* A vo
l ®!
PRO"^
U.S. EPA Ambient Air
Protocol Gas Verification Program
Annual Report
for Calendar Year 2018

-------

-------
EPA-454/R-20-004
July 2020
U.S. EPA Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program
Annual Report for Calendar Year 2018
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Assessment Division
Research Triangle Park, NC

-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Acronyms and Abbreviations	i
1.0 Introduction	7
2.0 Implementation Summary	10
3.0 Survey and Verification Results	12
4.0 Summary and Conclusions	18
Appendix A QA Reports from Measurement Data Worksheets for 2018	20
Tables
Table 1. RAVL Verification Dates	10
Table 2. Gas Standards Sent to RAVLs in Calendar Year 2018	13
Table 3. MQOs for the AA-PGVP	15
Table 4. 2018 AA-PGVP CO & S02 Verification Results	16
Table 5. 2018 AA-PGVP NO & NOx Verification Results	16
Table 6. Relative Percent Difference of QC Cylinder	17
Figures
Figure 1. AA-PGVP Flow Chart	11
Figure 2. Annual Survey Participation Trend	12
Figure 3 Specialty Gas Usage by Producer (2018 Annual Survey)	13

-------
Acknowledge rri e n ts
The following individuals and organizations are acknowledged for their contributions to this project:
US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Solomon Ricks	Douglas Jager
US EPA, Office of Research and Development
Bob Wright
US EPA Region 2
Dr. Anahita Williamson
John Kushwara
Carol Lynes
Avi Teitz
Mustafa Mustafa
US EPA Region 7
Michael Davis
Lorenzo Sena
Thien Bui
James Regehr
M o n ito r i n g 0 rga n i za t i o n s
EPA acknowledges the monitoring organizations that supported the PGVP Annual Survey. They include:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Allegheny County, PA Health Department
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Canton City Health Department Air Pollution Control
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma
City of Houston Health Department
Clark County, NV DAQEM
Connecticut Dept of Energy & Environmental Protection
Delaware Dept Natural Resources and Environmental Control
FDEP Ambient Monitoring Section
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department
Georgia Air Protection Branch Ambient Monitoring Program
Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission
Idaho Dept Of Health and Welfare-Environment Division
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Kentucky Division for Air Quality
Linn County Health Department
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District
Maricopa County Air Quality
Mass Dept Environmental Protection-Division Air Quality Control
Mecklenburg County Air Quality
Michigan Dept Of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Air Quality
Mississippi DEQ, Office of Pollution
Missouri Laboratory Services Program
Monterey Bay Unified APCD
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
New Mexico Environment Department
North Carolina Dept Of Environment and Natural Resources
Ohio EPA, Central District Office
Ohio EPA, Northeast District Office
Ohio EPA, Northwest District Office
Ohio EPA, Southeast District Office
Oklahoma Dept. Of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division
Omaha-Douglas County Health Department
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Palm Beach County Health Department
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Polk County Physical Planning
Rhode Island DEM And DOH
Sacramento County APCD
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
San Luis Obispo County APCD
Santa Barbara County APCD
South Carolina Department Health and Environmental Control
South Coast Air Quality Management District
State of Louisiana
State of Maryland Air Management Administration
University Hygenic Laboratory
Ventura County APCD
Vermont Agency Of Environmental Conservation
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Washington State Department of Ecology
West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission
West Virginia Northern Panhandle Regional Office
Wisconsin Dept Of Natural Resources, Air Monitoring Section

-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AA-PGVP
Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program
AMTIC
Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center
AQS
Air Quality System
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
GMIS
Gas Manufacturer's Internal Standard
MQO
measurement quality objective
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NTRM
NIST Traceable Reference Material
OAQPS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR
Office of Air and Radiation
OIG
Office of the Inspector General
ORD
Office of Research and Development
PQAO
primary quality assurance organization
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
quality assurance project plan
QC
quality control
RAVL
Regional Analytical Verification Laboratory
RPD
relative percent difference
SOP
standard operating procedure
SRM
standard reference material

-------
1.0 Introduction
Background and Program Goals
The basic principles of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Traceability Protocol for the Assay
and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards (EPA, 1997)1 were developed jointly by EPA, the National
Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of Standards and Technology [N 1ST]), and specialty gas producers
over 30 years ago. At the time, commercially prepared calibration gases were perceived as being too
inaccurate and too unstable for use in calibrations and audits of continuous source emission monitors and
ambient air quality monitors2. The protocol was developed to improve the quality of the gases by
establishing their traceability to NIST Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) and to provide reasonably priced
products. This protocol established the gas metrological procedures for measurement and certification of
these calibration gases for EPA's Acid Rain Program under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, for
the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program under 40 CFR Part 58, and for the Source Testing Program under
40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 68. EPA required monitoring organizations implementing these programs ("the
regulated community") to use EPA Protocol Gases as their calibration gases. EPA revised the protocol to
establish detailed statistical procedures for estimating the total uncertainty of these gases. EPA's Acid Rain
Program developed acceptance criteria for the uncertainty estimate3.
Specialty gas producers prepare and analyze EPA Protocol Gases without direct governmental oversight. In
the 1980s and 1990s, EPA conducted a series of EPA-funded accuracy assessments of EPA Protocol Gases sold
by producers. The intent of these audits was to:
•	increase the acceptance and use of EPA Protocol Gases as calibration gases;
•	provide a quality assurance (QA) check for the producers of these gases; and
•	help users identify producers who can consistently provide accurately certified gases.
Either directly or through third parties, EPA procured EPA Protocol Gases from the producers, assessed the
accuracy of the gases' certified concentrations through independent analyses, and inspected the
accompanying certificates of analysis for completeness and accuracy. The producers were not aware that EPA
had procured the gases for these audits.
1	EPA-600/4-77-027b
2	Decker, C.E. et al., 1981. "Analysis of Commercial Cylinder Gases of Nitric Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, and Carbon
Monoxide at Source Concentrations," Proceedings of theAPCA Specialty Conference on Continuous Emission
Monitoring-Design, Operation, and Experience, APCA Publication No. SP-43.
3	"Continuous Emission Monitoring," Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 75
Page 7 of 31

