DRAFT
CASTNET
2019 Annual Report
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmospheric Programs
Prepared by:
environmental engineering
& measurement services, inc.
4475E NW 6th Street, Ext
Gainesville, FL 32609
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
October 2020
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Project Objectives 2-1
3.0 CASTNET Sites Visited in 2019 3-1
4.0 Performance Audit Results 4-1
4.1 Ozone 4-3
4.1.1 Ozone Bias 4-6
4.2 Flow Rate 4-11
4.3 Shelter Temperature 4-11
4.4 Wind Speed 4-14
4.4.1 Wind Speed Starting Threshold 4-14
4.5 Wind Direction 4-14
4.5.1 Wind Direction Starting Threshold 4-14
4.6 Temperature and Two-Meter Temperature 4-15
4.6.1 Temperature Shield Blower Motors 4-16
4.7 Relative Humidity 4-16
4.8 Solar Radiation 4-19
4.9 Precipitation 4-19
4.10 Data Acquisition Systems (DAS) 4-20
4.10.1 Analog Test 4-20
4.10.2 Functionality Tests 4-20
5.0 Systems Audit Results 5-1
5.1 Siting Criteria 5-1
5.2 Sample Inlets 5-1
5.3 Infrastructure 5-2
5.4 Site Operators 5-2
5.5 Documentation 5-2
5.6 Site Sensor and FSAD Identification 5-3
6.0 Summary and Recommendations 6-1
6.1 In Situ Comparisons 6-1
7.0 References 7-1
location
1
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Audit Standards Certifications
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Performance Audit Challenge and Acceptance Criteria 2-1
Table 3-1. Systems and Performance Site Audits 3-1
Table 3-2. Site Ozone PE Visits 3-3
Table 4-1. Performance Audit Results by Variable Tested 4-2
Table 4-2. Performance Audit Results for Ozone 4-3
Table 4-3. Performance Audit Results Shelter Temperature, and Flow Rate 4-12
Table 4-4. Performance Audit Results for Wind Sensors 4-15
Table 4-5. Performance Audit Results for Temperature and Relative 4-17
Table 4-6. Performance Audit Results for Solar Radiation and Precipitation 4-20
Table 4-7. Performance Audit Results for Data Acquisition Systems 4-21
List of Figures
Figure 4-1. 2017 and 2018 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits Performed by EEMS. 4-8
Figure 4-2. 2019 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits Performed by EEMS 4-8
Figure 4-3. 2019 Actual Difference Level 2 NPAP Audits 4-9
Figure 4-4. 2019 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits Not Performed by EEMS 4-10
location
11
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
% diff percent difference
A/D analog to digital converter
AQS Air Quality System
ARS Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BLM-WSO Bureau of Land Management-Wyoming State Office
CASTNET Clean Air Status and Trends Network
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CMAQ Community Multi-scale Air Quality
DAS data acquisition system
DC direct current
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
deg degree
DQO data quality objectives
DVM digital voltmeter
ECCC Environment and Climate Change Canada
EEMS Environmental, Engineering & Measurement Services, Inc.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESC Environmental Systems Corporation
FSAD Field Site Audit Database
g-cm gram centimeter
GPS goblal positioning system
k kilo (1000)
km kilometer
lpm liters per minute
MLM Multilayer Model
m/s meters per second
mv millivolt
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPAP National Performance Audit Program
NPS National Park Service
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
PE Performance Evaluation
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
location
111
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RH relative humidity
RTD Resistance Temperature Detector
SJRWMD Saint John's Water Management District
SLAMS State or Local Air Monitoring Stations
SOP standard operating procedure
SRP standard reference photometer
SSRF Site Status Report Forms
STP standard temperature and pressure
TEI Thermo Environmental Instruments
TTP Through The Probe
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USNO United States Naval Observatory
V volts
VDC volts direct current
Wood Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions
WRR World Radiation Reference
location
IV
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
1.0 Introduction
The Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) is a national air monitoring program
established in 1988 by the US EPA. Nearly all CASTNET sites measure weekly concentrations of
acidic gases and particles to provide accountability for EPA's emission reduction programs. Most
sites measure ground-level ozone as well as supplemental measurements such as meteorology
and/or other trace gas concentrations.
Ambient concentrations are used to estimate deposition rates of the various pollutants with the
objective of determining relationships between emissions, air quality, deposition, and ecological
effects. In conjunction with other national monitoring networks, CASTNET data are used to
determine the effectiveness of national emissions control programs and to assess temporal trends
and spatial deposition patterns in atmospheric pollutants. CASTNET data are also used for long-
range transport model evaluations and critical loads research.
Historically, CASTNET pollutant flux measurements have been reported as the aggregate product
of weekly measured concentrations and model-estimated deposition velocities. The Multi-layer
Model (MLM) was used to derive deposition velocity estimates from on-site meteorological
parameters, land use types, and site characteristics. In 2011, EPA discontinued meteorological
measurements at most EPA-sponsored CASTNET sites.
Currently, CASTNET pollutant flux estimates are calculated as the aggregate product of weekly
measured chemical concentrations and gridded model-estimated deposition velocities. Total
deposition is assessed using the NADP's Total Deposition Hybrid Method (TDEP; EPA, 2015c;
Schwede and Lear, 2014), which combines data from established ambient monitoring networks and
chemical-transport models. To estimate dry deposition, ambient measurement data from
CASTNET were merged with dry deposition rates and flux output from the Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system. The dry deposition surface is then merged with wet
deposition grids from NADP and the Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes
Model (PRISM) to estimate total deposition.
Since 2011 nearly all CASTNET ozone monitors have adhered to the requirements for State or
Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) as specified by the EPA in 40 CFR Part 58. As such, the
ozone data collected must meet the requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A, which defines the
quality assurance (QA) requirements for gaseous pollutant ambient air monitoring. The audits
performed by EEMS under this contract fulfill the requirement for annual performance evaluation
(PE) audits of pollutant monitors in the network. The QA requirements can be found at:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/APP D%20validation%20template%20ve
rsion%2003 2017 for%20AMTIC%20Rev l.pdf
location
1-1
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
Currently 86 sites at 84 distinct locations measure ground-level ozone concentrations. Annual PE
audit QA data are submitted to the Air Quality System (AQS) database.
As of December 2019, the network is comprised of 95 active rural sampling sites across the United
States and Canada, cooperatively operated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management - Wyoming State Office (BLM-WSO)
and several independent partners. Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions (Wood) is
responsible for operating the EPA sponsored sites and Air Resource Specialist, Inc. (ARS) is
responsible for operating the NPS and BLM-WSO sponsored sites.
location
1-2
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
2.0 Project Objectives
The objectives of this project are to establish an independent and unbiased program of performance
and systems audits for all CASTNET sampling sites. Ongoing QA programs are an essential part
of any long-term monitoring network.
Performance audits verify that all reported parameters are consistent with the accuracy goals as
defined in the CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The acceptance criteria have
changed over the years and EEMS relies on the CASTNET contractor to provide updates to the
acceptance criteria. The current criteria are included in Table 2-1.
Due to budgetary necessity, the meteorological measurements were shifted to operating on an as-
funded basis. The meteorological sensors were audited on an as directed basis.
Table 2-1. Performance Audit Challenge and Acceptance Criteria
Sensor
Parameter
Audit Challenge
Acceptance Criteria
Precipitation
Response
10 manual tips
1 DAS count per tip
Precipitation
Accuracy
2 introductions of known
amounts of water
< ±10.0% of input amount
Relative
Humidity
Accuracy
Compared to reference
instrument or standard
solution
<±10.0%
Solar
Radiation
Accuracy
Compared to WRR traceable
standard
< ±10.0% of daytime average
Surface
Wetness
Response
Distilled water spray mist
Positive response
Surface
Wetness
Sensitivity
1% decade resistance
N/A
Shelter
Temperature
Average
Difference
Comparison to RTD at 3
observed points
2 °C
Temperature
Accuracy
Comparison to 3 N1ST
measured baths (~ 0° C,
ambient, ~ full-scale)
<± 0.5° C
location
2-1
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Sensor
Parameter
Audit Challenge
Acceptance Criteria
Delta
Temperature
Accuracy
Comparison to temperature
sensor at same test point
< ± 0.50° C
Wind
Direction
Orientation
Accuracy
Parallel to alignment
rod/crossarm, or sighted to
distant point
< ±5° from degrees true
Wind
Direction
Linearity
Eight cardinal points on test
fixture
< ±5° mean absolute error
Wind
Direction
Response
Threshold
Starting torque tested with
torque gauge
< 10 g-cm Climatronics;
< 20 g-cm R. M. Young
Wind Speed
Accuracy
Shaft rotational speed
generated and measured with
certified synchronous motor
< ±0.5 mps below 5.0 mps input;
< ±5.0% of input at or above 5.0 mps
Wind Speed
Starting
Threshold
Starting torque tested with
torque gauge
<0.5 g-cm
Mass Flow
Controller
Flow Rate
Comparison with Primary
Standard
< ± 5.0% of designated rate
Ozone
Slope
Linear regression of multi-
point test gas concentration
as measured with a certified
transfer standard
0.9000
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) through the annual National Performance Audit Program
(NPAP) training which EEMS attended in October 2019 (see end of Appendix for NPAP training
certifications). EEMS personnel performed the Through-The-Probe (TTP) pollutant monitor audits
following EPA's Quality Assurance Guidance Document - Method Compendium - Field Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) for the Federal PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program and NPAP-
TTP Audit Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). All procedures and guidance documents used
to perform these audits can be found at the EPA OAQPS website:
https: //www3. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/npepq a. html
The NPAP is a QA program implemented by the OAQPS to conduct audits of gaseous air pollutant
monitors by standard methods throughout each region of the U.S. The method includes
introduction of National Institute of Standards and Traceability (NIST) traceable audit gases to the
station monitors through the ambient sample inlet, including all filters and fittings. This method
evaluates measurement system accuracy including the entire sample train. The audit gas
concentrations are also measured and verified with an audit analyzer on-site. For gases other than
ozone the audit analyzer is calibrated at the time of the audit.
Performance audits are conducted using standards that are certified as currently traceable to the
NIST or another authoritative organization. All standards are certified annually with the exception
of ozone standards which are verified as level 2 standards at EPA regional labs at least twice per
year.
Site systems audits are intended to provide a qualitative appraisal of the total measurement system.
Site planning, organization, and operation are evaluated to ensure that good Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) practices are being applied. At a minimum the following
audit issues are addressed at each site systems audit:
• Site locations and configurations match those provided in the CASTNET QAPP.
• Meteorological instruments are in good physical and operational condition and are sited to
meet EPA ambient monitoring guidelines (EPA-600/4-82-060).
• Sites are accessible, orderly, and if applicable, compliant with OSHA safety standards.
• Sampling lines are free of leaks, kinks, visible contamination, weathering, and moisture.
• Site shelters provide adequate temperature control.
• All ambient air quality instruments are functional, being operated in the appropriate range,
and the zero air supply desiccant is unsaturated.
• All instruments are in current calibration.
• Site documentation (maintenance schedules, on-site SOPs, etc.) is current and log book
records are complete.
location
2-3
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
• All maintenance and on-site SOPs are performed on schedule.
• Corrective actions are documented and appropriate for required maintenance/repair
activity.
• Site operators demonstrate an adequate knowledge and ability to perform required site
activities, including documentation and maintenance activities.
location
2-4
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
3.0 CASTNET Sites Visited in 2019
This report covers the CASTNET sites audited in 2019. Only those variables that were supported
by the CASTNET program were audited. From February through December 2019, EEMS
conducted field performance and systems audits at 59 monitoring sites. Meteorological sensors at
four of the sites were also audited. The locations, sponsor agency and dates of the audits along
with states and EPA Regions are presented in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Systems and Performance Site Audits
Site ID
Sponsor
Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
ACA416
NPS
Acadia NP
ME/Rl
9/18/2019
ALC188
EPA
Alabama-Coushatta
TX/R6
2/25/2019
ALH157
EPA
Alhambra
IL/R5
12/16/2019
BAS601
EPA
Basin
WY / R8
8/19/2019
BBE401
NPS
Big Bend NP
TX/R6
2/27/2019
BFT142
EPA
Beaufort
NC/R4
12/17/2019
BUF603
BLM
Buffalo
WY / R8
8/20/2019
BVL130
EPA
Bondville
IL/R5
11/7/2019
BWR139
EPA
Blackwater NWR
MD/R3
11/19/2019
CAD150
EPA
Caddo Valley
AR/R6
4/16/2019
CDR119
EPA
Cedar Creek St. Park
WV/R3
11/12/2019
CDZ171
EPA
Cadiz
KY / R4
12/17/2019
CHC432
NPS
Chaco NHP
NM/R6
8/5/2019
CHE185
EPA
Cherokee Nation
OK/R6
4/15/2019
CKT136
EPA
Crockett
KY / R4
11/11/2019
CND125
EPA
Candor
NC / R4
6/14/2019
CNT169
EPA
Centennial
WY / R8
7/16/2019
CVL151
EPA
Coffeeville
MS/R4
4/13/2019
DCP114
EPA
Deer Creek St. Park
OH/R5
10/24/2019
EGB181
EPA
Egbert
ON
11/12/2019
location
3-1
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Site ID
Sponsor
Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
EVE419
NPS
Everglades NP
FL/R4
3/19/2019
GLR468
NPS
Glacier NP
MT/R8
7/3/2019
GRS420
NPS
Great Smoky Mountains NP
TN/R4
10/7/2019
GTH161
EPA
Gothic
CO/R8
8/6/2019
KIC003
EPA
Kickapoo Res
KS/R7
10/23/2019
KNZ184
EPA
Konza Prairie
KS/R7
10/22/2019
LAV410
NPS
Lassen Volcanic NP
CA/R9
5/7/2019
LRL117
EPA
Laurel Hill St. Park
PA/R3
9/26/2019
MAC426
NPS
Mammoth Cave NP
KY / R4
10/17/2019
MCK131
EPA
Mackville
KY / R4
11/5/2019
MCK231
EPA
Mackville (precision site)
KY / R4
11/5/2019
NEC602
EPA
Newcastle
WY / R8
7/23/2019
NIC001
EPA
Nick's Lake
NY / R2
7/10/2019
OXF122
EPA
Oxford
OH/R5
10/25/2019
PAL190
EPA
Palo Duro
TX/R6
3/1/2019
PAR107
EPA
Parsons
WV/R3
9/25/2019
PED108
EPA
Prince Edward
VA/R3
7/26/2019
PIN414
NPS
Pinnacles NM
CA/R9
5/8/2019
PND165
EPA
Pinedale
WY / R8
7/1/2019
PRK134
EPA
Perkinstown
WI/R5
8/27/2019
QAK172
EPA
Quaker City
OH/R5
11/10/2019
ROM206
EPA
Rocky Mountain NP
CO/R8
6/11/2019
ROM406
NPS
Rocky Mountain NP
CO/R8
6/6/2019
SAN189
EPA
Santee Sioux
NE/R7
10/25/2019
SEK430
NPS
Sequoia NP
CA/R9
5/14/2019
SHE604
BLM
Sheridan
WY / R8
8/20/2019
location
3-2
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Site ID
Sponsor
Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
SHN418
NPS
Shenandoah NP - Big Meadows
VA/R3
10/22/2019
STK138
EPA
Stockton
IL/R5
11/5/2019
THR422
NPS
Theodore Roosevelt NP
ND/R8
7/22/2019
UND002
EPA
Underhill
VT/R1
7/9/2019
VIN140
EPA
Vincennes
IN/R5
11/7/2019
VOY413
NPS
Voyageurs NP
MN/R5
8/29/2019
VPI120
EPA
Horton Station
VA/R3
9/24/2019
WFM105
EPA
White Face Mountain
NY / R2
7/2/2019
WNC429
NPS
Wind Cave NP
SD/R8
7/24/2019
WSP144
EPA
Washington Crossing St. Park
NJ/R2
6/17/2019
YEL408
NPS
Yellowstone NP
WY / R8
7/2/2019
YOS404
NPS
Yosemite NP
CA/R9
5/13/2019
ZI0433
NPS
Zion NP
UT / R8
8/3/2019
In addition to the sites listed in Table 3-1 that were visited for complete systems and performance
audits, the 30 sites listed in Table 3-2 were visited to conduct TTP ozone and other pollutant gas
PE.
