I 9
OFFICE OF AIR
QUALITY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
SPECIAL POINTS
OF INTEREST:
We may be trying to
accommodate an abso-
lute difference acceptance
criteria for low level I-
point QC data (pg.3)
Need to make sure indus-
trial monitors are really
needed for NAAQS evalu-
ations (pg. I I)
INSIDE THIS
ISSUE:
Year End Update I
Ozone Comments Being I
Addressed
Low Concentration Ac- 3
ceptance Criteria
Training Opportunities 4
Re-Engineering the NPAP 5
Negative Value Reporting 8
To AQS
Parameter Codes for 9
Particle Count Data
Happy Trails Jewell Smi- 9
ley
Reporting Aethalometer 10
Data to AQS
Industrial Monitors Evalu- I I
ated Against the NAAQS
Industrial Monitors and I I
PQAOs
Ambient Air Protocol 12
Gas Program
| Jenia Tufts Joins Monitor- 13
ing QA Team
PM2.5 Weighing Room in 13
the Cloud
OAQPS, ORD and EPA Re-
gions have been working on a
number of QA Initiatives in
2015. The following is a brief
progress report on these pro-
jects.
PM2.5 Method 2.12
Due to the recent issues with
data invalidation in the PM25
program, OAQPS and the
Regions have made an effort
to update the 1998 PM25
method guidance document.
OAQPS solicited for com-
ments on this document early
this year and received about
175 comments. We revised
the document through the fall
and in November sent a draft
out for review with a Dec 18,
2015 closing date for com-
Year End Update
ments. OAQPS will review
these comments and distribute
a final version on AMTIC in
January 2016.
QA Handbook Volume II
This document was last updat-
ed in 2013. With the pro-
posed revision to the 40 CFR
Part 58 Appendix A regula-
tions, we felt it was a good
time to update the Handbook.
Work on this document took a
back seat this summer with
priority given to the PM25
method revisions and the re-
sponse to comment process
for the QA rule revision. We
plan to have a draft out for final
review by February 2016 with a
final by April, 2016.
Zero Air Generator Guid-
ance
As the QA Handbook Revision
Workgroup reviewed the doc-
ument, there was a suggestion
to develop a verification pro-
cess for zero air generators.
Dennis Mikel (OAQPS),
Mathew Plate (Region 9) and
Yousaf Hameed (Clark County)
stepped forward and worked
as a focus team to develop a
guidance document. A draft
has been created and is in the
process of external review. It
will be incorporated into the
QA Handbook Volume II as an
appendix which is scheduled
for completion in April 2016.
(continued on page 2)
Ozone Technical Comments Being Addressed
In July, EPA received some comments related to
ozone monitoring that we are in the process of
addressing. EPA received a request to:
upgrade ozone scrubbers to address ozone
interferences for all of the existing analyzers
across the network:
adjust ozone concentrations to account for
inlet height above ground level: and
adjust ozone concentrations to account for
local barometric pressure at altitudes above
sea level.
We are still in the process of working through
these issues but the following will provide some
information on where we've been and where we
are going.
Upgrading Ozone Scrubbers
We are confident, based on quality assurance and
quality control requirements in 40 CFR part 58,
Appendix A and data quality assessments, that the
vast majority of ozone monitoring data collected
nationwide are suitable for attainment/non-
attainment determinations.
Continued on Page 6
-------
ISSUE 19
QA Update Continued from Page I
PAG
X
Electronic Logbook Guidance
In March, 2015 OAQPS convened a Workgroup made up
of monitoring organizations and EPA Regions to discuss
the use of electronic logbooks for ambient air monitoring.
Monitoring organization personnel provided a series of
presentations on their process to collect and store elec-
tronic logbook data. Although EPA does not have a poli-
cy in place on the use of electronic logbooks, OAQPS
endeavors to develop a minimum set of guidelines for
ambient air monitoring in the hopes that we can work
with our office of general council to approve this guid-
ance. The Workgroup has completed the guidance docu-
ment and OAQPS has received some external review
from a representative of the Cross-Media Electronic Re-
porting Rule (CROMERR). Response on the guidance
was positive. The next step will be to meet with the Of-
fice of General Council. We hope to have some definitive
answer on this guidance by spring 2016.
TSA Workgroup
Based upon the findings of recent TSAs, OAQPS and EPA
Regions have had conversations about the consistency of
implementing TSAs across the country. In an effort to
educate each other on how TSA's are performed,
OAQPS formed a Workgroup with the EPA Regions to
develop guidance on the TSA process. Starting in April,
2015, the Workgroup has met approximately every three
weeks to go over the proposed sections of the guidance
document. The Workgroup has made a lot of progress. It
has been an enlightening experience hearing how the vari-
ous regions conduct the TSA, what they look for, what
information they evaluate prior to implementing a TSA,
how findings are reported and how corrective action is
implemented. We expect this guidance to be completed
in the summer of 2016.
NOy Update...IPN/NPN/N02
As discussed in QA EYE issue 18, ORD has been testing
the use of N02 standards as an adequate replacement to
NPN or IPN. They have been performing calibrations on
NOY instruments using all three standards this summer
and fall and the results using N02 appear to be very com-
parable to the IPN/NPN. ORD has a number of projects
in the works but mentioned they will be providing some
guidance based on the evaluation of data from this study
by July, 2016.
PAMS QA Implementation Plan
With the restructuring of PAMS to monitor at a core set
of NCore sites in CBSAs with a population of I million,
and the potential for use of auto-GCs, OAQPS is working
on a quality assurance (QA) implementation plan that will
provide a succinct "plan of attack" for the development of
the core network. The document will provide a timeline
of the various activities that need to take place between
2016 and July, 2019 when full implementation of the core
network is required. Each activity will be described, along
with roles and responsibilities of the monitoring organiza-
tions and EPA. This document will provide the "plan" but
not technical details which will be included in a revised
PAMS technical assistance document (TAD).
The QA Implementation Plan will only focus on the core
PAMS network (estimated at around 48 sites). It will not
discuss any enhanced monitoring that would be developed
by the monitoring agencies which would need to be more
flexible relative to the monitoring required at the core
network. A small EPA Workgroup, made up of volunteers
from the EPA Regions and OAQPS, are working through
this document. The goal is to have a draft available in
March, 2016 for review by the monitoring organizations.
