1 / 28

Quality Management Report

Quality Management Report. Christopher Lehmann, NADP QA Manager NADP Interim Subcommittee Meeting March 2004. Outline. HAL Review Closure Quality Management Plan & Network Quality Assurance Plan Status Quality Systems & Program Office Data Management Review

hall
Download Presentation

Quality Management Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality Management Report Christopher Lehmann, NADP QA Manager NADP Interim Subcommittee Meeting March 2004

  2. Outline • HAL Review Closure • Quality Management Plan & Network Quality Assurance Plan Status • Quality Systems & Program Office Data Management Review • Site Surveys: Status, Remedial Action Follow-up & Documentation

  3. 1. HAL Review Closure (motion to approve?)

  4. 2003 Review of the Mercury Analytical Laboratory (HAL)Seattle, WA; June 2003 Mark Peden, Brooke Connor, Steve Lindberg, James Lynch, Chris Rogers, and Chris Lehmann NADP Technical Committee Meeting October 2003

  5. Review Response • HAL presented review response to Joint Session, distributed to NOS & DMAS • NOS & DMAS requested Review Team to: • review the response report • make recommendations for its approval • outline follow-up action items for subcommittees • report before Interim Subcommittee Meeting

  6. Review Team’s Recommendation • “…The HAL has submitted a thorough, thoughtful, and acceptable response to the Team's suggestions and recommendations…. “ • Recommend response report be approved • Review team identified actions requiring follow-up in NOS & DMAS

  7. Follow-up Issues for NOS & DMAS • Sample archive program for MDN • MDN field QA program status • External review of annual QA reports • Network Equipment Depot support of MDN • Raingage chart reading issues • Undefined sample protocol • MDN database consistency • Updates to field SOPs and field manual • Operator comments • Sample Quality Rating (QR) codes

  8. 2. Quality Management Plan & Network Quality Assurance Plan Status

  9. NADP Quality Management Plan (QMP) • NADP’s first QMP approved by Technical Committee in October 2003 • Final version approved by Program Chair in December 2003 • Available electronically on NADP Internet site under “Publications”

  10. Network QA Plan (QAP) Status • Combined Network QAP for NTN, MDN & AIRMoN • Outline presented to QAAG in October 2003 • Final draft by Fall 2004 Technical Committee Meeting

  11. MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS Network Operations Laboratory Operations 1995 AIRMoN QA Plan 1991 NTN QA Plan 1997 MDN QA Plan HAL QA Plan CAL QA Plan NADP Network QA Plan NADP Quality Management Plan

  12. 3. Quality Systems & Program Office Data Management Review

  13. Quality Systems Review • Purpose: External review of Program Office Quality Assurance and Data Management operations to ensure that data quality meets user Data Quality Objectives • Mandated by Quality Management Plan (to occur every 3 years)

  14. Quality System Reviews, cont. • First review in 2004 • 3-member team appointed by Program Chair • Format set by QAAG (draft Guidelines for NADP Quality System Reviews distributed for QAAG review)

  15. 4. Site Surveys: Status, Remedial Action Follow-up, & Documentation (seeking input)

  16. Site Remedial Action Plan • Survey data received at Program Office from ATS • Site plan view prepared/updated • Survey data verified, site survey summary report issued to site operator, supervisor, and funding agency (goal: 3 months after receiving data) • Report responses documented (~2 months after report sent) • Site plan view, siting criteria posted to NADP web site (~6 months after survey) • All actions documented in database

  17. Input on Survey Reports to Sites • Is the current summary report appropriate and effective? • Convey needed information? • Appropriate items included? • Clear status/clarification messages? • Appropriate format? • Clear requests for follow-up on remedial actions?

  18. Remedial Action StatusSurveys Since 2002 51 Reports Posted to NADP Web Site

  19. Siting Issues

  20. Siting Issues • 5-m & 45 degree clearance + vegetation (average per site): • NTN = 1.0 • MDN = 1.2 • AIRMoN = 1.2 • Parking lots, storage + mobile sources • NTN = 0.5 • MDN = 0.6 • AIRMoN = 0.2

  21. Input on Siting Criteria on NADP Web Site • Is the siting criteria information posted appropriate and effective? • Convey needed and beneficial information to data users? • Appropriate format? • Appropriate items included?

  22. Siting Remedial Actions • What to do about remedial actions since site survey? • Sites surveyed only once every 3+ years • How do we determine “remedial actions” • Is documentation needed for remedial actions? • How should site changes be conveyed to data users

  23. NDAMN Sampler

More Related