DRAFT Appendix A: Application of PS

- 11B to BAM

- Base PM CEMS Data CES, LLC

January 10, 2013 

# Appendix A

Preliminary Application of Alternative Performance Specification 1 1 B to

Examples of Existing BAM

- Based PM CEMS DatabaseDRAFT Appendix A: Application of PS

- 11B to BAM

- Base PM CEMS Data CES, LLC

January 10, 2013 

### Introduction

An alternative to EPA Performance Specification 11 (PS

- 11) for initial certification of PM CEMS has been

proposed. This alternative, Performance Specification 11B (PS

- 11B), is similar to PS

- 11 except for how it

(PS

- 11B) determines an in

- stack response function (calibration curve) for the PM CEMS and is specific to

PM CEMS based on beta attenuation monitor (B AM) mass sensors. PS

- 11 requires an operator to

perform simultaneous EPA Reference Method 5 (M5, “true” PM concentration) and PM CEMS

measurements at different concentrations and develop a regression correlation between these two

measurements. The operat or is then required to use this correlation (calibration) to relate all future PM

CEMS readings to the “true” PM concentration. However, it is difficult to alter the in

- stack PM

concentrations and it is difficult to achieve an adequate range of concentrat ions that extends to or

beyond the emission limit. As such, it is often necessary to extrapolate the correlation relationship to

the emission limit. In addition, it is uncertain how the perturbed operating conditions impact the

aerosol characteristics, a nd subsequently CEMS sampling efficiency.

Alternative PS

- 11B on the other hand, requires only simultaneous M5 and BAM

- based PM CEMS

measurements at a plant ’ s normal operating conditions as discussed in the main body of this report. In

this case, the PM CEMS linear range is established off

- line using a quantitative reference aerosol

generator (QAG) that is capable of generating reference aerosols whose concentration is traceable to

NIST standards that cover a concentration range includ ing the emission li mit. An in

- stack correlation is

then calculated based on this off

- line QAG

- based linear correlation and the simultaneous in

- stack

M5/CEMS measurements at normal operating conditions.

The available database of BAM

- based PM CEMS and M5 simultaneous measure ments as part of PS

- 11

certifications consists of 1 6 MSI BetaGuard systems installed over the past 3 to 5 years. Cooper

Environmental Services LLC (CES) conducted off

- line QAG correlations of three of these MSI BetaGuard

BAM

- based PM CEMS and determined t hat there was very little difference in these off

- line response

functions; i.e. coefficients of determination for all three PM CEMS were greater than 0.985 and the

slopes were within ±2% of 1.06 based on the PM CEMS factory calibrations. Because of the si milarity of

these three PM CEMS manufactured at different times, it seems reasonable to assume the factory

calibrations for the other 1 3 PM CEMS for which we have data , would have similar QAG off

- line

correlation functions. As such, it is possible to appl y PS

- 11B to these 15 sets of PS

- 11 data and compare

the results. This comparison has been performed ; the results of which are presented in this appendix

, summarized in the following table, and discussed in the text

.DRAFT Appendix A: Application of PS

- 11B to BAM

- Base PM CEMS Data CES, LLC

January 10, 2013% uncertainty inslope PS-11b% uncertainty inslope of PS-11Emission limit1A1.169±0.0251.180±0.0600.95.12.197.9-0.62B1.194±0.0431.078±0.0799.77.33.694.48.63A1.626±0.0541.321±0.14918.711.33.393.221.712.053±0.0952.130±0.3523.716.54.69.90.822.297±0.0832.575±0.19012.17.43.69.9-2.351.805±0.0421.903±0.2035.410.72.353.2*-3.261.263±0.1071.019±0.20419.320.08.56.9*12.471.462±0.0451.333±0.1048.87.83.155.5*4.881.529±0.0581.433±0.1176.38.23.811.84.892.665±0.1342.392±0.33410.214.05.029.08.2101.355±0.0881.163±0.13414.211.56.527.014.7111.488±0.0541.430±0.2243.915.73.637.8*3.3123.702±0.1253.698±0.4550.112.33.4182.6*-0.3131.845±0.1141.896±0.1972.810.46.243.1*-2.6Avg.8.311.34.35.0Stdev.6.14.11.87.4% RSD743741147aTwo CEMS outlier data sets were omitted (3,4). Three because its slope was <1.0 and determined during unstable startup conditions. Four was omitted because ofexcessive uncertainty in the slope (40%) and results were more than 5 SD from mean.*Emission limit was estimated as 125% or highest PS-11 reading.% error in thepredicted Conc. Atthe emission limitComparison of PS-11/PS-11B Calibration Correlations For 14 BAM-Based PM CEMS DatabasesaSlopesCEMSIDPS-11PS-11b% error of PS-11bslope from PS-11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 1

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 1

Example 1. A waste coal fired power plant. Has SCR and Baghouse. Mid and High

- level PM for the

correlation was done with B3 injection of plant ash upstream of the ID fan.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Three Method 5b test s w ere performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations w ere

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 1.176 ± 0.26

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 2.42 5.06 2.6 1.091

2 2.49 4.48 2.0 0.799

3 2.46 6.15 3.7 1.500

Average 2.46 5.23 2.77 1.130

Stdev 0.04 0.85 0.86 0.352

% RSD 1.43 16.21 30.93 31.15 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 1

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 1.1 30 ± 0. 352

m = (1+k) = 2.1 30 ± 0. 352

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 2.1 30 ± 0. 352 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 C

true = (1+k)*C

cems + b QAG

C

cems σ C

cems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 0.20 0.02 1.32 0.13

- 1.00 0.87 2.32 1.00 NO

2 0.16 0.01 0.75 0.08

- 1.09 0.87 1.84 0.95 NO

3 3.70 0.29 8.74 0.87 6.45 1.68 2.29 2.56 YES

4 3.72 0.29 7.46 0.75 6.49 1.69 0.97 2.43 YES

5 3.64 0.28 8.86 0.89 6.32 1.66 2.54 2.55 YES

6 3.78 0.29 7.7 0.77 6.62 1.71 1.08 2.48 YES

7 2.42 0.19 5.06 0.51 3.72 1.28 1.34 1.79 YES

8 2.49 0.19 4.48 0.45 3.87 1.30 0.61 1.75 YES

9 2.46 0.19 6.15 0.62 3.81 1.29 2.34 1.91 NO

10 0.24 0.02 0.57 0.06

- 0.92 0.87 1.49 0.93 NO

11 0.31 0.02 0.84 0.08

- 0.77 0.88 1.61 0.96 NO

12 0.25 0.02 1.39 0.14

- 0.90 0.87 2.29 1.01 NO

13 0.26 0.02 0.47 0.05

- 0.88 0.87 1.35 0.92 NO

14 0.24 0.02 0.97 0.10

- 0.92 0.87 1.89 0.97 NO

15 0.11 0.01 0.98 0.10

- 1.20 0.87 2.18 0.97 NO

16 0.11 0.01 0.71 0.07

- 1.20 0.87 1.91 0.94 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Avg. 1.75

Stdev 0.57

% RSD 33DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 1

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit 9.9 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 2.130*C

cems - 1.430)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 2.130*C

cems ) y = 2.053x + 0.437

R2 = 0.971 y = 2.130x

- 1.430

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 1

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 2.053x + 0.437

R2 = 0.971 y = 2.130x + 0.000

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 1 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11 PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 1

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 2.130 *C

cems – 0.080)

y = 2.053x + 0.437

R2 = 0.971 y = 2.130x

- 0.080

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 1 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 1

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm10.200.021.320.13-1.000.872.321.00NO0.430.080.89no0.351.480.97yes20.160.010.750.08-1.090.871.840.95NO0.340.060.41no0.261.480.49yes33.700.298.740.876.451.682.292.56YES7.881.440.86yes7.802.060.94yes43.720.297.460.756.491.690.972.43YES7.921.450.46yes7.842.070.38yes53.640.288.860.896.321.662.542.55YES7.751.421.11yes7.672.051.19yes63.780.297.70.776.621.711.082.48YES8.051.470.35yes7.972.090.27yes72.420.195.060.513.721.281.341.79YES5.150.940.09yes5.071.750.01yes82.490.194.480.453.871.300.611.75YES5.300.970.82yes5.221.770.74yes92.460.196.150.623.811.292.341.91NO5.240.960.91yes5.161.760.99yes100.240.020.570.06-0.920.871.490.93NO0.510.090.06yes0.431.480.14yes110.310.020.840.08-0.770.881.610.96NO0.660.120.18yes0.581.480.26yes120.250.021.390.14-0.900.872.291.01NO0.530.100.86no0.451.480.94yes130.260.020.470.05-0.880.871.350.92NO0.550.100.08yes0.471.480.00yes140.240.020.970.10-0.920.871.890.97NO0.510.090.46no0.431.480.54yes150.110.010.980.10-1.200.872.180.97NO0.230.040.75no0.151.480.83yes160.110.010.710.07-1.200.871.910.94NO0.230.040.48no0.151.480.56yesAvg.1.75Avg.0.55Avg.0.58Stdev0.57Stdev0.34Stdev0.38% RSD33% RSD62% RSD65Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b andCtrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b andCtrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b andCtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 2

Example 2: A waste coal fired power plant. Has SCR and Baghouse. Mid and High

- level PM for the

correlation was done with B3 injection of plant ash upstream of the ID fan.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Four Method 5 test w ere performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations w ere

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 1. 575 ± 0. 19

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

6 3.13 8.71 5.6 1.783

Normal 7 3.39 9.11 5.7 1.687

8 3.15 7.66 4.5 1.432

9 3.32 7.96 4.6 1.398

Avg 3.25 8.36 5.11 1.575

Stdev 0.13 0.67 0.63 0.19

% RSD 3.93 7.98 12.24 12.04 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 1. 575 ± 0. 190

m = (1+k) = 2.575 ± 0. 190

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 2. 575 ± 0. 190 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run C

cems σ C

cems M5b PM

Conc. σ M5b PM

Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 0.66 0.05 2.49 0.25 0.27 0.89 2.22 1.14 NO

