&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Mobile Source
Enforcement Division
Technical Support Branch
Washington DC 20460
EPA-300/03-79-001
March 1979
Accuracy Audit
of Vehiclelnspection
and Maintenance Programs
-------
EPA-300/03-79-001
FINAL REPORT
Accuracy Audit
of Vehicle Inspection and
'Maintenance Programs
Volume I
EPA Project Officer: James Caldwell
EPA Contract No.: 68-01-3946
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
Mobil Source Enforcement Division
Technical Support Branch
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
March 1979
by
James L. Reese
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
2600 Cajon Boulevard
San Bernardino, California 92411
-------
REPORT AVAILABILITY
Copies of this report are available for a limited time
through the Mobile Source Enforcement Division, (EN-340),
401 M St., Washington, D.C., or at a nominal cost from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703-557-4650)
This is Volume I of a two volume report submitted by the
contractor. Volume II is a compilation of the raw data sheets
and was not published.
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Technical Support
Branch, Mobile Source Enforcement Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
ABSTRACT
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. conducted an audit for
the Environmental Protection Agency of vehicle exhaust emission measuring
instrumentation currently in use at vehicle inspection and maintenance
stations. Calibration gas standards were introduced into the
instruments and responses recorded. Functional checks of the instru-
ments were also made and information on instrument reliability and
calibration procedures was collected.
Results generally showed the instruments to be in good
condition with readings within 5 percent of the standard gases for
both hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Graphical and
statistical analysis of the results showed significant variations
in the measurements at only a few locations.
Although the basic instrumentation at each station was very
similar, the degree of computer automation and instrument calibration
procedures varied widely from program to program.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
Volume I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
ABSTRACT
1.0 INTRODUCTION - 1-1 .
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS - - 2-1
3.0 SUMMARY OF INSPECTION MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS 3-1
4.0 AUDIT PROCEDURE 4-1
4.1 GAS PREPARATION 4-1
4.2 FIELD EVALUATION OF EMISSION INSTRUMENTATION- 4-3
5.0 RESULTS OF AUDIT - 5-1
6.0 DATA ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 6-1
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF GAS BLENDS BY SCOTT
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
- ANALYSIS OF LOW PRESSURE CYLINDERS
TRANSFILLED FROM MASTER CYLINDERS
APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS INCLUDING
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTRUMENT READINGS
AND STANDARD GASES
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
1.0 INTRODUCTION
An audit of inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs was
conducted by Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-3946.
The primary objective of the audit was to determine the ability of
emission analyzers currently in use at state and city vehicle inspection
and maintenance stations to accurately measure the concentrations of
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in vehicle exhaust. Additional
objectives included determining the general condition of the instru-
ments, instrument maintenance histories, and calibration procedures
at each program.
Inspection and maintenance programs involve periodic vehicle
inspection of exhaust emissions. A number of I/M programs have been
implemented across the country by state and local governments. Selected
for inclusion in the audit were programs from the following eight
locations: Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Denver, Colorado;
New Jersey; New York State; Phoenix/Tucson, Arizona; Portland, Oregon;
and Riverside, California.
In order to determine the accuracy of the emission measure-
ments, Scott conducted field evaluations of the instrumentation used
by each program.
Hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide gas standards of known
concentrations were introduced into the instruments by Scott personnel
and instrument responses recorded. The results are presented in
tabular and graphical form with a statistical analysis of the data
and background information on the programs.
Volume I of this report contains descriptions of the
inspection and maintenance programs and the audit procedure, results
of the audit, and the statistical and graphical analysis of results.
Volume II contains the data forms completed by Scott personnel during
the field evaluation of the I/M stations.
(T) Scott Environmental Technology Inc
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In the eight programs audited, a total of 24 I/M stations
and 58 instruments were evaluated. Generally, the instruments were
found to be in very good operating condition, although a few were
out of service for minor repairs. The instruments require only
routine maintenance, with attention given to leaks or plugging in
the sampling system. Calibration procedures varied from program to
program. Calibrations with precision gases varied from once per day to
once per month. Frequency of electronic calibration was also quite
variable. Some programs were highly automated, using computers to
operate the instrumentation, while others operated the instruments
manually.
The difference between the analyzer readings and the known
standard gases was about 6% for both hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
Statistical analysis of the results showed some significant differences
in the mean values of the hydrocarbon measurements between the programs
and the individual sites, especially at higher concentrations. The
analysis of the carbon monoxide results showed some differences between
the sites in analyzing the standard gases, but no differences between
programs. There was also no significant difference between the makes
of analyzers in analyzing either hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide.
* - Excluding Portland, see text.
Scott Environmental Techrofosy
-------
SET £2587-01-0179
3.0 SUMMARY OF INSPECTION MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
The I/M programs included in the audit vary widely in
size and program objectives. Both voluntary and mandatory programs
were included. The scope of the programs varies from state-wide
inspections to only one station programs. All of the programs test
for emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, with several also
testing for nitrogen oxides. With the exception of Denver, all of the
programs use similar instrumentation based on infrared absorption
detection principles to measure hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
Test modes also vary, with some tests at only idle and others at
cruising conditions using dynamometers to simulate road loads.
Although the basic instrumentation used by the various programs is
very similar, there are wide variations in the degree of automation
of the instrumentation. The more complex systems use a computer to
fully control the instrumentation, except for inserting the sampling
probe into the tailpipe and operating the vehicle being tested. In
some programs, the computer automatically draws exhaust gas samples,
purges the sampling lines, checks instrument zero and span, determines
vehicle compliance, and prints test results.
The following are the I/M programs included in the audit:
1. Chicago Department of Environmental Control,
Chicago, Illinois
2. Cincinnati Division of Air Pollution Control,
Cincinnati, Ohio
3. Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
4. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
State of New Jersey
5. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Latham, New York
6. Arizona Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection
Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 3"2
7. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Portland, Oregon
8. California Bureau of Automotive Repair
Riverside, California
Details of these programs are summarized in Table 3.1,
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
8
m
I
TABLE 3.1
SUMMARY OF INSPECTION MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
to
O
PROGRAM LOCATION
Chicago, 111.
Cincinnati , Ohio
Denver, Colorado
New Jersey
N.Y. State Lab3
Albany, New York
4
Phoenix/Tucson, Ar.
Portland, Oregon
5
Riverside, Ca.
MANDATORY OR
VOLUNTARY1
V
M
V
M
V
M
M
V
-g
Idle .
2500 rpm
Idle
Idle, High
cruise, low
cruise
Idle
Idle, High
Cruise
High Cruise,
Low Cruise,
Idle
Idle
2500 rpm
High Cruise,
Low Cruise,
Idle
3 UJ^
. ujH-
Sd -
oc > i a;
D. n: H. tn hn rpnlr^^r! <-nth !'>nri;>-i-r,p\.'
to
=»t=
ro
tn
C»
~-j
i
O
H->
I
O
to
I
nrnnvvii
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
4.0 AUDIT PROCEDURE
To check the accuracy of the instrumentation used by the I/M
programs, several standard gas blends containing different levels of hydro-
carbons (propane) and carbon monoxide were prepared and subsequently intro-
duced into the instruments through their sampling probes. The instrument
responses for each of the gas blends were then recorded. The audit procedure
also included zeroing and spanning the instruments before and after measuring
the standard gases and a leak check of the instrument sampling system. Back-
ground information on the programs also was obtained.
Site Selection - I/M stations selected to be audited included all
of the stations of the Cincinnati, Denver, New York and Riverside programs.
Stations from the remaining programs were selected at random using computer-
generated random numbers.. The following numbers of stations were selected
from each program: Four from Chicago and Portland; 3 from Phoenix/Tucson plus
the Arizona State Laboratory; and 5 from New Jersey. Table 4.1 shows the
addresses of all of the I/M stations, the stations selected for the audit, and
the dates of the field visits. A total number of 24 stations with 58 instru-
ments were audited. A list of persons contacted in each program and a sample
of the letter sent to each program are included in Figure 4.1.
4.1 GAS PREPARATION
The standard gases used in the audit were prepared by Scott's
Specialty Gas Division. Five tri-blend mixtures of varying concentrations of
propane, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen were gravimetrically blended into
high pressure cylinders. Gravimetrically prepared gas mixtures are prepared
by weighing the gas components on a high load, high sensitivity analytical
balance. All weights are traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
Each of these five blends was then transferred into 20 low pressure
8 cubic foot cylinders. Gas concentrations in each of the. cylinders were
verified by gas chromotography against Scott's primary standards. This gas
blending procedure was used in order to provide identical gas blends in each
of the 20 cylinders and gas analysis of the highest accuracy.
One set of each of the five blends was also analyzed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Test Laboratory in
Ann Arbor, Michigan. Another set of gases was analyzed by EG&G Automotive
Research, Inc., in Alexandria, Virginia. After the audit of each program was
! Scott Environmental Technology Inc
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
4-2
TABLE 4.1
ADDRESSES OF INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE STATIONS
SHOWING STATIONS SELECTED TO BE AUDITED
Chicago:
2.
*3.
*4.
*5.
4046 Washington Street
4633 S. Marshfield
31st Street & Lakeshore Drive
5401 N. Elston
7150 W. Medm
Cincinnati:
*1. Central Parkway & Bates
*2. Mills Avenue & Walter Avenue,
Norwood
Denver:
*1. 1549 Chester St., Aurora
*2. Mobile Laboratory
New York:
*1. Motor Vehicle Emissions Test
Program, 8 Hemlock Street,
Latham, New York
Portland:
625 S.W. Oak St., Hillsboro
1
*2
3
*4
*5
*6
13900 S.W. Pacific Hwy, Tigard
3.136 Harrison St., Milwaukie
4621 N.W. St., Helens Road
8920 S.E. Powell Blvd.
18345 S.E. Stark Street
185th Street & Sunset Highway
*8. Lloyd Center-NE'15th & Multanomah
Phoenix/Tucson:
*7
1. 4501 W. Van Buren, Phoenix
2. 8802 N. Black Canyon, Phoenix
3. 12620 N. Cave Creek Rd., Phoenix
4. 1700 N. Hayden Rd., Tempe
*5. 1830 W. Broadway, Mesa
*6. 2450 S. 7th St., Phoenix
7. 579 Whipple St., Wickenburg
8. 1311 E. Highway 80, Buckeye
9. 1402 E. Benson Hwy., Tucson
10. 755 W. Grant Rd., Tucson
*11. 8125 E. 22nd St., Tucson
12. 2020 N. Ajo-Gila Bend Hwy., Ajo
*13. State Vehicular Emissions Eng. Lab.
New Jersey:
1. 1010 Comstock St., Asbury Park
2. Drive-In Theatre, Rte 30, Atco
3. Wabash & Maryland Aves, Atlantic City
4. 83 Cornwells Drive, Bridgeton
5. Creek Rd, Delanco, Burlington
6. 617 Hampton Rd, Merchantville, Camden
*7. US'Hwy 9 & Shell bay Ave., Cape May C.
.8. 725 Egg Harbor Rd., Deptford
9. Highway 36, Eatontown
10. Junction, Rte 12 & 31, Flemington
11. Rte 9 (1 mi. south), Freehold
12. Drive-in Theatre, Bergen Pike,
Hackensack
13. 177 Roosevelt Ave., Jersey City
14. 33 Kilmer Rd, Edison, Kilmer
15. Drive-In Theatre, Rte 10, Livingston
16. Mill St. off Garibaldi Avenue, Lodi
17. 220 Recovery Road, Manahawkin
18. 1406 Wheaton Ave., Millvile
19. 16 Label Street, Montclair
*20. Ridgedale Ave & Washington Place,
Morristown
21. Madison Avenue & Rte 38, Mount Holly
22. 28 Frelinghuysen Ave., Neward
23. 90 Moran Street, Newton
24. Drive-In Theatre, Rte 1, N. Brunswick
25. W. 20 Century Road, Paramus
26. 1600 S. Second St., Plainfield
27. Woodbridge Ave., adjoining Prison,
Rahway
*28. 156 Chestnut Street, Ridgewood
29. Rte 45 (1 mi north of Salem), Salem
30. County Ave., & Secaucus Rd., Secaucus
*31. 61 Central Avenue, Somerville
*32. 935 Lakewood Rd., at James Street,
Tom's River
33. Rte 1, Brunswick Pike, Trenton
34. Drive-In Theatre, Rte 22, Union
35. Rte 31, Washington
36. 481 Rte 46 (h mi east of 23).Wayne
37. Windsor Avenue off South Ave.,
Westfield
38. Rte 10-Mt. Pleasant Ave., Whippany
Riverside:
600 N. 40th St., Phoenix
**1. 1970 University Drive
*2. 3195 Motorcircle Drive
**
Stations selected to be audited.
Station closed at the time of audit.
Scott Environmental Technology Ire
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
4-3
TABLE 4.1 CONTINUED
DATES OF FIELD VISITS
Program
Chicago, 111
Cincinnati , Ohio
Station
31st and Lakeshore
Elston
Medill
Washington
Central Parkway
Norwood
Date of
Field Visit
2-28-78
3-1-78
3-1-78
2-28-78
3-28-78
3-28-78
Denver, Colo.
