f/EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
          Environmental Monitoring Systems
          Laboratory
          Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1
EPA/600/4-85/031
April 1985
            Research and Development
Summary of
Precision and
Accuracy
Assessments for the
State and Local Air
Monitoring Networks
1982

-------
                                           EPA/600/4-85/031
                                           April 1985
 SUMMARY OF PRECISION AND ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS
FOR THE STATE AND LOCAL AIR MONITORING NETWORKS
                      1982
                       by
                E.  Gardner Evans
     Data Management and Analysis Division
  Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
               Raymond C.  Rhodes
              William J. Mitchell
                 John C. Puzak
           Quality Assurance Division
  Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
      U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
       Office of  Research and Development
  Environmental Monitoring Systems  Laboratory
       Research Triangle Park,  N.C. 2711

-------
                      NOTICE

This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication.  Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
                        11

-------
                                   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 Carolina,
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  Radiation,  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  Air Quality  Standards are being achieved,  and in deter-
mining long-term trends of  air quality.   Prior to the  regulations of May 10,
1979, the procedures   used   in site  selection,   controlling  equipment, and
calculating and  validating  data  varied  considerably among  agencies.  To
improve and make  more uniform the quality  assurance  programs of  the  state
and local  agencies  and to  require  the assessment  and  reporting  of  data
quality estimates for  precision  and  accuracy,  the May 10,  1979  regulations
were issued.  Reporting  of  precision and accuracy  data were required begin-
ning for  calendar year 1981.  A previous  report summarized  the  results for
1981.  This report  summarizes  and evaluates the results for 1982.
                                       'Thomas R. Hauser, Ph.D.
                                              Director
                             Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
                               Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
                                      iii

-------
                                 ABSTRACT

     Precision and  accuracy data  obtained from  State and  local agencies
during 1982 are  summarized and evaluated.  Some  comparisons  are made with
the results previously reported for 1981 to determine the indication of any
trends.  Some trends  indicating improvement in  the  precision and accuracy
of monitoring data are given on a  national and regional basis.  The annual
average results from each reporting organization are given so that compari-
sons may be made  from  1981  to  1982  and  also with other reporting organiza-
tions.

     A comparison  of   the  precision  and  accuracy  from the  Precision and
Accuracy Reporting  System  and  that from  the  independent  performance  audit
program conducted  by   the  Environmental  Monitoring  Systems  Laboratory  is
given.
                                    iv

-------
                                                                   Page
                                 CONTENTS
Foreword .............................

Abs tract .............................   iv

Figures  .............................   vi

Tables ..............................  vii

     1.   Introduction ......................    1
     2.   National Results ....................    4
             National Data Capture ................    4
             1982 Results from the PARS program  .........    4
             National Precision Results Comparison ........    6
             National Accuracy Results Comparison  ........    7
             National Frequencies  ................    7
     3.   Regional Results ....................    9
             Regional Data Capture ................    9
             Regional Comparisons  ................    9
     4.   Results by Reporting Organizations ...........   16
     5.   Further Evaluation of PARS Data  ............   19
             Comparison of National Averages and 50 Percentile
              Values .......................   21
     6.   Comparison of Results from the PARS and the Performance
           Audit Program .....................   28

     7.   Conclusions and Recommendations  ............   34

References ... .................... .....   35

Appendix A - Glossary  ......................  A-l

Appendix B - PARS  ........................  B-l

Appendix Cl - Tabulation of PARS and Performance Audit Data  . .  .  C-l

Appendix C2 - PARS and PA Data for S02 Continuous  ........  C-65

-------
                                 FIGURES


Number                                                               Page

1.  National Precision Averages from 1981 to 1982	   6

2.  National Accuracy Averages from 1981 to 1982	   7

3.  TSP Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981 to 1982	10

4.  Ozone Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981 to 1982 .....  11

5.  Automated NC>2 Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981
      to 1982	   12

6.  Automated SC>2 Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981
      to 1982	   13

7.  Carbon Monoxide Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981
      to 1982	   14

8.  Lead Precision and Accuracy by Region for 1981 to 1982  	  15

9.  Cumulative Frequency Distributions, Precision, Manual Methods .  .  23

10. Cumulative Frequency Distributions, Accuracy (Level 2), Manual
      Methods	24

11. Cumulative Frequency Distributions, Precision, Continuous
      Methods	25

12. Cumulative Frequency Distributions, Accuracy (Level 2),
      Continuous Methods   	  26

13. Comparison of PA and PARS Results by Region	29
                                     vi

-------
                                    TABLES
  Number                                                              Page

  1.   Requirements for Performing Precision Checks  for
         SLAMS Network	     2

  2.   Concentration Levels for Conducting Accuracy
         Audits of SLAMS Network 	     3

  3.   National Percent Data Capture for Required Precision
         and Accuracy	     4

  4.   National Precision and Accuracy Probability Limit  Averages
         for Manual Methods  	     5

  5.   National Precision and Accuracy Probability Limit  Averages
         for Automated Analyzers 	     6

  6.   Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Quarterly Probability
         Limits for all Reporting Organizations  (1982) 	     8

  7.   Total Number of Reporting Organizations Required to  Report
         Pollutant for the Year 1982	     9

  8.   Percentage of SLAMS Sites with Complete Data  in PARS
         for the Year 1982	    10

  9.   Number of Reporting Organizations Having  Data in the PARS
         Master File for the Year 1982	    16

 10.   Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Annual  Averages
         P&A Data for All Reporting Organizations	    17

lla.   The 10 Most Improved Reporting Organizations  for Precision   .    18

lib.   The 10 Most Improved Reporting Organization for Accuracy
         at Level 2	    18

 12.   Comparison of the 50-Percentile Frequency Distribution
         Values with the National Averages 	    19

 13.   Values of Quarterly Probability Limits Considered  as
         Excessive	    27

 14.   Summary Comparison of EMSL Performance Audits (PA) vs.
         PARS Accuracy Audit Data for Year 1982	    32
                                    vii

-------
                               TABLES (cont.)

Number                                                                Page


 Bl.   TSP Precision and Accuracy Annual Averages for
         Reporting Organizations  	   B-l

 B2.   Manual S02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Averages
         for Reporting Organizations  	   B-7

 B3.   Manual N02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Averages
         for Reporting Organizations  . 	   B-8

 B4.   Pb Precision and Accuracy Annual Averages
         for Reporting Organizations  	 ...   B-9

 B5.   CO Precision and Accuracy Annual Averages
         for Reporting Organizations  	  B-12

 B6.   Automated S02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Averages
         for Reporting Organizations  	  B-16

 B7.   Automated N02 Precision and Accuracy Annual Averages
         for Reporting Organizations  	  B-20

 B8.   Ozone Precision and Accuracy Annual Averages
         for Reporting Organizations  	  B-23

 Cl.   PARS and PA Data for CO, Pb, TSP, N02 (Manual) and S02
         (Manual)	   C-l

 C2.   PARS and PA Data for S02 Continuous	C-65
                                    viii

-------
                                 SECTION  1

                               INTRODUCTION
     The purpose  of  this document is to  report  the second year of data  from
the Precision  and Accuracy  Reporting  System  (PARS).    Federal  regulations
promulgated on May 10, 1979, require quality assurance precision and accuracy
(P&A)* data to  be collected.  Collection  started  January 1, 1981, according
to requirements set  forth in 40 CFR Part  58  Appendix A.  These requirements
provide for more  uniform  Quality  Assurance programs  and specific precision
and accuracy reporting requirements across all State  and  local air monitoring
agencies.

     The major portion of  this  report  consists of  summarizations and evalua-
tions of the  P&A  data obtained by the efforts  of  the States and local agen-
cies.  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 Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory (EMSL)  since the early 1970's.

     These summarizations  and  evaluations of precision and  accuracy  data
serve the following purposes:

     1.   Quantitative evaluations of the quality  of  their monitoring data
          are available  to State and local agencies.

     2.   A comparison of  the data from all the agencies  can 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,1 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 measure
of "closeness to the truth."

-------
     Ambient air quality  data,  collected by  States  and local agencies since
1957, have  been  stored in  the  National Aerometric  Data  Bank (NADB).  These
data are  used  in (1) planning  the  nation's  air pollution  control strategy,
(2) determining  if  the National  Air Quality Standards  are  being achieved,
and (3) determining  long-term trends of  air  quality.  Prior  to  the  EPA air
monitoring regulations  of May  10,   1979,  the procedures  used  in selecting
monitoring sites, operating and controlling  the equipment,  and calculating,
validating and reporting  the data varied  considerably among agencies.  Fre-
quently the procedures being used were not well-documented.  These conditions
made it difficult  to intercompare  data from different  sites  and agencies.
Furthermore, little  information  was available  on  the  reliability   of  the
monitoring data.

     To help  alleviate  these  problems,  EPA's  air monitoring  regulations
imposed uniform  criteria  on network design,  siting, quality assurance, moni-
toring methods,  and  data  reporting after December  30,  1980.   For example,
only EPA  reference,  equivalent,  or  other EPA-approved  air monitoring methods
were to be  used.  Also,  calibration standards were to  be  traceable to the
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) or other authoritative standards.  Further,
the quality assurance  systems of the states  were  required  to be documented
and approved by  the  EPA Regional Offices.  Finally, the reporting organiza-
tions must  also  follow specific procedures  when assessing  the  P&A of their
measurement systems  and must  report the P&A data  to EPA quarterly.  Starting
January 1, 1981,  these regulations became effective  for National Air Monitor-
ing Sites (NAMS), and beginning January 1, 1983,  for all State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations.

     The precision assessments were  determined by performing  repeated measure-
ments on ambient-level "calibration" gases at two-week  intervals for continu-
ous methods, or  by  obtaining duplicate  results from collocated samplers for
manual methods.  Table 1 summarizes the requirements for performing 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 Level
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 ng/m3
Level 2
0.15-0.20 ppm
15-20 ppm
1.13-1.70 m3/min
0.033-0.040 ppm
0.046-0.055 ppm
3.5-5.9 p.g/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&A data along with  the routine monitoring
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 assur-
ance 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 CAPTURE

     The second year  of data collected  by State  and  local agencies for P&A
has been compiled and summarized.  Obvious improvements in  the network opera-
tion have been made.   Table 3 shows  the  improvement in data capture for the
nation.

TABLE 3.  NATIONAL  PERCENT  DATA CAPTURE  FOR  REQUIRED  PRECISION AND ACCURACY
Pollutant
CO
S02
N02
03
TSP
1981
77
82
56
83
94
1982
89
93
72
89
97
Relative
% Change
16
13
29
7
3
     The automated N02 analyzers which tend to break down quite often had the
worst percent data capture for the first two years.  However, these analyzers
had the  largest  increase in  data capture  from 1981  to 1982 of  29%,  which
indicates a substantial improvement.  CO had the next largest percent change,
an increase from  77% to  89%.   S02 increased  from 82%  to  93%.   TSP had the
lowest % change between years, but it had very little room for improvement in
collection of the precision and accuracy flow data.

1982 RESULTS FROM THE PARS PROGRAM

    The measures  of  precision and accuracy are  required to  be  computed and
reported by the States  and  local agencies as  percentage values.   For perci-
sion, the  repeatability  for  each  check  is measured  as the  deviation  from
expected values as  a percentage  of  the expected  value.   For  accuracy,  the
deviation of the  audit  value from  the  true value  is  measured  as a percent-
age of  the  true value.   For both precision  and  accuracy,  95 percent prob-
ability limits  are  computed for  the  percentage values  from the  average and
standard deviations of the individual percentage values:
                               D ± 1.96 S
  where D
        S
     1.96
the average of the individual percent differences;
the  standard deviation  of  the individual  percent differences;*
 the  multiplication   factor   corresponding   to  95%  probability.

-------
NOTE:  For the precision of manual methods obtained  from  paired  observations,
       the standard  deviation,  S,  is divided  by /2,  to  obtain  variability
       estimates that apply to individual reported values.

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  presented
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.

     Table 4 exhibits the national averages for each  of the manual  pollutants.
By examining  the numbers  of valid  collocated data pairs  (16,233)  and  the
number of  audits (6461) performed  for TSP, one  can  estimate  the amount  of
effort being spent  in this  country  to obtain  these data  quality assessments.

 TABLE 4.  NATIONAL PRECISION AND ACCURACY PROBABILITY LIMIT AVERAGES
                            FOR MANUAL METHODS




Pollutant
TSP
Lead
Sulfur
Dioxide
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Precision
Number of
Valid Col-
located
Data Pairs
16,233
1,669

706

1,168

Probability
Limits (%)
Lower Upper
-12 +13
-15 +16

-38 +42

-29 +34
Accuracy


No. of
Audits
6,461
692

551

583
Probability Limits (%)

Level 1
Lower Upper
__ „. 	
-11 +08

-13 +08

-07 +08

Level 2
Lower Upper
-07 +07
-07 +04

-09 +07

-07 +06

Level 3
Lower Upper
— . »~.
—

-08 +05

-05 +06
     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 predetermined
concentration levels for  the  chemical analysis performed  in the samples for
lead, sulfur dioxide,  and  nitrogen dioxide.   For the particulate matter, 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  particulate matter.  Because
of the continual replacement of the manual  S02 and  N02 methods with continu-
ous methods,  further discussion  of  the manual methods is limited.   The detailed
results, however,  are  tabulated  in Appendix B  for  each reporting organization.

     The precision and accuracy limits for automated methods are presented in
Table 5.  Apparent  from the number  of  precision checks,  for  example 23,144
for S02, the effort expended  for  the collection  of  quality assurance preci-

-------
sion and accuracy data is appreciable, but necessary to assess  data quality.
Details of the results are discussed in the analysis section.
  TABLE 5.   NATIONAL PRECISION  AND  ACCURACY PROBABILITY  LIMIT  AVERAGES
                         FOR AUTOMATED ANALYZERS




S02
03
CO
NO?
Precision
No. of
Precision
Checks
23,144
18,964
13,089
6,876
Probability
Limits (%)
Lower Upper
-14 +09
-10 +09
-09 +07
-13 +13
Accuracy

No. of
Audits
1,367
1,524
1,208
479
Probability Limits (%)
Level 1
Lower Upper
-16 +10
-12 +10
-11 +10
-21 +17
Level 2
Lower Upper
-12 +09
-09 +08
-06 +06
-14 +10
Level 3
Lower Upper
-12 +09
-09 +08
-06 +05
-12 +07
NATIONAL PRECISION RESULTS COMPARISON

     While this report represents the second year of precision and accuracy
data, it is too early to determine reliably  any  trends  analysis.   However,
some tentative observations can be made.  As can  be  seen  in Figure 1,  some
minor changes have occurred since the  start-up  in 1981.  03 and  CO showed
the most overall  change in precision with  a decrease in the  limit  spread
for both upper and lower  limits.   For TSP and S(>2  the  upper  limits stayed
the same while the lower limit increased from-13 to -12, decreasing overall
variability only  slightly.   The spread  or  variability for NC>2  precision
probability limits  remained  the  same  but  did  exhibit  an  upward  shift,
possibly eliminating a  slight average  bias  which existed the  first  year.
                     NATIONAL  AVERAGES FOR PRECISION
                                 1981  - 1982
           Figure 1.   National Precision Averages  for  1981  to  1982

-------
 NATIONAL ACCURACY RESULTS COMPARISON
     Accuracy  for TSP, which is determined from an air flow measurement on  the
 high volume  sampler,  deteriorated  slightly from 1981 to 1982.  Figure 2 dis-
 plays  the  national  accuracy average for TSP and each of the  three levels  for
 continuous 03, CO,  802, and
          P
          R
          0
          B
          A
          B
          I
          L
          I
          T
          Y
             40-
    30-
    20-
    10-
     0-
L -10-
I
M -20-
I
I -30-
            -40-
                       NATIONAL AVERAGES FOR ACCURACY
                                 1981 -  1982
                          1	1	1
                                              I
                                             ^
                                                              [] 1981
                                                                1982
                                    Level

            Figure 2.  National Accuracy Averages for 1981 to 1982

     For the continuous analyzers, it is obvious from Figure 2 that the first
level of each pollutant has  a  wider  range than the other levels.  This is to
be expected with low concentration values.  Levels 2 and 3 are expected to be
similar to  each  other and  show  less  variability than  level  1,  as expected.

     Examination of Figure 2 demonstrates  the improvements  that have been made
across the country in the accuracy measurements.   For each level of ozone,
the range  of  the limits  have  decreased from  1981  to  1982.  The  same trend
occurs for both  S02  and  CO.  N02 improved dramatically for level  1  measure-
ments, while the range of  the limits for Levels 2 and 3 remained basically the
same.

NATIONAL FREQUENCIES

     Table 6 contains the 1982  frequency distribution for precision probabil-
ity limits and accuracy  probability  limits  at  level 2.  The  frequencies  are
based on the  total  number  of  reporting-organization-quarters of  data.   The
individual quarter of data  consists  of  an upper and  lower  probability limit
for precision,  and upper  and lower probability  limits for accuracy for each of
the levels.  Only level 2 accuracy is  presented because it  is  very similar to

-------
level 3, and level 1  tends to be  inflated  because of low concentration levels.
The narrower the  distribution,  the  better the data quality  assessment.   For
example, for CO, 90% of the precision probability limits reported were witnin
-15% or +16%.   If a reporting  organization  reported limits  outside the -15
or +16  range,  they knew  they  fell  in the worst  10%  percentile.  It  can be
seen from both  Figure  2  and Table 6 that CO  shows  the  tightest  range of the
pollutants presented.
TABLE 6.  CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTIONS  OF QUARTERLY PROBABILITY LIMITS
                   FOR ALL REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS (1982)
Pollutant
Level
TSP
Precision
Frequency Percentiles
95 90

-27 -23
Accuracy(ACC)-17 -13
N02 Cont.
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
S02 Cont.
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
CO
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
S02
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
N02
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
03
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
Pb
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2

-99 -77
-20 -11
-15 -12
-17 -14

-99 -99
-32 -25
-27 -20
-23 -17

-19 -15
-29 -26
-18 -14
-21 -14

-28 -24
-37 -30
-32 -24
-28 -23

-34 -22
-66 -45
-33 -27
-33 -24

-20 -17
-28 -23
-21 -18
-23 -17

-43 -33
-30 -24
-21 -15
Lower
75

-16
- 9

-39
- 8
- 6
- 6

-63
-17
-10
-10

-11
-15
- 9
- 8

-17
-22
-16
-16

-18
-26
-16
-15

-13
-16
-13
-12

-21
-16
-10
Limits
50 25

-10
- 6

-18
- 5
- 4
- 4

-24
-10
- 7
- 5

- 8
- 8
- 5
- 4

-13
-13
-11
-10

-11
-16
-11
- 9

- 9
-11
- 8
- 8

-11
- 8
- 6

- 7
- 3

- 9
- 3
- 2
- 2

— H
- 8
- 3
- 3

- 5
- 4
- 2
- 2

-10
- 7
- 6
- 6

- 7
- 9
- 6
- 5

- 6
- 5
- 4
- 4

- 5
- 3
- 3
10

- 4
- 1

- 4
0
0
0

0
- 5
- 2
- 2

- 3
- 1
0
0

- 7
- 4
- 3
- 2

- 4
- 3
- 2
- 3

- 3
- 1
- 2
- 2

- 1
0
0
5

-2
0

0
0
1
1

0
-3
-1
-1

-2
1
2
1

-5
-1
0
0

-2
0
-1
-1

0
1
1
0

0
1
1
5

3
0

0
0
1
0

0
0
0
-1

0
-3
-2
-1

1
-5
-3
-2

1
-7
-5
-5

2
0
-1
-1

1
-2
-4
10

4
1

2
1
1
1

0
1
0
0

1
- 1
0
0

2
- 1
0
0

3
0
- 2
- 4

3
0
0
0

2
0
- 1
Upper
25 50

7 11
3 6

10 25
4 7
3 5
4 5

9 22
4 6
3 4
2 4

3 6
4 9
3 6
2 4

5 8
3 8
4 8
4 8

6 10
5 13
2 7
0 5

6 8
5 9
3 7
3 6

5 10
3 7
1 4
Limits
75

16
9

65
10
7
6

91
12
9
6

10
16
9
8

12
15
13
13

18
25
15
11

12
14
11
11

20
10
8
90 95

25 33
14 19

90 99
15 23
12 17
9 14

99 99
19 24
16 22
14 17

16 18
22 29
13 17
12 16

17 20
24 28
19 22
18 23

23 28
39 43
27 35
21 32

16 19
21 27
16 22
16 18

32 51
22 26
10 16

-------
                                  SECTION 3

                               REGIONAL RESULTS
REGIONAL DATA CAPTURE

      For the year  1982,  the numbers of  required  reporting organizations by
pollutant are listed  in  Table 7.  Although  the  reporting organizations have
been submitting P&A data for the manual methods (Pb, S02,  and N02) , these data
were not required by  the  regulations to  be reported until 1983.  As shown in
the table, Regions 4 and 5 have the largest number  of reporting organizations.
          TABLE 7.  TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS REQUIRED
                       TO REPORT BY POLLUTANT FOR THE YEAR 1982
Automated
Region
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Nation
CO
C42101
2
3
5
9
11
5
2
2
8
2
49
S02
C42401
6
2
9
9
17
5
7
3
4
2
64
Methods
N02
C42602
1
2
5
2
7
4
3
1
3
1
29

03
044201
4
2
8
16
17
7
7
2
9
2
74
Manual Methods
TSP
111101
6
3
14
24
24
12
11
7
9
5
115
Pb
112128
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S02
142401
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02
141602
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
      The breakdown of data completeness (defined as  the  percentage of report-
ing organizations which reported P&A data to EPA as required each quarter) is
given in Table 8.   For TSP each region's data was 95% complete or better for
the year, except for Region 10 which was 88% complete.  Considering that many
ozone sites do not operate in the winter months, the 89% data completeness is
a very respectable percentage.

REGIONAL COMPARISONS

     In  Figures  3  through  8,  comparisons  are given  by  Region  for  each
pollutant method  of  the precision  and  accuracy probability limits  for  1981
and 1982.  The  results  shown on these  figures  are  the  arithmetic average of
the upper 95% probability  limits  for all reporting  organization-quarters in

-------
each Region  and  the arithmetic  average  of the lower  95% probability limits
for all  reporting  organization-quarters  in  each  Region  for  each  year.
About half  of  the reporting  organizations  in each Region  had  wider limits;
about half had narrower limits than shown.

          TABLE 8.  PERCENTAGE OF SLAMS SITES WITH COMPLETE DATA
                     IN PARS FOR THE YEAR 1982
Automated
Region
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Nation
CO
C42101
100
90
100
88
79
88
67
100
88
100
89
S02
C42401
97
100
98
83
92
94
74
80
86
100
93
Pollutants
N02
C42602
100
100
100
38
58
71
69
88
69
38
72
03
044201
83
100
96
82
87
92
77
100
88
100
89
Manual Pollutants
TSP
111101
100
98
100
99
95
76
95
99
96
88
97
PB S02
112128 142401
—
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
N02
141602

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
NOTE: 	 Means no data was required

     The average precision and accuracy for each Region is  shown  in Figures 3a
and 3b.  The differences in precision  and  accuracy between 1981 and 1982 are
relatively small, except in  a few instances.  More  Regions  show improvement
than do not.   Another year's data are needed to establish any definite trends.
However, it  appears  that   Regions  10  and  2   show  the  most  improvement.
Figure 3a.  Precision
Figure 3b.  Accuracy

38-
10-
8--
10-
38-
TSP PRECISION
1081-1082
1"
D82
J-, fritltf]
	

*** _ B~^
-










-
t" lifl

^ uu

** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
                                       -40
           Figure 3.  TSP precision and accuracy for 1981 to  1982.

                                      10

-------
      No consistent  changes  are  evident in  the variability of the precision
 or the accuracy  results  for TSP.   The apparent biases  in  precision  results
 for Regions 1 and 2,  however, have  improved.
   40-
   38-
   20-
    10-
   -10-
L -20-
I
M _30.

T -40-
                  S02 PRECISION
                    1981-1982
                AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                      81
                                      82
                                   X
 40-

 30-

 28-

 10-

  0-

-10-

-20-

-30-

-40'
                                                      S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 1
                                                           1981-1882
                                                       AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                                                           —\	T
                                                                            X
A
V
G

P
R
0
B
A
B
I
L
   40-
    10-
   -10-

   -20-

   -30-
               S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
                     1981-1982
                AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                      § <"
                                      D 82
                                     X
 40-

 30.

 20

 10

  0

 -10

 -20

 -30

 -40
             S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
                  1981-1982
             AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
Uhln

                                              -•-—P
                   Figure 4.   Ozone precision  and accuracy.

0-^ -  Region  7  showed  the  most  improvement  in  Ozone Precision from 1981,
while Regions 3 and  10 had the next  largest improvement.   Region  2 had the
tightest  probability limits of -10 and +08.  Region 8, which had the tightest
limits of -13 and +05  in  1981  slipped  to  the widest limits of -13 and +10
in 1982.   Using accuracy level  2  as an  indicator,  since level  1  is affected
by the low concentration levels and level  3  is very  similar to level 2, we
                                       11

-------
 can see the  overall improvement in the  data.  Region 7 made  the most improve-
 ment in tightening  their limits  to -08 and  +5.   Region  1  continued to  have
 the tightest limits at  -06 and +06.   Region 10 experienced the worst decline
 in limits  to -16  and  +16.   The poor  performance  in one  State  was the reason
 for the decline.
x -
                                              88-
                                              68-
                  N02 PRECISION
                    1981-1982
               AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                           x -*>•
                                                         N02 ACCURACY LEVEL I
                                                              1981-1982
                                                         AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                                                              X
    88-
    ee-
 p

 5  «-
 B
 *  28-
 D
 I

 T   "'
 Y -28-
 L
 I -40-
 M
 T-88.
 S
 X -68
               N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
                    1981-1882
                AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
       1—i—i—r
                           i—i
i—i—r
"•  X
                                                        N02 ACCURACY LEVEL 3
                                                             1981-1982
                                                         AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                           X  -W
Figure  5.   Automated
                            precision and  accuracy  by Region for  1981 to  1982,
                                          12

-------
 NQ? - NC>2 has only 29 reporting  organizations  nationwide that are required  to
 report PS.A  data.   Three  Regions  have  only  1  reporting organization each.
 Figure 5 depicts  the large variability  experienced by  the  reporting  organi-
 zations.  For  example,  in 1982,  Region 10  had  the best  precision limits  at
 -09 and +08,  but  during 17 audits  had  the worst accuracy limits obtained  by
 any Region.   Regions  8  and 1  showed  the  most  improvement in accuracy, while
 Region 4 was next behind Region  10's  worst.


      Figure 6  shows  the  activity  for   continuous  S02  analyzers.   With the
 exception of  considerable  improvement for accuracy in  Regions  7 and 3, there
 is steady  improvement in  both precision  measurements  and  accuracy measure-
 ments for S02-
A
v
G

p
R
0
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

L
I
M
I
T
S

30-
28-
18-
18-
28-
38-
S02 PRECISION
1981-1982
AUTOMATED ANALYZERS







m
1


i

















1 T
& •&




f\



#








M





-


•&








-

 <

n
[


&



~



&
1





3
fl
[


i
81
82






4&



40-
30-
20-
10-

0-J
10-
•20-
-30-
-40-
S02 ACCURACY LEVEL I



1981-1982



AUTOMATED ANALYZERS













S~l
r


i




ii
U







i







tl




T-J



—


••i—



ffl

B




























i
D






i
81
82

[
-








A
V
e
   48-
   10-
p
R
0
B
A
B
I
I

I

y -18-


L -20-
I
M -30-
               S02 ACCURACY LEVEL 2
                   1981-1982
               AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                   3 81

                                   D82
       i—i—i—r
                   i—r
                             n	r
                                   X
  Figure 6.   Automated  S02  precision and accuracy by Regions  for  1981  to 1982,
                                        13

-------
CO - Carbon monoxide data  for  precision and  the three levels  for accuracy are
shown in  Figure 7.   Overall improvement  is  seen in  both precision  and accu-
racy for CO.  For  precision only, Region 8 showed a large decline in precision
measurements.   However,  the  large negative bias in 1981 does  not persist into
1982.  For  accuracy  every Region  shows improvement  from  the 1981  limits for
CO, with  Region 6 showing  the  most dramatic  improvement.
   40-
A
V
e
   30
P
R
0
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y -10
   20-
    10-
    0-
 I  -20-
 M
 '-30-
 8

 X-40'
             CARBON MONOXIDE PRECISION
                    1981-1882
               AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                     at
                                     82
A  48-
V
G
   30-
P

0  2BH
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y -|0H
                                             10-
                                             0-
                                         L
                                         I -20-|
                                         M

                                         T-30H
                                         S
                                         „ -40-
                                                  CARBON MONOXIDE ACCURACY LEVEL 1
                                                            1881-1982
                                                        AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                                 1^
81

82
                                             40-
                                             30-
                                             20-
                                             10-
          CARBON MONOXIDE ACCURACY LEVEL 2
                   1981-1882
               AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                           x  -«•
                                                   CARBON MONOXIDE ACCURACY LEVEL 3
                                                             1881-1882
                                                         AUTOMATED ANALYZERS
                                                                               81
                                                                               82
                                                          •$»
 Figure 7.  Carbon Monoxide precision and  accuracy by Regions for  1981  to 1982.