3 4.54 0.35 12.56 1.26 10.26 1.53 2.30 2.78 YES

5 4.68 0.37 11.22 1.12 10.62 1.56 0.60 2.68 YES

6 4.96 0.39 11.44 1.14 11.34 1.62 0.10 2.77 YES

7 4.7 0.37 11.48 1.15 10.67 1.56 0.81 2.71 YES

9 3.13 0.24 8.71 0.87 6.63 1.23 2.08 2.10 YES

10 3.39 0.26 9.11 0.91 7.30 1.28 1.81 2.19 YES

11 3.15 0.25 7.66 0.77 6.68 1.23 0.98 2.00 YES

12 3.32 0.26 7.96 0.80 7.12 1.26 0.84 2.06 YES

13 0.71 0.06 2.32 0.23 0.40 0.89 1.92 1.12 NO

14 0.63 0.05 1.5 0.15 0.19 0.89 1.31 1.04 NO

16 0.62 0.05 3.28 0.33 0.17 0.89 3.11 1.21 NO

18 0.62 0.05 2.06 0.21 0.17 0.89 1.89 1.09 NO

19 0.01 0.00 0.97 0.10

- 1.40 0.87 2.37 0.97 NO

20 0.03 0.00 0.98 0.10

- 1.35 0.87 2.33 0.97 NO

21 0.07 0.01 0.71 0.07

- 1.25 0.87 1.96 0.94 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Average 1.66

Stdev 0.81

% RSD 48DRAFT

– Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit 9.9 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 2.575*C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 2.575*C

cems ) y = 2.297x + 0.848

R2 = 0.982 y = 2.575x

- 1.430

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 2

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 2.297x + 0.848

R2 = 0.982 y = 2.575x + 0.000

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 2 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined interce pt with M5 single point correction

( y = 2.575*C

cems ). Same as putting intercept through zero.

y = 2.297x + 0.848

R2 = 0.982 y = 2.575x + 0.000

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 2 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm10.660.052.490.250.270.892.221.14NO1.700.180.79no1.700.980.79yes34.540.3512.561.2610.261.532.302.78YES11.691.260.87yes11.691.580.87yes54.680.3711.221.1210.621.560.602.68YES12.051.290.83yes12.051.610.83yes64.960.3911.441.1411.341.620.102.77YES12.771.371.33yes12.771.671.33yes74.70.3711.481.1510.671.560.812.71YES12.101.300.62yes12.101.620.62yes93.130.248.710.876.631.232.082.10YES8.060.870.65yes8.061.290.65yes103.390.269.110.917.301.281.812.19YES8.730.940.38yes8.731.340.38yes113.150.257.660.776.681.230.982.00YES8.110.870.45yes8.111.300.45yes123.320.267.960.807.121.260.842.06YES8.550.920.59yes8.551.330.59yes130.710.062.320.230.400.891.921.12NO1.830.200.49no1.830.980.49yes140.630.051.50.150.190.891.311.04NO1.620.170.12yes1.620.980.12yes160.620.053.280.330.170.893.111.21NO1.600.171.68no1.600.981.68no180.620.052.060.210.170.891.891.09NO1.600.170.46no1.600.980.46yes190.010.000.970.10-1.400.872.370.97NO0.030.000.94no0.030.960.94yes200.030.000.980.10-1.350.872.330.97NO0.080.010.90no0.080.960.90yes210.070.010.710.07-1.250.871.960.94NO0.180.020.53no0.180.960.53yesAvg.1.66Avg.0.73Avg.0.73Stdev0.81Stdev0.38Stdev0.38% RSD48% RSD52% RSD52Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 3

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 3

Example 3 : A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD, and WESP. Varying unit load was

used to generate the mid and high

- level PM for the correlation. Paired Method 5B trains were used for

the stack testing.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Ten Method 5 test s were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations were

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.690 ± 0. 676

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 1.21 1.54 0.330 0.273

Normal 2 1.21 1.46 0.250 0.207

3 1.18 1.79 0.610 0.517

4 1.18 1.53 0.350 0.297

5 0.78 2.31 1.530 1.962

6 0.78 2.25 1.470 1.885

7 1.04 1.4 0.360 0.346

8 1.04 1.47 0.430 0.413

9 1.19 2.17 0.980 0.824

10 1.19 1.4 0.210 0.176

Avg. 1.08 1.73 0.652 0.690

Stdev 0.17 0.37 0.498 0.676

% RSD 15.8 21.4 76.4 98.0 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 3

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.690 ± 0. 676

m = (1+k) = 1.690 ± 0. 676

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 1.690 ± 0. 676 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 3

January 10, 2013DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 3

January 10, 2013 Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 C

true = (1+k)*C

cems + b QAG

C

cems σ C

cems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 0.41 0.03 0.16 0.02

- 0.74 0.67 0.90 0.69 NO

2 0.41 0.03 0.11 0.01

- 0.74 0.67 0.85 0.68 NO

3 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01

- 1.41 0.61 1.48 0.62 NO

4 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.01

- 1.41 0.61 1.50 0.62 NO

5 0.01 0.00 0.3 0.03

- 1.41 0.61 1.71 0.64 NO

6 0.01 0.00 0.41 0.04

- 1.41 0.61 1.82 0.65 NO

7 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.04

- 1.41 0.61 1.77 0.65 NO

8 0.01 0.00 0.34 0.03

- 1.41 0.61 1.75 0.64 NO

9 0.01 0.00 0.46 0.05

- 1.41 0.61 1.87 0.66 NO

10 0.01 0.00 0.62 0.06

- 1.41 0.61 2.03 0.67 NO

11 1.21 0.09 1.54 0.15 0.61 1.03 0.93 1.19 YES

12 1.21 0.09 1.46 0.15 0.61 1.03 0.85 1.18 YES

13 1.18 0.09 1.79 0.18 0.56 1.02 1.23 1.19 NO

14 1.18 0.09 1.53 0.15 0.56 1.02 0.97 1.17 YES

15 0.78 0.06 2.31 0.23

- 0.11 0.81 2.42 1.04 NO

16 0.78 0.06 2.25 0.23

- 0.11 0.81 2.36 1.04 NO

17 1.04 0.08 1.4 0.14 0.33 0.94 1.07 1.08 YES

18 1.04 0.08 1.47 0.15 0.33 0.94 1.14 1.09 NO

19 1.19 0.09 2.17 0.22 0.58 1.02 1.59 1.24 NO

20 1.19 0.09 1.4 0.14 0.58 1.02 0.82 1.16 YES

21 3.08 0.24 3.65 0.37 3.78 2.21 0.13 2.57 YES

22 3.08 0.24 3.32 0.33 3.78 2.21 0.46 2.54 YES

23 3.34 0.26 3.5 0.35 4.21 2.38 0.71 2.73 YES

24 3.34 0.26 3.64 0.36 4.21 2.38 0.57 2.74 YES

25 3.39 0.26 3.54 0.35 4.30 2.41 0.76 2.77 YES

26 3.39 0.26 3.07 0.31 4.30 2.41 1.23 2.72 YES

27 3.00 0.23 5.24 0.52 3.64 2.15 1.60 2.68 YES

28 3.00 0.23 4.34 0.43 3.64 2.15 0.70 2.59 YES

29 2.95 0.23 4.33 0.43 3.56 2.12 0.77 2.55 YES

30 2.95 0.23 3.97 0.40 3.56 2.12 0.41 2.52 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Avg. 1.53

Stdev 0.53

% RSD 35DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 3

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit : Unknown mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1.690 *C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.690 *C

cems ) y = 1.100x + 0.376

R2 = 0.864 y = 1.690x

- 1.430

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 1 2 3 4 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 3

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.100x + 0.376

R2 = 0.864 y = 1.690x

- 0.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 3 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 3

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1.690 *C

cems - 0.090 ).

y = 1.100x + 0.376

R2 = 0.864 y = 1.690x

- 0.090

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 3 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 3

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm10.410.030.160.02-0.740.670.900.69NO0.690.280.53no0.600.820.44yes20.410.030.110.01-0.740.670.850.68NO0.690.280.58no0.600.820.49yes30.010.000.070.01-1.410.611.480.62NO0.020.010.05no-0.070.770.14yes40.010.000.090.01-1.410.611.500.62NO0.020.010.07no-0.070.770.16yes50.010.000.30.03-1.410.611.710.64NO0.020.010.28no-0.070.770.37yes60.010.000.410.04-1.410.611.820.65NO0.020.010.39no-0.070.770.48yes70.010.000.360.04-1.410.611.770.65NO0.020.010.34no-0.070.770.43yes80.010.000.340.03-1.410.611.750.64NO0.020.010.32no-0.070.770.41yes90.010.000.460.05-1.410.611.870.66NO0.020.010.44no-0.070.770.53yes100.010.000.620.06-1.410.612.030.67NO0.020.010.60no-0.070.770.69yes111.210.091.540.150.611.030.931.19YES2.040.830.50yes1.951.130.41yes121.210.091.460.150.611.030.851.18YES2.040.830.58yes1.951.130.49yes131.180.091.790.180.561.021.231.19NO1.990.810.20yes1.901.120.11yes141.180.091.530.150.561.020.971.17YES1.990.810.46yes1.901.120.37yes150.780.062.310.23-0.110.812.421.04NO1.320.540.99no1.230.941.08yes160.780.062.250.23-0.110.812.361.04NO1.320.540.93no1.230.941.02yes171.040.081.40.140.330.941.071.08YES1.760.720.36yes1.671.050.27yes181.040.081.470.150.330.941.141.09NO1.760.720.29yes1.671.050.20yes191.190.092.170.220.581.021.591.24NO2.010.820.16yes1.921.120.25yes201.190.091.40.140.581.020.821.16YES2.010.820.61yes1.921.120.52yes213.080.243.650.373.782.210.132.57YES5.212.121.56yes5.122.261.47yes223.080.243.320.333.782.210.462.54YES5.212.121.89yes5.122.261.80yes233.340.263.50.354.212.380.712.73YES5.642.302.14yes5.552.432.05yes243.340.263.640.364.212.380.572.74YES5.642.302.00yes5.552.431.91yes253.390.263.540.354.302.410.762.77YES5.732.332.19yes5.642.462.10yes263.390.263.070.314.302.411.232.72YES5.732.332.66no5.642.462.57yes273.000.235.240.523.642.151.602.68YES5.072.070.17yes4.982.200.26yes283.000.234.340.433.642.150.702.59YES5.072.070.73yes4.982.200.64yes292.950.234.330.433.562.120.772.55YES4.992.030.66yes4.902.170.57yes302.950.233.970.403.562.120.412.52YES4.992.031.02yes4.902.170.93yesAvg.1.21Avg.0.79Avg.0.77Stdev0.59Stdev0.71Stdev0.67% RSD48% RSD90% RSD87RunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 4

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B E xample 4

Example 4 : A blended coal (bituminous and PRB) fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. ESP detuning

was done to get the mid and high

- level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Six Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations were

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.903 ± 0. 203

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 9.46 18.2 8.740 0.924

Normal 2 8.03 13.4 5.370 0.669

3 8.53 15.4 6.870 0.805

4 8.23 14.4 6.170 0.750

5 9.38 19.4 10.020 1.068

6 8.30 18.3 10.000 1.205

Avg. 8.66 16.52 7.862 0.903

Stdev 0.61 2.44 2.003 0.203

% RSD 7.1 14.8 25.5 22.5 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 4

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0. 903 ± 0. 203

m = (1+k) = 1.903 ± 0. 203

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 1. 903 ± 0. 203 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 C

true = (1+k)*C

cems + b QAG

C

cems σ C

cems PM

Conc. σ PM Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 21.86 1.71 42.6 4.26 40.17 5.53 2.43 9.79 YES

