U. S. EPA Ambient Air Monitoring
Protocol Gas Verification Program
Annual Report
CY2010
DRAFT Version 1
-------
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
U. S. EPA Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program
Annual Report for Calendar Year 2010
DRAFT Version 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Assessment Division
Research Triangle Park, NC
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements v
Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Implementation Summary 4
3.0 Survey and Verification Results 7
Tables
1 RAVL Verification Dates 5
2 Specialty Gas Producer Production Facilities 8
3 Cylinder and Pollutants Analyzed by the RAVL by Quarter 9
4 Measurement Quality Objectives for the AA-PGVP 10
5 Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program 2010 CO/SO2 Verifications 11
6 Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program 2010 NOx Verifications 12
Figures
1 AA-PGVP Flow Chart 6
2 Specialty Gas Producer Use 7
Appendices
A QA Reports from Measurement Data Worksheets for 2010 14
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
Acknowledgements
The following individuals and organizations are acknowledged for their contributions to this project:
US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Richard Wayland Bill Lamason Lewis Weinstock Joe Elkins Mark Shanis
US EPA, Office of Research and Development
Bob Wright
US EPA Region 2
Deb Szaro John Kushwara Avi Teitz
US EPA Region 7
Michael Davis Lorenzo Sena Thien Bui
Mustafa Mustafa
James Regehr
AA-PGVP Advisory Group (non-federal) Members
Brenda Jarrel- Southern Ute Indian Tribe
George Froelich- State of New York
EPA acknowledges all 10 EPA Regions for their support in providing contacts for the monitoring
organizations and for promoting the program.
Monitoring Organizations
EPA acknowledges the monitoring organizations that sent gas standards to the EPA Regional Analytical
Verification Laboratories. They include:
Cook County Dept. of Environmental Protection
Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County
Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services
Kansas Dept. of Health
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Maryland Dept of the Environment
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
North Carolina Dept of Natural Resources
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Southern Ute Indian Tribe
State of Florida Dept of Environmental Protection
State of Maine Bureau of Air Quality
State of Utah
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AA-PGVP Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program
AQS Air Quality System
CAMD Clean Air Markets Division
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COC chain-of-custody
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
GMIS Gas Manufacturer's Internal Standard
1C AC Institute of Clean Air Companies
NAC AA National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NBS National Bureau of Standards
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NMi Netherlands Measurement Institute
NPAP National Performance Audit Program
NTRM NIST Traceable Reference Material
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAP Office of Atmospheric Programs
ORD Office of Research and Development
PQAO Primary Quality Assurance Organization
QA quality assurance
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QC quality control
RAVL Regional Analytical Verification Laboratory
RO Reporting Organization (subcomponent of PQAO)
SOP standard operating procedure
SRM Standard Reference Material
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
1.0 Introduction
Background and Program Goals
The basic principles of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Traceability Protocol
for the Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards (EPA, 1997)1 were developed
jointly by EPA, the National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of Standards and
Technology [NIST]), and specialty gas producers over 30 years ago. At the time, commercially-
prepared calibration gases were perceived as being too inaccurate and too unstable for use in
calibrations and audits of continuous source emission monitors and ambient air quality
monitors2. The protocol was developed to improve their quality by establishing their traceability
to NIST Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) and to provide reasonably priced products. This
protocol established the gas metrological procedures for measurement and certification of these
calibration gases for EPA's Acid Rain Program under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 75, for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program under 40 CFR Part 58, and for the
Source Testing Program under 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 68. EPA required monitoring
organizations implementing these programs ("the regulated community") to use EPA Protocol
Gases as their calibration gases. EPA revised the protocol to establish detailed statistical
procedures for estimating the total uncertainty of these gases EPA's Acid Rain Program
developed acceptance criteria for the uncertainty estimate 3.
Specialty gas producers prepare and analyze EPA Protocol Gases without direct governmental
oversight. In the 1980s and 1990s, EPA conducted a series of EPA-funded accuracy assessments
of EPA Protocol Gases sold by producers. The intent of these audits was to:
increase the acceptance and use of EPA Protocol Gases as calibration gases;
provide a quality assurance (QA) check for the producers of these gases; and
help users identify producers who can consistently provide accurately certified gases.
Either directly or through third parties, EPA procured EPA Protocol Gases from the producers,
assessed the accuracy of the gases' certified concentrations through independent analyses, and
inspected the accompanying certificates of analysis for completeness and accuracy. The
producers were not aware that EPA had procured the gases for these audits.
The accuracy of the EPA Protocol Gases' certified concentrations was assessed using SRMs as
the analytical reference standards. If the difference between the audit's measured concentration
and the producer's certified concentration was more than +/- 2.0 percent or if the documentation
was incomplete or inaccurate, EPA notified the producer to resolve and correct the problem.
1 EPA-600/4-77-027b
Decker, C.E. et al, 1981. "Analysis of Commercial Cylinder Gases of Nitric Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, and Carbon
Monoxide at Source Concentrations," Proceedings oftheAPCA Specialty Conference on Continuous Emission
Monitoring-Design, Operation, and Experience, APCA Publication No. SP-43.
"Continuous Emission Monitoring," Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 75.
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
1
-------
The results of the accuracy assessments were published in peer-reviewed journals and were
posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network website.
The accuracy assessments were discontinued in 1998. In 2002, there was interest by the
specialty gas producers and EPA to reestablish this program. EPA worked together along with
the specialty gas producer community to develop a producer funded program but during the final
stages in 2008, the program ran into some difficulties and was never implemented.
In 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published the report EPA Needs an Oversight
Program for Protocol Gases4. One of the report's findings suggested that EPA "does not have
reasonable assurance that the gases that are used to calibrate emissions monitors for the Acid
Rain Program and continuous ambient monitors for the nation's air monitoring network are
accurate". OIG recommended that OAR implement oversight programs to assure the quality of
the EPA Protocol Gases that are used to calibrate these monitors. It also recommended that
EPA's ORD update and maintain the document Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification
of Gaseous Calibration Standards to ensure that the monitoring programs' objectives are met.
In order to address the OIG findings for ambient air monitoring, OAQPS, in cooperation with
EPA Region 2 and 7 developed an Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program (AA-PGVP).
The program establishes gas metrology laboratories in Regions 2 and 7 to verify the certified
concentrations of EPA Protocol Gases used to calibrate ambient air quality monitors. The
program is expected to:
ensure that producers selling EPA Protocol Gases participate in the AA-PGVP, and
provide end users with information about participating producers and verification results.
The EPA Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program's QA requirements 40 CFR Part 58,
Appendix A require:
2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit Standards. Gaseous pollutant concentration
standards (permeation devices or cylinders of compressed gas) used to obtain test
concentrations for CO, SO 2, NO, and NO 2 must be traceable to either a National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference Material (NTRM),
NIST Standard Reference Materials (SRM) and Netherlands Measurement Institute
(NMi) Primary Reference Materials (valid as covered by Joint Declaration of
Equivalence) or a NIST-certified Gas Manufacturer's Internal Standard (GMIS),
certified in accordance with one of the procedures given in reference 4 of this appendix.