Table 3-2. Site Ozone PE Visits
Site ID
Sponsor Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
ABT147
EPA
Abington
CT/Rl
9/25/2019
ANA115
EPA
Ann Arbor
MI/R5
8/22/2019
ARE 128
EPA
Arendtsville
PA/R3
7/24/2019
ASH135
EPA
Ashland
ME/R1
9/19/2019
BEL116
EPA
Beltsville
MD/R3
11/18/2019
CAN407
NPS
Canyonlands NP
UT / R8
8/7/2019
CHA467
NPS
Chiricahua NM
AZ/R9
4/11/2019
location
3-3
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Site ID
Sponsor Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
COW 137
EPA
Coweeta
NC/R4
6/13/2019
CTH110
EPA
Connecticut Hill
NY / R2
7/15/2019
DEN417
NPS
Denali NP
AK / RIO
9/5/2019
DIN431
NPS
Dinosaur NM
UT / R8
8/8/2019
ESP127
EPA
Edgar Evins St. Park
TN/R4
4/28/2019
GAS 153
EPA
Georgia Station
GA/R4
3/26/2019
GRB411
NPS
Great Basin NP
NV/R9
9/16/2019
GRC474
NPS
Grand Canyon NP
AZ/R9
4/9/2019
HOX148
EPA
Hoxeyville
MI/R5
8/23/2019
HWF187
EPA
Huntington Wildlife Forest
NY / R2
7/5/2019
IRL141
EPA
Indian River Lagoon
FL/R4
3/19/2019
KEF112
EPA
Kane Experimental Forest
PA/R3
7/24/2019
MKG113
EPA
M. K. Goddard St. Park
PA/R3
7/25/2019
NPT006
EPA
Nez Perce Tribe
ID/RIO
7/8/2019
PET427
NPS
Petrified Forest NP
AZ/R9
4/8/2019
PNF126
EPA
Cranberry
NC/R4
10/5/2019
PSU106
EPA
Penn State University
PA/R3
7/25/2019
SAL133
EPA
Salamonie Reservoir
IN/R5
5/8/2019
SND152
EPA
Sand Mountain
AL/R4
4/27/2019
SPD111
EPA
Speedwell
TN/R4
11/6/2019
SUM 156
EPA
Sumatra
FL/R4
3/27/2019
UVL124
EPA
Unionville
MI/R5
8/22/2019
WST109
EPA
Woodstock
NH/R1
8/19/2019
location
3-4
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
4.0 Performance Audit Results
This section provides the summarized performance evaluation (audit) results of each variable
challenged at each station visited except for trace gas audit results. CASTNET operates trace gas
monitors at several sites including three sites that are part of the NCORE Network (GRS420,
MAC426, and BVL130). Performance evaluation audits of the CASTNET trace gas monitors were
performed at BVL130, ROM206, PND165, HWF187, GRS420, and PNF126 in 2019. Results of
the NOy, CO, and SO2 monitor audits for those sites have been uploaded to the EPA AQS database
and are not included in this report. All PE results for all monitors were within acceptance limits.
The NOy PE audit was not performed at MAC426 due to site monitor malfunction.
Performance audit results are discussed for each variable in the following sections. Tables are
included to summarize the average and maximum error between the audit challenges and site results
as recorded by the on-site Data Acquisition System (DAS). Linear regression and percent
difference (% diff) calculation results are included where appropriate. Results that are outside the
CASTNET QAPP acceptance criteria are shaded in the tables.
The errors presented in the tables in the following sections are reported as the difference of the
measurement recorded by the DAS and the audit standard. Where appropriate, negative values
indicate readings that were lower than the standard, and positive values indicate readings that were
above the standard value. The results are arranged by audit date. Viewing the results in this order
helps to detect any errors that could have been caused by the degradation or drift of the audit
standards during the year. The audit standards are transported and handled with care, and properly
maintained to help prevent such occurrences. No known problems with the standards were apparent
during the year. All standards were within specifications when re-certified at the end of the year.
Errors for all parameters other than ozone appear to be random and without bias.
The ozone results are sorted by the level 2 photometer standard used for the audit and arranged by
audit date. The audit results obtained by the newest ozone standard (model 49iQPS) indicate a
slight negative trend throughout the year. Ozone audit results in general indicate a slight negative
bias which will be discussed in the following section.
Detailed reports of the field site audits, which contain all test points for each variable at each site,
can be found in the Appendices of each of the 2019 Quarterly reports. The variable specific data
forms included in Appendix A of each quarter's report contain the challenge input values, the output
of the DAS, additional relevant information pertaining to the variable and equipment, and all
available means of identification of the sensors and equipment for each site.
Table 4.1 summarizes the number of test failures by variable tested. All station data are recorded
from the station's primary datalogger.
location
4-1
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Table 4-1. Performance Audit Results by Variable Tested
Variable Tested
Number of Tests
Number of tests
Failed
% Failed
Ozone
80
14
17.5
Flow Rate
57
1
1.8
Shelter Temperature (average)
52
1
1.9
Wind Direction Orientation Average
Error
4
1
25
Orientation Maximum Error
4
2
50
Wind Direction Linearity
Average Error
4
0
0
Linearity Maximum Error
4
0
0
Wind Direction Starting Torque
4
1
25
Wind Speed Low Range
Average Error
3
0
0
Low Range Maximum Error
3
0
0
Wind Speed High Range
Average Error
3
1
33.3
High Range Maximum Error
3
1
33.3
Wind Speed Starting Torque
4
0
0
All Temperature Sensors
58
0
0
Relative Humidity
3
0
0
Solar Radiation
4
0
0
Precipitation
4
0
0
DAS Analog to Digital
33
0
0
location
4-2
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
4.1 Ozone
Eighty ozone performance evaluation audits were performed in 2019. All ozone challenges were
conducted to comply with the OAQPS NPAP-TTP Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) which
can be found at https: //www3. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/npapsop .html. Each ozone monitor was
challenged with ozone-free air and four up-scale concentrations. The ozone test gas concentrations
were measured with aNIST-traceable photometer that was verified as a level 2 standard by USEPA.
The results of the ozone audits were uploaded to the AQS database at the end of each quarter.
Results of all ozone audits performed are included in Table 4-2. Fourteen monitors tested failed
the annual PE with a level 2 test point difference above ±1.5 ppb. These are highlighted in the
table below. The monitors at THR422, ACA416 and WNC429 are not CASTNET monitors, and
are operated by state agencies. It was determined that the monitor at UVL124 required
maintenance.
Some monitors responded low to ozone-free air which may also contribute to low response at the
level 2 audit point.
Table 4-2. Performance Audit Results for Ozone
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
EEMS
Standard
Number
Date
ALC188
-0.34
-3.2
-4.2
0.96029
0.55012
0.99988
1110
2/25/2019
BBE401
-0.22
-0.6
-0.7
0.99057
0.23958
0.99999
1110
2/27/2019
PAL190
-0.4
-1.2
-1.8
0.99603
-0.33515
0.99999
1110
3/1/2019
PET427
-0.38
-1.3
-2.4
0.98967
-0.11093
0.99997
1110
4/8/2019
GRC474
-0.48
-0.8
-1.6
0.99520
-0.13062
0.99996
1110
4/9/2019
CHA467
-0.37
-1.7
-2.0
0.97661
0.55123
0.99994
1110
4/11/2019
LAV410
-1.28
-4.0
-6.9
0.98111
-0.72695
0.99986
1110
5/7/2019
PIN414
-0.33
0.3
0.7
1.00749
-0.27178
0.99999
1110
5/8/2019
YOS404
-0.6
0.2
-1.2
1.01307
-0.42535
0.99995
1110
5/13/2019
SEK430
-0.59
-3.8
-4.2
0.96157
0.10304
0.99998
1110
5/14/2019
ROM406
-1.86
-4.6
-5.8
0.97271
-1.15458
0.99999
1110
6/6/2019
ROM206
-1.01
-1.3
-3.3
1.00644
-0.90695
0.99996
1110
6/11/2019
PND165
-2.25
-9.5
-13.5
0.95438
-2.08948
0.99964
1110
7/1/2019
location
4-3
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
EEMS
Standard
Number
Date
YEL408
-0.31
0.3
0.6
1.00478
-0.1015
0.99999
1110
7/2/2019
GLR468
-0.04
2.5
3.6
1.03800
-0.521
0.99997
1110
7/3/2019
NPT006
-0.42
-0.7
-1.7
1.00136
-0.45783
0.99999
1110
7/8/2019
CNT169
0.39
3.5
4.0
1.03170
0.05684
1
1110
7/16/2019
THR422
-1.7
-6.0
-8.1
0.96757
-1.34024
0.99998
1110
7/22/2019
NEC602
-1.81
-4.8
-6.8
0.97785
-1.07778
0.99981
1110
7/23/2019
WNC429
0.73
-0.5
-1.2
0.97856
1.03205
1
1110
7/24/2019
ZI0433
-0.51
-1.9
-2.0
0.98129
-0.02606
1
1110
8/3/2019
CHC432
-0.3
-0.5
-0.8
0.99233
0.12613
0.99999
1110
8/5/2019
GTH161
-0.05
1.0
1.9
1.01969
-0.35367
0.99998
1110
8/6/2019
CAN407
-1
-4.0
-5.2
0.97119
-0.339
0.99995
1110
8/7/2019
DIN431
-0.75
-2.0
-2.6
0.99070
-0.52028
0.99998
1110
8/8/2019
BAS601
-0.54
-1.2
-3.5
0.99416
-0.21771
0.99981
1110
8/19/2019
DEN417
1.62
5.5
6.6
1.03417
1.35257
0.99995
1110
9/5/2019
GRB411
-0.99
-3.1
-3.9
0.97911
-0.40853
0.99996
1110
9/16/2019
SAN189
-1.45
-3.9
-5.4
0.98555
-1.28329
0.99999
1110
10/25/2019
ALH157
0.19
-0.3
-0.8
0.99500
0.11306
0.99999
1110
12/16/2019
CDZ171
-0.85
-1.3
-3.5
1.01071
-1.10155
0.99997
1110
12/17/2019
IRL141
-1.12
-1.6
-2.6
1.00208
-1.09943
1
1114
3/19/2019
GAS 153
-1.97
-4.6
-6.9
0.98742
-1.85433
1
1114
3/26/2019
SUM 156
-1.64
-1.1
-2.9
1.02263
-2.10227
1
1114
3/27/2019
CVL151
-0.27
-1.2
-2.3
0.98143
0.14908
0.9999
1114
4/13/2019
CHE185
0.18
-0.6
-0.9
0.99049
0.12824
0.99999
1114
4/15/2019
CAD 150
-1.66
-2.5
-3.3
0.98939
-1.43004
0.99988
1114
4/16/2019
SND152
-1.14
-2.8
-3.8
0.99028
-0.99572
1
1114
4/27/2019
ESP127
-0.58
0.0
-0.7
1.01038
-0.61174
1
1114
4/28/2019
SAL133
-0.37
-0.8
-1.6
1.00057
-0.48793
1
1114
5/8/2019
location
4-4
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
EEMS
Standard
Number
Date
WSP144
-0.89
-0.1
-1.1
1.01500
-0.94684
1
1114
6/17/2019
HWF187
-0.66
-2.7
-2.8
0.97682
-0.2718
1
1114
7/5/2019
CTH110
-0.83
-4.3
-4.6
0.96273
-0.36734
1
1114
7/15/2019
KEF112
-0.28
-0.5
-1.2
1.00429
-0.46454
1
1114
7/24/2019
MKG113
-1.02
-3.9
-4.2
0.97286
-0.68795
0.99999
1114
7/25/2019
PED108
0.02
-0.9
-1.7
0.99796
-0.29137
0.99999
1114
7/26/2019
CND125
-0.1
-2.3
-2.5
0.97601
0.12496
1
1114
7/31/2019
ANA115
-0.26
0.4
0.8
1.00901
-0.33313
0.99999
1114
8/22/2019
UVL124
-3.54
-9.0
-12.3
0.96589
-3.15365
0.99993
1114
8/22/2019
HOX148
-0.55
-1.8
-2.6
0.99012
-0.37417
1
1114
8/23/2019
PRK134
-2.08
-5.5
-6.9
0.9664
-1.33743
0.99999
1114
8/27/2019
VOY413
-0.47
-0.2
-0.5
1.00464
-0.49771
0.99999
1114
8/29/2019
VPI120
-0.6
-4.0
-4.9
0.96526
-0.04806
0.99996
1114
9/24/2019
PAR107
-1.17
-1.9
-3.3
0.98162
-0.62791
0.99985
1114
9/25/2019
LRL117
-0.99
-2.6
-3.6
0.98045
-0.50137
0.99994
1114
9/26/2019
PNF126
-1.05
-1.0
-2.3
1.00778
-1.06583
1
1114
10/5/2019
GRS420
-0.78
-1.3
-2.0
0.99738
-0.61972
1
1114
10/7/2019
MAC 426
1.86
2.9
5.8
0.98781
2.24646
0.99999
1114
10/17/2019
STK138
-0.53
-2.2
-2.4
0.97775
-0.12925
0.99999
1114
11/5/2019
BVL130
-0.67
-2.6
-2.9
0.97565
-0.11353
1
1114
11/7/2019
BEL116
-0.73
-1.5
-1.8
0.99282
-0.54196
0.99999
1114
11/18/2019
BWR139
-1.39
-4.3
-4.9
0.97304
-1.01079
0.99999
1114
11/19/2019
BFT142
-1.21
-4.3
-5.1
0.96728
-0.58271
1
1114
12/17/2019
COW 137
-1.28
-3.9
-5.6
0.96767
0.17821
0.99958
1115
6/13/2019
ARE 128
-0.78
-2.4
-2.9
0.97944
-0.31014
0.99998
1115
7/24/2019
PSU106
-0.74
-4.1
-4.3
0.95555
0.12622
1
1115
7/25/2019
WST109
-0.81
-3.8
-4.0
0.96271
-0.07811
0.99999
1115
8/19/2019
location
4-5
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
EEMS
Standard
Number
Date
ACA416
-0.23
4.6
5.9
1.06837
-1.25419
0.99999
1115
9/18/2019
ASH135
-2.51
-4.2
-5.7
0.99454
-2.50547
0.99993
1115
9/19/2019
ABT147
-0.39
-0.9
-1.3
0.99630
-0.32338
1
1115
9/25/2019
SHN418
-0.6
-2.0
-2.3
0.98595
-0.2997
0.99999
1115
10/22/2019
DCP114
-1.3
-4.4
-4.8
0.96442
-0.53192
0.99999
1115
10/24/2019
OXF122
-1.21
-2.3
-3.3
0.99496
-1.07432
1
1115
10/25/2019
MCK131
-1.4
-2.6
-4.4
0.99511
-1.37691
0.99993
1115
11/5/2019
MCK231
-1.51
-2.3
-3.0
1.00181
-1.68192
0.99994
1115
11/5/2019
SPD111
-1.24
-2.2
-3.6
0.99213
-1.02793
0.99988
1115
11/6/2019
VIN140
-1.01
-1.6
-1.9
0.99069
-0.37885
0.99997
1115
11/7/2019
QAK172
-0.93
-1.4
-3.2
1.00619
-1.01653
0.99999
1115
11/10/2019
CKT136
-2.1
-8.7
-9.2
0.92747
-0.93752
0.99999
1115
11/11/2019
CDR119
-0.5
0.3
1.0
1.01370
-0.6245
0.99999
1115
11/12/2019
4.1.1 Ozone Bias
EEMS is aware of the EPA Technical Assistance Document "Transfer Standards for Calibration of
Air Monitoring Analyzers for Ozone'1 October 2013 which can be found at the AMTIC website:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/OzoneTransferStandardGuidance.pdf.
