DAQ-2024-011236

1

DAQC-1078-24
Site ID 10556 (B5)

MEMORANDUM

TO: CEM FILE – CHEVRON MARKETING TERMINAL

THROUGH: Harold Burge, Major Source Compliance Section Manager

FROM: Rob Leishman, Environmental Scientist

DATE: October 21, 2024

SUBJECT: Source: Marketing Terminal Primary and Secondary VRU
Contact: Shane Partain – 503-939-1197
Christopher Roberge – 916-956-1270
Location: 2351 North 1100 West, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Test Contractor: Alliance Technical Group, LLC
FRS ID#: UT0000004903500240
Permit/AO#: Approval Order (AO) DAQE-AN105560017-15 dated May 18,
2015
Subject: Review of RA/PST Protocol dated October 21, 2024
On October 21, 2024, Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) received a protocol by email for a RA/PST
(relative accuracy/performance specification test) of the Chevron Marketing Terminal Primary and
Secondary VRU in Salt Lake City, Utah. Testing will be performed on December 26-27, 2024, to
determine the relative accuracy of the NMHC monitoring systems.

PROTOCOL CONDITIONS:

1. RM 25B used to determine total gaseous organic concentration by flame ionization
detector: OK

DEVIATIONS: No deviations were noted.

CONCLUSION: The protocol appears to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: Send attached protocol review and test date confirmation notice.

1 8 2
Shane Partain OE/HSE Specialist
Portland ORSalt Lake City UTEureka CA
Chevron Products Company 5531 NW Doane Ave Portland OR 97210 Tel [phone] Cell 503-939-1197 [e-mail]
Oct 21, 2024Rob LeishmanUtah DEQPO Box 14480
Salt Lake City UT 84114
Mr Leishman,
Please see the attached RATA test plan submitted to us by Alliance. If approved, we plan on conducting the RATA testing on or about Dec 26 and 27 at our Terminal located at 2351N 1100W Salt Lake City 84116.
Please let me know if you need any further details or have any questions. Thank you and looking forward to your reply.
Respectfully,
Shane Partain
OE/HES Specialist

Continuous Emissions Monitoring
System Relative Accuracy Test
Protocol
Chevron Products Company Salt Lake City Terminal 2351 North 1100 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Source to be Tested: VRU
Proposed Test Dates: December 26 & 27, 2024

Project No. AST-2024-4946

Prepared By
Alliance Technical Group, LLC
3683 W 2270 S, Suite E West Valley City, UT 84120

Site Specific Test Plan
Test Program Summary

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page i
Regulatory Information

Permit No. UDAQ DAQE-AN 105560017-15
Regulatory Citation 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B – Performance Specification 8

Source Information

Source Name Target Parameter VRU (Primary and Secondary) NMHC Contact Information

Test Location Test Company
Chevron Products Company
Salt Lake City Terminal
2351 North 1100 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Facility Contacts
Christopher Roberge
[e-mail]
[phone]

Cary Freeman
[e-mail]
[phone]

Shane Partain
[e-mail]
[phone]
Alliance Technical Group, LLC
3683 W 2270 S, Suite E
West Valley City, UT 84120

Project Manager
Charles Horton
[e-mail]
[phone]

Field Team Leader
Tobias Hubbard
[e-mail]
[phone]
(subject to change)

QA/QC Manager
Kathleen Shonk
[e-mail]
[phone]

Test Plan/Report Coordinator
Delaine Spangler
[e-mail]

Site Specific Test Plan
Table of Contents

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Process/Control System Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Team ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Safety Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 Summary of Test Program .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 General Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Process/Control System Parameters to be Monitored and Recorded ........................................................... 2-1
2.3 Proposed Test Schedule............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Emission Limits ........................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Test Report .................................................................................................................................................. 2-2
3.0 Testing Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 25B – Non-Methane Hydrocarbons ...................................................... 3-1
3.2 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 205 – Gas Dilution System Certification .............................................. 3-2
4.0 Quality Assurance Program ......................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Equipment ................................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Field Sampling ............................................................................................................................................ 4-2
LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Project Team ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Table 2-1: Program Outline and Tentative Test Schedule ........................................................................................ 2-1
Table 2-2: Relative Accuracy Requirements and Limits .......................................................................................... 2-2
Table 3-1: Source Testing Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Example Field Data Sheets