More details on the PAMS network can be found at the
Federal Register Notice of the Final Ozone Rule on
10/26/2015 (Vol. 80, No. 206) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2015-10-26/pdf/2015-26594.pdf
Standard Reference Photometer (SRP)
The Region 6 SRP is fixed and recertified and is being
packed up for return to Region 6 (Houston). The Region
7 SRP has a solenoid problem that is being repaired. The
Region I and 2 SRPs were sent to RTP and will be set up,
and recertified in December /January timeframe . The
traveling SRP is finished recertifying the Region 8 SRP and
will be sent to Region 6 as a second SRP for the compari-
son training that will occur in January, 2016. Scott Moore
(ORD) will be doing the training in Houston. Work is
almost completed on the SRP QAPP.
-------
PAGE
Review of Acceptance Criteria for Low Level 1-point QC Checks
EPA received quite a few comments of concern on the one
-point QC check proposed in the most recent regulatory
changes to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A. Most of the com-
ments were related to the proposed selection of the QC
check concentration based on the mean or median concen-
tration at the site. QA EYE Issue 18 (page 4) provides more
detail on the proposal and the comments received. As a
follow-up to the Issue 18 article, EPA asked Sonoma Tech-
nology to evaluate a larger data set of I-point QC data and
annual PE data to determine whether EPA could identify a
concentration "cutoff' value where a difference instead of a
percent difference could be used for low concentration QC
acceptance criteria. This paradigm was implemented for the
Counts by Audit Level
J" J1 /
/ /V ////V
Figure 1. 1-point QC and Annual PE counts by audit levels
level I and 2 Annual PE audit ranges as
described in the February 17, 201 I
Technical Guidance on AMTIC. This two-
tiered acceptance criteria might provide
some comfort for those monitoring or-
ganizations already challenging their in-
struments at lower levels (good for you!)
and provide some incentive for monitor-
ing organizations to attempt the audit at
lower concentrations, especially at
NCore sites where trace gas instruments
are the norm.
Evaluation Process
STI downloaded QA data from EPA's Air-
Quality System (AQS) AMP 504 reports
from 2012-2014 for all gaseous pollu-
tants. STI then used Python and MS Ac-
cess 2010 to process the data into .csv
files suitable for input into R. R code was
then used to generate summary statistics and calculate
percent and absolute differences. R was also used to
generate plots showing the absolute and percent differ-
ences, binning the differences by the 10 annual PE audit
level concentrations listed in the proposed rule and can
be seen in Figure I.
STI generated four types of figures for the gaseous crite-
ria pollutants:
Absolute difference notched box-whisker plots,
binned by the concentration ranges
Percent difference notched box-whisker plots,
binned by the concentration ranges
Absolute difference and percent difference interquar-
tile range values bounded by two-tail 95% confidence
intervals, binned by the concentration ranges
Fraction of samples exceeding each of the different
performance acceptance criteria by bin.
As indicated in Figure I, the data sets for the two low
concentration bins and the high concentration bins are
relatively limited compared to the middle ranges and was
the reason we combined both QC check and annual PE
data.
Figure 2 displays the percent and absolute difference
notched box-whisker plots for ozone. Notch box-
whisker plots show the interquartile range as the box, the
median concentration as the center line, the 95% confi-
dence level in the median as the notch, and
1.5*interquartile range as whiskers; points beyond the
whiskers are shown as outlier dots. In all cases, the small-
est absolute differences and largest percent differences
are in the lowest concentration bins (left side of the fig-
ures).
(Continued on page 4)
Ozone Differences
OAQPS 2011 Guidance Annual PE Level 1 and 2; l.S ppb difference
Current 1-point QC between 0.01 and 0.10 pprn- New Reg .005 and 0.08 ppm
lllflflfll
0000000000
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 l i i
c.ae.a. o.e.&e.n.tt
Assessment Level (ppm)
Figure 2. Ozone Absolute and Percent differences.
SB
(111
a ft a. a
Assessment Level (ppm)
y
Q A EYE
-------
ISSUE 19
Acceptance Criteria for Low Concentration 1-point QC Check (Continued from Page 3)
PAGE 4
Conversely, the highest absolute differences and smallest
percent differences are obsei-ved in the highest concentra-
tion bins. These patterns are expected.
For Oj, S02, and CO. most bins center around absolute and
percent differences of zero, showing no pattern of bias in re-
ported concentrations relative to the audits. A few less popu-
lated bins do have some bias, but these are often within the
95% confidence level range of zero, and are thus statistically
indistinguishable from no bias. In contrast NO, {see Fig.3) has a
clear pattern of both absolute and relative bias, with positive
bias at lower concentrations and negative bias at higher concen-
trations.
OAQPS 2011 Guidance Annual PE Level 1 and 2; 1.5 ppb difference
Current 1-pointQC between 0.01 arid 0.10 ppm- New Reg .005 and 0.08 ppm
J-
ttWB
I E I I fill
Assessment Level (ppm)
Figure 3 N02 Absolute and Percent Differences
Assessment Level (ppm)
2 0 0050
I
i
5- 0 °°*°
~ 0 0020
7% Percent Difference
Acceptance Criteria
j* ^ ^ >
yv / / / / / / / /
Audit bio levels for ozone (ppm)
Figure 4. absolute difference and percent difference lines and intersection
Summary -Gaseous Pollutants
For the four gaseous pollutants, the data seem to corrobo-
rate the concentration and acceptance criteria we provided
in the our Feb, 2011 technical memo for the Annual PE's
which was:
Oj, S02 and N02: Audit Bins I and 2 ą 1.5 ppb difference
CO: Audit Bins I and 2 ą 0.03 ppm
Another way of looking at this information is to evaluate where
the percent difference statistics cross the absolute difference.
This "knot" might be the concentration we could consider a
switch from percent difference to absolute difference. Figure 4
illustrates this for ozone where the knot intersects at the third
level audit bin. However, as you review the percent and abso-
lute difference compared to the 7 percent difference ac-
ceptance criteria, you can see in Figure 2 as well as Figure 4
that the percent differences are well within acceptance criteria
for audit levels three as well as two. So although Fig 4 is use-
ful, looking at both figures will help make decisions as to the
concentrations where it makes the most sense to allow for a
absolute difference acceptance criteria.
Since the data in the earlier assessments as well as the
recent STI work may be based on more sensitive trace
gas instruments we may provide some additional flexi-
bility at these lower concentrations for the I -point QC checks.
We expect to have a technical memo out on this in early 2016.
