NADP TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING
NETWORK OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 1996
REVISION OF THE NADP/NTN QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
- A 1993 revision was scheduled based on review comments from a 1992 ad hoc group, which
included Sandy Verry, Cary Eaton and Gary Stensland.
- AIRMon and MDN drafted independent QA Plans for their subnetworks (1994) but it was
decided to incorporate these documents into the NADP QA Plan.
- It was decided that the QA Plan should remain a 'living document' at the 1994 Fall
Technical Meeting. Lear suggested that the Coordination Office make the changes to the QA
Plan and work with a review team consisting of John Robertson, Gary Lear, Molly Welker,
Scott Dossett, Mark Nilles and Jane Rothert.
- John Robertson and Gary Lear met in July 1996 to outline and discuss the revisions of
the QA Plan. They incorporated the ad hoc group comments, recent protocol changes, and
Coordination Office audit suggestions.
- Molly Welker drafted an annotated outline of revisions needed in each chapter (Fall
1996) and will work with the review team to move forward on getting the revisions
completed in 1997.
Summary of mayor revisions in NADP QA Plan
- Acknowledge the Technical Editors of the 1990 version and state the major changes made
to the revision (i.e., AIRMon & MDN, the bucket-bottle protocol, etc.).
- Include summary tables:
- Of network protocol changes and dates that have occurred (i.e, o-ring study, addition of
check sample, electrode change, bucket-bottle protocol, and pH check solution change).
- On analytical changes ( i.e., instruments, procedures and analysts).
- With the type of data in the database and tabulation of how the completeness criteria
- Make reference to the key QA documents and (i.e., Instruction Manual, Site Selection and
Installation Manual, Laboratory QA Report, External QA Reports, and Site Visitation
Report), where they are kept on file and how to order them.
Chapter 1: Overview of Quality Assurance Program
- Eliminate reference to dry deposition, and give history of protocol change.
- Update tables and charts to reflect funding sources, the NADP Organization including the
Committee Structure and Coordination Office, and include AIRMon & MDN.
- Eliminate all reference to the QA Steering Committee and redefine where these
responsibilities now belong in the NADP Subcommittee structure and with the QA Manager.
- Remedial Action Plan Revisions
DEFINITION OF THE REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN:
The Remedial Action Plan describes the sequence of actions taken to resolve problems of
noncompliance with NADP procedures, protocols, and criteria. The plan applies to
violations of sampling protocols and siting criteria by established sites, unacceptable
laboratory and data management procedures, and a site's failure to participate in QA
REVISION OF THE NADP REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN:
- The revision is necessary to 'put to rest' a number of outstanding remedial action items
relating to local and regional violations of NADP siting guidelines.
- Re: The NADP Siting Criteria were arbitrary goals defined to give site sponsors a sense
of network consistency and address representativeness for data users.
- It is unclear how siting violations affect the data quality.
- New sites meet the majority of NADP siting criteria goals but there are many established
sites that have deviations from the original siting criteria
- Many of the violations are reflective of an urban environment. Therefore, these
violations should be thought of as an 'exception' to the original goals for remote sites
since these sites are representative of the regional climate.
- Resolution of many of these pending violations will be vary labor intensive to resolve
and many can not be changed (i.e., can't move the city of Miami away from FL11). This task
is unlikely to be accomplished within the current CO staffing framework.
- Reporting of remedial actions, not only at sites but also at the lab and in data
management, are now directed to the Subcommittees and in the past onto the QASC, which has
recently been eliminated. There is currently no successful procedure in place to report
the violations or to resolve them through the Committee structure. Therefore, I propose
the following revisions to the Remedial Action Plan:
Proposal on Revisions to the Remedial Action Plan:
1. CAL should continue to make decisions on operation issues and code
samples accordingly (SP code) and enter it into the database. Or for example, CAL has
given sites an exception for not doing field chemistry or having their collectors painted
a different color.
Are their other sampling protocol that CAL gives an exception to without the sample
Do we want to give CAL the of official authority to grant these exceptions, which are
considered to be chronic performance problems, since they have unofficially been handling
them? This will reflect how remedial action is actually accomplished in the network
Re: Siting Criteria violations are not currently documented in the database. It is not
appropriate to invalidate samples because of siting violations since it is unclear how
these deviations effect the site's data quality.
2. CO Site Liaison will try to resolve chronic siting criteria
violations for 6 months after notification of the violation with the site operator and
site sponsor at established sites. If it remains unresolved then the violation is
documented in the database.
3. We accept the pending exceptions and document them in the database
4. As conditions change at established sites, noted by Site Visitation
Reports or correspondence with the Site Liaisons, these changes will be documented in the
5. A new data product will be made available to the data users to
allow them to use these deviations from the NADP Siting Criteria for research on their
effects on the data quality. This will not be an inclusive database but will include the
current pending violations and those discovered in future Site Visitation reports and Site