-------
The accuracy of the EPA Protocol Gases' certified concentrations was assessed using SRMs as the analytical
reference standards. If the difference between the audit's measured concentration and the producer's
certified concentration was more than ±2.0 percent or if the documentation was incomplete or inaccurate,
EPA notified the producer to resolve and correct the problem.
The results of the accuracy assessments were published in peer-reviewed journals and were posted on EPA's
Technology Transfer Network website. The accuracy assessments were discontinued in 1998.
In 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published the report EPA Needs an Oversight Program for
Protocol Gases4. One of the report's findings suggested that EPA "does not have reasonable assurance that
the gases that are used to calibrate emissions monitors for the Acid Rain Program and continuous ambient
monitors for the nation's air monitoring network are accurate". OIG recommended that the Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) implement oversight programs to assure the quality of the EPA Protocol Gases that are used
to calibrate these monitors. It also recommended that EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
update and maintain the document Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration
Standards to ensure that the monitoring programs' objectives are met.
In order to address the OIG findings for ambient air monitoring, the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), in cooperation with EPA Regions 2 and 7, developed an Ambient Air Protocol Gas
Verification Program (AA-PGVP). The program establishes gas metrology laboratories in Regions 2 and 7 to
verify the certified concentrations of EPA Protocol Gases used to calibrate ambient air quality monitors. The
program is expected to ensure that producers selling EPA Protocol Gases participate in the AA-PGVP and
provides end users with information about participating producers and verification results.
The EPA Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program's QA requirements, as described in Section 2.6.1 of 40 CFR
Part 58, Appendix A, include:
"Gaseous pollutant concentration standards (permeation devices or cylinders of compressed gas)
used to obtain test concentrations for CO, S02, NO, and N02 must be traceable to either a National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference Material (NTRM) or a NIST-
certified Gas Manufacturer's Internal Standard (GMIS), certified in accordance with one of the
procedures given in reference 4 of this appendix. Vendors advertising certification with the
procedures provided in reference 4 of this appendix and distributing gases as "EPA Protocol Gas" for
ambient air monitoring purposes must participate in the EPA Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification
Program or not use "EPA" in any form of advertising. Monitoring organizations must provide
information to the EPA on the gas producers they use on an annual basis and those POAOs
purchasing standards will be obligated, at the request of the EPA, to participate in the program at
least once every 5 years by sending a new unused standard to a designated verification laboratory."
4 https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general/report-epa-needs-oversight-program-protocol-gases-09-P-0235.pdf
Page 8 of 31

-------
This program is considered a verification program because its current level of evaluation does not allow for a
large enough sample of EPA Protocol Gases from any one specialty gas producer to yield a statistically
rigorous assessment of the accuracy of the producer's gases. It will not provide end users with a scientifically
defensible estimate of whether gases of acceptable quality can be purchased from a specific producer.
Rather, the results provide information to end users that the specialty gas producer is participating in the
program and with information that may be helpful when selecting a producer.
Purpose of This Document
The purpose of this document is to report the activities that occurred in 2018 and provide the results of the
verifications performed.
This document will not explain the implementation of the AA-PGVP, the quality system or the verification
procedure. That information has been documented in the Implementation Plan, Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) and standard operating procedures (SOPs) that can be found on the AA-PGVP Web Page on the
Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC)5.
5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvp.html
Page 9 of 31

-------
2.0 Implementation Summary
Since program implementation started in 2010, when most of the initial preparation work took place, no
major "new" implementation activities took place in 2018. The following provides a brief explanation of the
2018 implementation process.
Producer Information Data Collection - In 2010 EPA sent out an Excel spreadsheet to each monitoring
organization to obtain information on the gas standard producers being used by the monitoring organization
and to determine their interest in participating in the program. In 2011, EPA worked with Research Triangle
Institute to develop a web-based survey that one point of contact for each monitoring organization could
access. This made recording and evaluation of the survey information much easier for the monitoring
organizations and EPA. Based on the information obtained from monitoring organization surveys, EPA
developed a list of the specialty gas producers being used by the monitoring organizations. From this list,
EPA identified at least one point of contact for each producer.
AA-PGVP Verification Dates - OAQPS worked with the Region 2 and 7 Regional Analytical Verification
Laboratories (RAVLs) to establish verification dates as indicated in Table 1. The dates were posted on the
AMTIC website6. Monitoring organizations would contact the Regions to schedule cylinder verifications.
Table 1. RAVL Verification Dates
Quarter
Region 2
Region 7

Cylinder Receipt
Analysis
Cylinder Receipt
Analysis
1
TBD1
TBD
No later than Feb 27
Feb 26-Mar9
2
TBD
TBD
No later than May 25
June 4 - June 15
3
TBD
TBD
No later than Aug 31
Sept 10-Sept 21
4
TBD
TBD
No later than Nov 16
Nov 26 - Dec 7
Open
TBD
December 12, 2018
House