Site Specific Test Plan
Introduction

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page 1-1
1.0 Introduction
Alliance Technical Group, LLC (Alliance) was retained by Chevron Products Company (Chevron) to conduct
performance specification (PS) testing at the North Salt Lake, Utah facility. Portions of the facility are subject to
provisions of the 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, PS 8 and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air
Quality (UDAQ) Permit No. DAQE-AN105560017-15. Testing will include conducting a relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) to determine the relative accuracy (RA) of the non-methane organic compounds (NMHC) continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) installed on the Primary and Secondary Vapor Recovery Units (VRU).

This Continuous Emissions Monitoring System Relative Accuracy Test Protocol has been prepared to address the
notification and testing requirements of the UDAQ permit.
1.1 Process/Control System Descriptions
A Continuous Vapor Processing System (CVPS) is used to collect the vapors displaced during product loading. The
vapors are transported through airtight collection systems to VRU for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
control. The VRU are John Zink carbon bed systems equipped with infrared (IR) VOC analyzers. Emissions from
the carbon adsorption vapor collection and processing systems shall be maintained at less than the established
operating limit of 11,000 parts per million (ppm) of VOC.
1.2 Project Team
Personnel planned to be involved in this project are identified in the following table. Table 1-1: Project Team

Chevron Personnel
Shane Partain
Cary Freman
Christopher Roberge
Regulatory Agency UDAQ
Alliance Personnel Tobias Hubbard
other field personnel assigned at time of testing event

1.3 Safety Requirements
Testing personnel will undergo site-specific safety training for all applicable areas upon arrival at the site. Alliance
personnel will have current OSHA or MSHA safety training and be equipped with hard hats, safety glasses with side
shields, steel-toed safety shoes, hearing protection, fire resistant clothing, and fall protection (including shock
corded lanyards and full-body harnesses). Alliance personnel will conduct themselves in a manner consistent with
Client and Alliance’s safety policies.

A Job Safety Analysis (JSA) will be completed daily by the Alliance Field Team Leader.

Site Specific Test Plan
Summary of Test Programs

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page 2-1
2.0 Summary of Test Program
To satisfy the requirements of the UDAQ permit, the facility will conduct a performance test program to determine
the compliance status of the VRU primary and secondary CEMS.
2.1 General Description
All testing will be performed in accordance with specifications stipulated in U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 25B.
Table 2-1 presents an outline and tentative schedule for the emissions testing program. The following is a summary
of the test objectives.

• Testing will be performed to demonstrate compliance with the 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, PS 8 and the
UDAQ permit.
• Emissions testing will be conducted on the exhaust of the VRU primary and secondary CEMS.
• Performance testing will be conducted at least 50% operating load.
• Each of the twelve (12) test runs will be 21 minutes in duration.
2.2 Process/Control System Parameters to be Monitored and Recorded
Plant personnel will collect operational and parametric data at least once every 15 minutes during the testing. The
following list identifies the measurements, observations and records that will be collected during the testing
program:

• CEMS Data
• Product Loaded
2.3 Proposed Test Schedule
Table 2-1 presents an outline and tentative schedule for the emissions testing program.
Table 2-1: Program Outline and Tentative Test Schedule

Testing Location Parameter US EPA Method No. of Runs Run Duration Est. Onsite Time
DAY 1 – December 23, 2024
Equipment Setup & Pretest QA/QC Checks 6 hr
DAY 2 – December 26, 2024
Primary VRU NMHC 25B 12 21 min 8 hr
DAY 3 – December 27, 2024
Secondary VRU NMHC 25B 12 21 min 8 hr

