DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

CERTIFIED MAIL: 7003 1680 0004 2906 3016 

Return Receipt Requested

 September 29, 2010 

Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 10 

1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900 (Mail Stop RA-140) 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Dear Mr. McLerran: 

This letter provides for your approval amendments to Alaska’s State Air Quality 

Control Plan or State Implementation Plan (SIP), adopted by reference into the 

Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) at 18 AAC 50.030, with an effective date of 

October 29, 2010. The revisions primarily affect the state’s vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program and Anchorage’s carbon monoxide maintenance area plan, 

which are contained in Volume II, Sections III.A and III.B of Alaska’s SIP, 

respectively. These amendments also include adopting by reference the Eagle River 

PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan contained in Volume II, Section III.D.2 of Alaska’s 

SIP; and adopting by reference the Department’s Quality Assurance Project Plan for 

the State of Alaska Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program. With the submittal 

of these SIP revisions, the State of Alaska is requesting that EPA upon approval of 

the PM-10 limited maintenance plan, formally re-designate the Eagle River PM-10 

non-attainment area as an attainment area. 

We are providing three paper copies and one electronic version of the following 

documents to Gina Bonifacino of your staff: 

• Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 50 Air Quality Control with an 

effective date of October 29, 2010, to be published in Register 196, January 

2011. 

• Sections of the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted by reference under 18 

AAC 50.030 as amended August 20, 2010, including: 

• Volume II. Section II: Air Quality Control Program; 

• Volume II. Section III.A: Statewide Carbon Monoxide Control Program; 

• Volume II. Section III.B: Anchorage Transportation Control Program; 

• Volume II. Section III.D.2: Eagle River PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan; 

• Volume III, Appendices to Volume II (includes 18 AAC 50 regulations); and 

SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR 

410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303 

Post Office Box 111800 

Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 

Phone: 907-465-5066 

Fax: 907-465-5070 

www.dec.state.ak.us 
Dennis McLerran 2 September 29, 2010

 

G:\COMM\WP\2010\10.214 Amendments SIPAnchorage CO-PM10.docx 

• Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air Monitoring & 

Quality Assurance Program. 

The following supporting documents are also being provided: 

1. Signed Adoption Order and certified Filing Certificate for Permanent 

Regulations, filed September 29, 2010 with an effective date of regulation 

October 29, 2010, along with appropriate delegations; 

2. Notice of Public Comment, signed June 28, 2010; 

3. Affidavits (3) of Publication for the Public Notice; 

4. Affidavit of Agency Record of Public Comment, signed August 9, 2010, 

indicating no written public comments were received; 

5. Affidavit of Oral Hearing, signed September 10, 2010; 

6. Public Hearing Transcripts and Certification of Public Hearing, signed August 

3, 2010; 

7. Affidavit of Notice of Proposed Adoption of Regulations and Furnishing of 

Additional Information, signed August 20, 2010; 

8. Public Review Draft of 18 AAC 50 regulations which shows the changes made 

to the regulations, with bold lettering as new language and bracketed 

language as old language, dated June 28, 2010; and 

9. A copy of the tracked regulation amendments prepared by the Department of 

Law in their transmittal packet to the Lt. Governor for filing, dated September 

27, 2010. 

Mr. Scott Sloane is available to your staff to respond to questions or to otherwise 

assist. He can be phoned at (907) 465-5176. As always, I would be pleased to 

discuss any of this with you. 

 

 Sincerely, 

 Larry Hartig 

 Commissioner 

Enclosures 

cc: Steve Morris, Municipality of Anchorage (w/enclosures) 

 Rick Albright, EPA Region 10 (w/o enclosures) 

 Gina Bonifacino, EPA Region 10 (w/ enclosures) 

 Alice Edwards, Acting Director, Division of Air Quality, ADEC (w/o enclosures) 

 Cynthia Heil, Acting Program Manager, ANPMS Program, ADEC (w/o enclosures) 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. II: Analysis of Problems, Control Actions

Section III.D.2 Eagle River PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Adopted

August 20th, 2010
Adopted August 20th, 2010

(This page serves as a placeholder for two sided printing)
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-1

SECTION III.D.2 

EAGLE RIVER PM10

III.D.2.1. Introduction

LIMITED MAINTENANCE PLAN

Between 1985 and 1987 Eagle River frequently violated the national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter air pollution with an aerodynamic diameter less 

than or equal to 10 micrometers (μm) in size. This particulate air pollution is known as 

PM10. As a consequence, in 1991 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

designated a nine square kilometer area in Eagle River as a moderate nonattainment area 

for PM10 and required the submission of an air quality attainment plan to bring the area 

into compliance with the NAAQS.*

In 1991, the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) and the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) prepared a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

address the PM10 problem in Eagle River. This plan was entitled the Eagle River PM10

Control Plan. The plan identified the main source of PM10

58 FR 43084

as unpaved roads and 

outlined an ambitious road paving program to reduce emissions from this source. EPA 

approved the plan as an amendment to the SIP on August 13, 1993 ( ).

Air quality monitoring data now show that Eagle River has attained the standard. 

However, in order for EPA to formally re-designate Eagle River to an attainment area, 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the State to submit a maintenance plan to EPA that 

demonstrates that the air quality control measures in place in Eagle River are sufficient to 

ensure continued maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS. Once approved by EPA, this section 

of the state’s Air Quality Control Plan, the Eagle River PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan, 

will replace the earlier Eagle River PM10

The State has delegated the responsibility for air quality planning in Anchorage and 

Eagle River to the MOA. The MOA has worked with ADEC to prepare this new plan 

using the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) option provided under EPA guidance. It

demonstrates that Eagle River is now in attainment with the federal air quality standard 

for PM

Control Plan in the Alaska SIP. 

10

The plan includes a request to the EPA Administrator to re-designate the Eagle River 

PM

as a result of the road paving program and that continued maintenance of the 

standard is expected for a minimum of ten years. The plan also demonstrates that Eagle 

River qualifies for the LMP option and meets the SIP planning requirements stipulated in 

the Clean Air Act.

10

It should be noted that this plan is predicated on the presumption that EPA will approve 

an exceptional event waiver for a PM-10 exceedance that occurred due to high winds on 

December 2, 2007. 

nonattainment area to attainment.

 

* Under the Clean Air Act, states are ultimately responsible for the submission of air quality plans. These 

plans are known as SIPs or State Implementation Plans.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-2

III.D.2.2. Local Planning Process

This plan was prepared in accordance with the provisions of sections 110 and 174 of the 

CAA which require the consultation and participation of local political subdivisions and 

local elected officials. Under Section 174 (42 U.S.C. 7504), the revised plan submitted to 

EPA as a formal SIP amendment must be prepared by "an organization certified by the 

State, in consultation with elected officials of local governments." Such an organization 

is required to include local elected officials and representatives of the state air quality 

planning agency (i.e., ADEC), the state transportation planning agency (i.e., Alaska 

Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT/PF), and the metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) responsible for the transportation planning process for the 

affected area. 

In 1976, the governor designated the MOA as the MPO for the Anchorage urbanized area 

which includes Eagle River. In Anchorage, the MPO is known as Anchorage 

Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions or AMATS. Consequently, the MOA 

conducts the transportation planning process required under federal regulation, in 

cooperation with ADEC and ADOT/PF, through the AMATS organization. In 1978, the 

governor designated MOA as the lead air quality planning agency in Anchorage. Based 

on this designation, MOA has continued its role as the lead planning agency in the 

Anchorage area and prepared this plan. The air quality planning process is outlined in the 

AMATS Intergovernmental Operating Agreement for Transportation and Air Quality 

Planning. This agreement was last revised in August 2002 and became effective January 

1, 2003. This operating agreement establishes the roles and relationships between 

governmental entities involved in the Anchorage air quality planning process. 

The AMATS Policy Committee provides guidance and control over studies and 

recommendations developed by support staff. Voting members of the Policy Committee 

are listed below. 

MOA Mayor;

ADOT/PF Central Regional Director;

MOA Assembly representative;

MOA Assembly representative; and

ADEC Commissioner or designee.

The AMATS Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and member support staff analyze 

transportation and land use issues and develop draft recommendations for the Policy 

Committee. Voting members include the following:

MOA Traffic Director;

MOA Project Management and Engineering Director;

MOA Planning Director;

MOA Public Transportation Director;

MOA Department of Health & Human Services representative;

MOA Port of Anchorage Director;

ADOT/PF Chief of Planning & Administration;

ADOT/PF Regional Pre-Construction Engineer;
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-3

ADEC representative;

Alaska Railroad representative; and

AMATS Air Quality Advisory Committee representative.

In addition, to help provide public input into the current air quality planning process by 

interested local groups and individual citizens, a third AMATS committee, the Air 

Quality Advisory Committee was appointed by the Policy Committee. The Air Quality 

Advisory Committee is comprised of nine members. Committee membership has 

generally included at least one physician or health professional, a representative of the 

I/M industry, a representative of the environmental community, and a representative from 

the Municipal Planning and Zoning Commission.

Section 110(a) of the CAAA (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)) requires that a state provide reasonable 

notice and public hearings of SIP revisions prior to their adoption and submission to 

EPA. To ensure that the public had adequate opportunity to comment on revisions to the 

Anchorage air quality attainment and maintenance plans, a multi-phase public 

involvement process, utilizing AMATS and the Anchorage Assembly was used.

Public Participation Process

AMATS Air Quality Advisory Committee – The AMATS Air Quality Advisory 

Committee held a public meeting on the limited maintenance plan on October 21, 2009.

During this meeting they recommended that the AMATS Technical and Policy 

Committees adopt the plan as submitted. 

AMATS Technical and Policy Committees – The AMATS Technical Advisory 

Committee released the limited maintenance plan for 30-day public review on September 

17, 2009; no comments were received. After reviewing the recommendation of the 

AMATS Citizen Air Quality Advisory Committee, on September 10, 2009 the AMATS 

Technical Committee recommended that the AMATS Policy Committee adopt the plan. 

Subsequent to this recommendation, the AMATS Policy Committee met on November 

19, 2009

Anchorage Assembly – The Anchorage Assembly adopted the plan during its regular 

public meeting held on January 12, 2010. A copy of Assembly Resolution AR 2010-4 is 

included in the Appendix to Section III.D.2.2.

to review and adopt the the plan. 

ADEC hearings – The final opportunity for public involvement occurs at the state 

administrative level. Prior to regulatory adoption of SIP revisions, ADEC holds public 

hearings on the revisions in the affected communities. ADEC held a public hearing on 

the Eagle River PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan on August 2nd, 2010. This provided 

another forum for the public to comment on the air quality plan prior to state adoption 

and submission to EPA. No public comments were received. 
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-4

III.D.2.3. Boundary of the Eagle River Maintenance Area

Eagle River is a community of about 30,000 located roughly 10 miles northeast of 

downtown Anchorage and is part of the Municipality of Anchorage. It is located at the 

end of a glacial river valley bounded on the west by Cook Inlet and on the south by the 

Eagle River and the Chugach Mountains on the northeast. Eagle River is a bedroom 

community to Anchorage and land use in the area is largely suburban and rural residential 

with some commercial development. When the Eagle River PM10

A description of the maintenance area boundary follows. 

Control Plan was 

prepared in 1991, it identified a nine square kilometer nonattainment area that 

encompassed all of the central business district and most of the more densely populated 

suburban sections of the community. This maintenance plan retains this same boundary. 

It will become the maintenance area boundary effective upon approval of this plan. 

Beginning from the point where the centerline of the southbound section of the Glenn 

Highway crosses Eagle River, thence

Northward three kilometers to point approximately 200 meters west of the Glenn 

Highway along the westward extension of Mercy Street, thence, 

Eastward along the alignment of Mercy Street two kilometers to an undeveloped point, 

thence,

Southward two kilometers to a point approximately 150 meters west of Eagle River 

Loop Road and approximately 70 meters southwest of the intersection of Kantishna and 

Iditarod Streets (near the point where the Loop road crosses Meadow Creek); thence, 

Eastward three kilometers to an undeveloped point; thence,

Southward one kilometer to a point approximately 100 meters southeast of the 

intersection Eagle River Road and Greenhouse Street, thence,

Westward five kilometers approximately 70 meters south of the alignment of Eagle 

River ending at the centerline of the southbound section of the Glenn Highway which is 

the point of the beginning. 
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-5

Figure III.D.2-1

Eagle River PM10 Limited Maintenance Area Boundary

with Parkgate PM10 Monitoring Site
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-6

III.D.2.4. Demonstration that Eagle River has Attained the PM10 NAAQS

The EPA designated Eagle River as a “moderate” nonattainment for PM10 on 

November 6, 1990 pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 107(d)(4)(B). The nonattainment 

designation was based on data collected at the Parkgate site in Eagle River. The primary 

and secondary NAAQS for PM10 is set at 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

Monitoring has been performed in the nonattainment area at the Parkgate monitoring site

since 1985. The Parkgate site is located on the east side of a commercial strip that runs 

along the Old Glenn Highway. The land use to the north, west and east of the site is 

generally commercial while the land to the east is primarily residential. Prior to 1988, this 

site was bounded on two sides by gravel roads. The location of the site is identified in 

Figure III.D.2-1, presented earlier in this section.

). The 

NAAQS used to also include an annual average standard but that standard was recently

revoked by the EPA (71FR 61144; October 17, 2006).

Figure III.D.2- 2

Looking North from the Parkgate Site in Eagle River (2006)

In 1987 there were over 22 miles of unpaved gravel roads in the nonattainment area. The 

Eagle River PM10 Control Plan called for paving or surfacing about one-third of the 

unpaved roads in the area. By 2007, all roads in the area had been paved or surfaced with 
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-7

recycled asphalt. As illustrated in Figure III.D.2-3, data suggest that paving has 

successfully lowered PM10 concentrations. Exclusive of natural events, the highest PM10

concentrations measured since 1988 have been roughly half the 24-hour standard. 

Figure III.D.2-3

First and Second Highest 24-Hour Average PM10

Parkgate Site, Eagle River (1985-2007)

Concentrations

PM10

Starting December 1989, Mt. Redoubt, about 100 miles southwest of Eagle River, 

erupted intermittently for six months. On April 12, 1990, the 24-hour average PM

concentrations measured in the Eagle River non-attainment area have been well 

below the NAAQS for over 15 years. The only incidents that have approached or 

exceeded the 24-hour NAAQS since 1988 were due to ash from volcanic eruptions or

wind/dust storms.

10

concentration reached 143 μg/m3

. However polarized light microscopic (PLM) analysis

of PM10 filters deployed on April 7, 9, and 11 showed that volcanic ash comprised 40-

50% of the total PM10 

The eruption of Mt. Spurr (approximately 80 miles west of Eagle River) on August 18, 

1992 also raised PM

assemblage (Microlab Northwest Laboratory Report No. 1062-94, 

October 17, 1994).

10 concentrations in both Anchorage and Eagle River for an extended 

period following the eruption. PLM analysis indicated that the ash content of the PM10

was 87-95% of total assemblage immediately after the eruption (August 19 and 20) and 

remained as a major component (20-38%) of the PM10 for several years. On September 

16, 1992 concentrations reached 165μg/m3 at the Parkgate site in Eagle River, an 

exceedance of the 24-hour standard. Similarly high concentrations were observed at other 

PM10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

PM10 (ug/m3

)

1st Max

2nd Max

Street clean-up, 

paving program 

starts (1988)

Mt. Spurr 

eruption (1992)

exceptional 

events due to 

strong wind

24-hr standard 

(150 ug/m3

)

Mt. Redoubt 

eruption 

(1989-90)

monitors in the Anchorage bowl. This event was attributed to re-entrained volcanic 

ash.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-8

The Eagle River PM10 Control Plan identified fall “freeze-up” and spring “break-up” as 

the two periods when the highest PM10 concentrations occur and it focused on controlling 

emissions during those times. Figure III.D.2-4 compares PM10 concentrations before 

paving (1985-87) with concentrations over the past ten years (1998-2007) after the 

completion of the paving program. The largest declines in Eagle River PM10 have been 

observed in the fall period. The data show that the 95th percentile PM10 concentration 

during fall freeze-up has dropped by about 75% while the concentration during spring 

break-up has fallen 5% to 20%. These declines are roughly consistent with those 

predicted in 1991 when the Control Plan was drafted. In the late-80’s and early-90’s, 

high fall season PM10 concentrations were a greater concern than spring. The highest 

PM10 concentrations in Eagle River now typically occur in spring break-up rather than 

the fall freeze-up period. 

Figure III.D.2-4

95th Percentile PM10

Implementation of Road Paving Program in Eagle River

Concentrations Before and After

The highest, second highest and number of days exceeding the NAAQS are tabulated in 

Table III.D.2-1 for the period 1998-2007. The table provides clear evidence that Eagle 

River is in attainment with the NAAQS.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

PM10 Concentration (ug/m3

)

Before Paving (1985-1987)

After Paving (1998-2007)
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-9

Table III.D. 2-1

Maximum, 2nd

Year

Maximum and Number of Exceedances at

Parkgate Site, Eagle River 1998-2007

24-hour Max

(μg/m3

2

)

nd Highest

24-hour

(μg/m3

Number of Days 

Exceeding

) NAAQS

1998 59 55 0

1999 90 66 0

2000 64 53 0

2001 69 66 0

2002 46 40 0

2003 92 # 90 0

2004 70 43 0

2005 90 65 0

2006 65 60 0

2007 48 # 46 0

#

Note: This table does not include wind-related exceptional events that occurred in 2003 and 

2007. The 24-hour PM10 concentration was 590 μg/m3 on March 12, 2003, and 223 μg/m3 on 

December 2, 2007.

III.D.2.5. Demonstration that Eagle River Qualifies for the LMP Option 

On August 9, 2001 EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance plan provisions for 

certain PM10 nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas, Wegman 2001). 

The EPA observed that areas meeting certain statistical criteria have a high degree of 

probability of continued compliance with the NAAQS. Based on this analysis, they 

developed specific criteria to qualify for the LMP option. Elements of these criteria 

follow:

1. The area should be attaining the PM

LMP Qualification Criteria

10

2. The average 24-hour PM

NAAQS; 

10 design value (DV) for the area, based on the most recent 

five years of air quality data at all monitors in the area, should be at or below 

98 ug/m3 with no violations at any monitor in the nonattainment area;*

3. The area should expect only limited growth in on-road motor vehicle PM

and

10

 

* EPA also established a procedure for determining an alternate, site-specific criteria (called the Critical 

Design Value) that allows area with design values with little inter-annual variability to qualify for the LMP 

option if their DV is above 98 μg/m3

.

emissions (including fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional 

emissions analysis test.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-10

The next three sub-sections will demonstrate that Eagle River meets these three criteria.

1. Eagle River is attaining the PM10

Section II.D.2-4 provided a demonstration that Eagle River has been in attainment with 

the NAAQS for over 15 years. Except for uncontrollable natural events such as volcanic 

eruptions and wind/dust storms, Eagle River last exceeded the NAAQS in 1987.

NAAQS

2. The average DV for the Eagle River area is below 98 ug/m

Computational methods for determining the 24-hour DV are outlined in the PM

3

10 SIP 

Development Guideline (EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987). The empirical frequency 

distribution approach (see Section 6.3.3. of the guideline) was used to determine the DV 

which is defined as the site-specific PM10 concentration that would be expected to be 

exceeded at a frequency of once every 365 days. Table III.D.2-2 shows that Eagle River 

has a computed DV for the last 5 years that is below the LMP criteria of 98 μg/m3

(details of this computation can be found in the Appendix to III.D.2.5.). The table also 

demonstrates that there is no increasing trend over the last decade. Exceedances of the 

NAAQS were recorded on March 12, 2003 and December 2, 2007. Both incidents, 

however, have been flagged as exceptional events due to blowing dust from high winds. 

These incidents were therefore not considered when determining attainment or included 

in the DV computation. 

Table III.D. 2-2*

Parkgate Site, Eagle River 1998-2007

DV Computed from Empirical Data Distribution

Three-year Period Used to 

Compute DV

DV

(computed from empirical 

data distribution of 3 years 

data)

(μg/m3

1998-2000

)

84.5

1999-2001 95.5

2000-2002 89.7

2001-2003 108.0

2002-2004 94.1

2003-2005 102.7

2004-2006 88.2

2005-2007 86.0

Average DV for the last 5 years 

(2003-2007) 92.3

LMP criteria 98.0

 

* Assuming that EPA accepts data from 12/2/07, 10/30/09 and 10/31/09 as exceptional events, the 

computed DV was 81 ug/m3 for 2006-08 and 85 ug/m3 for 2007-09.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-11

3. Eagle River Passes Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis Test

Increases in emissions from on-road mobile sources must be taken into account over the 

next 10 years to help ensure that PM10 concentrations will remain below the NAAQS.*

Projected DV in 2020 = DV

 

The EPA LMP guidance recommends the use of the following equation to assess the 

impact of future emission increases from motor vehicle travel:

2007 + (VMTpi x DVmv

Where:

) ≤ MOS

DV = the area’s average DV in μg/m3

VMT

for the period used to demonstrate 

attainment (base year 2007). 

pi =

DV

the projected % increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) between 2007 and 

2020.

mv = Portion of DV for the attainment year (2007) inventory in μg/m3

MOS = margin of safety for the relevant PM

that is 

derived from on-road emissions

10 standard in μg/m3 for a given area. 

This can be = 98 μg/m3 or a site-specific value computed from data 

collected at the site of interest using methods outlined in Attachment A of 

the LMP guidelines. For the Parkgate site in Eagle River this value was

computed to be 116.6 μg/m3

. (See Appendix to III.D.2.5 for details of this 

computation.)

In the preceding sub-section, the average DV was computed to be 92.3 μg/m3

VMT

. 

pi was estimated using VMT estimates made for the air quality conformity analysis 

for the Chugiak/Eagle River Long Range Transportation Plan (CE/LRTP). The analysis 

included VMT estimates for analysis years 2007, 2017, and 2027. for the Eagle River 

PM10 non-attainment area. Total VMT in 2007 was 165,934. VMT for year 2020 was 

estimated by interpolating between 2017 and 2027 VMT. By 2020, VMT is projected to 

grow by 36.3% to 226,221. Thus the projected increase in VMT (VMTpi

As will be shown in the PM

) is 0.363.

10 emission inventory presented later in Section III.D.2.6, the 

proportion of total PM10 from on-road mobile emissions varies with season in the Eagle 

River maintenance area. In the base year 2007 emission inventory, on-road mobile 

emissions, including fugitive dust emissions, were responsible for 50.6% of total daily 

emissions in spring and 44.4% in the fall (see Table III.D.2-3 for details). For the 

purposes of the Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis Test, the higher spring 

season proportion was assumed. The portion of 2007 DV that is attributed to on-road 

mobile sources (DVmv) can be readily calculated as follows:

DVmv = DV x 0.506 = 92.3 μg/m3x 0.506 = 46.7 μg/m3

 

* This emissions analysis demonstration assumes that EPA will re-designate Eagle River a maintenance 

area in 2010. The year 2020 was selected because it is ten years hence.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-12

Knowing the values of the four variables, the projected DV in 2020 can be readily 

computed:

Projected DV in 2020 = DV2007 + (VMTpi x DVmv

 = 93.6 μg/m

)

3 + (0.363 x 47.4 μg/m3

Projected DV in 2020 = 109 μg/m

)

3 < MOS 

The projected DV in 2020 is less than the 116.6 μg/m3 margin of safety value or MOS, 

demonstrating that the Eagle River Maintenance Area meets the Motor Vehicle Regional 

Emissions Analysis Test.

III.D.2.6. Attainment Year Emission Inventory for Eagle River

The base year attainment inventory for this LMP was selected to be 2007. An emission 

inventory was also prepared for 2020, the final year of a ten-year maintenance period.

*

As noted in Section III.D.2.4, over the past ten years the highest PM10

Five sources of PM

concentrations 

have typically occurred during spring break-up and fall freeze-up. For this reason, the 

emission inventories reflect conditions and activity levels (e.g., amount of silt loading on 

roads, residential wood heating rates) that commonly occur during these two times of 

year. The assumptions, methods and computations used to generate the 2007 and 2020 

emission inventories are described in detail in the Appendix to III.D.2.6. 

10

The emission inventory prepared for the Eagle River PM

emissions were identified and inventoried. These include (1) dust 

from paved roads; (2) wind-generated dust from roads, parking lots and un-vegetated 

areas; (3) fireplaces and woodstoves, (4) natural gas combustion; and (5) exhaust, tire and 

brake wear emissions from motor vehicles.

10

The EPA publication, AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, outlines 

recommended assumptions and methods for estimating emission factors for various 

sources.

Control Plan (base year 1987) 

also included emission estimates for unpaved roads. However, as noted earlier in this 

document, all roads in the maintenance area have been paved since that plan was 

prepared. Thus, unpaved road emissions are not included in the 2007 or 2020 

inventories.

†

 

* Again, this assumes that EPA will approve this maintenance plan in 2010.

 AP-42 methods were used to estimate emission factors for four of the five 

sources inventoried. Instead of AP-42, the EPA mobile source emission factor model, 

MOBILE6.2 was used to estimate the emission factor for motor vehicle exhaust, tire and 

brake wear emissions. Methods, assumptions and computations are described in detail in 

the Appendix to III.D.2.6. 

† An emission factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant release to the 

atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-13

The results of the inventory are presented in Table III.D.2-3. Paved road dust, wind 

blown dust and fireplace and wood stove emissions are the main sources of PM10

Table III.D. 2-3

in the 

Eagle River maintenance area.

Eagle River Limited Maintenance Area PM10

(All Emissions in tons/day with % of Total)

Emissions Inventory

Spring Break-up

(March, April)

Fall Freeze-up

(October, November)

Source Category 2007 2020 2007 2020

Paved Roads

2.88 

(50.6%)

3.97

(57.8%)

0.83

(44.4%)

1.13

(50.8%)

Wind blown Dust from Paved Roads, Parking 

Lots and Un-Vegetated Areas 

2.47

43.5%

2.53

(36.8%)

0.70

(37.6%)

0.72

(32.5%)

Fireplaces and Wood Stoves 

0.32

(5.7%)

0.36

(5.2%)

0.32

(17.3%)

0.36

(16.1%)

Natural Gas Combustion

0.008

(0.1%)

0.009

(0.1%)

0.008

(0.4%)

0.009

(0.4%)

Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear Emissions 

from Motor Vehicles

0.005

(0.1%)

0.006

(0.1%)

0.005

(0.3%)

0.006

(0.3%)

TOTAL

5.69

(100%)

6.87

(100%)

1.87

(100%)

2.22

(100%)

III.D.2.7. Section 110 and Part D Requirements

Before the EPA administrator can re-designate an area to attainment the CAA requires

that a state containing a nonattainment area meet all applicable requirements including 

those in Section 110 and Part D of the Act. Section 110 of the Act outlines requirement 

for SIPs and Part D contains general requirements applicable to all designated 

nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 of Part D includes specific provisions for particulate 

matter nonattainment areas.

EPA designated Eagle River as a “moderate” nonattainment for PM

Section 110

10 on November 6, 

1990 pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 107(d)(4)(B). EPA required nonattainment areas 

like Eagle River to prepare plans to attain the standard. The approval of the Eagle River 

nonattainment plan by EPA in 1993 is evidence that applicable requirements of Section 

110 have been satisfied. EPA approved the Eagle River PM10 attainment plan (58 FR 

43084) as an amendment to the Alaska SIP for air quality on August 13, 1993. 

There are a number of requirements in Part D that are pertinent to the approval of the 

Eagle River LMP. These include requirements for air quality monitoring, contingency 

measures, and transportation conformity. These are addressed later in this document. 

Part D Requirements

The Part D NSR rules for PM10 nonattainment areas in Alaska were approved by EPA.

In Eagle River, NSR requirements will be replaced by the Prevention of Significant 
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-14

Deterioration (PSD) program in the maintenance area NSR program upon effective date 

of redesignation. The federal PSD regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules 

in effect for Alaska. These regulations will apply after Eagle River is redesignated as a 

maintenance area.

Subpart 4 of Part D established an attainment date of December 31, 1994 for Eagle River. 

Eagle River met this deadline. In addition, a milestone report demonstrating that Eagle 

River met the milestone requirements was submitted by MOA and approved by EPA in 

1995 as required.

III.D.2.8. Maintenance Demonstration 

EPA guidance on the LMP option (Wegman, 2001) states that if an area qualifies for the 

LMP option “demonstration of maintenance is presumed to be satisfied.” Section 

III.D.2.4 of this document shows that monitored PM10 concentrations in Eagle River are 

low and “stable” enough to qualify for the LMP option. Thus, Eagle River has satisfied 

the maintenance demonstration requirement. 

III.D.2.9. Demonstration of Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

As noted earlier in Section III.D.2.4, a large decline in PM10

The MOA and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) have also implemented permanent changes in street maintenance practices

on paved roads. Both the MOA and ADOT&PF have set new winter traction sand 

specifications that limit the amount fines or silt allowed in the material that is applied to 

roads within the MOA. In addition, the MOA is continuing to explore new and more 

efficient ways to improve road traction during snow and ice conditions without 

compromising air quality. New methods for controlling PM

concentrations has been 

observed in Eagle River and this decline is attributed primarily to the paving of local 

gravel roads in the area. In 1987, almost one-half of all the roads in the area (22 miles) 

were unpaved. By 2007 all of these roads were paved either with traditional hot asphalt 

paving or surfaced with RAP. The MOA is committed to the maintenance of these roads. 

In particular, all RAP-surfaced roads in the maintenance area have now been chip-sealed 

to improve their durability. The effective lifetime of these chip-sealed roads is estimated 

to be 10 to 15 years. When these roads have reached the end of their lifetime a new lift 

of chip seal (a mix of crushed aggregate or “chips” and asphalt emulsion) is applied 

which serves as a new wearing course for the road.

10

Eagle River has not violated the NAAQS since 1988; this is clear evidence that the 

controls implemented have provided permanent and enforceable emission reductions. 

The Anchorage Assembly recently adopted a revised land use code that requires paving 

during the spring break-up 

period are being investigated. These include the use of chemical dust palliatives and the 

use of new technology “waterless” sweepers which offer promise of more thorough 

clean-up of roadways.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-15

of all streets except those in low density residential areas zoned R-6, R-7, R-8 or R-9.

*

Although most of the Eagle River maintenance area is “built out” and few new roads are 

likely to be constructed, the requirements stipulated in Anchorage Municipal Code 

21.08.050 will help ensure that new streets constructed in the Municipality, including 

Eagle River, will not cause new PM10

The MOA is committed to continued maintenance of existing RAP/chip-sealed roads in 

the maintenance area and the MOA and ADOT&PF are committed to maintaining 

traction sand specifications that allow no more than 2% fines or silt. All controls that 

were relied on to demonstrate attainment will remain in place.

problems.

III.D.2.10.Compliance with Air Quality Monitoring Requirements and Verification 

of Continued Attainment

According to CAA Section 110(a)(2), once an area is redesignated, the State must 

continue to operate an appropriate air monitoring network in accord with 40 CFR Part 58 

to verify the attainment status of the area. The ADEC has delegated responsibility for air 

quality monitoring to the MOA. The MOA is committed to the continued operation of at 

least one EPA-approved PM10

Monitoring will be used to verify continued maintenance of the standard through the 

maintenance plan period. The MOA will annually recalculate the design value using the 

most recent five years of monitor data in order to verify the area continues to qualify for 

the LMP option. The result will be reported to the EPA.

monitoring site in the Eagle River maintenance area 

through the end of the maintenance planning period (2020). Monitoring will be 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58. 

In the event the area does not continue to qualify for the LMP option a full maintenance 

plan will be prepared as required by the LMP policy.

III.D.2.11.Natural Events Action Plan

The MOA prepared a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) entitled A Natural Events 

Action Plan for Windblown Dust Events in Anchorage Alaska in September 2002. This 

plan was submitted to ADEC in response to a wind blown dust-related exceedance that 

occurred in Anchorage on March 18, 2001. ADEC forwarded the NEAP to EPA; EPA 

approved it on May 5, 2003. A copy of the NEAP is included in the Appendix to

III.D.2.11.

One of the most important features of the NEAP is that it outlines procedures for issuing 

health advisories to help reduce PM10 exposure to the public during the events. However 

the issuance of health advisories for the Eagle River area have been impeded by a lack of 

“real time” PM10 monitoring data. Up until 2008, all PM10

 

* R-6, R-7, R-8 and R-9 are residential zoning designations defined in Title 21 of the Anchorage Municipal 

Code. R-7 zoning allows between one and two dwelling units per acre. The maximum dwelling unit 

density allowed in R-6, R-8 and R-9 varies from one per acre (R-6) to one per four acres (R-9). 

data in Eagle River was 
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-16

collected using federal reference method (FRM) monitors. Because FRM monitoring 

requires that PM10 filter samples be retrieved after the required 24-hour sampling period, 

the data necessary to declare a health advisory are not available until the event is over.

Although a health advisory was declared for the March 12, 2003 exceptional event in 

Eagle River, no such advisory was declared for the December 2, 2007 wind-blown dust 

episode.* The MOA has now installed “real time,” continuous PM10 monitoring 

equipment in Eagle River that should remedy this shortcoming. 

III.D.2.12.Contingency Provisions

Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include contingency measures 

in order to promptly correct any violation of the standard that occurs after the 

redesignation of the area to attainment.†

This section identifies a process and a timeline to identify and evaluate appropriate 

contingency measures in the event of a violation of the PM

Normally, the implementation of contingency 

measures is triggered by a violation of the NAAQS. Contingency measures do not have 

to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation, but they must be readily adopted if they 

are triggered.

10 NAAQS. 

Within 30 days following a violation of the PM

Contingency Measures Assessment

10

Within 120 days of the violation, the assessment team will prepare a report that identifies

the cause or causes of the violation and recommends appropriate measures for mitigating 

future violations. The report shall be presented to the AMATS Policy Committee for 

review and adoption and then forwarded to the ADEC for approval.

NAAQS, the MOA will convene an 

assessment team to identify control measures that appropriately address the source(s) and 

circumstances causing the violation.

The report should include an analysis of the PM10 monitoring data before and after the 

violation and a discussion of how the PM10 

 

* A health advisory was issued during the March 12, 2003 episode because data from “real time” monitors 

in Anchorage indicated very high PM10 levels. Although data in Eagle River, 10 miles north were not

available, PM10 concentrations were presumed to be high there also. However, on December 2, 2007 real 

time data from Anchorage suggested that PM10 concentrations were not likely to exceed the NAAQS. 

Without specific data for Eagle River, it was assumed that an exceedance was also unlikely there and no 

health advisory was declared.

source or sources leading to the violation 

were determined. Other possible contributing factors such as weather conditions should 

be discussed. The effectiveness of existing controls, particularly those included in this 

† The Eagle River PM10 Control Plan drafted in 1991 included two contingency measures. The first 

contingency measure called for the surfacing of two additional miles of gravel roadway in the 

nonattainment area with RAP. The second called for “sweetening” existing RAP roads with asphalt 

emulsion to improve their PM10 reduction effectiveness. Even though these measures were never triggered 

by a violation of NAAQS, all roads in the nonattainment area have now been surfaced with RAP or paved. 

In addition, all RAP roads have been enhanced with a chip-seal coating to improve their effectiveness at 

reducing dust and to increase their durability.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-17

maintenance plan, should be discussed and any lapses in the implementation of such 

controls should be identified.

The assessment team shall review the list of possible contingency measures offered in 

this Plan and recommend the implementation of one or more for them to address the 

source or sources of the PM10 

Local actions resulting from the assessment team recommendations will be at the 

discretion the Municipal Mayor and Assembly. Several of the possible contingency 

measures would require changes to local ordinance by the Anchorage Assembly before 

they could be implemented.

violation. The team has the option of recommending 

alternative measures not included on this list if circumstances warrant.

The attainment inventory suggests that the primary sources of PM

List of Potential Contingency Measures

10 in Eagle River are 

traffic-related paved road dust emissions, wind-blown dust emissions from roadways, 

parking lots and cleared areas, and fireplace and wood stove emissions. As such, if a 

future violation were to occur, a combination of one or more of these sources is most 

likely to be the cause.

A list of potential contingency measures for each of these three sources follows:

Traffic-Related Paved Road Dust

1. Apply chemical dust palliatives to high volume roadways upon prediction of high 

PM10

The highest emissions typically occur along major roads during the spring break-up 

period when they are heavily laden with a winter’s worth of accumulated traction 

sand and other road sediment. Road sediment accumulates primarily in gutters, 

shoulders, medians and in the dividing strip between turn lanes and through lanes of 

high volume roadways. During the spring break-up period of 2008 the MOA 

performed a field study of the dust palliative magnesium chloride brine (MgCl

.

2).*

The study concluded that absent significant precipitation, an application of MgCl2

substantially reduced dust emissions for at least a week after application. This 

suggests that MgCl2 could be used to mitigate roadway PM10

2. Sweep major roadways prior to spring break-up and other periods when elevated 

PM

emissions when 

concentrations are predicted to approach or exceed the NAAQS.

10

Although sweeping has been included here as a potential contingency measure, it 

should be noted that its effectiveness and practicality as a control measure during the 

spring break-up period is questionable. Many studies have shown that without 

extensive back-flushing, traditional mechanical sweeping methods do not effectively 

is anticipated.

 

* A draft report, entitled Field Evaluation of Suitability of Magnesium Chloride Brine for PM10 Control on 

Paved Roads in Anchorage was completed by the MOA Department of Health and Human Services in 

September 2008.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-18

reduce PM10 emissions. In late March and early April when PM10 is often highest, 

subfreezing temperatures make the use of water back-flushing impractical. 

Moreover, ice and snow on roadway shoulders prevent effective sweeping where the 

road is most heavily laden with sediment. The MOA is experimenting with 

alternatives to “traditional” sweeping such as post-sweep application of a dust 

palliative and/or “double-pass” waterless sweeping. The MOA plans to continue to 

experiment with alternative sweeping procedures and one or more may prove viable 

as a contingency measure in the future.

Wind-blown Dust from Roadways, Parking Lots and Cleared Areas

1. Implement one or more of the traffic-related paved road dust measures discussed 

above.

Paved roadways comprise over 75% of the cleared area in the Eagle River PM10 

maintenance area. Thus, the same measures suggested for controlling traffic-related 

PM10 emissions are suitable for reducing wind-blown dust. For example, the 

application of MgCl2

2. Require application of dust palliatives to paved parking areas.

brine would also be expected to reduce wind-generated dust 

from roads.

Parking lots, playgrounds and other similar paved areas comprise about 20% of the 

cleared area in the maintenance area. The application of dust palliatives to these areas 

would be expected to reduce emissions.

3. Establish required specifications for traction sand materials applied to parking lots.

Currently there are no requirements placed on the quality or quantity of traction sand 

materials applied to parking lots. New MOA regulations could be established that 

would limit the amount of fines or silt allowed in the traction sand applied to 

contiguous parking lots and paved areas greater than five acres in size, for example.

Fireplaces and Wood Stoves

1. Curtail fireplace and wood stove use when high PM10

Although fireplace and wood stove emissions currently make up a relatively small 

part of total PM

is predicted.

10 emissions, it is possible that future increases in natural gas heating 

costs could drive more households to heat with wood. If this is the case, emissions of 

PM10 would increase over time. Presumably air quality monitoring data would 

provide evidence if such a trend were occurring. An increase in wood heating would 

likely jeopardize attainment of the PM2.5 (fine particulate) NAAQS before PM10. 

Nevertheless, in some circumstances it may be appropriate to consider regulating fire 

place and wood stove use as means to addressing PM10 violations.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

III.D.2-19

III.D.2.13. Air Quality Conformity for LMP Areas

The transportation conformity rule and general conformity rule apply to nonattainment 

and maintenance areas. Under either rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a 

federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions 

from the planned action are consistent with emissions budget for the area.

Although EPA policy does not exempt LMP areas from the need to demonstrate 

conformity, it allows the area to do so without submitting an emissions budget, because 

data demonstrates no violation of the NAAQS will occur due to reasonable growth 

projections. For transportation purposes, the emissions in a qualifying LMP area need 

not be capped for the maintenance period and thus no regional emissions analysis is 

required. Regional transportation conformity is presumed due to the limited potential for 

emission growth in the area during the LMP period. A regional emissions analysis and 

associated regional conformity requirements (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.119) are no longer 

necessary. Similarly, federal actions subject to the general conformity rule would 

automatically satisfy the “budget test’ specified in Section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the 

same reasons.

When Eagle River is designated by EPA as a LMP, transportation conformity 

determinations will still be required for transportation plans, programs (TIPs) and 

projects. The conformity determination for the plan and TIP should state that a regional 

emission analysis is not required because the area has an approved LMP. The Plan and 

the TIP must still be made available for public review. The portions of the conformity 

rule that still apply are found in 40 CFR 93.112 and 93.113 and the consultation 

requirements as specified under state regulation, 18 AAC 50 .715 and 50.720. 

