xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems EPA/600/4-86/012
RfseaSnangle Park NC 2771 1
FebrUary 1 986
Research and Development
Precision and
Accuracy
Assessments for
State and Local Air
Monitoring
Networks, 1983
-------
EPA/600/4-86/012
PRECISION AND ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS
FOR STATE AND LOCAL AIR MONITORING NETWORKS
1983
by
Raymond C. Rhodes
Quality Assurance Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
E. Gardner Evans
Monitoring and Assessment Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Measurement and monitoring research efforts are designed to anticipate
potential environmental problems, to support regulatory actions by develop-
ing an in-depth understanding of the nature and processes that impact health
and the ecology, to provide innovative means of monitoring compliance with
regulations, and to evaluate the effectiveness of health and environmental
protection efforts through the monitoring of long-term trends. The Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
lina, has the responsibility for assessment of environmental monitoring
technology and systems; implementation of agency-wide quality assurance
programs for air pollution measurement systems; and supplying technical
support to other groups in the Agency including the Office of Air and Radi-
ation, the Office of foxic Substances, and the Office of Enforcement.
Ambient air quality data collected by states and local agencies are
used in planning the nation's air pollution control strategy, in deter-
mining if National Air Quality Standards are being achieved, and in deter-
mining long-term trends of air quality. Prior to the regulations of May 10,
1979, the procedures used in site selection, controlling equipment, and
calculating and validating data varied considerably among agencies. To
improve and make more uniform the quality assurance programs of the state
and local agencies and to require the assessment and reporting of data
quality estimates for precision and accuracy, the May 10, 1979 regulations
were issued. Reporting of precision and accuracy data were required begin-
ning for calendar year 1981. Previous reports summarized the results for
1981 and 1982. This report summarizes and evaluates the results for 1983.
Thomas R. Hauser, Ph.D.
Director
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Precision and accuracy data obtained from State and local agencies
during 1983 are summarized and evaluated. Some comparisons are made with
the results previously reported for 1981 and 1982 to determine the indica-
tion of any trends. Some trends indicated improvement in the completeness
of reporting of precision and accuracy data. The national summaries indi-
cate a slight improvement in the precision and accuracy assessments of the
pollutant monitoring data collected. The annual results from each reporting
organization are given so that comparisons may be made from 1981 to 1983
and also with other reporting organizations.
A comparison of the precision and accuracy data from the Precision and
Accuracy Reporting System and that from the independent performance audit
program conducted by the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory is
given.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Abstract ..... iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgment ix
1. Introduction 1
2. National Results 4
National Data Reporting 4
National Activity in Performing Precision
Checks and Accuracy Audits 4
1983 Results from the PARS program 5
National Precision Results Comparison .... 9
National Accuracy Results Comparison 10
National Frequencies ..... 11
3. Regional Results 15
Regional Data Reporting 15
Regional Comparisons 19
4. Results by Reporting Organizations 29
5. Further Evaluation of PARS Data 31
Comparison of National Limit Values and 50
Percentile Values 34
6. Comparison of Results from the PARS and the Performance
Audit Program 36
7. Conclusions and Recommendations 46
References 47
Appendix A - Glossary A-l
Appendix B - Formulas for Combining Probability Limits B-l
Appendix C - Listing of Reporting Organizations C-l
Appendix D - Precision and Accuracy Data by Reporting Organization . D-l
Appendix E - Comparisons of PARS and Performance Audit Data .... E-l
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1. National Precision Values for 1981, 1982 and 1983 10
2. National Accuracy Values for 1981, 1982 and 1983 11
3. CO Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981,
1982 and 1983 21
4. Contiuous S02 Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981,
1982 and 1983 . 22
5. Continuous N02 Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981,
1982 and 1983 23
6. Ozone Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981,
1982 and 1983 24
7. TSP Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981,
1982 and 1983 25
8. Lead Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981, 1982
and 1983 26
9. Manual S02 Precision and Accuracy by Regions for 1981,
1982 and 1983 27
10. Manual N02 Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981,
1982 and 1983 28
lla. Comparison of PA and PARS for CO (Level 3) 39
lib. Comparison of PA and PARS for TSP (Level 2) 39
lie. Comparison of PA and PARS for Manual N02 (Level 3) 40
lid. Comparison of PA and PARS for Manual S02 (Level 3) 40
lie. Comparison of PA and PARS for Pb (Level 2) 40
llf. Comparison of PA and PARS for Continuous S02 (Level 3) 41
12. Comparison of PA and PARS, National Values, 1983 42
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Requirements for Performing Precision Checks for
SLAMS Network
2. Concentration Levels for Conducting Accuracy
Audits of SLAMS Network
3. National Percent Data Reporting for Required Precision
and Accuracy ....
4. Year-to-Year Actl- ity of Precision and Accuracy
Assessments for the Manual Methods
5. Year-to-Year Activity of Precision and Accuracy
Assessments for the Continuous Methods 7
6. National Precision and Accuracy Probability Limit Values
for Manual Methods 8
7. National Precision and Accuracy Probability Limit Values
for Automated Analyzers 9
8. Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Quarterly Probability
Limits for All Reporting Organizations (1983) 13
9. Total Number of Reporting Organizations Required to Report
by Pollutant for the Year 1983 15
10. Percentage of SLAMS Sites with Complete Data in PARS
for the Year 1983 16
11. Number of Reporting Organizations Having Data in the PARS
Master File for the Year 1983 29
12. Comparison of the 50-Percentile Frequency Distribution
Values with the National Limit Values for 1983 31
13. Values of Quarterly Probability Limits Considered as
Excessive Based on 1983 Data 35
14. Summary Comparison of EMSL Performance Audits (PA) vs.
PARS Accuracy Audit Data for Year 1983 37
vii
-------
TABLES (cont.)
Number Page
D-l. CO Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-3
D-2. Continuous S02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-7
D-3. Continuous N02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-12
D-4. Ozone Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-16
D-5. TSP Precision and Accuracy Annual Values for
Reporting Organizations . D-22
D-6. Pb Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations . D-27
D-7. Manual S02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-31
D-8. Manual N02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-32
E-l. PARS and PA Data for CO, Pb, TSP, N02 (Manual) and S02
(Manual) Methods E-2
E-2. PARS and PA Data for S02 Continuous Methods E-72
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express appreciation to the following persons and organi-
zations who assisted in the preparation of this report: the States and
local agencies, for performing and reporting the results of the precision
checks and accuracy audits; the Regional Office persons responsible for
reviewing and coordinating the reporting of the precision and accuracy data
to EMSL/RTP; Robert L. Lampe, for reviewing and processing the precision
and accuracy reports received from the Regional organizations; Douglas Rice
and Robert Lyon, Computer Sciences Corporation, for the computer program-
ing, processing, and summarization of the precision and accuracy data;
Edward Barrows, Northrop Services, Incorporated, for programming and re-
porting of the comparii ons of the results of the EMSL performance audit
program with the precision and accuracy data; and to Elizabeth Hunike,
EMSL, for typing this report.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to report the third year of data from
the Precision and Accuracy Reporting System (PARS). Federal regulations
promulgated on May 10, 1979, require quality assurance precision and accu-
racy (P and A)* data to be collected. Collection started January 1, 1981,
according to requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A.1 These
requirements provide for more uniform Quality Assurance programs and speci-
fic precision and accuracy reporting requirements across all State and
local air monitoring agencies.
The major portion of this report consists of summarizations and evalua-
tions of the P and A data obtained by the efforts of the States and local
agencies. In addition, comparisons have been made of the accuracy data
collected for PARS with the results of the National Performance Audit
Program (NPAP) which has been an ongoing program conducted by the Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) since the early 1970fs.
These summarizations and evaluations of precision and accuracy data
serve the following purposes:
1. Quantitative estimates of the precision and accuracy of their
ambient air monitoring data are available to State and local
agencies.
2. A comparison of the data from all the agencies may indicate the
need to improve quality assurance systems in specific reporting
organizations.
3. An evaluation of the results may indicate a need for improvement
in monitoring methodology.
4. The assessments provide users of data from the State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) network a quantitative estimate of the
precision and accuracy of the ambient air quality data.
*When one speaks of precision and accuracy of measurement data,2 one really
means the precision and accuracy of the measurement process from which the
measurement data are obtained. Precision is a measure of the "repeatability
of the measurement process under specified conditions." Accuracy is a meas-
ure of "closeness to the truth."
-------
Ambient air quality data, collected by States and local agencies since
1957, have been stored in the National Aerometric Data Bank (NADB). These
data are used in (1) planning the nation's air pollution control strategy,
(2) determining if the National Air Quality Standards are being achieved,
and (3) determining long-term trends of air quality. Prior to the EPA air
monitoring regulations of May 10, 1979, the procedures used in selecting
monitoring sites, operating and controlling the equipment, and calculating,
validating and reporting the data varied considerably among agencies. Fre-
quently the procedures being used were not well-documented. These condi-
tions made it difficult to intercompare data from different sites and
agencies. Furthermore, little information was available on the reliability
of the monitoring data.
To help alleviate these problems, EPA's air monitoring regulations
imposed uniform criteria on network design, siting, quality assurance, moni-
toring methods, and data reporting after December 30, 1980. For example,
only EPA reference, equivalent, or other EPA-approved air monitoring methods
were to be used. Also, calibration standards were to be traceable to the
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) or other authoritative standards. Fur-
ther, the quality assurance systems of the states were required to be
documented and approved by the EPA Regional Offices. Finally, the report-
ing organizations must also follow specific procedures when assessing the
P&A of their measurement systems and must report the P&A data to EPA quar-
terly. Starting January 1, 1981, these regulations became effective for
National Air Monitoring Sites (NAMS), and beginning January 1, 1983, for
all State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS).
The precision assessments were determined by performing repeated meas-
urements on ambient-level "calibration" gases at two-week intervals for
continuous methods, or by obtaining duplicate results from collocated sam-
plers for manual methods. Table 1 summarizes the requirements for perform-
ing precision checks. The accuracy assessments were generally determined
by analyzing blind audit materials traceable to NBS. Table 2 shows the
concentration levels. During each calendar year, each site or instrument
must be audited at least once. Details concerning the specific procedures
and computations used to assess P&A are contained in the regulations.
TABLE 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMING PRECISION CHECKS
FOR SLAMS NETWORK
Parameter
Precision check level
Frequency
CO (continuous analyzer)
S02, N02, and 03
(continuous analyzer)
TSP, S02, and N02
(manual)
Pb
8-10 ppm
0.08 - 0.10 ppm
Collocated sampler
(Ambient concentration)
Duplicate strips
(Ambient concentration)
Once each 2 weeks
Once each 2 weeks
Once each 6 days
Once each 6 days
-------
TABLE 2. CONCENTRATION LEVELS FOR CONDUCTING
ACCURACY AUDITS OF SLAMS NETWORK
Parameter
S02, N02, 03
(continuous)
CO
TSP (flow only)
S02 (manual)*
N02 (manual)*
Pb**
Level 1
0.03-0.08 ppm
3-8 ppm
0.013-0.020 ppm
0.018-0.028 ppm
0.6-1.8 yg/m3
Level 2
0.15-0.20 ppm
15-20 ppm
1.13-1.70 m3/min
0.033-0.040 ppm
0.046-0.055 ppm
3.5-5.9 yg/m3
Level 3
0.35-0.45
ppm
35-45 ppm
0.053-0.059
ppm
0.074-0.083
ppm
Level 4
0.80-0.90
ppm
80-90 ppm
Concentration levels corresponding to flow rates of .2 L/min
**Concentration levels corresponding to flow rates of 50 cfm.
When a request is made to the NADB for ambient air quality monitoring
data, the requestor receives the P and A data along with the routine moni-
toring data. The requestor, or user, of the data can feel more confident
that the data are of the quality indicated by the assessments and that the
data have been obtained from an agency having a planned and documented
quality assurance system. The EPA can also rely on the data in producing
its control strategies and determining whether standards have been met.
-------
SECTION 2
NATIONAL RESULTS
NATIONAL DATA REPORTING
Measures of data reporting are the percentages of reporting organiza-
tions which were required to report data for particular pollutants and
which have reported results for at least one calendar quarter for those
pollutants. Table 3 shows the progress in data reporting over the years
1981, 1982 and 1983. Improvement continues for the continuous N02 method;
however, the percentage still lags behind that for continuous CO, S02 and 03
methods. Reporting for the manual methods for Pb, S02 and N02 was required
by the regulations beginning January 1, 1983. The fact that 1983 was the
first year for reporting the manual S02 and N02 methods is perhaps one
reason for the percentage data reporting being somewhat low. Another reason
may be the fact that these manual methods are being replaced by the contin-
uous methods, which are much more precise and accurate.
The reporting organizations which should have reported data for 1983
but did not are listed in Section 3.
TABLE 3. NATIONAL PERCENT DATA REPORTING FOR
REQUIRED PRECISION AND ACCURACY
Pollutant
measurement
CO
S02
N02
03
TSP
Pb
S02 (manual)
N02 (manual)
1981
77
82
56
83
94
~
1982
89
93
72
89
97
1983
99
96
88
99
99
93
75
86
NATIONAL ACTIVITY IN PERFORMING PRECISION CHECKS AND ACCURACY AUDITS
A review of Tables 4 and 5 clearly indicates the considerable increase
In the number of precision checks from the beginning of the PARS system
through 1983 for all pollutant methods. The increase in effort resulted
-------
because of the effectivity of the regulation requirements for P and A data
for the NAMS sites on January 1, 1981 and for the SLAMS on January 1, 1983.
The reduction in the manual N0£ and S02 methods has no doubt resulted
from the replacement of the manual methods with continuous analyzers.
For the manual methods, Table 4 shows the average number of data pairs
per collocated site for precision checks and the average number of accuracy
audits per sampler. If the collocated samplers are operated every sixth day,
there should be 365/6=61 data pairs per year, assuming that all the results
are above the detection limit. This level of precision checks is being ap-
proached for the TSP, Pb, and N0£ methods, but for the manual SC>2 method,
the number of precision checks is only about 50 percent of the required num-
ber. The regulations require that each TSP sampler/site be audited for accu-
racy at least once each year, and that the other manual methods be audited
at least twice per quarter. The computed average number of audits per
sampler is well above the required frequency.
For the continuous methods, the minimum frequency for precision checks
is once every two weeks or 26 per year. Table 5 indicates that each year
nearly 60 precision checks are made per analyzer for the S02 method and be-
tween 35 and 40 for the other methods. The regulations require at least
one accuracy audit per analyzer/site per year. The table indicates that
this requirement is being met on the average for only the CO method. The
average number of audits per analyzer for the S02, N02 and 03 methods indi-
cates that from 5 to 14 percent of the analyzers are not being audited as
required by the regulations. (Note: The tabulated values consider only
the audits at the three lower concentration levels. Analyzers used for
episode monitoring, requiring level four audits, are not considered.)
1983 RESULTS FROM THE PARS PROGRAM
The measures of precision and accuracy are required to be computed and
reported for each calendar quarter by each Reporting Organization (a State
or local agency) as percentage values. For precision, the repeatability
for each check is measured as the deviation from expected values as a
percentage of the expected value. For accuracy, the deviation of the audit
value from the true value is measured as a percentage of the true value.
For both precision and accuracy, 95 percent probability limits are computed
for the percentage values from the average and standard deviations of the
individual percentage values:
-------
TABLE 4. YEAR-TO-YEAR ACTIVITY OF PRECISION AND ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MANUAL METHODS
Pollutant
TSP
Pb
N02
S02
Year
1981
1982
1983
1981
1982
1983
1981
1982
1983
1981
1982
1983
Avg. no. of
samplers
2,334
2,538
2,662
73
164
452
185
83
77
172
63
46
Precision
Avg. no. of
collocated
sites
317
338
342
13
32
76
38
25
25
34
21
15
No. of valid
collocated
data pairs
13,335
16,281
16,816
473
1,704
3,885
1,422
1,168
1,324
965
706
389
No. of
data pairs
per site
42.1
48.2
49.2
36.4
53.2
51.1
37.4
46.7
53.0
28.4
33.6
25.9
Accuracy
No. of
audits
x levels
5,840
6,461
6,989
581
655
1,389
769
583
348
711
551
301
No. of
audits per
sampler
2.5
2.6
2.6
4.0
2.0
1.5
4.2
2.3
1.5
1.4
2.9
1.1
-------
TABLE 5. YEAR-TO-YEAR ACTIVITY OF PRECISION AND ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CONTINUOUS METHODS
Pollutant
CO
S02
N02
03
Year
1981
1982
1983
1981
1982
1983
1981
1982
1983
1981
1982
1983
Avg. no. of
analyzers
282
354
447
420
566
633
127
193
235
404
514
598
Precision
No. of
precision
checks
8,248
13,089
15,714
10,851
23,144
36,887
2,498
6,876
9,299
10,536
18,964
21,342
Precision
checks
per analyzer
29.2
37.0
35.2
25.8
36.6
58.3
19.7
35.6
39.6
26.1
36.9
35.7
Accuracy
No. of
accuracy
audits x levels
856
1S180
1,501
1,016
1,248
1,625
320
442
635
1,162
1,328
1,705
No. of
audits
per analyzer
1.01
1.11
1.12
0.81
0.73
0.86
0.84
0.76
0.90
0.96
0.86
0.95
-------
D ± 1.96 S
where D = the average of the individual percent differences;
S = the standard deviation of the individual percent differences;*
1.96 = the multiplication factor corresponding to 95% probability.
It is these upper and lower 95% probability limits which are reported and
discussed in this report.
Moreover, it should be noted that the data and the evaluations present-
ed in this report include any outlier values which may have been reported
by the States and local agencies. It is possible that the presence of
outliers might influence such comparisons by having undue impact on average
values for individual reporting organizations.
Table 6 exhibits the national values for each of the manual pollutants.
The probability limits in Tables 6 and 7 represent the unweighted arithmetic
averages of all the reported probability limits for 1983. Historically,
probability limits have been combined in this manner for this report. Thus,
for continuity and comparisons to show trends, the unweighted average meth-
od was used here. A more statistically pure procedure for combining proba-
bility limits, which is described in Appendix B, is now being used in EPA's
PARS system. By examining the numbers of valid collocated data pairs
(16,816) and the number of audits (6989) performed for TSP, one can appre-
ciate the amount of effort being expended in this country to obtain these
data quality assessments.
TABLE 6. NATIONAL PRECISION AND ACCURACY PROBABILITY
LIMIT VALUES FOR MANUAL METHODS FOR 1983
Pollutant
TSP
Lead
Sulfur
dioxide
Nitrogen
dioxide
Precision
Number of
valid col-
located
data pairs
16,816
3,885
389
1,324
Probability
limits (%)
Lower Upper
-11 +12
-14 +15
-28 +41
-19 +21
Accuracy
No. of
audits
6,989
1,389
301
348
Probability limits (%)
Level 1
Lower Upper
rm -_ .-
-8 +7
-14 +7
-6 +10
Level 2
Lower Upper
-6 +6
-6 +4
-9 +5
-5 +6
Level 3
Lower Upper
^«i miT-.a
-7 +4
-5 +6
*For the precision of manual methods obtained from paired observations, the
standard deviation, S, is divided by /2, to obtain variability estimates
that apply to individual reported values.
-------
The precision limits reflect the repeatability of the methodology used
in the field to collect and analyze the samples at ambient levels. The
spread of the limits may be somewhat inflated due to measurements at rela-
tively low concentration levels.
The accuracy of the manual methods indicates the limits at predeter-
mined concentration levels for the chemical analysis performed in the
samples for lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. For the TSP meth-
od, the accuracy measurement is for the flow rate only. The probability
limits for manual accuracy are very good and reflect the quality of work done
in the chemical laboratories for lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide
analyses, and in the field for flow rate measurement for the TSP method.
Because of the continual replacement of the manual S02 and N0£ methods with
continuous methods, further discussion of the manual methods is limited.
The detailed results, however, are tabulated in Appendix D for each report-
ing organization.
The precision and accuracy limits for automated methods are presented
in Table 7. Apparent from the number of precision checks, for example
36,887 for S(>2, the effort expended is appreciable for the collection of
quality assurance precision and accuracy data, but necessary to assess data
quality. Details of the results are discussed in the analysis section.
TABLE 7. NATIONAL PRECISION AND ACCURACY PROBABILITY
LIMIT VALUES FOR AUTOMATED ANALYZERS FOR 1983
S02
03
CO
N02
Precision
No. of
precision
checks
36,887
21,342
15,714
9,299
Probability
limits (%)
Lower Upper
-13 +8
-10 +9
-8 +6
-13 +12
Accuracy
No. of
audits
1,791
1,920
1,515
680
Probability limits (%)
Level 1
Lower Upper
-15 +10
-11 +10
-12 +9
-19 +15
Level 2
Lower Upper
-12 +10
-8 +7
-6 +6
-12 +9
Level 3
Lower Upper
-11 +9
-8 +6
-5 +4
-11 +6
NATIONAL PRECISION RESULTS COMPARISON
Figure 1 shows the national values for precision for the various meth-
ods. With data from three years, some minor trends are evident. Some
slight improvement, as measured by a reduction in the spread of the limits,
is noted for TSP and the continuous methods, except for N02« The persis-
tent negative bias for the continuous S02 method indicates that on the av-
erage there is some negative instrument drift from the most recent calibra-
tion or instrument adjustment to the time of the biweekly precision check.
Although the manual methods for Pb, S02, and N02 were not required to
be reported until 1983, a number of agencies began reporting in 1981. The
-------
results for Pb show a decided improvement. The manual S02 and N0£ methods
are much more variable than the continuous methods, and, although the limits
were worse in 1982 than 1981, the results for 1983 are appreciably better
than in 1981.
NATIONAL. VALUES FOR PRECISION
1081-1882-1083
-68
«**>*
Figure 1. National precision values for 1981, 1982
and 1983.
NATIONAL ACCURACY RESULTS COMPARISON
Figures 2a and 2b show the national values for accuracy audits for the
manual and continuous methods, respectively. Improvement for the manual
methods is not evident except perhaps for Pb and S02 level 1. Slight im-
provement is evident for all the continuous methods. The continuous methods
for S02 and N(>2 show more inaccuracy than all other methods. However, it is
pointed out that the accuracy audits for the manual methods check only a
portion of the measurement method.
10
-------
NATIONAL VALUES FOR ACCURACY
1081-1082-1083
CONTINUOUS METHODS
NATIONAL VALUES FOR ACCURACY
1081-1982-1983
MANUAL METHODS
Figure 2. National accuracy values for 1981, 1982
and 1983.
The most consistent improvement has occurred with the 03 method. Al-
though the continuous N0£ method is more variable than the other methods,
it has shown the greatest improvement, particularly for the level 1 concen-
tration.
The general, and expected, pattern of variability across levels is
very evident, with the greatest percentage variability at the lowest con-
centration levels. The slight negative biases for the continuous S02 and
N(>2 methods are consistent across all three levels. This indicates that, on
the average, there appears to be a negative drift with these analyzers from
the time of last calibration or instrument adjustment until the time of the
accuracy audit.
NATIONAL FREQUENCIES
Table 8 contains the 1983 frequency distributions for precision prob-
ability limits and accuracy probability limits at levels 1, 2 and 3. The
frequencies are based on the total number of reporting-organization-quarters
of data. The individual quarter of data consists of an upper and lower
probability limit for precision, and upper and lower probability limits for
accuracy for each of the levels. The narrower the distribution, the better
the data quality. For example, for precision for CO, the upper 5 percen-
tile value for the upper limit is +14%, and the lower 5 percentile value
11
-------
for the lower limit is -18%. It can be seen from both Figure 2 and
Table 8 that CO shows the tightest range of the pollutants presented. The
variabilities shown in Table 8 are consistent with those shown in Figures 1
and 2. And, in general, the variabilities are less for 1983 than for the
corresponding values reported for 1982.3 The 95th percentiles provide cri-
teria beyond which a reported probability limit may be considered excessive
and for which the computation should be rechecked or the measurement system
investigated and corrected, if so indicated.
12
-------
TABLE 8. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF QUARTERLY PROBABILITY LIMITS FOR
ALL REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS (1983)
MANUAL METHODS
u>
POLLUTANT
LEVEL
111101 - TSP
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 2
112128 - PB
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
142602 - N02
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
- S02
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
NUMBER OF LOWER PROBABILITY LIMIT STD
REP.ORG.-QTR MIN 01* 05% 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 95% 99% MAX MEAN DEV
UPPER PROBABILITY LIMIT STD
MIN 01% 05% 10% 25% 50% 15% 90% 95% 99% MAX MEAN DEV
558
547
290
249
249
48
44
44
44
32
36
36
36
-71 -42 -26 -21 -14 -09 -06 -04 -02 +01 +07 -11
-36 -26 -15 -12 -08 -06 -03 -01 -00 +03 +08 -06
8.6 -23 +01 +02 +04 +07 +10 +15 +21 +29 +53 +99 +12 9.9
5.3 -29 -04 -01 +01 +03 +05 +09 +12 +16 +27 +52 +06 6.1
-95 -56 -38 -27 -18 -10 -06 -03 -01 -00 +02 -14 12.2 -02 -00 +01 +03 +06 +11 +20 +34 +46 +80 +99 + 15 15.1
-71 -31 -22 -17 -11 -06 -03 -00 +01 +07 +22 -08 8.5 -07 -04 -02 -00 +03 +06 +10 +16 +18 +30 +96 +07 10.0
-51 -26 -18 -14 -09 -05 -02 -00 +02 +06 +07 -06 6.5 -10 -06 -03 -01 +01 +03 +06 +11 +14 +29 +39 +04 6.0
-87 -87 -58 -38 -24 -16 -09 -06 -00 -00 -00 -19 16.3 -12 -12 -00 +01 +10 +15 +31 +48 +58 +80 +80 +21 18.9
-23 -23 -16 -13 -10 -05 -02 -01 -00 +05 +05 -06 5.3 +01 +01 +02 +03 +05 +07 +15 +25 +30 +32 +32 +10 8.1
-26 -26 -19 -16 -07 -02 -01 -00 -00 +01 +01 -05 6.6 -00 -00 +02 +03 +04 +06 +07 +10 +14 +23 +23 +06 4.1
-27 -27 -17 -13 -07 -03 -01 -00 +01 +03 +03 -05 6.5 +01 +01 +01 +01 +04 +05 +07 +09 + 15 +30 +30 +06 5.3
-99 -99 -99 -99 -53 -20 -00 +02 +25 +79 +79 -28 40.5 -00 -00 -00 -00 +10 +37 +75 +99 +99 +99 +99 +41 35.0
-46 -46 -44 -26 -17 -11 -07 -04 -01 -00 -00 -14 10.8 -05 -05 -00 -00 +03 +06 +09 +17 +24 +29 +29 +07 7.0
-36 -36 -31 -21 -12 -08 -03 -00 -00 +02 +02 -09 8.3 -02 -02 -00 +01 +02 +04 +08 +13 +14 +14 +14 +05 4.0
-23 -23 -22 -17 -09 -06 -03 -01 -00 -00 -00 -07 5.9 -02 -02 -01 +01 +02 +04 +06 +07 +08 +10 +10 +04 2.8
-------
(Continued)
TABLE 8. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF QUARTERLY PROBABILITY LIMITS FOR
ALL REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS (1983)
POLLUTANT
LEVEL
C42101 - CO
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
ACC-LVL 4
C42401 - S02
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
ACC-LVL 4
C42602 - N02
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
ACC-LVL 4
C44201 - 03
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
ACC-LVL 4
C42601 - NO
PRECISION
NUMBER 1
REP.ORG.-
382
303
303
300
9
411
313
316
312
40
261
178
180
179
16
431
332
331
330
43
3
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
LOWER PROBABILITY LIMIT STD
REP.ORG.-QTR. MIN 01% 05% 10% 255! 50% 75% 90% 95% 99% MAX MEAN DEV
-61 -35 -18 -14 -10 -07 -04 -03 -02 +02 +07 -08 6.5
-99 -52 -29 -24 -15 -09 -05 -01 -00 + 04 +06 -12 11.7
-44 -28 -18 -13 -08 -05 -02 -01 -00 +0
-------
SECTION 3
REGIONAL RESULTS
REGIONAL DATA REPORTING
All reporting organizations having SLAMS/NAMS sites for given pollu-
tants are required to report P and A data. The numbers of such reporting
organizations are listed in Table 9. Note that only four reporting organ-
izations use the manual S02 method at SLAMS sites and only seven use the
manual NO2 method.
TABLE 9. TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS REQUIRED
TO REPORT BY POLLUTANT FOR THE YEAR 1983
Automated
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Nation
CO
C42101
6
3
10
22
19
10
11
5
11
4
101
S02
C42401
6
4
11
24
23
11
9
4
9
3
104
methods
N02
C42602
4
2
12
14
14
10
5
3
9
2
75
03
044201
6
3
12
25
22
10
11
3
11
2
105
Manual methods
TSP
111101
6
4
16
32
28
14
12
9
12
4
137
Pb
112128
5
3
9
9
14
10
7
3
8
4
72
S02
142401
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
N02
141602
0
0
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
7
The breakdown of data completeness (defined as the percentage of re-
porting organizations which reported P&A data to EPA as required each
quarter) is given in Table 10.
15
-------
TABLE 10. PERCENTAGE OF REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS WITH
COMPLETE DATA IN PARS FOR THE YEAR 1983
Automated
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Nation
CO
C42101
85
92
100
83
78
91
78
68
77
88
83
S02
C42401
92
66
100
79
77
82
69
100
60
88
80
pollutants
N02 03
C42602 044201
56
100
96
51
65
70
68
92
58
81
69
79
96
99
81
76
96
80
96
75
94
84
TSP
111101
98
72
99
97
99
95
97
96
82
100
95
Manual
pollutants
Pb S02
112128 142401
95
75
88
78
89
83
66
75
59
59
79
.
94
._
50
72
N02
141602
100
75
100
63
0
73
NOTE: Means no data was required, there being no SLAMS sites for these
pollutants.
For some reason, on a national basis, the percentages of reporting or-
ganizations submitting complete reports have decreased somewhat from 1982.
Complete reporting is lowest for the continuous N02 method, only slightly
worse than for the S02 and N02 manual methods.
A number of reporting organizations having SLAMS/NAMS sites for cer-
tain pollutants have reported no precision or accuracy data for 1983 for
these pollutants:
16
-------
Reporting organization*
Region
I
II
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
State
NH
VI
VI
AL
AL
NC
TN
OH
IN
IN
IN
OK
LA
IA
MT
Number
30001
55001
55001
01011
01012
34003
44002
36004
15001
15002
15008
37102
19001
16002
27004
Name
New Hampshire
Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands
Alabama Dept. of Envir. Management
Jefferson County
Mecklenburg County
Memphis-Shelby County
Ohio EPA, SE District
State of Indiana
Evansville
Indianapolis
Oklahoma City-County
State of Louisiana
Linn County
Missoula City-Co. Health Dept.