1TBD - to be determined
RAVL Open House - Based on the information gained from monitoring organization surveys, EPA contacted
the producers by e-mail to invite them to visit the RAVLs. The Region 7 open house was held on December
12, 2018. Two cylinders were analyzed in the Region 2 open house in 2018.
6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvp.html
Page 10 of 31

-------
Flow of the AA-PGVP
Figure 1 provides a flow diagram of the implementation activities of the AA-PGVP. The major activities in
these steps are explained below. More details of these steps are found in the AA-PGVP Implementation Plan,
QAPP and SOPs.
Monitoring
Organizations
Planning
Data
Standards
Ambie »t Cylinders,
COCs, i t Mfr. Certs.
V
Regional
Verification
Lab
Spec
Gas
Prod
NIST
possible
reanslysis
Technical
Technical
Assistance
Assistance
Audit
Data
Audit
Data
EPA
Web Site
End
User
Audit
Data&
Protocol
Audit
Data
EPA
Figure 1 AA-PGVP Flowchart
Figure 1. AA-PGVP Flow Chart
1.	EPA sends e-mails to the monitoring organization's points of contact to complete the AA-PGVP
Survey. EPA compiles information on specialty gas producers and the monitoring organizations that
plan to participate. EPA tries to schedule the monitoring organization in an appropriate verification
quarter based on delivery of standards from the specialty gas producer.
2.	The monitoring organizations order gas standards from specialty gas producers during the normal
course of business. If EPA cannot get a cylinder from the monitoring organization, and that producer
is being used, EPA will invite the producer to send a cylinder directly to an RAVL,
3.	The monitoring organizations send a new/unused standard, specialty gas certification and chain of
custody form to the RAVLs.
4.	The RAVLs analyze the cylinders and provide the validated results to OAQPS and the monitoring
organizations.
5.	OAQPS reviews the data and sends verification results to the specialty gas vendors.
6.	At the end of the year, OAQPS compiles final results into a report, sends the report out to the
specialty gas vendors and posts it on the AA-PGVP AMTIC web page.
Page 11 of 31

-------
3.0 Survey and Verification Results
Monitoring Organization Survey
Based upon the maximum capability of 40 gas cylinders per RAVL per year, the AA-PGVP selection goal, in the
following order, is:
1)	At least one gas standard from every specialty gas producer being used by the monitoring
community.
2)	If all specialty gas producers have been assessed at least once, then attempt to verify three
standards per specialty gas producer.
3)	If all specialty gas producers have been assessed three times, weigh additional verifications by
producer market share in the ambient air monitoring community.
In order to determine what specialty gas producers were being used by monitoring organizations, EPA asked
each monitoring organization to complete a web-based survey. Participation in 2018 slightly decreased in
comparison to 2017; EPA received surveys from 57 out of a possible 162 monitoring organizations. Although
these 57 reporting organizations participated in the web-based survey, only 17 cylinders were submitted
from 10 monitoring organizations and primary quality assurance organizations (PQAO) for verification in
2018.
PGVP Annual Survey
Participation Trend
300
m-
250
200
150
100
50
2011
61
J-
2016
67
2017
57
-O
2018
¦All AQS Agencies
•Agencies (S02, CO, N02)
¦Surveyed
Figure 2. Annual Survey Participation Trend
Page 12 of 31

-------
Survey Results
Figure 3 identifies, as a percentage of the total responses, the fraction of the ambient air monitoring network
supported by quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) standards from a particular specialty gas producer.
The responses for the 2018 annual survey included 18% of the agencies reporting that they were using or
intended to use Scott-Marrin protocol gas cylinders in 2018. Praxair acquired Scott-Marrin in 2017. No Scott-
Marrin protocol gas cylinders were submitted for verification during calendar year 2018. As such, figure 3
combines the surveyed responses for Praxair and Scott-Marrin and presents them singularly as Praxair to
reflect this merger. After the merger, Praxair has the largest protocol gas market share for the ambient air
monitoring program per our 2018 survey. As mentioned above, only 57 of the 162 monitoring organizations
responded, so this cannot be considered a complete survey.
Specialty Gas Usage by Producer
¦	Praxair
¦	AirGas
Global Calibration Gases
Other
¦	Specialty Air Tech
¦	Air Liquide
¦	Linde
¦	Liquid Technology
¦	Matheson Tri-Gas
¦	Norco
¦	Red Ball
Figure 3 Specialty Gas Usage by Producer (2018 Annual Survey)
Twelve specialty gas producers were identified in the survey. However, some gas producers have more than
one production facility and the intent of the AA-PGVP is to attempt to receive one gas cylinder from every
production facility being used in the national network. For 2018, of the 19 production facilities identified on
the annual survey, 13 were not verified during calendar year 2018.
Participation in the AA-PGVP is mandatory as of 2016. The survey asked whether a monitoring organization
was receiving new gas standards during the year and also whether they would like to participate by sending a
cylinder to one of the RAVLs. Of the 57 respondents to the annual survey, only 10 PQAOs sent cylinders to
EPA for verification. Table 2 lists the cylinders verified in calendar year 2018. Some of these cylinders
contained multiple pollutants so there are more verifications than cylinders.
each 2%
\
Page 13 of 31

