||Assessment of the Equivalency of Three-Run Relative Accuracy Audits Versus Six-Run Relative Accuracy Audits for Characterizing CEMS (Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems) Performance.
Jernigan, J. R. ;
Rollins, R. ;
||Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC.;Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab., Research Triangle Park, NC.
Air pollution ;
Performance evaluation ;
Quality assurance ;
Error analysis ;
Sulfur dioxide ;
Nitrogen oxides ;
Continuous emission monitoring systems ;
Air pollution detection ;
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
On March 14, 1984, 'Appendix F, Quality Assurance Procedures: Procedure 1 Quality Assurance Requirements for Gas Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for Compliance' was proposed for inclusion in 40 CFR 60. Several commenters on the proposal package requested that three-run relative accuracy audits without the 2.5 percent error confidence coefficient be allowed in lieu of the proposed six-run relative accuracy audit. This report compares the equivalency of three-run versus six-run relative accuracy audits for characterizing gas CEMS performance, utilizing a tentative three-run relative accuracy criterion of < or = 15% applied to test data compiled under the EPA-funded field audit program to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the Procedure 1 quality assurance requirements. The results of this comparison indicate that the three-run < or = 15% criterion was slightly more difficult to meet than was the six-run, < or = 25% criterion.