Pollutant
N02
S02
TSP
S02
N02
N02
N02
S02
N02
N02
Pb
N02
Pb
N02
(manual)
CO
IX
NV 29100 State of Nevada
NV 29200 Washoe County
NV 29100 State of Nevada
NV 29300 Clark County
GU 54100 Guam
GU 54100 Guam
GU 54100 Guam
HI 12120 Hawaii
HI 12120 Hawaii
CA 05036 San Diego
CO
N02
03
Pb
S02
TSP
S02
(manual)
S02
N02
Pb
*A complete listing of the reporting organizations is given in Appendix C.
Precision and accuracy reporting for 1983 was complete only for the
following Region and pollutant combinations:
Region
II
III
III
III
V
VIII
X
Pollutant
N02
CO
S02
N02 (manual)
N02 (manual)
S02
TSP
17
-------
Considering the reporting for all pollutants and all reporting organi-
zations, the reporting organizations of Region III were most complete
(97%). Region VII data was the least complete.
Percentage of
Region reports complete
I 84
II 84
III 97
IV 80
V 83
VI 74
VII 65
VIII 88
IX 66
X 85
When considering the various pollutant methods across all Regions, re-
porting was most complete for TSP.
Percentage of
Pollutant reports complete
TSP 95
03 84
CO 83
S02 80
Pb 79
NO2 (manual) 73
S02 (manual) 72
N02 69
As for prior years, reporting is less complete for the continuous N02
method than for all other methods. Appropriate allowance has been made for
the quarters during which ozone is not monitored.
18
-------
REGIONAL COMPARISONS
Figures 3 through 10 compare the precision and accuracy probability
limits for 1981, 1982 and 1983. These comparisons are presented for each
Region and for the nation as a whole on a pollutant by pollutant basis.
CO
All regions indicate some improvement in precision and most show im-
provement in accuracy at all levels (Figure 3). Noted exceptions for accu-
racy are Regions II and VI, which show more variability than in 1981 and
1982.
S02
Most regions show improvement in precision (Figure 4). Regions I, II,
VI and IX indicate some degradation in accuracy. A negative bias persists
in both precision and accuracy.
NO
Most regions show improvement in precision and accuracy (Figure 5).
An exception for precision is Region X. Region VII continues to have the
greatest variability in precision. Region VII also shows greater variabil-
ity in accuracy at levels 1 and 2 than for previous years. The small nega-
tive bias in both precision and accuracy persists, similar to
The precisions for most regions have not changed appreciably from 1982
(Figure 6). Region VII appears to show improvement over the three years;
Region VIII appears to be getting worse. Slight improvement is indicated
for most regions for accuracy at the three levels.
TSP
The charts (Figure 7) consistently show appreciably more variability
in precision than accuracy. This results because the precision checks in-
volve the total measurement process whereas the accuracy audit applies only
to the flow portion of the process. On the average, minor improvements in
both precision and accuracy are evident.
Pb
Figure 8 shows considerable variability in both precision and accuracy
from region to region and also from year to year within some regions. This
may be partly explained by the fact that assessments for Pb were not offi-
cially required until 1983, for which the results appear more uniform across
regions. A noticeable negative bias exists for the level 2 accuracy audit
results.
19
-------
S02 (Manual)
The limits (Figure 9) are considerably wider for precision than for
accuracy, except for Region VI which has very tight limits for precision.
This large difference screams for an explanation. Wider limits for preci-
sion are expected since the results from collocated samplers involve the
entire measurement process, whereas the accuracy audits involve only the
chemical analytical portion. Negative biases in accuracy results are per-
sistent from year to year for Regions IV and IX, but not for other regions.
N02 (Manual)
The results (Figure 10) are similar to other manual methods in that
the precision limits are considerably wider than for accuracy. Regions V
and VII reported no precision data for 1981 and 1982.
General
Taking into account the minor trends of improvement, the general con-
sistency from year to year of the differences of results among pollutants
and among levels of the same pollutants on a national basis, and among re-
gions for given pollutants, is truly amazing. These appreciable differences
which persist from year to year strongly indicate that whatever forces or
causal factors are in action (at play) in each region and in each pollutant
measurement system are very persistent over the years. These significant
differences between regions should be investigated to identify the major
causal factors, since some regions consistently produce more precise and
accurate data than other regions.
Further, each region should evaluate the differences among the states
and reporting organizations in a similar graphical manner as shown by Fig-
ures 3 through 10. Then Investigations should be conducted to determine
why some states or reporting organizations produce better precision and
accuracy than others. Appropriate corrective actions should then be taken
to improve the precision and accuracy of the reporting organizations having
the worst results.
20
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE PRECISION
1881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
CARBON MONOXIDE ACCURACY LEVEL 1
1981-1982-1983
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
CARBON MONOXIDE ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1981-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
CARBON MONOXIDE ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1981-1982-1983
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
Figure 3. Carbon monoxide precision and accuracy by region for 1981,
1982, and 1983.
21
-------
$02 PRECISION
I08I-I082-I889
AUTOMATED ANALY2ERS
40-
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1981-1982-1983
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
-48
48
P
R 30~
0
s »-
B
i* "~
? -
L -10-
I
M
I -28-
T
S
-38-
X
I
1
(
*
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL »
1981-1982-1983
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
1"
a
n
i
i
j
fcrifl
1 :] : '
! v !: i^
: i j ]-^ j
H «2
D »3
n
; t
Ftf In
I1 it
3_ u L li
*>
40-
-38-
-40-
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1981-1982-1983
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
Figure 4. Continuous S02 precision and accuracy by region for 1981,
1982, and 1983.
22
-------
SB-
68-
N02 PRECISION
1881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
-80.
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL I
1881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
1
J
I
§ «2
D »
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
(881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
Figure 5. Continuous N02 precision and accuracy by region for 1981,
1982, and 1983.
23
-------
48-
S0-
20-
10-
OZONE PRECISION
1881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
-48-
OZONE ACCURACY LEVEL I
1881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
I
I
020NE ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
-48-
40-
38-
28-
18-
L-,e-
M
I -28-
T
S
-M-
X
-40-
OZONE ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1881-1882-1883
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
0 83
Figure 6. Ozone precision and accuracy by region for 1981, 1982,
and 1983.
24
-------
TSP PRECISION
1881-1882-1883
TSP ACCURACY
1881-1882-1883
Figure 7. TSP precision and accuracy by region for 1981, 1982,
and 1983.
25
-------
p
R
0
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
L
I
M
I
T
S
100
LEAD PRECISION
1981-1982-1883
MANUAL METHODS
80-
60-
40-
20-
-20-
-40-
-60-
-80-
D
-100-
40-
30-
20-
10-
L -10-
M
I -20-
T
S
-30-
X
-40-
LEAD ACOJRACY LEVEL t
1881-1882-1883
MANUAL METHODS
1"
§ «2
0 63
i^
48-
-40-
LEAD ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1881-1882-1883
MANUAL METHODS
Figure 8. Lead precision and accuracy by region for 1981,
1982, and 1983.
26
-------
60-
p 50-
40
j 20-
I >0-
T U.
-10-
I -20-
M
I -30-
T
S -40-
X -58-
-60-
1 l
a co CB c
i) CM -
a.QCOCQ -IHXHI-IO X
S02 PRECISION
1081-1082-1083
MANUAL METHODS
1 rfb
v
1 | 8,
1 B«
' 1 1" 1 1 1 1 1
1
P
g 20-
B
A
L
I
. T a
1 1
j a) co e
CM «
i i
>- -IHSCHI-W X
,
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 1
1081-1082-1083
MANUAL METHODS
i'
I
[
1
!«
] 83
1 *" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1081-1082-1083
MANUAL METHODS
.
|i V
1-
D M
"' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-
P
R «»
0 20-
B
A
B lft_
I IB
-, L
I
Y
L
1
X <0-)H3H
> rs)
> CD CO
1 L
-1
x
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1081-1082-1083
MANUAL METHODS
I 1
1 tfT ^
J ft
_
1-
SA9
ot
D w
1 l l -»«» ~T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> +4«f& 1 $ <£- <$ *
-------
~
P 58-
R
0 48-
e
A 38-
I 28-
J 18-
T
Y e
!: -18-
I
I
T
S -30-
x -«-
_cn-
N02 PRECISION
1881-1882-1883
MANUAL METHODS
41 1
KS
M
I;
1-
B 62
j
"1
fcU
D »
3
i
J
tj
S
»
So
p
D
0 28-
B
A
L
I
^
Y
L
I -10-
M
I
T
S -28-
X
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1881-1882-1883
MANUAL METHODS
1
62
D«
HI lirf^i ii
H ' 1*1 Mil H 1
H *1B 1KJ 1 j
J " 1
;
p
g 28-
B
A
I 18~
Y 8"
L
I -18-
M
I
T
S -28-
X
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 1
1881-1882-1883
MANUAL METHODS
1"
S 82
F
II
D «
« | Jl
ty j
'
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**
P
g 20-
B
A
B IB-
II ID
L
I
T a
Y
L
I -18-
M
I
T
S -28-
X
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1881-1882-1883
MANUAL METHODS
1"
S 82
D"
fi
I
1
i
J i i i i i i i i
**
Figure 10. Manual N02 precision and accuracy by region for 1981,
1982, and 1983.
28
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS BY REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Table 11 shows the total number of Reporting Organizations reporting
data to EMSL in 1983. By comparing the numbers between Tables 9 and 11,
one can see the extra effort exerted by some of the State and local agen-
cies to provide quality ssurance information in cases where they have no
SLAMS or NAMS sites. There are an additional 10 reporting organizations
for CO, 11 for continuous S02, 9 for continuous N02, 14 for ozone, 5 for
TSP, 17 for Pb, 20 for manual S02 and 22 for manual N02« Apparently,
these additional sites are special purpose monitoring sites or additional
local sites not in the SLAMS/NAMS network.
TABLE 11. NUMBER OF REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS HAVING DATA
IN THE PARS MASTER FILE FOR. THE YEAR 1983
Automated
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Nation
CO
C42101
6
3
12
30
19
11
11
5
10
4
111
S02
C42401
6
3
14
33
24
11
10
4
7
3
115
pollutants
N02
C42602
3
2
14
25
13
9
6
3
7
2
84
03
044201
6
3
14
36
24
10
11
3
10
2
119
TSP
111101
6
3
16
37
30
14
12
9
11
4
142
Manual
pollutants
Pb S02
112128 142401
5
3
9
29
13
10
7
3
6
3
89
0
0
0
21
0
1
0
0
1
1
24
N02
141602
0
0
1
22
2
2
1
0
0
1
29
Appendix D shows the annual combined upper and lower probability limits
for each reporting organization. Each reporting organisation can compare
their values with those of other reporting organisations and with the
regional and national values. Also given for each reporting organization
are the following informational items:
29
-------
Continuous methods
No. of SLAMS and NAMS sites
No. of analyzers
No. of precision checks
No. of accuracy audits
Manual methods
No. of SLAMS and NAMS sites
No. of samplers
No. of collocated sites
No. of accuracy audits
Any user of monitoring data from some specific site and time period
should obtain, from the local air monitoring agency, the precision and accu-
racy data for the specific sites and time periods involved.
NOTE: The regional and national probability limits shown in Appendix D have
been calculated according to the most correct statistical procedure described
in Appendix B, and do not agree with the unweighted arithmetical average val-
ues presented in the main body of the report. However, relative comparisons
among regions, pollutants, years, accuracy levels, and precision versus ac-
curacy comparisons are essentially the same by both methods.
30
-------
SECTION 5
FURTHER EVALUATION OF PARS DATA
Some interesting comparisons can be made by considering the correspond-
ing national averages of Tables 4 and 5 and the 50-percentile values of the
probability limits of Table 6. Table 12 compares these limits by consider-
ing the spread, or range, of the limits.
TABLE 12. COMPARISON OF THE 50-PERCENTILE FREQUENCY DISTRIBU-
TION VALUES WITH THE NATIONAL LIMIT VALUES FOR 1983
Manual methods
TSP
Pb
N02
S02
Precision
Accuracy*
Precision
Accuracy
Precision
Accuracy
Precision
Accuracy
Continuous methods
CO
03
N02
S02
Precision
Accuracy
Precision
Accuracy
Precision
Accuracy
Precision
Accuracy
National values
Lower
limit
-11
6
-14
- 6
-19
- 5
-28
- 9
- 8
- 6
-10
- 8
-13
-12
-13
-12
Upper
limit
12
6
15
4
21
6
41
5
6
6
9
7
12
9
8
10
Range
23
12
29
10
40
11
69
14
14
12
19
15
25
21
21
22
50-percentile
Lower
limit
- 9
- 6
-10
- 5
-16
- 2
-20
8
- 7
- 5
- 9
7
-11
-10
-12
-10
Upper
limit
10
5
11
3
15
6
37
4
6
5
8
6
10
8
7
8
values
Range
19
11
21
8
31
8
57
12
13
10
17
13
21
18
19
18
*A11 accuracy values for all pollutants are for Level 2.
31
-------
In all cases the spreads (ranges) of the probability limits are some-
what greater for precision than for accuracy and considerably so for the
manual S02 and manual N0£ methods. These differences are consistent for
both the National averages and the 50-percentile values. These same rela-
tionships also existed for 1981 and 1982. (In practically every case the
ranges are less for 1983 than for 1982.) This means that the short-term
within-sampler variability (precision) is larger than the variability of
accuracy which includes variations between, or among, samplers as well as
imprecision within samplers. This may seem contradictory at first, but
giving consideration to exactly how the results are obtained and what the
results represent will provide a rational explanation.
In the case of TSP, the precision results are obtained from col-
located sampler data. They introduce variability from the analytical filter
weighing process, the filter handling and conditioning process, and also the
flow rate measurement process; whereas the accuracy audit is a check only on
the flow rate measurement. Further, the collocated sampler results are
obtained at all ambient concentrations above 1 yg/m^, the detection limit
for the method. At low concentration levels the relative variability is
greater than at higher concentrations. The combined effects of these two
causes explain the wider limits for precision.
Manual SO? and N02» Similar to the TSP data, the precision results
are obtained from collocated sampler data. They introduce variability from
the flow measurement, absorbing solutions, sampling, sample handling, and
storage effects (stability) of the samples as well as the laboratory ana-
lytical portion of the method; whereas the accuracy audit is a check only
on the laboratory analytical portion of the method. Further, the collo-
cated sampler results are obtained at all ambient concentrations above the
detection limits of the methods. Many of these concentrations are below
the concentrations of the accuracy audits. At lower concentrations, the
relative variability is greater than at higher concentrations.
As noted from Table 12, these differences are considerable, indicating
that only a small portion of the variability results from the laboratory
analytical part of the method. A very considerable amount of variability of
the method is attributed to other portions of the measurement process. The
very wide limits of uncertainty attributed only to the imprecision of these
methods strongly emphasizes that the manual methods should be replaced by
the continuous anlayzers. Alternatively, if any reliance is to be placed
on individual daily data from the manual methods, all of the various por-
tions of the measurement processes must be much more closely controlled, if
possible.
Pb. The precision estimates for Pb are obtained from the analysis of
duplicate strips from the same hi-vol filter. Consequently, actual varia-
bility of Pb content across the length of the filter, filter handling (with
possible loss of particulate), variation in cutting filter strips, and the
extraction of real-world particulate are involved in addition to the chemi-
cal analytical portion of the method. The accuracy audit data are obtained
32
-------
from the chemical analysis of strips to which known amounts of water-solu-
ble Pb salts have been added and thus do not involve the other portions of
the measurement process, nor do they involve real-world particulates.
Further, similar to the other manual methods (TSP, N02, and S(>2), the
precision estimates are obtained at all concentrations above the detection
limit. Many of these concentrations are less than those of the accuracy
audits. At lower concentrations, the relative variability is expected to
be greater than at higher concentrations.
Manual Methods (General). To make valid comparisons of the precision and
accuracy data, such comparisons should be made at the same concentration
levels. Only then will it be possible to determine whether the larger var-
iabilities of the precision estimates are due to differences in concentra-
tion level or to the larger scope of the measurement system involved.
Such comparison studies can be accomplished when the raw concentration
data are obtained from the State and local agencies for each sample day as
specified by the proposed regulation revisions to Appendix A of 40 CFR, Part
58. Now only the reporting organizations could perform such studies since
they have the raw data available.
The estimation of the magnitude of the contributions of the various
sources of variability to the total measurement processes could be system-
atically studied in specially designed experiments.
CO, S02, N02, 03 (Continuous Methods). For these continuous measurement
methods, the precision assessments reflect the within-instrument variability
obtained from bi-weekly checks at relatively low concentrations, namely
8-10 ppm for CO
and .08 -.10 ppm for S02, N0£, and 03.
In comparison, the accuracy audits include between-instrument variability as
well as imprecision, but are conducted at higher concentrations for levels
2 and 3.
Level 2 15-20 ppm for CO
.15 -.20 ppm for S02, N02, and 03.
Level 3 35-45 ppm for CO
.35 -.45 ppm for S02, N02, and 03.
Level 1 accuracy audits are conducted at concentrations of
.03 -.08 for CO
3-8 for S02, N02, and 03.
At Level 1, concentrations less than those for the precision checks,
the probability limits for accuracy are wider than for precision.
33
-------
COMPARISON OF NATIONAL LIMIT VALUES AND 50-PERCENTILE VALUES
With reference again to Table 12, in all cases the spreads (ranges)
of the National Average values for both precision and accuracy are greater
than for the corresponding 50-Percentile values. The most logical expla-
nation is that the National average values are unduly influenced by extreme
values. If the distributions of the upper probability limits and the lower
probability limits were near normal, as they should be, the 50-Percentile
values should closely agree with the National average values.
An evaluation of the shape of the distributions does in fact show.that
the distributions are not normal due to an excessive number of extreme val-
ues (i.e., values in the tails of the distribution).
All of the distributions of the upper and lower probability limits are
generally symmetric about zero. The only exception is for the S02 contin-
uous method, for both precision and accuracy. For precision checks, the
distribution of the lower probability limits is biased from 5 to 7 percent
on the negative. A similar observation was made for 1981 and 1982 data.
This means that, on the average, the precision checks resulted in values
about 5 percent less than the assumed concentrations. No solid explanation
can be stated for this trend. One possible explanation is that the rela-
tively low concentrations of S02 (0.08 0.10 ppm) in cylinders specially
prepared for precision checks may degrade after preparation. For accuracy
audits, the negative bias is from 3 to 5 percent. This means that on the
average, the results of the accuracy audits were from 3 to 5 percent less
than the assessed concentrations of the audit gases. Again, it may be
possible that this bias represents a degradation of the S02 audit gases.
These biases for S02 were observed previously in the 1981 data and seem to
be consistent in magnitude and direction. Another explanation of the neg-
ative biases for precision and accuracy for S02 is that the instruments,
on the average, tend to drift in a negative direction as previously dis-
cussed on page 9. No satisfactory explanation can be provided at this
time. However, this consistent bias should be investigated and corrected,
if possible.
A review of Table 8 clearly shows the large variability of precision
data for the manual methods and, in particular, the presence of many ex-
treme values for the S02 and N02 methods. Table 8 and Figure 2 show more
variability of the accuracy audit results from the continuous S02 and N02
methods than for CO and 03.
Based on the frequency distributions of Table 8, quarterly probability
limit values which exceed those listed in Table 13 should be considered
excessive or outlier values and should initiate immediate investigation to
determine and, hopefully, correct the cause of such excessive values. The
values given in Table 13 are slightly tighter in some cases than the cor-
responding values given in the report for the 1982 data.
34
-------
TABLE 13. VALUES OF QUARTERLY PROBABILITY LIMITS CONSIDERED
AS EXCESSIVE BASED ON 1983 DATA
Manual methods
TSP
Pb
NO 2
SO 2
Continuous methods
CO
03
NO 2
SO?
Precision limits
± 28
± 42
± 58
± 70
± 16
± 20
± 28
± 23
Level
± 20
± 22
± 28
± 28
± 28
± 50
± 33
Accuracy
1 Level
± 16
± 16
± 16
± 25
± 18
± 20
± 29
± 27
limits
2 Level 3
± 15
± 20
± 15
± 19
± 23
± 25
35
-------
SECTION 6
COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM THE PARS AND THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT PROGRAM
A general comparison between the accuracy data of the PARS program and
the Performance Audit (PA) data is included in this report. The audit data
are the results of an independent check, the National Performance Audit
Program (NPAP), conducted by the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) of the
EMSL.
In the NPAP, specially prepared samples or devices are sent from EMSL
to the ambient air monitoring agencies. The samples or devices are careful-
ly and accurately assessed by EMSL utilizing NBS Standard Reference Materi-
als (SRM's) or standards. The monitoring agencies analyze or measure the
samples or devices as unknowns or blinds and report their results to EMSL
for evaluation. Audit programs are conducted for the following pollutant
measurements using the materials indicated:
Portion of measure-
Measurement^ Audit materials ment system audited
S02 (manual) Freeze-dried sodium sulfite Chemical analytical
N02 (manual) Aqueous sodium nitrite Chemical analytical
Pb Filter strip with lead nitrate Chemical analytical
TSP Reference flow device Flow
CO Cylinders containing CO gas Continuous instrument
S02 Cylinder containing S02 gas Continuous instrument
The audit materials or devices are prepared at three to six different
concentrations or flow levels. Separate reports on the evaluation of the
PA data are published by EMSL.4»5»6
&
As indicated above, the NPAP does not yet include an audit for the
ozone or continuous N02 methods. Therefore, no comparisons of the NPAP or
PA data with the PARS data are possible for these measurements.
Since precision assessments are not made in the PA program, only
accuracy can be compared across the PARS and the PA programs. For the pur-
pose of this report, the results from PARS and the PA system are compared
at approximately the same levels by matching laboratories and reporting
organizations. Since the PARS data are presented with outliers, the same
approach was taken with the audit data. Knowledge of the historical audit
data reports, however, indicates that the presence of outliers may make a
significant difference in the audit results for some agencies.
36
-------
Comparisons of the national values of the probability limits (Table 14)
exhibit good agreement between the results of the two programs. However,
there is considerable variation between the results of the two programs when
comparisons are made on Regional and reporting organization bases. Lack of
better agreement results from several factors. First, the inclusion of
outlier values in the PA data appears to have introduced some excessive
distortion of general trends. Second, even though the PARS averages in Table
14 are weighted by the number of audits, variations due to many sources of
error for both data sets are averaged together to obtain the national values,
thereby masking any correlations which may have existed for the results of
individual agencies. Third, the concentration levels for the two systems do
not coincide exactly at each of the audit levels. Fourth, the PA data are
the results of independent external audits, while the PARS accuracy data are
based on the results of independent internal audits. The expected effects of
the last-mentioned factor would cause the spread of the limits for the PA to
be wider than that for the PARS. Examination of the results (see Table 14)
confirm these expectations.
TABLE 14. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF EMSL PERFORMANCE AUDITS (PA)
vs. PARS ACCURACY AUDIT DATA FOR YEAR 1983
Pollutant
CO
PA
PARS
N02 (manual)
PA
PARS
S02 (manual)
PA
PARS
LEAD
PA
PARS
TSP
PA
PARS
S02 (Cont)
PA
PARS
Audits
1753
(1228)
78
( 248)
59
( 184)
644
(1097)
2700
(5996)
506
(1281)
National values
probability limits (Z)a
Level 1
Lower Upper
-23 +21
(-15) (+13)
(- 9) (+12)
-45 +43
(-26) (+15)
-24 +23
(-12) (+12)
-26 +23
(-18) (+17)
Level 2
Lower Upper
-10 +13
(- 8) (+ 8)
-15 + 7
(- 8) (+10)
-15 +19
(-18) (+11)
-25 +22
(-10) (+ 9)
-11 +10
(- 7) (+ 7)
-20 +18
(-12) (+13)
Level 3
Lower Upper
-14 +16
(- 7) (+ 6)
- 9 +7
(- 7) (+ 8)
-13 +19
(-14) (+ 7)
-20 +19
-18 +15
(-12) (+12)
Level 4
Lower Upper
(- 4) (+ 3)
- 8 +12
- 6 +6
(- 8) (+ 8)
aNOTE: The national probability limits for both PA and the PARS shown in
the table have been calculated by the procedure given in Appendix B, to
enable an equitable comparison to be made. Therefore, the values for PARS
do not agree with the values of Tables 6 and 7 and the figures previously
presented.
37
-------
Comparisons of the PA and the PARS results by Region are shown in Fig-
ures lla through f. The figures show considerable variation among Regions.
C£.
For a given Region the width of the probability limits is nearly the
same for PA and PARS, except for Region II, where PARS is less than PA;
Region VIII, where PARS is less than PA; and Region III, where PARS is
greater than PA.
Region VI probability limits for both PA and PARS are considerably wider
than for other regions. Region VIII's PA limits are wider than all other
regions except for Region VI.
TSJP.
The width of the probability limits for PARS is, for all Regions
except VII, less than for PA. This may be explained by the fact that with-
in each reporting organization the flow rate checks are not as completely
independent from their internal standards as are the PA audits. Regions II
and IX have more variability than other Regions.
N02 (manual).
The wide variability of the PA for Region IV needs explanation. Also,
for Region VI the considerable difference in PA and PARS limits should
somehow be explained.
S02 (manual).
For PA results there is a definite negative bias for both Regions IV
and V. This bias does not exist for PARS. A possible explanation is that
for PA the samples are prepared at EMSL/RTP and some degradation of the
samples occurs prior to analysis is the SLAMS laboratories. For PARS the
standards are prepared locally and analyzed soon after preparation.
Pb.
There is considerable variation in the results from Region to Region.
However, for all Regions, the PARS variability is considerably less than for
PA. This may be explained by the fact that the local independently-prepared
standards for PARS have close traceability to the materials used for cali-
bration, whereas the standards for PA, since they are prepared at EMSL/RTP,
are more completely independent. There appears to be no significant bias
in either the PA or the PARS results.
Regions III, IV, and V PA results have much more variability than for
other regions.
38
-------
25
If
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
«
-10
| -14
S. -ifi
III'
_ *
_ .
- T I
T
IT
i t
i
_ i
^ j_t^
- l
0.
- T T
PA "PARS *'
"" ^L ^L
iii.
i i i i i 11
co-
T _
T
»
T
.4.
J. ,
T '
"T
.J.
_
_
T _
_
T
1
i _
-1- -
J. _
L J.
^
OMITTING KY 001 _
\ l i i 1 II
-22
Figure 11a. Comparison of PA and PARS for CO (level 3).
£3
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
.71!
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
- jT
i
i -
T
l
i
» *
T T
1
1
1
T -
|
T
i
1
1
Ll
MM
T
i
1 1 1
TSP-
T T -r
j
_
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
T
|
I1
*
T
1
T ~
i
"~ i
_
1 1 1
5678 9 10
REGIONS
Figure 11b. Comparison of PA and PARS for TSP (level 2).
39
-------
20
10
-10
-20
i i r
i i i
~i
|-T
1
1
.J-
1
1 I
rT
1
I
JL
1 1
1 1
I"
1 1
1 *
PARS
1
1
N02
1
1 2345 6789 10
Figure 11c. Comparison of PA and PARS for manual NC^devel 3).
-------
3U
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
T
J.
T -i
i
1
Lj
i
1
i
l
i
X
T
1
1
T
1
T
1 *
1
T
1 .
1 *
X
-59
T
T T I
1 *
T »'
1 i
Ii
, i
^ M 1
' I' I'
J- 1
J-
1 PA ! PARS
OMITTING K!
S02
__
T
1
i
_
>001
5 6
REGION
9 10
Figure 11f. Comparison of PA and PARS for continuous SC-2 (level 3).
41
-------
s
PROBABILITY LIMITS, percent
CJ fsl 1> -» N W
NJ
(Q
i
to
o
o
I
1
0)
3
Q.
Q]
^
o'
9L
gj_
c
CO
s
1 1 1 1
u___..
p_ j.
I
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 ,..
1-
"""* a^ ^^ ^^^ ^^
l-r-^- T T
1 1 1 ^1
1 1 1 ! o
--H '
h?Hlr
H ! 1 -
i i '
i i i 1
., '
i _
__^>« ^^P ««i
. , '
i i i i
o
o
H
z
c
o
m
Q
O
tft
1 1 III
1
1 1 1 1
(III
K_ _ _ .. J_
"~~
- (1
1 1 1 1
1 1,1 1
'
'
- , , , 7*=!
i i i i i __
i
pi
i i f
_--.__! ' n? "~
, '
1 '
'.I l-o
1 1
, ' ' ' H
I H i-
1 ! 1
-------
SO? (Continuous).
Regions IV and VI show considerably more variation of PA results than
other Regions. Region IV PA results are wider due to the results from
laboratories in two particular reporting organizations in the Region. The
PARS data show nearly the same variability across Regions except for Region
I which has less variability.
All Regions, except II and III, show a slight negative bias for both
PA and PARS data, similar to the negative biases for the manual S02 method.
Missing PA and PARS Comparisons
Comparsion of the results from PARS and PA are, of course, possible
only when the data are available from both systems for paired reporting
organization-laboratory combinations. Paired data were not available for
67 comparisons. Of these, data was not available because of missing data
from the PARS for 15 com.arisons.
Reporting
Region State organization Pollutant
II VI 55001 TSP
IV AL 01011 CO, Pb
AL 01013 CO, Pb
V IN 15002 CO
VI LA 19001 Pb
VII IA 16002 N02 (manual)
MO 26003 Pb
IX CA 05036 Pb
NV 29100 CO, TSP
GU 54100 TSP
X AK 02020 Pb
Lack of laboratory participation in the National Performance Audit Pro-
gram was the reason for no available paired data for 52 cases. In these
cases, the laboratories (reporting organization) did not comply with the
requirements of the federal regulations. In some of these cases, the
laboratory requested the audit samples but did not report any results.
43
-------
Region
I
II
III
Reporting
State organization
IV
VI
VII
VIII
IX
ME
MA
NJ
PR
VI
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
AL
AL
FL
FL
KY
IN
MI
MI
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
LA
NM
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
MO
MO
MO
CO
MT
MT
MT
MT
ND
SD
WY
CA
HI
20001
22001
31001
40001
55001
09001
21001
39001
48005
50002
01011
01013
10001
10003
18002
15010
23001
23002
36001
36006
36008
36009
36010
19001
32002
37102
37103
45001
45004
45006
26001
26003
26005
06001
27001
27002
27003
27004
35001
43001
52001
05036
12120
Laboratory
301001
304001
308001
309001
310001
312100
312001
311002
415001
314002
319001
419001
323005
323004
416001
429011
326001
426001
327001
427001
427003
427004
427005
334001
430001
431001
431002
333001
433004
433008
338001
438003
438005
344001
339002
439001
439002
439003
341001
342001
343001
445005
348001
Pollutant
Pb
TSP
Pb
Pb
TSP
CO, TSP, Pb*
CO, Pb*
TSP
TSP
CO
CO
TSP
CO
CO
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
Pb
Pb*
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb, TSP
CO
TSP
Pb
TSP
TSP
Pb**
Pb, TSP
CO, TSP
Pb, TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
CO,* TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
Pb, TSP
CO,* S02*
(manual)
Continued
44
-------
Reporting
Region State organization Laboratory Pollutant
IX NV 29100 346001 CO,* TSP
NV 29300 446002 TSP
GU 54100 349001 TSP
X ID 13001 554004 CO**
ID 13001 354001 TSP
ID 13001 554003 Pb*
^Requested audit samples, but reported no results.
