicate via modem or Ethernet, and monitor conditions such as shelter temperature and manifold pressure. As de scribed in Chapter 6, commercially available DASs may implement these features in an electronic data logger, or via software installed on a personal computer. Utilization of these features allows the DAS and support equipment to perform automated calibrations (Autocals). In addition to performing th ese tasks, the DAS can flag data during calibration periods and allow the data to be stored in separate files that can be reviewed remotely.

Figure 6 shows a schematic of the integrated mo nitoring system at EPA’s Burden Creek NCore monitoring station. Note that a series of so lenoid switches are positioned between the ambient

air inlet manifold and an additional “calibration” manifold. This configuration allows the DAS to control the route from which the analyzers dr aw their sample. At the beginning of an Autocal, the DAS signals the MFC unit to come out of standby mode and start producing zero or calibration gas. Once the MFC has stabilized, th e DAS switches the analyzers’ inlet flow (via solenoids) from the ambient air manifold to the calibration manifold. The calibration gas is routed to the instruments, and the DAS monitors and averages the res ponse, flagging the data appropriately as calibration data. When the Autocal has terminated, the DAS switches the analyzers’ inlet flow from the calibration manifo ld back to the ambient manifold, and the data system resets the data flag to the normal ambient mode.

The integration of DAS, solenoid switches, and MF C into an automated configuration can bring an additional level of complexity to the monitori ng station. Operators must be aware that this additional complexity can create situations wher e leaks can occur. For instance, if a solenoid switch fails to open, then the inlet flow of an an alyzer may not be switched back to the ambient manifold, but instead will be sampling interior room air. When the calibrations occur, the instrument will span correctly, but will not return to ambient air samp ling. In this case, the data collected must be invalidated. These problems are usually not discovered until there is an external “Through-the Probe” audit, but by then extensive data could be lost. It is recommended that the operator remove the calibration line from the calibration manifold on a routine basis and challenge the sampling system from the inlet probe. This test will discover any leak or switching problems within the entire sampling system.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 12 of 13



### Figure 6. Example of a Manifold/Instrument Interface

Figure 7 shows a close up of an ambient/calibration manifold, illustrating the calibration

manifold – ambient manifold interface. This is the same interface used at EPA’s Burden’s Creek monitoring station. The interface consists of thre e distinct portions: the ambient manifold, the solenoid switching system and the calibration manifold. In this instance, the ambient manifold is a T-type design that is being utilized with a blow er fan at the terminal. Teflon® tubing connects the manifold to the solenoid switching system. Two-way solenoids have two configurations. Either the solenoid is in its passive state, at which time the ports that are connected are the normally open (NO) and the common (COM). In th e other state, when it is energized, the ports that are connected are the normally closed (N C) and the COM ports. Depending on whether the solenoid is ‘active’ or not, the solenoid routes the air from the calibration or ambient manifold to the instrument inlets. There are two configuratio ns that can be instituted with this system.

1. Ambient Mode: In this mode the solenoids are in “passive” state. The flow of air (under vacuum) is routed from the NO port through the solenoid to the COM port.

2. Calibration Mode: In this mode, the solenoids are in the “active” state. An external switching device, usually the DAS, must supply direct current to the solenoid. This causes the solenoid to be energized so that the NO port is shut and the NC port is now connected to the COM port. As in all cases, the COM port is always selected. The switching of the solenoid is done in conj unction with the MFC unit becoming active; Burden's Creek Sampling Station - OAQPS/MQAG

Environics 9100 Cal Sys TECO 42CY TL

NOx

TECO 43CTL

SO2

TECO 48CTL

CO P

V V S S S S F

V

Other Monitor (O3 etc) C C C C

NC NC NC NC

NO NO NO NO External Moly
Converter Sampling Cane

Manifold Fan

Charcoal

Scrubber 4-ft

Notes: S - Teflon 3-way Solenoid P - Pump
F - Manifold Fan/Blower

V - Vent

- Particulate Filte r Sample tubing lengths < 3-ft Cal Standard (triblend) Temp/
Pressure/RH

Calibration Manifold A mbient Sampling Manifold

UPS Power Supply Zero Air
Source Cal NOy

NO

Sample In

EnviDAS Data

A cquisition System

A nalog Inputs - To Analyzers/

Sensors Control Outputs

- To Environics

Cal Sys Control Out- To Solenoids

Modem

Desktop SystemQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 13 of 13



### generally, the MFC is controlled by the DAS . When the calibration sequences have finished, the DAS stops the direct current from being sent to the solenoid and switches automatically back to the NO to COM (inactive) port configuration. This allows the air to flow through the NO to COM port and the instrument is now back on ambient mode.

Air Flow to the Analyzers N O N C

N O N O N C N C

COM Calibration

Gas from the Mass
Flow Calibrator Exhaust Air Flow Air Flow Air Flow

to

Exhaust
Fan

Air Flow Air Flow Air Flow



### Figure 7. Ambient – Calibration Manifold Interface

Reference

1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 58, Appendix E.9QA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 3



# Appendix G

Example Procedure for Calibrating a Data Acquisition SystemQA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 3



### This page left blank intentionallyQA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 3



## DAS Calibration Technique

The following is an example of a DAS calibra tion. The DAS owner’s manual should be followed. The calibration of a DAS is perfor med by inputting known voltages into the DAS and measuring the output of the DAS.

1. The calibration begins by obtaining a voltage source and an ohm/voltmeter.

2. Place a wire lead across the input of the DAS multiplexer. With this "shorted" out, the

DAS should read zero.

3. If the output does not read zero, adjust th e output according to the owners manual.

4. After the background zero has been determined , it is time to adjust the full scale of the system. Most DAS system work on a 1, 5 or 10 volt range, i.e., the full scale equals an output of voltage. In the case of a 0 - 1000 ppb range instrument, 1.00 volts equals 1000 ppb. Accordingly, 500 ppb equals 0.5 volts (500 milivolts). To get the DAS to be linear throughout the range of the instrument bei ng measured, the DAS must be tested for linearity.

5. Attach the voltage source to a voltmeter. Adjust the voltage source to 1.000 volts (this is critical that the output be 1.000 volts ) . Attach the output of the voltage source the DAS multiplexer. The DAS should read 1000 ppb. Adjust the DAS voltage A/D card accordingly. Adjust the output of the vo ltage source to 0.250 volts. The DAS output should read 250 ppb. Adjust the A/D card in the DAS accordingly. Once you have adjusted in the lower range of the DAS, ch eck the full scale point. With the voltage source at 1.000 volts, the output should be 1000 p pb. If it isn't, then adjust the DAS to allow the high and low points to be as close to the source voltage as possible. In some cases, the linearity of the DAS may be in questio n. If this occurs, the data collected may need to be adjusted using a linear regression equation. See Section 2.0.9 for details on data adjustment. The critical range for many instruments is in the lower 10 % of the

scale. It is critical that this be linear.

