Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Summary of the 1983 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) National Performance Audit Program on Source Measurements.
Author Streib, E.W. ; Logan, T. J. ; Midgett, M. R. ;
CORP Author Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab., Research Triangle Park, NC. Quality Assurance Div.
Year Published 1985
Report Number EPA/600/4-80/004;
Stock Number PB85-165025
Additional Subjects Auditing ; Air pollution ; Quality assurance ; Gas analysis ; Laboratories ; Sources ; Chemical analysis ; Sampling ; Calibrating ; Combustion products ; Industrial wastes ; Performance evaluation ; Comparison ; Coal ; Sulfur dioxide ; Nitrogen oxides ; Carbon dioxide ; Oxygen ; National performance audit program ; Air pollution detection ; Air pollution sampling ; EPA method 5 ; EPA method 6 ; EPA method 7 ; EPA method 3 ; EPA method 19A
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
NTIS  PB85-165025 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 06/21/1988
Collation 47p
In the spring and fall of 1983, the Quality Assurance Division conducted the National Audits for Stationary Source Test Methods. The audit materials consisted of: a calibrated orifice for Method 5 (dry gas meter only), five simulated liquid samples each for Method 6 (SO2) and Method 7 (NOx), two coal samples for Method 19A, and a disposable gas cylinder for Method 3 (Orsat analyzer). Participating laboratories sent their data to the Source Branch and in return received a written report comparing their results to EPA's. In the Method 5 spring audit, the mean value for all participants differed by 5.7% from the true (EPA) value. For the fall audit, the participants' mean was 4.1% from the true value. In the two Method 6 audits, the average mean differed by 3% from the expected value. The average mean in the two Method 7 audits was 15% from the expected value. In the two coal audits, the parameters measured were sulfur, moisture, ash, and Btu. On the average for the sulfur analysis 85% of the participants measured within 10% of the expected value; for Btu 100% of the participants measured within 10% of the expected value. In the two Method 3 audits, each parameter had only one concentration. The means for CO2 were within 10% (spring) and 6% (fall) from the expected value. For both audits, the mean for O2 was less than 1%.