**Requested audit samples twice, but reported no results.
In several cases, data were unavailable from both PARS and PA:
Reporting
Region State Organization Laboratory Pollutant
II VI 55001 310001 TSP
IV AL 01011 319001 CO
VI LA 19001 334001 Pb
VII MO 26003 438003 Pb
IX CA 05036 445005 Pb, TSP
NV 29100 346001 CO, TSP
GU 54100 349001 TSP
45
-------
SECTION 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of PARS data for 1983 indicate some general improvement
over the data for 1982. However, considerable differences exist among
Regions and individual reporting organizations for most measurement meth-
ods. Investigations should be made by the Regions and the states to deter-
mine the causes of these significant differences.
Comparison of PARS and PA data show more variability of the PA data
than for PARS. These differences are presumably due to the fact that the
external PA accuracy audits are more completely independent than the
internal PARS accuracy audits. These differences have been consistent for
the years 1981, 1982, and 1983.
Further improvement in the data quality assessments, which are mea-
sures of the monitoring data quality, can be achieved only through contin-
uing efforts of State and local agency personnel involved (first-hand) with
the operation and quality control of their measurement systems. Regional
QA Coordinators can also assist through their review of the operations and
quality control practices across the States in their Regions.
Each Regional QA Coordinator should evaluate the PARS data from all
the reporting organizations within his Region to identify those organiza-
tions having excessively large variations of probability limits. Investi-
gation should be made to determine the causes and correct them to preclude
future excessive deviations. Similarly, Regional QA Coordinators should
review the operations of the reporting organizations having significantly
better precision and accuracy results in order to identify specific proce-
dures which should be uniformly used throughout the Region and the Nation
to further improve the reliability of the monitoring data in the National
Aerometric Data Base.
46
-------
REFERENCES
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 58, "Ambient Air Quality
and Surveillance."
2. Rhodes, R.C. "Guideline on the Meaning and Use of Precision and Accu-
racy Data Required by 40 CFR Part 58, Appendices A and B." U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency Report, EPA 450/4-84-006. Research Tri-
angle Park, NC 27711. June 1983.
3. Evans, E.G., R.C. Rhodes, W.J. Mitchell and J.C. Puzak. "Summary of
Precision and Acura -.y Assessments for the State and Local Air Monitor-
ing Networks, 1982»" U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA-
600/4-85-031. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. April 1985.
4. Rhodes, R.C., B.I. Bennett and J.C. Puzak. "EPA's National Performance
Audit Program for Ambient Air Pollution Measurements." In Proceedings
of the 75th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
New Orleans, LA, June 1982. Presentation 82-23.
5. Lampe, R.L., B.F. Parr, G. Pratt, O.L. Dowler and W.J. Mitchell.
"National Performance Audit Program: Ambient Air Audits of Analytical
Proficiency-1983." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA
600/4-84-077. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. October 1984.
6. Rhodes, R.C., W.J. Mitchell, J.C. Puzak and E.G. Evans. "Comparison
of Precision and Accuracy Estimates from State and Local Agency Air
Monitoring Stations with Results of EPA's National Performance Audit
Program." Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, Vol. 13, No. 5,
September 1985, p. 374-378.
7. Thrall, A.D. and C.S. Burton. "Special Report, Issues Concerning the
Use of Precision and Accuracy Data." U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report, EPA-450/4-84-006. Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
lina 27711. February 1984.
47
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) monitoring stations se-
lected by the states and included in the State Implementation Plans. The
stations and the plans are approved by the Regional Administrator. The
purposes of the monitoring are to determine compliance to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to determine background levels
of the criteria pollutants.
National Air Monitoring Sites (NAMS) a subset of the SLAMS, selected by
the states in collaboration with the Regional Offices and approved by the
Administrator. The purpose of the sites is to monitor in the areas where
pollution concentration and population exposure are expected to be highest
in terms of the NAAQS. Although, in actuality the NAMS are a subset of
SLAMS, the NAMS sites and the non-NAMS SLAMS sites are often referred to
as two separate groups, the NAMS and SLAMS sites, respectively.
Reporting Organization a state, or subordinate organization within the
state that is responsible for a set of SLAMS stations, monitoring for the
same pollutant and for which PARS data can be logically pooled (statis-
tically combined). It is important to emphasize that a reporting organi-
zation is pollutant- and site-specific and is responsible for the sampling,
calibration, analysis, data quality assessment, and reporting of the moni-
toring data for the specific pollutant. It is possible that a particular
SLAMS station may belong to two different reporting organizations, but the
likelihood of this occurring is small.
Precision (Continuous Analyzers) a measure of repeatability obtained from
actual concentration in a gas cylinder and the values indicated by the ana-
lyzer. For S02, N02, and 03 analyzers the gas concentration used for
the precision check must be between 0.08 and 0.10 ppm and for CO it must
be between 8 and 10 ppm. The data from all biweekly analyzer checks for a
given pollutant are combined and 95% probability limit values reported to
EPA each quarter by each reporting organization. For this report, the
quarterly values for 1983 were combined and overall 95% probability limits
were calculated for each reporting organization, for each Region, and for
the nation, as described in Appendix B.
Precision (Manual Methods) a measure of repeatability for TSP, N02, and
S02 manual methods (bubblers) determined by operating collocated samplers
at selected sites. At each collocated site one sampler is designated as
the "actual" sampler and the other as the "check" sampler, and the difference
between the two samplers provides the precision estimate. For Pb, precision
A-l
-------
estimates are obtained by analyzing duplicate strips from a high volume
filter sample collected at a site where high Pb concentrations exist.
These precision checks are made weekly and reported quarterly. The data
from the manual methods were calculated in a similar manner as the automated
(continuous) analyzers.
Accuracy (Continuous Analyzers) the agreement between an analyzer result
and a known audit concentration. Accuracy estimates are obtained at least
once per year for each analyzer by introducing blind audit materials into
the analyzer. The audit samples must span at least three concentration
levels and, whenever possible, must be traceable to NBS or other authorita-
tive reference. At least 25% of the analyzers in each reporting organiza-
tion must be audited each quarter. The percentage difference for each
audit concentration is determined and the average for all analyzers checked
within that quarter is calculated for each level. The standard deviation
for each level is then used to calculate the 95% probability limits for the
reporting organization which in turn are submitted quarterly to EPA. These
quarterly values were combined to determine the annual values presented
here. They were calculated in the same manner as described earlier for
precision.
Accuracy (Manual Methods) the agreement between an observed value and a
known or reference value. For N02 and S02 manual methods, the accuracy of
the analytical portion of the method is assessed at three levels by the
analysis of known audit materials. For Pb, the accuracy of the analytical
portion of the method is assessed at two levels. For TSP, the flow rate
(or air volume) portion of the method is assessed at the nominal flow rate.
Completeness the number of the precision and accuracy checks reported as
compared to the number that should have been reported if all checks had been
done in accordance with the regulations. This value, expressed as a per-
centage, is not corrected for instances where equipment failure prevented
conducting the check, or for periods when monitoring data were invalidated.
National Ambient Air Audit Program (NAAAP) an external performance audit
program conducted by EPA on state and local agency organizatons. Organi-
zations operating SLAMS stations are required to participate in this program
directed by the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) of the
EPA at Research Triangle Park, NC. In this program, blind audit materials
prepared by EMSL are sent to participating laboratories. The laboratories
analyze the samples and return the results to EMSL. Shortly after the audit
is completed each participant receives a report that compares his perform-
ance to that of all other participants. The use of audit materials for the
manual SOo audits (freeze-dried SOj), manual N(>2 audits (NaN(>2 solution),
and particulate SO^, NO^, and Pb audits (spiked filter strips) evalu-
ates only the analytical proficiency of the laboratory. The reference flow
device used in the TSP sampler audit evaluates only the accuracy of the
flow calibration. However, the CO and S02 continuous analyzer audits
evaluate the entire measurement system. As explained above, the external
NAAAP audits are conducted in essentially the same manner as the internal
audits (accuracy checks) for the PARS program. The audits for the manual
methods and CO analyzer are conducted semiannually and those for flow (TSP)
and continuous S02 monitors are conducted once per year.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
FORMULAS FOR COMBINING PROBABILITY LIMITS
When combining the probability limits for individual calendar quarters
to compute the yearly probability limits for a given reporting organization,
the following formulas are used. These formulas determine the yearly prob-
ability limits for the reporting organization which would have been computed
from all the individual percent difference values, d^, obtained during the
year. To accomplish this, from each quarterly pair of probability limits,
the average, D, and standard deviation, Sa, are back-calculated:
LL + UL
D =
UL - LL
a 2(1.96)
where LL = lower probability limit
UL = upper probability limit
Except for the effect of the round-off of the reported probability limits
to integer values, the above equations determine the original D and Sa val-
ues used by the reporting organizations to compute the originally reported
limits.
Yearly average, D, and standard deivation, S, values are computed from
the quarterly values as follows:
where n^ = the number of individual percent difference, d^, values for each
quarter
)*n.L(Di-D)
B-l
-------
The appropriate yearly probability limits for the reporting organiza-
tion are computed using the formulas:
UL = 1) + 1.96 S~
LL = 1 - 1.96 S"
NOTE: The same formulas are used for combining yearly reporting organiza-
tion limits into state limits, state limits into region limits, and
region limits into national limits.
Example: Suppose that the lower and upper 95% probability limits for CO
for precision for the four quarters of a year are:
Quarter
1
2
3
4
Number of
Precision Checks
10
9
13
7
Lower
Probability
Limit
_g
-5
-6
-12
Upper
Probability
Limit
+6
+9
+4
+11
-8+6
" = -1
= 3.6
2(1.96)
Similar computations for the other quarters, give values in the follow-
ing table.
Quarter n TT S D" - D
1
2
3
4
10
9
13
7
39
-1
+2
-1
-0.5
3.6
3.6
2.6
5.9
-0.78
2.22
-0.78
-0.28
B-2
-------
Then
D =
10(-1) + 9(2) + 13(-1) + 7(-0.5)
39
-8.5
= -0.22
39
/ ^ - 1 1
S =
/9(3.6)2+8(3.6)2+12(2.6)2+6(5.9)2+lO(-0.78)2+9(2.22)2+l3(-0.78)2+7(-0.28)2
39 - 1
510.30 + 58.90
38
14.98 = 3.87
The upper and lower 95% probability limits are then computed as:
UL = D + 1.96 S
= -0.22 + 1.96(3.87)
= 7.37 or 7 rounded off to nearest integer
LL = D - 1.96 S
= -0.22 - 1.96(3.87)
= -7.81 or -8 rounded off to nearest integer
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
LISTING OF REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Region
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
No.
07
20
22
30
41
47
31
33
40
55
08
09
21
21
21
21
21
39
39
39
48
48
48
48
50
50
01
01
01
01
01
01
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
State
Name
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISL\NDS
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
No.
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
002
003
005
006
001
002
003
001
002
003
005
001
002
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
Oil
012
013
Reporting Organization
Name
AIR MONIT. SEC. DEPT. OF ENV. PROTECT.
BUREAU OF A. Q. C. DEPT. OF ENV. PROTECT
DIV. OF A. Q. C. DEPT. OF ENV. QUAL . ENG
AIR RESOURCES AGENCY
DIV. OF A. HAZ. MAT. DEPT OF ENV. MANAGE.
AIR & SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
DEPT. OF ENV.PROT., DIV. OF ENV. QUAL.
DEPT. OF ENV. CONSERV. DIV. OF AIR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD.
DEPT. OF CONS. AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
STATE OF DELAWARE DNR & EC
WASHINGTON, DC DC & RA
STATE OF MARYLAND
ALLEGANY COUNTY
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
BALTIMORE COUNTY
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA DER
ALLEGHENY CO. BAPC
PHILADELPHIA AMS
VIRGINIA STATE AIR POLL. CONTROL BOARD
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
FAIRFAX COUNTY
ROANOKE COUNTY
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
WVA NORTHERN PANHANDLE REGIONAL OFFICE
ALABAMA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AL, JEFFERSON CNTY BUREAU OF ENV. HEALTH
ALABAMA DEPT. OF ENV. MANAGEMENT MOBILE
AL, HUNTSVILLE AIR POLL. CONTROL DEPT.
AL, TRICOUNTY DIV. OF AIR POLL. CONTROL
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - ALABAMA
FDER, NORTHWEST DISTRICT
FDER, NORTHEAST DISTRICT
FDER, ST. JOHNS RIVER DISTRICT
FDER, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
FDER, SOUTH FLORIDA DISTRICT
FDER, SOUTHEAST FLORIDA DISTRICT
FDER, NORTHEAST DISTRICT BRANCH OFFICE
FL, JACKSONVILLE B10-ENV. SERVICES DIV.
FL, HILLSBOROUGH CO., ENV. SERVICES DIV.
FL, PINELLAS CO. DEPT OF ENV. MANAGEMENT
C-l
-------
Region
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
No.
10
10
10
10
10
11
18
18
18
25
34
34
34
34
42
44
44
44
44
44
44
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
23
23
24
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
State
Name
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
No.
014
015
016
017
018
010
001
002
003
100
001
002
003
004
001
001
002
003
004
005
006
001
002
003
001
002
003
005
008
009
010
100
001
002
001
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
012
013
014
Reporting Organization
Name
PL, MANATEE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FL, SARASOTA CO. AIR POLL. CONTROL DIV.
FL, PALM BEACH COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FL, BROWARD CO. ENV. QUAL. CONTROL BOARD
FL, DADE CO. DEPT OF ENV. RESOURCES MGMT
GEORGIA AIR QUAL. EVALUATION SECTION EPD
KENTUCKY DIV. OF AIR POLL. CONTROL
KY, JEFFERSON CO. AIR POLL. CONTROL DIST.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF POLLUTION CONTROL
NC NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVEL.
NC, FORSYTH COUNTY ENV. AFFAIRS DEPT.
NC, MECKLENBURG CO. DEPT. OF ENV. HEALTH
NC, WESTERN REGIONAL AIR POLL. CONTROL
SC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENV. CONTROL
TENNESSEE DIV. OF AIR POLL. CONTROL
TN, MEMPHIS-SHELBY CO. HEALTH DEPARTMENT
METRO HEALTH DEPT NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON CO.
TN, KNOX COUNTY DEPT. OF AIR POLL. CONTROL
TN, CHATTANOOGA-HAMILTON CO. AIR POLL. CONT
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - TENNESSEE
DIV. OF AIR POLL. CONT., ILLINOIS EPA
CHICAGO DEPT. OF CONSUMER SERVICES
COOK COUNTY DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONT.
AIR POLL. CONT. DIV. INDIANA STATE
DIV. OF AIR POLL. CONT., EVANSVILLE
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
AIR POLL. CONT. DIV., VIGO COUNTY
INDIANAPOLIS APC DIVISION
ANDERSON LOCAL AGENCY
PORTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
LAKE COUNTY CONSOLDTD A Q MONIT WRK GRP
AIR QUAL. DIV., MI. DEPT. OF NAT. RES.
AIR POLL. CONT. DIV., WAYNE COUNTY
MINNESOTA POLL. CONT. AGENCY, AIR MO
OHIO EPA, CENTRAL DIST. OFFICE
OHIO EPA, NORTHEAST DIST. OFFICE
OHIO EPA, NORTHWEST DIST. OFFICE
OHIO EPA, SOUTHEAST DIST. OFFICE
OHIO EPA, SOUTHWEST DIST. OFFICE
AKRON AIR POLL. CONTROL
AIR POLL. CONT. DIV., CANTON CITY
SOUTHWESTERN OHIO AIR POLL. AGENCY
CLEVELAND DIV. OF AIR POLL. AGENCY
REGIONAL APC AGENCY, DAYTON
AIR POLL. CONT. DIV. OF LAKE CNTY.
AIR POLL. UNIT, PORTSMOUTH CITY
NORTH OHIO VALLEY AIR AUTHORITY
C-2
-------
Region
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
69
No.
36
36
51
04
04
19
32
32
37
37
37
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
16
16
16
17
26
26
26
26
26
28
28
28
06
27
27
27
27
35
43
46
52
03
03
03
05
05
05
05
12
29
State
Name
OHIO
OHIO
WISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
No.
015
016
001
001
002
001
001
002
101
102
103
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
001
002
003
001
001
002
003
004
005
001
002
003
001
001
002
003
004
001
001
001
001
100
200
300
001
004
036
061
120
100
Reporting Organization
Name
TOLEDO POLL. CONTROL AGENCY
MAHONING TRUMBULL AIR POLL. CONTROL
WI. DEPT. OF NAT. RES., AIR MONIT. UNIT
DEPT. OF POLL. CONT. & ECOLOGY CONT. MON
DEPT. OF POLL. CONT. & ECOLOGY
DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES, NEW ORLEANS
ENV. IMPROVEMENT DIV., SANTA FE
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE ENV. HEALTH DIV.
OK STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH
OKLAHOMA CITY-CNTY. HEALTH DEPT.
TULSA CITY-CNTY. HEALTH DEPT.
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
DALLAS ENV. HEALTH & CONSERVATION DEPT.
EL PASO CITY-CNTY. HEALTH DEPT.
FT. WORTH PUBLIC HEALTH DEPT.
GALVESTON COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
HOUSTON DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
SAN ANTONIO METRO. HEALTH DISTRICT
POLK COUNTY PHYSICAL PLANNING
LINN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY HYGIENIC LABORATORY
STATE OF KANSAS
LABORATORY SERVICES PROGRAM
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
ST. LOUIS CITY
KANSAS CITY
SPRINGFIELD
STATE OF NEBRASKA
LINCOLN
OMAHA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MT AIR QUAL. BUREAU, DEPT. OF H&ENV.
YELLOWSTONE CNTY. AIR POLL. CONT. AGENCY
GREAT FALLS CITY-CNTY. HEALTH DEPT.
MISSOULA CITY-CNTY HEALTH DEPT.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DEPT. OF HEALTH, DIV. OF ENV. HEALTH
STATE BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY
DEPT. OF ENV. QUAL., AIR QUAL DIV
ARIZONA DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES
MARICOPA COUNTY
PIMA COUNTY
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
BAY AREA AIR QUAL. MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
SAN DIEGO AIR POLL. CONTROL DISTRICT
SOUTH COAST AIR QUAL. MANAGEMENT DIST.
STATE OF HAWAII, DEPT. OF HEALTH
NEVADA DIV. OF ENV. PROTECTION
C-3
-------
Region
09
09
09
10
10
10
10
No.
29
29
54
02
13
38
49
State
Name
NEVADA
NEVADA
GUAM
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON
Reporting Organizations
No.
200
300
100
020
001
001
001
Name
WASHOE COUNTY
CLARK COUNTY
GUAM EPA
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
QUALITY
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
PRECISION AND ACCURACY DATA BY REPORTING ORGANIZATION
D-i
-------
Explanation of Column Heading Abbreviations for Tables D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4
(Continuous Methods)
Column
No. Heading abbreviation
1 REPORTING ORGAN.
STATE
REGION
Explanation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NO. SLAMS
NO. NAMS
NO. ANAL
NO. PREC. *
PR. LIMITS
LOW
UP
NO. AUDS
NO AUDS L4
LEVEL 1
LOW
UP
LEVEL 2
LOW
UP
LEVEL 3
LOW
UP
LEVEL 4
LOW
UP
Reporting organization SLAMS number
Two letter state abbreviation
EPA regional office number (RGO#)
Number of SLAMS sites, not including NAMS
Number of NAMS sites
Number of analyzers
Number of precision checks performed and
reported
Probability limits
Lower probability limits
Upper probability limits
Number of accuracy audits per
Number of audits of level 4
Lower probability limits
Upper probability limits
Lower probability limits
Upper probability limits
Lower probability limits
Upper probability limits
Lower probability limits
Upper probability 'limits
D-2
-------
TABLE D-l.
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
07001 5 0
XXCT 5 0
CO PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES FOR
REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
20001
**ME
22001
**MA
30001
XXNH
41001
**RI
47001
XXVT
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
XXNY
40001
**PR
XRG02
08001
xxDE
09001
XXDC
21001
XXMD
39001
39002
39003
XXPA
48001
48002
48003
48005
XXVA
50001
50002
XXWV
1
1
4
4
2
2
0
0
1
1
13
9
9
4
4
1
1
14
2
2
1
1
5
5
17
0
4
21
6
0
4
0
10
1
2
3
0
0
4
4
0
0
2
2
0
0
6
2
2
7
7
2
2
11
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
4
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
PRECISION
NO.
NO.
ANAL
20
20
4
4
32
32
8
8
8
8
4
4
76
41
41
58
58
11
11
110
9
9
12
12
28
28
87
8
24
119
32
16
16
16
80
4
8
12
PREC.
CHECKS
128
128
36
36
368
368
214
214
170
170
223
223
1,139
326
326
444
444
121
121
891
57
57
98
98
269
269
525
93
147
765
223
113
95
113
544
25
95
120
PR.LINS
LOU
-08
-08
-04
-04
-07
-07
-10
-10
-04
-04
-05
-05
-07
-09
-09
-05
-05
-09
-09
-07
-10
-10
-07
-07
-10
-10
-09
-05
-10
-09
-05
-05
-12
-05
-07
-05
-13
-13
UP
+ 11
+ 11
+ 07
+ 07
+ 09
+ 09
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 06
+ 06
+ 10
+ 10
+ 07
+ 09
+ 09
+ 04
+ 04
+ 09
+ 09
+ 11
+ 07
+ 07
+ 10
+ 05
+ 06
+ 07
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 04
+ 06
NO.
AUDS
6
6
2
2
13
13
23
23
8
8
5
5
57
12
12
77
77
8
8
97
8
8
8
8
29
29
22
17
8
47
8
4
10
4
26
4
7
11
NO.
AUDS
L4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A(
LEVEL 1
LOU
-14
-14
-01
-01
-05
-05
+ 00
+ 00
-04
-04
-05
-05
-06
-11
-11
-07
-07
-30
-30
-11
-06
-06
-04
-04
-15
-15
-13
-10
-09
-11
-06
-02
-04
-02
-04
-09
-14
-12
UP
+ 13
+ 13
+ 17
+ 17
+ 11
+ 11
+ 10
+ 10
+ 03
+ 03
+ 02
+ 02
+ 11
+ 09
+ 09
+ 10
+ 10
+20
+ 20
+ 12
+ 06
+ 06
+ 04
+ 04
+ 14
+ 14
+ 10
+ 07
+ 06
+ 08
+ 05
+ 03
+ 05
+ 03
+ 04
-01
+ 07
+ 05
;CUKACT
"ROBABILITY 1
LEVEL 2
LOU
-04
-04
-06
-06
-03
-03
-05
-05
-03
-03
-03
-03
-05
-05
-05
-04
-04
-21
-21
-06
-09
-09
-04
-04
-12
-12
-11
-05
-07
-09
-05
-04
-06
-04
-06
-06
-09
-08
UP
+ 05
+ 05
+ 15
+ 15
+ 08
+ 08
+ 09
+ 09
+ 01
+ 01
-01
-01
+ 08
+ 11
+ 11
+ 07
+ 07
+ 16
+ 16
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 02
+ 02
+ 08
+ 08
+ 05
+ 04
+ 07
+ 06
+ 02
+ 02
+ 09
+ 02
+ 06
+ 01
+ 05
+ 04
.ini 1 3
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU
-05
-05
-07
-07
-04
-04
-06
-06
-04
-04
+ 00
+ 00
-06
-05
-05
-03
-03
-13
-13
-05
-10
-10
-04
-04
-10
-10
-09
-05
-07
-07
-04
-05
-05
-05
-06
-07
-10
-09
UP LOU UP
+ 03
+ 03
+ 13
+ 13
+ 05
+ 05
+ 08
+ 08
+ 01
+ 01
+ 01
+ 01
+ 06
+ 08
+ 08
+ 03
+ 03
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 07
+ 07
+ 02
+ 02
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 01
+ 02
+ 08
+ 02
+ 05
+ 00
+ 04
+ 03
XRG03
42 10
260 1,853 -09 +09 129
0 -11 +09 -09 +06 -08 +05
(continued)
D-3
-------
TABLE D-l (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO.
REGION SLAM
01011
01012
01013
XXAL
10001
10003
10011
10012
10013
10016
10017
10018
x*FL
11010
XXGA
18001
18002
xxKY
25100
xxMS
34001
34002
34003
XXNC
42001
xxSC
44002
44003
44004
44005
XXTN
1
0
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
19
4
4
7
1
8
1
1
4
2
3
9
2
2
3
3
1
1
8
NO.
NAMS
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
10
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
NO.
ANAL
0
16
0
16
4
8
20
20
20
4
20
16
112
21
21
24
12
36
4
4
13
8
20
41
8
8
20
20
5
4
49
NO.
PREC. PR.LIMS
CHECKS LOW UP
0
93
0
93
50
47
580
130
141
54
120
98
1,220
176
176
145
50
195
32
32
76
53
130
259
143
143
175
116
33
71
395
-13
-13
-10
-27
-04
-11
-04
-18
-07
-05
-09
-10
-10
-10
-12
-10
-09
-09
-07
-08
-06
-07
-12
-12
-05
-11
-03
-05
-09
+ 06
+ 06
+ 05
+ 05
+ 04
+ 09
+ 04
+ 09
+ 05
+ 06
+ 07
+ 03
+ 03
+ 05
+ 11
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 09
+ 09
+ 04
-01
+ 04
+ 02
+ 04
NO.
AUDS
0
6
0
6
6
6
25
7
25
6
8
7
91
9
9
24
4
28
4
4
13
8
59
80
47
47
33
28
11
9
81
NO
AUD
L4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S LEVEL
LOU U
-03
-03
-04
-09
-09
-19
-07
-17
-44
-27
-17
-24
-24
-17
-23
-17
-11
-11
-15
-13
-10
-11
-23
-23
-11
-18
-07
-09
-13
+ 11
+ 11
+ 05
+ 04
+ 10
+ 10
+ 07
+ 16
+ 43
+ 14
+ 15
+ 04
+ 04
+ 15
+ 10
+ 14
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 12
+ 12
+ 06
+ 09
+ 07
+ 06
+ 08
ACCU
-PRO
1 LE
P LO
-04
-04
-03
-05
-04
-25
-05
-03
-04
-26
-10
-07
-07
-09
-06
-08
-05
-05
-07
-03
-02
-03
-09
-09
-06
-15
-02
-06
-10
KH\.l""
BABILITY
VEL 2 LE
M UP LO
+ 10
+ 10
+ 05
+ 02
+ 09
+ 16
+ 06
+ 05
+ 10
+ 13
+ 10
+ 02
+ 02
+ 07
+ 08
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 05
+ 04
+ 05
+ 06
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 08
+ 03
+ 04
+ 07
-04
-05
-06
-28
-04
-05
-03
-25
-10
-05
-05
-07
-03
-07
-04
-04
-07
-03
-03
-04
-08
-08
-05
-03
-04
-03
-04
1 TMTTC«*.
VEL 3 LEVEL 4
Ul UP LOU UP
+ 03
+ 02
+ 09
+ 16
+ 06
+ 05
+ 05
+ 11
+ 10
+ 03
+ 03
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 05
+ 05
+ 04
+ 04
+ 04
+ 04
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 04
+ 04
+ 06
+ 05
XRG04
14001
14003
XXIL
15001
15002
15008
23001
23002
54 22
7 1
4 1
11 2
287 2,513 -09 +07
35 366
20 107
55 473
-11 +05
-11 +08
-11 +05
15
1
11
27
20
24
44
77 -11 +08
2 -07 +14
66 -06 +03
145 -09 +06
122 -07 +08
142 -15 +09
264 -12 +10
346 0 -16 +11 -08 +08 -07 +06
9 0 -09 +07 -08 +07 -08 +05
11 0 -18 +11 -10 +07 -09 +06
20 0 -15 +10 -09 +07 -08 +05
9 0 -39 +22 -12 +11 -07 +10
0 0
11 0 -09 +09 -05 +09 -04 +04
20 0 -26 +19 -08 +10 -06 +07
8 0 -10 +08 -05 +02 -07 +03
9 0 -16 +11 -03 +08 -04 +07
17 0 -13 +09 -05 +06 -06 +06
24001 92 49 386 -11 +06 21 0 -21 +17 -13 +12 -12 +08
XXMN 92 49 386 -11 +06 21 0 -21 +17 -13 +12 -12 +08
(continued)
D-4
-------
TABLE D-l (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE
poefTCTftM * ***ma * t*\*
un
NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
36001
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36014
36015
36016
XXOH
51001
XXUJ
1
0
1
3
0
0
1
1
2
1
10
4
4
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
10
2
2
nu .
NO. PREC.
ANAL CHECKS
12
8
4
20
8
8
4
3
8
4
79
27
27
78
49
22
120
46
50
34
3
83
23
508
160
160
PR. L IMS
LOU
-07
-10
-11
-06
-06
-04
-14
+ 00
-08
-05
-08
-07
-07
UP
+ 10
+ 07
+ 10
+ 09
+ 04
+ 05
+ 08
+ 00
+ 02
+ 05
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
un
nu .
