Prepared for:
Charles E. Dene
Electric Power Research Institute

Prepared by:
J. Ron Jernigan, P.E., DEE
RMB Consulting & Research, Inc.

Abstract

Since early 1993 more than 1500 new continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) have been installed and certified to meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 75's "Acid Rain Rule." One of the EPA's quarterly emissions data reporting requirements is to include monitoring plan information in the quarterly Electronic Data Reporting (EDR). Monitoring plan data identifies the source, generating units, the emissions monitored, analyzer manufacturer, model, etc. These data are found in the 500 group records of the Quarterly EDR's submitted to the EPA.

This report presents information extracted and compiled from 1997's fourth quarter EDR files submitted to the EPA. The information compiled and presented includes, the DAHS, analyzer type, sample acquisition method, and manufacturer for all the electric utilities submitting fourth quarter 1997 EDR's. This report will present the total number and percent of total of the DAHS, SO₂, NO_x, CO₂, O₂, flue gas flow rate and opacity analyzers. Also presented are oil fuel flow and gas fuel flow meters required by Part 75. The information will be presented on an EPA geographic regional basis.

INTRODUCTION

Interested individuals, utility CEM users and CEMS equipment manufacturers have speculated since 1993 which data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), analyzer manufacturer and which sample system acquisition methods are most extensively chosen by the electric utility industry to meet the emissions monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 75's "Acid Rain Rule". Informal surveys of CEMS manufacturers have provided a general idea of the number of DAHS, analyzers and the types of sample acquisition methods most widely employed. However, some manufacturers have stated that they do not know the true count of their CEMS equipment being used by the electric utility industry to monitor acid rain emissions because they supply CEM systems integrators who also provide the equipment to other industry users. Additionally, the purchase of redundant and spare analyzers complicated the task of getting a true count of the CEMS equipment required by Part 75.

RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. (RMB) recognized early in the Acid Rain Program that the EPA Acid Rain Division's EDR Monitoring Plan data base would be the most accurate source of information for determining which DAHS, analyzers, and sample acquisition methods are actually and currently being utilized to meet the Acid Rain Rule. Accordingly, RMB in early 1996 contacted the EPA Acid Rain Division and obtained the EDR files submitted by all affected electric generating utilities for the fourth quarter 1995 EDRs. The files were ACSII flat files approximately 13 megabits in volume. RMB then developed custom Windows application software to search, sort and compile the information in this very larger database. RMB initially presented information from this data at the EPRI CEM Users Group Meeting held in Kansas City in May of 1996. The fourth quarter 1995 monitoring plan records (500 record types) were very difficult to search and sort correctly due to inconsistent method of identifying the CEMS equipment and in a number of cases incorrectly listing equipment. The biggest problem in 1996 was identifying the DAHS software employed by the utilities; therefore, no information on DAHS was given in the 1996 presentation.

This presentation includes the DAHS information and updated CEMS equipment information. The utility industry with two additional years to understand the requirements and update their monitoring plans, appear to have generally more correctly reported monitoring plan information. However, there are still sloppy and incorrect monitoring plans from numerous utilities. The fourth quarter 1997 EDR monitoring plan data used for this report were downloaded from EPA Acid Rain Divisions Web Site; http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/ftp/rawfiles.html. Several of the major suppliers of Part 75 DAHS assisted RMB by providing their client list which greatly assisted in ascertaining the approximately correct number of DAHS serving the Part 75 affected utilities.

Technical Approach

A review of the quarterly EDR files suggested the record types of interest were the 100 and 510 records. The 100 group records, "Facility Identification," contained the Office of Regulatory Information System Plant Location (ORISPL) number (i.e., plant identifier), the calendar quarter and year the data were collected. The 510 group records, "Monitoring System/Analytical Components Table" contained the following:

• Unit ID/Stack or Pipe Header ID,
• Component ID/Software ID,
• Monitoring System ID,
• Status,
• System Parameter Monitored,
• Primary/Backup Designation,
• Component Type Code,
• Sample Acquisition Method,
• Manufacturer,
• Model/Version,
• Serial Number,
• Provisional Certification Date and,
• Provisional Certification Time.

CEMS Equipment Evaluated

The following CEMS components were searched and compiled by state and applicable EPA geographic region.

• DAHS,
• Sample Acquisition Methods,
• SO₂ Analyzers,
• NO_x Analyzers,
• CO₂ Analyzers,
• O₂ Analyzers,
• Flow Rate Analyzers,
• Oil Fuel Flow Meters,
• Gas Fuel Flow Meters, and
• Opacity Monitors.