New Jersey
Aurora
Somerville
Morri stown
Ridgewood
Tom's River
Cape May
State Laboratory
State Laboratory
Phoenix
Mesa
Tucson
Tigard
Powel1
St. Helens
Stark
185th & Sunset
Lloyd Center
Riverside, Calif. Motor Circle
New York State
Arizona
Portland, Oregon
1-10-78
2-1-78
2-2-78
2-2-78
2-9-78
2-10-78
2-23-78
1-31-78
1-31-78
2-1-78
2-1-78
2-15-78
2-14-78
2-15-78
2-14-78
2-15-78
2-15-78
1-5-78
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 4-4
FIGURE 4.1
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PERSONNEL CONTACTED
Mr. Joe Seliber
City of Chicago
Department of Environmental Control
320 North Clark Street, Room 402
Chicago, Illinois 60610
Mr. Don Sorrels
Chief, Mobile Sources Section
Air Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Mr. Walter J. Pienta
Mobile Source Section
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Mr. Marion F. Smith
Senior Engineer
City of Cincinnati
Division of Air Pollution Control
2400 Beekman Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45214
Mr. John Elston, Supervisor
Mobile Source Control
Bureau of Air Pollution Control
New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection
P.O. Box 2807
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Mr. Fred lacobelli
State of Arizona
Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Mr. William P. Jasper
Department of Environmental Quality
Vehicle Inspection Division
1234 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
Mr. John H. Do!an
Bureau of Automotive Repair
3116 Bradshaw Road
Sacramento, California 95827
. Scott Environmental Techndcxjy Inc.
-------
4-5
Figure 4.1 - Page 2
Scott Environmental technolo Inc
2600 CAJON BLVD., SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 9241 1 (714) 887-2571
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. is conducting an audit of
vehicle inspection and maintenance stations across the country
under a contract with the Technical Support Branch of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.. The stations
to be included in the audit are from programs in Arizona,
California, Chicago, II., Cincinnati, Oh., Colorado, New Jersey,
New.York and Oregon. I am writing to ask your approval to include
your program in the audit. Your support and assistance will greatly
contribute to the success of the audit.
The primary objective of the audit is to determine the ability of
emission analyzers currently in use at inspection/maintenace stations
to accurately measure hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide levels in
vehicle exhausts. The audit will also provide information on
instrument reliability and calibration procedures.
The audit will consist of a'visit by a Scott Instrument Technician
to each station. Five different gases of unknown concentration
blended by Scott's Specialty Gas Department will be introduced into
each of the station's instrumentation systems, and the responses for
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide will be recorded. The unknown gases
vrill.be analyzed by Scott's Chemical Laboratory and the EPA. The
Scott.technician will also gather additional information including
instrument maintenance records and calibration procedures. Upon
completion of the audit of each program, results of the audit will
be released to appropriate program officials. The results will then
be analyzed statistically to determine any significant differences
between types of analyzers, inspection/maintenance programs, or
' individual sites.
' PUIMSTCanwH i c oc«n
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 4_6
FIGURE 4.1, Page 3
With your approval, we plan to include stations from your inspection
and maintenance program. These stations will be chosen randomly.
Scott's technicians are scheduled to visit each station in December
and January. We will inform you of the exact dates when the schedule
is firm.
You may assist us in the audit at this time by providing information
about the inspection and maintenance stations in your program. On the
following page, Attachment #1, we have listed the number and location
of your stations and the make and model number of the instruments v/e
believe are currently in use. We would appreciate your confirming
the number and addresses of the stations, and indicating the number,
make and model numbers of instruments in use at each station. We -
are also interested in the pressure and flow rate of the exhaust gas
samples through the instrument system. It would be very helpful if
you could provide us with a copy of the instruction manual for the
instruments.
In order to coordinate the visits of our technicians to your inspection
stations, please include the names of the responsible persons v/e should
contact at each station.
The Project Officer for the EPA is Mr. James Caldwell, 202/755-9396.
If you have any questions about the audit, I would be happy to discuss
the program further with you. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
James L. Reese
Program Manager
JLRs
Attachment: 1
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 4-7
completed, the gases used in the audit were reanalyzed by Scott. The con-
centrations of the original gas blends by Scott, along with the analysis by
the EPA and EG&G are shown in Table 4.2. The results of the reanalysis of
the blends by Scott are included in Appendix A.
4.2 FIELD EVALUATION OF EMISSION INSTRUMENTATION
The field evaluation of the I/M instrumentation consisted of Scott
personnel visiting each station to introduce the standard gases into the instru-
ments. This procedure insured that the audit was conducted in the correct
manner and also allowed Scott to note the general condition of the instruments
and obtain information on instrument calibration and maintenance at each station.
To maintain the integrity of the standard gases, the gas cylinders were
shipped to the cities of the I/M programs and held for pickup *t the shipping
company terminals by Scott personnel. The cylinders were then hand carried
to each I/M station by Scott personnel. The concentrations of the standard
gases were not revealed to any I/M personnel at the stations. I/M personnel
were aware of the dates of the audits, although they were not aware of the
specific sites selected when not all sites were audited. Personnel at the
program headquarters in New Jersey and Chicago were informed of the concen-
trations, although station personnel were not.
Before the I/M instruments analyzed the standard gas, a leak check
was performed on the instrument sampling system. The instruments were also
checked for correct zero and span before and after the audit, with adjustments
made, if necessary. The standard gases were introduced in a random order into
each instrument using a flow control device to insure that the instrument
sampling systems were not over or under-pressurized. The flow control- device
included a pressure regulator and balloon. The precise gas flow rate required
by the instrument was obtained by increasing the gas flow to the instrument
until the balloon inflated slightly. Figure 4.2 shows the gas cylinder-to-
instrument sampling probe connection. The gases were introduced at the
instrument sampling probe in order to evaluate the accuracy of the entire
instrumentation system. Instrument response to each gas blend was then recorded.
The cylinders were transported by automobile to the stations of the
New Jersey and Riverside programs. For the other programs, it was necessary to
ship the cylinders by truck to the city of the program. The cylinders were
then held at the freight company terminal for subsequent pickup by Scott
personnel. Scott personnel then hand-carried the cylinders to each station
to perform the audit.
Scott Environmental T^hndogy Inc
-------
u
I
TABLE 4.2
ANALYSIS OF STANDARD GASES
HC - Hydrocarbons as Propane 1n parts per million.
CO - Carbon Monoxide 1n percent.
ro
on
00
^i
i
o
£
If
VO
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
Scott
Gravimetric Blend
HC
0
388
821
1960
3840
CO
0
.903
2.13
4.84
9.56
EPA, Ann Arbor
2 -
Analysis
HC
0
392
826
1990
3902
CO
0
.905
2.15
4.88
9.68
E. G. & G.
3
Analysis
HC
0
382
801
1899
3613
CO
0
.875
2.08
4.58
9.25
E. G. & G.
4
Bench
HC
0
419
876
00
Notes: 1. Gases blended grav1metr1cally using weights traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
2. E.P.A., Ann Arbor analysis of gas blends "A" by Motor Vehicle Emission Test Laboratory.
3. EG&G analysis of gas blends "B" by Sun Electric automobile testing instrumentation.
4. EG&G bench instrumentation.
-------
FIGURE 4.2
GAS HANDLING SYSTEM
Balloon To Assure
-Proper Sample Gas
Pressure and Flow
Pressure
Gage v
Station Sample Probe
Golden
Standard
Gas
Stainless Steel
Tubing
=»*=
IN5
en
CO
^4
I
o
t'
O
To Station Instrumentation
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 4-10
At a few of the stations, the highest propane concentration of
standard gas (3840 ppm propane) read off scale of the instrument. This
result was caused by either a propane/hexane factor of higher than 0.52 for
the instrument, or the instrument reading was slightly high. Future audits
should use a somewhat lower concentration for the highest level of propane.
During the field evaluation, background information was obtained on
each station, including the following:
o Brief history of the I/M Program.
o Description of station and vehicle inspection
procedures.
o Make and model of each emission inspection
instrument.
o Description of exhaust sampling system.
o Calibration procedures.
o Summary of instrument maintenance records.
The field data form showing the specific background information
collected and the instrument test procedure is shown in Figure 4.3.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc
-------
SET 12587-01-0179 4-11
FIGURE 4.3
Inspection/Maintenance Station Audit
FIELD DATA FORM
Date of Visit: Scott Personnel:
I/M.Station Background Information:
City of I/M Station:
Agency Responsible for Station:_
Contractor(s) and
Services Performed:_
Address of Station:
Person.(s) Contacted:_
Position:
Phone Number:
Total Number of Stations in this Agency's I/M Program:_
Type of Program: Voluntary Mandatory
.Description of Test Program: (Types of vehicles tested, frequency, brief history
of program)
Number of Testing Lanes at this Location:
Number of Testing Lanes at Other Locations:.
Brief Description of Test Station:
-------
4-12
FIGURE 4.3, Page 2
Vehicle Inspection Procedure (types of inspections, engine operating modes)
Estimated Number of Vehicles Tested: Per_
Station Operating Hours:
Length of Time Station has been in Operation^
Emissions'Instrumentation Background Information:
Make of Instruments: i
Model Nos.(
Serial Nos.:
Instrument Range(s):
.Propane/Hexane Factor:
Station Instrument Calibration Procedure, Including Frequency and Precision:
(Attach copy of standard procedure, if available)
Scott Environmental Whnokvjv Irv
-------
4-13
FIGURE 4.3, Page 3
Inspect Maintenance Records of Instruments, if available.
.Summarize Instrument History (Note malfunctions and repairs) for past 12 months;
Estimated Percentage of Time Instruments Operational:
Levels and Precision of Calibration Gas Maintained by Station:
HC: CO: Other:
Description of Vehicle Exhaust Sampling System (include diagram of system and sampling
probe):
Sampling Pressure and Flow Rate:_
Recommended by Manufacturer:
Utilized by Station:
<\J Scott Environmental Technolocv Inr
-------
4-14
FIGURE 4.3, Page 4
Complete pages 4 & 5 for each instrument at inspection station: Lane # Serial #_
Instrument Test Procedure
1. Note General State of Repair of Instrument and Any Visible Impairments:
2. Sample Train Leak Check:
a. Connect Flow Meter to Analyzer Outlet:_
b. Plug Inlet to Analyzer Train:
c. Turn on Analyzer:
d. Record Magnitude of Flow, if any:_
3. Following Standard Procedure at Site:
Record Zero.-HC: CO:
Record Span HC:_
Scan Gas
HC:
CO:.
CO:
Adjust Zero; if necessary.
Adjust Span, if necessary.
4. Cylinder Letter of Scott "Gold Standard" Gas:
Using the balloon, enter each blend of "Gold Standard" gas at the same flow rate
and pressure as used for test vehicles.
Use cylinders in random order.
Allow gas flow for a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 60 seconds.
Record Instrument Response.
Order
Tested
HC (ppm as
Gold
Standard Reading
Instr.
Range
Blend 1
Blend 2
Blend 3
Blend 4
Blend 5
CO («)
Instr.
Reading Range
Cylinder- Pressure
Start Finish
Scon Environmental Technology Ire
-------
4-15
FIGURE 4.3, Page 5
5. Respan Instrument^
Rezero Instrument:
If significant drift, repeat Step 4.
Note possible causes of instrument malfunction such as: sampling handling system,
I/M station calibration procedure, readily identifiable instrument malfunction:
-------
SET #2587-01-3179
5.0 RESULTS OF AUDIT
Twenty-four I/M stations were audited in the eight programs.
At these stations, a total of 58 instruments were evaluated. Table 5.1
shows a breakdown of the numbers of instruments and stations tested in
each program and the make and model of instruments in use.
TABLE 5.1
SUMMARY OF INSTRUMENTS AUDITED
Program
Chicago
Cincinnati
Denver
No. of Stations
Audited
4
2
1
New Jersey 5
New York State 1
Phoenix/Tucson 3
Arizona State Laboratory 1
Portland 6
Riverside 1
No. of Instru-
ments Audited
7
7
1
13
2
9
1
16
2
Make and Model
of Instrument
Sun Electric EPA-75
Sun Electric EET-910I
fBeckman 400 (HC)
^Beckman 864 (CO)
Sun Electric NJ-910
Sun Electric EPA-75M
Autosense (Custom)
Beckman 864 (HC & CO)
Sun Electric OEA-75
Horiba Mexa 300A
TOTAL 24
58
The audit results for hydrocarbons are shown in Table 5.2 and
the carbon monoxide results are shown in Table 5.3. Although the instru-
ments read in parts per million (ppm) as fiexane (C,) for hydrocarbons,
the results are presented in ppm as propane (C-). Since the standard gas
was propane, there would be a different value for the standard gas for
each instrument if results were reported as Hexane. This jbropane/hexane
factor is used to convert the individual instrument readings from hexane
to propane. For reference, the hydrocarbon results are also presented as
hexane in Appendix B. Appendix B also shows the carbon monoxide results
and the differences between the instrument readings and the standard gases.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
TABLE 5,2
HYDROCARBON RESULTS (ppm AS PROPANE)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS: O
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, AF
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
0
N. ELSTON A\
A
7/
B
- 6
W MEDILL AVf
1A
O
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
0
2
O
AURORA
1
/6
3
//
4
0
5
O
6
0
2B
-4
WASHINGTON
A
^
NORWOOD
2
0
B
O
(/)
m
=115
ro
co
~^t
i
0
f
O
1 «
VO
SOMERVILLE
100
O
073
<5^
STATE. LAB
1
0
J,AB
^
\ IUU III:
Van
37
091
O
MORRISTOWN
045
O
124
O
051
O
RIDGEWOOD
055
O
063
O
TOM'S RIVER CAPE MAY .
101
O
102 103 107 106 £
v5^ tf 0 tf
PHOENIX
1
^
2
O
T I CARD
U
5S
L
/<9
MOTOR CIRCLE
1
0
2
o2
T
/£.