NO. AUDS
AUDS
5
5
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
6
6
L4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LEVEL 1
LOU
-08
-22
-16
-19
-14
-11
-12
-09
-09
-05
-14
-12
-12
UP
+ 15
+ 10
+ 07
+ 16
+ 10
+ 13
+20
+ 03
-05
+ 04
+ 12
+21
+21
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU
-07
-14
-06
-19
-19
-12
-08
+ 00
-07
-09
-11
-06
-06
UP
+ 11
+ 09
+ 03
+ 15
+ 14
+ 08
+ 15
+ 00
-02
+ 05
+ 09
+07
+ 07
LOU
-05
-09
-09
-16
-11
-06
-04
-04
-08
-07
-09
-03
-03
UP LOU UP
+ 07
+ 12
+ 03
+ 08
+ 03
+ 00
+ 10
+ 03
+ 00
+ 01
+ 06
+ 00
+ 00
XRG05
49 20
281 1,936 -10 +07
128 0 -18 +14 -10 +09 -09 +07
04001
XXAR
19001
XXLA
32001
32002
x*NM
37101
37102
37103
XXOK
45001
45002
45003
45006
XXTX
0
0
1
1
4
3
7
2
0
2
4
2
0
1
1
4
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
5
2
0
1
8
1
1
12
12
16
18
34
8
8
8
24
44
8
3
6
61
6
6
74
74
83
100
183
45
45
44
134
2,307
58
20
33
2,418
-03
-03
-12
-12
-08
-06
-07
-19
-15
-06
-14
-07
-13
-05
-11
-07
+ 01
+ 01
+ 05
+ 05
+ 08
+ 06
+ 07
+ 14
+ 09
+04
+ 10
+ 06
+ 12
+ 19
+ 05
+ 07
1
1
4
4
9
19
28
4
10
10
24
72
8
3
6
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
XRG06
28002
16 14
132 2,815 -08 +07
16001
16002
16003
XXIA
17001
*XKS
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
*XMO
2
2
1
5
3
3
0
2
4
2
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
4
8
5
4
17
12
12
4
20
13
11
3
51
75
32
27
134
64
64
16
139
90
59
17
321
-08
-08
-12
-09
-08
-08
-08
-16
-50
-10
-05
-31
+ 04
+ 08
+ 10
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 13
+ 13
+ 13
+ 16
+ 08
+21
9
11
5
25
9
9
4
7
6
7
4
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52 -01 +01
0 -13 +01 -10 -01 -04 +00
0 -13 +01 -10 -01 -04 +00
0 -11 +15 -04 +11 -06 +07
0 -11 +07 -08 +04 -09 +04
0 -11 +10 -08 +08 -09 +06
+10 +16 +05 +12 -20 +15
-25 +15 -09 +09 -08 +11
0 -30 +41 -08 +11 -01 +05
0 -28 +31 -08 +11 -07 +09
0 -22 +23 -15 +15 -17 +15
0 -20 +14 -18 +12 -13 +18
+02 +14 -07 +03 +00 +03
0 -18 +06 -14 +07 -08 +07
0 -21 +21 -15 +14 -16 +15
146 0 -21 +21 -13 +13 -14 +13
-17 +15 -05 +01 -02 +03
-14 +09 -09 +10 -14 +10
-20 +00 -07 +04 -03 +01
-17 +10 -08 +06 -10 +08
0 -10 +07 -07 +04 -06 +03
0 -10 +07 -07 +04 -06 +03
+04 +04 -01 +11 +02 +03
-16 +10 -05 +06 -04 +03
-18 +38 -11 +27 -13 +22
-56 +71 -20 +17 -16 +06
-14 -11 -11 -07 -09 -07
-34 +39 -15 +17 -14 +12
0 -06 +02 -01 +00 -01 +00
(continued)
D-5
-------
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
28003 2 ' 0
XXNB 4 0
TABLE D-l (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
XRG07
21
16001
XXCO
27001
27003
27004
XXflT
46001
XXUT
*RG08
03100
03200
03300
xxAZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
XXCA
12120
xxHI
29100
29200
29300
*XNV
XRG09
02020
XVAK
13001
XXID
38001
XXOR
49001
xxUA
11
11
1
1
1
3
7
7
21
4
7
1
12
24
3
5
20
52
0
0
2
2
2
6
70
5
5
2
2
5
5
14
14
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
12
2
2
0
0
1
1
19
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
NO.
ANAL
8
16
96
52
52
3
4
1
8
39
39
99
8
29
12
49
84
64
26
96
270
6
6
7
8
10
18
343
18
18
3
3
28
28
56
56
-rKtC15J
NO.
PREC.
CHECKS
40
92
611
282
282
29
37
22
88
425
425
795
57
86
70
213
452
407
149
587
1,595
108
108
7
54
62
116
2,032
106
106
19
19
367
367
637
637
.UN--
PR. LIMS
LOU
-09
-06
-23
-10
-10
-12
-16
-03
-18
-04
-04
-09
-09
-11
-04
-09
-11
-04
-04
-04
-07
-14
-14
???
-08
-05
-07
-08
-03
-03
-09
-09
-04
-04
-08
-08
UP
+ 08
+ 05
+ 17
+ 08
+ 08
+ 31
+ 04
+ 12
+ 21
+ 04
+ 04
+ 09
+ 04
+ 07
+ 06
+ 07
+ 15
+ 04
+ 06
+ 10
+ 11
+ 18
+ 18
???
+ 06
+ 03
+ 05
+ 11
+ 04
+ 04
+ 05
+ 05
+ 07
+ 07
+ 01
+ 01
NO.
AUDS
5
11
73
20
20
2
5
2
9
31
31
60
4
6
6
16
38
32
5
24
99
227
227
7
8
5
13
355
13
13
3
3
68
68
40
40
NO.
A
AUDS LEVEL I
L4
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
7
0
3
3
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LOU
-10
-08
-23
-11
-11
+ 04
+ 06
+ 05
-06
-06
-09
-34
-17
-05
-21
-14
-09
-23
-04
-12
-25
-25
777
-09
-01
-07
-21
-13
-13
-05
-05
-18
-18
-08
-08
UP
+ 05
+ 04
+ 21
+ 22
+ 22
+ 20
+ 11
+ 15
+ 09
+ 09
+ 16
+ 14
+ 10
+ 01
+ 11
+ 14
+ 09
+ 06
+ 16
+ 14
+24
+ 24
777
+ 08
+ 02
+ 06
+ 21
+ 11
+ 11
+ 05
+ 05
+ 10
+ 10
+ 05
+ 05
CCUR
PROB
ACY
ABILITY
LEVEL 2
LOU
-08
-05
-10
-03
-03
-10
+ 02
-02
-05
-05
-05
-05
-06
-03
-05
-09
-03
-08
-03
-07
-08
-08
777
-05
-07
-07
-08
-03
-03
-04
-04
-07
-07
-07
-07
UP
+ 03
+ 03
+ 09
+ 10
+ 10
+ 20
+ 06
+ 11
+ 06
+ 06
+ 09
+ 03
+ 05
+ 01
+ 03
+ 09
+ 02
+ 02
+ 13
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
777
+ 03
+ 14
+ 09
+ 09
+ 03
+ 03
-01
-01
+ 05
+ 05
+ 03
+ 03
LIMI
LEVEL 3
LOU
-07
-06
-10
-03
-03
-17
-03
-07
-07
-07
-06
-01
-05
-04
-04
-08
-03
-06
-04
-07
-10
-10
177
-03
-02
-03
-09
-04
-04
-02
-02
-06
-06
-04
-04
UP
+ 01
+ 02
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+23
+ 08
+ 13
+ 06
+ 06
+ 08
+ 02
+ 05
+ 01
+ 03
+ 07
+ 01
+ 01
+ 09
+ 06
+ 08
+ 08
777
+ 02
+ 04
+ 03
+ 07
+ 03
+ 03
-01
-01
+ 02
+ 02
+ 02
+ 02
r f
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
+01 +03
+01 +03
+01 +03
+00 +01
+00 +01
-07 +02
-07 +02
-01 +03
-01 +03
-05 +04
XRG10 26 4
NATION 326 114
105 1,129 -08 +06 124 0 -15 +09 -07 +04 -06 +03
1,789 15,714 -10 +09 1,515 14 -18 +16 -09 +09 -08 +07 -03 +05
D-6
-------
TABLE D-2. CONTINUOUS S02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES
FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE
_ Bnp/*v*vnfcj A«**kim*4*«*
NO. NO.
REGION SLAM HAMS
50001
50002
xxwv
XRG03
01011
01012
01013
01015
01016
**AL
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10007
10011
10012
10013
10015
10016
10018
XXFL
11010
xxGA
18001
18002
18003
XXKY
25100
XXMS
34001
34002
34003
XXNC
42001
XXSC
44001
44002
44003
44006
xxTN
XRG04
14001
14003
XXH
2
3
5
40
1
1
0
1
0
3
1
3
2
1
0
0
3
3
1
0
1
2
17
10
10
8
0
0
8
2
2
«
1
0
5
4
4
2
1
0
0
3
52
9
6
15
3
3
6
43
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
4
0
*
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
16
11
3
14
NO.
r ncwi 9
Nn
nu .
PREC.
ANAL CHECKS
17
24
41
387
0
3
8
4
40
55
4
11
7
4
3
8
16
27
16
4
4
4
108
34
34
32
16
45
93
14
14
56
4
4
64
26
26
12
4
4
134
154
548
84
34
118
106
279
385
2,824
0
13
39
4
2,283
2,339
54
119
48
56
17
35
498
158
205
30
50
39
1,309
298
298
189
95
3,847
4,131
146
146
431
19
22
472
272
272
169
37
24
8,963
9,193
18,160
972
170
1,142
PR. LIMS
LOU UP
-06 +10
-09 +07
-09 +08
-12 +09
-30 +07
-22 +20
-06 +02
-09 +14
-09 +15
-11 +04
-19 +19
-21 +08
-23 +08
-22 +00
-18 +09
-10 +01
-15 +02
-11 +03
-17 +10
-16 +08
-21 +22
-15 +07
-27 +13
-27 +13
-19 +02
-16 +13
-12 +11
-12 +11
-19 +07
-19 +07
-09 +05
-17 +03
-22 +02
-11 +06
-11 +09
-11 +09
-07 +05
-11 +06
-14 +02
-09 +13
-09 +12
-12 +13
-14 +12
-20 +14
-15 +12
NO.
AUDS
17
24
41
232
0
4
3
0
8
15
6
7
6
6
5
6
22
7
20
1
6
6
98
12
12
41
5
20
66
11
11
25
3
7
35
115
115
11
8
8
59
86
438
22
13
35
1 YMT T £
AUDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
L4 LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP
3 -04
0 -11
3 -09
4 -14
0
0 -34
0 -06
0
8 -13
8 -27
0 -05
1 -30
0 -14
0 -71
0 -13
1 -40
0 -15
0 -16
2 -14
0
0 -05
0 -39
4 -26
1 -25
1 -25
1 -26
0 -03
16 -24
17 -25
0 -24
0 -24
3 -13
0 -06
0 -28
3 -23
0 -16
0 -16
3 -11
0 -18
0 -12
54 -13
57 -13
90 -21
0 -09
0 -18
0 -13
+12 -03
+14 -09
+13 -07
+12 -10
-09 -25
+12 -07
+11 -10
+16 -14
+10 -02
+32 -26
+00 -19
+41 -03
+18 -19
+16 -37
+09 -12
+07 -08
+05 -09
+12 -01
-10 -39
+16 -20
+29 -24
+29 -24
+14 -20
+08 +00
+19 -14
+16 -18
+01 -23
+01 -23
+09 -11
+23 -03
-09 -23
+13 -18
+13 -10
+13 -10
+07 -18
+13 -19
+03 -12
+08 -12
+08 -13
+14 -16
+10 -07
+09 -13
+11 -11
+06 -04
+10 -07
+09 -06
+09 -10
+13 -22
+02 -21
+10 -09
+10 -16
+11 -07
+40 -29
+20 -14
+30 -09
+27 -02
+22 -40
+06 -12
+07 -13
+06 -10
+13 -02
-05 -40
+18 -21
+25 -15
+25 -15
+10 -19
+09 +00
+13 -10
+12 -17
+00 -23
+00 -23
+07 -09
+04 +03
-07 -21
+09 -16
+11 -10
+11 -10
+14 -12
+14 -20
+09 -12
+10 -10
+11 -12
+14 -16
+11 -08
+06 -14
+11 -12
+ 05
+ 09
+ 07
+ 09
+ 01
+ 07
+ 08
+ 09
+ 07
+41
+ 14
+52
+ 16
+26
+ 09
+ 08
+ 07
+ 12
-06
+21
+ 23
+23
+ 07
+ 07
+ 10
+ 10
-01
-01
+ 06
+ 04
-06
+ 09
+ 10
+ 10
+ 04
+ 12
+ 12
+ 09
+ 09
+ 13
+12
+ 04
+ 11
-03 +08
-03 +08
-15 +07
-07 +04
-07 +04
-08 +06
-08 +06
-12 +07
-12 +07
-09 +03
-10 +09
-10 +09
-09 +08
(continued)
D-7
-------
TABLE D-2 (Continued)
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
07001 11 2
11 2
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
20001
xxriE
22001
XXHA
30001
XXNH
41001
xxRI
47001
*XVT
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
xxNY
40001
XXPR
55001
XXVI
XRG02
08001
XXDE
09001
XXDC
21001
21003
21005
XXMD
39001
39002
39003
XXPA
48001
48002
48003
48005
xxVA
0
0
6
6
4
4
1
1
2
2
24
6
6
18
18
3
3
3
3
30
7
7
0
0
1
2
0
3
14
2
2
18
3
0
4
0
7
2
2
11
11
1
1
4
4
1
1
21
8
8
18
18
0
0
0
0
26
1
1
2
2
5
0
0
5
12
5
5
22
7
0
0
0
7
NO.
NO.
ANAL
51
51
8
8
68
68
19
19
16
16
12
12
174
55
55
152
152
9
9
7
216
32
32
8
8
24
8
3
35
119
28
28
175
40
20
16
20
96
PREC.
CHECKS
342
342
99
99
696
696
447
447
446
446
100
100
2,130
406
406
856
856
96
96
7
7
1,358
202
202
52
52
230
48
17
295
733
315
175
1,223
274
143
107
143
667
PR.
LOU
-12
-12
-08
-08
-10
-10
-15
-15
-09
-09
-10
-10
-11
-13
-13
-07
-07
-13
-13
777
-09
-10
-10
-15
-15
-13
-16
-12
-13
-10
-09
-16
-11
-11
-11
-17
-11
-12
LIMS
UP
+ 08
+ 08
+ 06
+ 06
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 09
+ 13
+ 13
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
777
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 05
+ 05
+ 11
+ 11
+ 04
+ 10
+ 11
+ 08
+ 05
+ 10
+ 06
+ 07
+ 06
+ 07
+ 06
NO.
A
NO. AUDS LEVEL 1
AUDS
21
21
16
16
21
21
50
50
12
12
7
7
127
28
28
249
249
10
10
7
7
287
9
9
8
8
26
10
4
40
30
67
8
105
10
4
11
4
29
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
LOU
-13
-13
-05
-05
-12
-12
-09
-09
-13
-13
-08
-08
-11
-09
-09
-09
-09
-26
-26
777
777
-10
-13
-13
-17
-17
-19
-19
-19
-19
-14
-10
-21
-13
-08
-10
-11
-10
-10
UP
+ 13
+ 13
+ 13
+ 13
+ 09
+ 09
+ 06
+ 06
+ 08
+ 08
+ 09
+ 09
+ 10
+ 09
+ 09
+ 12
+ 12
+ 14
+ 14
777
777
+ 12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 13
+ 13
+ 17
+ 14
+ 17
+ 16
+ 13
+ 08
+ 04
+ 10
+ 03
+ 03
+ 05
+ 03
+ 03
CCUK
PROB
ACT
ABILITY
LEVEL 2
LOU
-11
-11
-07
-07
-12
-12
-09
-09
-10
-10
-09
-09
-10
-08
-08
-06
-06
-25
-25
777
777
-07
-09
-09
-05
-05
-10
-17
-19
-13
-12
-05
-17
-09
-06
-09
-13
-09
-10
UP
+ 08
+ 08
+ 16
+ 16
+ 09
+ 09
+ 08
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 23
+23
777
777
+ 11
+ 09
+ 09
+ 11
+ 11
+ 10
+ 16
+ 12
+ 12
+ 08
+ 05
+ 04
+ 07
+ 01
+ 03
+ 09
+ 03
+ 05
1 TMTTC . ~ ~ .
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU
-10
-10
-04
-04
-12
-12
-10
-10
-07
-07
-07
-07
-10
-13
-13
-09
-09
-13
-13
-09
-10
-10
-06
-06
-09
-16
-17
-11
-10
-10
-17
-11
-08
-11
-12
-11
-11
UP LOU UP
+ 09
+ 09
+ 12
+ 12
+ 11
+ 11
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 09
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 19
+ 19
+ 10
+ 12
+ 12
+ 08
+ 08
+08
+ 16
+ 14
+ 11
+ 09
+08 -15 +02
+ 05
+08 -15 +02
+ 01
+ 04
+ 09
+ 04
+ 05
(continued)
D-8
-------
TABLE D-2 (Continued)
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
15001
15002
15008
15010
15100
XXIN
23001
23002
XXMI
24001
xxflN
36001
36002
36003
36004
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36013
36014
36015
36016
XXQH
51001
x*UI
XRG05
04001
XXAR
19001
**LA
32001
32002
XXN.1
37101
37102
37103
xxOK
45001
45002
45003
45006
x*TX
7
1
3
0
0
11
2
4
6
3
3
0
2
2
2
0
0
4
0
1
2
3
3
0
0
19
5
5
59
1
1
8
a
10
0
10
5
1
1
7
6
1
1
1
9
6
0
0
0
0
6
7
4
11
13
13
2
3
1
0
2
2
2
5
1
0
0
1
3
2
24
13
13
81
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
4
NO.
ANAL
52
5
12
4
4
77
38
25
63
46
46
8
19
8
7
13
8
27
20
8
8
0
11
12
8
150
67
67
521
8
8
24
24
31
4
35
19
1
8
28
96
4
3
15
118
TKtCISJ
NO.
PREC.
CHECKS
250
27
76
29
17
399
200
119
319
520
520
45
97
74
7
66
43
162
116
54
52
0
53
135
49
946
436
436
3,762
47
47
136
136
169
11
180
75
3
32
110
4,872
29
20
89
5,010
.UN
PR.LIMS
LOU UP
-14 +09
-17 +06
-11 +09
-05 +12
-19 +12
-14 +09
-14 +11
-20 +09
-17 +11
-12 +11
-12 +11
-09 +10
-16 +12
-13 +13
777 777
-20 +05
-09 +10
-10 +10
-19 +20
-16 +08
-11 +06
-10 +14
-11 +10
-11 +09
-14 +12
-12 +08
-12 +08
-14 +11
-09 +05
-09 +05
-20 +09
-20 +09
-12 +09
-23 +05
-13 +09
-28 +14
-12 +16
-14 +08
-24 +13
-08 +05
-21 +11
-11 +13
-16 +08
-09 +05
NO.
AUDS
24
10
12
2
8
56
13
9
22
26
26
4
4
0
7
3
4
8
6
4
6
4
6
2
4
55
18
18
212
8
8
7
7
13
6
19
6
2
8
16
162
4
3
14
183
ACCURACY
Ufl _______ P DAB A B T 1 T TV 1 TMTT*
AUDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
L4 LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP
0 -17 +11 -11 +10 -12 +11
0 -14 +11 -12 +10 -11 +12
0 -13 +15 -13 +14 -13 +12
0 -03 +15 -04 +11 -0^ +07
0 -13 +06 -09 +04 -07 +04
0 -15 +12 -11 +10 -11 +10
0 -16 +10 -11 +09 -11 +09
0 -17 +15 -15 +15 -12 +08
0 -17 +12 -13 +11 -11 +09
2 -13 +12 -09 +08 -09 +06
2 -13 +12 -09 +08 -09 +06
0 -03 +14 +02 +15 +07 +14
0 -67 +26 -61 +43 -24 -21
0
7 777 777 777 777 777 777
0 -36 +12 -30 +10 -35 +24
0 -25 +22 -26 +24 -24 +21
0 -09 +14 -05 +10 -11 +14
0 -27 +04 -26 +07 -26 +04
0 -18 +05 -17 +09 -12 +05
0 -19 +24 -16 +17 -21 +19
0 -05 +12 -02 +18 +00 +15
0 -33 +28 -18 +08 -18 +09
0 -21 +35 -17 +28 -14 +21
0 -25 +31 -16 +11 -13 +07
0 -27 +23 -22 +20 -20 +17
3 -14 +15 -16 +14 -14 +12
3 -14 +15 -16 +14 -14 +12
5 -18 +15 -15 +14 -14 +12
0 -23 -01 -18 +03 -17 +05
0 -23 -01 -18 +03 -17 +05
0 -25 +22 -19 +23 -19 +22
0 -25 +22 -19 +23 -19 +22
0 -11 +04 -11 +06 -13 +06
0 -23 +05 -18 +08 -18 +04
0 -15 +05 -12 +06 -14 +05
0 -17 +19 -17 +19 -19 +22
0 -21 +28 +07 +14 -11 +17
0 -21 +16 -20 +17 -19 +18
0 -18 +17 -18 +19 -17 +18
11 -21 +29 -11 +17 -11 +15
0 -08 +04 -11 +05 -07 +04
1 -01 +01 -06 +04 -11 +09
0 -16 +12 -17 +11 -20 +14
12 -21 +28 -12 +16 -12 +15
LEVEL 4
LOU UP
-05 +01
-05 +01
-13 +05
-13 +05
-09 +04
-14 +07
+00 +12
-14 +07
(continued)
D-9
-------
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
XRG06 35 7
TABLE D-2 (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
16001
16002
16003
**IA
17001
XXKS
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
XXMO
28003
XXNB
XRG07
06001
XXCO
27001
XXMT
35001
xxND
46001
XXUT
XRG08
03100
03200
03300
XXAZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
x*CA
12120
xxHI
54100
XXQU
XRG09
13001
**ID
0
1
1
2
0
0
4
2
4
1
1
12
0
0
14
1
1
0
0
4
4
4
4
9
10
0
1
11
15
7
6
14
42
7
7
6
6
66
3
3
0
1
2
3
2
2
0
2
1
1
0
4
1
1
10
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
5
0
1
1
2
2
2
0
6
10
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
NO.
ANAL
213
2
2
17
21
8
8
30
22
10
8
4
74
2
2
105
8
8
8
8
16
16
24
24
56
40
2
8
50
68
36
19
80
203
7
7
7
7
253
12
12
TKCtiSJ
un
PlU .
PREC.
CHECKS
5,483
8
14
81
103
43
43
162
119
60
49
20
410
5
5
561
52
52
87
87
88
88
271
271
498
297
3
38
338
362
228
61
506
1,157
7
7
7
7
1,495
140
140
.un--
PR.LIMS
LOU
-10
-14
-03
-11
-11
-32
-32
-24
-11
-20
-14
-17
-19
-14
-14
-20
-25
-25
-09
-09
-10
-10
-08
-08
-12
-12
-10
-11
-12
-17
-19
-13
-18
-18
777
77?
777
77?
-17
-07
-07
UP
+ 06
+21
+ 04
+ 08
+ 09
+ 31
+ 31
+ 11
+ 08
+ 23
+ 10
+ 10
+ 13
+ 07
+ 07
+ 15
+ 16
+ 16
+ 18
+ 18
+ 04
+ 04
+ 07
+ 07
+ 11
+ 04
+ 04
+ 10
+ 05
+ 09
+ 04
+ 14
+ 07
+ 08
77?
777
77?
77 7
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
NO.
AUDS
253
1
0
16
17
4
4
9
7
6
6
6
34
2
2
57
8
8
15
15
16
16
24
24
63
19
0
6
25
24
18
6
20
68
7
7
7
7
93
10
10
Atl.UKAl.T--
BnnBiBTg TW
AUDS LEVEL 1
L4
12
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
15
15
0
0
12
12
27
6
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
6
7
7
7
7
12
8
8
LOU
-22
-17
-17
-39
-39
-56
-15
-13
-37
-04
-37
+ 01
+ 01
-31
-17
-17
-45
-45
-12
-12
-10
-10
-23
-18
-13
-18
-15
-12
-38
-30
-23
???
77?
777
777
-22
-10
-10
UP
+ 26
+ 12
+ 12
+ 11
+ 11
+ 30
+ 21
+ 30
+ 16
+ 04
+ 28
+ 09
+ 09
+ 23
+20
+ 20
+ 35
+ 35
+ 13
+ 13
+ 08
+ 08
+21
+ 08
+ 14
+ 10
+27
+ 12
+ 23
+ 19
+23
77?
77?
77?
77?
+20
+ 04
+ 04
LEVEL Z LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP
-13 +16
-21 +23
-21 +23
-30 +18
-30 +18
-34 +17
-02 +11
-08 +23
-14 +08
-06 +12
-22 +20
-fl4 +04
-04 +04
-21 +20
-15 +22
-15 +22
-13 +15
-13 +15
-13 +09
-13 +09
-09 +09
-09 +09
-12 +13
-15 +04
-12 +12
-15 +06
-14 +24
-13 +10
-20 +14
-21 +16
-18 +19
77? 77?
77? 77?
777 77?
77? 77?
-18 +16
-07 +05
-07 +05
LOU
-13
-22
-22
-21
-21
-26
-03
-08
-09
-08
-17
-23
-23
-19
-14
-14
-10
-10
-13
-13
-09
-09
-12
-15
-09
-14
-14
-14
-17
-22
-17
77?
777
77?
77?
-17
-08
-08
UP
+ 15
+22
+22
+ 11
+ 11
+ 13
+ 07
+ 17
+ 05
+ 17
+ 15
+ 18
+ 18
+ 17
+ 20
+ 20
+ 13
+ 13
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 11
+ 05
+ 09
+ 06
+23
+ 13
+ 14
+ 16
+ 18
77?
777
777
777
+ 16
+ 07
+ 07
LOU UP
-14 +07
-13 +17
-13 +17
-13 +17
-10 +11
-10 +11
-06 +05
-06 +05
-08 +08
-10 +02
-10 +02
-14 +19
-14 +19
-13 +08
-04 +09
-04 +09
(continued)
D-10
-------
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
38001 1
**OR 1
49001
x*WA
XRG10
8
8
12
TABLE D-2 (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
PRECISION ACCURACY
NO. NO. PROBABILITY LIMITS
NO. PREC. PR.LIMS NO. AUDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
ANAL CHECKS LOU UP AUDS L4 LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP
8 54 -22 +16 13 0 -26 +09 -13 +12 -12 +17
8 54 -22 +16 13 0 -26 +09 -13 +12 -12 +17
38
38
58
422 -08 +07
422 -08 +07
616 -10 +0.9
26 3 -09 +06 -08 +06 -07 +06 -10 +06
26 3 -09 +06 -08 +06 -07 +06 -10 +06
49 11 -17 +10 -10 +08 -09 +10 -07 +09
NATION 341 226 2,531 36,887 -12 +11 1,791 166 -19 +17 -13 +13 -13 +12 -12 +08
D-ll
-------
TABLE D-3. CONTINUOUS N02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES
FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
07001
XXCT
22001
XXMA
30001
x*NH
41001
XXRI
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
XXNY
XRG02
OS001
XXDE
09001
xxDC
21001
21003
21005
XXMD
39001
39002
39003
XXPA
48001
48002
48003
48005
XXVA
50001
50002
xx«V
*RG03
01012
01014
XXAL
10001
10003
3
3
5
5
1
1
1
1
10
4
4
1
1
5
2
2
0
0
3
2
1
6
17
0
2
19
5
0
4
0
9
2
2
4
40
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
4
4
6
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
ANAL
12
12
28
28
7
7
4
4
44
20
20
24
24
44
8
8
8
8
19
5
8
32
72
8
16
96
20
10
15
10
55
8
8
16
215
7
3
3
4
3
-TKttlS
NO.
PREC.
CHECKS
67
67
277
277
7
7
51
51
395
130
130
119
119
249
50
50
60
60
130
19
64
213
452
53
92
597
134
71
94
71
370
50
88
138
1,428
7
11
11
50
11
1UN--
PR.
.LIMS
LOU UP
-14
-14
-13
-13
777
777
-05
-05
-13
-15
-15
-08
-08
-12
-11
-11
-08
-08
-18
-10
-07
-15
-10
-08
-16
-11
-08
-08
-25
-08
-14
-05
-04
-04
-12
777
-04
-04
-08
-42
+ 16
+ 16
+ 13
+ 13
977
777
+ 14
+ 14
+ 14
+ 12
+ 12
+ 11
+ 11
+ 12
+ 11
+ 11
+ 08
+ 08
+ 23
+ 08
+ 10
+ 19
+ 10
+ 08
+ 12
+ 11
+ 08
+ 08
+20
+ 08
+ 13
+ 08
+ 12
+ 11
+ 13
777
+ 05
+ 05
+ 26
+59
NO.
AUDS
4
4
12
12
7
7
4
4
20
8
8
90
90
98
8
8
8
8
14
3
9
26
18
19
4
41
10
5
15
5
35
8
8
16
134
7
2
2
5
3
NO
AUDI
L4
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
0
0
0
0
/
> LEVEL :
ACCURACY
-PROBABILITY
I LEVEL 2 IE'
LIMITS
I/EL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP
-07
-07
-14
-14
-23
-23
-14
-13
-13
-11
-11
-11
-09
-09
-11
-11
-31
-09
-03
-23
-19
-10
-02
-14
-17
-20
-17
-20
-17
-06
-06
-06
-16
777
-89
-89
-38
+ 12
+ 12
+ 15
+ 15
+ 18
+ 18
+ 15
+ 11
+ 11
+ 14
+ 14
+ 14
+ 12
+ 12
+ 05
+ 05
+ 22
-03
+ 10
+ 19
+ 21
+ 15
+ 12
+ 18
+ 12
+ 14
+ 10
+ 14
+ 11
+ 13
+ 14
+ 13
+ 16
777
+ 89
+89
-09
-07
-07
-14
-14
777
-18
-18
-13
-09
-09
-09
-09
-09
-10
-10
-03
-03
-15
-11
-04
-12
-17
-07
-01
-12
-15
-16
-11
-16
-15
-07
-04
-05
-12
777
-77
-77
-34
+ 04
+ 04
+ 14
+ 14
+ 15
+ 15
+ 12
+ 15
+ 15
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 06
+ 06
+ 09
+ 08
+ 07
+ 09
+ 16
+ 08
+ 05
+ 12
+ 03
+ 02
+ 10
+ 02
+ 07
+ 09
+ 11
+ 10
+ 10
777
+ 35
+ 35
-09
-11
-11
-11
-11
777
-10
-10
-10
-11
-11
-09
-09
-09
-06
-06
-04
-04
-11
-08
-06
-10
-18
-06
-01
-12
-12
-15
-11
-15
-15
-08
-05
-06
-12
777
-34
-34
-34
+ 05
+ 05
+ 11
+ 11
777
777
+ 11
+ 11
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 05
+ 08
+ 07
+ 16
+ 07
+02 -02 +04
+12 -02 +04
+ 00
+ 01
+ 12
+ 01
+ 08
+ 07
+ 06
+ 06
+09 -02 +04
777
+ 16
+ 16
-06
(continued)
D-12
-------
TABLE D-3 (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
rv cr ut\ i in vj
ORGAN
STATE
NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
10011
10012
10013
10016
10017
10018
XXFL
11010
**GA
18001
18002
18003
*XKY
34003
XXNC
44002
44006
XXTN
2
2
1
1
2
0
10
0
0
6
1
0
7
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CKtClSlOM
NO.
NO. PREC. PR.
ANAL CHECKS
4
8
4
4
1
5
33
7
7
24
4
8
36
7
7
7
8
8
53
31
27
55
4
39
270
42
42
127
15
700
S42
7
7
7
473
473
LOU
-15
-18
-14
-21
-06
-20
-21
-30
-30
-17
-26
-12
-13
777
777
777
-19
-19
Lins
UP
+ 06
+ 26
+19
+ 12
+ 11
+ 14
+ 22
+ 31
+ 31
+ 12
+ 25
+ 08
+ 09
777
777
777
+ 13
+ 13
NO.