Site Specific Test Plan
Summary of Test Programs

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page 2-2
2.4 Emission Limits
Emission limits for each pollutant are below. Table 2-2: Relative Accuracy Requirements and Limits

Source CEMS Required Relative Accuracy Applicable Standard / Limit Citation
VRU (Primary) NMHC RA: ≤20% of RM or ≤10 % of AS 11,000 ppmvw as propane
60, Appendix B, PS 8 VRU
(Secondary) NMHC RA: ≤20% of RM or ≤10 % of AS 11,000 ppmvw as propane
2.5 Test Report
The final test report must be submitted within 60 days of the completion of the performance test and will include the
following information.
• Introduction – Brief discussion of project scope of work and activities.
• Results and Discussion – A summary of test results and process/control system operational data with
comparison to regulatory requirements or vendor guarantees along with a description of process conditions
and/or testing deviations that may have affected the testing results.
• Methodology – A description of the sampling and analytical methodologies.
• Sample Calculations – Example calculations for each target parameter.
• Field Data – Copies of actual handwritten or electronic field data sheets.
• Quality Control Data – Copies of all instrument calibration data and/or calibration gas certificates.
• Process Operating/Control System Data – Process operating and control system data (as provided by
Chevron) to support the test results.

Site Specific Test Plan
Testing Methodology

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page 3-1
3.0 Testing Methodology
This section provides a description of the sampling and analytical procedures for each test method that will be
employed during the test program. All equipment, procedures and quality assurance measures necessary for the
completion of the test program meet or exceed the specifications of each relevant test method. The emission testing
program will be conducted in accordance with the test methods listed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Source Testing Methodology

Parameter U.S. EPA Reference Test Methods Notes/Remarks
Non-Methane Hydrocarbons Compounds 25B Instrumental Analysis
Gas Dilution System Certification 205 --

All stack diameters, depths, widths, upstream and downstream disturbance distances and nipple lengths will be
measured on site with an EPA Method 1 verification measurement provided by the Field Team Leader. These
measurements will be included in the test report.
3.1 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 25B – Non-Methane Hydrocarbons
Total hydrocarbon (THC) concentrations will be measured in accordance with EPA RM 25B using an infrared
hydrocarbon analyzer.

Each sampling period will consist of extracting a hot, wet gas sample from a single centrally located point in the
stack at a constant flow rate of approximately two liters per minute using a heated Teflon line. The gas will be
directed into a column of the California Analytical (or equivalent) infrared total hydrocarbon analyzer. THC
concentrations will be displayed on the analyzer front panel in units of ppmvw as C3H8 and logged to a
computerized data acquisition system (CDAS).

Prior to sampling, the analyzer will be challenged with the zero and high-level EPA Protocol 1 calibration gases to
linearize the instrument. Then the low and mid-level calibration gases will be introduced through the sampling
system. The sampling system is acceptable, if the linear relationship between the zero and high-level calibration
gases predict the low and mid-level calibration gas measurement system response within 5% of the respective
calibration gas value. The system response time will be determined as the time required for the analyzer reading to
reach 95 percent of the high gas concentration through the sampling system.

After each sampling period, the measurement system will be challenged with the zero and mid-level calibration gas.
If the analyzer drift exceeds 3% of the analyzer span (80-90% of high-level calibration gas), then the system will be
re-linearized with the zero and high-level calibration gases, and the measurement system verified with the low and
mid-level calibration gases. If the drift limits are exceeded, the results will be reported using both sets of calibration
data.

Following sampling, the CDAS data will be averaged in one-minute increments and reported as average THC
emission concentrations in units of ppmvw as C3H8 for each sampling period. The THC RM emissions data from
each sampling period will be compared with CEMS data from the same period to calculate the RA of the system in
units of ppmvw as C3H8.