3
O
1^
1
O
ESA
2
0
3
0
POWELL BOULEVARD
1-H
3
1-S
^
2-1
v37
2-1
^
-i
1
O
ST. H
A
9
UCSON
2
O
ELENS
0
9
3
O
STARK 185 & SUNSE" LLOYD CNTI
A/\ M N V W n C
9 /? c^P o otX o o
. -^ - .
-------
TABLE 5.2 (Page 2)
HYDROCARBON RESULTS(ppm AS PROPANE)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS:
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, Al
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
3tf
N. ELSTON A\
A
503
- B
474\
W MEDILL AVC
1A
^c?
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
570
2
Jeff
AURORA
1
5
v?^^
6
o^/
2B
*//&>
WASHINGTON
A
3X6
NORWOOD
2
^?/f
B
v//
t/>
m
=41=
IND
c»
-j
o
U^
SOMERVILI E
100
325
STAT
1
4/6"
LAB
_
3SJ
073
473
FJ.M,
flOD 1 1 (
Van
40?
P!
1
373
091
3t£
MORRISTOWN
045
jitir
124
340
051
V/5-
RIDGEWOOD
055
3*g
063
4<>o
TOM'S RIVER CAPE MAY
101
302
tr
102 103 107 106 ^
J4
\
1
J7/
ESA
2
s367
3
'37c?
POWELL BOULEVARD
1-H
3SS
1-S
&x
2-Z
J7rx
2-T
*ti,4'
-,
1
3<^S"
UCSON
2
3&S"
ST. HELENS
A
3?^
0
y<94
3
SSI
STARK 185 & SUNSE- LLOYD CNT!
A/\ M N V W D f
3
-------
TABLE 5.2 (Page 3)
HYDROCARBON RESULTS (ppm AS PROPANE)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS:
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, Al
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
6*20
N. ELSTON A\
A
9*t9
B
toot>
W MEDILL AVE
1A
S9S
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
MS
2
7tf
AURORA
1
7/7
3
77^
4
77*?
5
M
6
//?
2B
?M
WASHINGTON
A
7(el
NORWOOD
2
^J-3
B
/TT
i
<
<
(
\
SOMERVILLE
100
769
STAl
1
g$0
LAO
__.
too
073
£55"
£. LAB
noui ii
Van
&&0
PH
1
763
091
fot
MORRISTOWN
045
7^
124
7SS
051
^//
RIDGEWOOD
055
808
063
So&
TOM'S RIVER CAPE MAY \
101
7/o?
102 103 107 106 ' '
X08 W3 S37 fSS
,
OENIX
2
7^
TIGARD
U
M
L
ffl
MOTOR CIRCLE
1
&?s*
2
g3l
T
#33
3
7^^
1^
1
KoO
ESA
2
7f?
3
77^
POWELL BOULEVARD
1-H
773
1-S
jry?
2-2
741
2-1
fJ?
-,
i
?7f
ST. H
A
Wo?
UCSON
2
7^
ELENS
0
£3.?
3
7%
STARK 185 & SUNSE' LLOYD CNTi
A/V M N V W D C
7*/9 //3 76^ <«* 7^ / 77^ 77^
l/l
m
tn
00
i
o
o
I"
'O
en
i
-------
TABLE 5.2 (Page 4)
HYDROCARBON RESULTS (ppm AS PROPANE)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS: f
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, Al
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
/9S3
N. ELSTON A\
A
<2/Ok
B
^7^
W MEDILL AVL
1A
JfO/
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
mi
2
1131
AURORA
1
Jc/SS
3
///vT
4
/Wo
5
/^IV
6
/9V/
2B
Jib 4
WASHINGTON
A
/7t,/
NORWOOD
2
/S98
B
JOS7
C/1
m
)
=it=
1^1 -
en
00
-g
i
o
I1
< 0
^4
<£>
SOMERVILLE
100
&000
STA7
1
1&32
LAB
_ «
f?33
073
<3bf2
Mem
Van
itst-
P.H
1
lift
091
/fd^
MORRISTOWN
045
Jfi*>8
124
/M.7
051
o{^d
RIDGE WOOD
055
mi
063
4 6 SO
TOM'S RIVER CAPE MAY
101
/WS
102 103 107 106 Y1
/^?^ «?/3
L
mo
MOTOR CIRCLE
1
3.00%
2
Joo^
T
it 21
3
/??/
r
i
/^^
ESA
2
tffik
3
/^i?
POWELL BOULEVARD
1-H
ftol
l-S
/f^
2-1
1153
2-1
/187
-r
1
/?67
UCSON
2
Ifal
ST. HELENS
A
/*S3
0
/w
3
/ff/
STARK 185 & SUNSE LLOYD CNTi
A/\ M N V W n C
/7/^ /?3/ /^^ *oto /SW '*3J /9
-------
TABLE 5.2 (Page 5)
HYDROCARBON RESULTS (PPm AS PROPANE)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS:
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, Al
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
SU5
N. ELSTON A\
A
3^75*
B
43 3^(^
PHOENIX
1
3W
2
319t*
TIGARD
U
3£7£
L
3$60
MOTOR CIRCLE
1
39/7
2
39/7
T
J70V
3
38W
h
1
37i?/
ESA
2
3
-------
TABLE 5.3
CARBON MONOXIDE RESULTS (PERCENT)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS: ^ /
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, Al
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
.Of
N. ELSTON A\
A
0.0
B
o.o
W MEDILL AVI
1A
o.o
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
O
2
O
AURORA
1
. Ol
3
O
4
O
5
O
6
O
2B
o.o
WASHINGTON
A
.07
NORWOOD
2
O
B
.of
00
m
1
=11=
ro
u
CO
-J
1
O
'i
O
t »
' " --J
UD
SOMERVILLE
100
0-0
STA7
1
0
LAB
« __
.01
073
o.o
&-MM?
MODI it
Van
0
091
0-0
MORRISTOWN
045
o.o
124
o.o
051
0.0
RIDGE WOOD
055
0.0
063
o.o
TOM'S RIVER CAPE MAY
101
O.O
102 103 107 106 V1
o.o o.o o.o o.o
^
PHOENIX
1
0.0
2
0-0
TIGARD
U
o.o
L
O-O
MOTOR CIRCLE
1
o.o
2
0.6
T
0.0
3
o.o
\
1
o.o
ESA
2
o.o
3
0.0
POWELL BOULEVARD
1-H
O-O
1-5
C.0$
2-7
0. 0
2-T
#5"
-,
1
0.0
ST. H
A
0.0
UCSON
2
0.0
ELENS
0
O-O '5~
3
o.o
STARK 185 & SUNSE" LLOYD CNTI
A/\ M N V W n P.
O.O O.O O-O6 O.O 0.4 O.O O.O
-------
TABLE 5.3 (Page 2)
CARBON KONOXIDE RESULTS (PERCENT)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS:
=11=
ro
in
oo
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, Al
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
7£
N. ELSTON A\
A
/.o
B
.9
W MEDILL AVt
1A
.7
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
.Wo
2
.90
AURORA
1
.9/
3
.9*0
4
/.tf
5
.9*0
6
.770
2B
/.£
WASHINGTON
A
.76
NORWOOD
2
. f ^
B
./9
" -- o
i
o
»-
^i
V£>
SOMERVILLE
100
/.o
073
/>0
STATE. LAB.
1
^ 9
LAB
___
.K
nuu i 11
Van
^.9
091
.?
MORRISTOWN
045
.9
124
./
051
/.O
RIDGEWOOD
055
,9
063
.*
TOM'S RIVER CAPE MAY
101
./
102 103 107 106 T
.9 .* .75" .1
\
PHOENIX
1
.94
2
.9t
T I CARD
U
.3
L
./
MOTOR CIRCLE
1
.?£
2
.97
T
.9
3
.5
ST. HELENS
A
.
-------
TABLE 5.3 (Page 3)
CARBON MONOXIDE RESULTS (PERCENT)
C/l
m
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS:
cn
CO
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, Al
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
7.6-?
N. ELSTON A\
A
*?./
B
-f-«?
W MEDILL AVt
1A
/-9
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
J.J
2
^./
AURORA
1
J./3
3
~?.
-------
TABLE 5.3 (Page 4)
CARBON MONOXIDE RESULTS (PERCENT)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS:
en
00
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, A(
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
31ST & LAKESHORE
B
J.6/
N. ELSTON A\
A
4.7
B
W MEDILL AVE
1A
4.3
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
5.0
2
4.-7S
AURORA
1
4- 1 '3L
3
V.75"
4
4.L
5
^T.D
6
V--75-
2B
^ST.V
WASHINGTON
A
V-7/
NORWOOD
2
V-5-
B
4.tf
o
: 1
O
1 >
to
.
SOMERVILLE
100
S~,O
STAT
1
4.L>
LAB
_
4JS
073
s.i
km
Van
V£
091
6~.6
MORRISTOWN
045
$.3
124
-------
TABLE 5.3 (Page 5)
CARBON MONOXIDE RESULTS (PERCENT)
BLEND NO.:
SCOTT ANALYSIS:
STATION:
LANE NO:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STATION:
LANE NO:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
STATION:
LANE NO:
DENVER, COLORADO
STATION:
LANE NO:
NEW JERSEY
STATION:
LANE NO:
HEW YORK STATE
STATION:
LANE NO:
PHOENIX/TUCSON, Al
STATION:
LANE NO:
PORTLAND, OREGON
STATION:
LANE NO:
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
3 1ST & LAKESHORE
B
1.00
N. ELSTON A\
A
9.«?
B
?.7
W MEDILL AV(
1A
/./
CENTRAL PARKWAY
1
10-0
2
3-76
AURORA
1
/0.37
3
4
7-S
5
/0.V
6
/6.0
2B
/<5.^)
WASHINGTON
A
<1.i4
NORWOOD
2
f.vsr
B
7.J6
(\
a
a
-^.
i
c
I
1
£
SOMERVILLE
100
9- A
STA1
1
9.3
LAB
f.'AT
073
/O.3.
fi
ST. H
A
/^T
UCSON
2
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 5-12
The following are brief descriptions of each I/M program based on
background information obtained during the field evaluations. Included are
descriptions of the calibration procedures used by each program and summaries
of instrument maintenance:
Chicago Department of Environmental Control - Chicago currently con-
ducts voluntary inspections of all types of motor vehicles. .The I/M instru-
mentation is housed in testing vans, with each van supporting two test lanes.
Presently, there are five permanent stations and nine mobile stations. Vehicles
are tested for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide at high and low idle. The test
cycle is regulated by computer. After data about the vehicle is entered into
the computer, .the sample probe is inserted into the exhaust pipe and electronic
connections are made to the engine. HC and CO emissions are then measured at
low and high idle. The computer determines pass or fail and issues a clean air
certificate if the vehicle passes.
The instruments are calibrated daily using electronic calibration.
Calibration with gas is done once a week using 1400 and 600 ppm hexane and
2.5% carbon monoxide calibration gases. Calibration gases are not maintained
with the vans. Benster Welding Supply was the calibration gas supplier at the
time of the field visit.
Routine maintenance of the instruments is handled by Chicago personnel.
More extensive maintenance or repairs are performed by the instrument manufacturer,
Sun Electric Corporation. The instruments are estimated to be fully operational
84% of the time. The program maintenance records did not reveal any chronic
instrument problems. One instrument was found to have a leaking sample system
during the field evaluation.
Cincinnati Division of Air Pollution Control - The Cincinnati I/M
program involves mandatory annual inspections of vehicles up to 6,000 pounds
gross vehicle weight, with emission testing for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide
at idle only. Vehicles are subjected to a general safety test, including brakes,
tires, lights and glass. HC and CO emissions are then measured at idle. Vehicles
passing are given window stickers. Vehicles failing the tests must return within
30 days for a retest.
Calibration, maintenance and repairs of the instruments are performed
by the instrument manufacturer, Sun Electric Corporation. The instruments are
calibrated once a month by Sun using approximately 900 ppm hexane and 2.5% carbon
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 5-13
monoxide calibration gases. Calibration gases are not maintained at the
stations. Liquid Carbonics is the gas supplier.
Cincinnati reports that their instruments have required very little
maintenance and are operational nearly 100% of the time. Instrument repairs
in 1978 included repairing three instrument pumps and replacing one infrared
bench.
Colorado Department of Health - The Colorado I/M program in Denver
consists of one permanent and one mobile station. Automobiles and pickup
trucks are tested on a voluntary basis for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and
nitrogen oxides. Both the permanent and mobile stations are equipped with
dynamometers and test vehicles under the Clayton Keymode Procedure, idle, high
cruise, low cruise, and idle. The mobile station was not operational at the
time of the field visit by Scott.
The instruments are zeroed and spanned with calibration gas prior to
each vehicle test. Prior to the audit, the instruments were calibrated with
730.7 ppm propane and 3.99% CO. The instruments are also curve-checked using
various levels of gases occasionally. The calibration gases are cross-checked
against EPA standard gases in Denver. The span gases are supplied by Scientific
Gas Products. The gases originally used to determine the instrument curves were
supplied by Scott, although they currently use gases from several suppliers.
Denver is the only program currently using a flame ionization detector for hydro-
carbons. They are planning to use an infrared instrument in the near future.
Hydrocarbon results are reported as ppm carbon (C,) and ppm hexane (Cg) using a
factor of 1/10.8 to convert from the ppm carbon reading to a hexane reading
roughly equivalent to what would be obtained using an infrared instrument. In
general, higher readings of hydrocarbons in vehicle exhaust are obtained with
a F.I.D. than with an N.D.I.R. This is the reason a factor of 10.8 is used
rather than 6 to convert from C. to Cg. However, both instruments should give
the same reading when analyzing propane. Therefore, for this audit, the ppm
carbon reading was divided by 3 to obtain ppm as propane (C_). It is not known
why there is such a large difference between the standard gases and the hydro-
carbon reading.