RM2.5 and Pb
In October, STI performed additional analysis of PM25, Pb-PM|0
and Pb-TSP parameters. We will be reviewing this data over
the next few months to determine whether we can lower the
cutoff range for data evaluation as well as determine if use of a
absolute difference may be appropriate.
Training Opportunities
There are a few training activities on
the horizon.
PM2.5 Gravimetric Lab Training
In late 2014, Region 4 implemented a
training session for PM25 gravimetric lab
technicians. They plan on offering a
similar training course in March, 2016
and plan to advertise it nationally. The ses-
sion is focused specifically on lab technicians.
If interested contact Stephanie McCarthy at
mccarthy.staphanie@epa.gov. Space will be
limited to 25 people .
National NPAP/PEP Training
Annual NPAP/PEP training is scheduled for
the week of March 14 2016.
National Ambient Air Monitoring
Conference
Plans are still not completely solid but it
is looking like this conference will be
scheduled for August, 2016. QA training
will be available. A save the date will be
posted on AMTIC soon.
-------
PAGE 5
Re-Engineering the NPAP Through the LEAN Process
The NPAP program has been around
for a long time; from the old mailed
audit systems to the present through
the probe technique; and has been a
very successful audit program. How-
ever, it has not been without its
problems. The biggest complaint
have been getting the audit results
into AQS in a timely fashion and mak-
ing sure all of the audits get scheduled
and completed. We looked to the
LEAN process (see QA EYE Issue 18
page 8) to help us re-engineer the
process completely. The result? A
completely new Performance Evalua-
tion Audit Tool (PEAT) built in-house
that integrates AQS, a new audit datasheet, and
automated audit data upload to AQS. Here are the
highlights of the PEAT system and general flow of
the new program;
New Audit Selection Interface in AQS
AQS has been modified to include an interface to
help the Regional NPAP leads sort, select, and
schedule sites for NPAP audits. This tool will also
export the metadata for these sites to assist in the
audit. The NPAP leads and the monitoring organi-
zation staff will use these exports to confirm that
the metadata is correct or if updates are required.
AQS will also upload the metadata used in the AQS
upload transactions from the pre-selected sites to
the PEAT application.
PEAT
PEAT is a PC based application that replaces the
current audit spreadsheet and has enhanced capa-
bilities for managing the audit. PEAT uses the
downloaded data from AQS to pre-populate site
metadata in preparation for the audit thereby elimi-
nating transcription errors by the auditor. PEAT
also uses a "spreadsheet" format to record data
from the audit in a similar way as the old spread-
sheet; however, PEAT is much more secure and
allows little customization by the auditor which will
lead to more consistent NPAP audits nationwide. Audi-
tors will use the AQS data, pre-populated in PEAT, to
"verify" the metadata on-site by looking at the actual moni-
toring equipment. PEAT will automatically generate AQS
transactions to correct metadata in AQS that does not
reflect what is actually on-site. These transactions will be
delivered to the monitoring contact for submittal to AQS.
And finally, PEAT will automatically create an AQS transac-
tion file for the audit and submit it to AQS for approval.
Improved Audit Data Entry to AQS
Audit data upload to AQS is very easy because you don't
have to do it; PEAT works with AQS and does it for you.
Actually, it only takes a click of a button. To do this, PEAT
uses data previously downloaded from AQS to pre-
populate required AQS transaction fields to minimize mis-
matches that have historically resulted in AQS upload er-
rors. It then compiles this information with the audit in-
formation and creates the AQS transaction file. With one
click of the mouse, the file is submitted to AQS but is not
publicly accessible. It sits in a "holding area" awaiting ap-
proval from the Regional NPAP leads before moving to the
public domain. The entire process is automated to ensure
that AQS formats, AQS codes, and audit fields are all cor-
rectly and consistently filled in so AQS does not reject the
transaction. The program is configured so that no audit
will remain in the "holding area" for more than 30 days.
The LEAN process is very useful for those who have not
gone through it in some capacity. Hats off to the guys in
the Ambient Air Monitoring Group (Mark Shanis, Greg
Noah, Mike Papp, Lew Weinstock) and the National Air
Data Group (Robert Coats, Way Poteat, Chris Chapman,
Michael Brooks, and Martin Husk) and for the great collab-
orative work!
Regarding the status of the NPAP PEAT; Beta testing has
begun by NADG. In mid-January it will be tested by Mark
Shanis and Greg Noah here in RTP and then by one or
two of the Regions. After any bug fixes, we anticipate
NADG will present a final version in mid-March at the
annual NPAP audit training sessions here in RTP .
Q A EYE
-------
ISSUE 19
PAGE
Ozone Issues Continued from page 1
There are uncertainties associated with the UV ozone method, as
there are with other methods for measuring air quality; however, we
think the magnitude of these uncertainties is small and the impact mini-
mal; therefore, a network-wide replacement or modification of UV-
absorption ozone analyzers is not needed.
We are aware that UV-absorption Federal Equivalent Method (FEM)
ozone analyzers are susceptible to potential interferences from com-
pounds that sometimes occur in ambient air. However, most of the
experimental testing for interferences (e.g., aromatic organic com-
pounds and mercury) are at concentrations much higher than seen in
typical urban ambient air (Kleindienst et al., 1993 and Li et al, 2006).
The EPA has always cautioned against siting analyzers in locations
where interferences could be problematic (e.g., near sources of aro-
matic hydrocarbons or roadways). Carefully-sited and well-maintained
UV ozone analyzers minimizes the potential for interferences. The
nitrogen oxide chemiluminescence (NO-CL) ozone method has no
significant interferents. If a monitoring agency suspects that an analyzer
is susceptible to potential measurement interferences due to its loca-
tion, the agency can temporarily collocated that analyzer with a NO-CL
ozone analyzer (currently an FEM) to determine if interferences exist. If
the monitoring agency determines interferences are an issue with an
UV ozone analyzer, they can replace that analyzer with a NO-CL ana-
lyzer, or another FEM with a scrubber that is not susceptible to the
interferences present.
Humidity alone causes negligible (within 0.5 percent) water vapor inter-
ference in the absence of other VOC interferences (Kleindienst et al.,
1993 and Spicer et al., 2010). We also have data from our EPA on-site
monitoring station to show the absence of a humidity interference on
ozone analyzers without a sample inlet drier. We operate a Teledyne
API (TAPI) model 400E UV-FEM (without a drier), with a 2BTech Mod-
el 21 I (with a drier), and two TAPI T265 NO-CL analyzers (with a
drier) at our on-site monitoring station in RTP, North Carolina (NC).
