United States Stationary Source EPA-340/1-84-016
Environmental Protection Compliance Division September 1984
Agency Washington DC 20460
Air
Summary of
Opacity and Gas
CEMS Audit
Programs
-------
EPA 340/1-84-016
Summary of Opacity and Gas
CEMS Audit Programs
Submitted by
Engineering-Science
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Contract 68-01-6312
Work Assignment 130
Submitted to
EPA Contract Project Officer: John Busik
EPA Work Assignment Manager: Louis Paley
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Washington, D.C. 20460
September 1984
or,
,
Chicago, -IL 606G4
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by Engineering-Science under Contract No.
68-01-6312, Work Assignment No. 130. It has been reviewed by the Sta-
tionary Source Compliance Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended
to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. [Copies of this
report are available from National Technical Information Services, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161.]
-------
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Stationary Source Compliance Division, as well as the Emission
Monitoring Science Laboratory, Quality Assurance Division, and several regional
offices have sponsored continuous emission monitoring system (GEMS) performance
audits to determine the precision and accuracy of GEMS and to develop and eval-
uate the audit techniques. Opacity, SO2 and NOX GEMS at a variety of industrial
sources (electric utilities, manufacturing facilities, petrochemical processes,
kraft pulp mills, etc.) were audited using NBS traceable filters, EPA reference
methods, and calibration gases are reference standards. This report provides a'
summary of the results of these audits. The results demonstrate:
o 80% of the opacity monitors audited met calibration error criteria (5%
error) for low- and mid-range references values*; 65% of the monitors met
these criteria for high range reference values.
o 80% of the gas GEMS met the calibration error criteria (5% error).
o 80% of the gas GEMS met the relative accuracy criteria (25% relative accu-
racy) .
* 65% for hi-range reference values.
-------
SUMMARY OF OPACITY AND GAS GEMS AUDIT PROGRAMS
PURPOSE
Since promulgation of state and federal requirements for installation
and operation of continuous emission monitoring systems (GEMS) the facil-
ities affected by these requirements have experienced varying degrees of
success in achieving and maintaining reliablity and accuracy for these
systems. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional offices and
the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) have sponsored GEM audit-
ing programs for both opacity and gaseous GEMS (NOX and 802) to determine
the accuracy, calibration, and operating status of the GEMS audited. The
Emission Monitoring and Sampling Laboratory (EMSL) sponsored the develop-
ment of these audit procedures and many audits summarized in this report
were conducted during this development process. The purpose of this re-
port is to provide a summary of the results of these audits for agency
personnel responsible for assessing the quality assurance (QA) of GEMS
data and/or using GEMS excess emission reports in a compliance program.
This information may be used to compare the performance (reliability,
accuracy, etc.) of a single CEMS to the experience of a larger popula-
tion as characterized by the summary of audit results.
BACKGROUND
The SSCD, the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL)
and many EPA regional offices have conducted performance audits of CEMS
measuring the opacity of particulate emissions and the emission rate of
gaseous SO2 and NOX emissions from stationary sources of air pollution.
Facilities subject to NSPS, SIP, and PSD monitoring requirements, and
representing several major source categories have been audited. The
opacity CEMS audit procedures used conform to those defined in the EPA
publication entitled "Performance Audit Procedures for Opacity Monitors"
(EPA 340/1-83-010, January 1983). Gas CEMS were audited using two pro-
cedures: calibration gas audits which determine accuracy and the preci-
sion of a CEMS relative to calibration gases; and, relative accuracy
audits which determine the accuracy of a CEMS relative to measurements
by EPA Methods 6 (SO2) or 7 (NOX).
The audits were conducted in some cases to determine the quality of
emission measurements made by the CEMS and determine the reliability of
CEMS to properly indicate excess emissions. In some cases, regional of-
fices requested audits to verify data validity when previous excess emis-
sion reports indicated significant occurrences of CEMS malfunctions or ex-
cess emissions. Many CEMS were audited because several years had passed
since a. performance specification test (PST), the only demonstration of
1
-------
GEMS data quality assurance required by NSPS regulation, and by most SIPs,
other than daily drift checks. Other audits were conducted as part of an
EMSL sponsored project to develop audit procedures, and still others were
conducted as part of state agency GEM training programs.
The audits were conducted by Engineering-Science (ES) and Entropy
Environmentalists usually with participation of regional, state, or lo-
cal agency personnel who were present to be trained in audit procedures.