6. Every channel on a DAS should be calibrated. In some newer DAS systems, there is only one A/D card voltage adjustment which is carried throughout the multiplexer. This usually will adjust all channels. It is reco mmended that DAS be calibrated once per year.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 1 of 46



# Appendix H

United States Environmental Protection Agency

National Ambient Air Monitoring Technical System Audit FormQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 2 of 46



### Page intentionally left blankQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 3 of 46



### 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: PM 10, 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 ReportingQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 4 of 46



## 1) General / Quality Management

State/ Local / Tribal Agency Audited:

Address:

City, State, and Zip Code:

Date of Technical System Audit:

Auditor / Agency:



## a) Program Organization

1) Key Individuals

1.1) Agency Director:

1.2) Ambient Air Monitori ng (AAM) Network Manager:

1.3) Quality Assurance Manager:

1.4) QA Auditors:

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 :QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 5 of 46



### 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 Data and Data Management

QC activities Equipment repair and

maintenance

QA activities Financial Management



### List available personnel by name and percen tage 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



### Comment on the need for additional personnel, if applicable

List personnel who have author ity or are responsible for:

Activity Name Title
QA Training Field/Lab Grant Management Purchases greater than $500
Equipment and Service Contract Management Staff appointmentQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 6 of 46



### 6 

## b) Facilities

Identify the principal facilities where the agency conducts wo rk 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

Certification of Standards e.g. gases, flow transfers, MFC

PM filter weighing

Data verification and processing

General office space

Storage space, short and long

term

Air Toxics (Carbonyls, VOC s, Metals):

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

recommendations

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

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 ph ysical space (laboratory, office, storage, etc.).

Facility Function Proposed Change - DateQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 7 of 46



### 7 

## 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. Does the agency maintain a separate laboratory to support quality assurance

activities? Has the agency documented and implemented specific audit procedures separate from monitoring procedures?

Are there two levels of management separation between QA and QC operations? Please explain:

Does the agency have identifiable auditing equipment and standards (specifically intended for sole use) for audits?



### 2. Internal Performance Audits Question Yes No Comment
Does the agency have separate facilities to support audits and calibrations? 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.

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?

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

vendor and internal or external certification of standards.

Does the agency have a certified source of zero air for performance audits? Does the agency have procedures for auditing and/or validating performance of Meteorological monitoring? Please provide a list of the agency’s aud it equipment and age of audit equipment.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 8 of 46



### 8 Is audit equipment ever used to support routine calibration and QC checks required for monitoring network operations? If yes, please describe.

Are standard operating procedures (SOPs) for air monitoring available to all field personnel? Has the agency established and has it documented criteria to define agency-acceptable

audit results?

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

O 3

NO 2

SO 2

PM 10

PM 2.5

Pb

VOCs

Carbonlys

PM 2.5 speciation

PM 10-2.5 speciation

PM 10-2.5 FRM Mass

Continuous PM 2.5

Trace Levels (CO)

Trace Levels (SO 2 )

Trace Levels (NO)

Trace Levels (NOy)

Surface Meteorology

OthersQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 9 of 46



### 9 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? 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 excee ded? 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

Corrective Action #2QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 10 of 46



### 10 

## d) Planning Documents in cluding 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 A pproval Date of Last Revision Date of Lat est 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?

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?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 11 of 46



### 11 

## e) General Documentation Policies

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have a documented records management plan? Does the agency have a list of f iles considered official records and their media type I.E. paper, electronic? Does the agency have a schedule for retention and disposition

of records? Are records for at least three years?

Who is responsible for the storage and retrieval of records?

What security measures are utilized to protect records?

Where/when does the agency rely on electronic files as primary records?

What is the system for the storage, retrieval and backup of

these files?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 12 of 46



### 12 

## f) Training

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have a training program and training plan?

Where is it documented?

Does it make use of seminars, courses, EPA sponsored college level courses?

Are personnel cross-trained for other ambient air monitoring

duties?

Are training funds specifically designated in the annual budget?

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)QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 13 of 46



### 13 

## g) Corrective Action

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency have a comprehensive corrective action program in place and operational?

Have the procedures been documented?

As a part of the QA project plan?

As a separate standard operating procedure?

Does the agency have established and documented corrective limits for QA and QC activities?

Are procedures implemented for corrective actions based on results of the following which fall outside

the established limits:

Performance evaluations

Precision goals

Bias goals

NPAP audits

PEP audits 

### Oversight of Contractors and Suppliers

Question Contractors Yes No Comment

Who is responsible for oversight of contract personnel?

What steps are taken to ensu re 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?

What supplies and equipment have established specifications?

Is equipment from suppliers open for bid?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 14 of 46



### 14 Question Yes No Comment

Validation of one point QC check goals

Completeness goals

Data audits

Calibrations and zero span checks

Technical Systems Audit

Have the procedures been documented?

How is responsibility for implementing corrective actions assigned? Briefly discuss.

How does the agency follow up on implemented corrective actions?

Briefly describe recent examples of the ways in which the above corrective action syst em was employed to remove problems.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 15 of 46



### 15 

## h) Quality Improvement

Question Yes No Comment

What actions were taken to improve the quality system

since the last TSA?

Since the last TSA do your control charts indicate that the overall data quality for each pollutant steady or improving?

For areas where data quality appears to be declining has a

cause been determined?

Have all deficiencies indicted on the previous TSA been

corrected?

If not explain.

Are there pending plans for quality improvement such as purchase of new or improved equipment, standards, or

instruments?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 16 of 46



### 16 

## i) External Performance Audits

Question Yes No Comment Does your agency participat e in NPAP, PM2.5 PEP, and Other performance audits performed by an external party and/or using external standards.

If the agency does not partic ipate, please explain why not:

Are NPAP audits performed by QA staff, site operators, calibration staff, and/or another group?



### 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 Natio nal Performance Audit Program.

Name: Program function:

Please complete the table below:

Parameter Audited Date of Last NPAP Audit

CO

O 3

SO 2

NO 2

PM 10

PM 2.5

Pb

VOCs

CarbonlysQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 17 of 46



### 17 

## 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:QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 18 of 46



### 18 *NCore - National Core monitoring stations; SLAMS - st ate and local air monitoring stations; SPM - special purpose monitors; PAMS - photochemical assessment monitoring stations

Indicate by Site ID # any non-conformance with the requirements of 40 CFR 58, Appendi ces D and E, along with any waivers grante d by the Regional Office (provide waiver documentation)

Monitor Site ID Reason for Non-Conformance

SO 2

O 3

CO

NO 2

PM 10

PM 2.5

Pb



## a) Network Design

Complete the table below for each of the pollutants monitored as pa rt of your air monitoring networ k. (Record applicable count by category.) Also indicate seasona l monitoring with an S for a Parameter/Category as appropriate. Provide the most recent annua l monitoring network plan, including date of a pproval and AQS quicklook or if not availa ble, network description and other simila r summary of site data, includin g SLAMS, Other and Toxics Category* SO 2 NO 2 CO O 3 PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb Other (type) Other (type)

NCore

SLAMS

SPM

PAMS

Total

Question Yes No Comment What is the date of the most current Monitoring Network Plan?

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?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 19 of 46



### 19 

## b) Changes to the Network since the last audit

What is the date of the mo st recent network assessment? (Provi d e copy) Are all SLAMS parameters included? Any

Others? Please provide information on any site changes since the last audit

Pollutant Site ID Site Address Site

Added/Deleted/

Relocated Reason (Assessment, lost lease, etc.

Provide documentation of reason for each site change.) 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 th e 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:

Title:

Does the current level of monito ring effort, station placement, instrumentation, etc., meet require ments imposed by current grant

conditions? How often is the network siting reviewed? Frequency:

Date of last review:
Are there any issues

Do any sites vary from the required frequency in 40 CFR 58.12?