2 20.89 1.63 39.6 3.96 38.32 5.29 1.28 9.25 YES

3 21.59 1.68 42.1 4.21 39.66 5.46 2.44 9.67 YES

4 21.86 1.71 38.4 3.84 40.17 5.53 1.77 9.37 YES

5 22.95 1.79 42.4 4.24 42.24 5.80 0.16 10.04 YES

6 20.29 1.58 34.7 3.47 37.18 5.14 2.48 8.61 YES

7 0.58 0.05 3.7 0.37

- 0.33 0.63 4.03 1.00 NO

8 0.74 0.06 2.6 0.26

- 0.02 0.64 2.62 0.90 NO

9 1.04 0.08 2.9 0.29 0.55 0.66 2.35 0.95 NO

10 1.07 0.08 3.8 0.38 0.61 0.67 3.19 1.05 NO

11 1.61 0.13 4 0.40 1.63 0.73 2.37 1.13 NO

12 0.17 0.01 0 0.00

- 1.11 0.61 1.11 0.61 NO

13 0.17 0.01 0.7 0.07

- 1.11 0.61 1.81 0.68 NO

14 9.46 0.74 18.2 1.82 16.57 2.46 1.63 4.28 YES

15 8.03 0.63 13.4 1.34 13.85 2.11 0.45 3.45 YES

16 8.53 0.67 15.4 1.54 14.80 2.23 0.60 3.77 YES

17 8.23 0.64 14.4 1.44 14.23 2.16 0.17 3.60 YES

18 9.38 0.73 19.4 1.94 16.42 2.44 2.98 4.38 YES

19 8.3 0.65 18.3 1.83 14.36 2.17 3.94 4.00 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Avg. 1.99

Stdev 1.16

% RSD 58DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 4

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1. 903 *C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1. 903 *C

cems ) y = 1.805x + 1.024

R2 = 0.991 y = 1.903x

- 1.430

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 1 2 3 4 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 4

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.805x + 1.024

R2 = 0.991

y = 1.903x

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 1 2 3 4 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 4 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 4

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1. 903 *C

cems - 0.05 0 ).

y = 1.805x + 1.024

R2 = 0.991 y = 1.903x + 0.050

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 4 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 4

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm121.861.7142.64.2640.175.532.439.79YES41.605.501.00yes41.656.160.95yes220.891.6339.63.9638.325.291.289.25YES39.755.250.15yes39.805.940.20yes321.591.6842.14.2139.665.462.449.67YES41.095.431.01yes41.146.100.96yes421.861.7138.43.8440.175.531.779.37YES41.605.503.20yes41.656.163.25yes522.951.7942.44.2442.245.800.1610.04YES43.675.771.27yes43.726.401.32yes620.291.5834.73.4737.185.142.488.61YES38.615.103.91yes38.665.813.96yes70.580.053.70.37-0.330.634.031.00NO1.100.152.60no1.152.782.55yes80.740.062.60.26-0.020.642.620.90NO1.410.191.19no1.462.781.14yes91.040.082.90.290.550.662.350.95NO1.980.260.92no2.032.790.87yes101.070.083.80.380.610.673.191.05NO2.040.271.76no2.092.791.71yes111.610.1340.401.630.732.371.13NO3.060.400.94no3.112.800.89yes120.170.0100.00-1.110.611.110.61NO0.320.040.32no0.372.770.37yes130.170.010.70.07-1.110.611.810.68NO0.320.040.38no0.372.770.33yes149.460.7418.21.8216.572.461.634.28YES18.002.380.20yes18.053.650.15yes158.030.6313.41.3413.852.110.453.45YES15.282.021.88yes15.333.431.93yes168.530.6715.41.5414.802.230.603.77YES16.232.150.83yes16.283.510.88yes178.230.6414.41.4414.232.160.173.60YES15.662.071.26yes15.713.461.31yes189.380.7319.41.9416.422.442.984.38YES17.852.361.55yes17.903.641.50yes198.30.6518.31.8314.362.173.944.00YES15.792.092.51yes15.843.472.46yesAvg.1.99Avg.1.42Avg.1.41Stdev1.16Stdev1.03Stdev1.04% RSD58% RSD72% RSD74Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 5

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 5

Example 5 : A PRB coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. A slight amount of ESP detuning was

done to get higher PM levels for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

9 Method 5 test where performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations where

compared to the PM CEMS concen trations giving a correction constant (k) of 0. 019 ± 0. 204

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 4.03 3.43

- 0.600

- 0.149

Normal 2 3.16 2.25

- 0.910

- 0.288

3 4.27 5.59 1.320 0.309

4 3.58 3.25

- 0.330

- 0.092

5 2.91 2.72

- 0.190

- 0.065

6 2.79 3.48 0.690 0.247

7 2.93 3.66 0.730 0.249

8 3.07 3.05

- 0.020

- 0.007

9 2.83 2.74

- 0.090

- 0.032

Avg. 3.29 3.35 0.067 0.019

Stdev 0.55 0.95 0.712 0.204

% RSD 16.65 28.33 11.686 0.702 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 5

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0. 019 ± 0. 20 4

m = (1+k) = 1. 019 ± 0. 204

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 1. 019 ± 0. 204 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 C

true = (1+k)*C

cems + b QAG

C

cems σ C

cems PM

Conc. σ PM Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 4.03 0.31 3.43 0.34 2.68 1.07 0.75 1.42 YES

2 3.16 0.25 2.25 0.23 1.79 0.92 0.46 1.15 YES

3 4.27 0.33 5.59 0.56 2.92 1.12 2.67 1.67 NO

4 3.58 0.28 3.25 0.33 2.22 0.99 1.03 1.32 YES

5 2.91 0.23 2.72 0.27 1.54 0.88 1.18 1.15 NO

6 2.79 0.22 3.48 0.35 1.41 0.86 2.07 1.21 NO

7 2.93 0.23 3.66 0.37 1.56 0.88 2.10 1.25 NO

8 3.07 0.24 3.05 0.31 1.70 0.91 1.35 1.21 NO

9 2.83 0.22 2.74 0.27 1.45 0.87 1.29 1.14 NO

10 0.76 0.06 0.05 0.01

- 0.66 0.63 0.71 0.64 NO

11 0.72 0.06 0.11 0.01

- 0.70 0.63 0.81 0.64 NO

12 0.62 0.05 0 0.00

- 0.80 0.62 0.80 0.62 NO

13 0.71 0.06 0 0.00

- 0.71 0.63 0.71 0.63 NO

14 0.68 0.05 0 0.00

- 0.74 0.63 0.74 0.63 NO

15 0.56 0.04 0 0.00

- 0.86 0.62 0.86 0.62 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Avg. 1.17

Stdev 0.64

% RSD 54DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 5

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1. 019 *C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1. 019 *C

cems ) y = 1.263x

- 0.809

R2 = 0.914 y = 1.019x

- 1.430

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.263x

- 0.809

R2 = 0.914 y = 1.019x

- 0.000

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 1 2 3 4 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 5 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 5

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1. 019 *C

cems ). Same as Zero intercept

y = 1.263x

- 0.809

R2 = 0.914 y = 1.019x

- 0.000

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 5 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 5

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm14.030.313.430.342.681.070.751.42YES4.110.880.68yes4.111.540.68yes23.160.252.250.231.790.920.461.15YES3.220.690.97no3.221.440.97yes34.270.335.590.562.921.122.671.67NO4.350.931.24yes4.351.571.24yes43.580.283.250.332.220.991.031.32YES3.650.780.40yes3.651.480.40yes52.910.232.720.271.540.881.181.15NO2.970.640.25yes2.971.410.25yes62.790.223.480.351.410.862.071.21NO2.840.610.64yes2.841.400.64yes72.930.233.660.371.560.882.101.25NO2.990.640.67yes2.991.410.67yes83.070.243.050.311.700.911.351.21NO3.130.670.08yes3.131.430.08yes92.830.222.740.271.450.871.291.14NO2.880.620.14yes2.881.400.14yes100.760.060.050.01-0.660.630.710.64NO0.770.170.72no0.771.270.72yes110.720.060.110.01-0.700.630.810.64NO0.730.160.62no0.731.270.62yes120.620.0500.00-0.800.620.800.62NO0.630.140.63no0.631.270.63yes130.710.0600.00-0.710.630.710.63NO0.720.160.72no0.721.270.72yes140.680.0500.00-0.740.630.740.63NO0.690.150.69no0.691.270.69yes150.560.0400.00-0.860.620.860.62NO0.570.120.57no0.571.260.57yesAvg.1.17Avg.0.60Avg.0.60Stdev0.64Stdev0.30Stdev0.30% RSD54% RSD50% RSD50Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 6

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 6

Example 6 : A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, and WFGD. ESP detuning was done to

get the high

- level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

S tep 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Six Method 5 test w ere performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations w ere

compared to the P M CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0. 333 ± 0. 1 04

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 18.1 23 4.900 0.271

normal 2 18.2 22.5 4.300 0.236

3 18.5 23.3 4.800 0.259

4 18.5 28.1 9.600 0.519

5 18 24.3 6.300 0.350

6 18.9 25.8 6.900 0.365

Avg. 18.37 24.50 6.133 0.333

Stdev 0.33 2.12 1.964 0.104

% RSD 1.8 8.6 32.0 31.3 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 6

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0. 333 ± 0. 1 0 4

m = (1+k) = 1. 333 ± 0. 1 04

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 1. 333 ± 0. 1 04 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 C

true = (1+k)*C

cems + b QAG

C

cems σ C

cems PM

Conc. σ PM Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 2.3 0.18 0.3 0.03 1.64 0.79 1.34 0.82 NO

2 2.2 0.17 0.2 0.02 1.50 0.78 1.30 0.80 NO

3 1.9 0.15 0.5 0.05 1.10 0.74 0.60 0.79 YES

4 2.2 0.17 0.2 0.02 1.50 0.78 1.30 0.80 NO

5 2.4 0.19 0.6 0.06 1.77 0.80 1.17 0.86 NO

6 30.2 2.36 37.5 3.75 38.83 6.64 1.33 10.39 YES

7 29.9 2.33 39.9 3.99 38.43 6.57 1.47 10.56 YES

8 30.4 2.37 42.5 4.25 39.09 6.68 3.41 10.93 YES

9 30.1 2.35 44.4 4.44 38.69 6.62 5.71 11.06 YES

10 18.1 1.41 23 2.30 22.70 4.01 0.30 6.31 YES

11 18.2 1.42 22.5 2.25 22.83 4.03 0.33 6.28 YES

12 18.5 1.44 23.3 2.33 23.23 4.10 0.07 6.43 YES

13 18.5 1.44 28.1 2.81 23.23 4.10 4.87 6.91 YES

14 18 1.40 24.3 2.43 22.56 3.99 1.74 6.42 YES

15 18.9 1.47 25.8 2.58 23.76 4.18 2.04 6.76 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Avg. 1.80