The instruments are estimated to be operational 90% of the time. The
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide have only required routine maintenance. Repairs
of the nitrogen oxides instrument have included replacement of the ozonator
1 {\} I Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 5-14
approximately every four months, and replacement of the photomultiplier tube
in the mobile instrument about once a year (possibly because of vibration).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - New Jersey operates
a mandatory I/M program throughout the state. Vehicles up to 6,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight are tested annually for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions.
Testing is done at idle only. The vehicle test includes a complete safety check,
including wheel bearings, lights, horn, wipers, and brakes. Vehicles failing
the emission test may be retested at licensed private inspection centers for
certification.
The instruments are calibrated using gas twice a month. 2800 ppm
propane and 7% CO calibration gas is used. The instrument zero is checked
electronically before each vehicle test and the span is checked electronically
every two hours. The calibration gases are supplied by Scott Specialty Gases.
Routine maintenance is performed by New Jersey personnel. The state
also has an agreement with the instrument manufacturer, Sun Electric Corporation,
for a fixed number of service calls (30) each month. There are no major main-
tenance problems and instrument availability is close to 100%. During the field
evaluation, low ambient temperatures (20°F) appeared to cause instrument drift
problems. New Jersey will be upgrading their instrumentation in the near future.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - New York is
currently only doing vehicle emission testing of a control group of 250 cars
to further define the relationship of the state of tune to emissions. Testing
is done at the state laboratory in Latham, New York for hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide. Nitrogen oxide emissions will also be measured in the future. Vehicles
are tested at idle and high cruise. From 1972 to 1976, a voluntary I/M program
was conducted throughout the state using a mobile van. Vehicles were tested at
idle.
The instruments are generally calibrated electronically several times
a day and with calibration gas once a day, with 3080 ppm propane and 8.0% CO
calibration gas. Scott Specialty Gases is the manufacturer. Problems have been
experienced with the zero and span potentiometers. Major maintenance has
consisted of replacing the infrared benches in April 1975 and in January 1977.
The instruments showed drift at low ambient temperatures similar to that exper-
ienced by the New Jersey instruments.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET 12587-01-0179 5-15
Arizona Bureau of Vehicular Emissions Inspection - The State of Arizona
operates a mandatory I/M program in Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas
(Maricopa and Pima counties). The program is conducted by a private contractor,
Hamilton Test Systems. The state also operates a vehicle testing laboratory which
maintains gas standards for the I/M program and does research on vehicles which
consistently fail the inspections.
All types of vehicles are tested in the I/M program, including auto-
mobiles, motorcycles, and diesel trucks. Vehicles are tested at high cruise,
low cruise, and idle on a dynamometer for emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide. Diesel trucks are inspected for exhaust opacity only. The emissions
test is regulated by computer. Test results are printed out by the computer
based on vehicle make, model, and engine data and idle emissions. The test
includes a tire safety check and an under hood check to verify that the emission
control equipment is properly installed.
The instruments are zeroed and spanned with calibration gas once a
week by station personnel. The calibration is checked every two weeks by Arizona
personnel. Calibration gases are checked against standards maintained by the
state laboratory. 467, 1787 and 19,700 ppm propane, and 1.6 and 7.9% CO cali-
bration gases were last used by the state. Liquid Carbonics supplies the
calibration gases. The instrument computer automatically verifies that the
instrument zeros are under 40 ppm for hydrocarbons and 0.5% for carbon monoxide,
before each test. The span is also checked between tests by the computer by the
presence of constant voltage through the instrument electronics. The instruments
include an extended range to 20,000 ppm hydrocarbons to test motorcycles. No
instrument maintenance problems have been encountered. Instrument availability
is nearly 100% with instrument down-time estimated at 30 minutes per month.
Instruments used in the state laboratory are calibrated before each
test. Both vehicle exhaust and calibration gases are tested by the laboratory.
The laboratory has experienced a long term drift problem with a Horiba A1A-21
hydrocarbon/carbon monoxide instrument.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - The Oregon I/M program
is a mandatory program operated in the Portland metropolitan area. All types of
gasoline engines, except motorcycles, are tested for hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide emissions. Emission measurements are made at low idle, high idle, and
again at low idle. Results are based on the lower of the readings at low idle.
Vehicles are tested every two years.
^
! Scott Environmental Technobsy Inc
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 5-16
The instruments are calibrated every hour using 3233 ppm propane and
7.1% "CO calibration gas. Airco is the gas supplier. The instruments at each
station are checked daily between each other by inserting the probes from all
instruments into the same vehicle tailpipe. The instruments at all the stations
are also checked once or twice per month with cross-reference gas by the program
headquarters on an unannounced basis. The only maintenance problems with the
instruments have been related to the sampling systems. Accumulation of dirt
have caused hang-up and zeroing problems with the instruments. Generally, only
normal maintenance has been required.
California Bureau of Automotive Repair - California has operated two
I/M stations in Riverside, California to voluntarily test automobiles and
pickup trucks since 1975. The program has currently been suspended, to be
replaced with a mandatory program scheduled to begin in 1979. During the audit,
only two lanes at one station were operating. Vehicles are tested for hydro-
carbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides at high cruise, low cruise, and
idle, on a dynamometer. The vehicle test includes a check of safety equipment
and emission control equipment. A computer regulates the emissions test and
prints results based on the idle reading.
The instruments are spanned daily using calibration gas. The computer
system automatically checks instrument zero before each vehicle test and checks
span every tenth vehicle test. All lanes are also cross-checked daily by
calibration gas introduced through the sampling probes. Once per month the
analyzers are curve-checked against varying levels of calibration gas. 1158 ppm
propane and 6.08% CO calibration gas manufactured by Scott Specialty Gases was
used to span the instruments before the audit.
The California records show an overall instrument availability of
97.3%. No major instrument problems have been encountered. Instrument down-time
has been for routine maintenance and calibration.
After the completion of the field visits, one set of the gases was
shipped to the Portland program for reanalysis. The purpose of the reanalysis
was to help in diagnosing the reason the CO results were consistently low. The
results of the reanalysis by Unit Y are shown in Table 5.4. Although the CO
results are still somewhat low for the higher concentrations, the hydrocarbon
results closely agree with the standard gases. The reason for the low CO results
is not known at this time.
Scott Environmental Technokxjy Inc
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 5-17
TABLE 5.4
RESULTS OF REANALYSIS BY PORTLAND
UNIT Y - PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR = 0.532
HC (ppm as C3) CO (%)
Unit Y Standard Gas Unit Y Standard Gas
10 0 0, 0.5, 0 0
375 .388 1.05 0.903
817 821 " 2.35 2.13 .
1954 1960 4.5, 4.55 4.84
3760 3840 9.05, 9.1 9.56
(meter pegged)
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
6.0 DATA ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Data, analysis of the audit results includes calculations of the
difference between the instrument readings and Scott's analysis of the standard
gases and graphical comparisons of the instrument readings for each program to
the standard gases. The results are also compared by analysis of variance to
determine significant differences between the results from the different proqrams,
station sites, and makes of analyzers.
The overall average difference between the analyzers and the standard
gases was about 6% for measuring both hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Excluding
the CO results from the Portland program results in an overall difference in CO
readings of 5%. Table 6.1 shows the average difference from the standard gases
for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide measurements for each of the programs. (The
overall differences are weighted averages based on the number of instruments.)
The differences in the readings of the zero gas were excluded from the averages.
These averages are only intended to provide a rough approximation of the
results. The graphical results provide a better indication of each program's
accuracy. The instruments in Cincinnati and Portland consistently read low on
the higher concentrations of hydrocarbons, and the instruments in New York and
Portland were consistently low in reading carbon monoxide.
TABLE 6.1
Summary of the Average Differences
Between Instrument Readings and the
Standard Gases
Average Difference From
Standard Gases, %*
Program Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide
Chicago 9.2 7.1
Cincinnati 6.8 4.3
Denver 22 ** 2.7
New Jersey 6.4 5.6
New York State 3.3 3.5
Phoenix/Tucson 3.5 2.5
Portland 4.5 11.4
Riverside 2.3 3.8
instrument accuracy is generally expressed as a percentage of full scale,
but these differences are actual average percentage differences.
** Flame lonization Analyzer.
Graphs were prepared to compare the I/M station instrument responses to
the standard gases. Figures 6.1 through 6.8 show the graphs for the hydrocarbon
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
6-2
FIGURE 6.1
3500-
1C
Q.
o
o.
Soeo-
(O
:Y; = !OJS97Txi
Hydrocarbon Audit Results of
Chicago I/M Program:
TheoretTcal Line of Perfect li
Agreement . ]
Best Fit Line for Program li
Instrument Results
ppro; Propane;
1OOO- .-rr
TSCO-:^
500
-------
SET £2587-01-0179
6-3
FIGURE 6.2
O)
c
fO
a.
2
0.
Hydrocarbon Audit Results of
Cincinnati I/M Program:
Theoretical Line of Perfect
Aqreement
Best Fit Line for Program
Instrument Results
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
FIGURE 6.3
I "I i
Hydrocarbon Audit Results of
Denver, Colorado I/M Program:
Theoretical Line of Perfect
Agreement
Best Fit Line for Program
e Instrument Results
i- I '
~Scpt1r Ana Vysts
-------
SET-=2587-01-0179
6-5
FIGURE 6.4
Hydrocarbon Audit Results of
Mew Jersey I/M Program:
£_ Theoretical Line of Perfect
j_ Agreement
Best Fit Line for Program
Instrument Results
1 ./.CO
Scott Ana"!ysi s""ppnTPropane "~
-------
SET 12587-01-0179
6-6
FIGURE 6.5
C
a
a.
o
o_
CL
CL
C/J
^
oo
to
/X :: !::-|.'"
// 1 . ... I .
Hydrocarbon Audit Results of
New York I/M Program:
Theoretical Line of Perfect
Agreement
Best Fit Line for Program
Instrument Results
laTysis, ppm
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
5000 I
45CD
5X0
0)
IT3
Q.
2
Q.
CL
Q.
I/I
r-
10
(B
S-
+J
c
2COO
FIGURE 6.6
002 x -26.
Hydrocarbon Audit Results of
Phoenix/Tucson I/M Program:
Theoretical Line of Perfect
Agreement
Best Fit Line for Proqram
Instrument Results
Scott Analysisl ppni Propane
-.to
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
5COO
-VXD
4CCO
J5CO - -
0)
c
a.
o
Q.
a.
(/>
r-
01
(O
c
ui
C
FIGURE 6.7
i 0.935 x +37.7
r r
Hydrocarbon Audit Results of
Portland I/M Program;
Theoretical Line of Perfect
Agreement
Best Fit Line for Program
o Instrument Results
, , | I
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
4530
wco
3500
O)
c
fO
Q.
2
Q_
Q.
Q.
3X0
,_ 13X1 -
ro
C
<=c
I
3
4->
in
FIGURE 6.8
I.LJ
Hydrocarbon Audit Results or
Riverside I/M Program:
Theoretical Line of Perfect
Agreement
Best Fit Line for Program
a Instrument Results
i I'*5*
I I ' '
ppm PropaTie
200O
-------
SET 22587-01-0179
6-10
rrrh
f-
r^M "/:[-_=<.
-!!->-.£&
_ j /...«rt
f-r i/:--i^4
*-~ i
*"J7J"J "~ l ~^*~"
~-{
^^
HnX't^."! ""T" ~
.),..--\T===\
==4r=t==l:==:
i - i
r^rt±?r
rEE(;
--J--
i.CNl
THr^ti^M ---f-"^'-1
iCQ
I ; ;
0)
in .
c
o
Q.
-------
SET =2587-01-0179
O-J
" _^i 1.
-~i--"iEEFF-l d=£=Frr'i IE ----^1=^
...._,..-_! +_..| 1 <~T/:.-i ~\~=z=
EfL&r jSE£i:rt_j H^EtEf-.
----- j. ------
---
fi'/Err
;:.;:'.; ca.
-co
,ca-
' "^ ^r~ ~~ L~^Z"t 'j~^""
: :i_. r._-r, __-r_:! riz:
Q-d±L=
o:
strume
..-: i -
rcr^iLii
_,(^ -i-^j.....,
^tE?fe;^: "-"
-I----! -7-'
ziL^Ez:. ..{.I-.li-
-:."fii;ur.|-r:: !"--_-
}
'.mi^.:i
-r'i rrr_i
__-.t _
r . -- .._ r, . ---
-=-, - ,.. --- 1 ---- r -- . ----
- H | I I ' " ~
H- ---
' r ^-! r"1i (:
r &t._~.
CO Audit Results of New Jersey I/M Program
Theoretical Line of Perfect Agreement
Sest Fit Line for Program
o Instrument Results
Scott Analysis, % CO
10
-------
SET 12587-01-0179
6-14
.:(:
-T-TT^' ~T7 J".
-_-_.. __ j
.!~r_- I-*7"(.~!~j:_-j :~ j/z.:.
j~r':J-rrr.!±=-|.rr^irrS ~ "_i ?:~il±rr
-!~!.-_-i.-=-..4r=r
-l.-:-r.:i -t:.~:l:-.--'
n==!=fe-:^:
k£±i
tSlrErrfeii^-irl:-
o
<_>
»*
01
-------
SET £2587-01-0179
6-15
_.... i.:-;.-;-! i-TrH-Ej:::':!.^--:!-:.'::;: :l l~~^^^i~\^~-7~\:l ^~^\ ~- « '/ jEEilE
:::;-.-:!!:.?T.i~ij rE&-i.--i=iGUR&':6
' -!-
: I :^r.
