United States Atmospheric Research and Exposure
Environmental Protection Assessment Laboratory
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA/600/3-89/005
January 1989
Research and Development
£EPA
A Summary of the
1987 EPA National
Performance Audit
Program on Source
Measurements
-------
EPA/600/3-89/005
January 1989
A SUMMARY OF THE 198? EPA NATIONAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT PROGRAM
ON SOURCE MEASUREMENTS
E. W. Streib and W. J. Mitchell
Quality Assurance Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eegion 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Doarborn Street, FiOom J-o/J
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
i i
-------
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 environment, to provide innovative means of monitoring compliance
with regulations, and to evaluate the effectiveness of health and environ-
mental protection regulations through the monitoring of long-term trends.
The Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, has responsibility for: assessment of environmental
monitoring technology and systems; implementation of Agency-wide quality
assurance programs for air pollution measurement systems; and supplying tech-
nical support to other groups in the Environmental Protection Agency, includ-
ing the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Toxic Substances.
The major task of this study was to report the results of the national
quality assurance audit program for stationary source test methods. Audits
were designed to estimate the minimal analytical and computational accuracy
that can be expected with Method 3 (carbon dioxide and oxygen), Method 5 (dry
gas meter only), Method 6 (sulfur dioxide), Method 7 (nitrogen oxides), and
Method 19 (coal). Statistical analysis was used to characterize the data.
Gary J. Foley, Acting Director
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
i i i
-------
ABSTRACT
In 198T, the Quality Assurance Division conducted the National Audits
for Stationary Source Test Methods. The audit materials consisted of: a
disposable gas cylinder for Method 3 (Orsat analyzer), a calibrated orifice
for Method 5 (dry gas meter only), five simulated liquid samples for Method 6
(302) and Method 7 (NOX), and two coal samples for Method 19. Participating
laboratories sent their data to the Research and Monitoring Evaluation Branch
and in return received a written report comparing their results to EPA's.
In the Method 3 audit, each gas component had only one concentration.
The mean CC>2, Og, and CO values for all participants differed by 2.6 percent,
1.6 percent, and 33 percent from the expected value, respectively.
In the Method 5 audit, the mean value for all participants differed by
3.1 percent from the expected value. In the Methods 6 and 7 audits, the
average mean differed by 0.7 percent and 15.6 percent from the expected
value, respectively.
In the two coal audits, the parameters measured were sulfur, moisture,
ash, and Btu content. On the average, 91 percent of the participants measured
sulfur within 10 percent of the expected value and 98 percent of the partici-
pants measured Btu content within 10 percent of the expected value. The
corresponding results for ash and moisture were 100 percent and 50 percent,
respectively.
This report includes the results of the performance audits done during
the period from January to December 1987.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgment ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 2
3. Method 3 Audit 5
k. Method 5 Dry Gas Meter Audit 7
5. Method 6 Audit 10
6. Method 7 Audit 12
7. Method 19 Audit Ik
References 18
Appendix 19
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Cumulative accuracy for participants in
Method 5 audit 8
2 Results of Method 5 audit 9
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Participants' Results from Method 3 Audit
(All Data—No Outliers Removed) 2
2 Participants' Results from Methods 6 Audit
(All Data—No Outliers Removed) 3
3 Participants' Results from Methods 7 Audit
(All Data—No Outliers Removed) 3
1* Participants' Results from Method 19 Coal Audits
(All Data—No Outliers Removed) U
5 Method 3 Audit Participants 5
6 Source Method 3 Audit 6
1 Method 5 Audit Participants 7
8 Method 6 Audit Participants 10
9 Summary of Source S02 Audit 11
10 Method 7 Audit Participants 12
11 Summary of Source NO x Audit 13
12 Coal Audit Participants 15
13 Source Coal Audit—0387 l6
Ik Source Coal Audit—0987 17
Appendix
A-l National Orsat Audit Frequency Distribution of
Absolute Percent Differences of Expected and
Reported Values 20
A-2 DGM Frequency Distribution of Absolute Percent
Difference 22
vii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
A-3 S02 Frequency Distribution of Percent Difference—No
Outliers Removed 21
A-U NOX Frequency Distribution of Percent Difference—No
Outliers Removed 21
A-5 National Coal Audit Frequency Distribution of Absolute
Percent Differences of Expected and Reported Values—
Study 038? 22
A-6 National Coal Audit Frequency Distribution of Absolute
Percent Differences of Expected and Reported Values—
Study 0987 23
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We express our appreciation to the laboratories that participated in
the National Performance Audit Program for Stationary Sources. Thanks also
to the staff of the Standards Laboratory/Research and Monitoring Evaluation
Branch/Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL), who
did the acceptance testing of the audit samples, and to the programmers of
the Exposure Assessment Research Division/AREAL for providing the data
systems to store and evaluate the data.