The document provides the rationale for standard photometer designation and the procedures
required to ensure photometer stability. The process involves comparisons to a higher-level
standard (in this case a regional EPA level 1 standard) and multiple comparisons on separate days,
known as "6x6 verification". As described in the document, once the transfer standard comparison
relationship with the level 1 standard has been established and the stability requirements are met,
the actual ozone concentration is calculated by:
1 _
Std. 03 conc. = — (Indicated 03 conc. — /)
Where:
m = average slope
/ = average intercept
location
4-6
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
EEMS used this equation prior to 2017 with a rolling 6x6 average slope and intercept to correct
level 2 standard photometer measurements back to the regional EPA level 1 standard reference
photometer (SRP) for ozone PE audits. Since the technical assistance document also states that if
any adjustments are made to the transfer standard a new 6x6 verification is required, EEMS did not
adjust the physical settings (background and span) of the level 2 standards unless the photometer
did not meet the criteria (+/- 3 %) comparison to the level 1 standard. Thereby only mathematical
corrections were applied to the level 2 standard photometers.
Review of data prior to 2017 indicated that this procedure may have introduced a bias to the
standard since the level 2 standards are only compared to the level 1 SRP two or three times per
year. The rolling 6x6 slope and intercept averages may not have reflected the current relationship
between the level 2 and the level 1 standards. This bias was observed in the data from the 2016
ozone PE audits.
In 2017, EEMS elected to deviate from the EPA Technical Assistance Document and began
correcting the level 2 standard photometer using the most recent verification results rather than the
rolling 6x6 results. All ozone audit standard measurements have been corrected back to the EPA
level 1 standard using most recent slope and intercept relationship to the SRP since 2017.
The remainder of this section will focus on only Level 2 audit results. Data presented includes not
only EEMS audit data, but audit data available in AQS from other audit agencies. Station monitor
response to ozone-free (zero-air) audit gas are not available in AQS. Since EEMS frequently
observes negative responses to zero-air from station monitors, it is likely that the lowest audit
concentrations are impacted. Level 2 audit results provide the lowest concentration data with
enough data points for a cursory comparison, therefore only level 2 audit data are compared.
Figures 4-1 presents annual PE ozone results for Level 2 concentrations performed by EEMS in
2017 and 2018 respectively. As previously stated, beginning in 2017 calculations of standard
values only include the most recent comparison to the SRP (not a rolling 6x6 average) and little if
any bias is evident in the audit results. In 2018 it appears that there may be a slight negative increase
in bias.
location
4-7
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Figure 4-1. 2017 and 2018 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits Performed by EEMS
Actual Difference for Level 2
©
Ffb-JOI7 Ml'-2017 *e
f
J 1
%
i o
~
- \ , .
*•*%* %£ »~* %—
~ ~ •
~ t
* S
• . M .* *
^ t
8
O 4
~
"
-
MB *P< Xll* Mj» XH*
M JUla kl-MIA Auf JIH»
Dale
^11 Ml A All Mill Sip. MIA WfJUlD
Figure 4-2 presents 2019 Level 2 annual PE audit results performed by EEMS. It seems clear that
the negative bias trend has increased from 2018 through 2019.
Figure 4-2. 2019 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits Performed by EEMS
2019 EEMS Level 2 Results
4
3
-3
-4
EEMS has not observed this bias when performing ozone audits for stations that are not part of
CASTNET (see previous annual reports). Although data are not included in this report, the
contractors responsible for calibrations and maintenance of CASTNET ozone monitors have not
reported negative responses to zero-air or bias low audit results. Therefore, as further investigation,
audit data of CASTNET ozone monitors performed by other agencies was obtained from AQS.
location
4-8
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Figure 4-3 presents 2019 NPAP Level 2 audit data. NPAP audits are performed at each CASTNET
site approximately once every three years by each EPA regional laboratory or contractor. NPAP
audit data should be directly comparable to EEMS annual PE audit data since the identical method
is used by NPAP and EEMS field scientists and both NPAP and EEMS use very similar mobile
laboratory systems to perform the audits. Most notably the zero-air generator and dilution systems
are identical. The data were downloaded from AQS but not parsed to determine which regional
mobile lab or agency performed the NPAP audit. Data are not available to indicate the site monitor
response to zero-air. It is most likely that data are obtained from more than one NPAP mobile
laboratory and field scientist. Although not as prominent as EEMS annual PE results, there appears
to be a slight negative bias.
Figure 4-3. 2019 Actual Difference Level 2 NPAP Audits
2019 NPAP Level 2 Results
o
~
CO
Q_
Q_
r o
o
~
1—
LU
-1
~
~
Several state and local agencies perform annual ozone PE at CASTNET stations. Those data were
downloaded from AQS for those audits performed in 2019. Figure 4.4 presents the level 2
concentration audit results. It is unknown what methods and equipment the state and local agencies
use to perform the audits. It is not known if the audits are performed TTP or back-of-the-analyzer
(BOA). Data were not parsed to determine which sites were audited or which agency performed
the audits. No data are available to indicate the station response to zero-air. It appears there is no
bias at the level 2 audit concentration for audits performed by state and local agencies.
location
4-9
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Figure 4-4. 2019 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits Not Performed by EEMS
The data, and observations of monitor response to audit zero-air, indicate that the bias at low
concentrations might be attributed to the negative response to ozone-free audit gas. A likely theory
is that the audit gas is much drier than the ambient air that is being sampled by the monitor prior to
the audit. The moisture contained in the ambient air has likely coated and permeated the sample
lines and filters upstream of the monitor and is slightly impacting the response. This could also
explain why the effect is not observed at sites other than CASTNET, since the sample lines at those
sites are much shorter and usually do not contain a filter at the inlet that is subject to moisture
permeation.
The zero-air generators used by EEMS and NPAP produce very dry air. The audit gas dew point
is most likely much lower than the on-site zero-air system, and the zero-air systems used by the
state and local agencies to generate audit gas. This may be why the EEMS and NPAP results differ
from the automatic on-site checks and audits by local agencies.
EEMS is continuing to investigate the observed bias. Thirty EPA sponsored CASTNET ozone
monitors incorporate an inline Nafion™ dryer to help dry the sample air as it enters the monitor.
The dryer is located near the back of the monitor inside the station shelter and is operated by
vacuum from the dry deposition filter pump. In 2020 EEMS is performing ozone PE with the
vacuum pump engaged and the dryer active. This has not been done in previous years.
A more thorough analysis of this phenomenon could include investigation of correlation with site
humidity and elevation. It is also suspected that on-site calibration methods could contribute to the
impact depending on the flow rate and pressure of the calibration gas generated.
location
4-10
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
4.2 Flow Rate
The controlled flow rate operated by the CASTNET filter pack system was audited at 57 sites in
2019. All flow rates are in standard temperature and pressure (at 25 °C) (STP). A NIST-traceable
dry-piston primary flow rate device was used for the tests. The readings obtained from this primary
standard are the STP flow rate observed, while the DAS flow rate was read from the on-site data
logger. All but one (MAC426) of the flow rate data accuracy results were found to be within the
acceptance limits.
4.3 Shelter Temperature
At each site reporting ozone concentrations to AQS, the hourly average shelter temperature must
be maintained between 20.0 to 30.0 degrees C or per manufacturers specifications if designated to
a wider temperature range. Shelter temperature was audited at 52 of the sites visited. All but two
(CHC432 and ZI0433) of the shelter temperature data accuracy results were found to be within the
acceptance criterion of ± 2 °C. The method consisted of placing the audit standard in close
proximity (in situ) to the shelter temperature sensor and recording either instantaneous observations
of both sensors, or averages from both sensors. A Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD) was
used as the audit standard.
Nearly all of the site sensors were observed to lag behind the audit sensor during the rapid changes
in temperature inside the shelter as the air conditioning or heating cycled on and off. In most
instances the shelter temperature sensors never reached the minimum or maximum temperature
measured with the audit standard. This is not likely to add a large error to the hourly averaged
shelter temperature measurements. However, since the output of the shelter temperature sensors
follow a sine wave curve but the actual shelter temperature does not change following a sine wave
curve, if the shelter temperature is set near the lower or higher allowable limits (20 to 30 degrees
C)1 the actual hourly averages may be lower or higher than those measured by the site sensors.
The shelter temperature and flow rate audit results are summarized in Table 4-3. Flow rate and
shelter temperature data are reported only for the sites that were visited for complete systems and
performance audits.
1 The revised acceptable operating temperature range for Thermo 40/ monitor is 5 to 40 degrees C.
4-11
location
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Table 4-3. Performance Audit Results Shelter Temperature, and Flow Rate
Site ID
Shelter Temp.
Average
Error (C)
Shelter Temp.
Maximum
Error (C)
STP Flow Rate
Primary
Standard (1pm)
STP Flow Rate
Site DAS
(1pm)
Flow Error
(% diff)
Audit date
ALC188
-0.93
-0.96
1.54
1.50
-2.38
2/25/2019
BBE401
0.30
1.08
2.98
3.00
0.67
2/27/2019
PAL190
-0.34
1.99
3.02
3.00
-0.55
3/1/2019
EVE419
-
-
3.02
3.01
-0.44
3/19/2019
CVL151
-0.11
-0.16
1.52
1.50
-1.32
4/13/2019
CHE185
0.14
0.33
1.53
1.50
-1.96
4/15/2019
CAD 150
0.27
0.31
1.52
1.50
-1.32
4/16/2019
LAV410
-0.05
-1.75
3.02
3.01
-0.22
5/7/2019
PIN414
0.11
0.74
2.97
3.01
1.23
5/8/2019
YOS404
1.61
2.31
3.00
3.00
-0.33
5/13/2019
SEK430
0.29
0.46
3.04
3.01
-1.10
5/14/2019
ROM406
2.00
2.98
3.00
2.95
-1.66
6/6/2019
ROM206
0.97
1.49
3.04
3.00
-1.31
6/11/2019
CND125
1.03
1.13
1.50
1.50
-0.22
6/14/2019
WSP144
-0.05
0.31
1.49
1.50
0.45
6/17/2019
PND165
-0.60
-1.14
3.04
3.00
-1.21
7/1/2019
WFM105
-
-
2.96
3.00
1.47
7/2/2019
WNC429
0.82
1.13
2.99
3.08
3.12
7/2/2019
YEL408
-0.08
1.17
2.98
3.00
0.54
7/2/2019
GLR468
-0.99
-1.09
3.01
3.00
-0.33
7/3/2019
UND002
-
-
3.04
3.00
-1.21
7/9/2019
NIC001
-
-
3.00
3.00
-0.11
7/10/2019
CNT169
-0.13
-0.41
3.02
2.99
-0.77
7/16/2019
THR422
1.70
2.1
3.05
3.07
0.77
7/22/2019
NEC602
0.88
1.06
3.12
3.00
-3.64
7/23/2019
PED108
0.55
1.47
1.47
1.50
2.04
7/26/2019
ZI0433
2.4
3.44
-
-
-
8/3/2019
CHC432
2.32
2.88
-
-
-
8/5/2019
GTH161
0.04
0.13
3.04
3.01
-1.10
8/6/2019
location
4-12
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Site ID
Shelter Temp.
Average
Error (C)
Shelter Temp.
Maximum
Error (C)
STP Flow Rate
Primary
Standard (1pm)
STP Flow Rate
Site DAS
(1pm)
Flow Error
(% diff)
Audit date
BAS601
0.43
0.45
3.04
3.00
-1.42
8/19/2019
BUF603
--
-
2.92
3.00
2.86
8/20/2019
SHE604
--
-
3.03
3.11
2.88
8/20/2019
PRK134
-0.26
-0.28
1.49
1.50
0.90
8/27/2019
VOY413
0.18
0.28
2.99
3.00
0.22
8/29/2019
ACA416
1.83
2.1
1.53
1.52
-0.44
9/18/2019
VPI120
0.72
0.87
1.50
1.50
0.00
9/24/2019
PAR107
0.17
0.61
1.54
1.51
-2.16
9/25/2019
LRL117
-0.08
-0.94
1.50
1.49
-0.45
9/26/2019
GRS420
0.15
0.35
2.92
3.00
2.62
10/7/2019
MAC426
-0.06
0.53
1.59
1.51
-5.03
10/17/2019
KNZ184
0.10
1.23
2.99
2.99
-0.11
10/22/2019
SHN418
-0.04
-0.06
1.52
1.50
-1.53
10/22/2019
KIC003
-
-
2.98
2.99
0.45
10/23/2019
DCP114
1.32
1.42
1.53
1.50
-2.17
10/24/2019
OXF122
0.09
0.46
1.51
1.50
-0.88
10/25/2019
SAN189
-0.03
0.42
2.98
3.00
0.78
10/25/2019
MCK131
0.00
0.30
1.55
1.51
-3.00
11/5/2019
MCK231
0.56
0.98
1.54
1.51
-2.16
11/5/2019
STK138
-0.67
-0.8
1.43
1.50
4.65
11/5/2019
BVL130
0.08
0.28
1.51
1.50
-0.88
11/7/2019
VIN140
-0.17
-0.98
1.53
1.50
-1.96
11/7/2019
QAK172
0.59
0.80
1.49
1.50
0.67
11/10/2019
CKT136
1.07
1.12
1.50
1.50
-0.22
11/11/2019
CDR119
0.71
0.9
1.51
1.50
-0.66
11/12/2019
EGB181
-0.55
-0.56
1.47
1.49
1.36
11/12/2019
BWR139
0.49
0.61
1.54
1.50
-2.39
11/19/2019
ALH157
-0.41
-0.67
1.48
1.50
1.35
12/16/2019
BFT142
0.09
0.20
1.49
1.49
0.22
12/17/2019
CDZ171
-0.02
-1.04
1.54
1.50
-2.39
12/17/2019
location
4-13
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
4.4 Wind Speed
The wind speed sensors at three sites (only low speed tested at BVL130) equipped for
meteorological measurements were audited. The wind speed data accuracy results at ACA416 were
above the acceptance limit. The results of the wind speed performance audits are presented in
Table 4-4. The state of Maine operates the meteorological sensors at ACA416. Audits in previous
years have indicated similar results. The sensor appears to be accurate up to speeds above 20 m/s
(over 45 mph) and then fails at higher speeds. It is likely that the sensor is not tested by the state
at high wind speeds and this is not a concern.
4.4.1 Wind Speed Starting Threshold
The condition of the wind speed bearings was evaluated as part of the performance audits. The
data acceptance criterion for wind speed bearing torque is not defined in the QAPP. However,
Appendix 1: CASTNET Field Standard Operating Procedures, states that the wind speed bearing
torque should be < 0.2 g-cm. To establish the wind speed bearing torque criterion for audit purposes
the rational described in the QAPP measurement criteria was applied. The QAPP states that field
criteria are more stringent than DQO and established to maintain the system within DQO.
Typically, field measurement criteria are set at approximately one-half the DQO. Therefore, 0.5 g-
cm was used for the acceptance limit for audit purposes. This value is within the manufacturers'
specifications for a properly maintained system.
4.5 Wind Direction
Two separate tests were performed to evaluate the accuracy of each wind direction sensor:
• A linearity test was performed to evaluate the ability of the sensor to function properly and
accurately throughout the range from 1 to 360 degrees. This test evaluates the sensor
independently of orientation and can be performed with the sensor mounted on a test
fixture.
• An orientation test was used to determine if the sensor was aligned properly when installed
to measure wind direction accurately in degrees true. An audit standard compass was used
to perform the orientation tests.
The results of the wind direction performance audits are presented in Table 4-4. The average errors
for all sensors were within the acceptance limits or the linearity test. The average errors for all
sensors except ZI0433 were within the acceptance limits or the orientation test.
