Quality Systems for Hydrocarbon Analyses: Similarities and Differences between EPA, ASTM and GPA Methods – Considerations for a more Unified Approach

Oral Presentation

Prepared by R. Vitale1, W. Bover2, A. Tachovski3, M. Green1, D. Gratson1
1 - Environmental Standards, 1140 Valley Forge Road, Valley Forge, PA, 19482, United States
2 - WJB Consulting LLC, 1218 Christine Circle, Scotch Plains, NJ, 07076-2629, United States
3 - Sabine River Partners, 4521 Red River Street, Austin, TX, 78751, United States

Contact Information: rvitale@envstd.com; 610-935-5577


The quality of data generated by a measurement process has been, and continues to be, an integral aspect of the decision-making processes that use this data. When new regulations are established, based in part on data sets collected by measurement processes, it is critical that the quality control practices specified in existing methods be followed, and also that the data set is subject to independent verification/validation. The continuing move toward performance-based measurement systems (PBMS) and the increasing role of voluntary consensus-based standards bodies (VCSB) in the PBMS framework places additional quality demands on generators and users of data. Two recent topical issues that illustrate the importance of data quality demands and needs include the Tier III gasoline standards, which became effective January 1, 2016, and flash gas emission data requests associated with oil and gas production facilities. This presentation will provide an overview of the quality systems established within US EPA methods, ASTM, and GPA methods for hydrocarbon analysis highlighting similarities and differences. Considerations will be offered to help move toward a more unified approach for data quality.