IX
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL) at Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, established an audit program in 1977 to evaluate the performance of
companies that conduct compliance testing using EPA reference methods. The
audits check the participants' analytical accuracy in applying the analytical
phase of EPA Reference Methods 3, 6. 7, and 19 and the calibration accuracy
of the Method 5 control console.'1' Accuracy is defined as the percent
difference between a participant's analytical results and the EPA expected
value. By participating in this free and voluntary program, testing companies
can compare their performance to the performance of other laboratories
conducting similar measurements.
Source Test Methods 3, 5, 6, and 7 were each audited once, and Method 19
was audited twice in 1987. Each participating laboratory received an audit
package consisting of the audit sample, a data card, instructions, and an
envelope for returning the data to EPA. Participants had 8 weeks to use the
audit material and return their data to EPA. At the end of this period, all
data received were statistically analyzed to determine the accuracy achieved
with respect to the expected value and to provide the participants a means to
compare their performance to that of all the laboratories that participated
in the audit. This latter comparison can be done using the histograms in
Appendix A.
The Quality Assurance Division of AREAL also maintains a limited reposi-
tory of samples for EPA Methods 3, 6, 7, and 19 that are available to source
testing laboratories for purposes such as training new personnel or _OL-iuct-
ing quality control checks. Because the expected values for these samples
are included with the analysis instructions, there is no requirement for the
data to be returned to EPA. We recommend that source testing laboratories use
this sample repository to help improve their overall analytical performance.
This report summarizes the results obtained in the 1987 audits for
stationary sources.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
In 198T, EPA's AREAL at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, conducted
National Quality Assurance Audits for Stationary Source Test Methods 3 (Orsat
analyzer), 5 (dry gas meter only), 6 (302), 7 (NOX), and 19 (coal). Industrial
laboratories, contractors, foreign laboratories, as well as local, state, and
federal agencies, participated.
The results of the 1987 audit of Method 3 are summarized in Table 1.
Participants analyzed the gas sample twice for percentages of carbon dioxide
(C02), oxygen (02), and carbon monoxide (CO). The mean values of COp and 0%
differed by 2.6 percent and 1.6 percent from the expected values, respectively.
The mean values for CO differed by 33 percent from the expected values.
TABLE 1. PARTICIPANTS' RESULTS FROM METHOD 3 AUDIT
(ALL DATA—NO OUTLIERS REMOVED)
Type of
sample Parameter
Small % C02
cylinder
(gas)
% 02
% CO
No. of
analyses
50
kQ
50
U8
37
35
Repli-
cate
1
2
1
2
1
2
EPA
true
value
7.00
7.00
11.00
11.00
1.00
1.00
Participant results
Mean
6.82
6.77
11.18
11.22
1.33
L.33
Median
6.80
6.80
11.00
11.10
1.00
1.00
Std.
dev.
0.65
0.65
1.02
1.07
2.71
2.80
The mean for all participants in the Method 5 flow audit was 3.1 percent
from the expected value, and the standard deviation was k.J percent. After
the removal of 7 percent of the data to eliminate statistical outliers, the
mean was 2.2 percent from the expected value and the standard deviation was
1.9 percent. The participants' performance based on the standard deviation
of all data was good and was consistent with revious ears. ^'->3,4 ,p J
previous years.
-------
Tables 2 and 3 present the data (no outliers removed) from the Methods 6
and T audits, respectively. In the Method 6 audit, the procedure requires
the participants to determine the sulfate content in five aqueous solutions
using the titration procedure. For all five concentrations, the mean of the
combined participants' results was less than 2 percent from the expected
value, and the median differed "by less than 1 percent.
The Method 7 audit procedure requires that the participants determine
the nitrate content in five aqueous solutions. For four of the five concen-
trations, the mean was greater than 10 percent from the expected value, but
the median was less than 2 percent.