'I
"-" " !- - . I !-
"*** ~f "* ~ ** * ;-. j - - | " ~ '
:Q
,,te:,^i|
0
o
.:-..4._
[=://-"
..
.
.,~.-.
.rr.l:rrr^trr±
ar-Lrr.|-"::^-i.:.i:
ri±fa--|r-:t.r.:il-.-
:-1:-.
mmm
- --.-.-
.. -J ____ i _____ ; :- __ I ___
\~-\-'~"-
"+-
H
",' ' !_]__ _""t"~' - I "- '_
4"--
CO Audit Results of Phoenix/Tucson I/M
Program
Theoretical Line of Perfect Agreement
Best Fit Line for Program
Instrument Results
j -:-
"':
-i_ :--
"^
.
i 4 5 b
Scott Analysis, % CO
IO
-------
SET *2587-OUQ179
6-16
-.It-
. i _ r _
---!/ 1 » 1- i
-H
..|
rtrr
i-
~^-.~
_*/, __\_~^_
rtrr;-^._
l -!-
-r
rt:-/!.:-.-.-
:i ; -, 1 -
' T I '~ --> -
?==£=-
r?~-ci
Tr-rua
: tP! ^IT^^I-' 1:3-rr:-i ^ZyF1- }£Er-Z:"-i~--^|-;-"H
:.p....1 _H. | ^ . j._. L..--.: ^-i^-.i--^.-|.-.i.-t:-.-Z|_ pvg
' '/ j '" '* . ' ~~-
I z^-rr- ,1 ^. :-' i :
.^_.a _i./ 1,._rr^_
i . 1 _,....| ;
iiiiciU-rrrzii
067
O)
a:
"^"i" "
. L_ ~1""r'! L
r^rJr^.
:|-zrp^lr
-Tri~b""!'~TIli'~
CO Audit Results of Portland, Oregon I/M
Proqram
._--'_.
.^Ei^f
r-
:-q:
:-.M:
Theoretical Line of Perfect Agreement
Best Fit Line for Program
ir.l
8 Instrument Results
, i . ;
m
: !"-_
/t^E;
«_.'
5 4 5 b
Scott Analysis, % CO
10
-------
SET #2587-01:0179
6-17
i 1-1-,-
i-I. rrnn^i
-tfir£:!.
i
=06==
it
_. | ..^-...
t-
EEFi
VDT
o
o
o
Q.
I/)
0>
ce.
m
__'* " j _';"-
! -+r -
i_i- ^^
EE4~
!" ~j i [_ :
$S
-i^-
~1~ j r TT
ESEt:
; |r--
CO Audit Results of Riverside County I/M
Program
i/i-;..--!
Theoretical Line of Perfect
Agreement
Best Fit Line for Program
--^/
Instrument Results
m
5 4- 5 fc
Scott Analysis. £ r.n
10
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 6-18
results for each program. Figures 6.9 through 6.16 show the carbon monoxide
results. For each program, responses of each of the instruments is plotted
against the standard gas values. The best fit line of the instrument results is
shown on the graphs along with the theoretical line of perfect agreement. For
each graph, a high degree of correlation was obtained with the linear regression.
As can be seen from the graphs, there was very good agreement between
the instrument readings and the standard gases. The one instrument in Denver
did show some deviation in. measuring hydrocarbons. This instrument uses a flame
ionization detector rather than a non-dispersive infrared detector. Also, the
Portland program was consistently low in measuring carbon monoxide. The consis-
tency of the results seems to indicate a systematic error such as low calibration
gas rather than operator or instrument error.
The audit results were also subjected to analysis of variance, a
statistical technique used to determine if significant differences exist between
the mean values of various groupings. The instrument responses were analyzed to
determine if differences exist in the results between programs, between I/M
station sites, or between makes of analyzers. A separate analysis was performed
on each standard gas blend for both hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Included
are a total of 8 programs, 24 sites, and 4 makes of analyzers (Sun Electric,
Beckman, Autosense and Horiba).
The variance ratio, F, is the ratio of the mean square between groups
divided by the mean square within groups. F is used to test the null hypothesis
that the population means are the same in all groups. F is around 1 when the
hypothesis holds, and becomes large when there is a significant difference in
the group means. A table of F values for various degrees of freedom is used
to determine if a significant difference exists in the group means with a 95%
level of confidence. This analysis indicates whether or not a significant
difference in the group means exists, but does not indicate which group is the
source of the difference.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 6.2 for hydrocarbons
and Table 6.3 for carbon monoxide. Tables 6.4 through 6.6 show the actual anal-
ysis for hydrocarbons between programs, sites, and analyzers. Tables 6.7
through 6.9 show the analysis between programs, sites and analyzers for carbon
monoxide. The analyzers are grouped by make only, without differentiating
between different models.
Variations of the hydrocarbon measurements showing significant
differences were also calculated without the results from Denver, since their
program used a flame ionization detector and showed the most deviation from the
Sedecor and Cochran. Statistical Methods. Sixth Edition. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa (1967)
Scott Environmental Technotosv Inc.
-------
TABLE 6.2
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR HYDROCARBON RESULTS
in
Co
Variation:
1. Between Programs
2. Between Programs
(Without Denver)
3. Between Sites
4. Between Sites
(Without Denver)
5. Between Analyzers
6. Between Analyzers
(Mithout Denver)
Degree of
Freedom
7! 502
el so2
23? 344
22? 344
3^ 546
I5 R76
.3 , b3
1
1.45
1.07
1.37
Varianc
Bier
2
1.82
1.24
1.59
:e Rati
id Mum
3
1.58
3.55*
3.43*
1.31
o, F
aer
4
5.51*
3.71*
2.73*
2.03*
2.68
1.12
5
17.1*
4.97*
7.82*
3.03*
7.86*
1.69
Critical F
(5%)
2.20
2.29
1.85
1.86
2.78
2.78
i
O
cr>
I
F values exceeding the critical value.
Indicates a significant difference in the mean values of these groups with a 95% confidence level
1
2
3
4
5
6
Degrees of Freedom = No. of Programs - 1.
Degrees of Freedom = No. of Instruments - No. of Programs.
of Sites - 1.
of Instruments - No. of Sites.
Degrees of Freedom = No. of Analyzer Types - 1
Degrees of Freedom = Mo. of Instruments - No. of Analyzer Types.
Degrees of Freedom = No.
Degrees of Freedom = No.
Scott Environmental Technotosy Inc
-------
TABLE 6:. 3
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARBON MONOXIDE RESULTS
GO
m
IN)
Ul
CO
Variation:
1. Between Programs
2. Between Programs
(Without Portland)
3. Between Sites
4. Between Sites
(Without Portland)
5. Between Analyzers
6. Between Analyzers
(Without Portland)
Degree of
Freedom
7, 50
6, 35
23, 34
17, 24
3, 54
3, 38
1
0.61
3.53*
0.69
545*
0.25
0.42
Varia
Ble
2
5.40*
1.55
3.69*
2.22*
2.24
0.68
nee Rat
nd Nurnt
3
4.16*
1.42
2.89*
1.54
3.82*
1.95
io, F
er
4
13.09*
1.47
7.63*
2.35*
2.44
0.43
5
14.15*
1.99
9.34*
i
2.93*
2.06
0.27
Critical , F
(5%)
2.20
2.37
1.85
2.07
2.78
2.85
i
o
i »
0
1 *
~-~i
UD
CTl
|
ro
O
*F values exceeding critical value.
Indicates a significant difference in the mean values of these groups with a 95% confidence level
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
6-21
TABLE 6.4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM VARIATION IN MEASURING HYDROCARBONS
BLEND
1
2
3
4
5
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Programs
Within Programs
Between Programs
Within Programs
Between Programs
Within Programs
Between Programs
Within Programs
Between. Programs
Within Programs-
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
7
50
7
50
7
50
7
50
7
50
SUM OF
SQUARES
3856
18980
23476
91950
40770
184086
560357
726787
3263229
1359450
MEAN
SQUARE
551
380
3354
1839
5824
3682
80051
14536
466176
27189
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
1.45
1.82
1.58
5.51
17.1
CRITICAL
F, 5%
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM VARIATION IN MEASURING HYDROCARBONS
(EXCLUDING DENVER PROGRAM)
BLEND
4
5
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Programs
Within Programs
Betv/een Programs
Within Programs
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
6
50
6
50
SUM OF
SOUARES
323527
727002
810468
1359964
MEAN
SQUARE
53921
14540
135078
27199
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
3.71
4.97
CRITICAL
F, 5%
2.29
2.29
Scort Environmental Technology Ire
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
6-22
TABLE 6.5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ANALYSIS OF SITE VARIATION IN MEASURING HYDROCARBONS
BLEND
1
2
3
4
5
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between. Sites
Within Sites
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
23
34
23
34
23
34
23
34
23
34
SUM OF MEAN
SQUARES SQUARE
9590 417
13246 390
52736 2293
62690 1844
158815 6905
66042 1942
835344 36319
451800 13288
3878315 168622
733069 21561
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
1.07
1.24
3.55
2.73
7.82
CRITICAL
F, 5%
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.85
. 1.85
ANALYSIS OF SITE VARIATION IN MEASURING HYDROCARBONS
(EXCLUDING DENVER PROGRAM)
BLEND
3
4
5
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
22
34
22
34
22
34
SUM OF
SQUARES
146752
66042
593244
451800
1437363
733069
MEAN
SQUARE
6671
1942
26966
13288
65335
21561
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
3.43
2.03
3.03
CRITICAL
F.-5Z
1.86
1.86
1.86
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
6-23
TABLE 6.6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ANALYSIS OF ANALYZER VARIATION IN MEASURING HYDROCARBONS
BLEND
1
2
3
4
5
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between .Analyzers
Within Analyzers
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
3
54
3
54
3
54
3
54
3
54
SUM OF
SQUARES
1620
21217
9370
106056
15222
209634
166659
1120485
1401426
3209959
MEAN
SQUARE
540
393
3123
1964
5074
3882
55553
20750
467142
59444
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
1.37
1.59
1.31
2.68
7.86
CRITICAL
F, 5%
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
ANALYSIS OF ANALYZER VARIATION IN MEASURING HYDROCARBONS
(EXCLUDING DENVER PROGRAM)
BLEND
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
DEGREE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIANCE CRITICAL
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE RATIO, F F. 5%
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
3
53
3
53
62373
982672
189785
1980647
20791
18541
63262
37371
1.12
1.69
1.78
2.78
Scott Environmental Technoiosy Inc
-------
SET 12587-01-0179
6-24
TABLE 6.7
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
BLEND
1
2
3
4
5
ANALYSIS OF
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Programs
Within Programs
between Programs
Within Programs
Between Programs
Within Programs
Between Programs
Within Programs
Between Programs.
Hi thin Programs
PROGRAM VARIATION
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
7
50
7
50
7
50
7
50
7
50
IN MFASURING CARBON
SUM OF
SQUARES
.0209
.243
.144
.190
.490
.842
6.23
3.40
24.60
12.42
MEAN
SQUARE
.00298
.00486
.0206
.00381
.0700
.0168
.890
.0680
3.51
.248
MONOXIDE
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
0.61
5.40
4.16
13.09
14.15
CRITICAL
F, 5%
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM VARIATION IN MEASURING CARBON MONOXIDE
. (EXCLUDING PORTLAND PROGRAM)
SOURCE OF
BLEND VARIATION
1
2
3
4
5
Between Programs
Within Programs
Between Programs
Hi thin Programs
Between. Programs
Within Programs
Between Programs
Within Programs
Betv/een Programs
Within Programs
rjy) Scott Environmental
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
6
35
6
35
6
35
6
35
6
35 .
Technology Inc.
SUM OF
SQUARES
.00730
.0121
.0373
.141
.142
.583
.760
3.02
3.50
10.30
MEAN
SQUARE
.00122
.000345
.00621
.00402
.0237
.0167
.127
.086
.584
.294
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
3.53
1.55
1.42
1.47
1.99
CRITICAL
F, 5%
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.37
-------
SET 22587-01-0179
6-25
TABLE 6.8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ANALYSIS OF SITE VARIATION IN MEASURING CARBON MONOXIDE
BLEND
1
2
3
.4
5
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites .
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
23
34
23
34
. 23
34
23
34
23
34
SUM OF
SQUARES
.0842
.180
.239
.0957
.881
.451
8.07
1.56
31.96
5.06
MEAN
SQUARE
.00366
.00529
.0104
.00281
.0383
.0133
.351
.0460
1.39
.149
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
.69
3.69
2.89
7.63
9.34
CRITICAL
F, 5%
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.85
ANALYSIS OF SITE VARIATION .IN MEASURING CARBON MONOXIDE
(EXCLUDING PORTLAND SITES)
BLEND
1
2
3
4
5
C
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
Between Sites
Within Sites
y) Scort Environmental
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
17
24
17
24.
17
24
17
24
17
24
Technology Ire
SUM OF
SQUARES
.0193
.00005
.109
.0692
.379
.346
2.36
1.42
9.31
4.48
MEAN
SQUARE
.00114
.000002
.00640
.00288
.0223
.0144
.139
.0591
.548
.187
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
545
2.22
1.54
2.35
2.93.
