Data Certification Exercise

Transcription

1 Data Certification Exercise PQAO Training January 25 th, 2017 Objective: The data certification process involves certifying that ambient concentration data and quality assurance data for any given year have been reviewed and attesting that the ambient data are accurate and complete. When submitting a data certification package to either ARB or EPA, districts must submit a letter and an AQS AMP600 report. The data certification process follows this process: Monthly validation and review of monitoring data Certifying Agency retrieves AMP600 report Address any recommendations, correct or justify the data Update AQS and re-run the AMP600 report Assemble package for submittal: final AMP600 report and certification letter Submit package to ARB/EPA Review the AMP600 report provided. Identify pollutants which AQS recommends an N flag, and address each reason for AQS recommendation based on the data certification objectives.

2 Data Evaluation and Concurrence Report Summary Certification Year: 2015 Certifying Agency (CA): California Air Resources Board (0145) Pollutants in Report: Monitors Monitors Recommended fmonitors NOT Recommended Parameter Name Code Evaluated Concurrence by AQS for Concurrence by AQS Carbon monoxide Lead PM10 LC FRM/FEM Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Ozone PM10 Total 0-10um STP PM2.5 - Local Conditions Sulfur dioxide PQAOs in Report: PQAO Name PQAO Code TSA Date California Air Resources Board /27/11 Summary of 'N' flags for all pollutants: AQS Cert. Agency Parameter Recommended Recommended PQAO Code AQS Site-ID POC Flag Flag Reason for AQS Recommendation N 1-Point QC Completeness < 65% N Annual Performance Evaluation Audit Missing or 1 Level N Flow Rate Audit completeness < 65% N Annual Summary completeness < 70% N Annual Summary completeness < 70%. Signature of Monitoring Organization Representative:

3 Issue #1

4 Issue #1 Summary of 'N' flags for all pollutants: AQS Cert. Agency Parameter Recommended Recommended PQAO Code AQS Site-ID POC Flag Flag Reason for AQS Recommendation N 1-Point QC Completeness < 65%. Definition: One-Point Quality Control (QC) Check for SO 2, NO 2, O 3, and CO. A one-point QC check must be performed at least once every 2 weeks on each automated monitor used to measure SO 2, NO 2, O 3 and CO. 1 The 1-Point QC Completeness < 65% reason indicates that for that year, the agency completed one-point QC checks during less than 65% of the 2 week periods, or less than 17 out of a possible 26 intervals. Information provided: AMP256: Data Quality Indicator Report One Point Quality Control AMP251: Raw Monitor Assessment Report One Point QC Calendar with sample intervals Logbook entries for October December 2015 What we know: The site measures gaseous and particulate concentrations (continuous and filter) Through 10/7/2015, assume that 12 of the 1-point QC were completed. Assume all of the QC checks were manual QC checks Assume the monitor was operating all year long Assume that there is no available 1-point QC control sheet for review AQS calculates the 2-week periods for 1-point QC checks AQS Site Parameter POC Reason for AQS Recommendation Comments addressing AQS recommendation Point QC Completeness <65% Questions: How can this recommendation be avoided at the time of documentation (as opposed to the data certification process)? What other information could have been useful for this investigation? 1 40 CFR 58 Appendix A 3.1.1

5 Issue #1 AMP256 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM DATA QUALITY INDICATOR REPORT One Point Quality Control Pollutant: (Ozone) PQAO: California Air Resources Board (0145) App A? Y Site Begin End Intervals Valued % Year Region State IDs POC MT Date Date Required Intervals Complete CV UB Bias UB CA S 1-Jan Dec SUMMARY 1-Jan Dec SUMMARY 1-Jan Dec

6 Issue #1 AMP251 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM Raw Monitor Assessment Report PQAO: California Air Resources Board (0145) Parameter: Ozone (44201) Method of Collection and Analysis ONE POINT QC INSTRUMENTAL ULTRA VIOLET ABSORPTION Site/Poc. Method Assess Date Number Assess Conc. Monitor Conc. % Diff Unit Abbr ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

7 Issue #1 October November December S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Holiday

8 Issue #1

9 Issue #1

10 Issue #1

11 Issue #2 Issue #2

12 Issue #2 Summary of 'N' flags for all pollutants: AQS Cert. Agency Parameter Recommended Recommended PQAO Code AQS Site-ID POC Flag Flag Reason for AQS Recommendation N Annual Performance Evaluation Audit Missing or 1 Level. Definition: Annual performance evaluation for SO 2, NO 2, O 3, or CO. A performance evaluation must be conducted on each primary monitor once a year. 2 Information provided: AMP430: Data Completeness Report AMP390: Monitor Description Report AQS Site Parameter POC Reason for AQS Recommendation Comments addressing AQS recommendation Annual Performance Evaluation Audit Missing or 1 Level Questions: How can this recommendation be avoided at the time of documentation (as opposed to the data certification process)? What other information could have been useful for this investigation? 2 40 CFR 58 Appendix A 3.1.2