TABLE 2. PARTICIPANTS' RESULTS FROM METHOD 6 AUDIT
(ALL DATA—NO OUTLIERS REMOVED)
No. of
analyses
89
90
92
91
92
EPA true
value
(mg/DSCM)
259.3
289.8
617.7
678.7
1189.7
Participant results
Mean
260.3
295.6
621.0
67^.8
1190.3
Median
258.2
287.5
6l6.0
673.2
1182.5
Std.
. dev.
15.1
1*8.8
50.8
5U.U
89.8
TABLE 3. PARTICIPANTS' RESULTS FROM METHOD 7 AUDIT
(ALL DATA—NO OUTLIERS REMOVED)
No. of
analyses
62
62
6l
62
62
EPA true
value
(mg/DSCM)
99.5
125.1
329.9
590.0
61+9.5
Participant results
Mean
122.8
155-2
362.8
6l6.7
753.7
Median
97.6
122.9
331.3
590.2
636.9
Std.
dev.
228.0
262.5
279. U
397.6
1067.9
-------
Table 4 summarizes the results from the two coal audits that vere con-
ducted in 1987. Participants analyzed each coal sample in duplicate for
percentages of sulfur, moisture, ash, and gross calorific value (Btu/lb).
The means of the ash and sulfur results were within 6 percent of the expected
value, and the mean for moisture was within 3 percent. The mean of the Btu
results was within 1 percent of the expected value. The Btu content as mea-
sured by the participants is likely slightly lower than the EPA value because
coal oxidation is not prevented in the audit sample. The Btu content results
are a good example of the accuracy with which a measurement can be made when
that measurement receives good laboratory quality control.
TABLE 4. PARTICIPANTS' RESULTS FROM METHOD 19 COAL AUDITS
(ALL DATA—NO OUTLIERS REMOVED)
Participant results
Audit
date
038T
0987
0387
0987
0387
0987
0387
0987
0387
0987
0387
0987
0387
0987
0387
0987
No. of
Parameter analyses
% S 112
110
112
109
% H20 111
110
111
110
% Ash 112
110
112
110
Btu/lb 107
106
107
106
EPA
value
0.77
1.68
2.77
4.21
1.16
1.57
2.12
2.1+7
7.97
13.66
16.88
22.18
12392.00
11042.00
13464.00
12886.00
Mean
0.81
1.65
2.88
4.18
1.14
1.6l
2.18
2.1*0
7.94
13.66
16.93
22.10
12334.33
11129.27
13392.50
12861.51
Median
0.77
1.65
2.7^
4.14
1.21
1.67
2.27
2.1+5
7.96
13.70
16.93
22.11
12339.00
11052.00
13427.00
12847.00
Std.
dev.
0.1+0
0.10
1.45
0.26
0.21+
0.32
0.36
0.36
0.13
0.21
0.19
0.28
137.20
732.25
L51.34
470.82
-------
SECTION 3
METHOD 3 AUDIT
The Method 3 audit checks the participants' abilities to analyze a gas
sample using an Orsat analyzer. The audit package consists of a disposable
cylinder that contains a U-liter (L) sample of C02, 09, and CO. The analyst
expels the gas into the Orsat analyzer using the positive pressure of the
cylinder. The gas sample is quantitatively analyzed for percentage of C02,
02, and CO.
In the 1987 audit, 53 percent of the 9^ laboratories receiving the audit
package returned data. Table 5 shows the total number of laboratories re-
questing participation and the number that returned data for the Method 3
audit.
TABLE 5. METHOD 3 AUDIT PARTICIPANTS
No. receiving No. returning
Category samples data
Contractors
Industry
Foreign
Federal
State
Local
k6
31
2
2
10
3
20
19
2
1
6
?
Total 9^ 50
Table 6 summarizes the Method 3 audit results in terms of the percent-
age of the results within 5 and 10 percent of the expected value. Each
laboratory was asked to analyze the sample in duplicate. Fifty-eight percent
of the reporting laboratories achieved an accuracy within 5 percent for C02,
and 80 percent achieved an accuracy within 5 percent for 02- For the CO
analysis, only 32 percent of the laboratories achieved an accuracy within 5
percent; 26 percent of the laboratories did not report a value for CO.
