United States
                  Environmental Protection
                  Agency
Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                  Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-92/151   September 1992
& EPA      Project  Summary
                  The  National Atmospheric
                  Deposition Program/National
                  Trends  Network (NADP/NTN)
                  SITE  Visitation  Program
                  (October 1989 through
                  September 1990)
                  W.C. Eaton, C.E. Moore, R.W. Murdoch, R.C. Shores, D.A. Ward, and
                  R.L. Lampe
                    The proper collection of precipitation
                  and  the accurate measurement of its
                  constituents are important steps in at-
                  taining a better understanding of the
                  distribution and effects of "acid rain"
                  in the United States.  One of NAPAP
                  Task Group IV's major programs con-
                  cerns wet deposition monitoring. One
                  of that program's projects,  4A-15,
                  "Quality Assurance Support for Wet
                  Deposition Monitoring,"  is sponsored
                  by the U.S. Environmental Protection
                  Agency (EPA) to evaluate the sample
                  collection process and provide techni-
                  cal assistance to  the NADP/NTN net-
                  work through a site visitation program.
                  Research Triangle Institute, as contrac-
                  tor to EPA, conducts these visits.  If
                  deficiencies or nonstandard procedures
                  are noted, the site operator and super-
                  visor are notified.  Brief reports are
                  sent  to the EPA  Project Officer, the
                  NADP/NTN Quality Assurance Manager,
                  and others.  In this  way,  necessary
                  changes can be made promptly.
                    All NADP/NTN sites were visited in
                  1985-1986.  A second round of visits
                  began in October 1986, with the goal of
                  visiting approximately one-third of the
                  200 sites each year over the next three
                  years. This document is a summary
                  report of  the findings from the
                  1989-1990 (Fiscal Year 1990) site visi-
                  tation program to 67 of the sites of the
                  NADP/NTN network. In its present con-
                  figuration, the network's  research and
                  monitoring programs are supported and
                  operated by the U.S.  Geological Sur-
                  vey; State Agricultural Experiment Sta-
                  tions; the Departments of Agriculture,
the Interior, Commerce, and Energy;
and EPA.  Additional support is pro-
vided by state agencies, public utili-
ties, and industries.
  Protocols and procedures followed
in conducting the site visits are de-
scribed. Results of systems and per-
formance audits are discussed for sit-
ing, collection equipment, and the field
support laboratories. Where exceptions
are found, the potential effects of non-
standard siting, improperly operating
equipment, and improper sample han-
dling or analysis technique on the da-
tabase are discussed.
  This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Re-
search Triangle Park, NC, to announce
key findings of the  research project
that is fully documented in a separate
report of the same title. (See Project
Report ordering information at back).

Introduction
  The main report summarizes quality as-
surance assistance and findings from site
visits made to the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program/National Trends Net-
work (NADP/NTN) precipitation collection
stations for the period October 1989
through September 1990.  Each site is
located and operated according to proto-
cols and procedures as given in the siting
and operating manuals for the networks.
The purposes of the site visitation pro-
gram, sponsored by the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA), are to verify
that each site is operating within control
limits and according to established proce-
                                                               Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
 duras, and to provide technical assistance
 as required.
   Sixty-seven of the 196 sites (with dupli-
 cate sites bringing the total to 205) that
 were in  operation during 1990 were vis-
 ited during this timeframe. Figure 1 shows
 the NADP/NTN site locations.

 Goals of the Site Visitation
 Program
   The goals of the site visitation program
 for quality assurance  assistance  to the
 NADP/NTN collection sites are as follows:
   1.   Provide  a qualitative assessment
       of each site and its surroundings,
       the operator's adherence to sample
       collection and analysis procedures,
       and the condition  of the site's col-
       lection  and analysis equipment
       through an on-site systems survey;
   2.   Provide a quantitative assessment
       of the operation of the precipitation
       collector and  the  accuracy of  re-
       sponse of field and laboratory mea-
       surement devices for precipitation
       depth, mass, temperature, conduc-
       tivity, and pH through  an on-site
       performance survey;
   3.   Provide technical assistance to the
       operator by verbal explanation, mi-
       nor troubleshooting, repair and cali-
       bration of equipment, an by making
       recommendations for  sources of
       corrective action;
   4.   Prepare brief  reports for each site
       detailing site characteristics, results
       of quality assurance tests, and tech-
       nical assistance provided.  Submit
      the reports to the NADP/NTN Qual-
       ity Assurance Manager, the Central
      Analytical Laboratory's Site Liaison,
       and the EPA Project Officer;
   5.   Computerize results of information
      gathered from each site and sub-
      mit this to the NADP/NTN  Quality
      Assurance Manager on an annual
      basis; and
   6.  Document the sites and their sur-
      roundings by assembling a collec-
      tion  of site maps and color photo-
      graphs.


