THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
tal Protection Ago
Balteiie
The Btisiiiess o} Innovation
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: PASSIVE INFRARED OPTICAL IMAGERS
APPLICATION: LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNOLOGY NAME: GasFindIR™ Midwave (MW) Camera
COMPANY: FLIR Systems, Inc.
ADDRESS: 25 Esuire Road PHONE: 800.464.6372
WEB SITE:
E-MAIL:
25 Esquire Road
North Billerica, MA 01748
http://www.flir.com/thermography/americas/us/
paul.czerepuszko@flir.com
ETV Joint Verification Statement
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through
performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV Program is to further
environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies.
ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to
those involved in the design, distribution, financing, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental
technologies. Information and ETV documents are available at www.epa.gov/etv.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, with stakeholder groups
(consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters), and with individual technology developers. The
program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to
the needs of stakeholders, conducting field and laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data,
and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality
assurance (QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results
are defensible.
The Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center, one of six verification centers under ETV, is operated by
Battelle in cooperation with EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory. The AMS Center
evaluated the performance of a passive infrared optical imager for leak detection and repair. This verification
statement provides a summary of the test results for FLIR Systems Inc. GasFindIR™ Midwave (MW) Camera.
VERIFICATION TEST DESCRIPTION
This verification test of the GasFindIR™ MW camera was conducted October 20 through October 24, 2008 at the
British Petroleum (BP) research complex in Naperville, Illinois (laboratory testing) and December 1 through
December 5, 2008 at the Dow Chemical Company chemical plants (field testing) in Freeport, Texas. Battelle
-------
coordinated this verification test with support from BP, the Dow Chemical Company, the American Chemical
Council, and the Texas Chemistry Council.
This verification test utilized simulated gas leaks of select chemicals in a laboratory environment and under real
world conditions at a chemical plant in Freeport, TX. The ability of the FLIR GasFindIR™ MW camera to
qualitatively detect gas leaks of select chemicals by visual images relative to a quantitative concentration
measurement made by a portable monitoring device acceptable under U.S. EPA Method 21 was verified.
Reference sampling with the portable monitoring device acceptable under U.S. EPA Method 21 was conducted to
determine the mass rate of specific chemical species emitted from each leak observed with the FLIR GasFindIR™
MW camera.
During both the laboratory and field testing, the FLIR GasFindIR™ MW camera was operated by a representative
of FLIR. This verification test utilized two additional individuals to confirm the observation of a leak in an effort
to eliminate operator bias. The two additional confirming individuals were the Battelle verification test
coordinator, and a verification test team member. The use of three individuals to confirm a chemical leak is not
standard practice when using the FLIR GasFindIR™1 camera; typical operation relies on a single operator.
The detection of a gas leak in either the laboratory or field setting was determined by the camera operator and the
two confirming individuals that reported the results qualitatively as either a "detect" or "non-detect." All three
individuals must have agreed on the results for the observation to be considered detectable. When all three
individuals did not agree, the observation was reported as a non-detect. A non-detect was also recorded if the
camera operator did not observe a gas leak (i.e., no confirmation of a non-detect was performed). Each
observation was conducted using the eyepiece of the FLIR GasFindIR™1 MW camera.
The test quality assurance plan (TQAP) for this verification test indicated that field testing would be conducted at
two field sites. Due to production scheduling issues, a second field site could not be obtained in a timely manner
and this verification test was completed using the laboratory results and the results from one field test site.
Confirmation from a second field site was obtained while completing this report. Field testing at the second site
occurred in March 2010. The reader is encouraged to contact either FLIR Systems or the Texas Chemical
Council to obtain the results of testing completed at a second field site.
The GasFindIR™1 MW camera was verified by evaluating the following parameters:
• Method Detection Limit - The minimum mass leak rate that all three individuals observed using the
GasFindIR™1 MW cameras under controlled laboratory conditions. This parameter was not evaluated during
the field testing phase.
• Detection of Chemical Gas Species Relative to a Portable Monitoring Device - The ability of the
GasFindIR™1 MW camera to qualitatively detect a gas leak by visual images relative to a quantitative
concentration measurement made by a portable monitoring device acceptable under U.S. EPA Method 21.