Stdev 1.64

% RSD 91DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 6

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1. 333 *C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1. 333 *C

cems ) y = 1.462x

- 2.689

R2 = 0.988 y = 1.333x

- 1.430

-5 5 15 25 35 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 6

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.462x

- 2.689

R2 = 0.988 y = 1.333x + 0.000

-5 5 15 25 35 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 6 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 6

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1. 333 *C

cems + 0.020 ).

y = 1.462x

- 2.689

R2 = 0.988 y = 1.333x + 0.020

-5 5 15 25 35 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 6 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 6

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm12.30.180.30.031.640.791.340.82NO3.070.502.77no3.092.302.79no22.20.170.20.021.500.781.300.80NO2.930.482.73no2.952.302.75no31.90.150.50.051.100.740.600.79YES2.530.422.03no2.552.282.05yes42.20.170.20.021.500.781.300.80NO2.930.482.73no2.952.302.75no52.40.190.60.061.770.801.170.86NO3.200.532.60no3.222.312.62no630.22.3637.53.7538.836.641.3310.39YES40.266.612.76yes40.286.982.78yes729.92.3339.93.9938.436.571.4710.56YES39.866.550.04yes39.886.920.02yes830.42.3742.54.2539.096.683.4110.93YES40.526.661.98yes40.547.021.96yes930.12.3544.44.4438.696.625.7111.06YES40.126.594.28yes40.146.964.26yes1018.11.41232.3022.704.010.306.31YES24.133.961.13yes24.154.551.15yes1118.21.4222.52.2522.834.030.336.28YES24.263.981.76yes24.284.571.78yes1218.51.4423.32.3323.234.100.076.43YES24.664.051.36yes24.684.631.38yes1318.51.4428.12.8123.234.104.876.91YES24.664.053.44yes24.684.633.42yes14181.4024.32.4322.563.991.746.42YES23.993.940.31yes24.014.540.29yes1518.91.4725.82.5823.764.182.046.76YES25.194.140.61yes25.214.710.59yesAvg.1.80Avg.2.03Avg.2.04Stdev1.64Stdev1.19Stdev1.19% RSD91% RSD58% RSD58Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 7

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 7

Example 7 : A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, BH, WFGD, WESP. Detuning of the baghouse

was done to get the mid and high

- level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Nine Method 5 test w ere performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations w ere

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.433 ± 0. 117

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 5.9 7.8 1.9 0.322

Normal 2 6.1 8.3 2.2 0.361

3 5.7 9.1 3.4 0.596

4 4.9 6.3 1.4 0.286

5 4 5.5 1.5 0.375

6 5 7.2 2.2 0.440

7 5.6 7.7 2.1 0.375

8 6.2 9.7 3.5 0.565

9 6.1 9.6 3.5 0.574

Avg 5.5 7.911 2.411 0.433

Stdev. 0.73 1.44 0.84 0.117

% RSD 13.30 18.20 34.85 27.09 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 7

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.433 ± 0. 117

m = (1+k) = 1.433 ± 0. 1 17

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 1.433 ± 0. 1 17 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run C

cems σ C

cems M5b PM

Conc. σ M5b PM

Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 5.9 0.46 7.8 0.78 7.02 1.13 0.78 1.91 YES

2 6.1 0.48 8.3 0.83 7.31 1.16 0.99 1.99 YES

3 5.7 0.44 9.1 0.91 6.74 1.11 2.36 2.02 NO

4 4.9 0.38 6.3 0.63 5.59 1.00 0.71 1.63 YES

5 4 0.31 5.5 0.55 4.30 0.89 1.20 1.44 YES

6 5 0.39 7.2 0.72 5.74 1.01 1.47 1.73 YES

7 5.6 0.44 7.7 0.77 6.59 1.09 1.11 1.86 YES

8 6.2 0.48 9.7 0.97 7.45 1.17 2.25 2.14 NO

9 6.1 0.48 9.6 0.96 7.31 1.16 2.29 2.12 NO

10 7.7 0.60 12.4 1.24 9.60 1.39 2.80 2.63 NO

11 7.3 0.57 12.1 1.21 9.03 1.33 3.07 2.54 NO

12 7.7 0.60 11.2 1.12 9.60 1.39 1.60 2.51 YES

13 0.7 0.05 1.2 0.12

- 0.43 0.62 1.63 0.74 NO

14 0.5 0.04 1.2 0.12

- 0.71 0.61 1.91 0.73 NO

15 0.7 0.05 0.59 0.06

- 0.43 0.62 1.02 0.68 NO

16 1 0.08 1.2 0.12 0.00 0.63 1.20 0.75 NO

17 0.7 0.05 0.95 0.10

- 0.43 0.61 1.38 0.70 NO

18 0.6 0.05 0.8 0.08

- 0.57 0.61 1.37 0.69 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Average 1.62

Stdev 0.69

% RSD 43DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 7

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit 11.8 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1.433*C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.433*C

cems ) y = 1.538x

- 0.274

R2 = 0.971 y = 1.433x

- 1.430

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 7

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.538x

- 0.274

R2 = 0.971 y = 1.433x

- 0.000

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Ctrue' (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 7 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 7

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 sin gle point correction

( y = 1.433 *C

cems +0.030 ).

y = 1.538x

- 0.274

R2 = 0.971 y = 1.433x + 0.030

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Ctrue'' (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 7 slope corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 7

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm15.90.467.80.787.021.130.781.91YES8.450.950.65yes8.482.110.68yes26.10.488.30.837.311.160.991.99YES8.740.990.44yes8.772.130.47yes35.70.449.10.916.741.112.362.02NO8.170.920.93yes8.202.100.90yes44.90.386.30.635.591.000.711.63YES7.020.790.72yes7.052.040.75yes540.315.50.554.300.891.201.44YES5.730.650.23yes5.761.990.26yes650.397.20.725.741.011.471.73YES7.170.810.04yes7.192.050.01yes75.60.447.70.776.591.091.111.86YES8.020.910.32yes8.052.090.35yes86.20.489.70.977.451.172.252.14NO8.881.000.82yes8.912.130.79yes96.10.489.60.967.311.162.292.12NO8.740.990.86yes8.772.130.83yes107.70.6012.41.249.601.392.802.63NO11.031.251.37yes11.062.261.34yes117.30.5712.11.219.031.333.072.54NO10.461.181.64yes10.492.221.61yes127.70.6011.21.129.601.391.602.51YES11.031.250.17yes11.062.260.14yes130.70.051.20.12-0.430.621.630.74NO1.000.110.20yes1.031.890.17yes140.50.041.20.12-0.710.611.910.73NO0.720.080.48no0.751.880.45yes150.70.050.590.06-0.430.621.020.68NO1.000.110.41no1.031.890.44yes1610.081.20.120.000.631.200.75NO1.430.160.23yes1.461.890.26yes170.70.050.950.10-0.430.621.380.71NO1.000.110.05yes1.031.890.08yes180.60.050.80.08-0.570.621.370.70NO0.860.100.06yes0.891.880.09yesAvg.1.62Avg.0.53Avg.0.53Stdev0.69Stdev0.45Stdev0.44% RSD43% RSD85% RSD83Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. Forlow Conc. Ccemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 8

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 8

Example 8 : A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. ESP detuning was done to get

the mid and high

- level PM for the correlation. Paired trains were used on some of the test runs.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Eight Method 5 test w ere performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . Th ese concentrations w ere

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 1.392 ± 0. 334

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

5 5.26 13.48 8.2 1.563

Normal 6 5.26 13.54 8.3 1.574

7 4.87 12.25 7.4 1.515

16 4.8 12.2 7.4 1.542

17 4.8 10.85 6.1 1.260

18 4.94 9.64 4.7 0.951

19 4.93 9.28 4.4 0.882

20 4.85 13.83 9.0 1.852

Avg 4.96 11.88 6.920 1.392

Stdev 0.19 1.78 1.712 0.334

% RSD 3.83 14.98 24.739 24.008 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 8

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 1.392 ± 0. 334

m = (1+k) = 2

. 392 ± 0. 334

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 2.392 ± 0. 334 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run C

cems σ C

cems M5b PM

Conc. σ M5b PM

Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 0.49 0.04 0.46 0.05

- 0.26 0.64 0.72 0.68 NO

2 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.01

- 1.14 0.61 1.22 0.62 NO

3 0.31 0.02 0.15 0.02

- 0.69 0.62 0.84 0.64 NO

4 0.06 0.00 0.15 0.02

- 1.29 0.61 1.44 0.62 NO

5 5.26 0.41 13.48 1.35 11.15 2.10 2.33 3.45 YES

6 5.26 0.41 13.54 1.35 11.15 2.10 2.39 3.46 YES

7 4.87 0.38 12.25 1.23 10.22 1.96 2.03 3.19 YES

8 9.62 0.75 28.31 2.83 21.58 3.73 6.73 6.56 NO

9 9.62 0.75 25.36 2.54 21.58 3.73 3.78 6.27 YES

10 8.36 0.65 23.35 2.34 18.57 3.26 4.78 5.59 YES

11 8.3 0.65 24.17 2.42 18.42 3.23 5.75 5.65 NO

12 8.69 0.68 20.21 2.02 19.36 3.38 0.85 5.40 YES

13 8.69 0.68 21.23 2.12 19.36 3.38 1.87 5.50 YES

14 8.45 0.66 18.98 1.90 18.78 3.29 0.20 5.19 YES

15 8.29 0.65 19.03 1.90 18.40 3.23 0.63 5.13 YES

16 4.8 0.37 12.2 1.22 10.05 1.93 2.15 3.15 YES

17 4.8 0.37 10.85 1.09 10.05 1.93 0.80 3.02 YES

18 4.94 0.39 9.64 0.96 10.39 1.99 0.75 2.95 YES

19 4.93 0.38 9.28 0.93 10.36 1.98 1.08 2.91 YES

20 4.85 0.38 13.83 1.38 10.17 1.95 3.66 3.34 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Average 2.20

Stdev 1.83

% RSD 83DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 8

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit 29.0 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 2.392*C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 2.392*C

cems ) y = 2.665x

- 0.923

R2 = 0.957 y = 2.392x

- 1.430

-10

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 8

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 2.665x

- 0.923

R2 = 0.957 y = 2.392x

- 0.000

-10

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 8 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 8

