&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
I—1
< 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 —I—E ----^—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"1—i	(—•—:	




                        	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^irr—S ~ "_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! •^I—T^^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)

-------