Through Beta testing, we have found another known issue related to evaluation checks. This issue is related to changes made to the Begin Date for a primary unit fuel record. The problem results in a monitoring plan evaluation error of MONLOC-104-A.

The following scenario produces the error. The Begin Date for a primary unit fuel record is changed, and the monitoring plan is submitted to the EPA Host System. The issue is that the EPA Host System does not correctly process the data by updating the Begin Date in the existing primary unit fuel record. Instead, it interprets the submitted data to be a new unit fuel record, and a new unit fuel record is added to the EPA Host System database. If another tester synchronizes data with the EPA Host System or the original tester retrieves the monitoring plan data through the Retrieve Module, an additional unit fuel record will be included in the data retrieved from the EPA Host System. A subsequent evaluation of the data will produce the evaluation error MONLOC-104-A which states, "You have defined overlapping primary fuel types for the current period for Unit ID [X]".

The problem is related to the processing of the data on the EPA Host System and not the evaluation check in the Client Tool. As soon as this has been corrected on the EPA Host System, a post will be added to the Blog to note the correction of this known issue.

Labels: Known Issues for Beta B, Known Issues for Beta B Checks, Synchronization

Another evaluation check issue has been brought to our attention. In this case, the issues is related to a Fuel Flowmeter Accuracy Test. The Beta tester has a scenario in which the flow meter was installed a couple of weeks prior to when it became active. Consequently, the begin date/hour for that component in the system component record was later than the reinstallation date/hour recorded in the Fuel Flowmeter Accuracy Test.

The evaluation check FFACC-4 returned a critical level 1 error stating, "The ReinstallationDate/Hour is not equal to the BeginDate/Hour of the component in the System Component record".

The check specification will be modified to allow for entering the correct reinstallation date/hour, and the corrected evaluation check will be included in the next release.

Labels: Known Issues for Beta B, Known Issues for Beta B Checks

This second Beta session testing period has proved to be a productive as the first session in helping to identify issues with the Client Tool.

A tester recently found an issue related to the RATA check which determines if the RATA was performed at the proper operating level (RATA-47). The Beta tester found that the check did not account for the second operating level like it should. The test was performed at the second operating level, but the evaluation only checked to determine if the test had been performed at the normal operating level. As a result, the evaluation returned a critical level 2 error.

The check specification has been modified to determine if the test was performed at either the normal operating level or the second operating level. This fix will be included in the next release.

Labels: Known Issues for Beta B, Known Issues for Beta B Checks

At the end of the installation of the Client Tool, you are given the opportunity to review the Release Notes which highlight the changes made from the previous version. In addition, there is a section at the end of the Release Notes that includes known issues. At the time of the release of Beta B, there were only two known issues. Neither of these issues were related to the evaluation of data. However, as Beta testers begin their testing and find issues with evaluation checks, we will list these in the blog.

To view a list of the Blog posts related to known issues for checks click here.

The first known issue relates to the Online Offline Calibration Test. One of the Beta testers pointed out that he received an evaluation error for a reported value of -0.3 for OfflineZeroMeasuredValue. The specific check code is ONOFF-10-B which has an error message that states, "This value must be greater than or equal to zero." This is incorrect. As the Beta tester noted, it is possible to report a value less than zero. The check specification has been modified, and the corrected evaluation check will be included in the next release.

Labels: Known Issues for Beta B, Known Issues for Beta B Checks