Recently all EPA regional air compliance branches., and several state
agencies have received opacity GEMS audit equipment, and some of these
organizations have begun conducting performance audits.
OPACITY GEMS
The opacity GEMS audit procedures evaluate the operating status and
the performance of each system. The operating status is determined by
inspection of fault indicators for malfunctions, optical surfaces for
dirt, and when possible, internal constants such as path length correc-
tion factor, and calibration value. The performance evaluation verifies
the GEMS response to NBS traceable standards (optical filters) to assess
the linearity, precision, and accuracy of the instruments when tested
against calibration filters. This procedure uses an optical device to
simulate a clear stack or zero opacity condition. The criteria used to
evaluate performance results are the calibration error and zero compen-
sation limits (3% and 4% opacity, respectively) found in 40 CFR 60, Ap-
pendix B, PS1. In most cases where review of the operating status indi-
cated problems, the monitor also failed to meet the performance criteria.
In many of the cases, the problems were easily correctable.
Calibration Error Audit Results
The results of the calibration error performance audits for opacity
and gas GEMS are presented in Table 1. Table 3 lists the facilities at
which opacity GEMS were audited. The results indicate that approximately
80% of the opacity GEMS meet the PS1 calibration error limits for both
the low and mid-range tests and 65% of the opacity GEMS meet the high-
range limit.
GAS GEMS
Gas GEMS Calibration Error Audit Results
The gas (NOX and SO2) GEMS audited for calibration error, a perfor-
mance evaluation procedure, were evaluated for linearity, precision, and
accuracy by comparing the GEMS response to known values of NBS traceable
gases injected into the GEMS analyzer. Only analyzers capable of receiv-
ing audit gases were audited. Of the gas GEMS audited for calibration
error, 80% met the 15% control limit stated in the recent proposal of
Appendix F, Procedure 1 (FR, Vol. 44, No. 51, March 14, 1984, pp. 9678-
9682). Table 2 summarizes the results of these audits and Table 4 lists
the facilities at which audits were conducted. It should be noted that
there are currently no promulgated requirements for calibration error
testing.
-------
Relative Accuracy Audit Results
To date, 45 performance audits of 25 SO2 GEM systems installed on
electric utility and industrial boilers at 20 companies have been con-
ducted; some of the SC>2 GEMS were audited several times. All of the SC>2
GEMS are installed on coal-fired boilers, except for three: two are
installed on industrial boilers firing combinations of coal and refuse
and one is installed on a recovery boiler. Seven of the SO2 GEMS au-
dited were installed on coal-fired boilers equipped with wet FGDs.
In addition, 21 performance audits of eight NOX GEMS installed on
electric utility and industrial boilers at seven companies have been
conducted. It is noted that two of the NOX GEMS are installed on oil-
fired boilers. Two of the NOX GEMS are installed on units equipped
with wet FGD systems. Table 5 lists the facilities with GEMS which
were audited for relative accuracy.
All of the SO2 and NOX GEMS relative accuracy performance audits
were conducted for monitors which had previously satisfied PST require-
ments. It should be noted that most of the performance audits were an-
nounced well in advance of the testing. In some cases source personnel
and/or monitor manufacturer representatives are known to have inspected
and/or made adjustments to the subject GEMS immediately prior to the
audit.
Overall, the gas GEM performance audits provided the following re-
sults, which are also presented in Table 6 (802) and 7 (NOX):
SO? GEMS
o The 25 installed SO2 GEMS met the applicable relative accuracy
:specification for 38 of the 45 audits conducted (six of the nine
relative accuracy test failures were consecutive tests of the
same monitoring system).
o Twenty of the 25 SO2 GEMS audited met the performance criteria
for each of the relative accuracy tests which they were sub-
jected to.
NO,, GEMS
o The eight installed NOX GEMS met the applicable realtive accu-
racy specification for 1 5 of the 21 audits conducted (two of
the six relative accuracy test failures were consecutive tests
of the same monitoring system).
o Three of the eight NOX GEMS audited met the accuracy specifica-
tions for all of the relative accuracy tests which were conducted,
In evaluating the above results, it is important to note that: (1)
there are no federally promulgated quality assurance requirements appli-
cable to the audited GEMS, and (2) there are not promulgated requirements
for the GEM operators to periodically test installed GEMS or to take ne-
cessary corrective actions where unacceptable performance is observed.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon a comparison of a August 1983 version (93 monitor au-
dits) of Table 1, and the current updated version (213 monitor audits),
the Performance Audit Results indicate a slight increase in the percen-
tage of monitors which did not meet the performance audit specifications
as listed below. One may conclude, however, that a large majority of
the opacity GEMS audited satisfied the performance audit criteria.