Does the number of collocated monit oring stations meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58 Appendix A?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 20 of 46



### 20 

## d) Field Support

Question Yes No Comment

On average, how often are most of your stations visited by a field operator? ______ per _______

Is this visit frequency consistent for all reporting organizations within your agency?

On average, how many stations does a single operator have responsibility

for?

How many of the stations of your SLAMS/NCORE network are equipped with sampling manifolds?

Do the sample inlets and manifolds meet the requirements for through the probe audits?

I. Briefly describe mo st common manifold type

II. Are Manifolds cl eaned periodically How often?

III. If the manifold is cleaned, what is used to perform cleaning

IV. Are manifold(s) equi pped with a blower

V. Is there sufficient air flow through the manifold at all times? Approximate air flow:

VI. How is the air flow through the manifold monitored?

VII. Is there a conditioning period for the manifold after cleaning? Length of time:

VIII. What is the residence time?

Sampling lines: 1) What material is used for instrument sampling lines?

2) How often are lines changed?

Do you utilize uninterruptable power s upplies or backup power sources at your sites?

What instruments or devices are protected? 

## c) Proposed changes to the Network

Are future network changes proposed?

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.)QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 21 of 46



### 21 i). SOPs

Please complete the following table:

Pollutant Monitored Date of Last SOP Review Date of Last SOP Revision

SO 2

NO 2

CO

O3

PM 10

PM 2.5 FRM mass

Pb

PM 2.5 speciation

PM 10-2.5 FRM mass

PM 10-2.5 speciation

Continuous PM 2.5 mass

Trace levels (CO)

Trace levels (SO 2 )

Trace levels (NO)

Trace levels (NOy) Total reactive nitrogen Surface Meteorology Wind speed and direction, temperature, RH, precipitation and solar radiation

Others Question Yes No Comment

Is the documentation of monitoring SOPs complete?

Are any new monitoring SOPs needed?

Are such procedures available to all field operations personnel?

Are SOPs that detail operati ons during episode monitoring prepared and available to field personnel?

Are SOPs based on the framework contained in Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures EPA QA/G-6?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 22 of 46



### 22 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

SO 2

NO 2

CO

O3

PM 10

PM 2.5

Pb

Multi gas calibrator

PM 2.5 speciation

PM 10-2.5 speciation

PM 10-2.5 FRM mass

Continuous PM 2.5 mass

Trace levels (CO)

Trace levels (SO 2 )

Trace levels (NO)

Trace levels (NOy)

Surface Meteorology

Others



### Please comment briefly and prioritize your curre ntly identified instrument needs.

Question Yes No Comment

Are criteria established for field QC equipment?

Are criteria established for field QC gas standards?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 23 of 46



### 23 iii ) Calibration

Please indicate the frequency of multi point calibrations.

Pollutant Frequency Name of Calibration Method

Question Yes No Comment

Are field calibration procedures included in the document ? SOPs? Location (site, lab etc.):
Are calibrations performed in keep ing with the guidance in section Vol II of the QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems? If no, why not?

Are calibration procedures consistent with the operational requirements of Appendices to 40 CFR 50 or to analyzer operation/instruction manuals? If no, why not?

Have changes been made to calibration methods based on manufacturer’s suggestions for a particular instrument?

Do standard materials used for ca librations meet th e requirements of appendices to 40 CFR 50 (E PA reference methods) and Appendix A to 40 CFR 58 (traceab ility of materials to NISTSRMs or CRMs)? Comment on deviations

Are all flow-measurement de vices checked and certified?

Additional comments:

Please list the authoritative standards used for each type of fl ow measurement, indicate the ce rtification frequency of standa rds to maintain field material/device credibility.

Flow Device Primary Standard Frequency of Certification

HiVol orifice

Streamline

TriCal

BIOS

DeltaCal

Gilibrators

Where do field operations personnel obtain gaseous standards?

Are those standards certified by:QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 24 of 46



### 24 Question Yes No Comment

The agency laboratory?

EPA/NERL standards laboratory?

A laboratory separate from this agency’s but part of the same reporting organization?

The vendor?

Other (describe).

How are the gas standards ve rified after receipt?

How are flow measurement devices certified?

Please provide copies of certificati ons of all standards currently in use from your master and/or satellite standard certification logbooks (i.e., chemical standa rds, ozone standards, flow standards, and zero air standards) .

What equipment is used to perfo rm calibrations (e.g., dilution devices) and how is the performance of this equipment verified?

Does the documentation include expi ration date of certification?

Reference to primary standard used?

What traceability is used?

Please attach an example of recent documentation of traceability

Is calibration equipment maintained at each station?

How is the functional integrity of this equipment documented?

Who has responsibility for maintaining field calibration standards?

Please list the authoritative standards and frequency of each type of dilution, permeation and oz one calibrator and indicate th e certification frequency...

Calibrator Primary Standard Frequency of

Calibration Certification

Permeation calibrator flow controller

Permeation calibrator temperature

Dilution calibrator air an d gas flow controllers

Field/working standard photometer

Ozone generatorQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 25 of 46



### 25 o) Please identify station standards for gaseous pollutants at repr esentative air monitoring stat ions (attach additional sheets as appropriate):

Parameter Station(s) Identification of Standard(s) Recertification Date(s)

CO

NO 2

SO 2

O 3



### iv ) Repair

a) Who is responsible for perfor ming preventive maintenance?

b) Is special training provided them for pe rforming preventive maintenan ce? Briefly comment on background or courses.

c) Is this training routinely reinforced? Yes No If no, why not?

d) What is your preventive maintenance schedul e for each type of field instrumentation?

e) If preventive maintenance is MINOR , it is performed at (check one or more): field station , headquarters facilities

, equipment is sent to manufacturer

f) If preventive maintenance is MAJOR, it is performed at (check one or more): field station , 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?

h) Comment briefly on the adequacy and availability of the supply of spare parts, tools and manuals available to the field oper ator to perform any necessary maintenance activities. Do you feel that this is adequate to prevent any significant data loss?

i) Is the agency currently experiencing any recurring problem wi th 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?

More than 48 hours?

More than a week?

k) Explain any situations where instrument down time was due to lack of preventive maintenance of unavailability of parts.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 26 of 46



### 26 RECORD KEEPING

Question Yes No Comment

What type of station logbooks are maintained at each monitoring station? (maint enance logs, cal ibration logs, personal logs, etc.)

What information is included in the station logbooks?

Who reviews and verifies the logbooks for adequacy of station performance?

How is control of logbook maintained?

Where is the completed logbook archived?

What other records are used?

Zero span record?

Gas usage log?

Maintenance log?

Log of precision checks?

Control charts?

A record of audits?

Please describe the use and storage of these documents.

Are calibration records or at leas t calibration constants available to field operators?