 Pb - Lead precision and accuracy  has not  been required for the first  two years
 of the new regulations.  It was required beginning  in 1983.  However, several
 Regions collected  P&A  data in  1981 and  all  Regions  had  some  data  in 1982.
 Figure 8 shows  those Regions.
                                         14

-------
180-

 80-

 90-

 40-

 20-

  0-

-20-

-40-

-00.
B  '
X -«
            -B-
                   LEAD PRECISION
                      1081-1082
                   MANUAL METHODS
                                                 40

                                                 30
  0-

-10-


-28-

-38-
                                                          LEAD ACCURACY LEVEL  I
                                                                1981-1982
                                                             MANUAL METHODS
                                                                                      82
w
                                                                                   X
                      X -«
                                                           *P

      Figure 8.   Lead  precision  and accuracy  by Region  for 1981  to  1982
                                           15

-------
                                 SECTION 4

                     RESULTS BY REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
     Table 9 shows the total number of Reporting Organizations reporting data
to EMSL in  1982.  By  comparing the numbers  between  Tables 7 and  9,  one can
see the extra effort exerted by some of the State and local agencies to provide
quality assurance information.   There  are an  additional 59 reporting organiza-
tions for CO, 49 for continuous 807, 57 for continuous N02, 43 for ozone, and
30 for TSP.   In  addition,  there  are 78  reporting   organizations  reporting
precision and accuracy data for Pb, 34 for manual S02, and 37 for manual N02.
      TABLE 9.
NUMBER  OF  REPORTING  ORGANIZATIONS  HAVING DATA  IN THE  PARS
         MASTER FILE  FOR THE  YEAR 1982
Region
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Nation
CO
C42101
6
3
9
32
18
12
9
5
10
4
108
Automated
S02
C42401
6
3
11
35
22
11
10
4
7
4
113
Pollutants
N02 03
C42602 C44201
3
2
12
29
13
10
5
3
7
2
86
6
3
12
37
24
10
10
3
10
2
117
TSP
111101
6
3
16
37
33
14
12
9
10
5
145
Manual
PB
112128
3
2
4
29
11
9
8
2
6
4
78
Pollutants
S02
142401
0
0
0
27
2
2
0
0
2
1
34
N02
142602
0
0
1
28
2
3
0
0
2
1
37
     Listed in Table 10  are  frequency distributions  of the annual arithmetic
averages for each reporting organization and pollutant.

     To check  on  an individual  reporting  organization's  annual  average and
see how  it  compares  to  all the  other  reporting  organizations,   refer  to
Appendix B for the  individual  reporting organization's average, then compare
those numbers with  the  frequencies listed  in Table 11.  For example, report-
ing organization  48002,  whose  TSP   precision  limits  are -08  and  +08  fall
within the 25 percentiles which  means reporting organization 48002  is in the
best 25th percentile of all reporting organizations.
                                     16

-------
        TABLE 10.   CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTIONS  OF  ANNUAL  AVERAGE
                     P & A DATA FOR ALL REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Pollutant
Level
TSP
Precision
Accuracy(ACC]
CO
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
S02
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
N02
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
03
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
ACC Level 3
Pb
Precision
ACC Level 1
ACC Level 2
Frequency
95

-28
-15

-16
-29
-15
-19

-26
-37
-28
-26

-35
-64
-49
-43

-18
-25
-19
-22

-45
-22
-15
Lower
90 75

-20 -16
-12 - 9

-14 -12
-22 -14
-13 -10
-13 - 8

-24 -17
-33 -21
-21 -16
-20 -15

-23 -17
-48 -28
-32 -18
-24 -16

-17 -13
-20 -16
-16 -12
-16 -12

-22 -22
-19 -16
-14 -10
Limits
50

-11
- 6

- 8
-10
- 6
- 5

-14
-15
-13
-11

-12
-20
-12
-10

— 9
-12
- 8
— H

-10
- 7
- 7
25

- 8
- 4

- 5
- 6
- 3
- 3

-10
-10
- 8
- 8

- 8
-11
- 8
- 7

- 7
- 7
- 5
- 5

- 5
- 4
- 4
10

- 6
- 3

- 4
- 2
- 1
- 2

- 8
- 7
- 6
- 5

- 6
- 5
- 3
- 4

- 5
- 3
- 2
- 3

0
- 2
- 2
Percentiles
5

-5
-2

-3
-1
1
0

-8
-6
-3
-3

-4
-2
-2
-4

-3
-1
-1
-1

0
-1
-1
5

4
2

1
-1
0
0

3
1
4
1

4
-9
-2
-3

4
1
— 1
-1

0
-3
-3
Upper Limits
10 25 50 75

6
3

2
3
2
1

4
2
1
2

6
0
0
0

5
4
1
1

2
0
0

8 11
4 6

5 7
5 8
4 6
3 5

6 8
6 10
5 9
5 9

8 10
6 15
3 6
1 5

6 9
6 9
4 7
4 6

5 12
3 6
1 4

16
10

10
14
8
8

12
14
12
12

16
21
16
12

12
12
10
10

20
10
7
90 95

24 29
14 15

13 16
21 22
11 13
11 13

15 19
21 25
15 17
15 20

21 29
27 49
21 25
18 20

15 19
19 24
15 20
13 17

33 41
16 18
17 12
     Appendix B shows  the  annual  arithmetic averages of  the  upper and lower
probability limits  reported  each  quarter  for  each  reporting  organization.
For some calendar quarters the limits were  more extreme  than  shown;  for some
calendar quarters the limits were  better  than  shown.   Any user of monitoring
data from some  specific site and  time  period  should obtain,  from the local
air monitoring agency, the precision and accuracy data for the specific sites
and time periods involved.

     Many reporting organizations  showed  a  large  improvement  in  their data
from 1981 to  1982.   Tables lla and  lib  show the 10  most  improved reporting
organizations by pollutant for precision  and accuracy,  based on the decrease
in the range of the probability limits.
                                     17

-------
  TABLE lla.   THE  10  MOST  IMPROVED  REPORTING  ORGANIZATIONS FOR  PRECISION
  TABLE lib.

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Manual
Methods
TSP
04002
26002
01012
19001
36005
51001
39003
15003
36002
45003
Automated Methods
CO
29200
28003
42001
10012
06001
50001
26002
36006
36008
46001
0^
29200
36003
03200
23002
36001
46001
36009
44005
06001
01013
NO?
01014
10018
37102
26001
39003
10012
08001
45002
11010
39001
SO?
36003
10002
36007
01012
26001
26005
23002
25100
01013
37101
*tie  15101
      16003

THE  10  MOST  IMPROVED  REPORTING  ORGANIZATIONS  FOR  ACCURACY
                     AT LEVEL  2

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Manual
Methods
TSP
03300
28002
01015
10015
14003
50002
04002
27003
45004
51001
Automated Methods
CO
11010
32001
29200
14001
05036
48001
47001
16002
34001
37103
0-} | NO?
16001
15010
10012
48003
16003
14003
21005
08001
10016
45002
37101
08001
36014
48003
18002
26003
04001
38001
11010
36010
SO?
10016
36007
32002
26001
45002
36006
39003
37102
10002
37101
               **08001 tie
                 23002

Some of  the  decreases in  the ranges  of  the  probability limits  were quite
substantial — as much as  67%.   Although approximately half  of the reporting
organizations actually showed increases,  the  increases were, in general, not
as large as the decreases.
                                     18

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                      FURTHER EVALUATION OF PARS DATA
     Some interesting comparisons can be made by considering  the  correspond-
ing national averages of Tables 4 and 5  and  the  50-percentile values  of  the
probability limits of Table 6.  Table 12 compares these limits by  consider-
ing the spread, or range, of the limits.
     TABLE 12.   COMPARISON  OF  THE  50-PERCENTILE  FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTION
                     VALUES WITH THE NATIONAL AVERAGES

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
Lower
Limit
-12
- 7
-15
- 7
-29
-.7
-38
- 9
- 9
- 6
-10
- 9
-13
-14
-14
-12
Average
Upper
Limit
13
7
16
4
34
6
42
7
7
6
9
8
13
10
9
9
Range
25
14
31
11
63
13
80
16
16
12
19
17
26
24
23
21
50-Percentile
Lower
Limit
-10
- 6
-10
- 7
-18
- 4
-24
- 7
- 8
- 5
- 9
- 8
-11
-11
-13
-11
Upper
Limit
10
6
12
4
25
5
22
4
6
6
8
7
10
7
8
8
Values
Range
20
12
22
11
43
9
46
11
14
11
17
15
21
18
21
19
*All accuracy values for all pollutants are for Level 2.

                                     19

-------
     In all cases Che spreads (ranges) of the probability limits are somewhat
greater for precision  than  for accuracy  and  considerably so  for the manual
S02 and manual  N02 methods.  These  differences  are consistent  for  both the
National averages and the 50-percentile values.   These same relationships also
existed for 1981.  This  means  that  the short-term within-sampler variability
(precision) is larger than the variability  of  accuracy  which includes varia-
tions 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 introduce  variability from  the analytical filter
weighing process, the filter handling  and conditioning  process,  and also the
flow rate measurement process; whereas the  accuracy audit  is a  check only on
the flow  rate  measurement.    Further, the  collocated   sampler   results  are
obtained at all ambient concentrations above 1 ^tg/m^, the detection limit for
the method.  At low  concentration levels  the  relative  variability is greater
than at higher  concentrations.   The  combined  effects  of these  two  causes
explain the wider limits for precision.

     Manual SO? and NO?.  Similar to  the  TSP  data, the  precision results are
obtained from collocated sampler data.   They  introduce variability from the
flow measurement, absorbing solutions, sampling,  sample handling, and storage
effects (stability)  of  the  samples  as  well as  the  laboratory analytical
portion of  the  method;   whereas  the  accuracy  audit is  a  check  only  on the
laboratory analytical portion of the method.  Further,  the collocated 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 portions of
the measurement processes must be much more closely controlled,  if possible.

     Pb.  The precision  estimates for Pb are  obtained  from the analysis of
duplicate strips  from  the same  hi-vol filter.   Consequently,  actual varia-
bility of  Pb  content  across  the length of  the  filter,  filter  handling (with
possible loss of  particulate),  variation  in  cutting filter  strips, and the
extraction of real-world particulate are  involved  in addition to  the chemical
analytical portion of  the method.   The accuracy audit  data are obtained  from
the chemical analysis  of strips  to  which known  amounts  of  water-soluble Pb
salts have  been  added  and thus  do  not  involve  the  other  portions  of the
measurement process, nor do they involve  real-world  particulates.
                                     20

-------
     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 varia-
bilities of the  precision estimates are due  to  differences in  concentration
level or to the larger scope of the measurement system involved.

     Such comparison studies  can be  accomplished  when the raw concentration
data are obtained  from the State  and local agencies for  each  sample day  as
specified by the proposed  regulation  revisions  to  Appendix A of 40 CFR, Part
58.  Now only  the  reporting organizations  could perform  such  studies since
they have the raw data available.

     The estimation  of the  magnitude  of  the  contributions  of  the  various
sources of  variability to the  total  measurement processes could  be  system-
atically studied in specially designed experiments.

CO, SO?, NO?, O^ (Continuous Methods).  For these continuous measurement
methods, the precision assessments  reflect  the  within-instrument variability
obtained from  bi-weekly  checks  at  relatively low   concentrations,  namely
                        8-10 ppm for CO
                        18 -.10 ppm for S02, N02, and 03.
                and   .08

In comparison, the accuracy  audits  include between-instrument variability as
well as  imprecision,  but are  conducted at higher  concentrations  for levels
2 and 3.

         Level 2       15-20 ppra for CO
                      .15 -.20 ppm for S02, N02, and 03.

         Level 3       35-45 ppm for CO
                      .35 -.45 ppm for S02, NC>2, and 03.

     Level 1 accuracy audits are conducted at concentrations of

                      .03 -.08 for CO
                        3 - 8 for S02, N02, and 03.

     At Level  1,  concentrations less  than those  for  the  precision checks,
the probability limits for accuracy are wider than for precision.

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AVERAGES AND 50-PERCENTILE VALUES

     With reference  again to Table  12,  in  all  cases the  spreads  (ranges)
of the  National Average  values  for  both precision and accuracy are greater
than for  the  corresponding  50-Percentile values.   The  most  logical  expla-
nation is that  the National  average values are unduly influenced  by extreme

                                     21

-------
values.  If the distributions  of  the upper probability  limits  and the lower
probability limits  were  near  normal,  as they  should be,  the  50-Percentile
values should closely agree with the National average values.

     An evaluation  of  the  shape of the  distributions does  in fact show that
the distributions are not normal due to an excessive number of extreme values
(i.e., values in the tails  of  the  distribution).   (See  Figures  9 through 12,
which are plots  of  the frequency distributions on probability plotting paper).
If the distributions were  normal,  the plots would  appear  as straight lines.

     All of the distributions  of  the upper and  lower  probability limits are
generally symmetric about zero.  The only exception is for the SC>2 continuous
method, for both precision and accuracy.  This can be observed from the plots
on the normal probability  paper,  Figures  11  and 12.   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  data.  This means
that, on the average, the precision checks resulted in values about 5 percent
less than the assumed concentrations.  No solid explanation can be stated for
this trend.  One  possible  explanation is that  the relatively low concentra-
tions of  SC>2  (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 concentra-
tions of the audit gases.   Again,  it may be  possible that this bias represents
a degradation of  the S02  audit gases.  These  biases  for S02  were  observed
previously in the 1981 data and seem to  be consistent in magnitude and direc-
tion.  No  satisfactory  explanation can  be  provided  at  this time.  However,
this consistent  bias  should  be   investigated  and  corrected,   if possible.

     A review of  Figure 9  clearly shows the large  variability  of precision
data for the manual  methods and,  in particular, the presence of many extreme
values for  the  S02  and  N02 methods.   Figure 12  shows more variability  of
the accuracy audit  results  from the continuous  S02  and  N02  methods than for
CO and 03.

     Based on the plots of  Figures 9  through 12,  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.
                                     22

-------
     i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r
             TSP
             Pb
S°2
                                          LOWER
                                          LIMITS
-90   -80   -70   -60   -50   40   -30  -20   -10   0    10    20   30   40   50   60   70   80   90
                                           percent
              Figure 9. Cumulative frequency distributions, precision, manual methods.

                                       23

-------
           • TSP
           • Pb
           A NO?
                                         LOWER
                                         LIMITS
                      •    •
                                          UPPER
                                          LIMITS
                      I
40        -30         -20         -10         0         10         20         30          40

                                         percent


  Figure 10. Cumulative frequency distributions, accuracy (level 2), manual methods.

-------
          "1
           • CO
           • 03
           A N02
                                       LOWER
                                       LIMITS
                             ••
                 • A    •

             •      m
                                           UPPER
                                           LIMITS
40         -30        -20         -10         0          10         20         30         40

                                          percent


       Figure 11. Cumulative frequency distributions, precision, continuous methods.

-------
           • CO
           • 03
           AN02                         LOWER
           * S02                         LIMITS

                                          m  •
                                    *••
                             •   •
                                         UPPER
                                         LIMITS
40        -30         -20         -10         0         10         20          30         40
                                         percent

    Figure 12. Cumulative frequency distributions, accuracy (level 2), continuous methods.

-------
TABLE 13.  VALUES OF QUARTERLY PROBABILITY LIMITS CONSIDERED AS EXCESSIVE

Manual Methods
TSP
Pb
NO 2
SO 2
Continuous Methods
CO
03
N02
SO?
Precision Limits
± 30
± 45
± 60
± 70
± 19
± 20
± 31
± 24
Level

+ 28
± 22
± 28
± 29
± 28
± 50
± 33
Accuracy
1 Level
± 18
± 19
± 16
± 25
± 18
± 22
± 34
± 27
Limits
2 Level 3

	
± 15
± 20
± 18
± 20
± 32
± 25
                                27

-------
                                 SECTION 6

   COMPARISON OF  RESULTS  FROM  THE PARS  AND  THE  PERFORMANCE  AUDIT PROGRAM
     A general comparison between  the  accuracy data of  the  PARS program and
the Performance Audit  (PA)  data is included in  this  report.   The audit data
are the  results  of  an  independent  check,  the  National  Ambient Air  Audit
Program, conducted  by  the  Quality  Assurance Division  (QAD)  of the  EMSL.
Blind samples  are  sent  to  laboratories  that  perform  the  State and  local
agencies' analyses.   The samples  are  analyzed and results  are  sent  to QAD
where they are evaluated.

     Since precision  assessments  are  not  made  in   the  PA  program,  only
accuracy can be  compared across the PARS and  the  PA  programs.   For the pur-
pose of  this  report, the results  from PARS  and the  PA system  are  compared
at approximately  the  same  levels  by  matching laboratories  and  reporting
organizations.  Since  the  PARS  data  are  presented with  outliers,  the same
approach was taken with the audit  data.   Knowledge of  the  historical audit
data reports,  however,  indicates  that  the presence  of  outliers may  make  a
significant difference in the average audit results for  the PA.

     Comparisons of the national averages of the  probability  limits (Table 14)
exhibit good  agreement   between  the  results  of  the two programs.   However,
there is considerable variation between the results of  the two programs when
comparisons are made  on Regional  and  reporting  organization bases.   Lack  of
better agreement  results  from  several factors.   First,  the  inclusion   of
outlier values  in the  PA  data appears  to  have  introduced  some  excessive
distortion of general trends.   Second,  even though  the PARS averages in Table
14 are  weighted  by the  number  of  audits,  variations due  to  many sources  of
error for both data sets are averaged together to obtain the national averages,
thereby masking  any  correlations  which may  have existed  for  the results  of
individual agencies.  Third,  the concentration levels for the two systems  do
not coincide exactly at each of  the audit levels.  Fourth,  the  PA  data are  the
results of  independent  external  audits,  while  the  PARS  accuracy  data  are
based on the results  of  independent internal audits.  The  expected effects  of
the last-mentioned factor would cause  the spread of the limits  for the PA  to
be wider than  that for  the PARS.   Examination of  the results (see Table  14)
confirm  these expectations.

     Comparisons of  the  PA  and  the PARS results by Region are shown  in Figures
13a through  f.   The  figures  show  considerable  variation  among  Regions.

CO.  For  a given  Region the width  of the probability  limits is nearly  the
"same for  PA  and  PARS,  except  for  Region  2, where  PARS is  less  than  PA;
Region 8,  where  PARS  is less  than PA; and  Region 3,  where PARS is  greater
than PA.
                                       28

-------
i
If
12
10
8
6
4
2
o
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
•—
~~~
—
—




T

T
1
1
i -
i
*

TPA TPARS











J













J
L







1





L
,







r •





-





1
T
•






•*•



T
•










i
*»
•<


T






1
•


CO _
_
_
T _
TT T ~
T ~

—
j. X _
1 X _
—
i
	

23456
                REGION
                                                      10
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
—
—
— '
—
•
.
' —
—
—






TSP _
«
T
•
i

T
i
X
»
•
•
I
•T
1
«^»
T ]
i

rj n
j
1
J_
.
-T
i

-1-


•
T
i
X
•
T -
i _
I
i -

—
—

8
                                        10
             234     56
                             REGION
      Figure 13b. Comparison of PA and PARS for TSP (level 2).
                                29

-------
dU
20
10
§ n
1

-10
-20
-30


•

TT
Ji

—
—

1 2 3
N02
—

I IT I
! .U *
i

TPA j PARS ~~

45 6 7 8 9 10
                        REGIONS
Figure 13c. Comparison of PA and PARS for manual NC^devel 3).

10

0
-10
-20

__
T

i
i
*^
20 1234
S02
^^

T
I1

5 6 7 8 9 10
                         REGIONS
Figure 13d. Comparison of PA and PARS for manual SC>2 (level 3).
JU
20

10

-10
-20
-30
40
.en
311

—

—

—
•
—
—




• •

T
JL
•



1


J
1
j
1



•
2
' •



T
i
a.
•



3





J
p



4





L









T
1
j
1




5




T
1
.J_




6
Pb
—

T -
< TT IT
fc 1
s \ i
I i 1
J.
—
—

7 8 9 10
                         REGIONS
    Figure 13e. Comparison of PA and PARS for Pb (level 3).
                            30

-------
i/U
40
30
20

10
I o
0)
-10

-20
-30
-40
-50

—
—


T
i
T 1
T1 T1
II ll
_ J- -*•










1
1
1
1
J.
























T
1
1
1
1
1
J,









T
i
i
1
l
-L.



I" I

S02
—
—

T ~~
1
1 _
1
1
'
± 	
	

—
—
PARS _

        1     2345678     9    10
                             REGION

Figure 13f. Comparison of PA and PARS for continuous SC>2(level 3).
                              31

-------
     TABLE 14.   SUMMARY  COMPARISON  OF  EMSL  PERFORMANCE  AUDITS  (PA)  vs
                   PARS ACCURACY AUDIT DATA FOR YEAR 1982
Pollutant &
Method Code
CO
PA
PARS
N02
PA
PARS
S02
PA
PARS
LEAD
PA
PARS
HIV
PA
PARS
S02 (Cont)
PA
PARS
Audits

1704
(1122)

127
( 526)

130
( 445)

377
( 529)

2860
(5475)

363
( 656)
National Averages
Probability Limits (%)
Level 1
Lower Upper

-17 +12
(-15) (+15)

-24 +21
(-11) (+12)

-32 +22
(-18) (+11)

-37 +35
(-16) (+11)




-27 +21
(-19) (+14)
Level 2
Lower Upper

- 7 +8
(- 7) (+ 8)

-20 +15
(- 8) (+ 9)

• 21 +20
(-12) (+ 8)

-24 +20
(-11) (+ 8)

-13 +12
(- 7) (+ 7)

-25 +21
(-17) (+13)
Level 3
Lower Upper

- 7 +7
(- 7) (+ 7)

-25 +19
(- 7) (+ 7)

-15 + 2
(-10) (+ 7)

-22 +14





-25 +21
(-16) (+13)
Level 4
Lower Upper


(- 3) (+ 3)

-23 +16


-13 + 9








-22 +20
(-16) +12)
     Region 6 probability limits for both PA  and PARS  are  considerably wider
than for other regions.  Region 8's PA  limits  are wider than all other regions
except for Region 6.

Hi Vol.  The  width  of the  probability limits for PARS  is,  for  all Regions
except 7, less  than for  PA.  This may be  explained  by the fact  that  within
each reporting organization the  flow  rate  checks are not  as  completely inde-
pendent from their  internal standards  as are  the PA  audits.   Regions 2 and 9
have more variability than other Regions.

NO? (manual).  The wide variability of the PA for Region 4 needs explanation.
Also, for Region  6  the  considerable  difference  in PA  and  PARS limits  should
somehow be explained.

SO? (manual).   For  PA  results  there  is  a definite  negative bias  for  both
Regions 4 and  5.  This bias does not exist for PARS.  A possible explanation
is that  for PA  the samples  are  prepared  at  EMSL/RTP and  some  degradation
of the  samples occurs  prior  to  analysis  is the  SLAMS   laboratories.   For
PARS the standards  are prepared  locally and  analyzed soon after preparation.

Pb.  There  is  considerable  variation  in the  results  from Region to Region.
However, for  all  Regions, the PARS variability is considerably less than for
PA.  This may  be  explained  by the fact that  the local independently-prepared
                                      32

-------
standards for PARS  have  close traceability  to  the  materials  used  for cali-
bration, whereas the  standards  for PA, since they  are  prepared at EMSL/RTP,
are more  completely independent.   There  appears to  be no  significant bias
in either the PA or the PARS results.

     Regions 3,  4 ,  and 5 PA results have much more variability than for other
regions.

SO? (Continuous) -  Regions 4 and  6 show  considerably  more  variation of PA
results than other Regions.  Region 4 PA results are wider due to the  results
from laboratories in  two particular  reporting  organizations  in  the   Region.
The PARS  data  show  nearly the  same variability across  Regions  except  for
Region 1 which has  less variability.

     All Regions, except  2  and  3,  show a slight negative  bias  for  both PA
and PARS  data,  similar  to  the  negative  biases for  the  manual  S02  method.
                                     33

-------
                                 SECTION 7

                      CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
     The results of PARS data for 1982 indicate some general improvement over
the data for 1981.  However, considerable differences exist among Regions and
individual reporting organizations for  most  measurement methods.  Investiga-
tions should be made  to  determine the  causes of these significant differences.

     Comparison of PARS  and PA  data  show more  variability  of the  PA data
than for PARS.   These  differences are  presumably  due  to the  fact  that the
external PA accuracy audits are more  completely independent than the internal
PARS accuracy audits.

     Further improvement in the  data  quality  assessments,  which are measures
of the  monitoring data  quality,  can  be  achieved  only through  continuing
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 organizations
having excessively  large  variations  of  probability  limits.   Investigation
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 preci-
sion and  accuracy results  in  order  to identify  specific procedures   which
should be uniformly  used  throughout  the  Region  and  the  Nation  to  further
improve the  reliability of  the monitoring  data  in the  National  Aerometrlc
Data Base.
                                      34:

-------
                                 REFERENCES
1.   Code of Federal Regulations,  Title 40,  Part 58,  "Ambient Air Quality
     and Surveillance."

2.   Lampe, R.L., B.F. Parr,  B.I.  Bennett, G.  Pratt,  and W.J. Mitchell.
     "National Performance Audit Program:   Ambient Air Audits  of  Analytical
     Proficiency-1982."  U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency  Report,  EPA
     600/4-84-005.  Research  Triangle Park,  NC 27711.   January 1984.

3.   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.
                                    35

-------

-------
                                 APPENDIX A

                                  GLOSSARY
Reporting Organization — a  state, or  subordinate organization within  the
state that  is  responsible  for a set of  SLAMS  stations,  monitoring for  the
same pollutant  and  for which PARS data  can be  logically  pooled (statis-
tically combined).  It  is  important to emphasize  that a reporting organi-
zation is pollutant- and site-specific and is responsible for the  sampling,
calibration, analysis, data quality  assessment,  and reporting of  the moni-
toring data for  the  specific  pollutant.  It is  possible that a particular
SLAMS station may  belong  to two  different reporting organizations, but  the
likelihood of this occurring  is small.

Precision (Continuous Analyzers) — a measure of repeatability obtained from
actual concentration in a gas cylinder and the values indicated by the ana-
lyzer.  For  S02,  N02,  and 03  analyzers  the  gas  concentration  used   for
the precision  check  must  be  between 0.08  and  0.10 ppm  and  for  CO it must
be between 8 and 10 ppm.  The data from all  biweekly analyzer checks for a
given pollutant are  combined  and  95% probability  limit  values  reported to
EPA each  quarter  by  each  reporting  organization.   For this  report,   the
quarterly values for  1982  were  averaged and overall 95% probability limits
were calculated for each  reporting organization, for each Regional Office,
and for the entire SLAMS network.

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
estimates are  obtained by analyzing  duplicate  strips  from  a  high volume
filter sample  collected  at   a  site  where  high Pb  concentrations  exist.
These precision checks  are made  weekly and reported  quarterly.   The data
from the manual methods were calculated  in a similar manner as the  automated
(continuous) analyzers for this report.

Accuracy (Continuous  Analyzers) — the agreement between an  analyzer result
and a known audit  concentration.   Accuracy estimates are obtained once  per
year for each analyzer by introducing blind audit materials  into the analy-
zer.  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 checked
each quarter.   The  percentage difference  Eor  each  audit  concentration is
determined and the average for all analyzers checked within  that quarter is
calculated for each level.  The  standard deviation  for  each level is then
used to calculate the 95% probability limits for the reporting organization
which in turn are  submitted quarterly  to EPA.  These quarterly averages were
used to compile the annual averages presented here.   They were calculated in
the same manner as described earlier for precision.
                                    A-l

-------
Accuracy (Manual Methods) — the agreement  between an observed value and a
known or reference  value.   For NC>2  and S02 manual methods, the accuracy of
the analytical  portion  of  the  method is  assessed at three  levels  by the
analysis of known  audit  materials.   For Pb, the accuracy of the analytical
portion of the  method  is assessed at  two  levels.   For TSP,  the  flow rate
(or air volume) portion of  the method  is assessed  at  the nominal flow rate.

Completeness — the number of the precision and accuracy checks reported as
compared to the number that should  have been reported  if all checks had been
done.  This value,  expressed as a percentage,  is not corrected for instances
where equipment failure prevented conducting the check, or for periods when
monitoring data were invalidated.  Thus, it may not necessarily reflect the
overall capabilities or total effort of a reporting organization

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 performance
to that of  all  other participants.  The use of audit materials for  the manual
S02 audits (_f.reeze-dried SCU) , manual  NO-, audits (NaN02 solution), and par-
ticulate SO^,  NO^,  and  Pb audits  (spiked filter strips) evaluates  only
the analytical  proficiency of  the  laboratory.   The  reference  flow device
used in  the  TSP sampler  audit  evaluates  only  the   accuracy  of  the  flow
calibration.  However, the  CO  and S02 continuous  analyzer audits evaluate
the entire  measurement   system.   As  explained  above,  the external  NAAAP
audits are conducted in  essentially the same manner  as the internal audits
(accuracy checks) for the PARS  program.  The audits  for  the manual methods
and CO analyzer  are conducted  semiannually and  those  for flow  (TSP)  and
continuous S02 monitors are conducted  once per year.
                                    A-2

-------
                                         APPENDIX B
                  TABLE  Bl.  TSP PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL AVERAGES FOR
                                   REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Reporting
Organization
07001
**CT
20001
**ME
22001
**MA
30001
**NH
41001
**RI
47001
**VT
31001
**NJ
33001
**NY
40001
**PR
08001
**DE
09001
**DC
21001
21002
21003
21005
21006
**MD
39001
39002
39003
**PA
Required
No.
SLAMS*
019
019
009
009
008
008
016
016
005
005
005
005
023
023
099
099
005
005
006
006
005
005
014
005
002
004
002
027
061
Oil
012
084
Sites
No.
NAMS
025
025
001
001
017
017
001
001
006
006
001
001
009
009
027
027
007
007
003
003
004
004
006
000
001
001
001
009
033
007
004
044
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
157
157
106
106
105
105
112
112
135
135
99
99
109
109
242
242
34
34
107
107
113
113
88
109
101
117
106
521
122
139
115
376
-08
-08
-13
-13
-09
-09
-12
-12
-07
-07
-05
-05
-07
-07
-16
-16
-06
-06
-15
-15
-05
-05
-10
-08
-04
-06
-06
-07
-15
-10
-19
-15
Limits
Up
+09
+09
+13
+13
+14
+14
+08
+08
+11
+11
+08
+08
+07
+07
+10
+10
+03
+03
+15
+15
+12
+12
+09
+09
+04
+12
+05
+08
+18
+09
+16
+15
No.
Audits
148
148
32
32
40
40
32
32
17
17
28
28
12
12
38
38
36
36
15
15
10
10
46
12
13
11
12
94
121
212
12
345
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Low Up Low Up Low Up
-08
-08
-04
-04
-09
-09
-08
-08
-05
-05
-06
-06
-01
-01
-02
-02
-06
-06
-13
-13
-09
-09
-09
-05
-10
-11
-07
-08
-09
-04
-12
-08
+03
+03
+09
+09
+10
+10
+07
+07
+04
+04
+04
+04
+01
+01
+05
+05
+05
+05
+14
+14
+07
+07
+08
+01
+13
+11
+07
+08
+12
+05
+08
+08
*SLAMS - State and Local Air Monitoring Sites, not including National Air Monitoring
   Sites (NAMS).  Actually, NAMS are a subset of SLAMS.  For example, for Reporting
   Organization 07001, there is a total of 44 SLAMS, of which 25 are NAMS.
**Two-letter state abbreviations.          _ 1
                                           D-l

-------
TABLE  Bl.  (cont.)
Reporting
Organization
48001
48002
48003
48005
**VA
50001
50002
**WV
01011
01012
01013
01014
01015
01016
**AL
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
**FL
11010
**GA
18001
18002
18003
**KY
25100
**MS
Required
No.
SLAMS
032
001
016
000
049
012
007
019
026
008
004
006
009
000
053
013
005
006
008
000
004
000
007
015
005
002
002
009
008
010
093
040
040
040
008
000
048
014
014
Sites
No.
NAMS
017
001
000
002
020
007
004
Oil
006
006
003
002
000
000
017
000
000
001
000
000
000
000
004
002
002
000
000
000
002
003
014
Oil
Oil
006
006
000
012
004
004
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
157
106
157
111
531
43
94
137
200
99
86
145
110
16
656
114
98
92
113
100
117
117
130
113
114
108
91
110
96
114
1,627
229
229
425
50
14
489
148
148
-07
-08
-08
-09
-08
-03
-22
-12
-28
-18
-12
-10
-07
-35
-16
-10
-18
-10
-18
-16
-09
-15
-13
-10
-26
-08
-13
-11
-09
-09
-13
-16
-16
-20
-08
-37
-17
-17
-17
Limits
Up
+ 10
+08
+07
+09
+08
+15
+06
+10
+04
+22
+10
+08
+09
+28
+11
+10
+13
+03
+08
+16
+08
+16
+12
+10
+17
+10
+16
+08
+09
+11
+11
+11
+11
+17
+08
+58
+17
+13
+13
No.
Audits
51
9
23
9
92
12
10
22
40
298
8
8
112
0
366
38
5
15
10
17
12
4
80
22
29
14
7
14
13
90
370
52
52
85
21
0
106
27
27
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Low Up Low Up Low Up
-05
-02
-07
-01
-04
-10
-04
-07
-04
-04
-07
-04
-10

-06
-07
-03
-09
-05
-12
-03
-04
-10
-10
-03
-14
-21
-03
-04
-06
-07
-06
-06
-14
-03

-08
-10
-10
+04
+11
+04
+00
+05
+04
+07
+06
+09
+04
+04
+07
+17

+08
+04
+02
+04
+03
+11
+08
+03
+10
+14
+02
+18
+13
+04
+07
+07
+07
+05
+05
+18
+05

+11
+11
+11
                                             B-2

-------
TABLE  Bl.  (cont.)
Reporting
Organization
34001
34002
34003
34004
**NC
42001
**sc
44001
44002
44003
44004
44005
44006
**TN
14001
14002
14003
**IL
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15006
15007
15008
15009
15010
**IN
23001
23002
**M1
24001
**MN
36001
36002
36003
36004
36005
36006
36007
36008
Required
No.
SLAMS
057
007
006
005
075
010
010
022
005
008
007
007
000
049
045
008
Oil
064
037
002
007
000
009
000
000
000
000
009
064
070
014
084
049
049
010
008
016
018
005
009
007
031
Sites
No.
NAMS
004
002
002
001
009
008
008
003
007
005
002
004
000
021
022
004
001
027
010
003
003
000
001
000
000
000
000
000
017
016
005
021
Oil
Oil
005
003
002
000
000
004
005
007
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
408
79
90
76
653
293
293
171
105
113
96
122
0
607
162
194
74
430
104
110
51
41
112
22
0
110
108
47
705
211
95
306
132
132
108
87
171
88
102
101
108
114
-13
-12
-09
-11
-11
-09
-09
-08
-17
-05
-07
-06

-09
-23
-09
-19
-16
-07
-03
-06
-05
-11
-13

-08
-07
-06
-07
-08
-10
-09
-13
-13
-06
-13
-19
-29
-13
-11
-10
-04
Limits
UP
+14
+11
+07
+31
+15
+11
+11
+06
+20
+09
+09
+06

+10
+25
+25
+10
+20
+12
+10
+09
+22
+15
+11

+06
+07
+14
+11
+15
+12
+13
+08
+08
+09
+14
+24
+11
+23
+03
+09
+13
No.
Audits
256
19
59
10
344
355
355
189
55
90
44
100
35
513
57
20
30
107
38
2
32
4
14
0
0
16
8
8
122
35
24
59
70
70
17
12
23
17
10
17
19
40
Accuracy
Level 1 Level
Low Up Low
-05
-19
-04
-02
-08
-03
-03
-09
-08
-05
-06
-06
-09
-07
-12
-10
-09
-10
-03
-02
-05
-02
+03

-10
-01
-03
-06
-03
-03
-04
-04
-10
-10
-07
-08
-09
-08
-11
-04
-03
-05
2 Level 3
Up Low Up
+04
+26
+09
+16
+14
+03
+03
+14
+08
+09
+05
+06
+13
+09
+09
+05
+10
+08
+06
+04
+08
+03
+07

+00
+02
+03
+02
+04
+08
+05
+07
+13
+13
+06
+03
+03
+15
+04
+08
+06
+04
                                             B-3

-------
TABLE  Bl.  (cont.)
Reporting
Organization
36009
36010
36012
36013
26014
36015
36016
**OH
51001
**WI
04002
**AR
19001
**LA
32001
32002
**NM
37101
37102
37103
**OK
45001
45002
45003
45004
45005
45006
45007
**TX
16001
16002
16003
**IA
17001
**KS
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
Required
No.
SLAMS
022
Oil
012
019
016
009
010
203
066
066
023
023
028
028
041
007
048
018
006
005
029
014
002
005
004
004
006
002
037
006
002
030
038
012
012
014
006
005
004
006
Sites
No.
NAMS
005
007
001
001
002
004
005
051
016
016
003
003
007
007
000
004
004
002
003
003
008
030
004
002
002
000
004
002
044
003
003
008
014
008
008
003
003
003
003
002
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
312
98
103
120
117
53
118
1,800
120
120
177
177
106
106
212
122
334
85
111
89
285
182
114
111
109
90
7
119
732
60
0
114
174
104
104
0
0
0
0
0
-19
-10
-10
-10
-20
-15
-17
-14
-10
-10
-22
-22
-11
-11
-18
-13
-16
-16
-16
-08
-14
-15
-26
-13
-10
-15
-25
-02
-14
-47
-09
-10
-17
-17
-17
-15
-36
-20
-11
-06
Limits
Up
+17
+11
+14
+08
+08
+14
+10
+12
+10
+10
+28
+28
+16
+16
+12
+10
+11
+34
+08
+10
+18
+18
+15
+17
+24
+05
+35
+03
+15
+54
+11
+16
+22
+24
+24
+18
+47
+16
+13
+03
No.
Audits
39
29
17
20
19
18
24
321
16
16
105
105
144
144
257
23
280
20
12
27
59
502
52
72
33
33
62
39
793
16
15
48
79
33
33
20
10
15
6
12
Accuracy
Level 1 Level
Low Up Low
-05
-08
-09
-06
-06
+03
-04
-06
-04
-04
-07
-07
-06
-06
-05
-07
-06
-06
-04
-06
-05
-08
-09
-06
-14
-07
-08
-03
-08
-29
-03
-04
-13
-12
-12
-06
-06
-17
-02
-04
2 Level 3
Up Low Up
+07
+11
+06
+05
+03
+14
+03
+06
+07
+07
+06
+06
+04
+04
+06
+07
+06
+08
+03
+11
+07
+06
+07
+06
+21
+05
+13
+02
+08
+14
+06
+04
+08
+12
+12
+05
+05
+11
+07
+02
                                             B-4

-------
TABLE  Bl.  (cont.)
Reporting
Organization
**MO
28001
28002
28003
*NB
06001
**CO
27001
27002
27003
27004
**MT
35001
**ND
43001
**SD
46001
**UT
52001
**WY
03100
03200
03300
**AZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
**CA
12120
**HI
29200
29300
**NV
02020
**AK
Required
No.
SLAMS
035
019
004
009
032
048
048
022
004
003
005
034
020
020
021
021
007
007
012
012
025
003
007
035
032
009
004
013
058
010
010
010
008
018
Oil
Oil
Sites
No.
NAMS
014
000
003
003
006
013
013
001
000
001
000
002
001
001
002
002
008
008
001
001
000
005
004
009
025
009
003
009
046
002
002
002
003
005
003
003
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
0
148
81
106
335
152
152
118
52
46
125
341
100
100
97
97
97
97
148
148
75
82
0
157
529
115
112
193
949
95
95
101
15
116
13
13
-17
-15
-11
-10
-12
-30
-30
-16
-08
-15
-20
-15
-11
-11
-09
-09
-10
-10
-12
-12
-11
-07
-08
-08
-27
-11
-12
-11
-15
-17
-17
-08
-06
-07
09
09
Limits
Up
+20
+29
+13
+09
+17
+32
+32
+22
+10
+19
+23
+18
+08
+08
+07
+07
+12
+12
+10
+10
+27
+20
+18
+21
+29
+08
+12
+14
+16
+09
+09
+07
-01
+03
+10
+10
No.
Audits
63
20
11
20
51
48
48
44
8
4
15
71
23
23
77
77
28
28
13
13
14
32
16
62
71
56
7
30
164
50
50
63
5
68
1
1
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Low Up Low Up Low Up
-07
-11
-11
-09
-10
-08
-08
-06
-03
-04
-17
-08
-09
-09
-04
-04
-05
-05
-03
-03
-15
-11
-10
-11
-12
-07
-17
-14
-11
-07
-07
-05
+02
-03


+06
+14
+10
+05
+09
+06
+06
+05
+07
+08
+21
+10
+06
+06
+04
+04
+05
+05
+06
+06
+09
+10
+15
+12
+10
+04
+07
+10
+08
+06
+06
+06
+10
+07


                                           B-5

-------
Table Bl.  (cont.)
Reporting
Organization
13001
13002
**ID
38001
**OR
49001
**WA
Required
No.
SLAMS
015
015
030
028
028
019
019
Sites
No.
NAMS
002
002
004
009
009
013
013
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
80
82
162
331
331
149
149
-08
-08
-08
-13
-13
-13
-13
Limits
Up
+07
+06
+06
+13
+13
+09
+09
No.
Audits
33
26
59
372
372
29
29
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-04
-06
-05
-05
-05
-03
-03
+03
+02
+02
+06
+06
+05
+05
Level 3
Low Up



                                             B-6

-------
TABLE  B2.   MANUAL S02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL AVERAGES
             FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Reporting
Organization
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10012
10013
10014
10017
**FL
18002
**KY
34001
34002
34003
34004
**NC
36009
36012
**OH
32001
**NM
12120
**HI
Required Sites
No . No .
SLAMS NAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
15
5
0
74
0
7
3
14
2
10
130
53
53
121
184
81
17
403
0
0
0
86
86
34
34
-25
-99

-27

-24
-08
-20
-73
-17
-30
-90
-90
-14
-41
-92
-10
-46



-02
-02
-29
-29
Limits
UP
+30
+99

+35

+36
+04
+16
+99
+27
+37
+99
+99
+14
+52
+77
+08
+43



+02
+02
+42
+42
No.
Audits
12
3
4
12
8
11
28
10
35
43
166
58
58
20
36
58
6
120
46
59
105
41
41
61
61
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-10
-03
-02
-12
-06
-19
-10
-07
-23
-28
-13
-10
-10
-11
-30
-16
-17
-19
-11
-08
-09
-09
-09
-08
-08
+07
+03
+04
+07
+09
+15
+06
+19
+11
+03
+09
+12
+12
+06
+18
+03
+05
+08
+04
+06
+05
+14
+14
+01
+01
-07
-01
-03
-10
-11
-25
-06
-05
-11
-17
-10
-03
-03
-12
-21
-09
-18
-14
-06
-05
-05
-04
-04
-04
-04
+04
+01
+06
+10
+09
+16
+04
+11
+05
+01
+07
+05
+05
+00
+12
+05
+23
+09
+04
+04
+04
+07
+07
+01
+01
Level 3
Low Up
-07 +04
-02 +00
-03 +06
-06 +06
-13 +10
-15 +06
-05 +02
-06 +16
-08 +05
-15 +02
-08 +06
-02 +04
-02 +04
-14 +02
-18 +12
-07 +06
-12 +16
-12 +08
-05 +04
-04 +03
-05 +04
-06 +05
-06 +05
-03 +01
-03 +01
                          B-7

-------
TABLE  B3.   MANUAL N02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL AVERAGES
                 FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Reporting
Organization
48003
**VA
10001
10004
10005
10006
10012
10017
**FL
18002
**KY
34001
34002
34003
34004
**NC
44003
**TN
36009
36012
**OH
19001
**LA
32001
**NM
45005
**TX
Required
No.
SLAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Sites
No.
NAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
96
96
80
56
5
23
12
83
259
58
58
128
238
88
42
496
25
25
0
0
0
105
105
85
85
44
44
-11
-11
-24
-21
-09
-15
-04
-06
-15
-78
-78
-22
-54
-13
-78
-43
-08
-08



-27
-27
+00
+00
-47
-47
Limits
Up
+14
+14
+27
+50
+13
+30
+06
+09
+24
+78
+78
+25
+66
+10
+83
+47
+13
+13



+17
+17
+00
+00
+84
+84
No.
Audits
28
28
12
11
8
11
25
58
125
56
56
17
50
57
12
136
29
29
44
59
103
11
11
46
46
49
49
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low. Up Low. Up
-06
-06
-02
-02
-05
+00
-03
-07
-03
-26
-26
-07
-13
-06
-08
-08
-07
-07
-03
-08
-05
-06
-06
-06
-06
-04
-04
+05
+05
+04
+12
+10
+03
+04
+10
+07
+23
+23
+03
+12
+10
+12
+09
+08
+08
+06
+04
+05
+03
+03
+09
+09
+08
+08
-04
-04
-01
-01
-08
-03
-03
-05
-03
-14
-14
-06
-12
-01
-12
-08
-05
-05
-04
-04
-04
-03
-03
-02
-02
-08
-08
+05
+05
+04
+09
+07
+04
+05
+06
+06
+14
+14
+02
+10
+06
+08
+07
+03
+03
+05
+03
+04
+01
+01
+04
+04
+09
+09
Level 3
Low . Up
-04 +05
-04 +05
-02 +05
-01 +08
-04 +06
-04 +04
-03 +04
-05 +05
-03 +05
-11 +05
-11 +05
-05 +00
-12 +11
-01 +06
-16 +14
-09 +08
-04 +-5
-04 +-5
-04 +06
-03 +05
-04 +05
-01 -01
-01 -01
-02 +02
-02 +02
-13 +05
-13 +05
                          B-8

-------
TABLE  B4.   Pb PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL AVERAGES
             FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Reporting
Organization
07001
**CT
22001
**MA
41001
**RI
33001
**NY
40001
**PR
08001
**DE
09001
**DC
48001
48003
**VA
01012
**AL
10011
10012
10013
10017
10018
**FL
18001
18002
**KY
34001
**NC
42001
**sc
44001
44002
44003
**TN
Required
No.
SLAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Sites
No.
NAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
0
0
9
9
42
42
24
24
16
16
48
48
30
30
26
74
100
67
67
20
58
34
6
102
220
6
2
8
49
49
41
41
7
29
82
118


-05
-05
-07
-07
-04
-04
+00
+00
-09
-09
-08
-08
-13
-15
-14
-07
-07
-08
-22
-04
-08
-22
-15
-55
+00
-37
-12
-12
-18
-18
-16
-29
-07
-16
Limits
UP


+10
+10
+08
+08
+06
+06
+00
+00
+15
+15
+08
+08
+09
+19
+15
+08
+08
+12
+15
+09
+00
+32
+17
+31
+00
+21
+31
+31
+21
+21
+32
+20
+07
+17
No.
Audits
31
31
7
7
23
23
4
4
0
0
7
7
7
7
6
16
22
11
11
9
14
9
3
8
43
6
3
9
5
5
18
18
0
7
60
67
Level 1
Low Up

	

—
-10
-10
-31
-31


-08
-08
-07
-07
-05
-07
-06
-08
-08
-02
-04
-01
-16
-03
-04
-02

-02
-04
-04
-01
-01
-11
-04
-06
-06

	

—
+04
+04
+33
+33


+07
+07
-03
-03
+02
+04
+04
+06
+06
+18
+04
+07
+17
+03
+08
+26

+26
+09
+09
+12
+12
+10
+08
+04
+07
Level 2 Level 3
Low Up Low Up
-07
-07
-16
-16
-09
-09
-09
-09


-04
-04
-07
-07
-10
-03
-05
-03
-03
-03
-04
-04
-15
-06
-05
+02
-01
+01
-01
-01
-10
-10
-03
-14
-05
-07
+05
+05
+08
+08
+00
+00
+18
+18


+02
+02
-02
-02
+04
+03
+03
+03
+03
+07
+01
+07
+13
+01
+05
+08
+11
+09
+01
+01
+11
+11
+04
+07
+02
+04
                          B-9

-------
TABLE  B4.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
14001
14002
**IL
23001
23002
**MI
24001
**MN
36001
36006
36008
36009
36010
**OH
51001
**WI
32001
32002
**NM
37101
37102
37103
**OK
45001
45002
45003
45006
**TX
16003
**IA
17001
**KS
26002
**MO
28003
**NB
06001
**co
Required
No.
SLAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Sites
No.
NAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
15
27
42
20
47
67
1
1
16
16
16
16
16
80
44
44
56
35
91
35
25
26
86
9
84
29
31
153
29
29
21
21
17
17
58
58
43
43
-03
-10
-08
-16
-05
-07
-05
-05
+00
+00
+00
+00
+00
+00
-13
-13
-13
-20
-16
-45
-08
-21
-29
-10
-31
-08
-20
-20
-22
-22
-36
-36
-27
-27
-28
-28
-26
-26
Limits
Up
+16
+14
+15
+15
+05
+07
-05
-05
+02
+02
+02
+02
+02
+02
+11
+11
+15
+13
+14
+38
+17
+17
+26
+04
+41
+09
+21
+23
+38
+38
+58
+58
+22
+22
+16
+16
+33
+33
No.
Audits
3
3
6
14
4
67
8
8
22
17
22
22
22
105
27
27
34
0
34
3
6
23
32
7
18
0
6
31
13
13
37
37
0
0
45
45
3
3
Level
Low
-03
-05
-04
-09
-03
-06
-06
-06
-19
-18
-19
-19
-19
-19
-09
-09
-15

-15

+02
-03
-01
-18
-21

-09
-18
+00
+00
-29
-29


-22
-22
-06
-06
1
Up
+06
+04
+05
+01
+04
+03
-04
-04
+15
14
+15
+15
+15
+15
+03
+03
+04

+04

+07
+01
+03
+09
+06

+01
+06
+00
+00
+05
+05


+16
+16
-04
-04
Level
Low
-01
-01
-06
-10
-03
-07
-04
-04
-10
-09
-10
-10
-10
-09
-07
-07
-11

-11

-14
-01
-06
-07
-14

-06
-10
-10
-10
-17
-17


-10
-10
-10
-10
2 Level 3
Up Low Up
+04
+07
+06
+01
+04
+03
-03
-03
+07
+07
+07
+07
+07
+07
+01
+01
+08

+08

+00
+01
+00
+03
+01

+01
+02
+06
+06
-03
-03


+12
+12
+00
+00
                                             B-10

-------
TABLE B4.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
27001
**MT
03100
03200
**AZ
05004
05061
**CA
13001
13002
**ID
38001
**OR
49001
**WA
Required
No.
SLAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Sites
No.
NAMS
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
1
7
13
0
13
30
23
53
15
29
44


77
77
-45
-45
-05
-03
-04
-05
-09
-07
-24
-36
-32
-05
-05
-15
-15
Limits
Up
+66
+66
+11
+07
+10
+05
+02
+03
+20
+19
+19
+02
+02
+11
+11
No.
Audits
0
0
0
0
0
9
7
16
3
6
9


11
11
Level 1
Low Up





-08
-06
-07
-04

-04
-05
-05
-05
-05





+01
+09
+05
-02

-01
+10
+10
+08
+08
Level 2 Level 3
Low Up Low Up





-07
-04
-05
-08
-02
-04
-04
-04
_
-





-05
+05
+00
+12
+02
+05
+07
+07
_
-
                                          B-ll

-------
TABLE B5.. CO PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL AVERAGES
            FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Reporting
Organization
07001
**CT
20001
**ME
22001
**MA
30001
**NH
41001
**RI
47001
**VT
31001
**NJ
33001
**NY
40001
**PR
**DE
09001
**DC
21001
**MD
39002
39003
**PA
48001
48003
**VA
50001
50002
**WV
01012
**AL
Required Sites
No. No.
SLAMS NAMS
006
006
001
001
004
004
002
002
000
000
001
001
010
010
Oil
Oil
001
001
003
001
001
005
005
001
004
005
004
004
008
002
002
004
002
002
000
000
000
000
004
004
000
000
002
002
000
000
002
002
006
006
002
002
000
002
002
002
002
002
002
004
002
000
002
000
000
000
002
002
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
142
142
49
49
324
324
268
268
202
202
286
286
52
52
238
238
119
119
62
97
97
145
145
104
85
189
231
93
324
26
69
95
71
71
-05
-05
-06
-06
-10
-10
-09
-09
-06
-06
-05
-05
-13
-13
-08
-08
-10
-10
-08
-07
-07
-08
-08
-05
-13
-09
-08
-10
-09
-07
-16
-11
-15
-15
Limits
Up
+12
+12
+05
+05
+08
+08
+06
+06
+05
+05
+09
+09
+07
+07
+04
+04
+07
+07
+12
+03
+03
+11
+11
+08
+05
+06
+07
+06
+06
+07
+02
+04
+02
+02
No.
Audits
0
0
0
0
18
18
22
22
11
11
5
5
8
8
28
28
2
2
11
8
8
24
24
34
6
40
9
13
22
3
6
9
13
13
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up


-07
-07
-05
-05
-04
-04
-12
-12
-05
-05
-09
-09
-02
-02
-09
-02
-02
-20
-20
-13
-10
-11
-11
-04
-07
-06
-10
-09
-34
-34


+07
+07
+01
+01
+04
+04
+12
+12
+05
+05
+08
+08
-01
-01
+07
+03
+03
+14
+14
+08
+09
+08
+07
+08
+07
+10
+05
+06
+26
+26


-06
-06
-04
-04
-01
-01
-10
-10
-04
-04
-04
-04
-05
-05
-04
-04
-04
-15
-15
-06
-02
-04
-09
-08
-09
-10
-01
-03
-03
-03


+07
+07
+03
+03
+03
+03
+12
+12
+01
+01
+06
+06
+00
+00
+07
+02
+02
+14
+14
+02
+04
+03
+03
+07
+05
+10
+02
+04
+05
+05
Level 3
Low Up


-07 +07
-07 +07
-05 +04
-05 +04
-02 +02
-02 +02
-07 +10
-07 +10
-04 -01
-04 -01
-02 +02
-02 +02
-
-05 +08
-01 +02
-01 +02
-19 +15
-19 +15
-03 +01
-01 +02
-02 +01
-07 +02
-08 +05
-08 +04
-11 +08
-02 +01
-05 +03
-04 +11
-04 +11
                        B-12

-------
TABLE B5.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
10001
10003
10011
10012
10013
10016
10017
10018
**FL
11010
**GA
18001
18002
**KY
25100
**MS
34001
34002
34003
**NC
42001
**sc
44002
44003
44004
44005
**TN
14001
14003
**IL
15001
15004
15008
**IN
23001
23002
**MI
24001
**MN
Required
No.
SLAMS
001
002
003
003
003
002
003
003
020
004
004
007
001
008
001
001
004
002
003
009
002
002
003
003
001
008
008
008
003
Oil
000
000
001
001
004
003
007
008
008
Sites
No.
NAMS
000
000
002
002
002
000
001
000
007
002
002
000
002
002
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
002
002
000
004
004
001
001
002
002
000
000
002
000
002
002
002
002
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
55
50
672
111
132
53
118
141
1,322
186
186
133
39
172
43
43
40
34
134
208
226
226
148
111
10
53
322
376
70
446
62
2
13
77
0
120
120
375
375
-10
-12
-08
-14
-06
-16
-05
-08
-10
-11
-11
-09
-11
-10
-04
-04
-04
-07
-06
-06
-10
-10
-05
-12
-05
-07
-07
-10
-11
-10
-14
-12
-02
-10

-14
-14
-09
-09
Limits
Up
+08
+03
+07
+07
+07
+11
+06
+08
+07
+06
+06
+08
+05
+07
+04
+04
+02
+03
+06
+04
+10
+10
+06
-01
+05
+02
+03
+03
+08
+06
+15
+15
+01
+11

+05
+05
+08
+08
No.
Audits
6
6
24
7
23
6
6
6
85
9
9
25
6
31
5
5
7
8
59
74
39
39
29
26
2
9
66
10
11
21
5
0
3
8
6
6
12
23
23
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-12
+04
-04
-11
-07
+01
-11
-09
-06
-31
-31
-13
-09
-11
096
096
-19
-29
-07
-17
-27
-27
-06
-15
-11
-05
-09
-11
-16
-14
-05

-03
-04
-11
-10
-10
-14
-14
+07
+11
+08
+13
+09
+12
+21
+14
+11
+22
+22
+12
+03
+09
+09
+09
+17
+11
+05
+09
+11
+11
+06
+07
+21
+03
+06
+08
+04
+06
+15

+07
+12
+12
+05
+09
+21
+21
-17
+04
-03
-13
-05
+04
-03
+00
-04
-15
-15
-08
-10
-08
-02
-02
-07
-11
-03
-06
-06
-06
-03
-14
-12
-04
-07
-06
-08
-07
-03

-01
-02
-07
+02
-04
-06
-06
+09
+06
+05
+17
+06
+08
+12
+04
+08
+22
+22
+05
+08
+06
+05
+05
+07
+12
+04
+07
+04
+04
+07
+08
+19
+03
+07
+02
+07
+05
+13

+05
+10
+07
+05
+06
+13
+13
Level 3
Low Up
-18 +08
-08 +08
-04 +04
-04 +11
-03 +03
-01 +05
-02 +05
-02 +03
-05 +05
-11 +19
-11 +19
-10 +07
-02 +05
-07 +06
-04 +01
-04 +01
-07 +07
-08 +10
-02 +03
-05 +06
-03 +03
-03 +03
-05 +06
-17 +11
-11 +17
-03 +00
-08 +07
-01 +02
-10 +04
-06 +03
-02 +06

+00 +05
-01 +05
-08 +04
+00 +06
-05 +05
-06 +08
-06 +08
                                           B-13

-------
TABLE  B5.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
36001
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36014
36015
**OH
51001
**WI
04001
**AR
19001
19002
**LA
32001
32002
**NM
37101
37102
37103
**OK
45001
45002
45003
45006
**TX
16001
16002
16003
**IA
17001
**KS
26001
26002
26003
26004
**MO
Required
No.
SLAMS
001
000
001
005
000
000
001
001
002
Oil
005
005
000
000
001
000
001
004
005
009
002
000
002
004
002
000
001
000
003
002
001
001
004
003
003
000
002
004
003
009
Sites
No.
NAMS
002
002
000
002
002
002
000
000
000
010
002
002
000
000
002
000
002
000
000
000
000
002
000
002
005
002
000
001
008
000
000
000
000
000
000
001
002
000
000
003
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
70
19*
5
72
37
50
14
0
83
350
50
50
19
19
33*
12
45
61
115
176
15
19*
40
74
2,182
56
26
25
2,289
70
24
24
118
72
72
15*
137
35
60
247
+05
-10
-02
-07
-05
-10
-11

-07
-06
+00
+00
-03
-03
-13
-24
-15
-06
-04
-05
-13
-12
-05
-09
-09
-09
-08
-10
-09
-21
-07
-7
-11
-07
-07
-07
-16
-40
-09
-16
Limits
Up
+13
+11
+10
+07
+03
+09
+08

+04
+08
+18
+18
+05
+05
+13
+20
+14
+07
+05
+06
+12
+07
+07
+08
+05
+13
+02
+09
+07
+19
+05
+07
+10
+07
+07
+09
+12
+27
+14
+15
No.
Audits
4
7
1
6
6
4
2
2


6
6
3
3
3
2
5
8
20
28
4
8
10
22
43
8
4
4
59
7
12
4
23
7
7
6
6
7
6
25
Level
Low
-02
-17

-14
-14
-46
+05
-11
-03
-15
-04
-04
-01
-01
-14
-15
-15
-10
-06
-07
-26
-12
-11
-15
-20
-11
-10
-13
-14
-07
-06
-22
-12
-18
-18
-11
-07
-29
-18
-17
Accuracy
1 Level 2
Up Low Up
+12
+10

-05
+07
+18
+06
+05
+06
+08
+22
+22
-01
-01
+02
+13
+08
+05
+04
+04
-05
+18
+15
+12
+22
+21
+18
-06
+16
+18
+03
+03
+06
+10
+10
+12
+10
+12
+06
+10
+05
-14

-06
-12
-19
+00
-10
-06
-08
-04
-04
-02
-02
-14
-05
-10
-04
-04
-04
-45
-12
-05
-16
-11
+00
-06
-04
-06
-11
-08
-12
-10
-07
-07
-06
-04
-13
-09
-08
+08
+05

+04
+04
+17
+11
+07
+12
+08
+11
+11
-02
-02
+05
+03
+04
+06
+04
+05
-03
+11
+07
+06
+11
+07
+06
+10
+09
+07
+05
-01
+03
+07
+07
+03
+08
+04
-04
+03
Level 3
Low Up
+03 +12
-17 +08

-06 +08
-11 +04
-09 +13
-01 +11
-10 +05
-03 +09
-07 +09
-03 +05
-03 +05
-04 -04
-04 -04
-20 +10
-12 +09
-16 +10
-04 +06
-06 +05
-06 +05
-56 -02
-19 +14
-02 +03
-19 +06
-11 +10
-06 +07
-05 +09
-03 +01
-07 +07
-13 +06
-07 +04
-19 +10
-13 +07
-04 +01
-04 +01
-04 +06
-01 +05
-08 +02
-07 -01
-05 +03
                                           B-14

-------
TABLE  B5.  (Cont.)
Required Sites
Reporting No. No.
Organization SLAMS NAMS
28003 002 000
**NB 002 000
Precision
No. Data Prob. Limits
Pairs Low Up
29 -16 +16
29 -16 +16
No.
Audits
0
0
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up

Level 3
Low Up

06001
**co
27001
27003
27004
**MT
46001
**UT
03100
03200
03300
**AZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
**CA
12120
**HI
29200
29300
**NV
13001
13002
**ID
38001
**OR
49001
**WAS
Oil
Oil
001
001
001
003
009
009
003
025
001
Oil
025
Oil
005
019
060
000
000
000
001
003
002
002
004
005
005
010
010
002
002
000
000
000
000
002
002
000
003
002
004
003
004
002
003
012
002
002
002
001
001
000
000
000
002
002
002
002
44
44
41
59
72
172
283
283
57
414
56
249
414
415
140
523
1,492
153
153
46
68
114
29
32
61
332
332
550
550
-14
-14
-06
-10
-12
-09
-05
-05
-10
-05
-05
-09
-05
-04
-03
-03
-04
-16
-16
-05
-03
-04
-11
-12
-11
-03
-03
-07
-07
+08
10
+08 10
+14 j 6
+06
4
+16 I 4
+12
+04
+04
+03
+10
+11
+06
+10
+04
+07
+12
-08
+24
+24
+12
+01
+07
+01
+04
+02
+08
+08
+01
+01
14
24
24
6
24
3
16
24
33
5
24

137
137
8
4
12
4
3
7
57
57
39
39


+03
-14
+01
-02
-06
-06
-19
-08
-08
-16
-08
-11
-33
-03
-09
-12
-12
-01
-01
-01
-03
-06
-04
-18
-18
-07
-07


+24
+11
+16
+09
+04
+04
+08
+11
+02
+05
+11
+17
+37
+19
+17
+15
+15
+07
+01
+04
+05
+08
+06
+24
+24
+07
+07


+03
-10
-01
-01
-06
-06
-12
-07
-01
-05
-07
-03
-08
+01
-03
-03
-03
-02
-12
-06
-02
-02
-02
-09
-09
-04
-04


+13
+08
+08
+11
+02
+02
+03
+07
+05
+03
+07
+04
+09
+12
+08
+05
+05
+05
+06
+05
+05
+06
+05
+08
+08
+04
+04


-01 +10
-18 +11
-07 +16
-06 +12
-05 +02
-05 +02
-03 +04
-06 +05
-09 +05
-05 +03
-06 +05
-03 +03
-05 +05
-03 +08
-04 +05
-04 +03
-04 +03
+00 +03
-06 +02
-03 +03
+02 +04
-03 +06
-01 +05
-07 +03
-07 +03
-04 +02
-04 +02
                                           B-15

-------
TABLE  B6.   AUTOMATED S02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL AVERAGES
                   FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Reporting
Organization
07001
**CT
20001
**ME
22001
**MA
30001
**NH
41001
**RI
47001
**VT
31001
**NJ
33001
**NY
40001
**PR
08001
**DE
09001
**DC
21001
21003
**MD
39001
39002
39003
**PA
48001
48003
**VA
50001
50002
**wv
Required Sites
No. No.
SLAMS NAMS
008
008
000
000
005
005
006
006
001
001
002
002
006
006
021
021
006
006
007
007
000
000
001
002
003
013
002
002
017
003
004
007
001
003
004
002
002
002
002
012
012
001
001
004
004
001
001
008
008
018
018
000
000
001
001
002
002
005
000
005
012
005
005
022
007
000
007
003
003
006
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
153
153
98
98
731
731
370
370
399
399
111
111
232
232
415
415
276
276
195
195
58
58
182
29
211
494
221
124
839
281
96
377
77
94
171
-10
-10
-07
-07
-07
-07
-19
-19
-10
-10
-10
-10
-11
-11
-06
-06
-11
-11
-10
-10
-12
-12
-12
-16
-13
-10
-11
-17
-12
-14
-10
-12
-09
-13
-11
Limits
Up
+05
+05
+05
+05
+12
+12
+15
+15
+07
+07
+04
+04
+13
+13
+07
+07
+06
+06
+14
+14
+06
+06
+12
+10
+11
+11
+05
+03
+06
+07
+07
+07
+08
+07
+07
No.
Audits
14
14
9
9
33
33
33
33
13
13
9
9
16
16
88
88
9
9
8
8
8
8
32
11
43
27
77
9
113
11
12
23
9
9
18
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-08
-08
-05
-05
-06
-06
-07
-07
-06
-06
-07
-07
-12
-12
-08
-08
-06
-06
-12
-12
-15
-15
-24
-35
-29
-14
-11
-17
-14
-14
-11
-12
-08
-11
-09
+04
+04
+02
+02
+03
+03
+05
+05
+12
+12
+02
+02
+08
+08
+11
+11
+05
+05
+15
+15
+16
+16
+10
-05
+02
+12
+09
+07
+09
+09
+08
+08
+11
+07
+09
-08
-08
-05
-05
-08
-08
-09
-09
-07
-07
-06
-06
-08
-08
-08
-08
-03
-03
-01
-01
-03
-03
-14
-24
-19
-15
-09
-14
-13
-13
-09
-11
-07
-08
-08
+03
+03
+05
+05
+05
+05
+05
+05
+13
+13
+01
+01
+09
+09
+11
+11
+10
+10
+10
+10
+10
+10
+08
-06
+01
+09
+08
+09
+09
+12
+13
+12
+08
+07
+07
Level 3
Low Up
-08 +06
-08 +06
-04 +06
-04 +06
-08 +06
-08 +06
-09 +06
-09 +06
-04 +12
-04 +12
-07 +04
-07 +04
-05 +07
-05 +07
-10 +12
-10 +12
-05 +13
-05 +13
-09 +18
-09 +18
-10 +07
-10 +07
-13 +11
-28 -01
-20 +05
-11 +10
-14 +12
-09 +07
-11 +10
-13 +09
-12 +14
-13 +11
-10 +10
-07 +06
-09 +08
                               B-16

-------
TABLE B6.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
01011
01012
01013
01016
**AL
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10007
10011
10012
10013
10015
10016
10018
**FL
11010
**GA
18001
18002
18003
**KY
25100
**MS
34001
34003
**NC
42001
**sc
44001
44002
44003
44006
**TN
14001
14003
**IL
Required Sites
No. No.
.SLAMS NAMS
002
001
002
000
006
001
002
002
001
000
000
003
003
001
000
001
002
016
010
010
008
000
000
008
002
002
004
000
005
003
003
002
001
000
000
003
010
005
015
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
001
002
002
000
000
000
005
001
001
000
004
000
004
002
002
001
000
001
001
001
000
000
001
000
001
on
003
014
Precision
No. Data. Prob.
Pairs Low
57
4
37
655
753
55
93
33
39
32
27
467
170
167

42
32
1,157
355
355
185
50*
1,295
1,530
217
217
98
26
124
752
752
181
29
24
2,153
2,387
852
141
993
-14
-45
-21
-15
-21
-12
-26
-11
-16
-23
-18
-11
-17
-12

-15
-09
-15
-17
-17
-20
-19
-16
-18
-26
-26
-07
-23
-15
-08
-08
-08
-13
-19
-14
-13
-17
-15
-16
Limits
Up
+06
+34
+13
+13
+14
+06
+15
+06
+07
+04
+12
+03
+08
+07

+06
+07
+07
+10
+10
+04
+13
+09
+08
+05
+05
+06
+13
+09
+06
+06
+08
+10
+12
+10
+10
+07
+15
+11
No.
Audits
6
1
6
2
15
6
7
7
6
4
7
19
7
15
1
6
6
91
14
14
29
5
4
38
8
8
18
12
30
75
75
10
6
8
46
70
19
18
37
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-18

-22
-21
-20
-25
-39
-33
-35
-17
-49
-18
-01
-20

-08
-19
-22
-23
-23
-20
-09
-15
-16
-22
-22
-16
-28
-23
-13
-13
-08
-07
-08
-18
-10
-17
-16
-16
-11

+13
+03
-01
+13
+13
+30
+22
+08
+14
+15
+13
+09

+05
-01
+11
+16
+16
+08
+15
+08
+10
+21
+21
+12
+08
+10
+10
+10
+04
+08
+07
+16
+08
+09
+10
+09
-19

-18
-13
-18
-15
-28
-16
-10
-13
-45
-13
-15
-14

-07
-20
-17
-19
-19
-17
+04
-16
-11
-18
-18
-18
-26
-23
-10
-10
-07
-07
-11
-12
-09
-14
-13
-14
-11

+09
+08
-01
+07
+07
+17
+06
+11
+33
+12
+15
+08

+14
-03
+11
+17
+17
+07
+11
+11
+09
+12
+12
+13
+07
+09
+08
+08
+05
+11
+15
+14
+11
+09
+06
+08
Level 3
Low Up
-18 -12

-16 +11
-13 +01
-17 -02
-20 +24
-25 +05
-09 +14
-17 +12
-07 +15
-40 +29
-10 +09
-10 +15
-13 +05

-02 +13
-14 -05
-15 +11
-18 +19
-18 +19
-18 +08
-05 +05
-14 +10
-14 +07
-17 +08
-17 +08
-17 +12
-28 +07
-23 +09
-10 +08
-10 +08
-08 +04
-08 +10
-10 +14
-12 +11
-09 +09
-16 +10
-13 +06
-14 +08
                                           B-17

-------
TABLE B6.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
15001
15008
15101
**IN
23001
23002
**MI
24001
**MN
36001
36002
36003
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36013
36014
36015
36016
**OH
51001
**WI
04001
**AR
19001
19002
**LA
32001
32002
**NM
37101
37102
37103
**OK
45001
45002
45006
**TX
Required Sites
No. No.
SLAMS NAMS
002
003
000
005
001
004
005
003
003
000
002
001
000
000
006
000
001
002
002
003
000
000
017
001
001
001
001
009
000
009
012
000
012
005
001
001
007
006
001
001
008
005
000
000
005
007
004
Oil
008
008
002
003
000
003
002
003
005
001
000
000
001
003
002
025
013
013
001
001
001
000
001
000
001
001
000
000
001
001
004
000
000
004
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
206
74
90
370
143
127
270
639
639
35*
70
29
59
35*
186
74*
45
47
0
56
134
56
826
319
319
47
47
68
7
75
155
14*
169
25
0
47
72
4,521
33
66
4,620
-14
-08
-13
-11
-17
-24
-20
-10
-10
-15
-15
-14
-15
-08
-12
-23
-23
-11

-14
-09
-14
-14
-16
-16
-09
-09
-15
-26
-17
-12
-12
-12
-18

-12
-15
-08
-21
-19
-16
Limits
Up
+10
+05
+08
+07
+08
+08
+08
+09
+09
+04
+15
+14
+05
+07
+10
+12
+04
+06

+13
+09
+15
+09
+10
+10
+10
+10
+12
+15
+13
+11
+02
+04
+06

+03
+02
+05
+04
+06
+05
No.
Audits
14
9
22
45
11
8
19
38
38
4
4
2
6
8
8
3*
4
4
2
9
4
6
64
14
14
8
8
4
2
6
8
7
15
4
3
9
16
95
4
10
109
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-20
-11
-48
-20
-15
-17
-16
-18
-18
-20
-27
-23
-27
-13
-06
-01
-21
-27
-07
-13
-13
-37
-19
-14
-14
-10
-10
-15
-17
-15
-12
-16
-13
-50

-09
-22
-18
-23
-19
-19
+23
+03
+33
+17
+12
+11
+11
+13
+13
+07
+25
-10
+20
+13
+01
+09
-05
+32
-04
+07
+01
+14
+09
+14
+14
+03
+03
+09
+15
+11
+07
+06
+07
+30

+04
+13
+25
+14
+12
+18
-14
-11
-13
-13
-08
-06
-07
-11
-11
-21
-17
-15
-09
-07
-04
-01
-22
-16
-12
-10
-13
-30
-14
-11
-11
-05
-05
-11
-12
-11
-10
-16
-12
-43
-22
-07
-19
-11
-16
-18
-14
+15
+03
+04
+09
+13
+03
+08
+10
+10
+10
+17
-10
+13
+09
+04
+09
-04
+18
-04
+10
+04
+10
+08
+09
+09
+04
+04
+07
+13
+09
+06
+06
+06
+24
-01
+05
+10
+12
+10
+13
+12
Level 3
Low Up
-09 +10
-08 +04
-13 +05
-09 +07
-08 +14
-05 +04
-07 +09
-12 +08
-12 +08
-20 +09
-19 +22
-12 +09
-07 +13
-07 +04
-05 +05
-03 +06
-23 -02
-22 +24
-12 -05
-10 +12
-14 +09
-24 +02
-13 +09
-11 +06
-11 +06
-02 +04
-02 +04
-15 +06
-13 +14
-14 +08
-10 +07
-13 +05
-11 +06
-50 +28
-26 +01
-12 +09
-25 +13
-10 +12
-14 +11
-14 +10
-12 +11
                                          B-18

-------
TABLE  B6.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
16001
16002
16003
**IA
17001
**KS
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
**MO
28003
**NB
06001
**co
27001
**MT
35001
**ND
46001
**UT
03100
03300
**AZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
**CA
13001
13002
**ID
38001
**OR
49001
**WA
Required
No.
SLAMS
001
001
001
003
000
000
004
002
003
001
001
Oil
000
000
001
001
000
000
005
005
006
006
Oil
000
Oil
017
008
006
013
044
003
003
006
002
002
005
005
Sites
No.
NAMS
000
001
002
003
002
002
000
002
002
001
000
005
001
001
002
002
001
001
000
000
002
002
000
001
002
002
002
000
004
008
000
000
000
002
002
003
003
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
31
39
90
160
41
41
168
127
44
52
26
417
17*
17*
50
50
31
31
102
102
240
240
206
25
231
316
129
85
438
968
70
51
121
66
66
389
389
-09
-05
-14
-09
-30
-30
-27
-11
-22
-22
-28
-21
-16
-16
-15
-15
-14
-14
-08
-08
-09
-09
-09
-13
-11
-14
-14
-16
-20
-16
-13
-13
-13
-19
-19
-09
-09
Limits
Up
+06
+12
+09
+09
+01
+01
+27
+06
+26
+22
+22
+20
+10
+10
+19
+19
+08
+08
+04
+04
+06
+06
+11
+16
+14
+13
+02
+12
+10
+09
+10
+08
+09
+09
+09
+07
+07
No.
Audits
6
18
15
39
2
2
9
6
6
6
4
31
2
2
5
5
3
3
8
8
21
21
4
1
5
13
17
3
20
53
6
6
12
16
16
21
21
Accuracy
Level 1 Level
Low Up Low
-07
-04
-18
-10
-25
-25
-07
-17
-11
-37
-14
-17
-20
-20
-12
-12
-42
-42
-09
-09
-14
-14
-21
-10
-13
-13
-10
-18
-11
-12
-14
-17
-16
-22
-22
-08
-08
+21
+08
+17
+14
+04
+04
+12
+06
-01
+02
+22
+06
+07
+07
+05
+05
+28
+28
+17
+17
+11
+11
+16
+17
+16
+12
+11
+16
+12
+12
+07
+07
+07
+01
+01
+10
+10
-04
-05
-20
-11
-20
-20
-08
-19
-06
-24
-17
-14
-04
-04
-01
-01
-40
-40
-10
-10
-11
-11
-16
-11
-13
-12
-09
-03
-11
-10
-08
-12
-10
-17
-17
-10
-10
2
UP
+18
+10
+17
+14
+01
+01
+07
+08
+05
+04
+10
+06
+01
+01
+04
+04
+27
+27
+13
+13
+08
+08
+24
+15
+18
+12
+10
+01
+14
+11
+03
+07
+05
+06
+06
+09
+09
Level 3
Low Up
+00 +01
-10 +11
-05 +07
-06 +07
-10 +00
-10 +00
-09 +05
-13 +04
-03 +07
-17 +05
-18 +12
-11 +06
-03 +09
-03 +09
-02 +07
-02 +07
-27 +20
-27 +20
-11 +09
-11 +09
-07 +06
-07 +06
-15 +18
-12 +15
-13 +16
-14 +12
-09 +1 1
-01 +18
-15 +08
-11 +11
-08 +05
-11 +04
-09 +04
-19 +10
-19 +10
-09 +09
-09 +09
                                            B-19

-------
TABLE  B7.   AUTOMATED N02 PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL AVERAGES
                   FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Reporting
Organization
07001
**CT
22001
**MA
41001
**RI
31001
**NJ
33001
**NY
08001
**DE
09001
**DC
21001
21003
21005
**MD
39001
39002
39003
**PA
48001
48003
**VA
50001
50002
**WV
01014
01015
**AL
10001
10003
10011
10012
10013
10016
10018
**FL
Required Sites
No . No .
SLAMS NAMS
003
003
004
004
001
001
004
004
001
001
002
002
000
000
003
002
001
006
017
000
002
019
003
004
007
002
002
004
000
000
001
001
001
002
002
001
002
000
010
000
000
002
002
000
000
002
002
002
002
000
000
002
002
001
000
001
002
000
002
002
004
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
002
002
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
28
28
136
136
42
42
55
55
59
59
38
38
50
50
77
22
80
179
298
26
48
372
125
64
189
51
53
104
14
0
14
46
5
68
35
23
27
19
223
-12
-12
-14
-14
-07
-07
-15
-15
-13
-13
-11
-11
-09
-09
-18
-08
-05
-11
-11
-08
-17
-12
-08
-25
-17
-07
-09
-08
-04

-04
-10
-28
-13
-35
-08
-15
-20
-17
Limits
Up
+10
+10
+10
+10
+17
+17
+09
+09
+11
+11
+16
+16
+10
+10
+14
+08
+10
+11
+09
+07
+12
+09
+07
+16
+12
+12
+13
+13
+05

+05
+08
+27
+06
+42
+12
+21
+29
+19
No.
Audits
3
3
11
11
3
3
8
8
33
33
7
7
8
8
9
6
8
23
16
14
5
35
9
7
16
6
6
12
0
1
1
0
2
2
3
4
0
0
11
Level
Low
-10
-10
-10
-10
-22
-22
-20
-20
-11
-11
-19
-19
-08
-08
-32
-57
-24
-36
-09
-11
-20
-13
-28
-22
-25
-11
-06
-08







-22


-22
Accuracy
1 Level
Up Low
+14
+14
+17
+17
+10
+10
+16
+16
+10
+10
+20
+20
+06
+06
+09
+75
+10
+27
+21
+13
+28
+21
+20
+15
+17
+10
+21
+16







+40


+40
-06
-06
-09
-09
-15
-15
-11
-11
-08
-08
-07
-07
-05
-05
-19
-19
-13
-17
-14
-06
-11
-10
-11
-16
-13
-03
-01
-02







-50


-50
2
Up
+04
+04
+12
+12
+06
+06
+09
+09
+06
+06
+04
+04
+03
+03
+03
+25
+03
+09
+20
+07
+13
+13
+01
+09
+05
+04
+06
+05







+24


+24
Level 3
Low Up
-04 +01
-04 +01
-07 +10
-07 +10
-16 +05
-16 +05
-07 +01
-07 +01
-10 +05
-10 +05
-09 +00
-09 +00
-04 +02
-04 +02
-08 -01
-11 +04
-10 +05
-10 +02
-17 +18
-07 +03
-09 +06
-11 +09
-13 +00
-11 +05
-12 +02
-10 +07
-04 +04
-07 +06







-43 +20


-43 +20
                               B-20

-------
TABLE B7.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
11010
**GA
18001
18002
18003
**KY
34004
**NC
44006
**TN
14001
14003
**IL
15008
**IN
23002
**MI
24001
**MN
36001
36003
36007
36008
36009
36010
36014
**OH
51001
**WI
04001
**AR
19001
19002
**LA
32002
**NM
Required Sites
No. No.
SLAMS NAMS
000
000
006
001
000
007
000
000
000
000
003
003
006
001
001
000
000
000
000
001
000
001
004
000
000
001
007
000
000
001
001
015
000
015
001
001
002
002
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
001
001
002
000
000
002
002
002
002
000
000
000
002
002
000
000
004
002
002
000
000
002
000
002
000
000
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
28
28
105
9
368
482
20
20
483
483
119
39
158
17
17
13
13
74
74
0
0
0
52
15
2
23
92
50
50
25
25
18
6
24
13
13
+03
+03
-14
-23
-17
-18
-13
-13
-20
-20
-13
-19
-15
-17
-17
-15
-15
-09
-09



-14
-17
-02
-17
-14
-08
-08
-09
-09
-07
-10
-08
-08
-08
Limits
Up
+29
+29
+10
+10
+13
+11
+18
+18
+15
+15
+06
+19
+12
+11
+11
+04
+04
+08
+08



+19
+15
+05
+10
+14
+10
+10
+07
+07
+09
+21
+13
+08
+08
No.
Audits
4
4
18
5
1
24
4
4
0
0
7
8
15
4
4
4
4
6
6
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
24
4
4
4
4
1
0
1
6
6
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-49
-49
-29
-38

-32
-66
-66


-20
-13
-17
-26
-26
-17
-17
-23
-23
-31
-03
-48
-16

-21
-16
-24
+15
+15
-15
-15



-14
-14
+32
+32
+35
+21

+30
-24
-24


+15
+01
+08
+15
+15
-14
-14
+21
+21
-03
+01
+56
+22

+12
+28
+23
+25
+25
+14
+14



+16
+16
-49
-49
-20
-33

-24
-14
-14


-09
-06
-07
-15
-15
-12
-12
-10
-10
-32
-03
-22
-02

-13
-06
-13
-12
-12
-08
-08



-12
-12
+39
+39
+21
+18

+20
-12
-12


+08
+00
+04
-01
-01
-07
-07
+16
+16
+03
-02
+26
+06

+03
+14
+10
+20
+20
+02
+02



+19
+19
Level 3
Low Up
-18 +33
-18 +33
-19 +15
-33 +18

-24 +16
-09 +01
-09 +01


-04 +04
-06 +01
-05 +03
-15 -03
-15 -03
-12 -07
-12 -07
-07 +12
-07 +12
-37 +06
-05 +00
-10 +02
-04 +07

-09 +02
-02 +11
-10 +05
-05 +06
-05 +06
-09 +05
-09 +05



-12 +20
-12 +20
                                           B-21

-------
TABLE B7.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
37101
37102
37103
**OK
45001
45002
45006
**TX
17001
**KS
26001
26002
26003
26004
**MO
06001
**CO
35001
**ND
46001
**UT
03300
**AZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
**CA
29300
**NV
38001
**OR
49001
**WA
Required
No.
SLAMS
002
001
003
006
004
000
002
006
001
001
000
002
004
001
007
002
002
002
002
004
004
002
002
029
008
004
016
057
002
002
001
001
000
000
Sites
No.
NAMS
000
000
000
000
002
001
001
004
000
000
002
001
000
001
004
002
002
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
004
002
004
010
000
000
000
000
002
002
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
0
9
27
36
2,185
46
41
2,272
10
10
49
112
22
50
233
48
48
49
49
65
65
38
38
368
311
0
408
1,087
39
39
0
0
31
31

-20
-10
-16
-08
-11
-09
-09
-56
-56
-16
-12
-49
-25
-22
-12
-12
-08
-08
-13
-13
-17
-17
-18
-08

-09
-12
-03
-03


-09
-09
Limits
Up

4-09
+05
+07
+04
+16
+06
+09
+09
+09
+17
+16
+40
+30
+24
+11
+11
+07
+07
+08
+08
+09
+09
+13
+08

+18
+13
+02
+02


+08
+08
No.
Audits
2
4
9
15
59
7
6
72
0
0
5
4
4
6
19
8
8
4
4
6
6
2
2
15
24
2
20
61
4
4
13
13
4
4
Level
Low
-70
-12
-18
-24
-34
-14
-08
-20


-06
-23
-28
-25
-22
-32
-32
-22
-22
-11
-11
-02
-02
-22
-13
-15
-23
-18
+00
+00
-64
-64


Accuracy
1 Level 2
Up Low Up
+49
-09
+06
+08
+37
+03
+03
+17


+09
+19
+32
+02
+14
+55
+55
+15
+15
+14
+14
+05
+05
+09
+10
+09
+19
+13
+00
+00
+21
+21


-89
-14
-18
-27
-12
-19
-08
-13


-03
-11
-12
-31
-17
-11
-11
-05
-05
-07
-07
-02
-02
-15
-12
-23
-16
-15
-11
-11
-48
-48


+60
+00
+04
+11
+16
+18
+02
+12


+02
+02
+11
+04
+04
+21
+21
+01
+01
+08
+08
+07
+07
+06
+09
+13
+16
+11
+05
+05
+16
+16


Level 3
Low Up
-84 +59
-18 +00
-16 +06
-26 +12
-14 +13
-23 +19
-04 +00
-14 +11


-11 +06
-05 -05
-06 +11
-23 +04
-12 +02
-07 +14
-07 +14
-07 +02
-07 +02
-08 +08
-08 +08
-03 +05
-03 +05
-20 +16
-12 +09
-24 +15
-14 +14
-16 +13
-06 +01
-06 +01
-43 +17
-43 +17
-14 +12
-14 +12
                                           B-22

-------
TABLE  B8.  OZONE PRECISION AND ACCURACY ANNUAL AVERAGES
                FOR REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Reporting
Organization
07001
**CT
20001
**ME
22001
**MA
30001
**NH
41001
**RI
47001
**VT
31001
**NJ
33001
**NY
40001
**PR
08001
**DE
09001
**DC
21001
21003
21005
**MD
39001
39002
39003
**PA
48001
48003
**VA
50001
50002
**wv
Required
No.
SLAMS
002
002
003
003
005
005
005
005
001
001
002
002
007
007
014
014
002
002
003
003
001
001
007
004
003
014
018
002
001
021
004
004
008
003
001
004
Sites
No.
NAMS
006
006
000
000
008
008
001
001
001
001
000
000
006
006
Oil
Oil
000
000
001
001
001
001
002
000
001
003
008
002
001
Oil
005
000
005
000
000
000
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Checks Low
105
105
70
70
309
309
355
355
156
156
26
26
143
143
216
216
39
39
95
95
58
58
367
46
158
571
420
57
23
500
218
91
309
53
47
100
-08
-08
-05
-05
-18
-18
-13
-13
-08
-08
-07
-07
-11
-11
-08
-08
-05
-05
-06
-06
-08
-08
-05
-09
-09
-07
-13
-05
-04
-08
-08
-14
-11
-10
-04
-07
Limits
Up
+08
+08
+08
+08
+09
+09
+08
+08
+09
+09
+06
+06
+10
+10
+08
+08
+04
+04
+12
+12
+10
+10
+12
+04
+08
+08
+13
+08
+05
+09
+06
+11
+08
+07
+09
+08
No.
Audits
8
8
3
3
20
20
25
25
10
10
2
2
10
10
54
54
0
0
10
10
8
8
59
16
19
94
26
15
4
45
15
11
26
6
3
9
Accuracy
Level 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-05
-05
-05
-05
-15
-15
-09
-09
-03
-03
+04
+04
-07
-07
-13
-13

-06
-06
-10
-10
-22
-20
-19
-20
-18
-07
-11
-13
-08
-04
-06
+03
-02
+02
+05
+05
+17
+17
+12
+12
+06
+06
+08
+08
+06
+06
+01
+01
+09
+09

+06
+06
+15
+15
+16
+12
+22
+16
+15
+19
+07
+13
+09
+07
+08
+09
+09
+09
-05
-05
-07
-07
-11
-11
-08
-08
-02
-02
-02
-02
-03
-03
-10
-10

-03
-03
-10
-10
-16
-15
-14
-15
-14
-06
-05
-09
-08
-07
-08
-02
+00
-02
+02
+02
+13
+13
+09
+09
+03
+03
+07
+07
-01
-01
+03
+03
+10
+10

+08
+08
+10
+10
+16
+16
+19
+17
+10
+05
+02
+06
+08
+09
+09
+08
+03
+07
Level 3
Low Up
-07 +05
-07 +05
-04 +08
-04 +08
-11 +10
-11 +10
-12 +02
-12 +02
-05 +06
-05 +06
-04 +00
-04 +00
-06 +05
-06 +05
-10 +10
-10 +10

-03 +10
-03 +10
-10 +09
-10 +09
-13 +16
-16 +18
-05 +12
-11 +15
-15 +09
-08 +03
-06 +01
-10 +05
-08 +07
-08 +08
-08 +08
+00 +05
-03 +04
-01 +05
                         B-23

-------
TABLE B8.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
01011
01012
01013
01014
01015
01016
**AL
10001
10003
10005
10007
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
**FL
11010
**GA
18001
18002
18003
**KY
25100
**MS
34001
34002
34003
34004
**NC
42001
**sc
44001
44002
44003
44004
44005
44006
**TN
Required
No.
SLAMS
003
002
002
000
000
000
007
003
001
000
000
000
002
002
000
000
000
000
001
009
000
000
012
001
000
013
002
002
006
001
000
001
008
003
003
001
000
001
002
000
000
004
Sites
No.
NAMS
000
001
000
000
000
000
001
000
001
000
000
002
001
001
000
000
004
000
004
013
004
004
000
001
000
001
000
000
002
000
001
000
003
004
004
001
002
001
000
002
000
006
Precision
No. Data Prob. Limits
Pairs Low Up
64
27
39
13
25
91
44
138
32
30
7
216
73
80
25
0
93
46
81
821
111
111
440
36
453
929
217
217
121
11
74
18
224
1,142
1,142
128
60
48
69
84
398
787
-13
-05
-14
-06
+00
-07
-07
-07
-18
-10
+05
-09
-11
-08
-07

-08
-04
+00
-08
-13
-13
-13
-20
-17
-16
-11
-11
-07
-10
-09
-07
-08
-06
-06
-06
-06
-07
-05
-06
-17
-07
+11
+05
+12
+08
+19
+08
+11
+09
+13
+18
+20
+05
+14
+05
+11

+10
+06
+00
+09
+08
+08
+11
+12
+16
+13
+13
+13
+06
+10
+09
+06
+08
+04
+04
+08
+06
+03
+09
+05
+18
+08
No.
Audits
4
4
7
3
5
0
23
8
6
4
3
10
5
15
6
2
6
6
6
78
5
5
61
6
0
67
7
7
20
2
31
2
55
92
92
16
14
12
16
13
6
77
Level
Low
-16
-10
-07
-98
-21

-23
-16
-13
-01
-08
-14
-16
-15
-16
-03
-17
-12
-18
-14
-17
-17
-17
-11

-15
-16
-16
-11
+08
-10
-13
-09
-12
-12
-13
-05
-15
-06
-06
-18
-10
Accuracy
1 Level 2
Up Low Up
+11
+03
+06
+59
-01

+10
+22
+12
+15
+10
+05
+21
+12
+11
+06
+10
+13
+30
+14
+14
+14
+14
+09

+13
+09
+09
+11
+08
+10
+00
+09
+11
+11
+08
+06
+08
+08
+02
+13
+07
-06
-15
-11
-12
-08

-10
-06
-08
+03
-12
-07
-22
-12
-10
-05
-19
-13
-11
-11
-16
-16
-16
-02

-11
-03
-03
-08
-02
-06
-03
-06
-12
-12
-12
-06
-10
-02
-06
-15
-08
+05
+05
+07
+25
+02

+07
+13
+10
+03
+06
+00
+23
+10
+12
+20
+08
+10
+15
+10
+38
+38
+13
+08

+11
-03
-03
+08
-01
+08
+00
+06
+10
+10
+09
+08
+06
+05
+04
+13
+07
Level 3
Low Up
-03 +03
-23 +04
-15 +07
-04 +13
-08 +03

-10 +05
-07 +12
-04 +07
-01 +01
-10 -01
-12 +04
-26 +23
-07 +09
-12 +11
-05 +22
-19 +04
-15 +10
-06 +10
-11 +09
-17 +40
-17 +40
-14 +11
-04 +06

-11 +09
-06 +04
-06 +04
-07 +06
-02 -01
-07 +07
-03 +00
-06 +05
-11 +09
-11 +09
-11 +09
-07 +08
-11 +06
-03 +04
-06 +04
-16 +12
-09 +07
                                          B-24

-------
TABLE B8.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
14001
14003
**IL
15001
15002
15003
15008
15010
**IN
23001
23002
**MI
24001
**MN
36001
36002
36003
36005
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36012
36014
36015
36016
**OH
51001
**WI
04001
**AR
19001
19002
**LA
32001
32002
**NM
37101
37103
**OK
Required Sites
No. No.
SLAMS NAMS
021
007
028
002
001
000
001
000
004
004
003
007
006
006
001
003
000
001
000
000
005
' 002
003
000
001
000
000
016
017
017
000
000
016
000
016
003
003
006
002
001
003
010
001
Oil
005
000
002
000
000
007
007
001
008
002
002
002
000
000
000
002
002
003
001
001
001
000
002
001
016
004
004
002
002
006
000
006
000
002
002
001
002
004
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
890
106
996
181
5
18
64
21
289
156
98
254
343
343
67
60
19
42
36
34
144
55
46
19
17
49
19
607
97
97
50
50
191
38
229
53
72
125
28
59
87
-13
-19
-16
-11
-15
-06
-11
-09
-10
-12
-13
-12
-13
-13
-16
-16
-12
-14
-12
-07
-09
-05
-15
-03
-10
-13
-01
-10
-12
-12
-06
-06
-09
-13
-10
-09
-08
-08
-09
-12
-10
Limits
Up
+09
+12
+10
+11
+19
+13
+14
+06
+12
+15
+08
+11
+12
+12
+12
+13
+05
+12
+09
+05
+08
+09
+13
+06
+10
+11
+03
+09
+08
+08
+05
+05
+09
+16
+10
+09
+04
+06
+07
+06
+06
No.
Audits
23
14
37
9
2
4
8
4
27
18
6
24
16
16
7
4
2
5
9
6
26
11
9
4
5
4
8
100
5
5
7
7
18
6
24
10
17
27
4
10
14
Level 1
Low Up
-08
-11
-09
-10
-05
-08
-11
-12
-10
-11
-10
-11
-10
-10
-06
-21
-33
-13
-12
-10
-05
-07
-12
-35
-05
-02
-09
-11
-19
-19
-13
-13
-09
-11
-10
-08
-09
-09
-04
-07
-06
+08
+16
+12
+04
+07
+11
+07
+08
+07
+08
+15
+10
+06
+06
+06
+11
+06
-02
+24
+12
+07
+12
+24
+27
+06
+09
+11
+12
+18
+18
+03
+03
+11
+10
+11
+10
+01
+05
+11
+04
+06
Level 2
Low Up
-08
-15
-11
-08
-05
-13
-11
-09
-10
-06
-01
-04
-08
-08
-06
-20
-17
-13
-07
-09
-03
-12
-05
-27
-06
-01
-11
-09
-14
-14
-11
-11
-14
-02
-11
-08
-09
-08
-02
-04
-03
+03
+12
+07
+03
+03
+13
+06
+06
+06
+05
+07
+06
+07
+07
+04
+12
-17
+02
+16
+07
+07
+11
+13
+14
+01
+07
+04
+08
+10
+10
+02
+02
+17
+09
+15
+04
+01
+02
+05
+04
+04
Level 3
Low Up
-09 +02
-13 +09
-11 +06
-10 +04
-06 -06
-10 +10
-10 +06
-09 +06
-09 +05
-07 +05
+00 +06
-05 +05
-07 +05
-07 +05
-03 +04
-22 +13
-20 -20
-12 +01
-07 +12
-10 +07
-02 +08
-07 +12
-05 +16
-23 +08
-07 +01
-01 +07
-15 +02
-09 +07
-12 +10
-12 +10
-13 +04
-13 +04
-12 +15
-01 +12
-09 +14
-10 +02
-11 +01
-11 +01
-04 +04
-05 +05
-05 +05
                                           B-25

-------
TABLE B8.  (Cont.)
Reporting
Organization
45001
45002
45006
**TX
16001
16002
16003
**IA
17001
**KS
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
**MO
28003
**NB
06001
**co
35001
**ND
46001
**UT
03100
03200
03300
**AZ
05001
05004
05036
05061
**CA
12120
**HI
29200
29300
**NV
Required Sites
No . No .
SLAMS NAMS
009
002
006
017
001
001
001
003
000
000
002
003
005
001
001
012
001
001
008
008
002
002
007
007
003
007
002
012
045
017
006
025
093
000
000
000
001
001
014
001
000
015
002
000
001
003
002
002
002
001
000
001
000
004
002
002
003
003
000
000
002
002
000
003
002
005
008
004
002
004
018
001
001
002
002
004
Precision
No. Data Prob.
Pairs Low
4,920
125
132
5,177
91
24
61
176
70
70
132
61
34
56
15
298
49
49
102
102
43
43
196
196
26
157
68
251
549
480
146
165
1,340
52
52
42
96
138
-07
-12
-17
-12
-01
-03
-10
-04
-20
-20
-09
-09
-30
-09
-15
-13
-11
-11
-20
-20
-09
-09
-12
-12
-05
-09
-07
-07
-16
-07
-08
-05
-09
-07
-07
-11
-10
-10
Limits
Up
+09
+10
+09
+09
+03
+15
+09
+09
+12
+12
+11
+09
+22
+14
+24
+15
+12
+12
+13
+13
+10
+10
+08
+08
+13
+08
+09
+09
+10
+06
+06
+19
+09
+14
+14
+06
+05
+05
No.
Audits
109
17
21
147
7
12
4
23
7
7
7
6
7
6
1
27
4
4
14
14
3
3
19
19
4
7
1
12
50
42
5
32
129
61
61
8
4
12
Accuracy
Levei 1 Level 2
Low Up Low Up
-20
-19
-06
-15
-11
-03
-11
-08
-12
-12
-02
-04
-15
-14

-07
-11
-11
-14
-14
-11
-11
-07
-07
-18
-06
-02
-07
-18
-14
+08
-20
-17
-25
-25
-26
+00
-15
+32
+08
+10
+17
+07
+14
+11
+11
+11
+11
+06
+09
+08
+05

+07
-05
-05
+07
+07
+05
+05
+10
+10
+04
+08
+07
+07
+08
+10
+06
+07
+08
+19
+19
+20
+00
+11
-15
-18
-05
-13
-28
-04
-09
-11
+01
+01
-07
+01
-14
-10

-07
-12
-12
-11
-11
-11
-11
-06
-06
-12
-05
-04
-06
-14
-09
-03
-09
-10
-07
-07
-12
-04
-08
+20
+10
+11
+14
+13
+09
+05
+08
+04
+04
+06
+07
+02
-03

+04
-04
-04
+06
+06
+04
+04
+08
+08
+00
+04
+07
+04
+06
+05
-03
+05
+04
+06
+06
+12
+10
+11
Level 3
Low Up
-16 +17
-17 +11
-07 +12
-13 +13
-24 +15
-06 +07
-07 +05
-10 +08
-05 +05
-05 +05
-07 +03
+02 +04
-16 +04
-11 -08

-07 +01
-09 -04
-09 -04
-14 +07
-14 +07
-13 +05
-13 +05
-06 +08
-06 +08
-10 +00
-05 +04
-06 +07
-06 +04
-12 +05
-08 +03
-03 +03
-08 +07
-09 +05
-08 +10
-08 +10
-05 +10
-06 +11
-06 +10
                                           B-26

-------
TABLE  B8. (Cont.)

Reporting
Organization
38001
**OR
49001
**WA
Required
No.
SLAMS
004
004
003
003
Sites
No.
NAMS
002
002
005
005

Precision

No. Data Prob. Limits
Pairs
158
158
295
295
Low
-16
-16
-07
-07
Up
+05
+05
+07
+07

No.
Audits
30
30
27
27

Level
Low
-32
-32
-07
-07
Accuracy
1 Level
Up Low
+23 -25
+23 -25
+05 -07
+05 -07

2
Up
+23
+23
+08
+08

Level
Low
-25
-25
-07
-07

3
Up
+24
+24
+08
+08
                                           B-27

-------

-------
                                    APPENDIX C
       TABLE Cl.   PARS AND PA DATA FOR CO, Pb, TSP, M02 (MANUAL) AND S02 (MANUAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM

            COMPARISON REPORT OF ftADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS  C PARS
DATE  1/00/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982

REGION  01  STATE   07   CONNECTICUT               REP  ORG  001  LAB  306001

                       	PROBABILITY  LIMITS	
 POL.CD.
112128 LEAD
   PARS

111101 HIV
   PARS
            AUDITS
 12
 31)

 30
148)
 LEVEL 1
LOU    UP

 -8    -2
                       TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOU    UP

  -H    -3
( -8) ( + 6)

  -1  ,  +2
( -8) ( + 3)
                                      LEVEL 3
                                     LOU    UP
 LEVEL 1
LOU    UP
REGION  01  STATE   20   MAINE
                                                   REP  ORG  001  LAB  301001
AUDITS
39
( 32)
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
TOTAL
	 MIU&J
LEVEL
LOU
-11
( -5) (
10J.J.J.JX ijj.no.jL:> 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOU UP
+ 8
+ 8)
LEVEL 0
LOU UP

 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
REGION   01   STATE   22  MASSACHUSETTS
                                                   REP ORG  001  LAB  304001
POL. CD.

C02101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS

21
( 18)
12
( 7)
LEVEL
LOU
-21
( -6) (
-19

1
UP
+ 31
+ 6)
+ 0

	 — — rKUDABJ.jViJ.J
LEVEL 2
LOU
-8
( -5)
-21
(-16)
UP
+ 10
( +5)
+ 26
( +8)
L i itj.no. ra-
LEVEL
LOU
-8 H
( -7) (
-02 <

3
UP
H3
+ 7)
H8

LEVEL 0
LOU UP




* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                      01

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF 2ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
  01   STATE  30  NEW HAMPSHIRE
                                                  REP ORG  001  LAB  302001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 01
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 01
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
18
( 22)
m
( 32)
STATE
AUDITS
15
( 11)
12
( 23)
6
( 17)
STATE
AUDITS
9
( 3)
23
( 28)
LEVEL
LOU
-11
( -8) (
TOTAL
41 RHODE
LEVEL
LOU
-4
( -3) (
-8
(-11) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 7
+ 5) (
(
ISLAND
1
UP
+ 2
+ 3) (
+ 10
+ 5) (
(
47 VERMONT
LEVEL
LOU
-7
(-15) (
TOTAL
1
UP
-2
+ 17) (
(
	 fKVB
LEVEL
LOU
— ?
-7) (
-7
-6) (

r KUD
LEVEL
LOU
-1
-1) (
-9
-9) (
-5
-6) (

r KU £»
LEVEL
LOU
-2
-12) (
-5
-6) (
A a j. L j. i x
2
UP
+ 6
+ 6)
+ 3
+ 6)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 4
+ 4)
+ 9
+ 1 )
+ 1
+ 6)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 0
+ 16)
+ 3
+ 4)
jjj.nj.T5 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP
-2 +4
( -7) ( +6)

REP ORG 001 LAB 305001
T T MT •₯» 
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
            COMPARISON  REPORT OF SADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
       1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
DATE

REGION  02  STATE   31   NEW JERSEY
                                                  REP  ORG   001   LAB  308001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

78
( 8)
37
( 12)
LEVEL
LOW
~" 6
( -7) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 5
+ 7)


	 i'KUBJ
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -5) (
-5
( -3) (
1BJLJUJ..
2
UP
+ 3
+ 2)
+ 8
+ 2)
LI jjj.nj.is-
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -5) (


3
UP
+ 3
+ 1 )


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION  02  STATE   33   NEW YORK
                                                  REP ORG   001   LAB  307001


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

83
( 38)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 rKUB
LEVEL
LOW
-1 1
( -2) (
ABJ-JjXTI JjJ.niii> 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 21
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  02  STATE   33   NEW YORK
                                                  REP ORG   001   LAB   407008
 POL. CD.
            AUDITS
C42101 CO      123
   PARS     (  28)

112128 LEAD    24
   PARS     (   4)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
	 rKUBABJ.|jJLJ
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
LI Jjj.nj.i5 	
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
 -12    +4
(-10) ( +9)

 -12   +16
(-25) (+27)
  -4    +6
(  -4) ( + 6)

 -20   +13
(  -9) (+18)
                                                    -5    +6
                                                  ( -1)  ( +2)
                                                   -34
+ 16
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                      C-3

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                                   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
            COMPARISON  REPORT OF SADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
      1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
DATE

REGION  02  STATE   40   PUERTO RICO
                                                  REP ORG   001   LAB  309001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS

6
( 2)
LEVEL
LOU
+ 1 H
( -1 ) (
1
UP
1-13
-1 )
	 f K.UBI
LEVEL
LOU
+ 7
( -4) (
VBJ.ii.LJ.
2
UP
+ 7
+ 0)
i jj JL n J. a a -
LEVEL
LOU
+ 1

3
UP
+ 9

LEVEL 4
LOU UP


* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION  OF  THE AVERAGES
                                       C-4

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE
      COMPARISON  REPORT OF BADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 03
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 11)
12
( 7)
STATE
08 DELAWARE
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-12) (
-37
(-16) (
1
UP
+ 3
+ 9)
+ 12
+ 13)
r r.\jo
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -4) (
-24
( -5) (
HDJ.UJ.1
2
UP
+ 4
+ 7)
+ 10
+ 4)
21 MARYLAND
REP ORG
L*Y LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -5) (
-28
REP ORG
001
3
UP
+ 3
+ 8)
+ 6
001
LAB 31300
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


LAB 31200


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

152
( 56)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 r K.VBI
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -9) (
1 D J. li J. J. I 11.1.11X10 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 8
+ 9)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  03   STATE  21  MARYLAND
 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
      AUDITS
        152
      (  12)
 LEVEL  1
LOW     UP

TOTAL
                                             REP ORG

                                 -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                      002  LAB   312001
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  -6    +8
(-13) (+10)
 LEVEL 3
LOW    UP
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                        C-5

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                            EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF 2ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
  03  STATE  21  MARYLAND
                           REP ORG   003   LAB  412004


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

14
( 13)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 r KUB
LEVEL
LOW
+ 28
(-15) (
Anj.iij.ii ijj.nj.ic> 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 88
+ 18)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  03  STATE   21   MARYLAND
                                            REP ORG  005  LAB   412002
AUDITS

16
( 11)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-10) (
HJDJ.iiJ.li iij.rij.id 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 18
+ 1 1 )
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
REGION  03  STATE   21   MARYLAND
                                            REP ORG  006  LAB   412006
AUDITS

20
( 12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 rKUB
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -6) (
A 0 j. !• x 1 1 jjj.nj.is> 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 15
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
REGION   03   STATE   39   PENNSYLVANIA
                                            REP ORG

                                -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                     001  LAB  311002
 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
      AUDITS
          5
      (  121)
 LEVEL 1
LOW    UP

TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  -3    +3
(  -9) (+12)
 LEVEL 3
LOW    UP
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                       C-6

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  03  STATE  39  PENNSYLVANIA
REP ORG  002   LAB   411002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
9
( 34)
18
( 212)
STATE
AUDITS
39
( 6)
13
( 12)
STATE
AUDITS
36
( 9)
1 1
( 6)
51
( 51)
LEVEL
LOW
-6
(-13) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 4
+ 9)

39 PENNSYLVANIA
LEVEL
LOW
-12
( -8) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 9
+ 7)

48 VIRGINIA
LEVEL
LOW
-2
(-14) (
-52 +
(-12) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 1
+ 9)
19
+ 9)

- l-KUB
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -6) (
-7
( -4) (

r KU B
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -1) (
-3
(-11 ) (

r KU B
LEVEL
LOW
-4
(-11) (
-3
( -9) (
-9
( -5) (
A D J. li J. 1 X
2
UP
+ 2
+ 2)
+ 4
+ 5)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 7
+ 2)
+ 21
+ 8)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 3
+ 5)
+ 4
+ 4)
+ 4
+ 3)
iij.nj.ia 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +1
( -4) ( +1)

REP ORG 003 LAB 411001
T TMTTC _ _
Lj.nj.ib 	 — 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +6
( -1 ) ( +1 )

REP ORG 001 LAB 315001
T T M T T <•
LIMITS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +0
(-11) ( +6)
-4 +1

* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN  THE  CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                          C-7

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1982
  03  STATE  48  VIRGINIA
REP ORG  002  LAB   415005


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

12
( 9)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 fKUtS
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -4) (
ABJ.LJ.il LJ.HJ.lb 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 8
+ 12)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  03  STATE   48   VIRGINIA
                                            REP ORG  003   LAB   415004
POL. CD. AUDITS

C42


101 CO
PARS (
142602 N02

112

11 1

PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (

21
13)
9
28)
6
16)
13
23)
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -4) (
-4
( -5) (
-26
( -8) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 8
+ 7)
+ 3
+ 5)
-26
+ 5)


-— rK.uBABj.Lj.iiLj.nj.ib- - -
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
+ 0
( -7)
-4
( -3)
-2
( -3)
+ 5
( -7)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+7 -1 +7
( +6) ( -7) ( +5)
+2 -4 +5 -2 -2
( +5) ( -3) ( +5)
+46 -2 -1
( +3)
+ 6
( +5)
REGION  03  STATE   48   VIRGINIA
                                            REP ORG   005   LAB   415001
 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
AUDITS

5
( 9)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 f HUUi
LEVEL
LOW
-13
( -1 ) (
IBJ.LJ.1I LJ.nj.lb 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 7
+ 1 )
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                         C-8

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON  REPORT OF 2ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  E  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
  03  STATE   50   WEST VIRGINIA
                            REP  ORG  001  LAB   314001
POL. CD.

C42

11 1


101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

6
( 1)
30
( 12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-34 +7

TOTAL

	 rtiva
LEVEL
LOW
-3

-10
(-12) (
A B J_ li _L 1 I li -L H J. J. i 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
-3 -3 +0

+ 1 1
+ 6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION   03   STATE  50  WEST  VIRGINIA
                                             REP ORG

                                 -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                      002  LAB   314002
 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
      AUDITS
          16
          10)
 LEVEL  1
LOW     UP

TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

 -12   +20
(  -4) ( +7)
 LEVEL 3
LOW    UP
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                          C-9

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                               EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
       COMPARISON REPORT  OF 2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS E PARS
1/04/85                 DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
  04   STATE   01   ALABAMA
REP ORG  Oil   LAB   319001


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

15
( 40)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 r KUD
LEVEL
LOW
-8
( -9) (
ADJLiiJ.lI JjJ.nj.ia 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 2
+ 14)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  04   STATE   01   ALABAMA
                                                 REP ORG   012  LAB   419001
POL. CD.

C42

11 1


101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

21
( 13)
12
( 298)
LEVEL
LOW
-12
(-30) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 10
+ 23)


	 f nun;
LEVEL
LOW
«. o
( -3) (
+ 4
( -4) (
t a j. !• j. j
2
UP
+ 6
+ 4)
+ 8
+ 4)
11 JLI J. n j. i a
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -5) (


3
UP
+ 4
+ 1 1 )


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION  04   STATE   01   ALABAMA
                                                 REP ORG   014  LAB  419004


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

6
( 8)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 rjKUB/
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
( -4) (
iBj.iij.ii iij.nj.ji2> 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED IN  THE CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                             C-10

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY    EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON  REPORT  OF 6ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85                DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
  04  STATE  01   ALABAMA
                                                        REP ORG   015  LAB   419005


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

6
( 12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 fKUB
LEVEL
LOW
-22
(-14) (
ABa.JjJ.il LJ.rU. IS 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 13
+ 20)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  04   STATE   10  FLORIDA
                                                       REP ORG   001   LAB   323005
POL. CD. AUDITS

142602 N02
PARS (
142401 S02
PARS (
111101 HIV
PARS (

10
12)
10
12)
36
38)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-5 +10
( -3) ( +5)
-21 +39
(-11) ( +8)
TOTAL

	 f KUBAJJJ.LJ.TX LJ.rU.TS 	
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOW
-4
( -1)
+ 15
( -7)
-12
( -7)
UP LOW UP
+6 -2 +4
( +5) ( -2) ( +6)
+15 -5 -5
( +4) ( -6) ( +4)
+ 6
( +4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-2 +3

-7 +12



REGION  04   STATE   10   FLORIDA
                                                REP ORG   002   LAB  323003


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

22
( 5)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 f KUBA
LEVEL
LOW
-19 +
( -3) (
BJ.LJ.TI LJ.nj.T5 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
12
+ 4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED  IN THE  CALCULATION OF  THE AVERAGES
                                            C-ll

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04x85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  OH  STATE  10  FLORIDA
REP ORG  003   LAB   323001
POL. CD.

142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

5
( 4)
23
( 15)
LEVEL
LOW
-1 +
( -2) (
TOTAL

1
UP
16
+ 4)


	 f KUBI
LEVEL
LOW

( -2) (
-15
(-14) (
inj.jux J
2
UP

+ 5)
+ 3
+ 7)
LI i, j. n j. i a -
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -2) (


3
UP
-3
+ 5)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-4 +5



REGION  04  STATE   10   FLORIDA
                                            REP  ORG   004   LAB  323008
POL. CD.

142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

10
( 11)
10
( 12)
20
( 10)
LEVEL
LOW
-97
( -3) (
-12
(-13) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 49
+ 12)
+ 27
+ 9)


	 f KUO
LEVEL
LOW
-71
( -2) (
-6
(-11) (
-10
( -6) (
A B J. i, J. J
2
UF
+ 39
+ 10)
-6
+ 11)
+ 3
+ 4)
LI ii J. n j. r a
LEVEL
LOW
-86
( +0) (
-7
( -7) (


3
UP
+ 21
+ 7)
-7
+ 6)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-92 +42

-6 -1



* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN  THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                       C-12

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
       COMPARISON REPORT  OF BADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS  G PARS
1/04/85                DATA  SELECTED FOR YEAR 1982
  04   STATE   10  FLORIDA
REP  ORG   005  LAB  323002
POL. CD.
142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
4
( 8)
5
( 8)
13
( 17)
STATE
AUDITS
5
( 11)
10
( 11)
32
( 12)
STATE
AUDITS
5
( 4)
LEVEL
LOW
+ 5
( -4) (
-9
( -6) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 5
+ 8)
+ 3
+ 1 1 )

10 FLORIDA
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
( -3) (
-33
(-22) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 4
+ 6)
+ 1 1
+ 18)

10 FLORIDA
LEVEL
LOW
TOTAL
1
UP

	 r KUD
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
( -7) (
( -9) (
-10
(-13) (

r K U D
LEVEL
LOW
+ 3
( -4) (
HB J. i.X J. I
2
UP
+ 2
+ 7)
+ 9)
+ 2
+ 10)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 3
+ 4)
-1 -1
(-31) (+22)
— Q
( -4) (
T^ T» *\ T»
	 PROB
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -3) (
+ 7
+ 8)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 2
+ 2)
ii j. n JL i a
LEVEL
LOW
+ 3
( -6) (
-13
(-13) (

REP ORG
LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
+ 3
( -5) (
-1 1
(-17) (

REP ORG
LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW

3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+3 +1 +1
+ 8)
-13 -16 +1
+ 11)

006 LAB 323006
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+3 +3 +3
+ 5)
-11 -19 -7
+ 8)

007 LAB 323010
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP

* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED IN  THE CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                            C-13

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                      EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
            COMPARISON  REPORT  OF  2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
DATE  1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1982

REGION  04  STATE   10   FLORIDA                   REP ORG  011   LAB   423003

                      	PROBABILITY LIMITS	
 POL.CD.
C42101 CO
   PARS

111101 HIV
   PARS
AUDITS
   27
(   24)

   59
(   80)
  LEVEL 1
 LOW    UP

  -8    + 3
(  -4) ( +7)

 TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  -4    +2
(  -2) ( +3)

  -9    +4
(-10) ( +9)
  LEVEL 3
 LOW    UP

  -3    +2
(  -3)  ( +3)
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
REGION  04  STATE   10   FLORIDA
                                      REP ORG  012  LAB  423004
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
AUDITS

12
( 5)
5
( 25)
LEVEL
LOW
-19 +
(-12) ( +
-4
( -4) (
1
UP
13
12)
-4
+ 4)
	 r K.VB
LEVEL
LOW
-13
(-10) (
-6
( -3) (
RO±L,± j
2
UP
-1
+ 13)
+ 0
+ 4)
I 1 Jj-LllX J. 2>
LEVEL
LOW
-13
( -5) (
-4
( -4) (
3
UP
+ 0
+ 1 1 )
-4
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


-5 -5

142401 S02
   PARS
   10
(   28)
112128 LEAD      6
   PARS      (   14)

111101 HIV      38
   PARS      (   22)
  -1   +10
(-11) (  +7)

  -2    -2
(  -7) (  +7)

 TOTAL
  -1    -1
(  -7) (  +6)

  -8    -3
(  -4) (  +2)

 -12   +22
(-10) (+14)
  + 0    +0
(  -6) (  +3)
                                        -7
        -6
 -2
+ 4
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION  OF  THE AVERAGES
                                      C-14

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF  2ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  04  STATE   10   FLORIDA
REP ORG   013  LAB  423016
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
30
( 22)
10
( 10)
12
( 9)
31
( 29)
STATE
AUDITS
10
( 35)
19
( 14)
STATE
AUDITS
15
( 5)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-9 +2
( -7) ( +8)
-66 +3
( -8) (+18)
-8 +12
( -1) ( +7)
TOTAL
10 FLORIDA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-18 +12
(-22) ( + 113
TOTAL
10 FLORIDA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
rKUBHB -Lli J. 1 I
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-6 +4
( -4) ( +6)
-22 -22
( -6) (+11)
-6 +2
( -4) ( +8)
-14 -1
( -2) ( +1 )

rKUDADXliJ. 1 I
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 6 +6
(-10) ( +6)
-6 + 8
(-16) (+19)

rKUl>Al5iljJL 1 X
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-29 +14
(-27) (+18)
iij.nj.ia 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-3 +2
( -3) ( +3)
-7 -7 -13 +8
( -8) (+17)
-4 +4

REP ORG 014 LAB 423005
TTMTTC » _
iij.nj.io 	 — — — 	 — —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-4 -4 -4 +11
( -7) ( +5)

REP ORG 015 LAB 423015
T TMTTCS _
iij.nj.is 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP

* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                      C-15

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
            COMPARISON REPORT  OF  BADHS  ACCURACY  AUDITS C PARS
DATE  1/04/85              DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982

REGION  04  STATE   10  FLORIDA                    REP ORG  016  LAB  423008
 POL. CD.
C42101 CO
   PARS
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
	 rKUBAB-Lii-LJ
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
LI JjJ.nj.TS 	
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
          -16    +6
         ( +1) (+11)
  -1     +0
(  +3) (  +9)
REGION  04  STATE   10  FLORIDA
  -4    +2
(  -1) ( +5)

REP ORG  017  LAB  423001
POL. CD. AUDITS

C42101 CO
PARS (
142602 N02
PARS (
142401 S02
PARS (
111101 HIV
PARS (

30
4)
10
58)
10
42)
30
12)
LEVEL 1
LOW
-1 1
( -8)
+ 0
( -8)
-39
(-26)
TOTAL

UP
+ 6
( + 17)
+ 3
( + 10)
+ 16
( +2)


	 rKUBABJ.LJ.j
LEVEL 2
LOW
-2
( -1 )
-4
( -4)
-10
(-17)
-7
( -5)
UP
+ 1
( +9)
-2
( +5)
-10
( +1)
+ 4
( +7)
II LJ.nj.TS 	
LEVEL 3
LOW
-2
( -1 )
-5
( -6)
-13
(-14)


UP
+ 1
( +4)
+ 2
( +5)
-13
( +2)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP


-3 -1

-1 1 +1



* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN  THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                      C-16

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF BADHS  ACCURACY  AUDITS C PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED  FOR  YEAR 1982
  04  STATE  10  FLORIDA
                             REP  ORG

                 -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                        018   LAB  423002
 POL.CD.
C42101 CO
   PARS
      AUDITS
         21
          4)
112128 LEAD     6
   PARS     (   6)

111101 HIV      17
   PARS     (   90)
  LEVEL 1
 LOW    UP

 -13    +1
(  -7) (+12)

  + 3    +3
(  -2) ( +2)

 TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  -3    +3
(  +0) ( +3)

  + 2    +5
(  -6) ( +1)

  -8    +4
(  -8) ( +8)
                                                    LEVEL  3
                                                   LOW     UP

                                                    -1     +2
                                                  ( -1)  (  +2)
                                                    -1
                                                    + 4
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
REGION  04  STATE   11   GEORGIA
                                            REP ORG  010  LAB  321001
POL. CD.

C42

11 1


101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

18
C 9)
32
( 52)
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-40) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 14
+ 31)


	 r JKUD
LEVEL
LOW
-3
(-20) (
-3
( -5) (
A O J. Jj J. J
2
UP
+ 7
+ 26)
+ 4
+ 4)
LI ii j. n j. i a
LEVEL
LOW
-3
(-16) (


3
UP
+ 4
+ 23)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION  04  STATE   18  KENTUCKY
                                            REP ORG  001  LAB  316001


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

10
( 85)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 rnuis
LEVEL
LOW
— 5
(-12) (
A o j. i. a. a. i it j. n J. i a 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 24
+ 18)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                     C-17

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                               EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
       COMPARISON  REPORT  OF SADHS  ACCURACY  AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85                DATA  SELECTED FOR YEAR 1982
  04   STATE   18   KENTUCKY
                                                       REP ORG   001   LAB  316007
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 04
AUDITS

36
( 25)
12
( 6)
STATE
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-16 +11
(-13) (+12)
-28 +29
( -2) (+26)
18 KENTUCKY
	 f KUBA
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -8) (
-19 +
( +0) (

BJ.k.L.
2
UP
+ 3
+ 6)
19
+ 9)

II LJ.nJ.TS-
LEVEL
LOW
-4
(-12) (
-14 +

REP ORG
3
UP
+ 5
+ 9)
19

002
LEVEL 4
LOW UP




LAB 41600
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

24
( 4)
10
( 56)
10
( 58)
12
( 3)
13
( 21 )
LEVEL
LOW
-16
( -9) (
-39
(-29) (
-25
(-11) (
-17

TOTAL

1
UP
+ 7
+ 3)
+ 19
+ 26)
+ 18
+ 12)
+ 5



	 f KUB
LEVEL
LOW
-14
( -7) (
-25
(-19) (
+ 6
( -4) (
-12
( -1 ) (
-4
( -5) (
ABJ.L1J
2
UP
+ 16
+ 6)
+ 6
+ 18)
+ 6
+ 5)
+ 4
+ 11)
+ 4
+ 5)
LX LIHITS
LEVEL
LOW
-13
( -3) (
-18
(-12) (
-1 1
( -3) (
-15



3
UP
+ 12
+ 7)
+ 7
+ 6)
-1 1
+ 4)
-4



LEVEL 4
LOW UP


-17 +3

-13 +14





* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED  IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                         C-18

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
            COMPARISON REPORT OF  2ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
DATE  1/04/85              DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
REGION  04  STATE  25  MISSISSIPPI
                                      REP  ORG   100  LAB  322002

                          -PROBABILITY LIMITS	
 POL.CD.
C42101 CO
   PARS
AUDITS
 LEVEL 1
LOW    UP
        LEVEL 2
       LOW    UP
              LEVEL 3
             LOW    UP
                      LEVEL  4
                     LOW     UP
          -1 1
       + 7
        -4
      + 6
        -4
      + 3
111101 HIV      12
   PARS     (   27)
(   4)   ( -3) ( +6)    ( -1)  (  +4)    (  -5)  (  +2)

          TOTAL
              -12   +1 1
             (-10) (+10)
REGION  04  STATE  34  NORTH  CAROLINA             REP ORG  001  LAB  318001

                      	PROBABILITY LIMITS	

 POL.CD.    AUDITS
111101 HIV     65
   PARS     ( 256)
           LEVEL 1
          LOW    UP

          TOTAL
               LEVEL 2
              LOW    UP

               -9    +9
             ( -4) ( +3)
                      LEVEL  3
                     LOW     UP
                            LEVEL  4
                           LOW     UP
REGION  04  STATE  34  NORTH  CAROLINA             REP ORG  001  LAB  318004

                      	PROBABILITY LIMITS	

 POL.CD.    AUDITS
           LEVEL  1
          LOW     UP
               LEVEL 2
              LOW    UP
                      LEVEL  3
                     LOW     UP
                            LEVEL  4
                           LOW     UP
C42101 CO
   PARS

142602 N02
   PARS

142401 S02
   PARS

112128 LEAD
   PARS
   12
-16
+ 9
-5
+ 3
-4
+ 1
(   5)   (-23) (+21)    ( -6)  (  +6)    (  -7)  (  +7)
                         + 2
                     + 2
                      + 1
                    + 2
                      + 2     +2
(  17)   ( -6) ( +3)    ( -6)  (  +2)    (  -4)  (  +0)
          -1 1
       + 8
                      -6
                             -2
                             + 3
(   20)   (-10) ( +6)    (-11)  (  +0)    (-18)  (  +4)
   12
-26   +40
        -6   +12
             -12
              + 5
(   5)   ( -4) (+10)    ( +0)  (  +0)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                      C-19

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY    EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM

            COMPARISON  REPORT  OF 9ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS E PARS
DATE  1/04/85               DATA  SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982

REGION  04  STATE   34   NORTH CAROLINA            REP ORG  002   LAB  418003
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
	 fKUBAHJ-IiXTI Jj J. n J- T S> 	
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
12 -13 +3 -8 -2 -9 +0
( 7) (-25) ( +8) (-11) (+14) (-11) (+15)
142602 N02
   PARS

142401 S02
   PARS
(   50)
(   36)
  + 2    +2
(-14) (+13)

  -7    +1
(-30) (+19)
  + 2    +2
(-16) (+14)
(-21) (+13)
REGION  04  STATE   34   NORTH CAROLINA
  -1    +0      -4     -4
(-13) (+13)

  +1    +1      +0     +2
(-18) (+12)

REP ORG  003  LAB   418006
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42101 CO
PARS (
142602 N02
PARS (
142401 S02
PARS (
111101 HIV
PARS (
30
59)
10
57)
5
58)
61
59)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-8
( -6)
-8
( -5)
-32
(-15)
TOTAL

+ 3
( +4)
+ 1 1
( +8)
-14
( +3)


	 rKUBAajLiiXJ
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-2
( -2)
-6
( -1 )

( -8)
-3
( -5)
+ 6
( +3)
+ 6
( +6)

( +5)
+ 8
( +9)
.1 1-iiij.ii 	
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-2
( -2)
-4
( -1 )
-7
( -6)


+ 2
( +3)
+ 7
( +5)
-7
( +6)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP


-6 +8

-3 -2



* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                       C-20

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EnSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1982
REGION 04 STATE 34 NORTH CAROLINA
« T* I
POL. CD. AUDITS
14
14
11
2602 N02
PARS (
2401 S02
PARS (
1101 HIV
PARS (
10
12)
5
6)
9
10)
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
-17 +10
(-11) (+15)
-29 +12
(-19) ( +8)
TOTAL
REP ORG 004
•\T»»«TT T- m W T T- M T m C«
rn.VDHD-LJjJ.ll j-> J. 1 1 -L 1 O
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOU UP LOU UP
-10
(-15)
(-17)
-3
( -4)
-3 -8 -4
(+11) (-16) (+14)
-11 -11
(+22) (-11) (+15)
+ 6
( + 17)
LAB 41800
LEVEL 4
LOU UP
-8 -2
-15 +1

REGION  04  STATE   42   SOUTH CAROLINA
                                            REP ORG  001   LAB   320001
                                       -PROBABILITY  LIMITS-
 POL.CD.    AUDITS
C42101 CO      21
   PARS     (  39)

112128 LEAD    12
   PARS     (  18)
111101 HIV
   PARS
         1 1
      (  355)
  LEVEL 1
 LOU    UP

 -18    +9
(-26) (+10)

  -7    +3
(  -8) (+18)

 TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOU    UP

  -6    +3
(  -5) ( +4)

  -2    +2
(-19) (+21)

  + 0    +1
(  -3) ( +3)
                                                     LEVEL 3
                                                    LOU     UP

                                                     -3     +2
                                                   (  -2)  ( +3)
                                                     -5
                                                    + 1
                                                             LEVEL  4
                                                            LOU     UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                       C-21

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON  REPORT OF 2ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS E PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
  04  STATE  44   TENNESSEE
                             REP ORG

                 -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                        002  LAB  417004
 POL.CD.
C42101 CO
   PARS
      AUDITS
         27
         29)
  LEVEL 1
 LOW    UP

  -6    +7
(  -5) ( + 6)
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  + 0    +4
(  -4) ( +7)
  LEVEL 3
 LOW    UP

  + 0    +2
(  -5) ( +7)
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
111101 HIV       8
   PARS      (   55)
                 TOTAL
REGION   04   STATE  44  TENNESSEE
                 -2     +0
               (  -9)  (  +9)
                                             REP ORG  003   LAB   417003
POL. CD. AUDITS

C42101 CO
PARS (
142602 N02
PARS (
112128 LEAD
PARS (
111101 HIV
PARS (

30
26)
10
29)
12
60)
29
90)
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
(-14) C
+ 1
( -5) (
-34
( -4) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 2
+ 6)
+ 1
+ 6)
+ 68
+ 3)


	 fKUJBABiliiJ
LEVEL 2
LOW
+ 1
(-12)
«~ C
( -4)
-46
( -4)
-5
( -5)
UP
+ 2
( + 7)
+ 10
( +3)
+ 83
( +1 )
+ 9
( + 10)
LI l.J.n.1. 0. a 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +1
(-16) (+10)
-2 +1 -2 -1
( -4) ( +4)
-10 +12



* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                        C-22

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  BADHS ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1982
  04  STATE  44  TENNESSEE
REP ORG  004  LAB   417002
POL. CD.

C42

11 1


101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

3
( 2)
15
( 44)
LEVEL
LOW
-8
(-11 ) (
TOTAL

1
UP
-8
+ 21)


	 r K.\JD
LEVEL
LOU
+ 0
(-11) (
-3
( -5) (
AD-Llii J
2
UP
+ 0
+ 17)
+ 6
+ 4)
LI li JL I 1 J. 1 3
LEVEL
LOU
+ 0
(-11) (


3
UP
+ 0
+ 17)


LEVEL 4
LOU UP




REGION  04  STATE   44   TENNESSEE
                                            REP ORG  005   LAB   417001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

6
( 9)
26
( 100)
LEVEL
LOU
-1 1
( -9) (
TOTAL

1
UP
-1
+ 7)


LEVEL
LOU
-5
( -4) (
-6
( -6) (
ABXli J. J
2
UP
+ 1
+ 4)
+ 11
+ 6)
1 1 ii J. n j. i a -
LEVEL
LOU
-3
( -9) (


3
UP
+ 0
+ 6)


LEVEL 4
LOU UP




REGION  04  STATE   44   TENNESSEE
                                            REP ORG   006   LAB   417001


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

26
( 35)
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
TOTAL

	 f KUD
LEVEL
LOU
-6
(-10) (
ACXliJ.lI l
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  6ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS C  PARS
1x04/85              DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  05  STATE  14  ILLINOIS
REP ORG  001  LAB   328001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
51
( 9)
12
( 3)
4
( 57)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 3)
17
( 20)
STATE
AUDITS
18
( 11)
9
( 30)
LEVEL
LOW
-15
(-11) (
-6
( -3) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 7
+ 8)
+ 2
+ 5)

14 ILLINOIS
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -4) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 12
+ 4)

14 ILLINOIS
LEVEL
LOW
-8
(-20) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 4
+ 7)

	 f KUOK
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -9) (
-4
( -1 ) (
-13
(-12) (+

— fKUiS A
LEVEL
LOW
-13
( -9) (
-1 1
( -9) (
n D rv 13 n
— — r KUD A
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -6) (
-10
( -8) (
D J-Jj-L 1 I
2
UP
+ 7
+ 5)
+ 1
+ 3)
+ 2
10)
BILITY
2
UP
+ 9
+ 7)
+ 3
+ 6)
BILITY
2
UP
+ 4
+ 5)
+ 5
+ 9)
iiJLriJLis - - - -
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-6 +5
( -1) ( + 3)
-12 +4

REP ORG 002 LAB 428002
jU-tn J. i a
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-29 +13

REP ORG 003 LAB 428003
Lin J. i a
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +3
( -9) ( +4)

*  ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION  OF  THE AVERAGES
                                     C-24

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGIOK
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  BADHS ACCURACY AUDITS E  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR 1982
  05  STATE   15  INDIANA
REP ORG   001   LAB   329001
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
5
( 38)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 5)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 2)
STATE
AUDITS
26
( 32)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
15 INDIANA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-31 -29
(-31) (+35)
15 INDIANA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
15 INDIANA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
	 I'KUBA
LEVEL
LOW
-10
( -4) (
_ T% T> f\ TJ 11
rKUB A
LEVEL
LOW
-41
( -8) ( +
T> T> f\ »J •
rKUB A
LEVEL
LOW
-1 +
( -1) (
_ D D f\ T> H
rKUB A
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -6) (
D J. Jj J. I I
2
UP
+ 2
+ 5)
BILITY
2
UP
+ 5
16)
BILITY
2
UP
10
+ 3)
BILITY
2
UP
+ 3
+ 7)
iiJLnj.ia 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP

REP ORG 001 LAB 329002
T T M T T 
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON  REPORT OF BADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS E PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR 1982
  05  STATE   15   INDIANA
                            REP ORG  005   LAB  429005
POL. CD.

111 101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

23
( 14)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

t-Kva
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -1) (
ADJ.iij.ii iiJ.nj.is 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 6
+ 10)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION   05   STATE  15  INDIANA
                                             REP ORG  008   LAB   429004


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

5
( 16)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 r KUB>
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -1) (
IBJ.I.J.II ii j. n j. j. a 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 9
+ 1)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION   05   STATE  15  INDIANA
 POL.CD.
111101  HIV
   PARS
      AUDITS
          15
           8)
 LEVEL  1
LOW     UP

TOTAL
                                             REP ORG

                                 -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                      009   LAB  429008
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  -5    +0
(  -4) ( +4)
 LEVEL 3
LOW    UP
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                       C-26

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                              EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE
      COMPARISON REPORT OF  6ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
REGION 05 STATE 23 MICHIGAN
T* T> /
POL. CD. AUDITS
C42
112
11 1
101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (
24
6)
12
14)
12
35)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-1 1 +7
( -9) (+10)
-93 +20
( -8) ( +0)
TOTAL
REP ORG 001 LAB 32600
X T» « T» T1 T f m\f T TMTmC*
rnuDHDj-jjXii jij.iij.xo
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-9
( -7)
-78
( -8)
-2
( -4)
+8 -10 +7
( +6) ( -8) ( +4)
+31 -83 +30
( +0)
+ 1 1
( +8)
REGION   05   STATE  23  MICHIGAN
                                              REP ORG  002   LAB  426001
POL. CD. AUDITS

C4

11

11


2101 CO
PARS (
2128 LEAD
PARS (
1101 HIV
PARS (

30
4)
12
3)
54
24)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-26 +14
(-11) ( +6)
-9 +76
( -2) ( +2)
TOTAL

	 r KUOACXiiJ. J. I ii J- 1 1 J. 1 2> 	
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-6
( +1 )
-10
( -2)
-9
( -5)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+10 -5 +8
( +4) ( -1) ( +6)
+14 -4 +6
( +2)
+ 5
( +5)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED  IN  THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                        C-27

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY
                                 EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
       COMPARISON  REPORT OF  SADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85                 DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
  05   STATE   24   MINNESOTA
                                                          REP  ORG   001   LAB   324001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
37
( 23)
12
( 8)
29
( 70)
STATE
AUDITS
18
( 4)
12
( 22)
STATE
AUDITS
31
( 12)
LEVEL
LOU
-18
(-17) (
-10
(-20) (
TOTAL
36 OHIO
LEVEL
LOU
-3
( -3) (
-36
(-18) (
36 OHIO
LEVEL
LOU
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 5
+ 23)
+ 6
+ 9)


1
UP
+ 13
+ 13)
+ 29
+ 13)

1
UP

	 ^KUBA
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -8) (+
-2
(-17) (
-20 +
( -7) (

r KU l> A
LEVEL
LOU
+ 5 +
( +5) (
-19
( -8) (

r KU D A
LEVEL
LOU
-7
(-11) (
a J. L J. r i
2
UP
+ 6
14)
+ 1
+ 8)
14
+ 9)
BILITY
2
UP
13
+ 7)
+ 8
+ 6)
BILITY
2
UP
+ 0
+ 7)
LIHITS
LEVEL
LOU
-5
( -8) (
-3

REP ORG
LIMITS
LEVEL
LOU
+ 3
( +4) (
-1 1
REP ORG
LIMITS
LEVEL
LOU

3 LEVEL 4
UP LOU UP
+ 6
+ 9)
+ 2

001 LAB 327001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOU UP
+ 9
+ 1 1 )
+ 5
002 LAB 327003
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOU UP

* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED IN  THE CALCULATION  OF THE  AVERAGES
                                             C-28

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY   EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM

            COMPARISON REPORT OF fiADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
DATE  1/04/85               DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982

REGION  05  STATE   36  OHIO                       REP ORG   003   LAB  327005


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

18
( 23)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 yKUJs;
LEVEL
LOW
-6
(-10) (
I B .L Jb JL 1 X ^J.nJL12> 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 0
+ 4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION   05   STATE  36  OHIO
REP ORG  005   LAB   327006


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

21
( 10)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 fKVBI
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -9) (
i B J. 1. J. i i jjxnj-ia
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 3
+ 3)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION   05   STATE  36  OHIO
REP ORG  006   LAB   427001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

6
( 5)
46
( 17)
LEVEL
LOW
-21 +
(-21 ) (+
TOTAL

1
UP
43
15)


	 f KUBJ
LEVEL
LOW
-5 H
(-13) (
-5
( -5) (
I B J. !• J. J
2
UP
H9
+ 5)
+ 4
+ 8)
LI li J. H 4. T a
LEVEL
LOW
-9
(-18) (


3
UP
+ 15
+ 10)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION  OF THE AVERAGES
                                        C-29

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
            COMPARISON  REPORT OF 2ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS G PARS
      1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
DATE

REGION  05  STATE   36   OHIO
                                                   REP  ORG  007  LAB  427002


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

28
( 19)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

f HUB!
LEVEL
LOW
+ 0
( -3) (
iBj.ijj.ii jjj.nj.ib 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 4
+ 6)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  05  STATE   36   OHIO
                                                   REP  ORG  008  LAB  427003
POL. CD. AUDITS

C42

112

111


101 CO
PARS (
128 LEAD
PARS (
101 HIV
PARS (

30
4)
6
22)
31
40)
LEVEL
LOW
-22
(-15) (
-2
(-18) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 9
-3)
-2
+ 13)


	 rKUBABJ.LJ.TI .LJ.nj.Tb 	
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW
-3
( -4)
-5
( -8)
-6
( -8)
UP LOW UP LOW UP
+ 3 -3 +3
( +3) ( -4) ( +6)
-2 -5 -4
( +6)
+ 8
( +6)
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN  THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                       C-30

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY    EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF BADHS  ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
1X04/85              DATA SELECTED  FOR  YEAR 1982
  05  STATE  36  OHIO
REP ORG  009  LAB   427004
POL. CD. AUDITS

C42101 CO
PARS (
142602 N02
PARS (
142401 S02
PARS (
111101 HIV
PARS (

12
5)
10
44)
10
46)
26
39)
LEVEL 1
LOW
-19
(-13)
-12
( -4)
-1 1
(-10)
TOTAL

UP
+ 10
( +6)
+ 21
( +6)
+ 15
( +4)


	 rKUBABJ.JLiJ.J
LEVEL 2
LOW
-3
(-12)
-7
( -3)
+ 3
( -5)
-7
( -4)
UP
+ 3
( +4)
+ 10
( +5)
+ 3
( +4)
+ 4
( +6)
LI ii J. n j. i s> -
LEVEL 3
LOW
-4
(-11)
-3
( -4)
-4
( -4)


UP
+ 2
( +3)
+ 7
( +5)
-4
( +4)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP


-6 +7

-1 +7



REGION  05  STATE  36  OHIO
                                            REP ORG  010  LAB  427005
POL. CD.

C42

11 1


101 CO
PARS
101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

9
( 4)
6
( 29)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-33 +16
(-47) (+19)
TOTAL

	 Jf KUB
LEVEL
LOW
-2
(-17) (
-6
( -8) (
A B J. ii 1 J
2
UP
+ 6
+ 15)
+ 10
+ 9)
LI jjj.ru. id —
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -7) (+


3
UP
+ 4
1 1 )


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                       C-31

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON  REPORT OF BADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR  1982
  05  STATE   36   OHIO
REP ORG   012   LAB  427007
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
142602 N02
PARS
142401 S02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 05
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS
6
( 2)
10
( 59)
10
( 59)
43
( 17)
STATE
AUDITS
17
( 20)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 2)
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
-11 -2
( +5) ( +5)
+ 1 +1
( -8) ( +5)
-33 +19
( -7) ( +5)
TOTAL
36 OHIO
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
TOTAL
36 OHIO
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
+ 1 +2
(-11) ( +5)
	 rKUBfl
LEVEL
LOU
-1
( +1 ) (
-2
( -3) (
+ 8
( -5) (
-8
(-11) (
T> t> A U 1
- — 	 rKUB/
LEVEL
LOU
-14
( -6) (
« Y! ^\ Y% 1
	 PROBJ
LEVEL
LOU
+ 1
( -9) (
i B ± Jj J_ 1 I
2
UP
+ 0
+ 9)
+ 1
+ 3)
+ 8
+ 4)
+ 4
+ 8)
IBILITY
2
UP
+ 9
+ 5)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 3
+ 7)
ii j. n j. i a
LEVEL
LOU
-5
( -1) (+
-3
( -3) (
-6
( -3) (

REP ORG
LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOU

REP ORG
LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOU
-1
( -8) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOU UP
+ 6
1 1)
+1 -2 +0
+ 5)
-6 -7 +4
+ 3)

013 LAB 427010
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOU UP

014 LAB 427008
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOU UP
+ 0
+ 4)
 *  ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                         C-32

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
             COMPARISON REPORT OF  BADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
       1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1982
DATE

REGION  05  STATE   36   OHIO
                                                   REP ORG   015   LAB  427009
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

12
( 2)
14
( 18)
LEVEL
LOU
-12
( -3) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 4
+ 5)


__ 	 rKUBA
LEVEL
LOU
-2
( -5) (+
-7 +
( +3) (+
B J. 1> J. J
2
UP
-1
1 1)
1 1
14)
LI JiJ.nj.ii>-
LEVEL
LOU
-2
( -3) (


3
UP
+ 0
+ 9)


LEVEL 4
LOU UP




REGION   05   STATE  36  OHIO
                                                   REP ORG  016  LAB   427012
POL. CD.

111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

28
( 24)
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
TOTAL

	 fHUBI
LEVEL
LOU
-4
( -5) (
lBJ.liJ.TI liJ.nj.TS 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOU UP
+ 5
+ 3)
LEVEL 4
LOU UP


REGION  05   STATE   51   UISCONSIN
 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
                                                   REP  ORG  001  LAB   325001
AUDITS

37
( 16)
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
TOTAL

	 fKVOi
LEVEL
LOU
-3
( -4) (
lBJ.liJ.TI liJ.nj.TS 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOU UP
+ 6
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOU UP


* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN  THE  CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                      C-33

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM

            COMPARISON  REPORT OF gADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  E PARS
DATE  1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982

REGION  05  STATE   51   WISCONSIN                 REP ORG   001   LAB  325002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
	 fKUHABJ.LJ.TI LinHS 	
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
54 -11 +13 -2 +9 -3 + 7
C 5) ( -1) (+19) C -4) ( +9) ( -3) ( +4)
112128 LEAD      6       -3     -3      -4    -2      -6     -4
   PARS      (   27)    (-16)  (  +8)    (-18) ( +9)


* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                       C-34

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                            EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF fiADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS  £ PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
  06  STATE  04  ARKANSAS
REP ORG  001  LAB  332001
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
C42101 CO 6 -10 -4
PARS ( 1)
	 r K.U B AD-LJ-i-L 1 I Ju-LHAli 	
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-12 +4 -12 +1

REGION  06  STATE  04   ARKANSAS
                                            REP  ORG  002  LAB  332001
AUDITS

1 1
( 105)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 r JK.UJDJ
LEVEL
LOW
-10 M
( -6) (
\oj.jjj.ii i.j_nx.ii> 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
M2
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
REGION  06  STATE   19  LOUISIANA
                                            REP  ORG  001  LAB  334001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

12
( 3)
21
( 144)
LEVEL
LOW
-34
(-14) (
TOTAL

1
UP
'+6
+ 2)


	 r Kvat
LEVEL
LOW
-19
(-12) (
-8
( -6) (
V O J. JU JL J
2
UP
+ 9
+ 4)
+ 7
+ 4)
L I JUXnj-15>-
LEVEL
LOW
-19
(-19) (


3
UP
+ 7
+ 9)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                      C-35

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY
                                         EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
              COMPARISON REPORT  OF BADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  C  PARS
       1x04/85                 DATA SELECTED  FOR  YEAR  1982
DATE

REGION   06  STATE   32  NEW MEXICO
                                                          REP ORG   001   LAB   330001
POL. CD.
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 34)
8
( 257)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 30)
6
( 23)
STATE
AUDITS
9
C 3)
3
( 20)
LEVEL
LOW
-1 1
(-14) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 8
+ 5)

32 NEW MEXICO
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -6) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 3
+ 5)

37 OKLAHOMA
LEVEL
LOW
-44
C-38) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 19
+ 16)

r KUJS
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-10) (
-5
( -5) (

r HUB
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -4) (
-8
( -7) (

LEVEL
LOW
-40
(-40) (
-24
( -6) (
A £ J. li J. 1 1
2
UP
-3
+ 7)
+ 19
+ 5)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 10
+ 6)
+ 28
+ 6)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 18
-5)
+ 29
+ 7)
juj.nj.ia 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-6 +0

REP ORG 002 LAB 430001
TTMTTC!
it J. n J. 1 O — — — —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +3
( -7) ( +7) ( -5) ( +6)

REP ORG 101 LAB 331002
Lj.nj.io — — — — —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-40 +15
(-52) ( -5)

*  ZERO  PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                              C-36

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
            COMPARISON REPORT OF CADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS C PARS
      1/04/85               DATA SELECTED  FOR  YEAR 1982
DATE

REGION  06  STATE   37   OKLAHOMA
                                                   REP ORG  102  LAB   431001
POL. CD.

111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

21
( 12)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 v KUB;
LEVEL
LOW
-17
( -5) (
lBJ.iiJ.ii L J. n J. r a 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 5
+ 4)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  06   STATE   37  OKLAHOMA
                                                   REP ORG  103  LAB   431002
POL. CD.

C42

112


101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 06
AUDITS

12
( 10)
12
( 23)
STATE
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-10) (+
-5
( -4) (
45 TEXAS
1
UP
+ 6
15)
+ 5
+ 2)

	 FKUBABJ.LJ.J
LEVEL 2
LOW
-1
( -4)
-2
( -5)

UP
+ 2
( +7)
+ 4
( +4)

LI LJ.ru. la 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +2
( -3) ( +4)
-3 +2

REP ORG 001 LAB 33300
                                       -PROBABILITY
 POL. CD.
C42101  CO
   PARS

111101  HIV
   PARS
             AUDITS
             (
15
43)
                20
             (  502)
  LEVEL 1
 LOW    UP

  -8   +13
(-24) (+27)

 TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  -8    +5
(-12) (+12)

 -13    +3
(  -6) ( +5)
  LEVEL 3
 LOW    UP

  -8    +4
(-11) ( +9)
                                                    LEVEL 4
                                                   LOW    UP
* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION  OF  THE AVERAGES
                                         C-37

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                              EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF  2ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS C PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  06  STATE   45   TEXAS
REP ORG   002   LAB  433002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
2
( 7)
12
( 18)
39
( 52)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 2)
55
( 72)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 33)
LEVEL
LOU
+ 0
(-11) (
-44
(-19) (
TOTAL
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOU
-12
( -7) (
TOTAL
45 TEXAS
LEVEL
LOU
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 0
+ 19)
+ 46
+ 7)


1
UP
+ 9
+ 15)


1
UP

	 .TKUB
LEVEL
LOU
+ 0
( -7) (
-12
(-15) (
-7
( -9) (

— r KUJJ
LEVEL
LOU
+ 3
( +0) (
-8
( -4) (

Sr KU £
LEVEL
LOU
-35
(-15) (
a a j. i. j. i i
2
UP
+ 0
+ 13)
+ 21
+ 3)
+ 4
+ 6)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 7
+ 0)
+ 5
+ 4)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 20
+ 19)
ij j. n j. i £> 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP
(-10) (+10)
-5 +10

REP ORG 003 LAB 433001
T T M T rn r«
LIMITS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP
+ 1 +6
( +2) ( +2)

REP ORG 004 LAB 433004
T T M T T C _
ii-LFlX 1 £> —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP

* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                      C-38

-------
 ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY   EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
 DATE

 REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  SADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR 1982
  06  STATE   45  TEXAS
                                                     REP  ORG  005  LAB   433005
POL. CD.
142602 N02
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
5
( 49)
19
( 33)
STATE
AUDITS
15
( 2)
6
( 6)
16
( 62)
STATE
AUDITS
10
( 39)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-1 -1
( -4) ( +8)
TOTAL
45 TEXAS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-17 +7
( -9) ( -9)
-4 +43
( -8) ( +0)
TOTAL
45 TEXAS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL
	 v HUB*
LEVEL
tow
-3
( -8) (
-8
( -6) (

r t\\} o t\
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -3) (
+ 3
( -4) (
-7
(-10) ( +

r KU D A
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -2) (
IBJ.L.LTI
2
UP
-3
+ 9)
+ 2
+ 4)
BILITY
2
UP
+ 5
+ 9)
+ 3
+ 0)
+ 4
14)
BILITY
2
UP
+ 2
+ 2)
: LIMITS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-3 -1 -4 -4
(-12) ( +4)

REP ORG 006 LAB 433008
T T M T irt r«
LIMITS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-3 +3
( -4) ( +2)
-35 +20

REP ORG 007 LAB 433010
T T" M T" m r*
LIMITS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP

* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE AVERAGES
                                      C-39

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
       COMPARISON REPORT  OF QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  E  PARS
1/04/85                DATA  SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  07   STATE   16  IOWA
REP  ORG  001   LAB   436001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 5)
30
( 16)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 12)
15
( 15)
STATE
AUDITS
6
( 4)
12
( 13)
18
( 48)
LEVEL
LOW
— *7
(-12) (
TOTAL
16 IOWA
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
( -6) (
TOTAL
16 IOWA
LEVEL
LOW
-30
(-18) (
-18
( +0) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 3
+ 24)


1
UP
+ 16
+ 3)


1
UP
+ 23
+ 0)
+ 18
+ 0)

	 r KUB
LEVEL
LOW
-6
(-11) (
-25
(-38) (
D D f\ D
rKUB
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -7) (
+ 1
( -5) (
•n n f\ TJ
LEVEL
LOW
-4
(-12) (
-6
(-12) (
-5
( -4) (
A B J, i, J. i I
2
UP
+ 1 1
+ 7)
+ 12
+ 24)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 23
+ 5)
+ 2
+ 10)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 3
+ 1 )
+ 9
+ 9)
+ 2
+ 4)
iij.nj.is 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 +1
(-10) ( +4)

REP ORG 002 LAB 436002
L J.rl JL 4. o
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 1 +20
( -6) ( +4)

REP ORG 003 LAB 336001
i» j_n .L i £> 	 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-5 -1
(-22) (+13)
-6 +5

*  ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED  IN THE  CALCULATION  OF THE  AVERAGES
                                           C-40

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
              COMPARISON REPORT  OF 2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
DATE   1/04/85                DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
REGION  07
 POL.CD.
111101  HIV
    PARS
STATE 17 KANSAS
AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
22 TOTAL
( 33)

rKU±5A
LEVEL
LOW
-15
(-13) (+
REP ORG 001
tlTTTTV TTMTTC
OJ.ljJ.lI liJ.nj.lo
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 6
15)
LAB 33700
LEVEL 4
LOW UP

REGION 07
POL. CD.
C42 101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 07
STATE
AUDITS
18
( 7)
12
( 37)
STATE
17 KANSAS
T*T>/\B»T4T-T Tr
LEVEL
LOW
-16
(-18) (
-31
(-24) (
1
UP
+ 9
+ 8)
+ 9
+ 1)
r IIUD>
LEVEL
LOW
-6
( -4) (
-25
(-22) (
\D J. JLiJ. .
2
UP
+ 6
+ 5)
+ 2
-1 )
26 MISSOURI
REP ORG
CY LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -3) (
-17
REP ORG
001
3
UP
+ 3
+ 2)
-3
001
LAB 43700
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


LAB 33800
POL. CD.

C4

11


2101 CO
PARS
1101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

10
( 4)
47
( 20)
LEVEL
LOW
— 5
(-in (
TOTAL

1
UP
-2
+ 12)


	 r KUBJ
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -4) (
-8
( -7) (
ID J.li J. j
2
UP
+ 1
+ 2)
+ 4
+ 6)
LI i.j.njLia-
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -3) (


3
UP
— 1
+ 4)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED  IN THE  CALCULATION OF  THE AVERAGES
                                         C-41

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY
                               EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON  REPORT OF  2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85                DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR  1982
  07  STATE  26   MISSOURI
                               REP ORG   002  LAB   438004
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

30
( 4)
8
( 10)
LEVEL
LOW
-7
(-11) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 9
+ 15)


t-K.VBf
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -5) (
-1 1
( -6) (
V J3 J. i. JL J
2
UP
+ 8
+ 8)
+ 7
+ 5)
LI ii j. n j_ i s> -
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -2) (


3
UP
+ 7
+ 5)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION   07  STATE  26   MISSOURI
                                                REP ORG   004  LAB   438002


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

14
( 6)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 r KUD*
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -2) C
\ D _L !• J. 1 I Jj J_ 11 A 1 S 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 7
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  07  STATE  26   MISSOURI
 POL.CD.
C42101  CO
   PARS
       AUDITS
          15
           4)
  LEVEL  1
 LOW     UP

 -23     +9
(-17)  (  +6)
                                                REP ORG

                                   -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                         004   LAB  438006
  LEVEL  2
 LOW     UP

  -6     +1
(  -8)  (  -4)
  LEVEL  3
 LOW     UP

  -6     +3
(  -9)  (  +1)
 LEVEL  4
LOW     UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION  OF THE  AVERAGES
                                         C-42

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF BADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  07  STATE  26  MISSOURI
 POL.CD.
      AUDITS
111101 HIV      17
   PARS      (   12)
 LEVEL  1
LOW     UP

TOTAL
REGION  07  STATE   28  NEBRASKA
                            REP ORG

                •PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                        005  LAB  438005
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  -6    -1
(  -4) ( +2)
 LEVEL 3
LOW    UP
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
                                             REP  ORG  001  LAB  335001


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

13
( 20)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 fKUBA
LEVEL
LOW
-12
(-10) (+
o j. !• x i i iij.ru. is 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 7
15)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION  07  STATE   28  NEBRASKA
 POL.CD.
      AUDITS
111101 HIV      13
   PARS      (   11)
 LEVEL  1
LOW     UP

TOTAL
                                             REP  ORG

                                 •PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                      002   LAB  335001
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

 -12    +7
(  -8) ( + 8)
 LEVEL 3
LOW    UP
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN  THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                     C-43

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY    EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM

            COMPARISON  REPORT  OF  2ADHS ACCURACY AUDITS E PARS
DATE  1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR 1982

REGION  07  STATE   28   NEBRASKA                   REP ORG  003  LAB  435003



 POL.CD.    AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOU UP
	 rKUBABJ-liJ. J
LEVEL 2
LOU UP
L i ii j. n JL j. a 	
LEVEL 3
LOU UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
112128 LEAD
   PARS      (
12
111101 HIV      36
   PARS      (   20)
  -5    +6
(-24) (+21)

 TOTAL
  -8   +16
(-13) (+15)

 -13    +5
(  -7) ( +4)
-2
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                     C-44

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE
      COMPARISON REPORT OF 6ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
REGION 08
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
STATE 06 COLORADO
AUDITS
51
( 15)
LEVEL
LOW
-20 +
(-18) (+
1
UP
13
16)
r HUD
LEVEL
LOW
-1 1
( -8) (
KD J-ii -L J
2
UP
+ 15
+ 12)
REP ORG
rY LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-10
( -3) (
001
3
UP
+ 13
+ 7)
LAB 34400
LEVEL
LOW
( -1 ) (
4
UP
+ 2
REGION  08   STATE   27  MONTANA
                                             REP  ORG  001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
11 1 101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

18
( 6)
9
( 44)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-58 +47
( +5) (+20)
TOTAL

	 rKU B«
LEVEL
LOW
-29 +
( +0) (+
-6
( -6) (
BAli J. J
2
UP
25
15)
+ 6
+ 6)
LI I> J. 11 -L 1 1>
LEVEL
LOW
-26
( -4) (


3
UP
+ 22
+ 13)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION  08   STATE   27  MONTANA
                                             REP ORG  002  LAB   439001
 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
AUDITS

2
( 8)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 r KVBI
LEVEL
LOW
-8
( -2) (
lBJ.liJ.TI IiJ.riJ.Ttj 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
-4
+ 5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION  OF  THE AVERAGES
                                      C-45

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY    EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF 2ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS C PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
  08  STATE  27  MONTANA
                           REP  ORG   003   LAB  439002
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

6
( 2)
1 1
( 4)
LEVEL
LOU
+ 1
( -6) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 1
+ 3)


	 r KUD
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -5) (
-2
( -4) (
ADJ-iiJ. J
2
UP
+ 9
+ 4)
+ 12
+ 8)
LI ii j. n j. i a -
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -3) (


3
UP
+ 4
-3)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION  08  STATE   27   MONTANA
                                            REP ORG  004  LAB   439003
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

12
( 2)
17
( 14)
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( +1 ) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 7
+ 14)


	 r KUB
LEVEL
LOW
— ^
( +2) (
-15
(-30) (
KD -Li. J. J
2
UP
+ 4
+ 5)
+ 8
+ 34)
. I Jj -L 11 J_ 1 S
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -2) (


3
UP
+ 8
+ 11)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION   08   STATE   35  NORTH DAKOTA
                                            REP ORG

                                -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                     001  LAB  341001
 POL.CD.
111101  HIV
   PARS
      AUDITS
          6
         23)
 LEVEL 1
LOW    UP

TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

 -16    +7
( -9) ( +7)
 LEVEL 3
LOW    UP
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                          C-46

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF gADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS C PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  08  STATE  43  SOUTH  DAKOTA
 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
      AUDITS
          3
         77)
 LEVEL  1
LOW     UP

TOTAL
REGION  08  STATE   46   UTAH
                            REP ORG

                -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                        001  LAB  342001
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  -6    +3
(  -3) ( +4)
 LEVEL 3
LOW    UP
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
                                             REP  ORG  001  LAB   340001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

48
( 24)
20
( 28)
LEVEL
LOW
-7 +
( -9) (
TOTAL

1
UP
1 1
+ 7)


	 r F.VDI
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -8) (
-22
( -4) (
ljD-LliJL J
2
UP
+ 6
+ 5)
+ 5
+ 4)
I 1 1> JLHJ. 1 0-
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -7) (


3
UP
+ 4
+ 5)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN  THE CALCULATION OF  THE AVERAGES
                                      C-47

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                             EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON  REPORT OF 2ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  09  STATE   03   ARIZONA
REP ORG   100   LAB  347001
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS
21
( 9)
7
( 14)
STATE
AUDITS
39
( 7)
32
( 32)
STATE
AUDITS
18
( 1 )
9
( 16)
LEVEL
LOW
-15
(-20) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 3
+ 9)

03 ARIZONA
LEVEL
LOU
-25
(-26) (
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 14
+ 13)

03 ARIZONA
LEVEL
LOW
-3
TOTAL
1
UP
+ 9

	 riiua.
LEVEL
LOU
-4
(-15) (
-8
(-13) (
T> D r\ n
LEVEL
LOU
-7
( -6) (
-16
(-11) (
n n f\ tj
— r KUB
LEVEL
LOW
-1
-27
(-10) (
ABJ.li.LI I
2
UP
+ 1
+ 7)
+ 6
+ 7)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 4
+ 3)
+ 13
+ 9)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 4
+ 39
+ 16)
liiHJ. 1^ 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP
-2 +0
( -2) ( +3) ( -2) ( +2)

REP ORG 200 LAB 447001
j-i-Lri-L i b
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP
-9 +3
( -4) ( +2)

REP ORG 300 LAB 447002
Jj-Lrl-L 1 o — — —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOU UP LOU UP
-2 +2

*  ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                        C-48

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT OF  BADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS £ PARS
1/04/85              DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
  09  STATE  05  CALIFORNIA
 POL.CD.
111101 HIV
   PARS
      AUDITS
         76
         71 )
  LEVEL  1
 LOW     UP

 TOTAL
REGION  09   STATE   05   CALIFORNIA
                                            REP ORG

                                -PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                                            001  LAB  345002
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

 -22   +15
(-11) (+10)
                                                     LEVEL 3
                                                    LOW    UP
                                                            LEVEL  4
                                                           LOW     UP
                                                   REP  ORG   001   LAB  345003
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
AUDITS

21
( 26)
LEVEL
LOW
-16 +
( -7) C +
1
UP
1 1
10)
	 f KUBJ
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -7) (
lBJ.i.J.1
2
UP
+ 4
+ 6)
I LJ.nj.T5-
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -6) (
3
UP
+ 1
+ 5)
LEVEL
LOW

( -2) (
4
UP

+ 2
REGION  09  STATE   05   CALIFORNIA
 POL.CD.
C42101 CO
   PARS
      AUDITS
         39
         26)
  LEVEL 1
 LOW    UP

 -41   +27
(  -7) (+10)
                                            REP  ORG

                                •PROBABILITY LIMITS-
                                                            001
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

 -1 1    +6
(  -7) ( +6)
  LEVEL 3
 LOW    UP

  -7    +7
(  -6) ( +5)
                                                                   LEVEL 4
                                                                  LOW    UP
                                                                 (  -2)  (  +2)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION  OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                      C-49

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
            COMPARISON REPORT OF 2ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS C PARS
       1/04/85               DATA SELECTED  FOR  YEAR 1982
DATE

REGION  09  STATE   05   CALIFORNIA
                                                   REP ORG  004  LAB   445001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS

6
( 33)
12
( 9)
LEVEL
LOW
-9
(-12) (J
-12
( -7) (
1
UP
+ 4
H6)
+ 8
+ 0)
	 rKUB/
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -3) (
-18
( -7) (
I B J. li J. 1
2
UP
+ 2
+ 3)
+ 0
-4)
. I ii J. n J. 1 a -
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -2) (
-9

3
UP
+ 1
+ 2)
+ 1

LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION   09   STATE  05  CALIFORNIA
                                                   REP ORG  036  LAB   445003

I
POL. CD.
11101 HIV
PARS
REGION 09
POL. CD.
AUDITS
28
( 7)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
TOTAL
1
UP

05 CALIFORNIA
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
	 fK.\jat
LEVEL
LOW
-20
(-17) (

— FKUB^
LEVEL
LOW
LBJ.ljJ.1 I
2
UP
+7
+ 7)
ABILITY
2
UP
i, j. n x i i 	
LEVEL 3
LOW UP

REP ORG 036
iixnjL i o
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL
LOW

4
UP

LAB 445005
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
C42101  CO
    PARS
                39      -9    +7
                10)   (-31)  (+35)
  -3    +2
(  -8) ( +8)
  -3    +3
(  -4) ( +4)
(  -5) ( +3)
 *  ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION  OF  THE AVERAGES
                                        C-50

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
            COMPARISON REPORT OF BADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
DATE  1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR 1982

REGION  09  STATE   05   CALIFORNIA                 REP ORG  061  LAB   445002



 POL.CD.    J


112128 LEAD
   PARS     (

111101 HIV
   PARS     (

REGION  09  STATE   05   CALIFORNIA
ITS

6
7)
4
30)
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -6) (
TOTAL

1
UP
+ 7
+ 9)


	 r KUBA
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
( -6) (
-3 +
(-13) (+
uj.iij.ii iij.nj.1 a 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+1 -4 +0
+ 7)
19
10)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP




                                      REP  ORG   061   LAB  445018
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS

39
( 24)
6
( 7)
LEVEL 1
LOW
-10
( -2)
+ 3
( -6)
UP
+ 18
( + 18)
+ 3
( +9)
	 rKur>
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( +1 ) (
-3
( -6) (
A0J.li J. J
2
UP
+ 5
+ 1 1)
+ 0
+ 7)
LI jjj.rij.ia-
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -4) (
+ 0

3
UP
+ 5
+ 8)
+ 1

LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION  09  STATE   12   HAWAII
                                      REP  ORG   120  LAB  348001

                          -PROBABILITY LIMITS	
 POL.CD.
C42101 CO
   PARS

111101 HIV
   PARS
AUDITS
   12
(  137)

   24
(   50)
  LEVEL 1
 LOW    UP

  -5   +12
(-14) (+15)

 TOTAL
  LEVEL 2
 LOW    UP

  + 1    +7
( -4) ( +4)

  -3    +3
( -6) ( +5)
  LEVEL 3
 LOW    UP

  -2    +5
(  -4) ( +3)
 LEVEL 4
LOW    UP
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                       C-51

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON  REPORT OF 2ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS C  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
  09  STATE   29   NEVADA
                                                    REP ORG  200   LAB   446001
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
111101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

18
( 8)
50
( 63)
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -3) (
TOTAL

1
UP
-1
+ 8)


	 fKUBA
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -3) (
-19 +
( -5) (
a j. L j. j
2
UP
•H
+ 5)
15
+ 6)
LI LJ.nj.ib-
LEVEL
LOW
-5
( -3) (


3
UP
+ 1
+ 5)


LEVEL 4
LOW UP




REGION  09   STATE  29  NEVADA
                                             REP ORG   300   LAB  446002
POL. CD.
C42101 CO
PARS
	 rKUJSABJ.LJ.il LJ.nj.ib 	
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
18 -7 +4 -3 +3 -2 +0
( 4) ( +0) ( +0) (-13) ( +9) ( -5) ( +3)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                         C-52

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
      COMPARISON REPORT  OF  SADHS ACCURACY AUDITS £  PARS
1/04/85               DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
  10  STATE  38  OREGON
REP ORG  001   LAB   453001
POL. CD.

C42

112


101 CO
PARS
128 LEAD
PARS
REGION 10
AUDITS

24
( 57)
12
( 6)
STATE
LEVEL 1
LOW
-22
(-18)
-9
( -5)
UP
+ 10
(+24)
+ 16
( +9)
	 rKUnABJ.JL.J.J
LEVEL 2
LOW
-6
( -8)
-8
( -4)
UP
+ 7
( +8)
+ 10
( + 7)
49 WASHINGTON
LI JLjJ.nj.lJb 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-5 +5
( -7) ( +3)
--1 +1

REP ORG 001 LAB 45200


I

POL. CD.

11101 HIV
PARS
AUDITS

78
( 29)
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
TOTAL

	 V KUB
LEVEL
LOW
-21
( -4) (
A B J. JL, J. T X JjJ.nj.lJ> 	
2 LEVEL 3
UP LOW UP
+ 15
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


REGION   10  STATE   49   WASHINGTON
                                            REP ORG   001   LAB  452006
POL. CD.

C42101 CO
PARS
112128 LEAD
PARS
AUDITS

1 1
( 39)
6
( 7)
LEVEL
LOW
-13
( -6) (
+ 10
( -5) (
1
UP
+ 4
+ 6)
+ 14
+ 7)
	 fKUBI
LEVEL
LOW
-1
( -4) (
+ 0

\BJ.JjX J
2
UP
+ 2
+ 3)
+ 0

LI Jjj.nj.io"
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -4) (
-9

3
UP
+ 1
+ 2)
+ 7

LEVEL 4
LOW UP




* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IN  THE  CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                      C-53

-------
                       TABLE C2.  PARS AND PA DATA FOR S02  CONTINUOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
              EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
              COMPARISON  REPORT  OF 6ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  C PARS
DATE   1/04/85             DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR  1982
REGION   01   STATE  41   RHODE  ISLAND
                               REP  ORG   001   LAB   305001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 01
POL. CD.
AUDITS
8
C 13)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
-13
( -7) (+
1
UP
+ 1
14)
47 VERMONT
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
	 fKUCA
LEVEL
LOW
-3
( -9) (+

LEVEL
LOW
a J. L x r i
2
UP
+ 0
14)
BILITY
2
UP
L 1 H JL T 5 -
LEVEL
LOW
-4
( -5} (J
REP ORG
LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
+ 3
H3)
001
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW

LAB 30
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP

3001
4
UP
C42401  S02       3
   PARS      (    9)
  + 3     +3
(  -7)  (  +2)
  + 1     +3
(  ~6)  (  +1)
(  -6)  C  +3)
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED IM THE CALCULATION  OF  THE AVERAGES
                                            C-54

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
            COMPARISON REPORT OF BADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
DATE  1/04/85            DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
REGION  01  STATE   07   CONNECTICUT
                                      REP ORG  001   LAB   306001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 01
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 01
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 01
POL. CD.
AUDITS
20
( 14)
STATE
AUDITS
4
( 9)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 33)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
-10
( -8) (
20 MAINE
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -8) (
1
UP
+ 4
+ 4) (

1
UP
-7
+ 3) (
22 MASSACHUSETTS
LEVEL
LOW
-7
( -9) (
1
UP
'+5
+ 6) (
30 NEW HAMPSHIRE
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
	 fKUDf
LEVEL
LOW
-9
-8) (

	 r K(J a I
LEVEL
LOW
-5
-6) (

r KUol
LEVEL
LOW
-3
-9) (

FKO D 1
LEVEL
LOW
i a x ii j. 1 1
2
UP
+ 1
+ 3)
IBILITY
2
UP
-3
+ 5)
IBILITY
2
UP
+ 0
+ 4)
ABILITY
2
UP
ii JL n j. i a 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-8 +0
( -8) ( +5)
REP ORG 001 LAB 301001
iiJLnj.ii> 	 — —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-2 -2
( -6) ( +7)
REP ORG 001 LAB 304001
Lj.ni.io —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-6 +3
C -9) ( +6)
REP ORG 001 LAB 302001
Lin JL 1 o
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
C42401  S02
   PARS
(   33)
  -4    -4
(  -8) ( +6)
  -6    -2
(  -9) ( +6)
  -4    -4
(  -9) ( +6)
* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                    C-55

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                       EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
            COMPARISON REPORT OF fiADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
DATE  1/04/85            DATA SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
REGION  02  STATE   31   NEW JERSEY
                                      REP ORG   001   LAB  308001
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1
LOW UP
C42401 S02 16 -8 -3
PARS ( 16) (-14) (+13)
fKucfttsj.iij.ii jj JL ri JL i a - -
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
-6 +0 -4 +2
( -9) (+12) ( -8) (+12)
REGION  02   STATE   33  NEW YORK
                                      REP ORG   001   LAB  307001
 POL. CD.
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
	 fKUBACXJUXJ
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
i i ii j. n j. j. £> 	
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
C42401 S02      12
   PARS      (   88)
          -18    +27
         ( -8)  (+11)
  -8   +13
C  -8) (+11)
  -6    +7
(-10) (+12)
* ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                       C-56

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                                EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
       COMPARISON REPORT OF SADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85             DATA  SELECTED FOR  YEAR  1982
  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.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
12
( 8)
STATE
AUDITS
20
( 40)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 27)
STATE
AUDITS
12
( 77)
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-12) (
1
UP
-4
+ 16)
21 MARYLAND
LEVEL
LOW
-17
(-20) (
1
UP
+ 17
+ 15)
39 PENNSYLVANIA
LEVEL
LOU
-25
(-15) (
1
UP
+ 1 1
+ 13)
39 PENNSYLVANIA
LEVEL
LOW
-4
(-17) (
1
UP
+ 2
+ 15)
	 r KUB
LEVEL
LOW
-12
( -1) (

r KUD
LEVEL
LOW
-2
(-12) (

r KU D
LEVEL
LOW
-13
(-15) (

r K U Jo
LEVEL
LOW
+ 1
(-13) (
A 0 J. L X 1 I
2
UP
+ 8
+ 10)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 13
+ 11)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 5
+ 10)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 4
+ 11)
Linj.rt> 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-14 +10
( -8) (+18)
REP ORG 001 LAB 312001
T T V T T f*
Lin ITS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 2 +10
(-12) (+12)
REP ORG 001 LAB 311002
T T MT T C _ 	 	
Lxnxio 	 — —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-12 +5
(-12) (+10)
REP ORG 002 LAB 411002
T TM T T C?
ii j_n j. j. o 	 	 —
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
+ 1 +6
(-15) (+12)
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED IN  THE CALCULATION OF  THE AVERAGES
                                           C-57

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                  EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING SYSTEM
             COMPARISON REPORT  OF  2ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS £ PARS
DATE   1/04/85            DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
REGION   03   STATE  39  PENNSYLVANIA
                                  REP ORG   003  LAB  411001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 03
POL .CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 03
POL. CD.
AUDITS
4
( 11)
STATE
AUDITS
16
( 12)
STATE
AUDITS
4
( 9)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
+20 +20
(-22) (+12) (
48 VIRGINIA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-10 -1
( -8) ( +6) (
50 WEST VIRGINIA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-1 -1
( -9) (+13) (
50 WEST VIRGINIA
LEVEL 1
LOW UP
— f K\JDJ\D±JjJ. i 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
+ 8 +9
-16) (+12)

rKUJBAiJXLJ.1 1
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-9 +2
-7) (+11)

rKUUAi}J.Jj-Ll I
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
-2 +0
-8) ( +9)

r K U a A 15 JL L 1 1 I
LEVEL 2
LOW UP
JUillili 	 	
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
+ 7 +7
(-12) (+11)
REP ORG 003
L J_ni. 1 1>
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-10 +3
(-10) (+12)
REP ORG 001
Lin JL 1 o
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
-1 -1
(-10) (+10)
REP ORG 002
jjXnx i o
LEVEL 3
LOW UP
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
( -6) ( +6)
LAB 415004
LEVEL 4
LOW UP

LAB 314001
LEVEL 4
LOW UP

LAB 314002
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
 C42401  S02
    PARS
4      -1     -1
9)   (-10)  (  +6)
  + 0    +3
(  -8) ( +7)
  + 2    +2
(  -8) ( + 7)
 *  ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                        C-58

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
DATE

REGION
       COMPARISON REPORT  OF 2ADHS ACCURACY  AUDITS  £  PARS
1/04/85             DATA SELECTED  FOR  YEAR  1982
  04   STATE   01  ALABAMA
REP  ORG  01 1   LAB   319001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS
4
( 5)
STATE
AUDITS
8
( 19)
STATE
AUDITS
8
( 5)
STATE
AUDITS
4
( 4)
LEVEL
LOW
-71
(-17) (-
1
UP
71
12)
10 FLORIDA
LEVEL
LOW
-19
(-20) (+
1
UP
1 1
16)
10 FLORIDA
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2 +
( -1 ) ( +
1
UP
14
13)
10 FLORIDA
LEVEL
LOW
-10
(-20) (
1
UP
10
+ 0)
	 fKUB
LEVEL
LOW
-87
(-19) (

r KU D
LEVEL
LOW
-18
(-19) (

r KUo
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
(-18) (

r KU is
LEVEL
LOW
-15
(-21 ) (
A C J. ii JL 1 I
2
UP
-86
-12)
ABILITY
2
UP
-6
+ 15)
ABILITY
2
UP
-no
+ 21 )
ABILITY
2
UP
-1 1
-2)
i, -L H J. T b
LEVEL
LOW
-88
(-18) (
REP ORG
LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-20
(-14) (
REP ORG
LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
(-15) (
REP ORG
LIMITS
LEVEL
LOW
-14
(-15) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
-88
-12)
011 LAB 423003
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
-4
+ 12)
012 LAB 423004
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 6
+ 22)
018 LAB 423002
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
-14
-3)
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED IN  THE CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                            C-59

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY    EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM

              COMPARISON REPORT OF  2ADHS  ACCURACY  AUDITS  £ PARS
DATE   1/04/85            DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982

REGION  04   STATE   18  KENTUCKY                     REP  ORG  002   LAB   416001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 04
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL
LOW
12 +0
( 4) ( -9) (+
STATE 34 NORTH
AUDITS LEVEL
LOW
18 -28 +
( 21 ) (-15) ( +
STATE 34 NORTH
AUDITS LEVEL
LOW
4 -6
( 12) (-28) (
STATE 42 SOUTH
AUDITS LEVEL
LOW
6 -24
( 75) (-14) (H
	 FKUBABJ.LJ.TX
1 LEVEL 2
UP LOW UP
+4 -1 +2
16) ( +3) (+12)
CAROLINA !
	 PROBABILITY
1 LEVEL 2
UP LOW UP
36 -26 +30
10) (-17) (+12)
CAROLINA
rKUB AB xli-L 1 I
1 LEVEL 2
UP LOW UP
-6 -7 -6
+8) (-27) ( +8)
CAROLINA
	 PROBABILITY
1 LEVEL 2
UP LOW UP
-24 -3 +5
H 1 ) (-11) ( + 10)
LJ.nj.1 b--
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -6) (
REP ORG
JLiXrl-L 1 o
LEVEL
LOW
-27 +
(-15) (+
REP ORG
iij.ru. i o
LEVEL
LOW
-7
(-30) (+
REP ORG
L±nx i b
LEVEL
LOW
+ 2
(-11) (
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 1
+ 6)
001 LAB 318001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
30 +12 +12
11) (-12) ( +2)
003 LAB 418006
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
-7
10)
001 LAB 320001
3 LEVEL 4
UP LOW UP
+ 7
+ 9)
 * ZERO  PROBABILITY  LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE AVERAGES
                                              C-60

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM

              COMPARISON REPORT OF  2ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  E  PARS
DATE   1/04/85             DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
REGION  04   STATE  44   TENNESSEE
                                                          REP ORG   001   LAB   317001
	 hKUiJABXl..LTI i.±nXXi) 	
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 14 -18 +16 -15 +10 -15 +10
PARS ( 14) (-13) ( +8) ( -6) C +5) ( -9) ( +5)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP
-17 +6
(-14) ( +7
* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE INCLUDED  IN THE CALCULATION OF  THE AVERAGES
                                               C-61

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY  REPORTING  SYSTEM

             COMPARISON  REPORT  OF  2ADHS  ACCURACY  AUDITS £  PARS
       1/04/85             DATA SELECTED FOR YEAR  1982
DATE

REGION   05  STATE  36   OHIO
 POL.CD.
C42401  S02
   PARS
             AUDITS
                  8
                  2)
  LEVEL  1
 LOW     UP

 -19   +13
(-23)  (-10)
                                                       REP ORG   003  LAB   327005

                                          -PROBABILITY LIMITS	
  LEVEL  2
 LOW     UP

 -15     +9
(-15)  (-10)
REGION  05  STATE  36   OHIO
  LEVEL  3        LEVEL  4
 LOW     UP      LOW     UP

 -20    +13
(-12)  (  +9)

REP ORG   006   LAB  427001
	 rKUBABO.ljJ.-j
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 12 -31 +22 -18 +14
PARS ( 4) (-27) (+20) ( -9) (+13)
LI LJ.nj.TS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-7 -5
( -6) (+12)
REGION  05  STATE  36   OHIO
                                                       REP ORG   007  LAB   427002
	 fKUBABJ.liJ.-j
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 8 -6 +19 -4 +12
PARS ( 8) (-11) (+17) ( -6) (+11)
i. I LJ.nj.TS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-8 +19
(-10) (+13)
REGION  05   STATE  36   OHIO
                                                       REP ORG   008  LAB   427003
POL. CD.

C42401 S02
PARS
AUDITS

12
( 8)
LEVEL
LOW
-5
(-10) (
1
UP
+ 7
+ 5)
	 fnuai
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -6) (
1 B JL L J. J
2
UP
+ 5
+ 6)
.1 LJ.nj.TS-
LEVEL
LOW
-2
( -7) (
3
UP
+ 4
+ 7)
LEVEL 4
LOW UP


* ZERO PROBABILITY LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED  IN THE  CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                            C-62

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   EMSL  PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING SYSTEM
             COMPARISON REPORT OF  6ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  £  PARS
DATE  1/04/85
                         DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
REGION  05  STATE   36   OHIO
                                                   REP ORG   012   LAB  427007
	 rKUBAB-LliXJ
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 8 -3 +20 -4 +18
PARS ( 4) (-24) (+29) (-15) (+17)
LX LJ.nj.TS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-1 +11
(-20) (+21)
REGION   05   STATE  36  OHIO
                                                   REP ORG  013   LAB   427010
	 rKUBABJ.JjJ.-J
POL. CD. AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
LOW UP LOW UP
C42401 S02 8 -29 +19 -19 +8
PARS ( 2) ( -7) ( -4) (-12) ( -4)
LX LJLnXTS 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP
-16 +9
(-12) ( -5)
REGION  05   STATE   36  OHIO
                                                   REP ORG  016  LAB   427012
POL. CD.
C42401 502
PARS
fKUBABiJuJLTI L J. n JL i S 	
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
t 4 -16 -16 -19 -17 -20 -20
( 6) (-34) (+10) (-29) (+10) (-28) ( +6)
REGION  05  STATE   51   WISCONSIN
                                                   REP ORG  001  LAB   325001
POL. CD.
C42401 S05
PARS
	 rKugAJBj.Lj.Tx L j. n J. T s 	
AUDITS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP LOW UP
! 8 -48 +32 -24 +12 -20 +10
( 19) (-15) (+16) (-12) (+10) (-12) ( +6) (-11) ( -3
* ZERO PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE INCLUDED  IN  THE  CALCULATION OF THE  AVERAGES
                                          C-63

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                  EMSL PRECISION/ACCURACY REPORTING  SYSTEM
             COMPARISON REPORT OF 2ADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS C  PARS
DATE   1/04/85            DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR 1982
REGION   06   STATE  32  NEW MEXICO
                                  REP ORG  001   LAB   330001
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
C42401 S02
PARS
REGION 06
POL. CD.
AUDITS
14
( 8)
STATE
AUDITS
4
( 11)
STATE
AUDITS
4
( 2)
STATE
AUDITS
LEVEL
LOW
-34
(-11) (
1
UP
+ 5
+ 6)
32 NEW MEXICO
LEVEL
LOW
+ 6
(-16) (
1
UP
+ 6
+ 6)
37 OKLAHOMA
LEVEL
LOW
+ 7
(-11) (
1
UP
+ 7
-9)
37 OKLAHOMA
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
	 r KUB*
LEVEL
LOW
-25
(-11) (

~ r KUB*
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
(-15) (

r KU D I
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
(-14) (

— r KUB I
LEVEL
LOW
iB-UjJ. 1 I
2
UP
+ 0
+ 7)
IBILITY
2
UP
+ 5
+ 5)
ABILITY
2
UP
+ 5
-4)
ii j. n _L i ;> -
LEVEL
LOW
-28
(-11) (
REP ORG
LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 4
(-13) (
REP ORG
LIMITS-
LEVEL
LOW
+ 3
(-13) (
REP ORG
ABILITY LIMITS-
2 LEVEL
UP LOW
3
UP
+ 2
+ 9)
002
3
UP
+ 4
+ 5)
101
3
UP
+ 3
-9)
102
3
UP
LEVEL
LOW
-14
LAB 430
LEVEL
LOW
(-16) (
LAB 331
LEVEL
LOW

LAB 431
LEVEL
LOW
4
UP
-5
001
4
UP
+ 5)
00 1
4
UP

001
4
UP
C42401  S02
    PARS
4     +17   +17       +2   +10
3)                  (-22) (  +1)
  + 9    +9
(-26) (  +1)
 *  ZERO  PROBABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGES
                                          C-64

-------
                                APPENDIX C


          TABLE C2.  PARS and PA Data for 502 Continuous

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL FfcECIS I ON/ACCURACY KEPOKTINt SYSTEM

             COMPARISON REPORT  OF  QADhS ACCURACY AUDITS * PAPS
DATE  3/16/&i            DATA  SELECTED  FCh YEAR  19?2            PA6E NO.     1

REGION   i1    !TATE  07   CONNECTICUT                 KEf  ChG  LCI   LAB  306CC1

POL. CD.

C424C1 Su2
PARS
REGION u1
POL. CD.

C424G1 SU2
PARS
kEGICN jl
POL. CD.

C424G1 St2
PARS
kEGION u1
POL. CD.

C424C1 Su2
PARS

AUDITS

20
(. 14)
>TATE
AUDITS

4
I V)
>T.Tt
AUDITS

12
I 33)
!IAU
AUDITS

4
^ 33)

LEVEL 1
LOW UP
-1C 44
( -5) ( +4 )
2T V. ^ ttl r
u n A j« £
LEVEL -j
LOh UP
-7 -7
( -B) ( 43}
22 MASSACHUSETT
LEVEL 1
LOte UP
-7 45
( -9) ( 46)
30 NE* HAWPSHIR
LEVEL 1
LO* UP
-4 -4
( -b) ( 40)
	 PR
LEV
LOM
-9
( ~fc)

LEV
LOk
-5
( -o)
S
LEV
LOw
-j
( -9)
E
LEV
LOW
-6
( -9)
teflBi L l
fcl- 2
UP
«1
C 4^)
f,& A D 1 1 T
VD A D i L 1
EL ?
UP
-3
( 45)
f iD & U T 1 T
UD AH i L 1
EL 2
UP
40
( 44 )
f rj * r> f a 7
CD ABI LI
£L 2
UP
-2
( 46)
ly LJPillij 	
LtVEL - LEyEL 4
LCi« UP L0», UP
~b 4G
( -fe) ( 45)
RcP ORG OC1 LAB 3f1001
TV i 1fefTTC__...._KMK _ _
LEVLL3 LEVEL4
L0k» UP LO* UP
-2 -2
( -6) ( 4?)
REP GKG GC1 LAP 3C4CG1
LtVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LGh UP LOb UP
-t 43
( -9) ( 46)
REP CkG L101 LAB 3G20C1
TV 1 TMTTC«.«.^«>«.«^..^ ^^
LcVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LO* UP LOW UP
-4 -4
( -V) ( 46)
        o PROBABILITY  LIMITS ARE  INCLUDED  IN THE CALULATION  OF  1H£ AVERAGES
                                         C-65

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY    EKSL P RE C I S ION /AC CUR AC Y REPORTING SYSTEM

             COMPARISON REPORT  OF  GADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  &  PARS
DATE   3/U/Sj            DATA  SELECTED FOk  YEAR 1982           PAGE  NO.     c
REGION   L1   STATE  41   RHODE ISLAND
                                                      REF  OhG  CC1   LAE   3C.5GC1
POL. CD.
C424C1 St2
PARS
REGION U1
POL. CD.
C42401 So2
PARS
AUDITS
5
I 13)
STATE
AUDITS
3
t 9)
LEVEL
LO*
-13
< -7) <<
1
UP
41
14 )
47 VfcRKONT
LtVEL
LO*
+ 3
( -7) <
UP
+ 3
+ 2)
	 PR
LEV
L0»
-3
( -9)
Pt •..
LEV
LOW
M
( -6)
CttAbJ Li
tL 2
UP
+ 0
(+14 )
tEABlLI
EL 2
UP
( +1 )
TT LJrtilb 	
LEVEL 3 LEVEL A
LCn UP LOi, UP
-4 +3
( -5) (+13)
RtF CRG GC1 LAb 3t'3CC1
LtVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LOl* UP LOW UF
( -o) ( +3)
   * ZfcRU PRQbABILITY  L^jTS  ARE Im
                                              IN yHE  CALCULATION  Of THE AVERAGES
                                           C-66

-------
ENVIRONMENT Ac PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL PKECISION/ACCUFACY  REPORTING  S*STEtt

             COMPARISON  REPORT OF  QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS  &  PARS
£>ATE  3/16/8i            1>ATA SELECTED FOk  YEAR  1y£,2           PAGE KG .     4

REGION   t2   STATE  31   NEW JERSEY                  KfcF ORG   001  LAf   3fbOC1

                        	PROBABILITY LI HITS	

 POL.CO.     AUDITS      LEVEL 1        LEVtL  I        LtvEL  3       LEVEL  <*
                        LOW    UP      LOW     UP      LO*     UP      L0i»     UF

C424L1  Su2      16       .6    -3       -6     +0       -4     +2
   PARS      i  1t>>    (-14) (+13)    ( -9) (+12)    ( -b)  ( + U)

REGION   L2   i>TATt  33   NEW YORK                    RtF OkG   U01  LAB   3C7CG1

                        	PRLfaABILITY L IKITS	

 POL.CO.     AUDITS      LEVEL •)        LEVEL  ?        LtVtL  3       LEVEL  4
                        LOW    UP      LOw     UP      LOh     UP      LOlK     UF

C424G1  SU2      1^      -1c   +27       -8    +13       -6     +7
   PARS      4  &&>    (  -b) ( + 11)    ( -6) ( + 11)    (-10)  ( + 1i)
   * ZERO  PRC3A6ILITY LIMITS AR£  INCLUDED IN THE  CAlCyLAlION  OF THE AVERAGES
                                         C-67

-------
ENVIRON?-chfTAc PROTECTION  AGENCY   EMSL  P RE C I S I C N / AC CUR AC Y HEPQRTlNu  S^STEF

             COMPARISON REPORT OF GADhS  ACCURACY AUDITS  R  PARS
DATE  3/16/Sj            DATA  SELECTED  FCK YEAR 19?2           PAGE  NO.     f

REGICN   .3   STATE  Ob  DELAWARE                   ?LF  GKG   Uf1  LAb   3130C2
POL. CD.
C424C1 S02
PARS
REGION u3
POL. CD.
AUDITS
12
( fa)
STATE
*UD1 TS
LEVEL
LO*
-10
(-12) (
21 MArfYL
LEVEL
LOW
1
UP
oi,
AND
1
UP
	 p
L ^
LO*
( 'I

LE
LOW
k tb AB1 L i
VEL ?
UP
+ c
) (+10)

L*c A b 1 L I
VEL 2
UP
I Y L i it I 1 :>
LO*
-14
< -o) (
REF CRG
Y L i n I 1 o
LEVEL
UF
+ 10
+ 16)
uC1
3
UP
LLyEL
LO*

LAB 31Z
LEVEL
LCw
4
UF

CC1
4
UF
C424C1 S02      20     -17    +17       -2    +13       +2    + U
   PARS      *   4Q)   (-2u)  ( + 15)    (-12)  ( + 11)    (-12)  ( + 1<:)

REGION   u3   iTATE  39  PENNSYLVANIA                REF CRG   001  LAb   311CC2

                       	PROBABILITY LI KITS	

 POL.CD.     AUDITS     LEVEL  1        LEVEL  2        LEVEL  1        LtVEL  4
                       LO*     UP     LOw     UP     LOte     UP     LOW     UF

C424C1 S^2      12     -25    +11     --|3     +5     -12     +5
   PARS      <   27)   (-1S)  (+13)    (-15)  (+10)    (-It)  (+1b)
REGION   u3   i>TATE  39  PENNSYLVAKiA               REF  OKG   uC2  LAB   411002

                       	PhObABILITY LIMITS	

 POL.CO.     AUDITS     LEVEL  1        LEVEL 2        LEVEL  3        LtVEL  4
                       LOfe     UP     LOto     UP     LO*     UP      LO-     UP

C42401 Su2      12      -4     +2       +1     +4       +1     +6
   PARS      <   77)    (-17)  ( + 15)    (-13)  ( + 11)   (-1i>)  (+12)


   * ZERO PROBABILITY LlhlTS  ARE INCLUDED IN' THE CALCULATION Of  THE  AVERAGES
                                       C-68

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY   EMSL  PRECIS I ON/ACCuRACY REPORTING SYSTEM

             COMPARISON  REPORT OF QADHS  ACCURACY  AUDITS & PARS
DATE  3/16/8-            DATA SELECTED  FOR YEAR  19?2            PAGE NO.     7

RE&ION   J>   STATE  39   PENNSYLVANIA                Rhf- ORG  uC3   LAB  4-J1001
POL. CD.
C42401 SU2
PARS
REGION u3
POL. CD.
C42401 SG2
PARS
REGION w3
POL. CD.
C424C1 Su2
PARS
REGION u5
POL. CD.
C42401 SL2
PARS
AUDITS LEVEL
LO*
t 11) (-22) (
ST AT £. 48 V jRGI
AUDITS LtVEL
LOfc
16 -10
c 12) ( -a) (
HATE 50 WEST
AUDITS LEVEL
LO*
4 -1
1 V) ( -9) <
STATE 50 WEST
AUDITS LtVEL
LOw
4 V) (-10) (
1
UP
+ 20
Nl«
1
UP
-1
+ 6)
VIRGIN.
1
UP
-1
+ 13)
VIRGIN!
1
UP
+ 6)
	 PR
LEV
LOW
(-16)

LEV
LOW
-9
A
LEV
LOte
( -I)
A
LEV
LOW
( -fc)
COAbl Ll
UP
+ V
( + 12)
CT t T
EA8ILI
EL 2
UP
( + 11 )
At A £1 T 1 T
UD Ad i L I
EL 2
UP
+ 0
( +9)
/ O A O T I T
Cb ABI L J
EL 2
UP
+ 3
( +7)
Ty Linilo--- 	 	 	 	
LtVEL 3 LEyEt- 4
LOh UP LOW UF
'7 +7
(-12) ( + 11 ) ( -o) ( + 6>
REP ORG 003 LAB 4150C4
TV i M TC __________
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LQw UP LO* UF
- 1 u +3
PEP ORG OC1 LAB 3140C1
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LC* UP LO* UF
-1 -1
(-1u) (+10)
REF OR& 002 LAB 3140C2
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
LO* UP LO* UP
( -6) ( +7)
   * ZERO PRC8ABILITY LIMITS  ARE  INCLUOEt IN THE  CALCULATION  OF  THE AVERAGES
                                      C-69

-------
ENVI
I PROTECTION  AGENCY    EMSL P kE CIS I ON / AC CUF. AC Y
COMPARISON  RtPORT  OF  QADHS ACCURACY AUDITS & PARS
;,            DATA SELECTED FOR  YFAR 1982
DATE  3M6/S;,

REGION   j.4   STATE   01   ALAoAKA
                                                  U11
                                                                     &L  NO.     1U)
	 PR'
LEV
LOb
-57
(-19)
Pr
LEV
LO*
<-M,
r*i r.
LEV
LOW
+ 4
Pfj
LEV
LOW
-5
(-1?)
GBAEILI
LL 2
UP
-§6
(-12)
f~ f , fi f~ 1 \ T
ub A b I L I
tL 2
UP
"6
(+15)
f D A fj T 1 T
G 8 A b I LI
£L 2
UP
+ 10
(+21 )
t' 13 A Si T 1 T
CP Abl LI
tL 2
UP
+ 10
Ty LlPillb 	
LEVEL 3 LEyEL 4
LO* UP LOW UF
-86 -Fo
(_1b) (-12)
RfcF CRG L11 LAB 422CC3
LtVEL 3 LEVEL 4
Lf* UP LOte UF
-L-u -4
(-14) ( + 1
-------
          NTAL PKuTECTIGN AGEr,C*   EMSL  PKECISI ON/ACCUF AC Y  REPORTING.  SYSTEM

             COMPARISON REPORT  OF QADHS  ACCURACY  AUDITS  &  PARS
DATE  3/16/81,            DATA  SELECTED  FOR YEAR  19^2           PAGE  NO.    10

REGION   U4   iTATE   1C  FLOKIDA                      REF OkG   Glo  LAB   423U&2
POL .CD.
C424L1 Su2
PARS
REGION .4
POL. CD.
C42401 Su2
PARS
REGION b4
POL. CD.
C424G1 Sa2
PARS
REGION .4
POL.C i).
C424D1 Su2
PARS
HUD I TS
4
v 4)
STATE
AUDITS
12
< 4)
i>TATE
AUDITS
* 21)
STATE
AUDITS
t 1

LtV
LOW
-1
( 43)
NA
n
LEV
LOU
-26
(-17)

LEV
LOw
-7
(-27)
ubAbi La
LL 2
UP
-11
( -2 )
t lit A Q f 1 T
t b A b i 1 1
£L 2
UP
+ 2
(412)
L. ^ i t i
8 A B A L 1
EL 2
UP
(412 )
AC A Q T 1 1
Ub A8 I L I
EL 2
UP
-6
» y L ini ib
LtVEL
LOtf
-u
(-1^) (
';[ F ChG
TV 1 T k T T C
T L I n I 15
LtVEL
LO*.
( ~-o) (
RfcF CRC-
TV 1 fo * T C
TY Lj^jTS
LEVLL
LOw
-27
(-1i) (
REP 0«G
TV 1 T M 1 T C
Y L In I T S
LLVtL
LO*
-7
(-?C) (
3
UP
-14
-3)
002
UP
41
OC1
3
UP
411 )
003
UP
-7
*i-:>
LEvEL 4
LO* UF

LAB 41&OL1
LEVEL 4
LO* UF

LAb 3UOC1
LEVEL 4
LOW UF
412 412
LAE. 41£OG6
LEVEL 4
LOW UF

   *  ZERO PROBABILITY  LlMjTS AKE  INCLUDED  IN jHE  CALLbLATIQK  OF  THE AVERAGE!
                                     C-71

-------
fcNVI RONWcNTA L PROTECTION AGENCY    ENSL F RE C IS I ON /AC CURAC Y rUPGKTlfcG SYSTEM
             COMPARISON REPORT  OF  GADhS ACCURACY AUDITS  k, PARS
DATE  3/16/83            UATA  SELECTED FOh  YFAR 1
-------
    RON*INTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY   EMSL  PRECIS ION/AC CUR AC» REPOhTlNG S^STtf1

             COMPARISON  REPORT OF GADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  £ PARS
DATE  3/16/Sj             OATA  SELECTED  FOR YEAR  1^p2           FAGE  NO.   13

REGION   :5   5TATE  36   OHIO                        REF  ORG  GC3   LAB  32?GC-5

                       	-PROBABILITY  LI ft ITS	

 POL.CD.     AUDITS      LEVEL  1       L E V tL 2        L*-VEi_ 3        LEyEL A
                       LOW    UP      LOW     UP      LOW    UP      LOW    UP

CA2A01 Sc2       h     -1v   +13      -p     + 9      -2u   +13
   PARS      t    2)    (-23>  (-1Q)    (-15)  (-10)    (-1<>  ( +9)

REGION   o5   STATt  36   0HIG                        !    ( -9)  (+13)    (  -6)  (+12)

REGION   u'5   3TATL  36   0HI0                        RcP  OKC  OC7   LAB  A?7CC2
POL. CO.

CA2AC1 S02
PARS
REGION ~5
POL. CD.

AUDITS

b
i o)
STATt
«UDITS

LEVEL
LOW
-0
(-11) (
36 OHIO
LtVcL
LOw
1
UP
+ 19
+ 17)

1
UP
•----r K
LEV
LOW
-A
( -6)

LtV
LOw
tH«t!i L 1
EL 2
UP
+ 12
( + 11 )
/ f * « r> f k T
vb AB 1 L J
EL ?
UP
IT L I rt 1 I i •
LLVfcL
LO*
-b -<
(-U) (H
PEP ORG
TV i T hft 7 T C
Y L I ru I b
LtVEL
L C. »-,
-?
UP
>19
H3>
OOc
t
UP
LEVEL
LOk,


LAB A?
LtVEL
LO*
A
UF


7C.C?
A
UF
CA2AC1 SO?      12       -5     +?       -2     + 5       -^    •*<*
   PARS      (    6)    (-10)  (  +5)    (  -6)  ( +u>    (  -?)  ( +7>


   * 2£Ru PROBABILITY LIHITS  ARE UCLUDEt IH THE  CALCULATION OF  THE  AVERAGES
                                      C-73

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY   EKSL  FRECIS I ON/AC CURACY REPORTING  SYSTEK

             COMPARISON  REPORT OF CiADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  &  PARS
DATE  3/16/?j            DATA SELECTED  FO* YEAR  I9g2           PAGL  NO.   U

REGION   U5    ITATE  36   OHlu                        REP  OK&   U12   LAB   4??GC7

                       	PRO&AGlLITy  LIMTS	

 POL.CD.     AUDITS      LtVEL 1        LEV^L  2        LEVEL  2        LEyEL 4
                       L0t»    UP      L0»    UP      LO*    UP      LO*     UP

C42401  Su2       c.       -3   +20       -4   +18       -1   +11
   PARS       t   4)    (-24)  (+29)    (-15) (+17)    f-?0> (+21)

REGION   .5   STATfc  36   OhlO                        REP  OkG   u 1 3   LAD   427U1C
POL.C a.

C424G1 S02
PARS
REGION ^5
POL. CD.

AUDITS

b
( 2>
STATE
AUDITS

LEVEL
LO*
-2V
( -7) (
36 0HI0
LEVEL
LOw
1
UP
+ 19
-4,

1
UP
•-- --KK UB
LEVhL
LO*
•19
(-12) (

LEVEL
LOW
fleu L i
2
UP
+ 5
-4 )
A C T 1 T
ABI L I
2
UP
II L i r. i I i -
LEVtL
LO*
-U
(-U) (
PEP ORG
TV t T fc T T C
Y L J ri I 1 o
LEVEL
LOW
3
UP
+ 9
-i.)
016
3
UP
LEVEL
LO*


LAB 4?
LEVEL
LOw
4
UF


7C1?
4
UP
C424C1  SU2      4      -16   -16      -1*   -17      -?U   -20
    PARS      I   o>    (-34) ( + 10)    (-29) ( + 10)    <-2t> (  +o )

REGION   u5   iTATt   51   WjSCONSlK                   REF OKG  G01   LAb  32bCC1

                        	PROBABILITY LlfillS	

  POL.CD.      AUDITS      LEVEL 1        LEVEL 2        LlVtL  3        LtVEL  4
                        LOh    UP      LOW    UP      LO*     UP      LOW     UF

C424C1  Su2      b      -4b   +32      -24   +1^      -2u   +10
    PARS      i   1v)    (-15) ( + 16)    (-12) ( + 1G)    (-U) (  +t )    (-11)  (  -3)


    *  ZERO PRvBABlLITY  LIMITS AK E  INCLbt»El> IN  THE CALCULATION  OF THE AVER/K-ES
                                      C-74

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY    EMSL PRE CIS ION / AC CUR AC Y REPORTING SYSTt*

             COKPARISON REPORT  OF  OAOHS ACCURACY  AUOI1S & FARS
DATE  3/16/&:>            DATA  SELECTED FOk  YEAR  1og2          PAGE  NO.   16
REGION   Q6   STATE   32  NtW MEXICO                  REF  OfcG  L01   LAB  33GOC1
POL. CD.
C424G1 SU2
PARS
REGION U6
POL. CD.

AUDITS LEVEL
LO*
14 -34
C a) (-11) (
oTflTE 37 OKLrtH*
AUDITS LtVEL
LOl*
1
UP
«5
+ 6>
)MA
1
UP
	 PR
LfcV
LO*
-25
(-11)
r\ »".
LEV
LOw
Ub «B1 Li
t1- ^
UP
+ 0
( +7)
»" D A O 1 1 1
c B A B 1 LI
tL 2
UP
ly nn i i a 	 --
LtVtL 3
LC» UF
-?fc +A
(-71) ( +V)
REF ORG 1C1
LEVtL 3
LO* UP
LO*.
-14

LAB 331
LEVEL
L0«
4
UF
-5

001
4
UF
C424L1 S^2       4      +7     +7       +4    +5       +3    +3
   PARS      (    2>    (-11)  (  -9)    (-14)  ( -4)    (-13) ( -V)

REGION  U6   STftTt  37  OKLAHOMA                    Ftp CkG  1L2   LAb   431CG1
 POL.CO.     -UDITS
C424C1 S02       4      +17   +17       +2   +10       +9    +9
   PARS      (.    3)                   (-22) ( +1)    (-Zt) ( +1)
          PRC3A6IL1TY LIMITS  ARE  iNCtUOEb  IN  THE  CALCULATION OF  1HL  AVtRAGLS
LcVfcL
LOW
1
UP
-----K
Lt
LO.
h t/B^
VtL
^S-41-*
2
UP
IT L J
L
LO
ft 1 ts 	
LVtL ?
» UP
L
LO
EVEL
H
4
UF
                                   C-75

-------
ENVIRONWcNTAt  PROTECTION AGENCY    EHSL  FRE CIS ION/AC CUP AC V NEPOKTlNG  SYSTLF

              COMPARISON  REPORT  OF QADHS  ACCURACY AUDITS  & PARS
DATE   3/16/85             DATA  SELECTED  FOR  YEAR  lyft            PAGE NO.    12

     ON  L9   STATfc  05   CALiFGRNIA                  PEF  CkG  036   LAB   4^5Cl?

                         	PR06 ABILITY LI MIS	
 POL.CO.     AUDITS      LEVEL  1         LEVEL  2         ILVEL !        LEVEL 4
                         LOW     UP      LOW     UP      LOk     UP      L0\»     UF
C424L1  S02      15      -3d    +25      -29    +?1      -31    +24      -31    +2t
    PARS      t    6)    (-1ft)  (+16)    c  -3)  (  +1)    (  -1) (+1b)    (-1&)  C+^^)


    *  2£Ru PRuBABILITY  LIMITS  A«E INCLUDED  IN  ThE  CALCULATION  OF THE  AVERAGES
                           «OA OOVf NNMENT PHINTING OFFICE: 1985/559-111/10813

                                       C-76

-------