% Monitors Out of Specification
August 1983 September 1984
Performance Audit Parameter Summary Summary
Monitor Alignment 3 4
Internal Span Error 19 22
Internal Zero Error 6 6
Zero Compensation Factor 15 22
Calibration Error: Low-Range 11 15
Calibration Error: Mid-Range 17 22
Calibration Error: High-Range 25 35
No summary of calibration gas or relative accuracy audits has been
previously prepared for general distribution within EPA and no comparison
to previous results can be made. As with opacity GEMS, the results of the
gas GEMS audit program indicate that the majority of the GEMS audited met
the audit criteria.
-------
TABLE 1
OPACITY MONITOR AUDIT RESULTS
Lear
Siegler
Number Number (%)
Within Out of
Audit Analyses Specs.0 Specs.0
Number of Monitors Audited
PERFORMANCE AUDIT RESULTS
Monitor Alignment
Internal Span Error
Internal Zero Error
Zero Compensation Factor
Calibration Error Analysis:
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
OPERATING STATUS AUDIT RESULTS
Fault Lamps
AGC Circuit
Stack Exit Correlation Error
Panel Meter Status
Reference Signal Error
Optical Dust Accumulation
1
129
97
116
105
112
113
97
136
135
97
31
130
105
I 39
4 (3%)
26 (19%)
8 (6%)
23 (17%)
14 (10%)
24 (17%)
40 (29%)
3 (2%)
1 «1%)
33 (24%)
88a(63%)
3 (2%)
23 (17%)
Contraves
Goerz
Number Number (%)
Within Out of
Specs. c Specs. c
Dynatron
Number Number (%)
Within Out of
Specs.0 Specs.0
48
47
28 b
45
NA
41
36
27
48
NA
34b
36
NA
40
0
12
3
NA
10
15
24
0
NA
4
11
NA
6
(0%)
(25%)
(6%)
(21%)
(31%)
(50%)
(0%)
(8%)
(23%)
(13%)
22
21
26
NA
18
16
14
26
NA
22
22
NA
22
28
3
6
1
NA
9
11
13
2
NA
6
5
NA
3
(11%)
(21%)
(4%)
(32%)
(39%)
(48%)
(7%)
(21%)
(18%)
(11%)
Esterline
Angus
Number Number (%)
Within Out of
Specs.0 Specs.0
2
3
3
NA
3
3
2
3
NA
3
2
NA
3
3
1
0
0
NA
0
0
1
0
, NA
0
1
NA
0
(50%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(50%)
(0%)
(0%)
(50%)
(0%)
% Total
No. Mon-
itors
Tested
Out of
Specs .
4
22b
6
22
15
22
35
2
<1
22b
54a
<1
16
Lear Siegler panel meter readings of opacity were generally accurate, but values for optical density and cir-
cuit current were typically erroneous.
Contraves Goerz internal OPLR and span values were not documented at seven facilities and error parameters
could not be quantified for those systems.
Specifications criteria for performance audit results are those found in 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, PS 1; for
operating status results, the criteria are those specified by individual CEM manufacturers.
-------
TABLE 2
CALIBRATION GAS AUDIT RESULTS
FOR S02 AND NOX CEMS
Lear Siegler
Calibration
Error
DuPont
Calibration
Error
Beckman
Calibration
Error
Bendix
Calibration
Error
% Total
No. of
Monitors
Tested >15%
SO2 GAS MONITOR CALIBRATION
Number of Monitors Audited
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
3
7
7
1
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
14
14
GAS MONITOR CALIBRATION
Number of Monitors Audited
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
4
4
6
2
1
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
12
0
-------
TABLE 3
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company
Station
No. of
Unit Monitor Type Monitors Date
Location
REGION I
New England Power &
Service Company
New England Power &
Service Company
REGION III
West Penn Power Co.