Conclusions
   Sixty-seven  of  the 196 active  NADP/
NTN precipitation collection sites were vis-
ited over the  one-year period,  October
1989 through  September 1990.   About
one-third of the sites were visited during
this fourth year of a four-year effort. The
sites are located in all regions of the coun-
try and are sponsored and  operated  by
numerous agencies.  Each site is located
 according to established siting criteria and
 operates  according  to  published proce-
 dures.  This report assesses the degree
 to which criteria and procedures are ad-
 hered; predicts, where possible, the rela-
 tive  impact on the data that might be ex-
 pected from the variances found; a.nd com-
 pares results thus far from the third round
 of visits to those documented in the sec-
 ond round of visits that occurred over the
 period October 1986 through September
 1987.

 Siting
   Improvements in adherence to siting cri-
 teria were noted at most of the sites vis-
 ited  in 1990 that were not  in compliance
 at the time of the second round of visits in
 1986-1987.  A number of sites heid sepa-
 rated the collector and rain gauge, to the
 prescribed 5-m distance and had oriented
 the collector's wet-side bucket to the west.
 Obstructions and sources of dust such as
 animals, parking lots, and chemical stor-
 age areas had been removed, or the site's
 equipment had been moved away  from
 them.
   For the 13 siting criteria summarized in
 this report, 45 of 67 sites (67%) visited in
 FY 1990 had at least one variance.  Six-
 teen percent of the sites  had three or
 more variances.  However, most of the
 variances are expected to  have minimal
 effects on the  database because of the
 nature of certain criteria and/or the de-
 gree to which the criteria were exceeded.
 For  example,  network siting criteria re-
 quire that the precipitation  collector and
 rain gauge be separated by at least 5 m
 but not more than 30 m.  Fifteen percent
 of the 67 sites did not meet this criterion,
 nine because of inadequate separation.

 Sample Collection   D
  Designated sample  collection proce-
 dures were  adhered ,to at almost all the
 sites in the  network. All operators were
 careful not to touch the inside of the col-
 lection bucket or lid or contaminate the
 sample in any way. All site operators stated
that they checked the sample for contami-
 nants (leaves, bird droppings, etc,) at the
time of the bucket's removal from the col-
 lector.  This procedure was not being well
 adhered to at the time of the first round of
visits.
  To ensure accurate precipitation data, it
 is  most important  that  the  precipitation
collector and rain gauge are properly work-
 ing and well maintained.  All sites were
able  to make a weekly equipment: check.
A properly working precipitation collector
should uncover the wet bucket at the be-
ginning  of a precipitation event and re-
 cover the wet bucket shortly after the event
 stops to keep matter such as dust out of
 the wet bucket when there is no precipita-
 tion.  There were indications at 6 of 66
 sites examined that  the clutch  on the
 Aerochem Metrics  precipitation collector
 was wearing;  however, all of these oper-
 ated properly  when tested with a 1600-g
 load. Seven of 62 sensors checked were
 not operating properly. Twenty-eight per-
 cent of the rain gauges  (18 of 64) were
 found  to be out of calibration by  more
 than ±0.1 in. at some point on the 0-12-in.
 scale, usually above a 5-in. depth. This is
 not believed to be a major source of error
 because the operator is instructed to empty
 the catch bucket before  a 5-in. depth is
 reached.  Calibration checks showed that
 63 of the 65 gauges  (97%) met accept-
 able calibration criteria (±0.1 in.) over the
 range of 0 to 5 in.

 Field Laboratory Procedures
   Field laboratory procedures for sample
 handling, conductivity measurements, and
 pH determinations were being carried out
 properly and  accurately  in  most cases.
 Proper procedures were discussed or dem-
 onstrated to site operators as needed.
   Fifty-seven of  65  sites were able to de-
 termine the pH of an audit solution to
 within ±0.1  unit  of the designated  value.
 Two sites had inoperative pH meters and
 could not be checked.  Overall, 88  per-
 cent of  the  65 field laboratories checked
 in 1990 agreed  within ±0.1  pH unit  with
 the audit value.
   For conductivity  measurements, each
 of the 65  sites checked (100%)  deter-
 mined the audit  solution's conductivity to
 within ±4 |iS/cm of  the designated  value.
 Two sites had malfunctioning  or broken
 equipment and thus could not be audited.
  The  solution balances were operating
 properly in all  of the 67  cases  checked.
 Of  67 balances checked,  almost  half
 agreed  within  ±1 g with the designated
 weight over the  range of 823 to 4938 g.
 All but three balances agreed within ±5 g
 with the designated  weight over the same
 range.   In terms of  percent variation with
 respect to weight, the  worst case for any
 balance was 5.5 g at a loading of 4115 g,
corresponding  to only a 0.1 percent  dis-
 agreement.

