&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA/600/4-86/031
August 1986
Research and Development
Precision and
Accuracy
Assessments for
State and Local Air
Monitoring Networks
1984
-------
EPA/600/4-86/031
August 1986
PRECISION AND ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS
FOR STATE AND LOCAL AIR MONITORING NETWORKS
1984
by
Raymond C. Rhodes
Quality Assurance Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
E. Gardner Evans
Monitoring and Assessment Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative review and it has been approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation 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 Toxic 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 Ambient Air Quality Standards are being achieved, and in
determining 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.
These regulations serve to improve and make more uniform the quality assur-
ance programs of the state and local agencies and to require the assessment
and reporting of data quality estimates for precision and accuracy. Re-
porting of precision and accuracy data was required beginning for calendar
year 1981. Previous reports summarized the results for 1981, 1982, and
1983. This report summarizes and evaluates the results for 1984.
John C. Puzak
Acting Director
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Precision and accuracy data obtained from State and local agencies
during 1984 are summarized and evaluated. Some comparisons are made with
the results previously reported for 1981, 1982, and 1983 to determine the
indication of any trends. Some trends indicated continued improvement in
the completeness of reporting of precision and accuracy data. The national
summaries indicate a further 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 1984 and also with other reporting organizations.
A comparison of the precision and accuracy data from the Precision and
Accuracy Reporting System with these from the independent performance audit
program conducted by the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory is
given.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ill
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
1984 Results from the PARS program 6
National Precision Results Comparison 12
National Accuracy Results Comparison 12
National Frequencies 13
3. Regional Results 17
Regional Data Reporting 17
Regional Comparisons .... 21
4. Results by Reporting Organizations 31
5. Further Evaluation of PARS Data 33
Manual Method 34
Comparison of National Limit Values and 50
Percentile Values 36
6. Comparison of Results from the PARS and the Performance
Audit Program 38
7. Conclusions and Recommendations 49
References 50
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
v
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1. National Precision Probability Limits for 1981 through 1984 ... 12
2. National Accuracy Probability Limits for 1981 through 1984 ... 13
3. CO Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981 through 1984 .... 23
4. Contiuous S02 Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981
through 1984 24
5. Continuous N0£ Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981
through 1984 25
6. Ozone Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981 through 1984 . . 26
7. TSP Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981 through 1984 ... 27
8. Lead Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981 through 1984 ... 28
9. Manual S02 Precision and Accuracy by Regions for 1981
through 1984 29
10. Manual N02 Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981
through 1984 30
lla. Comparison of PA and PARS for CO (Level 3) 41
lib. Comparison of PA and PARS for TSP (Level 2) 41
lie. Comparison of PA and PARS for Manual N02 (Level 3) 42
lid. Comparison of PA and PARS for Manual S02 (Level 3) 42
lie. Comparison of PA and PARS for Pb (Level 2) 42
llf. Comparison of PA and PARS for Continuous S02 (Level 3) 43
12. Comparison of PA and PARS, National Values, 1984 44
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Requirements for Performing Precision Checks for
SLAMS Network . 2
2. -Conceptratioti Levels for Conducting Accuracy
Audits of SLAMS Network 3
3. Percent of Reporting Organizations Reporting Precision
and Accuracy Data ......... .... 4
4. Year-to-Year Activity of Precision and Accuracy
Assessments for the Manual Methods 7
5. Year-to-Year Activity of Precision and Accuracy
Assessments for the Continuous Methods 8
6. National Precision and Accuracy Probability Limit Values
for Manual Methods . 10
7. National Precision and Accuracy Probability Limit Values
for Automated Analyzers 11
8. Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Quarterly Probability
Limits for All Reporting Organizations (1984) 15
9. Total Number of Reporting Organizations Required to Report
for the Year 1984, by Pollutant 17
10. Percentage of SLAMS Sites with Complete Data in PARS
for the Year 1984 18
11. Number of Reporting Organizations Having Data in the PARS
Master File for the Year 1984 31
12. Comparison of the 50-Percentile Frequency Distribution
Values with the National Limit Values for 1984 33
13. Values of Quarterly Probability Limits Considered as
Excessive Based on 1984 Data 37
14. Summary Comparison of EMSL Performance Audits (PA) vs.
PARS Accuracy Audit Data for Year 1984 39
vii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
D-l. CO Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-2
D-2. Continuous S02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-6
D-3. Continuous N02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-ll
D-4. Ozone Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-l5
D-5. TSP Precision and Accuracy Annual Values for
Reporting Organizations D-21
D-6. Pb Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-26
D-7. Manual S02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-30
D-8. Manual N02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Values
for Reporting Organizations D-31
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-71
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;
Omega Barrett, Northrop Services, Incorporated, for assistance in preparing
the figures; Edward Barrows, Northrop Services, Incorporated, for program-
ming and reporting of the comparisons 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 assessment and 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 1970's.
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 Ambient 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. Frequently the procedures being used were not well-documented.
These conditions made it difficult to intercompare data from different sites
and agencies. Furthermore, little information was available on the relia-
bility of the monitoring data.
To help alleviate these problems, EPA's air monitoring regulations
imposed uniform requirements on network design, siting, quality assurance,
monitoring methods, and data reporting after December 30, 1980. For exam-
ple, 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.
Further, 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 of 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
CO (continuous analyzer)
S02, N02, and 03
(continuous analyzer)
TSP, S02, and N02
(manual)
Pb
Precision check
8-10 ppm
0.08 - 0.10 ppm
Collocated sampler
(Ambient concentration)
Duplicate strips
(Ambient concentration)
Frequency
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/rnin
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
A measure of the completeness of the precision and accuracy data re-
porting is the percentage of reporting organizations which were required to
report data for a particular pollutant which have reported results for at
least one calendar quarter for that pollutant. Table 3 shows the progress
in data reporting over the years 1981 through 1984. 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 meth-
ods for Pb, S02 and N02 was required by the regulations beginning January 1,
1983. Reporting for Pb is negligibly different from 1983 to 1984. Report-
ings for the manual methods for S02 and N02 have significantly improved from
1983 to 1984.
The reporting organizations which should have reported data for 1984
but did not are listed in Section 3.
TABLE 3. PERCENT OF REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
REPORTING PRECISION AND ACCURACY DATA
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
1984
99
97
94
99
99
92
80
100
NATIONAL ACTIVITY IN PERFORMING PRECISION CHECKS AND ACCURACY AUDITS
A review of Tables 4 and 5 clearly indicates the considerable increase
in the total number of precision checks from the beginning of the PARS sys-
tem through 1984 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 sttes on January I, 1981 and for the SLAMS on January 1, 1983.
The reduction in the manual N02 and S(>2 methods has resulted from the re-
placement 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 NC>2 methods, but for the manual S02 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 laboratory for the other manual
methods be audited at least twice per quarter. The computed average number
of audits per TSP sampler is well above the required frequency. There was
an increase in 1984 in the number of Pb samplers whereas the number of other
types of manual samplers decreased somewhat.
For the continuous methods, the minimum frequency for precision checks
is once every two weeks or 26 per year. Table 5 indicates that in 1983 and
1984 about 60 precision checks are made per analyzer for the S02 method and
between 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 6 to 21 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 requiring
level four audits, e.g., episode monitors, are not considered.)
A comparison can be made between the average number of samplers for
which PARS data are reported and the number of SLAMS/NAMS sites in the
nation:
No. SLAMS/NAMS
sites
Avg. no. samplers
reporting PARS
data
Continuous methods
S02
540
630
N02
252
240
03
600
579
CO
439
424
Manual methods
TSP
2477
2650
Pb
382
492
S02
14
36
N02
15
50
It appears that for all of the manual methods and for continuous S02,
P and A data from more samplers are received than exist as SLAMS/NAMS sites.
Presumably, these extra or additional samplers are being used for special
purpose monitoring and/or both samplers at collocated sites (manual meth-
ods) are being counted.
-------
For the continuous methods N02> 03, and CO, P and A data for all SLAMS/
NAMS sites are not being reported, but overall the percentage not being re-
ported is small.
1984 RESULTS FROM THE PARS PROGRAM
Estimates 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 deviation values. For precision, the re-
peatability for each check is measured as the deviation from the expected
value 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 devia-
tions of the individual percentage values:
-------
TABLE 4. YEAR-TO-YEAR ACTIVITY OF PRECISION AND ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MANUAL METHODS
Pollutant
TSP
Pb
SC-2
N02
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1981
1982
1983
1984
1981
1982
1983
1984
1981
1982
1983
1984
Avg . no . of
samplers
2,334
2,538
2,662
2,650
73
164
452
492
172
63
46
36
185
83
77
50
Precision
Avg. no. of
collocated
sites
317
338
342
338
13
32
76
92
34
21
15
10
38
25
25
13
No. of valid
collocated
data pairs
13,335
16,281
16,816
17,152
473
1,704
3,885
3,937
965
706
389
297
1,422
1,168
1,324
691
No. of
data pairs
per site
42.1
48.2
49.2
50.8
36.4
53.2
51.1
42.8
28.4
33.6
25.9
28.3
37.4
46.7
53.0
53.2
Accuracy
No. of
audits
x levels*
5,840
6,461
6,989
7,436
581
655
1,389
1,657
711
551
301
203
769
583
348
175
No. of
audits per
sampler
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.8
4.0
2.0
1.5
1.7
1.4
2.9
1.1
1.9
4.2
2.3
1.5
1.2
*Levels 1, 2, and 3 only.
-------
TABLE 5. YEAR-TO-YEAR ACTIVITY OF PRECISION AND ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CONTINUOUS METHODS
Pollutant
CO
S02
i
N02
03
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1981
1982
1983
1984
1981
1982
1983
1984
1981
1982
1983
1984
Avg. no. of
analyzers
282
354
447
424
420
566
633
630
127
193
235
240
404
514
598
579
Precision
No. of
precision
checks
8,248
13,089
15,714
14,692
10,851
23,144
36,887
38,312
2,498
6,876
9,299
8,653
10,536
18,964
21,342
20,031
Precision
checks
per analyzer
29.2
37.0
35.2
34.7
25.8
36.6
58.3
60.8
19.7
35.6
39.6
36.0
26.1
36.9
35.7
34.6
Accuracy
No. of
accuracy
audits x levels*
856
1,180
1,501
1,265
1,016
1,248
1,625
1,500
320
442
635
589
1,162
1,328
1,705
1,629
No. of
audits
per analyzer
1.01
1.11
1.12
0.99
0.81
0.73
0.86
0.79
0.84
0.76
0.90
0.82
0.96
0.86
0.95
0.94
*Levels 1, 2, and 3 only.
-------
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 tor individual reporting organizations.
The probability limits presented throughout this report for states, re-
gions, and the nation have been calculated using the formulas shown in Ap-
pendix B and thereby most appropriately reflect the total variability within
the entity involved. (Note: Probability limit values in this report in
Tables 6, 7, 12, and 14 and Figures 1 through 10 cannot be validly compared
with corresponding tables and figures of previous reports.^»4 The limits
given in this report are generally wider than corresponding limits of pre-
vious reports for the reasons discussed in Appendix B.)
Table 6 exhibits the national probability limits for each of the man-
ual methods. By noting the numbers of valid collocated data pairs (17,152)
and the number of audits (7,436) performed for TSP, one can appreciate the
amount of effort being expended in this country to obtain these data quality
assessments.
*For the precision of manual methods obtained from paired observations, the
standard deviation, S, is divided by J2t to obtain variability estimates
that apply to individual reported values.
-------
TABLE 6. NATIONAL PRECISION AND ACCURACY PROBABILITY
LIMIT VALUES FOR MANUAL METHODS FOR 1984
Pollutant
TSP
Lead
Sulfur
dioxide
Nitrogen
dioxide
Precision
Number of
valid col-
located
data pairs
17,152
3,937
297
691
Probability
limits (%)
Lower Upper
-16 +17
-18 +20
-33 +31
-27 +27
Accuracy
No. of
audits
7,436
1,657
203
175
Probability limits (%)
Level 1
Lower Upper
_« _,.
-17 +15
-20 +9
-8 +10
Level 2
Lower Upper
-8 +8
-11 HO
-14 +7
-7 +8
Level 3
Lower Upper
MBJ, .«
-12 +7
-6 +7
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 N02 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
38,312 for S02, 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 later.
10
-------
TABLE 7. NATIONAL PRECISION AND ACCURACY PROBABILITY
LIMIT VALUES FOR AUTOMATED ANALYZERS FOR 1984
CO
S02
N02
03
Precision
No. of
precision
checks
14,692
38,312
8,653
20,031
Probability
limits (%)
Lower Upper
-9 +8
-12 +11
-14 +13
-12 +10
Accuracy
No. of audits
Total
1,288
1,666
613
1,773
Level
4
23
166
24
144
Probability limits (%)
Level 1
Lower Upper
-14 +13
-16 +14
-21 +20
-16 +14
Level 2
Lower Upper
-9 +8
-12 +11
-13 +12
-12 +10
Level 3
Lower Upper
-9 +8
-12 +11
-13 +10
-11 +10
Level 4
Lower Upper
-10 +9
-13 +12
-18 +14
-6 +5
-------
NATIONAL PRECISION RESULTS COMPARISON
Figure 1 shows the national probability limits for precision for the
various methods. With data from four years, some minor trends are evident.
Some slight improvement, as measured by a reduction in the spread of the
limits, is noted particularly for the manual methods for Pb, S02, and N02«
The slight but persistent negative bias for the continuous S02 method indi-
cates that on the average there is some negative instrument drift from the
most recent calibration or instrument adjustment to the time of the biweekly
precision check.
Although the manual methods for Pb, S02, and N02 wer-a not required to
be reported until 1983, a number of agencies began reporting in 1981. The
results for Pb show a decided and continuing improvement. The manual S02
and N02 methods are much more variable than the continuous methods. How-
ever, they do show considerable improvement over the four-year period.
1 1 1 1 1 1
DG><9O>S><9C9C
o r- «
-------
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.
NATIONAL VALUES FOR ACCURACY
1981-1984
CONTINUOUS METHODS
30-
20-
10-
-10-
-20-
-38-
-40-
m.^
i
:
j
f
IE
1 :.
:' j
0:
B"
(P
:" !
!:'
;1fc
1
J
ife
I
1
91
1
:
a
!:l
! :'
I !
^
: .
j-i :-
:" :" :"
ill!;
i " J
! J
82 W »4
i QO
M :?1
I " J "
i; ;
: :
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
-10-
-20-
-30-
-40-
NATIONAL VALUES FOR ACCURACY
1981-1084
MANUAL METHODS
t a ts M
I i BO
0-3
C0 00
Figure 2. National accuracy probability limits for 1981 through 1984.
Although the continuous N0£ method is more variable than the other
methods, it has shown the greatest improvement, particularly for the level
1 concentration.
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
method is consistent across all three levels. A possible cause is that,
on the average, a negative drift occurs 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 1984 frequency distributions for precision prob-
ability limits and accuracy probability limits at levels 1, 2, 3, and 4.
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 lim-
its 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 percentile value for the upper limit is +15%, and the lower 5 percentile
13
-------
value 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. A.nd, in general, the variabilities are less for 1984 than for the
corresponding values reported for previous years. The 95th percentiles
provide criteria beyond which a reported probability limit may be considered
excessive and for which the computation should be rechecked or the measure-
ment system investigated and corrected, if so indicated.
14
-------
TABLE 8. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF QUARTERLY PROBABILITY LIMITS FOR
ALL REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS (1984)
MANUAL METHODS
POLLUTANT
LEVEL
111101 - TSP
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 2
112128 - PB
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
142401 - 502
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
142602 - N02
PRECISION
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
NUMBER OF LOWER PROBABILITY LIMIT STD
REP.ORG.-QTR MIN 01X 05% 105! 25% 50% 75% 90% 95% 99% MAX MEAN DEV
UPPER PROBABILITY LIMIT STD
MIN 01% 05% 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 95% 99% MAX MEAN DEV
555
544
301
271
289
21
25
25
25
26
30
30
30
-68 -43 -23 -19 -13 -09 -06 -03 -02 +02 +15 -10
-27 -20 -15 -12 -09 -06 -03 -02 -00 +03 +04 -06
-59 -50 -31 -25 -17 -10 -06 -04 -03 -00 +08 -13
-92 -33 -17 -15 -11 -07 -03 -01 +01 +05 +14 -07
-38 -22 -15 -13 -08 -05 -02 -01 +01 +10 +13 -06
8.2 -07 -04 +03 +04 +06 +10 +15 +22 +28 +54 +98 +12
4.5 -11 -03 -00 +01 +03 +05 +08 +12 +15 +25 +41 +06
9.8
5.0
9.9 -04 -00 +02 +04 +06 +10 +19 +26 +39 +58 +99 +14 12.6
8.2 -82 -10 -02 -00 +02 +05 +09 +17 +22 +36 +37 +06 9.4
5.6 -18 -11 -02 -00 +02 +05 +07 +13 +17 +27 +59 +05 6.6
-99 -99 -99 -81 -40 -20 -08 -00 -00 -00 -00 -30 31.0 -04 -04 -03 -00 -00 +24 +46 +84 +99 +99 +99 +30 32.2
-31 -31 -28 -27 -18 -12 -08 -05 -03 -02 -02 -14 8.0 -12 -12 -03 -03 +02 +06 +09 +13 +13 +15 +15 +05 6.2
-27 -27 -24 -23 -11 -08 -04 -01 -00 -00 -00 -09 7.1 -06 -06 -00 -00 -00 +03 +06 +08 +12 +12 +12 +04 4.1
-20 -20 -19 -17 -13 -06 -03 -01 -01 -01 -01 -08 5.8 -07 -07 -03 -02 +01 +02 +05 +07 +10 +16 +16 +03 4.5
-58 -58 -53 -49 -29 -14 -08 -05 -02 -01 -01 -20 16.4 +05 +05 +06 +07 +09 +13 +34 +42 +47 +60 +60 +20 15.7
-32 -32 -16 -14 -07 -04 -02 -00 +01 +01 +01 -06 6.7 -01 -01 -00 +01 +03 +05 +08 +13 +13 +14 +14 +06 4.0
-35 -35 -18 -07 -06 -02 -01 +01 +01 +01 +01 -04 7.3 -00 -00 -00 +01 +03 +04 +05 +10 +11 +16 +16 +04 3.3
-34 -34 -12 -07 -04 -02 -00 -00 +01 +06 +06 -03 6.7 -00 -00 -00 -00 +01 +04 +05 +07 +08 +08 +08 +03 2.4
-------
(Continued)
TABLE 8. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF QUARTER!,? PROBABILITY LIMITS FOR
ALL REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS (1984)
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
ACC-LVL 1
ACC-LVL 2
ACC-LVL 3
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
NUMBER OF LOWER PROBABILITY LIMIT STD
REP.ORG.-QTR MIN OU 05% 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 95% 99% MAX MEAN DEV
UPPER PROBABILITY LIMIT STD
MIN 01% 05% 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 95% 99% MAX MEAN DEV
386
301
300
29S
&
326
330
326
264
175
174
175
12
416
337
338
334
31
-42 -29 -18 -14 -10 -07 -04 -02 -01 +02 + OJ -08
-57 -41 -26 -20 -13 -07 -04 -01 +02 +06 +10 -09
-41 -26 -18 -14 -09 -05 -02 -01 +01 +03 +04 -06
-30 -25 -18 -15 -09 -05 -03 -01 -00 +03 +06 -06
-16 -16 -16 -16 -08 -03 -01 -01 -01 -01 -01 -05
-42 -33 -24 -20 -15 -11 -08 -06 -05 -00 +07 -12
-49 -44 -30 -24 -18 -12 -07 -03 -00 +04 +13 -13
-46 -32 -26 -20 -14 -10 -06 -02 -00 +06 +13 -11
-48 -33 -22 -18 -14 -09 -05 -02 -00 +04 +09 -10
-29 -29 -20 -19 -12 -07 -05 -01 -00 +07 +07 -09
5.7 -05 -03 -00 +02 +03 +06 +09 +12 +15 +25 +37 +07 5.1
9.2 -09 -07 -03 -02 +02 +07 +12 +18 +24 +41 +51 +08 9.3
5.9 -08 -06 -02 -00 +02 +05 +08 +13 +18 +23 +28 +06 5.7
5.6 -09 -07 -03 -01 +01 +04 +07 +11 +15 +29 +34 +05 5.7
5.3 -03 -03 -03 -03 +03 +07 +10 +11 +11 +11 +11 +05 4.8
6.2 -04 -03 +01 +02 +05 +08 +11 +15 +19 +32 +51 +09 6.6
9.1 -11 -07 -03 -00 +03 +09 +13 +20 +26 +41 +87 +10 10.3
7.6 -08 -06 -01 +01 +04 +08 +12 +17 +24 +37 +53 +09 7.8
7.4 -07 -06 -03 -00 +04 +08 +12 +18 +22 +32 +50 +08 7.9
7.0 -02 -02 -00 -00 +03 +05 +09 +15 +16 +31 +31 +07 6.5
-56 -47 -28 -20 -15 -10 -06 -04 -02 +03 +07 -12 8.9 -07 -03 +02 +03 +07 +10 +15 +21 +25 +39 +54 +12 8.2
-99 -84 -45 -34 -21 -11 -05 -00 + 05- +09 +10 -15 16.7 -12 -10 -02 +01 +05 +11 +18 +26 +42 +79 +99 +14 14.6
-72 -45 -24 -20 -14 -08 -05 -01 +01 +05 +10 -10 9.0 -09 -06 -01 +01 +04 +08 +12 +16 +21 +36 +76 +09 8.4
-51 -49 -23 -21 -13 -07 -03 -00 +02 +05 +14 -09 9.1 -10 -07 -03 -01 +02 +05 +09 +16 +19 +27 +60 +07 7.7
-61 -61 -61 -29 -11 -07 -03 -03 +03 +03 +03 -13 17.0 -07 -07 -07 -02 -00 +06 +14 +17 +62 +62 +62 +09 17.9
-37 -27 -19 -16 -13 -09 -06 -04 -02 -01 +03 -10
-65 -38 -26 -21 -16 -10 -05 -02 -00 +06 +18 -11
-99 -28 -20 -17 -12 -08 -04 -01 -00 +02 +06 -09
-59 -26 -19 -17 -11 -07 -04 -01 -00 +03 +08 -08
-21 -21 -18 -08 -07 -05 -01 -00 -00 +01 +01 -05
-15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -11 -08 -08 -08 -08 -08 -11
-09 -09 -09 -09 -09 -07 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -07
-06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -04 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -04
-03 -03 -03 -03 -03 +02 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +01
5.4 -09 -01 +02 +03 +05 +08 +11 +15 +19 +28 +35 +08 5.5
8.8 -09 -07 -02 +01 +03 +08 +13 +20 +27 +35 +55 +10 8.9
7.8 -07 -05 -02 -00 +03 +07 +10 +15 +18 +26 +62 +07 6.9
6.6 -11 -07 -03 -00 +03 +05 +09 +13 +16 +21 +44 +06 6.0
4.8 -00 -00 +01 +01 +02 +04 +06 +08 +13 +13 +13 +04 3.3
3.5 +07 +07 +07 +07 +07 +07 +08 +08 +08 +08 +08 +07 0.6
1.5 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -02 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -03 3.1
1.5 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 +08 +08 +08 +08 +08 +08 +04 6.4
4.0 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 +11 +11 +11 +11 +11 +11 +07 6.4
-------
SECTION 3
REGIONAL RESULTS
REGIONAL DATA REPORTING
All reporting organizations having SLAMS/NAMS sites for the criteria
pollutants are required to report P and A data. The numbers of such re-
porting organizations are listed in Table 9. Note that only five reporting
organizations use the manual S02 method at SLAMS sites and only two use the
manual N02 method.
TABLE 9. TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS REQUIRED
TO REPORT FOR THE YEAR 1984, BY POLLUTANT
Automated
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Nation
CO
C42101
6
3
LO
21
20
10
11
4
11
4
100
SO 2
C42401
6
4
12
23
25
11
9
4
8
3
105
methods
N02
C42602
4
2
12
13
13
10
6
3
7
2
72
03
044201
6
3
12
26
24
10
11
3
10
2
107
Manual methods
TSP
111101
6
4
16
32
30
14
12
9
12
4
139
Pb
112128
5
3
9
11
15
11
10
3
8
4
79
S02
142401
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
5
N02
141602
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
The breakdown of data completeness (defined as the percentage of re-
porting organizations which reported P&A data to EPA relative to the number
required to report each quarter) is given in Table 10.
17
-------
oo
TABLE 10. PERCENTAGE OF REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS WITH COMPLETE DATA
IN PARS FOR THE YEARS 1983 AND 1984
Automated pollutants
CO
C42101
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Nation
83
85
92
100
83
78
91
78
68
77
88
83
84
91
88
100
84
85
97
78
98
89
94
90
S02
C42401
83
92
66
100
79
77
82
69
100
60
88
80
84
98
83
100
87
92
93
77
98
93
97
92
N02
C42602
83
56
100
96
51
65
70
68
92
58
81
69
84
80
100
98
63
79
85
75
92
94
100
88
03
044201
83
79
96
99
81
76
96
80
96
75
94
84
84
79
99
100
79
88
98
73
100
95
100
91
Manual pollutants
TSP
111101
83
98
72
99
97
99
95
97
96
82
100
95
84
100
97
100
99
97
98
95
100
95
92
98
Pb
112128
83
95
75
88
78
89
83
66
75
59
59
79
84
99
100
95
80
85
88
83
83
74
72
85
S02
142401
83
__
94
50
72
84
~~_
100
0
43
64
N02
141602
83
_
100
75
100
63
0
73
84
_ _
100
100
100
NOTE: Means no data was required, there being no SLAMS sites for these
pollutants.
-------
From 1983 to 1984, the percentages increased for most pollutants
(except the manual 802) and for most region-pollutant combinations, except
for
Region II, for CO
Region IV, for 03
Region V, for TSP and Pb
Region VII, for 03 and TSP
Region VIII, for S02
Region IX, for manual S02 and
Region X, for TSP.
