logo.gif (9477 bytes)
 
Back to the RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. Home Page
Index of all news articles posted to the RMB website
News specific to Compliance Assurance Monitoring
Information about RMB's Training Programs
Access to RMB's FTP Library
Read about RMB's current projects
Links and Resources
RMB's primary service areas
RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. corporate information
Send email to the RMB webmaster
 

Compilation of Part 75 DAHS & CEM Sampling
Equipment Serving the Utility Industry

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, NOx, 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,
  • NOx 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

Part 75 DAHS Suppliers Total DAHS Total EDRs Total Units
Environmental Systems Corporation 221 430 527
Odessa (Monitor Labs, Ea2) 130 206 209
Enertec, Inc. 100 187 190
KVB, Inc. 108 180 174
Spectrum Systems, Inc. 97 152 165
Monitor Labs, DASx 46 72 83
EC Systems, Inc. 42 71 78
Fluor Daniel 23 47 47
Enviroplan, Inc. 21 42 48
Graseby/STI 21 42 43
CISCO 26 37 38
Foxboro 28 35 35
Anarad, Inc. 27 27 31
Analytical Process Systems 11 25 26
APCO 7 21 24
LA Dept. of Water & Power 12 19 19
Commonwealth Edison 10 19 28
Black & Veatch 13 16 16
Oil Systems Inc./Duke Power 1 16 16
New York State Electric & Gas 10 15 11
SAIC/Union Electric 6 12 12

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

SO2 Sample Acquisition Methods Percent CEMS
Dilution-Extractive In-Stack Method

76.2%

Dilution-Extractive Out-of-Stack Method

9.3%

Non-Dilution Extractive (cool/dry & hot/wet)

9.5%

In Situ "Point" Method

2.5%

In Situ "Across-Stack" Method

2.5%

The sample acquisition methods used by all utilities for SO2, NOx, 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

EPA

SO2 Monitoring Systems’ Sample Acquisition Methods

 

Region

DIN

DOU

EXT

ISP

IS

TOTAL

1

31

8

4

0

0

43

2

46

0

13

0

0

59

3

131

7

2

0

0

140

4

236

20

3

5

0

264

5

222

27

15

9

0

273

6

36

9

24

0

0

69

7

68

9

1

5

10

93

8

16

14

21

3

14

68

9

2

2

13

4

2

23

10

1

0

2

0

0

3

TOTAL

789

96

98

26

26

1035

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

EPA

NOx Monitoring Systems’ Sample Acquisition Methods

 

Region

DIN

DOU

EXT

ISP

IS

TOTAL

1

27

14

4

0

0

45

2

56

0

29

0

0

85

3

142

10

6

0

0

158

4

263

27

6

5

0

301

5

233

28

19

8

0

288

6

156

42

73

0

0

271

7

76

9

1

12

3

101

8

12

17

22

3

14

68

9

2

8

94

4

2

110

10

1

0

7

0

0

8

TOTAL

968

155

261

32

19

1435

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

EPA

CO2 Monitoring Systems’ Sample Acquisition Methods

 

Region

DIN

DOU

EXT

ISP

IS

TOTAL

1

32

14

4

0

0

50

2

57

0

6

0

0

63

3

138

10

2

0

0

150

4

273

26

2

0

0

301

5

247

26

5

1

0

279

6

149

29

26

0

0

204

7

76

7

1

5

9

98

8

26

12

12

0

14

64

9

2

4

31

4

2

43

10

1

0

2

0

0

3

TOTAL

100

128

91

10

25

1255

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

EPA

O2 Monitoring Systems’

Sample Acquisition Methods

 

Region

EXT

ISP

TOTAL

1

7

1

8

2

36

3

39

3

5

0

5

4

9

4

13

5

18

6

24

6

58

6

64

7

0

2

2

8

24

5

29

9

78

2

80

10

7

0

7

TOTAL

242

29

271

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, NOx, CO2, and O2 CEMS Equipment Manufacturers

The manufacturers for all SO2, NOx, 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

 

ANALYZER MANUFACTURER

SO2

NOx

Total Units % of Total Total Units % of Total
Thermo Environmental Instruments

669

64.6

941

65.6

Monitor Labs, Inc.

169

16.3

141

9.8

Columbia Scientific, Inc.

45

4.3

96

6.7

Anarad, Inc.

44

4.3

76

5.3

ABB Opsis

26

2.5

25

1.7

API, Inc.