-------
Table 2. Gas Standards ". n .1 Ls in Calendar Y<. n ^!
Qtr
Cylinder ID
Pollutant
Lab
Producer
Facility
Agency
1
CC197754
S02
7
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
DCHD
1
SA14452
CO, S02, NO,
NOx
7
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
Air Resource Specialists
3
LL87181
S02
7
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
Missouri DNR
3
CC409659
NO, NOx
7
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
Polk County Air Quality
3
FF44751
NO, NOx
7
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
Polk County Air Quality
3
SD12125
CO, NO, NOx
7
Matheson
Twinsburg, OH
SCAQMD
3
SD13764
S02
7
Matheson
Waverly, NE
KDHE
3
SD14642
NO, NOx
7
Matheson
Waverly, NE
KDHE
3
LL83903
CO, NO, NOx
7
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
SCAQMD
3
EB0055421
NO, NOx
7
Red Ball
Shreveport, LA
Cherokee Nation Env.
Programs
4
CC459555
CO
7
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
Polk County Air Quality
4
LL167081
NO, NOx
7
Air Gas
Richmond, VA
VA-DEQ
4
CC-230086
CO
7
Linde
Alpha, NJ
City of Albuquerque
4
CC88510
S02
7
Linde
Alpha, NJ
City of Albuquerque
4
CC88635
NO, NOx
7
Linde
Alpha, NJ
City of Albuquerque
4
EX0012188
S02
2
PraxAir
Morrisville, PA
NJDEP
4
FF25936
CO
2
PraxAir
Morrisville, PA
NJDEP
4
CC139535
CO
7
PraxAir
Toledo, OH
(Sent by Producer)
Verification Results
As indicated in 40 CFR Part 75 Appendix A, EPA Protocol Gases must have a certified uncertainty (95 percent
confidence interval) that must not be greater than plus or minus 2 percent (±2.0%) of the certified
concentration (tag value) of the gas mixture. This acceptance criterion is for the Acid Rain Program. The AA-
PGVP adopted the criteria as its data quality objective and developed a quality system to allow the RAVLs to
determine whether or not an individual protocol gas standard concentration was within ±2% of the certified
value. The Ambient Air Program has never identified an acceptance criterion for the protocol gases. Since the
AA-PGVP has not been established to provide a statistically rigorous assessment of any specialty gas
producer, the RAVLs report all valid results as analyzed, but it is suggested that any difference greater than
±4% is cause for concern. Information related to the analytical reference standards, analytical instruments
and methods used, the data reduction procedures and the data assessment procedures are all found in the
AA-PGVP QAPP and SOP and are not repeated in this report. Table 3 provides the measurement quality
objectives (MQOs) that are included in the AA-PGVP QAPP (Table 7-1 of the QAPP). The acceptance criteria in
Table 3 were met for each day of verification. In addition, conformance to these requirements can be found
in the measurement data worksheets that are generated for each comparison run and are available upon
request. Appendix A provides a report of the quality control (QC) checks associated with each verification
run. Table 4 provides the verification results for CO and SO2, and Table 5 provides the NOx results.
Page 14 of 31

-------
Table 3. MQOs for the AA-PGVP
Requirement
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Protocol Gas
Doc. Reference
Comments
Completeness
All standards analyzed
95%

Based on an anticipated 40
cylinders per lab per year.
Quarterly Flow
Calibration
Quarterly -no more than
1 mo. before verification
Calibration flow
accuracy within +1%
2.3.7
Using flow primary
standard
Calibrator Dilution
Check
Quarterly -within 2 weeks
of assay
+ 1% RD
2.3.5.1
Second SRM. Three or
more discrete
measurements
Analyzer
Calibration
Quarterly-within 2 weeks
of assay
+ 1% RPD (each point)
Slope 0.89-1.02
2.1.7.2
5 points between 50-90%
of upper range limit of
analyzer + zero point
Zero & Span
Verifications
Each day of verification
SE mean < 1% and
accuracy+ 5% RD
2.1.7.3, 2.3.5.4
Drift accountability. 3
discrete measurements of
zero and span
Precision Test1
Day of Verification
+1% RD standard
error of the mean
2.3.5.4
SRM at conc. >80% of
analyzer URL
Routine Data
Check
Any Standard with Value
>2% Tag Value
NA

Sample run three times to
verify value.
Lab Comparability
2/year
+ 2 % RPD
NA
Sample run three average
value used.
Standards Certification
Primary flow
standard
Annually-Certified by
NVLAP certified lab
1.0 %
NA
Compared to NIST
Traceable
NISTSRMs
Expiration date SRM
pressure > 150 psig


Will follow NIST
recertification
requirements
1 The precision test does not need to be accomplished if analyzer calibrated on same day as analysis.
Page 15 of 31