Please attach an example field calibration record sheet to this questionnaire.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 27 of 46



### 27 

# 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 Pollutant s Monitored _____________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Other Parameters ______________________________________________

Nearst Meterol ogical Site ________________________________________ (‘on site’ is met tower present at this site)

Photographs to and from each ca rdinal direction attached? ______________
(Yes or No)



## Name(s) of Report Preparer(s) ____________________________________

Name(s) of Auditors ________

____________________ ________________

Date ________________________________________________________

Phone Number ________________________________________________QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 28 of 46



### 28 

# Site Map
Draw map of site and surrounding te rrain and features, up to 100 meters.

Map notesQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 29 of 46



### 29 

# 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 neededQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 30 of 46



### 30 

# Area Information

Street Name Traffic Count (Vehicles/day)



# Direction Predominant Land Use (Ind ustry, 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, su ch 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



# CommentsQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 31 of 46



### 31 

## 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:QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 32 of 46



### 32 

## a) Routine Operations

What analytical methods are employed in support of your air monitoring network?

Analysis Name or Description of Method

PM 10

PM 2.5

Pb

Others (list by pollutant)



### Please describe areas where there have been diffi culties meeting the regulatory requirements for any of the above analytical methods.

In the table below, please iden tify the current versions of written methods, supplements, and guidelines that are used in your agency.

Analysis Documentation of Method

PM 10

PM 2.5

Pb

Others (list by

pollutant)

Question Yes No Comment
Were procedures for the methods listed above included in the agency = s QA Project Plan or SOP = s and were reviewed by EPA? Also, are SOP’s easily/readily accessible for use

and reference?

Does you lab have sufficient instrumentation to conduct analyses?



### d) Please describe needs for labor atory instrumentation.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 33 of 46



### 33 

## b) Laboratory Quality Control

Please identify laboratory standards used in support of th e 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

NO 2

SO 2

O 3

Weights

Temperature

Moisture

Barometric Pressure

Flow

Other Flow Standard

Lead

Other

*Standards to which the laborator y standards can be traced.

Question Yes No Comment

Are all chemicals and solutions clearly marked with an

indication of shelf life?

Are chemicals removed and properly disposed of when shelf life expires?

Are only ACS grade chemicals used by the laboratory?

e) Comment on the traceability of chemicals used in the preparation of calibration standardsQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 34 of 46



### 34 Question Yes No Comment

Does the laboratory purchase standard solutions such

as those for use with lead or other metals analysis?

Are all calibration pro cedures documented?

If answer “yes” to (f), pleas e describe the following:

(1) Title of the document: (2) Revision number: (3) Where the document is:

Are at least one duplicate, one blank, and one standard or spike included with a given analytical

batch?

Briefly describe the laboratory = s use of data derived from blank analyses.

Are criteria established to determine whether a blank data are acceptable? How frequently and at what concentration ranges does the lab perform duplicate analysis? What constitutes an acceptable agreement? Please comment in the space below.

Please describe how the lab use data obtained from spik ed samples, including the acceptance criteria (e.g., acceptable percent recovery).

Question Yes No Comment

Does the laboratory routinely include samples of reference material within an analytical batch?

If yes, indicate frequency, level, and material used.

Are mid-range standards in cluded in analytical

batches?

Please describe the frequency, level and co mpound used in the space provided below.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 35 of 46



### 35 Question Yes No Comment

Are criteria for real time quality control

established that are based on the results obtained for the mid-range standards discussed above?

If yes, briefly discuss them below or indicate the document in which they can be found.

Are appropriate acceptance criteria for each type of analysis documented ?



## c) Laboratory Preventive Maintenance

Question Yes No Comment

For laboratory equipment, who has the respons ibility for performing preventive maintenance?

Is most maintenance performed in the lab?

Is a maintenance log maintained for each major laboratory

instrument?

Are service contracts in pl ace for major analytical

instruments?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 36 of 46



### 36 

## d) Laboratory Record Keeping

Question Yes No Comment

Are all samples that are received by the laboratory logged in?

Discuss sample routing and special needs for analysis (or attach a copy of the latest SOP which covers this). Attach a flow ch art if possible.

Are log books kept for all analytical laboratory

instruments?

Are there log books or othe r records that indicate

the checks made on materials and instruments such as weights, humidity indicators, balances, and

thermometers?

Identify type of record, acceptable/non-acceptable

Are log books maintained to track the preparation

of filters for the field?

Are they current?

Do they indicate proper use of conditioning?

Weighings?

Stamping and numbering?

Are log books kept which track filters returning from the field for analysis?

How are data records from the laboratory archived?

Where?

Who has the responsibility? Person

Title

How long are records kept? Years

Does a chain-of-custody procedure exist for laboratory samples? .

If yes, indicate date, title and revision number where it can be foundQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 37 of 46



### 37 

## e) Laboratory Data Acquisition and Handling

Question Yes No Comment

Identify those laboratory instruments which make use of computer interfaces directly to record da ta. Which ones use strip chart s? Integrators?

Are QC data readily availa ble to the analyst during a given analytical run?

What is the laboratory = s capability with regard to data recovery? In cas e of problems, can they recapture data or are they dependent on computer operations? Discuss briefly.

Has a user = s manual been prepared for the automated data acquisition instrumentation?

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 befo re being released by the laboratory.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 38 of 46



### 38 

## f) Specific Pollutants: PM 10 

## , PM 2.5 

## and Lead

Question Yes No Comment

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Does the agency use filt ers supplied by EPA?

Do filters meet the specifications in 40 CFR 50?

Are filters visually inspected via strong light from a view box for pinholes and other imperfections?

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?

Are the temperature and relative humidity of the conditioning environment monitored?

Are the temperature and humidity monitors

calibrated?

Are balances checked with Class S or Class M weights each day when they are used?

Is the balance check information placed in QC log

book?

To what sensitivity are filter weights recorded?

Are filter serial numbers and tare weights recorded

in a bound notebook?

Are filters packaged for protection while transporting to and from the monitoring stations?

How often are filter samples collected? (Indicate the average elap sed time in hours between end of sampling and laboratory receipt.)

In what medium are field measurements recorded (e.g., in a log book, on a f ilter folder, or on standard forms)?

Are exposed filters recond itioned for at least 24 hrs in the same conditioning environment as for unexposed filters?

Briefly describe how exposed filt ers are prepared for conditioning.

Briefly describe how exposed filters are stored after being weighed.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 39 of 46



### 39 Question Yes No Comment

Are blank filters reweighed?

Are chemical analyses performed on filters?

LEAD

Is analysis for lead be ing conducted using atomic absorption spectrometry with air acetylene flame? If not, has the agency received an equivalency designation of their procedure?

Is either the hot acid or ultrasonic extraction procedure being followed precisely? Which?

Is Class A borosilicate glassware used throughout the analysis?

Is all glassware cleaned with detergent, soaked and

rinsed three times with distilled or deionized water?

If extracted samples are stored, are linear polyethylene bottles used?

Are all batches of glass fiber filters tested for background lead content?

At a rate of 20 to 30 random filters per batch of 500 or greater? Indicate rate.

Are ACS reagent grade HNO 3 and HCl used in the analysis?

Is a calibration curve available having concentrations that cover the linear absorption range of the atomic absorption instrumentation?

Is the stability of the calibration curve checked by alternately remeasuring ev ery 10th sample a

concentration # 1 F g Pb/ml; # 10 F g Pb/ml?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 40 of 46



### 40 

## 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:QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 41 of 46



### 41 

## 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?

Please provide below a data flow diagram indicating both the data flow within the reporting organization.

Are procedures for data handling (e.g., data reduction, review, etc.) documented?

In what media (e.g., diskette, data cartridge , or telemetry) and formats do data arrive at the data processing location? Pleas e list

below.

