Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Summary of the 1988 EPA National Performance Audit Program on Source Measurements.
Author Streib., E. W. ;
CORP Author Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Lab.
Publisher Jul 90
Year Published 1990
Report Number EPA/600/3-90/050;
Stock Number PB90-235086
Additional Subjects Chemical analysis ; Statistical analysis ; Auditing ; Quality assurance ; Comparison ; Standards ; Sulfur dioxide ; Nitrogen oxides ; Carbon dioxide ; Oxygen ; Coals ; Performance evaluation ; Air pollution detection ; National Performance Audit Program ; Stationary sources ; Pollution sources ; Research and development ; Standards compliance ; EPA method 3 ; EPA method 5 ; EPA method 6 ; EPA method 7 ; EPA method 19
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
NTIS  PB90-235086 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 08/27/1990
Collation 33p
In 1988, the Quality Assurance Division conducted the National Audits for Stationary Source Test Methods. The audit materials consisted of: a disposable gas cylinder for Method 3 (Orsat analyzer), a calibrated orifice for Method 5 (DGM only), five simulated liquid samples each for Method 6 (SO2) and Method 7 (NOx), and two coal samples for Method 19. 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 3 audit, each parameter had only one concentration. The mean for CO2 was 4.2% from the expected (EPA) value. The mean for O2 was 0.4%. In the Method 5 audit, the mean value for all participants differed by 3.1% from the expected value. For the Method 6 audit, the average mean differed by 3.9% from the expected value, and in the Method 7 audit, the average mean differed by 23.7%. In the two coal audits, the parameters measured were sulfur, moisture, ash, and Btu content. On the average, for the sulfur analysis, 91% of the participants measured within 10% of the expected value; for Btu, 97% of the participants measured within 10% of the expected value.