In addition transportation projects would still need to meet the criteria for PM10 hot spots 

(40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123) and for PM10 control measures (40 CFR 93.117). The 

MOA will work with ADEC and interested parties to develop an evaluation criteria and 

process to meet these transportation conformity requirements.

III.D.2.14. Redesignation Request

The MOA and ADEC believe this document contains all necessary information and 

adequately demonstrates that Eagle River should be reclassified to attainment under the 

LMP option. Therefore, ADEC, on behalf of the MOA, requests that EPA find this plan 

complete and approve the redesignation of the Eagle River nonattainment area to 

attainment under the LMP option.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to:

State Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. III: Appendices

Appendices to: 

Volume II, Section II. Air Quality Control Program;

Volume II, Section III.A Statewide Carbon Monoxide Control Program;

Volume II, Section III.B Anchorage Transportation Control Program; and 

Volume II, Section III.D.2 Eagle River Limited Maintenance Plan

Adopted

August 20th, 2010
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

The State of Alaska’s State Air Quality Control Plan Volume III, Appendix to Volume II of this 

plan, is amended to include the following documents: 

Volume II, Section II. Air Quality Control Program is amended by removing the following 

regulations: 

• 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control as amended through April 1st, 2010; and replacing them

with the following regulations: 

• 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control as amended through August 20th, 2010. 

Volume II, Section III.B Anchorage Transportation Control Program, adopted into the State Air 

Quality Control Plan August 20th, 2010, is amended as follows: 

• Appendix III.B.1 is amended by adding the following documents: 

· Anchorage Assembly Resolution No. 2010-174, dated June 8, 2010, a resolution of 

the Municipality of Anchorage adopting revisions to the Anchorage Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan (dated May 13, 2010) that deletes the commitment to 

I/M as a primary CO control measure.

 

• Appendix III.B.3 is amended by adding the following document: 

· Anchorage 2007 Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventory and 2007-2023 Emission 

Projections, prepared by the Municipality of Anchorage, dated March 2010. 

• Appendix III.B.6 is amended by adding the following document: 

· Analysis of Probability of Complying with the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Carbon Monoxide in Anchorage between 2007 and 2023, prepared by 

the Municipality of Anchorage, dated March 2010. 

• Appendix III.B.9 is amended by adding the following document: 

· Municipality of Anchorage Ordinance No. 2010-35(S), adopted by the Anchorage 

Assembly May 11, 2010; an ordinance repealing Anchorage Municipal Code 

Chapters 15.80 and 15.85, relating to motor vehicle emissions inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program; amending Chapter 15.80 and 15.85 in the interim to 

revise existing fees and program administration; amending section 9.30.155 to repeal 

reference to I/M certification; and amending the fine schedule at section 14.60.030. 

• Appendix III.B.10 is amended by adding the following documents: 

· Estimation of Background Carbon Monoxide Concentrations for Anchorage ProjectLevel Conformity Analyses, no date; and 

1
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

· Affidavit of Oral Hearing. 

Volume II, Section III.D.2 Eagle River PM-10 Control Plan, adopted into the State Air Quality 

Control Plan August 20th, 2010, is amended by adding the following appendices: 

• Appendix III.D.2.2- Anchorage Assembly Resolution (AR) 2010-4, dated January 12, 2010, 

adopting the Eagle River PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan. 

• Appendix III.D.2.5- PM10 design values for Eagle River and qualification for Limited 

Maintenance Plan. 

• Appendix III.D.2.6- 2007 and 2020 PM10 Emission Inventories for the Eagle River Limited 

Maintenance Area. 

• Appendix III.D.2.11- Natural Events Action Plan for Windblown Dust Events in 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Volumes II and III of the State Air Quality Control Plan, as amended August 20th, 2010, includes 

the following document which is adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030: 

 • “Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air Monitoring & Quality 

Assurance Program”, dated February 23, 2010. 

2
Register ___, _____ 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

18 AAC 50

Air Quality Control

Adopted

August 20th, 2010

3
Register ___, _____ 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

The lead in language of 18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read: 

18 AAC 50.030. State air quality control plan. Volumes II and III of the State Air 

Quality Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions of AS 46.14 and this 

chapter, as amended through August 20th, 2010 [NOVEMBER 6, 2009], are adopted by 

reference. The plan includes the following documents which are also adopted by reference:

. . . 

18 AAC 50.030(4) is amended to read: 

(4) the department's Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air 

Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program[ALASKA QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL 

FOR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING], as amended through February 23, 

2010[AUGUST 21, 1996]; 

 (Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, Register 147; 

am 1/1/2000; Register 152; am 12/30/2000; Register 156; am 9/21/2001, Register 159; am 

1/27/2002, Register 161; am 3/2/2002, Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004, 

Register 169; am 6/24/2004, Register 170; am 10/1/2004, Register 171; am 12/14/2006, Register 

180; am 12/30/2007, Register 184; am 5/17/2008, Register 186; am 7/25/2008, Register 187; am, 

11/9/2008, Register 188; am 5/6/2009, Register 190; am 11/4/2009, Register 192; am 4/1/2010, 

Register 193; am__/__/____, Register ___) 

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140

4
Register ___, _____ 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

18 AAC 50.215(a) is amended to read: 

18 AAC 50.215. Ambient air quality analysis methods. (a) A person who submits 

meteorological or ambient air monitoring data under AS 46.03, AS 46.14, or this chapter shall 

obtain the data in accordance with

(1) the department's Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air 

Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program [ALASKA QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL FOR 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING], adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030 for PM-10, 

PM 2.5, total suspended particulates (TSP), lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, ozone and ammonia; 

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 10/1/2004, Register 171; am 

7/25/2008, Register 187; am __/__/____, Register ___) 

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.140 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 

AS 46.14.030 AS 46.14.180

5
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. III: Appendix III.D.2.2

“Anchorage Assembly Resolution AR 2010-4 Adopting the 

Eagle River PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan”

Adopted 

August 20th, 2010

128
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

129
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

130
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. III: Appendix III.D.2.5

“PM10 Design Values for Eagle River and 

Qualification for Limited Maintenance Plan” 

Adopted 

August 20th, 2010

131
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

1 

Appendix to Volume II., Section III.D.2.5 

PM10 design values for Eagle River and qualification for Limited Maintenance 

Plan

Computation of 24-hr Design Value 

Computational methods for determining the 24-hour design value (DV) are outlined in the PM10

SIP Development Guideline (EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987). The empirical frequency 

distribution approach (see Section 6.3.3. of the guideline) was used to determine the site-specific 

PM10 concentration that would be expected to be exceeded at a frequency of once every 365 

days.

To do so, we first ranked all observations by PM10 concentration for each 3-yr block during the 

1998 – 2007 period in descending order. Because PM10 concentrations were monitored generally 

on a one-in-six-days basis, each 3-yr block had approximately 180 observations (thus the lowest 

concentration measured in each 3-yr block had a rank order ≈ 180). 

Next, for a concentration ranked (i), the proportion of PM10 observations that exceed that 

concentration is calculated as:

i / total number of observations

The empirical frequency distribution for each 3-yr block was then graphed by plotting the 

proportion of occurrence against PM10 concentrations (an example of 2004-2006 period is shown 

in Figure 1, Line a). Because by definition the DV is a concentration that corresponds to an 

exceedance frequency of 1/365 (Line b), the DV was graphically determined as the intersecting 

point of Lines a and b in the Figure 1. 

Figure 1

Example - Determination of 24-hr DV for 2004-2006. 

 

Line a = the empirical frequency 

distribution for all the observations during 

the 2004-2006 period. Line b = DV 

frequency by definition (1/365). Total 

number of observations = 181. For this 

particular period, DV was determined to 

be 88.2 μg/m3

. 

y = 1.2831e-0.0697x

R2

 = 0.9823

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

PM10 concentration (μg m-3)

Proprotion of occurrance exceeding 

the conc.

a

b DV frequency 

(1/365 = 0.0027)

88.2

132
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

2 

Table 1 below shows calculated DV’s for the last decade, all eight 3-yr blocks, to demonstrate 

that there is no increasing trend in DV’s over this period. The average DV during the last 5-yr 

period (2003-2007) was 92.3 μg/m3. This is under 98 μg/m3 and therefore meets the 

qualification for the LMP option. 

Table 1

Computation of Average DV for Parkgate Site in Eagle River

3-yr 

Period

Equation of Line Describing 

Empirical Frequency Distribution ++ R2 

DV

(computed from previous 

3 years data using empirical 

frequency distribution)

(μg/m3

) 

1998-2000 y = 1.4749e-0.0744x 0.960 84.5

1999-2001 y = 1.28522e-0.0643x 0.962 95.5

2000-2002 y = 1.41446e-0.0697x 0.984 89.7

2001-2003 y = 1.1840e-0.0562x 0.944 108.0

2002-2004 y = 1.3124e-0.0656x 0.968 94.1

2003-2005 y = 1.1248e-0.0586x 0.969 102.7

2004-2006 y = 1.2831e-0.0697x 0.982 88.2

2005-2007 y = 1.3049e-0.0717x 0.979 86.0

Average DV 2003-2007 = 92.3 μg/m3

LMP Qualification Criteria < 98 μg/m3

++ In this equation y is the proportions of concentrations exceeding a particular PM10 concentration and x is 

the concentration of interest. If y is set = 1/365 = 0.0027, the equation can be used to solve for x, the 

concentration that would be expected to be exceeded once per year. 

133
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

3 

Computation of a Site-Specific Design Value 

Attachment A of the Limited Maintenance Plan guidance (Wegman memo, EPA, August 9, 

2001) outlines a procedure for computing a site-specific value (called a critical design value or 

CDV) that may serve as alternative to the 98 μg/m3 value used to determine whether an area 

qualifies for the LMP option or meets the Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis Test. The 

computation is described below:

CDV = NAAQS/(1+tcCV) 

Where: 

CDV = the critical design value 

CV = the coefficient of variation of the annual design values (the ratio of standard 

deviation divided by the mean design value in the past) 

tc = the critical one-tail t-value corresponding to a given probability of exceeding the 

NAAQS in the future and the degree of freedom in the estimate for the CV. 

EPA Region 10 staff has recommended that a probability of 5% be assumed to determine the 

appropriate critical one-tail t value (tc) in the computation. 

Table 2 

24-hour CDV (μg/m3

) for Eagle River.

Parameter

24hr-CDV 

(μg/m3

) 

Average DV 92.3

SD 9.1

CV 0.098

n 3 

df 2

tc (5%, one-tail) 2.920

CDV 116.6

The computed CDV for Eagle River is 116.6 μg/m3

. This means that, based on the magnitude of 

the eight annual DV’s computed for Eagle River between 2000 and 2007 and their year-to-year 

variability, there is only an expected 5% probability that the average DV would be higher than 

116.6 μg/m3 at the Parkgate site. The site-specific criterion is considerably higher than the 

“default” value of 98 μg/m3

. This higher site-specific value was used as a margin of safety 

(MOS) value in the Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis Test.

134
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan

Volume III: Appendix III.D.2.6

“2007 and 2020 PM10 Emission Inventories for the 

Eagle River Limited Maintenance Area”

Adopted 

August 20th, 2010

135
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

1 

Appendix to Volume II., Section III.D.2.6

2007 and 2020 PM10 Emission Inventories for the Eagle River PM-10 Limited 

Maintenance Area

Overview

This document describes the assumptions and methods used to develop the 2007 base year PM10

attainment inventory and the projected inventory for year 2020. The 1987 inventory is also 

shown for illustrative purposes. Emissions from significant sources within the 9 km2 area were 

estimated using standard methodologies outlined in AP-42 for fugitive PM10 sources. 

MOBILE6.2 was used to estimate the contribution of motor vehicle exhaust, tire and brake wear 

emissions to PM10

As will be shown in the inventory, the large majority of PM

.

10 emitted in the maintenance area is 

of “crustal” or geological origin. The emission inventory will show that the two most significant 

sources of this crustal material are the “dust” stirred up by vehicle traffic travelling on paved 

roadways and wind-lofted dust from roads, parking lots and un-vegetated areas within the 

maintenance area. This finding is consistent with past source apportionment studies that have 

consistently shown that the vast majority of PM10 in Eagle River and Anchorage consists of 

crustal material.1

In 1991, when the attainment plan for Eagle River was prepared, the most important source of 

PM10 was unpaved roads. Since that time, however, all of the roads in the area have been paved 

so unpaved road emissions are no longer included in the inventory. For this maintenance plan, 

the five PM10

AP-42, “Compilation of Air Pollution Emissions Factors,” is an EPA publication that provides 

guidance on the estimation of emissions on a large variety of air pollution emission sources. AP42 was used to estimate emissions for all of the above sources except exhaust, tire and brake 

wear emissions. These emissions were estimated using the EPA MOBILE6.2 emission factor 

model. The methods and assumptions used to estimate emissions from each of these sources is 

described in the next five sections.

 source categories were identified and inventoried within the Eagle River 

maintenance area. These include (1) dust from paved roads; (2) wind-generated dust from roads, 

parking lots and un-vegetated areas; (3) fireplaces and woodstoves; (4) natural gas combustion; 

and (5) exhaust, tire and brake wear emissions from motor vehicles. 

 

1 Four studies have been performed to characterize the sources of particulate and Anchorage and Eagle River. These 

include two chemical mass balance/source apportionment studies (Pritchett & Cooper, 1985, Cooper & Vodovinos, 

1988) and two studies that used microscopy (Crutcher, 1994, R.J. Lee, Inc., 1995) to identify and quantify the types 

(and probable sources) of particulate. 

136
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

2 

(1) Dust from Paved Roads 

Dust from paved roads is a major source of PM10 in Eagle River and Anchorage. Roads are often 

laden with large amounts of “sediment” and other fine-grained minerals left over from winter 

sanding operations, material abraded from the road surface itself by traffic (especially from 

vehicles equipped with studded tires), and spillage from hauling activities. Roads tend to be 

dirtiest during the spring break-up period which generally occurs between mid-March and the 

end of April. Although the grain size of most of the sediment on the roads is too large to be 

PM10, some of this material has been pulverized to a grain size less than 10 microns. When 

these very fine grained particles are re-entrained into the air by turbulence from traffic travelling 

on the road, they become PM

Section 13.2.1 of AP-42 outlines procedures for estimating PM

10.

10 emissions from paved roads. 

According to AP-42, emissions from a paved road are a function of how much fine-grained 

sediment or silt is on the road and the weight of vehicles using the road. 2

VMT Estimation

 Paved road emissions 

increase in direct proportion to the amount of traffic or vehicle miles travelled (VMT) on the 

roads. Higher traffic volumes result in greater emissions. 

The air quality conformity analysis for the 2007 Chugiak-Eagle River Long Range 

Transportation Plan (CE/LRTP) included VMT estimates for analysis years 2007, 2017, and 

2027. These VMT estimates served as the basis for the 2007 and 2020 inventories presented 

here. The CE/LRTP VMT estimates for 2007 in the 2007 base year attainment inventory and 

2020 was estimated by interpolating between CE/LRTP projections for analysis years 2017 and 

2027. 

In the conformity analysis for the CE/LRTP, the FHWA-approved Anchorage Transportation 

Model was used to estimate VMT on arterials and freeways in the Eagle River Maintenance area. 

The model did not provide VMT estimates for local roads, however. VMT on local roads was 

estimated by assuming that each household within the maintenance area makes seven homebased trips per day, each involving 0.62 miles of travel on local roads.3

Table 1 shows VMT estimates by roadway type.

 Each household was 

assumed to generate 4.34 miles (7 trips x 0.62 m) of local road VMT each day. 

 

2 Silt is defined as the finer-grained soil particles that pass a #200 mesh sieve; these are particles nominally 75 

microns and smaller.

3 For example, a trip from home to the local grocery store and back would count as two home-based trips.

137
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

3 

Table 1.

Estimated and Projected VMT in Eagle River PM10

Base Year 2007 and End of 10-Year Maintenance Planning Period 2020

Maintenance Area

Local Road VMT

(based on housing Stock)

Arterial and Freeway VMT

(Anchorage Transportation 

Model estimates)

Housing

Stock

Local

Unpaved

VMT

Paved 

(RAP)

VMT

± 

Paved 

(SP/CG)

VMT

** 

Arterials Glenn Hwy

2007 4,548 0 7,659 12,079 68,664 77,532

2017 4,908 0 8,264 13,034 83,370 107,640

2020 5,015 0 8,446 13,321 87,782 116,672

2027 5,267 0 8,870 13,989 98,076 137,748

± RAP = recycled asphalt pavement ** SP/CG = strip paved or curb and gutter

Paved Road Emission Factor 

Section 13.2.1 of AP-42 (updated November 2006) outlines recommended procedures for 

estimating PM10 emissions from paved roads. The paved road emission factor, the amount of 

PM10

The AP-42 paved road emission factor equation is: 

 generated in pounds per vehicle mile travelled (VMT), is a function of the “silt loading” on 

the road and the average weight of the vehicles travelling on the road. 

E = k(sL/2)0.65 x (W/3)1.5

where

 –C 

E = PM10

k = 0.016 (AP-42 specified particle size multiplier for PM

emissions in lbs/VMT

10

sL = road surface silt loading (varies by roadway type)

) 

W = mean vehicle weight in tons (assumed to be 2 tons)

C = vehicle exhaust, tire and brake wear emissions (AP-42 recommendation = 0.00047 lbs/VMT) 

Data collected in Anchorage in 1996 (Montgomery-Watson, 1996) showed that silt loading 

varied by roadway type. (For this inventory Eagle River was assumed to have silt loadings 

identical to Anchorage.) 

The Municipality of Anchorage maintains a detailed inventory of the surface treatment of roads 

in the Chugiak – Eagle River area. While the majority of the roads in the area are paved with 

“traditional” hot asphalt paving (HAP) about one-third of the local roads in the maintenance area 

are constructed with recycled asphalt paving or RAP. Although air quality monitoring data 

suggest RAP treatment has proven to be an effective means in reducing PM10 from gravel roads 

in Eagle River, the surface of these roads is less durable and more erodible than those 

constructed using HAP. Because roadway abrasion is a significant source of silt on roads, it 

seems reasonable to assume that the silt loadings on RAP roads are higher than those surfaced 

138
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

4 

with HAP.4

Table 2 shows average silt loading measurements and the computed AP-42 PM

 For the purpose of this inventory, RAP-constructed roads were assumed to have silt 

loadings twice those constructed with HAP. 

10 emission factor 

for each roadway type for the spring and fall PM10 seasons.

Table 2

Typical Silt Loadings and PM10 Emission Factors by Season for Paved Roads in Eagle River

Spring Break-up Period Fall Freeze-up Period

Silt 

loading

(g/ m2

Spring PM

) 

Emission Factor10 

(lbs/VMT)

Silt 

loading

(g/ m2

Fall PM

) 

Emission Factor10 

(lbs/VMT)

Arterial Paved Roads 6.7 0.0207 1.1 0.0061

Freeways (Glenn Hwy) 20.4 0.0433 2.6 0.0110

Local Paved Roads (hot asphalt paving) 18.4 0.0404 4.7 0.0164

Local Paved Roads (recycled asphalt) 36.8 0.0637 # 9.4 0.0260 # 

# Silt loading estimated to be double those of local roads constructed with hot asphalt paving. 

Using AP-42 Emission Factors and VMT Estimates to Compute Paved Road PM10

Paved road PM

 Emissions 

10 emissions can be readily computed from the emission factor and VMT on each 

roadway type. Table 3 shows estimated emissions for the spring and fall periods for base year 

2007 and for the end of the maintenance period in 2020. 

Table 3

Estimated PM10

2007 and 2020

Emissions from Paved Roads in the Eagle River Maintenance Area

2007 2020

Roadway Type VMT

Spring

Emissions

(tons/day)

Fall

Emissions

(tons/day) VMT

Spring

Emissions

(tons/day)

Fall

Emissions

(tons/day)

Arterial Paved Roads 68,664 0.71 0.21 87,782 0.91 0.27

Freeways (Glenn Hwy) 77,532 1.68 0.43 116,672 2.52 0.64

Local Roads (hot asphalt paving) 12,111 0.24 0.10 13,356 0.27 0.11

Local Roads (recycled asphalt) 7,627 0.24 0.10 8,411 0.27 0.11

TOTAL 165,934 2.88 0.83 226,221 3.97 1.13

 

4 The Municipality of Anchorage recently completed a study that suggests that roadway abrasion is the source of 

about 25% of the “dirt” on the road surface during spring break-up.

139
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

5 

(2) Wind Generated Dust from Roads, Parking Lots and Un-Vegetated Areas

Although EPA guidance allows the flagging of PM10 exceedances that occur as a result of 

extreme wind events such as those that occurred on March 12, 2003 and December 2, 2007 in 

Eagle River, PM10 observations resulting from commonly occurring, less energetic wind-related 

events are considered valid data and are not excluded when determining the design value for an 

area or determining whether the area is in compliance with the NAAQS. Monitoring data 

suggest that wind-generated dust frequently contributes to elevated PM10 

Estimating the Amount of Area Covered by Roads, Parking Lots and Un-vegetated Areas 

concentrations in Eagle 

River.

Wind-generated dust generally originates from paved surfaces laden with dirt and silt. These 

paved surfaces include roadways and parking lots in the maintenance area. There are also some 

cleared, un-vegetated areas that are unpaved. 

Estimates of the amount of area available for the generation of windblown dust are shown in 

Table 4. The area amount of roadway was estimated by the length of each type of roadway and 

the average width of that type of roadway. For example, there are 6.2 miles of arterial roadway 

in the maintenance area and arterial roadways have an average paved width of approximately 60 

feet. 

The surface area of the arterial roadways in the maintenance area is therefore:

 (6.2 miles length)(5,280 ft/mi)(60 ft width) = 1,964,160 ft

1,964,160 ft

2

2 / 43,560 ft2

/acre = 45.1 acres

The amount of acreage covered by parking lots, paved school playgrounds, and similar areas was 

estimated by inspecting Google satellite photos of the maintenance area. The acreage of unvegetated, cleared areas was estimated in like manner. The Google map utility includes a 

distance key that allows the dimensions and acreage of a particular surface feature to be 

estimated. For example, a parking lot with dimensions of 250 feet by 500 feet is approximately 

3 acres in size. Because parking areas, particularly those serving retail establishments serve the 

local population, we assumed that the total area covered by parking lots and the like would 

increase in direct proportion with housing stock. Housing stock is projected to increase by 

10.3% between 2007 and 2020; paved parking areas were assumed to increase by a like 

proportion. 

The total amount of paved or cleared area in the maintenance area in base year 2007 was 

estimated to be 289 acres. This constitutes about 12.5% of the land surface in the maintenance 

area.

140
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

6 

Table 4

Estimated Surface Area Coverage of Roads, Parking Lots and Un-vegetated Areas in 

Eagle River PM10 Maintenance Area

2007 2020

Roadway

Length

(miles)

Estimated 

Area

(acres)

Roadway

Length

(miles)

Estimated 

Area

(acres)

Glenn Highway 1.1 13 1.1 13

Arterials 6.2 45 6.2 45

Local Roads 45.6 165 45.6 165

Parking Lots ---- 55 ---- 62

Un-vegetated Areas ---- 10 ---- 10

TOTAL 289 296

Note: To compute the total paved area of roadways, a paved width of 100 

feet was assumed for the Glenn Highway, 60 feet for arterials, and 30 feet 

for local roads.

Wind Blown Dust Emission Factor Estimation

AP-42 does not provide an emission factor methodology specific to estimating PM10 emission 

from roads, parking lots and un-vegetated areas. However, it does outline a methodology (see 

AP-42 Section 13.2.5.1) for estimating emissions from aggregate storage piles and open areas 

within an industrial facility. After examining other alternatives, the methodology recommended 

for estimating wind-generated PM10 emissions from open areas in industrial facilities seemed to 

offer the best fit available for estimating wind-generated PM10

The AP-42 Section 13.2.5.1 outlines a step-by-step procedure for estimating wind generated 

PM

in Eagle River.

10 

AP-42 provides the following equation for estimating PM

emission factor for open areas in industrial facilities. This methodology was applied to the 

estimation of emissions from open areas in Eagle River.

10 emissions from wind blown dust: 

Equation 1 

EFwind = 0.5(58(u* - ut

*

)

2 + 25 (u* - ut

*

where:

)) 

u* = friction velocity (m/s)

ut

*

The next two sub-sections will describe how the variables u

= threshold friction velocity (m/s)

t

* and u* were determined.

141
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

7 

Determining ut

AP-42 outlines a field procedure and lab test (sieve analysis) for estimating the threshold friction 

velocity (u

* 

t

*

). The mode of the aggregate size distribution is determined and can be related 

empirically (see AP-42 Table 13.2.5-1) to ut

*

. In order to estimate ut

* for the aggregate material 

in the Eagle River maintenance area, existing sieve analysis data from street sediment collected 

in Anchorage was used.5 Over 300 street sediment samples were collected and sieved. 

Although the sieves used in this analysis did not correspond exactly to those prescribed in Table 

13.2.5-1, they were similar enough so that a reasonable estimate of ut

* could be made.6

 The 

mode size was determined from the average of all 300+ sieve analysis results. On average, 

24.9% of the total street sediment was “captured” between sieves #40 (0.42 mm) and #100 

(0.149 mm). The midpoint size between these two sieves is 0.285 mm (See Figure 1). 

Figure 1

Sieve Analysis Results for Anchorage Street Sediment Data

Table 13.2.5-1 recommends a value for ut

* = 0.43 m/s for a midpoint size range of 0.375 mm. 

Again, because different sieves were used to characterize the size distribution of Anchorage road 

sediment than prescribed by AP-42, our midpoint value is slightly different. Nevertheless the 

data suggest that 0.43 m/s is a reasonable assumption of ut

*

 for Eagle River road sediment. 

 

5 These data were collected in spring of 1996 by Montgomery-Watson, Inc. for the MOA Watershed Management 

Section as part of an analysis of street sediment impacts on streams and lakes in Anchorage. 

6 The sieves used in the Anchorage street sediment testing were #4, #9, #20, and #100. The method recommends 

using sieves #5, #9, #16, #32, and #60. 

4.8

13.8 13.9 14.1

24.9

7.6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

4.76 - 9.5

(7.13) 

2.00 - 4.76

(3.38)

0.84 - 2.00

(1.42)

0.42 - 0.84

(0.63)

0.149 - 0.42

(0.285)

0.105 - 0.149

(0.127)

Size range, (mid-point)

(values in mm)

% in size range

mode of 

aggregate size 

distribution

142
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

8 

The friction wind velocity (u*) is the estimated wind velocity at the ground surface where street 

sediment and other fine materials lay available for re-entrainment by the wind. Wind speed 

measurements are taken at 10 meters above the ground (u

Determining u*

10+

), however. The actual wind speed 

at the ground surface is significantly lower. AP-42 recommends the following equation to 

estimate u*

u

: 

*

 = 0.053 u10+

In order to estimate the contribution of wind blown dust to PM

(expressed in m/sec)

10, we identified the five highest 

PM10 days during spring break-up (March, April) and fall freeze-up (October, November) over 

the 10-year period 1998-2007. We excluded the two designated exceptional events that resulted 

from wind/dust storms occurred on March 12, 2003 and December 2, 2007.7 We examined local 

climatological data and determined the maximum wind speed (maximum 2-minute observations) 

that occurred on each of those days.8

Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. 

 The friction velocity was selected from the spring and fall 

days with the highest wind speed. 

Table 5 

Equivalent Friction Wind Velocities on High PM10

Date

Days 

During Spring Break-up and Fall Freeze-up (1998-2007)

PM

(μg/m10

3

Max 

2-min 

Wind Spd

)

u10

(mph)

+

Equivalent 

Friction 

Wind 

Velocity

u*

(m/s) Date

PM

(μg/m10

3

Max 

2-min 

Wind Spd

)

u10

(mph)

+

Equivalent 

Friction 

Wind 

Velocity

u*

(m/s)

3/10/2003 92 23 0.55 11/13/2006 65 16 0.38

3/17/2005 90 15 0.36 11/7/1998 55 7 0.17

3/4/2003 82 23 0.55 10/21/2000 52 20 0.47

4/15/2004 70 8 0.19 10/31/2005 51 14 0.33

3/14/2001 69 13 0.31 11/7/2006 48 20 0.47

Selected value for u* = 0.55 Selected value for u* = 0.47

 

7 The highest two-minute wind speed measured on March 12, 2003 was 52 mph and on December 2, 2007 

two-minute winds reached 48 mph. 8 Because there are no comprehensive wind data available for Eagle River, local climatological data from the Ted 

Stevens Anchorage International Airport were used.

143
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

9 

Computing the Wind Blown Dust Emission Factor from Equation (1) 

Now that the threshold friction velocity ut

* and equivalent wind friction velocity u* have been 

determined for the spring and fall PM10 seasons, we can use Equation 1 to compute the PM10

(Equation 1) EF

emission factor for wind blown dust. 

wind = 0.5(58(u* - ut

*

)

2 + 25 (u* - ut

*

Substituting values for u

)) 

t

*

= 0.43 m/sec and u* = 0.55 m/s (spring) and 0.47 m/s (fall), the 

resultant spring and fall wind blown dust PM10

Spring Windblown Dust PM

emission factor are:

10 Emission Factor = 1.9 g/m2

Fall Windblown Dust PM

/day = 17 lbs/acre/day

10 Emission Factor = 0.5 g/m2

/day =5 lbs/acre/day

Estimated Wind blown PM10

Now that the emission factor and the amount of cleared acreage in the Eagle PM

Emissions for 2007 and 2020

10 maintenance 

area have been estimated, PM10 emissions can be readily calculated. Computed emissions are 

shown in Table 6. 

Table 6

Estimated Windblown Dust PM10 Emissions

Spring Break-up Fall Freeze-up

Year

Cleared 

Areas: 

Roadways, 

Parking Lots, 

Miscellaneous

(total acres)

Wind blown 

Dust PM10

(lbs/acre)

Emission 

Factor

Total PM10

(tons/day)

Emissions

Wind blown 

Dust PM10

(lbs/acre)

Emission 

Factor

Total PM10

(tons/day)

Emissions

2007 289 17 2.47 5 0.70

2020 296 17 2.53 5 0.72

(3) Fireplaces and Woodstoves 

Basic assumptions regarding fireplace and wood stove were obtained from a telephone survey 

conducted by ASK Marketing and Research in 1990. This survey asked Anchorage residents 

how many hours per week they burned wood in their fireplace or wood stove. Because the AP42 emission factors for fireplaces and wood stoves (See AP-42, Sections 1.9 and 1.10) are based 

on the amount of wood (dry weight) burned, hourly usage rates from the survey had to be 

converted into consumption rates. Based on discussions between MOA and several reliable 

sources (OMNI Environmental Services, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Colorado Department of 

Health), average burning rates (in wet weight) of 11 pounds per hour for fireplaces and 3.5 

pounds per hour for wood stoves were assumed. 

Residential wood burning assumptions are detailed in Table 7.9

 

9 Assumptions regarding wood burning activity levels (i.e. the number of households engaging in wood burning on a 

winter season design day) were corroborated by a more recent telephone survey conducted by In 2003 Ivan Moore 

 

144
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

10 

Table 7 

Estimation of Residential Wood Burning PM10

Device

 Emission Factors for Eagle River

Average use 

per weekday

(hours per 

household 

per day)

Average dry 

weight of wood 

consumed 

(lbs per hour)*

Average 

amount of 

wood burned 

per household

(dry lbs / day) 

AP-42 Emission 

Factor for PM

(g/dry lb wood 

burned)

10 

Estimated PM10

Fireplaces

emissions per 

household

(g/day)

1.04 7.15 lbs/hr 7.44 7.9 58.8

Wood Stoves 0.85 2.275 lbs/hr 1.94 5.4** 10.5

TOTAL

Fireplaces + 

wood stoves 1.89 ------ 9.38 ------ 69.3

* The moisture content of wood burned was assumed to be 35%. Thus, dry burning rates were 65% of wet rates.

** The wood stove emission factor was determined by assuming that the wood stove population in Eagle River is 

comprised of equal proportions of conventional, catalyst, and non-catalyst stoves. The emission factor above was 

calculated as the weighted average of the AP-42 emission factors for each stove type. AP-42, 5th Edition (Oct 1996)

PM10 emissions from residential wood burning can be estimated from the emission factor computed 

above and the estimated number of households. Table 8 shows estimated PM10 emissions from 

residential wood burning for base year 2007 and for year 2020. Wood burning rates per household 

were assumed to be the same in 2007 and 2020.

Table 8 

Estimated PM10

Year

Emissions from Residential Wood Burning in Eagle River Maintenance Area

2007 and 2020

Housing Stock in 

Inventory Area

AP-42 PM10 Estimated

PM

Wood Burning 

Emission Factor for 

Eagle River

(g/household/day)

10

(tons/day)

Emissions from 

Fireplaces and Woodstoves

2007 4,548 64.5 0.32

2020 5,015 64.5 0.36

 

Research (IMR) asked approximately 600 Anchorage residents whether they had used their fireplace or woodstove 

during the preceding day. The survey was conducted when the preceding day had a minimum temperature between 

5 and 15 oF. Although the IMR survey did not provide as detailed information as the ASK survey, its results were 

roughly consistent with the assumptions used in this inventory.

145
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

11 

(4) Natural Gas Combustion

Natural gas is the main fuel source for space heating in the Municipality of Anchorage, including 

Eagle River. Survey information suggests that the vast majority of households use natural gas as 

their primary source of heat. Average household natural gas consumption during a peak heating 

day in the winter in the Anchorage area has been estimated to be 658 ft3

/day.10 We, however, 

were interested in estimating natural gas consumption (and consequent PM10 emissions) during 

spring break-up and fall freeze-up when temperatures are warmer. Estimates of peak household 

natural gas consumption were estimated for a day when the average ambient temperature was 

approximately -10 oF while the typical average daily temperature during the spring and fall PM10

seasons is approximately +30 oF. Natural gas consumption for a +30 oF day can be estimated 

from consumption on a -10 oF day by assuming that consumption is proportional to heating 

degrees.11

Peak-day natural gas consumption per household = 658 ft

 The computation is as follows. 

3

Ambient temperature on day of peak natural gas consumption = -10 oF, heating degrees = 75

/day

Ambient temperature on typical fall or spring day in PM10

Assume natural gas consumption is proportional to heating degree days, then 

season = +30 oF, heating degrees = 35

Natural gas consumption during fall or spring PM10 day = 658 ft3/day x (35/75) = 307 ft3

The Eagle River maintenance area is predominantly residential. While there are some 

commercial natural gas users, there is little if any industrial or utility usage. Because “nonresidential use” is relatively small within the maintenance area, it seemed reasonable to assume 

that combined commercial and industrial use would be no more than 50% of residential. Thus, 

for the purpose of this inventory, total natural gas use was assumed to be 150% of estimated 

residential use. 

/day

The emission factor for “total” particulate matter (see AP-42 Section 1.4, July 1998) is estimated 

to be 7.6 lbs per 106 ft3 of natural gas consumed. PM10 emissions from natural gas combustion 

in the Eagle River maintenance area can be readily computed from the amount of gas consumed 

and this emission factor. Table 9 shows the results of this computation. 

 

10 For details see “Anchorage 2007 CO Emission Inventory and 2007-2023 Projections,” Municipality of 

Anchorage, January 2008. 

11 Heating degrees are computed as the difference between 65 oF and the average ambient temperature. For 

example, if the average temperature is 30 oF, heating degrees = 65 -30 = 35.

146
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

12 

Table 9 

Estimation of PM10 Emissions from Natural Gas Combustion in Eagle River Maintenance Area

Natural Gas 

Consumption 

per 

Household

(ft3

Housing 

) Stock

Total 

Residential 

Natural Gas 

Consumption

(ft3

Estimated 

Commercial 

and 

Industrial 

Natural Gas 

Consumption

) (ft3

Combined 

Residential, 

Commercial 

and 

Industrial 

Natural Gas 

Consumption

) (ft3

AP-42 

PM

) 

Emission 

Factor

10 

(lbs per 

106 ft3

Estimated 

PM

)

10

(tons/day)

Emissions

2007 307 4,548 1.39 x 10 0.7 x 10 6 2.08 x 10 6 7.6 6 0.008

2020 307 5,015 1.54 x 10 0.7 x 10 6 2.31 x 10 6 7.6 6 0.009

(5) Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear Emissions from Motor Vehicles

In addition to the PM10 that vehicles stir-up as they travel along dirty roadways, motor vehicles 

are also responsible for some “direct” PM10

MOBILE6.2 was used to estimate the PM

 emissions. These include tail pipe exhaust 

emissions, and the emissions that result from tire and break wear. These emissions can be 

estimated by using the EPA mobile source emission factor model called MOBILE6.2. 

MOBILE6.2 allows the vehicle fleet characteristics of a particular area such as the proportion of 

diesels in the fleet, age distribution of the fleet and the stringency of the vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program to taken into account when estimating emissions. Fuel characteristics 

such as gasoline and diesel fuel sulfur content are also accounted for in the modeling process. 

10 emission factors for exhaust, tire and brake wear 

emissions for the Anchorage fleet in base year 2007 and in 2020, the end of the maintenance 

planning period. The model produces emission factor estimates in grams per VMT. Thus, if 

VMT is known, emissions can be readily computed as the product of the emission factor and 

VMT estimate. Table 10 shows the results of the MOBLE6.2 emission factor modeling and 

consequent estimates of PM10 emissions. As can be seen in the Table, exhaust, tire and break 

wear emissions are small. For example, road dust emissions are more than 100 times greater 

than the combined contribution of exhaust, tire and brake wear emissions.

Table 10

Estimated PM10

in Eagle River Maintenance Area - 2007 and 2020

Emissions from Motor Vehicle Exhaust, Tire Wear and Brake Wear 

2007 2020

MOBILE6.2

Emission 

Factor

(g/mi) VMT

PM10 

Emissions

(tons/day)

MOBILE6.2

Emission 

Factor

(g/mi) VMT

PM10 

Tail Pipe 

Exhaust

Emissions

(tons/day)

0.0046 165,934 0.0008 0.0037 226,221 0.0009

Brake Wear 0.0125 165,934 0.0023 0.0125 226,221 0.0031

Tire Wear 0.0085 165,934 0.0016 0.0085 226,221 0.0021

TOTAL 

COMBINED 0.0047 0.0061

147
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

13 

Eagle River PM10 Emissions Inventory Summary

The Eagle River PM10 emissions inventories for 2007 and 2020 are summarized in Table 11. 

Separate inventories are provided for the two peak PM10

As can be seen in the Table, the most significant sources of PM

periods, fall freeze-up and spring breakup. 

10 in the Eagle River maintenance 

area are paved roads, wind-blown dust, and fireplaces and wood stoves. 

Table 11

Eagle River Limited Maintenance Area PM10

All Emissions in tons/day with % of Total

Emissions Inventory

Spring Break-up

(March, April)

Fall Freeze-up

(October, November)

Source Category 2007 2020 2007 2020

Paved Roads

2.88 

(50.6%)

3.97

(57.8%)

0.83

(44.4%)

1.13

(50.8%)

Wind blown Dust from Paved Roads, Parking 

Lots and Un-Vegetated Areas 

2.47

(43.5%)

2.53

(36.8%)

0.70

(37.6%)

0.72

(32.5%)

Fireplaces and Wood Stoves 

0.32

(5.7%)

0.36

(5.2%)

0.32

(17.3%)

0.36

(16.1%)

Natural Gas Combustion

0.008

(0.1%)

0.009

(0.1%)

0.008

(0.4%)

0.009

(0.4%)

Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear Emissions 

from Motor Vehicles

0.005

(0.1%)

0.006

(0.1%)

0.005

(0.3%)

0.006

(0.3%)

TOTAL

5.69

(100%)

6.87

(100%)

1.87

(100%)

2.22

(100%)

148
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. III: Appendix III.D.2.11

“Natural Events Action Plan for Windblown Dust Events 

in Anchorage, Alaska” 

Adopted 

August 20th, 2010

149
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

Natural Events Action Plan for 

Windblown Dust Events in Anchorage, 

Alaska

Municipality of Anchorage

Department of Health and Human Services

Environmental Services Division

Environmental Quality Section

September 2002

150
Adopted August 20th, 2010 

Natural Events Action Plan for Windblown Dust Events in 

Anchorage, Alaska

Introduction 

On March 18, 2001 the 24-hour average PM-10 concentration measured at the 

Muldoon monitoring station in east Anchorage was 180 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic 

meter), exceeding the national ambient air quality standard of 150 μg/m3 . These 

elevated levels of PM-10 were attributed to blowing dust generated by high winds. 