Vendors advertising certification with the procedures provided in reference 4 of this
appendix and distributing gases as "EPA Protocol Gas" must participate in the EPA
Protocol Gas Verification Program or not use "EPA " in any form of advertising.
This program is considered a verification program because its current level of evaluation does
not allow for a large enough sample of EPA Protocol Gases from any one specialty gas producer
to yield a statistically rigorous assessment of the accuracy of the producer's gases. It will not
provide end users with a scientifically defensible estimate of whether gases of acceptable quality
4 http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090916-09-P-0235.pdf
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
can be purchased from a specific producer. Rather, the results provide information to end users
that the specialty gas producer is participating in the program and the information in the
verification report may be helpful when selecting a producer.
Purpose of This Document
The purpose of this document is to report the activities that occurred in the first year of the
program and provide the results of the verifications performed.
This document will not explain the implementation of the AA-PGVP, the quality system or the
verification procedure. That information has been documented in the Implementation Plan,
QAPP and SOPs that can be found on the AA-PGVP Web Page on AMTIC5.
1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvp.html
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
3
-------
2.0 Implementation Summary
The first year of the AA-PGVP was a year of planning and implementation. The following
activities occurred in 2010.
Development of the AA-PGVP Advisory Group- A Protocol Gas Advisory Group was
developed and composed of OAQPS personnel, personnel from EPA Regions 2 and 7, one
representative from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), and a tribal
representative from the Tribal Air Monitoring Support (TAMS) Center Steering Committee. The
Groups main goal was to assist in program development and provide information and feedback
to and from the user community.
Development on AA-PGVP Website on the Ambient Monitoring Technical Information
Center (AMTIC)6- OAQPS added a web page for the AA-PGVP program on AMTIC in order
to house important documents and information pertaining to the program.
Development of the AA-PGVP Implementation Plan- In April, 2010 the AA-PGVP
Implementation Plan was completed and posted on the AA-PGVP web page. The Plan provides
the necessary technical, logistical, and administrative information to successfully implement the
program.
Development of the Information Collection Request (ICR). In order for EPA to survey the
monitoring organizations, an ICR had to be developed. The ICR was published in the Federal
Register on July 8,20107.
Development and Implementation of the Survey- The program developed a simple survey that
was provided to all monitoring organizations. It asked each primary quality assurance
organizations/reporting organization (PQAO/RO) to identify the specialty gas producer they use
and whether they would like to participate in the program. The survey was sent to a point of
contact in each PQAO/RO for completion. The survey can be found in the AA-PGVP
Implementation Plan. Results of this survey are discussed in Section 3.
Procurement of DOT Hazardous Materials Training/Certification- Since new, unused gas
cylinders are sent from the monitoring organizations to EPA, monitoring organizations needed
to be DOT certified to ship these cylinders. EPA worked with KPA8 to develop an on-line
training program specifically for the shipment of these cylinders. EPA started working with
KPA in January, 2010 and had the course ready for use by May, 2010. We procured 55
certifications and in 2010 we had 31 monitoring organization personnel take the course and 29
complete it. Certifications are valid for 3 three years.
Regional Analytical Verification Laboratory (RAVL) Testing- In Feb, 2010 Region 2 and 7
RAVLs ran verification tests with new protocol gas cylinders. The test was implemented to
ensure that standard operating procedures (SOPs) were correct and could be followed as written,
6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvp.html
7 EPA ICR No. 2375.01, OMB Control Number 2060 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-16694.pdf
1 http://www.kpaonline.com/
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
4
-------
and that the equipment was operating as anticipated. The test cylinders passed verification and
any necessary modifications made to the verification process.
Development of QA Project Plan (QAPP) and SOPs- While EPA Regions 2 and 7 worked on
the SOPS, OAQPS worked on the QAPP. The SOP was then incorporated into the QAPP and
both were approved April, 2010 and posted on AA-PGVP web page on AMTIC.
Development of Measurement Data Workbook- At the same time the QAPP and SOPs were
completed, Region 2 and 7 completed an Excel measurement data workbook (MDW) that
captures the pertinent verification and supporting QA data and produces the final verification
certificates. The verification SOPs are written specifically for use with the MDW.
Technical System Audits of the RAVLS- Upon review and approval of the QAPP and SOPs,
Joe Elkins, the OAQPS QA Manager and Robert Wright from the EPA Office of Research and
Development, were asked to conduct a technical systems audit of both laboratories. The Region
2 TSA was conducted on April 13, 2010 and the Region 7 TSA was conducted on April 15,
2010. For both audits, the audit team concluded there were no findings that indicated a quality
problem requiring corrective action and the audit team found that all phases of the
implementation that were reviewed during the TSA to be acceptable and to be performed in a
manner consistent with the program's data quality goals. TSA finding reports are posted on the
AA-PGVP Web.
AA-PGVP Implementation -Since program development and the collection of survey
information from the monitoring organizations occurred in the first part of the calendar year,
verifications did not begin until June of 2010. Table 1 provides the 2010 verification dates.
Table 1- RAVL Verification Dates.
Region 2
6/2- 6/10
10/4-10/15
12/6-12/17
Region 7
7/6-7/8
9/7-9/17
12/1-12/15
RAVL Open House - Based on the information gained from monitoring organization surveys,
EPA developed a list of the specialty gas producers being used by the monitoring organizations.
From this list, EPA identified at least one point of contact for each producer. In September, EPA
contacted the producers by email to invite them to visit the RAVLs. The Region 2 open house
was Nov 16-18, 2010 and received 3 specialty producers. The Region 7 open house was Dec 15-
17, 2010 and also received 3 specialty gas producers.
Flow of the AA-PGVP
Figure 1 below provides a flow of the AA-PGVP. The major activities in these steps are
explained below. More details of these steps are found in the AA-PGVP Implementation Plan,
QAPP and SOPs.
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
+ Planning
Data
Monitoring
Organizations
Standards
Advisory
Group
Se^Z. -
_YearJy_
Selection
Audit
Data
End
User
Figure 1 AA-PGVP Flowchart
1. The AA-PGVP Advisory Group discusses program implementation and any necessary
improvements for the following year.
2. EPA sends emails to PQAO/RO points of contact to complete the AA-PGVG Survey.
EPA compiles information on specialty gas producers and the monitoring organizations
that plan to participate. EPA tries to schedule the monitoring organization in an
appropriate verification quarter based on delivery of standards from the specialty gas
producer.
3. The monitoring organizations order gas standards from specialty gas producers during the
normal course of business.
4. The monitoring organizations send a new/unused standard, specialty gas certification and
chain of custody form to the RAVLs.
5. The RAVLS analyze the cylinders and provide the validated results to OAQPS and the
monitoring organizations.
6. OAQPS reviews the data and sends verification results to the specialty gas vendors.
7. At the end of the year OAQPS compiles final results into a report, sends the report out to
the specialty gas vendors and posts it on the AA-PGVP AMTIC web page.