4.5.1 Wind Direction Starting Threshold
The condition of the wind direction bearings were evaluated as part of the performance audits. The
data acceptance criterion for wind direction bearing torque is not defined in the QAPP. However,
location
4-14
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Appendix 1: CASTNET Field Standard Operating Procedures, states that the wind direction
bearing torque should be < 10 g-cm for R. M. Young sensors. The manufacturer states that a
properly maintained sensor will be accurate up to a starting threshold of 11 g-cm. To establish the
wind direction bearing torque criterion for audit purposes the rational described in the QAPP
measurement criteria was applied. The QAPP states that field criteria are more stringent than DQO
and established to maintain the system within DQO. Typically, field criteria are set to
approximately one-half the DQO. For audit purposes 20 g-cm was used for the acceptance limit
for R. M. Young sensors. Climatronics sensors typically have a lower starting torque. For audit
purposes a threshold of 10 g-cm was selected for Climatronics sensors. The sensor at ACA416
tested outside of acceptance limits for wind direction starting threshold. The test results are
provided in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Performance Audit Results for Wind Sensors
Site ID
Wind Direction
Wind Speed
Orientation Error
Linearity Error
Starting
Torque
(g-cm)
Low Range Error
High Range Error
Starting
Torque
(g-cm)
Ave
(deg)
Max
(deg)
Ave
(deg)
Max
(deg)
Ave
(rn/s)
Max
(rn/s)
Ave
(% diff)
Max
(% diff)
ACA416
-3.8
-5.2
1.78
3.2
11.5
-0.08
-0.21
-7.0
-25.67
0.45
BVL130
0.3
-2
1.0
2.0
14
-0.07
-0.20
NP
NP
0.4
CHC432
-1.4
-3.2
1.73
4.4
10
-0.05
-0.20
0.10
0.20
0.3
ZI0433
-9.5
-12
1.35
2.9
15
-0.05
-0.20
0.0
0.0
0.3
* Note: The wind systems acceptance criteria were applied to the average of the results. The data validation section of the
CASTNET QAPP states that if any wmd direction or wind speed challenge result is outside the acceptance criterion the variable
is flagged. (NP = not performed)
4.6 Temperature and Two-Meter Temperature
The EPA sponsored site temperature measurement systems consist of a temperature sensor
mounted on a tower approximately 9 meters above ground-level. Sites operated by the Park Service
have moved the temperature sensors to approximately two meters above the ground (2-meter
temperature).
The BLM has recently upgraded the temperature sensors at their sites to submersible RTD sensors.
However, the sensor operating at NPS sponsored CHC432 site, is a combined relative humidity
and temperature sensor and not standalone RTD or encased thermistor temperature sensor. Due to
the design of the RH/Temperature sensor, it cannot be submerged in water baths to challenge the
sensor at different temperature audit levels. For that reason, the combination RH/Temperature
sensor was audited by placing the sensor in a watertight chamber (RH salt chamber) and then
placing the chamber in an ice-water bath, ambient bath, and hot water bath. Therefore, the
location
4-15
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
temperature audit results for site CHC432 are not directly comparable to audit results of RTD or
encased thermistor sensors, and not reported.
All sites use shields to house the sensors that are either mechanically aspirated with forced air, or
naturally aspirated. In all cases the sensors were removed from the sensor shields and placed in a
uniform temperature bath with a precision NIST-traceable RTD, during the audit.
A total of 58 temperature sensors were tested, and all were found to be within the acceptance
criterion. It should be noted that one of those sensors (CHC432) is a combination RH/Temperature
sensor as described above and cannot be submersed in a water-bath. The average errors for all
sensors are presented in Table 4-5.
4.6.1 Temperature Shield Blower Motors
All fourteen of the temperature systems with sensor shield blower motors (forced-air aspiration)
encountered during the site audits conducted during 2019 were found to be functioning.
4.7 Relative Humidity
The three relative humidity systems that were audited were tested with a combination of primary
standard salt solutions, and aNIST traceable transfer standard relative humidity probe. The results
of the average and maximum errors throughout the measurement range of approximately 30% to
95% are presented in Table 4-5. All humidity sensors were within the acceptable limits.
As in previous years, operation of both temperature and humidity sensors with respect to natural or
forced-air aspiration can vary between sites. At most EPA sponsored sites temperature and
humidity sensors are operating in naturally aspirated shields. At most NPS sponsored sites
temperature and humidity sensors are operating in shields designed to be mechanically aspirated
with forced-air blowers.
During humidity audit tests with the primary standard salt solutions, the sensors were removed
from the shields and placed in a temperature-controlled enclosure. During audit tests with the
transfer standard probe, the sensor and transfer were placed in the same ambient conditions.
Therefore, the audit tests do not account for differences in the operation of the sensors due to the
different shield configurations.
location
4-16
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Table 4-5. Performance Audit Results for Temperature and Relative
Audit Date
Site ID
9-meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
2-Meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
Relative Humidity
Range 0 -100%
Ave. Error
(%)
Max. Error
(%)
2/25/2019
ALC188
-0.26
-
-
-
2/27/2019
BBE401
--
0.26
-
-
3/1/2019
PAL190
-0.03
-
-
-
4/13/2019
CVL151
-0.05
-
-
-
4/15/2019
CHE185
-0.33
-
-
-
4/16/2019
CAD 150
-0.05
-
-
-
5/7/2019
LAV410
-
-0.05
-
-
5/8/2019
PIN414
-
-0.15
-
-
5/13/2019
YOS404
-
-0.15
-
-
5/14/2019
SEK430
-
-0.23
-
-
6/6/2019
ROM406
-
0.22
-
-
6/11/2019
ROM206
-0.10
-
-
-
6/14/2019
CND125
0.32
-
-
-
6/17/2019
WSP144
-0.11
-
-
-
7/1/2019
PND165
-0.04
-
-
-
7/2/2019
WFM105
0.12
-
-
-
7/2/2019
YEL408
-
-0.29
-
-
7/3/2019
GLR468
-
0.23
-
-
7/9/2019
UND002
0.06
-
-
-
7/10/2019
NIC001
0.00
-
-
-
7/16/2019
CNT169
0.05
-
-
-
7/22/2019
THR422
-
0.04
-
-
7/23/2019
NEC602
-
0.09
-
-
7/24/2019
WNC429
-
0.11
-
-
7/26/2019
PED108
-0.13
-
-
-
location
4-17
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Audit Date
Site ID
9-meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
2-Meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
Relative Humidity
Range 0 -100%
Ave. Error
(%)
Max. Error
(%)
8/3/2019
ZI0433
--
0.30
-
-
8/5/2019
CHC432
--
-
-1.81
-2.7
8/6/2019
GTH161
0.09
-
-
-
8/19/2019
BAS601
--
0.12
-
-
8/20/2019
BUF603
--
0.08
-
-
8/20/2019
SHE604
--
0.07
-
-
8/27/2019
PRK134
-0.07
-
-
-
8/29/2019
VOY413
--
-0.37
-
-
9/18/2019
ACA416
--
0.10
-0.79
-2.2
9/24/2019
VPI120
-0.01
-
-
-
9/25/2019
PAR107
-0.19
-
-
-
9/26/2019
LRL117
-0.04
-
-
-
10/7/2019
GRS420
-
0.01
-
-
10/17/2019
MAC426
-
0.18
-
-
10/22/2019
KNZ184
-0.13
-
-
-
10/22/2019
SHN418
-
0.11
-
-
10/23/2019
KIC003
0.08
-
-
-
10/24/2019
DCP114
0.07
-
-
-
10/25/2019
OXF122
0.33
-
-
-
10/25/2019
SAN189
-0.06
-
-
-
11/5/2019
MCK131
0.05
-
-
-
11/5/2019
MCK231
-0.20
-
-
-
11/5/2019
STK138
-0.01
-
-
-
11/7/2019
BVL130
-0.08
0.03
0.53
3.1
11/7/2019
VIN140
0.05
-
-
-
11/10/2019
QAK172
0.17
-
-
-
location
4-18
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Audit Date
Site ID
9-meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
2-Meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
Relative Humidity
Range 0 -100%
Ave. Error
(%)
Max. Error
(%)
11/11/2019
CKT136
0.28
-
-
-
11/12/2019
CDR119
0.07
-
-
-
11/12/2019
EGB181
-0.10
-
-
-
11/19/2019
BWR139
0.10
-
-
-
12/16/2019
ALH157
-0.03
-
-
-
12/17/2019
BFT142
0.08
-
-
-
12/17/2019
CDZ171
-0.08
-
-
-
4.8 Solar Radiation
The ambient conditions encountered during the audit visits were suitable (high enough light levels)
for accurate comparisons of solar radiation measurements. A World Radiation Reference (WRR)
traceable Eppley PSP radiometer and translator or a model 8-48 were used as the audit standard
system.
Three sites were tested. All sites had daytime average results that were within the acceptance
criterion. The results of the individual tests for each site are included in Table 4-6. The percent
difference of the maximum single-hour average solar radiation value observed during each site
audit is also reported in Table 4-6 although this criterion is not part of the CASTNET data quality
indicators. All maximum values were also within ±10%.
4.9 Precipitation
The four sites audited used a tipping bucket rain gauge for obtaining precipitation measurement
data. The audit challenges consisted of entering multiple amounts of a known volume of water into
the tipping bucket funnel at a rate equal to approximately 2 inches of rain per hour. Equivalent
amounts of water entered were compared to the amount recorded by the DAS. The results are
summarized in Tables 4-6. All sensors were within the acceptance criteria.
location
4-19
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Table 4-6. Performance Audit Results for Solar Radiation and Precipitation
Site ID
Solar Radiation Error
Precipitation
Ave. Error
(% diff)
Daytime Ave.
(% diff)
Std. Max.
Value (w/m2)
Site Max.
Observed
(w/m2)
Max. Value
(% diff)
ACA416
--
-
-
-
-2.0
BVL130
7.5
481
523
8.7
2.0
CHC432
-1.6
991
963
-3.4
-0.9
ZI0433
-0.8
791
794
-2.3
-0.1
4.10 Data Acquisition Systems (DAS)
All of the NPS sponsored sites visited utilized an ESC logger as the primary and only DAS. All
EPA sites visited operated Campbell Scientific loggers as their only DAS. The results presented
in table 4-7 include the tests performed on the logger at each site. The BLM sites utilize a Campbell
Scientific CR1000. The CR1000 and some of the other loggers encountered are not configured to
allow analog tests.
4.10.1 Analog Test
The accuracy of each logger was tested on two different channels (if two channels were available
to be used) with aNIST-traceable Fluke digital voltmeter. At the EPA sponsored sites the channels
above analog channel 8 could not be tested since there were no empty channels available to test.
All data loggers were within the acceptance criterion of ± 0.003 volts.
4.10.2 Functionality Tests
Other performance tests used to evaluate the DAS included the verification of the date and time.
All site data loggers were found to be set to the correct date and within ±5 minutes per the
acceptance criterion for time except for EGB181. The NPS sponsored site data loggers were found
to be set to the correct date and within ±5 minutes of the acceptance criterion for time. However,
most of the NPS clocks were found to be 1 to 3 minutes different than the standard, whereas the
EPA sponsored site clocks were all within 2-3 seconds. The Campbell Scientific logger clocks at
the EPA sites are synchronized with the internet, whereas the ESC loggers at the NPS sites are not.
location
4-20
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Table 4-7. Performance Audit Results for Data Acquisition Systems
Audit
Date
Site ID
Analog Test Error (volts)
Date
Correct
(Y/N)
Time
Error
(minutes)
Low Channel
High Channel
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
2/25/2019
ALC188
0.0001
0.0004
-
-
Y
0.00
2/27/2019
BBE401
--
-
0.0000
-0.0003
Y
-1.85
3/1/2019
PAL190
0.0001
0.0002
-
-
Y
-1.00
3/19/2019
EVE419
0.0000
0.0002
-
-
Y
-1.72
4/13/2019
CVL151
-0.0001
-0.0002
-
-
Y
0.00
4/15/2019
CHE185
-0.0020
-0.0030
-
-
Y
-0.15
4/16/2019
CAD150
0.0000
-0.0001
-
-
Y
0.00
5/7/2019
LAV410
-
-
-0.0001
-0.0004
Y
1.45
5/8/2019
PIN414
-
-
0.0002
0.0005
Y
-0.95
5/13/2019
YOS404
-0.0001
-0.0003
-
-
Y
0.92
5/14/2019
SEK430
-
-
0.0003
0.0008
Y
1.90
6/6/2019
ROM406
-
-
-
-
Y
-1.25
6/11/2019
ROM206
-0.0002
-0.0005
-
-
Y
0.00
6/14/2019
CND125
-0.0001
-0.0001
-
-
Y
0.02
6/17/2019
WSP144
-0.0001
-0.0002
-
-
Y
-0.08
7/1/2019
PND165
-0.0001
-0.0004
-
-
Y
-0.05
7/2/2019
YEL408
0.0000
-0.0004
-
-
Y
-0.08
7/3/2019
GLR468
-
-
-0.0001
-0.0005
Y
-0.67
7/16/2019
CNT169
-0.0001
-0.0003
-
-
Y
0.08
7/22/2019
THR422
-
-
0.0002
0.0004
Y
1.10
7/24/2019
WNC429
-0.0001
-0.0003
-
-
Y
-1.67
7/26/2019
PED108
-0.0001
-0.0003
-
-
Y
0.00
8/3/2019
ZI0433
-0.0002
-0.0003
-
-
Y
-0.75
8/5/2019
CHC432
0.0003
0.0007
-
-
Y
0.95
8/6/2019
GTH161
-0.0002
-0.0010
-
-
Y
0.00
8/27/2019
PRK134
0.0000
-0.0001
-
-
Y
0.03
8/29/2019
VOY413
0.0000
0.0001
-
-
Y
1.83
location
4-21
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
Audit
Date
Site ID
Analog Test Error (volts)
Date
Correct
(Y/N)
Time
Error
(minutes)
Low Channel
High Channel
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
9/18/2019
ACA416
--
-
-0.0006
-0.0019
Y
-0.17
9/24/2019
VPI120
0.0000
0.0001
-
-
Y
0.00
9/25/2019
PAR 107
0.0000
-0.0001
-
-
Y
0.00
9/26/2019
LRL117
0.0000
0.0001
-
-
Y
0.00
10/7/2019
GRS420
-0.0001
-0.0002
-
-
Y
-0.13
10/17/2019
MAC426
0.0000
0.0001
-
-
Y
-0.73
10/22/2019
KNZ184
0.0000
0.0003
-
-
Y
-0.08
10/24/2019
DCP114
0.0000
-0.0001
-
-
Y
0.00
10/25/2019
OXF122
-0.0001
-0.0001
-
-
Y
0.00
10/25/2019
SAN 189
0.0001
0.0003
-
-
Y
0.00
11/5/2019
MCK131
0.0000
0.0000
-
-
Y
0.00
11/5/2019
MCK231
0.0000
0.0000
-
-
Y
0.00
11/5/2019
STK138
0.0001
0.0002
-
-
Y
0.00
11/7/2019
BVL130
0.0002
0.0003
-
-
Y
0.00
11/7/2019
VIN140
0.0000
0.0001
-
-
Y
0.00
11/10/2019
QAK172
0.0000
-0.0001
-
-
Y
0.03
11/11/2019
CKT136
-0.0001
-0.0001
-
-
Y
0.00
11/12/2019
CDR119
0.0000
-0.0001
-
-
Y
-0.02
11/12/2019
EGB181
-0.0001
-0.0002
-
-
Y
5.75
11/19/2019
BWR139
0.0000
0.0001
-
-
Y
-1.00
12/16/2019
ALH157
0.0000
0.0002
-
-
Y
0.00
12/17/2019
BFT142
0.0000
0.0001
-
-
Y
-0.05
12/17/2019
CDZ171
0.0001
0.0002
-
-
Y
-0.03
location
4-22
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
5.0 Systems Audit Results
The following sections summarize the site systems audit findings and provide information observed
regarding the measurement processes at the sites. Conditions that directly affect data accuracy have
been reported in the previous sections. Other conditions that affect data quality and improvements
to some measurement systems or procedures are suggested in the following sections.
5.1 Siting Criteria
All of the sites that were visited have undergone changes during the period of site operation which
include population growth, road construction, and foresting activities. None of those changes were
determined to have a significant impact on the siting criteria that did not exist when the site was
initially established.
Some sites that are located in state and national parks are not in open areas and have trees within
the 50 meter criterion established in the QAPP. Given the land use and aesthetic concerns, these
sites are acceptable and represent an adequate compromise with regard to siting criteria and the
goal of long-term monitoring. For sites that measure ozone data designated as NAAQS compliant,
these sites may violate recommended siting criteria in 40 CFR Part 58.
