EPA-60Q/4-76-043
August 1976 Environmental Monitoring Series
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING OPERATIONS OF
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING NETWORKS
A Manual
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.
This series describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods
and instrumentation for the identification and quantification of environmental
pollutants at the lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment
and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/4-76-043
August 1976
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING OPERATIONS
OF AMBIENT AIR MONITORING NETWORKS
A Manual
by
Ruth W. Shnider and Edwin S. Shapiro
URS Research Company
155 Bovet Road
San Mateo, California 94402
Contract No. 68-03-0473
Edward A. Schuck, Project Officer
Monitoring Systems Design and Analysis Staff
Monitoring Systems Research and Development Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory-Las Vegas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
PREFACE
The procedures detailed herein are a "first cut" at the development of
a mathematical basis for the evaluation of monitoring network operations.
Since the relative importance of the components of network operations is a
function of monitoring network objectives, no single evaluation technique is
universally applicable. For this reason and because of the complex nature
of this subject, the evaluation methods developed herein are applicable only
to monitoring networks whose main objective is to document compliance with
or progress toward attainment of promulgated "ambient air quality standards
and/or regulations.
A necessary restriction placed on development of this evaluation proce-
dure was that it be consistent with existing regulations promulgated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning site selection, net-
work design, sampling methodology and quality assurance procedures. Substan-
tial changes in these regulations will require modification of the evaluation
procedure.
Identification of the six major operational components of an air-quality
monitoring network with the stated main objective was accomplished by an on-
site study of five networks judged by the EPA Regional Offices to be among
the best operating networks. The major characteristics identified are:
1. Network Design, 2. Personnel, 3. Facilities and Equipment, 4. Sampling,
5. Quality Assurance, and 6. Data Distribution and Dissemination. While
the on-site studies served to identify the operational components, they did
not provide sufficient data for a mathematical assignment of the relative
weights for these components. To provide the latter the opinions of govern-
mental experts in the monitoring field were solicited and the results statis-
tically analyzed. Values of the weighting factors so derived have been car-
ried to the third decimal place because these factors are normalized values
of over 55 responses. It will be noted, therefore, that users of these eval-
uation techniques will be comparing the operational characteristics of their
networks against a mathematically derived function of the opinions of over
55 experts. While this approach admittedly has drawbacks, it is, as stated,
a "first cut" approach. A separate document describing the mathematical
treatment of the expert opinion data and derivation of the relative weights
of operational components will be furnished, upon request, by the Project
Officer at the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas
(EMSL-LV).
Finally, it will be noted that application of this procedure is complex
and can be carried out only by personnel directly involved in operation of
the monitoring network. Depending on the magnitude of the network it may
indeed require inputs from several individuals with a total manpower invest-
ment of up to 5 man-days. This latter, however, is a small price if it leads
to a more technically optimum and cost-effective monitoring operation.
iii
-------
The procedures in this manual have not been field tested; however,
such an evaluation is planned for the immediate future. In the interim we
encourage users of this manual to submit their observations and suggestions
for improvement.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Disclaimer .............................. a
Preface ............................... j^i
List of Figures ........................... vii
List of Tables ............................ viii
List of Abbreviations and Symbols .................. ix
Acknowledgment ............................. x
I Introduction to the Manual ...... . ............. 1
II Evaluation of Network Plan and Design . . . . . ......... 11
1 1. A Rating for Number of Monitoring Sites .......... 11
II. B Rating of Site Distribution ............... 26
II.C Rating of Site Characteristics and Design ........ 31
II. D Evaluation of Network Planning and Design ........ 36
III Evaluation of Area of Personnel Qualifications ......... 38
III. A Education Rating ... .................. 38
III.B Experience Rating . .. .................. 41
I II.C Special On-Job Formal Training Rating .......... 44
III.D Evaluation of Personnel Qualifications .......... 47
IV Evaluation of Area of Facilities and Equipment . ........ 48
IV. A Office Facilities and Equipment Rating .......... 48
IV. B Rating of the Wet Laboratory ............... 48
IV. C Rating of Calibration/Maintenance Facilities ....... 48
IV. D Field Facilities Rating ................. 51
IV. E Field Instrument Rating ................. 53
IV. F Evaluation of Area of Facilities and Equipment ...... 56
V Evaluation of Area of Sampling and Analysis ........... 57
V.A Rating of Recording Procedures for
Continuous Sensors .................... 57
V.B Rating of Use of Station Operator Time ....... . . . 60
V.C Area Evaluation ..................... 63
VI Evaluation of Area of Quality Assurance ............. 64
VI. A Ratings for Controls on Field Instruments
and Measurements ..................... 64
VI. B Ratings for Controls on Laboratory Instruments
and Measurements ..................... 67
VI. C Evaluation of the Area .................. 69
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
VII Evaluation of Area of Data Utilization 70
VIII Overall Area Evaluations 72
IX Evaluation of Technical Services Budget Allocation 73
IX.A Budget Allocation Rating Determination . . . 73
X References 77
Appendix A 78
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1 Rating curve for the number of sites
for each pollutant 23
2 Case a. Priority I for TSP and S02 27
3 Case b. Priority I for Oxidants and/or CO 27
4 Case c. Priority I for pollutant mix
other than case a or case b 28
5 Case d. Priority II and/or III for all
five major pollutants 28
6 Rating for site distribution in each AQCR 30
7 Nomogram for evaluation of network plan
and design 37
8 Experience rating curve 42
9 Rating for on-job training program 45
10 Rating for efficiency of use of station
operator time 61
11 Days between end of period and summary release 71
12 Determination of technical services budget
allocation 74
13 Personnel budget allocation rating 76
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1 Network basic information 3
2 Technical services personnel information 10
3 Zone areas and pollutant concentrations 13
4 Number of monitoring sites for SO- and TSP 14
5 Minimum number of air quality monitoring sites
as a function of concentration levels and
population 16
6 Required minimum number of monitoring sites
based on AQCR classification and population 18
7 Topography and climatology 20
8 Determination of the number of sites for
photochemical oxidants and NO. 21
9 Actual vs recommended numbers of sites 23
10 Rating of the number of sites per pollutant 25
11 Multiplying factors for four cases of air
pollution 25
12 Station distribution work sheet 29
13 Sampling location guidelines for areas of
estimated maximum pollutant concentration 32
14 Ratings for site characteristics and design 34
15 Ratings for office facilities, wet laboratory,
calibration/maintenance facilities 49
16 Values for field facilities 52
17 Rating for field facilities 52
18 Rating for intermittent sensors as applicable 53
19 Rating for continuous instrument performance
parameters 55
20 Evaluation of continuous sensor recording
procedures 58
21 Evaluation of station operator time 61
22 Ratings for controls on field instruments
and measurements . 65
23 Ratings for controls on laboratory instruments
and measurements 68
24 Area of quality assurance evaluation 69
25 Ratings for data utilization 71
26 Network evaluation 72
Vlll
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
AQCR
avg.
calib. freq.
Hi -Vol.
Hq. digit.
acquis .
Mfr.
mg/m
yg/m
ppm
spec
Air Quality Control Region defined in the Federal
Register, Vol. 40, Part 35,501-4 (1972) as an area
designated or established pursuant to Section 107
of the Clean Air Act (Dec. 1970). Section 107ff of
the Clean Air Act states that air quality control
regions are geographical regions for which imple-
mentation plans exist specifying the manner in
which national primary and secondary air quality
standards will be achieved and maintained.
average
calibration frequency
high volume air sampler
digital acquisition system at Headquarters
area in square kilometers
manufacturer
milligrams per cubic meter
micrograms per cubic meter
parts per million
specification
SYMBOLS
CO
N02
OX
S02
TSP
carbon monoxide
nitrogen dioxide
photochemical oxidants
sulfur dioxide
total suspended particulates
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Many individuals at the five networks visited and the experts who
responded to a Survey Letter have been helpful in developing the material
used in these recommended procedures. For their contributions, the
project management extends its sincere gratitude.
Mr. Edward Schuck, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, served as
Project Officer, assisted by Mr. Leslie Dunn and Dr. Joseph Behar.
Mrs. Ruth W. Shnider, URS Research Company, served as Project Manager.
Mr. Jack Jenkins, who visited and compiled information on the operations
of five air monitoring networks, provided valuable input and assistance
on this project, and Mr. Paul Kennedy also aided in the evaluations of
laboratory instruments and facilities.
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION TO THE MANUAL
This manual is designed to evaluate the efficiency of ambient air moni-
toring networks whose primary objective is to document compliance with or
progress toward attaining ambient air quality standards. This definition
includes the ambient air monitoring operations of networks that include Engi-
neering and Enforcement, although the latter two functions are not examined
except in consideration of overall budgetary allocations. The evaluation is
designed to be carried out for a network consisting of one Air Quality Control
Region (AQCR), or for a network consisting of a number of AQCRs, since the
basic methodology evaluates each AQCR individually. For networks composed of
more than one AQCR, methods are given to integrate the results for all AQCRs
into one evaluation.
Two basic concepts are used in the evaluational methodology.: (1) air
monitoring operations depend mainly on the population density, industrial
and commercial distribution, and the meteorological and topographical con-
straints; (2) the overall efficiency of a network is the integrated result
of the evaluated efficiency of each area of operation within the network.
Six Operational Areas have been designated: Network Plan and Design, Person-
nel Qualifications, Facilities and Equipment, Sampling and Analysis, Quality
Assurance, and Data Utilization. The first six sections of the manual pro-
vide methods to evaluate the efficiency of each of these areas, and the
seventh section presents the technique for the overall integrated evaluation
of Operational Areas. The last section provides a method to evaluate the ef-
ficiency of budgetary allocations. Most of the areas are composed of many
elements. The efficiency of all elements must be integrated to evaluate each
area efficiency, and the efficiency of all the areas must then be integrated
to evaluate the network efficiency. The manual presents techniques for each
of these integrations.
The sections of the manual are numbered in Roman numerals. Evaluations
of elements comprising each area are identified by the sectional Roman numer-
al and a capital letter. For example, Section II provides a method to evalu-
ate the area of Network Plan and Design. The number of sites in a network
is one element of this area. Thus, Rating for Number of Monitoring Sites is
identified as a subsection II.A. Subsection II.A. is then subdivided into
four parts. II.A.I, II.A.2, and II.A.3 contain instructions (taken from
U.S. EPA, 1974) to calculate, by three different methods, the number of sites
needed to monitor the five major pollutants. II.A.4 presents a technique
that combines the previous three methods and provides a rating of the existing
number of sites per pollutant with respect to both EPA recommendations and
the pollutant priority classifications for each AQCR. Only the five major
pollutants for which Federal Regulations have been promulgated are considered.
These are: total suspended particulates (TSP); sulfur dioxide (S02); carbon
-------
monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (N02); and photochemical oxidants (OX). The
Rating of Site Distribution is a second element of this area, and the method
for rating this element is labeled II.E. A technique for rating the element
of Site Characteristics is identified as II.C. The last subsection, II.D.,
provides a method that combines the ratings of the three elements in II.A.,
II.E., and II.C., into one overall evaluation for the area of Network Plan
and Design. Each succeeding section is similarly subdivided.
Weighting factors are used in achieving each evaluation. These factors
are normalized mean values derived from analyses of responses to a Survey
Letter that requested experts in the field of air monitoring to designate the
weighted relative importance of most of the items considered. All weighting
factors are decimal fractions (less than 1.0, since they are normalized
values); however, they represent very real differences in the opinions of
over 55 experts in the field of air monitoring. Specific regional require-
ments were accounted for by special utilization of the responses, which were
obtained from all over the United States.
Calculations required to derive the ratings are presented in "Steps"
to clarify the processes and aid the evaluator, and tables are provided for
recording the rating calculations. Each of these tables contains space
for six AQCRs, to be used as needed for the network considered.
