CASTNET
2017 Annual Report
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmospheric Programs
Prepared by:
environmental engineering
& measurement services, inc.
1128 NW 39th Drive
Gainesville, FL 32605
Contract No.: GS-10F-075AAA
Order No.: EP-G17H-00554
September 2019
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Project Objectives 2-1
3.0 CASTNET Sites Visited in 2017 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 4-8
4.3 Shelter Temperature 4-8
4.4 Wind Speed 4-11
4.4.1 Wind Speed Starting Threshold 4-11
4.5 Wind Direction 4-12
4.5.1 Wind Direction Starting Threshold 4-12
4.6 Temperature and Two-Meter Temperature 4-13
4.6.1 Temperature Shield Blower Motors 4-14
4.7 Relative Humidity 4-14
4.8 Solar Radiation 4-17
4.9 Precipitation 4-17
4.10 Data Acquisition Systems (DAS) 4-18
4.10.1 Analog Test 4-18
4.10.2 Functionality Tests 4-18
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
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
1
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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. 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 4-4
Table 4-3. Performance Audit Results Shelter Temperature, and Flow Rate 4-9
Table 4-4. Performance Audit Results for Wind Sensors 4-12
Table 4-5. Performance Audit Results for Temperature and Relative Humidity 4-15
Table 4-6. Performance Audit Results for Solar Radiation and Precipitation 4-18
Table 4-7. Performance Audit Results for Data Acquisition Systems 4-19
List of Figures
Figure 1. 2017 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits 4-7
Figure 2. 2017 Average % Difference Ozone Audits Greater Than Level 2 4-8
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
11
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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
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
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
111
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
RH
relative humidity
RTD
Resistance Temperature Detector
SJRWMD
Saint John's Water Management District
SOP
standard operating procedure
SRP
standard reference photometer
SSRF
Site Status Report Forms
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
WRR
World Radiation Reference
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
IV
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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 trace gas concentrations. Hourly averages of surface ozone concentrations
and selected meteorological variables are also measured.
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 and other networks were merged with dry deposition rates and flux output from the
Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system.
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 fulfilled the requirement for annual
performance evaluation audits of pollutant monitors in the network. The QA requirements can be
found at:
httos://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/APP D%20validation%20template%20ve
rsion%2003 2017 for%20AMTIC%20Rev l.pdf
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
1-1
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Currently 81 sites at 79 distinct locations measure ground-level ozone concentrations. Annual
performance evaluation ozone audit QA data are submitted to the Air Quality System (AQS)
database.
As of January 2018, 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. AMEC Foster Wheeler 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.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
1-2
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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 Quality Assurance
(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
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
2-1
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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 aligmnent
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
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
In addition to the accuracy goals defined in the CASTNET QAPP the ozone monitors fall under
the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 58 Appendix A, for quality assurance. To comply with
Appendix A, the CASTNET audit program includes annual independent ozone performance
evaluations (PE). The EEMS field scientists who conduct ozone PE maintain annual certification
from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Audit methods and procedures
used are compliant with the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP).
EEMS personnel performed the NPAP 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/npepqa.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) audit gases to the station
monitors through the ambient sample inlet, through all filters and fittings. This method evaluates
measurement system accuracy through 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.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
2-3
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
• 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.
• 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.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
2-4
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
3.0 CASTNET Sites Visited in 2017
This report covers the CASTNET sites audited in 2017. Only those variables that were supported
by the CASTNET program were audited. From February through December 2017, EEMS
conducted field performance and systems audits at 59 monitoring sites. Meteorological sensors at
ten 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. Site Audits
Site ID
Sponsor
Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
CVL151
EPA
Coffeeville
MS/R4
02/21/2017
PAL 190
EPA
Palo Duro
TX/R6
02/27/2017
BBE401
NPS
Big Bend NP
TX/R6
03/02/2017
CKT136
EPA
Crockett
KY/R4
03/14/2017
EVE419
NPS
Everglades NP
FL/R4
03/15/2017
MCK131
EPA
Mackville
KY/R4
03/15/2017
MCK231
EPA
Mackville (precision site)
KY/R4
03/15/2017
ALC188
EPA
Alabama-Coushatta
TX/R6
03/28/2017
KNZ184
EPA
Konza Prairie
KS/R7
04/04/2017
KIC003
EPA
Kickapoo Tribe
KS/R7
04/05/2017
CAD150
EPA
Caddo Valley
AR/R6
04/06/2017
CDZ171
EPA
Cadiz
KY/R4
04/07/2017
CHE 185
EPA
Cherokee Nation
OK/R6
05/09/2017
CHC432
NPS
Chaco NHP
NM/R6
05/10/2017
DCP114
EPA
Deer Creek St. Park
OH/R5
05/22/2017
OXF122
EPA
Oxford
OH/R5
05/23/2017
SEK430
NPS
Sequoia NP - Ash Mountain
CA/R9
05/23/2017
QAK172
EPA
Quaker City
OH/R5
05/24/2017
YOS404
NPS
Yosemite NP
CA/R9
05/24/2017
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
3-1
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site ID
Sponsor
Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
PIN414
NPS
Pinnacles
CA/R9
05/25/2017
LAV410
NPS
Lassen Volcanic NP
CA/R9
05/30/2017
PND165
BLM
Pinedale
WY/R8
07/15/2017
BAS601
BLM
Basin
WY/R8
07/17/2017
SHE604
BLM
Sheridan
WY/R8
07/18/2017
VPI120
EPA
Horton Station
VA/R3
07/18/2017
BUF603
BLM
Buffalo
WY/R8
07/19/2017
CDR119
EPA
Cedar Creek St. Park
WV/R3
07/20/2017
CNT169
EPA
Centennial
WY/R8
07/21/2017
NEC602
BLM
Newcastle
WY/R8
07/21/2017
PAR107
EPA
Parsons
WV/R3
07/21/2017
PED108
EPA
Prince Edward
VA/R3
07/25/2017
ROM406
NPS
Rocky Mountain NP (NPS)
CO/R8
08/01/2017
ROM206
EPA
Rocky Mountain NP
CO/R8
08/08/2017
YEL408
NPS
Yellowstone NP
WY/R8
08/16/2017
LRL117
EPA
Laurel Hill St. Park
PA/R3
08/17/2017
THR422
NPS
Theodore Roosevelt NP
ND/R8
08/29/2017
VOY413
NPS
Voyageurs NP
MN/R5
09/01/2017
SAN189
EPA
Santee Sioux
NE/R7
09/07/2017
NIC001
EPA
Nicks Lake
NY/R2
09/26/2017
WFM105
EPA
Whiteface Mountain
NY/R2
09/27/2017
UND002
EPA
Underhill
VT/R1
09/28/2017
WFM007
EPA
Whiteface Mountain Summit
NY/R2
10/02/2017
GTH161
EPA
Gothic
CO/R8
10/03/2017
DIN431
NPS
Dinosaur NM
UT/R8
10/04/2017
ACA416
NPS
Acadia NP
ME/R1
10/10/2017
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
3-2
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site ID
Sponsor
Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
WNC429
NPS
Wind Cave NP
SD/R8
10/12/2017
EGB181
EPA
Egbert, Ontario
Ontario CA
10/13/2017
PRK134
EPA
Perkinstown
WI/R5
10/22/2017
STK138
EPA
Stockton
IL/R5
10/25/2017
ALH157
EPA
Alhambra
IL/R5
10/27/2017
VTN140
EPA
Vincennes
IN/R5
10/30/2017
BVL130
EPA
Bondville
IL/R5
11/09/2017
MAC426
NPS
Mammoth Cave NP
KY/R4
11/13/2017
GRS420
NPS
Great Smoky Mountains NP
TN/R4
11/15/2017
CND125
EPA
Candor
NC/R4
11/19/2017
BFT142
EPA
Beaufort
NC/R4
11/27/2017
BWR139
EPA
Blackwater NWR
MD/R3
11/27/2017
WSP144
EPA
Washington Crossing St. Park
NJ/R2
11/28/2017
SHN418
NPS
Shenandoah NP - Big Meadows
VA/R3
11/29/2017
In addition to the sites listed in Table 3-1 that were visited for complete systems and performance
audits, the 29 sites listed in Table 3-2 were visited to conduct NPAP Through-The-Probe (TTP)
ozone Performance Evaluations (PE).
Table 3-2. Site Ozone PE Visits
Site ID
Sponsor Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
SUM156
EPA
Sumatra
FL/R4
02/23/2017
GAS 153
EPA
Georgia Station
GA/R4
02/27/2017
SND152
EPA
Sand Mountain
AL/R4
02/28/2017
SPD111
EPA
Speedwell
TN/R4
03/13/2017
ESP127
EPA
Edgar Evins St. Park
TN/R4
03/16/2017
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
3-3
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site ID
Sponsor Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
IRL141
EPA
Indian River Lagoon
FL/R4
03/17/2017
COW137
EPA
Coweeta
NC/R4
03/23/2017
PET427
NPS
Petrified Forest NP
AZ/R9
04/24/2017
CHA467
NPS
Chiricahua NM
AZ/R9
04/26/2017
GRC474
NPS
Grand Canyon NP
AZ/R9
04/28/2017
CAN407
NPS
Canyonlands NP
UT/R8
05/01/2017
GRB411
NPS
Great Basin NP
NV/R9
06/08/2017
KEF 112
EPA
Kane Experimental Forest
PA/R3
08/16/2017
MKG113
EPA
M. K. Goddard St. Park
PA/R3
08/17/2017
ABT147
EPA
Abington
CT/R1
08/21/2017
NPT006
EPA
Nez Perce Tribe
ID/RIO
08/22/2017
ARE128
EPA
Arendtsville
PA/R3
10/08/2017
PSU106
EPA
Penn State University
PA/R3
10/09/2017
CTH110
EPA
Connecticut Hill
NY/R2
10/11/2017
HOW191
EPA
Howland AmeriFlux
ME/R1
10/12/2017
ASH135
EPA
Ashland
ME/R1
10/13/2017
HWF187
EPA
Huntington Wildlife Forest
NY/R2
10/17/2017
ANA115
EPA
Ann Arbor
MI/R5
10/19/2017
SAL133
EPA
Salamonie Reservoir
IN/R5
10/19/2017
HOX148
EPA
Hoxeyville
MI/R5
10/20/2017
UVL124
EPA
Unionville
MI/R5
10/20/2017
DEN417
NPS
Denali NP
AK/R10
10/24/2017
PNF126
EPA
Cranberry
NC/R4
11/16/2017
BEL116
EPA
Beltsville
MD/R3
11/20/2017
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
3-4
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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 two sites that are part of the NCore Network (GRS420 and
BVL130). Performance evaluation audits of the CASTNET trace gas monitors were performed at
BVL130, ROM206, PND165, HWF187, MAC426, GRS420, and PNF126 in 2017. Results of
the NOy, CO, and S02 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.
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 errors appear to be random and without bias. The results are
also 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.
Detailed reports of the field site audits, which contain all of the test points for each variable at
each site, can be found in the Appendices of each of the 2017 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.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-1
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Table 4-1. Performance Audit Results by Variable Tested
Variable Tested
Number of Tests
Number of tests
Failed
% Failed
Ozone
79
2
2.5
Flow Rate
58
1
2.1
Shelter Temperature (average)
50
1
2
Wind Direction Orientation Average
Error
10
3
30
Orientation Maximum Error
10
3
30
Wind Direction Linearity
Average Error
10
0
0.0
Linearity Maximum Error
10
0
0.0
Wind Direction Starting Torque
10
0
0.0
Wind Speed Low Range
Average Error
10
0
0.0
Low Range Maximum Error
10
0
0.0
Wind Speed High Range
Average Error
10
0
0.0
High Range Maximum Error
10
0
0.0
Wind Speed Starting Torque
10
0
0.0
Temperature
40
1
2.5
2 Meter Temperature
20
1
5
Relative Humidity
10
1
10
Solar Radiation
9
1
11
Precipitation
10
0
0.0
DAS Analog to Digital
32
0
0.0
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-2
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
4.1 Ozone
Seventy nine ozone monitor audits were performed in 2017. 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 generated and measured with a NIST-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. Two monitors tested failed the
annual PE (SAN189 and CHE185). The site monitor response at SAN189 to the level 2 audit gas
was 2.25 ppb low. The site monitor response to ozone-free gas was also low.
During the audit at CHE 185 in May, the site monitor response to ozone-free test gas was high, at
approximately 7.7 ppb which caused a high response at the other test points. The results of 3
previous audits by other agencies within the past year indicate that there is an increasing zero
value response to ozone free audit gas over time. A second day of extensive testing by EEMS
following the ozone PE was performed at the site to help resolve the discrepancy.
Several different test gas delivery configurations were employed. Calibration and audit gas was
introduced at different points in the sample train, and directly to the back of the monitor which
eliminated the sample train entirely. The tests indicated that the monitor is properly calibrated to
match the site calibration standard and site zero air system. Zero audit gas from the mobile lab
was introduced to the site level-3 standard. A response of approximately 3 ppb was observed,
which was expected since the offset was set to -2.5 and the site standard was reading zero when
sampling the site zero air system. A portable T-API zero air system from the mobile lab was
tested and the results matched those of the routine audit zero air system (high zero). None of the
changes improved the response to the audit gas.
The monitor is configured to perform nightly zero/span tests internally, without a second standard
photometer to measure the QC gas. Since the monitor is calibrated correctly to match the
calibration standards, the QC tests match the expected values. Bi-weekly and monthly QC and
calibration checks are performed with the same level-3 (49CPS) standard and zero air system,
that were tested during the original audit, so those results also match the expected values.
