1
Napolitano,
2003
Acid
Rain
Division
Data
­
PEMS
Petition
Acceptance
for
Mead
Coated
Board
January
28,
2003
2
Euhus,
1999,
www.
pacsim.
com/
Articles/
NOx_
PEMS/
NOx_
PEMS.
doc
3
4
Shakenback
2003
PEMS
RATA
Spread
Sheets
5
Golden
Specialty
Consulting
Letter
to
Air
Liquide
May
30,
2001
6
Golden
Specialty
Consulting
Letter
to
Air
Liquide
March
21,
2001
7
Golden
Specialty
Consulting
Letter
to
Air
Liquide
June
23,
2001
8
Golden
Specialty
Consulting
Letter
to
Air
Liquide
May
30,
2001
9
Golden
Specialty
Consulting
Letter
to
Air
Liquide
June
13,
2001
10
White
Star
RATA
Sept
26,
1999
GT#
1
11
White
Star
RATA
Oct
2­
3,
1999
GT#
2
12
White
Star
RATA
Sept
28,
1999
GT#
1
13
TASC
Environmental
Services
November
22,2000
THW­
33
14
TASC
Environmental
Services
November
21,
2000
THW­
34
15
TASC
Environmental
Services
November
21,
2000
THW­
43
16
RMB
Consulting
&
Research
Inc
Oct
30,
1997
THW­
31
17
Radian
International
LLC
Nov.
11,
1977
18
Griffin
Letters(
2)
to
Haight,
TASC
Environmental
Services
Acid
Rain
Files
19
Douglas
Neeley
to
Angie
Eastman
­
WestPoint
Stevens
Clemson
Report
from
Air
Techniques
Inc.
Boiler
#
1
20
Douglas
Neeley
to
Angie
Eastman
­
WestPoint
Stevens
Clemson
Report
from
Air
Techniques
Inc.
Boiler
#
2
21
Smith
letter
to
Mobley­
Degussa
8/
30/
2000
Boiler
#
3
22
Moore
(
BP)
letter
to
Region
IV
March
6,
2001+
Shakenback
2003
spreadsheet
23
Moore
(
BP)
letter
to
Region
IV
March
6,
2001+
Shakenback
2003
24
TASC
Env
Services
Oct
21,
1999
GT­
30
25
TASC
Env
Services
Oct
28,
1999
GT­
32
26
TASC
Env
Services
Oct
22,
1999
GT­
33
27
TASC
Env
Services
Oct
28,
1999
GT­
45
28
TASC
Env
Services
Sept
28,
1999
GT­
62
29
TASC
Env
Services
Oct
8,
1999
GT­
63
30
TASC
Env
Services
Oct
21,
1999
GT­
66
31
TASC
Env
Services
Oct
15,
1999
GT­
67
32
Griffin
Letters(
2)
to
Haight,
Acid
Rain
Files
33
Napolitano,
August
2003
Acid
Rain
Division
Data
­
PEMS
Petition
Acceptance
CO
Reference
Macak
1996
The
Pros
and
Cons
of
Predictive,
Parametric,
and
Alternative
Emissions
Monitoring
Systems
for
Regulatory
Source
Type
PEMS
System/
Model
Manufacturer
Condition
or
Capacity
CO
RATA
Results
%
Units
CO
FTest
F
l
a
g
CO
R2
Corr.
F
l
a
g
Bias
Adj.

Factor
PEMS
Input
Factors
Number
of
Tests/
Number
of
Continuous
Operating
Hours
Ref.

Gas
Turbine
Texas
Average
1.34
4.09E­
03
P
0.927
P
1
9
RATA
Tests*

Assumed
10
1­
Base
(
Premix)
1.53
4.04E­
03
P
2­
Lean
Lean
1.23
7.92E­
03
P
3­
Lean
Lean
Positive
1.27
3.00E­
04
P
Gas
Turbine
Texas
Average
2.54
6.44E­
02
P
0.988
P
1
9
RATA
Tests*

Assumed
11
1­
Base
(
Premix)
2.28
2.00E­
04
P
2­
Lean
Lean
0.93
2.90E­
03
P
3­
Lean
Lean
Positive
4.42
1.90E­
01
P
Gas
Turbine
Deer
Park,
TX
Average
0.70
3.53E­
03
P
0.910
P
9
RATA
Tests*

Assumed
12
1­
72
MW
0.860
1.00E­
03
P
2­
63
MW
0.760
2.00E­
03
P
3­
42
MW
0.480
7.60E­
03
P
Table
3.
CO
PEMS
RATA
Summary
*
Each
RATA
test
consists
of
21
consecutive
one­
minute
runs.
2
of
2
