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

1. A New Tool for Evaluating Candidate PM FEM and PM2.5 ARM Monitors Tim Hanley, US EPA February 13, 2007 =

2. Background • 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

3. PM Continuous Method Testing Overview • 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

4. Development of Two Case Study Templates • Each case study is consistent with amended monitoring regulations • PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 FEM requirements in 40 CFR Part 53 • 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.

5. FEM & ARM Written Template User Notes • 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.

6. FEM & ARM Written Application Summary Text in RED indicates differences between the two templates Spreadsheet template intended to address attachment in GREEN text

7. Drop down menus included in Title Sheet Select PM2.5 or PM10-2.5 and Class II or III Select Test Site A, B, C, or D FEM Spreadsheet Template in Excel Instructions Title

8. Outlier test does not apply in Candidate Sheet Outlier test applies in FRM sheet Data Entry Cells are the only unlocked cells Daily summary of: Validity, Mean in ug/m3, Precision in ug/m3, CV in % Data Entry Sheets and Daily Calculations Raw FRM Data Raw Candidate Data

9. Each column can be sorted for daily mean, precision, or relative precision Holding the pointer over a cell may result in appearance of comment box Summary calculations for FRM and candidate precision Summary calculations for valid data sets, CCV, Slope, Intercept, and Correlation Intermediate Calculations Precision Regression

10. Criteria for number of valid data sets with test Criteria for Precision with test Criteria for Slope (multiplicative bias), Intercept (additive bias), and Correlation with test Illustration of Bias acceptance limits with result for candidate method Summary Sheet

11. Notes • 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: hanley.tim@epa.gov • Fax: (919) 541-1903 • Expect final in March 2007; also on AMTIC web site • Acknowledgments • EPA ORD • Robert Vanderpool • Elizabeth Hunike • RTI • Frank McElroy