Sustained winds of 30 to 35 miles per hour, and peak gusts of up to 60 miles per 

hour were recorded at National Weather Service monitoring stations in Anchorage. 

The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) has requested the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) exclude the data from this event because the high PM-10 

concentrations measured have been attributed to an uncontrollable natural event as 

defined in the EPA Natural Events Policy1

The Natural Events Policy allows EPA to exercise its discretion under Section 

107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act not to designate area as nonattainment if the State 

develops and implements a plan to respond to the health impacts of natural events. 

The Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is 

submitting this Natural Events Action Plan to the EPA through the Alaska Department 

of Environmental Conservation in conformance with this policy.

. 

Required Elements of a Natural Events Action Plan 

In addition to documenting the validity of an exceedance as a natural event, the EPA 

natural events policy requires a natural events plan include commitments to:

1. Establish public notification and education programs. 

2. Minimize public exposure to high concentrations of PM-10 due to future natural 

events. 

3. Abate or minimize appropriate contributing controllable sources of PM-10. 

4. Identify, study and implement practical mitigating measures as necessary. 

5. Periodically reevaluate: (a) the conditions causing violations of a PM-10 NAAQS 

in the area, (b) the status of implementation of the NEAP, and (c) the adequacy of 

the actions being implemented. 

This plan will document the validity of the March 18, 2001 exceedance as a natural 

event and address the five required elements listed above. 

Documentation of March 18, 2001 Exceedance as a Natural Event

The 24-hour average PM-10 concentration measured on March 18, 2001 at the 

Muldoon station (AIRS Code 02-020-043) in east Anchorage was 180 μg/m3

, 

exceeding the national ambient air quality standard for PM-10. The Tudor monitoring 

station was also in operation on that day. It recorded elevated PM-10 concentrations 

151
Adopted August 20th, 2010

but did not exceed the NAAQS.i

Figure 1. Location of Muldoon and Tudor PM-10 Monitoring Stations

 The locations of the Muldoon and Tudor sites are 

shown in Figure 1.

 

i

The 24-hour PM-10 concentration measured at the Tudor Road site (AIRS 02-020-0044) on March 18, 2001 

was 150 μg/m3

. The EPA considers a value of 155 μg/m3 or higher an exceedance.

152
Adopted August 20th, 2010

Local Climatological Data from Point Campbell in West Anchorage indicate that 

strong, northerly winds began late on March 17 and persisted through March 18 and 

most of the day of March 19. The 24-hour average windspeed recorded at Point 

Campbell was 16 mph (miles per hour) with a peak gust of 33 mph. Weather 

observations also note blowing dust on March 18 and 19. Data from other stations to 

the east of Point Campbell suggest that winds were stronger on the eastside of town. 

In a report prepared specifically for this event, the National Weather Service noted 

sustained winds ranging from 30 to 35 mph and peak gusts ranging from 40 to 60 

mph. The winds recorded on March 18, 2001 meet the definition of a high wind 

event as defined in EPA’s July 1986 exceptional events guidance.2

Hourly beta attenuation monitor data available from the Tudor site indicate that 

elevated PM-10 was directly associated with this wind event. Figure 2 shows that the 

PM-10 concentration increased dramatically at approximately 11 AM, March 18 and 

remained elevated into March 19. Although BAM data are not available from the 

Muldoon site, the pattern there is assumed to have been similar. 

 This guidance 

defines a wind-caused exceptional event as one with “an hourly wind speed of 

greater than or equal to 30 mph or gusts equal to or greater than 40 mph...” 

Figure 2. Hourly PM-10 Concentrations at the Tudor Station March 17, 18, and 19, 

2001

153
Adopted August 20th, 2010

It should also be noted that the exceedance measured on March 18, 2001 was the first ever 

recorded in seven years of monitoring at the Muldoon station. The highest value previously 

measured at the Muldoon site was 125 μg/m3

. This value was measured on March 17, 1997 

and it was also associated with high winds. 

Additional documentation supporting the March 18, 2001 exceedance as a natural 

event is included in Appendix A. 

Public Notification and Education Program

The Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC 15.30.060) and the Alaska State 

Implementation Plan require that the director of the DHHS declare an air pollution 

episode when 24-hour average PM-10 concentrations reach or are predicted to reach 

150 μg/m3

. The director is also required to publish an air pollution episode plan that 

describes the curtailment actions, communication and public notification procedures 

employed during episodes. A copy of stadnard operating procedures employed by 

DHHS along with the episode plan, published in 1993, is included in Appendix B. 

These procedures will continue to be followed when air pollution episodes occur. No 

distinction is made between natural events and “man-caused” episodes. 

The public notification procedures outlined in the episode plan were followed during 

the windblown dust event of March 18, 2001. Even though this event occurred on a 

Sunday, when municipal personnel were not at work, an air quality advisory was 

declared and local media were notified. The advisory was declared at approximately 

2 PM in the afternoon after staff reviewed BAM data and determined that an 

exceedance of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS was possible if windy conditions 

persisted.ii

DHHS immediately reported the advisory to local television and print media and 

updated the telephone message line to report the air quality index and information 

regarding the health advisory.

At the time the advisory was declared, the most recent 24-hour average 

PM-10 concentration had not yet exceeded the NAAQS. In accordance with existing 

standard procedure, staff consulted with the DHHS medical officer prior to issuing the 

advisory. 

iii

 The Sunday evening newscast and Monday morning 

newspaper contained information regarding the air quality advisory. A copy of the 

newspaper article from the March 19, 2001 Anchorage Daily News is included in 

Appendix C.

 

ii In addition to conducting PM-10 sampling with reference method samplers, the DHHS operates two Graseby-Anderson beta attenuation monitors (BAMs) to collect hourly 

PM-10 information. These are operated in order to obtain timely information on PM-10 concentrations not available from reference method samplers. DHHS utilizes the 

information from the BAMs to report timely air quality index information to the public and to assess whether a health advisory should be declared during a PM-10 episode. 

The usefulness of the BAMs has been proven in past experience with volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and other wind blown dust events.

iii DHHS maintains a telephone message line to report the air quality index and other pertinent air quality information. The

 telephone number for the air quality index (AQI) 

report is advertised in the municipal section of the local Anchorage phone directory under “frequently called numbers.” Information is updated at least once daily on normal 

workdays and, if conditions warrant, it is updated on weekends and holidays. The phone line is utilized by the general public and the news media for updates on air quality. 

It has been in use for over 15 years and is routinely used to issue air quality health advisories.

154
Adopted August 20th, 2010

Minimizing Public Exposure to Elevated PM-10 Concentrations during 

Natural Events

The EPA natural events policy states that a natural events action plan should 

(a) identify the people most at risk, (b) notify the at-risk population that a natural 

event is imminent or currently taking place, (c) suggest actions to be taken by the 

public to minimize their exposure to high concentrations of PM-10, and (d) suggest 

precautions to take if exposure cannot be avoided. 

Local epidemiological studies have been conducted by the DHHS in collaboration 

with other researchers that help identify the people most at risk from PM-10 

exposure.3,4 This research suggests that elevated PM-10 concentrations are 

associated with an increased incidence of bronchitis, upper respiratory illness, and in 

one study, asthma. This is generally consistent with information contained in the 

EPA criteria document for particulate matter.5

 It is also consistent with the Air Quality 

Index guideline for reporting air quality that identifies people with respiratory disease 

among those at most risk.6

Health advisories issued by DHHS in response to PM-10 events advise those with 

respiratory diseases such as asthma and emphysema to avoid areas where PM-10 

levels are likely to be the highest. Those with severe lung disease are advised to 

remain indoors if possible.

 

In some events, DHHS is able to identify the particular areas that are likely to have 

the highest PM-10 levels. Monitoring data have shown that areas near major 

roadways often have the highest PM-10 concentrations during most PM-10 episodes. 

If information regarding the areas likely to have the highest concentrations is 

available, it is contained in the health advisory. 

A sample health advisory is included in Appendix D. As stated earlier, the DHHS 

medical officer is consulted prior to the issuance of a health advisory. The specific 

language included in the advisory is dependent on the nature of the event.

Abatement or Minimization of Contributing Controllable 

Sources of PM-10

In order for an exceedance to be flagged as a high wind-caused natural event, the 

EPA natural events policy requires that (1) the dust originated from nonanthropogenic 

sources, or (2) the dust originated from anthropogenic sources controlled with best 

available control measures (BACM). Based on observations made during this event 

and other similar high wind events in Anchorage, some portion of the PM-10 is 

assumed to be anthropogenic or “man-caused.” 

PM-10 concentrations in Anchorage typically peak in the late March and early April.7

 

Relatively warm daytime temperatures melt ice and snow from roadsides and gutters. 

As melting occurs, large amounts of dirt and silt from five or six months of winter road 

sanding and roadway abrasion become exposed along roadway margins. This 

material, previously locked under ice and snow now becomes available for reentrainment into the air by passing vehicle traffic or by high winds. This process is 

illustrated in the two photographs below, taken six days apart on March 16th and 

March 22nd of 2000.

155
Adopted August 20th, 2010

Figure 3(a). Minnesota Drive, March 16, 2000. Ice covers most of roadway margin.

Figure 3(b). Minnesota Drive, March 22, 2000. Receding ice reveals accumulated 

silt along roadway margin.

156
Adopted August 20th, 2010

The photographs show conditions typical for the late winter. (These photos were 

taken about the same time of the year as the Muldoon PM-10 exceedance but oneyear earlier.) Unless there has been a recent snowfall, the majority of the road 

surface is bare pavement with margins covered in ice. While the traveled portion of 

the road is relatively clean, large quantities of sand and silt can be found along 

roadway margins. This material becomes available for re-entrainment as the ice 

recedes and the exposed silt and dirt dry out.

A number of source apportionment studies have been conducted in Anchorage in an 

effort to distinguish natural sources like windblown glacial silt and volcanic ash from 

anthropogenic sources like applied winter traction sand and roadway aggregate.8, 9,10 

Because the natural and anthropogenic sources of PM-10 are chemically and 

morphologically similar, these studies have not been very successful in quantifying 

their relative contribution in past exceedances. For this reason, filter analysis was 

not performed for the March 18, 2001 event. Nevertheless, given the amount of road 

silt available for re-entrainment prior to the exceedance, it seems likely that this 

anthropogenic source was contributory to the exceedance.iv

 

iv Other potential anthropogenic sources like wind blown dust from unvegetated vacant lots and gravel 

pits were excluded as significant contributors because they were covered in snow during the 

exceedance. According to observations at the NWS Station at Point Campbell, two inches of snow 

were on the ground during the exceedance. 

 As such, the natural 

events policy states that this source must be controlled by BACM. The EPA has not 

defined BACM for this source, however. In this case, because BACM is undefined, 

the natural events policy requires that “practical mitigating measures” be identified, 

studied and implemented. The next section of this plan discusses the identification, 

157
Adopted August 20th, 2010

study and implementation of measures designed to control PM-10 emissions from 

accumulated silt along major roadways in Anchorage.

Identification, Study and Implementation of Practical 

Mitigating Measures 

The time sequence of the two photographs in Figure 3(a) and (b) illustrates the 

difficulty Anchorage faces in developing effective and economical strategies to 

control PM-10 during the late-winter and early spring “break-up” period. These two 

figures show that large amounts of roadway silt, previously covered by ice and snow, 

can be made available for re-entrainment into the air as PM-10 in a matter of a few 

days through daily melting. Under high winds and/or very dry, low humidity 

conditions, re-entrainment of this material can result in exceedances of the PM-10 

standard. The challenge is to develop strategies that can remove or stabilize this 

material promptly after it is exposed so that it cannot be re-entrained.

As noted in the previous section, Anchorage experiences its highest PM-10 

concentrations during this three or four-week break-up period, typically occurring in 

late-March and early-April. Although high winds sometimes contribute to the 

elevated PM-10 concentrations during this break-up period, high PM-10 is more 

commonly associated with calm and dry conditions when fast moving vehicular traffic 

along major roadways stirs up accumulated silt on roadway margins.

In late 1995 the Municipality of Anchorage, the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation and Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) 

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to cooperatively address the 

PM-10 problem in Anchorage.11

1. Street sweeping;

 Prior to the MOU, Anchorage had experienced a 

number of exceedances of the PM-10 NAAQS. In the MOU the municipality agreed 

to evaluate potential PM-10 control measures. Over the past six years, DHHS has 

worked with municipal and state street maintenance and private consultants in an 

effort to identify and study appropriate control measures. Although this effort has 

focused on controlling PM-10 generated by vehicular traffic, study results are likely 

applicable in high wind events like that of March 18, 2002. Over the past six years, 

efforts have focused on the evaluation of three potential PM-10 control strategies.

These three strategies are:

2. Changes to winter sanding specifications and application methods;

3. Use of chemical deicing compounds as dust palliatives to reduce reentrainment of roadway silt material. 

A brief discussion of each of these strategies follows.

Street Sweeping

In the “lower-48,” street sweeping is probably the most commonly adopted control 

strategy for controlling PM-10 emissions from paved roads. Many communities adopt 

winter-long sweeping programs to prevent the accumulation of the roadway silt as a 

source of PM-10. 

158
Adopted August 20th, 2010

Because of its proximity to Cook Inlet, Anchorage experiences relatively mild winter 

temperatures, similar to many of the colder “snow belt” communities in the lower-48. 

However, despite similar or colder temperatures, these lower-48 communities, 

because of their lower latitude, receive ten to fifteen times more solar energy per day 

than Anchorage. 

Figure 4. Solar Insolation in Anchorage, Winnipeg and Denver in December

In lower-48 communities, because of the relatively higher intensity of the solar 

radiation received, wintertime sunny periods result in significant melting. During 

these melting periods, accumulated silt is washed off the roadway, reducing the 

overall silt loading. Moreover, the ice and snow along roadway shoulders and 

margins are largely eliminated, allowing the roadway to be completely swept. 

Mid-winter melt–off periods are rare in Anchorage. Sunny days result in little or no 

melting. Ice and snow remain on roadway shoulders and margins making effective 

sweeping difficult. Large amounts of traction sand and silt accumulate in the ice 

along the roadway margins throughout the winter until March, when solar intensity is 

sufficient to generate melting.v

Sub-freezing temperatures make sweeping in winter very difficult.

 When this occurs, large amounts of material are 

made available in a very short time for 

PM-10 generation.

vi

 

v In Anchorage, the amount of solar insolation increases by a factor of 20 between December and March.

 Most sweeping 

equipment requires pre-wetting of the road surface to minimize the amount of dust 

created during the sweeping operation. Moreover, water flushing of the road surface 

is necessary after sweeping to eliminate residual fines leftover from the sweep. 

Without flushing, sweeping may actually increase PM-10 emissions in the short term 

vi In March, the average daily maximum temperature is 33 °F; the minimum is 18 °F.

159
Adopted August 20th, 2010

because material located in roadway margins is redistributed to the traveled portion 

of the road.12

Despite obstacles to sweeping created by sub-arctic winter climate, sweeping is 

performed in the downtown Anchorage central business district (CBD). Winter 

sweeping in the CBD is viable because of the intensive use of roadway deicers that 

prevent the buildup of ice and snow in gutters that would otherwise prevent effective 

sweeping. Moreover, in order to perform sweeping in winter months, municipal road 

crews wet sweep using potassium acetate brine to prevent freezing. Extending this 

sweeping program to all roads in Anchorage would be cost prohibitive, however.

 Water flushing in sub-freezing temperatures is inadvisable.

In 1997 the ADOT&PF purchased an EnviroWhirl sweeper with baghouse 

technology that allows sweeping without the pre-wetting required with most other 

sweeping technologies. Although this sweeper has been successfully operated in 

the middle of winter, its effectiveness as a PM-10 control strategy in Anchorage is 

limited because most of the accumulated silt on the road cannot be removed by 

sweeping because it is locked within a thick layer of ice along the roadway margins. 

The ADOT&PF recently decommissioned the EnviroWhirl because they found it to be 

inefficient and resulted in high operating costs.

Despite the practical limitations alluded to above, the Municipality of Anchorage and 

the ADOT&PF have begun work on an agreement that would expedite street 

sweeping on major roadways in the early spring. Early sweeping of major roadways 

could be effective means of reducing the severity of PM-10 episodes during the peak 

of the spring break-up in April. If some sweeping of major roadways can be 

accomplished in February and March through the use of deicing compounds, it may 

also be possible to reduce the magnitude of PM-10 episodes resulting from latewinter windstorms like the one that occurred on March 18, 2000.

 

Changes to Winter Sanding Specifications and Application Methods 

In response to commitments in the MOU with the EPA, the Municipality of Anchorage

and the ADOT&PF made significant changes to winter sanding specifications and 

application methods. The amount of fines or silt (amount passing 200 sieve) allowed 

in traction sand dropped from about 5% to 1% or less. Municipal and state street 

maintenance departments also made changes to reduce the amount of sand applied 

during the winter. Work crews apply traction sand together with a magnesium 

chloride brine to help the traction sand melt into the ice or snow pack and reduce its 

tendency to be thrown off the road by passing traffic. This reduces the need for 

reapplication and presumably reduces the amount of material accumulated along 

roadway margins. Supervisors have also discouraged the excessive use of sand by 

work crews. PM-10 concentrations dropped significantly after these changes were 

implemented. Whether this was the effect of the sanding specifications or other 

factors cannot be definitively determined. Nevertheless, the municipality and 

ADOT&PF are committed to retaining the new, cleaner sanding specifications and 

will continue with the judicious application of sand.

As stated earlier, in the downtown or CBD, the municipality is using potassium 

acetate deicers in lieu of traction sand throughout the winter. In 1998, DHHS worked 

160
Adopted August 20th, 2010

with the ADOT&PF to evaluate whether a similar deicing program on state roads 

would provide a 

PM-10 reduction benefit. The hope was that by applying deicing compounds instead 

of sand, spring break-up silt loadings and hence PM-10, would be reduced. 

However, when ambient PM-10 concentrations near roads where deicing compounds 

were used were compared to roads where traction sand was applied, no differences 

were observed. 13

The testing of magnesium chloride was continued to see whether its use instead of 

traction sand would decrease the accumulation of roadway silt. Curiously, the study 

indicated that there was no significant difference in silt loadings between roads that 

received deicing compounds versus roads where traction sand was applied. While 

the testing did not show a decrease in silt accumulation on deicer treated roads, 

laboratory evaluation suggested that the silt material left on the deicer treated road 

was less prone to re-entrainment, presumably due to the palliative effect of applying 

hygroscopic magnesium chloride on the accumulated silt. Dustiness tests showed 

that the material along the treated roads was 75% less dusty than the untreated 

roads.14

These studies suggest that the value of deicing compounds lies more in their dust 

palliative effect than in reducing the amount of traction sand applied to the road. The 

next section discusses the DHHS effort to evaluate the use of deicers as dust 

palliatives to control the emission of dust from accumulated silt on paved roadways.

Use of Chemical Deicing Compounds as Dust Palliatives to Reduce PM-10 

Emissions on Paved Roads

Over the past few years, DHHS has focused efforts on the use of deicing compounds 

like magnesium chloride and potassium acetate as dust palliatives during PM-10 

episodes. Local studies have suggested that it may be possible to chemically 

stabilize accumulated roadway silt by applying deicing compounds. Magnesium 

chloride and potassium acetate are both hygroscopic meaning they tend to bind with 

moisture. A local study conducted by DHHS in April 1999 suggested that a single 

application of magnesium chloride brine reduced ambient PM-10 concentrations near 

the roadway for approximately three days.15

DHHS is continuing its testing of dust palliatives. While initial test results look 

promising, a number of important questions remain unanswered. The effectiveness 

of dust palliatives in a high wind event is unknown. DHHS observations suggest that 

when dust palliatives are applied to dry silt along a paved roadway, the liquid brine 

penetration is superficial, perhaps just a few millimeters. Significant mechanical 

disturbance from a high wind may be sufficient to overwhelm the thin stabilized 

outside layer of the silt pile. Once the surface layer is eroded, the remainder of the 

material is untreated and prone to re-entrainment.

Investigation into the use of hygroscopic chemicals as dust suppressants is ongoing. 

A section of parking lot with accumulated traction sand has been cordoned off, 

divided into three sections, and the pavement cleaned between the sections. 

Magnesium chloride will be applied to one section, potassium acetate to another, and 

the third will be treated with water as a control. A leaf blower will be used to simulate 

a high wind/blowing dust event on the dried control section and observers will 

161
Adopted August 20th, 2010

compare the dust raised there to the sections where the deicing compounds have 

been applied. This testing has been hampered so far by rain this spring and is 

expected to be completed by November 10, 2002, when cold dry weather mimics 

spring conditions. The intent of the test is to determine whether the application of 

magnesium chloride or potassium acetate on accumulated silt in the gutters and 

roadway margins will suppress dust from that source until the streets are free of ice 

and can be effectively swept.

Other researchers have questioned the safety of applying deicing compounds to dry 

pavement. Under low humidity conditions, application can create a slippery condition 

that could compromise traffic safety.16

Periodic Reevaluation of the Natural Events Action Plan

 Indeed, in the April 1999 test of magnesium 

chloride, DHHS received reports of a “greasy” condition on the road. A motorcyclist 

was reported to have had a near miss when attempting a stop at a treated 

intersection. The slippery conditions may have arisen because of over-application of 

the magnesium chloride brine. The brine was reportedly applied at three times the 

recommended rate. It was also applied across the entire roadway rather than just the 

roadway margins where the silt had accumulated. Whether these potential problems

are real and/or can be overcome by special deicer application methods (e.g. applying 

deicers only to the roadway margins) is yet to be determined. Further investigation is 

required before the municipality can commit to the use of chemical palliatives as a 

PM-10 control measure on paved roads.

The EPA natural events policy requires periodic reevaluation of the conditions 

causing violations of the PM-10 NAAQS, the implementation status of the NEAP, and

the adequacy of the actions being implemented. Upon completion of the control 

measure evaluation discussed in the preceding section, DHHS in cooperation with 

ADEC, will update this plan to reflect the results of the evaluation. Subsequently, this 

plan will be reviewed every five years or as-required to reflect new information and 

new understanding regarding the nature of the PM-10 problem and the effectiveness 

of the strategies used for control. 

162
Adopted August 20th, 2010

References 

 

1 Memorandum from Mary Nicholls, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

regarding “Areas Affected by PM-10 Natural Events,” May 30, 1996

2 “Guideline on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data Affected by Exceptional 

Events,” EPA-450/4-86-007, July 1986

3 Gordian, Ozkaynak, Xue, Morris, Spengler, “Particulate Air Pollution and 

Respiratory Disease in Anchorage, Alaska,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 

104(3), 290 (March 1996)

4 Choudhury, Gordian, Morris, “Associations between Respiratory Illness and PM-10 

Air Pollution,” Archives of Environmental Health, 52 (2),113 (March/April 1997)

5 Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, EPA/600/P-95-001, April 1996

6 Guideline for Public Reporting of Daily Air Quality, EPA-454/R-99-009, July 1999 

7 “Air Quality in Anchorage – A Summary of Air Monitoring Data and Trends (1980 – 

1999),” Air Quality Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Municipality 

of Anchorage, May 2000

8 L.C. Pritchett, J.A. Cooper, Aerosol Characterization Study of Anchorage, Alaska, 

Final Report to the Municipality of Anchorage by NEA, Inc., Beaverton, OR, February 

7, 1985.

9 J.A. Cooper, L. Valdovinos, J. Sherman, Source Apportionment by Chemical Mass 

Balance Technique of PM10 in Eagle River and Juneau, Alaska, Final Report to the 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation by NEA, Inc. Beaverton, OR, May 

23, 1988

10 E.R. Crutcher, Source of Particles on PM10 Filters, Report #1062-94 to the 

Anchorage Air Pollution Control Agency by Microlab Northwest, Redmond, WA, 

October 17, 1994

11 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the Municipality of 

Anchorage, “A Cooperative Approach Toward Reducing PM-10 in Anchorage,” 

November 1995

12 “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,” Section 13.2.1, Paved Roads, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 1997

13 “Evaluation of Liquid Magnesium Chloride for Paved Roadway Control in 

Anchorage,” Air Quality Program, Department of Health and Human Services, 

Municipality of Anchorage, October 1999

14 “Evaluation of Magnesium Chloride Brine for Paved Roadway PM-10 Control in 

Anchorage, Final Report,” prepared by Midwest Research Institute for the 

Municipality of Anchorage, February 15, 2001

15 “Evaluation of Liquid Magnesium Chloride for Paved Roadway Control in 

Anchorage,” Air Quality Program, Department of Health and Human Services, 

Municipality of Anchorage, October 1999

163
Adopted August 20th, 2010

 16 “The Effect of Magnesium Chloride as an Anti-icing Agent on Tire/Road Friction 

Coefficient,” Timothy S. Leggett, Eric Brewer, March 24, 1999

164
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan 

Volume III: Appendices

“Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air Monitoring 

& Quality Assurance Program”

Adopted 

August 20th, 2010

165
1 

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

for the

STATE OF ALASKA

AIR MONITORING & QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM

February 23, 2010

State of Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation

410 Willoughby Ave. Suite 303

PO Box 111800

Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800

166
2 

167
3 

A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS

168
4 

169
5 

1. QA PROJECT PLAN IDENTIFICATION & APPROVAL 

Title: Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program

The attached Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program is hereby recommended for approval and commits the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation to follow the elements described within. 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Alice Edwards, Acting Director Phone: (907) 465-5109 

Division of Air Quality email: alice.edwards@alaska.gov

Signature: _______________________________ Date: ______________ 

Barbara Trost, Program Manager Phone: (907) 269-6249 

Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program email: barbara.trost@alaska.gov

Signature: _______________________________ Date: ______________ 

Daniel Fremgen, QA Officer Phone: (907) 465-5111 

Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program email: daniel.fremgen@alaska.gov

Signature: ______________________________ Date: ______________ 

Gina Grepo-Grove, R10 QA Manager Phone: (206) 553-1632 

USEPA Region 10 email: grepo-grove.gina@epamail.epa.gov

Signature: ______________________________ Date: ______________ 

Keith Rose, Air Monitoring Program Manager Phone: (206) 553-1949 

USEPA Region 10 email: rose.keith@epamail.epa.gov

Signature: ______________________________ Date: ______________ 

170
6 

171
7 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page Revision # Date

1. QA Project Plan Identification & Approval 5 Final 02/23/10 

2. Table of Contents 7 

List of Tables 8 

List of Figures 9 

Abbreviations, Terms and Definitions 10 

3. Distribution List 12 

4. Project/Task Organization 13 

5. Problem Definition and Background 21 

6. Project/Task Description 23 

7. Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data 28 

8. Training 35 

9. Documents and Records 38 

10. Sample Process and Design 40 

11. Sampling Methods 47 

12. Sampling Handling and Custody 55 

13. Analytical Methods 56 

14. Quality Control (QC) 63 

15. Procurement, Acceptance Testing and Maintenance 

Requirements for Instruments, Supplies and Consumables 67 

16. Instrument Calibration and Frequency 68 

17. Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables 75 

18. Data Acquisition Requirements 76 

19. Data Management 77 

20. Assessments and Corrective Action 86 

21. Reports to Management 95 

22. Data Review Validation and Verification Requirements 97 

23. Data Verification and Validation Methods 99 

24. Reconciliation with User Requirements 104 

172
8 

LIST OF TABLES

Section Page Revision # Date

A1 DISTRIBUTION LIST 12 Final 02/23/10 

A2 AIR M&QA RESPONSIBILITIES 15-20 

A3 ALASKA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 24 

A4 METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS 25 

A5 ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE 27 

A6 CRITICAL DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS 27 

A7 ALASKA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING MQO’S 31-32 

A8 ALASKA METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING MQO’S 33-34 

A9 SUGGESTED CORE AMBIENT AIR MONITORING 

 TRAINING COURSES 36 

A10 SUGGESTED TRAINING COURSES FOR 

 AIR MONITORING PERSONNEL 37 

A11 REPORTING PACKAGE INFORMATION 38 

B1 AIR QUALITY & METEOROLOGICAL SAMPLE 

 PROCESS & DESIGN DOCUMENTS 40-41 

B2 DESCRIPTION OF REPRESENTATIVE 

 MEASUREMENT SCALE 42 

B3 RELATIONSHIP AMONG MONITORING OBJECTIVES 

 AND SCALES OF REPRESENTATIVENESS 42 

B4 SPATIAL SCALES APPROPRIATE FOR NCORE LEVEL 2

 SLAMS, SPM MONITORING SITES 43 

B5 ALASKA NCORE LEVEL 2 and SLAMS/SPM 

 MONITORING NETWORK 46 

B6 TABLE B6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL PARAMETERS 

 FOR MONITORING SHELTERS 47-48 

B7 GUIDELINES FOR SAMPLE PROBE & MANIFOLD 

 PLACEMENT 49

B8 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE PROBE AND 

 MONITORING PATH SITING CRITERIA 50 

B9 MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN 

 SAMPLING PROBES AND ROADWAYS 51 

B10 LABORATORY QC CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF 

 PM2.5 & PM10 LOW-VOL FILTERS 59-60 

B11 LABORATORY QC CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF

 PM10 HI-VOL FILTERS 61-62 

C1 BIAS ASSESSMENTS 91-92 

C2 PRECISION ASSESSMENTS 93 

C3 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT 95 

173
9 

LIST OF FIGURES

Section Page Revision # Date

A1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE ADEC AIR 

 MONITORING & QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 14 FINAL 02/23/10

B1 MONITORING SITE SELECTION PROCESS 45 

B2 ACCEPTABLE AREAS FOR PM10 AND PM2.5 MICRO, MIDDLE,

 NEIBHBORHOOD & URBAN MONITORS EXCEPT FOR 

 MICROSCALE STREET CANYON SITES 52 

B3 QUALITY CONTROL & QUALITY ASSESSMENT’S 

 RELATIONSHIP WITHIN THE AMBIENT AIR & METEOROLOGICAL 

 MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 64 

B4 QUALITY CONTROL’S RELATIONSHIP TO ROUTINE 

 ACCEPTANCE OF DATA 65 

B5 HIERARCHY OF CALIBRATION STANDARD(S) 69 

B6 AM&QA DATA MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART

 NCORE/SLAMS/SPM 78 

B7 AM&QA DATA MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART – AMBIENT 

 AIR & METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING CONDUCTED 

 BY STATIONARY SOURCE FOR REGULATORY 

 PERMITTING NEEDS 79 

B8 DATA MANAGEMENT OF MANUAL METHODS 81 

B9 DATA MANAGEMENT OF CONTINUOUS METHODS 81 

D1 DATA VERIFICATION METHODS 100 

D2 DATA VALIDATION PROCESSS 102 

174
10

ABBREVIATIONS, TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

AAQP - Anchorage Air Quality Program- Air quality monitoring in Anchorage is the responsibility of 

the Air Quality Program. This program is part of the Environmental Services Division of the 

Department of Health and Human Services, Municipality of Anchorage. 

ADEC - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation - The department of state government with 

primary responsibility for management and oversight of provisions of the Clean Air Act, 

including EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Air Quality Index (AQI) - The AQI is an index for reporting daily air quality and what associated health 

concerns the public should be aware of. The AQI focuses on health effects that might happen 

within a few hours or days of breathing polluted air. The AQI rates the air quality in 6 steps 

from good to hazardous. 

AM&QA – Air Monitoring and Quality Assurance Program of ADEC - Responsible for coordinating all 

aspects (quality assurance, data collection, and data processing) with respect to ambient air 

quality and meteorological monitoring of the ADEC Division of Air Quality. 

BAM 1020 - Met-One Inc. Beta Attenuation Monitor model 1020 continuous monitoring sampler - This 

sampler can sample for course and fine particulate matter.

Criteria Pollutant - Any air pollutant for which the EPA has established a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Coarse particulate matter - PM10 - Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size.

Fine particulate matter - PM2.5 - Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns.

Performance Audit - An audit of one or more monitors within a monitoring network using certified 

calibration standards to evaluate monitor accuracy. Performance audits are conducted by an 

independent auditor using calibration standards provided by the auditor rather than those that 

are used for routine precision and accuracy checks. ADEC provides regular performance 

audits for each criteria pollutant monitored by the AAQP. 

NAMS - National Air Monitoring Station - The NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS network with 

emphasis on urban and multi-source areas. There are no current NAMS-designated monitors 

in the monitoring network. 

National Performance Audits - A type of audit in which quantitative data generated in a measurement 

system are obtained independently and compared with routinely obtained data to evaluate the 

proficiency of an analyst or laboratory or measurement system. EPA conducts these audits 

through the National Performance Audits Program for the purpose of establishing nationally 

comparable measurements. 

175
11

QAPP - Quality Assurance Project Plan- A plan which identifies data quality goals and identifies 

pollutant-specific data quality assessment criteria.

QAMP - Quality Assurance Management Plan - A plan which describes the roles and responsibilities 

for maintaining a Quality System within a program or organization. 

SLAMS - State and Local Monitoring Station - The SLAMS consist of a network of roughly 4000 

monitoring station nationwide. Distribution depends largely on the needs of the State and 

local air pollution control agencies to meet their respective State Implementation plan (SIP) 

requirements. The SIPs provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 

NAAQS in each air quality control region with in a state. The State of Alaska monitoring 

network currently has 13 SLAMS sites for carbon monoxide and PM. 

SPMS - Special Purpose Monitoring Station - Special Purpose monitoring stations are not permanently 

established and can be adjusted to accommodate changing needs and priorities for special 

studies needed by the State and local agencies. The SPMS are used to supplement the fixed 

monitoring network as circumstances require.

System Audit- An evaluation of an entire monitoring program including guidance documents, policies 

and procedures, data and site records, and components of the monitoring network. 

TEOM – FDMS - Thermo Election Inc. Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance Filter Dynamic 

Measurement System continuous monitoring sampler - This sampler can sample for coarse or 

fine particulate matter.

μg/sm3

 - microgram per standard cubic meter.

176
12

3. DISTRIBUTION LIST

A hardcopy of this Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska PM2.5 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program 

has been distributed to the individuals listed in Table A1. The document is also available via the Department’s Division of 

Air Quality, Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program web page (http://www.state.ak.us/dec/air/am).

Table A1: Distribution List

NAME POSITION AGENCY DIVISION/BRANCH

CONTACT 

INFORMATION

Alice Edwards Acting Division 

Director ADEC-AQ Division Air Quality

907-269-5109

alice.edwards@alaska.gov

Barbara Trost Program Manager DEC-AM&QA Air Monitoring & Quality 

Assurance Program

907-269-6249

barbara.trost@alaska.gov

Robert Morgan Section Manager DEC-AM&QA Air Monitoring 

907-269-3070

bob.morgan@alaska.gov

Daniel Fremgen Air QA Officer DEC-AM&QA Quality Assurance

907-465-5111

daniel.fremgen@alaska.gov

Cynthia Heil Acting Program 

Manager DEC-ANPMS Air Non-Point Mobile Sources

907-269-7579

cindy.heil@alaska.gov

John Kuterbach Program Manager DEC-AP Air Permits

907-465-5103

john.kuterbach@alaska.gov

Steve Morris Program Manager MOA-DHHS Air Quality Programs

907-343-6976

morrisss@ci.anchorage.ak.us

Dr. James Conner Division Manager FNSB-DOT Air Quality Division

907-459-1325

jconner@co.fairbanks.ak.us

Chris Hall Air QA Lead EPA-Region 10 Office of Environmental 

Assessment

206-553-0521

hall.christopher@epamail.epa.gov

Keith Rose Project Officer EPA-Region 10 Office of Air, Waste & Toxics

206-553-1949

rose.keith@epamail.epa.gov

Gina Grepo-Grove QA Manager EPA-Region 10 Office of Environmental 

Assessment

206-553-1632

grepo-grove.gina@epamail.epa.gov

177
13

4. PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION

This document presents the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Ambient Air Monitoring and Quality Assurance

Program that has been implemented by the State of Alaska. The monitoring program is being administered by the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The major responsibility of the ADEC is the implementation of a 

satisfactory monitoring program which includes an appropriate quality assurance program. It is the responsibility of the 

ADEC to ensure that the quality assurance programs for the field, laboratory, and data processing phases of the monitoring 

program are implemented.

The ADEC is organized into five main divisions: Division of Administrative Services (DAS), Air Quality (AQ), 

Environmental Health (EH), Water Quality (WQ) and Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR). The Commissioner of the 

ADEC has the overall responsibility for managing these divisions according to stated ADEC policy. The Commissioner 

delegates the responsibility of QA development and implementation in accordance with ADEC policy to the Division 

Directors. The responsibility for assuring data quality rests with these Directors and the line management under them. 

The organizational structure of the ADEC Division of Air Quality for the implementation of the Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring Program is shown in Figure A1. Table A2 lists the specific responsibilities of each significant position within 

the ADEC Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program.

178
14

FNSB–DOT

Division Air Quality

SLAMS/SPM Projects

Management Direction

Data Reporting

QA Assessment/Reporting

Inter-Government Technical Assistance

Tribal Monitoring Data Reporting

Figure A1: Organizational Structure of the ADEC Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance 

Program

ADEC

Division of Air Quality

Director

ADEC

AM&QA

Program Manager

ADEC

AM&QA

Air Monitoring Manager

ADEC

AM&QA

Air QA Officer

Permit & Compliance 

Ambient Air & 

Meteorological Monitoring 

Projects

PSD Quality

ADEC

Air Permits

Program Manager

MOA-DHHS, Anchorage 

Air Pollution Control 

Authority

SLAMS/SPM Projects

Tribal Air Monitoring 

Projects

AM&QA 

SLAMS/SPM Projects

US EPA

AQS

179
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

15

Table A2: ADEC Division of Air Quality – Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Organizational Responsibilities

Agency Division Program Position 

Title

Responsibilities

ADEC Air 

Quality

Director The Division of Air contains the Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance (AM&QA) Program. The AM&QA Program is 

responsible for coordinating all aspects (quality assurance, data collection, and data processing) with respect to 

ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring of the ADEC Division of Air Quality. 

The Division Director has direct access to the Commissioner on all matters relating to the Division’s operation. The 

Division Director’s duties include:

• Maintains oversight of QA activities of AM&QA;

• Maintains overall responsibility for monitoring network design & review;

• Maintains overall responsibility for certifying and approving data submitted to AQS; and

• Reviews budgets, contracts, grants and proposals.

ADEC AM&QA Program 

Manager

The Air Monitoring Program Manager reports directly to the AQ Division Director and has the overall responsibility 

for the development and maintenance of the Quality Assurance activities for the AM&QA program. Responsibilities 

include:

• Directs the monitoring network design and review process;

• Ensures that reviews, assessments and audits are scheduled and completed at the appropriate times;

• Ensures that environmental data collection activities are covered by appropriate QA planning documentation;

• Directs and assists in the implementation of QAPPs, work plans, contracts, reports and resource allocation, and 

ensures that monitoring personnel follow the QAPPs;

• Ensures that a QAPP is in place for all environmental data collection activities and that it is up to date;

• Communicates with EPA Project Officers and EPA QA personnel on issues related to routine sampling and QA 

activities;

• Provides program costs necessary for EPA allocation activities;

• Purchasing equipment and issuance of contracts necessary for the implementation of monitoring programs;

• Ensures that all personnel involved in environmental data collection have access to any training or QA information 

needed to be knowledgeable in QA requirements, protocols and technology; and

• Recommends required management level corrective action.

180
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

16

Table A2: ADEC Division of Air Quality – Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Organizational Responsibilities

Agency Division Program Position 

Title

Responsibilities

ADEC AQ AM&QA Environmental 

Program 

Specialist – 

EPS IV 

(Meteorologist)

Under general direction s of the AM&QA program manager, the EPS IV (Meteorologist) position functions as the sole 

staff meteorologist for ADEC enabling management to fulfill its duty to advise the public of air quality threats due to 

natural or man-made pollution events that may have a broad scale geographical impact for Alaska’s health and 

environment. Responsibilities include:

• Routinely evaluate weather and air pollution conditions around the state and, as needed, forecast, transport of air 

pollution to project how, where and when pollution will be transported from one part of the state to another. 