The summer months in NC consistently have hot and humid condi-
Hourly Ozone Monitoring Data June Julv 2015 RTP, NC
T400E 28Tech211 Ļģ T265 #2
T265#2 = 1.0047k - 0.8653
;0 R1 = 0.9863
2BTech211= 1.0133* - 0.0737
60 R2= 0.9896
T400E = 1.008k + 0.4722
R' = 0.9992
T265 #1 NO-CL, ppb
tions. We have evaluated data from our on-site monitoring
station during June and July of 2015 where the humidity aver-
aged 73.8%, the dew point 20.4°C, and the temperature
26.0°C (see figure below). Even with a few unexplained outli-
ers for the 2BTech Model 21 I and the T265 #2, the slopes
were within 1%, the intercepts within I ppb, and the correla-
tions were excellent between the 4 analyzers (including the
400E without a sample inlet drier). We have also compared
the hourly values from a Thermo Scientific 49i UV analyzer
(without a drier) with a TAPI T265 in RTP during June and
July of 2012. The 49i compared very well with the T265. The
slope was 1.019, the intercept was 0.121 and the correlation
was 0.998.
Adjusting ozone concentrations to account for inlet
height above ground level
Ozone analyzers must be contained in a temperature con-
trolled station; therefore, monitor probe heights are typically
a function of monitoring station height and sample manifold
inlet height. Although our siting criteria in 40 CFR part 58
allows for inlet heights between 2 and 15 meters above
ground level for ozone, most of the 1300 or so monitor
inlets are typically at a height of 3 to 5 meters with the ex-
ception of about 80 CASTNET sites where the probe height
is 10 meters. Excluding one monitor with a probe height at
82 meters in California, the average probe height for 1302
ozone monitors in 2014 was 5.4 meters (see fig. below).
Distribution of Prob* Height
There are too few studies available at this time with the
appropriate data to develop a reasonable quantitative rela-
tionship for adjusting ozone data (or design values) in urban
areas.
We have begun a study out at the monitoring site on the
EPA RTP campus. We currently have inlets set up at 2 me-
ter, 5 meter and 10 meter heights and will be collecting
ozone data over the next year to provide more information
on this issue. Continued on Page 7
-------
PAGE 7
Ozone Issues (continued from page 6)
Adjusting Ozone Concentration to Account for Local Barometric Pressure at Altitudes Above Sea Level
Modern ozone analyzers have the built in capability of directly measuring and compensating for sample temperature and pressure.
Therefore, ozone concentrations do not need to be adjusted at high altitudes as long as the analyzer's temperature and pressure
compensation (TPC) is turned ON. Temperature and pressure compensation is done automatically and the default setting for
most ozone analyzers is for the temperature/pressure compensation be turned on. It is also a requirement of the FEM designation
for some approved ozone analyzers. Most (about 96%) of the ozone analyzers being used by monitoring agencies reporting data
to AQS have temperature and pressure compensation. It is recommended that the temperature and pressure compensation of
the ozone analyzer be turned on when operating at altitudes greater than 1000 FT,
Ozone analyzers based on UV absorption determine ozone concentrations based on the Beer-Lambert equation (shown below)
and calculate the concentration of ozone from the ratio of light intensities. The concentration of ozone depends on more than
the ratio of intensities. Temperature and pressure influence the density of the sample. The density changes the number of ozone
molecules in the absorption tube. These effects are addressed by directly measuring temperature and pressure and including the
actual values in the calculation of ozone concentration in ppb.
109 T 29.92inHg I
CO-, = X X X In
a X L 273°A' P l
C03 = Concentration of ozone in ppb
I = Intensity of light passed through the sample
lo = Intensity of light passed through the sample free of ozone
a = Absorption coefficient
L = Path length
In = Natural Log
T = Sample temperature in degrees Kelvin
P = Pressure in inches of mercury
References
Example of the TPC enable for the T265 03 analyzer
Kleindienst, T.E., Hudgens, E.E., Smith, D.F., McElroy, F.F., and Bufalini,
J.J. (1993). Comparison of Chemiluminescence and Ultraviolet Ozone Monitor Responses in the Presence of Humidity and Photo-
chemical Pollutants. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 43:213-222.
Li, Y Lee, SR., Wu, CY (2006) UV-Absorption Based Measurements of Ozone and Mercury: An investigation on their mutual
interferences. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 6 (4):418-429.
Spicer, C.W., Darrell, J.W., and Ollison, W.M. (2010). A Re-Examination of Ambient Air Ozone Monitor Interferences. J. Air
Waste Manage. Assoc., 60:1353-1364.
Authors Contributing to Issue 19
We thank the following for con-
tributing to Issue 19 of the QA
EYE: Joan Rice for the article on
the ozone comments (page I);
Greg Noah and Mark Shanis for
the NPAP LEAN update (Page 5);
Tim Hanley on reporting particle
count data (page 9) and aethalometer
data (page 10); Solomon Ricks for
the article on the Ambient Air Proto-
col Gas Program and Greg Noah for
the PM2.5 weighing room in the
cloud. ( page I 3).
We are always looking for inter-
esting QA related articles for the
QA EYE. If you have something
you think would interest the great-
er QA community, please send
your articles to Mike Papp at:
papp.michael@epa.gov
Q A EYE
-------
ISSUE 19
PAGE 8
Negative Value Reporting to AQS for Gaseous Criteria Pollutants.. A Proposal
We have been getting requests to provide larger windows
for the reporting negative values for some gaseous criteria
pollutants. For the gaseous criteria pollutants, we have
traditionally allowed negative values based on the method
detection limit of the monitoring instrument. As an exam-
ple, if a monitoring organization had an older instrument
with an MDL of 2 ppb the absolute minimum value allowed
in AQS would be - 2 ppb. If they purchased a new instru-
ment with a 0.5 ppb MDL, then the absolute minimum value
allowed in AQS would be -0.5 ppb. The AQS Team uses
the MDL of each approved method to set the absolute mini-
mum value. Values below the absolute minimum are reject-
ed. OAQPS is being asked to lower some of these abso-
lute minimums for a few reasons:
Too much data is being reported below the current
absolute minimum for the method and it's affecting the
data completeness.
The zero drift acceptance criteria that was modified in
June 3, 2014 (see AMTIC1) allows for more negative
zero drift than some current absolute minimums listed
in AQS.