It was agreed that the discrepancy is caused by the zero air systems. It was recommended that a
new monitor and portable zero air system be purchased for the site if funding is available. The
Monitor Labs 9811 is approximately 20 years old.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-3
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Table 4-2. Performance Audit Results for Ozone
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Ozone
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
Standard
Date
PAL190
0.16
-1.7
-0.2
0.99653
0.67934
0.99995
01110
02/27/2017
BBE401
-0.69
-1
-0.4
1.00088
-0.58293
0.99999
01110
03/02/2017
PET427
-0.57
-2.6
-2.2
0.9762
-0.08736
0.99999
01110
04/24/2017
CHA467
-1.53
-5.4
-4
0.97036
-1.19028
0.99995
01110
04/26/2017
GRC474
-0.64
-3.2
-2.6
0.96858
0.24999
0.99991
01110
04/28/2017
CAN407
-0.21
-1.1
-0.7
0.99043
0.03773
0.99999
01110
05/01/2017
CHC432
1.33
7.8
8.1
1.07855
-0.05935
0.99998
01110
05/10/2017
SEK430
0.55
3.6
4.4
1.04283
-0.13773
0.99997
01110
05/23/2017
YOS404
0.64
4.5
5.4
1.04019
0.0393
0.99997
01110
05/24/2017
PIN414
1.26
4.3
4.6
1.03381
0.64621
1
01110
05/25/2017
LAV410
-0.33
0.2
0.7
1.00815
-0.31491
0.99999
01110
05/30/2017
GRB411
-1.21
-2.7
-2.1
0.9809
-0.47139
0.99997
01110
06/08/2017
PND165
-0.99
-3.4
-2.6
0.97341
-0.24393
0.99995
01110
07/15/2017
B AS 601
0.22
-0.1
-0.1
0.99633
0.2252
1
01110
07/17/2017
CNT169
1.13
6.9
8.2
0.99332
0.51699
1
01110
07/21/2017
NEC602
-0.92
-3.7
-3.4
1.05083
0.66404
0.99992
01110
07/21/2017
ROM406
-1.06
-3.9
-3.4
0.9626
-0.14012
0.99997
01110
08/01/2017
ROM206
-0.37
-0.5
-0.3
0.9924
-0.04905
0.99998
01110
08/08/2017
YEL408
-0.71
-1.2
-0.8
0.99672
1.07383
0.99998
01110
08/16/2017
GLR468
1.18
5.8
6.9
0.98064
0.48616
0.99999
01110
08/17/2017
NPT006
-0.55
-2.5
-1.9
0.95995
-0.27325
0.99995
01110
08/22/2017
THR422
-0.92
-4.9
-3.9
1.03949
-0.12822
0.99999
01110
08/29/2017
VOY413
0.39
3.8
4.2
0.9378
-2.35573
0.99979
01110
09/01/2017
SAN 189
-2.58
-9.8
-8.6
0.9858
2.61367
0.99987
01110
09/07/2017
GTH161
1.24
3.5
6.8
0.99511
-0.47792
0.99999
01110
10/03/2017
DIN431
-0.58
-1.5
-0.9
0.99071
0.45652
0.99998
01110
10/04/2017
WNC429
-0.53
-3.8
-3.8
0.96148
-0.00563
1
01110
10/12/2017
DEN417
1.19
00
00
8.9
1.01407
-0.0614
0.99998
01110
10/24/2017
CVL151
0.06
1.3
2.6
1.0025
0.49278
0.99997
01111
02/21/2017
SUM 156
0.32
-0.3
0.4
0.98801
0.48935
1
01111
02/23/2017
GAS 153
0.45
0.4
1
0.99023
-0.05742
0.99989
01111
02/27/2017
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-4
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Ozone
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
Standard
Date
SND152
0.03
-0.2
-0.2
0.99386
0.30399
0.99999
01111
02/28/2017
SPD111
-0.11
0.7
0.9
1.01002
-0.31528
0.99999
01111
03/13/2017
CKT136
0.15
0.6
2.1
0.99472
0.52205
0.99996
01111
03/14/2017
MCK131
-0.11
-0.4
0.4
1.00169
-0.13324
0.99996
01111
03/15/2017
MCK231
0.21
-0.1
0.4
0.99477
0.33424
0.99997
01111
03/15/2017
ESP127
-0.19
1.6
2.9
1.00432
0.47637
0.99995
01111
03/16/2017
COW 137
0.34
0.2
0.7
0.99635
0.41148
0.99997
01111
03/23/2017
ALC188
-0.83
-2.6
-1
0.98751
-0.38549
0.99987
01111
03/28/2017
CAD150
0.14
0.2
1.4
0.99828
0.38094
0.99973
01111
04/06/2017
CDZ171
0.53
-0.5
-0.3
0.9866
0.6018
0.99999
01111
04/07/2017
DCP114
0.44
-0.2
0.4
0.9861
0.73952
1
01111
05/22/2017
OXF122
0.5
-0.1
0
0.99353
0.51736
0.99999
01111
05/23/2017
QAK172
0.08
-1.5
-1.1
0.98407
0.26089
0.99998
01111
05/24/2017
VPI120
0.18
-0.1
0.5
0.99078
0.53153
0.99999
01111
07/18/2017
CDR119
0.53
-0.9
0
0.97705
0.99177
0.99996
01111
07/20/2017
PAR107
0.62
0.1
0.4
0.96612
-0.15807
0.99999
01111
07/21/2017
PED108
0.19
-0.6
1
0.97661
0.77925
0.99999
01111
07/25/2017
KEF112
0.74
1.5
2.2
0.99392
-0.33439
0.99998
01111
08/16/2017
LRL117
0.53
0.5
1.7
0.98678
0.9274
0.99993
01111
08/17/2017
MKG113
0.03
0.9
3.5
0.9901
0.82411
1
01111
08/17/2017
ABT147
0.15
-1.1
-0.4
0.98264
-0.30433
0.99999
01111
08/21/2017
ARE128
0.2
-0.4
-0.2
0.99541
0.54301
0.99998
01111
10/08/2017
PSU106
0.18
0.5
0.9
1.02812
-0.51449
0.99981
01111
10/09/2017
CTH110
0.06
-1.5
-1.2
0.99829
0.15345
0.99999
01111
10/11/2017
ANA115
0.73
2.5
4
1.01745
-0.13909
0.99999
01111
10/19/2017
HOX148
0.13
1.6
1.9
0.9819
0.28944
1
01111
10/20/2017
UVL124
-0.29
-1.3
-0.3
0.98024
0.26213
0.99999
01111
10/20/2017
PRK134
-0.07
-1.3
-1
1.08821
-0.05394
1
01111
10/22/2017
STK138
0.35
0.9
1.6
0.99956
-0.04828
0.99996
01111
10/25/2017
ALH157
0.31
0
0.5
0.99697
-0.04294
0.99999
01111
10/27/2017
VIN140
-0.32
-0.2
0
0.99042
-0.2865
0.99999
01111
10/30/2017
CND125
0.66
-0.2
0
1.01315
-0.98232
0.99998
01111
11/19/2017
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-5
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Ozone
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
Standard
Date
BFT142
0.07
-1
-0.8
1.02079
-0.55573
0.99995
01111
11/27/2017
IRL141
-0.82
-2.8
-2.1
0.98534
-0.72332
1
01113
03/17/2017
CHE185
7.53
15.3
24.3
1.0242
7.38922
0.99998
01113
05/09/2017
ACA416
0.09
2.3
4.2
0.98668
0.0491
0.99999
01113
10/10/2017
HOW191
-0.15
0.4
1.4
1.00608
0.12752
0.99995
01113
10/12/2017
ASH135
-0.03
1.5
2.8
0.98417
-0.06763
0.99999
01113
10/13/2017
HWF187
-0.28
-1.8
-1.4
1.00596
0.81566
0.99995
01113
10/17/2017
SAL133
-0.5
1
1.3
1.01563
-0.44556
0.99997
01113
10/19/2017
BVL130
-0.18
-1.3
-1.2
0.98285
0.16574
0.99998
01113
11/09/2017
MAC 426
0.35
-1.6
-1.5
1.00748
0.18955
1
01113
11/13/2017
GRS420
0.11
1.1
1.2
0.99614
-0.53512
0.99997
01113
11/15/2017
PNF126
-0.96
-0.9
-0.4
0.99229
0.44188
0.99999
01113
11/16/2017
BEL116
-0.8
-0.5
0.5
0.98365
0.45817
0.99999
01113
11/20/2017
BWR139
-0.15
0.8
2
0.97433
-0.75095
0.99999
01113
11/27/2017
WSP144
-1.37
-4.1
-3.2
0.97938
-0.18335
0.99997
01113
11/28/2017
SHN418
-0.01
-2.8
-2.1
1.0025
0.49278
0.99997
01113
11/29/2017
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 also 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
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-6
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
I = average intercept
EEMS uses this equation with the running 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 does
not adjust the physical settings (background and span) of the level 2 standards unless the
photometer does not meet the criteria (+/- 3 %) comparison to the level 1 standard.
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 running 6x6 slope and intercept
averages may not reflect 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.
EEMS has chosen to deviate from the EPA Technical Assistance Document. In 2017, EEMS
began correcting the level 2 standard photometer using the most recent verification results rather
than the running 6x6 results. Ozone PE audit data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 which show
the actual concentration difference for level 2 audits, and the average percent differences of the
ozone PE audits greater than level 2 performed in 2017. The data appear to indicate little if any
bias.
Figure 1. 2017 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits
Actual Difference for Level 2
10
0 CHE185
6 —
-Q
Q.
0 2
1 • * ~~ ' * .V—»
£ ~ ~ ~ ~~ * ~~~~~~ * ~~
3 2 ~
£ ~
O
N
° -4
-6
-8 ¦
-10
Feb-2017 Mar-2017 Apr-2017 May-2017 Jun-2017 Jul-2017 Aug-2017 Sep-2017 Oct-2017 Nov-2017 Dec-2017
Date
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-7
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Figure 2. 2017 Average % Difference Ozone Audits Greater Than Level 2
Percent Difference for Levels Greater than Level 2
£
5
* ^
A i
~
~~ ~
~
~
~~
~ ~
~
~
~~
~
~ ~~«
~
O -10
o
Feb-2017 Mar-2017 Apr-2017 May-2017 Jun-2017 Jul-2017 Aug-2017 Sep-2017 Oct-2017 Nov-2017 Dec-2017
Date
4.2 Flow Rate
The controlled flow rate operated by the CASTNET filter pack system was audited at 58 sites in
2017. One site (MAC426) was outside the acceptance criterion of ± 5.0%. All flow rates are in
standard temperature and pressure (at 25 oC) (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.
4.3 Shelter Temperature
At each site reporting ozone concentrations to AQS, the hourly average shelter temperature must
be between 20 and 30 degrees C, or the hourly ozone data may be invalidated. Shelter
temperature was audited at 50 of the sites visited. All but one (BAS601) of the shelter
temperature data accuracy results were found to be within the acceptance limit. 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. The audit sensors used are either a Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD) or a
Thermocouple.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-8
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Nearly all 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. The shelter
temperature sensors never reached the minimum or maximum temperature measured with the
audit sensor. 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) the actual
hourly averages may be lower or higher than those measured by the site sensors.
The CASTNET QAPP does not make a distinction between shelter temperature and any other
temperature sensor regarding accuracy criteria. However the sensors were evaluated using a 2
degree C acceptance criterion. This criterion better follows the EPA OAQPS guidelines.
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.
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)
CVL151
-0.36
-0.41
1.53
1.50
-1.75
PAL190
-0.05
-0.35
3.04
3.01
-0.99
BBE401
0.27
0.95
3.02
2.99
-1.06
CKT136
-0.04
-0.33
1.53
1.50
-1.96
EVE419
3.00
3.02
0.55
MCK131
-0.82
-0.95
1.54
1.51
-1.95
MCK231
-0.43
-0.94
1.53
1.50
-1.75
ALC188
-0.84
-0.87
1.53
1.50
-1.96
KNZ184
0.50
1.43
3.06
2.99
-2.18
KIC003
3.00
2.99
-0.11
CAD150
-0.19
-0.58
1.51
1.50
-0.66
CDZ171
-0.17
-0.38
1.52
1.50
-1.32
CHE185
0.56
0.64
1.54
1.50
-2.52
CHC432
-0.68
-0.82
DCP114
0.80
1.34
1.53
1.50
-1.96
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-9
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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)
OXF122
-0.15
-0.20
1.52
1.50
-1.32
SEK430
0.25
0.68
2.97
2.99
0.53
QAK172
0.12
0.23
1.50
1.50
0.00
YOS404
1.08
2.26
3.03
3.02
-0.25
PIN414
0.20
1.03
3.01
3.03
0.64
LAV410
0.52
2.03
2.93
2.97
1.34
PND165
0.60
1.12
3.05
3.01
-1.31
B AS 601
2.16
2.72
3.15
3.28
3.98
SHE604
3.25
3.21
-1.36
VPI120
0.99
1.64
1.49
1.50
0.67
BUF603
3.42
3.35
-2.12
CDR119
0.18
0.35
1.53
1.51
-1.09
CNT169
-1.74
-1.92
3.03
3.01
-0.55
NEC602
-0.34
-0.97
3.75
3.64
-3.02
PAR107
-0.09
0.60
1.54
1.50
-2.81
PED108
0.11
-0.45
1.47
1.50
2.04
ROM406
1.62
1.86
3.04
3.00
-1.17
ROM206
0.84
0.99
3.02
2.99
-0.77
YEL408
-0.74
-1.07
2.90
2.89
-0.34
GLR468
-0.8
-1.28
2.94
3.01
2.38
LRL117
0.00
-0.92
1.49
1.50
0.45
THR422
1.93
2.17
2.99
3.00
0.22
VOY413
0.24
0.80
2.99
3.00
0.33
SAN 189
-0.75
-1.11
2.98
3.00
0.78
NIC001
3.03
3.00
-0.89
WFM105
3.04
3.00
-1.42
UND002
2.97
3.01
1.23
WFM007
3.02
3.00
-0.77
GTH161
0.69
1.55
2.99
3.00
0.33
ACA416
0.32
1.05
1.50
1.52
0.91
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-10
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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)
WNC429
-0.21
-1.74
2.97
3.00
1.01
EGB181
-0.26
-0.26
1.58
1.52
-3.80
PRK134
-0.02
-0.31
1.52
1.50
-1.32
STK138
1.11
1.28
1.53
1.50
-1.75
ALH157
0.44
0.67
1.52
1.50
-1.01
VIN140
0.30
1.10
1.51
1.50
-0.49
BVL130
-0.27
-0.54
1.54
1.50
-2.60
MAC 426
0.29
0.51
1.65
1.54
-6.61
GRS420
-0.12
-1.65
3.01
3.01
-0.24
CND125
0.72
1.16
1.53
1.50
-1.96
BFT142
-0.22
-0.32
1.49
1.50
0.89
BWR139
1.43
1.96
1.54
1.50
-2.60
WSP144
0.70
1.99
1.51
1.49
-1.54
SHN418
0.92
0.95
1.53
1.51
-1.53
4.4 Wind Speed
The wind speed sensors at ten sites equipped for meteorological measurements were audited.
Wind speed data accuracy results at all sites were found to be well within the acceptance limit.
The results of the wind speed performance audits are presented in Table 4-4.
4.4.1 Wind Speed Starting Threshold
The condition of the wind speed bearings were 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 for data quality objectives (DQO) 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 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. All of the systems were found to
be within the acceptance limit.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-11
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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.
Using the average error of the orientation tests for the ten sensors tested, three sites were outside
the acceptance criterion of ± 5 degrees. These sites were CHE185, CHC432 and NEC6002.
The results of the wind direction performance audits are presented in Table 4-4.
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, 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 for data quality objectives (DQO) 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. None
of the sensors tested were outside of acceptance limits for wind direction starting threshold. The
test results are provided in Table 4-4. Do you want that many decimal places for wind speed %
diff high range?
