1 / 24

Precursor Gas Quality Assurance Implementation

This article discusses the implementation of gas quality assurance in the NCore program, including changes to the 40 CFR Appendix A, an overview of new calculations, and the use of the Data Assessment Statistical Calculator (DASC). It also explores the National Performance Audit Program and the importance of a quality system in ensuring accurate data.

mgail
Download Presentation

Precursor Gas Quality Assurance Implementation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Precursor Gas Quality Assurance Implementation Dennis K. Mikel EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

  2. Outline • QA System Development • QA Requirements for the NCore Program • Changes to the 40 CFR Appendix A • Overview of the New Calculations • Data Assessment Statistical Calculator (DASC) • Comparing the DQO/MQOs to the Burden’s Creek data • National Performance Audit Program

  3. What is a Quality System ? EPA A structured and documented management system that describes how and by whom an organization assures quality in its work. Your Program Quality System Goals • Make correct decisions • Optimize resource use The Project!

  4. Reporting Where are we?

  5. Changes in the QA Regulations(40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A) • Ensured regs reflected current EPA QA policies and requirements • Combined Appendix A and B (PSD) • Institute the Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO) to help lower the QA burden on SLT agencies and provide adequate level of independence • Measurement quality objectives (MQOs) changing for gaseous pollutants

  6. Gas Instrument QA Requirements* * Table A-2 is from 40 CFR 58, Appendix A

  7. Nationally, 97% of all ozone monitors report Coefficient Variance of less than 7%. MQOs for Gas Pollutants Has Changed • Ozone: • Coefficient of Variation (CV): 7% • Bias: +/- 7% • SO2, NO2, CO: • CV: 10% • Bias: +/-10% • For PM: • No Changes

  8. “Reporting Organization” vs. “Primary Quality Assurance Organization” • What’s the Difference? • RO: “an entity, such as State, local or Tribal monitoring organization that collects and reports air quality data to EPA.” • PQAO: Monitoring Organization or “other” organization that is responsible for a set of stations that monitor the same pollutant and which data quality assessments can be pooled.” • PQAOs are responsible for implementing QA

  9. “Reporting Organization” vs. “Primary Quality Assurance Organization” (cont.) • PQAO: • Measurement uncertainty “reasonably homogeneous” • Common team of field operators • Use of a common QAPP and SOPs • Oversight of QA functions • In some cases, RO will equal PQAO • Must demonstrate both Adequacy and Independence

  10. Performing audits at 20% of monitoring sites/instruments Audit data submission to AQS TTP Delivery system Follow NPAP field/lab SOP critical performance criteria Audit gases that are NIST certified and validated at least once a year Validation/certification with the EPA NPAP program Incorporated in QAPP Adequacy

  11. Independence • No part of the organization is directly performing and accountable for the work being assessed (i.e., PQAO) • Management structure that allow for the separation of its routine sampling personnel from its auditing personnel by two levels of management • Submission of a plan demonstrating independence to the EPA Regional Office.

  12. New Statistics in 40 CFR 58 Appendix A • Focus Workgroup of the QA Strategy team formed to review and revise the old statistics in Appendix A • Proposed that the stats be based on confidence intervals to meet the MQOs • This approach allows flexibility for analyst and agencies to tighten or loosen their test if they meet criteria • Allows analysts to look at “pooled” results rather than individual or small sets of data for which the old stats were designed • For gases, both the precision and bias calculations use the bi-weekly QC 1-point check (i.e., Precision checks)

  13. Precision and Bias : Monitor value : Target concentration (standard) : Percent Difference (individual bias) Estimates start the same way & both use the 1-point QC check

  14. * Where is the 10th percentile of a Chi-Squared Distribution Precision “A measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property, usually under prescribed similar conditions” This represents a 90% upper confidence limit on the CV estimate

  15. Bias “A systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes errors in one direction” Absolute Bias Point Estimate: Absolute Bias Upper Bound: Where t 0.95,(n-1) is the 95th quantile of a Student’s t distribution with n-1 df and sd_abs is the standard deviation of the absolute value of the relative percent differences This represents a 95% upper confidence limit on the Bias estimate

  16. P&B Guidance and Data Assessment Statistical Calculator (DASC) Software

  17. AMP 255 Report • Monitoring Orgs. Can run this as often as they wish • OAQPS will run annually • Box–and-whisker plots included in annual summary http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/parslist.html

  18. Data Quality Objectives for the Precursor Gases • DQOs are used to create quality parameters so that the data collected is of sufficient quality for its use • OAQPS staff began the DQO Process 1.5 years ago • OAQPS staff employed Battelle Inc. to run simulation models to examine how the different QA indicators would affect data quality • From these the Measurement Quality Objectives are defined

  19. DQO Table for Precursor Gas ParametersCarbon Monoxide Urban Site

  20. Burden’s Creek Station • AAMG staff have been operating PG/trace gas instruments at BC for 2 years • We have been operating like an NCore Station • Since we perform 1-point QC tests, as described in 40 CFR 58, we can assess the data • How do our results compare to the Battelle model?

  21. Burden’s Creek MQOs (May 06 – April 07)

  22. NPAP for Precursor Gas Sites • Precursor monitoring will be part of NPAP • Monitoring organization are responsible for implementing adequate and independent audits • Allows for continued Federal implementation with STAG funds • NPAP program testing TTP capabilities for precursor gasses at Burdens Creek • Some equipment still being purchased • Expected testing in 1st quarter 2007

  23. Expansion of Audit Levels • Low levels added to accommodate Trace Level Instruments • At Least three consecutive audit levels • The audit levels selected should represent or bracket 80 percent of ambient concentrations

  24. Summary • 40 CFR 58 Appendix A regulations have changed • PQAOs vs. ROs • There are new statistical calculations • New Tools to assist EPA and stakeholders • EPA has performed a DQO modeling exercise • The BC data illustrates that we can collect data with the MQOs • NPAP TTP audit vehicles are now gearing up

More Related