-------
TABLE 6. SOURCE METHOD 3 AUDIT
Parameter
-• ti / i • •
C02
02
CO
Expected
value
7.00
11.00
1.00
No. of
analyses*
(1) 50
(2) U8
(1) 50
(2) U8
(1) 37
(2) 35
Laboratories
accurate
within 5%
58
58
80
79
32
uo
Laboratories
accurate
within lOt
(*)
88
90
96
60
*Numbers in parentheses indicate first and} second analyses.
-------
SECTION U
METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER AUDIT
In the Method 5 audit procedure, participants use a calibrated orifice
to check the calibration of the dry gas meter in their EPA Method 5 control
console (meter box). They insert the orifice in the Method 5 meter box, al-
low the box to warm up, and then make three 15-min volume measurements. The
participants convert each of the three volumes to cubic meters at standard
conditions using the formula specified in Eq_. 5.1 of Method 5 (Appendix A, 1*0
CFR 60) a.nd record them on the data card. Then they return the orifice and
the data card to EPA.
In the 1987 audit, 60 percent of the 1^9 laboratories that received the
audit package returned data. Table 7 shows the categories of participants,
the number of participants who requested participation in the Method 5 audit,
and the number who actually returned data. A total of 193 meter boxes were
audited.
TABLE 7. METHOD 5 AUDIT PARTICIPANTS
No. receiving No. returning
Category orifice data
Contractors
Industry
Foreign
Federal
State
Local
72
^7
5
3
16
6
39
33
5
2
7
3
Total lU9 89
Figure 1 is a cumulative histogram that shows the percent accuracy
obtained by participants in the Method 5 audit, expressed as the percent dif-
ference from the expected (EPA) value. The Code of Federal Regulations^1'
requires that the dry gas meter be calibrated within an accuracy of 2 per-
cent. Figure 1 shows that 56 percent of the reporting laboratories attained
this accuracy. This is approximately the same as in 1986.
The histogram in Figure 2 depicts the individual results from all parti-
cipants of the 1987 audit and includes the mean and median values. Most
laboratories reported values lower than the EPA value for reasons that are
unknown.
-------
0)
s-
IO
II
c
O
O
O
0)
o
CO
,\\\\
o
N.
o
CO
o
10
o
CO
o
CM
00
CD
00
.c
CO <2
I-- "c
5 c §
y co a
r£ o 'n
CO
a
HI c£
O u
^^
QC O
LU QC
U_ LL
LL
Q
O
CO
D
O
O
0
CO "O
•5 o
D 0
O E
LU
QC
D
2
LJ_
XOVynOOV Q3ldlO3dS
ONIA3IHOV S3iaoivaoavn
8
-------
2?
N 'll \X\\VV\\\\
• " J
co £
*w o
0
a
M UJ
D
_J
CM _*• •4—'
UJ 3
2 «
o O lO
nr
LL.
LL "D
LU r-
w 0 £
^ T rt^
I ^_ vU
UJ ^
LT ^
UJ H-
LL O
«t LL
1 Q «
CO
CD Q>
i tr
eg
oo C>
1 L-
v O)
Li.
D
-------
SECTION 5
METHOD 6 AUDIT
The Method 6 audit checks the participants' abilities to quantitatively
analyze Method 6 samples for sulfur dioxide content. The audit set consists
of five aqueous dilutions of 10 N sulfuric acid in 25 mL sealed glass am-
poules. The analyst withdraws 5 mL from each ampoule, adds 30 mL of 3 percent
hydrogen peroxide, and dilutes this sample to 100 mL with distilled water. A
20-mL aliquot is then withdrawn from the diluted sample, 80 mL of 100 percent
isopropanol and thorin indicator are added, and the sample is titrated with
barium perchlorate to a pink endpoint. In calculating the results, the par-
ticipants assume an original liquid sample volume of 100 mL and a gas sample
volume of 0.021 dry standard cubic meter (DSCM) of stack gas.
Table 8 shows the categories of the participants and compares the total
number of participants requesting participation with the number returning
data. In the 1987 audit, 67 percent of the 137 laboratories that received the
audit package returned data.