NO. AUDS
AUDS
3
3
8
3
1
3
29
4
4
24
3
5
32
7
7
7
0
0
A
LEVEL 1
L4 LOU UP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
0
0
-28
-13
-16
-73
-72
-44
-24
-24
-24
-24
-26
-24
777
777
777
-07
-04
+ 04
+ 33
-10
+ 12
+ 24
+ 24
+ 18
+ 06
+26
+ 18
777
777
777
ttUKAtT
PROBABILITY
LEVEL 2 LEV
1 TMTTC
EL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP
-38
-07
-16
-50
-70
-40
-18
-18
-18
-13
-05
-17
777
777
777
+ 08
-05
+ 05
+ 17
-07
+ 11
+ 06
+ 06
+ 16
-01
+ 11
+ 15
777
777
777
-35
-09
-10
-48
-77
-39
-06
-06
-19
-10
-02
-17
777
777
777
+ 05
-07
+ 03
+ 14
+ 01
+ 12
-04
-04
+ 15
+ 02
+ 11
+ 15
777
777
777
XRG04
20
67
0 -37 +22 -32 +18 -29 +17
14001
14003
XXH
15001
15002
15008
xxiN
23002
xxMI
24001
xxr.N
36001
36007
36008
36009
36010
36014
36016
xxOH
51001
XXUI
3
6
9
6
1
1
8
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
4
2
2
16
28
44
7
7
4
4
9
9
9
9
4
4
8
8
2
4
3
33
8
8
108
134
242
7
7
22
22
48
48
127
127
20
21
48
39
11
13
9
161
49
49
-12
-19
-17
777
777
-09
-09
-20
-20
-19
-19
-11
-14
-13
-21
-07
-14
-12
-16
-12
-12
+ 04
+ 18
+ 13
777
777
+ 15
+ 15
+22
+ 22
+ 16
+ 16
+ 18
+ 09
+ 17
+ 24
+ 06
+ 10
+ 05
+ 17
+ 09
+ 09
7
10
17
7
7
5
5
4
4
8
8
2
4
6
6
4
4
2
28
4
4
0
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-08
-09
-08
777
777
-25
-25
-26
-26
-32
-32
-24
-20
-21
-21
-18
-33
-22
-29
-11
-11
+ 07
+ 09
+ 08
777
777
+ 20
+20
+ 31
+ 31
+ 14
+ 14
+ 67
+ 39
+ 13
+ 03
+ 13
+ 11
+ 10
+25
+ 24
+ 24
-02
-08
-06
777
777
-17
-17
-05
-05
-16
-16
+ 03
-14
-28
-23
-11
-11
-12
-19
-06
-06
+ 02
+ 07
+ 06
777
777
+20
+ 20
+ 01
+ 01
+ 04
+ 04
+ 19
+ 09
+ 29
+ 03
+ 05
+ 01
+ 05
+ 14
+ 14
+ 14
+ 00
-07i
-06
777
777
-21
-21
-09
-09
-10
-10
+ 08
-22
-13
-22
-09
-14
-13
-17
-05
-05
+ 03
+ 07
+ 06
777
777
+21
+ 21
-01
-01
+ 03
+ 03
+ 09
+ 15
+ 10
+ 03
+ 05
+ 01
+ 07
+ 10
+ 06
+ 06
XRG05
22 12
107
649 -17 +15
66
0 -24 +20 -15 +12 -13 +09
04001 10 4 23 -24 +19 4 2 -22 +14 -14 +11 -15 +09 -15 +10
XXAR 10 4 23 -24 +19 4 2 -22 +14 -14 +11 -15 +09 -15 +10
(continued)
D-13
-------
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
19001 14 Z
x*LA 14 2
32001
32002
XXNM
37101
37102
37103
xxdK
45001
45002
45006
XXTX
XRG06
17001
xxKS
26001
26002
26003
26004
»x MO
*RG07
06001
xxco
35001
X*ND
46001
XXUT
XRG08
03200
03300
xxAZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
XXCA
12120
XXHI
29200
29300
XXNV
1
1
2
2
1
3
6
2
1
2
5
28
1
1
0
2
4
1
7
8
2
2
2
2
3
3
7
0
2
2
28
7
5
17
57
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
4
6
0
0
2
1
0
1
4
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
5
2
4
11
0
0
0
0
0
TABLE D-3 (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
-PRECISION-
-ACCURACY-
NO.
NO. PREC. PR.LIMS
ANAL CHECKS LOU UP
16 101 -14 +08
16 101 -14 +08
NO. PROBABILITY LIMITS
NO. AUDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
AUDS L4 LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP
6 0 -07 +00 -08 +00 -10 +00
6 0 -07 +00 -08 +00 -10 +00
0 -23 +02 -19 +08 -19 +10
0 -23 +02 -19 +08 -19 +10
0 -69 +41 -35 +10 -24 +07
118 3,118 -08 +08
135
0 -25 +26 -14 +23 -13 +25
0 -25 +23 -15 +21 -13 +23
0 -30 +51 -13 +20 -13 +13
0 -15 +27 -15 +13 -22 +10
0 -07 +04 -03 +02 -03 +02
0 -29 +48 -13 +19 -13 +12
2 -30 +44 -14 +18 -14 +13 -15 +10
3
3
12
20
7
8
47
50
16
16
7
7
12
12
35
2
6
8
68
48
13
83
212
7
V
7
8
8
17
17
69
105
27
47
248
265
80
80
33
33
134
134
247
0
35
35
325
311
87
433
1,156
7
7
7
49
49
-52
-52
-14
-13
-41
-26
-21
-25
-24
-24
-07
-07
-10
-10
-15
-12
-12
-15
-07
-17
-09
-12
???
???
???
-04
-04
+ 10
+ 10
+ 12
+ 18
+ 20
+ 20
+ 19
+21
+ 26
+ 26
+ 10
+ 10
+ 16
+ 16
+ 20
+ 12
+ 12
+ 16
+ 09
+ 07
+ 14
+ 14
???
???
???
+ 09
+ 09
0
0
6
7
6
6
25
25
8
8
6
6
12
12
26
0
6
6
33
24
6
22
85
7
7
7
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
25
0
4
0
29
7
>
7
3
3
-48
-46
-52
-50
-50
-50
-37
-37
-12
-12
-11
-11
-23
-09
-09
-22
-12
-13
-27
-21
777
777
777
-01
-01
+60
+ 31
+ 14
+20
+32
+ 32
+51
+51
+25
+ 25
+ 14
+ 14
+ 31
+ 06
+ 06
+20
+ 09
+ 16
+21
+ 17
>>>
777
777
+ 01
+ 01
-12
-20
-24
-26
-20
-20
-11
-11
-05
-05
-07
-07
-10
-09
-09
-19
-10
-11
-21
-17
777
777
777
-10
-10
+ 10
+ 14
+ 06
+ 14
+ 11
+ 11
+21
+21
+ 16
+ 16
+ 06
+ 06
+ 15
+ 07
+ 07
+ 15
+ 09
+ 14
+ 21
+ 15
777
777
777
+ 15
+ 15
-06
-10
-06
-20
-11
-11
-13
-13
-04
-04
-06
-06
-10
-13
-13
-21
-09
-13
-22
-18
777
777
777
-06
-06
+ 01
+ 03
+ 02
+ 15
+ 06
+ 06
+ 19
+ 19
+ 13
+ 13
+ 04
+ 04
+ 12
+ 09
+ 09
+ 14
+ 09
+ 12
+21
+ 15
777
777
777
+ 02
+ 02
-13 +18
-13 +18
-13 +18
-20 +14
-13 +10
-19 +13
-06 +01
-06 +01
(continued)
D-14
-------
TABLE D-3 (Continued)
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAM5
XRG09 62 13
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
PRECISION ACCURACY
NO. NO. PROBABILITY LIMITS
NO. PREC. PR.LinS NO. AUDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
ANAL CHECKS LOU UP AUDS L4 LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP
228 1,240 -12 +13 96 32 -20 +16 -16 + 15 -17 + 14 -18 +13
38001 1
XXOR 1
49001
XXUA
21 -16 +16
21 -16 +16
49 -26 +24
49 -26 +24
XRG10 1 2
NATION 203 59
13 70 -23 +22
941 9,299 -13 +13
9 0 -64 +42 -28 +15 -16 +07
9 0 -64 +42 -28 +15 -16 +07
4 0 -06 +06 -02 +02 -05 +04
4 0 -06 +06 -02 +02 -05 +04
13 0 -51 +36 -23 +14 -14 +07
680 45 -26 +27 -16 +15 -15 +12 -17 +13
D-15
-------
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE
NO.
REGION SLAM
07001
**CT
20001
xxflE
22001
XXMA
30001
XXNH
41001
XXRI
47001
XXVT
XRGOl
31001
XXNJ
33001
xx MY
40001
XXPR
XRG02
08001
XXDE
09001
XXDC
21001
21003
21005
x*MD
39001
39002
39003
XXRA
48001
48002
48003
48005
XXVA
50001
50002
*xwv
3
3
2
2
5
5
3
3
1
1
2
2
16
7
7
11
11
0
0
18
3
3
1
1
7
4
3
14
18
2
1
21
6
0
4
0
10
3
1
4
NO.
HAMS
6
6
0
0
8
8
1
1
1
1
0
0
16
6
6
11
11
1
1
18
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
3
8
2
1
11
5
0
0
0
5
1
0
1
TABLE D-4. OZONE PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES
FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
__ rKttlSlUN
NO.
NO.
ANAL
27
27
5
5
42
42
14
14
8
8
6
6
102
47
47
94
94
5
5
146
18
18
8
8
41
13
16
70
108
11
10
129
32
16
16
16
&0
11
4
15
PREC.
CHECKS
117
117
52
52
372
372
294
294
146
146
53
53
1,034
334
334
488
488
52
52
874
103
103
75
75
403
81
152
636
643
117
55
815
223
118
108
118
567
69
42
111
PR. L IMS
LOW
-08
-08
-08
-08
-17
-17
-16
-16
-OS
-08
-05
-05
-14
-10
-10
-10
-10
-06
-06
-10
-OS
-08
-08
-08
-09
-11
-07
-09
-13
-05
-07
-12
-08
-08
-13
-08
-09
-12
-07
-10
UP
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 12
+ 12
+ 11
+ 11
+ 06
+ 06
+ 09
+ 09
+ 11
+ 12
+ 12
+ 07
+ 07
+ 04
+ 04
+ 09
+ 13
+ 13
+ 10
+ 10
+ 11
+ 11
+ 06
+ 10
+ 12
+ 03
+ 13
+ 12
+ 05
+ 06
+ 09
+ 06
+ 07
+ 11
+ 11
+ 11
NO.
NO. AUDS
AUDS
13
13
16
16
21
21
24
24
9
9
6
6
89
25
25
169
169
6
6
200
9
9
8
8
46
14
16
76
26
37
4
67
13
7
12
7
39
11
4
15
L4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
7
0
7
27
0
0
0
AI
LEVEL 1
LOU
-16
-16
-04
-04
-09
-09
-10
-10
-07
-07
-02
-02
-10
-13
-13
-14
-14
-16
-16
-14
-10
-10
-04
-04
-13
-15
-08
-13
-15
-15
+ 00
-14
-07
-06
-03
-06
-06
-12
-15
-12
UP
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 06
+ 06
+ 12
+ 12
+ 06
+ 06
+ 04
+ 04
+ 10
+ 07
+ 07
+ 12
+ 12
+ 07
+ 07
+ 11
+11
+ 11
+ 09
+ 09
+13
+ 17
+ 09
+ 13
+ 14
+ 10
+ 04
+ 12
+ 13
+ 10
+ 05
+ 10
+ 10
+ 08
+ 09
+ 08
CCUR;
PROB,
*CY
ABILITY LIMI
LEVEL 2
LOU
-09
-09
-07
-07
-07
-07
-11
-11
-07
-07
-02
-02
-09
-07
-07
-13
-13
-09
-09
-13
-10
-10
-04
-04
-10
-15
-05
-10
-14
-12
-04
-13
-05
-04
-06
-04
-05
-12
-09
-11
UP
+ 06
+ 06
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 05
+ 05
+ 04
+ 04
+ 09
+ 11
+ 11
+ 11
+ 11
-01
-01
+ 11
+ 08
+ 08
+ 11
+ 11
+ 10
+ 18
+ 06
+ 11
+ 12
+ 06
+ 05
+ 09
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 07
+ 09
+ 07
+ 08
LEVEL 3
LOW
-07
-07
-08
-08
-10
-10
-10
-10
-09
-09
-01
-01
-09
-06
-06
-13
-13
-09
-09
-12
-08
-08
-07
-07
-08
-16
-04
-09
-14
-13
-02
-13
-04
-02
-06
-02
-04
-12
-09
-11
UP
+ 05
+ 05
+ 10
+ 10
+ 15
+ 15
+ 09
+ 09
+ 05
+ 05
+ 04
+ 04
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
-02
-02
+ 10
+ 09
+ 09
+ 12
+ 12
+ 09
+ 17
+ 06
+ 10
+ 11
+ 07
+ 03
+ 09
+ 05
+ 05
+ 06
+ 05
+ 05
+ 12
+ 07
+ 10
TS ---
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-11 -02
-11 -02
-11 -02
-04 +05
-03 +04
-03 +04
-04 +04
(continued)
D-16
-------
TABLE D-4 (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
XRG03
53 22
01011
01012
01013
01014
01015
XXAL
10001
10003
10005
10007
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
**FL
11010
xxQA
18001
18002
18003
XXKY
25100
xx,*1S
34001
34002
34003
34004
xxNC
42001
XXSC
44001
44002
44003
44004
44005
44006
XXTN
XRG04
14001
14003
xxiL
3
1
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
12
1
0
13
2
2
6
1
1
1
9
3
3
1
0
1
2
0
0
4
42
20
8
28
0
2
2
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
2
2
2
13
4
4
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
4
4
1
2
1
0
2
0
6
34
10
1
11
NO.
ANAL
320
12
12
8
4
3
39
12
8
4
4
8
12
12
4
2
8
8
9
91
12
12
80
8
8
96
25
25
44
4
12
3
63
28
28
15
8
8
9
8
8
56
410
117
28
145
-rKtcisi
un
Nu .
PREC.
CHECKS
2,307
60
61
36
20
22
199
126
38
24
20
171
79
89
28
11
87
48
95
816
95
95
391
40
615
1,046
229
229
204
12
77
20
313
113
113
129
63
48
56
67
620
983
3,794
1,328
125
1,453
UN
PR.LIMS
LOU
-10
-13
-14
-16
-13
-07
-13
-09
-21
-15
-05
-10
-10
-08
-15
-03
-08
-06
-02
-10
-16
-16
-14
-20
-13
-14
-09
-09
-07
-06
-07
-11
-08
-16
-16
-08
-07
-07
-08
-06
-19
-15
-13
-15
-14
-15
UP
+ 10
+ 10
+ 13
+ 13
+ 19
+ 10
+ 13
+ 09
+ 13
+ 11
+ 05
+ 09
+ 10
+ 10
+ 11
+ 05
+ 13
+ 05
+ 01
+ 09
+ 08
+ 08
+ 12
+21
+ 11
+ 12
+ 14
+ 14
+ 06
+ 10
+ 08
+ 16
+ 08
+ 14
+ 14
+ 08
+ 07
+ 04
+ 06
+ 06
+ 16
+ 14
+ 12
+ 08
+ 18
+ 09
NO.
AUOS
214
7
4
6
4
3
24
6
6
6
5
14
6
14
6
3
7
7
7
87
4
4
54
3
5
62
21
21
33
3
25
3
64
113
113
13
12
12
13
15
4
69
444
30
13
43
AllUKAlT
BBABABTI » W
AUDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
L4
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
LOU
-12
-22
-23
-17
-33
-22
-22
-08
-05
+ 03
-23
-17
-30
-06
-24
-09
-07
-20
-09
-15
-19
-19
-21
+ 05
-16
-21
-08
-08
-10
-20
-11
-18
-12
-15
-15
-17
-08
-09
-07
-08
-19
-11
-15
-13
-10
-12
UP
+ 12
+ 17
+ 08
+ 18
+ 31
+ 33
+20
+ 05
+ 06
+23
+ 11
+ 15
+24
+ 05
+ 07
+ 14
+ 12
+ 17
+ 08
+ 14
-03
-03
+ 12
+ 05
+ 21
+ 13
+10
+ 10
+ 13
+ 03
+ 09
+ 19
+ 11
+ 13
+ 13
+ 06
+ 08
+ 08
+ 06
+ 07
+ 19
+ 09
+ 13
+ 09
+ 14
+ 11
LOU
-10
-26
-24
-18
-22
-05
-23
-03
-08
+ 00
-18
-12
-26
-11
-09
-07
-09
-08
-09
-11
-11
-11
-16
-06
-13
-15
-06
-06
-08
-02
-09
-03
-08
-09
-09
-11
-06
-07
-03
-07
-17
-08
-11
-10
-10
-11
UP
+ 10
+ 12
+ 08
+31
+ 20
+ 00
+ 19
+ 04
+ 09
+ 05
+ 00
+ 10
+ 16
+ 08
+ 00
+ 11
+ 13
+ 12
+ 05
+ 09
-04
-04
+ 10
+ 06
+ 14
+ 11
+ 04
+ 04
+ 06
+ 12
+ 10
+ 06
+ 08
+ 09
+ 09
+ 06
+ 05
+ 06
+ 03
+ 05
+ 18
+ 06
+ 09
+ 04
+ 08
+ 05
LOU
-10
-22
-23
-14
-20
-06
-20
-05
-06
-05
-19
-12
-25
-07
-11
-03
-08
-06
-13
-11
-06
-06
-15
-02
-14
-14
-07
-07
-08
+ 01
-10
-11
-09
-09
-09
-10
-05
-05
-06
-11
-16
-09
-11
-11
-12
-11
UP
+ 09
+ 13
+ 05
+27
+ 18
-02
+ 17
+ 05
+ 08
+ 05
-03
+ 07
+ 15
+ 04
+ 04
+ 09
+ 09
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
-05
-05
+ 09
+ 03
+ 13
+ 10
+ 03
+ 03
+ 07
+ 15
+ 09
+ 05
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 04
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 07
+ 18
+ 07
+ 09
+ 04
+ 06
+ 04
LOW UP
-04 +04
-05 +08
-05 +08
-05 +08
(continued)
D-17
-------
TABLE D-4 (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE
un
NO. NO.
REGION SLAM HAMS
15001
15002
15003
15008
15010
xxiN
23001
23002
XXMI
24001
XXMN
36001
36002
36003
36005
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36014
36015
36016
XXQH
51001
*XWI
2
2
0
2
0
6
4
3
7
4
4
1
3
1
1
0
0
5
2
2
0
0
0
0
15
16
16
6
0
1
0
0
7
7
1
8
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
1
0
2
1
15
4
4
NO. PREC.
ANAL CHECKS
44
9
5
12
4
74
39
16
55
28
28
12
12
2
1
11
8
27
12
12
7
1
8
4
117
58
58
215
48
19
69
16
367
175
97
272
308
308
68
60
10
11
50
39
162
69
74
36
5
46
22
652
336
336
PR.
Lins
LOU UP
-10
-11
-06
-11
-20
-11
-11
-12
-12
-12
-12
-11
-14
-13
-18
-08
-10
-10
-13
-08
-09
-07
-13
-08
-11
-11
-11
+ 11
+ 10
+ 10
+ 13
+ 14
+ 11
+ 10
+ 08
+ 10
+ 11
+ 11
+ 13
+ 15
+ 04
+ 28
+ 07
+ 09
+ 11
+ 12
+ 06
+ 04
+ 14
+ 12
+ 09
+ 11
+ 11
+ 11
NO.
AUDS
20
10
8
9
2
49
8
4
12
18
18
4
4
4
0
4
4
15
6
4
4
2
4
4
59
21
21
A f* **t in ft f*\*
AUDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
14 LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP LOU UP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-12
-13
-08
-20
-06
-13
-05
-15
-06
-13
-13
-16
-14
-17
-12
-21
-09
-22
-09
-15
-15
-01
+ 00
-13
-11
-11
+ 11
+ 13
+ 08
+ 16
-02
+ 12
+ 05
+ 12
+ 06
+ 17
+ 17
+ 15
+ 13
+25
+ 07
+ 12
+ 10
+ 09
+01
+ 12
+ 17
+ 04
+ 12
+ 12
+ 05
+ 05
-10
-15
-07
-14
-07
-12
-07
-06
-07
-09
-09
-13
-15
-23
-10
-16
-07
-19
-09
-18
-12
-08
-10
-13
-07
-07
+ 08
+ 07
+ 08
+ 12
-06
+ 08
+ 03
+ 08
+ 04
+ 09
+ 09
+ 04
+ 10
+ 00
+ 04
+ 05
+ 06
+ 06
+ 05
+ 10
+ 09
+ 05
+ 07
+ 07
+ 06
+ 06
-08
-12
-07
-14
-07
-10
-09
-06
-08
-07
-07
-13
-18
-20
-12
-16
-06
-22
-05
-17
-11
-09
-04
-14
-07
-07
+ 07
+ 03
+ 08
+ 11
-02
+ 07
+ 04
+ 02
+ 03
+ 05
+ 05
+ 00
+ 12
-05
+ 06
+ 04
+ 04
+ 03
+ 01
+ 10
+ 08
+ 06
+ 01
+ 06
+ 09
+ 09
XRG05
76 47
477 3,388 -13 +10
04001
XXAR
19001
XXLA
32001
32002
XXNM
37101
37102
37103
XXQK
45001
45002
45006
XXTX
0
0
10
10
3
3
6
2
0
1
3
9
2
6
17
2
2
6
6
0
2
2
1
1
2
4
13
1
0
14
8
8
56
56
12
20
32
12
4
12
28
100
16
23
139
52
52
343
343
64
55
119
68
19
66
153
5,019
123
144
5,286
-02
-02
-10
-10
-13
-12
-13
-16
-18
-08
-14
-06
-10
-14
-07
+ 02
+ 02
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 03
+ 07
+ 08
+ 07
+ 04
+ 07
+ 10
+ 07
+ 06
+ 10
8
8
17
17
8
18
26
4
4
12
20
169
17
20
206
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
XRG06
36 28
263 5,953 -08 +10 277
202 0 -13 +11 -11 +07 -11 +07
0 -03 +02 -04 +02 -04 +04
0 -03 +02 -04 +02 -04 +04
0 -16 +13 -10 +10 -10 +11
0 -16 +13 -10 +10 -10 +11
0 -12 +14 -10 +07 -10 +06
0 -06 +05 -05 +03 -07 +03
0 -08 +08 -07 +04 -08 +04
0 -13 +11 -12 +08 -11 +06
0 -30 +09 -05 +04 +01 +05
0 -16 +21 -13 +20 -13 +21
0 -20 +20 -13 +17 -12 +18
-17 +27 -14 +18 -17 +19
-15 +09 -12 +09 -13 +11
-08 +10 -10 +11 -12 +10
-17 +25 -13 +17 -16 +18
0 -17 +22 -13 +15 -15 +16
(continued)
D-18
-------
TABLE D-4 (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
Kcrun I jnv
ORGAN
STATE
NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NANS
16001
16002
16003
XXIA
17001
xx. >>
-11
-05
-08
+ 17
+ 03
+ 06
+ 09
+ 13
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 10
+ 05
+ 05
>>>
+ 05
+ 04
+ 05
3
5
6
14
66
41
9
32
148
155
155
,
8
3
11
49001
26
230 -06 +14
16
0 -07 +04 -06 +04 -06 +04
(continued)
D-19
-------
TABLE D-4 (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REPORTING PRECISION ACCURACY
ORGAN NO. NO. PROBABILITY LIMITS
STATE NO. NO. NO. PREC. PR.LIMS NO. AUDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
REGION SLAM NAMS ANAL CHECKS LOW UP AUDS L4 LOU UP LOW UP LOW UP LOU UP
**WA it 5 26 230 -06 +14 16 0 -07 +04 -06 +04 -06 +04
*RG10 77 51 387 -11 +14 49 10 -18 +21 -15 +16 -14 +15 -11 +06
NATION 397 215 2,391 21,342 -12 +11 1,920 215 -17 +15 -12 +10 -12 +10 -10 +06
D-20
-------
Explanation of Column Heading Abbreviations for Tables D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8
(Manual Methods)
Column
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Heading abbreviation
REPORTING ORGAN.
STATE
REGION
NO. SLAM
NO. NAMS
NO. OF SAMPLERS
NO. COLL. SITES
COLL. SAMPS < LIM
PR. LIMS
LOW
UP
NO. VAL COLL PAIRS
NO. AUDS
LEVEL 1
LOW
UP
LEVEL 2
LOW
UP
LEVEL 3
LOW
UP
Explanation
Reporting organization number
Two letter state abbreviation
EPA regional office number (RGO#)
Number of SLAMS sites, not including NAMS
Number of NAMS sites
Number of samplers (sites)
Number of collocated sites
Number of paired data sets from collocated
samplers with either result less than the
tabulated values on Form 1:
TSP: 20 yg/m3
S02: 40 yg/m3
N02: 30 yg/m3
Pb: 0.15 yg/m3
Probability limits
Lower probability limits
Upper probability limits
Number of valid collocated data pairs
Number of accuracy audits performed and
reported
Lower probability limits
Upper probability limits
Lower probability limits
Upper probability limits
Lower probability limits
Upper probability limits
D-21
-------
TABLE D-5. TSP PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES FOR
REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
07001 18 23
**CT 18 23
20001
**ME
22001
**MA
30001
**NH
41001
xxRI
47001
XXVT
*RG01
31001
x*NJ
33001
x*NY
40001
XXPR
55001
xxvi
XRG02
08001
**DE
09001
XXDC
21001
21002
21003
21005
21006
**MD
39001
39002
39003
XXPA
48001
48002
48003
43005
9
9
7
7
14
14
6
6
5
5
59
15
15
99
99
7
7
5
5
126
6
6
5
5
14
5
2
4
2
27
63
11
11
85
32
1
16
0
1
1
17
17
1
1
6
6
1
1
49
10
10
27
27
7
7
0
0
44
3
3
4
4
6
0
1
1
1
9
33
7
4
44
17
1
0
2
MANUAL METHODS
NO. OF
SAMP-
LERS
167
167
40
40
93
93
65
65
50
50
24
24
439
66
66
764
764
55
55
>
?
885
36
36
36
36
115
26
22
26
29
218
381
63
56
500
226
10
64
12
NO.
COLL.
SITES
12
12
15
15
8
8
7
7
9
9
8
8
59
6
6
65
65
8
8
7
7
79
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
40
12
10
12
34
12
8
8
8
COLL.
SAMPS PR.LIM5
-------
TABLE D-5 (Continued)
MANUAL METHODS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
XXVA 49 20
50001
50002
XXWV
XRG03
01011
01012
01013
01014
01015
01016
XXAL
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
XXFL
11010
xxQA
18001
18002
18003
xxKY
25100
x*MS
34001
34002
34003
34004
XXNC
42001
XXSC
44001
44002
44003
44004
12
7
19
191
26
8
3
7
9
0
53
13
5
7
7
0
4
0
7
15
5
2
2
9
7
10
93
39
39
40
9
0
49
19
19
50
8
11
5
74
10
10
22
5
7
7
7
4
11
91
6
6
3
1
0
0
16
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
0
0
2
3
14
11
11
6
6
0
12
4
4
4
2
2
1
9
8
8
3
6
6
2
NO. OF
SAMP-
LERS
312
60
55
115
1217
172
25
20
36
48
28
329
44
36
44
32
24
34
16
80
68
36
32
16
39
48
52
601
196
196
232
64
28
324
113
113
204
40
52
24
320
183
183
170
44
60
36
F
NO. (
COLL. 5
SITES <
36
8
8
16
142
12
8
8
8
8
4
48
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
12
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
123
16
16
32
4
4
40
12
12
32
8
8
8
56
11
11
12
8
8
8
'RECISION
:OLL.
iAMPS PR.LIMS
:LIM LOU UP
23 -10 +11
0 -03 +09
0 -11 +15
0 -08 +13
64 -12 +13
2 -26 +05
0 -11 +15
0 -15 +11
11 -09 +06
0 -06 +08
4 -22 +16
17 -18 +12
11 -11 +17
0 -22 +34
0 -09 +08
1 -15 +08
7 -11 +14
1 -14 +14
10 -14 +13
0 -07 +08
0 -13 +08
2 -22 +22
1 -19 +22
2 -15 +15
2 -06 +10
2 -10 +14
0 -09 +12
39 -14 +16
3 -11 +14
3 -11 +14
11 -10 +16
0 -11 +14
2 -09 +15
13 -10 +16
5 -19 +18
5 -19 +18
26 -13 +13
3 -07 +12
6 -09 +10
5 -26 +43
40 -16 +19
4 -07 +13
4 -07 +13
3 -08 +04
0 -10 +14
0 -05 +06
0 -06 +08
NO.VAL
COLL.
PAIRS
520
98
109
207
1,872
156
100
94
194
112
52
708
112
89
109
111
90
101
108
139
106
103
90
104
107
104
106
1,579
201
201
426
59
48
533
156
156
314
102
109
94
619
121
121
166
98
113
92
PR
NO. LEVE
AUDS LOU
100
16
20
36
608
44
360
8
8
13
6
439
53
7
7
13
14
13
6
65
80
36
17
6
12
14
98
441
50
50
101
43
12
156
29
29
227
15
43
8
293
228
228
183
52
90
54
ACCURACY
PROBABILITY LIMITS
1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
UP LOU UP LOW UP
-05 +05
-06 +07
-05 +08
-06 +08
-07 +09
-06 +08
-04 +04
-02 +05
-05 +05
-12 +11
-04 +08
-05 +05
-06 +07
-01 +09
-08 +05
-03 +02
-04 +08
-07 +07
-06 +05
-05 +12
-09 +16
-04 +03
-14 +22
-06 +05
-04 +02
-07 +10
-04 +06
-07 +11
-07 +11
-07 +11
-05 +14
-07 +08
-16 +24
-07 +14
-07 +09
-07 +09
-06 +04
-09 +08
-05 +08
-04 +13
-06 +06
-02 +02
-02 +02
-06 +11
-04 +08
-09 +14
-06 +07
(continued)
D-23
-------
TABLE D-5 (Continued)
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
44005 7 4
44006 0 0
*XTN 48 21
*RG04
385 95
14001
14002
14003
**Il
15001
15002
15003
15005
15008
15009
15010
15100
XXIN
23001
23002
XXMI
24001
xxMN
36001
36002
36003
36004
36005
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36013
36014
36015
36016
xxQH
51001
**WI
XRG05
04002
xxAR
19001
XXLA
47
9
14
70
34
0
4
6
12
0
8
0
64
40
14
54
33
33
9
8
16
18
5
8
6
28
17
13
11
17
20
9
11
196
62
62
479
23
23
24
24
21
4
1
26
12
4
2
1
2
0
0
0
21
16
4
20
11
11
4
3
2
0
0
4
5
7
5
7
1
1
2
4
4
49
16
16
143
3
3
7
7
MANUAL METHODS
NO. OF
SAMP-
LERS
50
95
455
2521
300
68
63
431
152
20
32
32
66
20
24
88
434
224
79
303
16
16
64
44
87
72
21
58
60
136
118
77
37
74
51
16
60
975
16
16
2175
116
116
118
118
NO.