This manual is the first of its type to provide a method for evaluating
ambient air monitoring networks in this fashion and is designed to allow com-
pletion within a week. There are, naturally, limitations to the manual. For
example, the only bases for comparison and evaluation in many cases are cur-
rent EPA-recommended procedures and approved instrumentation. Consequently,
the manual will require updating as changes are published in the Federal
Register. Furthermore, only general site distribution rather than precise
location is considered in the area of Network Plan and Design, since analyses
of meteorology and emissions distribution are beyond the scope of this
manual.
Tables 1 and 2 of Section I, when completed, will contain information
needed in the Evaluational Sections that follow. Most of the information
for completing the tables should be available in the files of the head-
quarters office of the network under study. Some inspection will be neces-
sary to complete the information on Facilities and Equipment in Table 1.
U.S. EPA Guidelines APTD-1347, 1972, and the maps noted in Section D of
Table 1 will also be needed along with knowledge of the Federal Register,
40 CFR, Sections 50 (1971, amended 1975b) and 53 (1975). After obtaining
the necessary maps and completing Tables 1 and 2, the evaluational procedures
described in the manual can be carried out readily. It is anticipated that
completion of the information tables will require about 3 man-days and the
evaluations can be completed in 2 man-days.
In many cases non-metric units are employed because data, such as area
on a map, or recommended values in referenced EPA documents (hereinafter re-
ferred to as Guidelines), occur in those units. Conversions to Internation-
al System of Units (SI) are provided in Appendix A.
-------
TABLE 1. NETWORK BASIC INFORMATION
Air Monitoring Agency
Indicate whether major network emphasis is:
A. BUDGET INFORMATION
Total Budget $
Area of Network
Ambient Air Monitoring
Enforcement
sq. mi. No. AQCR'.s in Network
1. Budget for Activity
2. % of Total
Personnel
3. Salaries and Benefits
4. % of Activity Budget (1)
5. % of Total Budget
Equipment
6. Capital Expenditure
7. % of Activity Budget (1)
8. % of Total Budget
Administration
and
Public Information
Technical Services
Air Mon., Lab,
Data Anal.
I
Engineers/Enforce. Total Itemized
$ $ (Total Budget)
B. PERSONNEL INFORMATION
1. List Total number of personnel in Technical Services (Air Monitoring, Laboratory, and Data Analysis)
2. Obtain copies of the network Position Descriptions for each Technical Services position.
For each filled position, complete columns 1 through 8 of Table 2.
3. Does the network provide special On-Job Formal Training Programs? .
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
C. AIR MONITORING SITE INFOKHVnON
1. Fill in the information for each AQCR in the network.
Area (sq.Bi.)
Mo °f SitBS
No- w/tnvir.ControT
Number of sites
with
continuous sensors
Frequency of cont.
Sensor visits
Servicing
No. sites with both
intermittent and
continuous sensors
No. continuous
sensors
No. of sites TCP
nonitoring SO-;
each CO
""""'""Sxidan^
No. manual sensors
Frequency of manual
Sensor visits
Servicing
No. station
operators
Avg. mi /day travclcc
by operators visit-
ing stations
1. Priority
Classification
II. Ill
Pop.
-Jli"1 1&T
at each
station "q <er week
per week
6. Priority
Classification
I
II. Ill
Pop.
disit<,l;Tele»e-
acquis. c
at each ^ di u
station acquis.
per week
per week
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
2. Obtain station information: (a) avg. sq. ft. per station ; (b) maintenance of log book at % of stations.
3. Obtain the network's descriptive sheet for each site, or obtain information giving: (a) height of probes or intakes and biasing sources,
(b) % of time access to instruments is physically unavailable .
4. Determine whether there were any acts of thefts or vandalism at sites. If so, list the amount of loss in the past year;
per AQCR: (1) « , (2) $ . (3) | , (4) $ , (5) * , (6) $ .
5. List the percentage of data lost per AQCR in the past year, due to station inaccessibility (weather, traffic, etc.):
(1) , (2) , (3) . (4) , (S) , (63 .
6. List the down times per AQCR in the past year of all sensors:
(1) , (2) , (3) , (4) . (5) , (6) .
D. NETWORK INFORMATION
1. Obtain a nap of the area (from Local or Regional Planning Agency).
2. Locate Air Monitoring Sites on the map and indicate the number of sensors and pollutants monitored at each.
3. Does the network utliic data in developing an air model , in trend prediction , in air quality evaluation
4. Is an air quality report published for public release annually ? Is air quality information released daily to news media
5. Are data summaries prepared monthly , quarterly ? How soon after the period ends are they released T
6. Obtain pollutant isoplcth maps of the network area, if available.
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
E. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT INFORMATION. (Fill in all blanks)
1. Are library facilities available? .
2. What is the percentage of office personnel with at least 50 sq. ft. per person? %
3. What percentage of office utilities are available when needed? %
4. What percentage of office supplies are available when needed? *
5. What percentage of transportation is available when needed? *
6. The following information is needed on the wet (sample analysis) laboratory, whether maintained
by the network, or whether an outside facility:
a. What is the percentage of laboratory personnel with at least 100 sq. ft./analyst? %
b. Are there check list controls on cleanliness? On ambient conditions? On
electrical service? .
c. What percentage of the tine are standard procedures followed in labeling and storing
chemicals and reagents? %
d. What percentage of the time are standard procedures followed in labeling and storing
standard solution bottles? %
e. What percentage of chemical and gas standards are validated and documented? %
f. Is associated equipment (cuvettes, volumetric ware, dilutors, consumables, refrigeration,
etc.) sufficient?
g. What percentage of the time is standard cleaning of associated equipment used? \
h. Is supply inventory maintained?
i. Is quality of purchases checked?
j. List specifications as indicated for the following laboratory instruments used for analysis,
the calibration frequency of the instruments, manufacturers (mfr.) recommendations, and
documentation of calibration:
Instrument
Sensitivity/Precision
Calib. Freq.
Mfr. Recom./ActuaT
% of
Documentation
Analytical Balance
Weighing chamber
x in.
Spectrophotometer
Eff.band width
Conductivity meter
pH meter
Atomic absorption
Spectrophotometer
k. Are documented results used to modify calibration frequency?
1. \ of calibration techniques are approved methods, i.e., those listed in the Federal
Register (FR, 40 CFR S3, 1975).
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
7. The following information is needed on laboratory measurements:
a. _ % of the analyses use approved techniques (listed in the Federal Register, Sections
50 and 55).
b. % of the time statistical control chart techniques are used.
c. Is there scheduled participation in interlaboratory testing _ 1
d. Are spiked samples _ or standard reference materials _ used to validate data?
e. _ % of samples undergo replicate analysis?
8. The following information is needed on sensor calibration/maintenance equipment and procedures:
a. List equipment used to calibrate sensors for each pollutant, specs (as in 6.j. above)
source of calibration methods used, Mfr. recommendations on calibration frequency, actual
frequency of sensor calibration, whether calibration is documented, and whether documenta-
tion is used to modify the schedule:
Equip . Method !
Sensor for Callb. Equip. Specs. Source Mfr. Freq. Actual Freq. Documentation Use
TSP
S02
CO
Photo-
chemical
oxidants
b. Check on availability of associated equipment: volumetric ware _ , still _ , ther-
mometer _ , barometer _ , manometer _ , other.
c. Are secondary standards documented and validated on a schedule? _
d. The following information is needed on sensor maintenance: Maintenance of each sensor is
on a schedule and documented _ _% of the time; compared with Mfr. recommendations
_ % of the time; documentation is used to modify schedules _ % of the time;
% of maintenance techniques are approved; preventative maintenance is also documented
9. Statistical control chart techniques are used in analysis of field data _ % of the time.
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
To.
) Check if mbile
unit 1« wallabl*
b) List the performance
specs, Mfr. and Model
of each automatic
sensor, as available
Parameter t'nits
(1) Ranee ppn
(2) .Voise ppn
(3} lover Detectable
Lir.it ppn
a. Each Interferes
Eouivuler.t DM
b. Total Interferent
KOI
(5) Zero drift. 12
and 24 hours
PW
2M of upper
ran.-e linit \
rar.je limit \
(7) Lai Tioe »in
(8) Rise Tine Bin
(9) Fall Tiae Bin
201 of upper
range lir.it *
range Unit t
AQCR 1
SO. Oxidantf CO
<:ir >!od Mfr Hod Kfr Mod
AQCR 2
SO. Oxidants CO
Mfr Modi Mfr Hod Mfr Mod
AQCR '3
SO. Oxidants CO
fr Mod Hfr Mod Mfr Mod
AQCR 4
SO. Oxidants CO
Mfr Itod Mfr Mod Mfr Kod
AQCR S
SO, Oxidants CO
!M Mfr Mod Mfr Hod
AQCR 6
SOj Oxida.itj CO
:fr Mod Kfr Mad Mfr V«l
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
e) Ust tlM follooU( for
Chaneteriitic Units
(1) Pur.? rain-.iir.s air
pressure differential
at desired flow rite
of atnospherti
(2) 24-hour flow rite
liters/BiB
(J) Air flow rea»u«d by
calibrated rotaceter
3r«i«ior: - *
(4) Flow T»t« of «ir
through 8 by 10 in.
filter ft*/MB
AQCR 1
SO KO TSP
2 2
If r hod Kir Hod lltr Mod
X
X
X
X X
AQCR 2
S3 KO TSP
2 2
Mir Wod Mfr ItoJ Mfr Mod
X
X
X
X X
AQCR I
ro >» TSP
2 2
Mfr Hod Hfr Mod Mfr Mod
X
X
X
X X
AQCR 4
SO KO TSP
2 2 ' "
Mir Mod" HCr Hod Kfr Mod
X
x
X
X X
AQCR S
SO KO TSP
2 2
:fr Mod Mfr Cod Mfr McJ
X
X
X
X X
AQCR 6
SO XC TSP
? 2
Mfr Mod Mfr Mo'i Kfr Vod
X
X
X
X X
-------
TABLE 2. TECHNICAL SERVICES PERSONNEL INFORMATION*
I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Positions Qualifications Incumbents' Years in Starting post- Salary of Salary Years On-job
and required* qualifications present tion (if other starting posi- today with training
section* (degree/exp.) (degree/exp.) position than present) tion today network availability
Administration
Air Monitoring
Lab 6 Data Anal.
* Use additional pages, as necessary.
t Section - Administrative, Air Monitoring (Station operators, engineers, technicians).
Lab and Data Analysis.
* Stated in U.S. EPA, 1972.
-------
SECTION II
EVALUATION OF NETWORK PLAN AND DESIGN
II.A RATING FOR NUMBER OF MONITORING SITES
EPA Guidelines provide several possible methods for determining the number
of monitoring sites needed for an AQCR. The basic method (F.R., 40 CFR
51.17, 1971, amended 1975a) determines the minimum required number of sites
by AQCR classification and population class. Additional "possible methods
for determining a more adequate number of stations for an AQCR. . .based
on varying levels of information" are given in an Appendix to U.S. EPA,
1974. Part A of this Section provides three of these methods, based on
varying levels of information, and incorporates the concept of air quality
indicators for determining the number of sites needed. The first method
deals with the number of sites for TSP and S02- The second method deals
with the number of sites for CO, photochemical oxidants and N02; and the
last method concerns the number of sites for all five pollutants. If suf-
ficient information is available, use all three methodologies that are
presented in II.A.I, II.A.2, and II.A.3, and calculate or determine a value
for N (number recommended) by each method.
II.A.I A Method to Determine the Number of S02 and TSP Sites, Using
Pollutant Isopleth Maps (in terms of annual averages). (If such
maps are not available, go to Section II.A.2.)