This parameter was evaluated in both the laboratory and field testing phases.
• Confounding Factors Effect - Background material, wind speed, and stand-off distance were carefully
controlled during laboratory testing to observe their effects on the method detection limit. Background
materials used were either curved metal gas cylinders or cement board; wind speed was controlled to zero,
2.5, and five mile per hour (mph); and stand-off distances were maintained at either 10 or 30 feet (ft). During
field testing, these variables as well as meteorological conditions were recorded.
• Operational Factors - Technology ease of use, cost, user-friendliness of vendor software, troubleshooting,
downtime, and other parameters such as these were recorded.
QA oversight of verification testing was provided by Battelle and EPA. Battelle QA staff conducted technical
systems audits of both the laboratory and field testing, and Battelle QA staff conducted a data quality audit of at
least 10% of the test data. This verification statement, the full report on which it is based, and the TQAP for this
verification test are available at www.epa.gov/etv/centers/centerl.html.
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following is a description of the FLIR GasFindIR™ MW camera technology, based on information provided
by the vendor. The information provided below was not verified in this test.
The GasFindIR™ MW camera implements focal plane arrays and optical systems that are tuned to very narrow
spectral infrared ranges to enable the camera to detect the infrared energy emitted from certain gases. Images are
processed and enhanced by the GasFindIR High Sensitivity Mode™ feature to show the presence of gases against
stationary backgrounds. Gases that are detectable by the GasFindIR™ camera appear on screen as light-colored
or gray smoke.
The GasFindIR™1 MW camera is designed for use in industrial environments and operates in wide temperature
ranges. The GasFindIR™1 MW camera is a real-time infrared camera that scans at 30 hertz (30 images per
second). The camera includes a 25-millimeter (mm) wide-angle lens for scanning a variety of components and
operations. For longer-range needs, 50-mm and 100-mm lenses are available from FLIR Systems.
VERIFICATION RESULTS
Method Detection Limits and Detection of Chemical Gas Species Relative to a Portable Monitoring Device.
Method detection limits were determined during laboratory testing with the FLIR GasFindIR™1 MW camera. The
ability of the FLIR GasFindIR™1 MW camera to qualitatively detect a gas leak by visual images relative to a
quantitative concentration measurement made by a portable monitoring device acceptable under U.S. EPA
Method 21 was assessed during both laboratory and field testing. After the camera method detection limit had
been determined for a particular chemical under the specified test conditions in the laboratory, the leak was
sampled by the Method 21 compliant monitoring device to determine if it was capable of detecting the chemical
leak. Table 1 presents results for the FLIR GasFindIR™1 MW camera and the Method 21 compliant monitoring
device obtained during laboratory testing.
During field testing, a portable Method 21 compliant monitoring device was used to screen each leaking
component as part of the reference sampling method used. Table 2 reports the responses of the monitoring device
when screening leaking components and identifies whether the FLIR GasFindIR™ MW camera was able to
detect the chemical leak from the leaking component. The chemical-specific mass emission rate from the leaking
component, determined by the reference method, is also provided.
During field testing, daily meteorological conditions were obtained from the Dow Chemical Company's on-site
meteorology station. Although the wind speed and daily maximum and minimum temperatures were obtained
from this station, the actual meteorological conditions at each leak location monitored on the site are unknown.
Influence of Confounding Factors. Stand-off distance, wind speed, and background material affected the
performance of the FLIR GasFindIR™ MW camera. For example, increasing the stand-off distance from the leak
increased the method detection limits and increasing the wind speed also increased the method detection limits.
Changing to an optional magnifying camera lens that can be purchased separately lowered the method detection
limit.
Operational Factors. The FLIR GasFindIR™ MW camera was found to be easily set up and ready to deploy in
10 minutes. The camera is light (approximately 4.6 pounds) and operated on batteries when performing visual
screening of leaking components. The FLIR GasFindIR™1 MW camera may also use optional lenses that can be
used to further magnify the images. Because the camera was operated by FLIR and there were some
disagreements on detections with the two other confirming individuals, the ability of the operator may influence
the operation of the camera. The FLIR GasFindIR™1 MW camera is not intrinsically safe, and cannot be used in
explosive atmospheres or environments.