-------
Table 4. 2018 AA-PGVP CO & SO2 Verification Results
Producer
Facility
Cylinder ID
Pollutant
Assay
Cone
Producer
Cone
% Bias
95%
Uncert
Nat. Usage
of Producer
per Survey
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
SA14452
CO
161.56
161
0.35
0.24
40%
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
LL83903
CO
913.87
918
-0.45
0.29
40%
PraxAir
Toledo, OH
CC139535*
CO
2525.05
2527
-0.08
0.3
40%
PraxAir
Morrisville, PA
FF25936
CO
762.58
781
-2.36
0.48
40%
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
CC459555
CO
243.62
241.2
1
0.24
31%
Matheson
Twinsburg, OH
SD12125
CO
891.63
890
0.18
0.3
2%
Linde
Alpha, NJ
CC-230086
CO
150.71
151.5
-0.52
0.32
2%
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
SA14452
S02
13.04
13.2
-1.2
0.12
40%
PraxAir
Morrisville, PA
EX0012188
S02
2.08
2.06
1.14
0.41
40%
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
CC197754
S02
10.03
10.07
-0.35
0.14
31%
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
LL87181
S02
24.76
24.94
-0.73
0.17
31%
Matheson
Waverly, NE
SD13764
S02
10.45
10.31
1.31
0.19
2%
Linde
Alpha, NJ
CC88510
S02
4.12
5.01
-17.76
0.54
2%
Notes: * Cylinder Sent by Producer
Table 5. 2018 AA-PGVP NO & NOx Verification Results
Producer
Facility
Cylinder ID
Pollutant
Assay
Cone
Producer
Cone
% Bias
95%
Uncert
Nat. Usage of
Producer per
Survey (%)
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
LL83903
NO
47.78
46.3
3.2
0.26
40%
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
SA14452
NO
13.22
12.7
! BWH
0.12
40%
Air Gas
Richmond, VA
LL167081
NO
55.47
56.07
-1.08
0.45
31%
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
FF44751
NO
10.12
9.94
1.75
0.39
31%
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
CC409659
NO
10.46
10.27
1.86
0.38
31%
Matheson
Waverly, NE
SD14642
NO
26.86
29.52
-9.03
0.37
2%
Linde
Alpha, NJ
CC88635
NO
15.22
15.27
-0.34
0.44
2%
Red Ball
Shreveport, LA
EB0055421
NO
50.44
50.32
0.25
0.15
2%
Matheson
Twinsburg, OH
SD12125
NO
45.09
44.1
2.23
0.25
2%
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
SA14452
NOx
13.21
12.9
2.41
0.24
40%
PraxAir
Los Angeles, CA
LL83903
NOx
48.09
46.7
2.97
0.28
40%
Air Gas
Richmond, VA
LL167081
NOx
55.64
56.15
-0.91
0.45
31%
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
FF44751
NOx
10.13
10
1.28
0.53
31%
Air Gas
Chicago, IL
CC409659
NOx
10.47
10.3
1.65
0.52
31%
Matheson
Waverly, NE
SD14642
NOx
26.86
29.66
-9.42
0.5
2%
Red Ball
Shreveport, LA
EB0055421
NOx
50.48
51.25
-1.5
0.22
2%
Linde
Alpha, NJ
CC88635
NOx
15.22
15.28
-0.36
0.44
2%
Matheson
Twinsburg, OH
SD12125
NOx
45.53
44.2
3
0.28
2%
Page 16 of 31

-------
Out of the 31 verification results listed in Table 4 and Table 5,10 were greater than the ±2% Acid Rain
Program criteria and of those, 4 were greater than AA-PGVP criteria of ±4%. Linde cylinder (CC88510) and
Matheson cylinder (SD14642) were verified by both RAVLs for confirmation.
The QC results for these internal standards showed very good agreement and were within the 2% relative
percent difference (RPD) MQO. The RAVL internal standards, Scott-Marrin cylinders (CC327237, CC327233)
and Air Gas cylinder (CC42619), were analyzed by both RAVLs and the intercomparison results are provided in
Table 6. In addition to the internal standards, Linde cylinder (CC88510) is included in Table 6 since both RAVLs
assessed this cylinder. The intercomparison results of the Matheson cylinder (SD14642) are not included in
Table 6. The AA-PGVP SOP requires multiple upscale points to be generated from the protocol gas when
verifying the standard. For the SD14642 cylinder intercomparison only a single concentration level was
assessed for this cylinder. Resource limitations at the Region 2 RAVL limited the verification to this single
verification point. Table 6 provides the relative percent differences (d,) of the paired QC sample
concentrations, and is defined as:
Xi-Yi
d,- =	-	— ¦ 100
1 (Xt + Yd/2
Where X, = Region 2 RAVL concentration, and
Y, = Region 7 RAVL concentration
Assignment of X, and Y, for the RAVLs was arbitrary.
Table 6. Relative Percent Difference of QC Cylinder
Cylinder
Pollutant
R2
R7
RPD (%)
CC42619
CO
492.45
49S.07
-0.234
CC327237
S02
50.24
50.OS
0.080
CCS8510
S02
4.06
4.12
-0.367
CC327233
NO
49.51
49.93
-0.211
CC327233
NOx
49.59
49.99
-0.201
Page 17 of 31