TABLE 8. METHOD 6 AUDIT PARTICIPANTS
No. receiving No. returning
Category samples data
Contractors
Industry
Foreign
Federal
State
Local
69
k2
h
2
12
8
H3
32
3
0
8
6
Total 137 92
Table 9 shows the percentage of laboratories that achieved 5 and 10
percent accuracy for each of the five different concentrations in the Method
6 audit. At least 75 percent of the reporting laboratories achieved an
accuracy within 5 percent for all five concentrations. This is the accuracy
criterion used for acceptable source S02 compliance audit results (Section
h.k of Method 6).
10
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF SOURCE SOg AUDITS
% Laboratories % Laboratories
Concentration accurate within accurate within
(mg/DSCM) ± 5% ± 10%
259.3
289.8
617.7
678.7
1189.7
75.3
81.1
93.5
86.8
90.2
95.5
93.3
98.9
95.6
97.8
N 92
11
-------
SECTION 6
METHOD 7 AUDIT
The Method 7 audit checks the participants' ability to quantitatively
analyze Method T samples for nitrate content. The NOX audit set consists of
five aqueous dilutions of a potassium nitrate solution in glass ampoules that
are autoclaved after sealing so that bacteria that might attack the nitrate
are destroyed. The analyst withdraws 5 mL of solution from an ampoule, adds
this with 25 mL of Method 7 absorbing solution to a flask, adjusts the pH
with sodium hydroxide, and dilutes to 50 mL with distilled water. A 25-mL
aliquot is withdrawn from the diluted sample, placed in an evaporating dish,
and analyzed as described in Section U.3 of Method T.'^' After this treatment
is completed, the absorbance is measured at UlO nanometers (nm) with a cali-
brated spectrophotometer. In calculating the concentrations, the participant
assumes that 2000 mL of stack gas was sampled.
Table 10 shows the total number of laboratories requesting participation
and the number that returned data for the 1987 Method 7 audit. Sixty percent
of the 103 laboratories receiving the audit package returned data.
TABLE 10. METHOD 7 AUDIT PARTICIPANTS
No. receiving No. returning
Category samples data
Contractors 58 30
Industry 30 22
Foreign 3 1
Federal 1 0
State 5 H
Local 6 5
Total 103 62
12
-------
The percentage of laboratories that achieved 10 and 20 percent accuracy
for each of the five concentrations is shown in Table 11. Sixty-six percent
of the reporting laboratories achieved an accuracy within 10 percent on the
lower concentrations, and 80 percent achieved an accuracy within 10 percent
on the higher concentrations. Ten percent is the minimum level of accuracy
for acceptable NC>2 compliance audit samples (Section k.k of Method 7).
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF SOURCE NOY AUDIT
% Laboratories % Laboratories
Concentration accurate within accurate within
(mg/DSCM) ± 5% ± 10%
99.5
125.1
329.9
590.0
6U9.5
66.1
66.1
78. T
79.0
82.3
77. U
82.3
88.5
90.3
90.3
N 62
13
-------
SECTION 7
METHOD 19 AUDIT
Standards of performance for newer electric utility steam generators
(Subpart Da of UO CFR 60) allow coal sampling and analysis to serve as an
acceptable method for determining sulfur concentration in the scrubber inlet
flue gas. The coal audit checks participants' ability to analyze coal samples
for sulfur, ash, moisture, and Btu content.
The coal audit samples consisted of two samples each with 50 grams (g)
of 60-mesh coal but with different parameter levels. The following American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures^'' were recommended, but
not required, for participants' use in analyzing the coal samples:
» ASTM D-3177 (Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in the
Analysis of Coal and Coke)
» ASTM D-317^ (Standard Test Method for Ash in the Analysis
Sample of Coal and Coke)
• ASTM D-3173 (Test for Moisture in the Analysis Sample of
Coal)
« ASTM D-2015 (Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value
of Solid Fuel by the Adiabatic Bomb Method)
Participants measured the parameters and reported their results for
moisture (%} on an as-received basis, and their results for sulfur (%), ash
(%), and gross calorific value (Btu/lb) on a dry basis.
In both audits, 8H percent of the laboratories that received the audit
package returned data. Seventy-nine of the same laboratories participated in
both audits and returned data. This was a decrease from last year's audit.
Table 12 shows the total number of laboratories requesting participation and
the number that returned data for the two coal audits (0387 and 0987).
-------
TABLE 12. COAL AUDIT PARTICIPANTS
No. requesting samples No. letarning data
Category 038? 098? 038? 098?
