A New Tool for Evaluating Candidate PM FEM and PM 2.5 ARM Monitors

National Air Quality Conference - 2007

A New Tool for Evaluating Candidate PM FEM and PM2.5 ARM Monitors

Tim Hanley, US EPA

February 13, 2007

=


• On October 17, 2006 EPA published its amended national air quality monitoring requirements, including revised regulations for approving PM monitoring methods

• The revised monitoring regulations provide new performance criteria for approval of Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs) and Approved Regional Methods (ARMs) developed based upon a data quality objective process that can be used to meet multiple monitoring objectives, including comparison to the NAAQS.

• FEMs– PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 filter-based (Class II) and Continuous (Class III) Methods– Applicable nationally

• ARMs – PM2.5 continuous method approved for use within a State, local, or Tribal agency

monitoring network used to meet multiple objectives such as NAAQS, AQI…

• Purpose and Goals of PM Continuous Monitoring Program and FEM status available in presentation from National Monitoring Conference:– http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/2006conference/hanleypmcont.pdf

Background


• All PM FEM and ARM Monitors– Performance Criteria

• Sampler precision• Correlation, >0.93 or >0.95 based on sample population (CCV)• Bias

– Additive bias (intercept) works with multiplicative bias to insure overall bias is in control– Multiplicative bias (slope) within +/- 10% for most methods, except Class III PM10-2.5 which is +/-

12%

• FEM Test Information for both PM2.5 and PM10-2.5– Class II methods

• Testing at two sites (one East and one West) in any season– Class III methods

• Testing at multiple locations; 5 test campaigns (3 Winter and 2 Summer) at 4 locations• Required to provide at least hourly data

• ARM Test Information– Uses same performance criteria as PM2.5 Class III methods; however, flexibility to

demonstrate sample precision– Testing occurs at subset of sites in network within which it’s intended to be used

PM Continuous Method Testing Overview


• Each case study is consistent with amended monitoring regulations1. PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 FEM requirements in 40 CFR Part 532. PM2.5 ARM requirements in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix C

• Each case study is designed to provide:– user friendly template in standard word processing software (Word) with

appropriate level of detail for ARM and FEM written applications;– user friendly automated calculations in standard spreadsheet software (Excel)

for all ARM and FEM performance criteria;– consistency in development of applications;– streamlined approval process by EPA for ARM and FEM applications.

Development of Two Case Study Templates

Template Type of Application PM2.5 PM10-2.5

FEM Class II X X

FEM Class III X X

ARM ARM X N/A


• Each case study is structured to provide the various types of information required as part of an application

• No particular format or structure is mandated by regulation as long as all the required information is contained in the application and submitted

• Text in bold GREEN is provided as a hypothetical example and should be replaced with similar appropriate text.

• Text in BLUE provide hyperlinks to resource files (e.g., Part 53 Reg amendments.dot) with formal requirements from regulation text.– The hyperlinks function when the *.dot files are contained within

the same folder as the case study.

FEM & ARM Written Template User Notes


FEM & ARM Written Application Summary FEM ARM

Contents 1. General Information2. Description of the Candidate Method3. Description of the Field FRM Comparison Test4. Field Comparison Test Data and Test

Calculations5. Attachments

1. General Information2. Description of the Candidate Method3. Description of the Field FRM Comparison Test4. Field Comparison Test Data and Test

Calculations5. Attachments

Attachments 1. Technical Aspects of the Candidate Monitor2. Manufacturing Quality System and analyzer

durability3. ISO – 9001 registration documentation4. Test Site Locations and descriptive Information5. Instrument Calibration and Calibration data

and Standards6. Comparability Test Data (prefer to submit

electronically)7. Hourly data from candidate Class III Monitors8. Instrument Operation and Instruction Manual

1. Test Site Locations and descriptive Information2. QA procedures for the candidate ARM3. Data Transformations (if applicable)4. Instrument Calibration and Calibration data

and Standards5. Comparability Test Data (prefer to submit

electronically)6. Instrument Operation and Instruction Manual

Notes Submitted by Instrument CompaniesCan be “Confidential Business Information”

Submitted by State, local, or Tribal monitoring agency

Text in RED indicates differences between the two templates Spreadsheet template intended to address attachment in GREEN text


Select PM2.5 or PM10-2.5

and Class II or III

Drop down menus included in Title Sheet

FEM Spreadsheet Template in Excel

Instructions TitleSelect Test Site

A, B, C, or D


Data Entry Sheets and Daily Calculations

Raw FRM Data Raw Candidate Data

Outlier test applies in FRM sheet

Data Entry Cellsare the only

unlocked cells Daily summary of: Validity, Mean in ug/m3, Precision in ug/m3, CV in %

Outlier test does not apply in Candidate Sheet


Intermediate Calculations

Precision Regression

Each column can be sortedfor daily mean, precision,

or relative precision

Summary calculations for FRMand candidate precision

Holding the pointer over a cell mayresult in appearance of comment box

Summary calculations for valid data sets, CCV, Slope,

Intercept, and Correlation


Summary Sheet

Criteria for Slope (multiplicative bias),

Intercept (additive bias),and Correlation with test

Illustration of Bias acceptance limits with

result for candidatemethod

Criteria for number of valid

data sets with test

Criteria forPrecisionwith test


• Templates are intended to help facilitate consistency in FEM and ARM applications; their use is not required.

• Availability of FEM and ARM Case Study Templates?– Available now through the end of the month as draft at:

• http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pm25fem/• Comments can be sent to Tim Hanley

– Email: [email protected]– Fax: (919) 541-1903

– Expect final in March 2007; also on AMTIC web site

• Acknowledgments– EPA ORD

• Robert Vanderpool• Elizabeth Hunike

– RTI• Frank McElroy

Notes

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pm25fem/

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

A New Tool for Evaluating Candidate PM FEM and PM 2.5 ARM Monitors