Sample Acquisition Method

Dilution systems identified as DIL (dilution) or DIN (dilution in stack) were grouped as Dilution. Dilution out-of-stack is identified as DOU and in situ systems identified as IS (in situ) or ISC (across stack in situ) were grouped as IS. Point/path in situ is identified as ISP. All extractive systems that include the cool/dry and hot/wet were grouped EXT.

Data Acquisition and Handling Systems (DAHS)

Correctly identifying the DAHS employed by the Part 75 affected utilities was a difficult task for a number of reasons. DAHS suppliers were listed by various spellings of their name, some utilities simply listed a PC brand name such as Dell or the name of the CEMS system integrator. Another difficulty in ascertaining the correct number of DAHS was the various methods used by the utility industry, such as some utilities used separate DAHS for each unit and EDR, while others used one DAHS to services several units and produce several EDRs. Also, when trying to use DAHS suppliers' sales figures to compare to the figures compiled, they did not match very well for some DAHS suppliers.

Some DAHS suppliers use the number of units served or EDRs produced as sales numbers. This paper presents DAHS totals by three methods,

1. Software/hardware units listed as "Primary",
2. EDRs produced, and
3. Affected Part 75 units served.

The following DAHS suppliers provided RMB their client list so that RMB could compare our compilation totals with another source as a reference.

• Environmental Systems Corporation, Inc.,
• Spectrum Systems, Inc.,
• Monitor Labs, (includes Odessa),
• KVB, Inc.(includes PAI), and
• EC Systems Corporation (includes Orr Safety Co.)

For some suppliers RMB's totals match very well. For some suppliers RMB's total did not match exactly but were close enough to allow reasonable confidence in the data.

Equipment Manufacturers

The CEMS equipment was grouped under the current names of the equipment manufacturers as follows.

• California Analytical Instruments, Inc. (CAI) include, ACS, Milton Roy and Fuji analyzers,
• Monitor Labs include, Lear Siegler and Dynatron, and
• Thermo Environmental Instruments include, Contraves opacity monitors.

Compilation of CEMS Equipment

The following tables present the DAHS and CEMS equipment used to comply with the EPA's Acid Rain Rule and are compiled on an EPA region by region basis. The accuracy of the data presented is as accurate as the EDR monitoring plan data submitted to the EPA for the fourth quarter of 1997.

EPA Regions and States

REGION 1 - Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

REGION 2 - New York and New Jersey.

REGION 3 - Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware and District of Columbia.

REGION 4 -North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi.

REGION 5 -Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

REGION 6 -Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

REGION 7 - Missouri, Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska.

REGION 8 - North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming.

REGION 9 -Arizona, California and Nevada.

REGION 10 -Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

Figure 1 - EPA Regions

DAHS Information

The following table present the DAHS suppliers in order of total EDRs produced for the fourth quarter of 1997. Table 1 presents the ranking of DAHS suppliers who produce 10 or more EDRs. Tables A1 through A10 located in Appendix A of this paper present all DAHS suppliers on an State by State basis grouped in the applicable EPA Region.

Table 1. - Part 75 DAHS Suppliers Ranked by Total EDRs Produced

Sample Acquisition Methods

The most popular sample acquisition method used by utilities with SO₂ analyzers was predominately the dilution-extractive method. This method accounted for 85.5 percent of the sampling methods used for monitoring SO₂. The dilution-extractive method can be either in-stack dilution, or out-of-stack dilution. The dilution in-stack method was used for 76.2 percent of all SO₂ CEMS. Non-dilution extractive was used for only 9.5 percent of all SO₂ CEMS. Table 2 presents the percentages for each of the sample acquisition methods used for SO₂ monitoring.

Table 2. - Sample Acquisition Methods Used for SO₂ Monitoring

The sample acquisition methods used by all utilities for SO₂, NO_x, CO₂ and O₂ monitoring are presented in Tables 3 through 6. These tables present these data for each EPA Region. The various geographical regions did not consistently employ the use of the above listed sample acquisition methods. This paper will not attempt to explain why utilities in certain geographical regions chose one method over another.