This guideline method (U.S. EPA, 1974; U.S. EPA, 1972) estimates the number
of stations needed as a function of both the land area of the region and the
pollutant concentrations. Each AQCR is divided into three distinct zones,
on the basis of annual average iso-concentration lines representing the
ambient air quality standard and the background values appropriate for the
region. The three zones, for which the land areas are determined from the
isopleth map, are:
2
X = area in square kilometers (km ) where concentrations are
higher than ambient air quality standard.
2
Y = area (km ) where concentrations are above background,
but less than ambient standards.
2
Z = area (km ) where existing concentrations are at back-
ground levels.
The number of samplers for each zone, Nx, Ny, N2, of each AQCR in the
network is calculated separately for S02 and TSP, using the following equa-
tions from EPA guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1974; U.S. EPA, 1972):
11
-------
Nx = 0.0965 "' c s X (1)
C - C
N = 0.0096 -~- Y (2)
N = 0.0004 Z (3)
Z
where C = value of maximum pollutant isopleth, with a contour interval
m of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (yg/m3) as indicated on
isopleth map.
C = ambient air quality standard in yg/m annual average.
S ' M^BI^B^^W"^
C, = value of minimum pollutant isopleth, with a contour interval
of 10 vg/m3 annual average as indicated on isopleth map.
Then Nr, the total number of samplers in each AQCR for each of the two pollu-
tants, is obtained by summing the estimated numbers in each zone:
Nr(S02) * (Nx + Ny + Nz) for S02 (4)
Nr(TSP) = (Nx + Ny + Nz) for TSP (5)
The calculations are accomplished by carrying out the following two
steps.
12
-------
Step 1
From the isopleth map of the network, determine for each AQCR in the
network the basic values of X, Y, Z, Cm> GS, and Cb for S02 and TSP and place
these values in Table 3.
TABLE 5. ZONE AREAS AND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
AQCR
(1) (2) C3) (4) (5) (6)
S02 Data
Cs
Cb
TSP Data
Cm
Cs
Cb
13
-------
Step 2
Calculate Nx, Ny, and Nz, the number of sites needed in each zone of
each AQCR, to monitor S02 and TSP. Substitute values from Table 3 (p. 13)
into Eqs. (1), (2), and (3) on page 12. Record these values in Table 4.
Then calculate the values of Nr for S(>2 and TSP in each AQCR by substituting
the Nx, Ny, and N2 values into Eqs. (4) and (5) on p. 12. Record the values
of N in Table 4.
For S02
Nx
Ny
Nz
Nr
For TSP
Nx
Ny
Nz
Nr
TABLE 4. NUMBER OF MONITORING SITES FOR S02 AND TSP
AQCR
CD (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
14
-------
II.A.2 A Method To Determine the Minimum Required Number of Sites*
This method, given in both U.S. EPA 1974 and 1972, determines the minimum
number of sites for all five major pollutants, based on concentration levels
and population size. If you completed Section II.A.I, follow the procedures
of this section only for CO, photochemical oxidants, and N02- Table 5, on
pp. 16 and 17, combines and reproduces material contained in both the EPA
Guidelines noted. This material includes the Criterial Concentrations of
each of the five pollutants, the Minimum Number of Monitoring Sites, as a
function of regional classification and population, and the Minimum Fre-
quency of Monitoring.
Step 1
In Table 6 (p. 18), record the population of each AQCR and the Priority
Classification for each of the pollutants in each AQCR of the network (from
information in part C of Table 1).
Step 2
Fill in the value of N in Table 6 for each of the five pollutants in
each AQCR, where
N = Minimum number of air monitoring
r sites, according to Table 5.
*Source: CFR Title 40, Part 51, 1971, amended 1975a.
15
-------
TABLE 5. MINIMUM NUMBER OF AIR QUALITY MONITORING SITES AS A
FUNCTION OF CONCENTRATION LEVELS AND POPULATION
Regional
Criteriml* classifi-
concentrations cation Pollutant
24-hr Max? >323 wg/a3 I
Annual Ceoa. Mean:
>100 i.g/1113
24-hr Max: >4S5 vg/ttz (.17)
Annual Arith. Mean:
>100 ug/m3 (.04)
8-hr Max: >14
1-hr Max: >5S
1-hr Max: >19
mg/a3 (12)
mg/n3 (48)
S wg/m3 (.10)
Annual Arith. Mean:
>110 yg/E3 (3.6)
Suspended
particu-
lates
Sulfur
dioxide
Carbon
monoxide
Photo-
chemical
oxidants
Nitrogen
dioxide
Measurement
ethod
High-volume
sacpler
Tape sanpler
Pararosan-
iline or
equivalent"1
Xondispersi\e
infrared or
equivalent6
Gas phase
cheoiluair.-
escer.ce or
equivalent £
24-hour sam-
pling method
( Jacobs -Hoch- .
heiser method)
Region
population
Less than 100,000
100,000-1,000.000
1^000,000-5,000,000
Above S, 000,000
Minimum number of air
quality monitoring
sites*
4
4
* 0.6 per 100,000"
7.S + 0.25 per 100,000=
12
* 0.16 per 100,000
One per 250,000° up to
S sites
Less than 100,000
100,000-1,000,000
1,000,000-5,000,000
Above S, 000,C03
Less than IOC, 000
100,000-5,000,000
Above 5.000,000
Less than 100,000
lOOjOOO-SjOOO.OOO
Above 5,000,000
Less than 100,000
100,000-5,000,000
Above 5,000,000
Less than 100_,000
100_,000-5, 000,000
Above 10,000,000
2.
6
11
1
6
1
6
1
6
4
2
S + 0.5 per 100,000b
* 0.15 per 100,000b
+ 0.03 ser 100, OOC"
i
* 0.15 oer 100,000°
+0.03 per 100,000b
1
+ 0.1S per 100,000°
+ 0.05 per 100,000b
1
+ 0.15 per 100,000b
+ O.OS per 100,000"
5
+ 0.6 per 100,000"
10
Nini«i»
frequency
of sampling
One 24-hour
sample every
6 daysC
One sample
every 2 hours
One 24 -hour
sasple every
6 days (gas
bubbler) c
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
One 24-hour
sample every
14 days (gas
bubbler) S
-------
TABLE 5. (continued)
Criterial*
concentrations
24-hr Max: 150-325 ug/n3
Annual Geoa. Mean:
60-95 bg/n3
24-hr Max: 250-455 ug/n3
(.10-. 17)
Annual Aritii. Mean:
60-iCO wg/n3 (.02-. 04)
24-hr Max: >150 wg/m3
Annual Geom. Mean:
>60 yg.'a3
24 -hr Max: >260 iig/m3 (.10)
Annual Arith. Mean:
>6C yg/o3 (.02)
Regional
classifi-
cation Pollutant
II Total
suspended
particu-
lates
Sulfur
dioxide
IIIh Total
suspended
particu-
lates
Sulfur
dioxide
Measurement
cethod
High-volu:ne
sampler
Tape sampler
Pararosaniline
High-volu:ne
sampler
Pararosanll:ine
Hinioum number of air Minimum
Region quality monitoring frequency
population sites8 of sampling
3 One 24 -hour
sample every
6 daysc
1 One sample
every 1 hours
3 One 24-hour
sanplj every
6 (Jays (gas
bubbler jc
1 Continuous
1 One 24 -hour
sample every
6 daysc
1 One 24-hour
sasple every
6 days (gas
bubbler) c
* ( ) - ppa (parts per million)
a In interstate regions, the r.utbsr of sites required should be prorate" to each state on a population basis.
0 Total population of a region. When, required number of samplers includes a fraction, round off to nearest whole number.
c Equivalent to 61 random samples per year.
Equivalent cethods are: (1) Gas Chrosatographic Separation-Plane Photometric Detection (provided Teflon is used throughout the instnment system
in parts exposed to the air streaa); (2) Flame Photometric Detection (provided interfering sulfur compounds present in significant quantities
are removed); (3) Coulonetric Detection (provided oxidizing and reduc-ng interferences such as Oj, NOj, and H2S are renoved); and (4) the auto-
mated Pirarosanilir.e Procedure.
e Equivalent r.sthod is Gas Chro-arographic Separation - Catalytic Conversion - Flajr.e lonization Detection.
Equivalent nethods are: (1) Fotassiun Iodide Colorioetric Detection 'provided a correction is made for S02 and SOz); (2) UV Photometric Detec-
tion of Ozone (provided compensation is made for interfering substances); and (3) Chemilioinescence Methods differing froa that of the reference
method.
£ Equivalent to 26 randora sar.ples per year.
h It is assumed that Federal Motor Vehicle emission standards will achieve and maintain the national standards for CO, NOj, and photochemical
oxidar.ts; therefore no monitoring sites are required for these pollutants.
4 The Jacobs-Hochheiser nethod is no longer the EPA-approved technique, even though it is listed in the table. EPA is currently evaluating three
zeasurenents and will publish a r.ev reference aethad for NOj.
NOTE: Cricerial Concentrations are reproduced froa U.S. EPA. 1972. '.he rest of Table 5 is reproduced from F.R., 40 CFR 51, 1971, Amended 1975a.
-------
TABLE 6. REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF MONITORING SITES BASED ON
AQCR CLASSIFICATION AND POPULATION
CD
Population
Priority
class.
N
(2)
Population
Priority
class.
AQCR
(3)
Population
Priority
class.
N
C4)
Population
Priority
class.
(5)
Population
Priority
class.
N
(6)
Population
Priority
class.
N
TSP
Hi-Vol
Tape
SO,
Intermittent
Continuous
CO
OX
NO,
-------
II.A.3 A Method to Determine an "Adequate" Number of Sites for
Photochemical Oxidants and NCL
This method, from U.S. EPA 1974, determines the number of sites as a function
of topography and climatology. Table 7 (p. 20) reproduces the descriptions
of four Topography regimes and the factor, Tp, associated with each; and
the eleven Climatology regimes and the associated short-term and long-term
factors, Cp, for photochemical oxidants and N02.
Step 1
From Table 7, determine the Topography regime and associated factor, Tp,
and the Climatology regime and associated factor, Cp, for photochemical oxi-
dants and NOo for each AQCR in the network. List the values in the first two
lines of Table 8.
Step 2
Calculate the value of Nr, the "adequate" number of monitoring sites for
photochemical oxidant,s and N02 as a function of topography and climatology in
each AQCR, and list the values in the bottom line of Table 8. Calculate the
values by using Eq. (6), provided in U.S. EPA, 1974.
Nr = TF x CF x MP
where values of Tp and Cp are those recorded in Table 8, and
= "minimum" number of sites for photochemical
oxidants and N02 recorded in Table 6 (p. 18).
19
-------
TABLE 7. TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATOLOGY
K)
O
Topography*
regime
Valley-ridge
Hilly-
mountainous
Shoreline
Level or
gently rolling
Factor
CTF)
Continuous contours 1.8
of greater than 300
feet between a valley
and a ridge within a
mile of the horizontal
distance
Terrain elevations 1.5
greater than 800-1,000
feet between hills or
mountains and valley
floor
Bodies of water of a 1.2
size at least equal to
the Great Salt Lake
No marked contours 1.0
or shorelines
Short-term factor Long-term factor
Climatology oxidants N02
regime (Cp) (CF)
California-Oregon Coastal
Washington Coastal
Rocky Mountain
Great Plains
Great Lakes -Northeast
Appalachian
Mid-Atlantic Coastal
South Florida
Tropical
South Coastal Alaska
North and Central Alaska
2.0
1.4
2.0
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.8
* It may be necessary to subdivide the AQCR if the topographic features are
significantly variable, and'to calculate each area separately.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1974.