Getty Marketing &
Refining Company
REGION IV
Duke Power Company
Carolina Power & Light
Georgia Power Company
REGION V
Commonwealth Edison
Energy CO-OP
Inland Steel
Salem Harbor
South Street
Mitchell
Delaware City
Allen
Button
Plant McDonna
State Line
FCCU
4AC Plant
1,2, EDC 1100C
3
121, LSI RM7A
122
3 Dynatron 1 100
1,2, LSI RM41
3
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
4,5 LSI RM41
Contraves-400
LSI RM41
2
3
401-
404
LSI RM41
4
4
1
2
1
4
3/83 Salem, MA
8/83 Providence, RI
10/82 Courtney, PA
1/83 Delaware, DE
7/81 Belmont, NC
7/81 Wilmington, NC
9/81 Atlanta, GA
5/81 Hammond, IN
5/81 East Chicago, IN
5/81 East Chicago, IN
-------
TABLE 3—Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
oo
Company
REGION V — Continued
North Indiana Public
Service
ALCOA
Hoosier Energy
Indiana & Kentucky Gas
and Electric
Dairy land Power Coop
Wisconsin Electric
Station
D.H. Mitchell
Warrick
Petersburg
Clifty Creek
J.P. Madge tt
Oak Creek
Unit
4/5,
6/11
1-4
1,2
1-5
1
7,8
Monitor Type
LSI RM41
Contraves-400
Contraves-400
Dynatron 1 100
LSI RM41
Contraves-400
No. of
Monitors
2
3
2
2
1
4
Date
5/81
5/81
5/81
5/81
12/83
10/83
Location
Gary, IN
Newburg, IN
Petersburg, IN
Madison, IN
Alma, WI
Oak Creek, WI
Power Company
Wisconsin Electric
Powe r C ompa ny
Wisconsin Power &
Light Company
Wisconsin Public
Service Company
University of
Wi sconsi n-Madi son
Pleasant
Prairie
Columbia
Weston
1 Contraves-400
Contraves-400
Contraves-400
Charter Street 1-5 Contraves-400
10/83 Kenosha, WI
10/83 Portage, WI
10/83 Rothschild, WI
12/83 Madison, WI
-------
TABLE 3--Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company
REGION V — Continued
Central Illinois
Light Company
A.E. Staley Company
Amoco Oil Company
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwea 1th Edi son
Commonwealth Edison
Indianapolis Power &
Light Company
Station
Edwards
Decatur
FCCU
Crawford
Waukegan
Waukegan
Joliet
Power ton
Fisk
Will County
Will County
Kincaid
Stout
Unit
2
20
500
7,8
6-8
6
6-8
5,6
19
2-4
4
1,2
60,
70
No. of
Monitor Type Monitors Date
LSI RM41
Dynatron 1 1 00
LSI RM41
Contr aves-400
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
Contr ave s-4 00
Contr aves -400
Contr ave s-4 00
Contr aves -400
Contr ave s-4 00
Durag D-R280AV
(Teco)
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
12/83
12/83
12/83
11/81
11/81
12/83
11/81
11/81
11/81
11/81
12/83
11/81
7/82
Location
Peoria, IL
De ca tur , I L
Whiting, IL
Chicago, IL
Waukegan, IL
Waukegan, IL
Joliet, IL
Pekin, IL
Chicago, IL
Joliet, IL
Joliet, IL
Kincaid, IL
Indianapolis, IN
-------
TABLE 3—Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company Station
REGION V — Continued
Rochester Public Util . Silver Lake
Rochester Public Util. North Broadway
Northern States Power Riverside
Northern States Power Alan King
Northern States Power Black Dog
Potlatch Company
Diamond International
Conwed Company
Blandin Paper Company
Ohio University
Ohio Power Muskingum Riv.