Internal discussions in OAQPS about negative data have
been interesting. There are some camps that believe no
negative value is valid while others believe some level of
negative data reporting is acceptable. With the process of
using the negative of the MDL as the absolute minimum
acceptable value, we create a patchwork of negative data in
AQS that is method dependent and inconsistent across a
parameter.
Proposed Solution
With the decrease of NAAQS standards and the improve-
ments of monitoring instrumentation, there will be a normal
course of change to methods that will improve MDLs, zero
drift and therefore legitimately move absolute minimum
acceptable values, that in the past might have been ac-
ceptable, to values closer to zero. As the FRM/FEM per-
formance parameters change, so must the absolute mini-
mum acceptable value. With this in mind, OAQPS will be
suggesting the use of one absolute minimum value for each
gaseous criteria pollutant (03, N02, S02, CO) rather that
have the absolute minimum values dictated by the ap-
proved method MDL. Table I provides a review of lower
detectable limit (LDL) and the 12 and 24 hour zero drift in
the FRM/FEM performance parameter requirements in
Table BI of 40 CFR Part 53. This is indicated by "BI". In
addition, Table I lists the 24 hour and 14 day zero drift
guidance in the QA Handbook (HB) as revised based on
the June, 2014 technical memo. The last line in the table is
the proposed absolute minimum negative acceptable value
that will be set in AQS. It is a compromise between the
upper standard for the LDL and zero drift requirements.
The only exception to this is N02 range. ORD has
changed the other criteria pollutant ranges in Table Bl but
N02 has not been revised for some period of time and we
know the LDL and zero drift has improved on monitoring
instruments since these ranges were promulgated. There-
fore we believe that the -0.005 ppm absolute minimum is
reasonable for N02
We will be working with the AQS team and the EPA Re-
gions over the month of January to discuss this proposal.
As the FRM/FEM performance criteria change in 40 CFR
Part 53, EPA will review/revise absolute minimums in light
of these changes.
If you have comments on this approach please send an
email to Mike Papp (papp.michael@epa.gov)
1 http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html
Table 1. Comparison of FRM/FEM requirements in Table Bl and requirements in QA Handbook (HB)
S02
03
CO
N02
Performance Parameter
Units
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Std Range
Bl-LDL
ppm
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.4
0.2
0.01
Bl- Zero drift 12/24 lir.
ppm
0.004
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.5
0.3
0.02
HB Zero 24 lir.
ppm
0.003
0.003
0.4
0.003
HB Zero 14 day
ppm
0.005
0.005
0.6
0.005
Absolute Min Reported
ppm
-0.004
-0.004
-0.4
-0.005
-------
PAGE 9
Availability of Parameter Code for Reporting of Particle Count Data to AQS.
A new parameter code is now available for reporting of particle count data to AQS. Parameter code 87101 is intended to be used for
measurements from the Teledyne-API 651 or TSI 3783 for particle number as a total count. These instruments, which are identical in
design and operation, have been implemented at several near-road monitoring stations as part of the recent deployment of the near-
road monitoring program, but may be used at other locations. Particle counts are one of several measurements identified as being a
secondary priority for multipollutant monitoring at near-road monitoring stations. Details on priorities for multipollutant monitoring at
near-road monitoring stations can be found in Section 16 of the Near-road N02 Monitoring Technical Assistance Document (TAD) on
AMTIC.
Parameter Code
87101
Parameter Description
Particle Number, Total Count
P arameter Abbreviation
PNt
Reported Unit and Standard Unit
132
Unit Description
Count per cm A3
Unit Ab breviati on
#/cm^3
Method Code
173
Sample Collection Description
T-API651/TSI 3783 at 3.01pm and 0.6 um cutpoint
Sample Analysis Description
Water-Based Condensation particle Counter
Duration Code
1
Monitor Network Code
Near Road
Monitor Network Description
Monitors at sites meeting the near road design per Part 58
Dominant Source (if applicable)
Mobile
Reporting of Particle Count
Data to AQS
Here are the key fields for submis-
sion of data. The bold faced fields
are the key ones. The italics fields
will populate with the bold faced
ones loaded.
Happy Trails Jewell Smiley
About I 5 years ago, OAQPS entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with
the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (OR.IA)
laboratories in Las Vegas, NV and Montgom-
ery, AL. The Las Vegas assistance was involved
in field sampling activities associated with the
PM2 5 and the Chemical Speciation Program
I while the Montgomery National Analytical
Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) helped us develop
and implement the annual "Mega Performance Evaluation Program"
for the Chemical Speciation and IMPROVE Program and the Na-
tional Gravimetric Laboratory Performance Evaluation program.
Three folks from the ORIA Montgomery were instrumental in the
development of these programs: Eric Boswell, Steve Taylor and
Jewell Smiley. Jewell happily retired in August this year.
Jewell has certainly been a bright spot for OAQPS for the 15 or so
years that we've been implementing the Chemical Speciation Net-
work (CSN) with the help of the ORIA NAREL. Jewell has an easy
going manner, which tends to camouflage his extraordinary
knowledge and insight of chemistry and physics as it is applied to air
pollution. Right from the start, Jewell coordinated a small team that
developed the Mega PE performance evaluation program for the
CSN and IMPROVE network from the ground up. His particular
attention to detail and care in his work has led to a PE program
whose quality has never been called into question by those partici-
pating in the program.
Not only has he improved the quality of our programs over his
tenure with NAREL; but Jewell advanced the science of air pollu-
tion monitoring. One example was his discovery, along with the
team in Montgomery, of corrosion on the nickel-coated alumini-
um used in some the very sharp cut cyclones used in the CSN
network. In developing the proficiency test samples it became
apparent that nickel was being transfered from the cyclones on to
the audit filters; creating a higher concentration of nickel com-
pared to samples collected from cyclone made of pure aluminum.
His discovery and evaluation not only helped produced better
proficiency test audits but was used to alert the cyclone vendors
to this issue and reduced the contamination of nickel from the
cyclones in the routine CSN network. We published this infor-
mation in QA EYE Issue 3 (page 3).
Jewell has been the ultimate QA diplomat in the way he has pro-
fessionally handled himself in performing the technical systems
audits of the CSN program. In discovering findings that effected
the quality of the CSN and IMPROVE data he always found a way
of expressing his concerns in a helpful manner. With that easy
going delivery he has time-after-time assisted the participating
organizations in solving issues that were identified through the
audits and performance evaluations.