-------
TABLE 8. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMBER OF SITES
FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS AND NO,,
AQCR
Factors (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
OX N02 OX N02 OX N02 OX N02 OX N02 OX
CF
N
21
-------
II.A.4 Method for Rating the Number of Sites per Pollutant in the Network
The results calculated in the previous three EPA Guidelines methods for
determining the number of sites per pollutant are compared with the actual
number of sites, and a rating is derived for each. These ratings are then
weighted with respect to each pollutant Priority Classification, to provide
a rating of the number of sites per pollutant, for each AQCR. Whether any
particular pollutant requires additional sites is indicated, if the rating
is significantly less than 1. The network rating is also determined.
Step 1
In Table 9 (p. 23), fill in the value of Na, the actual number of
existing monitoring sites (from Table 1) for each pollutant monitored in
each AQCR. Then, from Tables 3 (p. 13), 6 (p. 18), and 8 (p. 21), fill in
the largest value of N calculated for each pollutant monitored in each
AQCR. Use the sums of the intermittent and continuous stations for TSP and
S02 in Table 6 for the values for Nr for TSP and SCL.
Step 2
Fill in the columns labeled % in Table 9, where % = N /N x 100.
3- r
Step 5
Use Figure 1 (p. 23) to determine the R value for each pollutant of
each AQCR, and list these values in Table 10 (p. 25) under the values of
R! for AQCR number 1, R2 for AQCR number 2, etc. Determine each R by
locating on the horizontal axis of Figure 1 each percent value for each
pollutant (from Table 9). Then locate the percent value on the curve and
read the corresponding value of R on the vertical axis.
Step 4
Use the Priority Classifications listed in Table 6 (p. 18) for each pol-
lutant in each AQCR to determine whether case a, b, c, or d (defined below)
most closely matches conditions in each AQCR, thus defining the air quality
indicators (Priority I pollutants) where:
Case a: Priority I for TSP and S02; Priority II
and/or III for the other major pollutants.
Case b: Priority I for photochemical oxidants and/or
CO; Priority II and/or III for the other
major pollutants.
Case c: Priority I for any pollutant mix other than
case a or case b.
Case d: Priority II and/or III for all major pollutants.
22
-------
TABLE 9. ACTUAL VS RECOMMENDED NUMBERS OF SITES
AQCR
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
N N%NN%NN%NN%NNtNN%
ar ar ar ar ar ar
TSP
so2
CO
ox
N02
-
!
c
-
^
3
&
'
~
L,
r
I
t
i
--
r
i
>L
,
;:
DC-
»d
ro
Figure 1. Rating curve for the number of sites for each pollutant
-------
List the case alongside each AQCR number in Table 10. Then list for each
AQCR the M values given in Table 11 corresponding to each case of pollutant
mix.
Step 5
Multiply each R^ value by its M value and put the product in the column
labeled E for each AQCR.
Step 6
On the bottom line of Table 10, labeled AQCR R, record the sums of the
E's for each AQCR. The maximum possible value for each AQCR R is 1, which
corresponds to a perfect rating for total number of sites.
Step 7
At the right on the same bottom line, in the column labeled "Sum R,"
place the sum of the AQCR R's. Then divide by the number of AQCRs in the
network, and place that answer on the bottom line of the column labeled
"Avg. R." This final value represents the overall network Rating on total
number of fixed monitoring sites. A value of 1 would represent a perfect
score.
24
-------
TABLE 10. RATING OF THE NUMBER OF SITES PER POLLUTANT
TSP
so2
CO
ox
N02
AQCR R
(1) Case -
R. x M.
= bl
AQCR
(2) Case -
R2 x M, = E_
(3) Case -
R3 x M3 = E3
(4J Case -
R, x M . =
4 4
K4
(5) Case -
R5 X M5 = E5
(6) Case -
R, x M , = E,
ODD
SUM R
AVG. R
TABLE 11. MULTIPLYING FACTORS FOR FOUR CASES OF AIR POLLUTION
TSP
so2
CO
ox
NO,,
Case a
M
0.227
0.216
0.193
0.182
0.182
Case b
M
0.180
0.180
0.201
0.252
0.187
Case c
M
0.223
0.214
0.199
0.196
0.168
Case d
M
0.210
0.208
0.203
0.208
0.171
Case a:
Case b:
Case c:
Case d:
Priority I for TSP, S0_
Priority I for Oxidants and/or CO
Priority I for any Pollutant
Mix other than Case a or Case b
Only Priority II or III for
all five major pollutants
-------
II.B. RATING OF SITE DISTRIBUTION
Site distribution will be evaluated with respect to two major factors:
site descriptions and air quality indicators. The site descriptors are:
Source-Oriented Sites, which encompass central city urban industrial
locations, and other major pollutant sources,
Population-Oriented Sites, which encompass residential and suburban
locations, including shopping areas,
Rural Sites, which provide background data.
Pollutant conditions are defined by cases a, b, c, and d, described in
Section II.A.4. In this evaluation, the numbers of intermittent and
continuous sensors are not specified. The requisite number and distri-
bution of sites as functions of pollutants monitored are considered more
important. Only general areas for sites are indicated. Precise loca-
tions are not identifiable for many reasons, such as availability and
budgetary constraints, as well as involving analysis of micro-meteorology
and emissions distribution, which are not within the scope of this manual,
II.B.I Method of Rating
The evaluational technique is presented in the following steps. Use
Table 12 for a work sheet.
Step 1
Fill in the heading of Table 12 (p. 29), as you did for Table 10 (p. 25),
with the case (a, b, c, or d) that most nearly matches conditions in each
AQCR.
Step 2
Mark the major areas of industrial source emissions for each AQCR on the
network area map on which the sites are located. List the total number of
sites in each AQCR in Table 12 in the space labeled "No. sites" under each
AQCR number. In the rows labeled Na for each AQCR, list the number of
existing sites that are source-oriented, the number that are population-
oriented, and the number that are rural, corresponding to the definitions
in Section II.A.4.
Step 3
Use Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 (pp. 27, 28), which provide recommended sta-
tion distributions for pollution cases a, b, c, and d, respectively, to deter-
mine the recommended number of sites of each type for each AQCR. List the
recommended values from these figures in the N rows of Table 12.
26
-------
;- !
i- '
, (
'.
[i,
I
EQ
Q
|
ui
U)
in
BO
Q
UU
U
tu
2
>0
10
u<
)
\
>.-
V
H
:
:'
1
-f
y
J
t-f
1
^
'
H
M
r
,.
If T
,
2
.
tJ
0
|
'
I
/
I
!
|
5
i
i
V
1
4
»
1
>
-
<
1
)(
-'i
1
1
\
TOTAL NUMBER OF SITES
Figure 2. Case a. Priority I for TSP and S02
T>
i n
''
f
,
N
.,'
f^
' \
9
f\
v
i
X
!
:
'
,
^
,
*
i
.
-
:
.-
'
.
l|
i
1
'
'
!
1
. ,
H
1
I
3 j
KEY
Source
Oriented
Sites
O = Population
Oriented
Sites
= Rural
(Background)
KEY
v = Source
Oriented
Sites
O = Population
Oriented
Sites
-= Rural
(Background)
TOTAL NUMBER OF SITES
Figure 3. Case b. Priority I for Oxidants and/or CO
27
-------
WJ
LU
r"
0 2
lu ~
a
fa -
<5
, ~
U)
I
2 ~
jj
V
u) -
o; -
!0
10
0
4
^
(
1
.H
0
1
1
j
1
'
.
11
2
2
i
H
D
M
i
7-
,
7
Tr
.
I
I
-.-
>
-
;
-
1
1
.,
3
n
1
0
i
i
V
,
.
*
t
r ^
.
t
,
I
.
^
i,'
M
4
Key:
v = Source
Oriented
oites
O = Population
Oriented
Sites
-~ '= Rural Sites
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF SITES
Figure 4. Case c. Priority I for pollutant mix other than case a or case b.
20
Q
U-l
UJ
120
Approximately same
distribution for both
source- and population-
oriented sites.
TOTAL NUMBER OF SITES
Figure 5. Case d. Priority II and/or III for all five major pollutants.
28
-------
TABLE 12. STATION DISTRIBUTION WORK SHEET
Site
description
Source-
oriented
Population-
oriented
Rural
Na
N
r
%
AQCR
(ID
Case
No.
sites
N
a
N
%
r»
N
a
Nr
%
r«
SIM
Avg.
-
r
r
i
1
(2D
Case
No.
sites
r»
r«
-
SUB i
Avg. i
2.
C3)
Case
No
. sites
r*
r*
»
Sum r
*rj
3
»
3
(4)
Case
No
. sites
r»
r*
»
SUB i
j
Avg. r
4
4
(5)
Case
No. sites
-
^
Su
Av«
r«
* T.
. r
(6)
Case
No. sites
r«
i-
Si
-
a
Avg.
r
b
Sura
Avf?
to
Avg. R
-------
Step 4
Calculate and list each percent value in Table 12 (p. 29), where
% = N /N x 100
a r
Step 5
Fill in values for r for each AQCR. Values for r are determined by lo-
cating, on the horizontal axis of Figure 6 the percent values from Table 12
(p. 29) for each site orientation. After locating each percent value on the
curve, the corresponding value of r is read on the vertical axis.
i r
-1 U
1
1
i
!
[
!
1
:
i
-
1
!
.
!
-
i
!
.
'
/
>
.
:
,
,
Hi
.-
-
,
.
.
.
.
1
-
1
(
/
t.
J -*
t
'
30
Figure 6. Rating for site distribution in each AOCR
Step 6
Sum the r values for each AQCR and record the sum for each in Table 12.
Step 7
Divide each Sum r by 3 and record each result in the corresponding space
for Avg. r. This decimal value, when expressed as a percent, represents the
rating of each AQCR for site distribution. The value of 1 represents a per-
fect rating.
Step 8
Sum the values of all Avg. r's and place that value in the space labeled
"Sum Avg. r.." Then divide the sum by the number of AQCRs and put that result
in the space labeled "Avg. R." This decimal value, when expressed as percent,
provides the network Rating for site distribution. Comments of Step 7 apply
here.
30
-------
II.C. RATING OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND DESIGN
Five site characteristics that affect monitoring efficiency are rated
in this subsection. The ratings are then combined to Rate the element.
The following paragraph and Table 13 (p. 32) present information for
site and intake locations reprinted from U.S. EPA, 1972.
"Avoid sampling locations that are unduly influenced by downwash or by
ground dust, such as roof-top air inlet in proximity to a stack, or a
ground-level inlet near an unpaved road. In the latter case, either
elevate the sampler intake above the level of maximum ground turbulence,
or place the sampler intake away from the source of ground dust. Except
for stations that sample 1-hour CO concentrations, avoid locations where
there are flow restrictions such as buildings, parapets, or trees in
the vicinity of the air inlet."
The paragraph above and Table 13 are provided to aid in answering the
questions listed under "Procedure Steps," by comparing the Guidelines
information with the network site data listed in part C of Table 1.
The decimal value used to rate each characteristic was derived from
analysis of the Survey Letter responses.
II.C.I Procedure Steps
Record on the line of the same number in Table 14 (p. 34),, the answers
to each of the following numbered questions and instructions, for each AQCR
in the network.
Step 1
List the percentage, as a decimal fraction, of all intakes free of
biasing sources.
Step 2
List the percentage, as a decimal fraction, of all intakes for which
air flow is unobstructed.
Step 3
Sum the values for each AQCR.
Step 4
List the average of the sum of the two values.
Step 5
List the product of 0.261 times the average above.
