Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


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 Some EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. 07/26/2022
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.