Pollution events that may require forecasting and subsequent issue of health advisories include; broad scale forest 

fires, volcanic eruptions, prescribed burns of large tracks of land, high wind events generating high concentrations 

of wind-blown dust, and international incidents that transport pollution to Alaska from abroad;

• Works in partnerships with federal, state land management agencies, communities and tribal organizations to assess 

local, regional and multi-national scales of air pollution;

• Provides technical expertise to Air Permits Compliance staff in regard to when meteorological conditions are 

appropriate for issuance of open burn approvals; and

• Reviews/recommends/rejects approval (in coordination with the Air QA Officer) of PSD ambient air quality and 

meteorological monitoring project plans and data reports; 

ADEC AQ AM&QA Air QA 

Officer

(Chemist IV)

Regarding matters of quality assurance, the Air Quality Assurance Officer (Air QA Officer) reports directly to the Air 

Quality Division Director. All other directives and reporting responsibilities are managed by the Air Monitoring & 

Quality Assurance Program Manager. Responsibilities include:

• Conducts QA performance and systems audits of NCore/SLAMS/SPM monitoring networks in Alaska;

• Develops and/or recommends for approval procedures for establishing and assuring data quality, use and control of 

ambient air quality data;

• Recommends modifications to the Alaska Ambient Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and to 

Alaska’s Ambient Air Monitoring Quality Management Plan;

• Provides guidance and assists in the development of QAPPs;

• Recommends rejection/approval of ambient air and meteorological monitoring QAPPs;

• Provides training and certification to field and laboratory personnel;

• Recommends actions to be taken in response to unsatisfactory operation or maintenance of ambient monitors; and

• Assists air monitoring community in developing QA documentation and provides answers to technical questions. 

181
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

17

Table A2: ADEC Division of Air Quality – Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Organizational Responsibilities

Agency Division Program Position 

Title

Responsibilities

ADEC AQ AM&QA Air 

Monitoring 

Section 

Manager

(Environmen

tal Program 

Manager 1)

Under the general direction of the AM&QA program manger, the Air Monitoring Manager is responsible for the statewide development, management and supervision of the field monitoring and laboratory section of the Air Monitoring 

and Quality Assurance Program. The primary focus of this position is to determine compliance with the national

ambient air quality standards. To do this the manager and her/his staff:

• Develop air quality monitoring plans to assess community-wide air pollution levels on a pollutant/multi-pollutant 

basis;

• Evaluate regional air pollution (visibility, wild fire smoke impacts, regional haze);

• Oversee local air monitoring projects

• Conduct air quality studies to determine pollutant levels;

• Provide emergency monitoring of man-made and/or natural air quality impacts (e.g., wild fires, volcanic eruptions);

• Assist in development of air quality control plans and State Implementation Plan control strategies; and

• Manage budgetary, fiscal, accounting, procurement and personnel responsibilities necessary for successful 

implementation of the section.

ADEC AQ AM&QA Environmental 

Program 

Specialists

(EPS), 

Chemists, 

Electronics 

Technician

Under the supervision of the Air Monitoring Section Manager, these positions perform all of ADEC’s field monitoring 

and air laboratory operations. Specific duties include, but are not limited to:

• Collects, calculates and reviews of environmental data;

• Participates in training and certification activities;

• Verifies that required monitoring QA activities are performed and that measurement quality objectives are met as 

prescribed in the QAPP;

• Documents deviations from established procedures and methods;

• Reports all problems and corrective actions to the AM section manager and the Air QA officer;

• Assesses data quality and flagging suspect data;

• Prepares data reports for submission to the Air Quality System (AQS) database manager.

• Maintains QA records, flagging suspect data, and assessing and reporting data quality; and 

• Performs and documents maintenance of field and laboratory equipment.

182
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

18

Table A2: ADEC Division of Air Quality – Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Organizational Responsibilities

Agency Division Program Position 

Title

Responsibilities

ADEC AQ AM&QA AQS Data 

Base Manager

Under the supervision of the AM section manager, the AQS data base manager is responsible for:

• Coordinating the information management activities for NCore/SLAMS/SPM data entry;

• Verifying/reviewing data reliability prior to submission of AQS data to EPA; and

• Timely reporting and interpretation and ensuring timely delivery of all required NCore/SLAMS/SPM data to the 

AQS system.

MOA DHHS AAPCA Air Quality 

Programs 

Manager

Structure - The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) maintains the Anchorage Air Pollution Control Agency (AAPCA) 

which conducts ambient air monitoring within the boundaries of the MOA. This agency is within the Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

Responsibilities and Authority

• Monitor site preparation;

 – The State of Alaska has delegated responsibilities to MOA for air quality monitoring. 

A Memorandum of Understanding between authorities of both agencies formally delineates the responsibilities of each 

agency. It is the responsibility of AAPCA to conduct ambient air quality monitoring within the physical boundaries of 

the Municipality of Anchorage in accordance with the methods, procedures and criteria established within this 

document. Specifically, the AAPCA responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

• Instrument installation, operation, maintenance; corrective action(s);

• Data reduction, data validation and data reporting;

• Database management;

• Site de-installation;

• Instrument inventory control and repair; and 

• Contract management.

In addition, the AAPCA will assist the ADEC in site selection/network reviews and quality assurance oversight 

auditing for ambient monitoring activities performed in the MOA.

183
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

19

Table A2: ADEC Division of Air Quality – Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Organizational Responsibilities

Agency Division Program Position 

Title

Responsibilities

FNSB- DOT Air 

Quality

Division 

Manager

Structure - Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) maintains the Air Quality Division within the Department of 

Transportation. The ADEC has delegated responsibilities for air quality monitoring to the FNSB. A Memorandum of 

Understanding between authorities of both agencies has formally delineated the responsibilities of each agency.

Responsibilities and Authority – Responsibilities and Authority of the Air Quality Division are identical to those listed 

for the Municipality of Anchorage.

Tribal Air Monitoring Organizations Tribal Air Monitoring Support

• Development of project specific air monitoring QAPPs,

 – The ADEC Division of Air Quality provides monitoring assistance to Tribal Villages 

as funding allows in the same fashion as it does to other non-tribal communities in Alaska (e.g., Anchorage, Fairbanks, 

and Juneau). The Department provides direct monitoring assistance to villages receiving air monitoring funding 

through EPA Region 10 Air Tribal Programs. Technical assistance may include any of the following:

• Air monitoring equipment operations training, 

• Air monitoring station site selections, 

• Installation of monitoring sites,

• Instrument maintenance and repairs,

• Instrument calibrations and operations,

• Instrument performance and systems audits,

• Laboratory analysis of air monitoring samples,

• Equipment loans,

• Data analysis.

184
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

20

Table A2: ADEC Division of Air Quality – Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Organizational Responsibilities

Agency Division Program Position 

Title

Responsibilities

Independent Projects by Industry and Others Ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring is performed throughout the state by a variety of private and 

academic concerns. Monitoring projects directed by a Title I and/or Title V permit must meet the respective PSD 

quality criteria as set forth in the ADEC AM&QA QAPP and in the Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) EPA-450/4-87-007. Other monitoring projects beyond the direct review authority of 

the Department are not required to comply with the criteria set out in this document.

Prior to initiation of an independent monitoring project, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) must be submitted 

to the Department for review and approval. The QAPP must follow QAPP criteria as defined in, “Elements for 

Ambient Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1.1.” This document prescribes the required QAPP 

format and content for a Department approved QAPP and is available via the Department’s Division of Air Quality, 

Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program web page (http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am). The Department also 

prescribes the format, acceptance criteria and reporting frequencies for all data collected/reported in support of PSD 

quality ambient air and/or meteorological monitoring projects. These web-linked documents are:

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/Elements_Ambient_Air_Monitoring_QAPP_rev1-1.pdf

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/Ambient_Air_Monitoring_QAPP_cklst_9-04.pdf

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/PSD_Met_annual.pdf

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/PSD_Met_qrtly.pdf

EPA OAQPS Responsibilities and Authority

EPA

 – The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) is charged under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources. OAQPS sets 

standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health or welfare and, in cooperation with EPA’s Regional 

Offices and the States, enforces compliance with the standards through state implementation plans (SIPs) and 

regulations controlling emissions from stationary sources. The OAQPS evaluates the need to regulate potential air 

pollutants and develops national standards; works with the State, local agencies and Tribes to develop plans for 

meeting these standards; monitors national air quality trends and maintains a database of information on air pollution 

and controls; provides technical guidance and training on air pollution control strategies; and monitors compliance 

with air pollution standards. 

Region 10 Responsibilities and Authority – EPA Regional Offices have been developed to address environmental issues related to 

the states within their jurisdiction and to administer and oversee regulatory and congressionally mandated programs. 

The major QA responsibilities of EPA’s Region 10 Office are the coordination of quality assurance matters at the 

Regional level with state, local agencies and Tribes. This is accomplished by the designation of EPA Regional Project 

Officers who are responsible for the technical aspects of the program.

185
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

21

5. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND

5.1 Problem Statement and Background 

Between the years 1900 and 1970, the emission of six principal ambient air pollutants increased significantly. The 

principal pollutants, also called criteria pollutants, are: particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3) and lead (Pb). In 1970 the Clean Air Act (CAA) was signed into law. The 

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

provides the structure for pertinent organizations to protect air quality and for the monitoring for these criteria pollutants 

by State and local organizations.

Air quality samples are generally collected for one or more of the following purposes:

• To judge compliance with and/or progress made towards meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAAQS).

• To develop, modify or activate control strategies that prevent or alleviate air pollution episodes.

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

• To provide a database for research and evaluation of effects of air pollution.

With the end use of the air quality samples as a prime consideration, various networks can be designed to meet one of six 

basic monitoring objectives listed below:

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

• Determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density.

• Determine the impact of significant source or source categories on pollution levels. 

• Determine general background concentration levels.

• Determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas, and in support of secondary 

standards.

• Determine the welfare-related impacts in more rural and remote areas. 

5.2 Alaska’s Air Monitoring Network 

The State of Alaska’s monitoring network consists of three major categories of monitoring stations that measure the 

criteria pollutants. These types of stations are described below:

1. Secondary National Core (NCore Level 2) Multi-Pollutant Monitoring Station. Alaska will have one NCore 

Level 2 that will be sited to meet NCore Level 2 monitoring station criteria. The monitoring site is expected to 

be located in Fairbanks; however, a specific site has not been selected yet. The site will be selected, sited and 

installed after sufficient federal monies are allocated and made available to the AM&QA program.

186
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

22

2. The State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS, NCore Level 3) network consists of monitoring stations 

with size and distribution largely determined by the needs of State and local pollution control agencies to meet 

their respective SIP requirements.

3. The Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (SPMS) network provides for special studies needed by the State and 

local agencies to support their State Implementation Plan (SIPs) and other air program activities. The SPMS 

are not permanently established and can be adjusted easily to accommodate changing needs and priorities. The 

SPMS are used to supplement the fixed monitoring network as circumstances require and resources permit. If 

the data are used for SIP purposes, the data must meet all QA and methodology requirements for SLAMS 

monitoring. 

This Quality Assurance Plan focuses on the QA activities of the NCore Level 2, SLAMS and SPM network and the 

objectives of this network, which include any air monitor/s used for comparison to the NAAQS and AAAQS. Since 

there is more than one objective for this data, the quality of the data will be based on the highest priority objective, which 

is identified as the determination of violations of the NAAQS and AAAQS.

187
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

23

6. PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION

6.1 Description of Work to be performed

The Department is responsible for maintaining the quality of ambient air to protect the health and welfare of Alaskans. 

To facilitate the protection of public health and welfare from the effects of air pollution, the Department adopted the 

Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAAQS 18AAC50.010) which are equal to or more restrictive than the 

NAAQS. The AAAQS parameters and regulated concentrations are listed in Table A3. Table A4 lists meteorological 

parameters the Department may monitor in support of characterizing the air quality of selective monitoring networks.

188
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

24

TABLE A3--ALASKA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (18 AAC 50.010)

Parameter

1-hour 3-hour 8-hour 24-hour Quarterly Annual

(mg/m3) (ppm) (mg/m3) (ppm) (mg/m3) (ppm) (mg/m3) (ppm) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (ppm)

Ammonia 

(NH3) 

2.1 3.0

Carbon 

Monoxide 

(CO)

40 35 9.0 10

Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2) 

0.100 0.053

Ozone (O3) 

4th high 3-yr annual avg.

0.041 0.075

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2) 

1.300 0.497 0.365 0.139 0.080 0.031

(μg/m3) 3-year 98% (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

Lead (Pb) 0.15

PM10 150

PM2.5 35 15.0

189
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

25

TABLE A4--METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS

Wind Speed 

(WS)

Wind Direction 

(WD)

Ambient 

Temperature 

(T)

Temperature 

Difference 

(ΔT)

Solar 

Radiation 

(SR) 

Ambient 

Pressure 

(P)

Dew Point 

Temperature

Relative 

Humidity 

(RH) 

Precipitation

With the end use of the air quality samples as a prime consideration, various networks can be designed to meet one of the 

basic monitoring objectives listed below:

• Determine/document the highest concentrations to occur in the area covered by the network;

• Determine/document representative concentrations in areas of high population density;

• Determine/document the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant source or source categories;

• Determine/document general background concentration levels;

• Determine/document the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas, and in support of 

secondary standards;

• Determine/document the welfare-related impacts in more rural and remote areas;

• Document existing air quality and air quality trends at selected locations of interest;

• Evaluate compliance with the NAAQS, AAAQS and increment standards after the start up of new air pollution 

sources;

• In response to citizen complaints, investigate air quality degradation to determine the level of action required.

• Judge compliance with and/or progress made towards meeting the NAAQS and AAAQS;

• Maintain or improve the existing ambient air quality of Alaska;

• Develop, modify or activate control strategies that prevent or alleviate air pollution episodes;

• Observe pollution trends throughout the region, including non-urban areas; and

• Provide a data base for research and evaluation of effects.

When the Department or other entity determines that an air quality monitoring project is to occur, the responsible party 

will:

• Survey the impacted area to identify the pollutant source/s.

190
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

26

• Survey the impacted area to identify the aerial extent of the problem.

• Utilize appropriate dispersion modeling tools or other scientific or engineering principles to identify the zone/s 

of potential impact.

• Evaluate meteorological data to identify maximum impact zones.

• Survey potential maximum impact areas to identify appropriate monitoring site locations.

• Conduct air quality monitoring to reliably assess air quality conditions.

6.2 Field Activities and Measurements

Field activities and measurements include all field activities performed that support the collection of valid samples to 

assess air quality within Alaska’s ambient air quality network. This includes but is not limited to problem identification, 

site selection, site installation/deinstallation, equipment calibration, sample and data collection and shipping.

6.3 Laboratory Activities

The AM&QA program includes an air quality laboratory that supports field monitoring activities throughout Alaska. 

Laboratory activities include repair of equipment, calibration and certification of various air quality standards and 

gravimetric analysis of particulate matter (PM) sample filters.

Gravimetric analysis of PM10 and PM2.5 samples includes preparing the filters for the routine field operator, which 

includes the following: 

• Pre-Sampling Weighing

• Shipping/Receiving

• Post-Sampling Weighing

• Filter storage/archival.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for particulate sample filter analyses are described in the respective ADEC 

Laboratory PM SOP and are available on the internet at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm. 

191
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

27

6.4 Project Assessment Techniques

An assessment is an evaluation process used to measure the performance or effectiveness of a system and its elements. 

As used here, assessment is an all-inclusive term used to denote any of the following: audit, performance evaluation, 

management systems review, peer review, or inspection. Table A5 presents a schedule of these assessments. Section 18 

discusses the details of these assessments.

Table A5 Assessment Schedule

Assessment Type Assessment Agency Frequency

Technical Systems 

Audit

EPA Region 10/ADEC 1 every 3 years

Network Review EPA Region 10/ADEC Annual

Data Qualifiers/Flags 

Review

ADEC Annual

SOP Review ADEC Every 3 years

Performance 

Evaluations

EPA Region 10 5 valid audits/yr for primary QA orgs with ≤ 5

sites 

8 valid audits/yr for primary QA orgs with > 5 

sites

All samplers in 6 years

Performance Audits ADEC SLAMS/SPM each site monitor every 6 months

Data Quality 

Assessment

ADEC Annual

6.5 Project Records

Table A6 Critical Documents and Records

Categories Record/Document Types

Site Information Network description

Site characterization file

Site maps

Site pictures

Environmental Data Operations QA Project Plans

Standard operating procedures (SOPs)

Field and laboratory notebooks

Sample handling/custody records

Inspection/maintenance records

Raw Data Any original data (routine and QC data) including data entry forms

Data Reporting Air quality index report

Annual NCore/SLAMS/SPM air quality information

Data/summary reports

Data Management Data algorithms

Data management plans/flowcharts

Air monitoring data

Data management systems

Quality Assurance Network reviews

Control charts

Data quality assessments

QA reports

System audits

Response/Corrective action reports

Site audits

192
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

28

7. QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The ADEC will meet the QA/QC requirements outlined in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 or, where different, as described 

within this QAPP.

7.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)

DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the DQO Process that:

• Clarify the monitoring objectives.

• Define the appropriate type of data.

• Specify the tolerable levels of decision errors for the monitoring program.

By applying the DQO Process to the development of a quality system the Air Quality Program guards against 

committing resources to data collection efforts that do not support a defensible decision.

Data Quality Objectives are being developed by the EPA for a determination of whether or not a particular location 

meets the national ambient air quality standards. These data quality objectives are still in draft form. EPA decided that 

there should be a 5% (or less) chance of being wrong about whether a site meets or does not meet the standard. For 

example, if the true concentration is below the NAAQS but the measured value is above. This may be due to 

measurement bias, imprecision, or incomplete data. The other possibility is that the true concentration is above the 

NAAQS but the measurement is below. The general goal is to keep the rate of these decision errors (whether or not the 

standard has been met) to below 5%. In order to do this, EPA looked at all the data from the past few years in terms of 

bias and imprecision, and calculated that if each site keeps bias and precision under the pollutant specific values listed in 

Table 7, these overall goals of limiting the decision error rate will be met. The DQO subsequently were translated into 

the measurement quality objective (MQO) for each parameter (Table 7). This document does not describe how they 

have been translated into MQOs.

7.2 Clarify Monitoring Objectives

The monitoring objectives for implementing the Air Quality Program are to:

• Determine ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants.

• Determine compliance with the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants.

7.3 Define Appropriate Type of Data

In order to accomplish the monitoring objectives, the appropriate type of data needed is defined by the NAAQS. For 

criteria pollutants, compliance with the NAAQS is determined by specific measurement requirements. The measurement 

system is designed to produce criteria pollutant concentration data that are of the appropriate quantity and quality 

necessary to determine compliance with these standards. 

193
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

29

7.4 Specify Tolerable Levels of Decision Errors for the Monitoring Program

DQOs for criteria pollutant monitoring are based on data requirements of the decision maker(s). Regarding the quality of 

the measurement system, the objective is to control precision and bias in order to reduce the probability of decision 

errors.

7.5 Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) 

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 criteria. MQOs are designed to evaluate and control various phases (sampling, preparation, 

and analysis) of the measurement process to ensure that total measurement uncertainty is within the range prescribed by 

the DQOs. MQOs can be defined in terms of Precision, Bias, Representativeness, Detectability, Completeness and 

Comparability.

Bias – Bias is the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process that causes uncertainty in one direction. 

(e.g., results are either higher than or lower than they should be). It is estimated by evaluating the instrument measured 

result against a known standard used as the "true" value. It is expressed as a positive or negative percentage of the "true" 

value. In this program, the manual quality control (QC) checks with a known concentration done every two weeks for 

gaseous pollutants, or monthly for particulate pollutants, will be the major estimate of bias on an ongoing basis, and the 

performance audits will provide another estimate of bias. Performance audits of the monitoring equipment will be 

performed with personnel and equipment/standards completely independent from the standards used to calibrate the 

monitoring equipment and the personnel responsible for site operations. In this program, bias is estimated using the 

calculations found in Table C1. 

Precision - Precision is a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property usually 

under prescribed similar conditions, or how well side-by-side measurements of the same thing agree with each other. It 

is important that the measurements be as similar as possible, using the same equipment or equipment as similar as 

possible. Precision represents the random component of uncertainty. This random component is what changes randomly 

high or low, and which cannot be controlled with the equipment and the procedures used. Precision is estimated by 

various statistical techniques using the standard deviation or, if you only have two measurements, the percent difference. 

In this program, precision is estimated using the calculations found in Table C2.

Accuracy – Accuracy has been a term frequently used to represent closeness to truth and includes a combination of 

precision and bias uncertainty components. This term has been used throughout the CFR. In general, ADEC AM&QA

will follow the conventions of the NIST and, more recently, of EPA (ref. NIST Report 1297 and EPA G-9) and will not 

use the term accuracy, but will describe measurement uncertainties as precision, bias, and total uncertainty (total 

uncertainty is the combination of both precision and bias). In this program, total error is estimated using the calculations 

found in Tables C1 and C2. 

Representativeness - Representativeness is defined as a measure of the degree which data really represent some 

characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, a process condition, or an environmental 

condition. The representativeness of measurements made in this program is ensured by following EPA siting guidelines, 

and is fully explained in element 10. The goal is to measure the pollutant concentrations representative of what most 

people breathe in our many diverse population centers--microclimates throughout Alaska.

194
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

30

Detectability – Defined as the lowest value that a method procedure can reliably discern a measured response above 

background noise. In other words, detectability is the level below which the instrument cannot reliably discriminate from 

zero. Because there is always variation in any measurement process (precision uncertainty), the level of detectability 

depends on how much precision error is in the process. Detection limits for ADEC-M&QA air quality instruments are 

consistent with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 53. For Federal Reference Methods (FRM) and Federal Equivalent 

Methods (FEM), the detection limits are specified with the respective EPA FRM/FEM designation. 

Completeness - Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared 

to the amount that was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions. Data completeness requirements are 

included in the reference methods (40 CFR 50) and 40 CFR 58 Appendix A. 

Comparability – Comparability is a measure of confidence with which one set of data can be compared to another. 

Comparability is important so that data sets within one part of the country can be compared with another area or data 

from another year.

Various parts of 40 CFR have identified acceptance criteria for some of these attributes as well as U.S. EPA Quality 

Assurance Guidance Documents and additional DEC ambient air regulatory monitoring methods. These Ambient Air 

Quality parameter MQOs are listed in Table A7. Table A8 lists MQOs for meteorological parameters. More detailed 

descriptions of these MQO’s and how they will be used to control and assess measurement uncertainty are described in 

method specific data validation tables. Method specific data validation tables may be found in Appendix A. 

195
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

31

Table A7 Alaska Ambient Air Quality Monitoring MQOs

Parameter Comparability Completeness Bias Precision Representativeness

Equipment Reference/ 

Method

Hourly Daily Quarter Sampling

Frequency Siting

PM2.5 FRM EPA PM2.5 

FRM sampler, 

EPA QA 

Handbook Vo II 

method 2.12, 

ADEC PM2.5 

QAPP

24-hr ± 1hr SLAMS ≥ 75%

all sample days

PSD ≥ 80%

Flow audit

Design Flow: 

 ≤±5% Δ (16.7lpm),

Accuracy Flow:

 ≤±4% Δ 

CV≤ 10% for 

paired 

values≥3 ug/m3

1/3 day,

1/12 collocated 

15% of sites

EPA siting 

guidelines for 

PM10 and 

PM2.5

PM2.5and PM10 

Continuous 

Methods

R&P TEOM 

1400a, Met One 

BAM 1020, 

EPA PM10

continuous 

FEM

ADEC M&QA 

Met One 1020 

BAM SOP, EPA 

QA guidance 

criteria for 

continuous PM

≥75 % ≥ 75% 

aggregate 

hours/day

SLAMS ≥ 75% 

all sample days

PSD ≥ 80%

Flow audit

PM2.5 Design Flow: 

≤±5% Δ (16.7lpm)

PM10 Design Flow: 

≤±5% Δ (16.7lpm) PM10

PM10 & PM2.5 Accuracy 

Flow: ≤±4% Δ 

Continuous, 

hourly 

average, 

collocated 1/12 

with like 

continuous PM

PM2.5 

Aethalometer

Continuous 

Method

Magee 

Scientific 

Aethalometer

≥75 % ≥ 75% 

aggregate 

hours/day

SPM ≥ 75% all 

sample days

Flow audit

Design Flow: 

 ≤±7.5% Δ (5.0 lpm),

Accuracy Flow:

 ≤±10% Δ 

PM10 

FRM/FEM 

HiVol Method

EPA 

FRM/FEM 

sampler

EPA QA 

Handbook Vol II 

Method 2.11, 

ADEC method 

4.2

24-hr ± 1hr SLAMS≥ 75% 

all sample days

PSD ≥ 80%

Flow audit

Design Flow:

≤±10% Δ (1.13m3

/min)

Accuracy Flow:

≤±7% Δ 

CV≤ 10% 

for paired 

values≥15 ug/m3

1/3 day,

1/12 collocated 

15% of sites

PM10 –FRM 

Low Volume

Method

EPA 

FRM/FEM 

sampler

24-hr ± 1hr ≥ 75% all 

sample days

PSD ≥ 80%

Flow audit

Design Flow:

≤±10% Δ (16.7lpm),

Accuracy Flow:

≤±7% Δ 

CV≤ 10% 

for paired 

values≥15 ug/m3

1/3 day,

1/12 collocated 

15% of sites

EPA PM2.5 

Speciation 

Method

Met One 

SSASS

EPA PM2.5 

Speciation QAPP 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn

/amtic/files/ambient/p

m25/spec/finlqmp.pdf

24-hr ± 1hr SLAMS≥ 75% 

all sample days

Flow audit 

Design Flow:

≤±10% Δ (6.7lpm),

Accuracy Flow:

≤±10% Δ

1/3 day,

Lead on TSP EPA 

FRM/FEM 

sampler and 

analytical 

method

EPA QA 

Handbook Vol II 

method 2.8, 

ADEC method 

4.4

24-hr ± 1hr SLAMS≥ 75% 

all sample days

PSD ≥ 80%

Flow audit

1.1 m3

/min≥ Design

Flow≤1.7m3

/min

Accuracy Flow:

≤±10%Δ

CV≤ 10% 

for

paired values0.15≥ 

ug/m3

1/3 day,

1/12 collocated 

15% of sites 

EPA siting 

guidelines for 

Pb on 

TSP,ADEC 

method 4.4.1

CO EPA 

FRM/FEM

EPA QA 

Handbook Vol II 

method 2.6

ADEC method 

4.05

≥75 % SLAMS≥ 75% 

all hours

PSD ≥ 80%

Mean absolute Δ ≤± 15%,

Linear regression criteria:

Slope ≤± 15%,

Y intercept ≤±3% FS, and

.995 > r2 < 1.000

90% CL CV 

≤± 15%

Continuous EPA siting 

criteria for 

CO, ADEC 

CO method 

4.05.1

196
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

32

Table A7 Alaska Ambient Air Quality Monitoring MQOs

Parameter Comparability Completeness Bias Precision Representativeness

Equipment Reference/ 

Method

Hourly Daily Quarter Sampling

Frequency Siting

NH3 NO2 EPA 

FRM/FEM 

approved 

analyzer with 

NH3 converter

ADEC NH3

method (4.10)

≥75 % ≥75% all hours Mean absolute Δ ≤±15%

Linear regression criteria:

Slope ≤± 15%,

Y intercept ≤±3% FS, and

.995 > r2 < 1.000 

NO2 converter efficiency 

≥96 %

NH3 converter efficiency 

≥90%

90% CL CV 

≤± 15%

Continuous ADEC NH3

method 4.10.1

NO-NOx-NO2 EPA 

FRM/FEM

EPA QA 

Handbook Vol II 

method 2.3

ADEC method 

4.07

≥75 % SLAMS≥ 75% 

all hours

PSD ≥ 80%

Mean absolute Δ ≤± 15%,

Linear regression criteria:

Slope ≤± 15%, 

Y intercept ≤±3% FS, and

.995 > r2 < 1.000 

NO2 converter efficiency 

≥96 %

90% CL CV 

≤± 15%

Continuous EPA siting 

guidelines for 

NO2,, ADEC 

method 4.07.1

O3 EPA 

FRM/FEM

EPA QA 

Handbook Vol II 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov

/pubs/95201g.pdf

≥75 % SLAMS≥ 75% 

all hours

PSD ≥ 80%

Mean absolute Δ ≤± 10%,

Linear regression criteria:

Slope ≤± 10%,

Y intercept ≤±3% FS, and

.995 > r2 < 1.000

90% CL CV 

≤± 10%

Continuous EPA siting 

criteria for O3

SO2 EPA 

FRM/FEM

EPA QA 

Handbook Vol II 

method 2.9

ADEC method 

4.06

≥75 % SLAMS≥75% 

all hours

PSD ≥ 80%

Mean absolute Δ ≤± 15%,

Linear regression criteria:

Slope ≤± 15%,

Y intercept ≤±3% FS, and

.995 > r2 < 1.000 

90% CL CV 

≤± 15%

Continuous EPA siting 

guidelines for 

SO2 , ADEC 

method 4.06.1

197
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

33

Table A8 Alaska Meteorological Monitoring MQOs

Parameter Comparability Completeness Bias Representativeness

Method & 

Measurement 

Resolution

Equipment Reference/ 

Method

Hourly Daily Quarter Sampling

Frequency Siting

WS Cup or Sonic

Anemometer

0.25 m/s

WS Range 0.5m/s – 50 m/s

VWS Range -25.0 m/s – 25.0 m/s

WS Threshold ≤ 0.5 m/s

Accuracy.≤ (0.2m/s+5% obs)

Dist Const. ≤ 5m/s at 1.2kg/m3

Meets minimum 

specs per EPA454/R-99-005 

Section 5.1, 

Table 5.1 and 

appropriate for 

range of site 

environmental 

conditions

≥75 % NCore and 

SLAMS: 

≥ 80% all 

sample 

days

PSD: 

≥ 90% all 

sample days 

for 4 

consecutive 

quarters

± 0.2 m/s Continuous, 1 min sample 

interval, hourly avg

EPA454/R-99-

005 

Section 

3.1

EPA QA

Handbook 

Vol IV

Vertical 

WS

Cup or Sonic

Anemometer

0.1 m/s

± 0.2 m/s Continuous, 1 min sample 

interval, hourly avg

WD Vane or sonic 

anemometer

1.0 m/s

1 – 360o (540o) 

Threshold ≤ 0.5 m/s

Accuracy.≤ 3o from sensor mount

.≤ 5o absolute error

Delay Disrt. ≤ 5m/s at 1.2kg/m3 

Damping Ratio 0.4 at 1.2kg/m3 or Overshoot 

≤ 25% at 1.2kg/m3 

± 5o

includes ± 3o

from sensor 

mount

Continuous, 1 min sample 

interval, hourly avg

Vector Data

WS

WD

Sigma Theta (σθ)

Sigma W (σФ)

DAS Calculation

0.1 m/s

1.0 degree

1.0 degree

0.1 m/s

Range 0 – 50.0 m/s,

Range 0o – 360o 

Range 0o – 105o

Range 0 – 10 m/s

Vector Data

WS ± 0.2 m/s

WD ± 5o

σθ ± 5o

 

σФ ± 0.2 m/s

Continuous, 1 min sample 

interval, hourly avg

Ambient 

Temperature

Thermistor

0.1o

C 

Range -40o

C - +40oC 

Meas. Resolution ≤ 0.1o

C 

Accuracy ≤ ±0.5o

C 

± 0.5o C Continuous, 1 min sample 

interval, hourly avg

Vertical 

Temperature 

Difference

Thermistor

0.02o

C 

Motor aspirated

Range -3oC to +7oC 

Relative Accuracy ≤ 0.1o

C 

± 0.1o C 

Relative 

Accuracy

Continuous, 1 min sample 

interval, hourly avg

Temperature 

Radiation 

Shield

Motor 

aspirated

Range -100 to 1300W/m2

Flow Rate ≥ 3 m/s

Radiation error < 0.2o

C

Relative 

Humidity

Psychrometer/

Hygrometer 

0.5 %RH

Range 0 – 100% 

Accuracy ± 7%

± 7% RH Continuous, 1 min sample 

interval, hourly avg

Dew Point Psychrometer/

Hygrometer 

0.1o

C 

Range -30o to +30o

C 

Accuracy ± 1.5o

C 

± 1.5o

C Continuous, 1 min sample 

interval, hourly avg

Barometric 

Pressure

Aneroid 

Barometer

Range -600 to 100 Mb

Accuracy ± 3Mb

± 3 Mb (0.3 

kPa)

Continuous, 1 min interval

Hourly avg.

198
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

34

Table A8 Alaska Meteorological Monitoring MQOs

Parameter Comparability Completeness Bias Representativeness

Method & 

Measurement 

Resolution

Equipment Reference/ 

Method

Hourly Daily Quarter Sampling

Frequency Siting

0.5 Mb

Precipitation Tipping 

bucket 

0.2 mm/hr

Range 0 - 50 mm/hr

Accuracy ± 5% of input volume

≤± 10%Δ Continuous, 

5/min sample interval

Hourly avg

Solar 

Radiation

pyranometer

10 W/m2

Range 0 to 1300 W/m2

Accuracy ± 5% of mean observed 

interval

± 5% Δ of 

observed

Continuous, 

1 min sample interval,

Hourly avg

199
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

35

8. TRAINING

Air monitoring personnel will be recruited and screened to ensure they are experienced and qualified. Air monitoring 

personnel will meet the educational, work experience, responsibility, personal attributes, and training requirements for

their respective positions. Training will be available to employees supporting the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program, commensurate with their assigned duties and sufficient to contribute to the reporting of complete and high 

quality data. 

Primary responsibility for training will rest with the individual's supervisor. Records on personnel qualifications and 

training will be maintained in personnel files. Training may consist of courses, workshops, classroom lectures, 

teleconferences, and on-the-job-training. The following groups provide training: U.S. EPA’s Air Pollution Training 

Institute (http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/eog/course_topic.html), U.S. EPA Quality Assurance Division (QAD), U.S.EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) and Air &

Waste Management Association (AWMA). Table A9 suggests a list of training courses for all air monitoring personnel. 

Table A10 suggests a sequence of specific training courses for the respective air monitoring responsibility (e.g. field 

personnel, lab personnel, monitoring supervisor, QA officer, etc). 

200
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

36

Table A9 Suggested Core Ambient Air Monitoring Training Courses

Sequence Course Title Course

APTI Type

Self Source

Instruction

classroom web

1 Air Pollution Control Orientation Course 422 X X APTI

2 Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control, 452 X APTI

3 Mathematics Review for Air Pollution Control 100 X X APTI

4 Orientation to Quality Assurance Management QA1 EPA 

QAD

5 Introduction to Ambient Air Monitoring, PM2.5 Monitoring Update, 434 X APTI

6 General Quality Assurance Considerations for Ambient Air 

Monitoring

471 X X APTI

7 Basic Air Pollution Meteorology 409 X X APTI

8 Data Quality Objectives Workshop QA2 QAD

9 Chain of Custody Procedures for Samples and Data 443 X X APTI

10 Quality Assurance Project Plan QA3 QAD

11 Atmospheric Sampling 435 X APTI

12 Network Design for Monitoring PM2.5 & PM10 in Ambient Air 433 X X APTI

13 Analytical Methods for Air Quality Standards 464 X APTI

14 Beginning Environmental Statistical Techniques 473A X X APTI

15 Quality Assurance for Air Pollution measurement Systems 470 X APTI

16 Site Selection for Monitoring SO2 436 X X APTI

17 AQS Training (annual AQS conference) OAQP

S 

18 Data Quality Assessment QA4 QAD

19 Management Systems Review QA5 QAD

20 Introduction to Environmental Statistics, SI 473B X APTI

21 Quality Audits for Improved Performance QA6 AWM

A 

22 Statistics for Effective Decision Making STAT

1 

ASQC

201
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

37

Table A10 Suggested Training Courses for Air Monitoring Personnel

Course #

Air Monitoring Position

Field 

Personnel

Laboratory 

Personnel

QC 

Supervisor

Data 

Management

Monitoring 

Supervisor

QA 

Personnel

QA 

Management

422 x x x x x x 

452 x x x x x 

100 x x 

QA1 x x x 

434 x x x x x x x 

471 x x x x x x x 

409 x x x x x 

QA2 x x x 

443 x x x x x x 

QA3 x x x x 

435 x x x x x 

433 x x x 

464 x x x x 

473A x x x x x x x 

473B x x x

470 x x x x 

436 x x x x 

QA4 x x x 

QA5 x x x 

473B x x x x x x x 

QA6 x x 

AQS Conf. x 

STAT1 x x x x 

202
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

38

9. DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS 

ADEC’s Quality Management Plan for Ambient Air Monitoring describes document and records procedures for the 

Ambient Air Monitoring Program. This document may be found at 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/doc/aq_qmp_sep06.PDF. 

As indicated in 40 CFR Part 58, the Air Quality Program shall submit to the EPA Administrator, through the Region 10 

Office, an annual summary report of all the air quality monitoring data from monitoring stations designated as SLAMS. 

The report will be submitted by July 1 of each year for the data collected from January 1 to December 31 of the previous 

year. The AM&QA Program Manager will certify that the annual summary is accurate to the best of his/her knowledge. 

This certification will be based on the various assessments and reports performed by the organization. Documents and 

records required to support concentration data reported to EPA, which includes all data required to be collected as well 

as data deemed important by the ADEC are listed in Table A11. 

Table A11 Reporting Package Information

Categories Record/Document Types File Locations

Management and 

Organization 

State Implementation Plan 

Reporting agency information

Organizational structure 

Personnel qualifications and training 

Training Certification 

Quality management plan 

Document control plan 

EPA Directives 

Grant allocations 

Support Contract

ADEC-AM&QA Anchorage/Juneau

Site Information Network description 

Site characterization file

Site maps 

Site Pictures 

ADEC-AM&QA Anchorage/Juneau

Environmental Data Operations QA Project Plans

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

Field notebooks

Inspection/Maintenance records

Laboratory notebooks

Sample handling/custody records

ADEC-AM&QA 

Anch.&Juneau/FNSB/MOA

“ 

ADEC-AM&QA 

Anch.&Juneau/FNSB/MOA/ADEC 

AM&QA Laboratory (Juneau)

Raw Data Any original data (routine and QC data) including data 

entry forms

ADEC AM&QA Laboratory 

(Juneau)/Anch/FNSB/MOA

Data Reporting Air quality index report 

Annual SLAMS air quality information Data/summary 

reports 

Journal articles/papers/presentations

ADEC-AM&QA 

Anch.&Juneau/FNSB/MOA

ADEC-AM&QA Anchorage/Juneau

ADEC-AM&QA 

Anch.&Juneau/FNSB/MOA

Data Management Data algorithms 

Data management plans/flowcharts

Data Management Systems

ADEC AM&QA Laboratory (Juneau)

ADEC-AM&QA Anchorage

ADEC AM&QA Anch/Juneau Lab

Quality Assurance Network reviews 

Control charts 

Data quality assessments 

QA reports 

System audits 

Response/Corrective action reports 

Site Audits

ADEC-AM&QA Anchorage/Juneau

“ 

“ 

ADEC-AM&QA 

Anch.&Juneau/FNSB/MOA

“ 

“ 

203
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

39

B. MEASUREMENT AND DATAACQUISITION

204
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

40

10. SAMPLE PROCESS AND DESIGN

The purpose of this section is to describe the relevant components of the State of Alaska’s National Core Level 2 and 3 

(SLAMS), SPM monitoring network as well as monitoring conducted to support PSD quality monitoring objectives. 

The network design components comply with the regulations stipulated in 40 CFR Part 58 Section 58.13, Appendix A, 

and Appendix D. In addition, Table B1 lists criteria pollutant and other parameter specific siting guidance documents 

available from EPA’s AMTIC web site. These documents are listed as a resource to those parties considering air quality 

and meteorological monitoring projects as an aid in identifying areas of air quality concern as well as selecting the best 

available monitoring site. 