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
3.0 Survey and Verification Results
Monitoring Organization Survey
Based upon the maximum capability of 40 gas cylinders per RAVL per year, the AA-PGVP
selection goal, in the following order, is:
1) One gas standard from every specialty gas producer being used by the monitoring
community
2) Three standards per specialty gas producer
3) Weight additional standards by producer market share in ambient air monitoring
community
In order to determine what specialty gas producers were being used by monitoring organizations,
EPA asked each monitoring organization to complete a survey. For the 2010 AA-PGVP, EPA
received surveys from 88 of a possible 118 PQAO/ROs, which is about a 75% response rate.
EPA did receive emails from some PQAO/ROs informing EPA that they did not implement
gaseous monitoring and therefore did not complete the survey, but this number does not account
for the difference. EPA plans to make improvements in 2011 to try and achieve a 100% data
capture. Not receiving complete survey information can result in non-inclusion of some specialty
gas producers in the AA-PGVP.
Survey Results
PQAO/RO Specialty Gas Producer Use
(109 Responses}
AirGas
AirLiquide
Matheson Tri-Gas
American Gas Group
Red Ball
Scott-Marrin
Praxair
Linde
LiquidTechnology
SpecialtyAir Technologies
Fig. 2 Specialty gas producer use
Out of the 88 survey respondents, EPA
received 109 responses for specialty gas
producers since some surveys listed multiple
specialty gas producers. Figure 2 identifies, as
a percentage of the total responses, how often
the PQAO/ROs listed a particular specialty gas
producer. As mentioned above, only about
75% of the PQAO/ROs responded so this
cannot be considered a complete survey.
Figure 2 also indicates that 10 specialty gas
producers were identified in the survey.
However, some gas producers have more than
one production facility and it was the intent of
the AA-PGVP to try and receive one gas
cylinder from every facility being used by the
PQAO/RO (see Table 2).
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
7
-------
Participation in the AA-PGVP is voluntary. The survey asked whether a PQAO/RO was
receiving new gas standards during the year and also whether they would like to participate by
sending a cylinder to one of the RAVLs. Of the 88 PQAO respondents, 29 either did not want to
participate or were not receiving a cylinder during the year. This narrowed the participants down
to 59. Based upon the survey response, EPA did not have a volunteer that used Linde or Red
Ball (these producers had one survey response each).
Specialty Gas Producers
EPA contacted all the specialty gas producers in the survey to:
make them aware that EPA was starting the AA-PGVP,
describe the details of the program and the website where they could find additional
information,
ask them to identify all of their production facilities so we could determine how to select
cylinders from each production facility used, and
make them aware that EPA would be scheduling an open house toward the end of the
year.
Table 2 lists the production facilities for the 10 specialty gas producers that were identified in the
survey. Despite repeated attempts to get production facility information from Air Liquide, EPA
was unsuccessful. Plumsteadville, PA is identified because EPA received this information from
the certificate of analysis of an Air Liquide cylinder that was sent in for verification.
Table 2. Specialty Gas Producer Production Facilities.
Producer
Air Liquide
Air Gas
American Gas
Group
Liquid
Technology
Matheson Tri-
Gas
Praxair
Red Ball
Scott-Marrin
Linde
Specialty Air
Technologies
Facility 1
Plumsteadville,
PA
Chicago, IL
Toledo, OH
Apopka, FL
Joliet, IL
Bethlehem, PA
Shreveport, LA.
Riverside, CA
Alpha, NJ
Long Beach, CA
Facility 2
Durham NC
Morrow, GA
Los Angeles,
CA
Facility 3
Los Angeles, CA
Pasadena, TX
Facility 4
Port Allen, LA
Twinsburg, OH
Facility 5
Riverton, NJ
Facility 6
Royal Oak, MI
EPA was not able to determine the accuracy of production facility information from the survey.
Many respondents received their cylinders from a local vendor and they included the local
address rather that the address of the production facility. This issue will be corrected for future
surveys.
The production facilities highlighted in yellow in Table 2 had cylinders verified by the RAVLS
in 2010.
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
As mentioned earlier, survey respondents using Linde or Red Ball did not wish to participate in
the AA-PGVP in 2010. On 10/25/2010, Red Ball and Linde were contacted by email and
extended an invitation to send a cylinder directly to EPA for verification during the last quarter.
EPA did not receive a cylinder from either gas producer but Linde is in contact with EPA to
make arrangements in 2011.
In summary, for 2010 EPA provided verifications to all but 2 specialty gas producers providing
gas standards to monitoring organizations that responded to the survey. The two gas producers
that were not verified were only providing standards to one PQAO/RO survey respondent. EPA
may not have verified all production facilities used by the PQAO/RO but it was difficult to
accurately identify this based on the information provided in the survey. The conclusion section
will provide some information on how EPA plans to receive more accurate information
regarding this issue for future surveys. In addition, the RAVLs had less participation than
expected from the PQAO/ROs. Although we were not ready to begin in the first quarter of
2010, the RAVLs were capable of auditing 30 cylinders (10 per quarter) in quarters 2-4. Table 3
provides the final tally for the verifications occurring each quarter. Some cylinders were multi-
pollutant which is why the pollutant total is different from the cylinder total.
Each quarter, after the verification results were validated, the RAVLS sent OAQPS the
measurement data worksheets which contained the verification certificates for the quarter.
OAQPS sent the certificates to each specialty gas vendor that had cylinders verified in the
quarter.
Table 3. Cylinders and Pollutants Analysed by RAVL by Quarter.
Region
2
7
Quarter 2
Cylinders
4
6
Pollutants
6
10
Quarter 3
Cylinders
6
4
Pollutants
12
5
Quarter 4
Cylinders
0
4
Pollutants
0
9
Total CY2010
Cylinders
10
14
Pollutants
18
24
Verification Results
As indicated in 40 CFR Part 75 Appendix A, EPA Protocol Gases must have a certified
uncertainty (95 percent confidence interval) that must not be greater than plus or minus (+) 2.0
percent of the certified concentration (tag value) of the gas mixture. This acceptance criterion is
for the Acid Rain Program. The AA-PGVP adopted the criteria as its data quality objective and
developed a quality system to allow the RAVLs to determine whether or not an individual
protocol gas standard concentration was within + 2% of the certified value. The Ambient Air
Program has never identified an acceptance criterion for the protocol gases. Since the AA-PGVP
has not been established to provide a statistically rigorous assessment of any specialty gas
producer, the RAVLs report all valid results as analyzed but it is suggested that any difference
greater than 4-5% is cause for concern. Information related to the analytical reference standards,
analytical instruments and methods used, the data reduction procedures and the data assessment
procedures are all found in the AA-PGVP QAPP and SOP and are not repeated in this report9.
Table 4 is the measurement quality objectives table that is included in the AA- PGVP QAPP
(Table 7-1 in QAPP). The acceptance criteria in Table 4 were met for each day of verification.
In addition, conformance to these requirements can be found in the measurement data
9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvp.html
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
-------
worksheets (MDW) that are generated for each comparison run and are available upon request.