Category of Data (by Pollutant) Data Media and Formats

How often are data received at the processing lo cation from the field sites and laboratory?

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? .

Describe the type of documentation

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)?

For manual data, is a double -key entry system used?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 42 of 46



### 42 

## b) Software Documentation

Question Yes No Comment

Does your agency use any AQS Manual?

Does your agency use any Air Now Manual?

If yes, list the title of manual used includi ng the , version number and date published

Does the agency have informatio n on the reporting of precision and accuracy data available?

What are the origins of the software used to prepare air monito ring data for release into the AQS and AirNow database? Please list the documentation for the software currently in use for da ta processing, including the names of the software packages, vendor or author, revision numbers, and the revision dates of the software.

What is the recovery capability in the event of a significant computer problem ( i.e., how much time and data would be lost)?

Has your agency tested the data processing software to ensure its performance of the intended function are consistent with the QA Handbook, Volume II, and Section 14.0?

Does your agency document software tests? .

If yes, provide the documentationQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 43 of 46



### 43 

## c) Data Validation and Correction

Question Yes No Comment

Have your agency established and document the validation

criteria ? If yes, indicate document where such criteria can be found (t itle, revision date).

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?

Does your agency document the data validation criteria including limits for values such as flow rates, calibration results, or range tests for ambient measurements?

(i) If yes, please describe what action the data validator will take if he/she find data with limits exceeded (e.g., flags, modifies, or delete, etc.) .



### (ii) If yes, give examples to illustrate actions taken when limits were exceeded.

Please describe how changes made to data that were submitted to AQS and AirNow are documented.

Who has signature authority for approving corrections?

Name Program function _____________________________

What criteria are used to determine a data point be deleted ? Discuss briefly.

What criteria are used to determine if data need to be reprocessed? Discuss.

Are corrected data resubmitted to the issuing group for
cross-checking prior to release 

### ?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 44 of 46



### 44 

## d) Data Processing

Question Yes No Comment

Does the agency generate data summary reports?

Please list at least three re ports routinely generated, including the information requ ested below.

Report Title Distribution Period Covered

Question Yes No Comment

How often are data submitted to AQS and AirNow?

Briefly comment on difficulties the agency may have encountere d in coding and submitting data following the guidance of the AQS guidelines?

Does the agency routinely request a hard copy printout on submitted data from AQS?

Are records kept for at least 3 years by the agency in an orderly,

accessible form? .

If yes, does this include raw data , calculation , QC data , and reports ? If no, please comment

Has your agency submitted data along with the appropriate calibration equations used to the processing center?

Are concentrations of pollutants other than PM 2.5 corrected to EPA standard temperature and pressure conditions (i.e.,298 E K, 760 mm Hg) before input to AQS, and

concentrations of PM 2.5 reported to AQS under actual (volumetric) conditions? :

Are audits on data reduction procedure performed on a routine

basis?

If yes, at what frequency?

Are data precision and accuracy checked each time they are calculated, recorded, or transcribed to ensure that incorrect

values are not submitted to EPA?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 45 of 46



### 45 

## e) Internal Reporting

What internal reports are prepared and subm itted as a result of the audits requ ired under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?

Report Title Frequency

What internal reports are prepared and submitt ed as a result of precision checks also required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?

Report Title Frequency

Question Yes No Comment

Do either the audit or precision check reports
indicated include a discussion of corrective actions

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 RecipientQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H

Revision No: 1

Date: 12/08 Page 46 of 46



### 46 

## 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 percenta ges for required data submitted on time.

Percent Submitted on Time* Period Covered:

Monitoring Qtr. SO 2 CO O 3 NO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb

1 (Jan 1 - March 31)

2 (Apr 1 - June 30)

3 (July 1 - Sept. 30)

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 mon itoring and site start-ups and terminations)?

Percent of Stations <75% Data Recovery Period Covered:

Monitoring Qtr. SO 2 CO O 3 NO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 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.

Name Program function

Question Yes No Comment

Does your agency report the Pollutant Standard Index?

Has you r agency submitted its annual data summary report (as required in 40 CFR 58.26)?

If yes, did your agency = s annual report include the following:

Data summary required in Appendix F?

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?QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 1of 25



# Appendix I

Examples of Reports to Management

The following example of an annual quality assuran ce report consist of a numb er of sections that describe the quality objectives for selected sets of measurement data and how those objectives

have been met. Sections include:

• 

### Executive Summary,

• 

### Introduction, and

• 

### Quality information for each ambient air pollutant monitoring program.

The report is titled "Acme Repor ting Organization, Annual Qual ity Assurance Report for 2000".QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1t

Date:12/08 Page 2 of 25



## ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT FOR 2000

Prepared by

Quality Assurance Department Acme Reporting Organization

110 Generic Office Building
Townone XX, 00001

April 2001QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 3of 25



### ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION ANNUAL QUALITY ASSUR ANCE REPORT FOR 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

< Data quality

< Quality assurance procedures

GASEOUS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

< Program update

< Quality objectives for measurement data

< Data quality assessment

PARTICULATE CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

< Program update

< Quality objectives for measurement data

< Data quality assessment

TOTAL AND SPECIATED VOLA TILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

< Program update

< Quality objectives for measurement data

< Data quality assessment

AIR TOXIC COMPOUNDS

< Program update

< Quality objectives for measurement data

< Data quality assessmentQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 4 of 25



### ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION ANNUAL QUALITY ASSUR ANCE REPORT FOR 2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This summary describes the Acme Reporting Organi zation's (ARO's) success in meeting its quality objectives for ambient air pollution monitoring data. AR O's attainment of quantitative objectives, such as promptness, completeness, precision, and bias, are shown in Table 1, below. ARO met these objectives for all pollutants, with the exception of nitrogen dioxid e. The failure to meet completeness and timeliness goals for nitrogen dioxide was due to the breakdown of several older analyzers. Replacement parts were installed and the analyzers are now providi ng data that meet ARO's quality objectives.



### Table 1. Attainment of Quantitative Qualit y Objectives for Ambient Air Monitoring Data

Program met objectives for

Measurement Promptness Completeness Precision Bias

Air Toxics Yes Yes Yes Yes

Carbon Monoxide Yes Yes Yes Yes

Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nitrogen Dioxide No No Yes Yes

Ozone Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sulfur Dioxide Yes Yes Yes Yes

PM 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes

PM 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Yes Yes Yes Yes



### Other quality objectives (for example those concerning siting, recordkeeping, etc.) were assessed via laboratory and field system audits. The results of these audits indicate compliance with ARO's standard operating procedures except for the following:

• 

### The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently completed. This site was closed in July 2000.

• 

### The Townfour site had problems with vandalism. A new, more secure, fence was installed in April and the sheriff's department increased patrols in the area to prevent reoccurrences.

• 

### Newly acquired laboratory analytical instruments did not have maintenan ce logs. New logs were obtained and personnel were instructed on their use. A spot check, approximately one month later, indicated the new logs were in use.

A review of equipment inventories identified three ol der sulfur dioxide ambient air monitors that, based on our past experience, are likely to experience problems. Cost information and a schedule for replacement has been prepared and submitted to management for funding. Based on this schedule, the

new monitors will be installe d before the end of 2001.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 5 of 25



### INTRODUCTION

The Acme Reporting Organization (ARO) conducts ambient air monitoring programs for the State Bureau of Environmental Quality and local air quality management districts. These programs involve:

• 

### monitoring of criteria pollutants to determin e the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) attainment status of state and local air quality. This monitoring is conducted as part of the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) networks.