Table B1 Air Quality & Meteorological Sample Process & Design Documents

Parameter Document Title Source Location 

Criteria & NonCriteria 

Pollutants

SLAMS/NAMS/PAMS 

Network Review 

Guidance

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/netrev98.pdf 

Criteria & nonCriteria 

Pollutants

QA Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement 

Systems, Vol 2: Part 1, 

Section 6.0 Sampling 

Process Design

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/redbook.pdf 

Criteria & nonCriteria 

Pollutants

40CFR Part50 EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/40cfr50.html

Criteria & nonCriteria 

Pollutants

40CFR Parts 53 and 58 EPA 

AMTIC

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

CO Selecting Sites for 

Carbon Monoxide 

Monitoring

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/3-75-077.pdf 

NO2, O3 Site Selection for the 

Monitoring of 

Photochemical Pollutants

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/3-78-013.pdf 

NH3 Method for the 

Determination of 

Ammonia (NH3) by 

Chemiluminescence

ADEC 

Method 

4.10

ADEC Ambient Air Quality Method 4.10 

O3 Guidance on Ozone 

Monitoring Site 

Selection

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/r-98-002.pdf 

O3 Guideline on 

Modification to 

Monitoring Seasons for 

Ozone

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/modozsea.pdf 

SO2 Optimum Site Exposure 

Criteria for SO2

Monitoring

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/3-77-013.pdf 

PM10, PM2.5 Network Design and 

Optimal Site Exposure 

Criteria for Particulate 

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-87-009.pdf 

205
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

41

Table B1 Air Quality & Meteorological Sample Process & Design Documents

Matter

PM10 Guideline for PM10

Episode Monitoring 

Methods

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-83-005.pdf 

Pb on TSP Guidance for Siting 

Ambient Air Monitors 

Around Stationary Lead 

Sources

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/pbgde997.pdf 

Pb on TSP Optimum Sampling Site 

Exposure Criteria for 

Lead

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-84-012.pdf

Pb on TSP Guideline for short-Term 

Lead Monitoring in the 

Vicinity of Point Sources

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/oa12-122.pdf 

Meteorological 

Measurements

Meteorological Monitoring 

Guidance for Regulatory 

Modeling Applications, 

Section 3.0 Siting & 

Exposure

EPA 

SCRAM

http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/met/mmgrma.pdf

Meteorological 

Measurements

QA Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement 

Systems, Vol 4, 

Meteorological 

Measurements Version 1.0 

(Draft)

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/met/Volume%20IV_Meteorological_Measurements.pdf

PSD Criteria and 

Non Criteria 

Pollutants

Ambient Monitoring 

Guidelines for 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration

EPA 

AMTIC

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-87-007.pdf

10.1 Network Objectives

NCore Level 2 Monitoring Objectives

• Represent ambient concentrations over a neighborhood scale representative of many similar neighborhoods; 

The ADEC NCore Level 2 Monitoring site will be one of 75 nation-wide multipollutant sites focusing on community-wide air quality assessment. Assuming EPA provides adequate funding, the 

ADEC’s plan for a Level 2 NCore monitoring site will be submitted to EPA by July 1, 2009 and operational by January 

1, 2011. The NCore parameters to be measured are listed in Table B2. The intent of the NCore monitoring site will be 

to:

• Represent an area impacted by mobile source emissions; 

• Represent an area not impacted by unique local emission sources; 

• Remain a long-term site with reasonable assurance of 5+ year “permission” period;

• Be collocated with an STN or NATTS site, if possible; and

• Have room for multiple gas monitors and associated equipment, integrated samples, meteorology. 

NCore Level 3 (SLAMS) and SPM Monitoring Objectives Alaska’s SLAMS/SPM Monitoring Network is designed 

to:

206
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

42

• Determine compliance or non-compliance with the NAAQS/AAAQS; 

• Best represent the exposure of populations that may be affected by elevated criteria and non-criteria pollutant 

concentrations; and 

• Meet EPA objectives. The design of the SLAMS/SPM network must achieve one of six basic monitoring 

objectives as described in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D. These are:

• Determine the highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network;

• Determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density;

• Determine the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source categories;

• Determine general background concentrations levels; 

• Determine the extent of regional pollution transport among populated areas, and in support of secondary 

standards; and

• Determine the welfare-related impacts in more rural and remote areas (such as visibility impairment and 

effects on vegetation.

10.2 Selection of Monitoring Areas

The ADEC ambient air quality monitoring network is designed to protect the health and welfare of its residents and 

visitors. To meet this objective, monitoring sites are installed at locations specifically selected to evaluate public impacts 

of air quality pollutants in areas with the highest potential for exceeding the NAAQS/AAAQS. Where problems exist, 

priority will be given to communities with high population density. Where impacts are seasonal, monitoring studies will 

be designed to examine seasonal impacts on local residents.

Alaska does not meet many of the traditional concepts of population centers envisioned in the guidance documents for 

the criteria pollutant standards. Instead, Alaska’s “population centers” closely resemble the supply centers of the 1800’s 

used to explore the West. Alaska has only five communities over 15,000 people: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, 

Wasilla/Palmer and Ketchikan. Each of these areas must be considered separately and independent from the others when 

considering air quality impacts and influences on neighboring communities. Alaska’s long-term goals are split between 

using SPM monitors to help characterize the most representative SLAMS sites and evaluating potential microscale 

impacts on the public. 

Table B2 describes the representative measurement scales appropriate for Alaska’s state-wide monitoring network.

Table B2 Description of Representative Measurement Scale

Measurement Scale Description

Micro Concentrations ranging in area from several meters to 100 meters.

Middle Concentrations typical of areas of several city blocks in size with dimensions ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 

kilometers.

Neighborhood Concentrations within an extended area of the city that has relatively uniform land use with dimensions 

ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers.

Urban Overall, city-wide conditions with dimensions ranging from 4 to 50 kilometers.

Regional Rural area of reasonably homogenous geography ranging from tens to hundreds of kilometers

Table B3 summarizes relationships among monitoring objectives and appropriate scales of representativeness.

207
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

43

Table B3 Relationship Among Monitoring Objectives and Scales of Representativeness

Monitoring Objective Appropriate Siting Scale

Max Concentration Micro, middle, neighborhood, sometimes urban

Population Neighborhood, urban

Source Impact Micro, middle, neighborhood

General/Background Neighborhood, regional

Regional Transport Urban, regional

Welfare-Related Urban, regional

Table B4 summarizes spatial scales for appropriate NCore Level 2, SLAMS and SPM monitoring sites.

Table B4 Spatial Scales Appropriate for NCore Level 2, SLAMS, SPM Monitoring Sites

Spatial Scale Scales for NCore Level 3 (SLAMS and SPM) Scales for NCore Level 2

CO NO2 O3 SO2 Pb PM10 PM2.5 CO NO2 O3 SO2 Pb PM10 PM2.5

Micro • • • • • • • • 

Middle • • • • • • • • • • 

Neighborhood • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

Urban • • • • • • • • • 

Regional • • • • • • 

10.3 Sampling Schedule

Sampling schedules for criteria pollutants, NH3 and meteorological parameters are continuous, except for the 24-hour 

integrated gravimetric methods PM10, PM2.5, and Pb-TSP. All continuous monitors are required to report hourly values. 

Continuous PM methods are required to sample continuously and report hourly as well as 24-hr values. 

All integrated PM10 and Pb-TSP monitors used to collect NCore and SLAMS quality criteria data must sample 24-hours 

from midnight (local standard time) to midnight. Minimum sampling frequency is every six days following the EPA 

national sampling schedule. Every 3rd day sampling is encouraged to adequately represent PM concentrations. In cases 

where PM concentrations approach the NAAQS/AAAQS, every day sampling is required.

All integrated PM2.5 monitors used to collect NCore and SLAMS quality criteria data must sample 24-hours from 

midnight (local standard time) to midnight. Minimum sampling frequency is every third day following the EPA national 

sampling schedule. In some cases the sampling frequency may be reduced to every 6th day with EPA regional office 

208
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

44 

waiver. In cases where PM2.5 concentrations are within 85 – 115% of the NAAQS/AAAQS, every day sampling is 

required.

The EPA National Sampling Schedule is updated yearly and is available from the following web link: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/calendar.html.

10.4 Selection of Monitoring Sites

Monitoring site locations will be based on the State’s present understanding of local sources and their potential 

contributions to the NAAQS/AAAQS. Alaska’s monitoring network will contain one NCORE site as well as a mix of 

SLAMS and SPM monitoring locations to address neighborhood-scale, micro-scale and associated gradients where 

necessary to develop effective control strategies. Final selection of the NCORE site has not yet been determined. 

Installation and operation of the site will be dependent upon receipt of federal monies and man power to operate the site. 

SLAMS and SPM sites are selected to meet as much as possible guidance documents listed in Table B1. Siting criteria 

not met are documented with sufficient reasons to justify the selection. Flow Chart, Figure B1, depicts the overall 

monitoring site selection process.

209
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

45

Step 1

Formulate monitoring objective and consider pollutants of concern

Step 2

a. Review applicable siting guidance

b. Review state and federal pollutant requirements 

Step 3

Evaluate existing data

Air quality monitoring 

data

Meteorological data

Step 4

Evaluate topographical influences

Step 5

Is data sufficient for modeling?

Improve database.

Step 6

a. Conduct modeling runs

b. Identify potential hot spots

Step 7

Reconsider monitoring objectives to determine spatial scale and network requirements

Monitoring 

objective

Step 8

Evaluate potential sites for measurement parameters, representativeness and 

installation compatibility

Step 9

Select monitoring sites and complete site documentation

Figure B1 Monitoring Site Selection Process

No

Re-evaluation

Yes

210
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

46

10.5 Monitoring Network Description

The configuration of ADEC’s monitoring network, based on the site selection criteria described above is summarized in 

Table B5. Detailed site information, including the rationale for each site selection, is available in Alaska’s Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan (http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm).

Table B5 ALASKA NCore Level 2 and SLAMS/SPM MONITORING NETWORK

Network Site ID

Ambient Air Quality Parameters Monitored

CO NO2 O3 Pb SO2

PM2.5

FRM

PM10

FRM

PM2.5 

Speciation

PM2.5

Continuous

PM2.5

Continuous

FEM

PM10

Continuous

FEM

PM10-2.5

Continuous

FEM

AnchorageMOA

16th & Garden SLAMS/

SPM

■ ■+ ■ ■ ■

Turnagain SLAMS ■

Parkgate-Eagle River SLAMS/

SPM

■ ■+ ■ ■

Allstate Bldg.-Tudor Road SLAMS ■* ■ 

8th & L Street SPM ■ ■

FairbanksFNSB

To be selected Δ NCore 

Level 2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■* ■ ■

State Office Bldg. SLAMS ■* ■ ■

Peger Rd SPM ■ ■ ■

2nd & Cushman (Old Post 

Office)

SLAMS ■

North Pole School SPM ■ ■ ■

ADEC - 

Kenai

Soldotna SPM ■

ADEC - 

Juneau

Floyd Dryden School SLAMS

■ ■* ■

ADEC - 

MatSu

Butte (Harrison Court) SPM

■ ■ ■

Wasilla Fire Station SPM ■

Palmer SPM ■ ■

ADEC - 

Noatak

Noatak SLAMS ■

* collocated PM monitors + start-up April 2010 Δ start-up July 2011

211
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

47

11. SAMPLING METHODS

This Section describes the sample collection methods and continuous measurement methods for determining compliance 

with the primary and secondary NAAQS/AAAQS criteria pollutants and meteorological parameters.

11.1 Environmental Control

Monitoring stations should be designed for functionality and with the station operator in mind, considering safety, ease 

of access to instruments, optimal work space and security. Table B6 lists recommended environmental control 

parameters for monitoring shelters. Continuous temperature measurement is strongly recommended inside monitoring 

shelters to ensure temperature is maintained within required shelter temperature criteria for all gaseous monitors (15° - 

30°C, ±2°C SD/24-hrs.). Ambient air monitoring data collected outside this shelter temperature criteria needs to be 

flagged and evaluated regarding if acceptable data quality criteria has been met to validate the affected data.

Table B6 Environmental Control Parameters for Monitoring Shelters

Parameter AQ method

Source of

Specification Method of Control

Instrument 

Vibration

All Equipment Manufacturer’s Specs Design of Instrument housing’s benches, per manufacturer’s specs.

Light Overhead light Method Description or 

manufacturer’s specs

Shield chemicals or instruments that can be affected by natural or artificial 

light.

All parameters Sample lines for 

automated methods

Borosilicate glass, 

Teflon, laminar flow, 

moisture trap

See guidance on sample lines for automated methods 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/redbook.pdf , Section 7.2

Electrical Voltage All Equipment Method Description or 

manufacturer’s specs

Constant voltage transformers or regulators; separate power lines, isolated 

high current drain equipment such as High-Vols, heating baths, pumps 

from regulated circuits

Temperature, 

Humidity

All gaseous 

monitoring 

equipment

Method description or 

manufacturer’s specs. 

EPA monitoring shelter 

criteria unless 

otherwise specified.

Regulated temperature conditioning (EPA criteria 20° – 30°C ±2°C 

SD/24-hr). Alaska variance 15° – 30°C ±2°C SD/24-hr ) system, 

continuous temperature recorder, electric cooling and heating only

Temperature PM2.5-FRM, if inside 

monitoring shelter

EPA-Alaska 

Modification

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/cfr/recent/akmod799.pdf Alaska 

Modification for operating PM2.5 FRM within monitoring shelter with 

sample probe to outside shelter

Temperature All PM continuous 

monitors

Alaska continuous PM 

method Requirement

Operated within temperature controlled monitoring shelter with sample 

inlet line sampling air at ambient temperature conditions.

Security Shelter Security Shelter secured with lock. Where monitoring equipment located outside 

shelter (e.g., met tower, PM monitors, etc.) monitoring equipment should 

be surrounded by locked chain link fence.

Safety

Cylinder gas Cylinder gases secured upright in cylinder racks or otherwise secured 

upright against wall, instrument rack etc. Cylinders not in use capped 

with threaded cylinder gas cap.

Venting 

exhaust/excess 

calibration gases

Excess calibration gas delivered to Gaseous monitors as well as exhaust 

gases vented outside shelter.

Electrical Local/state Comply with local, State or national building codes.

212
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

48

Table B6 Environmental Control Parameters for Monitoring Shelters

Safety

Shelter Construction Local/state Comply with local, State or national building codes. If monitors located 

on roof of shelter, safety railing required.

Fire Safety Local/state Fire extinguisher mounted by door

Basic First Aid Kit

Emergency light 

with battery back-up 

by door.

11.2 Sampling Probes and Manifolds

Variables affecting sample manifold design are: diameter, length, flow rate, pressure drop, and construction materials. 

These variables must be taken into consideration when designing a sample delivery system. Sample probe manifold 

material for gaseous reactive gases may only be constructed with smooth, non-reactive and non-porous materials (i.e.,

FEP Teflon or borosilicate glass). Sample probe material for non-reactive gases (e.g., CO) should also utilize the same 

sample probe and manifold materials as used for reactive gases (e.g., SO2, NO2, O3). Connective tube fittings must also 

be constructed of smooth non-reactive and non-porous materials (e.g. FEP Teflon, 316 or better stainless steel). Water 

traps should be configured into the sampling system to remove condensate that may accumulate in the sample line 

upstream of any monitoring equipment. Please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/QA-HandbookVol-II.pdf , Section 7.2 for recommended design configurations of sampling probes and manifolds 

11.3 Sample Residence Time

The residence time of pollutants within the sample train is critical. Residence time is defined as the amount of time it 

takes for a sample of air to travel from the sample probe inlet to the sample inlet at the back of the analyzer. For the 

reactive gases (NO2, SO2, NH3 and O3), sample residence must be < 20 seconds. Sample residence time can be 

determined using the formula:

V = π * (d/2)2

*L

Determine V separately for sample probe, manifold and line. Where :

V = volume

π = 3.14159

L = length

d = inside diameter

Add volume of various volume components together (VTotal) 

Determine sample residence time (R) using the formula:

R = VTotal/(flow rate of all instruments)

If the sample residence time is found to be >10 seconds, it is strongly encouraged to install a blower motor (or other 

device) to decrease the sample residence time to within 10 seconds.

Sample residence times for CO should be minimized as much as possible. It is recommended that CO sample residence 

times also be kept to < 20 seconds.

213
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

49

11.4 Placement of Sample Probes and Manifolds

Careful consideration must be taken in the placement of sample probes and manifolds to avoid introducing bias to the 

sample collection process. Considerations such as probe height (above ground), length (distance from structures) and 

physical influences nearby are factors that can influence collection of a representative sample. Table B7 lists some 

general guidelines for placement of sample probes and manifolds.

Table B7 Guidelines for Sample Probe & Manifold Placement

• Do not place probes next to air outlets (e.g., exhaust fan openings)

• Horizontal probes must extend beyond building overhangs

• Avoid placing probes near physical obstructions (e.g., chimneys) which can affect air flow in vicinity of the sample 

probe/inlet

• Sample probe/inlet height above ground dependent upon pollutant being measured

214
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

50

Table B8 summarizes probe and monitoring path siting criteria. 

Table B8 Summary of Representative Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria 

Pollutant Representative Scale

Height above ground to 

probe or 80% of 

monitoring pathA (meters)

Horizontal and vertical 

distance to supporting 

structuresB to probe or 

90% monitoring path

Distance from 

trees to probe of 

monitoring pathA

(meters)

SO2

C, D, E, F Middle (300 m)

Neighborhood, Urban, and 

Regional (1 km)

3 – 15 >1 >10

CO D,E,G Micro, Middle (300 km) 

Neighborhood (1 km)

3 ± 0.5;

3 – 15

>1 >10

O3

C,D,E Middle (300 m)

Neighborhood, Urban, and 

Regional (1 km)

3 – 15 >1 >10

NO2

C,D,E Middle (300 m)

Neighborhood, and Urban 

(1 km)

3 – 15 >1 >10

NH3

C,D,E Middle (300 m)

Neighborhood, and Urban 

(1 km)

3 – 15 >1 >10

Pb C,C,E,F,H Micro, Middle, 

Neighborhood, Urban and 

Regional (1 km)

2 – 7 (micro); 

2 – 15 (all other scales)

>2 (all scales, horizontal 

distance only)

>10 (all scales)

PM10

C,D,E,F,H Micro, Middle, 

Neighborhood, Urban and 

Regional

2 – 7 (micro); 

2 – 15 (all other scales)

>2 (all scales, horizontal 

distance only)

>10 (all scales)

PM2.5

C,D,E,F,H,I Micro, Middle, 

Neighborhood, Urban and 

Regional

2 – 7 (micro); 

2 – 15 (all other scales)

>2 (all scales, horizontal 

distance only)

>10 (all scales)

A ≡ Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring and all applicable scales for SO2, O3, 

NO2 and NH3

B ≡ When probe is located on rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to wall, parapets, or penthouses located on roof. 

C ≡ Should be >20 meters from drip line of tree(s) and must be ≥10 meters from the drip line when trees(s) act as an obstruction.

D ≡ Distance from sampler, probe, or 90% of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height of the obstacle that 

protrudes above the sampler, probe or monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion must be classified as middle scale.

E ≡ Must ≥ 270° unrestricted air flow around probe or sampler; 180° if the probe is located on the side of a building.

F ≡ 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 bed, and the quality of fuel (sulfur, ash, or lead 

content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.

G ≡ For microscale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.

H ≡ For collocated Pb and PM10 samplers, a 2 – 4 meter separation distance between collocated Hi-Vol samplers and/or paired HiVol and Low-Vol 

samplers must be met. For collocated Low Volume samplers a 1 – 4 meter separation distance must be met. 

I ≡ For collocated PM2.5 samplers, a 1 – 4 meter separation distance must be met between samplers.

215
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

51

Table B9 summarizes spacing of probes from roadways. This information can be found in 40CFR part 58 Appendix E.

Table B9 Minimum Separation Distance Between Sampling Probes and Roadways

Roadway avg. 

daily traffic 

vehicles/day

Minimum separation distance between roadways and probes or monitoring paths at various 

scales (meters) 

O3

Neighborhood

& Urban

NO2

Neighborhood

& Urban

CO

Neighborhood

Pb

Micro Middle Neighborhood 

& Regional

≤10,000 10 10 10 5 – 15 >15 – 50 >50

15,000 20 20 25

20,000 30 30 45 5 – 15 >15 – 75 >75

30,000 80

≥40,000 5 – 15 >15 - 100 >100

40,000 50 50 115

50,000 135

≥60,000 150

70,000 100 100

≥110,000 250 250

216
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

52

Figure B2 shows acceptable areas for locating PM10 and PM2.5 monitors for the representative siting scales.

100

Middle Scale Suitable for Category

(a) Site but not Preferred

80

60

Neighborhood Scale Suitable

for Category (b) Site

40

20

No Urban Scale

Category

0 (a) sites

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance of PM10 & PM2.5 Samplers from Nearest Traffic Lane (meters)

Unacceptable at All Traffic Levels

Figure B2 - Acceptable Areas for PM10 and PM2.5 Micro, Middle, Neighborhood

and Urban MonitorsExcept for Microscale Street Canyon Sites

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of Affecting Roads X 10^3

Preferred siting for category (a) site, microscale

if sampler 2 - 7m high, middlesclae otherwise

11.5 Monitoring Methods

Monitoring methods used to support Level 2 NCore, Level 3 NCore (SLAMS), SPM and PSD monitoring must use EPA 

FRM, FEM or ARM (for continuous PM only) approved method analyzers and operated as specified within the EPA 

FRM/FEM and/or state method designations. For a list of EPA approved reference and equivalent criteria pollutant 

methods, please go to: 

Federal Reference and Equivalent Methods

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html. The EPA QA Handbook for Air Pollution 

Measurement Systems, Volume II, Part II provides specific Federal Reference Method procedures for the measurement 

of the ambient air quality criteria pollutants. A list of these methods can be found under the EPA AMTIC web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/QA-Handbook-Vol-II.pdf. 

DEC maintains an inventory of “DEC approved” Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Methods and Standard Operating 

Procedures. These methods, SOPs and other QA guidance documents can be found on the DEC M&QA web site: 

DEC Approved Monitoring Methods

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm, and in Appendix A of this document. For those methods not yet 

developed, or under development by ADEC, the respective EPA method is the default criteria.

217
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

53

Meteorological monitoring data collected to support NCore, SLAMS and PSD quality monitoring projects will follow 

EPA guidance criteria found in:

Meteorological Monitoring

EPA QA Handbook Volume IV, Meteorological Monitoring, web link: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/met/Volume%20IV_Meteorological_Measurements.pdf

• EPA Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications, EPA-454/R-99-005, web 

link: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/met/mmgrma.pdf; and

• Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), EPA-450/4-87-007.

Additional meteorological monitoring criteria specific to Alaska can be found on the Meteorological Monitoring Data 

Validation Tables (Appendix A) and Table A8, Alaska Meteorological Measurement Quality Objectives. 

If monitoring data is to be used to support NCore, SLAMS, SPM or PSD quality criteria pollutant monitoring, and 

design changes to the method equipment and/or method procedures are intended, prior approval must be received from 

the DEC’s Air QA Officer (or designee) through the Quality Assurance Plan (QAPP) approval process before monitoring 

begins. Monitoring data collected without this approval may be rejected. Full responsibility for potential DEC nonacceptance of monitoring data rests solely on the primary organization/permittee/contractor collecting the data.

Modifications to EPA/ADEC Method Analyzers and Procedures

Even though EPA has given federal equivalent method (FEM) approval to some continuous PM10 monitoring methods, 

ADEC requires that such monitoring methods must demonstrate in-situ comparability testing for one year with an 

approved EPA FRM PM10 monitor operating on a minimum every-6th-sampling day frequency. Comparability (least 

squares fit) between the PM10 FRM method and the continuous PM10 method must be: 

PM10 Continuous Method Analyzers and Procedures

• 0.90 ≥ slope ≤ 1.10

• Intercept ≤ 5 ug/m3

• Correlation coefficient (R2

) ≥ 0.95

The collected data must adequately represent sufficient density of data points that span the PM10 method measurement 

range of interest. Once approval is received, the continuous PM10 monitoring method may be used in a similar 

local/regional air shed pending ADEC M&QA concurrence. However, if meteorology, PM source characteristics, etc. 

change significantly, in-situ PM10 method comparability may be required for new locations. The following EPA 

document, “Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for Relating Federal Reference Method (FRM) and continuous PM2.5 

Measurements to Report an Air Quality Index (AQI),”

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/monitorstrat/aqidqor2.pdf) provides guidance on developing acceptable 

inter-method comparability.

Even though EPA has given federal equivalent method (FEM) approval to some continuous PM2.5 monitoring methods, 

ADEC requires that such monitoring methods must demonstrate in-situ comparability testing for one year with an 

approved EPA FRM PM2.5 monitor operating on a minimum every-6th-sampling day frequency. Comparability (least 

squares fit) between the PM2.5 FRM method and the continuous PM2.5 method must be:

PM2.5 Continuous Method Analyzers and Procedures

218
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

54

• 0.90 ≥ slope ≤ 1.10

• Intercept ≤ 3 ug/m3

• Correlation coefficient (R2

) ≥ 0.95

The collected data must adequately represent sufficient density of data points that span the PM2.5 method measurement 

range of interest. Once approval is received, the continuous PM2.5 monitoring method may be used in a similar 

local/regional air shed pending ADEC M&QA concurrence. However, if meteorology, PM source characteristics, etc. 

change significantly, in-situ PM2.5 method comparability may be required for new locations. The following EPA 

document, “Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for Relating Federal Reference Method (FRM) and continuous PM2.5 

Measurements to Report an Air Quality Index (AQI),”

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/monitorstrat/aqidqor2.pdf) provides guidance on developing acceptable 

inter-method PM2.5 comparability.

11.6 Good Field Measurement Practices

Good Field Measurement Practices (GFMPs) refer to general practices that relate to many, if not all of the measurements 

made in the field (similar in scope and common sense as those referred to as Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs)). They 

are usually independent of SOPs and encompass subjects as:

• Facility maintenance

• Records

• Field sample management and handling

• Maintenance of monitoring equipment

• Cleanliness of sample collection equipment, manifolds, etc.

• Representative traceability of calibration/audit standards (certification/recertification of calibration/audit 

standards over their intended range of use)

• General principles for calibration of monitoring equipment

• Safe handling of hazardous and/or potentially hazardous materials

• Field safety

• Etc.

In many cases the activities may not be formally documented because they are considered common knowledge and 

common sense. However, not applying GFMPs can significantly affect the reliability of the collected data and may even 

be cause for data invalidation.

219
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

55

12. SAMPLE HANDLING & CUSTODY

Maintaining sample integrity through field collection, transit, storage and subsequent analytical phases is critical to 

establishing final sample data reliability. Careful documentation of the process ensures that proper handling, etc. 

occurred and is part of the custody record.

The State of Alaska does not follow strict Sample “Chain of Custody” for Alaska’s NCore, SLAMS and SPM 

monitoring program. The State, however, does maintain sample/sample data integrity by tracking samples/sample data 

from sample collection through analysis, data reduction, data validation, data reporting and archiving of sample/sample 

data. These procedures can be found in the respective monitoring method.

For the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, sample handling pertains only to the manual methods of particulates 

(PM10, PM2.5, PM2.5 speciation) and Lead (Pb). Careful attention and consistency in the process of filter handling as 

specified in SOPs is critical to minimizing potential measurement errors. The phases of sample handling include:

• Sample labeling, 

• Sample retrieval, and

• Sample transport. 

12.1 Sample Labeling and Identification

Sample labeling and identification will follow the specific procedures in the respective method/SOPs to ensure positive 

identification throughout the testing and analytical procedures. In general each: 

• Sample will have a unique identification label that is indelible and unaffected by gases and temperatures to 

which it will be subjected and does not impair the sample filter’s capacity to function as designed. 

• Sample transport container will have a unique identification to preclude the possibility of sample interchange.

• Sample will be properly handled to ensure there is no contamination and that the sample analyzed is actually the 

sample taken under the conditions reported.

• Sample collected will be accompanied by pertinent sample collection data as specified in the respective 

method/SOP (e.g., sample date, sample run time, sample begin/end flow rate, sample retrieval date, operator’s 

initials, etc.).

If strip charts are used to record sample data from automated analyzers, they must be clearly identified. Information 

must be recorded so as not to interfere with any chart recorded data. If the strip chart is long, information should be 

placed at periodic intervals on the chart. Markings should be indelible and permanently affixed to each strip chart.

12.2 Sample Retrieval

In order to protect the integrity of each sample, samples need to be carefully removed from monitoring 

equipment/devices and place in sealed and non-reactive containers. Specific sample retrieval procedures may be found 

in the respective monitoring method/SOP.

12.3 Sample Transport

Precautions must be taken to eliminate the possibility of tampering, accidental destruction, and/or physical and chemical 

action on the sample. Attributes that can affect a sample’s integrity include: temperature, air pressure, moisture, and 

physical handling of samples (packing, jostling, etc.). The practical aspects of sample transport can vary dependent upon 

the method. Specific handling procedures are addressed in the respective EPA and DEC monitoring methods and 

project-specific QAPPs and SOPs.

220
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

56

13. ANALYTICAL METHODS

Analytical methods for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program are those methods requiring laboratory analysis of 

samples collected under field monitoring conditions, specifically the filter-based PM10, PM2.5 and Pb methods. These 

methods all have Federal Reference or Equivalent Methods designations. For a list of these methods, please go to: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html. The EPA QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 

II, Part II provides specific Federal Reference Method procedures for the measurement of the ambient air quality criteria 

pollutants. These methods can be found on the EPA AMTIC web site http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/qabook.html. 

ADEC AM&QA also maintains a set of ADEC approved analytical procedures for the analysis of PM10, PM2.5 and PbTSP filters. These methods, SOPs and other QA guidance documents can be found on the DEC M&QA web site: 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm. A list of these methods/SOPs can be found in Appendix B of this 

document.

Since both specific field and analytical procedures for ambient air quality criteria pollutants are available in the above 

referenced documents, this section limits discussion to general concepts of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and 

Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) as they relate to EPA and DEC criteria pollutant monitoring methods.

13.1 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

In order to perform sampling and analysis operations consistently, SOPs must be written as part of a QAPP. SOPs are 

written 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 routine and repetitive tasks.

SOPs should ensure consistent performance with organizational practices, serve as training aids, provide ready reference 

and documentation of proper procedures, reduce work effort, reduce error occurrences in data, and improve data 

comparability, credibility, and defensibility. They should be sufficiently clear and written in a step-by-step format to be 

readily understood by a person knowledgeable in the general concept of the procedure. Elements to include in an SOP 

are:

1. Scope & Applicability

2. Summary of Method

3. Definitions

4. Health & Safety Warnings

5. Cautions

6. Interferences

7. Personnel Qualifications

8. Apparatus & Materials

9. Instrument or Method Calibration

10. Sample Collection

11. Handling and Preservation Sample Preparation & Analysis

12. Troubleshooting

13. Data Acquisition, Calculations & Data Reduction

14. Computer Hardware & Software (used to manipulate analytical results and report data)

15. Data Management & Records Management

16. Data Validation Table (predetermined criteria that defines limits to determine collected data quality)

221
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

57

SOPs should follow the guidance document, Guidance for the Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures EPA 

QA/G-6. This document is available through the EPA Quality System Homepage and web link, 

http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g6-final.pdf. 

It is the policy of ADEC that SOPs be written by the individual/s who are performing the procedures that are being 

standardized and subsequently reviewed by personnel that oversee the respective measurement operations. SOPs for the 

ambient air quality monitoring program must be included in QAPPs, either by reference or by inclusion of the actual 

method. If a method is referenced, it must be stated that the method is followed exactly or an addendum that explains 

changes to the method must be included in the QAPP. If a modified method will be used for an extended period of time, 

the method should be revised to include the changes to the appropriate sections. In general, approval of SOPs occurs 

during approval of the QAPP. QA personnel (or their designees) with appropriate training and experience review and 

approve the SOPs. 

13.2 Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs)

GLPs refer to general practices that relate to many, if not all of the measurements made in a laboratory. They are usually 

independent of the SOP and cover subjects such as maintenance of facilities, records, sample management 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. Although not every activity in a laboratory needs to be 

documented, the activities that could potentially cause unnecessary measurement uncertainty, or have caused significant 

variance or bias, should be cause to generate a method.

In 1982, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed principles of good 

laboratory practice. The intent of the GLP is to promote the quality and validity of test data by covering the process and 

conditions under which Environmental Data Operations (EDOs) are planned, performed, monitored, recorded and 

reported. The principles include:

• Test facility organization and personnel

• Quality assurance program

• Facilities

• Apparatus, material and reagents

• Test systems

• Test and reference substances

• Standard operating procedures

• Performance of the study

• Reporting of study results

• Storage and retention of records and material

13.3 Laboratory Activities

For ambient air samples to provide useful information or evidence, laboratory analyses must meet the four basic 

requirements: 

1. Equipment must be frequently and properly calibrated and maintained.

2. Personnel must be qualified to make the analysis.

3. Analytical procedures must be in accordance with accepted practice.

4. Complete and accurate records must be kept.

222
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

58

These laboratory activities relate not only to the analysis of particulate matter and lead but also other activities necessary 

to collect and report measurement data such as:

• Certification of field and laboratory calibration standards,

• Certification of field and laboratory audit standards, and

• Preparation of standard reference materials.

Table B10 and Table B11 List Laboratory Quality Control activities, their frequency of occurrence and criteria 

important to the analyses and data validation for PM10 and PM2.5 sample filters.

223
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

59

Note: PM10 Low Vol filter analysis criteria same as PM2.5 filter analysis, except no filter holding time criteria.

Table B10 Laboratory QC Criteria for Analysis of PM2.5 & PM10 Low-Vol Filters

Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria QA Guidance Document 

2.12 Reference

Information Provided

Filter Checks

Unexposed filter integrity check Every filter No defects 40CFR Part 50 App. L Sec. 10.2

2.12 Sec. 7.5

± Contamination of filter 

blanks from moisture gain/loss 

or other contaminants Exposed filter integrity check

Lot Blanks 9 filters/lot < 15 μg between weighings 2.12 Sec. 7.7

Exposure Lot Blanks 3 filters/lot < 15 μg between weighings 2.12 Sec. 7.7

PM2.5 Filter Holding Times

Pre-sampling Weighing All filters < 30 days before sampling Part 50 App l Sec 8.3

2.12 Sec. 7.9

Controls established to 

minimize potential loss of 

volatile/sub-volatile 

components of particulate mass Sample Recovery ≤ 177 hours (7 days & 7 hrs) 40CFR Part 50 App. L Sec.3.3 and 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/fil

tere.pdf

Post-sampling Weighing

 

≤ 10 days at 25°C from sample end date, or

≤ 30 days at 4°C from sample end date

40CFR Part 50 App. L Sec. 7.4.15

Filter Conditioning Environment

Time Range All filters 24 hrs minimum Part 50 App l Sec 8.2

2.12 Sec. 7.6

Summary of Guidance; Filter conditioning and 

Weighing Facilities and Procedures for PM2.5

Reference and Class I Equivalent Methods

(http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/pm25/qa/ba

lance.pdf ) 

Controls established to 

minimize potential mass 

gain/loss contamination due to 

moisture

Temperature Range 24-hr mean, 20° – 23° C 

Temperature Control ± 2° C SD over 24-hr

Humidity Range 24-hr mean 30% - 40% RH or 

< 5% sampling RH bu > 20% RH

Humidity Control ± 5% RH SD over 24-hr

Pre/Post Filter Conditioning RH Difference in 24-hr means ≤ ± 5%RH Part 50 App. L Section 8.3.2

Balance Located in filter conditioning environment Part 50 App. L Section 8.3.3

Calibration/Verification

Micro Balance Readability At purchase 1 μg 40CFR Part 50 App. L Sec 8.1

2.12 Sec 4.3.6

Required balance sensitivity

Micro Balance Repeatability 1/year 1 μg 2.12 Sec 4.3.6 Required balance precision

Balance Calibration 1/yr Manufacturers spec. 2.12 sec 7.2 Verification of equipment 

operation

Lab Temp. Calibration 6 month +2o C 2.12 Sec 3.3 Verification of equipment 

operation

Lab Humidity Calibration 6 month +2% RH 2.12 Sec. 3.3 Verification of equipment 

operation

224
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

60

Table B10 Laboratory QC Criteria for Analysis of PM2.5 & PM10 Low-Vol Filters

Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria QA Guidance Document 

2.12 Reference

Information Provided

Calibration standards

Working Mass Stds. 3-6 month 25 μg 2.12 Sec 4.3 and 7.3 Working standards verification

Primary Mass Stds. 1/yr 25 μg 2.12 Sec 4.3 and 7.3 Transfer standards certification

Temperature Standards 1/yr ± 0.1 °C resolution, ± 0.5 °C accuracy 2.12 Section 4.2 Transfer standard certification

Humidity Standards 1/yr +2% RH Transfer standard certification

QC Checks

Zero Balance Check Prior to every 

weighing

Balance bias/stability

Balance Check (100 mg and 200 mg) beginning, every 

10th samples, end

<3 μg 2.12 Sec. 7.9

Field Filter Blank 10% or 1/weighing 

session

< 30 μg between weighings 40CFR Part 50 App. L,, Sec 8.3

2.12 Sec 7.7

Overall filter 

handling/contamination

Lab Filter Blank. 10% or 1/weighing 

session

< 15 μg between weighings 40CFR Part 50 App. L,, Sec 8.3

2.12 Sec 7.7

Contamination of lab blank due 

to moisture control, etc. 

Duplicate Filter Weighing 1/weighing session < 15 μg between weighings 2.12 Sec 7.11 Weighing repeatability/filter 

stability

Bias

Balance Audit 1/yr +15 μg for unexposed 

filters

2.12 Sec 10.2 Laboratory technician 

operation

225
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

61

Table B11 Laboratory QC Criteria for Analysis of PM10 Hi-Vol Filters

Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Fed Register & EPA QAQA Guidance 

Document 

Information Provided

Filter Checks

Unexposed filter integrity check Every filter No defects 2.11 Section 4.2 Filter integrity/damage

Exposed filter integrity check

Filter Conditioning Environment

Time Range All filters 24 hrs minimum 2.11 Sections 1.2.3, 2 and 4 Environmental controls set to 

control moisture and static 

electricity contamination from 

net particulate analysis

Temperature Range 24-hr mean, 15° – 30° C 

Temperature Control ± 3° C SD over 24-hr

Humidity Range 24-hr mean 20% - 45% RH

Humidity Control < ± 5% RH SD over 24-hr

Pre/Post Filter Conditioning RH Difference in 24-hr means ≤ ± 5%RH

Calibration/Verification

Analytical Balance Readability At purchase 0.1 mg 2.11 Sections 2.0 and 4.5 Verification of equipment 

Analytical Balance Repeatability operation 1/year 0.5 mg

Analytical Balance Calibration 1/yr Manufacturers spec.

Lab Temp. Calibration 3 month +0.5o C, 2.11 Section s 1.1.2

Lab Humidity Calibration 3 month +6% RH 2.11 Section s 2.0

Unexposed filter integrity check Every filter No defects 2.11 Sections 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.6 Sample contamination

Exposed filter integrity check Every filter No defects

Calibration standards

Working Mass Stds. 3-6 month ≤ ± 0.5 mg of NIST traceable 2.11 Sec 2 .14.3 and 4.5 Working standards verification

Mass Transfer Stds. 1/yr ANSI/ASTM Classes 1, 1.1 or 2, indiv

mass std accuracy ≤± 0.025mg from 

NIST accredited weights & measures 

lab or NVLAP accredited lab

2.11 sec 1.2.4, 9.0 Transfer standards certification

Temperature Standards 1/yr ± 0.1 °C resolution, ± 0.1 °C 

accuracy, NIST/ASTM traceable

2.11 Sections 1.12 Transfer standard certification

Humidity Standards 1/yr +2% RH, NIST/ASTM traceable 2.11 Sections 2.0 Transfer standard certification

QC Checks

Zero Balance Check Prior to every weighing ≤ ± 0.1 mg 2.11 sections 4.4 and 4.5 Verification of analytical 

Balance Checks (bracketing expected balance accuracy

range of unexposed and exposed sample 

filters e.g., 1.0g - 5.0g)

beginning, every 

10th samples, end

≤ ± 0.5 mg 

Field Blanks 10% of filters Filter contamination

Filter Transport Blanks 1/batch of shipped filters Integrity of filter shipments

Replicate un-exposed Filter Weighing 10% each of pre- and post- < ± 2.8 mg difference 2.11 section 4.5.3 Lab technician filter handling

226
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

62

Table B11 Laboratory QC Criteria for Analysis of PM10 Hi-Vol Filters

Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Fed Register & EPA QAQA Guidance 

Document 

Information Provided

Replicate un-exposed Filter Weighing exposed filters/weighing session < ± 5.0 mg difference procedures

Bias

Balance Audit 1/yr ≤ +5 mg of audit stds that bracket 

routine weights of un exposed and 

exposed sample filters (3g, 5g)

Laboratory technician 

operation

227
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

63

14. QUALITY CONTROL (QC)

14.1 Definitions

Care must be taken not to equate Quality Control (QC) with Quality Assurance (QA). Though the two are very similar, 

there are some basic differences: QC is concerned with the product, while QA is process–oriented. QC hence is a subset 

of QA.

Even with such a clear-cut difference defined, identifying the differences between the two can be hard. Basically, QC

involves evaluating a product, activity and/or service. By contrast, QA is designed to make sure processes are sufficient 

to meet the end objectives. Simply put, QA ensures a product or service is manufactured, implemented, created, or 

produced in the right way; while QC evaluates whether or not the end result is satisfactory.

Quality Assurance (QA) – QA for ambient air and meteorological monitoring operations is the overall systematic 

process of planning, implementation, monitoring, verifying and determining whether the collected data meets or exceeds 

the data quality objectives (DQOs) of NCore, SLAMS, SPM and/or PSD quality monitoring data.