Site Specific Test Plan
Testing Methodology

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page 3-2
3.2 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 205 – Gas Dilution System Certification
A calibration gas dilution system field check will be conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Method
205. An initial three (3) point calibration will be conducted, using individual Protocol 1 gases, on the analyzer used
to complete the dilution system field check. Multiple dilution rates and total gas flow rates will be utilized to force
the dilution system to perform two dilutions on each mass flow controller. The diluted calibration gases will be sent
directly to the analyzer, and the analyzer response will be recorded in an electronic field data sheet. A mid-level
supply gas, with a cylinder concentration within 10% of one of the gas divider settings described above, will be
introduced directly to the analyzer, and the analyzer response recorded in an electronic field data sheet. The
cylinder concentration and the analyzer response must agree within 2%. These steps will be repeated three (3)
times. The average analyzer response must agree within 2% of the predicted gas concentration. No single injection
shall differ more than 2% from the average instrument response for that dilution.

Site Specific Test Plan
Quality Assurance Program

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page 4-1
4.0 Quality Assurance Program
Alliance follows the procedures outlined in the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Management Plan to ensure the
continuous production of useful and valid data throughout the course of this test program. The QC checks and
procedures described in this section represent an integral part of the overall sampling and analytical scheme.
Adherence to prescribed procedures is quite often the most applicable QC check.
4.1 Equipment
Field test equipment is assigned a unique, permanent identification number. Prior to mobilizing for the test
program, equipment is inspected before being packed to detect equipment problems prior to arriving on site. This
minimizes lost time on the job site due to equipment failure. Occasional equipment failure in the field is
unavoidable despite the most rigorous inspection and maintenance procedures. Therefore, replacements for critical
equipment or components are brought to the job site. Equipment returning from the field is inspected before it is
returned to storage. During the course of these inspections, items are cleaned, repaired, reconditioned and
recalibrated where necessary.

Calibrations are conducted in a manner, and at a frequency, which meets or exceeds U.S. EPA specifications. The
calibration procedures outlined in the U.S. EPA Methods, and those recommended within the Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume III (EPA-600/R-94/038c, September 1994) are utilized.
When these methods are inapplicable, methods such as those prescribed by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) or other nationally recognized agency may be used. Data obtained during calibrations is checked
for completeness and accuracy. Copies of calibration forms are included in the report.

The following sections elaborate on the calibration procedures followed by Alliance for these items of equipment.

• Dry Gas Meter and Orifice. A full meter calibration using critical orifices as the calibration standard is
conducted at least semi-annually, more frequently if required. The meter calibration procedure determines
the meter correction factor (Y) and the meter’s orifice pressure differential (ΔH@). Alliance uses approved
Alternative Method 009 as a post-test calibration check to ensure that the correction factor has not changed
more than 5% since the last full meter calibration. This check is performed after each test series.
• Pitot Tubes and Manometers. Type-S pitot tubes that meet the geometric criteria required by U.S. EPA
Reference Test Method 2 are assigned a coefficient of 0.84 unless a specific coefficient has been
determined from a wind tunnel calibration. If a specific coefficient from a wind tunnel calibration has been
obtained that coefficient will be used in lieu of 0.84. Standard pitot tubes that meet the geometric criteria
required by U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 2 are assigned a coefficient of 0.99. Any pitot tubes not
meeting the appropriate geometric criteria are discarded and replaced. Manometers are verified to be level
and zeroed prior to each test run and do not require further calibration.
• Temperature Measuring Devices. All thermocouple sensors mounted in Dry Gas Meter Consoles are
calibrated semi-annually with a NIST-traceable thermocouple calibrator (temperature simulator) and
verified during field use using a second NIST-traceable meter. NIST-traceable thermocouple calibrators
are calibrated annually by an outside laboratory.
• Nozzles. Nozzles are measured three (3) times prior to initiating sampling with a caliper. The maximum
difference between any two (2) dimensions is 0.004 in.
• Digital Calipers. Calipers are calibrated annually by Alliance by using gage blocks that are calibrated
annually by an outside laboratory.