Ohio Power Cardinal
Cleveland Electric Lakeshore
Unit
1-4
2,3
6,7
1
1-4
7,8,
9
1-4
4
5,6
5
1,2
17,
Monitor Type
Dynatron 1 100
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
Dynatron 1100
Contraves-400
Contraves-400
LSI RM41
Contraves-400
Dynatron 1 100
No. of
Monitors
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
Date
10/82
10/82
10/82
10/82
10/82
10/82
10/82
10/82
10/82
7/82
7/82
7/82
7/82
Location
Rochester, MN
Rochester, MN
Minneapolis, MN
Bayport, MN
Burnsville, MN
Cloquet, MN
Cloquet, MN
Cloquet, MN
Grand Rapids, MN
Athens , OH
Beverly, OH
Brilliant, OH
Cleveland, OH
Illuminating Company
18
-------
TABLE 3—Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company
REGION V — Continued
Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Company
Jones & Laughlin
Steel Company
PPG Industries
Cincinnati Gas and
Electric Company
Emery Industries
Corning Glass Works
Ford Motor Company
Ford Motor Company
Ohio Edison
Basic Refractories
Station
Eastlake
Cleveland
Works
Bar her ton
Miami Fort
Greenville
Plant
Sharonville
Transmission
Plant
Cleveland
Works
Sammis
Maple Grove
Works
No. of
Unit Monitor Type Monitors
5A, Dynatron 1 100 2
5B
BOF Dynatron 1100 2
6,12 Dynatron 1100 2
6 LSI RM41 1
1 LSI RM41 1
141, Contraves-400 2
142
1,2 Contraves-400 2
2 Contraves-400 1
7 Dynatron 1 100 1
Lime Dynatron 1100 2
Kiln
Date
7/82
7/82
7/82
7/82
7/82
7/82
7/82
7/82
7/82
8/82
Location
Cleveland, OH
Cleveland, OH
Barber ton, OH
North Bend, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Greenville, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Straton, OH
Beltsville, OH
-------
TABLE 3—Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
to
Company
REGION V — Continued
Bowling Green State
University
Toledo Edison
Toledo Edison
Detroit Edison Company
Detroit Edison Company
Michigan State Univ.
Board of Water & Light
Consumers Power Co.
Co ns ume rs Powe r Co .
Consumers Power Co.
Upper Peninsula
Station
Heating Plant
Acme
Bayshore
St. Clair
Marysville
Power Plant
#65
Eckert
JC Weadock
DE Karn
Campbell
Presque Isle
Unit
4,16
1,2
3
11,
12
1
4
7,8
2
3
8
Monitor Type
Dynatron 1 100
Dynatron 1 100
Dynatron 1100
LSI RM41
LSI RM41-11
LSI RM41
Dynatron 1 1 00
Pynatron 1100
LSI RM4
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
No. of
Monitors
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
Date
8/82
8/82
8/82
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
Location
Bowling Green,
OH
Toledo, OH
Toledo, OH
St. Clair, MI
Marysville, MI
East Lansing, MI
Lansing, MI
Essexville, MI
Essexville, MI
West Olive, MI
Marque tte, MI
Generating Company
-------
TABLE 3--Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company
REGION VI
Sun Refinery &
Marketing Company
Ford Motor Company
Murphy Oil Corporation
Public Service Company
of New Mexico
Houston Lighting &
Power Company
Gulf Refinery &
Marketing Company
Arkansas Power & Light
Station
Tulsa Refinery
Tulsa Glass
Plant
Meraux Refnry
San Juan
W.A. Parish
Port Arthur
White Bluff
No. of
Unit Monitor Type Monitors
FCCU LSI RM41 1
LSI RM41 2
42 Dynatron 1 100 1
FCCU
1,2, LSI RM41 4
3,4
7 Contraves-400 1
FCCU LSI RM41 1
1241
1,2 LSI RM41 2
Date Location
6/83 Tulsa, OK
6/83 Tulsa, OK
6/83 Meraux, TX
7/83 Waterflow, NM
8/83 Thompson, TX
8/83 Port Arthur, TX
8/83 White Bluff, AR
Company
REGION VII
Omaha Public Power
Fremont Dept. Util.
North Omaha
Fremont
1-5 Contraves-400 3
1 LSI RM41 1
9/81 Omaha, NE
9/81 Fremont, NE
-------
TABLE 3—Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company
REGION VII — Continued
Iowa Public Services
Cornbelt Power
Iowa Electric Light
& Power
Iowa Electric Light
& Power
Iowa Sou Utility
Interstate Power
Independence Power &
Light
Missouri Public Serv.