COLL.
SITES
8
4
48
354
16
8
8
32
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
10
64
16
6
22
8
8
8
8
12
8
8
8
8
8
23
8
8
8
4
8
8
135
8
8
269
12
12
8
8
COLL.
SAMPS
-------
TABLE D-5 (Continued)
MANUAL METHODS
»\ t_r ur\ i i, n\j
ORGAN
STATE
NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
32002
XXNM
37101
37102
37103
xxQK
45001
45002
45003
45004
45005
45006
45007
XXTX
7
45
17
4
5
26
10
3
7
2
3
4
1
30
4
4
2
3
3
8
30
4
2
2
0
4
2
44
rxEii
NO. OF NO. COLL.
SAMP- COLL. SAMPS
LERS SITES
-------
TABLE D-5 (Continued)
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
XXUT 5 8
MANUAL METHODS
52001
**WY
XRG08
03100
03200
033QO
XXAZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
x*CA
12120
XXHI
29100
29200
29300
XXNV
54100
x*GU
XRG09
02020
xxAK
13001
XXID
38001
XXQR
49001
x*UA
12
12
135
23
3
8
34
50
4
4
15
73
9
9
12
11
8
31
4
4
151
10
10
16
16
27
27
23
23
1
1
26
0
5
4
9
23
9
3
10
45
2
2
0
2
3
5
0
0
61
3
3
2
2
9
9
13
13
NO. OF
SAMP-
LERS
58
49
49
591
97
31
16
144
189
60
30
125
40*
44
44
24
58
23
105
i
i
697
33
33
71
71
148
148
114
114
NO.
COLL.
SITES
8
12
12
72
6
8
8
22
38
8
8
14
68
8
8
2
8
8
18
7
7
116
7
7
12
12
24
24
11
11
TKLl/i
COLL.
SAMPS
-------
TABLE D-6. PB PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES FOR
REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
07001 16 0
XXCT 16 0
20001
XXME
22001
XXMA
30001
**NH
41001
XXRI
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
40001
x*PR
XRG02
08001
XXDE
09001
XXDC
21001
XXMD
39001
39002
39003
**PA
48001
48003
XXVA
50001
XXWV
XRG03
01011
01012
01013
01014
*XAL
2
2
2
2
7
7
2
2
29
6
6
7
7
2
2
15 11
23 10
1 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
3 2
MANUAL METHODS
NO. OF
SAMP-
LERS
64
64
18
18
18
18
30
30
18
18
148
24
24
48
48
20
20
92
8
8
8
8
24
24
116
58
20
194
8
12
20
56
56
310
4
14
0
8
26
NO.
COLL.
SITES
8
8
6
6
8
8
0
0
4
4
26
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
6
11
4
21
4
4
8
10
10
55
0
7
0
2
9
PRECISION
COLL.
SAMPS
-------
TABLE D-6 (Continued)
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE
MANUAL METHODS
NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
10011
10012
10013
10017
10018
XXFL
11010
**GA
18001
18002
xxKY
25100
XXMS
42001
XXSC
44001
44002
44003
*XTN
XRG04
14001
14002
14003
XXIL
15001
15008
xxiN
23001
23002
XXMI
24001
XXMN
36001
35006
36008
36009
36010
XXOH
51001
x*WI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
4
8
1
1
10
7
1
8
9
6
15
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
6
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
14
0
2
0
2
2
2
4
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
9
2
2
NO. OF NO. COLL.
SAMP- COLL. SAMPS PR.
LERS SITES
-------
TABLE D-6 (Continued)
MANUAL METHODS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE
REGION
XXAR
19001
XXLA
32001
33002
XXNM
37101
37102
37103
XXOK
45001
45002
45003
45006
XXTX
XRG06
16003
XXIA
17001
x*KS
26001
26002
26003
26004
XXMO
28003
XXNB
XRG07
06001
xxco
27001
x*MT
46001
XXUT
XRG08
03100
03200
03300
XXAZ
05001
05004
NO.
SLAM
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
1
2
3
7
1
7
0
15
24
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
3
2
2
8
5
5
4
4
3
3
12
10
1
2
13
22
9
NO.
NAMS
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
8
2
0
0
10
16
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
2
2
6
2
2
0
0
2
2
4
0
5
0
5
2
4
NO. OF
SAMP-
LERS
8
7
7
8
8
16
4
8
10
22
73
7
25
8
113
159
16
16
8
8
2
4
0
6
12
27
27
63
37
37
8
8
20
20
65
40
25
1
66
52
60
NO.
COLL.
SITES
4
7
7
6
4
10
0
0
0
0
43
0
4
4
51
65
5
5
4
4
0
0
0
2
2
4
4
15
3
3
4
4
4
4
11
3
8
0
11
10
4
-rKtti
COLL.
SAMPS
-------
TABLE D-6 (Continued)
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
05036 1 2
05061 19 4
**CA 51 12
MANUAL METHODS
29300
xxNV
XRG09
02020
XXAK
13001
XXID
3S001
XXOR
49001
XRG10
2
2
5
5
7
7
7
7
21
2
2
19
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
TKEtl
NO. OF NO. COLL.
SAMP- COLL. SAMPS
LERS SITES
-------
TABLE D-7. MANUAL S02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES FOR
REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
MANUAL METHODS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
10001
1000*
10012
10013
1001*
10017
XXFL
18002
XXKY
3*003
XXNC
XRGO*
32001
xxNM
XRG06
12120
XXHI
5*100
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
XRG09 10 0
NATION 16 0
PKECIblUN
NO. OF NO. COLL.
SAMP- COLL. SAMPS PR.
LERS SITES i
LIMS
UP
+ *6
+ 20
+*1
+ 39
+71
+ 12
+ 36
+ 18
+ 18
+ 95
+ 95
+ 70
+ 02
+ 02
+ 02
+27
+ 27
???
777
NO.VAL
COLL.
PAIRS
35
81
38
1*
10
16
19*
27
27
10*
10*
325
57
57
57
7
7
7
7
NO.
AUDS
12
21
23
7
31
60
15*
30
30
*8
*8
232
15
15
15
5*
5*
7
7
------HUt UK Ml, I---- ---
PROBABILITY LIMITS-
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOW
-13
-16
-12
-11
-21
-*0
-29
-0*
-0*
-1*
-1*
-25
-06
-06
-06
-08
-08
777
777
UP LOU UP LOU UP
+ 10
+ 15
+ 0*
+ 00
+ 07
+ 18
+ 15
+ 07
+ 07
+ 03
+ 03
+ 1*
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 0*
+ 0*
777
777
-06
-11
-07
-07
-17
-28
-20
-02
-02
-09
-09
-17
+ 00
+ 00
+ 00
-03
-03
777
777
+ 05
+ 09
+ 02
+ 00
+ 05
+ 1*
+ 11
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 11
+ 0*
+ 0*
+ 0*
+ 03
+ 03
777
777
-06
-10
-05
-06
-1*
-19
-15
-01
-01
-07
-07
-13
-08
-08
-08
-03
-03
777
777
+ 05
+ 07
+ 02
+ 00
+ 03
+ 08
+ 07
+ 0*
+ 0*
+ 06
+ 06
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 02
+ 02
777
777
2* 8 6 -31 +27 7 5* -08 +0* -03 +03 -03 +02
185 60 351 -56 +60 389 301 -22 +13 -15 +10 -11 +07
D-31
-------
TABLE D-8. MANUAL N02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES FOR
REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
REPORTING
ORGAN
STATE NO. NO.
REGION SLAM NAMS
48003 8 0
XXVA 8 0
MANUAL METHODS
XRG03
8
10001
10004
10012
10017
XXFL
18002
XXKY
34002
34003
34004
XXNC
XRG04
14002
14003
**U
*RG05
19001
XXLA
32001
XXNM
XRG06
16002
XXIA
28002
XXNB
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
7
6
13
13
14
14
0
0
14
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
XRG07
NATION 40
NO. OF
SAMP-
LERS
32
32
32
24
9
20
20
73
16
16
20
36
2
58
147
36
26
62
62
56
56
6
6
62
7
7
4
4
NO.
COLL.
SITES
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
30
2
2
20
8
2
30
62
8
8
16
16
8
8
4
4
12
7
7
2
2
-rKtu
COLL.
.91UN
SAMPS PR.
-------
APPENDIX E
COMPARISONS OF PARS AND PERFORMANCE AUDIT DATA
E-l
-------
TABLE E-l. PARS AND PA DATA FOR CO, PB, TSP, N02 (MANUAL)
AND S02 (MANUAL) METHODS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTE
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 01 STATE 07
CONNECTICUT
REP ORG 001 LAB 30600
c
I
I
POL. CD. AU
42101 CO
PARS (
12128 LEAD
PARS (
11101 HIV
PARS (
DITS
6
6)
6
15)
27
84)
rKi
LEVEL 1 LEVI
LOW UP LOW
+ 1
(-14) (+13) ( -3)
-4 +0 -4
( -5) ( +6) ( -4)
TOTAL -6
( -5)
JbAOlLl 1 T L in J. 1 b
-.1 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+2 -1 +3
( +4) ( -5) ( +2)
+ 0 -5 -3
( +4)
+ 4
( +5)
REGION 01 STATE 20 MAINE
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
6
2)
12
16)
9
61)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-62 +54
( +0) (+16)
-8 +11
( -6) ( +7)
TOTAL
rKUBABiLI 1 Y Lim 1 b
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-5
( -6)
-7
( -6)
-20
( -6)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+10 -1 +6
(+14) ( -7) (+13)
+3 -9 +6
( +2)
+ 11
( +8)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-2
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 01 STATE 22 MASSACHUSETTS REP ORG 001 LAB 304001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42101 CO
PARS
( 13)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 38)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-7 +16
( -5) (+10)
-13 +7
( -5) ( + 4)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-1 +16
( -3) ( +8)
-18 +10
( -4) ( +3)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 3 +9
( -3) ( + 4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-48
+ 46
REGION 01 STATE 30 NEW HAMPSHIRE
REP ORG 001 LAB 302001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
18
( 23)
LEVE
LOW
-12
( +0)
L 1
UP
+ 13
( +9)
rKuni
LEVEL
LOW
X
( -5) (
AD 1 L 1 1
2
UP
+ 8
+ 8)
IT L i ni i a-
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -6) (
3
UP
+ 9
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 12)
111101 HIV
PARS
10
( 44)
-12 +4
(-12) ( +7)
TOTAL
-13 +6
( -5) ( +4)
-4 +0
( -4) ( +6)
-6
+ 1
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 01 STATE 41 RHODE ISLAND REP ORG 001 LAB 305001
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
15
8)
12
23)
6
44)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-5 + 6
( -3) ( +3)
-8 -2
(-11) ( +8)
TOTAL
rKUBABlLlIT L 1 H 1 1 S -
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-1
( -2)
-12
(-11)
-8
( -7)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+4 -3 +4
( +1) ( -3) ( +0)
+2 -3 -1
( + 10)
-2
( +4)
REGION 01 STATE 47 VERMONT
REP ORG 001 LAB 303001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
9
( 3)
41
( 33)
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -4) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 1
+ 2)
r KUDt
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -2) (
-5
( -5) (
\DILIIY Liniia
2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+ 1
+ 0)
+ 3
+ 3)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 01
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
rKUDHDiLJ. 1 T LJ.1'11 1 D
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
60 -32 +41 -5 +8 -3 +7
( 55) ( -5) (+10) ( -4) ( +6) ( -5) ( +5)
112128 LEAD 54
PARS ( 104)
111101 HIV 93
PARS ( 266)
-11 +6
( -7) ( +6)
TOTAL
-12 +5
( -6) ( +5)
-8 +5
( -6) ( +6)
-22
+ 18
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-5
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 02 STATE 31 NEW JERSEY REP ORG 001 LAB 308001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
30
( 12)
31
( 31)
LEVEL
LOW
-6
(-11) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 4
+ 8)
rKU
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -5)
-4
( -9)
BAD J. L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 7
( + 10)
+ 3
( +6)
T L J.n J. 1 b-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -4) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 7)
REGION 02 STATE 33 NEW YORK
REP ORG 001 LAB 307001
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
62
( 222)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
- r KUB/
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -1) (
4DJ.L1IT L 1 D 1 1 9
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 7
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 02 STATE 33 NEW YORK
REP ORG 001 LAB 407CQ3
PO
C42
112
L.CD.
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
75
( 77)
24
( 34)
LEVE
LOW
-45
( -7)
-10
(-13)
L 1
UP
+ 32
( +8)
+ 12
( + 10)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -3)
-10
(-15)
DAD J. L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 3
( +6)
+ 8
( + 15)
IT L im i
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -2)
-8
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 1
( +2)
+ 10
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION ORNTHE AVERAGES
Ccontinued;
E-6
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 02 STATE 40 PUERTO RICO REP ORG 001 LAB 309001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
I
PARS
11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 8)
9
( 26)
LEVE
LOW
-24
(-29)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 22
( + 20)
L
r KU
EVE
LOW
-1
(-2
-1
( -
4
1)
4
9)
DAD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 14
( + 16)
+ 20
( +3)
T L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-10
(-11)
O
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 10
( +6)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-7
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTE
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 02
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
111
( 97)
LEVE
LOW
-37
(-10)
L 1
UP
+ 28
( + 10)
r Kuaf
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -6) (
\D1L1 1
2
UP
+ 5
+ 8)
T L i n i i a -
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -3) (
3
UP
+ 4
+ 3)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD
PARS (
34)
111101 HIV
PARS
102
( 279)
-10 +12
(-15) (+12)
TOTAL
-10 +8
(-16) (+15)
-5 +8
( -3) ( +5)
-8
+10
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-8
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EM5L PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 03 STATE 08 DELAWARE
REP ORG 001 LAB 313002
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
12
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-7
+ 3
-3
+ 5
-5
+ 3
( 8) ( -5) ( +6) ( -8) ( +8) (-10) ( +7)
12
+ 8
111101 HIV 23
PARS ( 16)
TOTAL
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
POL.CD.
AUDITS
111101 HIV 174
PARS C 77)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
POL.CD.
AUDITS
111101 HIV 174
PARS ( 13)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
-9
-3
-11
-2
( 8) (-18) (+14) (-16) ( +4)
-22 +6
( -9) ( +6)
REP ORG 001 LAB 312001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-12 +11
(-10) ( +9)
REP ORG 002 LAB 312001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-12 +11
(-14) (+22)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCU
THE AVERAGES
E-9
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTE
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
POL.CD.
AUDITS
111101 HIV 11
PARS ( 13)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
REP ORG 003 LAB 41200
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 9 +87
( -8) ( + 4)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG 005 LAB 41200
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUDABlLl 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
T L 1 i'l 1 1 D
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
111101 HIV 15
PARS ( 12)
TOTAL
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
POL.CD.
AUDITS
111101 HIV 18
PARS ( 13)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
-4 +8
( -6) (+11)
REP ORG 006 LAB 41200
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-3 +12
(-12) (+15)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-10
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 03 STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA REP ORG 001 LAB 3110C2
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
45
( 22)
12
( 24)
LEVEL
LOW
-13
(-12) (
-29
( -6) (
1
UP
+ 12
+ 9)
+ 7
+ 6)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-11
(-11)
-9
(-10)
D«D J. L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 13
( +5)
+ 3
( +6)
IT L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-8
( -7)
-11
D "~
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 11
( +4)
1
STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA
REP ORG 002 LAB 411002
PO
C42
112
111
L.CD. AUDITS
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
12
17)
12
14)
14
206)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-5 +2
( -9) ( +6)
-15 +9
(-20) (+14)
TOTAL
r KUDMD.L L i 1 T L i 1*1 1 1 3 -
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-1
( -5)
o
(-49)
-5
( -5)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+4 -2 +4
( +4) ( -4) ( +4)
-1 -9 +2
( +1)
+ 4
( +5)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-ll
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTE
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 03 STATE
39
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
PENNSYLVANIA REP ORG 003 LAB 4110C
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
36
( 8)
12
( 9)
11
( 16)
STATE
AUDITS
33
( 8)
12
( 12)
25
( 60)
LEVE
LOW
-12
( -8)
-16
TOTAL
48 VIRG
LEVE
LOW
+ 0
( -5)
-3
(-12)
L 1
UP
+ 7
( +5)
+ 22
INIA
L 1
UP
+ 7
( +4)
+ 6
( +8)
TOTAL
rKutsA
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -7) (
-9
( -5) (
-3
( -8) (
PD O D i
KuB/
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -4) (
-4
( -5) (
-10
( -3) (
kt>i L
2
UP
+ 6
+ 7)
+ 0
+ 3)
+ 8
+ 6)
\BIL
2
UP
+ 4
+ 1)
+ 4
+ 6)
-1
+ 3)
J.IY L i n i i 3 -
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -6) (
-7
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -4) (
-7
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 5)
+ 4
001 LAB 31500
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 1)
+ 7
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-12
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 03 STATE 48 VIRGINIA
REP ORG 002 LAB 415005
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 4)
6
( 8)
STATE
AUDITS
18
( 10)
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -1) (
TOTAL
48 VIRGIN
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -4) (
1
UP
-2
+ 2)
IA
1
UP
+ 2
+ 5)
r K (jof
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -4) (
-11
( -3) (
D D n O j
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -5) (
\D i L
2
UP
+ 0
+ 2)
+ 5
+ 2)
\BIL
2
UP
+ 5
+ 9)
i i T L i n i i a -
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
( -5) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
( -4) (
3
UP
+ 1
+ 2)
003
3
UP
+ 3
+ 8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 415004
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
142602 N02
PARS
( 28)
112128 LEAD 11
PARS ( 30)
111101 HIV 11
PARS ( 23)
( -7) ( +8)
-33 + 67
( -6) ( +7)
TOTAL
REGION 03 STATE 48 VIRGINIA
POL.CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
6 -4 +4
( 4) ( -1) ( +2)
-4 -4
( -1) ( +5)
+ 1
+ 5
-8 +2
( +0) ( +4)
-6 +14
( -2) ( +6)
-2 +0
( -3) ( +2)
REP ORG 005 LAB 415001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-3 +4 -8 +5
( -4) ( +2) ( -5) ( +2)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-13
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 03 STATE
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
39)
15
16)
50 WEST VIRGINIA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-36 +21
( -8) ( -1)
+ 4 +13
( -1) ( +7)
TOTAL
REP ORG
PROBABILITY LIMITS-
001 LAB 314001
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-5 +2
( -6) ( +1)
-2
( -6)
+10
-5 +8
( -5) ( +7)
REGION 03 STATE 50 WEST VIRGINIA
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-1 +0
( -6) ( +0)
-14 +12
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG 002 LAB 314002
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
30 TOTAL
( 20)
r KUBAtSi L 1 1 Y Linilb
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOW UP LOW UP
-9 +6
( -4) ( +7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-14
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 03
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS
171
( 85)
5
( 28)
LEVEL
LOW
-10
( -9) (
( -6) (
1
UP
+ 9
+ 7)
+ 7)
r KUCW
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -7) (
-8
( +0) (
AD 1 L 1 1
2
UP
+ 8
+ 5)
+ 2
+ 3)
IT L 1 PI 1 1 3-
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -6) (
-4
( +0) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 7
+ 4)
-4
+ 4)
112128 LEAD 83
PARS ( 136)
111101 HIV
PARS
527
( 493)
-30 +30
(-10) (+11)
TOTAL
-11 +8
(-14) (+10)
-13 +11
( -7) ( +7)
-11
+ 6
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-15
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 01 ALABAMA REP ORG Oil LAB 319001
I
POL
111
.CD.
01 HIV
PARS
R
EGI
POL
ON 04
.CD.
AUDITS
14
( 44)
STATE 01
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
TOTAL
1
UP
ALABAMA
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-8
( -6)
at
I
(
\a i L
2
UP
+ 6
+ 7)
P P rm A n T 1
rKUDADi i_
LEVEL 2
LOW
UP
1 1 Y L INI 1 b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
REP ORG 012
TTV 1 TMTTC
1 1 Y L i rl 1 1 b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVE
LOW
LAB 4
LEVE
LOW
L 4
UP
19001
L 4
UP
C42101 CO 12 +1 +7 +3 +5 +1 +4
PARS ( 6) ( -2) (+11) ( -4) (+10)
112128 LEAD 6 -8 -3 -4 +0 -6 -6
PARS ( 12) ( -5) ( -1) ( -1) ( +1)
111101 HIV 12 TOTAL +5 +7
PARS ( 360) ( -4) ( +4)
REGION 04 STATE 01 ALABAMA REP ORG 014 LAB 419004
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
112128 LEAD 12 -1 +5 -22 +70 -10 +10
PARS ( 15) ( -8) (+10) ( -9) ( +7)
111101 HIV 4 TOTAL -I +4
PARS ( 8) ( -4) ( +4)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-16
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 01 ALABAMA REP ORG 015 LAB 419CQ5
PROBABILITY LIMITS ^
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 9 TOTAL -8 +5
PARS ( 13) (-11) C+10)
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 001 LAB 323005
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
142602 N02 5 -5 +3 -3 -3
PARS ( 12) (-10) (+13) ( -6) ( +7) ( -5) ( +6)
142401 S02 9 +6 +16 +3 +14 -1 +16 -4 +18
PARS ( 12) (-12) (+10) ( -6) ( +5) ( -5) ( +4)
111101 HIV 36 TOTAL -8 +11
PARS ( 53) ( -6) ( +6)
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 002 LAB 323003
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 15 TOTAL -8 +8
PARS ( 6) ( -1) ( +8)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-l 7
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTE
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 003 LAB 3230C
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL,CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL f,
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UF
111101 HIV 21 TOTAL -15 -2
PARS ( 6) C -7) ( + 4)
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 004 LAB 3230C
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UF
142602 N02 5 -8 +3 -4 -4
PARS ( 9) ( -3) ( +8) ( -3) ( +5) ( -2) ( +6)
142401 S02 10 -48 +69 -6 -1 -7 +8 -6 +C
PARS ( 21) (-15) (+15) (-10) ( +9) ( -9) ( +6)
111101 HIV 12 TOTAL -4 +7
PARS ( 13) ( -2) ( +1)
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 005 LAB 3230C
. . PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW Ur
111101 HIV 10 TOTAL -9 -1
PARS ( 14) ( -4) ( +7)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-18
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 19S3
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG 006 LAB 325006
-PROBABILITY LIMITS .-
POL. CD.
AUDITS
111101 HIV 26
PARS ( 13)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-5 +7
( -6) ( +6!
REP ORG 007 LAB 323G10
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL. CD.
AUDITS
111101 HIV 3
PARS ( 5)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-1 +4
( -6) ( +5:
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG Oil LAB 423003
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
30
12
111101 HIV 66
PARS ( 65)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUQABiLi 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
T L i ri i 4 3
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-7
+ 9
-2
+ 7
+ 0 +12
-1
+4
( 12) ( -4) (+10) ( -4) ( +4)
TOTAL
-6 +7
C -4) (+11)
-1
+7
( 25) ( -8) ( +8) ( -3) ( +8) C -5) ( +8)
+ 3
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-19
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 012 LAB 423004
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
27
( 6)
10
( 24)
5
( 23)
12
( 12)
43
( 80)
STATE
AUDITS
30
C 25)
10
( 7)
12
( 11)
30
( 36)
LEVE
LOW
-23
(-18)
( -2)
+ 3
(-11)
-8
(-14)
TOTAL
10 FLOR
LEVE
LOW
-9
( -6)
-4
(-10)
-7
( -3)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 18
( + 9)
( +5)
+ 3
( +4)
-3
( -1)
IDA
L 1
UP
+ 5
( +6)
+ 10
( +01
+ 10
( +8)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-7
(-24)
-9
( -1)
+ 2
( -6)
-13
(-11)
-10
( -8)
-_ D D n
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -4)
+ 4
( -6)
?
( -5)
-6
( -3)
BABl L
L 2
UP
+ 11
( + 15)
+ 2
( +4)
+ 2
( +2)
-4
( +0)
+ 13
( + 14)
BAB1L
L 2
UP
+ 1
( +4)
+ 8
( +0)
+ 1
( + 11)
+ 5
( +2)
1 1 Y L1N1 1 b
LEVEL
LOW
-7
(-28) (
-8
( -1) (
+ 3
( -5) (
-11
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -4) (
+ 2
( -6) (
-1
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 12
+ 15)
+ 1
+ 4)
+10 -3 -3
+ 1)
-3
013 LAB 423016
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 2
+ 5)
+11 +2 +7
+ 0)
+ 3
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-20
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 014 LAB 423C05
POL. CD.
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
AUDITS
10
( 31)
23
( 17)
STATE
AUDITS
9
( 4)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
-9
(-20)
TOTAL
10 FLOR
LEVE
LOW
TOTAL
10 FLOR
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
+ 12
( +7)
IDA
L 1
UP
IDA
L 1
UP
f KUBAtS J. L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 +18
(-16) ( +5)
-5 +5
(-14) (+21)
D D n D A D T 1
rKUbADl L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-3 +6
( -5) ( +4)
_ D D fin A n T 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
i i Y L i n i i :>
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 1 +14
(-13) ( +2)
REP ORG 015
IT V I T M T T C
IT L i n 1 1 b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
REP ORG 016
TTV 1 TMTTC
11Y L 1 rl i 1 o
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
+ 0 +9
LAB 423015
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 423008
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42101 CO 6 -18 +8 +0 +4 +3 +12
PARS ( 4) (-16) (+15) ( -3) ( +4) ( -5) ( +5)
111101 HIV 14 TOTAL -4 +1
PARS ( 12) ( -4) ( +2)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-21
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 017 LAB 423001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
I1110I HIV
PARS
AUDITS
27
( 7)
10
( 61)
10
( 60)
12
( 14)
27
( 14)
LEVE
LOW
-5
(-44)
( -7)
-2
(-39)
+ 0
( -5)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 1
(+42)
( + 13)
+ 40
( + 17)
+ 9
( +7)
--r KU
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -3)
-19
( -5)
-42
(-26)
-5
( -6)
-10
( -7)
£>At5 i L 1 i
L 2
UP
+ 1
( +9)
+ 7
( +7)
+ 22
( + 13)
+ 10
( +6)
+ 3
( +9)
IT L ini i
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -3)
-12
( -4)
-35
(-19)
-2
V,
L 3
UP
+ 1
( +4)
+ 11
( +5)
+ 15
( +7)
+ 7
LEVEL A
LOW UP
-16 +13
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG 018 LAB 423C02
POL. CD.
C42I01 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 5)
6
( 12)
LEVE
LOW
-23
(-26)
-5
( -8)
L 1
UP
+ 3
( + 14)
+ 5
( +3)
LEVE
LOW
-3
(-26)
-6
( -2)
OHO 1 L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 5
( + 13)
+ 0
( +1 )
T L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-1
(-24)
-5
3
L 3
UP
+ 1
( + 11)
-2
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-22
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 11 GEORGIA REP ORG 010 LAB 321001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 12 -9 +6 -3 + 4 -2 + 4
PARS ( 9) (-23) ( +5) ( -6) ( +2) ( -4) ( +2)
112128 LEAD 12 -29 +10 -7 +0 -3 -1
PARS ( 9) ( -9) ( +0) ( -4) ( +1)
111101 HIV 15 TOTAL -7 +2
PARS ( 50) ( -6) (+10)
REGION 04 STATE 18 KENTUCKY REP ORG 001 LAB 316001
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r K UD/
LEVEL
LOW
\D J. L 1 1
2
UP
T L 1 H 1 1 3
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
POL.CD. AUDITS
111101 HIV 26 TOTAL -3 +13
PARS ( 101) ( -4) (+13)
REGION 04 STATE 18 KENTUCKY REP ORG 001 LAB 3160C7
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 39 -4 +86 -44 +60 -74 +71
PARS ( 24) (-16) (+14) ( -7) ( +6) ( -6) ( +5)
112128 LEAD 12 -26 +27 -17 + 9 -19 +13
PARS ( 12) (-15) (+24) (-13) ( +8)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-23
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 18 KENTUCKY REP ORG 002 LAB 416001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
21
( 2)
5
( 30)
LEVE
LOW
-8
(-23)
+ 3
( -4)
L 1
UP
+ 7
( + 11)
2
( +6)
r KUB>
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -5) (
( -2) (
Ml 1 i. i I
2
UP
+ 6
+ 7)
+ 5)
i Y L 1 Hi 1
LEVE
LOW
-5
( -3)
( -1 )
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 11
( +6)
( + 3)
112128 LEAD 12 -9 +5 -4 +2
PARS ( 12) ( -7) (+14) (-12) (+12)
REGION 04 STATE 25 MISSISSIPPI REP ORG 100 LAB 322002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 4)
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
(-10) (
1
UP
+ 4
+ 9)
rnuot
LEVEL
LOW
( -5) (
\D 1 L J. 1
2
UP
+ 7)
IT L i ni i d-
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -3) (
3
UP
+ 2
+ 4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD 6 +3 +14 -17 +20 -3 +4
PARS ( 17) (-16) (+20) (-12) (+13)
111101 HIV 18 TOTAL -9 +8
PARS ( 29) ( -6) ( +7)
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA REP ORG 001 LAB 318001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 62 TOTAL -14 +12
PARS ( 227) ( -5) ( +4)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-24
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA REP ORG 001 LAB 318004
PO
C42
REG
L.CD.
101 CO
PARS
ION 04
POL. CD.
C42
111
101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 13)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 8)
27
( 15)
LEVEL
LOW
-12
(-14) (
34 NORTH
LEVEL
LOW
-24
(-12) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 12
+ 8)
CAROL
1
UP
+ 9
+ 7)
r KUB>
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -6) (
INA
_««_DD nn
____(- ^ (jm
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -3) (
-6
( -8) (
\tt I L
2
UP
+ 7
+ 4)
2
UP
+ 3
+ 4)
+ 2
+ 8)
IIY L i n i i 3-
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -6) (
REP ORG
TTV 1 TMTTC
ill L J. rl 1 1 b
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -2) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 4
+ 3)
002 LAB 418003
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 3
+ 3)
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA
REP ORG 003 LAB 418006
POL. CD-
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS
30
( 59)
10
( 54)
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -9) (
( -4) (
1
UP
+ 4
+ 7)
+ 7)
r KUB/
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -1) (
-6
( +0) (
\DILi
2
UP
+ 3
+ 4)
+ 2
+ 5)
T L i n 1 1 3
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -3) (
-9
( -1) (
3
UP
+ 3
+ 3)
+ 9
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
111101 HIV
PARS
68
( 43)
TOTAL
-5 + 5
( -5) ( +7)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-25
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEf'
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION Oft STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA REP ORG 004 LAB 418GOJ
POL. CD.