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 2.392*C

cems +0.408 )

y = 2.665x

- 0.923

R2 = 0.957 y = 2.392x + 0.408

-10

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 8 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 8

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm10.490.040.460.05-0.260.640.720.68NO1.170.190.71no1.581.951.12yes20.120.010.080.01-1.140.611.220.62NO0.290.050.21no0.691.940.61yes30.310.020.150.02-0.690.620.840.64NO0.740.120.59no1.151.941.00yes40.060.000.150.02-1.290.611.440.62NO0.140.020.01yes0.551.940.40yes55.260.4113.481.3511.152.102.333.45YES12.582.010.90yes12.992.790.49yes65.260.4113.541.3511.152.102.393.46YES12.582.010.96yes12.992.790.55yes74.870.3812.251.2310.221.962.033.19YES11.651.860.60yes12.062.690.19yes89.620.7528.312.8321.583.736.736.56NO23.013.685.30yes23.424.164.89yes99.620.7525.362.5421.583.733.786.27YES23.013.682.35yes23.424.161.94yes108.360.6523.352.3418.573.264.785.59YES20.003.203.35yes20.403.742.95yes118.30.6524.172.4218.423.235.755.65NO19.853.184.32yes20.263.723.91yes128.690.6820.212.0219.363.380.855.40YES20.793.320.58yes21.193.850.98yes138.690.6821.232.1219.363.381.875.50YES20.793.320.44yes21.193.850.04yes148.450.6618.981.9018.783.290.205.19YES20.213.231.23yes20.623.771.64yes158.290.6519.031.9018.403.230.635.13YES19.833.170.80yes20.243.721.21yes164.80.3712.21.2210.051.932.153.15YES11.481.840.72yes11.892.670.31yes174.80.3710.851.0910.051.930.803.02YES11.481.840.63yes11.892.671.04yes184.940.399.640.9610.391.990.752.95YES11.821.892.18yes12.222.712.58yes194.930.389.280.9310.361.981.082.91YES11.791.892.51yes12.202.702.92yes204.850.3813.831.3810.171.953.663.34NO11.601.862.23yes12.012.681.82yesAvg.2.20Avg.1.53Avg.1.53Stdev1.83Stdev1.44Stdev1.32% RSD83% RSD94% RSD86Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGRunPM CEMSMethod 5Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. Forlow Conc. Ccemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 9



# PS

- 11B

- E xample 9

Example 9 : A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. ESP detuning was done to get

the high

- level PM for the correlation test. Paired trains were used for some of the test runs.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Nine Method 5 test w ere performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations w ere

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 1. 163 ± 0. 1 34

.

Run PM

CEMS M5b PM

Conc. C

c pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 11.48 11.79 0.3 0.027

Normal 2 11.48 12.52 1.0 0.091

3 11.61 12.85 1.2 0.107

4 9.94 9.85

- 0.1

- 0.009

5 9.94 10.8 0.9 0.087

6 10.5 11.03 0.5 0.050

7 10.5 12.19 1.7 0.161

8 8.09 10.44 2.4 0.290

9 8.09 10.7 2.6 0.323

10 7.05 9.1 2.1 0.291

11 7.05 9.7 2.7 0.376

Avg 9.61 11.00 1.385 0.163

Stdev 1.75 1.22 0.951 0.134

% RSD 18.18 11.08 68.647 81.938 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 9

Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.163 ± 0. 134

m = (1+k) = 1.163 ± 0. 134

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 1.163 ± 0. 1 34 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run C

cems σ C

cems M5b PM

Conc. σ M5b PM

Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true +

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 11.48 0.90 11.79 1.18 11.92 1.95 0.13 3.13 YES

2 11.48 0.90 12.52 1.25 11.92 1.95 0.60 3.21 YES

3 11.61 0.91 12.85 1.29 12.07 1.97 0.78 3.26 YES

4 9.94 0.78 9.85 0.99 10.13 1.72 0.28 2.70 YES

5 9.94 0.78 10.8 1.08 10.13 1.72 0.67 2.80 YES

6 12.31 0.96 19.19 1.92 12.89 2.08 6.30 4.00 NO

7 12.31 0.96 18.04 1.80 12.89 2.08 5.15 3.89 NO

8 12.89 1.01 18.96 1.90 13.56 2.17 5.40 4.07 NO

9 12.89 1.01 17.35 1.74 13.56 2.17 3.79 3.91 YES

10 10.5 0.82 11.03 1.10 10.78 1.80 0.25 2.91 YES

11 10.5 0.82 12.19 1.22 10.78 1.80 1.41 3.02 YES

12 13.41 1.05 19.37 1.94 14.17 2.25 5.20 4.19 NO

13 13.41 1.05 19.31 1.93 14.17 2.25 5.14 4.18 NO

14 13.61 1.06 19.68 1.97 14.40 2.28 5.28 4.25 NO

15 13.61 1.06 19.84 1.98 14.40 2.28 5.44 4.27 NO

16 8.09 0.63 10.44 1.04 7.98 1.44 2.46 2.49 YES

17 8.09 0.63 10.7 1.07 7.98 1.44 2.72 2.51 NO

18 7.05 0.55 9.1 0.91 6.77 1.29 2.33 2.20 NO

19 7.05 0.55 9.7 0.97 6.77 1.29 2.93 2.26 NO

20 0.25 0.02 0.5 0.05

- 1.14 0.61 1.64 0.66 NO

21 0.26 0.02 0.5 0.05

- 1.13 0.61 1.63 0.66 NO

22 0.18 0.01 0.5 0.05

- 1.22 0.61 1.72 0.66 NO

23 0 0.00 0.1 0.01

- 1.43 #DIV/0! 1.53 ###### #DIV/0!

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Average 2.73

Stdev 2.03

% RSD 75DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 9

Comparison: Emission limit 2 7 .0 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1.163*C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.163*C

cems ) y = 1.355x

- 0.493

R2 = 0.919 y = 1.163x

- 1.430

-10

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 9

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.355x

- 0.493

R2 = 0.919 y = 1.163x

- 0.000

-10

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 9 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 9

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1.163*C

cems - 0.181 ).

y = 1.355x

- 0.493

R2 = 0.919 y = 1.163x

- 0.181

-10

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 9 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 9

Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm111.480.9011.791.1811.921.950.133.13YES13.351.861.56yes13.173.071.38yes211.480.9012.521.2511.921.950.603.21YES13.351.860.83yes13.173.070.65yes311.610.9112.851.2912.071.970.783.26YES13.501.880.65yes13.323.080.47yes49.940.789.850.9910.131.720.282.70YES11.561.611.71yes11.382.931.53yes59.940.7810.81.0810.131.720.672.80YES11.561.610.76yes11.382.930.58yes612.310.9619.191.9212.892.086.304.00NO14.321.994.87no14.143.155.05yes712.310.9618.041.8012.892.085.153.89NO14.321.993.72yes14.143.153.90yes812.891.0118.961.9013.562.175.404.07NO14.992.093.97yes14.813.214.15yes912.891.0117.351.7413.562.173.793.91YES14.992.092.36yes14.813.212.54yes1010.50.8211.031.1010.781.800.252.91YES12.211.701.18yes12.032.981.00yes1110.50.8212.191.2210.781.801.413.02YES12.211.700.02yes12.032.980.16yes1213.411.0519.371.9414.172.255.204.19NO15.602.173.77yes15.413.273.96yes1313.411.0519.311.9314.172.255.144.18NO15.602.173.71yes15.413.273.90yes1413.611.0619.681.9714.402.285.284.25NO15.832.203.85yes15.653.294.03yes1513.611.0619.841.9814.402.285.444.27NO15.832.204.01yes15.653.294.19yes168.090.6310.441.047.981.442.462.49YES9.411.311.03yes9.232.771.21yes178.090.6310.71.077.981.442.722.51NO9.411.311.29yes9.232.771.47yes187.050.559.10.916.771.292.332.20NO8.201.140.90yes8.022.701.08yes197.050.559.70.976.771.292.932.26NO8.201.141.50yes8.022.701.68yes200.250.020.50.05-1.140.611.640.66NO0.290.040.21no0.112.450.39yes210.260.020.50.05-1.130.611.630.66NO0.300.040.20no0.122.450.38yes220.180.010.50.05-1.220.611.720.66NO0.210.030.29no0.032.450.47yes2300.000.10.01-1.43#DIV/0!1.53#######DIV/0!0.00#DIV/0!0.10#DIV/0!-0.18#DIV/0!0.28#DIV/0!Avg.2.73Avg.1.85Avg.1.93Stdev2.03Stdev1.56Stdev1.62% RSD75% RSD85% RSD84Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b andCtrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. Forlow Conc. Ccemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 10

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 10

Example 1 0 : A bituminous coal

- fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. ESP detuning was done to get

the high

- level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

11 Method 5 test where performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations where

compared to the PM CEMS conce ntrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0. 430 ± 0. 224

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM

Conc. C

c pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 7.5 11.3 3.800 0.507

normal 2 7.3 8.5 1.200 0.164

3 7.3 12.2 4.900 0.671

4 7.1 11.9 4.800 0.676

5 7.1 9.1 2.000 0.282

6 6.9 9.2 2.300 0.333

7 7.1 11.8 4.700 0.662

8 6.8 11 4.200 0.618

9 7.5 8.7 1.200 0.160

10 7.0 10.8 3.800 0.543

11 7.0 7.8 0.800 0.114

Avg. 7.1 10.2 3.064 0.430

Stdev 0.23 1.57 1.588 0.224

% RSD 3.2 15.4 51.8 52.0 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 10

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0. 430 ± 0. 224

m = (1+k) = 1. 430 ± 0. 224

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 1. 430 ± 0. 22 4 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 C

true = (1+k)*C

cems + b QAG

C

cems σ C

cems PM

Conc. σ PM Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 7.5 0.59 11.3 1.13 9.30 1.97 2.01 3.10 YES