St. Joseph Power &
Light
Kansas City Power &
Light
Station
George Neal
Humboldt
Boone
Prairie Creek
Ottumwa
Lansing
Blue Valley
Sibley
Lake Road
Hawthorne
Unit
1,2
1-4
1
1-4
1
3,4
1-3
1-3
5,6
(5)*
1,2,
5
Monitor Type
LSI RM41
Contraves-400
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
LSI RM41
Dynatron 1 100
Contraves-400
Contraves-400
LSI RM41
No. of
Monitors
2
2
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Date
9/81
9/81
9/81
9/81
9/81
10/81
10/81
10/81
10/81
(3/83)*
10/81
Location
Sioux City, IA
Humboldt, IA
Boone , IA
Cedar Rapids, IA
Ottumwa , IA
Lansing, IA
Independence, MO
Sibley, MO
St. Joseph, MO
Kansas City, MO
* Parentheses indicate multiple audits.
-------
TABLE 3—Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company
Station
No. of
Unit Monitor Type Monitors Date
Location
U1
REGION VII—Continued
Kansas City Power &
Light
Kansas City Power &
Light
Kansas City Power &
Light
Columbia Water & Light
Iowa-Illinois Gas &
Electric
Nebraska Public Power
Dist.
Nebraska Public Power
Dist.
Hastings Utility Dept.
Iowa Power Company
Quindera
la tan
LaCygne
Columbia
Riverside
Sheldon
Gerald G'man
Energy Center
Council Bluff
1,2 Contraves-400
1 LSI RM41
(D*
1 LSI RM41
6,7 Est An DR110B
7-9 Contraves-400
1,2 Est An DR28AU
1 LSI RM41
1
1 LSI RM41 1
1-3 Contraves-400 3
10/81 Kansas City, MO
10/81 Weston, MO
(3/83)*
10/81 LaCygne, KS
10/81 Columbia, MO
10/81 Bettendorf, IA
11/81 Hallam, NE
11/81 Sutherland, NE
11/81 Hastings, NE
11/81 Council Bluff,
IA
* Parentheses indicate multiple audits.
-------
TABLE 3—Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company
Station
No. of
Unit Monitor Type Monitors Date
Location
REGION VII—Continued
Union Electric Power
Company
Union Electric Power
Company
Dundee Cement
St. Joseph Power &
Light Company
Missouri Portland
Cement
River Cement Company
Union Electric Power
Company
Kansas City Power &
Light
Empire District
Cement Company
Sioux
Labadie
Clarksville
Lake Road
Sugar Creek
Kiln
Festus Plant
Rush Island
Montrose
Asbury
1,2 LSI RM41
(1,2)*
1-4 LSI RM41
Contraves-400
8
Contraves-400 1
5,6 Contraves-400 2
1
Contraves-400 1
1,2 LSI RM41 4
2, 3 LSI RM41 2
1 LSI RM41 1
2/82 West Alton, MO
(3/83)*
3/82 Labadie, MO
5/82 Clarksville, MO
5/82 St. Joseph, MO
5/82 Sugar Creek, MO
5/82 Festus, MO
5/82 Festus, MO
6/82 La Due, MO
6/82 Joplin, MO
* Parentheses indicate multiple audits.
-------
TABLE 3--Continued
OPACITY MONITOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
MAY 25, 1984
Company Station
REGION VII — Continued
City Utility of James River
Springfield
REGION VIII
U.S. Steel Geneva Works
U.S. Steel Geneva Works
REGION X
Columbia Cement
St. Regis Paper Mill Seattle
Ideal Cement Company
Unit Monitor Type
4, 5 • Dynatron
2 Dynatron 1 100
OHS Prototype LSI
1, 2 Dynatron 1 100
3 LSI RM4
LSI RM4
No. of
Monitors
2
1
1
2
1
1
Date
4/83
9/82
9/82
6/80
7/83
7/83
Location
Springfield, MO
Provo, UT
Provo, UT
Bellingham, WA
Seattle, WA
Tacpma , WA
-------
TABLE 4