31
-------
TABLE 15. SAMPLING LOCATION GUIDELINES FOR AREAS OF ESTIMATED MAXIMUM POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
o*
Is)
Position of air inlet
Pollutant
category
Primary
stationary
source
pollutant
Primary
obile
source
pollutant
Secondary
pollutant
Pollutant
*i
"°2
Particulates
CO
(1-hour
averaging
time)
CO
(8-hour
averaging
time)
OX
Height from
ground
Station location (ft)
Determined from atmospheric diffusion 3
>3
>3
>3
>3
>3
Horizontal
clearance
beyond
supporting
structure
(ft)*
>5
>S
>3
>3
>3
>s
NO,
and >300 ft from major traffic arteries or
parking areas).'*'
Representing residential area downwind of
downtown area (3
>5
Not applicable where air inlet is located above supporting structure.
Downwind of prevailing daytime wind direction during the oxidant season.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1972.
-------
Step 6
at a
Step 7
List the percentage, as a decimal fraction, of all continuous sensors
uniform height (reported within + 3 ft).
List the percentage, as a decimal fraction of all intermittent sensors
at a uniform height (reported within +_ 3 ft).
Step 8
Sum the values of lines 7 and 8 for each AQCR.
Step 9
List the average of the sum of line 8.
Step 10
List the product of 0.225 times the average of line 9.
Step 11
List the percentage, as a decimal fraction, of all site facilities
physically available to network personnel at all times that access is desired.
Step 12
List the product of 0.186 and the value of line 11.
Step 13
List, as a decimal fraction, the dollar amount lost due to damage, theft,
or vandalism (from part C of Table 1), as a percentage of the Technical Serv-
ices budget (from part A of Table 1).
Step 14
List the value of (1 minus the value of line 13).
Step 15
List the product of 0.178 and the value of line 14.
Step 16
List the percentage of data lost/year because of inaccessibility of
the site. (Inaccessibility may be due to weather conditions, traffic condi-
tions, excessive distance of the site from a station operator, etc., part C,
Table 1.)
33
-------
TABLE 14. RATINGS FOR SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND DESIGN
AQCR
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Intakes
1. Bias
2. Air Flow
3. Sum (1+2)
4. Line 3*2
5. Line 4
x 0.261
Sensor Height
6. Continuous
7. Intermittent
8. Sum
9. Line 8+2
10. Line 9
x 0.225
Availability
11. Facilities
12. Line 11
x 0.186
Security
13. Loss
14. (1 - line 13)
15. Line 14
x 0.178
Accessibility
16. Data Loss
17. (1 - line 16)
18. Line 17
x 0.150
19. AQCR
rating
Sum r
Avg, R
34
-------
Step 17
List the value of (1 minus the value of line 16).
Step 18
List the product of line 17 and 0.15.
Step 19
List the decimal fraction that is the sum of lines 5, 10, 12, 15, and 18
for each AQCR in the network. This decimal fraction, when expressed as a
percent, is the rating of each AQCR for the five site characteristics con-
sidered. The value of 1 indicates a perfect rating. Then sum the ratings for
each AQCR and place the value in the box labeled "Sum r," and divide by the
number of AQCRs to obtain the Avg. R. This Avg. R, when expressed as percent,
is the network Rating for this element. The value of 1 is a perfect Rating.
If the Rating is 0.75 or less, it is recommended that Site Characteristics be
improved.
35
-------
II.D. EVALUATION OF NETWORK PLANNING AND DESIGN
rhe separate ratings of each of the three elements that comprise the
Area of Plan and Design for the network are now combined to provide
an overall evaluation of this area, by means of the following Steps
and use of Figure 7. The weightings incorporated into Figure 7 re-
flect the results of analysis of the Survey Letters.
II.D.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
Express Avg. R of Table 10 as a percent
network Rating on Number of Sites;
_%. This value is R, the
%. This value
%. This value
Express the Avg. R value of Table 12 as a percent _
is RD, the network Rating on Site Distribution.
Step 3
Express the Avg. R value of Table 14 as a percent _
is RC, the network Rating on Site Characteristics.
Step 4
In the Nomogram of Figure 7 (p. 37), circle the value of RN on the bar
labeled R... The value of Rn on the bar labeled R_., and the value of R,, on
the bar labeled RC.
Draw a straight line crossing bar Q connecting the circled values of
and V
Step 6
Draw a second straight line between the circled value of RC and the
point on bar Q where the line of Step 5 crosses it.
Step 7
The line of Step 6 crosses bar Ep. The value at that point provides the
evaluation of the network for the Area of Plan and Design.
36
-------
KEY:
01
-v]
R =
= Bar for Rating Number of Sites
» Reference Bar
= Bar for Rating Site Distribution
Bar for Rating Site Characteristics
= Bar for Evaluation of Area of Plan and Design
Figure 7. Nomogram for evaluation of network plan and design
-------
SECTION III
EVALUATION OF AREA OF PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
In this Section, the Area of Technical Services Personnel Qualifications
is evaluated by rating the Education and Experience of the personnel, and
Training opportunities available. The interpretation of training as given
in Section III.C includes motivation, to an extent. Table 2 contains the
information needed concerning the network personnel and Appendix B of U.S.
EPA APTD-1347 (1972) specifies the requirements for each position. Factors
used in the ratings and evaluation are derived from the Survey Letter.
III.A EDUCATION RATING
A method follows that rates separately the educational background of per-
sonnel in Administration, in Air Monitoring, and in Lab and Data Analysis,
and then combines the ratings into one Rating for Technical Services Per-
sonnel .
The column numbers reference the numbered columns of Table 2.
III.A.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
From columns 1 and 2, list the total number of filled Administrative
positions requiring a diploma/degree or equivalent experience .
Step 2
From column 3, list the number of Administrative personnel meeting only
minimum requirements .
Step 3
From column 3, determine the number of Administrative personnel with
degrees or equivalent experience greater than minimum requirements, and list
the result .
Step 4
Education Rating for Administrative Personnel;
(Result for Step 2) + (Result for Step 3) _
(Result for Step 1) '
38
-------
Step 5
From columns 1 and 2, list the total number of filled Air Monitoring
(station operators, engineers, and technicians) positions requiring a diploma/
degree or equivalent experience .
Step 6
From column 3, list the number of Air Monitoring personnel meeting only
minimum requirements .
Step 7
From column 3, determine the number of Air Monitoring personnel with
degrees or equivalent experience greater than minimum requirements, and list
the result .
Step 8
Education Rating for Air Monitoring Personnel:
(Result for Step 6) + Result for Step 7) _
(Result for Step 5)
Step 9
From columns 1 and 2, list the total number of filled Lab and Data Analy-
sis positions requiring a diploma/degree or equivalent experience .
Step 10
From column 3, list the number of Lab and Data Analysis personnel meeting
only minimum requirements .
Step 11
From column 3, list the number of Lab and Data Analysis personnel with
degrees or equivalent experience greater than minimum requirements and list
the result
Step 12
Education Rating for Lab and Data Analysis Personnel:
("Result for Step 10) + (Result for Step 11 x Step 6) _
(Result for Step 9) = *
39
-------
Step 15
Education Rating for Technical Services Personnel: The result of the
following calculations provides the Education Rating:
(0.238 x Rating of Step 4) + (0.389 x Rating of Step 8)
+ (0.373 x Rating of Step 12) = R = .
If the education of Technical Services Personnel matches the Guidelines
requirements, the Rating will be 1.
40
-------
III.B EXPERIENCE RATING
The following method for Rating the experience of Technical Services Per-
sonnel also examines the three groups separately and then combines results
in an overall Rating.
The column numbers reference the numbered columns of Table 2.
III.B.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
Sum the years (in column 4) that all Administrative personnel have been
in their present positions, divide by the number of such personnel, and list
the result .
Step 2
Experience Rating for Administrative Personnel: Use the result of Step 1
and Figure 8 (p. 42), to determine the experience rating for Administrative
personnel. Locate the average years in positions on the horizontal axis; then
determine and list the rating . .
Step 3
For Air Monitoring personnel, sum the years (in column 4) that personnel
have been in their present positions, divide by the number of such personnel,
and list the result .
Step 4
Experience Rating for Air Monitoring Personnel: Use the result of
Step 3 to determine the experience rating for Air Monitoring personnel from
Figure 8 (p. 42). Locate the average years in position on the horizontal
axis, determine, and list the rating .
Step 5
For Lab and Data Analysis personnel, sum the years (in column 4) that
personnel have been in their present positions, divide by the number of such
personnel, and list the result .
Step 6
Experience Rating for Lab and Data Analysis Personnel; Use the result
of Step 5 to determine the experience rating for Lab and Data Analysis person-
nel from Figure 8 (p. 42). Locate the average years in position and list
the rating
41
-------
Ni
X
T3
Ct
m
m
AVERAGE YEARS IN PRESENT POSITION
Figure 8. Experience rating curve
-------
Step 7
Experience Rating for Technical Services Personnel:
CO.142 x Rating of Step 2) + (0.232 x Rating of Step 4) +
(0.222 x Rating of Step 6) = R = .
A perfect Rating would be a value of 1.
43
-------
III.C SPECIAL ON-JOB FORMAL TRAINING RATING
"Special On-Job Formal Training" consists of training courses, available
to personnel who have been employed by the network for a minimum of one
year. Successful completion of a course provides an opportunity for pro-
fessional development. If the network does not offer such training or
make it available to personnel, skip the calculations of this Section, and
fill in 0 for the Rating in Step 13. If such training is available, pro-
ceed with the following Steps to determine the Rating for training.
This method again examines each group in Technical Services separately,
and combines results for an overall Rating.
The column numbers reference the numbered columns of Table 2.
III.C.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
List the number of Administrative personnel for whom training programs
are available (col. 9) .
Step 2
List the total number of Administrative personnel (col. 1) .
Step 3
Divide the number listed in Step 1 by the number listed in Step 2 and
record the value of f, the fraction of Administrative personnel for whom
training is available; f = .
Step 4
Rating for Training Available to Administrative Personnel; Use Figure 9
to determine the rating value for training.The result of Section III.B,
Step 1 lists the average years of experience in position for Administrative
personnel, and four curves are shown in Figure 9 for average years of experi-
ence. Select the curve that most closely matches the result of Section III.B,
Step 1. Locate on the selected curve the intersection of the value of f (re-
corded in Step 3, above) that is plotted on the horizontal axis of Figure 9.
Determine the value of r on the vertical axis corresponding to the intersec-
tion point; r = .
Step 5
List the number of Air Monitoring personnel for whom training programs
are available (col. 9) .
Step 6
List the total number of Air Monitoring personnel (col. 1)
44
-------
IRK
ce oMLy
Figure 9. Rating for on-job training program
-------
Step 7
Divide the result of Step 5 by the result of Step 6, and record the value
of f, the fraction of Air Monitoring personnel for whom training is available;
f = .
Step 8
Rating for Training Available to Air Monitoring Personnel: Use the result
of Section III.B, Step 3, to determine the appropriate average years experience
curve in Figure 9, and use the value of f from Step 7, above, to determine the
value of r, as in Step 4, above; r » .
Step 9
List the number of Lab and Data Analysis personnel for whom training is
available (col. 9) .
Step 10
List the total number of Lab and Data Analysis personnel
(col. 1) .
Step 11
Divide the result of Step 9 by the result of Step 10 and record the value
of f, the fraction of Lab and Data Analysis personnel for whom training is
available; f = .
Step 12
Rating for Training Available to Lab and Data Analysis Personnel: Use
the result of Section III.B, Step 5, to determine the appropriate average years
experience curve in Figure 9, and the value of f, from Step 11, above, to
determine the value of r from Figure 8; r =
Step 13
Training Rating for Technical Services Personnel: The result of the
following calculations provides the training Rating:
(0.238 x Result of Step 4) + (0.389 x Result of Step 8) +
(0.373 x Result of Step 12) = R = .
46
-------
III.D EVALUATION OF PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
An evaluation of Personnel Qualifications is provided by the sum of the
three products defined below.