The CASTNET QAPP is currently being revised to more closely follow 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix
E. The audit program will incorporate those changes when they are implemented beginning with
audits in 2020.
5.2 Sample Inlets
Based on the siting criteria information provided in the CASTNET QAPP, with consideration given
to the siting criteria compromises described in the previous section, all but four sites (LAV410,
YEL408, VOY413, and CDR119) visited in 2019 have ozone monitor sample trains that are sited
properly and in accordance with the CASTNET QAPP. All ozone sample inlets are currently being
evaluated with respect to obstructions above the inlet. The acceptance criterion requires that there
should be no obstructions (including trees) within a 26.6 degree angle (object distance must be at
least two times the height) above the ozone inlet. There are trees that violate the 26.6 degree sample
inlet requirement at the four sites listed above.
All but two CASTNET ozone monitors have sample inlet heights at 10 meters the exceptions are
WNC429 at 3.35 meters and THR422 at 12.2 meters. With the exception of the state operated
sites (WNC429 and THE422), the ozone zero, span, and precision calibration test gases are
introduced at the ozone sample inlet, through all filters and the entire sample train. All sample
location
5-1
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
trains are comprised of only Teflon or Kynar fittings and materials. Sample inlet particulate filters
of 5 micron are present at most sites.
The dry deposition filter packs are designed to sample from a height of 10 meters. Most of the
filter pack sample lines are also Teflon. Inline filters are present in the sample trains to prevent
moisture and particulates from damaging the flow rate controller. A few sites were configured with
the dry deposition filter face below the edge of the rain shield enclosure. This may impact the size
of the particles collected on the filter. The standard CASTNET configuration is the filter face must
not extend below the edge of the enclosure.
5.3 Infrastructure
Sites continue to be improved by repairing the site shelters which had deteriorated throughout the
years of operation. A few of the site shelters are still in need of repair, but overall, the condition of
the sites has improved again during the past year. Wi-Fi routers with improved internet service
have been installed at most sites.
5.4 Site Operators
Generally the site operators are very conscientious and eager to complete the site activities
correctly. They are willing to, and have performed sensor replacements and repairs at the sites with
support provided by the Wood and ARS field operations centers. In some cases, where
replacements or repairs were made, documentation of the activities was not complete, and did not
include serial numbers of the removed and installed equipment.
Many of the CASTNET site operators also perform site operator duties for the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). Many of the NPS site operators also perform other air,
or environmental quality functions within their park. All are a valuable resource for the program.
Still many of the site operators have not been formally trained to perform the CASTNET duties by
either Wood or ARS. They had been given instructions by the previous site operators and over the
phone instructions from the field operation centers at Wood and ARS.
5.5 Documentation
The NPS site operator procedures are well developed and readily accessible at all of the NPS sites
visited. There is an electronic interface (DataView 2) available to view, analyze, and print site
data. There are electronic "checklists" for the site operator to complete during the site visits;
however, all of the CASTNET filter pack procedures are not included in the "checklists". Flow
rates and leak check results are not recorded electronically.
location
5-2
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
An electronic logbook is included in the interface software. This system permits easy access to site
documentation data. Complete calibration reports have been added to the system and accessible
through the site computer, however the reports available on-site are not up to date.
5.6 Site Sensor and FSAD Identification
Continued improvement has also been made in the area of documentation of sensors and systems
used at the sites. It is important to maintain proper sensor identification for the purposes of site
inventory and to properly identify operational sensors for data validation procedures. Many sensors
have had new numbers affixed for proper identification.
Where possible the identification numbers assigned (serial numbers and barcodes) are used within
the field site audit database for all the sensors encountered during the site audits. The records are
used for both the performance and systems audits. If a sensor is not assigned a serial number by
the manufacturer, that field is entered as "none". If it is unknown whether an additional client ID
number is assigned to a sensor, and a number is not found, the client ID is also entered as "none".
If it is typical for a manufacturer and/or client ID number to be assigned to a sensor, and that number
is not present, the field is entered as "missing". If either the serial number or the client ID numbers
cannot be read, the field is entered as "illegible". An auto-number field is assigned to each sensor
in the database in order to make the records unique.
location
5-3
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
October 2020
6.0 Summary and Recommendations
The CASTNET Site Audit Program has been successful in evaluating the field operations of the
sites. The results of performance and systems audits are recorded and archived in a relational
database, the Field Site Audit Database (FSAD). CASTNET site operations are generally
acceptable and continue to improve. Some differences between actual site operations and
operations described in the QAPP have been identified and described. Procedural differences
between EPA and NPS sponsored sites have also been described.
As discussed previously the shelters have received some much needed attention. It was also
observed that improvements were made to the shelter temperature control systems. As a
requirement in 40 CFR Part 58 for ozone monitoring, shelter temperature is an important variable.
Additional improvement could be made to accurately measure and report shelter temperature.
The previous paragraphs and sections included some recommendations for improving the field
operations systems. One recommendation for improving the audit program is presented in the
following section.
6.1 In Situ Comparisons
An improvement to the audit procedures designed to evaluate the differences in measurement
technique would be to develop an "In Situ" audit measurement system. This would require a suite
of sensors that would be collocated with the site sensors. Ideally the audit sensors would address
the inconsistent sensor installations observed throughout the network. By deploying a suite of
certified NIST traceable sensors installed and operating as recommended by the manufacturer and
to EPA guidelines, subtle differences in the operation of the existing CASTNET measurement
systems could be evaluated. The "In Situ" sensors would be operated at each site for a 24 hour
period and the measurements would be compared to the CASTNET measurements. A portable
system of meteorological sensors would be beneficial for meteorological measurement evaluations
particularly at BLM sponsored sites. EEMS is still pursuing this type of audit system.
location
6-1
EEMS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
2019 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
October 2020
7.0 References
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards AMTIC website, SOP and guidance
documents: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume II - Ambient Air
Specific Methods - EPA.
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV -
Meteorological Measurements - EPA.
Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) Quality Assurance Project Plan (2003) -
EPA.
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume I: - A Field
Guide To Environmental Quality Assurance - EPA.
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume II: Parti
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Quality System Development - EPA.
Sensitivity of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration multilayer model to
instrument error and parameterization uncertainty: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 105.
No. D5, March 16, 2000.
Wind System Calibration, Recommended Calibration Interval, Procedure, and Test Equipment:
November 1999, R. M. Young Company
Bowker, G.E., Schwede, D.B.; lear, G.G.; Warren-Hicks, W.J., and Finkelstein, P.L., 2011.
Quality assurance decisions with air models: a case study of imputation of missing input data
using EPA multi-layer model. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 222, 391e402.
Schwede, D., & lear, G.C. (2014). A novel hybrid approach for estimating total deposition in the
United States. Atmospheric Environment, 92, 207-220.
location
7-1
EEAlS/transfer/clients/EPA
-------
APPENDIX 1
Audit Standards Certifications
-------
Certificate Number
A3079040
Issue Date: 01/23/19
Certificate of
Page 1 of 2
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
P.O. Number:
ID Numbe
III! IIII llll
Description: DIGITAL STIK THERMOMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 1551A EX
Serial Number: 2085085
Technician: STEVE TORRES
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments: TUR is 2 to 1
Calibration Da
Calibration Du
Procedure:
01/23/2019
01/23/2020 ,,
FLUKE"T§51A EX.52A EX
Rev: 11/1/2010
Temperature: 71 F
Humidity: 43 % RH
As Found Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:! _ "
This Instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other National
Metro logical Institute (NMI). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainly values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2 Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
TMl's Quality System is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ANSl/NCSL Z540-1-1994. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with Its pertinent requirements. This calibration complies with all the requirements of ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-
1994 and TMl's Quality Manual, QM-1.
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except In full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMl's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number Manufacturer Model Number Date Calibrated Cal Due
05535 FLUKE 5609-12-D 7/3/2018 7/3/2019
660TL18010015
ADDITEL
ADT875PC-155
6/1/2018
6/1/2019
A88072
FLUKE/HART
1502A
12/17/2018
4/2/2019
Rev 13
8/17/20 IS
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994
-------
Certificate Number
A3079040
Issue Date: 01/23/19
Certificate of
Data Sheet
Parameter
Nominal
Minimum
Maximum
As Found
As Left
Unit
Temperature Accuracy
-25.00
-25.05
-24.95
-25,02
-25.02
°c
Temperature Accuracy
0.00
-0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
*c
Temperature Accuracy
100.00
99.95
100.05
99.99
99 99
°c
Temperature Accuracy
150.00
149.95
150.05
149.96
149.96
°c
Page 2 of 2
Unit ADJ/FAIL
b c
- 0.0 \ o
/„ e&d®0
T
mi
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
~~ANSI/NCSL Z540-1 -1994
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE. FL 33637
Rev 13 Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
8/17/2018 www,tmicalibration.com
-------
Certificate Number
A3079044
Issue Date: 01/23/19
Certificate of Calibration
Page 1 of 2
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
P.O. Number:
ID Number: (EEMS 01229
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Description: DIGITAL STIK THERMOMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 1551A EX
Serial Number: 3275143
Technician: STEVE TORRES
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments: TUR Is 2 to 1
Calibration Date:
Calibration Due:
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity;
FLUKE 1551A EX.52A EX
Rev: 11/1/2010
71 F
43 % RH
As Found Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:
This Instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other National
Metro logical Institute (NMI). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2. Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement,
TMI's Quality System is accredited to SO/IEC 17025:2017 and ANSI/NCSL Z54Q-1-1994, ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements, This calibration complies with all the requirements of ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-
1994 and TMI's Quality Manual, QM-1,
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except In full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
JLqJs*-
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER
Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number
Manufacturer
Model Number
Date Calibrated
Cal Due
05535
FLUKE
5609-12-D
7/3/2018
7/3/2019
660TL18010015
ADDITEL
ADT875PC-155
6/1/2018
6/1/2019
A88072
FLUKE/HART
1502A
12/17/2018
4/2/2019
Rev. 13
8/17/20 IS
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE. FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL ZS40-1 -1994
-------
Certificate Number
A3079044
Issue Date: 01/23/19
Certificate of Calibration
Data Sheet
Parameter
Nominal
Minimum
Maximum
As Found
As Left
Unit
Temperature Accuracy
-25.00
-25 05
-24.95
¦25 02
-25.02
°c
Temperature Accuracy
0.00
-0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
°c
Temperature Accuracy
100.00
99,95
100.05
99.99
99.99
°C
Temperature Accuracy
150.00
149,95
150.05
149 97
149.97
"C
Page 2 of 2
Unit ADJ/FAIL
* r 0WW
y c -0-
Rev. 13
8/17/2018
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z540-I-I994
-------
Date
2/12/2019 - - Calibration and certification of fluke Thermocouples
TMI Cert data -
1/23/2019
EEMS
STD
RTD
cert # =
A3079044
01229
diff
corrected
-25.00
-25.02
0.020
-25.02
0.00
0.01
-0.010
0.02
100.00
99.99
0.010
100.01
150.00
149.97
0.030
149.99
0.000
0.01
0.000
0.01
RTD 01229
2019 correction:
slope=
0.99989313
intercept=
-0.0064885
1.0000000
2/12/2019
At Date fluke =
EEMS 2/12/2019
RTD
01229 thermo =
raw corrected
0.02
0.03
88.74
88.76
79.50
79.51
61.50
61.51
51.65
51.66
39.60
39.61
31.07
31.08
15.64
15.65
Thermocouple offset =
POST CALIBRATION CHECK
20.88 20.89
slope =
intercept =
correlation =
01311
offset
-0.3
EEMS
van3
01236
raw
0.7
89.4
80.1
62.0
52.3
40.0
31.6
16.2
-0.3
corrected
0.14
88.84
79.54
61.44
51.74
39.44
31.04
15.64
01312
offset
-0.2
EEMS
van 2
01237
raw
0.1
89.8
80.6
62.5
52.8
40.5
32.0
16.7
-0.2
corrected
-0.46
88.59
79.45
61.49
51.86
39.65
31.21
16.02
01310
offset
0.8
EEMS
van 1
01238
raw
0.3
89.5
80.2
62.2
52.3
39.9
31.4
16.2
0.3
corrected
0.01
88.76
79.51
61.60
51.75
39.41
30.95
15.83
20.9
1.00007
0.557902
1.0000
20.34
21.0
1.0073916
0.5587589
1.0000
20.29
20.9
1.005088
0.289648
1.0000
20.51
-------
Date
2/12/2019 - - Calibration and verification of three RTD meters with most recent certification of EEMS RTD
TMI Cert data -- 1/23/2019
TMI
EEMS
STD
RTD
Cert#
A2380069
01229
diff
corrected
-25.00
-25.02
0.020
-25.016
0.00
0.01
-0.010
0.016
100.00
99.99
0.010
100.007
150.00
149.97
0.030
149.993
RTD 01229
2019 correction:
slope=
0.99989313
intercept=
-0.0064885
corr=
1.0000000
t~~ 2/12/2019
RTD RTD RTD
At Date 01230 101231 01227/1 01228/2
EEMS
2/12/2019
EEMS
EEMS
EEMS
RTD
AER
van3
van1
01229
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.15
0.00
-0.09
0.02
10.32
10.33
10.35
10.34
10.56
10.09
10.31
10.57
21.10
21.11
21.12
21.12
21.43
20.89
21.19
21.35
30.30
30.31
30.32
30.33
30.67
30.30
30.47
30.30
40.00
40.01
39.98
40.00
40.46
40.02
40.28
40.03
47.91
47.92
47.89
47.92
48.40
47.90
48.23
47.90
25.00
25.01
25.00
25.00
25.34
25.01
25.14
25.02
slope =
0.998872
1.007333
1.009092
intercept =
0.026147
0.144973
-0.11036
correlation =
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
-------
Date
2/14/2019
- Calculation of correction factor for RH standard with n
TMI Cert date =2/6/2019
TMI
EEMS
STD
AZ 8723
Cert #
A3092730
01222
diff
corrected
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
33.0
31.7
1.3
32.8
50.0
49.6
0.4
50.3
75.0
74.9
0.1
74.9
RH 01222
2019 correction:
slope=
1.0273
intercept=
-2.0396
corr =
0.9999400
M-Sh" 2/14/2019
-------
Certificate of
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
P.O. Number:
ID NumbecTEEMS 01222
llllllllllllllillllllilllillllllllllllllll
Description: PSYCHROMETER
Manufacturer: AZ INSTRUMENTS
Model Number: AZ 8723
Serial Number: 10325187
Technician: STEVE TORRES
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments:
Calibration Date:
Calibration Due:
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
THERMOGRAPHS
Rev: 2/22/2011
71 F
43 % RH
As Found Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute: j
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other National
Metrological Institute (NMI). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a Known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2. Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement,
TMI's Quality System Is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 Is written In a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements. This calibration complies with all the requirements of ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-
1994 and TMI's Quality Manual. QM-1
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER
Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Asset Number
0710649
Manufacturer
THUNDER SCIENTIFIC
Calibration Standards
Model Number
2500ST
Date Calibrated
11/2/2018
Cal Due
6/23/2019
tMt
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev. 13
8/17/2018
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994
-------
Certificate Number
A3092730
issue Date; 02/06/19
Certificate of
Data Sheet
Parameter
Nominal
Minimum
Maximum
As Found
As Left
Unit
Temperature Accuracy
50.0
49.0
51.0
49.7
49.7
°F
Temperature Accuracy
70.0
69.0
71.0
69 5
69.5
°F
Temperature Accuracy
90.0
89 0
91.0
89,4
89.4
°F
Humid it/ Accuracy
33.0
30.0
36,0
31.7
31.7
%RH
Humidity Accuracy
50.0
47.0
53.0
496
49.6
%RH
Humidity Accuracy
75.0
72,0
78.0
74.9
74.9
%RH
Unit ADJ/FAIL
OL2.Z2-
nA -
\or
ra
/. 00.7 5
- x.
tMi
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev. 13
8/17/2018
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z54CM-I994
-------
Date
2/14/2019
- Calculation of correction factor for RH standard with n
TMI Cert date =2/6/2019
TMI
EEMS
STD
AZ 8723
Cert #
A3092732
01223
diff
corrected
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
33.0
32.0
1.0
32.8
50.0
49.7
0.3
50.3
75.0
74.7
0.3
74.9
RH 01223
2019 correction:
slope=
1.0154
intercept=
-1.3456
corr =
0.9999379
M-Sh" 2/14/2019
-------
Certificate Number
A3092732
fssue Date: 02/06/19
Certificate of Calibration
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE P.O. Number:
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
ID Number: EEMS 01223
llllll II MJUMIU
Description: PSYCHROMETER
Manufacturer AZ INSTRUMENTS
Model Number: AZ 8723
Serial Number: 10325189
Technician: STEVE TORRES
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments:
Calibration Date:
: / 02/06/2019 N
Calibration Due: , 02/06/2020 /
Procedure: "~~~T:MHvttTf5ROTHERMOGRAPHS
Rev: 2/22/2011
Temperature: 71 F
Humidity: 43 % RH
As Found Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:! I
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NlST) or other National
Metrological Institute (NMI). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2. Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
TMI's Quality System is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ANSI/NCSL Z54Q-1-1994 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements. This calibration complies with all the requirements of ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-
1994 and TMI's Quality Manual, QM-1.