2 7.3 0.57 8.5 0.85 9.01 1.93 0.51 2.78 YES

3 7.3 0.57 12.2 1.22 9.01 1.93 3.19 3.15 NO

4 7.1 0.55 11.9 1.19 8.72 1.88 3.18 3.07 NO

5 7.1 0.55 9.1 0.91 8.72 1.88 0.38 2.79 YES

6 6.9 0.54 9.2 0.92 8.44 1.83 0.76 2.75 YES

7 7.1 0.55 11.8 1.18 8.72 1.88 3.08 3.06 NO

8 6.8 0.53 11 1.10 8.29 1.81 2.71 2.91 YES

9 7.5 0.59 8.7 0.87 9.30 1.97 0.60 2.84 YES

10 7 0.55 10.8 1.08 8.58 1.85 2.22 2.93 YES

11 7 0.55 7.8 0.78 8.58 1.85 0.78 2.63 YES

1 2 0.3 0.02 0.8 0.08

- 1.00 0.61 1.80 0.69 NO

13 0.4 0.03 1 0.10

- 0.86 0.62 1.86 0.72 NO

1 4 0.6 0.05 0.6 0.06

- 0.57 0.63 1.17 0.69 NO

15 0.2 0.02 0 0.00

- 1.14 0.61 1.14 0.61 NO

16 0.7 0.05 0.2 0.02

- 0.43 0.63 0.63 0.65 YES

17 19.3 1.51 30.3 3.03 26.17 4.87 4.13 7.90 YES

18 19.3 1.51 25.4 2.54 26.17 4.87 0.77 7.41 YES

19 18.4 1.44 27.7 2.77 24.88 4.64 2.82 7.41 YES

20 19.2 1.50 29.4 2.94 26.03 4.84 3.37 7.78 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Avg. 1.69

Stdev 1.01

% RSD 60DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 10

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1. 430 *C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1. 430 *C

cems ) y = 1.488x

- 0.298

R2 = 0.977 y = 1.430x

- 1.430

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0 5 10 15 20 25Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 10

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.488x

- 0.298

R2 = 0.977 y = 1.430x + 0.000

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0 5 10 15 20 25Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 10 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 10

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1. 430 *C

cems + 0.01 0 ).

y = 1.488x

- 0.298

R2 = 0.977 y = 1.430x

- 0.010

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0 5 10 15 20 25Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 10 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 10

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm17.50.5911.31.139.301.972.013.10YES10.731.880.58yes10.722.550.59yes27.30.578.50.859.011.930.512.78YES10.441.831.94yes10.432.511.93yes37.30.5712.21.229.011.933.193.15NO10.441.831.76yes10.432.511.77yes47.10.5511.91.198.721.883.183.07NO10.151.781.75yes10.142.471.76yes57.10.559.10.918.721.880.382.79YES10.151.781.05yes10.142.471.04yes66.90.549.20.928.441.830.762.75YES9.871.730.67yes9.862.440.66yes77.10.5511.81.188.721.883.083.06NO10.151.781.65yes10.142.471.66yes86.80.53111.108.291.812.712.91YES9.721.701.28yes9.712.421.29yes97.50.598.70.879.301.970.602.84YES10.731.882.03yes10.722.552.02yes1070.5510.81.088.581.852.222.93YES10.011.750.79yes10.002.450.80yes1170.557.80.788.581.850.782.63YES10.011.752.21yes10.002.452.20yes120.30.020.80.08-1.000.611.800.69NO0.430.080.37no0.421.720.38yes130.40.0310.10-0.860.621.860.72NO0.570.100.43no0.561.720.44yes140.60.050.60.06-0.570.631.170.69NO0.860.150.26no0.851.730.25yes150.20.0200.00-1.140.611.140.61NO0.290.050.29no0.281.720.28yes160.70.050.20.02-0.430.630.630.65YES1.000.180.80no0.991.730.79yes1719.31.5130.33.0326.174.874.137.90YES27.604.832.70yes27.595.132.71yes1819.31.5125.42.5426.174.870.777.41YES27.604.832.20yes27.595.132.19yes1918.41.4427.72.7724.884.642.827.41YES26.314.601.39yes26.304.911.40yes2019.21.5029.42.9426.034.843.377.78YES27.464.801.94yes27.455.101.95yesAvg.1.69Avg.1.14Avg.1.14Stdev1.01Stdev0.70Stdev0.70% RSD60% RSD62% RSD62Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 11

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 1 1

Example 1 1 : A low sulfur subbituminous coal fired power plant. Has ESP. Plant uses SO3 injection to

help the ESP. Particulate was a yellow color. ESP detuning was done to get the high

- level PM for the

correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Seven Method 5 test w ere performed next to the P M CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations w ere

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 2.698 ± 0. 455

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM

Conc. C

c pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 11.9 36.89 24.990 2.100

normal 2 13 41.16 28.160 2.166

3 12.2 47.11 34.910 2.861

4 12.9 53.1 40.200 3.116

5 13.6 47.65 34.050 2.504

6 13.9 53.63 39.730 2.858

7 13.1 56.03 42.930 3.277

Avg. 12.94 47.94 34.996 2.698

Stdev 0.71 6.99 6.585 0.455

% RSD 5.5 14.6 18.8 16.9 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 11

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 2.698 ± 0. 455

m = (1+k) = 3.698 ± 0. 455

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 3.698 ± 0. 455 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 C

true = (1+k)*C

cems + b QAG

C

cems σ C

cems PM

Conc. σ PM Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 11.9 0.93 36.89 3.69 42.58 6.44 5.69 10.13 YES

2 13 1.01 41.16 4.12 46.64 7.03 5.48 11.15 YES

3 12.2 0.95 47.11 4.71 43.69 6.60 3.42 11.31 YES

4 12.9 1.01 53.1 5.31 46.27 6.98 6.83 12.29 YES

5 13.6 1.06 47.65 4.77 48.86 7.35 1.21 12.12 YES

6 13.9 1.08 53.63 5.36 49.97 7.51 3.66 12.88 YES

7 13.1 1.02 56.03 5.60 47.01 7.08 9.02 12.69 YES

8 36.7 2.86 143.1 14.31 134.29 19.78 8.81 34.09 YES

9 31.8 2.48 119.8 11.98 116.17 17.14 3.63 29.12 YES

10 36.8 2.87 146.1 14.61 134.66 19.83 11.44 34.44 YES

11 36.5 2.85 122.6 12.26 133.55 19.67 10.95 31.93 YES

12 32.5 2.54 106.2 10.62 118.76 17.52 12.56 28.14 YES

13 1.1 0.09 1.1 0.11 2.64 0.85 1.54 0.96 NO

14 0.8 0.06 0.86 0.09 1.53 0.75 0.67 0.83 YES

15 0.3 0.02 0.48 0.05

- 0.32 0.63 0.80 0.68 NO

16 0.3 0.02 1.02 0.10

- 0.32 0.63 1.34 0.73 NO

17 0.5 0.04 1.07 0.11 0.42 0.67 0.65 0.77 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For C

cem uncertainty = 7.8% Avg. 5.16

Stdev 4.10

% RSD 80DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 11

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 3.698 *C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 3.698 *C

cems ) y = 3.702x

- 0.820

R2 = 0.983 y = 3.698x

- 1.430

-20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 11

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 3.702x

- 0.820

R2 = 0.983 y = 3.698x

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 11 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 11

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 3.698 *C

cems + 0.0 8 0 ).

y = 3.702x

- 0.820

R2 = 0.983 y = 3.698x + 0.080

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 11 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 11

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm17.50.5911.31.139.301.972.013.10YES10.731.880.58yes10.722.550.59yes27.30.578.50.859.011.930.512.78YES10.441.831.94yes10.432.511.93yes37.30.5712.21.229.011.933.193.15NO10.441.831.76yes10.432.511.77yes47.10.5511.91.198.721.883.183.07NO10.151.781.75yes10.142.471.76yes57.10.559.10.918.721.880.382.79YES10.151.781.05yes10.142.471.04yes66.90.549.20.928.441.830.762.75YES9.871.730.67yes9.862.440.66yes77.10.5511.81.188.721.883.083.06NO10.151.781.65yes10.142.471.66yes86.80.53111.108.291.812.712.91YES9.721.701.28yes9.712.421.29yes97.50.598.70.879.301.970.602.84YES10.731.882.03yes10.722.552.02yes1070.5510.81.088.581.852.222.93YES10.011.750.79yes10.002.450.80yes1170.557.80.788.581.850.782.63YES10.011.752.21yes10.002.452.20yes120.30.020.80.08-1.000.611.800.69NO0.430.080.37no0.421.720.38yes130.40.0310.10-0.860.621.860.72NO0.570.100.43no0.561.720.44yes140.60.050.60.06-0.570.631.170.69NO0.860.150.26no0.851.730.25yes150.20.0200.00-1.140.611.140.61NO0.290.050.29no0.281.720.28yes160.70.050.20.02-0.430.630.630.65YES1.000.180.80no0.991.730.79yes1719.31.5130.33.0326.174.874.137.90YES27.604.832.70yes27.595.132.71yes1819.31.5125.42.5426.174.870.777.41YES27.604.832.20yes27.595.132.19yes1918.41.4427.72.7724.884.642.827.41YES26.314.601.39yes26.304.911.40yes2019.21.5029.42.9426.034.843.377.78YES27.464.801.94yes27.455.101.95yesAvg.1.69Avg.1.14Avg.1.14Stdev1.01Stdev0.70Stdev0.70% RSD60% RSD62% RSD62Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSRunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 12

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 1 2

Example 1 2 : A low sulfur subbituminous coal fired power plant. Has ESP. ESP detuning was done to get

the high

- level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols. ( Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Six Method 5 test w ere performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle . These concentrations w ere

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.896 ± 0. 197

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM

Conc. C

c pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 5.9 12.3 6.400 1.085

normal 2 6.1 10.98 4.880 0.800

3 5.3 10.75 5.450 1.028

4 5.6 11.42 5.820 1.039

5 8 14.88 6.880 0.860

6 9 14.09 5.090 0.566

Avg. 6.65 12.40 5.753 0.896

Stdev 1.49 1.72 0.773 0.197

% RSD 22 14 13 22 y = 1.06x

- 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm) 

### All CEMS data correlated to QAGDRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 12

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.896 ± 0. 197

m = (1+k) = 1.896 ± 0. 197

b =

- 1.43 ± 0.609

C

true = 1.896 ± 0. 197 (C

cems )

- 1.43 ± .609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function usi ng

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 C

true = (1+k)*C

cems + b QAG

C

cems σ C

cems PM

Conc. σ PM Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 5.9 0.46 12.3 1.23 9.76 1.58 2.54 2.81 YES