 Recommendations
  The site precipitation collector and  rain
 gauge  are central to the successful  op-
 eration  of  the  network.   However,  the
 equipment  in the NADP/NTN network is
aging and will require increased mainte-
 nance.   Therefore, weekly equipment
checks by the operator should continue to

-------
                                                      NADP/NTN Monitoring Network
Figure 1. Active sites in the NADP/NTN monitoring network during 1990.
detect problems as early as possible. The
collector's clutch  assembly should be  in-
spected for signs of wear.  The failure
rate of the precipitation collector's sensor
heaters was still significant.   A simple
check of  the collector's  sensor heater,
made by activating the collector with wa-
ter and, after 5 min, lightly touching the
sensor surface to verify it is heating, should
continue.
  A number of rain gauges were found to
be  out of calibration at some point in the
12-in. range.   However,  many of those
calibrated in 1987  met specifications in
1990.  It is recommended that a simple,
on-site calibration check of the rain gauge
be  carried out every six months.  A  copy
of the gauge chart used for the check
should be forwarded to the network's  Cen-
tral Analytical Laboratory (CAL) for review.
  Recommendations for improving site lo-
cations center on those siting criteria that,
if violated, may affect the  catch efficiency
or chemistry of the precipitation samples.
Specifically, it is recommended that the
NADP/NTN Coordination  Office take the
following steps  to correct conditions at
several sites:
  • Relocate the collector or remove the
    obstruction (tree, etc.) that causes the
    45°  angle rule to  be violated (five
    sites).
  • Relocate the collector or restrict use
    of nearby parking  lots and storage
    facilities so that a 100-m separation
    is achieved (five sites).
  • Relocate the collector or install fenc-
    ing so that animals are kept at least
    30 m away (three sites).
  • Relocate the collector so that  trans-
    portation roadways and sources are
    at least 100 m away (one site).
  • Reorient the  collectors whose wet-
    side collection bucket faces north or
east so that all wet-side buckets face
west (ten sites).
Where expedient and inexpensive to
do  so, relocate collectors  or rain
gauges so that a minimum  separa-
tion distance of 5 m is achieved (nine
sites).
Emphasize to site operators  and su-
pervisors that grass, weeds, and small
trees or bushes should be kept at a
height  of 2 ft or less in a circle  with a
radius  of 30 m from the collector (five
sites).
Level any collectors or  rain  gauges
that are out of tolerance (three  sites).
Investigate whether or not the  resis-
tivity required to activate  the collector
sensor  should be set closer to the
factory value of 80K Q for several of
the collectors.

-------
Tablo 1.  NADP/NTN Sita Measurements and Performance Survey Methods

Site  Measurement              Measurement Device       Performance Survey Method
                                                               Designated Performance Criteria
Rain depth
Rain gauge (Belfort)
Precipitation sample collection     Precipitation collector
                               (Aerochem Metrics)
Mass


pH


Conductivity
Triple beam balance
pH meter and electrode
Challenge with known weights
that simulate rainfall.

Measure resistance across sensor,
measure tension and drop of
bucket lid, measure temperature
and resistance of activated sensor.

Challenge with traceable weights.
Challenge with simulated
precipitation sample of
known pH.
Conductivity meter and cell  Challenge with simulated precipitation
                         sample of known conductivity,
Agreement within ±0.1 in. of test weight
 value over the range 0-12 in.

Resistance in range of 60-90K 0.
Lid drop distance >3 mm.  Sensor
temperature ambient prior to activation;
temperature of 50-70  °C after activation.

Agreement within ±5 g of test weight
value,

Agreement within ±0,1 pH unit of test
solution's designated value,
                                      Agreement within ±4 uS/cm of test
                                      solution's designated value,
  • Supply rain gauge damping fluid (sili-
    cons oil) to those sites that may need
    to fill reservoirs to within  0.25  in. of
    the top.