Appendix A provides a report of the QC checks associated with each verification.
Table 4 Measurement Quality Objectives for the AA-PGVP
Requirement
Completeness
Quarterly Flow
Calibration
Calibrator Dilution
Check
Analyzer
Calibration
Zero & Span
Verifications
Precision Test '
Routine Data
Check
Lab Comparability
Frequency
All standards analyzed
Quarterly -no more than 1
mo. before verification
Quarterly -within 2 weeks
of assay
Quarterly - within 2 weeks
of assay
Each day of verification
Day of Verification
Any Standard with Value
>2% Tag Value
2/year
Acceptance Criteria
95%
Calibration flow
accuracy within + 1%
+ 1%RD
+ 1% RPD (each point)
Slope 0.89 -1.02
SE mean < 1% and
accuracy + 5% RD
+ 1% RD standard error
of the mean
NA
+ 2 % RPD
Protocol Gas
Doc.
Reference
2.3.7
2.3.5.1
2.1.7.2
2.1.7.3,2.3.5.4
2.3.5.4
NA
Comments
The goal is based on an
anticipated 40 cylinders per
lab per year.
Using flow primary standard
Second SRM. Three or more
discrete measurements
5 points between 50-90% of
upper range limit of analyzer
+ zero point
Drift accountability. 3 discrete
measurements of zero and
span
SRM at cone. >80% of
analyzer URL
Sample run three times to
verify value.
Sample run three average
value used.
Standards Certification
Primary flow
standard
NIST SRMs
Annually-Certified by
NVLAP certified lab
Expiration date
SRM pressure >150psig
1.0%
NA
Compared to NIST Traceable
Will follow NIST
recertiiication requirements
The precision test does not need to accomplished if analyzer calibrated on same day as analysis
Table 5 provides the verification results for CO and SO2 and Table 6 provides the NOx results.
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
10
-------
Table 5
Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program 2010 CO/SO2 Verifications
Region 2 CO
Date
7/9/2010
7/9/2010
7/9/2010
10/13/2010
10/13/2010
10/13/2010
10/15/2010
Lab
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Producer
Air Liquide
Scott-Marrin
Praxair*
Scott-Marrin
Matheson
Scott-Marrin
Scott-Marrin
Region 2 S02
7/8/2010
7/8/2010
10/7/2010
10/7/2010
10/7/2010
10/7/2010
2
2
2
2
2
2
^m
Air Liquide
Air Gas
Praxair*
AirGas
Scott-Pularrin
Scott-Marrin
^^^m
Facility
Plumsteadville, PA
Riverside. CA
Bethlehem. PA
Riverside. CA
Twinsburg. OH
Riverside. CA
Riverside, CA
Plumsteadville, PA
Port Allen. LA
Bethlehem, PA
Chicago IL
Riverside. CA
Riverside. CA
Cylinder ID
ALM04475
CC86399
SA6140
JB02815
SV-13540
JJ712
FB03100
ALM04475
CC216707
SA6140
SG9150433BAL
JB02815
FB03100
_
Pollutant
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
mim
Assay
Cone
4476.94
40.1992
5020.75
10272.1
1521.57
3078.73
272 3G
50.75
44.43
45.95
50.09
101 93
12.98
Producer
Cone % Bias
4570 -2 04
40.7 -1.23
5007 027
10310 -0.37
1515 0.43
3060 0.61
270 0.98
40.9 -0.3
45.44
46.73 -1.67
50.91 -1.6
102.7 -075
1322 -1.82
^-l^i
95%
Uncertainty
TO
0.6
0.61
0.14
0.14
0.14
0 14
0.17
0.08
0.09
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.28
Region 7 CO
Date
6/2/2010
6/2/2010
6/2/2010
6/2/2010
9/8/2010
9/8/2010
9/8/2010
12/2/2010
12/2/2010
12/2/2010
Lab
7
7
7
7
7
r
7
7
7
7
Producer
AirGas
AirGas
Scott-Marrin
Scott-Marrin
Praxair*
Scott-Marrin
AirGas
Praxair
Liquid Technology
Specialty Air
Facility
Durham NIC
Chicago. IL
Riverside, CA
Riverside. CA
Bethlehem. PA
Riverside. CA
Durham MC
Los Angeles. CA
Apopka. FL
Long Beach. CA
Cylinder ID
FF43334
LL29698
CA07721
JA02404
SA6140
CA08660
LL54481
FF3881
EB-0026497
SA10635
Pollutant
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
Assay
Cone
5046.08
2812.61
40.09
5081.45
5006.45
5063.5
39.61
4092
4937
5672
Producer
Cone % Bias
5033 026
2843 -1.07
40.1 -0.02
5100 -0 36
5007 -0.01
5070 -0.13
3928 0.85
4060 0.8
4948 -0.21
5760 -1 53
95%
Uncertainty
TO
0.23
0.27
0.24
0.23
0.19
0.19
0.2
0.29
0.26
0.28
Region 7 S02
6/8/2010
6/8/2010
6/8/2010
9/10/2010
9/10/2010
12/7/2010
12/7/2010
12/7/2010
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
AirGas
AirGas
Scott-Marrin
Praxair *
Scott-Marrin
Specialty Air
Liquid Technology
Airgas
Port Allen. LA.
Chicago. IL
Riverside, CA
Bethlehem. PA
Riverside. CA
Long Beach CA
Apopka. FL
Durham, NC
FF24487
LL29698
JA02404
SA6140
CC327237
SA10635
EB-0026497
CC274221
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
48.33
2749
102.93
46.51
50.32
59.61
51.06
40.5
4903 -1.43
27.37 043
103.2 -0.26
46.73 -0.46
50.4 -0.17
5264 1325
50.8 0.51
40.57 -0.17
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.3
0.29
0.2
02
0.21
Praxair Cylinder SA6140 (with asterisk *) was an internal QC cylinder that was verified by both
laboratories as a QC check. Although it is shown here, it is not part of the totals in Table 3. The
Internal QC results for CO and NOx showed very good agreement and although SO2 was a bit
more variable is was also within the +2%.
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
11
-------
Table 6
Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program 2010 NOx Verifications
Region 7 Verifications
Date
6/10/2010
6/10/2010
6/10/2010
9/14/2010
9/14/2010
9/14/2010
12/9/2010
12/9/2010
12*9/2010
Region 2 V
NO
NO Assay Producer
Lab
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Producer
AirGas
AirGas
Scott-Marrin
Praxair*
Scott Marin
Airgas
Praxair
Liquid Technology
Specialty Air
Facility
Chicago IL
Chicago IL
Riverside. CA
Bethlehem PA
Riverside CA
Durham NC
Los Angeles. CA
Apopka, FL
Long Beach. CA
Cylinder ID Pollutant Cone
FF41904 NOx 5006
LL29698 NOx 30.42
JA02404 NOx 50 91
SA6140 NOx 5157
CC327233 NOx 49 84
LL9253 NOx 48.92
FF3881 NOx 11256
EB-0026497 NOx 51 33
SA10635 NOx 11525
Cone
5028
3027
512
51 98
496
49.06
113
507
1148
% Bias
-044
0.51
-0.56
-078
047
-0.28
-0.39
125
039
95%
Uncertainty
("')
0 18
0.17
0.18
0.19
0 19
0.19
0.13
0 13
0.13
NOx
Assay
Cone.