CALIBRATION ERROR PERFORMANCE AUDITS CONDUCTED
FOR S02 AND NOX GEMS
oo
Company
Austell Box Board Company
City of Lakeland
St. Regis Paper Company
Big Rivers Electric
Corporation
TVA
TVA
South Mississippi Power
Association
Carolina Power & Light
Company
Farmland Industries
Alabama Electric Coop
Texas Chemical Company
Trademark Nitrogen
Public Service Company
Station
Austell
Mclntosh
Cantonment
Mill
Green
Bull Run
Colbert
RD Morron
Roxboro
Tombigbee
Aurora
Wynha
Monitor
Unit Type
LSI SM810
3 LSI SM810
4 LSI SM810
1,2 LSI SM810
1A, 1B LSI SM810
1-4 LSI SM810
2 LSI SM810
4 LSI SM810
DuPont 460
2,3 DuPont 460
DuPont 460
Beckman 951
3 Bendix
No. of
Monitors
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Parameter
Audited
S02/NOX/02
SO2/NOX
S02/NOX
SO2/NOX
S02/NOX
S02/NOX
SO2/NOX
NOX
SO2
SO2
S02
NOX
SO2/NOX
Date
11/83
8/83
8/83
6/83
5/83
11/83
11/83
10/83
8/83
11/83
10/83
8/83
10/83
Location
Austell, CA
Lakeland, FL
Cantonment, FL
Henderson, KY
Knoxville, TN
Tuscumbia, AL
Purvis, MS
Roxboro , NC
Bartow, MS
Leroy, AL
Aurora, NC
Tampa, FL
Georgetown, SC
of South Carolina
-------
TABLE 5
RELATIVE ACCURACY PERFORMANCE AUDITS
CONDUCTED FOR SO2 AND NOX CEMS
Company
REGION I
Boise Cascade
Central Maine Power
REGION III
Arco Polymers
Philadelphia Electric
Company
Virginia Electric
and Power Company
Virginia Electric
and Power Company
Station Unit Monitor Type
Recovery LSI SM81 0
Boiler C
Wyman 4 EDC-DIGI-1400
Beaver Valley 3 DuPont 400/
Thermox 02
Cromby 1 Contraves GEM-100
Possum Point 4 DuPont 400/
Thermox O2
Possum Point 4 CSI Prototype/
Thermox O2
Parameters
SO2/O2
N0/C02
SO2/02
SO2/NO/C02
SO2/02
SO2/O2
Date Location
10/82 Rumford, ME
10/82 Yarmouth, ME
1/81 Monaca, PA
11/81
4/82
11/82
4/83
7/83
4/83 Phoenixville,
PA
1/82 Dumfries, VA
3/82
1/82 Dumfries, VA
3/82
REGION IV
Carolina Eastman
Company
3,4
LSI SM810/CM50
SO2/NO/02 10/77 Columbia, SC
10/78
12/79
-------
TABLE 5—Continued
RELATIVE ACCURACY PERFORMANCE AUDITS
CONDUCTED FOR SO2 AND NOX CEMS
to
o
Company Station
REGION IV — Continued
South Mississippi Power RD Morrow
Association
South Mississippi Power RD Morrow
Association
REGION V
Commonwealth Edison Collins
Commonwealth Edison Collins
Central Illinois Public Newton
Service
Unit Monitor Type Parameters Date
1 LSI SM810/CM50 SO2/NO/O2 7/81
12/81
5/82
11/82
2/83
5/83
8/83
2 LSI SM810/CM50 S02/NO/O2 5/81
7/81
12/81
4/82
1 1/82
2/83
5/83
8/83
1-3 EDC-DIGI-1 400 NO/CO2 7/80
4,5 EDC-DIGI-1 400 NOX/CO 7/80
1 Contraves GEM-1 SO2/CO2 9/80
7/81
12/81
3/82
6/82
9/82
Location
Purvis, MS
Purvis, MS
Morris, IL
Morris, IL
Newton, IL
-------
TABLE 5—Continued
RELATIVE ACCURACY PERFORMANCE AUDITS
CONDUCTED FOR S02 AND NOX GEMS
Company
REGION V — Continued
Indianapolis Power and
Light
Hamiltion Department of
Public Service
Blandin Paper Company
Potlatch Company
Upper Peninsula
Detroit Edison
Wolverine Power
REGION VI
Oklahoma Gas and
Electric
Houston Power and Light
Station Unit
Petersburg 3
Hamilton 9
Generating
Station
5C.