Table 4-4. Performance Audit Results for Wind Sensors
Wind Direction
Wind Speed
Orientation Error
Linearity Error
Starting
Torque
(g-cm)
Low Range Error
High Range Error
Starting
Torque
(g-cm)
Site
Ave
(deg)
Max
(deg)
Ave
(deg)
Max
(deg)
Ave
(rn/s)
Max
(rn/s)
Ave
(% diff)
Max
(% diff)
PAL 190
2
4
1.5
3
16
0.03
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.20
CHE 185
8.75
10
0.75
1
13
0.07
0.20
-0.02
-0.02
0.30
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-12
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Wind Direction
Wind Speed
Orientation Error
Linearity Error
Starting
Torque
(g-crn)
Low Range Error
High Range Error
Starting
Torque
(g-cm)
Site
Ave
(deg)
Max
(deg)
Ave
(deg)
Max
(deg)
Ave
(rn/s)
Max
(rn/s)
Ave
(% diff)
Max
(% diff)
CHC432
8.25
12
1
2
9
0.05
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.30
PND165
2.75
4
0.73
1.6
10
0.05
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.30
BAS601
1.75
3
0.18
0.30
-0.00
0.01
0.40
SHE604
2
5
0.22
0.40
-0.00
0.01
0.30
BUF603
1.5
3
0.19
0.30
0.00
0.01
0.20
NEC602
18.25
21
0.15
0.25
0.01
0.01
0.00
ACA416
3.5
4
1.81
4.99
9
0.18
0.20
-0.01
0.00
0.40
BVL130
2
3
0.88
1.8
11
0.06
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.35
* 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 wind direction or wind speed challenge result is outside the acceptance criterion
the variable is flagged.
4.6 Temperature and Two-Meter Temperature
The EPA sponsored site temperature measurement systems consist of a temperature sensor
mounted at approximately 9 meters above ground-level on a tower. Sites operated by the Park
Service have recently moved the temperature sensors to two meters from the ground (2 meter
temperature). Temperature sensors utilized by the BLM are not the same type as those at other
CASTNET sites. The BLM temperature sensors are combined relative humidity and temperature
sensors and not standalone RTD or encased thermistor temperature sensors. Due to the design of
the RH/Temperature sensor, it cannot be submerged in water baths in order to challenge the
sensor at different temperature audit levels. For that reason the combination RH/Temperature
sensors were 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 audit
results are not directly comparable to audit results of RTD or encased thermistor sensors.
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.
Results of the tests indicate that 28 of the 29 (9-meter) sensors tested were within the acceptance
criterion. One site (NEC602) was just slightly above the acceptance criteria.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-13
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Twenty 2-meter temperature sensors were tested, with one (BUF603) above acceptance criterion.
It should be noted that both NEC602 and BUF603 are sponsored by the BLM and operate 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 of the 9-meter temperature sensor shield blower motors encountered during the site audits
conducted during 2017 were found to be functioning. All but one (PAL 190) 2-meter temperature
sensor shield blowers were functioning properly.
4.7 Relative Humidity
The ten relative humidity systems that were audited were tested with a combination of primary
standard salt solutions, and a certified 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.
As in previous years, operation of humidity sensors with respect to natural or forced-air aspiration
can vary between sites. At most EPA sponsored sites humidity sensors are operating in naturally
aspirated shields. At most NPS sponsored sites humidity sensors are operating in shields
designed to be mechanically aspirated with forced-air blowers.
During 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.
All but one of the sensors tested were within
failed to meet the criteria for either the average
included in Table 4-5.
the acceptance criterion. The sensor at BVL130
or maximum response. The results of the tests are
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-14
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Table 4-5. Performance Audit Results for Temperature and Relative Humidity
Site
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
2 Meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
Relative Humidity
Range 0 -100%
Ave. Error
(%)
Max. Error
(%)
CVL151
-0.01
PAL 190
-0.04
-0.02
-1.87
3.25
BBE401
-0.02
CKT136
0.11
MCK131
0.09
MCK231
0.00
ALC188
0.05
KNZ184
-0.04
KIC003
0.07
CAD150
-0.08
CDZ171
0.03
CHE 185
-0.03
0.12
0.70
2.30
CHC432
-0.50
6.63
8.40
DCP114
0.05
OXF122
0.05
SEK430
-0.07
QAK172
0.03
YOS404
-0.09
PIN414
0.06
LAV410
0.07
PND165
0.20
0.16
-2.66
-0.69
BAS601
0.20
-3.29
-1.10
SHE604
0.08
-2.07
0.50
VPI120
-0.21
BUF603
1.57
-3.53
-1.70
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-15
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
2 Meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
Relative Humidity
Range 0 -100%
Ave. Error
(%)
Max. Error
(%)
CDR119
-0.04
CNT169
-0.03
NEC602
0.63
0.20
1.60
PAR107
0.06
PED108
0.04
ROM406
0.36
ROM206
0.00
YEL408
-0.14
GLR468
-0.39
LRL117
0.15
THR422
0.11
VOY413
0.38
SAN189
0.06
NIC001
0.03
WFM105
0.18
UND002
-0.05
WFM007
0.01
GTH161
0.06
ACA416
-0.11
0.58
6.25
WNC429
-0.15
EGB181
-0.10
PRK134
-0.10
STK138
0.01
ALH157
0.09
VIN140
-0.08
BVL130
-0.04
-0.01
15.12
24.92
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-16
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
2 Meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
Relative Humidity
Range 0 -100%
Ave. Error
(%)
Max. Error
(%)
MAC426
-0.10
GRS420
-0.02
CND125
-0.05
BFT142
-0.12
BWR139
0.10
WSP144
0.00
SHN418
-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 were used as the audit standard system.
Nine sites were tested. All but one site, (PAL 190), 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. Those values greater than ±10% are bold.
4.9 Precipitation
The ten 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.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-17
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Table 4-6. Performance Audit Results for Solar Radiation and Precipitation
Solar Radiation Error
Precipitation
Ave. Error
(% diff)
Site
Daytime
Ave.
(% diff)
Std. Max.
Value
(w/m2)
Site Max.
Observed
(w/m2)
Max. Value
(% diff)
2/27/2017
PAL 190
16.63
830
972
17.16
-2.0
5/9/2017
CHE185
0.57
778
780
0.22
0.0
5/10/2017
CHC432
0.0
7/15/2017
PND165
-2.60
880
906
2.95
-4.6
7/17/2017
BAS601
-2.45
985
942
-4.37
-9.7
7/18/2017
SHE604
0.80
862
877
1.74
5.4
7/19/2017
BLTF603
1.24
942
950
0.85
-1.5
7/21/2017
NEC602
-3.56
821
768
-6.50
1.8
10/10/2017
ACA416
-4.77
630
612
-2.86
-5.0
11/9/2017
BVL130
-8.47
588
529
-10.09
1.0
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 is 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 a NIST-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 EPA sponsored site data loggers were within the acceptance criterion of ±
0.003 volts. Three of the NPS sponsored site data loggers were outside 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,
and operation of the battery backup system used to save the DAS date, time, and configuration
during a power outage. All EPA sponsored site data loggers were found to be set to the correct
date and within ±5 minutes per the acceptance criterion for time. The NPS sponsored site data
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-18
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
loggers and 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.
Table 4-7. Performance Audit Results for Data Acquisition Systems
Site
Analog Test Error (volts)
Date
Correct
(Y/N)
Time
Error
(minutes)
Low Channel
High Channel
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
2/21/2017
CVL151
0.0000
0.0000
Y
0
2/27/2017
PAL 190
0.0000
0.0003
Y
0
3/2/2017
BBE401
0.0001
0.0003
Y
1.27
3/14/2017
CKT136
0.0001
0.0002
Y
0
3/15/2017
EVE419
-0.0001
0.0000
Y
2.5
3/15/2017
MCK131
0.0002
0.0002
Y
0
3/15/2017
MCK231
0.0001
0.0002
Y
0
3/28/2017
ALC188
-0.0001
0.0000
Y
0
4/6/2017
CADI 50
0.0001
0.0002
Y
0.02
4/7/2017
CDZ171
0.0000
0.0000
Y
0
5/9/2017
CHE185
-0.0004
-0.0003
Y
0.02
5/10/2017
CHC432
0.0004
0.0008
Y
3
5/22/2017
DCP114
0.0001
0.0001
Y
0
5/23/2017
OXF122
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0
5/23/2017
SEK430
0.0002
0.0004
Y
1.5
5/24/2017
QAK172
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0
5/24/2017
YOS404
-0.0001
0.0001
Y
1.87
5/25/2017
PIN414
0.0001
0.0004
Y
0.57
5/30/2017
LAV410
-0.0002
0.0001
Y
0.33
7/17/2017
BAS601
Y
0
7/18/2017
SHE604
Y
0
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-19
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site
Analog Test Error (volts)
Date
Correct
(Y/N)
Time
Error
(minutes)
Low Channel
High Channel
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
7/18/2017
VPI120
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0
7/19/2017
BLTF603
0.0000
0.0001
Y
5
7/20/2017
CDR119
0.0001
0.0001
Y
0
7/21/2017
CNT169
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0
7/21/2017
NEC602
Y
8.15
7/21/2017
PARI 07
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0.02
7/25/2017
PED108
-0.0001
0.0000
Y
0
8/1/2017
ROM406
0.0001
0.0011
Y
0.9
8/8/2017
ROM206
-0.0001
0.0000
Y
0.42
8/16/2017
YEL408
0.0000
0.0002
Y
2.53
08/17/2017
GLR468
-0.0001
-0.0003
Y
1.17
8/17/2017
LRL117
0.0000
0.0000
Y
0
8/29/2017
THR422
0.0000
0.0002
Y
1.25
9/1/2017
VOY413
0.0000
0.0003
Y
3.08
9/7/2017
SAN189
0.0000
0.0002
Y
0
10/3/2017
GTH161
-0.0004
0.0001
Y
0
10/10/2017
ACA416
0.0000
0.0000
Y
2.6
10/12/2017
WNC429
0.0000
0.0003
Y
3.32
10/13/2017
EGB181
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0
10/22/2017
PRK134
0.0000
0.0000
Y
0
10/25/2017
STK138
0.0001
0.0001
Y
0
10/27/2017
ALH157
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0
10/30/2017
VIN140
0.0001
0.0002
Y
0
11/10/2017
BVL130
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0
11/13/2017
MAC426
0.0000
0.0002
Y
2.38
11/15/2017
GRS420
0.0000
0.0000
Y
0.72
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-20
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
Site
Analog Test Error (volts)
Date
Correct
(Y/N)
Time
Error
(minutes)
Low Channel
High Channel
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
11/19/2017
CND125
0.0000
0.0000
Y
0.02
11/27/2017
BFT142
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0
11/27/2017
BWR139
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0.03
11/28/2017
WSP144
0.0000
0.0000
Y
0.03
11/29/2017
SHN418
0.0003
0.0005
Y
1.42
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
4-21
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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.
5.2 Sample Inlets
With consideration given to the siting criteria compromises described in the previous section, all
but two sites (LAV410 and CDR119) visited in 2017 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 22.5 degree angle (object
distance must be at least two times the height) above the ozone inlet. There are trees that violate
the 22.5 degree sample inlet requirement at the LAV410 and the CDR119 sites.
Ozone sample inlets are between 3 and 15 meters. With the exception of one site (WNC429)
Teflon tubing of the proper diameter is used for the ozone inlets. The ozone sample train at
WNC429 is primarily glass with an exhaust fan downstream of the ozone sample port. The ozone
analyzer at WNC429 (South Dakota) is operated by the State.
With the exception of WNC429, 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
trains are comprised of only Teflon fittings and materials. Sample inlet particulate filters of 5
micron are present at most sites.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
5-1
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
The dry deposition filter packs are designed to sample from 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.
5.3 Infrastructure
Sites continue to be improved by repairing the site shelters which had deteriorated throughout the
years of operation. The installation and upgrade of the data loggers and replacement of degrading
signal cables, has been very beneficial to the network. 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.
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 AMEC 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 AMEC or ARS. They had been given instructions by the previous site operators and
over the phone instructions from the field operation centers at AMEC and ARS.
5.5 Documentation
There were some documentation problems with the Site Status Report Forms (SSRF) completed
by the site operators each week during the regular site visits. Common errors included improper
reporting of "initial flow", "final flow", and "leak check" values.
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.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
5-2
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
5-3
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
6-1
EEMS
-------
2017 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. GS-10F-075AAA Order No. EP-G17H-00554
USEPA
September 2019
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's multi-layer model Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 222, 391e402.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2017. docx
7-1
EEMS
-------
APPENDIX 1
Audit Standards Certifications
-------
Designation; E 104 - 85
Standard Practice for
Maintaining Constant Relative Humidity by Means of Aqueous
Solutions1
This standard is istoed under the feed, designation E 104; the number immodindy foOomng the designation judicata the year of
origitmJ adopeoa or, in the case of rertsioa. Uie year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last rapproval A
superscript epstlon («) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or rcapprovai.
1, Scope
1.1 This practice describes two methods for generating
constant relative humidity (rh) environments in relatively
small containers.
1.2 Tli is practice is applicable for obtaining constant
relative humidities ranging from dryness to near saturation
it temperatures spanning from 0 to 50*C.
1.3 This practice is applicable for closed systems such as.
environmental conditioning containers and for the calibra-
tion of hygrometers.
1.4 This practice is not recommended for the generation
of continuous, (flowing) streams of constant humidity unless
precautionary criteria are followed to ensure source stability.
(See Section 9,)
1.5 Caution—Both saturated salt solutions and sulfuric
acid-water solutions are extremely corrosive, and care should
be taken in their preparation and handling,
1.6 This standard may involve hazardous materials, oper-
ations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to
address all of the safety problems associated with its use. It is
the responsibility of whoever uses this standard to consult and
establish appropriate safety and health practices and deter-
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
(For more specific safety precautionary information see 1.5
ad 10.1.)
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
D 1193 Specification for Reagent Water2
D 4023 Definitions of Terms Relating to Hum d t
Measurements3
E 126 Test Method for Inspection and Verification of
Hydrometers4
2.2 Other Document:
DIN50008 "Konstantklimate uber waBerigen Losungen"
(Constant Climates Over Aqueous Solutions).
Part 1: Saturated Salt and Glycerol Solutions.
Part 2: Sulfuric Acid Solutions. (1981)3
'Urn practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D-22 on
J'mpUng and Analysis of Atmospheres, and is. the direct responsibility of
^-bcommittec D22.ll on Meteorology.
Current edition approved Feb. 22, 1985. Published June 198S,
1 Annual Bosk of ASTM Standards. Vol 11,01.
' Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 11.03.
* Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 14.03.
5 Published by Deutsche* Imutut fur Normuag, 4-10 BurgprfSBStfasse
pwtf«fa 1107, EM
-------
# E 104
8. Reagents and Materials
8,1 Purity of Reagents—Reagent grade chemicals shall be
used for preparation of all standard solutions, Unless other-
wise indicated, it is intended that all reagents conform to the
specifications of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of
the American Chemical Society where such specifications are
available.6 Other grades may be used, jwovided it is first
ascertained tlL.it the reagent is of sufficiently high purity to
permit its use without lessening the accuracy of the determi-
nation.
8.1,1 Saturated salt solutions may be prepared using
either amorphous or hydra ted reagents (that is, reagents
containing water of crystallization). Hydrated reagents are
often preferred to amorphous forms for their solvating
characteristics.
gj2 Purity of Water—Reagent water produced by distilla-
tion, or by ion exchange, or reverse osmosis followed by
distillation ihall be used. Sec Specification D 1193,
9. Technical Precautions
9J Although a container capable of airtight closure is
described in Section 7, it may be desirable to have a vent
under certain conditions of test or with some kinds of
containers (chances in pressure may produce undesirable
cracks in some types of containers). The vent should be as
^mall as practical to minimize loss of desired equilibrium
conditions when in use.