50 16
304
5079
51.48
4973
48.83
11297
51 31
11543
NOx
Prod.
Cone
504
30.39
512
51.94
49.60
49.19
113
51
1149
%Bias
-047
0 04
-081
-089
025
-063
-0 03
062
046
95%
Uncertainty
0.21
0.21
0.21
0 18
0 18
0.18
0.15
0 15
0 15
jrifications
NO
NO Assay Producer
Date
7/6/2010
7/6/2010
10/14/2010
10/14/2010
10/14/2010
10/14/2010
10/14/2010
10/14/2010
Lab
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Producer
Air Liquide
American Gas Group
Praxair*
AirGas
Scott-Marrin
American Gas Group
Scott-Marrin
Scott-Marrin
Facility
Pltimsteadville. PA
Toledo. OH
Bethlehem PA
Chicago IL
Riverside CA
Toledo. OH
Riverside CA
Riverside CA
Cylinder ID Pollutant Cone
ALM04475 NOx 5017
EB0022542 NOx 29 82
SA6140 NOx 51.9
SG9150433BALNOX 50.59
JB02815 NOx 100.81
EB0006064 NOx 19 25
FB03100 NOx 12 79
JJ712 NOx 3053
Cone
50.2
297
51 98
51.29
1009
193
128
30.4
% Bias
-006
039
-0 16
-1.37
-0.09
-023
-007
044
95%
Uncertainty
(%|
0 12
0.12
0.36
037
0.37
0.38
0.38
038
HOx
Assay
Cone.
50 19
3022
51 68
50.39
100.41
2048
128
30.41
NOx
Prod.
Cone
502
30 1
51 94
51.3
100 9
202
12.8
304
% Bias
-002
041
-05
-1.77
-0.49
1.4
-002
0.04
95%
Uncertainty
031
032
0.21
0.21
021
0.21
021
021
Out of the 42 verification results, three were greater than the +2% Acid Rain Program criteria
and only one value was greater than AA-PGVP 4-5% criteria. The cylinder that failed for 862
was from a multi-pollutant standard that passed verification for CO and NOx. On 12/23/2010,
EPA sent the results of the verification to the specialty gas producer and gave the producer an
opportunity to send a second standard to EPA for verification. The second verification values
could be added to the 2010 results but it would not eliminate the original cylinder verification
results. EPA had not received a response from the producer at the time this report was
published.
Summary and Conclusions
In general, for the first year of planning and implementation, the AA-PGVP has been successful.
The quality system, standard operating procedures, analytical equipment and standards
maintained the data quality of the program. Results show that of the 42 standards that were
verified, 41 were within the + 4-5% AA-PGVP criteria, and 39 (92%) were within the + 2%
Acid Rain Program criteria.
As with the start up of any program, there are a few improvements that can be made based on
lessons learned. The following are improvements that will be implemented in 2011.
Survey Improvement- We did not get a 100% completeness on surveys and production facilty
names and locations were misrepresented. In order to correct both issues, EPA developed a web-
based survey. This survey has a point of contact email address for all 118 PQAO/ROs. The
survey lists the ten 2010 specialty gas producers along with their multiple production facilities.
The point of contact must select one of those facilities (or mutiples) from the pick list (avoiding
misnaming) or add a new production facility. If a new facilty is added, EPA will ensure it is a
legitimate facility and will them add it to the pick list for other points of contact to use. This
should cut down on entry errors. Every two weeks, EPA will determine which points of contact
have not completed the survey and send a reminder email to them indicating that the survey has
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
12
-------
not been complete. EPA hopes this will inspire all PQAO/RO to complete the survey. EPA may
have to resort to individual phone calls at some point to meet the completness goals.
Participation Improvement- Since the program is voluntary, EPA we can not force particiption.
EPA hopes that the PQAO/ROs will see the benefit in getting an independent verification of their
cylinder and we will get at least 10 cylinders per RAVL per quarter. PQAO/ROs did have
difficulties with some shippers (in particular UPS) in the transport of these cylinders to the
RAVL and in some cases they were never shipped. EPA has worked with UPS to develop a set
of shipping instructions that may help the PQAO/ROs in the future.
Verification of Each Production Facility- Since the intent of the AA-PGVP is to be a blind
verification, meaning the gas standard used for the verification is unknown to the producer, we
rely on the PQAO/ROs for particpation. However, with some specialty gas producers being used
by only a few PQAO/ROs, EPA will inform those specialty gas producers earlier in the year
that they may want to provide the RAVL with a gas standard. At a minimum, EPA will make
sure there is capacity in the last verification quarter for those production facilities to send the
RAVL a gas standard when a standard representing that producer has not been sent by a
PQAO/RO.
Quarterly Intel-laboratory QC Checks- The analysis of the same standard by both RAVLs
proved to be a useful tool for checking the quality of the AA-PGVP results. In 2011, these
interlaboratory QC checks will be conducted in two quarters along with the routine QC activities
associated with each verification run.
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
13
-------
Appendix A
Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program
QA Reports from Measurement Data Worksheets for 2010
During the verification process, the Regional Air Verification Laboratories perform a number of
quality control checks that are recorded on the Measurement Data Worksheets. This information
is reported and saved along with the verification reports. The following sheets represent the
quality control for all verifications that were implemented in 2010.
Region 2 - Quarters 2 and 3, pages 15-19
Region 7- Quarters 2, 3 and 4 pages 20-25
It may be noticed that the CO QC checks for points 4 and 5 were outside specification for the
quarter 2, Region 2 results. The CO analyzer(s) were insufficiently linear in the concentration
range of 24.5 ppm to 36.32 ppm (points 4-5). However, in the range of 36.32 ppm to 47.64 ppm
the instrument is sufficiently linear. This is in keeping with the original G2 method requirement
that the analyzer only be used "in the well characterized portion of its range". The 1% QA
criterion is the definition of "well characterized". Since all CO assays (and the dilution check)
were done at concentrations in the range of 39.55 ppm to 42.7 ppm (points 1-3), all assays were
done in the well characterized range of the analyzer.