-------
4.0 Summary and Conclusions
General -
The AA-PGVP is successfully implementing a verification process that is blind to the specialty gas producers.
One of goals of the ambient air monitoring rule (published March 28, 2016) was for the verifications
performed by the RAVLs to be focused more on our ambient air monitoring organizations rather than as a
resource to be utilized by specialty gas producers for their own quality assurance. The purpose of the
program (blind verification of gas cylinders provided by monitoring organizations) cannot be accomplished if
EPA relies on the specialty gas producers to submit cylinders for assessment. Of the 18 protocol gas cylinder
standards submitted for analysis only one cylinder was directly submitted by a gas producer. This ratio
indicates that the program is successfully implementing a verification process that is blind to the specialty gas
producers and is an improvement over AA-PGVP's past performance.
While the program is successfully implementing a blind verification process, only 18 cylinders were analyzed
in 2018. EPA Regions 7 and 2 agreed to provide analytical services to support up to 40 cylinder verifications
each year per lab for a total of 80 cylinder verifications/year for the national program. The ambient air
monitoring rule changed the AA-PGVP from a voluntary program to a mandatory program but participation in
the program continues to underutilize our testing capacity. These 18 cylinder submissions resulted in only 31
verifications (some cylinders are a blend of multiple gas standards) being performed. Results show that 10 of
the 31 verifications (32%) failed the ±2% Acid Rain Program criteria and 4 of 31 verifications (13%) failed the
±4% AA-PGVP criteria. It is difficult to assess the extent to which this issue is impacting our ambient air
monitoring networks due to the low utilization of the RAVLs by our monitoring programs.
The annual survey identified 19 specialty gas production facilities that are used for calibration standards by
our monitoring programs. The underutilization of our RAVLs resulted in 13 of these facilities not being
assessed. It is important to note that these 13 unverified facilities are likely not a comprehensive list of
facilities that were not assessed from our verification program since the participation rate of the annual
survey was only 35% of the monitoring programs that analyze for CO, SO2, or NO2.
The analysis of the same standard by both RAVLs continues to be a useful tool for checking the quality of
EPA's AA-PGVP results. As seen by examination of Table 6, the agreement of the intercomparison results
between Region 2 and Region 7 are all well under a 1% RPD. While improvement continues to be needed in
determining which gas producers are used in our ambient air monitoring networks, as well as, ensuring that
an adequate sampling of these gas manufacturers are assessed by our RAVLs, the 2018 laboratory
intercomparison results demonstrate that the RAVL measurements are accurate and reproduceable.
The following lists some areas of the program that need improvement:
Survey Participation Improvement -
Since its inception, the AA-PGVP has relied on an annual survey to determine which gas producers and
facilities are used for generating CO, SO2, and NO2 test atmospheres from protocol gas cylinder standards.
Participation in the annual survey was initially voluntary. To improve the participation rate and to more
completely document which gas producers and facilities are utilized by our ambient air monitoring
organizations, in 2016 states using protocol gases were required to complete the survey every year. While it
was thought at the time that this regulatory requirement would increase the participation and create a
Page 18 of 31

-------
comprehensive list of the protocol gas producers used in the national network, the survey participation rate
has not improved and remains at about 35%. OAQPS is currently assessing other solutions to gather this
information and augment the annual survey system currently used for the program. See Data Management
Improvement section below for further details.
RAVL Participation Improvement -
Since the monitoring rule was revised in 2016, the AA-PGVP has made progress in achieving blind verifications
of the protocol gas cylinders used in our ambient air monitoring networks. However, the program continues
to not achieve its goal of having every PQAO submit an unused cylinder at least once every five years for
verification. The AA-PGVP's goal to perform 80 protocol gas verifications each year and to strategically select
these protocol cylinders to represent the national ambient air monitoring networks was not achieved in
CY-2018. Only 17 protocol gas cylinder standards were submitted by 10 monitoring programs in 2018. Region
7 assessed all but one of the monitoring agencies that submitted cylinders in 2018. Five of the 10 monitoring
programs submitting protocol gas cylinders for verification were clustered in proximity to the Region 7
laboratory. A better national sampling of monitoring programs and protocol gas producers is needed in the
future. Further complicating the RAVL participation is that Region 2 informed OAQPS of its desire to cease
RAVL operations due to staffing and resource limitations.
Quality System Improvement -
The Implementation Plan for the AA-PGVP and its Quality Assurance Project Plan have not been updated since
the inception of the program in 2010. Since calendar year 2010, changes to the program have occurred,
including regulatory changes in 2016. These documents need to be reconciled with current program practices
and regulatory requirements.
Data Management Improvement-
The AA-PGVP has relied solely on the annual survey for determining which protocol gas standard producers
are used in the national ambient air monitoring networks. The annual survey was originally a voluntary
program and later in 2016 it became a regulatory requirement. Neither implementation of this process has
proven to be fully effective. The data management practices for conducting the annual survey and storing its
results are not optimized to be readily reconciled with the data produced by the RAVLs. Additionally, data
validation and data entry business rules are needed to ensure the accuracy of the data submitted for both
portions of this program (protocol gas survey and RAVL analytical results). Once accomplished this will enable
both datasets to be readily assessed by monitoring organization, PQAO, and producer production facility.
Data entry errors and the lack of key fields impede analysis of the information collected for this program.
As a potential solution OAQPS is investigating leveraging the AQS database to augment and replace some of
the data management practices historically performed in the program. Initially OAQPS will focus on migrating
the verification results from the RAVLs to the AQS database. OAQPS is also assessing the feasibility of making
minor modifications to the current AQS "QA-Transaction" file format for the single point quality control
checks and annual performance audits. The proposed modifications being investigated would allow for
documenting the protocol gas producer and facility of the protocol gas cylinder used for generating the test
atmospheres for each of these checks. Augmenting or replacing the annual survey through a modification of a
routine AQS data submission process would allow EPA to document 100% of the protocol gas production
facilities used in the ambient air monitoring networks as opposed to the current process which has only been
36% effective between 2014-2018.
Page 19 of 31

-------
Appendix A	• ports from Measurem. i !11 ata Worksheets for 2013
Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program
QA Reports from Measurement Data Worksheets for 2018
During the verification process, the Regional Air Verification Laboratories perform a number of quality control
checks that are recorded on the Measurement Data Worksheets. This information is reported and saved
along with the verification reports. The following sheets represent the quality control for all verifications that
were implemented in 2018.
Region 2: Quarters 1-4, pages 21 - 23
Region 7: Quarters 1-4, pages 24 - 30
Some quality control checks did not pass.
Page 20 of 31

-------
Region 2 QA Data
OA Requirements Summary, Region 2 - 4th Quarter of 2018
OA Requirement
Result
Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
7-Jul-22
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2000
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
23-Sep-18
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard Expired
Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1800
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
11-Dec-18
1.0000000
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
1.0000000
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
20-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #1 (>80°
URL)
0.42%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #2