Contractors
Industry
Federal
State
Local
55
38
0
12
5
52
kk
0
12
3
UU
35
0
9
h
1*5
39
0
9
2
Total 110 111 92 95
Tables 13 arid lU summarize the coal audit results. The number of analy-
ses is greater than the number of participants because some companies had
more than one laboratory participating. Each laboratory received its own set
of samples and was asked to analyze the samples in duplicate. Accuracies of
5 and 10 percent were chosen as the target criteria for each of the four
parameters.
Comparison of the 0387 audit to the 0987 audit shows an improvement in
the latter audit for the moisture parameters and the low level sulfur con-
centration. In the 0387 audit, the sulfur level was considerably lower,
therefore allowing a greater chance for error in compliance testing.
15
-------
TABLE 13. SOURCE COAL AUDIT—0387
Expected
value
0.77
2.11
1.16
2.12
1.91
16.88
12392
13U61*
No. of
analyses*
(l) 112
(2) 106
(1) 112
(2) 106
(1) 111
(2) 105
(1) 111
(2) 105
(1) 112
(2) 105
(1) 112
(2) 105
(1) 107
(2) 102
(1) 107
(2) 102
Laboratories
accurate
within 5%
(%}
Sulfur
55.3
56.6
7U.1
79.2
Moisture
21.6
19.0
18.0
20.0
Ash
99.1
99.0
100.0
99.0
Gross Calorific
99.1
99.0
99.1
99.0
Laboratories
accurate
within 10%
(*)
80. U
87.7
92.0
95.3
1+8.6
52.U
50.5
U3.8
99.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
*Numbers in parentheses indicate first and second analyses,
16
-------
TABLE Ik. SOURCE COAL AUDIT--0987
Expected
value
1.68
H.21
1.57
2.1+7
13.66
22.18
110U2
12886
No. of
analyses*
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
110
10U
109
103
110
101
110
101
110
103
110
103
106
101
106
101
Laboratories
accurate
within 5$
(*)
Sulfur
73
7U
79
77
Moisture
23
22
33
Hi
Ash
99
99
100
100
Gross Caloriiic
96
96
97
97
.6
.0
.8
.7
.6
.8
.6
.6
.1
.0
.0
.0
.2
.0
.2
.0
Laboratories
accurate
within 10f»
(%)
90
92
95
9H
ho
H7
66
69
99
100
100
100
98
98
98
98
.9
.3
,U
.2
.9
.5
.U
.3
.1
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.1
.0
*Numbers in parentheses indicate first and second analyses.
17
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources—Appendix A. Title ^0, Part 60, Code of Federal
Regulations.
2. Streib, E.W., T.J. Logan, and M.R. Midgett. A Summary of the 1983 EPA
National Performance Audit Program on Source Measurements. EPA 600A-
85-00^, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, January 1985. 38 pp.
3. Streib, E.W. , T.J. Logan, and M.R. Midgett. A Summary of the 1$>8U EPA
National Performance Audit Program on Source Measurements. EPA 600/U-
86-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, February 1986. 3^ pp.
U. Streib, E.W., T.J. Logan, and M.R. Midgett. A Summary of the 1985 EPA
National Performance Audit Program on Source Measurements. EPA 600/i+-
87-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, February 1986. 37 pp.
5. Streib, E.W. and W.J. Mitchell. A Summary of the 1986 EPA National
Performance Audit Program on Source Measurements. EPA 600A-88/003,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, January 1988. 31 pp.
6. Chauvenet, W. Manual of Spherical and Practical Astronomy: Volume II—
Theory and Use of Astronomical Instruments (Method of Least Squares).
J.P. Lippincott and Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1863•
7. American Society for Testing and Materials. Annual Book of ASTM Stan-
dards—-198H. Volume 5.05. 01-05058^-13, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
18
-------
APPENDIX
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
The following frequency distributions are provided to allow each parti-
cipating laboratory to compare its performance to the performance of other
laboratories that participated in the audit. For example, Table A-l (Orsat)
shows that for C02, 50 percent of the participants reported results within
U.29 percent of the true value. Similarly for C>2, 50 percent of the parti-
cipants reported results within 1.82 percent of the true value.