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
14
-------
Region 2 QC Data
CO QA Requirements Summary- Region 2-Quarter 2, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cvlmder Pressure ?150 psi
18-Jan-16
2030
18^Jan-12
1400
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard LOW Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
7-May-11
7-May-11
7-May-11
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flOW controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1.01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = Q 99 - 1 01
28-Jun-10
0.9999964
0.9999999
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>3Q% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
O.S4%
0.87%
Dilution Check
Dilut'°n Check Date *"thin 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Different = "- .,
29-Jun-10
-0 735%
Dilution check ..it Inn ': *!=! i of assav
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check- Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Std Error is okay Zero Gas Std Error i
RD is okay Zero Gas RD is OK
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Differen
Std Error is okay Span Gas Std Error is OK
RD is okay Span Gas RD is QK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
c> st»da'd *1 Sld E * n
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bia
The standard error i
-2 04%
Challenge Standard #2 Assay
Challen9e stante150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
11-Dec-15
1700
1-Jun-16
1890
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
7-May-H
7-May-11
7-May-ll
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1.01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range - 0 99 - 1 01
28-Jun-10
0.9999964
0 9999999
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1 02
30-Jun-10
0.11%
0.11%
0.12%
0.15%
0.19%
10007
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Eay may be conducted at this concentration
ay may be conducted at this concentration
sy may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks af asssy
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
1-Jul-10
-0.907%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check -Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
Std. Error is okay
RD is okay.
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std. Error <1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
-0 30''o Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
-2.23% Challenge Std £2 vendor certificate bias I
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
15
-------
NOx QA Requirements Summary- Region 2 - Quarter 2, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Chech Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Sep-11
1300
l-Jun-16
2050
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
7-May-11
7-May-11
7-May-11
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow Controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1 01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Ranqe = 0.99 - 1 01
28-Jun-10
0 9999964
0.9999999
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% 3t point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #5 (-50% URL}
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
1-Jul-10
0 19%
0 19%
0.21%
0.25%
032%
09988
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL}
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4-
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL}
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
1-Jul-10
0.05%
0.04%
0.05%
0.07%
0.09%
1.0015
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
Wul-10
0 196%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NO Portion
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error < 1%
DayofAssa1. :.:.?" ~ >:-:, _Rj^i_j_C '-^ence <5%
Std. Error is okay.
RD is okay.
Std Error is okay.
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std. Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NOx Portion
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
Std Error is okay
RD is okay.
Sid. Error is okay.
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
.Q 06% Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
-0 02% Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #1 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate t
Challenge Standard #2 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate
Challenge Standard #2 NOx Assay challenge standard *2 s.d Error <1%
Challenge Standard S2 .gndor certificat
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard 32 Std Error is OK
039% Challenge Sid *2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
0 41% Challenge Sid #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
16
-------
CO QA Requirements Summary- Region 2- Quarter 3, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
18-Jan-16
1880
13-Jan-12
1375
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
7-May-11
7-May-11
7-May.11
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator (mass flow controller
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
S) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1 01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1.01
4-OcMO
0 9999970
0.9999977
Calibrator Mow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>8Q% URL|
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
13-0ct-10
0.15%
0-15%
0.15%
016%
0.16%
09973
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slop-e is acceptable
Dilution Check DM>°" Check Date withi" 2 """"" of assay
Di ,!.::- '-'-.-. : : .; : ": Z -": :n:e < 1%
5-OcHO
-0.464%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
Std. Error is okay
RD is okay
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certn.:?-- !: ?
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
0 27°rj Challenge Sid #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
-0.37% Challenge Sid #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std. Error is OK
0 43% Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #3 Assay
Challenge Standard #3 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #3 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #4 Assay
Challenge Standard #4 Std Errof < 1%
Challenge Standard #4 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #4 Std Error is OK
0 gi°a Challenge Std #4 vendor certificate bias < 2%
CO QA Requirements Summary-Region 2-Data Set 2- Quarter 3, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
18-Jan-16
1900
18-Jan-12
1375
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cvlinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
7-May-11
7-May-11
7-May-11
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1.01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1 01
4-0 ct-10
09999970
0.9999977
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
Analyzer Calibration vvithin 2 week of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty ; 1% at point #1 (>SO% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 98-1 02
6-0 ct-10
0 19%
019%
0.20%
0.21%
0 22%
09935
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check
Dilution died Relat, e "=. Difference < 1%
5-0 ct-10
-0 464%
Dilution che? illiiii .. ;el :- ui gssay
Dilution Che; I RSD^OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
Std. Error is okay
RD is okay
Std. Error is okay.
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Sid. Error < 1% The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
Challenge Standard £1 vendor certificate bias Q 9S% Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
17
-------
NOx QA Requirements Summary- Region 2- Quarter 3, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Sep-11
1250
1-Jun-16
2000
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
7-May-11
7-May-H
7-May-1 1
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slops Range = 0.99 - 1 .01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Ranqe = 0 99 - 1 01
4-OcMO
0.9999970
0.9999977
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #1 (>SO% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 98-1 02
5-Oct-IO
025%
0.26%
0.28%
032%
0.41%
1 0038
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may he conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope s '.'.ithin 0 q:M 02
5-0 ct-10
0 22%
0.23%
0.25%
0 29%
0.37%
1 0007
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NO Portion
Day of Assay Zero Check -
Day of Assay Zero Check -
Day of Assay Span Check
Day of Assay Span Check
Std. Error < 1%
Relative Difference < 5%
- Std. Error < 1%
- Relative Difference <5%
Std. Error is okay.
RD is okay
Std. Error is okay.
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error
Span Gas RD is OK
OK
sOK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NOx Portion
Day of Assay Zero Check -
Day of Assay Zero Check -
Day of Assay Span Check
Day of ASS.FT, b|:an Crn?;l;
Std. Error f- 1%
Relative Difference < 5%
- Std Error < 1%
- Relative Difference <5%
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error
Span Gas RD is OK
sOK
Challenge Standard #1 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
-0 16% Challenge Sid #1 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #1 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
-0 50% Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #2 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standarci -I .-i-mi:- :;. lira'? mas
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
-1 37% Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #2 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
-1 77% Challenge Sid #2 vendor certificate bias *
Challenge Standard #3 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #3 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #3 vendor certificate ba;
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
-0 09% Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #3 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #3 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #3 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okav Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
-0 49% Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #4 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #4 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #4 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #4 Std Error is OK
-0 23°o Challenge Sid #4 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #4 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #4 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #4 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #4 Std Error is OK
1 40% Challenge Sid #4 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #5 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #5 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Stan:! arc; =5 ,en;!:" c = n ,ri T ai e l:ias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #5 Std Error is OK
-0.07% Challenge Std #5 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #5 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #5 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #5 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #5 Std Error is OK
-j 02:.:. ClialitTKji? Mj "' .enrJci certificate bias ^
Challenge Standard #6 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #6 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #G vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #5 Std Error is OK
044% Challenge Std #5 vendor certificate bias <
Challenge Standard #6 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #6 Std Error < 1%
. " r - ' .'- -. ' ~- ' :!.?'; ~" - ' ::. :-:-r ^\ ;?:,-. hag
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #5 Std Error is OK
0.04% Challenge Std #5 vendor certificate bias <
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
18
-------
SO2 QA Requirements Summary- Region 2- Quarter 3, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure -150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
11-Dec-15
1425
1-Jun-16
1700
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
7-May-11
7-May-11
7-May-11
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow Controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1.01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Ranqe = 0 99 - 1.01
4-OcMO
0.9999970
09999977
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 98-1 02
6-Oct-10
0.37%
038%
042%
0.48%
0 62%
09980
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
.-.., . . Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution LnecK
Dilution IJhacj Rfl :' fl :: ilV'-^rie --- 1%
5-Qct-1Q
-0.464%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
Std Error is okay
RD is okay.
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Assay
Challenge Standard #3 Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard S2 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard S3 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard =:! ?ndcif certificate bias
The standard error is okay
-1.67%
The standard error is okay
-1.60%
The standard error is okay
-0 75%
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std S3 vendor certificate bias
<2%
<2%
<2%
Challenge Standard #4 Assay
Challenge Standard S4 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #4 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay
-1 82%
Challenge Standard #4 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std *4 vendor certificate bias
<2%
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
19
-------
Region 7 QC Data
CO QA Requirements Summary-Region 7-Quarter 2, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >15Q psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
13-Jan-12
1250
9-Nov-15
2100
Pnmary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
Calibrator Ffow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range - 0 99 - 1 01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1 01
9-Nov-10
30-Dec-10
N'A
1-Jun-10
0 9999785
0 9999964
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
I
I
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
-1-3: it is\\\^3\ :-i ith i 1 rjj d 5^?,
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URLf
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 98-1 02
1-Jun-10
035%
0.36%
0 39%
0.46%
0.59%
09969
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Re;_=i'i.£ '-': L'fl-r-r.ce = 1%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check -Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error <1%
Day of Assay Span Check- Relative Difference =;5%
Std. Error is okay
RD is okay
Std Error is okay
RD is Okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
Challe
Challe
ge Standa
ge Standa
d #1 Std. E
d #1 vendo
rror < 1%
certificate bias
The
standard erro
0 26%
is okay
Challenge Standa
Challenge Std #1
d #1 Std
vendor c
Error is OK
rtificate bias
<2%
Challenge Standard #2 Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error
Challenge Standard
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
-0 02% Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias <2
Challenge Standard #3 Assay
Challenge Standard #3 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #3 vendor certificate bia;
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
-1 07% Challenge Sid #3 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #4 Assay challsnse SM"i * sa E <
:\-?.' T-:f :--.= -:!? .: -- -;--.! :?-. ';: j-
Tne standard error is okay Challenge Standard #4 Std Error is OK
-0 36% Challenge Std S4 vendor certificate bias < 2%
SO2 QA Requirements Summary- Region
QA Requirement Result
7-Quarter2, 2010
Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Jun-16
1900
11-Dec-15
1700
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Pnmary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
9-Nov-IO
30-Dec-10
N/A
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flOW controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 099-101
Calibrated lor, Floy* MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1 01
1-Jun-10
0 9999785
0 9999964
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Analyzer Calilrat an trttm 2 : eeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>SO% URLJ
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetsinty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetamty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
7-JLin-10
0 22%
0.23%
0 25%
0 29%
0 37%
1 0014
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
§y may be conducted at this concentration
y may be conducted at this concentration
/ may be conducted at this concentration
y> may be conducted at this concentration
y may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check
Di""im chei:k Dala """ 2 "6ks °f *
Dilution Checj F^ EH - :=. i'r; ^s < 1
1-Jun-10
-0412%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is QK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std- Error < 1%
Js1. d -'^3. -':_;-.', L.^':! - '?:,= ;> ^ J"E ~: z~ ':'-'.,
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Std Error is Okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Sid Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
cl"e"<>' SM'"> S1 Std Error ' 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay
-1 43%
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias
ChaUengeStandard^Assay
The standard error
0 43%
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
Challenge Sid #2 vendor certificate bias
Cha,,enge Standard *3 Assay
The standard error is okay
-0 26%
Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
20
-------
NOx QA Requirements Summary- Region 7- Quarter 2, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Jun-16
2000
1-Jun-16
2000
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
9-Nov-10
30-Dec-10
N/A
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay 1-Jun-10
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1 01 0.9999785
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1 01 0 9999964
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
low MFC OK
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Analyzer Calibration ^ithiii 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
9-Jun-1 0 Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay I
0 12% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
0 12% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
0 13% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
0 15% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
0 20% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
1 0022 Analyzer Slope is acceptable |
-' r z; _:-'': r" i '-'! ^ '-'- :' ?;'-'-_
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL}
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1%at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% ai point*!
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within Q 93-1 02
0 07% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
0 08% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
0 08% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
G 10% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
0 12% Assay may be conducted at this concentration
1 0013 Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
1-Jun-10 Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
-0 412% Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NO Portion
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1% Std Error is okay.
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5% RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Span Gas Std. Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK _
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NOx Portion
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1% Sid Error is okay
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5% RD is okay
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error < 1% Std Error is okay-
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5% RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas FID is OK
Challenge Standard #1 NO Assay Chailen9e standard *1 std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
0.51% Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #1 NOX Assay Challenge Standard *1 S.d Err,
Challenge Standard #1 vendor c
lerlificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
Q 04% Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std. Error is OK
-0 56% Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
-0 31% Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
challense standard s3 std Errar *- 1
llenge Staiidai:! -- ft :-.',: rertificate bias
Challenge Standard #3 NO Assay
*- 1%
Ch
Challenge Standard #3 NOX Assay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error <1%
Chai:'-" ;' -.--;-- - - - -^ .--.-- .-:
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
-0 44% Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias <
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
-0 47% Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias < 2%
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
21
-------
CO QA Requirements Summary- Region 7- Quarter 3, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
l-Jun-17
1175
9-Nov-15
2000
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
9-NOV-10
30-Dec-IO
N/A
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers] Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1 01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Ranrje = 0.99 - 1 01
7-Sep-10
0 9999954
0 9999895
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 wee
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
80% URL) 0 30%
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2 0 31%
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3 0.34%
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4 0 39%
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL) Q.50%
Analyzer slope is within 0 98-1 02 0 9998
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check Di""'°n Cll8ck Dste withm 2 WBeks of assay
Dilution Che:.!' P?!a: K i;* Difference c 1%
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
7-Sep-10
-0 164%
Std Error is okay
RD is okav
Sid Error is okay.
RD is okay
Dilution chsil- .. i!|-no 2 .. asl.'i ot assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
1
1
1
1
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error < 1%
_ ' ? :T:V T -'?:-..- : --' .-:..::: :--- :?'T \
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
-0 01% Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 Assay Chall8ns8 standarl1 *2 Sld Error '1%
Chailenr'T Manila.-:: < .fndcn certificate bta
okay Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #3 Assay
challensB stanliard '3 Sld Error <- n
ChailfniT ::-a-r.:.?.-- :'---': =n::;;' certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
u ij':.':'.:. Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias < 2%
SO2 QA Requirements Summary- Region 7 - Quarter 3, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dllution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Jun-16
1750
11-Dec-15
1700
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard LOW Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Dste
9-Nov-IO
30-Dec-10
N/A
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range - 0.99 - 1 01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1 01
7-Sep-10
0.9999954
0 9999396
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>SO% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 98-1.02
9-Sep-10
0.19%
019%
0.21%
0.24%
0.31%
1 0009
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check Dllution Check Date Wlthm 2 weeks of 3ssay
I'Juticn .;-!-: p.;h!i :- -1: _ re'-iv.-: - \'--.
7-Sep-10
-0 164%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 6%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
Std Error is okay.
RD is okay
Std. Error is okay.
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay
Challenge Standard #1 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
-0 46% Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #2 Std. Error is OK
-0 1?% Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
22
-------
NOx QA Requirements Summary - Region 7- Quarter 3, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Jun-16
2000
1-Jun-16
2000
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
9-Nov-10
30-Dec-10
N/A
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay 7-Sep-10
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1 01 0 9999954
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1 01 0 9939895
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
low MFC OK
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Analyzer Calibration ^ithiii 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
13-Sep-10
0.27%
0.27%
0.30%
0.35%
0.45%
1 0016
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay I
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable ]
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Analyzer Calibration '.vithin 2 week of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1 % at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point £4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
13-Sep-10
0 14%
0.15%
0.16%
019%
024%
1 0020
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
n., , «u Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
7-Sep-10
-0.164%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NO Portion
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NOx Portion
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference <5%
Sid Error is okay
RD is okay.
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 NO Assay Chailen9e standard *1 std Emr < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #1 NOX Assay Challenge Standard*! S.d Error <1%
. :- ;T" :IT :" FT':; 51 :i -' . t"i::cr itiTifiiate bias
The standard error is okay
-0 78%
The standard error is okay
-0 39%
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 NO Assay ChallellBe standard *2 std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay
047%
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
Challenqe Std #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 NOx Assay Challenge standard *2 std Error <1%
Challenge Standard f2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay
0 25%
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
Challenqe Std #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #3 NO Assay chailense standard s3 std Errar *- 1%
'.!-.n'';'::!- i-'.*-::3d -: '.endor certificate bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
-0 2Z-\- Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #3 NOX Assay Challenge Standard #3 Std Erro,<1%
Chcii!-" ; - .' -;-- - - - -^'-- ;:-.aie bias
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
-G 63% Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
23
-------
CO QA Requirements Summary- Region 7- Quarter 4, 2010
QA Requirement Result Status
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
"RM P *"t ri ri<- Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure ?150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Jun-17
1100
9-NOV-15
2000
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Nov-H
844ov-11
N/A
E andard OK
andard OK
andard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range - 0 99 - 1 01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Ranqe = 0 99 - 1 01
1 -Dec- 10
0 9999881
0.9999907
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 98-1 02
1-Dec-10
0 41%
042%
0.46%
0.54%
0.69%
0.9978
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assav
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
1-Dec-10
0.052%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay 'ero/Span Check Day of Assay Zero Check : Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relati.t D.fl"^: .- --'.'-
Std. Error is okay
RD is okay
Std. Error is okay.
RD is okay.
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay challBI1aa standard *1 std Emr * 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vender certificate bias
Challenge Standard #2 Assay challallse standard *2 Sld E"°' ' 1°A
Challtn - -It.-ir.!;::! ^ .en,:hi certificate bias
Challenge Standard #3 Assay Challenge Standard *3 Std Error < 1%
Challr".'r -1 r,:,i '.L-i.i =3 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay
-1 53%
0.30%
The standard error is okay
-0.21%
SO2 QA Requirements Summary- Region
QA Requirement Result
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std. #1 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias f- 2%
Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias - 2%
7- Quarter 4, 2010
Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Jun-16
1700
11-Dec-15
1700
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-NQV-11
3-Nov-11
N/A
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0 99 - 1 01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range - 0 99 - 1 01
1-Dec-10
0.9999881
0.9999907
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Analyzer Calibrator ..ithin 2 '.veeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
S-Dec-10
0 20%
0.21%
022%
0.26%
0.34%
10016
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Esay may be conducted at this concentration
say may be conducted at this concentration
say may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at thts concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
D'li t'on Ch rk Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
1-Dec-10
0 052°o
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference «5%
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Std Error is okay.
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Assay Chalien9e standard *1 std E < 1%
Chall9i::ir r-"r:!.. :i - i r^ki :^\v.f :a-e bias
Challenge Standard #2 Assay ctaM"stl standard *2 std Error < 1°A
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #3 Assay challen=e standard *3 std E ' 1%
Chslk:-: \~ :- |M -!,=' .! --': -n :;i rn-iiiV.rp bias
The standard error is okay
13 2?%
-0 17%
The standard error is okay.
0.51%
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
_^
Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias < 2%
Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias < 2%
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
24
-------
NOx QA Requirements Summary-Region 7- Quarter 4, 2010
QA Requirement
Result
Status
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1-Jun-16
1925
1-Jun-16
1900
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK
High Flow Standard Expiration Date
Laboratory Flow Standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
M-Nov-11
B-Nov-1 1
N/A
Standard OK
Standard OK
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow Controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 - 1 01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Ranqe = 0 99 - 1 01
1-Dec-10
0 9999881
0.9999907
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Low MFC OK
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
8-Dec-10
020%
0.21%
0.23%
0.26%
034%
1 0002
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% ai point #1 (>80% URL)
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
Analyzer slope is within 0 93-1 02
S-Dec-10
0.17%
0.17%
0.19%
0 22%
0.28%
1.0002
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Analyzer Slope is acceptable
Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
1-Dec-10
0 052%
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NO Portion
Day of Assay Zero/Span Check
NOx Portion
Challenge Standard #1 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #1 NOx Assay
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assay Zero Check - Relative Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std Error < 1%
DayofAssa1. -pan _':-:-: -r:.? - '. -^ivie <:5%
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Day of Assay Zero Check - Std Error < 1%
Day of Assa; Zein Cher!'. - Relati'-.e Difference < 5%
Day of Assay Span Check - Std. Error < 1%
Day of Assay Span Check - Relative Difference '~5°»
Std Error is okay
RD is okay
Sid Error is okay
RD is okay
Zero Gas Std Error is OK
Zero Gas RD is OK
Span Gas Std Error is OK
Span Gas RD is OK
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #1 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #1 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard -1 .e:':.;;:: ceruf-a!e i;ias
The standard error is okay
039%
The standard error is okay
046%
Challenge Standard *1 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias
Challenge Standard #1 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #1 vendor certificate bias
<2%
<2%
Challenge Standard #2 NO Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std. Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay
-0.39%
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias
<2%
Challenge Standard #2 NOx Assay
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error < 1%
Challenge Standard #2 vendor certificate bias
The standard error is okay
-0.03%
Challenge Standard #2 Std Error is OK
Challenge Std #2 vendor certificate bias
<2%
Challenge Standard #3 NOx Assay Challenge standard *3 s.d Error <1%
Challenge Standard £3 '.encicir certifiisi- dd;
The standard error is okay Challenge Standard #3 Std Error is OK
0 62% Challenge Std #3 vendor certificate bias < 2
AA-PGVP 2010 Report 1st Draft 3/2011
25
------- |