-------
Table 1. Summary of FLIR GasFindIR™ MW Camera Method Detection Limits(a) and Percent
Agreement with a Method 21 Monitoring Device During Laboratory Testing
Compound
1,3 -butadiene
Acetic acid
Acrylic acid
Benzene
Methylene chloride
Ethylene
Methanol
Pentane
Propane
Styrene
Method Detection
Minimum
1.3
<0.02
0.92
0.35
4.9
0.35
0.28
<0.28
<0.44
0.35
Limit (g/hr)
Maximum
2.7
< 4.6(b)' (c)
1.2
35(o)
> 70(c)
278(c)
22(c)
28(c)
13(0
0.70
Agreement with Method 21 Monitoring
Device
Total No. of Tests
Performed Percent Agreement
4 100%
11 100%
4 100%
12 100%
No data(d)
8 100%
No data(d)
16 100%
No data(d)
3 100%
(a)
(b)
(c)
Minimum and maximum method detection limits shown were measured at a zero-mph wind speed unless otherwise
noted.
Measured at a 2.5-mph wind speed.
Measured at a 5-mph wind speed.
(d) Percent agreement was not evaluated for methylene chloride, methanol, and propane because these compounds have an
ionization potential greater than the energy which could be supplied by the Industrial Scientific IBRID MX6 with
photoionization detector.
The cost of the FLIR GasFindIR™ MW camera is $64,950 and includes an intelligent battery charger and three
lithium ion batteries, an alternating current power supply, a video cable, a personal video recorder and battery,
audio/video cable for the personal video recorder, camera neck strap, shipping/carrying case, and operating
manual.
The cost of optional 50-mm and 100-mm lenses for the FLIR GasFindIR™ MW camera is $7,500 and $9,950,
respectively.
-------
Table 2. Summary of Field Testing Results Using the FLIR GasFindIR™ MW Camera
Leaking
Leak Component
Location Type
1 3 -inch (in) Plug
2 l/t-in Tube
3 !/2-in Connector
5 6-in Block Valve
6 8-in Block Valve
7 Control Valve
Flange
8 2-in Block Valve
9 1 -in Valve Plug
10 6-in Pressure
Relief Valve
Wind
Speed
(mph)
8
21
21
21
21
18
18
18
5
Stand-off
Distance
(ft)
12
10
30
10
30
45
10
10
10
10
10
10
M21 Device
Screening
Cone, (ppmv)
> 100,000
20,500
> 100,000
> 100,000
20,500
17,500
8,000(B)
835
> 100,000
Leak
Detected by
Camera?
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Bagging Results:
Average Leak Rate
(g/hr)
8.8 (methane)
4.3 (ethylene)
0.95 (ethylene)
2.3 x 10"3 (ethylene)
7.8 (methane)
5.2 x 10"2 (ethylene)
8.7 x 10"3 (styrene)
0.08 (benzene)
3.4(a) (benzene)
1.9 xlO"3 (ethylene)
0.28 (benzene)
1.9(b) (1,3 -butadiene)
0.35 (methylene chloride)
6.8
(propylene dichloride)
(a) The pre- and post-bagging leak concentrations differed by 24%. This exceeded a minimum acceptance criterion for data
quality indicator (DQI) in the TQAP of 20% for the DQI for the confirmation of detected leaks. Thus, the data are
considered suspect and reported with this qualifier.
(b) The calibration check response for the portable monitoring device, conducted after screening this component, resulted in
a 24% difference. This exceeded a minimum acceptance criterion for a DQI in the TQAP. Thus, this data are
considered suspect and reported with this qualifier.
Signed by Tracy Stenner
12/1/10
Tracy Stenner Date
Manager Environmental Solutions Product Line
Energy and Environment Global Business
Battelle
Signed by Sally Gutierrez
12/20/10
Date
Sally Gutierrez
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: ETV verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and Battelle make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology
will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable
federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of commercial product names does not imply endorsement.
------- |