19
-------
H
EH
1—3
O CO
CO &H1
rO ^~|)
^3 t—\
<3J
p^i ^>
o
Q
S3 W
|— ) p^
E~* O
f^ pL(
pq w
M Pn
«
EH Q
CO S3
M PL,
O? X
M EH"
OH
pr_^ [JH
o
EH
H CQ
Q W
& O
W
EH W
<: H
CQ fc
O M
O
j
<^ EH
S3 S3
0 W
M 0
EH K
< W
S3 OH
•
rH
I
w
j"O
2
EH
• •
+3 0)
CO T3
C
Oj
0
s
•
X
s
"fe^-
o
ON
•65-
O
OO
"6^.
O
^^-
o
vo
•ftSS-
O
[f\
•*&-
0
J-
•&5.
0
00
"65.
o
OJ
"6^-
o
H
•
C
•H
*jr*
O
&
(D
H
t«
o
C!
CO
0 0 ON
00 t— 00
t— oo t-
vo
OJ
rH ON 00
t— ON OO
• • •
LA OO LA
VD
oo o o
J- 0 0
rH O 0
LA VD OO
VD
rH
oo oo o
-a- H o
iH OO O
rH t-
-H; LA O
rH LA O
• • •
t— -3- 0
-3-
H OO O
t- C— O
• • •
LA OJ O
00
H OJ O
t— OO O
LA rH O
OJ
OJ
O ON OJ OJ O O
O OJ O OO O O
• • •
-3- H 0
rH
VD oj o
CO CO O
OJ rH O
rH
VD H O
OO ON O
• • •
OJ O O
oo o o
J- O O
• • •
rH O O
O 0 0
o o o
• • •
0 O O
o o o
o o o
• • •
0 0 O
OO CO OJ
ON ON C—
O 0 O
o o o
o o o
t— t— t—
w
o
S3
OH
w
ff^
1 — t
Q
EH
S3
W
OH
w
Pu
w
EH
[ "]
O
CQ
pq
H
0
S3
W
§
H
pcj
pr,
2
a
•
OJ
1
4J 0)
CO T3
C
oi
d)
s
•
X
Oi
s
"fe^-
o
o\
•55.
o
CO
•^5.
o
C" —
•a*.
O
VD
-gs.
O
LA
0
-=!•
"6^-
o
oo
S$J-
o
OJ
(§5.
0
H
B
C
•H
s
-------
@
0
2
te
CD
H
EH
t—~t
o
0
1
o
w
M
Q
EH
P3
O
w
fe
o
s
o
H
g
pq
1 — 1
EH
CD
Q
O
W
or
w
E
OJ
o
CD
.
on
i
d
EH
• .
73 |>
-P Q)
CD T3
C
03
2
cd
2
•6*.
O
ON
•feS.
O
00
^
O
t" —
"B^-
0
vo
•ss-
o
LA
•feS-
O
"*
•55.
o
on
•6^-
o
OJ
•^s.
O
1-1
•
c
•H
2
.
O
a
a;
rH
^ o
nj a
CD
CO VO rH rH OJ
-3- t— 0 O OJ
• • • • •
J" t— t— VO C—
i-H
rH LAOO t- On
t— t— C— LA LA
on cvi oj LA on
ON oo vo vo ON
oj o vo on oj
LA j- vo t— c~-
on t—vo oj LA
rH
J- O O ON H
j- o oj LA_=r
t— -d" -J- VO LA
-j- LA on o LA
OJ on oj ONVO
LA on on j- on
vo ONVO t— LA
on J- LA o o
j- CM oj -d- on
vo LACO j- t—
on co o oj on
on H oi on oj
OJ LAVO CO OJ
oo oj vo -=t r—
OJ H rH OJ rH
t— J- J- ON t—
t— O OJ LA_3-
rH rH H rH rH
t— LA OJ H ON
oj vo co on ON
rH O O rH O
ON o ON OJ on
oo -J- on t— vo
o o o o o
ON oo ONOO LA
on oj H OJ oj
o o o o o
O LA O O O
o o o o o
O 0 O 0 0
ON OJ OJ O rH
co ON ON ON ON
rH OJ On -3" LTN
Q
W
1
OH
CD
W
H
EH
O
O
1
u
S3
W
M
Q
EH
P3
O
cu
Cn
O
£q
0
H
EH
«
HH
EH
CD
O
K^j
?H
o
Of
w
f§
X
o
a
•
i
"^
w
9
EH
• ,
•o >
CD 13
C
cd
OJ
2
.