Calculate each product as indicated, and sum the results to derive the
Area Evaluation.
0.301 x Education Rating of Section III.A, Step 13 = .
0.385 x Experience Rating of Section III.B, Step 7 = .
0.314 x Training Rating of Section III.C, Step 13 = .
Area Evaluation = Sum =
The perfect evaluation would be 1. Values less than 1 suggest need for
improvement.
47
-------
SECTION IV
EVALUATION OF AREA OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
In this Section, availability and adequacy of the office, laboratory, and
field facilities and equipment of an ambient air monitoring network are
examined. The overall evaluation is performed only for the equipment and
facilities required to monitor the five major pollutants for which speci-
fications are currently available in the Code of Federal Regulations. As
specifications are added for other pollutants, additional ratings will be
required. The elements of this Section rate separately the equipment
needed for wet (sample analysis) laboratories and calibration/maintenance
laboratories because some networks do not perform analyses. The weightings
used are based on opinions of experts who replied to the Survey Letter.
Table 15 is provided to facilitate rating the elements of Office, Wet Lab,
and Calibration/Maintenance facilities. Tables 16 and 17 are for rating
Field facilities, and Tables 18 and 19 are to aid in the rating of Sensors
used in the network. The perfect Rating for any element is a value of 1.
IV.A OFFICE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT RATING
The four items rated in this element are listed in Table 15, along with
the sections of Table 1 in which the information on them is recorded.
Necessary calculations are indicated in the Table, i.e., value x weight =
score for each item, and the sum of the scores = R for the element. Con-
vert Table 1 percentage answers to decimal numbers for use as "value."
IV.B RATING OF THE WET LABORATORY
If the network operates a wet laboratory, derive the scores and the Rating
indicated in part B of Table 15, where instrument quality is as specified
in CFR Title 40, Part 50, 1975b. Calculations are the same as for element
A. If analyses are performed on contract, skip part B, and proceed to
part C of the Table.
IV.C RATING OF CALIBRATION/MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
Part C of Table 15 provides a Rating of facilities and equipment in the
Calibration/Maintenance laboratory. Calculations are again the same as
for the preceding two Elements. Calibration equipment available is listed
in Table 1, parts 8.a and 8.b. If each instrument or equipment listed in
Table 15 is available, the value is 1; if it is not, the value is 0.
48
-------
TABLE 15. RATINGS FOR OFFICE FACILITIES, WET LABORATORY,
CALIBRATION/MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
Each element Rating is the sum of the scores of the items within the element.
Each score is the value for the item multiplied by the indicated weight. The column
labeled "source" references the section of Table 1 providing information on the item
value. When facilities are available, the value is 1; when not available, the value
is 0. Convert all percentages to decimal fractions before entering in the value column.
Table 1
source
Item
Value
Weight
Score
Element
rating
Office Facilities g Equipment
E.I Library facilities
E.2 Personnel space
E.3 Office utilities
E.4 Office supplies
1L
Wet Laboratory Evaluation
1. Facilities
E.6.a. Laboratory space
E.6.b. Laboratory cleanliness
E.6.b. Environmental control
E.6.f. Associated equipment
2. Availability of Laboratory
Instruments
E.6.J. spectrophotometer
Analytical balance
Conductivity meter
pH meter
Atomic absorption
spectrophotometer
0.312
0.204
0.238
0.246
Sum of scores
0.224
0.227
0.248
0.301
Sum of scores = R
0.240
0.240
0.190
0.190
0.140
Sum of scores » R
49
-------
TABLE 15. (continued)
Table 1
source
Item
Value X Weight
Score
Element
rating
3. Wet Lab Instrument
Quality
E.6.J. Spectrophotometer value
for effective band width:
1 if less than 15 nm
0 if greater than IS run
Analytical balance value
for sensitivity:
1 if equal to 0.1 mg
0 if greater than 0.1 mg
Value for weighing chamber
1 if sensitivity = 1
and if specific for
8 by 10 in. filter
0 if not
£1.
Calibration/Maintenance
Facilities
E.7,a. Spectrophotometer
(Specs as in B.3)
Analytical balance
(Specs as in B.3)
Permeation tubes
Temperature control
equipment
Wet test meter/flow
meter
Multimeter or
equivalent
E.7.b. Associated equipment
(volumetric ware, still,
thermometer, barometer,
manometer, etc.)
1.000
0.500
0.500
Sum of scores « R <*
0.100
0.150
0.100
O.OSO
0.150
0.050
0.300
Sum of scores R
50
-------
IV.D FIELD FACILITIES RATING
In this element, each AQCR of the network is rated separately, since field
facilities may vary. Table 16 lists the source section of Table 1 that
will provide the information to determine the value for each item, each of
the field facilities to be rated, with its symbol, and a space for each
AQCR. As in Table 15, convert percentages to decimal fractions before
entering them as values. When facilities are available, the value is 1;
when they are unavailable, the value is 0, with special instructions for
mobile units.
Calculation of the value is straightforward for E, the fraction of
stations with environmental control. For S/260, the average station area is
compared to 260 sq.ft. (station area specified in U.S. EPA, 1972). T is the
fraction of transportation available. The value M is determined to be 1 or
0 as follows:
= 1 when (1) M (availability of mobile units) is avail-
able and two or me
sified Priority I
v able and two or more pollutants are clas-
(2) Less than two pollutants are classified
Priority I
M = 0 when two or more pollutants are classified Priority I
v and M is unavailable.
M = availability of mobile units.
Table 17 again lists each item to be rated, and the weight for each
item that is to be multiplied times the value in Table 16, to derive the
score for each item in each AQCR, Note that by summing each row, a network
Rating for each item is obtained; summing each column provides a rating for
field facilities for each AQCR, and finally, the network Rating for Field
Facilities is obtained by summing the Rs for each AQCR and dividing by the
number of AQCRs.
51
-------
TABLE 16. VALUES FOR FIELD FACILITIES
AQCR
Table 1 Item 123456
source Value Value Value Value Value Value
C.I E-Fraction of sites with
environmental control
C.3 S-Avg. Station Size (ft )
S/260
E.lO.a. M-Mobile Units
C.I C-Pollutants classified
Priority I
M -Value assigned for
availability of mobile
units
E.5 T-Fraction of transporta-
tion available
Multiply the value of each item (from Table 16) by the weight for that item
in Table 17 and record the score for each item in each AQCR in Table 17.
TABLE 17. RATING FOR FIELD FACILITIES
AQCR
12345 6 Network
Item Weight Score Score Score Score Score Score sum/item
E (0.28)
S/260 (0.25)
M (0.19)
T (0.28)
AQCR rating * Sum of
Scores ________________________________
Element R*
* Sum the AQCR ratings, and divide by the number of AQCRs to derive
the Rating of this element for the network.
52
-------
IV.E FIELD INSTRUMENT RATING
The determination of Ratings for field instruments used to monitor the five
major pollutants depends simply on whether the performance parameters of
the network sensors (recorded in part E.9 of Table 1) are at least equal to
those specified in CFR Part 40, Title 50, 1975b, and on the weight assigned
to each parameter. This element is divided into two sub-elements, treated
separately.
IV.E.I Rating for Intermittent Sensors
Table 18 lists the performance specifications for intermittent sensors
for three pollutants, as published in CFR Title 40, Part 50, 1975b. If the
network sensor specification recorded in part 10.c of Table 1 is at least
equal to that tabulated, the score is the indicated weight; if it does not
meet the tabulated specifications, the score is 0. Sum the score for the sen-
sor for each pollutant to derive the rating for each sensor. The sub-element
rating for intermittent sensors is the sum of the total scores divided by the
number of total scores.
TABLE 18. RATING FOR INTERMITTENT SENSORS AS APPLICABLE
Table 1
source: Part E.lO.c.
Sensor for
Performance specifications
SO*
NO*
TSP
Weight Score Score Score
0.5
0.5
1.0
1. Pump must maintain air pressure differ-
ential greater than 0.7 atmospheres at
desired flow rate.
2. A calibrated rotameter or critical
orifice must measure air flow of 0.2
liters/min. within +. 2%
3. Pump must draw air through an
8-x 10-inch filter at a rate between
40-60 cu.ft./min.
* Score if used by network.
Total Score =
Sub-element-rating _ Sum of Total Scores =
1 ~ No. of Total Scores
53
-------
IV.E.2 Rating for Continuous Sensors
Use Table 19 (which lists the performance parameters for continuous sen-
sors from CFR Title 40, Part 50, 1975b, and the weight assigned to each param-
eter) to derive the Ratings for continuous sensors for three pollutants. If
the network sensor specifications listed in part E.lO.b of Table 1 meet
those tabulated, the value is 1; if not, the value is 0. The product of the
weight times the value for each parameter is the score. Find the total score
for each sensor, and the network score for continuous sensors, as indicated.
IV.E.3 Element Rating
The element Rating is the average of the two sub-element ratings:
Rj(Table 18) + R2(Table 19)
Element Rating for Field Instruments = *
R =
A Rating of 1 indicates that all field instruments meet Federal Register
Specifications.
54
-------
TABLE 19. RATING FOR CONTINUOUS INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS*
in
Table 1
source: Part E.lO.b
Parameter
1 . Range
2. Noise
3. Lower detectable limit
4. Interference Equivalent
Each interferent
Total interferent
5. Zero drift, 12- § 24-hour
6. Span drift, 24 hours
20% of upper range limit
80% of upper range limit
7. Lag time
8. Rise time
9. Fall time
10. Precision
20% of upper range limit
80% of upper range limit
* Specifications for each sensor
CFR, Title 40, part S3. 1975.
"*" Score if used by network
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
J
min
min
min
ppm
ppm
taken
Weight
'0.094
0.086
0.094
0.05
0.05
0.096
0.047
0.047
0.068
0.068
0.068
0.116
0.116
so|
Specs Value
0-0.5
0.005
0.01
-0.02
0.06
-0.02
-5.0
20
15
15
0.01
0.015
from
Total
Score
Sub-Element Rating
fevr f!rvnt"imirni«; S*»n«r>TC
Oxidants
Score Specs Value Score
0-0.5
0.005
0.01
-0.020
0.060
-0.020
J20.0
-5.0
20
15
15
0.01
0.01
Total
Score
Sum of Total Scores
CO
Specs Value Score
0-50
0.50
1.00
-1.00
1.50
-1.00
-10.00
-2.5
10
5
5
0.5
0.5
Total
Score
-------
IV.F EVALUATION OF AREA OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
If the network operates a wet laboratory, follow Procedure 1 to evaluate
the area of Facilities and Equipment. If sample analyses are performed on
a contractual basis, follow Procedure 2. Both Procedures use the Ratings
calculated in the Tables of this Section as values, which are then multi-
plied by assigned weights to provide Relative Ratings. The Relative
Ratings are then summed to derive the area evaluation. Each Procedure
tabulates the Source Table or Section listing the Rating, or value, for
each element, along with the assigned weight for each element.
If the Rating of each element in the area is perfect (i.e., 1), the area
evaluation will be 1, and each Relative Rating will equal the weight as-
signed to the element.
Procedure 1 for Area Evaluation
Source
Table 15, A
Table 15, B
Table 15, B
Table 15, B
Table 15, C
Table 17
IV. E. 3
ssr *
Office Facilities x
Wet Lab. Facilities
Wet Lab. Instruments
Wet Lab. Instrument Quality
Calib./Maint. Facilities
Field Facilities
Field Instruments
Weight
0.082
0.149
0.145
0.169
0.169
0.132
0.154
Relative
rating
=
Area Evaluation = Sum Relative Ratings =
Procedure 2 for Area Evaluation
Source
Table 15, A
Table 15, C
Table 17
IV.E.3
Element
Office Facilities
Calib./Maint. Facilities
Field Facilities
Field Instruments
Element
rating
X
Weight
0.153
0.315
0.246
0.286
Relative
rating
=
Area Evaluation = Sum Relative Ratings
56
-------
SECTION V
EVALUATION OF AREA OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Only two elements will be examined in this area, Recording Procedures for
Continuous Sensors and Efficiency of Use of Station Operator Time. Meth-
ods and procedures involved in Sampling Analysis will be considered in the
area of Quality Assurance.