Quality Control (QC) – QC for ambient air and meteorological monitoring operations is the overall system of technical 

functions, technical processes and physical characteristics that measures the attributes and performance of the monitoring 

procedure to ensure quality data meets the NCore, SLAMS, SPM and/or PSD data criteria requirements and objectives

Quality Assessments – Quality Assessments are independent measurements/reviews (verifications) made of the QC 

System (i.e., the technical functions, technical processes and physical characteristics that measure the attributes and 

performance of the monitoring procedure). Quality Assessments include such items as Technical Systems Audits, 

Performance Audits, Network Reviews, etc. (please see Section 20, Quality Assessments). As with Quality Control, 

Quality Assessments are also under the umbrella of Quality Assurance.

Figure B3 depicts the functional aspects of Quality Control, Quality Assessment and their relationship within the 

umbrella Quality Assurance Program for Ambient Air & Meteorological Monitoring Program. 

228
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

64

Proper Facilities

 & 

Instrumentation

Proper 

Documentation

Quality 

Control

Quality 

Assessment

Figure B3—Quality Control & Quality Assessment’s Relationship within the 

Ambient Air & Meteorological Monitoring Quality Assurance Program

Standard 

Operating

Procedures (SOP)

Good Field 

Measurement 

Practices (GFMP)

Good 

Laboratory 

Practices (GLP)

Technical 

Competence of 

Analysis

Training

Internal 

Reference 

Materials

Instrument 

Calibrations

Calibration & 

Verification Checks 

(QC Checks)

Replicate & 

Collocated

Measurements

Quality 

Control Charts 

Measurement 

Method 

Comparability

Sample Design

& Sample 

Representativeness

ADEC Air Quality 

Assurance

EPA Quality 

Assurance

Quality 

Assessment

External Standard 

Reference 

Materials

Performance 

Audits

Technical 

Systems 

Audits

DQO/MQO 

Assessment

Network 

Reviews

Inter Field/Lab 

Method 

Comparisons

External Standard 

Reference 

Materials

Performance 

Audits 

(NPAP/PEP)

Technical Systems 

Audits

Inter Lab 

Comparisons

DQO/MQO 

Assessment

Network 

Reviews

229
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

65

Figure B4 describes the overall process of accepting routine data. 

14.2 Measurement Quality Objectives and Quality Control

The Alaska Ambient Air Monitoring MQO Table (Table A7) and Alaska Meteorological Monitoring MQO Table (Table 

A8) list the most critical QC sample/criteria that must be met in order to validate/report reliable monitoring data. 

14.3 Data Validation Tables and Quality Control

Method Specific Data Validation Criteria have been developed for the various ambient air quality and meteorological 

measurement methods. These criteria are ranked under three classes of “data acceptance criteria” for a measurement 

method and define how the criteria should/must be used to evaluate overall data quality. These method specific Data 

Validation Tables are located in Appendix A. These data quality criteria categories are: 

1. CRITICAL CRITERIA TABLE - Criteria deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample or group of 

samples reside in the Critical Criteria Table. Observations that do not meet each and every criterion on the Critical 

Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and justification for not doing so. Basically, the 

samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met are invalid unless proven otherwise. The cause for not 

operating in the acceptable range for each violated criteria must be investigated and minimized to reduce the 

likelihood that additional samples will be invalidated.

2. OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE - Criteria that are important for maintaining and evaluating the quality 

of the data collection system reside in 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 other quality control information 

demonstrates otherwise. The reason for not meeting the criteria MUST be investigated, mitigated and/or justified.

Reference 

Material

Sample

QC Sample

Sample

Quality 

Control

Sample 

Data

QC Data

Reference 

Material 

Data

Quality 

Assessment

Accept 

Data

Data 

Specifications

Figure B4 Quality Control’s Relationship to Routine Acceptance of Data

230
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

66

3. SYSTEMATIC ISSUES TABLE - Criteria important for the correct interpretation of the data but do not usually 

impact the validity of a sample or group of samples reside in the Systematic Issues Table. For example, data quality 

objectives are included in this table. If 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. 

Other elements of this QAPP that contain related sampling and analytical QC requirements include:

• Sample Process and Design (Section 10) – discusses requirements/issues for determining if the collected 

sample(s) accurately represents population/area of interest;

• Sample Method Requirements (Section 11) – Identifies planned field QC samples and procedures for 

sample(s) preparation and handling, etc.;

• Sample Handling & Custody (Section 12) – discusses requirements/issues related to maintaining integrity of 

sample(s) during transport;

• Analytical Methods (Section 13) - discusses requirements/issues related to subsampling methods, preparation 

of QC samples (e.g., blanks and replicates); and

• Instrument Calibration and Frequency (Section 15) – defines prescribed criteria for triggering recalibration.

14.4 Use of Computers for Quality Control

Computers are used throughout the Ambient Air Monitoring and Quality Assurance Program for various aspects of 

Quality Control. Some analytical methods incorporate the use of a computer to control and semi-automate routine 

analytical measurement operations (i.e., DEC laboratory gravimetric analysis of PM10 and PM2.5 sample filters). Other 

Computers are also routinely used to monitor/measure QC within the Ambient AM&QA Program to:

• Compute calibration equations

• Compute measures of linearity for calibrations (e.g., correlation coefficients, slope and intercept)

• Plot calibration curves

• Compute zero/span drift data

• Compute precision and accuracy results

• Plot and compute control limits

• Automatically flag out-of-control results

• Maintain and retrieve calibration and performance records.

231
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

67

15. PROCUREMENT, ACCEPTANCE TESTING AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR INSTRUMENTS, SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES

This section details the procedures used for procuring, inspecting, testing, and accepting instruments, supplies and 

consumables that directly or indirectly affect data quality. By having documented inspection and acceptance criteria 

consistency can be assured.

15.1 Procurement and Acceptance Testing of Equipment

The Air M&QA Program Manager with support form the Air Monitoring Section Manager will be responsible for 

identifying air monitoring equipment needs and approving equipment purchases. The following protocol will be used in 

procurement of air monitoring equipment:

• Equipment evaluation and selection. Prior to purchase, the equipment's performance will be evaluated and other 

users queried in regard to the performance, dependability and ease of operation.

• Purchase specifications. The purchase contract will state the performance specifications that ensure only 

equipment of the desired quality is obtained, require a one year warranty, and indicate payment will not be 

made until the equipment has passed an acceptance test.

• Acceptance Testing. Prior to payment, the equipment should be tested to ensure that it meets the requirements 

listed in the purchase specifications. For analyzers, the minimum test consists of checking zero drift, span drift, 

voltage stability, temperature stability, and linearity. Acceptance test reports are to be prepared and archived by 

the Air Monitoring Section Manager or his/her designee.

15.2 Maintenance of Equipment

Utilizing the specifications in EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II 

and IV, preventive and remedial maintenance tasks, schedules, parts and supplies will be maintained by the AM&QA 

Program. 

The Station Operators are responsible for performing routine preventive and corrective maintenance. They will prepare 

maintenance reports that will be reviewed and archived by the Air Monitoring Section Manager or his/her designee. 

Each monitoring site and/or laboratory will maintain a log book in which the Operator will record a brief description of 

the need for maintenance, the actions performed and the condition of the instrument after maintenance procedures were 

performed. Additionally, the date, time, shelter temperature, operator’s initials and any pertinent site observations will 

be recorded.

Major maintenance and repair will be performed by or under the direction of the AM&QA Section Electronic 

Technician. Equipment will be maintained according to frequencies developed by the Air Monitoring Section Manager, 

or as a default by the maintenance frequency recommended in the respective instrument manual or monitoring 

method/SOP.

15.3 Maintenance of Calibration/Audit Standards and Equipment

Calibration, Quality Control (QC) Check and Audit Standards will be maintained within the recommended certification 

time period. Calibration, QC and audit standards must be maintained within specified accuracy criteria for the method 

and must be calibrated/certified over the intended range of use. Upon receipt of a recertified or new standard, it should be 

compared against another standard of known quality and accuracy to ensure its reliability before routine use. Copies of 

all calibration/audit/QC check standards will be maintained by the respective monitoring agency.

232
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

68

16. INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY

Calibration of an analyzer (or any other piece of measurement equipment) establishes the quantitative relationship 

between a calibration standard of known pollutant concentration input (in ppm, ppb, μg/m3

, etc.) and the analyzer’s 

response (chart recorder reading, output volts, digital output, etc.). This relationship is subsequently used to convert an 

analyzer’s response to corresponding pollutant concentrations. For these measured values to be considered reliable, the 

analyzer must be calibrated over its expected range of use with calibration standards of known accuracy (i.e., certified 

accurate over the calibration standard’s intended range of use). Each analyzer shall be calibrated as directed by the

analyzer’s operation/instruction manual and in accordance with method specific SOPs and data validation templates. 

Calibration documentation shall be maintained with each analyzer in the field and in a central backup file. 

Documentation should be readily available for review and must include: 

• Calibration data,

• Calibration equation(s),

• Analyzer identification,

• Calibration date,

• Analyzer location,

• Calibration standards used and their traceabilities (showing the standard’s certified traceability over range of 

intended use),

• Identification of calibration equipment used, and

• Person conducting the calibration.

16.1 Calibration Standards

This section primarily addresses requirements for calibrating the equipment used to calibrate the field equipment, e.g., 

transfer standards and working standards. The requirements for calibrating the field and laboratory analyzers/equipment 

are listed in method specific Data Validation Tables (section 14) and Tables B9 and B10 Laboratory QC Criteria for 

the Analysis of PM2.5 & PM10 Filters (section 13). Calibrations include adjusting the instrument or sensor to produce a 

response that is consistent with a standard. Calibration of a flow rate, for example, must consist of at least three separate 

flow rate measurements (a multipoint calibration, which is different than a multipoint verification) approximately evenly 

spaced within the range of the operational flow rate. Verifications, on the other hand, are made to verify that the 

operations of the instrument are within specified limits. Verifications do NOT include any adjustment to the 

sampler/analyzer, and are described in Section 14). 

Calibration activities follow a two step process:

• Certifying the calibration standard (typical standards used by ADEC include flow rate instruments, 

thermometers, barometers and laboratory scale weights) against a NIST standard (usually done by sending the 

calibration standard to a weights and measures laboratory), and

• Comparing the calibration standard and/or transfer standard against the routine samplers or sensors.

16.2 Calibration Hierarchy

Figure B5, Hierarchy of Calibration Standard(s) depicts the hierarchy of calibration standards and their relationship 

to the field/lab equipment that they are used to calibrate.

233
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

69

Primary Reference Standard - A primary reference standard can be defined as a homogenous material with specific 

properties, such as identity, unity, and potency that has been measured and certified by a qualified and recognized

organization36, such as the NIST standard reference materials (SRMs). NIST also describes a Primary Reference 

Standard as a 

Definitions

standard that is designated or widely acknowledged as having the highest metrological qualities and 

whose value is accepted without reference to other standards of the same quantity. For example, NIST-F1 Atomic Clock

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 (http://www.nist.gov). Primary reference 

standards are usually quite expensive and are often used to calibrate, develop, or assay working or secondary standards. 

In order to establish and maintain NIST traceability the policies posted at http://ts.nist.gov/traceability/ should be 

observed.

NIST Traceable Transfer Standard – is a standard that has been compared and certified either directly or via no more 

than one intermediate standard to a primary standard such as a NIST Standard Reference Material (NIST SRM) or a 

USEPA/ NIST approved Certified Reference Material (CRM). A NIST Traceable Reference MaterialTM (NTRMTM) is a

commercially produced reference material with a well-defined traceability linkage to existing NIST standards for 

chemical measurements. This traceability linkage is established via criteria and protocols defined by NIST to meet the 

needs of the metrological community to be served (NIST SP 260-136). Reference materials producers adhering to these 

requirements are allowed use of the NTRM trademark. A NIST NTRM may be recognized by a regulatory authority as 

being equivalent to a CRM.

Working Standard – A working standard is used to directly calibrate analyzers/equipment. Working standards may 

either be a NIST Traceable standard or a standard that has been directly certified against a NIST traceable standard. 

Certification of working standards may be established by either the supplier or the user of the standard. At a minimum, 

the certification procedure for a working standard:

• Establishes the concentration and accuracy tolerance of a working standard or calibrates/establishes the readout 

of an analog/digital meter (e.g., flow meter, thermometer, barometer, RH meter and meters used to calibrate 

meteorological sensors). For analog/digital meter outputs the certification range and accuracy tolerances must 

be specified; 

• Certifies that the working standard is traceable to a NIST traceable standard that is “in-certification over the 

range of measurements over which the working standard is certified;”

• Includes a test of the stability of the working standard over several days; and

• Specifies a recertification interval for the working standard.

Note 1: For standards that are calibrated/certified meters (e.g., flow rate, volume, thermometers, hygrometers, pressure 

devices, etc.), the certified standard needs to have a measurement resolution greater than the minimum required 

NIST SRM

Primary Standards that have a 

NIST calibration certificate and 

are periodically sent back to 

NIST for recertification

Manufacturer 

that uses the 

primary standard 

and may sell 

transfer standards

Field/lab organization 

periodically using the 

transfer standard(s).to 

directly calibrate 

analyzers

Figure B5 Hierarchy of Calibration Standard(s)

Field/lab organization 

periodically using the 

transfer standard(s).to 

calibrate working 

standards 

Field/lab 

organization 

periodically 

using the 

working 

standard(s).to 

calibrate 

analyzers & 

equipment 

234
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

70

accuracy required by the monitoring method as well as to be at a minimum 2 to 4 times more accurate than the 

measurement method’s required accuracy criteria. Typically Commercial Reference Method (CRM) 

certifications for these meters are valid for one year, or as specified by the CRM certification time frame. Flow 

rate certifications, verifications, calibrations, acceptance criteria, methods and frequencies are discussed in 

respective methods and method specific data validation tables found in Appendices A and B and in the EPA QA 

Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volumes 2 and 4.

Note 2: Test concentrations of ozone (O3) must be traceable to a primary standard UV photometer as described in 

40CFR Part 50 Appendix D.

Note 3: Test concentrations at zero concentration are considered valid standards. Although zero standards are not 

required to be traceable to a primary standard, care should be exercised to ensure that zero standards are free of 

all substances likely to cause a detectable response from the analyzer. Periodically, several different sources of 

zero standards should be inter-compared. The one that yields the lowest response can usually (but not always) 

be assumed to be the “best zero standard.” If several independent zero standards produce the same response, it 

is likely that all the zero standards are adequate.

Note 4: All test gas concentrations (except zero) used for multi-point calibrations, zero/span, precision and one—point 

QC checks must be certified NIST traceable or EPA protocol as described earlier in this section.

16.3 Multi-point Calibrations

Gaseous Analyzer Multi-point Calibrations (e.g., CO, O3, NH3, NO2, SO2)- Multi-point calibrations consist of five test 

concentrations, including zero concentration, a span concentration (between 80% and 90%) of the full scale (FS) of the 

analyzer under calibration, and the remaining test concentrations equally distributed between zero and span. The 

zero/span test concentrations are to be introduced directly to the back of the analyzer’s sample inlet port and analyzer 

response adjusted to match zero/span test concentrations. After the analyzer’s zero/span has been adjusted, zero/span 

test concentrations shall again be repeated to verify analyzer response match the zero/span test gas concentrations.

Before generating the remaining test gas concentrations, the same zero/span test concentrations shall be introduced 

through as much of the sample train (sample probe/lines and manifold) as practicable prior to being introduced to the 

analyzer’s sample inlet. The zero/span analyzer responses for both test gas configurations should be the same. If not, 

either there is a leak or obstruction in the sample introduction system or sample lines are contaminated. After verifying 

sample inlet configuration is not biasing calibration gas concentrations, complete the analyzer’s multi-point calibration

by supplying test gas concentrations directly to the back of the analyzer. Multi-point calibrations are used to establish or 

verify the linearity of analyzers upon initial installation, after major repairs, after failure of a zero/span or one-point QC 

check or performance audit, and at specified frequencies.

Most analyzers have zero and span adjustment controls, which are adjusted based upon zero and span test concentrations 

(80 – 90% FS), respectively to provide the desired scale range within the analyzers specifications. For analyzers in 

routine operation, unadjusted (“as is”) analyzer zero and span response readings must be obtained and recorded prior to 

making any zero or span adjustments. Analyzer zero and span controls often interact with each other, so adjustments 

may have to be repeated several times to obtain the desired final adjustment. After analyzer adjustment, final postadjusted zero and span analyzer response (using the same zero/span test gas concentrations) readings must be taken and 

recorded from the same calibrated output device (data acquisition system, chart recorder, etc.) that will be used for 

subsequent ambient air measurements.

235
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

71

The analyzer measured responses are plotted against the respective test gas concentrations, and the best fit linear (or nonlinear if appropriate) curve fit is determined. Ideally, least squares regression analysis (with an appropriate 

transformation of the data for non-linear analyzers) should be used to determine the slope and intercept for the best fit 

calibration line of the form: 

y = m•x + b

Where: y = the analyzers response, 

 x = the value of the corresponding test gas concentration,

 m = the slope, and

 b = the x axis intercept of the best fit calibration line. 

When this calibration relationship is subsequently used to compute concentration measurements (x) from the analyzer 

response readings (y), the formula is transposed to:

x = (y – b)/m

Specific calibration procedures and calibration criteria are found in the respective measurement methods/SOPs and data 

validation tables (see Appendices A and B).

As a quality control check on calibrations, the standard error or correlation coefficient must be calculated along with the 

regression calculations. A control chart of the standard error or correlation coefficient should be maintained to monitor 

the degree of scatter in the calibration points and limits of acceptability.

Calibrations of gaseous analyzers are generally required on a quarterly basis (see respective method SOPs and data 

validation templates for method specific calibration frequency criteria).

Particulate Monitor/Sampler Multi-point Calibrations - Multi-point flow rate calibrations consist of generating five 

evenly spaced calibration flows, including zero, that bracket the sampler’s expected operating range. 

Multi-point calibrations will be used by ADEC to establish or verify the linearity of particulate monitor flow rate 

responses to known flow rates upon initial installation, after major repairs, after failure of a one-point QC flow check or 

performance audit, and at specified frequencies.

Most particulate monitors have flow adjustment controls, which are adjusted based upon known flow rates generated to 

bracket the sampler’s expected flow operating range. For particulate monitors in routine operation, unadjusted (“as is”) 

flow readings must be obtained and recorded prior to making any adjustments. After adjustment, a final post-adjusted 

sampler flow shall be measured/recorded to verify that the particulate monitor’s flow rate was set correctly. 

The particulate monitor measured responses are plotted against the respective “known” flow rates, and the best fit linear 

(or non-linear if appropriate) curve fit is determined. Least squares regression analysis (with an appropriate 

transformation of the data for non-linear analyzers) shall be used to determine the slope and intercept for the best fit 

calibration line of the form: 

y = m•x + b

Where: y = the particulate sampler’s flow rate response, 

 x = the value of the corresponding flow rate standard

 m = the slope, and

 b = the x axis intercept of the best fit calibration line

236
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

72

When this calibration relationship is subsequently used to compute concentration measurements (x) from the analyzer 

response readings (y), the formula is transposed to:

x = (y – b)/m

Specific calibration procedures and calibration criteria are found in the respective measurement methods/SOPs and data 

validation tables (see Appendices A and B).

As a quality control check on calibrations, the standard error or correlation coefficient must be calculated along with the 

regression calculations. A control chart of the standard error or correlation coefficient should be maintained to monitor 

the degree of scatter in the calibration points and limits of acceptability.

Calibrations of particulate monitor flow rate measurement systems are generally required on an annual basis (see 

respective method SOPs and data validation templates for method specific calibration frequency criteria).

16.4 Zero/Span Quality Control (QC) Checks for Gaseous Analyzers

A zero/span QC check is a simplified two-point analyzer calibration used when analyzer linearity does not need to be 

checked. For continuous gaseous analyzers, zero/span QC checks will be performed at least every 2 weeks (see specific 

method requirements), although more frequent zero/span checks are encouraged. Frequent 2-point calibration 

(zero/span) checks minimize the extent of analyzer drift by enabling earlier detection of drift and enables subsequent 

analyzer adjustment to be made before the analyzer breaches out-of-control criteria with subsequent loss of collected 

sample data.

The span concentration shall be within 70% to 90% of the analyzer’s full scale (FS) range and must be certified traceable 

(as described in section 16.1). The zero/span gas should be introduced into as much of the sample train as practicable. 

Periodically the zero/span gas should be introduced into the sampling system as close to the outdoor sample inlet as 

possible as an integrity check of the entire sample inlet system (sample train). The analyzer’s response to the zero/span 

gas at the sampler’s outside inlet should mimic the analyzer’s response to the zero/span gas as normally configured 

(either at the span port on the back of the analyzer or at the sample manifold). 

Before any adjustment is made to the analyzer’s zero or span settings, the “unadjusted” or “as found” measurement must 

be recorded. Subsequent adjustment to the analyzer’s zero/span can then proceed. After completing analyzer 

adjustments, a post-adjusted (or “as left”) zero/span measurement must be performed and recorded. These “as found”

and “as left” zero/span measurements obtained prior to and after the calibration adjustment provides valuable 

information for: 

• Confirming the validity of (or invalidating) the measurements obtained preceding the calibration,

• Monitoring the analyzer’s calibration drift, and

• Determining the frequency of recalibration.

Zero/span QC checks are to be documented in chronological format. Documentation includes: analyzer ID, date, 

standard used and its traceability, equipment used, operator performing the zero/span QC check, unadjusted zero and 

span responses, and final adjusted zero/span responses. Documentation shall be maintained both with the analyzer onsite 

237
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

73

as well as in a central file. The use of quality control (QC) charts will be used to graphically record and track level 1 

zero/span results and analyzer drift. 

For method specific zero/span procedures and acceptance criteria, please see the respective monitoring methods and data 

validation tables found in Appendices A and B and in the EPA QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, 

Volume ll, Part ll.

16.5 One-point QC Checks for Gaseous Analyzers

ADEC will employ a one-point QC check to monitor both precision and bias of gaseous measurement systems. A onepoint QC check for gaseous measurement systems is the same as the precision gas introduced every two weeks to the 

back of the gaseous analyzer. One-point QC check results will be used to assess precision and bias over time of each 

gaseous analyzer. Gaseous one-point QC checks are required once every two weeks, though more frequent checks are 

encouraged. One-point QC check concentrations must be within 16% to 20% of an analyzer’s calibrated full-scale 

measurement range.

For method specific one-point QC check acceptance criteria, please see the respective monitoring methods and data 

validation tables found in Appendices A and B. 

One-point QC checks are not to be used as a basis for analyzer zero/span adjustments, calibration updates or adjustment 

of ambient data. They are to be used as a verification tool showing an analyzer’s continued calibration status. Whenever 

a one-point QC check shows an analyzer is not within recommended calibration control, a subsequent zero/span (or a 

multi-point) calibration must be conducted before any corrective action is taken.

If a level 2 zero/span check is to be used in the quality control (QC) program, a reference response for the check must be 

obtained immediately following a level 1 zero/span (or multi-point) calibration while the analyzer’s calibration 

relationship is accurately known. Subsequent level 2 zero/span check responses are compared to the most recent 

reference response to determine if a change in response has occurred. All level 2 zero/span checks are documented 

similar to level 1 zero/span checks.

16.6 Particulate Monitor One-point QC Checks

A one-point QC check of a PM monitor’s flow measurement system is a simplified one-point calibration of the PM 

measurement system when the monitor’s measurement linearity does not need to be evaluated. One-point QC checks of 

particulate monitors are used by ADEC when the linearity of the flow measurement range (temperature and pressure also 

included for PM2.5 monitors and some PM10 monitors) does not need to be checked.

One-point QC checks of particulate monitors are conducted on a monthly basis, although more frequent checks may be 

conducted when meteorological conditions are favorable and access to monitoring sites is feasible. More frequent one 

point QC checks minimizes the extent of measurement drift by enabling earlier detection of the PM monitor’s drift and 

allows subsequent adjustment to be made before the monitor breaches out-of-control criteria with subsequent loss of 

collected sample data.

One-point QC checks generally evaluate both: 

• The bias of the PM monitor’s calibrated flow measurement system,

• Whether specific sample design flow rate conditions are being met to ensure fractionation of particle sizes

within specific ranges (e.g., ≤ 2.5μm for PM2.5 ≤ 10μm for PM10, and ≤ 35μm for TSP), and

238
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

74

• Whether other required method specific criteria are being met (e.g., bias of temperature, pressure and time 

measurement sensors).

For method specific one-point QC check acceptance criteria, please see the respective monitoring methods and data 

validation tables found in Appendices A and B and in the EPA QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, 

Volume II, Parts I and II. 

16.7 Data Reduction Using Calibration Information

An analyzer/particulate monitor/meteorological sensor’s response calibration curves relate the measurement system’s 

response to actual concentration units of measure, and the response of most measurement system’s tends to change (drift) 

unpredictably with passing time. Hence, for sample monitoring data to be meaningful the measurement system must:

• Be calibrated over the range of expected measurement concentrations, and

• All sample measurements must be bracketed by calibration zero/span checks and one-point QC checks 

(particulate and gaseous measurement systems) and/or multipoint calibrations.

These two conditions must be addressed in the mechanism that is used to process the raw sample measurement readings 

into final concentration measurements. Specific data reduction processes are addressed in the respective monitoring 

methods/SOPs and Data Validation Templates (see Appendices A and B).

16.8 Validation of Ambient Data Based Upon Calibration Information

When zero, span and/or precision drift validation limits are exceeded, 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 

calibration (multipoint, level 1 zero/span, One-point QC check or accuracy audit) unless some other point in time can 

clearly be identified and related to the probable cause of the excessive drift (power failure, etc.). Also, data following a 

measurement system’s malfunction or period of non-operation should be regarded as invalid until the next subsequent 

calibration (multipoint or level 1 zero/span or one-point QC check). Specific validation criteria can be found in the 

Alaska Ambient Air Quality Monitoring MQO (Table A7) and the Alaska Meteorological Monitoring MQO Table 

A8. More detailed descriptions of these MQO’s and how they are to be used to control and assess measurement 

uncertainty are described in method specific data validation tables. Method specific data validation tables may be found 

in Appendix A. 

239
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

75

17. INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE FOR SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES

Ambient air quality and meteorological parameters are measured using either chemical techniques or physical methods. 

Chemical analysis as well as some physical analysis involves the use of consumable supplies that must be replaced on a 

schedule consistent with their stability and the rate at which samples are taken. Some continuous analyzer methods 

require chemical scrubbers to remove contaminants from zero air sources, etc. Such scrubbers need to be replaced at a 

frequency determined by the manufacturer as well as by the rate it is consumed, which often are monitoring site specific. 

Please refer to the respective method/SOPs and/or manufacturer’s operations manual for inspection/acceptance testing 

and consumables criteria.

240
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

76

18. DATA ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS

This section addresses data not obtained by direct measurement from the Air Quality Program. This includes both 

outside data and historical monitoring data. Non-monitoring data and historical monitoring data are used by the Program 

in a variety of ways. At this time, the ADEC has not formalized the types of additional data that may be needed in 

support of the monitoring program. Possible data bases which might be used include: 

• Chemical and Physical Properties Data

• Sampler Operation and Manufacturers’ Literature

• Geographic Location

• Historical Monitoring Information

• External Monitoring Data Bases

• Lead and Speciated Particulate Data

• Air Toxics Monitoring Data

• Regional Haze Monitoring Data

• U.S. Weather Service Data

Any use of outside data will be quality controlled to the extent possible following QA procedures outlined in this 

document and in applicable EPA guidance documents.

241
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

77

19. DATA MANAGEMENT

The success of Alaska’s Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program’s objectives relies on data and their interpretation. It 

is critical that data be available to users and that these data are:

• Of known quality,

• Reliable,

• Aggregated in a manner consistent with their prime use, and

• Accessible to a variety of users. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) of data management begins with the raw data and ends with a defensible 

report, preferably through the computerized messaging of raw data.

Data management encompasses the overall flow of data, from field instruments, through transfer computers (laptops, 

data acquisition systems, etc.) to final systems, which may be local office computers, a local network, or external 

systems (AQS). Various air quality staff are responsible for separate or discrete parts of the data management process: 

 The site operators are responsible for data download from instruments or data loggers to laptops or work 

computers. They assemble data files, which includes raw data, calibration information and certificates, QC 

checks (routine checks and audits), data flags, operator comments and meta-data where available. These files 

are stored on a DEC network drive or emailed to the secondary reviewer.

 Secondary reviewers are responsible for QC review, data reformatting for AQS (if necessary), and reporting to 

the program manager

 The program manager is responsible for final data certification

 AQS data entry staff conducts a final review (tertiary review) and submits the validated SLAMS/SPM data to 

AQS.

Figures B6 and B7, AM&QA Overall Data Management Flow Charts provide a visual summary description of the data 

flow/management process.

242
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

78

Figure B6, AM&QA Data Management Flow Chart – NCore/SLAMS/SPM

ADEC AM&QA

Juneau PM10 & 

PM2.5 Gravimetric

Laboratory

ADEC-AM&QA 

Statewide Field 

Monitoring 

Operations

FNSB 

Fairbanks Field 

Monitoring 

Operations

MOA-AAPCA 

Anchorage Field 

Monitoring & PM10

Laboratory

ADEC-AM&QA

QA Officer

QA Assessments

Contract Lab

For MOA AAPCA 

PM2.5 filter

analysis

ADEC-AM&QA

Monitoring 

Supervisor

ADEC-AM&QA

2nd Tier Data 

Validation of

AM&QA monitoring 

operations

ADEC-AM&QA EPA AQS

Data 

Files/Archive

No

Data acceptable

Yes

PM FRM/Continuous Data DEC

PM FRM/Continuous Data FNSB

PM FRM/Continuous Data MOA AAPCA

NCore/SLAMS/SPM Valid Data Reported

Data Assessments

ADEC

Air Quality

Division Director

243
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

79

Figure B7, AM&QA Data Management Flow Chart – Ambient Air & Meteorological 

Monitoring Conducted by Stationary Source for Regulatory Permitting Needs

Stationary Source

Air Monitoring

Project

QAPP Preparation

Stationary Source 

Ambient Air and/or

Meteorological 

Monitoring Project

Data Collection & 

Independent 

QA Audits of Project

Stationary Source 

Air Monitoring 

Begins per 

Approved QAPP

ADEC Air

Permits

Program/Project 

Manager

ADEC AM&QA

QAPP QA Review 

& Approval

Recommend reject 

and/or request 

additional 

information

ADEC AM&QA

Ambient Air/Met 

Monitoring Data 

Review/Approval

ADEC Air 

Permits 

Data Archival

Data Management Flow Legend QAPP Submission

 QAPP Review/Approval

 Reporting of Validated Data

 Request Additional Data

 Data Review/Approval 

244
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

80

There are two basic sources of data collected in support of ADEC’s NCore/SLAMS/SPM/PSD ambient air monitoring 

network. These are:

1. Data collected via manual ambient air monitoring sampling methods. Manual methods are those methods that require 

manual/physical intervention by an operator/analyst to collect and measure and calculate subsequent sample results. 

Each sample is collected/measured as an aggregate of a preset sample collection time, usually 24-hours. These methods 

include

• PM10 HiVol FRM and PM10 LoVol FRM ; 

• PM2.5 FRM; 

• Lead on TSP; and

• A variety of parameter-specific sampling systems utilizing various methodologies and sample collection media (i.e., 

drum samplers, dragger tube samplers, canister samplers for VOCs, sorbent trap cartridges for carbonyl compounds, 

etc)

2. Data collected via continuous sampling ambient air and meteorological monitoring methods. Continuous methods are 

those methods that sample and analyze the pollutant of interest without required physical intervention by an operator to 

collect and measure the result. These methods utilize instrumentation that continuously measures and records the 

measured result, usually as an hourly average. These methods include:

• Gaseous monitors (e.g., CO, NO2, O3, SO2, NH3);

• Continuous particulate monitors for PM10 and PM2.5 (e.g., TEOMs, BAMs, Black carbon—Aethalometers, 

Nephelometers); and

• Meteorological parameters (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, barometric pressure, relative humidity, 

solar radiation,).

Measurement methods utilized in support of NCore/SLAMS/SPM/PSD monitoring projects will utilize specific standard 

operating procedures (SOPs) and method-specific data validation tables that detail the necessary steps to be taken to ensure 

collected/reported data is reliable and of known quality. 

The specific process of data management (sample collection, measurement, verification, validation, review and reporting) 

may vary depending upon overall method specific process. However, the overall goal for data management is to develop and 

implement the necessary steps to ensure that the data that resides in the final storage area reliably represents the data that 

were collected. This process begins with providing proper training to the field operators and/or lab analysts.

All data are first reviewed by the field/lab operators. The operator checks the collected data to ensure that the data file is 

complete and accurately represents the collected samples. The operator ensures all field/lab logbooks and/or data sheets are 

reviewed and any questionable data is appropriately flagged with additional comments added to the file describing the reason 

for the flag. Data files should include raw data, instrument calibration and all subsequent quality control checks and 

independent audit results, plus a copy of the certification documentation.

The data then go through a secondary review process where the field operator’s comments are reviewed and appropriate 

actions taken regarding the data in question. This action may include flagging data, voiding data, re-evaluating SOPs and 

making changes in cases where there are recurrent problems, or as corrective action response to problem areas identified in 

an audit. The secondary review will be conducted by a section member not immediately involved with data collection, to add 

an independent perspective to the data. 

All NCore/SLAMS/SPM data collected and/or reported to ADEC are then stored on a secured state operated network server. 

If the data are to be submitted to AQS, they are properly formatted and uploaded to the AQS data storage system following 

AQS data management protocols.

Figures B8 and B9 depicts ADEC’s Manual and Continuous Method Data Management Schemes.

245
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

81

Figure B9, Data Management of Continuous Methods 

Data storage 

ADEC server AQS

Reports and Statistical Analysis

Field operator

100% check of all

Data, Log Books, 

Field Data Sheets, QC 

checks, data reviews &

Initial data flags, 

providing flag rational

Internal QA/QC Data 

Management 

Responsibilities

10% check of all data,

Verify QAPP & SOP compliance

Verify and validate flags,

Responses to audit issues

SOP procedural adjustment & 

recommendations

Data Collection

Data is collected 

electronically, via direct 

download to a PC, via 

modem or DSL 

Field Operator Data Management Responsibilities

Maintains all log books, field data sheets, QA/QC forms

Calculates concentrations as needed, Conducts preventative 

maintenance, calibrations and QC checks.

Ensures all test equipment is in certification and all SOPs are 

followed.

Field operator

100% check of all

data, logbooks, field 

data sheets & initial 

data flags, providing 

flag rational

Figure B8, Data Management of Manual Methods

Internal QA/QC Personnel

10% check of all data,

Verify QAPP & SOP compliance

Verify and validate flags,

SOP procedural adjustment & 

recommendations

Data storage ADEC Server 

AQS

Reports and Statistical Analysis

Field/Lab Operator Data Management 

Responsibilities

Maintains all log books, field data sheets, QA/QC forms

Calculates concentrations as needed, Conducts preventative 

maintenance, calibrations and QC checks. 

Ensures all test equipment is in certification and all SOPs are 

followed.

Field/Lab Data

Data is collected and 

recorded on forms, 

logbooks computer 

files and 

concentrations 

calculated

246
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

82

19.1 Data Recording

Data entry, validation, and verification functions are integrated into each monitoring method’s data management scheme. 

Procedures for data entry are provided in method specific procedures/SOPs included in Appendix B.

Data for gaseous analyzers are continuously collected via on-site data acquisition systems and accessed either remotely 

from office computers or downloaded onto computers on-site.

Air monitoring station reports are prepared by ADEC station operators and revised when changes in the instrumentation 

or surrounding area occur. These reports identify the station name, station identification, date and time of the change, 

operator, instrument identification, parameter, scale and units. Additionally, reports document the station location, 

address, GPS coordinates, elevation, and probe location. These reports will be sent to the air monitoring supervisor for 

review processing and archiving. Annually an updated Network Plan including a description of SPM and SLAMS sites 

should be provided for public comment on the DEC web page for at least 30 days. After addressing the public comments 

the document will be submitted to EPA.

Air monitoring equipment calibration reports will be prepared and sent to the air monitoring supervisor for review, 

processing and archiving.

The Station Operators maintain station logbooks/log sheets documenting operational and maintenance activities at the 

monitoring site. Station logbook/log sheets are identified with the station name, station identification, date and time of 

site visit, operator, instrument identification, parameter, scale and units. Log book/log sheets are used to document 

quality control checks (time, zero, span, precision, calibration, temperature, pressure, flow, etc.), maintenance, audits, 

equipment changes (span gas, permeation tubes, analyzer, recorder, pen, paper, probe, etc), and missing or invalid data. 

Station records are reviewed periodically by the air monitoring supervisor, and when full, archived by the respective 

monitoring unit (AM&QA, FNSB, MOA-AAPCA, etc.) accordingly. Station records will be reviewed as part of 

oversight QA audits. 

Charts documenting air monitoring data are processed by the station operator, reviewed and archived by the respective 

monitoring unit. The charts will identify the station name, station number, date and time of the review, operator initials, 

instrument identification, parameter, scale and units. The charts will be used to document quality control checks (time, 

zero, span, precision, calibration, temperature, pressure, flow, etc.), maintenance, audits, equipment changes (e.g., span 

gas, permeation tube, analyzer, data acquisition system, chart recorder, pen, paper, probe, etc), and missing or invalid 

data.

SLAMS/SPM summary data reports should be produced annually or as directed by the project and should be published 

on the DEC Web page. The summary data reports will identify the project, date of issue and author. The report will 

include: station identification, pollutant parameters measured, monitoring period, max and second max value, averages, 

precision and bias, and units of measure. The monitoring results will be compared to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, where applicable.

19.2 Data Transformation & Reduction 

Data reduction processes involve aggregating and summarizing results so that they can be understood and interpreted in 

different ways. The ambient air monitoring regulations require certain summary data to be computed and reported 

regularly to U.S. EPA. Other data are reduced and reported for other purposes such as station maintenance. Data 

247
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

83

transformation and reduction for criteria pollutants will follow EPA guidance. Currently the State uses scientific 

calculators and Windows ExcelTM® software to manipulate the data. In the future some of the data reduction and 

transformation will be accomplished in the DR DAS data acquisition system. 

The data collected by ADEC can fall into two main categories:

Data transformation

• Data collected using a manual method requiring subsequent laboratory analysis of samples and 

concentration calculations

• Data collected using a continuous method that requires no subsequent laboratory sample analysis and 

concentration calculations.

Manual Method

Data that are manually collected requiring subsequent calculations to report a concentration are listed at the beginning of 

Section 19 and include such method parameters as PM10 and PM2.5. For all of these methods, only those calculations 

identified in the SOP for that specific method and/or listed in the CFR for that specific method are used. Currently all of 

these calculations are done within an established Excel spreadsheet designed for that specific purpose. All of the Excel 

spreadsheets used in this process are established forms that have been review by ADECs Air QA officer and AM&QA’s 

lead technical personnel. As regulations and methodologies change these forms may be edited to reflect the respective

changes. When a spreadsheet is edited, the edits are reviewed by lead technical staff (and as needed by the Air QA 

Officer) to ensure they conform to all CFR requirements with regard to calculations and content. Where possible, it is the 

policy of the air monitoring group to develop and maintain concentration calculation procedures that minimize the 

possibility of transcription and calculation errors.

On occasion the ADEC operates monitoring sites that collect data using a manual method that is not a federal or 

equivalent PM10 or PM2.5 method. In these cases, it is the ADEC’s policy to follow established methodology using a two 

level review process for all data concentration determinations. In some cases these methods require laboratory analysis 

that can not be performed within ADEC. In these cases ADEC makes the best effort to ensure that the sample collection 

and lab analysis methods are in accordance with established procedures and are followed. Specifics detailing these 

methods will be developed as needed. Project plans and SOPs will be developed, reviewed and approved by 

knowledgeable professionals.

Continuous Methods

Continuous sampling methods are listed at the beginning of Section 19 and include such methods as gaseous monitors, 

meteorological sensors, and continuous PM monitors. The method used for each of type of monitoring system is specific 

to the monitor type, monitor manufacturer, and the data end use requirements. In all cases the ADEC follows either 

established EPA CFR requirements or manufacturer recommended operating procedures or ADEC developed methods 

and SOPs. The ADEC is currently in the process of developing and/or updating some of these SOPs. In some cases the 

ADEC is attempting to reduce the level of work needed to develop these SOPs. In these cases the ADEC is using 

approved SOPs from other monitoring groups to develop the new SOPs that will be used in the future. During this 

developmental stage the SOP that is being used as a template will be followed. 