X
o5
2
%«-
o
ON
•feS-
o
OO
•6S.
t—
VO
IPv
•fcS-
o
•6*.
oo
OJ
H
•
c
J
•ri
o
0)
H
ft •
8 0
oj C
CD
ON ON OJ CO (•—
on t— -3- OJ ON
VO t— OJ LA OJ
OJ O VO VO CO
OJ OJ H
vo onoo OJ -*
O t— ON OJ IA
• • • • •
OJ t— ON t— ON
-^ on OJ H H
LA H VO O\ LA
J- VO O VO VO
ON OJ H rH OJ
oo J- oo o -3-
t— VO OJ LAVO
rH H rH
ON OJ vo vo t—
O\OO OO J- VO
OO LAOO t— ON
on oj H H H
O LA rH VO t—
VO H -4- OO VO
O -J" ON ON ON
OJ H
LA on -d- ONOO
OO OJ O LACO
O O VO LA J"
rH rH
J- ON LA OJ O
on ONOO -3- t—
co t— -=f on on
on oi oi t— vo
ON t— OO rH t—
LA j- on oj oj
OJ O VO VO ON
LA vo t— t— on
on on oj H oj
rH J- VO VO ON
on CM o on j-
OJ OJ OJ H rH
rH CO VO LACO
t— OJ J- t— CO
rH rH rH O O
O o ON t- OJ
LACO VO -3- -3-
o o o o o
O CO CO CO O
o o o o o
O O 0 0 0
OJ OJ OJ OJ rH
vo vo vo vo vo
-J LAVO CO ON
21
-------
1
o
H
IX C—
OO
W 00
EH 0
ID
. "I ^|
0 Q
CO D
W EH
PQ
M Q
« w
EH EH
CO K
M O
Q Pn
pgj]
>H K
O
w £23
^ ^
0?
pq Q
PH W
Pn EH
U
EH H
M 0,
£3 W
^*
J 0
O CO
o w
o
«! 5
£3 «
EH fti
< M
g^ f"A
IA
1
w
pq
3
EH
• «
Tj J>
-P 0)
CO T)
C
oJ
0)
s
•
X
cd
s
"fe^-
O
ON
"6^-
o
CO
VS.
o
t—
%^
o
'fe^-
o
IA
VI
o
v*.
o
00
"fe^-
o
CM
v*.
o
rH
.
C
•H
s
.
o
0)
rH •
to
CO
LA CO
-3" LA
• •
rH CM
LA LA
OO -=f
ONOO
• •
o oo
i-H
t— 0
OO \O
• •
ON LA
CM LA
LA LA
ON J-
ON O\
CM t-
H
ON LA
t- 0
• •
t— LA
ON t—
-3- ON
• •
M3 00
ON LA
H CM
• . 0)
J-i LA OO fn
3 2
H rH
OJ CM
O O
0 O
0 O
rH ON
CO
OJ
•
•H
LA
O
•
H
\£)
VQ
•
o
rH
OO
rH
OJ
rH
LA
•
H
O
O
•
rH
CO
CO
•
O
c^
CD
-------
EH
65
«
(X t-
oo
W ON
EH O
>-5 X
0 Q
CO P
ffl
M Q
K En1
CO K
M 0
Q a*
H
^H P*1
o
1"") ^
C?
OH H
En EH
O
SH W
M Cu
Q X
p E>5
En
r— 3 O
^J
O CO
0 W
o
j a
5 E3
Is; K
O E3
M En
EH En
< M
S£H Q
VO
1
^
w
«
1
, .
•0 >•
4J 0)
CO T3
C
03
0)
s
•
X
ctf
s
Vi
O
ON
^5.
O
oo
VS.
O
t—
v~-
o
vo
Vt
o
LA
Vi
O
-=>•
%^-
o
oo
•^s.
o
OJ
'S^-
o
rH
C
•rH
s
*
o
£n
0)
rH
So
oj C
CO
rH _=f
-=t OJ
• •
.rf LA
rH LA
rH C—
• •
-3 OO
-=t- OJ
t— j-
• •
OJ -*
OO LA
oo vo
• •
OO VO
LA OO
ON OJ
LA LA
VO -3-
t— 0
~f -^j*
^
------- |