• 

### monitoring compounds (volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides), referred to as ozone precursors, that can produce the criteria pollutant ozone. This monitoring is conducted as part of

the Photochemical Assessment Monito ring Stations (PAMS) network.

• 

### monitoring toxic air pollutants.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of quality assurance activities performed by ARO to ensure that the data meets its quality objectives. This report is organized by ambient air pollutant category (e.g., gaseous criteria pollutants, air toxi cs). The following are discussed for each pollutant

category:

< program overview and update

< quality objectives for measurement data

< data quality assessment



### DATA QUALITY

Data quality is related to the need of users for data of sufficient quality for decision making. Each user specifies their needed data quality in the form of th eir data quality objectives (DQOs). Quality objectives for measurement data are designed to ensure that the end user's DQOs are met. Measurement quality objectives are concerned with both with quantitative objectives (such as representativeness, completeness, promptness, accuracy, precision and detection level) and qualitative objectives (such as site placement, operator training, and sample handling techniques).



### QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES

Quality assurance is a general term for the procedures used to ensure that a pa rticular measurement meets the quality requirements for its intended use. In a ddition to performing tests to determine bias and precision, additional quality indicators (such as sensi tivity, representativeness, completeness, timeliness, documentation quality, and sample custody control) ar e also evaluated. Quality assurance procedures fall under two categories:

• 

### quality control - procedures built into the daily sampling and analysis methodologies to ensure data quality, and

• 

### quality assessment - which refers to periodic outside evaluations of data quality.

Some ambient air monitoring is performed by automate d equipment located at field sites, while other measurements are made by taking samples from the field to the laboratory for analysis. For this reason, we will divide quality assurance procedures into two parts – field and la boratory quality assurance.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 6 of 25



### Field Quality Assurance

Quality control of automated analyzers and samplers consists of calibration and precision checks. The overall precision of sampling methods is measured using collocated samplers. Quality assurance is evaluated by periodic performance and system audits.

Calibration - Automated analyzers (except ozone) are calib rated by comparing the instrument's response when sampling a cylinder gas standard mixture to the cylinder's known concentrati on level. The analyzer is then adjusted to produce the co rrect response. Ozone analyzers are calibrated by on-site generation of ozone whose concentration is determined by a separat e analyzer which has its calibration traceable to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The site's anal yzer is then adjusted to produce the same measured concentration as the traceable analyzer. Manual samp lers are calibrated by comparing their volumetric

flow rate at one or more flow rates to the flow measur ed by a flow rate transfer standard. Calibrations are performed when an instrument is first installed and at semi-annual intervals thereafter. Calibrations are also performed after instrument repairs or when quali ty control charts indicate a drift in response to quality control check standards.

Precision - Precision is a measure of the variability of an instrument. The precision of automated analyzers is evaluated by comparing the sample's kno wn concentration against the instrument's response. The precision of manual samplers is determined by collocated sampling – the simultaneous operation of two identical samplers placed side by side. The differe nce in the results of the two samplers is used to estimate the precision of the entire measurement process (i.e., both field and laboratory precision).

Performance Audits - The bias of automated methods is ass essed through field performance audits. Performance audits are conducted by sampling a blind sample (i.e., a sample whose concentration is known, but not to the operator). Bias is evaluated by comparing the measured response to the known value. Typically, performance audits are performed annually using blind samples of several different

concentrations.

System Audits - System audits indicate how well a sampling site conforms to the standard operating procedures as well as how well the site is located with respect to its mission (e.g., urban or rural sampling, special purpose sampling site, etc.). System audits involve sending a trained observer (QA Auditor) to the site to review the site compliance with standard operating procedures. Some area s reviewed include: site location (possible obstruction, presence of nearby po llutant sources), site security, site characteristics (urban versus suburban or rural), s ite maintenance, physical facilities (maintenance, type and operational quality of equipment, buildings, etc.), recordkeep ing, sample handling, storage and transport.



### Laboratory Quality Assurance

Laboratory quality control includes calibration of analyt ical instrumentation, analysis of blank samples to check for contamination, and anal ysis of duplicate samples to evalua te precision. Quality assurance is accomplished through laboratory performance and system audits.

Calibration - Laboratory analytical instruments are calib rated by comparing the instrument's response when sampling standards of known concentration leve l. The difference between the measured and known

concentrations is then used to adjust the instrument to pr oduce the correct response.

Blank Analysis - A blank sample is one that has intentionally not been exposed to the pollutant of interest.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 7 of 25



### Analysis of blank samples reveals possible contamin ation in the laboratory or during field handling or transportation.

Duplicate Analysis - Duplicate analyses of the same sample ar e performed to monitor the precision of the analytical method.

Performance Audits - Regular performance audits are conduc ted by having the laboratory analyze samples whose physical or chemical properties have b een certified by an external laboratory or standards organization. The difference between the laboratory' s reported value and the certified values is used to evaluate the analytical method's accuracy.

System Audits - System audits indicate how well the labor atory conforms to its standard operating procedures. System audits involve sending a traine d observer (QA Auditor) to the laboratory to review compliance with standard operating conditions. Areas examined include: record keeping, sample custody, equipment maintenance, personnel training a nd qualifications, and a general review of facilities and equipment.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 8 of 25



### GASEOUS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of the gaseous criteria pollutants carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 

### ), ozone (O 3 

### ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) to determine attainment of Federal (NAAQS) and State ambient air quality standards. Monitoring of these pollutants is conducted continuously by a network of automated stations.



### PROGRAM UPDATE

At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Orga nization operated 38 ambient air monitoring stations that measured gaseous criteria pollutants. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor CO, NO 2 

### , O 3 

### , and SO 2 

### . The station at Towntwo, which monitored NO 2 

### , O 3 

### , and SO 2 

### , was closed in April

2000



### .

QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organi zation's ambient air monitoring of gaseous criteria pollutants are shown in Table 2, below.



### Table 2. Quality Objectiv es for Gaseous Criteria

Pollutants

Data Quality Indicator Objective

Precision " 10%

Bias " 15%

Completeness 75%

Promptness 100%

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

Assessment of the data quality for ARO gaseous criteri a pollutants showed that all instruments met goals for accuracy, precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting problems at three sites, two of these were corrected promptly, while the th ird site had to be closed due to the construction of a nearby large office building.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 9 of 25



### Promptness and Completeness

At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data mu st be reported for purposes of determining attainment of NAAQS. All data must be submitted within 90 days after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 3 summarizes promptness and completeness for gaseous criteria pollutant data.



### Table 3. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and Completeness

Pollutant Promptness Completeness

Carbon monoxide 100% 95%

Nitrogen dioxide 100% 97%

Ozone 100% 94%

Sulfur dioxide 100% 96%

Precision

At least once every two weeks, precision is determined by sampling a gas of known concentration. Table 4 summarizes the precision checks fo r gaseous criteria pollutants.