CRITICAL
F, 5%
2.07
2.07
2.07
2.07
2.07
-------
SET £2587-01-0179 5"26
TABLE 6.9
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ANALYSIS OF ANALYZER VARIATION IN MEASURING CARBON MONOXIDE
BLEND
1
2
3
4
5
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between. Analyzers
Within Analyzer's
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
3
54
3
54
3
54
3
54
3
54
SUM OF
SQUARES
.00361
.260
.0370
' .298
.233
1.10
1.15
8.48
3.81
33.2
MEAN
SOUARE
.00120
.00482
.0123
.00551
.0778
.0204
.384
.157
1.27
.615
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
.249
2.24
3.82
2.44
2.06
CRITICAL
F, 5%
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
ANALYSIS OF ANALYZER VARIATION IN MEASURING CARBON MONOXIDE
(EXCLUDING PORTLAND ANALYZERS)
BLEND
1
2
3
4
5
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
Between Analyzers
Within Analyzers
DEGREE OF
FREEDOM
3
38
3
38
3
38
3
38
8
38
SUM OF
SOUARES
.00062
.0187
.00905
.169
.0966
.629
.124
3.66
.289
13.5
MEAN
SQUARE
.00021
.00049
.00302
.00444
.0322
.0165
.0412
.0962
.0963
.355
VARIANCE
RATIO, F
.419
.679
1.95
.428
.271
CRITICAL
F, 5%
2.85
. 2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
Scon Environmental Techndosy Inc
-------
SET #2587-01-0179 6-27
standard gases. The analysis shows differences between the programs for gas
blends 4 and 5. The differences are reduced, but still significant, when
calculated excluding the Denver results. The analysis also shows significant
differences between the sites for gas blends 3, 4 and 5, both with and without
the Denver results. However, the analysis of between analyzer variations did
not show significant differences except for b-lend 5 (with the Denver results).
The analysis of carbon monoxide in general, showed less variation
than the hydrocarbon measurements. This analysis was calculated with and without
the Portland results since their stations were consistently low in measuring
carbon monoxide. Excluding the Portland results, the analysis did not show
significant differences between the programs or the analyzers. There was,
however, significant differences between the sites in analyzing several of the
gas blends. The zero gas also showed some variation, but this analysis is
specialized since the true value is zero.
Scort Environmental Technology Inc
-------
SET 22587-01-0179
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF GAS BLENDS
BY SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
AND
ANALYSIS OF LOW PRESSURE CYLINDERS
TRANSFILLED FROM MASTER CYLINDERS
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
A-l
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF GAS BLENDS
BY SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
ANALYSIS OF MASTER BLENDS
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
Scott
Gravimetric Blend
HC
0
388
821
1960
3840
CO
0
.903
2.13
4.84
9.56
Scott
2
Analysis
HC
0
385
820
1945
3880
CO
0
.906
2.12
4.81
9.63
Scott
Reanalysis
HC
0
387
823
1968
3830
CO
0
.903
2.13
4.84
9.56
HC = HYDROCARBONS, ppm AS PROPANE
CO = CARBON MONOXIDE, PERCENT BY VOLUME
Notes: 1. Gases blended gravimetrically using weights traceable
to the National Bureau of Standards.
2. Scott analysis on 12-7-77 against primary standards.
3. Scott reanalysis on 4-15-78 against primary standards.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc
-------
o
I
I
3
OQ
v,^
R
ANALYSIS OF LOW PRESSURE CYLINDERS
TRANSFILLED FROM MASTER CYLINDERS
HYDROCARBONS, ppm AS PROPANE3
tsi
ro
en
CO
o
(«
o
Cylinder
Letter
A
B
G
H
I
K
L
M
N
R
S
Blend 2
i p
Analysis Reanalysis
384 386
385 386
383 387
384 387
383 387
384 386
385 386
385 387
384 386
384 386
383 386
Blend 3
1 y
Analysis Reanalysis
819 820
819 820
820 821
821 820
821 823
819 821
819 821
822 821
821 820
824 820
822 820
Blend 4
i y
Analysis Reanalysis
1943 1960
1948 1960
1942 1962
1940 1960
. 1940 1962
1940 1960
1944 1956
1941 1958
1948 1958
1946 1958
1942 1956
Blend -5
1 2
Analysis Reanalysis
3882 3798
3884 3806
3878 3810
3884 3802
3882 3806
3870 3806
3880 3806
3880 3806
3886 3806
3874 3810
3870 3806
I
ro
Notes:
1. Scott analysis on 12-7-77 against primary standards.
2. Scott reanalysis on 4-15-78 against primary standards.
3. Only hydrocarbons analyzed since carbon monoxide concentration is constant relative to
hydrocarbon concentration.
and 1 ppm carbon monoxide.
All Blend 1 cylinders verified less than 1 ppm hydrocarbons
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS INCLUDING
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTRUMENT READINGS
AND STANDARD GASES
Scot: Environmental Technology Inc
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
5-1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
INSPECTION STATION
31ST STREET AND LAKESHORE DRIVE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
LANE NO.
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: .518
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO. .
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
201 '-
425
1015
1989
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
HC (pprn
Scott
Analysis
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
201
432
1027
1949
Hexane)
Station
Reading
Hexane)
Station
Reading
CO (%)
Station
Difference (%} Reading 'Difference
0 -0 . 0.08 +0.08
0 0 0.76 -0.14
+ 7 +1.6 1.68 -0.45
+12 +1.2 3.61 -1.23
-40 -2.0 7.00 -2.56
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
CO (%}
Station
Difference (%} Reading Difference
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
. CO (%}
Station
Difference (%) Reading Difference
.'
(%)
-15.5
-21.1
-25.4
-26.8
M
M
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF-
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
INSPECTION STATION
5401 NORTH ELSTON AVENUE .
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
LANE NO.
.510
Blend .
1 -
2 .
.3
4
5
LANE NO.
.Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
. 1
2
. 3
4"
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
198
419
1000
1958
R
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
201
426
1017 '
1993
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
Hexane)
Station
Reading
40
256
474
1074
1976
Hexane)
Station
Reading
-1.5
246
522
1232
2254
HexaneJ
Station
Reading
Difference
+40
+58
+55
+74
+18
Difference
-1.5
+45 .
+96
+215
+261
Difference
CO
Station
(%) Reading
0.0
+29.3 LO
+13.1 2.1
+ 7.4 4.7.
+ 0.9 9.2
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0.0
+22.4 o.9
+22.5 2.2 '
+21.1 4.8
+13.1 9.7
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%) Reading
f of \
' 'Difference
0.0
+0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.4
FACTOR:
(%)
Difference
0.0
0.0
+0.1
0.0
+0.1
FACTOR:
(X)
Difference
ill
0.0
' +11.1
0.0
- 2.1
- 4.2
519
ill
0.0
0.0
+4.7
0.0
+1.0
ill
-------
SET 22587-01-0179
B-3
"-1ARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
CHIC. -IPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-. INSPECTION STATION
7150 WEST MEDILL AVENUE
' CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
-4
5
LANE NO.
.Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
1A
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
200 '
.424
1011
1981
2B
HC (pom
Scott
Analysis
0
198
419
1000
1958
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
218
462
1084
2000+
Hexane)
Station
Reading
-2
212
456
1073
2000+
r'
Hexane)
Station
Reading
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Difference (%) Reading
0 0 o.O
+18 +9.0 0.9
+38 +9.0 1.9
+73 +7.2 4.3
8.8
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Difference (%} Reading
- 2 0.0
+14 . +7'.l 1,0
. +37 +8.8 2.3
+73 +7.3 5.4
10.0
. PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Difference (%) Reading
FACTOR: .516
/ of \
\ fO f
' 'Difference
0..0 .
0.0
-0.2
-0.5
-0.8
FACTOR: -510
(%)
Difference
0.0
+0.1
+0.2
+0.6
+0.4
FACTOR:
(%)
Difference
_
ill
0.0
0.0
- 9.4
-10.3
- 8.4
ill
0.0
+11.1
+ 9.4
+12.4
+ 4.2
ill
-------
B-4
SET #2587-01-0179
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
INSPECTION STATION
4046 WEST WASHINGTON STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
LANE NO.
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: -518
Blend
1
2
.3
= 4
5
LANE NO.
.Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
201
425 '
1015
1989
B
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
196
415
992
1943
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
Hexane)
Station
Reading
20
197
394
912
1646
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
208
' 443
1041
1972
Hexane)
Station
Reading
Difference
+ 20
- 4
- 31
-103
-343
Difference
0
+ 12
+ 28
+ 49
+ 29
Difference
CO
Station
(%) Reading
-0.09
- 2.0 o.96
- 7.3 2.10
-10.1 4.78
-17.2 9.14
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0 _n oa
+ '6'-1 0.89
+ 6'7 2.15
+4'9 ' 4.69
+ !-5 9.36
PROPANE/HEXANE
. CO
Station
(%) Reading
t Qf\
\ fo }
'Difference (%)
-.09
+.06 +6.6
-.03 -1.4
-.06 -1.2
-.42 -4.4
FACTOR: -506
(%)
Difference ' (%)
_ no
-.01 -1.1
+.02 +0.9
-.15 -3.1
-.20 -2.1
FACTOR:
(%}
Difference (%)
-------
SET £2587-01-0179
d-o
. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
CINCINNATI DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
INSPECTION STATION
CENTRAL PARKWAY, CINCINNATI, OHIO
SERIAL
001
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
.526
'Blend
1
2
3
4'
' 5
SERIAL
%m NO.
HC (pom
Scott
Analysis
0
204 '
432
1031
2020 '
002
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
.300.
425
1000
1975
Difference
0
+96
- 7
-31
-45
(%}
0
+47
-1.6
-3.0
-2.2
HC foom Hexane)
.Blend
1 '
2
3
. 4- '
5
SERIAL
KAHEXNO.
.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
Scott
Analysis
0
202
427
1019
1997
004
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
210
444
1060
2077
Station
Reading
0
275
400
900
' 1700
.
Hexane)
Station
Reading
10
200
' 420
1020
1980
m
Difference
0 ;
+73
-27
-119
-297
*
' .
Difference
+10
-10'
-24
-40 '
-97
(%)
0
+36
-6.
-11.
CO
Station
Reading
.0
.980
2.2 '
5.0
10.0
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
0
.90
3 2.1
7 4.75
-14,9 '9.75
*
'
(*)
-
-4.8
-5.4
-3.8
-4.7
-
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
0'
.980
2.2
4.75
. 9.80
t Qf \
'Difference
0 .
+ .08
+.07
+ .16
+.44
-
FACTOR:
(X)
Difference
o
0
-.03
-.09 "
+ .19
FACTOR:
(55)
Di f f erence
0
+.08 *.
' .+.07
-.09
+.24
(1)
0
+8.9
+3.3
+3.3
+4.6
.520
0
0
-1.4
-1.9
+2.0
541
. M
' .0
+8.9
+3.3
-1.9
+2.5
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-6
SERIAL
COS
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
.492
HC (pom Hexane)
Blend
1 -
2
3
' 4'
' .5
SERIAL
\sm NO.
Blend
1 '
2
3
4
5
.SERIAL
MBS NO.
.
Blend
1
2
3
* .
T
5
Scott ,
Analysis
0
191' '
404 '
964
1889 '
006
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
211
447
1066
2089
007
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
205
433
1035
2028
Station
Readina
0
.180.
380
930
1725
Difference
0
- 9
- 24
. - 34
-164
(*)
0
-4.7
-5.9
-3.5
-8.7
CO (%}
Station
Reading
0
1.0
2.2
4.6
9.5 .
'Difference
.0 .
+.1
+ .07
-.24
-.06
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
Hexanej
Station
Reading
0
210
440
1025
1980
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
210
' 430
1025
2000 .
.
Difference
0 .
- 1
- 7
- 41
-109
-
Difference
.0
+ 5
- 3
-10 '
-28 '
(%)
0
-0.5
-1.6.
-3.8
-5.2
(*)
0
+2.4
-0.7
-1.0
-1.4
CO
Station
Reading
0
.98
2.25
5.0
10.4
PROPANE/HEXANE
. CO
Station
Reading
0
.970
2.2
' 4.75
10.0
(%}
Difference
0
+ .08
+.12
+ .16
+ .84
FACTOR:
'(«
Difference
0
+.07
-+.07 '
-.09 '
+ .44
ill
0
+11.1
+ 3.3
- 5.0
- 0,6
544
(*)
0
+8.9
+5.6
+3.3
+8.8 .
.
528
m
0
+7.7
+3.3
-1.9
+4.6
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-7
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
CINCINNATI DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
INSPECTION STATION
NORWOOD, OHIO
LANE NO.
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: .540
Blend
1 -
2
3
' 4'
5
LANE NO.
. *.
Blend
1 - '
2
3
4
5
LAIC NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
210'
443 '
1058
2074 '
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
. 210
450
1025
2000
Hexane)
Station
Readinq
HexaneJ
Station
Readinq
CO (%}
Station
Difference (%} Reading 'Difference
0.0 .0 .0 .