142602 N02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
4
( 5)
12
( 8)
STATE
AUDITS
18
( 47)
12
( 17)
13
( 228)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 27)
10
C 183)
LEVEL
LOW
( -2) (
TOTAL
42 SOUTH
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-22) C
-1
C -3) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 24)
CAROL
1
UP
+ 4
+ 11)
+ 8
+ 8)
44 TENNESSEE
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-26) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 3
+ 35)
r KUOAD i L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-28 -10
(-12) (+17)
-14 +10
( -4) (+12)
INA
D D f"l D A D T 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 +5
( -8) ( +6)
-3 +6
( -3) ( +4)
+ 5 +7
( -2) ( +2)
r»r»rin»r»Ti
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-18 +6
(-14) (+19)
-5 +2
( -5) (+10)
J.IT Li riilS
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
(-20) (+23)
REP ORG 001
TTV 1 TMTTC-
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-3 +6
( -7) ( +5)
-15 +12
REP ORG 001
TTV 1 TMTTC
III L i ri 1 1 b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-9 +6
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 32000]
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 31700.
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-26
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE REP ORG 002 LAB 417004
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
22
33)
6
12)
5
52)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-7 +16
(-10) ( +5)
-11 +15
(-15) (+16)
TOTAL
r K U B A D 1 LI 1 T LJ.FH 1 S
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-4
( -5)
-4
(-14)
-10
( -4)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+13 -1 +5
( +5) ( -4) ( +5)
+0 -26 +18
( + 10)
+ 3
( +7)
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE
REP ORG 003 LAB 417003
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42101 CO
I
I
PARS (
12128 LEAD
PARS (
11101 HIV
PARS (
30
28)
6
60)
38
90)
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
(-17) (
-9
( -5) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 6
+ 8)
-6
+ 3)
rKUDADiLl 1
LEVEL 2
LOW
-2
(-14)
-4
( -5)
-5
( -8)
UP
+ 5
( +8)
+ 2
( + 3)
+ 1
( + 13)
I T Lll'll 13
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-1
( -3)
-8
-
UP LOW UP
+ 5
( +3)
+ 20
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-27
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE
POL.CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 11)
18
( 54)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-9 +9
C -6) ( +6)
TOTAL
REP ORG 004 LAB 417002
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-3 +10
( -2) ( +3)
-5 +6
( -5) ( +6)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-8 +17
C -4) ( +3)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE
REP ORG 005 LAB 417001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 9)
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -8) (
1
UP
+ 4
+ 5)
r KUB/
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -6) (
\DiLl
2
UP
+ 6
+ 4)
IT L irii i :>-
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -3) (
3
UP
+ 8
+ 6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
111101 HIV
PARS
17
( 46)
TOTAL
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE
POL.CD.
AUDITS
111101 HIV 17
PARS ( 46)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
-8 +1
( -6) ( +6)
REP ORG 006 LAB 417001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-8 +1
( -6) ( +8)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-28
-------
TABI.F K-l (Corit i-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING S V C 7 F.
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADH5 ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 04
PO
C42
142
L .CD.
101 CO
PARS
602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
358
( 325)
44
( 165)
59
( 184)
LEVE
LOW
-26
(-15)
( -8)
-45
(-25)
L 1
UP
+ 34
( + 10 )
( + 13)
+ 43
( + 15)
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-16
( -7)
-18
( -8)
-15
(-17)
D AD i L I !
L 2
UP
+ 20
( +7)
+ 8
( + 11 )
+ 19
( + 10)
T L 1 1 1 I I
LEVE
LOW
-22
( -6)
-9
( -5)
-13
(-13)
^
L 3
UP
+ 25
( +5)
+ 6
( + 7)
+ 19
( +7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-S +12
112128 LEAD 150
PARS ( 254)
111101 HIV 720
PARS (1935)
-14 +13
(-13) (+14)
TOTAL
-32 +25
( -9) ( +8)
-9 +9
( -5) ( +7)
-11
+ 8
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-29
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 14 ILLINOIS REP ORG 001 LAB 323001
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
C42101 CO 21 -16 + 27
PARS ( 9) ( -8) ( +6)
rKUtSABlLi 1 Y Li Hi 1 b
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-6 +10 -4 + 7
( -7) ( +7) ( -7) ( +5)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 12)
111101 HIV 10
PARS ( 69)
-7 +2
( -7) (+13)
TOTAL
REGION 05 STATE 14 ILLINOIS
POL. CD.
AUDITS
142602 N02 10
PARS ( 25)
112128 LEAD 10
PARS ( 12)
111101 HIV 9
PARS ( 15)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
( -7) ( +5)
-5 +2
C -7) (+13)
TOTAL
-10 -2 -10 -1
( -6) ( +7)
-3 + 4
( -7) ( +6)
REP ORG 002 LAB 426002
PROBABILITY LIMITS -----------------
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-7 +4
( -8) ( +6)
-14 +5
( -4) (+11)
-10 +6
(-13) (+11)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-10 +11
( -9) ( +6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-30
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PR EC ISI ON/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
4 ILLINOIS REP ORG 003 LAB 4113003
PROBABILITY LIMITS
REGION 05 STATE
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42101 CO 15 -18 +15 -12 +14
PARS ( 11) (-17) ( + 9) ( -9) ( +6)
-4 +12
( -9) ( +5)
142602 N02
PARS
( 29) (-12) (+11)
112128 LEAD^ 12
-4 +15
PARS ( 12) ( -6) (+12)
111101 HIV 5 TOTAL
PARS ( 20)
-5 +6
(-15) (+10)
-6 +4
( -9) ( +8)
-8 -3
( -7) ( +4)
-7 +7
(-18) ( +9)
-7
+ 1
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA
REP ORG 001 LAB 329002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 9)
LEVE
LOW
-18
(-38)
L 1
UP
+ 2
(+22)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-4
(-11)
DAD 1 L i I
L 2
UP
+ 3
( + 11 )
T L i ri i i
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -6)
3
L 3
UP
+ 3
( + 10)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 17)
-6
+ 4
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA
-2 +2
( -9) (+10)
-6
+ 9
REP ORG 002 LAB 429002
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL. CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
111101 HIV 6
PARS ( 10)
TOTAL
+ 1 +5
( -2) ( +5)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-31
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA REP ORG 003 LAB 425007
I
POL
.CD.
11101 HIV
PARS
REGI
POL
I
ON 05
.CD.
11101 HIV
PARS
REGI
POL
ON 05
.CD.
AUDI
TS
27
( 16)
STAT
AUDI
1
( 1
E
TS
1
0)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
TOTAL
15 INDI
LEVE
LOW
TOTAL
L 1
UP
ANA
L 1
UP
15 INDIANA
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
r KUB;
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -6) (
r K UD/
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -1) (
P D OP i
LEVEL
LOW
=>tii L
2
UP
+ 5
+ 4)
\BIL
2
UP
+ 3
+ 4)
\BIL
2
UP
1 1 Y L ini 1 b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
REP ORG 005
IT V 1 T M T T C
IT Llnllb
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
REP ORG 008
IT V 1 T M T T C
IT L i Pi 1 I 3
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 42
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 42
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
9005
4
UP
9004
4
UP
C42101 CO 18 -9 +3 -6 +5 -7 +7
PARS ( 11) ( -8) ( +8) ( -4) ( +8) ( -3) ( +3)
111101 HIV 6 TOTAL -8 +8
PARS ( 16) ( -3) ( +5)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-32
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA REP ORG 009 LAB 42SOOS
POL. CD. AUDITS
111101 HIV 15
PARS ( 8)
REGION 05 STATE
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42101 CO 30
PARS ( 8)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 50)
REGION 05 STATE
POL. CD. AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
23 MICHIGAN
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-7 +6
( -9) ( +7)
-59 +41
( -7) ( +6)
23 MICHIGAN
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
f KUBAtii L 1 1 Y LinilS -
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-4 +6
( -4) ( +5)
REP ORG 001 LAB 326001
rKUDADlLllY Linllb ~
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-5
( -5)
-52
( -7)
+7 -7 +7
( +2) ( -7) ( +3)
+35 -53 +37
( +3)
REP ORG 002 LAB 426001
DDflDADTI TTV 1 TMTTC
- rKUBADlLlIT L 1 rl 1 1 o
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 15 -14 +15 -6 +9 +0 +8
PARS ( 9) (-15) (+11) ( -3) ( +8) ( -3) ( +6)
112128 LEAD 12 -8 +12 -8 +8 -6 +5
PARS ( 21) ( -2) ( +4) ( -3) ( +4)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-33
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 24 MINNESOTA REP ORG 001 LAB 324001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
42
( 21)
LEVE
LOW
-15
(-20)
L 1
UP
+ 11
( + 17)
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-5
(-12)
DAB J. L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 10
( + 11)
IT L 1 II i 1 3
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-12) (
3
UP
+ 8
+ 8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 12)
111101 HIV 20
PARS ( 117)
-28 +15
( -6) ( + 3)
TOTAL
-2 + 2
( -6) ( +4)
-6 +3
( -6) ( +5)
-3
+ 4
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 001 LAB 327001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
fKUDABlLlIT Lll'l 1 1 D ~ ~
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
18 -1 +8 -2 +9 -3 +9
( 5) ( -8) (+14) ( -6) (+10) ( -5) ( +7)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 27)
-32 +45
(-11) ( +7)
-9 +1
( -5) ( +2)
-6
-4
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REP ORG 002 LAB 327003
AUDITS
23
( 11)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
rKUB/
LEVEL
LOW
_ Q
(-11) (
\B1L1IY L 1 n 0. 1 D
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 2
-2)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-34
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 003 LAB 327005
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 24 TOTAL -5 + 4
PARS ( 25) ( -6) ( +6)
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 005 LAB 327006
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUBABiLl 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
i r L j. ni i r>
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD. AUDITS
111101 HIV 20 TOTAL -10 +6
PARS ( 11) (-11) ( +7)
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 006 LAB 427001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 12 -4 +5 -3 +6 -6 +8
PARS ( 4) (-21) (+10) (-14) ( +8) ( -8) (+11)
111101 HIV 65 TOTAL -5 +4
PARS ( 16) ( -6) ( +6)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-35
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 007 LAB 427002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 4)
32
( 14)
LEVEL
LOW
-31
(-15) (
TOTAL
1
UP
H4
+ 7)
r KUD/
LEVEL
LOW
-11
( -5) (
-7
( -2) (
\01 L J. 1
2
UP
+ 7
+ 2)
+ 3
+ 2)
IT L i n I I b-
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -9) (
3
UP
+ 5
+ 4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 008 LAB 427003
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
30
( 4)
38
( 37)
LEVE
LOW
-2
(-18)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 12
( + 15)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
+ 0
(-17)
-5
( -8)
DAD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 8
( + 14)
+ 4
( +6)
IT L j. n i i 3-
LEVEL
LOW
-3
(-15) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 9
+ 8)
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 009 LAB 427004
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
18
( 2)
15
( 36)
LEVE
LOW
-10
(-14)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 5
( + 10)
LEVE
LOW
-5
(-18)
-10
(-14)
DMD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 4
(+14)
+ 4
( +8)
IT L 1 I'l 1 1 0 -
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-10) (
3
UP
+ 4
+ 2)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-36
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 010 LAB 427005
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
4)
11
27)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-11 +2
(-10) (+12)
TOTAL
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 + 4
(-10) ( +7)
-19 +18
(-13) ( +8)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-4 + 2
( -6) ( +0)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 012 LAB 427007
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 4)
42
( 16)
LEVE
LOW
-11
(-11 )
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 0
( + 19)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-5
( -7)
-7
( -8)
HABJL L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 9
( + 14)
+ 1
( +5)
T L 1 PI 1 1
LEVE
LOW
-5
( -4)
s
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 11
( + 9)
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REP ORG 013 LAB 427010
AUDITS
19
( 19)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
fKuat
LEVEL
LOW
-7
(-12) (
\01L1IY Llnlli
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 7
+ 4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-37
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 014 LAB 427008
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 2)
14
( 25)
LEVE
LOW
-28
( -9)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
-28
( +3)
TKUDrtDlLJ. 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+32 +32
( +0) ( +0)
+ 0 +2
(-20) (+14)
T L 1 1 1 1 1
LEVE
LOW
+ 18
( -2)
o
L 3
UP
+ 18
( +2)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 015 LAB 427009
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 4)
14
( 17)
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -8) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 1
-5)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-1
( -7)
-8
( -8)
DrtD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 0
( -2)
+ 1
( + 10)
IT L 1 n 1 1 S -
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -7) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 2
+ 0)
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 016 LAB 427012
C
I
POL. CD.
42101 CO
PARS
11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
5
( 4)
24
( 19)
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -4) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 6
+ 3)
fKUUf
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -9) (
-5
( -4) (
\Q1L1 1
2
UP
+ 5
+ 5)
+ 3
+ 3)
IY Liniia
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 -1
( -7) ( +1)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-38
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 51 WISCONSIN REP ORG 001 LAB 325001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 42 TOTAL -9 + 7
PARS ( 84) ( -3) ( +4)
REGION 05 STATE 51 WISCONSIN REP ORG 001 LAB 325002
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 54 -4 +10 -2 +8 -1 +6
PARS ( 5) (-11) (+20) ( -5) ( +6) ( -3) ( +0)
112128 LEAD 6 -4 +8 -1 -1 -1 +1
PARS ( 24) ( -2) ( +2) ( -3) ( +2)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-39
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS
329
( 120)
19
( 54)
LEVE
LOW
-13
(-16)
(-10)
L 1
UP
+ 13
( + 13)
( +8)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-7
( -8)
-6
(-12)
tSABi L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 11
( +8)
+ 5
( +8)
i Y L ini i :>-
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -8) (
-8
(-14) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 8
+ 6)
+ 8
+ 8)
112128 LEAD
PARS
100
( 187)
111101 HIV 492
PARS ( 638)
-39 +50
( -8) ( +8)
TOTAL
-37 +43
( -6) ( +5)
-7 +6
( -9) ( +7)
-38
+ 43
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-AO
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 06 STATE 04 ARKANSAS REP ORG 002 LAB 332001
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r KUB/
LEVEL
LOW
\D 1 L 1 1
2
UP
T L 1 11 1 1 3 -
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
112128 LEAD 6
PARS ( 23)
111101 HIV 14
PARS ( 116)
-14 -8
(-30) (+47)
TOTAL
-17 -6
( -4) (+19)
-3 +8
( -5) ( +3)
-14
+ 0
REGION 06 STATE 19 LOUISIANA
REP ORG 001 LAB 334001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 3)
10
( 1)
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-13) (
1
UP
+ 1
+ 1)
TKUB/
LEVEL
LOW
-1
(-10) (
-8
\Ui L 1 I
2
UP
+ 2
-1)
+ 4
T L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
+ 1
( -3)
-10
O ~"
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 3
( -1)
+ 11
111101 HIV 13
PARS ( 128)
TOTAL
-5 +17
( -5) ( +5)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-41
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 06 STATE 32 NEW MEXICO REP ORG 001 LAB 330001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
I
I
R
PARS
12128 LEAD
PARS
11101 HIV
PARS
EGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
R
PARS
EGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
9
( 9)
12
( 30)
9
( 201)
STATE
AUDITS
9
( 19)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 2)
LEVE
LOW
-6
(-10)
-2
( -6)
TOTAL
32 NEW
LEVE
LOW
-29
(-10)
L 1
UP
+ 0
( + 14)
+ 2
( +4)
MEXICO
L 1
UP
+ 16
( +7)
37 OKLAHOMA
LEVE
LOW
-24
( + 10)
L 1
UP
+ 23
( + 16)
TKU
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -3)
-7
( -4)
6
( -5)
bABI
L 2
UP
+ 1
( + 10
+ 5
( +4
+ 15
( +6
rKUDAol
LEVEL 2
LOW
-4
( -7)
UP
+ 4
( +4
r K UD AD 1
LEVEL 2
LOW
-9
( +4)
UP
+ 10
( + 13
LI 1 Y Lini 1 b
LEVEL
LOW
-2
) ( -5) (
-2
)
>
REP ORG
LTTV 1 TMTTC
i i Y L I n 1 1 b
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
) ( -8) (
REP ORG
LTTV I TMTTC
III L 1 ri 1 1 O
LEVEL
LOW
-5
) (-20) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 0
+ 6)
+ 5
002 LAB 430001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 2
+ 3)
101 LAB 331002
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 14)
112128 LEAD 12 -5 +1 -11 -3 -21 +13
PARS ( 10) ( -6) ( +4) ( -7) ( +3)
111101 HIV 2 TOTAL -2 +14
PARS ( 14) ( -7) (+13)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-42
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24X85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 06 STATE 37 OKLAHOMA REP ORG 102 LAB 431001
POL. CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
AUDITS
12
( 12)
13
( 14)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 10)
12
( 24)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-13 +11
(-14) ( +4)
TOTAL
37 OKLAHOMA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-15 +17
(-29) (+40)
-4 +1
( -3) ( +5)
45 TEXAS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-15
( -8)
-10
( -8)
._ _DD n
r K U
LEVE
LOW
-9
( -8)
-6
( -3)
. . PDn
LEVE
LOW
BAB 1 L
L 2
UP
+ 5
( +3)
-1
( +6)
BABIL
L 2
UP
+ 8
( + 10)
+ 1
( +6)
BABIL
L 2
UP
1 1 T Lill I 1 3
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-9 -1
REP ORG 103 LAB 431002
ITVITMTTC «, « __
1 T L 1 rl I 1 D """" ~"
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-12 +14
( -1) ( +5)
-9 +1
REP ORG 001 LAB 333001
I TV 1 TMTTC ___ ___ ___
IT L JL ri i 1 O
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 36 -12 +10 -11 +7 -9 +7
PARS ( 72) (-20) (+22) (-13) (+14) (-16) (+14)
111101 HIV 37 TOTAL -9 +4
PARS ( 613) ( -6) ( +6)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-43
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 06 STATE 45 TEXAS REP ORG 002 LAB 433002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 8)
12
( 24)
33
( 67)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 2)
6
( 12)
51
( 92)
STATE
AUDITS
11
( 23)
LEVEL
LOW
-18
(-19) (
-11
(-10) (
TOTAL
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOW
-13
( +2) (
-5
(-15) (
TOTAL
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOW
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 1
+ 13)
+ 4
+ 2)
1
UP
+ 30
+ 14)
+ 0
+ 11)
1
UP
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-14
(-18)
-57
(-15)
+ 0
( -9)
- D on
r K U
LEVE
LOW
-4
( -8)
-7
( -5)
-16
( -7)
- D D n
r K U
LEVE
LOW
-5
( -3)
BABi
L 2
UP
+ 6
( + 11
+ 49
( +2
+ 10
( + 14
BABI
L 2
UP
+ 25
( +4
-1
( +7
+ 5
( +8
BABI
L 2
UP
+ 4
( +4
L 1 \ Y LJ.ru Ib
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-12 +6
) (-12) (+17)
-15 +14
)
)
REP ORG 003 LAB 433001
1 TTV 1 TMTTC
LI IT L 1 rl I 1 S
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-3 +23
) ( +0) ( +3)
-22 +6
)
)
REP ORG 005 LAB 433005
LTTVITMTTC
llYLlnllb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-44
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 06 STATE 45 TEXAS REP ORG 006 LAB 433008
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
I
R
PARS
12128 LEAD
PARS
EGION 06
POL. CD.
AUDITS
18
( 6)
5
( 5)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
-15
(-18) (
+ 0
( +0) (
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
+ 9
+ 6)
+ 0
+ 8)
rnuof
LEVEL
LOW
-3
(-12) (
-4
( -2) (
\a L L
2
UP
+ 6
+ 5)
-3
+ 2)
n n n n A n T i
l
UP
rHUDHDJ. t-
LEVEL 2
LOW
UP
i i T L i n i i i -
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -8) (
-3
REP ORG
I TV 1 TMTTC-
1 T L 1 ri 1 1 O
LEVEL
LOW
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 4
+ 6)
+ 3
007 LAB 433010
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 10
PARS ( 38)
TOTAL
-4 -1
( -2) ( +0)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-45
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 06
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS
126
( 131)
10
( 1)
LEVE
LOW
-16
(-20)
L 1
UP
+ 12
( + 21)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-9
(-11)
-8
BAB J. L i
L 2
UP
+ 9
( + 11)
+ 4
IT L ini i
LEVE
LOW
-8
(-12)
-10
V,
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 8
( + 11)
+ 11
112128 LEAD 77
PARS ( 140)
111101 HIV
PARS
193
(1306)
-10 +5
(-18) (+18)
TOTAL
-24 +15
(-10) (+10)
-11 +12
( -6) ( +6)
-14
+ 8
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-46
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 07 STATE 16 IOWA REP ORG 001 LAB 436001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
11
( 9)
23
( 16)
STATE
AUDITS
15
( 11)
18
( 23)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 5)
12
( 24)
15
( 48)
LEVE
LOW
-15
(-17)
TOTAL
16 IOWA
LEVE
LOW
-21
(-13)
TOTAL
16 IOWA
LEVE
LOW
-14
(-19)
-15
(-20)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 2
( + 14)
L 1
UP
+ 16
( +8)
L 1
UP
+ 13
( +0)
+ 8
( + 19)
DDOnAOTI
" PRUBAD 1 L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 +4
( -4) ( +1)
-19 +20
( -8) ( +8)
nnr^r>AnTi
PKuBABl L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-6 +12
( -9) (+10)
+ 4 +6
( -6) ( -3)
D D n D A D T 1
r K UD AD 1 L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 -1
( -7) ( +5)
-6 -2
( -7) (+10)
-2 +7
( -2) ( +7)
TTV 1 TMTTC _________ .-. _ -j _ _
1 1 Y L 1 PI 1 1 b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-4 +6
( -2) ( +3)
REP ORG 002 LAB 436002
1 1 Y L 1 n 1 1 b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 0 +9
(-15) (+10)
REP ORG 003 LAB 336001
TTV 1 TMTTC
III L 1 n 1 1 D
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-4 +10
( -3) ( +2)
-8 -1
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-47
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 07 STATE 17 KANSAS REP OR6 001 LAB 437001
AUDITS
(
47
18)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
- r«u
LEVE
LOW
-19
(-11)
at
I
H
(
\OiLllY LirUlb
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
H3
+ 9)
LEVEL 4
DW UP
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 07 STATE 17 KANSAS
REP ORG 001 LAB ,37002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
I
PARS
12128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
21
( 9)
6
( 22)
LEVE
LOW
-44
(-10)
ft
(-20)
L 1
UP
+ 63
( +7)
-5
( + 11)
rKuat
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -6) (
-10
(-21) (
^Dl Li 1
2
UP
+ 3
+ 3)
-8
+ 1)
1 Y Llrll I b-
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -4) (
-8
3
UP
+ 3
+ 3)
-1
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI
REP ORG 001 LAB 33800]
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 2)
37
( 18)
LEVEL
LOW
_ "7
( +4) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 5
+ 4)
r KUBABJ. Li 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 3 +5
( -1) (+11)
-3 +7
( -5) ( +2)
T L ini i
LEVE
LOW
+ 3
( +2)
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 11
( +2)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-48
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI REP ORG 002 LAB 438004
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
30
5)
12
39)
7
12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-3 +14
(-15) (+10)
-6 +7
( -2) ( +4)
TOTAL
rKUBABiLl | y |_ 1 PI i li> '
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
+ 1
( -4)
-5
( -1)
-7
( -9)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+7 -1 +5
( +5) ( -4) ( +3)
+0 -5 +5
( +3)
+ 9
( +5)
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI
REP ORG 003 LAB 438003
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
t-KUBABi Ll 1 T Lini 1 5
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
6 -6 +7 -2 +3
( 4) (-17) (+37) (-11) (+26) (-13) (+22)
REGION 07 STATE
POL.CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REP ORG 004 LAB 438002
AUDITS
(
(
6
3)
8
9)
LEVE
LOW
-50
( -9)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 39
( -1)
r KUDAO i L i i T LJ.ni is
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOW
-3
( -5)
-9
( -6)
UP LOW UP
+3 -8 +11
( -1)
-3
( +5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-49
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEf
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI REP ORG 004 LAB 438006
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
15
( 5)
STATE
AUDITS
13
( 21)
STATE
AUDITS
3
( 6)
13
( 8)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-10 -2
(-56) (+70)
28 NEBRASKA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
28 NEBRASKA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-22 -22
( -5) ( + 3)
TOTAL
r KUBAB i L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-6 +1
(-19) (+17)
D D O Q A D T 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-27 +10
(-27) (+26)
DDnDADTI
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 6 +6
( -1) ( +1)
-27 +10
(-36) (+15)
i i T L i n i i o -
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-15) (
REP ORG
I TV 1 TMTTC
IT L 1 n 1 i b
LEVEL
LOW
REP ORG
TTV 1 TMTTC.
J. 1 Y L J. PI i i O
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
( -1) (
3
UP
+ 2
+ 5)
001
3
UP
002
3
UP
+ 4
+ 1)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 33500:
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 3350C
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION of THE AVERAi
(continued)
E-50
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 07 STATE 28
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
NEBRASKA REP ORG 003 LAB 435003
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
12
5)
12
35)
44
21)
LEVEL
LOU
-19
(-10) (
-5
(-20) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 4
+ 5)
+ 2
+ 9)
rKUBABlLi 1 Y L in 1 Ib ' -
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
4
( -7)
-13
( -7)
-15
( -8)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+3 -4 +7
( +2) ( -7) ( +0)
+5 -8 +2
( +9)
+ 20
( +7)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-51
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 07
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
rKUBABI L i
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 125 -27 +27 -5 +8
PARS ( 61) (-22) (+21) ( -9) ( +9)
IY tiniib
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-4 +7
( -9) ( +7)
112128 LEAD 48
PARS ( 123)
111101 HIV 225
PARS ( 194)
-16 +11
(-16) (+11)
TOTAL
-10 +3
(-13) (+10)
-16 +14
(-13) (+11)
-9
+ 4
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-52
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 08 STATE 06 COLORADO REP ORG 001 LAB 344001
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVE
LOW
H2101 CO 51 -26
PARS ( 24) (-10)
L 1
UP
+ 15
( + 20)
REGION 08 STATE 27 MONTANA
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-11
( -3)
__ oon
r K U
LEVE
LOW
D(HD J. L 1
L 2
UP
+ 11
( +8)
BABILI
L 2
UP
IT L 1 I'i 1 1 D
LEVEL 3.
LOW UP
-6 +8
( -3) ( +7)
REP ORG 001
TV 1 TMTTC
IT L 1 n 1 1 c>
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
( +0) ( +3)
LAB 339002
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42101 CO
PARS
12
2)
1.12128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 15)
-46 +73
( +4) (+20)
-12 +3
( -4) ( +8)
-9 +19
( -9) (+19)
-5 +15
(-17) (+23)
-10
+ 2
-14
+ 10
REGION 08 STATE 27 MONTANA
REP ORG 003 LAB 439002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 4)
LEVE
LOW
-7
( +7)
L 1
UP
+ 15
( + 10)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-8
( +3)
DMD i L 11
L 2
UP
+ 15
( +5)
IT L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-6
( -3)
3
L 3
UP
+ 10
( +7)
LEVEL
LOW
4
Uf
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-53
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 08 STATE 27 MONTANA REP OR6 004 LAB 439003
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
fKUttt
LEVEL
LOW
\ai L i i
2
UP
IT L i n i i 3-
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
UP
POL. CD. AUDITS
111101 HIV 24 TOTAL -8 +1
PARS ( 16) ( -8) ( +7)
REGION 08 STATE 35 NORTH DAKOTA REP ORG 001 LAB 341001
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUUAtSJ. L 1 I
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
! T LJ.ni is
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD. AUDITS
111101 HIV 18 TOTAL -9 -1
PARS C 20) ( -6) ( +1)
REGION 08 STATE 43 SOUTH DAKOTA REP ORG 001 LAB 342001
__. PROBABILITY LIMITS--
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 5 TOTAL -6 +1
PARS ( 86) ( -2) ( + 2)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-54
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 08 STATE 46 UTAH REP ORG 001 LAB 340001
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
63
31)
6
10)
9
12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-3 +7
( -5) ( +8)
-9 +8
( -9) ( +7)
TOTAL
I-KUDAB1L1 1 Y LJ.ni IS
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-2
( -5)
-6
(-19)
-4
( -4)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+3 -2 +3
( +6) ( -6) ( +5)
-5 -4 +0
( +9)
+ 1
( +2)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-55
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
REGION 08
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
132
61)
18
25)
56
134)
LEVEL
LOW
-23
( -8) (
-11
( -7) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 23
+ 15)
+ 5
+ 9)
-rKUBADlLlIT LIl'l lid ~
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-8
( -4)
-9
(-32)
-9
( -5)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+10 -5 +7
( +7) ( -5) ( +7) ( +0) ( + 2)
+1 -11 +7
( + 22)
+ 0
( +5)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-56
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 09 STATE 03 ARIZONA REP ORG 100 LAB 347001
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
21
6)
12
23)
8
28)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-11 +5
(-33) (+14)
-5 +19
( -6) ( +7)
TOTAL
rKUBABJ.L.1 1 T L1H1 1 3
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-2
( -4)
-2
( -5)
-2
(-13)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+2 -1 +1
( +2) ( -1) ( +2) ( +0) ( +0)
+4 -1 +6
( +4)
+ 6
( +9)
REGION 09 STATE 03 ARIZONA
REP ORG 200 LAB 447001
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
39
6)
12
15)
27
15)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-18 +11
(-15) ( +9)
-3 +19
( -4) ( +8)
TOTAL
rKUBABlH 1 T Lini IS
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-9
( -5)
-3
( -1)
-23
( -8)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+9 -9 +9
( +5) ( -5) ( +5)
+7 -6 +9
( +7)
+ 5
( +6)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-57
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 09 STATE 03 ARIZONA REP ORG 300 LAB 447002
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
15
4)
12
6)
10
16)
LEVE
LOW
-5
( -5)
-25
(-12)
TOTAL
L 1
UP
+ 5
( +1)
+ 26
( +9)
rKUBABiLi 1 Y Lin I 1 b
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-5
( -3)
-22
( -1)
-18
(-10)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+6 -1 +1
( +1) ( -2) ( +0)
+40 -24 +44
( + 3)
+ 12
( +9)
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA
REP ORG 001 LAB 345002
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
59 TOTAL
( 78)
r KI
LEVE
LOW
-13
(-11)
JDMD 1 L 1 1 T LlHlia
IL 2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 9
( + 10)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA
REP ORG 001 LAB 345003
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
30
( 38)
18
( 11)
LEVE
LOW
-13
(-12)
-30
L 1
UP
+ 10
( + 13)
+ 22
" """ f K \J
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -8)
-3
(-15)
DAD J. L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 4
( +7)
+ 9
( + 12)
IT L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
1
( -8)
-6
3
L 3
UP
+ 2
( +6)
+ 14
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-58
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA REP ORG 001 LAB 445016
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
I
R
12128 LEAD
PARS
EGION 09
POL. CD.