V.A RATING OF RECORDING PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUOUS SENSORS
The number of Priority I pollutants (the air quality indicators) in an
AQCR is a factor that affects the importance of recording procedures used.
The "value" for each recording procedure is the percentage (expressed as a
decimal fraction) of the continuous stations employing each procedure with
two exceptions: (1) the value for strip charts is 1, since each continuous
sensor must have strip chart recording; (2) if there is a digital acquisi-
tion system or a data processing system at Headquarters, the value is 1 (if
not, 0) for each AQCR.
The weights for each procedure are listed in the left column of Table 20.
Two weights are shown for strip-chart recording. If the AQCR is small,
has less than two Priority I pollutants, and has only strip-chart record-
ing, the weight is 1. If there are two or more Priority I pollutants,
the weight is 0.410, since additional procedures are necessary.
The steps in the evaluational procedure follow. Use information from
part C of Table 1 and record in Table 20.
V.A.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
Record the number of Priority I pollutants in each AQCR in the space for
each AQCR in Table 20.
Step 2
Multiply the values for strip charts by the appropriate weight, and
record the results in the spaces on the line for r.
Step 3
Record the values for digital acquisition system at each station. Multi-
ply the values times the weight in the left column, and record those results
in the spaces on the line for r.
57
-------
TABLE 20. EVALUATION OF CONTINUOUS SENSOR RECORDING PROCEDURES
in
oo
AQCR
12 3 4 5 6
No.Prior.I No.Prior.I No.Prior.I No.Prior.I No.Prior.I No.Prior.I
pollutant pollutant pollutant pollutant pollutant pollutant.
wt.
1 or
0.410
0.327
0.263
Procedure Value Value Value Value Value Value
Strip Charts 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.
r
Digital Acquis.
at Each Station
r
Telemetry
r
0.327 Digital Acquis. and
Data Processing at
Headquarters
0.263 Only Data Processing
at Headquarters
R =
-------
Step 4
Record the values for telemetry. Multiply those by the weight and record
the results in the spaces on the line for r.
Step 5
Record the value for digital acquisition system at Headquarters. Multiply
that value by the weight and record the result in the spaces for r.
Step 6
Sum the values for r in each AQCR, and record those values in the spaces
for RJL. The value of R^ is the rating for each AQCR, for recording procedures
used. The perfect value for each R. is 1.
Sum the values of Ri and divide by the number of AQCRs evaluated, to
obtain the value of R, and record the result, the network Rating for the ele-
ment Continuous Sensor Recording Procedures. The perfect Rating is 1.
59
-------
V.B RATING OF USE OF STATION OPERATOR TIME
In this element, an estimate is made of the use of station operator time
based on the assumption that operators are not responsible for major main-
tenance and major calibration of sensors. The procedures of this evalua-
tion follow as Steps, in which data from part C of Table 1 are recorded
in Table 21, and calculations are made.
V.B.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
On the first line of Table 21, record the number of continuous sensors
in each AQCR.
Step 2
On the second line, record the number of station operators if continuous
sensors are visited daily; record the number of operators multiplied by 2 if
the sensors are visited every other day.
Step 3
Record the values of Step 1 divided by Step 2. In the spaces for rj,
record the product of value for each AQCR times the weight listed in the
first column of the Table.
Step 4
Record the number of manual sensors in each AQCR.
Step 5
Record the number of station operators multiplied by 5 if manual sensors
are checked once a week; record the number of operators multiplied by 2.5 if
manual sensors are checked twice a week.
Step 6
Record the values of Step 4 divided by Step 5. In the spaces for r2>
record the product of value for each AQCR times the weight listed in the first
column.
Step 7
Record the average miles/day traveled by operators visiting stations in
each AQCR. In the spaces for rj record the product of Step 7 and the weight
in the first column of the Table.
Step 8
Sum the values of r and record the sum for each AQCR in the space in-
dicated.
60
-------
TABLE 21. EVALUATION OF STATION OPERATOR TIME
Weight Factor
1. No. Continuous Sensors
2. No. Station Operators
0.38 3. Value
rl
4. No. Manual Sensors
5. No. Station Operators
0.16 6. Value
r2
0.03 7. Average Miles/Day
r3
rl + r2 + r3
Rj
R =
1
2
AQCR
3
4
5
6
ac .5
Figure 10. Rating for efficiency of use of station operator time
6]
-------
Step 9
On Figure 10, find the value of sum r on the horizontal axis and determine
the value of R on the vertical axis. Record that value in Table 21 in the
space for R^ for each AQCR. If each value of each R. is 1, the station opera-
tion time is being used very efficiently.
Step 10
Sum the values of R^, divide by the number of AQCRs, and record that value
as R, the Rating for the element.
62
-------
V.C AREA EVALUATION
Multiply the value of R in Table 20 by 0.50 =
Multiply the value of R in Table 21 by 0.50 =
Area Evaluation = Sum -
The perfect area evaluation is 1. If the value is less than 1, the
values, expressed as a percent, define how close the two elements are
to perfect effectiveness.
63
-------
SECTION VI
EVALUATION OF AREA OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
In this area, many aspects of quality control that affect quality assur-
ance are evaluated. The area is divided into two major parts composed of
several elements each. The first part considers controls on field instru-
ments and measurements, the second part controls on laboratory instruments
and measurements. The information needed should all be in the sections
of Table 1, as referenced, and the Ratings and the area evaluation can be
completed rapidly. General procedures rather than the specific details
are considered to avoid an extremely lengthy period of information-
gathering for Table 1. The perfect Rating for any element is 1, and the
perfect area evaluation is also 1.
VI.A RATINGS FOR CONTROLS ON FIELD INSTRUMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS
Information to rate the elements of Field Instrument Calibration and Field
Instrument Maintenance (on only four requirements each) is contained in the
sections of Table 1 and is referenced in the first column of Table 22, for
each item considered. The response in Table 1 (expressed as a decimal frac-
tion) that indicates the percent conformance with requirements is the value
of each item. The value of each item multiplied by the listed weight pro-
vides the score for that item. The sum of the scores within an element is
the Rating for the element.
VI.A.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
In Table 22, determine the value of the first item in the first element,
Field Instrument Calibration, by reference to Section E.S.a of Table 1. In
that tabulation, if the manufacturer's recommendations were used for frequen-
cy of instrument calibration of all instruments, the value of the item is 1.
If they were used for only a fraction of the instruments, the value of the
item is that fraction, expressed as a decimal. The value of the item, Docu-
mentation of Calibration Results, is determined in the same way, as is the
value for Use of Documentation to Modify the Schedule. The value for Use of
Approved Techniques will be 1 if all the procedures are those specified in
CFR Title 40, Part 50, 1971, amended 1975b, and CFR Title 40, Part 53, 1975,
or in U.S. EPA, 1971, or in Jutze, 1973, and if the equipment used is approved.
If only a portion of the methods is as specified, the value of the item is
that portion expressed as a decimal.
64
-------
TABLE 22. RATINGS FOR CONTROLS ON FIELD INSTRUMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS
Each element Rating is the sum of the scores of the items within the element.
Each score is the value of the item, multiplied by the indicated weight. The
column labeled "Table 1 source" references the section of Table 1 providing
information on the item value. Convert all percentages to decimal fractions
before entering in the value column.
Table 1
source
Item
Value x Weight = Score
Element
rating
1. Field Instrument Calibration
E.S.a. Use of Mfr. Frequency
Recommendation
E.S.a. Documentation of Calibration
Results
E.S.a. Use of Documentation to
Modify Schedule
E.S.a. Use of Approved Techniques
2. Field Instrument Maintenance
E.S.d. Use of Mfr. Recommendations
E.S.d. Documentation of Maintenance
E.S.d. Use of Documentation to
Modify Schedule
E.S.d. Use of Approved Techniques
3. Controls of Field Measurements
E.S.c. Validation and Documentation
of Secondary Standards
E.9. Use of Statistical Control
Charts
C.2. Maintenance of Log Books
C.6. Documentation of Down Times
(sum for all AQCRs)
E.S.d. Preventative Maintenance
x 0.188 --
0.287
0.237
0.288
Sum of Scores
0.204
0.277
0.242
0.277
Sum of Scores
0.193
0.172
0.239
0.168
0.228
Sum of Scores
= R =
= R =
= R =
65
-------
Step 2
Rating of the element of Field Instrument Maintenance is performed in the
same way, using the referenced sections of Table 1.
Step 3
Rating of the third element, Controls on Field Measurement System, is
performed similarly. If items are not documented, the value is 0.
66
-------
VLB RATINGS FOR CONTROLS ON LABORATORY INSTRUMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS
Information to Rate the three elements considered in Controls on Laboratory
Instruments and Measurements is in Table 1. Table 23 is provided for the
calculations, which are similar to those in Table 22, and the first column
references the location of the information in Table 1.
VI.B.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
The Rating of Laboratory Instrument Calibration in Table 23 is based
on the sum of the group of four items, information for which is all in
part E.6 of Table 1. As in the previous evaluations, the value of each item
is 1 if the requirement is met for every instrument, or the decimal fraction
of l equal to the portion of instruments for which the item is used.
Values of items in the next element, Factors Affecting Laboratory Sup-
plies, depend on the following: the percent of the time that standard
procedures are used in the handling and storage of chemicals, reagents, and
gases; the percent of standard chemicals and gases for which values are
validated; the maintenance of an inventory of supplies (value is 1 if yes,
0 if no); and whether the quality of purchased supplies is checked (value
is 1 if yes, 0 if no). All the needed information should be in the refer-
enced sections of Table 1.
Values of items in the element, Controls on Laboratory Measurements,
depend on answers in the referenced sections of Table 1. The value of the
first item depends on whether the analytical methods used are referenced in
CFR Title 40, Part 50, 1971, amended 1975b, and CFR Title 40, Part 53, 1975.
If all methods are referenced, the value is 1; otherwise, the value is the
decimal fraction representing the portions of the methods that are referenced.
If there is scheduled participation in interlaboratory testing, the value of
the item is 1, if not, the value is 0. If there are check list controls on
the electrical service, the value is 1, if not the value is 0. If 10 percent
or more of all samples undergo replicate analysis, the value is 1. If the
percentage is less, the value is the decimal fraction equal to the actual
percentage divided by 10 percent.
67
-------
TABLE 23. RATINGS FOR CONTROLS ON LABORATORY
INSTRUMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS
Each element rating is the sum of the scores of the items within the element.
Each score is the value of the item multiplied by the indicated weight. The
column labeled "Table 1 source" references the section of Table 1 providing
information on the item value. Convert all percentages to decimal fractions
before entering in the Value column.
Table 1
source
Item
Value x Weight = Score
Element
rating
1. Laboratory Instrument
Calibrations
E.6.J. Frequency as Mfr. Recommends
E.6.J. Documentation of Calibration
Results
E.6.k. Use of Documentation to
Modify Schedule
E.6.1. Use of Approved Techniques
2. Factors Affecting Laboratory
Supplies
E.6.c.§ d. Handling Procedures
E.6.c.§ d. Storage Procedures
E.6.e. Validation of Chemical and
Gas Standards
E.6.h. Maintenance of Inventory
E.6.i. Check Quality of Purchased
Supplies
3. Controls on Laboratory
Measurement
E.7.a. Use of Approved Techniques
E.7.b. Use of Statistical Control
Chart Techniques
E.7.c. Interlaboratory Testing
E.7.d. Validation of Data
E.6.b. Controls on Electrical Service
E.7.e. Replication
x 0.200 =
0.281
0.237
0.282
Sum of Scores = R =
0.188
0.186
0.241
0.161
0.224
Sum of Scores = R =
0.193
0.115
0.192
0.192
0.154
0.154
Sum of Scores = R =
68
-------
VI.C. EVALUATION OF THE AREA
In Table 24, record the values of the products of the Rating for each ele-
ment of this area and the weight listed for that element. The sun of the
products determines the area evaluation.