Site Survey Visits
  A quality assurance systems survey was
conducted at each site to qualitatively as-
sess  the  site,  its surroundings,  and  the
operator's adherence to procedures speci-
fied in the NTN design document and in
the NADP/NTN site  operator's instruction
manual.  Criteria for siting an NADP/NTN
precipitation station are illustrated in Fig-
ure 2. The operator was asked to demon-
             strate sample collection and analysis pro-
             cedures.  These were observed with spe-
             cial attention given to calibration  proce-
             dures and sample handling technique. Site
             equipment was examined for signs of wear
             or faulty operation.  It was noted whether
             solutions and  equipment were  properly
             stored.   Site logbooks and rain  gauge
             charts (if present) were examined for leg-
             ibility, completeness, and accuracy.
                Information from the systems survey was
             entered  in the systems survey question-
             naire.  Two sets  of  photographs;  (color
             slides) of the sites were taken. The N, E,
             S,  and W views were photographed with
                                the precipitation collector in the foreground.
                                Additional views were taken as specified
                                in the questionnaire.
                                  A quantitative performance survey was
                                conducted at each site.  Table 1 lists the
                                equipment that was  checked for perfor-
                                mance and the type of test used.  Criteria
                                for  evaluating performance are specified
                                in the NADP Quality Assurance  Plan.
                                  This report was submitted in partial ful-
                                fillment of EPA Contract No. 68-D8-0001
                                by  Research Triangle Institute.   This  re-
                                port covers site  visits  made during the
                                period October 1, 1989, through Septem-
                                ber 30, 1990.  All work was completed as
                                of September 30, 1990.

-------
                            No Residential—„,
                            Structures     _No Object
                             Vithin 30 m,
                                       Should Project
                                       Beyond
                                        0.3-1.0
                                        0.6 - 2.0
                                         5-16
                                        20-66
                                        30-98
                                       500 -1640
                                                                   Overhead
                                                                   Wire, Tree,
                                                                   Building, etc.
Residential
Buildings
                                             45° 3? That No
                     Wet Bucket —
                          Collector
                                               Objects Project Beyond
                                                                                                     10-6.2
                                                                                                     20 -12.4
                                                                                                     40 • 24.8
                                                  5 m • No Objects Greater Than 1 m in Height
                                                          20m'Slopes ±15%
                                                                 Natural Vegetation <0,6 m
                                                                 No Grazing Animals
                            Collector and
                            Gauge Inlet
                            Within 0.3 m
  \
   Notes
   • Platforms Discouraged, However, No Higher Than
    Anticipated Snow Pak
   • Spacing Between the Gauge and Collector at 5 to 30 m
   • No Residential Buildings within Upwind 30° Cone
   • If More Than 20% of Precipitation Is Snow, Gauge Must Have
    an Alter Wind Shield,  Pivot Axis at Same Elevation As Gauge
    Inlet
   • In Snow Areas, Collector Roofs Should Be Properly Counter
    Weighted
   • Question Future  Land Use
   • Changes Must Be Submitted to Coordinator's Office
30. m • No Sudden Changes in Slope Greater Than ±15%
      Farm Area Should Be Nothing Except Vegetation Maintained at
      Less Than 0,6 m
           No Surface Storage of Agricultural Products, Fuels, Vehicles,
           Parking Lots, or Maintenance Yards
           No Moving Source of Pollutants Such as Runway,
           Taxiway, Road or Navigable River
    500 m • No Feed Lots, Dairy Bams or Large Concentration of Animals
               10 km • No Downwind Industries, Factories, Chemical or
                      Power Plants
                      No Downwind Urban Areas Greater Than 10,000
                 20 km • No Upwind Industries, Factories, Chemical or
                        Power Plants
                       • No Upwind Urban Areas Greater Than 10,000
                       • No Downwind Urban Areas Greater Than 75,000
             40 km • No Upwind Urban Areas Greater Than 75,000
 Figure 2. NADP/NTN siting criteria.
•U.S. Government Printing Office: 1993— 648-060/60129

-------

-------

-------
   IV.C. Eaton,  C.B. Moore, R.W. Murdoch, R.C. Shores, and D.A. Ward are with
     Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
   Robert L Lampe is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
   The complete report,  entitled "The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/
     National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) SITE Visitation Program for the Period
     October 1989 through September 1990," (Order No. PB92-217298/AS;  Cost:
     $19.00, subject to change)  will be available only from:
           National Technical Information Service
           5285 Port Royal Road
           Springfield, VA 22161
           Telephone: 703-487-4650
   The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
           Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
     BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/SR-92/151

-------