Data reduction is performed according to the needs of the project. Continuous data which are used in comparisons with 

the FRM data will be reduced to yield concentrations covering the same time periods and interval as the FRM data. 

Data Reduction

Data formatting is performed according to the needs of the project. SLAMS and SPM data will be reformatted as 

required for AQS submittal. PSD quality data will be formatted as required by DEC Air Permits.

Data Formatting

248
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

84

19.3 Data Transmittal

Data transmittal occurs whenever information is transferred from one person or location to another or copied, by hand or 

electronically, from one form to another. An example of data transmittal is copying raw data from a notebook onto a 

data entry form for keying into a computer file. Data copied from data forms and/or logbooks and entered into computer 

files will be checked at 10%. Instructions for data verification will be included in method specific SOPs.

19.4 Data Storage and Retention

Hard copy files (paper files) of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring projects and Stationary Source (e.g., PSD) Ambient Air 

Quality and Meteorological Monitoring projects are kept in the project manager’s office. Electronic files of validated 

data maintained on ADEC network drives managed by the AM&QA Program manager and his/her staff. Validated data 

is also available from the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/index.htm).

The Division of Air Quality maintains a hard copy of the Division’s Air Records Retention Schedule #183200 in the 

Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks offices. The Division of Air Quality follows this retention schedule. AS: Alaska 

Statute, Management & Preservation of Public Records, may be found at: 

http://www.archives.state.ak.us/pdfs/records_management/schedules/dec/air/183200.pdf. 

Raw data sheets are retained on file at the respective air monitoring office for a minimum of three years, and are readily 

available for audits and data verification activities. After three years, hardcopy records, and computer backup media are 

cataloged and boxed for storage. Data archival policies for the data are listed in following table. Security of data in the 

database is ensured by password protection.

Official data storage for NCore/SLAMS data is AQS. In addition DEC will store all monitoring data on the DR DAS 

server (Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) server). The intent is to import as much of the historical data as 

possible. Data and log sheets will be stored in electronic format on the state owned server in station specific folders. 

Data retention on the DEC and DOE server, as well as AQS, are indefinite.

Annual and special summary data reports are developed for upper management and the public and are stored on the DEC 

web page. Raw and validated data will be stored on the AQS, DR DAS, and State network servers. Automated data 

backup is performed according to DOE and State procedures. AQS, DR DAS, and the State network servers are all 

password protected systems, which only allow state authorized personnel to access and manipulate data (following state 

and federal procedures). 

249
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

85

C. ASSESSMENTS AND OVERSIGHT

250
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

86

20.ASSESSMENTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

Assessments 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 evaluation, management system review, 

peer review, inspection and surveillance. For the Ambient Air and Meteorological Quality Monitoring Program, 

assessments are:

• Network Reviews,

• Bias — Performance Evaluations (ADEC), 

• Bias — Performance Evaluations (Independent Audits by EPA), 

• Technical Systems Audits, and

• Data Quality Assessments.

Section 14 of this QAPP provides definitions for Quality Assessment, Quality Control and Quality Assurance. Figure 

B3 (in Section 14) depicts Quality Assessment’s relationship to Quality Control and the overarching umbrella of Quality 

Assurance.

20.1 Network Reviews

ADEC’s Ambient Air Quality Monitoring program conducts annual network reviews of its own and other monitoring 

networks/agencies under its umbrella as time and resources permit. Detailed Network Assessments are conducted every 

five years. Network reviews and assessments are conducted to determine how well the ambient air quality monitoring 

system is achieving the required monitoring objectives and how it may need to be modified to continue and/or to meet its 

objectives (monitoring objectives are set forth in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendices D and E).

20.1.1 Network Selection

Prior to the implementation of the network review, significant data and information pertaining to the review is compiled 

and evaluated. Such information might include the following:

• Date of last review,

• Areas where attainment/non-attainment, redesignations are taking place or are likely to take place,

• Results of special studies, saturation sampling, point source oriented ambient monitoring, etc.,

• Agencies which have proposed network modifications since the last network review, and

• Pollutant-specific priorities such as PM10 problem areas, etc.

• Network files (including updated site information and site photographs), 

• AQS reports, 

• Air quality summaries for the past five years for the monitors in the network, 

• Emissions trends reports for metropolitan area, 

• Emission information, such as emission density maps 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 is checked to ensure it is the most current. Discrepancies are noted on the checklist 

and resolved during the review. Files and/or photographs that need to be updated will also be identified. Adequacy of 

the location of monitors can only be determined based on stated objectives. During the network review, the stated 

251
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

87

objective for each monitoring location or site (see section 10) are reconfirmed and the spatial scale re-verified and then 

compared to each location to determine whether these objectives can still be attained at the present location.

An on-site visit will consist of the physical measurements and observations to determine compliance with the 

requirements, such as height above ground level, distance from trees, paved or vegetative ground cover, etc. Since many 

of these conditions will not change within one year, this evaluation at each site is performed every 3 years.

In addition to the items included in the checklists, other subjects for discussion as part of the network review and overall 

adequacy of the monitoring program will include:

• Installation of new monitors, 

• Relocation of existing monitors, 

• Siting criteria problems and suggested solutions, 

• Problems with data submittals and data completeness, 

• Maintenance and replacement of existing monitors and related equipment, 

• Quality assurance problems, 

• Air quality studies and special monitoring programs, 

• Other issues, such as community concerns, 

• Proposed regulations, and most importantly

• Funding. 

A report of the network review should be written within two months of the review, distributed and appropriately filed. 

20.1.2 Conformance to Network Siting Design (40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D)

Using requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D and Section 10, Sampling Process & Design, the network is 

evaluated to ensure:

• Monitoring network meets number of monitors required by design criteria requirements, and

• Monitors are properly located based upon the monitoring objectives and spatial scale of representativeness.

Alaska only has SLAMS, SPM and PSD quality category monitoring sites. ADEC and EPA Region 10 meet periodically 

to decide how to best achieve the monitoring objectives specified in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D.

PSD monitoring networks/stations are regulated by the ADEC Air Permits Program. ADEC AM&QA provides technical 

support to the Air Permits Program on all aspects of Ambient Air Quality and Meteorological Monitoring.

20.1.3 Conformance to Probe Siting Requirements (40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E)

Siting criteria are specified in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E and Section 11, Sampling Methods. Using these criteria, onsite physical measurements and observations are made to determine compliance with sample probe/monitor criteria such 

as: probe height and distance from potential obstructions, paved or vegetative ground cover, potential sources of pointsource pollution, etc.

EPA QA Manual Volume II Part I Appendix 15 contains an on-site checklist for use in evaluating monitoring networks. 

In addition to items on this checklist, the reviewer should also:

252
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

88

• Ensure manifold and inlet probes/lines are clean and free of obstructions, 

• Estimate sample manifold and probe/lines inside diameters and lengths,

• Inspect monitoring shelters for weather leaks, safety and security,

• Check to ensure all sample lines are connected and free of kinks,

• Check to ensure that monitor exhausts are not likely to be reintroduced back to the sample inlet,

• Check to ensure that monitor exhausts are vented properly so as not to be a safety concern,

• Check equipment for missing parts, frayed cords, etc.,

• Record findings/observations in a field notebook and/or checklist,

• Take photographs in each cardinal direction, (both looking at and looking away from sample probe as well as 

the shelter’s interior layout,

• Record monitoring site’s GPS location (latitude/longitude/elevation), and

• Document site conditions (include any additional photographs/videotape).

20.2 Bias – Performance Evaluations (ADEC)

Performance evaluations 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, air 

monitoring station, and/or laboratory. In order to estimate bias, an external instrument/standard must be compared 

against the field instruments collecting monitoring data. This external (independent) standard can not be the same 

standard/s as used to calibrate and/or perform the routine QC checks of the monitoring instruments. In addition, the 

individual conducting the “independent evaluation” must also be independent from routine operations and calibration(s) 

of the monitoring instruments. Bias is expressed as a positive or negative percentage of the "true" value. 

Bias (Performance Evaluations) implemented in this air monitoring program include periodic:

• Flow rate performance audits of PM monitors,

• Laboratory audits of PM gravimetric operations,

• Lead filter (laboratory analysis) audits,

• Performance audits of gaseous ambient air monitors, and

• Meteorological performance audits

The equations to be used to calculate results of performance audits are found in the respective monitoring methods, EPA 

QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume II Part I Section 15, and references listed in Table C1, 

Bias (Accuracy) Assessments. The required frequency of performance audits and the equations used to assess gathered 

bias/accuracy data are listed and/or referenced in Table C1. In general, the corresponding equations in the referenced 

software (EPA Data Assessment Statistical Calculator, DASC) are suggested rather than the hand-calculated versions. 

20.3 Bias –Performance Evaluations (Independent Audits by EPA)

EPA Performance Evaluations are conducted through the EPA regional office in the form of participation in the National 

Performance Evaluation Program (NPEP). The NPEP audit is a quantitative comparison of results between the 

equipment being tested and the equipment calibrated by another primary standard (audit standard). Successful 

participation requires an agreement of less than 10% between the NPEP equipment and the auditee’s equipment. ADEC 

AM&QA will participate in NPEP as arranged and agreed to with EPA Region 10. 

NPEP audits will be conducted by US EPA Region 10 personnel in accordance with all applicable EPA SOPs once per 

year (http://www.epa.gov//ttn/amtic/npepqa.html). These audits will be conducted when necessary and if resources are 

available. The audit results will be summarized and reported to DEC Division of Air Quality director and the Air QA 

Officer when they are finalized by U.S. EPA Region 10.

253
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

89

PSD quality monitoring projects are required to participate in the NPEP audit program, however participation is 

dependent upon funding and audit equipment availability through EPA. 

20.4 Bias – Performance Evaluations (PSD Quality Monitoring Projects) 

Bias for PSD quality monitoring operations is determined the same as for NCore/SLAMS monitoring except for the

required frequency of performance evaluations (see Table C1) and independence of agencies/contractual firms allowed 

to conduct the performance evaluations.

Performance Evaluations for PSD quality monitoring operations will only be conducted by air monitoring 

contractors/agencies that are completely independent from the air monitoring contractor/agency responsible for the 

specific PSD ambient air and/or meteorological monitoring operations. Specifically, this requires that agencies/industry 

selecting contractors to conduct performance evaluations and/or technical systems audits must use independent 

contractual firms/air monitoring agencies with the requisite expertise to conduct the performance evaluations and that the 

agency/contractual firm must have complete managerial, fiscal and technical independence from the agency/contractual 

firm conducting/managing the monitoring and laboratory operations.

20.5 Technical Systems Audits

A technical system audit (TSA) is a thorough, systematic, on-site (field & laboratory) qualitative audit of facilities, 

equipment, personnel, training, procedures, record keeping, data validation, data management, and reporting aspects of a 

system. Once every 3 years the U.S.EPA Region 10 may conduct a technical systems audit of the ADEC air-monitoring 

program. These audits and/or reviews may also be conducted when necessary and if resources are available. The audit 

results will be summarized and reported to the DEC Division of Air Quality director and the Air QA Officer when they 

are finalized.

In addition to the EPA TSAs, the ADEC QA Officer may also conduct internal technical system audits of ADEC’s 

AM&QA program as time and resources allow.

EPA QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume II Part I Section 15 contains an example TSA form.

PSD quality monitoring networks are required to have an independent TSA performed at the beginning of a monitoring 

project (recommended within 30 days of start-up) and annually thereafter. 

20.6 Data Quality Assessments

Data quality assessments are statistical and scientific evaluations of the data set to determine the validity and 

performance of the data collection design and statistical test, and to determine the adequacy of the data set for its 

intended use. Data Quality Assessments for ADEC’s Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network are reported quarterly, 

annually and every 3 years to the AM&QA program manager and to EPA Region 10. Each parameter reported will 

assess the reported data: 

• Completeness, 

• Bias, and

• Precision

254
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

90

20.6.1 Completeness

Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the amount 

that was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions. Data completeness requirements are included in the 

reference methods (40 CFR 50). Data Completeness objectives are listed in the Measurement Quality Objectives Tables 

B7 and B8. The data completeness goal for NCore, SLAMS and SPM pollutants is ≥ 75% valid data/monitoring quarter 

and for meteorological measurements is ≥ 80% valid data/monitoring quarter. The completeness of the data will be 

determined for each monitoring instrument and expressed as a percentage (equations below). 

Gaseous & Meteorological % DC = valid hourly data/all hours within monitoring quarter

PM10/PM2.5 /Pb on TSP % DC = valid 24-hour data/all scheduled sample run days within monitoring quarter (1/1, 1/2, 

1/3, and/or1/6 sample day frequency)

20.6.2 Bias

Accuracy has been a term frequently used to represent closeness to truth and includes a combination of precision and 

bias uncertainty components. This term has been used throughout the CFR. In general, ADEC follows the conventions 

of the NIST and, more recently, of EPA (ref. NIST Report 1297 and EPA G-9) and will not use the term accuracy, but 

will describe measurement uncertainties as precision, bias, and total uncertainty (total uncertainty is the combination of 

both precision and bias). For the Ambient Air Quality & Meteorological Monitoring program, bias is estimated using 

the results of the manual checks with a known concentration performed every two weeks for gaseous pollutants, or 

monthly for particulate pollutants, and will be the major estimate of bias on an ongoing basis. The performance 

evaluations (performance audits) will provide another estimate of bias (see Table C1, Bias Assessments and web link to 

EPA Data Assessment Statistical Calculator, DASC). In general, the corresponding equations in the referenced DASC 

software are suggested rather than the hand-calculated version shown.

255
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

91

TABLE C1 BIAS ASSESSMENTS

Method 

Parameters

Bias Assessment Frequency References

Single/Multi-Point Analyzer Audits Quarterly, Annual and 3-

Year Network 

Assessment

Manual 

(gravimetric) 

and 

continuous 

PM10 , PM2.5, 

and TSP 

monitors

Audit flow rate percent difference, di, is calculated by:

where Xi is the flow rate of the audit standard and Yi is the sampler’s measured flow rate

Note 1: for SLAMS, SPM and NCore sites 50 % of network audited frequency every 6 

months, and each network sampler audited 1/ year.

Note 2: for PSD quality monitoring each sampler audited 1/quarter

For specific calculations 

(and calculators) for 

determining and 

reporting quarterly and 

annual bias please refer 

to the federal 

references/web links 

listed in this table 

•40CFR Part 58 Appendix A section 

4, Calculations for Data Quality 

Assessment, 

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

ambient/pm25/092706sign.pdf

•Guideline on the Meaning and The 

Use of Precision and Bias Data 

Required by 40 CFR Part 58 

App A 

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

ist.html

•Data Assessment Statistical 

Calculator (DASC) – The software 

to assist those in calculating the 

new precision and bias statistics – 

MS Excel File Type 

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

ist.html

•See EPA QA Handbook Volume 

II Part 1 Appendix 15 Section 3 

for audit procedures

•See respective ADEC Gaseous 

monitoring Methods for audit 

procedures

Lead on TSP Lead Filter Strip Performance Audit

where Xi is the known concentration audit filter strip and Yi is the lead filter strip’s 

measured value

Note 1: for SLAMS, SPM, NCore quality monitoring networks, each lab reporting lead 

on TSP is audited 2/year

Note 2: for PSD quality monitoring network, each lab is audited 1/quarter

Gaseous 

(NH3, CO, 

NO2, O3, SO2) 

Where: Yi =analyzer response value

 Xi =audit gas known value

Note 1: Each multipoint audit requires at a minimum the following audit concentration 

ranges: 

• Zero

• Within 6% to 16% of analyzer full scale (FS)

• Within 30% to 40% of analyzer FS

• Within 70% to 90% of analyzer FS

• Report individual % Δ and avg. % Δ

• Report Linear Regression factors: slope, y-intercept, correlation coefficient (r2

) 

• Report % NO2 converter efficiency (NO2 method)

• Report % NO2 converter efficiency and % NH3 converter efficiency (NH3 method)

Note 2: For SLAMS, SPM and NCore monitors, each pollutant instrument within a 

network audited 1/year with 25% of a network audited each quarter

Note 3: For PSD quality monitoring networks each monitor audited every monitoring 

quarter.

WS, WD, VWS, 

VWD, σθ, σФ, 

T, TΔ, SR,BP, 

Dew Point , RH

Δ = Y – X

Where: Δ = audit differences, Y = sensor response, X = audit known value

Note: For PSD Quality Data, Performance Audits of each sensor required semiannually

EPA-454/R-99-005 Section 5.

http://www.epa.gov/scram001/g

uidance/met/mmgrma.pdf 

×100 − =

i

ii

i X

XY d

×100 − =

i

ii

i X

XY d

×100 − =

i

ii

i X

XY d

256
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

92

TABLE C1 BIAS ASSESSMENTS

Method 

Parameters

Bias Assessment Frequency References

Single/Multi-Point Analyzer Audits Quarterly, Annual and 3-

Year Network 

Assessment

SR, Precipitation %Δ =( Y – X)X • 100

Where: %Δ = audit % difference, Y = sensor response, X = audit known value

Note: For PSD Quality Data, Audits of each sensor required semiannually

EPA QA Handbook Volume IV 

( revised draft) 

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

es/ambient/met/draft-volume4.pdf 

20.6.3 Precision

Precision is a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property usually under 

prescribed similar conditions, or how well side-by-side measurements of the same thing agree with each other. 

Sometimes, as in the case of environmental measurements such as flow rate of an instrument, precision can be estimated 

by repeated measurements of the same thing over some time period, such as three months. It is important that the 

measurements be as similar as possible, using the same equipment or equipment as similar as possible. Precision 

represents the random component of uncertainty. This random component is what changes randomly high or low, and 

which, try as you might, you cannot control with the equipment and procedures you are using. Precision is estimated by 

various statistical techniques using the standard deviation or, if you only have two measurements, the percent difference

The equations and references in Table C2, Precision Assessments lists references, frequency of required precision 

checks and the equations that are to be used to evaluate gathered precision data for NCore, SLAMS, SPM and PSD 

quality monitoring networks. Some of these equations are used on an ongoing basis to evaluate frequent precision 

checks, some are used every quarter and annually or as-needed. In general, the corresponding equations in the referenced 

software (EPA Data Assessment Statistical Calculator, DASC) are suggested rather than the hand-calculated version 

shown.

257
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

93

TABLE C2 PRECISION ASSESSMENTS

Method 

Parameters

Precision Assessment Frequency Reference

Single Point Quarterly Annually

PM10 – 

Collocated, 

gravimetric

relative percent difference, di, is

calculated by:

Where Xi is the concentration of the 

primary sampler and Yi is the 

concentration value from the 

collocated sampler. 

Notes:

• PM10 precision calculated for all 

PM10 measurements, however, 

reported only for paired values ≥ 

15 μg/m3

• PM2.5 precision calculated and 

reported only for paired values ≥ 

3.0 μg/m3

• Pb on TSP precision calculated 

for all paired measurements, 

however, reported only for paired 

values with mass ≥ 0.15 μg/m3

 

• Note 1: Collocated sampling 

required on 1/12 day g frequency 

for SLAMS/SPM/NCore 

Monitoring Networks

• Note 2: Collocated sampling 

required on 1/6 day frequency for 

all PSD Quality monitoring 

projects

The precision upper bound statistic, CVub, is a standard deviation 

on di with a 90 percent upper confidence limit (Equation 11). 

CVub, is a standard deviation on di with a 90 percent upper 

confidence limit. 

Where, n is the number of valid data pairs being aggregated, and χ2 

0.1, n-1 is the 10th percentile of a chi-squared distribution with n-1 

degrees of freedom. The factor of 2 in the denominator adjusts for 

the fact that each di is calculated from two values with error.

• 40CFRPart 58 App A section 4.2.1 

Precision Estimate from Collocated 

Samplers and section 4.3.1 Precision 

Estimate(PM2.5 & PM10-2.5) 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/parslist.html 

•Guideline on the Meaning and The Use of 

Precision and Bias Data Required by 40 

CFR Part 58 App A

•Data Assessment Statistical Calculator 

(DASC) – The software to assist those in 

calculating the new precision and bias 

statistics – MS Excel File Type). 

PM2.5 – 

Collocated, 

gravimetric

Lead on TSP - 

Collocated

Gaseous (NH3, 

CO, NO2, O3, 

SO2) 

Where: Yi =analyzer response value

 Xi =precision gas known value

Precision check gas standard (X) 

recommended in range of 16 to 20% 

of instrument full scale response.

Note 1: Gaseous precision sample 

at 15 – 20% of analyzer FS 

response required on every 2 week 

frequency for all SLAMS, SPM, 

NCore and PSD quality monitoring

The precision estimator is the coefficient of variation upper bound 

and is calculated using the above equation. 

Where χ

2 0.1, n-1 is the 10th percentile of a chi-squared distribution 

with n-1 degrees of freedom. 

• 40CFRPart 58 App A section 3.2.1

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/parslist.html 

•Guideline on the Meaning and The Use of 

Precision and Bias Data Required by 40 

CFR Part 58 App A

•Data Assessment Statistical Calculator 

(DASC) – The software to assist those in 

calculating the new precision and bias 

statistics – MS Excel File Type).

Meteorological Precision not assessed for Meteorological Parameters

( ) 100

2

×

+

− =

ii

ii

i XY

XY d

( ) 100

2

×

+

− =

ii

ii

i XY

XY d

258
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

94

20.7 Corrective Actions, Corrective Actions Response & Corrective Action Reports

The ADEC and the audited organization may work together to solve required corrective actions for findings issued. As 

part of corrective action and follow-up, an audit finding response will be generated by the audited organization for each 

finding submitted by the ADEC. The audit finding response is signed by the local monitoring network manager or 

(where appropriate) the Laboratory Manager and sent to the ADEC Air Quality Assurance Officer and AM&QA

Program Manager which reviews and accepts the corrective action. The audit response will be completed within 30 days 

of acceptance of the audit report. The next audit of the monitoring network will ensure that the stated corrective 

action(s) were implemented and corrective action(s) taken were appropriate to return routine monitoring operations to 

acceptable levels of precision, bias, completeness, representativeness, comparability and detectability.

For PSD quality monitoring, each audit finding the audit agency/audit contractor issues, a corresponding audit finding 

response and corrective action report will be generated and signed by the audited organization’s project manager and 

project QA officer. This response will be included in the PSD Quality Ambient Air Quality & Meteorological 

Monitoring Annual Data Report (http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/PSD_Met_annual_1-1.pdf).

All corrective action reports at a minimum shall include the following information:

• Audit finding(s)

• Cause of the problem(s)

• Actions taken or planned to be taken to rectify the problem(s)

• Responsibilities and timetable for the above actions taken

• Project manager’s printed name, title, signature and date

• Organization’s QA Officer approval (printed name, signature and date of approval)

• Statement identifying if finding is closed or further following action is required. 

All corrective action reports are to be filed with the official audit records with copies sent to the auditee and all other 

affected parties.

20.8 Revisions to ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Annually the ADEC AM&QA QAPP will be reviewed and revised as needed. Minor revisions may be made without 

formal comment. Such minor revisions may include changes to identified program staff, QAPP distribution list and/or 

minor editorial changes.

Revisions to the QAPP that affect stated monitoring Data Quality Objectives, Method Quality Objectives, method 

specific data validation “critical” criteria and/or inclusion of new monitoring methods will solicit public input/comment 

prior to adoption of major revisions.

Notice of proposed major revisions to the QAPP will be posted on the ADEC AM&QA web site with a specified formal 

comment period/window.

Only the most current QAPP revision will be posted on the ADEC AM&QA web site.

259
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

95

21. REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT

Table C3, Reports to Management identifies the type and content of quality-related reports and communications to 

management necessary to support NCore/SLAMS/SPM network operations associated with data acquisition, validation, 

assessment, and data reporting.

Required reports to management for the NCore/SLAMS/SPM ambient air quality monitoring program, and in general are 

discussed in various sections of 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58. Guidance for management report format and content are 

provided in guidance developed by EPA's Quality Assurance Division (QAD) and the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS). These reports are described in EPA QA Handbook Volume II Part 1, Section 16.

Required reports to management/ADEC Air Permits Group for PSD ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring 

are further prescribed in the following two data report formats and are available online at 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm:

• PSD Quality Ambient Air Quality & Meteorological Monitoring Annual Data Report Format

• PSD Quality Ambient Air Quality & Meteorological Monitoring Summary Data Report Format

Table C3 Reports to Management

QA Report Type Contents

Presentation 

Method

Report Issued 

by

Reporting Frequency

As 

Required

Quarter Year

Performance Audit Reports

(NCore, SLAMS, SPM)

Description of audit results, audit methods 

and standards/equipment used and any 

recommendations 

Written text and 

charts, graphs 

displaying results

QA 

Officer/auditor

 

Performance Audit Report 

(PSD)

Description of audit results, audit methods 

and standards/equipment used and any 

recommendations

Written text and 

charts, graphs 

displaying results

QA 

Officer/auditor

 

Corrective Action 

Recommendation

Description of problem(s); recommended 

action(s) required; time frame for feedback 

on resolution of problem(s)

Written text/table QA 

Officer/auditor



Response to Corrective 

Action Report

Description of problem(s), description/date 

corrective action(s) implemented and/or 

scheduled to be implemented

Written text/table Air Monitoring 

Program Manager



EPA NPAP Audit Results Description of audit results, audit methods 

and standards/equipment used and any 

recommendations

Written text and 

charts, graphs 

displaying results

EPA NPAP 

Program and/or 

Region X

 

EPA PM2.5 PEP Audit 

Results

Description of audit results, audit methods 

and standards/equipment used and any 

recommendations

Written text and 

charts, graphs 

displaying results

EPA PEP Program 

and/or Region X

 

Technical Systems Audits 

(NCore, SLAMS, SPM)

Summary of results; description of TSA 

areas reviewed; findings; and any 

recommendations

Written text and

charts, graphs 

displaying results

EPA Region X 

QA Manager

 

Technical Systems Audits 

(PSD)

Summary of results; description of TSA 

areas reviewed; findings; and any 

recommendations

Written text and 

charts, graphs 

displaying results

Responsible QA 

Officer

 

AQS Report to EPA Alaska NCore/SLAMS/SPM data report Quarterly valid data & 

QA/QC results

ADEC-AM&QA data 

base manager



Annual summary data report 

for local monitoring networks 

(NCore, SLAMS, SPM)

Summary of monitoring data and associated

QA/QC used to validate reported data. See 

PSD Quality Annual Data Report Format 

(above) as example.

Written text, charts, graphs, 

etc summarizing monitoring 

data for collection period

Air Monitoring 

Section Manager 

or designee 



Quality Assurance Report to 

Management

Executive summary, precision, bias and 

system and performance audit results

Written text and 

charts, graphs 

displaying results

ADEC Air QA 

Officer



Network Reviews Review results and suggestions for actions, 

as needed

Written text and tables, 

charts, graphs 

displaying results

ADEC AM&QA 

Division Director

 

260
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

96

D. DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY

261
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

97

22. DATA REVIEW VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Data review, verification and validation, are assessment techniques used to accept, reject or qualify data in an objective 

and consistent manner. 

Data review – data review is the process that evaluates the overall data package to ensure procedures were followed and 

that reported data is reasonable and consistent with associated QA/QC results.

Data verification – data verification is the process of evaluating the completeness, correctness, and 

conformance/compliance of a specific data set against the method, procedural, or contractual requirements.

Data validation – data validation is an analyte- and sample-specific process that extends the evaluation of data beyond 

method, procedural, or contractual compliance (i.e., data verification) to determine the analytical quality of a specific 

data set to ensure that the reported data values meet the quality goals of the environmental data operations (method 

specific data validation criteria). 

These assessment techniques are performed by persons implementing the environmental data operations as well as by 

personnel “independent” of the operation, such as the respective organizations QA personnel and at some specified 

frequency. These activities occur prior to submitting data to AQS, or as in the PSD program, reporting data to DEC Air 

Permits.

Each of the following areas of discussion is to be considered during the data review/verification/validation process.

1. Sampling Design – How closely the measurement(s) represent the actual environment at a given time and 

location is a complex issue that is considered during development of the sampling design. Each sample should be 

checked for conformance to the specifications, including type and location (spatial and temporal). By noting 

deviations in sufficient detail, subsequent data users should be able to determine the data’s usability under 

scenarios different from those included in project planning.

2. Sample Collection Procedures – Details of how a sample is separated from its native time/space location are 

important for properly interpreting the measured results. Sampling methods, method specific data validation 

templates and field SOPs provide these details, which include sampling and ancillary equipment and procedures 

(including equipment contamination). Acceptable departures (for example, alternate equipment) from the QAPP, 

and the action to be taken if requirements cannot be satisfied, should be specified for each critical aspect. 

Validation activities should note potentially unacceptable departures from the QAPP. Comments from field 

surveillance on deviations from written sampling plans should also be noted.

3. Sample Handling – Details of how a sample is physically treated and handled during relocation from its original 

site to the actual measurement site are extremely important. Correct interpretation of subsequent measurements 

requires that deviations from “accepted/standardized” sample handling procedures and the actions taken to 

minimize or control the changes be detailed and justified. Data collection activities should indicate events that 

occur during sample handling that may affect sample integrity. At a minimum, sample containers, sample 

preservation and sample shipping methods should be evaluated to ensure they are appropriate to the nature of the 

sample and the type of data generated from the sample. Sample identity, transport and proper sample storage 

conditions should also be confirmed to ensure that samples are representative of its native environment as it 

moves through the analytical process.

262
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

98

4. Analytical procedures – Each sample should be verified to ensure that the analytical procedures used to generate 

the data were implemented as specified (e.g., method specific data validation templates). Sample analyses 

deviating from specified criteria should be flagged with suitable codes so that the potential effects of the deviation 

can be evaluated during data quality assessment (DQA).

5. Quality Control (QC) – The quality control section of the QAPP specifies the QC checks that are to be 

performed during sample collection, handling and analysis. These include analyses of check standards, blanks 

and replicates, which provide indications of the quality of the data being produced by specific components of the 

measurement process. For each specific QC check, the procedure, QC check standard certified value, 

certification/expiration date, acceptance criteria, and corrective action (and changes) need to be specified. All 

measurement data need to be bracketed by acceptable QA, calibration and/or audit (accuracy) data to be 

considered valid. Data validity needs to document the corrective actions that were taken, which samples were 

affected, and the potential effect on affected data validity. Method specific QC criteria are summarized in the 

respective method data validation templates (Appendix A).

6. 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 in-certification standards that bracketed the range of reported measurement results 

otherwise, results falling outside the calibration range should be appropriately flagged; and

• had acceptable linearity checks and other checks to ensure that the measurement system was stable when the 

calibration was performed.

Method specific calibration criteria can be found in the respective monitoring method/SOP and are summarized in 

the respective method data validation templates (Appendix A).

7. Data Reduction and Processing – Checks on data integrity evaluate the accuracy of “raw” data and include the 

comparison of important events and the duplicate keying of data to identify data entry errors.

Data reduction involves aggregating and summarizing results so that they can be understood and interpreted in 

different ways. The ambient air monitoring regulations require certain summary data (e.g., precision, bias, data 

completeness, etc.) to be computed and reported regularly to U.S. EPA. Other data are reduced and reported for 

other purposes such as station maintenance, PSD data reporting, etc. DEC requires PSD quality monitoring data 

to be reduced and reported on a quarterly (summary results only) and annual basis to the ADEC Air Permits 

Program. The required reporting formats are available online at: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm. 

263
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

99

23. DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS

The following data verification and validation processes will provide for data that meets the Project's quality assurance 

criteria.

23.1 Data Verification Methods

Data verification is a two-step process:

1. Identify project needs for records, documentation, and technical specifications for data generation, and 

determining the location and source for these records.

2. Verify records that are produced or reported against the method, procedural, or contractual requirements, as per 

the field and analytical operations (i.e., sample collection, sample receipt, sample preparation, sample analysis 

and data verification records review).

Step 1 -- Identify project needs for records, etc: For ambient air and/or meteorological monitoring project needs can be 

broken down into whether the monitoring project supports NCore, SLAMS, SPM or PSD quality monitoring. The 

project needs is stated in the required monitoring project’s QAPP (chapter 5). The data verifier uses this and other 

support documents to determine the purpose of data collection and specified needs for sample collection, data generation 

and documentation of the analysis.

Even though requirements for NCore, SLAMS, SPM and PSD quality monitoring are standardized, planning document 

requirements will vary according to the specific purpose of sample collection and anticipated end-use of the collected 

monitoring data. These differences should be reflected in the planning documents.

Project specifications may also include specifications for monitoring data (sample collection and field and/or lab 

analyses) and for the resulting data reports. These specifications are important in verifying that the actual methods

employed (field/lab equipment as well as measurement procedures, etc. used) match what was requested. This ensures, 

“verifies,” that the specified method was used and that it met technical criteria established in the approved QAPP.

Know/determine where the records are maintained. Records may be produced by a number of personnel and maintained 

in a number of rooms or locations. All personnel need to comply with the record-keeping procedures of the monitoring 

project (field, laboratory, etc). At any point in the data generation chain, the information needed for data verification 

needs to be available to the people responsible and the respective project requirements need to be clearly identified in the 

planning documents.

Step 2 – Verify records that are produced or reported, etc: Step 2 compares the records produced against the project 

needs/requirements. The project planning document (respective QAPP) that specifies the records to be reported should 

be used to determine what records to verify. Note: In the rare absence of such an organizational specification, the 

determination of data to be verified may be left to the discretion of the project manager/principal investigator and the 

respective agency’s quality assurance person. Such a determination must be justified/documented and appended to the 

data package for subsequent data validation.

Outputs of Data Verification

1. The first output is “verified data.” Examples of verified data that have been checked for a variety of factors during 

the data verification process include:

• Transcription errors,

• Correct application of dilution factors,

• Correct application of conversion factors, 

• Correct reporting units of measure, and

• Appropriate field and/or laboratory data qualifiers.

Any changes to the results as originally reported by the field/lab monitoring group must be accompanied by a note of 

explanation from the data verifier or reflected in a revised sample data report.

264
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

100

2. The second output of data verification is the “data verification record.” This record includes a “certification 

statement” certifying the data have been verified. The statement is signed by responsible personnel either within the 

organization or as part of external data verification. Data verification records must also include technical noncompliance issues or shortcomings of the data produced during the field and/or laboratory activities. If the data 

verification identified any non-compliance issues, then the narrative must identify the records involved and indicate 

the appropriate corrective actions taken in response. The records routinely produced during field activities and at 

the analytical laboratory (commonly referred to as a data package) and other documentation such as checklists, 

handwritten notes, or tables should also be included as part of the data verification records. Definitions and 

supporting documentation for any field/laboratory qualifiers assigned also should be included.

The following Figure D1, Data Verification Process, summarizes the steps.

- Note 1: For NCore, SLAMS, SPM monitoring projects performed by ADEC AM&QA staff, steps 1 and 2 of 

data verification is the responsibility for the ADEC AM&QA field and laboratory technicians.

Note 2: For NCore, SLAMS, SPM monitoring projects performed by Local Agencies, steps 1 and 2 of data 

verification is the responsibility for the local agency’s air monitoring staff.

Note 3: For PSD quality monitoring projects performed by agencies/facilities/industry, steps 1 and 2 of data 

verification is the responsibility of the respective agency/facility/industry reporting data to ADEC.

23.2 Data Validation Methods 

Data validation is an analyte- and sample-specific process that extends the evaluation of data beyond “data verification”

to determine the analytical quality of a specific data set. Data validation criteria are based upon the measurement quality 

objectives (MQOs, see chapter 5) developed in a quality assurance project plan (QAPP). Data validation includes a 

determination, where possible, of the reasons for any failure to meet method, procedural, or contractual requirements, 

Figure D1: Data Verification Process

Inputs to Data Verification:

• Project Specific Planning 

Documents (e.g., ADEC and/o 

EPA Approved QAPP)

• Generic Planning Documents

• Field SOPs

• Sampling Protocols

• Laboratory SOPs

• Analytical Methods

Step 1 of Data Verification

• Identify Project Requirements and 

Determine the Location and 

Source of Records

Step 2: Verify Records

• Sample Collection

• Sample Shipping

• Sample Receipt

• Sample Preparation

• Sample Analysis

• Records Review

Outputs of Data Verification:

• Data Verification Records

• Verified Data

265
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

101

and an evaluation of the impact of such failure on the overall data set. Data validation applies to activities in the field as 

well as in the analytical laboratory. 

Method specific data validation tables for ADEC criteria pollutants and meteorological parameters can be found in 

Appendix A. These validation tables list criteria for determining whether data under evaluation is acceptable for 

reporting as NCore, SLAMS, SPM and/or PSD quality data.

Prior to the ADEC officially reporting or using the data to make decisions concerning air quality, air pollution 

abatement, or control, the data will be verified and certified by the M&QA program manager in consultation with the Air 

Quality Assurance Officer.

In order for the data to be considered valid the following conditions must be satisfied:

• The air monitoring instrumentation must be calibrated and operated according to standard methods that have been 

approved for use in the ambient air and meteorological monitoring program. 

• The data must be accompanied by back up documentation which meet the specifications outlined in Section 14 of 

this Plan, and be identified with respect to station name, station number, date, time, operator, instrument 

identification, parameter, scale and units.

• The data must be bracketed by documented quality control which substantiate that they meet the criteria in Section 

14 of this plan.

Data which are reviewed and found to satisfy these criteria will be considered valid. Data that do not, will be invalidated 

back to the last valid quality control check and future data will be invalidated until it can be shown to meet the project's 

tolerances.

Figure D2, Data Validation Process, depicts the overall process. 

266
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

102

Note 1: For NCore, SLAMS and SPM monitoring projects performed by ADEC AM&QA staff, initial tier of 

data validation is the responsibility for the ADEC AM&QA field and laboratory technicians. For NCore, 

SLAMS and SPM projects, the focused data validation step is the responsibility of the ADEC AM&QA 

Monitoring supervisor or his/her designee.

Note 2: For NCore, SLAMS and SPM monitoring projects performed by Local Monitoring Agencies, the 

initial tier of data validation is the responsibility of that local monitoring agency. The focused data validation 

step is the responsibility of the ADEC AM&QA Monitoring supervisor or his/her designee.

Note 3: For PSD quality monitoring projects performed by agencies/facilities, both tiers of data validation are

the responsibility of the responsible agency/facility conducting the monitoring project. ADEC-AM&QA 

conducts an additional independent data validation/data review to ensure monitoring project conformed to 

ADEC-AM&QA PSD data quality criteria. 

The primary focus of data validation is determining data quality in terms of accomplishment of the monitoring project’s 

stated measurement quality objectives (MQOs).

Figure D2: Data Validation Process

Inputs to Data Validation

• Project specific planning 

documents (e.g., ADEC and/or 

EPA approved QAPP)

• Generic planning documents

• Field/laboratory SOPs

• Method specific data validation 

tables

• Sampling methods

• Laboratory methods

Perform Initial Tier Data 

Validation

Field

• Evaluate field records for consistency

• Review field QC information

• Review QA information (field

performance and systems audits)

• Summarize deviations and determine 

impact on data quality

• Summarize samples collected

• Prepare field data validation report

Laboratory

• Assemble planning documents and data to 

be validated. Review summary of data 

verification to determine method, 

procedural, and contractually required 

QA/QC compliance/non-compliance

• Review QA information (laboratory 

performance and systems audits)

• Review verified, reported sample results 

collectively for the data set as a whole, 

including laboratory qualifiers

• Summarize data and QC deficiencies and 

evaluate the impact on overall data quality

• Assign data qualification codes as 

necessary

• Prepare analytical data validation report

Inputs to Data Validation 

from Data Verification 

Process

• Data verification records

• Verified data

Identify Project 

Requirements

Initial Data 

Validation Outputs

• Data validation report

• Validated data

Focused Data Validation 

• Review data validation package 

(similar to initial tier data 

validation)

• Evaluate project validated data for 

completeness, precision and bias

• ADEC M&QA NCore, SLAMS, 

SPM data validation prior to AQS 

reporting

• ADEC M&QA validation of 

industry/facility PSD quality data

Focused Data 

Validation Report

PSD Project Data 

Validation Report to 

ADEC Air Permits

Group

NCore, SLAMS, 

SPM Project Data 

Validation Report to 

EPA-AQS

267
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

103

Data validation is typically performed by person(s) independent of the activity which is being validated. In large 

organizations this is standard practice. However, in smaller organizations/agencies it is acceptable for the air monitoring 

technicians (who conduct the monitoring) to conduct the first tier of data validation, with the focused data validation 

performed by the air monitoring project’s supervisor/project manager. The appropriate degree of independence is 

determined on a program specific basis and identified and approved in the respective QAPP.