AUDITS
33
( 38)
6
( 11)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
-35
(-12)
-4
05 CALI
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
+ 28
( + 13)
-3
FORNIA
L 1
UP
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-20
( -8)
-3
(-15)
r K U
LEVE
LOW
BAD 1 L
L 2
UP
+ 35
( +7)
+ 2
( + 12)
BABIL
L 2
UP
1 1 T L J.Hi 1 b
LEVEL
LOW
-12
( -8) (
-2
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 21
+ 6)
+ 0
004 LAB 445001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 6 -2 +3 -1 +3 +0 +2
PARS ( 32) ( -9) ( +8) ( -3) ( +2) ( -2) ( +1)
112128 LEAD 6 -7 +8 -12 +19 -2 +5
PARS ( 12) ( -9) ( +5) ( -8) ( -2)
111101 HIV 3 TOTAL -7 +6
PARS ( 43) ( -5) ( +4)
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA REP ORG 036 LAB 445005
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL. 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 36 -4 +8 -2 +7 -3 +6
PARS ( 10) (-22) ( +6) ( -6) ( +1) ( -4) ( +1) ( -6) ( +2)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-59
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA REP ORG 061 LAB 445002
I
POL. CD.
11101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
AUDITS
8
( 34)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
TOTAL
1
UP
05 CALIFORNIA
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-12
(-12)
r K U
LEVE
LOW
BABJL L
L 2
UP
+ 4
( + 10)
BABIL
L 2
UP
i i Y LI mis
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
REP ORG 061
TTV 1 TMTTC
ill Llrlllo
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 44
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
5018
4
UP
C42101 CO
PARS
42
( 24)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 12)
-15 +31
( -3) (+15)
-10 +0
(-15) (+13)
-3 +11
( -2) (+11)
-10 +3
( -3) ( + 6)
REGION 09 STATE 12 HAWAII
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
-2 +7
( -3) ( +8)
-2 +2
REP ORG 120 LAB 348001
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
13 TOTAL
( 23)
rK\.
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -5)
JHAD1L1IY Llnlla
EL 2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 3
( +2)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-60
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY Rt.OR,.NG SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 09 STATE 29 NEVADA
REP ORG 200 LAB 446001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
AUDITS
21
( 8)
44
( 64)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
-9
( -9) (
TOTAL
29 NEVADA
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
+ 9
+ 7)
1
UP
r K UDf
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -5) (
-14
( -7) (
D D nn /
r KliDl
LEVEL
LOW
\a i L
2
UP
+ 2
+ 3)
+ 8
+ 4)
\EIl
2
UP
IIT n n i i :>-
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -2) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 1
+ 2)
300 LAB 446002
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 9 -16 +10 -8 +5 -7 +2
PARS ( 8) ( -1) ( +1) ( -7) (+13) ( -2) ( +4) ( -1) ( + 3)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-61
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 09
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
252
174)
78
90)
172
301)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-18 +19
(-13) (+13)
-19 +19
( -8) ( +8)
TOTAL
fKUBABlLi IY LJ.rU Ib
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-10
( -7)
-12
( -8)
-15
( -9)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+14 -7 +9
( +8) ( -6) ( +5) ( -5) ( +3)
+16 -12 +18
( +8)
+ 10
( +7)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-62
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 10 STATE 02 ALASKA REP ORG 020 LAB 451001
I
R
PO
11
L
.CD.
101 HIV
PARS
EGI
POL
C42
R
ON 10
.CD.
101 CO
PARS
EGION 10
POL. CD.
AUDITS
5
( 15)
STATE
AUDITS
39
( 13)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
TOTAL
02 ALASKA
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
1
UP
-10 +2
(-13) (+10)
38 OREGON
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-3
(-13)
Don
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -2)
_ D D n
r K U
LEVE
LOW
DAD 1 L
L 2
UP
+ 11
( +6)
BABIL
L 2
UP
+ 3
( +3)
BABIL
L 2
UP
i\i L i n i i t>
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
REP ORG 020
IT V 1 T M T T C
IT L 1 Pi 1 I D
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-2 +1
( -3) ( +2)
REP ORG 001
IT V 1 T M T T C
IY L 1 n I 1 b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 451
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
002
4
UP
LAB 353001
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
111101 HIV 42
PARS ( 397)
TOTAL
-13 +8
( -5) ( +5)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-63
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 10 STATE 38 OREGON REP ORG 001 LAB 453001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
47
( 68)
12
( 12)
LEVE
LOW
-17
(-17)
-6
( -4)
L 1
UP
+ 12
( +9)
+ 4
( + 10)
r KUB
LEVEL
LOW
-13
( -6) (
-2
( -2) (
ABi L i 1
2
UP
+ 13
+ 4)
+ 3
+ 5)
IT L 11*11 1 b-
LEVEL
LOW
_ O
( -5) (
-2
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 4
+ 2)
+ 6
STATE 49 WASHINGTON
REP ORG 001 LAB 3520C1
POL. CD.
1 11101 HI\
PARS
AUDITS
73
( 38)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-9
( -5)
B « D i L 1 1 T LID lib
L 2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 10
( +8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 10 STATE 49 WASHINGTON
REP ORG 001 LAB 452006
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
9
( 40)
12
( 8)
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -6) (
-21
( -5) (
1
UP
+ 0
+ 5)
+ 1
+ 7)
LEVE
LOW
-1
( -6)
-16
DrtD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 1
( +3)
+ 10
IT L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -4)
-21
L 3
UP
+ 2
( +2)
+ 12
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-64
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADH5 ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 10
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 95 -14 +8 -9 +9 -3 +3
PARS ( 121) (-13) ( +8) ( -5) ( +3) ( -4) ( +1)
112128 LEAD 24 -17 +7 -11 +8 -14 +12
PARS ( 20) (-11) (+15) ( -8) (+10)
111101 HIV 120 TOTAL -10 +9
PARS ( 450) ( -5) ( +5)
(continued)
E-65
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
NATIONAL AVERAGES
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
142401 502
PARS
AUDITS
1759
(1230)
78
( 248)
59
( 184)
LEVE
LOW
-24
(-15)
( -9)
-45
(-26)
L 1
UP
+ 22
( + 13)
( + 12)
+ 43
( + 15)
r K
LEV
LOW
-10
( -8)
-15
( -8)
-15
(-18)
UdAB 1 L 1
EL 2
UP
+ 13
( +8)
+ 7
( + 10)
+ 19
( + 11)
i Y L i ni I
LEVE
LOW
-14
( -7)
-9
( -7)
-13
(-14)
J
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 16
( +6 ) ( -4) ( -i 3)
+ 7
( +8)
+19 -6 +12
( +7)
112128 LEAD 656
PARS (1113)
111101 HIV
PARS
2700
(5996)
-23 +23
(-12) (+12)
TOTAL
-25 +22
(-10 ) ( +9 )
-11 +10
( -7) ( +7)
-20
+ 19
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-66
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGIONAL SUMMARY
POL.CD. 742101 CARBON MONOXIDE
REGION
01
PARS
02
PARS
03
PARS
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
07
PARS
08
PARS
09
PARS
10
PARS
AUDITS
60
( 55)
111
( 97)
171
( 85)
358
( 325)
329
( 120)
126
( 131 )
125
( 61 )
132
( 61 )
252
( 174)
95
( 121 )
LEVE
LOW
-32
( -5)
-37
(-10)
-10
( -9)
-26
(-15)
-13
(-16)
-16
(-20)
-27
(-22)
-23
( -8)
-18
(-13)
-14
(-13)
L 1
UP
+ 41
( + 10)
+ 28
( + 10)
+ 9
( +7)
+ 34
( + 10)
+ 13
( + 13)
+ 12
( + 21 )
+ 27
(+21 )
+ 23
( + 15)
+ 19
( + 13)
+ 8
( +8)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-5
( -4)
-4
( -6)
-6
( -7)
-16
( -7)
-7
( -8)
-9
(-11 )
-5
( -9)
-8
( -4)
-10
( -7)
-9
( -5)
BrtB I L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 8
( +6)
+ 5
( +8)
+ 8
( +5)
+ 20
( +7)
+ 11
( +8)
+ 9
( + 11)
+ 8
( +9)
+ 10
( +7)
+ 14
( +8)
+ 9
( +3)
Y L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -5)
-3
( -3)
-5
( -6)
-22
( -6)
-5
( -8)
-8
(-12)
-4
( -9)
-5
( -5)
-7
( -6)
-3
( -4)
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 7
( +5)
+ 4
( +3)
+ 7
( +4)
+ 25
( +5)
+ 8
( +6)
+ 8
( + 11)
+ 7
( +7)
+ 7
( +7) ( +0) ( +2)
+ 9
( +5) ( -5) ( +3)
+ 3
( +1 )
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
L-67
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGIONAL SUMMARY
POL.CD. ?42602 NITROGEN DIOXIDE
REGION
03
PARS
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
5
( 28) ( -6) ( + 7)
44
( 165) ( -8) (+13)
19
( 54) (-10) ( +8)
10
( 1 )
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-8
( +0)
-18
( -8)
-6
(-12)
-8
DAD 1 L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 2
( +3)
+ 8
( + 11)
+ 5
( +8)
+ 4
i Y L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-4
( +0)
-9
( -5)
-8
(-14)
-10
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
-4
( +4)
+ 6
( +7)
+ 8
( +8)
+ 11
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-68
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGIONAL SUMMARY
POL.CD. 742401 SULFUR DIOXIDE
REGION AUDITS
04 59 -45 +43 -15 +19 -13 +19 -8 +12
PARS ( 184) (-25) (+15) (-17) (+10) (-13) ( +7)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r K\JD^
LEVEL
LOW
\D 1 L 1 1
2
UP
IT L 1 rl 1 1 D ~
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
(continued)
E-69
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85
POL.CD. T12128
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGIONAL SUMMARY
LEAD
REGION
01
PARS
02
PARS
03
PARS
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
07
PARS
08
PARS
09
PARS
10
PARS
AUDITS
54
( 104)
24
( 34)
83
( 136)
150
( 254)
100
( 187)
77
( 140)
48
( 123)
18
( 25)
78
( 90)
24
( 20)
LEVE
LOW
-11
( -7)
-10
(-15)
-30
(-10)
-14
(-13)
-39
( -8)
-10
(-18)
-16
(-16)
-11
( -7)
-19
( -8)
-17
(-11 )
L 1
UP
+ 6
( +6)
+ 12
( + 12)
+ 30
( + 11)
+ 13
( + 14)
+ 50
( +8)
+ 5
( + 18)
+ 11
( + 11)
+ 5
( +9)
+ 19
( +8)
+ 7
( + 15)
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-12
( -6)
-10
(-16)
-11
(-14)
-32
( -9)
-37
( -6)
-24
(-10)
-10
(-13)
-9
(-19)
-12
( -8)
-11
( -8)
BAtJO. L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 5
( +5)
+ 8
( + 15)
+ 8
( + 10)
+ 25
( +8)
+ 43
( +5)
+ 15
( + 10)
+ 3
(+10)
+ 1
( +9)
+ 16
( +8)
+ 8
(+10)
Y L i n 1 i
LEVE
LOW
-22
-8
-11
-11
-38
-14
-9
-11
-12
-14
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 18
+ 10
+ 6
+ 8
+ 43
+ 8
+ 4
+ 7
+ 18
+ 12
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-70
-------
TABLE E-l (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 10/24/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
POL.CD. T11101
HI VOL
REGIONAL SUMMARY
REGION
01
PARS
02
PARS
03
PARS
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
07
PARS
08
PARS
09
PARS
10
PARS
AUDITS
93
( 266)
102
( 279)
527
( 493)
720
(1935)
492
( 638)
193
( 1306)
225
( 194)
56
( 134)
172
( 301)
120
( 450)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-8
( -6)
-5
( -3)
-13
( -7)
-9
( -5)
-7
( -9)
-11
( -6)
-16
(-13)
-9
( -5)
-15
( -9)
-10
( -5)
DAD1L1 1 T LJ.ni ID
L 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+ 5
( +6)
+ 8
( +5)
+ 11
( +7)
+ 9
( +7)
+ 6
( +7)
+ 12
( +6)
+ 14
( + 11)
+ 0
( +5)
+ 10
( +7)
+ 9
( +5)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-71
-------
TABLE E-2. PARS AND PA DATA FOR S02 CONTINUOUS METHODS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 01 STATE 20 MAINE
REP OR6 001 LAB 301001
AUDI
( 1
TS
4
6)
LEVE
LOW
+ 8
C -5)
L 1
UP
+ 8
( + 13)
fKU
LEVE
LOW
+ 8
( -7)
D A B 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 9
( + 15)
IT uini i
LEVE
LOW
+ 8
( -4)
b
L 3
UP
+ 8
( + 12)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 01 STATE 22 MASSACHUSETTS
REP ORG 001 LAB 304001
AUDITS
12
( 21)
rKUBABiLl 1 T Lini 1 b
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
+0 +5 -2 +10 +1 +7
(-12) ( +9) (-12) ( +9) (-12) (+11)
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 01 STATE 30 NEW HAMPSHIRE
REP ORG 001 LAB 302001
PROBABILITY LIMITS-
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
AUDITS
4
( 50)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-5 -5
( -9) ( +6)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-8 -3
( -9) ( +8)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-6 -6
(-10) ( +7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 01 STATE 41 RHODE ISLAND
REP ORG 001 LAB 305001
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
4
( 12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
+12 +12
(-13) ( +7)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 3 +3
( -9) ( +7)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 2 +2
( -7) ( +7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE
(continued)
E-72
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 01 STATE 47 VERMONT REP ORG 001 LAB 303001
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42401 S02 8 -8 +17 -5 + 9 -4 +7
PARS ( 7) ( -8) ( +9) ( -9) ( +8) ( -7) ( +7)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
- r KUDAB 1 L 1 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
T u i n i i 3
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
(continued)
E-73
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 01
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r KUDJ
LEVEL
LOW
*n i L JL i
2
UP
T L 1 n 1 1 3-
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
UP
POL.CD. AUDITS
CA2A01 S02 32 -7 +15 -6 +11 -6 +11
P4RS ( 106) (-10) ( +9) (-10) ( +9) ( -9) ( +9)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE!
(continued)
E-74
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 02 STATE 33 NEW YORK
REP ORG 001 LAB 307001
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
. T KUD«D 1 L 1 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
T LIP! 113 '
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42401 S02 12 -3 +22 -5 +15 +2 +19
PARS C 249) ( -9) (+12) ( -6) (+10) ( -9) (+10)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-75
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 02
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42401 502 12 -3 +22 -5 +15 +2 +19
PARS ( 249) ( -9) (+12) ( -6) (+10) ( -9) (+10)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAG
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
fKUBABlLi 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
IT L ini i a
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
(continued)
E-76
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND REP ORG 001 LAB 312001
POL.CD. /
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 03 STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA
ITS
21
34)
LEVE
LOW
-24
(-20)
L 1
UP
+ 20
( + 17)
TKU
LEVE
LOW
-12
( -9)
Dfi.0 i L i
L 2
UP
+ 16
( + 10)
IT L ini i
LEVE
LOW
-6
( -8)
j,
L 3
UP
+ 10
( +8)
LEVEL
LOW
-3
4
UP
+ 6
REP ORG 005 LAB 412002
AUDITS
4
( 4)
rKUDKOiLi. I T LlHl 1 D
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-11 -11 -6 +0 -5 -5
(-19) (+17) (-19) (+12) (-17) (+14)
REP ORG 001 LAB 311002
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
( 30)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-17 +18
(-14) (+13)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 +4
(-12) ( +8)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 03 STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA
(-10) ( +8)
REP ORG 002 LAB 411002
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
AUDITS
22
( 67)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-12 +14
(-10) ( +8)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-8 +9
( -5) ( +5)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-8 +10
(-10) ( +8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-13
+ 17
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-77
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 03 STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA
REP ORG 003 LAB 411001
POL .CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 03
POL .CD.
AUDITS
12
( 8)
STATE
AUDITS
8
( 10)
STATE
AUDITS
4
( 4)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
-12
(-21 )
48 VIRG
LEVE
LOW
+ 0
( -8)
48 VIRG
LEVE
LOW
+ 4
(-10)
48 VIRG
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
+ 9
( +4)
INIA
L 1
UP
+ 5
( +3)
INIA
L 1
UP
+ 4
( +2)
INIA
L 1
UP
r K UD/
LEVEL
LOW
-8
(-17) (
r K UD/*
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
( -6) (
- D D n n i
r K U D f
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
( -9) (
_____ o D n n i
r KUa)
LEVEL
LOW
\O I L
2
UP
+ 3
+ 4)
^BIL
2
UP
+ 4
+ 1)
^BIL
2
UP
+ 3)
\BIL
2
UP
i i T L i n j. i b-
LEVEL
LOW
-7
(-17) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 3
( -8) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
(-11) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
+ 3
+ 5)
001
3
UP
+ 5
+ 1)
002
3
UP
+ 4
+ 3)
003
3
UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-7 +3
LAB 315001
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 415005
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 415004
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42401 502
PARS
16
( 11)
+ 2 +17
(-11) ( +5
-1 +13
(-12) ( +9)
-2 +10
(-12) ( +8)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE!
(continued)
E-78
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 03 STATE 50 WEST VIRGINIA
REP ORG 001 LAB 314001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
AUDITS
8
( 19)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
-11
( -4)
50 WEST
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
+ 23
( + 11)
VIRG
L 1
UP
rKuuf
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -3) (
INIA
_ o D n c t
LEVEL
LOW
!.B1
2
UP
+ 1
+ 6
\El
2
UP
LIIY L ini 1 3-
LEVEL
LOW
mm *}
) ( -4) (
REP ORG
LITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
+ 0
4-5)
002
3
UP
LEVE
LOW
( +3)
LAB 3
LEVE
LOW
L 4
UP
( +3)
14002
L 4
UP
C42401 S02
PARS
12
( 24)
+ 3 +11
(-11) (+14)
+ 4 +7
( -9) (+10)
+ 5 +7
( -7) ( +9)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-79
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 03
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 116 -13 +17 -7 +10 -6 + 9 -7 +8
PARS ( 211) (-13) (+12) ( -9) ( +8) ( -9) ( +8) ( + 3) ( +3)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-80
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 01 ALABAMA
REP ORG 012 LAB 419001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
AUDITS
4
( 3)
STATE
AUDITS
4
( 4)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 5)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
+ 8 +8
(-34) ( -9)
10 FLORIDA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
+ 1 +1
( -5) (+10)
10 FLORIDA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-23 +46
(-30) (+32)
10 FLORIDA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
r KUBMOJ.
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 6 +13
(-25) (+13
_ D D n Q A O T
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 2 +3
( -1) (+10
- _ __ DDnnAUT
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 9 +24
(-25) (+40
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
Li IT Lin 113
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 9 +9
) (-22) ( +1)
REP ORG 001
1 TTV 1 TMTTC«.._ »
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 0 +0
) ( -7) ( +7)
REP ORG 002
1 TTV 1 TMTTC _____
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
) (-29) (+41)
REP ORG 003
ITTV 1 TMTTC _«.
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
LAB 323005
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
LAB 323003
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
LAB 323004
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
C42401 502
PARS
8 -86 +57
4) (-14) ( +0)
-76 +42
(-19) (+20)
+ 4 +5
(-14) (+14)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-81
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP OR6 004 LAB 323008
AUDITS
4
( 4)
LEVE
LOW
-29
(-71)
L 1
UP
-29
(+41)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -3)
DAD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 0
( + 30)
IT L ini 1
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -9)
3
L 3
UP
-2
( + 52)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG 007 LAB 323010
AUDITS
4
( 4)
LEVE
LOW
-23
(-40)
L 1
UP
-23
( + 16)
LEVE
LOW
-21
(-37)
DAD 1 L J. 1
L 2
UP
-20
( + 22)
IT L in i i
LEVE
LOW
-21
(-40)
o
L 3
UP
-21
(+26)
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04 STATE 11 GEORGIA
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
8
12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
+ 5 +5
(-25) (+29)
REP ORG
PROBABILITY LIMITS-
010 LAB 321001
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-3 +2
(-24) (+24)
REGION 04 STATE 18 KENTUCKY
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-14 +4
(-15) (+23)
REP ORG 001 LAB 316001
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 41)
LEVE
LOW
_6
(-26)
L 1
UP
+ 5
( + 14)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-11
(-20)
DAD i L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 9
( + 10)
IT L in j. i
LEVE
LOW
-13
(-19)
»>
L 3
UP
+ 12
( +7)
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-82
-------
AUDITS
8
( 3)
LEVE
LOW
-12
( -3)
L 1
UP
+ 13
( +8)
r KUOI
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( +0) (
AD I L 1 1
2
UP
+ 4
+ 8)
IT L I H JL 1 3-
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( +0) (
3
UP
-5
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
AUDITS
8
( 11)
TKUOAD1L1 1 T Li Hi 1 a '
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +9 -1 +10 -3 +10
(-24) ( +1) (-23) ( +0) (-23) ( -1)
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 04 STATE 18 KENTUCKY REP ORG 002 LAB 416001
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04 STATE 25 MISSISSIPPI REP ORG 100 LAB 322001
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA REP ORG 003 LAB 418006
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 502 4 +0 +0 -5 -2 -2 -2
PARS ( 7) (-28) ( -9) (-23) ( -7) (-21) ( -6)
REGION 04 STATE 42 SOUTH CAROLINA REP ORG 001 LAB 320001
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-83
AUDITS
16
( 115)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-24 +3
(-16) (+13)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-13 +3
(-10) (+11)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-16 +5
( -9) (+10)
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 04
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 86 -31 +25 -26 +23 -16 +11
PARS ( 213) (-24) (+16) (-18) (+15) (-18) (+15)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE
(continued)
E-84
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 14 ILLINOIS REP ORG 001 LAB 328001
AUDITS
12
( 22
)
LEVE
LOW
-22
( -9
)
L 1
UP
+ 15
( + 10)
LEVE
LOW
-18
( -7)
DAD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 15
( + 11)
IT L IPli 1
LEVE
LOW
-21
( -8)
:>
L
(
3
UP
+ 18
+ 12)
LEVEL
LOW
UP
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA
REP ORG 002 LAB 429002
AUDITS
4
( 10)
LEVE
LOW
-14
(-14)
L 1
UP
-14
( + 11)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-18
(-11)
DAD i L i 1
L 2
UP
-10
( + 10)
IT Lini i :>
LEVEL
LOW
-16
(-10) (
3
UP
-16
+ 12)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA
REP ORG
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
008 LAB 429004
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
12
12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-15 +5
(-13) (+15)
REGION 05 STATE 23 MICHIGAN
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
AUDITS
8
13)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-22 +9
(-16) (+10)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-11 +3
(-13) (+14)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-10 +2
(-13) (+12)
REP ORG
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-16 +9
(-11) ( +9)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-12 +11
(-11) ( +9)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
001 LAB 326001
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-85
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 23 MICHIGAN REP ORG 002 LAB 426001
AUD
(
ITS
12
9)
LEVEL
LOW
-19
(-17) (
1
UP
+ 2
+ 15)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-12
(-15)
BAB 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
-6
( + 15)
IT L IHl 1 3-
LEVEL
LOW
-11
(-12) (
3
UP
-6
+ 8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 05 STATE 24 MINNESOTA
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 001 LAB 324001
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
18 -10 -1
( 28) (-13) (+12)
rKUDADlLi 1 T L1HJL 1 D
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-8 -1 -10 +1 -3 -1
( -8) ( +8) ( -9) ( +6) ( -5) ( +1
REP ORG 001 LAB 327001
AUDITS
8
( 4)
LEVEL 1
LOW
-18
( -3)
UP
+ 14
( + 14)
rKUBABl Li 1
LEVEL 2
LOW
-10
( +2)
UP
+ 17
( + 15)
i Y Lini i s
LEVEL 3
LOW
-12
( +7)
UP
+ 11
( + 14)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
002 LAB 327003
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
12
4)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-3 +8
(-67) (+26)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 0 +6
(-61) (+43)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-4 +11
(-24) (-21)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE
(continued)
E-86
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 007 LAB 427002
AUDITS
18
( 4)
LEVE
LOW
-23
(-25)
L 1
UP
+ 20
(+22)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-18
(-26)
DAD 1 L 1
L 2
UP
+ 12
IT L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-25
(-24)
a
L 3
UP
+ 16
( + 21)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
POL.CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 009 LAB 427004
AUDITS
12
( 4)
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-14 +4 -8 +0 -9 +0
(-27) ( +4) (-26) ( +7) (-26) ( +4)
REP ORG
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
015 LAB 427009
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
12
2)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-7 +14
(-21) (+35)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 +7
(-17) (+28)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-7 +7
(-14) (+21)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-87
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 05
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 128 -17 +10 -15 +9 -15 +9 -3 -1
PARS ( 112) (-19) (+16) (-15) (+15) (-16) (+13) ( -4) ( +0)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE
(continued)
E-88
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 06 STATE 19 LOUISIANA
REP ORG 001 LAB 334001
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42401 S02
12
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-26 -4
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-13 -1
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-18 +11
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
PARS ( 6) (-25) (+21) (-19) (+23) (-19) (+22)
REGION 06 STATE 45 TEXAS REP ORG 001 LAB 333001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 16 -11 +24 -5 +8 -6 +8
PARS ( 173) (-21) (+29) (-11) (+17) (-10) (+15) (-12) ( +7)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-89
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 06
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 502 28 -29 +24 -12 +8 -12 +9
PARS ( 179) (-20) C+27) (-10) (+16) (-10) (+14) (-11) ( +6)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE:
(continued)
E-90
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 07 STATE 16 IOWA
REP ORG 003 LAB 336001
POL. CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
AUDITS
4
( 21)
STATE
AUDITS
8
( 4)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 5)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
+ 3
(-17)
L 1
UP
+ 3
( + 12)
17 KANSAS
LEVE
LOW
-66
(-39)
L 1
UP
-50
( + 11)
26 MISSOURI
LEVE
LOW
-11
(-15)
L 1
UP
+ 9
( + 21)
26 MISSOURI
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
r KU
LEVE
LOW
+ 2
(-21)
- OD n
LEVE
LOW
-54
(-30)
-_ DD n
LEVE
LOW
-11
( -2)
D D n
LEVE
LOW
DAD J.
L 2
UP
+ 4
( + 23
BABI
L 2
UP
-43
( + 18
BABI
L 2
UP
+ 5
( + 11
BABI
L 2
UP
L1IT L ini 1 5
LEVEL
LOW
-1
) (-22) (
REP ORG
LITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-54
) (-21) (
REP ORG
LITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-5
) ( -3) (
REP ORG
LITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
-1
+ 22)
001
3
UP
-41
+ 11)
002
3
UP
+ 1
+ 7)
005
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
(-13) (
4
UP
+ 18)
LAB 337001
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
LAB 438004
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
LAB 438005
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
C42401 S02 4
PARS ( 4)
+12 +12
( -4) ( +4)
+ 3 +12
( -6) (+12)
+ 4 +4
( -8) (+17)
ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-91
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 07
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 28 -73 + 44 -60 +32 -59 +31
PARS ( 34) (-21) (+15) (-19) (+21) (-19) (+20) (-12) (+17)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-92
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 08 STATE 27 MONTANA REP ORG 001 LAB 339001
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
15
( 30)
LEVE
LOW
-13
(-45)
L
(
1
UP
+ 32
+ 35)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-9
(-13)
DAB
L 2
U
+ 1
( + 1
1 L I 1
P
6
5)
IT LI
L
LO
(-1
ni i
EVE
W
7
0)
3
L 3
UP
+ 13
( + 13)
LEVE
LOW
-5
(-10)
L 4
UP
+ 9
( + 11
REGION 08 STATE 35 NORTH DAKOTA
REP ORG 001 LAB 341001
AUDITS
12
( 16)
rKUDABl 1_ 1 i T uni 13
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-ft +5 -3 +0 -4 +0
(-12) (+13) (-13) ( + 9) (-12) ( +6)
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 08 STATE 46 UTAH
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REP ORG 001 LAB 340001
rKUDADlLl 1 T Lini 1 3
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
15 -8 +10 -5 +4 -5 +4
( 36) (-10) ( +8) ( -9) ( +9) ( -9) ( +8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-4 +4
( -6) ( +5
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-93
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 08
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUDABlLl 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
IT uni i a
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL ^
LOW UP
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42401 S02 42 -11 +19 -8 +9 -7 + 7 -5 +7
PARS ( 82) (-27) (+23) (-11) (+11) (-10) (+10) ( -8) ( +8)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGI
(continued)
E-94
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 09 STATE 03 ARIZONA REP ORG 100 LAB 347001
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
15
( 24)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-14 +21
(-18) C +8)
rKVDt
LEVEL
LOW
-6
(-15) (
*n i L i i
2
UP
+ 8
+ 3)
IT L 1 n 1 1 3 -
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-15) (
3
UP
+ 3
+ 5)
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-10) (
4
UP
+ 4
+4
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA
REP ORG 001 LAB 345001
AUDITS
11
( 24
)
LEVEL
LOW
-18
(-15
) (
1
UP
+ 16
+ 27)
r KUO
LEVEL
LOW
-12
(-14)
ADI L 1 1
2
UP
+ 16
( + 24)
IT L in i i a
LEVEL
LOW
-13
(-14) (
3
UP
+ 12
+ 23)
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REP ORG 004 LAB 445001
AUDITS
(
4
18)
LEVE
LOW
+ 0
(-12)
L 1
UP
+ 0
( + 12)
TKU
LEVE
LOW
-1
(-13)
DABl L 1
L 2
UP
+ 0
( + 10)
IT L ini i
LEVE
LOW
+ 0
(-14)
j,
L 3
UP
+ 0
( + 13)
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-95
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 09
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUBAOiLi 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
IT Li nil 3
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42401 S02 30 -14 +16 -9 +11 -7 +5 -5 +4
PARS ( 66) (-18) (+19) (-17) (+16) (-16) (+16) ( -9) ( +3)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAG
(continued)
E-96
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION 10 STATE 49 WASHINGTON REP ORG 001 LAB 352001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 4 -41 -41 -31 -3 -12 -12
PARS ( 29) ( -9) ( +6) ( -8) ( +6) ( -7) ( +6) (-10) ( +6)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
(continued)
E-97
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 10
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 502 4 -41 -41 -31 -3 -12 -12
PARS ( 29) ( -9) ( +6) ( -8) ( +6) ( -7) ( +6) C-1Q) ( +6)
(continued)
E-98
-------
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATE 12/16/85 DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1983
NATIONAL AVERAGES
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
LEVEL 2
LOU UP
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
------- |