92 The container should be small to minimize the
influence of any temperature variations acting upon the
container and contents. A maximum proportion of 25 cm
voiume/cm: of solution surface area is suggested, and overall
container headspace volume should be no larger than
necessary to confine a stored item.
93 Measurement accuracy is strongly dependent on the
ability to achieve and maintain temperature stability during
actual use of any solution system. Temperature instability of
±0.1*C can cause corresponding instabilities in generated
values of relative humidity of ±0.5 %.
9.4 The compatibility of any constant relative humidity
system used for instrument calibration testing should be
confirmed by reference to the instrument manufacturer's
instructions.
9.5 Important considerations leading to stability should
include (but afe not necessarily limited to) the following:
9 J.J ElinujmtijmjJtekage paths, _ ...
9 J J Elimination of heat sources or heat sinks, or both,
for temperature stability.
9^.3 Limiting flow rate to preclude source carry-over.
10. Preparations of Aqueous Solutions
10.1 Caution—Saturated .salt-water systems and sulfuric
acid solutions should be regarded as hazardous materials.
Refer to 1.6 for guidelines,
10.2 Saturated Sail-Water Systems:
10.2.1 Select a salt of characteristic value from Annex AL
Note —Hie refereacc document by Gicaxpui? contains inforai*.
(ion many other saturated z~~I'. solutions which may be tisid. Thcs.-,
¦ additional tystemi, however, sre less ;• or less completely
drSmoi in vaiuc. Also, some rasy only beusedfctea freshly'prepared (to
Emit the ioQucacc of cbemical instability web as hydrolysis cr add fx
;i) Tlxe salts listed In Ar,*:• A1 csn used fbrs yc&r or ruort
10.2.2 Place a quantity of the selected salt in the bottom
of a container or an insert tray to a depth of about 4 cm for
low rh salts, or to a depth of about 1.5 cm for high rh salts.
10X3 Add water in about 2-mL increments, stirring well
after each addition, until the salt can absorb no more water
as evidenced by free liquid- Although a pturated solution
system is defined when any excess quantity of undissolved
solute is present, it is preferred to keep the excess liquid
present to a minimum for case in handling and for minimal
impact on stability should temperature variations occur.
10.2.4 Gosc the container and allow 1 h for temperature
stabilization.
10.2.5 Hie container may be used as a reservoir from
which quantities of slush can be transferred for use, or the
entire container may be used for conditioning tests.
10.3 Sulfuric Acid-Water Solutions:
10.3 I Determine the acid concentration corresponding to
the desired relative humidity value from Annex A2, interpo-
lating as necessary. __ .
j 0.3.2 Measure sufficient working quantities oi suliune
add reagent and reagent water so that, when mixed in props
proportion, a sufficient depth of liquid is available for props
floatation of a test hydrometer. (See Section 9.) ^ _
10.3.3 Measure solution density after the sulfuric aaa-
water solution lias cooled following mixing. Refer to Annex
A2 for desired values.
10.3.4 Store the prepared mixture in a container with l
tight-fitting lid. Check solution density before each occasion
of use.
11. Precision and Bias
11. i Under ideal conditions, tlx bias (accuracy) of lie
sources generated by this practice a:e equal to the uncer-
tainty figures associated with each source value, as stated
the Annex, tables. In actual use, lack of temperature equxuo-
rium (±0.5"C) and other functional losses can reduce the
statement to ±2.5 %. Precision is ±0.5 % A.
* -Rossa* A»e«cia Chemical Society Specifiat&xB," Am. Cbcm-
.V Soc, WubuieWn, DC. !"or lUggtit-caJ on the tciting of vaffrsl-. stoi lilted by
the AraoSctn CbcmksJ Sod«y, vx 'Pjz&zH Cbw.csb ud Suffiiuu;, by
Jo=q£ Rorin. D. V«b Nostraod Co., loc. New York. NY. ud the -Uraled States
VoL DA. 1977. pp. It-*
-------
# E 104
ANNEXES
(Mandatory Information)
Al.I EQUILIBRIUM RELATIVE HUMIDITY VALUES FOR SELECTED SATURATED
AQUEOUS SALT SOLUTIONS
femper*-
LKMum
CHortJa'*
uct,x
Potassium
1.0
64,6 ± 6.7
985 ±2,1
«85*0J
902 ± 05
075*0.6
975*05
25
-------
Oertstfcate Number * ¦ j»» * m g * g * *
a23bq"72 Certificate of Calibration
issue Dale1 01/2:3/1 7 -———
Page 1 of 2
Customs F.NVIRONMf-NIA! ENGINEERING & MfcASUrEMEN1 Sf- hViU"-.;
I NW 39! H DRIVL P.O Number
GA[NFS',lfJtrPL .o.cs 10 Number: EEMS 01220
Description hh uROMfcR
Mamifactuier PO TRONIC
Mnrjrl Number A1H
Seiinl Numiifci 75296
I'.chnictuin STLVb FORCES
On-5'fi: C-aFtbtatron f~l
Comments
Calibration Date,
Cdibi alien Duo
P'OCVdure
Temperature;
Humidity:
01/23/2017
n i ii'jom o
TMl-M FYGROTHfcRM0GRAPHS
Rev 2/22>2011
41 % RH
As F-ound Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
L,anting Attribute-
rhii p n jurTi^rn I us h v_,i irt rt«j m n s t n con.[ u^U U > t til s ihiJ.tTifUr V sc i >M n ' c¦> pi V 1 ,r,i' si'l" m f1 h1 r, Y r mr>. ' mmpin^ i ,,u ' k^oah s' o'lho*
R«*iriirtr\i s.if ii"ifc d! J 'fi'ri mil < t mil r.iliM r i Fi -1 iii»u« iiri1 r, f , i itHf'.I Mni' iT 5i i n k! 1 J vp>•_ l\ l|ri' ¦ l >rh Ji ^ ^ i( irN r,* i i- rnuh^i.l,y -.h^Tv.! tirlc'S4- nh -win -nf« n< » ¦* > 1 »n, i nt t- *i»- tt« nii u1-" n s Ms ^(h >| v»(hi j * * ^ift« 1
limits will no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
n.n s II «',tv •". ,|H hi. II i n "".Oi LL 11'ivr „',I05 or i' ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994. ISCMIEC17025:2005 is written In a language relevant w laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with Is pertinent requirements. The instrument listed on (his certificate has been calibrated to (he
requirements of ANSI/NCSl 2540-1-1334 and TMI's Quality Manual, QM-1,
Results contained in this document relate (inly to the item calibrated. Calibration clue elates 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 fuii, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
*3 - /
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MAN AG LP Scot! Chamberlain. QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Ashfct Nutiibet Maiiufaclurer Model Number Date Calibrated Cal Duo
0710649 THUNDER SCIENTIFIC 2500ST " 2/11/2016 2/11/2017
Tmi
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
125?^ TELECOM Dc"/E "EM- Fl
-------
Certificate Nurti6S\
A2380172 {
Issue fete'01 f2¥1?
Certificate of Calibration
Data Sheet
Paiameter
Nominal
Minimum
Mrttimun
« Funnel
1 G.O
H4.0
15 0
1 onif.eitir.'ie Ac.urafv
25 e
24.6
25.4
:4 e
Tei i>eijti,io Aixirp;;,'
m n
34.6
35,4
V.
Hu'tildily A, uira>"tf
53 D
314
34.6
hu
-------
c,Sr' Certificate of Calibration
'tiM-C Datv 'j I'; 3/17 1 ¦ 11 • 111
Customer ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & ML ASUHbMbNr J 3
1 I 'H NW J91 H f'RIVL ' N.;nsn>;?r
GAINESVILLE FL 3200^ ID Number: EEMS 01225
riecniptirni THERMO HYGROMETER
Manutaaurei ROTRONiC
Model Number HYf5ROPALM
Serial Mumba, 40361 OOP/124431
Trchnician STEVE TORRES
On-Site Calibration ~
Comments
L,calibration Cafe,
I sr. ration Due
Procedure; x--..
1 empemii;'"?:
Humidity:
01/2 3»'201/
01 '23/20 1S
TMi-M-HYGROTHERMOGRAPHS
Rev 2./22/2011
72 F
41 % RH
As Found Condition; IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results. IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the National institute of Standards and Technology, derived from natural physi
measurements or compared to consensus standards.. Unless otherwise noted, the method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standa
Reported uncertainties and "test uncertainty ratios" (TUR's) are expressed as expanded uncertainty value
factor of K=2. A TUR of 4:1 Is routinely observed unless olherwts
limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement
oted on th<
srtiicate. Statements of <
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibr
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformant
Calibration due da
specifications.
approximately 05% <
mpliance are based <
TMl's Quality System is accredited to ISD/IEC 17025:2005 and ANSI/NC5L 2540-1-1994. ISO/IEC
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 0001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements. The ins
.qui < mt'riU "N*il Ni -1 ZTkH ' ,md fM's. Ojm jg
071UB49 THUNDER SCIENTIFIC 25G0S1 2/11/2016 2M U201?
rM I
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
-teiecov dpivt r- '^ -¦
-------
c-™.» Certificate of Calibration —
ISS'J^ Udtf> 01 i?2i' 1 >'
Data Sheet
ParaniPtei Nonijnal i*LEUUiJ2 Mjxh'mh As Found As,L«'i Up. t -V
a, 'i c r> ¦¦¦iit1.: * k i s; .¦# r-
Tamoor-^i;™ Ar>, (.,*¦<* "HR.n "1A iC ,« ¦;;« '"} x; O
Temperature Accuracy 35.0 34,6 35.4 35.2 35 2 C
H iTbfiV A >r ui 1 *' 7 7. U iM W 1 -V *
H,fnrli% ;urscv ^0(1 : c I h 50 1 '
Humidity Accuracy 75,0 73 4 76-6 75.0 75 0 %
rvi i
Technic til Maintenance, Inc.
'2530 TELECOM DR'YE TW<; f ^ -1* *- i'JL' ;:'l ;"7f:I
-------
Certificate Number
A2380QS1
i»e D'''23n?
Certificate of Calibration
Page 1 of 2
•nvrcmo fflJVlKONML-Hl AL EWIFD-'I' 1'J & MEAVRt ViCNf ThPV!
.-,-VO -JUil M 1 IKIWI
GAIMESV iLl-t Ft
r- ii f. j c:: /\
Description: DIGITAL STIK THE
IVKiniira'Juier F! UKE
Mut!»i Number 1WIA E,>.
Pet Ml Number 2>J8r,0Hrj
1 tMtirn [~~1
Comments: TUR is 2 to 1
'METER
P Muristi.":'
ID Number: EEMS 01226
i .dliDi cJtion Date'
Calibration Due:
nocr.'dure
i ftrijjerature"
Humidity:
01.'23/2017
01/23/2019
FLUKE 1551A EX 52A EX
Rev' 1 U1/2010
72 F
41 RH
As Fc urni Condition:IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
jviitil in H-ilur!,,. t y Itir- I If" »' thtJ lT"'lr>u" t'l'"'1
i \ >('H " 17 i,S ; in. ¦¦-jTi'tji* m i! kngi'i']> ' 1 -> ,
\'!u -r..—..—
^qn,r,™..msi,rANS^r'JL:" R1 * MHlTMK'HJ.Mtvr,., UJ1 .Ml
, ,ItvV„ , „ ,.lV, !.- „vu.lit„wlhrt.' >-li' « f r
f i -j,ii' coi Mi'st'i] ir lii" i1-injrin .I1 i'IJ i'oriN Mi Hit'i rm i i llird.- > i j
administrative purposes and do not imply conttmted conformance to speciftcauoos.
1I.ISL .rWi..,.T-,S'.,'i^- t *,'np-<¦, Ml rtithr.m-i<> .,!>• r iv,-.,, ml- '"il sr i1 " t
" /^a£jGL!>-- -
-RANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MAMAGFR
X*A
>5coit '"hnnbfrlain, QUAinvi MANAGER
Atbct Nmnbei
89997b
A06118
A1W7
F1 UKF
HART SCIENTIFIC
Calibration Standards
Model Number
5818B-12
9103
A38072
HART SCIENTIFIC
f LUKE'HART
9140
IWLh
Djte C-fij'b'^teci
6/27/2016
1/17/2017
C.-ii Out?
2'L:i'201v>
tO/^DlJU 1
6/vT/20!
-------
certificate Number Certificate of Calibration 8820
A3 380051
Issue Date 0
Data Sheet
Paianieter Nomina I Minimum Minimum As Found As Lett IMt AOJ/FAIL
T^nper^u'c /Vcj'iVy 3 00 ! '¦ •' J-
Fsry t'^uO •i«9r
Temperature Accuracy 150,00 149,95 150,05
T]vii
X ~ -JL I Technical Maintenance
ANSI/N1
-------
Date
2/4/2017 - - Calibration and verification of three RTD meters with most recent certification of EEMS RTD
TMI Cert data -- 1/23/2017
TMI
EEMS
STD
RTD
Cert#
A2380069
01229
diff corrected
-25.00
-24.96
-0.040 -24.991
0.00
0.02
-0.020 -0.012
100.00
100.04
-0.040 100.003
150.00
150.04
-0.040 150.000
RTD 01229
2016 correction:
slope= 1.000055
intercept= 0.0319084
corr=
1.0000000
2/4/2017
At Date
EEMS 2/4/2017
RTD
01229
raw corrected
0.02
11.25
19.82
31.53
40.39
48.82
24.91
-0.01
11.22
19.79
31.50
40.36
48.79
24.88
RTD
01230 /01231
RTD
01227/1
RTD
01228/3
slope =
intercept =
correlation ;
EEMS
EEMS
EEMS
AER
SEG
van1
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
0.04
-0.03
0.14
-0.01
-0.05
-0.02
11.28
11.22
11.45
11.03
11.26
11.41
19.84
19.79
20.07
19.58
19.88
19.97
31.55
31.51
31.90
31.51
31.69
31.52
40.39
40.36
40.81
40.36
40.59
40.36
48.78
48.76
49.30
48.78
49.06
48.77
24.93
24.89
25.21
24.87
25.00
24.87
0.998954
1.007593
1.006555
0.069678
0.147536
-0.03341
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
-------
Date
2/4/2017 - - Calibration and verification of three RTD meters with most recent certification of EEMS RTD
TMI Cert data -- 1/23/2017
TMI
EEMS
STD
RTD
Cert#
A2380069
01229
diff corrected
-25.00
-24.96
-0.040 -24.991
0.00
0.02
-0.020 -0.012
100.00
100.04
-0.040 100.003
150.00
150.04
-0.040 150.000
RTD 01229
2016 correction:
slope= 1.000055
intercept= 0.0319084
corr=
1.0000000
2/4/2017
At Date
EEMS 2/4/2017
RTD
01229
raw corrected
0.02
11.25
19.82
31.53
40.39
48.82
24.91
-0.01
11.22
19.79
31.50
40.36
48.79
24.88
RTD
01230 /01231
RTD
01227/1
RTD
01228/3
slope =
intercept =
correlation ;
EEMS
EEMS
EEMS
AER
SEG
van1
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
0.04
-0.03
0.14
-0.01
-0.05
-0.02
11.28
11.22
11.45
11.03
11.26
11.41
19.84
19.79
20.07
19.58
19.88
19.97
31.55
31.51
31.90
31.51
31.69
31.52
40.39
40.36
40.81
40.36
40.59
40.36
48.78
48.76
49.30
48.78
49.06
48.77
24.93
24.89
25.21
24.87
25.00
24.87
0.998954
1.007593
1.006555
0.069678
0.147536
-0.03341
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
-------
Certificate Number
A23B0069
Issue Date 01'23m
Certificate of Calibration
Page 1 ofi
Customer; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1 u:s NW 39T"H DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, El 32605
t LUtrX
P.O. Niiititef:"
ID Number: EEMS 01229
Description DIGITAL STIK '! HERMOMETER
Manufacturer FLUKE
Model Number IC-51A E>
Serial Number J27G143
fechiiictsn PlhVC TORRES
Osi-bue Cjlibratmn-1 |
Comments TUR is L1 ti' 1
Calibration Dale:
Calibration Duo
Pioceduie
fernpeiatiire
Hunintty
As Found Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
01 >2 3/2017
01/23/2018
FLUKE 1551A EX f.2A EX
Rev- 1 1/1/2010
72 F
41 % RH
Limiting Attribute i
This instrument has been calibrated using standards trace;
measurements or compared to consensus standards, Unless otherwise not*
Reported uncertainties and "lest uncertainty ratios" (TUR's'
factor of K=2. A TUR of 4:1 is routinely observed unless ot
limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
TWK J,111', l» iiu1\ >?",; ;uns jnd iN 1 NC "I i"1 : i im ; _ IT. J" i'j1"- < -en i hrnT-k-yu-.'s -rp "b n->l
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements. The instrument listed on this certificate has been calibrated to the
r> in >rt-t» »\Mcl N1 .HL Zr^ 1 l!| <¦> ! U.'l'i giulii. M,in ii J,t '
Results containecS in this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client ft
administrative purposes and So not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not Be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, ins.
" V>v \
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER
Scctf Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
AssetNumber
890976
A06118
A11967
A88072
Manufacture?
FLUKb"
CMjl?!MigirS|andardi
ModflNumuer
56'ltiB 12
HAkl SCIENTIFIC
HART SCIENTIFIC
3103
y 140
FLUKE/HART
1502 A
Date Calibiated
12/6/20 IB
5/8/20
6/27/2018
1/17:2017
Cal Due
2/21 ('2018
10/26*2017
8/27/2018
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
1330 TELECOM f B.'tnLE Tfl^/,r
-------
Certificate Number
A2380069
D3^ Q1 >'v'o' J t
Parameter
Ten i >11-'raiut i- Aijclrary
Ternr'fi's'.uro Ac>,ur,n y
T.jm.-p-rjluie Ai'turaiii
renijyrdituw Accuracy
Certificate of Calibration
Nominal
'1 C ,T
0,00
100,00
i nU 00
Data Sheet
Mirvrwum
-25.05
-0.05
99.95
119
Maximum
24.95
00 05
50,05
As Found
•24.98
0,02
100 114
Page;
of 2
As L>?^t
UiVt
ADJ/h A|L
... A.Cff 'Wi
0-02
100.04
¦¦"if
150 04
C
f.A/l
;G
c. c $
ify
| - t
OC.-''
nr
1 Mj
Techmeal Maintenance, inc.
2530 TELECOM DRP/E TEMPLE -l ?.?•;
AV, A ',f|p
-------
THE EPPLEY LABORATORY, INC.
I 2 Sheffield 'Willie P< > Bon !>J, Newport. Rhode IvkimlLSX 0284m
ilinne 4n t ,S4 i ]n_ti lav 4riI;nti to
prucedutes described in fSO 9H4"" Si'ction ij. / and 1 echmail Priced are. 'P'O! or
1 .n I-, , 'J ; s ;h-r
I ninster Standard Epple\ Precision Spectra! P> r.niometer, Model PSP, Serial Number 21231F3
Results:
1 raceabiliu
Due Date:
Sensitivity: S = 9.4(1 uY / W m'
t !lt_erUlint\ . I i ^ j " >r C>«!
Resistance: 600 Li at 23'<'
di.nee le\el. k 2
Date ul' I'esf
I ebruan ! 0, 2UI
, calibration is traceable to the World Radiation Reference { \\ RRj rhrouuh
comparisons with l~ ppie} s \ i 11- >aamlarJ sclt-cnhbniun^ caul) p\ rheliomeiers
which participated in ]fu Iwelltlt Inlemahoisal (\rhehornetric Comparisons i1IV
XI11 at Hasos, Switzerland in Septembci -i 'clobci 20 I x I ;ii1cns otherwise stated in
the semarks section below >'¦( on the Sales 1 Joier the icmiHs i<[ lhis calibration arc
"As i oi ;\n as in i"
I pplt') iccommeiuis a muimmm calihiatioii cm Ic or five (5) years but encouiuucs
aal calibrations lot hichest niea-utemun a^ aiae\
2
EOH
t n.stoiner:
I I MS
die.
Signatures:
I ppley SO:
Lertificate Date:
iij/iif
/*/,
In Charge of Test: /
6SMC
lebriiLirv 14,201?
Remarks
Amptilici « I nnh5 set so that 1 V = 1400 Win h iaiti = 75,99)
-------
The Epploy Laboratory, Inc. „ _ „ r a nni
CiMHctoAvr. S O. NO. 64903
2/10/2017
,36490
EOH
-------
THE EPPLEY LABORATORY, INC.
StiL'iViclij A\1'1UIC. Pn [J(»\ 4;Q. New pun. Rhode Island USA 02840
Hume: in] ,s U!3(f f a\ 847 ¦ U3 ! Hnaif, in Jo u cpplc\ lab.inin
Calibration Certificate
liHirniiu'iii
i'li WldlllV,
I i,iV la.ah
Black At \\ hiic f\ Kinunictxr Niii.ie! Serial Number 23824
i\runninetcr na- composed in Lpplev's Integrating ) Icniisphtrc according to
procedures described hi iSO 'AY-/ " Section 5,J J and T ecimicnl Procedure. 1 P01 of
I In' I-poltA 1 .ahstralon, inc.'s Utinlhv Assuianee Manual on Calibrations
pn1 „\ lii.-A \ V
ranometer, Model 8-48, Serial Number 14061
Results!
Sensitivity: S - 8.86 uY / \\ m
1 lla'M,!!' ; 1 . - -0.M 1" u t,.|
Re-- irace.ibtc fit the World Radiation Reference i WRR) through
- 1\KF standard scl;-calihraling ca\iin p\rheIiomcicrs
jipaled in :1k 1 welilh International lArheiiomeinc Comparison-, (IPC
s'<\ ii 'ci'lmif in September-^ 'etobci 2iH 5. I nless othcru i>e stated in
Iic'im\ or on the Sales Order, the results ol litis calibration arc
¦ > \S 1 I M".
ic I'ate
ippl
*vn.J a calibration c\cle t»t tlw u* i %^ais hit encourages
in- i' Indies! measuiement avuirac\.
EEMS
Gainesville, FL
Signatures;
Lpn!e\ S< 1
jJAjtfa A- x.
In Charge of Test: f
It-onM CM
c<.
Reviewed by:
1 till - 4 i oiilli.ilc l-ebnian 17. 2t!l
-------
H M Vju
motor
Serial Number
I
-------
Page 1 of 1
CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
18802/18811 ANEMOMETER DRIVE
TOUNG
DWG; CP18802(C)
REV: C101107 PAGE; 2 of 4
BY: TJT DATE; 10/11/07
CHK. JC W.C. GAS-12
CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION AND TESTING
MODEL
SERIAL NUMBER'
18802 i Cnmpr sr-ri o* I'DS^tV, Ccnttol Jnrt 16830A Motor Asser.b'yi
CA277Z,--7 >t t
h M ve\;ng Company certifies that the 3D0ve equipment A
"500
Measu' ? 1
tC TOtOi Sldf
Indicated on *h
1700
300
2700
'0 "<01
:" -re- ?"ached
the anemometer shaft
Indicates
ew U n
-------
CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
18802/18811 ANEMOMETER DRIVE
YOUNG
DWG: CP18802(C)
CI0110? PAGE: 4 of 4
TJT r I ¦ "J1/0?
CHIC; JC W.C. GAS-12
CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION AND TESTING
R. M. Young Company certifies that the equipment listed below 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.
MODEL: 18802/18811 SERIAL NUMBERf_CA4353
(18802 Comprised of Models 18820A Control Unit & 18830A Motor Assembly)
(18811 Comprised of Models 18820A Control Unit & 18831A Motor Assdjjibiy)
EEMS # 01457 and 01456
Nominal
Motor RPM
27106D Output
Frequency (Hz) - (1)
Calculated
Rpm (1)
Tndteated
Rpm (2)
18802
[3 CW / CCW rotation verified
300
50
300
300
2700
450
2700
2700
5100
850
5100
5100
7500
1250
7500
7500
10,200
1700
10,200
10,200
12,600
2100
12,600
12,600
15,000
2500
15,000
15,000
18811
[3 CW / CCW 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)
(2)
Measured frequency output of RM Young Model 27106D standard anemometer attached
to motor shaft - 27106D produces 10 pulses per revolution of the anemometer shaft.
Indicated on the Control Unit LCD display.
* Indicates out of tolerance
~ New Unit(s)
[3 Service / Repair Unit
~ As Found
IE! No Calibration Adjustments Required
[SI As Left
Traceable frequency meter used in calibration Model: 34405A SN: 53020093
Date of inspecti
Inspection Interval One Year
Filename: CP'S 8802(C).cioc
Tested By
ss
-------
afflip Warren-Knight Instrument Company
1:1:1, w# 2045 Bennett Road
*i|' I*. 1 ' ii.idelphi < Pa
Phone: 215-464-9300; Fax: 2 i h -ir.4
Web: http://www.warrenind.com
CKR'IIFICA MOM OF CALIBRATION AM> CONFORMANCE
'I'-a h', ,u',h iji.il liu aiuini.uNi! h. -Kvii I , (M J I, i . >¦ !H ,pLl K
^lan.Jaids 'Uu c.iM.' iu \ IS f t --i [fv fu'inu! ,1'uiwi, '> ^ Ken orrh i,(
'Vmphaik k wi:'( WM.'Sjp i tcijnn er«. jnis h ; w i> m i{. u i, .j! :v i',)r(!iitm!t! !„*n
calibrated to be in full conformance with the drawings and specifications of the instrument
Calibration tests were performed on the material specified below and were in accordance with all
ity assurance requirements with data on file at our facility.
\1 S
i'U'vh.'oc < >i\kr :
Instrument.
vtmI Nusnlvr:
1 Quantity;
1 5 ' i 11 !'-f Jih>P ! Vk
, s_j>,hik»u
102/2018
i 1
' : V "Ci-.S" '
38/22
31 J 7
X,1t
-------
fp*?" '1 Warr en -knight Instrument Company
* s i W 1015 t'Pinett Road
* Philadelphia P\
Flu-ic . 1r> 4R4 0J00; Fax; /1c ^ 9 -03
Web: httpr/Awvw.warrenind.com
CFK1IFIC \MO!NOI< CU.IRUATION \NDCOM-ORM XNtT
\\ , In.! v.' b > lL'T '1 h 'It,!! ill. t v.ii'p'nu'i !> Mi lit','- ir; v u> i; ¦ -in i u c< 1 . ¦! k 1 o1 1 m -j n < \ J i "
sU'ki U,! ^ haiY >h\ i<\[M < .thh.ilii'rl > I 'U i , > V 1 < ;u'inu») h i> ba.v [Vi r i
compliance with ANSI Z540-1 requirements. It is warranted that the equipment has been
calibrated to be in full conformance with the drawings and specifications of the instrument.
Calibration tests were performed on the material specified below and were in accordance w
,,pi IkhJiIc .< < Jt ,iik e f i v;i!ti cmc;*1 > >\i, hi, fii. i< ;,>
I * > -h hiiiT v ttifk I i i , .V: \1 > _ _
j lVi v l'u^ ' h ¦ics -
' U'j u iiii'en;, •.Itu.iLi I <
' Null'I X'Uinl'U! ' ' 1'!'! I; I
I I
/
ieodolite
0, ,i
S/ Nl
18801 Ca
ibral
loo 01/19/
17 Due 01/19/18 NI
SI Nil
mber 738/229329-83 738/
iftcai We
dgeK&I
__
j« -
-------
Warren-Knight Instrument Company
zu4S Bennett Road
Philadelphia,' "A !9i1«
Phone ^ '^OC Ta< ' V 4 l v-
Web: http://www.wa
CFRTIFICATION Of CALIBRATION AM) CONFORM \NCF.
H c ixi'til} "Jkl. .o h.i-.'itkti miou..' ,1 i}
standards traceable to MIST, Calibration of the specified instrument has been performed •
compliance with ANSI Z540-1 requirements. It is warranted that the equipment has been
"•Mk'ii ,i- in hill Ci'tMi (in Tin' v I'll ilu d1 ;<• *
ecifications of the instrument.
spec
.CM -'\ i "luU ,-iu> ' i,'U' mi Jui«.Jn«u s' . !tn all
Calibration tests were performed on the
applicable quality assurance requirements with data on tile at our facility
( 'i-Uunicr N.imc
! i'ua Iuii-e < >rUcf* -
I Instrument:
Serial Nurnhc!
I. * i: n 11 i1 ^
I i .thi-ntmn
I-WirUm < sup.!^
3064612690
,
t c (
•Hi u,it \ s ]i'}
Measurement Standards
11 i n.li t| !r v* ih] I N I i\Si 11 t ah! >• •' 1 Il' ' >' I 'i i 11
i ':m k 31 H 0'i i. KA I n i i '1 i tt! '• l si' in 1 i
1/19/18 N1ST Number 738/229.
I Due 02/12/19 731/244084-89
-------
r^if" I Warren-Knight Instrument Company
• U) 20^5 Bennett Road
Philadelphia, PA 19116
Phcni 4^9300; 9
Web hftp://www wart^n'rid com
CTRriFICVI ION OF < CALIBRATION \NI> CONFORMANCE
V> fiu-*C 0c;!ih I'l, it 11V KkrV, !>m >i VnHffol ji'ij * mi -.|H o; :>! P.
n ;n \C ( t JiN ili< <" .Cmk -it, i iCo \ -nil lujpl !i i- >v-.n pern- >{ itc,f ir
o>saplMtuc \\ nil \s> SI 'I i . i,s,r i,su m ,Cn itc. anijpraeiu Ci-- rx\ r,
t. .[tlnak'd i.1 'x ift lull MMfiMTn,M iC tn-.fi iinci.1
Calibration tests were performed, on the material specified below and were in accordance with all
.Mpl'CaHi q j.ihu .>-.-in. n tov i ^ [I'lK-nvn 1 .'i"i Jan- n! »n ,u C> ¦
Customer Name:
Purchase Order #i
In -n upk m
,VTt;u V;uil\i_
l' ilCiMltuii I »Uv-
\I,S
,jta I_i_ao >n v C» t • nsp.t
I
a
C (
Control
-------
Issue D<
Certificate of Calibration
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
«128 NW 39TH DRIVE P O Number
GAINESVILLE. FL 32605 ID Number: 01310
FEDEX
», Jsfc"
D^ipu^n. DIGITAL multimeter
ManiifciLk'ixt Ft Ut\E
\lane| Number 18/
Sciol Number 56^90148
Tt-f.nhinan JOHN i-ARRELL
On-Site Calibration []
Comments
Calibration Date'
Calibration Due;
Procedure.'
Temperature-
Humidity;
0?/;'3'2017
02/23/2018
METCALFLUKE 187
Rev 6/15/2015
72 F
41 % RH
As Found Condition:IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
I imi»it\i fttlnbute
"Hi* im jrir i! hn ^lr si v, stonMrj Us Ira s c i v- \ Jri„ u'hut *t Hvus .j m ~--hr ioi« , H>'.- > pr» »•" n vm "I n v . ^ r
rinjitlrrm r II m Lp>nojr> J t rnr^niM ^ -j- r Ipc^s ill r 11U [« * i1 u k«i ir ''tm <- 1J1 cct irrai- >r f~ - m n, n - ir-j^
Reported uncertainties and "test uncertainty ratios" (TUR's) are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage
factor of K-2. A TUR of 4:1 is routinely observed unless otherwise noted on the certificate. Statements of compliance are based on test results falling within specific
lity System Is accredited to SSO/IEC 17025:2005 and ANSl/NCSL 2540-1-1994, iSO/iEC 17025:2005 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements. The instrument listed on this certificate has been calibrated to the
rits of ANSl/NCSL Z540-1-1994 and TMl's Quality Manual* GM-1
. ~ -0 "" ' - _ U~.r i-?irf-! ^t^ "Tr i f ^ "hi- H-i ri ,hrr,ff < l iL>r hui, n n. • »"fi 1 1 m' i r c i 1 l f rl h Jr "be 1 ru i "¦ r ri ~u d L v tl 1 r - v
live- purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specif!cations.
without the written permission of Technical M
J^r*t ^
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number Manufacturer Mode Njinbor Date Calibrated C-a' Due
7Q40208 FLUKE 5520 A 8/10/2016 8/10/2011
Technical MaiiUe,nance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
\\r;i vt m 7: ;:i-| - l '>->'4
Rev. II
Photic,-, 81 '3-978-3054 Fax 81343?y-T758
www.tmiicalsbration.com
-------
I rrtiu ,itf Nuirtrr S* —.JT
v;7m65,< Certificate of Calibration
1-teLjV iJUM" 1 ¦
Page 1
Customer' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1123 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32805
FEDEX
P.O. Number' '
ID Number: EEMS 01311
Description DIGITAL MULTIMETER
M^nj'tV.turci' "LUKE
Model Number. 287
St>i lal Nunihr i 95740135
Technician JOHN FARRELl
On-S,M Ca'ibration; Q
C ommnnts
Calibration Dale,
Ca ibrntion Due-
Proccd-jrei
Temperature
Humiaiiy:
01 .'23/201 V f
O1.'?3/P01i3
WETCALFLUKE 287
Rev: 6M 5/201S
72 F
40 u- RH
As Found ConeJitiomlM TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute.
" ^ in it_i ir ipn'1 h""s hp^n r-iih -ar pd 'j^inn -".ts' ^ mc ^re-ic. M I iu N't ->svl i i " * Mn jrr," "r " 1 nr ic cn n n' iMi.u1.'.1 ur1.' ir v r
ire- .1 if nncnt. -r "Hinp^ruo lc ctn^c-ns is Ma'ni.'iU M>!ts ci 1 \v 1 "n-" n il r\ \z\s\ ir h if:i 1 crr-r,-: i ¦ t »r,uvi i i iu. "
(- prrrt-i p'f rtq pt cr ai iu ' t^l; nnrprta nt« rati j i il _ i vlr» »j m«i• > sf" unrt - w, ? „ k ir pr « (mil*, tC •-»-")*t»* » t •> »J J 1 i r, ri ~
] (ji fr,- i [ jf, nk 4 r hn>- s r ,pifc -t _ r\,i=n in to a l ~ t >j r r It » ^ m > r>r iu n a" nr° hi^'il ; ' t".-r rz- I't 'ul r vi r n s ' f .u J
'i " h a "i in ilrji r"ti 'i L p rht 'i it trtjinS i" im i r t i i3 i *• r 1
TM i mi 5 r *t n i; - i yi n i tu 'Su F-i" 1 ,* 1 i I nanrl NC ~-»L * -1 1 i* D ET^TuOrij - vp'V i c - i n0in i^irln mi 'u I i^ci ^ >r"
r t i it n " in H»iru he cn i> iplK-s it ISO b0' en*. cJin11 if111 ic f> ft 1h*- m* I u w f ictc c - t~,c r u fi« j ». u s>' r vr n r-f f . i'
requirements of ANSt/NCSL Z540-1-1994 and TMI's Quality Manuai, QM-1.
iftl i r . i Niis 'I' «-!,! - it- n" f J«- Mi'f r i rm rqiih tVrJ "'ih-.h' un'iiiV > ^inn^n, - f rt iu iv- ir ^bn an* J« rs r i iugOjH |i i
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications,
MTjCtM'1 k'^^inr tp h Tilurf 1 p«r-'h| n 'u1 j" t"f at 1 r_ m i 1 inn n'li^iur i I >-. 11 r'~i Ma rit^r rr-rp ht
FRANK BAH' 'ANN BPANrb MAf^AGEK Scott Chamberlain, QUAIJTY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number ManuJactu-'ef Model Number Date Calibrated Ca- Dvc
7040208 FLUKE 5520A 8/10/2016 8/10/2017
p_
'Ml
Teiimirai Mairitcn:iiKi\ Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE. TERRACE. FL 33637
PL en; 8 P-tJ 73-5054 ct:» 8KW7^3753
www.tnijcaiibration.com
-------
Certificate of Calibration
———
Customer; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE P.Q Number;
GAINESVILLE, fl 32605 ID Number: EEMS 01312
FEDEX
Qpsinptiart DIGITAL MULTIMETER
Mr'nu'a* t^rer FLUKE
Vorle; Njmlip' 28"
Sfrial NutnbLr 95740243
T> i-hmcian. JOHN FARREl L
On-Site Call
C' jr r' mi-t its
~
Ca-ibrai-an Date 01*23,'201?
Ca'ibrabori Due' U1 /23/2Q18
Procedure METCAL FLUKE 287
Rev 6/15/2015
Temperature 72 F
Humidity, 40 "b RH
As Found Condition IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
limiting Aftnbmp
n *- in•> iiriuri' hs 1 i * i n u-i'icMb- d Mm ttni "Vi , jr-r 'c rlir Nrl ir~! i . * i - iri'l^r c t rin U« * "¦ rj - , •uu lU i r-r rj >. i.j I lul'j
inpr "ill1- ir h n irttpvn lj rt '£L i 1 J"1, o i > tsH \- <
fp.-'iri * \ iK% u*4 * ^ uitinf ( d . t ¦ t « 4.. "icU J' ii i" nnd -Mb* NCL-L m4 I EX 1 „1i'i>i r vn' nn i n h^r jj-^e? tr!f ,rfi lit1 rr*"
Dp^ r it trt i u-cfniu l| it- pi ir pM >if in,1 Hint ri-i« i jnn v<' Ph n .v > * ~ I n i Mi TP in j 'i n>* \l ,b uj i 1 r ¦. it !! r¦ i ^ 1 ¦ Piur f. r ¦, *
rr^iifi rr r 1,3 if "NSI \Cci. Z.540- - ir+4 nrr 1 Ml c ?j jr U ^'ri jr, ~.'M-1
Results contained in this document relate only to ihe item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
.... . r„-.r, r
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without ihe written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
FRANK BAH^ANN, BRANC H MmNAGER Srott Chamberlain, OUAL«Tt' MANAGER
£lUbrat|o|s^|indirds
Asset Number Manufacturer Model Number Date Calibrated Ca D_,i
7040208 FLUKE 5520A 8/10/2016 8'1LV20
I
TH
tMt
Ti'chiiieal Mijintt'iuinct'. Inc.
2530 'ELF.COM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE Ft 3383?
Pliun^ 81'W3-3fl5i FrO S!'v973-.V58
www.tmicalibration.com
-1994
-------
Project:
Project #:
Contact Name:
Contact Phone #:
Contact Address:
Bios NEXUS EEMS It 01420/01410 Certification
Flow Rate Standard:
EEMS#
Certification Date:
Certification #:
Date:
2/7/2017
slope =
inter =
BIOS Definer 220-H
01421
1/25/2017
143707
1.001525
0.003662
Flow rates are corrected to STP of one atmosphere and 25.0 degrees C. were plumbed together in series.
All tests were conducted with dry air. Nexus #1420, Definer 220-FI EEMS# 01421
UNADJUSTED:
BIOS Nexus, EEMS # 01420 / 01410
Flow Rate Standard-Definer 220-H
01420 / 01410
Slope =
0.998252
Intercept =
0.004972
Correl =
0.99991
Temp
deg C
Press
mmFIg
Definer
20.7
756
NEXUS
21.1
757
Definer 220-H
9100
NEXUS/DC-LITE
STP SL/M
reading
Diff
% Diff
Corrected
Flow
SL/m
X SL/n setting
Y
Y-X
(Y - X)/X
0.892
1
0.900
0.008
0.9%
1.130
1.2
1.124
-0.006
-0.6%
1.36
1.4
1.36
-0.002
-0.1%
1.74
1.8
1.74
0.008
0.5%
2.13
2.1
2.14
0.013
0.6%
2.66
2.7
2.65
-0.008
-0.3%
Average Error (SL/m) =
0.002
%
0.2%
NEXUS / DC_LITE Corrected Values
(using slope and intercept)
SL/m
Diff
% Diff
0.897
0.005
0.5%
1.121
-0.009
-0.8%
1.360
-0.004
-0.3%
1.742
0.006
0.4%
2.143
0.011
0.5%
2.647
-0.009
-0.3%
Average
%
Error (Sl/m)
0.002
0.1%
SL/m: standard liters per minute
-------
Page 1 of 2
Mes »
NVLAP Lab Code 200661-0
Certificatelslo. 1400"r!
Product 20>"i-22fiH Defmer 220 High Flow
Serial No. .
Cal. Date v _ •?" .
Calibration Certificate
Sold To;
relate tc
any age
are performec
p of NISI. This
the Federal' Gc
As Received Calibration Data
Technician
Lilianna Maiinowska
28801,1 seem
26347 fi2 srrjni
i".2K4 ;,4 5,r<'.ri
¦tf- 0/4 ^
Environmental Engineering & Measurement
Serv.ces
G010 SW 17:h P,ace
Gainesville, FL 32607
US
1 E, tir- N J n?ar r ,1 l5i"' 1?i ^5 20HS ai oniM^d Idrordto'v
' , r • ,t the At fc-, ofrr;i a ct th° laso'atorv Resu'fe onlv
J , • „ - i r-f'r-.tir". -i-1 . r p[ i r- if hv NVl A1- N[S~ or
Lab. Pressure
Lab. Temperature
Dewintiofs
Allowable Devahcn
As Received
Out T To.franco
Out ct To^'anc^
Out cf To'e^anre
Out ot Tn'e'ance
Ou* of To'e'ance
Pesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
r.'L-snrt-44
Pernsion Tfwrmometer
Precision Barometer
SLii \\\r{ 3;>
103521
305460
2981392
I Number
Oio D-xt
0f^-Jui-2017
19 Sep-201?
12-Jul-201T
Mesa Laboratories ir>c. 10 Park Place Butler, NJ 07405 US,ft
(9/3! 492-8400 FAX >i973> 492-8270 wvw.mesalabf.com Symbol MLAB' on the MAS
1 of 2 CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
Page 2 of 2
Mesa
KM
NVLflP Lab Code 200661-0
As Shipped Calibration Data
Certificate No
Technician
Instrument Reading
26375 8 srr.rn
5296 i 5 scan
140033
Lilianna Malinowska
Lab Standard Re;
2Fi ifiO Q? scc T
5289 14 sect
1617 68 slot,
22 4 'C
7fi 1 mn Hy
Lab. Pressure 7fci3mmHg
Lab.Temperature 22 4 _C
Deviation Allowable Deviation As Shipped
fi 1 00 u In Tolerance
0 13-,, 1 >y' r In Tolerance
MlB'-r, 1 '"'t'-i In Tolerance
iOftC InTt.lcrdncn
± 3.5 mmHq In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
D'i scrip, t:er.
ML-800-44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Sons, Ni.trbe;
1018H7
305460
2981392
(t.if'r'r Vr.lr O'lte
1P-JUI-201 Tj
1(.>-Spo-2016
12-Juf-2016
Palihr.ition n.ir, Dai?
1 B-Jul-201 7
19-Ssp-^G 17
12-Jul~2017
iin Nct^s
i-. fij t Lr PR I15 - th sn expanded i.nce'taini^ or r is ^ us^a h gh-puri*y nitrogen or
cr, ?->=• Delcrmea 3t STP C 21 1 Cr: ""RO rrrHc
i *f fuiit ff PR \*-5-11 w f1" rin ,rrr tta ^tv of 0 16 mmHg,
" rurhr's numbnr PR 12-12 ,* '1 e>c~r,l^ci rename of 0 C4 3C
i.i Un is ;Sh v«r rr», -i . - •; * u IFr I"."i2." h, NVLAP under NVLAP Code
#01417 date= 1/12/2017
Louis Guido, Chief Mctrolcigist
^lope - f.ojoicj-
J#rf, r 2.$126 £2
/e2 z -L 00000
int. = 0.002813 Eric Hebert 4/6/2017
' = - _-i! jior,t- , Iri 1k PrtrK rl i P *w rn^-nUI li mi ^ ,ii t, I I 't ^F* on the NAS
2 of 2 CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
Page 1 of 2
Mesa
fyyiftp Lab Code 200661-0
CertificateNo. 1-
Product 2'
Serial No, 1
Cal Date
Calibration Certificate
Sold To:
Emifonrnt'it-i! Engine^'ing Measurement
Sea rces
80in S'.V 17th P!ac°
Gaiiesulle FL 32007
US
any agenc
are performi
K'r " ~
tms calibrates
fhp FpHpraf f
V> Ml t
¦eport shaSi r
As Received Calibration Data
Technician
instrument
486 rir «r m
108.26 seem
iHg
Ulianna Malinowska
Lab Standard Reaclmg
N u/*4u5 an'SO 1" 0^5 ac;,reri'tei labota'crv
.m jf • - /,r ;l»r ipf 'i i, ¦ D , i DIX
Apt-2017
19-SCD-2017
.,,]h;.'rttones Inc 'l Fj ¦ • . -¦ Bnl.'-i NJ ij.*405 USA
FAX >ia2-S27C v, - v - ' " P ^ rr.tial "MLAB" on the NAS
1 of 2 CAL02-48 Rev 605
-------
Page 2 of 2
Mesa
MWiftP Lab Code 200661-0
As Shipped Calibration Data
Certificate No
Technician
Instrument Rea
44S 3-1 v;cm
100.32 seem
if, been
22 I C
763 mmHg
140038
Lilianna Malinowska
Lab Standard Readi
450 085 set ni
100 17 &ccm
30,7205 seem
0.1°/
-0,2
783 mmHg
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Lab. Pressure 766 rt.mHy
Lab, Temperature 72.1 T.
Allowable Deviation
t 00".
1 00"^
1,00%
+ 0 8"C
±35 mmHg
As Shipped
In ~b!erance
TV^r r ,1
ML-SOO-10
Percision Thermometer
Piecivnn Barcme'e-'
Calibration Notes
fti >n1 humt'Ci
105329
3054HO
2^-°. 1 ?.02
r.-.'^innw rtr.tj
14-Ncm, 2016
20-S(jp-2ll 1^
13-Ju1-2016
CalltaUOil Da:
14-Nov-2017
20-Sep-2017
13-Ju -2017
Date
"'r -r - . •» - a . »3' „ of k » 2 for a eonfirtsncx
F:. "t-1 ' ?, tn our v;r ¦ rt^r PR 1 c-J J »•, tn ar expanded urceria nty of 0 IB"- using hig'vpunty nitrogen or
! t p; * =r j-, b<\ Flr;» readings >n sren a-e pelrt;i» ?t STP of ^ I ! C arid 76G mmHg
F'ey-.i'f test < ib ir- pcrordative with ou>- test rvj nte' -=Uo 11 w an expanded uncertain?,1 of I' 16 mmHg,
TeToevu'F- s , -> arcorddnct /vitn our iev* nuriPer P^16 12 ivith an expanded uncertainty ot 0 C4 C.
T'aceat lity to the International System cf Un ts ; S11 ? .ei t c d r\ accreditation t3 ISO I EC 1 ,~025 iv, NVLAP under NVLAP Code
200661-!).'
#01418 Date= 1/13/2017
Technician Notes:
6/0^=
r«+. - ¦
r?2" - 0.111 It
Louis Gu di 1 C f 111-1 M-'r 4
2 of 2
., _ > a'l hes In il "Tarn-'Ir-i-£ - r, % 1 8 '>
(973)49 r- 1 h- - '"j 3 2-'J rtwv. mts or - - > _ ' 'LAP 011 the MAS
CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
~1
Me;
i
il
2,
CertificateNo.
ProdUCt .'uO-CJOH IJMinei ^20 High Flow
Serial No. 14abi:^
Cal. Date
tep)^" o T
0 ~,rrrm
0 seem
0 seem
56,4 °C
734 mmHg
26318 68 seen
Vfin PC' ;,r.rni
1 b L* 4' -.cct
-1
736 mmHg
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
tg
>
1 of 2
(973) 492-
i the MAS
-------
Mesa
"L
W^i
NVLftP Lab Code1 2008€1-0
As Shipped Calibration Data
1^70
Lilianna fv
Certificate No
Technician.
Instrument Reading Lab Standard Reading Deviation
! cL>.in > i1 i 4«- cm n I"1'
- ¦ - • - ¦ -• -
1 it 17 h st cir 1 ^ i^ 1 5 ¦vri ! 1 ^4
22,.? °C 22.:? X
" V n!f• iH?.'7 i niHi
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Lab. Pressure "#"¦? tm"Hg
Lab Temperature ^<2 is C
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
Description
Ul-5?n>i-44
f-'r i, mi mi Tnrnrionii trr
Pr m i'i > n Barnmrts •
i"U .1-1 aoi1 -I* ST- C'l m ^^
Calibration Notes
Tup exprsniiif-fi uncPifainf, m | ow, temperature, and pressure measurements ail have a coverage factor of k = 2 for a contioenue
uitei vai oi arpro/ir'iri'piv u-r' '•
Flow testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-13 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.18% using high-purity nitrogen or
fiitpr^il int'rh-itcr, a • Fin », le^s Hi1, m sc^rr =air p^i'm n-1 H '• TF of. * 1 r r.n I •u'mnHa
Pret;ur>> IpsI m .b Ji "ji _J ini c Aiiii cur lr>=' tin-iiber *S 11 v r, .in r x, > 'i'- j'" [ i 1, o!'i In n i-iK;
fn-rj-n tfdHin vsl nr| =. 'o i n ir'inhc jvith nu1 It-s! iinciIh 1 P'-1L-1rih <-»--i ifi' ,r»" t.i T't, * >f ¦ i (|4
Tiarr.ihHC, r the interniticrin' Sytfpri ot Urit« fSI• is mrttrrl by to SKC "IB"- I»'««•'» hv NVLAF under NVLAP Code
200861-0.
Technician
/
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
C5i
T /
PRCf^
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 #:
17-0307
#1
"as found"
EPA
Standard
EPA Region 4
Adam Zachary
NIST
SRP-10
10
Guest Test Status:
Guest Known Offset:
Agency:
Contact:
Make:
Model:
S/N:
GUEST
Instrument
EEMS
Eric Hebert
TEI
49CPS
517112175
PASS
0
Level 2
Slope
Intercept
R*
High 03
Lower 03
Averages:
1.0025
0.4587
0.999997
462
0
Upper Tolerance:
1.0300
3.0000
LowerTolerance:
0.9700
-3.0000
Upper
Lower
Date
Time
Date
Time
Range
Range
Start
Start
End
End
File
Slope
Intercept
R2
(ppb 03)
(PPb 03)
03/20/17
5:15 PM
03/20/17
7:02 PM
c0320001.xls
1.0037
0.3798
0.9999985
461
-0.02
03/20/17
7:02 PM
03/20/17
8:49 PM
c0320002.xls
1.0010
0.5089
0.9999959
463
0 02
03/20/17
8:49 PM
03/20/17
10:49 PM
c0320003.xls
1.0017
0.4716
0.9999951
463
0.10
03/20/17
10:50 PM
03/21/17
12:33 AM
c0320004.xls
1.0015
0.5312
0.9999957
463
0.13
03/21/17
12:33 AM
03/21/17
2:20 AM
c0320005.xls
1.0025
0.4625
09999988
463
-0.17
03/21/17
2:20 AM
03/21/17
4:18 AM
c0320006.xls
1.0036
0.3849
0.9999971
461
-0.02
03/21/17
4:18 AM
03/21/17
6:02 AM
c0320007.xls
1.0032
0.4724
0.9999981
461
-0.03
Comments:
Instrument tested as found.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test:
03BKG: -0.6 ppb 03 COEF: 1.020
Verification Expires on:
March 21, 2018
Adam Zachary
Date j1? j^'j'Z'Q
Page 1 of 1
SESDFORM-046-R0
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
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
EPA
GUEST
Standard
Instrument
Agency:
EPA Region 4
EEMS
Contact:
Adam Zachary
Eric Hebert
Make:
NIST
TEI
Model:
SRP-10
49CPS
S/N:
10
517112167
SESD Proiect #:
17-0306
Guest Test Status:
PASS
Test#;
#1
Guest Known Offset:
0
"as found"
Level 2
Slope
Intercept
Rl
High 03
Lower 03
Averages:
1.0056
0.0672
0.9999962
462
0
Upper Tolerance:
1.0300
3,0000
LowerT olerance;
09700
-3.0000
Upper
Lower
Date
Time
Date
Time
Range
Range
Start
Start
End
End
File
Slope
Intercept
r2
(PPb O,)
(ppb Oj)
03/20/17
5.15 PM
03/20/17
7:02 PM
c032Q001.xls
1 0068
-0 0118
0 9999974
461
-0 02
03/20/17
7:02 PM
03/20/17
8:49 PM
c0320002.xls
1 0046
0.0834
0.9999936
463
0.02
03/20/17
8:49 PM
03/20/17
1049 PM
C0320003 xls
1.0056
0 1286
0.9999983
463
0.10
03/20/17
10:50 PM
03/21/17
12:33 AM
c0320004.xls
1.0050
0.0747
0.9999968
463
0.13
03/21/17
12:33 AM
03/21/17
2:20 AM
c0320005.xls
1 0063
0 0405
0 9999943
463
-0.17
03/21/17
2.20 AM
03/21/17
4 18 AM
c0320006 xls
1.0048
0.1312
0 9999958
461
-0.02
03/21/17
4,18 AM
03/21/17
6:02 AM
c0320007.xls
1.0063
0 0233
0 9999972
461
-003
Comments:
Instrument tested as found.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test:
03 BKG: -0.2ppb 03 COEFi 1,015
Verification Expires on: March 21, 2018
Adam Zachary > >/ l\ ^ '-'-j Date ^ / 11 / I71' / ~7"
" ^
Page 1 of 1 SESDFORM-046-R0
-------
Ozone Certification Records
TEI # 49CPS-70008-364
EEMS# 01110
Van 2
EPA file
date
start time
slope
intercept
correlatioin
location
C0911002
ll-Sep-17
14:57
1.00702
0.24225
1
R-7
C0911003
ll-Sep-17
16:19
1.00881
-0.05789
1
R-7
C0911004
ll-Sep-17
17:34
1.00822
-0.12224
1
R-7
C0911005
ll-Sep-17
18:50
1.00810
-0.09644
1
R-7
C0911006
ll-Sep-17
19:58
1.00773
-0.09255
1
R-7
C0911007
ll-Sep-17
21:07
1.00802
-0.02126
1
R-7
C0911008
ll-Sep-17
22:14
1.00824
-0.15698
1
R-7
C0911009
ll-Sep-17
23:22
1.00795
-0.11083
1
R-7
AVG =
1.008011
-0.051993
1
TEI #0517112167
EEMS# 01113
Van 1
C0912009
12-Sep-17
12:57
1.00475
0.63362
1
R-7
C0912010
12-Sep-17
14:26
1.00431
0.56119
1
R-7
C0912011
12-Sep-17
15:41
1.00471
0.27233
1
R-7
C0912012
12-Sep-17
16:54
1.00611
0.12497
1
R-7
C0912013
12-Sep-17
18:09
1.00524
0.10027
1
R-7
C0912014
12-Sep-17
19:23
1.00550
0.27944
1
R-7
C0912015
12-Sep-17
20:40
1.00508
0.21464
1
R-7
C0912016
12-Sep-17
21:54
1.00459
0.44674
1
R-7
AVG =
1.005036
0.329150
1
-------
Enter date in yellow highlighted
cell next to "Date".
S/N = 0517112167
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date | 1/21/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
9/21/2015
4/29/2015
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
9/21/2015
4/29/2015
0.996503
0.99993
1.00076
0.99819
1.02307
1.02260
-0.323250
-0.41890
-0.49351
-0.27641
-0.26399
-0.20400
Enter date in yellow highlighted
lextto "Date".
S/N = 0517112167
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date | 1/22/2016
1/21/2016 | 1.00684
*m(H)
s I (ppb)
Test S m 1/21/2016 I PASS
Test Sri 1/21/2016 0 PASS
*m(H)
y I (ppb)
z o,y
EEMS # 01113
6-day calibration
At EEMS 1/21/2016
offset = -0.2
span = 1.015
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
9/21/2015
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
9/21/2015
0.998195
0.99650
0.99993
1.00076
0.99819
1.02307
-0.384025
-0.32325
-0.41890
-0.49351
-0.27641
-0.26399
1/22/2016 1.00278
1/22/2016 -0.36001
Test S m I 1/22/2016 PASS
Test S rl 1/22/2016 0 PASS
EEMS# 01113
16-day calibration
At EEMS 1/22/2016
offset = -0.2
span = 1.015
Enter date in yellow highlighted
lext to "Date".
S/N = 0517112167
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
ITI4
m5
^6
»m(96)
SI(ppb)
Date | 1/23/2016
1/23/2016 |
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
1/23/2016 |
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
0.999917
0.99820
0.99650
0.99993
1.00076
0.99819
-0.335463
-0.38403
-0.32325
-0.41890
-0.49351
-0.27641
Enter date in yellow highlighted
lextto "Date".
S/N = 0517112167
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date | 1/28/2016~
1/23/2016 | 0.99892
1/28/2016 |
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/28/2016 |
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/28/2016
1.00770
0.99992
0.99820
0.99650
0.99993
1.00076
0.22470
-0.33546
-0.38403
-0.32325
-0.41890
-0.49351
1.00050
1/28/2016 -0.28841
*m(H)
s I (ppb)
Test S m 1/23/2016
II Test 5 m 1/28/2016
Test s j | 1/23/2016 | pass | Test s 7| 1/28/2016 |
s„ =
100 1
in
t (»>. y -1
EEMS# 01113
6-day calibration
At EEMS 1/23/2016
offset = -0.2
span = 1.015
EEMS#
I Verification
At EPA R4
offset =
span =
1/28/2016
-0.2
1.015
Enter date in yellow highlighted
lext to "Date".
S/N = 0517112167
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date | 9/14/2016
ITI4
m5
^6
9/14/2016 |
1/28/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
9/14/2016 |
1/28/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
*m(K)
SI(ppb)
Tester 9/14/2016
Z I,
EEMS#
IV erification
At EPA R7
offset =
span =
1.01342
1.00770
0.99992
0.99820
0.99650
0.99993
0.32479
0.22470
-0.33546
-0.38403
-0.32325
-0.41890
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
9/14/2016 | 1.00261 j
*m(H)
sl,PPbl
3/21/2017 |
9/14/2016
1/28/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
3/21/2017 |
9/14/2016
1/28/2016
Test S rl 3/21/2017 I PASS
_
Test S rl 9/12/2017 I PASS
_
Tester
s... =
100 1
m
6 1 ( 6
z 0",y - Un
ted
Enter date in yellow highlighted
cell next to "Date".
Enter date in yellow highlighted
cell next to "Date".
in
Enter new slope and intercept
yellow highlighted cells
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
3/21/2017
Date [
9/12/2017
Date T
1.00560
m,
9/12/2017
1.005036
m, 1 1
1.01342
m2
3/21/2017
1.00560
m2
1.00770
m3
9/14/2016
1.01342
m3
0.99992
1114
1/28/2016
1.00770
1114
0.99820
m5
1/23/2016
0.99992
m5
0.99650
m6
1/22/2016
0.99820
m6
0.06720
1,
9/12/2017
0.329150
1, 1 1
0.32479
12
3/21/2017
0.06720
I2
0.22470 1
I3
9/14/2016
0.32479 1
^3
-0.33546 1
1/28/2016
0.22470 1
-0.38403 1
^5
1/23/2016
-0.33546 1
-0.32325 1
*¦6
1/22/2016
-0.38403 1
*¦6
1.00356 |
Average HI
9/12/2017 f
1.00498 |
Average III
1
-0.07101 |
Avarage I
9/12/2017 [
0.03773 |
Average I
1
0.65
'"(H)
9/12/2017
0.55
0.3
SI (PPb)
9/12/2017
0.3
snpPbi
PASS |
Test s m
9/12/2017 |
PASS |
Test sm | |
S-fs
6 1 A <>
E O.y - -H Z
9/14/2016
-0.2
1.015
EEMS#
V erification
| At EPA R4
offset =
span =
3/21/2017
-0.2
1.015
EEMS#
IV erification
At EPA R7
offset =
span =
9/12/2017
-0.2
1.015
-------
Enter date in yellow highlightet
cell next to "Date". Place cursor next to
m, and type ctrl+a.
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
¦
"sor next to
:in
H;
1
Date
1/21/2016
S/N=
0517112175
mi
1/21/2016
0.991499
mi
m2
1/20/2016
0.99565
m2
m3
1/19/2016
0.99975
m3
m4
1/18/2016
0.99722
m4
m5
1/7/2015
1.01540
m5
m 6
1/3/2015
0.99307
m 6
Ii
1/21/2016
-0.844393
Ii
h
1/20/2016
-0.23545
h
I3
1/19/2016
-0.73832
I3
I4
1/18/2016
-0.43380
I4
I5
1/7/2015
-0.09100
I5
I6
1/3/2015
0.13058
I6
Average III
1/21/2016
0.99876
Average m
Avarage I
1/21/2016
-0.36873
Avarage I
sm(%)
1/21/2016
0.87
sm(%)
SI (ppb)
1/21/2016
0.4
SI (ppb)
Test s m
1/21/2016
PASS
Test sm
Test s j
1/21/2016
PASS
Test Sj
Enter date in yellow highlightet
cell next to "Date". Place cursor next to
Imj and type ctrl+a.
Enter new dope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date
S/N=
6 1 / 6
z o ,y -f z
6 1 / 6
Z (O2 - T E I,
EEMS 01111
6-day calibration
At EEMS 1/21/2016
BKG = -0.6
COEF = 1.020
,
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
1/7/2015
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
1/7/2015
1/22/2016
0517112175
0.993072
mi
0.99150
m2
0.99565
m3
0.99975
m4
0.99722
1.01540
m 6
-0.398185
Ii 1
-0.84439
I2
-0.23545
I3
-0.73832
I4
-0.43380
I5
-0.09100
I6
0.99876
Average m
-0.45686
Avarage I
0.87
sm(%)
0.3
SI (ppb)
PASS
Test sm
PASS
Test Sj
EEMS 01111
16-day calibration
At EEMS 1/22/2016
BKG = -0.6
COEF = 1.020
Enter date in yellow highlightet
cell next to "Date". Place cursor next to
nij and type ctrl+a.
Enter new dope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date | 1/23/201<
S/N= 05171121'
,
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/18/2016
0.994291
0.99307
0.99150
0.99565
0.99975
0.99722
-0.686363
-0.39819
-0.84439
-0.23545
-0.73832
-0.43380
1/23/2016 0.99525
1/23/2016 || -0.55609
1/23/2016
0.30
1/23/2016
0.2
Enter date in yellow highlightet
cell next to "Date". Place cursor next to
nij and type ctrl+a.
Enter new dope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date | 1/29/201<
S/N 05171121'
m2
m3
m4
m5
m6
h
h
Li
15
16
1/29/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1/29/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
1/19/2016
1.00100
0.99429
0.99307
0.99150
0.99565
0.99975
0.25770
-0.68636
-0.39819
-0.84439
-0.23545
-0.73832
Average m 1/29/2016 | 0.99588
Avarage I 1/29/2016 | .Q.44Q84~
Sm(%) 1/29/2016 0.38
S j (ppty 1/29/2016 0.4
1/29/2016 PASS
Test s „
Enter date in yellow highlightet
cell next to "Date". Place cursor next to
Imj and type ctrl+a.
Enter new slope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date
S/N
m2
m3
m4
m5
m6
Avarage I
sm(%)
s I (ppb)
2/8/2017
1/29/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
2/8/2017
1/29/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1/20/2016
2/8/2017
2/8/2017
2/8/2017
2/8/2017
Test s n
6 l/6
z (»< -) - 4-1 z
S'=J5
6 \ f 6
z co2 - ^ z 7<
EEMS 01111
16-day calibration
At EEMS 1/23/2016
BKG = -0.6
COEF = 1.020
EEMS 01111
I Verification
At EPA R-4 1/29/2016
BKG = -0.6
COEF = 1.020
EEMS 01111
I Verification
At EEMS 2/8/2017
BKG = -0.6
COEF = 1.020
,
2/8/2017
0517112175
1.008785
mi
1.00100
m2
0.99429
m3
0.99307
m4
0.99150
0.99565
m 6
0.363823
Ii 1
0.25770
I2
-0.68636
I3
-0.39819
I4
-0.84439
I5
-0.23545
I6
0.99738
Average m
-0.25715
Avarage I
0.65
sm(H)
0.5
s I tppb)
PASS
Test sm
PASS
Test Sj
Enter date in yellow highlightet
cell next to "Date". Place cursor next to
nij and type ctrl+a.
Enter new dope and intercept in
yellow highlighted cells
Date | 3/21/201'
S/N= 05171121'
3/21/2017
2/8/2017
1/29/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
3/21/2017
2/8/2017
1/29/2016
1/23/2016
1/22/2016
1/21/2016
1.002500
1.00879
1.00100
0.99429
0.99307
0.99150
0.458700
0.36382
0.25770
-0.68636
-0.39819
-0.84439
3/21/2017 n 0.99852
3/21/2017 fl -0.14145
100
m
m
s=ji
EEMS 01111
16-day calibration
At EPA R4 3/21/2017
BKG = -0.6
COEF = 1.020
-------
Aire
an Air Liquids company
Airga* Specialty Gases
Airjys I'SA, 1,1 .C
b;su l.'nited Dime
liurhni), „\C •«:—13
Any
-------
SCOTT-MARRIN, INC.
PGVP Vendor ID: H12013
6531 Box Springs Blvd • Riverside, CA 92507-0725
Phone: +1(951)653-6780 • Fax: +1(951)653-2430 • www.scottmarrin.com
Report Of Analysis
EPA Protocol Gas Mixtures
EEMS01
TO: Environmental, Engineering & Measurement
Svcs Inc
1128 NW 39th Drive
Gainesville, FL 32605
(352) 262-0802
REPORT NO
REPORT DATE
CUSTOMER PO NO
69075-01
March 13, 2017
E HEBERT
CYLINDER NUMBER: JB03389
CYLINDER SIZE: 50A (52 std cu ft)
CYLINDER PRESSURE: 2000 psig
COMPONENT
CONCENTRATION (v/v)
± EPA UNCERTAINTY
REFERENCE STANDARD
ANALYZER
MAKE, MODEL, S/N, DETECTION
REPLICATE
ANALYSIS DATA
Carbon monoxide 506 ± 2 ppm
Nitric oxide
NOx
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
14.91 ± 0.16 ppm
14.91 ppm
< 0.15 ppm
15.26 ± 0.22 ppm
GMIS
Cyl#: CC323
588 ± 2 ppm
Exp: 10/7/2024
GMIS
Cyl#: CC28468
20.34 ± 0.21 ppm
Exp: 12/20/2019
GMIS
Cyl#: CA03167
10.22 ± 0.11 ppm
Exp: 10/7/2020
02-free Nitrogen Balance
CERTIFICATION DATE: March 10, 2017
SRM1680b
Samp#: 2-I-23
Cyl#: CAL015763
496.7 ± 1.6 ppmv
Exp: 2/20/2017
SRM 2629a
Samp#: 50-G-90
Cyl#: FF31693
18.96 ± 0.19 ppm
Exp: 6/30/2017
SRM 1689
Samp#: 98-A-33
Cyl#: FF40537
4.813 ± 0.05 ppm
Exp: 1/8/2017
Carle Insts Model 8000
Serial # 8249
Methanation/FID
Gas Chromatography
LAST CAL DATE: 3/7/2017
TECO Model 42C
Serial # 57458-333
Continuous
Chemiluminescence
LAST CAL DATE: 3/7/2017
Bovar/W Res Model 922M
Serial # 9228379-1
Continuous
UV Photometry
LAST CAL DATE: 2/20/2017
3/3/2017
505 ppm
505 ppm
505 ppm
3/13/2017
506 ppm
506 ppm
507 ppm
505 ppm
3/3/2017
14.92 ppm
14.93 ppm
14.86 ppm
14.90 ppm
3/3/2017
15.28 ppm
15.24 ppm
15.29 ppm
506 ppm
3/10/2017
14.96 ppm
14.90 ppm
14.92 ppm
14.93 ppm
3/10/2017
15.23 ppm
15.30 ppm
15.18 ppm
x : 15.27 ppm 15.24 ppm
EPA EXPIRATION DATE: March 11, 2020
ppm = jjmole/mole % = mole-% x = EPA weighted mean
The above analyses were performed in accordance with Procedure G1 of the EPA Traceability Protocol, Report Number EPA600/R-12/531, dated May 2012.
The above analyses should not be used if the cylinder pressure is less than 100 psig.
ANALYST:
APPROVED:
M.J.Monson
The only liability of this company for gas which fails to comply with this analysis shall be replacement or reanalysis thereof by the company without extra cost.
-------
FINAL SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT CO BASED
EE MS Van-2
Site Name: EPA Region 7
Audit Date: 9/12/2017
Parameter
NPAP Lab Response
(ppm)
Station Response
(ppm)
Percent
Difference
Absolute
Difference
(ppm)
Pass/Fail Warning
Ozone
Pre Zero
Audit Level 6
Audit Level 5
Audit Level 4
Audit Level 1
Post Zero
Carbon Monoxide
Pre Zero
CO Audit level 6
CO Audit level 5
CO Audit level 4
CO Audit level 3
CO Audit level 2
Post Zero
-0.0088
8.0395
4.1930
2.7243
-0.0433
0.000
7.960
4.166
2.720
-0.012
0.0088
-0.0795
-0.0270
-0.0043
0.0313
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
N/A
N/A
Pass
Oxides of Nitrogen
Pre Zero
NO Audit Point #1
NO Audit Point #2
NO Audit Point #3
NO Audit Point #4
NO Audit Point #5
Post Zero
Pre Zero
NOx Audit Point #1
NOx Audit Point #2
NOx Audit Point #3
NOx Audit Point #4
NOx Audit Point #5
Post Zero
-0.0003
0.2369
0.1236
0.0803
-0.0013
-0.0003
0.2369
0.1236
0.0803
-0.0013
0.0000
0.2370
0.1228
0.0796
-0.0002
0.0000
0.2371
0.1228
0.0791
-0.0004
0.0003
0.0001
-0.0008
-0.0007
0.0011
0.0003
0.0002
-0.0008
-0.0012
0.0009
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
N/A
N/A
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
N/A
N/A
Pass
Pre Zero
0.0000
0.0000
1 0.0000
N02 Audit level 7
0.1292
0.1281
-0.9
-0.0011
Pass
N02 Audit level 6
0.0631
0.0622
-1.4
-0.0009
Pass
N02 Audit level 5
0.0427
0.0417
i -0.0010
Pass
N02 Audit level 1
N/A
Post Zero
0.0000
-0.0003
I -0.0003
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 5
Converter Efficiency N02 level 4
Converter Efficiency N02 level 2
Converter Efficiency N02 level 1
99.4%
97.1%
99.3%
Pass
Pass
Pass
N/A
Sulfur Dioxide
Pre Zero -0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 Pass
S02 Audit level 8 0.2425 0.2418 -0.3 -0.0007 Pass
S02 Audit level 7 0.1265 0.1265 0.0 0.0000 Pass
S02 Audit level 6 0.0822 0.0822 -0.1 0.0000 Pass
S02 Audit level 3 N/A
S02 Audit level 1 N/A
Post Zero -0.0013 0.0001 0.0014 Pass
-------
FINAL SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT CO BASED
EE MS Van-2
Site Name: EPA R-7
Audit Date: 9/13/2017
Parameter
NPAP Lab Response
(ppm)
Station Response
(ppm)
Percent
Difference
Absolute
Difference
(ppm)
Pass/Fail Warning
Ozone
Pre Zero
Audit Level 6
N/A
Audit Level 5
N/A
Audit Level 4
N/A
Audit Level 1
N/A
Post Zero
Carbon Monoxide
Pre Zero
-0.0058
-0.008
-0.0017
Pass
CO Audit level 4
2.7013
2.733
1.2
0.0317
Pass
CO Audit level 4
1.4891
1.516
1.8
0.0264
Pass
CO Audit level 3
0.4429
0.462
4.2
0.0188
Pass
CO Audit level 2
0.0915
0.111
20.8
0.0190
Pass
CO Audit level 1
0.0144
0.039
168.8
0.0243
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0296
-0.065
-0.0354
Pass
Oxides of Nitrogen
Pre Zero
-0.0002
0.0003
0.0005
Pass
NO Audit Point #1
0.0796
0.0812
2.0
0.0016
Pass
NO Audit Point #2
0.0439
0.0449
2.3
0.0010
Pass
NO Audit Point #3
0.0130
0.0132
1.5
0.0002
Pass
NO Audit Point #4
0.0027
0.0025
-7.4
-0.0002
Pass
NO Audit Point #5
0.0004
N/A
Post Zero
-0.0009
-0.0007
0.0002
Pass
Pre Zero
NOx Audit Point #1
NOx Audit Point #2
NOx Audit Point #3
NOx Audit Point #4
NOx Audit Point #5
Post Zero
-0.0002
0.0796
0.0439
0.0130
0.0027
0.0004
-0.0009
0.0003
0.0808
0.0451
0.0136
0.0028
-0.0007
1.5
2.7
4.6
3.7
0.0005
0.0012
0.0012
0.0006
0.0001
0.0002
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
N/A
Pass
Pre Zero
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
N02 Audit level 5
0.0382
0.0387
1.3
0.0005
Pass
N02 Audit level 4
0.0172
0.0173
0.7
0.0001
Pass
N02 Audit level 2
0.0031
0.0034
11.5
0.0004
Pass
N02 Audit level 1
N/A
Post Zero
0.0000
-0.0001
-0.0001
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 5
Converter Efficiency N02 level 4
Converter Efficiency N02 level 2
Converter Efficiency N02 level 1
100.3%
97.7%
96.8%
Pass
Pass
Pass
N/A
Warning
Sulfur Dioxide
Pre Zero
-0.0002
0.0003
0.0005
Pass
S02 Audit level 6
0.0815
0.0805
-1.3
-0.0011
Pass
S02 Audit level 5
0.0449
0.0447
-0.5
-0.0002
Pass
S02 Audit level 4
0.0134
0.0128
-4.9
-0.0007
Pass
S02 Audit level 1
0.0028
0.0030
6.1
0.0002
Pass
S02 Audit level 1
0.0004
0.0011
170.0
0.0007
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0009
-0.0005
0.0004
Pass
-------
Field Scientist Certification
Eric HeSert
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: April 13-14,2017
Gregory W. Noah
NPAP National Coordinator
USE PA, OAQPS,AAMG
-------
Field Scientist Certification
Martin VaCvur
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: April 13-14,2017
uregory w. i\oan
NPAP National Coordinator
USE PA, OAQPS,AAMG
------- |