A number of reporting organizations having SLAMS/NAMS sites for cer-
tain pollutants have reported no precision or accuracy data for 1984 for
these pollutants:
Region
State
Reporting organization
Number
Name
Pollutant
I
II
V
VI
NH 30001 New Hampshire*
VI 55001 Virgin Islands*
VI 55001 Virgin Islands*
IN 15001 State of Indiana*
OK 37102 Oklahoma City-County
OK 37102 Oklahoma City-County*
LA 19001 State of Louisiana*
NO 2
S02
TSP
N02
S02
N02
Pb
VII
IX
KS 17001 State of Kansas
IA 16001 Linn County*
MO 26003 St. Louis City
NV 29100 State of Nevada*
GO 54100 Guam*
NV 29100 State of Nevada*
GU 54100 Guam*
CA 05036 San Diego*
NV 29300 Clark County*
GU 54100 Guam*
AK 02020 Alaska
N02
Pb
Pb
CO
S02
°3
TSP
Pb
Pb
SO 2
(manual)
Pb
*Repeats from 1983.
Precision and accuracy reporting for 1984 was complete only for the
following Region and pollutant combinations:
19
-------
Region Pollutant
I TSP
II Pb
II N02
III CO
III S02
III 03
III TSP
IV S02 (manual
IV NO2 (manual)
VI NO2 (manual)
VIII 03
VIII TSP
X N02
X 03
Considering the reporting for all pollutants and all reporting organi-
zations, the reporting organizations of Region III were most complete
(99%). Region VII data was the least complete (80%). All regions showed
improvement from 1983.
Percentage of
reports complete
Region 83 84
I 84 91
II 84 95
III 97 99
IV 80 86
V 83 88
VI 74 82
VII 65 80
VIII 88 95
IX 66 83
X 85 93
When considering the various pollutant methods across all Regions, re-
porting was most complete for the N02 manual method and least complete for
the manual S02 method.
Percentage of
reports complete
Pollutant 83 84
TSP 95 98
03 84 91
CO 83 90
S02 80 92
Pb 79 85
NO2 (manual) 73 100
S02 (manual) 72 64
N02 69 88
20
-------
Reporting for all methods showed improvement from 1983, except the
manual S02 method.
REGIONAL COMPARISONS
Figures 3 through 10 compare the precision and accuracy probability
limits for 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984. These comparisons are presented for
each Region 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). Regions VII and VIII have
more variability in accuracy that other regions.
SO
Most regions show improvement in precision (Figure 4). A negative
bias persists in most regions in both precision and accuracy. Region VII
has shown considerable improvement in precision and accuracy.
N02
Most regions show improvement in precision and accuracy (Figure 5).
Exceptions for precision are Regions VIII and X. Region VII shows greater
variability in accuracy at levels 2 and 3 than for previous years. The
small negative bias in both precision and accuracy persists, similar to
S02.
The precisions for most regions except IV and VIII improved over the
four-year period. (Figure 6). Region II limits have increased from 1982.
Some improvement is generally indicated for most regions for accuracy at
the three levels.
TSP
The charts (Figure 7) show consistently and appreciably more variabil-
ity in precision than accuracy. This results because the precision checks
involve 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, after which the results appear more uniform
21
-------
across regions. The noticeable negative bias which existed for accuracy
audit results for most regions in 1981 and 1982 seems to have been corrected.
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. (Note the difference in
the scales of the precision and accuracy charts.) 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. However, this does not explain the excellent
precision results from Region VI. Negative biases in accuracy results are
persistent 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. Region VII
reported no precision data for 1981, 1982, and 1984.
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 surprising. These appreciable differ-
ences which persist from year to year strongly indicate that whatever
forces or causal factors are in action in each region and in each pollutant
measurement system are persistent over the years. These significant dif-
ferences 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.
22
-------
40-
P
R
0
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
30-
20-
10-
L -10-
M
I -20-
T
S
-30.
X
-40-
CO PRECISION
1981-1984
I n 83 M
I 1 BD
\ a 4 ». «. e
AQ
1 1 1 1
» 8 <9 <9 G
r n CM
a.KOoa-«QH_iHi-
Y
L -10-
M
I -20-
T
S
-30-
X
CO ACCURACY LEVEL 1
1981-1984
_r
E
-40 , |
lint i
:" =' \~. =--
^ =11 =" :. ='
>-
1 1 1
F " n _
:- E- j- :-
j: TH: B
11 82 n <
1 1 BD
I I ! 1
R
0
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
40-
30-
20-
18-
L -|0-|
M
I -20 -j
T
S
-30-|
X
-40-
CO ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1981-1984
II BD
I
e
P
R
0
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
40-
30-
20-
10-
L -10-
I
M
I -20-
T
S
-30-
X
-48-
CO ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1981-1984
I 82 «S .<
I i BD
1 1 1 I I I T
^ », <=, e 1 « «
Figure 3. CO precision and accuracy by region for 1981 through 1984.
23
-------
ACX-
I 1 1
! 8 8 2
0.ttO ,
^ 7-
-1
fe-i-.
E-
~ J : _
IJ-1
Q_ «="l
:- ="
"^ Z
ii BD
Iln
[:
rF
4*>*i-iiei
50-
P 40-
R
S 30-
A
B 20-
I
L 10-
I
T 8
Y
L -10-
I
M -20-
I
T -30-
S
v -40-
X
-58-
mr
E
E
K _
P
1
\
S02 ACCURACY LE
VEL
1981-1984
1 82 M (4
1 ^
i
P
i
Jl
iJ
E
i B_j-n in_ ^
^ : - : : -
: : ;
: " :" "
: - ; . :
: - :- ; _
: ; - J ; -
3 Cj : » "
1 i QD
PI _
^ - . . -
1" E" :" :>,
: ~ : " : " : ~
:" E" :" : "
: " :" : :-
\- \- |- j;
: :- " - :"
--J [j hrls
j
7
1 1 1 1 I I 1 I
^ft
P 48-
B 30~
B 28-
L 18-
Y B
L "I0~
I
M -28-
I
T -38-
S
X "40~
r
{-
1
F
ji
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1081-1884
1 «2 M M
: -
E-
-
JJ :-
:- E-
: - : .
:- E-
- Z m
I1QD
n r^*
B"
LJ
LJ
1 1 1 1 1 1
Figure 4. Continuous S02 precision and accuracy by region for 1981
through 1984.
24
-------
40-
N02 PRECISION
1081-1084
P
R
0
I
L
I
T
i n a <
I i BD
'-
L-,.-
H
I -20-
T
-30-
X
p 60-
R 50-
B 38~
I 20-
i ,.-
T o_
Y B
-10-
!j -20-
M -30-
T -40-
» -50-
X -80-
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 1
1981-1984
-,
- m * ^«
: : :
1- !: !: \-
1: i' \'- \-
: : .
: : J ; ,
a . ea^
J 0J
f R
1 1
: : : -i
: - : :- KJ
;. [ [; p-
t ^ ^ B
; * _ ;
n
0
-j
M
D
i
j
I I I
T I
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1081-1984
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1981-1984
-70
Figure 5. Continuous N0£ precision and accuracy by region for 1981
through 1984.
25
-------
0
B 9e.
A Z8~
B
? 18-
L
I
T B_
L -18-
I
H
I -20-
T
8 -30-
X
03 PRECISION
1981-1084
_
: : : E : : :
1- = !' I" ; ! !'
' i . : . K: . . : :
: :. : Bj "
. . . ^E . .
I I I I I 1 I
\ 0. » * * 1
t n n »4
1 I 0D
: : :
1- |" j-
: ; ;
: : :
J
i i i
4g _
R 30-
0
B
I
V"
t.,.-
M
I -20-
T
S
-30-
X
03 ACCURACY LEVEL 1
1981-1984
ilia
Br
.
£
:
H "
: . '
:
: .
:
:
3
: ;
: :
: :
: . :
i . i
; :; i-
3 U
|- :
: :
: :
" j-
:. :'
LJ
_
I 1 1 1 1
40-
R 30-
0
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
20-
10-
L -10-
H
I -20-
T
8 -30-
X
-40
03 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1981-1984
ii an
T
«
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
-10-
-20-
-30-
-40-
03 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1981-1984
II QD
T T I I I T I 1 I T
\a«A««ieo.«
Figure 6. Ozone precision and accuracy by region for 1981
through 1984.
26
-------
48-
TSP PRECISION
(981-1984
1 *Z *3 tl
P
R
0
A
B
L
I
T
Y
18-
L-,..
H
I -28-
T
S
-38-
X
1 1
TSP ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1981-1984
Figure 7. TSP precision and accuracy by region for 1981
through 1984.
27
-------
P
R
0
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
188
88-
-
48-
28-
L -«'
M -48
I
T -88
S
-188
PB PRECISION
1981-1984
i tz a *4
1 I QD
1 T
PB ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1981-1984
Figure 8. Lead precision and accuracy by region for 1981
through 1984.
28
-------
ian
P 80-
B 80~
B 40-
L 20-
T Q_
Y "
L -20-
M -40-
I
T -60-
S
P
0 20-
B
A
B |0_
L
I
T 0-
Y
L
I -10-
M
I
T
S -20-
X
-30-
S02 PRECISION
1881-1884
i -
:
!;
:
1 .
;
;
:
:
-1
1 1 I 1 1
N 1 » * 6
1 82 n *4
ii an
*-
1
1 1
1 *
E-
i :
1 1
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
1881-1884
i
E
:
j-
3
-1
h
«1 C
1 i
2 » >4
1 BD
rfn
v
*a
-OBO»T)
l\> C
D CD CD (
1 1
L
I -18-
M
I
T
S -20-
X
oo
3B
P
0 20-
B
A
B to
I IB~
L
I
T />
> CD C9 fl
eg v
1 1 1
> _IHXHt-OT X
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 1
1881-1884
f
|:
:
E-
E
a
;
E
1
ii BD
1
x *»*«.-... v.
SO2 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
1881-1884
-
E m
I
1 K S3 14
1 1 BD
1 1
1 1 1 1
Figure 9. Manual S02 precision and accuracy by region for 1981
through 1984.
29
-------
fcft-
p
R 60-
0
5 «-
B
L
I
T a-
Y
L -28-
H
I -40-
T
S
-60-
X
N02 PRECISION
1981-1984
i
l|
:
:
:
:
:
-
B
m
^"^
i *t ta «
II BO
-
,
80 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
^^*A««1eas«
S »
0
5 «>-
B
' ,.-
I
T a-
Y 8
L -|0-
H
I -28-
T
-38-
X
-Aa-
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 1
1981-1984
IP- i- rll- 1
E : : 1 E 1 1
H |:j I: H
t 82 S3 1-4
1 I 8D
R 30-
0
R
5 2«-
B
I
T a
Y 8
L -10-
I
M
I -20-
T
S
-30-
X
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
Et
fE '
E:
f
48 1 1 1 1
s a » ».
1981-1984
1|
I
i
II
<
i K n «4
§
1 i BO
1
p
R
0
j B
A
B
|r
T
Y
L
I
H
I
T
S
X
ft n * sft
^B
R 30-
0
B
L l0"
T a
Y^
L -J0-
I
H
I -20-
T
S
-30-
X
N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
ff
V
1
-40 [ 1 1 1
1981-1984
1 K *3 «4
1 i BO
i :
I
E
j ^
hfc
IE" il
IE -> B
1
i i i i t i
Figure 10. Manual N(>2 precision and accuracy by region for 1981
through 1984.
30
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS BY REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Table 11 shows the total number of Reporting Organizations reporting
data to EMSL in 1984. 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 assurance information in cases where they have no
SLAMS or NAMS sites. There are an additional 2 reporting organizations
for CO, 7 for continuous S02, 7 for continuous N02, 8 for ozone, 7 for TSP,
7 for Pb, 4 for manual S02 and 6 for manual N02« Apparently, these addi-
tional 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 1984
Automated
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Nation
CO
C42101
6
3
10
22
20
10
11
5
11
4
102
S02
C42401
6
4
12
29
26
11
9
4
8
3
112
pollutants
N02
C42602
4
2
12
17
15
10
6
3
8
2
79
03
044201
6
3
12
32
25
10
11
3
11
2
115
TSP
111101
6
4
16
37
30
14
14
9
12
4
146
Manual
pollutants
Pb S02
112128 142401
5
3
9
16
16
11
10
3
9
4
86
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
2
0
9
N02
141602
0
0
0
4
2
1
1
0
0
0
8
Appendix D shows the annual combined upper and lower probability limits
for each reporting organization. Each reporting organization can compare
their values with those of other reporting organizations and with the
regional and national values. Also given for each reporting organization
are the following informational items:
31
-------
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.
32
-------
SECTION 5
FURTHER EVALUATION OF PARS DATA
Some interesting comparisons can be made by considering the correspond-
ing national averages of Tables 6 and 7 and the 50-percenr.ile values of the
probability limits of Table 8. 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 1984
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
-16
- 8
-18
-11
-27
- 7
-33
-14
- 9
- 9
-12
-12
-14
-13
-12
-12
Upper
limit
17
8
20
10
27
8
31
7
8
8
10
10
13
12
11
11
Range
33
16
38
21
56
15
64
21
17
17
22
22
27
25
23
23
50-percent ile
Lower
limit
- 9
- 6
-10
- 5
-14
«. 9
-20
- 8
- 7
- 5
- 9
- 8
-10
- 8
-11
-10
Upper
limit
10
5
10
5
13
4
24
3
6
5
8
7
10
8
8
8
values
Range
19
11
20
10
27
6
44
11
13
10
17
15
20
16
19
18
*A11 accuracy values for all pollutants are for Level 2.
33
-------
MANUAL METHODS
For the manual methods, in all cases the spreads (ranges) of the prob-
ability limits are considerably greater for precision than for accuracy.
These differences are consistent for both the National averages and the
50-percentile values. These same relationships also existed for 1981, 1982
and 1983. This means that the short-term within-sampler variability (preci-
sion) 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.
TSP. In the case of TSP, the precision results are obtained from col-
located sampler data. They include variability from the sample collection
process, 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 ag/iP, 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 NQ2. Similar to the TSP data, the precision results
are obtained from collocated sampler data. They include 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
34
-------
extraction of real-world particulate are involved in addition to the chemi-
cal analytical portion of the method. The accuracy audit data are obtained
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 802), 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 precision and
accuracy check as specified by the proposed regulation revisions to Appendix
A of 40 CFR, Part 58 promulgated March 19, 1986. Now only the reporting
organizations could perform such studies, since only 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). The national values for precision
for the continuous methods are almost exactly the same as the accuracy values
at level 2. For these continuous measurement methods, the precision assess-
ments 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, N02, and 03.
In comparison, the accuracy audits include between-instrument variability as
well as imprecision, but are conducted at higher concentrations for level 2.
15-20 ppm for CO
.15 -.20 ppm for S02, N02, and 03.
Thus, the added between-instrument variability for the level 2 accuracy
audit is almost exactly offset by the improved percentage within-instrument
variability for the precision.
35
-------
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.
COMPARISON OF NATIONAL LIMIT VALUES AND 50-PERCENTILE VALUES
With reference again to Table 12, in all cases the spreads (ranges) of
the National values for both precision and accuracy are greater than for
the corresponding 50-Percentile values. The most logical explanation is
that the National 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 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, 1982, and 1983
data. This means that, on the average, the precision checks resulted in
values about 5 percent less than the assumed concentrations. No cause has
been identified 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 pos-
sible that this bias represents a degradation of the S0£ audit gases. These
biases for S02 were observed previously in the 1981, 1982, and 1983 data
and seem to be consistent in magnitude and direction. Another possible ex-
planation of the negative biases for precision and accuracy for S02 is that
the instruments, on the average, tend to drift in a negative direction as
previously discussed on page 13. No satisfactory explanation can be pro-
vided 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
methods than for CO and 03.
36
-------
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 1983 data.
TABLE 13. VALUES OF QUARTERLY PROBABILITY LIMITS CONSIDERED
AS EXCESSIVE BASED ON 1984 DATA
Manual methods
TSP
Pb
NO 2
SO 2
Continuous methods
CO
03
NO 2
SO?
Precision limits
± 26
± 35
± 50
± 70
± 16
± 19
± 27
± 22
Level
± 20
± 15
± 21
± 25
± 27
± 44
± 28
Accuracy
1 Level
± 15
± 16
± 12
± 18
± 18
± 19
± 23
± 25
limits
2 Level 3
± 10
± 15
± 15
± 18
± 21
± 22
37
-------
SECTION 6
COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM THE PARS AND THE PA 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 Performance
Audit data are the results of an independent check conducted by the Quality
Assurance Division (QAD) of the EMSL under the National Performance Audit
Program (NPAP).
In the NPAP, specially prepared audit samples or devices are sent from
QAD to the participating ambient air monitoring agencies. The samples or
devices are carefully and accurately assessed by EMSL utilizing NBS Stan-
dard Reference Materials (SRM's) or standards. The monitoring agencies
analyze or measure the samples or devices as unknowns or blinds and report
their results to QAD 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.5*6*' Also, other reports8 have dealth with
the use of PARS data.
As indicated above, the NPAP does not yet include an audit for the
ozone or continuous N0£ methods. Therefore, no comparisons of the NPAP or
PA data with the PARS data are possible for those pollutants.
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 past audit data
reports, however, indicates that the presence of outliers may make a signi-
ficant difference in the audit results for some agencies.
38
-------
Comparisons of the national values of the probability limits (Table 14)
exhibit fairly 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
values 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. Exami-
nation of the results (see Table 14) confirm these expectations. The PA
data for 1984 are generally better than the coresponding data for 1983.
TABLE 14. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF EMSL PERFORMANCE AUDITS (PA)
vs. PARS ACCURACY AUDIT DATA FOR YEAR 1984
Pollutant
CO
PA
PARS
S02
PA
PARS
TSP
PA
PARS
Pb
PA
PARS
S02 (manual)
PA
PARS
N02 (manual)
PA
PARS
Audits
771
974
357
819
2447
6559
723
1259
30
190
30
139
National values
95% probability limits (%)
Level 1
Lower Upper
- 9 12
-14 13
-23 19
-13 11
-35 30
-17 15
-18 8
- 5 - 1
- 6 8
Level 2
Lower Upper
-20 21
- 8 8
-16 14
-12 11
-15 18
- 6 7
-17 11
-11 10
-15 6
-12 6
- 7 - 2
- 6 7
Level 3
Lower Upper
- 7 8
- 8 7
-17 14
-12 10
-22 14
-18 15
-12 6
- 3 4
- 4 5
Level 4
Lower Upper
-10 8
-22 20
-11 9
-14 16
- 7 - 3
39
-------
Comparisons of the 95 percent probability limits for the PA. and the
PARS results by Region are shown in Figures lla through f for selected con-
centration levels. The figures show considerable variation among Regions.
CO.
Note than on Figure lla, the probability limits for PA for Region I
are shown with and without the extreme results of the State of Vermont.
The width of the PARS probability limits for level 3 exceed those for
PA for seven of the ten Regions. The PARS limits are considerably wider
for Regions III and VI than for other Regions. For previous years, the PA
limits have generally been wider than the PARS limits. The PARS limits for
most Regions, for some reason, are generally wider for 1984 than for 1983.
TSP.
For all Regions, the width of the probability limits for PARS is less
than for PA. This may be explained by the fact that within each reporting
organization the flow rate checks are not as completely independent from
their Internal standards as are the PA audits. Regions III and IX have more
variability than other Regions.
N02 (manual).
The variabilities for both PA and PARS are relatively small for the
limited amount of usage of the method.
SC>2 (manual).
For PA results there is a definite negative bias for both Regions IV
and IX. This bias also exists for PARS for Region IV. A possible explana-
tion is that for PA the samples are prepared at EMSL/RTP and some degrada-
tion of the samples occurs prior to analysis in the SLAMS laboratories. For
PARS the standards are normally prepared locally and analyzed soon after
preparation. Region IV should check to determine the cause of the negative
bias for the PARS results.
Pb.
There is considerable variation in the results from Region to Region.
However, for most 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 calibration, whereas the standards for PA, since they are prepared at
EMSL/RTP, are more completely independent. There appears to be no signifi-
cant bias in either the PA or the PARS results.
Region VI results have, for both PA and PARS, much more variability
than for other regions.
40
-------
I
12
10
8
6
4
2
2
A
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
«e
-10
16
J
__
-
-
*
«
*>
-
^
23
I
T
» *
1
*OH
\
\
T m
JL
illTTINI
|
1
"
«d
51
|
'
L
I/TOO
*
.
j
1
I
" "
L
1
L
J
I
.
1
1-
.
I
.
1
J
1
«
. _
I
1
H
.
PA
1
r
L
I'
1 1
co-
T T ~
i Ti -
! 1! _
i *
4. i
j -
^ARS
1 1
Figure 11a. Comparison of PA and PARS for CO (level 3).
23
20
15
10
S
-5
10
-15
-20
1C
-25
i i '
_ y
-"T T
1 I
_ 1± I-1-
_
i i
1 2
'1
T
^
1
3
1
T
i
X
|
4
T"
T
1
i
1
1
JL
1
5
1
T
~l
i
I
6
1
7
i -,
1
1
I
1
I
7
1
FT
1
~L.
1
8
1 1
TSP-
_
I I"
i |
1 J.
~~
1 I
9 10
REGIONS
Figure 11b. Comparison of PA and PARS for TSP (level 2).
-------
10
0
-10
-?n
1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
Ty
Til! T
1 11 -1 i
I"
1 i i i i iii
1 1
N02
JPARS
I 1
1 2345 6789 10
Figure 11c. Comparison of PA and PARS for manual N 62 (level 3).
£U
10
0
10
-20
1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
_
1 1 1
S02
1
1
1
1
1 -J
» JLI. ...
J_
II till 1
12345 6789 10
Figure 11d. Comparison of PA and PARS for manual SC^devel 3).
ou
20
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
50
JU
«
1
T
1
1
J.
|
1
1
T
J.
|
2
1
,T
^
|
3
1
T
I
i
J.
l
4
1
T
. 1
I
1
1
|
5
1 1 1 1 1
Pb
T
- T T- TT "
T ' T1 !
l-r 1 I
ill 1 1
J. 1 ' -L A
1 -1-11 - -
*
1 1 1 1 1
6 7 8 9 10
REGIONS
Figure 11e. Comparison of PA and PARS for Pb (level 2).
42
-------
uu
40
30
20
10
c
§ 0
ttl
n.
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
T T~
Ti I
I J-l
I
a.
T
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
T n
J.
r_
J.
IRA !
S02
T
JL.
PARS
5 6
REGION
7 8 9 10
Figure 11f. Comparison of PA and PARS for continuous SC>2 (level 3).
43
-------
CONTINUOUS METHODS
MANUAL METHODS
3U
40
30
c
£ 20
03
oT
i 10
s
>
i- n
ROBABILI
0 C
a.
-20
-30
-40
.BO
CO
1
-T
|
I"
T
|P/
a.
"** *
-
i
V
kRS
~-r
t
1
i
1
L i
j.
|
SO
2
T
J.
|
1
T
i
I
i
i
i
X
1
1
J
_
1 1
N02
1 T "J"
J1 \
_
_
1 1
S
1
02
1
1 J
1
1
T
1
T
t
1
1
|
PI
)
T ,
i
i
i
i
i
i _
i
i
i -
i
i
TSP
p
T
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
123123231
LEVEL
3 1
Figure 12. Comparison of PA and PARS, national values, 1984.
44
-------
S02 (Continuous).
Figure llf shows the available comparisons of the PA and PARS data for
the continuous S02 method. For unknown reasons, the computer program would
not report the comparisons for Regions VII, VIII, and X even though there is
data from these three Regions.
Regions V and IX show considerably more variation of PA results than
other Regions. 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
S(>2 method. This same condition existed for the 1983 data.
Comparison of PA and PARS on a National Basis.
The comparisons of the PA and PARS results for all levels on a national
basis are shown on Figure 12. These results are consistent across levels for
each pollutant except for CO, where the level 2 probability limits for PA are
much wider than the PARS.
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
106 comparisons. Of these, data was not available because of missing data
from the PARS for 19 comparisons:
Reporting
Region State organization
I ME 20001
II VI 55001
IV AL 01012
AL 01013
AL 01015
FL 10018
VI LA 19001
NM 32001
VII IA 16001
MO 26003
IX CA 05036
NV 29100
NV 29300
GU 54100
X AK 02020
Pollutant
CO
S02, TSP*
SO 2
CO,* Pb*
S02
S02
Pb*
S02 (manual)
Pb
Pb*
Pb*
CO*
Pb
S02, TSP*,
S02 (manual)
Pb*
*Also missing for 1983
45
-------
Lack of laboratory participation in the National Performance Audit Pro-
gram is the reason there is no paired data available for 89 cases. In these
cases, the laboratories (reporting organization) did not comply with the re-
quirements of the federal regulations. In some of these cases, the labora-
tory requested the audit samples but did not report any results. A listing
of missing PA audit data follows:
Reporting
Region State organization
II PR 40001
VI 55001
III DC 09001
MD 21003
WV 50002
IV AL 01011
AL 01012
AL 01013
AL 01015
FL 10001
FL 10003
FL 10004
FL 10012
FL 10013
FL 10016
FL 10017
FL 10018
GA 11010
MS 25100
NC 34002
SC 42001
TN 44002
TN 44003
TN 44004
KY 18002
V IN 15010
IN 15001
IN 15005
IN 15008
IN 15009
IN 15100
IL 14003
MI 23002
OH 36006
OH 36008
OH 36009
OH 36010
OH 36014
Laboratory
Pollutant
309001
310001
312100
312001
314002
319001
419001
419003
419005
323005
323004
323008
423004
423016
423008
423001
423002
321001
322002
418003
320001
417004
417003
417002
416001
429011
329001
429005
429004
429008
329002
428003
426001
427001
427003
427004
427005
427008
Pb*
S02
Pb*
SO 2
CO*
TSP
SO 2
S02, CO, TSP*
Pb
S02
CO
CO
SO 2
CO
TSP
CO
CO
S02, CO, TSP
CO
SO 2
S02, CO
CO
SO 2
S02, CO
CO
CO
TSP*
SO 2
SO 2
Pb
TSP
CO, Pb, TSP
SO 2
TSP*
Pb*
Pb*
Pb*
Pb*
CO
(continued)
46
-------
Region
VI
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Reporting
State organization
LA 19001
NM 32002
OK 37101
OK 37102
OK 37103
XX 45001
TX 45004
TX 45006
MO 26004
tA 16001
KS 17001
NE 28002
NE 28003
CO 06001
MT 27001
MT 27002
MT 27003
MT 27004
SD 43001
WY 52001
AZ 03200
AZ 03300
CA 05001
CA 05036
CA 05061
HI 12120
NV 29300
GU 54100
ID 13001
ID 13001
ID 13001
ID 13001
Laboratory
Pollutant
334001
430001
331001
431001
431002
333001
433004
433008
438002
436001
437003
435001
435003
344001
339002
439001
439002
439003
342001
343001
447001
447002
345002
445005
445002
348001
446002
349001
554004
354001
554003
354002
Pb*
Pb,* CO,
S02 (manual)
TSP
CO,* S02*
TSP*
Pb*
TSP*
TSP*
TSP*
Pb
S02, TSP
CO
S02
Pb,* TSP*
S02
TSP*, CO
TSP*
TSP*
TSP*
TSP*
S02
S02
SO 2
Pb, TSP
S02
CO*
TSP,* CO, Pb
TSP,* S02
CO*
TSP*
Pb*
S02
In 13 cases, data were unavailable from both PARS and PA:
Region
II
IV
VI
State
VI
AL
AL
PL
NM
OK
Reporting
Organization
55001
01013
01015
10018
32001
37102
Laboratory
310001
419003
419005
423002
330001
431001
Pollutant
S02
Pb
S02
S02
S02 (manual)
SO 2
*Also missing for 1983,
47
-------
State
VII MO
IA
IX AZ
CA
NV
GU
*Also missing for 1983.