OAQPS has truly been fortunate to have the opportunity to
work with Jewell and the Montgomery Team. His devotion to
the science and quality of the CSN and IMPROVE data is recog-
nized not only at OAQPS but also the laboratory personnel he
evaluated and audited.
I
Q A EYE
-------
ISSUE 19 PAGE 10
Update on Reporting Aethalometer Data to AQS
Aethalometer data has been measured and submitted to AQS for many years. Since there are several versions of the Ae-
thalometer monitor, there has been an evolution of what is available to report from these instruments. Very early versions of
the Aethalometer typically provided one output, which was a Black Carbon channel at a wavelength of 880 nm. Later models
provide two outputs with the addition of an Ultraviolet (UV) channel (370 nm) to the existing Black Carbon channel. The most
recent available Aethalometer, the Magee Scientific AE 33 and Teledyne-API M633 provide a seven channel/wavelength output.
We will be working to add parameter and method codes for the additional five Aethalometer channels over the coming weeks.
Up until the AE33/M633, the Aethalometer would only report data measured at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP).
The AE33/M633 allows reporting of data in either STP or local conditions (using the connected external weather station availa-
ble from Teledyne or Magee Scientific). Since all other PM25 measurements are made at local conditions and having Aethalome-
ter data in local conditions reduces the uncertainty in comparing PM25data across measurements (e.g., CSN to Aethalometer
Black Carbon), we recommend reporting PM-^c Aethalometer data at local conditions. For the AE33/M633, this can be done by
purchasing and adding the external weather station to the instrument or by using on-site temperature and barometric pressure
readings and adding a math channel to the data acquisition system. For earlier versions of the Aethalometer, on-site ambient
temperature and barometric pressure will be needed to adjust the measured values to report at local conditions in the monitor-
ing agencies data acquisition system (e.g., using a math channel).
Reporting of Aethalometer Data to AQS
Aethalometer data can be reported from different monitor makes and models. Below find the key codes for reporting Ae-
thalometer data.
For reporting of data collected at local condi-
tions (Recommended)
For reporting of data at STP (legacy reporting)
Parameter Code
88313
84313
Parameter Description
Black Carbon PM2.5 LC
Black Carbon PM2.5 STP
Parameter Code
88314
84314
Parameter Description
UV Carbon PM2.5LC
UV Carbon PM2.5 STP
Reported Unit and Standard Unit
105
001
Unit Description
Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)
Micrograms/cubic meter (25C)
Unit Ab breviati on
ug/m3 LC
ug/m3 SC
Duration Code
1
1
Method Codes
Sample Collection Description
Sample Analysis Description
Seven Wavelength Units
894
Magee Scientific TAPI M633 Aethalometer
Optical absorption
Dual Wavelength Units
87 6
Magee Scientific AE22ER Aethalometer
Optical absorption
867
Magee Scientific AE21HS Aethalometer
Optical absorption
866
Magee Scientific AE21ER Aethalometer
Optical absorption
861
Magee Scientific AE2100 Aethalometer
Optical absorption
Single Wavelength (BC)
864
Magee Scientific AE1600 Aethalometer
Optical absorption
862
Anderson RTAA 800 Aethalometer
Optical absorption
-------
PAGE II
Industrial Monitors are Evaluated Against the NAAQS Unless Properly Coded In AQS
Recent events in reviewing S02 design
values have identified monitors with the
MONITOR TYPE "Industrial" in AQS as
violating the NAAQS. During discussions
with the Regions and monitoring organiza-
tions it was discovered that some of these
monitors where not intended to be col-
lecting data for NAAQS purposes by the
way they were sited or how they imple-
mented quality control requirements.
The Bottom Line
There are 7 active MONITOR TYPES in
AQS: EPA, Industrial, Non-EPA Federal,
Other, SLAMS, SPM and Tribal. Any
MONITOR TYPE [with the exception of
special purpose monitoring (SPM) stations
for the first two years of operation] re-
porting data to AQS with a federal refer-
ence or equivalent monitor is subject to
comparison to the NAAQS unless it is
coded with a NAAQS exclusion code.
When data quality assessments are run for
a monitoring agency or a primary quality
assurance organization (PQAO), all criteria
pollutant monitors of every MONITORING
TYPE are aggregated and reported as regu-
latory monitors with the exception of those
monitors with NAAQS exclusion codes.
The use of the NAAQS exclusion code
must be approved by the EPA Region. Mon-
itoring organizations and PQAOs should
review all criteria pollutant monitors to
ensure that monitors not intended to be
compared to the NAAQs are properly iden-
tified.
SPM Monitors
An SPM is a monitor included in an agency's
monitoring network that the agency has
designated as a special purpose monitor
station in its annual monitoring network
plan and in the AQS, and which the agency
does not count when showing compliance
with the minimum ambient air monitoring
requirements. The ambient air regulation
allows operation of the SPM for two years
in which time they can be shut down and
therefore would not meet data complete-
ness requirements for a NAAQS compari-
son. If the SPM(s) remain operational after
two years they can then be used for attain-
ment decisions and must meet all regulatory
requirements. Any SPM data collected by an
air monitoring agency using a federal refer-
ence method (FRM), federal equivalent
method (FEM), or approved regional meth-
od (ARM) must meet the requirements of
§58.1 I, §58.12, and Appendix A (QA re-
quirements) to Part 58 part or an ap-
proved alternative to Appendix A. As part
of the annual monitoring network plan,
monitoring organizations must include a
statement of whether the operation of the
SPM meets the Part 58 requirements of
appendices A, B, C, D, and E. Unless the
network plan describes why the SPM will be
operating in non-compliance with the Part
58 regulations it is assumed to be in compli-
ance. If the SPM is intended to be operating
in non-compliance with Part 58 require-
ments, it is suggested that the SPM include
the NAQQS exclusion code which can then
be approved by the EPA Regions.
Another Issue with Industrial Monitors... PQAOs
On August 10, 2015, the S02 Data Require-
ments Rule (DRR) was signed, and subse-
quently published in the Federal Register on
August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052). The DRR
requires the characterization of air quality
around sources emitting 2,000 or more tons
per year of S02 through either modeling or
monitoring. States may also satisfy the DRR
with respect to these sources by providing
proof of federally enforceable emissions
limits.