Site Specific Test Plan
Quality Assurance Program

AST-2024-4946 Chevron – North Salt Lake, UT Page 4-2
• Barometer. The barometric pressure is obtained from a nationally recognized agency or a calibrated
barometer. Calibrated barometers are checked prior to each field trip against a mercury barometer. The
barometer is acceptable if the values agree within ± 2 percent absolute. Barometers not meeting this
requirement are adjusted or taken out of service.
• Balances and Weights. Balances are calibrated annually by an outside laboratory. A functional check is
conducted on the balance each day it is use in the field using a calibration weight. Weights are re-certified
every two (2) years by an outside laboratory or internally. If conducted internally, they are weighed on a
NIST traceable balance. If the weight does not meet the expected criteria, they are replaced.
• Other Equipment. A mass flow controller calibration is conducted on each Environics system annually
following the procedures in the Manufacturer’s Operation manual. A methane/ethane penetration factor
check is conducted on the total hydrocarbon analyzers equipped with non-methane cutters every six (6)
months following the procedures in 40 CFR 60, Subpart JJJJ. Other equipment such as probes, umbilical
lines, cold boxes, etc. are routinely maintained and inspected to ensure that they are in good working order.
They are repaired or replaced as needed.
4.2 Field Sampling
Field sampling will be done in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the applicable test
method(s). General QC measures for the test program include:
• Cleaned glassware and sample train components will be sealed until assembly.
• Sample trains will be leak checked before and after each test run.
• Appropriate probe, filter and impinger temperatures will be maintained.
• The sampling port will be sealed to prevent air from leaking from the port.
• Dry gas meter, ΔP, ΔH, temperature and pump vacuum data will be recorded during each sample point.
• An isokinetic sampling rate of 90-110% will be maintained, as applicable.
• All raw data will be maintained in organized manner.
• All raw data will be reviewed on a daily basis for completeness and acceptability.
Appendix A

THC Summary
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Reference Method CEMS Average
THC (as C3H8) Concentration THC (as C3H8) Concentration Difference
Start End ppmvd ppmvd ppmvd
1 -- --
2 -- --
3 -- --
4 -- --
5 -- --
6 -- --
7 -- --
8 -- --
9 -- --
10 * -- --
11 * -- --
12 * -- --
-
RA ≤ 20%
PS 8
Confidence Coefficient, CC
where,
t0.975 #N/A = degrees of freedom
n 0 = number of runs selected for calculating the RA
Sd = standard deviation of difference
CC = confidence coefficient
Relative Accuracy, RA
where,
d = average difference of Reference Method and CEMS
CC = confidence coefficient
RM = reference method, ppmvd
RA = relative accuracy, %

Standard Deviation (Sd)
Applicable Source Standard (AS)
DateRun
No.
Time
Average
* Delimiter for runs not used in RA calculations
Confidence Coefficient (CC)
THC data reported as propane (C3H8).
Performance Required - Mean Reference Method
Performance Specification Method
Relative Accuracy (RA)
Emissions Calculations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Date ------------
Start Time ------------------------
Stop Time ------------------------
Calculated Data
THC (as C3H8) Concentration ppmvw CTHCw ------------------------
Run Number
-
-
-
Run 1 Data
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date:
Time THC
Unit ppmvw
Status Valid
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
THC
Uncorrected Run Average (Cobs)-
Cal Gas Concentration (CMA)--
Pretest System Zero Response
Posttest System Zero Response
Average Zero Response (Co)-
Pretest System Cal Response
Posttest System Cal Response
Average Cal Response (CM)-
Corrected Run Average (Corr)NA
Parameter

-
Pollutant
QA Data
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
THC
--
--
--
Cylinder Number ID
LOW
MID
HIGH
Cylinder Certified Values
LOW
MID
HIGH