### Table 4. Data Quality Assessment for Precision

Pollutant Precision checks completed Percentage within

limits

Carbon monoxide (CO) 98% 98%

Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 

### ) 100% 97%

Ozone (O 3 

### ) 97% 98%

Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) 100% 98%

Bias

The results of annual performance a udits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 1, below. The center line for each pollutant represen ts the average bias across all analyzers (i.e., with all analyzers weighted equally). The lower and upper probabilit y limits represent the boundaries within which 95 percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 10 of 25



### Figure 2 shows the results of external performance audits performed with th e National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), administered by the U.S. EPA.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 11 of 25



### System Audits

Systems audits were performed at approximately 25 percent of the sites during the calendar year

2000. These audits evaluated areas such as sitin g criteria, analyzer operation and maintenance, operator training, recordkeeping, and serve as a ge neral review of site operations. No significant problems were observed, except for the following:

• 

### The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently completed. This site was closed in July 2000.

• 

### The Townfour site had problems with repeat ed vandalism. A new, more secure, fence was installed in April and the sheriff's depart ment increased patrols in the area to prevent

reoccurrences.

• 

### The Townsix site had vegetation which had grow n too close to the analyzer inlet probes. The vegetation was removed within one week after the problem was reported. Personnel from the County Parks and Recreation Depa rtment provided assistance removing the vegitation.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 12 of 25



### PARTICULATE CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of three particulate criteria pollutants:

• 

### Lead;

• 

### PM 10 

### (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers;

and

• 

### PM 2.5 

### (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers)

This monitoring is used to determine attainment of Federal (NAAQS) and State ambient air quality standards. Monitoring of these pollutants is conduc ted by sampling for 24 hours every six days by a network of manually operated samplers.



### PROGRAM UPDATE

At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Orga nization operated 22 ambient air monitoring stations that measured particulate criteria pollutants. On Ma rch 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to

monitor PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , and lead. The station at Towntwo, which monitored PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , and lead, was closed in April 2000.



### QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of particulate criteria pollutants are shown in Table 5, below.



### Table 5. Quality Objectives for Particulate Criteria

Pollutants

Data Quality Indicator Objective

Precision " 7%

Bias " 10%

Completeness 75%

Promptness 100%

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

Assessment of the data quality for ARO particulate criteria pollutants showed that all samplers met goals for accuracy, precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting problems at three sites. Two of these were corr ected promptly, while the third site had to be

closed due to the construction of a large office building, nearby.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 13 of 25



### Promptness and Completeness

At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data mu st be reported for purposes of determining attainment of NAAQS. All data must be submitted within 90 days after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 6 summarizes promptness and completeness da ta for particulate criteria pollutants.



### Table 6. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and Completeness

Pollutant Promptness Completeness

Lead 100% 93%

PM 10 

### 100% 95%

PM 2.5 

### 100% 92%

Precision

Precision is determined by operating collocated samp lers (i.e., two identical samplers operated in the identical manner). Due to the anticipated poor precision for very low levels of pollutants, only collocated measurements above a minimum level (0.15 F g/m 3 

### for lead, 20 F g/m 3 

### for PM 10 

### , and 6 F g/m 3 

### for PM 2.5 

### ) are used to evaluate precision. Table 7 summarizes th e results of collocated measurements made during the calendar year 2000.



### Table 7. Data Quality Assessment for Precision

Pollutant Collocated precision measurements completed Collocated

measurements within

limits

Lead 98% 98%

PM 10 

### 100% 97%

PM 2.5 

### 97% 98%QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 14 of 25



### Flow rate precision

A flow rate precision check is conducted at least every two weeks for PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### samplers. The flow

should be within " 10% of the specified value. Results are shown in Table 8.



### Table 8. Flow Rate Precision Checks for Particulate Criteria Pollutants

Pollutant Precision Checks completed Precision Checks

within limits

Lead 98% 98%

PM 10 

### 100% 97%

PM 2.5 

### 97% 98%

Flow rate bias

Results of the annual flow rate audits conducted by ARO personnel ar e shown in Figure 3, below. The center line for each pollutant repr esents the average bias across all sampler (i.e., with all sampler weighted equally). The lower and upper probabilit y limits represent the boundaries within which 95 percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed.

Figure 4 shows the results of external flow rate audits for PM 10 

### and lead samplers performed with the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA. Currently NPAP

audits of PM 2.5 

### samplers involve sampler collocation rather than flow rate checksQA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 15 of 25



### Measurement Bias

Measurement bias is evaluated for PM 2.5 

### analyzers by collocated sampling using an audit sampler. For internal audits, the collocated measurements provide an estimate of bias resulting from sampler operations. For external NPAP audits , the collocated measurements provide an estimate of bias resulting from both sampler and laboratory operations. Measurement bias for lead is evaluated by use of standard lead test samples. This provides an estimate of the bias resulting from laboratory operations. The results of the annual performance audits of PM 2.5 

### and lead conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 5,

below.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 16 of 25



### Figure 6 shows the results of exte rnal performance audits for PM 10 

### and lead performed with the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA.



### System Audits

Systems audits were performed at approximately one f ourth of the sites and at the central analytical laboratory during calendar year 2000. These audits evaluated areas such as siting criteria, equipment operation and maintenance, operator training, recordk eeping, and served as a general review of site operations. No significant problems were observed, except for the following:

• 

### The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently completed. This site was closed in July 2000.

• 

### The Townfour site had problems with repeated vandalism. A new, more secure, fence was installed in April and the sheriff's departmen t increased patrols in the area to prevent

reoccurrences.

No significant problems were found in the laboratory a udits, except for failure to keep maintenance logs on several newly acquired analytical instruments. Ne w logs were obtained and personnel instructed on their use. A spot check, approximately one month later, indicated the logs were in use.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 17 of 25



### TOTAL AND SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (PAMS)

The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambien t concentrations of ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], carbonyls, and nitrogen oxid es that can produce the criteria pollutant ozone). This monitoring is conducted as part of the Phot ochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) network. Nitrogen dioxide (one of the nitrogen oxides measured in PAMS) is also a criteria pollutant and its measurement is described under the gaseous criteri a pollutant section, above. Total nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

### ) measurements are obtained continuously by a ne twork of automated stations. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), excluding carbonyls, are measured by continuous analyzers (on-line gas chromatographs) at selected sites. The remaining s ites use automated samplers to collect VOC canister samplers which are then transported to the laborator y for analysis. Carbonyls ar e collected in adsorbent sampling tubes, which are transporte d to the laboratory for analysis.



### PROGRAM UPDATE

At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organi zation operated 5 ambient air monitoring stations that measured ozone precursors. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor VOCs, carbonyls, and NO

x 

### .



### QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of ozone precursors are shown in Table 9, below.



### Table 9. Quality Objectiv es for Ozone Precursors

Data Quality Indicator Objective

Precision (NO

x 

### ) " 10%

Precision (VOC, Carbonyls) " 25%

Bias (NO

x 

### ) " 15%

Bias (VOC, Carbonyls) " 20%

Completeness 75%

Promptness 100%

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

Assessment of the data quality for ozone precursors s howed that all instruments met goals for accuracy, precision, completeness, and promptness. System aud its showed siting problems at two sites, both of these were corrected promptly



### .QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 18 of 25



### Promptness and Completeness

At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported. All data must be submitted within six months after the end of the reporting quarter. Ta ble 10 summarizes promptness and completeness data for ozone precursors



### .

Table 10. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and Completeness

Ozone precursor Promptness Completeness

Carbonyls 100% 80%

Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

### ) 100% 96%

Total VOCs (Total nonmethane hydrocarbons) 100% 87%

Speciated VOCs 100% 83%



### Precision

At least once every two weeks, precision for nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

### ) and automated VOC analysis were determined by sampling a gas of known concentrati on. Precision for manual VOC sampling and carbonyl sampling is obtained by analysis of duplicate sa mples. Duplicates are taken at a frequency of one duplicate for every 10 samples. Table 11 summariz es the precision check results for 2000.

