&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

-------