2 6.1 0.48 10.98 1.10 10.14 1.62 0.84 2.72 YES

3 5.3 0.41 10.75 1.08 8.62 1.44 2.13 2.52 YES

4 5.6 0.44 11.42 1.14 9.19 1.51 2.23 2.65 YES

5 8 0.62 14.88 1.49 13.74 2.06 1.14 3.55 YES

6 9 0.70 14.09 1.41 15.63 2.30 1.54 3.71 YES

7 13.3 1.04 27.64 2.76 23.79 3.33 3.85 6.10 YES

8 15.6 1.22 34.16 3.42 28.15 3.89 6.01 7.31 YES

9 15.5 1.21 34.49 3.45 27.96 3.87 6.53 7.32 YES

10 17.7 1.38 28.1 2.81 32.13 4.40 4.03 7.21 YES

11 16.6 1.29 26.35 2.64 30.04 4.13 3.69 6.77 YES

12 16.3 1.27 26.83 2.68 29.47 4.06 2.64 6.74 YES

13 0.7 0.05 0.56 0.06

- 0.10 0.63 0.66 0.69 YES

14 0.5 0.04 0.22 0.02

- 0.48 0.62 0.70 0.64 NO

15 0.4 0.03 0.22 0.02

- 0.67 0.62 0.89 0.64 NO

16 0.3 0.02 0.49 0.05

- 0.86 0.61 1.35 0.66 NO

17 0.4 0.03 0.57 0.06

- 0.67 0.62 1.24 0.67 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For C

c em uncertainty = 7.8% Avg. 2.47

Stdev 1.80

% RSD 73DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 12

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1.896 *C

cems - 1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.896 *C

cems ) y = 1.844x + 0.058

R2 = 0.945 y = 1.896x

- 1.430

-10

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 12

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.844x + 0.058

R2 = 0.945 y = 1.896x + 0.000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 12 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 12

January 10, 2013 Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1.896 *C

cems – 0.210 ).

y = 1.844x + 0.058

R2 = 0.945 y = 1.896x

- 0.210

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Ctrue(M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# Example 12 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

– Application of Alternative PS

- 11b Example 12

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm15.90.4612.31.239.761.582.542.81YES11.191.451.11yes10.983.661.32yes26.10.4810.981.1010.141.620.842.72YES11.571.500.59yes11.363.680.38yes35.30.4110.751.088.621.442.132.52YES10.051.310.70yes9.843.610.91yes45.60.4411.421.149.191.512.232.65YES10.621.380.80yes10.413.641.01yes580.6214.881.4913.742.061.143.55YES15.171.970.29yes14.963.900.08yes690.7014.091.4115.632.301.543.71YES17.062.222.97yes16.854.032.76yes713.31.0427.642.7623.793.333.856.10YES25.223.282.42yes25.014.702.63yes815.61.2234.163.4228.153.896.017.31YES29.583.844.58yes29.375.114.79yes915.51.2134.493.4527.963.876.537.32YES29.393.825.10yes29.185.095.31yes1017.71.3828.12.8132.134.404.037.21YES33.564.365.46yes33.355.515.25yes1116.61.2926.352.6430.044.133.696.77YES31.474.095.12yes31.265.304.91yes1216.31.2726.832.6829.474.062.646.74YES30.904.024.07yes30.695.243.86yes130.70.050.560.06-0.100.630.660.69YES1.330.170.77no1.123.370.56yes140.50.040.220.02-0.480.620.700.64NO0.950.120.73no0.743.370.52yes150.40.030.220.02-0.670.620.890.64NO0.760.100.54no0.553.370.33yes160.30.020.490.05-0.860.611.350.66NO0.570.070.08yes0.363.370.13yes170.40.030.570.06-0.670.621.240.67NO0.760.100.19no0.553.370.02yesAvg.2.47Avg.2.09Avg.2.05Stdev1.80Stdev2.01Stdev2.03% RSD73% RSD96% RSD99Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5PM CEMSNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. ForCcemuncertainty = 7.8%RunCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and CtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDRAFT

- Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 13

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

– E xample 13 (Bruce Mansfield CEMS 1A )

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols.

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Six Method 5b test s w ere performed . These concentrations w ere compared to the PM CEMS

concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0. 180 ± 0.060

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Cc pd /Cc)

1 21.80 27.0 5.2 0.239

Normal

Conc. 2 21.10 26.0 4.9 0.232

3 19.50 22.9 3.4 0.174

4 20.10 21.6 1.5 0.075

5 20.30 23.5 3.2 0.158

6 20.80 25.0 4.2 0.202

Average 20.60 24.33 3.73 0.180

Stdev 0.81 2.03 1.35 0.060

% RSD 3.93 8.33 36.16 33.60 y = 1.0736x

- 2.9605

R2 = 0.9847

-10.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00QAG PM Conc. (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS response (mg/wscm) 

# QAG linearity with CEMS 1ADRAFT

- Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 13

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0. 180 ± 0. 0 60

m = (1+k) = 1. 180 ± 0. 0.0 60

b =

- 2.9605 ± 1.293

C

true = 1. 180 ± 0. 0 60 (C

cems )

- 2.9605±1.293

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function using

simultaneous M5 measurements.

Run C

cems σ C

cems M5b PM

Conc. σ M5b PM

Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 21.80 1.20 27.0 2.70 22.76 2.11 4.24 4.81 YES

3 21.10 1.16 26.0 2.60 21.94 2.06 4.06 4.66 YES

5 19.50 1.07 22.9 2.29 20.05 1.93 2.85 4.22 YES

6 20.10 1.11 21.6 2.16 20.76 1.98 0.84 4.14 YES

7 20.30 1.12 23.5 2.35 20.99 1.99 2.51 4.34 YES

9 20.80 1.14 25.0 2.50 21.58 2.03 3.42 4.53 YES

10 0.30 0.02 0.6 0.06

- 2.61 0.87 3.21 0.93 NO

11 0.30 0.02 0.8 0.08

- 2.61 0.87 3.45 0.95 NO

12 0.40 0.02 0.3 0.03

- 2.49 0.87 2.80 0.90 NO

13 0.60 0.03 0.7 0.07

- 2.25 0.87 2.98 0.94 NO

14 0.60 0.03 0.4 0.04

- 2.25 0.87 2.65 0.91 NO

16 24.40 1.34 29.9 2.99 25.83 2.33 4.07 5.32 YES

18 19.10 1.05 22.1 2.21 19.58 N/A 2.52 N/A YES

19 17.70 0.97 23.9 2.39 17.93 N/A 5.97 N/A YES

20 19.50 1.07 24.5 2.45 20.05 N/A 4.45 N/A YES

21 29.1 1.17 33.95 3.40 31.42 2.39 2.53 5.78 YES

22 30.7 1.23 34.96 3.50 33.21 2.50 1.75 5.99 YES

23 30.9 1.23 36.46 3.65 33.47 2.51 2.99 6.16 YES

24 30.8 1.23 35.28 3.53 33.40 2.51 1.88 6.04 YES

N otes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. C

cem uncertainty = 5.5% Average 3.11

Stdev 1.14

% RSD 36DRAFT

- Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 13

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit 97.9 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1.180*C

cems - 2.960)

y = 1.169x + 0.344

R2 = 0.993 y = 1.180x

- 2.960

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 1A

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.169x + 0.344

R2 = 0.993 y = 1.180x

- 2.960

-30.0 -20.0 -10.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 1A

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

- Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 13

January 10, 2013 Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.180*C

cems )

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1.180*C

cems + 1.556) y = 1.169x + 0.344

R2 = 0.993 y = 1.180x + 0.000

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 1A Intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.169x + 0.344

R2 = 0.993 y = 1.180x + 1.556

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 1A corrected to M5

PS-11 EL Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT

- Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 13

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm121.801.2027.02.7022.762.114.244.81YES25.721.931.28yes25.753.081.25yes321.101.1626.02.6021.942.064.064.66YES24.901.861.10yes24.923.041.08yes519.501.0722.92.2920.051.932.854.22YES23.011.720.11yes23.042.960.14yes620.101.1121.62.1620.761.980.844.14YES23.721.782.12yes23.742.992.14yes720.301.1223.52.3520.991.992.514.34YES23.951.790.45yes23.983.000.48yes920.801.1425.02.5021.582.033.424.53YES24.541.840.46yes24.573.030.43yes100.300.020.60.06-2.610.873.210.93NO0.350.030.25no0.382.400.22yes110.300.020.80.08-2.610.873.450.95NO0.350.030.49no0.382.400.46yes120.400.020.30.03-2.490.872.800.90NO0.470.040.16no0.502.400.19yes130.600.030.70.07-2.250.872.980.94NO0.710.050.02yes0.732.400.00yes140.600.030.40.04-2.250.872.650.91NO0.710.050.31no0.732.400.33yes1624.401.3429.92.9925.832.334.075.32YES28.792.161.11yes28.823.231.08yes1819.101.0522.12.2119.581.902.524.11YES22.541.690.44yes22.562.940.46yes1917.700.9723.92.3917.931.795.974.18NO20.891.563.01yes20.912.872.99yes2019.501.0724.52.4520.051.934.454.38NO23.011.721.49yes23.042.961.46yes2129.11.6033.953.4031.422.722.536.11YES34.392.580.44yes34.413.520.46yes2230.71.6934.963.5033.212.841.756.34YES36.172.711.21yes36.193.621.23yes2330.91.7036.463.6533.472.862.996.51YES36.432.730.03yes36.453.640.01yes2430.81.6935.283.5333.402.861.886.39YES36.362.721.08yes36.383.631.10yesAvg.3.11Avg.0.82Avg.0.82Stdev1.14Stdev0.78Stdev0.78% RSD36.5% RSD95.5% RSD95.2Ctrue'' = (1+k)Ccems +(bqag+bM5correction)Method 5bDifferenceM5b andCtrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementCtrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bqagCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0DifferenceM5b andCtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc.Ccemuncertainty = 5.5%PM CEMSRunDifferenceM5b andCtrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 14

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 14 (Bruce Mansfield CEMS 2B )

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols.

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Nine Method 5b test w ere performed . These concentrations w ere compared to the PM CEMS

concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0. 078 ± 0.079

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

Notes mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 23.7 28.2 4.5 0.190

Normal

Conc. 2 23.8 25.2 1.4 0.059

3 24.1 24.2 0.1 0.004

5 23.2 24.6 1.4 0.060

6 23.1 25.3 2.2 0.095

7 22.2 22.1

- 0.1

- 0.005

8 20.9 21.8 0.9 0.043

9 19.7 19.5

- 0.2

- 0.010

Average 23.70 25.6 1.85 0.078

Stdev. 0.37 1.81 1.87 0.079

%RSD 1.6 7.1 101.1 100.7 y = 1.0534x

- 1.348

R2 = 0.9936

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00QAG Conc. (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS response (mg/wscm) 

# QAG linearity with CEMS 2BDRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 14

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0. 078 ± 0. 079

m = (1+k) = 1. 078 ± 0. 0.079

b =

- 1.348 ± 0.886

C

true = 1. 078 ± 0. 079 (C

cems )

- 1.348 ±0. 886

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function using

simultaneous M5 measurements.