Table 11. Data Quality Assessment for Precision

Ozone precursor Precision checks completed Precision checks

within limits

Carbonyls 91% 90%

Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

### ) 98% 97%

Total VOCs (Total nonmethane hydrocarbons) 90% 91%

Speciated VOCs 95% 80%



### Bias

The results of the annual performance a udits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 7, below. For NO

x 

### and the automated VOC analyzers, the center line represents the average bias across all sites (i.e., with all site s weighted equally). For the carbonyl and manual VOC analyses, the center line represents the average of all audit samples for the central analytical laboratory. The lower and upper proba bility limits represen t the boundaries within which 95 percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed. Carbonyl and Total VOC measurements represent the aver age of all audit species.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 19 of 25



### Figure 8 shows the results of the external performan ce audits performed with the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA



### .

System Audits

Systems audits were performed at two sites duri ng calendar year 2000. These audits evaluated areas such as siting criteria, analyzer and samp ler operation and maintena nce, operator training, recordkeeping, and serve as a general review of site operations. In general both sites were performing well except for the following:QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 20 of 25

• 

### The Townsix site had vegetation which had grown too close to the analyzer inlet probes. The vegetation was removed within one week, with assistance from the County Parks and Recreation Department.

A systems audit was also performed at the central analytical laboratory. Results were good with only minor items noted for improvements.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 21 of 25



### AIR TOXICS

The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambien t concentrations of air toxic compounds. Three different methods are used, depending on the class of air toxic compound. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), excluding carbonyls, are measured by cont inuous analyzers (on-line gas chromatographs) at selected sites. The remaining sites use automated sa mplers to collect VOC cannister samplers which are then transported to the laboratory for analysis. Ca rbonyls are collected with adsorbent sampling tubes, which are transported to the laboratory for anal ysis. Inorganic compounds are collected on PM 2.5 

### filters (as part of particulate criteria pollutant m onitoring) and analyzed (after weighing for PM 2.5 

### mass) by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP MS). This monitoring is conducted as part of the Air Toxics monitoring network.



### PROGRAM UPDATE

At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organi zation operated five ambien t air monitoring stations that measured ambient air toxics. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor air

toxics.



### QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of ambient air toxics are shown in Table 12, below.



### Table 12. Quality Objectives for Air Toxics

Data Quality Indicator Objective

Precision " 25%

Bias " 25%

Completeness 75%

Promptness 100%

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

Assessment of the data quality for ambient air toxics showed that all instruments met goals for accuracy, precision, completeness, and promptness. System aud its showed siting problems at two sites, both of these were corrected promptly.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 22 of 25



### Promptness and Completeness

At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported. All data must be submitted within six months after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 13 summarizes promptness and completeness for ambient air toxics monitoring data.



### Table 13. Data Quality Assessmen t for Promptness and Completeness

Pollutant Promptness Completeness

Carbonyls 100% 78%

Volatile organic compounds 100% 84%

Inorganic compounds 100% 87%

Precision

At least once every two weeks, precision for automated VOC analysis is determined by sampling a gas of known concentration. Precision for manual VOC sampli ng, carbonyl sampling, and inorganic sampling is obtained by analysis of duplicate samples. Duplicates are taken at a frequency of one duplicate for every 10 samples. Table 14 summarizes the precision check results for 2000.



### Table 14. Data Quality Assessment for Precision

Pollutant Precision checks completed Precision checks

within limits

Carbonyls 91% 90%

Volatile organic compounds 98% 97%

Inorganic compounds 90% 91%

Bias

The results of the annual performance audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 9, below. For the automated VOC analyzers, th e center line represents the average bi as across all sites (i.e., with all sites weighted equally). For the carbonyl, manual VO C, and inorganic analyses, the center line represents the average of all audit samples for the central analytical laboratory. The lower and upper probability limits represent the boundaries within which 95 percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed. All measurements represent the average of all audit species.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 23 of 25



### Figure 10 shows the results of the external pe rformance audits performed with the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 24 of 25



### System Audits

Systems audits were performed at two sites du ring the calendar year 2000. These audits evaluated areas such as siting cr iteria, analyzer and sampler ope ration and maintenance, operator training, recordkeeping, and serve as a genera l review of site opera tions. No significant problems were found, except for the following:

< The Townsix site had vegetation which had grow n too close to the analyzer inlet probes. The vegetation was removed within one week, with assistance from the County Parks and Recreation Department.

A systems audit was also performed at the central analytical laboratory. No significant problems

were found.

Example of Corrective Action Form

A corrective action request should be made whenev er anyone in the repor ting organization notes a problem that demands either immediate or l ong-term action to correct a safety defect, a operational problem, or a failure to comply with procedures. A typical corrective action request form, with example information entered, is shown below. A separate form should be used for each problem identified.

The corrective action report form is designed as a closed-loop system. First it identifies the originator, that person who reports and identifi es the problem, states the problem, and may suggest a solution. The form then directs the re quest to a specific pers on (or persons), i.e., the recipient, who would be best qualified to "fix" the problem. Finally, the form closes the loop by requiring that the recipient stat e how the problem was resolved and the effectiveness of the solution. The form is signed and a copy is returned to the originator and other copies are sent to the supervisor and the applicable files for the record.QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I

Revision No. 1

Date:12/08 Page 25 of 25



### ARO - Corrective Action Request

Part A - To be completed by requestor

To: John S. Visor Organization Responsible for Action ARO Ambient Air Monitoring Section

Urgency:

9 Emergency (failure to take action immediately may result in injury or property damage)

9 Immediate (4 hours) : Urgent (24 hours) 9 Routine (7 days)

9 As resources allow 9 For Information only

From: William Operator phone: (000) 555 - 1000

fax: (000) 555 - 1001 e-mail: billo@localhost Copies to: (Always send a copy to the ARO Site Coordinator at 115 Generic Office Building, Townone XX, 00001)

Problem Identification Site(Location): Townsix site System: sample inlet Date problem identified: Aug. 1, 2000 Nature of problem: Glass sample inlet and dropout trap broken during removal

of weeds from site

Recommended Action: Replace broken parts

Signature: William Operator Date: Aug. 1, 2000

Part B - to be completed by responsible organization

Problem Resolution

Date corrective action taken: August 4, 2000 Summary of Corrective Action: Replacement parts were ordered and received. The new parts were installed within three da ys of the request. Data from the days with a cracked sample inlet will
be flagged as questionable.

Effectiveness of corrective action: Sample inlet restored to new condition.

Signature: John Visor Date: Aug. 4, 2000

Phone: (000) 555 - 2000 Fax: (000) 555 - 2001

e-mail: jsv@localhost
Send copies of the completed form to the requestor and the AR O Site Coordinator at 115 Generic Office Building, Townone XX, 00001) ARO form CAR-1 , May 1, 1999United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgencyOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsAir Quality Assessment DivisionResearch Triangle Park, NCPublication No. EPA-454/B-08-003December, 2008