If the state, local, or tribe (S/L/T) decides to
monitor, they may install and operate moni-
tors themselves, or the S/L/T may allow the
S02 monitors to be operated by another
party, such as industry or possibly industry
contractors. In either scenario, the S/L/T is
responsible for ensuring that the DRR re-
quirements are satisfied. However, this op-
tion for delegation raises some concern
about what organization will be specifically
responsible for the activities to ensure the
quality of the data and therefore identified in
AQS as the Primary Quality Assurance Or-
ganization (PQAO). Information on PQAOs
can be found in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A.
It is EPA's opinion that the S/L/T monitoring
agency should strongly consider including
monitors operated by other parties (e.g.
industry or contractors) to satisfy the DRR
requirements as part of the S/L/T PQAO.
The advantages for this rationale include
consideration of resources needed to meet
the following requirements:
QA Independence- The S/L/T organiza-
tions are required to have or establish an
independent QA management function that
has sufficient technical expertise and manage-
ment authority to conduct independent over-
sight and assure the implementation of the
organization's quality system relative to the
ambient air quality monitoring program and
should be organizationally independent of
environmental data generation activities. The
industry/contractor operators, as a separate
PQAO, would need the resources and per-
sonnel to establish this independence and
document it in a QMP as described in the
next section.
Quality System Documentation-The
S/L/T quality management plan (QMP),
quality assurance project plans (QAPP),
and standard operating procedures
(SOPs) can be used for these monitors if
they are part of the S/L/T PQAO. Our
assumption is that the S/L/T monitoring
agency already have these documents
written and approved. If the industry/
contractor operators were to be its own
PQAO, it would have to develop these
documents and have them approved by
the state agency and reviewed/approved
by the EPA Region before the start of
monitoring on January 1,2017. Although
there would be an opportunity to share
standard operating procedures, a QAPP
is more specific to an individual project
and a QMP is even more specific to the
industry/contractors organization so
they are less "transferable" from one
organization to the next.
Continued on Page 12
Q A EYE
-------
ISSUE 19
Industrial Monitors and PQAOs (Continued from page 11)
PAGE 12
The National Performance Audit
Program (NPAP)- NPAP is imple-
mented annually at each PQAO and at
20% of the sites within the PQAO. If
the DRR S02 sites are within the S/L/Ts
PQAO, then NPAP can be implemented
at least once (minimally) within the first
three year period they are operating the
site. This is important because monitors
uniquely operated to satisfy the DRR
can potentially be shut down after 3
years of operation if they show a design
value less than 50% of the NAAQS. In
using NPAP, State and Tribal Air Grant
(STAG) funds would be redirected (as is
the normal case) back to EPA to feder-
ally implement the NPAP audits. We
also suggest that these new S02 sites be
given some priority and be audited
ASAP. If an industry/contractor opera-
tor were to be its own PQAO, it would
have to implement an NPAP audit each
year (since the requirement is for each
PQAO to be audited annually). So, the
cost per monitoring site for implement-
ing NPAP audits at a PQAO with one
or only a few sites will be higher than
for a PQAO (i.e., state agency) that has
more monitoring sites. Since almost all
air monitoring agencies allow federal
implementation of NPAP, the state would
have to provide additional resources to
EPA to implement these audits since EPA
cannot receive funds from industry. Alter-
natively, the industry/contractor operator
would have to find certified NPAP auditors
to perform the NPAP audits. At present,
there are not many independently certified
NPAP auditors available so this may be a
difficult, but not impossible, option.
Technical Systems Audits- EPA Re-
gions perform technical systems audits on
PQAOs every three years and visit a per-
centage of the air monitoring sites. If the
industry operator decides to be its own
PQAO, additional audits would be re-
quired to be performed on each industrial
or other party PQAO by the EPA Regions.
In addition to the QA related documenta-
tion and programs, the S/L/T agency and
the industry/contractor operator would
need to determine how the following
would be met:
Submission of an Annual Network Plan
Annual Certification of data
Meeting data submission requirements
in 40 CFR58.I6
Based on the anticipated increase in
work-load within the next year as state,
local, and possibly tribal agencies, indus-
trial, or other organizations make efforts
to select and install monitoring S02 sites,
we must bear in mind the implementa-
tion burdens described above. These
new sites must have accompanying quali-
ty assurance personnel and quality sys-
tem documentation necessary to imple-
ment the monitoring program on time.
Industry/contractors may be more famil-
iar with PSD monitoring versus monitor-
ing for NAAQS comparisons. Monitor-
ing for NAAQS comparisons contain
additional QA, reporting and certification
related burdens. Therefore, we strongly
suggest the state, local, or tribal air agen-
cies consider being the PQAO for any
industrial or other party monitoring that
might be used to satisfy the DRR. If not,
EPA will need to be aware of those situ-
ations in order to track their progress
on meeting the quality system for this
ambient air monitoring activity prior to
the start of any monitoring in support of
the DRR.
Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program - 2016
Results
2012 2013
58 Verifications resulLs: 59 Verifications results:
57 were within the +4- 59 were within the +4
5% AA-PG VP criteria -;>% AA-PGVP criteria
51 were within the +2% 56 wr.ro. within thr
Acid Rain Program
criteria
+2% Acid Rain Program
criteria
52 Verifications
results:
52 were within the +4
-5% AA-PGVP
criteria
50 were within the
+2% Acid Rain
Program criteria
As a new year comes around, AAMG con-
tinues its efforts to encourage state, local
and tribal agency participation in the Ambi-
ent Air Protocol Gas Verification Program
(AA-PGVP). At the NACAA Monitoring
Steering Committee meeting in October
2015, AAMG provided a presentation updat-
ing the status/progress of the program.
Unfortunately, the picture wasn't as bright as
was hoped. As shown in Figure I, participa-
tion by monitoring organizations has suf-
fered a steep drop; cylinders verified on a
quarterly basis come primarily from gas
producers. Participation in the annual sur-
vey has also declined; at the moment, partic-
ipation averages approximately 50%.
Summary of Cylinders Submitted
(Since 2011)
2011 201Z Z013 Z014
Monitoring organizations 68% 49% 12% 15%
Gas producers 32% 51% 88% 85%
Efforts are
underway to
encourage
more participa-
tion from the
monitoring
organizations.
For example,
for those agen-
cies that felt a
financial pinch
due to shipping
costs, AAMG
has made arrangements with UPS to allow
for agencies to use EPA's shipping account
to pay for cylinder shipment. Also, as a
reminder, AAMG provides a way for agen-
cies to receive DOT HazMat certification;
thereby allowing them to ship the cylinders
through EPA's shipping account. The DOT
certification is available online, and should
be completed by those participating in the
program. AAMG will also take steps to
update the current email list of agencies, to
ensure the appropriate personnel are con-
tacted.