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number Manufacturer Model Number Date Calibrated Cal Due
0710649 THUNDER SCIENTIFIC 2500ST 11/2/2018 6/23/2019
Rev. 13
8/17/2018
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibrationxom
ANSI/NCSL Z540-I-I994
-------
Certificate Number
' A3092732
Issue Pate: 02/06/19
Certificate of Calibration
Data Sheet
Parameter
Nominal
Minimum
Maximum
As Found
As Left
Unit
Temperature Accuracy
50.0
49.0
51.0
49.5
49.5
"F
Temperature Accuracy
70.0
69.0
71.0
69.7
69.7
"F
Temperature Accuracy
80.0
89 0
91 0
89.4
09.4
°F
Humidity Accuracy
33.0
30.0
36.0
32.0
32.0
%RH
Humidity Accuracy
50.0
47.0
53.0
49.7
49,7
%RH
Humidity Accuracy
75.0
72.0
78.0
74.7
74.7
%RH
Unit ADJ/FAIL
M - (.0154
t? = -I .Z*ZL>
f z =. o.
'Ml
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev. 13
8/17/2018
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-I994
-------
Date
2/14/2019 - - Calculation of correction factor for RH standard with n
TMI Cert date =2/6/2019
TMI
EEMS
STD
Hygropalm
Cert #
A3092720
01220/01225
diff
corrected
0.0
-2.7
0.0
-2.7
0.0
-2.7
33.0
34.2
-1.2
33.1
50.0
50.2
-0.2
49.8
75.0
74.3
0.7
75.1
RH 01220/01225
2019 correction:
slope=
0.9555
intercept=
2.5795
corr =
0.9999784
M-Sh" 2/14/2019
-------
Certificate Number
A3092720
-fssue Date: 02/06/19
y
Certificate of
Page 1 of 2
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
P.O. Number:
ID Numb
JIOllll
Description: THERMO HYGROMETER
Manufacturer: ROTRONIC
Model Number: HYGROPALM
Serial Number: 40861 002/124431
Technician: STEVE TORRES
On-Site Calibration: [~|
Comments:
Calibration Dati
Calibration Due>
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
02/06/2019
02/06/2020,
fWffiYGROTHERMOGRAPHS
Rev: 2/22/2011
71 F
43 % RH
As Found Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:;
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (MIST) or other National
Metrological Institute (NMI), The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 96% confidence level using a coverage factor of k-2 Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement,
TMI's Quality System is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, ISO/1EC 17025:2017 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements This calibration complies with all the requirements of ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-
1994 and TMI's Quality Manual, QM-1.
Results contained In this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except In full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk,
-
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER
Asset Number
05535
Manufacturer
FLUKE
0710649
THUNDER SCIENTIFIC
2500ST
A88072
FLUKE/HART
1502A
Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Model Number
5609-12-D
Date Calibrated
7/3/2018
11/2/2018
12/17/2018
Cal Due
7/3/2019
6/23/2019
4/2/2019
TMj
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev 13
8/17/2018
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z540-I-1994
-------
Certificate of Calibration
Data Sheet
Parameter
Nominal
Minimum
Maximum
As Found
As Left
Unit
Temperature Accuracy
15 0
14.6
15.4
14.9
14 9
C
Temperature Accuracy
25 0
24 6
25.4
24.7
247
C
Temperature Accuracy
35.0
34,6
35.4
34.7
34.7
C
Humidity Accuracy
33.0
31.4
34.6
34.2
34.2
%
Humidity Accuracy
50.0
48.4
51.6
50.2
50.2
%
Humidity Accuracy
75.0
73.4
76.6
74.3
74.3
%
Unit ADJ/FAIL
4^
m -
b ~
(/tfc-fl-
G.'R $"55
Z. r
-------
EEMS 01240 — Licor LI-200 and RMY soiar radiation system
• Range = 0 to 1 volt = 0 to 1400 w/m2
Compared with EEMS 01245/01246 Eppley PSP standard.
3/9/2019 At EEMS by Eric Hebert
SiteReport - Site Van3 Report TimeBeginning
Date&Time 09/03/2019 12:40 12:40:00- 15:45:00
1100-J
1050-
1000-
950-
900-
850-
800-
750-
700-
650-
>
600-
550-
500-
450-
400-
350-
300-
250-
200-
150-1
u 1
to
A
1 a
V
n '
, l
1
V i
l
I
\\l
A
( \
i
i
I fx
J
1
1
A
ft
i
if 1
i
a
J i
V
I
J
i
1
l
1
/
i
/
12:50 13:00 13:10 13:20 13:30 13:40 13:50 14:00 14:10 14:20 14:30 14:40 14:50 15:00 15:10 15:20 15:30 15:40
Date & Time
- SR Std[W/M2] SR test[W/M2]
slope =
intercept =
correlation =
0.9646
4.3322
0.99959
-------
I J- i.
THE EPPLEY LABORATORY, INC.
12 Sheffield Avenue, PO Box 419, Newport, Rhode Island USA 02840
Phone: 401.847.1020 Fax: 401.847.J031 Email: info@eppleylab.com
Calibration Certificate
Instrument:
Procedure:
Precision Spectral Pyranometer, Model PSP, Serial Number 34341F3
This pyranometer was compared in Eppley's Integrating H e m i sp hm rrl in o to
procedures described in ISO 9847 Section 5.3.1 and Technical Procedure, TP01 of
The Eppley Laboratory. Inc.'s Quality Assurance Manual on Calibrations.
Transfer Standard: Eppley Precision Spectral Pyranometer, Model PSP, Serial Number 21231F3
-2
Results:
Sensitivity: S = 9.29 nV / Wnf
Uncertainty: U95 = ±0.91% (95% confidence level, k=2)
Resistance: 699 Q at 23°C
Date of Test:
January 22,2019
Traceability:
Due Date:
Customer:
This calibration is traceable to the World Radiation Reference (WRR) through
comparisons with Eppley's AHF standard self-calibrating cavity pyrheliometers
which participated in the Twelfth International Pyrheliometric Comparisons (IPC
XII) at Davos, Switzerland in September-October 2015. Unless otherwise stated in
the remarks section below or on the Sales Order, the results of this calibration are
"AS FOUND / AS LEFT".
Eppley recommends a minimum calibration cycle of Five (5) years but encourages
annual calibrations for highest measurement accuracy.
EEMS
Gainesville, FL
Signatures:
Eppley S(i__
'4
In Charge of Test:
65367
Reviewed by:
Date of Certificate January 23, 2019
Remarks:
Amplifier #10765 set with gain of 76.89 so pair produces 1 V = 1400 Wm"2.
End of Report
-------
PACKING LIST
The Eppley Laboratory, Inc.
12 Sheffield Ave.
Phone # 4Q1-B47-1Q20 Fed. ID No. 05-0136490
Name / Address
EEMS
Att: Eric Hebert
1128 NW 39th Drive
Gainesville, EL 32605
s.o. No. 65367
1/23/2019
f
Ship To
EEMS
Att: Eric Hebert
1128 NW 39th Drive
Gainesville, FL 32605
Ol f &
P.O...
ShipDate 1/30/2019
Ship Via
FedEx COLLECT
Recalibration Model 8-4 8 « T-SfefZ-M
Recalibration of Model PSP - 3^,^ ^ Wl£lA
Reset Amplifier a 5"
Cs.t cksAua 5^ | V - iMtO LO _2"
> M
s -
s = L^il
» S * moo
iO
G?P\ 1 ^ —
O £> 1 3 CO
t \
£>- ov 3 6
"7^,©^ ]
¦J
Made in USA
Terms Credit Card
FOB Newport, Rl USA
-------
f9a$L~
THE EPPLEY LABORATORY, INC.
12 Sheffield Avenue, PO Box 419, Newport, Rhode Island USA 02840
Phone: 401.847.1020 Fax: 401.847.1031 Email: info@eppleylab.com
A-
Calibration Certificate
Oi 2Jty
Instrument:
Procedure:
Black & White Pyranometer, Model 8-48, Serial Number 23824
This pyranometer was compared in Eppley's Integrating Hemisphere according to
procedures described in ISO 9847 Section 5.3.1 and Technical Procedure, TP01 of
The Eppley Laboratory, Inc.'s Quality Assurance Manual on Calibrations.
Transfer Standard: Eppley Black & White Pyranometer, Model 8-48, Serial Number 14061
-2
Results:
Sensitivity: S =8.80 \iV / Wm
Uncertainty: Ug5 = ±0.91% (95% confidence level, k=2)
Resistance: 347 Q at 23°C
Date of Test:
January 22,2019
Traceabilitv:
Due Date:
This calibration is traceable to the World Radiation Reference (WRR) through
comparisons with Eppley's AHF standard self-calibrating cavity pyrheliometers
which participated in the Twelfth International Pyrheliometric Comparisons (IPC
XTI) at Davos, Switzerland in September-October 2015. Unless otherwise stated in
the remarks section below or on the Sales Order, the results of this calibration are
"AS FOUND / AS LEFT".
Eppley recommends a minimum calibration cycle of five (5) years but encourages
annual calibrations for highest measurement accuracy.
Customer:
Signatures:
Eppley SO:
EEMS
Gainesville, FL
Charge of Test:
In
65367
Reviewed by:
Date of Certificate January 23, 2019
Remarks:
End of Report
-------
m
Warren-Knight Instrument Company
2045 Bennett Road
Philadelphia, PA 19116
Phone: 215-464-9300; Fax: 215-464-9303
Web: hrtn://w ww.warrcrtind.cam
V,
2_
Temperature:
77SW77<4^
Humidity:
4-
3 *
Calibration Data Record
Customer Name
Item Name
Manufacturer
Model
Calibration OrtS
Serial Number
(T&037
/-?- 3 ~/f
:
Calibration Frequency
job CareKNumber
Customer Reference Number
Date of Ce rt ifi cati on
Z-23-/?
M&asurtfMnE Standards .
Theodolite Wild T-3 S/N 18301 Calibration 01/16/13 Due 01/16/20 WjT Number 73S/229329-S3 73S/22-3-39S"
Optical Wedge K&e'71-7020 S/N 5167 Calibration; 01/16/29 Due 01fl6/24,>nSFf4w»d*r-73tfZ3W84-S9 731/?21617~
Initial Report
Vanes
OirtKtiert
(Oegwj
iota-ranee
(Minute)
ComjHii NfPdic Error
(Minute)
Pivot in line with Circle/Sights
~ Pass O Fail
+/- 30
Needle
+A 30
Pivot Sharpness
~ Pass ~ Fail
+/-30
Straightness (¦*•/-!5 Minutes)
~ Pass ~ Fall
+/- 30
Balance
~ Pass ~ Fait
*/- 30
Ufter Function
~ Pass ~ Fail
+/- 30
Azimuth Ring
~A 30
Contra! Knob Function
~ Pass ~ Fail
*t 30
Pinion Gesr
~ Pass ~ Fail
Graduation Clarity
~ Pass ~ Fail
Graduation less than 1 minute in any position
~ Pass ~ Fail
Level Bubble
Bubble in Level
~ Pass ~ Fail
Physical Condition
~ Pass ~ Fail
Pass/Rgpair/Replatf
Pass
N/A
Replace \ Repair
~
~
~
O
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
~
D
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
O
~
~
o
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
D
~
D
~
0
~
~
~
Needle ~ Sharpen o Magnetize
Cap with Jewel
Pivot a Sharpen
Level ~ Remount
North Sight
North Sight Block
South Sight
South Sight Block
Vane Spring
Drive
Control Knob Assembly
Cover Glass
Cover Glass Gasket
Clamp Screw
Pinion Gear
Compass Ring
Fins* Report
Vanes
/
Direction
Toiswie*
(MjfiuteJ
Compass Mc«5?e loot
(Minute]
Pivot in line with Circle/Sights
rif Pass ~ Fail
D
+A30
<
Needle
/
45
+A30
Pivot Sharpness
$ Pass ~ Fail
90
~A 30
< ~?0
Straightness {+/-15 Minutes)
Wf Pass ~ Fail
135
+A30
/ 3d
Balance
CTf^ass P Fail
160
+A 30
< 3o
Lifter function
[jS^Pass ~ Fall
225
•4/-30
< 36
270
¦*¦/• 30
< 20
Control Knob Function
repass ~ Fail
325
~A 30
C
Pinion Gear
B'.Pass ~ Fall
Graduation Clarity
(0,P'ass ~ Fail
Graduation less than 1 minute in any position
0 Pass ~ Fail
Bubble i / J — :
Bubble in level
[3/^ass ~ Fail
Physical Condition
0 Pass ~ Fail
pairTemnlc
5l
John Noga, Quality Assurance
77 '
-------
£t-W>
€¦>
*71 Warren -Knight Instrument Company
if J 2045 Bennett Road
£ Philadelphia, PA 19116
Phone: 215-464-9300; Fax: 215^54-9303
Web: httn://*v*w. warreni nd.com
& £>(. Z7X-
Calibration Dats Record
Customer Name
Manufacturer
Serial K'umber
Calibration Frequency
7775W
Herri Name
Mode!
Calibration Date
Job Card Number ,
Date of Cprtifit^rtioi
Temperatures .-ry1^ Humidity; 3T7/«>_
—(/{UAK/+77\ ~
/^zrr^TT
\S~ %&(?
azT-/?
Customer Reference Number
Meaiuramgnt Standards
TheodoSitf'wild T-3S/N 18S01 CalifarationOi/16/19 Due 01/16/ZQ NiSTSomber738/229329-83 73S/Z3339.
Optical Wedge KSE 71-7020 S/N 516? Calibration.; 01/15/19 Due 01/36/24, NiS
U/32161?
Inrti;s? ftfrpcrt
Vanes
Pivot In line with Circle/Sights
~ Pass ~ Fail
thntiUon
Tolerance
IMfrtutel
+/-30
+/ 30
Compare if rot
fMj rafted
Pivot Sharpness
Straightness (+/-15 Minutes)
Balance
Lifter Fir net ion
~ Pass ~ Fail
+1- 30
~ Pass ~ Fail
*/- 30
~ Pass P Fail
+/- 30
~ Pass D Fail
+/- 30
Azimuth Ring
+/- 30
Control Knob Function
Pinion Gear
Gradual ion Clarity
Graduation less than 1 minute in any position
~ Pass ~ fail
»/- 30
~ Pass ~ Fail
~ Pass ~ Fail
~ Pass ~ Fail
Bubble
Bubble ir. Level
~ Pass ~ Fail
Physical Condition
~ Pass ~ Fait
I':!:,:
H/A ") Replace | Repair
~
~
O
~
~
~
~
a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
D
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
o
Needle c Sharpen a Magnetize
Cap with Jewel
Pivot D Sharpen
Level o Remount
North Sight
North Sifrht Block
South Sight
South Sipht Slock
Va ne Spring
Drive
Control Knob Assembly
Cover Glass
Cover Glass Gasket
Clamp Screw
Pinion Gear
Compass Rjnr
* ins! hpc-sn
Verses
/
Uir*ctipn
(Depce)
Tolersrss
fV-ittuf*;
Co-nixm NwHc &fur
(Minute'
Pivot in line with Circle/Sights
fS Pass ~ Fail
0
r/-30
< 30
, /
45
*f- 30
< Ji O
Pivot Sharpness
£? /'ass ~ Fail
90
*¦/- 30
<
Straightrvess (+/-15 Minutes)
Br p^ss O Fail
13S
*/ 30
< 3t)
Balance
Q/'ass ~ Fail
ibo
V-30
< 3 O
Lifter Function
M Pass ~ Fail
225
<^-30
>W
270
~A 30
———
Control Knob Function
tj/psss O Fail
315
+/- 30
tj'yass ~ Fail
Graduation Clantf
P/f ass ~ Fail
Graduation less then 1 minute in any position
0 P^ss D Fail
Level Bubbt®
fa/f^ass ~ Fait . .