0.44%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
SuIfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #3

0.46%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #4

0.52%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #5 (~50°
URL)
0.61%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.9
8-1.02

1.0022
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
12-Dec-18
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
-0.353%
Dilution Check RSD is OK
QA Requirements Summary, Region 2 -4th Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Jan-20
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1800
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Mar-19
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2100
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
11-Dec-18
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99-1.01
1.0000000
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
1.0000000
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
12-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.00%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
k at point #2
0.21%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #3
0.21%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
k at point #4
0.22%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.22%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.9
8-1.02
0.9997
Analyzer Slope is acceptable


Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
12-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
6 at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.00%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
'o at point #2
0.33%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
at point #3
0.34%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
i> at point #4
0.35%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
6 at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.36%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.9
8-1.02
1.0018
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference <1%
12-Dec-18 Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
	-0.353% Dilution Check RSD is OK	
Page 21 of 31

-------
QA Requirements Summary, Region 2 -4th Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Jan-20
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1550
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Mar-19
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1900
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
11-Dec-18
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99-1.01
1.0000000
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
1.0000000
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
13-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.00%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
k at point #2
0.21%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #3
0.22%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
k at point #4
0.23%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.20%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.9
8-1.02
1.0000
Analyzer Slope is acceptable


Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
13-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
i> at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.00%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
'o at point #2
0.32%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
at point #3
0.36%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
i> at point #4
0.37%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1°
6 at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.39%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.9
8-1.02
0.9969
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference <1%
12-Dec-18	Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
-0.353% Dilution Check RSD is OK
QA Requirements Summary, Region 2
QA Requirement	Result
4th Quarter of 2018
Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
23-Mar-20
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2000
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
5-Jan-19
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1500
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
11-Dec-18
1.0000000
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
1.0000000
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
17-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #1 (>80°
URL)
0.15%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #2

0.16%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #3

0.16%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #4

0.17%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
k at point #5 (-50°
URL)
0.18%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.9
8-1.02

1.0036
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
12-Dec-18
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%
-0.353%
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Page 22 of 31

-------
OA Requirements Summary, Region 2 - 4th Quarter of 2018
OA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
23-Mar-20
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2000
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
5-Jan-19
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1500
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
10-May-19
Standard OK
	f
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
0-Jan-00
Calibrator flow calibration not within 2 weeks of assav 1
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
#REF!
#REF!
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
#REF!
#REF!

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
18-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
k at point #1 (>80°
URL)
0.38%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #2

0.39%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #3

0.41%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #4

0.45%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1c
/o at point #5 (~50°
URL)
0.50%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.9
8-1.02

1.0128
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay

#REF!

#REF!
Dilution Check Relative % Difference < 1%

#REF!

#REF!
Page 23 of 31

-------
Region 7 QA Data
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 1st Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result
Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
20-Sep-21
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1500
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
26-Sep-21
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2100
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
9-Mar-18
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
0.9999993
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range =0.99-1.01
0.9999693
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
10-Mar-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.22%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #2
0.23%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #3
0.24%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #4
0.25%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estim ate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.27%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
1.0007
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
10-Mar-18
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.200%
Dilution Check RSD is OK
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 1st Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Mar-19
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
800
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
1-Feb-24
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1750
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK


High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
9-Mar-18
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99-1.01
0.9999993
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
0.9999693
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
12-Mar-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.12%
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
0.12%
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
0.12%
Assay may be conducted at this concentration
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
0.13%
Assay may be conducted at this concentration

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (~50% URL)
0.14%
Assay may be conducted at this concentration

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9980
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
12-Mar-18 Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.24% Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
0.24% Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
0.25% Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
0.27% Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (~50% URL)
0.29% Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9990 Analyzer Slope is acceptable



Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
Date of Dilution Check #VALUE!
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.000% Dilution Check RSD is OK
Page 24 of 31

-------
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 1st Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
22-Mar-19
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
800
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
5-Jan-19
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1625
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
9-Mar-18 Calibrator flow calibration within 1 month of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range =0.99-1.01
0.9999993 High MFC OK
0.9999693 Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
11-Mar-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.12%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #2
0.12%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #3
0.12%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #4
0.13%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.14%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9993
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
10-Mar-18
Dilution check within 1 month of assay
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.20C
% (Dilution Check RSD is OK
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 2nd Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
20-Sep-21
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2100
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
26-Sep-21
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1500
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
7-Jul-18
0.9999993
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range =0.99-1.01
0.9999977
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
8-Jul-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1c
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.16%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1c
/o at point #2
0.14%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1c
/o at point #3
0.13%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estim ate of Unceta
nty < 1c
/o at point #4
0.16%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1c
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.20%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.9
8-1.02
1.0021
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
8-Jul-18
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.121%
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Page 25 of 31

-------
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 -
2nd Quarter of 2018

QA Requirement
Result
Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Mar-19
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1700
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
1-Feb-24
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1750
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK


High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
7-Jul-18
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99-1.01
0.9999993
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
0.9999977
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
8-Jul-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.24%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
0.24%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
0.25%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
0.27%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (~50% URL)
0.29%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
1.0021
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
8-Jul-18 Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.31% Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
0.31% Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
0.32% Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
0.34% Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (~50% URL)
0.37% Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9992 Analyzer Slope is acceptable