The program has proven its effectiveness,
as the concentrations of the cylinders con-
tinue to compare favorably to the results
obtained by the verification labs (see Figure
2). However, the general purpose of the
program was, and is, to verify cylinders
purchased by end-users; not to verify cylin-
ders provided by the producers.
If anyone has any questions, or would like
to sign-up for participation in the program,
please contact Solomon Ricks at either
(919) 541 -5242, or via email,
ricks.solomon@epa.gov
zon
65 VeriTicd lions
results:
64 were within the +4
-5% AA-PGVP criteria
58 were within the
+2% Acid Rain
Program criteria
-------
PAGE 13
Jenia Tufts Joins OAQPS AAMG QA Team
Jenia setting up a MetOne sampler
at AIRS site with Solomon Ricks
Since about 2000 the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA)
has been a trusted and important
partner assisting OAQPS in the
implementation of a number of
key Ambient Air QA Program
activities. Due to a key retire-
ment of Jewell Smiley (see article
on page 9), the National Analyti-
cal Radiation Environmental La-
boratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama divested of what
we called the Annual Chemical Speciation Network (CSN)
Mega Performance Evaluation (Mega-PE) and the Bi-annual Na-
tional Gravimetric Lab PE. With the NAREL divestment of
these activities, OAQPS was able to secure a new federal posi-
tion and some funding to ensure that these PEs continue.
With a little scurrying around in OAQPS starting in July, we
were able to advertise, interview, and hire Jenia Tufts, who
started November 2.
Jenia comes with a wealth of experience. She has a BS in Natu-
ral Resources from NC State and a MS in Environmental Sci-
ences and Engineering from UNC Chapel Hill. Prior to the
hire she was an ORISE Research Fellow working in the U.S.
EPA National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontami-
nation and Consequence Division where she conducted inde-
pendent research into the physical and transport properties of
bioaerosols. Prior to that she worked at RTI as the director of
the EPA ETV Air Pollution Control Technology (APCT) Cen-
ter, where she had overall responsibility for quality assurance
at the program level, overseeing all testing and reporting, pre-
paring testing protocols, reviewing and approving test/quality
assurance plans, verification reports, and verification state-
ments. Jenia also reviewed, developed, implemented and eval-
uated quality assurance and quality control practices and pro-
cedures at the program level, including designing, developing,
reviewing and approving EPA QA Categories II and III testing
protocols and QAPPs for both laboratory and field studies.
This is just a smattering of the field, lab and QA experience
Jenia has under her belt. She has also worked on a number of
projects with State agencies including the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality, the New York State Energy Re-
search and Development Authority, and the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).
Jenia will be getting up to speed on the CSN Mega-PE over
the next few months to understand just what it took for
ORIA to implement this program. All the field and laboratory
equipment that ORIA used in the program have been trans-
ferred down to OAQPS. Fortuitously we have been able to
work with ORD NERL to garner some laboratory space to
house and use the analytical equipment, and will use our
OAQPS monitoring site (AIRS) for sampling. Jenia is in the
process of reading a lot of our ambient air QA regulations and
guidance. We plan to have the next Mega-PE implemented
sometime this summer.
Welcome aboard Jenia!
PM2.5 Weighing Room Conditions - In the Cloud
Over the past couple of years, we
have seen too many instances of
PM25 data being invalidated because
of temperature and humidity issues.
Some of these issues have been relat-
ed to the loss of temperature and
humidity archives and a lack of easy
access to the climate control data
and statistics as a whole. Thankfully,
technology keeps marching on and
providing new options for us to con-
sider. There are technologies available in
recent dataloggers that can help ensure
data is easily accessible and protected.
The first is using a logger that is connect-
ed to a remote server or "the cloud".
There are now loggers available that allow
the user to access and configure their
logger through the web, set control limits,
and store their logged weighing room
conditions as well. The user can also set
alarms to alert the analyst via email or
text message that the room is out of con-
trol limits so that corrective action can
occur saving valuable weighing time. Real-
time access to the logger is also a capabil-
ity to monitor changes in conditions. Of
course all of this comes with a cost for
web-hosting. At typically a few hundred
dollars a year, it seems like a good deal to
ensure your data is not accidentally delet-
ed or your hard drive is not lost.
_____ X
Q A EYE
-------
?
73
\
^ PRO^
EPA-OAQPS
C304-02
RTP, NC 27711
\
uj
o
T
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is
dedicated to developing a quality system to ensure that
the Nation's ambient air data is of appropriate quality
for informed decision making. We realize that it is only
through the efforts of our EPA partners and the moni-
toring organizations that this data quality goal will be
met. This newsletter is intended to provide up-to-date
communications on changes or improvements to our
quality system. Please pass a copy of this along to your
peers and e-mail us with any issues you'd like discussed.
E-mail: papp.michael@epa.gov
Mike Papp
Key People and Websites
Since 1998, the OAQPS QA
Team has been working with the
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
in Montgomery and Las Vegas and
ORD in order to accomplish it's
QA mission. The following per-
sonnel are listed by the major
programs they implement. Since
all are EPA employees, their e-
mail address is: last name.first
name@epa.gov.
The EPA Regions are the prima-
ry contacts for the monitoring
organizations and should always
be informed of QA issues.
Program
STN/IMPROVE Lab Performance Evaluations
Tribal Air Monitoring
Speciation Trends Network QA Lead
OAQPS QA Manager
Standard Reference Photometer Lead
National Air Toxics Trend Sites QA Lead
Criteria Pollutant QA Lead
NPAP Lead
PM2.5 PEP Lead
Pb PEP Lead
Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program
Person
Affiliation
Jenia
Tufts
OAQPS
Emilio
Braganza
ORIA-LV
Dennis
Crumpler
OAQPS
Joe
Elkins
OAQPS
Scott
Moore
ORD-APPCD
Greg
Noah
OAQPS
Mike
Papp
OAQPS
Mark
Shanis
OAQPS
Dennis
Crumpler
OAQPS
Greg
Noah
OAQPS
Solomon
Ricks
OAQPS
Websites
Website
EPA Quality Staff
AMTIC
AMTIC QA Page
URL
EPA Quality System
http://www3.epa.aov/ttn/amtic/
http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/guality.html
Description
Overall EPA QA policy and guidance
Ambient air monitoring and QA
Direct access to QA programs
------- |