Physical Condition X)
0 Pass ~ Fail
1/
CSrrrrjcatKi-*' f / //
/*<*/ •• s7—f
A J i ^'1
FTebair TecSiidan ' /
John Noga. Quality Assurance I f
-------
Certificate Number ^^ #• i ¦ i am
A3081102 Certificate
Issue Date: 01/25/19 - —
Page 1 ofS.
v.
cere
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES*
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
P.O. Number:
ID Number; 01310
Description: DIGITAL MULTIMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 187
Serial Number: 86590148
Technician: TAYLOR FLOYD
On-Site Calibration: Q
Comments:
Calibration Date:
Calibration Due:
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
01/25/2019
01/25/2020,
METCAL FLUKE 187
Rev: 6/15/2015
70 F
42 % RH
As Found ConditionrlN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other National
Metroiogica! Institute (NMI). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2. Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
TMI's Quality System is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994. I SO/I EC 17025:2017 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements. This calibration complies with all the requirements of ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-
1994 and TMI's Quality Manual, QM-1.
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do net imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance. Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk,
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER
Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Asset Number
7040208
Manufacturer
FLUKE
Calibration Standards
Model Number
5520A
Date Calibrated
3/12/2018
Cal Due
3/12/2019
\
rYI]
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev. 13
8/17/2018
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994
-------
CsrtS,rbe Certificate of Calibration
Issue Date: 01/25/19
Page 1 of S_
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
v/,
P.O. Number:
ID Numbe
llll IIII II 111!
Description: DIGITAL MULTIMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 287
Serial Number: 95740135
Technician: TAYLOR FLOYD
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments:
Calibration Date;
Calibration Due:'
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
01/25/2019
01/25/202;
5AL FLUKE 287
Rev: 6/15/2015
70 F
42 % RH
As Found Condition:IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other National
Metrological Institute (NMI). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2. Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
TMI's Quality System is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-15S4 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO' 9001 and aligned with Its pertinent requirements. This calibration complies with all the requirements of ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-
1994 and TMI's Quality Manual, QM-1.
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibrated- Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
-
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number Manufacturer Model Number Date Calibrated Cal Due
7040208 FLUKE 5520A 3/12/2018 3/12/2019
\
tMi
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev. 13
8/17/2018
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978=3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994
-------
A3081107 Certificate of Calibration
Issue Date: 01/25/19 '
Page 1 of 5_
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
Uuc2.
P.O. Number:
01/25/2019 )
01/25/2020 ^
METCAL FLUKE 287
Rev: 6/15/2015
70 F
42 % RH
Description: DIGITAL MULTIMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 287
Serial Number: 95740243
Technician: TAYLOR FLOYD
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments:
Calibration Date
Calibration Due:
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
As Found Condition:IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:^
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other National
Metrologlcal Institute (NMf). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2. Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
TMI's Quality System is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ANSl/NCSL Z54G-1-1994. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements. This calibration complies with all the requirements of ANSl/NCSL Z540-1-
1994 and TMI's Quality Manual. QM-1 -
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number Manufacturer Model Number Date Calibrated Cal Due
7040208 FLUKE 5520A 3/12/2018 3/12/2019
\
tMi
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev. 13
8/17/2018
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSl/NCSL Z540-M994
-------
~
MesaLabs
As Shipped Calibration Data
Certificate No 281466
Technician Lil+ann 3 Ma I i n o w s k a
f,
OLr
v2-
Instrument Reading
25344 seem
5017.9 seem
1508.4 seem
21.3 °C
748 mmHg
Lab Standard Reacting
25183 seem
5000.8 seem
1501.65 seem
21.3 °C
748 mmHg
Deviation
0.64%
0.34%
0.45%
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
101897
305460
2981392
2.^2-
014 If
Lab. Pressure
Lab. Temperature
NV/LAP Lab Code 200661
Calibration
748 mmHg
21.3 °C
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± 0,8°C
± 3.5 mmHg
As Shipped
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Calibration Date
Q1-May-2018
02-0ct-2018
1 S-Jul-2018
Calibration Due Date
01-May-2019
02-0ct-2019
18-Jul-2019
Calibration Notes
The expanded uncertainty of flow, temperature, and pressure measurements all have a coverage factor of k = 2 for a confidence
interval of approximately 95%.
Flow testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-13 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.18% using high-purity nitrogen or
filtered laboratory air Flow readings in seem are performed at STP of 21 1°C and 760 mmHg
Pressure testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-11 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.16 mmHg.
Temperature testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-12 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.04 °C.
Traceability to the International System of Units (SI) is verified by accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 by NVLAP under NVLAP Code
200661-0.
Technician Notes:
By:
Mohammed Aziz
Director of Engineering
Mesa Laboratories, Inc.. Butler, NJ
m
\> '•
-2--
0. ^"33> I °l37
2 of 2
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler. NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www.mesalabs com Symbol "MLA0'' on the NAS
CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
E
MesaLabs
T-
I 2_
DW(1&0J
NV/LAP Lab Code 200661-0
Calibration
Serial No.
Cal. Date
Calibration Certificate
Sold To:
I-530+ High Defender 530+ High Flow
159956 *4(4
0a-Feb-2019 " " '
Environmental Engineering & Measurement
Services
8010 SW 17th Place
Gainesville, FL 32607
US
All calibrations are performed at Mesa Laboratories, Inc.. 10 Park Place, Butler, NJ, 07405, an ISO 17025:2005 accredited laboratory
through NVLAP of NIST, This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of the laboratory. Results only
relate to the items calibrated. This report must not be used to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or
any agency of the Federal Govemment.
As Received Calibration Data
Technician
Instrument Reacting
25880 seem
5145.1 seem
1542.4 seem
22.4 °C
756 mmHg
Lilianna Malinowska
Lab Standard Reading
25126 seem
5000.7 seem
1500.35 seem
22 6 X
757 mmHg
Deviation
3.0%
2.89%
2.8%
Lab, Pressure
Lab. Temperature
757 mmHg
21.3 X
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± 0.8X
+ 3.5 mmHg
As Received
Out of Tolerance
Out of Tolerance
Out of Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
103521
305460
2981392
Calibration Date
11-Jun-2018
02-0ct-2018
20-Jul-2018
Calibration Due Date
11-Jun-2019
02-0ct-2019
20-Jul-2019
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler, NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www.mesalabs.corr Symbol "MLAB" or the NAS
1 of 2 CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
~
MesaLabs
DWlL&S)
NVLAP Lab Code 200661-0
Calibration
CertificateNo.
Product
Serial No.
Cal. Date
322657
Calibration Certificate
Sold To:
200-220H Definer 220 High Flow
122974
19-Jul-2019
Environmental Engineering & Measurement
Services
8010 SW 17th Place
Gainesville, FL 32607
US
All calibrations are performed at Mesa Laboratories, Inc., 10 Park Place, Butler, NJ, 07405, an ISO 17025:2005 accredited laboratory
through NVLAP of NIST. This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of the laboratory. Results only
relate to the items calibrated. This report must not be used to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or
any agency of the Federal Government.
As Received Calibration Data
Technician
Instrument Reading
25240.6 seem
5142.08 seem
1599.51 seem
22.3 °C
754 mmHg
Lilianna Malinowska
Lab Standard Reading
25289.71 seem
5128.72 seem
1588.16 seem
22.3 °C
754 mmHg
Deviation
-0.19%
0.26%
0.71%
Lab. Pressure
Lab. Temperature
754 mmHg
22.4 °C
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± 0.8°C
± 3.5 mmHg
As Received
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
101897
305460
41000LOB
Calibration Date
03-May-2019
02-0ct-2018
27-Nov-2018
Calibration Due Date
02-May-2020
02-0ct-2019
27-Nov-2019
1 of 2
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler, NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www.mesalabs.com Symbol "MLAB" on the NAS
CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
~
MesaLabs
NVLAP Lab Code 200661-0
Calibration
As Shipped Calibration Data
Certificate No
Technician
Instrument Reading
25205.3 seem
5118.46 seem
1576.23 seem
22.8 °C
753 mmHg
322657
Lilianna Malinowska
Lab Standard Reading
25276.27 seem
5120.13 seem
1580.85 seem
22.8 °C
753 mmHg
Lab. Pressure
Lab. Temperature
750 mmHg
22.4 °C
Deviation
-0.28%
-0.03%
-0.29%
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
+ 0.8°C
± 3.5 mmHg
As Shipped
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
101897
305460
41000LOB
Calibration Date
03-May-2019
02-0ct-2018
27-Nov-2018
Calibration Due Date
02-May-2020
02-0ct-2019
27-Nov-2019
Calibration Notes
The expanded uncertainty of flow, temperature, and pressure measurements all have a coverage factor of k = 2 for a confidence
interval of approximately 95%.
Flow testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-13 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.18% using high-purity nitrogen or
filtered laboratory air. Flow readings in seem are performed at STP of 21.1 °C and 760 mmHg.
Pressure testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-11 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.16 mmHg.
Temperature testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-12 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.04 °C.
Traceability to the International System of Units (SI) is verified by accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 by NVLAP under NVLAP Code
200661-0.
Technician Notes:
By:
Mohammed Aziz
Director of Engineering
Mesa Laboratories, Inc., Butler, NJ
M = 0.99698188
B = 0.0064171pm
R2 = 0.99999
Use uncorrected readings for
CASTNET range
2 of 2
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler, NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www.mesalabs.com Symbol "MLAB" on the NAS
CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
~
MesaLabs
As Shipped Calibration Data
v ^
\ £
ram/&£5)
NVLAP Lab Code 200661-0
Calibration
Instrument Reading
25266 sccrn
5043.7 seem
1513.7 seem
21.6 °C
748 mmHg
281467
Lilifuww"Malinowska
Lab Standard Reading
25112.5 seem
5001.35 seem
1501A seem
21.6 °C
748 mmHg
Deviation
0.61 %
0.85%
0.82%
Lab, Pressure 748 mmHg
Lab.Temperature 21.6 °C
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± 0.8°C
± 3.5 mmHg
/»/
ZO&
As Shipped
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
101897
305460
2981392
Calibration Date
01-May-2018
02-0ct-2018
18-Jul-2018
Calibration Due Date
01-May-2019
02-0ct-2019
18-Jul-2019
Calibration Notes
The expanded uncertainty of flow, temperature, and pressure measurements all have a coverage factor of k = 2 for a confidence
Interval of approximately 95%.
Flow testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-13 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.18% using high-purity nitrogen or
filtered laboratory air. Flow readings in seem are performed at STP of 21.1 °C and 760 mmHg
Pressure testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-11 with an expanded uncertainty of 0 16 mmHg
Temperature testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-12 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.04 °C.
Traceability to the International System of Units (SI) is verified by accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 by NVLAP under NVLAP Code
200661-0.
Technician Notes:
By:
m -
b -
r2-
- 7.4S"i1
Mohammed Aziz
Director of Engineering
Mesa Laboratories, Inc., Butler, NJ
2 of 2
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler, NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www mesalabs com Symbol "MLAB" on the NAS
CAL02-4-S Rev G05
-------
~
MesaLabs
1 O
(7
NVLAP Lab Code 200661-0
Calibration
CertificateNo.
281467
Calibration Certificate
Sold To:
rodtict 200-220H Definer 220 High Flow
Serial No. "isie
Cal. Date D8-Feb-2019
Environmental Engineering & Measurement
Services
8010 SW 17th Place
Gainesville, FL 32607
US
All calibrations are performed at Mesa Laboratories, Inc.. 10 Park Place, Butler, NJ, 07405, an ISO 17025:2005 accredited laboratory
through NVLAP of NISI. This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of the laboratory. Results only
relate to the items calibrated. This report must not be used to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or
any agency of the Federal Government.
As Received Calibration Data
Technician
Instrument Reading
0 seem
0 seem
0 seem
22 2 °C
759 mmHg
Lilianna Malinowska
Lab Standard Reading
25111.5 seem
5001.3 seem
1501 seem
22.3 °C
757 mmHg
Deviation
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
Lab. Pressure
Lab. Temperature
757 mmHg
21.6 °C
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± Q,8°C
± 3.5 mmHg
As Received
Out of Tolerance
Out of Tolerance
Out of Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Pereision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
103521
305460
2981392
Calibration Date
11-Jun-2018
02-0ct-2018
18-Jul-2018
Calibration Due Date
11-Jun-2019
02-0ct-2019
18-Jul-2019
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www mesalabs.com Symbol "MLAB" on the NAS
1 of2 CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
fct^" Z ^
~
MesaLabs
As Shipped Calibration Data
&
0
\HU
~ZO
OWlL&E)
NVLAP Lab Code 200661-0
Calibration
Certificate No
Technician
Instrument Reading
25125 seem
5004.1 seem
1502.7 seem
20.6 °C
746 mmHg
287690
Lilianna Malinowska
Lab Standard Reading
25097.5 seem
5001 seem
1500.3 seem
20.6 °C
746 mmHg
Lab. Pressure
La b. Tern p e rat u re
746 mmHg
20.6 °C
Deviation
0.11%
0.06%
0.16%
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± 0.8°C
±3.5 mmHg
As Shipped
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Pereision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
101897
305460
2981392
Calibration Date
01-May-2018
02-0et-2018
IS-Jul-2018
Calibration Due Date
01-May-2019
02-0ct-2019
1 S-Jul-2019
Calibration Notes
The expanded uncertainty of flow, temperature, and pressure measurements all have a coverage factor of k = 2 for a confidence
interval of approximately 95%.
Flow testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-13 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.18% using high-purity nitrogen or
filtered laboratory air. Flow readings in seem are performed at STP of 21.1 °C and 760 mmHg.
Pressure testing Is in accordance with our test number PR18-11 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.16 mmHg
Temperature testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-12 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.04 °C.
Traceability to the International System of Units (SI) is verified by accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 by NVLAP under NVLAP Code
200661-0.
Technician Notes:
By:
Mohammed Aziz
Director of Engineering
Mesa Laboratories. Inc., Butler, NJ
ivy
h '
rv
I.
- ' I, % 3
0-Hci
CO i' c-C-C-
icX
for
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler. NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www.mesalabs.com Symbol "MLAS" on the NAS
:1C
2 of 2
CAL02-48 Rev G0S
-------
%
YOUNG
R.M. Young Company
2801 Aero Park Drive
Traverse City, Michigan 49686 USA
• A N
1/
CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION AND TESTING
Model: 18802/18811
Serial Number: CA04353 /
Description: Anemometer Drive - 2 motors, 20 to 15,000 RPM
(18802 comprised of 18820A Control Unit and 18830A Motor Assembly)
(18811 comprised of 18820A Control Unit and 18831A Motor Assembly)
R. M. Young Company certifies that the above equipment was inspected and calibrated prior to shipment in
accordance with established manufacturing and testing procedures. Standards established by R.M. Young
Company for calibrating the measuring and test equipment used in controlling product quality are traceable to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Nominal
Motor RPM
RPM
27106D Output
Frequency
Hz (1)
Calculated
RPM (2)
Indicated
RPM (3)
18802 [3 Clockwise and Counterclockwise rotation verified.