•-»-i x- ,«i- ¦ Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay 8-Jul-18 Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check * 3
	Dilution Check Relatixe % Difference < 1%	0.121% Dilution Check RSD is OK	
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 3rd Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
20-Sep-21
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2050
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
26-Sep-21
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1350
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
9-Sep-18
0.9999994
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range =0.99-1.01
0.9999879
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
10-Sep-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.42%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #2
0.43%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #3
0.45%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #4
0.48%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estim ate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.52%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9975
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
10-Sep-18
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.221%
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Page 26 of 31

-------
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 3rd Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Mar-19
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1400
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
1-Feb-24
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1700
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
9-Sep-18
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99-1.01
0.9999994
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
0.9999879
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
12-Sep-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.31%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #2
0.32%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1 % at point #3
0.33%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1 % at point #4
0.35%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.38%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9987
Analyzer Slope is acceptable


Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
12-Sep-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.32%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #2
0.33%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #3
0.35%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #4
0.37%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.40%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9983
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay 10-Sep-18 Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
	Dilution Check Relatixe % Difference < 1%	0.221% Dilution Check RSD is OK	
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 3rd Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Mar-19
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1400
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
1-Feb-24
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1700
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99-1.01
9-Sep-18
0.9999994
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
0.9999879
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
12-Sep-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.31%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #2
0.32%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1 % at point #3
0.33%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1 % at point #4
0.35%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.38%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9987
Analyzer Slope is acceptable


Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
12-Sep-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.32%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #2
0.33%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #3
0.35%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #4
0.37%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1% at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.40%
Assay may be conducted at this concentral
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9983
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
10-Sep-18
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.221%
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Page 27 of 31

-------
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 3rd Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
22-Mar-19
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
800
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
5-Jan-19
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1625
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
9-Sep-18 Calibrator flow calibration within 1 month of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range =0.99-1.01
0.9999994 High MFC OK
0.9999879 Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
11-Sep-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.23%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #2
0.23%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #3
0.24%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #4
0.26%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.28%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
1.0009
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay 10-Sep-18 Dilution check within 1 month of assay
	Dilution Check Relatixe % Difference < 1%	0.221% Dilution Check RSD is OK	
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 4th Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
26-Sep-21
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1250
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
20-Sep-21
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2050
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
3-Dec-18
0.9999996
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range =0.99-1.01
0.9999889
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
4-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.29%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #2
0.30%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #3
0.32%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #4
0.38%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.43%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9994
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
4-Dec-18
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.768%
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Page 28 of 31

-------
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 4th Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
7-Jul-22
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1100
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
20-Sep-21
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
2050
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
3-Dec-18
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
0.9999996
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range =0.99-1.01
0.9999889
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
7-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.29%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #2
0.30%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Carbon Monoxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #3
0.33%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #4
0.39%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estim ate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.44%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9984
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

x-	¦	Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay	4-Sep-18	Dilution check not within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check	3	K		L
	Dilution Check Relating % Difference < 1%	1.152% Dilution Check RSD > 1%	
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 -4th Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
25-Mar-19
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1350
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
1-Feb-24
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1750
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99-1.01
3-Dec-18
0.9999996
Calibrator flow calibration within 2 weeks of assay
High MFC OK
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
0.9999889
Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
9-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.59%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NO Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
0.62%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
0.67%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
0.80%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (~50% URL)
0.89%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
1.0029
Analyzer Slope is acceptable


Analyzer Calibration within 2 week of assay
9-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.50%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Oxides of Nitrogen Gas Analyzer
NOx Portion
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #2
0.52%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #3
0.57%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #4
0.67%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Uncetainty < 1% at point #5 (~50% URL)
0.75%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
1.0001
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
4-Dec-18
Dilution check within 2 weeks of assay
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.768%
Dilution Check RSD is OK
Page 29 of 31

-------
QA Requirements Summary, Region 7 - 4th Quarter of 2018
QA Requirement	Result	Status

Primary SRM Cylinder Expiration Date
22-Mar-19
Primary SRM Gas Standard OK
SRM Gas Standards
Primary SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
700
Primary SRM cylinder pressure is OK
SRM Dilution Check Cylinder Expiration Date
5-Jan-19
Dilution Check SRM Gas Standard OK

Dilution Check SRM Cylinder Pressure >150 psi
1625
Dilution check SRM cylinder pressure is OK

High Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Laboratory Flow Standard
Low Flow Standard Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK

Flow Standard Base Unit Expiration Date
11-Dec-18
Standard OK
Calibrator Flow Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
3-Dec-18 Calibrator flow calibration within 1 month of assay
Calibrator (mass flow controllers) Calibrated High Flow MFC Slope Range = 0.99 -1.01
Calibrated Low Flow MFC Slope Range =0.99-1.01
0.9999997 High MFC OK
0.9999875 Low MFC OK

Analyzer Calibration within 2 weeks of assay
8-Dec-18
Analyzer calibration within 2 weeks of assay

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #1 (>80% URL)
0.26%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #2
0.27%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on
Sulfur Dioxide Gas Analyzer
Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #3
0.29%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
^ at point #4
0.34%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Estimate of Unceta
nty < 1
/o at point #5 (-50% URL)
0.62%
Assay may be conducted at this concentrat
on

Analyzer slope is within 0.98-1.02
0.9982
Analyzer Slope is acceptable

Dilution Check
Dilution Check Date within 2 weeks of assay
4-Dec-18
Dilution check within 1 month of assay
Dilution Check Relati\« % Difference <1%
0.79C
%(Dilution Check RSD is OK
Page 30 of 31

-------
United States	Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards	Publication No. EPA-454/R-20-004
Environmental Protection	Air Quality Assessment Division	July 2020
Agency	Research Triangle Park, NC

-------