Make
Model
S/N
Operating Range
Parameter

Calibration Data
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date:
THC
Expected Average Concentration
Span Should be between:
Low -
High -
Desired Span --
Low Range Gas Should be between
Low -
High -
Mid Range Gas Should be between
Low -
High -
High Range Gas Should be between
Low -
High -
Actual Concentration (% or ppm)
Zero 0.0
Low --
Mid --
High --
Response Time (seconds)
Upscale Calibration Gas (CMA)Mid
Instrument Response (% or ppm)
Zero
Low
Mid
High
Performance (% of Span or Calibration Gas)
Zero 0.0
Low -
Mid -
High -
Status
Zero -
Low -
Mid -
High -

Parameter

--
Runs 1-3 Bias/Drift Determinations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date:
THC
Span Value -
Instrument Zero Cal Response -
Instrument Mid Cal Response -
Pretest System Zero Response -
Posttest System Zero Response -
Pretest System Mid Response -
Posttest System Mid Response -
Bias or System Performance (%)
Pretest Zero NA
Posttest Zero NA
Pretest Span NA
Posttest Span NA
Drift (%)
Zero -
Mid -
Span Value -
Instrument Zero Cal Response -
Instrument Mid Cal Response -
Pretest System Zero Response -
Posttest System Zero Response -
Pretest System Mid Response -
Posttest System Mid Response -
Bias (%)
Pretest Zero NA
Posttest Zero NA
Pretest Span NA
Posttest Span NA
Drift (%)
Zero -
Mid -
Span Value -
Instrument Zero Cal Response -
Instrument Mid Cal Response -
Pretest System Zero Response -
Posttest System Zero Response -
Pretest System Mid Response -
Posttest System Mid Response -
Bias (%)
Pretest Zero NA
Posttest Zero NA
Pretest Span NA
Posttest Span NA
Drift (%)
Zero -
Mid -
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3

-
Parameter
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date
EPA
O2
--
--
--
--
Cylinder Number ID
Zero NA
Mid --
High --
Cylinder Certified Values
Zero 0.0
Mid --
High --
Instrument Response (% or ppm)
Zero --
Mid --
High --
Calibration Gas Selection (% of Span)
Mid --
High --
Calibration Error Performance (% of Span)
Zero --
Mid --
High --
Linearity (% of Range)
--
(%) lpm (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)( ± 2 %)
10L/10L* 90.0 7.0 ----
10L/10L* 80.0 7.0 ----
10L/5L 80.0 5.0 ----
10L/5L 50.0 5.0 ----
10L/1L 20.0 4.0 ----
10L/1L 10.0 4.0 ----
(%)( ± 2 %)( ± 2 %)( ± 2 %)
----
----
----
----
----
----
Mid-Level Supply Gas Calibration Direct to Analyzer
Calibration Injection 1 Injection 2 Injection 3 Average
Gas Analyzer Analyzer Analyzer Analyzer
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)( ± 2 %)
- ---
Analyzer Make: --
-- - --
--
--
Parameter
Make
Model
S/N
Span
Method Criteria
Analyzer Model: --
Analyzer SN: --
Environics ID: --
Component/Balance Gas: O2/N2
Cylinder Gas ID (Dilution):
Cylinder Gas Concentration (Dilution), %:
*Not all AST Environics Units have 2-10L Mass Flow Controllers. For these units the 90% @ 7lpm and 80% @ 7lpm injections will not be conducted.
Cylinder Gas ID (Mid-Level):
Cylinder Gas Concentration (Mid-Level), %:
Target Mass Flow
Contollers
Target
Dilution
Target Flow
Rate
Target
Concentration
Actual
Concentration
Injection 1
Analyzer
Concentration
Injection 2
Analyzer
Concentration
Injection 3
Analyzer
Concentration
Average
Analyzer
Concentration Difference Average Error
Average
Analyzer
Concentration
Injection 1
Error
Injection 2
Error
Injection 3
Error
Difference
Average
Error