00 .90 0
+ 7 +1.6 2.0 -.13
-33 -3.1 4.5 -.34
-74 -3.6 9.5 -.06
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
CO (X)
. Station
Difference (%) Reading Difference
;
PRQPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
CO (SO
Station
Difference (%\ Reading Difference
M
0
.0
-6.1
-7.0
-0,6
*
M
ill
Irw
-------
SET 22587-01-0179 8"8
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT AT COLORADO DEPT. OF
HEALTH I/M STATION, DENVER, COLORADO
JANUARY 10, 1978
HC ppm (Propane)
Blend Actual Sta. Reading Difference (%)
1 <1 16 - +16
2 '388 438 +50 13
3 821 916.7 +96 12
4 1960 2458 +498 25
5 3840 5297.7 +1458 38
CO (%}
Blend Actual Sta. Reading . Difference (%)
1 <1 ppm .01 +.01
2 ' 0.903 -.91 +.007 +.8
3 . 2.13 2.12 +.01 +.5
4 4.84 4.72 -.12 -2.5
5 9.56 10.27 '+.71 +7
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-9
NEW JE
;-!Y OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF-
ARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
INSPECTION STATION
61 CENTRAL AVENUE
OMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY
lane, three instruments)
SERIAL-
WBl NO.
Blend
' 1 ;
2 '
3
4
5
SERIAL "'
.Blend
1
2
3
4
5
SERIAL
Blend
^ »
1
2
3
.4 '
5
100
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
, 0
202
427
. 1019
1997
073
HC (ppm
Scott .
Analysis
.0
213
452
1078
2112
091 .
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
202
427
. 1019
1997
Hexane)
Station
Readying
0
200
400
1040
2140*
Hexane)
Station
Reading
30
260
360
1110
2000*+
Hexane)
Station
Readinq
0
190
420
990
. 1960
Difference
0
- 2
-27
+21
+43
Difference
+30
+47
-92
+32 .
Difference
0
. -12
- 7
-29
-37
(«)
0
-1.0
-6.3
+2.1
+2.2
W
_
; +22.
-20.
+ 3.
/ gJ \
V *^ i
-5.9
-1.6
-2.8
-1.9
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
0.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
9.2
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
O.'O
1 1.0
4 2.3
0 5.2
- 1 n ?
io. C
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
; Reading
0.0
0.9
2:2
5.0
9.7
FACTOR: 0.
t Of \
\ A /
'Difference
0
+0.10
-0.13
+0.16
-0.36
FACTOR: 0
(*)
Difference
0
+0.10
+0.17
+0.36
FACTOR: 0.
(*)
Di f f erence
0
0
-0-..07 .
+0..16
+0.14
52
(!)
i t
0
+11 . 1
- 6.1
+ 3.3
- 3.8
.55
HI
0
+11.1
+ 8.0
+ 7.4
j. c 7
* D. /
52
ill
0
0
-3.2
+3.2
+1.4
*'Off^Scale
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-10
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
INSPECTION STATION
RIDGEDALE AVENUE AND WASHINGTON PLACE
MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY
(Two lanes, three instruments)
LANE NO. 045
Blend .
1
2 .
.3
4
5
LANE NO.
-Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
. 1
' 2
. 3
4
5
*
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
202
427
1019
1997
124
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
206
435
1039. '
2035
051 '
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
206
435
. 1039
2035
Off Scale
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
200
400
1060
2040*
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
180
400
1000
2060*
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
220
430
1060
2060*
Difference
0
- 2
-27
+41
+43
Difference
0
-26
.-35
-39
+25
Difference
0
+14
- 5
+21
+25
(*)
0
-1.0
-6.8
+3.9
+2.1
(«
0
-12.6
- 8.0
- 3.8
+ 1.2
(*)
0
+6.8
-1.1
+2.0
+1.2
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
0.0
0.9
2.1
5.3
9-7
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Readi ng
0.0
0.8
2.0
4.8
10.0
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
o.o-
1.0
2.2
5.2
10.2
FACTOR: l
m
' 'Difference
'0
0.00
-0.03
+0.46
+0.14
1.52
f<*\
(*>)
0
0.0
-1.4
+9.5
+1.5
FACTOR: n «;?
(%)
Difference
0
-O'.IO
-0.13
-0.04
+0.44
FACTOR: 0.
(%)
Difference
0
-+0.10
+0.07
+0.36
+0.64
. Ill
0
-11.1
- 6.1
- 0.8
+ 4.6
53
(*}
\ at
o
+11.1
+ 3.3
+ 7.4
+ 6.7
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-ll
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
INSPECTION STATION
156 CHESTNUT STREET
RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY
(One lane, two instruments)
SERIAL
n»flr NO
'MY*PTfe llW
Blend
' -1
2
3
-4
5
.SERIAL
XffiNE NO.
-Blend
1
2
.3
4
5
SERIAL
XMEXNO.
Blend
1
' 2
3
4
5
055
HC (ppm
Scott
. Analysis
0
202 '
. 427
1019
1997
063
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
194
410
980
1920 .
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
200
420
1030
2020'
HexaneJ^
Station
Reading
0
200
400
1040
2000
Hexanel
Station
Reading
Difference (%}
0 0
2 1 U
- 7 -1.6
+11 +1.1
+23 +1.2
Difference (%)
0 0
+6 +3.1
-10 -2.4
+60 +6.1
+80 +4.2
Difference (%)
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
0.0
0.9
2.0
4.7
9.6
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
0.0
0.8
2.2
5.0
9.9
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
. Station
Reading
FACTOR: 0
(*)
' 'Difference
,0.
0.00
-0.13
-0.14
+0.04
FACTOR: 0
(%)
Difference
0
-0.10
+0.07
+0.16
+0.34
FACTOR:
w
Difference
..
.
.52
ill
0
. 0
-6.1
-2.9
+0.4
.50
(%}
0
-11.1
+ 3.3
+ 3.3
+ 3.S
. .ill
Scott Environmental Techndcwv Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-12
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
INSPECTION STATION
935 LAKEWOOD ROAD
TOM'S RIVER, NEW JERSEY
(One lane, three instruments)
SERIAL
/WWvAi?\ llW *
Blend .
1 ;
2 -
3
4
5
SERIAL
JUfiNSNO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
SERIAL
fcftKS NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
101
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
202
427
1019
1997
. 102
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
202 .
427
. 1019
1997
103
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
206
435 .
. 1039
2035
HexaneA
Station
Reading
0
160
370
980
1960
Hexanel
Station
Reading
30
180
420
980
2000+
.
Hexanel
Station
Reading
0
200 .
500
1320
2000*+
Difference
0
-42
-57 .
-39
-37
Difference
+30
-22
- 7
-39
+ 3
Difference
. 0
- 6
+ 65
+281 . .
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%) Reading
0 0.0
-20.8 0.8.
-13.3 1.9
- 3.8 4.8
- 1.9 9.4
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0.0
-10.9 0.9
- 1.6 2.1
- 3.8 4.7
+ 0.2 9.2
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0 0.0
- 2.9 0.8
+14.9 2.1
+27.0 4.6
9.5
FACTOR: o '
(%)
'Difference
0.00
-0.10
-0.23
-0.04
-0.16
FACTOR:
w
Difference
0
0.00
-0.03
-0.14
-0.36
FACTOR: 0
(*)
Difference
0
-0.10
-0.03
-0.24
-0.06
i2
ill
0
-11.1
-10.8
- 0.8
- 1.7
0.52
(%)
0
0
-1.4
-2.9
-3.8
53
(%)
o
-11.1
- 1.4
- 5.0
- 0.6
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-13
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
INSPECTION STATION
U'.S. HIGHWAY 9 AND SHELLBAY AVENUE
CAPE MAY, NEW JERSEY
(One lane, two instruments)
SERIAL
(mm NO. 107
HC (ppm
, Scott
Blend Analysis
1 0 .
2 202
.3 427
4' 1019
51 OO"7
lyy/
SERIAL
&m NO. 106
HC (ppm
Scott
Blend Analysis
1 0
2 -202
3. 427
.4 . 1019
51007
iyy 1
* Off Sea
LANE NO.
HC (ppm
Scott
Blend Analysis
1
' 2
3
. 4
5
/T\ 0~»c-.; ,-,,
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
0 0
210 + 8
430 + 3
1125 +106
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
0 0
250 +48
460 +33
1190 +171
9nnri4.* --
tUUU+
le
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
-
i r->u-~i~...i.~.
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: 0-
CO (%}
Station
(%) Reading 'Difference
0 0.0 . 0.
+ 4.0 0.75 -0.15
+ 0.7 1.8 -0.33
+10.4 4.5 -0.34
8O I OC
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: 0.
CO (%)
Station
(%) Reading Difference
0 0.0 0
+23.8 0.9 o.OO
+ 7.7 2.3 ' +0.17
+16.8 5.4 +0.56
. PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
. CO (%]
Station
(%) Reading Difference
52
(%)
0
-1.6.6
-15.5
- 7.0
109
-1 j .c
52
-111
0
0
+ 8.0
+11.6
+ ff fl
M
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
.B-14
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
VEHICLE EMISSIONS TEST LABORATORY
8 HEMLOCK STREET
LATHAM, NEW YORK
LANE N
Blend
1
2
3
4-
5
LANE N
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE N
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
(^)
3. 1
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
206
435
1039
2035
0. Mobile Van
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
210
444
1060
2077
0.
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
Scott Envircnmenta
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
0 0
220 . +14
440 +5
1080 +41
2000+
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
20 +20
220 +10
460 +16
1060 0
2010. -67
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
! TechnotosY Inc.
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
CO (%)
Station
(%} Reading 'Difference
0 0 0
+6.8 0.9 0.0
+1.1 2.1 ' -0.03
+3.9 4.6 -0.24
9.3 ' -0.26
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: 0.
CO (%)
Station
(%} Reading Difference
On
(J
+4.8 0.9 0.0'
+3.6 2.0 -0.13
0 4.5 -0.34
-3.2" 9.0 -0.56
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
CO (%}
Station
(%) Reading Difference
3.530
ill
if
0
0
-1.4
-5.0
-2.7
541
111
0
-6.1
-7.0
-5.9
ill
-------
SET £2587-01-0179 B-15
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF ARIZONA BUREAU OF
VEHICULAR EMISSIONS INSPECTION
STATE VEHICLE ENGINE EMISSIONS LABORATORY
600NO. 40TH STREET, PHOENIX, AR.
LANE NO. PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: 0.52
HC (ppm Hexane)
Blend
1
2
,3
4
5
Scott
Analysis
C
' 202
427
1019
1997
Station
Reading
1
202.
416
1005
1955
Difference
+1
0
-11
-14
-42
ill
0
-2.6
-1.4
-2.1
CO
ill
0.01
.93
2.17
4.85
9.45
Difference
+0.01
+0.03
+0.04
+0.01
-0.11
ill
+3.2
+1.9
+0.2
-1.2
*vr>rf FnvirnnnvnMl Whnnlnov lor
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-16
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF ARIZONA BUREAU
OF VEHICULAR EMISSIONS INSPECTION
STATION
2450 S. 7TH STREET, PHOENIX, AR.
LANE NO.
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: O-590
Blend
1
2-
3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
229
484
1156
2266
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
220
450
1110
2300
Difference
0
-9
-34
-46
+34
LANE NO. 2
Blend
1
2
'3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
232
491
1172
2296
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
220
460
1120
2270
Difference
0
-12
-31
-52
-26
LANE NO. 3
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
-------
SET 22587-01-0179
B-17
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF ARIZONA BUREAU OF
EMISSIONS INSPECTION STATION
1330 W. BROADWAY, MESA, ARIZONA
LANE NO.
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: 0-566
Blend
1
2 '
3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
220
465
1109
2173
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
2.10.
430
1070
2140
Difference
0
-10
-35
-39
-33
LANE NO. 2
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
222
470
1121
2196
Hexane)
Station
Readinq
0
210
450
1090
2200
Difference
0
-12.
-20
-31
+4
LANE NO. 3
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
rr>
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
229
485 .
1158
2269
Scott Environmental
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
220
460
1110
2260
TechndOQv Inc
Difference
0
-9
-25
-48
-9 .
ill
0
-4.5
-7.5
-3.5
-1.5
CO
(Of\
ill
0.00
0.94
2.24
4.99
9.85
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
111 HI
0 0.00
-5.4
-4.3
-2.8
+0.2
0.94
2.19
4.99
9.77
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
(») ill
0 0.00
-3.9
-5.2
-4.1
-0.4
0.92
2.21
4.90
9.55
Difference
0
+0.04
+0.11
+0.15
+0.29
FACTOR: °-
Difference
0
+0.04
+0.06
+0.15
+0.21
M
0
+4.4
+5.2
+3.1
+3.0
572
ill
0
+4.4
+2.8
+3.1
+2.2
FACTOR: 0.591
Difference
0
+0.02
+0.08
+0.06
-0.01
ill
0
+2.2
+3.6
+1.2
-0.01
-------
SET 12587-01-0179
B-18
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF ARIZONA BUREAU
OF VEHICULAR EMISSIONS INSPECTION
STATION
8125 E. 22ND ST., TUCSON, AR.
LANE NO.
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: 0-603
Blend
1
2
.3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
234
495
1182
2316
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
220.
470
1150
2360
Difference
0
-14
-25
-32
+44
LANE NO. 2
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
234
495
1182
2316
Hexane_L
Station
Reading
0
220
480
1140
2350
Difference
0
-14,
-15
-42
+34
LANE NO. 3
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
^
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
234
495
1182 '
2316
Hexane)
Station
Reading
0
230
480
1140
2340
Difference
0
-4
-15
-42
+24
III
0
-6.0
-5.1
-2.7
+1.9
CO
HI
0.00
0.94
2.20
4.92
9.78
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
tc/\ lo/\
\a) \k>
0 0.00
-6.0
-3.0
-3.6
+1.5
0.93
2.15
4.81
9.41
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
(<"\ (°f\
(/*/ ( f> i
0 0.00
-1.7
-3.0
-3.6
+1.0
0.95
2.21
4.89
9.60
Difference -
0
+0.04
+0.07
+0.08
+0.22
FACTOR: °'603
Difference
0
+0.03
+0.02
-0.03
-0.15
FACTOR: 0.603
Difference
0
+0.05
+0.08
+0.05
+0.04
HI
0
+4.4
+3.3
+1.7
+2.3
HI
0
+3.3
+0.9
-0.6
-1.6
HI
0
+5.5
+3.8
+1.0
+0.4
Scott Environmental Technokxzv Inc.