i O
9
Presque Isle 8
Monroe 3,4
Advance Steam 3
Plant
Muskogee __ 5
W.A. Parrish 8
Monitor Type
EDC-DIGI-1 400
LSI SM810/CM50
Contraves GEM-1
LSI SM810/CM50
LSI SM810/CM50
Contraves GEM-1 00
Contraves GEM-1 00
LSI SM81 0/CM50
KVB
Parameters
SO2/CO2
SO2/O2
S02/C02
so2/o2
SO2/O2
S02/C02
SO2/CO2
S02/NO/02
S02/NOX/
CO 2
Date
7/81
9/81
9/82
9/82
4/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
10/80
8/83
Location
Petersburg, IN
Hamilton, OH
Grand Rapids ,
MN
Cloquet, MN
Marquette, MI
Monroe, MI
Advance, MI
Muskogee , OK
Thompsons , TX
-------
TABLE 5—Continued
RELATIVE ACCURACY PERFORMANCE AUDITS
CONDUCTED FOR SO2 AND NOX GEMS
to
Company
REGION VII
Iowa Power
Interstate Power
Nebraska Public Power
Union Electric Power
Union Electric Power
Union Electric Power
Union Electric Power
Station
Council Bluffs
Lansing
Gerald G'man
Sioux
Labadie
Labadie
Labadie
Unit
3
4
1
2
2
3
1
Monitor Type
EDC-DIGI-1400
LSI SM810/CM50
LSI SM810/CM50
DuPont 460/
LSI CM50
LSI SM810/CM50
LSI SM810/CM50
LSI SM810/CM50
Parameters
S02/C02
S02/02
S02/NO/02
SO2/O2
SO2/02
S02/02
S02/O2
Date
12/81
12/81
12/81
2/82
2/82
3/82
3/82
Location
Council Bluffs,
IA
Lansing, IA
Sutherland, NE
W. Alton, MO
Labadie, MO
Labadie, MO
Labadie, MO
-------
TABLE 6
RELATIVE ACCURACY TEST RESULTS FOR S02 CEM PERFORMANCE AUDITS
CONDUCTED AFTER SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION TESTS (PSTs)
to
u>
MONITOR
TYPE
1. L S I
2. L S I
3. DuPONT
4. CONTRAVES
5. E D C
6. CONTRAVES
7. K V B
8. L S I
9. DuPONT
ia c s i
1L L S I
12. L S I
13. E D C
IA. L S I
15. L S I
16. L S I
1 7. L S I
18. DuPONT
19. L S I
20. L S I
2 1. CONTRAVES
22. CONTRAVES
21 L S I
24 CONTRAVES
25. CONTRAVES
FGD
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ELAPSED TIME SINCE PST (MONTHS)
024 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
PASS PASS PASS FAIL FAIL PASS PASS
PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
PASS PASS FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS FAIL
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS FAIL
PASS ' PASS
PASS FAIL
PASS ' PASS
PASS pAS;
-------
TABLE 7
RELATIVE ACCURACY TEST RESULTS FOR NOV CEM PERFORMANCE AUDITS
A
CONDUCTED AFTER SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION TESTS (PST§)
MONITOR
TYPE
I.
2.
3.
LSI
LSI
LSI
4,. LSI
5.
E D C
6. E D C
7.
8.
LSI
E D C
FGD
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ELAPSED TIME SINCE PST (MONTHS)
0 24 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
PASS PASS PASS FAIL PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS FAIL PASS
PASS FAIL FAIL
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS FAIL
PASS FAIL
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 340/1-84-016
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUMMARY OF OPACITY AND GAS GEMS AUDIT PROGRAMS
5. REPORT DATE
September 1 984
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Joseph Van Gieson, Engineering-Science
Louis R. Paley, P.E., OAQPS, SSCD
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Engineering-Science
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, VA 22030
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Work Assignment 130
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-6312
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OAQPS, SSCD
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, O.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
in-house
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Stationary Source Compliance Division, as well as the Emission
Monitoring Science Laboratory, Quality Assurance Division, and several regional
offices have sponsored continuous emission monitoring system (GEMS) performance
audits to determine the precision and accuracy of GEMS and to develop and eval-
uate the audit techniques. Opacity, SO2 and NOX GEMS at a variety of industrial
sources (electric utilities, manufacturing facilities, petrochemical processes,
kraft pulp mills, etc.) were audited using NBS traceable filters, EPA reference
methods, and calibration gases are reference standards. This report provides a
summary of the results of these audits. The results demonstrate:
o 80% of the opacity monitors audited met calibration error criteria (5%
error) for low- and mid-range references values*; 65% of the monitors met
these criteria for high range reference values.
o 80% of the gas GEMS met the calibration error criteria (5% error).
o 80% of the gas GEMS met the relative accuracy criteria (25% relative accu-
racy) .
* 65% for hi-range reference values.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Quality Assurance
Continuous Emission Monitor
Air Pollution
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Farm 2220-1 (Rav. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |