1 Guidance on the Data Certification Process for Calendar Year 2020 AQS Data Please see the Questions and Answers on Ambient Air Monitoring Data Certification for CY2020 Data for information on which data needs certification, the certification process, the certification reviews, and the certification flag meanings. OAQPS realizes that the CY2020 data, including data completeness and QA/QC completeness, for many organizations may have been impacted due to COVID-19. Data should be appropriately validated, flagged, and submitted to AQS. If a monitoring organization requires assistance in determining appropriate flags or actions pertaining to their data (including QA/QC) please work with your Regional Office to determine the best course of action. Checks of analyzers that produced a measurement to test technical functionality (e.g., precision check, flow check, etc) of an analyzer or sampler and are specified as critical criteria in Appendix D, Measurement Quality Objectives and Validation Templates, of the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume II or in an approved QAPP, were not subject to change. However, QA/QC checks and data validity are subject to 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A, Section 1.2.3, including failure to conduct QA/QC, "weight of evidence", and use of data submitted. Certifying Agencies vs. PQAOs It is recommended that wherever technically feasible, PQAOs be set up as "Certifying Agencies". A State Agency may choose to be the certifying agency for several PQAOs within the state. Certifying agencies do not necessarily equate to PQAOs and yet several summary parameters use data aggregated at the PQAO level, for example: • NPAP Data (valid audits and NPAP bias) • Collocation Data (PM10, Pb and PM2.5 completeness and CV) • PEP Data (PM2.5 and Pb completeness and bias) • Pb Analysis Audit Data (completeness, bias) For the data which are aggregated and assessed at the PQAO level, monitoring organizations that are part of a larger PQAO but decide to certify the sites/data within their "certifying agency" will see the same results for the parameters listed above as other monitoring organizations within the same PQAO. Therefore, AQS recommended flags for these parameters will be consistently applied to every monitoring organization within the PQAO. For example, if there are three distinct monitoring organizations within a PQAO and organization #1 has 4 PM10 sites, organization #2 has 3 PM10 sites, and organization #3 has 7 PM10 sites, the collocation summary for each organization (if each organization decides to certify their own data) will identify a total of 14 sites requiring 2 collocated monitors for the PQAO (14*0.15=2.1). Like the AMP256 QA Data Quality Indicator Report, the AMP600 will then determine the percent complete and the precision estimate for the PQAO. Evaluation of PEP and NPAP Data Suspended for CY20 Certification The AMP600 will report completeness and bias data of any PEP values reported to AQS but will not perform any automated evaluations (flagging) of that information. ------- 2 Routine Data Completeness Data completeness for routine monitoring data for the AMP600 is based on the sample period start date and end date of the monitor and is not based on a calendar year. For example, if a monitor is started on July 1, 2020 and monitored successfully at the required sampling frequency through the remainder of the year (sample period end date was after December 31, 2020) then the completeness would be calculated as 100%. From a NAAQS standpoint this monitor would be incomplete, but for the AMP600 the monitor would be determined to be 100% complete (based on the sample period start date). For ozone data completeness determinations, the ozone season is used. For non- NCore monitors that report data outside the ozone season, this data will not be used in completeness calculations. NCore ozone monitors are required to operate all year, so the AMP600 completeness evaluation for these monitors is based on the entire year. For Continuous PM Monitors There may be a difference between the estimate of routine data completeness between the AMP430 Data Completeness Report and the AMP600 report for continuous monitors. The AMP430 report evaluates completeness by hourly values while the AMP600 evaluates completeness by the number of valid days compared to the number of scheduled days for the monitor. Therefore, while a valid day for a continuous monitor is 18 hours or greater, the AMP430 report estimates completeness based on the number of valid hours sampled in that day divided by 24. For example, a day where only 18 valid hours were sampled the AMP430 completeness would be reported as 75% (18/24). The AMP600 report would consider this day to be valid but would report data completeness as 100%. Since the AMP600 report evaluates data completeness over a complete year for a site (from sampler begin date to end date as entered into AQS), the discrepancy between the two reports should be small. QC data Any valid QC check (for gaseous, PM, and Pb) must be reported to AQS. For 1- pt QC checks, please refer to January 30, 2018 technical memo posted on AMTIC1. The changes in the memo have not been completed in the AMP600. If a 1-pt QC check is determined to be invalid but the routine data is still considered valid, the 1-pt QC can be coded "1C" which means the 1-pt QC will count towards QC completeness but will not affect the QC bias calculation. At this time, there is not yet a field on PM QA/QC entries for null codes. Comparing the AMP256 to AMP600 In previous certification periods there were a few discrepancies between the AMP256 report and the AMP600 report. The following fixes have been made to ensure that both reports provide the same information: 1 Steps to Qualify Data after an Exceedance of Critical Criteria Checks ------- 3 Flow rate criteria - For semi-annual flow rates the AMP256 acceptance criteria requires two audits that are within 5-7 months from each other. The "Criteria Met" field in the AMP256 is based on the two audits being within this time period; however, completeness will still show 100% on the AMP256 even if the criteria are not met. The AMP600 uses the same criteria for the completeness estimate but will code the field as yellow and report 70% if there are a least two audits in two quarters of the year but the 5-7month rule was not met, and red (recommended "N" flag) if only 1 or no audit was performed during the year (<50% completeness). Flow Rate Verifications - The March 2016 Revision to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A included the reporting of flow rate verification data for all PM parameters (PM10, PM2.5 and Pb). Prior to the new rule, the flow rate verification data were only required for PM10 continuous monitors. The certification reports for 2020 will not evaluate flow rate verification data for the PM parameters other than PM10 continuous samplers. This feature is planned to be applied to all PM parameters in the future. How Does Data in the Summary Section of the AMP600 Reports Get Used at the Site Level? There has been some question on how the certification flags are generated for the "PQAO Criteria Met" fields. Below provides some explanation and examples. QAPP Approval -The QAPP Approval Field is based on QAPP approval dates supplied from the monitoring organizations to the EPA Regions. Figure 1 provides an explanation on how flags are set at the site pollutant level. The QAPP approval date (if one exists) will be displayed above the site details but then transferred down to the site level. The QAPP approval field is implemented in the same manner for all pollutants. QAPP Approval QAPP Approval - If a QAPP approval date is in AQS it will appear on the PQAO Pollutant Page • If no approval date or date > 5 years old, all sites will have AQS red "N" flag. • If date is < 5 years all sites will have AQS green "Y" flag, unless impacted by other parameters. QAPP Approval Date NPAP Audit Summary: 06/21/2017 _ Number of Valid Audits Criteria Mot Y AOS Site ID a Routine Data (ppm) One Point Quality Check Annual PE NPAP Certification Monitor Typ« Mean Min Max Exceed. Count Outlier Count Percent Complete ! 1 a. Bias Complete Bias Complete Bias PQAO Level Criteria QAPP Appr. Aqs Rec Submit Flag Req Flag SPECIAL 3.6 0.0 21.8 0 77 3.35 ~3.17 100 0 Y Y N INVALID 22 ¦ 0.6 18.4 0 97 1.94 ~2.46 100 7.72 100 Y Y N SLAMS 05 - 02 5.0 0 96 2.27 +M 95 100 4 42 100 Y Y Y SLAMS 10 - 02 79,4 0 97 1.93 ¦2 48 100 2 24 100 Y Y Y NOTE: Any QAPPs whose approval date is greater than 5 years old will have all sites flagged with Red "N" in the QAPP approval column and the AQS recommended flag column. This was described in a July 11, 2017 technical memo posted on AMTIC2. 2 EPA Review of Monitoring Organizations QAPP's for Critical Criteria Conformance ------- 4 Gaseous Pollutants 1-point QC Check Completeness The 1-point QC completeness data will be evaluated in the following manner: 1. Count the number of checks in each 14-day interval starting with the Jan 1-14 interval. For each 14-day interval, multiple checks will only count as one. 2. Divide the total number of checks in #1 by 26 3. Must be within the ranges identified in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A Section 3.1.1. If a 1-Point QC transaction is submitted with the assessment concentration outside the valid ranges, it will be accepted with a warning, but will not be used in regulatory precision and bias statistics or count towards meeting the required frequency3. For certification, a green Y is > 75% completeness. That means a monitoring organization could miss six 14-day intervals (meaning no checks performed during a 14- day interval) and still get a green "Y" flag. For a yellow flag, they could miss nine 14-day intervals and get a yellow "Y" warning. Missing ten or more 14-day intervals will prompt a red "N" flag to be displayed. In the event that ample valid checks were performed and reported to AQS, but the dates of the checks do not align with the AQS programmed spacing, the certifying agency can opt to include a comment in the comment field explaining the discrepancy. The EPA Regional Office can then work with the certifying agency to determine the appropriate EPA evaluation flag. PM2.5 Pollutant PQAO Level Criteria PM2.5 Collocation - 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A requires that a PQAO collocate 15% of the monitors for each method designation. The AMP256 has been revised to assess whether there is 15% collocation for each method designation of only the primary monitor and therefore matches the results in the AMP600 report. However, there may be cases where more than one method designation was used at a site for the primary monitor. Any method designation used as a primary monitor at any time during the year will be counted towards the collocation evaluation. For example, if a method 118 sampler runs as the primary sampler for 6 months and a method 143 sampler runs as the primary sampler for the other 6 months at the same site, the AMP600 will expect to see collocation for each method designation within the PQAO. Several interactions occur with collocation data. Figure 2 provides an example PM2.5 AMP600 report where these interactions are highlighted for discussion. First, each method designation that was reported as a primary monitor for a site will be listed in the collocation summary. Data from this summary should be the same information one would see on the AMP256 report, at least for the collocations that occurred. As mentioned earlier, the AMP256 now only counts those monitors that are considered the primary monitor at each site, so both the AMP600 and the AMP256 results should be 3 This information was Question #10 during the AQS "Ask the Experts" webinar hosted in November 2018. ------- 5 similar. However, there will be cases where more than one method designation is reported for a site and both method designations will be identified for collocation (see Fig. 2 116/117). "PQAO Criteria Met" for collocation is based on the completeness summary statistic and the precision estimate (CV-UB). In the Figure 2 example, the method 116 sampler shows 100% completeness and a PQAO precision estimate of 15.93 which is in the warning range. Therefore, all sites using 116 as the primary method code are color coded yellow. Sites that had a primary method designation of 117 did not have collocation data available (completeness is 0%), so these sites do not meet criteria and are flagged as "N". Also note that any individual collocated site/monitor where the CV is greater than 25% will be flagged with an AQS recommended "N" flag even if the PQAO level CV estimate is less than 25% (see method 170 examples in Figure 2). PQAO Level "Criteria Met" Flags For Collocation and PEP , AQS Recommended flags are generated at the PQAO level and then "transfered" back to each site Collocation based on CV, and completeness and is also associated with method designation Bias based on bias estimate not completeness. PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101) 3arameter: PQAO Name: Quality Assurance Project Plan Approval Date: Collocation Summary 03/31/2011 PEP Summary # Sites # Sites % CV Criteria # # Audited #PEP # PEP % Criteria Method # Sites Req Collocated Collocated Est CV UB Met? Methods Methods Required Submitted Complete Bias Met? 116 2 1 1 100 13.87 15.93 Y 3 3 8 4 50 +5.02 Y 117 2 1 0 0 A N 170 6 1 2 100 N 21.44 24.69 Y\ Monitors Summaries Exceed. AQS Site ID POCMethod Type Mean Min Max Count Countypmplete 1 116 SLAMS 9.91 1.8 27.2 1 116 SLAMS 6.79 2.0 14.4 3 170 SLAMS 4.28 -3.0 28.3 1 116 SLAMS 8.59 1.9 27.1 2 116 SLAMS 9.51 1.9 25.9 1 116 SLAMS 7.73 2.4 24.3 3 170 SLAMS 7.75 -3.0 47.3 3 170 SLAMS 6.37 -3.0 40.1 1 116/ 117 SLAMS 6.68 1.3 19.3 3 170 SLAMS 8.70 -3.0 79.3 3 170 SLAMS 6.26 -3.2 53.2 1 117 SLAMS 8.19 1.8 24.0 Fig.2 PM2.5 Bias- Bias data is derived from the PEP and is aggregated at the PQAO level. However, for CY2020 data the AMP600 will report the information but will not flag this data in the report. ------- 6 PM10 Pollutant PQAO Level Criteria PM10 Collocation - PM10 collocation is only required for manual (intermittent) samplers. The AMP256 and the AMP600 only count sites where a manual sampler is the primary sampler at a site. However, there may be times when a site had a manual sampler as the primary for a period of time and then switched to a continuous monitor. Sites where the manual sampler operated as the primary for any time during the year will be included in the manual count. In addition, CFR does not distinguish method designations for PM10, so all primary intermittent samplers are aggregated at the PQAO level and 15% of the sites where intermittent monitors are listed as primary monitors are required to be collocated. Therefore, "Method" code information is not identified in the summary line of Figure 3. In the example below, like PM2.5, both collocation completeness at the summary level and the CV_UB are used for the Collocation "PQAO Criteria Met" column at the site/monitor level. Data from this summary should be the same information in the AMP256 report. In Figure 3 both the collocation and CV_UB were acceptable. PM10 Total 0-1 Oum STP (81102) INTERMITTENT Parameter: PQAO Name: Quality Assurance Project Plan Approval Date: 04/01/2007 Collocation Summary # Sites # Sites % CV Criteria # sites Reg Collocated Collocated Est CV UB Met? 13 2 2 100 5.55 6.11 Y Monitors Summaries Monitor Type Mean Min Max SLAMS 20.47 7.0 46.0 SLAMS 20.18 7.0 44.0 SLAMS 15.70 6.0 32.0 SLAMS 13.07 4.0 23.0 SLAMS 16.04 6.0 36.0 SLAMS 17.37 2.0 36.0 SLAMS 19.58 2.0 33.0 SLAMS 15.24 6.0 30.0 SLAMS 15.58 2.0 28.0 SLAMS 16.20 2.0 41.0 SLAMS 15.48 2.0 68.0 SLAMS 15.28 2.0 36.0 SLAMS 16.18 2.0 31.0 Routine Data (ug/m3) Exceed.Outlier QAPP AOS Rec Req EPA Appr. Value ValueValue 97 90 92 95 93 93 98 95 87 82 98 93 90 +0.63 -1.11 +0.09 +0.21 +0.55 +1.51 +0.34 -1.84 -0.59 +1.53 +1.23 +1.93 +1.15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.15 100 Fig. 3 Lead Parameters There are currently two Pb parameters; Pb-TSP and Pb-PM10. They will be discussed separately. Pb-TSP - Pb-TSP (Fig. 4) is a more established program. Like the other PM parameters, both the collocation completeness and the precision estimate (CV-UB) will be used in the "Collocation PQAO Criteria Met" column. The analysis audits are the audits described in 40 CFR Part 58 App A section 3.3.4.2. Both the completeness and ------- 7 the bias estimate will be used in the "Lead Analysis Criteria Met" column at the site monitor level, EPA has improved it's reporting of Pb-PEP data but will not use this information in the certification evaluations for this year. Lead (TSP) LC (14129) Name: " 1 Quality Assurance Project Plan Approval Date: 06/01/2012 Collocation Summary: Number of Number of Number CoHoc Sites Actual Percent of Sites Required Colloc Sites Collocated PEP Data Not Used this Year PEP Summary Number of Number of Number of Criteria Number of Methods PEP Audits Audits Percent Met Methods Audited Required Submitted Complet Criteria Met Analysis Audit Summary: Number Required Number Percent Submitted Complete Bias 24 22 Monitors Recommended for Certification Monitor AQS Site-ID poc Type 1 SLAMS 1 SLAMS 2 SLAMS 1 SLAMS 1 SLAMS 1 SLAMS 1 SLAMS 1 SLAMS 1 SLAMS 2 SLAMS 1 SLAMS 1 CI AUC Routine Data (ug/mA3) Exceed. Outlier Max Count Count 0.024 0.001 0.202 0 0 100 0 198 0.004 2.135 3 0 100 0.207 o.ooo 2.100 3 0 95 0.216 0.005 2.220 3 0 100 0.075 0.004 0.577 0 0 98 0.175 0.004 1.884 1 0 100 0041 0.000 0.518 0 0 97 0.042 0.003 0.476 0 0 95 0480 0.005 7.008 4 0 100 0.512 0.005 3.594 4 0 100 0.027 0.001 0.284 0 0 98 n n-w ftftft-S n to* ft ft oa PEP Lead Certification PQAO Analysis QAPP AQS Req EPA Crit. Met Crit. Mel Appr. Rec. V Value Value Fig. 4 Pb-PM10 - Since there are different implementation requirements for sampling Pb- PM10 at source and non-source-oriented sites, collocation and PEP are not required at every PQAO implementing this parameter4. Due to complications with programming these requirements, collocation and PEP evaluations will not be used for certification on a site/monitor level for CY2020 data. However, if values (as seen in Fig. 5) are available, they will be reported. Lead analysis audit data will be used for certification. Certification Report for Lead Certification Year 2012 , . r. . . , Certifying Agency Name: ¦ Collocation and PEP not used in Certification This Year Number Number Percent Criteria Required Submitted Complete Bias Met 24 18 75 -1.81 Y Fig 5 4 A March 2016 revisions to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A discontinued Pb-PEP at non- source NCore sites ------- 8 Attachment 1 Criteria That Will Generate Green (Acceptable) Warning (Yellow) and "N" Flags (Red) Notes: 1. Blue shaded rows are evaluations that will be reported (when data is available) but not used in certification flag settings 2. Green shaded rows are rules promulgated in March 2016 but will not be evaluated in 2020 3. One Red for any monitor will elicit an AQS recommended "N" flag 4. Three warnings (yellow) for any monitor will elicit an AQS recommended "N" flag NOTE: For the 2020 data certification process (due May 1, 2021), any sites for PQAOs whose QAPP approval date is greater than 5 years old will be given a Red "N" flag. ------- 9 Assessment Current CFR Requirement or Guidance Green (Acceptable) Yellow (Warning) Red (Recommend N Flag) Comments Technical Systems Audit PQAO every 3 years TSA within 3 years TSA within 4 years TSA > 5 years Not a monitoring Org responsibility. Will be reported on summary page not by pollutant Gaseous Criteria Pollutants Routine Data Completeness 75% > 80% 80-70% < 70% Based on CFR criteria for data use 100* Number of hourly obs/number of hours in monitor sample period1 QAPP Approval Approval date within 5 years of current date Approval date within 5 years of current date N/A Not approved and/or approval date greater than 5 years Could be sole reason for "N" flag if QAPP not approved. 1-Point QC Completeness 75% > 75% 65-75% < 65% Based on 26,1-point QC for a year. Calculated based on the number of days the monitor operated. 1-Point QC Precision <±7.1% 03, < ±10.1% CO, S02 < ±15.1% N02 <±7.1% 03, < ±10.1% CO, S02 < ±15.1% N02 ±8-20% 03 ±11-25% CO, S02 ±16-25% N02 > ±20% 03 > ±25% others Based on all valid 1- point QC checks in AQS for the year. Value should reflect AMP256 value 1-Point QC Bias <±7.1% 03, < ±10.1% CO, S02 < ±15.1% N02 <±7.1% 03, < ±10.1% CO, S02 < ±15.1% N02 ±8-20% 03 ±11-25% CO, S02 ±16-25% N02 > ±20% 03 > ±25% others Based on all valid 1- point QC checks in AQS. Value should reflect AMP256 value AnnualPE Completeness 1 PE/year 3 audit levels 1 PE/year 3 audit levels 1 PE/year 2 audit levels No PE or 1 audit level Will not count more than one actual value in an audit level. For example, two audit in one level count as 1 audit level. Annual PE Bias 03, S02, N02 < ±1.5 ppb / < ±15.1% < ±1.5 ppb / < ±15% < ±1.6-3.0 ppb/ ±16-25% > ±3.0 ppb/ ±25% Average PD of all PE values for the monitor CO < ±0.031 ppm/ < ±15.1% < ±0.031 ppm/ < ±15.1% < ±0.04- 0.06 ppm/ ±16-25% > ±0.06 ppm/ ±25% NPAP Audit Completeness - PQAO 20% of sites in PQAO 20% of sites in PQAO 10-19% of sites in PQAO <10% of sites in PQAO Not a monitoring Org responsibility. Will be marked as "Y" ------- 10 Assessment Current CFR Green Yellow Red Comments Requirement (Acceptable) (Warning) (Recommend N or Guidance Flag) NPAP Bias <±10.1% 03 <±10.1% 03 ±10.1-20% > ±20% 03 median PD for all < ±15.1% < ±15.1% 03 > ±25% others values at a site and others others ±15.1-25% others median PD for PQAO level estimate NPAP Audit 4 levels 4 levels 2-3 levels < 1 level Not a monitoring Org Completeness - responsibility Site PM2.5 Criteria Routine Data 75% > 80% 80-70% < 70% Based on CFR criteria Completeness for data use 100 * number of creditable samples/number of scheduled samples in monitor sample period1 QAPP Approval Approval date Approval date N/A Not approved Could be sole reason within 5 years within 5 years and/or for "N" flag if QAPP not of current date of current date approval date greater than 5 years approved. Flow Rate every 30 days Every 30 days Every 45 > 45 days Not implemented in Verification (12/year) (11-12/year) Days (< 8/year) 2020 Completeness (8-11/year) Flow Rate < ±4.1% of < ±4.1% of ±4.1-6% of > ±6% of design =design flow Verification Bias transfer transfer transfer transfer rate standard standard standard standard Average PD for audits < ±5.1% from < ±5.1% from ±5.1-7% > ±7% from at monitor level design design from design design Value should reflect AMP256 value Not implemented in 2020 Flow Rate Audit 2 /year every 6 2/year every 2 across 2 1 audit Semi-annual flow rate Completeness months 5-7 months or 3 or 4 with one audit in 3 or 4 quarters quarters audits. Based on how long sampler operated. If sampler operates <9 months at least 1 is expected. If operated >9 months two audits expected. Flow Rate Audit < ±4% of < ±4% of ±5-6% of > ±6% of design =design flow Bias transfer transfer transfer transfer rate standard standard standard standard Average PD for audits < ±5% from < ±5% from ±6-7% from > ±7% from at monitor level design design design design Value should reflect AMP256 value ------- 11 Assessment Current CFR Green Yellow Red Comments Requirement (Acceptable) (Warning) (Recommend N or Guidance Flag) Collocation 75% > 75% 65-74% < 65% By method designation Completeness Summary level= average of completeness of site level values Site level = number of reported observations /30 Based on how long sampler operated Collocation < 10.1% < 10.1% 10.1-25% > 25% By method designation Precision Same statistics as AMP256 for summary level and site level. Value should reflect AMP256 value PM2.5 PEP 5 or 8 5 or 8 3-4 or 6-7 < 3 or 6 Not a monitoring Org Completeness responsibility PEP Bias < ±10.1% < ±10.1% ±10.1-30% > ±30% Value should reflect AMP256 value PM10 Continuous Methods Routine Data 75% > 80% 80-70% < 70% Based on CFR criteria Completeness for data use 100 * number of valued strata (days per collection frequency) / total number of strata QAPP Approval Approval date Approval date N/A Not approved Could be sole reason within 5 years within 5 years and/or for "N" flag if QAPP not of current date of current date approval date greater than 5 years approved. Flow Rate 75% > 75% 65-74% < 65% 12 per year, based on Verification how long sampler Completeness operated Not implemented in 2020 Flow Rate < ±7.1% of < ±7.1% of ±7.1- 9% of > ±9% of Average of percent Verification Bias transfer transfer transfer transfer differences. standard standard standard standard Value should reflect AMP256 value Not implemented in 2020 ------- 12 Assessment Current CFR Green Yellow Red Comments Requirement (Acceptable) (Warning) (Recommend N or Guidance Flag) Flow Rate Audit 2 /year every 6 2/year every 2 across 2 1 audit Semi-annual flow rate Completeness months 5-7 months or 3 or 4 with one audit in 3 or 4 quarters quarters audits Based on how long sampler operated. If sampler operates <9 months at least 1 is expected. If operated >9 months two audits expected. Flow Rate Audit <±10.1% of <±10.1% of ±10.1-12% > ±12 % of Semi-annual flow rate Bias audit standard audit standard of audit standard audit standard audits. Value should reflect AMP256 value Average of percent differences Collocation 75% > 75% 65-74% < 65% Summary level= Completeness average of completeness of site level values Site level = number of reported observations /30 Based on how long sampler operated Collocation 10% > 10% 11-20% > 20% Same statistics as Precision AMP256 for summary and site level. Value should reflect AMP256 value PM10 Manual Methods Routine Data 75% > 80% 80-70% < 70% Based on CFR criteria Completeness for data use 100 * number of valued strata (days per collection frequency) / total number of strata QAPP Approval Approval date Approval date N/A Not approved Could be sole reason within 5 years within 5 years and/or for "N" flag if QAPP not of current date of current date approval date greater than 5 years approved. Flow Rate every 30 days Every 30 days Every 45 >45 days Not implemented in Verification (12/year) (11-12/year) Days (<8/year) 2020 Completeness (8-11/year) Flow Rate < ±7.1% of < ±7.1% of ±7.1-9% of > ±9% of Semi-annual flow rate Verification Bias transfer transfer transfer transfer audits. standard standard standard standard Value should reflect AMP256 value Not implemented in 2020 ------- 13 Assessment Current CFR Green Yellow Red Comments Requirement (Acceptable) (Warning) (Recommend N or Guidance Flag) Flow Rate Audit 2 /year every 6 2/year every 2 across 2 1 audit Semi-annual flow rate Completeness months 5-7 months or 3 or 4 with one audit in 3 or 4 quarters quarters audits Based on how long sampler operated. If sampler operates <9 months at least 1 is expected. If operated >9 months two audits expected. Flow Rate Audit <±10.1% of <±10.1% of ±10.1-12% > ±12 % of Semi-annual flow rate Bias transfer transfer of transfer transfer audits. standard standard standard standard Value should reflect AMP256 value Collocation 75% > 75% 65-74% < 65% Summary level= Completeness average of completeness of site level values Site level = number of reported observations /30 Based on how long sampler operated Collocation 10% > 10% 11-20% > 20% Same statistics as Precision AMP256 for summary and site level. Value should reflect AMP256 value Pb-TSP Routine Data 75% > 80% 80-70% < 70% Based on CFR criteria Completeness for data use 100 * number of creditable samples/numbers of scheduled samples in monitor sample period1 QAPP Approval Approval date Approval date N/A Not approved Could be sole reason within 5 years within 5 years and/or for "N" flag if QAPP not of current date of current date approval date greater than 5 years approved. Flow Rate every 90 days every 90 days every 120 > every 120 Not implemented in Verification and 4 times a and 4 times a days and 3 days and < 3 2020 Completeness calendar year calendar year times a calendar year times a calendar year Flow Rate < ±7.1% from < ±7.1% from ±8-9% of > ±9% of Not implemented in Verification Bias transfer transfer transfer transfer 2020 standard standard standard standard ------- 14 Assessment Current CFR Green Yellow Red Comments Requirement (Acceptable) (Warning) (Recommend N or Guidance Flag) Flow Rate Audit 2 /year every 6 2/year every 2 across 2 1 audit Semi-annual flow rate Completeness months 5-7 months or 3 or 4 with one audit in 3 or 4 quarters quarters audits Based on how long sampler operated. If sampler operates <9 months at least 1 is expected. If operated >9 months two audits expected. Flow Rate Audit < ±7.1% of < ±7.1% of ±8-9% of > ±9% of Semi-annual flow rate Bias transfer transfer transfer transfer audits. standard standard standard standard Value should reflect AMP256 value Collocation 75% > 75% 65-74% < 65% Summary level= Completeness average of completeness of site level values Site level = number of reported observations /30 Based on how long sampler operated Collocation < 20.1% < 20.1% 21-30% > 30% Same statistics as Precision AMP256 for summary and site level Pb PEP 5 or 8 4 or 7 3 or 6 < 3 or 6 Not a monitoring Org Completeness responsibility Pb PEP Bias < ±15.1% < ±15.1% ±15.1-25% > ±25% Average PD Analysis Audit 75% > 75% 65-74% < 65% Average completeness Completeness by quarter than take average of all 4 quarters Analysis Audit < ±10.1% < ±10.1% ±10.1-18% > ±18% Average PD Bias Pb-PMIO Routine Data 75% > 80% 80-70% < 70% Based on CFR criteria Completeness for data use 100 * number of creditable samples/numbers of scheduled samples in monitor sample period1 QAPP Approval Approval date Approval date N/A Not approved Could be sole reason within 5 years within 5 years and/or for "N" flag if QAPP not of current date of current date approval date greater than 5 years approved. ------- 15 Assessment Current CFR Requirement or Guidance Green (Acceptable) Yellow (Warning) Red (Recommend N Flag) Comments Flow Rate Audit Completeness 2/year every 6 months 2/year every 5-7 months or 3 or 4 with one audit in 3 or 4 quarters 2 across 2 quarters 1 audit Semi-annual flow rate audits Based on how long sampler operated. If sampler operates <9 months at least 1 is expected. If operated >9 months two audits expected. Flow Rate Audit Bias < ±4% of transfer standard < ±4% of transfer standard ±5-6% of transfer standard > ±6% of transfer standard Semi-annual flow rate. Value should reflect AMP256 value Collocation Completeness 75% > 75% 65-74% < 65% Summary level= average of completeness of site level values Site level = number of reported observations /30 Based on how long sampler operated Collocation Precision 20% < 20% 21-30% > 30% Value should reflect AMP256 value Pb PEP Completeness 5 or 8 5 or 8 3 or 6 < 3 or 6 Not a monitoring Org responsibility Pb PEP Bias ±15% ±15% ±16-25% > ±25% Analysis Audit Completeness 75% > 75% 65-74% < 65% Based on 24 audits per year Analysis Audit Bias 10% 10% < 18% > 18% Average of percent differences. Value should reflect AMP256 value 1 Sample period is the time interval between the sample period start date and the sample period end date. ------- |