300
50
300
300
2700
450
2700
2700
5100
850
5100
5100
7500
1250
7500
7500
10200
1700
10200
10200
12600
2100
12600
12600
15000
2500
15000
15000
18811 PI Clockwise and Counterclockwise rotation verified.
30.0
5
30.0
30.0
150.0
25
150.0
150.0
300.0
50
300.0
300.0
450.0
75
450.0
450,0
600.0
100
600.0
600.0
750.0
125
750.0
750.0
990.0
165
990.0
990.0
(1) Measured output frequency of YOUNG model 27106D standard anemometer attached to motor
shaft.
(2) YOUNG model 27106D produces 10 pulsed per revolution of the anemometer shaft.
(3) Indicated on the Control Unit LCD.
* Indicates out of tolerance.
[ I New Unit P] Service / Repair Unit I I As found
0 No calibration adjustments required Q As left
Traceable frequency meter used for calibration:
Model: 34405A
Serial Number: TW46290020
Date: 16 April 2019
Calibration Interval: One year_
Tested By: 6-0
METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS
Tel: 231-946-3980 Fax:231-946-4772 Email: met.sales@youngusa.com Website: youngusa.com
ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
I I
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Enforcement and Investigations Branch
Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30605
SESD Project#:
Test #:
19-0229
# 1
"as left"
EPA
Standard
EPA Region 4
Keith Harris
INI ST
SRP
10
Guest Test Status:
Guest Known Offset:
Agency:
Contact:
Make:
Model:
S/N:
GUEST
Instrument
EEMS
Eric Hebert
TEI
49 iQps
1180930075
PASS
Level 2 Slope Intercept
Averages: 1.0080 -0,4021
R^ High 03 Lower 03
C|.9999972 465 0
Upper Tolerahce:
LowerToleranVe:
/
,
/
Upper
Lower
Range
Range
Cycle Start Date / Time
File Name
Slope
—Thtercept
R2
{ppb O,)
(ppb Os)
3/25/19 4:13 PM
Cal19032501.xls
1.0014
-0.5404
0.9999967
463
-0.14
3/25/19 5:54 PM
Cal19032502.xls
1.0020
-0.5316
0.9999971
465
-0.06
3/25/19 7:31 PM
Cal19032503.xls
1.0132
-0.4537
09999977
467
-0.17
3/25/19 9:09 PM
Cal19032504.xls
1.0121
-0.3056
09999979
466
-0.20
3/25/19 10:45 PM
Cal19032505.xls
1.0140
0.0000
09999975
464
0.12
3/26/19 12:22 AM
/ 3/26/19 1:59 AM
Cal19032600.xls
1.0057
-0 4967
0 9999960
465
0.05
Cal19032601.xls
1.0073
-0.4869
0.9999976
465
0.14
Comments:
New Level 2 standard Prior to test one instrument was adjusted to more closely match the SRP.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test: 03 BKG 0.31 ppb Q3COEF: 1.013
Verification Expires oft:
March 26, 2020
Keith Harris
/)
Date
Page 1 of 1
SESDFORM-046-R0
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
/?
I 33
I.
SSI?
r>, r s
PRO^
Uil
oj
pV
SESD Project #:
Test #:
U, S, Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Enforcement and Investigations Branch
Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30605
#1
"as found"
EPA
Standard
EPA Region 4
Mike Crowe
NIST
SRP
10
Guest Test Status:
Guest Known Offset:
Agency:
Contact:
Make:
Model:
S/N:
GUEST
Instrument
EEMS
Eric Hebert
Thermo
49i
1180030022
PASS
0
£¦ t
iOiltt
and "as left"
Level 2
Slope
Intercept
Averages:
0.9984
0.2709
Upper Tolerance:
1.0300
3.0000
LowerTolerance:
0.9700
-3.0000
R5
0.9999986
High 03
363
Lower
0
Cycle Start Date / Time
File Name
Slope
Intercept
R2
6/11/19 5:01 PM
Cal19061101.xls
0,9984
0.2057
0.9999981
6/11/19 6:37 PM
Cal19G611Q2.xls
0.9975
0.3485
0.9999992
6/11/19 8:13 PM
Cal19061103.xls
0.9992
0.1985
0.9999984
6/11/19 9:50 PM
Cal19061104.xls
0.9980
0.3826
0.9999987
6/11/19 11:26 PM
Cal190611G5.xls
0.9991
0.0000
0.9999981
6/12/19 1:02 AM
Cal19061200.xls
0.9983
0.3572
0,9999990
6/12/19 2:39 AM
Cal19061201.xls
0.9986
0.4040
0.9999988
Upper
Range
(ppb 03)
360
363
363
364
364
365
365
Lower
Range
(ppb
0.2.
-0.0
0.1:
-0.1
-0.1
0.1:
-o.o
Comments:
Instrument tested as found.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test:
03BKG: -0.4 ppb 03 COEF: 0.990
Instrument within tolerance
Verification Expires oi^:
June 12,2020
September 12, 2019
(For NPAP use)
Mike Crowe
Date
!^2l
Page 1 of 1
SESDFORM-046-R0
-------
Ozone Certification Records
TEI # 49CPS-70008-364 49 CPS
settings at time of test:
EPA file date start time
EEMS# 01110
bkg= 0.0
slope
Van 2
coef= 1.018
intercept
correlatioin location
call9102801
call9102802
call9102803
28-Oct-19
28-Oct-19
28-Oct-19
17:34
18:47
20:03
1.00336
1.00323
1.00334
-0.10250
-0.06933
-0.03624
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
AVG =
1.003310
-0.069357
TEI #1180030022 49i
settings at time of test:
EPA file date start time
EEMS# 01114
bkg= -0.4
slope
Van 3
coef= 0.990
intercept
correlatioin location
call9102902
call9102803
call9102904
29-Oct-19
29-Oct-19
29-Oct-19
11:19
12:32
13:44
0.98637
0.98590
0.98574
0.39175
0.47568
0.38138
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
R-7
AVG =
0.986003
0.416270
-------
FINAL SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT CO BASED
EEMS Van-3
Site Name: EPA R-7 - LOW
Audit Date:
10/28/2019
Parameter
NPAP Lab Response
(ppm)
Station Response
(ppm)
Percent
Difference
Actual
Difference
(ppm)
Pass/Fail
Warning
Ozone
Pre Zero
Ozone audit level 6
N/A
Ozone audit level 5
N/A
Ozone audit level 4
N/A
Ozone audit level 3
N/A
Ozone audit level 2
N/A
Post Zero
Carbon Monoxide
Pre Zero
-0.0069
0.003
0.00976
Pass
CO Audit level 4
2.6066
2.576
-1.2
-0.03039
Pass
CO Audit level 4
1.5093
1.495
-1.0
-0.01476
Pass
CO Audit level 3
0.5511
0.554
0.5
0.00303
Pass
CO Audit level 2
0.1390
0.143
2.9
0.00402
Pass
CO Audit level 1
0.0465
0.055
18.2
0.00847
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0036
0.002
0.00516
Pass
Oxides of Nitrogen
Pre Zero
-0.00020
0.00000
0.00020
Pass
NO Audit Point #1
0.07600
0.07460
-1.8
-0.00140
Pass
NO Audit Point #2
0.04400
0.04360
-0.9
-0.00040
Pass
NO Audit Point #3
0.01607
0.01580
-1.7
-0.00027
Pass
NO Audit Point #4
0.00405
0.00410
1.2
0.00005
Pass
NO Audit Point #5
0.00136
0.00140
2.9
0.00004
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00010
0.00000
0.00010
Pass
Pre Zero
-0.00020
0.00000
0.00020
Pass
NOx Audit Point #1
0.07732
0.07450
-3.6
-0.00282
Pass
NOx Audit Point #2
0.04477
0.04340
-3.1
-0.00137
Pass
NOx Audit Point #3
0.01635
0.01570
-4.0
-0.00065
Pass
NOx Audit Point #4
0.00412
0.00400
-2.9
-0.00012
Pass
NOx Audit Point #5
0.00138
0.00130
-5.8
-0.00008
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00011
0.00000
0.00011
Pass
Pre Zero
0.00000
-0.00010
-0.00010
N02 Audit level 5
0.04930
0.04760
-3.4
-0.00170
Pass
N02 Audit level 4
0.01818
0.01690
-7.0
-0.00128
Pass
N02 Audit level 2
0.00435
0.00390
-10.3
-0.00045
Pass
N02 Audit level 1
0.00159
0.00140
-11.9
-0.00019
Pass
Post Zero
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 5
101.7%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 4
100.6%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 2
102.5%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 1
100.0%
Pass
Sulfur Dioxide
Pre Zero
-0.00022
0.0000
0.0003
Pass
S02 Audit level 6
0.08235
0.0790
-4.1
-0.0033
Pass
S02 Audit level 5
0.04768
0.0455
-4.5
-0.0022
Pass
S02 Audit level 4
0.01741
0.0167
-4.3
-0.0007
Pass
S02 Audit level 2
0.00439
0.0040
-10.0
-0.0004
Pass
S02 Audit level 1
0.00147
0.0014
-5.4
-0.0001
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00011
0.0001
0.0002
Pass
-------
FINAL SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT CO BASED
EE MS Van-2
Site Name: EPA-R7 - LOW Audit Date: 10/29/2019
Parameter
NPAP Lab Response
(ppm)
Station Response
(ppm)
Percent
Difference
Actual
Difference
(ppm)
Pass/Fail Warning
Ozone
Pre Zero
Audit Level 6
N/A
Audit Level 4
N/A
Audit Level 3
N/A
Audit Level 2
N/A
Post Zero
Carbon Monoxide
Pre Zero
0.0011
-0.010
-0.01065
Pass
CO Audit level 4
2.2014
2.257
2.5
0.05562
Pass
CO Audit level 4
1.5373
1.550
0.8
0.01272
Pass
CO Audit level 3
0.6120
0.617
0.8
0.00501
Pass
CO Audit level 3
0.3315
0.334
0.8
0.00255
Pass
CO Audit level 1
0.0544
0.064
17.6
0.00960
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0115
-0.006
0.00532
Pass
Oxides of Nitrogen
Pre Zero
0.00003
0.0000
0.0000
Pass
NO Audit Point #1
0.06568
0.0666
1.4
0.0009
Pass
NO Audit Point #2
0.04586
0.0457
-0.3
-0.0002
Pass
NO Audit Point #3
0.01826
0.0182
-0.3
0.0000
Pass
NO Audit Point #4
0.00989
0.0090
-9.0
-0.0009
Pass
NO Audit Point #5
0.00162
0.0021
29.6
0.0005
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00034
0.0001
0.0004
Pass
Pre Zero
0.00003
0.0000
0.0000
Pass
NOx Audit Point #1
0.06563
0.0665
1.3
0.0009
Pass
NOx Audit Point #2
0.04583
0.0455
-0.7
-0.0003
Pass
NOx Audit Point #3
0.01825
0.0180
-1.4
-0.0003
Pass
NOx Audit Point #4
0.00988
0.0098
-0.8
-0.0001
Pass
NOx Audit Point #5
0.00162
0.0020
23.5
0.0004
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00034
0.0000
0.0003
Pass
Pre Zero
0.00000
-0.00010
| -0.00010
Pass
N02 Audit level 5
0.04552
0.04530
-0.5
-0.00022
Pass
N02 Audit level 4
0.01853
0.01840
-0.7
-0.00013
Pass
N02 Audit level 3
0.00694
0.00670
-3.5
-0.00024
Pass
N02 Audit level 1
Post Zero
0.00257
0.00000
0.00350
-0.00010
36.2
J 0.00093
Pass
Pass
I -0.00010
Converter Efficiency N02 level 5 99.1 % Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 4 99.5% Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 3 100.0% Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 1 103.9% Pass
Sulfur Dioxide
Pre Zero
S02 Audit level 6
S02 Audit level 5
S02 Audit level 4
S02 Audit level 4
S02 Audit level 1
Post Zero
0.00003
0.06637
0.04635
0.01845
0.00999
0.00164
-0.00035
0.00006
0.06771
0.04638
0.01845
0.00980
0.00207
0.00004
2.0
0.1
0.0
-1.9
26.2
0.00003
0.00134
0.00003
0.00000
-0.00019
0.00043
0.00039
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
-------
FINAL SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT CO BASED
EE MS Van-2
Site Name: EPA-R7 - LOW Audit Date: 10/29/2019
Parameter
NPAP Lab Response
(ppm)
Station Response
(ppm)
Percent
Difference
Actual
Difference
(ppm)
Pass/Fail Warning
Ozone
Pre Zero
Audit Level 6
N/A
Audit Level 4
N/A
Audit Level 3
N/A
Audit Level 2
N/A
Post Zero
Carbon Monoxide
Pre Zero
0.0011
-0.010
-0.01065
Pass
CO Audit level 4
2.2014
2.257
2.5
0.05562
Pass
CO Audit level 4
1.5373
1.550
0.8
0.01272
Pass
CO Audit level 3
0.6120
0.617
0.8
0.00501
Pass
CO Audit level 2
0.1275
0.129
1.5
0.00190
Pass
CO Audit level 1
0.0544
0.064
17.6
0.00960
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0115
-0.006
0.00532
Pass
Oxides of Nitrogen
Pre Zero
0.00003
0.0000
0.0000
Pass
NO Audit Point #1
0.06568
0.0666
1.4
0.0009
Pass
NO Audit Point #2
0.04586
0.0457
-0.3
-0.0002
Pass
NO Audit Point #3
0.01826
0.0182
-0.3
0.0000
Pass
NO Audit Point #4
0.00380
0.0040
5.3
0.0002
Pass
NO Audit Point #5
0.00162
0.0021
29.6
0.0005
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00034
0.0001
0.0004
Pass
Pre Zero
0.00003
0.0000
0.0000
Pass
NOx Audit Point #1
0.06563
0.0665
1.3
0.0009
Pass
NOx Audit Point #2
0.04583
0.0455
-0.7
-0.0003
Pass
NOx Audit Point #3
0.01825
0.0180
-1.4
-0.0003
Pass
NOx Audit Point #4
0.00380
0.0039
2.6
0.0001
Pass
NOx Audit Point #5
0.00162
0.0020
23.5
0.0004
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00034
0.0000
0.0003
Pass
Pre Zero
0.00000
-0.00010
-0.00010
Pass
N02 Audit level 5
0.04565
0.04530
-0.8
-0.00035
Pass
N02 Audit level 4
0.01858
0.01840
-1.0
-0.00018
Pass
N02 Audit level 3
0.00697
0.00670
-3.9
-0.00027
Pass
N02 Audit level 1
N/A
Post Zero
0.00000
-0.00010
-0.00010
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 5
99.1%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 4
99.5%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 3
100.0%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 1
N/A
Sulfur Dioxide
Pre Zero
0.00003
0.00006
0.00003
Pass
S02 Audit level 6
0.06637
0.06771
2.0
0.00134
Pass
S02 Audit level 5
0.04635
0.04638
0.1
0.00003
Pass
S02 Audit level 4
0.01845
0.01845
0.0
0.00000
Pass
S02 Audit level 2
0.00384
0.00380
-1.0
-0.00004
Pass
S02 Audit level 1
0.00164
0.00207
26.2
0.00043
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00035
0.00004
0.00039
Pass
-------
Field Scientist Certification
EricfjeBert
Has satisfactorily
The US Environmental
"National Performance Audit Program (NPAP)
Field Scientist Re-certification
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC
Course Dates: October 2-4,2019
Gregory W. Noah
NPAP National Coordinator
USEPA, OAQPS, AAMG
-------
Field Scientist Certification
Korev (Devins
Has satisfactorily
The US Environmental
"National Performance Audit Program (NPAP)
Field Scientist Re-certification
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC
Course Dates: October 2-4, 2019
Gregory W. Noah
NPAP National Coordinator
USEPA, OAQPS, AAMG
-------
Field Scientist Certification
MgrtjnVaCvur
Has satisfactorily
The US Environmental
"National Performance Audit Program (NPAP)
Field Scientist Re-certification
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC
Course Dates: October 2-4, 2019
Gregory W. Noah
NPAP National Coordinator
USEPA, OAQPS, AAMG
------- |