As in the data verification process, planning documents, methods, procedures, data validation tables, verified data, etc. 

need to be readily available to the data validators. The data validator must be knowledgeable of the specific types of 

information to be validated. For this reason, it may require different individuals with specific knowledge to validate 

discreet components of a data set (e.g., field monitoring/measurement activities, laboratory gravimetric analyses, metals 

analyses, volatile organic compound analyses, etc.).

The data validator needs to be aware of signs that indicate improper field and laboratory practices that can/will affect 

data integrity. EPA QA/G-8, “Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Validation,” EPA/240/R-02/004, 

devotes chapter 5 to Data Integrity. This document can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g8-final.pdf . 

Each data validator is encouraged to familiarize themselves with this and other chapters in this guidance document.

268
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

104

24. RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS

The Air Quality Assurance Officer will prepare a quarterly Air Monitoring Data Quality Assessment Report for Alaska’s 

NCore/SLAMS/SPM monitoring network that describes data quality in terms of precision, accuracy and data 

completeness. This report will be posted on the ADEC website at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm. 

269
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

105

APPENDIX A

METHOD SPECIFIC DATA VALIDATION TABLES

Met-One BAM 1020 PM10 & PM2.5

PM2.5 FRM

PM10 FRM & FEM HiVol

PM10 FRM & FEM LowVol

Met-One SSASS PM2.5

Meteorological Measurements

Pb on TSP FRM/FEM by AA Spectroscopy

Gaseous (SO2, NOx, CO, O3) Methods 

NH3 by chemiluminescence

270
ADEC AM&QA QAPP

Revision: Final Date: 02/23/2010

106

APPENDIX B 

MONITORING METHODS AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

PM 10 GMW Accu-Vol FRM Hi Volume Sampler 

PM 10 & PM 2.5 Met-One Beta Attenuation Mass (BAM) Monitor Model 1020 

PM 2.5 FRM R&P Partisol 2000

PM 2.5 R&P 1400a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM)

PM 2.5 R&P 1400a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance w/ 8500 FDMS (TEOM/FDMS)

PM 2.5 Met-One Super SASS Speciation Monitor

PM 2.5 Magee Scientific Aethalometer

Thermo Electron 48(c) Carbon Monoxide Monitor 

O3 by UV absorption 

SO2 by UV fluorescence 

NOx by chemiluminescence

NH3 by chemiluminescence

Laboratory Gravimetric Analysis of PM2.5 Air Quality Filter Samples

Network Data Collection

Meteorological Monitoring

These documents can be viewed at:

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm

271
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to:

State Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. II: Analysis of Problems, Control Actions

Section II: Air Quality Control Program

Adopted 

August 20th, 2010
Adopted August 20th, 2010

(This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)
Adopted August 20th, 2010

II-1

Volume II, Section II is amended as follows:

Section II

STATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

The Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) administers the state air quality 

control program in Alaska and is the primary agency responsible for implementing the 

state air quality control plan. Portions of the control plan make up Alaska’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and address the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 and subsequent requirements set out by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Each time EPA approves an amendment to the state’s control 

plan those amendments become a part of the federally required and approved SIP. Other 

portions of the control plan are state requirements that may be pending approval by EPA 

or cover control measures that are not required by EPA. The air quality control plan, 

including the SIP, has been adopted by reference into Title 18, Chapter 50 of the Alaska 

Administrative Code. ADEC is responsible for establishing the air quality standards 

throughout the state, and ensuring that regulations are enforced statewide to maintain 

ambient air quality standards. 

The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) and the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) 

both operate local air quality control programs in their respective jurisdictions. Their 

local programs concentrate on ambient air monitoring, enforcement of visible emission 

and dust control regulations, and local control measures to reduce motor vehicle carbon 

monoxide emissions. In addition, the interjurisdictional Southcentral Clean Air Authority 

has been established to aid the MOA and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in pursuing 

joint efforts to control emissions and improve air quality in the air shed common to the 

two jurisdictions. As a matter of policy, ADEC encourages the development of strong 

local air quality control programs. ADEC provides technical assistance to ensure that air 

quality objectives are satisfactorily carried out. The legal authority for establishing local 

air pollution control programs is found in Alaska Statute (AS) 46.14.400—Local Air 

Quality Control Programs.

Department of Environmental Conservation

ADEC’s Division of Air Quality works to protect the public from the adverse health 

effects of air pollution and is divided into three programs: Air Permits Program; Air NonPoint & Mobile Source Program; and Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program.

The Air Permits Program issues both construction and operating permits from offices in 

Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. The Air Permits Program also focuses on compliance 

assurance with an enforcement program and a regulation development team. 

The Air Non-Point & Mobile Source Program consists of two sections: mobile sources

and area source pollutants. The mobile sources section is centered in Anchorage, with 

staff also located in Fairbanks. The mobile sources section is responsible for 

implementation of mobile source air pollution programs such as the Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program and low-sulfur diesel requirements. The area source 
Adopted August 20th, 2010

II-2

pollutants group is centered in Juneau, with staff also located in Fairbanks, and is 

responsible for development of the State Air Quality Control Plan, the state 

implementation plan (SIP), and air quality regulations such as I/M and conformity 

regulations. 

The Monitoring and Quality Assurance Program is centered in Anchorage, with staff 

also in Juneau and is responsible for air monitoring projects that measure the actual 

concentrations of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

ozone, lead, or other meteorological parameters. The monitoring program’s Juneau 

laboratory assists in operation and maintenance of a statewide monitoring network and 

assists in special monitoring projects.

AS 44.46.020, 46.03.020, 46.03.024, 46.03.760, 46.03.765, 46.03.780, 46.03.790, and 

AS 46.14 .010 through 46.14.990 provide ADEC’s legal authority (copies are in the 

appendix to Section II). In 1972, the State of Alaska Department of Law determined that 

AS 46.03 contained the necessary legal authorities as required by the Clean Air Act to 

carry out the statewide air quality control plan. This legal opinion, found in the appendix 

to section II, identifies the prerequisite legal authorities for the state's air quality control 

program. It also covers the six basic legal requirements identified in 40 C.F.R. Part 

51.11(a) in 1972. (Note: in 1986, the legal requirements were moved to 40 C.F.R. 

Section 51.230.)

ADEC's Air Quality Control regulations, 18 AAC 50, are located in the appendix to 

Section II. Amendments adopted in 1982 allowed assumption of the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, New Source Performance Standards review for 

six sources, and other activities. Amendments adopted in 1983 created administrative 

procedures to maintain ambient air quality standards in locations where emissions from 

residential wood burning activities threaten public health and modified open burning 

regulations. 

In 1987, the department amended regulations that control the height of stacks and the use 

of dispersion techniques. In 1988, the department amended fugitive emission accounting 

procedures for determining permit applicability, and asphalt plant emission standards. In 

1991, ADEC adopted an ambient air quality standard for ammonia. In a separate 1991 

amendment package, further amendments accomplished the following:

• established an ambient air quality standard for particulate matter smaller than 

10 microns (PM10);

• set an upper boundary for any increases of nitrogen dioxide emissions;

• reduced the visible emission standard for marine vessels from 40 to 20 percent 

opacity;

• revised the criteria for owners of incinerators to obtain an operating permit; • established a new permit procedure for facilities in Anchorage and Fairbanks; • established a new air episode category called "air quality advisory"; and

• restricted wood stove operation during an air quality advisory and an air 

emergency.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

II-3

The 1991 package also included amendments to reduce PM10 levels in Eagle River and in 

the Mendenhall Valley. Those amendments include a public notice and 30-day comment 

period for all new air quality control permits; and clarify certain permit requirements and 

procedures, especially issues pertaining to the definition and application of "actual" and 

"allowable" emissions.

In 1994, the department amended the Air Quality Control regulations (18 AAC 50) to 

address New Source Review and Conformity requirements. In 1998, the Transportation 

Conformity requirements were updated. In 2004, 18 AAC 50 was updated to identify 

Anchorage’s and Fairbanks’ re-designations as maintenance areas.

The department’s Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for Motor 

Vehicles (18 AAC 52), initially adopted in 1985, were amended twice in 1994, once to 

establish an I/M program for vehicles used to commute into the MOA, and again in 

response to federal I/M regulations dated November 1992. In 1996, the regulations were 

amended to change the implementation schedule from an annual to a biennial inspection 

frequency. In 1999, DEC amended Chapter 52 to incorporate a switch from BAR-90 to 

the Alaska2000 Emissions Inspection System. In 2000, an amendment changed the start 

date of the OBDII testing requirement from January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2001. In 2009, 

some minor changes were made to 18 AAC 52 to add flexibility for enforcement options 

and to recognize improved performance of new vehicles through a multi-year exemption 

period prior to inclusion in the program. A copy of 18 AAC 52, as amended through

November 4th, 2009, is contained in Volume III, in the Appendix to Section III.A.

State oxygenated fuel regulations are contained in 18 AAC 53. These regulations were 

initially adopted in 1992. These regulations required the sale of oxygenated fuels in the 

MOA during the control period of November 1 to March 1 from 1995 until 2004 when 

the MOA was re-designated from nonattainment to attainment. 

In 2000, DEC amended Chapter 53 to change the per-gallon CAR fee amount and in 

2004 amended it to suspend the required use of gasoline containing 10% ethanol during 

the winter months. The amendments clarified the procedure for reestablishing blended 

gasoline should there be a violation of the carbon monoxide (CO) standard in the future. 

The use of ethanol containing gasoline has been effective for reducing tailpipe carbon 

monoxide emissions. However, the technology of newer vehicles reduces the emission 

benefits associated with this control program. Consequently as new cars replace older 

cars this strategy provides diminished air quality returns. It is also no longer necessary 

for meeting clean air standards in Anchorage. The amendments inserted language that 

defines guidelines for suspension or reestablishment of fuel control periods. A copy of 

18 AAC 53, as amended through February 20, 2004, is contained in Volume III in the 

appendix to III.A. 
Adopted August 20th, 2010

II-4

Municipality of Anchorage

The Southcentral Clean Air Authority (SCAA) includes the MOA and the MatanuskaSusitna Borough (Mat-Su Borough). As a means to address inter-jurisdictional issues, the 

MOA and the Mat-Su Borough may activate the SCAA, as needed. 

The Anchorage Air Pollution Control Agency (AAPCA), the air quality section of the 

Municipal Department of Health and Human Services, confines its control activities to 

just the MOA. The MOA is also the official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

for Anchorage, and has lead responsibility for the continuing, cooperative and 

comprehensive (3C) transportation planning process throughout the MOA. In 

Anchorage, the MOA, along with ADEC and the Alaska Department of Transportation 

and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF), conducts the 3C process through the Anchorage 

Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) planning group. The AMATS group 

has a key role in the ongoing development of Anchorage's transportation control plan, as 

described in Section III.B.

The local ordinances establishing a local air program in Anchorage are included in the 

appendix to Section III.B. To minimize duplicate efforts and maximize the use of 

available resources, ADEC and MOA maintain a formal Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) that serves as the basis for the division of responsibilities between state and local 

government for air pollution control within the Municipality of Anchorage 

MOA's air pollution control efforts currently involve the AAPCA and the Municipality's 

Department of Community Planning and Development (DCPD). AAPCA had lead 

responsibility for developing the transportation control plan described in Section III.B, 

and is also responsible for conducting the remaining local air pollution control program 

functions throughout the MOA. DCPD has lead responsibility within the MOA for 

coordinating AMATS transportation planning activities, and works closely with AAPCA 

on all transportation control efforts.

Fairbanks North Star Borough

The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) has operated a local air pollution control 

program since 1972. The FNSB became an official “small-urbanized area” in the spring 

of 2002, when the Census Bureau issued its designations of urbanized areas based on the 

2000 population census. With a population surpassing 50,000, Fairbanks is now required 

to operate as an MPO. The FNSB Department of Transportation has the responsibility 

for air pollution control in the borough, including the administration of the Fairbanks I/M 

Program. The FNSB air ordinances cover the I/M program, open burning, visible 

emissions from stationary sources, and emergency procedures. These ordinances, which 

have undergone several minor revisions since 1983, are included in the appendix to 

Section III.C.9. In 2001, the Borough Assembly approved an ordinance mandating 

plug-ins in some parking lots. This ordinance, No. 2001-17, is found in the Appendix to 

Section III.C.5.
Adopted August 20th, 2010

II-5

The Fairbanks air pollution control efforts, discussed in detail in Section III.C, 

concentrate on violations of the carbon monoxide ambient air quality standards. The 

FNSB has relied on the ADEC to control large stationary emission sources within the 

borough. The division of responsibilities between ADEC and the FNSB is formalized in 

Memorandums of Understanding (MOU), which are reviewed periodically by both 

parties. 

The FNSB, along with ADEC, ADOT/PF and the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, 

participates in MPO transportation planning through the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area 

Transportation Study (FMATS) planning group. The FMATS group is involved in the 

ongoing development of the transportation control plan for Fairbanks, as described in 

Section III.C.
Craig E. Campbell

Lieutenant Governor

State Capitol

Juneau, Alaska 99811

907.465.3520 465.5400 Fax

WWW.LTGOV.ALASKA.GOV

530 West t h Ave, Suite 1700

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

907.269.7460 269.0263

LT.GOVERNOR@ALASKA.GOV

OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

ALASKA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Gary Mendivil, AAC Contact

Department of Environmental Conservation

FROM:

DATE:

Scott Clark

Special Assistant

907.465.4081

September 29,2010

RE: Filed Permanent Regulations: Department of Environmental Conservation

State Air Quality Improvement Plan; Air Quality Control: 18 AAC 50.030; 18 AAC

50.215

Attorney General File:

Regulation Filed:

Effective Date:

Print:

JU2010201261

9/29/2010

10/29/2010

196,January 2011

cc with enclosures: Linda Miller, Department of Law

Jim Pound, Administrative Regulation Review Committee

Judy Herndon, LexisNexis
ORDER ADOPTING CHANGES TO REGULATIONS OF

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

The attached two pages of regulations, dealing with air quality control at 18 AAC 50 are hereby

adopted and certified to be a correct copy of the regulation changes that the Department of

Environmental Conservation adopts under the authority of AS 46.03.020, AS 46.14.020,

46.14.030, 46.14.140, and 46.14.510 and after compliance with the Administrative Procedure

Act (AS 44.62), specifically including notice under AS 44.62.190 and 44.62.200 and opportunity

for public comment under AS 44.62.210.

This action is not expected to require an increased appropriation.

Although no comments were received, the Department of Environmental Conservation paid

special attention to the cost to private persons of the regulatory action being taken. The

Department of Environmental Conservation also gave special attention to alternate practical

methods in this regulatory action, as required by AS 46.03.024.

The regulation changes adopted under this order take effect on the 30th day after they have been

filed by the lieutenant governor, as provided in AS 44.62.180.

DATE: August 20,2010

Juneau, Alaska

Da~~~..L1:-'----"om-m-l-ss-l-on-e-r-----­ Pursuant to delegation by

Larry Hartig, Commissioner

Department of Environmental Conservation

FILING CERTIFICATION

I, Craig E. Campbell, Lieutenant Governor for the State of Alaska, certify that on

~::;~;pieA;V~~)t" 2<1 ,2010, at ...L:.'.-~~YH~., I filed the attached regulations according to the provisions

of AS 44.62.040 - 44.62.120.

E. Campbell, Lieutenant Governor

Register:

FOR DELEGATION OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S AUTHORITY

I, CRAIG E. CAMPBELL, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALASKA,

designate the following state employee to perform the Administrative Procedures Act filing

functions of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor:

SCOTT CLARK, Special Assistant

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have

signed and affixed the Seal of the State of

Alaska, at Juneau, on

February 23,2010.

...............•....:'~ .

~.L'vy''-" E. CAMPBELL

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Register -t'llbJ~~~jtl:t1V ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVAnON

The lead-in language of 18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read:

18 AAC

~~50.030. Stat}J~!~"qua!!~ co~~~la3. Volumes II and III ofthe State Air

Quality Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions of AS 46.14 and this

t!n~ chapter, as amended through August 20 ,2010 [NOVEMBER 6,2009], are adopted by

reference. The plan includes the following documents which are also adopted by reference:

...

18 AAC 50.030(4) is amended to read:

(4) the department's Quality Assurance Project Plan (or tlte State o(Alaska Air

(it

r--- Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program[ALASKA QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL "'--_....,.,A

/-"---' FOR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING], as amended through February 23, '-_/ [.ff.

2010[AUGUST 21,1996];

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, Register 147; ~------,--_..-

am 1/1/200~Register 152; am 12130/2000hRegister 156; am 9/21/2001, Register 159; am

.1\ l3/~ 1\

1/27/2002, Register 161; amIf"m~, Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004,

Register 169; am 6/24/2004, Register 170; am 10/1 /2004, Register 171; am 12/14/2006, Register

180; am 12/30/2007, Register 184; am 5/17/2008, Register 186; am 7/25/2008, Register 187; arrj'

11/9/2008, Register 188; am 5/6/2009, Register 190; am 11/4/2009, Register 192; am 4/1/2010,

Register 193;

Authority: AS 46.03.020

AS 46.14.020

AS 46.14.030

AS 46.14.140

1

Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993
'Z. 01\

Register l{()iJf8+~- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

18 AAC 50.215~~amendedto read:

(1) the department's Quality Assurance Project Plan &r the State o(Alaska Air

Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program [ALASKA QUALITYASSURANCE MANUAL FOR

AMBIENTAIR QUALITY MONITORING], adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030 for{:r-~ ~;~--_._--,._---~_._._~.,,---~----_._-~._-_._-----'"----._'", ...,,"'-_...~_.."'--,..,,_._.__.".,,_..-..-" ~total suspended particulates (TSP), lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur

dioxide, Q?;pnepand ammonia;

(Efl 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 10/1/2004, Register 171; am

~1..C>Il'l ~5~)fet::.illjJ

7/25/2008, Register 18~> Register A

Authority: AS 46.03.020

AS 46.14.030

AS 46.14.140

AS 46.14.180

2

Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993


(x) compliance with federal law

( ) compliance with new or changed state statute

compliance with court order

development of program standardsother: (please List)

5, RDU/component affected: Division ofAir Quality.

6. Cost of implementation to the state agency and available funding (in thousands of dollars):

Initial Year SubsequentFY2OIO Years

Operating Cost $0Capital Cost $0

Federal receipts $0

General Rind match $ 0 $ 0General fund $ 0 $ 0

General fund!

program receipts $0

General fund!

mental health $ 0 $ 0

Other funds (specify) $0

7. The name of the contact person for the regulations:

Name: Scott J. Sloane.Title: Environmental Program Specialist.

Address: Division of Air Quality, ADEC, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303

P.O. Box 111800, Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800.

Telephone: 907-465-5176

E-mail address: scott.sloane alaska.gov

8. The origin of the proposed action:

X staff of state agency

federal governmentgeneral publicpetition for regulation change

X other (please list) Municipality of Anchorage Air Quality Program

9. Date: 0 2?’ ‘/0 Prepared by: .?rf 24”72. ,Ø4na._X___

Name (typed) Scott . ST,aneTitle (typed) Environmental Program Specialist IllTelephone: 465-5176
Affidavit of Publication

RECEIVED

JULO 62010

4DEC AO

United States of America

State of Alaska

First Division

Ad#: ooIg73q5

Ref#:]jo* 3-sisS-’ Legal #: Loct-oqa.

i, ‘Eartaca laWet-, being first duly sworn, oath, depose, and say that I

am the Principle Clerk of the JUNEAU

EMPIRE, a newspaper of general circulation, published in the city of Juneau, State of Alaska; that the

publication was published in said

newspaper on the 24%ay of

__________

20lOandthereafterfor I

ad itional day(s), the last date of

publication being &.s. 3• , 2010.

4.’.

Subscribed and orn to before me this

I dayof 2010.
Q

y 

trol Plan is being amended to adopt the tollowing docu ments by reference:

- Volume I. Section II: Air Quality Control Pt.,.. is being revised to update references to the Municipal ity of Anchorage’s (MOA’s) Vehicle Inspection & Main tenance (IRA) Program wt’ilch is being removed as a primary ca,ton monoxide (GO) control measure follow ing the adoption of this SIP subrnltal aid approval by EPA;

-Volume II, Section lIlA: Statewide Carben Mon

oxIde Control Program Is being revised to update ref

ers noes to MOA’s CO control measures and 1dM Pro

gram. MOA is discontinuing its IN Program arid there- tore removing it as a primary CO control measure with the adoption of this SIP submittal and approval by EPA. The State of Alaska’s commuter 1dM program will be discontinued upon the suspension of the MOA IN Program;

-Volume U, Sectien lii. B: Anchorage flanspesta lIon Control Program is being revised to update MOA’s CO Maintenance Plan witti new data and infor

mation tiemonatraing that MOA wili conlflie to main

tain the CO National Ambient Air Ouality Standards (NAAQS) ttwough tiw year 2023 following the aspen sion of its 1dM Program; to update the Co control and contingency measures that MOA will employ to main tain the CO NPAQS; and establish a mobile source

emission budget to be used in tuture conformity deter miriations of U isportatlon plans aid programs wRit MOA.

-Volume II, Section lll.D2: Eagle RIver PU-b Urn Red Maintenance Plan is being adopted to demon strate compliance with maintaining the coarse pesttai late matter (PM-to) NMOS in Eagle River, Alaska$ -Volume Ill, Appendices to Volume II, is being re vised to include the amended 18 MC 50.030 regula tion; MOA’s 2007 Co emission inventory and 2023 CO enlission projections; MOA’s analysis of probthiMy of complying with the CO NMQS through 2023; end MOWs most recently adopted resolutions and code. -Volume Ill, Appendices to Volume II, is also being revised to adopt by reference the Anchorage Assembly Resolton AR 2010-4 adopting the Eagle River PM-ID Limited Maintenance Plan: the PM1O design values for Eagle River and qualification for Limited Maintenance Plan; the 2007 and 2020 PMIO Emission Inventories

for the Eagle River Umited Maintenance Area; and the Natural Events Action Plan for Windblown Oust Eventsin Anchorage. Alaska.

-Rated Quaftty Assume Pttsa Plan fo, the State of Alaska Air Monitoring S Qualify Asswance Avgram, dated February 23,2010.

You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, including the potential costs to private persons of complying and alternative practical methods of complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to Scott Sloane, Division of Ak Quly, ADEC, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303, RO. Box 111800, Juneau, Alaska 99611-1600, or by fac simile at: (907) 465-5129. Comments must be received by 5:00p.m. on August 6, 2010. Com ments received alter this date will not be consid ered in final action on these rules.

ment may be submitted at the hearing. The hearing wRi be extended if necessary to accom modate those present before 1:30 pm who dd

not have an opportunity to comment. If you will

not be able to attend the public hearing In per

son please contact Cindy Hell at (907)

269-7579 by five days prior to the hearing to

make arrangements to participate by phone.

The State of Alaska, Department of Environ

mental Conservation complies with TItle II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. II you

are a person with a disability who may need a

special accommodation in order to participate In

this pubiic process, please contact Deborah

Pock at (907) 269-0291 or TDD Relay Service l-800-770-SS7SITTY or dIal 711 within 20 days

of publication of this notice to ensure that any

necessary acconinodatioris can be provided.

For a copy of the proposed regulation changes

and SIP documents please refer to this ADEC

webpage i*tpMIwW.deC.state.akus/alr/apkal

coder.hun, or contact Scott Sloane by tele

phone at (907) 465-5176, or by e-mail at fIshaiie@Ala*S.a0Y.

Alter the public coriwnent period ends on August

6, 2010, ADEC will either adopt these or other

previsions dealing with the same subject, with

out further notice, or decide to take no action on

them. The language of the final regulations

may be dIfferent from that of the proposed regal latlons. You should comment during the time al

lowed if your interests could be affected. Writ

ten comments received are public records arid

are subject to public inspection.

Statutory Authority: AS 46.03.010,

AS 48.03.020, AS 46.14.030, AS 4814.510

Statutes BeIng Implemented, Interpreted,

or Made Specific: AS 46.14.030, AS 4614.510 Fiscal Infonnatloll: The proposed regulation

changes are rick expected to require an increased appropriation.

Dated: June 28th, 2010

Hat ConclasiOn

Publish: June29 and 30, 2010.
33513610 STOflIDI33513610 STOFI1DI

$468.12$468.12$936.24 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $936.24

STATE OF ALASKATHIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Shane Drew, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says thathe is an advertising representative of the Anchorage Daily News,a daily newspaper.That said newspaper has been approved by the Third JudicialCourt, Anchorage, Alaska, and it now and has been published in

the English language continually as a daily newspaper in

Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now arid during aU said tune wasprinted in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of

publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a copy of anadvertisement as it was published in regular issues (and not insupplemental form) of said newspaper on the above dates and

that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribersduring all of said period. That the full amount of the fee chargedfor the foregoing publication is not in excess of the rate chargedprivate individuals.

Signed

Subscribed and sworn to me before this date:

@6.9%’

Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska.Third Division. Anchorage, Alaska

NOI1CE OP PROPOSED CHANGES TO 11IE

RBGUIAflONSOPThE

ALASKa DEPAMMENT OP inWIRONMBNTAL

CONSBRVATION

The Alaska Department Di Environmental Consavetioti (ADEC) proposes to adopt regulation changes in Title ie of the Alaska Administrative Code (MC) Oiapter 50 Air Quality Control. IS MC 50.030 State Air Quality Control Plan is being amendeda

to adopt the following documents by

v.lame Ii, Section II: Mr Quality Central being revIsed to update references to the tclpality of Anchorages (MOAs) vehIcle mspectlon & Maintenance (i/hi) Program which is being r&noved as a prlnin catton monoxide (CO) control measwe following the adoption of this SIP ubTdual arId approyei by PA

Volume II, Section Ifl.A: Statewide Carbea

M.n.xide C.ntrol Prograa is being revised to update references to M0As Co control measures and i/N Program. MOA is discontinuing its t/M Program and therefore removing ft as a prtnary CO control measure with the adoption of this SIP submittal and approval by EPA. The State of Aabs ccqnntutu t/M pr08n

w be thcontlrtied

upon the suspension of the MOA I/hi Program;

velume Ii, Sectloa ill. B: Aitcborage Tnn.portalloa Control Proyam Is being revised to update MOA’s CO MaIntenance Plan wit new data and information demonstrating that MOA will continue to maintain the CO National Ambient

*

Quality Standds (NaAQS) through the year 2023 following the suspension of its i/M Program; to update the CO control and contingency measwes that tA will employ to maintain tile CO NAAOS; acid tsii a n’alie soirce entlssion buet to beused In future conformity determInations of trainpan &Id program wfl MO&

volateil, Section lil.D.t Ble River PM•lO

Undted MaIntenaace Plan is being adopted to demonstrate compliance wIth maintaining thecoarse rticuiate matter WM’lO) NAAQS In Eagle FdV%

Volume ill. Appendices to volume ii, Is being revised to include the amended IS AAC 50.030

regulation; MOA’s 29)7 CO emission Wwentory and 2023 CO emIssion proiectlens; MOAS an&vsis of prltycf.corrcdr€ with the CO NMQS ifrctiØi MOAs most recentj adopted resokrioes

volume in. Appendices to Volume II, Is also being revIsed to adopt by reference the Anchorage Assembly Resolution AR 2010-4 adopting the Eagle River PM-b Limited Maintenance Plan; the PMIO design values for Eagle River and qualification for Limited Maintenancellan; the 2007 and 2020 PM1O Emission Inventories for the Eagle River Limited Maintenance Area; and the Natural Events Action Plan for Windblown Oust Events in Anchorage. Alaska.

Revised Quailty Assurance Prolect Plan for the State of Alaska Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program, dated February 23, 210.

You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, including the potential costs to private

persons of complying and alternative practical methods of complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to Scott Sloane, Division of Air Quaiity. ADEC, 410 Wilioughby Avenue, Suite 303, P.O. Sox 111800, Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800, or by facsimile at: (907) 465-5129. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Aogust 6,2010. Comments received after this date wllrnot be consIdered In final action on these rules.

The Department will hold a public hearing on this proposal on August 2 2010 from 12:30-1:30 pm, at the ADEC 8atew Office 8uildin Conference RoomA, 619 ship Creek Drive. Anchorage, Alaska. Oral or written comment may be submitted at the hearing. The hearing will be extended if necessary to accommodate those present before 1:30 pm who did not have an opportunity to comment, if you will

not be able to attend the public hearing in person, nintn rnntsr’t rinrlv Neil at 10n71 9A0.7S70 by nyc

785963 06//2O10

06/30/2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

STATE OF ALASKA >- SS.

FOURTH DISTRICT

J

NOTICE OF

PROPOSED

CHANGES TO

ThE REGULATIONS

OF ThE

ALASKA

DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSERVATION

The Alaska Depart

rnent of ErMronrnen

tal Conservation

(AD€C) Proposes to

adopt regulationchanges In TItle 18 ofthe Alaska Adrnb-ilstratlve Code (AAC)

chapter 50 Ak Quali

ty Control. IS AAC

50.030 State AkQuality Control Planis being sTiended toadopt the following documents by reference:

• Volume II, Section

U: Ak Qusaly Con

trol Program is beIng

revised to update ref

erences to the Munic

panty of Anchoragws

(MONa) VehicleInspection & MaInte

naice (I/IA) ProgramwhIch Is beingremoved as a prfrnamycarbon monoxide

(GO) control measise

following the adop

tion of tills SIP at

mittal and approvalby EPA; • Volume Ii. Section

ULA Statewide Carboa Monoxide Con

trol Program Is being

revised to update ref

erences to MOAs COcontrol moastxes and

I/IA Pro9rain. MOA Is

discontktdng Its I/IA

Program and there

fore rsfnoQfng It as aprimary CO controlmeasure with theadoption of this SIPsubmittal andapproval by EPA.

The State of Alaakss

commuter I/M program will be dlscan0

ilnued upon the sus

pension of the MOAi/IA Program;

Volume II, Section

ill. B: Anchorage

franapottatlon Con- g. troi Program Is being t,

*

revised to update

MONa CO Malnte4nanco Plan wttti new4ata and information

r

demonstrating that

MOA will continue to

maintain the CONational Ambient AirQuality Standards

(NAAOS) through the

year 2023 followingthe suspension of Its

I/M Program; to

update the CO con

trol and contIngency

measures that MOA

will employ to maintain the CO NAAQS;

and establish a

Notary Public in and for the State Alaska.

Before me, the undersigned, a notary public, this day

personally appeared Bnnnte Keanan ,who, being

first duly sworn, according to law, says that he/she is an

Advertising Clerk of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, anewspaper Ci) published in newspaper format, (ii)distributed daily more than 50 weeks per year. (iii) witha total circulation of more than 500 and more than 10%

of the population of the Fourth Judicial District, (iv)holding a second class mailing permit from the UnitedStates Postal Service, (v) not published primarily todistribute advertising, and (vi) not intended for aparticular professional or occupational group. Theadvertisement which is attached is a true copy of theadvertisement published in said paper on the followingday(s):

June 29, 2010

June 30, 2010

and that the rate charged thereon israte charged private individuals,discounts.

not excess of the

with the usual

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this fl day

of Ti,nø ,20JQMy commission expires 6// 13
I, Scott J. Sloane, Environmental Program Specialist III for the Department of EnvironmentalConservation, being duly sworn, state the following:

The Department of Environmental Conservation did not receive any factual or other substantive

information that was submitted in writing as public comment and that was relevant to the

accuracy, coverage, or other aspect of the Department of Environmental Conservationregulations on amendments to the State Air Quality Control Plan as adopted by reference in 18

AAC 50.030.

Scott J. S oane, EPS III

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this —

[NOTARY SEAL]

STATE OP ALASKA

OFFICIAL SEAL

Cassidy V. Kearney

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires With Office.

day of____________

F

3O1O

áL4 A4

Notary Pubffc iff and for the 7

State ofAlaska

My commission expires:&/J 4f_4Qtc

Date: Aca’ 9 ,zqo

/

neau, Alaska

/

10 PUBLIC HEARING1112 PROPOSED REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS13 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ALASKA

14 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CHAPTER 50

15 ARTICLE 1

16 AIR QUALITY CONTROL

171819

202122 August 2, 2010

23 12:30 p.m.24 Anchorage, Alaska25

2627

2829 PRESENT:3031 Cindy Heil

32 Environmental Program Manager33 State of Alaska, DEC34 Division of Air Quality

35 619 Ship Creek36 Anchorage, Alaska 9950137 (907) 269—7634

3839

4041

42

4344

45

46

KRON ASSOCIATES

1113 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 200

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

(907) 276 3554
y

6 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

7 Today’s date is August 2, 2010, and it is 12:30 p.m., in

8 Anchorage, Alaska.

9 The purpose of todays Public Hearing is to receive

10 testimony on the proposed regulation amendments to Title 18 of11 the Alaska Administrative Code, Chapter 50, Article 1 - Air

12 Quality Control plan which includes the adoption by reference13 changes being made to the Anchorage Transportation Control

14 Program plan which is being revised to update changes being made15 to the Municipality of Anchorage’s Vehicle Inspection and

16 Maintenance Program which is being -- proposed being

17 discontinued; the discontinuation of the State of Alaska’s18 commuter I/M program which will also be discontinued upon the

19 suspension of the MOA Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

20 Program; the Eagle River PM-l0 Limited Maintenance Plan, which

21 is being adopted to demonstrate compliance with maintaining the

22 PM-b NAAQS in Eagle River, Alaska. And finally the revised23 Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air

24 Monitoring and Quality Assurance Program, which is being adopted

25 by reference.

KRON ASSOCIATES

1113 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 200

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

(907) 276 3554
6 THE REPORTER: On the record 1:30 p.m.

7 MS. HElL: This is Cindy Hell with Department of

8 Environmental Conservation. There was no public testimony

9 received. Any public comments we will make --we will receive in

10 writing will be part of the decision making process. After the

11 close of this public period, this comment period, the DEC will

12 draft a response to any comments received. Without any further

13 notice DEC will decide either to adopt as proposed, adopt with

14 other provisions dealing with the same subject, or decide to

15 take no action on the proposal. The language of the final

16 regulations may be different from that of the proposed17 amendments.

18 This is August 2’, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Anchorage, Alaska.

19 Again, my name is Cynthia Heil and this hearing is now closed.

20 THE REPORTER: Off the record at 1:31 p.m.

21

22

23

24

25

KRON ASSOCIATES

1113 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 200

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

(907) 276 3554
6 Regulations, held August 2nd, 2010 at Anchorage, Alaska,

7 transcribed by me from a copy of the digital sound recording to

8 the best of my knowledge and ability.

11 Christine Arnold Date

12

1314

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRON ASSOCIATES

1113 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 200

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

(907) 276 3554
I, Scott J. Sloane, Environmental Program Specialist III, of the Department of Environmental Conservation, being sworn, state the following:

As required by AS 44.62.190, notice ofthe proposed adoption of changes to 18 AAC 50.030 State air

quality control plan has been given by being:

(1) published in a newspaper or trade publication;

(2) furnished to interested persons;

(3) furnished to appropriate state officials;(4) furnished to the Department of Law, along with a copy of the proposed regulations;

(5) electronically transmitted to incumbent State of Alaska legislators;

(6) furnished to the Legislative Affairs Agency, Legislative Legal and Research Services;(7) posted on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 44.62.175(a)(1) and (b)

and 44.62.190(a)(1); and

(8) furnished electronically, along with a copy of the proposed regulations, to the

Legislative Affairs Agency, the chair ofthe Resources Committee of the

Alaska Senate and House of Representatives, the Administrative Regulation Review

Committee, and the legislative council.

As required by AS 44.62.190(d), additional regulations notice information regarding the proposed adoption of the regulation changes described above has been furnished to interested persons and those in

(5) and (6) of the list above. The additional regulations notice information also has been posted on the

Alaska Online Public Notice System.

DATE:

Qunu, Alaska /

6 ScottJ.€’lot, PS III

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this

day of___________

[NOTARY SEAL]

State of Alaska

My commission expires; bt)j%hK &13t77CL

STATEOFALASKA

OFFICIAL SEAL

Cassidy Y. Kearney

NOTARY PUBLIC \a-’

My Commission Expires With Office.
Register ___, _____ 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

18 AAC 50

Air Quality Control

Public Review Draft

June 28th, 2010
Register ___, _____ 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

The lead in language of 18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read:

18 AAC 50.030. State air quality control plan. Volumes II and III of the State Air 

Quality Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions of AS 46.14 and this 

chapter, as amended through {adoption date of these proposed regulations} [NOVEMBER 6, 

2009], are adopted by reference. The plan includes the following documents which are also 

adopted by reference:

. . .

18 AAC 50.030(4) is amended to read:

(4) the department's Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air 

Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program[ALASKA QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL 

FOR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING], as amended through February 23, 

2010[AUGUST 21, 1996];

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, Register 147; 

am 1/1/2000; Register 152; am 12/30/2000; Register 156; am 9/21/2001, Register 159; am 

1/27/2002, Register 161; am 3/2/2002, Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004, 

Register 169; am 6/24/2004, Register 170; am 10/1/2004, Register 171; am 12/14/2006, Register 

180; am 12/30/2007, Register 184; am 5/17/2008, Register 186; am 7/25/2008, Register 187; am, 

11/9/2008, Register 188; am 5/6/2009, Register 190; am 11/4/2009, Register 192; am 4/1/2010, 

Register 193; am__/__/____, Register ___)

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140
Register ___, _____ 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

18 AAC 50.215(a) is amended to read:

18 AAC 50.215. Ambient air quality analysis methods. (a) A person who submits 

meteorological or ambient air monitoring data under AS 46.03, AS 46.14, or this chapter shall 

obtain the data in accordance with

(1) the department's Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air 

Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program [ALASKA QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL FOR 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING], adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030 for PM-10,

PM 2.5, total suspended particulates (TSP), lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, ozone and ammonia;

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 10/1/2004, Register 171; am 

7/25/2008, Register 187; am __/__/____, Register ___)

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.140 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993

AS 46.14.030 AS 46.14.180
TELEPHONE NO.: 465-3600

FROM: Deborah E. Behr st RJECT: Department of Environmental

Chief Assistant Attorney General Conservation Regulations re:

and Regulations Attorney State Air Quality Improvement Legislation/Regulations Section Plan; Air Quality Control

(I8AAC5O.030; I8AAC5O.215)

We have reviewed the attached regulations from the Department of

Environmental Conservation (department). A duplicate of this memorandum is being furnished to Commissioner Hartig, along with a copy of the regulations.

The Department of Law has reviewed the attached regulations, and

materials adopted by reference, against the statutory standards of the Administrative

Procedure Act. Based upon our review, we find no legal problems. This

memorandum and the attached duplicate original memorandum dated September 27, 2010 constitute the written statement of approval under AS 44.62.060(b) and (c) that authorizes your office to file the attached regulations.

The regulations were adopted by the department after the close of the public

comment period. The regulations are regarding updates to the State Air Quality Control Plan for air quality control in the state.

The adoption order for the regulations states that this action is not expected

to require an increased appropriation. Therefore, a fiscal note under AS 44.62.195 is

not required.

We have made some technical corrections to conform the regulations with the drafting manual under AS 44.62.060 and 44.62.125. The corrections are shown on

the attached copy of the regulations.

DIEL3 KIM :kjm

cc: [ton. Larry Hartig, Commissioner

Department of Environmental Conservation
reference. The plan includes the following documents which are also adopted by reference:

18 AAC 50.030(4) is amended to read:

(4) the department’s Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State ofAlaslia Air

Monitorinø & Quality Assurance Profram[ALASKA QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL

‘‘

FOR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING], as amended through February 23,

‘—A

2010[AUGUST2I, 1996];

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, Register 147;

am1/1/2000Register 152; am I 2/30/2000Register 156; am 9/21/2001, Register 159; am

A L3/t1i9_Io1i ‘I

1/27/2002, Register 161; am /2/206, Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004,

Register 169; am 6/24/2004, Register 170; am 10/1/2004, Register 171; am 12/14/2006, Register

180; am 12/30/2007, Register 184; am 5/17/2008, Register 186; am 7/25/2008, Register 187; amj’

11/9/2008, Register 188; am 5/6/2009, Register 190; am 11/4/2009, Register 192; am 4/112010,

Register 193; am_/_/ , Register __)

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140
(1) the departments Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Slate ofAlaska Air

Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program [ALASKA QUALITYASSURANCE MANUAL FOR

AMBIENTAIR QUALJTYMONJTORING], adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030 for4

suspended particulates (TSP), lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur

dioxide, ozon%and ammonia;

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 10/1/2004, Register 171; am ,c13;J

7/25/2008, Register I 87; 1am_/_/ , Register __J

Authority; AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.140 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993

AS 46.14.030 AS 46.14.180