Run C

cems σ C

cems M5b PM

Conc. σ M5b PM

Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 23.70 1.26 28.2 2.82 24.20 2.47 4.00 5.29 YES

2 23.80 1.26 25.2 2.52 24.31 2.48 0.89 5.00 YES

3 24.10 1.28 24.2 2.42 24.63 2.51 0.43 4.93 YES

5 23.20 1.23 24.6 2.46 23.66 2.43 0.94 4.89 YES

6 23.10 1.22 25.3 2.53 23.55 2.42 1.75 4.95 YES

7 22.20 1.18 22.1 2.21 22.58 2.34 0.48 4.55 YES

8 20.90 1.11 21.8 2.18 21.18 2.22 0.62 4.40 YES

9 19.70 1.04 19.5 1.95 19.89 2.12 0.39 4.07 YES

10 2.10 0.11 0.94 0.09 0.92 0.91 0.02 1.00 YES

11 1.60 0.08 0.82 0.08 0.38 0.90 0.44 0.98 YES

12 1.90 0.10 0.54 0.05 0.70 0.91 0.16 0.96 YES

13 1.60 0.08 0.62 0.06 0.38 0.90 0.24 0.96 YES

14 1.40 0.07 1.24 0.12 0.16 0.90 1.08 N/A YES

17 33.70 1.79 35.8 3.58 34.98 3.40 0.82 N/A YES

19 33.70 1.79 43 4.30 34.98 3.40 8.02 N/A YES

20 41.30 2.19 50 5.00 43.17 4.12 6.83 9.12 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. C

cem uncertainty = 5.3% Average 1.69

Stdev 2.43

% RSD 144DRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 14

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit 94.4 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1.078*C

cems - 1.348)

y = 1.194x

- 1.992

R2 = 0.983 y = 1.078x

- 1.348

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 2B

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.194x

- 1.992

R2 = 0.983 y = 1.078x

- 1.348

-30 -20 -10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 2B

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 14

January 10, 2013 Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.078*C

cems )

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1.078*C

cems – 0.4868) y = 1.194x

- 1.992

R2 = 0.983 y = 1.078x

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 2B intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.194x

- 1.992

R2 = 0.983 y = 1.078x

- 0.4868

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 2B corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 14

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm123.701.2628.22.8224.202.474.005.29YES25.552.312.65yes25.064.013.14yes223.801.2625.22.5224.312.480.895.00YES25.662.320.46yes25.174.010.03yes324.101.2824.22.4224.632.510.434.93YES25.982.351.78yes25.494.031.29yes523.201.2324.62.4623.662.430.944.89YES25.012.260.41yes24.523.980.08yes623.101.2225.32.5323.552.421.754.95YES24.902.250.40yes24.413.970.89yes722.201.1822.12.2122.582.340.484.55YES23.932.161.83yes23.443.921.34yes820.901.1121.82.1821.182.220.624.40YES22.532.040.73yes22.043.850.24yes919.701.0419.51.9519.892.120.394.07YES21.241.921.74yes20.753.791.25yes102.100.110.940.090.920.910.021.00YES2.260.201.32no1.783.280.84yes111.600.080.820.080.380.900.440.98YES1.720.160.90no1.243.280.42yes121.900.100.540.050.700.910.160.96YES2.050.191.51no1.563.281.02yes131.600.080.620.060.380.900.240.96YES1.720.161.10no1.243.280.62yes141.400.071.240.120.160.901.08N/AYES1.510.140.27no1.023.270.22yes1733.701.7935.83.5834.983.400.82N/AYES36.333.290.53yes35.844.640.04yes1933.701.79434.3034.983.408.02N/AYES36.333.296.67yes35.844.647.16yes2041.302.19505.0043.174.126.839.12YES44.524.035.48yes44.035.195.97yesAvg.1.69Avg.1.74Avg.1.53Stdev2.43Stdev1.83Stdev2.12% RSD144% RSD1.05% RSD1.38PM CEMSMethod 5bCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b andCtrueσCtrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b andCtrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementCtrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGDifferenceM5b andCtrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc.For Ccemuncertainty = 5.3%RunDRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 15

January 10, 2013 

# PS

- 11B

- E xample 15 (Bruce Mansfield CEMS 3A)

Step 1: Perform an off

- line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAG

generated reference aerosols.

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Eleven Method 5b test s w ere performed . These concentrations w ere compared to the PM CEMS

concentrations giving a probe deposit factor (k) of 0.3 21 ± 0.149

.

Run PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. C

c pd K

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

3 7.30 9.1 1.8 0.247

4 7.00 11.1 4.1 0.586

5 6.70 8.9 2.2 0.328

6 6.70 9.6 2.9 0.433

7 6.80 8.4 1.6 0.235

8 6.70 10.3 3.6 0.537

10 6.80 8.8 2.0 0.294

11 6.40 8.8 2.4 0.375

13 6.60 8.0 1.4 0.212

14 6.30 7.1 0.8 0.127

15 6.90 8.0 1.1 0.159

Average 6.75 8.92 2.17 0.321

Stdev 0.27 1.12 1.02 0.149

%RSD 4.05 12.51 47.08 46.3 y = 1.0628x

- 0.3636

R2 = 0.9931

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00QAG PM Conc. (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS response (mg/wscm) 

# QAG linearity with CEMS 3ADRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 15

January 10, 2013 Step 3: Calculate in

- stack response function

C

true = mC

cems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.321 ± 0.14 9

m = (1+k) = 1.3 21 ± 0.14 9

b =

- 0.364 ± 0.869

C

true = 1.3 21 ± 0.149 (C

cems )

- 0.364±0.869

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM

- based PM CEMS in

- stack response function using

simultaneous M5 measurements.

Run C

cems σ C

cems M5b PM

Conc. σ M5b PM

Conc. C

true σ C

true Difference

M5b and

C

true σC

true

+

σM5b Same with in

one σ of each

measurement mg/ wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

3 7.30 0.40 9.1 0.91 9.28 1.48 0.18 2.39 YES

4 7.00 0.39 11.1 1.11 8.88 1.44 2.22 2.55 YES

5 6.70 0.37 8.9 0.89 8.49 1.40 0.41 2.29 YES

6 6.70 0.37 9.6 0.96 8.49 1.40 1.11 2.36 YES

7 6.80 0.37 8.4 0.84 8.62 1.41 0.22 2.25 YES

8 6.70 0.37 10.3 1.03 8.49 1.40 1.81 2.43 YES

10 6.80 0.37 8.8 0.88 8.62 1.41 0.18 2.29 YES

11 6.40 0.35 8.8 0.88 8.09 1.36 0.71 2.24 YES

13 6.60 0.36 8.0 0.80 8.35 1.39 0.35 2.19 YES

14 6.30 0.35 7.1 0.71 7.96 1.35 0.86 2.06 YES

15 6.90 0.38 8.0 0.80 8.75 1.43 0.75 2.23 YES

16 0.30 0.02 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.87 0.03 0.87 YES

17 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.03

- 0.36 N/A 0.66 N/A YES

18 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.05

- 0.36 N/A 0.86 N/A YES

19 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.01

- 0.36 N/A 0.46 N/A YES

1H 18.40 0.74 29.2 2.92 23.94 3.00 5.26 5.92 YES

2H 17.80 0.71 30.4 3.04 23.15 2.91 7.25 5.95 NO

3H 17.20 0.69 26.0 2.60 22.36 2.82 3.64 5.42 YES

4H 17.90 0.72 28.5 2.85 23.28 2.92 5.22 5.77 YES

Notes: ass uming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. C

cem uncertainty = 5.5% for high equal 4.0% Average 1.69

Stdev 2.10

% RSD 124DRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 15

January 10, 2013 Comparison: Emission limit 93.2 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope wit h QAG determined intercept to PS

- 11 (y = 1.321*C

cems - 0.364)

y = 1.626x

- 1.260

R2 = 0.981 y = 1.321x

- 0.364

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 3A

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.626x

- 1.260

R2 = 0.981 y = 1.321x

- 0.364

-30.0 -20.0 -10.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 3A

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 15

January 10, 2013 Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.321*C

cems )

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1.321*C

cems + 0.0074) y = 1.626x

- 1.260

R2 = 0.981 y = 1.321x

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00Ctrue' (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 3A intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11

y = 1.626x

- 1.260

R2 = 0.981 y = 1.321x + 0.0074

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00Ctrue(M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

C

cems (mg/wscm) 

# CEMS 3A corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL) PS

- 11b

PS

- 11DRAFT Application of Alternative PS

- 11B Example 15

January 10, 2013 Section 4: Table comparing three different approachesCcemsσCcemsPM Conc.σPM Conc.CtrueσCtrueCtrue'σCtrue'Ctrue''σCtrue''mg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscmmg/wscm37.300.409.10.919.281.480.182.39YES9.641.200.54yes9.651.890.55yes47.000.3911.11.118.881.442.222.55YES9.251.151.85yes9.251.861.85yes56.700.378.90.898.491.400.412.29YES8.851.100.05yes8.861.830.04yes66.700.379.60.968.491.401.112.36YES8.851.100.75yes8.861.830.74yes76.800.378.40.848.621.410.222.25YES8.981.120.58yes8.991.840.59yes86.700.3710.31.038.491.401.812.43YES8.851.101.45yes8.861.831.44yes106.800.378.80.888.621.410.182.29YES8.981.120.18yes8.991.840.19yes116.400.358.80.888.091.360.712.24YES8.451.050.35yes8.461.800.34yes136.600.368.00.808.351.390.352.19YES8.721.080.72yes8.731.820.73yes146.300.357.10.717.961.350.862.06YES8.321.031.22yes8.331.791.23yes156.900.388.00.808.751.430.752.23YES9.111.131.11yes9.121.851.12yes160.300.020.00.000.030.870.030.87YES0.400.050.40no0.401.460.40yes170.000.000.30.03-0.36N/A0.66N/AN/A0.00N/A0.30N/A0.01N/A0.29N/A180.000.000.50.05-0.36N/A0.86N/AN/A0.00N/A0.50N/A0.01N/A0.49N/A190.000.000.10.01-0.36N/A0.46N/AN/A0.00N/A0.10N/A0.01N/A0.09N/A1H18.400.7429.22.9223.943.005.265.92YES24.312.874.89yes24.313.224.89yes2H17.800.7130.43.0423.152.917.255.95NO23.512.776.89no23.523.146.88no3H17.200.6926.02.6022.362.823.645.42YES22.722.683.28yes22.733.053.27yes4H17.900.7228.52.8523.282.925.225.77YES23.652.794.85yes23.653.154.85yesAvg.1.69Avg.1.58Avg.1.58Stdev2.10Stdev1.96Stdev1.95% RSD123.8% RSD123.8% RSD123.8RunDifferenceM5b andCtrueσ Ctrue+σM5bSame with inoneσ of eachmeasurementNotes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc.For low Conc. Ccemuncertainty = 5.5% for high equal 4.0%Ctrue= (1+k)*Ccems+ bQAGMethod 5BPM CEMSCtrue' = (1+k)Ccems+ 0Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)DifferenceM5b and Ctrue'Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurementDifferenceM5b and Ctrue''Same with inoneσ of eachmeasurement