-------
SET 12587-01-0179
B-19
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
INSPECTION STATION
11626 S.W. PACIFIC HIGHWAY
TIGARD, OREGON
(Two Lanes, Three Instruments)
SERIAL
KWE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
SERIAL
KAME NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
SERIAL
XME NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
U-4100
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
211
447
1066
2089
L-3394
Up ( nnm
Scott
Analysis
0
204
431
1029
2016
T-3399
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
210
443
1058
2074
Hexane)
Station
Reading
30
240-
470
1095
2000+
Mova no \
Station
Reading
5
205
445
1045
1995
Hexane)
Station
Readinq
10 to 15
220 .
450
1070
2000+
Difference
+30
+29
+23
+29
Difference
^
+ 1
+14
+16
-21
Difference
+10 to +15
+10
+ 7
+12
(*)
+13.7
+ 5.1
+ 2.7
(%)
+0.
+3.
+1.
-1.
(X)
+4.8
+1.6
+.1.1
r -
PROPANE/HEXANE
: co
Station
Reading
0.0
0.9
2.1
4.2
80
.0
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
On
.U
5 0.8
2 2.0
6 4.3
0 8.6
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Reading
0,0
0.9
2.1
4.3
8.5
^
FACTOR: °
(%}
Difference
0
0.00
-0.03
-0.64
IOC
.do
FACTOR: 0.
(%)
Difference
-0.10
-0.13
-0.54
-0.96
FACTOR: 0.
($)
Difference
0
0.00
-0.03
-0.54
-1.06
.544
111
0
0
-1.4
-13.2
-13.2
525
(%)
-11.1
- 6.1
-11.2
-10.0
540
111
0
0
-1.4
-11.2
-11.1
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-20
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
INSPECTION STATION
8920 S.E. POWELL BLVD., LANE NO. 1.
PORTLAND, OREGON
(Two Lanes, Four Instruments)
LANE NO. 1 . Serial No. H-2836
0.544
Blend
1
2
3
' 4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
. 3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
211
' 447
1066
2.089
1, Serial No.
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
208
441
1053
2062
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
Hexane)
Station
Reading
5
195-
420
980
1910
S-3383
HexaneJ
Station
Reading
40
235
' 455
1045
1900
Hexane)
Station
Reading
Difference
+ 5
-16
-27
-86
-179
Difference
+40
+27
. +14
- 8
-162
Difference
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0.0
-7.6 0.75
-6.0 1.8
-8.1 3.95
-8.6 8.0
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0 05
+13.0 0.85
+ 3.2 2.1
- 0.8 4.05
- 7.9 7.85
PROPANE/HEXANE
. co
Station
(%) Reading
(%}
'Difference
o -
-0.15
-0.33
.-0.89
-1.56
FACTOR: 0.
(%)
Difference
+n fi5
-0,05
-0.03
-0.79
-1.71
FACTOR:
(%)
Difference
.
(%)
0
-16.6
-15.5
-18.4
-16.3
537
1%1
- 5.5
- 1.4
-16.3
-17.9
M
rsri '
K \ M ScOtr F.nvirnnnvnMl TJv'hnnJnov Irv
-------
B-21
SET #2587-01-0179
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
INSPECTION STATION
8920 S.E. POWELL BLVD., LANE NO. 2
PORTLAND, OREGON
(Two Lanes, Four Instruments)
LANE NO.
2, Serial No. Z-3385
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
Blend
1
2
.3 '
'4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
208
439
1049
2054
2, Serial No
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
206.
436
1041
2039 .
HC '(ppm
Scott
Analysis
_
Hexane)
Station
Reading
20
200-
400
1045
1865
. 1-2837
Hexane)
Station
Reading
20
220
440
1055
1895
Hexane)
Station
Reading
Difference
+20
- 8
-39
- 4
-189
.
Difference
+20
+14
'. + 4
+14
-144
Difference
CO
Station
(%} Reading
:~- 0.0
-3.8 0.7
-8.9 1.70
-0.4 4.05
-9.2 7.8
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0.5
+6.8 0.85
' +0.9 1.8
+1,3 4.15
-7.1 8.40
PROPANE/HEXANE
. . CO
Station
(%} Reading
m
'Difference
0 '
-0.20
-0.43
-0.79
-1.76
FACTOR: 0.
(%)
Difference
+0.5
-0.05
-0.33 .
-0.69
-1.16
FACTOR:
m
Difference
ill
0
.-22.1
-20.2
-16.3
-18.4
531
ill
- 5.5
-15.5
-14.3
-12.1
ill
Scott Environmental Technoto^y Ire
-------
B-22
SET #2587-01-0179
' SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
INSPECTION STATION
4621 N.W. ST. HELENS ROAD
PORTLAND, OREGON
(Two Lanes, Three Instruments - One Not Operational)
SERIAL
W8NO.
Blend
1
2
3
' 4
5
' SERIAL
EAft£xNO.
.Blend
^P^BMl^BBIBBM
1
2
3
4
5
LANE NO.
Blend
1
2
3
4
5 .
A-2829
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
208
439
1049
2054
0-3393
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
0
: . 208 .
439
1049
2054
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
Hexane)
Station
Reading
5
210
440
1045
1995
Hexane)
Station
Reading
5
215
445
1040
2000+ .
Hexane)
Station
Reading
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Difference (%} Reading
+ 5 0.0
+ 2 +1.0 ' 0.85
+ 1 +0.2 2.0'
+ 4 +0.4 4.25
-59 -2.9 8.35
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
Difference (%} Reading
+ 5 0.05
+7 +3'4 0.85
+ 6 +1.4' 2.05
- 9 -°-9 4.30
8.65
PROPANE/HEXANE
. CO
Station
Difference (%) Reading
FACTOR:
(%}
'Difference
.0 .
-0.05
-0.13
-0.59
-1.21
FACTOR: 0.
(%}
Difference
+0.05.
-0.05
-0.08
-0.54
-0.91
FACTOR:
(%}
Difference
*
0.535
ill
0
- 5.5
- 6.1
-12.2
-12.7
535
(%]
\J2J-
- 5.5
- 3.8
-11.2
- 9.5
ill
Fm/irrvirrionfal
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-23
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
INSPECTION STATION
18345 S.E. STARK STREET
PORTLAND, OREGON
(Two Lanes, Three Instruments)
SERIAL
ttfMK NO. AA-3390
HC (ppm
. . Scott
Blend Analysis
1
2
.3
4'
5
0
207
' 438
. 1047
2051
Hexane)
Station
Reading
5
185 .
400
915
1840
Difference
+ 5
-22
-38
-132 . .
-211
'SERIAL
&&KS NO. M-3389
HC (pom
Scott
Blend Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
0
203
429
*' 1025
2008
Hexane)
- Station
Reading
10
205
425
1010
1875
Difference
+10
+ 2
- 4
-15
-133
SERIAL
fflflBBCNO. N-3388
HC (ppm
Scott
Blend Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
0
.0
206
436
. 1041
2039
Hexane)
Station
Reading
15
200
405
960
1800
y) Scott Environmental Techne-. ;;
Difference
+ 15
- 6
- 31
- 81 '.
-239
/Ire
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(X) Reading
0.0
-10.6 . 0.75
- 8.7 1.85'
-12.6 3.85
-10.3 8.10
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
.(%) Reading
0.00
+1.0 0.80
-0.9 1.95
-1.5 4.15
-6.6 8.10
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(2) Reading
0.05
- 2.9 0.80
- 7.1 1.85
- 7.8 '. 3.90
_-11.7 7.50
FACTOR: 0.534
(%}
'Difference
0. .
-0.15
-0.28
-0.99
-1.46
FACTOR: 0.
m
Difference
0
-0-.10
-0.18
-0.69 '
-1.46
FACTOR: °-
(X)
Difference
+0.05
-0.10"
.-0.28
-0.94
-2.06
M
0
-16,6
-13.1
-20.5
-15.3
523
ill
0
-11.1
- 8.5
-14.3
-15.3
531
III
-11.1
-13.1
.-19.4
-21.5
-------
B-24
SET 22587-01-0179
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MOBILE INSPECTION STATION. '
185TH STREET AND SUNSET HIGHWAY
(One Lane, Two Instruments)
SERIAL .
UWE NO. V-3386
Blend
1
2
.3
4
5
HC (ppm
Scott
Analysis
" 0
204 '
431
. 1029
2016
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
0 0
210. + 6
440 + 9
1055 +26
2000 -16
SERIAL.
X&NSNO. W-3387
HC (ppm
. Scott
Blend Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
LANE
0
. 208
441
" 1053
2062
NO.
HC (opm
Scott
Blend Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
0
'
HexaneA
Station
Readinq Difference
15 +15
210 + 2
425 -16
990 -63
2000+
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: 0.525
CO (%)
Station
(%) Reading 'Difference (%)
0 0.0 -0 0
+2.9 0.85 -0.05 -5.5
+2.1 2.1 -0.03 -1.4
+2.5 4.4 . -0.44 ' -9.1
-0.8 8.80 -0.76 -7.9
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR: 0.537
CO (%)
Station
(%) ' Reading Difference (%)
0.00 0 0
+1,0. 0.90 0 0
-3.6 - 2.1 -0.03 -1.4
-6.0 4.1 -0.74 -15.3
- 8.6 -0.96 -10.0
PROPANE/HEXANE FACTOR:
CO (2)
Station
(%) Reading Difference (%)
.
* .
y) Scott Environmental Techndo^y Inc.
-------
SET #2587-01-0179
B-25
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT OF
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MOBILE INSPECTION STATION
LLOYD CENTER, N.E. 15TH STREET AND MULTNOMAH STREET
(Two Lanes, Three Instruments - Ona Not Operational)
SERIAL
JUTONO. D-2832
HC (ppm
Scott
Blend Analysis
1
2
3
' 4
5
' o
208
439
1049
2054
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
0 0
200 . - 8
415 -24
980 -69 ..
1860 _94
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0 0.0
-3.8 . 0.8
-5.5 1.9-
-6.6 4.0
-4.6 7.8
FACTOR: 0
(*)
'Difference
0
-0.10
-0.23
-0.84
-1.76
.535
ill
0
-11.1
-10.8
-17. 4
-18.4
SERIAL
vf\Afi^
c NO. r-?pm
HC (ppm
Scott
Blend Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
' 0 '
206
435
- 1039
2035
Hexanel
Station
Reading Difference
0 0
210 + 4
420 -15
1030 - 9
1870 -65
LANE NO.
HC '(ppm
Scott
Blend Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
(i
!j Scott Environmental
Hexane)
Station
Reading Difference
Technoioqv Ire.
PROPANE/HEXANE
CO
Station
(%} Reading
0 0.0
*1.9. 0.8
'-3.4 1.9
-0.9 4.2
-3.2 7.9
PROPANE/HEXANE
... CO
Station
(%} Reading
FACTOR: n
(%}
Difference
0
-0.10
-0.23
-0.64
-1.66
FACTOR:
(«
Difference
530
ill
0
-11.1
-10.8
-13.2
-17.4
ill
-------
SET £2587-01-0179
8-26
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT AT CAL. B.A.R. I/M STATION
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 5, 1978
'Actual Concentration
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
Blend '
1
2
3
4
5
HC .(ppm Hexane)
<1
202
427
1019
1997
Lane Mo. 1 Readi
HC (ppm Hexane)
0
208. '
429
1044
2037
nqs
. Difference
0
+6
+2
+25
+40
(%)
0
3.0
0.5
2.5
2.0
CO (%)
<1 ppm
0.903
2.13
4.84
9.56
CO (%}
0.00
0.96
2.25
4.97
9.58
Difference
0
+0.06
+0.12
+0.13
+0.02
(of\
\'0l
0
6.3
+5.6
+2.7
+0.2
Blend
1
2
3
4
5
Lane No. 2 Readings
HC (opm Hexane) Difference (%)
CO (%) Difference
1
212
432
1042
2037
+1
+10
+5
+23
+40
+5.0
+1.2
+2.3
+2.0
0.00
0.97
2.25
4.97
9.55
0
+0.07
+0.12
+0.13
-0.01
ill
0
+7.4
+5.6
+2.7
-0.1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-300/Q3-79-QQ1
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Accuracy Audit of Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Programs
5. REPORT DATE
March 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOH(S)
James L. Reese
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
2587-01-0179
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
2600 Cajun Boulevard
San Bernadino, California 92411
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-3946
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO AOORESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
401 M St. S.W. (EN-340) Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
vehicle exhaust
at eight I/M areas.
into the instruments
the instruments were
16. ABSTRACT
The contractor conducted an audit of
emission measuring instrumentation in use
Calibration gas standards were introduced
responses recorded. Functional checks of
made and information on instrument reliability and calibration
procedures was collected.
Results showed the readings to be within 6 percent,on the
average, for both hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
Although the basic instrumentation at each station was very
similar, the degree of computer automation and instrument
calibration procedures varied widely from program to program.
and
17.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS {This page)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-t (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for-use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall cany a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., datf of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hireaichy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract ot grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in. Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COS ATI FIELD GROUP Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COS ATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form Z22O-1 (9-73) (RmrM)
------- |