TABLE 24. AREA OF QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION
Source
table
22
22
22
23
23
23
Element
Field Instrument Calibration
Field Instrument Maintenance
Controls on Field Measurement
Laboratory Instrument
Calibration
Factors Affecting Lab Supplies
Controls on Lab Measurements
Rating x Weight = Rel. E.
x 0.212 =
0.152
0.172
0.186
0.116
0.162
E « Area Evaluation « Sum «
69
-------
SECTION VII
EVALUATION OF AREA OF DATA UTILIZATION
In this area, the utilization and distribution of monitored data are exam-
ined. Information to allow evaluation of the four elements of the area
should be found in parts C and D of Table 1, and Table 25 is provided for
the evaluation of each item and element.
1. The score for each item in each of elements A, B, C, and D of this area
is the value of the item multiplied by its weight. The value of each
item depends on the responses to the questions in part D, Table 1. If
the response is yes, the value is 1; if the response is no, the value is
zero. Weights for the items of elements A, B, and C are given in Table
25. Weights for the items of element D, Timely Preparation of Data
Summaries, are determined from Fig. 11, which contains two figures, one
for monthly summaries and one for quarterly summaries. Note that the
time of summary release should be earlier if computerized analysis is
available. The availability of computerized analysis is indicated in
part C, of Table 1. If Headquarters digital acquisition has been
checked in part C of Table 1, then use the computer analysis "curves"
to determine the weights. If not, use the manual data reduction "curves"
to determine the weights.
2. The Rating for each element is the sum of the scores, as indicated in
Table 25, and the area evaluation is the sum of the Ratings for each
element, divided by 4.
_ Sum of R's _
C «^^^^»^^*«»^^ _ t
70
-------
TABLE 25. RATINGS FOR DATA UTILIZATION
Table 1
source
Item
Value x Weight = Score
Element
rating
l.D.
l.D.
l.D,
l.D,
l.D.
l.D.
and
I.C.I.
A. Public Information
Daily release of air quality
information to public media
Publication of air quality
reports for release to public
x 0.5
0.5
Sum of Scores
= R
B. Forecasting and Modeling
Use of data to validate or
calibrate an air model
Use of data to predict trends
C. Maintenance of Air Quality
Use of data to evaluate air
quality and detect changes
D. Timely Publication of Data
Summaries
Preparation of quarterly
data summaries and
monthly data summaries
0.625
0.375 _
Sum of Scores = R
1.
Sum of Scores
= R
Sum of Scores
= R =
NO. OF DAYS "". ur
Figure 11. Days between end of period and summary release
71
-------
SECTION VIII
OVERALL AREA EVALUATIONS
To determine an evaluation for the network for all the areas examined,
multiply the area evaluation determined at the end of each Section by the
weight listed in Table 26. The sum of these products is the overall Net-
work Evaluation. Each product represents a Relative Evaluation. The
closer each Relative Evaluation is to the listed weight, the closer the
area effectiveness, with respect to overall operations, is to optimum, in
the opinion of the Survey Letter responses.
TABLE 26. NETWORK EVALUATION
AREA Area Evaluation x Weight = Relative Evaluation
I. Plan and Design x 0.182
II. Personnel 0.165
III. Facilities and Equipment 0.167
IV. Sampling and Analysis 0.173
V. Quality Assurance 0.182
VI. Data Utilization 0.131
Network Evaluation = Sum of Scores =
The value of 1 represents a perfect score, for each area and for the
network; i.e., the network is operating at 100 percent effectiveness. Where
a value is less than 1, the cause of lack of effectiveness should be examined
for improvement.
72
-------
SECTION IX
EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES BUDGET ALLOCATION
IX.A BUDGET ALLOCATION RATING DETERMINATION
IX.A.I Procedure Steps
Step 1
Record the budget allocation to Engineering-
Enforcement listed in part A of Table 1.
Step 2
Record the budget allocation to Technical
Services, listed in part A of Table 1.
Step 5
Divide Step 2 by Step 1.
Step 4
Record the budget allocation to Technical
Services Personnel, listed in part A of Table 1. ^
Step 5
Divide Step 4 by Step 2.
Step 6
Locate in Figure 12 the value of the intersection of Step 3 along the
horizontal axis and the value of Step 5 along the vertical axis. If the point
lies in the shaded region, follow the procedures of Step 6.a; if the point
lies below the shaded region, follow the procedure of Step 6.b.; if the point
lies above the shaded region, follow the procedures of Step 6.c.
a. If the point lies in the shaded region, enter the value 1.0 in
Step 7.
b. Determine the vertical axis value of a point on curve A immediately
above the calculated point. In the lower half of Figure 13 find the
r* curve closest to this vertical axis value. On this r* curve,
locate the value determined in Step 5 along the horizontal axis.
73
-------
1UU
m
pj
m. -
Ss,
H
tn iSi
*T" " ^ ^
fj 80 "«';' *
2
o
tN
SERVICES Bl
0
C1
m
-3 60 -
r-
O
n
m so
o
H
o
cn 40 -
-«^
m
r-
3oLLL
0
;' !? ;»
cj £ j
U i i *. '" ^
'' £ '' ' "" ;i
* '--' "--' .'-" '- '
V ^ .- ': ''.' :
A ^ i i*: 2 ;
-i*iba:
.-
-
' ii "^ >.
-".
;' _»
' .';. ': '."
t ^^
|| ||
1 -w
-
' .'-.
^-_
-
; :
'
1 -=-
j
1
-^^
--
-
,
1.
' >
s
-^
-^
-
'-
'< ^
5
.
-
^_
--_
-
; i
^-i.
i
-
.
8
"
-
_
-
'
i
-
.
-
-
-
|
-
'
'
|l
"** i
_
- - H
~
V??
*
*i .'-;:
, _
. , ,
_
-
!
_ _
-
-_.._._ I
.
-
-
-~ ~ - ~
----------
. . ..
-
iPiiiiiM^;?L ^::-
^'^t^^^^^^^^^-^^^r ^-^^rt^^^.^^,
5 '
_
- - - - . .
- ---.-..--.
.
- - _ .
- -
. ~ x : J_
5
TMHIM T1
I
- -
C JCCJL!
I
... / j .;.. .
"^TTT^T^r"^""^ |k^r4~~ w«-,, 'x ~ *
.': ..; -- ,-' ; ; -:- / 'T ? -.' - ^T ? -: - . - ; . ,
~ ** ^ - ^ ^ ^ "^ TI '' ^ "'' ~~ "*" * " ^" "^ "^ "" '" ""' """ "^
?§^|^|^||i^iHi . .
" ^ :.' :: ': ' ' > T y: '"" T7 ,' "^
K s ^ ^. ^^"^^j":;
*s *Tir-7^t
^!
"^ s
.._..
,
2.0 9
TECHNICAL SERVICES BUDGET ENFORCEMENT AND ENGINEERING (STEP 6)
Figure 12. Determination of technical services budget allocation
-------
Then read the Budget Allocation Rating for this point on the vertical
axis. Record this Budget Allocation Rating in Step 7.
c. Determine the vertical axis value of a point on curve B immediately
below the calculated point. In the upper half of Figure 13 find
the r* curve closest to this vertical axis value. On this r* curve,
locate the value determined in Step 5 along the horizontal axis.
Then read the Budget Allocation Rating for this point on the vertical
axis. Record the Budget Allocation Rating in Step 7.
Step 7
The value determined in Step 6 is the evaluation
of the Technical Services Budget Allocation.
75
-------
:. ,
,-,
O
y
5
, i
i
u
l.Or
45.
.80
.60
\ i\ \ V
.\ \.
\ \ X
v, \ ' , \ ±tl
V V \. \
\ r\
\ i\
.40
.20
.80
.60
.40
.20
S
\ \
\, , \
y '/ i ' \A \f
i\.-i i At
:V : :\
M '\,
\ \l
V--V
_u L i L ---
, : ,N i \ \ \ \i \j ; \
\!J\i'i\ V \; i. \i
i -
-X AT
-rr
/Ml/
\1,\
' V '\ '
H' '\ . \
'
h \ \
\'\. :\
'/r/>rx: I
' 7=2
^ , ,
\ i \i
' /',
'
fflra
IX;
rzn
l!)
20
iO
'0
PERCENT ALLOCATION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES BUDGET TO PERSONNEL CSTEP 6)
Figure 13. Personnel budget allocation rating
76
-------
SECTION X
REFERENCES
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 40, Part 51.17, "Air Quality Surveillance," November 25, 1971,
including amendments through February 18, 1975a.
Title 40, Part 53, "Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent
Methods," February 18, 1975, with changes of April 25, 1975.
Title 40, Part 50, "National Primary and Secondary Air Quality
Standards," November 25, 1971, including amendments through
February 18, 1975b.
Jutze, George A., et al., Quality Control Practices in Processing Air
Pollution Samples, Office of Air Programs Publication No. APTD-1132,
EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C., March 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Field Operations Guide for Automatic Air Monitoring Equipment, Office
of Air Programs Publication No. APTD-0736, EPA, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., November 1971.
Guidance for Air Quality Monitoring Network Design and Instrument
Siting, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the
Quality Assurance and Environmental Monitoring Laboratory Publica-
tion OAQPS No. 1.2-012, Research Triangle Park, N.C., January 1974.
Guidelines for Technical Services of a State Air Pollution Control
Agency, Office of Air Programs Publication No. APTD-1347, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., November 1972.
77
-------
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FROM NON-METRIC UNITS TO SI* UNITS
Non-Si unit
length
ft.
in.
mi.
x Conversion factor
0.3048
2.54 x 10"2
1.609 x 103
SI
m
m
m
unit
area
sq. ft.
sq. mi.
velocity
z
ft. /min.
mi . /day
0.09290
6
2.590 x 10
0.02832
1.609 x 103
m
2
m
z
m°/60 s
m/24 h
international System of Units
According to the Metric Practice Guide and Style Manual, published in 1975
by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the use of standard
atmosphere has been authorized, for a limited time. The SI definition is:
2
1 standard atmosphere = 101,325 newtons per square metre, (N/m ).
78
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Iiim-ucrioiis on the reverse before completing!
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/4-76-043
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING OPERATIONS OF AMBIENT
AIR MONITORING NETWORKS - A Manual
5. REPORT DATE
August 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. W. Shnider and E. S. Shapiro
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
URS Research Company
155 Bovet Road
San Mateo, California 94402
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
IHD 620
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-0473
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Procedures manual
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This manual is designed to evaluate the efficiency of ambient air monitoring
networks whose primary objective is to document compliance with or progress
toward attaining ambient air quality standards. The manual provides methods
to evaluate the efficiency of each of six operational areas: Network Plan and
Design, Personnel Qualifications, Facilities and Equipment, Sampling and Analysis,
Quality Assurance, and Data Utilization. A technique is presented for the overall
integrated evaluation of the operational areas. A final section provides methods
to evaluate the efficiency of budgetary allocations.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Pollution Site Surveys
Systems Evaluation
Mathematical Models
Systems Analysis
Air Monitoring Networks
Air Quality Monitoring
Monitoring Sites
05H
13B
14A
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
90
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
O 692-224-1BI0
------- |