Reporting
Organization
26003
16001
03200
05036
29300
54100
Laboratory
438003
436001
447001
445005
446002
349001
Pollutant
Pb*
Pb
S02
Pb*
Pb
TSP,* S02
48
-------
SECTION 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of PARS data for 1984 indicate some general improvement
over the data for previous years. However, considerable differences exist
among Regions and individual reporting organizations for most measurement
methods. Investigations should be made by the Regions and the states to
determine the causes of these significant differences.
Comparison of PARS and PA data show more variability of the PA data
than for PARS, except for CO. 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 con-
sistent for past years.
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.
49
-------
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 Acuracy 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. and E.G. Evans. "Precision and Accuracy Assessments for
State and Local Air Monitoring Networks, 1983." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report, EPA-600/4-86-012, June 1986.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
50
-------
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 terras 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
repeated measurements of a standard concentration in a gas cylinder and the
values indicated by the analyzer. 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 ppra. The data from all biweekly
analyzer checks for a given pollutant are combined, and 95% probability
limit values are reported to EPA each quarter by each reporting organiza-
tion. For this report, the quarterly values for 1984 were combined, and
overall 95% probability limits were calculated for each reporting organiza-
tion, 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 from samples, usually taken every 6 days,
and are reported quarterly. The data from the manual methods were calcu-
lated in a similar manner as the automated (continuous) analyzers.
Accuracy (Continuous Analyzers) the agreement between an analyzer mea-
surement and a known audit standard concentration. Accuracy estimates are
obtained at least once per year for each analyzer by introducing blind
audit standards into the analyzer. The audit samples must span at least
three concentration levels and, whenever possible, must be traceable to NBS
or other authoritative reference. At least 25% of the analyzers in each
reporting organization must be audited each quarter. The percentage dif-
ference 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% proba-
bility 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 or measured
value and a known or reference value. For N0£ and SC>2 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 audit materials for the manual
methods for S(>2, NC>2 and Pb are used to evaluate the accuracy of only the
analytical laboratory portion of the method, and are as follows:
A-2
-------
Method Audit Materials
Manual S02 Freeze-dried
Manual N02 NaN02 solution
Pb Filter strips spiked with Pb 804
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 Pb method are conducted semi-annually and those for flow (TSP), and
continuous CO and S02 monitors are conducted at least once per year.
A-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
FORMULAS FOR COMBINING PROBABILITY LIMITS
Section 5.2, Annual Reports, of Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 58 required
that simple unweighted arithmetic averages of the probability limits for
precision and accuracy from the four quarterly periods of the calendar
year be reported with the annual SLAMS report. The simple unweighted
arithmetic averages were specified to simplify the calculations for the
states. Such limits would be essentially correct if only random variations
occurred between quarters within a reporting organization and between re-
porting organizations within a state, i.e., if no statistically significant
differences occurred between quarters within reporting organizations or be-
tween reporting organizations within states. However, experience has shown
that significant differences do occur. Because of this fact, it is most
correct to combine the data across quarters and across reporting organiza-
tions within states (and also across states within regions and across re-
gions within the nation) in the manner described below. These formulas
determine the yearly probability 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 quar-
terly pair of probability limits, the average, D, and standard deviation, Sa,
are back-calculated:
_ LL + UL
D - (D
UL - LL
S = (2)
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:
B-l
-------
D =
(3)
where n^ = the number of individual percent difference, dj_, values for each
quarter
(4)
The appropriate yearly probability limits for the reporting organiza-
tion are computed using the formulas:
UL - D + 1.96 S
35
LL = D - 1.96 "S
(5)
(6)
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
-8
-5
-6
-12
Upper
Probability
Limit
+6
+9
+4
+11
For Quarter 1:
D
LL + UL -8+6
2 2
UL - LL 6-(-8)
-1
2(1.96) 2(1.96)
3.6
by equation (1)
by equation (2)
Similar computations for the other quarters, give values in the follow-
ing table.
3-2
-------
Quarter n
Then
D =
10(-1) + 9(2) + 13(-1) + 7(-0.5)
39
-8.5
39
-0.22
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
by equation (3)
Kn-l) S + In
by equation (4)
[9(3.6)2+8(3.6)2+12(2.6)2+6(5.9)2+10(-0.78)2+9(2.22)2+13(-0.78)2+7(-0.28)2
V
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 by equation (5)
= -0.22 + 1.96(3.87)
= 7.37 or 7 rounded off to nearest integer
3-3
-------
LL = D - 1.96 S by equation (6)
= -0.22 - 1.96(3.87)
=* -7.81 or -8 rounded off to nearest integer
In this particular example, the results by the weighted combined form-
ulas are very close to the simple unweighted arithmetic averages. However,
in many cases the weighted combined formulas result in wider limits than
the simple unweighted arithmetic averages and more correctly reflect the to-
tal variability exhibited by the individual percent differences.
3-4
-------
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 ISLANDS
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
FL, 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
07
07
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
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
26
26
28
28
28
06
27
27
27
27
35
43
46
52
03
03
03
05
05
05
05
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
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
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
006
007
001
002
003
001
001
002
003
004
001
001
001
001
100
200
300
001
004
036
061
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
AMAX LEAD CO. OF MO, BOSS, MO
ST. JOE LEAD CO., HERCULANEUM, MO
STATE OF NEBRASKA
LINCOLN
OMAHA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MT AIR QUAL. BUREAU, DEPT. OF H&ENV.
YELLOWSTONE CNTY. AIR POLL. CONT. AGY.
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.
C-3
-------
Region
09
09
09
09
09
09
10
10
10
10
No.
05
12
29
29
29
54
02
13
38
49
State
Name
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
NEVADA
NEVADA
GUAM
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON
No.
061
120
100
200
300
100
020
001
001
001
Reporting Organization
Name
SOUTH COAST AIR QUAL. MANAGEMENT DIST.
STATE OF HAWAII, DEPT. OF HEALTH
NEVADA DIV. OF ENV. PROTECTION
WASHOE COUNTY
CLARK COUNTY
GUAM EPA
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
PRECISION AND ACCURACY DATA BY REPORTING ORGANIZATION
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l. CO PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL VALUES FOR
REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG.
STATE/
REGION
07001
XXCT
20001
KXME
22001
XXMA
30001
*»NH
41001
XXRI
47001
XXVT
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
XXNY
40001
XXPR
XRG02
08001
XXDE
09001
XXDC
21001
xxMD
39001
39002
39003
XXPA
48001
48003
x*VA
/ NO.
SLAMS
5
5
1
1
4
4
2
2
0
0
1
1
13
11
11
5
5
1
1
17
2
2
1
1
5
5
17
1
4
22
6
4
10
SITES
NAMS
0
0
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
2
NO.
ANALYZERS
20
20
3
3
32
32
8
8
8
8
4
4
75
46
46
53
53
11
11
110
8
8
12
12
28
28
88
8
24
120
32
16
48
rKtLlbiUN-
NO .
PRECISION
CHECKS
114
114
24
24
259
259
234
234
150
150
58
58
839
404
404
445
445
94
94
943
66
66
100
100
325
325
549
97
119
765
215
105
320
PROBABILI TY
LIMITS
LOU
-12
-12
-08
-08
-04
-04
-09
-09
-07
-07
-07
-07
-08
-08
-08
-06
-06
-11
-11
-08
-09
-09
-02
-02
-06
-06
-08
-03
-07
-08
-05
-10
-07
UP
+ 13
+ 13
+ 08
+ 08
+ 06
+ 06
+ 04
+ 04
+ 05
+ 05
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 05
+ 05
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 12
+ 12
+ 04
+ 04
+ 07
+ 07
+ 10
+ 04
+ 05
+ 09
+ 05
+ 09
+ 07
Nfl A 1 IHT T*i
-ACCURACY
NO. AT LEVEL LEVEL 1
AUDITS
8
8
Ox
OX
12
12
25
25
8
8
4
4
57
23
23
57
57
9
9
89
8
8
4
4
31
31
22
18
8
48
8
26
34
4
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
LOU
-15
-15
-04
-04
-08
-08
-04
-04
-10
-10
-08
-09
-09
-06
-06
-15
-15
-08
-07
-07
+ 00
+ 00
-09
-09
-14
-06
-06
-11
-04
-08
-07
UP
+ 23
+ 23
+ 07
+ 07
+ 11
+ 11
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 07
+ 12
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 12
+ 12
+ 05
+ 05
+ 17
+ 17
+ 10
-01
+ 08
+ 07
+ 01
+ 05
+ 04
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL
LOU
-08
-08
-04
-04
-08
-08
-06
-06
-07
-07
-07
-05
-05
-04
-04
-13
-13
-06
-06
-06
-02
-02
-06
-06
-14
-02
-03
-10
-06
-07
-08
UP
+ 09
+ 09
+ 07
+ 07
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 07
+ 02
+ 02
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 05
+ 05
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 04
+ 04
+ 03
+ 03
+ 09
+ 09
+ 05
+ 02
+ 06
+ 07
+ 01
+ 12
+ 11
LOU
-05
-05
-05
-05
-08
-08
-07
-07
-05
-05
-06
-04
-04
-03
-03
-11
-11
-05
-06
-06
-04
-04
-07
-07
-14
-01
-04
-11
-04
-10
-11
UP LOW
+ 05
+ 05
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 02
+ 02
+ 06
+ 07
+ 07
+ 03
+ 03
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 08
+ 08
+ 03
+ 03
+ 04
+ 04
+ 04
+ 02
+ 05
+ 07
+ 00
+ 21
+ 18
50001
26
-12
+ 06
-09 +05 -04 +05 -08 +01
D-2
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG.
5 T A 1 t/
REGION
50002
«»UV
«RG03
01012
01013
*»AL
10001
10003
10011
10012
10013
10016
10017
10018
««FL
11010
»«GA
18001
18002
*»KY
25100
««MS
34001
34002
34003
»«NC
42001
KXSC
44002
44003
44004
44005
XXTN
/ NO.
SLAMS
2
3
43
0
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
19
2
2
7
1
8
1
1
4
2
3
9
2
2
3
3
1
1
8
SITES
NAMS
0
0
10
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
-------
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG.
STATE/
REGION
"MI
24001
**MN
36001
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36014
36015
36016
«
-------
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG.X
C T A T C /
3 1 A 1 t '
REGION
28002
28003
XXNB
XRG07
06001
««CO
27002
27003
27004
X*MT
46001
<*UT
«RG08
03100
03200
03300
x*AZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
x»LA
12120
**HI
29100
29200
29300
»«NV
»RG09
02020
x*AK
13001
XXIO
38001
«*OR
49001
XKUIA
NO.
SLAMS
2
2
4
19
11
11
1
1
0
2
6
6
19
3
6
1
10
25
11
5
17
58
0
0
2
2
1
5
73
5
5
2
2
5
5
14
14
SITES
NAM5
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
2
2
4
3
4
2
3
12
2
2
0
0
2
2
20
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
NO.
ANALYZERS
8
8
16
99
51
51
4
4
4
12
31
31
94
8
14
12
34
81
64
27
94
266
6
6
8
8
16
322
12
12
8
8
28
28
59
59
t-KtHSJUN--
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
42
47
89
656
311
311
34
45
49
128
376
376
815
54
39X
60
153X
450X
418
168
595
1.631
91
91
54
50X
104X
1,979
94
94
78
78
365
365
700
700
PROBABILITY
LIMITS
LOU
-06
-04
-05
-14
-10
-10
-12
-10
-09
-11
-03
-03
-08
-09
-10
-03
-08
-06
-03
-04
-04
-05
-12
-12
-07
-04
-06
-06
-03
-03
-07
-07
-04
-04
-08
-08
UP
+ 04
+ 06
+ 05
+ 13
+ 09
+ 09
+ 11
+ 05
+ 09
+ 09
+ 04
+ 04
+ 08
+ 10
+ 05
+ 05
+ 08
+ 11
+ 04
+ 08
+ 10
+ 0»
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 09
+ 02
+ 02
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 03
+ 03
NO.
AUDITS
6
4
10
64
19
19
4
5
4
13
34
34
66
4
6X
4
14
33
31
8
25
97
80
80
8
5
13
204
12
12
4
4
44
44
40
40
Nn A t ini T*i
nU . AUUilD
AT LEVEL
4
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
5
5
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
ALLUKALT
LEVEL
LOU
-09
-07
-08
-18
-11
-11
-34
-17
-18
-23
-06
-06
-12
-20
-26
-06
-22
-09
-08
-12
-05
-09
-07
-07
-07
-01
-05
-10
-03
-03
-09
-09
-16
-16
-10
-10
1
UP
+ 07
+ 06
+ 06
+ 21
+ 06
+ 06
+ 34
+ 12
+ 12
+ 19
+ 07
+ 07
+ 11
+ 05
+ 11
+ 09
+ 10
+ 12
+ 05
+ 08
+ 12
+ 11
+ 16
+ 16
+ 03
+ 02
+ 04
+ 14
+ 02
+ 02
+ 01
+ 01
+ 04
+ 04
+ 10
+ 10
rnuDHDILlIT Lin
LEVEL 2 LEVEL
LOU
-04
-09
-06
-09
-07
-07
-29
-18
-11
-19
-04
-04
-09
-12
-04
-04
-07
-07
-03
-07
-03
-06
-08
-08
-03
-07
-06
-07
-06
-06
-06
-06
-09
-09
-09
-09
UP
+ 05
+ 11
+ 08
+ 09
+ 11
+ 11
+ 24
+ 15
+ 07
+ 15
+ 04
+ 04
+ 10
+ 06
+ 03
+ 01
+ 04
+ 07
+ 02
+ 05
+ 09
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 02
+ 10
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 02
+ 02
+ 05
+ 05
+ 08
+ 08
LOU
-04
-02
-03
-11
-11
-11
-14
-18
-07
-14
-05
-05
-09
-07
-04
-05
-06
-08
-03
-08
-05
-06
-07
-07
-02
-06
-04
-06
-09
-09
-05
-05
-09
-09
-10
-10
i i D-
3
UP
+ 04
+ 00
+ 03
+ 06
+ 12
+ 12
+ 05
+ 16
+ 05
+ 09
+ 05
+ 05
+ 08
+ 06
+ 07
+ 00
+ 06
+ 07
+ 01
+ 02
+ 06
+ 05
+ 07
+ 07
+ 02
+ 07
+ 05
+ 06
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 02
+ 02
+ 07
+ 07
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-01 +03
-01 +03
-01 +03
-01 +03
-01 +03
-08 +02
-08 +02
-06 +08
-06 +08
-06 +07
-16 +11
-16 +11
XRG10
NATION
26
324
4
115
107
1,696
1.237
14,692
-07
-09
+ 05
+ 08
100 8 -13 +08 -09 +06 -09 +05 -16 +11
1,288 23 -14 +13 -09 +08 -09 +08 -10 +09
D-5
-------
TABLE D-2. CONTINUOUS S02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL
VALUES FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG./
e T » T p /
3 1 A I t/
REGION
07001
xxcT
20001
XKME
22001
**MA
30001
XXNH
41001
XXRI
47001
XXVT
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
**NY
40001
**PR
55001
XXVI
«RG02
08001
xxDE
09001
XXDC
21001
21003
21005
XXMD
39001
39002
39003
NO.
SLAMS
17
17
0
0
6
6
4
4
0
0
2
2
29
11
11
13
13
3
3
2
2
29
7
7
0
0
1
z
1
4
14
2
2
SITES
NAMS
2
2
2
2
11
11
1
1
3
3
1
1
20
8
8
17
17
0
0
0
0
25
1
1
2
2
5
0
0
5
12
5
5
NO.
ANALYZERS
75
75
8
8
68
68
22
22
16
16
10
10
199
60
60
135
135
15
15
7
210
32
32
8
8
8
4
36
121
28
28
rKtLibiurr
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
530
530
100
100
520
520
625
625
404
404
84
2,263
428
428
768
768
130
130
7
7
1,326
273
273
62
62
288
54
32
374
748
451
164
PROBABILITY
LIMITS
LOU UP
-16
-16
-09
-09
-12
-12
-12
-12
-08
-08
-12
-12
-12
-12
-12
-07
-07
-13
-13
???
-10
-09
-09
-13
-13
-09
-10
-12
-10
-10
-07
-13
+ 12
+ 12
+ 07
+ 07
+ 10
+ 10
+ 09
+ 09
+ 08
+ 08
+ 04
+ 04
+ 09
+ 12
+ 12
+ 07
+ 07
+ 06
+ 06
???
+ 09
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 09
+ 04
+ 08
+ 12
+ 05
+ 08
NO.
AUDITS
22
22
8
8
21
21
65
65
16
16
9
9
141
34
34
205
205
13
13
7
7
252
8
8
4
4
22
8
5
35
33
34
8
NO AUDITS
AT LEVEL
4
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
0
ACCURACY
DDnDADYl TTV 1 T ml T T f
LEVEL 1
LOU
-13
-13
-02
-02
-10
-10
-16
-16
-14
-14
-11
-11
-14
-08
-08
-10
-10
-17
-17
-11
+ 00
+ 00
-04
-04
-15
-13
-16
-16
-14
-06
-15
UP
+ 12
+ 12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 11
+ 11
+ 11
+ 11
+ 06
+ 06
+ 02
+ 02
+ 11
+ 10
+ 10
+ 12
+ 12
+ 01
+ 01
+ 11
+ 06
+ 06
+ 03
+ 03
+ 09
+ 12
+ 01
+ 09
+ 14
+ 03
+ 07
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL
LOU
-10
-10
-01
-01
-08
-08
-13
-13
-12
-12
-10
-10
-12
-07
-07
-08
-08
-09
-09
-OS
-04
-04
-04
-04
-11
-13
-12
-12
-13
-07
-15
UP
+ 09
+ 09
+ 07
+ 07
+ 12
+ 12
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 02
+ 02
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 10
+ 10
+ 04
+ 04
+ 10
+ 09
+ 09
+ 04
+ 04
+ 06
+ 09
+ 02
+ 06
+ 11
+ 05
+ 09
LOU
-09
-09
-02
-02
-10
-10
-12
-12
-13
-13
-11
-11
-11
-05
-05
-08
-08
-09
-09
-08
-04
-04
-03
-03
-12
-10
-09
-11
-11
-07
-13
UP LOU
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 11
+ 11
+ 06
+ 06
+ 05
+ 05
+ 04
+ 04
+ 08
-02
-02
+ 09
+ 09
+ 04
+ 04
+ 09
+ 03
+ 03
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 05
+ 04
+ 05
+ 10
+ 07
+ 08
(continued)
D-6
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
RFP ORG./
ST A T E/
REGION
*«PA
48001
48003
x«VA
50001
50002
»*UV
*RG03
01012
01013
01015
01016
XKAL
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10007
10011
10012
10013
10015
10016
10018
*»FL
11010
»»GA
18001
18002
18003
K«KY
25100
*«MS
54001
34002
34003
««NC
42001
«*SC
44001
44002
44003
44006
»»TN
NO.
SLAMS
18
3
4
7
1
3
4
40
1
0
1
0
2
1
3
2
1
0
0
3
3
1
0
1
2
17
10
10
8
0
0
8
1
1
4
1
0
5
3
3
2
1
0
0
3
SITES
NAMS
22
7
0
7
3
3
6
43
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
z
2
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
4
0
4
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
NO.
ANALYZERS
177
40
16
56
20
24
44
353
1
6
4
36
47
4
12
8
4
2
6
16
27
16
8
4
3
110
36
16
29
12
48
89
15
15
56
4
11
71
18
18
12
4
4
132
152
----PKtLlilUM--
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
1,363
267
94
361
128
247
375
2,808
0*
29
7*
2,821
2,857
50
149
67
46
5
29
434
184
208
70
52
7*
1,301
364
364
166
58*
4,017
4,241
165
165
409
31
15*
455
68*
68*
185
29
24
10,327
10,565
PROBABILITY
LIMITS
LOU
-10
-10
-16
-12
-07
-09
-08
-10
-12
-11
-07
-07
-22
-27
-23
-14
-09
-24
-13
-14
-10
-11
-10
-01
-17
-21
-21
-15
-17
-15
-15
-16
-16
-07
-12
-23
-09
-12
-12
-10
-12
-10
-11
-11
UP
+ 10
+ 05
+ 04
+ 05
+ 09
+ 08
+ 09
+ 09
+ 04
+ 22
+ 10
+ 11
+ 18
+ 19
+ 09
+ 04
+ 06
+ 21
+ 04
+ 12
+ 02
+ 14
+ 02
+ 09
+ 10
+ 06
+ 06
+ 02
+ 21
+ 11
+ 11
+ 89
+ 09
+ 04
+ 04
+ 07
+ 05
+ 09
+ 09
+ 07
+ 06
+ 04
+ 1 1
+ 1 1
NO.
AUDITS
75
12
2k
38
26
24
44
204
0«
2
OX
12
14
6
6
6
6
0
6
18
9
12
6
6
3
84
10K
10*
29
7
22
58
11
11
23
5
6
34
69
69
13
8
8
54
83
NO . AUDI TS
AT LEVEL
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
4
0
0
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
2
0
1*
16
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
50
56
ALUUKflUT
LEVEL
LOU
-12
-12
-06
-08
-12
-12
-12
-12
-03
-06
-06
-30
-44
-26
-21
-25
-23
-13
-19
-65
-19
-28
-19
-19
-19
-05
-16
-17
-31
-31
-12
-10
-19
-14
-15
-15
-It
-It
-23
-18
-17
1
UP
+ 09
+ 07
tot
+ 05
+ 10
+ 11
+ 10
+ 09
+ 08
+ 04
+ 05
+ 06
+ 48
+ 23
+ 18
+ 36
+ 17
+ 11
+ 09
+ 73
+ 08
+ 23
+ 14
+ 14
+ 12
+ 12
+ 11
+ 12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 11
+ 04
+ 07
+ 10
+ 11
+ 11
+ 09
+ 15
+ 15
+ 15
+ 14
rKUOMDALlI ' Llllll J
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOU
-11
-10
-06
-07
-05
-06
-05
-09
-06
-07
-07
-19
-27
-21
-23
-21
-20
-06
-14
-39
-03
-20
-19
-19
-13
-07
-13
-13
-19
-19
-07
-05
-25
-12
-10
-10
-09
-15
-15
-11
-12
UP
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 08
+ 03
+ 05
+ 05
+ 08
+ 42
+ 24
+ 30
+ 26
+ 18
+ 10
+ 07
+ 46
+ 05
+20
+ 14
+ 14
+ 09
+ 13
+ 14
+ 12
+ 03
+ 03
+ 08
+ 02
+ 07
+ 10
+ 12
+ 12
+ 08
+ 20
+ 10
+ 11
+ 12
LOU
-10
-10
-06
-09
-07
-07
-07
-09
-07
-05
-06
-14
-23
-30
-23
-13
-19
-09
-15
-33
-02
-19
-19
-19
-15
-08
-14
-15
-16
-16
-07
-03
-20
-10
-11
-11
-08
-15
-13
-09
-10
UP
+ 08
+ 05
+ 10
+ 09
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 00
+ 07
+ 07
-02
+ 38
+ 25
+ 32
+ 14
+ 21
+ 08
+ 10
+ 42
+ 05
+ 20
+ 16
+ 16
+ 09
+ 11
+ 17
+ 13
+ 03
+ 03
+ 09
-01
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 16
+ 12
+ 13
+ 12
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-07 +04
-07 +04
-07 +04
-07 +05
-07 +05
-29 +27
-08 +03
-14 +10
-15 +15
-15 +15
-01 +00
-01 +00
-06 +04
-08 +09
-08 +09
(continued)
D-7
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP ORG
STATE/
REGION
«RG04
14001
14003
««U
15001
15002
15005
15008
15010
15100
*»IN
23001
23002
x«ni
24001
«*MN
36001
36002
36003
36004
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36013
36014
36015
36016
»*OH
51001
KKUII
NO
'
SLAMS
49
10
6
16
3
1
1
2
0
3
10
2
4
6
4
4
0
2
2
3
0
0
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
21
4
4
SITES
NAMS
15
10
3
13
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
4
11
8
8
2
3
0
0
3
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
3
2
23
13
13
NO.
ANALYZERS
538
84
34
118
34
4
8
12
8
22
88
36
28
64
46
46
8
20
4
8
13
8
21
20
8
8
11
14
12
8
163
67
67
rntciaiun-
NO
PRECISION
CHECKS
20,016
916
270
1, 186
154N
23
38
67
41
102
425
225
140*
365
554
554
42
89K
23N
112
68
60
126
113
38
55
SON
83
153
49
1,061
443
443
PPDRiRTI TTV
rKUDAdlLlIT
LIMITS
LOW
-13
-11
-15
-12
-12
-19
-10
-06
-07
-13
-11
-13
-27
-20
-10
-10
-13
-11
-07
-26
-20
-08
-10
-19
-15
-12
-17
-15
-10
-09
-16
-11
-11
UP
+ 11
+ 11
+ 15
+ 12
+ 09
+ 10
+ 11
+ 11
+ 08
+ 09
+ 10
+ 08
+ 15
+ 12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 16
+ 10
+ 08
+ 28
+ 05
+ 07
+ 11
+ 18
+ 04
+ 08
+ 11
+ 10
+ 11
+ 09
+ 14
+ 08
+ 08
-. _ ____ __ _ ALLU
NO. AT LEVEL LEVEL 1
AUDITS
363
21
11
32
28
6
5
12
8
25
84
12
8
20
24
24
4
6
4
3
4
4
8
7
4
4
4
7
4
6
69
21
21
4
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
LOU
-19
-10
-10
-10
-14
-27
-10
-06
-11
-16
-14
-14
-13
-15
-16
-16
-32
-20
-13
-09
-13
-11
-09
-25
-20
-10
-13
-14
-21
-25
-17
-11
-11
UP
+ 15
+ 14
+ 15
+ 14
+ 08
+ 16
+ 10
+ 09
+ 13
+ 11
+ 11
+ 05
+ 17
+ 11
+ 14
+ 14
+ 30
+ 20
+ 14
+ 21
+ 01
+ 08
+ 09
+ 24
+ 2J
+ 05
+ 17
+ 16
+ 09
+ 08
+ 15
+ 14
+ 14
KAtT '
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOU
-14
-11
-07
-09
-12
-14
-10
-06
-13
-13
-12
-13
-08
-12
-11
-11
-31
-14
-19
-10
-11
-09
-07
-13
-14
-06
-04
-12
-19
-24
-14
-12
-12
UP
+ 13
+ 14
+ 09
+ 12
+ 08
+ 05
+ 14
+ 10
+ 13
+ 11
+ 10
+ 08
+ 12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 21
+ 13
+ 18
+ 22
+ 10
+ 05
+ 07
+ 20
+ 14
+ 05
+ 12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 13
+ 13
+ 11
+ 11
LOU
-14
-09
-08
-08
-11
-13
-07
-07
-07
-12
-11
-13
-11
-12
-10
-10
-32
-09
-20
-06
-09
-07
-08
-08
-13
-08
-07
-11
-18
-21
-13
-12
-12
UP
+ 13
+ 12
+ 09
+ 11
+ 08
+ 00
+ 09
+ 09
+ 07
+ 11
+ 09
+ 11
+ 12
+ 11
+ 07
+ 07
+ 20
+ 14
+ 23
+ 22
+ 13
+ 04
+ 12
+ 13
+ 19
+ 07
+ 12
+ 17
+ 13
+ 13
+ 15
+ 09
+ 09
LEVEL 4
LOU UP
-10 +10
-20 +08
-20 +08
-08 +02
-08 +02
*RG05
04001
>*AR
19001
»»LA
32001
32002
«*NM
37101
37102
3M03
««OK
61
1
1
7
7
9
0
9
4
1
1
6
74
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
546
8
8
24
24
33
3
36
15
7
8
23
4,034
47
47
156
156
172
182
48
125»
-14
-26
-26
-17
-17
-13
-15
-13
-19
? ? ?
-10
-17
+ 12
+25
+ 25
+ 10
+ 10
+ 13
+ 03
+ 13
+ 06
? * ?
+ 09
+ 08
250
8
8
17
17
30
8
38
9
13
11
0
o
0
o
o
0
0
-15 +1J -12 +11 -12 +11 -16 +07
-18 +01 -17 +01 -15 +01
-18 +01 -17 +01 -15 +01
-14 +15 -12 +13 -11 +12
-14 +15 -12 +13 -11 +12
-16 +15 -10 +10 -10 +10
-19 +05 -20 +07 -18 +09
-17 +13 -13 +11 -12 +10
-28 + 05 -29 +03 -28 +03
-15 415 -11 +12 -09 +07
-22 +15 -22 +15 -19 +10
(continued)
D-8
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP .ORG.
e T A T c /
D 1 A 1 t'
RtGION
45001
45002
45003
15006
««TX
*RG06
16002
16003
««IO
17001
*»KS
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
KkMO
28003
X«NB
KRG07
06001
«»CO
27001
«»MT
35001
x»ND
46001
»»UT
»RG08
03100
03200
03300
*«AZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
*«CA
54100
»»GU
/ NO.
SLAMS
4
1
1
1
7
30
1
1
2
0
0
3
4
1
1
1
10
0
0
12
0
0
2
2
4
4
5
5
11
9
0
1
10
18
7
6
12
43
1
1
SITES
NAMS
4
0
0
0
4
8
!
2
3
2
2
0
1
1
1
0
3
1
1
9
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
5
0
1
1
2
2
2
0
5
9
0
0
NO .
ANALYZERS
92
4
4
16
116
207
6
15
21
8
8
29
21
11
8
6
75
3
3
107
6
8
8
8
16
16
21
21
53
37
3
7
47
65
56
24
79
204
7
t
TKtk- I^IUM-
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
S,985
34
27
96
4,142
4,652
32*
76
108
49
49
145
141
75
50
39
450
11*
11*
618
51
51
86
86
100
100
271
271
508
254
0*
38
292
348K
228
142
488
1,206
7
7
PROBABILITY
LIMITS
LOW UP
-08
-16
-11
-16
-08
-10
-11
-11
-12
-24
-24
-33
-10
-20
-14
-15
-22
-18
-18
-21
-22
-22
-19
-19
-09
-09
-07
-07
-15
-11
-07
-11
-14
-20
-14
-16
-16
777
777
+ 05
+ 11
+ 01
+ 09
+ 05
+ 07
+ 02
+ 09
+ 08
+ 23
+ 23
+27
+ 11
+ 20
+ 06
+ 11
+ 19
+ 11
+ 11
+ 18
+ 12
+ 12
+ 29
+ 29
+ 07
+ 07
+ 03
+ 03
+ 13
+ 05
+ 08
+ 05
+ 08
+ 09
+ 11
+ 09
+ 09
777
777
NO.
AUDITS
107
4
4
16
131
207
7
8
15
4
4
8
8
7
6
6
35
2
2
56
6
6
12
12
16
16
21
21
55
12
OX
5
17
23
20
7
20
70
7
NO AUDI TS
AT LEVEL
4
10
0
4
0
14
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
10
10
18
11
0
0
11
0
0
2
0
2
7
ftttUKACY
DDnBABTI TTX/ 1 r u r T r
LEVEL
LOUI
-25
-04
-15
-18
-24
-22
-19
-15
-17
-17
-17
-32
-14
-20
-30
-28
-24
-11
-11
-22
-20
-20
-18
-18
-14
-14
-09
-09
-14
-15
-16
-16
-17
-13
-20
-18
-17
1
UP
+ 23
+ 08
+ 00
+ 10
+ 21
+ 18
+ 12
+ 04
+ 08
+ 20
+ 20
+ 16
+ 04
+ 23
+ 18
+ 18
+ 15
-11
-11
+ 13
+ 17
+ 17
+ 14
+ 14
+ 19
+ 19
+ 08
+ 08
+ 14
-02
+ 11
+ 00
+ 15
+ 19
+ 07
+ 17
+ 17
ri\WO«DiL±l 1 Llll
LEVEL 2 LEVEL
LOUI
-14
-13
-14
-16
-14
-15
-13
-15
-14
-10
-10
-24
-14
-16
-15
-27
-19
-16
-16
-17
-16
-16
-18
-18
-U
-IS
-09
-09
-13
-14
-17
-14
-13
-08
-17
-15
-13
UP
+ 15
+ 14
+ 00
+ 09
+ 14
+ 13
+ 08
+ 15
+ 12
+ 11
+ 11
+ 12
+ 05
+ 11
+ 02
+ 19
+ 09
-08
-08
+ 10
+ 14
+ 14
+ 15
+ 15
+ 16
+ 16
+ 08
+ 08
+ 13
+ 03
+ 14
+ 05
+ 13
+ 17
+ 09
+ 16
+ 15
LOUI
-10
-11
-07
-16
-11
-15
-11
-11
-11
-11
-11
-15
-13
-13
-09
-21
-14
-12
-12
-13
-16
-16
-17
-17
-15
-15
-10
-10
-14
-16
-17
-16
-14
-07
-15
-17
-14
3
UP
+ 13
+ 15
-01
+ 08
+ 13
+ 12
+ 06
+ 10
+ 08
+ 06
+ 06
+ 02
+ 04
+ 08
+ 02
+ 16
+ 06
-07
-07
+ 06
+ 11
+ 11
+ 09
+ 09
+ 14
+ 14
+ 09
+ 09
+ 11
+ 09
+ 18
+ 10
+ 15
+ 18
+ 14
+ 15
+ 16
LEVEL 4
LOU UP
-14 +18
-09 +02
-14 +18
-14 +18
-16 +05
-16 +05
-07 +04
-07 +04
-11 +05
-09 +10
-09 +10
KRG09
54
11
251
1.498
-15
+ 09
87
13
-18 +15 -14 +14 -14 +16 -09 +10
(continued)
D-9
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG.
S T A T t/
REGION
13001
»»ID
38001
»»OR
19001
*»UIA
»RG10
NATION
/ NO.
SLAMS
1
1
1
1
8
8
10
325
SITES
NAMS
0
0
2
2
3
3
5
215
un
nU -
ANALYZERS
6
6
8
8
40
40
54
2,518
KKtCIblUN-
NO.
PP F r 1 ^ T DM
r K t(* i 3 I Un
CHECKS
58
58
49K
49»
482
«82
589
38,312
PROBABILITY
L I M * i j
1 T C
LOW UP
-10
-10
-15
-15
-08
-08
-09
-12
»10
+ 10
+ 15
+ 15
+ 08
+ 08
+ 09
+ 11
NO. AUDIT
NO
AUDITS
6
6
17
17
28
28
51
1,666
AT LEVEL
4
5
5
0
0
10
10
15
166
S
LEVE*
-AUCU
1 1
LOW UP
-15
-15
-10
-10
-12
-16
+ 12
+ 12
+ 07
+ 07
+ 09
+ I4
KAV.T
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
LEVE-
1 7
LOW UP
-07
-07
-08
-08
-09
-09
-10
-12
+ 07
+ 07
+ 15
+ 15
+ 07
+ 07
+ 11
+ 11
LEVE-
l ^
LOW UP
-04
-04
-12
-12
-09
-09
-11
-12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 18
+ 18
+ 06
+ 06
+ 12
+ 11
L EVE
LOU
+ 03
+ 03
-07
-07
-08
-13
I 4
UP
+ 10
+ 10
+ 04
+ 04
+ 08
+ 12
D-10
-------
TABLE D-3. CONTINUOUS N0£ PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL
VALUES FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG.
51 AT E/
REGION
07001
x»CT
22001
**MA
30001
XXNH
41001
x*RI
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
XXNY
XRGQ2
08001
xxDE
09001
xxDC
21001
21003
21005
XXMD
39001
39002
39003
XXPA
48001
48003
XXVA
50001
50002
XKWV
XRG03
01014
XXAL
/ NO.
SLAMS
3
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
9
5
5
1
1
6
2
2
0
0
4
1
1
6
17
0
2
19
5
4
9
2
2
4
40
0
0
SITES
NAMS
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
^
4
6
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
NO .
ANALYZERS
12
12
28
28
7
4
4
44
22
22
23
23
45
B
8
8
8
18
2
8
28
72
8
16
96
20
16
36
8
8
16
192
1
1
PRECISION-
NO.
PP Pf* T ^ T nM
r K c.\f 1 j 1 Un
CHECKS
60
60
261
261
7
53
53
374
145
145
104
104
249
59
59
57
57
164
OX
41
205
457
97
98
652
123
95
218
50
84
134
1,325
6
6
PROBABILITY
1 TM1
r TC
L in A i J
LOU UP
-17
-17
-18
-18
777
-02
-02
-17
-13
-13
-10
-10
-12
-09
-09
-10
-10
-14
-10
-13
-11
-07
-12
-11
-08
-17
-13
-09
-05
-07
-11
-06
-06
+ 13
+ 13
+ 13
+ 13
777
+ 14
+ 14
+ 15
+ 14
+ 14
+ 13
+ 13
+ 13
+ 14
+ 14
+ 12
+ 12
+ 11
+ 14
+ 12
+ 11
+ 05
+ 11
+ 10
+ 06
+ 19
+ 13
+ 16
+ 11
+ 13
+ 12
+ 07
+ 07
NO. AUDIT
MCI
AT 1 CMC 1
nil. «i i.uv tt
AUDITS 4
4
4
13
13
7
7
OX
Ox
17
9
9
59
59
68
8
8
4
4
12
OX
6
18
19
12
4
35
11
24
35
8
6
14
114
2
2
2
2
0
0
7
7
0
0
2
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
1 FWF
-AKCU
1 1
L C V CL. ±
LOU UP
-28
-28
-43
-43
777
ill
-41
-09
-09
-12
-12
-12
-06
-06
-05
-05
-17
-07
-16
-18
-10
-20
-16
-01
-06
-07
-02
-03
-02
-12
-07
-07
+ 17
+ 17
+ 49
+ 49
+ 43
+ 11
+ 11
+ 17
+ 17
+ 16
+ 09
+ 09
+ 08
+ 08
+ 13
+21
+ 18
+ 16
+ 13
+ 12
+ 15
+ 15
+ 05
+ 11
+ 14
+ 21
+ 18
+ 15
-03
-03
KAtT
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
L EVE
LOU
-08
-08
-12
-12
-12
-08
-08
-09
-09
-08
-08
-08
-07
-07
-14
-09
-13
-10
-06
-04
-08
-05
-03
-04
-02
+ 00
-02
-08
-06
-06
UP
+ 01
+ 01
+ 12
+ 12
+ 10
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 09
+ 10
+ 10
+ 08
+ 08
+ 11
+ 15
+ 13
+ 11
+ 08
+ 04
+ 09
+ 05
+ 07
+ 06
+ 10
+ 16
+ 14
+ 10
-01
-01
LEVEi*.
i T
LOU UP
-12
-12
-09
-09
-11
-06
-06
-09
-09
-09
-02
-02
-05
-05
-16
-12
-14
-19
-04
-01
-13
-05
-06
-07
-03
-01
-02
-10
-04
-04
-01
-01
+ 08
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 11
+ 14
+ 12
+ 15
+ 05
+ 03
+ 12
+ 03
+ 14
+ 13
+ 10
+ 12
+ 11
+ 12
+ 01
+ 01
LEVEL 4
LOU UP
-11 -07
-11 -07
-11 -07
D-H
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-3. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG.,
STATE/
REGION
10001
10003
10011
10012
10013
10016
10017
10018
«»FL
11010
*»GA
18001
18002
18003
»*KY
34002
34003
«*HC
44302
44006
««TN
' NO. SITES
SLAMS NAM5
1 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
0 2
10 2
0 2
0 2
6 0
1 0
0 0
7 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
NO.
ANALYZERS
4
4
5
8
4
4
0
3
32
8
8
21
5
3
29
3
4
7
4
2
6
f KtCI510N
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
47
31
91
48
23
56
ON
9*
305
67
67
112
17*
202
331
21
14«
35
24
167
191
PROBABILITY
LIMITS
LOU UP
-08 +11
-27 +19
-37 +36
-09
-09
-13
-26
-23
-28
-28
-12
-09
-10
-13
-22
-08
-18
-07
-15
-14
+ 12
+ 11
+ 15
+ 26
+ 23
+ 26
+ 26
+ 08
+ 29
+ 04
+ 09
+ 35
+ 16
+ 28
+ 10
+ 07
+ 08
N
NO.
AUDITS
1
0«
0«
0*
6
1
0*
0»
8«
3
3
21
4
0
25
2
5
7
6
1
7
0 AUDI T5 - "-
--ACCURACY
AT LEVEL LEVEL 1
4 LOU UP
0
0
0
0
0 -09
0
0
0
0 -09
0 -45
0 -45
0 -24
0 -30
0
0 -25
0 -06
0 -23
0 -18
0 -05
0 -07
0 -05
+ 04
+ 04
+ 69
+ 69
+ 25
+ 05
+ 24
+ 09
+ 23
+ 19
+ 05
+ 10
+ 06
r rvu i
LEVI
LOU
-13
-13
-30
-30
-16
-15
-17
-11
-04
-08
-10
-03
-08
3ABILITY LI
EL 2 LEVI
UP LOU
+ 03
+ 03
+ 36
+ 36
+ 13
-03
+ 13
+ 05
+ 12
+ 12
+ 10
+ 01
+ 08
-23
-23
-23
-23
-14
-18
-17
-11
-02
-14
-09
-07
-08
[MITS
EL 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOU UP
+ 10
+ 10
+ 24
+ 24
+ 10
-10
+ 10
-01
+ 11
+ 13
+ 07
+ 03
+ 06
*RG04
19
83
935
-19
+ 17
52
-22 +21 -15 +12 -15 +10
14001
14003
««IL
15001
15008
XXIN
23002
*»hl
24001
»*MN
36001
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36014
36016
**OH
51001
KIWI
2
7
9
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
4
2
2
16
26
42
t
7
7
g
8
8
8
4
1
4
8
8
1
4
4
34
8
8
86
183
269
7
42
42*
35«
35*
79
79
33
12
32
48
24*
7
18
28
202
51
51
-09
-11
-11
? ??
-13
-13
-18
-18
-20
-20
-03
-30
-19
-11
-37
-07
-13
-08
-21
-11
-11
+ 08
+ 13
+ 12
???
+ 09
+ 09
+ 22
+ 22
+ 11
+ 11
+ 33
+ 20
+ 13
+ 10
+ 25
+ 02
+ 17
+ 07
+ 23
+ 05
+ 05
8
8
16
7
1
1*
4
4
7
7
4
1
4
6
6
2
4
6
33
3
3
2 -05
0 -14
2 -10
0
0
0 -07
0 -07
0 -24
0 -24
0 -31
0
0 -26
0 -05
0 -13
0 -25
0 -18
0 -55
0 -32
0 -02
0 -02
+ 04
+ 09
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 20
+ 20
+ 50
+ 41
+ 10
+ 06
+ 06
+ 12
+ 08
+ 28
+ 09
*09
-09
-11
-10
+ 05
+ 05
-10
-10
-02
-10
-05
-20
-26
-10
-29
-17
-02
-02
+ 10
+ 06
+ 08
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 20
+ 10
+ 17
+ 10
+ 15
+ 06
+ 15
+ 16
+ 04
+ 04
-06
-17
-13
-08
-08
-06
-06
+ 00
-06
-08
-19
-21
-07
-16
-14
-02
-02
+06 -07
+ 08
+08 -07
+ 20
+20
+ 02
+ 02
+ 21
+ 06
+ 19
+ 09
+ 13
+ 03
+ 12
+ 15
+ 02
+ 02
+ 06
+ 06
*RG05
16
12
107
678
-17
+ 16
64
-24 +21 -13 +12 -12 +11 -07 +06
(continued)
D-12
-------
TABLE D-3. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP . ORG .
STATE/
RCGION
04001
««AR
19001
««LA
32001
32002
»*NM
37101
37102
37103
««OK
45001
45002
45006
K«TX
/ NO .
SLAMS
1
1
15
15
1
1
2
2
3
6
2
1
2
5
SITES
NAMS
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
4
NO .
ANALYZERS
4
4
16
16
3
3
6
8
7
11
19
59
8
12
79
rK tui^iun-
NO .
PRECISION
CHECKS
26
26
108*
108*
12*
9*
21*
48
7
62
110
2,512
53
72
2,637
PROBAB I L I TY
LIMITS
LOU UP
-02
-02
-13
-13
-14
-11
-12
-09
777
-16
-13
-08
-16
-06
-08
+ 03
+ 03
+ 10
+ 10
+ 14
+ 09
+ 11
+ 08
777
+ 10
+ 09
+ 06
+ 18
+ 04
+ 06
AUCU
NO. AUDITS
NO. * T ' rllcl ' r»*^' *
AUDITS
4
4
10*
10*
5
5
10
3
7
8
11
59
7
12
78
HI LEVEL
4
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
-16
-16
-08
-08
-03
-16
-13
-35
-19
-22
-27
-23
-06
-25
+ 11
+ 11
+ 16
+ 16
+ 08
+ 06
+ 10
+ 11
+ 04
+ 05
+ 26
+ 13
+ 04
+ 23
KAl*T
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
LEVEL 2 ' ClICI T
LOU UP
-17
-17
-09
-09
-09
-15
-12
-28
-15
-18
-13
-12
-07
-12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 13
+ 13
+ 08
+ 05
+ 07
+ 05
+ 07
+ 08
+ 11
+ 09
+ 05
+ 10
LEVEL J
LOU UP
-16
-16
-10
-10
-11
-12
-12
-21
-08
-15
-13
-16
-04
-12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 11
+ 11
+ 08
+ 02
+ 06
-03
+ 08
+ 10
+ 10
-01
+ 00
+ 09
LEVEL *t
LOU UP
-19 +12
-19 +12
>RG06
29
124
2,902
-08
+ 07
113
-23 +20 -13 +10 -13 +09 -19 +12
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
7
8
1
1
2
2
3
5
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
4
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
t
7
12
19
8
10
2
51
51
15
15
8
8
12
12
7
7
43
125
33*
60
8*
269
269
86
86
47
47
120
120
?? ?
???
-22
-12
-31
-16
-11
-18
-18
-42
-42
-09
-09
-09
-09
'??
? ??
+ 19
+ 16
+ 16
+ 14
+ 07
+ 17
+ 17
+ 40
+ 40
+ 08
+ 08
+ 12
+ 12
7
7
6
8
6
7
2
29
29
6
6
8
8
10
10
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
-80
-25
-14
-40
-42
-42
-22
-22
-11
-11
-11
-11
+ 33
+ 18
+ 21
+ 38
+ 31
+ 31
+ 21
+ 21
+ 23
+ 23
+ 12
+ 12
-66
-14
-13
-16
-31
-31
-16
-16
-09
-09
-10
-10
+ 20
+ 07
+ 10
+ 14
+ 19
+ 19
+ 13
+ 13
+ 16
+ 16
+ 07
+ 07
-51
-15
-11
-19
-26
-26
-10
-10
-10
-10
-12
-12
+ 15
+ 05
+ 06
+ 13
+ 13
+ 13
+11 -12 +12
+11 -12 +12
+ 14
+ 14
+ 07
+ 07
253
-25
+ 26
-14 +18 -12 +12 -11 +11 -12 +12
0
2
2
28
8
5
16
57
2
0
2
0
4
2
4
10
0
7
7
85
48
28
86
247
0*
33*
33*
423*
312
170
525
1.430
-08
-08
-13
-06
-14
-14
-12
+ 06
+ 06
+ 15
+ 08
+ 10
+ 10
+ 12
0*
6
6
36
24
8
24
92
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
7
-08
-08
-16
-10
-26
-27
-19
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 07
+ 18
+ 18
»12
-15
-15
-15
-07
-15
-15
-14
+ 05
+ 05
+ 06
+ 05
+ 02
+ 10
+ 07
-16
-16
-18
-07
-09
-14
-14
+ 09
+ 09
+ 07
+ 04
06
+ 08
+ 07
-10 +07
11
-03
+ 00
-05 -01 -10 +03 -12 +04
(continued)
D-13
-------
TABLE D-3. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG./ NO. SITES
STATE/
REGION SLAMS NAM5
29300
KRG09
38001
»«OR
49001
»RG10
NATION
60
1
194
12
2
58
NO.
ANALYZERS
8
10
264
959
--PRECISION-
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
62
73
1.536
38
38
94
94
132
8,653
PROBABILITY
LIMITS
LOU
-10
-09
-12
-17
-17
-28
-28
-25
-14
UP
+ 03
+ 03
+ 11
+ 17
+ 17
+ 23
+ 2J
+ 21
+ 13
NO.
AUDITS
105
18
18
27
613
ACCURACY
NO. AUDITS PROBABILITY LIMITS
AT LEVEL LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL
11
0
24
LOU
UP LOU UP LOU UP LOU
+00 +00 -25 +55 -32 +34 -38
-04 +02 -27 +45 -27 +26 -38
-18 +11 -17 +12 -15 +09 -22
-44 +36 -13 +12 -12 +11
-44 +36 -13 +12 -12 +11
-10 +08 -06 +05 -04 +03
-10 +08 -06 +05 -04 +03
-26 +22 -09 +08 -07 +06
-21 +20 -13 +12 -13 +10 -18
D-14
-------
TABLE D-4. OZONE PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL
VALUES FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG.
STATE/
REGION
07001
XXCT
20001
XXME
22001
XXMA
30001
x*NH
41001
XXRI
47001
XXVT
/ NO.
SLAMS
3
3
2
2
5
5
3
3
1
1
2
2
SITES
NAMS
6
6
0
0
8
8
1
1
1
1
0
0
NO.
ANALYZERS
18
18
10
10
44
44
15
15
8
8
6
6
rKtuaiun-
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
94X
94*
127
127
320
320
338
338
129
129
39
39
PROBABIL ITY
LIMITS
LOU
-10
-10
-07
-07
-14
-14
-16
-16
-09
-09
-05
-05
UP
+ 06
+ 06
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 09
+ 09
+ 08
+ 08
+ 09
+ 09
-ACCURACY
NO. AT LEVEL LEVEL 1
AUDITS
6X
6X
11
11
20
20
32
32
10
10
6
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LOU
-01
-01
-03
-03
-14
-14
-12
-12
-07
-07
-10
-10
UP
+ 07
+ 07
+ 13
+ 13
+ 11
+ 11
+ 13
+ 13
+ 14
+ 14
+ 05
+ 05
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU
-03
-03
-04
-04
-11
-11
-11
-11
-05
-05
-05
-05
UP
+ 05
+ 05
+ 08
+ 08
+ 12
+ 12
+ 11
+ 11
+ 12
+ 12
+ 05
+ 05
LOU
-03
-03
-05
-05
-11
-11
-11
-11
-07
-07
-04
-04
UP LOW UP
+ 03
+ 03
+ 07
+ 07
+ 12
+ 12
+ 10
+ 10
+ 15
+ 15
+ 06
+ 06
xRGOl
XRG02
16
16
16
18
101
1,047
-13
+ 10
85
-11 +13 -09 +11 -09 +11
31001
XXNJ
33001
xxNY
40001
XXPR
7
7
9
9
0
0
6
6
11
11
1
1
49
49
82
82
3
3
359
359
433
433
30
30
-11
-11
-11
-11
-06
-06
+ 11
+ 11
+ 08
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
30
30
140
140
4
4
0
0
0
0
4
4
-10
-10
-15
-15
-08
-08
+ 09
+ 09
+ 13
+ 13
+ 14
+ 14
-09 +08
-09 +08
-13 +11
-13 +11
-06 +05
-06 +05
-09 +10
-09 +10
-13 +11
-13 +11
-05 +03
-05 +03
-10 +05
-10 +05
134
822
-11
+ 10
174
-14 +12 -12 +11 -12 +11 -10 +05
08001
xxDE
09001
XXDC
21001
21003
21005
*xflD
39001
39002
39003
XXPA
48001
48003
X*VA
4
4
1
1
8
3
3
14
18
2
2
22
6
4
10
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
3
8
2
1
11
5
0
5
18
18
8
8
46
12
16
74
109
13
10
132
32
16
48
136
136
69
69
463
90
142
695
665
103
55
823
230
110
340
-08
-08
-06
-06
-07
-08
-08
-07
-13
-05
-04
-12
-07
-18
-12
+ 08
+ 08
+ 10
+ 10
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 11
+ 06
+ 07
+ 11
+ 04
+ 13
+ 08
9
9
4
4
53
13
21
87
31
21
4
56
23
24
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
23
-01
-01
-06
-06
-15
-14
-12
-14
-11
-07
-01
-09
-15
-03
-11
+ 01
+ 01
+ 07
+ 07
+ 11
+ 10
+ 08
+ 10
+ 13
+ 07
+ 06
+ 11
+ 09
+ 02
+ 08
-03
-03
-06
-06
-09
-13
-07
-09
-12
-07
-03
-10
-08
-06
-07
+ 04
+ 04
+ 07
+ 07
+ 09
+ 10
+ 10
+ 09
+ 13
+ 04
+ 05
+ 10
+ 06
+ 08
+ 07
-02
-02
-06
-06
-08
-12
-06
-08
-11
-08
-02
-09
-04
-06
-05
+ 03
+ 03
+ 07
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 11
+ 04
+ 03
+ 08
+03 -05
+ 04
+04 -05
+ 03
+ 03
D-15
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-4. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG./ NO. SITES
STATE/
Rrr.IflN
50001
50002
«»UV
*RG03
01011
01012
01013
01014
01015
»*AL
10001
10003
10005
10007
10011
10012
10013
10015
10016
10017
10018
«*FL
11010
**GA
1S001
1&002
1&003
25100
**MS
34001
34002
34003
34004
»»NC
42001
«»SC
44001
44002
44003
44004
44005
44006
»»TN
*RG04 42 34
SLAMS
3
1
4
55
3
1
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
2
1
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
NAMS
0
0
0
21
0
2
2
0
0
4
0
2
0
Z
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
NO.
ANALYZERS
12
4
16
296
12
12
6
1
4
35
12
8
4
1
8
12
12
4
8
8
12
89
12
12
39
10
6
55
25
25
44
6
12
3
65
28
28
20
6
8
4
4
4
46
rKtusiun--
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
97
44
141
2,204
58
56
36
4
15
169
112
69
25
5»
195
80
SI
42
84
45
102
840
100
100
188K
51
382
621
201
201
247
19
78
23
367
105X
105»
251
27*
48
30»
30*
271
657
PROBABILITY
LIMITS
LOU
-11
-06
-11
-10
-12
-16
-19
-05
-06
-16
-10
-21
-12
-06
-13
-05
-06
-09
-07
-10
-05
-11
-20
-20
-12
-17
-21
-19
-10
-10
-07
-15
-06
-15
-08
-11
-11
-08
-09
-04
-07
-06
-23
-16
UP
+ 05
+ 11
+ 08
+ 09
+ 12
+ 14
+ 05
+ 10
+ 20
+ 14
+ 13
+ 18
+ 06
+ 06
+ 04
+ 07
+ 05
+ 16
+ 10
+ 05
+ 06
+ 10
+ 15
+ 15
+ 09
+ 21
+ 16
+ 15
+ 13
+ 13
+ 07
+ 11
+ 07
+ 14
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 09
+ 07
+ 04
+ 05
+ 05
+ 17
+ 13
NO.
AUDITS
11
4
15
218
13
9
6
3
7
38
9
8
5
3
15
9
18
6
7
7
7
94
4
4
30
5
5
40
23
23
26
4
16
2
48
106
106
20
10
12
7
15
1
65
NO . AUD ITS
AT LEVEL
4
0
0
0
23
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Al,LUKALT
LEVEL
LOU
-09
-06
-07
-11
-12
-17
-21
-08
-02
-17
-16
-20
-30
-20
-03
-06
-13
-10
-31
-22
-21
-35
-35
-16
-12
-15
-15
-14
-14
-13
-18
-10
-10
-13
-12
-12
-14
-11
-10
-06
-09
-06
-12
1
UP
+ 09
+ 08
+ 09
+ 10
+ 09
+ 10
+ 00
+ 27
+ 11
+ 14
+ 08
+ 13
+ 14
+ 09
+ 11
+ 05
+ 57
+ 07
+ 29
+ 03
+ 18
+ 20
+ 20
+ 11
+ 20
+ 17
+ 13
+ 18
+ 18
+ 16
+ 16
+ 09
+ 27
+ 14
+ 10
+ 10
+ 02
+ 07
+ 08
+ 06
+ 05
+ 05
+ 06
rHUDHDiLlll Li 111 13
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOU
-08
-05
-06
-09
-09
-18
-09
-06
+ 00
-11
-16
-15
-99
-27
-17
-05
-05
-12
-09
-14
-15
-19
-15
-15
-16
-13
-09
-15
-11
-11
-14
-07
-09
-13
-11
-10
-10
-13
-05
-06
-01
-04
-04
-08
UP
+ 08
+ 07
+ 08
+ 09
+ 09
+ 10
+ 04
+ 14
+ 08
+ 11
+ 07
+ 07
+ 62
+ 12
+ 10
+ 06
+ 03
+ 34
+ 00
+ 09
+ 06
+ 14
+ 10
+ 10
+ 11
+ 12
+ 08
+ 11
+ 10
+ 10
+ 15
+ 08
+ 10
+ 12
+ 13
+ 08
+ 08
+ 09
+ 07
+ 07
+ 01
+ 05
+ 04
+ 0/
LOU
-08
-05
-07
-08
-09
-22
-09
-07
-01
-13
-17
-14
-59
-25
-15
-05
-11
-14
-12
-11
-15
-17
-09
-09
-17
-18
-10
-16
-09
-09
-14
-01
-08
-13
-11
-08
-08
-14
-09
-06
-05
-04
-03
-09
UP
+ 06
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
+ 10
+ 07
+ 08
+ 08
+ 10
+ 12
+ 09
+ 04
+ 21
+ 05
+ 08
+ 04
+ 05
+ 31
+ 02
+ 03
+ 05
+ 10
+ 08
+ 08
+ 11
+ 09
+ 08
+ 11
+ 07
+ 07
+ 12
+ 05
+ 08
+ 12
+ 11
+ 06
+ 06
+ 11
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
+ 04
+ 05
+ 08
LEVEL 4
LOU UP
-05 +03
-05 +05
-05 +05
355
3,060
-14
+ 13
418
-15 +13 -13 +11 -12 +09 -05 +05
(continued)
D-16
-------
TABLE D-4. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
D PP np r
K t r . UKu .
STATE/
REGION
14001
14003
«»U
15001
15002
15003
15005
15008
15010
15100
**IN
23001
23002
*«MI
24001
««MH
36001
36002
36003
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36014
36015
36016
«»OH
51001
*~'""1 * ' "'""' '
LOU UP
-10
-1&
-12
-11
-13
-08
-01
-09
-07
-11
-11
-09
-10
-09
-11
-11
-08
-15
-09
-02
-15
-07
-22
-16
-15
-14
-01
-16
-13
-12
-12
+ 05
+ 10
+ 06
+ 11
+ 05
+ 02
+ 10
+ 07
+ 06
+ 04
+ 08
+ 04
+ 07
+ 04
+ 08
+ 08
-01
+ 14
-04
+ 10
+ 12
+ 07
+ 16
+ 23
+ 12
+ 08
+ 03
+ 18
+ 12
+ 09
+ 09
LCVCL J LCVCL t
LOU UP LOU UP
-10
-15
-11
-12
-11
-08
-02
-07
-07
-11
-10
-08
-02
-08
-08
-08
-10
-12
-14
-02
-15
-06
-20
-19
-12
-12
-03
-16
-13
-12
-12
+ 05
+ 08
+ 05
+ 09
+ 04
+ 02
+ 11
+ 05
+ 05
+ 09
+ 08
+ 02
+ 02
+ 02
+ 03
+ 03
+ 04
+ 11
-07
+ 09
+ 10
+ 07
+ 13
+ 21
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 11
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
«RG05
77
46
450
3.218
-12
+ 10
241
-15 +13 -12 +09 -11 +08
04001
»»AR
19001
x*LA
32001
32002
*XNM
37101
37102
37103
«*OK
4^001
45002
45006
0
0
9
9
3
3
6
1
0
1
2
8
2
6
2
2
6
6
0
2
2
1
1
2
4
13
1
0
8
8
60
60
12
16
28
12
4
12
28
100
16
24
52
52
405
405
60
79*
139*
75
19
72
166
4,357
124
150
-03
-03
-11
-11
-10
-07
-08
-10
-19
-08
-11
-07
-18
-14
+ 03
+ 03
+ 08
+ 08
+ 08
+ 05
+ 06
+ 06
+ 05
+ 06
+ 07
107
+ 13
+ 10
8
8
42
42
9
25
34
4
5
13
22
119
17
75
0 -14
0 -14
0 -14
0 -14
0 -19
0 -10
0 -13
0 +02
0 -28
0 -10
0 -17
0 -17
0 -22
o -in
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 18
+ 03
+ 08
+ 16
+ 06
+ 12
+ 17
+ ?9
+ 19
+ (1R
-04
-06
-09
-09
-10
-07
-08
-02
-20
-11
-15
-12
-13
-i n
+ 05
+ 05
+ 08
+ 08
+ 05
+ 00
+ 02
+ 08
+ 00
+ 13
+ 13
«17
+ 13
+ nf,
-Ot
-06
-08
-08
-12
-07
-09
-04
-20
-05
-13
-12
-12
-I 1
+ 04
+ 04
+ 08
+ 08
+ 04
+ 01
+ 02
+ 06
+ 00
+ 11
+ 13
+ 16
+ 08
+ n*
(continued)
D-17
-------
TABLE D-4. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
REP.ORG./
STATE/
REGION
»»TX
KRG06
16001
16002
16003
X«IO
17001
»«KS
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
**MO
28002
28003
*«NB
HRG07
06001
KMCO
35001
«»ND
46001
*«UT
»RG08
03100
03200
03300
»*AZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
XXCA
12120
X«HI
29100
29200
29300
K»NV
NO.
SLAMS
16
33
1
2
1
4
1
1
2
5
3
1
1
12
1
1
2
19
7
7
2
2
3
3
12
0
6
2
8
51
17
5
25
98
0
0
2
0
1
3
SITES
NAMS
14
28
2
0
1
3
2
2
Z
0
1
1
0
4
0
2
2
11
4
4
0
0
2
2
6
0
2
2
4
8
4
2
4
18
1
1
0
2
2
4
NO.
ANALYZERS
140
26".
12
8
9
29
12
12
26
14
12
8
6
66
2
8
10
117
43
4J
8
8
14
14
65
7
23
18
48
168
76
32
131
407
3
3
t
8
11
19
rKtuisiuri--
NO.
PRECISION
CHECKS
4,631
5,393
75
48
53
176
73
73
148
91
64«
50
35
388
24
43»
67*
704
248
248
51
51
168
168
467
38
82*
100
220
907N
468
202
757
2,334
9*
9«
?
54
74
128
PROBABILITY
LIMITS
LOU
-07
-08
-09
-06
-14
-12
-11
-11
-14
-07
-17
-15
-05
-13
-17
-08
-12
-14
-20
-20
-10
-10
-09
-09
-16
-14
-14
-06
-11
-13
-09
-12
-15
-13
-04
-04
7 t >
-16
-08
-12
UP
408
+ 08
+ 29
+ 06
+ 23
+ 24
+ 15
+ 15
+ 13
+ 07
+ 09
+ 12
+ 05
+ 11
+ 12
+ 07
+ 10
+ 16
+20
+ 20
+ 09
+ 09
+ 11
+ 11
+ 16
+ 16
+ 06
+ 06
+ 09
+ 12
+ 05
+ 06
+ 07
+ 09
+ 06
+ 06
?? ?
+ 07
+ 05
+ 06
NO.
AUDITS
161
267
6
18
7
31
4
4
8
5
6
6
6
31
0*
4
4
70
14
14
8
8
14
14
36
5
6»
7
18
69
41
8
33
151
28
28
12
5
17
NO . AUDI TS
AT LEVEL
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
12
5
0
0
5
0
41
8
33
82
0
0
4
5
9
A^UKALT
LEVEL
LOU
-18
-19
-08
-07
-11
-09
-25
-25
-17
-07
-17
-25
-10
-16
-19
-19
-14
-22
-22
-14
-14
-07
-07
-15
-08
-08
-06
-09
-20
-12
-10
-25
-19
-21
-Zl
-16
-01
-12
1
UP
+ 26
+ 21
+ 20
+ 09
+ 08
+ 11
+ 19
+ 19
+ 13
+ 11
+ 12
+oa
+ 10
+ 12
+ 13
+ 13
+ 12
+ 17
+ 17
+ 10
+ 10
+ 06
+ 06
+ 12
+ 03
+ 14
+ 16
+ 13
+ 11
+ 04
+ 07
+ 12
+ 10
+ 22
+ 22
+ 09
+ 01
+ 08
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU
-12
-12
-03
-0«
-05
-07
-21
-21
-19
-06
-14
-17
-06
-14
-15
-15
-12
-20
-20
-14
-14
-04
-04
-14
-04
-07
-02
-05
-14
-06
-04
-07
-11
-10
-10
-13
-11
-12
UP
+ 16
+ 13
+ 04
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 03
+ 03
+ 14
+ 08
+ 02
+ 08
+ 05
+ 09
+ 11
+ 11
+ 08
+ 16
+ 16
+ 11
+ 11
+ 03
+ 03
+ 11
+ 04
+ 08
+ 07
+ 07
+ 06
+ 02
+ 07
+ 09
+ 07
+ 12
+ 12
+ 12
+ 07
+ 10
LOU
-12
-12
-04
-14
-13
-17
-17
-19
-05
-15
-18
-03
-14
-17
-17
-14
-20
-20
-14
-14
-02
-02
-14
-04
-06
-04
-05
-14
-05
-03
-06
-11
-09
-09
-06
-11
-09
UP LOU UP
+ 14
+ 12
+ 02
+ 07
+ 07
+ 01
+ 01
+ 12
+ 07
+ 05
+ 09
+ 05
+ 09
+ 14
+ 14
+ 08
+ 15
+ 15
+ 11
+ 11
+02 -05 +0
+02 -05 +0
+11 -05 +0
+06 -03 +0
+ 04
+ 10
+07 -03 +0
+ 06
+02 -04 +0
+08 -03 +0
+09 -05 +0
+07 -06 +C
+ 14
+ 14
+ 09 +00 +(
+06 -13 +1
+ 08 -11 +1
109
27
2,691
-13
+ 09
214
96
-19 +12 -11 +08 -11 +09 -06
(continued)
D-18
-------
TABLE D-4. (Continued)
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
PRECISION ACCURACY
REP.ORG./ NO. SITES NO. PROBABILITY NO. AUDITS PROBABILITY LIMITS
STATE/ NO. PRECISION LIMITS NO. AT LEVEL LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL <<
REGION SLAMS NAMS ANALYZERS CHECKS LOU UP AUDITS
-------
Explanation of Column Heading Abbreviations for Tables D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8
(Manual Methods)
Column
No. Heading abbreviation Explanation
NO. RESULTS Number of paired data sets from collocated
< LIMIT samplers with either result less than the
tabulated values on Form 1:
TSP: 20 ug/m3
802: 40 yg/m3
N02t 30 yg/m3
Pb: 0.15 ug/m3
D-20
-------
TABLE D-5. TSP PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL
VALUES FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
MANUAL METHODS
REP.ORG./
e T * T c j
3 1 A 1 C.f
REGION
07001
xxCT
20001
*XME
22001
XXMA
30001
XXNH
41001
XXRI
47001
xxVT
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
XXNY
40001
XXPR
55001
xxvi
XRG02
08001
XXDE
09001
XXDC
21001
21002
21003
21005
21006
xxtlD
39001
39002
NO.
SLAMS
18
18
8
8
6
6
12
12
6
6
5
5
55
22
22
70
70
7
7
5
5
104
6
6
5
5
14
4
2
4
2
26
63
13
SITES
NAMS
22
22
1
1
17
17
1
1
6
6
1
1
48
9
9
27
27
7
7
0
0
43
3
3
4
4
6
0
1
1
1
9
33
7
NO.
SAMPLERS
161
161
40
40
97
97
60
60
48
48
24
24
430
102
102
584
584
56
56
7
7
742
36
36
36
36
120
21
18
22
26
207
383
64
NO.
COLL.
SITES
12
12
16
16
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
60
8
8
50
50
8
8
7
7
66
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
40
12
12
r-KLti
NO.
RESULTS
-------
TABLE D-5. (Continued)
MANUAL METHODS
REP.ORG.
S T A T E/
REGION
39003
»»PA
48001
48002
4&003
48005
**VA
50001
50002
KkUIV
/ NO.
SLAMS
11
87
47
1
15
0
63
14
5
19
SITES
NANS
<,
44
14
1
0
2
17
7
4
11
Nfl
nu .
SAMPLERS
56
503
240
8
64
12
324
60
40
100
NO.
mi i
LULL.
SITES
12
36
12
8
8
8
36
8
8
16
NO. PROBABILITY
DF^IH TC ' fMTTC
K 1 3UL I 3
-------
TABLE D-5. (Continued)
REP.ORG./
S T ATE/
REGION
42001
«*SC
44001
44002
44003
44004
44005
'.4006
«*TN
XRG04
14001
14002
14003
»«IL
15001
15002
15003
15005
15008
15009
15010
15100
««IN
23001
23002
««MI
24001
K«MN
36001
36002
36003
36004
36005
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36013
36014
36015
36016
XXQH
51001
x*WI
NO.
SLAMS
10
10
22
5
7
7
7
0
48
386
48
10
15
73
16
0
5
7
12
5
5
15
65
39
14
53
30
30
10
8
17
18
5
9
7
22
17
13
11
17
20
9
10
193
58
58
SITES
NAMS
8
8
3
6
6
2
4
0
21
94
21
4
1
26
8
4
2
1
2
0
0
3
20
16
5
21
11
11
5
3
2
0
0
4
5
7
4
7
1
1
1
3
4
47
16
16
NO.
SAMPLERS
126
126
170
42
60
30
52
75
429
2,398
300
72
64
436
152
24
31
32
60
20
40
88
447
284
59
343
16
16
64
44
93
72
24
56
36
120
108
100
52
54
6
16
45
890
16
16
NO.
COLL .
SITES
16
16
12
8
8
8
8
4
48
357
16
8
8
32
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
12
68
16
6
22
8
8
8
8
12
8
8
8
6
8
20
8
8
6
6
8
6
128
8
ft
rKttlb
NO.
RESULTS
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 04
+ 04
+ 12
+ 05
+ 07
+ 06
+ 05
+ 07
+ 09
+ 08
+ 09
+ 06
+ 07
+ 09
+ 05
+ 10
+ 09
+ 03
+ 02
+ 05
+ 07
+ 05
+ 07
+ 07
+ 03
+ 06
+ 07
+ 07
+ 05
+ 05
+ 07
+ 14
+ 08
+ 06
+ 07
+ 05
+ 11
+ 03
+ 05
+ 09
+ 02
+ 19
+ 04
+ 09
+ 05
+ 05
-08 +08
(continued)
D-23
-------
TABLE D-5. (Continued)
MANUAL METHODS
REP.ORG.
5 TAT E/
REGION
04002
«»AR
19001
««LA
32001
32002
»«NM
37101
37102
37103
««OK
45001
45002
45003
45004
45005
45006
45007
««TX
/ NO.
SLAMS
23
23
24
24
40
7
47
10
5
5
20
11
2
7
2
3
4
1
30
SITES
NAMS
3
3
7
7
0
4
4
2
3
3
8
31
3
2
2
0
5
2
45
un
HU .
SAMPLERS
116
116
122
122
160
41
201
50
48
40
138
445
110
80
25
18
89
24
791
MO.
COLL
SITES
12
12
8
8
16
9
25
8
8
8
24
16
8
8
8
4
8
8
60
PRECi;
NO.
RESUL TS
-------
TABLE D-5. (Continued)
MANUAL METHODS
R EP . ORG .
S T A T E/
REGION
»XMT
35001
x«ND
43001
XXSD
46001
XXUT
52001
»»WY
/ NO .
SLAMS
27
16
16
22
22
6
6
11
11
C T T CC
b 1 1 t J
NAMS
2
1
1
2
Z
8
8
1
1
NO .
SAMPLERS
48
79
79
92
92
60
60
48
48
Mn
nu .
COLL.
SITES
24
8
8
8
8
8
8
12
12
rKtu:
NO .
RESUL TS
-------
TABLE U-6. PB PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL
VALUES FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
MANUAL METHODS
REP . ORG.
STATE/
REGION
07001
XXCT
20001
XXME
22001
XXMA
30001
XXNH
41001
XXRI
XRG01
31001
XXNJ
33001
XXNY
40001
xxpR
XRG02
08001
XXDE
09001
xxDC
21001
XXMD
39001
39002
39003
xxpA
48001
48003
XXVA
50001
**WV
/ NO
SLAMS
18
IS
2
2
2
2
7
7
2
2
31
8
a
7
7
2
2
17
2
2
0
0
4
4
5
1
3
9
0
3
3
7
7
SITES
NAMS
2
2
0
0
4
4
0
0
2
2
8
2
2
6
6
3
3
11
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
4
2
0
2
0
0
NO.
SAMPLERS
82
82
4
4
25
25
34
34
16
16
161
36
36
55
55
20
20
111
8
8
4
4
24
24
86
40
20
146
8
12
20
71
71
NO
COLL.
SITES
8
8
2
2
5
5
5
5
6
6
26
4
<>
0
0
4
4
8
4
4
2
2
6
6
2
10
4
16
4
4
8
8
8
TKC^i:
NO
RESULTS
-------
TABLE D-6. (Continued)
MANUAL METHODS
01011
01012
01013
»«AL
10011
10012
10013
10017
10018
««FL
11010
««GA
18001
18002
»«KY
25100
«*MS
42001
«»sc
44001
-------
TABLE D-6. (Continued)
REP.ORG.
STATE/
REGION
NXOH
51001
x*UI
«RG05
04002
*»AR
19001
*»LA
32001
32002
««NM
37101
37102
37103
»«OK
45001
45002
45003
45006
XXTX
KRG06
16001
16003
««IO
17001
«XKS
26001
26002
26003
26004
26006
26007
K»MO
28003
**NB
«RG07
06001
«»CO
27001
*«riT
./ NO.
SLAMS
0
0
0
39
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
1
2
3
9
1
7
0
17
26
1
2
3
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
6
2
2
12
5
5
6
6
SITES
NAMS
10
2
2
21
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
6
2
1
1
10
16
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
3
2
2
6
2
2
0
0
NO.
SAMPLERS
40
10
10
356
8
8
7
7
8
8
16
19
8
9
36
130
18
32
8
188
248
7
12
12
8
8
4
-------
TABLE D-6. (Continued)
MANUAL METHODS
REP . ORG .
c T A T c /
D 1 A 1 t f
REGION
««UT
MRG08
03100
03200
03300
««AZ
05001
05004
n *-t n ~\(*
U D U -JO
05061
««CA
12120
»XHI
29300
XXNV
KRG09
02020
*KAK
13001
*»ID
38001
»»OR
-------
TABLE D-7. MANUAL S02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL
VALUES FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
MANUAL METHODS
R EP . ORG .
C T A T C f
3 (Alt'
REGION
10001
10004
10012
10014
10017
«MFL
34003
**NC
1RG04
06001
* *NM
* RGO 6
12120
*«HI
54100
x«GU
*RG09
NATION
/ NO .
SLAMS
3
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
6
1
4
4
3
7
14
SIT ES
NAMS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
Q
0
0
0
wn
HU .
SAMPLERS
24
24
28
21
10
107
18
18
125
0
7
7
18
18
7
7
18
143
NO .
rn i i
LULL.
SITES
8
8
8
6
4
34
4
1 CM C I 1
L C V EL 1
LOU UP
-09
-14
-15
-24
-26
-23
-15
-15
-22
-06
-06
-06
-20
+ 06
+ 08
+ 07
+ 05
+ 07
+ 08
+ 06
+ 06
+ 08
+ 05
+ 05
+ 05
+ 09
L. C. L.L. f.
LOW UP
-07
-07
-09
-23
-16
-16
-12
-12
-16
-02
-02
-02
-14
+ 04
+ 07
+ 05
+ 04
+ 05
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 07
+ 03
+ 03
+ 03
+ 07
I i. V I_ 1.
LOW UF
-09
-06
-07
-17
-15
-15
-04
-04
-14
-01
-01
-01
-12
+ 07
+ 07
+ 04
-03
+ 05
+ 06
+ 06
+ 06
+ 07
+ 02
+ 02
+ 02
+ 07
D-30
-------
TABLE D-8. MANUAL NOa PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL
VALUES FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
MANUAL METHODS
REP.ORG.
C T A T C /
3 1 A 1 £'
REGION
10001
10012
10017
**FL
34003
**NC
KRG04
14002
14003
*XIL
KRG05
19001
XXLA
MRG06
16002
x*IO
*RG07
NATION
/ NO.
SLAMS
3
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
12
12
12
0
0
0
15
SITES
NAMS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
wn
nU .
SAMPLERS
24
20
20
64
18
18
82
36
27
63
63
55
55
55
0
0
0
200
NO.
rnt i
LULL.
SITES
8
8
8
24
4
4
28
8
8
16
16
8
8
8
0
0
0
52
rKcui:
NO.
P P^lll T^
K tDUL 1 3
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
COMPARISONS OF PARS AND PERFORMANCE AUDIT DATA
K-l
-------
TABLE E-l. PARS AND PA DATA FOR CO, PB, TSP,
AND S02 (MANUAL) METHODS
(MANUAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 01 STATE 07 CONNECTICUT
REP ORG 001 LAB 306001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 8)
LEVE
LOW
-3
(-14)
L 1
UP
+ 0
(+22)
r xuut
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -8) (
AtS 1 L 1 i
2
UP
-1
+ 8)
1 Y L ini 1 b-
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -5) (
3
UP
+ 0
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-8 +0
( -7) ( +9)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 14)
111101 HIV 13
PARS ( 93)
REGION 01 STATE 20 MAINE
-12 +3
( -4) ( +7)
-4 +5
( -4) ( +5)
-7
+ 0
REP ORG 001 LAB 301001
POL.CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 14)
14
( 87)
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -6) (
1
UP
+ 2
+ 5)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-6
( -7)
-4
( -5)
DAB1L1IY LIN lib
L 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP LOW UP
-2 -12 +6
( +2)
+ 12
( +8)
(continued)
E-2
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 01 STATE 22 MASSACHUSETTS
REP ORG 001 LAB 304001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
9
( 12)
LEVE
LOW
-24
( -3)
L 1
UP
+ 17
( +6)
r K UD/
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -3) (
\O1LI 1
2
UP
+ 3
+ 6)
i T L 1 I'l i 1 3
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -4) (
3
UP
+ 1
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 22)
111101 HIV 4
-12 +2
( -7) ( + 6)
-31 +34
C -4) ( +2)
-3
+ 0
PARS ( 46)
REGION 01 STATE 30 NEW HAMPSHIRE
-8 +9
( -8) (+10)
REP ORG 001 LAB 302001
POL.CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
( 25)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 9)
111101 HIV
PARS
6
( 47)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
fKUBABlLl 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
T L i n i i s
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-13 -3
( -7) (+10)
-17 +2
(-18) (+22)
-1 +2
( -8) ( +6)
-8 +14
(-26) (+32)
-2 +1
( -7) ( +7)
-3 +3
( -7) ( +6)
-3
+ 8
(continued)
E-3
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 01 STATE 41 RHODE ISLAND
REP ORG 001 LAB 305001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 8)
12
( 24)
9
( 40)
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -3)
-20
(-10)
L 1
UP
+ 4
( +6)
+ 13
( +7)
r KUB/
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -5) (
-11
(-10) (
-6
( -7) (
\DlLi 1
2
UP
+ 5
+ 7)
+ 3
+ 7)
+ 6
+ 7)
IT L i n i i 3 -
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -5) (
-8
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 8
+ 4)
+ 0
REGION 01 STATE 47 VERMONT
REP ORG 001 LAB 303001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 2)
10
( 33)
LEVEL
LOW
+ 5
( -4) (
1
UP
+ 5
+ 2)
r KUB>
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
( -5) (
-3
( -4) (
\D1L1 1
2
UP
+ 2
+ 1)
+ 4
+ 5)
T L ini i
LEVE
LOW
-31
( -1)
a
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
-31
( -1 )
E-4
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 01
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVFL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 30 -15 +10 -2 +3 -23 +16
PARS ( 55) ( -7) (+11) ( -6) ( +6) ( -5) ( +5)
112128 LEAD 60 -14 +5 -17 +14 -9 +5
PARS ( 83) (-10) ( +9) (-11) (+10)
111101 HIV 56 -6 +8
PARS ( 346) ( -5) ( +7)
(continued)
E-5
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 02 STATE 31 NEW JERSEY
REP ORG 001 LAB 30S001
POL. CD.
C42
112
111
REG
PO
111
REG
PO
C42
112
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
ION 02
L.CD.
101 HIV
PARS
ION 02
L .CD.
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
30
( 23)
6
( 24)
11
( 49)
STATE
AUDITS
52
( 206)
STATE
AUDITS
39
( 57)
24
( 15)
LEVE
LOW
-1
-1
1
8)
0
3)
33 NEW
LEVE
LOW
33 NEW
LEVE
LOW
-2
(-1
0
5)
8
2)
L 1
U
p
+ 8
( +8)
+ 1
( + 1
YOR
L 1
U
i
9)
K
P
YORK
L 1
U
( ;
+1
c+i
P
1
7)
0
6)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
+ 1
( -4)
-6
( +0)
-7
( -7)
r K U
LEVE
LOW
1
( -4)
r K U
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -3)
-15
(-15)
tSAti
L 2
U
i
P
LllY Linllb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 8
( +7) ( -
( + 1
( + 1
BAB
L 2
U
+ 1
4
3
3
1
I
P
1
5
BABI
L 2
UP
)
)
REP
LITY LI
L
LO
)
REP
LITY LI
L
LO
+ 3
( +4) ( -
+ 17
( +9
-1
1 +7
4) ( +6)
5 -5
ORG 001 LAB 307001
M T T C
n i i b
EVEL 3 LEVEL 4
W UP LOW UP
ORG 001 LAB 407008
MT T C
1 1 b
EVEL 3 LEVEL 4
W UP LOW UP
2 +3
3) ( +3)
0 +15
E-6
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 02 STATE 40 PUERTO RICO
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42101 CO 6
PARS ( 9)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 24)
111101 HIV 22
PARS ( 48)
REP ORG
PROBABILITY LIMITS-
001 LAB 309001
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-6 +2
(-14) ( +7)
-38 +25
(-12) (+11)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-9 +6
(-12) ( +6)
-23 +9
( -4) (+14)
-3 +8
( -6) ( +4)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-8 +4
(-10) ( +6)
-17
+ 9
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-7
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
REGION 02
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42101 CO 75
PARS ( 89)
112128 LEAD 42
PARS ( 63)
111101 HIV
PARS
85
( 303)
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-18 +6
( -7) ( +7)
-19 +17
(-10) (+17)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 +7
( -4) ( +5)
-18 +13
( -7) (+15)
-4 +11
( -4) ( +6)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-3
-13
+6
+ 13
LEVEL $
LOW UP
E-8
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 03 STATE 08 DELAWARE
REP ORG 001 LAB 313002
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
6
8)
12
8)
13
9)
rKUBADILJ. 1 T LlHl 1 S
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW
-22 -18 -5
( -7) (+12) ( -5)
-18 -1 -12
(-17) ( + 2) ( -9)
-2
(-10)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+ 4 -2 +1
( +3) ( -6) ( +8)
+1 -7 +2
( +1)
+ 12
( +6)
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
169
( 59)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
REP ORG 001 LAB 312001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-8 +17
(-11) (+11)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
REP ORG 002 LAB 312001
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
169
9)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TKUDADILl 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
IT L i n j. i s
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-8 +17
(-21) (+13)
E-9
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
16
12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
REP ORG
PROBABILITY LIMITS
003 LAB 412004
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+19 +89
(-16) (+26)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG 005 LAB 412002
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
6
( 11)
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-8
(-11)
D«D 1 L i 1
L 2
UP
+ 10
( + 19)
T LI nits
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
LOW
^
UP
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03 STATE 21 MARYLAND
REP ORG 006 LAB 412006
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
16
( 9)
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-10
( -8)
n A D 1 L 1 1 Y LJ.H 113
L 2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 20
( +8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-10
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 03 STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA
REP ORG 001 LAB 311002
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
18
22)
12
24)
19
104)
LEVEL 1
LOW
-17
(-13)
-7
( -4)
UP
+ 12
( +9)
+ 0
( +7)
rKUDAtSlLi 1
LEVEL 2
LOW
-8
(-13)
-12
( -8)
+ 0
( -6)
UP
+ 6
( +5)
+ 12
( + 12)
+ 10
( +9)
Y Linilb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-7 +4
(-14) ( +4)
-7 +2
REGION 03 STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA
LAB 411002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
rKUBABiLl | y L 1 n 1 1 b
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
6 -5 +8 +1 +6 -1 +5
( 18) ( -6) ( -1) ( -1) ( +1) ( -1) ( +2)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 104)
111101 HIV
PARS
16
( 172)
-12 +2
(-15) (+11)
-6 +2
(-13) (+11)
-2 +6
( -7) ( +4)
-10
+ 3
E-ll
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 03 STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA
REP ORG 003 LAB 411001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
15 -17 +9
( 8) ( -6) ( + 7)
12 -20 + 3
( 12) C -6) (+10)
15
( 16)
STATE 48 VIRGINIA
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
18 -3 +4
( 8) ( -3) ( +1)
12 +1 +3
( 12) (-14) (+19)
15
( 66)
STATE 48 VIRGINIA
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
6
( 8)
TKUDADiLl 1 T LIHl 1 3
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW ' UP LOW UP
-2 +4 -1 +2
( -2) ( +5) ( -3) ( +4)
-8 -3 -12 +1
( -3) ( +3)
-5 +10
(-10) (+12)
REP ORG 001 LAB 315001
rKUoADlLilY Linllb
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOU UP LOW UP
-1 +3 -3 +3
( -6) ( +1) ( -4) ( +0)
-5 +5 -3 +2
( -6) ( +7)
-9 +9
( -6) ( +7)
REP ORG 002 LAB 415005
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-6 +7
( +1) ( +5)
E-12
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 03 STATE 48 VIRGINIA
REP ORG 003 LAB 415004
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 26)
12
( 22)
22
( 21 )
STATE
AUDITS
8
( 11)
STATE
AUDITS
3
( 4)
12
( 60)
12
( 16)
LEVE
LOW
-8
( -8)
-10
( -7)
48 VIRG
LEVE
LOW
50 WEST
LEVE
LOW
-13
( -7)
-4
( -3)
L 1
UP
+ 8
( +4)
+ 2
( +5)
INIA
L 1
UP
VIRG
L 1
UP
-13
( +3)
+ 10
( +6)
r KUBMB 0. L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-1 +5
C -6) (+11)
-7 +0
( -1) ( +4)
+ 1 +5
( -9) ( +3)
_ DDnnADTI
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-9 +11
( -2) ( +6)
INIA
_ D D nn A n T 1
rKUtSADiL
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 1 +1
( -2) ( +2)
-4 +9
( -8) ( +5)
-8 +9
( -5) ( +4)
11 Y Lin lib
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 1 +3
(-10) (+20)
-3 -2
REP ORG 005 LAB 415001
TTV ITMTTC .
1 I Y L I n i 1 b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
REP ORG 001 LAB 314001
I TV ITMTTC _
1 Y Llnl 1 O ~~"
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 1 +1
( -6) ( +0)
-11 +1
E-13
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 03 STATE 50 WEST VIRGINIA REP ORG 002 LAB 314002
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 24 -11 +14
PARS ( 19) ( -4) ( +4)
(continued)
E-14
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
TKUDrtDlLi 1
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
LOW UP LOW UP
78 -18 +11 -4 +5
( 94) (-12) C + 9) ( -9) ( +8)
1 I Li 111 1 0
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-4 +4
(-11) (+12)
112128 LEAD 84
PARS ( 242)
-14 +7
(-11) (+10)
-10 +6
(-10) ( +9)
-9
+ 2
111101 HIV
PARS
526
( 542)
-20 +33
( -8) ( +8)
E-15
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 01 ALABAMA
REP ORG Oil LAB 319001
I
POL
121
.CD.
28 LEAD
PARS
R
EGI
POL
ON 04
.CD.
AUDITS
12
( 4)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -2) (
1
UP
+ 4
+ 6)
rnuaf
LEVEL
LOW
-9
( -4) (
01 ALABAMA
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r is uot
LEVEL
LOW
\ai L
2
UP
+ 5
+ 4)
II
L
2
UP
J. 1 T L
L
RE
IT V 1
1 T L
i n i i b -
LEVEL
OW
1
P ORG
T M T T C
1 PI 1 I b-
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
+ 0
012
3
UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 419001
LEVEL .4
LOW UP
C42101 CO
PARS
12 -21 -2
8) ( -6) ( +7)
-9 +3
( -5) ( +7)
-2 +4
( -5) ( +5)
112128 LEAD 6
PARS ( 15)
-1 +2
( -5) ( +1)
+ 0 +3
( -1) ( +1)
-2
+ 1
111101 HIV 12
PARS ( 521)
REGION 04 STATE 01 ALABAMA
+ 2 +4
( -3) ( +3)
REP ORG 014 LAB 419004
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
5
( 10)
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r KUBAB 1 L 1 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-8 +13
( -7) ( +6)
T LI nils
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-16
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 01 ALABAMA REP ORG 015 LAB 419005
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 9 -5 +5
PARS C 16) (-10) (+11)
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 S -2 -2 -4 -4 -2 +2 -5 -5
PARS ( 12) ( -3) ( + 6) ( -1) ( +4) ( +0) ( +5)
142401 S02 5 -22 +20 -5 +23 +13 +13
PARS ( 12) ( -9) ( +6) ( -6) ( +3) ( -8) ( +6)
111101 HIV 38 -23 +14
PARS ( 29) ( -8) (+13)
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 002 LAB 323003
POL.CD. AUDITS
111101 HIV 19 -7 +11
PARS ( 9) ( -8) ( +5)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
T K UDHB 1 L 1 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
T Lll'1113
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
(continued)
E-17
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA REP ORG 003 LAB 323004
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
AUDITS
7
( 47)
STATE
AUDITS
5
( 15)
6
( 13)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
10 FLOR
LEVE
LOW
(-13)
10 FLOR
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
IDA
L 1
UP
( +7)
IDA
L 1
UP
r KUDAE 1 L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-38
(-12)
_ D D n
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-8
( -7)
-6
(-12)
Don
r KU
LEVE
LOW
+ 7
( + 13)
BABIL
L 2
UP
+ 7
( +6)
+ 0
( +3)
BABIL
L 2
UP
IIY uiniia
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
REP ORG 004
TTV 1 TMTTC
IIY Lxnllo
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 2 +3
( -6) ( +6)
REP ORG 005
IIY LlPlllo
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 32
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
LAB 32
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
3008
4
UP
+ 4
3002
4
UP
111101 HIV 19 -17 +9
PARS ( 17) ( -7) ( +6)
(continued)
E-18
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
18
9)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG 006 LAB 323006
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-13 +19
( -7) ( +8)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG 007 LAB 323010
AUDITS
3
( 2)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
r KUDf
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
( -7) (
\D 1 L 1 1
2
UP
+ 5
+ 5)
Y L i n i i b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG Oil LAB 423003
POL. CD. AUDITS
C4
11
11
2101 CO
PARS (
2128 LEAD
PARS (
1101 HIV
PARS (
15
30)
6
9)
60
74)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-14 +0
( -8) (+10)
-2 -1
(-12) (+17)
TKUDADil-J. 1 T Lll'il 1 i
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-3
( -7)
-2
( -5)
-12
(-10)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+6 -4 +6
( +9) ( -6) ( +8)
-1 -3 -3
( +5)
+ 23
(+16)
E-19
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG 012 LAB 423004
POL. CD.
142401 S02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
5
( 24)
12
( 19)
50
( 73)
STATE
AUDITS
15
( 18)
STATE
AUDITS
5
( 22)
28
( 7)
LEVE
LOW
(-13)
-6
( -4)
10 FLOR
LEVE
LOW
-17
( -7)
10 FLOR
LEVE
LOW
(-25)
L 1
UP
( +6)
+ 8
( +9)
IDA
L 1
UP
+ 10
( + 12)
IDA
L 1
UP
( +5)
r KUBi
LEVEL
LOW
-8
( -8) (
+ 1
( -4) (
-8
( -8) (
p D nn
r K U D i
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -3) (
r K U D
LEVEL
LOW
-22
(-22) (
-10
(-10) (
uni L
2
UP
-6
+ 4)
+ 3
+ 5)
+ 6
+ 6)
ABIL
2
UP
+ 3
+ 5)
ABIL
2
UP
+ 8
+ 3)
+ 11
+ 4)
i i T L i n i i :>
LEVEL
LOW
-11
( -5) (
-4
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -3) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-35
(-16) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+4 -1 -1
+ 3)
+ 5
013 LAB 423016
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 2
+ 5)
014 LAB 423005
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+10 -11 -11
-4)
E-20
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
111101 HIV 8
PARS ( 2)
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG 015 LAB 423015
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-39 +20
( -5) ( +3)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG 016 LAB 423008
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r KUBA
LEVEL
LOW
\O1L1 1
2
UP
T L i n i i a-
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
111101 HIV 10
PARS ( 13)
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
+ 0 +6
( -6) ( +6)
REP ORG 017 LAB 423001
POL.CD.
142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
12
LEVE
LOW
L
1
UP
LEVE
LOW
Dt
L
4D 1 L 1 1
2
UP
I L 1 II 1 1 D -
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
LEVE
LOW
L
4
U
P
-4
-4
-6
-6
-17
+ 3
-12
+ 6
-6
+ 6
( 12) ( -9) ( +1) (-10) ( +4)
-3
+ 3
( 60) ( -8) (+11) ( -8) (+10) ( -3) ( +4)
-20 +13
( 59) (-25) ( + 7) (-15) ( +4) (-15) ( +5)
-8
+ 5
-5
+ 0
-5
+ 0
111101 HIV 27
PARS ( 15)
-2 +11
( -8) (+10)
(continued)
E-21
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG 018 LAB 423002
POL. CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
AUDITS
12
( 11)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-18) (
11 GEORG
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
-8
+ 17)
IA
1
UP
LEVEL
LOW
-12
( -5) (
__ D D nn ,
LEVEL
LOW
*O J. L
2
UP
-7
+ 3)
*BIL
2
UP
j. i T L i ri a. i a
LEVEL
LOW
-12
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
-10
010
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 32
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
1001
4
UP
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 12)
-8 -1
( -2) ( +1)
111101 HIV
PARS
8
C 51)
REGION 04 STATE 18 KENTUCKY
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
111101 HIV 18
PARS ( 155)
-7 +0 -10 +4
( -4) ( + 2)
-1 + 6
( -5) (+13)
REP ORG 001 LAB 316001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-1 +8
( -5) ( +9)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-22
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 18 KENTUCKY
REP ORG 001 LAB 316007
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 23)
12
( 12)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 12)
19
( 17)
STATE
AUDITS
3
( 4)
12
( 23)
13
( 24)
LEVEL
LOW
-7
(-24) (
-7
(-22) (
1
UP
+ 2
+ 14)
-3
+ 14)
18 KENTUCKY
LEVEL
LOW
-6
(-11) (
25 MISSI
LEVEL
LOW
-2
(-15) (
-43
( -9) (
1
UP
+ 29
+ 13)
SSIPPI
1
UP
-2
+ 7)
+ 53
+ 12)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-3
( -6)
-10
( -5)
_. -_ D D n
r K U
LEVE
LOW
-15
( -7)
-5
(-10)
_ _ Don
r KU
LEVE
LOW
+ 1
( -7)
-15
( -4)
+ 0
( -6)
BAB J. L
L 2
UP
+ 5
( +5)
+ 0
( +4)
BABIL
L 2
UP
+ 28
( + 13)
+ 10
( +5)
BABIL
L 2
UP
+ 1
( +4)
+ 10
( + 10)
+ 11
( +9)
i i T Lini i s
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +4
( -5) ( +5)
-20 +4
REP ORG 002 LAB 416001
lYLinilo
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-11 +29
REP ORG 100 LAB 322002
lYLlnllb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 1 +1
( -7) ( +8)
-2 +0
E-23
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA
REP ORG 001 LAB 318001
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
69
( 219)
STATE
AUDITS
9
( 14)
STATE
AUDITS
9
( 15)
LEVEL
LOW
34 NORTH
LEVEL
LOW
-6
(-10) (
34 NORTH
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
CARD
1
UP
+ 5
+ 7)
CARD
1
UP
r KUtSA
LEVEL
LOW
-12 +
( -6) (
LINA
o n /~\ r> A
rKUoA
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -7) (
LINA
D D O D A
T RUB A
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -5) (
B I L
2
UP
18
+ 5)
BIL
2
UP
+ 2
+ 4)
,BIL
2
UP
+ 0
+ 4)
11 Y L i n i i 3
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
REP ORG 001 LAB 318004
1IY L 1 n 1 I o
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-5 -1
( -5) ( +2)
REP ORG 002 LAB 418003
lYLinilb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
E-24
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA
REP ORG 003 LAB 418006
PO
C42
111
L.CD.
101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
15
( 22)
31
( 26)
LEVEL
LOW
-15
(-10) (
1
UP
+ 3
+ 6)
r Kuai
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -4) (
-2
( -3) (
\O 1 L I
2
UP
+ 3
+ 4)
+ 6
+ 7)
i Y L ini i b-
LEVEL
LOW
1
( -4) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 2
+ 3)
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA
REP ORG 004 LAB 418008
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
23
( 8)
fK.ua/
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -3) (
IBILIIY Linllb
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 9
+ 8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04 STATE 42 SOUTH CAROLINA
REP ORG 001 LAB 320001
POL.CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUD
(
( 2
ITS
12
12)
12
50)
LEVE
LOW
-37
( -2)
L 1
UP
+ 11
( +6)
r KUttt
LEVEL
LOW
-34
( -2) (
+ 3
( -3) (
\tt 1 L J. 1
2
UP
+ 6
+ 6)
+ 7
+ 3)
Y L ini 1 b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-42 +10
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-25
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE
REP ORG 001 LAB 317001
POL. CD.
112128 LEAD
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
12
( 21)
6
( 218)
STATE
AUDITS
9
( 35)
6
( 12)
5
( 77)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 61 )
33
( 97)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-16 +1
(-13) ( +5)
44 TENNESSEE
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-S +1
(-12) (+12)
-25 +14
(-16) (+18)
44 TENNESSEE
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-40 +6
( -4) ( +2)
r KUBAB 1 L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-10 +3
(-13) ( + 5)
+ 0 +8
( -6) (+10)
_ DDnDADTl
.__ rKUoAnlL
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-1 + 2
( -8) ( +8)
-21 +18
(-15) (+14)
-2 +2
( -7) ( +4)
rKUoAolL
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-3 +4
( -3) ( +1 )
+ 4 +6
( -5) ( +6)
i i T Lini i a
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-3 -1
REP ORG 002 LAB 417004
ITVITMTTC _
lYLinilb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +1
( -8) ( +7)
-11 +0
REP ORG 003 LAB 417003
TTV 1 TMTTC
JlliLlrJlla
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-34 +13
E-26
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE
REP ORG 004 LAB 417QC2
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
( 49)
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 +9
( -7) ( +5)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG 005 LAB 417001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 6)
10
( 42)
LEVEL
LOW
-3
(-10) (
1
UP
-3
+ 2)
. i-KOBj
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
( -5) (
-4
( -5) (
\BLLLT
2
UP
+ 1
+ 2)
+ 0
+ 4)
If LIMITS
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-2 -2
( -5) ( +6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 04 STATE 44 TENNESSEE
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REP ORG 006 LAB 417001
AUDITS
(
10
36)
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOW UP LOW
-4
( -4)
UP LOW UP
+ 0
( +6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-27
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
REGION
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
POL. CD.
C42
142
101 CO
PARS
602 N02
PARS
142401 502
PARS
AUDITS
93
( 160)
10
( 72)
25
( 132)
LEVEL 1
LOW
-15
(-16)
-6
( -8)
(-21)
UP
+ 5
( + 14)
-1
( + 11)
( +7)
rKUBABlLI 1
LEVEL 2
LOW
-4
( -8)
-8
( -7)
-16
(-14)
UP
+ 4
( +8)
-2
( +9)
+ 7
( + 5)
1 T L.ini 13
LEVEL 3
LOW
-3
( -7)
-2
( -4)
-20
(-14)
UP
+ 4
( +7)
+ 2
( +6)
+ 17
( +6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-5 -4
-16 +18
112128 LEAD 150
PARS ( 235)
111101 HIV
PARS
591
(2141 )
-25 +18
(-10) ( +9)
-16 +11
( -7) ( +6)
-13 +16
( -6) ( +7)
-20
+ 12
E-28
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE
ILLINOIS
REP ORG 001 LAB 328001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
142602 N02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 6)
12
( 12)
8
( 70)
STATE
AUDITS
5
( 22)
6
C 12)
15
( 35)
LEVE
LOW
+ 4
(-14)
-6
( -8)
L 1
UP
+ 4
( +6)
+ 6
( + 11)
J-KU
LEVE
LOW
+ 3
( -8)
-5
( -5)
-3
( -6)
tSAEl L
L 2
UP
+ 3
( +6)
-1
( +3)
+ 13
( +8)
14 ILLINOIS
LEVE
LOW
-5
( -4)
-13
( -3)
L 1
UP
-5
( +6)
+ 28
( + 5)
- P D n
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-7
( -1)
-6
( -2)
-4
(-14)
BABIL
L 2
UP
-7
( +3)
-6
( +2)
+ 7
( +5)
i I T L inl I 3
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
( -5) (
-10
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -4) (
-81
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 4
+ 5)
+ 6
002 LAB 428002
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+8 -6 -6
+ 8)
+ 81
E-29
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 14 ILLINOIS
REP ORG 003 LAB 428003
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 7)
5
( 25)
12
( 12)
4
( 17)
STATE
AUDITS
5
( 35)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 9)
12
( 23)
LEVE
LOW
+ 0
C -8)
-2
( -3)
-8
(-11)
15 INDI
LEVE
LOW
15 INDI
LEVE
LOW
-19
(-28)
-8
L 1
UP
+ 13
( +7)
-2
( +7)
+ 0
( + 17)
ANA
L 1
UP
ANA
L 1
UP
-19
( +3)
+ 3
r KUBt
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
( -2) (
-3
( -5) (
-5
(-10) (
-8
(-11) (
__ D D nn /
r K UD/
LEVEL
LOW
-15
( -3) (
r K UD f
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
( -2) (
-3
( -8) (
\a i L
2
UP
+ 8
+ 4)
-3
+ 5)
+ 0
+ 8)
+ 5
+ 7)
\BIL
2
UP
+ 5
+ 4)
i,BIL
2
UP
+ 2
+ 5)
-1
+ 8)
J. 1 Y L IHl 1 b-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
( -1) (
-2
( -5) (
-7
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
( -2) (
-9
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 4
+ 4)
+0 -6 -6
+ 4)
+ 1
001 LAB 329001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
001 LAB 329002
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 6)
+ 4
E-30
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA
REP ORG 002 LAB 429002
PO
C42
111
L.CD.
101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 3)
6
( 33)
LEVEL
LOW
-2
(-10) (
1
UP
-2
+ 2)
r K UD>
LEVEL
LOW
+ 5
C -8) (
-14
( -8) (
*D J. L 1 1
2
UP
+ 5
+ 8)
+ 5
+ 9)
IT L 1 1 1 1 1 3"
LEVEL
LOU
+ 4
( -8) (
3
UP
+ 4
+ 8)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA
REP ORG 003 LAB 429C07
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
18
( 16)
rKL
LEVEL 1 LEVE
LOW UP LOW
-6
( -7)
J D M D J. L 1 1 T L J. H 1 1 D
IL 2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 3
( +9)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA
REP ORG 005 LAB 429005
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
11
( 33)
TKI
LEVEL 1 LEVE
LOW UP LOW
-6
( +0)
JDAD1L1IT LiHilS
IL 2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 0
( +3)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-31
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 15 INDIANA
REP ORG 008 LAB
PO
C42
111
REG
PO
C42
112
111
L.CD.
101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
ION 05
L.CD.
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL .CD.
C42
112
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
27
( 11 )
10
( 15)
STATE
AUDITS
15
( 8)
12
( 47)
23
( 73)
STATE
AUDITS
9
( 8)
12
( 18)
LEVE
LOW
-7
( -4)
23 M
ICH
LEVE
LOW
-1
( -
-1
(-1
7
9)
9
2)
23 MICH
LEVE
LOW
-2
(-1
3
5)
-27
( -4)
L 1
UP
-2
( +0)
IGAN
L 1
UP
+ 7
( + 12)
-5
( +4)
IGAN
L 1
UP
+ 32
( + 18)
+ 32
( +7)
r KUB,
LEVEL
LOW
f _
( -
L
LO
( -
-1
(-1
( -
L
LO
1
2) (
3
2) (
KB 1 L
2
UP
+ 2
+ 3)
+ 2
+ 2)
PROBABIL
EVEL 2
W UP
2
8) (
5
3) (
8
5) (
+ 3
+ 6)
-4
+ 4)
+ 1
+ 6)
PROBABIL
EVEL 2
W UP
-93
( -5) (
-12
( -2) (
+ 67
+ 4)
+ 4
+ 4)
11T LI n 113-
LEVEL
LOW
( -
1
2) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
( -
-
3
9) (
8
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -2) (
-1
7
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 5)
001 LAB 326001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 1
+ 3)
-5
002 LAB 426001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 3)
+ 7
E-32
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 24 MINNESOTA
REP ORG 001 LAB 324001
PO
C42
112
111
REG
PO
C42
112
L.CD.
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
ION 05
L.CD.
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
Ill
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
15
( 17)
12
( 12)
16
( 103)
STATE
AUDITS
9
( 3)
12
( 30)
STATE
AUDITS
22
( 12)
LEVEL
LOW
-32
(-10) (
-6
( -3) (
36 OHIO
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( +3) (
-11
( -5) (
36 OHIO
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
+ 20
+ 11)
-4
+ 3)
1
UP
+ 12
+ 3)
+ 8
+ 5)
1
UP
r K uai
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -5) (
-6
( -3) (
-6
( -5) C
r K UDt
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -7) (
-15
( -5) (
r K UDf
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -7) (
\D 1 L
2
UP
+ 5
+ 3)
+ 2
+ 2)
+ 9
+ 5)
\BIL
2
UP
+ 5
+ 9)
+ 0
+ 5)
\BIL
2
UP
+ 4
+ 4)
i 1 T Lll'll 1 S
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-6 +6
( -7) ( +2)
-7 +1
REP ORG 001 LAB 327001
IT V 1 T M T T C
1 Y L 1 n I 1 o
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-5 +4
( -5) (+11)
-8 +6
REP ORG 002 LAB 327003
IT V 1 T M T T C
1 Y LXnl 1 b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
E-33
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
26
22)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG
PROBABILITY LIMITS-
003 LAB 327005
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-2 +7
( -9) ( +6)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REP ORG 004 LAB 327007
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
7
( 20)
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-8
(-12)
DAD1L1 1 T LI Hi IS
L 2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 6
( + 13)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 005 LAB 327006
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
19
( 12)
r K uof
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -7) (
\DlLi 1 T Lini 1 S
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 9
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-34
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 006 LAB 427001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 4)
56
( 19)
STATE
AUDITS
3
( 4)
41
( 16)
STATE
AUDITS
15
C 4)
29
( 36)
LEVE
LOW
-12
(-17)
36 OHIO
LEVE
LOW
-21
(-10)
36 OHIO
LEVE
LOW
+ 3
(-20)
L 1
UP
+ 39
( + 13)
L 1
UP
-21
( +1)
L 1
UP
+ 5
( + 15)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-1 +19
(-15) ( +6)
-7 +1
( -6) ( +5)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 -4
( -7) ( -2)
-1 +6
( -1) ( +6)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-1 +7
(-12) (+11)
-6 +10
( -3) ( + 4)
1 1 T L 1 rl I 1 3
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 0 +19
( -4) ( +9)
REP ORG 007 LAB 427002
TTV 1 TMTTC _ _ _ _ _ _
ill Linilij ~
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 -2
( -4) ( -2)
REP ORG 008 LAB 427003
TTV ITMTTC
III Llnllb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +6
(-14) (+15)
E-35
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 009 LAB 427004
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 2)
26
( 33)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 4)
5
( 25)
STATE
AUDITS
3
( 2)
43
( 15)
LEVE
LOW
-9
(-10)
36 OHIO
LEVE
LOW
-28
(-23)
36 OHIO
LEVE
LOW
-11
( +6)
L 1
UP
+ 3
( + 10)
L 1
UP
+ 2
( + 11 )
L 1
UP
-11
( +6)
r KUD AD I
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-1 -1
( -1) ( -1
-22 +14
( -8) ( +9
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 -3
( -7) ( +3
+ 2 +11
( -7) ( + 3
D D n D A tj T
rKUtJABl
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 0 +0
(-12) (+12
-4 + 4
( -4) ( +5
L1IT L1H1I5
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +1
) ( -8) ( +0)
)
REP ORG 010 LAB 427005
1 TTV 1 TMTTC-
LllT LlrlllO""-
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-3 -1
) ( -7) ( +3)
)
REP ORG 012 LAB 427007
ITTX/ITMTTC _-_
LllYLinllb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 3 +3
) ( +0) ( +4)
)
E-36
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 013 LAB 427010
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 13 -1 +6
PARS ( 13) (-11) ( + 8)
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 014 LAB 427008
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUBADALi 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
i Y L in i i ^>
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
POL.CD. AUDITS
111101 HIV 14 -8 +6
PARS ( 23) (-14) ( +1)
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO REP ORG 015 LAB 427009
POL.CD. AUDITS
C42101 CO 6 -10 -3 -5 +2 -4 +4
PARS ( 4) ( -7) ( -1) (-11) ( +6) (-14) (+11)
111101 HIV 23 -10 +8
PARS ( 17) (-12) (+19)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
- - r KUBAB 1 L 1 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
IT L i ni i s
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
(continued)
E-37
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 016 LAB 427012
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 4)
18
( 10)
STATE
AUDITS
53
( 82)
STATE
AUDITS
24
( 7)
12
C 24)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
+ 1 +1
( -5) ( +8)
51 WISCONSIN
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
51 WISCONSIN
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-65 +44
( -5) (+13)
-9 +0
( -7) ( +4)
r KUBAB 1 L i.
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 0 +0
( -2) ( +4)
-5 +9
( -3) ( +4)
DDnDADTI T
PROBABI LI
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-9 +7
( -3) C +3)
DDnDADTI T
r K UD AD 1 L 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-62 +48
( -3) ( +4)
-5 +0
( -5) ( +3)
IT L 1 H 1 1 3
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 -1
( -4) ( +4)
REP ORG 001 LAB 325001
1 Y L 1 n 1 1 o
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
REP ORG 001 LAB 325002
TV 1 TMTTC
IT L 1 n 1 I o
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-3 +7
C -8) ( +5)
-9 +3
(continued)
E-38
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
REGION 05
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
I
PARS
42602 N02
PARS
AUDI
16
TS
5
LEVE
LOW
-78
( 107) (-14)
1
( 4
0
7)
-7
( -3)
L 1
UP
+ 84
( + 12)
+ 0
( +6)
r MJ
LEVE
LOW
-39
( -6
-10
( -3
)
)
DAD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 44
( +5)
+ 0
( +4)
T L 1 IT i 1 3
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -7) (
-5
( -4) (
3
UP
+ 7
+ 6)
+ 5
+ 6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-6 -6
112128 LEAD 102
PARS ( 190)
-17 +11
( -9) ( +8)
-11 +3
C -9) ( +6)
-21
14
111101 HIV
PARS
511
( 785)
-10 +9
( -7) ( +7)
(continued)
E-39
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 06 STATE 04 ARKANSAS
REP ORG 002 LAB 332001
POL.CD.
AUDITS
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 28)
LEVE
LOW
-22
(-96)
L 1
UP
+ 15
( +41 )
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-12
(-40)
DAD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 8
( + 25)
Y L J. I'l 1 1 3 -
LEVEL
LOW
-12
3
UP
+ 4
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
111101 HIV 25
PARS ( 116)
REGION 06 STATE 19 LOUISIANA
-4 +11
( -6) ( +5)
REP ORG 001 LAB 334001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 10)
5
( 17)
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -8) (
-3
( -1) (
1
UP
+ 5
+ 2)
-3
+ 4)
f KUB/
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -9) (
-5
( +0) (
\tt 1 L 1 1
2
UP
+ 2
+ 5)
-5
+ 2)
Y L ini i
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -9)
-1
( +0)
a
L 3
UP
+ 10
( +9)
+ 2
( +0)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-4 -4
111101 HIV
PARS
20
( 137)
REGION 06 STATE 32 NEW MEXICO
+ 1 +6
( -4) ( +4)
REP ORG 001 LAB 330001
POL.CD.
AUDITS
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 32)
111101 HIV
PARS
8
( 135)
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
r KUtsx
LEVEL
LOW
\B i L i 1
2
UP
1 Y L 1 n 1 1 3-
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
-7 +5
( -7) ( +4)
-9 +4
( -4) ( +5)
-14 +19
( -9) ( +8)
-9
+ 6
(continued)
E-40
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 06 STATE 32 NEW MEXICO
REP ORG 002 LAB 430001
POL .CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
I
R
11101 HIV
PARS
EGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
I
R
I
I
12128 LEAD
PARS
EGION 06
POL .CD.
12128 LEAD
PARS
11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 19)
10
( 29)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 2)
12
( 9)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 12)
12
C 14)
LEVEL
LOW
-16
(-12) (
1
UP
+ 8
+ 7)
37 OKLAHOMA
LEVEL
LOW
-23
(-11) (
-36
(-22) (
1
UP
-8
+ 2)
+ 7
+ 26)
37 OKLAHOMA
LEVEL
LOW
-78
( -2) (
1
UP
+ 28
+ 5)
r K uo/-
LEVEL
LOW
-8
( -9) (
-8
( -9) (
LEVEL
LOW
-19
( -7) (
-18
( -9) (
LEVEL
LOW
-13
(-10) (
-7
( -6) (
\B 1 L
2
UP
+ 5
+ 5)
+ 8
+ 4)
\BIL
2
UP
+ 8
-7)
-6
+ 6)
f^BIL
2
UP
-4
+ 7)
+ 5
+ 7)
iii Liniio
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +2
(-11) ( +4)
REP ORG 101 LAB 331002
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-10 -1
( -8) ( -2)
-35 +8
REP ORG 102 LAB 431001
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOU UP
-9 -6
E-41
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 06 STATE 37 OKLAHOMA
REP ORG 103 LAB 431002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL .CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 9)
12
( 16)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 46)
11
( 672)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 8)
12
( 23)
25
( 113)
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -5) (
-3
( -6) (
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOW
-7
(-23) (
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOW
-9
( -5) (
-9
(-17) (
1
UP
-1
+ 8)
+ 1
+ 6)
1
UP
+ 1
+ 29)
1
UP
+ 3
+ 16)
+ 57
+ 18)
TKUDADJ. L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-5 +3
( -3) ( +1)
-5 +1
( -5) ( +2)
DDHDAOT i
"rKUbADl L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-17 +17
(-16) (+17)
-4 +6
( -7) ( +6)
D D (~\ D A n T 1
rKUtSAtSlL
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 0 +8
(-11 ) (+16)
-52 +85
(-15) (+15)
-4 + 3
( -7) ( + 9)
ill L i n i i a
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -1) (
-1
REP ORG
T T V 1 TMTTC
111 L I rl I 1 b
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
(-15) (
REP ORG
IT V 1 TMTTC
IT L 1 H I 1 b
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
(-14) (
-38
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 3
+ 1)
+ 1
001 LAB 333001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 10
+ 14)
002 LAB 433002
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 11
+ 16)
+ 5
E-42
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 06 STATE 45 TEXAS
REP ORG 003 LAB 433001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL .CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 2)
12
( 24)
18
( 80)
STATE
AUDITS
19
( 25)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 8)
6
( 14)
LEVEL
LOW
-11
( -6) C
-12
( -6) (
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOW
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOW
-10
( -7) C
-12
(-24) (
1
UP
-11
+ 10)
+ 5
+ 0)
1
UP
1
UP
+ 9
+ 7)
+ 31
+ 25)
r KUBrtB 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-3 -3
( -2) ( +4
-8 +1
( -7) C +0
-6 +7
( -3) ( +8
DDnOADT
rKUbADl
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-11 +14
( -4) ( +4
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-3 +0
(-11 ) ( +1
-25 + 9
( -9) (+11
LJL 1 T LJ.H1 1 b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 -1
) ( -6) ( +3)
-9 +5
)
)
REP ORG 005 LAB 433005
i TTV \ TMTTC
Li 1 I L 1 PI 1 1 b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
)
REP ORG 006 LAB 433008
ITTV ITMTTC
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-3 -3
) ( -7) ( +3)
-26 -26
)
E-43
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 06 STATE 45 TEXAS REP ORG 007 LAB 433010
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 19 -8 +2
PARS ( 32) ( -3) ( +1)
(continued)
E-44
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
REGION 06
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS
57
( 104)
5
( 17)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-15 +6
(-18) (+20)
-3 -3
( +0) ( + 3)
r KUDt
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-14) (-
-5
( +0) (
SO i L J. 1
2
UP
+ 9
H3)
-5
+ 1)
IT uiniio
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-6 +9
(-14) (+11)
-1 +2
( +0) ( +0)
LEVEL
LOW
-4
4
UP
-4
112128 LEAD
PARS
90
( 158)
-79 +87
(-42) (+32)
-31 +26
(-20) (+16)
-48
+ 34
111101 HIV
PARS
167
(1353)
-8 +10
( -6) ( +6)
E-45
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 07 STATE 16 IOWA
REP ORG 001 LAB 436001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 2)
23
( 16)
LEVE
LOW
+ 37
( -3)
L 1
UP
+ 56
( -3)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-6
( -3)
-16
( -6)
DMD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 2
( -3)
+ 19
( +7)
II L 1 1*1 1 1 0
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -2) (
3
UP
+ 1
-2)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 07 STATE 16 IOWA
REP ORG 002 LAB 436002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 6)
5
( 3)
19
C 20)
LEVE
LOW
-26
( -1)
-2
( -5)
L 1
UP
-23
( +3)
-2
( +3)
rKUD/
LEVEL
LOW
+ 5
( -1) (
-4
(-14) (
-3
( -8) (
\ai L i i
2
UP
+ 6
+ 3)
-4
+ 2 )
-1
+ 1 )
T L ini i a-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 5
(-11) (
-6
( -4) (
3
UP
+ 9
+ 1)
+ 7
+ 0)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-3 -3
E-46
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1934
REGION 07 STATE 16 IOWA
REP ORG 003 LAB 336001
PO
C42
112
111
L .CD.
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 4)
12
( IS)
15
( 41)
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-14) C
-11
( -8) (
1
UP
-5
+ 6)
+ 2
+ 6)
r K U
LEVE
LOW
+ 0
( -7)
-8
( -7)
+ 0
( -6)
DMD 1 L 1
L 2
UP
+ 0
( +6)
+ 1
( +9)
+ 9
( + 10)
IT L x n i i a
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -4) (
-10
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 0
+ 4)
-1
REGION 07 STATE 17 KANSAS
REP ORG 001 LAB 437003
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 6)
12
( 24)
LEVE
LOW
-27
(-20)
-14
(-11)
L 1
UP
+ 3
(+43)
-3
( +7)
r K UD/
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -5) (
-9
( -8) (
\O 1 L i 1
2
UP
+ 5
+ 5)
-1
+ 0)
1 Y L 1 n 1 1 b-
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -5) (
-6
3
UP
+ 5
+ 5)
-4
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-47
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI
REP ORG 001 LAB 338001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
TKUDADl LI 1 T L1P11 1 3
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
3 -7 -7 -4 -4 -5 -5
( 4) (-14) (+26) ( -5) ( +5) (-11) ( +0)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 12)
-11 +1
(-12) ( +7)
-8 +0
( -8) ( + 0)
-7
-2
111101 HIV
PARS
33
( 22)
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI
-4 +11
(-11) (+13)
REP ORG 002 LAB 438004
rKUDABlLJ. |
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 15 +0 +12 -1 +6
PARS ( 8) ( -2) (+16) ( -4) ( +9)
Y Lin ii:>
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +3
( -7) ( +4)
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 30)
-10 -1
( -3) ( +4)
-7 -1
( -2) ( +3)
-10
+ 2
111101 HIV
PARS
5
( 11)
+ 6 +10
(-10) ( +2)
E-48
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI
REP ORG 003 LAB 438003
c
I
POL. CD.
42101 CO
PARS
11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 4)
8
( 10)
LEVE
LOW
-9
(-35)
L 1
UP
+ 0
( + 32)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
+ 1
(-20)
+ 3
(-11)
BAD 1 L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 1
( +9)
+ 17
( +6)
IT L i ni i :>-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
(-22) (
3
UP
+ 1
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI
REP ORG 004 LAB 438002
POL. CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 07
AUDITS
11
( 12)
STATE
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-9 +1
(-12) (+11)
26 MISSOURI
r KUOf
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-10) (
4B 1 L 1 !
2
UP
+ 0
+ 9)
IT L im 1 5-
LEVEL
LOW
-6
REP ORG
3
UP
-1
004
LEVE
LOW
LAB 4
L 4
UP
3800
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
fKUtJABJ. LI 1 T L in J. 1 b
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
9 -5 +4 -4 + 5 -1 +5
( 4) (-32) (+27) (-19) (+11) (-13) ( +4)
E-49
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 07 STATE 26 MISSOURI
REP ORG 005 LAB 438005
c
I
POL. CD.
42101 CO
PARS
11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 4)
28
( 11)
LEVEL
LOW
+ 9
(-13) (
1
UP
+ 9
+ 15)
f-KUB/
LEVEL
LOW
+ 5
( -4) (
-9
( -5) (
\D1L1 1
2
UP
+ 5
+ 9)
+ 3
+ 4)
IT L in j. i
LEVE
LOW
+ 5
( -6)
a
L 3
UP
+ 5
(+10)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 07 STATE 28 NEBRASKA
REP ORG 001 LAB 335001
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
16
( 21)
r«u
LEVE
LOW
-17
(-10)
DAD J. L i 1
I 2
UP
+ 1
(+10)
r L i ni i s
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 07 STATE 28 NEBRASKA
REP ORG 002 LAB 335001
I
POL. CD.
11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
16
( 4)
r KUDt
LEVEL
LOW
-17
( +0) (
*aiLi i T Lj.ni 13
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 1
+ 9)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
(continued)
E-50
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 07 STATE 28 NEBRASKA
REP ORG 002 LAB 435001
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
4
( 4)
r K\JO>
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( +0) (
^BILIIY LiniliJ
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 0
+ 9)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 07 STATE 28 NEBRASKA
REP ORG 003 LAB 435003
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
6
4)
11
22)
36
20)
LEVEL 1
LOW
-16
( -6)
-13
( -7)
UP
-8
( +5)
+ 3
( +3)
r KUBAE i L i i Y Lini i b
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
+ 3
( -8)
-10
( +0)
-13
(-10)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+4 +1 +11
(+10) ( -2) ( +1)
+15 -9 +12
( +6)
+ 11
( +6)
E-51
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS
69
( 46)
5
( 3)
LEVEL 1
LOW
-36
(-17)
-2
( -4)
UP
+ 35
(+22)
-2
( +2)
r KUB*
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -9) (
-4
(-13) (
'.DILI 1
2
UP
+ 7
+ 8)
-4
+ 1)
l T L 1 IT 1 1 3
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-11) (
-6
( -3) (
3
UP
+ 8
+ 6)
+ 7
+ 0)
LEVEL
LOW
-3
4
UP
-3
112128 LEAD
PARS
70
( 118)
-12 +1
( -8) ( +6)
-11 +4
( -7) ( +6)
-10
+ 3
111101 HIV
PARS
203
C 180)
-12 +12
( -9) ( + 8)
E-52
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 08 STATE 06 COLORADO
REP ORG 001 LAB 344001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
24 -25 +9 -7 +11 -5 +10
( 22) (-10) ( +6) ( -6) (+10) (-10) (+11) ( -1) ( + 3
REGION 08 STATE 27 MONTANA
REP ORG 001 LAB 339002
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TKUBAD1L1 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
T Li Hi IS
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 45)
-18 -4
( -3) ( +3)
-9
+ 0
-13
+ 5
111101 HIV 15
PARS ( 117)
-11 -1
( -3) ( +3)
REGION 08 STATE 27 MONTANA
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
REP ORG 003 LAB 439002
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42101 CO
PARS
3 +5 +5
3) (-12) ( +8)
+ 5 +5
(-16) (+12)
+ 6 +6
(-18) (+16)
E-53
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 08 STATE 35 NORTH DAKOTA
REP ORG 001 LAB 341001
I
POL. CD.
11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
17
( 22)
r KUDl"
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -3) (
* D i L i i r Lino. 13
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 2
+ 4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 08 STATE 46 UTAH
REP ORG 001 LAB 340001
POL. CD. AUDITS
C4
11
11
2101 CO
PARS (
2128 LEAD
PARS (
1101 HIV
PARS (
15
34)
11
15)
7
48)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-70 +2
( -5) ( +6)
-12 +8
(-12) ( +3)
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-4
( -3)
-10
(-12)
-19
( -6)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+5 -1 +2
( +4) ( -4) ( +4)
-2 -13 +4
( + 11)
+ 13
( +4)
E-54
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
REGION 08
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42101 CO 42 -87 +97 -6 +9 -4 +8
PARS ( 59) ( -8) ( +7) ( -6) ( +8) ( -7) ( +8) ( +0) ( +2)
112128 LEAD 23 -19 +6 -10 -1 -12 + 3
PARS ( 60) ( -8) ( +6) (-12) (+11)
111101 HIV 39 -10 +4
PARS ( 187) ( -4) ( +3)
(continued)
E-55
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 09 STATE 03 ARIZONA
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
9
8)
12
19)
7
26)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-13 +5
(-19) ( + 5)
-7 +0
( -9) C + 4)
r K U B A Q 1 LI 1 T LI Hi 1 S
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
+ 0
(-11)
-6
( -6)
-7
(-12)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+1 -2 +3
( +5) ( -6) ( +6) ( -1) ( +3)
+0 -10 + 4
( +3)
+ 13
( +9)
REGION 09 STATE 03 ARIZONA
REP ORG 200 LAB 447001
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
LOW UP
18 -34 +14
6) (-25) (+11 )
12 -19 +17
12) ( -8) ( +6)
34
25)
TKUDADILI 1 T Lll'll 1 3
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-23
( -2)
-13
( -6)
-13
( -9)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+13 -4 +6
( +2) ( -3) ( +5)
+7 -18 +9
( +8)
+ 15
( + 11)
E-56
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 09 STATE 03 ARIZONA
REP ORG 300 LAB
POL. CD.
C42
112
111
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
Ill
101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
C42
112
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 2)
12
( 10)
14
( 16)
STATE
AUDITS
39
( 77)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 33)
18
( 28)
LEVE
LOW
-9
( -5)
-35
( -4)
05 CALI
LEVE
LOW
05 CALI
LEVE
LOW
-27
( -9)
-13
L 1
UP
+ 10
( +7)
+ 42
( +4)
FORNIA
L 1
UP
FORNIA
L 1
UP
+ 8
( + 11)
+ 5
r KUD*
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -3) C
-17
( -3) (
-23
( -7) (
D D n D 1
rKUD/
LEVEL
LOW
-12
( -9) (
_ D D n n j
r K UD/
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -6) (
-5
(-11) (
\D 1 L
2
UP
+ 4
+ 1)
+ 6
+ 2)
+ 9
+ 6)
\BIL
2
UP
+ 9
+ 7)
S.BIL
2
UP
+ 0
+ 6)
+ 4
+ 8)
J. 1 T L 1 n 1 1 3
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +1
( -4) ( +0)
-10 +0
REP ORG 001 LAB 345002
TTV 1 TMTTC
llYLInllb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
REP ORG 001 LAB 345003
TTV1TMTTC _~ _
J. 1 T L 1 H 1 1 b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +0
( -7) ( +6)
-6 +3
E-57
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA
REP ORG 001 LAB
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
21
C 33)
STATE
AUDITS
3
( 31)
12
( 12)
4
( 41)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 12)
LEVE
LOW
-16
( -9)
05 CALI
LEVE
LOW
-1
C -7)
-36
( -9)
05 CALI
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
+ 12
( + 11)
FORNIA
L 1
UP
-1
C +5)
+ 11
( +0)
FORNIA
L 1
UP
PKUtJ/
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -6) (
r K U D /
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
( -2) C
-11
( -3) (
-6
C -5) (
r K UD^
LEVEL
LOW
-9
( -7) (
\tii
2
UP
+ 4
+ 6
^BI
2
UP
+ 1
+ 2
+ 4
+ 4
-6
+ 6
\BI
2
UP
+ 7
+ 4
LilY LiHlIb
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-4 +3
) ( -7) ( +6)
REP ORG 004 LAB 445001
LTTV/ 1 T M T T f
i 1 T LiPll 1 0
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 0 +0
) ( -3) ( +1)
-14 +3
)
)
REP ORG 036 LAB 445003
LTTV 1 TMTTC
1 I Y Llnl 1 b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
)
E-58
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA
REP ORG 036 LAB 445005
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
rrCUBADlLl 1 I Li 111 1 3
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
21 -1 +11 +1 +5 -1 +4
( 10) (-12) ( +8) ( -6) ( +4) ( -7) ( +2) ( -7) ( +1
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA
REP ORG 061 LAB 445002
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
( 34)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-15 +12
(-11) ( +7)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA
REP ORG 061 LAB 445018
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
21
( 25)
LEVE
LOW
-22
( -5)
L 1
UP
+ 20
( + 11)
f KU
LEVE
LOW
-25
( -3)
BAB i L I 1
L 2
UP
+ 21
( +8)
Y L i ni i
LEVE
LOW
-27
( -4)
V,
L 3
UP
+ 21
( +5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD 12
PARS ( 12)
-9 +1
(-12) (+17)
-11 +8
( -8) ( +8)
-6
+ 3
E-59
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 09 STATE 12 HAWAII REP ORG 120 LAB 348001
POL. CD.
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
AUDITS
5
( 58)
2
( 40)
STATE
AUDITS
20
( 9)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
( -5) ( +4)
29 NEVADA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
29 NEVADA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUBABiLl 1 Y
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-12 +2
( -2) ( +3)
+ 0 +3
( -8) ( +8)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-24 +26
(-16) (+10)
rKUtJADlLJLlY
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
L ini i b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-9 +5
( +0) ( +0)
REP ORG 100
LT M T T C
i n i i o
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
REP ORG 200
LT M T T C .
1 n 1 1 o
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
LAB 346
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 446
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
+ 2
001
4
UP
001
4
UP
C42101 CO 9 +11 +11 +2 +4 +2 +3
PARS ( 8) ( -7) ( +3) ( -2) ( +2) ( -1) ( +1)
111101 HIV 28 -6 +6
PARS ( 70) ( -7) ( +6)
(continued)
E-60
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EM5L PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
REGION 09
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION AVERAGES
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
POL.CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
S02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
114
( 156)
5
( 58)
78
( 93)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-20 +17
(-11) (+12)
( -4) ( +3)
-23 +16
(-10) ( +7)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-13 +13
( -5) ( +6)
-12 +2
( -2) ( +2)
-11 +5
( -7) ( +6)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-10 +10
( -5) ( +4)
-9 +5
( +0) ( +0)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
( -7) ( +6)
+ 2 +2
-11
+ 4
111101 HIV
PARS
162
( 350)
-19 +17
( -8) ( +7)
(continued)
E-61
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 10 STATE 02 ALASKA
REP ORG 020 LAB 451001
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
5
( 17)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
r KUD/
LEVEL
LOW
^
( -8) C
^DlLilT LinilS
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 7
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 10 STATE 02 ALASKA
REP ORG 020 LAB 451002
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42101 CO 18
PARS ( 12)
TKUDADl LI 1 T L 1 n 1 I O
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-14 -1 -5 +4 -2 +3
( -3) ( +2) ( -6) ( +5) ( -8) ( +4)
REGION 10 STATE 38 OREGON
REP ORG 001 LAB 353001
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
L
1
UP
LEVEL
LOW
AD 1 L 1 1
2
UP
T L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
3-
L
3
U
P
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
111101 HIV 23
PARS ( 315)
-8 +4
( -5) ( +4)
(continued)
E-62
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 10 STATE 38 OREGON
REP ORG 001 LAB 453001
POL
C42
112
REG
PO
.CD.
101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
I
L
ON 10
.CD.
AUDITS
27
( 44)
1
( 1
2
2)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
-1
(-1
( -
3
5)
7
6)
L 1
UP
+ 13
( +4)
+ 2
( + 13)
49 WASHINGTON
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
r K u
LEVE
LOW
+ 0
( -9)
-7
( -4)
D D n
r K U
LEVE
LOW-
OrtD 1 L
L 2
UP
+ 5
( +5)
+ 2
(+10)
BABIL
L 2
UP
1 1 T LJ.1'11 1 3
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +2
( -8) ( +1)
-6 -3
REP ORG 001 LAB 352001
I TV 1 TMTTC ._
IY Llnllb "
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
111101 HIV 79
PARS ( 40)
REGION 10 STATE 49 WASHINGTON
-11 +8
C -4) ( +6)
REP ORG 001 LAB 452006
POL .CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS
3
( 48)
12
( 5)
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
( -8) (
-15
( -6) (
1
UP
+ 2
+ 9)
+ 6
+ 6)
r K.UDI
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -8) (
-13
AD 1 L i 1
2
UP
+ 0
+ 7)
+ 9
IT L 1 I'l i 1 3 "
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -9) (
-4
3
UP
+ 0
+ 7)
+ 2
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
(-14) (+10)
E-63
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
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 48 -15 +10 -3 +5 -2 +2
PARS ( 104) (-12) ( + 7) ( -8) ( +5) ( -8) ( +4) (-13) ( +9)
112128 LEAD 24 -11 +4 -10 +6 -6 +1
PARS ( 17) ( -7) (+12) ( -6) (+12)
111101 HIV 107 -10 +9
PARS ( 372) ( -5) ( +4)
(continued)
E-64
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
NATIONAL AVERAGES
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
771
( 974)
30
( 139)
30
( 190)
LEVE
LOW
-9
(-14)
-5
( -6)
(-18)
L 1
UP
+ 12
( + 13)
-1
( +8)
( +8)
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-20
( -8)
-7
( -6)
-15
(-12)
DAB 1 L 1
L 2
UP
+ 21
( +8)
-2
( +7)
+ 6
( +6)
IT L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-7
( -8)
-3
( -4)
-18
(-12)
s
L 3
UP
+ 8
( +7)
+ 4
( +5)
+ 15
( +6)
LEVE
LOW
(-10)
-7
-14
L 4
UP
( +8)
-3
+ 16
112128 LEAD 723
PARS (1259)
111101 HIV 2447
PARS (6559)
-35 +30
(-17) (+15)
-17 +11
(-11) (+10)
-15 +18
( -6) ( +7)
-22
+ 14
E-65
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
POL.CD,
REGIONAL SUMMARY
42101
CARBON MONOXIDE
ION
01
PARS
02
PARS
03
PARS
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
07
PARS
08
PARS
09
PARS
10
PARS
AUDITS
30
( 55)
75
( 89)
78
( 94)
93
( 160)
165
( 107)
57
( 104)
69
( 46)
42
( 59)
114
( 156)
48
( 104)
LEVE
LOW
-15
( -7)
-18
( -7)
-18
(-12)
-15
(-16)
-78
(-14)
-15
(-18)
-36
(-17)
-87
( -8)
-20
(-11)
-15
(-12)
L 1
UP
+ 10
( + 11)
+ 6
( +7)
+ 11
( +9)
+ 5
( + 14)
+ 84
( + 12)
+ 6
( + 20)
+ 35
(+22)
+ 97
( +7)
+ 17
( + 12)
+ 10
( +7)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-2
( -6)
-4
( -4)
-4
( -9)
-4
( -8)
-39
( -6)
-10
(-14)
-5
( -9)
-6
( -6)
-13
( -5)
-3
( -8)
DMD 1 L 1 I
L 2
UP
+ 3
( +6)
+ 7
( +5)
+ 5
( +8)
+ 4
( +8)
+ 44
( +5)
+ 9
( + 13)
+ 7
( +8)
+ 9
( +8)
+ 13
( +6)
+ 5
( +5)
T L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-23
( -5)
-3
( -4)
-4
(-11)
-3
( -7)
-4
( -7)
-6
(-14)
-5
(-11 )
-4
( -7)
-10
( -5)
-2
( -5)
O
L 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 16
( +5)
+ 6
( +4)
+ 4
( + 12)
+ 4
( +7)
+ 7
( +6)
+ 9
(+11 )
+ 8
( +6)
+ 8
( +8) ( +0) ( +2)
+ 10
( +4) ( -7) ( +6)
+ 2
( +4) (-13) ( +9)
E-66
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGIONAL SUMMARY
POL.CD. 42602
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
REGION
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
07
PARS
AUDITS
10
( 72)
10
( 47)
5
( 17)
5
( 3)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-6 -1
( -8) (+11)
-7 +0
( -3) ( +6)
-3 -3
( +0) ( +3)
-2 -2
( -4) ( +2)
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-8 -2
( -7) ( +9)
-10 +0
( -3) ( +4)
-5 -5
( +0) ( +1)
-4 -4
(-13) ( +1)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-2 +2
( -4) ( +6)
-5 +5
( -4) ( +6)
-1 +2
( +0) ( +0)
-6 +7
( -3) ( +0)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-5
-6
-4
-3
-4
-6
-4
-3
(continued)
E-67
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGIONAL SUMMARY
POL.CD. 42401 SULFUR DIOXIDE
PROBABILITY LIMITS
REGION AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
04 25 -16 +7 -20 +17 -16 +18
PARS ( 132) (-21) ( +7) (-14) ( +5) (-14) ( +6)
09 5 -12 +2 -9 +5 +2 +2
PARS ( 58) ( -4) ( +3) ( -2) ( +2) ( +0) ( +0)
(continued)
E-68
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
POL.CD,
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGIONAL SUMMARY
12128
LEAD
REGION
01
PARS
02
PARS
03
PARS
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
07
PARS
08
PARS
09
PARS
10
PARS
AUDITS
60
( 83)
42
( 63)
84
( 242)
150
( 235)
102
( 190)
90
( 158)
70
( 118)
23
( 60)
78
( 93)
24
( 17)
LEVE
LOW
-14
(-10)
-19
(-10)
-14
(-11)
-25
(-10)
-17
( -9)
-79
(-42)
-12
( -8)
-19
( -8)
-23
(-10)
-11
( -7)
:L i
UP
+ 5
( +9)
+ 17
(+17)
+ 7
( + 10)
+ 18
( +9)
+ 11
( +8)
+ 87
( + 32)
+ 1
( +6)
+ 6
( +6)
+ 16
( +7)
+ 4
(+12)
r KI
LEVt
LOW
-17
(-11)
-18
( -7)
-10
(-10)
-16
( -7)
-11
( -9)
-31
(-20)
-11
( -7)
-10
(-12)
-11
( -7)
-10
( -6)
JBAD 1 L i 1
EL 2
UP
+ 14
( + 10)
+ 13
( + 15)
+ 6
( +9)
+ 11
( +6)
+ 3
( +6)
+ 26
( + 16)
+ 4
( +6)
-1
( + 11)
+ 5
( +6)
+ 6
( + 12)
T uiniia
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-9 +5
-13 +13
-9 +2
-20 +12
-21 +14
-48 +34
-10 +3
-12 +3
-11 +4
-6 +1
E-69
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGIONAL SUMMARY
POL.CD. 11101
HI VOLATILE
REGION
01
PARS
02
PARS
03
PARS
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
07
PARS
08
PARS
09
PARS
10
PARS
AUDITS
56
( 346)
85
( 303)
526
( 542)
591
(2141)
511
( 785)
167
(1353)
203
( 180)
39
( 187)
162
( 350)
107
( 372)
TKU
LEVEL 1 LEVE
LOW UP LOW
-6
( -5)
-4
( -4)
-20
( -8)
-13
( -6)
-10
( -7)
-8
( -6)
-12
( -9)
-10
( -4)
-19
( -8)
-10
( -5)
DMD1LJ. 1 T LJ.ni 1 3
L 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+ 8
( +7)
+ 11
( +6)
+ 33
( +8)
+ 16
( +7)
+ 9
( +7)
+ 10
( +6)
+ 12
( +8)
+ 4
( +3)
+ 17
( +7)
+ 9
( +4)
3BRKPT PRINTS
E-70
-------
TABLE E-2. PARS AND PA DATA FOR SC>2 CONTINUOUS METHODS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 01 STATE 07 CONNECTICUT
REP ORG 001 LAB 306001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
20
( 22)
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-13) (-
1
UP
+ 4
H2)
r K uut
LEVEL
LOW
-9
( -9) (
\O 1 L i 1
2
UP
+ 1
+ 9)
IT L j. n i i a
LEVEL
LOW
-8
( -8) (
3
UP
+ 0
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 01 STATE 20 MAINE
REP ORG 001 LAB 3010C1
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
rKUDHDlLl 1 T Lil'il IS
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
! 4 -7-7 -5 -3 -2 -2
( 8) ( -2) (+10) ( -1) ( +7) ( -2) ( +8)
REGION 01 STATE 22 MASSACHUSETTS
REP ORG 001 LAB 304001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
I-KUDABILJ. 1 T Lini 1 S
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
! 12 -7 +5 -3 +0 -6 + 3
( 21) (-10) (+11) ( -8) (+11) (-10) (+11)
REGION 01 STATE 30 NEW HAMPSHIRE
REP ORG 001 LAB 302001
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
4
( 65)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-4 -4
(-15) (+11)
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-6 -2
(-13) ( +7)
LEVEL 3
LOU UP
-4 -4
(-12) ( +6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
(continued)
E-71
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 01 STATE
RHODE ISLAND
REP ORG 001 LAB 305001
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
C42401 S02 8 -13 +1
PARS ( 16) (-14) ( +6)
r K U D « B 1 LJL , T Lll'li 1 3
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-3 +0 -4 +3
(-12) ( +5) (-13) ( +5)
REGION 01 STATE 47 VERMONT
REP ORG 001 LAB 303001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
I- K U B A B i Li 1 T LlrlJ. 1 5
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
! 3 +3+3 +1 +3
( 8) (-11) ( +2) (-10) ( +2) (-11) ( +4)
(continued)
E-72
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 02 STATE 31 NEW JERSEY
REP ORG 001 LAB 308001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
16
( 34)
LEVE
LOW
-8
( -8)
L 1
UP
-3
(+10)
r NUB/
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -7) (
\D 1 L 1 1
2
UP
+ 0
+ 8)
T L i n i i o-
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -5) (
3
UP
+ 2
-2)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 02 STATE 33 NEW YORK
POL.CD.
AUDITS
C42401 S02 12
PARS ( 205)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-18 +27
(-10) (+12)
REP ORG 001 LAB 307001
PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW- UP
-8 +13
( -8) (+10)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-6 +7
( -8) ( +9)
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
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 03 STATE 08 DELAWARE
REP ORG 001 LAB 313002
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
20
( 26)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 33)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-10 -4
( +0) ( +6)
21 MARYLAND
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-17 +17
(-10) ( +5)
39 PENNSYLVANI
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-25 +11
(-14) (+14)
39 PENNSYLVANI
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUtSABlLi 1 Y
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-12 + 8
( -4) ( +9)
~ rKUDADlLIlY
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-2 +13
(-10) ( +6)
A
PROBABILITY
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-13 +5
(-13) (+11)
A
rKUDADlLJ. 1 Y
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
L i n j. i s
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-14 +10
( -4) ( +3)
REP ORG 001
1 T M T T C _
L 1 IM I 1 O"
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 2 +10
(-12) ( +8)
REP ORG 001
i n i i b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-12 +5
(-11 ) (+10)
REP ORG 002
ri T M T T C
L J. PI I 1 0 "
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 3120C1
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 311002
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
LAB 411002
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42401 S02
PARS
12 -4 +2
34) ( -6) ( +3)
+ 1 +4
( -7) ( +5)
+ 1 +6
( -7) ( +7)
(continued)
E-74
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 03 STATE 39 PENNSYLVANIA
REP ORG 003 LAB 411001
POL. CD.
C42401 502
PARS
rKUDMBJ. LI 1 T Li Hi 1 i
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
! 4 +20 +20 + 8 +9 +7 +7
( 8) (-15) ( +7) (-15) ( +9) (-13) ( +8)
REGION 03 STATE 48 VIRGINIA
REP ORG 003 LAB 415004
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
16
( 26)
LEVEL
LOW
-10
( -6) (
1
UP
-1
+ 4)
r KUDf
LEVEL
LOW
-9
( -6) (
\D 1 L 1 1
2
UP
+ 2
+ 7)
T L i n i i
LEVE
LOW
-10
( -6)
a
L 3
UP
+ 3
(+10)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 03 STATE 50 WEST VIRGINIA
REP ORG 001 LAB 314001
POL. CD.
C42401 SOZ
PARS
TKUOMDILI 1 T L i PI 1 1 S
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
! 4 -1-1 -2 +0 -1 -1
( 24) (-12) (+10) ( -5) ( +9) ( -7) ( +7) ( -5) ( +2
REGION 03 STATE 50 WEST VIRGINIA
REP ORG 002 LAB 314002
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
4
( 24)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-1 -1
(-12) (+11)
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 0 +3
( -6) ( +9)
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 2 +2
( -7) ( +7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
E-75
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG Oil LAB 423003
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
8
( 18)
LEVE
LOW
-19
(-23)
L 1
UP
-11
( + 17)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-18
(-20)
BAD i L i 1
L 2
UP
-6
( + 18)
T L 1 rl i 1 3
LEVEL 3
LOW
-20
(-19)
UP
-4
(+21)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 04 STATE 10 FLORIDA
REP ORG 012 LAB 423004
POL.
CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL .CD.
AUDITS
8
( 9)
STATE
AUDITS
17
( 10)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
+ 2
(-13)
10 FLOR
LEVE
LOW
-9
(-19)
L 1
UP
+ 14
( + 11)
IDA
L 1
UP
+ 22
( +9)
18 KENTUCKY
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
r KU
LEVE
LOW
+ 4
( -6)
D D n
~ r K U
LEVE
LOW
-5
(-14)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
BAB 1 L
L 2
UP
+ 10
( + 10)
BABIL
L 2
UP
+ 10
( +7)
BABIL
L 2
UP
i i Y L i n i i .
LEVE
LOW
+ 4
( -9)
s-
L
(
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-6
(-15)
(
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
+ 6
+ 8)
013
3
UP
+ 9
+ 10)
002
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
( -8) (
LAB 42
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
LAB 41
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
+ 3)
3016
4
UP
+ 2
6001
4
UP
C42401 S02 12
PARS ( 6)
+ 0 +4
( -5) (+12)
-1 +2
( -7) (+13)
-2 +1
( -8) (+11)
E-76
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA
REP ORG 001 LAB 318001
-PROBABILITY LIMITS-
POL.CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42401 S02
PARS
18
( 24)
-28 +36
(-12) (+11)
-26 +30
( -7) ( +8)
-27 +30
( -7) ( +9)
+ 12
+ 12
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA
REP ORG 003 LAB 418006
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
r K U D « D 1 LI 1 T L 1 11 i 1 3
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
! 4 -6-6 -7 -6 -7 -7
( 5) (-19) ( +7) (-25) ( +7) (-20) ( +9)
REGION 04 STATE 42 SOUTH CAROLINA
REP ORG 001 LAB 320001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 69)
STATE
AUDITS
14
( 17)
LEVE
LOW
-24
(-15)
L 1
UP
-24
( + 11)
44 TENNESSEE
LEVE
LOW
-18
(-14)
L 1
UP
+ 16
( +9)
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-3
(-10)
D D n
r KU
LEVE
LOW
-15
( -9)
D«D 1 L
L 2
UP
+ 5
( + 12)
BABIL
L 2
UP
+ 10
( + 8)
1 1 T L 1 H 1 1 D
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
(-11) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-15
( -3) (
3
UP
+ 7
+ 9)
001
3
UP
+ 10
+ 8)
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 31
LEVEL
LOW
-17
( -5) (
4
UP
7001
4
UP
+ 6
+ 4)
(continued)
E-77
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 003 LAB 327005
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
8
( 4)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 3)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 4)
STATE
AUDITS
8
( 4)
LEVE
LOW
-19
(-13)
36 OHIO
LEVE
LOW
-81
( -9)
36 OHIO
LEVE
LOW
-31
(-13)
36 OHIO
LEVE
LOW
-6
(-11)
L 1
UP
+ 13
(+14)
L 1
UP
+ 2
(+21)
L 1
UP
+ 22
( +1)
L 1
UP
+ 19
( +8)
TKUCAC J. L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-15 +9
(-19) (+18)
r KUD AD 1 L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-76 +49
(-10) (+22)
D D H O A D T I
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-18 +14
(-11) (+10)
D D O D A D T 1
rKUbAol L
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-4 +12
( -9) ( +5)
1 1 T 1_ 1 fl I 1 3
LEVEL
LOW
-20
(-20) (
REP ORG
TTV 1 TMTTC
ill L 1 rl i I b
LEVEL
LOW
-72
( -6) (
REP ORG
IT V 1 TMTTC
IT L I rl I 1 b
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -9) (
REP ORG
TTV 1 TMTTC
III L 1 H 1 1 5
LEVEL
LOW
-8
( -7) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 13
+ 23)
004 LAB 327007
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 31
+ 22)
006 LAB 427001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
-5
+ 13)
i 007 LAB 427002
. 3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 19
+ 4)
E-78
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
POL.CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
12
8)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-5 +7
( -9) ( +9)
REP ORG 008 LAB 427003
-PROBABILITY LIMITS
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-2 +5
( -7) ( +7)
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +4
( -8) (+12)
REP ORG 012 LAB 427007
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
8
( 4)
LEVE
LOW
-3
(-10)
L 1
UP
+ 20
( +5)
rnu
LEVE
LOW
-4
( -6)
DrtD I L 1 1
L 2
UP
+ 18
( +5)
IT L I 1 1 1 1
LEVE
LOW
-1
( -8)
-j
L 3
UP
+ 11
( +7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
REGION 05 STATE 36 OHIO
REP ORG 013 LAB 427010
POL. CD.
C42401 502
PARS
REGION 05
POL .CD.
AUDITS
8
( 4)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVE
LOW
-29
(-13)
36 OHIO
LEVE
LOW
L 1
UP
+ 19
( + 17)
L 1
UP
r K u
LEVE
LOW
-19
( -4)
D D n
LEVE
LOW
DMD 1 L
L 2
UP
+ 8
( + 12)
BABIL
L 2
UP
i i T L j. n i i :>
LEVEL
LOW
-16
( -7) (
REP ORG
ITY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
+ 9
+ 12)
016
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
LAB 42
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
7012
4
UP
C42401 S02
PARS
4 -16 -16
4) (-25) ( +8)
-19 -17
(-24) (+13)
-20 -20
(-21) (+13)
(continued)
E-79
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
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
C42401 S02 8 -48 +32 -24 +12 -20 +10
PARS ( 26) (-11) ( + 14) (-12) (+11) (-12) ( +9) ( -8) ( +2)
(continued)
E-80
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 06 STATE 32 NEW MEXICO
REP ORG 001 LAB 330001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
rKUBABlLl 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
i Y L i ni i b
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-34 +5
(-16) (+15)
( 30)
REGION 06 STATE 37 OKLAHOMA
-25 +0
(-10) (+10)
-28 +2
( -9) (+10)
-14
5
REP ORG 101 LAB 331001
POL. CD.
C42401 SOZ
PARS
- r KUBAB 1 L i 1 Y Limit)
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
! 4 +7+7 +4 +5 +3 +3
( 2) (-17) ( -6) (-20) ( -6) (-16) ( -9)
(continued)
E-81
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
REGION 09 STATE 05 CALIFORNIA REP ORG 036 LAB 445003
r K UD AD 1 L 1 1 T Lini IS
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 15 -38 +25 -29 +21 -31 +24
PARS ( 6) (-20) ( +7) (-17) ( +9) (-15) (+14)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-31 +26
(continued)
E-82
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
POL.CD,
REGIONAL SUMMARY
42^-01
SULFUR DIOXIDE
REGION
01
PARS
02
PARS
03
PARS
04
PARS
05
PARS
06
PARS
09
PARS
AUDITS
51
( 140)
28
( 239)
84
( 183)
87
( 158)
74
( 61)
18
( 32)
15
( 6)
LEVE
LOW
-10
(-13)
-18
( -9)
-17
(-11)
-23
(-15)
-30
(-14)
-35
(-17)
-38
(-20)
[L 1
UP
+ 5
( + 10),
+ 16
( + 11)
+ 13
( +8)
+ 23
( + 11)
+ 30
( + 13)
+ 17
( + 14)
+ 25
( +7)
r KL
LEVE
LOW
-8
(-11)
-9
( -7)
-10
( -9)
-16
(-12)
-22
(-12)
-27
(-12)
-29
(-17)
JtSAD 1 L 1 1
:L 2
UP
+ 2
( +8)
+ 8
( +9)
+ 11
( +8)
+ 16
( + 12)
+ 17
( + 12)
+ 10
( + 10)
+ 21
( +9)
Y L irii i
LEVE
LOW
-7
(-11)
-5
( -8)
-9
( -8)
-16
(-12)
-25
(-12)
-29
(-11)
-31
(-15)
b
:L 3
UP
+ 2
( +7)
+ 4
( +8)
+ 11
( +8)
+ 15
( + 10)
+ 17
( + 12)
+ 11
(+11)
+ 24
( + 14)
LEVE
LOW
( +0)
( +0)
( -4)
-15
( -6)
( -7)
-14
( +0)
-31
( +0)
\l 4
UP
( +0)
( +0)
( +1)
+ 21
( +4)
( +1)
-5
( +0)
+ 26
( +0)
E-83
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
COMPARISON REPORT OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1984
NATIONAL AVERAGES
PROBABILITY LIMITS
POL.CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 357 -23 +19 -16 +14 -17 +14 -22 +20
PARS C 819) (-13) C+ll) C-12) (+11) (-12) (+10) (-11) ( +9)
E-84
4U.8. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986-646-116/ 4 0 6
------- |