25

2.4

26

1.8

Bovar/Western Research

25

2.4

20

1.4

Horiba

5

0.5

34

2.4

Perkin Elmer MCS-100

3

0.3

31

2.2

Rosemount

3

0.3

31

2.2

Siemens

14

1.4

6

0.4

Dasibi

6

0.6

4

0.3

Infrared Industries

1

0.1

0

0

Beckman Industries

0

0

4

0.3

Total all analyzers 1035   1435  

Table 8. - CEMS Equipment Manufacturers

 

ANALYZER MANUFACTURER

CO2

O2

Total

Units

% of

Total

Total

Units

% of

Total

California Analytical Instruments

578

46.1

0

0

Thermo Environmental Instruments

388

30.9

0

0

Siemens

96

7.6

46

17.0

Monitor Labs, Inc.

84

6.7

7

2.6

Anarad, Inc.

36

2.9

75

27.7

Perkin Elmer MCS-100

26

2.1

0

0

ABB Opsis

25

2.0

0

0

Bovar/Western Research

16

1.3

4

1.5

Horiba

5

0.4

31

11.4

Rosemount

1

0.1

10

3.7

AMETEK/Thermox

0

0

52

19.2

Servomex

0

0

16

5.9

Graseby/STI

0

0

14

5.2

Yokogawa

0

0

9

3.3

Westinghouse/Hagen

0

0

4

1.5

Dynatron

0

0

2

0.7

Litton

0

0

1

0.4

Total all analyzers 1255   271  

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

Flow Rate Monitor Manufacturers Total

Units

% of

Total

Measurement

Method

United Sciences, Inc.

551

52.4

Ultrasonic
EMRC (Environmental Measurement Research Corp.)

167

15.9

Diff. Pressure
Air Monitor Corporation

90

8.6

Diff. Pressure
Panametrics, Inc

70

6.7

Ultrasonic
KURZ Instrument, Inc.

48

4.6

Thermal
Sick, Optic

36

3.4

Ultrasonic
Sierra, Inc.

34

3.2

Thermal
Dieterich Standard Corporation

32

3.0

Diff. Pressure
Scientific Engineering Inc.

21

2.0

Ultrasonic
Thermo Environmental Instruments

2

0.2

Ultrasonic
Total all monitors 1051 100%  

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

 

ANALYZER MANUFACTURER

Monitors

Total

Units

% of

Total

Monitor Labs, Inc.

477

44.4

United Sciences Inc.

330

30.7

Thermo Environmental Instruments

108

10.1

Durag

71

6.6

Land Combustion

52

4.8

Rosemount

18

1.7

Research Compliance Company

7

0.7

SICK Optic

4

0.4

Spectrum Systems, Inc.

4

0.4

DataTest

2

0.2

KVB - MIP

1

0.1

Total all Opacity Monitors 1074 100.1

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

Oil Fuel Flow Meter Manufacturers Total

Units

% of

Total

Measurement

Method

Micro Motions, Inc.

136

20.4

Coriolis
Brooks

96

14.4

Positive Displacement
Foxboro

50

7.5

Coriolis
EXAC

50

7.5

Coriolis
ITT-Barton

32

4.8

Turbine
EMCO

31

4.6

Positive Displacement
A.O. Smith

27

4.0

Positive Displacement
Daniel

27

4.0

Turbine
Halliburton

25

3.7

Turbine
Fisher Porter

15

2.2

Vortex
Others - Coriolis

44

6.6

Coriolis
Others - Orifice

44

6.6

Orifice
Others - Turbine

44

6.6

Turbine
Others - Positive Displacement

31

4.6

Positive Displacement
Others - Ultrasonic

8

1.2

Ultrasonic
Others - Venturi

5

0.7

Venturi
Others - Vortex

3

0.4

Vortex
Total all meters 668 99.8%  

Table 12. Gas Fuel Flow Meters

Gas Fuel Flow Meter Manufacturers Total

Units

% of

Total

Measurement

Method

Daniels

147

22.2

Orifice
Fisher Rosemount

93

14.0

Orifice
Bailey

55

8.3

Orifice
Ketema McCrometer

29

4.4

Orifice
Honeywell

25

3.8

Orifice
Robinson

21

3.2

Orifice
Rockwell

17

2.6

Turbine
Dieterich Standard

16

2.4

Orifice
Yokogawa

15

2.3

Orifice
Others - Orifice

165

24.9

Orifice
Others - Turbine

50

7.5

Turbine
Others - Vortex

11

1.7

Vortex
Others - Coriolis

11

1.7

Coriolis
Others - Positive Displacement

8

1.2

Positive Displacement
Total all meters

663

100.2  

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 NOx 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 NOx Analyzers - Thermo Environmental Instruments was the clear leader in supplying SO2 and NOx analyzers for Part 75 affected sources. They supplied 65% of the SO2 and 66% of the NOx, analyzers. Monitor Labs were a distance second place with 16% of the SO2 and 10% of the NOx 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.

| Home | News | CAM | Training | FTP Library | Projects | Links | Contact | Services | Feedback |

RMB Consulting & Research, Inc.
Last Revised: May 31, 1998