Table 3. – SO₂ Monitoring Systems’ Sample Acquisition Methods All Regions

Table 4. – NO_x Monitoring Systems’ Sample Acquisition Methods All Regions

DIN = Dilution In-Stack DOU = Dilution Out-of-Stack

EXT = Extractive (includes cool/dry & hot/wet)

ISP = Point In Situ IS = Across-Stack In Situ

Table 5. – CO₂ Monitoring Systems’ Sample Acquisition Methods All Regions

Table 6. – O₂ Monitoring Systems’ Sample Acquisition Methods All Regions

DIN = Dilution In-Stack DOU = Dilution Out-Of-Stack ISP = Point In Situ

EXT = Extractive (includes cool/dry & hot/wet) IS = Point In Situ

SO₂, NO_x, CO₂, and O₂ CEMS Equipment Manufacturers

The manufacturers for all SO₂, NO_x, CO₂, and O₂ CEMS Equipment used for Part 75 Acid Rain monitoring are presented below in Tables 7 and 8. As previously stated the accuracy of these data is as good as the EDRs provided to EPA for the fourth quarter of 1997.

Table 7. - CEMS Equipment Manufacturers

Table 8. - CEMS Equipment Manufacturers

Flow Rate Monitor Manufacturers

The flow rate monitor manufacturers serving the electric utility industry provided flow rate monitoring systems that operate using one of three principles for measuring velocity and volumetric flow:

• Ultrasonic Pulse Detection,
• Differential Pressure, and
• Thermal Detection (convective cooling).

The ultrasonic pulse detection type flow monitors make up 64.7 percent of the total Part 75 flow rate monitors. Differential pressure is 27.5 percent and thermal detection 7.8 percent of the total. Table 9 presents the flow rate manufacturers, the type of flow rate monitor, total units and percent of total.

Table 9. Flow Rate Monitors

Opacity Monitor Manufacturers

Table 10 presents the opacity monitors listed on the fourth quarter EDRs for 1997. Monitors listed as Dynatron and Lear Siegler were grouped under Monitor Labs. Opacity monitors listed as Contraves were grouped with Thermo Environmental Instruments.

Table 10. - Opacity Monitor Manufacturers

Fuel Flow Meters

After the arduous task of compiling the oil and gas fuel flow meter data, it is my opinion that either the EPA monitoring plan instructions for recording fuel flow meter information were confusing to most of the utility industry people given the task of entering that data, or these people were not given accurate fuel flow meter information to enter. Tables 11 and 12 present respectively, oil and gas fuel flow meters used by the electric utility industry for Part 75 fuel flow monitoring. Manufacturers with totals less than ten (15) meters each were grouped by measurement technique. As stated previously, the accurately of this data is only as good as the information submitted to the EPA Acid Rain Division in the fourth quarter 1997 EDRs.

Table 11. Oil Fuel Flow Meters

Table 12. Gas Fuel Flow Meters

Summary

DAHS Suppliers - The fourth quarter 1997 EDRs indicated that approximately 30 different DAHS software packages were used to produce 1,691 EDRs. The leading software package was ESC with 26% of the total EDRs. Monitor Labs which includes the Odessa software package was second with 17% of the total EDRs. Appendix A to this paper present tables with an EPA Region and state breakdown of the various DAHS software suppliers and their totals for each state.

Sample Acquisition Methods - The dilution-extractive sampling method accounted for 85% of the SO₂ monitoring systems and 78% of the NO_x monitoring systems. The EDRs did not identify the manufacturers of the various dilution probes. RMB's experience suggest that EPM, Inc. supplied the majority of the dilution probes with other dilution probe systems supplied by Graseby/STI and Monitor Labs.

SO₂ and NO_x Analyzers - Thermo Environmental Instruments was the clear leader in supplying SO₂ and NO_x analyzers for Part 75 affected sources. They supplied 65% of the SO₂ and 66% of the NO_x, analyzers. Monitor Labs were a distance second place with 16% of the SO₂ and 10% of the NO_x analyzers. The tables in Appendix B present the CEMS analyzer manufacturers used by Part 75 sources for each state in the EPA ten geographic regions.

CO₂ and O₂ Analyzers - California Analytical Instruments (a.k.a., ACS, Milton Roy & Fuji) was the leader in supplying CO₂ analyzers with 46% of the total. Thermo Environmental Instruments was second with 31% of the total. Anarad, Inc. was the leader in supplying O₂ analyzers with 28% of the total. AMETEK/Thermox was second with 19% of the total.

Flow Rate Monitors - The ultrasonic pulse detection measurement technique was chosen by 65% of the Part 75 sources required to install flow rate monitors. The differential pressure technique was chosen by 28% of the sources. United Sciences, Inc.(ultrasonic) was the leader in supplying flow rate monitors with 52% of the total. EMRC (diff. Pressure) was second with 16% of the total.

As previously stated Appendix B presents a breakdown of manufacturers of Part 75 equipment including opacity and oil and gas fuel flow meters on a state by state basis.

Agora Environmental Consulting
Last Revised: February 25, 2008