13 Issue #2 AMP430

14 AMP390 Issue #2

15 Issue #3 Issue #3

16 Issue #3 Summary of 'N' flags for all pollutants: AQS Cert. Agency Parameter Recommended Recommended PQAO Code AQS Site-ID POC Flag Flag Reason for AQS Recommendation N Flow Rate Audit completeness < 65%. Definition: Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for PM 2.5. Audit the flow rate of the particulate monitor twice a year. The two audits should ideally be spaced between 5 and 7 months apart. 3 The Flow Rate Audit Completeness < 65% reason indicates that for that year, the agency completed Flow Rate Audits less than 65% of the 2 required bi-annual audits, or less than 2 out of a possible 2 audits. Information provided: AMP256: Data Quality Indicator Report Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audits communication with Air Resources Board Audit Report (cover sheet) from Air Resources Board What we know: Assume the audit was completed for parameter (PM 10 Continuous) at (Del Paso Manor). AQS Site Parameter POC Reason for AQS Recommendation Comments addressing AQS recommendation Flow Rate Audit Completeness <65% Questions: How can this recommendation be avoided at the time of documentation (as opposed to the data certification process)? What other information could have been useful for this investigation? 3 40 CFR 58 Appendix A 3.2.2

17 Issue #3 AMP256 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM DATA QUALITY INDICATOR REPORT Semi- Annual Flow Rate Audits Pollutant: PM10 Total 0-10um STP (81102) PQAO: California Air Resources Board (0145) App A?: Y AQS Begin End % Criteria Obs / Q Avg Conf. Limits % Between Year Reg St Site ID POC MT Date Date # Req #Q Complete Met? % d Lower Upper Conf Lmt CA S 1-Jan Dec N SUMMARY 1-Jan Dec SUMMARY SUMMARY 1-Jan Dec

18 Issue #3 Janice Lam From: ARB Audit Staff Sent: Monday, September 26, :36 PM To: Janice Lam Cc: Subject: RE: Scheduling FR Audit for Thanks Audit Staff! Janice Janice Lam Snyder SMAQMD From: ARB Audit Staff [mail to: Sent: Monday, September 26, :48 AM To: Janice Lam Cc: Subject: Scheduling FR Audit for Hi Janice, We would be able to schedule a Flow Rate Audit for October 7 th at the Sacramento-Del Paso Manor site ( ). Thank you, ARB Audit Staff California Air Resources Board

19 Issue #3

20 Issue #4 Issue #4

21 Issue #4 Summary of 'N' flags for all pollutants: AQS Cert. Agency Parameter Recommended Recommended PQAO Code AQS Site-ID POC Flag Flag Reason for AQS Recommendation N Annual Summary completeness < 70%. Definition: Annual performance evaluation for SO 2, NO 2, O 3, or CO. A performance evaluation must be conducted on each primary monitor once a year. 4 Information provided: AMP430: Data Completeness Report Data Validation Letter Logbook entry for November 2015 AQS Site Parameter POC Reason for AQS Recommendation Comments addressing AQS recommendation Annual Summary Completeness <70% Flow Rate Audit Completeness <65% Questions: How can this recommendation be avoided at the time of documentation (as opposed to the data certification process)? What other information could have been useful for this investigation? 4 40 CFR 58 Appendix A 3.1.2

22 Issue #4 AMP430

23 Issue #4

24 Issue #4

25 Issue #4

26 Issue #5 Issue #5

27 Issue #5 Summary of 'N' flags for all pollutants: AQS Cert. Agency Parameter Recommended Recommended PQAO Code AQS Site-ID POC Flag Flag Reason for AQS Recommendation N Annual Summary completeness < 70%. Definition: Flow Rate Verification for PM 2.5. A one-point flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every month (each verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure PM Information provided: AMP430: Data Completeness Report Logbook entry for September 2015 Corrective Action Notice (CAN) AQS Site Parameter POC Reason for AQS Recommendation Comments addressing AQS recommendation Annual Summary Completeness <70% Flow Rate Audit Completeness <65% Flow Rate Verification completeness <65% Questions: How can this recommendation be avoided at the time of documentation (as opposed to the data certification process)? What other information could have been useful for this investigation? 5 40 CFR 58 Appendix A 3.2.1

28 Issue #5 AMP430

29 Issue #5

30 Issue #5

31 Data Certification Exercise Final Questions 1) What is the main objective of data certification in plain language? 2) What information did you check to address the AQS recommendations in the AMP600 report? 3) Did you run into any challenges during the data certification process?